1989
1. Decree # 343 issued by the Council of  Ministers of the Georgian SSR. 14 May 1989.
2. Decree issued by the Presidium of the Supreme Council of  the Abkhaz ASSR on substantive exacerbation of the inter ethnic relations in the Abkhaz ASSR on account of unlawful attempt to establish Sukhumi branch of Tbilisi State University. 15 July 1989.
3. Decree issued by the Supreme Council of the USSR on events in the Abkhaz ASSR. 17 July 1989.
4. Decree issued by  the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Georgia,  Presidium of the Supreme  Council of the Georgian SSR and the Council of Ministers of The Georgian SSR on the State Programme of the Georgian Language. 15 August 1989.
5. The State Programme of the Georgian Language.15 August 1989.
6. Decree issued by the South Ossetian Oblast Committeee of the Communist Party of Georgia and Ispolcom of the South Ossetian Oblast Council of the People’s Deputies on State Programme for Development of the Ossetian Language. 4 September 1989.
7. State programme for development of the Ossetian language. 4 September 1989.
8. Decesion of the 11th Session of the South Ossetian Oblast Council of the People’s Deputies of the 20thconvocation on the information of the first Deputy Chairman of the South Ossetian Oblispolcom Comr. Sanakoev M.G., the chairman of the working group on summarizing the amendments, changes, proposals and remarks to be included in the laws of the Georgian SSR, the Constitution of the Georgian SSR and the  law of the Georgian SSR on election of the People’s Deputies of the Georgian SSR and the People’s Deputies of the local councils of the Georgian SSR. 26 September 1989.
9. Decree issued by the Oblast Committee of Abkhazia, Presidium of the Supreme Council of the Abkhaz ASSR and the Council of Ministers of the Abkhaz on the State Programme for Development of the Abkhaz language. 10 October 1989.
10. State programme on Development of the Abkhaz Language. 10 October 1989.
11. Decree # 515 issued by the Council of Ministers of The Georgian SSR on Joint Appeal of A. Gorky Abkhaz State University and the Sukhumi Branch of Iv. Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University. 20 October 1989.
12. Decision  taken by the 12th Extraordinary Session of the South Ossetian Oblast Council of the People’s Deputies of the 20th convocation on raising the status of the South Ossetian Autonomous Oblast. 10 November 1989.
13. Decision  taken by the 12th extraordinary Session of the South Ossetian Oblast Council of the People’s Deputies of the 20th convocation on changes to Paragraph 1 of the Decision of 11th Session of the South Ossetian Oblast Council of the People’s Deputies of the 20th convocation of 26 September 1989 “on State Programme for Development of the Ossetian language”. 10 November 1989.
14. Decree issued by  the Presidium of the Supreme Council of the Georgian SSR on the Decisions made at the 12th Extraordinary Session of the Council of People’s Deputies of the 20th convocation of the  Autonomous Oblast of the South Ossetia. 16 November 1989.
15. Law of the Soviet Socialist Republic of Georgia on changes and amendments to the Constitution (Basic Law) of the Georgian SSR. 18 November 1989.
16. Decree issued by the Supreme Council of the Georgian SSR on Conclusions of the Special Commission on Political and Legal Assessment of Violation of the Georgian Russian Treaty of 7 May 1920. 18 November 1989.
17. Decree issued by the Supreme Council of the Georgian SSR on election of the Commission of the  Supreme Council of the Georgian SSR to study the issues relating to the Status of the South Ossetian Autonomous Oblast. 18 November 1989.

1990
18. Decree issued at the13th extraordinary Session of the Supreme Council of the 11th Convocation of the  Georgian  SSR on Guarantees for Protection of State Sovereignty of Georgia.  9 March 1990.
19. Law of the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics on the issues relating to the secession of the Union  Republic from the USSR. 3 April 1990.
20. Law of the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics on the economic relations between the USSR, Union  and Autonomous Republics. 10 April 1990.
21. Law of the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics on Separation of Authorities Between the USSR and  the Subjects to the Federation. 26 April 1990.
22. Decree issued by the Supreme Council of the Georgian SSR on introduction of amendments to the decree  issued by the Supreme Council of the Georgian SSR on March 9, 1990  “Guaranties for Protection of State Sovereignty of Georgia”. 20 June 1990.
23. Decree issued by the Supreme Council of the Georgian SSR on Creation of Legal Mechanism Aimed at Restoration of Independence of Georgia. 20 June 1990.
24. Decree issued by the Supreme Council of the Georgian SSR on Evaluation of a Number of the USSR Laws, Based on Article 77 of the Georgian SSR. 20 June 1990.
25. Decision issued by the Supreme Council of the Georgian SSR on Creation of Special Commission on Study the Issues in the Abkhaz ASSR. 26 July 1990.
26. Decision  taken by the 13th  Session of the South Ossetian Oblast Council of the People’s Deputies of the 20th convocation on the information of the commission on study of conduct of soviet, law-enforcement agencies and state officials during the difficult public and political situation in the South Ossetian  Autonomous Oblast in 1989-1990. 10 August 1990.
27. Decision of the Ispolcom of the People’s Deputies of the South Ossetian Autonomous Oblast on
      Establishment of the Commission on study and elaboration of proposals to respond the statements and Complaints of the citizens demanding resettlement from other cities and regions to the South Ossetian Autonomous Oblast and, also on the problems of refugees. 23 August 1990.
28. Declaration adopted at the Meeting of All-Level Council of the Abkhaz ASSR on the issues discussed at the 10th Session of the Supreme Council of the Abkhaz ASSR. 23 August 1990.
29. Decree issued by the Supreme Council of the Abkhaz ASSR on Legal Guarantees of Protection of the Statehood of Abkhazia. 25 August 1990.
30. Declaration of the State Sovereignty of the Abkhaz Soviet Socialist Republic. 25 August 1990.
31. Decree issued by the Presidium of the Supreme Council of the Georgian SSR on the Decision Taken by  the Supreme Council of the Abkhaz ASSR on 25 August 1990. 26 August 1990.
32. Decree issued by the Supreme Council of the Abkhaz ASSR on the 10th Session of the Supreme Council of the Abkhaz ASSR of the 11th Convocation. 31 August 1990.
33. Decision taken by the 14th Session of the Oblast Council of the People’s Deputies of the South Ossetian  Autonomous Oblast of the 20th Convocation on reorganization of the South Ossetian Autonomous Oblast  into the Soviet Democratic Republic of South Ossetia. 20 September 1990.
34. Declaration of State Sovereignty of the Soviet Democratic Republic of South Ossetia. 20 September 1990.
35. Decision taken by the 14th Session of the Oblast Council  of the People’s Deputies of the South Ossetian Autonomous Oblast of the 20th Convocation   on the laws valid in the territory of the South Ossetian Autonomous Oblast. 20 September 1990.
36. Extract from the Decision of the 14th Session of the Oblast Council of the People’s Deputies of the South Ossetian Autonomous Oblast of the 20th Convocation on Moratorium of Purchasing and Selling the Houses  and on “propiska” Procedures on the Territory of the Oblast. 20 September 1990.
37. Decision taken by the 14th Session of the Oblast Council of the People’s Deputies of the South Ossetian Autonomous Oblast of the 20th Convocation on Declaration the South Ossetian Autonomous Oblast as a Free Zone of Economy. 20 September 1990.
38. Decision taken by the 14th Session of the Oblast Council of the People’s Deputies of the South Ossetian  Autonomous Oblast of the 20th Convocation on performance of military service in the Soviet Army by the conscripts from the South Ossetia. 20 September 1990.
39. Decree issued by the Presidium of the Supreme Council of the Georgian SSR on Decision Taken on 20 September 1990 by the Oblast Council of the Peoples’ Deputies of the Autonomous Oblast of the
      South Ossetia. 21 September 1990.
40. Decree issued by the Supreme Soviet of the USSR on Consultations and Drafting of the Concept
of the new Union Treaty. 1 October 1990
41. Decision taken by the 15th (1) Session of the Council of the People’s Deputies of the South Ossetian Soviet Democratic Republic concerning the Decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Council of the Georgian SSR of 21 September 1990. 16 October 1990.
42. Decision taken by the 15th (1) Session of the Council of the People’s Deputies of the South Ossetian Soviet Democratic Republic on the Law of the USSR “on Property in the USSR”. 16 October 1990.
43. Decision taken by the 15th Session of the Council of the Oblast Council of the People’s Deputies of the South Ossetian Soviet Democratic Republic on the attitude towards the election of Deputies to the Supreme Council of the Georgian SSR. 16 October 1990.
44. Decision taken by the 15th Session of the Council of the Oblast Council of the People’s Deputies of the  South Ossetian Soviet Democratic Republic on the letter of 9th session of the South Ossetian Oblast Council of 6 May 1989 regarding the condemnation of the authors of “The Letter to Abkhaz Friends”.  16 October 1990.
45. Decree issued by the the Supreme Council of the Georgian SSR on the Decision to change the status of the Oblast taken by the Oblast Council of the Peoples’ Deputies of the Autonomous Oblast of the South Ossetia. 22 November 1990.
46. Decision taken by the 16th Session of the Council   of the People’s Deputies of the South Ossetian Soviet Democratic Republic to Rename the South Ossetian Soviet Democratic Republic as the South Ossetian Soviet Republic. 28 November 1990.
47. Decision taken by the 16th (2) Session of the Council   of the People’s Deputies of the South Ossetian Soviet Democratic Republic on the status of the South Ossetian Soviet Republic. 28 November 1990.
48. Decision taken by the 16th (2) Session of the Council   of the People’s Deputies of the South Ossetian  Soviet Democratic Republic on changes of the title of the Interim Executive Council of the People’s  Deputies of the South Ossetian Soviet Democratic Republic. 28 November 1990.
49. Decision taken by the 16th (2) Session of the Council of the People’s Deputies of the South Ossetian Soviet Democratic Republic on the attitude towards the Resolution issued on 22 November 1990 by the Newly elected Supreme Council of the Republic of Georgia “On Decision of the South Ossetian Autonomous Oblast on changing the status of the Oblast”. 28 November 1990.
50. Law of the Abkhaz ASSR on changes and amendments to the Constitution (Basic Law) of the Abkhaz ASSR. 4 December 1990.
51. Law of the Republic of Georgia on Abolition of the Autonomous Oblast of the South Ossetia.  11 December 1990.
52. Decree issued by the Presidium of the Supreme Council of the Republic of Georgia on Introduction of  State of Emergency on the territory of town of Tskhinvali and the Java District. 12  December 1990.
53. Decision taken by the first Session of the Supreme Council of the South Ossetian Soviet Republic on validity of the Constitution (Organic Law) on the territory of the South Ossetia. 13 December 1990.
54. Resolution issued by the Congress of the People’s Deputies of the USSR on general concept of the new Union Treaty and procedures of its conclusion. 25 December 1990.

1991
55. Decree issued by the President of the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics on Certain Legal Acts Adopted in 1990 by the Republic of Georgia. 7 January 1991.
56. Decree issued by the Supreme Council of Georgia on the Decree issued by the President of the USSR on 7 January 1991. 9 January 1991.
57. Resolution of the Joint Session of the Supreme Council of the North Ossetian Soviet Socialist Republic and Vladikavkaz City Council of the People’s Deputies. 10 January 1991.
58 Decree issued by the Supreme Soviet of the USSR on organization and measures for holding the Referendum of the USSR on the issue of preserving the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. 16 January 199.
59. Decree issued by  the Presidium of the Supreme Council of the USSR on Information of the Group of People’s Deputies Visiting the Georgian SSR and the South Ossetia. 22 January 1991.
60. Decree issued by the Supreme Council of the republic of Georgia on Conscription of Draftees for the  Service in the Interior Troops-National Guard in 1991. 29 January 1991.
61. Law of the Republic of Georgia on the Local self-government in the Transitional Period. 29 January 1991.
62. Decree issued by the Presidium of the Supreme Council of the Abkhaz ASSR on Certain Laws and  Decrees, issued on 29 January 1991 by the Supreme Council of the Georgian SSR. 7 February 1991.
63. Decree issued by the Supreme Council of the RSFSR on Immediate assistance to the population of the North Ossetia in connection with the events in the Autonomous Oblast of South Ossetia. 8 February 1991.
64. Decree issued by the Presidium of the Supreme Council of the Republic of Georgia on dismissal of  R. Z. Shonia from the post of Chairman of Executive Committee of the People’s Deputies Regional Council of Gali District. 11 February 1991.
65. Decree issued by the Presidium of the Supreme Council of the Republic of Georgia on appointment of E. K. Janjulia on the Post of Prefect of the Gali District. 11 February 1991.
66. Decree issued by  the Presidium of the Supreme Council of the Abkhaz ASSR on Decree issued by the Presidium of the Supreme council of the Republic of Georgia of 11 February 1991 concerning the dismissal of the Chairman of the Ispolcom of the Council of People’s Deputies of the Gali District. 13 February 1991.
67. Decision issued by the Council of Nationalities of the Supreme Council of the RSFSR on Results of Visit of the People’s Deputies in Georgia due to the Events in the South Ossetia. 14 February 1991.
68. Decree issued by Supreme Council of the USSR on Situation in the South Ossetian Autonomous Oblast And the Measures for Stabilization of the Situation in the Region. 20 February 1991.
69. Resolution of the first Session of the South Ossetian Council of People’s Deputies of the first convocation on Preparation for and Holding of Referendum of the USSR on 17 March 1991. 26 February 1991.
70. Decree issued by the Supreme Council of the Republic of Georgia on Elections to the Supreme Council of the Abkhaz ASSR. 27 February 1991.
71. Decree issued by the Supreme Council of the Republic of Georgia on Decree “Organization and holding the Referendum on Preservation of the USSR” issued by the Supreme Council of the USSR. 28 February 1991.
72. Resolution on interpretation of section five, of paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the law of the Republic of Georgia ‘on the Local Self-governance in the Period of Transition’ issued by the Supreme Council of the Republic of Georgia. 27 February 1991.
73. Statement of the Supreme Council of the Republic of Georgia. 27 February, 1991  
74. Decree issued by the Supreme Council of the Abkhaz ASSR on prolongation the term of authority to the deputies of the Supreme Council of the Abkhaz ASSR. 28 February 1991.
75. Decree issued by the Supreme Council of the Abkhaz ASSR on holding All Union referendum in the Abkhaz ASSR. 28 February 1991.
76. Decree issued by the Supreme Council of the Abkhaz ASSR on enactment of the law of the Abkhaz
      ASSR “On the Central Bank of the Abkhaz ASSR” and “The Law of the Abkhaz ASSR on the Banks and
      Banking Activity in the Abkhaz ASSR”. 28 February 1991.
77. Decree issued by the Supreme Council of the USSR on the results of the referendum of the USSR of
      17 March 1991.  21 March 1991.
78. Information of the Central State Commission of the Abkhaz ASSR on holding the referendum of the
      USSR and the information of the District Commission on election of the deputy of the USSR at the 669
      Sukhumi territorial electoral district. 22 March 1991.
79. Decree issued by the Presidium of the Supreme Council of the Republic of Georgia on the Fact of
      holding the USSR Referendum on the Territory of the Republic of Georgia and on Election of a Deputy
      To the Peoples’ Deputies of the USSR in the # 669 Sukhumi constituency. 22 March 1991.
80. Decision of the Joint Meeting of the All-Level People’s Deputies of the South Ossetia and Public
      representatives on setting up of the Committee on stabilization of the situation in the South Ossetia
      23 March 1991.
81. Protocol of the negotiation between the Chairman of the Supreme Council of the RSFSR and the
      Chairman of the Supreme Council of the Republic of Georgia. 23 March 1991.
82. Resolution issued by the congress of the People’s Deputies of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist
      Republic  on the Situation in the South Ossetia. 31 March 1991.
83. Decree issued by the Supreme Council of the USSR on the situation in the South Ossetian Autonomous
      Oblast. 1 April 1991.
84. The Act of Restoration of Statehood Independence of Georgia, adopted at the extraordinary session of the Supreme Council of Georgia. 9 April 1991
85. Decree issued by the President of the Republic of Georgia on Nation wide National and Civil
      Disobedience. 15 April 1991.
86. Decree issued by the Council of Nationalities of the Supreme Council of the USSR on proposals aimed at
      normalization of the situation in the South Ossetia and its neighbouring area. 24 April 1991.
87. The Law of Georiga on Abolishing Tskhinvali and Khornisi Districts (rayons). 27 April 1991
88. Decree   of the Supreme Council of the Republic Of Georgia on Separation from Java District the Village Councils of Sinaguri, Kirov and Chasavali. 27 April 1991
89. Decision of the Meeting of Deputies of the Oblast, City, District, Settlement and Village Councils of the
      South Ossetian Autonomous Oblast on implementation of the Decree of the President of the USSR of
      7 January 1991 and the Decree issued by the Supreme Council of the USSR of 1 April 1991. 4 May 1991.
90. Decree issued by  the Presidium of the Supreme Council of the Republic of Georgia on decree issued on 4
      May 1991 by the Oblast Council of People’s Deputies of the former Autonomous Oblast of South       Ossetia. 7 May 1991.
91. Decree issued by of the Supreme Council of the USSR on decision of the Meeting of Deputies of the
      Oblast, City, District, Settlement and Village Councils of the South Ossetian Autonomous Oblast on
      “Implementation of the Decree of the President of the USSR of 7 January 1991 and the Decree issued by
      the Supreme Council of the USSR of 1 April 1991”. 12 May 1991.
92. Statement of the Supreme Council of the Republic of Georgia. 14 May 1991
93. Decree issued by the Presidium of the Supreme Council of the USSR on the work of the interstate
      Commission on normalization of the situation in the South Ossetia and its neighbouring area. 25 June
     1991.
94. Decree issued by the Presidium of the Supreme Council of the Abkhaz ASSR on the law of Georgia on
      “Creation of the Interior Troops - the National Guard of the Republic of Georgia”. 2 July 1991.
95. Decree # 288 issued by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Georgia. 5 July 1991.
96. Law of the Abkhaz Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic on Changes and Amendments to the
      Constitution (Organic Law) of the Abkhaz ASSR. 9 July 1991.
97. Decree issued by the Presidium of the Supreme Council of the Abkhaz ASSR on Establishment of the
      Central Electoral Commission on election of the Deputies to the Supreme Council of the Abkhaz ASSR.
      20 July 1991.
98. Decree issued by the Supreme Council of the Republic of Georgia on Establishment of Interim Organs of
      Governance and Fixing the Date of Elections to Sakrebulos  on the Territory of the Former Tskhinvali
      District. 25 July 1991.
99. Law of the Republic of Georgia  on Changes and Amendments to the Constitution. 25 July 1991..........
100. Decree # 342 issued by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Georgia on Regulation of Enrolment
      in Pre-School Establishment and First Classes of Secondary Schools. 31 July 1991.
101. Decree issued by  the President of the Republic of Georgia  on Stay of Execution of Law of the Abkhaz
      ASSR Adopted on 9 July 1991 on Introduction of Amendments to Paragraph 14 of Article 92 and Article
      156 of the Constitution of the Abkhaz ASSR. 5 August 1991.
102. Decree issued by  the President of the Republic of Georgia  on Stay of Execution of the decree issued on  
      20 July 1991 by the Presidium of Supreme Council of the Abkhaz ASSR. 5 August 1991.
103. Decree issued by the Supreme Council of the Republic of Georgia on Activities Carried Out during the
      events of 19-21 of August by the Bureau of the Central Committee of Communist Party (CP) of Georgia,
      the Republican Committee of CP of Abkhazia, the Oblast Committee of CP of the former South Ossetia
      and the self-imposed Executive Committee of the Council of People’s Deputies of so called South
      Ossetia. 26 August 1991.
104. Law of the Abkhaz ASSR on amendments to the Constitution (Organic Law) of the Abkhaz  ASSR.
     27 August 1991.
105. Decree issued by the Supreme Council of the Abkhaz ASSR on implementation of the law of the Abkhaz
      ASSR of 27 August 1991 “on amendments to the Constitution (Organic Law) of the Abkhaz ASSR”.
      7 August 1991.
106. Law of the Abkhaz ASSR on changes to the law of the Abkhaz ASSR “on Public Referendum in the
      Abkhaz ASSR”. 27 August 1991.
107. Law of the Abkhaz ASSR on changes to the law of the Abkhaz ASSR “on election of the Deputies to the
      Supreme Council of the Abkhaz ASSR”. 27 August 1991.
108. Temporary Law of the Abkhaz ASSR on Rules of Election and Appointment of Officials by the
        Supreme Council of the Abkhaz ASSR. 27 August 1991.
109. Decree issued by the Supreme Council of the Abkhaz ASSR on Bringing into Effect the Temporary Law
        of the Abkhaz ASSR on “Rules of Election and Appointment of Officials by the Supreme Council of the
        Abkhaz ASSR”. 27 August 1991.
110. Decree issued by the Supreme Council of the Abkhaz ASSR on termination of activity of the Abkhaz
        Republican Committee of the Communist Party of Georgia. 27 August 1991.
111. Decree issued by the Supreme Council of the Abkhaz ASSR on the Law of the Republic of Georgia
        “On Introduction of Changes and Amendments to the Constitution of the Republic of Georgia”.
   27 August 1991.
112. Decree issued by the Supreme Council of the Abkhaz ASSR on Decree Issued by the President of the
        Republic of Georgia on “Suspension of the Law of Abkhazian ASSR of 9 July 1991 on Introduction of
        Amendments and Changes to Paragraph 14 of Article 92 and Article 156 of the Constitution of the
        Abkhaz ASSR”. 27 August 1991.
113. Decree issued by the Presidium of the Supreme Council of the Abkhaz ASSR on the laws of the
        Republic of Georgia “on Monetary Regulation in the Republic of Georgia”,  “on the National Bank of
        the Republic of Georgia” and “on the Banks and Banking Activity”. 30 August 1991.
114. Decree issued by the Presidium of the Supreme Council of the Abkhaz ASSR on Certain Acts Issued by
        the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Georgia. 27 September 1991.
115. Decree issued by the Presidium of the Supreme Council of the Abkhaz ASSR on securing the economic
        basis for the sovereignty of Abkhazia. 27  September 1991.
116. Decree issued by the Presidium of the Supreme Council of the Abkhaz ASSR on Creation of the State
        Customs Service of the Republic of Abkhazia. 27  September 1991.
117. Decree issued by the President of the Republic of  Georgia on Suspension of Effect of the Decree issued
        on 27 September 1991 by the Presidium of the Supreme Council of the Abkhaz ASSR “on Creation of
        the State Customs Service of the Republic of Abkhazia”. 8 October 1991.
118. Decree issued by the Supreme Council of the Republic of Georgia on the Decree issued on
        27 September 1991 by the Presidium of the Supreme Council of the Abkhaz ASSR “on Creation of the
        state Customs Service of the Republic of Abkhazia”. 8 October 1991.
119. Decree issued by the Council of Nationalities of the Supreme Council of the RSFSR on Situation
        Established in the North Ossetian SSR. 16 October 1991.
120. Decree issued by the Supreme Council of the North Ossetian SSR on Appeal of the Session of the South
        Ossetian Oblast Council of the People’s Deputies to the Supreme Council of the North Ossetian SSR.
        22 October 1991.
121. Decree issued by the President of the Republic of  Georgia on suspension of implementation of the
        Decree issued by the Supreme Council of Abkhazian ASSR on “Securing Economic Bases of
        Sovereignty of Abkhazia” and the Decree issued on 22 October 1991 by the Council of Ministers of the
        Abkhaz ASSR on “Subordination to Jurisdiction of the Abkhaz ASSR of all Enterprises and
        Organizations that have previously been under the Union and Republican Jurisdiction”. 24 October
        1991.
122. Decree issued by the Supreme Council of the RSFSR on the Situation in the North Ossetian SSR.
        25 October 1991.
123. Resolution of the Congress of the People’s Deputies of the RSFSR  on the course of implementation of
        the Resolution of the 3rd Extraordinary Congress of the People’s Deputies of the RSFSR “on the
        situation in the South Ossetia”. 1 November 1991.
124. Statement of the Presidium of the Supreme Council of the Republic of Georgia. 5 November 1991
125. Decree issued by the Supreme Council of the Republic of Georgia on Abolishment of the State of
        Emergency on the Territories of City of Tskhinvali and Java District. 25 November 1991.
126. Decree issued by the Presidium of the Supreme Council of the Abkhaz ASSR on the Current Situation of
        Mobilization Reserves and Conscription to the Active Military Service. 27 November 1991.
127. Decree issued by the Presidium of the Supreme Council of the Abkhaz ASSR on Creation of the State
        Security Service of Abkhazia. 27 November 1991.
128. Decree issued by the President of the Republic of Georgia on Current Situation in Shida Kartli.
        2 December 1991.
129. Decree issued by the Supreme Council of the Republic of Georgia on Current Situation in Shida Kartli.
        3 December 1991.
130. Decree issued by the Supreme Council of the Republic of Georgia on Decree Issued on 26 November
        1991 by the Presidium of the Supreme Council of the Abkhaz ASSR. 3 December 1991.
131. Decree issued by the Supreme Council of the Republic of the RSFSR on the course of implementation of
        Decree issued by the 5th Extraordinary Congress of the People’s Deputies of the RSFSR “on the situation in the South Ossetia”. 12 December 1991.
132. Resolution on Denunciation of the Treaty on Establishing the USSR. 12 December 1991  
133. Alma-Ata Declaration. 21 December 1991
134. Declaration of the First Congress of the Ossetian People on Restoration of National-political and Territorial Integrity of Ossetia. 13-14 December 1991.
135. Decree issued by the Presidium of the Supreme Council of Abkhazia on Dislocation of the Military Units, Establishments of Border-guard and Internal Forces, and Navy Forces and on Changes of Order of Their Functioning on the Territory of Abkhazia. 29 December 1991.
136. Decree issued by the Presidium of the Supreme Council of the Republic of Abkhazia on Establishment
under the Chairman of the Supreme Council of Abkhazia the Interim Council on Coordination of the
 Activity and Re-subordination of the Military and Militia Units Dislocated on the Territory of Abkhazia.
  29 December 1991.

