Ancient Georgian historical sources offer only vague insights into the beliefs and ideas of the pre-Christian country, although even this superficial account reveals a strong presence of idolatry. It is logical that Christian chroniclers intentionally avoid discussing Georgian pagan culture in detail, carefully concealing it and mostly focusing on the “breaking” of idols (Gats, *Ga, and Armazi). Still, one thing remains clear – “divine holiness” was understood as related to various functions of specific idols, and the beliefs of pre-Christian Georgians were expressed through them as an irrational proto-concept. This way of thinking, which influenced many aspects of their culture, was built around idol-deities. These deities dictated the fundamental formulas of religious rituals, human behavior rules, and worship norms. To understand this reality better, we first need to clarify the names and functions of these idols. Unfortunately, Georgian scholarship knows very little about one of these idols—Ainina—whose introduction and establishment in Kartli, especially in Mtskheta, is attributed to Saurmag, the son of Pharnavaz and the king of Iberia in the mid-3rd century BC.

Methods

The reasoning and conclusions in the academic paper are developed using the scholarly method of analysis. Descriptive and comparative methods are also employed. The principle of logical consistency is observed throughout the paper, and the academic reasoning is built, on the one hand, by comparing the main theoretical and practical material and, on the other hand, by taking into account their critical, objectively argued grounds.

Results

A historical and philological analysis of ancient sources suggests that the pagan deity Ainina, mentioned in these sources, is likely directly connected to the toponym Ananuri in eastern Georgia or to the relatively late Christian chapel complex built there, which served as an ancient site for cultic rituals. As a result, a similarity has been found between the core elements of the Georgian pagan idols Ainina and Danina. The simple root Nin[a] in both names indicates a probable link to ancient Asia Minor, especially Mesopotamian cultures (compare with the Sumerian mother goddess Ninkhursag and the Kartvelian roots for mother: Georgian Nena-Nen-a / Megre. Nana-Nana / Laz. Nana-Nana). Therefore, the idol Ainina, established by the king of Kartli along one of the roads in eastern Georgia (likely near Ananuri), appears to be a female goddess and reflects the historic migration of the ancient Sper/Ibero-Chan tribes from Asia Minor to the South Caucasus, a well-documented historical phenomenon.

Discussion

It is noted in Georgian academic literature that the Shatberdi-Chelishi edition of the text of The Conversion of Kartli was created “not earlier than the ninth century,” while the so-called part of the chronicle may be much older [Kekelidze, 1987, pp. 88-89]. In this segment of the chronicle, which provides a schematic list of pagan kings, we read: “[b]... Pharnavaz arrived. He erected an idol on the nose of a mountain and named it Armazi. He made a wall guarding it from water, and they call it Armaz. [c] Later, Saurmag became a king following him. He erected an idol Ainina on the road. And he began construction in Armaz” [Conversion... 1979, p. 320]. Without a doubt, the editor of the Conversion text mainly focuses on the arrival of Saint Nino in Kartli, especially in Mtskheta, and on describing her deeds. It is also clear that the author of the edition does not ignore listing the kings of Kartli from previous centuries and mentioning the establishment of idols, the history of which will be elaborated in greater detail in The Life of St. Nino. We believe there is no need to discuss in detail the authors' motivation behind contracting and narrowing the authentic historical source—in fact, a source that was also considered reliable by the editors. We will only say that the chronicle strongly reflects the influence of the Christian era and worldview—the “ugliness” of pagan existence in past eras should be erased from the memory of Georgians because it does not suit the foundation of a new religion.

A relatively later historical source that informs us about the ownership of Mtskheta by the Kartli king Saurmag is Leonti Mroveli’s The Lives of Kings. Unlike the account in The Conversion of Kartli, here we learn that Saurmag not only builds Ainina but also establishes an idol called Danana.  Leonti Mroveli’s history states: “And Saurmag took his throne as the king of Mtskheta. He added more fortresses in Mtskheta and Kartli, and created two idols, Ainina and Danana, and erected them on the way to Mtskheta” [Mroveli, 1956, p. 27].

Vakhushti Batonishvili essentially repeats Leonti Mroveli's source and provides slightly altered versions of the names of the idols. We read: “He [Saurmag] erected the idols Anian and Danian on the road to Mtskheta” [Vakhushti, 1973, p. 58].

Thus, the erection of an idol, unknown to us, mentioned in all three Georgian historical works, and presumably the establishment of worship to it, also belongs to the king of Kartli, Saurmag. Although its name varies in the works of different eras, it is still clear that we are dealing with the same idol. It is also clear that the change of the nomoi must have occurred due to earlier sources or linguistic evolution. Since both the text of The Conversion of Kartli and its form are ancient and, from our perspective, closest to the objective truth, it would be appropriate to base our discussion on it.

