Inga Sanikidze

Towards the Designation of the Amazons

[Etymological study]

Ascertainment of the basic meanings of separate lexemes and research of their origin is one of the most important sections of linguistics. Among them it is really thought out one trustworthy naming preserved in the oldest historical sources – the Amazons (Amazones) about which there is available an inhomogeneous relation of the scientists. Until we represent our vision in relation to its content and lingual form, we think it is necessary to survey the sources preserved till present.

Initially about their existence gives note “Iliad” by Homer (VIII c. B.C.) – the old king Priam recollects one fact of his youth, in particular How did he leave for Phrygia known for its vibe, to reder assistance to allies (people of Atreus and Magdon); and the latters had been gatered against the Amadzons. Priam tells: “When I was in Phrygia I saw much horsemen, the people of Otreus and Mygdon, who were camping upon the banks of the river Sangarius; I was their ally and with them when the Amazons, peers of men came up against them but even they were no so many as the Achaens” [23, III, 189-190].

In our opinion, in Homer’s artistic context there are read out two important indications. In which we have to recognize the very merciless nature of the Amazons, small quantity of the Amadzons. It seems that their armies have not been distinguished by multiplicity though.

From the work of Apollonius of Rhodes it has been clarified as well that to fight with the generation of the Amazons known as the daughters of the God of war – Ares and Nymph Harmony even the Argonauts are avoiding. The poet writes:

“The Amazons were not gentle foes and regarded not justice, those dwellers on the Doeantian plain …by race they were the daughters of Ares and the nymph Harmonia, who bare to Ares war-loving maids, wedded to him in the glens of the Acmonian wood and with the wind they left the rounded beach, where the Themiscyreian Amazons were arming for war” [2, II, 985-992].

About the sources used by Apollonius himself it has been noted that ‘while working on “The Argonautica” he seems to have used many sources. He had at hand a wealth of materials available about the legend of the Argonauts and preserved in the best library of Alexandria. Apollonius used both the works of the writers of the Hellenic period and of his contemporary authors. These works were of different kind: mainly mythographic and historical-geographical” [5, 8].What could have been changed by the poet of the 3rd c. B.C. about the Amazons is difficult to say. We should suppose that the source was which he used an authentic one for the poet. However, the artistic language has its own demand too, hence even a minor reconsideration is logical and applicable. I think that changing the location of the Amazons or their martial character was not the aim of Apollonius Rhodius. He follows with astonishing accuracy the geographical area from the south-west to the south-east and that is why it does not make an impression of groundlessness.

On the basis of the sources it has been noted in the scholarly literature that the tribe of the Amadzons (//Amazons) consisted only of women, “These women were brave warriors. They dwelled at the river Thermodon , as well as in the neighborhood of the Iberians during the campaign of Pompey” [1,254]. “The Argonauts” by Apollonius Rhodius simply confirm the residence of the Amadzons in the neighborhood of the river. Thermodon and the Georgian tribes: the Chalybes (“the poor tribe of the Chalybes”), the Tibarenes (“the sincere tribe of the Tibarenes”), the Mossinoeci and others [2, II, 375-390].

Of the V c. B.C. - Herodotus, for the settlement of the Amazons the Asia Minor, environments of the r. Thermodont have been meant. He talks about one of the battles of the Amazons and the Hellenes and narrates: “Then in the battle at the r. Thermodont the Hellenes wan. They swam back and took three ships with the Amazons whom they had managed to catch” [22, IV, 110]. The women captured on the ships will slaughter the Hellenic warriors and entrusted to the wind have reached the “Maiet Lake” (the Azov Sea), then they walked on a small land and have settled “In the country of Free Scythians” – such is a short scheme of Herodotian migration. From the narration of the Greek historian one simple conclusion has been distinguished – In the V c. B.C. the historical memory keeps well a notice, on the one hand about a Minor Asian origin of the Amazons and on the other, he knows as well that their exile for some reasons from the south territories to the north had been realised as a result of which there was formed a Sarmatia tribe [the Savromats] which has been considered as “a tribe originated as a result of marriage of the Scythians and the Amazons” [14,82]. By note of T.Kaukhchishvili: “Generally at old writers the issue of the Savromats and the Amazons are interlaced in each other” [14,177]. Now, let’s us return to the cause indicated by Herodotus which is not however trustworthy, since it is hardly imaginable if not unbelievable that the number of Amazons captured on three ships was so great Herodotus confuses one historical notice (about the collision of the Amazons and Hellenes) with another (the notice about exile of the Amazons to the north) and offers a contaminated version; But one thing is even unambiguously clear: In the Herodotus epoch the Amazons had been drown up from the south territories and supposedly even did not live any more in the vicinities of the riv. Thermodont. As a consequence of above noted, the note submitted by Apollonius of Rhodes that the residence of these women is of much earlier period than - the Greek historian Herodotus.