1992
137. Decree issued by the Supreme Council of the Republic of South Ossetia on holding the public
        referendum of the Republic of South Ossetia. 3 January 1992.
138. Decree issued by the Supreme Council of the Abkhaz ASSR on measures for maintaining the public
        order and lawfulness in Abkhazia. 13 January 1992.
139. Decree issued by the Presidium of the Supreme Council of the Republic of Abkhazia  on Additional
        Measures for Regulation the Public Order and Securing the Lawfulness in Abkhazia. 20 January 1992.
140. Decree issued by the Supreme Council of the Republic of Abkhazia on Transferring of the agencies of
        Procuracy and the Ministry of Interior under the Jurisdiction of Abkhazia. 24 January 1992.
141. Decree issued by the Supreme Council of the Republic of Abkhazia on Re-subordination of the
        Environment Procuracy and the Transport Procuracy under the Procuracy of the Abkhaz ASSR.
        24 January 1992.
142. Decree issued by the Presidium of the Supreme Council of the Republic of Abkhazia  on Endorsement
        of the Provisions of the Interim Council on Coordination of Activities and Re-subordination of Military
        and Police Forces Attached to the Presidium of the Supreme Council of Abkhazia. 13 February 1992.
143. Regulations of the Interim Council on Coordination of Activities and Re-subordination of Military and
        Police Forces Attached to the Presidium of the Supreme Council of Abkhazia. 13 February 1992.
144. Declaration of the Military Council of the Republic of Georgia. 21 February 1992.
145. Decree issued by the Military Council of the Republic of Georgia on Action of Legislation in the
        Republic of Georgia. 24 February 1992.
146. Decree issued by the Presidium of the Supreme Council of the Republic of Abkhazia on Re
        subordination of the Military Commissariats of Abkhazia. 25 February 1992.
147. Law of  Abkhazia on amendments to the law “on Legal Regime of the State of Emergency in the
        Abkhaz ASSR”. 26 February 1992.
148. Decree issued by the Supreme Council of the Republic of Abkhazia on Additional Measures for
        Regulation the Public Order and Securing the Lawfulness in Abkhazia. 26 February 1992.
149. Decree issued by the Supreme Council of Abkhazia on Announcement the Special Regime of Conduct
        of the citizens on the Territory of Abkhazia. 26 February 1992.
150. Law of Abkhazia on Subordination of Certain State Management Organs. 5 March 1992.
151. Decree issued by the Supreme Council of the Republic of Abkhazia on Creation under the Chairman of
        the Supreme Council of the Republic of Abkhazia of the Interim Council on Coordination of activity of
       military units dislocated on the territory of Abkhazia. 6 March 1992.
152. Decree # 291 issued by the Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of Georgia on the Decree #255  on
        ”Transfer of Some Enterprises and Organizations under the Jurisdiction of the Ministry of Trade of the
        Abkhaz ASSR” issued by the Council of Ministers of the Abkhaz ASSR on 26 November  1991.
        10 March 1992.
153. Decree issued by the Presidium of the Supreme Council of the Republic of Abkhazia on Procedures of
        Appointment of the Leading Personnel within the System of the Ministry of Interior of the Republic of
        Abkhazia. 17 March 1992.
154. Decree issued by the Presidium of the Supreme Council of the Republic of Abkhazia on Endorsement of
        the Military Oath. 17 March 1992.
155. Oath of Allegiance. 17 March 1992.
156. Decree issued by the Presidium of the Supreme Council of the Republic of Abkhazia on Temporary
        Procedure of “propiska” of the Citizens on the Territory of the Republic of Abkhazia. 24 March 1992.
157. Decree issued by the Council of Ministers of the Republic of Abkhazia on Taking under Jurisdiction
        and State Management of the Republic of Abkhazia the Enterprises, Organizations and Agencies of the
        Union and Union-republic Subordination Located on the Territory of Abkhazia. 24 March 1992.
158. Decree issued by the Presidium of the Supreme Council of the Republic of Abkhazia on Recruitment
        into the Active Military Service and Measures for Observance the law “On General Obligatory Military
         Service”. 31 March 1992.
159. Decree issued by the Supreme Council of the Republic of Abkhazia  on changes to the Decree by the
        Supreme Council of Abkhazia “On Introduction of Special Regime of Conduct of the Citizens on the
        10 April 1992.
160. Decree issued by the Presidium of the Supreme Council of the Republic of Abkhazia on Adding to the
        list of the Decree by the Presidium of the Supreme Council of the Republic of Abkhazia “On Securing
        the Economic Basis of the Sovereignty of Abkhazia”. 28 April 1992.
161. Decree issued by the Council of Ministers of the Republic of Abkhaz ASSR on Conscription in April
        June of 1992 to the active military service the Citizens born in 1965-1974. 30 April 1992.
162. Decree issued by the State Council of the Republic of Georgia on Solution of the Complex Problems
        Related to Formation and Functioning of Border Zone of the Republic of Georgia. 7 May 1992.
163. Decree issued by the State Council of the Republic of Georgia on the Decree # 46 issued on 24 March
        1992 by the Council of Ministers of the Abkhaz ASSR on “Transfer Under the Jurisdiction of the
        Republic of Abkhazia the Enterprises, Agencies and Organizations of the Union and Union-Republic
        Subordination Located on the Territory of Abkhazia”.19  May 1992.
164. Resolution issued by the Extraordinary Session of the Supreme Council of the North Ossetian SSR.
        21 May 1992.
165. Decree issued by the Presidium of the Supreme Council of the Republic of Abkhazia  on Permission to
        Change the Last Name and Biographical Particulars on National Affiliation upon Request of Citizens.
        26 May 1992.
166. Decree issued by the Supreme Council of the Russian Federation on Entering on the Agenda of the Forth
        Session of the Supreme Council of the Russian Federation the issue “on the Situation in the North and
        South Ossetia”. 28  May 1992.
167. Declaration of Independence of the Republic of South Ossetia. 29 May 1992.
168. Decree issued by the Supreme Council of the Republic of Abkhazia on Decree issued by the State
        council of Georgia “on Regulation of Problems on Formation and Operation of the Border zone of the
        Republic of Georgia”. 3 June 1992.
169. Decision taken by the Joint Session of the Presidium of the Supreme Council of the North Ossetian SSR
        and the Presidium of the Supreme Council of the South Ossetia. 8 June 1992.
170. Protocol of the Meeting between the Cheirmen of the State Council of the Republic of Georgia E. A.
        Shevardnadze and the Cheirman of the Supreme Council of the North Ossetian SSR A. Kh. Galasov.
        10 June 1992.
171. Agreement on Principles of Settement of Georgian-Ossetian Conflict. 24 June 1992.
172. Decree issued by the Presidium of the State Council of the Republic of Georgia on the Current Situation
        in Abkhazia. (2 July 1992.).
173. Protocol of the Meeting of representatives of the Parties on the Implementation of the Agreement on
        Principles of Settlement of the Georgian-Ossetian Conflict. 4 July 1992.
174. Protocol #1 of the Session of the Joint Control Commission (JCC). 4 July 1992.
175. Decision #1 of the Session of  Joint Control Commission (JCC). 4 July  1992
176. Decision #2 of the Session of Joint Control Commission (JCC) on Establishment of Joint Group of Observers. 4 July  1992
177. Decision #3 of the Session of the Joint Control Commission (JCC) on Establishment of Multilateral Press Centers. 4 July 1992
178. Protocol #2 of the Meeting of Joint Control Commission (JCC) for the   Georgian-Ossetian Conflict Settlement, 6 July 1992
179. Annex 1 To Protocol #2 of the JCC Session. DECISION On establishment of the headquarters
(staff) of joint forces for keeping law and order in the zone of conflict and approving of the
composition of subdivisions for active service and securing the rear. 6 July 1992
180. Annex 2 To Protocol #2 of the JCC Session Decision of the Joint Control Commission (JCC) for the Georgian-Ossetian Conflict Settlement. 6 July 1992
181. Protocol #3 of the Meeting of Joint Control Commission (JCC) for the Georgian-Ossetian Conflict Settlement. 12July 1992.
182. Annex 1 To Protocol #3 of the  JCC Session. Provision On Joint Peacekeeping Forces (JPKF) and Law and Order Keeping Forces (LOKF) in the Zone of Conflict. 12July 1992
183. Decree # 753 issued by the Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of Georgia on Abrogation of Decrees of
        the government of Georgia related to Allocation of lands for Airdromes located in the village of Nikozi
        and for the Infantry Regiment Located in Tskhinvali. 23 July 1992.
184. Decree issued by the Supreme Council of the Republic of Abkhazia on changes to the Regulations of
        the Supreme Council of Abkhazia of the 12th convocation. 23 July 1992.
185. Decree issued by the Supreme Council of the Republic of Abkhazia on Secession of the Legal Effect of
        the Constitution of the Abkhaz ASSR of 1978. 23 July 1992.
186. Constitution of the Soviet Socialist Republic of Abkhazia of 1 April 1925.
187. Decree issued by the Supreme Council of the Republic of Abkhazia  on changing the name of the Soviet
        Socialist Republic of Abkhazia. 23 July 1992.
188. Law of the Republic of Abkhazia on new symbolics of the Republic of Abkhazia. 23 July 1992.
189. Decree issued by the Supreme Council of the Republic of Abkhazia  on draft-agreement between the
       Republic of Abkhazia and the Republic of Georgia. 23 July 1992.
190. Law of the Republic of Abkhazia on Transit Duties. 23 July 1992.
191. Decree issued by the State Council of the Republic of Georgia on decree issued on 23 July 1992 by the
       Supreme Council of the Abkhaz ASSR on “Cessation of Legal Effect of the Constitution of the Abkhaz
        ASSR of 1978”. 25 July 1992.
192. Decree issued by the Supreme Council of the Abkhaz ASSR on Further Work of Faction of Deputies
        “Democratic Abkhazia” of the Supreme Council of the Abkhaz ASSR. 29 July 1992.
193. Decree issued by the Supreme Council of the Abkhaz ASSR on Political-Legal Assesment of the Decree
        issued by the First Session of the Supreme Council of the Abkhaz ASSR on “Cessation of the Legal
        Effect of the 1978 Constitution of the Abkhaz ASSR and Restoration of the 1925 Constitution of the
        Abkhaz SSR”. 29 July 1992.
194. Decision of the Session of the Joint Control Commission (JCC). 3 August 1992.
195. Decree issued by the Government of the Republic of Georgia # 814 on Suspension of the Decree issued
        by the Council of Ministers of the Abkhaz ASSR on 21 February 1992. 7 August 1992.
196. Decree issued by the Presidium of the State Council of the Republic of Georgia on Introduction of the
        State of Emergency on the Railway Transport. 10 August 1992.
197. Decree issued by  the State Council of the Republic of Georgia  on Decree Issued on 10 August 1992 by
        the Presidium of the State Council of the Republic of Georgia on “ Introduction of the State of
        Emergency on the Railway Transport”. 11 August 1992.
198. Decree issued by  the Presidium of  the Supreme Council of the Republic of Abkhazia on Mobilization
        of Adult Citizens and Distribution of arms to the regiment of the internal troops of Abkhazia. 14 August
        1992.
199. Extract from the Resolution  of the Extraordinary Session of the Supreme Council of the Republic of
         Kabardino-Balkaria. 17 August 1992.
200. Protocol  of consultations on the regulation of the conflict between Georgia and Abkhazia. 29 August
        1992.
201. Memorandum On Boarders of South Ossetia. 31 August 1992
202. Final Document of the Moscow meeting. 3 September 1992.
203. Decree issued by the Presidium of the Supreme Council of Abkhazia. 16 September 1992.
204. Decree issued by the Presidium of the Supreme Council of Abkhazi. 16 September 1992.
205. Decree issued by the Supreme Council of the Russian Federation on the Situation in the North Caucasus
        in the Light of Events in Abkhazia. 25 September 1992.
206. Decree # 965 issued by the Government of the Republic of Georgia on Transferring the Sanatoriums, Recreation Houses and Summer Cottages under former Soviet and Soviet-Republican  Subordination to the State Chancellery of the Government of the Republic of Georgia. 30 September 1992.
207. 184. Decree issued by the Parliament of Georgia on  the issue of Abkhazia. 26 November 1992.
208. Decree on restoration of certain original place-names of residential settlements of the Republic of Abkhazia, issued by the Supreme Council of the Republic of Abkhazia. 4 December 1992.
209. Decree issued by the Supreme Council of the Russian Federation on Implementation of the Decree
        issued by the Supreme Council of Russian Federation “on Situation in the North Caucasus in the Light
        of Events in Abkhazia” of 25 September 1992. 25 December 1992.

1993
210. Decree issued by the Supreme Council of the North Ossetian SSR On Appeal  of the Supreme Council of the Republic of South Ossetia to the People’s Deputies of the North Ossetia. 13 January 1993.
211. Communique on the Results of Working Visit of the Chairman of the Council of Nationalities of the
        Supreme Council of the Russian Federation Abdulatipov R. G. and the Deputy Chairman of the
        Government of the Russian Federation Shakhrai S. M. in the Republic of Georgia. 18 February 1993.
212. Decree issued by the Parliament of Georgia on the Presence of Russian Military Units on the Territory
        of Abkhazia. 25  February 1993.
213. Decree issued by the Parliament of Georgia on Communique “Results of Working Visit of Chairman of
        the Council of Nationalities of the Supreme Council of the Russian Federation Abdulatipov R. G. and
        the Deputy Chairman of the Government of the Russian Federation Shakhrai S. M. in the Republic of
        Georgia” signed on 18 February 1993. 4 March 1993.
214. Decree issued by the Supreme Council of the North Ossetian SSR on Recognition of the Republic of
        South Ossetia. 6 March 1993.
215. Decree issued by the Supreme Council of the Russian Federation on Decree of the Supreme Council of
        the North Ossetian SSR “on Recognition of the Republic of South Ossetia”. 22 March 1993.
216. Decree issued by the Parliament of Georgia on Necessary Measures to be Taken to Protect Life and
        Ensure Security of Peaceful Population in the Armed Conflict Zone. 1 April 1993.
217 Protocol of Negotiations between the Governmental Delegations of the Republic of Georgia and the
        Russian Federation. 9 April 1993.
218. Decree issued by the Parliament of Georgia on withdrawal of Russian Military Units from the Conflict
        Zone in Abkhazia. 27 April 1993.
219. Decree issued by the Council of Nationalities of the Supreme Council of the Russian Federation on
        implementation of the Decree issued by the Supreme Council of the Russian Federation “on the situation
        in the North Caucasus in connection with the events in Abkhazia” of 25 September 1992 and “on
        implementation of the Decree issued by the Supreme Council of the Russian Federation “on the situation
        in the North Caucasus in connection with the events in Abkhazia of 25 September 1992” of 25
        December 1992. 30 April 1993.
220. Communique on Russian-Abkhaz Consultations. 6 May 1993.
221. Resolution adopted by the Second Congress of the Ossetian People. 21-22 May 1993.
222. Resolution 849 (9 July 1993) adopted by the Un Security Council.
223. Agreement on ceace-fire and the mechanisms of  its implementation in Abkhazia. 27 July 1993.
224. Decree issued by the Council of Ministers-the Government of the Russian Federation on urgent
        measures on Implementation of the Agreement on Cease-fire in Abkhazia and the Mechanisms of the
        control over its implementation of  27 July 1993. 5 August 1993.
225. Resolution 854 (6 August 1993) adopted by the UN Security Council.
226. Resolution 858 (24 August 1993) adopted by the UN Security Council.
227. Decree issued by the Council of Ministers-the Government of the Russian Federation on Further
        Measures for Regulation of the Georgian-Abkhaz conflict. 13 September 1993.
228. Agreement between the Government of the Russian Federation and the Government of the Republic of
        Georgia on Restoration of Economy in the Zone of Georgian-Ossetian Conflict. 14 September 1993.
229.  Resolution 876 (19 October 1993) adopted by the UN Security Council.
230. Resolution 881 (4 November 1993) adopted by the UN Security Council.
231. Memorandum of Understanding Between the Georgian and the Abkhaz Sides at the negotiations in
        Geneva. 1 December 1993.
232. Resolution 892 (22 December 1993) adopted by the UN Security Council.


1994
233. Communique on the second round of negotiations between the Georgian and Abkhaz Sides in Geneva.
        13 January 1994.
234. Resolution 896 (31 January  1994) adopted by the UN Security Council.
235. Resolution 901 (4 March 1994) adopted by the UN Security Council.
236. Decree issued by the Parliament of Georgia  on Legislative Practice of Apartheid and Racism in the
        Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia. 10 March 1994.
237. Resolution 906 (25 March  1994) adopted by the UN Security Council.
238. Quadripartite Agreement on voluntary return of refugees and displaced persons. 4 April 1994.
239. Declaration on measures for a political settlement of the Georgian-Abkhaz conflict. 4 April 1994.
240. Declaration on the results of the First Meeting of the Quadripartite Commission on the issues of
        voluntary return of refugees and displaced persons. 9 April 1994.
241. Declaration on observing sovereignty, territorial integrity and inviolability of  borders of the CIS
        member-states. 15 April 1994.
242. Declaration of the Participants of the Second Meeting of the Quadripartite commission on the issues of
        voluntary return of refugees and displaced persons. 27 April 1994.
243. Annex to the Report of the UN Secretary General on the situation in Abkhazia, Georgia; Proposals for
        political and legal elements for a comprehensive settlement of the Georgian-Abkhaz conflict. 3 May
        1994.
244. Protocol For The Establishment of a Coordinating Commission.  11 May 1994.
245. Agreement on a Cease-fire And Separation of  Forces. 14 May 1994.
246. Statement of the Parliament of Georgia. 24 May 1994.  
247. Joint Statement. 14 June 1994.
248. Resolution 934 (3 June 1994) adopted by the UN Security Council.
249. Protocol of Understanding between the Government of the Republic of Georgia and the Government of
        the Russian Federation To the Agreement between thr Government of the Republic of Georgia and the
       Government of the Russian Federation on Economic Restoration of the Regions Located in the Zone of
        Georgian-Ossetian Conflict, Signed on 14 September 1993. 5 July 1994.
250. Resolution 934 (21 July 1994) adopted by the UN Security Council.
251. UNOMIG Mandate, adopted by the Security council Resolution 937 (21 July 1994).
252. Agreement on Friendship and Cooperation Between the Republic of Abkhazia and the Republic of
        Tatarstan. 17 August 1994.
253. Agreement on Friendship and Cooperation Between the Republic of Abkhazia and the Republic of
        Bashkortostan.  18 August 1994.
254. Decision issued of the Council of the CIS Heads of States on usage of Collective Forces to maintain
        peace in the conflict zone of Georgian-Abkhaz conflict. 22 August 1994.
255. Statement on Voluntary Return of Refugees - Internally Displaced Persons. 2 September 1994.
256. Decree on restoration of certain original names of residential settlements of the Republic of
Abkhazia, issued by the Supreme Council of the Republic of Abkhazia. 9 September 1994.
257. Statement of the parliament of Georgia. 12 October 1994.
258. Decision of the Council of the CIS Heads of States on approval of the Mandate on Peace-keeping
        Operation in the Georgian-Abkhaz Conflict Zone. 21 october 1994.
259. Annex to the  Decision of the Council of the CIS Heads of States on approval of the Mandate on Peace
        keeping Operation in the Georgian-Abkhaz Conflict Zone of 21 0ctober 1994.
260. Agreement on Further Development of the Process of Peaceful Settlement of the Georgian-Ossetian
        Conflict and the Mixed Controlling Commission. 31 October 1994.
261. Regulation on the Joint Control Commission for the Settlement of the Georgian-Ossetian Conflict
31 October 1994.
262. From the Constitution of the Republic of North Ossetia. 12 November 1994.
263. Statement on the issue of refugees and displaced persons. 18 November 1994.
264. Constitution of the Republic of Abkhazia. 26 November 1994.
265. Statement of the Parliament of Georgia. 1 December 1994.
266. From the Resolution of the OSCE Budapest Summit. 6  Desember 1994.
267. Protocol 3 of the Meeting of the Joint Control Commission for the Settlement of the Georgian-Ossetian conflict 6 December 1994
268. Decision of the Joint Control Commission for the settlement of the Georgian-Ossetian Conflict On economic rehabilitation in the zone of the Georgian-Ossetian conflict. 6 December 1994.
269. Decision of the Joint Control Commission for the settlement of the Georgian-Ossetian conflict On measures for the resolution of the problem of refugees from internal districts of the Republic of Georgia who are now residing on territory of the Republic of North Ossetia. 6 December 1994.
270. Decision of the Joint Control Commission for the settlement of the Georgian-Ossetian conflict On the Forces for the Support of Peace.  6 December 1994.
271. Decision of the Joint Control Commission for the settlement of the Georgian-Ossetian conflict. 6 December 1994.
272. Annex # 1 to JCC  Decission.  Regulation Concerning the Basic principles of Operation of the Military Contingents and of the Groups of Military Observers Designated for the Normalization of the Situation In the Zone of the Georgian-Ossetian Conflict. 6 December 1994.
273. Annex № 1 to the Regulation concerning the Basic Principles of Operation of the Military Contingents and of the Military Observers Designated for the Normalization of the Situation in the Zone of the Georgian-Ossetian Conflict. Rights and Obligations of the Commander of the Joint Forces for the Maintenance of Peace in the Zone of the Georgian-Ossetian Conflict. 6 December 1994.
274. Decree issued by the Government of the Russian Federation on the measures of temporary restriction of
        crossing state borders between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Azerbaijan and the Republic
        of Georgia. 19 December 1994.
275. Decree issued by the Government of the Russian Federation on lifting certain restrictions established by
        the Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of 19 December 1994 #1394 on the measures
       of temporary restriction of crossing state borders between the Russian Federation and the Republic of
       Azerbaijan and the Republic of Georgia. 27 December 1994.

