onomastInglisurr22 (2)

       NATELA B. POPKHADZE. REPUBLIC OF GEORGIA. TBILISI

God of architecture Kola and the toponyms Kola, Kolkheti according to texts written in Cuneiform script

Mose Janashvili published that the word kola( koli known in the dialect of the Kartvelians living in Hereti area near the Caspian lake//”sea” denoting the agricultural term kvali-an imprint made by a cart or an agricultural instrument during agricultural work in the field) is the basis for the name Kolkheti//Colchis and a synonym of the word Georgia, Georgians-the country and the ethnicity of the inventors of agriculture called Kartvelebi in their language as well. I agree. Besides that meaning of the word kola, another meaning is known. God Kola( Kulla) of bricks and the building activity is known from cuneiform texts.In incantations against that god he is scolded and told harshly to go out of the house built recently and never return. That was done to ensure the stability of the building so that it would not need a repair, rebuilding, that it would not collapse. M. Janashvili dedicated half of a century to learning and deciphering the Chaldean inscriptions and literature made in II-I millennia BCE. In his archive at the National Centre of Manuscripts in Tbilisi there are over twenty manuscripts written as handbooks in Kartvelian( Kartveluri) history starting from the data of the cuneiform inscriptions. Topics dealt in these are: the dawn of the Georgian//Kartvelian civilization; the Chaldean-Kartvelian identity;  two Caucasias: one at the western-, another at the eastern shore of the Caspian lake( “the Caspian//Gurganian//Georgian//Kartvelian sea”). He praised the activity of the Great king Aeetes called Aieti in the local language). He discussed the activity of King Parnavaz and the  meaning of the word ‘vaz’//’baz’ in the name Parnavaz//Pharnabazus; king Azo’s relations arrival to Mtskheta from Sagartia//Sakartia(  the Eastern Sakartvelo at the Eastern Caspian area); the history of the decipherment of cuneiform inscriptions; cooperation of Janashvili with Erkert and Lehman-Haupt; the decipherment of 20 cuneiform inscriptions of kings of Urarti//Urartu by M. Janashvili; Janashvili’s “Sumerian Lexicon” and “Lexicon of Mittannian words”; necessity of including material from the Kartvelian language variants ( Svanian, Margalian//Megrelian etc.) in cuneiform studies. There are many other manuscripts of M. Janashvili in this archive that treat these topics. The aforementioned manuscripts are written in 1919-1927. By the term ‘Kartveluri’ the author means all branches //variants of the language spoken and/or written by ethnic Kartvels from remotest days to modern times. He includes in this group the Chaldean of the Urartians, that he seems to have mastered better than the Sumerian and Mitannian. M. Janashvili treats meticulously the etymology of the regional names of the Kartveli nation: the Meskhi//Moskhi, the Colchi//Kolkhi etc. His treatment of the etymology of the term ‘Iveria’ is very important. M. Janashvili informs readers that ‘ver’-the Svanian word for ‘land’ is included in the term ‘Iveria’( i.e. one of the names for Sakartvelo//Georgia). Being unaware of M. Janashvili’s activity in cuneiform studies, other scientists are unable to use them and are hampered in their studies. I have investigated, read twelve manuscripts in M. Janashvili’s archive. One contains some 657 leaves, the number of pages in it is almost twice as much. Reading of this archive needs at least the basic knowledge of the history of the decipherment of the cuneiform Sumerian, Chaldean, Akkadian, Luvian texts, good knowledge of the modern Kartuli language and of the basic linguistic and historical-archaeological terms in English, French, German, Russian, Kartvelian.  By the term ‘Dzveli Kartuli ena da literatura’ scientists have called and treated  M. Janashvili’s investigations concerning the period beginning from the fifth c. CE. The vast science literature in this archive concerning the ‘Uudzvelesi periodis Kartveluri ena da literatura’, i.e. ‘the Remotest Ancient Kartvelian Language and literature’ as he called it- starting from 3400 BCE, has not been investigated at all to this day by readers. That is the reason that even persons teaching ancient languages( Sumerian, Akkadian, Chaldean//Urartian) in Tbilisi are unaware that M. Janashvili thoroughly investigated many topics in these fields, compiled dictionaries in these languages. This is my first report on the role of Mose Janashvili in the promotion of the Cuneiform Sumerian, Akkadian, Urartian studies. The material in his archive is ample and I intend to go on investigating it and promoting M. Janashvili’s role and achievements in this field of science.