In the work of the Roman (Greek by tribe) author of the II century – Arianne “Aleixandre Anabasis” is an important indication to the issue of localization of the living territory of the Amazons. The author generally tells the stories of march of Alexander Macedonian and on one place he will say: “After having subordinated “The European Scythians” Alexander was visited by some Pharasmanes, King of the Khorazmians with 1500 riders and said: “That he lives in neighbourhood of the Colchs’ generation and Amazon women and if Alexandre wishes attack the Colchians and the Amazons and subordinate the tribes that extend up to the Euxine Pontus, he promises to be his guide” [3,178]. T. Qaukhchishvili offers an interesting scholarly comment at this passage of the text, she expresses a justified supposition on the relation of Pharasmanes mentioned in the Greek manuscript with the royal dynasty of the Iberians’; Though here, she does not exclude his being a Persian or “an error in the Greek manuscript itself”. The scholar says: “There is absolutely no doubt in the circumstance that Arriane knows where the Colchians live (in the vicinity of Trapezus)” [3,123]. I think that Pharsmanes’s (=Parnavaz [the first king of Kartli, Parnavazi – 3rd c. B.C. it is meant]) link with the Royal Dynasty of the Iberians should be more trustworthy than any other supposition. Might not it be so that the Persian origin of the mother of the king of the Iberians’had become the ground for pronouncing him a Persian, “khorazmian”? “The Life of the Kings” by Leonti Mroveli underlines in many ins-anus the Dynastical relation of Parnavaz with Persia. Parnavaz was a “Persian Aspana as his mother’s side” [19,20]; According to the “Life of the Kings” it transpires that the mother offers Parnavaz who is in opposition with Azo to travel to her own brothers to Aspana: “My son, leave the place of your fathers and take me to my patrimony to Aspana, to my brothers “ [19,21] or Parnavaz himself says: “I’ll leave for Aspana and there I shell meet with good fortune” [19, 21]; And finally, the administrative arrangement of the Kingdom of Kartli in the Persian manner is the result of Persian influence [“Parnavaz ordered all this similarly to the kingdom of the Persians”] [19, 25]; And all this must be directly connected with the foregoing. We may ask the question thus: what aim motivated Parnavaz, when he promised Alexander the Great to be his guide in western and south-western Georgia, in particular, in the region of Colchis and the Amazons?

In my opinion, here Parnavaz, the heir to the mamasakhlisi of Mtskheta and later the king of Kartli had his own political motivation – it is a desire to unify the Georgian tribes in one political unity with the support of the Greeks, in a Georgian state. This wish came true not through Alexander, but later with the help of his Diadochi, i.e. his heir Antiochus the Seleucid– and “he extended the Georgian language and no other language, but Georgian was spoken” [19, 26].

Now let’s continue to discuss Arrian’s work and the issue of the Amazons. The fact is that according to the text, Colchis, the living territory of the Amazon women and the country of “Parasmanes” are considered to be in one geographical area, and, as I noted, here there must be no mistake. Incidentally, the neighborhood of the Colchians and Amazons would be known to Arrian from other historical sources as well, and this will be one of the important factors for the demonstration of my hypothesis [see below].

