Monument to King Erekle II

 

Tengiz Simashvili

Forgotten History: The Circumstances Surrounding the Creation of the Monument to King Erekle II in Telavi

(1950s–1970s)

Published in: Proceedings of the Faculty of Humanities and the Institute of Georgian History, Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University, Vol. XXI, Tbilisi, 2025.

The monument to King Erekle II (Heraclius II), which stands in the city of Telavi, was created during the Soviet period. Its author is the renowned sculptor Merab Merabishvili. The monument to Erekle II, produced by Merabishvili in the early 1970s, was ceremonially unveiled on 24 April 1971. However, the history preceding the erection of the monument to Erekle II, which has become a symbol of Telavi, remains unknown to many people in Georgia, including the residents of Telavi themselves. As the materials we have discovered reveal, the question of erecting a monument to Erekle II in Telavi had already arisen in the 1950s.

In the Kakheti Regional Archive, we discovered the personal archival collection of Giorgi Jashiashvili, who served as Chairman of the Telavi Executive Committee in the 1950s. The collection contains Giorgi Jashiashvili’s previously unpublished memoirs and materials of various kinds. Among them is a several-page memoir entitled “For the Monument to Erekle”, which recounts the circumstances surrounding the attempt to erect a monument to Erekle II in Telavi in the late 1950s. [Kakheti Regional Archive, Personal Collection of Giorgi Jashiashvili, Fund No. 491, File 8, pp. 17–42.]

According to Giorgi Jashiashvili, until the mid-1950s, not even a street named after Erekle II existed in Telavi during the Soviet period. Furthermore, the area surrounding Batonis Tsikhe (the Palace Fortress), located in the city centre, was poorly maintained. According to G. Jashiashvili, numerous structures stood near the western gate of Batonis Tsikhe, some of them built directly against the fortress walls. In his words:

“In front of the ceremonial entrance to the Kremlin [G. Jashiashvili uses this term to refer to the so-called Batonis Tsikhe – T.S.] stood a number of shacks. Before Sovietisation, there was a large horse stable belonging to some Armenian merchant, who used it to keep his horses. After Sovietisation, the premises were confiscated from their owner and converted first into a shop and later into a cinema.”

[Kakheti Regional Archive, Personal Collection of Giorgi Jashiashvili, Fund No. 491, File 8, p. 17.]

In 1954, construction began on a new cinema building near the western gate of Batonis Tsikhe. It was commissioned on 7 November 1958. [Kakheti Regional Archive, Personal Collection of Giorgi Jashiashvili, Fund No. 491, File 8, p. 18.] According to G. Jashiashvili:

“This made it possible to remove the barns and stables located in front of the Kremlin. Their removal was carried out through a concerted effort, with the broad participation of the entire patriotic population of the town. A considerable part of this historic site had been allocated to Armenian merchants as a cemetery. Who sold it to them? This is a very interesting question, as is how they came into possession of it. But the worthless Georgian feudal lords were willing to sell even the palace, provided they received money. Matters had reached such a point that the area at the foot of the Kremlin towers was filled with latrines built by merchants, as a result of which these bastion towers had sustained considerable damage. All these unsightly remnants were removed and demolished. The western area in front of the cleared and cleaned Kremlin was then redeveloped according to a unified plan along its entire length, under my supervision as an engineer.”

[Kakheti Regional Archive, Personal Collection of Giorgi Jashiashvili, Fund No. 491, File 8, p. 18.] (See Document 3.)

It is noteworthy that on 9 April 1958, by a decision of the Executive Committee of the Telavi Workers’ Deputies’ Council, this cleared area near the western gate of Batonis Tsikhe was named Erekle II Square. [Telavi Historical Museum, Giorgi Jashiashvili Archive, Materials Concerning the Erection of the Monument to Erekle II, 1958–1959, Fund No. 11872, File 5. (See Document 2.)]

During the same period, the road descending eastwards from Batonis Tsikhe was named Erekle II Street, while the garden situated along the southern wall of Batonis Tsikhe was named Erekle II Garden. [Kakheti Regional Archive, Personal Collection of Giorgi Jashiashvili, Fund No. 491, File 8, pp. 17–18.]