First of all, what is noticeable even empirically is the similarity between the compositions of the bases of the idols’ Aynina’s and Danina’s names in The Conversion. Are we dealing with a composite name? Perhaps this is the first question we should ask about them. It seems that Nina[a] is part of both bases and plays an important role in the structure of the word. It must be the second part of the complex root. Since the idea that the idols are not Georgian proper and are related to ancient Asia Minor, presumably Mesopotamian cultures, seems to be more academically reasonable, their morphological division in Georgian linguistics is a rather questionable, if not impossible, task. We may still ask: which is the correct segmentation – Ayn-in’a / Dan-in’a or Ay-nina / Da-nina?

In our view, it would be more accurate to consider “Nin[a]” as an independent root because, in this context, the Sumerian pantheon attracts our attention. As N. Kramer states: “In Sumer of the 3rd millennium BC, at least several hundred gods were worshiped” [Kramer, 1988, p. 118], and among these, the name of the Sumerian “mother goddess” is given as “Ninhursag.” It is well known in scholarly literature that “Nin” (“mother,” “lady”) was part of the names of ancient female deities [Kramer, 1988, pp. 52; 118], and it is also associated with “Nina” (“royal,” “greatest”), the founder of the Assyrian city-state of Nineveh. Similarly, Georgian linguistic data shows no major difference. In Western Georgian dialects like Imeretian and Gurian, the fact that “nena” (*‹― nina [?]) corresponds to “mother” is a linguistic fact, thoroughly studied within the framework of Kartvelian language comparison. What interests us is that in the Etymological Dictionary of Kartvelian Languages by Z. Sarjveladze and H. Fenrikh, the root bases *nen- and *nena, listed as two separate lexical units, have different semantic fields. The first, *nen- (Georgian en- en-a “tongue/language; word” / Megr. nin- nin-a / Laz. nen- nin-a / Svan. nin- “language”) is a root meaning “language, word,” while the second, *nena (Georgian nena- nen-a / Megr. nana- nana / Laz. nana- nana), means “mother.” Researchers note that both roots, *nena- and *nen-, are symbolic in nature [Sarjveladze... 2000, pp. 357-358];  however, the etymological dictionary does not clarify the basis for their symbolism, though we believe their common origin is evident.

At first glance, it might seem that the similarity between Kartvelian roots meaning “mother” and “language” is based on an obvious fact and originates from children’s speech acts — specifically, the first word a child says – mother / nena – which semantically and formally influences the second noun ([n]ena’). However, in our view, this matter should be approached differently. To develop our perspective, we must consider the creation of the world i.e. cosmogony. What does ancient Semitic wisdom say if not that “in the beginning was the Word”? The worldview of the New Testament consistently follows the same idea – through the Word of the Lord, the Lord Himself is revealed. One passage from the Gospel of John states: “I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.” [John 16:12]. In Christian thought, “The Word” symbolizes a metaphorical image of “the Lord” (“O word of beauteous form and grace, O ray of light, O face of the sun of suns” [D. Guramishvili, 1992, p. 68]). Therefore, the word, with its sacred significance, is the source of divine knowledge or “unknownness.” The Sumerians present a nearly similar cosmogony, as seen in their myths and legends. Moreover, their deities are anthropomorphic, and as S.N. Kramer states: “Even the most powerful and most knowing among them were regarded as human in form, thought, and deed. Like man, they planned and acted, ate and drank, married and raised families” [Kramer, 1988, pp. 116-117]. Considering that, at the dawn of human development, women — or female deities — held complete dominance, it becomes clear why “mother” and “language, word” share virtually identical roots, and why their semantic and formal overlap is even evident at the level of the Kartvelian language family.

Let us now return to Ainina: if Nin’a is an Asia Minor or shared (Sumerian-Georgian) root meaning a woman, lady, or mother, and according to the Georgian material (based on our interpretation), it also signifies the “divine, revelatory word,” then the idols established in Mtskheta by Saurmag are most likely female rather than male deities. Furthermore, this should indicate the transfer of idols containing the Megrelian-Lazur-Svan *nin-a root from the southwestern (ancient Sper/Iberian-Chanian) area. The center of the Georgian state is shifting northward, toward Mtskheta, and the migration of idols accompanies this movement.

