Survery of Georgia Ptolemy Maps

Annali di Ca’ Foscari.
Serie orientale [online] ISSN 2385-3042

Vol. 53 – Giugno 2017 [print] ISSN 1125-3789
Surveying Georgia’s Past

On The Use Of Cartographic Sources
For Caucasian History
Patrizia Licini
(Associazione Geografi Italiani, AGeI)
Abstract This study represents the historical geographer’s approach to the History of cartography.
Modern historians of the Roman Empire and archaeologists misuse geographical information from
Ptolemy’s map of the Caucasus–Ptolemy’s 3rd Map of Asia in the standard set of twenty-seven maps,
including a world map, all in the Ptolemaic model, with twenty-six regional maps. In fact, modern
writers on ancient history think that the story of maps is linear–beginning, middle and end. But the
case of Ptolemy is typical in that his work began to have a powerful influence in the fifteenth cen-
tury. After Ptolemy’s death in the second half of the second century, however, his Geography had
disappeared for a thousand years, and with it the idea of coordinate-based mapping according to a
mathematical grid system. No original copies from Ptolemy’s own time have survived. A medieval
Greek copy without maps only reappeared in fourteenth-century Florence, with maps first drawn
by Florentine cosmographers in further copies in 1415. Here we have an antinomia, an apparent
contradiction, which nothing but the History of cartography solves as “Ptolemy’s paradox”. Ptolemy’s
maps of Roman Britain makes a striking contrast with the map showing our present state of knowl-
edge about the British Isles. It has long been recognized as a puzzling fact that, in Ptolemy’s map of
the British Isles, the shape of Britain is turned abruptly to the east from the latitude 55° north, cor-
responding to Scotland, so as to make a right angle with the southern part of the country–England
and Wales. But what is unknown still is how Colchis (West Georgia), Ibería of the Caucasus (East
Georgia), Albània of the Caucasus (Alania / Daghestan), Upper or Greater Armenia, Media (Osroenê /
upper Mesopotamia) and Assyria are misaligned west-east, and distorted as well. The “dogleg” ap-
pearance of the Mescit Mountains (currently Turkey) is a distorted feature which occurs exclusively
on Ptolemy’s map of the Caucasus. Since A.D. 114 the three Kingdoms of Colchis, Ibería and Albània
of the Caucasus had been federated with Rome. Since A.D. 117 the neighbouring provinces of Greater
Armenia, Media and Assyria had been annexed to the Roman Empire, when Ptolemy composed his
system of geography about A.D. 150. As a result, the Ptolemaic map of the Caucasus is quite useless
in the history of the Caucasus. Ignoring the set of Ptolemy’s maps of all the countries and even the
question of Ptolemy’s distortion, however, modern historians of ancient Rome and archaeologists
in the Caucasus consult Ptolemy’s 3rd Map of Asia as a source of primary information.
Summary 1. The Paradox of Ptolemy. – 2 Ptolemy’s Maps at Fault. – 3 The ‘Dogleg’ Appearance
of the Mescit Mountains. – 4 The Gates of Ibería or the Caucasian Gates. – 5 Are the Kartveli the
People called Kardueni or Cardveni in Trajan’s Time? – 6 Bayburt Fort is Ibería of the Caucasus in
A.D. 928. – 7 In Modern Times. – 8 The Falsification of Polo’s Text and the Authorized ‘Testo Ottimo
della Crusca’. – 9 All-Georgia on Portolan Charts in the 1330s. – 10 Conclusions.
Keywords Ptolemy. Distortion. Georgian-Gorge. Gates-of-Ibería-or-Caucasian. Caspian-Gates.

Alan-Gates.
DOI 10.14277/2385-3042/AnnOr-53-17-3
Submission 2016-12-20 | Acceptance 2017-04-10
© 2017 | cb Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License 61
Annali di Ca’ Foscari. Serie orientale, 53, 2017, 61-154 [online] ISSN 2385-3042
1 The Paradox of Ptolemy

By the time of Marinus of Tyre (fl. A.D. 107-114) and Claudius Ptolemy
(A.D. c.90-168), Greek and Roman influences in cartography had been
focused to a considerable extent into one tradition. Almost all our knowl-
edge of Marinus is derived from Ptolemy’s Geography about A.D. 150.
Notwithstanding his immense importance in the study of the History of
cartography, however, Claudius Ptolemy remains a complicated figure to
assess.
Many questions about his work remain unanswered. Very little is known
about Ptolemy the man. Moreover, in relation to the cartographic compo-
nent in his writings, we must remember that no manuscript copy of Ptole-
my’s Geography earlier than the end of the fourteenth century has come
down to us. The oldest extant Ptolemaic maps are products of the scholarly
exertions of Manuel Chrysoloras after A.D. 1397 and manual labour of Eu-
ropean map-makers about A.D. 1415 (Codex Urbinas Graecus 82).1
Ptolemy’s work lay hidden for countless years and found no one to bring
it to light. Most serious of all is the whole debate about the true author-
ship and provenance of the general and regional maps that accompany the
versions of the first surviving copies in Greek dating only from the second
decade of the fifteenth century. As we elaborate in the upcoming sections,
it was the work on geographical coordinates that a small group of scholars
carried out in the 1410s and 1460s at Florence and Vienna, and nearby
Klosterneuburg. Although Leo Bagrow, Gerald Crone, Roberto Almagià and
other authors claim it cannot be established whether maps were drawn in
connection with the Geography in the second century of the Christian era,
a rereading of the early Greek version may demonstrate that such maps
existed. And yet, there is no general agreement on this question, and it
illustrates how the whole subject of Ptolemy’s role in cartographic devel-
opment must be handled with caution (Harley, Woodward 1987, 177-8).
Corresponding to our natural perception of time, we commonly consider
time and mapping experience in the physical artefacts we now call maps as
proceeding linearly from the Past to the Present, from a unique predeces-
1 Chrysoloras, a Greek scholar from Constantinople, was invited to the first Chair of Greek
Letters in the Studium of Florence. The Byzantine monk Maximos Planudes is also credited
with having found a copy of Ptolemy’s work. But when and how the scholar Planudes (c.1255-
1305) came across a Greek manuscript of Ptolemy’s Geography, which had disappeared for
many years, is unclear and in need of judgement (Berggren, Jones 2000, 43, 46, 49-51; but
see note 65 on Kugéas 1909, 115-8). Yet it seems in 1295 that this monk of Chora at last
found a copy, sadly lacking maps, of the Geographike Hyphegesis of Claudius Ptolemy of
Alexandria. In a poem Planudes refers enthusiastically to Ptolemy’s work and world map; cf.
Dilke O. and Dilke M. 1994, 117. The more specific argument that the oldest extant Ptole-
maic maps are products of the scholarly exertions of Maximos Planudes about A.D. 1300,
however, depends primarily on a poem which had vanished for many years.
62 Licini. Surveying Georgia’s Past

[online] ISSN 2385-3042 Annali di Ca’ Foscari. Serie orientale, 53, 2017 , 61-154
sor and successor. Unfortunately, this is dangerous, scientifically false and

an all too common mistake in those who are not familiar with the History
of cartography–map history. Chapters in the History of cartography do not
proceed linearly with time. The oldest surviving copy of Ptolemy’s Greek
text was actually compiled more than a thousand years after he wrote in
the second century. The last attestation dates back to the sixth century.
There was utter silence then. The art of delineating maps, exhibiting ei-
ther the figure of the whole earth as far as it has been explored, or that of
particular countries, was known to the ancients. Some of these maps are
mentioned by Herodotus and early Greek writers, but no Ptolemy’s maps
prior to those which were formed in 1415 from his listed geographical
coordinates in order to illustrate his Geography have reached our times
(Codazzi 1950, 15, 23-4, 28-9).
Ptolemy’s Geographike Hyphegesis is a “Guide to Drawing a World”
in eight books but better known as the “Geography”. The paradox is that
Ptolemy’s map is more commonly used as a creation before the time of
portolan charts in the early 1300s whereas it was first constructed in
the 1400s. The oldest-known dated portolan chart was made by Pietro
Vesconte of Genoa in 1311.
In any event, all that can be said with certainty is that Ptolemy provided
raw material for future map-makers to work, and for modern writers to
write fiction instead of history. In general, the historical geographer fol-
lows Bagrow’s reasoning in concluding that manuscript and printed maps
based on Ptolemy from the fifteenth to the sixteenth centuries cannot be
regarded as reliable primary sources for answering questions on ancient
geography. Bagrow even argued that Ptolemy’s text must be inauthentic
on the basis that some place-names demonstrably post-date Ptolemy’s
lifetime (Bagrow 1945, 318-87).
So how representative are those place-names? The object of this paper
is to show how Ptolemy’s map of the Caucasus seriously distorted the
physical truth. Specifically, my analysis will focus on the following research
questions:2
2 The work in this paper is an elaboration of ideas on my lecture delivered at the Vatican
on 27 November 2013. H.E. Khétévane Bagration de Moukhrani, Ambassador of Georgia
to the Holy See and the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, hosted a guest lecture on
‘Georgia in the European Identity.’ The occasion was the Third Eastern Partnership Sum-
mit in Vilnius, Lithuania, EU. H.R.H. Princess Khétévane Bagration de Moukhrani gave a
‘Guest of Honour’ address in which she pointed out how Georgia actively participated in the
EU’s Eastern Partnership programme. In her lecture H.E. Irena Vaišvilaitė, Ambassador
of Lithuania to the Holy See, emphasized the importance of cultural, religious and social
features in defining European identity (Georgia and European Perspectives). In her lecture
Prof. Dr. Patrizia Licini, Geographer of the Italian Association (A.Ge.I.), called attention to
historical Georgia, which was Europe on the Juan de la Cosa oceanic portolan chart of 1500
(www.mappaemundi.eu.ge. Il contributo della Georgia al processo della costruzione europea).
Licini. Surveying Georgia’s Past 63

a. Why did modern historians of the Roman Empire and archaeolo-

gists misuse geographical information from Ptolemy’s map of the
Caucasus?
b. How might historical cartography create a Georgian identity that is
not fixed over time but articulated in time, using legal documents
and certified maps of location, plans, specifications, estimates, and
statements?
A map is, after all, thought to illustrate the geography of a nation’s domain,
the legitimacy of a country’s ancestry, as well as the nature of the people
ruled over by a sovereign state. Ptolemy’s map of the Caucasus, however,
is made up of badly constructed parts. The latitude of Pontus is correctly
known, and as an inscription says, the proper Pontus lies in latitude forty
degrees north, inside what is now Turkey. It is bounded by modern Georgia
(Colchis) on the north. Nonetheless, Ptolemy’s Colchis (West Georgia), Ibe-
ría of the Caucasus (East Georgia) and Albània of the Caucasus (Alvània,
Daghestan) are five degrees too far north, occupying the same latitudes as
East Crimea. From these authentic facts it results that modern historians
and archaeologists are deceived when they, aware or anaware, assume
the Ptolemy map of the Caucasus as a resource for making their works
sound coherent. Instead of assuming that the geographical testimony of
Ptolemy is not true, they assume that the presentation of the Roman past
flows naturally from this muddled and garbled source, largely indifferent
to physical reality. In fact, from the point of view of the History of cartog-
raphy, the source is a Renaissance revival of spurious knowledge lost in
the long centuries when Ptolemy’s Geography was not known nor read.
2 Ptolemy’s Maps at Fault

One might suppose that Ptolemaic space has had a continuous existence
from antiquity to the present, but that is not the case. Through most of
the middle ages, Ptolemy’s Geography was unknown. At the time of the
last attestation in the sixth century, Cassiodorus the prime minister of
Emperor Theodoric recommended Ptolemy’s Greek codex to the monks of
Squillace, high up on the Calabrian hills, Gothic Italy. With Ptolemy then
disappeared the great geographers of antiquity. However, the fortunes of
Ptolemy’s Geography changed abruptly around the year 1406. The expla-
nation of the Geography’s renewed popularity is to be found in 1397 when
Manuel Chrysoloras arrived from Constantinople to Florence via Venice
Details at the site http://www.easydiplomacy.com/conference-georgia-in-the-european-

identity-27-november-2013/?lang=en//.

bringing a copy of Ptolemy’s Geography in Greek. Iacopus of Angelus Ac-

ciajolus from Scarperia, a Florentine in Rome, completed Chrysoloras’
translation into Latin in 1406; in the preface he tells us that Chrysoloras
was his praeceptor.
Certainly Iacopus’ translation had no maps according to Vespasiano da
Bisticci, and the family of manuscripts of Ptolemy’s Geography with at-
tached maps can be dated back to 1415. It was then that first Francesco
di Lapacino made maps in Greek in the Greek codices and maps in Latin
to accompany the Latin versions in Florence (Mai 1859, 515-6).
Its impact is shown by the number of surviving fifteenth-century manu-
scripts of the Latin version illustrated with maps and by the succession
of the early printed editions. In 1475 the first printed edition of Ptolemy’s
Geography was issued at Vicenza. It consisted of a Latin translation but
contained no maps. The first issue with maps came out at Bologna in 1477,
Rome in 1478 and 1490, Ulm in 1482 and 1486. Other world maps quickly
assimilated elements from Ptolemy’s.
However, not all map-makers were affected by that mania. We see lit-
tle trace of Ptolemy maps in Andrea Bianco’s world map of 1436. We see
no trace of a Ptolemaic copying method on any early portolan charts.
And yet, the oldest extant portolan chart is the Pisan Chart dating from
between 1275 and 1291 – that is, eleven centuries after Ptolemy’s Geog-
raphy.
The most important copies of Ptolemy’s Geography are beautiful large-
format parchment codices containing illuminated maps. These are of two
types: world maps showing the whole surface of the earth and sea, and
regional maps. All manuscripts containing maps have the world map laid
out according to Ptolemy’s first map projection, except for the manuscripts
of so-called K version, which employs the second projection, but they fall
into two different classes according to the number of regional maps they
contain. The traditional class displays twenty-six regional maps, which
begin with Britain and end with Taprobana Insula, modern Sri Lanka. Such
are ten maps of Europe, four of Africa (Roman Lybia), and twelve of Asia
according to Ptolemy (Ptol. Geography, book 8.2). The Latin translation
was printed in many times from 1475 (Vicenza) on, with revisions of the
text and additions of modern maps progressively depicting new lands and
uncharted seas. However, old and new maps were framed in the Ptolemaic
rediscovered grid of latitude and longitude circles, by which the position
of any place on earth could be defined.
The fact is that Ptolemy’s values for latitude were in error by up to 5°;
longitude was even worse because there was no reliable method to deter-
mine geographic longitude, a problem that remained until the invention
of the chronometer near the end of the eighteenth century.
Ptolemy drew his prime meridian at the Canary Islands, or, as the Greeks
and Romans call them, Fortunatae Insulae, on the far western edge of the
known world, but as he went further east, errors accumulated. By the

time his estimate reached eastern China (SINARUM REGIO), the world
between the Canary Islands in the Atlantic Ocean and China stretched
out through 180 degrees of longitude horizontally. The inhabited world
known to Ptolemy did not yet extend eastward much beyond the Ganges
and Sērikē, the Silk Country, that represents the Chinese terminus of the
Silk road. Finally, his known world covered about 80 degrees of latitude
vertically from the Equator to the Arctic Circle and North Pole (Berggren,
Jones 2000, 33. Codazzi 1950, 9-10).
The problem is that the latitudes and longitudes of Ptolemy are widely
different from modern reckoning, but the places and their distances be-
ing still the same, as they ever were, we have to consider what led to his
idea of measurements and distanced. The whole known world, according
to Ptolemy, had 180° 0’ of longitude, extending horizontally from 0° 00’ at
the Fortunatae Insulae or Canary Islands in the Atlantic Ocean. Ptolemy
connected Borneo, the Philippines, and Formosa into one line of coast,
which he supposed joined to the south coast of China, and here shut in a
large ocean gulf, with our Singapore and Borneo at its extremities.
However, Ptolemy made the mistake of stretching Asia out eastward to
reach far beyond its real dimensions. Today we know that this distance
is actually about 130 degrees of longitude horizontally around the globe,
instead of 180. He made a big mistake. Ptolemy’s erroneous estimate of
the size of the world and his eastern extension of Asia made the distance
west from Europe to India seem much smaller than it actually is. Notwith-
standing Ptolemy’s biggest mistake, and having been followed by institu-
tions, Cristoforo Colombo sailed westward of the Canary Islands, for, on
the evidence of Ptolemaic maps in which he had faith, India was at the
same latitude. We see it in his copy of Ptolemy’s Geography printed at
Rome in 1478. In fact, he sailed for the Western “Indies” in 1492. But be-
tween 1497 and 1504 Americo Vespucci made four voyages to that fourth
part of the world which was ever after to bear his name–America. On the
authority of Cosmographiae Introductio printed at Saint-Dié of Lotharin-
gia (Lorraine) to give America its name on 25th April 1507, the Reign and
Empire of the Romans at the time, cosmographers understood that a fourth
continent as large as America stood between Europe and Asia. New lands
would be discovered, new maps would be drawn. And European explorers
and cosmographers would eventually correct Ptolemy’s mistakes.
Published in Antwerp in 1570, the great Theatrum Orbis Terrarum of
Abraham Ortelius was the first of the modern atlases, the work that led
masters of maps definitely out of the Ptolemaic wilderness. Early in the
fifteenth century the geography of the second century was rediscovered.
The fact was that Ptolemy was all wrong but the mathematized space of
Ptolemy’s grid covering the whole of the globe was infinitely extendable
from observations of the positions of celestial bodies in the heavens.
For a very long time many, indeed most, maps were not constructed
within the Ptolemaic space, especially in the middle ages. Portolan charts
in the meanwhile were a type of sea map designed to be of practical
use to mariners by detailing sailing directions and coastal geography of
the Mediterranean, Aegean (Greek) and Black Seas. During the Roman
Empire, the Greek and Latin name for the Black Sea was Euxine Pontus,
or the Hospitable Sea. Portolan charts were world maps for navigators.
They began as mariners’ sea charts during the thirteenth century, devel-
oping first among the mariners of Pisa, Ancona, Genoa and Venice, and
then among the Catalans and Mallorcans. The origin of portolan charts is
unknown. However, the compass directions drawn on them indicate the
nautical origin of the chart from the use of the magnetic compass. Modern
historical geographers call them compass-charts.
In any case, portolan charts in the 1300s are much more correct than
Ptolemy’s maps constructed on his original projections in the 1400s
and 1500s. Anyway, surviving maps were not compiled by Ptolemy himself.
The scientific implication of this is that we have no copies of ancient maps
based on Ptolemy. Therefore we must constantly question the accuracy of
the Ptolemaic texts that came down to us.
In 1466 Ptolemy’s map of Britain at first sight is grotesquely inaccurate
(Appendix, fig. 1). This is Ptolemy’s 1st Map of Europe in the traditional
series. Certainly something is wrong here. The map-maker turned Scotland
north of the Tay River through 90 degrees so that Britain bends suddenly
to the east instead of running broadly south to north. We see it in Nico-
laus Germanus’ manuscript copy of Ptolemy’s world and regional maps
displaying Ptolemy’s geographical conceptions in 1466. With no exception,
however, the maps examined here are the same in all editions. In Florence
Nicolaus created the illuminated manuscript of Ptolemy’s Cosmographia
in the Latin version of Iacopo d’Angelo da Scarperia and made the world
and 26 regional maps for Borso d’Este, the Duke of Modena.3
It has long been recognized as a puzzling fact that, in Ptolemy’s map
of the British Isles (ALBION INSULA BRITANICA. IBERNIA INSULA), the
shape of Britain is turned abruptly to the east from the latitude 55° north,
3 In a letter dated March 15, 1466, Borso d’Este, the Duke of Modena, gave the news that
“domino Nicolao germanico” had come from Florence and the Duke had obtained a commis-
sion to examine his version of Ptolemy’s text and maps; Modena, Regio Archivio di Stato di
Modena, Cancellaria ducale, Archivio proprio a. 1466; Camera Ducale, Reg.to mandati 1466,
f. 125v. Sources edited by Fischer 1902: 113, 2. Borsius Dux [Clarissimo viro Ludovico Ca-
sellae referendario et cancellario nostro secreto]; 114, 2a. Borsius Dux [Mandato. Aristoteles
de Bruturijs scripsit xxx marcij 1466], 2b. Borsius Dux [Mandato. Aristoteles de Bruturijs
scripsit viii aprilis 1466]; 115-16, 5. Lobhymnus des Domnus Nicolaus Germanus auf Itali-
en; 116-21, Widmungsschreiben des Domnus Nicolaus Germanus an den Fürsten Borso von
Este und den Papst Paul II. The emended word Cosmographia for Geographia appears in
Iacobus’s first Latin translation in Rome.

corresponding to Scotland, so as to make a right angle approximately with

the southern part of the country–England and Wales. The strong west-
to-east distortion of maps based on Ptolemy’s deficient source for the
knowledge of Britain, Italy, France, Spain and the Sea of Azov, is known
to the History of cartography, but what is unknown still, as I shall try to
present it in the next section, is how the fractured structures of the Mescit
Mountains, or as the ancients call them, moschivis montes, are misaligned
west-east, and distorted on Ptolemy’s map of the Caucasus, the 3rd Map
of Asia in the series. The Mescit Mountains are in what is now northeast
Turkey. Not surprisingly, therefore, the geologic structure of the Mescit
Mountains is wrongly represented on the map by contour lines based on
the shape of a right angle, having two long corridors which give clear,
separate channels to travel through.
The 27 Ptolemaic old maps are from Nicolaus Germanus, with the world
map given in Ptolemy’s first projection of the sphere. However Nicolaus
added the new maps of France (Gallia novella), Italy (Novella Italia), Spain
(Spania novella) and The Holy Land (Palestina, Terra sancta). The four ad-
ditional Tabulae Novae of the manuscript edition are France, Italy, Spain,
The Holy Land and Palestine. In fact, in 1466 they represent contemporary
countries as opposed to the countries of Ptolemy’s time.
The effect of Ptolemy’s coordinates on maps draw from them is also
borne out in a number of other examples in the late fourteenth and early
fifteenth centuries. The point is that Ptolemy’s Geography originally com-
prises a list of some 8,000 coordinates of places on the earth in the sec-
ond century of the Christian era. In general, maps drawn from Ptolemy’s
coordinates are repeated without change.4 They are therefore inaccurate
in many places, and distorted. However, editions of Ptolemy’s text and
maps multiplied after 1406 in Greek and Latin versions until they were
expunged in the 1570s.
Another paradox was that Ptolemy’s old maps gradually came to be
no more than a traditional adjunction to Ptolemy’s Geography, and more
and more modern maps “extra Ptolemeum positae” were added to suc-
cessive editions of Ptolemy’s Geography in the fifteenth and sixteenth
centuries. Even in Italy where Ptolemy’s Geography was reborn in 1406
and Ptolemy’s maps were born in 1415, this trend is apparent. The printed
edition of Francesco Berlingeri, Florence, 1482, had four modern maps;
Ptolemy’s Geography printed at Ulm in 1482 presented maps of Spain,
Italy, Gaul (France), The Holy Land, the countries of the North, and, for
4 All cohordinates are from Stückelberger 2009, 1. Teilband, 122-33. See also 2. Teil-

band, 5. Buch, Kapitel 1-8 Asien, 480, 1. Karte (Türkei), Kapitel 10-13, Asien, 3. Karte
(Kolchis, Armenien); 523, Asien, 1. Karte Klein-Armenien; 543, Asien, 3. Iberien; 544-45,
Asien, 3. Karte Albanien 12. Kapitel Albanien/Aserbaidschan [Asien, 3. Karte]; 547, Asien, 3.
Karte Gross-Armenien.

the first time, a map of Eastern Europe and the Baltic littoral: the “Tabula
Moderna Prussię, Suecię, Norbegię, Gotcię et Russię, extra Ptolemeum
posita” which has a special explanatory chapter to itself in the 1486 edi-
tion (book III.5).
After Ptolemy’s map of the Caucasus, we have no other delineation of
the Caucasus, till much more recent ages. Although modern maps of Spain,
Italy, France, The Holy Land, Prussia, Sweden, Norway, Gothia and Russia
were first introduced to the reader as “Tabulae modernae extra Ptolemeum
positae” and used as adjustment layers to alter the Ptolemaic set of 27
traditional maps that were not the work of Ptolemy himself but had been
executed in accordance with his method in the 1460s and the early 1480s,
European map-makers and cosmographers had to wait for another two
centuries before Cristoforo Castelli could make the first map of modern
western Georgia (Colchis renamed Mingrelia). Castelli’s map bears the
title Totius Colchidis, Hodie Mengrelliae a Corace amne ad Phasim usque
Descriptio (Palermo, BC, Fondo Castelli, 3QqE92). It covers the Colchian
region from the K’odori River (Corax) to the Phasis River, or, as the Geor-
gians call it, Rioni (Lamberti 1654, 210). No doubt, the K’odori mountain
valley and river mark the northern edge of Georgia (Colchis). The map was
printed from a copperplate engraving at Naples in 1654. (Lamberti 1654,
“Tavola De’ Capitoli”, Castelli’s map, attachment. Guiorgazze 1977, 405,
N. 525 as explanation of plate N. 524. Licini 1980, 1st map, La Mingrelia,
disegno; 1989, 341-42; 2001, 341, N. 1).
Beginning in the 1400s and continuing in the 1500s, Ptolemy’s map of
Britain is seriously distorted in orientation compared to modern maps, a
reflection of the incomplete and inaccurate descriptions of road systems
and trade routes at Ptolemy’s disposal in the second century, so that north-
south distances are greatly compressed relative to west-east distances,
and all outlines are accordingly distorted. Similarly, the Sea of Azov (Palus
Meotis) is exaggerated and too far north, the Caspian Sea in a prone in-
stead of upright position.
And thus Britain is not the only distorted map in the manuscript and
printed collections of maps based on Ptolemy’s rediscovered Geography
in Renaissance Europe. Even the Ptolemy map of Italy and Corsica, Ptole-
my’s 6th European Map from Ptolemy’s resurfaced copy of his eight books
without maps, is seriously distorted in size and west-to-east orientation
compared to modern maps (Appendix, fig. 3). Italy is oriented almost en-
tirely east, having the Adriatic for its northern, and the Tyrrhenian for
its southern boundary. In the Augustan period Ptolemy’s coordinates for
ITALIA showing the city of Rome, the capital of the Empire of the Romans,
are not as good as one might expect for such a well-known area. It seems
inevitable that anyone attempting to draw a map from them would have
problems of orientation over the whole Italian Peninsula. And yet, the di-
vision into eleven administrative regions by Gaius Iulius Caesar Octavian
Augustus had already been made according to Pliny (Plin., Naturalis his-
toria, 3,46).
Northern and central Italy are bound to be portrayed with a largely
west-east rather than northwest-southeast orientation. Although this ap-
plies throughout those areas, it can best be illustrated from the Po valley
according to Harley and Woodward (1987, 193-5). If we plot the towns
along the Via Aemilia (Ptolemy does not give coordinates for roads), we
find that many of them lie in a west-east line; the striking result is that the
Italian Peninsula appears in too north-south an orientation. This feature
applies south of a line Naples – Benevento – Monte Gargano, so that the
Italian Peninsula, from Ptolemy’s coordinates, presents an unwarranted
bend (Harley and Woodward (1987, 195; Lago 1992, I, 32).
In 1466 Nicolaus Germanus’ edition of the Ptolemy’s Geography show-
ing grotesquely distorted maps of Britain and Italy does not differ in any
respect from the first extant in a Greek manuscript of Ptolemy’s Geography
in the early fifteenth century, the Codex Urbinas Graecus 82 (Città del
Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Urbinas Graecus 82, ff. 63v-64r
and ff. 71v-72r respectively).
In accordance with the preceding remarks, the observer should compare
Ptolemy’s map of North Britain with a modern map of Scotland laid upon
it. As I will elaborate in this study, a similar distortion is shown on Ptole-
my’s 3rd Asian Map, Ptolemy’s map of the Caucasus. It shows COLCHIS
(West Georgia), IBERÍA of the Caucasus (Kartli, East Georgia), ALBÀNIA
of the Caucasus (Alvània, Daghestan), and the neighbouring regions of
ARMENIA MAIOR (Upper, or Greater Armenia), MEDIA (Mesopotamia)
and ASSIRIA (above Syria). I will use, as an example, Nicolaus Germanus’
manuscript copy of 1466 (Appendix, fig. 4).
The third Ptolemaic map of Asia shows Greater Armenia, Media, Assyria,
and the three neighbouring Caucasian Kingdoms of the north all lying
between the Black or Pontic Sea to the west and the Caspian Sea to the
east. Ibería of the Caucasus or, in Georgian, K‘art‘li, is East Georgia, the
historical nucleus of the Georgian nation. In English, the corresponding
word is Kartli. The problem of distortion, it appears, can not be separated
from the problem of how modern historians on ancient political geography
and archaeologists approach, unintentionally, the acquisition of knowl-
edge about the past from Ptolemy’s wrong interpretation of the region
of the Pontus and Caucasus as it resurfaced in the Renaissance. Ignoring
the History of cartography as a discipline, historical and archaeological
examination of evidence grounded in Ptolemy’s map of the Caucasus is,
therefore, utterly worthless and would be rejected by serious historians.
Picking just one map from a complete collection of twenty-seven maps
is a dauting task without the support of the History of cartography. Mod-
ern Armenians are particularly proud of the copy of Ptolemy’s map of the
Caucasus which shows Armenia extending from the Black or Pontic Sea to
the Caspian according to Deirdre Holding (2014, 153). And yet, however,

a very brief review of Ptolemy’s map of the Caucasus in the same series
of regional maps showing distorted Britain and Italy would have set its
imperfections in a clear light. Indeed, the outline of Armenia is spectacu-
larly wrong. North of the Taurus Mountain front lay a portion of Armenia
in what is now northern Turkey (Thaurus mons-Niphates mons). However,
the map-maker turned Greater Armenia (ARMENIA MAIOR) north of the
Aras River (araxes f.) through 90 degrees so that Mesopotamia (MEDIĘ
PARS), Iraq in ancient times, bends suddenly to the east instead of running
broadly south to north. We see it in Nicolaus Germanus’ manuscript copy
of Ptolemy’s map of the Caucasus (Appendix, fig. 4). In this way, Mesopo-
tamia is so incorrectly placed on the map, that it borders the Caspian Sea
(HIRCANUM [SI]VE CASPIUM MARE) and is situated on the bottom right
of the map. Meaning ‘between rivers’, Mesopotamia is the West Asian re-
gion between the Euphrates and Tigris rivers, north of the bottle-neck at
Baghdad, in modern Iraq; it is Al-Jazīrah of the Arabs−The Island.
In 1890 Ramsay’s The Historical Goegraphy of Asia Minor was a pio-
neering work of classical geography and topography, but it should not
remain a key reference for archaeologists, classicists, historians of the
Roman Empire, Byzantinists. In fact, it examines the trade routes and road
systems of Roman and Byzantine Asia Minor and its political divisions into
cities and regions. It shows, in the innumerable quotations on historical
Armenia from sources, how very much we have really advanced in the
knowledge of ancient geography and Ptolemy’s inaccuracy. Remarkably,
however, Ramsay totally failed to mention Colchis (West Georgia) and Ibe-
ría of the Caucasus (East Georgia) in his work. And yet, Colchis and Cau-
casian Ibería occupied what mostly was then the Kingdom of all-Georgia,
stretching from the foot of the Caucasus mountains to İspir, the Geogian
Gorge (Gürcü Boğazı) and Bayburt (A.D. 928) in what is now Turkey (see
below, note 14).
Rouben Galichain most appropriately concludes his study of Armenia
and the region south of the Caucasus on medieval western and Islamic
maps, by frankly assertying that “Countries south of the Caucasus can
also be seen in the maps of Ptolemy, which are outside the scope of this
volume. In maps attributed to Ptolemy, Colchis, Iberia, Albania, Greater
and Lesser Armenia feature prominently and even have demarcated bor-
ders, but one should bear in mind that these maps were made during the
thirteenth to sixteenth centuries, based on the data provided by the second
century texts of Ptolemy’s Geographia, therefore these borders can hardly
be regarded as true second century demarcations” (2007, 198-9).
In criticising the correctness of maps attributed to Ptolemy and attached
to his Geography in 1415 at the earliest, it should be remembered that he
had to depend for his information on the reports of travellers and navigators
who were unfurnished with the instruments which we consider indispensa-
ble for the ascertaining of geographical data. The ancient ship’s pilot had no
mariner’s compass, no sextant, and no chronometer in the second century.
But when I consider these maps as primary sources in modern studies
of historical geography and connected cartography of the Caucasus, I
am unable to accept this explanation as satisfactory, for two reasons. In
the first place the mistakes and exaggerations of Ptolemy no doubt have
resulted in a very distorted delineation of the outline of the coast, and
in a regular and consistent substitution of due north for due east, which
is what we find in world and regional maps that customarily accompany
manuscript and printed editions of Ptolemy’s text resurfaced in the context
of Florentine humanism around 1400. The deformation is general in that
it extends over the entire length of the Greek oikoumenē, or, the “known
world” in the second century of the Christian era. In the second place, as
for Britain, Cornelius Tacitus did not share at all in Ptolemy’s mistake.
Tacitus is a near contemporary of Ptolemy. He states that earlier writers
had compared the shape of Britain up to Scotland to that of an oblong,
small shield (Tac. Agricola 10,3):
formam totius Britanniae […] oblongae scutulae adsimulavere.
This comparison is fairly correct for the nearer half of Britain, but the remot-
er half extends northwards in the shape of a prolonged wedge or diverging
‘V’ east of the shoreline on Ptolemy’s distorted map of Britain, Ptolemy’s 1st
European Map in the series (Appendix, figs. 1-2). Indeed, the outline of
Scotland is spectacularly wrong, with an eastern protuberance extending far
towards the German Ocean (Oceanus Germanicus) and modern Denmark.
Certainly, Scotland is bent eastward with an axis at a right angle to that
of England on Ptolemy’s 1st European Map. This is a usual degree of error
for Ptolemy. The Mediterranean basin as a whole has been badly distorted
in overall length. In fact, Ptolemy showed the length of its axis as 62° rather
than its correct extent of 42° from west to east (Bennett Durand 1952, 100).
The distortion of the Mediterranean followed from its fundamental error in
seriously underestimating the earth’s size (Appendix, fig. 5). Ptolemy also
extended the continent of Asia too far to the east by some 50°.
In Ptolemy’s Britain, – as, I suppose, is also the case in the Caucasus, –
there is a big distortion.
3 The ‘Dogleg’ Appearance of the Mescit Mountains