Giorgi Jashiashvili does not explain what prompted the Soviet authorities, in the second half of the 1950s, to rehabilitate the name of King Erekle II so rapidly. Giorgi Melitauri, a well-known educator and public figure from Telavi who held various positions during the Soviet period, repeatedly emphasised the negative attitude of Soviet officials at the time towards Erekle II. In his still-unpublished memoirs, he states that in 1927 several rooms of Erekle II’s palace, including the room in which the king was born and died, were transferred to the Telavi Museum. G. Melitauri writes that when the museum staff showed this room to the Chairman of the Executive Committee:

“The Chairman of the Executive Committee became furious: ‘How dare you hang a portrait of Erekle II in this room? Take it down and burn it immediately! That is all we need now – portraits of kings hanging on the walls!’ It was useless to argue that this was an exhibit depicting a great military commander rather than a king; he simply refused to listen.”

The museum staff subsequently removed the portrait, painted by the artist Bregadze, and sent it to the Georgian Museum. [Telavi Historical Museum, Giorgi Melitauri Archive, “A So-called Chronicle” (Telavi District, 1918–1948), Fund No. 34, pp. 1–2.]

We have also been unable to establish how the idea of erecting a monument to Erekle II emerged at that particular time. It is known that during the Soviet period, the celebration of anniversaries commemorating particular historical figures generally took place on the basis of directives issued by the central authorities. For example, in 1957, as part of the commemorative events marking the anniversary of Ilia Chavchavadze, a hill in Telavi known as Gigo’s Hill was renamed Ilia’s Hill by a decision of the Telavi Executive Committee, apparently following instructions received “from above”. During the Soviet period, residents of the Telavi District had been executed by shooting at this location. [Kakheti Regional Archive, Executive Committee of the Telavi Workers’ Deputies’ Council, Minutes No. 25, 8 October 1957, p. 27; newspaper Alaznis Gant'iadi, 25 October 1957.]

In 1958, the Telavi Executive Committee adopted a resolution concerning the erection of a monument to Ilia Chavchavadze, a great Georgian writer and public figure. The resolution stipulated:

“A monument to Ilia Chavchavadze shall be erected in the city of Telavi, in the eastern part of Erekle II Garden.”

[Telavi Historical Museum, Giorgi Jashiashvili Archive, Materials Concerning the Erection of the Monument to Erekle II, 1958–1959, Fund No. 11872, Notebook 6, p. 2.]

As for the reasons behind the emergence of the idea of erecting a monument to Erekle II in the 1950s, we cannot link it to any particular anniversary. It is possible that some directive had indeed been issued “from above”; however, we have been unable to find any documentary evidence to support this assumption. The materials we have discovered relate directly to the attempt to implement the project of erecting a monument to Erekle II in Telavi in the late 1950s.

The Kakheti Regional Archive and the collections of the Telavi Museum preserve the aforementioned personal archival collection of Giorgi Jashiashvili, who served as Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Telavi City Council from 1952 to 1961. The collection contains documents relating to the proposed erection of the monument to Erekle II, various notes, the author’s memoirs, and other materials.

In his still-unpublished memoirs, Giorgi Jashiashvili notes that in the second half of the 1950s, the Telavi Executive Committee undertook a number of measures to commemorate Erekle II. Nevertheless, it failed to resolve the question of erecting a monument to the king. According to Jashiashvili, the local authorities approached sculptors living in Tbilisi in the hope that one of them would undertake to create a monument to Erekle II. However, the sculptors demanded a substantial advance payment, which the Telavi Executive Committee was unable to afford at the time. [Kakheti Regional Archive, Personal Collection of Giorgi Jashiashvili, Fund No. 491, File 8, p. 18.]

It appears that news of the intention to erect a monument to King Erekle II spread rapidly throughout Telavi. Some residents welcomed the idea, but, according to Jashiashvili, certain groups of people, mainly elderly residents, expressed their dissatisfaction:

“What do we need a monument to Erekle for? He settled Armenians here, allowed the Russians to enter permanently, and Russified the country.”

[Kakheti Regional Archive, Personal Collection of Giorgi Jashiashvili, Fund No. 491, File 8, p. 19.]

Nevertheless, the majority of the population expressed their willingness to contribute to the project:

“Just start building the monument, and we will contribute part of the money. Cast it in bronze – we will collect copper cauldrons and help in that way, too.”

[Kakheti Regional Archive, Personal Collection of Giorgi Jashiashvili, Fund No. 491, File 8, p. 19.]

According to Giorgi Jashiashvili, encouraged by the support expressed by the local population, he began searching for sculptors outside Georgia. In his words:

“Some time passed. Then, one fine day in 1956, an article appeared in the newspaper Zarya Vostoka, in which a Russian author wrote that a Georgian military engineer and architect named Giorgi Kevkhishvili was working in Moscow and was also an outstanding sculptor.”