If our assumption is correct, another question arises: what are the prepositional segments of Ainina-Danina—independent roots or producers? Although, due to the ancientness of the idols, the scarcity of historical material, and the lack of linguistic evidence from the 5th century, we cannot add more credibility to our view, we believe that, on one hand, Ay[nina] → Ai[nina], and on the other, Da[nina] are independent roots with a direct or indirect connection to the astral phenomena of sunrise and sunset (if not with deities). In Georgian, these are called Ai-s-i [‹―*Ay-s’i] and Da-is-i [‹―*Day-is’i], and within these roots, the -is marker indicates content related to relative inflection. Additionally, the name of the legendary Colchian king, son of Helios, from the myth of the Argonauts—Ayet (Aeetes)—should not be overlooked. It’s possible that both the name of the ruler of Aeaea and the sun’s fiery corona described by Aristarchus (50s BC), who was appointed ruler of Colchis by Pompey the Great—shown on numismatic material [Dundua... 2006, p. 279]—symbolize the “land of the rising sun” for southwestern cultures, especially Greek culture. This issue warrants further independent research and detailed scholarly discussion; therefore, we should set it aside for now and return to Ainina. We can only suggest that if the root “ai” in ainina, aisi (sunrise), and ayet (Aeetes)-aya (Aeaea) is the same, then we are clearly dealing with an idol associated with sunrise, heavenly rest, and its own splendor.

Is the pagan idol from Asia Minor, Ainina,  in any way connected with the toponym Ananuri? In this case, this is one of the questions we need to answer. We believe there is an inevitable connection between them, and now we will try to follow the chain of logic step by step with separate arguments.

Let's first analyze this linguistically by removing the suffix –“ur” from the form Anan-ur’i and attaching it to toponyms like Guda-ur'i (Eastern Georgia’s Khevi/ravine), Tokhlia-ur'i (Kakheti), or Makhinja-ur'i (Western Georgia). It’s clear that toponyms with -ur appear throughout Georgia, although Eastern Georgia might seem more common in this regard. However, our main focus is on the root itself, not the derivational element. The part of the word without the -ur suffix is “anan”. We should not see this as a coincidence caused by similar sounds. We believe “anan” is equivalent to ainan[a]/ainina’, which has undergone phonetic changes since the 3rd century BC. Mainly, the simplification of the “ai” diphthong within the complex root likely involved the initial vowel “a,” leading to the contraction of the Ie/Iota (ჲ) letter; it’s possible that both the “a” vowels, the one before the suffix and the final one, influenced this reduction. This is supported by the form “aniyan” [‹―ainiyan ?],  documented by Vakhushti Batonishvili as the name of the deity. Although, unlike in Svan, “the reduction of the vowels ‘i’ and ‘u’ is not clearly visible” in Georgian, V. Topuria cites several cases of i-reduction, including forms like umtsrosi (< mtsire 'small/minor') and abjens (< biji 'step’), among others [Topuria V, 1979, pp. 155; 157]. He makes an interesting point: “The reduction of i was characteristic of Georgian, but the absence of examples is explained by the lack of vowel roots with i” [Topuria B, 1979, p. 158]. Therefore, the limited examples of i-reduction are due to the rarity of i-rooted nouns, not because they don’t usually undergo this phonetic process. Additionally, it’s important to note that we’re dealing with a mountainous region in eastern Georgia, where this phonetic process is especially active.

Relatively later, under the influence of complete assimilation into the Aynin’a root, the Nina segment would have been replaced by Nana. Aynin'a ―› Anin'a ―› Anan'a ―› Anan-ur-i. In our opinion, this shows what the evolutionary process that the form has been going through for more than two millennia looks like. Given the age of the names, not much has changed linguistically that would make us doubt it.

Our view concerning the location of the mentioned idol, specifically its position in Ananuri, does not match the opinions expressed in Georgian historiography. G. Melikishvili, discussing Georgia and its deities from the Hellenistic era, notes: “During the time of Pharnavaz and his successors—the first members of the Pharnavazian dynasty—great works were undertaken in Mtskheta—the royal capital—such as fortresses, places of worship, and other constructions” [Melikishvili, 1970, p. 445]. Among the idols erected in Mtskheta, the scholar also mentions Ainina-Danina, along with Armaz and other deities. In the same collection of Essays on the History of Georgia, A. Apakidze clarifies: “It seems that tradition does not regard the latter as the chief deities of the pantheon” [Apakidze, 1970, p. 676]. The basis for this conclusion lies in the text of The Conversion, which clearly shows, on one hand, the privileged status of Armaz and, on the other hand, the status of Gats and Ga’ [Gat / Gaim] transferred from “Aryan Kartli”. Iv. Javakhishvili also discusses the secondary status of Ainina-Danina: “Georgian historical sources do not tell us anything about the gender or distinctive features of these deities. When we don't even know their gender, any basis for comparison, except for external similarities [here the scholar refers to the similarity of their roots - I.S.], is lost” [Javakhishvili, 1979, p. 142]. The fact that folk beliefs have not preserved their memory is one of the main arguments for Iv. Javakhishvili, who adds: “This must undoubtedly be a circumstance indicating the relatively lesser importance of these deities” [Javakhishvili, 1979: 142]. We also believe that there is nothing really controversial about this; the order of transferring the idols—first Gats and Ga (*Gat) [see. Sanikidze, 2012, pp. 141-234], then Armaz, and finally Ainina and Danina—clearly indicates a hierarchy, which runs from top to bottom and suggests that we are mainly dealing with a paired pantheon. Based on this, only Armaz appears singular and likely “supreme” in a specific historical context.