1995
276. Resolution 971 (12 Januay 1995) adopted by the UN Security Council.
277. Memorandum by the Heads of the Commonwealth of Independent States on Maintaining the Peace and
        Stability in the Commonwealth of  Independent States. 10 February 1995.
278. Decree issued by the Parliament of Georgia on Supreme Authority of the Autonomous Republic of
        Abkhazia. 24 February 1995.
279. Decree issued by the State Duma of Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation on Humane Treatment
        of the Needs of the Population of Abkhazia. 24 February 1995.
280. Working Protocol of the Talks on the Georgian-Abkhaz Conflict Settlement. 6 May 1995.
281. Resolution 993 (12 May 1995) adopted by the UN Security Council.
282. Agreement  on Friendship and Cooperation Between the Republic of Abkhazia and the Republic of
        Kabardino-Balkharia. 19 May 1995.
283. Decree issued by the Government of the Russian Federation on Partial Changes in the Decree issued by
        the Government of the Russian Federation of 19 December 1994 #1394 “On temporary Restrictions of
        Crossing the Border of the Russian Federation with the Republic of Azerbaijan and the Republic of
        Georgia”.  24 May 1995.
284. Decision issued by the Council of the Heads of States  of the Commonwealth of Independent States  on
        Specification to and Extension of the Mandate of the Collective Force on Maintaining the Peace in the
        conflict Zone in Abkhazia, Republic of Georgia. 26 May 1995.
285. Annex to the Decision adopted on 26 May 1995 by the  Council of the Heads of States  of the
       Commonwealth of Independent States on Specification to and Extension of the Mandate of the Collective
        Force on Maintaining the Peace in the Conflict Zone of Abkhazia. 26 May 1995.
286. Decision issued by the Council of the Heads of States  of the Commonwealth of Independent States on
        proposals on reconciled operations for the conflict settlement in Abkhazia, Georgia. 26 May 1995.
287. Annex 1 to the Decision  of he Council of the Heads of States  of the Commonwalth of Independent
        States of 26 May 1995 on Possible Political Measures for Regulation of the Conflict in Abkhazia,
        Georgia 26 May 1995.
288. Protocol # 4 of the meeting of the Joint Control Commission (JCC) for the Georgian-Ossetian conflict settlement. 9 June 1995.
289. Annex 1 To protocol # 4 of the JCC session Decision On the Process of Construction and Rehabilitation Works in the Zone of the Georgian-Ossetian Conflict.. 9 June 1995
290. Annex 2 To Protocol # 4 of the JCC Session. Decision on Implementing Decision of the JCC on the JPKF. 9 June 1995.
291. Annex 3 To Protocol # 4 of the JCC Session. Decision On Developing Actions for Return of Refugees from North Ossetia – Alania to Internal regions of Georgia in the Zone of the Georgian-Ossetian Conflict. 9 June 1995.
292. Decree issued by the Parliament of Georgia on Admitting Members of the Parliament of Georgia elected
        in Abkhazia to the membership of the Supreme Council of Abkhazia. 14 June 1995.
293. Decree issued by the Government of the Russian Federation on removal of certain restrictions of
        Russian-Georgian border crossing within the frontiers of Krasnodar Region established by the Decree of
        the Government of the Russian Federation of 19 December 1994 # 1394. 7 July 1995.
294. Decree issued by the State Duma of Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation  on assistance to the
        population of Abkhazia. 14 July 1995.
295 Protocol #5 of the meeting of Joint Control Commission (JCC) for the Georgian-Ossetian conflict settlement. 19-20 July 1995.
296. Annex 1 To Protocol # 5 of the JCC Session  Decision On the Process of Construction and Rehabilitation Works in the Zone of the Georgian-Ossetian Conflict. 19 July 1995.
297 Annex 2 To Protocol # 5 of the JCC Session Decision of the Joint Control Commission (JCC) for the Georgian-Ossetian conflict settlement. 19 July 1995.
298. Enclosure to Annex 2 of Protocol #5 of the JCC Session On Widening the Scope of Activities of Economic Workgroup of the JCC with regard to the Territories that were involved in the Georgian-Ossetian Conflict. 19 July 1995.
299. Annex 3 To Protocol #5 of the JCC Session Decision of the Joint Control Commission (JCC) for the Georgian-Ossetian conflict settlement On the Actions to be taken for Activating the Return of Refugees from North Ossetia –Alania to Internal Regions of Georgia. 19 July 1995.
300. Annex 4 To Protocol # 5 of the JCC Session Decision of the Joint Control Commission (JCC) for the Georgian-Ossetian conflict settlement On Implementing Decision of the JCC on the JPKF. 19 July 1995.
301. Annex 5 To Protocol # 5 of the JCC Session Statement Of Georgian and Russian Parties on Further Development of the Process of Peaceful Settlement of the Conflict. 19 July 1995.
302. Protocol on Georgian-Abkhaz conflict settlement (draft). 24 July 1995.
303. Constitution of Georgia. 24 August 1995.
304. Decree issued by the Government of the Russian Federation on partial changes to the Decree issued by
        the Government of the Russian Federation of 19 December 1994 # 1394 “on temporary measures of
        restriction of border crossing of the Russian Federation with the Republic of Azerbaijan and the
        Republic of Georgia”. 26 August 1995.
305. Law of the Republic of Georgia. 1 September 1995.
306. Protocol of the Meeting of Representatives of Georgia, South Ossetia, The Russian Federation and
        North Ossetia with Participation of the OSCE on Comprehensive Settlement of the Georgian-Ossetian
        Conflict. 30 October 1995.
307. Decree issued by the Parliament of Georgia on Acknowledgment of Mandates of Members of the
        Parliament. 25 November 1995.

1996
308. Resolution 1036 (12 January 1996) adopted by the UN Security Council.
309. Decision  taken by the Council of the Heads of States  of the Commonwealth of Independent States on
        Measures for Settlement of the conflict in Abkhazia, Georgia. 19 January 1996.
310. Annex to the  Decision  taken  by the Council of the Heads of States  of the Commonwealth of
        Independent States on Approval of the Regulations of the Collective Peacekeeping Force in the
        Commonwealth of Independent States of 19 January 1996.
311. Resolution of the Council of the Interparliamentary Assambly of the Member States of the
        Commonwealth of independent States on the Statement of the Parliamentary Delegation of Georgia
        Regarding Peaceful Settlement of Conflict in Abkhazia, Georgia. 17 Febriary 1996.
312. Proposals of Georgia on the status of Abkhazia, Georgia. 5 March 1996.
313. Resolution adopted by the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation on Legal Effect for the Russian Federation of the Results of the USSR Referendum of 17 March of
1991 on the issue of Keeping the USSR. 15 March 1996.
314. Resolution adopted by the State Duma of the Russian Federation on strengthening the integration of the peoples united within the USSR and annulment of the Decree of the Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR of 12 December 1991 ‘on Denunciation of the Treaty of Establishing the USSR’.15 March 1996.
315. Resolution of  the Parliament of Georgia on measures of conflict settlement in Abkhazia. 17 April 1996.
316. Memorandum on Necessary Measures to be undertaken in order to Ensure Security and Strengthening of
        Mutual Trust Between the Parties to the Georgian-Ossetian Conflict. 16 May 1996..........................
317. Decision  taken by the Council of the Heads of States  of the Commonwealth of Independent States  on
        Presence of the Collective Peacekeeping Forces in the Conflict Zone of Abkhazia, Georgia. 17 May
       1996.
318. Resolution 1065 (12 July 1996) adopted by the UN Security Council.
319. Protocol # 6 meeting of the Joint Control Commission (JCC) for the Georgian-Ossetian conflict settlement. July 23-24, 1996.
320. Annex 1 To Protocol #6 of the JCC Session. Decision on Activities of the Joint Peacekeeping Forces in the Zone of the Georgian-Ossetian Conflict. 23 July 1996.
321. Enclosure to Annex 1 of Protocol # 6 of the JCC Session. 23 July 1996.
322. Annex 2 To Protocol # 6 of the JCC Session. Decision on Providing the Zone of the Georgian-Ossetian Conflict with Power. 23 July 1996.
323 Annex 3 To protocol # 6 of the JCC session. Decision on Providing the Zone of the Georgian-Ossetian Conflict with Natural Gas. 23 July 1996./
324 Annex 4 to Protocol # 6 of the JCC Session. Decision on Construction and Rehabilitation Works in the Zone of the Georgian-Ossetian Conflict. 23 July 1996.
325. Statement on Results of the Meeting between E. A. Shevardnadze and L. A. Chibirov in Vladikavkaz.
        27 August 1996.
326. Protocol of  the Talks on the Regulation of Georgian-Abkhaz Conflict. 12 September 1996.
327. Decree issued by the Parliament of Georgia  on Implementation of the Decree Issued by the Parliament
        of Georgia on 17 April 1996 “On Measures for Conflict Settlement in Abkhazia”. 2 October 1996.
328. Resolution by the Parliament of Georgia on Measures for Settlement the Critical Situation evoked by the
        Unlawful Declaration to Schedule Elections Made by the Abkhaz Separatist Regime. 2 October 1996.
329. Decision  taken by the Council of the Heads of States  of the Commonwealth of Independent States on
        Extension of the term of presence and additions to the Mandate of the Collective Peacekeeping Forces in
        the conflict zone of Abkhazia, Georgia. 17 October 1996.
330. Resolution 1077 (22 October 1996) adopted by the UN Security Council.
331. Decree issued by the President of Georgia on Holding of Nation-Wide Plebiscite among Electors –
        Internally Displaced Persons and Refugees from Abkhazia. 31 October 1996.
332. Agreement between the Government of the Republic of South Ossetia and the Government of the
        Republic of North Ossetia on social-economic, scientific-technical and cultural cooperation. 9
        November 1996.
333. Resolution issued by the European Parliament. 12 November 1996.
334. Decree issued by the Parliament of Georgia on the so-called Presidential Elections on the Part of
        Territory of the Tskhinvali Region Held on 10 November 1996. 26 November 1996.
335. The Central Electoral Commission of Georgia. Final Protocol on Results of Referendum among the
        Internally Displaced Persons and Refugees from the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia. 28 November
        1996.
336. From the Lisbon Summit Declaration of the OSCE. 2-3 December 1996.
337. Decree issued by the Parliament of Georgia on Expanding the Mandate of the Supreme Council of the
        Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia. 25 December 1996.

1997
338. Resolution 993 adopted by the UN Security Council. 30 January 1997
339. Protocol # 7 of the meeting of Joint Control Commission (JCC) for the Georgian Ossetian conflict settlement. 13February 1997.
340 Annex 2 To Protocol #7 of the JCC Session Decision on Return of Refugees and IDPs as a result of the Georgian-Ossetian Conflict to the Places of their Permanent Residence. 13 February 1997.
341. Annex 3 to Protocol #7 of the JCC Session. Procedure OF voluntary return of refugees and idps as a result of the Georgian-Ossetian conflict to the places of their permanent residence. 13 February 1997
342. Annex 4 To Protocol #7 of the JCC Session Decision on the process of implementing the “agreement between the government of russia and georgia on economic rehabilitation of regions in the zone of the Georgian-Ossetian conflict” (1993, moscow). 13 February 1997.
343. Protocol of the Meeting devoted to the Issues of Comprehensive Settlement of the Georgian-Ossetian
        Conflict. 5 March 1997.
344. Annex 2. Procedure of Activities of the Authorized Delegations on the Negotiations on Full-Scale Settlement of the Georgian-Ossetian Conflict. 5 March 1997.
345. Joint Declaration on Further Measures aimed at Restoration of Economy and Developments in the
        course of Georgian-Ossetian Conflict.  5 March 1997.
246. Decree issued by the Government of Russian Federation on Removal of restrictions set out in the Decree
        issued by the Government of the Russian Federation on 19 December 1994 #1394 “On Measures for
        Temporary Restrictions of Border-Crossing Between the Russian Federation and the Republic of
        Azerbaijan and the Republic of Georgia”. 14 March 1997.
347. Decision  taken by the Council of the Heads of States  of the Commonwalth of Independent States on
        Implementation of the Measures for Conflict Settlement in Abkhazia, Georgia. 28 March 1997.
348. Decision  taken by the Council of the Heads of States  of the Commonwealth of Independent States on
        Support to the Peacekeeping Operations in the Conflict Zone of Abkhazia, Georgia. 28 March 1997.
349. Decree issued by the People’s Assembly-The Parliament of the Republic of Abkhazia on the Decision
        Taken by the heads of States of the Commonwealth of independent states of 28 march 1997 “on Support
        the Peacekeeping Operations in the Conflict Zone of Abkhazia, Georgia”. 1 April 1997.
350. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. Resolution 119 (1997) 1 on the conflicts in
        Transcaucasia. 22 April 1997.
351. Decree issued by the Parliament of Georgia on Further Presence of Armed Forces of the Russian
        Federati­­on de­­ployed in the zone of Abkhaz Conflict under the Auspices of the Commonwealth of
        Independent States. 30 May 1997.
352. Resolution issued by the Council of the Interparliamentary Assembly of the Member-States of the
        Commonwealth of independent States on Peaceful Regulation of the Conflict in Abkhazia, Georgia.
        8 June 1997.
353. Resolution on Extension of the Mandate of the Collective Peace-keeping Forces in the Conflict Zone of Abkhazia, Georgia, adopted by the state Duma of the Russian federation. 23 June 1997.
354. Decree issued by the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation  on the statement of
        the state DUMA on the impermissibility of violating the universal principles and norms of International humanitarian law with regard to the impoverished population of Abkhazia. 24 June 1997.
355. Federal Assembly - Parliament of the Russian Federation Statement of the State Duma "On the impermissibility of violating universal principles and norms of international humanitarian law with regard to the impoverished population of Abkhazia". 24 June 1997.
356. Resolution on conflict in Abkhazia, Georgia, adopted  by the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly. 8 July         1997.
357. Annex 1 to Protocol #7 of the JCC Session. Decision settlement On Activities of the Joint Peacekeeping Forces in the Zone of the Georgian-Ossetian Conflict. 13 July 1997.
358. Resolution 1124 (31 July 1997) adopted by the UN Security Council.
359. Statement on the Meeting between the Georgian and Abkhaz Sides. 14 August 1997.
360. Protocol # 8 of the meeting of Joint Control Commission (JCC) for the Georgian-Ossetian conflict settlement. 26 September 1997.
361. Annex 1 To Protocol #8 of the JCC Session. Decision on Activities of the Joint Peacekeeping Forces in the Zone of the Georgian-Ossetian Conflict. 26 September 1997.
362. Annex 2 To Protocol #8 of the JCC Session. Decision on the process of implementation of the Procedure on Voluntary Return of Refugees and IDPs to the Places of their Permanent Residence, and Approval of the draft procedure on ad hoc committee for supporting the voluntary return of refugees and IDPs to the places of their permanent residence. 26 September 1997
363. Annex 3 To Protocol #8 of the JCC Session .Decision on results of implementing the agreement concluded between the governments of Russia and Georgia on economic rehabilitation of the regions in the zone of conflict (1993, Moscow) and the proposals on new principles and forms of further liquidation of social and economic consequences of the conflict. 26 September 1997.
364. Resolution of the People’s Assembly - Parliament of Abkhazia on Deportation of Abkhazs (Abazs) in the 19th Century. 15 October 1997.
365. Resolution of the People’s Assembly-the Parliament of the republic of Abkhazia on condemnation of
        genocide, ethnic cleansing and other crimes committed by the military-political authorities of Georgia
        against the population of Abkhazia during the Georgian-Abkhazian war of 1992-1993. 15 October 1997.
366. Resolution of the People’s Assembly – the Parliament of the Republic of Abkhazia. on Condemning the Genocide and other Repressive Measures against the Abkhaz People and representatives of other Nations residing in Abkhazia, resorted by the government of the Georgian Democratic Republic and the Soviet Georgia, and on Overcoming of their Aftermath. 15 October 1997.
367. Resolution of the People's Assembly Parliament of the Republic of Abkhazia On condemnation of facts of high treason and collaboration with the occupational authorities during the Georgian-Abkhazian war of 1992-1993. 20 October 1997.
368. Decree issued by the Government of the Russian Federation on Importing of Citrus and Some Other
        Agricultural Products to the Russian Federation. 7 November 1997.
369. Statement on Results of the Meeting between E. A. Shevardnadze and L. A. Chibirov. 14 November
        1997.
370. Final Statement on the results of the resumed meeting between the Georgian and Abkhaz sides held in
        Geneva from 17 to 19 November 1997.
371. Protocol of the First Session of the Coordinating Council of the Georgian and Abkhaz sides.
        18 December 1997.
372. Statute (regulations) of the Coordinating Council. 18 December 1997.

1998
373. Protocol of the First Special Session of the Coordinating Council of the Georgian and Abkhaz Sides.
   22 January 1998.
374. Record of the Second Session of  Working Group I, of the of the Coordinating Council of the Georgian
        and Abkhazian Parties  on issues related to the lasting non resumption of hostilities and to security
        problems. 22 Ja­­nuary 1998.
375. Resolution 1150 (30 January 1995) adopted by the UN Security Council.
376. Decision Taken by the Council of the Inter-parliamentary Assembly of the Member-States  of  the
        Commo­n­­­­wealth of independent States  on the situation of conflict settlement in Abkhazia, Georgia.
        28 February 1998.
377. Statement of the Parliament of Georgia. 6 March 1998
378 Protocol of the third Session of the Coordinating Council of the Georgian and Abkhaz  Sides.
        31 March 1998.
379. Statement of the Parliament of Georgia. 1 April 1998.
380. Decision Taken by the Council of the heads of States of the Commonwealth of independent States on       
        Additional Measures for the Conflict Settlement in Abkhazia, Georgia. 28 April 1998.
381. Protocol of the fourth (second special) Session of the Coordinating Council of the Georgian and Abkhaz
        Sides. 22 May 1998.
382. Protocol on Cease-fire, Separation of Armed Formations and Guarantees on Inadmissibility of       Forcible Activities. 25 May 1998.
383. Statement of the Parliament of Georgia. 27 May 1998.
384. Statement on Results of Meeting Between E. Shevardnadze and L. Chibirov. 20 June 1998.
385. Decree issued by the State Duma of Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation on Normalization of   
        Border and Customs Regimes along the Abkhaz Portion of the Border of the Russian Federation.
       24 June 1998.
386. Resolution of the European Parliament on the situation in Georgia. 17 July 1998.
387. Concluding Statement on the Results of the second Meetings of the Georgian and Abkhaz  Sides held in
        Geneva from  23 to 25 July 1998.
388. Resolution 1187 (30 July 1998) adopted by the UN Security Council.
389. Protocol of the fifth Session of the Coordinating Council of the Georgian and Abkhaz sides.
        2 September 1998.
390. Protocol of  the Meeting of the Georgian and Abkhaz Sides on issues of stabilization of the situation
        on the line dividing the sides. 24 September 1998..
391. Athens Meeting of the Georgian and Abkhaz sides on Confidence-Building Measures. 18 October 1998.
392. Decree issued by the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation on Measures to
        Assist with Energy Supply the Economy of the South Ossetia, Georgia. 11 November 1998.
393. Decision of the Oslo OSCE Ministerial Council Meeting  on Georgia. 1 December 1998.
394. Protocol of the sixth special Session of the Coordinating Council of the Georgian and Abkhaz  Sides.
        18 December 1998.
395. Protocol on the Meeting of the Georgian and Abkhaz  Sides. 21 December 1998.

