Iberia-Kolxeti IBERIA-COLCHIS

saqarTvelos erovnuli muzeumis oTar lorTqifaniZis arqeologiis centris gamocemis – «Ziebani saqarTvelos arqeologiaSi» damateba

GEORGIAN NATIONAL MUSEUM Of Otar Lordkifanidze Centre of Archaeology Supplement to Dziebani – Researches On The Archaeology of Georgia.

iberia-kolxeTi saqarTvelos klasikuri da adremedievuri periodis arqeologiur-istoriuli kvlevani

IBERIA-COLCHIS Researches on the Archaeology and History of Georgia in the Classical and Early Medieval Period

Tbilisi 2009 Tbilisi ISSN 1512.4207 UDC 94(479.22)+902. i-315

mT. redaqtori: gela gamyreliZe

saredaqcio-sarecenzio sabWo: zurab bragvaZe, devid braundi, darejan kaWarava, guram kvirkvelia, daviT mindoraSvili, Temur Todua, goderZi narimaniSvili, vaxtang SatberaSvili, maia Carkviani

Editor-in-Chief: Prof., Dr. Hist. Sc. Gela Gamkrelidze

Editorial & Reviewers Board: Dr. Ph. Z. Bragvadze, Dr. Prof. D. Braund (UK), Dr. Prof. D.Kacharava, Dr. Prof. G. Kvirkvelia, Dr. D. Mindorashvili, Dr. Prof. T. Todua, Dr. Hist. Sc. G. Narimanishvili, Dr. Ph. V. Shatberashvili, Dr. Ph. M. Charkviani

Address: Otar Lordkipanidze Centre of Archaeology 14, D. Uznadze str. Tbilisi, 0102 Georgia e-mail: [email protected] © saqarTvelos erovnuli muzeumi. 2009 Sinaarsi CONTENTS

zurab bragvaZe, arqeologiuri gaTxrebi sofel RvankiTSi ...... 5 (Z. Bragvadze, Archaeological Excavations in the Village Gvankiti) iulon gagoSiZe, saqarTvelo da “berZnul-sparsuli” gemebi ...... 14 (I. Gagoshidze, Georgia and “Greco-Persian” Gems) irma berZeniSvili, soxumis adreqristianul taZarTa Sesaxeb ...... 20 (I. Berdzenishvili, About Early Christian Temples in Sokhumi) irine demetraZe, berZnuli importuli keramika awyuridan ...... 25 (I. Demetradze, Greek Pottery Wares from Atsquri) revaz kvirkvaia, mesxeT–javaxeTis preistoriuli da klasikuri xanis arqeologiuri Zeglebis ruka ...... 31 (R. Kvirkvaia, The Map of Prehistoric and Classical Archaeological Sites of Meskhet – Javakheti) nino mindaZe, samedicino anTropologiuri kvlevis perspeqtiva Zveli kolxeTis magaliTze ...... 41 (N. Mindadze, The Perspective of Medical- Anthropological Researches by the Example of Ancient Colchis) vaJa sadraZe, urekis gvianantikuri xanis Zeglebi ...... 50 (V. Sadradze, The Archaeological Sites of Roman (Late Classical) Period from Ureki) medea Serozia, oqtaviane avgustusis denarebisa da misi adgilobrivi minabaZebis Sesaxeb ...61 (M. Sherozia, About the Denarius of the Emperor Augustus and it’s Local Imitations) merab ZnelaZe, Tamar xoxobaSvili, kevriani samarxi abulmugidan ...... 72 (M. Dzneladze, Tamar Khokhobashvili, The Grave With The Threshing Board from Abulmugi). nuca yifiani, wiTelfiguruli skifosebi vanis naqalaqaridan ...... 80 (N. Kipiani, Red-figure Skyphoi from Vani City-site) qeTevan javaxiSvili, saqarTveloSi aRmoCenili aqemeniduri sabeWdavebi ...... 85 (K. Javakhishvili, Achaemenid Seals from Georgia) goderZi narimaniSvili, daraqois namosaxlari da samxreT kavkasiis aqemeniduri xanis istoriis zogierTi sakiTxi… ...... 94 (G. Narimanishvili, Daraqoi Settlement and Some Patterns of History of Achaemenid Epoch Transcaucasus)

PAPERS IN ENGLISH

Otar Lordkipanidze †, Georgian Civilization: Whence Does Its History Start? ...... 126

David Braund, Leukothea, the “Nereid” from Zghuderi ...... 134

Mariam Gvelesiani, King Parnavaz and the Cult of Armazi ...... 143

Vakhtang Nikolaishvili, The Archaeological Context of the Hebrew Inscriptions Discovered in Eastern Georgia ...... 153

Natela Jabua, On Architectural Potential of Pre-Christian Georgia...... 159

3 Vera Chikhladze, Musical Instruments – Cymbals from Archaeological Material of the First-Fourth centuries ...... 167

Gela Gamkrelidze, The Land of Colchis and the City of Phasis (Towards a Historico-Archaelogical Study of Western Georgia in the Classical Period) ...... 175

Gela Gamkrelidze, On the Evolution of the Colchian Amphorae (the 4th cent. BC to the 3rd cent. AD) ...... 193

Gela Gamkrelidze, Two Silver Rhytons from West Georgia – Colchis (Mtisdziri and Gomi) ...... 204

SUMMARIES for Georgian Papers in English ...... 215

SemoklebaTa ganmarteba ...... 223 ABBREVIATIONS avtorTa sayuradRebod ...... 224

4 zu rab brag va Ze

ar qe olo gi uri gaTx rebi so fel Rvan kiT Si

ba qo- suf sis navTob sade nis 260-e km- fe nas sam xreT kedel Ta nac. aq misi simaR- ze, Ter jo lis ra i onis sofel Rvan kiT Si, le 70 sm-s aRwev da da vrcel de bo da 3 m-is ad gil “deda RvTi sa ze” ga mov linda na ge- sigrZe ze sam xre Ti ked lis gaswvriv, aR- bo bis naS Te bi, ro melic imTa viT ve miC- mo savle Tis kedel Tan II fe na Semor Ce nine uli iqna dar ba zul ek le si ad da mi si li iyo 20 sm-is simaR le ze. ro gorc ukve age bis Ta riRad ad reu li Sua sa uku ne e bi aRi niSna, na ge bo bis Crdilo e Ti ked lis ga ni sazR vra. garda I fe na ar sad ar da fiqsir da, xo lo oTar lor Tqi fa ni Zis ar qe olo gi is nage bo bis da sav leT ke delTan arc erTi cen trma da iwyo am Zeglis ar qe o lo gi u ri fe na ar ga mov le ni la. Seswav la (eq spedi ci is muSa o ba Si mona wi- stra tig ra fi u li vi Ta re bis dad ge nis- le ob dnen: z. bragva Ze (xelmZRva ne li), n. Ta na ve naTe li gaxda, rom I kultu ru li ka pa naZe, m. Car kvia ni, T. Wa niSvi li, g. ga- fe na kav SirSi un da yo fi liyo na ge bo bas- go Si ZeE(ar qi teq tori). Tan da es da das tur da ki dec ga mov le ni- Zi riTa di sa mu Sa oe bi wa ri mar Ta nali arqe o lo gi u ri ma sali sa da nage bo bis ge bo bis Si da da gare kedle bis ga mo sav- sru li gawmen dis Semdeg. le nad, ris Tvi sac ga iW ra mar TkuTxe dis na ge bo bis Se mor Ce ni li si maR le 1 m-s for mis Txri li, rom lis sigrZe iyo 14 aR wev da (tab. I,1). Crdi lo e Ti da sam xre Ti metri, si ga ne 10 met ri, simaR le 1 metri. ked le bis sig rZe 10,50 m. iyo, xo lo ked- MmTlia no ba Si Txri lis far Tob ma Sead gi- le bis sis qe 1,30 m. aR mo sav le Ti da da sav- na 140 m2. arqe olo gi ur ma Txril ma Semde- le Ti ked le bis sig rZe Se ad gen da 6,20 m-s, gi stra tig ra fi u li su raTi mog vca: ga- xo lo sis qe _ 1,30 m_s (tab. I, 1). aq ve Sev- mov linda ori kul turu li fe na (tab. I,2). niS navT, rom da sav le Ti da Crdi lo e Ti dad ginda, rom na ge bo bas CaW ri li hqon da ked lis da sav le Ti mxa re Se mor Ce ni li iyo II fe na (tab. I,2), ro melic fiq sir de bo da uaR re sad da zi a ne bu li sa xiT. saq me isaa, na gebo bis Crdilo eT, samxreT da aR mo- rom XX sa u ku nis 60_i an wleb Si ma Ra li savleT ked lebTan da swo red aR niSnu li Zab vis xa ze bis gay va nis dros am ad gi las ked le bis mi er is iyo CaWri li, xo lo na ge- mo uTx ri aT Zel qvis xe, rom lis fes ve bic bobis Si da sivrce Si _ ganad gu rebu lic aR niS nul ked lebs fa rav da. swo red ma Sin ki (tab. I,1). rac See xeba I kultu rul fe- ga mo Ce ni la am ked le bis kon tu re bi da im nas, ga irkva, rom es fe na ar iyo CaW ri li ime diT, rom ra Rac ganZs ipo vid nen, es mo- da Se mor Ce ni li iyo mxo lod na ge bobis nak ve Ti au feT qe bi aT, ra mac sag rZnob lad ze da do ne ze. Crdilo eT ke del Tan gake- da a zi a na Zeg li. am bar ba ro su li qme de bis Te bu li stra tig rafi u li Wri lis mixed- kva li Cvens mi e rac iq na da das tu re bu li, viT, I fe na simaR le Si aR wevda 35-40 sm-s, ro de sac Txri lis da sav leT na wil Si da va- II fenis simaR le ki 40-50 sm-s da gan fe ni- fiq si reT afeT qe bu li ked lis nan gre ve bi. li iyo nage bo bis ked lis gaswvriv. I fena ge bobis Si da sigrZe 8,25 m iyo, si ga ne na mowi Ta lo feris miwiT xasi aT de bo da. _ 3,70 m. ase rom, Si da farTo bis mo cu lo- II fe nisTvis da maxa si aTe be li iyo mo Sao ba 30,5 m2 Se ad genda (tab. I,1). Ca ta re bulma fe ris, baT qaS na revi miwa. I da II fe na er- sa mu Sa oeb ma sa Sua le ba mog vca dag ve kon- Tma neTis gan imijne boda da axlo e biT 20- kre te bi na ro gorc na ge bobas Tan da kav Si- 25 sm-is sis qis steri luri SriT (tab. I,2). rebu li niu an se bi, aseve misi qro no lo gi- ana lo gi u ri gan fe nilo ba axasi a Teb da II is sa kiTxi. daw vri le bi Ti save le -ar qe o-

5 lo gi u ri kvle vis Sede gad dad ginda, rom mci re zo mis dar ba zul ek le si as Tan iCens. saq me gvaqvs da um Tav rebel, ufro swo red msgav sia ro gorc da geg ma re ba, ase ve zo me- au Sene bel dar ba zul ekle sias Tan. Se iZ- bic [za qa raia p. 1987:58-59]. da geg ma re bis le ba iT qvas, rom aRmo Ce ni lia ekle si is mxriv igi ase ve uax lov de ba no qa la qev Si- sa Zir kve li, ro melic na ge bia ri yis qvi- ve gaTx ril ad re ul ba zi li kas [ka pa na Ze Ta da kir xsnariT. mSeneb lo bis teqni ka T. 1987:tab.XXV]. no qa la qe vis dar ba zu li saSu a le bas gvaZ levs vifiq roT, rom ga- ek le si i sa da ad re u li (pir ve li) ba zi li- iW ra 1,30 m-is si ga nis saZir kve li da er- kis Ta ri Ri V sa u ku niT ga ni sazR vre ba [ka- Tma ne Tis mi yole biT mox da riyis qve bi sa pa na Ze T. 1987:102]. V-VI sa u ku niT Ta riR deda kir xsnaris Cas xma. oTxi ve kedlis sisqe ba se fi e Tis ta Za ri, ro mel sac v. leq vi na- swo red 1,30 m iyo da ar cerT maT gan Tan ar Ze ius ti ni a ne I epo qis na ge bo bad mi iC nevs da fiqsi rebu la samSe neb lo na ga vi da baT- [Леквинадзе В. 1963:179]. V-VI sa u ku niT Ta- qa Sis Ca mo na ya ri. am re a lo bis uar yo fa riR de ba biW vin Tis ek le si e bi [ci ciS vi li prin ci pu lad Se uZ le be lia, rad gan oTxi- i. 1977:101]. ama ve pe ri ods mi e kuT vne ba ci- ve mxares Txrili ga iWra ked le bi dan 3 m_ xis Zi ris ek le si ac [Леквинадзе В. 1963:169]. is da So rebiT da ar cerTi zed me ti qva, an uk ve vax se neT qu Ta i sis ad re u li, V-VI sa- ra i me sxva ar te faq ti ar da dastu re bu la. u ku ne e bis ba zi li kac [lan Ca va o. 1996:137]. Nna ge bo bis sa Zir kve li amoy va ni lia 1 m-is sa kuT riv ime reT Si V sa u ku nis dar ba zul simaR le ze da miwis ze da pir Tan mos wo re- ek le si ad aris miC ne u li kacx is svet ze ar- bulia brtyeli na xevrad gaT lili file- se bu li na ge bo ba [cin ca Ze v. 1964:16]. Cve ni biT, rom le bic kar gad iyo Semor Ce ni li az riT, swo red da sav leT sa qar Tve los am sam xre Ti sa da aR mo savle Tis kedleb ze ad re ul ek le si ebs So ris eZeb ne ba ad gi- (tab. I,1). sa Zir kvlis amoy va ni sa da naxev- li Rvan ki Tis ek le si a sac da mi si Ta ri Ri rad gaT lili fi le biT nive li rebis zus- VI sa u ku nis 20_i an wlebs ar un da scil- tad ana logi uri meTo dia ga mo ye ne bu li de bo des. mig vaC ni a, rom am Zeg lis Ta ri Ri bag ratis ta Zar Tan gaTx ril V_VI sau ku- pir da pir ukav Sir de ba VI sa u ku nis 20_i a ni nee bis ba zi li ka Sic [lanCa va o. 1996:137- wle bis da sav leT sa qar Tve lo Si gan vi Ta- 141]. ro gorc Cans, ad reu li Sua sa u kune- re bul mov le nebs da swo red am is to ri ul e bis ime reT Si mSeneb lo bis es teq ni ka gav- pro ces Si un da ve Ze boT pa su xi kiTx va zec, rce le bu li da popu la ru li iyo. Tu ra tom ar aSen da es ek le si a. Rvan ki Tis “de da RvTi sa ze” ga mov le- sa yovel Ta od cnobi lia, rom VI sa u- ni li nage bo ba rom dar ba zuli ti pis ek- kunis 20-ia ni wlebi dan sakma od gam wvav- le si ad Sen de bo da, amaze metyve lebs misi da da mo ki de bu le ba iran sa da bi zan ti as for ma, zo mebi da ori enti re ba. Nnage boba So ris da am da piris pi re ba Si Car Tuli dam xro bi lia aR mo sav le Ti dan da sav le- aR moC nda ori ve qar Tuli sa mefoc (qar- Ti sa ken, od nav Crdilo e Tisken ga dax riT. Tli da eg ri si). Bbi zanti is impe rator- aR mo sav le TiT fiqsir de ba na xevrad wri- ma ius ti ne II egris Si ja rebi Seiy va na da u li af si da (tab. I,1), ro melic mar Ta li a, qar Tlis mo sazR vre ci xeeb Si, So ra pan sa kar gad ga mokve Ti li ar aris, magram es vi- da skan da Si, Ca a ye na. pro ko pi kesa ri e lis Ta re bac ga sa ge bi a, radgan ze da kedle bi gad moce miT, am cixe e bis dac va odiTgan- au Sene bu lia da swored am mi ze zis gamo ve ad gi lob ri vi mo sax le o bis sazru na- ara aqvs mas af si dis Tvis da ma xasi a Te be li vad iTvle bo da da keis ris am na bijma isi- kla si ku ri for ma. Tum ca, nage bo bis aR- ni ga a nawye na. Tum ca, meti gza ar iyo da mo sav le Ti kede li aSka rad af sidis amo- am kuTx is mo sax le o bac See gua Seqmnil say va nad aris momrgva le buli. vi Ta rebas da me tic, maTve ikisres bi- Rvan kiT Si aR mo Ce ni li ek le sia yve la- zan ti el Ta ja ris mo mara ge ba sur sa TiT. ze ax lo ana lo gebs no qala qev Si mik vle ul Aa se grZel de boda er Txans, mag ram egri-

6 selebs mo bez rdaT garni zo ne bis Senax va jgufi. Ee saa uxeSi, cudad ganle qi li da da aseT sam sa xur ze xeli ai Res. sa no va gis qar smina re vi a ni Tixis gan dam za de bu li ga reSe darCe nilma bizan ti el Ta jarma ki WurWle bi da moCa lisfrod da mo wi Ta- ci xe e bi da to va. amiT isargeb les ira ne- lod ga mom wva ri, Txel ke ci a ni, kargad lebma, qarTli dan gad mo vidnen, So rap ni- gan le qi li, sufTa Ti xis gan dam za de buli sa da skandis cixe e bi sruli ad ub rZol- eg zem pla rebi. Oo ri ve pi ro bi Ti jgufis ve lad da i ka ves da Sig saku Ta ri gar nizo- same Tu neo nawar mi mxolod same ur neo da nebi Ca a ye nes [pro ko pi ke sari e li. 1965:51]. sufris Wur Wlebi Taa warmod ge ni li. sa- es am ba vi 523 wels moxda da am dro i dan me ur neo da niSnu le bis ke rami ki dan ga mo- 532 wlamde, “sau ku no zavis” da de bam de, i yo fa qvevri, ro melic war mod ge nilia aR mo sav leT eg ris Si ira ni ga ba ton da. sqelke ci a ni, mo wi Ta lo_ mo a gu ris fro, Cve ni azriT, swo red aRniS nul mov le nebs reli e furRa ri a ni gver dis frag mentiT un da ukav Sirde bo des Rvan ki Tis ek le si- (tab.II1). Rvan kiT Si mopo ve buli qvevris is mSeneb lo bis peri peti e bic. miviC nevT, fragmen ti mie kuT vneba im tips, ro mel- rom mi si age ba da iwyo 523 wlamde, an zus- sac g. lomTa Ti Ze ga redan wibo Se mov- tad am wels da SeCer da am mxare Si irane- le bul qvev re bis jgufSi aer Ti a nebda le bis Se mos vlisTa na ve. cno bi li a, Tu ra [lom Ta Ti Ze g. 1955:175]. r. ramiS vi lis va- did mniSvne lo bas ani Webda ira nis sa mefo ra u diT, ga re dan wibo Wur Wlebs ukeT de- ka ri re ligi ur faqtors sa ku Ta ri po li- bo da praq ti ku li da niSnu le bis miz niT, ti kuri miz ne bis gan xor ci e le bis saq meSi raTa mtkiced yo fi li yo miwa Si Cadgmu- da am re a lo bi dan ga mom di na re sru lili, rad gan maSin jer ki dev ar icod nen ad logi ku ri a, rom So rap nisa da skandis qvevre bis Ca kir va [ra miSvi li r. 1983:16]. sa simag ro zolSi mdeba re Rvan kiTSi maT Rvan ki Tis qvevris analo ge bi mrav ladaa aek rZa laT qristi a nu li taZris mSeneb- ga mov le nili sa qar Tve los ar qe olo- lo ba. sxva isto ri uli axsna am vi Ta re bas gi ur Zeg lebze. isini na pov nia quTa is Si ar ga aC nia. mar Ta lia, 532 wlis za viT bi- [lan Ca va om. 1996:159], var dci xeSi [ja fa- zan ti am ukan da ib ru na So rap ni sa da skan- riZe v. 1989:67-68], noqa laqev Si [za qa raia dis sana xebi, mag ram Rvan ki Tis ekle si is p. da sxv. 1977:105], rus Tav Si [lomTa Ti- mSeneb lo bis gag rZe lebu la da es ad gi li Ze g. 1955:174-175], ur bnisSi [Wi laS vi li Tan da Tan miwiT da i fa ra. aR niSnu lis ga- l. 1964:75], axal Jin val Si [ra miSvi li mo adgi lob riv ma mo sax le obam da i viwya r. 1983:116] da yvel gan V_VIII sau ku ne e- mSene ba re ekle sia da ukve gan vi Ta re bul biT Ta riRde ba. yve la ze axlo analo gebs Sua sa u ku neeb Si (XII-XIII ss.), aq ve, asi o de Rvan ki Turi ca li iCens sa irxis mar ni- met ris mo So re biT axali dar ba zu li ek- go ris bor cvze [bragva Ze z., ga go Si Ze g. le sia aa go. isto ri u li para le le bis gar- 2002:143-147], stir faz sa [Техов Б. 1985:71] da, Rvan ki Tis ekle si is Semo Ta va ze bul da axal Jin valSi [ramiS vi li r. 1983:116] Ta riRs mxars uWers I fe nis ar qe o lo gi u- ga mov le nil ni mu SebTan, romle bic da Ta- ri masa lac, ro melic stra tig ra fi u lad ri Re bu lia IV_VI sa u ku nee biT. vfiqrobT, swo red am nage bo bas ukavSir de ba. swored ama ve peri odiT un da gani sazR- I fenis ar qe o logi u ri mo na po va ri mar- vros Rvan kiTSi aR mo Ce ni li qvev ris asa- Ta lia mra val ricx o vani ar aris, magram kic. Tu ga viT va liswi nebT aRmo sav leT eg ris- sa sufre Wur Wlebi mxolod xela de bis Si ad reu li Sua sa u ku nee bis arqe olo gi- pi rebi Ta da Zi re bis frag mente bi Taa war- u ri ma salis sa er To sim wi res, mi si mec ni- mod ge ni li. rogorc aRi niSna, maT So ris e ru li Rire bu le ba mniSvne lo va ni a. ga mo i yo fa Txelke ci a ni, mo wi Ta lo da I fe nis ar qe o lo gi ur masa la Si ga mo i- mo Ca lisfro da Se da re biT uxeSi Ti xis- yofa ke rami ku li nawar mis ori pi ro bi Ti gan dam za de bu li eg zempla re bi. maT gan

7 yu radR e bas iq cevs msxlise bur kor pu- eq spor ti mezo bel re gi o nebSi (somxe Ti, si a ni xe la de bis frag mente bi, rom le bic Crdi lo eT kavka si a). Zi re bi Ta da gver de biTaa warmod ge ni li m. sina u ri Ze aRniS nav da, rom msxli se- (tab. II). ma Ti er Ti nawi li mo Ca lisfro, bur kor pu sia ni ke ra mi ka da ma xasi a Te be- xo lo meo re nawi li mo wi Ta lo keciT xali mov le naa ad re Sua sau kune e bis sawyi- si aT de ba. am WurWle bis for mebi sa Ta ves si (IV_VII) sa u kune e bi saT vis [si na u riZe m. iRebs gvia nan ti ku ri xani dan da wam yva ni 1966:65]. am qro no lo gi u ri Ska lis ze da for maa IV-VI sa u kune e bis ime re Tis, gan sa- Ta riRs v. ja fa ri Zis mi xedviT mie kuT- kuT rebiT ze mo ime re Tis ar qe o logi u ri vneba vaS naris, ci xisZi ris, we beldi sa da Zegle bi saT vis. am nimu Se bis po pu la ro- var dci xis do qe bi [jafa ri Ze v. 1989:80]. ba ze metyve lebs is faq tic, rom isi ni mo- Rvan kiT Si aR mo Ce ni li msgavsi nimu Se- i po ve ba ro gorc sa mar xebSi, aseve na mo- bi for mis, ke ci sa da faq tu ris mixed viT sax lar fe nebSic. am saxis ke ra mi ka mrav- V-VI sa u kune ebs unda mi e kuT vnebo des. lad mo i po ve ba ro gorc da sav leT, aseve ana lo gi u ri peri o diT ve gani sazR vre- aR mo sav leT sa qarTve los ar qe olo gi ur ba meo re kera mi kuli jgu fis (Se da re biT Zegleb ze. msxlise bur kor pu si a ni do- uxeSi Ti xisgan dam za de bu li do qe bis) qe bi da xe la de bi aR moCe ni lia: rusTav- Ta ri Ric. maT Sesa xeb zo ga dad SeiZ le- Si [lomTa Ti Ze g. 1955:182-183], mcxeTa Si ba aR vniSnoT, rom dam za de bu lia sak ma- [ugre li Ze n. 1987:57-58], ur bnisSi [Wi laS- od uxe Si Ti xisa gan, qar si sa da kvarcis vi li l. 1964:75], oCam Ci re Si [Качарава Д. maRa li procen tu li Semcve lobiT da 1973:29], ZevrSi [fu Tu ri Ze r. 1959:74], we- ad vi lad Sla di a. am Ti xis WurWle bis ni- belda Si [Воронов Ю. и др. 1970:183], so xum- San -Tvise be bi zo ga dad da maxa si a Te be- Si [Трапш М. 1974:339], stir faz Si [Техов Б. lia gvia nan ti ku ri-ad re Sua sa u kune e bis 1985:tab.49,71,78,82], gvele Tis sama ro van- Tu nis nawar mi saTvis. aR niSnu lia, rom am ze [min do raS vi li d. 2005:tab. XIV] da sxv. pe ri odis Ti xis Wur Wle bi damza de bu lia ro gorc ukve iTqva, msxlise bur kor pu si- TiT qmis ga nu le qa vi, an cu dad ganle qi li a ni kera mi kis simrav liT xa si aT de ba Rvan- uxeSi Tixi sa gan. Tixa mar cvlo va nia da xa- ki Tis mo sazR vre, ze mo imere Tis ar qe o- si aT de ba qarsis maRa li pro cen tuli Sem- lo gi u ri Zeg le bi, sa dac isini gvxvdeba cve lo biT. da mak ma yo fi le be li ar aris mo di naxe ze [nadi ra Ze j. 1975:46-96], rga- arc ga mow vis teqno lo gi u ri do ne. gamow- nis sa maro van ze [brag vaZe z. 2000:118-120], vis xaris xi susti a, ris ga moc WurWle bi winsof lis cixe ze, ji eT Si (masa le bi ina- ad vi lad Sladi da aR dge nis uu na ro a. Ti- xe ba xelov ne bis muze u mis arqe o lo gi is xis Wur Wlebi Ziri Ta dad mo wi Ta lomo a- fon dSi) da IV-VI sa u ku nee biT TariR de ba. gu ris fro a, zog jer - gaSa ve bu lic, ke ci msxlise bur kor pu si a ni do qe bi aR mo Ce- umetes wi lad mo ya visfro, an mowi Ta loa ni lia saqar Tve los far glebs gare Tac. da na warmis ume te so ba skelke ci a no biT ker Zod, isi ni mo i po ve ba somxeT Si, gar nis xa si aT de ba [brag va Ze z. 1997:20]. ana lo gi- sa maro vanze [Хачатриан Ж. 1976:tab.V] da u ri niSan -Tvise be bi axa si a Tebs Rvanki Tis Crdi lo eT kav ka si a Si [Уварова П. 1900:39- I fe nis meo re jgu fis Tunis nawar msac. 46]. gar nis msxlise bur kor pu si a ni do qe- amri gad, ara er Ti para le lis gaT va- bis da Ta ri Rebi saT vis J. xaCat ri a ni ga- liswi nebiT, Rvanki Tis I fe nis Tixis Wur- damwyvet mniSvne lo bas ani Webs swored Wlebis Ta ri Ri V-VI sa uku ne ebs moi cavs. saqar Tve lo Si aR mo Ce nil (urbni si) do- Se mo Ta va ze bul Ta riRs garkve ul wi lad qebs [Хачатриан Ж. 1976:48]. SeiZ le ba arc mxars uWers ama ve fe na Si aR mo Ce ni li ori ga mo i ricx e bo des msxlise bur kor pu si a ni arte faq tic. Ee se nia Sur du lis qva (tab. ke ra mikis qar Tul war mo mav lo ba da ma Ti II,8) da sa beW da vis na te xi (sur. 1). msgav si Sur du lis qvebi sa qar Tve los adre u li

8 Sua sa u ku nee bis ar qeo lo gi u ri Zeg le bi- nisgan imijne boda da ax loe biT 20-25 sm-is dan CvenTvis cno bi lia ur bnisis naqa la- sisqis ste ri lu ri SriT (tab. I,2). ar qe o- qa ris ze da fe nis ma sali dan [WilaS vi li lo gi u ri ma sala mxolod Tu nis nawar miT, l. 1964:tab.XIV]. Surdu lis qvis aR mo Ce nis sasuf re Wur Wlebi Taa war mod ge nili. faq tma Ta visTa vad gaa Cina kiTxva, ras un- das tur de ba do qe bi, rom le bic Se morCe- da mie we ros mi si da das ture ba Rvan ki Tis ni lia piris, yeli sa (tab. III) da qus lia- ek le si as Tan. kate go riu li msjelo bi sa ni Zire bis sa xiT (tab. III), da zo o morfu- da Sors mima va li das kvnebis ga mo ta nili da sa da yu re bis frag mente bi (tab. III). sa gan am etap ze Tavs Sevi ka vebT. Tum ca, Wur Wlebi dam za de bulia moSa vo- mo ru xo erTs ki aR vniSnavT, rom ar ga mov ricx- fe ris, gan le qi li Ti xi sagan, qar sis mci re avT ra Rac mci re sao mar moq me de bebs, miT mi na reve biT. Oyu ris ori zo o morfu li da umetes, Tu gaviT va lis wi nebT ira nis ja- er Ti sada frag mentis Tvis ki da ma xasi a- ris utyu ar yof nas am teri tori eb ze. Te be lia mo a guris fro Tixa. gan sakuT rebiT mniSvne lo van aRmo Ce- II fenis ar qe olo gi u ri na war mis daTa- nad gvesa xeba sa beW da vis fragmen ti, ro me- riRe bi saT vis ga dam wyve ti mniSvne lo ba lic damza de bu lia agatis qvisgan da ro- eniWe ba zo o morful yu rebsa da qusli a- gorc Cans, hqon da elif su ri for ma (sur. ni doqis frag mentebs. Mmsgav si arqe o lo- 1). zustad analo gi u ri sa beW da vi aR mo Ce- gi u ri ma sala uxvad aris gamov le ni li nila ama ve so felSi da igi aw gan svene bul da sav leT sa qar Tve los Zv.w. I aTaswle- fi lo so foss, Rvan ki Tis mkvidrs givi ma- u lis pir ve li naxev ris Zeg lebze. Rvan- ru aS vils 1956 wels s. jana Si as saxe lo- ki Tis mo na po va ri analo gi u ria sa irxis bis saxel mwi fo mu ze u misTvis Ca u ba rebi a. sa ba du ris go ra I [na di ra Ze j. 1990:8-10], sam wuxa rod, nivTis aR mo Ce nis zus ti ad- mo di na xe II [na di ra Ze j. 1975:16-20], rga- gi li CvenTvis ucno bi a. es nivTi Seis wav la nis na mo sax la ris [ma xa ra Ze g. 2000:17-31] m. wo we liam da mi vi da im daskvnam de, rom fe nebSi mik vleu li ar qe o logi uri ma- igi war mo ad gens sa sa nu ri epo qis nimuSs, sa lisa. Aa nalo gi u ri Tu nis na warmi di di rom lis siu Je tis zusti ana lo gi cno bi- ra ode no biT gvxvdeba kolxe Tis cen trali ar aris da zo ga dad mie kuTvne ba V-VII lur da zRvis pi ra zol Sic. SegveZ lo sau ku neebs [Tsot selia M. 2002:121-123]. Cvens dag ve sa xe le bi na ise Ti cno bi li Zegle- mier aR mo Ce nil ni muSze aSka rad ga nir Ce- bi ro go re bi ca a: mTisZi ri [gam yreli Ze va war we ris fragmen ti, ro melic, bu neb- g. 1982:45], ureki, nigvzi a ni [miqe laZe T. ri via, calke kvle vas saWi ro ebs. am Ja mad 1985:tab.XXIII_XXVI], dab lago mi [Tolor- ki Se iZ le ba aRi niSnos, rom sa beW da vi sada va v. 1977:79], no si ri, mu xur Ca [Гогадзе Е. sa nu ri war mo mav lo bis niv Tia da igi ki- 1984:52-53], fi Co ri [Барамидзе М. 1990:237- dev uf ro amag rebs Cvens mier ga moT qmul 238], va ni [Толордава В. 1990:261], nam We du ri va rauds Rvan ki Tis ek le siis mSe neblo bis [Микеладзе Т., Хахутаишвили Д. 1985:23-27] pe ri peti eb Tan dakav Si rebiT. yove live da sxv., sa dac ga mov le nili ar qe olo gi u- ze moT qmuli dan ga mom dina re, Rvan ki Tis I ri ma sa lis udi des na wils Se ad gens swo- fe nis Ta ri Rad V-VI, ufro ki VI sa u ku nis red Rvan ki Tis II fe nisTvis da maxa si a Te- pir vel meoTx eds miviC nevT da mas na ge bobe li kera mi ka da am Zegle bis Ta ri Ri Zv.w. bis Tanad ro u lad ganvi xi lavT. VIII_VII sau kune e biT ga nisazR vreba. ro- ro gorc ukve aR vniSneT, nage bobis gorc vxedavT, Rvan ki Tis II fe nis nawar mi Crdi lo eT kedel Tan ga ke Te bu li stra- sak ma od po pu la ru lia wina re an ti ku ri tig ra fi uli Wri lis mixed viT, II fe nis sixa nis kolxeT Si da Se iZle ba Ta mamad iT- maR le ki 40-50 sm-s aR wevda da ganfe ni li qvas, rom isi ni kol xu ri kera mikis wam yva- iyo kedlis gaswvriv. igi xa si a Te boda mo- ni for mebi da sa xeo be bi a. Aa se rom, Rvan- Sa vo fe ris, baT qa Sebna re vi mi wiT da I fe- ki Tis aRmo Ce nebma kidev uf ro ga amya ra

9 Se xe du le ba am peri odis kolxeT Si Zv.w. saqarTvelosa da kavkasiis materialuri VIII_VII sau ku nee bis kul tu ru li fe ne bis kulturis istoriisaTvis. I. Tbilisi. gv. 53-89. ugreliZe n. 1987: adreul Sua saukuneTa qarTlSi gav rce le bis inten si vobis Sesa xeb. minis warmoebis istoriisaTvis. Tbilisi. fuTuriZe r. 1959: gvianantikuri xanis dasavleT saqarTvelos arqeologiuri Zeglebi. – mska, t. literatura: II. Tbilisi. gv. 54-91. cincaZe v. 1964: kacxis sveti. - saqarTvelos ssr mecnierebaTa akademiis macne, t.VII. Tbilisi. bragvaZe z. 1997: Cxaris samarovani. Tbilisi. gv. 9-17. bragvaZe z. 1998: arqeologiuri gaTxrebi ciciSvili i. 1977: biWvinTis sakulto nagebobaTa Zevrsa da RvankiTSi. - S. amiranaSvilis sax. kompleqsi. - didi pitiunti II. Tbilisi. gv. 95- saqarTvelos xelovnebis saxelmwifo muzeumis 107. XVI samecniero sesia (Tezisebi). Tbilisi. gv. WilaSvili l. 1964: naqalaqari urbnisi. Tbilisi. 10-14. jafariZe v. 1989: vardcixis naqalaqari. Tbilisi. bragvaZe z. 2000: rganis samarovani. - Барамидзе М. Б. 1990: Пичорское поселение. - Матери- arqeologiuri Jurnali. t. I. Tbilisi. gv. 91- алы V международного симпозюма по древней исто- 151. рии Причерноморья, Тбилиси, с. 234-239. bragvaZe z., gagoSiZe g. 2002: sairxis adre Sua Воронов Ю.Н., Вазнюк А.С., Юшин В.А. 1970: Апуштинский saukuneebis namosaxlari. - arqeologiuri могильник IV-VI вв. н.э. в Абхазии. - СА. №1. Москва, Jurnali. t. II. Tbilisi. gv. 143_147. с. 181-189. gamyreliZe g. 1982: centraluri kolxeTis Гогадзе Е.М. 1984: К вопросу о хронологии и периоди- namosaxlarebi (sof. mTisZiri). Tbilisi. зации памятников колхидской культуры. – ssmm, t. zaqaraia p., lomouri n., leqvinaZe v., gvinCiZe XXVII. Tbilisi. gv. 37_59. g. 1977: noqalaqevis eqspediciis 1974_1975 Качарава Д.Д. 1973: Город Гиенос в античную эпоху. wlebis muSaobis mokle angariSi. – ssmae, t. V. Автореферат диссертации на соискание ученной Tbilisi. gv. 102-108. степени кандидата исторических наук. Тбилиси. zaqaraia p. 1987: noqalaqevSi 1978_1982 wlebSi Ca- Леквинадзе В.А. 1963: О построиках Юстиниана в запад- tarebuli samuSaoebis saerTo angariSi. - noqa- ной Грузии. -Византийский Временник. т. 34. Москва, laqevi I. Tbilisi. gv. 49_62. с. 174-186, Tolordava v. 1977: arqeologiuri gaTxrebi da- Микеладзе Т.К., Хахутаишвили Д.А. 1985: Древнекол- blagomSi. - vani III. Tbilisi. gv. 71-83. хидское поселение Намчедури, Тбилиси. kapanaZe T. 1987: noqalaqevis bazilikebi. - noqala- Техов Б.В. 1985: Материальная культура насселения qevi I. Tbilisi. gv. 92-107. среднего течения реки Большой Лиахви в I-VIII вв. lanCava o. 1996: quTaisi egris_lazikis cixe_ Тбилиси. qalaqTa sistemaSi. quTaisi. Толордава В.А. 1990: Культовый комплекс VIII-VII вв. до lomTaTiZe g. 1955: rusTavSi warmoebuli arqeo- н.э. из Вани. - Материалы V международного симпо- logiuri Txris umniSvnelovanesi Sedgebi. - зюма по древней истории Причерноморья, Тбилиси, mska, t. I. Tbilisi. gv. 164-182. с. 259-265. maxaraZe g. 2000: yvirilis xeobis namosaxlarTa Трапш М.М. 1974: Древний Сухуми. Труды. Т. 2. Сухуми. qronologia (Zv.w.I aTaswleulis I naxevari). Уварова П.С. 1900: Могильники Северного Кавказа. – - saqarTvelos S. amiranaSvilis saxelobis xe- МАК, т. 8, Санкт Петербург, с. 31-56. lovnebis saxelmwifo muzeumis narkvevebi, VI. Хачатриан Ж.Д. 1976: Античный некрополь. Гарни. V. Tbilisi. gv. 17_32. Ереван. mindoraSvili d. 2005: arqeologiuri gaTxrebi Tsotselia M. 2002: A Seal Of Sasanian Period From The Village xevSi. Tbilisi. Gvankiti. - saistorio vertikalebi, №3 Tbilisi. miqelaZe T. 1985: kolxeTis adrerkinis xanis sama- gv. 121-123. rovnebi. Tbilisi. nadiraZe j. 1975: yvirilis xeobis arqeologiuri Zeglebi. Tbilisi. ilustraciebis aRweriloba: nadiraZe j. 1990: sairxe saqarTvelos uZvelesi qalaqi. Tbilisi. tabula I – 1. RvankiTi. AgaTxrebiT gamovlenili prokopi kesarieli. 1965: omi guTebTan. - geor- nagebobis gegma; 2 - stratigrafiuli Wrili. gika II. Tbilisi. tabula II - pirveli fenis arqeologiuri masala. ramiSvili r. 1983: axali Jinvalis namosaxlari da samarovani 1971_73 wlebis ganaTxaris mixed- tabula III - meore fenis arqeologiuri masala. viT. - Jinvali I. Tbilisi. gv. 109-142. sinauriZe m. 1966: aRmosavleT saqarTvelos adre feodaluri xanis keramika. - masalebi

10 Z. Bragvadze I

0 5

11 II

0 1

12 III

0 1

13 iu lon gago Si Ze

saqar Tvelo da “ber Znul -spar suli” ge me bi

ber Znul-spar su li ge mebi sa qarTve- Ca mo sas xmelad xu Ti sau ku nis ganmav lo- los Tan mimar Te ba Si pirve lad mo ixse ni- ba Si gamo e ye nebi naT. da xaz gasmiT isic es na xevar sa uku ne ze meti xnis win bo ris un da aRi niS nos, rom ar cerTi ar qe o lo- kuf tinma da ma ria maqsi mo vam, rom leb- gi u ri kom pleqsi, ro mel Sic lur ji minis mac saqar Tve los te rito ri a ze aR mo Ce- mra valwax nagaa war mod ge nili, ar Ta riR- ni li lur ji minis mra val wax na ge bi (tab- de ba q.w. II s-is da sas rul ze ufro adre u- lo i de bi) da u kav Si res berZnul -spar sul li xaniT, xo lo minis tab lo id Ta sak ma od glipti kas [Куфтин Б. 1941:31-32; Максимова di di na wi li q.S. I s-is sa mar xebSia mo po ve- М. 1941:72-92] (tab. II, 1-3). imave for mis bu li ar qe olo gi u ri gaTx rebiT. qvis sabeW da ve bi ma Sin cno bi li iyo mci- am gva rad ueW ve li a, rom lur ji mi nis re azi i dan da TariR debo da dro is mok le tab lo i de bis war mo e ba un da da Ta riR des mo nak ve TiT q.w. V s-is meo re na xevar sa da q.w. I an II-I s-iT [Гагошидзе Ю. 1975]. mag ram q.w. IV s-is pir vel na xe vars So ris. swored Tu ki es ase a, ma Sin ro gor Ra av xsnaT am amitom mi iC nia m. maqsi mo vam lur ji minis tab lo i de bis ga mo sa xu le ba Ta Te ma tu ri tab lo i de bi mcire a ziu li qvis aT wax na- da sti lis tu ri msgav se ba e.w. “ber Znul - ga sabeW da ve bis as le bad da isi nic imave spar sul” glip ti kas Tan, rac Se niS nu lia gvia na qe me ni du ri peri o diT da a Ta ri Ra ara er Ti av to ri te tu li mkvle va ris mi er? [Максимова М. 1941:72-92]. gvia na qe meni du ri xanis mci re azi is mar ga ri ta lor Tqi fa ni Ze sac lurji glipti ka Si a. furtven gler ma jer ki dev minis tab lo i de bi mcire a zi uli qvis sa- 1900 wels ga moh yo ori mxat vru li ten- beW da ve bis meqa ni kur asle bad miaC nda, den cia – aR mo savlur -i oni u ri da ber- mag ram igi, m. maq si mo vasa gan gansxva ve biT, Znul-spar su li [Fur twängler A. 1900:116]. Tvlida, rom lur ji minis mra valwax nage- mec nier -mkvlevar Ta na wi li (fur- bis war mo e ba iberi a Si grZelde bo da q.w. V tvengle ri, rix te ri, os bor ni) Tvlis, s-dan q.w. I s-mde. man ve pir velma Se niSna, rom berZnul -spar sul sa beW da vebs mci- rom mi nis ram de nime mra valwax naga er Ti re azi a Si spar selTa dakve TiT kveTdnen da igi ve ya libSia Ca mos xmuli da, amde- sparsel Ta sam sa xur Si myofi berZe ni xe- nad, maT ze arse buli ga mo saxu le be bic los nebi, ma Sin ro ca sxvebs (fo vi li, kni- identu ria [lor Tqi fa niZe m. 1963:136-158; po vi Ci, maq simo va, se rigi) mi aC ni aT, rom lor Tqi fani Ze m. 1969:49] (tab. II, 2-3). am- es sa beW da ve bi Seqmni lia ber Znuli xe- Ja mad cno bi lia 19 sxvadas xva ya libSi Ca- lov nebis gav le nis qveS myofi sparse- mos xmuli mi nis 80-ze meti mra valwax naga li xe los nebis mier (daw vri le biT ix.: da ma Ti ab so lu tu ri um ravle so ba aR mo- [Никулина Н. 1966]). magram n. niku lina ar- Ce ni lia qar Tlis sa mefos (i be ri is) isto- cerT am mo sazre bas ar eTan xmeba da wers, ri ul te rito ri a ze. amasTan das tur de ba rom berZnul -spar su li sa beW da ve bi mci- sxva das xva ya libSi Ca mos xul mra val wax- re azi is im adgi lobriv mo sax le Ta Se moq- na ga Ta siste mu ri Tan xvedra arqe olo gi- mede bis produq ti a, romle bic erTdro u- ur kom pleq sebSi (tab. I). es gare mo e ba ki lad ga nicdid nen ro gorc ber Znuli, ise imis uty ua ri sabu Ti a, rom mi nis tablo- ira nu li xelov nebis gav le nas [Никулина Н. i de bi dro is Seda re biT mok le peri odSi 1966:20]. un da iyos dam za de bu li, rad ga nac Zneli m. maqsi mo vam pirvel ma ga moh yo mcire- war mo sad ge ni a, rom er Ti da igi ve ya libi a zi ul aT wax naga sa beW dav Ta er Ti jgufi,

14 ro melic for mi Ta da ga mo sa xu le ba Ta odebs akuT vnebs [Bo ar dman J. 1970:318-322; mo ti ve biT ba Zavs berZnul da sparsul Bo ar dman J. 1990:401]. sa beW da vebs, mag ram di dad Ca mo uvar de- ki dev me ti. j. bor dman ma dag va na xa, ba maT kveTis teq niki sa da ar tis tiz mis rom miu xeda vad imisa, Tu vi si nak ve Tia do nis Tval saz risiT. es mra val wax na ga ge ma, ber Zenis, ro me lic araber Znuli sa beW da ve bi zo miTac uf ro pa ta rebia da baz ris Tvis mu Sa obda, Tu aR mo sav le li- maT ga mo sa xu le bac mxo lod erT, qve da sa, ro melmac met -nak le bi war mate biT wax nag ze aqvT amokve Tili. amgvar sa beW- aiT vi sa berZnu li mane ra da mo de le bi, da vebs m. maq simo va berZnul -spar su li Se de gi ti po logi urad ma inc erTi da igi- ge mebis Tanad ro u lad Tvlida, mag ram ve a: mii Reba Se re u li stilis pro duq ci a, miaC nda, rom isini Seqmni lia ara ber Ze ni ro melsac up ri a nia ewo dos “berZnul -aR- da ara sparse li, ara med ad gi lobri vi, mo sav lu ri”, rad ga nac xsene bu li tan de- mcire a zi e li xelos nebis mi er [Максимова mis me o re, aR mo savle li mona wi le umetes М. 1941:78-79]. m. maq si movas da m. lor Tqi- SemTxve va Si eT niku rad aras par seli xe- fa niZis Ta nax mad, lurji minis mraval- losa nia [Bo ar dman J. 1970:312-313; Boar dman wax nage bi swored am sabeW da ve bis as le bia J. 1990:401]. [Максимова М. 1941:90; lorTqi fa ni Ze m. Zveli sa qarTve lo – kolxe Ti da ibe- 1969:49]. ria – iseTi qve ya naa, sa dac aR mo savlu ri jon bor dman ma sagan ge bo gamok vleva da berZnu li kultu re bis kontaq ti xor- mi uZR vna ber Znebi sa da spar se le bis Sex- ci el de bo da uk ve aqe meni dur xana Si. “aR- ved ra- Ta nam Srom lobis Sede gad Seq mnil mo savlu ri” moi cavs sa kuTriv qar Tul glipti kas da mas Si ga moh yo sami kla si: kul tu rasac, ro melsac im dro i saTvis sa sax lis stili, ber Znuli stili da Se- ukve gan cdi li hqonda spar su li gav le na re uli sti li. es uka nas kne li, Se reu li da aqe me nidu ri kul tu ru li ko i nes nasti lis kla si, ro melic ga er Ti a nebu lia wils Sead genda [Gagos hidze J. 1996:125-136]. for mis, sti lisa da mo ti ve bis er Ti a- am kon taq teb ma asax va hpo va liTo nis nobis sa fuZ velze, Ta visTa vad 11 jgu- (oq ros, ver cxlis, brinja os) fa raki an sa- fad iyo fa [Bo ar dman J. 1970:303-322]. erTi beW dav -beW deb Si, romle bic kol xeTi sa da maT ga ni, bernis jgu fi gansa kuTre bul iberi is te ri tori a zea aR mo Ce ni li da q.w. msgavse bas iCens lurji minis ibe ri uli V-III sa u ku nee biT Ta riR de ba (tab. II, sur. tab lo i de bis gamo sa xu le bebTan. bernis 4-14, 18). bev ri am sabeW dav Ta gan sak maod jgufi, ro gorc Cans, moi cavs im ge mebs, maRal xa ris xo va ni na warmia da ma Ti aR mo- ro melTac m. maqsi mo va da m. lor Tqi fa- Ce nis wer ti le bi mTel saqar Tve los hfa- ni Ze ad gi lob ri vi, mcire a zi e li xe los ne- ravs – afxa ze Ti dan moki de buli ka xeTam- bis na war mad Tvlian da j. bor dmanic ama- de, CaT vliT [lor Tqi fa niZe m. 1969:39-48]. ve ber nis jgu fis mra valwax na ga gemeb Tan es fa ra ki a ni beWde bi, yve la mo na ce- akav Si rebs lur ji mi nis tab lo i debs [Bo- miT, j. bordma nis mi er ga mo yofil ber- ar dman J. 1970:320-322]. Znul-aR mo sav lu ri sa beW da ve bis wre Si j. bor dmanis kvlevis Sede gad ga ir kva, eq ce va: ma Ti saer To for ma da ga mo sa xu- rom Se re u li stilis glip ti ku ri Zegle- le ba Ta kve Tis teqni ka aS ka rad berZnu- bis gavrce le bis are a li di dad scil de ba li a, magram isic cxadi a, rom isini ber Ze ni mcire azi is far glebs da iseT So re ul xelos ne bis na warmi ar un da iyos, im faq- punqts aR wevs aR mo savle TiT, ro go ri- tis miu xe da vad, rom erT-erT maT ganze caa taq si la pen jab Si (pa kista ni). ga far- berZnu li warwe rac ki aris amok ve Ti li Tov da am ge me bis qro no logi ac: berni sa [lorTqi fa ni Ze m. 1975:92-93]; maT fa ra- da taq si las jgufe bis gemebs j. bor dma- kebze nak ve Ti ga mo saxu le be bis Tema ti ka ni pos ta qe meni dur da elinis tur peri- ki namdvi lad aR mo savlu ria da maT So ris

15 wminda aqeme nidu ri moti ve bic gvxvdeba ki dev cocxa li iyo, xo lo lurji minis (tab. II, sur. 8, 14). tab lo i de bi qvis sabeW da ve bis meqa niku ri li To nis fa raki a ni sabeW da vi- beW de- as le bi ki ar aris, ara med isini un da gan- bis am mra valricx o van jguf Si ram de ni me xi lul iq nen, ro gorc gvi a ni xa nis ber- qvejgu fis ga mo yo faa SesaZ le be li rka- Znul-aR mo sav lu ri wris geme bis Tavis- lisa da fa rakis for mis, dam za de bis teq- Ta va di jgufi, ro me lic Se iq mna q.w. I an II-I nikis an ra i me sxva kri te ri u mis mi xed viT, s-Si, magram yo fa Si dar Ca q.S. I-II s-mde. mag ram ar se bobs iseTi sa xasi a To de ta le- am tab lo i de bis gamo sa xu le ba Ta Te ma- bic, rom le bic maT aer Ti a nebs. ma ga liti ka, war mo So biT berZnul -aR mo savlu ri, Tad, er Ti amgva ri de ta lia as tra lu ri sruli ad or ga nu lia ise Ti ueW ve lad ibe- simbo lika – naxe var mTva re da var skvla- riu li na warmi saTvis, ro go ri caa saqar- vi, rom le bic xSi rad aris war mod ge ni- Tve lo Si far Tod gav rce le bu li brin ja- li am beW deb ze maSin, ro ca sa qar Tve los os Wviru li bal Te bi da q.S. I s-is Zvlis farglebs ga reT isini praq ti ku lad ar gra vi re buli fir fi te bi, aR moCe nili gvxvdeba. beW dis gaxsni li rka li da li- de doflis go raze, sam Tav ro Si, uf lis- To nis fir fi ti sa gan ga moW rili be We dic, ci xeSi, bam bebSi, nas ta gisSi (tab. II, sur. TiT qos, mxolod sa qarTve los Tvi saa da- 15-16). am ga mo saxu le ba Ta si u Je teb sa da maxa si a Te be li. stilis ti ka Si ga mo irCe va aR mo sav lu- sxva das xva for mis sa beW da ve bi – fa- ri tenden ci ac, ro me lic unda ganxi lul ra ki a ni beW de bi, ska ra be o i de bi, tab lo i- iq nes, ro gorc aqe me nidu ri xelov nebis de bi, rom le bic yve la niSniT unda ga er- So reu li re mi niscen ci a, da ber Znul-e- Ti andnen berZnul -aR mo sav lu ri ge mebis li nistu ri xe lov nebis gavle nac, e.i. aq wre Si, mzadde bo da saqar Tve los te ri- warmod ge ni lia xe lov neba Ta iseTi sinTe- to ri a ze mTe li elinis tu ri xa nis gan mav- zi, ro go ric saer Tod Zve li qar Tu li xe- loba Si ad re ro maul xanis CaT vliT. aqe- lov nebis Tvis aris dama xasi a Te be li. me ni du ri peri odi dan momdi na re am Zveli igive SeiZ le ba iT qvas ro gorc am pe- tradi ci u li war mo e bis gaxan grZlive bas ri odis sa qar Tve los xuroT moZR vre bis xels uwyob da yo fa Si Se mo na xu li Zve li Se saxeb (vgu lisxmob dedof lis min dvris nivTe bis ar sebo ba: sa qar Tve lo Si sak maod sataZ ro kom pleqss [Gago šid ze J. 1992]), ise xSiria gvian del ar qe olo gi ur kom pleq- torev ti ka zec: q.w. V s-Si aqe me ni du ri sebSi Zveli, aqe me nidu ri da ber Znul-aR- ira nidan im porti rebu li ti pi zur gSed- mo sav lu ri glipti ku ri Zegle bis aR mo Ce- re ki li sa maju re bi sa sa qar Tve lo Si Se- nis faqte bi. ma ga li TisaT vis SeiZ le ba ga- morCa q.S. I-II s-mde, maSin ro ca spar seTSi vixse noT ber Znul-spar su li tab lo i dis – ti pis samSob lo Si igi kar ga xnis daviwy- (aT wax naga sa beW da vis) aR mo Ce na mcxeTa Si, e bu li iyo. ba i aTx e vis kra mit samar xSi, rome lic q.S. da sas rul, ar Se iZ le ba ar aRi niSnos, II s-iT Ta riR de ba [niko la iS vi li v., gi u- rom sa qar Tve lo Si aRmo Ce ni li aqe meni- naS vi li g. 1995:120]. axla xan sa qar Tve los du ri epo qis er T-er Ti fa ra ki a ni sabeW da- erov nul mu ze um Si ka xeTi dan Se mo vi da vi- beW dis j. bor dma ni seul ber Znul-aR- q.S. I s-is ar qe olo gi ur niv Teb Tan er Tad mo sav lur ge mebTan msgav se ba Se niSnu li aR mo Ce ni li sa beW da vi – ber Znul-aR mo- aqvs m. lor Tqi fa ni Zes Lda man kolxe Tis sav lu ri Sere u li stilis ber nis jgufis sabeW da vi- beW de bi sad mi miZRvnil wignSi qalce do nis skara be o i di (gansazR vra qe- Za lian frTxilad da we ra ki dec, rom am Te van ja va xiSvil ma). be Wed Tan mi mar Te ba Si Se iZ le ba sa u ba ri ase rom, aqeme nidu ri xa nis berZnul ber Znul-kol xu ri stilis Sesa xeb [lor- -aRmo sav lu ri tra di cia qar Tul xe- Tqi fa niZe m. 1975:112]. lov neba Si wel TaR ricxva Ta mijna ze jer

16 da am mokle weri lis bo los kidev erT Максимова М. 1941: Стеклянные многогранные печати. – sa kiTxs unda Seve xo. mixe il rostov ce vi enimkis moambe, X, Tbilisi, gv.72-92. Никулина Н. 1966: Малоазийская глиптика второй aR niSnavs, rom Crdi lo eT Sa vizR vispi re- половины V-IV вв. до н.э. и проблема восточно- Tis ro mau li xa nis kedlis mxat vro ba Si греческого и греко-персидского искусства. mo u lod nelad iCens Tavs aR mo sav lu ri, Автореферат диссертации, Москва. Zveli ira nu li mo ti ve bi da 1914 wels man Ростовцев М. 1914: Античная декоративная живопись на юге России, Санкт-Петербург ga mos Tqva va ra udi, rom xe lov nebis Zve li Boardman J. 1970: Greek Gems and Finger Rings, London. ira nu li tra di ci e bi un da Semo na xu li yo Boardman J. 1990: Greco-Oriental Gems of the Hellenistic ro maul xanam de sadR ac parTi a Si da kav- Period. – Acten des XIII Internationalen Kongresses fűr ka sia Si (sa qar Tve los CaTvliT), sai da nac Klassische Archäologie (Berlin, 1988), Mainz am Rhein, p. 401. am tra di ci eb ma Se aR wia Sa vi zRvis Crdi- Furtwängler A. 1900: Die anticken Gemmen, Leipzig. lo eT sa napi ro ze [Ростовцев М. 1914:321]. Gagošidze J. 1992: The Temples at Dedoplis Mindori. – “East q.S. III s-Si Ca mo ya lib da spar sul -sa sa- and West”, Vol. 42, №1, p. 27-48. nu ri xe lov ne ba, ro mel sac ga ni xi la ven, Gagoshidze J. 1996: The Achaemenid Influence in Iberia. – “Boreas”, Band 19, Münster, S. 125-136. ro gorc aqe me ni du ri xelov ne bis Ta vi- se bur re ne sanss. me ar vapi reb vam tki co, ilustraciebis aRweriloba: TiT qos sa sa nu ri re ne sansi sa qar Tve lo- dan da iwy o, mag ram Tavs uf le bas vaZ lev tab. I. lurji minis tabloidebis urTierT Ta nxve- drebis cxrili. vi vara u do, rom aqe meni du ri da ber Znul tab. II. 1-3 - q.w. I s-is lurji minis tabloidebi: 1 - ne- -spar su li tra di ci ebis kon ser va cia Se- ron deresidan; 2 – neron deresidan, abeliidan iZ lebo da mom xda ri yo da, ro gorc Cans, da arkneTidan; 3a - neron deresidan, abeliidan, mox da ki dec eli nis turi sam ya ros sam- tuiaqoCoridan, loWinidan da azerbaijanidan (yaraqofaqTefe); 3b – loWinidan, urbnisidan, xreT pe ri fe ri a ze, sadR ac far sSi, ise ve soxtidan, brilidan, nastagisidan, oseTidan ro gorc es mox da ama ve sam ya ros Crdi lo da somxeTidan (leninakani, geRadiri); 4-14 - ga na pi ra mxa re Si, sa qar Tve lo Si. mxo lod q.w. IV s-is farakiani sabeWdavi-beWdebi: 4-6 sa er To fes ve bis ar sebo biT Se iZ le ba aix- – saZeguridan, vercxli; 7-8 – saZeguridan, oqro; 5-9 – yanCaeTidan, vercxli; 10,12,13,14 – snas is ga sao ca ri msgavse ba, ra sac iCens taxtiZiridan, vercxli; 11,18 – taxtiZiridan, pir ve li sa u ku nis Zvlis fir fi te bis qar- brinjao; 15,16,17 – q.S. I s-is Zvlis gravirebuli Tu li gra vi re bu li mxat vro ba III-IV s-is sa- firfitebi dedoflis goridan. sa nur xe lov ne bas Tan (tab. II, sur. 15-16).

li te ra tu ra: lorTqifaniZe m. 1963: gvianaqemeniduri xanis mcireaziuli sabeWdavebis iberiuli pirebi – lurji minis mravalwaxnaga sabeWdavebi. – smam, 6, Tbilisi, gv. 136-152 lorTqifaniZe m. 1969: Zveli saqarTvelos gliptikuri Zeglebis korpusi, I, Tbilisi. lorTqifaniZe m. 1975: kolxeTis Zv.w. V-III ss. sabeWdavi-beWdebi, Tbilisi. nikolaiSvili v., giunaSvili g. 1995: baiaTxevi. – mcxeTa X, Tbilisi, gv. 97-133. Гагошидзе Ю. 1975: К датировке могильника Нерон Дереси. - saqarTvelos mecnierebaTa akademiis sazogadoebriv mecnierebaTa “macne”, №2, gv. 90-103. Куфтин Б. 1941: Археологические раскопки в Триалети. Опыт периодизации памятников, Тбилиси.

17 I. Gagoshidze I

18 II

19 ir ma ber ZeniS vi li

so xu mis adreq ris ti a nul ta Zar Ta Se saxeb

so xu mis, anti kur we ri lo biT wya- – ad re bi zan ti ur peri ods (VI s-is bo lo ro eb Si sebas to poli sis, gegma zo mi e ri - VII s-is da sawy i si); rac Se e xeba VIII-IX ss- arqe olo gi u ri Ses wav la XX s-is 50-ia ni ebs – qro no logi uri wyveti lia. wlebi dan da iwyo. 1958-59 wlebSi soxu mis aR niSnu li ekle sia so xu mis ci xis sam- ci xis gaTxre bis (a. afaqi Ze, oT. lor Tqi- xreT nawil Si mde ba reobs. na ge bo ba geg- fa ni Ze, v. leq vi na Ze, m. Traf Si, l. so lo- maSi oq ta go nalu ri a. nage bo bis cen trSi vi o vi, l. Serva Si Ze) Sede gad oTxi kul- 8 bur jia ga mov le ni li, ro melic 45-50 tu ru li fe na ga mo i yo, ra mac aR niSnu li sm simaR le zea Se mor Ce nili, sa va ra u dod punqtis ad re anti kuri xa ni dan vidre isini gum ba Tis say rden burjebs war mo- gvian Sua sa u ku ne e bamde funqci oni reba ad gendnen; yvela maTgans Si da mxri dan da uaR re sad didi mniSvne lo ba da a das- rka lise bu ri for ma aqvs. isi ni agu ri- tu ra. Ta da qviTaa na ge bi kirxsnar ze [Гунба М. CvenTvis gan sa kuTre biT sain te reso 1990:4-5; Khro ushko va L. 2006:57-59]. na ge- aR mo Ce nas ad gi li hqon da l. so lo vi o- bo bas ga le rea anu Ri a Ta Re bi a ni stoa vi sa da l. Ser va Si Zis mi er soxu mis ci xis ga aC nda. oqta gons oTxi mi na Se ni hqo ni a, gaTx re bis dros. aq, sxva mniSvne lo van ro melic gegma Si jvris for mas qmnida. nage bo bebTan er Tad, №1 koSkTan aR moC- maT gan sam xreT -aRmo sav le Ti mi naSe ni nda di di ra o de no biT mo za i kis ken We bi. sava ra u dod mar ti ri ums warmo ad genda, gam Txre lebma isi ni ga reg nu li for miT aq ve ga iTxa ra ramo de nime sa mar xi [Khrous- wro mis moza i kas (VII s.) mi am sgavses da hko va L. 2006:59-60].E aq ek le siis ar sebo ba ivara u des; sa yu- 2001-2003 wlebSi so xu mis ci xis Crdi- radR e bo a, rom aq ve ga iTxa ra ram de nilo- da sav leT na wilSi warmo e buli arme qristi a nu li sa mar xic [Шервашидзе Л., qe o lo gi u ri gaTx re bis Sede gad ga mov- Соловьев Л. 1960:175]. linda ki dev erTi ekle si a, ro melic mkvlevar Ta va rau di, so xumSi ad req- oq ta go nalu ri ek le siis Crdilo -aRmo- ris ti a nu li taZ ris ar se bobis Se saxeb savle TiT mde ba re obs. esaa mom cro zo- mog vi a nebiT, 1987-1990 wlebSi da das tur- mis (eq ste ri e ris sig rZe 17 m) sam navi a ni da, so xu mis cixis teri to ria ze m. gunbas ba zi li ka xuTwax na go va ni Sve ri li af si- xelmZRva nelo biT Ca tare bu li arqe olo- diT. na ve bi er Tma ne Ti sagan svete bis sami gi u ri gaTx rebis dros, ro ca aR niSnul ri gi Taa ga mo yofi li. ked le bi ri yis qvi- ad gi las sxva das xva nage bo bebTan er Tad Ta da kirxsna ri Taa nage bi, Se morCe ni lia (sa meur neo, sacx ovre be li, aba no) ekle- 35-40 sm simaR le ze [Безрученко И., Бжания si is naS Tic ga mov linda [Гунба М. 1987; Д., Горлов Ю., Поротов А. 2002:255-256]. ba- Гунба М. 1990 - vsargeb lob arqe olo gi is zi likis ia ta ki mo pir ke Te buli yo fi la cen tris do ku menta cii sa da publi ka ci is opus sec ti le -is wyobiT .Esa in te re so a, rom gan yo fi le ba Si da cu li m. gunbas sa ve le an logi u ri opus sec ti le -is wyo ba da das- anga ri Se biT]. gaTx re bis mTel teri to- tu re bulia bo boyvaT Si, cixis Zi ris max- ri a ze ori kultu ru li fe na ga moik ve- lob lad, IV s-is na ge bobis gaTx ris dros. Ta. pir ve li, anu ze da fe na ga nekuT vneba aR niSnul pe ri odSi opus sec ti le -is wyo ba gan vi Ta rebul da gvi an Sua sau ku neebs, Zal zed gav rce le bul de kors war mo- ro me lic Zi ri Ta dad kera mi ku li na warmi- ad genda siri i dan vidre make doni am de. Taa war mod ge nili; meo re, anu qveda fe na so xu mis ba zi likis mo tiv Tan ki uSua lo

20 si axlo ves amJRav nebs kuri o nisa da so- sain te re so a, rom 1988 wels oq ta go- lo is ba zi li kebSi (kvipros ze) da an ti o- nalu ri ek le si is gaTx re bis dros aR moC- qi is rig Zegleb ze ga mov le ni li mo ti ve bi nda samar xis ste la ber Znuli war we riT. [Khro us hko va L. 2006:62]. ste la qviSaq vis mono li Tisga naa dam za- aR niSnu li taZ rebi, l. xruSko vas az- de buli, nak lu lia, Semor Ce nili na wi lis riT, erT sataZ ro kompleqss war mo ad- simaR lea 41 sm, maq si ma lu ri siga ne 33 sm, gens da V s-is da sawyis Si an mis pir vel sisqe ki – 15 sm. warwe ra cxrastri qo nia- na xevar Sia age bu li, iusti ni a nes dro i- nia da Sem de gi Si na ar sisa a: “aq ga nisve nebs saT vis ki ukve ga nad gure bu li Cans, raja ris ka ci- le gi one ri ores ti, rom lis sac, ngrevis fe na Si aRmo Ce ni li mo nete- mo sa gon radac aR vmar TeT es ek le sia”. bi adas ture ben. aR moCe nil mone ta Ta gan ste la ara in si tu vi Ta re ba Sia aR mo Ce ni li, eq vsi gan sazR vruli a, maT So ris uZ ve le- igi ga le re is pilas tris fun da mentSi si impe rator ad ri a nes (117-138 ww.) mi e- iyo Ca Se ne bu li. sava ra u dod, Tav da pir- raa ka ba do ki is kesa ri aSi moW ri li, xo lo ve lad igi e.w. mar ti ri um Si ga mov le nil yve la ze mog vi a no - iusti ni a ne I (527-565 sa mar xze un da yofi liyo ga mar Tu li ww.) mier 546-547 wlebSi anti oqi a Sia moW- [Габелия А., Ветроградова В. 2004:218-222; rili [Khro ushko va L. 2006:67]. Khro ushko va L. 2006:66]. ki dev erTi ber- aR niSnul ekle sia Ta mSe neblo bas, Se- Znulwar weri a ni qva igi ve so xu mis ci xis saZ lo a, mar Tlac V s-is da sawy isSi hqo- te ri to ria ze aR moC nda 1999 wels. war we- no da ad gi li, mag ram CvenTvis karga daa ra 5 stri qo ni a ni a, qva nak lu lia da war- cno bi lia V sau ku ni saT vis re gi on Si ar- werac sru lad ar ikiTxe ba, Tum ca Se mor- se bu li poli ti ku ri situ a ci a, ro melic Ce nili na wi le biT irkve va, rom igi ro me- ram de nad me garTu le bu li iyo hunTa da- liRac sa zo ga do moRva wis gansa di deb- mar be ve li Tav das xmebis ga mo; rac kar- lad iyo Seq mnili. war we ra stilis tu ri gad Cans biWvin Tis maga liT ze, ro me lic mo nace me biT II s-iT TariR de ba [Габелия А., aRniS nul pe riod Si arqe olo gi u rad Ветроградова В. 2004:218-222]. susta daa Seswav li li. es da man greve li XX s-is 80-ian wleb Si so xu mis ci xis Tav das xmebi, sa va ra u dod, sebas topo- te ri tori a ze Ca ta re buli gaTx re bis Se- lissac See xe bo da. Se sa ba mi sad, ekle side gad ga mov le ni lia sa inte re so ar qe o- a Ta mSe neblo bis gar kve ul fa zas, vi nai- lo gi u ri masa la, qristi a nu li simbo lo- dan aq mar Tlac na ge boba Ta kom pleqsTan e biT Semku li kera mi kuli na warmi. isini gvaqvs saqme, VI s-Si unda hqo no da ad gi li; Ziri Ta dad gvi a nan ti ku ri xanis ngre vis miT ufro, rom cno bi lia iusti ni a nes mi- fe na Sia aR mo Ce ni li. esaa am fo ris frag- er se bas topo lisSi aRmSe neb lo bi Ti sa- mente bi berZnu li warwe ri Ta da qriz- mu Sa o e bis Ca ta re bis Sesa xeb [ge or gi ka, miT; ke rami ku li xufis frag menti, aseve 1962:222], rac, sa va ra udod, ekle sia Ta ber Znuli war we riT, jvarTan er Tad; wi- mSeneb lo ba sac gulis xmob da. Tel la ki a ni ja mis fragmen ti zed amok- sa yu radRe bo a, rom ekle si is gaTx reve Ti li aso e biT XP [Гунба М., Хрушкова bi sas aR moC nda kra mi tis frag menti ro- Л. 1990:37]; wi Tel laki ni ja mis fragmen- ma u li legi o nis damRiT XV Le gio Apol li naris ti Zir ze jvris ga mo sa xu le biT [Гунба М. [KKhro us hko va L. 2006:64]. analo gi u ri dam- 1987:5, рис. 9], ana lo gi u ri biWvin Ta Si aR- Ri a ni (LEG XV) ke rami ku li file bi cnobi- mo Ce nili ja me bi sa. es fena iusti nia nes lia biW vinTis kas te lu mida nac [To dua dro in de li 544-545 ww-Si moW rili brin- T. 2003:27], rac kidev erT das tu rad Se- ja os mo ne tiT TariR de ba (mo ne ta gan- iZle ba Ca iT va los aq ro ma u li garni zo- sazR vra s. Sambam). ama ve fe na Si aR moC nda nebis ar se bo bi sa aR niSnul peri odSi. anas ta si us I (491-518 ww.) da iusti nia ne II (565-578 ww.) konstan ti no pol Si moW ri li

21 brinja os mo ne ta, iusti ni a ne II da so fi as mu Sa oe bi mxo lod se bas to poliss See xo. (574-575 ww.) mi er Te salo nikSi moW rili proko fi ke sari e li mog viTxrobs: ...ius- brinja os mo ne ta da er Tic ka ba do ki is ti ni a ne mefem mTe li es sebas to po like sa ri a Si moW rili mone ta ara ugvi a nes si gana ax la, zRudi sa da sxva sa si magro III s-sa [Гунба М., Хрушкова Л. 1990:37]. Se no ba Ta wya lo biT uZle ve li ga xada da so xu mis cixis te ri tori a ze ad rec ga am Sveni e ra is gze bi Ta da sxva nage bo be- aRmo Ce nila IV-VI sa u kune e bisTvis da- biT, ris ga moc is si lama zi Ta da si di- maxa si a Te be li kera mi kis fragmen te bi diT yve la ze ufro RirsSe sa niS nav qa la- qris ti a nu li sim bo lo e biT [Воронов Ю. qad iqca [geor gi ka 1962:222]. 1969:52]. ro gorc Cans, swored am dros dawi- oq tago na lu ri ek le siis si axlo ves na ur da sebas to poli si, ro gorc sa ek le- ram de nime ad reqris tia nu li, uinven ta- sio centri. Tu nike is sa ek le sio krebis ro sa mar xi ga iTxa ra. sa mar xebi brtye li dros biW vinTis episko po si po le mo nis aguri Ta da kirxsna ri Taa amoy va ni li da pon tos epar qi is Semad genlo ba Si Se dis, ga da xu ru li. er T-er Ti maT ga ni Tav Tan Semde gi dro is saek le sio nusxa Ta gan ram de nad me far To a, bo los ken ki viw- uad res Si, ro melic VII sa u kuniT Ta riR- rov de ba. aR niSnu li samar xis ia ta ki agu- de ba (VII no ti ci a), biW vinTis episko po si ri Taa moge bu li, ked le bi ki kirxsna ri Ta aRa raa mox sene bu li, konstan ti nopo lis da brtye li agu riT amoyva nili. sa mar xe- sa patri ar qoze da mo ki de bulTa So ris bi IV-V ss-is fe na Sia CaW ri li. gamTxre- da sa xe le bu lia jer se bas topo li sis salis az riT, sa mar xe bi uf ro ad reu li e pisko po so, Semdeg ki avto ke fa lu ri un da iyos, vidre Ta vad ekle si a. stra- sa ar qi e pisko poso. ami e ri dan bi zanti is tig rafi ul mona ce mebze day rdno biT xeli sufle ba yo velmxriv uwyobs xels sa mar xe bi V s-is meo re naxev ri Taa da Ta- sebas topo li sis da wi na ure bas. VI s-is riRe bu li [Гунба М. 1990:4-5]. msgavsi for- 60-70-ian wleb Si un da momxda ri yo sebas- mis, agu riT nage bi samar xe bi, igi ve af xa- to po lisis episko po sis ar qi e pos ko po- ze Tis te rito ri a ze Cven Tvis cnobi lia sis xa ris xSi ay va na, radgan di di tra di- oCam Ci ri dan, biW vinTi dan da ganTi a dici e bi sa da av tori te tis mqo ne biW vinTis dan da VI s-iT TariR de ba. sa e pisko po so saT vis pir ve lo bis war Tme- PdRe i saT vis cnobi li a, rom pirve li va sxva na i rad gaZnel de boda da me orec, qris ti a nu li or ga ni zacia da savleT sa- bi zanti as iran Tan ga wi a nu rebu li da qarTve loSi biW vinTa Si Cndeba, ro melic wa ru ma te be li omis pi ro bebSi erTgu li aRmo sav leT Sa vizR vispi reT Si uZ ve les da Zlie ri mxar dam We ri sWir de bo da ek- saek le sio centrs war moad genda. Mmag ram, le si is saxiT. amis mog va re ba ki sa ar qi e- VI sa u ku nis 40-ia ni wle bi dan, biW vinTa, pisko po sos SeqmniT Se iZle boda, rad gan ro gorc qris ti a nu li centri, kargavs ar qi e pisko po sebs, ro gorc eparqi a Ta Ta vis pir ve lo bas. ker Zod, 542 wli dan, xelmZRva nelebs, emor Ci le bod nen epis- ro ca laz Ta mefis Txov niT, ira neleb ma ko po sebi da qo repis ko po sebi [di a sami Ze la zi ka Si ilaS qres, xo lo ro mae lebma, b. 2001:158]. imis SiSiT, rom ira ne le bi xel Si Ca ig- se basto po lisis da wi na u re ba misi ge- deb dnen biW vinTa sa da se bas topo liss, og ra fi u li mde ba re obiT iyo ganpi ro be- Ta vad daw ves da daan gri es es stra te gi- bu li. IV s-is II naxe var Si ro mae li ge og ra- u lad mniSvne lo va ni punqte bi [geor gi- fis kas to riu sis mier Sed ge ni li “Ta bu la ka 1962:137].A amis Sem deg bizan ti is sa im- Pe u tin ge ri a na”, ro me lic sagzao ru kas war- pe rato ro ka ri biW vinTas TiT qmis aRar mo ad gens, aR niSnu lia da sav leT saqar- aq cevs yu radRe bas da iusti ni a nes mier Tva lo ze ga mava li savaW ro gzebi. er Ti Ca ta re bu li di di aR mSeneb lo bi Ti sa- aseTi gza tra pe zun ti dan mo dis, fa sisze

22 ga iv lis da se basto polis Si mTav rdeba. Гунба М. 1990: Краткий отчет об археологических Mmeo re gza ima ve sebas topo lidan iwye ba раскопках на территории Сухумской крепости в 1990 году. da som xe Tis qa laq ar ta Sa tis ken mie mar- Гунба М., Хрушкова Л. 1990: Археологическое Te ba [ja na Sia s. 1949:47]. sebas topo li dan исследование Сухумской крепости. - Археологические uk ve maSin, ise ro gorc Sem deg Si, gza ga- открытия в Абхазии, 1986-1987 гг. c. 35-39. Тбилиси. di oda Crdi lo eT kavka sia Si. Ees gza ko- Шервашидзе Л., Соловьев Л. 1960: Исследование древ- него Себастополиса, СА, 3, c. 171-179. do ris xeo bas mih yvebo da da yuba nis ze- Khroushkova L. 2006: Les monuments chrétiens de la côte mo Ta Sena ka de bis xeo bebSi ga da di oda orientale de la mer noire. Abkhazie. IVe-XIVe siècles. - Bi- qlu xo ris ze ka riT [ix. ja naSia s. 1949:47]. bliothèque de l'antiquité tardive, 9. Brepols: Turnhout. Aam gzas `af xa ze Tis gzas~ uwodeb dnen. ro gorc Cans, am gzam di di roli iTa ma Sa ilustraciebis aRwera: gan sa kuTre biT VI sa u kuni dan sebas topo- lisis da wi na u reba Si, rad gan e.w. “ab re- tab. I. soxumis adreqristianul taZarTa kompleqsi. Su mis gzis” Crdi lo e TiT ga da nac vlebis Semdeg vaW rebi Crdi loeT kav ka si i dan Sav zRva ze md. ko do riT ga di od nen da aq mTa va ri nav sad gu ri sebas topo li si iyo. dRe i saT vis ar qe o lo gi u ri gaTx rebi soxu mis ci xis te rito ri a ze das ru lebu li ar aris. Aaq ga movle nil ek le sia Ta naS Te bi da Cvens mier moyva ni li ar qe o- logi u ri ma sa la ki, mxolod das tu rad SegviZ lia miviC nioT saek le sio ek Te zi- sebSi dacu li cnobe bisa.

literatura: georgika 1962: bizantieli mwerlebis cnobebi saqarTvelos Sesaxeb. berZnuli teqsti qarTuli TargmaniTurT gamosca da ganmartebebi daurTo simon yauxCiSvilma, t. 2, Tbilisi. diasamiZe b. 2001: qristianoba dasavleT saqarTveloSi (I-X saukuneebSi), baTumi. Todua T. 2003: romauli samyaro da kolxeTi I-IV ss. Tbilisi. janaSia s. 1949: Sromebi. t. 1, Tbilisi. Безрученко И., Бжания Д., Горлов Ю., Поротов А. 2002: Исследования Черноморской экспедиции ИА РАН в 2001 г. – АО 2001 года, c. 255-256. Москва. Воронов Ю. 1969: Археологическая карта Абхазии. Сухуми. Габелия А., Вертоградова В. 2004: Новая греческая надпись из раскопок сухумской крепости. - Кавказ: история, культура, традиции, языки. По материалам Международной научной конференции, посвященной 75-летию Абхазского института гуманитарных исследований им. Д. Гулиа АНА 28-31 мая 2001 г. c. 218-222. Сухум. Гунба М. 1987: Краткий отчет об археологических раскопках на территории Сухумской крепости в 1987 году.

