Talk:Kingdom of Iberia

Iberia

Does anyone know the origin of the name "IBERIA" as it pertains to Georgia?

There are several, and often contradictory, arguments regarding the origin of the name as it pertains to SPAIN. I wondered if I could find some linguistic link that would bind the two, however apart geographically, but in the case of the Georgian "Iberia" - I'm drawing a blank, online. All I find is information that Georgia was so called in antiquity, but not WHY. (unsigned comment added by 67.0.114.28)

"There are several, and often contradictory, arguments regarding the origin of the name as it pertains to SPAIN."

HISPANIA... Lusitano Transmontano 07:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It strikes me a lot. Still more, since I remember reading somewhere that the basque language has been linked to Georgia too. I wish the link can be clarified. --euyyn 22:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

From Iberian Peninsula: "The Greeks are responsible for the name Iberia, after the river Iber (Ebro)." --euyyn 22:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

And from Basque language: "Georgian: The Georgian hypothesis, linking Basque to South Caucasian or Kartvelian languages, seems now widely discredited." Ooooohhhh, he he --euyyn 10:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

That's unsourced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.36.112.4 (talk) 20:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Its not true Basque connection with Caucasus still has tons of evidence and research is initiated long time ago. Its not discredited. Euskera 14:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Good news: [1] to be taken with a wagonload of salt (of the earth)--87.162.27.103 (talk) 11:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Amazasp

QUOTE: "Relations between the two countries seem to have been friendly at first, as Iberia cooperated in Persian campaigns against Rome, and the Iberian king Amazasp II (185-189) was listed as a high dignitary of the Sassanian realm, not a vassal who had been subdued by force of arms."

How could Amazasp been listed as a dignitary of the Sassanian realm, when Persia was still a vassal of Parthia? Perhaps Amazasp was confused with another, later king, maybe Amazasp III?

ro4444, August 8, 2005 3:31 PM EST

Thanks ro4444 for your remark. It was really Amazasp III who reigned in the 260s. Kober

Image removed

I've removed this image because:

• It's not about a Causasian Iberian soldier but an Iberian warrior.
• It's not a Roman relief but an Iberian relief.
• And it's not in Rome but in Madrid, at the National Archaeological Museum of Spain.

I took an image of the piece myself, which is at Commons. --Zaqarbal 18:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you have sources for that claim? Ldingley 15:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Name

"Iberian" peninsula comes from the name of the Iber (Ebro) river.

Also, most speculation and purported similarities between Basque and Caucasian languages focused on Northeast (Nakh-Dagestanian) languages; Kartvelian, which is forms another language family, is not considered as similar.KelilanK 20:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Bold text origini of name? IBERIA I would rather start from the farthest end..:) when did the Celts or Cimmerians begin migrating into Europe? And from where did they come? Today’s Celtic survivors (very few among whom are Irish and Scotts) have VERY close ties with Ibers! Considering the fact that thy were know as the Celtiberri or Celtiberians it becomes more interesting..The origin of the name (if only the name?) of Irland. Eire-land ("Eire" being what the Irish call it) came from "Erin." The Romans called it Hibernia or Ivernia. It sometimes appears as Iberon. (Georgian Kingdoms were known to the Greeks as Iberia or Iveria) The late Harvard professor Barry Fell wrote, "One of the ancient names of Ireland is Ibheriu, pronounced as Iveriu, a fact that suggests that the word is derived from a still-earlier pronunciation, Iberiu. Talking about Scotland we should mention an ancient kingdom of Alba that corresponds to today’s Scotland. It is argued that Alba derives its name from the Caucasian Albania! (At least many scholars argue this but more work needs to be done to shed any light on the subject). Before assimilation and fall under Urartu Kingdom, Caucassian Albania was a home for Ibero-Caucassian people. Their migration might’ve taken place in early 1st millennia BC. According to Strabo (btw who’s mother was Georgians!:) by the 1st century there were no ‘real’ Albanians left in the region. They were assimilated by Armenians, Medes, etc.

Etruscans (Italics) before the Romans assimilation were also Iberian. Many sources directly call Italic people as Iberian. Many Etruscan language although officially labeled as ‘isolate’ has too many similarities with Iberian (considering the fact that we know so little about both of them.. ) but Basque is also a language isolate – so linguists do have to work harder to figure these all out. (k, here is the place for a little Georgian pride:)))) Kartvelian (Georgian) language with it’s 3 dialects (actually independent Georgian languages) form ALONE a linguistic SUPER FAMILY according to majority of linguists. There are no disputes whatsoever about placing Georgian language in the ethnologue classification on the higher level than Indo-European family!!)