To some extent I concur with A. Gelovani who notes that “The story of the Amadzons is a mixture of myth and history” [5, 46]; But the point is that the appearance of such an idea is not the result of the scientific research of the 20th c. We first came across a discussion of the mythical origin of the Amazons with Strabo [1st c. B.C. – 1st c. A.D.]. He questions the reality of the histories of the Amadzons, he thinks that the stories about them are the result of mythical conceptions of them, and that is why he devotes to it an extensive discussion and writes: “There is a peculiarity in the history of the Amazons. In other histories the fabulous and the historical parts are kept distinct. For what is ancient, false, and marvellous is called fable. But history has truth for its object, whether it be old or new, and it either rejects or rarely admits the marvellous. But, with regard to the Amazons, the same facts are related both by modern and by ancient writers; they are marvellous and exceed belief. For who can believe that an army of women, or a city, or a nation, could ever subsist without men? and not only subsist, but make inroads upon the territory of other people, and obtain possession not only of the places near them, and advance even as far as the present Ionia, but even despatch an expedition across the sea to Attica? This is as much as to say that the men of those days were women, and the women men. But even now the same things are told of the Amazons, and the peculiarity of their history is increased by the credit which is given to ancient, in preference to modern, accounts [11,138].

Thus the fact is that for the author the mythic character of the Amazons is much more acceptable than to see historically real unity in them. In my opinion the reason for this is found in the length of the history itself. I mean the fact that the Greek geographer is distanced from the Amazons’ stories and their reality by at least a millennium and literary or oral improvisations, which reach the compiler of the source in embellished form. In such a case it must be really difficult to believe without doubt the truth of the stories! But still, in spite of such an appraisal for the world geographer it is not easy to bypass the earlier reports, he repeats the source of Pompey’s fellow-warrior – Theophanes – and imagines the residence of the Amadzons “in the mountains above Albania”; Here, based on other sources, which he himself does not believe strongly he says: “[the Amazons bordered upon the Gargarenses on the north, at the foot of the Caucasian mountains, which are called Ceraunia. When at home they are occupied in performing with their own hands the work of ploughing, planting, pasturing cattle, and particularly in training horses. The strongest among them spend much of their time in hunting on horseback, and practise warlike exercises. All of them from infancy have the right breast seared, in order that they may use the arm with ease for all manner of purposes, and particularly for throwing the javelin. They employ the bow also, and sagaris, (a kind of sword,) and wear a buckler. They make helmets, and coverings for the body, and girdles, of the skins of wild animals. They pass two months of the spring on a neighbouring mountain, which is the boundary between them and the Gargarenses. The latter also ascend the mountain according to some ancient custom for the purpose of performing common sacrifices, and of having intercourse with the women with a view to offspring, in secret and in darkness, the man with the first woman he meets. When the women are pregnant they are sent away. The female children that may be born are retained by the Amazons themselves, but the males are taken to the Gargarenses to be brought up. The children are distributed among families, in which the master treats them as his own, it being impossible to ascertain the contrary” [11, 136-137].

It is clear that in Strabo’s narration a slight confusion of the author is felt – on the one hand there are the historically altered stories, frequently doubtful, somewhat even mythic and unbelievable (some, probably because it has been considerably separated from Greek culture– Strabo does not believe either in “manless” society, or the women- warriors!), but on the other hand the pulse of earlier times is felt, that of the rule of life of firmly established matriarchal community: “Other time they are for themselves, work, plough, plant the plants themselves, [look after] pastures and especially the horses, and the bravest [among the Amadzons] ridding on horse-back are occupied by hunting and training in war [activities]” [11, 136].

A Greek writer of the 2nd century – Appian who at the same time was a citizen of Rome, tells us about Pompey’s campaign in Iberia (in 65 B.C.: The King of Kartli – Artoke//Artaga) and “Amadzons”: “Among hostages and captives there were women, who had been wounded no lesser than the men. They were thought to be the Amadzons, or because that the Amadzons were their neighboring tribe, which was invited then as a confederate, or because as well that the Barbarians living there called the women-warriors the Amadzons” [1, 200]. According to Appian’s report, the Amazons (under which the kingdom of Eastern Iberia with the center at Mtskheta should be implied) are close to the Iberians, i.e. they are seen moved northward, this is undoubted.