23 I. Berdzenishvili I

24 iri ne de met raZe

ber Znuli im por tuli ke rami ka awyu ri dan

awy uri erT-er Ti so fe lia sam xreT awy ur Si aR mo Ce nili berZnu li kera- sa qarTve loSi. samxreT sa qar Tve lo uZ- mika or jgu fad SeiZ le ba da i yos: aR mo- ve le si dro i dan aris cnobi li ga re samya- sav lur-ber Znuli da ati ku ri. aRmo sav- ros Tvis. stra bo ni mas mos xeTis qve ya nas lur -ber Znuli ke ra mika ram de nime, sxva- uwo deb da (strabo ni XI, II, 17), xo lo he- das xva ti pis Wur Wlis frag mentiT aris ro do te mis mo sax le obas mos xe bis saxe- warmod ge ni li (tab. I, 1, 2, 3; tab. II, 1, 2, liT mo ixse ni eb da (Геродот III, 94). awyu ri 3). maT gan yve la ze Tval sa Ci no ki likis bor jo mis xe o bis da sawyis Si, mTebs So ris pir -gver di sa da yu ris fragmen ti a, ro- gaS lil velze, mdina re mtkvris ori ve na- melsac mo ya visfro la kis ho ri zon ta lu- pir ze, zRvis doni dan 900 metrze mde ba- ri zo le bi Se mo uy ve ba (tab. I, 1; tab. II, 1). re obs. awy urs xelsay reli ge og ra fi u li ki li kis frag mentu lo bis ga mo rTulde- mde ba reo ba ga aC nia. we rilo bi Ti wya ro e- ba mTlia ni for mis rekon struq ci a. rac bi sa da ar qe olo gi u ri ma salis mixed viT mniSvne lov nad ar Tu lebs mis da Ta ri Re- am te ri tori a ze uZ ve lesi dro i dan aR mo- bas da mikuT vnebas ro meli me kon kretu- sav leT ana toli i dan moma va li er T-er Ti li aR mo sav lur-ber Znuli samrew ve lo sa vaW ro gza ga di oda. ro gorc Cans, mo- centri sad mi. awyu ris kili kis frag menti xer xe bulma gan la ge bam da sa vaW ro mimoq- msgavsia sa da zo le bi a ni ki like bi sa, rom- ce vaSi Car Tvam gana pi roba awy u ris eko- le bic aR mo Ce nilia Crdi lo eT Sa vizR- no miku rad da kul tu rulad gan vi Ta re- vispi re Tis arqe o lo gi ur Zeg lebze. maga- bul da sax le bad Ca mo ya libe ba. qar Tu li liTad, mir me ki onsa da ti ri ta ka Si [Шмидт is tori u li tra di ciis mi xedviT awy u ri Р. 1952:239-240], pan ti ka pei on Si [Сидорова sam xreT sa qarTve los po li ti kur da re- Н. 1962:146-147], kep Si [Кузнецов В. 1991:43- ligi ur centrs war mo adgen da. ~qar Tlis 44] da xmel Ta Sua zRvis auz Si, ro dos ze, cxov reba Si” is awy ve ris sa xeliT mo ix- tok ra Si [Bor dman J., Ha yes J. 1966:28-29, pl.38, seni e ba, ro melsac pir velad so san ge Ti 746, 762, fig. 28, 746, fig. 29, 762]. Crdi lo eT ewo de bo da [qar Tlis cxovre ba 1955:39]. Sa vi zRvispi reT Si aR moCe nili kili ke- MTa na medro ve so fel awy u ris te rito- bis war mo mavlo ba da Ta riRi ucno bi a. ri a ze, mdina re mtkvris mar cxena na pir ze mxo lod ke pis sada zo le bi a ni kili ki Ta- da axlo e biT Zv.w. VI-I sau ku ne e bis na mo sax- riRde ba Zv.w. VI sau ku nis meo re na xevriT la ris gaTxre bi mim dina reob da. na mo sax- [Кузнецов В. 1991:43-44]. yvela ze ax lo ana- la ris feneb Si sxvadas xva ad gi lobri vad logs ki awy uris ki li ki tok ras ki lik- dam za de bul ar te faq tTan erTad berZnu- Tan po u lobs, rom lis sawar moo centrad li impor tuli kera mi kac aR moC nda [Lic he li ro do sia miCne u li, xo lo Tari Ri Zv.w.VI V. 1998:25]. sa uku niT aris gansazR vru li [Bor dman J., naS ro mis mi zans awy ur Si ga mov le nili Ha yes J. 1966:38]. ber Znuli impor tu li ke ra mikis sa mec ni- da nar Ce ni frag mente bis identi fi- e ro mi moq ce va Si Semo ta na warmo ad gens. ci re ba ar xer xdeba mci re zo me bis gamo. ami tom, es kera mi ka sawar moo cen trebi sa mxo lod imis aR niSvna SeiZ le ba, rom isi- da qro no lo gi is mixed viT ga ni sazR vra. ni kar gad ganle qi li Ti xisgan arian dam- Seswav lilma ma salam ki samxreT sa qar- za de bulni, ke ci mo a gu ris fro an mo nac- Tve los soci a lur-e ko no mi ku ri isto riris fro aqvT da lakis ho rizon ta lu ri, is zo gi er Ti as peqti war mo a Ci na. zog jer tal Ro va ni zo le bi Se mo uy ve baT.

25 awy uris aR mo savlur -ber Znuli ke ra mi- klass ga nekuT vneba (tab. I, 9; tab. II, 6) da ku li jgufi Tavi si mo xatu lo bis ga mo Zv.w. 480-470ww. Ta riR de ba [Spar kes B., Tal cott sada zo le bi an kera mikas un da mie kuT vnos L. 1970:102, pl.22, fig. 5, No 469]; TefSis pir - da SeiZ le ba zo ga dad Zv. w. VI sau ku nis me- gver dis fragmen ti Rolled Rim -is jgufs ore na xevriT da Ta riRdes. ga nekuT vneba (tab. I, 12; tab. II, 7) da Zv. w. saqar Tve los te ri to ria ze Zv.w. VI sa- 400-375ww. Ta riRde ba [Spar kes B., Tal cott L. u kunis aR mo savlur -ber Znuli sada zo- 1970:147, pl. 36, fig. 10, No1047]; ja mis pir - le bi a ni kera mika si mag ris bor cvze [mi- gverdis frag menti (tab. I, 7; tab. II, 8) Vi- qe la Ze T. 1978:65-68] da ba Tu mis ci xe zea cup-is klass ga ne kuTvne ba da Zv. w. 475 w. [ka xi Ze am., xaxu ta iS vi li d. 1989:86-89] mo- Ta riR de ba [Spar kes B., Talcott L. 1970:93 pl. 20, po ve bu li. fig. 10, No 434]. naW de ve bi a ni ja mis frag- awy ur Si aR moCe nili ati kuri nawar mi, ments (tab. I, 13; tab. II, 9) ki pa ra le le bi Ta vis mxriv, war mod geni lia mo xa tuli da van Si, istri a sa da la Te Si (an ti kuri qa- Sav la ki a ni kera mi kiT. vi na i dan kera miku- la qi xmel Ta Su azR vispi reT Si) aR mo Ce- li for mebis dad ge na Zli e ri frag mentu- nil ati kur Sav la ki an ja mebTan eZebne ba. lo bis ga mo Zal zed gar Tul da, mi si gan- va nis ni mu Si Zv. w. III sa uku niT Ta riRde ba sazR vra, ro gorc ati ku ri nawar mi sa da [ma Ti aS vi li n., 1983:60, tab. 30, sur. 274], mi kuTvne ba aTe nis sawar moo centri sadis tri is - Zv. w. IV sau ku nis bolo me oTx- mi, Ziri Ta dad Ti xisa da la kis xaris xma e diT [Ale xan drescu P. 1978:15, fig.15, No 598], ga na pi ro ba. mxo lod ram de ni me fragmen- xolo la Tes - Zv. w. 325-300 wlebiT [Sa batti iZ le va kera mi kuli for mebis garkve- ti ni M. 1995:178, fig.10, No 1393]. aR saniS na- vis saSu a le bas. war mod ge nil Wur Wlebze vi a, rom awy u ris ati ku ri Sav la ki a ni ke- aS ka rad Seim Cne va ati ku ri nawar misaT vis rami ki dan mxo lod naW de ve bi a ni ja mis es da ma xa sia Te be li kar gad ganle qi li Tixa, fragmen ti ga mo ir Ce va da ba li xa ris xis mo wi Ta lomo ya visfro ke ci da pria la, la kiT. amitom, is Zv. w. III sa uku niT SeiZ- mbzina vi la ki. atiku ri mo xa tu li ke rale ba da Ta riRdes. da nar Ce ni frag mente- miki dan Savfi guru li skifo sis pir -gver- bis identi fi ci re ba ar xer xde ba mci re di sa da le ki To sis ye lis frag mente bis zo mebis ga mo. mxolod imis Tqma SeiZ le- identi fi ci re ba iq na Se saZ le be li. ski- ba, rom isi ni kar gad ganle qi li Ti xi sagan fo si Lan cut -is jgufs ga ne kuTvne ba (tab. ari an dam za de bulni, aqvT mowi Ta lo-mo- I, 4; tab. II, 4) da Zv.w. 480-470 ww. Ta riR de- ya visfro ke ci da kar gi xaris xis Sa vi la- ba [Mo o re M., Phi lip pi des M. 1986:61, pl.104, No kiT ari an da fa rulni. aseT SemTxve va Si 1540], xo lo le ki To si (tab. I, 5; tab. II, 5) - ma Ti da Ta ri Re ba Znel de ba. mag ram, vina- Zv.w. 500-450 ww-iT [Joh nston A. 2000:25]. i dan isini am niS nebis ga mo ati kuri Sav- da nar Ce ni ati kuri mo xa tu li kera mi ka la ki a ni kera mikis jgufs ga ne kuTvne bi an, Cve nam de usa xo frag men te bis saxiT aris ma Ti qro no lo gi u ri am plitu da Zv. w. V moR we u li. ase rom, maTi gan sazR vra da sa u ku nis pir ve li me oTxe di dan Zv. w. IV sada Ta ri Reba ar xer xdeba. u kunis pir vel meoTx e damde peri ods un- ati kuri Sav la ki a ni kera mi ka warmod- da moi cav des. ge nilia Zal zed fragmen ti re bu li kili- ro gorc vnaxeT, awyu ris berZnu li ke bis, skifo se bis, ja me bi sa da Tef Se bis impor tu li kera mi ka war mod ge nilia Zi- sa xiT (tab. I, 6-13; tab. II, 6-9). mag ram Se- ri Ta dad sufris WurWliT (kili ki, ja mi, saZ loa zo gi er Ti maT ga nis para le le bis skifo si da sxva) da ga nekuT vneba ar qa ul, mo Zebna, rac WurWlis mTlia ni for me bis kla si kur da elinis tur peri ods. aR niS- war mo sax vis saSu a le bas iZle va. ma ga li- nu li peri ode bis Ta nadro u li 12 Zeglia Tad, kili kis Zir-qus lis fragmen ti ufe- ga mov le nili sam xreT saqar Tve los te- xo kilik Ta (Stem less Cup) Lar ge: Inset Lip -is ri to ria ze [ПАИ в 1986 г. 1991:115-128].

26 maT gan mxo lod erT pun qtSi, awy ur Si Cans igi da sav leT saqar Tve los sa me fo- aR moC nda ber Znuli impor tu li kera mi ka. dan, kolxe Ti dan Semo di o da. ase Ti vrceli qro no logi uri Car Co da sa inte reso a, kolxe Tis ker Zod ro- is faq ti, rom ber Znuli kera mi ka samxreT me li pun qti dan vrcel de bo da awyu ris saqar Tve lo Si mxo lod awy ur Sia mo po ve- nasax lar ze berZnu li ke ra mi ka. ro gorc bu li mety ve lebs ima ze, rom berZnu li ke- arqa u li, aseve kla si ku ri da eli nistu ri ra mika aq Sem TxveviT mox ved ri li ar un da peri odis ber Znuli impor tuli ke rami ka iyos. awy ur Si mi si koncen trire ba xan- aRmo Ce ni lia da sav leT sa qar Tve los mra- grZlivi pro ce sis Se de gi a, ra sac Ta vi si val ar qe olo gi ur Zeg lze, maga liTad, obi eq tu ri mize ze bi gaaC nda. eSera [Шамба Г. 1980:8-21, таб. XXIX], gu a di xu er T-er Ti mize zi swo red is un da iyos, [Трапш М. 1969:223-256], simag ris bor cvi, rom impor tu li sufris Wur Wlis mom- so fe li mTisZi ri [gam yreli Ze g. 1982:88, xma re be li mTels am regi on Si, mxolod sur.42], pa lias to mis tbasTan mdeba- cen tris mo sax le o bis gar kve u li na wi li re nate xe bis na mo sax lari [Гамкрелидзе Г. anu war Ci ne buli fe na iyo. fe na, ro me lic 1992:131, рис. 5], va ni [Kacha ra va D. 1995:68-69], ar sebob da ramde ni me sa u kunis man Zilze no qa la qe vi [lo mi taS vi li d. 1998:19] qo- da gaaC nda Zvi radRi rebu li, im portu li bu leT -fiW vna ri [sixa ru liZe T. 1988:62- nivTe bi. Ta vismxriv, es faq ti metyve lebs 70, tab. XXXVIII-XXXIX], ba Tu mis ci xe da ima ze, rom awy u ri sam cxis so ci a lur -e- sxva. amaTgan qobu leT -fiW vnar sa da vanSi kono miku rad da wi na ure bu li centri iyo kla si kuri da elinis tu ri pe i odis ber- wi nare da ad re an ti kur pe ri odSi. amasve Znuli ke ra mi ka yve la ze War bad aris aR- mow mobs na sax la ris ax los aR mo Ce ni li mo Ce ni li. si magris bor cvsa da ba Tu mis mdidru li samar xebi. ci xe ze ki klasi ku ri da eli nistu ri pe ri- aR saniS na vi a, rom kolxeT Si ati ku ri o de bis Ti xis na war mTan erTad ar qa u li im por ti Zi ri Ta dad sa qa la qo tipis da- aRmo sav lur -ber Znuli ke rami kac vlin- sax le bebze an ad glob riv war Ci ne bulTa de boda. ar qa u li aR mo savlur -ber Znuli mdidrul sa mar xebSi ga mov linda. rac mi- ke ra mika Ziri Ta dad Sa vi zRvis sana pi ro u TiTeb da ima ze, rom am nivTebs kol xeTis zol Si mdeba re ar qe olo gi ur Zegleb zea mo sax le obis war Ci nebul Ta fe nis war mo- mo po ve bu li. es na war mi kolxe Tis Sida mad genle bi flobdnen [Лордкипанидзе О. ra i o nebSi ar gvxvdeba. 1979:167]. swo red Aa mi tom, sa va ra u doa, rom ber- zoga dad, ber Znuli im portu li ke- Znuli impor tuli ke ra mika va ni dan [Lic- ra mikis aR mo Ce nis faq te bi mci rea saqar- he li V. 1999:101-105], qobu leT -fiW vnari dan, Tve los aR mo sav leT da mTian regi o nebSi. si mag ridan an ba Tu mis ci xidan vrcelde- xo lo ro gorc av RniSneT, awy ur Si gamov- bo da samxreT sa qar Tve lo Si. dRe sac ar- le ni li berZnu li ke rami ka dRemde er- sebobs is sagzao ko mu nika ci e bi, risi meS- Ta derTi SemTxve vaa berZnu li im portis ve obi Tac es re gi one bi er Tma neTs ukav- aR mo Ce ni sa sam xreT sa qar Tve lo Si. amis Sirde bodnen war sul Si. go der Zis uRel- ga mo, miCne u li iyo, rom berZnu li im por- te xi li sam xreT sa qar Tve los aWaras Tan tis are a li Ziri Ta dad kolxe TiT Se mo i- akav Si rebs, xo lo zeka ris uRel te xi li far gle bo da. kol xeTis Si da rai o neb Tan, rom lis cen- Aam rigad, awy u ris aR mo Ce nam gviCve na, trsac Zveli vani war mo ad genda. sa fiqre- rom ber Znu li impor tu li ke ra mi ka ad- be lia, rom berZnu li im portu li ke ra mire an ti kur peri od Si samxreT sa qar Tve- kis gav rce le bis mar Sru te bic swo red es lo Sic aR wevda. marTa li a, es ar iyo sa- iyo. ber ZneTTan uSua lo kon taq tis Sede gad amri gad, berZnu li impor tuli ke ra- im por ti rebu li niv Te bi, magram, ro gorc mikis aR mo Ce na awyur Si mniSvne lov nia,

27 mi u xeda vad misi Se da re bi Ti simci ri sa, ne- de Con tacts. Actes du VIII Sympo si um de Va ni 1999. radga nac es faq ti miu Ti Tebs, rom awyu- Pa ris. pp. 101-105 Mo ore M., Phi lip pi des M. 1986: Attic Blac k-Fi gu red Pot tery. ris da sax le ba CarTu li iyo imdro in del The Atheni an Ago ra. vo lume XXIII. Prin ce ton. gac vliT urTi erTo bebSi. Sa bat ti ni M. 1995: La céra mi que Atti que du IVe-s. à Lat tes. Actes du col lo que in ter na tio na lor ganisé par la Céntre Ca mil le Jul li an. Arles. Spar kes B., Tal cott L. 1970: Black and Plain Pot tery of the 6th, li te ra tu ra: 5th and 4th Cen tu ri es BC. The Atheni an Agora. vo lume XII. Prince ton. gam yre li Ze g. 1982: cen tra lu ri kol xeTis Zveli na mo sax la re bi. Tbili si. ka xi Ze am., xaxu ta iS vi li d. 1989: ma sa lebi ba Tu mis ilus traci e bis aR weri lo ba: Zveli is to rii saT vis (wi na an ti ku ri da anti kuri xa na) I, sdsZ, t. XVIII. Tbili si. tab. I. ber Znuli impor tu li kera mi ka: 1. arqa u li lo mitaS vi li d. 1998: sa er Ta So ri so sa vaW ro -e ko- aRmos vlur -ber Znuli sada zo li a ni kili kis no mi ku ri ur Tier Toba ni Zv.w. III-I s.s. kolxeT Si. pi ris da yuris fragmen ti; 2. arqa u li aR mos- _ Zeglis mego ba ri №3 (102). Tbili si. gv. 18-29. vlur -ber Znuli sada zo li a ni WurWlis frag- ma Ti aS vi li n. 1983: Zv.w. III-I sa u ku ne e bis Savla ki a ni menti; 3. arqa u li aR mosvlur -berZnu li sada- ke ra mika. _ va ni, VII, ar qeo lo gi u ri gaTx re bi. zoli a ni Wur Wlis fragmen te bi; 4. ati kuri mo- Tbili si. gv. 51-75. xa tu li ski fosis piris -ki di sa da yuris frag- miqe la Ze T. 1978: ar qe olo gi u ri kvleva- Zi e ba ri o- menti; 5. ati ku ri moxa tuli lekiT sos yelis nis qvemo welze. Tbili si. fragmen ti; 6. atiku ri Savla kia ni WurWlis pi- si xaru li Ze T. 1988: atiku ri mo xa tu li kera mi kis ris frag menti; 7. atiku ri Savla kia ni jamis pi- axa li ni mu Sebi fiW vnaris ber Znuli sama rov ni- ris fragmen ti; 8. atiku ri Savla ki a ni Wur Wlis dan. _ sdsZ, t. XVII. Tbili si. gv. 62-70. yu ris fragmen ti; 9. ati kuri Savla ki a ni ufexo qar Tlis cxov re ba. 1955: teq sti dad ge ni li yvela ki likis Zi ri; 10. atiku ri Savla ki a ni WurWlis Zi ri Ta di xelna we ris mixed viT s. yaux CuS vi lis qus lis fragmen ti; 11. ati kuri Savla ki a ni Wur- mier. t. I. Tbili si. Wlis quslis fragmen ti; 12. atiku ri Savla kia- Гамкрелидзе Г. 1992: К археологии долоины Фазиса. ni Tef Sis frag mente bi; 13. atiku ri Savla kia ni, Тбилиси. naW de ve bia ni jamis fragmen ti. Кузнецов В. 1991: Кепы: ионииская керамика. – СА, 4. tab. II. ber Znu li im portu li kera mi ka: 1. ar qa uli Москва. с. 36-53. aR mos vlur -ber Znuli sada zo li a ni kili kis Лордкипанидзе О. 1979: Древняя Колхида. Миф и pi ris da yuris fragmen ti; 2. arqa uli aR mos- Археология. Тбилиси. vlur -ber Znuli sada zoli a ni WurWlis frag- Полевые Археологические исследования в 1986 г. 1991: menti; 3. arqa uli aR mosvlur -berZnu li sada- Тбилиси. с. 115-128. zo li a ni WurWlis fragmen ti; 4. atiku ri mo- Сидорова Н. 1962: Археологическая керамика из xa tuli skifo sis piris da yuris fragmen ti; 5. Пантикапея. – МИА, 103. Москва. с.94-149. ati ku ri mo xatu li lekiT sos yelis fragmen- Трапш М. 1969: Труды. т.2. Сухуми. ti; 6. atiku ri Savla ki a ni ufexo kili kis Ziri; Шамба Г. 1980: Эшерское городище. Тбилиси. 7. atiku ri Sav la kia ni TefSis fragmen te bi; 8. Шмидт Р. 1952: Греческая архаическая керамика из ati ku ri Sav la ki ani jamis piris fragmen ti; 9. Мирмекии и Тиритаки. - МИА 25. Москва-Ленинград. ati ku ri Sav la ki ani, naWde ve bi a ni jamis frag- с. 223-249. menti. Ale xan dres cu P. 1978: La cérami que D’e poque ar chaïque et clas si que (VIIe- IVe-s.). - Histria IV. Paris. Bo ar dman J., Ha yes J. 1966: Exca va ti ons at Tor ca 1963-1965. Lon don. Joh nston A., So u yo ud zog lo u- Hay wo od C. 2000: Cor pus Va- sorum Anti qu o rum. Ire land. Fas ci cule 1. Dublin. Kac ha ra va D. 1995: Greek Imports of Archa ic and Clas si cal Ti- mes in Col chis. - AA. Heft 2. Ber lin-New York. pp. 63-73. Lic he li V. 1998: St. Andrew in Sam tske - ar cha e o lo gi cal proof?. - Ancient Chris tia nity in the Cau ca sus. London. pp. 44-57 Lic he li V. 1999: The Black Sea - Vani - Sam tskhe, the Sprea- ding Rou te of Blac k-Gla zed Pot tery. - La Mer No i re Zo-

28 I. Demetradze I

29 II

30 re vaz kvir kvaia

mes xeT–ja va xe Tis pre is to ri u li da kla si ku ri xa nis arqe olo gi u ri Zeg le bis ru ka

is tori u li mes xeT -ja va xe Ti, ro me- bor jo mis ra i o ni (tab I) lic mo i cavs dRe vandel bor jomis, adi- 1. ba ku ri a ni (bota ni kuri ba Ri). gvian- ge nis, axalci xis, as pin Zis, axalqa la qis brinja os xa nis na mo sax lari [Гамбашидзе da ninow mindis rai onebs, Zal ze mdi da ria О. и др. 1991:33]. pre isto ri u li da kla si ku ri xanis ar qe o- 2. ba lan Ta (oqros qva bis mRvi me). ad- logi uri Zegle biT. reb rin ja os xanis kul turu li fena. gvi- wi nam de ba re naS rom Si Tav moy ri lia da an brinja os xanis nivTe bis ko leqcia sqema tur ru ka ze da ta nilia sxvadas xva [Насидзе Г. и др. 1980:292-298]. dros, sxvadas xva mkvelva re bi sa da ar qe- 3. bo zaTx e vi (sof. Wo bisxe vis max- o logi uri eqspe di ci e bis mi er mikvle u li loblad). gvian brin ja os xanis ke no ta fi. da Seswav lili Zeg le bi, ag reT ve, Sem Txve- anti kuri xa nis namo sax la ri [Насидзе Г. viT aR moCe nili mniSvne lo va ni ar qe olo- 1981:185]. gi u ri ko leqci e bi, rom le bic asaxulia 4. borni Re le. gvian brinja o-ad rer- sa mec nie ro li te ra tu raSi. ki nis xa nis sa maro va ni [Гамбашидзе О. и ru ke bi Sed ge ni lia rai o ne bis mixed- др.1986:22-27; Гамбашидзе О. и др . 1987:29-30; viT. Zeg le bi data nilia miax lo e bi Ti si- Гамбашидзе O. и др. 1991:27-32; Гамбашидзе О. zus tiT, mi Ti Te bu lia maTi xa sia Ti, zo- и др.1995:48-51; Гамбашидзе О. и др . 1997:44- ga di Ta ri Ri da is lite ratu ra, ro mel- 46]. Sic, Cve nis az riT, yvela ze ukeTaa Zegli 5. borjo mi (Zveli aba no). gvian brin- aR weri li (Ziri Ta dad saan ga ri So xasi a- ja os xa nis nivTe bis ko leqcia [nio raZe g. Tis naSro me bi). 1944:186]. un da iT qvas, rom es ar aris am re gi o nis 6. bor jo mi (par ki). ax. w. I s. aba za nis ar qe o lo gi u ri Zeg le bis ru ka ze da ta nis naS Ti [nio ra Ze g. 1944:186]. pir ve li mcde lo ba. pir ve li ru ka jer ki dev 7. gom na (yver bi li). gvian brinja o_ ga su li sa u ku nis 50-i an wleb Si ga moq vey- ad rer ki nis xanis sa ma ro va ni [nio ra Ze g. nda [Чубинишвили Т. и др. 1957:117]. ja va xe Tis 1944:199-213; Ramba Si Ze o. 1969:19]. mtkvar -a raq sis kul tu ris Zeg le bis ru ka 8. dvi ri. sa mar xi- qva yu Ti. (peri odi ga mo aq vey na b-n al. orjo ni ki Zem [or jo ni- da ud ge ne li a) [nio ra Ze g. 1944:218]. ki Ze al. 2000:16-20]. mag ram pir vel maT gan ze 9. dvi ri (silis xevi). ad re sa miwaT moq- mxo lod 19 pun qtia da ta ni li, xo lo me o re- me do kul tu ris xanis ke ra miku li Wur- ze, naS ro mis xa si a Ti dan ga mom di na re, mxo- Wli sa da Zv.w. VIII-VI ss. nivTe bis ko leqcia lod er Ti pe ri o dis Zeg lebi da isic Se da- [Гамбашидзе О. и др. 1973:40]. re biT lo ka lur te rito ri a ze. arc Cvens 10. di di ce mi (sajva re, na qe ra la). naS roms aqvs srul yo fi le bis pre ten zi a, brinja os xa nis niv Te bis ko leqci a [Ram ba- vi na i dan sa qar Tve los sxvadas xva mu ze u me- Si Ze o. 1969:18_20]. bis fon deb Si Se saZ loa inaxe bo des ise Ti ko- 11. varde va ni. Zv.w. VIII-VI ss. sama ro va- leq ci e bi, rom le bic sa mec ni e ro mi moq ce vani [Гамбашидзе О. и др. 1991:33]. Si ar ari an Se su li, an arian da Cven ver mi- 12. Tav kve Tili. Suab rin ja os xanis vak vli eT. mi u xe da vad ami sa, vfiq robT, rom yor Ra nu li samar xebi [Ram ba Si Ze i. da sxv. igi gar kve ul dax ma rebas ga u wevs re gi o nis 2003b]. uZ ve le si war su liT da in te re se bul mkvle- 13. Te lova ni. brinja os xa nis niv Te- va rebs da far To sa zo gado e bas. bis koleq cia [nio ra Ze g. 1944:190-194].

31 14. Ti se lis se ri. ad reb rin ja os xa nis 28. sa ki re (sa nacre e bi). elinis tu ri namo sax la ri da sama rova ni [Гогочури Г. и др. xa nis sa maro va ni [Ram ba Si Ze i. da sxv. 2007 2007:60-61]. a, b]. 15. To fi -o li. Su ab rin ja os xanis yor- 29. saki re. gvian brin ja os xa nis namo- Ra nu li samar xi da kultu ru li fe na [Ram- sax la ri da sa maro va ni [Гамбашидзе О. и др. ba Si Ze i. 2004]. 1986:31-36]. 16. kvi racx o ve li (sa Ti xis Re le). gvi- 30. sa ko Wavi (ba kuri a nis an de zi ti). anbrin ja o–ad rer ki nis xanis sa maro va ni qvis, brinja os da an ti ku ri xanis kultu- [Гамбашидзе О. и др. 1981:57-62; Гамбашидзе О. ru li fe nebi. qvisa da meta lur gi u li sa- и др. 1982:29-30; Гамбашидзе О. и др. 1985:34- xe los no e bis naS Te bi [Ramba Si Ze o. da sxv. 35; Гамбашидзе О. и др. 1986:21-22]. 1972:20-21]. 17. kvi riki a ni (sof. Wo bisxe vi). gvi an- 31. sle sis ci xe. sa mar xi- qva yu Te- brinjao _ ad rer krinis xa nis kultu ru- bi (peri odi da ud ge neli a) [ni ora Ze g. li fena [Ram ba Si Ze o. 1969:18-20]. 1944:219]. 18. ko dia ni. Suab rin ja os xanis yor Ra- 32. tabawy u ri. Su ab rin ja os xanis nu li samar xi [Ramba SiZe i. da sxv. 2004 b]. yor Ra nu li sa mar xe bi da di di rao de no- 19. la re bi. ax.w. I sa u kunis spilen Zis, biT (112 kg.) brinja os wi da [ni ora Ze g. vercxlis da Ti xis Wur Wlis ko leqcia 1944:195-196; Жоржикашвили Л. и др. 1974:26- [nio ra Ze g. 1944:216]. 27]. 20. ma War wya li. gvi anbrin ja o _ad- 33. ti mo Te suba ni (qvevre bis seri). rer ki nis xanis sa ma rova ni [Гамбашидзе О. an ti ku ri xa nis or mo sa mar xi, par Ti is me- и др. 1984:30; Гамбашидзе О. и др. 1986:27- fis orod II-is mone tiT [Гамбашидзе О. и др. 28]. 1987:31]. 21. mze Tam ze. ad rebrin ja os, gvian- 34. qva bis xevi. gvian brinja os xanis brinja o-ad rer ki nis da an ti ku ri xanis kre ma ci u li ur na- qoT nebi da brin ja os sama ro va ni [Насидзе Г. и др. 1995:101-103; nivTe bis da Tixis WurWlis ko leqcia [ni- Насидзе Г. и др. 1997:89-91]. ora Ze g. 1944:186]. 22. mi tar bi. gvi an brinja os xa nis niv- 35. qu ru xeTi (Wo bisxe vi). anti ku- Te bis koleq cia [nio raZe g. 1944:194]. ri xa nis na ge bobe bi da kultu ru li fe- 23. mo li Ti (ci xe). kre ma ci u li ur ne bi na [Насидзе Г. и др. 1980:292-294; Насидзе Г. (sa va ra u dod Zv.w. VIII-V ss.) [Cu bi niSvi li 1981:184]. t. da sxv. 1965:8]. 36. qci is min do ri (sof. tabawy ur- 24. mo li Ti (ja lili). brinja os xanis Tan). Zv.w. VII-V ss. namo sax la ri [Ramba Si Ze yor Ra ni da nage bo be bi [Ram ba Si Ze i. da i. 2004 a]. sxv. 2004 a, b]. 37. Ri to ras mi we bi. Su ab rin ja os xa- 25. mo li Ti. Su ab rin ja os xa nis yor Ra- nis samar xi [Гамбашидзе О. и др. 1984:21]. nu li sa mar xebi [Ram ba SiZe i. da sxv. 2003 b]. 38. yvi bi si. brin ja os xanis nivTe bis 26. rve li (ba nisxe vi). gvian brin ja- ko leqcia [nio ra Ze g. 1944:183]. o -ad rer ki nis da aqeme nidu ri xanis sa- 39. Ci Taxe vi (Ci Ta xevis miwe bi). ad- ma rova ni [ni ora Ze g. 1944:182; Ram ba Si Ze rebrin ja os da gvi an brinja o-ad rer ki- o. 1971:42-44; Ram ba Si Ze o. da sxv. 1972:21; nis xanis sama ro va ni [Гамбашидзе О. и др. Гамбашидзе О. и др. 1973:37-39; Гамбашидзе О. 1973:37-40; Гамбашидзе О. и др. 1976:51-52; и др. 1981:57-73]. Гамбашидзе О. и др. 1974: 22-26]. 27. sa Tixe. sa me Tuneo sa xelos nos naS- 40. ce mi. brinja os xa nis nivTe bis ko- Ti [Ram ba Si Ze o. 1969:18-20]. leqcia [nio ra Ze g. 1944:187].

32 41. waRve ri. brinja os xa nis na mo sax- 6. klde. gvia nan ti kuri xanis na mo saxla ri, sa maro va ni da meta lur gi u li sa xela ri da sama ro va ni [Ram ba Si Ze i. da sxv. los no [nio ra Ze g. 1944:174_179]. 2007 a, b]. 7. lo do ba na. eneo li Tis, ad rebrin ja- adi genis ra i o ni (tab. I) os, Suab rin ja osa da gvi an brinja os xa nis 1. am xeris go ra (sof. le lo van Tan). kultu ru li fe ne bi. an ti ku ri xa nis sama- pa le o liTis, neo liTis, ad reb rin ja os da ro va ni [dedab riSvi li S. 1963:17-19]. gvian brinja o -ad rer kinis xa nis kultu- 8. mus xi. adreb rin ja os xa nis kul- ru li fe nebi. Zv.w. VII-VI ss. sama rov nis naS- tu ru li fe na (sko lis ezo, fuRis mTa). Ti [Гамбашидзе О. и др. 1995:54; Гамбашидзе brinja os xa nis na mo sax lari (ma Wi xe Ti) О. и др. 1997:47]. [Гамбашидзе О. и др. 1982: 30]. 2. be na ra. brinja os xa nis kultu ru li 9. orWo sani. ad rebrin ja os da Suab- fe na [Бибилури Т. и др. 1987:35-36]. rin ja os xa nis namo sax lari. gva i nan ti- 3. var xa ni (sa buza ra). zi ku ratis tiku ri xa nis sama ro va ni [ba rami Ze m. da sxv. pis Seno ba da sxva nage boba Ta naSTe bi 2007; or joni ki Ze al. 2005:69-73; Пхакадзе [Гамбашидзе О. и др. 1995:53-54]. Г. 2004:120-121]. 4. ude. gvian brin ja os xanis gan Zi 10. fer sa. Zveli qvis xanis nivTe bis [Чубинишвили Т. и др. 1957:116-117]. ko leqcia [gabu nia m. 2000:79]. 5. fare xa (fa rexas go ra). ad rebrin ja- 11. wnisi. an ti kuri da eli nistu ri xa- os xanis na mo sax la ri [Гамбашидзе О. и др. nis sa ma ro va ni [Гамбашидзе О. и др. 1984:20; 1981:63]. Гамбашидзе О. и др. 1985: 33-35; Квижинадзе К. 6. yano bi li. ene o liTis da ad rebrin- 1987:32-35]. jaos xa nis namo sax la ri. gvian brinja os 12. Wo ra ti. Zveli qvis xa nis Ria sad- xanis kul tu ru li fe na (Пхакадзе Г. и др. go mi. anti ku ri xanis sa maro va ni [ga bu nia 1982:20-21]. m. 2006:17-19; bara mi Ze m. 2005]. 7. xe va Se ni. gvian brin ja o-ad rer ki nis 13. xa ki (ci xis yeli). Zveli qvis xa nis xa nis sa ma ro va ni [Гамбашидзе О. и др. 1995:53- ko leqci a. ad re sami waT moq medo kul tu- 54]. ris xanis go ra- namos xla ri [Гамбашидзе О. и др. 1980:78-85]. ax lci xis ra i o ni (tab. III) 14. jul Ra. Suab rin ja os xa nis niv Te- 1. amira nis go ra (a xal ci xe). ad reb- bis ko leqcia [Гамбашидзе О. и др. 1984:18- rin ja os xa nis na mo sax la ri da sama ro va ni 21]. [Cu bi niSvi li t. 1963]. 2. awy u ri. gvian brinja o -ad rer ki nis aspin Zis ra i o ni (tab. II) xa nis nivTe bis ko leqci a. an ti ku ri xa nis 1. aga ra. ene o liTi sa da urar tu li pe- na mosax la ri (na qa la qa ri) da sa ma ro vari odis na mo sax la ri [Чубинишвили Т. и др. ni [ni ora Ze g. 1944:196; liCe li v. da sxv. 1957: 120-121]. 1997:20; liCe li v. 2000:108-110]. 2. aspin Za (kultu ris saxli). eli nis- 3. boSa_ ma i la. (a xal ci xe). ad rebrin- turi xa nis qvevrsa mar xebi [Ram ba Si Ze o. ja osa da gvian brin ja os xanis kultu ru- da sxv. 2004:47]. li fena [Квижинадзе К. 1986:29]. 3. as pin Za (lodo va ni). Suab rin ja os 4. bu za. brin ja os xanis sa mar xi- qva yu- xa nis yor Ra nu li sa mar xe bi [ja fa ri Ze o. Ti [nio raZe g. 1944:220]. da sxv. 1981:17]. 5. zi ki li a. sxvadas xva peri odis kul- 4. ax Ci a. Suab rin ja os xanis yorRa nu- tu ru li fene bi [nio ra Ze g. 1944:220]. li sa mar xebi [ja fa ri Ze o. da sxv. 1981:19- 78].

33 5. ax Ci is ga dasa xe di. Su ab rin ja os xa- axal qa la qis ra i oni (tab. II) nis yor Ra nu li samar xi [Ramba Si Ze o da 1. axalqa la qi I-V. Zveli qvis xanis sad- sxv. 2004:46-47]. go me bi [grigo lia g. 1961:17-18; gri go lia 6. ber Ta ya ne bi (ke Ti le Ti, berTa ya na, g. 1965:5-15; gabu nia m. 2004:5-7]. koJre bi). ad reb rin ja os xa nis na mo sax la- 2. axalqa la qis amira nis go ra. Zveli ri. Suab rin ja os xa nis yor Ra nu li samar- qvis xa nis ko leqci a. ad reb rin ja os xa nis xebi [jafa ri Ze o. da sxv. 1981:78-98]. namo sax la ri [ga bu nia m. 2000:77-79; gabu- 7. zve li (raba Ti, sayrdi ya ne bi, koS- nia m. 2004:5-6; Cubi niSvi li t. 1963:11-15]. ke bi, go xe bi). Suab rinja os xa nis yor Ra- 3. bav ra (far du li, mRvime). ze da pa- nu li sa mar xe bi. ad rebrin ja os da gvi an- le oli Ti sa da mezo liTis xanis sadgo me- brinja os xanis na mo sax la ri da kultur- bi [Габуния М. 1987: 15-16; Габуния М. 1995:5-7; li fe ne bi [Гамбашидзе О. и др. 1979:22-26; Габуния М. и др. 1984:4-5]. Гамбашидзе О. и др. 1980:78-85; Гамбашидзе О. 4. ba rale Ti (grZe li go xi, sir gvi, sa- и др. 1981:57-62; Гамбашидзе О. и др. 1985:35- ya rau lo mTa, nacar go ra, amaR le bis go- 36; Ramba Si Ze o. da sxv. 2004:44-45]. ra). ad rebrin ja os xanis namo sax la rebi. 8. ze da Tmogvi. ad rebrin ja os xanis gvian brin ja os xa nis kul tu ru li fe- namo sax la ri [or jo niki Ze al. 2000:16-20]. nebi [Ramba Si Ze o. 1969:18-20; lafa Ci c. 9. To ki (ci xis ye li) adreb rin ja- 2000:103-107]. os, Su ab rin ja os da gvi anbrin ja os xa nis 5. gande gi lis mRvime (sof. bavra sa da kul tu ru li fe nebi [Ram ba Si Ze o. da sxv. xulgu mos So ris). Zveli qvis (musti e) da 2004:50; Гамбашидзе О. и др. 1997:46]. mezo liTis xa nis sad go mebi. ad reb rin- 10. ni a la (du me i la, po kua anT koJre bi, ja os xanis kultu ru li fe na [Габуния М. ya Ca Re bi). Suab rin ja os xa nis yor Ra nu li 1997:13-14; gabu nia m. 2004:5] samar xe bi [ja fa ri Ze o. da sxv. 1981:108- 6. dan ka la (jiuT ma las gora). ad reb- 135]. ad rebrin ja os xanis namo sax la re bi rin ja o sa da Suab rin ja os xanis kul tu- (du me i la sa da ge lass So ris da nia la sa da ru li fene bi [Ramba Si Ze o. 1969:20]. le piss Soris) [or jo ni ki Ze al. 2000:18]. 7. di lis ka. Zveli qvis xa nis ko leqcia 11. oq ro ya na (var Zi a- miraS xnis gza ze). [ga bu nia m. 2000:77] Suab rin ja os xa nis yor Ra nu li sa mar xebi 8. zre si. ad rebrin ja os xanis go rana- [Гамбашидзе О. и др. 1991: 32-33; Ram ba Si Ze o. mos xlari [or joni ki Ze al. 2000:16-20]. da sxv. 2004:45-46]. 9. kar wa xi. ad reb rin ja os xa nis go ra- 12. saro (ber bu ke bi, ci xi a ye la, we ra- namo sax la ri [or joni ki Ze al. 2000:16-20]. kun ta, odise bi, wyal saqa Ci). gvi an brin- 10. ko Te li a. ad reb rin ja os xa nis na- ja o sa da eli nistu ri xa nis sa ma ro va ni, mo sax la ri [or joni ki Ze al. 2000:16-20]. ad reb rin ja osa da gvi anbrin ja os xa nis 11. ku mur do. Zveli qvis xa nis (mus- kul tu ru li fe ne bi. sava rau dod yor- ti e) ko leqcia [grigo lia g. 1961:17-18]. Ra nu li sa mar xebi [Ram ba Si Ze o. da sxv. 12. mur ji. Zv.w. VIII–V ss. sa mar xi da 2000:115-184; Ram ba Si Ze o. da sxv. 2004:47- kul tru li fena [Cu bi niSvi li t. da sxv. 50]. 1965:8-11]. 13. xi za bav ra (Tao be bi, va ran ta). yor- 13. okami (wi Te li go ra, hasan -Ca u). ad- Ra nu li go rasa mar xe bi [Ramba Si Ze o. da reb rin ja os, Su ab rin ja os, gvi anbri ja os sxv. 2004:50]. da eli nistu ri xa nis kul tu ru li fene- 14. WaW kre bi_ na ka lo e bi. Suab- bi. eli nistu ri xa nis samar xi [Ram ba Si Ze rin ja os xa nis yor Ra nu li samar xe- o. 1969:18-20; ja fa ri Ze o. da sxv. 1981:140- bi [ja fa riZe o. da sxv.1981:98-135]. 143]. 14. pte na. Zv.w. VI-IV ss. nivTe bis ko leqcia [Чубинишвили Т. и др. 1957:126].

34 15. Cun Cxa. ad reb rin ja os xanis namo- 14. fa ra va ni. Suab rin ja o sa da adre- sax la ri [or jo ni ki Ze al. 2000:16-20]. yor Ra nu li xa nis yor Ra nu li sa mar xe bi 16. xul gu mo (WaWka ri). Zv.w. XV-XIV ss. [Kva vad ze E. and oth. 2007:97-107]. yor Ra nu li sa mar xe bi [qi qo Ze z. da sxv. 15. qa Cal -go ra. yor Ra nu li samar xebi 1978:25]. [ja fa ri Ze o. da sxv. 1981:16]. 16. Wi qia ni. Zveli qvis xa nis niv Te bis ni now min dis ra io ni (tab. III) ko leqci a. [Кикодзе З. 1986:55-64; ga bu nia m. 1. av Cal gi o li (gan Za _ eSti as gza ze). 2000:77]. yor Ra nu li sa mar xe bi [qiqo Ze z. da sxv. 17. jig ra Seni (sof. jigra Se ni sa da 1978:25] pa ta ra xo re nias mim de ba re te ri tori a.) 2. gon dri o. ad reb rin ja os xa nis na mo- Zv.w. XV-XIV ss. yor Ra nebi da qvay ri lia ni sax la ri [or jo ni ki Ze al. 2000:16-20]. or mo sa mar xe bi [orjo ni ki Ze al. 1997:6]. 3. di ga Seni I-V (sof. xo reni a sa da jigra Sens So ris). ad rebrin ja os da gvi an- li te ra tu ra: brinja os xa nis na mosax la re bi da sama rova ni [orjo ni ki Ze al. 1997:6; or jo ni ki Ze ba ra mi Ze m., jibla Ze l., orjo ni ki Ze a., Todua T. 2007: Sefa se bi Ti mona cem Ta amo Rebis arqe o- al. 2000:16-20; Орджоникидзе А. 1995:82]. lo gi u ri kvleve bi IV-323 (248+800KP) sof. or- 4. kon du ra (sur b-sa ri). ad reb rin ja o- Wo sanTan, axalci xis ra ion Si, samcxis regi onsa da gvi an brinja os xa nis namo sax la rebi Si. Tbi li si (xelna weri). (xelna we re bis gac noba [or jo niki Ze al. 2000:16-20]. SesaZ lebe lia sa qar Tvelos erovnu li muze u- mis oT. lor Tqi fa niZis ar qeo lo gi is centris 5. ma Ra ra de re si. qvis xa nis mRvime e bi bibli o Te ka Si). [qiqo Ze z. da sxv. 1978:23-25]. ba ra mi Ze m. 2005: axalci xis ar qeo lo gi u ri eqspe- 6. pata ra xo re ni a. adreb rin ja os xa- di ci is 2004 wlis muSa obis Sede ge bi. klde. Wo- nis na mo sax la ri [or jo ni ki Ze al. 2000:16- ra tis na saxla ri da sama rova ni. Tbili si (xelna we ri). 20]. ga bu nia m. 2000: uZ vele si adami a ni samxreT saqar- 7. rodi o novka (ki oun da Ri, iniak da- Tve los vulka nuri mTia ne Tis regi on Si. _ mes- Ri). pa le oli Tis, mezo liTi sa da neo lixe Ti. isto ria da Ta na medro ve o ba. gv. 77-81. Tis xa nis sad go me bi da saxe los no [qiqo Ze axal ci xe. gabu nia m. 2004: samxreT saqar Tve los mTia ne Tis z. da sxv. 1978:20]. eq spedi ci a. _ sa ve le arqe o lo gi uri kvleva- 8. ro di o nov ka- fo kis gza. yor Ra nu- Zi e ba 1989-1992 wlebSi. - oT. lorTqi fa ni Ze da li samar xebi [qiqo Ze z. da sxv. 1978:25]. sxv. (red). gv. 5-7. Tbili si. 9. saTx e. adreb rin ja os xa nis namo sax- gabu nia m. 2006: Wo ra tis qveda pa le o li Tu ri Ria ad gilsam yo feli. _ Zie ba ni №17-18, gv. 12-17. la ri da yor Ra ni [or joni ki Ze al. 1997:7]. Tbili si. 10. tam bov ka (Sa o ri, yu re). qvi sa da ad- go gaZe el. 1980: fa ravnis yor Ranis gaTxre bi re sa miwaT moq me do kul tu ris xa nis niv- (1997). ssmae. VII. gv. 42-45. Tbili si. Te bis ko leqcia [qi qoZe z. da sxv. 1978:19- gri go lia g. 1961: ja va xeTis pale o li Tu ri Zegle- bi (1960 w. daz ver vebis Sede ge bi). _ a. afa qi- 20]. Ze, g. go bejiS vi li (red.).- saqar Tve lo Si 1960 11. fa ra va ni I. qvis xa nis ia ra Re bis ko- wels Ca ta re bu li ar qeo lo gi uri kvleva- Zi e- leqcia [qiqo Ze z. da sxv. 1978:20-23]. bis Sede ge bi. gv. 17-18. Tbili si. 12. fa ra va ni II. gvi anme zo li Ti sa da gri gog lia g. 1965: ja va xeTis qveda pa leo li Tu ri Zegle bi. mska. t. VII. gv. 5-14. Tbili si. ukera mi ko neo li Tis xanis niv Te bis ko- de dab riS vi li S. 1963: mesxeT -ja va xe Tis ar qeo lo- leqcia [qiqo Ze z. da sxv. 1978:25]. gi u ri eq spedi ci is daz verve bis winswa ri an ga- 13. fa ra va ni. Suab rin ja os xanis yor- ri Si. – samec nie ro sesia miZR vnili 1962 wlis Ra nu li sa mar xebi [Жоржикашвили Л. и др. sa ve le ar qe o lo gi uri kvleva- Zi e bis Sede ge bisad mi. gv. 17-19. Tbili si. 1974:26-27; go ga Ze el. 1980:42-045]. lafa Ci c. 2000: ad reb rinja os xa nis go rana mo saxla re bi ba ra le Tis teri to ri a ze. – mesxe Ti, is-

35 to ria da Ta na med rove o ba. gv. 103-110. axalci- ri anga ri Si. _ XVI samec ni e ro se sia miZRvni li xe. 1966 wlis sa vele ar qeo lo gi u ri kvleva_ Zi e- li Ce li v. 2000: an dria mo ci qu li - ar qeo lo gi u ri bis Sede ge bisad mi. gv. 48-50 Tbili si. re a lo ba. – mesxe Ti, isto ria da Ta na med ro veo- Ram ba Si Ze o. 1969: mesxeT –ja va xeTis ar qeo lo gi- ba. gv. 108-110 axalci xe. uri eq spedi ci is sadaz ver vo razmis winas wa ri li Ce li v., fo si j., mo ri ni J. 1997: sa qar Tve loan ga ri Si. – XVIII sa mecni e ro se sia miZRvni li saka na dis sam cxis, er Tob li vi eq spedi ci is 1993- qar Tvelo Si 1968 wels war moe bu li save le ar- 1996 w.w. muSa o bis anga ri Si _ ka vak si is ar qeo- qeo lo gi uri kvle va-Zi e bis Sede ge bi sad mi. gv. lo gi a: uax loe si aRmo Ce nebi da per speqti ve bi. 18-20. Tbili si. gv. 19_21. Tbili si. Ram ba Si Ze o. 1971: borjo mis xeo bis arqe o lo gi u- ni o ra Ze g. 1944: ar qeo lo gi uri daz ver vebi ri eqspe di ci is 1969 wlis muSa o bis an gari Si. mtkvris xeo baSi (bor jom -a xal ci xis mimar Tu- a. afa qi Ze (red.). ar qeo lo gi u ri kvleva_ Zi e ba le biT). _ ssmm. t. XIII B. gv. 173-235. Tbili si. sa qar Tvelo Si 1969 wels. gv. 42-44. Tbili si. or jo ni ki Ze al. 1997: zo gi ram brinja os xa nis Ses- Ram ba Si Ze o., Tu SiS vili n., xu butia g. 1972: bor- wavlis is to ri i dan samcxe- ja va xeT Si. (prep- jo mis xeo bis 1971 wlis ar qeo lo gi u ri eqspe- rin ti). Tbili si. dici is mu Sa o bis an gari Si. – a. afaqi Ze (red.). or jo ni ki Ze al. 2000: mtkvar -a raq sis kul turis ar qe o lo gi u ri kvleva– Zie ba saqar Tve lo Si Zegle bi ja va xe Tis pla todan. – Zi e ba ni №6. gv. 1971 wels. gv. 20-21. Tbili si. 16-20. Tbili si. Ram ba Si Ze o., Ram ba SiZe ir., kvir kvaia r. 2000: ar- or jo ni ki Ze al. 2005: or Wos nis na mo saxla ris ad- qeo lo gi uri kvleva_ Zi e ba sof. sa roSi. _ as- re u li kom pleqse bi. – Zi eba ni №15-18. gv. 69-78. pinZa_ sam cxisa da java xeTis sazRvar ze. gv. Tbili si. 115-184. axalci xe. qi qo Ze z., qori Ze i. 1978: fa rav nis daz ver vi Ti ar- Ram ba Si Ze o., Ram ba Si Ze ir., kvirkvaia r., kvi Ji- qeo lo gi u ri eqspe di ci is mi er 1997 wels Cata- naZe d. 2004: mesxeT -ja va xeTis arqe o lo giu ri re bu li sa mu Sa oe bis mok le an ga ri Se bi. _ ssmae eqspe di ci a. 1989-1991 ww. – oT. lor Tqifa ni- VI. gv. 19-26. Tbili si. Ze (red). save le arqe o lo gi u ri kvleva_ Zie ba Ram ba Si Ze ir. 2004: bor jo mis ar qe o lo gi u ri eq- 1989-1992 wlebSi. gv. 44-51 Tbili si. spedi cia 2003 wlis agvis to -oq tom ber Si. Cu bi niSvi li t. 1963: amira nis gora. Tbili si. KPP161-165 Ca ta re bu li kvle va_ Zi e bis an gari Si Cu bi niSvi li t. 1964: mesxeT -ja va xeTis arqe o lo- (xelna we ri). gi uri eq spedi ci is 1963 wlis muSa o bis Ziri Ta- Ramba Si Ze ir., mai su ra Ze b., go go Wu ri g., pa puaS- di Sede gebi. – XIII sa mecni e ro sesia miZRvni li vi li r. 2003a: bor jo mis ar qeo lo gi uri eq spe- 1963 wlis save le arqe o lo gi u ri kvleva- Zi e bis di ci is mo li Tis razmis 2002 wlis muSa o bis an- Se de gebi sad mi. gv. 8-10. Tbili si. ga ri Si (xelna we ri). Cu bi niSvi li t., Ram baSi Ze o. 1965: mesxeT -ja va xe- Ramba Si Ze ir., mai sura Ze b., go go Wu ri g., pa puaS- Tis ar qe o lo gi u ri eqspe di ci is 1964 wlis savi li r. 2003b: ba qo- Tbili si-je i ha nis milsa de- ve le mu Sa o bis Se dege bi. – XIV samec nie ro sesia nis bor jo mis ra i onis mo nak veTze (Tav kve Ti- miZR vnili 1964 wlis save le kvleva- Zie bis Se- li_mo li Ti) III fa ziT gaT va liswi nebu li ar qe- de ge bi sad mi. gv. 8-10. Tbili si. o lo gi uri gaTx rebis anga ri Si (xelna we ri). jafa ri Ze o., kik vi Ze i., avaliS vi li g., were Te li Ramba Si Ze ir., kaxi a ni k. 2004a: bor jo mis ar qeo- a. 1981: mesxeT -ja vaxe Tis ar qeo lo giu ri eqspe- lo gi u ri eqspe di ci is mo li Tis raz mis mi er dici is muSa o bis Sede ge bi. Tbili si. 2003 wlis seq tem ber _oq tom ber Si Ca ta re bu li Бибилури Т., Бенашвили О., Гватуа Н., Маисурашви- sa vele samu Sa oe bis anga ri Si (xelna we ri). ли Н. 1987: Работы Заденгорского отряда Месхет- Ram ba Si Ze ir., go go Wu ri g. 2004b: bor jo mis rai o- Джавахетской экспедиции. – О. Лордкипанидзе и др. nis ar qe o lo gi u ri eqspe di ci is mier 2004 wlis (ред.). ПАИ в 1984–1985гг. с. 35-36. Тбилиси. iv lis-ag visto Si (KP 179, 193) Ca ta rebu li gaTx- Габуния М., Каландадзе К. 1984: Исследование памятни- re bis anga riSi (xelna we ri). ков каменного века на территории Южно-Грузинского Ramba Si Ze ir., gogo Wu ri g. 2007a: kompleq su ri нагорья.- О. Лордкипанидзе и др. (ред.). ПАИ в 1981 г. teq ni ku ri an gari Si Se fase bi Ti da mo na cem Ta с. 4-5. Тбилиси. amo Rebis ar qeo lo gi uri kvlevis ubanze Габуния М. 1985: Итоги работ экспедиции Южно- IV-338, KP 195+320-ze sof. saki res Tan, bor jo- Грузинского нагорья.- О. Лордкипанидзе и др. (ред.). mis ra ion Si, samcxis regi on Si (xelna we ri). ПАИ в 1982 г. с. 6-8. Тбилиси. Ram ba Si Ze ir., mindi aS vi li g. 2007b: Sefa se ba Ta Габуния М. 1986: Экспедиция Южно-Грузинского нагорья. mo na cem Ta amo Re bis ar qe o lo gi u ri kvleve bi – О. Лордкипанидзе и др. (ред.). ПАИ в1983 г. с. 5-6. uban ze IV-217 (KP 225) axal ci xis rai on Si, sam- Тбилиси. cxe-ja va xe Tis regi on Si (xelna we ri). Габуния М. 1987: Экспедиция Южно-Грузинского наго- Ram ba Si Ze o. 1967: bor jo mi sa da axalci xis ra io- рья. – О. Лордкипанидзе и др. (ред.). ПАИ в1984-1985 nebSi 1966 w. Ca ta re bu li daz ver ve bis wi nas wa- гг. с. 15-17. Тбилиси.

36 Габуния М. 1995: Экспедиция Южно-Грузинского наго- Жоржикашвили Л., Гогадзе Э. 1974: Триалети эпохи ран- рья. – О. Лордкипанидзе и др. (ред.). ПАИ в 1987 г. с. ней и средней бронзы. Тбилиси. 5-6. Тбилиси. Квижинадзе К. 1986: Работы Цнисисхевского отряда Габуния М. 1987: Археологические исследование Южно- Месхет-Джавахетской экспедиции. – О. Лордкипанид- Грузинского нагорья. – О. Лордкипанидзе и др. (ред.). зе и др. (ред.). Паи в 1983 г. с. 27-29. Тбилиси. ПАИ в 1988 г. с. 13-16. Тбилиси. Квижинадзе К. 1987: Отчет о работу Цнисского отряда. – Гамбашидзе О., Артилаква В. 1973: Итоги Месхет- О. Лордкипанидзе и др. (ред.). Паи в 1984-1985 гг. с. Джавахетской Археологической экспедиции.- 32-35. Тбилиси. О. Лордкипанидзе и др. (ред.). ПАИ в 1972 г. с. 37-40. Кикодзе З. 1986: Бифаз – колун в ашеле Кавказа. ВГМГ. 38 Тбилиси. В. с. 55-64. Тбилиси. Гамбашидзе О., Артилаква В. 1974: Предварительный от- Насидзе Г., Артилаква В. 1980: Итоги работы Тори – Ли- чет о работе проведенной Месхет-Джавахетской Ар- канской Археологической экспедиции. – О. Лордки- хеологической экспедиции.- О. Лордкипанидзе и др. панидзе и др. (ред.). Паи в 1977 г. с. 292-298. Тбилиси. (ред.). ПАИ в 1973 г. с. 24-26. Тбилиси. Насидзе Г. 1981: Работы Тори-Ликанской экспедиции. – О. Гамбашидзе О., Артилаква В. 1976: О работе Месхет- Лордкипанидзе и др. (ред.). Паи в 1978 г. с. 183-185. Джавахетской экспедиции.- О. Лордкипанидзе и др. Тбилиси. (ред.). ПАИ в 1974 г. с. 51-54. Тбилиси. Насидзе Г., Личели В. 1995: Тори-Ликанская экспедиция. – Гамбашидзе О., Квижинадзе К. 1979: Работы Месхет- О. Лордкипанидзе и др. (ред.). Паи в 1987 г. с. 101-103. Джавахетской экспедиции.- О. Лордкипанидзе и др. Тбилиси. (ред.). ПАИ в 1976 г. с. 55-60. Тбилиси. Насидзе Г. 1997: Отчет о работе Тори-Ликанской экспеди- Гамбашидзе О., Квижинадзе К., Орджоникидзе А. 1980: ции. – О. Лордкипанидзе и др. (ред.). Паи в 1988 г. с. Отчет работы Месхет-Джавахетской Археологиче- 89-91. Тбилиси. ской экспедиции. – О. Лордкипанидзе и др. (ред.). Орджоникидзе А.1995: Работы Джавахетской экспеди- ПАИ в 1977 г. с. 78-85. Тбилиси. ции на памятниках бронзового века. – О. Лордкипа- Гамбашидзе О., Квижинадзе К. 1981: Отчет Месхет- нидзе и др. (ред.). Паи в 1987г. с. 80-82. Тбилиси. Джавахетской экспедиции.- О. Лордкипанидзе и др. Пхакадзе Г. 2004: Новый очаг раннеземледельческой (ред.). ПАИ в 1979 г. с. 57-73. Тбилиси. культуры южной Грузии – Археология, этноглогия, Гамбашидзе О., Квижинадзе К. 1982: Месхет- фольклористика Кавказа. 120. Тбилиси. Джавахетская экспедиция. – О. Лордкипанидзе и др. Пхакадзе Г., Каландадзе К., Орджоникидзе А. 1982: Ре- (ред.). ПАИ в1980г. с. 29-31. Тбилиси. зультаты работ Абастуманской экспедиции. – О. Лорд- Гамбашидзе О., Квижинадзе К., Ткешелашвили О., Личели кипанидзе и др. (ред.). Паи в 1980 г. с. 20-21. Тбилиси В. 1984: Месхет –Джавахетская экспедиция. – О. Лорд- Чубинишвили Т., Татишвили Т., Гамбашидзе О. 1957: Ар- кипанидзе и др. (ред.). ПАИ в 1981 г. с. 16-19. Тбилиси. хеологической разведки в южных районах Грузии. Гамбашидзе О., Квижинадзе К., Абрамишвили М. 1985: (Месхет-Джавахети) в 1953- 1955 гг. – СА № 4, с.116- Отчет о работе Месхет – Джавахетской экспедиции в 127. Москва. 1982 году. – О. Лордкипанидзе и др. (ред.). ПАИ в 1982 Kva vadze E., Kak hi a ni K., Pa ta rid ze N., Con nor S. 2007: The г. с. 31-36. Тбилиси. re sults of in vesti ga ti on of Pa ra va ni Kur gan – saqar Tve- Гамбашидзе О., Гамбашидзе И. 1986: Работы Месхет- los mec ni e re ba Ta akade mi is macne. Bbio lo giis Джавахетской экспедиции в 1983 году - О. Лордкипа- seqci a. B. №2, Vol 5. p. 97-107. Tbili si. нидзе и др. (ред.). ПАИ в 1983 г. с. 21-27. Тбилиси. Гамбашидзе О., Гамбашидзе И. 1987: Месхет –Джавахет- ilus tra ci e bis aR we ri loba: ская экспедиция в 1984 году. – О. Лордкипанидзе и др. tab. I – borjo mis da adige nis ra io ne bis ruke bi. (ред.). ПАИ в 1984-1985 гг. с. 28-32. Тбилиси. tab. II – axal ci xi sa da ni nowmin dis rai o ne bis ruke bi. Гамбашидзе О., Квижинадзе К., Гамбашидзе И. 1991: Основные результаты Месхет- Джавахетской экспе- tab. III – as pin Zi sa da axalqa la qis rai o ne bis ruke bi. диции в 1985-1986 гг. – О. Лордкипанидзе и др. (ред.). ПАИ 1985-1986 гг. с. 27-34. Тбилиси. pi robi Ti niSne bi Гамбашидзе О., Гамбашидзе И. 1995: Работы Месхет – - sa ma rov ne bi da samar xe bi Джавахетской экспедиции. – О. Лордкипанидзе и др. (ред.). ПАИ в1987 г. с. 48-54. Тбилиси. - yorRa nu li sa mar xebi Гамбашидзе О., Гамбашидзе И. 1997: Месхет- - na mo saxla re bi da nage bo be bi Джавахетская экспедиция.- О. Лордкипанидзе и др. (ред.). ПАИ в 1988 г. с. 44-47. Тбилиси. - sa war moo naS Te bi Гогочури Г., Орджоникидзе А. 2007: Новый памятник - kultu ru li fene bi Куро-аракской культуры Боржомского ущелья. – Ар- хеология, этнология, фольклористика Кавказа. с. 60- - ar qe olo giu ri koleq ci e bi 61. Махачкала. - gan Ze bi

37 R. Kvirkvaia I

mtkvari

26 38

6 5

33 7 19 waRveri 33 gujareTis wyali 37 27 3 17 35 11 41 16 8 21 4 23 dviri 22 14 40 gujareTi 9 1 31 29 bakuriani 28 14 30

cixisjvari qcia 36 12 18 15

32 tabawyuri 25

24 23

38 II

39 III

40 ni no min da Ze

same di ci no an Tro po lo gi u ri kvle vis per speqti va Zve li kol xeTis ma ga liT ze dRes an Tro po lo gia mec ni e re bis erT- re o bas sa zo ga do e ba Si, da a va de bis ga mom- er Ti yve la ze mniS vne lo van da aq tu a lur wvev mi ze zebs, mkur na lo bis sa Su a le beb sa dar gad iT vle ba. is aerTi a nebs fi zi kur, da Se de gebs, ara med mTel sa zo ga do e bas, so ci a lur sa da kul tu rul, var . so ci- mis sa me di ci no as peq tebs _ me di ci nas, o kul tu rul an Tro po lo gi as, mo i cavs ro gorc so ci a lur mov le nas. mec ni e re bis iseT dar gebs ro go ric aris sa me di ci no an Tro po lo gi is kvle vis an Tro po lo gi u ri lingvis ti ka, ar qe o- sfe ro ki dev uf ro far To da mniS vne lo va- lo gi a, eT no lo gia da sxv. aR niS nu li mecni a, rad gan mas da a va de ba ain te re sebs ro- ni e re be bi em sa xu re ba an Tro po lo gi is gorc fe no me ni, ro mel sac Se uZ lia gav le- sa bo loo mi zans _ Se iswav los ada mi a ni na iqo ni os so ci o kul tu rul mov le neb sa yo vel mxriv ro gorc fi zi ku rad, ise so- da pro ce seb ze, sa zo ga do e bis is to ri ul ci a lur da kul tu rul Wril Si. an Tro po- gan vi Ta re ba ze. lo gi u ri kvle va sa me di ci no as peq teb sac dRes uk ve dad ge ni li faq ti a, rom da- gu lis xmobs, rac er Ti ande ba mec ni e re bis a va de ba Ta gav rce le bam, epi de mi eb ma mniS- uk ve da mo u ki de bel dargSi, ro mel sac sa- vne lo va ni ro li iTa ma Sa sa zo ga do e bis me di ci no an Tro po lo gia ewo de ba. sa me di- gan vi Ta re bis pro ces Si. aris mo saz re ba, ci no an Tro po lo gia Seis wav lis ada mi a nis rom tro pi ku li ma la ri is gav rce le bis jan mrTe lo ba sa da daa va de bas, jan mrTe- are al ma gar kve u li gav le na iqo nia in do- lobis dac vis sis te mas, bu neb riv da so- ev ro pu li to me bis pir ve la di ad gil sacx- ci o kul tu rul ga re mosTan ada mi a nis bi- ov ri sis te ri to ri is Ser Ce va ze ev ra zi a Si o kul tu rul adap ta cias. sa me di ci no an- [Харрисон Дж., Уайнер Дж., Тэннер Дж., Барникот Tro po lo gia gan sa kuT re bul yu radR e bas Н., Рейнолдс В. 1970:570; Гамкрелидзе Т., Иванов amax vi lebs me di ci nis so ci o kul tu rul Вяч. 1984: 915-916]. ase ve gar kve u li is to- as peq teb ze, rad gan `daa va de ba da mkur nari u li mov le ne bi da a va de be biT iyo gan- lo ba mxo lod ab straq tulad aris suf Ta pi ro be bu li. cno bi li a, rom pe lo po ne sis bi o lo gi u ri pro ce si... sad gax da avad ada- omis dros aTen Si Zv.w. 429 wels epi de mi am mi a ni, ra sa xis da a va de ba Se e ya ra mas da ra ifeT qa. dRem de ga ur kve ve lia Tu ra epi de- sa xis mkur na lo ba sWirde ba, xSi rad gan pi- mia iyo: Sa vi Wi ri, ma la ri a, yva vi li Tu sxv. ro be bu lia so ci a lu ri faq to re biT~ [Li e- am epi de mi am mniS vne lo va ni ro li iTa ma Sa ban R. 1977:15]. omis msvle lo ba Si da man ve Se i wi ra aTe- adami a nis da, sa er Tod, sa zo ga do e bis nel Ta cno bi li mxe dar TmTa va ri pe rik le. cxov re bis we si, bev rad aris da mo ki de bu- mi iC ne ven, rom 1167 wels ro mi swo red mali ada mi a nis jan mrTe lo bis mdgo ma re o ba- la ri is epi de mi am ix sna frid rix bar ba- ze, da a va de ba Ta gav rcele bis in ten si vo- ro sas Tav das xmi sa gan. ro mis ked leb Tan ba ze. Tun dac ra rols Tama Sobs da a va de ba mim dgar ger ma nel Ta jar Si ma la ria gav- eko lo gi ur da evo lu ciur pro ce seb Si, rce le bu la da ger ma ne le bi iZu le bu le bi ase ve ada mi a nis mi er sam yaros aR qma Si, so- gam xda ran ukan da e xi aT. bev ri ase Ti ma ga- ci a lu ri sis te me bis Seq mna Si, so ci o kul- li Tis moy va na Se iZ le ba imis saC ve neb lad, tu ru li Ri re bu le bebis Ca mo ya li be ba Si... Tu ra rols Ta ma Sobs da a va de ba sa zo ga- Tu sa me di ci no an Tro po lo gi as am kuTx iT do e bis gan vi Ta re bis is to ri a Si. Sev xe davT, da vi na xavT, rom igi ik vlevs ara sa me di ci no an Tro po lo gi u ri kvle- mxo lod ada mi a nis jan mrTe lo bis mdgo ma- vis Tvis gan sa kuT re bu li mniS vne lo ba eni-

41 We ba is to ri ul wya roebs. ar qe o lo gi u ri, ri, in te leq tu a lur -teq ni ku ri, sa vaW ro- we ri lo bi Ti Tu eT nog ra fi u li mo na ce- ko mu ni ka ci u ri, ge o pol ti kur -stra te gi- me bis ga re Se Se uZ le beli iq ne bo da Zve li u li, su li er -kul tu ru li gan vi Ta re bis sa zo ga do e be bis sa me di ci no kul tu ris ma Ra li do ne~ [gam yre li Ze g. 1993:41]. Ses wav la, da a va de bi sa Tu me di ci nis ro- imav dro u lad `Zve li kol xe Tis is to- lis gar kveva Zvel kul tu reb Si. swo red ri ul gan vi Ta re ba Si an ga riS ga sa we via zo- ar qe o lo ge bis, an Tro po lo ge bi sa da pa- gi er Ti faq tor -kom po nen tis uar yo fi Ti leo pa To lo ge bis er Tob li vi kvle vis Se- mxa re... da sav leT kol xe Tis Wa o bi a no ba de gad dad gin da uZ ve le si sa xis da a va de- iw vev da sxva das xva da a va de bas, rac... uar- ba ni, ga mov lin da mkur na lo bis uZ ve le si yo fi Tad imoq me deb da mo sax le o bis gam- sa Su a le ba ni: Ta vis qalis tre pa na cia Tu rav le ba ze~ [gam yre li Ze g. 1993:40]. sxva. am mxriv sa qar Tvelo Sic aris kvle- am gva rad, bi o ge o ga re mo xSir Sem Txve- va Ca ta re bu li. mi Re bu lia mniS vne lo va ni va Si ama Tu im da a va de bis xel Sem wyo bi a. das kvne bi. sa me di ci no Tval saz ri siT Ses- er T-er Ti ase Ti _ ma la ri a a, ro me lic spe- wav li lia kra ni o lo gi u ri da os te o lo gi- ci fi kur ga re mo Si, ker Zod ki Wa o bi an ad- u ri ma sa la, ga mov le nilia pa To lo gi e bi, gi leb Si mcxov reb sa zo ga do e ba Si vrcel- mkur na lo bis me To debi, aris cda sa me di- de ba. ma la ri as ge og ra fi u li ga re mos da a- ci no kul te bis dad ge ni sa. aR niS nu li sava de ba dac mi iC ne ven [Бродель Ф. 2002:71]. kiTx e bis kvle va Si qar Tvel ar qe o lo geb- ma la ria sa qar Tve lo Si far Tod gav- Tan er Tad gan sa kuT rebu li dam sa xu re ba rce le bu li en de mu ri da a va de ba a. igi uZ- mi uZR viT an Tro po logeb sa da pa le o pa- ve le si dro i dan gvxvde ba kol xe Tis dab- To lo gebs. lob ze, sa dac ma la ri is sa u ke Te so xel Sem- da a va de beb ma, gan sa kuT re biT ki epi- wyo bi pi ro be bi iyo. `...kol xe Tis es zo na de mi eb ma, ra Tqma un da, gar kve u li ro- (i gu lis xme ba zRvis sa na pi ro zo li n.m.) li qar Tve li xal xis is to ri a Sic iTa ma Sa, ...u ax lo es war sul Si ma la ri is bu des war- gan sa kuT re biT ki mig ra ci ul pro ce seb Si, mo ad gen da. un da vi fiq roT, rom ase Ti ve magram es sa kiTxi se ri o zu li kvle vis sa- iyo igi ho lo ce nis yve la tran sgre si ul ga ni jer je ro biT ar yo fi la. sa qar Tve- mo nak veT ze~ [xa xu ta iS vi li d. 1995:19]. los is to ri is am as peq tiT kvle va ki per- uZ ve le si we ri lo bi Ti in for ma cia sa- speq ti u lia da vfiq robT mniS vne lo van qar Tve los te ri to ri a ze ma la ri iT da a- Se de gebs mo i tans. va de bul Ta Se sa xeb hi pok ra tes ekuT vnis: `Zve li kol xe Tis bi o ge o ga re mos we ri- `...xo lo vinc fa sis Si cxov robs, maT Se- lo bi Ti da ar qe o lo gi u ri mi mo xil vi dan sa xeb [Sem de gi maqvs saT qme li]: es qve ya na naT lad Cans, rom bi o ge o ga re mom wam yva ni Wa o bi a ni a, Tbi li da tyi a ni. wlis yo vel ro li iTa ma Sa kol xe Tis is to ri u li gan vi- dros iq xSi ri wvi me bi mo dis. ada mi a nebs Ta re bis pro ces Si. kol xe Ti mTe bi Ta da da sacx ov re be li Wa o beb Si aqvT, da [ma Ti] xi- zRviT kar gad Se mo sazRvru li is to ri ul sa da ler wmis sax le bi wyal zea ga mar Tu- -ge og ra fi u li re gi o ni iyo, rac ge o pol- li. isi ni co tas da di an fe xiT qa la qeb sa ti ku rad gar kve ul bu neb riv dam cav ares da nav Tsad gu reb Si, ara med da cu ra ven qmni da. no yi e ri ni a dagi, mra val fe ro va ni aR ma- daR ma erT xe Si amo Re bu li na ve biT, re li e fi, zo mi e ri klima ti, hid ro re sur- rad gan ar xe bi bev ri a. isi ni sva men Tbil sa se bis sim rav le, mad ne u lis si ux ve, flo- da dam dgar wyals mzi sa gan dam pals da wvi- ris da fa u nis mra val sa xe o ba sa zo ga do e- mi sa gan adi de buls. Tvi Ton fa si si ki yve- bis prog re sis Tvis karg sa fuZ vels iZ le o- la mdi na re Ta So ris yve la ze uf ro din jia da. upi ra te sad ki ama ze aris da mo ki de bu- da Za li an mdo red mi e di ne ba. ...wyle bi sa gan li sa zo ga do e bis sa me ur ne o -e ko no mi ku ri, am qve ya nas di di nis li ad gas. am mi ze ze bis de mog ra fi u li, fi zio lo gi ur -fsi qi ku- ga mo a, rom fa si se lebs sxva ada mi a neb Tan