[Kakheti Regional Archive, Personal Collection of Giorgi Jashiashvili, Fund No. 491, File 8, p. 19.]

On the basis of this information, it may be assumed that the idea of erecting a monument to Erekle II emerged sometime between 1952 and 1955, since Giorgi Jashiashvili was appointed Chairman of the Telavi Executive Committee in 1952.

It appears that Giorgi Jashiashvili knew this individual personally. He and Giorgi Kevkhishvili, who was born in the village of Kalauri in Gurjaani District, had studied at the Industrial Institute in Tbilisi during the same period. [Kakheti Regional Archive, Personal Collection of Giorgi Jashiashvili, Fund No. 491, File 8, pp. 19–22.]

An interesting detail emerges from Jashiashvili’s account. He writes:

“Giorgi Kevkhishvili possessed an innate natural ability to locate underground water and determine its depth using a forked stick. This was a remarkable human talent. It was precisely this ability that he used at the front, where he searched for water in areas without water supplies and ensured that military units were supplied with water through the engineering corps.”

[Kakheti Regional Archive, Personal Collection of Giorgi Jashiashvili, Fund No. 491, File 8, p. 20.]

Giorgi Jashiashvili contacted Giorgi Kevkhishvili and proposed that he undertake the creation of a monument to Erekle II. The archival materials preserve letters sent by Giorgi Jashiashvili to Kevkhishvili, as well as Kevkhishvili’s replies. These documents shed light on the circumstances surrounding the proposed creation of the monument to Erekle II.

Jashiashvili wrote to him:

“If there is still some Georgian patriotism left in you, then put it to work and prepare a sketch and model for the creation of a monument to Erekle II... I will send you photographs of the site where it is to be erected.”

[Kakheti Regional Archive, Personal Collection of Giorgi Jashiashvili, Fund No. 491, File 8, p. 20.]

In his memoirs, Giorgi Jashiashvili expressed regret, accompanied by a degree of self-irony:

“I promised him all sorts of things – even the construction of towers – although I had nothing in my hands. Deep down, however, I knew that I had no supporters who would stand behind me, and that is precisely how things turned out.”

[Kakheti Regional Archive, Personal Collection of Giorgi Jashiashvili, Fund No. 491, File 8, p. 20.]

Giorgi Kevkhishvili accepted the proposal and requested several portraits of Erekle II, as well as photographs of a man with a similar physique to the king, mounted on a Georgian horse. A suitable horse and rider were found in Giorgi Jashiashvili’s native village of Vardisubani. Photographs were taken and, together with other materials, sent to Giorgi Kevkhishvili in Moscow. As Jashiashvili writes:

“Unlike the sculptors in Tbilisi, he did not demand anything from me. ‘It will be difficult for me, but one day my work will be appreciated, and that will be my reward’ – that is what he wrote.”

[Kakheti Regional Archive, Personal Collection of Giorgi Jashiashvili, Fund No. 491, File 8, p. 21.]

It appears that Giorgi Kevkhishvili was not satisfied with the photographs he had received. While in Moscow, he consulted library materials containing the memoirs of contemporaries who had personally known Erekle II. In addition, he maintained regular correspondence with Giorgi Jashiashvili.

In a subsequent letter dated 2 April 1958, Giorgi Kevkhishvili wrote to Jashiashvili:

“You are absolutely right about the hat. To be frank, I do not like the idea of depicting him wearing a turban either. As you know, the Georgian Cultural Decade is currently taking place in Moscow. The Marjanishvili State Theatre has staged King Erekle here; you have probably seen the production. I attended the performance. Even in the play, the form of the turban has been changed. As I have been able to ascertain, the theatre, too, did not wish to portray his personality with a turban. I spoke to a photographer who had been specially invited to take photographs and asked him to photograph actor Godziashvili, who was playing the role of King Erekle. Using these photographs, I will try to find an appropriate design for his headwear.”

[Telavi Historical Museum, Giorgi Jashiashvili Archive, Materials Concerning the Erection of the Monument to Erekle II, 1958–1959, Fund No. 11872, Notebook 6, p. 12.]

On the basis of the information he had gathered in this way, Giorgi Kevkhishvili developed an understanding of Erekle II’s “physical appearance, spiritual resilience, strength, and habits, all of which would subsequently prove useful to the sculptor in his work.” [Kakheti Regional Archive, Personal Collection of Giorgi Jashiashvili, Fund No. 491, File 8, p. 21.]