Talking about the origin of the name for Georgian Iberia- 'Hecataeus, Herodotus, Xenophon, Strabo and others, the tribe of the Tibareni (Tibarenoi in Greek) lived in the north of the territory of Tabal. Tabal, Tubal, Jabal and Jubal to be ancient Georgian tribal designations. Many authors, following the Romanized Jewish author Josephus (1st century AD), related the name Tubal to Iber. “Concerning the question of the ethnic affinity of the population of Tubal, Josephus wrote: "Tobal gave rise to the Thobeles, who are now called Iberes". This version was repeated by Patriarch Eustathius of Antioch, Bishop Theodoret, and others.”

Remove line

Can anyone remove this line "cris is funny looken"? Someone put this in early history and it don`t seen related. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.11.154.2 (talk) 17:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

New Map

I've put a new identical map of Iberia (with Colchis), as the older picture showed it as well, but the user: Kwamikagami is changing it back all the time. I repeat, again the older and newer ones are the same and identical and why is this user edit waring with me here. Please, take a look at this map and tell me if you have anything against this newer map I am putting. NEW MAP: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Early_Georgian_States_Colchis_And_Iberia.svg I support putting this map than the older one. Tell me what you think. GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 10:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I also prefer a new map. It is tidier and its svg in contrast to the somewhat overcrowded jpg version to which Kwamikagami reverted. Otherwise, they are pretty much identical.--Kober^Talk 10:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Regarding User:Quintucket's remark on Argveti, the district was not always under the firm Iberian control. Actually it always formed a sort of Colchian-Iberian buffer, which frequently changed its masters. So, it is not mandatory to include Argveti strictly within Iberian boundaries. --Kober^Talk 10:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Kober. But user Kwamikagami is edit warring with me all the time, as if I did something wrong. He's looking all my topics and trying to undermine every change I make. Don't know why this guy is so sceptical about my changes. This new map is looking great and is the same as the older one so I hope that this map will eventually (if this user above mentioned won't revert it back) stay as a main map. GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 10:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Kober, do you have any sources on that? While I agree the new map looks prettier, I kind of appreciate that the old one (ugly as it is), represents the kingdom at different periods (three colors for 500 BC, outline for 150 AD, two colors for territories lost at various points in its history). But my main concern is that Argveti is shown as an independent kingdom, which gives a misleading impression. If it was contested territory, it can be marked as such, but there were a lot of small states at various periods in the Caucasus, and right now it makes it look as if it were equivalent in standing to Colchis and Iberia.

As for Kwami, I assume he watches a lot of pages; it seems like most of the non-bot edits on history and language related pages (at least the ones I watch) come from him. Though he can be curt at times, I wouldn't take it personally. —Quintucket (talk) 12:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Also Kober, please don't accuse me of edit-warring. It appeared to me to be a dispute between two editors—GJ and Kwami, and since GJ's claim about being identical to the map it replaced was inaccurate, I reverted it. GJ started the discussion literally eight minutes before I reverted his edit. As it happens, I don't refresh my watchlist that often, and I usually check the histories of the updated pages not the diffs. —Quintucket (talk) 12:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Quintucket, where does it say in the map that Argveti was an independent kingdom? It was just one Georgian region between Colchis and Iberia. And what other "a lot of small states at various periods in the Caucasus" are you talking about? All the states that have EVER been to the Caucasus, they originally have been Georgian, only Georgian. And that's not just some nationalistic or subjective attitude. That's just facts. All the former kingdoms or states that have ever existed on the Caucasus, those very place that now is Georgia, have always been ethnically Georgian, settled by Georgian tribes of East Georgians and West Georgians. And this new map is perfect in ANY sense of what map can be all about. GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 13:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Footnotes

The number of footnotes in the first paragraph renders it virtually unreadable. Would it be possible to combine the strings in a note? Cynwolfe (talk) 00:00, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Dbachmann Stop vandalising the article

Iberia and Colchis, both, were ethnic Georgian kingdoms.