42 Se dare biT di dad gan sxva ve bu li Se sa xevi fiq roT, Zve li kol xe Tis mcxov reb Ta da o ba aqvT: ta nad di de bi ari an, sis qiT _ aR we ri sas is am su raTs ma la ri a sa da ma la- me tis me tad sqe le bi; arc erTs ar em Cne va ri ul ane mi as da u kav Si reb da, mag ram Cans, arc sax sa ri da arc Zar Rvi; ka ni ki yvi Te li hi pok ra te ar Tvlis mas ma la ri ul `siy- aqvT, TiT qos siy viT le sWir deT. la pa ra- viT led~ anu ma la ri ul ane mi ad. igi ara- ko ben ada mi an Ta So ris yve la ze bo xi xmiT, fers am bobs ma la ri u li `ci eb -cxe le bis~ [radgan] suf Ta ha e riT ki ar sun Tqa ven ara- Se sa xe bac, ro me lic Tan ax lavs am da a va- med no ti oT da nes ti a niT; xo lo imi saT vis, de bas da ad vi lad ga mo sac nobs xdis mas. rom sxe uls ja fa mi a yenon, Za li an zar ma- es da a va de ba arc epi de mi u ri siy viT le a, ce bi ari an~ [ya ux CiS vi li T. 1965:45,47]. hi- amas TviT hi pok ra te ga mo ricx avs. cxa di a, pok ra te aR wers kol xe Tis bi o ge o ga re mos rom igi hi pok ra tes Tvis nak le bad cno bi- da am kon teq stSi war mog vid gens fa si sis li da a va de ba a, da al baT ise Ti da a va de ba, auz Si mcxov reb Ta an Tropo lo gi ur sa xes, ro me lic sa er Tod im dro in de li me di ci- kon sti tu ci ur tips. magram ra tom Rac ni saT vis nak le bad cno bi li da ga mo uv li- ara fers am bobs aq gav rcele bu li da a va de- ne be li iyo. bis Se sa xeb. hi pok ra tes cno bis ko men ta ri Cven vfiq robT, rom hi pok ra tes Ta vis ekuT vnis T. ya ux CiS vils, ro me lic Sem deg- ze mox se ne bu li aR we ri lo biT, mo ce mu li na i rad xsnis ze mo aR niS nul ga re mo e bas _ aqvs an ki los to mi do zis en de mu ri ke ra. `rogor axasi a Tebs fa si selebs hi pok ra te an ki los to mi do zi uZ ve le si da a va de ba a, _ isi ni tan maR le bi, msuqne bi da Cay viT- mag ram XIX sa u ku nis bo lom de Se us wav- le bu le bi ari an. la pa ra ko ben bo xi xmiT, le li iyo, Tum ca, ro gorc aR niS na ven, am sa gan ge bod aris aR niS nuli ma Ti si zar ma- da a va de bis cal ke u li niS ne bi asax vas po- ce. siy viT le, Cans, ima Ti iq na Sem Cne u li, u lob da TviT hi pok ra tes, ga le nis, avi ce- vi sac ma la ria sWir da da ase Ti bev ri iq ne- na sa da sxva Ta Sro meb Si, mag ram TviT da a- bo da Wa o beb Si mcxov reb Ta gan. rac Se e xe ba va de ba, ro gorc no zo lo gi u ri er Te u li, me tis met sim suq ne sa da sizar ma ces, ama ze am da a va de bis ar si, maT Tvis uc no bi iyo” Wirs ra i mes Tqma, rad gan qar Tve li xal- [Sen ge lia m. 1966:56]. xi da miT ume tes da sav leT sa qar Tve los mar Tlac sin te re so a, ra tom ara fers mosax le o ba, Ta vi si sis xar ti Ta da sic qvi- am bobs hi pok ra te fa si sis auz Si gav rce- tiT aris gan Tqmu li. Se saZ loa hi pok rale bu li da a va de bis Se sa xeb. hi pok ra te ma- tes me tis me tad msu qa ni (an da si e bu li) da la ri iT da a va de bu lebs, rom aR wers, sa eW- zar ma ci isev avad myo fe bi eC ve nen, rom le- vo ar aris. ro gorc vTqviT, ma la ria kol- bic mas, ro gorc eqims, uTu od uf ro ain- xe Tis dab lob ze uZ ve le si dro i dan iyo te re seb da, vid re jan Ro niT sav se mSro me- gav rce le bu li da XX sa u ku nis I me oTx ed- li xal xi, rom lis dak virve bis sa Su a le ba Sic da sav leT sa qar Tve los ba ris mTe li eqims nak le bad eq ne boda~ [ya ux CiS vi li T. ri gi re gi o ne bis mo sax le o bas saf rTxes 1965:21]. am gva rad, T. ya uxCiS vi li hi pok ra- uq mni da. amas aR niS navs TiT qmis yve la tes cno bas kol xe Tis dab lob ze ma la ri is ucx o e li, ro me lic da sav leT sa qar Tve- gav rce le bis das tu rad miiC nevs. los am re gi o neb Si mox ved ri la. maT So ris ama ve cno bis sa fuZ vel ze, me di ci nis aR sa niS na via XIX s-is mec ni e ri sa da mog za- is to ri ko si m. Sen ge lia gan sxva ve bul mo- u ris karl ko xis cno ba, ro me lic Za li an saz re bas ga moT qvams: `buneb ri vi a, aRiZ- ax los dgas hi pok ra tes mo na ce meb Tan. igi vre ba sa kiTxi _ ra da ava de bas Tan an da a- Sem deg na i rad aR wers aq gav rce le bu li va de bis ra en de mur keras Tan un da hqo no- da a va de bis sim pto mebs da da a va de ba sac da saq me hi pok ra tes? is xom im dro is ga- ma la ri ad mi iC nevs _ `ci e ba aq (i gu lis- mo Ce ni li eqi mi iyo, ro melic ma la ri a sa da xme ba fo Ti - n.m.) da ni ko la i Si (Sek ve Ti li mis kli ni kas kar gad icnob da. ami tom, un da -Nn.m.)... yve la ze sa Si Si mte ri a, foT Si es na-

43 wi lob riv ad gil mde bare o bi Tac aix sne ba. (`Tval sa TeT ri ga uy viT ldes ...Ta vi su- mis gar Se mo ni a da gi Wao bi a ni a. gar da ami sa, bu qad ed gas~) [qa na ne li, 1940:124]), ra sac zRvidan ube ravs qa ri, ro mel sac ga mo aqvs mos devs or ga niz mis sa er To da sus te ba da mav ne ana or TqliT gaJ Ren Ti li no tio ha e- sxe u lis Se Su pe ba (`zog jer xel ni da fer- ri... vi sac es avad myo fo ba Se ipy robs, mTe- xni ga u siv den~) [fa nas ker tel -ci ciS vi li li Tavi si siZ li e riT, xSi rad mi si pir ve- z. 1950:397] [a bu la Ze s., baq ra Ze t. 1960:20]. li ve Se te vis msxver pli xde ba. Cven ise Ti ma la ri is à ram wva ve~ for mis e.w. Cu mi SemTxve vis mow me ni vi ya viT, rom xSi rad ci e bis Se sa xeb cno bas gvaw vdis iul. lo- ver van sxva veb diT Tu ra Wir da ada mi ans, mo u ri: `Cven Si gav rce le bu li yo fi la e.w. epi lef sia Tu cxe le bi sa gan Sem civ ne ba, Cu mi ci e ba, ci e bis qro ni ku li for ma, ro- radgan ki du re bi ucax ca xeb daT. isi ni ki, de sac ci e ba aS ka rad ar mJRav nde ba, Cu mad vi sac am avad myo fo bis mwva ve for ma ara aris sxe ul Si ga yu Ce bu li da fa ru lad aqvT, Tan da Ta no biT ixo ce bi an. xSi rad mim di na re obs~ [lo mo u ri iul. 1925:63]. ci- Sex vde biT Se si e bul, fer mkrTal, Cay viT- e bis er T-er Ti gar Tu le ba wyal man ki iyo, le bul sa xe ebs, rom le bic ga re sam ya ros ro me lic da a va de bu lis Se Su pe bas iw vev da mi marT in de fe ren tu lebi ari an. ma Ti gada ma la ri is gar Tu le bu li, Se a saZ le be- mo mety ve le ba od na vadac ar ic vle ba: far- lia qro ni ku li for mis sxva sim pto meb- To fo so e bi dan usi cocx lo Tva le bi iyu- Tan er Tad, sav se biT em Txve va hi pok ra tes re ba, xe le bi ukan ka lebT, si a ru li uWirT” mi er aR we ril fa zi sis au zis mo sax le o bis [koxi k., spen se ri o. 1981:168]. ko xi aS ka rad da a va de bu li na wi lis ga reg nul niS nebs. ga nas xva vebs ci e bis or for mas: `mwva ve sa~ am gva rad, kol xe Tis dab lob ze spe ci fi ku- da à ram wva ves~, am uka nas kne lis sim pto meri bi o ge og ra fi u li ga re mos ga mo Zvel Ta- bi ki, ro gorc vxe davT, msgav sia hi pok ra- gan ve gav rce le bu li iyo ma la ri is mwva ve tes mi er aR we ril fa si sel Ta ga reg nu li da aram wva ve, qro ni ku li for me bi. am uka- niS ne bi sa. am gva rad, un da vi gu lis xmoT, nas knels qar Tve li xal xi, ro gorc Cans, rom am Sem Txve va Si hi pok ra tem na xa à ram- Cum ci e bas uwo deb da. ci e ba daRs as vam da wva ve~, qro ni ku li ci e biT da a va de bul ni. kol xe Tis dab lo bis mo sax le o bis ga reg- ni San dob li vi a, rom ma la ri is sxva das xva no bas da ara mar to ga reg no bas, ma la ri as, for me bi aR we ri lia Sua sa u ku ne e bis qar- ro me lic aTe u li sa u ku ne e bis man Zil ze Tul sa me di ci no xel na we reb Si da aR niS- kol xe Tis dab lo bis prob le mas war mo ad- nu lia ma la ri is zo gier Ti for mis xan- gen da ar Se iZ le ba kva li ar da e to ve bi na am grZli vo bis Se sa xe bac _ è se cxro ege bis are al Si mo sax le sa zo ga do e bis cxov re ba- or sa we li wad sa ca ar ga e ya ros~ [qa na ne li ze. sa me di ci no an Tro po lo gi u ri kvle vis 1940:131]. zo gi er Ti for mis sim pto me bi, sa fuZ vel ze miC ne u li a, rom kul tu rul rom lis Se sa xeb cno bebs sa me di ci no dar- mo del Si, sa dac ma la ria aris gav rce le- gis spe ci a lis te bi gvaw vdi an, sav se biT bu li, sa zo ga do e bis gan vi Ta re ba `ma la ri- em Txve va hi pok ra tes aRwe ri lo bas. à vad- is kon tro lis qveS mim di na re obs [Pac kard R., myo fi uxa li so da a, (i gu lis xme ba ma la- Brown P. 1997:187], e.i. ma la ria are gu li rebs ri iT da a va de bu li n.m.) mowy e ni li a, ma da sa zo ga do e bis cxov re bis wess. isic aR sada kar gu li aqvs (`naR vli a nad iyos amis niS na vi a, rom ma la ri a, qi na qi nis aR mo Cenis pat ro ni~ ... `sa u ba ri ar mo un de bo des, da Sem deg, epi de mi e bis sa xiT nak le bad das- ar ca mo un de bo des sa Wa ma di~) [qa na ne li, tur de ba da, ra Tqma un da, mi si gav le nac 1940:124], à ra hne bavs mas kac sa saZ ra xa vi `kul tu rul mo de leb Si~ nak le bad Cans. da arca mo un de bis sa Wa ma di~ [fa nas ker- ra ro li iTa ma Sa ma la ri am qar Tvel Ta tel -ci ciS vi li z. 1950:397]. `su lis Se- cxov re ba Si? es sa kiTxi jer -je ro biT Ses- viw re ba mwo ved eq ne bis~ [bag ra ti o ni d. wav li li ar aris, mag ram gar kve u li mo saz- 1938:492])... vi Tar de ba ane mia da siy viT le re be bi ga moT qmu li a. sa yu radR e bod mig-

44 vaC nia kav ka si is sa im pe ra to ro sa me di ci no va ri as dis da sxe ul Si sik vdi lis Ca na saxs sa zoga do e bis wev ris eqi misa da sa me di ci- Te savs~ [ko xi k., spe ne ri o. 1981:180-181]. no ge og ra fi is spe ci a listis i. pan ti u xo- ma la ri is gav le nis kva li aS ka rad Cans vis mo saz re ba. man 1899 wels ga mo aq vey na kol xe Tis dab lo bis mo sax le o bis yo fiT naS ro mi `ma la ri is gavle na kav ka si is ko- kul tu ra ze. am kuTx iT sa in te re soa sa qar- lo ni za ci a ze~, sa dac aR niS na, rom kav ka si- Tve lo Si, gan sa kuT re biT ki Sa vi zRvis piis `ye lis~ mo sax le o bas: kol xebs, la zebs, ra re gi o nis mo sax le o bi saT vis da ma xa si a- aba zebs, sva neb sa Tu sxvebs uZ ve le si dro- Te be li er Ti uZ ve le si we si, ro mel sac pi- i dan Tavs es xmo da sxva das xva xal xi da es ro bi Tad mom Ta ba re o bas uwo de ben. es we si xal xi, co ta Tu di di xnis man Zil ze gar- gu lis xmobs sacx ov reb lad mo sax le o bis kve ul rols Ta ma Sob da maT cxov re ba Si. se zo nur ga da nac vle bas ba ri dan mTa Si da `mag ram, rom ar Se ve xoT qvi sa da brin ja- pi ri qiT. aqa u ri mo sax le o ba zaf xul Si os epo qebs~, wers igi, `isto ri ul pe ri od- mTi an ad gi leb Si mi di o da sacx ov reb lad, Si am Tav das xmeb ma kav kasi is eT nog ra fi a- zam Tar Si ki dab lobs ub run de bo da. cxov- ze gan sa kuT re bu li mniS vne lo bis gav le na re bis es we si kol xe Tis dab lob ze, ar qe o- ar mo ax di na. Sa vi zRvis auz Si, mim di na re lo gi u ri mo na ce me biT, jer ki dev ad re nesa u ku ne Sic (i gu lis xmeba XIX s. - Nn.m.) ki o li Tis xa na Si das tur de ba. `qo bu le Tis cxov ro ben ise Ti ve kol xebi, la ze bi, aba- sa mo sax lo ad re ne o liT Si ga for me bu la ze bi, sva ne bi... ro go rebic cxov rob dnen da sak ma od xan grZli va dac uar seb ni a... he ro do tes dros da ki dev uf ro ad re. ar- kin tri Sis xe o ba ada mi a nis cxov re bis Tvis me ni is ze gan ze cxov roben ise Ti ve som xe bi, uaR re sad xel say re li, rbi li kli ma tiT qur Te bi, TiT qmis ise Tive mdgo ma re o ba Si ga mo ir Ce va, rac ga na pi ro bebs mce na re u- da ise Ti ve sacx ov reb lebSi, ro gorc aR- li sa fa ri sa da fa u nis mra val fe rov ne- we rili aqvs qse no fontes. er T-er Ti mniS- ba sa da sta bi lu ro bas ...a ma ve dros mdi- vnelo va ni mi ze zi kav ka si e li abo ri ge nu li na ris sa Ta ve eb Si gan la ge bu lia sa ucxoo mo sax le o bis gam Zle o bisa da sa i me do dam- sa zaf xu lo sa na di ro sa var gu le bi da sa- xma re ucx o el dam pyrob leb Tan brZo la- Zov re bi, sa iT ke nac xde bo da ba ris mo sax- Si iyo kav ka si is mTel nayo fi er ve leb ze le o bis se zo nu ri ga da ad gi le ba. msgav si- mZvin va re ma la ri a~ [Пантюхов И. 1899:52]. Se- ve vi Ta re ba Cven da das tu re bu li gvaqvs iZ le ba Se e da vo av tors kav ka si is mo sax le- aWa ris wylis xe o ba Si, ro gorc Cans, am gva- o bis tra di ci u li yo fis kon ser va tu lo- ri su ra Ti da ma xa si a Te be li iyo mTe li bis Se sa xeb, mag ram ma la ri am rom gar kve u- kol xe Tis ba ri saT vis, sa i da nac zaf xu lis li ro li iTa ma Sa am mosax le o bis is to ri a- Tve eb Si xde bo da mo sax le o bis se zo nu- Si, mar Te bu lo bas mok le bu li ar aris, miT ri mig ra cia mTis zo li sa ken... Tav dac vi- ume tes, rom aq la pa rakia er T-erT da ara Ti aR Wur vi lo bis SezR u du lo ba, si ci ve, er Ta derT da Zi ri Tad mizez ze, ro me lic did Tov lo ba da usak ve bod dar Ce nil ga- ma la ri as ukav Sir de ba. faq ti a, rom XIX re ul cxo vel Ta um rav le si sa xe e bis dasa u ku ne Sic ki Sa vizRvis pi ra re gi o neb Si ba li zo ni sa ken se zo nu ri mig ri re ba bu- ucx o e lebs cxov re ba metad uWir daT, ra- neb ri vad kar na xob da ne o li Tel ada mi ans zec sxva mra val ma ga liTTan er Tad, mety- Zi ri Tad sa bi nad ros (bars) dab ru ne bo da. ve lebs Sek ve Til Si (sankt-ni ko la i) myo fi es iyo Ta vi se bu ri mom Ta ba re o ba, rom lis ru si ofic ris mi er karl ko xi sad mi mi ce- tra di ci am ar na xu li, mag ram sav se biT ga- mu li rCe va: `vinc qa laq san kt-ni ko la i Si sa ge bi gam Zle o ba ga mo i Ci na da TiT qmis fe xis Se mod gmas ga be davs igi uv ne be li ve- bo lo drom de Se mor Ca~ [xa xu ta iS vi li d. Rar dab run de ba ukan. saC qa rod ga e ca leT 1995:27]. am Sem Txve va Si mxed ve lo ba Si un da aqa u ro bas, myral ad gils, ro mel sac ox Si- iq nes mi Re bu li ma la ri is faq to ric. sa medi ci no li te ra tu ra Si jer ki dev XIX sa u-

45 ku nis bo los ga mo iT qva az ri, rom Tu ara ro ne Ta, sa zam TroT na di rob saTvis~... [ba- momTa ba re o bis we si ma la ri u li ad gi le- to niS vi li v. 1973:528]. e.i. xaS mi an ad gils, bis mo sax le o ba am sens ver ga uZ leb da da rom lis Tvi sac `dam pa la~ Se ur qme vi aT, mi si di di na wi li da i Ru pe bo da [Пантюхов qar Tve li di de bu le bi zaf xu lo biT Tavs И. 1899:6]. es az ri ga zi a re bul iq na qar- ari deb dnen da mas iye neb dnen mxo lod `sa- Tve li me di ci nis is tori ko se bis mi e rac zam Tro na di ro bi saT vis~, ro de sac ci e bis [Шенгелия М. 1990:83]. mom Ta ba re o bis am sa SiS ro e ba aRar iyo. wess ma la ri as ukav Sire ben uf ro ad re u- ma la ri am mniS vne lo va ni gav le na mo ax- li xa nis ucx o e li av to re bic. lam ber ti di na kol xe Tis dab lo bis mkvid rTa yo fi- aR niS navs, rom kol xe Tis ha va gan sa kuT- Ti kul tu ris sxva mxa re eb zec. rac Se um- re biT sa xi fa Toa zaf xu lis Tve eb Si: `no- Cne ve li ar dar Ce ni aT da sav leT sa qar Tve- tio ha e ri, ro me lic Sepy ro bi lia tye eb sa lo Si nam yof mog za u rebs, mec ni e reb sa Tu da mTebs Sua me tad Sxamavs zaf xul sa da mi si o ne rebs. mo viy vanT zo gi er Ti maT ga- hba debs mra val avad myo fo bas, ro me lic nis mo na ce mebs. mag. Sar de ni sa meg re los uf ro ucx o e lebs vnebs. zaf xul Si Ca mo su- mcxov reb Ta zo gi erT Ta vi se bu re bas aq li ucx o e le bi xSi rad kvde bi an aq. es ube- gav rce le bu li da a va de be biT xsnis, ro- du re ba rom Ta vi dan ai So ron, ucx o e leb ma mel Ta So ris ma la ri ac igu lis xme ba. igi zafxul Si es sa Su a leba un da ix ma ron; va- wers: ` aq ha e ri Za li an no ti o a. wvims TiT- ke ze ar un da icx ov ron, ara med maR lob ze qmis ga da u Reb lad. zaf xul Si nes ti a ni mida sru le biT ar sWa mon xi li, ro me lic ase wa, ga xu re bu li mwva ve mziT, wam lavs ha ers ux vad mo dis aq da me tad vnebs, vinc bevrs da iw vevs mra val da a va de bas _ xSi rad Sav sWams. kol xi dis ha va vnebs aramc Tu ucx- Wir sac... ha e ris am tem pe ra tu ras vTvli o elebs, TviT ad gi lobriv mcxov reb lebs meg re leb Si gav rce le bu li avad myo fo bis im dens sxvadas xva avadmyo fo bebs uCens, _ wyal man kis (ma la ri is er T-er Ti gar Tu- rom Zli er iS vi a Ti a, rom iqa ur ma Rrma mo- le ba - n.m.) _ mi ze zad, ro me lic epi de mi- xu ce bu lo bam di mi aRwi os. TiT qmis sa your xa si aTs ata rebs. am uka nas knels isi ni vel Tao se nia kol xi dele bis tyir pi, ro- eb rZvi an ara mar to mud mi vi moZ ra o biT, me lic, Tu dro ze Se safe ri wam le biT ar ro de sac cxen ze am xed re bu le bi dah qri- mospes, wyal man kad iq ce va. ci e ba, ro me lic an gzeb sa da min dvreb Si da sam -oTx dRe- yo vel sam -oTx dRe Si, me or de ba, ise Cve u- ze mets erT ad gil ze ar Cer de bi an, ara- leb ri vi a, rom pa roq siz me bis dros aq ce- med di di ra o de no biT ma ri lis mi Re biT da ven mas yu radR e bas, To rem sxva dros mu- mud mi vad cecx lTan yof ni Tac~ [Sar de ni J. Sa o ba sac ar ane be ben Tavs. Se mod go mas ki 1975:109]. un da aRi niS nos, rom sa meg re lo- yo vel dRe stan javs maT ci e ba~ [lam ber ti Si ara mxo lod `ma ri lis mi Re bas~, ara med arq. 1991:151]. mniS vne lov nad mig vaC nia va- wi wa kis Warb ga mo ye ne ba sac sak veb Si ci e- xuS tis cno bac, ro me lic mar Ta lia ka xeTs bis pro fi laq ti kas ukav Si re ben. sa in te- exe ba da ara kol xe Tis dab lobs, mag ram sare soa gam bas cno be bi imer le bis Se sa xeb. in te re soa im de nad, ramde na dac ma la ri is gam ba, ise ve ro gorc Sar de ni, ime rel Ta se zo nur xa si aT sa da masTan da kav Si re bul yo fis zo gi erT Ta vi se bu re bas ma la ri as tra di ci a zea la pa ra ki _ `xo lo iors ara- ukav Si rebs. igi wers: `i mer le bi sa me ur ne- rai vi Ta ri mdi na re er Tvis anu xe vi sa ga- od dab lobs iye ne ben, mag ram sax l-ka rad re jom de, da ars mu nam de alaz ni dam ve li. ma Ral pla to ebs ir Ce ven wya ro eb Tan ax- da ars ad gi li ese zam Tar Tbi li, ba la xi- los. ci e bi sa gan Ta vis da sa ca vad am win da- a ni, mci re- Tov li a ni, nadir -frin ve li a ni, xe du le bis gar da isi ni ki dev bevr sxva zo- ha vi Ta mSu e ni. xo lo zaf xu lis cxe li, xaS- mas mi mar Tven: sax leb Si cecx li dRe da Ram mi ani, ga uZ li si. io ris pirs yo fi la sa sax- un Ti aT. es ha e ris gaw men dis yve la ze uf ro le, d a m p a l a s, awin del Ta kax Ta me pat- sa u ke Te so sa Su a le baa da amas Ta na ve, mi wis

46 si nes te sac STan Tqavs. imer le bis sak ve bia lis si War be aris mi ze zi bev ri da a va de bi sa Ro mis da fet vis fa fa da si min dis ga le- da pon tos ra i on Si ar se bul im cxo ve lebs, te bi. xorcs ma in ca da ma inc ar eta ne bi an; rom le bic ab zin das Wa men ase Ti da a va de be- Za li an uy varT mJa ve. Rvi nos bevrs sva men. bi Ta vi dan aci le bu li aqvT [Скрежинская М. ma Ti tan sac me li, gan sakuT re biT ki Txis 1977:105]. ma la ri is sam kur na lo sa Su a le- bew vi sa gan dam za de buli qe Cos mo sas xa me bi, ba Ta So ris lam ber ti mo ix se ni ebs re vands maT tem pe ra tu ris mkveTr da ce mas io lad [Rhe um]. igi wers: `vinc iSov nis re vands, ga daa ta ni nebs xol me. amis ga mo maT ci e ba sul rom pa wa wi na iyos da Wi iT dax ru lic, ar emar Te baT. swo red aman Se u nar Cu na am Se i na xavs, vi Tar ca Zvir fas wa mals, ci e bis xalxs si la ma ze da si la Re, ris ga moc maT wi na aR mdegs. me re ro gor aZ le ven am wa- adami an Ta mod gmis ni muSad Tvli an~ [gam ba mals? arc ga mo xar Sa ven da arc da na ya ven, f. 1987:176). cno bi li a, rom arc meg re le bi ara med ro gorc aris, ise mTlad Ca ag de ben da gu ru le bi Ca mor Ce bian imer lebs si la- er Ti Ra miT wyal Si; me o re di las amo i Re- ma zi Ta da si la RiT, es ki imas niS navs, rom ben re vands, wyals as me ven ci e bi ans da re- maT mar Tlac Se i mu Sa ves cxov re bis ise Ti vands ki Se i na xa ven sxvo mis Tvis~ [lam ber ti we si, ro me lic win aRudge bo da ma la ri as, arq. 1991:91). da sav leT sa qar Tve lo Si ma- adap ta ci as mo ax den da mis xel Sem wyob bi o- la ri is sam kur na lod iye neb dnen ucu nas, ge o ga re mos Tan. swo red ami tom, ma la ri as rom lis la Ti nu ri sa xel wo de baa Col chi cum ga da ur Ca mo sax le o bis gar kve u li na wi li, spe ci o sum. igi kol xur sam ya ros Ta naa da- mi u xe da vad imi sa, rom am mZi me da a va de bas kav Si re bu li. dRes es mce na re ga mo i ye ne- sak ma od did msxver pli moh yve ba da ada- ba me di ci na Si. ma la ri is sam kur na lo mce- mi anis jan mrTe lo bas seri o zul daRs as- na re e bi me de as ba Ris mce na re Ta So ri sac vams. amas ki Ta vi si mi zezi hqon da. pir vel aris mox se ne bu li [or fi ku li ar go nav ti ka rig Si un da aRi niS nos, rom qar Tve li xal- 1977:108-109; Шенгелия М. 1990:108]. un da vi- xi odiT gan ma la ri as spe ci fi kur ga re mos va ra u doT, rom sxva wa mal -sa wam la veb Tan ukav Si reb da, ra ze dac, sxva rom ara fe ri er Tad, ma la ri is sam kur na lo mce na re sac vTqvaT, mi u Ti Tebs ma la ri is er T-er Ti ina xav da Ta vis yuT Si me de a. aris mo saz re- Zve li qar Tu li sa xel wo de ba xaS mi, si- ba, rom so xu mis cno bil ste la ze amok ve- xaS me. xaS mi Wa o bis or Tqlis aR mniS vne li Ti li qa lis fi gu ra, ro mel sac xel Si yu Ti sity va a. gar da tra di ci u li cxov re bis uWi ravs kol xi me dea un da iyos da `ba la- we si sa, ro me lic, ro gorc aR vniS neT, ma- xeb Tan, gve leb Tan da e.w. fri gi ul qud- la ri is xel Sem wyob gare mos Tan adap ta ci- Tan er Tad, wam le bis yu Ti mis er T-erT at- asac gu lis xmob da, mo saxle o bas uTu od ri bu tad un da mi viC ni oT~ [ix. gam yre li Ze un da Se e mu Sa ve bi na ma lari as Tan brZo lis g. 2002:134]. ro de sac Zve li kol xe Tis sam- ra ci o na lu ri sa Su a lebe bi. cno bi li a, rom kur na lo mce na re eb ze vla pa ra kobT, un- qi naqi nis aR mo Ce nam de, ab zin dam sak ma od da mi vix se ni oT se lis ze Ti, rom lic far- mniS vne lo va ni ro li iTa ma Sa ma la ri iT da- Tod ga mo i ye ne ba xal xur da ofi ci a lur a va de bul Ta mkur na lo bis saq me Si. ab zin da me di ci na Sic. Se iZ le ba Zve li kol xe bi am [Arte mi sia ab sinthi um] mra val mxri vi Tvi se bis sa Su a le ba sac iye neb dnen ma la ri is, an mi si sam kur na lo mce na re a. eTnog ra fi u li mo- ro me li me gar Tu le bis sam kur na lod. miC- ma ce me biT, sa qar Tve lo Si igi sxva das xva ne u li a, rom kol xe Ti dan gah qon daT se lis da a va de bis, maT So ris mala ri is sam kur naze Ti, ro mel sac sak ve bi, sa na Ti da sam kur- lo dac ga mo i ye ne bo da. sain te re so a, rom na lo da niS nu le ba hqon da [mo lo di ni l. pon tos ab zin das mo ix se ni ebs pli ni us uf- 1963:54] hqon da. `fiq ro ben, rom se lis war- ro si da aR niS navs, rom igi sa u ke Te soa ab- mo e biT gan Tqmul kol xeT Si ro gorc sam- zin das sxva sa xe o bebs Soris [Скрежинская kur na lo, ise sur ne lo va ni ze Tis Sem za de- М. 1977:105]. pli ni u sis cno biT, Sa vi naR ve- ba se lis ze Tis sa fuZ vel ze iyo aR mo ce ne-

47 bu li~ [lor Tqi fa ni Ze. oT. 2002:201]. am je- aR sa niS na via er Ti Ffaq ti. sa qar Tve lo- rad far Tod ar Se ve xe bi ma la ri is sam kur- Si, gan sa kuT re biT ki da sav leT Si, far- na lo sa Su a le bebs, aRvniS nav mxo lod, rom Tod iyo gav rce le bu li e.w. uJ mu ri. ra es sa Su a le be bi mra val xal xur tra di ci- da a va de ba iyo uJ mu ri jer -je ro biT gar- as Tan er Tad, rom le bic spe ci fi kur bi o- kve u li ar aris. Tum ca igi ci e bis er TerT ge o ga re mos Tan adap ta ci as gu lis xmo ben, for ma dac ga ni xi le ba. ar aris ga mo ricx- xels uwy ob da ma la ri as Tan brZo las da- u li, rom es iyo le iS ma ni o zi, ro me lic ma- sav leT sa qar Tve los bar Si. la ri is Tan mde vi da a va de baa [Маруашвили Г. cno bi li a, rom ma la riა e.w. bu neb riv 1968:120] da kli ni kiT gar kve ul wi lad ma- `daa va de ba Ta sfe ros ga ne kuT vne ba, ami- la ri is msgav si a. Ta vad mo sax le o ba uJ murs tom mas ze bu neb riv sam ya ros Tan nak le bad da mo u ki de bel da a va de bad ga ni xi lav da da aqvs kav Si ri da mi si samkur na lo sa Su a le- mis ga mom wve vad mi wis avi su li _ uJ mu ri be bic ra ci o na lu ri a~ [Si ge rist H. 1951:202]. mi aC nda. xal xu ri war mod ge niT, uJ mu ris mi u xe da vad ami sa, iq, sa dac ma la ria iyo ad gil sam yo fe li, nes ti a ni, Wa o bi a ni ad gi- gav rce le bu li xSi rad das tur de ba mas- le bi a, mi si à yo lis~ dro ki sa Ra mo. mzis Tan da kav Si re bul RvTae ba Ta kul ti. mag., Cas vlis Sem dgo mi pe ri o dia ù Ja mo Ja mi~, rom Si, ro me lic ma lari is er T-erT cno- ùd roo dro“. Se saZ le be lia swo red ami- bil ke ras war mo ad gen da, Tay vans scem dnen tom, sa qar Tve lo Si sa Ra mos mzis Cas vlis sam dRi a ni da oTx dRi ani ma la ri is qal- Sem deg bavSvs, gan sa kuT re biT ki Cvils, ga- RvTa e ba feb riss. Ffeb ris ter ca nes da feb- reT ar ga iy van dnen, sax lSi Se mo sul stu- ris kvar ta nas taZ re bi ro mis bor cveb ze mars ki nak ver Cxleb ze ga da a ta reb dnen. es iyo aR mar Tu li. ma lari as Tan mi mar Te ba Si we si ra ci o na lu ro bas ar iyo mok le bu li, ga ni xi le ba ag reT ve qal RvTa e ba me fi ti si, Tu ga viT va lis wi nebT, rom ci e bis ga mom- rome lic mox se ni e bulia ver gi li u sis ene- wve vi ko Ros aq ti u ro bis pe ri o di swo red i da Si [ver gi li u si, 1976:VII, 84]. me fi ti si sa Ra mo, Ra me a. ase Ti ve tra di cia iyo ru- de da mi wis cud amo na bol qvTan, cud or- seT Si, rac ci eb -cxe le bis Si SiT aix sne bo- TqlTan _ xaS mTan meb rZol qal RvTa e bad da. ru seT Si ci e bis RvTa e bad `pa ras ke va~ iT vle bo da. ta ci tu sis mi xed viT mxo lod iyo miC ne u li, rom lis ge ne ziss nes ti sa da me fi ti sis ta Za ri ga dar Ce ni la Zv.w. I sa- wylis sam xreT sla vur RvTa e bas _ mo ko- u ku ne Si sa mo qa la qo omis dros kre mo nas tas ukav Si re ben. xan Zri sa da dar be vis Sem deg [Тацит К. 1969: uJ mur Tan mi mar Te ba Si sa in te re sod III, 33). ik ve Te ba he ka tes kul ti, ro me lic, ro- ar aris ga mo ricx u li, rom ci e bis qal- gorc cno bi li a, Ra mis de mo nur Za lebs RvTa e ba Ta taZ re bi daa va de bis epi de mi- ga na geb da. he ka tes, rom lis qu ru mi me dea is Sewy ve tis miz niT igebo da. epi de mi e bis iyo, kav Si ri kol xur sam ya ros Tan dRes dros sam loc ve lo e bis age bis tra di cia eWvs ar iw vevs. uZ vele si dro i dan mom di na re obs _ 430 am gva rad, jer je ro biT ar aris gar kve- wels pe lo po ne sis omis dros, Sa vi Wi ris u li, war mo ad gens Tu ara uJ mu ri ci e bis epi de mi is Sewy ve tis miz niT, aTen Si ki be- gar kve ul for mas. uSu a lod ma la ri as Tan las ta Za ri au gi aT [Na u mann Fr. 1983:161]. da kav Si re bu li xal xu ri rwme nawar mod- ase Ti ve tra di cia iyo sa qar Tve lo Si - Sa vi ge ne bi da wes -Cve u le be bi ki sa qar Tve los Wi ris epi de mi e bis dros wm. bar ba res ek le- mo sax le o bas nak le bad Se mor Ca, rac Se- si ebs aSe neb dnen. am kon teq stSi sa in te re- saZ le be lia aix snas ma la ri is Se sa xeb ar se- soa s. ma ka la Tias cno ba Za mas xe o ba Si ci e- bu li em pi ri u li cod niT _ Tun dac da a- bis say dris ar se bo bis Se sa xeb [ma ka la Tia va de bis xel Sem wyo bi bu neb ri vi pi ro be bis s. 1961:29]. Se sa xeb. mniS vne lo va nia is faq tic, rom qi- na qi niT mkur na lo bis da ner gvam de, na tu-

48 ropa Ti u ri mkur na lobis xal xu ri sa Su- lam ber ti arq. 1991: sa megre los aR wera. Tbili si. ale be biT, ga re mos Tan Se gu e bis xal xu ri lo mo uri iul. 1925: cieb cxe leba anu ma laria saqar Tvelo Si. Tbili si. tra di ci e biT xer xdebo da ci e bis gar kve- lor Tqi fa ni Ze oT. 2002: Zveli qar Tuli civi li- ul do ne ze ne it ra lize ba. mag ram em pi ri- zaci is saTa ve eb Tan. Tbili si. u li cod nis dag ro ve bas, Wa o bi an re li ef- ma kala Tia s. 1961: Za mas xeo ba. Tbili si. Tan adap ta ci is ra ci ona lu ri tra di ci e- mo lo di ni l. 1963: qar Tveli xalxis mate ri a lu ri kul tu ris isto ri i dan (qarTu li zeTsax de lebis Se mu Sa ve ba sa da ma lari is mkur na lo bis bi). Tbili si. efeq tu ri sa Su a le be bis mig ne bas sak ma od or fi ku li ar go nav ti ka, 1977: Zveli ber Znuli dan xangrZli vi dro sWir de bo da. ami tom ar Targmna, ga mok vleva da urTo naTe la melaS- aris ga mo ricx u li, rom Zvel kol xeT Si, vilma. Tbili si. fa nas ker tel -ci ciS vili z. 1950: samkur na lo wig- rome lic ma la ri is ende mur ke ras war mo- ni. Tbili si. ad gen da, ci e bas Tan da kavSi re bu li kul ti qa nane li 1940: uswo ro ka raba di ni. Tbili si. ar se bu li yo. Se saZ le belia ro me li me qal- ya ux CiS vi li T. 1965: hi pokra te da misi cnobe bi sa- RvTa e bas ada mi a nis ma la ri is gan dac vis qar Tve los Sesa xeb. Tbili si. Sar de ni Jan, 1975: mog zau ro ba sparseT sa da aRmo- fun qcia hqo no da an Zve li kol xe bis Tay- sav leTis sxva qveyneb Si (cnobe bi saqar Tvelos va nis ce mis obi eq ti ma la riis qal RvTa e bac Se sa xeb) frangu li dan Targmna, gamok vle va da yo fi li yo, ro me lic ab zin diT an ucu nas ko menta re bi da urTo mzia mgalob liS vil ma. yva vi liT iq ne bo da Semku li. ni San dob li- Tbili si. Sen ge lia m. 1966: hi pok rates cnobe bis inter pre- vi a, rom izi das qu ru mi qa le bi ab zin dis ta ci is sa kiTx isaT vis saqar Tvelos Sesa xeb. - gvir gvi nebs ata reb dnen. xo lo izi das er- sab Wo Ta me di cina, № 2, gv. 51-56. Tbili si. T-er Ti fun qcia mkur na lo ba iyo. ze mox- xaxu ta iS vi li d. 1995: qobu le Tis qveya na. I. Tbi- se ne buls da ma la ri as Tan da kav Si re bul lisi. Бродель Ф. 2002: Средиземное море и Средиземно мор- bevr sxva mniS vne lo van sa kiTxs sa qar- ский мир в эпоху Филиппа II . Москва. Tvelo Si ar qe o log Ta da sa me di ci no an- Гамкрелиидзе Т., Иванов Вяч. 1984: Индоевропейский Tro po lo gi is spe ci a lis tTa er Tob liv ma язык и индоевропейцы. Тбилиси. kvle vam Se iZ le ba moh fi nos Su qi. Маруашвили Г. 1968: Висцеральный лейшманиоз. Тбилиси. Пантюхов И. 1899: Влияние малярии на колонизацию Кавказа, Тифлис. li te ra tu ra: Скрежинская М. В. 1977: Северное прчерноморье в описании Плиния Старшего. Киев. Тацит К. 1969: Cочинения в двух томах, том второй, abu la Ze s., baq ra Ze t. 1960: ma la ri o lo gi is zo gi- История, издание подготовили Кнабе Г.С., Гра- er Ti sa kiTxi qar Tuli kara ba di ne bis mixed- барь М.Е., Бобович И.М. Москва. viT (XI_XVIss.). Tbili si. Шенгелия М.1990: Древняя колхо-иберийская медицина. bag ra ti o ni d. 1938: ia di gar da u di. Tbili si. Тбилиси. ba to niS vi li v. 1990: aRwe ra sa me fo sa sa qar Tve- Харрисон Дж., Уайнер Дж., Тэннер Дж., Барникот Н., lo sa. qar Tlis cxov re ba IV, teq sti dadge ni li Рейнолдс В. 1970: Биология человека. Москва. yvela Ziri Ta di xelna we ris mixed viT s. ya ux- Li e ban R. W. 1977: The Fi eld of Me di cal Antro pology.- Da- CiSvi lis mier. Tbili si. vid Langli (Ed.). Cultu ra, Di si e se and Hea ling. p.13-30. gam ba f. 1987: mogza uro ba ami er kavka si a Si. Tbili- New-York. si. Na u mann Fr. 1983: Die Iko nog rap hie der Ki be le in der gam yre liZe g. 2002: kolxe Ti, kultu rul -isto ri- Phrygis chen und der Gri ec his chen Kunst. Tübin gen. uli nar kveve bi. Tbili si. Pac kard R.M., Brown P.J. 1977: Ret hnking He alth, De ve lop- gam yre liZe g. 1993: isto ri ul - topo ar qe olo gi- ment, and Ma la ri a: His tori ci zing a Cultu ral Mo del in Inter- uri Zie ba ni. Tbili si. na tio nal He alth.-Brown P.J.(ed.), Me dical Anthro pology, ver gi li usi. 1976: enei da. la Tinu ri dan Tar gmna, Spe ci al is sue, Ma la ria & De ve lop ment, p. 181-194. Neh- wina sityva o ba da sa Zi e beli da ur To ro man mi- ter lands. minoS vilma. Tbili si. koxi k., spen se ri o. 1981: cnobe bi sa qar Tvelos Se- Si gerist H. 1951: A His tory of Medi ci ne , vol. I. New -York sa xeb, germa nu li dan Targmna, Se sa va li da ko- menta re bi da urTo lon da ma ma caS vilma. Tbi- lisi.

49 va Ja sad ra Ze

ure kis gvia nan ti kuri xa nis Zeg le bi

gvia nan ti kuri xa nis ar qe o logi u ri Н. 1955:59]. amave wels sof. gri go leT Si Zegle bis aR mo Ce na urek Si XX s-is 30-i an aR moC nda ova lu ri for mis, alman di nis wlebs ukavSir de ba. qvebiT Semku li oq ros bal Ta, ro melic 1936 wels, da ba urekSi (ozur ge Tis am Ja mad sa qar Tve los erov nul mu ze um Si r-ni), md. kuCx i sa ba nos mar cxe na sana pi- ina xe ba. ro ze, sadac sa ner ge meur ne obis sammar- 1948 wels ~gan Ze bis~ siax lo ves ga- Tve lo da sacx ov rebe li saxle bia ga mar- mov linda rki nis Subis piri; xo lo 1950 Tu li di u naze, ar qe olo gi u ri nivTe bi wels daz ver ve bis dros eqspe di ci am rki- aR mo Ce ni la, rom le bic ozur ge Tis mu zenis max vilsa da septi mi us se ve ru sis ver- um Si Ca bar da [Хоштариа Н. 1955:119]. cxlis mo ne tas (ax.w. 193-211 ww.) miak vlia. ima ve wels ad gil kap ro va na Si, md. sesa yu radRe bo a, rom amave te ri tori a ze fas mar cxe na sana piro ze, didi diu nis aR- wi na wlebSi aR mo Ce ni li mo ne te bi baTu mis mo savle Ti kal Tis qvemoT, Ti xis sar ko- mu ze um Sia dacu li. fags waawy dnen [ix. Хоштариа Н. 1955:61]. XX s. 40-i an wleb Si ase ve Sem Txvevi Taa 1942 wels sa qarTve los mecni e reba Ta mopo ve buli md. kuCx i saba nosTan da ad- aka de mi is vi ce-pre zidents akad. si mon gil kap ro van Si rkinis cu le bi, vercxlis ja na Si as urek Si ~ganZis~ aR mo Ce nis Sesa- fi bu le bi (tab. II, 7-9), sa ma ju rebi da sxv. xeb ec no ba. akad. s. jana Si am masa lis gac- [Хоштариа Н. 1955:63-66]. no ba, aR mo Ce nis vi Ta re bis Ses wav la da ro gorc ze moT aRiniS na, md. kuCxi- qu Ta i sidan gan Zis Tbi lisSi gad mo ta na sa ba nos mar cxena sa napi ro ze ar sebu li speci a lur ko misi as da a va la [a fa qi Ze an. di unis da zi a ne bul Wril Si aR moC nda sa- 1947:90]. ko mi siis wev re bi dan (prof. s. ya- in te re so ar qe olo gi u ri nivTe bi, rom- ux CiS vi li, g. lom Ta Ti Ze da d. ka pana Ze) g. le bic n. xoSta ri a saT vis ga da u ci aT [ix. lom Ta Ti Ze da d. ka pa naZe Ca su lan urek Si Хоштариа Н. 1955:67]. eseni a: 1. mi nis sac- da aR mo Ce nis ad gi li safuZ vli a nad Seus- rem le; 2. mi nis Wur We li; 3. Tixis qo Ta- wav li aT. ni; 4. vercxlis ori rgo li; 5. brinja os 1942 wels urek Si aR mo Ce nili ~gan Zi~ sa ma juri; ase ve ram de ni me ar te faq ti, sa qar Tve los erov nul mu ze u mis ~oq ros~ romleb sac n. xoSta ria di u naze ar se bu- fon dSi inaxe ba. li kultu ru li fenis kuT vnile bad miiC- 1948 wels urekSi, er T-er Ti bor cvis nevda [Хоштариа Н. 1955:66]. mos wo re bi sas, Wril Si aR moC nda Zvir fa- sa va ra u dod samar xis inven tars un da si nivTe biT war mod ge nili ~ganZi~. gan- ekuT vno des 1. minis WurWe li – ~sacrem- Zis Zi riTa di na wi li _ ozurge Tis muze- le~, ro melsac axa si a Tebs maRa li yeli da um Si, na wi li ki ba Tu mis mu ze um Si mox vda pa ta ra muce li; 2. minis ~sac rem le~ – da- [Хоштариа Н. 1955:52-55]. ba li ye li Ta da birTvi sebri mucliT; 3. 1949 wels urekis arqe olo gi ur ma eq- brinja os sama ju ri; 4. kviris ta vi; 5. wi- spedi ci am gri go le Tis da sax le ba Si, md. Tel la ki a ni Ti xis ja mi; 6. mini sebri pas- suf sis mar cxe na sa napi ro ze er T-er Ti tis mZive bi. sa yu radRe bo a, rom Ca moT- gle xis ezo Si amfo ras mi ak vlia. n. xoS- vlili eqspo na te bis umete si nawi li 1938 ta rias az riT, ze moaR niSnu li am fora, wels ozur ge Tis muze u mis ga mo fe na ze `gan ZTan~ er Tad aR mo Ce nili am fo ris iyo war mod ge ni li [Хоштариа Н. 1955:67]. analogs unda war mo ad gendes [Хоштариа ze mo aR niSnul Zegls mkvle va ri iq da das-

50 tu rebu li wi Tel la ki a ni jami sa da brin- mo saz re ba, rom am tipis am fore bi ax.w. IV ja os sama ju ris sa fuZvel ze ax.w. pir veda Se da re biT gvian de li kompleq se bis- li sau ku nee biT aTa ri Rebs [Хоштариа Н. Tvi sacaa da ma xasi a Te be li [Леквинадзе В. 1955:67]. vfiqrobT, am kom pleqsis kuT vni- 1975:195; dawvr. ix.BЗеест Н. 1960:39-61]. le bas un da war mo ad gendes vercxlis ori qu Ta i sis muze um Si ~ganZi dan~ (?) da- da zi a ne bu li rgo li - be We di. am ri gad, cu lia minis oTxi (inv.№3-6) WurWe li (ma- faq tob ri vi mo na ce mebiT ki dev er Txel Ti da zi a ne bi sa da frag mentu lo bis ga mo das tur de ba n. xoSta ri as mi er ga moT qmu- gviWirs zus ti ana lo ge bis moZi e ba). oTx- li mo sazre ba sa ner ge meur ne obis te ri- i ve moz rdi lia, boT liseb ri; Ziri Signi- to ri a ze ax.w. sawyi si sau ku nee bis xanis Taa Sez ne qi li; axasi a Tebs pirTan Sesqe- sa marov nis ar sebo bis Se saxeb. miT ume tes, le buli ba ko da len ti sebri yuri. mi na rom swored aq, ma Ra li diu nis qveS, 100- mom wva no-mo cis fro a, na xevrad gamWvir- 150 m-is daSo rebiT 1942 da 1948 wlebSi va le [Хоштариа Н. 1955:58]. an. afaqi Ze da ma- aR moC nda mdidru li ar te faq te biT war- te biT mcire zo mis tlanqad dam za de bul mod ge ni li ori samar xe u li (?) kompleq si, qo Tan zec (inv. №7) amaxvi lebs yu radRe- e.w. ~gan Zi~. ro gorc zemoT aRi niSna ~gan- bas [a fa qi Ze an. 1947:90]. ama ve kompleqss Zi~ aR moC nda adgil kuCxi sa ba nos Tan qvi- ukav Sir de ba oqros be We di (inv. №8; tab. I, Saz vi nulSi, tri go no met ri u li punqtis 3), rom lis ova lur Tval bu de Si mu qi mo- sam xre TiT, da axlo e biT 30 m-is da So re- ya visfro aqa tis Tva li zis; aR sa niSna vi a, biT [a fa qi Ze an. 1947:90-91]). iq Txri lis rom igi (3,8X2,9 sm, wo na 63-78 gr) as fa rug amo Rebi sas 1,3 m. siRrme ze da das tu re- eris Ta vis beWed ze di dia da ma siu ri [a fa- bu la rkinis da sa keci sare ce li, ro mel- qi Ze an. 1947:92]. ze dac ver ti ka lu rad id ga am fo ra; gver- me ore oq ros beW dis (inv. №9; tab. I, 4) diT Ti xis qoTa ni da mi nis WurWe li, xo- Re ro ga nivkveT Si ova lu ri a; ko lofi- lo da sav le TiT ase 0,7 m-ze, da ax loe biT sebr bude Si Casmu lia luqi sebri ias pis 0,2 m. siR rme ze, da nar Ce ni ar qe olo gi u ri Tva li, ga mo sa xu le be biT (in ta li o). ga mo- nivTe bi [a fa qi Ze an. 1947:90-91]. kompleq si sa xu le be bi tlan qi a, amok ve Ti lia her mean. afa qi Zem Seis wav la [afa qi Ze an. 1947:89- si da for tu na; da ma te biT for tunas mar- 111], Tum ca misi kvle vis areal Si ra tom- cxe na mxarTan xuT qi mi a ni var skvlavi aqvs Rac ar mox vda qu Ta i sis mu ze um Si da unda ta nili (tab. I, 5). sce nis sitlan qe da je buli rkinis sa reclis naS Ti, Tixis am- Te ma tu ro ba e.w. sasa nur ge mebTan mis si- fora da mi nis ori Wur We li [Хоштариа Н. axlo ve ze us vams xazs [a fa qi Ze an. 1947:93]. 1955:56-58]. m. lor Tqi fa ni Ze siu Je ti sa da sti lis misa rece li damza de bulia rki nisa gan xed viT ana logebs ax.w. III s. ge mebTan uZeb- ori ga daj va rebu li fe xi (inv. №1, tab. I, nis [lorTqi fa niZe m. 1961:139]. 1) Zlier aris da zi a nebu li; Semor Ce ni li iq ve aR moCnda oq ros ori sa maju ri sigrZe 0,5-0,52 m-i a. sa rece li 2 m. sig rZi sa (inv. № 10, 11, tab. I, 6, 7). dam za de bulia da 0,5 m. si ga ni sa un da yo fi li yo [Хоштариа kuTxe eb mom rgva le bu li, oTxwax nago va ni, Н. 1955:56-57]. msxvili mav Tu lisgan, rkali ova lu ri a, amfo ra (inv.№2, tab. I, 2), rome lic sa- odnav asimet ri u li; er Ti sru li ad sa daa re cel ze id ga, mo var dis fro- mo ya vis- (tab. I, 6); meo re, pirve lisgan gansxva ve- fro daa ga mom wva ri, da zi a nebu li a, axa- biT, bolo eb Si od na vaa dab rtye le bu li si aTebs wel Si ga moy va ni li re lie fu ri da sxva das xva for mis, maT So ris nu Si seb- sar tylebiT Sem ku li muce li da ko nu siri moy va ni lobis, 6-6 al man di nis (Zo wis ?) sebri Zi ri; zus ti as le bi aR mo Ce nilia Sa- Tva li amkobs (tab. I, 7). ma Ti zus ti ana lo- vi zRvis sana piro zol Si da zo ga dad III-IV ge bi araa cnobi li, Tumca l. ma cu le vi Cis ss. Ta riR de ba [Хоштариа Н. 1955:39-61]. aris ga mok vleva ze day rdno biT, v. leqvi na-

51 Ze ure kis sama ju rebis Crdi lo Sa vizR- bo ri sa da klde e Tis gziT, zo gi erT xa- vispi rul war mo mavlo ba ze migva niSnebs zebSi ma inc ibe riis same fo centris kul- [Леквинадзе В. 1975:202]. turas da vu ax lo voT~ [a fa qi Ze an. 1947:99]. sa av ga ro ze (inv. №12; tab. I, 8) damza- ro gorc v. leq ve niZe aR niSnavs ax.w. III s. de bulia oq ros Txe li furcli sagan; war- da Ta ri Re buli msgav si mZive bi aR mo Ce- mo adgens sak ma od mogrZo, rva wax nago van ni lia arCa ra sa da ni ko la e vo Si (Traki a) priz mas; saki de bad ga aC nia sa mi yun wi a ni [Леквинадзе В. 1975:199; dawv. ix. Филов Б. zur gda Ra ru li salte. ar mazi sa da boris 1913:25]. ana logi ur sa av ga roze e bi sa gan gan sxva- oq ros sayu re (inv. №18,19; tab. I, 13), ve biT [a fa qi Ze an. 1947:96-97; afaqi Ze an. ori ca li, sam wi ladi; Sedge ba la lis 1955:71] ureki se u li zomiT didi a. Tval bu di a ni var du lis, oq ros Ca mo sa ki- sa av ga ro zes, ro melSic amule ti an di Re raki sa da Tvalbu dis qve da ki de ze war we ri a ni firfi ta unda yofi li yo da- mimag re buli sa mi sa ki di sa gan. er Ti Zli- cu li, ga aC nda sar qve li, ro melic mu ze- e raa da zi a ne bu li. zus ti ana lo gi Cven- um Si ar Ca u ba re bi aT. aR saniS na via rom Tvis uc no bi a. er Ti aSka ra a, da xasi a Te bu- da saxe le bu li sa av ga ro ze e bis funqci o- li sa yu re qals ekuTvno da [fu Turi Ze r. ni rebis xa na moi cavs Zv.w. III - ax.w. III sa uku- 1959:63]. ne ebs, Tum ca iSvi a Tad, Seda re biT gvi a nac oq ros ag rafi (inv. №29, tab. I, 14), or- gvxvdeba. am ti pis saav ga ro ze far To daa wi la di; Zi riTa di na wi li ova lu ri for- gav rce le bu li gvi a nanti kur xana Si. sa va- mis da fan jru li var duli a. igi or ga nu- ra u dod es niv Ti ro meli me da zi a ne bu li lad ukavSir de ba did Tval bu des, ro- saki dis Se mad ge nel nawils warmo ad genda melSi ac aqa tis ova lu ri for mis qvaa Cas- [Леквинадзе В. 1975:199]. mu li (4X5,6 sm). me o re na wi li warmo ad gens sa ki dis nawi li, 4 ca li (inv. №13-16; oq ros Zewkvebs (14 c.), ro melSi ac CarTu- tab. I, 9,11), war mo ad gens oq ros sal tes, lia lurji pas tis TeTrad inkrus ti re- ro melsac yun wi ga aC nia da ya visfrad mo- bu li mZi ve bi, bo lo Si mav Tulis wnul ze el vare mar ke zi tis natex zea Se mo garsu- da ki du li wi Te li Tvle biT Sed ge ni li li. TviT marke zi ti ga mo fi tu lia [a fa qi- amfo ri sebri sa ki de bi da cvariT Sem ku li Ze an. 1947:98]. am tipis sam ka u li mcxeTa Si, oqros fir fi tis ja mebi (tab. I, 14). me da- ar mazis xevis me-13 sa mar xi da naa cno bi li lions zur gis mxa res mirCi lu li aqvs Se- (erT Sem Txveva Si mTis broli saa, me o- sak ra vi ena. aR sa niSna vi a, rom am ti pis agre Sem Txveva Si ki piri ti s. msgav si mZi vi rafe bi arc ise bevri a; msgavsi mosas xamis -a mu le ti zo ga dad yel sabam Sia Car Tu- Se sak ra vi cnobi lia cixis Zi ris, ur bnisi- li [Максимова М. 1962:226; Леквинадзе В. sa da aragvis pi ris kom pleqse bi dan [ina iS- 1975:199]. vi li n. 1993:23). Tum ca urekis zus ti ana- oq ros yelsa ba mi (inv. №17; tab. I, 12] lo gi CvenTvis ucno bi a. igi garkve ul wi- Sed ge ba ma siu ri oTx wax na ga, ara Ta naba ri lad msgavsia siri uli ag rafis, ro melic zo mis oc da o ri mZivi sa gan. am ti pis yel- ax.w. III s. me o re naxev riT, an Se da re biT sabams zus ti analo gi boris ganZSi eZeb- gvia ni xa niT Ta riRde ba [Grei fenhan gen A. neba [a fa qi Ze an. 1947:99]. ar mazSi da das- 1970:74]. tur da msgav si for mis, mag ram ara oq ros, ze mo aRniS nu li ag ra fis funqci a- da- ara med sxva das xva ma sali sagan Sed ge nili niSnu le bis da sad ge nad sayu radR e boa sam ka u li, ro me lic ~yel ze uta rebi aT~ ci xisZi ris meda li on ze gamo sa xu li pi- [a fa qi Ze an. 1947:99]. an. afa qi Ze swo red am rov ne ba (zo gi er Ti mkvle va ris va ra u diT arte faq te bis msgav seba ze dayrdno biT lu ci us ve ru si), ro mel sac mxarTan, sa- aR niSnav da, rom ~am Ja mad Cven meti sa Su- mo se lis Sesak ravad msgav si ag ra fi am- a le ba gvaqvs sa erTod ure kis kultu ra kobs [ina iS vi li n. 1993:23].

52 Tu ga vi zi a rebT mkvlevar Ta er Ti na- niv pro fil Si qa lia ga mosa xu li, re ver- wi lis azrs, rom ci xisZi ris bu ni ki, ase- sze ki Subis mtyorcne li meo ma ri. ve ber su ma pi ti ax Sis sa te va ri [a fa qi Ze g. dundu as az riT, urek Si aR mo Ce ni li an. 1955: tab. III] war Ci nebu li pirov ne bis au re u si kolxeT Si ro ma u li oq ros mo ne- in signi is niSnebs war mo ad gendnen [i na- tis imita ci is pov nis pir ve li da jerje- iS vili n. 1993:32], ma Sin zemo aRniS nu li ro biT er Ta der Ti SemTxve vaa [dun dua g. ag rafic ama ve kon teqstSi un da ga vi az- 1996:103]. roT, miT ume tes, rom msgavsi Sesak ra vi mniSvne lo va nia ver cxlis be We di (inv. oq ros mo neteb ze ga mo saxul mefe Ta wa- №24; tab. II, 4), rom lis ovalur Tval bu- mo sas xa mebs am kobs [a faqi Ze an. 1947:108; de Si Sa vi fe ris Tva lia Cas mu li; masze Леквинадзе В. 1975:199]. uxeSi kveTiT sera pisis ga mo sa xu le baa oq ros ko lo fi sebri ki li te biT (50 c.) da ta nili. Zeglis Seswav lis proces Si Sed ge ni li bal Ta (inv. №21, tab. II, 1-3]. ki- m. lor Tqi fa ni Ze gemis mci re a zi ul war- lite bi ori ti pisaa (dm. 1,8-2 sm), pir ve li mo mav lo ba ze migva niSnebs, xo lo beWdis - 17 ca lia (tab. II, 2), eq vswaxna ga for mis, for mis sa fuZvel ze, III-IV ss. aTa ri Rebs da tix ru li, Sig Cas mu li wiTe li minis(?) [lorTqi fa niZe m. 1961:71]). TvlebiT; meo re - for miT pir ve lis msgav- am kompleq sebs unda ekuT vno des ver- si a, sul 33 cali (tab. II, 3), gan sxvavde ba cxlis ilari (inv. №25, tab. II, 5), ro me- cen trSi mo Tav se buli ova lu ri Tval bu- lic waxna go van Re ro i a ni a, romlis er Ti diT, ro mel Sic ko nu si sebri wiTe li qvaa bolo yu ris saCiC qnia, meo re ki foTli- Cas mu li; qvas mSvildi se bu rad moxri li sebri for mis Wviru li saxi Taa Sem ku li. eq vsi oqros mav Tulis ti xari eyrdno ba aseve vercxlis me ore ila ris frag menti [a fa qi Ze an. 1947:102]. zur gis mxa res pa- (inv. №27,28; tab. II, 6), ver cxlis sar tylis rale lu rad mir Ci lu li wyvili mila ki nawi le bi (inv. №30; tab. II, 11-13), wvrili aqvs (saer To wo na 314,22 gra mia). am ti pis Zewkvi, sar di o nisa da bro lis, aseve qar- sam ka u li iSvi a Ti a. aris mo sazre ba, rom vis mZi ve bi (tab. II, 10), Ti xis kvi ris ta vi da dam za de bis teq ni kis mixed viT igi aqe me- ver cxlis 5 mone ta. nidu ri ira nis zegav le nis qveS moq ce u li da sa xele bu li ver cxlis mo ne te bi dan sam ya ro saT vi saa (Sua azia da sxv.) da maxa- sa mi - ke i sar ad ri a nes (117-138 ww.) saxel- si a Te be li [Леквинадзе В. 1975:203]. Ta naa da kav Si re buli [dundua g. 1996:102], sayu radRe boa klavdi us taci tusis meoTxe ke sa ri uli didraq ma a, xo lo me- oq ros mo neta (268-270 ww.)? (inv. №22). ro- xu Te ka ra ka las (211-217 ww.) draq ma un da gorc prof. g. dundua aRniS navs, ro ma u- iyos [dundua g. 1996:102]. li oq ros mo ne te bis aR mo Ce nis Sem Txve- ze moaR niSnu li Ca mo naTva li – aR we ri- ve bi da sav leT sa qarTve lo Si iSvi a Ti a. lo ba migva niSnebs, rom urek Si 1942 wels sul sam Sem Txvevas Ca moTvlis, ro melTa- aR mo Ce nil kom pleqsSi ~vxvdebiT gan sxva- gan me sa me, urek Si aR mo Ce ni li ta ci tu sis ve buli ri gis, teq ni kis, da niSnu le bi sa da au reu sia [dundua g. 1996:103]. mkvleva ri warmo So bis niv Tebs~ [a fa qi Ze an. 1947:108]. gan sakuT re bu lad amaxvi lebs yu radRe- Cve ni az riT, sru li ad da saSve bi a, rom bas meo re oq ros mo neta ze (inv. №23). igi ~gan ZSi~ ori an meti sa mar xidan mom di na- an. afa qi Zisa da d. ka pana Zis gansazR vriT, re niv Te bi iyos Tavmoy rili. zo gi er Ti ~bar ba ro su li war mo So bisa un da iyos» ar te faq tis qrono lo gi u ri dia pa zo ni [a fa qi Ze an. 1947:103]; xo lo g. dun du as mi- klav di us ta ci tu sis oq ros mo neta (275- xedviT au reu sis mina ba Zia da Sed ge nilo- 276 ww.), ad ri a nes (117-128 ww.) didraq ma; biT sube ratu li a; msgavsi mina ba Zi, sul vercxlis be We di (III-IV ss.), mi niseb ri pas- 12 ca li, ibe ri a Sia da dastu re buli [dun- tis mZive bi da sxv. [a fa qi Ze an. 1947:102- dua g. 1996:103]. mone tis aver sze mar jve- 107; dun dua g. 1966:102]; ase ve aR mo Ce nis

53 ad gi li (ori met ri far To bi); sare cel- a ze ga mov le nili Sem Txvevi Ti mona po vasa da sxva niv Tebs So ris ar se bu li da So- ri. riSo reba da done ebs So ris gan sxva ve ba urek Si 1948 wel sac ga keT da mniSvne- [a faqi Ze an. 1947:91] zemo aR niSnul mosaz- lo va ni aR mo Ce na. calke uli Zvirfa si niv- rebas ar se bo bis uf lebas aZ levs. vfiq- Te bi ga mov linda md. sufsi sa da md. kuCx- robT, niv Te bis umrav le so ba mainc er Ti i sa ba nos or mdina reTi dan [Хоштариа Н. sa mar xeu li kompleq sis kuTvni le ba a. 1955.:26]. aR mo Ce nis ad gi li dan 1948 wels aq erTi mniSvne lo va ni faq tori caa ga mov le ni li kom pleq si da So re bu lia ga saT va liswi ne be li, an. afa qi Zis dak vir- 150 m-iT; aR saniS na a via rom maT So ris ar- ve biT, iseTi STabeW dile ba iq mneba ~TiT- sebul te ri tori a ze da das tur da cal ke- qos poliq ro mu li ri gis nivTe bi uaxlo es u li mo napo va ri. n. xoSta ri as dakvir ve bi- analogs po u lo ben ar ma zi sa da samTav- Tac sa va ra udod Zve lad am ad gi las mdid- ros nivTebs So ris. . . iq neb gar kve ul ze- ru li sa mar xe biT warmod ge nili sa ma ro- gav le na sac ki, “. . . maSin, ro ca me o re jgu- va ni- nek ro po li iyo ga mar Tu li [Хоштариа fis sa da da masi u ri samka u le bi saT vis ase Н.1955:26]. ax lo ana lo gis moZeb na Znelde ba~ [a fa qi- Zeglis aR mom Ce nis gad mo ce miT di u- Ze an. 1947:108]. nis ze da piri dan 2 m-is qvemoT, damxo bi li sru liad buneb ri vi a, aR mo sav leT sa- ver cxlis langa ri, minis Wur We li, ver- qar Tve los Tan mWid rod da kav Si re buli cxlis kov zi da jami da fiqsir da, meo re kol xe Ti, an da saS ve bia sakvle vi mikro- dRes da mate biT ki dev ramde ni me niv Ti regi o ni er Tgva ro vani niv Te bis arse bo- aR moC nda. n. xoS ta ri as ozur ge Tis mu- biT, TiT qos kultu rul da po li ti kur ze um Si da cu li nivTe bis Ses wav lis pro- erTo ba sac amJRav nebs. sada da ma si uri cesSi unaxavs Ca ba re bis aq ti [Хоштариа Н. oqros samka u li ki kolxu ri tra di ci u li 1955:52,53]. ro gorc mkvle va ri aR niSnavs oqrom Wed lo bis nivTi er gamo xa tu le bad oq ros nivTe bi ze mo aR niSnul sia Si ar Se- un da Ca iT va los [a fa qi Ze an. 1947:108]. su la. Ziri Ta di sa mar xeu li kom pleqsis Ta- Ca ba re bis aq tis sa fuZ velze ~ganZi~ ri Rad saav ga ro zes, minis Wur Wlisa da Semde gi niv Te bi sa gan Sed ge boda: 1. mo- mo nete bis sa fuZvel ze III s-is bo lo da IV oqru li vercxlis lan ga ri; 2. vercxlis s-is da sawyi si unda mi viC nioT~ [a fa qi Ze dam tvreu li fi a la; 3. vercxlis kov zi; 4. an. 1947:110; Хоштариа Н.В. 1955:26,61; dun- ver cxlis jaW vi; 5. minis Wur We li. ze mo- dua g. 1996:102]. aR niSnuls, mkvleva ris az riT, un da da e- da xa si a Te bu li Zeg lis urekis te ri- matos mu ze um Si 1948 wels Sesu li ~i mave to ri a ze aR mo Ce na srul ufle bas gvaZ- kom pleqsi se u li~ ram de nime ar te faq ti, levs vi va ra u doT sa zo ga do e bis po li- ese ni a: 6. oq ros naxe var sferu li, alman- ti kurad, eko no mi u rad da so ci a lu- di nebiT Sem ku li niv Ti; 7. oqros Ri li rad da wi nau re bu li wev ri sa an wev re bis – 54 ca li; 8. oq ros pa ta ra bal Ta; 9. wi- gan sas ve neblis (nek ropo lis) ar se bo ba Te li qvebiT Sem kuli oq ros sama ju ris [Иващенко М. 1980:97]. am masa le bis sa fuZ- na wi li. ama ve kompleqss ekuTvnis ba Tu- velze un da vi gu lisxmoT sufsa- nata ne- mis mu ze um Si da cu li ~oq ros samka u li~ bis or mdina reT Si po li ti ku ri (sapi ti- [Хоштариа Н. 1955:54]. es arte faq ti ozur- ax Sos ?) centris ar se bo ba, sama rov nis Se- ge Tis mu zeum Si da un je buli oq ros na- sa ba mi si da Sesaty vi si mZlav ri qala qu ri xevar sferu li niv Tis zust asls war moti pis da sax le biT (vaSna ris ci xe- qa la qi). ad gens. ro gorc Cans ~gan Zis~ nivTe bis ze mo aR niSnul ze migvi Ti Tebs 1948 wlis Zi riTa di na wi li ozur ge Tis mu ze um Si Semdgo mi aR mo Ce na ca da ima ve te ri to ri- Ca barda, xo lo ram de ni me maTga ni ba Tu mis mu ze umss [Хоштариа Н. 1955:54,55].

54 1. vercxlis mo oq ru li langa ri (inv. va ki sebri; piri - mkveT rad ga daS li li, №1, tab. III, 1), Zi ri brtyelia Sua Si, odnav ye li - da ba li, ga moy va ni li, muce li - ci- ga moy va ni li, axa si a Tebs aJu ru li kalTa lindru li, Zi ri - brtyeli, Sig niT Sez- da wak ve Ti li figu ruli ba ko. fsker ze ne qi li; mu cels naRa ri zo le bi am kobs; wneviT ga moy va nili wre ebi, xo lo cen- ~brtyeli~ len ti sebri yu ri pir sa da trSi wre Si Ca we ri li rvas xi va varskvla- mxarzea da Zer wi li. simaR le 33,5 sm. via ga moy va ni li [Хоштариа Н.В. 1955:41; fu- da nar Ce ni minis ori Wur Wli dan er- Tu ri Ze r. 1963:64; Мачабели К. 1972:11]. Ti nak lu lia (tab. III, 3), meo res aqvs (tab. fsker ze msgav si Semku lobis meda li o- III, 4) sqeli, lilva ki sebri ba ko, far Tod nis mqo ne lan grebi IV s. me ore na xevris da ga daS lili pi ri, grZeli, od nav ga moy- V s. da sawy i sis mdidru li kom pleqse bi da- va ni li ye li, momrgva le bu li mu ce li da naa cno bi li (Леквинадзе В. 1975:206). far To, SigniT Sez neqi li Ziri. ze mo aR- 2. ver cxlis kov zi (inv. №2), ga aC nia niSnu li minis Wur We li far TodTaa gav- muxli a ni grZe li sata re, ro me lic Txis rce le bu li I-III sa u ku nee bis arqe o logi- Cliqi sebri ga mo sa xu lebiT mTav rde ba; ur kompleq sebSi: sam Tav ro (Иващенко М. kov zi ba gine Tis, sam Tavros, ur bnisis, 1980:147-149,154,155,159], ur bnisi [sa gi naS- bo ris, zRudris, sar gve Si sa da cixis Zi- vi li m. 1970: tab. II, 3-5] da sxv. aR sa niSna- ris kom pleq sebSia da dastu rebu li [a fa- vi a, rom sama rov nis IV-VIII ss. kom pleqseb- qi Ze an. 1955; afaqi Ze an., niko la iS vi li v. Si am ti pis sa nelsacx eb le aRar gvxvdeba 1966: tab. 1; Tscho u bi nas hwi i li G. 1925:83,84; [ug re liZe n. 1967:24-80]. v. leqvi na Ze ey- ina iS vi li n. 1993:40], xo lo urekis zus- rdno ba ra le singis ga mok vlevebs, boT- ti ana logi bo ris, zRud ris, ci xisZi ris, lise bu ri minis Wur Wels IV s. miwu ru liT riyi a nis da mcxeTa- sam Tav ros sa ma rov- aTa ri Rebs [Леквинадзе В. 1975:206; Le sings G. nebzea ga mov le ni li [ina iS vi li n. 1993:40; 1957:157-158]. Иващенко М.1980:325; afa qi Ze an., niko la- 6. oq ros na xevar sferu li for mis sam- iS vili v. 1996: tab. 1,2]. ka u li dan (inv. №8) er Ti ozur ge Tis, xo- 3. ver cxlis fi a la (?) dam tvre u lia lo me ore - ba Tumis muze um Sia da culi; (inv.№3), amitom misi da xa si a Te ba Znelde- ozur ge Tis mu ze u mis fon dSi da un je bu- ba. aqvs hori zon ta lurad da mag rebu li li eqspo na tis. Sub lis mxa re Sua Si od na- ori yu ri. mas xobis monas ter Tan Seswav- vaa amo bur culi da alman di nis qve bi Taa lil ax.w. pir ve li sau kune e biT da Ta ri- Semku li; gver deb ze da ta nilia sa mi gam- Rebul sa ma ro van ze aRmo Ce nil fia las am- Woli mrgva li nax vre ti (dm. 7,7; simaR le sgav se ben; [Хоштариа Н. 1955:54; ma Ca be li k. – 2 sm; wo na – 20,75 gr.); ba Tumis muze um Si 1983:37-40]. da culi niv Ti ana lo gi u ria; gan sxva ve ba 4. ver cxlis jaW vis frag menti (inv. mxo lod wo na Si a; ro gorc aRi niSna pir- №4), Sedge ba ver cxlis rgo le bi sa gan, ve li iwonis 20.75 gr, xo lo me ore – 18 gr ro melsac bo lo Si ovalu ri for mis fir- [Хоштариа Н. 1955:54]. fi te bi am kobs; msgav si aR na go bis oq ros 7. oq ros Ri li – 54 cali (inv. №19), ko- jaW vi aR mo Ce nilia ~a xal go ris gan ZSi~ nu si sebri, zur gis mxa res oq ros Re raki [Хоштариа Н. 1955:54]. aqvs mir Ci lu li. wo na 0,3 gr. am tipis, mag- 5. minis Wur We li, sa mi ca li (tab. III, ram naxe var sferu li for mis Ri liki li- 2-4), ro gorc ze moT aRiniS na ori mTeli a, ti cno bi lia mcxeTa -ar mazis, bo ris, va nime same naklu li [Хоштариа Н. 1955:58; tab. sa da Cxorowy us samar xeu li kompleq se- XVII, 1]. bi dan [Хоштариа Н. 1955:55]. pir ve li Wur We li (tab. III, 2) mozrdi- 8. oqros bal Ta –ab zin da (inv. №10, li a, or yu ra, erTi yu ri mo te xi li aqvs; tab. III, 5) war mo ad gens ovalu ri for mis for miT boT li sebri, ba ko – sqeli, lil- rgols, ro melsac Seda re biT swori mxri-

55 dan oq ros Rera ki – ena aqvs Sebmu li. ti- infor maci is simwi ris miu xeda vad, po lo gi u rad msgav si ab zinda as pa rug sak vlevi regi o ni elinis tu ri xa ni dan Tu eris Ta vis sa mar xida naa cnobi li [a fa qi- ara, gvia nan ti ku ri dan mainc garkve u li Ze an. 1955: tab. XXXIX, 2a,2b; tab. XL,9,10]. po li ti ku ri erTe u lis gu ri is sa e ris- Se saZ loa balTa –ab zinda tyavis fexsac- Ta vo – sa piti ax Sos Tan da Ta no biT Ca mo- mlis Se sak ra vad ga mo i ye nebo da [Хоштариа ya libe ba ze unda migva niSneb des (a ria ne Н. 1955:55]. 1961;43; va xuSti 1941:175-176; afaqi Ze an. 9. oq ros sama ju ri (inv. №11), da zi a ne- 1947:108). araa ga mo sa ricx i, ze mo aR niSnu- bu lia, dam za de bu lia ga nivkveT Si oTx- li poli ti ku ri er Te u lis Ca mo ya li be ba- kuTxa, fu ye Re ro sa gan; zeda piri al man- Si iberi is (qar Tlis) Sa vi zRvis sana pi rodi nis, oTx kuTxe dis for mis TvlebiT iyo ze gasvlis sa sicocx lo au ci leblo biT Semku li. ro gorc Semor Ce nili nawi li dan yo fi li yo ganpi ro be buli [a ri a ne 1961:43; Cans, igi or nawi lad Sed ge nil sa ma jurs afa qi Ze an. 1947:108]. war mo ad genda. Se mor Ce ni li sigrZe 4,5 sm, si ga ne - 1,7-1 sm. am rigad, ro gorc ze moT da vi na xeT, li te ra tu ra: gvia nan ti kuri xa nis Zegle bi dan gansa- kuT rebu lia md. kuCx i sa ba nos mar cxena ari a ne fla vi usi. 1961: mogza u ro ba Savi zRvis garSe mo, Targ. n. keWaR ma Ze, Tbili si. sa na piro ze ar sebu li sa maro va ni. Cve ni afa qi Ze an. 1947: gvia nanti ku ri xa nis arqe o lo gi u- va ra udiT, maRa li saxe lisuf le bo ran- ri Zeg le bi ure kidan. ssmm, t. XIV-B, gv. 82-112, gis mo xele Ta ram de ni me sa mar xeu li kom- Tbili si. pleqsi migva niSnebs, rom mdina re Ta suf- afa qi Ze an., go be jiS vili g., kalan da Ze al., lom- Ta Ti Ze g. 1955: mcxeTa -ar ma zis xevis ar qeo losa- na ta ne bis So ri si, zRvis sana piro zogi u ri Zegle bi, I, Tbili si. li, ax.w. II-IV ss-Si garkve u li po li ti kuri afa qi Ze an., ni ko la iSvi li v. 1996: mcxeTis war- cen tris – re zi denci is si axlo ves ar se- Ci nebul Ta gansas vene be li ax.w. III sau ku ni sa – bul nekro pols war mo ad genda. oq ros ag- ak ldama 905. - an. afa qiZe (red.). mcxeTa, XI. gv. 7-42, Tbili si. rafi -in signia da ke Til So bi li liTo ni- dun dua g. 1996: gu ri is numiz ma ti ku ri masa la. - an. sa gan damza de bu li sxva dasxva sam ka u li afa qiZe (red.) guri a, I. gv. 100-116, Tbili si. ze mo aR niSnul ze migva niSne ben [a fa qi Ze vaxuS ti ba to niSvi li 1941: aRwe ra same fo sa saan. 1947:108; afa qi Ze an. 1955; Леквинадзе В. qar Tve lo sa – T. lomo u ri, n. berZe niS vi li (red.), gv. 174-176. Tbili si. 1975:204-205; inaiS vi li n. 1993:32]. ina iS vi li n. ci xisZi ris ax.w. I-IV ss. arqe o lo gi u ri sam wu xarod, nek ro po li dRe i saTvis Zegle bi, 1993, Tbili si. araa sru lad Seswav li li; aR mo Ce nebis sa- lorTqi fa ni Ze m. 1961: saqar Tve los saxel mwi fo fuZvel ze cno bi lia mde ba reo ba, magram mu ze u mis geme bi. III, Tbili si. maCa be li k. 1983: Zveli saqar Tve los vercxli, araa gar kve u li gav rce le bis are a li, uc- Tbili si. no bia stra tig ra fi a, sa mar xTa aR na go ba, sagi naS vili m. 1970: urbni sis sama rov nis minis dak rZal vis wesi da rac yve la ze mniSvne- Wur We li, Tbili si. lo va ni a, am ran gis sinqro nu li da sax le- sadra Ze v., WaniS vi li T. 1996: masa le bi guri is mxaris ar qeo lo gi uri Seswav lis isto ri i saT vis. be bi. – an. afa qi Ze (red.). guri a, I, gv. 41-45, Tbili si. Tum ca ama ve mikro re gi on Si ga mov le- ug re liZe n. 1967: ad re uli Sua sa u ku ne Ta qarTlSi ni li gvi a nan ti kur -ad re Sua sau ku nee bis mi nis warmo e bis isto ri i saT vis, Tbili si. xanis mo ed ni sa da om fa re Tis sasi magro fuTu ri Ze r. 1959: gvia nan ti ku ri xanis da savleT sa qar Tvelos ar qeo lo gi uri Zegle bi. – mska, t. siste ma, vaS nar -spo nie Tis cixe- qa la qi, II. Tbili si. gv. 54-91. gri go le Tis sa maro va ni, Suxu Tis, om fa- Зеест Н.Б. 1960: Керамическая тара Боспора. Москва. re Tis, moed nisa da ozur ge Tis aba no e bi, Иващенко М.М. 1980: Самтаврские погребения периых ga moT qmuli mo saz re bis sava rau do das- трёх веков н.э. - А.М. Апакидзе (ред.) - mcxeTa, III, gv. 8-227, Tbili si. tu ria [sad ra Ze v. 1996:26]

56 Леквинадзе В.А. 1975: Богатое погребение IV в. из Уреки. - А.В Арциховский (ред.) –СА, 4, c. 193-208, Москва. Максимова М.И. 1962: Амулет из Горгипии и так называемые «шарики-подвески». - А.В Арциховский (ред.) СА, 2, c. 226-230, Москва. Мачабели К. 1972: Серебряное блюдо из Уреки. – v. beri Ze (red.), ~Zeg lis mego ba ri~, 29. gv. 11-24, Tbili si. Филов Б. 1913: Римского съкровыще от Николоего, - ИБАД, 4, Москва. Хоштариа Н.В. 1955: Аахеологическое исследование Уреки. - mska. I, gv. 25-75, Tbili si. Grei fen ha gen A. 1970: Schmuc Kar be i ten in edel me tall, Ber- lin. Le sings G. 1957: Roman Glass from Da ted Finds, Gronin gen -Dja kar ta. Tscho ubi nas chwi li G. 1925: Der fund von Sar gves chi. - ИКИИ, III, Tbili si.

ilus tra ci e bis aR we ri loba: tab. I. 1 – ureki, 1942 weli, e.w. ~gan Zi dan~ momdi nare rkinis sa rece lis naSTi; 2 – Ti xis am fo ra; 3 – oq ros beWe di; 4,5 – ge mi a ni oq ros beWe di; 6 – oq ros sa ma ju ri; 7 – al man di nis Tvle biT Sem- kuli oq ros sa maju ri; 8 – oq ros sa av ga ro ze; 9-11 – marke zitis qvi a ni oq ros sa ki dis na wi li; 12 – oq ros yelsa bami; 13 – oq ros la lisTvli a- ni samwi la di sa yu re; 14 – oqros ag ra fi. tab. II. 1-3 – oq ros ki li te biT Sedge ni li bal Ta; 4 – ge mi a ni vercxlis beWe di; 5, 6 – vercxlis ilari; 7-9 – ver cxlis fibu lebi; 10 – mZi ve bi; 11-14 – vercxlis saki dis nawi le bi. tab. III. 1 – ver cxlis langa ri; 2-4 – minis Wur We- li; 5 – al ma di nis qvebiT Sem ku li oq ros bal Ta ~yva vilna ri dan~.