On 21 April 1958, Giorgi Kevkhishvili sent another letter to Giorgi Jashiashvili, informing him that he had approached two sculptors who had agreed to participate in the creation of the monument to Erekle II. [Telavi Historical Museum, Giorgi Jashiashvili Archive, Materials Concerning the Erection of the Monument to Erekle II, 1958–1959, Fund No. 11872, Notebook 6, p. 8.]

It emerges that two sculptors working in Moscow, V. N. Kerensky and I. K. Kotov, had expressed their willingness to prepare a design for the monument to Erekle II. Having familiarised themselves with the available materials, they “began preparing sketches in the sculpture workshop of the Ministry of Defence.” [Kakheti Regional Archive, Personal Collection of Giorgi Jashiashvili, Fund No. 491, File 8, p. 21.] According to Giorgi Jashiashvili, Giorgi Kevkhishvili was at that time the head of the aforementioned workshop. [Kakheti Regional Archive, Personal Collection of Giorgi Jashiashvili, Fund No. 491, File 8, p. 28.]

According to Giorgi Jashiashvili:

“Work on the models began in 1957. The entire undertaking was kept quiet; otherwise, I thought, the sculptors from Tbilisi would certainly have sabotaged it.”

[Kakheti Regional Archive, Personal Collection of Giorgi Jashiashvili, Fund No. 491, File 8, p. 21.]

It should also be noted that sculptors based in Moscow were actively promoting their own projects at the time. In a letter dated 25 February 1958, Giorgi Kevkhishvili wrote the following to Giorgi Jashiashvili:

“They are waiting for a new resolution to be issued. Under its provisions, a competition will have to be announced for the implementation of all such projects, and the construction of the monument will be commissioned to whoever wins. The problem is that the local people here are primarily interested in obtaining substantial financial rewards. For this reason, they will do everything possible to ensure that their own project is selected, even if our project is superior.”

[Telavi Historical Museum, Giorgi Jashiashvili Archive, Materials Concerning the Erection of the Monument to Erekle II, 1958–1959, Fund No. 11872, Notebook 6, p. 8.]

On 21 April 1958, Giorgi Kevkhishvili wrote to Giorgi Jashiashvili:

“By the middle of May, we will have completed the sketches for the monument... I will inform you by telegram or letter as soon as the sketches are finished.”

[Telavi Historical Museum, Giorgi Jashiashvili Archive, Materials Concerning the Erection of the Monument to Erekle II, 1958–1959, Fund No. 11872, Notebook 6, p. 8.]

We believe that presenting a relatively detailed account of the history of the proposed erection of the monument to Erekle II is of particular interest to readers because the archival materials we have discovered also provide valuable insight into the attitudes of Soviet officials towards initiatives of this kind at the time.

For example, as Giorgi Jashiashvili writes, it was only after the sculptors based in Moscow had begun preparing the models for the monument that he informed the leadership of Telavi District about the project. At one of their meetings, Giorgi Jashiashvili addressed them as follows:

“The residents of the town, particularly the younger generation, and even people from Tbilisi, constantly reproach us, asking why we have not erected a monument to Erekle. Yet nobody was willing to undertake this major project without an advance payment. Everyone demanded money in advance just to prepare a sketch. Bilanashvili asked for twenty thousand roubles in advance, and the others made similar demands. Now I have found a man here, a local man who studied here and grew up here, and I intend to ask him to undertake this important task. I provided him with the newspaper Zarya Vostoka, in which his name was mentioned, as well as his letters... Nobody even bothered to look at that newspaper. Geldiashvili said he did not have time for such things. Asatashvili told me: ‘It seems you have nothing more important to do at the Executive Committee than chase after such matters. You would be better off attending to the town's streets.’ Before God, it must be said that Batiashvili and Rostomashvili did not say a word.”

[Kakheti Regional Archive, Personal Collection of Giorgi Jashiashvili, Fund No. 491, File 8, pp. 21–22.]

Jashiashvili further remarks:

“In fact, they were absolutely right. What would the erection of a monument to Erekle have meant for them? What glory would it have brought them?... A month later, Geldiashvili became Secretary of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of Georgia, Asatashvili took his place, and Batiashvili became Chairman. Now that was what mattered to them – their positions and prospects. What Erekle? As the saying goes...”