Iberia was eastern Georgian kingdom when Colchis was western Georgian kingdom of Svans and Mingrelians.

Stop vandalising the article and stop removing the sourced information. GEORGIANJORJADZE 09:27, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, GJ, I don't think one can consider Dbachmann's edits vandalism. The lead was overburdened with barely relevant sources, the infobox overextended, and you also blindly reverted improvements in style and layout. You need to discuss without accusing people, and please don't reinsert this useless barrage of sources - better to have 1 good reference clearly linked to a claim in the article than 20 google books search results for uncontroversial parts of the lead. If you have objections to specific parts of the article, please list them here for discussion.Susuman77 (talk) 17:15, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Iberia and Colchis were ethnic Georgian kingdoms where Georgian and other Kartvelian languages were spoken. They spoke Georgian language, wrote in Georgian alphabet and were Georgians. This is an established fact. GEORGIANJORJADZE 20:22, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

1. Michael H. Dodgeon, Samuel N. C. Lieu: The Roman Eastern Frontier and the Persian Wars Ad 226-363 p36
2. Course of Ancient Geography, Henry Immanuel Smith, p. 279.
3. Glen Warren Bowersock, Peter Robert Lamont Brown, Oleg Grabar: Late Antiquity: A Guide to the Postclassical World p466
4. John Rufus, Cornelia B. Horn, Robert R. Phenix: The Lives of Peter the Iberian, Theodosius of Jerusalem, and the Monk Romanus p. xxi
5. Liz James: A Companion to Byzantium p217
6. Ali Aldosari: Middle East, western Asia, and northern Africa p751
7. James Minahan: Miniature Empires: A Historical Dictionary of the Newly Independent States Georgia p117
8. E. Yarshater: The Cambridge History of Iran Iran, Armenia and Georgia p520
9. Mark Avrum Ehrlich: Encyclopedia of the Jewish Diaspora: Origins, Experiences, and Culture, Volume I Jews in Georgia p1119
10. Catherine Holmes: Basil II And the Governance of Empire, 976-1025 The Eastern Frontier p312
11. Walter E. Kaegi: Heraclius, Emperor of Byzantium Peril and Hope p129

Where do you see a Georgian source here? All the sources say it was a Georgian state. GEORGIANJORJADZE 20:34, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

If you had bothered going through the changes I made, you would have noticed that the role of Iberia and Colchis in Georgian history is prominent in the leads I rewrote. I object mostly to your pile-up of mostly irrelevant sources that clutter the opening sentences. No one here is denying the "Georgianness" of Iberia and Colchis. I even put forward Toumanoff's judgment on Colchis being the first Georgian formation. You just have to understand that we have to follow an encyclopedic style; that having the word "Georgian" in the very first sentence of the article, while satisfying nationalist pride, is not the encyclopedic way to go to describe ancient political entities, and that your accumulation of references from books and authors whose primary field of study is not ancient Georgian history only weakens your claims.Susuman77 (talk) 21:39, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

You say you don't deny its Georgianness and on the other hand you DO NOT mention that it was a Georgian state? How did they speak Georgian language and wrote in Georgian if it was not a Georgian state? Where is the logic? And what is that its name starts with its Greek name? Where is Georgian name of it? Colchis and Iberia both were Georgian states and this is not a nationalistic pushing from my side. It is the fact. Those people were Georgians and the states were also Georgian. Put the wording as it has to be. GEORGIANJORJADZE 21:53, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

"you DO NOT mention that it was a Georgian state?" : for Colchis, see 3rd paragraph of the lead, for Iberia the 3rd sentence (plus mentions of their georgian names, the big history of Georgia infobox, etc.) There's no risk that people will not see the link between Iberia and Colchis and Georgia. "And what is that its name starts with its Greek name? Where is Georgian name of it?" Greek names come first because that's the language from which those names came into English - for Iberia at least, the Georgian name is different - Kartli, even though Iberia was later reappropriated into the Georgian language. Still, I added the Georgian transcription of it so that it's more clear. For the rest of your comment, I think we're all aware of the importance of those states for Georgian history, there's no need to restate it at every possible occasion. Susuman77 (talk) 22:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