The revival of Ptolemy in Europe was almost entirely the work of mem-
bers of humanistic circles in the century when America was discovered.
Ptolemy’s erroneous estimate of the size of the world and his eastern ex-
tension of Asia made the distance west from Europe to India seem much
smaller than it actually is. In fact, editions of Ptolemy’s Geography misled

Colombo into thinking that in the Carribean Sea he had reached India
across the Western Ocean in 1492.
Ptolemy’s 3rd Asian Map in the standard set, then, belongs to a whole
group of maps which can not be seen as a culminating development in a
line of tradition going back to the Roman period. In the fifteenth century
it depicts the Caucasus region on the basis of Ptolemy’s erroneous calcula-
tions in the second century.
The ancient writers locate Ibería of the Caucasus in a country stretch-
ing from the Caucasus Mountains to the Meschic, or Moschic Mountains,
formed by the last range of high and steep mountains belonging to the Eu-
xine Pontus, that is to say, the Pontic Alps on the Black Sea.5 Not at all the
questions that this paper seeks to answer are immediately obvious, at least
to modern historians of ancient Rome. I should perhaps therefore briefly
attempt to clarify my approach. I believe that ancient Mescit Mountains and
modern Mescit Dağları in northeastern Turkey were Caucasian Ibería (East
Georgia). Native speakers call it Kartli. The third side, towards the west,
is terminated by a chain of mountains to which Pompey’s campaign gave
the general name of Meschici montes in the year 65 before Christ, or, as
Strabo calls them, the Moschic mountains (Μοσχικοῖς), touching Armenia.6
Twice Nicolaus Germanus explains them as moschivis montes (mosch[vı]
s montes-moschıvıs mon[te]s). On Ptolemy’s map of the Caucasus they are
laid in a simple grid pattern, the coordinate system of latitude and longi-
5 “a Scriptoribus Byzantinis omnibus appellantur Iberes (Ίβηρες), [..] Anno enim ante
C. N. 65 a Caucaso usque ad Meschicos montes et Pontum Euxinum pertinebant”. Strit-
ter 1779, 25; see also 268 note a “Ioannis Zonarae Annarium X.4: Pompeius Afranio: Iberi, hi
ad Meschicos montes et Pontum pertinentes” and paragraphs dedicated to Gnaeus Pompeius
Magnus (Pompey the Great), 66-65 before Christ, 3rd Mithridatic War against Mithridates
the King of Pontus escaping to Colchis (West Georgia), Pompey’s campaign in Ibería and
Albània 65 B.C. (source: Plutarchi Pompeius, c. 36-46 et 50).
6 Strabo 1877, Geographica, 691, 698-699, 11,2,1, “After the Heniochi is Colchis, lying at
the foot of the Caucasian and Moschic mountains. [Μοσχικοῖς”], 11,2,13, “The whole
of the coast of the Achaei, and of the other nations, as far as Dioscurias, and the inland
places lying in a straight line towards the south, are at the foot of the Caucasus. [15] This
mountain overhangs both the Euxine and the Caspian seas, forming a kind of rampart
to the isthmus which separates one sea from the other. To the south it is the boundary of
Albania and Iberia, to the north, of the plains of the Sarmatians. It is well wooded, and
contains various kinds of timber, and especially trees adapted to shipbuilding. Eratosthenes
says that the Caucasus is called Mount Caspius by the natives, a name borrowed
perhaps from the Caspii. It throws out forks towards the south, which embrace the
middle of Ibería, and touch the Armenian and those called the Moschic mountains,
and besides these the mountains of Scydises, and the Paryadres. All these are portions of
the Taurus, which forms the southern side of Armenia, and are broken off in a manner from
it towards the north, and extend as far as Caucasus, and the coast of the Euxine which
lies between Colchis and Themiscyra. [16”]. For the English versions, see Strabo 1856
(Falconer ed.), 1928 (Jones ed.).

tude; nearer the Caucasus they are in alternating rows, with a distinctly
dogleg effect (Appendix, figs. 4, 6).
These mountains have never been identified on Ptolemy’s 3rd Map of
Asia. Originating in the western part of the Mescit Mountains, however,
the Č’oroxi River flows 466 km (290 miles) before reaching the Black Sea
in modern Georgia. The Mescit Mountains are called, in the Georgian
language, Meskhes (Vaxušt’i Bat’onišvili 1842, 124, n. 1).
How was it, that the Mescit Mountains have never been identified? The
Mescit Mountains in the real world, however, do not turn abruptly to the
east from the latitude 45° north as to make a right angle from west to east,
that is to say from the Pontic or Black Sea to the confluence of the rivers
Aras (araxes f.) and Kur (Cırus Fluvıus = Cirus fluvius = Cyrus River) on
Ptolemy’s erroneous map. The Turks call it Kura Nehri and the Georgians
call it Mtkvari. The Azeri call it Kür, 70 miles south of Baku (Appendix,
fig. 6). On a map of the fifteenth century, Boschis mons and Boschius mons
are graphic variants of the same name, Moschic, in an altered shape as a
‘dogleg right’ (Napoli, Biblioteca Nazionale, cod. Lat. V F. 32).
There is evidence for sudden changes in direction at Sebastopolis, lower
Colchis (West Georgia), where the Mescit Mountain range stretches into
the valley of the Phasis River (F. phasıs = Fluvius phases), current Rioni
River, modern Georgia. The range then reaches the valley cut by the con-
fluence of the river Kur (Cyrus) and Aragvi before artificially climbing up
to Albània of the Caucasus, the third of the Caucasian countries depict-
ed on Ptolemy’s map in 1466. The Cyrus is the transboundary Kur River
in modern Turkey and Mtkvari in modern Georgia. Here we see Mcxeta
(mescheta), the ancient capital of Ibería of the Caucasus (Kartli. Eastern
Georgia) since the people called Kartveli had been associated with a set
ethnonym, and the mythical city of Armazi (armatıca = armatica).
The sinking city of Colchian Sebastopolis was still visible on portolan
charts of the middle ages. To the south of Poti, Sebastopolis was where
the Horse River (Hippus, ცხენისწყალი) and the Phasis River (Fasso, Ri-
oni) end in an extensive coastal swamp, as it was depicted on Castelli’s
map 1654 (Lamberti’s report on Colchis, or, Mingrelia).7
In any event, Ptolemy’s map of the Caucasus is quite useless in the
history of the Caucasus, showing the wrong latitude of 45° north for the
southern slopes of the Caucasus Mountains (Appendix, fig. 4). It actually
corresponds to the latitude of Crimea (45°3’N). And yet, there is a note
in red ink in the right margin, the outside margin, which states that the
7 Inscriptions are Fasso Fl: accolis Rion; Hippus Fl: accolis Scheni schari; Puti; Sebastopoli.
See also Lamberti 1654, § Delli Fiumi, 209; Castelli’s map, attachment; Palermo, Biblioteca
Comunale, Fondo Castelli, 3QqE92, fol. 52v “Predica nella villa di Sebastopoli, dove fu
anticamente una città famosissima”; and Totius Colchidis, map. See Guiorgazze 1977, 389
and image n. 338; Licini 1980, map 1, reproduction.

parallel of mid-Pontus corresponds to the latitude of 40° North (“Quartus

decimus Paral[lelus] p[er] mediu[m] Pontum”). To the south the Pontic Alps
are actually located at latitude 40° North. Strangely enough, however, the
map-maker did not take notice of the given latitude.
The geographical latitude of 45° north, erroneous as it is per se, also
conveys the false and misleading information that the three States of Col-
chis (West Georgia), Ibería of the Caucasus (East Georgia) and Albània
of the Caucasus (Alvània) in what is now Daghestan, Azerbaijan, were all
aligned in parallel in a west-to-east direction from the Phasis River, ancient
Colchis, currently the Rioni River, modern Georgia.
At first sight the Mescit Mountains are grotesquely inaccurate on Ptole-
my’s 3 Asian Map, the map in the series Nicolaus Germanus made covering
the Caucasus and neighbouring regions in 1466 (Appendix, figs. 4, 6). It
shows the wrong latitude of 45° north for the upper Mescit Mountains,
and 47° and a half (1/2) for the southern slopes of the Caucasus Mountains.
In design the dogleg is the absolute change of direction; a dogleg is
a route, way, or course that turns at a sharp angle, originally a type of
staircase; a road doglegged through the mountains is something bent like
a dog’s hind leg. In any event, the “dogleg” appearance of the northern
Mescit Mountains is a distorted Ptolemaic feature which occurs through-
out the series of 27 maps from the early fourteenth century, and which
we first see on Ptolemy’s map of Britain–the 1st Map of Europe in the
series. In any event, the “dogleg” appearance of northern Britain is a
Ptolemaic feature that becomes more conspicuous with mapping (Harley,
Woodward 1987, 190).
In fact, the prominent feature in the physical geography of Pontus is
presented in its vast mountain-system, which should have stretched in un-
broken line along the southern flank of Pontus. Here the chain of the Mescit
Mountains stretches almost unbroken northeast from Bayburt to İspir,
Yusufelı, Kara Dağ near Dere in the province of Artvin, currently, Turkey.
To an eye accustomed to modern maps of the world, Ptolemy’s Europe is
the most instantly recognizable of the three known continents. The outline
of the European mainland is complete as far north as the east coast of the
Baltic Sea. But distortions of direction and scale are obvious in the more
remote parts toward the north and west, as in the outlines and relative
position of the British Isles; and even in the Mediterranean there is a sur-
prising error of orientation in the shape of Italy (Appendix, figs. 1, 2, 3, 5).
No doubt it is only with hindsight, and a knowledge of correct coastal
outlines that we can see this in the Ptolemy maps of Britain, Italy and
France. These regional maps were constructed from Ptolemy’s text and
added to the book by a copyist at any date between the rediscovery of
Ptolemy’s Geography around 1397 in Europe and the earliest known manu-
script editions in Greek and Latin with maps in 1415. But indeed, the
outline of Scotland and Italy on the portolan chart is more accurate.
When we examine the Ptolemaic maps that have survived since 1415,

however, it becomes clear that the basic principle of linear perspective
was not yet practised as the “vanishing point” was still to be invented
(Valerio 1998, 265-90).8
Rather, Ptolemy’s Geography is driven by the idea of simply render-
ing visible the form and pattern of the earthly sphere considered as a
mathematical, solid figure. We have to imagine a canvas enveloping the
sphere in miniature form. Importantly, there are three ways to get input
coordinates of points painted on a canvas as a two-dimensional surface
resembling a map. The three ways discussed in Ptolemy’s books are very
different. The resulting three-dimensional model projected onto the flat
table is then employed to locate, on the simulated earth’s surface, points
in respect of which no direct measurements have been actually taken
(Farinelli 1995, 139; Neve 1999, 207).
So is Ptolemy’s 3rd Asian Map, Tertia Asiae Tabula, the map depicting
the Caucasus (Appendix, figs. 4, 6). However, geographical objects such
as settlements and isolated cities are not fuzzy in themselves, but they are
fuzzy with respect to the precision of the underlying knowledge. Inland
frontiers and broad boundaries, such as those shaping collective identi-
ties in terms of sovereignty in Caucasian Ibería (Kartli, East Georgia),
are harder to identify than the extended lateral seaward boundaries of a
coastal State. Consequently, today historical geographers have to rely on
literary sources, although this does not necessarily mean that the source
is the most accurate one. One of the primary sources of evidence in his-
tory is testimony by witnesses, or others who have firsthand knowledge
of the geographical area in question. Witnesses who provide inaccurate
testimony may face oblivion and their testimony may be impeached, or
set aside, when it can be demonstrated that it knowingly did not provide
truthful testimony.
Primary sources such as Strabo’s geography and the Elder Pliny’s natu-
ral history are original materials. Strabo was born to a Greek family from
Amasya Pontica, south Pontus under Roman rule, in 64 or 63 B.C. in what
is now Turkey. And Pliny had the opportunity to see what he describes as
situs depicti, “places drawn”, or “coloured plans” at Rome within A.D. 79.
The Caucasus is depicted in a series of full-coloured maps (Plin., Naturalis
historia 6,15):
After we pass the mouth of the Cyrus [the Kur River], it begins to be
called the ‘Caspian Sea;’ the Caspii being a people who dwell upon its
8 Francesco di Lapacino first made maps in Greek and Latin to accompany Ptolemy’s edi-
tions in Florence about 1415. In 1425, only 10 years after the first estant Ptolemaic maps,
Filippo Brunelleschi discovered the vanishing point, which would give to two-dimensional
works of art the illusion of depth and consistent scale.

shores. In this place it may be as well to correct an error into which

many persons have fallen, and even those who lately took part with
Corbulo in the Armenian war. The Gates of Ibería, which we have
mentioned as the Caucasian, they have spoken of as being called
the ‘Caspian,’ and the coloured plans which have been sent from
those parts to Rome have that name written upon them [hi Caspias
appellavere Portas Iberiae, quas Caucasias diximus vocari: situsque
depicti et inde missi, hoc nomen inscriptum habent]. The menaced
expedition, too, that was contemplated by the Emperor Nero, was
said to be designed to extend as far as the Caspian Gates [ad cas-
pias portas], where as it was really intended for those which lead
through Ibería into the territory of the Sarmatae; there being
hardly any possibility of approach to the Caspian Sea, by reason
of the close juxtaposition of the mountains here. [..] There are,
however, other gates, which join up the Caspian tribes; but these can
only be distinguished from a perusal of the narrative of those who took
part in the expedition of Alexander the Great.
For my purposes, this puts the matter very clearly. The Kur flows from
north to south, and takes its rise in the Caucasian Mountains of Ibería,
currently, Georgia (Kartli, East Georgia). We have no difficulty in finding
the mouth of the Kur River, or, as the ancients call it, the Cyrus, on whose
banks the Caspii live. They give the Caspian Sea its name according to
Pliny. The mouth of the Kur River fronts on the Caspian Sea and extends 70
miles south of Baku in what is now Azerbaijan. The Emperor Nero organ-
ized an Armenian campaign, which was to extend as far as Sarmatia, cur-
rently, Russia, through the territory of Ibería of the Caucasus. Immediately
after the Armenian campaign in the year 63, however, the Roman Army
never reached the objective. Pliny is saying that the primary reason for
the worst days in Roman military history was the failure of Nero’s general
Corbulo to proceed by neutralizing the enemy’s defence and strongpoints
through surveying and cartography. In fact, Pliny’s new drawings are in-
scribed “The Gates of Ibería as the Caucasian Gates”. Yet here Pliny says
that “The Gates of Ibería as the Caucasian Gates” are not to be confused
with “The Caspian Gates”, as the Gates of Caucasian Ibería “do not” lead
from Ibería of the Caucasus to the Caspian Sea.
Where are the Gates of Ibería, or, the Caucasian Gates, which lead
from Armenia northwards across the mountains of Ibería of the Caucasus
(Kartli) into Sarmatia (Russia)? Nor is it a very easy task to trace their
topographical situation and origin. Maps serve to clarify complex areas
where you might go wrong. And really, in point of fact, to use for the
conveyance of land, inaccurate maps is worse than useless; it is likely to
lead to dispute and litigation. Ptolemy’s map of France, Europe, is one
of the 26 regional maps in a fifteenth-century manuscript of the Latin
version of Ptolemy’s Geography. And yet, it exemplifies the strength and

the weakness of Ptolemy’s maps. Positions of places are determined by
geographical coordinates, and even degrees of latitude and longitude are
entered in the margin. The work seems perfect. But the coordinates are
often incorrect, and contemporary portolan charts offer a more accurate
map of the French Atlantic coast (Harvey 1991, 58).
Although Ptolemy’s lists locate 8,000 places by their geographical coor-
dinates, it is clear that these did not all come from immediate observation
of the earth but they were worked out from whatever information was
available to him, such as accounts of journeys giving distances from one
place to another and tables of coordinates. This means that their appear-
ance of great accuracy is often spurious.
No wonder, then, that the map of the Caucasus displays the same type
of distortion (Appendix, figs. 4, 6). On Ptolemy’s 3rd Asian Map, the inland
State of Ibería of the Caucasus (Kartli, Eastern Georgia) lies at the same
parallel of latitude as the coastal State of Colchis (Western Georgia) to
the west on the Pontic or Back Sea, and the coastal State of Albània of the
Caucasus (Alvània, Daghestan) to the east on the Hircanian or Caspian
Sea: the wrong parallel of latitude 45° North.
The name Mesopotamia comes from two Greek words that mean “mid-
dle” and “rivers”. Both the Tigris and the Euphrates, currently, Dicle Nehri
and Firat Nehri, still begin in mountains that are modern-day Turkey and
Iraq. Roman Mesopotamia, or, as Ptolemy calls it, Media, should be a
land surrounded by two rivers, but incredibly, it is a sea-coast land on
Ptolemy’s 3rd Asian Map (MEDIĘ PARS). The land of the Medians here
stretches from the Euphrates and the Tigris eastwards, to the shores of the
Caspian Sea (HIRCANUM [SI]VE CASPIUM MARE. Appendix, figs. 4, 6).
In 1466 Nicolaus Germanus, the map-maker, duly added land to land till
no space was left on the graph paper according to Ptolemy’s grid meth-
odology. As a result, the Hircanian or Caspian Sea is in a prone instead of
upright position. Even so, a bit of Mesopotamia (MEDIĘ PARS) protrudes
eastwards into the frame and it ends unfinished.
Indeed, the outline of Upper or Greater Armenia (ARMENIA MAIOR)
and Mesopotamia (MEDIĘ PARS) on Ptolemy’s 3rd Asian Map are spec-
tacularly wrong, with an eastern protuberance of the land of the Medians
extending far towards the Caspian Sea. Mesopotamia is bent eastward
with an axis at a right angle to that of Greater Armenia.
We see it in how misaligned west-east are the fractured structures of the
Mescit Mountains, currently, Mescit Dağları, Turkey, and how they turn
abruptly to the east from the latitude 45° north so that one parallel line
can be draw through the wrong points Colchis (West Georgia, Caucasian
Ibería of the Caucasus (East Georgia, Kartli) and Caucasian Albània (Dagh-
estan) on Ptolemy’s 3rd Asian Map. The Mescit Mountains are moschivis
montes, which are seriously distorted in size and west-to-east orientation
compared to modern maps. We can see the level of distortion in the way
in which the Mescit Mountains are represented as a series of peaks, form-
ing a pattern similar to the letter Z on the Ptolemaic 3rd Map edited by
Nicolaus Germanus in his codex of 1466, the exemplar we are following
(Appendix, fig. 6).
From this description I can conclude that Ptolemy’s map of the Cau-
casus is as distorted as that of Britain. At the very best, distorted as it
is, the course of the Euphrates River, currently, Firat Nehri, is an utter
confusion of names at pleasure, a conjectural location of nonsense within
geographical coordinates of “nowhere” that could have deceived even
Trajan’s commanders in A.D. 114.
Yesterday and today, reasoning about single cities, mountains, lakes,
sites often involves uncertainty and imprecision. For example, when we
talk about Kayseri of Kapadokya in modern Turkey today, that was Cae-
sarea Cappadociae in Greek Anatolia in the Roman reign, or, as the Greeks
called it, Romània, we usually do not know exactly the boundaries of the
region called Kapadokya. Nonetheless, purely geographic names as posts
along the Roman public road can be very problematic if we decide to en-
large the view of the scene in progressive steps through Greek Anatolia
including Kapadokya and the river Euphrates (Firat Nehri mod. Turkey).
Cities, mountains, lakes, sites are no more than spots on the regional map
if they have no reference whatsoever to the administrative situation of the
territory as a whole through the creation of transportation links with the
rest of the area, whether included in one sovereignty or another. It simply
regards the fact whether grants arise under the same or under different
States. Of all geographical indications and ancient limits of Greek Anatolia,
Kapadokya is the Anatolian portion of the Roman Empire at the “Head”
of historical Syria and Cyprus, currently, south-east Turkey, according
to primary sources.9 Matters of such importance as the conveyance of
sovereignty and political jurisdiction of lands are not left to inference or
conjecture.
History reveals that Colchis, the eastern end of Pontus, occupied the ter-
ritory that is modern Georgia. But the Colchian coast-line on Ptolemy’s 3rd
Map of Asia is nothing more than the Cappadocian coast turned the wrong
way! In fact, the Pontic port of Trabzon (trapesoz) is depicted to the west
of Kapadokya (Capadotię pars. Appendix, fig. 6). This is yet another case of
the inlet and outlet connections being wrongly located on Ptolemy’s maps.
Today the Ch’orokhi is a trans-boundary river, currently, Çoruh Nehri
in Turkey and ჭოროხი in Georgia. From the west summit of the Mescit
9 Bongars 1611, 30-81, Roberti Monachi Historia Hierosolimitana, 3, vv. 16-18 “Dehinc

prospero successu venerunt ad Caesaream Cappadociae. Cappadocia autem regio est in
capite Syriae sita, ad Septentrionalem plagam porrecta; cujus incolae civitatis ultro se
tradiderunt eosque benique receperunt”.

Mountains, currently, Turkey, the Ch’orokhi River flows through Bayburt.

The Ch’orokhi River, at its sources, flows and extends across the western
part of the Bayburt Plateau on the isolated Mount Uzundere, and it marks
the west flank of the Mescit Mountains. At the Bayburt Plateau’s western
edge is Vardzahan, renamed Uğrak today. Then the river suddenly bends
to the east and runs to the İspir Plateau. It flows through the cities of İspir,
Yusufelı and Artvi, and passes out on the east to the Pontic or Black Sea
at Batumi, modern Georgia.
Mount Uzundere is the isolated one of the chain of the Mescit Moun-
tains stretching almost unbroken northeast from Bayburt via İspir and
Yusufelı to Kara Dağ near Dere, which is a town in the province of Artvin,
currently Turkey.
Trabzon is the Hellenic colony in the Roman Empire on the frontier with
Colchis (West Georgia), as Arrian observes in his survey report to Emperor
Adrian about A.D. 132. West of wrong Kapadokya (Capadotię pars) as it
is, however, the port of Trabzon (trapesoz) looks strange on Ptolemy’s
map of the Caucasus. In fact, on Xenophon’s authority as eye and ear wit-
ness, Arrian says that the Trapezuntines have inhabited the eastern end
of Pontus bordering on Colchis since the Hellenic colony from Sinop in
Pontus settled east at this spot. And when Arrian was himself at the spot,
he must have possessed the very best means of information (Arrian 1885,
Periplous, 15,1). Arrian was a native of Greek Pontus, and born in Nicome-
dia, Roman Bithynia (currently İzmit, Turkey). Since A.D. 129 Arrian had
been appointed as governor of the Roman province of Kapadokya when
he set sail for Colchis.
Ptolemy wrote a text describing world geography as it was understood
around the year 150. And yet, in the year 132 Arrian says that the Col-
chians border on the Trapezuntines. Thus the Trapezuntines and the Col-
chians (western Georgians) were neighbouring peoples. Nonetheless,
Capadotię pars, the wrong section of Kapadokya, thus covers the sea route
north from Trabzon (trapesoz) to the Roman fort called Apsarus and takes
a northeastern direction to the Colchian shore. After all, it may be said, the
fort is correctly located at the mouth of the river of the Apsua, Apsor[orum]
f[luvius] on Ptolemy’s map of the Caucasus (Appendix, fig. 6). Its position,
however, as the third river of Kapadokya, is wrong. In the myth, the river
Apsarus was named after Apsyrtus, the man who was murdered by Me-
dea. Now Gonio Fortress, previously called Apsaros, or Apsaruntos, is a
Roman fortification in Adjara (Ač’ara), modern Georgia, on the Black Sea
as the Pontic Sea is called today, 15 km south of Batumi, at the mouth of
the Ch’orokhi river (Tsetskhladze 1999, 118-9, Gonio-Apsarus; Kakhidze
et al. 2002, 251-62).
Ptolemy’s west-to-east orientation sharply contrasts with the north-
south geography of the Mediterranean region and connected seas, includ-
ing those basins such as the Black or Pontic Sea, the Sea of Azov or Lake
Maiōtis, and the Western Ocean all connected by the Strait of Hercules to
the larger Ocean basin (Ptol., Geography, 7,5,7). But in spite of the egre-
gious errors on all of Ptolemy maps, his Geography was an unsurpassed
masterpiece for almost a hundred and fifty years. The reintroduction of his
geography into the Latin West in 1406 influenced cartography decisively
for more than two centuries. Many editors had laboured to reconstruct
Ptolemy’s maps in manuscript, but it was the multiplied production made
possible by the arrival of the movable type printing press that made them
accessible to a wider audience late in the fifteenth century.
Thus, the importance of the Ptolemy maps does not lie in their accuracy.
It lies in the merits of the mathematical method of their construction as
plane representations of the surface of the sphere, irrespective of the ac-
curacy of the information they display.
A map based on Ptolemy’s instructions is puzzling in many ways. It is
hard even to draw, as his text places long rivers only by their sources and
mouths, and strings of notable peoples loosely “above” or “below” each
other in the great days of the Roman Empire (Thomson 1948, 245).
And the districts of the native peoples are only roughly delineated by
Ptolemy (Berggren, Jones 2000, 90, 120).
World and regional maps that show information about the past or where
past events took place are called historical maps today. Historical maps
are important tools in understanding history on the clear understanding
that geographical information obtained from transmitted copies of ancient
texts is accurate. In the critical study of ancient texts today, the general
principle in the formation of the best version of a text is that of following
evidence, and in cases of discrepancy, of discriminating those which have
originated in mistakes (Prindeaux Tregelles 1856, 140-1).
The assumption that Ptolemy made an erroneous estimate of the value of
the degree of the equinoctial line from west to east is deeply embedded in
the History of cartography. It is thus surprising to find that modern histo-
rians of the Roman Empire and archaeologists are not aware of Ptolemy’s
mistakes and take everything the Ptolemaic map of the Caucasus displays
for truth.
4 The Gates of Ibería or the Caucasian Gates

Different authors put the natural boundaries of the Caucasian region in
different places. On the one hand, on Ptolemy’s authority about A.D. 150,
in 1466 Ptolemy’s map of the Caucasus should show where the three King-
doms of Colchis (West Georgia), Ibería of the Caucasus (Kartli, East Geor-
gia) and Albània of the Caucasus (Alvània, Daghestan) actually end, and
where the neighbouring Roman provinces of Armenia the Greater, Media
(Mesopotamia) and Assyria begin in the Roman Principate in A.D. 117
according to Breviarium historiae romane of Eutropius (Breviarium, 8,3,

Sylburgii 1762, 1, 363). The section in Eutropius’ Compendious History
of Rome is based on fragment 4 from Principia Historiae by M. Cornelius
Fronto, a man of consular authority (c.100-late 160s). On the other, Pliny
the Elder in his Naturalis historia writes a topographical account of the
Caucasus within A.D. 79 of the Christian era. And as we have just seen, Pliny
the Elder describes Albània of the Caucasus, Colchis, Ibería of the Cau-
casus, Armenia and Media (Plin., Naturalis historia, 6,15, 17,14, 17,15).
From Pliny we learn three things on the Caucasus within A.D. 79. The
first concerns surveying plans of Ibería (Kartli) of the Caucasus in Rome;
the second, local place names and their geographical features; the third
that the error of many should be corrected at this point, even of those
who were recently on campaign in Armenia with Corbulo, the Roman
governor of Syria. In 61-2 the military expeditions of Nero’s governor
Corbulo in Armenia produce what Pliny describes here as situs depicti,
places drawn, coloured plans in form of a coloured map. But Corbulo made
a big topographical mistake according to Pliny. Corbulo fought a number
of campaigns to recover Armenia from Parthia and planned operations in
the Caspian theatre. In this place, however, it may be as well to correct an
error into which many persons had fallen, and even those who lately took
part with Corbulo in the Armenian war: two are the passes which through
Caucasian Ibería lead, alternatively, into Sarmatia, currently, Russia, or
the Caspian region.
Thus, Pliny, in the sixth book, is at pains to make this clear. The “other
pass” should properly be called “The Gates of Ibería as the Caucasian
Gates” and they must be clearly distinguished from the Caspian Gates as
Corbulo erroneously called them. Along the coast of the Caspian Sea, Pliny
explains (Plin., Naturalis historia, 6,15, 16,16, 6,17,14, 6,17,15):10
10 Plin., Naturalis historia, 6,5 “Flumina per Albaniam decurrunt in mare, Casius et Al-
banus: deinde Cambyses in Caucasiis ortus montibus: mox Cyrus in Coraxicis, ut diximus.
Oram omnem a Casio praealtis rupibus inaccessam, patere [ccccxxv] mill. auctor est
Agrippa. A Cyro Caspium mare vocari incipit; accolunt Caspii. Corrigendus est in hoc loco
error multorum etiam, qui in Armenia res proxime cum Corbulone gessere. Namque hi Cas-
pias appellavere Portas Iberiae, quas Caucasias diximus vocari: situsque depicti et
inde missi, hoc nomen inscriptum habent. Et Neronis principis comminatio, ad Caspias
Portas tendere dicebatur: quum peteret illas, quae per Iberiam in Sarmatas tendunt,
vix ullo propter adpositos montes aditu ad Caspium mare. Sunt autem aliae, Caspiis
gentibus iunctae: quod dignosci non potest nisi comitatu rerum Alexandri Magni. XVI.
Namque Persarum regna, quae nunc Parthorum intellegimus, inter duo maria, Persi-
cum et Hyrcanium Caucasiis iugis adtolluntur. Utrimque per devexa laterum Arme-
niae maiori a frontis parte, quae vergit in Commagenen, Cephenia, ut diximus, copulatur
eique Adiabene, Assyriorum initium: cuius pars est Arbelitis, ubi Darium Alexander
debellavit, proxima Syriae. Totam eam Macedones Mygdoniam cognominaverunt a simili-
tudine. Oppida: Alexandria, item Antiochia quam Nesebin vocant. Abest ab Artaxatis
[dccl] M. passuum. Fuit et Ninus, imposita Tigri, ad solis occasum spectans, quondam claris-
sima. Reliqua vero fronte, qua tendit ad Caspium mare, Atrapatene, ab Armeniae Otene

there are the Albani, the descendants of Jason, it is said; that part of
the sea which lies in front of them, bears the name of ‘Albanian.’ This
nation, which lies along the Caucasian chain, comes down, as we
have previously stated, as far as the river Cyrus, which forms the
boundary of Armenia and Ibería [Armeniae confinium atque Iberiae
descendit]. Above the maritime coast of Albania and the nation of the
Udini, the Sarmatae, the Utidorsi, and the Aroteres stretch along its
shores, and in their rear the Sauromatian Amazons, already spoken
of. The rivers which run through Albania in their course to the sea are
[..] and next the Cyrus, rising in the mountains of the Corax [in
Coraxicis], as already mentioned. Agrippa states that the whole of this
coast, inaccessible from rocks of an immense height, is four hundred
and twenty-five miles in length, beginning from the river Casius [a Ca-
sio]. After we pass the mouth of the Cyrus, it begins to be called the
‘Caspian Sea;’ the Caspii being a people who dwell upon its shores. In
this place it may be as well to correct an error into which many persons
have fallen, and even those who lately took part with Corbulo in the
Armenian war. The Gates of Ibería, which we have mentioned as
the Caucasian, they have spoken of as being called the ‘Caspian,’
and the coloured plans which have been sent from those parts to
Rome have that name written upon them [Namque hi Caspias ap-
pellavere Portas Iberiae, quas Caucasias diximus vocari, situsque
depicti et inde missi hoc nomen inscriptus habent]. The menaced
expedition, too, that was contemplated by the Emperor Nero,
was said to be designed to extend as far as the Caspian Gates [ad
caspias portas], where as it was really intended for those which
lead through Ibería into the territory of the Sarmatae [ad Caspias
Portas.. per Iberiam in Sarmatas tendunt]; there being hardly any
possibility of approach to the Caspian Sea, by reason of the close
juxtaposition of the mountains here. There are, however, other
gates, which join up the Caspian tribes [aliae, Caspiis gentibus
iunctae]; but these can only be distinguished from a perusal of
regione discreta Araxe. Oppidum eius Gaza, ab Artaxatis [ccccl] M passuum: totidem
ab Ecbatanis Medorum, quorum pars sunt Atrapateni. XVII.14. Ecbatana caput Mediae,
Seleucus rex condit, a Seleucia magna [dccl] M passuum: a Portis vero Caspiis [xx] M.
Reliqua Medorum oppia, Phazaca, Aganzaga, Apamia Rhaphane cognominata. Causa
portarum nominis eadem quae supra, interruptis angusto transitu iugis, ita ut vix
singula meent plaustra, longitudine [viii] mill, passuum, toto opere manu facto.
Dextera laevaque ambustis similes impendent scopuli, sitiente tractu per [xxviii]
mill. passuum. Angustias impedit corrivatus salis e cautibus liquor atque eadem
emissus. Praeterea serpentium multitudo, nisi hieme transitum non sinit. XVII.15.
Adiabenis connectuntur Carduchi quodam dicti, nunc Cordueni, praefluente Tigri:
his Pratitae, παρ ̓ ὁδὸν appellati, qui tenent Caspias Portas. Iis ab latere altero occurrunt
deserta Parthiae, et Citheni iuga”. Latin edition 1906, Mayhoff. English version 1855, Bos-
tock and Riley. Words are evidenced for sake of convenience.