[Kakheti Regional Archive, Personal Collection of Giorgi Jashiashvili, Fund No. 491, File 8, p. 22.]

It should be emphasised that, in this particular instance, our account is based on Giorgi Jashiashvili’s memoirs. Consequently, his assessments of the aforementioned officials who headed the Telavi District at the time are, naturally, subjective. Nevertheless, such attitudes towards initiatives of this kind among representatives of the Soviet authorities were, to a certain extent, characteristic of the Soviet system of that period. It was a time when any initiative undertaken by a local official that proved unacceptable to the central authorities could cost that individual not only their career but also their personal freedom. – T.S.

Despite the negative attitude of representatives of the local authorities in Telavi District, Giorgi Jashiashvili wrote to Giorgi Kevkhishvili, instructing him to continue work on the models for the monument to Erekle II.

On 12 July 1958, during the summer, the sculptors Giorgi Kevkhishvili and Vasili Kerensky arrived in Georgia with four completed models of the monument to Erekle II. Two of the models had been produced by Giorgi Kevkhishvili, while the other two belonged to Kerensky and Kotov.

The four proposed models of the monument to Erekle II were described as follows:

First model: Erekle II depicted in a battle-ready position, seated on a Georgian horse, without a helmet or hat, with his sword drawn and raised.

(See Document 1.)

Second model: Erekle II seated on a large horse, wearing a turban-style hat, holding a sword in one hand and extending the Treaty of Georgievsk towards the north with the other.

Third model: The horse standing on three legs, raising its fourth leg as if striking an enemy's torso. Erekle is depicted without a hat, with the hand holding the Treaty of Georgievsk extended towards the north.

Fourth model: Erekle once again wearing a turban-style headdress, depicted in a ceremonial pose, holding a sword and the treaty.

[Kakheti Regional Archive, Personal Collection of Giorgi Jashiashvili, Fund No. 491, File 8, p. 25.]

An exhibition and public viewing of these models of the monument to Erekle II was apparently organised in Telavi between 16 and 21 July 1958, on the stage of the assembly hall of the local House of Culture at the time. The public exhibition of the models lasted five days. Visitors were invited to record their opinions and impressions in a visitors' comment book.

On the fifth day of the exhibition, a public discussion was organised in the hall of the Telavi House of Culture. Although no official advance announcement had been made about the discussion of the different versions of the models, the hall was filled with people. Jashiashvili writes:

“Representatives of patriotic families living in Telavi gathered here. People from all professions expressed their opinions about the models.”

[Kakheti Regional Archive, Personal Collection of Giorgi Jashiashvili, Fund No. 491, File 8, pp. 25–26.]

The sculptors Giorgi Kevkhishvili and Vasili Kerensky addressed the gathering. More than ten members of the audience also took the floor and expressed their views. [Kakheti Regional Archive, Personal Collection of Giorgi Jashiashvili, Fund No. 491, File 8, p. 26.]

The residents of Telavi expressed their profound gratitude to the sculptors, particularly after learning that they had worked on the models without receiving any payment. One of the speakers remarked:

“Kevkhishvili grew up here; he is a Kakhetian and a Georgian, and he worked without demanding payment. This Russian sculptor showed us greater respect by undertaking to create a model of a Georgian warrior-hero, whereas none of our own sculptors was willing to do so without payment, as some Georgian sculptors had demonstrated.”

[Kakheti Regional Archive, Personal Collection of Giorgi Jashiashvili, Fund No. 491, File 8, p. 26.]

As can be established from the visitors' comments and the opinions expressed by those who spoke at the meeting, the majority of Telavi residents preferred the first model of the monument to Erekle II. It depicted the king seated on a Georgian horse, without a helmet or hat, in a battle-ready position, with his sword drawn and raised. The author of this model was the sculptor Giorgi Kevkhishvili.

During the discussion of the models, Kevkhishvili was asked the following question:

“Why is Erekle depicted with his sword-bearing arm extended, bareheaded in battle, and wearing a royal mantle?”

He explained his artistic concept as follows:

“I took one episode from his military campaigns and made it the basis of my composition. It depicts the moment when, during a battle, the infidels infiltrated their spies into the army and spread rumours that Erekle had been killed and that his body had been carried away. ‘Why continue fighting?’ they were saying. In this way, they sought to create confusion and disorder within the army. Needless to say, there were also traitors among the spies. The army was experiencing difficulties in battle, and the king was trying to discover the reason. Eventually, he found it: the troops captured a spy who had been spreading rumours about his death. In that situation, the king removed his armour, put on his ceremonial mantle, and stood with his sword in his hand, bareheaded. When the army saw that the reports of his death were false, the soldiers became enraged, charged at the enemy, and inflicted a crushing defeat upon them.”