The development of Mtskheta-Armazi, or Kartli Mountain, as a “new” administrative region did not end with the import and establishment of the three main idols. It is also clear that by the end of the 1st millennium BC, the southern Iberian tribes were migrating from the Near East toward the north, heading to the Caucasus. The transfer of cultural, including religious, elements was also accompanied by the movement of other cultural components. S. Janashia states: “We must conclude without any doubt that Kartli, the kingdom of Mtskheta-Armazi, was only a new formation of the people who were well known to the Greeks by the name of Sapir-Sabir (Subarean tribes) in the sixth-fifth centuries BCE and who were not yet far from their homeland on their southern border” [Janashia, 1952, p. 64].

In other words, Mtskheta-Armazi was fortified by the end of the 1st millennium BC, with the Iberian king Saurmag (265/3-240 BC) contributing to this regional development.  However, the question remains whether he brought Ainina to Mtskheta, even if this was “old Mtskheta” somewhere near Mount Kartlos, or if he relocated it slightly higher into the Aragvi gorge. Even today, Mtskheta is about 40 kilometers from Ananuri, according to the current road map. The question then becomes whether we are seeing the establishment of the boundaries of the Mtskheta region. Additionally, since Ainina is a non-principal, or non-supreme, idol, our assumption might be correct. It’s likely that Saurmag placed it relatively far from the Iberian kings’ capital but still within the borders of “Greater Mtskheta,”

The assumption is further strengthened by phrases that are consistently repeated in Georgian sources. Ainina is described as erected ‘on the road’ similarly to Danina (see above). Which road is referenced in the earlier Conversion source? If Ananuri and Ainina are the same, this becomes clearer. Of course, this must be the road leading from the capital city north to the Gate of the Alans. Given its geographic setting, the route through the Aragvi and Dariali gorges has played a crucial role since ancient times, and as Sh. Meskhia notes, Ananuri (along with Dusheti), located along this route, was a significant point. Although the scholar discusses late historical events, particularly the early 18th century, it still shows that this key geographic point in the Aragvi Gorge, which has stood on the trade and transport route heading north since ancient times, sometimes expanded and “gradually transformed into a city”. The scholar states: “Ananuri is the settlement of the Aragvi Eristavis (“princes”). As Vakhushti recounts, in 1704 Giorgi Eristavi built a large domed church here... However, in the 18th century, Ananuri was not only a fortress but also a trade center” [Meskhia, 1959, p. 114]. The strategic importance of this location is also highlighted in the “Description of the Monuments of History and Culture of Georgia.” It notes that Ananuri, on the right bank of the Aragvi, had a strategic position. “Roads from the north through the Tergi and Aragvi valleys, and from Shida Kartli in the south, converged here. The village has been inhabited since ancient times” [Georgia... 2004, p. 203]. Logically, the later construction of the Ananuri complex (the fortress, the churches of the Mother of God and Deity [translator’s note: ‘Divinity’ might be more appropriate for Christian contexts], the “Healer” church, and the bell towers) from the 16th to 18th centuries does not exclude the possibility of the pagan idol of Ainina existing here in ancient times, specifically during Saurmag’s era. In this regard, the analogy of “Zeda Zadeni” and Zedazeni seems appropriate. Building Christian places of worship over pagan idol sites was a common practice and reflects the broader trend that accompanied the shift to a new faith. Of course, the idol might have been located nearby rather than directly at this site; however, archaeology, more than linguistics, can provide a more precise answer.