the narrative of those who took part in the expedition of Alexan-

der the Great. And indeed the kingdom of the Persians, by which we
now understand that of Parthia, is elevated upon the Caucasian chain
between two seas, the Persian and the Hyrcanian. As we said, to the
Greater Armenia [Armeniae maiori], which in the front slopes towards
Commagene,11 is joined Cephenia, which lies upon the descent on both
sides thereof, and next to it is Adiabene, the place where Assyria begins;
a part of which is Arbilitis, where the army of Darius was defeated by
Alexander, and which joins up to Syria. The whole of this country was
called Mygdonia by the Macedonians, on account of the resemblance
it bore to Mygdonia in Europe. Its cities are Alexandria, and Antiochia,
also called Nisibis; this last place is distant from Artaxata seven hundred
and fifty miles. There was also in former times Ninus, a most renowned
city, on the banks of the Tigris, with an aspect towards the west. (Plin.,
Naturalis historia, 6,15, 6,16)
A few chapters later, Pliny remarks that (Naturalis histo-

ria, 6,16, 6,17,14, 6,17,15):
[6,16, end] Adjoining the other front of Greater Armenia, which runs
down towards the Caspian Sea, we find Atropatene, which is sepa-
rated from Otene, a region of Armenia, by the river Araxes. Gazae
is its chief city, distant from Artaxata four hundred and fifty miles, and
the same from Ecbatana in Media, to which country Atropatene
belongs. [6,17,14]. Ecbatana, the capital of Media, was built by King
Seleucus, at a distance from Great Seleucia of seven and fifty miles,
and twenty miles from the Caspian Gates [a Portis vero caspiis]. The
remaining towns of the Medians, the people of Media, are Phaz-
aca, Aganzaga, and Apamea, surnamed Rhagiane. The reason of
these passes receiving the name of “Gates”, is the same that has
been stated above. The chain of mountains is suddenly broken by
a passage of such extreme narrowness [interruptis angusto tran-
11 Samosata (currently Samsat) is the capital town of the Seleucid kings of Commagene.
The land lies outside the River Euphrates according to Procopius. It was a crossing point on
the River Euphrates. By reason of its strong position on the right bank of the River Euphra-
tes (currently Firat Nehri, Turkey), the city of Samosata / Samsat was the terminal road of
the great Euphrates via Sadak (anc. Satala) and Eski Malatya (anc. Melitene) in Armenia.
Procopius (1833, De bello Persico, 2,17,18-2,17,30) says that “The land which lies outside the
River Euphrates, beginning with Samosata, was called in ancient times Commagene, but
now it is named after the river. But the land inside the river, that namely which is between
it and the Tigris, is appropriately named Mesopotamia; however, a portion of it is called not
only by this name, but also by certain others. For the land as far as the city of Armida has
come to be called Armenia by some, while Edessa together with the country around it is
called Osroene, after Osroes, a man who was king in that place in former times, when the
men of this country were in alliance with the Persians”.

situ iugis] that, for a distance of eight miles in longitude, a single

chariot can barely find room to move along: the whole of this pass
has been formed by artificial means. Both on the right hand and
the left are overhanging rocks, which look as though they had
been exposed to the action of fire; and there is a tract of country,
quite destitute of water, twenty-eight miles in extent. This narrow
pass, too, is rendered still more difficult by a liquid salt which
oozes from the rocks, and uniting in a single stream, makes its
way along the pass. Besides this, it is frequented by such multi-
tudes of serpents, that the passage is quite impracticable except
in winter. [6,17,15] Joining up to Adiabene are the people formerly
known as the ‘Carduchi,’ now the Cordueni, in front of whom
the river Tigris flows [praefluente Tigri]: and next to them are the
Pratitae, entitled the Par Odon [on the road], who hold possession of the
Caspian Gates. On the other side of these gates we come to the deserts
of Parthia and the mountain chain of Cithenus.
Two are then the geographic objects in the four cardinal directions which
are both erroneously described as “Caspian Gates” in the reign of Nero.
We must bear in mind that there are “other gates” leading through Cauca-
sian Ibería into Sarmatia, Russia in the future, than the “Caspian Gates”,
and that Pliny the Elder can now see the exact location of “the Iberian
Gates, or, the Caucasian” leading through Ibería of the Caucasus into the
territory of Sarmatia. In fact, the coloured plans which have been sent
from those parts to Rome have that name written upon them. To the west
of the mouth of the Kur River (Cyrus) flowing into the Caspian Sea from
the K’odori mountain valley (Corax, Colchis, currently West Georgia), the
former “Caspian Gates” are labelled “the Iberian Gates, or, the Caucasian”
in Pliny’s time.
They set a course in an unknown direction to us, and by attending to the
possibilities which such a new direction gives we can now gain the means
of putting the question rationally as to whether “the Iberian Gates, or, the
Caucasian” exist or not. We have to assume that Pliny the Elder had at
hand “places drawn / situs depicti” and drew upon a number of them to
complete his book on the Caucasus.
At first sight the “Caspian Gates” in the Caucasus are easy to identify.
The Caspian Gates are, currently, the “Gates” at Dariali Gorge (Darialis
Kheoba) at the east base of Mount Kabegi (Kazbek) linking northern Geor-
gia and southern Russia in current geography. The Dariali Gorge is pierced
by the river Terek. Today, the Dariali Gorge has many names: the Caspian
Gates, the Caucasian Gates, the Gates of Ibería of the Caucasus, and even
the Gates of the Alans as the Albanians of the Caucasus were called in
what is now Daghestan.
However, in book six Pliny the Elder has given an independent descrip-
tion, founded on the actual knowledge of his time. These observations

apply especially to book 6,15, where he corrects the Roman notion that
“the Caspian Gates” are those leading through Ibería of the Caucasus into
the territory of the Sarmatians (Russia). A story is fictitious which has no
foundation whatever in truth. Among the Romans guilty of the mistake
which Pliny the Elder corrects is Corbulo, Nero’s general in the Armenian
war. Failing to reach targets across an enlarged theatre of operations,
which the war now demanded, he had to beat a retreat to the south side
of the Armenians.
Thus “The Iberian Gates, or, the Caucasian”, which lead north along
Caucasian Ibería into Sarmatia (Russia), are still to be rediscovered.
My specific aim is then to find out where the distinction between Ibería
of the Caucasus (Kartli, East Georgia) and Armenia at the geographical
level occurs, and whether Ptolemy or Pliny should be the model for mod-
ern historians and geographers. I shall start with Pliny’s comments on the
Gates of Ibería, which he mentioned as the Caucasian Gates.
Thus there were full-colour maps depicting the Gates of Ibería, other-
wise called the Caucasian, on display in Rome in the first century of the
Christian era. Pliny fairy describes them as topographical maps of the
Caucasus (situs depicti). In some convenient part of the plans the Roman
surveyors wrote the title of the place, “The Gates of Ibería as the Caucasian
Gates”, in large characters.
Then, a few lines further on, Pliny catapults us into mystery. Joining up to
Adiabene, the place where Assyria begins, are the people formerly known
as the “Carduchi” now the Cordueni in front of whom the river Tigris flows.
But where is Adiabene? A large portion of Armenia consists of plains,
and a large portion also of mountains, as Cambysene, where Armenians
approach close both to the Iberians and the Albanians of the Caucasus.
From Greek Pontus, Strabo tells us that, “Armenus of Armenium, a Thes-
salian city, accompanied Jason, in his expedition into Armenia, and from
Armenus the country had its name, according to Cyrsilus the Pharsalian
and Medius the Larisaen, persons who had accompanied the army of Al-
exander. Some of the followers of Armenus settled in Acilisene, which was
formely subject to the Sopheni; others in the Syspiritis, and spread as far
as Calachene and Adiabene beyond the borders of Armenia” (Strabo 1856,
Geografica, 11,4,1; and 4,8).
So Adiabene, where Assyria begins, lay beyond the borders of histori-
cal Armenia, currently, Turkey. Therefore Adiabene is out of Armenia.
According to this disposition, then, the first portion towards the north of
Adiabene (Assyria) is inhabited by the Cordueni of Pliny. In fact, joining up
to Adiabene are the people formerly known as the Carduchi, now the Cor-
dueni, in front of whom the river Tigris flows (Naturalis historia, 6,17,15).
Very often, however, Eduard Böcking observes, Byzantine translators

of Pliny’s Latin text use the term “Cardueni” in Greek.12 And the variant
name “Kardueni” can be taken from any source.13
The Cardueni, or, Kardueni remain unidentified and the case is still
unsolved. Other peoples can be rather easily identified in geographical
terms in Pliny’s time. From north to south, the land called Adiabene is the
place where Assyria begins beyond the borders of Armenia; a part of it is
Arbilitis, the capital town (Pliny). The name is preserved in the modern
place-name Arbīl in northern Iraq today. Ninus is Niniveth, Roman Assyria,
located on the Tigris River (Pliny), on the outskirts of Mosul in modern-
day northern Iraq. Nisibis in Roman Assyria is Antiochia (Pliny), Antiochia
Migdonia in Greek, now Nusaybin in south-east Turkey at the border with
modern Syria.
And the river Cyrus is currently the Kur (Cirus Fluvius). Having its
sources in Georgia, it is a trans-boundary river, Kura Nehri in the Turkish
language, Mtkvari in the Georgian language, Kür south of Baku in the Azeri
language (Albània of the Caucasus). The Mtkvari, or, Kur, flows through the
very heart of Tiflis, currently Tbilisi, and the province of Trialeti, Georgia.
The Aras River (araxes f.) takes it rise in the Başçayı mountains. The val-
ley of the Başçayı River was originally in Armenia. Flowing from the Başçayı
mountains today, currently, Turkey, the Aras River joins the Kur River in
Albània of the Caucasus (Alvània) in what is now Daghestan, and the two
pour their united waters through three mounths into the Caspian Sea from
the west. Başçayı is Pasiani on Delisle’s map of 1722 (Appendix, fig. 7).
Beyond the Mescit Mountains is the Başçayı River where the Aras River
takes its rise.
It is crucial, in our view, that if Vaxušt’i Bat’onišvili the Prince of Geor-
gia says that the valley of the Başçayı River (“le Basian”) had originally
belonged to Armenia when the Bagratid dynasty conquered it, there is
clear evidence that the Iberians, or, as the Georgians call themselves, the
Kartlians (eastern Georgians), conquered the Armenian valley of Başçayı at
some point of their history. In the Mescit Mountains, Oltu was the highest,
southernmost point of the Kingdom of the Iberians of the Caucasus (Kartli)
above Armenia, Vaxušt’i Bat’onišvili says. The post-war frontier changes
have brought the Armenian valley of the Başçayı within the confines of
Ibería of the Caucasus. And Aşkale, province of Başçayı, is situated in the
southern part of the valley, the town lying on the northern bank of the Aras
12 Plin., Naturalis historia, 6,15,17 “Adiabenis connectuntur Carduchi quodam dicti, nunc
Cardueni, praefluente Tigri”. See also Böcking 1839, 416,32 “Notitia Orient. Dux Mesopo-
tamiae: Cordueni, qui et Cardueni scribuntur”.
13 Peter the Patrician, Fragments, from the edition by Karl Müller, Fragm, Hist. Graec.,
IV, 187, published in Paris in 1928.

River (Araxes).14 It happened in A.D. 928, when Romanos I Lakapenos and

Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus, the co-emperors of the Romans, agreed
that the Aras River should serve as the boundary line between the two
States of the Romans and the Caucasian Iberians (Kartlians). Thus from
Constantinople the co-emperors “abandoned all the country north of the
said river to the Iberes” as Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus observes
in De administrando imperio (Bekkerus 1840, Const., De administrando
imperio, § 45, 204-5).
From Constantinople, or, as the Turks call it, İstambul, Constantine’s
diplomatic codex of the Roman administration has very justly said that the
King of the Iberians is a socius, or, ally of the Roman Empire when they
sign the treaty with him in A.D. 928 containing the clauses on the northern
bank of the Aras River and Armenia.
A Roman province since A.D. 117, Armenia is directly controlled by
the Emperor of the Romans through a strategos, a commanding general.
Consequently, the two sovereign parties to the treaty still are the Roman
Empire and the Kingdom of Ibería of the Caucasus in A.D. 928.
Then we see something odd on Ptolemy’s map of the Caucasus, the 3rd
Map of Asia in the distorted set of 1466. The northern section of the Cau-
casus Mountains gradually dies away east of the sources of the albanus-
Albana river towards the Caspian Sea (Appendix, fig. 6). Two bolted doors
point to a passage on the map. The Caucasus Mountains that constitute
this interrupted chain stretch along in uniform ridges. The legend reads:
“The Gates of Albània” (Porte albanıae). And it is strange enough to find the
course of a single river with a double name, albanus. Albana Flu. It inde-
pendently flows to the Caspian Sea (HIRCANUM [SI]VE CASPIUM MARE).
The twin river system is represented by a single waterway sector, speci-
fied in the Ptolemaic model as Albània of the Caucasus in what is now
Azerbaijan. The Alazani option seems to me by far the most probable, since
there are two rivers bearing the name of Alazani (Alazan), within few miles
14 Vaxušt’i Bat’onišvili 1842, 121-2, “Il y a des bourgs sur les rivières; les habitants
ressemblent à ceux des contrées déjà décrites. Idi et Naroumac [Narman] sont entièrement
comme le Thrialeth [Trialeti] et le Djawakheth. – Au S. d’Olthis [Oltu], de Nariman et
d’Idi, au delà du mont Iridjlou, est le Basian [Başçayı]; bien que ce pays appartienne à
l’Arménie [Armenia], ayant été conquis par les Bagratides, il fit depuis partie de Samtzkhé
[Mesxeti]. Le Basian est aux sources du Rakhs ou Arez (l’Araxe). Sa ville principale
s’appela autrefois Basian, et tout le pays en prit le nom. Maintenant la ville se nomme Asan-
Qala [Aşkale] et se trouve au milieu du Basian, sur le bord septentrional du Rakhs [Aras
/ Arax]: ce n’est pas une ville considérable. Le pays est borné: à l’E., par un rameau de la
montagne du midi qui est celle d’Arménie; à l’O., par la montagne d’Iridjlou et de Déwaboïn;
au N., par les mont Iridjlou et Qalnou; au S, par une montagne partant du Déwaboïn et par
celle de l’Arménie. Dans ce pays le Rakhs reçoit, à droite et à gauche, des rivières sortant
des montagnes, et dont les rives sont garnies de bourgs”. From now on Vaxušt’i Bat’onišvili
will be used to refer to Prince Vaxušt’i (Bagrat’ioni / Bagration, 1696-1757), the son of King
Vaxt’ang VI.

of each other. Greater Alazani and Lesser Alazani, or, as the Georgians call
it, Iori (Jor), flow in parallel valleys in a southeastern direction and eventu-
ally joint together before emptying into the much larger Kur River (Cyrus,
Cirus Fluvius). Indeed Greater Alazani in K’axeti, and Lesser Alazani in
Tušeti, both derive their name from Alan, Alban. The latter of these is now
scarcely known under that name; Iori is also called in modern documents,
from “Iora”, split in two (Vaxušt’i Bat’onišvili 1842, 289).
Place-names are the most perceptible indicators of the reticulate Cau-
casian Iberian-Caucasian Albanian linguistic bond. Both the Alazani may
be the rivers mentioned as albanus-Albana Flu. in Albània on Ptolemy’s
map of the Caucasus. However, Greater Alazani is a river in inner K’axeti,
Georgia. It flows through the Caucasus Mountains near Telavi, the largest
town in K’axeti. Similarly, Lesser Alazani or Iori is a river in Tušeti, cur-
rently, Georgia (Vaxušt’i Bat’onišvili 1842, 283-5, 317-27).
Upon Alexander’s death, The life of the Kings (K‘art‘lis c‘xovreba) re-
ports the partition of his empire into four sections. The descendants of the
eponym K‘art‘los, from whom the K‘art‘velians arose, soon ascended to the
vanguard of eastern Georgia’s political and cultural life. In these moun-
tains the waters of both the Alazani take their rise and flow in a south-east
direction through K‘art‘li (Kartli), as the K‘art‘velians (Kartvelians) call
their own land, that is to say, through Ibería or Hibería of the Caucasus in
classical sources and geography.
Consisting of k‘art‘vel- and the geographical circumfix sa-..-o, S‘akart‘velo
has been used in modern times as the official, native name of the country
that the ancient writers call Ibería of the Caucasus both in Greek and in Lat-
in. The Georgian circumfix sa-X-o is a standard geographical construction
designating “the region/place where X dwell”, where X is an ethnonym or
name of a founding ancestor. Thus, S‘akart‘velo literally means “the region/
place where the K‘art‘velians dwell”. But the ethnonym k‘art‘veli acquired a
double meaning: first, its earliest sense, the dominant population of K‘art‘li
proper (Kartli), progressively encompassing adjacent peoples and lands in
eastern Georgia; and second, the crown’s “Georgian” subjects distributed
from the Pontic or Black Sea littoral to the far eastern regions of K’axeti
and Hereti, bordering and overlapping with Albánia of the Caucasus (cf.
Rapp 2003, 420; Shurgaia 2014, 80-1). The toponym K‘art‘li underwent a
similar transformation, its “all-Georgian” reach being extended by Kings
and their contemporaries.
“Roman age” references to Ibería of the Caucasus and “Bagratid age”
references to S‘akart‘velo in the sense of the all-Georgia realm often occur
as a derivation from the Ibero-K‘art‘velian nucleus; and in this way the
term k‘art‘vel came to mean both Iberian (East Georgian) and Georgian,
between the year 928 (Roman-Iberian Treaty on the Aras River), and 1008.
Before this, it is hardly correct to speak of Georgia as a political unit.
Considering their origin and historical context, K’axeti and Tušeti are
Kartli, that is to say, Ibería of the Caucasus, eastern Georgia. Lastly, this
huge Kingdom of Kartli (Ibería) and its states remained undivided right up
to the year 1466 of our era, so that K’axeti and Tušeti were Kartli (Vaxušt’i
Bat’onišvili 1842, 283).
Both the Alazani Rivers are Ibero-K‘art‘velian−geographically, and his-
torically (Vaxušt’i Bat’onišvili 1842, 283). Their lower paths now form the
border between modern Georgia and Azerbaijan before they meet the
Kur River in northwestern Azerbaijan in what was Albània in ancient ge-
ography. Then, the twin Alazani should not have been represented as an
independent river, all Alban, or, Alvan, from the head to the mouth on
Ptolemy’s map of the Caucasus in 1466. The Alazani are misplaced on
the map by several hundred miles eastward. They are really tributaries of
the Kur River (Cirus Fluvius). And yet, no junctions are seen that can be
correlated with the Kur, or, as the Georgians call it, the Mtkvari. Moreo-
ver, the Kur flows from north to south, and takes its rise in the Caucasian
Mountains of Georgia (currently, K’odori River mountain valley: Corax,
ancient Colchis, western Georgia).
Great Alazani is impassable except at one place: Mosabronu; it was
known as “the entrance gate” from the point of view of Russian Transcau-
casia (Vaxušt’i Bat’onišvili 1842, 307).
If so, the “Albanian Gates” are modernly known as the Abano Pass in the
central part of the Caucasus Mountains connecting K’axeti, and Tušeti on
the northern side of the Caucasus via Pancia. These are two inner prov-
inces of modern Georgia, Kartli, Ibería of the Caucasus through times of
history. On Delisle’s map about 1722, K’axeti is the place where the Alazani
takes its rise (Karahulki, Alax R.), and Tušeti is the place where the Iori
as the Lesser Alazani takes its rise (Tusheti, Iori R.). Both are tributaries
of the Kur River (Kor ou Mekvari R.) (Appendix, fig. 8).
We see it in the way Nicolaus displays two bolted doors that here repre-
sent the double gates−K’axeti (Greater Alazani) and Tušeti (Lesser Alazani
or Iori). If so, however, in 1466 Nicolaus Germanus makes a number of
surprising mistakes. In contrast with his map, Kur’s important tributaries
are Greater Alazani and Lesser Alazani (Iori) on the northern bank, and
the Aras on the southern side. The two Alazani do not discharge indepen-
dently into the Caspian Sea, however, but into the Kur flowing from modern
Tbilisi, Georgia, to Azerbaijan. To the south, the confluence of the great
Aras (araxes f.) and Kur (Cırus Fluvius) is shown as the upper end of the
zigzag Mescit Mountains stretching eastward into the interior of Albània
of the Caucasus, in what is now southwestern Azerbaijan. In this way the
Aras and Kur look very far from the twin Alazani (albanus-Albana Flu.)
on Ptolemy’s 3rd Asian Map. After this junction at Javād, Azerbaijan, the
depth and breadth of the Kur are so much increased, that it immediately
becomes navigable for larger boats in the real world. And so the Kur flows
onward for fifty miles, through the region where the Caspii dwell upon its
shores according to Pliny, and empties into the Caspian Sea. The Caspii
are the people who gave the sea its name.
To sum up our conclusions from this evidence: The twin Alazani (al-
banus-Albana Flu.) are mislocated in places. Once again, we see the strong
west-to-east distortion of maps based on Ptolemy’s mistake in making
Scotland trend to the east instead of the north.
A map supplies a frame of reference without which most passages of
history are unintelligible. But so fas as I have been able to learn, nowhere
except in northern Georgia (Ibería, Kartli) can all these elements (gates,
river, the Caucasus, and the Caspian) be found. At the east base of Mount
Kazbek, one of the major mountains of the Caucasus, northern Georgia, the
Dariali Gorge or Pass alone is at the very centre of the Caucasus where the
Terek River takes its rise next to the two Alazani. The Terek flows through
modern Russia, or, as the ancients call it, Sarmatia, into the Caspian Sea.
The ancient “Albanian Gates” and the modern “Abano Pass”, even if
misplaced on the 1466 map, remains the Georgian (Iberian) sector of the
Dariali Gorge which does not issue in a pass into the Caspian Sea. From
this it follows that Nero’s general Corbulo failed to find “The Caspian
Gates” through Ibería of the Caucasus when he organized the Armenian
campaign, which was to extend as far as Sarmatia, currently, Russia. Now
Pliny refers to “the Iberian Gates, or, the Caucasian” that he has at hand
(N. h. 6,15). In fact, the coloured plans which have been sent from those
parts to Rome have that name written upon them instead of “The Caspian
Gates”. Here there is a mistake made by many Romans: they have all called
the “Caspian Gates” those of Ibería, or, the Caucasian.
We then go on to get through the entrance and the exit gates. From the
ancient “Albanian Gates” and the modern “Abano Pass” where said gates
are in position to open the exit to Russia (Sarmatia) via Tušeti (Lesser
Alazani or Iori) and K’axeti (Greater Alazani), Ibería or Kartli (currently
Georgia), we will have to find the route back from B to A, that is to say,
from the exit gates to the entrance gates. Indeed, the coloured plans and
the places drawn upon, which have been sent from those parts to Rome
learn to follow a route all indicated by “the Iberian Gates, or, the Cauca-
sian”. The plans should lead back through Ibería of the Caucasus from the
north side of Sarmatia (Russia) down into the territory of Armenia and the
mouth of the Kur River (Cyrus, Cirus).
On the Roman side of the story, around the year 18 A.D. Strabo, the geo-
prapher from Pontus, first juxtaposes the Georgi, or “tillers of the ground”
as the description is based on Greek from geo, “earth”, and the Sarmatians
who are Scythians extending as far as the Caucasus Mountains toward the
south. Some of these tribes are nomads, or sheperd tribes, other are Sceni-
tae or dwellers in tents, and Georgi, or tillers of the ground (Strabo 1856,

Geographica, 11,2).15 The Georgi from geōrgos, farmer, have a different

manner of life and take the ethnic name from it. In the Roman language
the ethnic word comes via Latin from Greek. In fact, Pliny the Elder calls
them Georgi about A.D. 79 (N. h. 6,14).
There are, however, other gates, Pliny says, and these unknown gates
are of extreme narrowness. Pliny brings out very clearly the characteristic
features (Plin., Naturalis historia 6,17,14). He describe the movement from
Media to the land of the Cordueni, even if he does not give the coordinates
of the point on the coloured plans. Now the question is: Where are the
Iberian Gates, or, the Caucasian, that the Romans could see in the first
century? Joining up to Adiabene, the place where Assyria begins, Pliny
says, are the people formerly known as the “Carduchi”, now the Cordueni,
in front of whom the river Tigris flows. Variants of the name are Cardueni
and Kardueni. And Adiabene lay “beyond” the borders of Armenia according
to Strabo of Amasya. Therefore the Cordueni, or, Kardueni are neither the
Armenians nor the Assyrians, though there is still not enough information
and detail.
Ptolemy’s inexact method resulted in some spectacular mislocations
on Ptolemy’s map of the Caucasus made in 1466. Although three passes
were often confused by Greek, Roman and Syrian authors and indistinctly
called the Caucasian Gates, the Caspian Gates, or, the Albanian Gates,
yesterday and today no author can actually point to three passes in the
Caucasian region.16
And, yet, however, further to the south, across the street from Media,
Pliny the Elder can see another pass, “The Gates of Ibería as the Cau-
casian Gates” as the “places drawn” which have been sent from those
parts to Rome have that name written upon them (Naturalis histori-
ca 6,17,14, 6,17,15). He knows it with certainty. The whole of this pass
has been formed by artificial means according to Pliny. But we have to
find more evidence.
An argument of correct logical form based on false premises can lead
to a false conclusion. From the point of view of the historical geographer,
my goal in this paper is to prove that Ptolemy’s 3rd Asian Map, the map
15 Strabo 1877, Geographica, 11,2 “According to this disposition, the first portion towards
the north and the Ocean is inhabited by certain tribes of Scythians, shepherds, (nomades)
and Hamaxoeci (or those who live in waggon-houses). Within these tribes live Sarmatians,
who also are Scythians, Aorsi, and Siraci, extending as far as the Caucasian Mountains
towards the south. Some of these are Nomades, or shepherd tribes, others Scenitæ, (or
dwellers in tents), and Georgi, or tillers of the ground [γεωργός]. About the lake Mæotis live
the Mœotæ. Close to the sea is the Asiatic portion of the Bosporus and Sindica”.
16 See, for example, Chrisholm 1911, 832. Michael the Syrian points to two passes in the
Caucasus range: the Derbent Pass in Caucasian Albània, present-day Daghestan, also known
as “Guard of the Huns” and to the Darial Gorge or Pass in Eastern Georgia (Kartli); see van
Donzel, Schmidt 2009, 52-3. Derbent is the city located on the Caspian Sea.

of the Caucasus and the level of the Caspian Sea, has remarkable west-
to-east distortion of the geographical features within wrong coordinates
of latitude and longitude. Historians of the Roman world and archaeolo-
gists should dismiss Ptolemy’s map of the Caucasus as having no value as
historical evidence.
Ptolemy’s map of the Caucasus at first sight is grotesquely inaccurate.
Yet if we look at the world map that Pietro Vesconte was drawing at Venice
in the 1320s, the scene suddenly changes (London, BL, Add. MS 27376,
ff. 187v-188). The Mediterranean and the Black Sea (mare po[n]ticu[m])
are no longer an unrecognisable pattern of shapes that can be identified
only by the names attached to them, when possible. Instead we see, more
or less accurately drawn, the outline that we are familiar with today. This
reflects the advent of the portolan chart. A portolan chart can be defined
as a catalogue of directions to follow between notable points and mnemon-
ics for recalling lists of ports. The directions are made graphically vivid by
the so-called rhumb lines, the radiating lines, measured clockwise from 0°
to 360°. The notable points are brought lucidly to our attention by various
cartographic images, iconic and symbolic alike. The word portolano is Ital-
ian and means written sailing directions to accompany wind and current
charts. A portonano is then prepared by the master of marine charts for a
more detailed account of the navigational system.
Portolan, or nautical charts share a characteristic: a network of rhumb
lines for the eight primary winds or directions, like a web of a spider, that
forms a grid for the map. The network of lines is made within a circle
which defines the grid. The radiating lines, called rhumb lines, are for
the purpose of plotting a sailing course at sea. Rhumb lines, therefore,
converge at the circle’s centre. Patterns of squares, triangles and paral-
lelograms are thus visible within the circle on a portolan chart. The navi-
gator can now define and describe the direction in which he is sailing at
any particular moment−e.g., N. E. b. E., or N. 56° 10’ E. He is also able
to take this direction by the help of the magnetic needle, which carries a
card divided by rhumb lines exactly similar to those making the division
of the horizon. The horizon is divided according to the common method of
dividing any circle into 360°.
Let us now consider the case of two places on the earth’s surface from
one of which we wish to conduct our ship to the other. Sailing to a rhumb
line so that a constant direction is maintained in the presence of a steady
wind is easy with the aid of our compass. By the 1320s navigators read
GEORGIA on Vesconte’s world map 35 centimetres across, oriented with
East at the top.17 This is actually the modern name for the United Kingdom
17 Kingdoms of Abasgia and Ibería of the Caucasus (Kartli, East Georgia) were united
in 1008 (all-Georgia). Christian Abasgi lived in the Kingdom of Abasgia; the land is not to be
confused with modern Abxazija and the Abxazi as the Apsua were originally called until the

of the Georgians that the ancients knew as the three Kingdoms of Colchis
(West Georgia), Christian Abasgia (mod. Abxazija) and Caucasian Ibería
(Kartli, East Georgia). The world map illustrates the manuscript by Marino
Sanudo Liber secretorum fidelium Crucis, sive de recuperation terrae
sanctae when Christian Armenia was invaded from the east by the Turks.
An earlier political version of the map of the Caucasus then appeared
across a manuscript copy of Ptolemy’s Geography in Florence first in 1415.
Meanwhile, developments in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries par-
ticularly affected the content of portolan charts, compiled from the sailing
directions; these works were for the practical navigator. The most impor-
tant of these developments was the succession of voyages along the African
coast, culminating in Bartolomeu Dias rounding the Cape of Good Hope
for the King of Portugal in 1488 and presaging voyages of exploration still
further afield, in the old world as well as the new. The whole continent of
America and whole Oceans wait discovery.
Europe had by now acquired the standard set of maps to accompany
Ptolemy’s resurfaced Geography, a single world map and twenty-six re-
gional maps. But the geographical coordinates were often incorrect, and
contemporary portolan charts offered more accurate maps of the coastal
areas. The History of cartography deals with original materials from the
past. Physical environments did not change significantly in the Pre-indus-
trial World. While historical details, as far as we know, did not survive, the
fact is that the maps did. Where was Roman Greece, or, as the ancients call
it, Romània, now is modern Turkey. Geographically, Constantinople was
Greece according to Byzantine-Greek and Latin authors before modern
Turkey was created. Greeks in antiquity did not use the term Georgia, but
referred instead to western Georgia as Colchis and to eastern Georgia as
Ibería of the Caucasus, or, Hibería. Ancient Colchis was on the border with
Trabzon of the Greeks (Trebisonda), Chaldia, Roman Pontus. The Geor-
gians, as an ethnic group, identify themselves as Kartveli / Kartvelians,
and call their land Sakartvelo, or the Land of the Georgians. The Georgian
language, or, as the Romans call it, “Cardveli” in the seventeenth century,
is the only one in the Caucasian family to have its own unique alphabet.18
nineteenth century. The Apsua or modern Abxazi were partly Sunnah Muslims and partly
Pagans from Kuban’ Plain and the Sea of Azov in the eleventh century. The tribe of the
Apsua moved across the rivers K’odori and Enguri and invaded the lands of Colchis (West
Georgia) in the seventeenth century; slowly the name changed to Abxazi as the Apsua did
not distinguish themselves among the lowest layers of the original Abasgian or Abxazijan
society. They still call themselves Apsua. Cf. Magarotto, Shurgaia 2008, 725-44.
18 Beyond the United Kingdom of Georgia was Greece according to official reports to Popes
at Rome and Tsars at St. Petersburg until the eighteenth century, as a result of the Roman
Empire’s collapse in the East. See Constantinus Porphyrogenitus 1588, Pars Lat., ff. 1-8 “De
Thematibus Liber. Bonaventura Vulcanio interprete: De Thematibus pertinentibus ad regnum
Romanum, unde appellationem duxerint, et hae ipsae appellationes quid significent, et quod