1999
396. Resolution 1225 adopted by the UN Security Council. 28 January 1999.
397. Protocol of the seventh Session of the Coordinating Council of the Georgian and Abkhaz  Sides. 11 Fabruary 1999.
398. Statement of the Parliament of Georgia. 5 March 1999.
399. Protocol # 9 of the session of Joint Control Commission (JCC) for the Georgian-Ossetian conflict settlement. 31 March  1999.
400. Annex 2 To Protocol # 9 of  the JCC Session. Decision On Rehabilitation of Economy in the Zone of the Georgian-Ossetian Conflict. 31 March  1999.
401. Decision taken by the Council of the heads of States of the Commonwealth of Independent States on   
        Further Steps towards the settlement of the Conflict in Abkhazia, Georgia. 2 April 1999.
402. Protocol of the eights  Session of the Coordinating Council of the Georgian and Abkhaz  Sides.
        29 April 1999.
403. Statement  of the Parliament of Georgia. 11 May 1999.
404. Istanbul Statement of the Georgian and Abkhaz Sides on Confindence-Building Measures 7-9 June   
        1999.
405. Basic principles for determining the status of Abkhazia within the new State structure of Georgia. 23 July 1999.
406. Protocol # 10 of the session of Joint Control Commission (JCC) for the Georgian-Ossetian conflict settlement. 23 July 1999.
407. Annex 1 To Protocol # 10 of  the JCC Session. Decision on the Activities of the JPKF. On Mutual Cooperation of Law Enforcement Organs of the Parties to the Georgian-Ossetian Conflict. 23 July 1999.
408. Annex 2 to Protocol # 10 of  the JCC Session. Decision of the Joint Control Commission (JCC) for the Georgian-Ossetian conflict settlement on Rehabilitation. 23 July 1999.
409  Annex 3 to the protocol # 10 of the JCC Session. Decision Concerning the Return of Refugees. 23 July 1999.
410 Annex 4 to Protocol # 10 of  the JCC Session. Decision On Participation of Representatives of the European Commission in the Works of the JCC in the Form of Observers During the Discussions about the Economic Issues. 23 July 1999.
411. Annex 5 to Protocol # 10 of the JCC Session. Decision on Indexation and Payment of Deposits to the Population of the Zone of the Georgian-Ossetian Conflict. 23 July 1999.
412. Annex  to Protocol # 10 of the JCC Session. Decision on establishment of the workgroup on settlement the problem of land-utilization on contiguous territories in the zone of the Georgian-Ossetian conflict. 23 July 1999.
413. Annex 7 to Protocol # 10 of the JCC Session. Decision on cargo transportation  through itineraries between inhabited localities on the South Ossetian territory. 23 July 1999.
414. Resolution 1250 adopted by the UN Security Council. 30 July 1999.
415. Decree issued by the Government of the Russian Federation on declaring certain earlier Decrees of the
        Government of the Russian Federation no longer valid. 9 September 1999.
416. List of Decrees issued by the Government of the Russian Federation no longer Valid. 9 September 1999.
417. Act on the National Independence of the Republic of Abkhazia. 12 October 1999.
418. Joint Statement of the Russian Federation and Georgia. 17 November 1999.
419. From the Declaration of the OSCE Istanbul Summit. 17-18 November 1999.
420. Decree issued by the Parliament of Georgia on Recognition of the Mandate of the Members of the
        Parliament of Georgia. 20 November 1999.
421. Statement of the Parliament of Georgia. 24 December 1999.

2000
422. Protocol of the 9th Session of the Coordinating Council of the Georgian and Abkhaz  Sides.
       18-19 January 2000.
423. Protocol of the Joint Group (JG) on detection and investigation of the facts of violation of the Moscow
        Agreement of 14 May 1994 and on the politically motivated unlawful activities. 19 January 2003.
424. Statement of the State Commissions of Abkhazia and Georgia on Search for those Persons Missing without Missing. 19 January 2000
425. Resolution 1287 adopted by the UN Security Council. 31 January 2000.
426. Protocol of the Sukhumi Meeting between the Georgian and Abkhaz  Sides  on the Implementation of
        the Protocol of  24 September 1998 and Other Measures Aimed at Stabilization of the Situation in the
        Security zones and Limited Weaponry. 3 February 2000.
427. Protocol of Consultative Meeting of Experts of Georgian and Russian Sides on Introduction of Visa
        Regime between Georgia and the Russian Federation. 20 April 2000.
428 Protocol of the fourth Meeting of Experts' Groups of authorized delegations of the sides within the Framework of the Negotiation Process on a Full Scale Resolution of the Georgian-Ossetian Conflict. 7 July  2000
429.  Protocol of the Gali Meeting between the Georgian and Abkhaz  Sides on the issues of stabilization of
        the situation in the security. 11 July 2000.
430. Protocol of the 10th Session of the Coordinating Council of the Georgian and Abkhaz  Sides. 11 July
        2000.
431. Statement of the State Commission of Abkhazia and Georgia on Search for the persons Missing without Trace. 11 July 2000.
432. Resolution 1311 (28 July 2000) adopted by the UN Security Council.
433. Joint Statement of the Forth Session of the working Group I. 20 August 2000.
434. Joint Statement of the Fifth Session of the working Group I. 4 October 2000.
435. Protocol of the Eleventh Session of the Coordinating Council of the Georgian and Abkhaz  Sides.
        24 October 2000.
436. The Statement of the Parliament of Georgia on introduction of visa regime between Russia and Georgia.
24 November 2000
437. Order by the Government of the Russian Federation. 30 November 2000
438. Decree issued by the Government of Russian Federation. 30 November 2000.
439. Joint Statement of the Sixth  Session of the working Group I. 13 December   2000.
440. Agreement between the Government of Georgia and the Government of the Russian Federation  on
        Cooperation in Restoration of Economy in the Georgian-Ossetian Conflict Zone and Return of
        Refugees. 23 December 2000.

2001
441. Resolution of the European Parliament on the visa regime imposed by the Russian Federation on
        Georgia. 18 January 2001.
442. Protocol of the Twelfth Session of the Coordinating Council of the Georgian and Abkhaz  Sides.
        23 January 2001.
443. Resolution 1339 adopted by the UN Security Council. 31 January 2001.
444. Declaration of the Parliament of Georgia on the so-colled Local Self-governance Elections to be held on 10th March 2001, Organized by the Sukhumi Separatist Regime. 2 March 2001.
445. Yalta Declaration of the Georgian and Abkhaz Sides. 15-16 March 2001.
446. Appendix to the Programme of Action on Confidence-building between the Georgian and Abkhaz Sides.
        15-16 March 2001.
447. Annex to the Programme of Action on Confidence-building between the Georgian and Abkhaz Sides.   15-16 March 2001.
448 Statement of the Parliament of Georgia  on the planed so called referendum elections of the separatist regime of Tskhinvali on 8 April  200. 30 March 2001.
449. The Constitution (Organ Law) of the Republic of South Ossetia. 8 April 2001.
450. Protocol of the Gali Meeting between the Georgian and Abkhaz  Sides. 16 April 2001.
451. Protocol # 11 meetings of Cochairmen of the JCC for Georgian-Ossetian conflict settlement. 21 April 2001.
452. Annex 1 To Protocol # 11 of the JCC Session. Decision on Activities of the JPKF and Mutual Cooperation of Law Enforcement Organs of the Parties for Fighting with Crime in the Zone of the Georgian-Ossetian Conflict. 21 April 2001.
453. Annex 2 To Protocol # 11 of the JCC Session. Decision the JCC for the Georgian-Ossetian conflict settlement. 21 April 2001.
454. Annex 3 To Protocol # 11 of  the JCC Session. Decision on the Process of Return of Refugees. 21 April 2001.
455. Annex 4 To Protocol # 11 of the JCC Session. Decision on the Actions to be taken for Improvement of the Activities of the JCC. 21 April 2001.
456. Annex to Protocol # 11 of the  JCC Session. Provision On Special Coordinating Center (the SCC) under the JCC for Mutual Activities of Law Enforcement Organs in the Zone of the Georgian-Ossetian Conflict. 21 April 2001.
457. Protocol of the Gali Meeting between the Georgian and Abkhaz Sides. 11 May 2001.
458. Memorandum on the Meeting between L. A. Chibirov and Y. M. Luzhkov. 21 May 2001
459. Law of the Republic of Abkhazia on Enactment of the Basics of the Civil Legislation of the USSR and Republics. 15 June 2001.
460. Protocol # 2 on results of the meeting of Cochairmen of the JCC for the Georgian-Ossetian conflict settlement. 3 July 2001.
461. Annex 1 To Protocol # 2 of  the meeting of  Cochairmen of the JCC. decision on activities of the JPKF. 3 July 2001.
462. Annex 2 To Protocol # 2 of the  meeting of  Cochairmen of the JCC. Decision on measures to be taken for development and realization of inter-state program for mutual cooperation in rehabilitation of economy in the zone of the Georgian-Ossetian conflict. 3 July 2001.
463. Annex 2 To Protocol # 2 of Session of  Cochairmen of the JCC
Decision of the meeting of Cochairmen of the JCC for the Georgian-Ossetian conflict settlement On measures to be taken for development and realization of inter-state program for mutual cooperation in rehabilitation of economy in the zone of the Georgian-Ossetian conflict. 3 July 2001.
464. Annex 3 To Protocol # 2 of Session of  Cochairmen of the JCC. Decision on Return of Refugees. 3 July 2001.
465. Annex 4 To Protocol # 2 of Session of  Cochairmen of the JCC. Decision on proposals of active chairmanship of the OSCE and the European Commission. 3 July 2001.
466. Joint Statement of the Seventh  Session of the working Group one. 10 July 2001.
467. Resolution of the Parliament of Georgia  on Non-Implementation by the Russian Federation of the Joint
 Statement Adopted at the Istanbul OSCE Summit in 1999. 18 July 2001.
468. Resolution 1364 (31 July 2001) adopted by the UN Security Council.
469 Protocol # 3 of the meeting of Cochairmen of Joint Control Commission (JCC) for the Georgian-Ossetian conflict settlement. 2 August 2001.
470. Annex 1 To Protocol # 3 of Session of Cochairmen of the JCC. Decision On activities of the JPKF and mutual cooperation of law enforcement organs of the parties for fight against crime in the zone of the Georgian-Ossetian conflict. 2 August 2001.
471. Annex 2 To Protocol # 3 of Session of Cochairmen of the JCC.  Decision of the meeting of Cochairmen of the JCC for the Georgian-Ossetian conflict settlement On measures to be taken for development and realization of inter-state program for mutual cooperation in rehabilitation of economy in the zone of the Georgian-Ossetian conflict. 2 August 2001.
472. Annex 3 To Protocol # 3 of Session of  Cochairmen of the JCC. Decision on Return of Refugees. 2 August 2001.
473. Annex 4 To Protocol # 3 of Session of  Cochairmen of the JCC. Decision On Proposals of Acting Chairmanship of the OSCE and the European Commission. 2 August 2001.
474. Аnnex  to the Protocol of 14 August 2001. List of Unlawfully Detained People
475. Protocol of the Gali Meeting between the Georgian and Abkhaz  Sides. 14 August 2001.
476. Joint Statement of the Eighth Session of the Working Group One. 11 September 2001.
477. Resolution of the Parliament of Georgia on the situation in the territory of Abkhazia. 11 October 2001
478. Statement of the Parliament of Georgia. 27 September 2001.
479. Statement of the Parliament of Georgia. 27 September 2001.
480. Resolution of the Parliament of Georgia Concerning the situation on the territory of Abkhazia. 11October 2001.
481. Statement of the Parliament of Georgia Regarding the Statement of the Duma of the Russian Federation. 12October 2001.
482. Protocol # 4 of the meeting of Cochairmen of Joint Control Commission (JCC) for the Georgian-Ossetian conflict settlement. 25 October 2001.
483. Annex 1 To protocol # 4 of session of  Cochairmen of the JCC. Decision on some organizational issues of the process of negotiations on settlement of the Georgian-Ossetian conflict and funding thereof.25 October 2001.
484. Statement of the Parliament of Georgia. 10 November 2001.

2002
485. Protocol of the Meeting between the Georgian and Abkhaz  Sides on the Issue of Stabilization of the Situation in the Zone of Conflict. 17 January 2002.
486. Resolution 1393 (31 January 2002) adopted by the UN Security Council.
487. Protocol of the Meeting between the Georgian and Abkhaz  Sides. 11 February 2002.
488. Protocol #5 meetings of Co-chairmen of the Joint Control Commission (JCC) for the Georgian-Ossetian conflict settlement. February 28 – March 1, 2002.
489. Statement of the Parliament of Georgia. 28 February 2002
490. From the Statement of the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation on Situation in Georgia with regard of military presence of the USA on its territory. 6 March 2002.
491. Protocol of the Meeting between the Minister of Education of Georgia Mr. Al. Kartozia and De-facto
        Minister of Education of Abkhazia Mr. B. Dbar . 11 March 2002.
492. Resolution of the Parliament of Georgia on the situation in Abkhazia. 20 March 2002.
493. Resolution of the Parliament of Georgia on the Unlawful Misappropriation of State Property and
        Refugees and Internally Displaced Persons’ Private Property in Abkhazia. 20 March 2002.
494. Decree issued by the State Duma of Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation on Ever Increasing
        Tension around Abkhazia and South Ossetia. 22 March 2002.
495. Decision  of the Council of the CIS Heads of States on the presence of Collective Peace Keeping Forces in the Conflict zone of Abkhazia, Georgia. 22 March 2002.
496. Protocol of the Meeting between the Georgian and Abkhaz  Sides on 29 March 2002 in Sukhumi.
497. Protocol # 6 of the  meeting of the co-Chairmen of the Joint Control Commission (JCC) for the Georgian-Ossetian conflict settlement. 14-16 May 2002.
498 Annex 1 To Protocol #6 of the Meeting of Co-Chairmen of the JCC. Decision settlement On Arrangements Dedicated to the 10th Anniversary of Signing the Russian-Georgian Agreement on 504. Principles of Peaceful Settlement of the Georgian-Ossetian Conflict and Starting the Activities of the JPKF. 16 May 2002.
499. Annex 2 to Protocol No 6 of the JCC Co-chairmen meeting. Decision of the co-Chairmen of the Joint Control Commission for the Georgian-Ossetian conflict settlenment On Interaction in Rehabilitation of Economy in the Georgia-Ossetian Conflict Zone. 16 May 2002.
500. Annex 3 To Protocol #6 of the Meeting of  Co-Chairmen of the JCC Decision settlement on the Status of Return of Refugees. 16 May 2002.
501. Joint Statement by President George W. Bush and President Vladimir V. Putin  on Counterterroris
Cooperation. 24 May 2002.
502. Joint Declaration on New U.S.-Russia Relationship. 24 May 2002.
503. Law of the Russian Federation  on Citizenship of the Russian Federation. 31 May 2002.
504. Protocol # 7 meetings of co-Chairmen of the Joint Control Commission (JCC) for the Georgian-Ossetian conflict settlement. 5 June 2002.
505. Annex 1 To protocol # 7 of the JCC session. Decision of the Joint Control Commission (JCC) for the Georgian-Ossetian conflict settlement On the arrangements dedicated to the 10th anniversary of signing the Russian-Georgian Agreement on the Principles of Peaceful Settlement of the Georgian-Ossetian Conflict and starting the JPKF’s activities. 5 June 2002.
506. Annex 2 To Protocol #7 of the JCC Session. Decision of the Joint Control Commission (JCC) for the Georgian-Ossetian conflict settlement On preparation of meetings of Co-Chairmen of the JCC and session of a workgroup on economic issues in Moscow. 5 June 2002.
507. Protocol # 23 of the meeting of the Joint Control Commission (JCC) for the Georgian-Ossetian conflict settlement. 9 July 2002.
508. Annex 1 To Protocol # 23 Meeting of the Joint Control  Commission (JCC) for the Georgian-Ossetian Conflict Settlement Decision on Rehabilitation of Economy in the Zone of the Georgian-Ossetian Conflict. 9 July 2002.
509. Annex 2 To Protocol #23 Meeting of the Joint Control Commission (JCC) for the Georgian-Ossetian Conflict Settlement. Decision on Draft Russia-Georgia Interstate Project on Return, Development, Integration and Re-Integration of Refugees, IDPs and other Persons Suffered as a Result of the Georgian-Ossetian Conflict. 9 July 2002.
510. Annex 3 To Protocol # 23 Meeting of the Joint Control Commission (JCC) for the Georgian-Ossetian Conflict Settlement. Decision on Regulating a Registration of the JCC Meetings of the Joint Control Commission (JCC) for the Georgian-Ossetian Conflict Settlement. 9 July 2002.
511. Annex 4 to Protocol # 23 Meeting of the Joint Control Commission (JCC) for the Georgian-Ossetian Conflict Settlement. Decision on Proposal of the European Commission. 9 July 2002.
512. Address of the Joint Control Commission (JCC) for the Georgian-Ossetian conflict settlement to the European Commission (EC).  9 July 2002.
513. Protocol of the meeting of the Working Group Three. 25 June 2002.
514. Joint Statement of the Twelfth Session of the Working Group One. 20 July 2002.
515. Resolution 1427 (29 July  2002) adopted by the UN Security Council.
516. Protocol of the Working Group 2 of the Coordinating Council of the Georgian and Abkhaz sides. 20 July 2002.
517. Protocol # 24 of the meeting of the Joint Control Commission (JCC) for the Georgian-Ossetian conflict settlement. 30 July 2002.
518. Annex 1 To Protocol # 24 of  the JCC Session Decision on the facts of violation of the management system of the JPKF in the zone of the Georgian-Ossetian conflict and the measures to be taken for providing efficient functioning thereof. 30 July 2002.
519. Annex 2 To Protocol # 24 of  the JCC Session. Decision on non-sanctioned flight of aircrafts over the territory of the zone under the responsibility of the JPKF. 30 July 2002.
520. Statement On the Facts of Violation of The Management System of the JPKF in the Zone of the Georgian-Ossetian Conflict and the Measures to be Taken for Providing Efficient Functioning Thereof. 30 July 2002.
521. Joint Statement of the Georgian and Abkhaz  Sides.  4 August 2002.
522. Resolution of the Parliament of Georgia on the Fact of Bombing of the Territory of Georgia by the
        Military Forces of the Russian Federation. 26 August 2002.
523. Rezolution of the Parliament of Georgia on the fact of bombing the territory of Georgia by the military forces of the Russian federation. 26 August 2002.
524. Protocol # 25 of the session of  Joint Control Commission (JCC) for the Georgian-Ossetian conflict settlement. 3-4 October 2002.
525. Law of Georgia on changes and amendments to the constitution of Georgia. 10 October 2002.
526. Protocol of the meeting of the Working Group Three. 14 November 2002.

2003
526. Resolution 1462 (2003) adopted by the United Nations Security Council, 30 January 2003
527. Statement of the Parliament of Georgia. 30 January 2003.
528. Protocol # 26 of the session of the  Joint Control Commission for the settlement of Georgian-Ossetian conflict. 9-10 February 2003.
529. Attachment 2 To the Protocol #26 of the JCC of  Decision on the Activities of the Joint Peacekeeping Forces and the Interaction between the Sides’ Law Enforcement Bodies in the Zone of Georgian-Ossetian Conflict. 10 February 2003.
530. Attachment 3 To the Protocol #26 of the JCC. Decision on the information of the EC Delegation to Georgia about the EC plans for the year 2003 on implementation of rehabilitation projects in the zone of Georgian-Ossetian conflict. 10 February 2003.
531. Attachment 4  To the Protocol #26 of the JCC. Decision on the implementation of recommendations of the VIII Meeting of the Sides’ Plenipotentiary Delegations Expert Groups within the frames of the negotiation process for the full-scale settlement of Georgian-Ossetian conflict. 10 February 2003.
532. Attachment 5 To the Protocol # 26 of the JCC. Decision  of the  Joint Control Commission for the settlement of Georgian-Ossetian conflict On some organizational issues of the negotiation process on the settlement of Georgian-Ossetian conflict and their financial provision. 10 February 2003.
533. Concluding Statement  on the meetings between Mr. Vladimir Putin-President of the Russian Federation and Mr. Eduard Shevardnadze-President of Georgia. 6-7 March 2003.
534. The principles for division of competences between Tbilisi and Sukhumi (Boden Document). March 2003
535. Protocol # 27 meetings of Cochairmen of the JCC for Georgian-Ossetian conflict settlement. 14-16 May 2003.
536. Annex 1 To Protocol # 27 of  the JCC Session. Decision the JCC for the Georgian-Ossetian conflict settlement on Actions To Be Taken For Realization Of The Agreement Between The Governments Of Russian Federation And Georgia On Mutual Cooperation And Rehabilitation Of Economy In The Zone Of The Georgian-Ossetian Conflict And Return Of Refuges Dated. 23 December  2000.
537. Annex 2 To Protocol # 27 of the JCC Session. Decision On Realization of the Rehabilitation of the EC Program. 14-16 May 2003.
538. Annex 3 To Protocol # 27 of the JCC Session. Decision the JCC for the Georgian-Ossetian conflict settlement On activities of the JPKF and Mutual Cooperation of Law Enforcement Organs in the Zone of the Georgian-Ossetian Conflict. 14-16 May 2003.
539. Minutes of the meeting on the issues of rehabilitation of the electroenergetic objects Enguri Power Station. 16 May 2003.
540. Protocol #28 meetings of Cochairmen of the JCC for Georgian-Ossetian conflict settlement. 23-26 June 2003.
541. Annex 1 To Protocol # 28 of the JCC Session. Decision on the draft inter-state Russian-Georgian program on return, accommodation, integration and reintegration of refugees, IDPs and other persons suffered as a result of the Georgian-Ossetian conflict and actions for rehabilitation of economy in the regions of return. 23-26 June 2003.
542. Annex 2 To Protocol # 28 of the JCC Session. Decision on actions to be taken for realization of the Agreement between the Government of Russian Federation and Georgia on mutual cooperation in rehabilitation of economy in the zone of conflict and return of refugees dated December 23, 2000.
23-26 June 2003.
543. Annex 3 To Protocol # 28 of the JCC Session. Decision on implementation off the decision of the JCC (Annex 2 to Protocol #27 dated May 14-16 of 2003 in Gori) “on Realization of the Rehabilitation Program of the European Commission”. 23-26 June 2003.
544. Annex 4 To Protocol # 28 of the JCC Session. Decision on fulfillment of article 4 of the Agreement between the Government of Russian federation and Georgia on mutual cooperation in the zone of Georgian-Ossetian conflict and return of refugees dated December 23, 2000, and article 12.2. of the Protocol 4 of the session of the Russian-Georgian Commission on the issues of economic cooperation dated December 23, 2000. 23-26 June 2003.
545. Annex 5 To Protocol # 28 of  the JCC Session. Decision on some organizational issues of the process of negotiations for the Georgian-Ossetian conflict and its funding. 23-26 June 2003.
546. Protocol # 29 meetings of Cochairmen of the JCC for Georgian-Ossetian conflict settlement. July 14-15 2003.
547. Resolution 1494 (2003) adopted by the United Nations Security Council, on 30 July 2003
548. Resolution of the Parliament of Georgia on the remedies of ensuring the implementation of Chapter VII of the UN Charter. July 16 2003.
549. Statement of the Council of the Heads of States of the Commonwealth of Independent States. 19 September 2003.
550. Protocol of the meeting of co-Chairmen of the JCC for Georgian-Ossetian conflict settlement. October 2 2003.
551. Gali Protocol  of 8 October 2003 on reducing the tension and improving the mechanisms for security in the conflict zone. 8 October 2003.