We come across a discussion of “Amadzons” in the work of Procopius too (5th-6th c.). The Byzantine writer acknowledged as “the most fruitful and reliable historian” [S.Qaukhchishvili], seems to have special interest in the origin of the Amadzon women considering the Caucasus “as the place of birth”. In his opinion, these “manly women” are not an independent tribe (// “clan”), they must be the abandoned wives of the the “Barbarians” set out an a campaign ({the men] themselves invaded the whole Asia). Procopius writes: “… I think that while considering the Amazons those are closer to the truth who say that “there never existed the family name of the manly women and only in the Caucasus mountain the nature of a man could not reject its own laws, but the Barbarians have marched from these places to Asia with many armies and their wives and having, encamped around the Thermodon, abandoned their wives and they themselves invaded Asia; Here the citizens showed resistance and all of them were defeated, so that none of them never returned to the camps of their wives. And then, these women, in fear of the neighbors and because of absence of means of subsistence, been obliged, equipped with brevity – though against their will - took the armament left by their husbands and when the necessity made them obliged, equipped with virtue revealed the best manly affairs, until all of them were dead” [9,131-132].

The interest of Kartvelology in the study of the Amazons is quite understandable, hence we find several interesting studies dealing with their designation. In her monograph N.Chikhladze notes: “Much have been written about the etymology of the term “Amadzon”. The traditional etymology takes the initial from the fact that the Amadzons had their right breast served (a-mazon – must mean a breast-less woman). By today this supposition has been rejected, since in opinion of most scholars the term clearly represents an attempt to pronounce a foreign name in Greek” [17, 40].

The historian G. Kavtaradze believes Amadzon to be an ethnonym and in it, he sees the stem “madz”on the one hand, and, the suffix – on characteristic of Chanian and Greek languages on the other (for a discussion of the – on affix see below). The scholar writes: “As for the possible identification of the a-prefix in the ethnonym “Amadzon”, analogous phenomena characteristic of East-Anatolian and Caucasian geographical names should be taken into account” [12, 81]; To illustrate this the scholar cites forms found in various sources: Apsaros – Psaros; Araksi- Raksi. From the point of view of the same G.Kavtaradze, the “madz” lingual element found in the Amadzon stem should be related to the oldest city Amasia (//city of Akmis) near the Moschs must have lived which in the 1st millennium.

The cited view is essentially shared by B. Tskhadadze, who says: “It transpires that the Amazons were the inhabitants of the city of Amasia. The lexeme itself amazon//amazun //amadzon comes from the stem amas// mas// madz. Loss of “a” in this stem is supported also by the data of the Georgian language” [18, 196].

Now let’s consider the issue from a different side, one important detail of Appian’s evidence in particular, that: “the Barbarians living there generally called warrior-women Amadzons”, considered this should be an important historical indication and relying on Procopius too, according to whom the name Amazons is not related to a particular stock, I shell try its etymological research on the level of the Kartvelian languages. And more specifically: the fact that the local “Barbarians” among whom primarily the Georgian tribes should be meant (the Chalybes, the Mossinioeci, Saspercs [Herodotus]…), to called the warrior women’s army “amadzons”, makes me to think that the cited lexical unit and may be this itself too tribal associations cited, were of Georgian origin. From this point of view, first of all, the Chan - on affix (“Amadz-on”) and its oldest function in the stem seems to me significant.

The – on morphological formant has been studied by Arn. Chikobava, and we find a discussion of the same marker in Chan language in N. Marr’s work [7,73]. The Chan examples are: tskar-on-i (= damp, watery), leb-on-i (=muddy), kibironi (= toothy), etc. And on the use of the - on – suffix in Megrelian Chikobava notes: “In a few cases on-suffix in Megrelian, too; such are: gvimaroni (place where fern grows); chuburona (chestnut grove); name of a forest on the slope of the Eki mountain, in the community of old Senaki); Chortona (place where young newly sprouted trees grow, e.g. those of alder, or some other)… In Kartli, the name of the valley “Tiriponi” (Tiripan-a) is derived from this Chan –on suffix. In Megrelian this -on suffix must have been widely spread; Its use in proper nouns speaks in favor of this” [16,548].