Constantinople is İstanbul today. On the one hand, historical geographers

record facts with special reference to spatial organization; they record – in
varying forms – who drew what, where, and when. Historical geographers,
on the other hand, are concerned not only with reconstructing past ge-
ographies, but also with studying geographical changes in political and
administrative boundaries over time.
Indeed a map is real when it shows part of the physical universe we live
in. However, geographical knowledge of right and wrong is the prereq-
uisite for selecting real and unreal maps before a scientific sequence is
made. The best idea may be formed of Ptolemy, by following his own words
about A.D. 150. As Ptolemy tells us in the first book, the cartographer’s
task is not to gather and digest afresh all the information that is to go into
the map, but to take as his starting point the most recent comprehensive
and competent work of the same kind, correcting and augmenting it using
his critical skills and the most up-to-date specialized sources (Berggren,
Jones 2000, 23, Ptolemy, Geography, 1,4,6).
Consequently Ptolemy is not interested in fresh information that is to
go into a map. In Ptolemy’s time, however, Emperor Trajan’s treaty of al-
liance has been the most up-to-date specialized source for the Caucasus
region since A.D. 114. Then Trajan devoted the years 114 and 115 to the
Parthian war. As we have seen, Pliny the Elder says that Parthia is the
kingdom of the Persians (Naturalis historia 6,15, 6,16). When Pliny the
Younger became governor of Bithynia in autumn and winter of 110-111,
or 112-113 at the latest, and asked for land surveyors, Trajan turned him
down on the ground that he had scarcely enough for the public works in
progress in Rome (Plinus junior, Epistolae, 10,17b, 8; Sordi 2004, 91 and
n. 6). Bithynia was Roman Pontus and Trajan chose Pliny the Younger as
his representative for a special mission. Pliny’s first task was, in Trajan’s
words, to inspect the accounts of the various towns as they were evidently
in confusion. As for land surveyors, Trajan noted that reliable surveyors
were to be found in every province and no doubt Pliny would not lack
assistance (Epistolae, 10,18). Pliny the Younger then arrived in Bithynia,
nonnullae Graecanicae”. And Roma, Curia Generalizia dei Chierici Regolari in Sant’Andrea
della Valle, Archivio Generale, Pietro della Valle, Informatione della Giorgia data alla Santità
di Nostro Signore Papa Urbano VIII. Da Pietro della Valle il Pellegrino l’anno 1627, ff. 1-14; f. 1
“E più à basso nelle parti più Occidentali verso Trabisonda, se non m’inganno, qualche parte
anco della Cappadocia. Tutta questa terra, che hoggi parla una sola lingua, a quei popoli
propria, è comune, detta da noi Georgiana, ma da loro Cardveli”. Vaxušt’i Bat’onišvili 1842,
Description du Karthli actuel; ses frontières, ses montagnes, ses fleuves, les diverses loca-
lités et les édifices qu’elles contiennent. Description des lieux remarquables du Samtzkhé
ou Saathabago, 40, 61, 129-27, 175, 196, 200, 220, 249, 251, 261, 273, 346, 521; 27 “Gourdij
Boghaz est précisément à l’O. de Khendzoreth. Cette vallee, jusqu’au mont de Baibourd,
est la limite de la Géorgie et de la Grèce; elle est étroite, rocheouse et boisée. Au-dessus
de l’endroit ou le Gourdji-Boghaz tombe dans la rivière d’Ispira, sont les montagnes que
projettent celles de ce dernier pays et qui le séparet de Baibourd, ainsi que nous l’avons dit”.

along the shore across the Bosphorus in what is now Asian Turkey. There
it is supposed that he remained until his death, which probably occurred
in A.D. 113, or 114. Meantime via Kapadokya, Parthamasiris the Parthian
had laid aside the style and title of King of Armenia before Trajan since
A.D. 106. Trajan was now at Elegia, a town of Armenia (currently Elaziğ,
Turkey). Since 106 Parthamasiris had surrendered Armenia, when Trajan
replied that Armenia should obey none but a Roman sovereign (Dion Cas-
sius, lxviii, 779). Accordingly, having drawn an army composed of legions
from the Danube, the future Emperor Adrian entered the Roman terri-
tory of Satala, a town of Armenia (currently Sadak, Turkey). Here Adrian
joined Trajan the Emperor who was planning a massive invasion of Parthia,
Persia. The provisions of the 114 treaty of alliance between the Roman
state and neighbouring states were carefully preserved by the two fourth-
century chroniclers, Sextus Rufus Festus and Eutropius. Accompanied
by a geographical list of those countries, a formal treaty of alliance, or,
as the Romans called it, foedus, could effectively bind the parties to the
commitments laid down by the clauses. Based on ancient records, in the
Breviarium of Roman history Sextus Rufus Festus and Eutropius list the
six Kings who finally did homage to the Emperor of the Romans at Satala,
Armenian Pontus, in A.D. 114.
The Kings of the Iberians of the Caucasus (East Georgians) and the
Bosphorians, the Arabs, the Osdroëni and the Colchians (West Georgians)
presented to the Emperor of the Romans certain gifts, and claimed in
return a right to federate with Rome. For the Albanians, the people of
Caucasian Albània, the Emperor Trajan appointed a King: “Albanis regem
dedit” (Eutrop. Breviarium, 8,3, Sylburgii 1762, 1, 362-3).
On numismatic evidence, then Trajan went by, and the Armenian war
against the Parthians went on until A.D. 115 (Migliorati 2001, 235-7).
For thirty years the six Kingdoms had been federated with Rome, when
Ptolemy composed his Geography about A.D. 150. Now the question arises:
Did Ptolemy best represent the current state of geographical knowledge on
the eastern frontier of the Roman Empire with the Caucasian Kingdoms af-
ter A.D. 114? He, himself, after all, declares that the cartographer’s task is
not to gather and digest afresh all the information that is to go into the map.
Because drawing the boundary line is so important in public policy, and
on maps, and because it is an illustrative example of geographers’ relation-
ship with knowledge about history, let us take a closer look at how the two
Roman chroniclers handle the issue of federation in A.D. 114.
The development of the Roman Auxiliary Forces from Octavius Augustus
to Trajan passed through several phases. At last during the Principate of
Trajan (98-117 A.D.), actions were taken. In the happy time of the Roman
Empire of the second century which goes under the name of the Antonines,
from Trajan onwards, the reign is called the Principate, from princeps – the

best citizen (Sordi 2004, 87-9).19 Around A.D. 111, thus the Emperor Trajan

took the most effectual measures to put the frontiers of the Principate of
Rome in a state of defence. After the treaty of Sadak (Satala) was signed,
he studied ways of improving the public road system from the federated
Kingdom of Colchis (West Georgia) to the Red Sea. On the western bank
of the Euphrates, or, as the Turks call it, Firat Nehri, the camp of what is
now Eski Malatya (Melitene) was converted into the metropolis of Meli-
tene in Armenia, the new province within the Roman Principate (Angeli
Bertinelli 2000, 34-5).
The Roman stations are given in the Antonine Itinerary (early third cen-
tury). Finally, Ammianus Marcellinus from Syria named the public road
Regia Via in the fourth century (Codex Theodosianus 1665, t. 2, 328).
From Trajan’s time onwards the terrestrial route which we are describ-
ing possessed some considerable importance not merely as a connection
with many great provinces in the Roman reign, but also as an overland
road, ultimately the Imperial post-road, to the East.
Thus Trajan’s Parthian War 114-17 has been explained as an attempt
to establish a “scientific” frontier beyond the Euphrates River. Trajan’s
Parthian War was not, however, a limited border rectification offensive.
It happened that the Arsacid Osroes I, the King of Parthia since A.D. 110,
replaced a fellow Arsacid, Axidares, the King of Armenia by Roman ap-
proval, with another, Parthamasiris, who had not been approved by Rome
as required by the terms of the Roman-Parthian agreement. Between 113
and 117, diplomacy failed (Luttwak 2016, 121-2). By the end of 113 Trajan
was in Antioch, the capital of Roman Syria, currently Antakya, Turkey, to
review the situation. Consequently, Trajan moved north to the Roman part
of Armenia. He gathered his army and made himself available at Satala
to an invited gathering of client Kings from the Caucasus and neighbour-
ing reigns. Parthamasiris, the King of “the other part of Armenia”, could
have come to this meeting, but did not. At Satala in Armenia, north of the
Euphrates River, Trajan then held court in A.D. 114. Here all the Cauca-
sian Kings were assembled, and some Kings around the Black Sea as we
noted before.
Trajan first recovered Armenia, which the Parthians had “occupied”.
Now Sextus Rufus Festus and Eutropius list the six Kings who did hom-
age in the following order at Satala in A.D. 114 (Breviarium, 8,3, Sylb-
urgii 1762, 1, 362): the King of the Iberians from the Caucasus (Eastern
Georgians), and the King of the Sarmatians who ruled the territory at the
mouth of Tanaïs, the Don, according to Strabo (Strabo 1877, Geographi-
ca, 11,1,1, 12,1,1). Then came the King of the Bosphorians, and the King
of the Arabs, the King of the Osroenians and the King of the Colchians
19 Trajan styled himself Imperator Nerva Caesar Augustus.

(Western Georgians). Now Trajan gave Albània of the Caucasus a King

(Alvània, currently, Daghestan). But the Parthian nominee to the throne
of Armenia, Phartamasiris, whose installation had provided Emperor Tra-
jan with the casus belli, did not appear (Eutrop. Breviarium, 8,3, Sylbur-
gii 1762, 1, 362-6).
Trajan first stationed at Satala, Roman Armenia, and then departed for Par-
thia, Persia, to conduct the Parthian War, which lasted from A.D. 114 to 117.
Trajan’s march from Satala to the Red Sea was made in two stages, Seleucia
on the Tigris (southeast of Baghdad currently Iraq) marking the mid-way
point. And soon we will see the Roman Army conduct operations against the
Parthians in the field and against their fortified cities and positions.
Trajan advanced as far as the frontiers of India and the Red Sea, “and
there he made three provinces, Armenia, Assyria and Mesopotamia with
those peoples which border on Madena” in A.D. 117 according to the Brev-
iarium of Roman history (Eutrop. Breviarium, 8,3, Sylburgii 1762, 1, 363).
Thus, three provinces were created and added to the Roman Empire.
It is essential to note that at this stage in Roman history the Emperor
Trajan abolished the Kingdom of Armenia. It was then that “Armenia,
Assyria and Mesopotamia with their peoples were constituted as fully
organized provinces of the Roman Empire and added to the Roman Em-
pire” and the new Roman frontier was established on the closer bank of
the Euphrates River, currently Firat Nehri (Eutropius Brev. VIII.III, Sylb-
urgii 1762 I. s., 366).
There was no Roman protectorate in Armenia, but instead Armenia
was simply added to the Roman state when it was constituted a province
of the Roman Empire in A.D. 117. The limits of the Roman Empire were
demarcated on the ground, so that all could tell what was Roman, and
what was not. Armenia was Roman, Ibería of the Caucasus (Kartli) was
not. Since then Armenia has been a province of the Roman Empire under
the centralized administration of the Roman government from Rome first,
and afterwards from Constantinople. The mentioned act shall continue in
force until the first crusade in Alexius’ reign in A.D. 1097.20
On Eutropius’ authority, on the one hand Trajan strengthened border
defences and secured Roman power by perimeter infrastructures that
complemented the natural barriers of rivers. Enemies were kept aloof by
the Euphrates River. On the other hand, “into faith” Trajan received the
King of Ibería of the Caucasus (Kartli, East Georgia) in the name of the Ro-
man people (“in fidem accepit”). When Trajan came to hold court at Satala
in 114 the seven friendly states of the Caucasian Iberíans, the Sarmatians
along the Don, the Bosphorians, the Arabs, the Osdroëni, the Colchians,
20 Alexius 1 Comnenus then had himself crowned as Emperor of the Romans at Constan-
tinople; see Bongars 1611, Fulcherii Carotensis Gesta Peregrinantium Francorum cum
Armis Hierusalem Pergentium. Balduinus Rex, 387-8.

and the Albanians of the Caucasus were all admitted into the federative
alliance with Rome (Eutropius Brev. VIII.III, Sylburgii 1762 I. s., 363).
Since 114, the existing political system of the Caucasus has consisted of
states subsidiary, federative, and independent. The first condition of this
subsidiary alliance is that the Roman government should protect the na-
tive states from external invasion and internal dissention, but the troops
assigned for this purpose are not to be employed in the civil administra-
tion, or collection of the revenue. An aspect of Trajan’s regime which is
specially relevant here is the constitution of the three new provinces within
the Roman Empire, that are Armenia, Assyria and Mesopotamia.
Politically, federated Kingdoms were on a par with any of the neighbour-
ing states and the Roman Empire. The Latin word fidēs in the passage in
fidem accepit translates into Latin as treaty. Trajan respected their laws
and their privileges. Consequently, we should see the three federated Cau-
casian Kingdoms depicted on Ptolemy’s 3rd Asian Map, Colchis, Ibería
of the Caucasus and Albània of the Caucasus, and the three new Roman
provinces of Armenia, Mesopotamia, that is, Media, and Assyria in the
Roman Empire around the year 150 (Appendix, figs. 4, 6).
At this point, Eutropius relates that “Trajan occupied” the lands of two
peoples: Cardueni and Marcomedi (Eutropius Brev. VIII.III, Sylburgii 1762
I. s., 364).
About forty years before Ptolemy’s time (c.150 A.D.), at Satala then
the Emperor Trajan defined an easterly direction for the boundary line
between the three easternmost provinces of the Roman Empire along the
Euphrates River, Armenia, Mesopotamia (Media) and Assyria, on the one
hand, and the federated Kingdoms in the East on the other. These King-
doms only were independent states federated to the Romans.
The oldest traces of Roman public international law, in the sense of law
regulating relations with other polities, are to be found in the contemporary
context of the foedus in return for military assistance and transit. The fed-
erative alliance with Rome is a Roman institution that is practised to hold
kingdoms, peoples or tribes, and cities together. A treaty, foedus in Latin, is
a pact entered into by sovereigns for the welfare of the states in perpetuity.
It is used in an international context, and accompanied by ancient ritual;
the treaty allows the Roman state to enter into bilateral relations with any
other federated state, but it does not allow federated states to enter into
relations among themselves (Valvo 1992, 122-5; Zecchini 2005, 129-48).
Federated Kings proclaim the alliance with Rome publicly. What Em-
peror Trajan really projects in his foedus in A.D. 114 is a multitude of fully
sovereign states voluntarily submitting themselves to a single body of in-
ternational laws in accordance with which conflicts and disputes between
them could be properly adjudicated and authoritatively resolved.
The Roman foedus, the federative alliance with Rome, on the one hand,
was made by Kings alone and not all Kings received such a privilege. Every
sovereign on his accession should seek not only to be recognized by Rome

as friend and ally, but to be addressed by the royal title. However, there
was no interruption caused by death; the eldest son was ipso facto King
and was proclaimed immediately. Every King then upon his succession, if
he wished to have behind him the support of Rome, sought recognition in
one of three ways (Sands 1908, 70-1).
Yet on the other hand, Armenia, Assyria and Mesopotamia entered the
Empire of the Romans as new provinces. The closer bank of the Euphrates
River became the outer frontier of this militarized Roman territory front-
ing Parthia. From the larger point of view the history of Parthia is that of
Persia and Central Asia under the Arsacid dynasty. Now Trajan wanted the
Euphrates River to be a median between the Romans and the Parthians,
or, as Pliny the Elder calls them, the Persians. Since A.D. 114 Trajan had
regained Armenia from the Parthian Kings and abolished the Kingdom of
Armenia, when he made three new Roman provinces, Armenia, Mesopota-
mia and Assyria in A.D. 117 according to the Breviarium of Roman history.
Emperor Trajan, however, had other plans for the land of the people
called Cardueni, with the variant name Cardiveni in critical editions of the
Breviarium often accompanied by vocabularies and palaeographic notes.21
In fact, after the 114 treaty, the federative alliance with Rome, Eutropius
relates that “Trajan occupied” the lands of two peoples: Cardueni and
Marcomedi (Eutropius Brev. VIII.III, Sylburgii 1762 I. s., 364).
However, joining up to Adiabene are the people known as the Cordueni,
in front of whom the river Tigris flows according to Pliny The Elder. Vari-
ants of their name are Cardueni and Kardueni. Clearly Adiabene lay beyond
the borders of Armenia according to Strabo from Amasya. And Adiabene
is the place where Assyria begins according to Pliny The Elder. A spelling
variant occurs for the people called Cardueni, not far from Mesopotamia:
Cardveni. Such is the German editor’s reading of the text by Sextus Rufus
Festus the chronicler.22
Now Trajan, occupying the country of the Cardueni, a country with
definite boundaries above Assyria, crossed the new frontier of the Roman
Empire with a formidable army. It is clear, that the Cardueni are not within
the Roman Empire.
Immediately after the ratification of the treaty (foedus), the federative
alliance with Rome, we assume that Trajan’s forces “occupied” the country
of the Cardueni according to Eutropius. But the Romans did not keep it.
21 Eutrop., Breviarium, Sylburgii 1762, 1, 364; and 8,3 Variae Lectiones: Corduenos pro

Carduenos; Cardivenos, Carduena autem.
22 Reinhold 1898, 6, Sextus Rufus, De Victoribus Populi Romani, 3 “Ponti regnum occupa-
tum; et Armenia minor, quam idem tenuerat, armis obtenta est. In Mesopotamiam Roma-
nus pervenit exercitus: cum Parthis foedum initum est, contra Cardvenos ac Saracenos et
Arabas bellatum est, Judaea omnis victa est”.

Otherwise Eutropius would have said that Trajan “conquered and kept”
the country of the Cardueni as he did for other peoples around them ac-
cording to his Breviarium of Roman history, as we shall see.
We notice that the Cardveni, the people that Trajan occupied, are to be
found also in the Elder Pliny’s natural history, book 6. Cardueni and Kar-
dueni are likewise attested in variant editions. Pliny opens chapter sixteen
by defining the Kingdom of the Persians, “by which we now understand
that of Parthia, which is elevated upon the Caucasian chain between the
two seas”, the Caspian from the Caspii on the one hand and the Persian
from the Pesians on the other. To the Greater Armenia, Pliny reports,
which in the front slopes towards Commagene, is “joined Sophene which
lies upon the descent on both sides thereof”, and “next to it is Adiabene,
the most advanced frontier of Assyria” (Plinius N. h. 6,16).
Further information is required at this point. We understand that Com-
magene is the land of the Seleucid Kings which lies “outside the River
Euphrates” according to Procopius; it is a crossing point on the River
Euphrates (Procopius 1833, De Bello Persico, 2,17,18, 2,17,24-2,17,30.
There was also in former times Ninus, a most renowned city, on the
banks of the Tigris “with an aspect towards the west. This then allows
Pliny to finish off the speech by remarking on how the Aras River (Araxes)
separates Greater Armenia from Media, which closes chapter sixteen.
The Ninus of classical antiquity can be identified with the Niniveth of
Roman records, on the outskirts of Mosul in modern-day northern Iraq.
“Adjoining the other front of Greater Armenia, which runs down towards
the Caspian Sea”, Pliny says, we find Atropatene, which is separated from
Otene, a region of Armenia, by the river Araxes. And Gazae is its chief city,
distant from Artaxata four hundred and fifty miles, and the same from
Ecbatana in Media, to which country Atropatene belongs (Plin., Naturalis
historia, 6,16, end).
Thus chapter sixteen ends with the geography “of the other front of
Greater Armenia” bounded to the north by the Aras River, the Araxes of
classical antiquity, which runs down toward the Caspian Sea along the far
boundary between Greater Armenia (Armenia Maior) and Media. Ancient
Araxes River and modern Aras rises in what is now eastern Turkey and
flows eastwards, until it joints with the ancient Cirus River and modern
Kur before emptying into the Caspian Sea. Now the Kur becomes naviga-
ble. Meanwhile from its junction with the Alazani River, the Kur traverses
a hilly country of some extent, K’axeti, modern Georgia, and then enters
that extensive plain which extends along the Caspian Sea from Baku to
the Bay of Kizil-Agatch.
The description of the direction is correct. In fact, in describing the
towns of Media, Pliny describes them from “The Caspian Gates”, that is to
say from the mouth of the Kur River fronting on the Caspian Sea, 70 miles
south of Baku in what is now Azerbaijan (Plin., Naturalis historia, 6,15).
We understand that the Caspian Sea and the Caspian Gates have not
as reference point the same meaning in physical geography. The Caspian
Gates mark the mouth of the Kur’s River where the Caspii dwell upon its
shores (Plin., Naturalis historia, 6,15).
Chapter seventeen begins with the geography of Media in two para-
graphs. Here “the other front of Greater Armenia which runs towards
the Caspian Sea” on the one hand, and Media from the boundary of “The
Caspian Gates” on the other, being in accordant directions, converge to a
single point. It is here, to this converging point, that we stop.
In the territory of Media are four towns in an east-westerly direction
from the boundary of “The Caspian Gates”. Ecbatana, the capital of the
Medians, was built by King Seleucus “at a distance of twenty miles from
The Caspian Gates”, and the remaining towns of Phazaca, Aganzaga, and
Apamea lead to gates. The reason of these passes receiving the name of
“Gates”, is the same that has been stated above, Pliny notes. The reference
goes to chapter 6,15, as follows: “After we pass the mouth of the Cyrus
[the Kur River], it begins to be called the ‘Caspian Sea;’ the Caspii being a
people who dwell upon its shores. In this place it may be as well to correct
an error into which many persons have fallen, and even those who lately
took part with Corbulo in the Armenian war. The Gates of Ibería, which
we have mentioned as the Caucasian Gates, they have spoken of as being
called the ‘Caspian,’ and the coloured plans which have been sent from
those parts to Rome have that name written upon them. The menaced
expedition, too, that was contemplated by the Emperor Nero, was said to
be designed to extend as far as the Caspian Gates, where as it was really
intended for those which lead through Ibería into the territory of the Sar-
matae; there being hardly any possibility of approach to the Caspian Sea,
by reason of the close juxtaposition of the mountains here”.
It follows, that the accordant directions converge to a single point: “The
Gates of Ibería, which we have mentioned as the Caucasian Gates”. From
the Median towns, the position of these gates, Pliny notes in chapter sev-
enteen, is where “the chain of mountains is suddenly broken by a passage
of such extreme narrowness that, for a distance of eight miles in longitude,
a single chariot can barely find room to move along: the whole of this pass
has been formed by artificial means. Both on the right hand and the left
are overhanging rocks, which look as though they had been exposed to
the action of fire; and there is a tract of country, quite destitute of water,
twenty-eight miles in extent. This narrow pass, too, is rendered still more
difficult by a liquid salt which oozes from the rocks, and uniting in a single
stream, makes its way along the pass. Besides this, it is frequented by such
multitudes of serpents, that the passage is quite impracticable except in
winter. Joining up to Adiabene are the people formerly known as the ‘Car-
duchi,’ now the Cordueni, in front of whom the river Tigris flows” (Plin.,
Naturalis historia, 6,17,15).
From Media westwards along the northern side of the Aras River “The
Gates of Ibería as the Caucasian Gates” mark the entrance to the land of
the Cordueni / Cardueni / Kardueni / Cardveni. Next to the land is Adiabene
(Plin., Naturalis historia, 6,17,14), where the land of the Assyrians begins
(Plin., Naturalis historia, 6,16). However, Adiabene is located beyond the
borders of Armenia (Strabo 1857, Geographica, 11,4,1 and 11,4.8). In fact,
Adiabene is the most advanced frontier of Assyria (Plin., Naturalis histo-
ria, 6,16).
We conclude that the ancient authors provide us with a response to ba-
sic administrative questions on the Roman government in the East. So we
can say that the other front of Greater Armenia which runs down towards
the Caspian Sea, Media and the Cardueni make a tri-border ethnic area
at the “The Gates of Ibería as the Caucasian Gates”. Two provinces since
A.D. 117, however, Armenia and Media are constituent elements of a larger
state unit called the Roman Empire. A federated Kingdom since A.D. 114,
Ibería of the Caucasus has the right of government over the province of
the Cardueni which is constituent element of this state through “The Gates
of Ibería as the Caucasian Gates” (“in fidem accepit”). That is presumably
why Trajan’s army “occupied” the Cardueni province of federated Ibería
before advancing through Niniveth (currently Mosul) into the territory of
Assyria.
Further, the Notitia dignitatum imperii romani, from the early fifth cen-
tury, refers to an Ala, the Roman cavalry regiment “Fifteenth Ala Flavia
Carduenorum”, stationed at Caini. The spot on Delisle’s map may be the
modern place-name Gania (Kanja), which refers to the place that is situat-
ed immediately below the triple junction of both the rivers Alazini (Greater
Alazani and Lesser Alazani or Iori) into the Kur River (anc. Cyrus / Cirus
Fl.), Azerbaijan. The Roman Army has a complex history of integration that
is characterized by numerous organizational changes. The chain of com-
mand from the Senate of Rome to the army was reorganized. Each duke
was in charge of a Notitia Dignitatum, and listed in a dedicated section of
the Notitia at the head of a military force in the field. The administrative
register known as Notitia Dignitatum records troop dispositions for both
the western and eastern halves of the Roman Empire. Furthermore, we
can identify nations and establish their sovereign and independent exist-
ence according to their military status in the Roman Armed Forces. The
term ala, literally a wing, reflects the position of the allied troops on each
flank of the two-legion army; later, under the Empire, the term ala was
used exclusively for cavalry (Keppie 1984, 10, 22f and 36f, 69, 216, 272).
Cavalry was the most distinguished arm in the Roman Army; cavalry men
were called equites (Kennedy 1965, Iulius Caesar, De Bello Gallico 1,42).
It also appears that the confederate Alae Sociorum were engaged as
regular military units in the early Empire (27 B.C. -A.D. 200). In the army
of the early Empire, confederate Alae were provided by allied nations. The
Romans always relied on their allies, or, socii, to provide native cavalry,
that is to say non-citizen cavalry, either recruited in the subject provinces
or supplied by allied Kings.
Allied cavalry men were equites foederati. In the eastern part of the
Roman Empire, the unit of the allied foederati called Cardueni under the
title Ala XV. Flavia Carduenorum was at the command of the Duke of
Mesopotamia. In the western part of the Roman Empire, another cavalry
unit of Cardueni serving in Rome’s military forces stationed in Mauritania
Tingitania.23
We dare not argue from silence that “Ala XV Flavia Carduenorum” was
recruited in a region called Cordyene, skirted by the Tigris River. Neither
can we argue from the neighbouring Roman provinces that Cardueni were
recruited in Armenia. It is evident instead that in the Roman Empire of the
East a series of military ordinances, published by the Notitia Dignitatum,
stamped the ducal authority upon the personnel, organization and com-
mand structure of the army. Accordingly, the military units are numbered
progressively. The Duke of Mesopotamia and the Duke of Armenia were
given, respectively, office number XXXVI and office number XXXVII; they
were to be stationed at different posts, and spread over a very large extent
of country. No doubt Ala XV. Flavia Carduenorum was at the command of
the Duke of Mesopotamia, that is to say, Media.24
23 Graevius 1698, “Notitia Dignitatum Imperii Orientis: Notitia. Sub dispositione viri
Spectabilis Ducis Mesopotamie. Et qua de minore Laterculo emittuntur [along with the
following units from a lesser register]”, coll. 1729-34, Or. XXXVI, 18-36: (Mesopotamia),
Notitia. DUX MESOPOTAMIAE Cum Insignibus: XXXVI.34, “Ala quintadecima Flavia Car-
duenorum Caini” coll. 1730 and 1734; coll. 1735 and 1738, Or. XXXVII, 10-30:, “Armenia,
Notitia. DUX ARMENIAE Cum Insignibus”; “Notitia Dignitatum Imperii Occidentis: Notitia.
Qui numeri ex praedicti, per infrascriptas provincias habetur”, coll. 1855-62, Occ. VII.209:
“Intra Tingitaniam cum viro spectabili Comite Tingitane: Equites Cardueni Comitatenses”
col. 1858. From Pliny, and some inscriptions in Gruter, it appears that Mauritania Tingitania
was simply called Tangitania, from its principal city, Tingi, in order to distinguish it from
Mauritania Caesariensis. The Kingdom of Mauritania Tingitania, being reduced to a Roman
province in the reign of Claudius, as we are informed by Dio, was not included in the cor-
responding parts of Mount Atlas lying more to the southwest. Then Augustus divided Spain
(Hispania) into three provinces; fifty years after his death, Otho added to Spanish Baetica,
or rather incorporated with it, the African province of Tingitania.
24 It has been argued, not convincingly in my view, that Ala XV Flavia Carduenorum may
mean that the regiment was recruited in Cordyene. However Michael Dodgeon’s and Samuel
Lieu’s study focused on where the various Limitanei Units were stationed: “The title of the
unit implies that is was recruited in the early part of the fourth century in Cordyene, one of
the five regiones, ceded to Rome by Narses. Caini: Site unknown; Dilleman (1962: 239, n. 3)
believes it was listed in error under the ducate of Mesopotamia”; cf. Dodgeon, Lieu 1991,
Appendix 5, 341, nn. 38-9. But this does not appear and we cannot presume it without
evidence. The reference goes to the peace settlement between Diocletian and Narses, the
King of the Persians, in A.D. 298, but the treaty no longer exists. The treaty is described in
a commentary by Peter the Patrician (c.500-564). It established the Tigris River as Rome’s
new eastern boundary with the eastern Trans-Tigris regions of Intilene (aka Ingilene), So-

5 Are the Kartveli the People called Kardueni

or Cardveni in Trajan’s Time?
Finding errors on Ptolemy’s map of the Caucasus requires knowledge of
physical and political geography in Ptolemy’s time, otherwise no compari-
son can be made. Now, if we are able to make out the logical and appro-
priate line between the sovereign jurisdiction of the Roman State and the
sovereign jurisdictions of the various Allied States in the Caucasus, and
to do so with precision and clarity as to the degree of latitude to which
the Romans extended it, then we should determine whether Ptolemy in
person and map-makers based on Ptolemy’s geographical information, and
deformation, committed any mistakes in the map of the Caucasus in the set
of twenty-seven maps wholly based on Ptolemy’s rediscovered Geography
in Renaissance Europe and first made in 1415.
What we know of the international relations of the Caucasus and the
Roman Empire is confined to a treaty, or, as the Latins call it, foedus.
The treaty was carried on by the Emperor of the Romans, Trajan, who, in
A.D. 114, promulgated, from Satala, Armenian Pontus, the federation edict
for six Kings only. Thus the federal alliance is known about forty years
before Ptolemy’s time. Meantime, Trajan’s Parthian war of 114-7 saw Ro-
man armies thrusting across historical Armenia (currently Sadak, Turkey).
Armenia, says Tacitus, had been then assailed by Parthian influence (Tac.
Annales, 2,3; Jos. Ant. 15,104; Dio 49,5).
This century was one of annexation by Rome and direct confrontation
with Parthia and Parthian-occupied Armenia. The Emperor Trajan re-
quired Parthamasiris the Parthian to lay his diadem in abject submission
in A.D. 114. It happened when Trajan came to hold court at Satala in the
land of Armenia, north of the upper Euphrates (currently Firat Nehri, Tur-
key). Of particular importance in the geographical context is Eutropius’
use of different verbs to describe assorted military actions in Latin in his
Breviarium of Roman history.
Thus Eutropius wrote that (Breviarium, 8,3, Sylburgii 1762, 1, 363):
Trajan recovered Armenia, which the Parthians had occupied,

after killing Parthomasiris who controlled it [Traianus Armeniam,
quam occupaverant Parthi, receipt, Phartamasire occiso, qui eam ten-
ebat]. He gave a King to the Albàni [Albanis regem dedit] and received
phene, Arzanene, Corduene (Cordyene), and Zabdicene ceded to Roman control. However,
such treaty does not exist. Sextus Rufus Festus and Eutropius attest that the Kingdom of
Ibería of the Caucasus has been federated with Rome since Satata 114. As subjects of the
Iberian government, the Cardueni have enjoyed the right of serving in the region unit un-
der the title Ala XV Flavia Carduenorum at the command of the duke of Mesopotamia, as a
consequence of the federative alliance with Rome.

into alliance the Kings of the Caucasian Iberes [Iberorum regem],

the Sarmates [et Sauromatarum],
the Bosphorians [et Bosphoranorum],
the Arabs [et Arabum],
the Osroenians [et Osdroënorum] and the Colches [et Colcorum in fidem
accepit].
[Trajan] occupied the Cardueni and Marcomedi [Carduenos et Mar-
comedos occupavit].
He also occupied Anthemusium in the great region of Persia, but con-
quered and kept Seleucia and Ctesiphon, Babylonia and the Messeni [vi-
cit at tenuit], down to the borders with India and the Red Sea [accessit];
and there he made three provinces, Armenia, Assyria and Meso-
potamia with those peoples which border on Madena [atque ibi tres
provincias fecit, Armeniam, Assyriam, Mesopotamiam cum his gentibus,
quae Madenam attingunt]. Arabia he afterwards reduced to the govern-
ment of a province. On the Red Sea he established a fleet, so that he
might go and ravage the borders of India.
Now we can trace an accurate map of Trajan’s march down the rivers Eu-
phrates and Tigris from Satala, Armenian Pontus, to Persia, and follow the
places along the route of march that are easily recognizable on a modern
map. Satala (mod. Sadak), the starting point in historical Armenia, lies north
of the River Euphrates (Firat Nehri), and southwest of, and mostly adjacent
to, the Mescit Mountains, currently, Mescit Dağları, Turkey. Modern Sadak
is located south-west along the mountains between the Kelkit River basin,
the Lycus River of the ancients, and the city of Köse where it takes its rise.
The second stage of Trajan’s march from Osroenê to Persia: The recon-
struction of the second part of the route to Persia is easier to follow, and
we trace it first. Anthemusium was a battlemented town in Osroenê, the
upper portion of Mesopotamia (Media) bordering on southern Chaldia
(Chaldaea). Trapezus, currently Trabzon, Turkey, will be the metropolis of
“The Eighth Thema of Chaldia” on the Pontic or Black Sea.25
Then comes Seleucia. It will form “The Thirteenth Thema called Seleucia”
as one of the military districts in the Roman Empire of the East. Seleucia
was bordered by the Taurus mountain range to the west and the mounts of
Cilicia to the east, currently, İçel, Turkey; its second name was Decapolis,
25 Constantinus Porphyrogenitus 1588, Pars Lat., 22, Thema octavum, dictum Chaldiae.