57 V. Sadradze I

58 II

59 III

60 me dea Se ro zi aO

oq ta via ne av gus tu sis de nare bisa da mi si ad gi lobri vi mi naba Ze bis Se sa xeb

qar Tlis sa mefo (i be ri a) Zveli da axa- (ali ci u) De sig (na tus) Pric(eps) ju ven t(utis) = gai u- li wel TaR ricx ve bis mijna ze war mo ad- si (da) lu ci u si kei sar av gus tes Svile bi genda so ci al -e ko no mi kurad da poli ti- kon su le bad de zig ni re bulni (ar Ce ul ni) ku rad da wi nau re bul, mWid rod da sax le- tax tis memkvid re e bi [Mat tingly H. 1965:89, bul qve ya nas, romel sac ukve kar gad gan- №519 Ptab. 13 №N9; Rober tson A.S. 1962:41, tab. vi Ta re buli fu la di meur ne oba hqonda. 7 № 218]. Tum ca, sakiTxi ad gi lob ri vi emi si is Sesa- cno bi lia, rom es ti pi far Tod gav- xeb dRemde bundo va nia. rce le bu li sa fa si iyo mTels imdro in- ax.w. I s-is pir vel na xevar Si aR mo sav- del ci vi lize bul sam ya ro Si, maT So ris leT sa qar Tve los fula di ur Ti er To be- kav ka sia Si. bis sa fuZve li iyo par Tuli, Ziri Ta dad dRei saTvis sa qar Tve los te rito ri- orod II-is (ax.w. 57-38 ww.) draqme bi, aleq- a ze 360-ze meti pas porti zebu li egzem- san dre ma ke do neli sa da li si maqes sta te- pla ria aR mo Ce ni li. es aris qarTlis sare bis ad gi lob ri vi barba ro su li mi naba- me fos te ri tori a ze aR mo Ce ni li ro mau- Zebi, ro ma u li mone te bi. li peri o dis safa see bis naxe var ze meti. ax.w. I s-is meo re naxev ri dan mi naba Zebi mo neta Ta ra ode nob ri vi Se farde ba nel-ne la qreba mimoq ce vidan da samo ne- ase Ti a: de da qa laq mcxeTa sa da mis Semo- to cir kula ci a Si privi le gi rebu li xde- ga ren Si 200-mde eg zem pla ria aR mo Ce ni li, ba er Ti mxriv par Tu li, e.w. go tar ze sis, e.i. naxe varze meti. Sem deg mo dis arag vis dRe i saT vis mi Re bu li at ri bu ci iT, ar ta- xeo ba (romlis gas wvri vac ga di oda Crdi- ban II-is (ax.w. 10-38 ww.) draq ma [Sel lwo od D. loe Ti saken mi mava li satran zi to ma gis- 1971:185; She ro zia M., Do yen J. 2007:104] da me- trali), ker Zod, da ba Jinva lis mimde ba re o res mxriv, oq ta vi a ne av gus tu sis (Zv.w. te ri toria – 55; zRu de ri - 31, so fe li 27- ax.w. 14) ro mau li dena ri, rome lic aRa i a ni - 18, so fe li bori - 16, er wo- Ti- Semdeg na i rad ga mo i yu re ba: a neTis qveya na - 15, kldee Ti - 14, ur bnisi Subli: av gus tu sis daf nis gvir gvini- - 9 da Semdeg da nar Cen pun qtebSi Ti To -o- a ni Ta vi mar jvniv, ir gvliv wriu li war- ro la cali. xSi ria aR mo Ce ne bi svaneT Si. we ra: CAESAR AVGUSTUS DIVI F. PATER PATRIAE. gan Zad aRmo Ce nis erTa der Ti Sem Txveva (ke i sa ri av gus te RvTa eb ri vi ma ma sam Sob- aris da fiqsi rebu li. 1944 wels ar qe o lo- lo si). gi uri gaTx re bis dros mcxeTa Si, ba gi neT- zur gi: ga i us da lu ci us ceza re bi mo- ze (Si da ci xe), Tav dac vi Ti ked lis ZirSi sas xa me bi Ta da Tav sa bura ve biT dga nan ga mov linda 22 cali av gus tusis de na ri erTma neTis pi ris pir, xe liT ey rdnobi- [mcxeTa I, 1955:179]. an ur Ti erTSo ris moTav se bul fa rebs. mi u xe da vad mo nete bis er Tgva rov ne- maT So ris Sube bia gadaj va re di ne buli, bi sa, maT Soris mainc Se iZ le ba ram de ni me Su bebs So ris, zemoT ga mo saxu lia mar- va ri an tis ga mo yo fa. h. matin gli [Mat tingly jvniv - simpu lu mi (sim pu lum - Sesa wi ri H. 1965:89] ga mo yofs a, b, c, d va ri an tebs. Cam Ca pon ti fi ke bi sa), mar cxniv - litu si kla si fi ka cia ey rdnoba re ligi u ri sim- (li tus - mo Ru nu li kver Txi av gu ri sa). ir- bolo e bis _ simpu lu misa da litu sis ur- gvliv wriu li zed weri li: C.L. CAESARES Ti er Tgan la ge bas mo ne tis zur gis ga mo- AVGUSTI F. COS, DESIA. PRINC. IVVENT. (C(ajus )(et) sa xu le ba ze (simpu lu mi da li tu si aris L (uci us) Ca e sa res Au gusti F(i li ae) Cos (=Co sula tus) em bleme bi qu rum Ta ori umaRle si Qwo de-

61 bi sa - pon ti fi ke bi sa da av gure bi sa, rom- xi № 24 _ av gus tusis de nari da fra at lebsac ekuTvnod nen axal gaz rda prin- III draq ma [mcxeTa X, 1995:76]. I s-is me o re ce bi) [Grant M. 1954:78]. mone ta Ta ume te so- naxev riT TariR de ba 1951 wels mcxeTa- ba ze mar cxniv aris sim pu lu mi, mar jvniv Si gaTxri li ak ldama rkinig zis sadgur- - litu si, er Tma ne Tisken mi mar Tu li. va- Tan, ro melSic 63 mone ta aR moC nda, aqe- rian ti a - mar cxniv sim pu lu mi marjvniv dan mxolod er Ti iyo avgus tu sis de nari litu si, magram isini zur gSeqce viT ari- [Капанадзе Д. 1955:172]. aseve I s-iT TariR- an ga mo sa xu li; va ri an ti b - mar cxniv sim- de ba kas pis ra i o nis so fel aRa i an Si, ri- pu lu mi, mar jvniv litu si erTma neTis ken yi a ne bis ve lis sama ro van ze aR mo Ce ni li mimar Tuli, maT qvemoT niSa ni x; va rian ti samar xi № 3 (par Ti a, fraat IV (38-2 ww.) da c - mar cxniv li tu si, marjvniv sim pu lu- av gus tu sis de na ri); samar xi № 7 (orod II mi, qvemoT ni Sa ni x; va ri an ti d - marcxniv (57-38 ww.), av gus tu sis de na ri (2 cali) da litu si, mar jvniv sim pu lu mi. saqar Tve- ka ligu las ke sari u li draq ma (Zv.w. 37- los te ri to ria ze aRmo Ce nil de na rebs 38w.w.)); sa mar xi № 10 (aleq san dre make do- So ris ar Seg vxvedria va ri an ti a, da nar- ne lis sta te ris mina ba Zi, parTu li fra at Ce ni va ri ante bi far Tod yo fi la gav rce- IV draq ma, orod II draq ma (3 cali), fraat lebu li. Tum ca, di di umrav le so ba aris III (70-57 ww.) draq ma, av gus tu sis de nari (2 Cve u lebri vi ti pi, e.i. mar jvniv simpu lu- ca li)) [mi ri a naS vi li n. 1983:24,32-33]. aR- mi, mar cxniv litu si, mimar Tu li erTma ne- niSnu li safa see bis ume te so ba aRmo Ce ni- Tis ken. lia II da III sa u kuniT da Ta ri Re bul sa mar- dRe i saT vis ga ur kve ve li a, ras un da xebSi. niSnav des mo netis zur gis gamo sa xu leav gus tusis de na ris pa rale lu rad ba ze x-is aR niSvna. ad re ul ro maul mo ne- qar Tlis same fos sa mone to ba zars ipy- teb ze igi Ri re bule bis aRmniS vne li iyo, robs par Tu li, ar ta ban II (10_38 ww.) rac ud ri da 10 ass. mag ram Zv.w. II s-dan es draq ma. av gus tu sis de naris da ar ta ban II we si qre ba da igi kvlav Tavs iCens bizan- draq mis mi moq ce vis are a li da gav rcele- ti is epo qa Si. m. gran ti [Grant M. 1954:79] bis qro no lo gi u ri Car Co e bi erTma neTs ga moT qvams mo sazre bas, rom sa va ra u dod emTxve va. arta ban II draq ma TiT qos av- es va ri anti gan sazR vruli iyo ro meli me gus tu sis de nar ze od nav gvian Cndeba mier Ti ol qi saT vis, Se saZ le be lia ger mani- moq ce va Si. dRem de mo po ve bu lia 235 ca li i saT vis. am va ri antis wili mimoq ce va Si pas porti zi rebu li eg zempla ri. aqe dan CvenSi pa ta ra a, mag ram ma inc aris (tab. I, № umete so ba aR mo Ce ni lia mcxeTa sa da mis 6,7). Se i niSne ba ag reT ve am va ri an tis mi na- Se mo ga ren Si. mrav lad aris aRmo Ce nili ba Ze bi (tab. I № 9,17). arag vis xeo ba Si, Jinva lis sama ro vanze. aR niSnu li safa see bi sa qar Tve los ro gorc aRi niSna, av gus tu sis de nare- sa mone to ur Ti er Tobeb Si im pe rato ris bi sa da ar ta ban II draq mebis 90% mo po ve- gar dac va le bi dan di di xnis Semdeg er- bu lia II da III sau ku ne e biT da Ta ri Re bul Tve ba, da ax lo e biT I sau ku nis Sua wlebi- kom pleqseb Si. ori ve warmo ad genda mo- dan. am dros misi ro li sa mo neto mi moq- sax le o bis far To ma se bi saTvis xel mice vaSi jer ki dev um niS vnelo a. pir ve li saw vdom safass, ra zec miu Ti Tebs maTi sau ku niT da Ta ri Re bul sa mar xebSi igi aR mo Ce na ro gorc qar Tlis eris mTa var- Tavs iCens aqa -iq TiTo eg zem pla ris sa- Ta, maga liTad ar ma zis xevis, ba gi ne Tis xiT. ma ga li Tad, I s-iT Ta riRde ba 1986 w. mdidrul sarko fa gebSi, aseve mo sax le o- mcxeTis arqe olo gi uri eq spedi ci is mier bis farTo fe nebi saTvis gankuT vnil sawi wa mu ris III uban ze gaTx rili sa mar xi № marov nebze. maga li Tad: 12, ro melSic orod II-is 5 draqma da av- 1. 1938 w. mcxeTa- sam Tav ros sa marov- gus tu sis 1 de na ri aR moC nda, iq ve sa mar- nis samxre Ti uba ni, kramit samar xi № 30, aq

62 sxva das xva ar qe olo giur nivTeb Tan er- eg zem pla ri. 1965 wels qa laq erevnis max- Tad aR moC nda av gus tusis 3 ca li de nari, lob lad Sem TxveviT aR moC nda ar ta ban II ar ta ban II 5 draqma, an to nine pi usis (138- draq ma, ro melsac aqvs yun wi, rac mis sam- 161 ww.) 1 dena ri [Иващенко М. 1980:98]. ka u lad ga mo ye nebas adas tu rebs. es aris 2. 1940 w. mcxe Ta -ar mazis xevi, sa mar xi er Ta derTi SemTxve va. zo ga dad Se iZ le- № 6 - avgus tu sis 3 de na ri, nero nis (54-68 ba iT qvas, rom ax.w. I s. CaT vliT par Tuli ww.), gal bas (68-69 ww.), adri a nes (117-138 mo ne te bi mi mo iq ce oda som xeT Si, xo lo ww.), anto nine pi u sis (138-161 ww.), komo dis gvian, II-III sau ku ne eb Si maTi kvali aRar (180-192 ww.) Ti To- Ti To au reu si da arta- Cans [Саркисян Г. 1979:249; Se ro zia m. 2003- ban II 11 cali draq ma [mcxeTa I, 1955:46]; 2004:17]. 3. 1985 w. mcxeTa- sam Tav ro, ak lda ma al ba ne Tis samo ne to baza ri gvi an ro- № 905, av gus tu sis 15 cali de nari, ne roma ul xana Si kar di na lu rad gansxva ve bu- nis (54-68 ww.) 2 cali au re u si, tra i a nes lia ibe ri i sa da somxe Tis samo ne to baz ri- (98-117 ww.) kvina riu si, ad ria nes (117-138 sa gan. kav ka si is al ba ne Ti moi cav da Crdi- ww.) au reu si da 15 ca li arta ban II draq ma lo eT azer ba i ja nis mniSvne lo van na wils, [mcxeTa XI, 1996:20]. zRvis pi ra da Res tansa da alaz nis velis 4. 1940 w. mcxeTa -ar mazis xe vi, sa mar xi na wils. aq samo ne to ur Ti erTo be bis sa- № 3, avgus tu sis 3 ca li de na ri, arta ban fuZvels war mo ad genda par Tuli mo nete- II de nari, gor di a ne III (238-241 ww.) 2 au- bi, ro melTa So ris ricxob ri vi upira te- re usi, fili pe uf ro sis (244-249 ww.) 3 au- so ba aqvs ar ta ban II draqmas. azer ba i ja nis re usi (a qedan 2 imita ci a), tra i a ne decis te ri tori a ze aR mo Ce ni li gan Zebis Sina- (249-251 ww.) au reu si, hos ti lia nes (251 w.) arsi mig va niSnebs ima ze, rom III sau ku neSi au re u si [mcxeTa I, 1955:46]; ar ta ban II mo neta jer ki dev aris mi moq ce- 5. 1939 w. mcxe Ta- sam Tav ro, samxre Tis va Si, Tumca igi aRar Ta ma Sobs fu lad ur- uba ni, ormo sa mar xi № 89 _ av gus tu sis Ti er To bebSi mniS vnelo van rols. azer- de na ri 2 ca li, Sa pur I sasa nidis (238-269 ba i ja nis te ri to ria ze da fiqsi rebu lia ww.) draqma [Иващенко М. 1980:198]. av gus tu sis de na ris aR mo Ce nis xuTi Sem- faq tob rivi ma sale bi gvaZlevs sa Su- Txveva. de na rebi aR mo Ce ni lia azer ba i- a le bas da vas kvnaT, rom pir ve li sa mi sa- ja nis da savleT na wilSi, ro me lic sa qar- u ku nis gan mavlo ba Si sa vaW ro-fu lad Tve los esazR vre ba. av gus tu sis de na re- ur Ti er To bebSi wam yva ni ro li eWi raT bi sa da ar ta ban II draq mebis er Tdro u li av gus tu sis de nareb sa da arta ban II draq- aR mo Ce na azer ba i ja nis teri to ri a ze ar mebs. sa fa se bi mimo iqce oda pa rale lu rad ga mov le ni la [Халилов Д.А. 1985:17; Голенко da war mo ad genda mo saxle o bis far To ma- К., Раджабли А. 1975:71]. se bisaT vis xelmi saw vdom safass. aseTi iberi is sa mo ne to mimoq ce va Si av gus- vi Ta reba lo ka lu ria ibe rii saTvis da ar tu sis de nare bi imde nad xangrZli vad da vrcel de ba ami er kav kasi is sxva qveyneb ze, farTod iyo Car Tuli, rom amis ga mo d. ker Zod me zo bel som xeT sa da al ba neT ze ka pana Zem wamo a ye na mo saz reba aR niSnu li [Sero zia m. 2003-2004:14]. de na rebis, ag reT ve arta ban II draqme bis mezo bel som xeT Sic mimo iq ce o da av- erTi na wi lis ad gi lob riv moW ris Se saZ- gus tu sis de na ri, mag ram am mi moq ce vas leblo bis Sesa xeb [ka pa naZe d. 1969:44], ar hqon da ise Ti farTo xasi a Ti, ro gorc ra sac Cvenc veTan xmebiT. misi az riT, ga- iberi is teri tori a ze. rac See xe ba ar- re sam ya ro dan xse ne buli ti pis Semo zid- ta ban II draqmas, misi kvali som xe Tis sa- vis Sewy ve tam ga mo iw via ad gi lob rivi mo neto mimoq ce va Si sa er Tod ar Cans. mi naba Ze bis moW ris dawye ba. mina ba Zebis dRem de som xeT Si war mo e bul arqe olo- pir ve li safe xu re bi bevrad ar Sor de ba gi ur gaTx rebs ar gamo uv le nia arc erTi ori gi nals, mag ram dro Ta ganmav loba-

63 Si mina ba Zi ganic dis degra da ci as da misi zur gi: fa rebze day rdno bi li ga i us uka nas kne li ca le bi uxeS sqe mad iqcnen. da lu ci us ce za re bi da da ma xinje buli d. ka pa naZe uxeS mina baZebs IV_V sa u ku nee- war we ra. ga mo sa xu le bis qvemoT ikiTx- biT aTari Rebs [Капанадзе Д. 1962:63]. e ba AVGUSTI [dundua g. 1972:40]. mo ne tas mo saz rebas imaze, rom xa ris xob ri vad ar mo e Zebne ba ana lo gi. sava ra udod igi uke Te si ca le bi uf ro Zveli a, xo lo deg- ad gi lob ri vi produq ciaa da gvamcnobs, radi rebu li ca le bi ufro axal gaz rda, rom ara ug vi a nes mar kus avre li u sis epo- eW vis qveS aye nebs is ga remo e ba, rom xSi- qi sa, xmare ba Si iyo Cven Tvis sa in te reso rad gvian del samar xSi da cu lia ide a lur ver cxlis mone tis ti pis zur gis mo ti vis mdgo mare o ba Si myofi da de valvi re bu- Semcve li si qa (tab. I №17, ganZe bis fon di, li ca li. maga li Tad: 1977 wels mcxe Ta Si, Semdgom Si g.f. №22623). mog vTa ka ris sa ma ro vanis № 4 samar xSi aR- 1986 wels ka xe Tis ar qe olo gi ur ma eq- mo Ce ni li de nari (mcxeTis ar qe olo gi u ri spedi ci am, pro fe sor ki a zo ficx e la u ris eq cpe di ci a, Semdgom Si ma e) № 63 degra di- xelmZRva ne lobiT, so fel We rem Si №2 sare bu lia, № 64 unak lo a. samar xi Ta riRde- mar xSi aR mo a Ci na av gus tu sis de naris suba II sau ku niT [mcxeTa VII, 1985:109]. ase Ti be ratu li ca li (g.f. №25755. wona 1,78 gr, vi Ta re ba gva fiqre bi nebs, rom gvi an del zo ma: 18-19 mm). mo neta spilen Zi sa ga naa samar xebSi aR mo Ce nili unaklo cale- dam za de bu li da da fa ru li iyo ver cxlis bi ver iqne ba avgus tu sis epo qa Si moW ri- Txe li fe niT. Mmxatvru li Tval saz ri siT li. mcxeTis ar qe olo gi ur ma eqspe di ci am igi ar Ca mor Ce ba ori gi nals, magram zur- 1975_1985 wlebSi sxvadas xva ubanze mo- gis warwe ra da maxin je bu lia (tab. I. №18). i po va 45 cali avgus tusis de na ri. aqe dan Subli: im pera toris por tre ti mar- aS ka ra deg ra da ci is kva li ety o ba mxo- jvniv. Tavze, pi ri sa xeze da kiser ze spi- lod 4 cals. daax lo e biT amde ni ve Sesru- lenZis fe ri la qe bi. por tre tis win war- lebu lia maRal mxat vrul done ze da eWvs we ra ar mos Cans DIVIDD F PATER. ar iw vevs, rom moW ri lia impe ri is za raf- zur gi: ti pi u ri. xazs qve moT AESAE…; xa naSi. Mmo ne te bis ume te so ba Sesru le bu- AVCVSTIDIDEISPR. C L CAESARES; AVGVSTI F. COS. lia sa Sua lo do ne ze, xSirad gvxvdeba ca- DESING. PRINS. IVVENT. le bi, rom le bic Cve ni az riT, ar See saba- Cvens mier Ses wav lil nimu Sebs So ris me ba stan dartebs (tab. I, № 8-18). Se saZ le- es erTa der Ti SemTxve vaa le gendis da ma- be lia, es ca le bi ad gi lob rivi pro duq- xinje bis. cxadi a, siqa da amza da xe lo san- cia iyos, Tumca maT So ris ori er Tna i ri ma, ro melsac ar es mo da war we ris Si naar- eg zem pla ris mo Zebna ver SevZe liT. si, Tum ca aso e bi sak maod mkveTri a. sain- mina ba Ze bis da Ta riRe bis sa kiTxs met te re soa is faq ti, rom mo ne ta aRmoC nda -nak le bad naTels hfens ukanas knel pe- ka xe Tis maRal mTian zolSi. ri od Si ga mov le ni li nimu Se bi: 1971 wels dRe van de li so fe li We re mi mdeba resa qar Tve los saxel mwi fo mu ze ums mo qa- obs gur ja a nis ra i on Si. aq III sau ku neSi la qe ale ko miqa be ri Zem Se mos wi ra xa Su- Cndeba qa la qu ri ti pis da sax le ba, rome- ris ra i o nis so fel yeleT Si Sem TxveviT lic Semdgom gada iq ca qa la qad. igi aR mo- napov ni ver cxlis hib ri du li mina ba Zi – sav le Ti dan mo ma val mniSvne lo van savaW- mar kus av reli u si (161_180w.w.) + oqta vi- ro magis tral ze mdeba reob da. sof lis a ne av gus tu sis dena ris zur gis moti vi. w. te ri tori a ze gaTx ri lia III-IV sa u ku ne- 3,78 gr, z. 20 mm. e bis mdidru li qva sa mar xe bi. sxvadas xva Subli: mar jvniv mi mar Tuli wvero sa ni ar qe o logi ur masa lasTan er Tad ga mov- im pera toris ga mo sa xu le ba, garSe mo da- le nilia 6 ca li mo ne ta, ori par Tu li, ma xinje bu li la Ti nu ri zedwe ri li, ro- ar ta ban II draq ma (g.f. №25752, №25754), melSic moix seni e ba markus avre liu si. 4 ro mau li de nari, aqe dan 3 avgus tu sis,

64 maT So ris erTi ze moTx sene bu li sube- z.19 mm; q.Z. №3372 w. 3,55 gr, z.18|19 mm; q.Z. ra ti (g.f. №25751, 25753, 25755) da er- №3425 w. 2.23 gr, z.11|13 mm (ga ur kve ve li); Tic ka ra ka la si (211 -217 ww.) (g.f. №25750) q.Z. № 4049 w. 2,59 gr, z. 20 mm; q.Z. №4050 w. [Мамаиашвили Н. 1987:93]. 3.25 gr, z.20|19 mm; q.Z. №4051 w. 3,51 gr, z.19 ze moT AaRwe ri li mo ne ta Cve ni az riT, mm; q.Z. №4052 w. 3,24 gr, z.20 mm; q.Z. №4053 w. III sau ku niT unda da Ta riRdes, igi sav- 3,10 gr, z.18 mm; q.Z. №4054 w.3,02 gr, z.18 mm; sebiT SesaZ le be lia adgi lobri vi pro- (es eqvsi mo ne ta №4049-4054 aris profe- duq cia iyos. msgav si aras tandar tu li sor evge ni pa xo movis ko leqci i dan, ro meni mu Se bi Ta vis droze gamo aq veyna da viT lic man uander Za muze ums). ka pa naZem [ka pa naZe d. 1969: tab. II, №23], a. sa va ra u dod q.Z. №54 un da iyos aR mo- zog raf ma [Зограф А. 1945:44]. Ce nili axalci xis ra i on Si, nayi dia ad- sa qarTve los teri to ri a ze ag reT ve gi lob rivi Sem groveb li sa gan [Зограф А. mi moq ce vaSi iyo av gus tu sis de naris ga i- 1945:77, №165.]. zog ra fi am egzem plars us da lu ci us ce za re bis ga mo saxu le bi a- aTa ri Rebs I sa uku niT. aq ve na xavT in for- ni ukidu resad uxeSi, bar ba ro su li mina- ma ci as imis Se saxeb, rom ana lo gi u ri mi naba Zebi, rom le bic ad gi lob riv produq ci- ba Zi da ax lo e biT 1930 wels aRmoC nda go- ad unda miviC ni od, miu xeda vad imi sa, rom ris ra i o nis so fel uf lisci xe Si [Зограф aR niSnu li mo netis msgavsi ka te go ri is А. 1945:77, №164; Пахомов А.Н. 1938:13, bar ba ro su li mina ba Zebi impe ri is sxva pe- №343]. es cali aR moC nda samar xSi, micva- ri fe ri eb Sic iW re bo da, sava ra udod cen- le buls edo pir Si. a. zog ra fi am cal sac I tra lur ev ro paSi da SesaZ le be lia indo- sa u ku niT aTari Rebs. 1939 wels daba wal- eT Sic. kis maxlob lad, ase ve sa mar xSi, aR moC nda sa qarTve los erov nu li muze u mis nu- bar ba ro su li mi na ba Zi. es cnoba zog ra- miz mati kur fondeb Si da culi 15 ca li fi saTvis mi u wo de bia b. kuftins [Зограф А. barba ro su li mi naba Zi gansxva ve bu lia 1945:77]. bri ta neTis muze u mis kata log Si [Mat- Cve ni az riT, mone te bis am jgufs ekuT- tingly H. 1965: t. I, tab. 14, №5,6,7] ga moq- vnis erov nu li mu ze u mis qarTu li mo ne- vey ne bu li nimu Se bi sa gan, ag reT ve v. kro- te bis fon dSi da cu li ki dev er Ti bar ba- pot ki nis [Кропоткин В. 1961:16] naS romSi ro su li mina ba Zi (q.Z. №53 w.1,85 gr, z.17|18 ga moq vey nebu li 33 mi naba Zi sa gan, ro mel- mm), romel sac sru li ad da kar guli aqvs Ta mo po ve bis ga re mo eba da dRe van de li mსgav seba ori gi nal Tan. mo ne tis Sublze ad gilsam yofe li cnobi li ar aris. ga mo sa xu le ba ufro mce na res gavs, vidre am 15 mo ne ti dan mxo lod 5 cals aqvs ada mia nis Tavs. mar cxniv TiT qos Cans dia- cno ba aR mo Ce nis gare mo e bis Se sa xeb. ese- de mis baf Te bi. mo netis zurgze sru li ad ni a: qarTu li mo nete bis Zi riTa di fon di ga ur kve ve li nakaw re bia (tab. II, №36). (Semdgom Si q.Z.) №1705 w.3,84 gr, z.19|20 mm. ze moT Ca moT vlili aR mo Ce ne bi dan, in- aRmo Ce ni lia Wi a Tu ra Si; g.f. № 5103 w. 2,93 for ma ci is Tval saz ri siT yvela ze mniS- gr, z.18|19mm. aR moCe nilia sva neT Si, so- vnelo va nia bo lo pe rio dis ori aR mo Ce- fel cxumur Si; g.f. № 9446 w.1.28gr, z.19mm. na: 1982 wels Jinva lis ar qe o lo gi ur ma aR moCe nilia da ba cager Si (leCx u mi); g.f. eq spedi ci am (xel mZRva neli pro fe so ri № 25444 w. 2.97 gr, z.18|17 mm. aR mo Ce ni lia r. ra miSvi li) duSe Tis ra i onis so fel ba- so fel baga Si (ba gi Wa la) du Se Tis rai oni; gi Wa la Si, 17-e qvasa mar xSi sxvadas xva ar- g.f. №26274 w. 3.12 gr. z.19 mm. so fe li doR- qe olo gi ur nivTeb Tan er Tad mo i po va av- la ura (de dof lis gora) qa re lis ra i oni; gus tu sis de naris bar ba ro su li mi na ba Zi Dda nar Cen ca lebs da kar gu li aqvT cno be bi (g.f. №25444) da fraat IV (Zv.w. 37_2 ww.) mo po ve bis ga re mo e ba Ta Sesa xeb. Ee seni a: q.Z. par Tu li draq ma. ori ve mone ta micva le- №54 w. 3.33 gr, z.19 mm; q.Z. №1704 w. 3,42gr, buls pir Si edo. mina ba Zi ase ga mo i yu re ba:

65 Subli: im pera to ris ukidu re sad sqema- ne te bi sa da ase gamo i yu re ba: Subli: matu ri ga mosa xu le ba mar jvniv. maka cis mar jvniv mi mar Tu li portre ti zur gi: ori fi gu ris imi ta ci a, maT So- di di cxviriT, Tavze daf nis gvir gviniT, ris fa re bi da Su be bi; Su bebs So ris TiT- rom lis baf Te bi kefa ze ikvre ba. mosCans qos ra Rac niSne bia amo kaw ru li. xazs qve- baf Tis bo lo. aris war we ris gad mo ce mis moT war we ris magiv rad 7 xa zia mo ce mu li. mcdelo ba. Tavs ukan gamo sa xu lia sa mi ga- ga mo sa xu le bis ir gvliv aso e bis ma givrad daj va re di nebu li xa zi (XXX). profi lis ase Ti ve xaze bia amo kaw ru li. win aso e bis mo xazu lo ba TiTqmis emsgav- ba gi Wa la Si aR mo Ce ni li ca li gansxvav- seba la Ti nurs VI ...IX...; gamo sa xu le bas Se- de ba da nar Ce ni ca le bi sagan. mo ne ta dam- mo uy ve ba wer ti lova ni rkali. oTx i ve moza de bu lia maRa li sinjis ver cxlisa gan. ne tis Sublis siqa identu ri a. Cve ni az riT, igi Se da rebiT ad re u li ni- zur gi: mo Cans prince bis sqema tu- mu Sia ze moT moxse ni e bul safa sebs So- ri ga mosa xu le ba, maT Soris ori fa ri da ris. mo neta II sa u kunis pir ve li naxev ris ori Subi. Su bebs So ris maR la simpu lu- pro duq cia unda iyos. amaze sa mar xeu li mi da li tu si (aRsa niSna vi a, rom mxo lod in venta ri da upirve les yov lisa, mas- am jgufis mi naba Zebzea ga mo saxu li es Si fra at IV par Tu li draq mis aRmo Ce na simbo lo e bi, da nar Cen Se mor Ce nil ca- migva niSnebs. aR niSnu li sa fa si iberi a Si lebze isini aRar Canს). Pprince bis zurgs bru nav da I sau kune Si. II sa u kunis samo ne- ukan war we ris imita ci is mcdelo ba (es to mi moq ce va Si igi, rogorc we si, aRar aris rever sze war we ris gamo sax vis mcde- mo nawi le obs. lo bis erTa der Ti Sem Txveva). ga mo sa- 2004 wels Si da qar Tlis arqe olo gi- xu le bas Se mo uy ve ba werti lova ni rka- ur ma eq spedi ci am (xelmZRva ne li profe- li. so ri iu lon ga go Si Ze) qa relis ra i o nis am oTxi mi naba Zis re ver sis SemTxve va- so fel doR la ura Si, de doflis go raze, Si er Ti da igi ve siqa ar aris gamo ye nebu- №15-e oTa xis Semok rebil nan grevSi ipo- li, magram msgavsi a. aSka raa, rom er Ti sava uki du resd da zi a nebu li mo neta, ro me- xe los nos na warmi a. lic cecxlSi yofnis kvals atareb da. am mina ba Ze bis ana lo gi u ria erevnis sa- Zeglis gam Txrelis pro fe sor iu lon xelmwi fo is tori u li mu ze u mis numiz maga go Si Zis mo saz rebiT [Gagos hidze I. 2004: ti kis fon dSi dacu li, upas por to eg zem- 172], sasax le, sa dac aR moC nda mo ne ta, pla ri (№14362. w.3,77 gr, z.19 mm. tab. II, 24) war mo ad gens Zv.w. I – ax.w. I ss-is na ge bo bas. da qa laq mosko vis a.s. puS ki nis sa xe lo bis ax.w. I sa u kunis bo los sasax le xanZar ma sax vi Ti xe lov nebis mu ze um Si da cu li im sxverpla. xan Za ri imde nad Zli e ri yo- ase ve upaspor to eg zempla ri (w. 4.14 gr), fi la, rom Seno bi dan TiTqmis ve raf ris ro me lic gaxvre ti li a, ety oba me da li o- ga ta na ver mous wriaT. nad iyo ga mo ye ne bu li. ama ve dros, mas uC- rad gan sa sax le da iw va I sau ku nis bo- ve u lod maRa li wo na aqvs (w.4.14gr. tab. los, es mina ba Zi da misi identu ri ca le bi, II,23). ori ve mone ta eW vga re Se sa qar Tve- ver da Ta riR de ba I sa uku ne ze gvi a ni dro- loSia aR mo Ce ni li. iT. rac imis Tqmis sa Su a le bas gvaZlevs, amgva rad, es eqvsi mina ba Zi qmnis pir- rom av gus tu sis am ti pis de naris mimoq- vel jgufs (eq vsives aver si erTi da i mace va Si far Tod CarTvis Ta nave Cnde ba mi- ve siqi Taa Ses ru le buli), ro melic, rosi ad gi lob rivi mina ba Ze bi. gorc Cans, yve la ze ad re u lia da Ta riR- de doflis go raze aR mo Ce ni li mo ne- de ba ax.w. I sa uku nis mi wuru liT. d. ka pa nata (g.f. №26274), analo gi u ria qar Tu li Ze am jgufs III sa u ku niT aTa ri Rebs [ka pa- mo nete bis fondSi da cu li №4049, №1704 naZe d. 1969:228]. (ev. paxo mo vis ko leqci idan) da №3372 mo-

66 ase ve eq vsi ca lis ode no bi Taa dRe- dros aRmoC nda. ze moT aR we ri li ni mu- i saT vis Se mor Ce nili mi naba Zebis me ore Se bi sa gan imiT gansxvav de ba, rom Sublis jgu fi. yvela maTga ni upaspor toa, q.Z. ga mo sa xu le ba yvela ze metad inar Cu nebs №№ 4050, 4051, 4052, 4053, 4054, 54; Ses- ada mia nis iers. mimar Tu lia mar jvniv, ru le bu lia ukidu resad uxeSad, Sublis TiT qos mos Cans di a de ma, ro me lic ke fa ze ga mosa xu le bas pi ro biTad Tu miviC nevT ik vre ba. ada mi a nis ga mo sa xu le bad. liTon Si ver- zur gis gamo sa xu le ba sqe ma turi a, cxlis Semcve lo ba Zali an da ba li a, mone- prince bis fi gu rebs So ris er Ti fa ri tebs spilen Zis feri dahkravT. mos Cans, Su bebs So ris ze moT, Za li an sqe- Subli: ada mia nis(?) Ta vis sqema tu ri ma tu rad sim pu lu mi da li tu sia ga mo saga mo sa xu le ba mi mar Tuli mar jvniv, daf- xu li. mar cxena fi gu ris Tavs ukan TiT- nis gvirgvi nis imita ci a. Ppro fi lis win qos jva ria ga mo sa xu li, rac war we ris TiT qos ra Rac aso e bia gamo saxu li. ga mo- Sesru le bis mcde lo ba unda iyos. ga mo sa- saxu le bas Semo uy ve ba wer ti lova ni rka- xu le bas wer ti lo van -xa zo va ni rkali Se- li. eq vsive sa fa si er Ti da i gi ve siqiT un- mo uy ve ba (tab. II, 34). da iyos nakra vi. bar ba ro su li mi naba Ze bis gav rcele- zur gi: ori sqe ma tu ri fi gu ra, maT bis are a li sak maod far To yofi la, igi So ris fa re bi sa da Sube bis imi ta ci a. ir- TiT qmis fa ravs sa qarTve los mTels te- gvliv msxvili wer ti le bi, pir vel sam Sem- rito ri as: svane Ti (so fe li cxu mu ri), Txveva Si 28 wer ti li (ix. tab. II, №25-27), leCxu mi (ca ge ri), Wi a Tu ra, so fe li ba gi- Semdeg 29 (ix. tab. II, №28) da 25 werti li Wa la (du Se Tis ra i oni), so fe li doR la- (ix. tab. II, №29). Se saZ le be lia war we ris u ra (qa re lis rai oni), axal ci xis ra i o ni, ma givrad. sim pu lu mi da litu si ar cerT so fe li uf lisci xe (go ris ra i o ni), da ba maT gan ze aRar aris ga mo saxu li. wal ka (wal kis rai oni) da a.S. mi naba Ze bis q.Z. №4050, 4051, 4052 ro gorc aver sis, mimoq ce vis are a li emTxve va zo ga dad av- aseve rever sis mxriv identu rebi a, aq uda- gus tu sis de naris mimoq ce vis are als. mas od erTi da igive siqe bia gamo ye nebu li. iyene ben saqa ro ne mo ne tad, rac imis mi ma- Cve ni az riT, msgav sebas iCe nen da cal- niSne be lic aris, rom mi si wi li mimoq ce- ke jgufs qmni an Semde gi mo ne te bi: q.Z. va Si mTlad umniS vne lo ar iyo. №1705 aR mo Ce ni li Wi a Tura Si, g.f. №9446 rac Se e xe ba daTa riRe bis sa kiTxs, ro- aR mo Ce ni li da ba ca gerSi (leCxu mi). mo ne- gorc ze moT aRvniS neT, d. ka pana Ze maT te bi spilen Zisfe ri a, vercxlis Semcve- III - V ss. aTa ri Rebs [Капанадзе Д. 1962:63]. lo ba liTon Si ukidu re sad da ba li a. es a. zog rafis az riT, es mina ba Ze bi mzad- ori mo neta Sesru le bis uki du re si pride boda mTeli I s-is ganmav lo ba Si, xo lo miti ulo biT ga mo irCe va, gansa kuT rebiT mi moq ce va grZel de boda mniSvne lov nad rever si. mo netis Sublze TiT qos qa lia did xans [Зограф А. 1945:45]. av tors miaC ni a, ga mosa xu li, mi mar Tu li marcxniv. ga mo sa- rom yvela mina ba Zi dam za de bu lia I sa u ku- xu le bebs Sublze da zur gze uxe Si, msxvi- ne Si. pro fe so re bi gi or gi da Tedo dun- li werti le bi Semo uy ve ba (tab. II, 31, 32). du e bi Tvli an, rom am mone te bis mkveTrma mo ne te bi, rom le bic damza de bulia Semci rebam III sau ku nis Sua xa nebi dan gada ba li sinjis ver cxli sa gan, am se riis mo iw via ma Ti ad gi lob rivi imita ci is ge- yvela ze gvian de li ni mu Se bi un da iyos da nezi si [dundua g., dundua T. 2007:126]. Se saZ le be lia da Ta riR des III sa u kuniT. uka nas knelma aR mo Ce nam dedof lis TiT qos gan sxva ve bu lia da cal ke jgufs go ra ze, da Ta ri Re bul fe naSi, da a das- qmnis g.f. №5103, ro melic 1947 wels, sva- tu ra zog rafis mo saz reba aR niSnu li neT Si, so fel cxumu ris maxlob lad mdi- mi naba Ze bis er Ti jgufis I sa u kuniT da- nare engu ris tera sebze oq ros Zie bis Ta ri Re bis Sesa xeb. ro gorc Cans, mina ba-

67 Ze bi Cndeba av gus tu sis de na ris farTod li te ra tu ra: gav rce le bisTa na ve da am mov le nas ad gi- li hqon da mTeli im dro is ganmav lo ba Si, dun dua g. 1972: sof. yeleT Si 1971 wels aR moCe- ni li roma uli dena ris iSvi a Ti mi naba Zi, ar- vid re iyo moTx ov na Ta vad ori gi nalze, qeo lo gi uri kvle va-Zi e ba saqar Tve lo Si 1971 e.i. pirve li sa u kunis miwu ru lidan III sa- wels, Tbili si. u kunis CaTvliT. dun dua g., dun dua T. 2007: qar Tuli numiz ma ti ka, msgavsi ka te go ri is bar ba ro su li mi- Tbili si. ka pa na Ze d. 1969: qarTu li numiz ma ti ka, Tbili si. naba Zebis moW ra, Cve ni azriT, ar iyo ibe- mi ri a naS vi li n. 1983: Sida qar Tlis mate ri a lu ri ri is same fos cen tra lu ri xeli suf le bis kul tu ris isto rii dan, Tbili si. pre ro ga ti va. amas Cadi od nen ker Zo pi- mcxe Ta I, 1955: afa qiZe a. gobe jiS vi li g. ka landa Ze re bi, Ziri Ta dad pro vinci eb Si, epizo du- a. lom Ta Ze g. Tbili si. mcxe Ta VII, 1985: _ a. afaqi Ze (red), Tbili si. rad. mcxe Ta X, 1995: _ a. afaqi Ze (red), Tbili si. uf ro rTu lad aris Sua le du ri ca- mcxe Ta XI, 1996: _ a. afaqi Ze (red), Tbili si. le bis war mo mav lobis sa kiTxi. mo nete bis Se ro zia m. 2003-2004: av gustu sis dena rebi sa da gar kve u li ka te go ria imde nad dabal do- go tar ze sis draqme bis gavrce le ba somxe Tis te ri tori a ze, ssmm, 45, Tbili si. nezea Ses ru le buli, rom sa eW voa isi ni im- Голенко К.В. 1964: Денежное обращение Колхиды в peri is cen tra lur zaraf xa na Si iyos dam- Римское время, Ленинград. za de bu li (tab. I, №8-18). advi li SesaZ le- Голенко К., Раджабли А. 1975: Али Баирамлинский клад be li a, es ni mu Se bi da bevri ma Ti msgavsi, и некоторые вопросы обращения Парфянских монет в Закавказье - ВДИ, № 2, с. 71-93. ad gi lobri vi war mo mavlo bis iyos da mas Зограф А. 1945: Распространение находок античных awar mo eb da ad gi lob ri vi xeli sufle ba. монет на Кавказе, - ТОНГЕ, т. I, Ленинград. rac Se e xeba so me xi numiz ma tis x. muSe gi- Иващенко М. 1980: Самтаврские погребения первых трех a nis [Мушегян Х. 1975:18] mo sazre bas imis веков н.э. - mcxeTa III. Tbili si. Капанадзе Д.Г. 1962: О продолжительности обращения Ta oba ze, rom ami erkav ka si a Si mbru navi денариев Августа и драхм Готарза в древней Иберии. av gus tusis de nare bis nawi li SesaZ le be- СА. № 4, с. 63. lia som xeT Si iW rebo da da Sem dgom Semo- Капанадзе Д.Г. 1955: Монетные находки Мцхетской di oda ibe ri is same fo Si, ara mar Te bu lad экспедиций (1937-1948 и 1951 г.), ВДИ, № 1. Кропоткин В.В. 1961: Клады Римских монет на территории migvaC ni a. viTa rebis Ses wav la gviCve nebs, СССР, Москва. rom kavka si a Si aseTi cen tri SesaZ le be- Мамаиашвили Н.Ф. 1987: Раскопки на городище Череми, lia yo fi li yo iberi a. aseTia va ra u di. - ПАИ в 1984-1985, с. 93. vi medov nebT, Semdgo mi ar qe olo gi u ri Мушегян Х.А 1975: Денежное обращение в античной и средневековой Армении по нумизматическим kvleve bi ga mo av lens axal masa las, ro me- данным (V в. до н.э. – XIV в. н.э.). Автореферат, lic bo lom de na Tels moh fens am da rig Ереван. sxva sakiTx ebs. Пахомов Е.Н. 1938: Монетные клады Азербайджана и Закавказье, Труды общества обследования и изучения Азербайджана, Вып. II. Баку. Se niSvna: Раджабли А. 1997: Нумизматика Азербайджана, Баку. g.f. – saqar Tve los erov nu li muze u mis Саркисян Г.В. 1979: Монеты с изображением Августа и nu miz ma ti ku ri ko leqci a, gan Zebis fon- Армения, Проблемы античной истории и культури, di. Доклады XIV международной конференций античников социалистисческих стран. `Эирене”. q.Z. – sa qarTve los erov nu li muze u mis Ереван. nu mizma ti ku ri ko leqci a, qarTu li mo ne- Халилов Д.А, 1985: Материальная культура Кавказской te bis Ziri Ta di fondi. Албаний, Баку. mae – mcxeTis arqe o logi u ri eq spedi cia Ga gos hid ze I. 2004: The Ro yal pala ce of the first cen tury B.C - Jour nal of Geor gi an Arche o logy, VI. Grant M. 1954: Ro man em pe ri al mo ney, Lon don. Mat tingly H. 1965: Coins of the Roman Empi re in the British Mu se um. Lon don.

68 Rober tson A.S. 1962: Ro man em pe ri al Coins in the Hunter 29. q.Z.f. №4054. coin ca bi net Uni ver sity of Glas gow, I, Oxford. 30. q.Z.f. №54. Sel lwood D. 1971: An in tro duc ti on to the co i nage of Par thia, 31. Wia Tura, q.Z.f. №1705. L. 32. daba ca ge ri, leCxu mi, 1946: g.f. №9446 Shero zia M., Do yen J. 2007: Marc Les Monna i es Par thes du 33. so fe li baga [ba gi Wa li], du SeTis ra io ni, 1982: Mu see De Tbi lissi (Ge or gi e) Mo ne ta, Wette ren, Belgi um. sa mar xi №17, g.f. №25444 34. svane Ti, so fe li cxumu ri, g.f. №5103 ilus tra ci e bis aR we ri loba: 35. q.Z.f. №3425 36. q.Z.f. №53 tab. I - 1. mcxeTa, ba iaTx e vi, 1986: samar xi №23, mae №131. 2. mcxeTa, sam Tav ro, 1976: Ti xisfi la sa mar xi №126, mae №339. 3. wiwa mu ri, II, 1985: samar xi №3, mae №40. 4. Jinva li, duSe Tis rai o ni, 1979: or mo sa mar xi №248, g.f.№25340. 5. mcxeTa, sam Tavro, 1976: fi la sa mar xi №164, mae № 334. 6. mcxeTa, na tax ta ri I, 1981: or mo sa mar xi №5, mae №31. 7. mcxe Ta, kar snis xe vi, 1976: or mo sa mar xi №35, mae №397. 8. mcxe Ta, samTav ro, 1939: qvasa mar xi №144, g.f. №10011. 9. mcxe Ta, samTav ro, 1939: qvasa mar xi №144, g.f. №10010. 10. mcxe Ta, sam Tav ro, 1939: qvasa mar xi №144, g.f. №10007. BBBDDDBME 11. mcxe Ta, samTav ro, 1939: qvasa mar xi №144, g.f. №10008. 12. mcxe Ta, mog vTa ka ri, 1977: kra mit sa mar xi №6, mae №35. 13. mcxeTa, mogvTa ka ri, 1977: kramit sa mar xi №3, mae №20. 14. mcxe Ta, mog vTaka ri, 1977: kra mit sa mar xi №3, mae №22. 15. mcxe Ta, samTav ro, 1939: kra mit sa mar xi №116, g.f. №9981. 16. mcxe Ta, samTav ro, 1938: kra mit sa mar xi №32, g.f. №9953. 17. so feli ye leTi, xa Su ris ra io ni, №1971: Sem- Txvevi Ti mo na po va ri, g.f. №22623. 18. so fe li We re mi, gur ja a nis ra i oni, 1986: sa mar xi № 2, g.f .№25755. tab. II - 19. de dof lis go ra, so fe li doR la ura, qa relis ra io ni, 15-e oTa xis nangre ve bi. 2004: g.f. №26274. 20. q.Z.f. №4049. 21. q.Z.f. №1704. 22. q.Z.f. №3372. 23. q. erevnis [somxe Ti] isto ri is muze u mi, №14162. 24. mosko vis a.s. puSki nis sax. saxvi Ti xe lov nebis sa xelmwi fo muze umi. 25. q.Z.f. №4050. 26. q.Z.f. №4051. 27. q.Z.f. №4052. 28. q.Z.f. №4053.

69 M. Sherozia I

70 II

71 merab Zne la Ze, Ta mar xo xo baS vi li

kev ri a ni sa mar xi abul mu gi dan

abul mu gis xe oba Si, bol ni si–dma ni- fi le bi, Crdi lo-da sav le Tis nawi li ki sis saman qa no gzidan 1,2 km-ze, ma Sa ve ras da uzi a nebia gvia ni Sua sa u ku nee bis dro- xeo bis ar qe o logi ur ma eq spedi ci am (xel- in del na ge bobis ke dels. sa mar xi amov- mZRva ne li k. ka xi a ni) Zv.w. IV-III ss-is sa ma- sebu li iyo mi wiT, ga Zar cvis niSne bi ar ro va ni aR mo a Ci na [Zne la Ze m., xu bu lu ri ety o boda. samar xis ga re zo mebi a: sigrZe n. 1989; Кахиани К. и др. 1991; Dznelad ze M., – 200 (zome bi mo ce mu lia santi met reb Si), Chu bu lu ri N. 1991; Zne la Ze m. 2001]. abul- si ga ne –125; Si da zo me bi: 190 X 80, siR rme – mu gis xeo ba dma nisis r-nis ukidu res aR- 65; dasak rZa la vi nawi lis zome bi: 170 X 75. mo savleT nawil Si, dmani sis naqa la qa ris sa mar xis or mo Si, grZiv ked lebTan max loblad mde ba re obs. va xuSti ba to- midgmu lia qvis oTx kuTxa fi le bi, Tav- niSvi lis mi xedviT ~dma niss qu e iT ars ked lebTan ki Ta ro e bis msgav si moswo re- Crdi loT kerZ xinwis xe vi. mas qu e viT da- bu li ad gi le bia Seqmni li. ise, rom ia ta- ba abul mu gi. aq iTxre bis li To ni rkini sa, ki dan 40 sm-is si maR le ze oTx i ve mxri dan spilen Zi sa da laJ var di sa~ [bagra ti o ni v. ga mar Tu lia sayrde ne bi raTa maT ze xis 1973:315]. dRe i saT vis, abulmu gis kla si- kev ri da de buli yo – mic va le bu lis ze mo- ku ri xanis sa ma rov nis Seswav li li nawi- dan ga da xur vis mizniT. kevris ko xis qve bi li war mod ge ni lia 27 samar xiT, ro melTa sa mar xis TiTqmis mTel far Tob ze, sxva- So ri sac 25 qva yu Ti a, ori ki qvis fi le biT das xva done ze, micva le bulis Zvlebzec ga da xu ru li or mo sa mar xi (№ 5 da № 22). iyo mimob neu li (tab. I, 2). sa mar xebSi micva le bu le bi dakrZa lu li sa mar xSi dak rZa lu lia 55-60 wlis ma ma- ari an mar jve na gver dze (qa lic da ma ma ka- ka ci. igi da us ve ne bi aT mar jve na gverdze, cic), xelfex mo ke cil po za Si, NW-SO sig- xelfex mo ke cil po za Si, NW-SO sigrZiv rZiv damxro biT, Ta viT NW mxa res. sama- Rer Zze damxro biT, Ta viT – NW mxa res, xe- ro van ze da dastur da samar xTa ro gorc le bi piris sa xis win ewyo. micva le bu lis- er Tjera di, ise meo radi ga mo ye ne bac (№№ Tvis Cata ne bu li xu Ti Ti xis WurWli dan 3,4,6,12,16,18,19). aR saniS na via sa mar xTa oTxi Tavs ukan – sa mar xis Tav ke del Ta naa (№№ 3,6,12,18) saxu rav ze ada mi a nis (erT da la ge buli: SemTxve va Si ori sa - № 6) aras ru li Con- 1. der gi, mxae/7-134 (mxae – maSa ve- Cxis aR mo Ce na. sa maro van ze da das tu re- ras xe obis ar qe olo gi u ri eqspe di ci a; 7 bu li ar qe olo gi u ri ma sala ana lo gi ebs – abul mu gis ubani; 134 – niv Tis sa inven- po u lobs Zv.w. IV-III ss-is saqar Tve los, ta ro no me ri), monac ris fro, pir yelnak- kav ka si i sa da SavizR vispi re Tis Ta nad ro- lu li, sferul muc li a ni, Zir brtye li. ul sa ma rov nebze aR mo Ce nil masa lebTan. si maR le – 23, ye lis dm. - 10,2; muclis dm. kevri a ni samar xi (№ 22) aR moC nda XXVI - 21; Ziris dm. - 12,4. nak ve Tis IV kvad rat Si, mi wis Ta named ro- 2. xe la da, mxa e/7-135, le gamo nacris- ve ze da piri dan 80 sm-is siR rme ze, 0 xazi- fro, sam tu Ca. brtyeli yuri mi Zer wi li dan 99,93 do ne ze. damxro bi lia NW-SO sig- aqvs pir sa da mxar ze. yurs sigrZe ze da uy- rZiv Rer Zze. samar xi CaW ri lia Ria mo Ca- ve ba ori far To kane lu ri. aqvs sfe ru li lisfro Tix nar gruntSi da war mo ad gens mu ce li da brtyeli Zi ri. simaR le – 20,1; qvisfi le biT gada xu rul or mosa marxs. pi ris dm. - 9,5; muclis dm. - 17,2; Ziris dm. Tav da pir ve lad ga moC nda sa mar xis sa xu- - 11,2. ra vis sam xreT -da sav le Ti na wi lis qvis-

72 3. qoTa ni, mxa e/7-136, lega- mo nac- sa mar xSi sul aR moC nda kevri saTvis ris fro, mci red pirga daS li li, da bal gankuT vnili 59 cali– yels xor blis zo mi sa da for mis naW de- 12. ko xis qva, 59 ca li, mxae/7-144. isini ve bi Se mo uy ve ba. aqvs sfe ru li mu ce li da damza de bulni arian ba zal tis qve bi sagan. brtye li Zi ri. Zir gver di cecx li saga naa ko xe bis Seda rebi Ti simci re gva fiqre bi- ga Sa ve bu li. simaR le – 17,2; yelis dm.- 9; nebs, rom micva le bu lis gada saxu ravad muc lis dm.- 17; Zi ris dm.- 10,5; ke cis sis- Zveli da ukve mwyobri dan ga mo su li kev- qe – 0,5-0,7. ri iqna ga mo ye ne bu li. 4. koWo bi, mxa e/7-137, le gamo nacrif- № 22 samarxs, piro bi Tad, ~meka lo ves~ ro, pir ga daS lili, dabal ye lia ni, sfe- - kevri a ni samar xi vuwo deT [xo xo baS vi li rul muc li a ni, Zir brtyeli. si maR le – T., Zne la Ze m. 1999; Zne laZe m. 2001]. kev ri- 10,3; pi ris dm. - 7,3; yelis dm. - 6,4; muc lis a ni sa mar xi sa qar Tve lo sa da kav ka si a Si, dm. - 11,2; Ziris dm. - 6,5. micva le bu lisa erTo dac, mcire rao de no bi Taa aR mo- saT vis ~sag zlad~ wvril fe xa sa qon lis – Ce ni li (tab. II, 1). cxvris (bat knis) bar kal -wvivis nawi li Ca- pir ve li cno ba kav ka si a Si kev ri a ni sa- u ta nebi aT, ro melic terfeb Tan - samar- mar xis aR moCe nisa mo ce mu li aqvs Jak de xis sam xreT Tavke delTan da de bul Ti xis mor gans [Mor gan J. 1889:19]. mis mier XIX s-is jamze ido. 80-ia ni wlebis bo los ax ta la Si md. de bed 5. ja mi, mxa e/7-138, Ria monac ris fro, Ca is mar cxena sa na piro ze ga mov le ni li iq- pir moy ri li, Zir brtye li. simaR le – 5,8; na qva yu Ti (92X70), ro melSic micva le bu- pi ris dm.- 17,5; mxris dm.- 18,4; Ziris dm.- li kev rze esve na. kev ri a ni samar xis aR mo- 11,8. Ce nam didi inte re si ga mo iw via mecni er Ta 6. Subis pi ri, mxa e/7-139, rkini sa, ma- wre Si. amas Tan da kav Si rebiT, mo saz re ba ni Ral qe di a ni, mas ragax snili. sigrZe – 26,8; ga moT qves iv. java xiSvil ma [ja va xiSvi li mas ris sigrZe – 11,4; piris sigrZe –15,3; iv. 1937:52] da b. pi otrov skim [Пиотровский mxris si ga ne – 3,5. aRmoC nda micva le bu- Б. 1939:49-50]. st. menTe SaS vilma kev rTan lis zurgs ukan – grZi vi ked lis gas wvriv da kav Si re bul Ta vis naS romSi xazgas miT Ca de buli. - aR niSna, rom kevri ~ima ve azriT aris Cayo- 7. rgo li, mxa e/7-140, vercxlis, Ta veb- le bu li mic va le buls saf lav Si, ra az ri- gax vre ti li, ova lur ga nivkve Ti a ni, dm.- Tac aris sxva ia raR -sam ka u li~ [menTe SaS- 2,8; aR moC nda micva le bu lis mar cxe na savi li s. 1936:10]. mog vi a nod, ar tik Si, som- feT qelTan. xeT Si aR mo Ce nili iq na ki dev erTi kev ri- 8. rgo li, mxa e/7-141, ver cxlis, Ta ve- a ni sa mar xis (№ 508) naSTi, ro melic Zv.w. bi erTma neT ze-gver du la daa mide bu li, XII-XI sa uku ne e biT da Ta riR da [Хачатрян Т. mrgval zur gze sa mi burco bi aqvs mirCi- 1979:15, 38]. lu li, gver de bi sworkuTx o va nia. aR moC- Semde gi kev ri a ni samar xis aR mo Ce na nda micva le bu lis mar jve na sa feT qel- 1940 wels azer ba i ja nis te rito ri a ze so- Tan. ori ve rgo li Tmis var cxnilo bis na- fel xan lar Tan axlos mox da. i. gu melma wils unda ekuTvno des. Se iswav la № 2 yorRan Si CaSve buli or- 9. dana, mxa e/7-142, rkinis, swori for- mo samar xi № 4 (210 X 48, siRrme – 65), ro- mis, calpir le si li da sam man Wvli a ni. aR- melic qvis fi le biT iyo ga da xu ru li, moC nda piris saxis win, xelis mtev nebTan dam xrobi li OSO-WNW sigrZiv Rer Zze. ido. kvlav, gan sakuT re buli in te resi ga mo iw- 10-11. sa maju ri, 2 cali, mxae/7-143, via mic va le bu lis (ma ma ka ci) kevrze dak- mxa e/-144, rki nis, da zi ane bu le bi, wri u li rZal vis faq tma. igi da ukrZa li aT mar- for misa da mrgval ga nivkve Ti a ne bi a. aR- cxe na gver dze, xel fexmo ke ci li, Ta viT moC nda micva le buls majeb ze (tab. II, 2). da sav leT mxa res. samar xis Sem swav lel-

73 ma mkvle var ma sca da aRed gi na TviT kev- xebic. aseT daS ve bas mxars uWers ro gorc ris aR na go bac, xolo sa mar xis ga mar Tva me ur ne obis xa si a Ti, ise gan vi Ta re bis do- Zv.w. II aTas wleu lis da sas ruls ivara u da ne~ [xaxu ta iS vi li d. 1966:84-85]. [Гумель Я. 1949:55-58]. kev ri a ni ori sa mar xi (Zv.w.VII-VI ss.) aR- 1948 wels sa qarTve loSic aR moC nda moC nda 1973 w. mad neul -kaz reTSi (bol- kev ri a ni sa mar xi. t. Cu bi niSvil ma aR we- nisis r-ni), ro melic Seis wav la kazre Tis ra da ga mo ik vlia sam Tav ros sama rov nis ar qe olo gi ur ma eq spedi ci am (xel mZRva- Crdi loeT uban ze gaTx ri li or mo samar- ne li m. sina u ri Ze) [ix. si nau ri Ze m., giu- xi № 320 (160 X 110) [Cubi niSvi li t. 1957]. naS vi li g. 1976:96-105]. ~kevrze dak rZa lu li micva le bulis Con- or mo sa mar xi №1 damxro bi lia W-O sig- Cxis mkveTrad mox ri li qve mo ki du re bis rZiv Rer Zze, Ta viT aR mo sav le TiT. micva- Zvlebi mar cxe na gverdze mde ba re obda, le bu li da uk rZa lavT mar jve na gverdze, xo lo Con Cxis ze mo nawi li, menjis Zvli- xelfex mo ke cil poza Si. Tav Tan ed ga Ti- dan dawy e bu li (xer xe mali, mxrebis Zvle- xis do qi da Win Wi la. Ta vis areSi aR moC- bi, Ta vis qala da sxv.); pir qve iyo dam- nda sardi onis, fe ra di da TeTri pastis xo bi li~. sa mar xSi iyo cxvris Tav -fe xi, mZive bi. or mos sam xreT ke del Tan da cu- xe la da, ko Wo bi, ja mi, brin ja os rgol - li iyo xis naS Ti, ro me lic kev ris koxebs sa ki de bi, sa kinZe bi, sa ma ju ri da pastis Se i cav da. or mo sa mar xi №4 damxro bi lia mZiv-sam ka u li.~ am masa lis mixed viT sa- SO-NW sig rZiv Rer Zze, Ta viT SO mxares. mar xi da Ta ri Ra Zv.w. VIII-VI ss-iT. t. Cu bi- micva le bu li da us ve ne bi aT xelfex mo ke- niSvil ma aR niSna, ag reT ve, sa qar Tve loSi cil po za Si, mar jve na gverdze. or mos aR- kev ri a ni sa mar xis aRmo Ce nis sxva faqtic mo sav leT kuTxe Si msxvilfe xa cxo ve lis – cxinval Tan ax los. «e.w. qulba qe vis sa- Ta vi ido. mis gver dze ki, mic va le bu lis ma ro van ze gamov le nili iq na Zv.w. VIII-VI xelis mtevneb Tan – mo Ru nu li rki nis da- ss. ram de nime samar xi, ro melTa So risac na. mar cxe na xelze ekeTa sa da, Ta vebgax- er TSi aR moC nda di di ra o de no biT kevris snili brinja os sama ju ri, mar jve na xel- ko xis qvebi~ [Cubi niSvi li t. 1957:106]. ze ki sardi o nis cisfe ri da TeT ri pas tis Semdgom, sa qarTve los te rito ri a ze mZive bi a ni sa ma juri. ye lis are Si aR moC- Se da re biT mom ravlda kevri a ni samar xe- nda e.w. Sedge nilRe ri a ni fibu la. or mo- bis aR mo Ce nis faqte bi. samar xis SW ked lis gayo le biT, 20-25 sm-s uf lisci xe sa da mis mida mo eb Si warmo- siR rme ze Ser Ce ni li iyo xis naSTi kev ris e buli ar qe o lo gi u ri gaTx re bi sas (1958- ko xe biT. micva le bulsa da kevrs Sua ido 1962 ww.) kev ri aR moC nda ro gorc namo sax- rki nis sa te va ri, mar jve na fexis wviv ze ki la reb ze, ise Zv.w. III-II ss. dro in del yaT- pata ra sa le si qva – Tasmis gasay re li nax- na lixe vis sama ro vanzec (ix. or mosa mar xi vretiT. ori ve samar xSi kev ri an kevris na- №1). samar xSi Cade bul ~xma reba Si namyof wi li dak rZa lul Ta zurgs ukan gver du- wvrilko xi an kev rze daus ve ni aT ori mic- lad iyo Cad gmu li. ko xe bis sim ci re da mava le bu li, ori ve mar cxena gverdze, Ta- Ti gac ve Ti lo ba samar xebis Semswav lelT viT SW da sa xiT NW mxari saken. . . . kev ri afiq re bi nebs, rom micva le bu lis kev rze sa mar xSi mox ved ram de didxans yo fi la dak rZal vas Tan ki ar gvaqvs saqme, aramed xma re ba Si, ra ze dac koxe bis sa mu Sao pi- Zveli, ga mosa ye neblad uvargi si kev riT ris gac ve Ti lo ba mi u Ti Tebs. . . . sa mar xSi sa mar xis ga mar Tvas Tan. maTi azriT: «am kev ris da dastu re bis faqtis sa fuZvel- or mo samar xe bis Ta nadro u li sazo ga do- ze Se iZ le bo da gvefiq ra, rom aq guTnis- e bi saTvis uk ve im de nad tipi u ri gam xda ra de dis sa mar xTan gvaqvs saq me. sav se biT sa meur neo saq mia no ba Si kevris ga mo ye nebu nebri vi a, rom me ve naxe Ta sa mar xebis ba, rom mi si masi u ri damza de ba da uwyi aT, gver diT, yo fi li yo guTnis de da Ta sa mar- xo lo ko xeb moc ve Til kev rebs sxva dasxva

74 da niSnu le bi sa mebr iyeneb dnen, maT So ris oba aS ka rad mia niSnebs imaze, rom mic vasa mar xebis asa ge ba dac. . . ga moricx ulic le bu li kev riT iyo ga da xu ru li. Zeg lis ar aris, rom sai qi o Si kev ris ga ta neba Zve- mkvleva ri aR niSnavs, ag reTve, rom sa mar- li rwmena- war mod ge ne bis anarek li iyos» xis aR mo sav leT nawil Si msxvilfe xa sa- [sina u riZe m., giu naS vili g. 1976:96-105]. ‘’ qon lis Ta vis arse boba Ta vi se bu ri ur Ti- kev riT ga da xu ru li or mosa mar xe- er To bis amsax ve li unda iyos Sua brinja- bi ga iTxa ra 1978-1980 ww. mcxe Tis ra i- os xanis qar TlSi cnobil, mic va le bulTa on Si nas ta ki sis velze [nari maniS vi li g. dak rZal vis er T-er Ti we si sa, ro melSic 1990:87-91]. xis ana beW de bi sa da ko xis qve- Tval Si sace mia samar xTaAaR mo sav leT na- bis gan la ge bis mixed viT samar xe bi №№ wilSi msxvil fe xa rqia ni saqon lis wyvili 44, 124, 140, kev riT yo fi la ga da xu ru li. Ta visqa lis aR mo Ce na (Treli- go re bi, naga da xurvis kon struqcia uSua lod mic- taxta ri) [Ram ba Si Ze o., Ram ba Si Ze ir. 1987]. va le bu lis ze moT iyo mowy obi li. kev ri, dmani sis ra i o nis sof. ganTi ad Tan maro gorc Cans, miwa Si ga moW ril sa fe xu- Sa ve ras xe obis ar qe olo gi u ri eq spedi ci- rebze (Ta ro eb ze unda yofi li yo day- is mier 1982 wels aR mo Ce ni li iqna kevri- rdnobi li. sa mar xebi . . . a.w. I s-iT TariR- a ni ori sa mar xi (№№ 120, 140). samar xebs de ba~ [ix. nari maniS vi li g. 1990:90]. aTa ri Re ben Zv.w. XIII-XII ss-iT kevri mic- 1983 wels Zvel qandas Tan (Zv.w. XIV-XIII va le bulis sa reclad iyo gamo ye ne buli, ss. sama rov nebze) aR mo Ce nili iq na gvia ni ro me lic Tavis mxriv, samar xis Tav ked- brinja os xanis kevri a ni samar xi. samar xis le bis kuTx e eb Si da de bul qvis fi lebze or mo ga da xu ru li iyoEkev riT [boxo Ca Ze ido, xo lo mis qveS – Ti xis Wur We li Ca u- al., zangu ri am. 1987:87-91]. la ge bi aT [Кахиани К. и др. 1985]. Zveli qandis kevri an samar xze ad re- 1985 wels Zv.w. IV-III ss-is dro inde li u li samar xi sof. waR vlis mida mo eb Si xa- kev ria ni or mo sa mar xi dma ni sis rai onis Suris ar qe olo gi u ri eqspe di ci is mier ad gil abul mug Si iq na aR mo Ce ni li [Zne- 1984 wels iq na aR mo Ce ni li. eq spedi ci is la Ze m., xu bu lu ri n. 1989; Кахиани К. и др. xelmZRva ne li al. ra miSvi li sa marov nis 1991; Dzne lad ze M., Chu bu lu ri N. 1991; xo xo baS- № 94 samarxs (kevri a ni ormo sa mar xi) aTa- vi li, Znela Ze 1999]. ri Rebs Sua brin ja os xanis mi wuru liT. 1987 wels kev ri a ni samar xi ja va xeT Si micva le bu li dak rZa lu li iyo kevrs sof. di ga SenSi aR moC nda. aq Seswav lili qveS. Ca u yole bi aT samka u le bi: brin ja os iq na Zv.w. XIV-XIII ss-is yor Ra ni da na mo- or -o ri, rom bi sebrga niv kve Ti a ni bolo- sax la ri. ori ve ad gi las da das tur da kev- eb gax snili sa ma juri; Tavze anTi mo nis ris naS Te bi – ko xis qvebi [Орджоникидзе bur Tuleb wa mocmu li sakin Zi; na pireb ze А.1995:81-82]. cru ga varsiT Semku li sayu re; bolo eb ga- uka nas kne lad kev ria ni or mo samar xi far To e buli elifsis for mis 1,5 xvii seb- (2 ca li) axal ci xis ra i onis sof. kldes- ri Svidi sa kinZdi; an Ti monis, sar di o nis, Tan 2006 wels Ca ta rebu li ar qe o logi u ri giSri sa da pastis sxvadas xva for mis ram- kvleva- Zie bi sas aRmoC nda (xelmZRva ne li de ni me aTe u li mZivi. gar da ami sa sa mar xSi ir. Ram ba Si Ze) [Ramba Si Ze ir. 2006]. aRmoC nda Ti xis xu Ti Wur We li (or yu ra amri gad, saqar Tve los 12 pun qtSi aR- da uyuro qoT nebi, ko Wo bi, ba dia da cal- moC nda 17 kevri a ni sa mar xi, ro melTa yu ra sas misi) [ra miSvi li al. 2004:64]. qro no lo gi u ri di a pa zo nia - Zv.w. XVII-XVI Zv.w. XIV s-iT aTa riRebs mesxeT -ja vasa uku ni dan – ax.w. V sa u ku nemde moi cavs. xeTis ar qe olo gi u ri eqspe di ci is xel- kav ka si a Si: som xeT Si – 2 kevri a ni sa mar xia mZRva neli oT. Ram ba Si Ze bor jomis xeo ba- aR mo Ce ni li, azerba i jan Si ki – 1 (tab. I, 1). Si bor ni Re les sa maro van ze aR mo Ce nil № 1. waR vli (xaSu ris r-ni) – Sua brin- 52 kev rian or mo sa marxs. kevris mdeba re- ja os xa nis mi wu ru li (Zv.w. XVII-XVI ss.). 2.