[Kakheti Regional Archive, Personal Collection of Giorgi Jashiashvili, Fund No. 491, File 8, pp. 26–27.]

In the visitors' comment books preserved in the collections of the Telavi Museum, containing impressions recorded during the public viewing of the models of the monument to Erekle II – two substantial hardcover notebooks – we find the following entries:

“On behalf of the youth of Telavi, we demand that a monument be erected in our beautiful city, where Erekle II was born and to whose prosperity he devoted his determination and benevolent spirit, dedicating himself to the well-being of Georgia. The monument should convey the full strength of Patara Kakhi in battle.”

– Tamarashvili, V. Gharibiani, F. Kapanadze, N. Asatashvili, J. Jangulashvili, N. Vakashashvili.

“In our opinion, it would be desirable to erect a monument depicting King Erekle in battle in the Old Garden.”

– M. Gharibashvili.

“In my personal opinion, it would be desirable to erect a monument depicting Erekle in battle in the Old Garden.”

– L. Kakulia. [Lamara Kakulia, Principal of Telavi Secondary School No. 4.]

“It would be good to erect a monument to Erekle II depicting him in battle.”

– B. Balarjishvili. [Baadur Balarjishvili, writer, poet and screenwriter from Telavi; author of the screenplay for the film Khareba and Gogia.]

“King Erekle spent his entire life, from the age of fifteen onwards, fighting in battles, and never once sheathed his sword. Therefore, he must unquestionably be depicted at the very moment of battle – either with his sword drawn, or, alternatively, with his sword raised and poised to strike.”

– V. Paatashvili. [Vano Paatashvili, public figure and publicist from Telavi.]

[Telavi Historical Museum, Giorgi Jashiashvili Archive, Materials Concerning the Erection of the Monument to Erekle II, 1958–1959, Fund No. 11872, Impressions Notebook 1.]

The engineer from Telavi, V. Baliashvili, wrote:

“In the opinion of both my daughter and myself, it would be desirable to erect a monument depicting Erekle in battle.”

According to M. Darchiashvili, K. Lomidze, M. Zaridze and T. Shiukashvili, teachers at Telavi Secondary School No. 3:

“It would be preferable for the monument to the great Erekle to depict him at the moment of battle. At the same time, it is essential to take into consideration that Erekle must be wearing a helmet while fighting.”

The same issue was emphasised in an entry made by Medea Mezvrishvili [Chairwoman of the Telavi District Executive Committee in the 1970s], Joni Jijეishvili [lecturer at Telavi University, 1970–2000], and Otar Khutsishvili [Second Secretary of the Telavi District Komsomol Committee, 1957–1959]:

“In our opinion, it would be desirable to erect the monument to Erekle in Freedom Square, depicting him at the moment of battle, without a turban. It would be good if the sculptor took one observation into consideration: Georgians did not go into battle bareheaded. Therefore, Erekle should wear a helmet rather than a turban, which is characteristic of the East.”

[Telavi Historical Museum, Giorgi Jashiashvili Archive, Materials Concerning the Erection of the Monument to Erekle II, 1958–1959, Fund No. 11872, Impressions Notebook 2.] (See Document 5.)

Other entries in the visitors' comment books also clearly demonstrate that an overwhelming majority of the local population favoured Giorgi Kevkhishvili's model of the monument. Following the conclusion of the exhibition, the models of the monument, together with copies of the opinions recorded by visitors in the comment books, were sent to Moscow. [Kakheti Regional Archive, Personal Collection of Giorgi Jashiashvili, Fund No. 491, File 8, p. 26.]

The models of the monument to Erekle II were subsequently exhibited for a certain period at an artists' exhibition hall in Moscow, where they attracted a considerable number of visitors. [Kakheti Regional Archive, Personal Collection of Giorgi Jashiashvili, Fund No. 491, File 8, p. 27.]

As for the sculptors Giorgi Kevkhishvili and Vasili Kerensky, they were taken on visits to Alaverdi, Shuamta, Ikalto, the Telavi Museum and the city of Telavi itself. During his free time, Giorgi Kevkhishvili also identified several locations where drilling could be undertaken to access underground artesian water supplies. [Kakheti Regional Archive, Personal Collection of Giorgi Jashiashvili, Fund No. 491, File 8, p. 27.]