2004
552. Protocol on the implementation of the third EC funded rehabilitation Program in the zone of Georgian-Ossetian conflict. 2004 January 30.
553. Protocol of the Gali meeting on security matters . 19 January 2004.
554. Resolution 1524 (2004) adopted by the UN Security Council. 30 January 2004.
555. Protocol # 30 meetings of Co-chairmen of The JCC for Georgian-Ossetian conflict settlement. 16 April  2004.
556. Annex 1 To Protocol # 30 of  the JCC Session. Provision on Information Bulletin of joint Control Commission for the Georgian-Ossetian Conflict Settlement. 16 April  2004.
557. Statement of Cochairmen of the JCC for the Georgian-Ossetian Conflict Settlement. 16 April  2004.
558. Government of Georgia on Realization of the Agreement  between the Governments of Russian Federation and Georgia on Mutual Cooperation in Rehabilitation of Economy in the Zone of Conflict and return of Refugees. 16 April  2004.
559. Government of Russian Federation. On Realization of the Agreement  between the Governments of Russian Federation and Georgia on Mutual Cooperation in Rehabilitation of Economy in the Zone of Conflict and return of Refugees. 16 April  2004.
560. Statement  of  Parliament of Georgia. 4 June 2004
561. Resolution 1554 (2004) adopted by the United Nations Security Council. 29 July 2004.
562. Statement of the State Duma of Federal Assembly of Russian Federation on the Situation in the Caucasus. 5 August 2004.
563. Memorandum of understanding on the third European Commission funded rehabilitation  program in the zone of Georgian-Ossetian conflict. 16 September 2004.
564 Statement on the Results of the Meeting of Z. Zhvania and E. Kokoiti. 5 November 2004.
565. Protocol the 7-th meeting of Experts’ Group of authorized delegations of the sides within the negotiation process on full-scale settlement of Georgian-Ossetian conflict. 4 October 2004.
566. Protocol # 40 of the Meeting of Co-chairmen of Joint Control Commission (JCC) for the Georgian-Ossetian conflict settlement. 19-20 November 2004.
567. Annex to Protocol # 40 of the JCC provision on meetings of authorized Co-chairmen of the JCC. 19-20 November 2004.
568 Protocol # 40 of the Meeting of Co-chairmen of Joint Control Commission (JCC) for the Georgian-Ossetian conflict settlement. 19-20 November 2004.
569. Protocol # 41 of the Meeting of the Joint Control Commission (JCC) for the Georgian-Ossetian conflict settlement. 22-23 December 2004.
570. Annex 1 to Protocol # 41 of the JCC. Statement of Co-chairmen of the JCC for the Georgian Ossetian conflict settlement. 23 December 2004.

2005
571. Protocol on commitments. 24 January 2005.
572. Resolution 1582 (2005) adopted by the UN Security Council. 28 January 2005
573 Protocol # 42  of the Meeting of the Joint Control Commission (JCC) for the Georgian-Ossetian Conflcit Settlement. 16-17 March 2005
574. Annex to Protocol # 42 of the meeting of the JCC Co-chairs  Decesion On Realization of Previous Decision of the Joint Control Commission on Georgian-Ossetian Conflict Settlement and on Furthering of the Process of  Regulation. 16-17 March 2005.
575. Protocol of the high level Meeting in Gali on Security Issues, 12 May 2005
576. Protocol # 43 of the Extraordinary Meeting of the Co-chairs of the Joint Control Commission (JCC) for the Georgian-Ossetian Conflict Settlement. 30-31 May 2005
577. Annex #2 to the Protocol # 43 of the JCC meeting  Decesion on the Activity of the JPKF in the Georgian-Ossetian Conflict Zone and on the Interaction of the Law Enforcement Agencies of the Sides. 30-31 May 2005.
578.  Protocol # 44 Of the Extraordinary Meeting of the Co-chairs of the Joint Control Commission (JCC) for the Georgian-Ossetian Conflict Settlement. 22-23 June 2005
579. Annex # 1 to the JCC Protocol. cProtocol on the Results of the Meeting of the Heads of Law Enforcement Organs of the Sides. 22-23 June 2005
580.  Resolution on the Situation in Abkhazia, Georgi. 1-5 July 2005
581. Resolution 1615 (2005) adopted by the UN Security Council. 29 July 2005.
582. Resolution Of the Parliament of Georgia Regarding the Current Situation in the Conflict October 11, 2005
583. The Georgian-South Ossetian Peace Plan, Developed by the Government of Georgia. 8 November 2005
584. Senate Resolution 344 Expressing Support for the Government of Georgia’s South Ossetian Peace Plan and the Successful and Peaceful Reintegration of the Region into Georgia. December 21, 2005
585. Resolution 1656 (2006) adopted by the United Nations Security Council. 31 January 2006
586. Resolution Of The Parliament of Georgia on the Current Situation in the Former Autonomous District of South Ossetia and Ongoing Peace Process. 15 February 2006.
587. Resolution 1666 (2006) adopted by the UNO Security Council, 31 March 2006.

A Lecture delivered at the L. Meskhishvili Drama Theater in Kutaisi , 20 May 1990

Dear friends, even in extreme political turmoil, our ancestors were not oblivious of science, poetry, knowledge. Even in times of war they cared for the development of spiritual culture. This was Georgian history. To excuse ourselves today from a similar concern by reference to our being engaged in political struggle, with no spare time for science and culture, would indeed amount to a betrayal of our historical traditions.

I wish to illustrate this by the example of the person to whom I am dedicating this lecture and whose service to the Georgian state and nation is incalculable. What is most important, he was himself a paragon of all this, setting up from his capital city, Kutaisi, the great spiritual center of Gelati. The person I refer to should today serve as an example for us, for he combined the struggle with Georgia's foes and the building of the Georgian state with an extensive religious, philosophical, and scholarly activity that is truly astonishing. The man I am speaking of is David the Builder. We have no other example in our history of a king and commander-in-chief being such an outstandingly erudite scholar, as well as a poet arid creator of spiritual culture. And our ideal today too should be such activity. Our great kings followed this tradition not only when Georgia was felicitous, free and powerful but in the dark periods of her history as well. Take the king-poet Vakhtang VI, who was a scholar, commenting on and publishing The Knight in the Panther's Skin. In other words, even in times of extreme historical adversity the interest in scholarship and spiritual culture never cooled down. Neither should we forget this today, when Georgia is swept by the national-liberation movement.. Let us recall how David the Builder during his campaigns, mounted on his horse, carried with him books by Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa, the writings of philosophers, and - fully armed - read them in his ambush, holding his bow in one hand and a pen in the other A case is on record when the enemy all but overrun his hideout and the king slew one of them on the spot.

The situation is almost the same today, when we have to struggle for the freedom of Georgia and revival of her statehood. During this time we must not be oblivious of religion, culture, philosophy, science and scholarship. Only in this way we can be victorious and preserve the image the nation had from prehistoric through historical times. As you know, Colchis was a seat of ancient culture and wisdom. Hellenic culture may be said to have been a superstructure built on Colchian culture, the for-mer arising front the latter. This is seen clearly from the myth of the Argonauts. What is the Golden Fleece? It is a symbol of ancient, mysterious wisdom that had been preserved only in Colchis at the time. Cold is a symbol of the highest spirituality and purity, while the ram is also a symbol of supreme purity of thought, reasoning and culture, and the Golden Fleece is to be found in the country which possesses this wisdom. It is suspended from an oak, the latter being an embodiment of an ancient cult which started in Colchis and then spread worldwide, Greece included. As you know, the cult of the oak occurs in Europe too, and later in Greece. However, it began from Colchis, and the first oak - the first didi chqoni, i.e. "Great Oak" (the designation of the institution of Chqondideli being related to it) was that ancient Colchian oak on which the Golden Fleece was hung and for the acquisition of which the greatest Greek hero Jason had to undergo many stages of. self-development and purification. He did all this in order to acquire the wisdom symbolically embodied in the Golden Fleece. The sages of ancient Greece expressed their purport symbolically or allegorically, never conveying their wisdom directly. Thus, the great oak, the Golden Fleece, and the trials the Greek hero Jason underwent in order to acquire the Golden Fleece are all symbolic. What did he find in Colchis? He found a world of ancient wisdom, prehistoric wisdom - it may be said - the earliest wisdom of mankind. At that time, all this had been lost in Greece, for the country was then at a much lower cultural and developmental level than Colchis. But the fact that Jason was introduced to Colchian mystery, that he was put through certain tests by being confronted with warriors, the dragon and fire-breathing oxen - all this shows that ancient Colchians nurtured Greece, i.e. Hellenic culture.

But the Colchians were only a pad of a large group of other Kartvelian peoples, for at that early time the Georgian ethnos was lo-cated not only in the Caucasus but extended from the Pyrenees to India; this ancient Kartvelian or Iberian race had several distinct branches. These were the world of the Pyrenees, the Mediterranean world, the Minoan world, the Trojan world and Pelasgian world, the last two constituting the primordial population of Hellas or modern Greece.

This was the population found by the Vedic Greeks arriving in Hellas, the culture of the indigenous population being higher than that of the newly arrived Greeks, as expressed in. the myth of Prometheus. Prometheus symbolically embodies the wisdom of the ancient Kartvelian or Pelasgian tribes, which formed a single world, a part of which was Colchis. That is to say, Colchis was not the only seal of this culture: it was a culture - let me re-peal - diffused from the Pyrenees to the Mediterranean and Aegean worlds, and to Asia Minor where later we find the Cappadocian and Meskhian or Moschian tribes mentioned in the Bible.

The alchemists were the ancient sages of the Caucasus, the priests of the mysteries. Guardians of mysterious wisdom, the alchemists brought the practice of that wisdom into the Middle Ages. Alchemy involved the obtaining not only of physical gold but of spiritual gold as well. It had the ideal of the golden stone. This philosophers' stone was the same Golden Fleece, sought in that pagan period by Greek sages and medieval alchemists.- Hermetic alchemists. (It was called the Hermetic way be-cause it stemmed from the wisdom of Hermes Trisgemistus, a legendary author.) The Caucasus was called "the mountain of philosophers" where - in their symbolic language - was located the ore of heavenly faith or the Golden Fleece. In other words, in the Middle Ages the Caucasus was considered a land of heavenly wisdom, for it possessed the ore of heavenly faith. The ore - symbolically, of course - indicated this wisdom, that is to say, the wisdom of ancient Colchian mysteries, or the wisdom of the Golden Fleece. The expedition of the Greeks against Troy - that proto-Kartvelian, proto-Georgian, or Colchian world - had the objective of carrying away the wisdom that the Greeks lacked. This wisdom being symbolically embodied in the Palladium or a statue of Pallas Athena, which was preserved only in Troy, and not to be found in Greece. This is how Georgia, the Georgian world, and the ancient Colchian world were represented in Classical mythos arid poems. As you know, in his wanderings Odysseus comes to visit Circe, the sister of Aeetes, and the son of Circe and Odysseus was Latinus the progenitor of the Latins or Romans. Symbolically, this means that the Latins and Romans too are of semi-Georgian descent, for the Colchian Circe - the aunt of Medea and sister of Acetes - was the mother of Litmus the eponym of the Latins.

Consider too Theseus' visit to the kingdom of Minos in Crete. He slew the monster Minotaur confined in tie labyrinth; and then escaped from the labyrinth with the help of the thread given to him by Ariadne. As is known, Minas was Aeetes' brother in law: Aeetes’ sister Pasiphae was the wife of Minos - a situation that suggests the very close relationship of the various cultures of that period. The ancient Minoan culture, dating from the third millennium B.C., is of the same age as Colchian. The determination of the age of Kutaisi, the seat of Colchian culture, at approximately 3000 years (some mention 2500) is a puerile mistake. Although it is not possible to determine the precise age of Kutaisi, it surely is a much older city and is, in my view, at least 4000 or 5,000 years old. The first name of Kutaisi, as you well know was Aea. The name is symbolic of the culture of mysteries, for the sounds of the word expressed ancient mysteries. In ancient mysteries a sound combination called Aeo expressed definite wisdom and the character of mysteries. Aea was an ancient seat of mysteries or centers of wisdom. The origin of Colchis and its capital should be sought many millennia earlier, whereas the creation of the myth of the Golden Fleece may be said to date from a much later pe-riod, when that wisdom was on the decline and that culture was no longer at its highest level. Of course, it was even then at a much higher level than that of the contemporary Greek culture. In other words, these Colchian mysteries and the city of Aea were already on the wane when Aea was visited by Jason. The two stems - Cut and Aea merged, forming the name Cutaia. Thus, the ancient Colchian capital city appears to have been on this spot.

As you know; the location of Phasis is a subject of much controversy in scholarship. Today it is not possible to. establish its exact location be-cause of the change of the sea. However, archaeological excavations permit us to determine its location near Vani - in the vicinity of Nokalakevi, Vani and Kutaisi. This area was the center of the ancient Colchian culture, and Phasis seems to have been located in this zone rather than near the present-day coastline. This later Phasis was in a different location than the ancient, prehistoric Phasis, the change in lo-cation being the result of the change in the coastline. Authors of the first and second centuries, of course, speak of the Phasis that was situated in the vicinity of modern Poti. An ancient city site has been discovered at the bottom of lake Paliastomi, but the earliest Phasis was approximately to the right of the present railway; the sea must have been to the left of the railway, while land started on its right side. It was in this area that Phasis and other Colchian settlements, the centers of the ancient culture, began. This was the situation in the prehistoric period. As I have noted, the tradition of locating Phasis here continued into the Middle Ages. It was known in the ancient world that Colchis was the land of the Golden Fleece and ancient mysteries, the country of King Aeetes and Medea. She was tile founder of the first mysterious science that served as the basis of medicine. (The word medicine is related to Medea ) Of course, at that time medicine was at the level of treatment with herbs, a treat-ment that had attained its peak precisely here in Colchis.

It was here that the Argonauts found the herb - 'blood of Prometheus' - with which Medea treated the sick; here was the garden or Hecate, the most ancient garden of medicinal plants into which Mdea led the Argonauts and in which she introduced them to the knowledge of the medicinal wisdom that existed in Colchis. And it was precisely from here that this ancient medicinal wisdom spread throughout the world, in the same way as the culture of metallurgy diffused from Colchis arid the Tubals, Kartvelian tribes of Asia Minor, the tradition continuing into the Middle Ages. Thus, just as in the early world there was knowledge of Colchis being the homeland of the primary rnysterious wisdom, so too ii the Middle Ages the Caucasus, as noted above, was called the Mountain of Philosophers- the repository of the ore of heavenly faith and the home-land of the philosophers' stone or Mons philosophorum.

In the Christian movement in Europe, this philosophers' stone was otherwise called the Grail, the two words being semantically identical. Traditionally the Grail is the sacred cup used by the Savior at the Last Supper. The cup had wine in it and taking the cup, He addressed his disciples: "Drink front it, all of you. For this is my Blood, the blood of the covenant, shed for many for the forgiveness of sins" (Matthew. 26:28) Then, according to one tradition, when he raised the cup for his disciples to see, it was not an ordinary cup but one of precious jasper. After the. crucifixion of Christ, his secret disciple, Joseph of Arimathaea, indeed filled that cup with the Saviour's blood. Present at the crucifixion were not only the other disciples and the women-anointers, but also Joseph, referred to in the Gospel as the secret disciple of the Savior. In Georgian frescoes and icons Joseph of Arimathaea is depicted with a cup in his hand (this motif is frequent in our chased art as well), filling it with the Savior’s blood. Subsequently, according to tradition, Joseph of Arirnathaea took the cup to Ireland. Later, in medieval Europe, this cup was traditionally in possession of European knights - the knights of the Round Table and those of the Grail. Following the start of the Crusades, European knights. arriving to Jerusalem, absorbed the Eastern wisdom and thus, these two knowledge - European-Christian and Eastern - had merged.. Approaching the Caucasus as well, the Crusaders established close contacts with David the Builder's Georgia. It was through this relationship that these two wisdom fused: Georgian arid European. It was in the Caucasus, the Mountain of Philosophers, the seat of the ore of heavenly faith, that the two movements merged, as recorded in the Chronicles of the Crusaders and in the work of the twelfth-century German poet Wolfram von Eschenbach.

The Grail, used by the Savior at the Last Supper, was brought to Georgia in the reign of David the Builder, as we learn from Von Eschenbach's poem, in which David the Builder is referred to as King-Priest John. Wolfram von Esehenbach's Parzival is a work in which events are described symbolically, with no real names of countries given. Instead of direct reference to countries, we have legendary or mythical lands figuring in the poem. Georgia is, of course, not mentioned directly, but it is suggested as a country adjoining the Caucasus Range. Here is the beginning of spiritual wisdom, the beginning of everything that later developed in Europe and in the world at large. It is also indicated in the poem that it is here that the Grail is - this highest symbol of Christianity - in this country over which King-Priest John reigns combining king and priest in his person.What does the combination of king and priest mean? Let us recall David the Builder holding a church in his hand in the Gelati fresco: Why is he holding a church in his hand? Because he was an equally great statesman as he was a church-man; he was an equally great king as he was a theologian. Although we have no official evidence of his ecclesiastical rank (this seems to have been kept secret), that he had such rank is intimated in the Crusaders' Chronicles, where he is called King-Priest John. In those days there existed a tradition of secret priesthood and monkhood. Kings often became monks in secret, assuming confidential names. David the Builder appears to have had such a name, for the Crusaders unanimously refer to him as John and King-Priest John. The implication is that he was both a mainstay of religion and of the state and the political life of Georgia, combining these two principles in himself.

But David the Builder had a preceptor- a leading personality - so to speak, father of the king and of the state. That was the Bishop of Chqondidi. Why was his name given to the institution uniting ecclesiastical and political power, the institution that was actually the supreme authority in the Georgia of the period? To be sure the king was an absolute monarch, but the Chqondideli was the symbol of supreme authority, hence the saying at the Court that the Chqondideli was the king’s father, and the same appellation is used in reference to him by the historian of David the Builder. This much we know from history, and that is why in Christian Georgia this institution was given the name Chqondidi, i.e. the name of the cult of the 'great oak' (chqoni meaning 'oak') and didi ('great'), This was because in ancient Georgia - that is Colchi's - the worship of this great oak had survived, while in the Christian period the name was given to an eparchy. The name 'Chqondideli' was preserved to express the traditional unity existing between the wisdom of the pagan period and that of the Christian era. This unity might have been given the name of Martvili or some other Christian name, but Chqondideli was retained. Priority was given to this name, I believe, to indicate the importance of David the Builder's role in the coming together of the two wisdom. It does not indicate the superiority of pagan wisdom. But it does indicate the key role David the Builder personally played in the merger. He is depicted in the Gelati fresco upholding a church. No other king was accorded this honor, as a glance at the royal images in frescoes will show You cannot find a single other Georgian king holding a church in his hand, because we have had no other king who combined in his person Church and secular wisdom. And it was at Gelati that this merger took place - the merging of the ancient wisdom given in the myth of the Golden Fleece and the history of Colchis with biblical and Christian wisdom.

I linked this lecture to Gelati to let the residents of Kutaisi know what city they are living in and what place Gelati is. I can state with full re-sponsibility that the world has not had a similar center of medieval wis-dom and education, and this is recognized not only by Georgian scholars but by foreigners as well. I shall read to you the unprecedented view of the greatest modern Russian scholar, Academician Losev, on Gelati and Georgian Neoplatonism. This aged man visited Gelati, at which time I met him for a talk, and he later published an article in a Georgian journal. I want to introduce you to it, but, before I do, let me tell you that there was nowhere in Europe a cultural seat like Gelati, not even in Byzantium. There was at that time in Europe the Platonic Academy in Chartres which was comparable to Gelati, but neither that Academy nor any other seat of culture in that epoch could boast of a philosopher of the calibre of Ioane Petritsi. Here is what David the Builder's historian has to say:

"In that place he assembled men of upright life adorned with every virtue,. not only those who could be found in his own kingdom: whenever he heard about someone of special piety and goodness, with perfection and abundance of spiritual and bodily virtues, in any part of the world, he sought that person out, made extensive inquires and had him brought to that place and allowed him to settle there… They were assured of a living free from want. Indeed. there is now a second Jerusalem of all the East for learning of all that is of value, for the teaching of knowledge - a second Athens, far excelling the first in divine law." (Kartlis Tskhovreba, vol. 1, pp. 33O-331)

In short, Gelati was the kind of religious and spiritual center that Jerusalem was in Christian culture, and, in addition, it was a seat of Classical Greek wisdom, similar to the Greek capital Athens but far ex-celling it because the pagan wisdom was enriched by the wisdom of Christianity. In other words Gelati was Athens at Christian level.

What was taught at Gelati and wherein lay the greatness of this cul-tural centre? As you know, mediaeval - particularly Western - Christian-ity obscured everything that was humanistic, being opposed to whatever was thought to be worldly; only the divine side was pushed to the fore, while humanistic wisdom was relegated to the background. Classical wis-dom was generally declared unlawful, though the great Christian Fa-thers, e.g. Basil the Great, insisted on the study of Classical wisdom, saying that wisdom that could help in the salvation of the soul could be gleaned from ancient books too. Justin the philosopher, the first Chris-tian Father, said that Socrates and Plato were the same servants of Logos or Christ as were the Fathers. However, since these early Greek philosophers lived in the pagan period, they had only a partial opportu-nity to serve Logos. Justin's view was opposed by the Byzantine Church, but at the time of the emergence of Gelati, this opposition had already been overcome in Byzantium and the interest in ancient Greek wisdom or philosophy was so great that the dogmatic representatives of the Church were unable to suppress it. But although the study of Classical philosophy had commenced in Byzantine theological academies, the level of such study at Gelati was much higher than in Byzantium and Europe, for the whole or Classical Greek wisdom was taught here, as seen in Petritsi's works.

And it was not only ancient Greek wisdom that was revived here but also Chaldean, Egyptian, and that of all the other cultural seats of the ancient world. The philosophers at Gelati integrated all this organically into Christianity and the Bible. For them biblical wisdom was insepara-ble from ancient Greek wisdom. This is why this "new Athens far excelled the first", as stated by David the Builder's historian.

Now I shall quote Academician Losev's words on Gelati.

"Georgian Neoplatonism is anthropocentric. Here man is the basis of everything, but there is a great difference between Georgian Neoplatonism and German Neoplatonism - between Eastern and Western Neoplatonism. The Neoplatonism followed by the representatives of the Georgian Renaissance* - Ioane Petritsi and Rustaveli - is anthropocentric. However, it is an anthropocentrism that does not abolish respect for nature - the nature worshipped by the ancients, particularly. the stars and their regular revolution. This anthropocentrism does not destroy nature, as was the case in the West, nature became enriched by man coming to it with his subjective needs and by turning into personality desirous of sensing and reshaping everything. Individual studies of Neoplatonism had been carried out but none with such a deep insight into this philosophical teaching.".(*and, by the way. Losev shares Acad. Shalva Nutsubidze’s views that the Renaissance commenced in Georgia much earlier than in Europe - at the end of the eleventh century instead of, as in Europe, the end of the 13th century)

I shall now speak at length about the disciplines taught at Gelati Academy and about why we can assert that this seat of wisdom and scholarship was unique in the medieval world. Here the seven liberal arts consisting of trivium and quadrivium, were taught, just as they were in the rest of the medieval world, including Byzantium and Western Europe. Ieurope. The trivium consisted of grammar, rhetoric, and logic; the quadrivium - of arithmetic, music, geometry, and astronomy. These branches of knowledge were taught at Gelati at a level unsurpassed any-where else. This was due to the fact that the great and wise king David the Builder brought together the greatest scholars and sages of the time and appointed Ioane Petritsi - that luminary of world philosophy and science - as their teacher. Incidentally, when Acad. Losev visited Tbilisi in my conversation with him I expressed my great admiration and re-spect for the Russian philosopher Solovyov. He was a great nineteenth century Orthodox Christian philosopher and theologian, unequaled in his day. Losev smiled and said: Why do you talk about him when you have Petritsi in your background? I was fully conscious of Petritsi' greatness but refrained from comment out of politeness. It was Losev who took the initiative, saying that the day before he had visited the Academy at Gelati where he had knelt and prayed (incidentally, he was a profoundly religious man) to the reverend Father Ioane to intercede for -him. He had come to Gelati specifically to pray to the soul of Ioane Petritsi and to see the place where that great man had flourished. By the way, the publication in Russian of Proclus' Elements with Petritsi' commentaries is credited to Acad. Losev. Unfortunately, the translation is not without flaws, but this can be remedied. It should be said, however, that study of Petritsi has barely commenced, for he can be likened to a great sphinx into whose world we have so far gained but little insight. Regrettably, at this time we have not yet determined the purport of some of Petritsi's terms or statements, and not yet risen to his level of thinking.