Cellario 1786, 100, § 23 De Mesopotamia et Chaldaea. For the first century and a half, the
themata were created only in the East. Emperor Constantinus Porphyrogenitus compiled his
De Thematibus with the clear understanding that themata had been created before Emperor
Heraclius’ reign between the years 610 and 641, except when otherwise specified. The 8th
Theme of Chaldia was created in the first century of the Christian era.

the ten towns. Thus in Constantine Porphyrogenitus De thematibus.26 Se-

leucia stood on the west bank of the Tigris River opposite Ctesiphon, within
the present-day Babil Governatorate in Iraq. From across the river, Seleucia
and Ctesiphon formed the metropolis of Media under the Parthian Kings.
Seleucia on the Tigris lay southeast of modern Baghdad, Iraq.
Babylon lay close to the Euphrates, some 90 km to the south of modern
Baghdad, in what is today Iraq. The Messeni are the inhabitants of Edessa,
currently Urfa or Şanlıurfa; the upper reaches of the Euphrates and Tigris
rivers drain the tableland of the Urfa region in what is today south-east
Turkey. Finally, the region of Madena belongs to the Armenians; Plutarc
says that the Greeks call it Migdonia (currently Nusaybin, in what is now
southeastern Turkey at the border with modern Syria).27
The first stage of Trajan’s march from Satala to Osroenê: The recon-
struction of the first part of the route to Persia is more complex in Trajan
time. The mountainous part of the route starts at Satala in the portion of
Armenia that the Parthians “had occupied”. First we may call attention to
the Latin verbs occupare and tenere in the passage describing the coming
of Parthamasiris the Parthian in Latin. In A.D. 114 Trajan recovers Arme-
nia, which the Parthians “had occupied”, after killing Parthomasiris who
controlled it: “Traianus Armeniam, quam occupaverant Parthi, receipt,
Phartamasire occiso, qui eam tenebat. Albanis regem dedit. Iberorum
regem et Sauromatarum et Bosphoranorum et Arabum et Osdroënorum
et Colcorum in fidem accepit. Carduenos et Marcomedos occupavit”. (Eu-
trop., Breviarium, 8,3, Sylburgii 1762, 1, 363).
The lines including “Armeniam, quam occupaverant Parthi” and “Phar-
tamasire occiso, qui eam tenebat” should be taken, I think, in the politi-
cal sense. The starting point of action is, in English, expressed by the
modern verb “to occupy”. Nevertheless, the translation is doubtful from
a grammatical and semantic point of view. Not only is the verb “to oc-
cupy” in the pluperfect tense but it must be treated as a purely Roman
verb from the legal point of view. In effect, the legal point of view privi-
leges an “as if” condition or possibility. From the legal point of view, an
authorized norm directs that an individual, the Emperor of the Parthians
in the case of Armenia, must follow a certain conduct. The legal person
assumes that the legal institutions are a premise from which practical
conclusions may be inferred with deep consequences for the political
content of any one norm. In fact, Eutropius has preferred rendering the
verb “to occupy” in the pluperfect tense (occupavĕrant, “Armenia, which
26 Constantinus Porphyrogenitus 1588, Pars Lat., 27-8, Thema decimumtertium, dictum

Seleuciae.
27 Eutrop. Breviarium, 8,3, Sylburgii 1762, 1, 365-6, Variae Lectiones: k. Messenios, Edes-
sios vulgo; n. Madenam, Sextus Rufus c. xv vocat optimam Armeniarum regionem.

the Parhians had occupied”, third-person plural pluperfect active form,

indicative of occupo).
In the subsequent action, Eutropius uses the verb “to hold”, tenere,
which marks the subsequent action of Parthamasiris the Parthian in Ar-
menia as immediate after the preceding action here. But Parthamasiris
nonetheless “holds” the Kingdom of Armenia against the will of Rome. I
more particularly think that the Latin verb tenere takes up the political
meaning of violating Rome’s right to be respected and relates, if we are to
believe to Eutropius, to the preceding action”.28 Here the verbs occupare
and tenere actually mean “the Arsacid Osroes I, the King of Parthia since
A.D. 110, replaced a fellow Arsacid, Axidares, the King of Armenia by Ro-
man approval, with another, Parthamasiris, who had not been approved by
Rome as required by the terms of the Roman-Parthian agreement”. Thus
Osroes’ nominee Parthamasiris was killed at Satala in A.D. 114, and so the
Armenians were without a King and government the space of three years.
What had happened is this. After leaving Armenia without a King, then
Trajan conquered Persia “down to the ancient borders with India and
the Red Sea”, Eutropius concludes, and “there he made three provinces,
Armenia, Assyria and Mesopotamia with those peoples which border on
Madena”, currently Nusaybin, in what is now southeastern Turkey at the
border with modern Syria. In A.D. 117 thus Trajan annexed Armenia as a
Roman province constituting the region of the imperial domain.
As a verb, “to occupy” (occupare) appeared in Latin around A.D. 114
meaning, quite logically, “as required by the terms of the Roman-Parthian
agreement”, either physically or in competition policy and rivalries. The
line “Armeniam, quam occupaverant Parthi” can thus be viewed as offering
one kind of political experience. The verb occupare predicates a political
situation: a King of the Armenians by Roman approval as required by the
terms of the Roman-Parthian agreement. In other words, the verb predi-
cates the status of a people under the law.
Trajan’s route from Satala via the Meschit Mountains is much more dif-
ficult to trace than the second stage described above, as shifted boundaries
now obliterate tracks. When the events and locations described in the
Breviarium are placed next to a modern map, however, geographic logic
suggests one possible route out of here.
In A.D. 114 Trajan, the Emperor of the Romans, held court at Satala,
to the east of modern Sadak along a trail now known as the Kelkit River
valley, the Lycus fl. of the ancients. From here Roman troops could only
push north along the Görçedere River to reach Vardzahan, or, Varzahan, in
what is now Uğrak, Bayburt İli, on the Çoruh River, Turkey. The Georgians
28 Please note the equal descripition of Trajan in the episode of Parthamasiris’ murder
as narrated by Marcus Cornelius Fronto (c.100-late 160s) in his Principia historiae, 2,1, 16
(Romanorum fama impune).

call it Č’oroxi River. At the confluence of the rivers Görçedere and Č’oroxi
lies Vardzahan on the far left side of the Bayburt Plateau. The Bayburt Pla-
teau stands on the isolated Mount Uzundere that the Č’oroxi River (Çoruh
Nehri) cuts from the west side of the Mescit Mountains (Mescit Dağları)
where the Č’oroxi takes its rise, in what is now Turkey.
Here, nonetheless, it is Eutropius who once again provides the verb oc-
cupare (“to occupy”) in the Roman sense. What we read here is not that
Trajan “conquered” the Cardueni and Marcomedi, but only that he “oc-
cupied” them. Unlike modern historians who relegate the Cardueni to the
margin of Roman history, chroniclers of their own age credited Emperor
Trajan with planning a general administrative change of system. The Latin
text says “Carduenos et Marcomedos occupavit” (Eutrop. Breviarium, 8,3,
Sylburgii 1762, 1, 364). Trajan did not “take possession” of the Cardueni
and the Marcomedi, neither did he “seize” their lands. That Eutropius, or
his sources, described Trajan’s action in terms of Roman legal language
and procedure is what one would expect of an educated writer from the
Roman period. This passage is similar to the passage from the Parthian
occupation of Armenia I quoted in the preceding paragraph. By the terms
of the agreement between the Emperor of the Romans and the King of
the X peoples subjected to him, a King of a people so called may take his
people by Roman approval.
In reading Eutropius we simply understand that both the Cardueni and
Marcomedi were neither conquered nor kept in subjection by violence. It
must be remarked, that this is a route of march which has in view only to
convey a body of Roman troops from one position to another, being con-
nected with military operations relative to the Parthian enemy ahead of
them in A.D. 114-7.
In other words Trajan, the Emperor of the Romans, did not oppose those
two peoples. The Marcomedi possibly were the Osroenians, as Malkutā d-Bēt
Ōsrā Īnē in Syriac translates the reign of Osroenê in Latin. In fact, the King
of the Osroenians had been federated with Rome since A.D. 114 according
to the Breviarium of Sextus Rufus Festus and Eutropius, written after 364.
Thus may the two great peoples’ appellations, Cardueni, and Marco-
medi as one of the Osroenian peoples, be still traces among them. The
Cardueni, the former people dwelling along some route across the moun-
tains between the Kelkit River in Armenia (Satala) and the Kingdom of the
Osroenians, are still to be found there. A general description of Emperor
Trajan’s progress from settlement to settlement is confirmed by carto-
graphic sources. Empires follow one another. Physical geography, however,
remains the same from age to age, or, if there be change, it is unimportant
in a general view.
We see it in the way Guillaume Delisle made the map L’Arménie, la
Géorgie, et le Daghistan. This Delisle map, first published in 1722, depicts
the Başçayı mountains (Pasiani) which contain the springs of the Aras
River (Araxi ou Kaksi R.) flowing to the district of Malazgirt (Manzikerd)

(Appendix, fig. 7).29 The map’s title leads the eye to the all-Georgia realm,
Ottoman Armenia and Persian Daghestan, exactly as Ptolemy’s 3rd Map of
Asia should have done from Nicolaus Germanus’ manuscript copy in 1466.
In the biographical note alongside the coat of arms of the King of France,
Guillaume Delisle is described as “The First Cartographer of the King”
on another map dated the 15th August, 1723, Paris. Delisle distinguished
himself as one of the most important cartographers of the eighteenth
century. And, perhaps most significantly, his regional maps are highly re-
liable sources in the History of cartography. Following the meeting with
Peter the Great, Delisle was sent maps from Russia. He received improved
maps of the Caspian Sea based on surveys made in 1719, 1720 and 1721
(Allen 1953, 99-121; Urness 1993, 30). In pursuance of his work on this
project, Delisle drew heavily from a manuscript memoir of Sulxan-Saba
Orbeliani (1658-1725), a Prince of Georgia in the reign of Vaxt’ang VI, a
towering figure among contemporary scholars in Europe. We see it in the
fact that Orbeliani is included in the map’s title cartouche, 1723: Carte des
Pays voisinis de la Mer Caspienne.30 Since 1712 Vaxt’ang, being King over
Kartli alone (Ibería, East Georgia), had been living in captivity in Isphahan,
Persia, when Orbeliani sailed to France to ask for help and sent letters to
Pope Clement VI in 1713-14 (Salia 1980, 336-44).
Data were collected at a more detailed scale of investigation on the map
of 1722 for the areas contained in Georgia, Armenia and Daghestan. The
title says what the map shows−L’Arménie, la Géorgie, et le Daghistan. A
thousand and six hundred years later, what Delisle’s map shows through
the spelling and transliteration of place-names are Colchis, Ibería of the
Caucasus (Kartli), Albània of the Caucasus, or, Alvania, Armenia, and Mes-
opotamia or Osroenê.
And therefore Delisle’s map can serve as a guide in following that line of
march which Trajan pursued in the narrow valley of the Č’oroxi River in the
Parthian campaign (Persia) in 114-15. We left Trajan marching northeast
from the Kelkit River valley (Satala), towards the confluence of the rivers
Görçedere and Č’oroxi. At the junction of the rivers lies Vardzahan (Variu-
Han), today’s Uğrak, on the far left side of the Bayburt Plateau (Baiburdi)
29 Now let me refer back to Licini 2001, 346-56, 349 and map 4.

30 30 “Carte des Pays voisins de la Mer Caspiene, dressée pour l’usage du Roy. Sur la
Carte de cete Mer faite par l’ordre du Czar, Sur les Memoires manuscrits de Soskam-Sabbas
Prince de Georgie, Sur ceux de M.rs Crusius, Zurabek, et Fabritius, Ambassadeurs a la Cour
de Perse, et sur les éclaircissements tirez d’un grand nombre de persones intelligentesdu
pais. Assujetie aux Observations Astronomiques Par Guillaume Delisle, Premier Geographe
du Roy, de l’Academie Royale des Sciences, 15 Aout 1723 (A Paris, Quay de l’Horloge)”.
Decorative cartouche upper right. Philippe Buache printed the map on 30 April 1745.
Soskam-Sabbas should be Sulxan-Saba Orbeliani; he died in Moscow in January 1725.

that the Č’oroxi River cuts from the west side of the Mescit Mountains,
currently Mescit Dağları, Turkey (Appendix, figs. 7 and 8). The ancients
call them moschivis montes.
We see the Bayburt Plateau (Baiburdi) and the İspir Plateau (Ispira) on
Delisle’s map. There is a gorge there, I understand, “The Georgian Gorge”
(Appendix, fig. 7). Different spelling of the same place-name are entirely
normal, but here we have a calque, a loan translation, two words borrewed
from another language by literal, word-for-word translation. On Delisle’s
map the Georgian Gorge is Gürcü Boğazı (Gurdzis Bogasi), in modern
Turkey today. During the Caucasian Wars (1553-1648), the Georgians lost
some territory to the Ottoman Turks, and in 1648 İstanbul, the Constan-
tinople of the Romans, was able to push its state borders far inland. Thus
the English adjective “Georgian” is rendered into Turkish by the adjective
“Gürcü” and the English word “Gorge” by “Boğazı”.
Nor should it pass unnoticed that Trajan trod the road that Roman sur-
veyors had laid out, measured his passages by Roman milestones, crossed
rivers and swamps on Roman bridges and causeways. The sight of geo-
graphical objects told Trajan’s troops that they were near their intended
destination. Ancient gates marked their entry onto city streets and the
territory of a host country. There are, however, other gates, which join up
territories and peoples: “After we pass the mouth of the Cyrus [the Kur
River], it begins to be called the ‘Caspian Sea;’ the Caspii being a people
who dwell upon its shores. In this place it may be as well to correct an
error into which many persons have fallen, and even those who lately took
part with Corbulo in the Armenian war. The Gates of Ibería, which
we have mentioned as the Caucasian, they have spoken of as being
called the ‘Caspian,’ and the coloured plans which have been sent
from those parts to Rome have that name written upon them. The
menaced expedition, too, that was contemplated by the Emperor Nero,
was said to be designed to extend as far as the Caspian Gates [ad caspias
portas], where as it was really intended for those which lead through
Ibería into the territory of the Sarmatae [currently Russia]; there
being hardly any possibility of approach to the Caspian Sea, by reason of
the close juxtaposition of the mountains here” according to Pliny.
Pliny the Elder thus testified as an eye-witness before A.D. 79 (Plin.,
Naturalis historia, 6,15).
But, in fact, I believe that there is more to the story, and that the more
does concern the Kartvelians (K‘art‘velians) specifically. When we speak
of Trajan’s time, we have to use the word Kartvelians in its earliest sense
in the second century of our era as the people who dwell in Kartli. How-
ever, in 1722, the toponym Kartli (K‘art‘li) has undergone considerable
transformations during one thousand and five hundred years of time. We
have already seen that the ethnonym k‘art‘veli acquired a double mean-
ing in Georgian history: first, its earliest sense, the dominant population
of K‘art‘li proper (Kartli), encompassing adjacent peoples and lands in

eastern Georgia; and second, the crown’s “Georgian” subjects distributed
from the Pontic or Black Sea littoral to the far eastern regions of K’axeti
and Hereti, bordering and overlapping with Albánia of the Caucasus (sec-
tion 4).
The toponym K‘art‘li underwent a similar transformation, its “all-Geor-
gian” reach being extended by Kings and their contemporaries. But trans-
lating the Greek and the Latin, we say “Ibería of the Caucasus”, which are
the Greek and Latin words here.
To judge from the context, I rather think that the Turkish words “Gürcü
Boğazı” (Gurdzis Bogasi), The Georgian Gorge on Delisle’s map, here
translate The Gates of Ibería as the Caucasian Gates. Following the col-
oured plans, in fact Pliny could read with ease the title (“Namque hi Cas-
pias appellavere Portas Iberiae, quas Caucasias diximus vocari: situsque
depicti et inde missi, hoc nomen inscriptum habent”).
Therefore, on Delisle’s map, the inscription “Gürcü Boğazı”, the Geor-
gian Gates, says that these are “The Gates of Ibería as the Caucasian
Gates” in 1722. That is to say, “The Gates of Kartli as the Caucasian” in
the first century, or “The Gates of all-Georgia as the Caucasian Gates” in
the Bagratid era, or “The Georgian Gorge as the Caucasian” in the modern
era, or “Gürcü Boğazı” as “Kafkas”.
At the Bayburt Plateau’s western edge is Vardzahan (Variu-Han), re-
named Uğrak today; the Č’oroxi River (Turak R.) flows to water it (cur-
rently Çoruh Nehri, Turkey). Delisle shows that there are variant regional
spellings of the name still in use in 1722 to designate, at the same time, the
principal branches of the river: Tchoroki ou Bitumi, Turak R., Tshorola R.
Further to the south is the Georgian Gorge (Gurdzis Bogasi), Gürcü
Boğazı in modern Turkish. That is, if our identification hypothesis is ac-
cepted, the geographical object called the Gates of Ibería as the Caucasian
Gates on Roman maps in the first century.
The place-name is given in many languages in the royal description
of Georgia by Vaxušt’i Bat’onišvili: Gourdji-Boghaz, Sakharthwélos-Qel,
défilé de Géorgie. It is situated on the eastern slope of the Tortum River
Valley, in Mount Uzundere (Kenzoreti). This is the westernmost extension
of historical Georgia (GIURGISTAN ou GEORGIE) according to the royal
description that Vaxušt’i Bat’onišvili compiled as the Prince of Georgia
and dated the 20th October, 1745. The point is Khendzoreth in the royal
description; it has the distinction of being the last place in historical
Georgia, Kartli (East Georgia).31 On the main road of Tortum-Uzundere,
31 See more fully Vaxušt’i Bat’onišvili 1842, “Description du Royaume de Géorgie: Des-
cription du Karthli actuel; ses frontières, ses montagnes, ses fleuves, les diverses localités
et les édifices qu’elles contiennent: Description des lieux remarquables du Samtzkhé ou
Saathabago”: 72, Cette contrés s’appelle proprement Karthli, parceque ce fut la portion

Tartomisi-Kenzoreti on Delisle’s map, Oški Monastery (Öşk Manasırı) is

a Georgian church of the second half of the tenth century (Kartli, Ibería
of the Caucasus). Cascading 50 metres high off a cliff in Uzundere (Ken-
zoreti), the impressive Tortum Waterfalls (Tartomisi) are situated as high
up as this point and the narrowing Georgian Gorge upwards marks the
commencement. They have been sufficient to serve as a stable western
frontier of Caucasian Iberia (Kartli) for five dynasties until 1801 (Appen-
dix, fig. 7).
At the start of the Parthian campaign in A.D. 114, Trajan begins a
new march of conquest. He has recoreved Armenia and now the Arme-
nians are without a King. The Emperor is on horseback at the head of
the line of march. From Satala, Armenia, through the Kelkit River val-
ley (Lycus fl.) leading into the valley of Bayburt (Baiburdi) the Roman
march progress down to the far side of the Georgian Gorge (Gurdzis
Bogasi), the Kingdom of all-Georgia in 1722 (GIURGISTAN ou GEOR-
GIE). Thence along the river Aras (Araxi ou Kaksi R.) through Roman
de Karthlos, dont elle prit le nom; et après sa mort, elle fut appelée Sakarthwélo ou Sakar-
thlo, nom qu’elle porte encore de nos jours; 121, Au-dessus d’Arthwan [Artvin mod. Turkey],
jusqu’à Idi, à l’O. du Dchorokh [Çoruh Nehri mod. Turkey], à l’E. du pays de Thorthom [Tor-
tum mod. Turkey], est Parkhal, Taos-Car ou Tao [Tao-Klarceti mod. Turkey], limité à l’E.
par le Dchorokh [Çoruh]; 121, Basian, Olthis [Başçayı and Oltu mod. Turkey] Basian :Au
S. d’Olthis, de Nariman et d’Idi, au delà du mont Iridjlou, est le Basian; bien que ce pays
appartienne à l’Àrménie, ayant éte conquis par les Bagratides, il fit depuis partie
du Samtzkhé; 123, Ispira [mod. İspir]; 124, la rivière d’Ispira reçoit celle du Sakhar-
thwélos-Qel (défilé de Géorgie) ou Gourdji-Boghaz [Gürcü Boğazı mod. Turkey. Georgian
Gorge]; 124, Baïbourd [Bayburt mod. Turkey]; 125, La rivière de Thorthom reçoit, à
son tour, celles des monts de Thorthom et de Chiphaklou, sur lesquelles il y a des bourgs
grands et petits. La vallée de Thorthom a pour limites: à l’E., la montagne de Thorthom, qui
la sépare de Tao, et court du S.O. au N.E., c’est un rameau de l’Iridjlou, qui le rattache à la
montagne d’Ispira [İspir mod. Turkey]; 126-7, Khendzoreth [Uzundere]; 121-7, Gourdij
Boghaz est précisément à l’O. de Khendzoreth. Cette vallee, jusqu’au mont de Baibourd,
est la limite de la Géorgie et de la Grèce; elle est étroite, rocheouse et boisée. Au-dessus
de l’endroit ou le Gourdji-Boghaz tombe dans la rivière d’Ispira, sont les montagnes que
projettent celles de ce dernier pays et qui le séparet de Baibourd, ainsi que nous l’avons
dit.; 127, Gourdji-Boghaz [Gürcü Boğazı. Georgian Gorge]. A l’O., par-delà la montagne
de Chiphaklou, est la vallée de Gourdji-Boghaz, ou Sakarthwélos-Quel. En effet, quand
les Osmanlis s’emparèrent d’Azroum [Erzurum, historical Armenia in mod. Turkey], ils don-
nèrent au pays le premier de ces nomes. Sa longueur court du mont Déwaboīn à la rivière
de Sper [İspir valley], qui en sort et coule du S. au N. Gourdji Boghaz est précisément à
l’O. De Khendzoreth [Uzundere mod. Turkey]. Cette valée, jusqu’au mont de Baïbourd,
est la limite de la Géorgie et de la Grèce; elle est étroite, rocheuse et boisée; 127-9,
Baïbourd [Bayburt]; 130-1, Le Dchaneth, aussi appelé Las. The modern names of ancient
places are added, when known. See also Vaxušt’i Bat’onišvili 1849, 1re Partie: Histoire an-
cienne, jusqu’en 1469 de J.-C., 327 / n. 1 An. 1053: Baberd, cf. Tchamitch, t. II; 628 Sper,
Baberd (1301-1307); 955; 274 / n. 8- 276 / n. 3. The Mescit Mountains are called, in the
Georgian language, Iridjlou. Beyond the mountains is the valley of the Başçayı River (le
Basian) where the Aras River takes its rise (l’Araxe); the valley had originally belonged
to the Armenians, when the Bagrat’ioni conquered it (Vaxušt’i Bat’onišvili 1842, 121-122;
see section 4.

Armenia (IRMINIA ou ARMENIE), the next identified destination is

Malazgirt (Manzikerd / Mantzicierte), that is Media (Mesopotamia) in
Trajan’s time.32 Meanwhile the forward troops push down to the city of
Erzurum (Arzrum), or, as the ancients call it, Theodosiopolis, Armenia
(IRMINIA ou ARMENIE).
While it is still unclear who the people called Cordueni, Cardueni, Kar-
dueni, Cardveni actually were in the time of the Elder Pliny and Trajan,
the fact remains that the existence of the land Καρδουήνων is also attested
in the Greek text of Zosimus Historicus around A.D. 598 (Zosimus 1837,
Historia, 3.31, 167).33
Narrow “Gates” lead through Media into another territory. Joining up to
Adiabene are the people known as the Cordueni, Cardueni, Kardueni, Card-
veni according to Pliny (Naturalis historia, 6,17,14-6,17,15). And Adiabene
lies “beyond the borders of Armenia”, according to Strabo from Amasya
Pontica, currently Turkey (Strabi 1856, Geographica, 11,4,1 and 4,8).
And although modern historians do not give us any information, the
purpose of my study is to understand where the unidentified people lived,
and why they intersected the line of march which Trajan pursued.
A spelling variant occurs for the people called Cardueni in Roman history.
From Pontus to Mesopotamia, dwell the Cardveni; such is the German edi-
tor’s reading of the Breviarium by Sextus Rufus. As for letters “v” and “u”,
Latin texts make no distinction between consonant [v] and vocalic [u], writ-
ing both as v in epigraphs. The two spellings of the ethnic name Cardueni
and Cardveni probably belong to the same root as the Georgian word kartu.
The ethnonym k‘art‘veli acquired a double meaning in history: first, its
earliest sense, the dominant population of K‘art‘li proper (Kartli); and sec-
ond, the crown’s “Georgian” subjects distributed from the Pontic or Black
Sea littoral to the far eastern regions of K’axeti and Hereti, bordering and
overlapping with Albánia of the Caucasus. In this way the term k‘art‘vel came
to mean both Iberian (East Georgian) and Georgian, between the year 928
(Roman-Iberian Treaty on the Aras River), and 1008 (see section 4).
32 Stritter 1779, Ex Scriptoribus Byzantinis: Lazica, Avasgica, Tzanica, Svanica, Meschica,

Iberica, Alanica, Index Historicus: 129, “Mantzicierte, urbs: Iberes cum Mantziciertanis
amicitiam colunt”; and particularly 95-6, chapter 3, “Urbs a Tangrolipice Sultano appugna-
tur”; 122, “Turci paret, Romanus Diog. ad eum venit, et oppugnatam capit; Index Geographi-
cus”; 278, “Mantzicierte, Mediae: urbs munitissima, (olim, ut quidem Isaac Catholicus auctor
est, Theodosiopolis dicta, de quo tamen dubitari potest)”; 286-7, chapter 4, “Lazica: a.C. 555,
Imp. Iustiniano, Gubazem”. In fact, Malazgirt is not to be confused with Theodosiopolis, the
ancient name of Erzurum, historical Armenia, currently Turkey.
33 See also Eutrop., Breviarium, 8,3, Sylburgii 1762, 1, 364-5, Variae Lectiones. Notae:
Coduenos pro Carduenos. Nostram lectionem confirmat Sextus Rufus c. xx. Zosimus Hist.,
Lib. III in Joviano, Καρδουήνων”. The text of Zosimus survives in a single manuscript now
in the Vatican Library, Codex Vat. Graecus 156; this copy was written over a peiod of two
centuries, the tenth-twelfth, Constantinople.

In its earliest sense, as given in section 4 (Rapp 2003, 420; Shur-

gaia 2014, 80-1), the people of K‘art‘li is both an ethnic group and a
political designation for a collective region. Geography has the power
to politically define territory and to name regions. Once a territory has
become associated with a set ethnonym, the ethnonym can remain in
use for a considerable period of time. For example, writing from the Ro-
man Empire of the East. in the first half of the sixth century, Procopius
uses the same ethnonyms in Emperor Justian’s reign to describe Italy as
Strabo from Amasya Pontica 500 years earlier. Indeed, it was only when
the local population came into contact with a central authority from
Rome, the iuridicus, the curator of a public road, for example, or the
prefect of the alimenta, that there was contact with the notion of a wider
collective region. However, what is important, in the context of the use of
ethnonyms by Roman geographers, is the division of territory according
to ethnonym and the association of a common mythology. The eleventh
regions of Italy and their associated names, ethnonyms and others, were
not a natural division of territory. For the regions to have coherence,
they depended upon a mythology of descent that denied heterogeneity
of native population to create a number of unified regions, which were
associated with one or two ethnonyms. Perhaps we see in the Italy of
Augustus, during the first two centuries A.D., a shift from the ethnonym
representing the people to the ethnonym representing a territorial divi-
sion (Laurence 1998, 106-7).
The people of Kartli (K‘art‘li) is both an ethnic group and a political
designation for a collective region. Such a view can be seen as a simple
principle in Roman geography even for the foreign nations entering reports
and chronicles. The Marcomedi possibly were the Osroenians, as Malkutā
d-Bēt Ōsrā Īnē in Syriac translates the reign of Osroenê in Latin. As such,
the ethnonym entered the Breviarium of Roman history. And Cordueni,
Cardueni, Kardueni, Cardveni, the land Καρδουήνων, as a word for the
ethnonym representing a territorial division appears at least four times
in Roman history.
Trialeti is in central Georgia today. The Trialeti culture is attributed to
the early second millennium before Christ. It naturally evolved into that
of the Kartli of Mcxeta during the Late Bronze Age. Mcxeta is located 20
km north of Tiflis, currently Tbilisi (Vaxušt’i Bat’onišvili 1842, 157-9, Thri-
aleth; Shurgaia 2014, 81).
We see Trialeti (Trialeti), Tbilisi (Tiblis), Mcxeta (Msketa) in the Geor-
gian region of the people called Kartveli (CARDUEL) on Delisle’s map
L’Arménie, la Géorgie, et le Daghistan of 1722 (Appendix, fig. 8). Carduel
is then the modern variant of Cordueni, Cardueni, Kardueni, Cardveni,
the land Καρδουήνων, the land of the ethnic group called the Kartvelians
after Kartlos.
Moreover, the Georgian language is still known as Cardueli in 1627
(Pietro della Valle, Informatione, p. 1/a). Trabzon, Constantinopolitan Greece,