As noted above, the local population had favoured Giorgi Kevkhishvili's model of the monument. Accordingly, he provided the Telavi Executive Committee with a sample of the documentation required for casting the bronze monument to Erekle II, together with the bank account details of the foundry responsible for casting the monument, so that an advance payment could be transferred. [Telavi Historical Museum, Giorgi Jashiashvili Archive, Materials Concerning the Erection of the Monument to Erekle II, 1958–1959, Fund No. 11872, Notebook 6, p. 3.] (See Document 6.)

The cost of casting in bronze the sculpture of Erekle II, depicted seated bareheaded on a Georgian horse, with his sword drawn and raised, without a pedestal, amounted to 69,000 roubles. [Kakheti Regional Archive, Personal Collection of Giorgi Jashiashvili, Fund No. 491, File 8, p. 28.] (See Document 7.)

According to Giorgi Jashiashvili, after the sculptors had departed, events unfolded as follows:

“When the sculptor Bilanashvili heard that the models had been brought to Telavi, he began approaching various individuals and declared that he could make the monument more cheaply. One of the district officials was supporting him in this undertaking. On the other hand, Mr. B. brought Utmelidze into the matter, who declared that he could produce something even better, free of charge, and cast it himself in concrete... Asatashvili insisted that Bilanashvili should make the monument, while Mr. B. demanded that Utmelidze should make it. They paid no attention whatsoever to the fact that the work had already been completed. What could I do? ... A project that had started so promisingly was ruined.”

[Kakheti Regional Archive, Personal Collection of Giorgi Jashiashvili, Fund No. 491, File 8, p. 29.]

Three years later, in August 1961, Giorgi Jashiashvili wrote:

“I was interested in seeing the monument erected... I did not care whether Bilanashvili or Utmelidze made it, as long as the monument was built. However, the former demanded a substantial advance payment and would not begin without it, while the latter was simply incapable of undertaking such a major project. Kevkhishvili wanted Utmelidze to become the author of the model he had already created and even made him such an offer... But Utmelidze refused to agree, insisting that he himself had to create something outstanding, which he ultimately failed to do. And so, a good initiative came to nothing, and the question of the monument remains awaiting an honest and dedicated person who genuinely cares about it.”

[Kakheti Regional Archive, Personal Collection of Giorgi Jashiashvili, Fund No. 491, File 8, p. 29.]

As for the person who would eventually take up the cause of the monument to Erekle II, that individual turned out to be Medea (Mediko) Mezvrishvili, Chairwoman of the Telavi District Executive Committee in the 1970s. It was at her initiative and, apparently, in response to the prevailing public sentiment in Telavi that, in the early 1970s, large-scale works began in the territory of Batonis Tsikhe. These works involved demolishing buildings and structures erected within the historic fortress complex during the Russian Imperial and Soviet periods, thereby clearing the area east of Batonis Tsikhe for the erection of the monument to Erekle II.

It appears that Medea (Mediko) Mezvrishvili, Chairwoman of the Telavi District Executive Committee, took into account the “bitter experience” of her predecessor, Giorgi Jashiashvili, and refrained from organising public discussions of the proposed models for the monument to Erekle II. Instead, she commissioned the renowned sculptor Merab Merabishvili to create the monument. The sculpture of Erekle II, produced by Merabishvili, was ceremonially unveiled in Telavi on 24 April 1971. The architect responsible for the monument and the surrounding area was Teimuraz (Temo) Kandelaki.

The subject of our research does not include an assessment of the artistic merits or shortcomings of this particular monument. Nevertheless, it should be noted that, at the time, some residents of Telavi expressed dissatisfaction with its appearance. This dissatisfaction is reflected in a letter sent by Giorgi Jashiashvili to the director of the Telavi Historical Museum at the time:

“The dream of seeing a monument to Patara Kakhi erected in Telavi has finally come true. This was Mediko's personal initiative; no one else should claim credit for it, since attempts had been made before, but the previous officials regarded the idea as ridiculous and sometimes opposed it, either deliberately or unintentionally.

What has been accomplished is a good thing. Nevertheless, one cannot fail to note that the pedestal of the monument is excellent, indeed the finest of its kind. However, we expected to see a monument to Patara Kakhi as a warrior who defended his homeland with a sword in his hand, rather than as a representative of the clergy holding a cross. It was the Patriarch who held a cross – Patara Kakhi's sword was never once turned upside down; his sword never bowed, nor would there have been any reason for it to do so...