Thus, the -on of Chan origin “which is replaced in the Georgian language by the –ian and – ier derivatives, and more seldom as: -osani and – ovani (e.g. mandil-osani (lady); saxel-ovani (celebrated)” [16,551], mainly are derivatives expressing property and the area of its spread, naturally are to be supposed first the Chan and then the Megrelian territories. Of this – on derivative linguistic version– un-i is considered (tkhirep-un-hazel-nut grove, binekhep- un- a (vineyard plot…). The fact is that the Georgian equivalent of the above noted markers is – an formant which, usually merged with other derivatives (i[v]-an: Solomon-i{v]-an-i; ov-an; sxl-ov-an-i and the like) is attested as a morphological marker expressing having smth., smbd. In determining the function of -on, -un, -ian, -ovan, and other affixes, S.Janashia notes that: “sometimes it is difficult to distinguish the markers of property and origin, provenance, or whether the former is the result of the latter. That is why this suffix points both to the origin and provenance. The development of this meaning of the suffix was surely assisted by its patronymic function, when the formant of multiplicity at the same time pointed actually to the (common) origin” [21, 43].

The –iv//-ov and –an formant forms are East Georgian proper derivatives which we can’t say about –on forms: material of the Georgian language reveals that the Chan – on managed to become established in the Iberian language of this part, too, (we shall refrain from specifying the dialect, though this process must not have been easy. The –on morphological formant reaches the Georgian literary language too and is noticed in such words, as: “Iver-on-[i]”, “Petrits-on-[i]”, “mats-on-[i]”, in the historical toponym – “Krk-on-[i]”, etc. Besides, it is merged and attached to –iv morpheme having the semantics of having smth/smbd. And gives the –i[v]-on combination in the way as we have it with –i[v] –an and –ov-an markers (origination of affixes from various Kartvelian languages does not prevent them from behaving equally, i.e. to obey one and the same process); e.g.: Shatil-i[v]-on-i (the Shatilians unity), Bakhtr-i[v]-on-I (the historical fortress, though here, too, the etymological unity of people, army, residents of the fortress), etc. is implied

From the foregoing it becomes clear that in the Kartvelian languages the -on // -un // -an affixes diachronically had two most important functions: the first was to have smth., and consequently the capacity of expressing the provenance, and the second, which was an accompanying function of the first, so-called gathering, concsisting in the power of demonstrating morphological distribution of the multiplicity of similar subjects. If we follow logic of the Kartvelian languages and decipher in Amadz-on the same on, it follows that we are dealing with a collection of common origin, multiplicity, unity. (cf. Iver-on-i = having the function of indication of an assembly of Ivers [Ibers]; cloister of Iberians).

In my opinion the stem of the name (amaz-on) under study can be much more contvrsial than the striking –on affix. With account of the Kartvelian languages, to what can it be related? Because of lack of Old Georgian historical sources, we are obliged to address again Greek historical reports among which Herodotus’ “History” claims attention. From the source we learn that the Scythians called the Amadzons “oiorpata”, in Greek this name means “killers of men”, so as the word “oior” means “a man”, and “pata” – to kill, -the historian writes [22,283]. I think that such a definition by Herodotus unambiguously indicates first of all the fact that the Amadzons were a non-Scythian tribe and second, that in the ancient world warrior women were given various names, including –Scythian as well; And that the latter – “oiorpata” - was not known to the Hellenic world is witnessed by the special explanation - definition given by Herodotus. Presumably, in the text of the Greek historian as well and in the Scythian language itself the importance of “oior” in the compound name was used with semantic meaning of “brave” rather then – of “man”; that is why it must indicate a “brave killer” (//”a brave warrior”) [by my reading] and the “killer of men”.

Niko (Lasha) Janashia, while speaking about the strengthening of politic of Iran in the second half of the 6th c., writes: “The situation of Kartli of this period was complicated at the northern borders, too. As already noted, the passes of the Caucasus were guarded by the Persians themselves. It is conceivable that during wars in Central Asia or till then (before ascending the throne, Peroz had to fight for two years with his elder brother Hormiz), the Persians slackened the attention while defending the passes. In the mid 460s some tribes of the Huns (the Saragurs, Akatirs, etc.) crossed the Caucasus Range through the passes which the Byzantine historian of the 5th c. Priscus Panionicus mentions as Iuroipaach. In the researchers’ opinion this fortress must denote the Dariali or Iori pass… The Persians requested from the Byzantines either to send them money or an army to defend Iuroipaach but the Greeks did not agree to this” [20, 38-39].