borders on Bayburt, Georgia (see also Vaxušt’i Bat’onišvili 1842, 127).
By A.D. 114, the federal alliance with Rome was widespread among the
Kings of the Caucasus and Osroenê, clear-cut, and politically irresistible.
At the head of the Roman Army, from Satala, Roman Armenia, through
the Kelkit River valley (anc. Lycus Fl.) and the Ch’orokhi River valley
(currently Çoruh Nehri) Trajan could actually reach the upper and far
end of the narrow Georgian Gorge, or, as Roman surveyors call it, the
Gates of Ibería as the Caucasian Gates, which led into the territories of
Media and Armenia.
In A.D. 114 Trajan’s Army “occupied” the Cardueni, that is to say the
region called CARDUEL on Delisle’s map about 1722. The Romans did not
occupy Ibería of the Caucasus with those peoples which border on Media
and Armenia, but the Kartvelians, one of the Iberian peoples of the Cauca-
sus, the descendants of the eponym K‘art‘los. After we pass the course of
the Ch’orokhi River, modern Georgia, it begins to be called CARDUEL; the
Kartvelians being a people who dwell beyond its northern bank in Trajan’s
time. In the context of the use of ethnonyms by Roman geographers, this
is a division of territory according to ethnonym and the association of a
common mythology. Since Trajan’s time the Romans have called the unified
region Cordueni, Cardueni, Kardueni, Cardveni, Καρδουήνων, that is to say
CARDUEL, a province of the all-Georgia realm on Delisle’s map of 1722.
The Kartvelians are the people who dwell in Mcxeta and other Kartlian
towns within the Kingdom of the Iberians of the Caucasus in Trajan’s
time. The passage from the Breviarium contains the oldest reference to
the people of Kartli which I am aware: [Trajan] occupied the Cardueni
and Marcomedi (“Carduenos et Marcomedos occupavit”). In this southern
region of Ibería of the Caucasus, all the people who are placed under the
ethnonym k‘art‘veli and dwell along the northern bank of the Kur River,
the State’s frontier, have been consacrated to separate rule since A.D. 114,
the year of the treaty (foedus) of Satala with Rome.
Ibero-Kartvelian place-name harks back to Ptolemy’s maps. We see Mcx-
eta (mescheta), and the mythical city of Armazi (armatıca = armatica).
In the myth the people called Kartveli have been associated with a set
ethnonym and Mcxeta (mescheta), the capital of Ibería of the Caucasus,
was built on the bank of the Kur River, the Cirus / Cyrus of the Romans,
or, as the Kartvelians call it, Mtkvari. Its geographical position is a few
miles north of the Pontus. The Kur takes its rise in the Caucasus Mountain
according to Pliny (Corax, currently K’odori River; Plinius, N. h. 6,15).
It passes Ibería and the line of the State frontier on the south side near
Mcxeta. Receiving from the west a great affluent, the Aras River from
Greater Armenia, the Kur runs through Albània of the Caucasus in an east
direction and falls into the Caspian, or Hircanian Sea. The geographical
work of Nicolaus Germanus includes the Kur River. Here Cirus Fluvius,
the Greek form, flows along the southern frontier of the Kingdom of Ibería
of the Caucasus, bordering on the Mescit Mountains. The Kur is traced
correctly but it wrongly receives from the south its great affuent, the Aras
(araxes fl.), Greater Armenia (Armenia Maior). The proper Pontus actually
lies at a latitude of between 40 and 41 degrees north latitude, marking off
the Caspian, or Hircanian Sea. However, we see Mcxeta (mescheta) on
Ptolemy’s 3rd Map of Asia in Nicolaus Germanus’ copy showing the wrong
latitude of 45° north in 1466 (Appendix, figs. 4, 6).
Ptolemy’s measurement is not very satisfactory. The correct latitude of
Mcxeta is 41°41’N. The Ibero-Kartvelian frontier, bordering the Roman
Empire and Roman provinces, was defined by treaty (foedus) at Satala
(Kelkit) in A.D. 114-17. It appears reasonable that from this parallel the
southern frontier should have run from Mcxeta to Albània of the Caucasus
(Daghestan) in Ptolemy’s time (A.D. c.90-168). We can compare now the
line of latitude of Mcxeta at the southern border of Ibería of the Caucasus
on Ptolemy’s 3rd Map of Asia in 1466 with that of Mcxeta in 1722. Delisle
got the true latitude of this line correctly.
The ethnonym k‘art‘veli eventually acquired a double meaning in the
Bagratid era: in its earliest sense, however, as given in section 4, the Kart-
velians are a people then linked with the border region of a Sovereign terri-
tory where they dwell within the first half of the second century. The name
of the Kartvelian people has caused much speculation among modern
historians. Nevertheless, they should not see the Kingdom of Caucasian
Ibería, or, Kartli (East Georgia), as split into two halves, Roman Ibería or
Kartli and Parthian Ibería or Kartli. By the terms of the federal agreement
(foedus) with Rome, the Roman Emperor does not claim dominance over
all those peoples living in the Sovereign territory of Caucasian Ibería in
times both of peace and armed conflict. The King of the Iberian peoples
of the Caucasus simply recognizes the Roman dominance of one of them,
the Kartvelians. The history of the political process between the Roman
Empire and the Kingdom of Ibería of the Caucasus regarding the Kartveli-
ans dates back to A.D. 114 when the Roman-Caucasian Iberia goverments
start to define the administrative jurisdiction by drawing an inner Line in
relation to the unique people involved at the western frontier tract. The
Cordueni, Cardueni, Kardueni, Cardveni, the land Καρδουήνων, CARDUEL
are different imitations of the same name, while the people thus called
share the more general name of Georgi, or, “tillers of the ground”, with
the other descendants of the same geōrgos, farmer (Strabo 1877, Geo-
graphica, 11,2; Plinius N. h. 6,14).
We can see a strong continuity with later periods. The eastern part of
the Roman Empire then lost Rome and became the Roman Empire of Byz-
antium, the former name of the city of Constantinople, Greece politically,
strategically, and geographically. However it retained much of that was
Roman in government, law, and administration.
Since A.D. 114 the Kingdoms of the Osroenians, the Albàni of the Cau-
casus (Alvàni, Daghestan), the Colchians, the Iberians of the Caucasus,
the Bosphorians, the Sarmates at the mouth of Tanaïs, that is the other
name of the Don River, therefore, have been independent States, and only
in federal alliance with the Romans in the form of foedus. In fact, Cicero
uses liberi populi as equivalent of socii (Cic. Pro Cornelio Balbo oratio ad
iudices, par. 27). Federal Ibería of the Caucasus is directly governed from
Mcxeta. As sovereign state, Ibería of the Caucasus embraced many peo-
ples; one of them, the Kartvelians, stretch down to the Kur river in a south
direction, and to the Ch’orokhi river in a south-westly direction where the
Ch’orokhi takes its rise. Its sources in the west flank of the Mescit Moun-
tains (Mescit Dağları) form the narrow “Gates of Ibería as the Caucasian
Gates”. Its govering authority is no way legally dependent on any higher
authority. The Gates of Caucasian Ibería border on Armenia. A Roman
province since A.D. 117, Armenia is now directly governed from Rome.
In A.D. 114 Trajan then proceeded through the narrow Gates of Ibería
as the Caucasian Gates, that is to say through the Georgian Gorge, or
“Gürcü Boğazı” (currently Turkey). The exit gates led through Caucasian
Ibería into the territories of Media and Assyria. With this base, Trajan im-
mediately marched on the Caspian Gates, the other gates.
In fact, Pliny says: “After we pass the mouth of the Cyrus, the Kur River,
it begins to be called the ‘Caspian Sea;’ the Caspii being a people who
dwell upon its shores”. (Plin., Naturalis historia, 6,15).
Trajan also “occupied” Anthemusium in the great region of Persia, but
conquered and kept Seleucia and Ctesiphon, Babylonia and the Mess-
eni, down to the borders with India and the Red Sea. “And there”, in
the region of the Red Sea, Eutropius says, under the year 117, Trajan
“made three provinces, Armenia, Assyria and Mesopotamia with those
peoples which border on Madena. Arabia he afterwards reduced to the
government of a province. On the Red Sea he established a fleet, so that
he might go and ravage the borders of India” (Eutrop. Breviarium, 8,3,
Sylburgii 1762, 1, 363).
Consequently coins with Armenian references were struck by the mint
at Rome. If we think that we are dealing with the Roman province of Arme-
nia receiving insigna from the Roman Emperor, it ought not to surprise us
much (but Sayles 1998, 62). Roman provincial coins are usually arranged
geographically by issuing authority. Attributing Roman provincial coins
is not really as hard as it looks since the geographical arrangement of
provinces conforms with history. Four centuries later Procopius refers that
the five Armenian satraps held the power, and these offices were always
hereditary and held for life. However, “they received the symbols of office
only from the Roman Emperor” (Procopius 1833, De aedif. 3,4,17- 3,4,19).
Ptolemy was right about one thing: satrapies are simply provinces under
another name in the Roman reign as we read in his Geography: “Provin-
ciae seu Satrapiae notae hae sunt. In Europa 34. [..] In Africa Provinciae
seu Satrapiae 12. [..] Asiae magnae provinciae 408” (Napoli, Biblioteca
Nazionale, cod. Lat. V F. 32, Tabula XXVII, f. 124).
On this account we cannot observe any “basic similarity” between “the
satraps of Armenia as the allies of the Emperor” of the Romans and the
foederati in complete autonomy without supervision from the Roman au-
thorities. Neither can we say, “the Satrapies were miniature kingdoms
ruled by their own princes, who were the equals in rank of king” (but see
Adontz 1908, Garsoïan 1970, 87-8; Garsoïan 1998, 239-64). Given that sa-
trapies are simple provinces in the Roman reign, there undeniably follows
the conclusion. Since the year 117 the people of Armenia have received the
provincial form and have been administered according to Roman laws and
order. Yet they have arrogated to themselves rank superior to that of the
other provinces forminig the Roman Empire. Provinces, or, Satrapies form-
ing the Roman reign follow Roman law in all ways. And, on the contrary,
Foederati are foreign Kingdoms in formal alliance with Rome on the basis
of a treaty, foedus in Latin, between the Roman Empire and several, inde-
pendent, sovereign States. Federated Kingdoms are not tributary to Rome.
State sovereignties are not found under apple-trees. Sovereignty is not
the Power, it is not the Authority, it is not the Command, but it is the Right
of Power, the Right of Authority, the Right of Command, as Emmerich de
Vattel so correctly declares.
Territorial sovereignty is not something to be decided by mere prime
ministers, diplomats, residents, and scholars. Rather, it has a function. In
international relations, sovereignty’s function is to demarcate the interna-
tional from the domestic, so that the boundaries appear to be self-evident
in international treaties. And topographical maps are indispensable for
the planning of military manoeuvres on the frontiers and public adminis-
tration, for levying taxes, for the rule of law and space systems to work.
The claim here is quite simple: yesterday and today, national frontiers
are fixed by treaty, unless scholars assume that a sovereign ignores his/
her own State’s frontier and rules over an unknown territory.
6 Bayburt Fort is Ibería of the Caucasus in A.D. 928

Four centuries passed. Justinian I, the Roman Emperor of the East at
Constantinople, was then at war with the Persian Emperor. The truce of
A.D. 532 allowed Justinian to commence fortification of the flank of the
Euphrates at the Persian frontier of the Roman Empire. First he strength-
ened the territory of the East with new fortifications. By these measures,
he fortified the whole of that remote frontier. Therefore he devised a plan
and Procopius wrote the most important eyewitness account of the build-
ings in his reign (Procopius 1833, De aedif., 2-4).
Osroenê, we understand, is a part of Mesopotamia (Media). A Roman

province since A.D. 117, Mesopotamia was directly controlled by the Em-
peror of the Romans. From Constantinople, Justinian the Emperor of the
Romans made impregnable all the places which previously lay exposed to
assailants; “as a result of this”, Procopius relates, “Mesopotamia is mani-
festly inaccessible to the Persian nation” (Procopius 1833, De aedif., 2,4,14-
2,4,21). In book two, then, Procopius says (2,7,1-2,7,2, 2,8,1, 2,8,1, 2,8,2):
Such were the works of the Emperor Justinian in Mesopotamia. And it
is necessary for me at this point in my narrative to mention Edessa and
Carrhae and Callinicum and all the other towns which chance to lie in
that region, for those too are situated between the two rivers [..] So these
structures were erected by the Emperor Justinian in the manner which I
have described in Mesopotamia and in Osroenê, as it is called. And I shall
describe the fashion in which his work was carried out on the right of the
Euphrates River.
In book three on the buildings, Procopius goes on to tell about all the
other works that the Emperor Justinian executed “in the other Armenia”
as a place-name. The fort of Satala (Sadak) is in the territory of the other
Armenia (Procopius 1833, De aedif. 3,4,1, 3,4,2). Here the Emperor Trajan
held court in A.D. 114. Next Procopius adds that (3,3,9 -3,3,12):
As one goes from Citharizôn to Theodosiopolis [currently Erzurum]
and the other Armenia, the land is called Chorzanê; it extends for a
distance of about three days’ journey, not being marked off from the
Persian territory by the water of any lake or by river’s stream or by a
wall of mountains which pinch the road into a narrow pass, but the two
frontiers are indistinct. So the inhabitants of this region, whether sub-
ject of the Romans or of the Persians, have no fear of an attack, but
they even intermarry and hold a common market for their produce and
together share the labours of farming. And if the commanders on either
side ever make an expedition against the others, when they are ordered to
do so by their sovereign, they always find their neighbours unprotected.
Their very populous towns are close to each other, yet from ancient times
no stronghold existed on either side. It was possible, therefore, for the
Persian King to proceed by this route with comparative ease and conveni-
ence in passing through into Roman territory, until the Emperor Justin-
ian blocked his way in the following manner [..].
It refers to the whole territory of Armenia that Procopius has described,
whether subject of the Romans or of the Persians. While one Armenian
region seems more open to outsiders along the Aras River (Araxes), “the
other Armenian region” seems to be compact along the Euphrates River
(currently Firat Nehri). Then Procopius relates (Procopius 1833, De ae-
dif. 3,4,1-3,4,6; 3,4,10):
These things were accomplished by the Emperor in the manner de-
scribed. I shall now go on to tell about all the other works which by his
diligence he executed in the other Armenia. The city of Satala had been
in a precarious state in ancient times. For it is situated not far from the
land of the enemy and it also lies in a low-lying plain and is dominated
by many hills which tower around it, and for this reason it stood in need
of circuit-walls which would defy attack. [..] And he set up admirable
works on all sides and so struck terror into the hearts of the enemy. he
also built a very strong fortress not far from Satala in the territory
called Osroenê. There was a certain fortress in that region erected
by men of ancient times on the crest of a precipitous hill, which
in early times Pompey, the Roman general, captured; and becoming
master of the land by his victories, he strengthened this town materially
and named it Coloneia. [..] In that region also he constructed the forts
called Baiberdōn and Aerôn.
Two are the Roman forts, Procopius tells us, that Justinian built in
the territory called Osroenê, the Romans Empire. These forts are called
Baiberdōn (Βαιβερδὼν), or, as the Turks call it, Bayburt, and Aerôn (Ἄρεων).
The modern name of Aerôn is unknown. The territory called Osroenê is
not far from Satala “in the other Armenia” but it is not Armenia, either.
And Coloneia, or, Koloneia, is Koyulhisar, Sivas İli, modern Turkey today.
Yesterday and today, Bayburt (Baiburdi) is just 95 km south-east of İspir
(Ispira). However to complicate matters, today’s İspir is situated in the
modern province of Erzurum (Arzrum), which yesterday was the town of
Theodosiopolis in historical Armenia. Erzurum lies below the Georgian
Gorge, or, the Gates of Ibería as the Caucasian Gates (Gurdzis Bogasi)
through the isolated Mount Uzundere (Kenzoreti) in the Mescit Mountains.
Currently, these cities are in the Republic of Turkey as one of the succes-
sor States of the Ottoman Empire. To the north, the modern Province of
Erzurum stretches as far as Tortum (Tartomisi), Tortumkale and Oltu on
the isolated Mount Uzundere as the westernmost portion of the Mescit
Mountains, currently Mescit Dağları.34 We can point out its exact situation
on Delisle’s map of 1722 (Appendix, fig. 7).
Further, physical geography shows that Vardzahan was not Turkish Ar-
menia (Variu-Han; currently Uğrak, Bayburt İli).35 Vardzahan lies above the
slope-forming unit of “The Georgian Gorge” (Gurdzis Bogasi), above both
Bayburt (Baiburdi) and İspir (Ispira). The modern “Georgian Gorge” (Gürcü
Boğazı) and the ancient “Iberian Gates as the Caucasian Gates” marks the
entrance gates to Ibería of the Caucasus leading through the Kartvelian
34 Civil Administration Units Municipality Villages, Turkey, 2002: BAYBURT 69: I.

Bayburt-İl Merkezi B.; ERZURUM 25: İspir İlçesi, I. İspir-İlçe Merkezi B; Oltu İlçesi, I.
Oltu-İlçe Merkezi B; Tortum İlçesi, I. Tortum-İlçe Merkezi B., 29. Tortumkale.
35 But see Cuneo 1988, 1, 703, Maria Adelaide Lala Comneno ed. “N. 458 Varjahan, Var-
dzahan: chiesa ottagona X-XI secolo, vilayet di Gumushane”; 2, Carta di Localizzazione dei
Monumenti e dei Siti, n. 458.

route into the territory of Sarmatia (Russia). It occupies the gorge cut
through the Mescit Mountains (currently Mescit Dağları, Turkey).
Bayburt (Baiburdi) appears just across the northern neck of the Geor-
gian Gorge (Gurdzis Bogasi). Originally in Osroenê forming the Roman
Empire, Bayburt Plateau and Fort then passed to the patrimony of the
Kings of Ibería of the Caucasus, Kartli, in the Bagratid era. In A.D. 928
Catacale retired at the co-emperor’s orders from Constantinopole (cur-
rently İstambul). Catacale was the Master of the Soldiers for Theodosiopo-
lis (currently Erzurum, Turkey) and the region of Phasianes, the region of
the Phasis River of the ancient writers, Colchis (West Georgia). The name
of the river, in its modern form, is Rioni, Georgia. As soon as Catacale re-
tired from Theodosiopolis and the region of Phasianes, the King of Ibería
of the Caucasus seized upon all those strongholds and kept possession of
them according to Greek Byzantine authors.36 A political solution came,
in A.D. 928, at Constantinople. Romanos I Lakapenos and Constantine VII
Porphyrogenitus, the co-emperors of the Romans, agreed that the Aras
River (Erax fluvius. Araxes) “should serve as the boundary line between
the two States not to commence war against this Prince, who was a so-
cius, or, ally of the Roman Emperor”. Thus the co-emperors “abandoned
all the country north of the said river to the Ibererians of the Caucasus”,
36 Le Beau 1770, Tome 13, 428, Romain Lécapène, 73, Le roi d’Ibérie à Constantinople:

Le 20 février de l’année suivante 922, mourut Théodora, femme de Romain. […] Les rois
d’Ibérie étaient alliés de l’Empire, et ces princes, moins fiers que leurs ancêtres, s’en étaient
rendus les vassaux en acceptant le titre de curopalates, devenu chez eux héréditaire. Celui
qui régnait alors vint à Constantinople, et Romain s’empressa de le recevoir avec hon-
neur, et d’étaler à ses yeux toute la pompe impériale; 35, Ann.924, Révolte de Boïlas: 622,
Cedrenus; 499 et al., Leo gramm.; 442-3, Mais en 924, il s’éleva des troubles sur la frontiere
de l’Arménie et du Pont. Le Patrice Bardas Boïlas commandait en cette contrée. Voulant
apparemment se faire une principauté, sans courir lui-même aucun risque, il excita deux
seigneurs puissants, Adrien et Tazate, à prendre les armes. Ils levèrent l’étendard de la
révolte, en s’emparant d’une place forte nommée Païpert [Bayburt]. Curcuas, qui se trou-
vait alors à Césarée de Cappadoce [currently Kayseri, Turkey], accourut au bruit de ces
mouvements; il livra bataille aux rebelles […]; 463, 468-9, Guerre en Arménie. Const. Porph.
de adm. imp. c. 45. de Iberibus. Ann.927 Le révolte de Boïlas avoit été un signal de guerre
pour les Sarasins de Malatia [currently Esky Mataya, Turkey]. Ils recommencerent leurs
ravages sur les frontieres de l’Empire. Mais ils trouverent dans Curcuas qui commandoit en
Orient, un enemi invincible […469] II. Guerre en Arménie: Constant. Porphyr. de adm. imp.
c. 45. Abulfeda. Quoique les Rois d’Ibérie fussent alliés et comme vassaux de l’Empire,
ils disputoient néanmoins aux Grecs la possession des pays limitrophes. Sous le régne de
Léon, Catacale s’était rendu maître de Theodosiopolis [currently Erzurum, Turkey] et de
la Phasiane [Phasis, currently Rioni, Georgia], d’où il avoit presque entièrement chassé
les Sarrasins. Après le départ de ce Géneral [Catacale], le Roi d’Ibérie s’était emparé de
toutes ces places, et prétendait s’y maintenir. Constantinus VII. Romain A. 928. Pour
éviter une guerre avec ce Prince, on convint que l’Araxe [Aras] ferait la borne des deux
Etats, et on abandonna aux Ibériens tout le pays situé au Septentrion de ce fleuve.
Joannes Curcuas (John Curcuas) was born in Lesser Armenia. Phasiana (var. Fasiana) is
the land of the Phasis River, or, Fasso, Colchis (West Georgia). The name of the river, in its
modern form, is Rioni. It flows to Poti, Georgia.

or, Kartli, as the Emperor Constantinus Porphyrogenitus wrote in his De

administrando imperio (Bekkerus 1840, 204-5, § 45).
To this, the reply of Romanos I Lakapenos and Constantine VII Por-
phyrogenitus was simple: Armenia belonged to the Romans. Bayburt was
property of the Kingdom of Ibería of the Caucasus and hence was under
Bagratid jurisdiction. In A.D. 928 Ioannes Curcuas, the commissioner on
the revision and consolidation of the public laws of the State of the Ro-
mans, with his back to the source of the Aras River (Başçayı River valley)
explains: “The left bank of the Aras River (citeriora) will belong to Ibería
of the Caucasus, and that on the right bank (ulteriora) to the Roman Em-
pire” (Bekkerus 1840, 205, chapter 45). The Empire of the Romans as
owner State transfers sovereignty over half the Aras River (Erax) to the
curopalates of Ibería as there is a constant threat of armed incursions from
Theodosiopolis (currently Erzurum) into Ibería of the Caucasus. Since 928
the Aras has been the terminus intermedius inter, by the Roman public
law of connecting parts to parts into a whole, between the Kingdom of the
Caucasian Iberians (up it) and the Roman Empire (below it).
Finally, the Roman public road finishes at the Iberici vici, the buildings of
each vicus bordering it according to Greek Byzantine authors. In fact, bor-
dering the north face of the Köse Mountains along the Kelkit-Çoruh Fault
(Lycus Fl.) as far as Koyulhisar, we reach the ancient Coloneia Pontica of
the Romans, Sivas province today, Turkey. In the middle, between Kelkit
and Köse, stands Satala in “the other Armenia” forming the Roman reign
(currently Sadak, Turkey). Yet both in the north and east parts there was
consciousness of a frontier that ended the holdings of the Roman Empire in
the East. A Ibero-Kartvelian province since A.D. 928, Bayburt Plateau and
Fort stands on the western bank of the Ch’orokhi (currently Çoruh Nehri,
Turkey). An Ibero-Kartvelian province since time immemorial, on the east-
ern bank of the Ch’orokhi, and rather to the north of Varzahan (currently
Uğrak), stands İspir Plateau and Fort; it serves the main route through the
narrow north-to-south Georgian Gorge (currently Gürcü Boğazı, Turkey),
that is to say, through the narrow Gates of Ibería as the Caucasian Gates
in Pliny’s time, as we see on the 1722 map. People journeying to com-
munities away from the river have to continue south through the Gates
to either Manzikerd or Theodosiopolis. On the one hand, Manzikerd is a
city of Osroenê otherwise called Mesopotamia, a Roman province since
A.D. 117 (currently Malazgirt, Turkey). On the other, Theodosiopolis is a
city of Upper or Greater Armenia, a Roman province since A.D. 117 (cur-
rently Erzurum, Turkey).37
37 Stritter 1779, 309-10, § 72, Romanus Diogenes Turcis et Saracenis ad Hierapolim vic-

tis, hic arcem aedificare statuit, Pharsmane Ibero huic rei praefecto. Imp. ROMANO
Diogene. a. C. 1068; 310, § 74, Romanus Diogenes Turcos petens, in Iberiam contendit,
et Theodosiopolin [current Erzurum, Turkey] venit: a. C. 1071 BELLO Turcico fervente,

Greek Byzantine and Latin records attest that the Kings of Ibería of the
Caucasus (Kartli, East Georgia) as socii gave free access to the Emperors
of the Romans exerciting their right of transit through the Iberian Gates,
that is to say, Iberici vici. From Constantinople (İstambul) across the Bos-
porus Thracius (Bithynia), the Roman Army then progressed along the old
Roman public road from Greek Anatolia to the narrow Kelkit River valley,
surrounded by steep mountains−the Mescit. The Gates of Ibería, or, the
Caucasian Gates led to quicker access through the far side into the province
of Upper or Greater Armenia in the Roman reign whenever necessary in
military operations. For example, in 1068 and 1071 the King of all-Georgia
gave access to the Emperor of the Romans to reach Erzurum (Theodosiopo-
lin) in Greater Armenia under Seljuk Turkish attack. Since August 1071 the
Turks had opened a road to Malazgirt (Manzikerd / Mantzicierte), Roman
Media, along the shoreline of the river Aras (Araxes) (see note 36).
The Roman Empire stops here. In fact, in Roman surveying vicus is a row
of houses without a city in Roman topography across the Roman Empire.
And the word kleisoura actually indicates command over a battlemented
pass at the frontier, a gorge, a gully (Pertusi 1952, 142-3, Costantino).
Thinner than a razor blade, certainly the kleisoura of Sivas (savasto) was
in Georgian hands on Dulcert’s portolan charts in 1339 and c.1340, with
the battlemented tower forming a frontier between all-Georgia (GIEOR-
GIANJA) and Turkey (TURCHIA), as we shall see (Appendix, fig. 9).
7 In Modern Times
Originally, Bayburt Plateau was Osroenê; so says Procopius’ eyewitness
account (Procopius 1833, De aedif., 3,4,5-3,4,12); then it passed from Ro-
man to Ibero-Karlvelian hands by treaty in A.D. 928 (East Georgia), and
it stood there.
Nine centuries later, the act of annexation and patronage of the first por-
tion of the Kingdom of Georgia (Kartli and K’axeti) to the Russian Empire
was announced in Moscow and Sankt Petersbourg on 19 January 1801. Af-
imperator Romanus Diogenes ad Sebastiam proficiscitur, contendens in Iberiam perve-

nire, ubi etiam eorum, qui cum Manuele Curopalate Comneno ceciderant, spectator fuit.
et inde sensim ac paulatim progressus ad Theodosiopolin se confert.; 310, § 75, Romanus
Diogenes a Sultano e captivitate dimissus, Turcis comitantibus Theodosiopolin et per
vicos Ibericos Coloniam venit: ROMANUS Diogenes a Sultano, in cuius potestatem brevi
ante proelio victus venerat, dimissus, Theodosiopolin venit. Indeque profectus peregra-
bat Iberios vicos una cum Sultani, qui secum aderant, legatis, et inde usque ad ipsam
Coloniam processit. Given also in Migne, PG, 1889, Vol. 122, 420 (D), 432. Today Koloneia
(Colonia / Coloneia) is Koyulhisar, Sivas İli, Turkey; Theodosiopolin is Erzurum, historical
Greater Armenia. Pharsman of Caucasian Ibería was in charge as governor of Hierapolis
Bambyce, or, Commagene (currently Manbij, modern Syria).

ter the Persian-Russian war 1805-1813 and the Turkish-Russian war 1806-

1812, the Georgian natural districts were long considered as a matter of
dispute.
And, later, the valleys of Parkhal (Tao), and those originally in Turkish
Georgia, Tortum, İspir, Bayburt and the Georgian Gorge (Gürcü Boğazı),
were all declared denationalized by the Turkish government:
It should be noted that in 1918-1921 the most Turkicized of the Georgian

regions now in Turkey –Parhal, Torton, İspir, Bayburt and Gurdijbogaz–
are the two southern ones of Bayburt and Gurdijbogaz, where the de-
nationalization of the Georgian population came to an end.
Gurdijbogaz is the Georgian Gorge. Thus, after the annexation of Georgia

in 1801, it is not surprising that the Soviet Union can lay claim to these
regions as heir to the former territory of the Russian Empire. However,
Soviet Georgia as incorporated within U.S.S.R. does not include all the
territory which naturally belonged to it. And the frontiers of Turkey, Soviet
Armenia and Iran come together in the vicinity of Mt. Ararat, which is a
few miles inside the Turkish side of the boundary. Since Novembre 1945,
this area has become the location of military events. They start in the
Iran, Caucasia and Turkey Area (19 Dec 45 to 18 Jan 46). Now The Field
Artillery Journal admits that their location and nature indicate a possibility
of serious complications. The Unites States and the British Empire have
united in an attempt, as yet unsuccessful, to limit the trouble. Turkey is
allied to Iran, but Russian occupation of Iran Azerbaijan separates Turkey’s
Armies from those of Iran.38
However, we must not confuse geographical frontiers across time. The
westernmost extension of Ibería of the Caucasus, Kartli, East Georgia, all-
Georgia, is not Tao-Klarceti, Tao or Taokh, or, as the Press calls it, Parhal
or Parkhal.39 Its eastern border is formed by the Ch’orokhi River (Vaxušt’i
Bat’onišvili 1842, 121). In fact, Tao is described as follows in 1745 (Vaxušt’i
Bat’onišvili 1842, 121):
TAO. Au-dessus d’Arthwan [Artvin], jusqu’à Idi [?], à l’O. du Dchorokh

[Çoruh Nehri], à l’E. du pays de Thorthom [Tortum River Valley], est
Parkhal, Taos-Car ou Tao, limité à l’E. par le Dchorokh; au S., par un
montagne allant de Thorthom jusqu’à Idi; à l’O., par le mont de Thort-
hom; au N. par le Dchorokh et par le mont d’Ispira [İspir].
38 Lanza 1946, 165-67; Perimeters in Paragraphs, 163-72, Baltimore, Washington D.C.,

United States Field Artillery Association.
39 But see among others Brosset 1839, coll. 158-60; Bayram 2015, 482.
A further error, as Rouben Galichian observes, is introduced by the ter-

minology “Eastern Anatolia” literally meaning “east of the east” in Greek
(2007, 10-11, 19). Today, however, Bayburt is commonly classed as an “Ar-
menian” stronghold in the highlands of “eastern Anatolia”, but this is a
triple error, historical, geographical, and archaeological.40
Thus, if archaeologists say that “the district of Bayburt, though to the
north of the Euphrates, fell within Armenia” (Sinclair 1987, 64), they had
better offer documentary proof of it. In fact, the Bayburt Plateau, the
source of the Çoruh River and the İspir Plateau, Ibería of the Caucasus,
All-Georgia, are mistakenly identified in historical Armenia, and mistak-
enly localized in the region of Tao-Klarceti. The result is a mass of mis-
information and confusion about the whole subject–geographical as well
as dynastical. A Roman province since A.D. 117, Armenia is dependent
on Rome. The Emperor Trajan acknowledged no Kingly government. No
Kingly government both in name and thing subsisted in Armenia until the
first crusade in A.D. 1097 in Emperor Alexius’ reign.41
40 See Adontz and Garsoïan, 1970, The Political Division of Armenia, 22-23, 39, 51;

Notes, 398, 31b; The Reform of Justinian in Armenia, 112; Armenia Interior, 58; Appen-
dix V, Toponymy: B Cities -Towns- Villages, 191: Locality Baiberdōn, Equivalents Bayburt,
Note 3, n. 25; Locality Bayburt, Variants Baybert, Equivalents Baiberdōn, References G. 82
(2) = Turkey [G], Maps U. 324 C IV. = the USAF Aeronautical Approach Chart [U] (for the
modern equivalents). See also Sinclair 1987, 1, 78. And Sagona A., Sagona C., 2004: Sagona
C., 2,33; Gümüşhane 68,3,7; Conclusions, 95-96; Sagona A., Sagona C., 122; Sagona C., 94;
Sagona A., Sagona C., 168, 172.
41 But see for instance Sagona A., Sagona C. 2004, 94-5: “One Georgian family, the
Bagratids, whose homeland was in Sper, within Tao-Klarjeti, claimed to be descended from
David and Solomon according to Moses Khorenats’i [note 137], but this was an unfounded
claim driven by political expediency. After having reached highly ranked positions within
the Armenian kingdom, the Bagratid clan went from strength to strength. They benefited
from the weakening of Byzantine interests over the Çoruh river valley in the eighth
century, and the cessation of Saracen control over the Caucasus in the closing years of
the ninth century. The fortresses that had secured the eastern frontier of the Byzantine
Empire fell into disuse. The extent of Bagratid territory is not always precise. The castle
at İspir, guarded the northern route across the Pontic Mountains to Rize, on the Black
Sea coast. Another at Bayburt defended the caravan routes from central Asia, Persia and
on to Trabzon and north to the Black Sea and south to the interior, to Erzincan. A number
of important Christian sites emerged on or near the major routes through the region.
Church architecture has been dealt with by others, but both simple small chapels and
major religious precincts do survive. Layard [1853] was the first to describe three ruined
churches at Vazahan, 15 km west of Bayburt, but these have long since been destroyed.
The Bayburt region is known to have had sources of yellow limestone possibly exploited
during the construction of churches around Trabzon as well as for the church within the
walls of Bayburt citadel itself. Erzurum fell to Seljuk forces in the Battle of Manzikert.
The year was 1071. Thereafter, the region witnessed settlement by Turkish people. Re-
forms made by David the Builder (1089-1125) shaped Georgian religious, political and
military institutions. Not only were local rulers reigned in under his firm control, but
Georgian troops regained power and commanded tribute from Seljuk Turks. This upper
hand in religious politics lasted through to the early 1200s, through the reigns of Giorgi

For certainly the Bagratid dynasty, the fifth dynasty of the Ibero-Kartve-
lians originated at İspir (Geo. სპერი), on the east side of the Çoruh River
(currently Turkey).42 The site is located “above” the Georgian Gorge. His-
torically and geographically, the assertion that the fifth dynasty originate
at İspir, historical “Armenia”, makes no sense. So, Mxit‘ar Ayrivanec‘i’s
Chronographia simply says that “The reign of the Bagratunis began in
K‘art‘li. Simultaneously Gurgěn ruled in K‘art‘li and his brother Smbat
in Armenia”. Kartli is Ibería of the Caucasus in Greek and Latin sources;
its western border is formed by the Çoruh / Ch’orokhi River. However,
King Gurgen did not “belong to the Tao/Tayk‘ branch of the Georgian
Bagratids” as modern historians comment through unknown primary
sources.43 King Gurgen belonged to the primary line of the Bagratids
from İspir commanding “The Georgian Gorge” (currently Gürcü Boğazı),
that is to say, “the Gates of Ibería as the Caucasian Gates”, as the west-
ernmost extention of the people called Kartvelians (Cardueni / Kardueni)
in Trajan’s time. Immediately after the treaty (foedus) with the King of
the Caucasian Iberians, Trajan “occupied the people of the Kardueni”
among the Caucaso-Iberian peoples of that Kingdom on primary sources
(A.D. 114).
III, Tamar and Lasha Giorgi. Incursions by Mongol tribes brought an end to Georgian unity
in the year around 1240 at which time, the Georgian state fell into the three territories of
Kakheti, Kartli and Imereti. Mongol dominance lasted until 1335 with the death of Il-khan
Abu Said at which time the empire fell into economic and political disarray.”; note 137:
“Moses Khorenats’i, Book II.37, mentions a tutor, Smbat, son of Biurat Bagratuni, in the
province of Sper, in the village of Smbatavan”.
42 Vaxušt’i Bat’onišvili 1849, 1re Partie: Histoire ancienne, jusqu’en 1469 de J.-C., 83-
216, “Quatrième race royale: Khosroïde (24e roi, Mirian, Khosroïde – 38e roi Bacour III,
Khosroïde) durant 472 ou plutôt 469 ans, 263-570 et 619-787 de J.C.”; 216-687 “Cinquième
dynastie: Bagratides (39e roi Gouram-Couropalate, Bagratide par son père, mais Khosroïde
par sa mère – 76e roi Bagrat IV, Bagratide, de 575 à 619, i. e. 44 ans, puis en 787-1801,
ou 1015 ans, en tout 1059, ou plutôt 1030 ans, à cause des interrègnes”; 295 ”52e roi, Bagrat
III, fils de Gourgen, roi des rois, Bagratide (règne 24 ans, 980-1014). Bagrat devint roi
d’Aphkhazie en 980”; 693, Table de Matières. For primary sources, see Salia, 1980, 137-41.
Georgian historiography correctly insists that İspir was Kartli; cf. Suny 1988, 29.
43 For example, Allen holds among scholars that David (reigned in the years 876-81) of
the Bagratid dynasty of Tao-Klarceti (Tao-Klarjeti) was the titular King of Iberia (Kartli);
cf. Allen 1932, 56-5, 95-100. However, Rapp Jr makes the prudent comment that “This is
a tribute to Toumanoff’s dynasties based on secondary sources” (Rapp jr 2003, 465); see
also 459, Rapp’s comment “When early medieval Armenian histories refer to K‘art‘velians
/ Georgians, it is sometimes to illustrate Armenia’s purported superiority”, 464-5 (Ex-
cerpts from Mxit‘ar Ayrivanec‘i’s Chronographia, K, and Rapps comment), 495 (Black
Sea/Geo. Speri Sea, mod. Shavi Zghva/Gk. Euxine Sea). The reference goes to Tou-
manoff 1952, 22; 1963, 488 (note 227); 1969, 2-5. Further details in Rapp jr 2003, 14, 18, 31-
2, 145-7, 163, 233-5, 266, 337-41 (Ch. Six: Sumbat Davit’is-dze: A Bagrat Perspective on
Georgian History), 342-409, 413-25, 438-40, 443, 446-7, 449-51 (Appendix I. Reception:
Mxit‘ar Ayrivanec‘I). More prudently, Giusto Traina avoids over-vast presuppositions of an
Armenian origin of the “Bagratuni”; cf. Traina 1991, 20, 25, 28, 33, 94, 100-2, 105.