The seven liberal arts were taught here then as they were in other schools at that time. But in the Academy an emphasis was given to the human personality and its faculties that was quite unlike the practice elsewhere. Medieval scholastic Christianity typically focused only or God and was oblivious to the human personality. In a sense, medieval Scholasticism tended toward Monophysitism. But interest in God alone is not full Christianity; since complete Christianity calls for the union of God and man, for our Savior Jesus Christ was not only God but God and man. Both sides are essential to Christian wisdom and both were give due attention in Gelati. This approach results in genuine, Dyophysitism a way of thinking that considers the divine and human as an harmonious whole.

The emphasis given at this academy to the human personality is testified to by the presence of the great Rustaveli - as great, it may be said, as Petritsi. The human .personality is central to Rustaveli. In fact, in that the emphasis on the human personality and human wisdom is the essence of the Renaissance, one can argue that the Renaissance began precisely here with Rustaveli and Petritsi, and developed in Europe only later.

Not only were the seven liberal arts taught, under the direction of Petrilsi, in the context of harmonic study of God and man but another element was added: a study of the universe. Just as the cognition of God and man are indivisible, so are these inseparable from a cognition of the universe. A study of the universe, which, as you know, really be-gan in Europe only in the 16th - 17th centuries, flourished at Gelati in the 12th century. Petritsi's works exhibit a high level of study of the uni-verse and of the stars. Petritsi also speaks of the wisdom of the Chaldeans and of Abraham, which was stellar wisdom. Setting the Gelati Academy the task of studying this wisdom, he states that Chaldean wis-dom does not contradict the Bible, for the Bible - especially in the Psalms - refers to celestial bodies that are endowed with reason and soul, and that the "sun recognized its time of setting", and that if it rec-ognized the time of its setting it would not lack knowledge of its rise. In other words, the sun and the stars are intelligent beings. This does not contradict Christian, biblical wisdom. Petritsi quotes from the Psalms: "The heavens tell out the glory of God" (19) against those who believed (apparently for certain dogmatic reasons) that astrology or stellar wis-dom was unacceptable and should be rejected. To be sure, astrology was unacceptable to Christianity, but astrosophy or stellar wisdom was legalized in Georgia and Christianity did not oppose it. Father Ioane was not only a philosopher and teacher but also a preceptor, ecclesiastic, and a dogmatic Christian, in the best sense of the term. Dogmatism should not be taken inevitably as something negative. There can be a narrow dogmatism, but respect for dogma is not a negative phenomenon, and Petritsi's dogmatism was certainly not negative. He used it in his role as teacher, to reconcile human and divine wisdom, calling at the same time for the study of the Classical world and its mythology and wisdom in or-der to integrate mankind's wisdom. Here are several passages from Petritsi's works that illustrate his willingness to use in his studies all as-pects of human and divine knowledge. In one of his commentaries Petritsi speaks of ancient Greek, or Orphic, mysteries. The word Orphic is derived from the name Orpheus. And who is Orpheus? He is an ancient Greek hero closely related to ancient Colchis, that is, to ancient Georgia or the Kartvelian world.

But before I say more about Orpheus and his role in Petritsi's inte-gration of all parts of human knowledge, let me point out a fact that the scholarly community is not well aware of: - that the ancient Greek culture, mythology, and mysteries presumably derived from the proto-Greek or Pelasgian world was in reality a product of the Kartvelian world. The gods of the ancient Greek pantheon were the same as the gods of Kartvelian or Pelasgian provenance, and all ancient Greek heroes are related to prehistoric Georgia. Heracles was connected with prehistoric. Iberia; he goes to the Pyrenees to bring back the apples from the garden of the Hesperides, this being the symbol of supreme wisdom. Theseus goes to the selfsame Kartvelian world - that of Minos in Crete - in order to gain possession of that wisdom in the form of the labyrinth. Jason and other Greek heroes come to Colchis to gain this wisdom.

Now Orpheus is another Greek hero closely associated with ancient Colchis, also called Egros. The father of Orpheus is referred to as Egros or Egri. Orpheus' purpose was to revive that ancient Pelasgian or proto--Georgian wisdom, to convey it to Greece and to integrate it with the more primitive Greek culture. Hence this great artist of antiquity appealed to Petritsi who advocated the merger of Orphic and Christian wisdom. Petritsi used 'my Orpheus' in reference to the Apostle Paul. At that time such a reference was shocking because of the condemnation of everything pagan by the Church. However, such great ecclesiastics as Petritsi managed to revive Classical, pagan wisdom and adapt it to Christianity, in the same way as they sought to adapt the pagan philoso-phy of Neoplatonism to Christianity and to give it a Christian interpre-tation. In speaking of the benefit to Christians of praying for example, Petrilsi associates Orpheus with Christ: "Now let us speak of this spiri-tual organ (i.e. prayer), for from it stems the Orphic book and the good conveyed in it, coming from the super-powerful (mind) as it were". In other words, Petritsi stresses the great good to be found in Orpheus' book.

Let me give you another example of Petritsi's practice of relating the Classical, pagan world to Christianity. In considering the Divine Spirit's choice of Iese's son David to be the creator of the Psalter, Petritsi writes "And in this man and king he excited the musical power of his strings so as to adorn the path of souls to the father of souls in this book". Then he goes on to mention the "supreme wisdom" of Abraham and the Chaldeans. Finally, says he, the Apostle Paul, the preceptor of our Church, preached "the Divine wisdom hidden in mystery - the wisdom ordained by God from the beginning for our eternal glory, and which none of the rulers of the world had perceived." . In other words, according to Paul, this wisdom existed from the beginning of the world, but it was hidden. Far front rejecting this wisdom, one should revive it. This original wisdom is found riot only in the Old Testament but Classical pagan wisdom, Orphism, the teaching of the Chaldeans, Platonism, and Neoplatonism. Paul, says Petrilsi, "illumines these intelligent towers with a single light." We can also add that the Gelati Academy, and preeminently the person of Petritsi, shed great light upon the wisdom of the ancients and performed a great service in uniting it with Christian wisdom.

Now, how does Petritsi use the names and characters of Classical mythos? As noted above, his purpose was to create wisdom about man, and this wisdom is presented not in the dry terms employed in modern science, i.e. in figures and formulae, but in mythological names or corre-spondences. Petritsi points out the need for the disciplines taught to prove the existence of God and of the Trinity. In those times geometry was not studied in the same way as we study it today, - dryly, by for-mulae and drawings. For Petritsi the purpose of geometry was to prove the existence of God. How did geometry achieve this? Petritsi cites the example of the sphere which has three elements: center, radius and circumference. The center is God the Father, the radius is the Son, and the circle is the Holy Spirit. In actuality, this entire sphere is a unity of this Trinitv. That is why it is said that the Tnnity is one, of single essence, even though it has three elements. The Trinity is not three Gods but one, appearing in different modes or hypostases. Thus does geometry prove the existence of the Trinity, for space does not exist without a center, nor does the extension of a point exist without a radius; neither does space exist without the volume of this sphere. Trinity is that which is given in the relationship of the center, radius, and circle. This suggests that the world has a beginning, that this beginning is threefold, and that the Trinity is the basis of the world. Were the ma-terialist and atheist assertion true, there would exist neither the center, nor the radius, or the sphere, arid all would be nothingness.

How was arithmetic taught in Gelati? Not by dry addition and sub-traction, Are the first three figures the basis of all other numbers? Imagine a figure, a possible figure in the world, that does not involve one, two, and three. Is not one the basis of everything, and two derived from it? From two is derived three, and from three are derived all the numbers. That is to say, the entire universe of numbers is derived from these three elements, one, two, and three. In the same way are all things derived from the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Trinity here is one, two, and three, as the basis of all numbers or of the world. Today's sci-ence - physics and mathematics - has arrived at the conclusion that only numbers are real in the world, that the entire constellation - the planets and galaxies - can be expressed numerically. Everything has its number, every atom has its number, the whole composition of matter, of the uni-verse is a number, and the only reality is number. Everything else may disappear - matter, the universe, the galaxy - but number will never dis-appear; it cannot disappear because number is eternal. The first three numbers are the eternal principle, and this is the Trinity. The arithmeti-cal or mathematical exposition of the Trinity and its role in the creation of the universe is the basis of Petritsian arithmetic.

How was music taught at Gelati Academy? Petritsi mentions three voices: "mzakh", "zhir" and "bam". "Zhir" is an ancient Colchian root denoting two or the second voice. In old Georgian the second voice in music was called zhir. The first voice mzakh, and the third bam or ban. Can there be a music without three voices or parts? These three voices form the ba-sis of all music. Thus, what is in geometry the point, radius and circle, or in arithmetic the numbers 1, 2, and 3, is in music the three voices or parts: rnzakh, zhir, and bam, this serving to prove that the Trinity is the basis of music too. Thus, these three sciences suggest the existence of God.

Further, Petritsi tells us how grammar relates to the existence of God. Incidentally, grammar was not taught then as it is today, i.e. as a series of grammatical laws and rules. Its study dealt with the depth of the word - its primary meaning or essence. Grammar embraced everything that can be related to word and speech, the Divine word being the primary basis of everything. Every word - like every number - has its basis or primary word. All words were born of the first word, and it was this first word that emerges, according to the Gospel of St. John, as Christ, the Word, God, '"When all things began, the Word already was. The Word dwelt with God, and what God was, the Word was" (John, 1.1-2). It was this that Grammar argued.

What did philosophy or dialectic seek to prove? Again and again the existence of God. What was the ultimate purpose of rhetoric? To demonstrate the exis-tence of Cod and to arouse in man the divine principle and spark. And finally, the most important branch of learning - astronomy. Its purpose was not the creation of a dry mathematical study but of a spiri-tual one. It was actually not astronomy but astrosophy. You all re-member that in The Knight in the Panther's Skin Rustaveli addresses the heavenly bodies as living beings, that in his letters Avtandil (hero of this poem) speaks to the planets as alive creatures or souls that must help him on the road of life. He addresses the sun as the supreme luminary - however, it is not the sun visible to the eye but the spiritual sun, i.e. Christ who is the creator of the world and the beginning of everything. This was the kind of astronomy that was taught in Gelati in that period. Through the exis-tence of the planets it demonstrated the existence of God, arguing that this vast intelligent world or cosmos cannot be irrational and devoid of a guide; it must have a rational basis, and be ruled by intelligence. This was the purpose of the study of astronomy in Gelati.

Much more could be said about the wisdom that flourished in Gelati and, as I have said, this had no precedent. Neither did the world at that time have a monarch to match David the Builder in education, knowledge and erudition. The fact that he combined in himself two supreme authorities - ecclesiastical and secular - also makes him stand out from other rulers. In Western Europe of his time we find monarchs who were barely literate. The single exception was the English King Alfred the Great, who alone is at all comparable to David the Builder. Alfred too was a scholar and translator, but as a thinker, philosopher and commentator of Scripture he was certainly not on a par with David.

All this was reflected, as I have said, in the Chronicles of the Cru-sades and in Western romances of the period, in which works David the Builder is referred to as King-Priest John. The bringing of the Grail to Georgia is a fact and I assume Gelati must have been where it was brought to rest, When the scaffoldings are removed after this current renovation is completed, you may go up and see that each mural ensemble is connected with that cup. The archangels hold the cup; the apostles hold the cup, and all the motifs seem connected with this cup. Christ, held by the Mother of God, has a cup drawn on his forehead. This is precisely the Grail; it is a representation of the cup which was doubtless brought here, as indicated in Western romances and the Chronicles of the Crusades. The presence of the cup here points to Gelati as the principal center of Christian culture in the Middle Ages. It was a major seat of Church and secular education. Let me repeat that Church and secular were not separated, so that here one received both secular and theological knowledge - as a harmonious whole. This is what I wished to tell you about Gelati.

A LECTURE DELIVERED AT THE IDRIART FESTIVAL
IN TBILISI PHILHARMONIC HOUSE 2 MAY, 1990


Dear friends: As it is quite impossible to do justice to such a complex theme in a single lecture, my address will inevitably be in the nature of an overview. I shall try to give a general outline of the problems upon which I and my friends have reflected over the past years, I shall also touch upon the results of separate studies carried out in Georgia as well as in the West.

The plan of the lecture will be as follows: I shall first speak about the ethnogeny of the Georgians. As I am aware that our Western guests are particularly interested in this topic, I shall treat of such aspects that may not be known to them and are given scant attention in present-day Western scholarship. Furthermore, during the long period of Soviet ideological dictatorship much in the history of Georgian culture has been hushed, distorted, and tabooed. This field of knowledge had been placed under a kind of ban, which regrettably, continues to the present day for it is not so easy to shake oneself free of the effects of the hypnosis of that notorious period. Many issues have been falsified and usurped by Soviet imperial scholarship and subjected to its interests. Unfortunately, Georgian scholars too have come under this influence. I do not want to name them personally; they still do not dare to carry on research along lines that would shed light on these issues. All this was being done with momentous and far-reaching objectives in mind. In this connection, a major campaign was launched against the Georgian scholars Ivane Javakhishvili and Niko Marr. The studies of such major scholars as Wil-helm Humboldt and others in the sphere of the ethnogeny of the Iberi-ans were shelved. This was being done with the purpose of instilling an inferiority complex in the Georgian nation. Soviet scholarship, particularly the classics of Marxism-Leninism founded a theory (see Stalin's theory in this connection) according to which the Georgian nation allegedly took shape in the nineteenth century; prior to the indicated period - this theory would have us believe - it was neither a nation nor did it exist; the advent of capitalism in Georgia in the past century determined according to this theory, the development of the Georgian people into a nation. This is a Marxist theory which prevails to the present day and which some of our scholars cannot get rid of, continuing to labor under it. All this had far-reaching implications.

What is the actual situation with regard to the Georgian ethnogeny? In the twentieth century, the leading Georgian scholars Acad. Ivane Javakhishvili and N. Marr made a study of the genetic roots of the Georgian nation, but their conclusions were bitterly opposed by orthodox Soviet scholarship. At the same time, as noted above, the studies, of the great German scholar Wilhelm Humboldt were passed over in silence. Wherein lay the essence of these studies, why have they been taboo to the present day, and why is modern ethnological and linguistic research not developing in this direction?

To begin with, Humboldt's research into the Basque language and the ancient population of the Iberian peninsula led him to the conclusion that the primary, autochthonous population of Southern Europe, viz. the Iberian peninsula, Italy, and the Mediterranean islands, was Iberian. This population was called proto-Iberian, the later European population stemming from it. The term Mediterranean race (or people) is also used in scholarship. In order to refer to the people of the Caucasian race use is also made of the terms palaeo-Caucasian or ancient Caucasian race and ancient-Mediterranean race, the terms being interchangeable. I am referring to the population diffused from the Iberian peninsula, into the Mediterranean and Aegean basins, the Balkans, into modern Greece, the Caucasus, and the territory of modern India as well as into Asia Minor and Palestine. This is the area of diffusion of the proto-Iberian people which, according to Humboldt, had many offshoots. These people had a single basic language with many dialectal branches, and even if these di-alects assumed the character of separate languages, they remained kin-dred and developed as mutually related languages. That is why the term proto-Iberian gained currency, to which - as I have just said - the an-cient population of the Iberian peninsula and Italy, in particular, Basque, Lusitanian, Etruscan, Pelasgian, etc. is linked. Further, Marr studied the language of the Sumerians, the ancient Iberian tribes of Asia Minor and Mesopotamia, while the eminent Georgian scholar Mikheil Tsereteli re-searched the genetic relationship of Sumerian and modern Georgian.

Marr's studies, as well as those carried out by objective representa-tives of Armenian scholars (e.g. Ghapantsian), have shown that a con-siderable part of the Asia Minor population belonged to the proto-Iberian race, represented by the Meskhians or Moschoi, Cappadocians, Colchi-ans, Taochoi, and others. Thus, there are different branches of one and the same people referred to in scholarship as Kartvelian or proto-Iberian while Georgia or the Georgian nation proper - located in the Caucasus - is linked to - the Iberian-Caucasian branch. Of the numerous branches of Iberian, at present Pyrenean (Spanish) Iberian or Basque and Caucasian Iberian or Georgian (with its related tribes in the Northern Caucasus) have survived. The rest have already been assimilated into the Indo-Eu-ropean part of mankind. The Indo-Europeans seem to have arrived in Europe later, viz. after the second millennium B.C., whereas the proto--Iberian or palaeo-Mediterranean and palaeo-Caucasian population is be-lieved to have been on the upgrade from earliest times to the third mil-lennium B.C. The decline of these people, i. e. their numerical diminishment and assimilation by the newly arriving Indo-Europeans, commenced in the third millennium.

From this lime and later, the Hittite and Ancient Greek or Hellenic worlds come to the fore. But there oc-curred a synthesis of cultures: the primary cultures of Minos, the Aegean cultures, and Colchian (Ancient Colchian) cultures, the latter being closely connected with Minoan, became linked to the Mediterranean or proto-Iberian people. Subsequently - from the second millennium B.C. - the Hittite world, which was already Indo-European, began to advance to the foreground, along with the ancient Greek world, stemming from the Vedic Greek tribe that had come to the territory on which later arose the ancient Greek world with its culture. On the basis of the evidence of Greek historians the primordial populalion of ancient Greece is defined as Pelasgic or proto-Iberian. The Pelasgians formed a branch of the proto-Iberians, similarly to the Etruscans, the Colchians, and other peo-ples. The Colchian, Pelasgian, Trojan, and Minoan were closely related worlds, and for practical purposes of study can be considered as consti-tuting one single world, a world reflected in the great epic of Homer. Modern scholarship's serious studies of this civilization have not been given adequate publicity. In the West, the well-known scholar Furnee is engaged in research along these lines; he has published a significant study of pre-Greek, or Pelasgic and Kartvelian. In Georgia, Professor Rismag Gordeziani is doing fruitful work in this direction; he too has made important inferences in studying the ethnogeny of the tribes men-tioned in the Iliad, as. well as the role of Kartvelian or proto-Georgian tribes in the Trojan War. Light has been shed in his studies on the ge-netic relation of the Georgian language to Etruscan and of Kartvelian tribes to the Lycians, Carians, and the entire world of Asia Minor and the Aegean - primarily to Troy. The Trojan world was older than the Hellenic, for the Greeks fought in Troy in order to secure the sacred, mysterious wisdom of the Palladium. Troy is the same Colchian world, for in the dispute of the Achaeans with the Trojans the latter explain the abduction of Helen as a kind of revenge for the earlier carrying off of Medea by the Achaeans. The Trojans remonstrate with the Achaeans saying that inasmuch as earlier they had been deprived of a woman i.e. Medea, now Helen had been carried off in retaliation; thus, The Colchians appear in the role of the abductors. The Trojans and the Colchians are a people of the same stock as that which constitutes the population of the entire Mediterranean Basin and the bulk of the popu-lation of Asia Minor. Such are the far-reaching findings of modern schol-arship but, as noted above, all this is passed over in silence and instead the role of the Indo-Europeans in that archaic period is being boosted. Yet, as is known, the Indo-European people largely gained ascendancy from the second millennium, and the Trojan War, described in the Illiad, actually occurred at a time when the Indo-Europeans had already gained the upper hand both in Asia Minor and in Greece, while the Pelasgian people were threatened with a decline, though Achilles, the greatest hero of the Trojan War, is of Pelasgic origin, i.e. a representative of the Kartvelian people, while Agamemnon and Menelaus are of purely Hel-lenic extraction, representing the Hellenic world. Here we are dealing with an obvious conflict between the Hellenic and proto-Georgian worlds: Troy is the proto-Georgian world, whereas the Achaeans represent its Hellenic counterpart. One of the main objectives of the campaign1 one that stands out in the conflict, is to carry off the Palladium, which is symbolically effected through the Trojan horse. True, symbolically we here have the motif of the abduction of a woman, but Helen is the sym-bol of the ancient pagan Sophia (the abduction of Wisdom or Sophia, and its subsequent retrieval is a widespread motif in classical poems), while the horse is known to have been the symbol of intelligence in ancient epic poetry and myths. The Achaean Greek mission of developing intelligence was already a new stage of consciousness, while ancient Colchian, Trojan, Pelasgic culture was a clairvoyant one which preceded intellectual, reasoning culture. Ancient Greek myths was in reality not Greek but Pelasgic, as noted by the eminent German philosopher Schelling, who defined the Pelasgic period in the development of Greece as Sabism, i.e. the period of clairvoyant wisdom. From Greek mythology of the subsequent period we learn that Perseus and other heroes transferred the clairvoyant, Pelasgic culture to a reasoning culture, viz. intellectual, Greek culture.

The Promethean myth is also related to the foregoing. who was Prometheus? Generally speaking, mythos and mythology are not identi-cal notions. Mythos is the universe of myths, while mythology is the in-terpretation, meaning, or logos of this universe of myths, i.e. the logos or reason of mythos. Thus, the Greek myths were created by the Pelas-gians while the Hellenes systematized and interpreted them. Homer and Hesiod were not the creators of Greek myths but the systematizers and interpreters of the mythos of the Pelasgic period. They were mythologiz-ers while the names of the mythographers of the Pelasgic period have not come down to us, but the gods - personages of mythos - have sur-vived The principal gods of the ancient Greek pantheon are of Pelasgic origin, including Zeus. A Pelasgic chthonic Zeus whose cult is connected with the oak is known to have existed; Hera was an ancient Pelasgic--Iberian goddess, also Demeter, in connection with whose stem Acad. I. Javakhishvili pointed out that the stem de is absolutely alien to the an-cient Greek language. To be sure, meter does mean mother, but de is a stem of purely Iberian origin, de or deda denoting mother-goddess. Thus, Demeter is the image in which the ancient Colchian or Pelasgian mother-goddess became fused with the ancient Greek goddess. This is how the ancient Greek pantheon became grafted, as it were, on the proto-Georgian, proto-Iberian, or Pelasgic pantheon.