In my opinion, Priscus Paionius’ “Iuroipaach” (5th c. B.C.) not only resembles the Scythian name “Oiorpata” of Herodotus’ Amazons (5th c. B.C.), but there is an indisputable link between them. Especially noticeable is the first part “Oior” [Herodotus] of the stem (probably that of complex stem)and “Yuro” [in the second stem a trace of metathesis of “r” and “o” is tracable) and it, in turn must refer to the river Iori, “as the river of brave men (Iori – a river in Eastern Georgia, taking its source on the south slope of the Caucasus) and from the form of Scythian origin, preserved in the “History” of Herodotus, the Georgian (?) “Iori” lacks only the prepositional “o”, loss of which in a borrowed word could easily happen. In such a case it follows that the Iori valley must have even at least one place for the localization of the Amazons. Otherwise, the Iori (‹— Ior’i ‹—Ioro) could not receive this designation. If we believe in the Scythian origin of the stem “ior”, then it will become clear, according to the report of Appian (II c.), in which geographical area of Iberia Amazons could have lived during Pompey’s campaign – It must have been the of Iori valley.

Is not the historical fact that in Scythian “oior” indicated a “man” (//brave)that some kind of key to the explanation of the stem of amadz-on//amaz-on lies? In my opinion, here we must be dealing with a phonetic process. In particular, I mean that the mentioned name must lack the prepositional “m” consonant (Georgian “mamac-on-[i]—›Greek “amatc-on—›amaz-on//amadz-on): This process would happen less in the Georgian-spoken world where the form and the meaning, too, of the word are essentially unchanged , instead, its transformation into so-called defective stem in the Greek-language world was more expected. In the case of such reading [m]amats-on-[m]amaz-on is none other than unity of brave men, and, of course it does not relate to any specific ethnic unit.

Here, it should be said also that the loss (sometimes even development) of the “m” consonant in the prepositional position is not an inadmissible linguistic phenomenon for the Georgian language. We think that for example even the forms m-egvptel-i —› egvptel-i (Egyptian), m-argvet-i —› argvet-i (r. Argveti). M-akhlob-el-i—›akhlobel-i (near relation) are sufficient. Kavtaradze notes on the loss of “m” consonant in the Georgian dialects: “In the beginning of the word , directly before the vowel, weakening of -m- is such a regularity as is identified with other consonants (l, n), noticed relative to –m- in the Imeretian but is not seen in Georgian texts (if the Imeretian morevi-orevi, murdzayani – urdzayani..)” [13,127].

Here, I shall add that in the ancient relationship of the Georgian and Greek languages substitution of the Georgian “ts” affricate by the Greek “Z”//”dz” phonemes must have been possible (about the basic “ts” element see in detail the monograph [10, 141-171] and the Fundamental work of Th.Gamkrelidze, V.Ivanov ”The Indo-Europeans and Indo-European languages” [4, 792]). In its turn, R.Gordeziani while discussing the Mediterranean and Georgian linguistic material, concludes : “… The whole material shows that the pre-Greek-Kartvelian linguistic encounters go beyond the limits of accidental coincidences and bear a systematic character on the level of linguistic relation“ [6.422].

Thus, in the stem “amazon”, I think that a trace of the Georgian language is perceivable and there are several arguments in favor of this exist; I shall list each of them once more:

1. Appian’s (2nd c.) report about the fact that “the local Barbarians generally call warrior women Amadzons” witnesses the non-Greek origin of this designation and makes think of its Kartvelian provenance.

2. The existence of the Chan –on affix in the nominal stem which had a function of expressing smth.- smb. and at the same time, of collectiveness, multiplicity of similar subjects.

3. Aaccording to Herodotus, report, the Scythian designation “Oiorpata” of the “Amazons” appears to be a word of complex composition since it was translated into Greek as “people killers”, of these the word “oior” meant “man” (//brave), and “pata” - “killing” [Herodotus]. I think that the first segment of the complex stem must represent some kind of calque of (the Georgian “[m]amats” stem, perhaps originating under the influence of Kartvelian languages.