The article starts with: "...was the name for a kingdom of the Southern Caucasus" What is this? What will the reader understand what or whose kingdom was that? If they spoke Georgian then how on earth it was not a Georgian monarchy then? In case of Colchis is the same. Put the right wording in the lead as it confuses the reader. GEORGIANJORJADZE 22:12, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Just calling them "Georgian kingdoms" is an oversimplification of what the sources say. Colchis is not only a Georgian monarchy, it is also a cultural region, defined by the interaction between local Kartvelian culture and Greek culture, as witnessed by its role in Greek mythology. Only the progressive cultural and political fusion of Colchis and Georgia gave birth to Georgia; before that process (starting with the Conversion of Kartli), Iberia, strictly speaking, is Iberian, or Kartlian; the nation-building process is only starting. Also, as far as language is concerned, the unification of Georgian language is also linked to evangelization and the development of the alphabet - all later processes - Colchis and Iberia spoke Kartvelian languages that evolved into Georgian. Anyway, we might need a third opinion about the phrasing of the lead if you cannot agree with those arguments; please keep me informed if you want to pursue such recourse. Susuman77 (talk) 22:29, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes I do support perfection in every way of these two articles. But your words don't make any logic at all. Do you say that there was no Georgian language in Iberia and Colchis? Well that is just ridiculous. Iberia was 100 % Georgian monarchy while Colchis was the mix of all Kartvelian tribes and not only Mingrelo-Lazs but Svans as well. Why don't you mention Svans in there? I am partly Svan as well and it is unacceptable. And yes Georgia with real sense of Georgia was after these 2 kingdoms united but it does not mean they were something different when they were seperate. Colchis was a Georgiano-Svano-Zan monarchy when Iberia was 100 % Georgian monarchy. This should be definitely mentioned. Svans should be mentioned by all means as we Svans are the most ancient Georgians in the Georgian subgroup of our nation. GEORGIANJORJADZE 22:53, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Any reliable sources to back up your assertions? National pride is not the best way to build wikipedia, I'm afraid, as it can lead to a loss of any idea of proportion and objectivity. Susuman77 (talk) 23:11, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Again you're talking about nationalism. Colchis was a Georgian-Svan-Zan monarchy of all Kartvelian tribes when Iberia was 100 % Georgian monarchy with it's language, script etc. GEORGIANJORJADZE 23:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I also suggest to move this page to Iberia (Kartli). GEORGIANJORJADZE 23:22, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

moving Caucasian Iberia to Iberia (Kartli)

I am proposing to move this article to Iberia (Kartli) as it needs to have its Georgian name as the kingdom was a Georgian one and needs to have its own name within the article name. GEORGIANJORJADZE 23:24, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Oppose – Kartli already exists, as an article about the region. Caucasian Iberia is about the ancient history of that region and the political entity that existed on its territory. The usual and easiest way to disambiguate it from its obvious homonym in Spain is to use "Caucasian"; most readers more familiar with Ancient history than with Georgian history won't know what Kartli is, and won't be helped by your suggested title. That Iberia is Ancient Kartli is made clear in the lead, and Kartli is bolded; your statements of "need" seem only motivated, once again, by national/ethnic pride and not NPOV. Susuman77 (talk) 08:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Oppose per above. I want to note this is not how you request a move. Lacking the proper templates, this will never be closed or resolved. See Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting a single page move on instructions how to do this.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 17:39, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 07 January 2014

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 04:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

---

Caucasian Iberia → Kingdom of Iberia – It's original name is Iberia or Kingdom of Iberia and not Caucasian Iberia as the name has no connection at all with it and is artificially made up so I suggest we move it. Thanks. Jaqeli (talk) 23:38, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Support as nominator. Jaqeli (talk) 23:39, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support (tentatively). This change of title would definitively commit the article to be purely about that specific polity, the Kingdom of Iberia, and not the region or non-kingdom incarnations. Yet we still have links to it from elsewhere, e.g. Caucasian Iberians which are a little more open-ended. Would we consequently need a separate overarching "Caucasian Iberia" article for the region? Walrasiad (talk) 15:03, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

I. Pharsmanes and Rhadamistus

Why this article don't mention them ? İberia was ruling Albania and Armenia in their times. Meambokhe (talk) 08:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Move

Greetings User:Awibs. For moves the WP:MOVE should be utilized. Also the names are different for those two polities and dates are incorrect. Please discuss before the moves. I appreciate your feedback. An emperor /// Ave 01:37, 14 February 2022 (UTC)