To return to Prometheus, the myth of Prometheus is most important from the viewpoint of the evolution of humankind as well as of the ethnogeny of the Georgians, for the myth in question is known to be linked to the Caucasus, and hence it is not fortuitous that the basic de-velopments of the Creek mythos are connected with the Caucasus. Let us recall the expedition of the Argonauts and the chaining of Prometheus to the Caucasus Range - both major events in Creek mythology. The mis-sion of the personages of mythos - their spiritual identity - was always defined by their names. The names of the personages of mythos (as you are aware, myths were created in ancient mysteries by the priests, devotes, and adepts), as well as the names of gods, demigods, titans, and heroes were directly related to their essential function. Thus, Prometheus [Pro-metheia, pro-metheo] in Greek means prophetic thinking, foresight, forethought, while Epimetheus, his brother's name, means deliberative thinking or afterthought: What does Prometheus stand for? He is a representative of the mankind that must develop prophetic or intuitive thinking, while Epimetheus is to develop reasoning or intellec-tual thought. Prometheus is the son of Iapetus. The latter name is de-fined by Zeno of Rica as the upper spiritual world - Iapetus, i.e. what strives upward, to the spiritual world.

Thus, Prometheus is the son of the upper or spiritual world, in other words, of prophetic thinking. As observed by Plutarch, ancient Greeck myths - as well as all myths in general - could be interpreted at twelve different levels. One of the prin-cipal interpretations of the Prometheus myths in the evolution of mankind is the stage at which thinking becomes chained to man’s physi-cal body with the descent of his soul into it, thus becoming trapped in this physical body. Now, the liberation of Prometheus who is chained to the Caucasus is the liberation of this thinking from the bodily principle. The liberated Prometheus is liberated prophetic thinking, while the chained Prometheus is thinking chained to man's physical body. This is the stage in mankind's evolution known as sinking of human essence or soul into the physical body; subsequently, the soul is liber-ated from matter. This is one - the spiritual, philosophical - aspect of the Prometheus myth.

The second aspect is ethnological, namely that Prometheus is the symbol of the ethnos or people that is to develop a culture of mysteries, with all its consequences; viz. of spiritual development , initiation and spiritual thinking. Such is this people, whereas Zeus - viewed from this angle - embodies a people that came to Greece later, established its cult by force, and chained Prometheus to the Caucasus; What was the cause of this punishment? It was the meeting of the representatives of two cultures or peoples in Corinth, one aligned to Prometheus, and the other to Zeus. This was a symbolic reflection of the coming together of two cultures or peoples one was the indigenous, primordial Creek popu-lation and the other, newly come, Indo-European or Hellenic. At this meeting, Prometheus and his attendant priests cheat Zeus and his friends in sharing the sacrificial ox. The deception of Zeus’ priests was made possible because the intellect and thinking of Prometheus' priests were more advanced. It is symbolic of the superior intellectual development of the indigenous people: in other words. Pelasgic culture that the newly come Indo-Europeans found in Greece was superior to theirs. The cul-ture of thought was correspondingly higher; subsequently the Indo-Eu-ropeans raised the Greek culture of thought to the highest stage of de-velopment. However, this was still the period of the first confrontation of the two peoples, when Prometheus' priests divide the ox in such a way that the bones and fat fall to Zeus, and the best parts of the animal to themselves. This too is symbolic, for there we are dealing with a dual in-terpretation of the offering, Zeus' priests pretending to have deliberately allowed themselves to be cheated. Then Zeus addresses Prometheus:

- The son of Iapetus, the noblest of all rulers, the greatest seer of the future, friend, why did you share the ox thus?

Zeus is late in perceiving what Prometheus has done. Having under-stood Prometheus' quality, Zeus refuses to give fire to mankind and chains Prometheus to the Caucasus as a punishment for his hav-ing provided men with it. Here fire is a symbol of man's self. As you know, among the four elements (fire, water, earth and air) it is fire that corresponds to man's self or identity. Zeus' refusal to give mankind its identity, which it therefore lacks, and Prometheus' provision of men with fire, i.e. their identity, reflects a definite stage in the development of mysterious culture when men received the self by descending into the physical body; now the chaining of Prometheus is precisely the stage at which man's soul and his self descend from the spiritual world into the physical body and man becomes aware of his self. (Incidentally, the burial of the Titans in Tartarus following their struggle with the gods has the same implication). This is the consequence of Prometheus' provi-sion of mankind with fire, for all culture comes from self, in the same way as civilization follows from the use of fire. We learn from such sym-bols that Prometheus reflects the culture of mysteries that was primor-dial in ancient Greece and later became located in the Caucasus. which is reflected symbolically in the chaining of Prometheus to the Caucasus.

Prometheus is tormented by Zeus' eagle. On the one hand, the eagle is a symbol of spiritual flight upward and cognition, and on the other, it symbolizes imperial power and violence that torments Prometheus. Prometheus chained to a rock, or thought chained to the physical body, was released by Heracles.

What does Heracles represent? He represents a new culture of initia-tion - volitional, heroic initiation - a prototype of Christian initiation. In general, the ancient Greek mysteries were prophetic in character. The central mysteries of ancient Greece were mysteries of "Eloizis". This is an ancient Greek word and means a future event, what is to come to pass, prophecy. The image of Heracles is a prototype of Christian initia-tion, linked to volition, the activity of the soul and particularly to what is called taking of the Kingdom of Heaven by force in Christianity, for the essence of the Christian initiation is interpreted by Christ as the taking of the Kingdom of Heaven by force ("The Kingdom of Heaven is taken by the power of will"). Thus the feats of Heracles should be understood symbolically as the various stages of initiation of the different levels of spiritual development, culminating in the liberation of Prometheus, or the liberation of thought from the captivity of the physical body, and the redemption of mankind.

The foregoing interpretation of myths has ethnological implications, mythology and ethnology being closely related. The myths suggest the liberation of the people that had been chained or relegated to the Cau-casus by Zeus or an Indo-European people. Thu the past and the future of the proto-Georgian or proto-Iberian people found reflection in the myth of Prometheus. Heracles - as already observed - is a symbolic ex-pression of a new initiatory culture, viz. Christian culture, and by the way, this is so not only in modern spiritual science but in medieval the-ology as well. Even in Byzantine theology we come across writings hinting at Heracles being a prototype of Christ. For example, Heracles' causing water to gush from a rock with his wand is considered a proto-type of Christianity. The voyage of the Argonauts is also a prototype of Christian initiation; nor is it accidental that the Golden Fleece is re-ferred to in spiritual science as the classical Grail. The Golden Fleece in the Classical period was the same as the Grail and the philosophers' stone in the Middle Ages, the two being identical notions. Search for the philosophers’ stone is not only a search for physical gold but also a search for spiritual initiation for god, and for a definite developmental level of spiritual consciousness conveyed in Classical Greek mysteries as a quest for the Golden Fleece. The latter, as you are well aware, was preserved in Colchis, the golden ram having flown to Colchis from Greece/ But this was a period when Pelasgic culture was flourishing in Greece, namely the Pelasgic culture of Argos. It is not fortuitous that the ship was called Argo, for the. stem of the word is of Colchian provenance; note the Georgian place names Argo, Argveti, Egrisi, containing the Colchian stem gr. The expedition to Colchis was symbolically or imagi-nativelv undertaken in quest of mysterious wisdom which at the time was preserved in Colchis alone, no longer existing in the territory of Greece or in the countries of the Mediterranean basin. Consider also Theseus' travel to Crete - again to acquire the wisdom that no longer existed in Classical Greece.

Note that the greatest heroes of Greece, Theseus, Heracles, and Jason (incidentally, Heracles too was on board the Argo), set out in quest of spiritual or mysterious wisdom in countries of proto-Georgian, proto--Iberian origin. Minoan Crete was one such country (incidentally Minos means a bearer of reason, a thinker); Theseus' arrival in Crete, his en-trance of the labyrinth; slaying of the Minotaur, and coming out pur-ported the adoption of the Minoan cultute that was older than and superior to ancient Greek culture.

The same refers to ancient Colchian culture which was at the time at a higher level than its Greek counterpart. (It is not accidental that Aeetes' sister Pasiphae was Minos' wife). Thus, the expeditions of these heroes were invariably directed to Kartvelian countries. Heracles too goes to the Garden of the Hesperides in Spanish Iberia to fetch the apples.

The myth of Orpheus, too, gives his main objective as the revival of the cult of his Pelasgian ancestors. Orpheus was of Pelasgian origin, the son of Oeagrus (incidentally, the name of Orpheus' father directly coin-cides with the name of Colchis: Egrisi, Egri). His purpose was to breathe new life into Pelasgian culture that had declined in the Hellenic period.

As for the voyage of the Argonauts, as noted above, it deals with dif-ferent stages of ancient Greek, specifically Doric, initiation, and it is no mere chance that Doric - active - initiation is. related to the Colchian world. Now, in medieval Byzantine theology, Germanus the Patriarch of Constantinople wrote his Miracles of the Archangels describing the voy-age of the Argonauts to Colchis; the expedition is under the patronage of the Christian Archangel Michael. The Archangel, "a terrible power sent from heaven" reveals himself to the Argonauts, predicting their future success. You will have noted the peculiar interpretation of the pagan myth by Germanus - at first sight a representative of the exoteric Church: the "terrible power sent from heaven" is the Archangel Michael, and the voyage of the Argonauts is linked to the mission of Michael - the principal solar archangel of Christianity - power of God, as he is de-fined. (Significantly enough, Gernianus the Patriarch was of Colchian origin - a Laz).

Such are the links between pagan and Christian initiation, connected with proto-Georgian mysterious centers.

In Pindar's Fourth Ode, Jason - as a figure and hero - is referred to as panther-skinned; he is not only the procurer of the Golden Fleece but a panther-skin hero as well. In general, panther-skin heroes are related to the proto-Georgian world. However, panther-skin priests occur in Egyptian mysteries too. Incidentally, the Trojan Paris also wears a pan-ther skin, as do other Trojan heroes. The Dionysiac processions too were led by a panther, Dionysus himself wearing a panther's skin. Thus the skin of a panther is an ancient totemic image of Japhetic mankind or the Caucasian race.
Now, I should like to go back to the discussion of the ancient, proto--Iberian race. It will be recalled that Acad. Marr's terms Japhetic race and Japhetic language have gained ground in scholarship. What does this imply?

You are aware of the existence of the notion of Semitic peoples and languages, as well as of Hamitic peoples related to ancient Egypt, and generally Africa. There is also the Japhetie race. The three Biblical brothers symbolically reflect branches of humankind, viz. Noah reflects the Atlantic or pre-Flood humanity i.e. the developmental stage of mankind before Atlantis was swallowed up by the sea, while his children were representatives of the post-Atlantis human race. Japhetic is one of their branches and incidentally, the Japheth of the Old Testament is re-lated to the Iapetus of ancient Greek mythology. It is not fortuitous that Iapetus was Prometheus' father; Japheth is identical to Iapetus, as is also the planet Jupiter and Jupiter's race, white race. As is known, in esoterism the races are related to the planets: the White race to Jupiter, the Black to Mercury, the Red to Venus, and the Yellow or Mongolian to Mars. The first substrate of Jupiter's race is precisely this Japhetic, proto-European or proto-Iberian mankind. This is how the mission of the proto-European, palaeo-Caucasian and Mediterranean people is linked to that of Jupiter's race. So much for the Classical, pagan period.

Now apropos of the Christian period. The advent of Christianity in Georgia is connected with the opening centuries of our era. The presence of two Apostles Andrew and Simon the Cananaian - in Georgia is not accidental; these were the first and the last apostles. Andrew was the first called, while Simon was the last to come to Christ, this being the symbol of their representing the alpha and omega; i.e. the beginning and the end. What part did the Kartvelian peoples play in the development of Christianity, in particular of Christianity propounded by the Archangel Michael, and why is the land called Georgia?

As you know, the Archangel Michael had prototypes in the Classical, i.e. pre-Christian, period. This was a being that appeared in the shape of gods protecting fertility, as gods of the weather or thunderstorms, such as Indra in ancient India, Marduk in the Mesopotamian world, Tarhu in the palaeo-Caucasian world - a panther skin god of thunderstorm. In caves, this god was always depicted as attired in the panther's skin. The panther skin is an attribute of a being known in antiquity under the name of Indra, Marduk, Tarhu, and in the Christian period as Michael and Saint George. Saint George is the earthly aspect of Michael. Michael represents the spiritual world, i.e. the mental aspect, whereas St. George is Michael's aspect on the historical plane, i.e. in the physical world. But how did the name George become linked to our country?

Already the ancient Greeks called the Georgian georgoi because of the advancement of agriculture in this country. Georgos means "a tiller of the ground" but, at the same time, the cult of St. George is connected with fanning, particularly with the control of fertility, weather, atmospheric phenomena. This was the case in early Georgia - hence the Georgian national deity: White George. Now, the Christian St. George was a historical figure, being at the same time the earthly image of the spiritual Archangel Michael, both slayers of the dragon. This image and its worship were most congenial to the Georgian people, hence Chris-tianity in Georgia acquired the worship of St. George. Christianity in its pure form existed for the clergy, the feudal class and the royal court, but. popular Christianity in Georgia may be said to have merged with the worship of St. George. However, this does not mean that the cult of George eclipsed Christianity. In George the Georgians perceived not only a Cappadocian saint but a Christian God as well, seeing God in the combative, dragon-slaying image of St. George. Thus Michael's spiritual aspect of Christianity was the closest to Georgia. The name of the coun-try became linked to George, who later became not only the principal saint of the Georgian nation but also the image of a Christian God. It should be noted that theology knows of different images and aspects of God. Even in the Apocalypse, the Messiah, God, or Christ is represented as a heavenly rider on a white horse (Rev. 19, 11-15). The familiar traditional images of Christ do not exhaust His essence. There is also another image - a fighting, dragon-slaying one - as found in the Revelation. This is precisely the prototype of St. George that proved most con-genial to the Georgians. By the way, the eminent Georgian scholar Ivane Javakhishvili noted that the cult of St. George in Georgia was an un-precedented phenomenon. Cases are on record of the festivals of the Trinity, Christmas and Easter being "absorbed" by the - festival of St. George, and of churches built in the name of the festivals just cited being identified with St. George; Thus, St. George is identified with God, for he is an image not only of a particular saint but of God as well.
Incidentally, the American scholar Jobes observes that St. George holds the same position in Georgia as Christ does. But this is wrong, for we are dealing not with the similarity of positions but with Christianity in Georgia being imaginatively or symbolically presented in a militant aspect. Essentially, Georgian Christianity may be said to be militant Christianity. It is a Christianity of knights, fighters, and it may be said also that Georgia was a single spiritual Order of St. George, and it was perceived as such by the Crusaders and by foreign visitors of the country, this leading to the establishment of the designation Georgia, which of course comes from the pagan period.

It was only foreigners that per-ceived the Georgians in this way. True, the Georgians did not use the word Georgian as a self-designation, but we are all well aware of the level of the cult of St. George in Georgia, and of the role this saint and its image plays in Georgian history. There is no other image that would express the national character more adequately. Here we should recall the principal monuments of Georgian literature and their relation to Michael's Christianity - the worship of St. George. The Second aspect of Christian Georgia's mission is linked to Georgia being a country fallen by lot to the Mother of God. Why is Georgia assigned to the Mother of God? This is because the principal divinity of the Japhetid or Kartvelian people was Mother-Goddess appearing in various aspects in different branches of this people, hence her name myrionym, i.e. with myriad names. This was the central mother-goddess found by the Greek colonists in Phasis, her large statue standing at the entrance to Phasis. In this country it is known as "mother-goddess" or "mother of the place" represented as Demeter or Hera in proto-Kartvelian countries. The cult of Artemis stems from this goddess, a parallel cult existing in Svaneti as the cult of Dali. As you know, the cult of Asia Minor god-desses is related to this ancient Japhetic mother-goddess. Now, the Mother of God of the Christian period is the Christian aspect of the same goddess - the Christian image of the being that was closest to this people and herein lies the mystic predetermination. When the Apostles cast lots to determine the country in which each should preach, Georgia fell to the Mother of God because the country was traditionally linked most to the mission of the mother of God, which is the same as that of the Holy Spirit.

As you know, the Trinity, i.e. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, is char-acterized by many aspects or multiformity. The hypostasis of the son, i.e. the second mode, is manifested in the Divine-majusculine aspect of the Trinity, whereas the Holy Spirit is revealed in the feminine aspect or in the Mother of God. In his writings, Gregory of Nyssa states that the Holy Spirit is manifested in the Mother of God, the latter being the earthly embodiment and action of the Holy Spirit. The mission of the latter is directly related to that of the Mother of God. What is this mis-sion? It is one of sanctification, i.e. the purification of humankind and, at the same time exposure to be effected by this principle, similar to the mission of Michael-George, viz., the development of spiritual thinking and the crushing of the universal serpent or dragon of materialism of universal evil, saving mankind thereby.

It is these two aspects that are linked closest to Georgia's spiritual mission. Michael's Christianity and St. George's Christianity are two aspects of the same phenomenon, on the one hand, and Sophian Christianity or Christianity connected with the Mother of God, on the other, is the aspect of Christianity which is manifested in the Mother of God or Sophia. In Classical times this being emerged as the goddess of fertility, mother goddess, or earth, while in Christianity it is manifested as Sophia or divine, cosmic wisdom. Sophia is one of the designations of the Mother of God - an image of the Mother of God or the Holy Spirit. Wisdom emanating from the Holy Spirit is expressed in Sophia. These two aspects are basic to Georgia's spiritual mission, being reflected in Georgian theology, art, and litera-ture.

Before passing on to other problems, I shall briefly touch on Svetit-skhoveli. I know that today our guests visited Svetitskhoveli, in Mtskheta. Svetitslhoveli is the church in which Georgia's mission, Georgian spiri-tuality, and Georgian Christianity have found most profound and all-round reflection. You are aware of the uniqueness of this church. for, as far as I know, in no other Christian church can one find a cult pillar. A pillar, more precisely two pillars, did exist in the temple built by Solomon in Jerusalem, while here a Christian temple has been built around a pillar. The pillar was the initial foundation of this church. The story of its construction is linked to that of the raising of the pillar, the latter symbolically embodying the Tree of Life. Historically, too, a cedar, which is a symbol of the tree of life, had grown at the site. The cedar was cut down and, by the prayers of St. Nino, the Angels raised it and the first church of St. Nino was constructed on the spot. Svetitskhoveii was built later at the same site. It is an allegorical church, similar to the house of the Lord built by Solomon. In what sense is the latter allegorical?

Two pillars were erected by Solomon in the temple, one embodying the tree of life and the other the tree of knowledge. Now, in Svetitskhov-eli we have a single pillar. The question may be asked as to the reason for this difference. It is because Solomon's temple was connected with the Old Testament, i.e. esoteric Judaism, when the tree of life and the tree of knowledge were still separate, whereas the mission of Christian initiation is a harmonic merger of the tree of life and the tree of knowledge into an integral whole, hence the single pillar in Svetitskhoveli in contrast to the two of Solomon's edifice. This also points to the unity of esoteric Judaism and esoteric Christianity. As is known, there was a Jewish community in Mtskheta that adopted Christianity at an early date, for they saw the unity between esoteric Judaism and Christianity.

One representative of the Mtskhetan Jews was present at the crucifixion of Christ. Our Lord's tunic falling to him by lot, the man brought it to Mtskheta where it was buried under the pillar, together with his sister Sidonia. The lord's tunic is a symbol of cosmic ether that envelops Christ, and the tree of life, which rises above the place where the tunic is buried, is connected with it. Merged in this tree of life is also the tree of knowledge which stood separate at the pre-Christian stage; here is given the ideal of the future - the mission of future Christianity. Other symbols of Svetitskhoveli also point to the extensive development of esoteric Christianity in Georgia Thus, on the southern wall of Svetitskhov-eli we see St. George with a lion and a panther. Let us recall the struggle or the principal character of The Man in the Panther's Skin with a lion and a panther. I should note at this point that in some Georgian bas-re-liefs, e.g. the Mravaldzali one, St. George is slaying a panther rather than a dragon. The panther is identified with the dragon slain by St. George, i.e. a symbol of the base instincts that are defeated by the human self in the process of initiation. This is what we perceive on the southern wall of Svetitskhoveli. On the political level this a symbol of fighting Georgia, of fighting Orthodox Christian Georgia that van-quishes political Islam - the panther or Turkey, and the lion or Iran. This bas-relief is amenable to such an interpretation too. On the inner southern wall of Svetitskhoveli we find the depiction of an apocalyptic Judgment Day, featuring many symbols interesting from the esoteric point of view, including an image of a panther as an apocalyptic beast. In this fresco the beast is depicted as a spotted panther. In general, the panther in Rustaveli's poem is spotted. Such esoteric symbols are numerous in Georgian churches, calling for a special study and interpretation. I shall merely observe that the motifs of the Grail are very frequent in Georgian frescoes. Such motifs occur in Gelati which, as is known, was an Orthodox Montsalvat, the seat of the culture of the Grail in Georgia - the Grail Christianity was blended with the Orthodox Church in Georgia.

In the West the exoteric or Catholic Church was separated from its esoteric counterpart, a Crusade being declared against the latter. In Georgia, however, the two formed a unity, on account of which David the Builder was called King-Priest John. What does King-Priest John mean and how should we define the period in the evolution of mankind that is linked to King-Priest John? In this connection we must recall Wolfram von Eschenbach's poem Parziwal. King-Priest John is the son of Parzival's half brother Feirefiz.

Now, Feirefiz means a "black-and-white son". What is the significance of black-and-white? It is well known that in medieval chivalrous romances and poems the characters symbolically embody some path or idea, in other words these characters are personifications. Parzival, in particular, is the personification of the initiatory path of the West; he sets out in quest of the Grail and finds it. Feirefiz represents the integration of the Eastern and Western paths. That is why he is black-and-white, i.e. a blend of the white race with a darker one. He is black-and-white for the additional reason that in him Western Christian wisdom is blended with Arabic wisdom, as is the case with the Templars. The movement of the Templars was the Western path of initi-ation transferred to the East where it absorbed the oriental wisdom, namely Arabic-Persian, yielding a hybrid - the black-and-white Feirefiz, an embodiment of oriental Templar movement with its oriental coloring. Old Georgian chivalry was connected with this Templar order, primarily David the Builder, the Georgia of Queen Tamar's epoch, and Shota Rustaveli. The Templar movement is not only a Western phenomenon, for we have evidence of the closest links between Georgian knights and the Templars. It was a movement that united Western and Eastern wisdom, Western and Eastern initiation. This is why King-Priest John is the son of the black-and-white half brother of Parzival. In the Chronicles of the Crusades King-Priest John is identified with David the Builder; however, this is not only a symbol of the person of David the Builder but in general a symbol of the totality of wisdom that was born in the West and later fused with oriental wisdom. The Tabronit or the Caucasian Uplands, mentioned in Wolfram von Eschenbach's Parzival, is the offspring culture of this synthesized wisdom. As the poem is allegorical, Georgia is not referred to directly in it. Not a single historically known country or person is mentioned in Eschenbach's poem; it contains only symbolic and allegorical names of countries and personages, the personifications of this or that movement or path of initiation being represented by various characters; thus Parzival's father Gahmuret is a symbol of the stage when the movement of the Grail had not yet taken shape and the Grail Christianity had not appeared on the scene. Parzival is a symbol of the Grail movement itself, while Feirefiz - as already noted - is the symbol of the Grail or Templar movement transferred to the East; Eschenbach directly points to Tauronit or Georgia as the source of all this. Georgia's pseudonym, as it were, in the work under discussion is Tauronit or Tabronit. This is because the word is related to Taurus or the culture of the bull; as you know, the culture of the Bull in the proto-Georgian or proto-Iberian world was the leading one while, cosmically, the period of the bull reigned.