If my supposition is correct, I would derive the place-name İspir from

“at even”, ἑσπερίοις (esperíois) in Greek, so that it would mean “the west-
ernmost extension of Caucasian Ibería” in reference to the cardinal point
West in the horizon. The localization between Colchis (upper Georgia)
and Media corresponds to that of Herodotus, “But the way from Colchis
to Media is not long, no other people than the Saspires [Σάσπειρες] lying
between both” (Herodotus, Clio, 1, 104). The forms Saspeires, σάσπειρες,
Σάσπειρες, Saspires, Saspers, Syspiritis, or, Hyspiratis, as the Turks call
the archaeological site today, are graphic variants.
A Roman province since A.D. 114, Armenia belonged to the Romans,
and protected the frontier of the commonwealth. Thus, in Malalas’ Chron-
ographia the table of contemporaneous Kings during the Roman Empire
of the East (Byzantium) had Zamanazus, the King of the Iberians (Iberi) of
the Caucasus.44 He is Pharsman V (Pharasmanes, P’arsman), Chosroid, in
linear succession within the fourth dynasty of ancient Ibería of the Cauca-
sus and lineal descendent from King Vaxt’ang I Gorgasali, Wolf’s head in
Persian. Malalas the chronicler and Photius the Patriach add chronologi-
cal details: as soon as Justinian I the Emperor of the Romans appointed
Belisarius General of the East, Cabades as “mihran” raised a Persian Army,
and marched on the city of Daras. In A.D. 530 “The Caspian Gates, or,
Daras” are the casus belli in the Roman-Persian war. In fact, the Persians,
Procopius reports, shall not lay down their armies until “the Romans either
join in the Guard of the Caspian Gates or dismantle Daras” (Procopius, De
bello Persico, 1,12). Cabades, or, as modern historians call him, Kavadh,
the King of the Persians, reigned until 531.45 In fact, first, Cabades the
Persian King was Coades “Darasthenus” in Greek, from Daras; and, sec-
ond, Justinian the Roman Emperor sent Ztittas as the first Master of the
Soldier for Armenia, as Armenia was property of the Roman Empire and
hence was under Justinian’s jurisdiction.46 In 531 Pharsman V had already
ruled the Kingdom of Ibería of the Caucasus for four years, when Cabades
44 Malalas 1831, 429-30, De Temporibus Justiniani Imperatoris, § 18, “Quo autem tempore

sacratissimus Justinianus imperium tenuit, Persarum Rex fuit Coades Darasthenus, Perozi
filius. Romanorum vero regnum habuit Alarichus, Africanum, Ghildericus; ille […] Iberi
vero Zamanazus. Supradicto autem anno imperii Justiniani Ztittas, in Armenia Militum
Magister constitutus est, quippe quae antehac Ducibus, Praefectis, et Comitibus paruit;
Militum vero Magistrum non habuit. Quinetiam ei dedit Imperator Militum Numeros, quos
duobus Praesentibus Militiis Orientalique subtraxit. Tzittas autem, Magistratu suscepto,
Scriniarios indigenas sibi accepit: Imperatorem etiam exoratum habuit, uti Divino suo ex
Edicto, Scriniarii Militiae inservientes, ex indigenis (ut qui Armeniae regiones penitus
callerent,) deinceps deligeretur. […]”.
45 Procopius 1833, De bello Persico, 1,13,12-1,13,14. The hostilities of A.D. 530 began
in June.
46 Photius 1606, Procopii, Photii Bibliotheca, 28,34-29,35, “Cabades Perozen genere Per-
sam, dignitate Meranem“. Procopius 1833, De bello Persico, 1,13.12-1,13,14.

died. Pharsman was the son and successor of Bakur II, Chosroid, the 35th
King of the Iberians of the Caucasus.47
It is really important that we understand here that “The Caspian Gates,
or, Daras” are where people enter the mouth of the Kur River, south of
modern Baku. The Caspii dwell here (Plinius N. h. 6,15). Indeed, Nero’s
general Corbulo had been wrongly addressed as regarded the “The Cas-
pian Gates” leading through Ibería of the Caucasus into the territory of
the Sarmatians (currently Russians). Perhaps the Roman copyist inserted
the word North instead of East, and Darial, an adjective, from the place-
name, Daras (See Conlusion B).
8 The Falsification of Polo’s Text

and the authorized ‘Testo Ottimo della Crusca’
Originally a province of Roman Osroenê, the Bayburt Plateau has been
under Georgian sovereignty since the year 928 until 1801. What has been
said is, I believe, enough to prove that Bayburt and the Georgian Gorge
below were not Armenia. How did such geographical error creep into
modern scholarship?
Modern historians and archaeologists take Marco Polo’s account of
Greater Armenia and Georgia seriously. Giorgiania and Zorzania are the
two versions of the place-name in Polo’s editions. Following the terrestrial
route via Persia and Greater Armenia (Armenia Maior) the three Polos
reached Trabzon, the Pontic port on the southern shore of the Black Sea,
at the end of 1291. They then proceeded by the sea way of Constantinople
and the Venetian colony of Negroponte to Venice. They landed in 1295.
47 Bakur came to the throne in 514. The traditional regnal years are those preserved
by Prince Vaxušt’i Bat’onišvili (Bagrat’ioni), 1849, 200, “34e roi, Datchi, fils de Wakhtang
Ier, Khosroïde (règne 14 ans), 499-514; n. 3, le roi Wakhtang-Gourgaslan”; 122, n. 6, “il a
étè dit que trois fils étaient nés de la reine Eléné, mais nous ne connaissons les noms que
de deux d’entre eux, qui vont paraître dans notre texte”; 201, “35e roi, Bacour II, fils de
Datchi, Khosroïde (règne 14 ans)”; 514-28, “36e roi, Pharsman V, fils de Bacour II, Khosroïde
(règne 14 ans, 528-542)”; 202, “37e roi, Pharsman VI, fils d’une frère de Pharsman V, Khos-
roïde (règne 15 ans, 542-537)”. Fourteen kings presumedly succeeded to the throne of Kart-
velian Ibería for 200 years. Vaxušt’i reckons from the death of King Mirian in A.D. 342 to the
accession of King Pharsman VI (542); 1849, Préface de l’historien Wakhoucht, 7, n. 3-9). See
also Mikaberidze 2015, Introduction, 12, “The death of King Vakhtang seriously weakened
Kartli (Iberia) and exposed it to Persian encroachment. In 523 King Gurgen rose in rebellion
but was defeated, and Kartli was occupied”; 701 “514-528 Bakur II (Gurgen) (Toumanoff: 534-
547)”. See also Toumanoff, 1969, 29, “34. Bacurius/Bakur II (534-547), son of Dach´I, reigned
for 13 years”. And Cantoclarus 1610, 244-54, “De Menandro: Menander protector historicus,
sic de se scribit: Mihi pater est Euphrates Byzantinus”; Ex Codice Manuscripto Augustano:
Argumentum Collectionis de Romanorum Legationibus ad Ethnicos. Proemium; Excerpta
ex Historia Menandri de Abaris: Ad Alanos: Ex Libro Secundo”. Zamnarsus or Zamassardus
is Pharsman V, the King of Caucasian Ibería in Greek and Latin sources.

Existing scholarship, however, ignores that the critical edition of Polo’s

Travels (Viaggi) first appeared by Baldelli Boni at Florence, in 1827. It
was based on a thorough examination of all the extant manuscript copies
which number more than twenty. The project was undertaken under the
sponsorship of the Accademia della Crusca.
We understand the story of Marco Polo’s Travels from the first printed
edition by Giovanni Battista Ramusio, Delle Navigationi et Viaggi, Ven-
ice, 1559, in the Italian language. This, the second volume in the series, is
devoted entirely to the East Indies, Babylon, Armenia, Georgia, the Tatar
lands, Persia. Ramusio’s edition was printed posthumously.
In book one, the self-declared author, Marco Polo, presents a general
outline of Greater Armenia (Ramusio 1559, 4, Libro 1, Cap. 1.F). Polo says
that in Greater Armenia, “Within a castle named Bayburt [castel Paipurth]
which you meet with in going from Trebizond to Tauris, there is a rich mine
of silver” (Ramusio 1559, 5, Libro 1, Cap. 2 F).
Silver mine is translated Gümüşhane in Turkish. Today Gümüşhane is
a modern city a few miles north of Bayburt. At first glance Polo’s descrip-
tion appears to be true beyond reasonable doubt. The Venetian edition of
Polo’s work, however, lived a story worth telling. No original text survives.
Over two hundred and fifty years later, the first printed edition of Marco
Polo’s Travels in three books was issued, however, in translation in the
second miscellany volume Delle Navigationi et Viaggi at Venice in 1559.48
As usual, the printer was Tommaso de Giunti. Here, in his preface to the
second volume, he tells us that, regrettably, Ramusio the editor died before
the completition of the second volume in 1557. Not enough. Four months
after his death fire destroyed the printer’s premises. And, consequently,
some editorial passages do not appear due to injury.
The first volume in the series was printed in 1555, quickly followed by
the third volume in 1556. The second volume was finally printed in 1559.
Ramusio, the editor of Marco Polo, wrote nearly two centuries and a half
after Polo’s time. No original manuscript survived from the years that Polo
and Rustichello spent together in prison. For this reason, the Polo books
available today are technically not primary sources, and many of them
drastically differ from one another. Readers have many versions to choose
48 Ramusio 1559, 1-8, Di M. Giovanni Battista Ramusio Prefatione Sopra il Principio del

Libro del Mag.ro M. Marco Polo All’Eccellente M. Hieronimo Fra Castoro (Di Venetia, à
sette di Luglio MDLIII); 9-17, Espositione Di M. Gio. Battista Ramusio sopra quelle parole
di Messer Marco Polo; 18, “Gio. Battista Ramusio alli Lettori; 1r, Proemio Primo, Sopra il
Libro di Messer Mardo Polo, gentil huomo di Venetia, fatto per un Genovese (l’anno del
MCCXCVIII); 1v, Prohemio Secondo Sopra il Libro de M. Marco Polo, fatto da Fra Franc-
esco Pipino Bolognese dell’ordine de i Frati Predicatori, quale lo tradusse in lingua latina,
et abbreviò Del MCCCXX (Qual libro fu scritto per il detto M. Marco del 1298 trovandosi
pregion in la città di Genova, et si parte in tre libri), 2r, De I Viaggi Di Messer Marco Polo
Gentiluomo Veneziano Libro Primo.

from. A significant problem with Polo’s book, however, concerns the order
of the events. In any case, since its completion in 1827, the Polo critical
edition has been “Testo Ottimo della Crusca” or Polo’s “Best Text”, by the
authority of the Academy of the Crusca. The critical editor’s role is to judge
which of these variants is authorial or otherwise, and which to showcase.
Baldelli Boni the critical editor reports that some of the transmitte6d copies
of Marco Polo’s lost text have geographical errors and inaccuracies. Polo’s
original text in Latin is lost. And Baldelli Boni argues convincingly that
the Polo’s version in the Italian vernacular language of Tuscany known as
“Testo Magliabechiano” is the most authoritative. The “Testo Magliabechi-
ano” was then translated from the French version of “Paris Text 1” showing
French distortions by Michele Ormanni surely within 1309. It is indeed the
oldest of the extant copies of Polo’s abbreviated text. And yet it transmits
only a second-hand translation of a copied text. Baldelli Boni critically notes
among other interpolations and misconstructions of the 1559 Italian text
edited by Ramusio, the long sentence on Bayburt in Greater Armenia. He
concludes that someone later added certain narratorial interjactions and
frases. The whole sentence on Bayburt is thus presented among the inter-
polations and misconstructions of Polo’s text on the ground that it was not
included in “Paris Text 1”, the earliest extant one from the French copy.49
And so the whole sentence on Bayburt was judged false and not intro-
duced into the authorized Academic edition of Polo’s “Best Text” in 1827,
the “Testo Ottimo della Crusca” for scholars. Therefore, modern editions
of Polo’s text, with, or, without the sentence on Bayburt in Greater Arme-
nia, rely either on unauthorized copies, or, on “Testo Ottimo della Crusca”
edited by the Cruscans.
9 All-Georgia on Portolan Charts in the 1330s

It is only in portolan charts of the navigable world that we can clearly see a
continuous tradition linking Roman and medieval maps. Chapters of global
history have been depicted in the form of small icons on portolan charts
for centuries. However, a few inland features are shown. Prominent here,
for instance, are Greater Armenia (Armenia maior), “Mount Ararat where
the ark of Noah landed” and the Taurus Mountains (Licini 2008, 191-
218; 1992, 515-25).
Nevertheless, portolan charts illustrate the level of flexibility in topony-
my and the way in which place-names are updated over time. We can see
49 Baldelli Boni 1827, 1, t. 1, “Storia del Milione”, 1-172: 11-12,17 and note 1; 13,18; 1, t. 2,
“Dichiarazione al Libro Primo per rischiarare le vie tenute dai Poli nelle andate e ritorni
dalla Cina”, 3-26: 3, Giorgiania; 13, Paipurt; “Storia del Milione”, 9,11, 9,12, 10,13, 10,14, 10-
11,15, 11,16, 11-13, 17, 13-14,18.

the national flag of Sak’art’velo, all-Georgia, on the earliest extant portolan

charts that Angelino Dulcert from Genoa made in Mallorca in 1339 (Paris,
BnF) and c.1340 (London, BL).50 By taking direction lines across the chart,
Dulcert connects flag-points at intervals. The Georgian flag is displayed in
triplication on the first chart, and in duplication on the second (Appendix,
figs. 9, 10). The flag of the people who made Saint George their patron and
standard-bearer has a white field with centred red cross, St George’s, and
smaller four crosses on the corners. The Dulcert portolan chart of 1339
displays the modern name GIEORGIANJA. Here it should be emphasized
that the name of the united nation first appeared in Georgian chronicles
in the tenth century.
Georgian flags mark Sebastopolis (Savastopoli) at the mouth of the Pha-
sis River (currently Rioni, Georgia), Tbilisi (Tifilis), the capital town, and
Sivas (Savasto), now a town in Turkey. Georgia has been the name of the
United Kingdom of the Georgians since the year 1008.
So it comes that we read the ancient names of Colchis (West Georgia)
and Ibería of the Caucasus (Kartli, East Georgia) on Ptolemy’s 3rd Map of
Asia in Nicolaus Germanus’ copy in 1466. On the other hand, and contem-
poraneously, Dulcert’s portolan chart of 1339 marks the political change in
the name of the Caucasian reign. By the 1320s, if not before, all navigators
can clearly read GEORGIA on the portolan chart that Pietro Vesconte, also
from Genoa, made in Venice.
The place called Sivas (savasto) was maintained with some military
state as “The Eleventh Thema of the East called Sebastea” in Constantine
Porphyrogenitus’s reign in the early tenth century.51 Originally, the Theme
of Sebastea was Roman territory. The land became patrimony of the Kings
of all-Georgia by conquest in the war 1202-1203 in Tamar’s time; and the
annexation may, perhaps, be in connection with the newly founded Con-
stantinopolitan-Bagratid Empire of Trabzon, to cross the Black Sea from
the Colchian ports of Poti and Sebastopolis to the Pontic port of Trabzon
on the southern shore.52 In fact, the dissolution of the Thematic armies and
50 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, Département Cartes et Plans, Rés. Ge B 696,
Angelino Dulcert, Mallorca, mm 1020 × 750, “an. MCCCXXXVIIII mense Augusto Angelino
Dulcert in civitate Maioricarum composuit” 1339. London, British Library, C 6424-04
Add. 25691, Portolan Chart by Angelino Dulcert, c.1340.
51 Constantinus Porphyrogenitus 1588, Pars Lat., 24 , “Thema Undecimum, Dictum
Sebasteae: Similiter et Sebasteae Thema ex minore Armenia initium habet. […] id est,
Augusto Caesare Iulio accepit, qui Caesar eum dominatur, ac principatum primum
occupavit”. See also Migliorati 2001, 235 and note 53.
52 Queen Tamar, Bagratid, ordered the Georgian Army to march on the valley of Başçayı
River, which was originally Armenian; it was conquered via Vardzia and Kars in the war 1202-
1203 against the Sultan. See Vaxušt’i Bat’onišvili 1849, 1re Partie, 384 and note 1, 460-
465; 1842, Géographie de la Géorgie: Description du Karthli actuel; ses frontières, ses
montagnes, ses fleuves, les diverses localités et les édifices qu’elles contiennent, 121.

military Themes was well underway in the Roman Empire of the East now
in the hands of the Latins from the West; and in the great and protracted
struggle, Constantinople was almost swept away.
Consequently, Dulcert’s portolan chart of the transit system at first sight
shows flags of all-Georgia in close proximity to major transit stops and
interconnections from the sea, and earth. Again, we can turn to primary
sources from different times for a local description of the path. Since
Trajan’s time the terrestrial route has possessed some considerable im-
portance across Anatolian Kapadokya not merely as a connection with
Roman provinces in the east but also as an overland road leading through
Colchis (West Georgia) into the territory of the Red Sea (see above sec-
tion 4). In Roman law, the equation of royal and public roads is achieved
by straightforward assertion, “Regia Via, the royal way, cannot be the
property of anyone except the king. The same may be said of a military
road which can be called public”.
The federated Kings of Caucaso-Iberians have given the Romans access
to the public roads crossing from the west since the alliance (foedus) was
founded in A.D. 114. In fact, twice Romanus Diogenes, the Emperor of the
Romans at Constantinople, assembled a large Byzantine Army against the
Seljuk Turks in 1068 and 1071. From Sivas (Sebastia) and up to Koyul-
hisar (Colonia Pontica), Sivas İli (currently Turkey), his Roman troops then
marched through the wards–the Iberici vici. Since Trajan’s reign they have
been all post stations along the Roman public road (Regia Via).53
The Emperor of the Romans, on bad news, passed the strait from Con-
stantinople. By a wall of mountains that pinch the road into a narrow pass,
the Emperor of the Romans then followed the line of the Roman public road
(regia via) that ran along the Kelkit River Valley (Lycus fluvius) to Sadak
(Satala), a town of Roman Armenia, and out to the north-east border of the
Roman State with the federated Kingdom of all-Georgia. Byzantine-Greek
and Latin authors made specific references to particular places, such as
53 For example, the Emperor Trajan was at Elegia (currently Ereğli, Turkey) in A.D. 106;
see section 4. For medieval reference to the Roman public road through Anatolian Kapa-
dokya and Greater and Lesser Armenia, see especially Bongars 1611, 215, Alberti Aquensis
Expeditionis Hierosolymitanae, 3, “ad urbem finitimas, Reclei et Stancona descendit, …
regia via a longe sequebantur, et Antiochiam minorem reclinantes, quae in latere Reclei
sita est”. Reclei is Ereğli in Konya province (currently Turkey); it is located in the central
Anatolian Plateau. Antiochia minor, Little Antiochia, is an ancient Hellenistic city on Mount
Cragus overlooking the Mediterranean coast in the region of Cilicia (currently İçel) and
Cyprus. In modern-day Turkey the site is located in the area of Güney, Antalya province.
See also Bongars 1611, 39, Roberti Monachi Historia Hierosolimitana, 3 (Incipit Liber
Tertius), 40, 42, 43-45. In 1075-1139 Frank and Langobard chroniclers still mention Salt
Lake in Latin; see also Pertz 1846, 727-844, Auctore Petro (a. 1075-1139), § 4, 767, “Nos-
trorum itaque exercitus dum illos indesinenter insequeretur, per inaquosa et deserta loca,
maximam equorum multitudinem amisit”. The chronicle is also known as Die Chronik von
Montecassino.

per vicos Ibericos and peregrabat Iberios vicos for Georgian mountain-
wards towards Bayburt (see note 37). A Caucaso-Iberian plateau by treaty
(foedus) since A.D. 928, Bayburt in the upper Çoruh Valley led to İspir,
supported by frontier guards. Not far from İspir the Roman Emperor rode
to south through the Georgian Gorge, the Gates of Ibería as the Cauca-
sian Gates in Pliny’s time, into Greater Armenia, a Roman province since
A.D. 117.
Dulcert’s portolan chart covers even the southern part of all-Georgia
down to the frontier at Sivas (savasto) in the 1330s. The Georgians have
pushed the frontier further and further towards the south-west. We see it
in the way the Georgian flag is depicted here on the battlemented tower
(Appendix, fig. 9). Beyond Sivas runs the line of towers on the left bank of
the Euphrates River (Fl. Eprates., Firat Nehri in modern Turkey). The line
points at the bridge of Eski Malatya (pons meldenj) as the eastern border
of historical Armenia (Armenia). On the left side is new Turkey (TURCHIA);
Ankara, the place-name, is displayed in the ancient form it enjoyed in Ro-
man times (anciras). And yet, the Georgian port of Colchian Sebastopolis
(Savastopoli) – Poti, a double port, still leads through all-Georgia into the
territory of historical Syria via Anatolian Kapadokya, and to the places
of the Holy Land. Spaces align with the cardinal axis to allow for proper
solar orientation; and the direction line from upper Georgia (Colchis) to
the mid-Red Sea ridge is consequently the cardinal (north to south) axis
of connected systems.
While ex-Roman Anatolia and Anatolian Kapadokya were gradually
transformed into a Turkish dominion in the late fourteenth and early fif-
teenth centuries, portolan charts reached their peak (Licini 1989, 341-
52; 1997-98, 56-65).
Essentially, the Dulcert portolan chart is a sea chart of the parts of the
world then known. Britain is correctly drawn in the early 1330s (Appendix,
fig. 11); modern names are given to Kingdoms (ANGLIETERA, SCOCIA).
And yet, however, Ptolemy’s Geography was still to be rediscovered and
taken away from Constantinople, and Ptolemy’s first distorted map of
Britain was still to be drawn.
As pointed out in section 1, the paradox today is that Ptolemy’s map is
more usually studied as a creation before the time of Dulcert’s portolan
charts of 1339 and c.1340, whereas the first copy of Ptolemy’s Geography
in Greek without maps was rediscovered in 1397 and Ptolemy’s world and
regional maps were first constructed in the 1400s. The oldest surviving
copy was made more than a thousand years after Ptolemy wrote in the
second century and Ptolemy’s maps were first drawn about 1415 from his
listed geographical coordinates of wrong latitudes and longitudes.

10 Conclusions
Conclusion A
I have thought of my work on the Caucasus as a contribution to the History

of cartography–map history. Ptolemy’s moschivis montes are identified
here for the first time as the Mescit Mountains, (currently Turkey). Thus
the conclusion can only be that the westernmost extension of historical
Georgia (Kartli) is the İspir Plateau in Ptolemy’s time, and it continues
along the terrible north-to-south Georgian Gorge, or, as the Romans call
it, the narrow Gates of Ibería otherwise called the Caucasian Gates for a
distance of eight miles in longitude. Indeed, the Georgian Gorge runs along
the isolated Mount Uzundere on the plateau of the Mescit Mountains. The
Elder Pliny was right–the Gates of Ibería as the Caucasian Gates lead from
Ibería to Sarmatia (Russia) around A.D. 79. The forlorn spot is now known
by the name of Gürcü Boğazı, Sakharthwélos-Qel, défilé de Géorgie.
A little above it to the north is the İspir Plateau and Fort. From the
Empire of the Romans of the East, the Bayburt Plateau and Fort of the
Osroenians (upper Medians) passed into the possession of the Kings of
the Ibero-Kartvelians by the treaty on the Aras River (Araxes) in A.D. 928,
all-Georgia soon after.
The far end of the Georgian Gorge is located at latitude 40° North on
Delisle’s map of 1722. Needless to say, Ptolemy’s map of the Caucasus is
quite useless in the history of the Caucasus, showing the wrong latitude
of 45° north for the southern slopes of the Caucasus Mountains joining
the Mescit Mountains (currently Turkey). It actually corresponds to the
latitude of Crimea (45°3’N).
Ptolemy’s map of the Caucasus is grotesquely inaccurate. And the “dog-
leg” appearance of the Mescit Mountains is a distorted feature which oc-
curs exclusively on Ptolemy’s maps. The map of Britain in all the general
editions of him is the most awkward that can be conceived. Italy has the
Adriatic for its northern, and the Tyrrhenian for its southern boundary.
Modern writers on ancient history think that the story of maps is lin-
ear–beginning, middle and end. But the case of Ptolemy is typical in that
his work began to have a powerful influence in the fifteenth century. After
Ptolemy’s death in the second half of the second century, his Geography
had disappeared for a thousand years, and with it the idea of coordinate-
based mapping according to a mathematical grid system–latitude and lon-
gitude for about 8,000 cities and other world locations.
No ancient Ptolemaic map survives. A copy of Ptolemy’s work resur-
faced in Europe in about 1397, in Florence, and as the years progressed
it exerted an increasingly powerful influence on Renaissance thought and
mapping practices. In 1415 Ptolemy’s Geography was first duplicated in
manuscript with 27 maps, and then it circulated in printed form from 1475
without maps and from 1477 with them.

Today the History of cartography considers Ptolemy among the most
incorrect of all ancient authors. And yet, modern historians of the Roman
Empire, classicists, and archaeologists follow Ptolemy’s distorted maps
and their impossible routes without regard to their story and without even
considering that they belong to different historical strata.
Having on distorted premises proposed that Colchis (West Georgia),
Ibería of the Caucasus (East Georgia), Albània of the Caucasus (Alvània,
Daghestan), Kapadokya, Trabzon, Armenia the Greater, Media, Assyria,
actually were where they stand on Ptolemy’s 3rd Map of Asia in the second
century of the Christian, they drew distorted conclusions.
Conclusion B
Thus Pliny was right when he said, “After we pass the mouth of the Cyrus
[the Kur River], it begins to be called the ‘Caspian Sea;’ the Caspii being a
people who dwell upon its shores. In this place it may be as well to correct
an error into which many persons have fallen, and even those who lately
took part with Corbulo in the Armenian war. The Gates of Ibería, which we
have mentioned as the Caucasian, they have spoken of as being called the
‘Caspian,’ and the coloured plans which have been sent from those parts to
Rome have that name written upon them” (Plinius N. h. 6,15).
Direction, east. “The Gates” at Dariali Gorge (Darialis Kheoba) actually
were “The Caspian Gates, or, Daras” and they should have been placed some
other way than the North. In fact, Procopius says that the castle of Daras
stood watch over the Caspian Gates, that is to say, on the Caspian, at the
mouth of the Kur River south of Baku.
Direction, north. “The Iberian Gates, or, the Caucasian” leading through
Ibería of the Caucasus into the territory of Sarmatia (Russia) may actually
be “The Georgian Gorge”. In fact, the Turks call it Gürcü Boğazı. Since it
was Ibero-Karvelian territory, the İspir Plateau and Fort commanded “The
Iberian Gates, or, the Caucasian”; the Saspyritis being a people who dwelt
upon the İspir Plateau at the westernmost extention, “at even”, ἑσπερίοις
(esperíois) in Greek. As they are the Iberici vici of Byzantine-Greek and Latin
sources, “The Iberian Gates, or, the Caucasian” led through Mount Uzundere
(Mescit Mountains) into the Armenian border, to the south (Theodosiopolis,
currently Erzurum).
Direction, north. “The Albanian Gates” are modernly known as “The Abano
Pass” in the central part of the Caucasus Mountains connecting the Ibero-
Kartvelian provinces of K’axeti, and Tušeti on the northern side of the Cauca-
sus where the Alazani, the twin rivers, originate. Greater Alazani and Lesser
Alazani, or, Iori, the split in two, are tributaries of the Kur River before it
becomes navigable.
İspir and Telavi operated the entrance and the exit gates. They are “The
Iberian Gates, or, the Caucasian” or “The Georgian Gorge” (Gürcü Boğazı)
on the one hand and “The Albanian Gates” or “The Abano Pass” on the other.
The far end of “The Georgian Gorge” is located at latitude 40° North on Del-
isle’s map of 1722. The Georgian Gorge runs along the isolated Mount Uzun-
dere (Kenzoreti) on the plateau of the Mescit Mountains (currently Mescit
Dağları), or, as the ancients call them, the Meschic, or Moschic Mountains.
Then, according to my hypothesis, there should have been, instead of
latitude 45° North on Ptolemy’s 3rd Map of Asia, latitude 40° North as the
correct line of latitude. A new province of the Roman Empire since A.D. 114,
Media (MEDIĘ PARS) is terminus intermedius per quem ambulatur (inter-
vening path) in this way, the inter-vallum. By the public law of connecting
parts to parts into a whole, this terminus runs between a new province of the
Roman Empire since A.D. 117, Armenia (ARMENIA MAIOR), and three newly
federated Kingdoms of Caucasia since A.D. 117, COLCHIS, (West Georgia),
IBERÍA (East Georgia) and ALBÀNIA (Alvània, Daghestan).
Ptolemy’s west-to-east distortion sharply begins here on the map of the
Caucasus in the series.
In any case, given the immense difference in geography and political land-
scape in comparison to now, historians of Armenia’s past and archaeologists
would most likely not have based its districts on modern province borders,
in what is now northeast Turkey.

Appendix
Figure 1. Ptolemy’s 1st European Map, ms. Britain and Ireland (ALBION INSULA BRITANICA.
IBERINIA INSULA). Nicolaus Germanus’ edition 1466. Warszawie, Biblioteka Narodowa. By
Permission of the Library.
Figure 2. Ptolemy’s 11th European Map in Latin, ms. The protruding Reign of Scotland, The
German Ocean, The Peninsula of modern Jutland and Schleswig, Great Germany, Norwey,
Eastern Götaland now Sweden, Lapland, The Iced Sea. Nicolaus Germanus’ edition 1466.
Warszawie, Biblioteka Narodowa. By Permission of the Library.

Figure 3. Ptolemy’s 6th European Map, ms. Italy and Corsica. Nicolaus Germanus’ edition 1466.
Warszawie, Biblioteka Narodowa. By Permission of the Library.
Figure 4. Ptolemy’s 3rd Asian Map, ms. The Caucasus: Colchis (Western Georgia), Ibería of the
Caucasus (Kartli, Eastern Georgia), Albània of the Caucasus, or, Alvània (Daghestan), Armenia
Maior (Greater or Upper Armenia). Nicolaus Germanus’ edition 1466. Warszawie, Biblioteka
Narodowa. By Permission of the Library.

Figure 5. Ptolemy’s World Map, ms. Totius Orbis Habitabilis Brevis Descriptio. Nicolaus Germanus’
edition 1466. Warszawie, Biblioteka Narodowa. By Permission of the Library.
Figure 6. Ptolemy’s 3rd Asian Map, ms. Nicolaus Germanus, 1466. Detail. The Mescit Mountains
(mosch[vı]s montes - moschıvıs mon[te]s). The Apsarus River (apsor[orum] f.), wrong Kapadokya
(Capadotię pars), Trabzon (trapesoz). Detail.

Figure 7. Vardzahan (Variu-Han; mod. Uğrak, Bayburt İli), Bayburt (Baiburdi), The Georgian
Gorge (Gurdzis Bogasi, Gürcü Boğazı), Tortum River Valley (Tartomisi), Uzundere (Kensoreti).
GIURGISTAN ou GEORGIE (historical Georgia: Kartli, East Georgia), currently Turkey. Erzurum
(Arzrum, anc. Theodosiopolis), IRMINIA ou ARMENIE (historical Armenia), Aras (Araxi ou Kaksi
R.), Malazgirt (Manzikerd); currently Turkey. Detail. Guillaume Delisle, L’Arménie, la Géorgie, et
le Daghistan, 1722, Paris. Private Collection.

Figure 8. The province of Kartveli (CARDUEL) from Tbilisi (Tiblis) and Trialeti (Trialeti) to the
rivers Ch'orokhi (Turak R.) and Kur (Kor ou Mekvari R.), historical Georgia, Kartli (East Georgia).
Detail. Guillaume Delisle, L’Arménie, la Géorgie, et le Daghistan (1722, Paris). Private Collection.
Figure 9. The national flag of All-Georgia (the United Kingdom of the Georgians) on the
earliest extant portolan charts that Angelino Dulcert made in Mallorca in 1339 (Paris, BnF).
Detail. Georgian flags mark Colchian Sebastopolis (Savastopoli) at the mouth of the Phasis
(currently Rioni, Georgia); Tbilisi (Tifilis); Sivas (Savasto). G. flags are displayed in triplication.
By permission of BnF.