4. I believe that the lexeme “Amazon-[i]” is of Kartvelian origin and in it the prepositional “m” consonant would be rather lost in the Greek-speaking world (because of not knowing the precise semantic meaning of the word); i.e. the Georgian “mamats-on-[i] in the Greek language would produce the *amats-on->, amaz-on//amadz-on versions. In such a case it follows that it is nothing else but the unity of brave people (here: of brave women), their collectivity.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:
1. Appian, “The Wars of Mythradates” (Publ. by T.Qaukhchishvili). “Sabchota Sakartvelo” Publishing House, Tbilisi 1959 (in Georgian).
2. Apollonius Rhodius, The Argonautica (ed. by Acad. Urushadze), “Metsniereba”, Tb. 1975 (in Georgian). link: http://bloguscript.blogspot.com/2008/10/excellent-quotes-argonautica.html
3. Arrian, “Alexander’s “Anabasis”, Evidence of Greek writers on Georgia, v. V (Ed. By T.Qaukhchishvili) “Metsniereba”, Tb. 1983 (in Georgian).
4. Gamkrelidze Th.V., Ivanov Vyach. Vs., The Indo-European Language and the Indo-Europeans, in two volumes, Publ. TSU. Tb. 1984 (in Russian).
5. Gelovani A., Mythological Dictionary, “Sabchota Sakartvelo”, Tbilisi 1983 (in Georgian).
6. Gordeziani R., Mediterranean–Georgian Relations, v. II- Pre-Greek, “Logos” Tb. 2007 (in Georgian).
7. Marr N., The Grammar of the Chan (Laz) language, Printing Press of the Imperial Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg 1910 (in Russian).
8. Priscns Panionicus, “The Fortress of Iuroipaakhi”, Evidence of Byzantine writers about Georgia, v. I (Published by Al. Gamkrelidze and S.Qaukhchishvili), Publishing house of the Academy of Sciences of the Georgian SSR, Tb. 1961 (in Georgian).
9. Procopius of Caesaria, “Notes of Byzantine writers about Georgia”, Georgica, v. II (ed. By S.Qaukhchishvili), Publ. House “Metsniereba, Tb. 1965 (in Georgian).
10. Sanikidze I., Linguistic Integrals, Publ. Ho. “Intellekti”, Tb., 2012 (in Georgian).
11. Strabo, “Geography”, Notes about Georgia (Edited by T.Qaukhchishvili), Publishing house of the Academy of Sciences of the Georgian SSR, Tb. 1957 (in Georgian). Link: http://www.scribd.com/doc/27176953/2/OVERVIEW-OF-OROSIUS%E2%80%99-HISTORIA
12. Kavtaradze G., On the Issue of settlement of the Georgian tribes in Anatolia, “Metsniereba” , Tb. 1985 (in Georgian).
13. Kavtaradze Ib., Forward to the History on the Georgian Language [12th-18th c.], TSU Press. Tb. 1964 (in Georgian).
14. Qaukhchishvili T., The Ancient Greek Sources of the History of Georgia, TSU Press. Tb.1976 (in Georgian).
15. Qaukhchishvili S., Ioanne Sonar, “Reports of the Byzantine Writers about Georgia”; Georgica, v. VI (ed. by S.Qaukhchishvili), “Metsniereba”, Tb. 1966 (in Georgian).
16. Chikobava Arn., Grammatical Analysis of Chan: Proceedings III, Publ. H. of Arn.Chikobava Institute of Linguistics and Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University, Tb. 2008 (in Georgian).
17. Chikhladze N., The Amadzonobicity motif in Classical Literature. “Logos”, Tb. 2003 (in Georgian).
18. Tskhadaze B., “The Kartvelian Ethnonyms Amazon (amazun//amozon)//AmorZali: “Kavkasiis Matsne” #3 (Ed. V.Kikilashvili: The Almanach has been published by the financial support of the Company “Philip Morris”), Tb. 2001, pg. 194-198 (in Georgian).
19. “The Life of the Georgian Kings and the First Fathers and Peoples”: Kartlis Tskhovreba (Life of Kartli”, v. I (ed. by S.Qaukhchishvili), v. I, “Sakhelgami” Publisher, Tb. 1955 (in Georgian).
20. Janashia N., The Historical Source of studying Essays, ”Metsniereba”, Tb. 1986 (in Georgian)
21. Janashia S. Works, v. III, Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of the Georgian SSR. Tb. 1959 (in Georgian)
22. Herodotus, History [in two volumes’, v. I, (Publ. by T.Qaukhchishvili), TSU Press, Tb., 1975.
23. Homer, Iliad, “Sabchota Sakartvelo”, Tb. 1979. link: http://www.classics,mit.edu/Homer/iliad.3iii.htm