75 bor ni Re le (bor jo mis r-ni )– Zv.w. XIV s. kev ris Ca ta ne bac, im dro in de li yo fa- 3. Zveli qan da (mcxe Tis r-ni) – Zv.w. XIV-XIII cxov re bis ana rekls unda war mo ad gendes. ss. 4. di ga Se ni (ni now mindis r-ni) – Zv.w. yo ve live ze moT qmuli dan ga mom di- XIV-XIII ss. 5-6. gan Ti a di (dmani sis r-ni) – na re, al baT, saeW vo xdeba kev ri ga mo e ye- Zv.w. XIII-XII ss. 7. samTav ro (mcxeTis r-ni) nebi naT im pi rov ne ba Ta da sakrZa lavad, – Zv.w. VIII-VII ss. 8-9. mad ne uli- kaz reTi ro melnic ar iy vnen da kav Si re bulni kev- (bol nisis r-ni) – Zv.w. VII-VI ss. 10. qul- rTan, xorblis moy va na- da mu Sa ve bas Tan. ba qe vi (cxinva lis r-ni) – Zv.w. VII-VI ss. 11. amas Ta na ve, Tu ga viT va liswi nebT, rom abul mu gi (dma ni sis r-ni) – Zv.w. IV-III ss. kev ri mekev ris Sro mis ia ra Ri araa da mxo- 12. yaT na lixe vi (uf lisci xe–go ris r-ni) lod mi si Sro mis Sede gia _ ga sa ce mi- ga- _ Zv.w. III-II ss. 13-15. nasta ki si (mcxeTis sa yi di nivTi a, SeiZ le ba nak le bi safuZ- r-ni) – ax. w. I s. 16-17. klde (a xal ci xis ve li dar Ces kevri an samar xSi am xe lo bis r-ni) – ax.w. IV-V ss. 18. xan la ri (a zer ba i- ada mi a nis dak rZal vi sac. me kev re- xe los- ja ni) – Zv.w. II aTaswle u lis da sas ru li. nis kev ri an sa mar xSi dak rZal vis ~sa wi na- 19. ar ti ki (somxe Ti) – XII-XI ss. 20. ax ta la aR mde god~ un da metyve lebdes is faq tic, (som xeTi) _ Zv.w. I aTas wleu lis da sawyi- rom sa mar xebSi nax ma ri – Zveli kev re bia si. ga mo ye nebu li (ko xis qve bi gac ve Ti lia da I. ar sebu li mo nace me bis mixed viT, kev- ra ode no bi Tac nak lu li). ri an samar xebSi gamo i yo kev ris or nai ri rad ga nac kevrs sa mar xebSi ga mo i ye- ga moye ne bis faqti: 1. kevrze micva le bu- nebdnen ro gorc sarec lad, ise ga da salis dak rZal va da 2. kev riT micva le bu- xu ra vad, am saxis samar xTa aR sa niSna vad, lis gada xur va. al baT ajobeb da ter mi nis ~kevri a ni sa- micva le bu lis kev rze dak rZal va samar xi~ xmare ba. amas Ta na ve, ga saTva liswi- qar Tve lo Si, CvenTvis cno bil sam Tav ros, nebu li a, Tu ro go ri ti pis sa mar xSi iqne- gan Ti a di sa da yaT nali xevis sa ma rov neb- ba is da fiqsi re bu li, maga liTad, ~kevri a- zea dadas tu re buli. ni qva samar xi~, ~kevri a ni or mo sa mar xi~ da CvenTvis cno bi li kev ri a ni sa mar xe- a.S. bi dan mxolod erTia qvasa mar xi (qva yu Ti i. kik vi Ze mar Te bu lad aR niSnav da, axta li dan), ro melSic micva le bu li kev- rom ~micva le bu lis kev rze da safla ve ba rze iyo dak rZa lu li. yve la sxva SemTxve- mrav lismety ve li faq ti a~. amas Ta nave, miva Si isini or mo samar xTa tipi sa a. si az riT, «Cans, mi waT moq me di guTnis de- mkvlevar Ta mo sazre biT kev ri an sada ise ve Se iZ le ba gvar sa da Tem Si av to- mar xebSi SeiZ le ba da ek rZa laT: 1. guTnis- ri te tu li Tu aR ze ve bu li piri iyos, rode da; 2. meka lo ve- mlewa vi; 3. pire bi, rom- gorc vTqvaT, kul tis msaxu ri an meo male bic ka loze lewvis proces Si iReb dnen ri. miwaT moq med tomeb Si piri, romel sac mo na wi le o bas (mo xu ce bi, qale bi, bav Sve- xvna-Tes vi sa da mo sav lis mo we va Si di di bi) da, SesaZ lo a, mu Sa o bi sas SemTxve viT praq ti kuli ga moc di le ba da una ri aqvs, da Rupul nic; 4. mekev re – kev ris da mam- iseve SeiZ le ba ~na wi lia ni~, e.i. RvTis rCe- za de be li; 5. pi ri, ro melsac ara vi Ta ri u li iyos, ro gorc mesa qon le, me o mar to- ur Ti er To ba ar ga aC nda kev rTan da mi- mebSi – kar gi mebrZo li gmiri~ [kikvi Ze i. waTmoq mede bas Tan (kevri mxo lod ficris 1976:96]. guTnis de dis ~didi av tori te ti~ mo va le obas asru lebda sa mar xSi). did ojaxeb Si da das tu rebu li faq ti a. micva le bu lis dak rZal va, umete sad, saqar Tve los te ri to ria ze dadas tu re- garkve ul ri tu al Tan, tra di ci as Tan iyo bul kev ri an samar xebSi ar sebu li masa- da kav Si rebu li. garkve ul weseb sa da so- lis simwi re da – sxva daba li da sa Su a lo ci a lur-e ko no mikur piro bebs eq vemde- so ci a lu ri fe nis kuTvnil Ta sa mar xe bi- ba rebo da samar xis sa xec (tipi). samar xSi sa gan mniSvne lo van ma ga nusxva veb lo bam,

76 garda kev ris Ca ta nebi sa, gva fiqre bi na, ja va xiSvi li iv. 1937: qarTve li eris is tori a. t. I, rom guT nisde da– me ka love- mlewa vi Sua Tbili si. Гумель Я.И. 1949: Курган № 2 близ Ханлара. – А.Д. Удальцов brinja os da sas ru lidan mo yole bu liNa- (ред.), КСИИМК, вып. XXIV. Москва-Ленинград. raa gansa kuT rebu lad ~rCe u li~ da, rom Кахиани К.К., Глигвашвили Э.В., Дзнеладзе М.С., am pro fe si is – saq mia nobis mimde va ri pi- Каландадзе Г.Г., Цквитинидзе З.Р. 1991: Архе- ri mniS vnelo va ni, mag ram ma inc `Cveu leb- ологическое исследование Машаверского ущелья в 1984-1986 гг. - О.Д. Лордкипанидзе и др. (ред.). – ПАИ ri vi~ pro fe si is war momad ge ne lia, Ta nac в 1986 году. Тбилиси. `dro e bi Ti -er Tje radi~ saq mi a no bi sa. am- Орджоникидзе А.З. 1995: Работы Джавахетской de nad, guTnis de da- meka lo ve- mlewa vis экспедиции на памятниках бронзового века. - О.Д. aR zeve bu loba – `RvTis rCeu lo bis~ ar- Лордкипанидзе и др. (ред.). – ПАИ в 1987 году. Тбилиси. sebo ba, al baT, Seda rebiT ufro ad reul Пиотровский Б.Б. 1939: Урарту – древнейшее государ- xana Si unda ve Zi oT. Tum ca, isic uda voa, ство. Ленинград. rom guT nis de di sa da me kalo ve- mlewa vis Хачатрян Т.С. 1979: Артикский некрополь. Ереван. av to ri te ti yo velTvis didi iqne boda. Dzne lad ze M., Chubu lu ri N. 1991: Das Fruhhel li nisch ne u en- tdec kte Dänkmal aus Kvemo Kar tli. akc., prep rinti. Tbili si. Mor gan J. 1989: Mis si on sci en ti que au Ca u ca se, t.I. Pa ris. li te ra tu ra: ilus tra ci e bis aR we ri lo ba: bag ra ti o ni v. 1973: aR we ra sa me fo sa sa qar Tve lo- tab I. 1 - i sa. qc., IV, teq sti dad ge ni li yvela Zi ri Ta di kevri a ni samar xebis aRmoCenis ruka. 2 - №22 xelna we ris mixed viT s. yaux CiS vi lis mier. Tbi- kev ri a ni samar xi abulmu gi dan . tab II. 1 - lisi. kevris rekonstruqcia. bo xo Ca Ze al., zangu ri am. 1987: Zveli qan dis sa ma- 2 - samarxis kompleqsi. rova ni. - n. kecxo ve li (red.), Zm., №3. Tbili si. kik vi Ze i. 1976: mi waT moq me deba da sa mi waT moqme do kul ti Zvel saqar Tvelo Si. Tbili si. men Te SaSvi li s. 1936: kev ri. - T. TuTbe riZe (red.), ssmm, t. 9. Tbili si. na ri ma niSvi li g. 1990: nasta ki sis anti ku ri xa nis sa ma ro va ni. - r. ra miSvi li (red.), aZ, VII-VIII, Tbi- li si. ra miSvi li al. 2004: brinja os xa nis ar qeo lo gi u- ri Zegle bi waRvlSi. Tbili si. si na uri Ze m., gi unaS vi li g. 1976: kaz reTis gvian- brinja o -ad rer ki nis xanis samar xe bi - S. xanTa- Ze (red.), ssmm, XXXII. Tbili si. Ram ba Si Ze o., Ramba Si Ze i. 1987: axali ar qeo logi u- ri ma sa le bi samcxe- ja va xe Tidan - i. ci ciSvi li (red.), Zm., № 4, Tbili si. Ram ba Si Ze i. 2006 wlis sa ve le an gari Si. (xelna weri). Tbili si. Cu biniS vi li t. 1957: mcxe Tis uZ vele si ar qeo logi u ri Zegle bi. Tbili si. Zne la Ze m., xu bu lu ri n. 1989: ad re e li nistu ri xanis ax la daR mo Ce ni li Zeg li qve mo qar Tli dan (abul mu gis sa ma ro va ni) - i. ci ciSvi li (red.), Zm., №83, 1. Tbili si. Zne la Ze m. 2001: abulmu gis sa ma ro vani - j. ko pa li- a ni (red.), dmani si, III. Tbili si. xa xu ta iS vi li d. 1966: uf lisci xe, I. Tbili si. xo xo baS vili T., Zne la Ze m. 1999: sa mar xTa sa xe o- ba ni da dak rZal vis wes -Cve u le ba ni Zvel sa qar- Tve lo Si - n.xaza ra Ze (red.), Tstug. Tbili si.

77 M. Dzneladze I

78 II

79 nu ca yi fi a ni

wi Tel figu ru li ski fo se bi va nis na qa la qa ri dan

van Si, axvle di a ne bis go ra ze, na qa la- 17, sur 4, 20]. ga mo yofen ski fosis ram de- qa ris zeda te ra sa ze aRmoC nda mdidru li ni me sa xe obas: ko rin Tuls,2 da ce rebul- sa mar xi (samar xi №24), sadac mTa var micva- yu rebi ans,3 ati kurs _ A tips daB B tips,4 le bulTan er Tad dak rZa lu li iyo oTxi da ki dev ram de ni mes [Spar kes B.A., Talcott L. msa xu ri da erTi cxeni. mas amkob da 1000- 1970:81-87]. ze meti oq ros (Tav sam ka u li, sa ma jure bi, moy va nilo bis mixed viT Cve ni skifo- sasa feT qlee bi, mZive bi, sa ki de bi, mcire si (tab. I, 2) atikur sa xe obas mi e kuTvne ba, mila ke bi), asobiT ver cxlis samka u li, mi- xo lo rac Se e xeba mo xa tulo bas (tab. I, 1), nisa da qvis 17000-ze me ti mZivi. dak rZa- mis ori ve mxa res er Ti da igive scenaa ga- luls Ca ta ne buli hqon da ver cxlis sar- mo sa xu li: or -o ri figu ra, erTma neTis tye li, brin ja os sar ke, vercxlis, brin- pi ris pir mdgomi, ro gorc Cans, sa ub robs. ja os da Ti xis WurWe li. Tixis Wur Wel Si ori ve fi gura pro fil Sia ga mo sa xu li. war mod ge ni li iyo rogorc ad gi lob ri vi mar cxena figu ra SiSve lia, TiTqmis ar gana war mi, aseve im por tic: herak le a Si dam- irCe va sa xis nak vTe bi: war bi od na vi Stri- za de bu li amfo rebi, ati ku ri Sav la ki a ni xiT aris ga mo sa xu li, aseve bundov nad ja mi, wi Tel fi gu ru li skifo si da ba di- aris ga mo yofi li yuri _ Tmis erTi zo- se buror na menti a ni le ki To se bi [Kacha ra va lis qve moT Ca mo we viT. Tavs ara bu nebri vi D., Kvir kve lia G. 2008:196, kat. №49a]. for ma aqvs, Tval Si sace mia oTx kuTxe di aR mo Ce ni li nivTe bis qro nolo gi u- for mis Sub li. we li viwro a. ara bu nebri di a pa zo ni far To a. ad reul nivTebs rivad da xa tu li marjve na xeli win aqvs So risa a: oqros sam kuTxa sa ki di, rom lis ga we u li. TiTqmis ar gair Ce va Ti Te bi xe- msgavsi si mag re Sia aRmo Ce nili Zv.w. VI s-is lis mtevan ze, gar da ce ri sa, ro me lic ka- me ore na xevriT da Ta ri Re bul kultu- u Wi viT aris mox rili. mar cxe na xeli Zirs rul fena Si [mi qe la Ze T. 1978: 61, sur. 3-4]. aris daS ve buli da od nav wi naa ga mo weu- mag ram samar xi, ra Tqma unda, Ta riR de ba li, TiT qos muSti aqvs Sekru li. dundu- gvian de li niv Te bis safuZ vel ze, ro mel- li maR laa awe u li, arap ro porci u li da Ta So ri sac aris panti ka pe i o nis mo ne ta ara bu nebri via fe xebi: mar cxena fe xi win da ma ke donu ri niskar ti sebur cxviri a ni aris ga we u li da muxlSia moRu nu li. brinja os oi no xo i a. mo netas aTa ri Re ben me ore, mar jve na fi gu ra Se mo silia da, Zv.w. 340-330 ww-iT1. rac Se e xeba oi no xoi- ro gorc iTqva, ase ve profil Sia da xa tu- as, is Zv.w. IV s-is me ore naxev ris kom pleq- li. masac Stri xiT aqvs ga moy va nili Tva- sebis Tvis aris da ma xasi a Te be li [Kac ha ra va li da war bi. mo u wesri geblad aqvs gad mo- D. 2005:291-309]. ce mu li Tma. samo si grZelia da mTlia nad sta ti a Si gan vi xilav sa mar xSi aR mo Ce- fa ravs sxe uls, mxo lod fe xis terfia nil wi Tel fi gu rul ski foss (tab. I, 1, 2), SiSvlad da tove bu li. sa mo sis moy va ni- Rvi nis sas mel Wur Wels, ro me lic ukve lo biT Cans, rom er T-er Ti mux li mo Ru- ge omet riu li xani dan gvxvdeba berZnul nu li a. sa mo sis nao We bi Strixe bis sa Su a- sam ya ro Si, xo lo Zv.w. VI_IV ss-Si verc le biT gakvriT da ze da pi ru lad aris ga- erTi sxva am da niSnu le bis WurWe li ver moy va nili. uwevs mas meto qe obas aTenSi, rac, al baT, ori ve figu ris zurgs ukan spira lu ri misi for mis mo xer xe bu lo ba mac gana pi- or na mentia da xa tu li, xolo yureb sqveda ro ba [Spar kes B.A., Tal cott L. 1970:81-87, tab 14- sivrce palme te biT aris Sev sebu li. erT

80 mxa res Ter Tmet furcli a ni pal me ti a, me- sebas vxe dav spinas № 277 sa mar xSi aR mo Ce- ore mxa res ki - camet furcli a ni. nil or skifos Tan [Sa batti ni B. 2000:50, sur. aR saniS na via ki dev er Ti deta li: ori- 3-4]. es skifo sebi da Ta ri Re bulia Wur- ve fi guras lo yis are Si da ta ni li aqvs Wlis for mis, da ara mxatvru li sti lis mu qi feris la qa, rac, erTi Sexed viT, ga- mi xedviT Zv.w. 400 wliT [Sa batti ni B. 2000:50]. mow vis defeqts mogva gonebs. Tum ca, unda iTqvas, rom mo xatvis sti li es cno bi li scena a, ro me lic pales- Zv.w. IV s-is Su a xa ne bis mxatvro bas mog va- tris sam ya ros ukavSir de ba da xSirad go nebs. am or skifos ze gamo sa xu li aT- gvxvdeba sxvadas xva da niSnu le bis Wur- le te bi, Tavi anTi mar jve na xe lis cera Welze, kra te reb ze da oi no xo i eb ze, sa- Ti Tis mo ka u We bu li for miT, Tmis ga moy- dac kompo zi cia ar aris SezR u du li ori va nis mane riT da aseve pedot ri pebis safi gu riT, ski foseb ze ki is ka no nikur mo sis ze da nawi lis gad mo ce miT SeiZ le- sa xes Rebu lobs: aq kompo zi cia or fi gu- ba da vu kav Si roT Cvens skifoss. sa mo sis ri a ni a, misi mar jve na Se mo si li figu ra ze da nawi liT Cvens skifoss emsgav se ba pe dot ripi a, xo lo marcxe na tan SiSve li – ase ve spi nas № 185A samar xSi aR mo Ce nili aT le ti [Sa batti ni B. 2000:47, 50-57, sur 3-12, ni mu Si [Sa batti ni B. 2000:54, sur. 9]: samo sis 14]. ar se bobs vaze bi, sadac ori ve figu- ze da na wi li fun jis sqe li mo nas miT aris ra Semo si lia. Zi ri Tadad Wur Wlis ori- ga moy va ni li, xolo mux lTan samo sis daS- ve mxa res erTi da igi ve scena me or de ba. ve bis gad mo ce mis mane ra Zali an em sgavse- fi gu rebs xSi rad xelSi atri bu te bi uWi- ba va nis skifoss. vxedav msgavse bas aTle- ravT da sqema tu rad aris gamo saxu li fi- tis mar cxe na xelis Sek rul muStTa nac. gurebs So ris ra Rac saga ni. Cve u lebriv es nimu Si Zv.w. IV s_is pir ve li meoTx e- pedot rips jo xi uWi ravs, xo lo aT lets diT TariR de ba [Sa batti ni B. 2000:54]. yve la - stri gi li, disko an ara fe ri. ka no niku- am ski foss spi na dan, ro melic mo viyva ne ria figu rebs ukan spi ralu ri or na men- para le lad, akuTvne ben jon bizlis mier ti da ase ve yur sqveda pal meti [Sa batti ni ga mo yofil `F.B.” jgufs. biz li ase ve ga- B. 2000:60-64, sur. 20-27]. xolo rac Se e- mo yofs `F.B.” jgu fis ram de nime mxat vars xe ba la qas lo ya ze, aseTi laqe bi lo yeb- [Sa batti ni B. 2000:47]. va nis skifo sis fi gu- ze gvxvde ba Zv.w. V s-is miwu ru li sa da IV rebis sxeu lis ana to mia ar maZ levs imis s-is va zaT mxat vro ba Si, anu im peri odSi, saSu a le bas, rom ganvsazR vro mxatva ri. ro de sac wi Tel fi guru li teq ni ka ukan- sam wuxa rod, mxo lod WurWlis Ta riRiT svlas ga nic dis. am pe riods axa si a Tebs un da dav kma yofil deT da sava rau dod ase ve deta le bis uxe Si ga moy va na, la kiT Zv.w. IV s-is pirve l na xe vars miva kuT vnoT. ara zus ti da far va. Ziri Ta di Te mati ka am rac See xeba me ore ski foss (tab. I, 3, 4, pe rio dis va zeb ze aris dio ni su ri sce ne- 5), ro me lic am naS rom Si minda gan vi xi lo, bi; po pu la ru lia ag reT ve qalRmer Ti af- is 1985 wels moxvda va nis mu ze um Si (muz. rodi te. es scene bi Cve uleb riv Wur Wlis № 2:985-672) ad gi lob ri vi mo sax lis, meri cal mxa res gvxvdeba, xo lo meo re mxa res ZigvaS vi lisgan. man is sa ku Tar ezoSi aR- ki - ro gorc we si, sa mi, Zali an da u dev rad mo a Ci na mi wis da mu Sa ve bi sas. aR saniS na vi a, ga moy va ni li, manti a Si gamowy obi li figu- rom Wur We li aR mo Ce nilia ara sakuT riv ra [Co ok R. M. 1977:185]. na qa la qa ris te rito ri a ze, aramed mis va nis am ski fosis gan xilvi sas max sen- far glebs gareT. de ba spinas gaTxre bi sas mo Zi e bu li masa- for miT is gan sxvavde ba wina skifo- la, ker Zod, skifo se bis mTeli ko leqci a, si sagan (tab. I, 3). aq swo red im SemTxve- romel zec, Cve ni skifo sis msgavsad, pa- vas Tan gvaqvs saq me, ro ca skifo sis ta nis lestris or fi guri a ni scenaa ga mo sa xu li qve da na wi li Seviw ro e bas iwyebs. yu re bi, [Sa batti ni B. 2000:47-65]. yve la ze ax lo msgav- sam wu xa rod, ar aris Semor Ce ni li, magram

81 yu ris mi er Te bis ad gi le bi im de nad ax los Tu imis mixed viT vim sjelebT, rom aris er Tma neT Tan das mu li, rom gviq mnis ase Ti sa xis Wur Wlebze, anu ski foseb ze STa beW di le bas mis moyva ni lo ba ze - ro- mar jve na fi gu ra yovel Tvis pedot ri pia gorc Cans, isini sam kuTxa for misa iyo. da mar cxe na - aT le ti, Tanac ori ve fi gu- pi ris kide odnav aris ga reT ken ga daxri- ras ax lavs xSirad misTvis da maxa si a Te- li. Wur We li dgas wriul qus lze, rom lis be li at ri bu ti, maSin Seg viZlia Ta ma mad sad ga ric da qus lSida ze da pi ric re zer- gan vsazR vroT, vin aris war mod ge nili vi rebu li a. cen trSi ori kon centru li er Tfi gu ri an kompo zi ci a Si, imisda mi- wrea da ase ve la kiT aris da fa ru li qus- xed viT Tu sa iT aris mibru ne bu li mi si lis Sida mxa re. for mis mixed viT aseTi profi li. Cvens ni muSze es fi gura uda- skifo sebi Zv.w. 375-350 ww.-iT Ta riRde ba. vod aT le ti a, miu xe da vad imisa, rom igi [Spar kes B.A., Tal cott L. 1970:84-85, 260, kat. 349- Se mo sili a, rad gan ama ze, garda pro fi- 350, tab. 16, sur. 4]. li sa, rome lic mar jvniv aris mibru nebu- rac Se e xe ba mo xa tu lo bas, erTfi guli, mig va niS nebs WurWlis A gverdze gari an kompo zi ci as Tan gvaqvs saq me. ori ve mo sa xu li at ribu tic (tab. I, 4), ro me lic, gver dze ga mo sa xu lia hi mati onSi gax ve u- ro gorc wesi, aT le tebs upyri aT xelSi. li fi gu ra. A da B mxare eb ze gansxva ve bu- esaa disko zed jvriT da wer ti liT. ra li scene bia ga mo sa xu li. A mxa re ze (tab. I, Se iZle ba iyos es saga ni, da an ki, ra aris 4) figu ras xelSi ga ur kve ve li sa ga ni uWi- zed ga mo sa xu li? mkvle var Ta nawi li am ravs, TiT qos dis ko, ro melzec ga mo saxu- jvri an sa gans diskod mi iC nevs, sxva ni ki - lia jva ri, mkla vebs So ris wer ti le biT. Rrub lad, rom li Tac ofls iw menden [Do- B mxaris fi gura at ri bu tis ga re Sea. ori- mingu ez A.J., Sànchez C. 2001:440-442, 448-449, ve mxa res fi gura ga mosa xu lia mar jve na 456]. va zeb ze gvxvdeba scene bi, sa dac aT- pro filSi. BBB mxa reze figu ris (tab. I, 5) lets am jvri an sa ganTan er Tad uWi ravs Tavs ukan Sa vi bur Ti viT la qa a. mTlia nad dis ko, anu ujvro ova lu ri an momrgva lo va zas axasi a Tebs la kiT ara zus ti da far- sada sa ga ni, sa dac funjis sqeli mo nas- va, kano ni ku ri spi ra lu ri or namen ti fi- miT TiT qos ga moy va ni lia Crdi li [Sa bat- guris ori ve mxa res da yuris qveS pal meti ni B. 2000:57, sur 14]. Tuki jvri a ni saga ni ti. A mxa res figu ras Senar Cu ne buli aqvs dis ko a, ra tom un da eWi ros aT lets ori mxo lod sa xe da Cans, rom Tva le bi ori pa- dis ko xel Si? xo lo Tuki jvri a ni saga- ta ra iri bi zo liT aris gamoy va ni li (tab. ni Rru be li a, maSin Zne li warmo sadge ni a, I, 4); ase ve Cans CvenTvis kar gad cno bi li disko Ti xel Si ro gor un da iwmen ddes aT- da ma xasi a Te be li wer ti li loya ze. fi gu- le ti ofls. ami tom ori ve Se saZ leblo bas ra, ro gorc ukve vTqviT, samos Sia gaxve u- ga mov ricx av. sa gan ze gamo sa xu li sa ga ni li. ori ver ti kalu ri da ori ho ri zon ta- ki SeiZ le ba iyos svasti ka, ubra lod am lu ri fun jis sqeli mo nas miT ga moy va ni- pe rio dis Tvis da ma xasi a Te be li miniS neli for me biT vva ra u dobT, rom terfe bi be biT (ro go ric aris ma ga li Tad lo ya ze SiSvlad aris da to ve bu li. ar gair Ce va, xa li, pi ris aR sa niSnad) Sesru le bu li, Tu ro mel xelSi uWi ravs ucno bi sa ga ni jvris mklavebs So ris wer ti le bi aris `jvris” ga mo sa xu le biT. B mxa ris fi gu ris svas ti kis mkla ve bi. aris erTi ga mo nak li- Ta vi sru lad aris Se morCe ni li (tab. I, si, aseve spinas sa mar xi dan, kerZod № 714A 5). Tmis masa er Ti a ni la qis sa xiT aris ga- samar xidan, sa dac mar jve na figu ras, anu moy va ni li, Subli oTxkuTx e di a, profi li pedot rips xelT upyria dis ko zed svas- - bun dova ni. mTlia nad Se mo si li figu ri- ti kiT [Sa batti ni B. 2000:56, sur. 13]. sxva Sem- dan aseve or-o ri sqeli zo liT ga mo i yo- Txveva, rom pe dot rips xel Si rai me eWi- fa SiS ve li ter fe bi. am mxa res ver vxedav ros, gar da joxi sa, ar gvaqvs. am STabeW- sagans xelSi da gvaklia lo ya ze la qac. di le bas miZ lie rebs ase ve sa marx № 893-is

82 skifo sis diskoc [Sa bat ti ni B. 2000:53, sur 8]. qve da na wi li, xo lo pi ris ki de ga reTken msgavsi saga ni, dis ko jvri Ta da wer ti le- iwyebs ga dax ras, ris gamoc yure bi od nav biT gvxvdeba aseve sxva sce nebzec. ma ga- qve moT Ca dis. liTad pisti ro sis naqa la qar ze (berZnu- li empo ri o ni Traki a Si) aRmo Ce nil skifos ze, ro melsac aTa ri Re ben Zv.w. IV s-iT li te ra tu ra: ti pi u ri for mis mixed viT (ta nis Tu kor- mi qela Ze T. 1978: ar qeo logi uri kvle va-Zi e ba ri- pu sis pro fi lis) [Archi bald Z. H. 1996:81-83, o nis qvemo wel ze. kol xeTis arqe o lo gi u ri eq- sur. 5.2.-11]. gvxvdeba orfi gu ri a ni sce na, spedi ci is Sro me bi, I, Tbili si. gv. 3-92. sadac mar cxe na fi guras (ro gorc xSir Archi bald Z. H. 1996: Impor ted Athe nian Fi gu red Pot tery 1988-1991. -`Pis ti ros I. Exca va ti ons and Studi es”. Edited SemTxve va Si a) xel Si (mar cxena Si) uWi ravs by Jan Bo u zek, Mi ec zyslaw Do ma radzki, Zofia Ha li na es saga ni, xo lo mis win meo re figu ra ar Archibald. p. 77-88. aris pedot ri pi; Tumc Wur We li ar aris Co ok R. M. 1977: Gre ek Pa in ted Pot tery, Lon don. p.1-399. srulad Se mor Ce ni li, mainc vxedavT, rom Do min gu ez A.J. and Sànchez C. 2001: Greek Pot tery from the Iberi an Pe nin su la. Archa ic and Clas si cal Pe ri ods (ed. fi gu ra qa li saa da sulac Se iZ le ba (rac G. Tset skhladze), Brill, p. 1-501. mi si sa mo sis kal Te bis moy va nilo biT Kac ha ra va D. 2005: Re cent finds at Va ni,- Di a lo gu es d’his to i re Cans) is gaqce ul po za Sic iyos. aqe dan ga- anci en ne, Sup plément.1, Be sançon -Ce dex, p. 291-309. mom di na re, Za lian Znelia am sagnis da niS- Kac ha ra va D., Kvir kvelia G. 2008: Wi ne, Worship and Sac ri fi- ce. The Golden Gra ves of Anci ent Va ni. New York, p. 126- nu le bis zus ti gan sazR vra, sam wu xarod, 205. mxo lod uar yo fa SemiZ lia imi sa, rom es Sa bat ti ni B. 2000: Les skyphos du F. B. Gro up à Spi na : ap port sa ga ni diskoa an ki Rrube li. chro no lo gi que de l’étude stylis ti que et typolo gi que .- La sul Ees aris, risi Tqmac am etapze Se- céra mi que Atti que du IV siè cle en méditer ranée occi- den tale. Actes du col lo que in ter na tio nal or ganisé par le miZlia am or va za ze. sam wuxa rod, mxo lod Cen tre Ca mil le Jul lian, Arles, 7 -9 décem bre 1995. Nap- Ta ri Ri sa da war mo e bis ad gi lis gansazR- les, p. 46 – 65. vriT un da dav kma yofil deT, mxat vre bis Spar kes B.A., Tal cott L.1970: Black and plain pot tery of the th th th identi fi ci reba ki ver xerxde ba. 6 , 5 and 4 cen tu ri es B.C., The Atheni an agora, v. XII, Prin ce ton, New Jer sey. p. 1-472.

Se niSvne bi: ilus tra ci e bis aR we ri loba: 1. mo neta gan sazR vra gi or gi dundu am. 2. ko rin Tuli tipis skifo si Txelked- tab. I – 1. va nis №@ 24 sa marxis wiTel fi gu ru li skifo sis gra fiku li Ca naxa ti; 2. va nis №@ 24 samar- li ani a, Rrmaa da sada wri u li qusli aqvs. xis wi Tel fi gu ruli skifo sis grafi ku li Ca- mas axasi a Tebs qus lTan axlos, ta nis qve- na xa ti; 3 _ vanis na qala qaris farglebs gareT da nawil ze re zer vi rebu li zo li. is ar- aR mo Ce ni li wi Tel figu ru li skifo sis grafi- se bobs Zv.w. VI s-dan Zv.w. IV s-mde da Sem- ku li Ca na xa ti; 4. va nis naqa laqa ris far glebs ga reT aR mo Ce nili wiTel fi gu ru li skifo si, de gac. A mxa re; 5. va nis naqa laqa ris far glebs gareT 3. da ce re bulyu rebi a ni saxe o ba ski- aR mo Ce ni li wiTel fi gu ru li skifo si, B mxare. fosi sa gav rcele bulia Zv.w. VI s-is Sua xa- nebSi. mas aqvs ta nis qve da nawil Si mi Zer- wi li yure bi, rom le bic piris ke naa zea we- u li. 4. ati kuri ti pis ski fose bi Zv.w. VI s-is Sua xa nebi dan Cndeba, magram mxo lod V s-is da sawyi sisTvis yalib de ba maTi kano ni kuri for ma. es aris sqelked lia ni, ma si ur yu re bi a ni da toru siseb rqus lia- ni sa xeo ba. Zv.w. 480 wli dan iwye ba for mis cvlile ba, nel -ne la viwrov de ba ta nis

83 N. Kipiani I

84 qe Te van ja va xiS vi li

saqar Tvelo Si aR mo Ce ni li aqe me ni du ri sa beW da ve bi

sxva das xva erov nebi sa da sxva das xva siZne le eb Tan aris da kav Si re bu li [Bo ar- kul tu ris ma ta re be li xalxe biT da sax- dman J. 1970:303]. le bu li uzar ma za ri aqeme ni du ri impe ri- aqe me nidu ri glipti kis Zegle bi sxva- is glipti ka, ise ve ro gorc sa erTod aqe- das xva for mi saa: ci lindru li, ko nu su- meni du ri xelov ne ba, ar iyo er Tgva ro- ri, pi ra mi duli, ska ra be oi di sa da mra- va ni. im peri is aR mo savleT da da sav leT val wax na ga for mi sa. sa beW da ve bis ma sana wi le bis glipti kuri Zeg le bi, ro gorc lad umete sad sxvadas xva feris qalce- for miT, ise ga mo sa xule ba Ta Te mati ki- do ni ixma re bo da. didi siyva ru liT sar- Ta da sti liT gansxvav de ba er Tma ne Ti sa- geblob da rZisfe ri, gansa kuT rebiT ki gan. impe ri is aR mo savleT nawil Si ufro cis fe ri qal ce doni – safi ri ni. iSvi a Tad meso po ta mi ur -a su ru li da ba bi lo nu ri iyeneb dnen ag reTve, aqat sa da sar di on- glipti kis gav le na Seim Cne va, da sav leT- sac. Si – mcire azi a sa da egeo sis zRvis auz Si j. bor dman ma aqe me nidur glip ti ka Si ki ber Znuli sa. Tumca, ro gorc cno bi li sa mi Zi riTa di sti li ga mo yo: sasax lis ka- in glise li mkvle va ri j. bor dmani aR niS- ris sti li, romel Sic ori mimar Tu le baa navs, sa erTod ber Znul mxatvrul sko las – aR mo savlu ri da da savlu ri [Bo ar dman J. di di wvlili mi uZR vis mTlia nad aqe meni- 1970:305-309]; berZnu li stili [Bo ar dman J. du ri glipti kis Ca moya libe ba sa da ganvi- 1970:309-312]; Sere u li stili [Bo ar dman J. Ta re ba Si. epigra fi kuli da ar qe olo gi- 1970:312-322]. uri mo na ce mebis sa fuZ velze exla uk ve dRe i saT vis saqar Tve lo Si 6 aqe meni- sayo velTa od cno bi lia, rom sparse Tis du ri sa beW da via aR mo Ce ni li. miu xeda vad kar ze ber Ze ni osta te bi moR va we obdnen mcire ricx ovne bi sa es sabeW da ve bi sak- da Ta vis Semoq mede baSi sparse li mom xma- ma od naT lad war mo ad ge nen aqe me nidu ri reb lis gemov neba sa da moTx ov nebs iT va- glipti kis mraval fe rov ne bas. liswi nebdnen [Bo ar dman J. 1970:303]. 1962 wels ra Wa Si, sof. jo i su banSi g. TiT qos ekleq tu ri aqe me nidu ri xe- go be jiSvi lis mier gaTx ril erT-erT sa- lov neba, ro melsac nases xe bi aqvs sxva- mar xSi aR moC nda zo li a ni aqatis ci lin- das xva qvey nebis (a su reTis, ba bi lo nis, druli sa beW da vi, g.k. № 1241 (a qac da Sem- ela mis, urar tus, saber ZneTis da sxv.) xe- deg Sic igu lisxme ba sa qar Tve los erov- lov ne bis de ta le bi, mTlia nad mainc spe- nu li mu ze u mis ar qe olo gi is gan yo fi- ci fi ku rad ira nu lia [Луконин В. 1977:72]. le bis glip ti kis kabi ne ti), zo me bi: 26x11 igive SeiZ le ba iT qvas aqe meni du ri glip- mm. sa beW da vis zeda pir ze, Sua Si ma Rali, ti kis Sesa xe bac. mox de ni li, or mag ba za ze dayrdno bi li berZnu li ge me bi saT vis miZRvnil Ta- ko lo nis saxiT sicocx lis xea warmod ge- vis funda menta lur naSrom Si j. bor dman- ni li, ro melic palmis msgavsi to tiT bo- ma ax le bu rad ga ni xila aqe meni dur glip- lov de ba. xis ori ve mxa res, simet ri ulad, ti ka Si ber Znuli da spar su li mxat vru li sar ki se bu rad, zur gi saken Tav Seqce u- skole bis ur Ti er Tmoqme de bi sa da ur Ti- li, uka na fe xebze Sem dga ri xaxa da Re bu- er Tgav le nis bev ri sa kiTxi. mkvle va ris li frTo sa ni lomia ga mo saxu li. lomebs az riT, aqe me ni du ri glipti kis Zeg lebSi ca li wina tori awe u li aqvT, ku di ze viT ber Znuli da spar su li stilis mkveTrad ag re xili. ga mo sa xu le ba ar aris Rrma, ga mijvna rTu li sakiTxia da zog jer did mag ram mkafi o a, plasti ku ri da dax ve wi-

85 li. re a listu rad ga mo saxu li lo mebis joi subnis ci lindrze ga mo sa xu li si- mZlavri, moq ni li figu rebi mo nu mentu- u Je ti – sicocx lis xe da mis ori ve mxa res ri qan da ke be bis aso ci aci as iwvevs (tab. I, ga mo sa xu li cxo ve le bi ZvelaR mo sav lu- 1-2). ri, meso po ta mi u ri siu Je ti a. is mrav lad sa beW da ve bis cilin dru li for ma gvxvdeba aqeme ni du ri xelov ne bis Zegleb- mWid rod aris da kav Si rebu li me so po- ze, maT So ris ci lindreb zec [Луконин В. ta mi ur glip ti kas Tan. es forma Seiq mna 1977:72]. sicocx lis xis mra va li va rian ti Crdi lo meso po ta mi aSi Zv.w. IV aTas wle- arse bobs. ko lo nis sa xiT warmod ge ni li ul Si. is mo iTxov da sabeW da vis ze da pir- si cocxlis xe da bo lo e buli sxvadas xva ze fi gure bis Ta vi se bur ganla ge bas. Zv.w. mcena re e bis, maT So ris pal mis to te bi- III aTaswle u lis Sua xaneb Si meso po ta mi is Tac jer kidev asuru li cilin dre bis ga- qvismWrel ma os ta tebma mo Zebnes Ta vi samo sa xu le bebSi gvxvdeba [Par po la S. 1993:162, buri xer xi sa beW da ve bis grZel da viwro sur. 1, 2; 201, gamo sax. №№ 163-164]. rac ze da pir ze fi gu re bis ganla ge bi sa. yve- Se e xe ba jo i subnis ga mo sa xu le bis stils, la cxo vels ga mo xa tavdnen ver ti ka lur ro gorc zeviT aR vniSneT, j. bor dma nis mdgo ma reo ba Si mdgo mare ada mia nis msgav- mi er ga mo yofi li aqe meni du ri glipti kis sad [ПМИ 1968:51] aqe meni dur xa naSi, ro- stilis er T-er Ti mimar Tu le ba – aR mode sac sabeW da ve bis cilin dru li for ma sav lu ri sasax lis ka ris stili a, ro melic iran Sic gav rcel da, qvis mWrel ma osta- war mod ge ni lia ci lindru li da ko nu su- teb ma, rom le bic Ziri Ta dad asurul da ri for mis sa beW da ve biT. am sa beW dav Ta ba bi lo nur siu Je tebs iyeneb dnen, ci lin- ga mo saxu le bebSi asuru li da ba bi lonu- druli sa beW da ve bis pirze fi gure bis ri elemen te bi sWar bobs. ma Ti ga mo saxu- gan la ge bis es uZve lesi xer xic ga da i Res. le be bis sti li mxat vruli Tval sazri siT mag ram maT ua ri Tqves me so po ta mi u ri ci- aqe me ni du ri sa sax le e bis qan da ke be bis lindre bi saT vis da maxa si a Te be li mra- stils utol de ba [Bo ar dman J. 1970:305]. valfi gu ria ni si u Jete bis ga mo sax va ze, vfiqrobT, joi subnis ci lindru li sa- ra mac ga mo sa xu le bas er Tgva ri mo nu men- beW da vi for mis mixed viT da masze gamo- ta lu ro ba SesZi na [ПМИ 1968:90]. sa xu li plasti ku rad, ma Ral mxat vru lad aqe meni dur xa naSi ci lindru li sa- Sesru le buli mo nu men tu ri figu re biT beW da ve bi mzadde bo da mci re a zi e li os- aqe me nidu ri glip ti kis aR mo sav lu ri sata te bis mi er, yofi li asure Ti sa da babi- sax lis ka ris stilis jgufs unda mie kuT- lo nis te rito ri a ze ad gi lob riv stilSi vnos. [Луконин В. 1977:72]. es sabeW da ve bi im peri is aqe me nidu ri cilin dre bis da Ta ri Re- aR mo sav leT nawil Si ix mare boda, da sav- bis saSu a le bas iZle va Zv.w. VI sa u ku nis leT Si ki ufro po pu la ru li iyo pira- bo lo da Zv.w. V sau ku nis pirve li naxev- mi duli, ko nu su ri, ska be i oi di sa da mra- riT da Ta ri Re bu li pelo po nesis bu le- val wax na ga for mis sabeW da ve bi, romle- bi, ro melTa ga mo saxu le be bi ex mi a ne bi- bic praq ti kulad ufro ad vi li ga mo saye- an aR mo savlu ri sasax lis ka ris sti lis nebe li iyo [Bo ar dman J. 1970:323]. im pe ri is sa beW dav Ta ga mo sa xu le bebs [Boar dman J. ofi ci a lur sa beW da vad, j. bor dma ni ci- 1970:305]. am de nad, vfiqrobT, rom jo i sub- lindrul sa beW da vebs mi iC nevs da Tvlis, nis ci lindri Zv.w. V sau ku ni sa an SesaZ- rom ber Zen xelo van Ta jgu fi impe ri is loa ram de nad me ufro adre xa nisa iyos. ar sebo bis bo lo xa nam de Wrida ci lin- 2. 1996 wels qa re lis r-nis sof. tax- dru li for mis sa beW da vebs, mi u xeda vad ti Zir Si ar qe olo gi u ri eqspe di ci is mi er imisa, rom sabeW da ve bis es for ma didi (xelmZRva ne li i. ga go Si Ze) er T-erT samo wo nebiT aRar sar geblob da [Bo ar dman J. mar xSi (№ 8) aRmo Ce ni lia muqi cis fe ri, 1970:309, 324]. od nav ia sam nisfe ri el fe ris Se saniS na vi

86 qalce do nis-sa fi ri nis ko nu su ri sa beW- ga mo ye ne bu li [Boar dman J. 1970:304] da ro- da vi (g.k. № 1450), zo me bi: piris 23x20 mm, gorc aqe me ni du ri cilin dre bi, ko nu sis si maR le – 32 mm. sa beW da vis odnav amo bur- for mis sa beW da ve bic stilis mixed viT j. cul pir ze ga mo sa xu lia Zlier sti lize- bor dman ma mis mier ga mo yo fil, aR mosav- buli sicocx lis xe da mis orive mxa res lu ri sa sax lis ka ris stilis jgufSi mo- simet ri u lad, sarki sebu rad ga mo sa xu li a Tav sa. am jgufis sti listu ri niS nebis uka na fe xeb ze Sem dga ri ga re u li Txe bi. Se sa xeb uk ve visa ubreT jo i subnis ci lin- si cocx lis xe war mod geni lia sam iaru- dru li sa beW da vis ganxil vi sas. tax ti Zi- sad gan la ge bu li mox rili to te biT, ro- ris ko nu su ri sabeW da vis ga mo sa xu le bis melTa Re ro e bi jer qve viT eS ve ba, Semdeg stili im mo nu menta lu ro bi sa da skul- ki ze viT aris agre xi li da mog rZo girCiT ptu ru lo bis niSnebs ata rebs, rac aR mo- Tu ra Rac na yofiT da bolo e bu li. Ti To- sav lu ri sa sax lis karis sti lis sabeW da- e u li to tis ZirSi oTxfur ce la yva vi lia ve bi saT vis aris dama xasi a Te be li. ga mo saxu li. xis Re ros zeda nawi li pal- mi un xe nis saxel mwi fo numiz mati kur mis tots war mo ad gens, ro me lic na xevar- mu ze um Si da cul qalce donis er T-erT mTva rise bu rad aris dag vir gvine buli ko nu su ri sa beW da vis pir ze ga re u li Txe- (tab I, 3-4). bis ga mo sa xu le ba stilis tu rad ram de- ga mosa xu le ba ar aris Rrma, mag ram nad me axlos aris taxti Zi ris sa beW da ve- Sesru le bu lia mka fi od, plasti kurad, bis Txebis ga mo saxu le bebTan. miun xenis wmindad da dax ve wi lad. Txebis la mazi, sabeW da vi Zv.w. V s-is pir ve li naxev riT wagrZe le bu li sxeu lis for me bi ana to- aris da Ta ri Re buli. vfiqrobT taxti Zi- miu ri si zus tiT aris gad mo ce mu li – kun- ris sa beW da vic am xani sa unda iyos. Te bi aR niSnu lia sus tad da msubu qad. fa- 3. 1985 wels mcxeTa Si, sam Tav ros vel- qi zad aris gad moce mu li Txe bis grZe li, ze, mdidrul ak lda maSi (№ 905) aR moC nda la mazad mox rili rqe bi, ag reTve saxsre- pi rami du li sabeW da vi rZisfe ri qal ce- bi da Cliqe bi. wmindad aris damu Sa ve bu li do nisa (g.f. № 1579), zo me bi: pi ris 20x15 sicocx lis xis elemen te bi – to te bi, yva- mm, simaR le – 26 mm. [a fa qi Ze an., niko la- vi le bi da gir Ce bi. sa beWda vi, sa er Tod, iS vi li v. 1996:36-37, tab. XL, 4; LVI, 2]. od nav maRal mxatvru li xelov ne bis nimu Si a. amo bur cul pir ze ga mo sa xu lia dak bi lu- ro gorc ze viT aR vniSneT siu Je ti li gvir gviniT Sem ku li frTosa ni RvTa- – sicocx lis xe da mis ori ve mxa res ga- e ba, ro melsac gaS lil xeleb Si kude biT mo saxu li cxo ve le bi, maT So ris Txebic, uWi ravs ori frTo sani, xaxa da Rebu li, far Tod aris gavrce le bu li ZvelaR mo- zur gi sa ken Tav Sebru ne bu li lo mi. ga mosav lur xelov neba Si [Луконин В. 1977:72; sa xu le ba mkac rad si metri u lia, sar ki se- Po ra da E. 1952:182, tab. XXIX,4]. taxti Zi- bu ri, kve Ta ar aris Rrma, mag ram mka fi oa. ris sabeW dav ze ga mo sa xuli sti lize bu- RvTae bi sa da lo me bis frTe bi, ag reTve li xis msgavsi xee bic mrav lad gvxvdeba lo mebis fa fa ri er Tnai rad, wvrili pa ra- jer ki dev asurul sa beWda vebze [Par po la S. le lu ri xa ze biT aris gad mo ce mu li. lo- 1993:201, sur. 452, 490, 498, 502]. me bis Tva le bi, Ta Te bi da piri mrgva li sa beW da vis ko nu su ri forma Seiq mna saW ri siT – bute ro liT aris Ses ru le bu- Zv.w. VII-VI sau ku neeb Si, meso po ta mi a Si, neli. ga mo sa xu le ba ram de nad me brtye lia, o- ba bi lo nur same foSi [ПМИ 1968:84]. Sem- fi gu rebi sus tad aris mode li rebu li deg Si sa beW da ve bis es for ma aqeme ni dur- (tab. I, 5-6). ma glipti ka mac Se iT vi sa. ise ve ro gorc pi rami du li for mis sabeW da ve bi Zv.w. aqe me ni dur cilin drul, ase ve ko nu sis VII-VI sa u kune eb Si Se iq mna neo ba bi lo nur moy va ni lo bis sabeW da vebSic, meso po ta- sa me foSi. aqe me ni dur xana Si am sa beW da ve- mi uri glipti kis moti ve bi da sti li aris bis ume te si nawi li mci rea zi a Si mzadde-

87 bo da [Луконин В. 1977:72]. isi ni Ziri Ta dad dul sa beW da vebzec [Ja cob -Rost, Gar lach J. q. sar di dan, anato li is sxva qala qe bi dan 1997:tab. 102, gamo sax. 475]. da ber Znuli kunZu le bi dan mom di na re obs aR sa niSna vi a, rom am sabeW da vebze war- [Bo ar dman J. 1970:23]. mod ge ni li lo mebis ga mo saxu le be bi sti- j. bor dman ma zo gi er Ti pira midu li listu rad da de ta le bis da mu Sa ve bis sa beW da vi, ga mo saxu le bis stilis mixed- mxriv (mrgva li saW risis _ bute ro lis viT, mis mier ga mo yo fil da sav lur sasax- ga mo ye ne biT) Zali an axlos aris ber Znul lis ka ris stilis sa beW da ve bis jguf Si ar qa ul ska rabe eb ze ga mosa xul lomeb- mo a Tav sa [Bo ar dman J. 1970:305]. mkvleva ris Tan. j. bor dma ni, ga nixi lavs ra kun Zul az riT, da sav lu ri sa sax lis ka ris sti- kvipros ze aR mo Ce nil ar qa ul berZnul li aR mo savlu ri sasax lis ka ris stilis ska rabe ebs, aRniS navs, rom am sabeW da ve- ga sada ve bul, ma nie ri zi re bul va riants bi saT vis da ma xasi a Te be li sti li za cia war mo ad gens. am jgu fis sa beW da ve bis ga- ki dev ufro gan vi Tar da Zv.w. V sa u ku neSi mo sa xu le be bi er Tgvarad xis tia da mo deda gan sakuT re biT Seim Cne va aqe meni du ri li re bas mokle bu li. maTi ga mo sa xu le be- glipti kis nimu SebSi [Boar dman J. 1968:133, bis Tema wminda ira nu lia (gansxva ve biT tab. XXXI, 442, 443; XXXII, 461,462]. ci lindru li da ko nu su ri sabeW da ve bis vfiqrobT, mcxe Tis pi ra midu li sa beW- ga mosa xu le be bis me sopo ta mi u ri Te ma ti- da vi Zv.w. VI s-is bo lo xane bi Ta da Zv.w. V ki sa gan). es aris ume te sad spar se li me- s-is pirve li naxev riT unda daTa riR des. fe an gmiri, xSirad Sem ku li dakbi lu li 4. 1982 wels mcxeTa Si, sam Tav ros ve lis gvir gviniT an ti a riT, ro me lic ebrZvis Crdi lo e TiT mdeba re ba i aTxe vis na pir ze lo mebs, sxva cxove lebs an ur Cxu lebs [Bo- mcxeTis mudmiv moq me di eq spedi ci is mier ar dman J. 1970:305]. (raz mis xel mZRva ne li v. niko la iS vi li) mcxeTis pi rami dul sabeW davs masa- gaTx ril er T-erT samar xSi (№ 21) aRmoC- lis, for mis, ga mo sa xu le bis Te mati ki sa nda qalce do nis mra val wax na ga sabeW da vi da stilis mi xedviT sak maod bevri, zus- (i naxe ba mcxeTis mu ze um Si №101-35-108), ti analo gia eZebne ba. es aris Ziri Ta dad zo me bi: piris 23x18 mm, simaR le – 12 mm. pira mi du li sabeW da vebi. mag. miun xe nis [niko la iS vi li v., gi unaS vi li g. 1995:120, sa xelmwi fo nu miz ma tikur muze um Si da- sur. 977-1218]. sa beW da vis oTx waxnag ze cu li qal ce do nis ori pira mi du li sa- sxva das xva ga mo sa xu le baa amoW ri li. qve- beW da vi [AGDS 1968:tab. 26, ga mo sax. 236, da far To wax na gis pirze ga mo sa xu lia 237], ro melTa ga mo saxu le be bis siu Je te- spar se li mxedre bi, ro melmac Subi aZ gebi mcxe Tis sa beW da vis analo gi u ri a. maT ra mis win uka na fexeb ze Sem dgar loms. So ris er T-er Ti (№ 236) stilis tu ra dac mxedars Tav ze ya ba la xise bu ri spar su li savse biT msgavsia mcxe Turi sa beW da vis ya i dis Tav sabu ra vi axuravs, ac via wel Si ga mosa xu le bi sa. ori ve sabeW da vi Zv.w. V ga moy va ni li qur Tu ki, fexe bi Se mo sili sau ku nis pirve li na xev riT aris da Ta ri- aqvs anaq si ri de biT da Wvin ti a ni fex sac- Re bu li [AGDS 1968:52-53]. Jene vis xelov ne- mliT; cxe ni yalyzea Semdga ri, grZeli bi sa da is to ri is mu ze um Si da cu li sar- ku di (Zua) Ta vi suflad aqvs CaSve buli (a- di onis pi rami du li sa beW da vi msgav si ve ra aqvs Sekru li spar sul ya i da ze); ze da ga mosa xu le biT, ro me lic m.l. fo lenve- mcire wax nag ze ga mo sa xu lia ZaR li – mal- i de ris az riT, si rii dan an mci re azi i dan tis do gi; or gverdiT wax nagze – gaSli li war mos dge ba Zv.w. VI sau ku nis bolo da V fe xebiT, na var dis mdgo mare o ba Si, erTze sau ku nis da sawyi siT aris da Ta ri Rebu li rqebda totvi li iremi, me ore ze – qurci- [Vol len we i der M. 1967:79, tab. 40, № 89]. igive ki (tab. I, 7-9). si u Je tia ga mo sa xu li ber li nis wi naa zisa beW da vis cen tralu ri ga mo sa xu le- ur mu ze um Si da cul qal ce donis pira mi- ba – mxedris SebrZo le ba lom Tan – Rrmad

88 aris nak ve Ti da mka fi o a, Ses ru le bu- mi er berZnu li xelov nebis didi gav le- li sak ma od plas ti ku rad. rea listu rad niT. n. ni kuli na va ra u dobs, rom e.w. ~ber- aris gadmo ce mu li mxed risa da lomis fi- Znul-spar su li~ sa beW da ve bis xelov ne ba gu re bi, mag ram maT moZra o ba Si er Tgva ri warmo iS va ad gi lobri vi mci re aziis xal- sta ti ka igrZno ba. igi ve SeiZ le ba iT qvas xebis xelov ne bis safuZ velze, ro melmac sa beW da vis sxva wax na gebze ga mo saxu li erTdro u lad ga nica da ro gorc berZnu- cxo ve le bis Se sa xebac. cxo ve le bi ga mo sali, ise spar su li xelov ne bis gavle na xu lia rea listu rad, mka fi od, de ta le bi [Никулина М. 1966:20]. j. bordman ma ~ber- wmindad aris da mu Sa vebu li, mag ram na var- Znul-spar su li~ an ro gorc man Semdeg- dis mdgo ma reo ba Si erTgva ri Sebo Wi loba Si uwo da maT ~ber Znul-aR mo sav lu ri~ ig rZno ba. [Bo ar dman J. 1990:401]. sabeW da ve bi mis mi er mra val wax na ga for ma sabeW da ve bi sa ga mo yo fil e.w. Sere u li stilis jguf Si ana to lii dan mom di na reobs [Boar dman J. ga ni xi la. mkvlevars miaC nia, rom am sa- 1970:324]. am for mis sa beW da ve bi e.w. ~ber- beW da ve bis Seqmna Si mo nawi le obdnen ro- Znul-spar su li~ an ~ber Znul aR mo sav- gorc berZe ni, ise spar seli os ta te bi da lu ri~ [Boar dman J. 1990:401] sa beW da ve bis sa er Tod, maTi di di na wi li berZne bis na- jgufs ekuT vnis. sa beW dave bis es jgu fi xe lavs ar un da war mo ad gendes [Boar dman Ziri Ta dad ska ra be o i de bi sa gan Ses dge ba, J. 1970:324]. mar Ta li a, ~ber Znul-spar su- mra val wax na ga sa beW dave bis ra ode no ba li~ sa beW da ve bis ga mo saxu le bebSi ig- Se da re biT mcire a. ~ber Znul-spar su li~ rZno ba berZnu li xelov nebis di di gav- sa beW da ve bi didi xania mkvlevar Ta gan sale na, mag ram sparsel os tat Ta So ris iyo kuT re bul inte ress iq vevs. mra valricx- mra va li, ma Ra li ran gis mimbaZ ve li, ro- o van lite ra tu raSi ga moT qmulia sxva- melsac Se eZlo ga da e Ro ber Znuli Te ma das xva mo sazre be bi am sa beW dav Ta war- an berZnul stil Si Sees ru le bi na kve Ta. mo ebis cen tre bis, Semqmne li os ta te bis Ta vis mxriv berZe ni os ta te bi iZule bul- erov nebi sa da kultu ruli kuTvni le bis ni iy vnen an ga ri Si ga e wi aT sparse li mom- Se sa xeb. pirve li, vinc am sa xelwo de biT xma reb li saTvis da ker Zod, provin ci u- ga moh yo sa beW dav Ta es jgufi, aR we ra da li da sav le Tis sa sax le Ta sat rapi e bis Zv.w. V s-is meo re naxev ri Ta da Zv.w. IV s-is ge mov ne bi saT vis [Bo ar dman J. 1970:312-313, pir ve li naxev riT da aTa ri Ra, ger mane li 304, 323]. mTa va ri, rac ber Zenma os ta teb- mec ni e ri a. furtven gle ri iyo [Fur twängler ma “ber Znul -spar su li” sa beW da ve bis xe- A. 1900:116]. a. fur tvenglers mi aC ni a, rom lovne ba Si Se i ta nes, sa beW da vis pir ze Ta- e.w. `berZnul -spar su li~ sa beW da ve bis vi su fal sivrce Si ga mo sa xu le bis la Rad Semqmne li os ta te bi spar seTis kar ze gan la ge ba da figu re bis rea listu rad, moRva we ioni e li berZne bi iyvnen, rom- ana to miu ri si zus tiT gad mo ce maa [Boar- le bic qmnid nen Ta vis naxe lavs sparse li dman J. 1970:334]. mkvleva ris az riT, mcire mom xma reb lisaT vis, mi si moTxov ni le bi sa azi is da savle Ti da kvip ro si is area li a, da ge mov nebis gaT va liswi ne biT. mkvle- sa dac yvela ze me tad xvdebo da er Tma- var Ta na wi li – h. vuol ter si [Wal ters H. neTs berZne bi sa da sparse le bis in te re- 1926:XXXII], J. rix te ri [Ric hter G. 1946:15-80] sebi da Zv.w. V s. meo re naxe var sa da Zv.w. da sxve bi am azrs izia rebs, me ore na wils IV sau kune Si “berZnul -spar su li” sa beW- – t. kni po viCs [Книпович Т. 1926:57-58], m. da ve bi vrcelde boda egeo sis samya ro dan maq si mo vas [Ma ximo va M. 1928:663, 676-677], h. in doed Tam de da Savi zRvis sa napi ro dan sei rigs [Seyrig N. 1952:199-201], m. lor Tqi- ni losam de [Bo ar dman J. 1970:303]. fa ni Zes [lor Tqi fa niZe m. 1963:135-137] sabeW da vis for mis da gansa kuTre biT – mi aC niaT, rom ~berZnul -spar su li~ saga mo sa xu le bis Tema ti ki sa da stilis mi- beW da ve bi Seq mnilia sparse li os ta te bis xed viT mcxe Tis mra valwax nagas bev ri ana-

89 lo gi e bi eZebne ba (uf ro me ti ska rabe oi- ji mi Tis sabeW da vis for ma da ga mo sa- deb ze, rad gan mra val wax na ge bi Seda re biT xu le bis Tema ar aris ucxo e.w. “berZnul - iS via Ti a). am sabeW dav Ta ga mo saxu le be bis spar su li” sabeW da ve bi saT vis. magram mi si Te ma ti ka ar ga mo ir Ce va mra valfe rov ne- mcire zo ma da rac mTava ri a, aRmo sav lu- biT. Za li an xSi ria gamo sa xu le be bi spar- ri ieris mqone sqe matu ri ga mo saxu le bis seli mxedri sa an qvei Ti meom ri sa (da ara sti li, sav sebiT gansxvav de ba, Tu SeiZ- mefi sa, ro gorc es da sav leT saka ro sti- le ba ase iTqvas, “kla si ku ri” “ber Znul lis pira mi dul sabeW da vebze a), ro melic -spar su li” didi zo mis skara be oi de bis Se mo si lia zus tad ba i aTx e vis sabeW dav ze ga mo saxu le be bis stili sa gan, ro melSic ga mo sa xu li meom ris msgav sad da SubiT an ber Znuli xe lov nebis di di gavle na ig- mSvildis riT eb rZvis ro meli me cxovels rZno ba. jimi Tis sa beW da vi yvela niSnis [Ma ximo va M. 1928:sur. 9, 15, 16; Ric hter G. mi xedviT ekuTvnis e.w. bernis jgufis sa- 1968:ga mo sax. № 496; Bo ar dman J. 1970: ga mo- beW da vebs [Boar dman J. 1970: ga mo sax. №№ sax. №№ 886, 888, 889, 925, 927, 929 da sxv.], 973, 974], romle bic bordman ma “ber Znul- an berZen Ta me omars. bevria ag reTve sxva- spar su li” sabeW da ve bi dan cal ke jgufad das xva cxo velTa ga mo sa xu le be bi, xSirad ga moh yo (sabeW da vi № 973 da Ta riRe bu lia ire mi na var dis mdgo ma reo ba Si [Bo ar dman Zv.w. IV s-iT an ufro gvia ni xaniT [Bo ar- J. 1970:№№ 896, 940], mal tis do gi [Bo ar dman dman J., Vol len we i der M. 1978:45-46]). am jgu- J. 1970: №№ 874, 906; AGDS, 1968:tab. 28,449k; fis sa beW da ve bis – mci re zo mis ska ra be o- tab. 32, 271A] da sxva. ise ve ro gorc ba i- i de bi sa da mra val wax na ge bis ga mo saxu le- aTx e vis sa beW da vis gamo sa xu le be bi, ese- be bis kompo zi ci e bi, mkvleva ris TqmiT, nic Sesru le bu lia rea listu rad, magram nak le bi de ta li za ci iT xasi aT de ba, xo lo moZ ra o ba Si myo fi figu re bic er Tgva rad stils uf ro aR mo sav lu ri, ker Zod, spar- ga Se Se bu lia, rac saer Tod da ma xasi a Te- su li xe lov nebis gav le na emCne va, vidre be lia “ber Znul-spar su li” sa beW da ve- ber Znuli sa. isini ekuT vnis aqe me nidu ri bis ga mo sa xu le be bi saT vis [Ma ximo va M. xa nis Sem dgom peri ods da Tavi si xelov- 1928:655, 658]. ne biT “ber Znul-spar su li” se ri is sabeW- “ber Znul-spar su li” sa beW da ve bis sada ve bis uSua lo gag rZe le bas warmo ad- yovel Ta od aRi a re bu li Tari Ria Zv.w. V s. ge nen. maT ga mo sa xu le bebs bevri Se xe bis meo re na xeva ri da Zv.w. IV s. pir ve li naxe- wer ti li aqvs se levki du ri xa nis Ti xis va ri. bule bis ga mo sa xu le bebTan da amde nad, 5. 2000 wels sa qarTve los saxel mwi- isini Zv.w. IV s-is bolo sa da Sem dgom xa- fo muze um ma Sei Zina sa ga re jos r-is s. nas un da ekuTvno des [Bo ar dman J. 1970:320- ji miTSi Sem TxveviT aRmo Ce ni li sa mar- 322]. is faqti, rom j. bor dmans “ber Znul xis nivTe bi, ro melTa So ris aris od nav -spar su li” sabeW da ve bis – erTi jgufis moy vi Ta lo- TeTri, na xevrad gam Wvir va le (ber nis jgufis) Ta riRi Zv.w. IV sa u kune- qalce do nis mcire zo mis ska ra be oi dis ze uf ro gvian del xa naSi ga da aqvs sa yu- for mis sabeW da vi (g.k. № 1438; zome bi – pi- radR e boa, Tu ga viT va liswi nebT, rom ma- ris 22x18 mm; si maR le – 7 mm.). sa beW da vis nam de “ber Znul-spar su li” sa beW da ve bis pir ze ga mo sa xu lia mxeda ri maRa li wo- Ta riRad sa yovel Ta od aRi a rebu li iyo pi a ni qu diT, ro melsac xelSi mo mar jve- Zv.w. V s-is meo re na xeva ri – Zv.w. IV s-is bu li aqvs Subi da eb rZvis mis win mdgom pir ve li na xeva ri. j. bor dmans mi aC nia, grZelrqe bi an xars. ga mo saxu le ba Za li- rom aqe me ni duri impe ri is pro vinci eb Si an ze da pi ru lia, sqema tu ri, deta le bi ar am ti pis sabeW da ve bi gvi an xa nam de Se mo i- aris da mu Sa ve bu li; figu re bi brtyeli a, na xa. ase Tia e.w. “ber nis” jgufis sa beW da- mo culo bi To ba ak lia. ga mo sa xu le bas aR- ve bi, rom lebsac mkvleva ri saqar Tve lomo sav lu ri ieri aqvs (tab. I, 10-11). Si aR mo Ce nil lurji minis mra val wax na-

90 gebsac ukav Si rebs [Bo ar dman J. 1970:322]. j. re bi sqe ma turi a, de ta le bi ar aris da- bor dma nis mier Se mo Ta va ze bu li Ta riRis mu Sa ve bu li, mxolod lo mis fa fa ri ori (Zv.w. IV s. bo lo an III sau ku neze uf ro gvi- mcire zo mis sam kuTxe diT aris gad mo ce- a ni xana [Bo ar dman J. 1970:220-221]) Se sa xeb mu li, wag rZe le bu li sami sam kuTxe diT ki Cven aR vniSnav diT, rom es Ta ri Ri Sem- brWya le bi (tab. I, 12-13). Tavi si Tema ti kiT dgom Si SesaZ loa ki dev uf ro da zus tdes da sti liT es sa beW da vic ze moT gan xi- [ja va xiSvi li q. 2002:74]. vgulis xmobT ra lul “ber nis” jgufis sa beW da vebs ekuT- mis ga a xal gaz rda ve bas da iberi uli lur- vnis (lo mis figu ra Sead. “ber nis” jgufis ji mi nis mra valwax nage bi saT vis Cvens mi- ias pis ska ra be oid ze ga mo saxul loms [Bo- er Se mo Ta va ze bul Ta riR Tan (dro is moar dman J. 1970:ga mo sax. 975]). es sabeW da vic nak veT Si Zv.w. II sa u ku nidan – ax.w. I sa u ku- sava ra u dod Zv.w. III sa u kuniT un da da Ta- nis da sawy i sam de [Джавахишвили К. 1975:24- riRdes. 25; ja vaxiS vi li q. 2002:74]) da ax lo e bas. sa qar Tve lo Si aRmo Ce ni li aqe me ni- am Ja mad “ber nis” jgu fis sa beW da ve bis du ri sabeW da ve bis ganxil vas gar kve u li Tari Ri ram de nad me uf ro da zus te buli a. mniSvne lo ba aqvs ara mxo lod sa kuTriv ro gorc f. kna usi aR niSnavs “berZnul - aqe me nidu ri glipti kis Ses wav lisaT vis, sparsu li” glipti ka aqe meni du ri same- ara med sa qarTve losa da aqe me nidur sam- fos da ce mis Sem deg maSin ve ar wyde ba. xe- ya ros ur Ti er To bis Tval saz risi Tac. lov ne bi saT vis sa Wi roa dro ra Ta tradi- aR sa niSna vi a, rom sa qar Tve lo Si aR mo Ce- ci e bi sagan gan Ta vi sufldes da Sec vlil ni li aqe me nidu ri sa beW da ve bi dan 3 (mcxe- po liti kur da sa zo gado eb riv mdgo mare- Tis pi ra midu li sa beW da vi, ba i aTx e vis oba ze axa li rea gi reba mo ax di nos. amis ma- mra val wax na ga da jimi Tis skara be oi di) ga liTi a, a glo bolo stili sa da e.w. “bernis” – ro ma u li xa nis samar xebSia aR mo Ce ni li. jgu fis sa beW da ve bi, rom lebsac sul co- jo i subnis ci lindri – Zv.w. IV s. samar xSi, ta Zv.w. II s-mde Se iZ le ba ga va dev noT Tva- xo lo taxti Zi ris ko nu su ri sabeW da vi, li [Knauß F. 1999:179, sq. № 84]. mkvleva ris zo ga dad Zv.w. IV-III ss. da Ta riRe bul sa ma- mi er Se mo Ta va ze bu li es Ta riRi ni San- rov nis er T-erT sa mar xSi. ise rom yvela dobli vi a, rad gan ~bernis~ jgu fis sabeW- sa beW da vi metad Tu nak le bad gvi an del da vebi Za li an axlos aris ibe ri ul lur- kompleq sSia aR mo Ce ni li. es un da gaiT- ji mi nis mra valwax nageb Tan, rom le bic va liswi non sa qarTve losa da aqe me ni dur aqe me ni duri glipti kis mog vi a no jgufs sam ya ros So ris ur Ti erTo bis Sem swav- Se ad ge nen [Boar dman J. 1970:322; ja va xiSvi- lelma mkvleva reb ma. li q. 2002:76] da Cven Zv.w. II sa u ku nesa da wi nam de ba re naS rom Si gan xilu lia sa- ax.w. I s-is da sawyiss Soris dro is mo nak ve- qar Tve los te ri to ria ze aR mo Ce nili TiT da va Ta ri ReT. aqe meni du ri glip ti kis mxo lod im por- amde nad, vfiq robT, rom ji miTis ska- tu li ni mu Se bi. calke mniSvne lo van Te- ra be oi di sa va ra u dod Zv.w. III sa u kuniT mas war mo ad gens saqar Tve lo Si, Zi riTa- Se iZ le ba da Ta riR des. dad mis aR mo sav leT nawil Si – Zveli qar- 6. ska ra be o i dis for mis, mci re zo mis Tlis - iberi is te ri to ria ze aR mo Ce ni li, sabeW da vi, rZisfe ri qalce do nisa, gam- sak maod mra valricx o va ni, mkvlevar Ta (m. Wvir va le zo le biT (g.k. № 1588, zo me bi: maq si mo va, m. lor Tqi fa niZe, i. ga go Si Ze, q. 15x13 mm, simaR le – 6 mm). sa va ra udod aR- ja va xiSvi li) mier ad gi lobriv na xe lavad mo Ce ni lia bolni sis ra i onSi. miCne u li glipti ku ri Zegle bi: liTo nis sa beW da vis brtyel pir ze ga mo sa xu- fa ra ki a ni beW de bi (Zv.w. IV-III ss. axalgo- lia xa xa da Re bu li lo mi, ro melic Tavs ri, yan Ca e Ti, tax ti Zi ri da sxv.) da lurji es xmis ra Rac cxo vels (Svels?). gamo sami nis mra val wax na ge bi (Zv.w. II s. – ax.w. I s. xu le ba ze da pi ru lia da brtyeli, fi gu- da sawyi si xani sa. mcxeTa- sam Tav ro, ne ron

91 -de re si, lo Wi ni, ur bni si, ar ka ne Ti da Ma xi mo va M.E. 1928: Gri ec his ch-per sis che Klein kunst in Kle- sxv.), rom le bic aqeme ni du ri wris provin- i nasi en nach den Per ser kri e gen. – AA, S. 649-678. Parpo la S. 1993: The Assyrian Tree of Life. – Jour nal of Near ci ul ibe ri ul naxe la vad un da iqnes miC- Eas ten Stu di es. Vol. 52, № 3, Chi ca go, p. 161-208. ne u li.L Po ra da E. 1952: On the Prob lem of Kas si te Art. – Ed. G.C. Mi- les, - Archa e olo gi ca Ori en ta lia in Memo ri am Ernst Her- zfeld. New -York, p. 179-187. Ric hter G. 1946: Greeks in Per si a. – Ame ri can Jo ur nal of li te ra tu ra: Archa e o logy, vol. 2, № 1, New -York, p. 15-80. Ric hter G. 1968: Engra ved Gems of the Greek and Etrus cans, afa qi Ze a., ni kola iS vi li v. 1996: mcxeTis war Ci ne- Lon don. bu li gan sas ve nebe li ax.w. III sa u ku ni sa – aklda- Seyrig N. 1952: Cac hets Archéméni des. - Ed. G.C. Mi les - ma 905. - mcxeTa XI. ar qe olo gi u ri kvleva- Zi e bis Archa e o lo gi ca Ori en talia im Me mo ri am Ernst Her zfeld. Se de ge bi, Tbili si, gv. 7-80. New -York, p. 195-203. lor Tqi fa ni Ze m. 1963:Ggvi a na qeme ni duri xa nis Vollen we i der M.C. 1967: Ca talo gue Ra i son ne des Sce a ux mcire a zi u li sa beWda vebis iberu li pi re bi – Cylin dres et Inta illes, vol. I, Gen éve. lur ji mi nis mra valwax na ga sa beWda vebi. – smgm, Wal ters H.B. 1926: Ca talo gue of the Engra ved Gems and Ca- № 6, gv. 134-154. me os. Gre ek, Etrus can and Ro man in the Bri tish Mu se um, ni ko la iS vi li v., gi unaS vi li g. 1995: ba iaTx e vi. - Lon don. mcxeTa X. ar qeo lo gi uri kvle va- Zi e bis Sede gebi, Tbili si, gv. .Q java xiSvi li q. 2002: lur ji minis mra valwax na ge bi. ilus traci e bis aR we rilo ba: – Zi e ba ni, @ 9, Tbili si, gv. 71-80. Джавахишвили К.А. 1975: Памятники глиптики городища tab. I. 1-2 – zoli a ni aqa tis cilin dru li sabeW da vi Урбниси. Автореферат диссертации на соискание sof. jo isub ni dan; 3-4 – qalce do nis -sa fi ri nis ученой степени кандидата исторических наук, ko nu su ri sa beWda vi sof. taxti Zi ri dan; 5-6 – Тбилиси. qal cedo nis pira midu li sabeW da vi mcxeTi dan Книпович Т. 1926: «Греко-персидские» резные камни mdidru li ak ldama № 905; 7-9 – qalce do nis Эрмитажа. – Гос. Эрмитаж сборник, вып. III, Ленинград, mra val wax na ga sa beWda vi mcxe Tidan, bai aTx e vi; с. 41-58. 10-11 – qalce do nis, mcire zomis ska rabe o i dis Луконин В.Г. 1977: Искусство Древнего Ирана, Москва. for mis sa beW da vi s. jimi Ti dan; 12-13 - qalce- Никулина М.Н. 1966: Малоазийская глиптика второй do nis, mcire zo mis ska rabe o i dis formis sa- половыни V-IV вв. до н.э. и проблема Восточно- beW da vi sava ra udod bol nisis r-nidan. греческого и «Греко-персидского» искусства. Автореферат диссертации на соискание ученой степени кандидата искусствоведческих наук, Москва. ПМИ. 1968: Искусство Древнего Востока. - Памятники мирового исскуства (под ред. Е.И. Ротенверга), Москва. AGDS. 1968: Anti ken Gem men in Deut schen Sam mlun gen. Band I, Te il 1, München. Boar dman J. 1968: Archa ic Gre ek Gems, Lon don. Bo ar dman J. 1970: Gre ek Gems and Finger Rings, Lon don. Boar dman J. 1990: Greco -o ri en tal Gems of the Helle nis tic Pe- ri od. - Deut sches Archäo lo gis ches Insti tut Akten des XIII Inter na tio na len. Kongres ses für Kla sis sche Archäo lo gi e, Ber lin, 1988, Me inz am Re in, p. 401. Bo ar dman J., Vol len wa i der M.L. 1978: Ca ta lo gue of the Engra ved Gems and Finger Rings, Oxford. Fur twängler A. 1900: Die Antiken Gem men, Band 3, Leip zig -Ber lin. Ja cob -Rost, Gar lach J. 1997: Die Stem pel si gel in Vor de ra si a- tis chen Mu se um, Ber lin. Knauß F. 1999: Boskdämon und Perse rin Unter suchun gen zur Iko nog rap hie und Chro no lo gie der Späten Grae co- per sis chen Glyptik. - Archäo lo gis che Mitte i lun gen aus Iran und Tu ran. Band 31, Ber lin, S. 161-189.