Figure 10. The Georgian Flag of United Georgia triplicated. Detail (the underline is mine).
Portolan Chart by A. Dulcert, (1339 Paris, BnF). By permission of BnF.
Figure 11. Britain. Detail. Portolan Chart by A. Dulcert, 1339 Paris, BnF. By permission of BnF.

Cartographic Primary Sources
Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Urbinas Graecus 82,

Claudii Ptolomaei Geographiae Codex phrotopyce depictus, ff. 63v-
64r, 71v-72r.
Delisle, Guillaume. D’Arménie, la Géorgie, et le Daghistan (ca. 1720-1722),
f. P.I.59, 40 × 53 cm, on a scale of 1:400,000. Paris: Private collection.
London, British Library, C 6424-04 Additional MS. 25691, Portolan Chart
by Angelino Dulcert, c.1340; Additional MS 27376*, world map by Pietro
Vesconte, Venice, c.1320, ff. 187v-188.
Modena, Regio Archivio di Stato di Modena, Cancellaria ducale, Archivio
proprio a. 1466; Camera Ducale, Reg.to mandati 1466, f. 125v.
Napoli, Biblioteca Nazionale, cod. Lat. V F. 32, Ptolemaei Claudii Ge-
ographia, Praecurrit Prefatio Jacobi Angeli Acciajolo, cuius est latina
interpretatio, f. 124. The manuscript is accessible in the facsimile edi-
tion by Pagani 1990.
Palermo, Biblioteca Comunale. Castelli Cristoforo C.R., Fondo Castel-
li, 3QqE92, f. 52v, “Predica nella villa di Sebastopoli”; Totius Colchidis
Hodie Mengrelliae A Corace Amne Ad Phasim Usque Descriptio, map.
Roma, Curia Generalizia di Sant’Andrea della Valle, Chierici Regolari
detti Teatini, Castelli Cristoforo C.R., Totius Colchidis, Hodie Mengrel-
liae a Corace amne ad Phasim usque Descriptio, printed map. Also in
Lamberti 1654.
Warszawie: Biblioteka Narodowa, BN BOZ 2 /I, Nicolaus Germanus, editor,
Claudii Ptolomaei Alexandrini Cosmographia. Iacobus Angeli interprete
[…] manu Domini Nicolai Germani presbyteri secularis descripta,
tabulisque egregie pictis adornata, 1466, from Reichenbach Monastery:
Ptolemy’s Map of the world (Figura Universalis: Totius Orbis Habitabilis
Brevis Descriptio); 1st European Map: Britain (Albion Insula) and Ire-
land (Ibernia Insula); 11th European Map: The Reign of Scotland, The
German Ocean, The Peninsula of modern Jutland and Schleswig, Great
Germany, Norwey, Eastern Götaland / Sweden, Lapland, The Iced Sea
(Scotie Regnum, Oceanus Germanicus, Cimbricor[um] Chersones[us],
Magne Germanie p[ar]s, Norbegia, Gottia Orientalis, Pillapelanth, Mare
Congelatum); 1st Asian Map (Tabula Asiae I) depicting Greek Anatolia
to Kapadokya and Lesser Armenia; 3rd Asian Map: historical Armenia
(Armenia Maior), historical Western Georgia (Colchis), historical East-
ern Georgia / Kartli (Iberia), and Alvania (Albània caucasica).

Documentary Primary Sources
Arrian (1885). Arriani Nicomediensis Scripta Minora. Acies contra Alanos.

Recognovit Rudolf Hercher. Emenda curavit Alfred Eberhard. Leipzig:
in aedibus B.G. Teubneri.
Bekkerus, Immanuel (ed.) (1840). Corpus scriptorum historiae Byzantinae.
Editio emendatior et copiosior, consilio B. G. Niebuchrii C. F. instituta,
Auctoritate Academiae Litterarum Regiae Borussicae continuata.
Constantinus Porphyrogenitus De Thematibus et De Administrando
Imperio, vol. 3. Bonnae (Bonn): Impensis Ed. Weberi, Deutsche Akad-
emie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin.
Bongars, Jacques (ed.) (1611). Gesta Dei per Francos. Sive Orientalium
Expeditionum et Regni Francorum Hierosolimitani Historia A Variis, sed
illius aevi Scriptoribus, litteris commendata: Nunc primum aut editis,
aut ad libros veteres emendatis. Auctore Praefatio ad Lectorem exhibet:
Orientalis Historiae Tomus Primus. Hanoviae (Hannover): Typis Weche-
lianis, apud heredes Ioan. Aubrii, Cum Privilegis, S. Caes. Romanorum
Maiestatis, er Regiae Francorum.
Cantoclarus, Carolus (ed.) (1610). Excerpta de Legationibus, ex Dexippo
Atheniense […] Menandro Protectore. Parisiis (Paris): Apud Abraham
Savgrain.
Constantinus Porphyrogenitus (1588). Sapientissimi Regis Constantini
Porphyrogennetae De Thematibus, Sive de Agminibus militaribus per
Imperium Orientale distributis, LIBER, nunquam ante hac editus: Ex
Bibliotheca et Visione Bonaventurae Vulcanii, cum notes eiusdem. Lug-
duni Batavorum: Ex officina Plantiniana, Apud Franciscum Raphel-
egium: Pars Graec., Pars Lat. Bonaventura Vulcanio Interprete.
Eutropius, Sylburgii (1762, item selectis Frid. Sylburgii). Eutropii
Breviarium Historiae Romanae, cum Metaphrasi Graeca Paeanii. [...]
Accedit Rufus Festus [...] Addidit Henricus Verheyk. Lugduni Baravo-
rum: apud Samuelemem et Joannem Luchtmans.
Gotthelf von Stritter, Johann (1779). Memoriae populorum, olim, ad
Danubium, Pontium Euxinum, Paludem Maeotidem, Caucasum, Mare
Caspium, et inde magis ad septemtriones incolentium, e scriptoribus
Historiae Byzantinae erutae et digestae, vol. 4. Petropoli, Impensis Aca-
demiae Scientiarum.
Graevius, Johannes Gregorius (1698). “Notitia Dignitatum, Utriusque
Imperii Orientis scilicet et Occidentis ultra Arcadii Honoriique
Tempora. Et in eam G. Panciroli I.V.D. Celeberrimi, ac in Patavina
Academia interpretis Legum primarii COMMENTARIUM”. Thesaurus
Antiquitatum Romanorum Congestus Joanne Georgio Graevio. Tomus
Septimus. Lugduni Baravorum: Apud Franciscum Halmam, Cum Privi-
legio.

Herodotus (1824). The History of Herodotus, Literally Translated into

English; Illustrated with Notes, Explanatory and Critical from Larcher,
Rennell, Mitford, Schweighaeuser, Modern Books of Travels, to which is
Added Larcher’s Table of the Chronology of Herodotus, by a Graduate
of the University, vol. 1. Oxford: Talboys and Wheeler.
Malalas, Iohannes (1831). Iohannis Malalae Chronographia, ex recensione
Ludovici Dindorfi (1831). Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae
(CSHB) eiusdem B. G. Niebuhrii, Imm. Bekkeri, I. Schopeni, G. et L.
Dindorfiorum aliorumque Philologorum parata: Ioannes Malalas. Bonnae
(Bonn): Impensis ed. Weberi.
Lamberti, Arcangelo (1654). Relatione della Colchide hoggi detta
Mengrellia, Nella quale si tratta dell’Origine, Costumi, e Cose naturali di
quei Paesi. Del P.D. Arcangelo Lamberti Chierico Regolare. Missionario
in quelle Parti. All’Ill.mo e Rev.mo Sig.re Monsignor Dionigi Massari
Segretario della Sagra Congregatione de Propag. Fide. Napoli: Camillo
Cavalli.
Le Beau, Charles (1770). Histoire du Bas-Empire en commençant a Constan-
tin le Grand. Amaestricht: Jean-Edme Dufour et Phil. Roux.
Mai, Angelo (1859). Vite di Uomini Illustri del secolo XV scritte da Vespa-
siano da Bisticci. Firenze: Barbera, Bianchi.
Pertz Georgius Heinricus (1846 ed.). “XII. Leonis Marsicani et Petri di-
aconi chronica monasterii Casinensis edente W. Wattenbach Ph. D.
(Tab. III-V): Leonis chronica a. 529-1075. 1090. 1094. Petri chronica
a. 1075-1139”, Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptorum Tomus VII,
Hannoverae: Impensis Bibliopolii Aulici Hahniani, 551-844: XII. Petri
chronicon, 727-844.
Photius (Patriarca de Constantinopla. Schott Andreas ed. 1606). Photii
Bibliotheca sive Lectorum a Photio librorum Recensio, Censura atque
Excerpta. Opera Andreae Schotti Antverpini, De Societate Iesu. Augus-
tae Vindelicorum: Ad insigne pinus.
Plinius Sr (1906). Naturalis historia. Lipsiae: Teubner, Mayhoff Karl Frie-
drich Theodor edidit.
Procopius (ex recensione Guilielmi Dindorfii 1833). Corpus Scriptorum
Historiae Byzantinae. Editio Emendatior et Copiosior, Consilio B. G.
Niebuhrii C. F. Instituta, Auctoritate Academiae Litterarum Regiae
Borussicae Continuata. Bonnae (Bonn): Impensis Ed. Weberi, Pars II.
Procopius. Volumen I.
Strabo (1856). The Geography of Strabo. Literally Translated, With Notes.
The First Six Books By H.C. Hamilton, The Remainder By W. Falconer,
vol. 2. London: Henry G. Bohn.
Strabo (1877). Geographica. Ed. by Meineke Augustus. Leipzig: Teubner.
Strabo (1928). The Geography of Strabo, vol. V, book 11. Transl. by L.
Horace Jones. London: William Heinemann. Loeb Classical Library 211.

Vaxušt’i Bat’onišvili (1842). “Description du Royaume de Géorgie: De-

scription du Karthli actuel; ses frontières, ses montagnes, ses fleuves,
les diverses localités et les édifices qu’elles contiennent: Description
des lieux remarquables du Samtzkhé ou Saathabago”. Description Géo-
graphique de la Géorgie, par le Tsarévitch Wakhoucht: Publiée d’après
l’original autographe par M. Brosset. S. Pétersbourg: Typographie de
l’Académie, 25 Mars 1842, A Sa Majesté Imperiale Nicolas I. Autocrate
de Toutes Les Roussies, Hommage (L’Éditeur), Géographie de la Géor-
gie, 72-131.
Vaxušt’i Bat’onišvili (1849). Histoire de la Géorgie depuis l’Antiquité
jusqu’au XIXe siècle. Traduite du géorgien par Marie-Félicité Brosset.
S. Péterburg: l’Académie Impériale des Sciences; Léipzig: Leopold
Voss. 1849, 1re Partie. Ce travail a été achevé en l’an 1745 de J.-C., 433
du cycle géorgien, le 20 octobre, par le tsarévitch Wakhoucht, dans la
ville capitale de Moscou, à la Presna (Préface p. 13).
Zosimus (ed.) (1837). Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae (CSHB).
Editio Emendatior et Copiosior, Consilio B. G. Niebuhrii C. F. Instituta,
Auctoritate Academiae Litterarum Regiae Borussicae Continuata. Bon-
nae (Bonn): Impensis ed. Weberi.
Secondary Sources
Adontz, Nicholas (1970). Armenia in the Period of Justinian: The Politi-

cal Conditions Based on the Naxarar System. Translated with Partial
Revision, a Bibliographical Note and Appendices By Nina G. Garsoïan.
Lisbon: The Calouste Gulbekian Foundation.
Allen, William E.D. (1953). “Two Georgian Maps of the First Half of the
Eighteenth Century”. Imago Mundi, 10, 99-121.
Allen, William E.D. [1932] (1971). A History of the Georgian People From
the Beginning Down to the Russian Conquest in the Nineteenth Century.
London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Angeli Bertinelli, Maria Gabriella (2000). “Traiano in oriente: la conquista
dell’Armenia, della Mesopotamia e dell’Assiria”. Gonzáles, Julián (ed.),
Trajano Emperador de Roma. Actas del Congreso Internacional 14-17
Septiembre 1998, Sevilla. Roma: L’Erma di Bretschneider, 25-54. Saggi
di storia Antica 16.
Bagrow, Leo (1945). “The Origin of Ptolemy’s Geographia”. Geografiska
Annaler, 27, 318-87.
Baldelli Boni, Giovanni Battista (a cura di) (1827). Il Milione di Marco Polo.
Testo di lingua del secolo decimoterzo ora per la prima volta pubblica-
to ed illustrato dal conte Gio. Batt. Baldelli Boni. Firenze: Da’ Torchi
di Giuseppe Pagani, Volume Primo, Tomo Primo, ‘Storia del Milione’,
V-CLXXII: ‘Del Milione. NOTIZIA DEI MANOSCRITTI DEL MILIONE
di cui si è fatto uso nell’opera o veduti o fatti riscontrar dall’autore’,

pp. CXXIII-CXXXVI: pp. CXXIX-CXXXI: X Codice Parigino, p. CXXXII:
XI Codice della Reale Parigina, XII Codice Vaticano già Ottoboniano
“Loys de Luxenbourg”, p. CXXXIII: XVI Codice Romano della Chisiana.
Bayram, Fahriye (2015). “Gürcistan’in Sina’si: Tao-Klarceti” (The Sinai of
Georgia). Işıklı, Mehemet; Can, Birol (eds.), International Symposium
on East Anatolia South Caucasus Cultures. Proceedings II. Newcastle
upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 481-95.
Bennett Durand, Dana (1952). The Vienna-Kloster Neuburg Map Corpus
of the Fifteenth Century: A Study in the Transition from Medieval to
Modern Science. Leiden: Brill.
Bennett, Julian [1997] (2005). Trajan Optimus Princeps. London: New Fet-
ter Lane.
Berggren, J. Lennart; Jones, Alexander (2000). Ptolemy’s Geography. An
Annotated Translation of the Theoretical Chapters. Princeton; Oxford:
Princeton University Press.
Böcking, Edvardus (edidit) (1839). Notitia dignitatum et administratorum
omnium tam civilium quam militarium in Partibus Orientis et Occidentis.
Res Publica Romana. Divus Augustus Pater Patriae, vol. 1, Notitia Digni-
tatum in Partibus Orientis, Tomus I. Bonnae: Impensis Adolphi Marci.
Notitia Dignitatum in Partibus Orientis.
Brosset Marie-Félicité (1839). “IV. Rapports. 1. Rapport sur la publica-
tion de la Géographie de la Géorgie par Wakhoucht. 9 et 10. Texte,
traduction, accompagnée de notes, et cartes, par M. BROSSET (lu le 2
août 1839”, N.° 129.150. Bulletin scientifique publié par l’Académie im-
périale des sciences de Saint-Pétersbourg, Saint-Pétersbourg: chez W.
Graeff héritiers et Leipzig: chez L. Voss, Tome 6. N. 9. 10., coll. 141-160
(Emis le 9 septembre 1839).
Cellario, Cristoforo (1786). Christophori Cellarii Smalcaldensis Geographia
Antiqua. Londini (London): J. and T. Pote, E. Ballard, C. Bathurst, J. and
C. Rivington, T. Longman, G. Ginger.
Chrisholm, Hugh (1911). Encyclopaedia Britannica, vol. 7. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Codazzi, Angela (1950). Le Edizioni Quattrocentesche e Cinquecentesche
della ‘Geografia’ di Tolomeo. Milano; Venezia: La Goliardica Edizioni
Universitarie.
Cuneo, Paolo (a cura di) (1988). Architettura Armena dal quarto al di-
ciannovesimo secolo. 2 vols. Roma: De Luca. Tomo 1, Tomo 2: Carta
di Localizzazione dei Monumenti e dei Siti. Tomo II: Historical Recon-
struction Map by Breccia Fratadocchi Tommaso and Lala Comneno
Maria Adelaide.
Dodgeon, Michael H.; Lieu, Samuel N.C. (ed.) (1991). The Roman Eastern
Frontier and the Persian Wars ad 226-363. A Documentary History.Lon-
don; New York: Routledge.
Dilke, Oswald A.W.; Dilke, Margaret S. (1994). “The Adjustment of Ptole-

maic Atlases to Feature the New World”. Haase, Wolfgang; Reinhold,
Meyer (eds.), The Classical Tradition and the Americas, vol. 1, European
Images of the Americas and the Classical Tradition, part 1. Berlin; New
York: Walter de Gruyter, 117-34.
Donzel Van, Emeri J.; Schmidt, Andrea B. (2009). Gog and Magog in Early
Syriac and Islamic Tradition. Sallam’s Quest for Alexander’s Wall. Leiden;
Boston: Brill.
Farinelli, Franco (1995). “L’arte della geografia”. Geotema, 1, 139-55.
Farinelli, Franco (2016). L’invenzione della Terra. Palermo: Sellerio.
Fischer, Jos. S.J. (1902). Die Entdeckungen der Normannen in Amerika. Un-
ter besonderer Berücksichtigung der kartographischen Darstellungen.
Freiburg im Breisgau: Herdersche Verlagshandlung.
Galichian, Rouben (2007). Countries South of The Caucasus in Medieval
Maps. Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan. Yerevan: Printinfo Art Books.
London: Gomidas Institute.
Garsoïan, Nina (1998). “Armenia Megalē kai eparkhia Mesopotamias”. Bal-
ard, Michel et al., Eupsychia. Mélanges offerts à Hélène Ahrweiler. Paris:
Publications de la Sorbonne, 239-64. Série Byzantina Sorbonensia 16.
Grammenos, Dēmētrios V.; Petropoulos, Elias K. (eds.) (2003). Ancient
Greek Colonies in the Black Sea. 2 vols. Thessaloniki: Publications of
the Archaeological Institute of Northern Greece 4.
Guiorgazze, Begian (transl.) (1977). Cristoforo Castelli, Relazione e album
dei schizzi sulla Georgia del secolo XVII. Tbilisi: Scienza.
Harley John, Brian; Woodward, David (eds.) (1987). The History of Cartog-
raphy, vol. 1, Cartography in Prehistoric, Ancient, and Medieval Europe
and the Mediterranean. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Harvey, Paul D.A. (1991). Medieval Maps. London: The British Library
Board.
Holding, Deirdre (2014). Armenia with Nagorno Karabagh. Chalfont St
Peter; Bucks: The Brandt Travel Guides.
Jones, Arnold H.M. (1937). The Cities of the Eastern Roman Empire. Ox-
ford: Oxford University Press.
Kakhidze, Amiran et al. (2002). “Recent Archaelogical Finds in Gonio-
Apsarus”. Faudot, Murielle et al. (eds.), Pont-Euxin et commerce. Actes
du IXe Symposium de Vani. Besançon: Presses Universitaires Franc-
Comtoises, 251-62.
Keppie, Lawrence (1984). The Making of the Roman Army: From Republic
to Empire. London: Thames and Hudson.
Lago, Luciano (1992). Imago Mundi et Italiae. La versione del mondo e
la scoperta dell’Italia nella cartografia antica. 2 vols. Trieste: La Mon-
golfiera.
Lanza (1946) Colonel Conrad H. Lanza, FA, Ret. “The Military Situation
in Europe (19 Dec 45 to 18 Jan 46): the Iran, Caucasia and Turkey Area
(19 Dec 45 to 18 Jan 46). A New Problem: on 20 December, Russians

Newspapers Gave Prominence To an Article Signed by Two Professors
of Georgia”. The Field Artillery Journal, 36(3), 163-72.
Laurence, Ray (1998). “Territory, Ethnonyms and Geography: The Con-
struction of Identity in Roman Italy”. Laurence, Ray; Berry, Joanne
(eds.), Cultural Identity in the Roman Empire. London; New York: Rout-
ledge, 95-110.
Licini, Patrizia (1980). Carteggio inedito di D. Cristoforo Castelli. Milano:
Politecnico, Facoltà di Architettura, Istituto di Materie Umanistiche.
Ricerca sull’Architettura Georgiana 21.
Licini, Patrizia (1989). “Manoscritti veneziani sull’invasione della Georgia
feudale da parte del sultano turco Amurat III”. Casari, Rosanna et al.
(eds.), Dalla forma allo Spirito. Scritti in onore di N. Kauchtschischwili,
parte 3, Caucasologia. Milano: Guerini, 341-52.
Licini, Patrizia (1992). “La regione armena nella ‘Mappa mundi’ medievale
di tradizione occidentale”. Orientalia Christiana Periodica, 58(2), 515-25.
Licini, Patrizia (1997-99). “The Ottoman Conquest of Armenia from a Por-
tolan Italian Chart (Jesi, XVth century)”. Petruccioli, Attilio (ed.), Trails
to the East. Essays in Memory of Paolo Cuneo. Roma: Carucci, 56-65.
Environmental Design: Journal of the Islamic Environmental Design
Research Centre 1-2.
Licini, Patrizia (2001). “La Colchide ritrovata ‘espressa in rame intagliato’
dai Padri Teatini (1654)”. Cerreti, Claudio; Tiberini, Annalena (eds.),
La cartografia degli autori minori italiani. Roma: Società Geografica
Italiana, 315-59. Memorie della Società Geografica Italiana 65.
Licini, Patrizia (2008). “European and Ottoman Landmarks from a Porto-
lan Chart at the Time of Enea Silvio Piccolomini”. Baumgärtner, Ingrid;
Kugler, Hartmut (Hrsgg.), Europa im Weltbild des Mittelalters. Kartogra-
phische Konzepte. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 191-18. Orbis mediaevalis.
Vorstellungswelten des Mittelalters 10.
Luttwak, Edward N. [1976] (2016). The Grand Strategy of the Roman Em-
pire: From the First Century CE to the Third. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University Press.
Magarotto, Luigi; Shurgaia, Gaga (2008). “La Russia, la Georgia e le re-
gioni contese. Un profilo storico”. Studium, 104(5), 725-44.
Mikaberidze, Alexander (2015). Historical Dictionary of Georgia. Lanham
(Maryland): Rowman and Littlefield.
Migliorati, Guido (2001). “L’idea di guerra nella propaganda di Traiano”.
Sordi, Marta (a cura di), Il pensiero sulla guerra nel mondo antico.
Milano: Vita e Pensiero, Pubblicazioni dell’Università Cattolica, 225-42.
Contributi dell’Istituto di storia antica 27.
Neve, Mario (1999). Virtus loci. Lineamenti fondamentali di una teoria
dell’informazione spaziale. Urbino: QuattroVenti.

Pagani, Lelio (1990). Cosmographia. Tavole della Geografia di Tolomeo.

Bergamo: Stella Polare Editrice.
Pertusi, Agostino (1952). Costantino Porfirogenito: De Thematibus. Intro-
duzione, Test Critico, Commento a cura di Agostino Pertusi. Città del
Vaticano: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana. Studi e Testi 160.
Prindeaux Tregelles, Samuel [1856] (2013). “History of the Printed Book
from Bengel onward”. Hartwell Horne, Thomas et al. (eds.), An Introduc-
tion to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, vol. 4,
An Introduction to Textual Criticism. New York; Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 128-46. Cambridge Library Collection.
Rayfield, Donald (2012). Edge of Empires. A History of Georgia. London:
Reaktion.
Ramusio, Giovan Battista (edited 1553, posthumously printed 1559).
Secondo Volume Delle Navigationi et Viaggi nel quale si contengono
L’Historia delle cose de Tartari, et diversi fatti de loro Imperatori, de-
scritta da M. Marco Polo Gentilhuomo Venetiano, et da Hayton Armeno.
Varie descrittioni di diversi autori, dell’Indie Orientali, della Tartaria,
della Persia, Armenia, Mengrelia, Zorzania, et altre Provincie, nelle quali
si raccontano molte imprese d’Ussuncassan, d’Ismael Soffi, del Soldano
di Babilonia, di diversi Imperatori Ottomani, et particolarmente di Selim,
contro Tomombei, ultimo Soldano de Mamalucchi, et d’altri Principi.
Venetia: de Giunti.
Ramsay, William M. (1890). The Historical Geography of Asia Minor. Lon-
don: John Murray.
Rapp, Stephen H. Jr. (1997). Imagining History at the Crossroads: Persia,
Byzantium, and the Architects of the written Georgian Past, vol. 2. Ann
Arbor: University of Michigan.
Rapp, Stephen H. Jr. (2003). Studies in Medieval Georgian Historiogra-
phy: Early Texts and Eurasian Contexts. Lovanii (Louvain): In Aedi-
bus Peeters. Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium Editum
Consilio Universitatis Catholicae Americae Et Universitatis Catholicae
Lovaniensis 601; Subsidia, 113.
Reinhold, Gustav (1898). Das Geschichtswerk des Livius als Quelle spatter
Historiker. Berlin: R. Gaertners.
Robertson, Archibald Th. (1931). Word Pictures in the New Testament.
Acts. Nashville: Broadman Press.
Sagona, Antonio G.; Sagona, Claudia (2004). Archaeology at the North-
east Anatolian Frontier, I. An Historical Geography and a Field Survey of
the Bayburt Province. Louvain: Peeters. Ancient Near Eastern Studies.
Supplement 14.
Salia, Kalistrat (1980). Histoire de la Nation Géorgienne. Paris: Nino Salia.
Sands, Percy Cooper (1908). The Client Princes of the Roman Empire under
the Republic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sayles, Wayne G. (1998). Ancient Coin Collecting IV. Roman Provincial

Coins. Iola (WI): Krause.
Shtengelov, Evgenij S. (1995). “The Danger of Catastrophic Landslides
in Odessa and the North Black Sea Area. Odessa State University”.
Doklady of the Russian Academy of Sciences: Earth Science Sec-
tions, 333A(9), 65-8.
Shurgaia, Gaga (2014). “La vita della Kartli nel contesto storico-politico
caucasico”. Ferrari, Aldo; Guizzo, Daniele (a cura di), Al Crocevia del-
le civiltà. Ricerche sul Caucaso e Asia Centrale. Venezia: Edizioni Ca’
Foscari, 76-100. Eurasiatica. Quaderni di studi sui Balcani, Anatolia,
Iran, Caucaso e Asia Centrale 1.
Sinclair, Thomas A. (1987). Eastern Turkey: An Architectural and Archaeo-
logical Survey, vol. 1. London: Pindar Press.
Sordi, Marta (2004). I Cristiani e l’impero romano. Milano: Jaca Book.
Stückelberger, Alfred (2009). “Zu den Quellen der Geographie”. Stück-
elberger, Alfred; Mittenhuber, Florian (Hrsgg.), Klaudios Ptolemaios.
Handbuch der Geographie. Ergänzungsband, mit einer Edition des Ka-
nons bedeutender Städte. Basel: Verlag Schwabe, 122-33.
Suny, Ronald Grigor [1988] (1994). The Making of the Georgian Nation.
Bloomington; Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.
T.C. İçişleri Bakanliği (Interior Ministry), İller İdaresi Genel Müdürlüğü
(General Directorate for Provincial Administration) (1985). Türkiye
Mülki İdare Bölümleri: Belediyeler, Köyler (Civil Administration Units
Municipalities Villages). Turkey: Ankara.
Toumanoff, Cyril (1952). “Iberia on the Eve of Bagratid Rule. An Enquiry
into the Political History of Eastern Georgia between the VIth and the
IXth Century”. Le Muséon, 65, 17-49 and 199-259.
Toumanoff, Cyril (1963). Studies in Christian Caucasian History. Washing-
ton D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
Toumanoff, Cyril (1969). “Chronology of the Early Kings of Iberia”. Tra-
ditio, 25, 1-33.
Traina, Giusto (1991). Il complesso di Trimalcione. Movsēs Xorenac‛i e le
origini del pensiero storico armeno. Venezia: Casa Editrice Armena.
Eurasiatica 27. Università di Ca’ Foscari: Dipartimento di Studi Eura-
siatici.
Tsetskhladze, Gocha R. (1999). Pichvnari and Its Environs, 6th c. BC-4th
c. AD. Besançon: Presses Universitaires Franc-Comtoises.
Urness, Carol (1993). “Rybakov on the Delisle Map of 1706”. Hushes,
Lindsey (ed.), New Perspectives on Muscovy History. Selected Papers
from the Fourth World Congress for Soviet and East European Studies,
Harrogate, 1990. Houndmills and London: Palgrave Macmillan, 24-34.
Valerio, Vladimiro (1998). “Cognizioni proiettive e prospettiva lineare
nell’opera di Tolomeo e nella cultura tardo-ellenistica”. Nuncius. Annali
di Storia della Scienza, 13(1), 265-98. Discussioni critiche.
Valvo, Alfredo (1992). “‘Fides’, ‘Foedus’, ‘Iovem Lapidem iurare’”. Sor-

di, Marta (a cura di), Autocoscienza e rappresentazione dei popoli
nell’antichità. Milano: Vita e Pensiero. Pubblicazioni dell’Università
Cattolica, 115-126. Contributi dell’Istituto di storia antica, volume di-
ciottesimo.
Wilkes, John (2005). “Appendices to chapter 8. III Frontier deployment,
A.D. 193-337”. Bowman, Alan et al., The Cambridge Ancient History,
vol. XII, The Crisis of Empire, A.D. 193-337. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Witherington, Ben III (1998). The Acts of The Apostels. A Socio-Rhetorical
Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Woodward, David (ed.) (2007). The History of Cartography, vol. 3, Car-
tography in the European Renaissance. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Zecchini, Giuseppe (2005). “La formazione degli stati federali romano-
barbarici”. Zecchini, Giuseppe (a cura di), Il federalismo nel mondo
antico. Milano: Vita e Pensiero, 129-48. Trattati e manuali. Storia.

Survery of Georgia Ptolemy Maps

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Survery of Georgia Ptolemy Maps

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Survery of Georgia Ptolemy Maps

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Annali di Ca’ Foscari.

Serie orientale [online] ISSN 2385-3042

Surveying Georgia’s Past

Keywords Ptolemy. Distortion. Georgian-Gorge. Gates-of-Ibería-or-Caucasian. Caspian-Gates.

1 The Paradox of Ptolemy

62 Licini. Surveying Georgia’s Past

sor and successor. Unfortunately, this is dangerous, scientifically false and

Licini. Surveying Georgia’s Past 63

a. Why did modern historians of the Roman Empire and archaeolo-

2 Ptolemy’s Maps at Fault

Details at the site http://www.easydiplomacy.com/conference-georgia-in-the-european-

64 Licini. Surveying Georgia’s Past

bringing a copy of Ptolemy’s Geography in Greek. Iacopus of Angelus Ac-

known world, but as he went further east, errors accumulated. By the

Licini. Surveying Georgia’s Past 67

corresponding to Scotland, so as to make a right angle approximately with

4 All cohordinates are from Stückelberger 2009, 1. Teilband, 122-33. See also 2. Teil-

68 Licini. Surveying Georgia’s Past

the Caspian according to Deirdre Holding (2014, 153). And yet, however,

formam totius Britanniae […] oblongae scutulae adsimulavere.

3 The ‘Dogleg’ Appearance of the Mescit Mountains

smaller than it actually is. In fact, editions of Ptolemy’s Geography misled

Licini. Surveying Georgia’s Past 73

74 Licini. Surveying Georgia’s Past

parallel of mid-Pontus corresponds to the latitude of 40° North (“Quartus

When we examine the Ptolemaic maps that have survived since 1415,

76 Licini. Surveying Georgia’s Past

shores. In this place it may be as well to correct an error into which

version of Ptolemy’s Geography. And yet, it exemplifies the strength and

9 Bongars 1611, 30-81, Roberti Monachi Historia Hierosolimitana, 3, vv. 16-18 “Dehinc

Licini. Surveying Georgia’s Past 79

Mountains, currently, Turkey, the Ch’orokhi River flows through Bayburt.

4 The Gates of Ibería or the Caucasian Gates

according to Breviarium historiae romane of Eutropius (Breviarium, 8,3,

82 Licini. Surveying Georgia’s Past

Licini. Surveying Georgia’s Past 83

the narrative of those who took part in the expedition of Alexan-

A few chapters later, Pliny remarks that (Naturalis histo-

84 Licini. Surveying Georgia’s Past

situ iugis] that, for a distance of eight miles in longitude, a single

tion, founded on the actual knowledge of his time. These observations

86 Licini. Surveying Georgia’s Past

Licini. Surveying Georgia’s Past 87

River (Araxes).14 It happened in A.D. 928, when Romanos I Lakapenos and

88 Licini. Surveying Georgia’s Past

Licini. Surveying Georgia’s Past 91

Geographica, 11,2).15 The Georgi from geōrgos, farmer, have a different

92 Licini. Surveying Georgia’s Past

Licini. Surveying Georgia’s Past 93

94 Licini. Surveying Georgia’s Past

Constantinople is İstanbul today. On the one hand, historical geographers

Licini. Surveying Georgia’s Past 95

96 Licini. Surveying Georgia’s Past

best citizen (Sordi 2004, 87-9).19 Around A.D. 111, thus the Emperor Trajan

19 Trajan styled himself Imperator Nerva Caesar Augustus.

(Western Georgians). Now Trajan gave Albània of the Caucasus a King

98 Licini. Surveying Georgia’s Past

sovereign on his accession should seek not only to be recognized by Rome

21 Eutrop., Breviarium, Sylburgii 1762, 1, 364; and 8,3 Variae Lectiones: Corduenos pro

Serie orientale [online] ISSN 2385-3042