The monument has taken on the appearance of a patriarch. This is precisely why the model of the monument was never subjected to extensive public discussion and did not receive public evaluation, as happened with other monuments. The public judgement of this monument is therefore already widely known.”

[Kakheti Regional Archive, Personal Collection of Giorgi Jashiashvili, Fund No. 491, File 8, p. 41.] (See Document 4.)

In Jashiashvili's opinion:

“The monument to Patara Kakhi should have been erected in a form resembling the model shown in the photograph, depicting a Georgian on a horse – a horse capable of overcoming every obstacle – with his sword extended... and not as a praying figure holding a cross. A person who does nothing but pray cannot defend his homeland...

Perhaps I am mistaken. Maybe the sculptor possesses historical materials showing that Erekle held his sword upside down and addressed his army or his people with a cross. If such evidence exists, then the monument fulfils its intended purpose, although I do not believe that such evidence exists.

5 May 1972.”

[Kakheti Regional Archive, Personal Collection of Giorgi Jashiashvili, Fund No. 491, File 8, p. 41.]

Such were some of the opinions expressed in Telavi concerning the newly erected monument to Erekle II. Time, however, has delivered a different verdict. Today, the monument created by the sculptor Merab Merabishvili is recognised as one of the principal symbols of Telavi, and its significance extends beyond the local context. In the historical consciousness of contemporary Georgian society, it represents the broader, historically established image of Erekle II.

………………………………

Although this interpretation is not discussed in my article, I believe it may nevertheless be of interest to the reader.

I think that the monument to Erekle II erected in Telavi bears, to some extent, a resemblance to the traditional representation of Saint George. As is well known, Saint George is not merely a symbol of the Christian faith; he also embodies the ideals of a fighting spirit, heroism, and victory over evil.

Taking this into consideration, it is possible to suggest that the cross-shaped sword held by the king in the monument created by Merab Merabishvili may represent more than a simple military attribute. It may also express the historical and political identity of Kakheti, in which military strength and religious devotion were closely intertwined.

In this context, Erekle II is often perceived as a historical figure who fought to defend his country and preserve its political independence. His military career and campaigns in defence of Georgia create a certain symbolic parallel with the image of Saint George as a Christian hero fighting against evil.

Thus, the monument to Erekle II in Telavi may be interpreted not as a direct “image” of Saint George or an immediate reproduction of his iconography, but rather as one possible expression of the monument’s creator’s historical and political interpretation, associated with the symbolic and ideological image of Saint George.

 

 

Several significant parallels can be identified from this perspective:

·                    The mounted figure — In the monument to Erekle II, the king is depicted mounted on a horse. This creates a certain visual parallel with the traditional iconography of Saint George, who is also frequently represented as a mounted warrior.

·                    The weapon — The sword held by Erekle is not limited to its function as a combat weapon; it may also carry an additional symbolic meaning. Particularly noteworthy is its visual resemblance to the shape of a cross.

·                    Christian symbolism — The cross-like form may be regarded as an important element of religious and cultural memory, connecting the image of Erekle II with Georgia’s Christian historical heritage.

·                    The image of the warrior-hero — A parallel may be drawn between the figures of Saint George and Erekle II, not in terms of direct iconographic identity, but through a shared symbolic model: a mounted warrior associated with the ideas of defence, combat, and victory.

Thus, the representation of Saint George in Christian iconography and the monument to Erekle II are not direct continuations of one another. Nevertheless, they can be compared within a broader cultural and iconographic context in which the mounted figure, the weapon, and the symbolism of the cross are associated with religious, military, and historical memory.

From this perspective, the monument to Erekle II may be interpreted as a monumental representation of a historical king, in which several symbolic layers intersect: military heroism, Christian memory, and national-historical identity.

P.S.

On 24 September of this year, a monument to Erekle II was unveiled in Tbilisi, on Kakheti Highway, in the so-called Samgori Park. It was created by a group of sculptors based on a sketch by Merab Merabishvili. Presumably, when preparing this sketch, Merab Merabishvili took into account just one of the suggestions expressed back in 1958 by Medea Mezvrishvili and others: “It would be desirable to erect [the monument] depicting Erekle in the midst of battle, bareheaded. It would be good if the author took one observation into consideration: Georgians did not go into battle without headgear. Therefore, Erekle should be wearing a helmet.”