92 K. Javakhishvili I

93 go der Zi na ri ma niS vi li

da raqo is na mo sax la ri da sam xreT kav kasi is aqe me ni du ri xa nis is to ri is zo gi erTi sa kiTxi

sof. da ra qoi mdeba re obs qve mo qar- mo laS qre [masa la ni, 1907:15]. sof. da ra- TlSi, Tri a le Tis qedis samxreT kal Ta- qo i dan sof. winwya ro saken mima val gza ze, ze, wal kis muni ci pa li te tis te ri tori a- gvelfa rexas na sof la ri dan da savle TiT ze, q. wal ki dan 15 km-ze Crdi lo- da sav le- 50 m-is da ci le biT pale on tolo gi u ri Tis mimar Tu le biT (tab. I,1). Zegli mde ba re obs. aq 2003 wels cxenis sof lis mim de ba re te ri tori a ze ram- lu lo va ni Zva li aR moC nda, romlis asa ki de ni me arqe olo gi u ri obi eq tia da fiq- speci a liste bis az riT 1,5 mln. wliT un- si rebu li: Sua sa u kune e bis nasof la ri da ga ni sazR vros. da ra qo is namo sax la- Ffa re xa mdeba re obs soflis Crdi lo -aR- ris aR mo sav le TiT 2,5 km-is da ci le biT, mo sav leT nawil Si, wm. gior gis ek le si- sof. winwya rosTan ga iTxa ra sama ro va ni is garSe mo. aq ve Zve li sasaf la os naSTe- [Куфтин Б. 1941; menab de m., dav li a ni Ze c. bi Sei niSne ba, sadac yo fi la ada mia ne bi sa 1968]. sof. da raqo i dan sam xreT -aR mo sav- da sa oja xo in venta ris ga mo saxu le biT le TiT 2.0 km-is da ci le biT, sof. Taq -qi- Semku li saf la vis qvebi, oTx fila ze ki lisas kuT vnil mindor Si b. kuf tinma ad- qar Tu li war we re bi iyo Semor Ce ni li. am rean ti ku ri (a qe me ni du ri) xanis 70-mde ad gi lidan b. kuf tins asomTav ru li war- sa mar xi gaTx a ra (Куфтин Б. Дневник 1937 weriT Semku li qvis fi la wa u Ria (Куфтин года; Куфтин Б. Дневник 1938 года). ar aris Б. Дневник 1936 года:31; Куфтин Б. Дневник ga mo ricx u li, rom es sama ro va ni da raqo- 1936:13). soflis Crdi lo-aR mo sav leT na- is na mo sax la ris kuT vni li iyos. fare xas wilSi nasof la ris naSTe bi kar gad Cans sa maro va ni mde ba re obs aqeme nidu ri xa nis gzis Wril Si. ad gi lob rivi mo sax le oba na mo sax la ris Crdi lo e TiT 100 m-is da- mi u Ti Tebs, rom gzis gay va nisas ram de nime ci le biT, mSra li xe vis mar cxe na napir ze, ad gilze gvi ra bi ga moC nda. ro gorc Cans sadac aTi o de wlis win sa nasar simo ni an ma mSeneb lo bi sas dar ne bi da zi an da. er Ti Zv.w. XV-XIV ss-is ormo samar xi gaTxra. da rani 2007 wel sac aR moC nda. igi mde ba- da raqo is na mo sax la ri soflis aR more obs arsen da Ta maz so Ro i a nebis sakar- sav le TiT 400 m-is daci le biT, sof. win- mi da mo nakveT Si. ekle si is Crdilo- da sav- wya ro sa ken mima va li gzis pi ras, mSrali le TiT gvia ni brin ja os xanis sa ma ro va ni xe vis mar cxena napir ze mde ba re obs. dayo fi la ga mar Tu li (Куфтин Б. Дневник 1937 sax le ba ga Se ne bu li yo fi la zRvis do ni- года:137-138). sof. da ra ko vi dan Crdi lo - dan 1594-1600 m-is si maR le ze mci re qedis aR mo savle TiT 1.5 km-is da ci le biT sof. sam xreT ferdob ze, ro me lic md. qci is winwya ro sa ken mi ma va li gzis piras kidev mar jve na na pirs eb ji neba. na mo sax la ris er Ti na sof la ri a. Cve ni az riT es na sof- ar qe o lo gi u ri gaTx rebi 2008 wels, BP-sala ri Sua sa u kune e bis sof. gvelfa re xa qar Tve los da fi nan se biT saqar Tve los un da iyos. 1721 wlis aR we riT sof. gvel- erov nulma muze um ma Ca a ta ra. da sax le ba fa re xa Si iT vlebo da 1 meba tone (Sah- 2,5 heq tar ze yo fi la ga Se ne buli. ga iTxa- na vazxa ni), 8 ga mom Re bi da 2 bo ga no yma: ra mxo lod 300 kv.m. farTo bi, sadac 9 sax- ma masax li si oTara, paa taS vi li Ta ma za, li, 20 sa me ur neo or mo da 2 xaro ga mov- be ri aS vi li siymi a, mazi taS vi li vardi a, linda. eva ne zaS vi li zu raba, ter te raSvi li aru- sax li № 1 mdeba re obs XXVII nakve Tis Ti na, gi u naS vi li, iba Se raSvi li oqru a, me-4-9 kvad rateb Si, dam xro bi lia Crdi- bo ga no nas yi da molaS qre, boga no be Jua lo -aR mo sav le Ti dan samxreT -da sav le-

94 Ti sa ken. nage bo ba da zia ne bu lia xevis mi- lis da zi a ne bu li na wi li ad gilze da u to- er (tab. I,2; II). sax li xan Zris Se de ga daa ve bi aT da in te ri e ris Sem ci rebis xar jze ga nad gu re buli. dam wva ri fe nis sisqe 0.4 axali ked le bi amo uy va niaT (tab. IV, 1,2). am – 0.5 m-ia da dam wva ri ali zis, miwisa da Ze- dros sax lis Crdilo e Ti nawi li da ba li le bis naS Te bis sam do nes Se i cavs. ze da ked liT aris SemozR u du li. kede li Sed- done sax lis ia ta ki dan 0.4 m-is si maR le- ge ni lia cer ze da ye nebu li qvis fi le biT, zea da 0.15-0.20 m di a metris Zele bi sa gan ro melTa simaR le 0.30-0.70 m-s ud ris. Se- Sed ge ba. saSu a lo do ne ia ta ki dan 0.20 m-is mozR u du li ad gi lis far To bi 10 m2 Se- si maR le ze ga iw minda, ro me lic ze da do- ad gens. ama ve dros Cans ga nax le bu li sax- nis msgavs Zelebs Se i cavs. aq ve da fiqsir- lis iata kic. ad re, Se mozR udul ad gilSi da wvrili to te bi sa Tu wnele bis ana beW- moq ce u li nawi lic, qvis file biT yofi la de bi, ro mel Ta di a metri 0.03 m-s ar aRe- mo ge bu li, rome lic iata kis ga nax le bis ma te bo da. qveda done uSua lod ia tak ze Semdeg, Tixat kep ni li ia ta kis qveS moeq- da fiqsir da. aq ga mov le nili Zele bis di- ca. ax la da ge bu li kede li uSua lod eb- a metri 0.2-0.3 m-s ud ris. msxvili Ze le bi ji neba sax lis aR mo sav leT ke dels, Crdi- da fa ru li iyo to te bi sa Tu Zele bis 0.05- lo e Tis ke delTan ki isea ga mar Tu li, rom 0.08 m-is sis qis fe niT (tab. IV, 3). ro gorc mis gas wvriv ar se bul `merxs~ orad yofs Cans, saxls banu ri ga daxur va hqonda, ro- (tab. II,1). № 1 sax lis farTo bi da ax lo e- me lic sa va rau dod ey rdno boda ked lis- biT 52.6 m2 Se ad gens. inte ri e ri mar ti vi a, pi ra xis svetebs. saxlis ked le bi na ge bia da sav leT kuTxe Si Ru melia ga mar Tu li, di di da sa Su a lo zo mis qviT. na ge bobis sam xreT -da sav leT ke delze sa kur Txe ve- Crdi lo -aR mo savle Ti ked lis sigrZe 7.0 lia mid gmu li; Crdi lo eT ke dels, Ru me- m-i a, siga ne – 0.60 m. ked lis Se morCe ni li lis ga yo le biT, qviT aSe ne bu li da Ti xiT si maR le 1.20 m-ia, sa dac Se morCe ni lia ga da le si li mer xi miuy ve ba. ia ta kis er Ti qvis wyo bis 5 ri gi; Crdi lo-da savle Ti naxe va ri Ti xatkep nili a, me ore naxe va- ked lis sig rZec 7.0 m-i a, siga ne 0.5 m-s ud- ri qva fe ni lia nia. qva fe ni li Ziri Ta dad ris. misi da sav le Ti nawi li da zi a nebu lia. sax lis samxreT -aR mo sav leT nawil Si ga- am kedel zea mid gmu li Ru me li da ~mer- iw minda, da nar Ce ni far To bi Ti xa fe nil xi~. sam xreT -da savle Ti kede li yve la ze ia taks eka va. Rume lis naS Ti aR moC nda Zlie raa da zi a nebu li. misi Tav da pir ve- sax lis da sav leT kuTx es Tan. is zur giT li sig rZe 7.75 m un da yo fi liyo. qvis wyo- Crdi lo-da sav leT ke delze yo fi la mid- bis Se mor Ce ni li sig rZe 4.30 m-ia, siga ne gmu li. Ru melis zur gim xare ri yis ram de- ki 0.45 m. Crdi lo-aR mosav le Ti ked lis ni me qviT iyo amoy va nili. Rume li Zlie- sigrZe, ga da ke Te bam de 7,75 m yo fi la. sam- raa da zi a ne buli. mas Ta ro (~merxi~) eb ji- xreT -aRmo sav le Ti kedlis sig rZe 6.8 m-i- ne ba, ro me lic sax lis Crdi lo-da sav le- a, siga ne 0.4 m. Se mor Ce nili si maR le 0.95 Ti ked lis gas wvriv ga u mar TavT. ~mer xis~ m-s ud ris, sadac qvis wyo bis po li go na- Se morCe ni li sigrZe 4.40 m, siga ne – 0.36- lu ri oTxi rigia dar Ceni li. sam xre Ti da 0.60 m, simaR le 0.30-0.45 m-s ud ris. Ta- aR mo sav le Ti ked le bis kuTxe Si gaW ri lia ro qviTaa na ge bi, Se ma kav Si reblad Tixis ka ris Ri o bi (siga ne – 0.58 m). Sesas vlelis xsnaria ga mo ye ne bu li; zeda piri mo baT- sru lad gaTx ra ver mo xer xda, Tum ca Se- qa Se bulia da sax lis ke del Tan cera daa iZ le ba iT qvas, rom igi grZel ko ridors ale si li. sax lis sam xreT -da savleT kewar mo ad gens (tab. II,1,2). sax lis Crdi lo delTan, TiT qmis Sua na wilSi, ga iw minda nawi li, Crdi lo e Ti kuTxe da mimde ba re kargad da culi, wag rZe le bu li for mis Crdi loe Ti da aR mosav le Ti ked lis na wi- sa kur Txe ve li (sigrZe - 2.72 m, si ga ne - 1.12 li ad re ve, saxlis funqci o ni rebi sas Cans m, si maR le - 0. 48 m.). is qvi Ta da Tixi Taa da zi a nebu li. ga nax le bis dros Zveli ked- na ge bi. kon struq ci a Si, na pi rebTan, xis

95 Ze le bia Car Tu li. sakur Txe ve li alizis nda, ro go ric sax lis ia tak ze. Tumca, or- xsnari Taa Sele seli (tab. IV,3; VI,1,2,4). samo saxlis Ti xatkep ni li ia ta kiT iyo da- kur Txevlis aR mo savle Ti nawi li Ta nab- kon ser ve bu li. uf ro Zve li or mo e bi (№№ ra daa Caz ne qi li da kar gad mo le si li. aq, 15, 16) saxlis samxreT -da savle Ti ked lis cen tra lur nawil Si, da das tur da mcire qveS dafiq sir da (tab. II,2; III). zo mis Zabri sebu ri CaRrma ve ba (dm – 0. 22 № 2 da № 3 sax lebi Zlie raa da zi a ne- m), ro melsac qvebi aqvs Se mowy o bi li. sabu li. Tumca aq kar gad Cans namo sax laris kur Txevlis samxreT -da sav leT nawil Si, stra tig ra fi a. № 2 saxli (XX nakve Tis 6,9 Crdi lo- da sav le Ti mxri dan aqvs Tax Ca da XXVII nakve Tis 4,7 kvad ra te bi) mi Se ne- (1.16x0.40x0.30 m). sakur Txe vels Crdi lo- bu li yo fi la № 1 saxlze. saxlis Crdi- e Ti dan Ta ro (~merxi~) eb ji neba (1.36x0.34- lo-da sav le Ti, zur gis ked lis sig rZe 8.0 0.46x0.30 m), ro melic Ta visTa vad da sav- metri a, Crdi lo -aRmo sav le Ti kedlis Se- leT kedel zea midgmu li, Taro ze riyis morCe ni li nawi lis sigrZe 1.2 m-s, da sav- qvis sana ye bi iyo dawy o bi li. sa kur Txev- le Ti kedli sa ki 0.8 m-s udris. ked le bi lis aR mo sav le TiT, 1.3 m-is da So re biT, na ge bi yofi la fleTi li qviT. Semor Ce- ia takSi Ca Se nebu li xaro da fiqsir da (pi- ni lia wyo bis erTi ri gi (tab. II). inte riris dm – 0.84 m, Zi ris dm – 0.70 m, siR rme – e ri dan Semor Ce ni la Ti xat kep ni li da 0.84 m.). misi kedle bi bazal tis file bi Taa qva fe nili a ni ia ta kis mcire frag mente bi mo pir ke Te buli. ia takis file bi xaros da Ru melis naS Ti, rome lic ga mar Tu li ise fa ravda, rom ucxo Tvali saT vis Se- yo fi la Crdi lo -aRmo sav leT kuTx e Si. niR bu li iyo. sakur Txev lis ukan 0.80 m-is es sax li ufro Zve li a, vidre № 3 sax li, da So re biT, sam xre TiT ga iw minda sa mala- ro me lic № 2 sax lis dangre vis Semde gaa vi. is ga mar Tu lia filaq viT mo ge bu li sa- age buli. № 3 sax lis iata ki № 2 saxlis ia- reclis qveS. xa ro Si aR moC nda xis Zelis ta kis do nidan 0.48 – 0.64 m simaR le zea ga- ana beW di (sigrZe – 0.50-0.60 m-ia, dia met- mar Tuli (tab. II,III). ri – 0.30-0.40 m). Ze li sig rZiv, di a met rze № 3 sax li dan (XX nak ve Tis 6,9 kvad ra- iyo gaW ri li, Sua na wi li ki ise iyo amo- te bi) Semor Ce ni la misi Crdi lo e Ti, zur- Re bu li, rom varclis for ma hqon da mi- gis ke de li, aR mo sav le Ti da da savle Ti Re bu li. sa malav Si da fiqsi re bu li Zelis ked le bis frag menti. Crdi loe Ti ked lis naS Ti kar gad iyo dacu li. sama la vi qvis sigrZe 4.0 m-i a, da savle Ti kedlis Semor- fi liT orad iyo gayo fi li. saxlis Ti- Ce ni li sigrZe 3.0 m-s ud ris, aR mo sav le- xatkep nil ia tak ze mravlad da fiqsir da Ti sa ki 0.8 m-s. kedle bi nage bi yo fi la sxva das xva zo misa da for mis Tixis Wur- fleTi li qviT. Semor Ce ni lia wyo bis 1-4 Wlis frag mentebi. № 1 saxlSi aR mo Ce ni- rigi (tab. II,III). inte ri e ri dan Se morCe- li masa le bi dan gan sakuT re biT aR sa niS- nilia Tixat kep ni li ia ta ki da Rume lis na via sa kur Txe velze, mis win da ~merxze~ naS Ti. pre para ci is Se de gad ia ta kis ori aRmo Ce nili ar te faq te bi, ro melTa sa ri- fe na da fiqsir da. ia ta kis ori ve do ne № tu alo da niSnu le ba eWvs ar iw vevs: Ro ris 14 or mos fa ravs. Ru me li ga mar Tu lia fa lan gisgan dam za de bu li 12 amu le ti. Crdilo -aR mo sav leT kuTxe Si. is Zli e raa Zvlis nivTe bi: qar qa Sis na wi li; lu lo va- da zi a ne bu li, Se morCe ni la Ter mo i zi lani Zvlis nivTi, kar gad gap ri a le bu li ze- ci is qve da do ne, ro mel sac Zli e ri cecx- da piriT; Txis rqa, od nav gapri a le buli lis kva li etyo ba. № 2 saxlis Crdilo e Ti ze da piriT. in te ri e ris gaTxri sas uf ro ke de li da № 3 sax lis Crdi loe Ti kede li ad reu li fe ne bic da das tur da. ker Zod, er Tma ne Ti sa gan sul ra Rac 1.90 met ri Taa sakur Txevlis win ga iw minda or mos naS- da ci le bu li, rac imaze mi u Ti Tebs, rom Ti, rom lis dm – 0.92 m, siR rme – 0.20-0.30 № 3 saxli TiT qmis mTli a nad fa rav da № 2 m-i a. mas Si ise Ti ve sa xis ke rami ka aR moC- saxls. maTi Crdi lo-aR mo sav le Ti kuTx-

96 e e bi TiT qmis er Tma neTs em Txveva. ma Sin delzea miSe ne buli. mer xis (sig rZe – 4.60 ro de sac № 2 sax lis Crdi lo-da savleT m; si ga ne – 0.30 m; si maR le – 0.20 m; ze da da da № 3 saxlis Sesa ba mis kuTx es So ris da- Si da piri Ti xi Taa Se le si li. amave do ni- ci le ba 2.5 m-i a. № 2 saxlis qva fe nili a ni sa un da iyos sax lis sam xreT -aR mo savleT ia ta kis qveS ga iTxa ra № 1 da № 8 or mo e- na wilSi aR mo Ce ni li qvis fi le biT Sedge- bi. № 2 saxlis ga mar Tvis dros da zi a nebu- ni li ~sakur Txe ve li~ (0.60X0.60 m, si maR- la № 1 xaro. na mo sax la ris am mo nak veT Si le – 0.50 m). na ge bo bis yve la ze adre u li (C da fiqsi rebu li stratig ra fia gviC vnebs, do ne) Crdi loe Tis kede li (sigrZe – 7.40 rom am adgil ze jer №1 da № 8 or mo e bi m; si ga ne – 0.40 m) dam xrobi lia aR mo sav- ga u mar TavT, Sem deg № 1 da № 2 xa ro e bi, leT -da savle Tis mi mar Tu le biT, na ge bia sul zeda do nes ki № 3 sax li Se e saba me ba. ba zal tis qvi Ta da TixiT. Se morCe ni lia № 3 saxli № 2 saxlis dan grevis Sem de gaa wyo bis 3 ri gi. № 4 sax lis far To bi da ax- ga mar Tu li. aq ve un da iTqvas, rom № 3 saxlo e biT 50 m2 Se ad gens. sax lis in te ri e ri lis zur gis ke de li gada dis №@ 2 xaro ze, mar ti vi a. C do nis ia ta kic Ti xat kepni li a. Ta nac ise, rom xaros qvis kede li Car Tu- na ge bobis sam xreT -aR mo savleT na wilSi lia sax lis ked lis kon struq ci a Si. sax- ga iw minda ba zal tis di di da saSu a lo zo- lis Crdi lo -aRmo sav le Ti kuTxe ki № 1 mis qvis file biT mo ge buli zRve (sigrZe xaros kedels fa ravs. amde nad, gan sxva ve- – 4.20 m; siga ne – da axl. 2.60 m). Crdi lo- biT № 2 saxli sagan, rom lis mSe neblo bis da sav le Ti na wi lis gaw mendi sas ga moC nda dro sac № 1 xaro Zli er da zi anda, № 3 sax- Ti xis aba za niseb ri (?) sakur Txe ve li (mi si lis mSeneb leb ma xa ro e bis kon struq cia zo me bi a: sig rZe – 1.60m; siga ne – 0.60-0.70m; Ta vis sasar geblod ga mo i ye nes (tab. II,III). bor tis sis qe – 0.20 m). mas wagrZe le buli № 4 sax li (XX nak ve Tis me-4,5,7,8 kvad- ova lis for ma aqvs. gar Se mo da ba li bor- ra te bi) dam xro bi lia Crdi lo e Ti dan sam- ti Se mo uy ve ba (tab. IV,1). sa kur Txevlis xre Ti sa ken (tab. II). saxls Crdi lo e Ti dan Crdilo e Ti na wi li Se di o da (B do nis) ga- № 5 saxli esazR vre ba. sax lis gaTx ri- nax le bu li ked lis qveS da ebji nebo da (C sas 3 do ne gamo i yo. A do nes mie kuT vneba do ne) adre ul kedels. am de nad, C donis Crdi lo- da savleT kuTxis na wi li (sigrZe Crdi lo e Ti ke de li da Tixis sa kur Txe ve- – 2.49 m, si ga ne – 0.40-0.70 m). ke de li na ge- li Ta nadro u li a. sayu radR e boa is faqti, bia ba zal tis qvi Ta da TixiT. Semor Ce ni- rom mog vi a no fenis (B do ne) ga mar Tvi sas lia sa Tav sos Ti xat kep ni li ia ta ki da qva- da uzi a nebi aT ad reu li (C do ne) sa kur- fe ni lis fragmen te bi. amave dones un da Txe ve li, ro gorc Cans, mogvi a no peri- ekuT vno des nage bo bis dasav le Ti nawil- od Si mox da na ge bobis Secvla- ga nax le ba. Si ga mov le ni li qvis fi le biT Sedge ni li sax lis Crdilo -aR mo savleT kuTxe Si aR- oTxkuTxa sa kur Txe ve li (sigrZe – 0.80 m, moC nda or ganyo fi le bi a ni puris sacx obi siga ne – 0.50 m), ro melze dac ido ba zal- Rume li, is dazi a nebu lia (Semor Ce ni li tis xelsaf qva vi. A donis (ze da) ked lis Rumelis zo me bi a: sigrZe – 0.80m; siga ne – mox snis Semdeg nage bo bis Crdilo- da sav- 0.65m; si maR le – 0.24 m. Ru me li Crdi lo- leT kuTxe Si ga iw minda da savle Ti ked- e Ti ked li dan daci le bulia – 0.20m; aR- lis Se mor Ce nili na wi li (B do ne). es ke- mo savle Ti kedli dan 0.10 m). nage bia qviT de lic ba zal tis qviTa da Ti xiTaa na ge bi Ti xa ze. da zi a nebu lia ori ve gan yo fi le- (sigrZe – 2.10 m; si ga ne – 0.25-0.40 m; si maR- ba. sacxo bis ia tak ze ga iw minda Ti xis Wur- le – 0.60 m) Semor Ce ni lia qvis wyo bis 3 Wlis nate xe bi, romle bic Termo i zo lari gi. B do nis ia ta ki Ti xatkep nili a, alag ci i saT vis iyo gankuT vnili. Ru mels pi- -alag Cans dam wva ri xis la qe bi. B dones rim xare da sav le TiT hqonda mi mar Tu li. aseve mi e kuT vneba Tixa -a li zi Ta da qviT qvis fi la fe nilis Crdi lo e Ti na wi lis na gebi mer xi, ro melic Crdi loe Tis ke- ala ge bi sas ga moCnda qvis fi le biT Sed ge-

97 ni li qvayu Ti - ~sa kur Txe ve li~, ro me lic a, si ga ne 1.2 m-s udris. es ad gi li, ro gorc ora daa ga yofi li (0.60X0.40 m; 0.70X0.30 m). Cans, sa re cels warmo ad gens. is ufro ma- is C do nes Se e saba meba da B donis ~sa kur- si u ri qve bi Taa Sedge ni li, vid re ia ta kis Txevlis~ ana lo gi u ria. sax lis ia ta kis fi le bi a. sax lis centra lur na wilSi, od- aRe bis Sem deg ram de ni me same ur neo or mo nav da sav le TiT, ka ris Ri o bis mo pir da pi- da fiqsir da (№№ 9, 12, 13, 18, 19 or mo e bis red qvis fi le biT Sed ge ni li sakur Txe ve- aR weri lo ba). sax lis sam xreT -aRmo sav- lia ga mar Tu li. is qviT mo ge bu li ia ta kis leT na wilSi zRves qvafe ni li ga da di oda ki de ze dgas. mi si fu Zis zo mebia 0.7X0.9 m. №№ 13, 19 sa me ur neo or mo ze. zRves si ax- si maR le 0.35 m-i a. sa kur Txe ve li zur gi- lo ves da dastur da aseve №№ 18 da № 9 sa- a ni a. wi na mxare da baqa ni, sa dac cecxli me ur neo or mo. sax ls aR mo savleT ke del- en To, iata ki dan 0.2 m si maR le ze a, zur gis ze, ga re Ta mxridan midgmu li hqon da ase- mxa ris simaR le ki 0.15 m-ia. sakur Txe ve- ve qvis fi le bi sa gan Sed ge nili moz rdi li li sam xre Ti mxridan 0.4X0.4X0. 12 m zo mis qva yu Ti (sig rZe – 1.30 m; siga ne – 0.80 m; si- qvis fi liTaa SemozR u du li (tab. IV,4). maR le – 0.6 m; tab. II). sax lis mar cxena, Crdi lo -aRmo sav leT sax li № 5 mdeba re obs XX nak ve Tis kuTxe Si or ganyo fi le bi a ni puris sacx- 1,2,4,5 kvad rateb Si. dam xro bi lia Crdi- obi Ru melia gamar Tuli. fa sa dis sig rZe lo- da sav leT - sam xreT -aRmo sav le- 1.3 m-ia, si maR le 0.75 m, Rume lis siga ne 0.9 Tis mimar Tu le biT. sax li mar TkuTxe- m-ia. Rume li qvis fi le bi Ta da alizi Taa dis for mi sa a. kedle bi nage bia ba zal tis nage bi, ga da xu ru li iyo qvis erTi a ni fi- qviT. Sema kav Si re bel masa las Ti xa war mo- liT, ro e lic eyrdno boda ver ti ka lu- ad gens. sax lis kedle bi kar ga daa Semor- rad Cad gmul qvis sam fi las. safa sa do Ce nili, misi da savle Ti kedlis sigrZe 6 mxa ris qve da na wi li amo Se ne bu lia qvis metri a, siga ne – 0.40 m. ked lis centra- pata ra fi le biT. sa cecxle da sacx obi lur na wilSi gaW rilia 0.80 m siga nis ka ris ganyo fi le be bis iata ki Ti xi Taa mo le si- Ri obi. Crdi lo e Ti kede li od nav defor- li. sacecx lis centrSi qvis di di fi laa mire bu lia. mi si sig rZe 4.40 m-ia, siga ne Cad gmu li. Ru melis sacxob na wilSi ga ke- – 0.30-0.50 m-s So ris mer ye obs. ked lis Te bu li Wri li gviC ve nebs, rom qveda do ne Se mor Ce nili simaR le 0.70 m-i a. Se mor Ce- Ti xiT da riyis wvri li qvi Taa Sevse bu li. ni lia qvis wyo bis sami ri gi. aR mo sav le- es done ga da le silia aliziT, ro melzec Ti ked lis sigrZe 6.30 m-i a, si ga ne – 0.40 sxva dasxva zo mi sa da for mis kera mi kis m. Semor Ce ni li maqsi malu ri si maR le 0,70 fragmen te bia dawy obi li. Ru melSi am teq- m-s ud ris. Se mor Ce nilia qvis wyo bis sani kiT ga ke Te bu li Termo i zo la ci is sa mi mi rigi. sam xre Ti ked lis sigrZe 4.90 m-i a; done da fiqsir da (tab. IV,4; V). sax lis sam- siga ne – 0.45 m; Se mor Ceni lia qvis wyo bis xreT nawil Si, sarec lis qveS 1.2X0.8X0.35 erTi ri gi. ked lis aR mosav le Ti nawi li m zo mis qvis fi le bi sa gan Sedge ni li ~sada zi a ne bu lia. № 5 sax lis samxre Ti ke- ma la vi~ ga mov linda. № 5 sax lis gaTxram de li uSua lod № 4 saxlis Crdilo eT ke- gviCve na, rom is ga mar Tu lia № 4 saxlis del zea ga mar Tu li. № 5 saxli № 4 saxlis dan grevis Semdeg. ase ve ga irkva, rom am dan grevis Semde gaa ga mar Tu li (tab. II; far Tob ze uf ro ad re ori same ur neo IV,4). sax lis in te ri e ri kar ga daa Se morCe- or mo yofi la gamar Tu li. uSua lod sax- ni li. Sesas vlelis mar cxena mxa res ia ta ki lis Se sas vlelSi da fiq sir da № 17 or mo, Ti xat kep ni li a, marjve na mxa res ki bazal- ro melsac nawi lob riv fa ravs sax lis da- tis file biT aris mo ge bu li. fi laqnis sav le Ti ke de li. or mo Si ar te faq te bi ar erTi na wi li 1.3 m sigrZe ze Ti xatkep nili da fiqsi rebu la, ami tom misi da Ta ri Re ba ia ta kis done ze a, Sem deg ki 0.2-0.3 m simaR- Wirs. rac See xe ba № 10 or mos, is moq ce- lis sa fe xu ria. Se maR le bis sigrZe 2.5 m-i-

98 u lia sax lis Crdi lo eTi kuTx is qveS. mis simaR lis da 0.05 m siga nis bor ti Semo uy- Tav zea ga mar Tuli № 5 saxlis Rume lic. ve ba. sacx ob da sacecx le ganyo fi le bebs sax li № 6 mde ba reobs XX nak ve Tis me- So ris ba zal tis qvis sve tia aR mar Tu li. 2, 3, 6 kvad rateb Si. ga iTxa ra na wi lobriv. mi si si maR le 0.5 m-i a, dia metri 0.23 m. saga mov le ni lia saxlis da sav le Ti na wi li. cecxle ganyo fi le bis Zi ri sax lis iata- ked le bi na ge bia fleTi li qviT. Se ma kav- kis do neze a. fa sa dis mxa res, ze moT aR- Si reblad Tixis xsna ria ga mo ye ne bu li. we ri li svetis sa piris pirod qvis meo re da sav le Ti ke de li mTlia nad ga mov linda. sveti dgas, rom lis simaR le 0.35 m-i a, di- mi si sigrZe 6.2 m-ia, si gane 0.4 m, Semor Ce- a metri 0.18 m-i a. Rume lis mTlia ni sigrZe ni li si maR le 1.4 m-s ud ris, ro me lic qvis 2.0 m-ia, si ga ne 1.3 m, saer To si maR le 0.9 m. wyo bis 10-11 rigs Sei cavs. Crdilo e Ti ke- sax li № 7 mde ba re obs XX nak ve Tis mede li nawi lob riv, 2.0 m sig rZe ze gamov- 3,6 kvad rat Si. warmo ad gens me-6 saxlis linda. mi si Semor Ce ni li si ga ne 0.4 m-s, nawils, ro melTa nac ze moT nax sene bi Ri- simaR le 1.8 m-s ud ris, sa dac qvis wyo bis obi Taa da kav Si re bu li. ga iTxa ra saxlis 9-10 ri gia Se mor Ce nili. sam xreT ke del- da sav le Ti nawi li (tab. II, III). sax lis ked- Si ka ris Ri o bia gaW rili. kedlis sigrZe le bi nage bia qviT. Se ma kav Si reblad Ti xaa da sav le Tis ked lidan Ri o bamde 2.4 m-ia. ga mo ye nebu li. da sav le Ti kedlis sigrZe ked lis si ga ne 0.5 m-i a, Se morCe nili si- 4.3 m-i a, si ga ne 0.4 m, si maR le 1.25 m, ro me- maR le 1.4 m-s ud ris, ro melic qvis wyo- lic qvis wyobis 9 rigs Sei cavs. sam xre Ti bis 7 rigs Sei cavs (tab. II, III). in te ri e ris ked lis ga mov le ni li sigrZe 3.4 m-i a. ked- mxo lod nawi li ga iTxa ra. ar se bu li mo na- lis siga ne 0.5 m-s, Semor Ce ni li si maR le ki ce mebis mixed viT saxls Ti xatkep nili ia- 1.0 m-s ud ris, ro melic qvis wyo bis 7 rigs ta ki hqo nia, ro melic miwis Ta na med ro ve Se i cavs. № 7 sax li ram denjer me Cans ga da- ze da piri dan 3.0 m siR rmeze da fiqsir da. ke Te buli. samxre Ti ke de li or je raa gada savle Ti ked lis gaswvriv 2.8 m sigrZi- nax le bu li. da savle Ti ke de lic or je raa sa da 1.0 m si ga nis ~mer xia~ ga mar Tu li. ga nax le buli. mog vi a nebiT is im de nad da- mis win, ia ta kis na wi lic qvis file bi Taa zi a nebu la, rom mis nacvlad axa li kede- mo ge bu li (siga ne 0,6 m). ~merxze~, sax lis li amo uy va ni aT, ro melic Zve lisa gan 1.2 sam xreT -da sav leT kuTxe Si Ti xis or yu ra m da ci le biT ga umar TavT. axali ked lis der gi id ga (tab. IX, 44). ~merxis~ win, Ru me- sigrZe 3.6 m-i a, si ga ne 0.4 m-ia. Semor Ce nili dan 2.0 m-is daci le biT, ia tak Si ver tili simaR le 0.7-0.8 m-s ud ris. Zvel da axal ka lu rad Cad gmu lia di di zo mis xelsaf- ked lebs So ris moq ce ul far Tob Si ali- qva vi. misi xilu li na wi lis si maR le 0.38 ziT na ge bi sakur Txe ve li da fiqsir da. sa- m-i a. sax lis da sav leT kuTx e Si Ru me lia kur Txe ve li uSua lod ke del zea mid gmu- ga mar Tu li. is ba zal tis didi zo mis fili. ked lis es nawi lic ali zi Taa Sele si- le bi Taa Sed ge nili. ga da xu ru li yo fili. sa kur Txevlis saer To sigrZe 1.8 m-i a, la er Ti, di di qvis fi liT. fa sadis mar- si ga ne 1.0 m-s ud ris. misi samxre Ti, marcxe na mxa res ba zal tis di di fi la dgas. cxe na nawi li da zi a ne bu lia. Se mor Ce ni lia is da sav le Tis kedel zea mib je ni li. misi aliziT Sele si li qvis er Ti fila, ro me- simaR le 0.6 m-ia, siga ne 0.4 m-i a. mas ze iyo lic sakur Txe vels sam xre Ti dan sazR- day rdno bi li ga da xur vis fi la, romlis vravs, da Ti xiT mo le si li sakur Txevlis sisqe 0.16 m-ia. sa fa sado mxa res, sacxo bi ia ta kis nawi li. Crdi lo-da savleT kuTx- gan yo fi le bis win 0.6 sig rZis da 0.3 si maR- e Si ba zal tis qvisa gan damza de buli ja mi lis qvis fi laa Ca Se nebu li. saxlis iata- id ga. sakur Txevlis mar jve na na wi li uke- ki dan am done zea sacx o bis Ziri. sacxo bi Te sadaa Se mo naxu li. is qvis mcire zo mis gan yo fi le bis Ziri ali zis sqe li fe ni- fi le bi Taa nage bi, rom le bic alizi Taa Taa mo le si li, ro melsac garSe mo 0.07 m ga da le si li. centra lur nawil Si cecx-

99 li saT vis CaR rma ve baa mowyo bi li, romlis or mo grun tSia CaW ri li. isini sxva das xva sigrZe 0.43 m-ia, si ga ne 0.25 m, siRrme 0.12 zo mi sa a, Tumca for miT erTna i ria (pir- m. sa cecxle ganyo fi le bis ori ve mxares Tan viw ro a, Ziri sa ken ki Tanda Tan far- ba zal tis xel saf qva ve bi isea Ca Se nebu li Tov de ba). xa ro e bic grun tSia CaW rili, im alizSi, rom ori ve maT ga nis samu Sao pi- gan sxa ve biT, rom maTi ked le bi qviT nage- ri kar gad Cans. mesa me xelsaf qva vi sax lis bi kedle bi Taa amoy va ni li (tab. II). ked lis mxa res, sa cecxles ki de ze, ce ra- arte faq te bi. namo sax lar ze aR mo Ce- daa da ye ne buli. misi sa mu Sao pi ri sax- nili ar te faq te bis umrav le so bas Ti xis lis in te ri e ri sa ken aris mimar Tuli. №№ WurWe li warmo ad gens. ke ra mika mra val- 6,7 sax le bis gaTx ri sas, garda ze moT aR- ricx ovne bi Ta da mra valfe rov ne biT ga- niSnu li re kon struq ci i sa Tu Seke Te bis mo ir Ce va. WurWle bis erTi jgu fi gan le- kva lisa, ufro ad re u li fe nis naS Te bic qi li Tixi sa a, Txelked li a nia da Carxzea da fiqsir da. № 6 da № 7 saxle bis gamyo- dam za de bu li. ga mom wva ria Sa vad. me ore fi ked lisa da da ma kav Si re be li ka ris Ri- jgufis ke ra mikac kar gad ganle qi li Ti- o bis qveS qvis kedlis wyo ba ga mov linda. xi sagan aris damza de bu li, Txelke ci- ase ve Zveli ked lis naS Ti da fiqsir da № a nia da wiT la daa ga mow va ri. am jgufis 7 sax lis qva fe nili a ni ia ta kis qve Sac. es ke ra mi kis ze da pi ri karga daa da mu Sa ve- struq tu re bi Cven Se us wav le li dav to- bu li – gap ri a le bu lia an Sem ku lia re- veT, rad gan maT gamo sav le nad miwis di di li e fu ri or na mentiT. aseTi ke ra mi kis masis aRe ba iyo sa Wi ro, ri si saSu a le bac nawi li wiTe li saRe ba vi Taa Se Rebi li, an eq spedi cias ar hqon da. mo xa tulia (tab. VII; VIII,7,13,18,35,42). Ti- sax li № 8 mde ba reobs XXVII nak ve Tis 1 xis Wur We li, da niSnu le bis mi xed viT, kvad rat Si. № 1 sax lis Crdilo e Ti kuTx is sam Zi ri Tad jgufad iyo fa: 1. sa me ur- pre pa raci is dros ga mov linda qva fe nine o; 2. samza reu lo; 3. sufris. sa meur neo lis naS Ti. qva fe ni li war mo ad gens mcire Wur Wlebs warmo ad gens qo co da der gi mo e dans, ro me lic Sed ge nilia qvis file- (tab. IX,1-27,4243,46,47). samza reu lo Wur- biT. mo e da ni № 1 sax lis Crdilo- da sav- Wels mi e kuTvne ba – qoTa ni, qi la, ko Wo- leTi ked lidan 1.5 m-iTaa da ci le bu li da bi (tab. IX,38-40,44,45,49,50), ba dia (tab. ga saTx rel far Tob Si Sedis. is, Cvens mi er VIII,36,41,46,48-53). am jgu fis yvela Wur- gaTx ril ar cerT nage bobas Tan ar aris Wels au ci leblad etyo ba cecxlis kva- da kav Si rebu li, amitom piro bi Tad № 8 li. SeiZ le ba iTqvas, rom ase Ti WurWle bi sax li ewo da. Tum ca, un da aRi niSnos, rom mxo lod sam za re ulo da niSnu le bis iyo. is SeiZ le ba № 7 sax lTan iyos da kav Si re- suf ris Wur Wels mie kuT vneba – do qi da buli (tab. II, III). xe la da (tab. IX,28-36,41,48), ja mi, fi a la sax li № 9 mdeba re obs XXVII nak ve Tis (tab. VIII,1-32,37-40). li To nis ia ra Ri namo- me-7 kvad ra tis samxreT -aR mo sav leT nasax larze mci re rao de no biT aR moC nda: wilSi, Zlie raa da zi a ne bu li. Semor Ce ni- № 4 sax lSi rkinis ori da na da fiqsir da. lia ked lis mcire frag menti da qvis fi- ori ve Zli e raa da Jan gu li. № 5 sax lSi lebiT Sed ge ni li sakur Txe ve li. № 9 sax- rkinis sa te xi, № 6 sax lSi rkinis Re raki li midgmu li yo fi la № 1 saxlze. gegmis (tab. XI,1), № 7 saxlSi rkinis da nis ta ri. mi xedviT № 9 sax li № 2 saxlis peri met- qvis ia ra Re bi namo sax lar ze gaTx ril yve- rSic eq ce va. Tu da vuSvebT, rom gansa xil- la sax lSi da fiqsir da. isini Ziri Ta dad ve li mo nak ve Ti № 2 saxls ekuTvnis, ma Sin tufis, ba zal tis da ri yis qvisa ga naa dam- № 2 saxlis sigrZe, Crdilo eT -sam xre Tis za de bu li. iS vi a Tad gvxvdeba pemzi sa gan xaz ze 7.5 m iqne bo da. na mo sax lar ze sax- damza de buli ca le bi. sa me ur neo da niS- lebis gar da ga iTxa ra qviT amo Se nebu li nu le bis ia ra Re bi dan gvxvdeba sana ye bi, ori xa ro da oci sa meur neo or mo. yvela xelsaf qva ve bi da sas rese bi. samka u le bi

100 namo sax lar ze mci re ra ode no biT aR moC- si a. am de nad, Se iZ le ba iT qvas, rom Ca moT- nda. № 1 sax lSi brinja os sama ju ri, mini- vlili obi eq te bi Ta nad ro u lia da erT se buri pas tis mZivi da Ti xis saki de bi da- kul tu rul fe nas mie kuT vneba, ro me lic fiqsir da. № 4 sax lSi ki sar di onis mZi vi ram de nime sam Se neblo do nes Se i cavs. ze- ga mov linda. № 5 saxlSi aR moC nda brinja- da fenis ramde nime sam Se neblo do ne ze os sakin Zi, xo lo № 6 sax lSi – qvis sa ki- sax le bis stra tig rafi ac mi uTi Tebs. mag. di. Zvlis na ke To be bi dan gan sa kuTre bul №№ 2,3 saxle bi sa da №№ 1,2 xa ro e bis, Ses- yu radR e bas iqcevs qarqa Sis na wi li. aR sa- wav lam gviC ve na, rom № 3 saxli № 2 sax lis niSna via cxo ve lis lulo va ni Zvali sagan dangre vis Semdeg aris ga mar Tuli; № 3 da Txis rqisa gan dam za debu li sa meur neo sax li ki № 1 da № 2 xa ro eb zea ga mar Tu li; da niSnu le bis (sap ria le be li ?) iara Re bi. № 5 sax li № 4 sax lis dangre vis Sem de gaa ase ve sa yu radRe boa Ro ris fa lange bi saga mar Tu li. № 5 sax lis samxre Ti ke de li gan damza de bu li amule te bi. № 4 sax lis Crdi lo eT, zur gis ke del zea Zeg lis stra tig ra fi a. da ra ko vis na- age bu li; № 4 saxli ram denjer me ga da u ke- mo sax la ri or kul tu rul fe nas da ram- Te bi aT. Crdi lo- da sav le Ti kuTxe sam jer de nime sam Se neblo ho rizonts Se i cavs. Cans ka pita lu rad Seke Te bu li (ga mov le- ze da fena sakul to, sacx ov rebel, sa meni lia sami do ne, ix. saxlis aR we ri loba). ur neo na ge bo bebsa (xaro e bi) da sa me ur- Zeg lis Ta ri Ri. da ra ko vis na mo sax- neo or mo e bis na wi liTaa war mod ge ni li. lar ze mo po ve bu li masa le bis anali zi, qve da fe nas same ur neo or mo e bis di di ro me lic Cvens mier ad re Ses wav lili nawi li mie kuT vne ba (tab. II, III). namo sax- Ta nad ro u li ma sale bis for ma lur-ti- la ris stra tig ra fia gviCve nebs, rom sa- po lo gi ur da stilis tur ana lizebs ey- meur neo or moe bis abso lu tu ri um rav- rdno ba [na ri ma niSvi li g., Sat be raSvi li leso ba saxle bis ga mar Tvamdea gaW rili. v. 2002; Нариманишвили Г. 1991; Na rima niš vi li mag. № 1 sax lis dasav le Ti kede li № 15 da G. 2000; Na ri manis hvi li G., Shat be rashvi li V. 2004]. № 16 ormo e bis Tav ze gada dis. № 2 sax lis da ra ko vis na mo sax laris qve da fe nis sa- ia ta kis qveS № 1 da № 8 sa meur neo or mo- meur neo ormo eb Si aR mo Ce nili Tixis e bi ga iTxa ra. isini da kon ser ve buli iyo WurWlis Ziri Ta di na wi li Sava daa ga mom- sax le bis qva fe ni lia ni da Tixat kepni li wva ri, ro melTa ze da pi ri gap ri a le bu li ia ta ke biT; № 3 sax lis qveS - № 20 or mo, № an nakaw ri or namen ti Taa Sem ku li (tab. 4 saxlis ia ta kis qveS № 9, 12, 13, 18, 19 or- X,1-17,49,50; tab. XI,4,6,8-18,23). mrav lad mo e bi ga iTx a ra; № 5 sax lis qveS - № 10, 17 gvxvdeba uxeSke ci a ni, xeliT na Ze wi ta- or mo e bi. № 5 sax lis Crdi lo -aRmo sav le- fi se bu ri Wur Wlebi (tab. X,21,25,28,31,38; Ti kuTxe ga da dis № 10 or mos Tav ze, ise XI,42). or mo e bis ke rami ka saxleb Si aR mo Ce- rom or mos did na wils № 5 saxlis kuTx- ni li masa le bi sagan gan sxvavde ba ro gorc e Si ga mar Tuli Ru me li fa ravs. xaro e- ke cis struq tu riT, ise gamow vis teq ni- bic saxleb ze ufro ad reu li Cans. ase Ti kiT, for miTa da or namen tiT. or mo eb Si das kvnis sa fuZvels iZle va namo sax lar- aR mo Ce nili ke ra mi kis for ma da or na men- ze da fiqsi rebu li stra tig rafi a. mag. № ti rkinis far To aT vi se bis xana Si gav rce- 1 xa ro CaW ri li aqvs № 2 saxls. № 1 da № le bul Ti xis WurWel Tan did msgavse bas 2 xa ros kedleb ze ki № 3 sax lis Crdi lo- am JRav nebs. aR saniS na via isic, rom or- e Ti, zur gis ke de li ga da dis. Tumca aR- mo e bi praq ti kulad ar Sei ca ven wiTlad sa niSna vi a, rom xa ro e bi dan mo po ve bu li ga mom wvar ke ra mikas (gar da № 10 ormo si, ma sale bi (tab. XI,2,3,20,30,32,35,41) № 10 tab. X,20). sax lebSi aR mo Ce ni li ke rami ka sa meur neo or mo Si aRmo Ceni li ke ra mi kis mkveTrad gan sxvavde ba or mo eb Si aR mo Ce- identu ria (tab. X,20,24,45). es ke ra mi ka ki ni li ke ra miki sa gan. sax le bis ar te faq te- sax lebSi da fiqsi rebu li kera mikis msgav- bis ab so lu tu ri umrav le so ba wiTla daa

101 ga mom wva ri. maTi na wi li SeRe bi li an mo xa- Tis stili; 4) samTav ros stili [Nari manis- tu lia wi Te li saRe ba viT. gvxvdeba TeTri hvi li G., Shat be rashvi li V. 2004]. sam kuTxe de bis an gobiT mo xa tu li Wur Wlebic. da ra ko- sti lis mo xatu li kera mi ka saqar Tve los vis na mo sax lar ze mo pove bu li masa le bi- te ri tori a ze pir ve lad qve mo qar TlSi dan gan sakuT rebul yuradR e bas iqcevs b. kuf ti nis mier sof. kuS Ci Si iq na aR mowi Teli sa Reba viT SeRe bi li da moxa tu li Ce ni li [Куфтин Б. 1948:7-10], ro me lic da- ke rami ka. ase Ti sti lis kera mikis gav rce- ra ko vis na mo sax lari dan xuTi ode kilo- le ba aqe me nidu ri kul tu ris gav le niT metri Taa da ci le bu li. XX s-is 50-i a ni aris ax snili [daw vri le biT ix. nari ma niS- wlebi dan mo xa tuli kera mi kis mra va li vi li g. 1993; na ri ma niSvi li g. 1994; na ri- ni mu Si aR moC nda. ga iTxa ra sama rov nebi da ma niSvi li g., ximSi aS vi li k. 1993; maxa ra Ze mra val fe ni a ni namo sax la rebi (Cxik vTa, z., nari maniS vi li g. 2001; na rima niSvi li TeT riwy a ro, Savsay da ra, eco, beS Ta Se ni, g., Satbe raS vi li v. 2002; Нариманишвили uf lisci xe, sa madlo, nasta ki si, ci xi a go- Г. 1991; Na ri ma nišvi li G. 2000]. mo xatu li kera, varsi ma anTka ri da sxv.), sa dac wiT lad rami kis uZ ve le si nimu Se bi sa qar Tve los mo xatu li ke rami ka do mini reb da [ra miSvi- te ri tori a ze qvemo qar TlSi, arux los li r. 1998; mar giSvi li s., nari ma niSvi li g. na mo sax la ris Zv.w. IV aTaswle u lis fe neb- 2004]. da ra ko vis na mo sax lar ze mo po ve bu- Sia aR mo Ce nili [ja va xiSvi li al., Rlon ti li wi Te li saRe ba viT mo xatu li WurWle- l. 1962; Гогелия Д., Челидзе Л. 1991:11]. mo xa- bi (tab. VII) sam kuTxe de bis sti lis ke rami- tu li ke ra mikis cal ke u li nimu Se bi Zv.w. kas Se e saba meba. qar TlSi sam kuTxe de biT III aTaswle ul Sic gvxvde ba [Шаншашвили mo xa tu li kera mi kis ga mo Ce nas mkvleva- Н. 2007]. Zv.w. II aTaswle u lis pir vel na xe- re bi Zv.w. V an IV s-dan vara u doben. az rTa var Si ase Ti ke rami ka far To daa gav rce- sxva das xva obaa mo xatu li kera mi kis war- le bu li [ja fa ri Ze o. 1969:122-129]. Sem- mo mav lo bi sa da gavrce le bis gze bis Se- dgom Si, da ax loe biT aTa si wlis manZil ze sa xe bac [daw vri le biT ix. Нариманишвили Г. ki aRar gvxvde ba. am di di pau zis Sem deg, 1991]. Cveni az riT, am or na mentis qar Tlis qar Tlis te ri to ria ze mo xa tu li kera mi- te ri to ri a ze dam kvidre bas ori piro- ka aqe meni dur xa naSi ga moC nda da Zv.w. IV-III ba gan sazR vravda. wi Tel ke ci a ni kera mi- ss-Si imde nad gav rcel da, rom am peri ods kis wi Te li sa Re ba viT mo xat va da Se Reb va mo xatu li kera mikis xa nasac uwo de ben uTu od aqe me nidur iran Tan ur Ti erTo- [Гагошидзе Ю. 1979:90]. Zv.w. II s-dan mo xa- bis Se de gi a, Tum ca sam kuTxe de bis sti- tu li ke rami kis wi li Tan da Tan mcirde ba lis far Tod gavrce le bas da ad gi lob- ise, rom ax.w. II sa u ku nisaT vis is praq ti- riv war mo e bas xeli Se uwyo gvian brinjao- ku lad qre ba. aRsa niSna vi a, rom Zv.w. V-I rkinis xana Si qarTlSi dam kvidre bul ma ss-is moxa tu li ke ra mikis udi de si na wi li nac ris frad an Sa vad ga mom wva ri kera mimo noq ro mu li a. na xati wi Te li sa Reba vi- kis Semko bis ad gi lob riv ma sam kuTxe de- Taa Sesru le bu li. para le lu rad gvxvde- bis stil ma, rom lisTvi sac nakaw ri an nap- ba TeTri sa Re ba viT mo xa tu li Wur Wle bi ri a le bi badi sebu ri or na mentiT an iribi [Нариманишвили Г. 1991]. po liqro mu li ke- xaze biT Sevse bu li sam kuTxe de bia da maxa- ra mi kis ram de ni me ni mu Si ci xi a go rasa da si a Te be li. es ukanas kne li Zal ze ax los nas ta kisSia napov ni. dgas wi Te li sa Re ba viT mo xa tuli ke rasa qar Tve los te ri tori a ze aR mo Ce ni- mikis sam kuTxe de bis stilTan. mi maC ni a, li Zv.w V-I ss-iT da Ta riRe bu li wiT lad rom mo xa tu li da sa erTod wiTel ke ci a ni mo xatu li ke ra mikis stilis tu ri ana like ra mika qar TlSi aqe me nidu ri epo qis im zis mi xed viT am masa la Si oTxi Ziri Ta di mo nak veT Si unda gav rce le bu li yo, ro de- stili Se iZ le ba ga mo iyos: 1) sam kuTxe de- sac aqe me ni deb ma ax ladCa mo ya libe bu li bis sti li; 2) samad los stili; 3) kaz re- im peri is Crdi loe Ti sazR vre bis gamag re-

102 bas gan sa kuTre bu li yuradR e ba da uT mes. mo sav leT xmelTa SuazR is pi reTs So ris, Cve ni az riT, sam xreT kavka si a Si aqeme ni- Se saZ lo a, ze da pa le o liT Sic ar se bobda. du ri kul tu ris gav rcele ba Zv.w. 522-521 es ur Ti er To ba, qro no logi uri wyve ti- wlebis Sem deg unda dawye bu liyo, ro dele biT, grZelde bo da uke rami ko da ke- sac am mimar Tu le biT aqeme ni anTa sam xed- rami ku li neo liTis, ag reT ve eneo li Tis ro aq ti vo bam piks miaR wi a. rogorc Cans, epo qa Si. Tum ca re gu larul sa a Reb -mice- Zv.w. 515 wli saT vis, ro de sac da ri os I-ma mo ur Ti er To bas ad reb rin ja os xa naSi ey- Trakia da ipyro da skvi Ti a Si laSqro ba reba sa fuZve li. Zv.w. 4000-3250 ww-Si iwy e- wa mo iwyo, aqe me nidu ri ira nis po li ti ku- ba saer Ta So ri so ur Ti erTo ba maxlo bel ri gav le na sam xreT kav ka sia ze ukve dam- aR mo sav leT Si. uZ ve les sa vaW ro obieqts ya rebu li a. am pe ri ods unda em Txveo des ob sidi a ni warmo ad genda. obsi di a niT vaW- da ra qoi Si da sax le bis gaCe na, ro melmac ro ba Sec va la spilen ZiT vaW ro bam. li To- Zv.w. IV s-is Sua xa nebam de iar se ba. da rako- ni gadi oda igi ve tra di ci u li sako mu ni- vis namo sax la ris stra tig rafia da mo po- ka cio gzebiT, Tum ca Se ic va la sat ran- ve bu li ar te faq te bi aS karad miu Ti Tebs, spor to sa Sua le be bi. gaC nda bor blia ni rom mo xatu li kera mika qar TlSi Zv.w. VI tran spor ti, ra mac savaW ro kav Si rur Ti- s-is miwu ruls Tu ara Zv.w. V s-is da sawy- er To bebSi Zire u li cvlile ba mo ax di- is Si ukve unda Se mo su liyo yofa Si. na. wi na a zi ur sam ya rosTan ur Ti er To bis am de nad, da ra ko vis namo sax la ris ze- gaz rdas Tan aris da kav Si re buli samxreT da fe na, sax lebSi, sa meur neo or mo eb sa da kav ka sia Si Tri a le Tis kul tu ris (Zv.w. xaro eb Si aR mo Ce ni li masa le bis mixed viT III aTas wleu lis meo re na xeva ri - Zv.w. II Zv.w. V-IV ss Sua xa ne biT TariR de ba. qve da aTaswle u lis da sawy i si) da wi nau re ba. fe na ki Zv.w. VI s-s mie kuT vneba. Sua brin ja os xana Si isev ar se bobda is sa- das kvna. Zv.w. V s-is da sawyi sidan qar- vaW ro gza, ro me lic Zv.w. IV-III aTas wleu- Tlis Tixis Wur Wlis for mebsa da teq- lebSi samxreT kav ka si as (mtkvar -a raqsis no lo gi a ze ira nu li ke rami kis gavle na kul tu ra) siri a- pales ti nas Tan (ker beT - Se i niSne ba. qar Tlis teri tori a ze, maT ke ra qis kul tu ra) akav Si reb da [SanSaS vi- So ris da ra ko vis na mosax lar ze, gvxvdeba li n., nari maniS vi li g. 2007]. ira nu li sam ya ro saT vis da ma xasi a Te be li gvian brinja o- rki nis xa naSi kav ka si- speci fi kuri, Ca id ni se buri Wur We li - ib- is mi marT in te re si ki dev ufro iz rdeba. ri yic. vrcelde ba wiT lad Se Re bi li da am epoqis weri lobiT wya ro eb sa da ar qe- mo xatu li Ti xis Wur We li. es uka nas kneli o lo gi ur masa lebSi asa xu lia miTa nis, aqe me ni duri ira nis te rito ri a ze gavrce- asu re Tis, urar tus da midi is samxed role buli ~sam kuTxe debiT mo xa tu li~ kera- poli ti ku ri Tu eko no miku ri aq ti vo ba. mi kis gav le ni Taa damza de bu li. mkvle- ase ve naT lad Cans, kav ka si is Crdi lo e TiT var Ta erTi nawi li sa gan gansxva ve biT, mcxovre bi noma du ri to mebis da in te re- Zv.w. VI-VG ss-Si qar Tlis te ri tori a ze am se ba samxreT kav ka si i sa da ax lo aR mo- sti lis kera mikis ga Cenas Cven aqeme nidu- sav le Tis simdid ree biT. ma Ti inten siri ira ni dan vva ra u dobT [Нариманишвили u ri svla sam xre Ti sa ken Zv.w. VIII s-is mi- Г. 1991]. wuruls iwy e ba, ra mac am re gi on Si di di qar Tli sa da sa er Tod sam xreT kav ka- po liti kuri da ekono miku ri cvlile be bi si is mniSvne lo van savaW ro- satran zi to ga mo iw vi a. Zv.w. VIII s-is miwu ruls urar- gzebze mdeba re oba da samxed ro- stra te- tus me fe ru sa I sa xelmwi fos Crdi lo-dagi u li mdeba re oba re gio nis po li ti kur savleT na wilSi SemoW ril ki me rie lebs mdgo mare oba sa da statuss ga na pi ro beb- Se eb rZola da da mar cxda. Zv.w. VII s-is meo- da. savaW ro -e ko no mi kuri ur Ti er To ba re na xevri saT vis kime ri e le bi ax lo aR mo- kav ka si as, aR mo sav leT anato li a sa da aR- sav leT Si mniSvne lo van rols Ta ma So ben.

103 ama ve dros ga moC ndnen skvi Te bic. wi na sa Su a le ba mis ca 539 wels babi lo nis wi- azi a Si skviTe bis Semos vlis sam etaps gana aR mdeg ga e laS qra [Дандамаев М., Луконон mo yo fen: pir ve li – es aris kime ri e le bis В. 1980]. centa lur azi a Si kiro sis mier ga mo Ce na Zv.w. VIII s-is bo los; meo re eta- ga ta re bu li Ro nisZi e be bi sak mari si ar pi da iwyo Zv.w. VII s-is Sua xaneb Si, ro de- aR moC nda. Crdi lo e Ti dan mom di na re saf- sac skviTe bi Crdi lo e Ti dan Se mo vid nen; rTxe imde nad didi iyo, rom kiros II wi na me same ki aqeme nidu ri spar seTis Ca mo ya- azi is qveyne bis da morCi le bis Semdeg isev li be bis sawy is etaps emTxve va, ro de sac Crdi lo -aR mo savle TiT ib rZvis. Zv.w. 530 Zv.w. VI s-is Sua xa nebSi sa ke bis to mi cen- wels ki rosma egvip te Si laSqro ba ga da do tra lu ri azi i dan SemoW ra [Пиотровский Б. da ma sa ge te bis wina aRmdeg ga i laS qra. es 1949:130]. brZo la mis Tvis sa be dis wero aR moC nda. kav ka si is qe dis Crdi lo e TiT, ste peb- ki ro sis sikvdi lis Semdeg aqe meni dur Si bi na da ri no ma du ri to mebis swraf va irans kam bi zi (Zv.w. 530-522 ww.) ga na gebs. sam xre Ti saken da wi na azi is civi liza ci e- igi ma sage te bis wina aR mdeg ki rosTan er- bis da in te rese ba kav ka si is bu nebri vi sim- Tad ibrZo da. kambi zis mi er Crdi lo -aR- did re e biT, kar gad aris asa xu li arqe o- mo sav le Ti sazR vre bis ga magre bis Se salo gi ur ma sa la Si. sam xre Tis civi liza ci- xeb weri lo bi Ti wya ro e bi ara fers ar gva- e bis brZo las Crdi lo el no madeb Tan xan- uwye ben. Tumca, sa va ra u doa, rom kambiz ma grZlivi isto ria aqvs. es da pi ris pire ba mxo lod centra lu ri aziis sazR vre bis gan sa kuTre biT re lie fu rad aqeme ni du ri ga mag rebis Semdeg ilaSqra eg vipte Si. ira nis Seqnis sawyis etap ze warmoC nda. cno bi li a, rom man eg viptu ri kam pa nia gamom Ta ba re e bis ga neit rale ba da Crdi lo- me fe bi dan mxolod xuTi wlis Semdeg wa- e Ti sazR vrebis dac vis or ga nize ba aqe memo iwyo [Дандамаев М. 1985]. da rios I (Zv.w. ni de bis er T-erT Zi riTad stra te gi ul 522-486 ww.) ga mefe bis Ta nave ba bi loni amo ca nas war mo ad genda, ra sac xan grZli- au janyda. Zv.w. 522 wlis miwu ru li saT vis vi da sisxlis mRvre li brZo le bis Se de- mTe li im peria ajan ye bebma mo ic va, ramac gad mi aR wi es. mom Ta ba reeb Tan brZo la im- gansa kuT rebiT ma siu ri xasi a Ti centra- de nad mniSvne lo va ni iyo, rom aqe me ni di lu ri azi is provin ci eb Si mi i Ro. da ri oss me fe e bi am laS qro bebs uSu a lod ed gnen ga nud gnen mar gi a na, par Ti a, sa ta gi dia saTa ve Si. Zv.w. 550 wels sparse le bi sa da da sa ke bi. baq triis sat rap ma da dar SiSma midi e le bis So ris war mo e bu li omi das- sisxlSi Ca ax So ajanye ba mar gi a na Si da is rul da da warmo iq mna aqe meni du ri ira nis baq tri is sat rapi as Seu erTa. am brZoleb- sa xelmwi fo. 549-548 wlebSi spar se lebma ma aqe meni du ri ira nis centra lur azi a Si da ipyres is qvey ne bi, rom le bic midi is Se- ga mava li sazR vris usafrTxo e ba uzun- mad genlo ba Si Sedi od nen. kerZod, par Ti a, velyo. hir kania da ar meni a. 545-539 ww ki ros II-m aqe me nidTa im pe ri is usafrTxo e bis aR mo sav leT ira nis da centra lu ri azi- er T-erT mniSvne lo va ni xazi kav ka si is is na wi lis (dran gi a na, mar gi a na, xorez mi, qed ze ga di oda. ami tom, aqe menid Ta Ziri- sogdi a na, baq tria da centra lur azia- Tad mizans am mi mar Tule bi dan no made bis Si mcxovre bi sa ke bi) da mor Ci le ba SeZ lo Se moW ris saf rTxis aci le ba warmo ad gen- [Дандамаев М. 1985]. mom Ta ba re Ta mud mi vi da. sam xreT kav ka sii sa da ira nu li sam- Tav das xmebi aqe me nidu ri ira nis Semad gen- ya ros mra valsa u kuno va ni ur Ti erTo ba lo ba Si Sema val mi waT moq med xalxs mniS- kar ga daa asaxu li ro gorc we ri lo biT vnelo van za rals aye neb da, ami tom ki ros wya ro eb Si, ise ar qe o lo gi ur masa la Si. II-m cen tra lur azi a Si, md. amu da ri is ga- iran Si mim di nare pro ce sebi gar kve ul gayo le biT, sazR vris pi ra ga magre bu li da- mox ma u re bas kav ka sia Sic hpo vebda. am ur- sax le be bis mTe li ri gi Seqmna, ra mac mas Ti er To bas in tensi u ri, amasTan spora du-

104 li xasi a Ti hqon da. erT-er Ti mniSvne losa fiqre be li a, rom kav ka siis qe de ze va ni eta pi aqeme ni du ri ira nis war moq nis- ar sebu li gad mo sas vleleb ze kon tro- Tana ve iwy e ba. am dros sam xreT kav ka si is lis da wese bis gare Se da ri o si skviTi a Si te ri to ria ze Cnde ba axa li ti pis kera mi- laS qro bas ar da iwyeb da. miT ume tes, rom ka – mili a ni da niskar ti a ni xela de bi, ma- he ro dotes cno biT ~da ri os ma gan sazR- Ral ye lia ni do qe bi, profi li rebu li da vra da e sa ja skviTe bi, rad gan isini uwin Sveri li a ni ja me bi. ama ve dros vrcelde- Se mo iW rnen mi di a Si ...~ [Hdt, IV,1]. aseve saba wiTel ke ci a ni kera mika, ro melTa di di in te resoa er Ti isto ri a, romel sac he- na wi li SeRe bi li an moxa tu lia wi Te li ro do te mara To nis brZo lis aR we risas saRe ba viT. am ti pis ke ra mikis gavrce le ba mog viTxrobs: mas Semdeg, rac da rio si Se- ira nidan ivara u de ba da da ri os I-is Crdi- iW ra skviTe bis qveya na Si, skviTebs undo- lo eT regi o nebSi moRva we obas ukav Sir- daT misTvis sa ma gi e ros ga dax da, amitom de ba [nari ma niSvi li g. 1994:20]. gag zav nes sparta Si ka ce bi, rom isi ni mo- sam xre Ti sa da Crdi lo e Tis da pi ris- kav Si re e bad ga e xa daT da Se Tan xmebu liy- pi re bi sas gan sa kuT re bu li stra te gi u li vnen ima ze, rom skviTe bi Seec de bod nen mniS vne lo ba kav ka si is gadmo sas vle le bis mi di a Si SeW ras mdina re fazi sis gaswvriv, kon trols eni We bo da. samxreT kav ka si a Si xo lo spar te lebs SeuT va les daZru liy- aqe me ni de bis ga aq ti ure ba ma Sin un da dawy- vnen efe so dan, gah yolod nen gzas qvey nis e bu li yo, ro de sac Zv.w. 522-521 wleb Si da- SigniT da Sem deg aq sad me Sexved rod nen ri o sis sar dleb ma xu Ti brZo lis Sem deg skviTebs [Hdt, VI,84]. he ro do tes am mo- da i mor Ci les ar me ni a. ar me ni a Si ajan ye bis naTxro bi dan kargad Cans, rom skviTeb ma xa si aT ze sxva das xva mo saz re ba ar se bobs. v. da sparse lebma kar gad ician kav ka sion ze stru ves az riT ajan ye ba mo awy ves ara som- arse bu li gad mo sas vlele bi da ma Ti mniS- xeb ma, ara med am te ri tori a ze mcxov reb ma vnelo ba. ami tom, warmo ud ge ne lia da ri- skvi Teb ma. i. di a ko novi fiq robs, rom isi ni oss ar ga eT va liswi ne bi na kav ka si is qed ze eT niku ri som xe bi iy vnen [Дьяконов И. 1956]. ar se buli gad mo sas vlele bi da ise wa mo- g. Ra fan ci a ni Tvlis, rom bun ti xa i a sas ewyo didi samxed ro ope ra ci a. to me bis moZ ra o bas Tan iyo da kav Si re bu li skviTi a Si laSqro bis mizans mom Ta ba- [Кафанцян Г. 1956]. be his tu nis war we ra ajan- re to mebis ne it ra lize ba war mo ad genda, ye bu lebs da maT be lads sa xe liT ar mo- rad ga nac Crdi lo eT Si mcxovre bi no ma- ix se ni ebs, iq mxo lod isaa aR niS nu li, rom du ri tome bi aqe me nidebs ara mxo lod sxva ar mi na ajan ye bam mo ic va. amis sa fuZ vel- mi mar Tu le biT (ba bi lo ni, egvip te da sxv.) ze m. dan da ma e vi fiq robs, rom to mob ri vi moq mede ba Si uSlid nen xels, ara med TviT kuT vni le ba im de nad cxa di iyo, rom war we- im peri is ar sebo bas uqmnid nen saf rTxes. ris Sem dge nel ma sa Wi rod ar CaT va la amis da ri o sis laSqro bis Ziri Ta di amo ca na aR niS vna [Дандамаев М. 1985]. stepeb Si mcxov reb no made bis im de nad da- Zv.w. 519 wels da rio si kvlav mom Ta- sus te ba iyo, rom maT ver Se e fer xebi naT ba reTa, wve ti anqu di a ni sake bis wi na aR- ci vi lize bu li aR mo savle Tis ganvi Ta- mdeg ib rZvis da amar cxebs maT. mxo lod reba. am miz nis miRwe va di di sam xedro- Crdi loe Ti sazR vrebis safuZ vli a ni ga- stra te gi u li geg mis gare Se Se uZ le be li mag re bis Sem deg, 518 wels mi dis eg viptis iq ne boda. am gegma Si ki aqeme nidu ri ira- ajanye buli sat rapis da sas je lad. Zv.w. nis Crdilo e Ti sazR vre bis saTa na do ga- 515 wels ki da ri os ma daipy ro Tra ki a. md. mag rebas er T-er Ti mniS vnelo va ni ad gi li du nai ze xidi aa go da or ga ni ze ba ga u ke Ta un da sWe ro da. we rilo bi Ti wya ro e bi sa da mis dac vas, ri Tac, man skviTi a Si SeW ri- arqe o lo gi u ri ma salis mi xed viT, naT lad saT vis yvela piro ba mo am za da. Cans, rom skviTi a Si SeW ris mo menti saT vis ar sebob da Zlie ri Tav dac vi Ti zRu de,

105 ro me lic centra lu ri azi i dan iwye boda rio sis dros, xuT weli wad Si er Txel, da, mo i cav da kav kasi as da Tra ki a Si mTa- as ymawvil sa da qa liSvils ugzav nidnen va de bo da. Crdi lo e Ti dan mom di na re saf- aqe meni debs [Hdt, III,97], qserqses dros ki rTxis Se sa ka veblad Seq mnili Tav dac vi Ti mo nawi le obdnen laS qro bebSi [Hdt, VII,79]. xazi md. amu da ria ze, kav ka siis qed ze da g. meli qiSvi lis az riT, kolxe bi am val- md. du nai ze gadi o da. Traki a Sic swo red de bu le bas he ro do tes (Zv.w. 484-425 ww.) am dros mdid ru li sa mar xe bi Cnde ba [Kull dro sac as ru lebdnen [Меликишвили Г. B. 2000:469]. 1959:238]. aqe meni dur iran Tan qar Tlis we rilo bi Ti wyaro e bis mixed viT Cans, ur Ti er To bis Se sa xeb we ri lobiT wya- rom aqe meni dur iran sa da samxreT kav ka- ro e bi praq ti ku lad ar mo i po ve ba. gvaqvs si is xalxebs sxva das xva xasi a Tis ur Ti er- plutar qes cnoba, rom lis mixed viT ~ibe- To ba hqonda. sam xreT kavka si is da sav le- re bi ar emor Ci le bod nen arc sparse lebs, Ti da cen tra lu ri na wi li aqe meni du ri arc mi di e lebs da ma ke donel Ta uRe lic im peri is Zlier po liti kur gav le nas ga- ai ci les~ [Plut., Pomp. XXXIV]. Tumca sa mec- nicdi da; aR mosav le Ti da sam xre Ti nawi- ni e ro lite ratu ra Si ga moTqmu lia mo- li sat rapi e bi iyo, rom le bic uSu a lod saz reba, rom aqe meni du ri ira nis sazR- Se di oda im peri is sazR vreb Si. he ro do- vre bi kav ka si is qeds aR wevda [Гагошидзе Ю. tes cno bebze day rdnobiT, sam xreT kav- 1979:79; Jacobs B. 2000:93-102; Ter -Mar ti ro sov F. ka si is xal xe bi aqe me ni deb ma sam satra pi- 2000:243-252]. mec nier Ta na wi li am mosaz- a Si (XI, XVIII, XIX) ga a er Ti a nes. ~kas pi e bi, re bas ka te go ri u lad ar izi a rebs [lor- pav si ke bi, panti maTe bi da da rei te bi er- Tqi fa niZe oT. 1985:146-151; Lor dkipa nidze O. Tad iy vnen da xar ku lebi da ixdid nen 200 2000]. ta lants, esaa meTer Tme te satra pi a~ [Hdt. aqe meni du ri satra pi e bis sazR vre bis III,92]. ~ma ti e nebs, sas pei reb sa da ala ro- Se saxeb mra va li, xSi rad ur Ti erTga momdi e lebs Sewe ri li hqondaT 200 ta lan ti. ricx a vi mo sazre ba ar se bobs. TiTqmis yve- esaa XVIII sat ra pia~. ~mosxebs, ti ba re nebs, la mkvle va ri Tan xmdeba, rom XI sat rapi as mak ro nebs, mo sini kebsa da marebs Se we ri- aR mo sav le Ti dan kaspi is zRva, Crdilo e- li hqon daT 300 ta lan ti. esaa mecx rame te Ti dan ki kav ka sio ni sazR vrav da. samxre- sat ra pia~ [Hdt, III,94]. qar Tve lu ri to me- Ti sazR va ri ki md. araqsze ga da di oda da bis mcire na wi li Se iZle ba XIII satra pia Si, mi di is sazR vars aR wevda. yve la ze rTuli ro melSic Se di o da paqti i ke, ar meni e le bi gan sasazR vria da sav le Ti sazR va ri, ro- da ma Ti mezob le bi [Hdt, III,93], mox vda. ga- melic g. tira ci a nis az riT md. mtkvri- moT qmuli iyo mo sazre ba, rom X sat rasa da md. xra mis Sesar Ta vam de aR wevda pi is Crdi lo e Ti sazR va ri md. xra mi sa da [Тирацян Г. 1981]. ufro rTu lia XIII da XVIII md. mtkvris Se sar Ta vi dan md. mtkvri sa sat ra pie bis sazR vre bis dad ge na da ma- da araqsis Se sar Ta vam de gadi oda. uka- Ti mo sax le o bis eT ni ku ri kuTvni le bis nas knel wlebSi f. ter-mar ti ro sov ma XV sa kiTxe bis kvleva. g.ti raci a ni miiC nevs, satra pia (sa ke bi da kas pie bi), ro melsac rom aqe menid Ta XVIII sat ra pia ar me ni is manam de cen tra lur azi a Si aTav sebdnen, zeg nis Crdilo -aR mo savleT da aR mo sav- sam xreT kav kasi is ukidu res Crdi lo -aR- leT olqebs fa rav da da misi er T-er Ti mo sav leT nawil Si, kas pi is zRvis sana pi- centri yo fi li urar tu li qa laqi ere bu- ro ze mo a Tav sa [Ter -Mar ti rosov F. 2000:248]. ni iyo [Тирацян Г. 1988:53]. we rilo biT wya ro eb ze day rdno biT, arme ni is sat rapi is sam xre Ti sazR vasa mec ni e ro lite ra tu ra Si gavrce le buri qseno fon tes mi xedviT md. kentrik Tan lia mo saz reba, rom kol xebma ai ci les aqe- ga dis [Xe nop hon tis, IV,III,4; IV,IV,2]. berZne bi me ni anTa ba to no ba. sain te resoa he ro do- md. ti ro sis ga da lax vis Semdeg da savleT tes cnoba, rom lis mi xedvi Tac kol xebi ar meni a Si Se vid nen [Xe nop hon tis, IV,IV,4]. am

106 frag mentis mixed viT fiqro ben, rom qse- Se sa ba mi sad sxva (XIII) sat rapi a Si Sedi an. no fon ti or arme ni as asa xe lebs – erTia he ro do tes cno be bis mixed viT arme niis ~ar me nia~, ro melsac oron ti mar Tavs, me- mmarTve li oron ti sat rapi is mmar Tve li orea ~da savle Ti arme ni a~, romlis mmar- ki ar Cans, ara med misi erT-er Ti ol qis Tve li ti ri ba zi a. g. tira ci a nis az riT gamge be li a. ar me ni is satra pi is umaR le- qseno fon tis mo na ce mebi ar meni is ad misi xeli su fa li ki, mefis nac va li tiri ba- nistra ci u li da yo fis Zv.w. V s-is miwu ru- zi a. ama ze miu Ti Tebs ~a naba sis~ is na wi li, lis mdgo mare obas asaxavs. Tumca, misi az- sadac Ca moT vlilia mefis mo ad gi le e bi riT, ar sebob da ufro ad re u li da yo fac. da olqe bi, ro melTa teri tori a zec ga i- hero dotes mo na ce mebze day rdnobiT g. a res ber Znebma [Xen., Anab. VII, 8, 25]. am Ca- ti ra ci a ni Tvlis, rom da ri osis dros mo naT val Si satra pia arme nia sa erTod ar Ca tare bu li ad mi nistra ci uli da yo fis aris naxse ne bi, ti ri ba zi ki fasi a ne bi sa dros arme niis ze gan ze ori sat ra pia – XIII da hes pe rite bis (sas pere bi) mmarTve la- da XVIII Ca mo ya libda. g. tira ci a ni wers: daa da sa xele bu li. ti ri ba zis provin ci- `Tu XIII sat rapi a, centriT van Si moi cav- is Crdilo e Ti sazR va ri ki sadRac Zveli da, ro gorc un da vifiq roT ar meni is same- qar Tu li taos te ri tori a ze (i mer ta- fos yofil mi webs, rome lic VI s-is 20-i an o) ga di oda. aq mTav rde boda ~spar se Tis wlebSi ga nadgur da; XVIII sat ra piis lo ka- qar Tli~ da ~spar seTis kol xeTi~. maT ze lize ba miRe bu lia ar meni is zeg nis Crdi- Crdi lo e TiT mcxov rebi qar Tuli mo saxlo eT Crdi lo-aR mo savleT da aR mo savle oba Ta vi su fa lia aqe me nidu ri im pe ri- leT regi o nebSi, rom lebic he ro do tes i sad mi uSua lo da mo ki de bu le bi sagan [me- cno be bis mi xedviT am sat ra pi a Si Sema va- liqiS vi li g. 1970:435]. li saspe rebis, ala ro die bi sa da mati e ne- am peri odSi mimdi nare is tori u li bis sacx ovre be li iyo [Тирацян Г. 1988:68, proce se bi Sem deg nai rad war mog vidge ba. 69]. Tum ca, ki dev erTxel un da aRi niSnos, da axl. 590 wels midi e lebma bolo mo u- rom hero dote or ar me nias an arme niis Res urar tus sa xelmwi fos. am brZole bis orad ga yofas arsad ar axse nebs da ori- Se de gad, ro melSic aqti ur mo na wi le o- ve sa ta pia Si Se mava li xalxeb sac konkre- bas iReb da sam xreT kav ka siis xal xe bic, tulad asa xe lebs - XIII satra pi a Si Se dis urar tus Crdi lo e Ti re gi one bi sas pe re- paqti i ke, ar me ni e le bi da ma Ti mezob lebis Zlie ri ga er Ti a nebis Semad genlo babi [Hdt, III,93], XVIIIO sat ra pia Si ki ~ma ti e- Si Sevi da. amde nad, sas pe re bi kontrols nebi, sas pe i re bi da ala ro di e le bi [Hdt, uweven te ri tori as kolxeT sa da midi as III, 94] Sedi an. oron tis sam flobe loe bis So ris. g. me liqiS vi lis az riT hero do tes gan xilvi sas g. tira ci ani aRniS navs, rom mo nace mebSi asaxu lia midi is Zli e re bis oron tis arme nia Si satra pis ad gilsam- xana, Zv.w. VI s-is pir ve li naxev ris mdgoma- yo fe li so felSi a, mas warmo ud genlad re o ba. sas pe rebis aR mo savlur qar Tu li mi aC nia sat raps mxo lod er Ti re zi den- ga erTi a nebis centri spe ris ol qSi mde- cia hqono da, isic mis uki du res samxreT ba re obda. es is regi oni a, ro me lic ufro nawil Si. mi si az riT, pir ve li da mTa va ri ad re dia u xida i a e nis sa me fos Se madgen- cen tri q. van Si un da yo fi liyo [Тирацян Г. loba Si Se di o da. amde nad, sas pere bis ga- 1988:66]. mag ram q. va ni, ro gorc Cans, XVIII erTi a neba swo red am same fos memkvid rea satra pi a Si Sema va li ala ro di e le bis ad- [Меликишвили Г. 1959:233]. mi di is Zlie re bis mi nistra ci u li centri uf ro iyo, vidre xana Si ki TviTo nac mniS vnelo van po liar meni e le bi sa, rad gan am epo qa Si ala ro- ti kur er Te u lad yalib de ba. Zv.w. VI s-is di e le bi Ca nan urar tu e le bis mem kvidre- meo re na xevar sa da Zv.w. V s-is da sawy is- e bad, xo lo ar me nebi, rom le bic am te ri- Si hero do tes mi xedviT am te rito ri as tori a ze jer damkvid re bu le bi ar ari an, isev sas pere bi ga na ge ben, romle bic uk ve