In our view, even a single example of idol destruction documented in historical and literary sources is enough to imagine what might have happened in Ainina's case. We will focus on The Life of John of Zedazeni. In one passage, the unknown hagiographer, describing the destruction of the deity Zaden//[Saden], offers us noteworthy information. Despite the metaphorical language, we believe that the ideologically strategic steps taken by the Assyrian Fathers (6th century) across various regions of Georgia are clearly visible. Their aim is to seize the sacred, so-called “place-mothers," and drive out the “demonic” presence. John of Zedazeni also fought against idols or their priests. The text states: 

But the devils who hated the good, and who had been there from the beginning, could not bear the prayer of our father John... And one day they were stirred up and came upon Saint John and began to fight... They surrounded him, distressed him, and said: Who are you, or rather, who do you think you are, for this is our place. And if you do not depart from here, we will bring great and dreadful trials upon you [Zedazeni 1955, p. 42]. 

Saint Nino endured this difficult path long before the Assyrian fathers, and she defeated “Armaz” and Gats-Ga’. It is indeed unfortunate that Georgian sources do not directly mention the destruction of Ainina's idol. Why? Perhaps because no Assyrian father ultimately settled in Ananuri, or because, due to historical circumstances, it was already damaged or destroyed by the 6th century AD, and thus it was no longer of much significance. The Conversion of Kartli notes that St. Nino also carried out her mission in Georgia’s mountains, as the text states: “And [Nino] called the people of the mountains of Chartali, Pkhovi, and Tsilkani and preached to them the faith of Christ” [Conversion... 1979, p. 323-324]. This is a broad account, but it provides us with the key. We will focus on the highlanders of Chartali. It is well known that Chartali is a historical region along the middle Aragvi River, and the Chartalian community spanned from the village of Ananuri to Khandoskhevi, both in ancient and modern times. We believe that this vague story, supported by a source, can still serve as a marker. In our view, Nino’s conversion of the Chartali people likely meant their refusal to worship Ainina and the destruction of the idol. Therefore, the timing of the idol’s destruction should be placed in Nino's era—around the early 4th century AD.

We can note that if our view of Ainina, one of the Mother Goddesses (the Sun mother), as feminine is correct, it becomes clear why the main Church of Ananuri is dedicated to the Virgin Mary. Additionally, the Church of the Deity, a cross-domed building located in the western part of the upper fortress within the Ananuri complex, which dates from the late 16th century or the first half of the 17th century—making it older than the main church from 1689—also prompts questions [Georgian... 2004, p. 205-207]. The architecture and paintings of the Church of the Deity are Christian, but its name suggests otherwise. Could it not be called the “place-mother,” a term for a site where, in the late feudal era, no one remembers which deity or idol a cross-domed chapel was built for? Isn’t the historical memory reflected in its name? We can answer this way: language is an ethnocultural value, and its individual signs, namely words, often point us to different cultural layers. I reiterate that remains of a temple dedicated to an unknown “female deity” might still exist in the lands of Ananuri, but uncovering them should remain the task of an archaeological pursuit.

Finally, we will examine one more historical fact. The key point is that the Iberian king Saurmag I was a Durdzukian on his mother’s side and had to make several political decisions to strengthen his power. As S. Janashia notes: “[Saurmag] was forced, since he did not have a strong position at home, to rely on foreign tribes in addition to the nobility” [Janashia, 1952, p. 204]. According to Leonti Mroveli’s source, because of the hostility of the Eristavi (Prince) of Kartli, Saurmag secretly fled to his homeland and took refuge “in the land of Durdzukians, with his mother’s brothers” [Mroveli, 1955, p. 26]. The same source states that the king of Ossetians was also related to him (“his father’s nephew”). With the help of the Durdzuk-Ossetians, Saurmag managed to return to Kartli, which led to the fact that “...the Durdzuks, the relatives of the Caucasus, multiplied” across the region [Mroveli, 1955, p. 27]. It is important not to overlook this historical fact when our research aims to establish the origins of the toponyms Ananuri and Ainina. The genetic link between Saurmag and the North Caucasian tribes, along with their involvement in restoring royal authority, on one hand, directly points to the activation of the Ananuri route in the mid-3rd century BC and, at the same time, suggests the expansion of Mtskheta’s administrative borders into this region.

Therefore, both linguistic materials and historical source data lead us to believe that the ancient site of the pagan idol – Ainina – is Ananuri, the settlement of the Chartali highlanders. This deity, established along the road to “Great Mtskheta” with a military-political or religious function during the era of Saurmag, most likely faced its first significant challenge with the arrival of Saint Nino and gradually declined to the point that by the era of the Assyrian Fathers, there was no longer a need to expel the “devil” from this location or for any Assyrian Father to take possession of this site. In our view, only the Georgian language and the toponym preserved within it – Ananuri – stand as a testament to this extremely important historical layer.