Recall the Cretan-Minoan cult of the Bull, the cult of the Minotaur, the struggle with it, and so on. In this connection Eschenbach refers to it as the source of the culture of mysteries. It is to this Caucasian mountain range, this Tauronit, this fabulous land where King-Priest John reigns, that Eschenbach points to as the source of everything, viz. mysterious wisdom and mysterious culture. This is hinted at in Eschenbach's Parzival which, as you know, is not easy to decipher and interpret. Researchers are confronted with a number of difficulties when trying to conjecture the intent of the ciphered proper names or geographical designations. But we are more or less able to draw conclusions, for the poet points particularly to the Caucasian mountains and a land adjacent to the Caucasus as the source of the mysterious culture and the abode of King-Priest John in whose realm is the seat of spiritual wisdom. Incidentally, the Crusaders referred to the land as spiritual India as well; this was because in the Middle Ages India was not only a geographical term but was often used in the spiritual sense too as the homeland of spiritual, mysterious culture. India is mentioned similarly in The Man in the Panther's Skin, but without reference to geographical or historical India. The same is the reference to India in Nizami Ganjevi's Iskander-namah, implying a world of mysteries. Hence the coincidences between the Georgian and Western cultures. Regrettably, history has not preserved much about the relationships between countries in the period under discussion, and whatever has survived still awaits study. Nevertheless, such creations as The Man in the Panther's Skin, Odes, the chivalrous romances of the West, and Wolfram von Eschenbach's Parzival, give indications of the intensive relations existing at the time between Georgia and the Western countries. Take, for instance, the striking kinship of The Man in the Panther's Skin and Amiran-Darejaniani with the Western chivalrous romances, though the former have their own highly peculiar specificity. Here too is the mission of Georgian culture highlighted. The traditions of Oriental and Western literature are given in these works as a single whole. From the cultural viewpoint, Georgia's mission is to synthesize the Western and Oriental cultures, presenting them as an integral whole. This is why The Man in the Panther's Skin can be considered equally the possession both of Western and of Oriental literature. No division or separation is possible here. That is why, Pitareti - that major monument of Georgian archi-tecture - may be classified as an example of Christian architecture as well as that of Eastern architecture. Here elements of Western and East-em cultures always merged.

This is our vision of Georgia's cultural mission. Unfortunately, many topics have remained outside of our discussion, for it is impossible to cover everything in one lecture. We shall probably have some more lec-tures and talks, and it is desirable to provide information about this to the West, for much there remains unknown about Georgian culture and Georgia's spiritual path. Regrettably coverage hitherto has been given rather to the external aspects of our history and culture, and meetings like this should facilitate further mutual understanding and exchange of knowledge and information.


Q&A

If the audience wishes I can answer questions. This may render the discussion more interesting. I shall welcome questions around the topics of my talk. Today we shall devote our time to a discussion. of questions dealing only with the present theme.

Question: What is the difference between Georgian (Kartuli) and Kartvelian (Kartveluri)?

As I noted at the beginning, these two terms should be differentiated. To be sure, the difference between Georgian and Kartvelian is not es-sential, yet there is a difference in shade. Georgian refers to Georgia proper, to everything related to Georgia's history and language - all that we know from our history and which is within this geographical area. Kartvelian is a much broader and comprehensive notion. Kartvelian are tribes that are not Karts, nor Kartvels (Georgians) proper, but of Kartvelian stock. This may be compared to the relationship of the Semites and Hebrews. Kartvelian is an ethnic conception, being more comprehensive than national. There is Georgian nationality, but Kartvelian people or ethnos, another name for which is Japhetic. It is rather these palaeo-Caucasian or Japhetic peoples that may be said to constitute the ethnos. As there exists a Semitic people, so is there a Japhetic one.

This Japhetic people is Kartvelian. The Kartvelian lan-guages stem precisely from this primary Japhetic language which we call proto-Georgian. The separation of the Kartve]ian languages from this Japhetic language is assumed to have occurred from the third millennium B.C., as we learn from the book of Gamkrelidze and Ivanov, as well as from Marr's studies. I shall probably devote a separate lecture to the book just mentioned, but here I should like to note its clear tendency to belittle the role the proto-Georgian world played historically, and which has been dealt with in the studies of a number of scholars. All this is relegated to the background in the book in question, while Indo-Euro-pean is given prominence. However, the positive side of the book is the dating of the disintegration of the proto-Georgian parent language into separate languages and dialects in the third millennium which, according to my own theory, is related to Ioane-Zosime's Praise and Glorification of the Georgian Language, which stales that the Georgian people or the Georgian language (language in Ioane-Zosime's work implies the people as well) "has been dead four days" and "one day totals one thousand years" The death of this language began four days or four thousand years ago, i.e. in the third millennium B.C. Ioane-Zosime uses "death" because the language had lost its old area of diffusion and significance.

This was followed by a Lazarus-like rising from the dead of these people and language, as Ioane-Zosime relates. In his work these people are compared symbolically to Lazarus. It may be said that here is implied not only Georgia but the entire Kartvelian ethnos; to this is related that proto-Georgian or proto-Iberian world which extended from the Iberian Peninsula to India, and - as hypothesized by N. Marr and H. Johnstone - there existed a primordial Basque-Caucasian-Dravidian language - older than the Hamitic parent Language, and the basis of all languages, this being a glottogonic or language-forming phenomenon; it was the primary language of the priests, and in general, the beginning of languages.

Such is Marr's theory, for which Stalin rebuked him; Marr's theory was anathematized because it gave an objective interpretation of the prehistoric period and the origin of the Georgian language. Our national movement too has some criticism to level against Marr. True, he did make anti-Georgian statements dictated by political considerations of the day, but his elucidation of the prehistoric period of development of the Georgian language and the Georgian people was very objective and profound. That is why he was denounced in Soviet scholarship under Stalin's leadership.

Question: What is the role of the peoples of the Kartvelian stock in the development of Christianity?

The peoples of the Kartvelian stock play a major role in the development of Christianity. The Semitic peoples played the principal role in paving the way for Christianity in the period of the Old Testament, while in Christianity proper - in its development Kartvelian and Indo--European peoples play the main part. The ancient Greeks are related, as you know, to peoples of Indo-European origin. Ioane-Zosime's Praise -and Glorification, tells us that the two sisters - Mary and Martha - may be compared to Nino and Queen Helen. Nino is a symbol of the Kartvelian people and of Georgian Christianity, whereas Helen is a sym-bol of Greek Christianity, the relationship of Mary to Nino being the same as that of Martha to Helen. As you know, Mary is a symbol of mystic contemplation - a symbol of mystic theology, or esoteric Chris-tianity, whereas Martha is a symbol of the intellectual, rational path - a symbol of dogmatic Christianity which developed rather in Greece; In other words, representatives of the Georgian ethnos in Christianity tend to follow the path of mysticism and esoteric theology. Take, for example, Dionysius the Areopagite, or Peter the Iberian, Saint Nicholas Thau-maturge, and Saint George himself - all are representatives of the Kartvelian ethnos. This is how Lazarus becomes linked, as a symbol, to the Georgian people. As we know, Lazarus is John not only in spiritual science, but a number of Western exegetes identify Lazarus with John. Incidentally, this identification is clearly seen in Georgian folklore too; there exists here a folk cult of Lazarus which is the god of rain, the same as Elijah; thus Georgian folklore identifies Elijah with Lazarus.

John-Lazarus is the symbol of the Georgian language, the Georgian people that must rise after this four-day death-like sleep. This is Ioane--Zosime's message in his Praise and Glorification of the Georgian Lan-guage.

Question: What is, in your opinion, the relationship between Kartlos and Haos?

It should be said, inter alia, that Leonti Mroveli's work, as well as others of the kind, reflect profound esoteric wisdom. He states that both Kartlos and Haos are descendants of Japheth, that they had one progen-itor, and that the Japhetic people are the ancestors of Haos or the pri-mary ethnos from which the present-day Armenian nation stems.

The latter ethnos was very closely related to the primary Georgian ethnos, hence comes the story of the brotherhood of Haos and Kartlos. I do not think that we are here dealing with seniority, for this is a very ancient epoch, and it is extremely difficult to determine the period when the Armenian ethnos took shape as a separate nation. In this connection, the seventh-sixth centuries B.C. are named as the time of the advent of the Armens in Hayasa. This is the first country very closely related to the Colchian world; thus, it is well known from the specialist literature that Old Armenian or Grabar has preserved Laz and proto-Georgian roots, and that proto-Georgian played a major role in the development of this language. This is noted, e.g. by the well-known Armenian scholar C. Toumanoff. Hence Marr believed Armenian to be a semi-Japhetic and semi-Indo-European language because it contains elements of both. This gives rise to the idea of the ancient kinship and unity, as found in Leonti Mroveli.

Question What is the relationship of the Basque and Georgian worlds?

About Basque and Georgian I can say that Basque is - like Georgian - a proto-Iberian language, but they have been separated from each other for great periods of time and have been developing separately so long as to render the establishment of their genetic relationship difficult. This relationship is being established rather by means of place names, sepa-rate phrases, and forms, as well as by the cultural-historical comparative method. Today Basque and Georgian do not scorn to be genetically re-lated languages; however, this does not mean that the Basque and Geor-gian worlds did not form a single whole in antiquity. As I have said, this was one people, one race, and one language, but later Basque assumed such individuality that today scholars even find it hard to establish ge-netic relationship. There exists a different approach, based as I have said - on Humboldt's well-known work on Basque. The work has not been translated into Georgian and, by the way, it is being boycotted; for definite reasons the study has always been ignored, but it is our task to have it translated into Georgian and circulated in the country, so that the Georgians might learn of their real origin. As you know, Western science has no greater authority than Humboldt; however, according to the latest studies of modern Kartvelologists (Jan Braun, and others), the view is gaining ground on Basque being a fourth Kartvelian language.

Question: What relation is there between Lazarus and the Georgian language?

In Ioane-Zosime the raising of Lazarus implies the raising of the Georgian nation, and not only of the Georgian people but of the entire Georgian ethnos in its distribution in the prehistoric period, i.e. to the time of Lazarus' falling asleep, or the third millennium B.C., when this ethnos diminished, being decimated by the Indo-Europeans; it survived only in the Iberian peninsula, Asia Minor, and the Caucasus. The rais-ing will again revive this nation, when it will regain the position it held in the prehistoric period - a leading position, the position of mankind's spiritual teacher. This is implied in Ioane-Zosime's statement to the ef-fect that on the Judgment Day God will judge all the languages through this language. And this means that the Georgian people will be the chief bearer of spirituality, i.e., Christianity, and that it will judge the sinful humankind.

Question: What relation is there between Prometheus and Amirani?

Amirani must be a later name of Prometheus. We lack evidence to prove that in prehistoric times Prometheus was called Amirani. In Geor-gia, Amirani ('Amir') is related to the advent of Persian culture in Geor-gia. Amiran Darejanisdze (Amir andare jehan - "ruler of the country") is a Persian term.

In general, the extant version of the folk legend on Amirani must be of later origin. The prehistoric myth of Amirani found reflection in the Georgian folk tradition, but the name is altered. The name Amirani is obviously of Persian provenance, and it does not seem to reflect the identity of this character. In the proto-historic period the hero must have had an older, proto-Georgian correspondence. Generally speaking, it was not only such personages that had proto-Georgian correspondences. Take, e.g. the derivation of the eponym "Kardu" of the Georgians. It is the name of the mountain that was called Kardu - the name of a Baby-lonian god. Mountains were given the names of gods, Kardu being the name of Ararat, called Nisir in the Sumerian period. Neither these place names nor characters bear old names any longer. And I am convinced, this hero referred to as Prometheus, was not called Amirani; the latter name must have been given to him in the Middle Ages.

Question: What could you say about the relationship of the Abkhazian and Georgian languages?

As you know Adyghe and other Caucasian languages are of Iberian - -Caucasian origin; there is a genetic relationship between those languages and Georgian, there also is a genetic relationship between the Karvelian languages too. The Abkhazians fail to understand this, hence this ethnic strife. Their origin is indeed Ibero-Caucasian, and had they knowledge of their descent they might have never started such conflicts with their kindred nation. In general, the peoples of the Northern Caucasus are genetically related, and so are heir languages. This has been thoroughly researched by our celebrated scholar Arnold Chikobava, and Iberian--Caucasian linguistics and Ibero-Caucasian peoples were his favourite terms. By the way, this means that Ibero-Caucasian is not exclusive in the Iberian world; there is, e.g. Iberian of the Pyrenees, and so on; thus, lberian-Caucasian is only one part of the Iberian world that comprises the North-Caucasian peoples too.

Question: In what relation is Mazdeanism to the Georgian spiritual world?

Historically, the Georgian nation has been in contact with many cul-tures and religions, and there are indications that at a definite period the Mazdeanic cult was practised here: the cult of the goddess Anahita, and many other cults. However, this was not leading or essential in our spiritual culture. Thus, it is still problematic whether the Armazian cul-ture was Zoroastrian, and whether it had anything in common with Zoroastrian culture and Mazdeanisrn. Nor has the kinship of Ahura Mazda and Armazi been demonstrated.

Question: What is anthroposophy?

Anthroposophy is a spiritual science in modern Europe - a science of the spirit, spread in Western countries. As I have said, it is a Christian movement, viz. Michael's Christianity. I should note, however, that some people erroneously take anthroposophy for a religion. It is not a religion or confession but a cognitive trend. Hence the opposition - heard occa-sionally - of Orthodoxy to anthroposophy is wrong. This is the same as opposing Orthodoxy to a follower of Hegel. The point is that anthro-posophy has no confessional claims; it is a cognitive path.

True, in the West there does exist a religious community - its outgrowth; but Rudolf Steiner, the founder of anthroposophy, was not a creator of a new reli-gion or confession. He was a follower of Christ and Christianity, and the creator of a new cognitive form of Christianity. So there should not be a confusion of terms here. As I mentioned above, there are many branches of anthroposophic science: anthroposophic medicine, biology, pedagogy. In particular, anthroposophic medicine played an outstanding role here in the treatment of those poisoned on 9 April when these patients failed to respond to the treatment prescribed by traditional physicians and to drags, representatives of anthroposophic medicine arrived with remedies, developed in their school, which saved many persons.

I should like to add also that in one of his lectures R Steiner ranks the Orthodox cult much higher than its Catholic counterpart. I can cite the relevant passage from the lecture. In general, Steiner was closely connected with Orthodox philosophy, particularly with the philosophy of Vladimir Solovyov, considering him - an Orthodox philosopher - as one of his forerunners. In his cycle of lectures, read in 1922 and entitled. "Super-sensible Influences in the History of Mankind", Steiner says: "In the Catholic church the cult and ritual are rather of the character of symbols to be viewed by the eye, whereas in the Eastern Orthodox church it is something that reaches the soul with the profoundest reverence". Thus, he sharply differentiates these two cults from each other, himself tending rather to the Orthodox cult as being more conge-nial to him. This is seen also from the lectures he delivered at Oxford, in which he speaks of the profound esoterism in the Eastern Church, or the mysterious doctrine owned by the Church. As I noted earlier, in the East esoterism was not divorced from exoterism, whereas in the West it was, with attendant conflicts and persecution of exoterism - something never occurring in the Eastern Orthodox world.

Question. What is the origin of the Grail?

The etymology of the Grail stems from old Provencal, and probably, by its root from the Cappadocian term gratsal; and generally speaking, the Grail movement was also the creation of the Kartvelian ethnos. The Cappadocian ethnos, which was the same as Kartvelian or proto-Iberian ethnos, was the principal founder of the Grail movement. Titurel - the first owner of the Grail, was a Cappadocian by nationality, i. e. of Kartvelian origin.

The mention of the Cappadocians on Pentecost, the day of the descent of the Holy Spirit (Acts of the Apostles 2.10), is far from accidental. The Cappadocians were present at the descent of the Holy Spirit, and the mission of the Grail is that of the Holy Spirit - a symbol of the Mother of God; the owner of the Holy Spirit. The Grail is a bearer of the Holy Spirit and the Grail is one imbued with the grace of the Holy Spirit, The Grail movement or the Grail Christianity was created precisely by the Iberian peoples. It was created first in Cappado-cia, and later in Provence and Languedoc, populated largely by peoples of Iberian and Celt-Iberian race. The Celt-Iberians were the same Iberians by origin, with whom the Celts merged at a later period. The migration of the Celts began in the third century B.C., continuing later too. The Celtiberian ethnos took shape later, yet it was of Iberian origin. The Celtiberian people too were linked to Cappadocia, and it was from Cap-padocia - this Meskhian or Moschian, and Zan land - that the Grail Christianity and movement came. Incidentally, in Kartli there is a village named Grakali. Inasmuch as the initial name of this bowl was ratsal, Grakali and ratsal are obviously related words, and this place must be connected with the Grail. I am deeply convinced of the reference to the Grail in Shavteli's Odes, in which it is defined as "a bowl of graces, for the purification of the people".

As you know, the Grail is a bowl; it is mentioned in Georgian folklore, namely in Connection with the campaign of Saint George hero of Georgian folklore - in Kajaveti together with Kopala and Iakhsar; from there St. George brings back a howl which, I am fully convinced, is the Grail. Thus, the descent of St. George into the nether world is connected with the bringing back of the Grail; in other words, this is a symbol of initiation. It is in this way that the Grail be-came linked to Georgian culture, folklore, and history. The principal motifs of the Gelati mural paintings are connected with the Grail. The child Jesus, held by the Gelati Virgin, bears an imprint of the Grail on his forehead, pointing to the closest link of the Grail with Georgian cul-ture. As for The Man In the Panther's Skin, it may be said to be a poem of the Grail because the Grail's symbols are synonyms treasure, pre-cious stones and pearls, philosophers' stone and a virgin, i.e. the rescu-ing of a virgin from captivity in the nether world is the same as retriev-ing the Grail. In this case, the maiden embodies the anima or the soul and the release of the anima from the dragon's captivity is precisely the aim of initiation. This is given in The Man In the Panther's Skin, for in it is depicted the path of heroic initiation. Allegorically, chivalry is in general related to initiation, being its institution; hence its principal aim was the descent into the nether world and the retrieval of the Grail, or the rescuing of the holy principle from the bondage of evil powers.

Question: How is it proved that the Pelasgians and the Sumerians were not Indo-Europeans?

This is proved by linguistic evidence. In the first place, the eminent Georgian scholar M. Tsereteli has demonstrated that the Sumerians were not Indo-Europeans, and that today only Kartvelian languages are re-lated to Sumerian. The Indo-European languages are not related to these languages. As far the Pelasgians, Herodotus and other Greek histodans point out directly that they were Iberians.

Question: What relation was there between the Irish and Georgian Iberi-ans?

The relationship of the Irish Iberians and the Georgian Iberians was very strong. In his work, Humboldt speaks of the migration of the Iberi-ans to Ireland, and Northern Europe. He clearly distinguishes them from the southern Iberians who were autochthons, whereas there took place a migration to the North - Ireland, Britain, and elsewhere, with the estab-lishment or Colonies. The Picts - the earliest population of Ireland de-scended from the Iberians.

Question: Who were the Albanians?

It appears from Kartlis Tskhovreba ("History of Georgia") that the Caucasian Albanians too were Kartvelian tribes. They are the ‘Berda’ in Nizami Ganjevi's works... By the way, it is not accidental that Nizami linked the image or Queen Tamar with Berda…

Question. Is there any link between Lazia and Lazarus?

It can only be hypothesized that the stems are related; Lazarus and Laz, lapis lazuli, denoting azure; azure and blue are the color of Ioane--Lazarus; in general all this may be in some relationship... The murals of Betania Church of Tamar's time, dedicated to Lazarus, are done in blue colors, which cannot but have a profound esoteric meaning.

Question: What have the Hittites to do with Georgia?

There are place names related to the Hittites in Georgia. This means that the homeland of the Hittites was here. There were migrations of peoples, hence the numerous related place names. In general, the Hittiles were Indo-Europeans, not belonging to peoples of Kartvelian prove-nance.

Question: What can you tell us about Niko Marr and The Man in the Panther's Skin?

Marr entertained very contradictory views on The Man in the Pan-ther's Skin; and, in general, great men occasionally commit great errors. He erred with regard to The Man in the Panther's Skin, but then he cor-rected his errors, and advanced highly significant views regarding the poem. Initially believing it to be a translated work, he intended to dis-cover the original in the British Museum; failing in this, he later changed his view. Most importantly, Marr was the first to demonstrate the exis-tence of an organic relationship between the world of The Man in the Panther's Skin and that of the Western chivalrous romance - and in gen-eral Western courtly poetry. He also pointed out the similarity of The Man in the Panther's Skin to the troubadours of Provence and other monuments of chivalrous culture in general. Giving a strong indication of this, Marr left behind a highly valuable study entitled: The Cut of Woman in the Man in the Panther's Skin. As for the idea of Rustaveli having been a Muslim, for some time Marr did entertain it, but this was because he failed to explain Rustaveli's supra-religious occumenism. Rustaveli unites, as it were, all cults and religions in his poem. Generally speaking, The Man in the Panther's Skin is a syncretic work - not eclectic, that is bringing different elements together without connection, but syncretic, giving various elements in unity. The poem in question is a synthesis of Classical and Christian wisdom, a synthesis of esoteric wisdom; a new synthesis of the paths of Classical and Christian initiation is presented in the language of a new literary mythos. That is why many researchers perceived separate doctrines or confessions in it, which subsequently failed to be substantiated. Today the view prevails which holds that it is a Christian work and the author was a Christian - a Christian in a broad sense who occumenically unites the achievement of different religions in his Weitanschauung.

Thus, the poem contains astrological and astrosophical ideas, ideas of Classical mysteries, a quatrain on the "sunny night", and so on. All this suggests that Rustaveli had a profound knowledge of the ancient culture of mysteries, synthesizing it in his work. Initially, Marr failed to see this. He considered Rustaveli a Muslim because the Koran figures in the poem, and the characters swear their oaths on the Koran. But this was because the action of the poem was conventionally transferred to the Oriental, Muslim world, where no other book than the Koran could be mentioned. However, Avtandil's prayer is Christian, although he seems to pray in a mosque. Similarly, in their actions and character the personages are Christians representatives of the Christian world. 'Arab' and 'Indian' do not refer to nationality in the poem, the usage being symbolic. The countries in The Man in the Panther's Skin do not constitute geographical or historical reality. Here we are dealing with allegorical geography and history.