107 aqe meni du ri im peri is XVIII satra pi a Si Se- le TiT) xuri tul ol qSi, ro melsac urar- di an. ase Ti mdgo mare oba Cans Zv.w. IV s-is tuli wyaro e bi qveya na ar me(ni)T ic no ben da sawyi sam de. qarTlis es na wi li un da [Меликишвили Г. 1959:234]. Zv.w. 600 wli saT- iyos ~ari an qar Tli~, ro melic Sem dgom Si vis urar tus teri to ri a ze arme nebis ga- qar Tlis (i be ri is) sa mefos Ca mo ya li e ba Si da sax le bis Te ori as mcdars uwodebs f. aq ti u rad mo nawi le obs. ter-mar ti ro so vi. mi si az riT urar tus som xur isto ri og ra fi a Si dam kvidrda da ce mis Sem deg ya libde ba arme ni is same- mo sazre ba, rom XVIII sat ra pi is teri to ra fo da xde ba ar mene bi sa da som xu reno va- arme ni is satra pi as ekuTvno da. mecni er- ni tome bis ga er Ti a neba [Тер-Мартиросов Ф. Ta nawi li mi iC nevs, rom urartus sa xel- 1995:73]. mwifos da ce mis Sem deg Seiq mna ar meni is XVIIIO satra pi is sazR vre bis dad ge na di di sa mefo, ro me lic Zv.w. 530 wlam de he ro dotes mo nace mebis mixed viT met - da mo uki de be li iyo da misi Crdi lo e Ti nak le bi si zus tiT Se iZle ba. he ro dotes sazR va ri md. mtkvris marjve na sana pirom- cno biT ~mi di is sa gamgeb lo sa da lidi as de mi di oda. es te ri tori e bi, mog vi a ne- So ris sazR va ri iyo md. ha lisi ... mis mar- biT, ar me niis sat ra pia Si Se vi da [Тирацян Г. jvniv saxlo ben ma ti e ne bi, meo re mxares ki 1981; Ter -Mar ti ro sov F. 2000:244]. g. ti ra ci a ni fri gi e le bi~ [Hdt, I,72]. isi ni ari an ar meni- Tvlida, rom ar meni is sat rapi is sazR vre- e le bis me zob lad da maT mezob lad aris bi Zv.w. VI s-is Sua xa ne bidan Zv.w. IV s-is bo- ki si is qve ya na [Hdt, V,52]. hero do te aqe me- lom de ucvle li rCe bo da [Тирацян Г. 1981]. nidTa sa me fo gzis aR we ri sas aR niSnavs - ase Ti mo saz reba gar kve ul wi naaR mde go- ~ar meni a Si aris 15 da sas ve ne be li sad gu ri bas qmni da, rad gan he ro do tes cnobe bis 56,5 far san gis manZil ze da iq ve aris sami xed viT sat rapia arme nia md. mtkvris ya ra ulo e bic. ... am ar meni i dan Sev di varT mar jve na sana pi rosTan ki ara, md. araq- mati e nes qveya na Si, aq 34 sad guri a, 137 sis na pireb Ta nac ver gadi o da. ami tom, f. far san gi~ [Hdt, V,52]. am de nad, ma ti e nebi ter-mar tiro sov ma ga moT qva mosaz re ba, md. ha liszec arian, md. araq sis saTa ve Sic rom ar meni is sat rapia Zv.w. 484-480 ww-Si da md. Za ba te zec. es uka nas kne li albaT or - XIII da XVIII sat rapi ad da i yo [Ter -Mar- md. za bi a. ro gorc Cans, mati e ne bi cxov- ti ro sov F. 2000:247]. misi az riT XVIII sat rapi- ro ben vani sa da ur miis tbebs So ris moq- a sac ar menia ewo da, rac arcer Ti wya ros ce ul teri tori a ze da q. ar be lam de Ca di- mi xed viT ar dastur deba. an. mati en Ta qveynis sazR vri dan q. su sam- m. maq si mo vas az riT, ar menebs md. ev- de 11 sadgu ri da 42,5 farsan gia [Hdt, V,52]. fra tis or ze mo tots So ris moq ce u li ma ti e nebs mecni e re bi Zve li xuri tul mi- te ri toria eka vaT. mog vi a ne biT arme nebi Ta nis sa mefos mo sax le obas Tan ai gi ve ben. gav rcel dnen ufro aR mo sav le TiT, saga mo nak lisia f. ter -marti ro so vi ro me- dac va ni sa da ur mi is pire Ti da i kaves [Xen., lic fiq robs, rom Se saZ loa hero do te Anab. 1951:270, Se niSvna 7]. g. meli qiSvi lis mati e nebs kambi senas macx ov reb leblad az riT, urar tus da ce mis Sem deg, misi da- gu lisxmob da [Ter -Mar ti ro sov F. 2000:247]. savle Ti re gi o nebis inten si ur aT vi se bas alaro di e le bi urar tus Semor Ce ni li iwye ben ar me nebi (somxe bi). qve ya na ha i a sa mo sax le oba a, rom le bic md. araq sis mar- da zux ma – xe Tu ri wya ro e biT, suxmi (sox- jve na na pir ze da va nis tbis mi da mo eb Si mi) – asi ri u li wya ro e biT, ro me lic md. cxov ro ben [Меликишвили Г. 1959:266]. XVIII aR mo sav leT ev fratsa (mu rad su) da da- sat ra pi a Si saspe re bi yvela ze Crdi lo- sav leT ev fra tis ze da dine bas Sua mde- e TiT cxovro ben. sas pere bis uki du resi ba re ob da. som xebi aRmo sav leT olqeb Sic da savle Ti sazR va ri md. Woro xis ze da iwye ben SeR we vas. sam xre TiT isi ni sax- di nebas, is tori u li spe ris sazR vars em- ldebi an Sup rias (ol qi va nis tbis da sav- Txveva [Меликишвили Г. 1959:232]. sas pere bi

108 hero do tes cno biT kol xebsa da midi e- sazR vravs. arme ni is sam xre Ti sazR va ri lebs So ris cxov ro ben. ~kol xe Ti dan mi- tig ro sis mar cxena Se na kad md. kentrit- di a Si ga da sas vleli di di ara a, mxo lod ze ga dis [Xen., Anab. IV, III, 3]. m. maq si mo vas erTi tomia am qvey nebs So ris, esaa sas pei- az riT, es te ri toria aqe me nidu ri sa at- rebis to mi~ [Hdt, I, 104]. ~midi e lebs ze moT ra pia _ aR mo savleT ar menia iyo, ro mel- sas pe i rebi, saspe i rebs ze moT kolxe bi~ sac ar taq ser qses siZe oron ti ga na gebda. cxov ro ben [Hdt, I, 37]. saspe re bi sa da mida sav le Ti ar me nia al baT, ika vebda olqs di e le bis sazR va ri, ~...agba ta ni dan Crdi- er ze ru mis samxre TiT, ev fra tis ze mo lo e Ti sa ken da ev qsinis pon tos ken. aq xom di nebis ori ve tots So ris. arme nia ewo- midi el Ta qveya na, saspe i rebis me zob lad, de boda tom Ta ga er Ti a ne bas, ro me lic Zali an mTia ni aris~ [Hdt, I, 110]. har pag ma aR mosav leT da da sav leT arme ni a Si sax- swo red aq da ma la midi is mefe as ti a ge sa- lobda. Semdgom Si ar me nebi gav rceldnen gan gan wi ru li axalSo bi li kiro si [Hdt, I, aR mo sav le TiT, sa dac Seu er Tdnen va ni sa 110]. da ur mi is tbebis mida mo eb Si mcxovreb he ro dotes cno be bis mixed viT, ar me- tomebs da Ca mo a ya libes ar meni is same fo ne bi mxo lod XIII satra pi a Si cxov ro ben, [Кафанцян Г. 1947; Ксенофонт 1951:270]. ro melSic ma Ti me zo beli xal xe bic Se di- g. Ra fanci a ni Tvlis, rom ha i a sas to- od nen. am sat rapi is sazRvre bi, ge og rame bi md. ev fratis ze mo dine bis da sav le- fia da xalxi kar gad aqvs da xa si a Te bu li TiT, mdi naris sa Ta ve e bam de cxovrob dnen hero do tes. ~paq ti i kedan, ar me niel Ta- [Кафанцян Г. 1948:147], Zv.w. VII s-Si ha i a sas gan da mis me zob lad mcxovreb Ta gan vid- xal xi Ca mo vidnen sam xre TiT, sa dac Seer- re evqsi nis pon tom de, da ri oss 400 ta- wynen ara me e lebs. Zv.w. VI s-Si is tori ul lan ti misdi oda. esaa me ca mete satra pi a~ arena ze ga mo di an ar mene bi (ar mi nebi – be- [Hdt, III-93]. ~kili ki i sa da ar meni is sazR- his tu nis warwe ri dan). ucxo tome le bi am va ri mo dis sa naos no mdina reze, rom lis sa xeliT ic no ben im xalxs, rom le bic am- sa xelic aris evfra tesi. ar meni a Si aris Ja madac sa ku Tar Tavs ha i ebs (ha i a sa) uwo- 15 da sas ve nebe li sad guri 56,5 far san gis debs [Кафанцян Г. 1948:155]. Zv.w. VI s-Si iwy e- man Zilze. da iq ve aris saya ra u lo e bic. am ba urar tus da sav le Ti ra i one bis ar me ni- qve ya na ze mi e di ne ba oTxi sana os no mdi- za ci a, ise rom Zv.w. V s-is miwu ruls qse- nare, ro melTa ga da cur va au ci le be li a. no fon te hai -ar me nebs uk ve kardu xe bis pir ve lia tig re si, Sem deg meo resa da me- Crdi loe TiT md. ken tritTan (tigros ze) sa mes ewode ba Za ba to si, magram es er Ti da asa xelebs. arme ni za ci as mSvido bi a ni xa- igive mdina re araa da isini arc er Ti da sa Ti hqonda da vrcelde bo da md. araqsi sa ima ve ad gi li dan gamom di na reo ben, rad- da md. Woro xis saTa ve e bi sa ken. aseve va nis ga nac pirve li maT gan - ar meni e le Ta gan tbis mimar Tu le biT. Zv.w. IV s-Si ar mene bi mo e di neba, xo lo meo re mati en Ta gan. am ara ra tis dab lob ze Ca nan, q. ar ma vi ris mi- mdina reTa gan me oTx es hqvia ginde si, ro- da mo eb Si. Zv.w. II s-is da sawy i si saTvis ar- melic odesRac ki rosma 360 ar xad dah yo. meni is sa mefo ukve sakma od vrcel te ri- am ar meni i dan Sevdi varT ma ti e nes qve ya- tori as moi cavs. Zv.w. 189 wels som xe Tis naSi [Hdt, V,52]. ~kili ki e le bis mezob lad mefe ar ta Sesma xali beb sa da mosi ni kebs ari an ar me nie le bi. maT bevri saqo neli wa arTva ka re nita (er ze ru mis ra i o ni) da hyavT, xo lo ar meni e le bis mezob lad ari- der gsena (Ta na medro ve ma maxa Tu nis ra- an ma ti e ne bi~ [Hdt, V,49]. am mo na ce mebis mi- i o ni), ka ta onebs wa arTva aki le se na (er- xedviT Cans, rom XIII sat rapi is da sav le Ti zin ja nis r-o ni) [Кафанцян Г. 1948:159]. arme- sazR va ri md. ev frat ze a. Crdi lo e Ti dan ni is same fo Ta vis Zlie rebas ar ta Se si sa mas XIX satra pi a, Crdi lo-aR mo sav le Ti- da tig ran II-is dros aR wevs. am peri od Si, dan da aR mo savle Ti dan ki XVIII satra pia gar da zemoT aR niSnu li teri tori e bi sa,

109 ar meni e lebma daipy res zo gi erTi qar Tu- [Тирацян Г. 1988:69, 71]. Cemi az riT, XVIII sat- li ol qi - pari ad ris mTiswi neTi, ta o- ra piis Crdi lo e Ti sazR va ri vrcel de bo- klar je Ti da gugar qi [Кафанцян Г. 1948:83]. da be ni a mi nis sasax lis mflo be lis qvey- qse no fon tes ~ki ro pedi a Si~ sau ba ria nis sam xreT sazR vrebam de, ro me lic, ro- mosul ar me nebsa da ad gi lobriv urar- gorc Cans, se va nis tbi sa da ara ga wis mTis tel -xal debs So ris ar se bul wina aR mde- gas wvriv unda vi va ra u doT. sas pe rebma go ba ze, ro me lic mi wis sa kuTre basTan da i ka ves mxolod is te rito ri a, ro me- iyo da kav Si re bu li. arme nebs dab lo bi ad- lic urar te lebma sam xreT kav ka si a Si, md. gi le bi ekavaT, xaldebs ki ga magre bu li araq sis mar cxe na napir ze da ipyres. urar- mTia ni rai one bi. mosu li da ad gi lob ri- tus Crdi lo e Ti sazR va ri sevan -a raga wis vi xal xebis Serwymis Se de gad warmo iq mna xa zis Crdi loe TiT ara so des vrcel de- Ta named ro ve so me xi xalxi. ar me no-qal- bo da. swo red aq gvgo nia Cven XVIII satra- de bis ur Ti erTo bis mSvi do bi a ni gziT ga- pi is Crdi lo e Ti sazR va ric, ro me lic da- dawy ve ta, qseno fon tes cno biT, aqe me ni di sav le Tis mi mar Tu le biT Crdi lis tbis ki ro sis dros mox da. am da urar tus sxva sam xre TiT gadi oda da md. Wo ro xis mar- ad gi le bis met -nak le bi sru li ar me ni za- jve na napi ris saTa ve ebs aR wevda. Sesa ba- cia Zv.w. III s-is bo los da II s-is dasawy is Si, mi sad, qarTlis sa mama sax lisos sam xre Ti uf ro zustad ar ta Se sisa da za riad res sazR va ri am xazs em Txveo da. es te rito- dros das rulda [Кафанцян Г. 1948:160, 161]. ri e bi (goga re ne- gu garqi) qar Tlma pir- XVIII sa ta pi is Crdi lo e Ti sazR va ri, ve lad ar ta Ses I-is ga me fe bis Semdeg (Zv.w. g. tira ci a nis azriT ar me niis sat rapi- II s-is da sawy i si) da kar ga [Strab. XIV,5]. sam- is, XI satra pi is – kas pi a nas sazR vars em- xre Ti sazR va ri md. zab ze q. ar be las Tan Txveva, ro melic mtkvris gas wvriv xra- un da viva ra u doT, sa dac aRmo sav le TiT, mis Se sar Ta vam de grZel de boda, sa i da nac ro gorc Cans, elams, da savle TiT ki XIII da savle TiT Tria le Tis qe dis gaswvriv satra pi as esazR vrebo da. aR mo sav le Ti mos xe bis mTe bam de grZel de bo da [Тирацян sazR va ri al baT ur miis tbis aR mo sav- Г. 1981.] f. ter -marti ro so vis azriT sat- leT na pir ze ga di oda, sadac midi is sazR- ra piis Crdi lo -aRmo sav le Ti sazR va ri vars em Txve o da. da sav le Ti sazR va ri md. mtkvar -a raq sis Sesar Tav Tan gadi oda, ha liss miuR ve boda, sadac III satra pia Si Semdeg mtkvars mi uy ve bo da. igi ar ga mo- (ka pa doki a) Se mava li fri gi e le bi esazR- ricx avs, rom am sat rapi is Crdi loe Ti vre bod nen. XVIII sat rapi is sazR vre bi arc sazR va ri da ria lis uRel te xi lam de aR- Zv.w. V-IV ss-is mijna ze unda iyos Sec vli- wevda [Ter -Mar ti rosov F. 2000:247-249]. g. ti rali. ama ze ara pir da pir qse no fon tec mi u- ci a nis az riT, aqeme ni dur xana Si Sem de gi Ti Tebs. su raTi ixa te ba: XVIII sat ra pi a Si Sema va- XIX sat ra pi is mo sax le o bas mos xe bi, tili ar me niis aR mo savleT nawil sa da mis ba re ne bi, mak ro ne bi, mo si ni ke bi sa da mare bi me zo bel qvey nebSi ram de ni me centri iyo [Hdt, III,94] war mo ad ge nen. qse no fon tes mo- – arin -ber di (e rebu ni), sa ri- Te fe (ya za- naTx ro bi dan Cans, rom ar me ni i dan ber Zne bi xi), md. mtkvris gaswvriv - ci xi a go ra da xa li be bi sa ken ga e mar Tnen. mag ram som xu ri samad lo, alaz nis velze ki gum ba Ti. ar me- sof lis ko mar xma ber Znebs gza aub nia da niis da savleT na wilSi, ro me lic XIII sat- isi ni xa li be bi sa ken ki ara, ara med md. araq- rapi a Si Se di oda, ori cen tri iyo: er Ti si sa ken wa iy va na [Xen., Anab. gv. 272, Se niS vna]. van Si, meo re ar meni is sam xreT na wilSi, md. ber Znebs gza aeb naT, gar kve vam de di di dro ken trit Tan. ara ra tis dab lobi ki XVIII da kar ges, zo gi er Ti xal xis sacx ov ri si sat ra piis mTa va ri eko no mi ku ri ra i oni ram den jer me ga i a res. Sem deg isi ni md. fa- iyo, amitom satra piis er T-erT centrs siss (Wo roxs) mi ad gnen, sa dac maT xa li be bi, urar tu li qa la qi erebu ni war mo ad genda ta o xe bi da fa si a ne bi dax vdnen [Xen., Anab.

110 IV, VI, 5]. aqe dan 30 far san gis gav lis Sem deg e lebdnen da mxo lod maT mier nakis ri ta o xeb Tan mi vid nen [Xen., Anab. IV, VII, 1], ta- valde bu le be bis Ses ru le bi sa da ga da sa- o xe bi dan 50 far san gi gai a res xa li be bis xa de bis ga daxdiT Se moi fargle bodnen. qve ya na ze [Xen., Anab. IV, VII, 15], xa li be bi dan zog Sem Txvev sa Si sat rapis kontrol qveS ber Zne bi mi vid nen md. ar pasus Tan, sa i da nac im yo fe boda memkvid re o bi Ti mmar Tve li skvi Ti ne bis qve ya na Si Se vid nen [Xen., Anab. an mefe. aseve ar se bobda na xevra dav to- IV, VII, 18], Sem deg Se di an did da xal xmra- no miu ri sataZ ro Te mebi. ki li ki as, paf- val qa laq gim ni a da Si (na wili mkvle va re bi- la go nias, liki as, kari as da fi ni ki is qa- sa mas dRe van de li ba i bur Tis max lob lad la qebs Ta vi si mefe e bi hyav daT, ro melTa aTav sebs, ma nan di a ni ki q. gi um ris Tan ai gi- xe lisuf le bac mem kvidre obi Ti iyo. ara- vebs [Xen., Anab. 1951:275, Se niS vna]). aqe dan 5 be bi, kolxe bi, eTio pebi, sake bi da sxva dRis sa val ze, fe xes mTaze asul ma ber Zneb- ad gi lob ri vi tomis be la de bis saSu a le- ma zRva da i na xes [Xen., Anab. IV, VIII, 21, 24]. XIX biT imar Te bod nen [Дандамаев М., Лукокин satra pi is da sav le Ti sazRva ri Sav zRva ze В. 1980:115-118]. mefis oq ros mo ne tasTan ga dis (tra pe zun t-or dus Tan), sam xre TiT er Tad, sat rapi eb Si, mefis sa xe liT, ver- XIII, aR mo sav le TiT XVIII sat ra pi a, Crdi lo- cxlis mo ne tac iW rebo da, vercxli sa da e TiT kol xe Ti da qar Tlis sa ma ma sax li so spilen Zis mo netebs av tono mi u ri qa la- esazR vre ba. qe bi da da mo ki de be li mefe e bic Wrid nen am de nad, SeiZ le ba iT qvas, rom satra- [Дандамаев М., Лукокин В. 1980:204-205]. pie bi did ol qe bad iyo dayo fi li, rom- am de nad, naT lad Cans, rom kav ka si on ze lebSic Ta visTa vad mcire er Te u le bi ar se buli gad mo sas vle le bis kontro li ga moi yo foda. mag. XVIII satra pia sam did ira nelTa sa si cocxlo in te reseb Si Sedi- olqad – sas pere bis, ala ro di e le bis da o da da dari os I auci leblad Se ec de boda mati e nebis ol qe bad iyofo da. XIII sat ra- am stra te gi u lad mniSvne lo va ni ko mu ni- pia oTxi ol qi sagan - ar me ni a, da sav leT ka ci e bis da ka ve bas [na rima niSvi li g. 1995]. ar meni a, paq ti i ke da ma Ti me zob le bis ucxo saxel mwi fo Ta (mog vi a ne biT – ro mi, (ro gorc Cans, am sat ra pia Si moqce u li Sa- sa sa nu ri ira ni, bi zan tia da sxv.) sur vi li vizRvis pi reT Si mcxov rebi qar Tve li to- xelSi Ca eg doT an ga e kon tro le bi naT kav- mebis er Ti nawi li), XIX sat rapia ki xu Ti ka si is ka ribWe e bi mxo lod ori gziT Se- ol qi sa gan Sed ge bo da. aqe meni du ri sat- iZ le bo da ganxor ci e le bu li yo: pir ve li ra pie bi zog SemTxve va Si ad re ar sebu li – ad gi lob rivi xe li suf le bis gaZli e resa xelmwi fo e bis sazR vrebs emTxve o da, an biT da meo re – dapyro bi Ti omiT. amaTgan, aRe mate bo da maT. hero dotes mi xedviT umetes SemTxve va Si, pirvels eniWe bo da im peria 20 satra piad iyo da yofi li, be- upira te so ba. weri lo bi Ti wya ro eb ze da his tu nis war wera Si ki 23 qve ya naa Ca moT- arqe olo gi ur mo nace mebze day rdnobiT vlili [Дандамаев М., Лукокин В. 1980:110]. Se iZle ba iT qvas, rom aqeme ni de bi kav ka- sat ra pie bi mcire ad minis tri ci ul er Te- si on ze arse bu li gad mo sas vlele bis kon- u le bad iyofo da. so fel sac Tavi si ad mi- trols qar Tlis (mcxeTis) ma ma sax lise bi- nistra cia hyav da. did satra pi eb Si Se di- sa da kol xeTis mmar Tve le bis sa Su a le biT o da iseTi qvey ne bic, rom le bic sa Si nao axorci e lebdnen. amaze, gar da gum ba Tis, saq me eb Si av to no miiT sar geblob dnen. es sari- Te fes, ya ra ja mir lis sasax le e bi sa gan sa kuTre biT exebo da cen tri dan Sors da or mog pro tomi a ni ka pite le bi sa (va ni, mdeba re pro vinci ebs, ro melTa saSi nao sa ir xe) un da mi u Ti Teb des mdidru li sa- saqme eb Si ira nu li ad minis tra cia iS vi a- mar xe bi winwya ro dan, yaz be gi dan, axal- Tad ere oda. am pro vinci ebis mmarTve lo- gor-sa Zegu ri dan, Savsay da ra dan, iTxvi- bas aqe me ni de bi ad gi lobri vi mTavre bi sa si dan, sair xi dan, va ni dan, romle bic ad- da to mis bela de bis meSve obiT axor ci- gi lobriv ma sa las Tan erTad aqe me ni du ri

111 sti lis arte faq teb sac Sei ca ven. kol xeze Tu ra da mo ki de bule ba Si iyo kavka si- Ti sa da qar Tlis te rito ri a ze gaTxri li is re gi oni spar se Tis impe ri asTan [Ja cobs Zv.w. V-IV ss-is samar xebSi aseve mravld B. 2000:93] an ro go ri iyo am ~sasax le e bis~ gvxvdeba mdidru li sam ka ule bis kom- mflo belTa statu si [Fur twängler A., Knauß pleqse bi, rom le bic aqe me nidu ri xelov- F. 1996:377], dRe i saT vis er Ti a ni Se xedu- ne bis Rrma kvals ata re ben [me liqiS vi li le ba ar ar sebobs. ga moT qmulia mo saz re- g. 1970:433]. am Tval saz ri siT aseve sa in- ba, rom es na ge bobe bi aqe menid Ta ofici- te re soa mu xaT gverdis, wi wa mu ris, na- a lu ri pire bis an ad gi lob rivi mmar Tve- tax trisa da var si maan Tka ris Zv.w. V-IV ss. le bis rezi den ci e bi a, romle bic irans sa ma rov nebi, rom le bic da rial -mcxeTis eq vemde ba re bodnen [Ba ba ev I., Ga goshid ze I., gza ze mdeba reo ben da di di ra o de no biT Kna uΒ F. 2007:32-33], rom sa ri-Te fe SeiZ- Se i ca ven sabrZo lo ia raRs [nari maniS vi- le ba sat raps, an mis qve Sevrdoms ekuT- li g. 1994:20-21]. samxreT kavka si is te ri- vno da [Fur twängler A., Knauß F. 1996:376-378], to ria ze da fiqsi re bu li iseTi mZlavri ro gorc sa ri- Te fe, ise gum ba Ti aqe meni- namo sax la re bi sa da sasi mag ro siste me bis di me fe e bis regi o nalu ri mo ad gi lis sab- da fiqsi re ba ro go ricaa ere bu ni, beni a- rZa nebe li iyo [Ba ba ev I., Gagos hid ze I., Knauß mi ni, ya raja mir li, sa ri- Te fe, gumba Ti, F. 2006:325]. g. tira ci a ni [Тирацян Г. 1981; ci xi a- go ra da sxva, sa dac aqeme ni du ri Тирацян Г. 1988:71] da f. ter -mar ti ro so vi sa sax le e bi, ar qi teq turu li deta le bi [Ter -Mar ti rosov F. 2000:247-248] Tvlian, rom (ba zi sebi, ka pi te le bi), der bendSi ga mov- es arqi teq tu ru li kom pleqse bi XVIII sat- leni li aqeme ni du ri xanis simag re da kav- ra pi as ekuTvno da. ka sio nis mTis wi na zolSi da das tu rebu li Cve ni az riT, cen tralu ri sam xreT ar qe olo gi u ri Zegle bi, romle bic mrav- kav ka sia Zv.w. VI s-is miwu ru lidan aqe me- lad Se i ca ven aqe me nidur, an aqe meni du ri ni du ri im peri is dam xobam de qar Tlis ma- sti lis ar te faq tebs [nadi ra Ze j. 1975; masax li sis gamgeb lo ba Si iyo, kavka si is yi fi a ni g. 1987; na di raZe j. 1990; na ri ma- da sav leT nawils eg ri sis mmarTve le bi niSvi li g., ximSi aS vi li k. 1993; maxa ra Ze ga na gebdnen da Se saba mi sad, isi ni akon- z., nari maniS vi li g. 2001; Нариманишвили Г. tro lebdnen kav ka sion ze ar se bul gad- 1991; Fur twängler A. 1995; Fur twängler A., Kna uß mo sas vlelebs. gumba Tis, beni a mi nis, sa- F. 1996; Gamkre lid ze G. 1998; Ga go šid ze J. 2000; ri- Te fe sa da ya ra ja mir lis ~sa sax le e bi~, Gago šid ze J., Kipi ani G. 2000; Khim shi ashvi li K., sam xreT kav ka si is te rito ri a ze ga mov le- Na ri manis hvi li G. 1995-1996; Lic heli V. 2000; Na ri- nili mdidru li samar xe bi imis maCve ne be- maniš vi li G. 2000; Mac ha radze S. 2000; Gago šid ze li a, rom aqe meni du ri ira ni, maT mier gaZ- J., Sa gi naš vi li M. 2000; Na ri ma nis hvili G., Shat beli e rebu li, qar Tli sa da kol xe Tis ad gi- ras hvi li V. 2004; Ba ba ev I., Ga goshid ze I., Kna uß lob ri vi aristok rati is meSve o biT axor- F. 2006; Ba ba ev I., Gagos hid ze I., Knauß F. 2007] ci e lebda Ta vis strate gi ul miznebs. aqe meni du ri ira nis kultu ru li, eko no- miku ri da po liti kuri gav le nis maCve neli te ra tu ra: be li a. gumba Tis, sari- Te fes, be ni a mi nisa da ya ra ja mir lis ~sa sax le e bis~ gaTxram lor Tqi fa ni Ze oT. 1985: Zv.w. V-I sau ku ne e bis qar- Tlis (i beri is) is tori is zogi erTi sadis ku sio mra val sakiTxs gas ca pasu xi da bevri sa kiTxis Sesa xeb. – macne, isto ri is seria № 1. kiTxvac gaa Ci naa. cxa di gax da, rom es kom- Tbili si. pleqse bi aqe meni du ri impe ri is Zi ri Ta di mar giSvi li s., na ri maniS vi li g. 2004: alge Tis xe- cen tre bi saT vis (per sepo li si, suza, ba- obis an ti ku ri xanis arqe o lo gi u ri Zegle bi. Tbili si. bi lo ni) da ma xasi a Te beli ar qi teq turis masa la ni, 1907: ma sa lani sa qarTve los statis ti- msgavsia [Fur twängler A., Kna uß F. 1996:377; Ba- ku ri aR weri lo bisa XVIII sau ku ne Si. red. eq. Ta- ba ev I., Ga gos hid ze I., Kna uß F. 2007:32]. kiTx va- ya iS vili. Tb., 1907.

112 maxa ra Ze z., na ri ma niSvi li g. 2001: ci xi a gora aqe- Дандамаев М. А., Луконон В. Г. 1980: Культура и me ni dur xa na Si. – Zie ba ni №7. Tb. экономика древнего Ирана. Москва. me li qiS vi li g. 1970: qar Tli (i beri a) Zv.w. VI-IV sa- Дьяконов И. М. 1956: История Мидии от древнейших u ku ne ebSi. qar Tlis sa mefos war moq mna – sa qar- времен до конца IV в. до н. э. Москва-Ленинград. Tve los isto ri is nar kve vebi, t. I. Tbili si. Капанцян Г. 1947: Хайаса – колыбель армян. Ереван. me nab de m., davli a niZe c. 1968: Tri a le Tis sa ma- Капанцян Г. А. 1956: Историко-лингвистические работы. rov nebi. Tbili si. Ереван. na di ra Ze j. 1975: yvi ri lis xe obis ar qeo lo gi u ri Ксенофонт, 1951: Анабасис. Перевод, статья и примчания Zegle bi. Tbili si. М. И. Максимовой. Москва. na di ra Ze j. 1990: sa ir xe sa qar Tvelos uZve le si qa- Куфтин Б.А. 1941: Археологические раскопки в Триалети. la qi. wigni I. Tbili si. Тбилиси. na ri ma niSvi li g. 1993: ibe ria da ira nu li samya ro. Куфтин Б. 1948: Археологические раскопки 1947 года в – I samec ni e ro sesi a: msof lio kul tu rul -is- Цалкинском районе. Тбилиси. to ri u li pro ce si da sa qar Tve lo. mox se ne ba Ta Меликишвили Г. 1959: К истории древней Грузии. Te zi se bi. Tbili si. Тбилиси. na ri ma niSvi li g. 1994: aR mo sav leT ami er kavka sia Нариманишвили Г. 1991: Керамика Картли V-I вв. до da ira nu li samya ro Zv.w. V-I sa u ku nebSi. – II sa- нашей эры. Тбилиси. mec ni e ro se sia: msoflio kultu rul -isto ri- Пиотровский Б. Б. 1949: Археология Закавказья. Москва. u li pro ce si da sa qar Tve lo. moxse ne ba Ta Te- Плутарх 1990: Избранные жизнеописания. т. 2. Москва. zi se bi. Tbili si. Тер-Мартиросов Ф. 1995: Образование царства Армения nari maniS vili g. 1995: da ri os I-is laSqro ba skvi- в контексте исторических данных и исторической Ti a Si da aR mo sav leT ami er kav ka si a. – III sa mec- памяти. Ереван. ni e ro se sia: msof lio kultu rul -is to ri u li Тирацян Г. 1981; Территория Ервандидскогй Армении pro ce si da saqar Tvelo. Tbili si. – конец VI в. до н.э. – конец III в. до н.э. – ИФЖ, № 2. nari maniS vi li g., xim Si aS vi li k. 1993: ibe ri u li Ереван. cecxlis taZ re bis erTi jgufi. – lite ra tu ra Тирацян Г. 1988: Культура древней Армении. Ереван. da xe lov ne ba № 1. Tbili si. Шаншашвили Н. 2007: К распространению расписной nari maniS vi li g., Sat beraS vi li v. 2002: Zv.w. V-I ss керамики Куро-аракской культуры на территории wiTlad mo xa tu li kera mi ka qar Tli dan (sti- Грузии. – Археология, Этнология, Фольклористика listu ri ana li zi, qro no lo gi is sa kiTxe bi). – Кавказа. Тбилиси. Zi e ba ni №9. Tb. Ba ba ev I., Gagos hid ze I., KnauΒ F. 2006: Ein Per ser bau in ra miS vili r. 1998: ibe ri is ga re samya rosTan ur- Azer baj džan. Aus gra bung auf dem Ide al Te pe bei Ka ra- Ti er To bis isto riis zo gi er Ti sa kiTxi Zv.w. I za mir li 2006. - Archäolo gis che Mitte i lungen aus Iran und aTas wleu lis Sua xane bis ar qe o lo gi u ri ma sa- Tu ran. Band 38. Ber lin. lebis mi xed viT. V sa mecni e ro se si a: msoflio Ba ba ev I., Ga gos hid ze I., Kna uΒ F. 2007: An Acha e me nid kul tu rul-is tori u li pro ce si da sa qar Tve- „pa lace“ at Qa ra ja mir li (Azer ba i jan). Preli minary Report lo. moxse neba Ta Tezi se bi. Tbili si. on the Exca va tions in 2006. – Ancient Ci vili za ti ons from yi fi a ni g. 1987: sa qar Tve los an tiku ri xa nis ar qi- Scythia to Si be ria № 13. pp. 31-45. Le i den. teqtu ra. ka pite le bi. Tbili si. Fur twängler A. 1995: Gum ba ti – Archäolo gis che Expe di ti on San SaSvi li n., na ri ma niSvi li g. 2007: vaW ro ba da in Kac he ti en 1994. – Eu ra zia Antiqu a. Band 1. Berlin. sa vaW ro gzebi samxreT kavka sia sa da si ri a- pa- Fur twängler A., KnauΒ F. 1996: Gum ba ti – Archäolo gis che lesti nas So ris Zv.w. III-II aTas wleul Si. – gu- Expe di tion in Kache ti en 1995. – Eura zia Antiqu a. band ri a, t. V. Tbili si. 2. Ber lin. ja vaxiS vi li a., Rlonti l. 1962: ur bnisi. t. I. Tbi- Ga go šid ze J. 2000: Ne u er ar chäo lo ges cher Be fund im Be zirk lisi. Ka re li, ki da Kar tli. - Archäolo gis che Mitte i lungen aus Iran ja fa ri Ze o. 1969: ar qeo lo gi uri gaTx re bi Tri a- und Turan. Band 32. Ber lin. leTSi. Tbili si. Ga go šid ze J., Ki pi a ni G. 2000: Neue Be o bac htun gen zur ac- he ro do te 1975: is to ri a. berZnu li dan Tar gmna, hai me nidis chen ba u kunst in Kar tli. - Archäo lo gis che Mit- wina sityva o ba da saZi e beli da ur To T. ya ux CiS- te i lun gen aus Iran und Turan. band 32. Ber lin. vilma. Tbili si. ¿ Ga go šid ze J., Sa gi naš vili M. 2000: Die ac hai me ni dis chen Гагошидзе Ю. 1979: Самадло, Археологические раскопки. Glas gef ΔΒe in Ge or gi en. -Archäo lo gis che Mitte i lungen Тбилиси. aus Iran und Turan. Band 32. Ber lin. Гогелия Д., Челидзе Л. 1991: О полевых работах Квемо- Gam kre lidze G. 1998: Ein Rhyton mit Götter dar stel lung aus Картлииской экспедиции в 1985-86 гг. – ПАИ в 1986 der Kolchis. - Archäolo gis che Mitte i lun gen aus Iran und году, сс. 10-14. Тбилиси. Tu ran. Band 30. Ber lin. Дандамаев М.А. 1985: Политическая история Ja cobs B. 2000: Acha i me ni den her rschaft in der Kau ka sus - Ахеменидской державы. Москва. Regi on und in Cis -Ka u ka si en.- Archäo lo gis che mit tei lungen aus Iran und Turan. Band 32. Ber lin.

113 Khim shi as hvili K., Na ri ma nishvi li G. 1995-1996: A group 35, 38, 42, 43, 46, 47, 50, 53 - saxli № 1; sur. 30-32, of Ibe ri an fi re tem ples (4th Cent. BC-and 2nd Cent. AD). - 36, 39, 40 - saxli № 7; Archa e o lo gis che Mitta e i lungen aus Iran und Turan. Band tab. IX. dara qo is namo sax lar ze aRmo Ce nili kera- 28. Ber lin. mi ka: sur. 1, 2, 4, 7, 10, 12-19, 21-41, 43, 45-50 - sax- Kull B. 2000: Hin ter grun dbil der und Jen se it skonzep ti onen li № 1; sur. 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 20, 42 - saxli № 6; sur. im nicht schrif thisto ris chen Ra um. – Eura sia Antiqu a. 44 - saxli № 2. Band 6. Ber lin. tab. X. dara qo is na mosax lar ze gaTxril ormo eb Si Lic he li V. 2000: Acha i me nidis che Fun dor te in Sam cche aR mo Ce ni li ke ra mika: sur. 1, 2, 22, 23, 29, 33, 37, (Sxdge or gi en). - Archäo lo gis che Mitte ilun gen aus Iran 43, 49 - or mo № 13; sur. 3, 4, 11-13, 30, 32, 34-36, und Tu ran. Band 32. Ber lin. 38, 39, 41, 44 - ormo № 11; sur. 5-9, 14-18, 21, 26 - Lor dki pa nid ze O. 2000: Intro duc ti on to the His tory of Ca u ca- or mo № 8; sur. 10, 42, 47 - or mo № 2; sur. 19, 51 si an Ibe ria and its Cul tu re of the Acha e me nid and Pos t- - or mo 7; sur. 20, 24, 45 - ormo № 10; sur. 25, 27, Acha e me nid Pe ri ods. - Archäo lo gis che Mitte i lun gen aus 40 - ormo № 6; sur. 28, 31, 48, 50 - ormo № 1; sur. Iran und Tu ran. Band 32. Ber lin. 46 - or mo № 12. Mac ha rad ze S. 2000: Neue Fun de aus Zic hia- Go ra. - Archäo- tab. XI. da raqo is na mosax lar ze gaTxril ormo eb sa lo gis che Mitte i lun gen aus Iran und Turan. Band 32. Ber- da xa ro Si aR mo Ce nili kera mi ka: sur. 1, 4, 5, 7-15, lin. 18, 22-24, 26, 27, 34, 36, 40 – ormo № 16; sur. 2, 3, Na ri ma niš vili G. 2000: Die Ke ra mik Kar tlis (Ibe ri ens) in acha i- 20, 30, 32, 35, 41 – xa ro № 1; sur. 6, 16, 17, 19, 21, me nidis cher und postac ha i me nidis cher Ze it. - Archäolo- 25, 28, 29, 42 – or mo № 15; sur. 31, 33, 37-39 - or- gis che Mitte i lun gen aus Iran und Turan. Band 32. Berlin. mo № 19. Na ri ma nis hvili G., Shat be ras hvili V. 2004: Red-pa in ted Pot- tery of the Acha e me nid and Pos t-Acha eme nid Pe ri ods from Ca u ca sus (Ibe ri a): Stylis tic Anal ysis and Chro no logy. – Ance int Ne ar Eastern Stu di es. vol. XLI. Lo uva in. Ter -Mar ti rosov F. 2000: Die Gren zen der ac hai me ni dischen Ge bi e te in Tran ska u ka si en.- Archäo lo gis che mitte i lungen aus Iran und Tu ran. Band 32. Ber lin.

ilus tra ci e bis aR we rilo ba: tab. I. sur. 1. samxreT kavka sii sa da mcire azi is ru ka, da ra qo is na mo saxla ris aR niSvniT; sur. 2. dara qo is namo sax la ris to po geg ma. tab. II. sur. 1. da ra qois na mosax la ris gegma (II done); sur. 2. da raqo is na mosax la ris geg ma (III done). tab. III. sur. 1. dara qo is namo saxla ri, Wri lebi. tab. IV. sur. 1. sax li № 4, deta li; sur. 2. saxli № 7, sa kur Txe veli; sur. 3. saxli № 1, sa er To xe di aR mo sav leTi dan; sur. 4. saxli № 5 da № 4, sa er- To xe di aR mo sav leTi dan. tab. V. sur. 1, 2. saxli № 4, Ru me li; sur. 3, 4. saxli № 4, Ru me li. gegme bi daW ri lebi. tab. VI. sur. 1, 2. saxli № 1, sakur Txe veli; sur. 3. sax li № 1, Ru me li. Ca na xa ti; sur. 4. saxli № 1, sa kur Txeve li. Cana xati. tab. VII. dara qo is na mo saxlar ze aR mo Ce ni li wiT- lad mo xa tu li ke ra mi ka: sur. 1, 13, 17, 19, 24, 42, 46 - saxli №1; sur. 2, 3, 5-7, 9, 12, 16, 21, 22, 25, 27-29, 33, 36, 41, 43, 44, 47, 49 - saxli № 6; sur. 4. xa ro № 2; sur. 8, 14, 15, 18, 20, 23, 26, 30-32, 34, 35, 38, 39, 45, 48 - sax li № 7; sur. 37 - sax li № 4; sur. 40 - saxli № 5. tab. VIII. da ra qo is na mo sax lar ze aR mo Ce ni li kera- mi ka: sur. 1, 6, 7, 11-16, 18-20, 24 - saxli № 6; sur. 2-4, 8, 29, 37, 41, 44, 45, 48, 49, 51, 52 - sax li № 4; sur. 5, 9, 33 - sax li № 2; sur. 17, 21-23, 25-28, 34,

114 G. Narimanishvili I

115 II

116 III

117 IV

118 V

119 VI

120 VII

121 VIII

122 IX

123 X

124 XI

125 Otar Lordkipanidze †

GEORGIAN CIVILIZATION: WHENCE DOES ITS HISTORY START?

The reader is offered the paper by the well- So-called primary seats - or as they are some- known archaeologist, Academician Otar Lordki- times called, “primary civilizations” - are deter- panidze (1930-2002) which came out as a pre- mined in scholarly literature upon the establish- print in 1993 and soon turned into a rare pub- ment in this or that society of the features just lication. listed. These are followed by the so-called “sec- * * * ondary civilizations”. In this case, we have to deal There can be drastically differing answers to with concrete regional and national seats, i.e. with this question, yet each can be relevant and well- civilizations developing on a definite territory and grounded. Thus, some may hold that the history of connected with a definite ethnos, which enjoys a Georgian civilization should start from the time of leading political status. The cultural values (lan- creation of a single Georgian state with a common guage, literature, religious outlook, architecture Georgian culture and national self-consciousness, and art, etc.) determine the national makeup and i.e. from the 10th century. Others may consider essence of this civilization. the 4th century to be the beginning of the history Any national civilization - in the present case, of Georgian civilization, for at that time Christian- Georgian - should in the first place be regarded as ity was declared the state religion which laid a firm a complex socio-economic, political and cultural- foundation for the development of Georgian na- ideological system, which is already familiar with tional culture and consciousness. the initial forms of exploitation and administrative I personally believe it admissible to commence and political organization. Naturally enough, such the history of Georgian civilization from the time a complex system does not come into being all suggested by the medieval Georgian conception as of a sudden. It is preceded by development over found in Kartlis Tskhovreba (hen ce for ward abbre- thousands of years, creating a solid foundation viated to KTs) - “History of Georgia”, namely, with for civilization. If the development of human so- King Parnavaz. I do feel and understand the com- ciety in present-day Georgia and in the lands ly- plexity of such a conceptualization of the question. ing southward and settled by tribes of Kartvelian Therefore my views are highly hypothetical and I stock is viewed from this angle, we shall clearly shall try to set down only some of them. However, discern in the archaeological material the gradual first a few words on how civilization should be un- emergence of individual elements of civilization derstood. at separate stages of the country’s multi-millenni- Many views have been expressed in the spe- al history. cialist literature on the criteria and characteris- Suffice it to note that farming and cattle breed- tic features defining “civilization”. Of these most ing begin to develop among Kartvelian tribes and comprehensive is that of the eminent English ar- on Georgian territory as far back as the 6th-5th mil- chaeologist Gordon Childe, according to which, lennia B.C., bronze metallurgy from the 4th millen- “civilization” should be characterized by state or- nium B.C., and iron metallurgy at the end of the ganization, the existence of a privileged class or 2nd- and the beginning of the 1st millennium B.C. classes, a system of taxes and centralized wealth The latter played an outstanding role in the socio- accumulated through regular levying of tribute; economic and political development of Kartve- a definite level of economic development and lian tribes, essentially laying a firm foundation commercial relations, the emergence of profes- for the gradual creation of the main, determining sional artisans, writing, developed art, begin- structures of civilization among Kartvelian tribes nings of science. [1]. These tribes (Mushki//Meskhians), which had

126 formed a state confederation [2], are already men- turally, with almost all key elements of civilization tioned in l2th-7th cent. B.C., ancient eastern sources. in evidence: civic structure (territorial-administra- The powerful political union of the Diauhi (Diaohi, tive division) and central state authority (the royal Daiaeni), existing in the southern Transcaucasus dynasty of the Aeetids), intensive urban life (nu- in the 12th-7th cent. B.C. is recognized as a state of merous urbanistic centres with multi-profile artisan Kartvelian tribes [3]. Unfortunately, today we have manufacture and developed trade both within the little knowledge about these ancient Kartvelian country and with the outer world), a doubtlessly state entities which no doubt reflected the earli- complex taxation system (patently illustrated by est stage of the history of Georgian civilization the great wealth - items of gold and other precious and which can be tentatively called Kartvelian. We metals found in the burials of the élite), civic and have comparatively better knowledge of one of the cultic jargvali (“log cabin”) type architecture, based principal Georgian ethnoses, viz. the state confed- on centuries-old fully developed traditions, wide eration of the Colchians, which was already char- use of metal - mainly iron, as well as bronze - in the acterized by the basic features of civilization. As far economy, and so on. back as the second half of the 2nd millennium B. C. The existence of writing in Colchis is a moot Colchian tribes created a highly developed Bronze problem. However, it should be noted that the Culture on the territory of present-day Western absence of writing cannot always serve as a proof Georgia, widely known in the specialist literature as of the nonexistence of a state. A complex histori- Colchian [4]. The study of archaeological material co-sociological, ethnological, and archaeological points clearly to the rapid pace of technical prog- study, conducted recently in the African continent, ress and an high developmental level. Already from has revealed a number of state confederations that the middle of the 2nd millennium B.C. the develop- do not use writing (the Yoruba city-states, Benin, ment of bronze metallurgy is marked throughout the Monomotap “Empire”, and others). It should Western Georgia by a number of technical novel- nevertheless be noted that ancient Greek sources ties, the main being the manufacture and working have preserved evidence on the existence among of diverse alloys of differing characteristics. This in the Colchians of “writings of their fathers, graven on turn formed the basis for the wide production of pillars (kurbeis)” [8], which some researchers take more or less perfect farming equipment. A firm for a direct evidence of the existence of writing in foundation was being laid for an intensive devel- ancient Colchis [9]. Some Greek and Byzantine au- opment of farming, particularly accented on grow- thors (Palephatus, John of Antioch, Suida) tell of ing grain crops and livestock-breeding - one of the books written on skins [10] (in the context of the essential elements of civilization. This process was legend of the Golden Fleece). However, so far we accelerated further by the adoption of iron, the rate have no material proof of the existence of monu- of its implementation being especially high in the ments of Colchian writing in the available archae- 8th-7th cent. B. C. [5]. The archaeological finds of this ological finds. Perhaps the use of Greek writing is period are noteworthy for the exceptionally large not to be ruled out, as is attested in a number of number of farming tools and their diversity. highly-cultured countries of the world of the pe- The rapid growth of agriculture resulted in an riod under discussion. Names, scratched in Greek intensive economic development of the Colchian characters on pottery, found in some 5th cent. B.C. lowland from the second half of the 2nd millennium burials (Sairkhe, Itkhvisi) [11], believed to be local B.C., this gradually paving the way for the creation personal names, may serve as indirect proof of this. of a single political organism. From the 8th-7th cent Thus, Colchis of the 7th-5th cent. B.C. represents an B.C. the state of Urartu [6] takes shape and then, ancient society characterized by a number of es- that of Colchis – the latter widely known in Greek sential features of civilization. The national makeup sources [7]. According to fresh archaeological dis- of this civilization was determined by its highly- coveries, Colchis in the 6th-5th centuries B.C. emerg- specific material culture (pottery, goldsmithery, es as a state advanced both economically and cul- jargvali architecture, bronze plastic art, etc.).

127 Now we are faced with the exceptionally dif- the new state called the Kingdom of Lazica [17], ficult question of the role of Colchian civilization annexed later by the Romans. The Byzantines, too, in the shaping of common Georgian civilization were well aware of the existence of this conscious- (statehood), and whether it vanished without a ness among the Laz. The fact is also worth noting trace or became its integral part. that the traditional name of the first Colchian King The ethnic affinity of the Colchians causes no Aeetes was preserved among the Laz nobles. Thus, doubt: they are unanimously acknowledged to during the Byzantine-Iranian wars in the 6th century be western Kartvelian tribes speaking the Megrel- a local noble, called Aeetes, appears to have been Chan language which developed as the result of an active political figure 18[ ]. This is also an incon- the differentiation of the common Georgian par- testable corroboration of Strabo’s noteworthy evi- ent language [12]. There are fairly numerous argu- dence: “That Aeetes is believed to have ruled over ments to support this conclusion [13]. I shall name Colchis and the name Aeetes is still locally current only a few. The area of bronze culture referred to among the people of that region” [19]. Thus, the as Colchian, on the territory of Western Georgia sources are unanimous in pointing to the genetic essentially coincides with the diffusion of ancient relationship of the Laz and the Colchians. The Laz Megrel-Chan place names (including in the areas have preserved their language to the present day, no longer populated by Megrel-Chans, e.g. Imereti, which - along with Megrel-Chan - is Western Geor- Guria, Samtskhe-Javakheti and partly in the west- gian. ern and north-western parts of historical Inner Kar- Thus, the Colchlans - the direct ancestors of tli) [14]. The evidence preserved in Byzantine litera- present-day Megrel-Chans and the Laz - were the ture is also highly significant. Thus, according to a creators of the first state and civilization on theter- 5th-cent. anonymous writer (called Pseudo-Arrian), ritory of Western Georgia [20]. The creation of a “From Dioscurias, which is also called Sebastopolis, state was an act of major political importance in the up to the Apsarus river (mod. Chorokhi) lived the developmental history of the local society. It was people called Colchians, and were later named the the highest form of political consolidation and or- Laz” [15]. The 6th-cent. Byzantine historian Agathias dering of social life according to the territorial-ad- Scholasticus says: “The Laz are a mighty and brave ministrative principle in place of the local-tribal, i.e. tribe, and they lord over other powerful tribes as primitive structures viewed from the angle of social well; they take pride in the ancient name of Col- and political development. This highly important chians, and are haughty beyond measure, and per- fact, viz. the division of the country according to haps not without ground... I know of no other tribe the territorial-administrative principle is confirmed so renowned and powerful - both in the abundance beyond doubt by the sources and archaeological of wealth and the number of subjects, as well as in evidence. Thus, e.g. Strabo speaks of the division of the richness of land, bumper crops, and the har- Colchis into sceptuchies, i.e. administrative-territori- moniousness and refinement of their customs and al units, which corresponded to the later Georgian mores” [16]. saeristavos [21]. The political centres of such admin- This evidence is significant in many ways. To an istrative units have been discovered: Vani [22], as historian reared in traditions of Classical Greek his- well as Sairkhe [23]. The concentration of masters toriography it primarily meant the existence among of construction, jewellery artisanship, workshops these people of a state system inherited from the for the manufacture of items of precious met- ancient Colchian Kingdom. At the same time, the als and clay, fabrics, and in general luxury goods, evidence just cited is a rare and clear illustration of as well as weapons. The archaeological material national consciousness handed down from gen- shows also that already in the 6th, and especially in eration to generation, which was preserved even the 5th-4th cent. B.C. Colchian administrative centres in the 6th century among the Laz - the creators on (Vani, Sairkhe) had turned into major commercial the territory of Western Georgia (Colchis), first of and artisan centres [24]. The concentration of ar- the Pontic Kingdom of Mithradates VI, and then of tisan manufacture at definite centres and accord-

128 ingly, the emergence of a market, is a vivid proof were implemented, as reflected vividly in Colchian of urbanization - an essential constituent structure archaeological finds, which I shall not discuss here of civilization according to the modern sociological at length [27]. I shall hypothesize only that the conception. lively contacts of Colchis with the Greek world, Thus, the emergence of Colchian statehood, commencing regularly from the 6th-5th cent. B.C., and respectively of civilization, essentially meant may have determined in some measure the later the creation in Western Georgia of territorial units orientation (in the first centuries of the new era) of based on the principle of administrative govern- the Georgian states to the Western Christian world, ment, later forming part of a united Georgian state. thereby paving the way for the tendency of Euro- The shaping of a single ethnocultural system pean development of Georgian civilization. was one of the essential consequences of the cre- The great political cataclysms following Alex- ation of the Colchian state, which is graphically re- ander the Great’s campaigns in the Near East and flected in the archaeological material of th7 -4th cent. the emergence of Hellenistic states, the conquests B.C. Colchis: a homogeneous, yet specific, culture of Mithradates VI, and then of the Romans, Byzan- (architecture, pottery, metal tools and weapons, or- tine-Iranian wars, etc. impeded the upward march naments, burial customs and religious beliefs and of Colchian civilization. However, from the early 3rd notions) spread throughout the territory of mod- cent. B.C. the eastern Georgian statehood emerged ern Western Georgia - within the bounds of the Col- as a powerful force on the political scene, becom- chian state [25]. Many-tribalness is obliterated, as ing the creator of a single Georgian civilization. This it were, the same happening to groups of differing historic fact is described with astonishing clarity ethnic affinity which found themselves within the and precision in medieval Georgian historiography, Colchian Kingdom. viz. in KTs. One of the oldest parts of this corpus – Thus, the emergence of the Colchian state, and “The History of the Kings”, together with its conjec- the development of Colchian civilization resulted turally independent part, “The Life of Parnavaz”, was in the creation of a number of state structures: compiled in the 5th cent. A.D. [28]. However, some administrative-territorial division, the rise of cities, researchers assign it even to an earlier date [29]. borders and the guarding of the territory by the Old Georgian historical tradition, preserved in state authority [26]. Thus, at that time state, and in KTs and in The Conversion of Georgia (henceforward general, civilization, structures took shape, which abbreviated to CG), graphically reflects the peripe- subsequently became an organic part of a unitary teias of the creation of the Kingdom of Kartli, taking Georgian civilization, suffering transformation con- place against the background of a bitter struggle for formably to the period. supreme power in Kartli between individual aristo- Another point is worth noting, viz. the foreign cratic families [30]. The rulers of separate political economic and cultural orientation of the Colchian entities of Eastern Georgia resorted to outside force state. Already from the 6th-5th cent. B.C. the entire in this struggle. Thus first the ruler of that southern population of Colchis was engaged in intensive province of Eastern Georgia which was once within trade and economic relations with the Greek world, the Iranian state and was hence called “Arian” i.e. in which a major role was played by the Black Sea Iranian Kartli [31], succeeded - with the support of and the Rioni-Qvirila (ancient Phasis) trade route. the Pontic Kingdom - in extending his influence to The Black Sea was the medium of lively commer- the territory lying to the north of the Mtkvari (Kura). cial contacts between ancient Greece, viz. Athens The CG refers to Azo, who came from Arian-Kartli, and a number of other trade-and-artisan centres as “the first King” of Kartli 32[ ]. However, the official (Chios, Samos, Thasos and Miletus, Sinope, and version (KTs) does not acknowledge him as such, others) and Colchis, attended by cultural relations. as he came to Kartli with the aid of a foreign (Greek) Advanced Greek, and subsequently Hellenistic, force as a conqueror. Azon’s rule in Kartli, based on achievements in science, engineering, and culture foreign power, was short-lived. An uprising took generally, spread and transformed on local ground, place in the country, led by Parnavaz, a representa-

129 tive of a noble family of Mtskheta: “A Kartlian on his One of the determinants of civilization (and of father’s side, an intelligent man, and a brave horse- state) is “the system of taxes and centralized wealth man”… “And all the Georgians broke away from accumulated through regular payment of tribute” Azon and came before Parnavaz” [33]. The struggle (G. Childe). “The Life of the Kings” points out directly was doubtless bitter and relentless, as attested by that Parnavaz divided the country into military and traces of great destruction and fires at the ancient fiscal and administrative units or “thousands” (ex- city or settlement sites of Samadlo, Tsikhiagora, etc. actly like the chiliarchies of the Hellenistic states) [34]. The uprising ended with the victory of the [40], from which came tribute for the king and the Georgians and the enthronement of Parnavaz. His eristavis. The magnitude of “the centralized wealth accession is generally dated to 284 B.C. - the be- accumulated through this tribute” is graphically ginning of Georgian national chronology and the demonstrated by the exceptionally rich burial in- point of departure of the Koronikon [35]. ventory discovered as a result of archaeological According to the official historical tradition - as excavations in the vaults of members of the royal presented in KTs - “Parnavaz was the first king of family (Armaztsikhe-Bagineti and the necropo- Kartli”, giving rise to the dynasty of the Parnava- leis of the nobles (Armaziskhevi, Bori, Zghuderi, zids. That Parnavaz was an historical personage is Aragvispiri) [41]. proved by numerous facts [36]. From this point of Regarding cities - another essential and de- view, considerable interest attaches to the novel in- termining feature of civilization - the same Geor- terpretation of the 7th and 8th lines of the so-called gian source states that Parnavaz “Strongly forti- Armazic text of the “Armazian bilingual inscription”, fied the city of Mtskheta, and rebuilt all the cities according to which reference in them is to the and strongholds of Kartli, laid waste by Alexander” name of King Parnavaz or the Parnavazid dynasty [42]. That the indication of the Georgian histori- [37]. cal source is not an invention but has real ground The evidence of KTs, viz. its oldest part bearing is proved both by evidence of the CG and by the full title “The Lives of the Georgian Kings and of Strabo’s description, who attended Pompey in his Their Forefathers and Their Descendants”, on the re- campaign in the Transcaucasus in 66-65 B.C.: “Fur- forms carried out by Parnavaz, presents with amaz- thermore, the greater part of Iberia (Kartli) is so ing clarity all the features considered by modern well built up in respect of cities and farmsteads scholarship as the determining elements of civiliza- that their roofs are tiled, and their houses as well tion as a system. In the first place, the setting up of as their market-places and other public build- a state (“Parnavaz was the first king of Kartli”) with ings are constructed with architectural skill” [43]. all its attributes: territorial division (“he appointed This evidence merits note not only for its state- eight eristavis”) and public administration (“ap- ment regarding the large number of cities (which pointed a spaspeti... and this spaspeti ruled all the is attested by other Greco-Roman sources as well) eristavis in the name of the king. And under these but also by its emphasis on the existence of urban eristavis he appointed spasalaris and atasistavis of architecture here, which is also an essential feature provinces...”). in Gordon Childe’s definition of civilization, and Thus, the source under discussion fully repre- graphically demonstrated by the numerous civic sents the most essential feature of civilization - the and cultic tiled buildings, including palaces, tem- state organization, which is confirmed by epigraph- ples, baths, water conduits, etc., brought to light in ic monuments (reference to pitiakhshes or eristavis the urban centres of the Kingdom of Iberia or Kar- in the inscriptions of the “Armazi bilingual” and the tli (Tsitsamuri-Seusamora, Sarkine, Dzalisa, Urbnisi, Armazic script) [38] and self-evident archaeological Uplistsikhe, Samadlo-Nastakisi, Tsikhiagora, and material (the royal residence Armaztsikhe, and ne- others) [44]. cropoleis of representatives of the administrative I shall not go into the details of other features of élite in various provinces of the country) [39]. civilization whose existence in the Kingdom of Kar- tli - created by Parnavaz and known to the Greek

130 world as Iberia - have been confirmed archaeo- gians themselves! This was at the same time a po- logically: privileged classes and stratified society litical act of great significance: the establishment of (patent in the burial customs and inventory and in the cult of the king was designed to strengthen the residential buildings of the rich), commercial rela- belief among the subjects of the supremacy of the tions (as illustrated by numerous imported items authority of the king of Kartli. and coins), the emergence of professional artisans Along with state organization, writing is con- and developed art (represented by fine specimens sidered to be one of the crucial features of civiliza- of architecture, pottery, toreutics, goldsmithing, tion (naturally including national civilization). It is and glyptic), farming and livestock-breeding based highly significant that old Georgian tradition cred- on grain crops (diverse metal tools used in farming its Parnavaz with the invention of Georgian writing: and household economy, and clayware, finds of “He created the Georgian writing” [49]. Here I shall different varieties of cereals and bones of domestic not discuss the highly controversial question con- animals) [45]. Thus, Georgian national, as well as for- nected with the origin of Georgian capital script eign historical sources and archaeological material, [50]. Although no Georgian monuments of the pre- present with sufficient clarity the so-called systems Christian period have so far been found, the direct unit of features determining civilization (statehood, reference of the Georgian source to Parnavaz as the cities and urban architecture, artisanship and trade, inventor of Georgian writing is highly noteworthy. classes, and so forth), which would seem to give There is no ground to question the realness of this full ground for acknowledging - from the stand- evidence - the more so that all the other evidence point of modern scholarship - the state created by of the same source regarding Parnavaz and his ac- Parnavaz and its society as a true civilization. Even tivity is confirmed beyond doubt by epigraphic and more significant is the fact that the evidence con- archaeological materials. Whether the author of the tained in KTs points to structures characteristic of “Life of Parnavaz” meant specifically capital or some a national civilization, e.g. religion: “Parnavaz made other letters is another matter. Perhaps he had in a great idol in his name: it is Armazi... He raised mind the so-called Armazi writing whose examples this idol on the top of the mountain of Kartli, and have been found at many places on the territory since then the place was called Armazi on account of the ancient Kingdom of Kartli [51], or maybe a of the idol” [46]. The CG contains a description of special system at present referred to as Georgian this idol: “There stood a man made of copper, and alloglottography? [52]. These questions are difficult he was clad in a coat of mail of gold, and he had a to solve on the basis of the available material. The gold helmet, and he wore breast-pieces of emerald main point here is that the historian of Parnavaz and beryl, and he held a sharp sword in his hand, considered “Georgian writing” as an organic part which shone and turned in his hand, so that who- of the state (civilization) created by Parnavaz. The ever touched it was doomed to death”.... “And to his following evidence is also noteworthy in many re- right there stood an idol of gold, and its name was spects: “Parnavaz spread the Georgian language Gatsi, and to his left, an idol of silver, and its name and no other language but Georgian was spoken was Ga” [47]. Thus, here we have a triad of supreme in Kartli.” This clearly reflects the creation of asingle deities (Armazi, Gatsi and Ga), with Armazi as the ethnocultural system (like in Colchis) in place of chief one [48]. This meant not only the establish- multitribal structures. It is obvious from this evi- ment of a new cult, but a single state national cult, dence that Parnavaz proclaimed Georgian the state opposed henceforward to the local tribal or com- language. It is not crucial here to know when the munal cults. The supreme deity, Armazi, personi- history of the reign of Parnavaz was written - in the fied the supreme ruler of the state. Like the mon- 2nd- or, which is more probable, in the 5th cent. A.D. archs-despots of the Hellenistic East, the first king [53]. Important is the fact that it formed an organic of Kartli proclaimed himself a god but, unlike the part of KTs - an official monument of Old Georgian Hellenistic kings, he did not personify any Greek historiography the purpose of which, as aptly noted god but the oldest and supreme deity of the Geor- by the Georgian historian N. Berdzenishvili, was “to

131 say that in the time of Parnavaz and through him a ever, most important was the fact that Christian state of the Georgians was created, with Georgian Kartli inherited the language of the first Georgian territory, Georgian language, Georgian administra- state - that of Georgian civilization, which Parnavaz tion system (though borrowed), Georgian religion, “spread.... And no other language but Georgian was Georgian writing, and a Georgian king” [54]. In oth- spoken in Kartli.” This is the language in which di- er words, posterity perceived the reign of Parnavaz vine service became the symbol of national unity: as the birth of Georgian civilization. That is why I, “Georgia is reckoned to consist of those spacious too, believe that the history of Georgian civilization lands in which church services are celebrated and should start with Parnavaz and the state created by all prayers said in the Georgian tongue” (D. Lang’s him - the more so that this is how old (perhaps the translation, The Georgians, Thames and Hudson, first?) Georgian historians viewed it, as I have tried London, 1966, p. 109), said Giorgi Merchule back in to show. From this point of view interest attaches the 10th century. also to the evidence of KTs on the address of Kuji, Thus, Georgian civilization is the product of the ruler of Egrisi or Western Georgia to Parnavaz: long development, its individual elements taking “You are the son of the chieftains of Kartli, and it shape at the common Kartvelian level. Following its is proper that you be lord over me... You shall be differentiation, structures began to emerge within our lord and I your servant" [55]. It is interesting the political, socio-economic and cultural develop- that in the Old Armenian 13th-century translation of ment of the principal Georgian tribes (the Svans, KTs this passage reads thus: “You are the first ma- the Megrel-Chans, the Karts//Meskhians) whose masakhlisi of the House of Kartli, and it befits you unification into a single organism created Georgian to be the prince. And now you be lord, and I your civilization, i.e. a Georgian state with a Georgian servant” [56]. It is highly significant that the ruler of language. Its author, according to Old Georgian Egrisi (3rd cent. B.C.), successor to the ancient King- historical tradition was Parnavaz, “the first king fo dom of Colchis (6th-4th cent. B.C.), already considers Kartli.” A study of the written sources and archaeo- himself the son of Kartli (“the House of Kartli”), and logical evidence from the modern sociological- henceforward his country becomes part of Kar- culturological angle leads us to the same view. The tli. The long process of unification of the territories study of the origins of Georgian civilization shows populated by Kartvelian tribes began with Par- clearly also that statehood and its attendant civili- navaz. In his time the entire Eastern Georgia (Kartli, zation were created only by Georgian tribes. If non- Kakheti, Samtskhe, Javakheti, Kola, Artaani, Klarjeti) Georgian tribes came within the Georgian state, and the eastern and south-western provinces (Egri- they formed its integral part and enjoyed the fruits si, Apkhazeti, Achara) of Western Georgia (historical of its civilization. Colchis) came within the Kingdom of Kartli [57]. Thus did a single Georgian ethnocultural sys- References: tem take shape, based on a single socio-political and economic organism, both giving rise to Geor- 1. For details see O. Lordkipanidze, Archäologie in Georgien gian civilization. A new stage in the development (von der Altsteinzeit zum Mittelalter), Weinheim, 1991, S. 43ff. (with a bibliography). of this civilization began with the proclamation of 2. N. Khazaradze. The ethnopolitical problems of the ancient Christianity the state religion. As to what Christian history of Georgia, Tbilisi, 1989 (in Georgian). Kartli inherited from its preceding society is a rather 3. G. Melikishvili. The ancient confederations of the south- western Georgian population, in Essays on Georgian His- complex problem, which calls for special research. tory. I, Tbilisi, 1972, p. 364ff. (in Georgian). However, at present it can be said positively that 4. T. Mikeladze. Researches in the history of the ancient popu- the principal types of the state system were relation of Colchis and the south-eastern Black Sea littoral, tained, primarily that of territorial-administrative Tbilisi, 1974 (in Georgian); O. Japaridze, The archaeology of Georgia (Stone and Bronze Ages), Tbilisi, 1991, pp. 200- division, urban structures (Kaspi, Dzalisa, Nastakisi, 227(in Georgian); O. Lordkipanidze. Archäologie ..., S. 93f. Urbnisi, Uplistsikhe, etc.), to say nothing of some 5. D. Khakhutaishvili, The manufacture of iron in ancient elements of civic and cultic architecture. How- Colchis, Tbilisi, 1987 (in Russian); O. Lordkipanidze, T.

132 Mikeladze, La Colchide aux VIIe-Ve siécles. Sources écrites mennykh istoricheskikh istochnikov, Tbilisi, 1985, p.107 (in antiques et archéologie, in La Pont-Euxin vu par les Grecs Russian). (ed. O. Lordkipanidzé; P. Lévêque), Paris,1991, pp. 182- 29. R. Baramidze, Towards the study of Georgian writing, 185. Tbilisi, p. 33 (in Georgian). 6. G. Melikishvili, The ancient confederations ..., p. 366ff. 30. Cf. O. Lordkipanidze, The Classical World and the King- 7. For details see T. Mikeladze, Researches..., O. Lordkipanid- dom of Kartli, Tbilisi, 1968, p. l8ff. ze Das alte Kolchis und seine Beziehungen zur griechi- 31. The Conversion of Georgia; in Monuments of Old Georgian schen Welt vom 6. zum 4. Jh. v. Chr., Xenia (Konstanzer Hagiographic Literature, I (ed. I. Abuladze), Tbilisi, 1968. althistorische Vorträge und Forschungen), Heft 14, Kon- pp. 81-82 (in Georgian). stanz, 1985. 32. G. Melikishvili, Kartli (Iberia) in the 6th-4th cent. B.C. The 8. Apoll. Rhod., Argon., IV, 279-282, LCL, London, 1955, p. 313. Eemergence of the Kingdom of Kartli. in Essays on Geor- 9. A. Urushadze, Ancient Colchis in the legend of the Argo- gian History, I, Tbilisi, 1970, pp. 443ff. (in Georgian). nauts, Tbilisi, 1964, p. l51 ff. (in Georgian). 33. KTs - Kartlis Tskhovreba, I (ed. S. Qaukhchishvili), Tbilisi, 10. For details see A. Urushadze, Ancient Colchis ..., pp. 151- 1955, p. 20ff. 152, with references. 34. Cf. O. Lordklpanidze. Archäologie.... S 148f, (with refer- 11. Cf. I Gagoshidze, The Itkhvisi burial, Bulletin of the Geor- ences). gian State Museum, XXV-B, Tbilisi, p. 40 (in Georgian). 35. P. Ingoroqva, The Old Georgian chronicle “The Conver- 12. J. Deeters, Das kartwelische Verbum, vergleichende Dar- sion of Kartli” and the list of Iberian kings of the Classical stellung des Verbalbaus der südkaukasischen Sprachen, period, Bulletin of the Museum of Georgia, XI, Tbilisi, 1941, Leipzig, 1930, S. 3. p. 313 (in Georgian.). 13. Th.V. Gamkrelidze; V. Ivanov, The Indo-European Lan- 36. Cf. O. Lordkipanidze. The Classical World and the King- guage and the Indo-Europeans, II Tbilisi, 1984, pp. 888- dom of Kartli, p. 20, notes 16-28 (in Georgian). 891, n. 2 (in Russian). 37. G. Giorgadze, I. Sh. Shifman, Towards the interpretation 14. T. Mikeladze,Researches ...., p. 26ff. of the Armazian bilingual inscription, Vestnik drevnei isto- 15. Anonymi Periplus Ponti Euxini, XLII, 7. rii, N4, Moscow, 1988, p. 168 ff. 16. Agath., III, 8-11. 38. G. Tsereteli, The bilingual inscription from Armazi, Tbilisi, 19. Strabo, I, 2, 39. 1941, p. 51-64. 20. A. Chikobava, Grammatical analysis of Chan, Tbilisi, 1936 39. A. Apakidze, Cities and urban life in old Georgia, Tbilisi, (in Georgian); A. Kiziria, The Zan language, in:Yyazyki 1969, p. 85ff. (in Georgian). narodov SSSR, IV, Moscow, 1967 (in Russian). 40. O. Lordkipanidzé, La Géorgie á l’époque héllénistique, 21. Strabo, XI. 2. 18; O. Lordkipanidze, Archäologie.... S.112. Dialogues d’histoire ancienne, N 9, 1983, pp. 167-216. 22. O. Lordkipanidze, Vani dans la structure du royaume 41. See O. Lordkipanidze, Archäologie ...., S. 168-169. colchidien, in „La Pont-Euxin...“, pp. 289-294; O. Lordkipa- 42. Kartlis Tskhovreba, I, p. 25. nidze, Vani: ancient city of Colchis, in “Greek, Roman and 43. Strabo, XI, 3,1, LCL, vol. V, p. 217. Byzantine Studies“, 32, 1991, p. 161ff. 44. For details see O. Lordkipanidze, Archäologie, S. 158f. 23. J. Nadiradzé, La site archéologique de Sairkhe, in „Le 45. Ibid. Pont-Euxin ...”, pp. 213-222. 46. Kartils tskhovreba, I, p. 25. 24. For a detailed discussion of the spread of Greek import 47. The Conversion of Georgia, p. 119. in Vani and its environs see: Vani (archaeological excava- 48. G. Giorgadze, The Hittite-Armazian triads, Mnatobi, N 7, tions), VII, Tbilisi, 1983 (in Georgian). I985, pp. 157. 25. For details see O. Lordkipanidze, Archäologie..., S. 115ff. 50. Th.V. Gamkrelidze, Alphabetic writing and the Old Geor- 26. Archaeological materials attest to the organization of the gian script, Tbilisi, 1989 (in Georgian). defense of the territory. Thus, at the approaches to Vani, 51. K. Tsereteli, A new inscription in Aramaic script from in the village of Mtisdziri, a 4th cent. B.C. tower has been Mtskheta-Samtavro, Matsne (series of history), N 3, Tbili- discovered, built to defend the frontiers of the adminis- si, 1987, pp. 155-178 (in Georgian); the same in English, trative unit: For details see G. A. Gamkrelidze, Sites of an- Tbilisi, 1980. cient settlements of central Colchis, Tbilisi, 1982, p.17ff. 52. Th. V. Gamkrelidze, op, cit., p. 198ff. (in Georgian). G. A. Gamkrelidze, Toward the study of 53. See refs. Nos. 28 and 29. ancient Colchian wooden defensive structures, Bulletin 54. N. Berdzenishvili, The manifestation of class and intra- of the Academy of sciences of the Georgian, Tb., 88, #2, class struggle in Georgia’s foreign-political relations, in 1977. pp. 501-505 (in Russian). G. A. Gamkrelidze, On the Proceedings of the Institute of History, I, Tbilisi, 1955, archaeology of Phasis valley, Tbilisi, 1992, pp. 67-99, 60- p.157. 81ff (in Russian). 55. Kartlis Tskhovreba, I, p. 22. 27. O. Lordkipanidze, Das alte Kolchis..., S.34ff. 56. The Old Armenian Translation of Kartlis Tskhovreba (ed. I. 28. Z. Alexidze, The life of Parnavaz, Mnatobi,1985, N 12, Abuladze), Tbilisi, 1953, p. 31. pp.152-157 (in Georgian); N. Shoshiashvili, Some ques- 57. D. Muskhelishvili, The main problems of the historical ge- tions of the history of the compilation of Kartlis Tsk- ography of Georgia, Tbilisi, 1977, pp. 54ff. (in Georgian). hovreba, in Aktualnye problemy izucheniya i izdaniya pis-

133 David Braund

LEUKOTHEA, THE “NEREID” FROM ZGHUDERI

Perhaps the best-known of the many inter- 78) is sufficient warning that, in principle, the buri- esting objects discovered at Zghuderi (Kareli real might have been deposited well into the third gion) is a cameo depicting a female on the back century AD. The other objects from the burial do of a dolphin (fig. I- 1). The cameo, in a gold setting, not allow us to be very specific about the chronol- forms the pendant of a substantial gold necklace, ogy, but they do tend to suggest that the burial made in the early centuries of the Roman empire took place around AD 200 or a little later. As for the (fig. I - 2; inv.no. 1191). It was found at Zghuderi in cameo, while it is evidently a product of the Ro- the 1960s by the expedition of Guram Nemsadze: man period, we cannot date its production closely the expedition’s discoveries, held in the Janashia or indeed speculate with profit about the place of Museum in Tbilisi, are now being re-examined its production [see Javakhishvili A., Abramishvili G. and prepared for fuller publication by Guram 1986: 65].4 What we do know is that the cameo- Nemsadze, Ketino Javakhishvili and myself.1 The necklace was found on the left of the two deposit- purpose of the present short discussion is to draw ed bodies, with the chain around its neck and the attention to the wider significance of the cameo cameo resting on its chest. It is worth adding that for the burial-practice and belief-system of Iberia the same body had a bracelet-chain on each wrist in the Roman period. which closely resembles the chain of the necklace A full account of the excavations is under itself (fig. II -3). The three objects evidently form a preparation, but a brief outline of the context of set. the cameo’s discovery may be helpful here [Nem- The sex of the bodies remains unclear. How- sadze 1969: 45-56 and pls. 1-8].2 The excavations at ever, while both bodies had bracelets, only the Zghuderi followed from reports by a local inhabit- right one seems to have had earrings. Moreover, ant (T. Medoshvili) that fine objects had turned up the left one, which wore the cameo-necklace, had at Zghuderi, particularly as a result of spring rains. an intaglio ring showing a Hellenistic king. Once Nemsadze’s expedition was despatched from the misidentified as Alexander the Great, the king is larger excavations at Urbnisi to investigate. Three more likely to be Ptolemy V: the intaglio seems to rich burial assemblages of the Roman imperial pe- be of Hellenistic workmanship, but set in a ring of riod were subsequently discovered, together with Roman imperial date [Javakhishvili 2003: 81-83, two poor pit burials (fourth century AD ?), some lat- no.3].5 We do not know the sex of these two bod- er buildings (showing wine-production) and an ar- ies, but we may provisionally and with all due cau- ray of tumuli from the Late Bronze - Early Iron Age. tion imagine that the left body (with the cameo- The cameo-necklace was found in the richest necklace) is male while the right is female. and earliest of the burials, which was a double in- But what of the cameo itself ? It shows a female humation in a pine sarcophagus (no. 3), fragments lying along the back of a dolphin. Her position is of which survive. The deceased were deposited precarious and yet secure. She has no equipment side-by-side (very possibly at the same time). A apart from a substantial garment which covers terminus post quem for the burial as a whole is much of her lower body. In her left hand she holds given by an aureus of Commodus (ruled AD 180- an edge of the garment on high, looking up to- 192: coin issued in AD 190): this is one of four in wards it as it arches above her. The female and her the burial, the others produced by Domitian, garment are white, while the dolphin is grey, all on Antoninus Pius and the elder Faustina [Golenko a reddish-orange background. K.V.1968: 160-6].3 The presence of the aureus of Who is this female ? She has sometimes been Domitian (ruled AD 81-96: coin issued in AD 77- termed a Nereid [Javakhishvili 1982: 134-9, at p.

134 134],6 one of the numerous daughters of the sea- to be drowned, Leukothea gives him her so-called god Nereus, and so at home in her marine context “veil” (kredemnon) which keeps him afloat until he on the back of a dolphin (cf. Pliny, NH 36. 26).7 She reaches his destination. Odysseus clothes himself is certainly a Nereid in some sense, for the term in this remarkable garment, so that we may well is often used (especially by moderns) to embrace imagine it as substantial. On his arrival on dry land not only true Nereids (i.e. the daughters of Nereus, (as the goddess had instructed), Odysseus sends the sea god), but also other female divinities of the garment back into the sea. We have no real the sea. In fact a degree of flexibility is desirable, idea how this “veil” may have been envisaged in for we cannot always be confident in distinguish- antiquity, but Leukothea appears elsewhere with ing a particular individual as a Nereid and not a substantial garment held up after the fashion another female deity of the sea. Moreover, such of our cameo, on which the prominence of the distinctions are not only problematic for modern garment is striking and demands explanation. A scholars: they will often have been difficult also recent thorough study of the many types of veil for those who viewed such images in the ancient in use in the ancient world has shown that a veil world too. A single Nereid is especially awkward. could indeed be a very substantial piece of cloth, Nereids most commonly appear in ancient art in described by a range of vocabulary in Greek (and numbers and often as part of a larger scene, often indeed in English) which permits wide interpreta- centred upon specific deities and heroes.8 How- tion. For our cameo, the key point must be that ever, single Nereids are also known: singletons are such a veil could indeed be very substantial, cov- especially suitable for smaller contexts, such as ering much of the body as well as the face. With our cameo. But where single Nereids are depict- regard to the veil of Ino-Leukothea in the Odyssey ed, they tend to have interesting accoutrements, it has recently and convincingly been argued that: such as shields, weapons and harnesses for their “It is probably best to regard the kredemnon dolphin-steeds. Therefore, especially in view of as a head-veil that hung from the back part of the the fact that our female has nothing of that kind, head and covered the back and the shoulders of apart from her flowing garment, we may reason- the wearer, but whether it reached to the ground ably wonder whether she is indeed a true Nereid. or even trailed on the floor is impossible to ascer- For there are other possibilities. For example, Aph- tain. It could be drawn forward to cover the lower rodite often occurs in marine contexts, though face when necessary, but it should clearly not be there is nothing specific to encourage the idea regarded exclusively as a face veil…It could be that our female is Aphrodite. argued that the kredemnon was regarded as a However, a much more likely candidatre particularly fine or luxurious garment, for in the is available: the goddess Leukothea who had epic tradition it is constantly referred to for its bril- once been a mortal named Ino. She is significant liance, especially for its shining quality…some- enough to feature alone on our cameo. Moreover, times referred to as vividly coloured white or red it may be significant that on our cameo she is or purple.” [Llewellyn-Jones 2004: 30]10 depicted in white: the name Leukothea in Greek Of course, the “veil” of our cameo is white, means “White Goddess”. After all, the colour of the like the female herself, reminiscent of the waves dolphin is appropriately grey: the whiteness of through which she appears and disappears. Her the goddess may have a special significance.9 The hand reveals her face, when the sea provides its colour would be singularly appropriate. Mean- own concealment, so that on our cameo the dol- while, Leukothea has a particular attribute which phin carries her with her face uncovered. suits our image well enough. For Homer relates And these issues remained alive for the Ro- how the goddess appeared to save Odysseus as man period. It has been well observed that, partly he made his way from the island of Calypso to the because of the Homeric tradition, the scholars of land of the Phaeacians (Odyssey, 5. 333-353). As the Roman imperial period (especially the lexi- Odysseus’ raft breaks up in the sea and he is about cographers) were very concerned with the close

135 definition of the kind of garment meant by “veil” The location is not given more precisely, but (kredemnon) and worn by important females in Strabo says enough to make it clear that the Homer (not only Ino-Leukothea, but also Pene- temple lies in Meskheti, which does indeed con- lope, Hera and others). In short, the figure of stitute a shared frontier of the Colchians, Iberians Ino-Leukothea in the Roman period required and Armenians. It was well to the south of Iberian some kind of veil and a substantial garment was Zghuderi. Less clear is the relationship between deemed appropriate. That is why images of Ino- the temple and the oracle of its founder, Phrixus, Leukothea continue to feature a prominent large but Strabo does nothing to suggest that they veil in the Roman period, no doubt on statues as were located in different places. The temple may well as mosaics, coins and elsewhere.11 Taken to- well have embraced its founder’s oracle too. Much gether, these different details (the prominent veil, less clear (but no less interesting) is the location of the absence of other accoutrements, the white Phrixoupolis. Strabo places it firmly in Iberia but colour, as well as the general marine context and towards Colchis, so that we may wonder about the fact that she is alone) combine to suggest that its relationship with Zghuderi, though we can- the dolphin-rider on our cameo is Leukothea. She not know whether it was near or far from there. may be considered a Nereid insofar as she is their But we can at least be sure that the myth and pre- associate, though she is not the daughter of Nere- sumably also the cult of Phrixus were important us.12 Of course, that does not mean that everyone there, though we must also account for the ap- who looked at the image in antiquity saw her parent change of name to Ideëssa. We cannot rule as Leukothea. In principle, even the owner may out the possibility that the town had never been have preferred to imagine her as a true Nereid, or called Phrixoupolis, and that this was a notion nur- as Aphrodite or as some other female of the sea, tured in Strabo’s day (and no doubt rather earlier) such as Thetis. However, if we are to put a single as part of a celebration of Phrixus’ importance to name to her, then Leukothea suits her best. How- the place. Further speculation seems pointless.14 ever, we shall see that there is reason to imagine However, the presence of the temple indicates that she was indeed understood to be Leukothea the significance of the goddess in the region, even in Roman Iberia and that those who deposited the though it may not have been flourishing at the cameo in this burial saw her at least as a Nereid time of our burials. Strabo says that it was founded and probably as Leukothea herself. by Phrixus, who was a very appropriate man to do In ancient Zghuderi Leukothea had a par- it, as we shall see. We may wonder how the god- ticular significance. The geographer Strabo, who dess may have been depicted at her temple here: knew the region quite well and who finished writ- it is entirely likely, for example, that there was a ing his great Geography around AD 25, mentions cult-statue of the goddess, perhaps in white and an important temple of Leukothea in the com- surely featuring a prominent veil of the kind seen mon marchlands of Colchis, Iberia and Armenia, on our cameo. in what are now known as the Meskhian Moun- Meanwhile, it is worth observing that Leu- tains (Meskheti):…in Meskheti lies the temple of kothea (as Ino) seems to feature in the Roman-pe- Leukothea, founded by Phrixus, and the oracle riod mosaic from Garni in Armenia, although we of Phrixus where a ram is never sacrificed. It was have only the final omega of her name in the por- once rich, but it was robbed in our time by Phar- tion of the mosaic that survives [Nercessian 1990, nakes (II) and, a little later, by Mithridates of Per- 659 no.24].15 There is every reason to suppose that gamum…Meskheti, where the temple lies, is tri- Leukothea was well known in the region, which partite. The Colchians have one part, the Iberians is all the more interesting because here in the another and the Armenians another. And there is marchlands of Iberia, Colchis and Armenia, we are a town (polikhnion) in Iberia, Phrixoupolis, now far from the sea itself, whether we prefer to imag- called Ideëssa, a well-fortified place in the march- ine her temple at Vani (surely too far from Iberia lands of Colchis [Strabo, 11.2.17-18, pp. 498-9].13 and Armenia and not in Meskheti) or closer to

136 Borjomi - both of which have been suggested - or Evidently, Phrixus’ temple of Leukothea (with somewhere else at this interface of three regions. or without his oracle) emerged from a matrix of Indeed, we may wonder how far it was the meet- disastrous parenting and child-killing (actual and ing of these three regions that encouraged the intended). In a sense, both Leukothea and Phrixus setting of her temple there. Nor do we know the had escaped from their fates in a similar fashion. fate of her temple after Strabo, in the period with Both had left the land. While Phrixus took flight by which we are primarily concerned: for while we air, Ino-Leukothea had taken to the sea. The fall of are told of its sufferings in the middle of the first Helle into the sea illustrates the relationship be- century BC, there is no reason to suppose that the tween travel in these two media. At the same time, goddess ceased to be worshipped there or else- both had been on a voyage to another life. While where in the region.16 Ino had become an immortal deity, Phrixus too The relevance of Leukothea to the region is had achieved a new status ad significance in the obvious enough, for her myth is connected with distant Caucasus, beyond the familiar Greek world the most important of the myths of Colchis, in and therefore, as often imagined for the region, particular. As mortal Ino, she was a daughter of into a kind of after-life. Even Helle had achieved Kadmos and second wife of King Athamas. As immortality of a sort, memorialized in the name of Athamas’ wife, she was stepmother to his children her own stretch of sea.18 While we can only specu- Phrixus and Helle. When she plotted to have them late about the historical foundation of the temple killed, they were saved by a supernatural Golden and its cult (Strabo thought it very old, it seems), Ram, which flew them towards Colchis. Helle fell the mythical rationale is explicable in terms of the to her death, creating the Hellespont (or “Sea of resolution of the two interwoven and similar tales Helle” in Greek), but Phrixus reached Colchis. The of Phrixus and Leukothea. Ram was sacrificed and its fleece became the fa- Further, while we know nothing about the mous Golden Fleece, the object of Jason’s mission particular nature of the cult of Leukothea in the with the Argonauts. Ino herself did not prosper. Caucasus (beyond its apparent importance and For Hera, the queen of the gods, punished her be- wealth through the Hellenistic period in particu- cause she had looked after the young Dionysos, lar), we should observe her relationship with Dio- the son of her sister Semele and Zeus, Hera’s hus- nysos, whose aunt she was and whom she tended band. To punish Ino, Hera sent Athamas mad, so after the death of her sister, Semele. After all, as that he killed one of their sons (Learkhos). To es- we have seen, it was because of Dionysos that Ino cape, Ino threw herself into the sea, holding her had been driven to leap into the sea to become surviving son, Melikertes. She and her son were a deity. And we know that Dionysos had a great transformed into sea-deities (Leukothea and Pa- and sustained importance through the ancient laemon), whose cults were especially important history of the region. After all, Dionysos suited this at Corinth and its environs, including the Isthmian land of viticulture and wine-consumption. In par- Games. We should observe that Corinth had once ticular, we should observe that the fine mosaic of been the land of Aeetes (from which he left to rule Dionysos, Ariadne and their thiasos was created at Colchis) and it was there that Jason and Medea Iberian Dzalisi at roughly the time when our cam- later came and had their bitter separation. It was eo was deposited at Zghuderi [Braund 1994:.256- at Corinth that Medea killed her children. Further, 8; Odis(h)eli 1995].19 We should note also the Dio- the origin of the Isthmian Games was linked not nysiac flavour of other objects found at Zghuderi, only with the story of Leukothea and Palaemon, specifically the incense-burners which were dis- but also with the arrival of the Argo. Accordingly, covered elsewhere in the Roman-period burials it is no surprise to find Ino-Leukothea among the there. In sarcophagus no.2 was found a bronze images of Roman Corinth, including her appear- incense-burner consisting of a building (usually ance on Antonine coinage [Nercessian 1990: 659, imagined as a temple) with a large pine-cone nos.20-21].17 on its roof. Less obviously Dionysiac is the other

137 bronze incense-burner from the site (disturbed about the relationship between grave-goods and and so found out of context), in the form of a bull’s the dead during life: was the necklace a particu- head: the bull had many associations, though we lar favourite of the deceased, for example ? Quite should observe that Dionysiac cult was one of possibly. However, the foregoing discussion has them, not least because Dionysos often appears in shown that there may well be a rather different the region with horns [Braund 1994, 256].20 and special significance to the cameo. While we Dionysiac cult regularly appears in contexts of cannot be wholly clear and precise about the na- death, burial and passage to an after-life beyond ture of the evocations of Leukothea in the region death. More important for the present discus- in the Roman period, we do know that she and her sion, however, is the similar role of Nereids in gen- Nereid fellows in general had a strong and sus- eral and Ino-Leukothea in particular in this same tained role in mourning, burial and the transition sphere. It is no mere chance that both Dionysiac from life into death and beyond to a next life. They scenes and scenes of Nereids commonly recur not only presided over these processes, but par- on sarcophagi more ornate than the simple pine ticipated in them, especially as escorts. We may boxes which we have at Zghuderi. We should re- conclude therefore that those who deposited the call that Leukothea had not only survived death cameo-necklace in sarcophagus no. 3 and chose into immortality, but had also appeared most fa- to place it prominently on the chest of the male (?) mously to Odysseus at the moment when he was deceased had in mind (in addition to more com- about to die. She chose to save Odysseus, but she monplace considerations about grave-goods) and her Nereid companions more commonly ap- that its Leukothea would share in the mourning peared to escort the dead from life into the next and perhaps accompany the deceased into a new world. As a recent study observes, “The Nere- life. ids’ role in the funeral rites for Achilles may have If that is right a further item in the burial gains given rise to, or at least been an aspect of, their a new interest. For among the grave goods is a more general role in Greek religion as goddesses shallow bronze patera (fig.II -1). It features some of mourning and transition. Elsewhere Nereids… silver incrustation, but remains a commonplace mourn and/or bury the dead, and sometimes they item for the Roman imperial period. Such paterae help the deceased to achieve immortal status”21 were made through the first and second centuries [Barringer 1995: 54]. As their appearance on Ro- AD.23 [Nuber 1972: 1-232] This one was repaired at man sarcophagi indicates, their association with the junction of handle and bowl: this weak point death, burial and the after-life persists strongly accounts for the regular discovery of handles into the Roman imperial period [Barringer 1995: without bowls and vice versa. And the handles of 141, 148, 168].22 such paterae – as also the patera from this burial The cameo seems to have a significance much at Zghuderi – commonly feature animal heads. greater than might have been thought. At issue is The ram is a particular favourite, as on our patera the decision of those who deposited the grave- (fig. II -2). The detail is rather mundane until we goods in burial no.3 not only to place the cameo- recall Strabo’s evidence on the cult of Leukothea necklace there, but to place it prominently on the in Meskheti. For he specifies that the ram enjoyed chest of one of the two deceased, provisionally the a special status there: it was not to be sacrificed male of a male-female couple, as we have seen. Of (in view, no doubt, of Phrixus’ debt to the Gold- course, it is an object of value and evident beauty, en Ram which saved him from Ino-Leukothea). perhaps especially so in concert with the match- How are we to interpret the deposit of this patera ing bracelets worn by this body. And the deposit with its rather ordinary (and mended) ram’s-head of valuable and striking grave-goods may be seen handle? We must at least consider the possibility both as part of the display-ritual of the funeral and that the object was chosen to evoke the cult of as the provision of fine objects for transmission to the goddess of the cameo, if indeed she is Leu- the next life. In addition, we may always wonder kothea. It hardly matters that the accompanying

138 bronze pitcher features not a ram but a dog (fig. II Naples which is usually identified as “Nereid”, but -3). Much more significant is the earring from the could well be Leukothea: Maulucci n.d. , 37. same burial which also bears the image of a ram.24 12. Barringer 1995, 55 calls Leukothea an “immortal Nereid”. Notes: 13. Strabo, 11.2.17-18, pp. 498-9. On his knowl- 1. I am grateful to the excavator, Guram Nem- edge of the Black Sea and Caucasus, see Lordki- sadze for discussion of the excavations at Zghu- panuidze 1996; Braund 2005. deri and for his help and cooperation in working 14. On Strabo’s Iberia, see Lordkipanidze 1996. on this material. I am also grateful to the staff of 15. Nercessian 1990, 659 no.24. Janashia Museum, especially Ketino Javakhish- 16. Lordkipanidze 1972 makes the case for vili and Mindia Jalabadze for their practical and Vani; Braund 1994, 148-9 argues for a location scholarly assistance. For the illustrations here I am around Borjomi or Abastumani, perhaps making indebted to the skill and patience of Guram Bum- too much of the possible significance of water. biashvili. 17. Nercessian 1990, esp. 659, nos.20-21; cf. 2. The best published account is in Georgian: 660. no. 28 with Packard 1980. Nemsadze 1969. 18. The Black Sea region often features in this 3. Golenko 1968 offers an invaluable discus- way in Greek myth: it will suffice to consider Achil- sion of the coins from Zghuderi. However, his nu- les on Leuke (with or without Helen) and Iphigenia meration of the burials is confused: his “burial no. whisked from Aulis to priesthood among the Tau- 7” is in fact his discussion of the double-burial in rians: see further e.g. Barringer 1995, 51-58, who which the cameo-necklace was deposited (other- also notes the notion of death as a voyage. Here wise, burial no.3, given its number in sequence of lies also much of the significance of the Argonau- excavation after the other two rich burial assem- tic voyage. blages). 19. On the mosaic (usually dated to the later 4. Javakhishvili and Abramishvili 1986, 65 as- third century AD) and the cult of Dionysos in the sert a third-century date. region, see Braund 1994, esp.256-8; Odis(h)eli 5. Javakhishvili 2003, 81-83, no.3 discusses the 1995. ring in the context of other Ptolemaic images on 20. On horned Dionysos, Braund 1994, 256. gems from ancient Georgia. The incense-burners are shown in Nemsadze 6. As in the fullest published study: Javakhish- 1977. vili 1982, 134-9, at p. 134. 21. Barringer 1995, 54. 7. There has been significant work on Nereids 22. Barringer 1995, esp. 141, 148, 168. See fur- in recent years: see especially Lattimore 1976; ther on Roman sarcophagi, Piekarski 2006 and the Icard-Gianolio and Szabados 1992; Barringer 1995. literature there cited. 8. Icard-Gianolio and Szabados 1992 is a very 23. On these paterae and bronze pitchers, see valuable catalogue. Nuber 1972. 9. Of course, white was in any case used as an 24. Inv.no. 190-65-52. I rely here on the careful appropriate colour for female flesh: see, for ex- description in the museum’s accessions catalogue. ample, the Pompeian cameo showing the (nude) Graces in white that is now in Naples Museum References: (Maulucci n.d., 122, no. 2 for good illustration). 10. Llewellyn-Jones 2004, 30, with further lit- Barringer J.M. 1995: Divine escorts: Nereids in archaic and classical Greek art, Michigan. erature. Braund D. 1994: Georgia in antiquity, Oxford. 11. Llewellyn-Jones 2004, 28-29; Nercessian Braund D. 2005: Greek geography and Roman empire: 1990. Kardulias 2001 does not reflect on these the transformation of tradition in Strabo’s Euxine”, in matters. Note, further, the statue from the Bay of D.Dueck, H.Lindsay and S.Pothecary (eds.), Strabo’s Cul- tural Geography, 216-34, Cambridge.

139 Golenko K.V.1968: Monety, naydennyye v selenii Zguderi (Gruzinskaya SSR) v 1964-65 gg. VDI 1. 160-6. Icard-Gianolio N. and Szabados A-V. 1992: Nereides, LIMC 6. 1, 785-824, Zurich-Munich. Javakhishvili A. and Abramishvili G. 1986: Jewelery and met- alworkin the museums of Georgia (Leningrad). Javakhishvili K. 2003: Kartlis sameposa da Egviptis urtiertobis istoriidan romaul khanashi (gliptikuri masalebis mikhedvit), Dziebani 12. 75-88. Javakhishvili K. and Nemsadze G. 1982: Zghudris samarov- nis gliptikuri dzeglebi, Sakartvelos sakhelmtsipo muzeumis moambe 36. 129-53, pls. 8-10. Kardulias D.R. 2001: Odysseus in Ino’s veil, TAPA 131. 23-51. Lattimore S. 1976: The marine thiasosin Greek sculpture, Los Angeles. Llewellyn-Jones L. 2003: Aphrodite’s tortoise: the veiled woman of ancient Greece, UWICAH, Ceredigion. Lordkipanidze O.D. 1972: K lokalizatsii to tes Leukotheas hi- eron, VDI 2. 106-34. Lordkipanidze O.D. 1996: Das alte Georgien (Kolchis und Ib- erien) in Strabons Geographie: neue Scholien, Amsterdam. Maulucci F.P. n.d. The national archaeological museum of Na- ples, Naples. Nemsadze G.M. 1969: zghuderis arkeologiuri ekspeditsiis mier 1964-1966 tsts. chatarebuli mushaobis shedegebi, sakartvelos sakhelmtsipo muzeumis arkeologiuri ekspeditsiis angarishebi 1965-1967 45-56 and pls. 1-8. Nemsadze G.M. 1977: Pogrebeniya Iberiyskoy znati iz Zgud- eri, KSIA 151. 108-14 Nercessian A. 1990: Ino, LIMC 5. 1, 657-61, Zurich-Munich. Nuber H.U. 1972: Kanne und Griffschale. Ihr Gebrauch im täglichen Leben und die Beigabe in Gräbern der rö- mischen Kaiserzeit, Bericht der römisch-Germanischen Kommission 53. 1-232, with 31 plates and map. Odis(h)eli M.Dzh. 1995: Spätantike und frühchristliche Mo- saike in Georgien, Vienna. Packard P.M. 1980: A monochrome mosaic at Isthmia, Hespe- ria 49. 326-46. Piekarski D. 2006: Sarkophage in Arles, JRA 19. 602-6.

Figures:

Fig I -1.The cameo; 2. The necklace as a whole; 3.The bracelets. Fig II -1.The bronze patera; 2.The bronze patera: handle finial; 3. The bronze pitcher.

140 I

141 II

142 Mariam Gvelesiani

KING PARNAVAZ AND THE CULT OF ARMAZI

The study of the cult of Armazi has been the According to the story “Life of Parnavaz,” com- subject of studies in Georgia for more than a cen- posed no later than in the fifth-sixth centuries and tury. According to the Georgian writtten sources, included in the Georgian Chronicle “Kartlis Tsk- Armazi was worshiped as the principal divinity of hovreba” [“Life of Kartli” (i.e. what the Greeks and pre-Christian Georgia, thereby arousing a lot of in- Romans referred to as Iberia)] by the eleventh cen- terest of scholars, who have been devoting to him tury Georgian historian Leonti Mroveli, the cult of numerous studies since the end of the nineteenth Аrmazi was founded in Kartli by the first Georgian century. Georgian literary tradition is far from of- king Parnavaz (the third century B.C.), who was fering exhaustive answers to religious beliefs as the descendant of Samaros, the Head of Mtskhe- well as specific characteristics of deities; it only ta, and the son of an Iranian mother from Aspan. gives a few hints at them. Because of scarcity of He had a dream in which he saw himself in a very textual resources on Armazi, his origin was long narrow house, unsuccessfully thinking about get- a subject of debate among specialists. Conse- ting out. Suddenly a ray of sunlight came through quently, there existed and till now exists diverse the window, encircled his waist and took him out. and contradictory interpretations of this divinity. Upon emerging, he saw the sun near him. He Some scholars connect Armazi with the Iranian wiped off his sweat and anointed his face. Waking supreme divinity Ahura Mazda [Marr N. 1902:4-7, up, he was astonished. Then he thought: “I shall go Kovalewski M. 1890:85-118, M. Andronikashvili M. to Aspan and it will be good for me.” 1966:499, Chilashvili L. 1997:103-126] while others Adorned with all the virtues of a statesman, consider him to be derived from Asia Minor moon Parnavaz liberates his motherland from the con- god Arma [Boltunova A. 1949:238, Amiranash- querors (the “Macedonians”), and as a king-re- vili Sh. 1944:120-122, Apakidze A. 1970:668-669, former, rebuilds what has been destroyed by the Melikishvili G. 1959:112; 129], Hurritian war and enemy, orga nizes administrative structure of the weather god Teshub [Tsereteli M. 1924:79-84, kingdom “like the Persian empire”…and estab- Giorgadze G. 1985:155], also identified with lishes the dynastic reign and religion… “Parnavaz Mithra [Kekelidze C. 1945:351], the sun god [Me- had fashioned a large idol named after him, that likset-Bekov L. 1938:42-43], solar and agricultural is, Armazi. For in Persian they called Parnavaz divinity [Surguladze Ir. 2001:40-42]. Armazi.” [Kartlis Tskhovreba 1955:22-25]. Amongst these conceptions the theory about Apart from phonetic affinity of the names of origin of Armazi from the moon god Arma was fi- the two divinities, the theory of origin of Armazi nally assumed and established,1 notwithstanding from moon god Arma is based on the concep- the fact that except for phonetic closeness of the tion of migration from the east of Asia Minor to names of these two divinities there is no evidence Mtskheta of the pre-Georgian Mushk-Moschs supporting this view. Nonetheless, this concep- tribes, which long before the establishment of the tion has been shared by specialists, despite the cult of Armazi should have introduced cultural - fact that the noticed identification hardly corre- religious traditions of Asia Minor into Kartli. How- sponds to evidences of political and religious life ever, it becomes more and more evident that the of the pre-Christian Georgia. mentioned identification is quite unjustified and Without entering into the details of the many needs to be reexamined, since the iconography issues raised by this problem, a few of the phases of Arma, usually depicted with a crescent on his that concern our subject most directly need to be horned cap and a pair of wings on his back, has summarized. nothing to do with the image of Armazi (“war-

143 rior in copper armor, wearing a gold helmet and preted by F. Dvornik in connection of Hvarenah holding a sword like lightening”), as described in [Dvornk F. 1966:87]. the Chronicle. In addition to it, arguable seems As early as for Babylonians and Egyptians an attempt on the part of scholars to seek paral- the sun was a royal luminary. It became also the lels in chronologically such remote epigraphic symbol of emperor’s messianism in Rome, where monuments, as are the thirteenth century B.C. cu- titles of monarchs (aeternus, invictus) are seman- neiform letterings from Boghasköy containing the tics of sun like eternity and invincibility. From the divinity’s name “Arma.” Moreover, the mentioned Georgian reality, in this respect is to be noted here theory completely overlooks the information of the report left by Apollonius Rhodius in his Argo- the Chronicler about “Armazi,” as the “Persian” cor- nautica about Ayet, the king of Colchis (Western respondence of “Parnavaz” [cf. Armazi, Ormuzd, Georgia), who called himself “the Son of Helios.” Hormizd, Hormuzd, Ohrmazd and Ormazd in Mid- The connection of monarchs with the sun was dle and New Persian, Ahura Mazda], the evidence seemingly usual to the Achaemenid Iran too, the which obviously can be explained through the evidence suggested by the images of the Iranian Iranian religious thought: the name Parnavaz, root kings depicted under the symbol of winged Ahura of which is Farnah, comes from the Iranian notion Mazda in a solar disc on the monuments of ma- of Hvarenah (“royal glory,” “splen dor”), conceived terial culture. Like the Egyptian teaching which and imagined by Persians as “sunlight,” which was makes the king the image and son of the sun, the given by Ahura Mazda to all Iranian heroes and Persian belief in the royal glory created by Ahura rulers. Mazda comes from the conception of kingship The act of Parnavaz’s diviniza tion is well ex- that had been developed into a firm political and pressed in the episode of his dream, where Hva- religious system. renah appears as the sun, by anointing dew of If consider parallelism between these two which Parnavaz made himself simultaneously the dreams, Hvarenah might also be seen in Par- King and the God as to initiating the Sun (Ahura navaz’s dream, through which the Chronicler’s Mazda). words about identity of Parnavaz-Armazi (“in Per- To such understanding of this passage has sian they called Parnavaz Armaz”) becomes com- enormously contributed the dream of the Persian prehensible to us and which obviously is to be King Cyrus the Great (the sixth century B. C.), pre- considered as a reflection of the Avestan concep- served by Cicero from Dinon’s (the fourth century tion of Hvarenah’s (Farnah-vaz’s) connection with B. C. Greek writer) Persian annals of dreams: Ahura Mazda. Consequently, Parnavaz’s dream “Once upon a time Cyrus dreamed that the not only predicts his kingship, but serves as rea- sun was at his feet. Three times, so Dinon writes, sonable evidence in favor of relation of the King’s he vainly tried to grasp it and each time it turned theophoric name “Armazi” with the Iranian Ahura away, escaped him and finally disappeared. He Mazda. was told by the magi, who are classed as wise and It is not without interest to note that the simi- learned men among the Persians, that his grasp- lar idea of Hvarenah was not unfamiliar to the ing for the sun three times portended that he primitive Romans. The Roman historian Titus Livy would reign for thirty years” [Dvornk F. 1966:87]. (the first century B.C.) recounts a very curious As it may bee seen, Parnavaz’s dream both in story, how Servius Tullius, son of a slain enemy liv- content and manner of allegorization appears to ing in the house of King Tarquinius Priscus, was be quite close to that of the Persian King Cyrus II, predestined to become a king by the apparition which became the omen of the latter’s reign and of flames round his head when he was asleep which, similarly to the conception of kingship in [Dvornk F. 1966:87]. Besides Hvarenah, revealed to the ancient civilizations, was proclaimed in the Tullius in a dream, the mentioned episode seems language of solar symbolism, the evidence inter- to be related to “Life of Parnavaz” by another trait as well: Tullius’ father was killed by the invader;

144 likewise the case with Parnavaz, whose father and Nevertheless, while referring to the identity of uncle, the ruler of the City of Mtskheta, became Armaz and Ahura Mazda, scholars imply merely the victims of the invasion of the conquerors (the their onomastic connection without having en- “Macedonians”). tered deeper layers of interrelation of these two A careful examination of “Life of Parnavaz” deities. proves the existence of ruler cult in Georgia in the In this respect, the religious realm of the pre- Hellenistic epoch, finding its parallels in the concep- Christian Armenia appears to be the most con- tions of kingship both of the Eastern and Western tributive to the definition of the cult of Armazi, as civilizations. The cycles of the kings’ lives, founders long as equal to Armazi the Armenian Aramazd, of a new dynasty seem to have been common to like Georgia, was the principal divinity of the Ar- various nations in many respects. Among the narra- menian pagan pantheon as well. tives of “Life of Parnavaz” should be singled out the Apart from the Armenian writings containing so-called “circulated,” widespread scenes having the significant data prove correla tion between these elements characteristic of the “theme of kingship.” divinities, an account reported by the Armenian According to this widespread saga or tradition, a historian Movses Khorenatsi on Armazi, to which king’s rise to greatness takes place in other lands he refers to as the god of “thunder and lightning”6 (e.g. stories of childhood of Cyrus the Great and the [Khorenatsi M. 1985:86], as we’ll see below, is not Akkadian King Sargon, the myth of Romulus and of less value for his definition. As supplementary Remus, also the Biblical story of a newborn Moses, data to the Georgian writings, the Armenian, Ira- who was placed among the reeds etc.), revealing nian, Syrian, Greek equivalents of Aramazd abun- correspondence with the account of Parnavaz who dantly provided by the Armenian and foreign was raised away from his motherland, to which he writers reasonably strengthen the concept ion of returned as a “perfect youth,” the future king. derivation of Armazi from the Iranian Ahura Maz- Since the dream of Cyrus, like other episodes da. However, in spite of genetic relation of Armazi from his life apparently belongs to the mentioned with Aramazd, they differ from each other in pre- circulated themes, It shouldn’t be unexpected the conditions of their cultic establishment as well as stories of the legendary and the most powerful by their idolized images.7 Unified by their com- king of the whole East to be known in the neigh- mon derivation, they both apparently constituted boring country of Georgia as well, due to the in- a religious climate of Georgia and Armenia. On the stitute of poet-menestrels [the Iranian “gusan,” whole, it shouldn’t be unexpected that the two Georgian “mgosani” (“poet”)], through which they countries, being historically, geographically and might be introduced into Georgian realm and politically within a common orbit, were of similar used thereupon by the early centuries local writer. religious orientation, which at a certain stage of Generally, among cross-cultural phenomena historical development should have been influ- manifested in Georgian realities, the Iranian trend enced by their neighboring country of the Great is a subject of a special consideration. Herodotus Iran. This phenomenon besides the monuments left an account on the Achaemenid hegemony of material culture has been manifested through over Kartli or its part (Herod. Hist., III, 94). The Geor- multiplicity of the Iranian above-cited loan-words gian scholars have devoted numerous studies to denoting religious notions both in Georgia and the problems of influence of the Iranian epic on Armenia. the ancient part of the Chronicle, as well as surviv- In the Armenian historiography is firmly root- als of the old Persian religious beliefs2 evidenced ed the conception of derivation of Aramazd from by the monuments of material culture, also eth- Ahura Mazda while definition of the supreme di- nographic3 and linguistic4 data, not to mention vinity of Georgia, as mentioned above, till now is a number of passages from “Life of Parnavaz” char- subject of controversy among scholars. acterized by clearly demonstrated pro-Iranian ori- The fundamental study by Prof. James Russell entation.5 “Zoroastrianism in Armenia,” Harvard, 1987, along

145 with other divinities containing thorough exami- Varuna thus: “you both provide rain by divine will nation of Aramazd too [Russell J. 1987:153-189] of Assura” (Rig-Veda, 5, 63, 7). made it possible to carry out a comparative anal- At Ani, the Armenian Arshacid necropolis, St. ysis of Armazi and Aramazd and come to conse- Gregory and his cohorts “destroyed the shrine quent conclusion [Gvelesiani M. 2003:47-54].8 of the god Aramazd, named the father of all the The fourth century Armenian historian Agath- gods” (Agath. 785). Anahit is called “Child...of great, angelos writes that at Tc’il, St. Gregory obliterated manly Aramazd” (Agath.786). In the inscription of the “Temple of Nanē, the daughter of Aramazd” Darius at Persepolis Ahura Mazda is mentioned as (Agath.786). In the “Life of St. Nino,” also included “the Greatest of all the Gods.” In the episode of the in the Chronicle “Life of Kartli,” the first Chris tian Festival of Armazi, in reply of St. Nino inquiring king of Georgia Mirian (the fourth century) ap- whom the people were worshipping, a Jewish peals to St. Nino to heal the Persian magi Khuara: woman says: “We worship God of Gods Armazi (cf. “You’re the daughter of Armazi and the child of “the father of all the gods” - M. G.), without which Zaden.” The first Christian king of Armenia Tiri- no idol exists” - these words also are indicative of dates III invokes “the great and manly Aramazd, supremacy of Armazi in the hierarchy of the divini- Creator of Heaven and Earth” (Agath.68) that, as ties. J. Russell comments, is in full accord with Zoro- In the Greek inscription of Fratadara temple, astrian conception on the Iranian supreme deity built in Persepolis after conquest of the Eastern [Russell J. 1987:158]. The Armenian King requests countries by Alexander, three divinities are men- “fullness of abun dance from manly Aramazd” (Ag- tioned: Zeus Megistos (Ormuzd), Apollo-Helios ath.127). Mirian recounts the divinities of Kartli (Mithra) and Artemis Athena (Anahita); the reliefs Armazi and Zaden (the latter supposedly identical at Comagena represent different divinities, with with Mithra) to St. Nino as: «the great Gods, who engraved inscription proclaiming their Hellenis- command the world, who make the sun rise, who tic-Iranian names: Zeus-Oromazd-Apollo-Mithra- provide rain, who make the bounty of the world Helios-Hermes [Herzfeld E. 1941:275].The substi- increase” [by “Moktsevai Kartlisai” (“Conversion of tution of the names is a logical consequence of Kartli”) “the great Gods, who give fruits”). The cited the process of syncretization preceded by meet- definitions also emphasize the creational aspects ing of Western and Eastern cultures: each divinity of the two divinities. was called simultaneously both the Iranian and If we take into account these characteristics, the Greek names. the theory of relation of Armazi with another di- As studied by J. Russell, in the fifth century vinity, that is the Asia Minor weather god Teshub translations of Classical literature into Arme- appears likewise doubtful, since the cited refer- nian, Aramazd regularly renders Greek Zeus. In ences to the mentioned divinities though contain the Armenian translation of Pseudo-Callistenes, but are not confined to the function of a weather Alexander invokes Aramazd before his death. god; “commander of world” followed logically by The Armenian comment of John the Chrizostom concretization of the natural phenomena seem- explains: “Zeus, whom Greeks call Dion, is the ingly has the connotation of the “Cosmocrator” same Aramazd.” The eighteen century Georgian (Lord of world, of Cosmos), whose area of activity writer Teimuraz Bagrationi refers to the same is much more capacious, than that of a weather identification:”Ormuz that is Armaz-Jupiter (Zaden god’s [cf. Christ-Cosmocrator’s words: “Into my that is Zaden-Apollo, Gaim - Mercuri, Gatsi - Silvin, hands is put all power in heaven and on earth” wood god”) [Bagrationi (Batonishvili) T. 1848:663]. (Matthew, 28:18)]. The identical to the Avestan Saba Orbeliani, the seven teenth century Geor gian Ahura Vedic Assura (“Lord”) symbolizes Wisdom, writer, in his Leksikoni Kartuli (“Georgian Diction- which commands deeds of gods and men. One ary”) among seven heavenly bodies mentions of the Rig-Veda hymns addresses to Mithra and “Dios i.e. Jupiter denoting Friday.” Prof. Iv. Javakh- ishvili refers to “Zeus-Dios” as a “commander of

146 sky-clouds and weather in the Greek mythology” ry Armenian writer Grigor Arsharuni stated that 1 [Javakhishvili I. 1979: 159-160]. Nawasard was the feast of Aramazd in Armenia. As According to Khorenatsi, Tigran II (the first cen- it has been determined, Nawasard was celebrated tury B.C.) erected the sculpture of Olympian Dios in Armenia on 11th of August. It’s noteworthy that (Zeus) in the fortress at Ani, presumably the shrine the cult of Aramazd was observed particularly at of the “god Aramazd, father of all gods” thereafter Ani and Bagavan, the two royal shrines. There, the destroyed by St. Gregory. royal family celebrated their sovereignty and af- Issuing from the above-mentioned data, it can firmed the unity of the country at the New Year, in be clearly explained why Khorenatsi calls the Geor- a festival dedicated to Aramazd. gians’ Armazi (referred to by him as “Aramazd”) the In the ancient civilizations (Mesopotamia, Iran, god of “thunder and lightning,” which is the com- Syria) at the New Year Fes tival was celebrated re- monly known epithet of Zeus.9 Such a definition newal of nature and country. The main figure of a of Armazi by the Armenian historian is a conse- religious ritual everywhere was a king identified quence of syncretization of Aramazd - Zeus (Ahura with heavenly Lord. S. Eddy [Eddy S. 1961:42] and Mazda), which appears to be interchangeable di- others have said that the reliefs on the Persepolis vinities in the Armenian writings. By applying this stairways, showing tribute delegations from the epithet to Armazi, Khorenatsi identifies the latter provinces, depict an important part of this annual with Aramazd, as to relating both of them with celebration, basing on explicit literary source giv- Ahura Mazda. Judging from analogous charac- en by Xenophon in his “Cyropaedia” (first comes a teristics of the principal divinities of Georgia and body of men with lances, then bulls to be sacri- Armenia, this phenomenon seems quite logical. ficed, and horses. Then a chariot sacred to Ahura Thus, while naming Armazi “Aramazd,” Khorenatsi Mazda, followed by two others, one for Mithra and implies their identity or a genetic connection, not one probably for Anahita. Next a portable fire-al- meaning altogether Armazi to be of the Armenian tar and the king in full regalia in his chariot. The origin, as ascribed to Khorenatsi by some scholars, rest of the procession is made up of cavalry, mace- for in this case of denomination we’re dealing with bearers, and a vast throng of nobility) [Xenophon, the Armenian supreme divinity’s name correlate 1914:354]. with “Ahura Mazda,” like as St. Nino is referred to by In the ancient Near Eastern tradition, the New him as Nunē, which for its part is an altered form Year Festival (Akitu) was closely related to ruler of the Assyrian Nana, Nanaya and Hebrew Nanea cult, the evidence also seen in the episode of the (Maccab. II; I, 13, 15) [Fry R. 1972:210]. Fes tival of Armazi, where the king and the royal According to Khorenatsi, Tigran II’s ancestor, family play a key role. Artashes “appointed Mazan high priest of the god Relating about the erection of the idol of Aramazd at Ani” [Khorenatsi M. 1985:53]. Mazan Armazi, Leonti Mroveli mentions that Parnavaz was entombed at Bagawan, and at that place, as founded annual sacrifice (“zorva”) in honor of the it’s reported by Khorenatsi, “Valarsh instituted idol set up in his name. a celebration for the entire country at the start “Life of St. Nino:” “Once many people trooped of the new year, at the beginning of Nawasard’ to the big city of Mtskheta, which was a residence [Khorenatsi M. 1985:66]. Gregory the Illuminator of great kings, to trade and pray (by another ver- fixed the commemo ration of the martyrs St. John sion of account of St. Nino, “to offer sacrifices”) the Baptist and St. Athenogenes at Bagawan on to their god Armazi….St. Nino, observing “ma- “the festival of the first fruits, of the god of the gian misdeed” of the people worshipping fire, New Year, the bringer of all good things, of the wept and besought God for mercy on those gone hospitable and sheltering god, which in earlier astray…the next day there was a sound of a big times they celebrated joyfully in the same place noise and trumpet; innumerable people arose like on the day of Nawasard” (Agath. 836). These vari- field-flowers, but there was no view of a king yet. ous epithets refer to Aramazd. The seventh centu- When came a time, each human being began to

147 seek for refuge with horror, in order to be hidden universe, was regarded as a protector and guard- from view. And here, at once came out the Queen ian primarily of rulers - the evidence attested by Nana, and people emerged from shelters slowly, epigraphic monuments containing the names adorning each street by a single piece of cloth…. of the Iranian kings; Ardashir, “King of Kings” in they began to praise the King…then came out the Ka’aba of Zar’dusht is invoked as a “servant of King Mirian so great and goodly to look upon.… Ahura Mazda.” Darius I is stating in the monumen- .and mountains were filled up by banners and tal inscription of Behistum (Bisitun) “through the people, like fields strewn by flowers”Kartlis [ tsk- will of Ahura Mazda I am a King; Ahura Mazda hovreba (Life of Kartli), 1955:88-89]. gave me kingship” [Dvornk F. 1966:102]. Therefore, This passage is followed by description of the these letterings have not remote connection with idols of Armazi, Gats and Gayim, and St. Nino’s a symbol of Ahura Mazda floating above the im- prayers, after which a strong wind and hailstones ages of the kings as to protecting them, and ac- destroy the images. St. Nino makes a sign of cross cordingly represented usually next to the inscrip- under the tree of rice, to which “she prayed for six tions. Marian is awaited by people, full of fear and days...the idols had been smashed on the sixth trepidation - the same scene views St. Nino, mov- day of the Transfiguration of Christ.” ing towards the image of Armaz: “the kings, rulers As C. Kekelidze a long time ago had ascer- and people were standing in great fear in front of tained, one of the ancient Georgian names of the the idols.” This parallelism should be explained by months “Akhaltslisai” (“New Year”) corresponds correlation between god and king, since a king with the Iranian Nawroz (“New day”) and the Ar- graphically represented the rule of God on earth, menian “Nawasard” (“New Year”) [Kekelidze C. which is a core idea of the ancient conception of 1956:116]. Basing on the mentioned chronologi- kingship. cal data, he came to the conclusion that the Fes- The traditional herald of the Nawruz season tival of Armazi is similar to the Armenian 1 Na- in Iran is called Haji Firooz. He symbolizes the re- wasard and the Iranian Nawruz, i.e. the beginning birth of the Sumerian god of sacrifice, Domuzi, of the New Year. who was killed at the end of each year and reborn Thus, there is now a further evidence in favor at the beginning of the New Year. Wearing a red of the theory about connection of Armazi with Ar- costume, Haji Firooz sings and dances through the amazd, involving a new aspect besides phonetic streets with tambourines and trumpets spreading and semantic closeness of their names. As it has good cheer and the news of the coming New Year been studied out, the New Year Festival was cel- [http://www. Nauruz] [“Life of St. Nino:” “the next ebrated in Georgia on 6th, in Armenia - on 11th day (the day of Festival of Armazi, - M.G.) there was of August. a sound of a big noise and trumpet”]. As it has been already noted, the ancient “...There comes time of Mirian’s exit. The peo- eastern tradition associates this festival with a ple adorn each street “with a single piece of cloth.” ruler cult. In the scene of the Festival of Armazi, This rather ambiguous moment of the Festival a special role of the king and his house is empha- might be disclosed again through the Iranian sized, which is appreciable even at the beginning world: basing upon written data provided by the of the episode through definition of Mtskheta (“a ancient Greek authors Dinon and Heracleides of residence of great kings’). The excitement of the Kumai, S. Eddy notes that “just as Ahura Mazda in people finding their refuges in order to be hidden the reliefs never touches the ground but always from view is caused by appearance of the king, floats in the air, the Persian king never touched the same royal epiphany, accompanied by glori- the ground....he never went on foot outside the fication of the king. It seems not accidental that palace, and even in it wherever he walked, he the King Mirian and his consort, the Queen Nana walked on Sardeis carpets, which anyone else was are distinguished from others on the Festival of forbidden to tread upon”[ Eddy S. 1961:44]. Armazi, since Ahura Mazda, the Lord of the whole

148 The same connotation should have adorned afterward [“to the right (of Armazi – M.G.) was ment of streets by a fabric before emergence of a golden image named Gats, to his left a silver Mirian publicly, as an expression of his royal honor. image named Gayim”]. But in earlier time, “the The Roman writer Quintus Curtius Rufus (the Georgians swore chiefly by the grave of Kartlos,” first century A.D.) reports about the Persian cus- the eponymous ancestor, progenitor of the Geor- toms of the last years of the Achaemenid period, us- gians - an event apparently echoing the Biblical ing older works, probably that of Cetarchus (about cognition of homeland, localized by the grave of 300 B.C., son of Dinon). Describing the march of Abraham in Canaan, the very place where the Is- the Persian army led by the last king, Darius IV, he raelites’ forefather had been first entombed. Nor says that “in front of the King were carried silver should be considered as accidental that the “an- altars with the sacred fire. Then came the magi, cient” gods of ancestors Gats and Gayim, from the chanting their traditional hymns, and 365 young cultural-historical standpoint as ancient as the namen - clad in purple robes, equal in number to the tion’s progenitor Kartlos, have been established days of the whole year, for the Persians also divid- themselves exactly on Mount Kartlos. Localization ed the year into that number of days. After that, of a sacred moun tain by idols of forefathers seems white horses drew the chariot consecrated to Ju- not to be alien to other countries either: “Arta- piter (i.e. Ahura Mazda); these were followed by a shes…liked a hill there and built on it a city, which horse of extraordinary size, which they called the he called Arta shat...Quickly, constructed the town, Steed of the Sun. Golden wands and white robes in which he erected a bomos too. From Bagaran adorned the drivers of the horses. Not far off were he moved there the sculpture of Artemis, also all ten chariots embossed with much gold and silver. idols of ancestors” [Khorenatsi M. 1985:49). These were followed by the horsemen of twelve According to Leonti Mroveli, “prior to set- nations of varying arms and customs. ting up the idol of Armazi over there, the moun- These preceded the King’s chariot, in which tain was called Kartli, therefore entire Kartli was he rode outstanding among the rest. Both sides named Kartli.” After that the image of Armazi was of chariot were adorned with images of gods, em- erected on Mount Kartli, it was renamed Armazi,11 bossed in gold and silver; the yoke was ornament- i.e. the progenitor’s name became substituted for ed with sparkling gems, and on it rose two golden that of the king’s, which is to be explained by the images of the King’s ancestors, one of Ninus, the evidence that in Kartli the epoch of foun ders of other of Belus”....[Dvornk F. 1966:115-116]. na tion was finished and the epoch of kings began, These descriptions of royal procession reflect akin to the Lord’s announcement to Abraham, the a calendar system of the solar year, where Darius founder of the Israelites: “I will make you exceed- is represented as an absolute monarch associated ingly fruitful; and I will make nations of you, and with the Sun (Ahura Mazda)10 [Dvornk F. 1966:116] kings shall come forth from you” (Genesis 17.6.). which seems to be echoed in the episode of Par- Established on Mount Kartli, the idol of Armaz navaz’s dream, where initiation of Parnavaz with didn’t reject the idols of ancestors, but on the con- the sun has the same connotation of king’s rela- trary - it became adjusted to them that probably tion with Ahura Mazda. is suggestive of a homogeneous nature of these In the description of the Persian royal ceremo- divinities (from the angle of cultural history - of nial reported by Q. Curtius Rufus, two golden im- a continuity and integrity of spiritual tradition of ages of Darius’ ancestors Ninus and Belus, placed the nation). This evidence of spiritual and struc- on the king’s chariot seem to be indicative of an- tural integrity of the progenitor, the first king and cestors worship cult in the ancient Iran; Azon, a the ancestors, localized adequately on Mount patrician (a senior) set up in the country of Iberia Kartli (Kartlos), in spite of his connection with Ira- by Alexander the Great, had brought to Mtskheta nian Ahura Mazda, represents the supreme god of “the ancient Gods of forefathers” Gats and Gayim, Georgia as the national divinity. “Namely the cult between of which the image of Armaz was erect- of ancestors, whom the Parthians worshipped,

149 made the founder of dynastic reign, Arsaces a ume revised in 1991 lacks the mentioned identifi- god,” as stated in one of the studies devoted to cation, interpreting Armazi as a syncretistic divin- the Iranian civilization [Huartet C., Delaporte L. ity combining in himself the functions of the su- 1952:321]. Superiority of Parnavaz is defined by preme divinity and warrior-god although without Kudji, the ruler of Western Georgia in the same any reference to the Iranian Ahura Mazda. sense: “You are from the line of the fathers of Kartli 2. For instance, the Georgian story of “Tritino” and you must be my Lord.” which is suggested to have originated from the It is thus evident that the establishment of Iranian θraētaona, the king in Shah Nameh, must the cult of “God of Gods” Armazi in Georgia had have been passed on by oral tradition [Kobidze D. nothing to do with the introduction of the cult of 1969:102, 106]; one of the most popular person- moon god Arma, as well as Hurrian divinity Tes- ages of the Georgian fairy-tales – Devi, the male hub or other deities, as has often been thought. giant of demonic force similarly is derived from The erection of the idol Armaz (Ahura Mazda) by the Avestan Daēva, etc. the deified Georgian king Parnavaz “in his name” 3. From the account on funeral ceremony of in the Early Hellenistic time-period, obviously Colchs left by Apollonius Rhodius in his Argonau- is indicative of the establishment of the old Per- tica it can be surmised that in this respect they sian religious belief (Zoroastrianism or its modi- followed Mazdean tradition: never placing dead fied form) in Georgia that has been attested by men into grave, Colchs used to wrap a corpse into a number of evidences: as it may bee seen, apart the bull’s skin and hang it on a tree. Adherence to from the literary documents, as well as linguistic, Mazdean funeral custom is also attested by cave ethnographic, folkloristic data and monuments sepulchers of the Post-Achaemenid and Hellenis- of material culture, the supreme divinity of pre- tic epochs recently revealed at Uplistsikhe, Kaspi, Christian Armenian pantheon greatly contributes Khornabuj. The toponym of the latter apparently to the definition of Armazi in favor of his Iranian is connected with the same Hvarenah: “Khorn- origin. A comparative study of Georgian and Ar- abuj” seemingly is composed of Hvarenah (Sun) menian writings brought to light the fact that the and Buj, assimilation of Pahlavian Budh (Idol), relationship between the supreme divinities of which along with some other arguments tends the two neighboring countries - Georgia and Ar- specialists to suggest pre-existence of the sun menia go further than phonetic closeness of their temple over there [Lolashvili Iv. 1984:208-216]. names as to involving their functional aspects The imprints of the Sassanian Zoroastrianism are as well. Sharing a number of characteristics [like traceable in other ethnographic rites as well: on those of Ahura Mazda, their creational aspect; the day of so called Chiakokonoba, still held once their supreme position in the hierarchy of divini- a year, people compete in jumping over a huge ties; a similarity of sacrifice rites; the connections bonfire to and fro, in which one may easily guess of Persian Nawruz, Armenian Nawasard, related to the Iranian ritual of purification with fire – Orda- the god of the New Year Aramazd and Georgian lia [Kovalewski M. 1890:115; Gamsakhurdia C. Z. Festival of Armaz (“Akhaltslisai”-“New Year”) with 1995:21]. the cult of a king in these three countries, etc.], 4. In Georgian language a great number of Armazi is to be regarded as equal to Aramazd: religious notions are the Iranian loan-words, e.g.: both of them are derived from the Iranian Ahura tsmida (holy), codvili (sinner), zorva (sacrifice), jo- Mazda, which became equivalent of Zeus in the jokheti (hell), tadzari (temple), kerpi (idol), bardzi- Hellenistic epoch marked by the process of syn- mi (bowl), carmarti (heathen), aeshma (devil, the cretization of the Iranian-Greek divinities. Evil One) martali (righteous), tsru (liar, fibster), netari (beatific, blissful), peshkhveni (peshkhumi - Notes: chalice, vessel used in Christian Liturgical service), 1. See “Armazi” [Kartuli sabchota entsiklope- zuaraki (offering), bagini (altar), dzuari (cross) etc. dia, 1975:575; Tokarev S. 1991:104]. The same vol- [Andronikashvili M. 1966:34].

150 5. The Iranian theophoric names of Geor- gious systems of the East in that time applies for a gian kings: Pharnavaz, Mi(h)rvan, Pharnajom, role of “world religion.” A common religious lan- Artag, Bartom, Artavaz, Artaban, Amazasp, Mi(h) guage arises already in the early Hellenistic time. rdat, Bagrat etc. also suggest the same tenden- The cult of a solar deity, called different names cy. Additionally, the name of the Georgian King - the Semitic god Bel (in Elam), Aphlad (in Syria), Vakhtang Gorgasali must have been originated the Iranian Ahura Mazda and Mithra appears to be from the Iranian god Verethragna [Gamsakhurdia spread all over the Parthian Empire...It is necessary C.Z. 1995:18-50]: “Sagdukht…gave birth to her to mention that some Iranian deities at this par- son, and named him in Persian Varan-Khuasro- ticular time receive anthropomorphic image”… Tang called in Georgian Vakhtang” - relates the [Lukonin V. 1987:88] J. Russell implies the same Georgian historian Juansher [Kartlis tskhovreba, phenomenon when writing: “It seems that the re- 1955:143). ligious tolerance and political stability of the Ach- 6. “St. Nunē destroyed the Image of Aramazd aemenian Empire, and the influence of the cult of the Thunderer that stood alone outside the city; a single, supreme god Ahura Mazda, encouraged a powerful river (the Kura – M.G.) flowed in be- the development in the northern Semitic world of tween. They were accustomed to do obeisance to a trans-national monotheism. The syncretistic phi- it, each on his own rooftop every morning, for it losophies of the Hellenistic period, in which the faced them. And if anyone wanted to perform a various gods of different nations were often re- sacrifice, he crossed the river and sacrificed before garded as the same divine personage possessing the temple (s)” [Khorenatsi M. 1985:86]. merely different names, can only have strength- 7. Aramazd is described in the Armenian ened such a trend” [Russell J. 1987:171]. writings as “four Aramazd” or four-faced divinity 10. The narratives of Curtius and Xenophon suggestive of the tetrad of Ahura Mazda, infinite reflect the ancient world’s idea on cosmogony Time, Endless Light and Wisdom, a Zoroastrian originated from the Chaldean astrology present- adaptation of a quaternity originally conceived ing the Sun (Helios, Zeus, Janus) in the center of by devotees of Zurvan, consisting of Infinite Time zodiacal circle divided into seasons, months and and three hypostases of the cult-epithets [Russell days (four seasons, twelve months, 365 days). This J. 1987:161]. As to the warrior image of Armazi, philosophical-re li gious system has adequately J. Russell finds close correspondence with that been proclaimed in the Christian idea of Christ- of Ahura Mazda, whom he refers to as the “com- Helios, the four Evangelists, and the twelve Apos- mander-in-chief of the forces fighting the cosmic tles [Gvelesiani M. 1997:59-92]. battle against evil, and images of him in Zoroas- 11. The modern name of Mount Armaz is Bagi- trian temples of the post-Alexandrian period pre- neti. Q. Curtius reports that in Sogdia there was sented him as a manly, warlike figure...At Mtskheta a mountain named “Ariamazes,” the same Ahura in Georgia, St. Nino beheld a great bronze image Mazda. The highest peak of the Bargushat chain, of “Armaz” which was dressed in a cape and hel- in the Zangezur region of Armenia, is Mount Ar- met with ear-flaps, an held a sharpened, rotating amazd (3392m) [Russell J. 1987:164]. sword” [Russell J. 1987:154]. 8. The excerpts from the Armenian writers with comments are quoted from the cited monograph. References: 9. Ahura Mazda was a supreme god, who could become the universal god of all peoples V. Amiranashvili Sh. 1944: ”Qartuli reliephuri qandakebis udzvelesi nimushi” (The most Ancient pattern of Georgian bas- Lukonin, touching a problem of syncretization in relief), Sakartvelos muzeumis moambe XII-B, pp. 115-128. the Seleucid and Parthian epochs, mentions: ‘Rul- Andronikashvili M. 1966: Kartul-iranuli enobrivi urtiertobis ers of the Empire - both of the late Seleucids and narkvevebi (Studies in Georgian-Iranian linguistic rela- Parthian try to receive their “heavenly reflection” tion), Tbilisi. through single divinities, and almost each of reli-

151 Apakidze A. 1970: Antikuri xanis tsarmartuli pantheoni (Pa- Dvornk F. 1966: Early Chtristian and Byzantine Political Philo- gan pantheon of antiquity), Sakartvelos istoriis narkveve- sopy: Origins and Background, 2 vols., Washington. bi I, Tbilisi. Eddy S. 1961: The King is Dead: Studies in the Eastern Resis- Bagrationi (Batonishvili) T. 1848: Istoria datskebitgan iveriisa tance to Hellenism, 334-31 B.C., Lincoln. (Early history of Iveria), Sanct-Petersburg. Herzfeld E. 1941: Iran in the Ancient East, London and New Chilashvili L. 1997: ”Ghmerti” (saxelis ganmartebisatvis). Me- York. phe Parnavazi-mephe ghmerti” [“God” (to definition of Huartet C., Delaporte L. 1952: L’Iran Antiqu Elame et Perse et the name). The king Parnavaz – the king-god], Sakart- la Civilization Iranienne, Paris. velos muzeumis moambe , XVII-B, pp. 103-126. Russell J. 1987: Zoroastrianism in Armenia, ed. Fry R., Harvard Gamsakhurdia C. Z. 1995: Adreqristianuli qartlis kulturuli mo- Iranian Series, Harvard University Press. zaika (Cultural mosaics of early Christian Kartli), Tbilisi. Xenophon. 1914: Cyropaedia, ed. Miller, W., Loeb. Giorgadze G. 1985: “Xetur-armazuli triadebi” (Hittitian-Arma- zian “triads”), Mnatobi, 7, pp. 147-157. Gvelesiani M. 1997: “Mze-qristesa da zhamta gamosaxule- bebis shesaxeb akuras bazilikis aghmosavlet phasadz”e (Representation of Sun-Christ and Seasons on the eastern façade of basilica at Acura), Literatura da khelovneba, 1-2, pp.59-92. Gvelesiani M. 2003: Armazis kerpis kulturul-istoriuli aspeqtebi: Armazis kultis definitsiisatvis (Cultural-historical aspects of the idol of Armaz: to definition of the cult of Armaz), Ph.D. diss., Tbilisi State University. Javakhishvili I. 1979: Qartvelebis tsarmartoba (Georgians’ Pa- ganism), txzulebani, I, Tbilisi. Kartlis tskhovreba (Life of Kartli), 1955: ed. S. Kaukhchishvili, Tbilisi. Kartuli sabchota entsiklopedia (Georgian Soviet encyclopaedia), 1975: I, Tbilisi. Kekelidze C. 1945: Qristianoba da mitraizmi (Christianity and Mithraism), Etiudebi, II, pp. 342-353. Kekelidze C. 1956: Zveli qartuli tselitsadi (Ancient Georgian year), Etiudebi, I, pp. 99-124. Kobidze D. 1969: Qartul-iranuli enobrivi urtiertobani (Geor- gian-Persian literary relations), II, Tbilisi. Melikishvili G. 1959: Dzveli saqartvelos istoriisatvis (To history of ancient Georgia), Tbilisi. Lolashvili Iv. 1984: Kartuli tsarmartuli tadzrebi kambechovanshi (Georgian pagan churches in kambechovani), Tbilisi. Surguladze Ir. 2001: “Qartvelta udzvelesi sartsmunoebis sakitxisatvis” (To the problem of Georgians’ ancient belief), ACADEMIA, I, pp. 37-42. Tsereteli M. 1924: Xetis qvekana, misi Xalxebi, enebi, istoria da kultura (The country of Hattti, its peoples, languages, history and culture), Constantinople. Khorenatsi M. 1985: Somkhetis istoria (History of Armenia), translated from Armenian by Al. Abdaladze, Tbilisi. Boltunova A. 1949: “K voprosu ob Armazi,” Bestnik drevneï is- toriï, 2, pp. 228-240. Kovalewski M. 1890: Zakon I obychaï na Kavkaze, I, Moscow. Lukonin V. 1987: Drevniī I rannesrednevekoviī Iran, Moscow. Marr N. 1902: “Bogi yazycheskoī Gruzii,” Zapiski Vostochnogo Otdeleniya Imperatorskogo Russkogo Arkheologicheskogo Obshchestva 14, pp. 1-27. Melikset-Bekov L. 1938: Armazni. Materialy po istorii Gruzii i Kavkaza, Tbilisi. Tokarev S. 1991: Mify narodov mira (Myths of world peoples), 2 vols, Moscow, 1980-82; rev. ed., 2 vols., Moscow. Fry R. 1972: Nasledie Irana, Moscow.

152 Vakhtang Nikolaishvili

THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTExT OF THE HEBREW INSCRIPTIONS DISCOVERED IN EASTERN GEORGIA

The existence of a Jewish Diaspora in the King- entering from the language of the local people. In dom of Kartli (Iberia according to Greco-Roman the present case Guri (`wolf`) is a local name, while sources) is attested both by written sources and Ieguda is religious. archaeological evidence. Here I shall discuss epi- This inscription confirms the evidence of Geor- graphic remains discovered during archaeological gian written sources on the existence of a Jewish excavations or by chance. They have preserved in- Diaspora at Mtskheta, which coincides to some scriptions in Hebrew or Aramaic script used by the extent with the period of the floruit of Saint Nino Jews. Attention will be focused in the paper on the of Cappadocia, the illuminatrix of Kartli. While re- complexes in which one or another monument siding at Mtskheta, St. Nino frequently visited the was brought to light. This will allow a more precise quarter settled by Jews [see Kartlis Tskhovreba I, determination of the stages of the life and activities 1955:95]. As already noted, facts of the existence of of the Jewish Diaspora - their social status. a Jewish Diaspora at Mtskheta have been corrobo- In the Iberian Kingdom of the Roman-early rated by subsequent archaeological explorations medieval period Hebrew inscriptions have largely [Nikolaishvili V. 2006:92-104]. been discovered on the territory of Mtskheta, its en- It is hard to judge about the social status of virons and in the town of Urbnisi. Jewish presence Ieguda-Gurki. It is clear, however, that he was es- in these places is confirmed by written sources and tablished at Mtskheta and a local name had been by materials found through archaeological excava- given to him. He may have been a religious official. tions [see Kartlis Tskhovreba I, 1955:16, 35-36, 44, The second Hebrew inscription was discovered 95, 97-102, 118; Babalikashvili N. 1971:3-5]. in 1938 at the Samtavro cemetery. Two stone slabs The first Hebrew inscription was discovered with inscriptions were used to build the walls one of in 1872 at the Samtavro cemetery (Mtskheta). The the burials: one Greek, and the other Hebrew (Fig.I2). situation of the discovery was recorded and de- The Hebrew inscription is made on a sandstone scribed by F. Bayern, collaborator of the Caucasian slab, its length being 82cm, width at the beginning Museum. An epitaph with a Hebrew inscription of the inscription, 46 cm, at the bottom, 36 cm, and was found in a stone cist (Bayern F. 1872:168-186, thickness, 12 cm. The inscription is of fine lines, 231-248, 268-288]. The circular-shaped gravestone and its area is 28x21cm. Beneath the inscription had fallen into the grave. On two sides it had small depicted are: a loaf of bread, cup and pitcher. The stones place, apparently to keep the state raised on Hebrew inscription was studied and published by the stone cist in place. The slab has a deep niche G. Tsereteli. The following is its content: (length: 30 cm), in which the inscription is carved. 1. This grave (is) of Ioseb (Fig. I). It reads: ,,This coffin of the dear and respect- 2. Bar Hazan (?) (be he) mentioned ed Ieguda, nicknamed Gurki. Let his resting-place 3. As blessed; and Shallum also, alongside with pious. Let his resurrection be linked 4. His brother, (be) mentioned to immaculate life (with saints)”. According to the 5. In peace [Tsereteli G. 1940:419-425] commentaries of the decipherer of the text, D. Kh- In the opinion of the interpreter of the inscrip- volson, the language is Rabbinic or Aramaic, used tion, the second word of the second line is kunya in the Talmud [Khvolson D. 1884:130-133]. On the (name denoting paternity) of ,,Ioseb”, which he basis of paleographic analysis the inscription is reads as ,,Hazan”. At the same time, G. Tsereteli dated to the 4th-5th cc. AD. In his view, two names shares the view of I. Javakhishvili, according to are a common occurrence with Jews: one Hebrew, which, the person Kunya, referred to on the grave- which was used in religious activity, and the other, stone, must not be a Hebrew name but of local

153 origin. The validity of this view is confirmed by the from ancient times. At Mtskheta, placing stele over inscription of the above-named Ieguda (the same barrows is attested from the second half of the 3rd Gurki), who has two names: one Hebrew and one millennium B.C. (see Okherakhevi). This custom local. continued by the time of placing epitaphs with the The inscription of Ioseb Bar Hazan is place in a above Hebrew inscriptions. Thus, e.g. in the vicin- quadrangular, depressed frame that has ,,handles” ity of Mtskheta, facts are evidenced of putting up of triangular shape, carved out on two sides. This marking stone slab on gravestones of a 4th-5th cc. led the publishers of the inscription to think that a AD cemetery of Akhali Armazi [Abutidze A., Bibi- platter must be depicted in the upper part of the luri T., Maisurashvili N. 1988:653-556]. The situation gravestone. is similar at the well-known Samtavro cemetery. In my view, this is a decorative element – a However, owing to the multi-layered nature of the worked out form in which the inscription was latter cemetery, recording of stele and epitaphs in placed. It appears to have been most widespread in situ is not feasible. the Roman world, having a some what canonized The third Hebrew inscription came to light in form. This is confirmed by a gilt silver pencil-case, 1960, at a Roman-period cemetery, in burial 167 discovered at the same place in a 3rd-4th cc. AD buri- [Javakhishvili K. 1972:483-84]. It was made at the al-vault, in the Yard of Svetitskhoveli, south-east of depth of 160cm from the surface of the burial the Samtavro field. The pencil-case has 3 decorative ground. It appears to have been built of wooden frames of the some shape, with a Greek inscription beams. The deceased, buried in a crouched posi- of the names of the 9 muses [Apakidze A., Kipiani tion, was oriented N. The burial contained: a bronze G., Nikolaishvili V. 2004:105-123]. signet-ring with a Hebrew inscription, a silver fin- The inscriptions are placed under the respec- ger-ring with a sard gem, with an image of Eros, tive iconographic images of the muses. As to the a silver finger-ring with a gem bearing images of representations of bread, cup and pitcher, carved a bird and a goat, a bronze bell of the shape of a in the lower part of the grave stone, as the inter- truncated pyramid, remains of a bronze earring, a preter of the inscription notes, they are widespread bronze finger-ring, beads of jet and glass – differing on gravestones found in various corners of Georgia. in form. On the basis of paleographic analysis, G. Among the above fairly diverse material a Tsereteli dated Ioseb Bar Hazan’s inscription to the bronze finger-ring-intaglio with Hebrew letter- 4th-5th cc. This date is supported by the situation of signs (inv. 1106) merits special attention. The band discovery and the archaeological context. of the ring is deficient, being round-flat in section. As for the social status of those interred in buri- It is made of fine bronze wire, slightly widened to- als with epitaphs, they seem to belong to advanced wards the shoulders. Soldered to it is an oval flat representatives of society. Thus, for example, we bezel (Ms Ketevan Javakhishvili familiarized me may recall the bilingual inscription of Seraphita, with the situation of discovery of burial 167 and the daughter of the Pitiakhsh of Kartli Zevakhos = Ja- burial complex). vakhos, and the wife of Iodmangan [Apakidze A. Two letters are carved in the bezel. The first let- 1963:147-151]. Along with the inscription of Ioseb ter is encrypted, being an abbreviation of the word Bar Hazan, the epitaph of Aurelius of Acholis came f’/uda/ (Fig. I -3). According to Nisan Babalikashvili, to light. As it transpires from the inscription, he was the decipherer of the inscription, this word means a chief artist and architect of Mtskheta [Qaukhch- certificate’, i.e. certifying some thing [Babalikashvili ishvili S. 1943:577-584]. The Hazan, mentioned on N. 1971:3]. We may be here dealing with an official the gravestone with a Hebrew inscription, may be who is certifying something, e.g. property, right to a term denoting an official – treasurer. (This view property. belongs to K. Tsereteli). As to the date of the burial complex, the exca- It should be noted that placing a stele over a vator of the site D. Koridze dates it to the 3rd cent. grave seems to have been practiced in Georgia AD. This date is accepted by the publisher of the

154 finger-ring with the Hebrew inscription (Javakhish- al 2004:70-80, Fig.XXII]. The inscription is a Hebrew vili K. 1972:84). However, she notes that finger-rings incantation written in Aramaic, being an amulet of of similar form are dated to the 3rd-4th cc. AD. [Lort- Abraham of Sarah’s son [Tsereteli K. 1996:95-96]. It kipanidze M. 1958:24, fig. 51]. The latter date seems was designed to be worn round the neck and, as a more convincing, for similar bronze finger-rings (4 rule, the text was magic. Such plaques were made pieces) have been found at the Roman period cem- of different materials: gold, silver, copper and lead. etery at Mtskheta, in pit burial №533 covered with The amulet protected its owner. It was also placed sandstone slabs. A male, aged 30-55, was buried in private houses and synagogues [Tsereteli K. supine, in extended posture, with head oriented 1996:95-96]. E. Along with 9 finger-rings, glass unguentarium The translator and interpreter of the inscrip- and bands – all these characteristic of Kartli burial tion, K.Tsereteli, believes that it belonged to a Jew, grounds of the Roman period –so called tied up Abram Sarah’s son and was designed as a charm bronze fibula was found, which renders the burial against evil spirits and demons. The amulet is writ- complex comparatively younger, being datable to ten in Judaic-Aramaic, which was used among Jews the 3rd-4th cc AD [Manjgaladze G. 1985:107, figs 525- settled in Georgia [Tsereteli K. 1996, II]. The inscrip- 528]. Which is most important, a dotted hoop and tion on the amulet reads thus: two signs are scratched on the bezels of the above 1. (This is) a kind amulet for Abraham son of Sarah. bronze finger-rings. These are apparently encrypt- 2. for his household. This is a seal ed Hebrew letters. (The late Acad. Kote Tsereteli 3. with which Solomon the king sealed (evil spir- failed in his life-time to decipher the letter-signs its) depicted on the finger-rings). 4. so that no harm is done to Abraham son of The discovery of a finger-ring (signet) with an Sarah inscription in Hebrew seems fairly logical. The pres- 5. and no member of his family before us and ence of Jews at Urbnisi by that time is confirmed by 6. as earlier, powerful God fulfilled (his word) with written sources and toponymic evidence, “… reach- respect to Abraham ing the region of Kartli, St. Nino arrived at the out- 7. that (he) would be God his protector always skirts of a town called Urbnisi. … She went into the 8. you are troubled. Exorcise (evil spirits), do quarter where the Jews lived, and talked to them 9. good and secretly put your hand on him. in Hebrew, which she knew well. She stayed there 10. and again [further] streng then this just [cause] for a month” [see Kartlis Tskhovreba I, 1955:87-88; 11. in the name of these angels I seal translation of this passage borrowed from D. Lang, 12. and bind [the evil spirit], so that he should not Lives and Legends of the Georgian Saints, London, dominate over him 23]. Besides, the place name nauriali (‘’former Jew- 13. over Abraham son of Sarah [be it] ish settlement”) survives at Urbnisi, pointing to the 14. magic and evil spell existence of a Jewish quarter there [Javakhishvili K. 15. nor jinxed [bewitched] and neither the cheru- 1972:4]. bim The fourth Hebrew inscription came to light in 16. nor the devil, nor sleepwalker 1992 in Mtskheta proper – on the territory of the 17. nor any evil demon, and [they] will have no town, on a former Roman-Early Medieval period power settlement site. A three-lipped, straw-colour-fired 18. over Abraham son of Sarah pitcher had been placed at the north-eastern cor- 19. from this day to eternity ner of the first house. Together with ground fallen 20. amen, amen, Sela, rise and execute into the vessel a roll, folded into four was found. It is 21. a deed of grace. There is no made of a thin gold plaque; its length: 5.8 cm, width: 22. the substance in them, aleph, beth, gimel, 2.8cm. An inscription of 29 lines is ct / carved on the daleth roll (inv №1437). It ends with a carved zigzag line, 23. he, waw, sayin, heth, teth, yod with framing (Fig.II1) [Apakidze A., Nikolaishvili V. et 24. kaph, lamed, mem, nun, samek [ayin]

155 25. pe, sadhe, qoph, resh, sin (Brief reports), 70-80, Lortkipanidze(ed.), Tbilisi (in Geor- 26. taw and said Jacob when gian). Lortkipanidze M.1958: Gems of the State Museum of Geor- 27. he saw these: ,This is God’s camp gia, II, Tbilisi (in Georgian). 28. and he called Manjgaladze G. 1985: Late classical period burials of the 29. the place Makhanayim Samtavro cemetery, Mtskheta VII, Results of archeologi- The house of Abraham son of Sarah, where the cal explorations, 43-108, Apakidze (ed.), Tbilisi (in Geor- gian). amulet was discovered, consists of two rooms, with Nikolaishvili V. 2004: The city of Mtskheta in the 3rd-4th cent. a door –passage between. A wine cellar is arranged AD. (according to archaeological evidence. ‘’Kavkasiis in the second room, where a large quantity of clay- Matsne’’ (special issue №3), 39-43, Kikalishvili (ed), Tbilisi ware was found, which is generally characteristic of (in Georgian). Nikolaishvili V. 2006: Written and archaeological evidence th th the 4 -6 centuries AD. [Nikolaishvili V. 2004:41-43]. attesting to the life and activities of Jews on the territory In the second room two clay seal-bulls were found, of historical Greater Mtskheta. A. Baazov Historical-eth- with Sasanian monograms depicted on them. On nographic Museum of Georgian Jews, Proceedings, IV, one seal the Christian symbol-representation of a 92-104, Ghambashidze (ed.), Tbilisi (in Georgian). Ramishvili K. 2005: Two bulls from the Svetitskhoveli quarter cross is carved. These seals are analogous stylisti- of Mtskheta. Dziebani Sakartvelos arkeologiashi, Nos 15- cally and by the subjects depicted - to specimens 16, 186-194. Maisuradze (ed.), Tbilisi (in Georgian). of Sasanian glyptics of the 5th-6th cc. A.D. [Ramish- Kartlis Tskhovreba I, 1955: Text established according to all vili K. 2005:186-193]. Seal-bulls were mostly used to principal manuscripts, 16, 35-36, 44, 95, 97, 102, 118, Tbilisi. seal definite property or commodity. Hence it may Qaukhchishvili S. 1943: Newly-discovered Greek inscription be assumed that the owner belonged to the circle of Mtskheta-Samtavro. Bulletin Acad. Sci. Georgian SSR, of merchants. V. IV, №6, 517-584, Janashia (ed.), Tbilisi. Thus, in Roman-early medieval Georgia we Tsereteli G. 1940: The newly-discovered Hebrew inscription of Mtskheta. Bulletin of the Institute of Language, Histo- come across several types of written Hebrew texts. ry and Material Culture, Vols. V-VI, 41st-425. Janashia(ed) Two of them are epitaphs, being a blessing for the Tbilisi. journey to the other world – an eulogy. One is a Tsereteli K. 1996: The Aramaic amulet of Mtskheta. Results gold roll and designed to be an amulet. The text of of archaological explorations, V.XI, 95-132. Apakidze (ed), Tbilisi. the inscription it bears is of magic content, serving Javakhishvili K. 1972: Glyptic items of the Urbnisi former city to protect its owner from an evil spirit and malice. site (Gems of the State Museum of Georgia, V), Tbilisi. The bronze seal on which an encrypted inscription Babalikashvili N. 1971: Hebrew inscriptions in Georgia [18th- th is carved is a signet, probably belonging to the 19 cc], Tbilisi (in Russian). Khvol’son, D. 1884: Collection of Hebrew inscriptions – on owner of some property or to an official – to seal or gravestones, etc. Inscriptions from other places, in the certify something. ancient Hebrew square script, and specimens of script As is seen from the content of the inscriptions from 9th-15th mss, collected and recorded by Khvol’son, and in some cases from the archaeological context, St. Petersburg (in Russian). Apakidze A., Kipiani G., Nikolaishvili V. 2004: A rich burial their owners must have been representations of a from Mtskheta (Caucasian Iberia). – Ancient West and socially advanced stratum (probably an ecclesias- East. vol. 3, №1, 105-123. Tsetskhladze (ed.), Leiden- tic, official or merchant). Boston. Bayern F. 1872: Augrabungen der alten Graber bei Mzcheta – Zeitschrift für Ethnologie, V. IV, pp. 168ß186, 231ß281. References: Berlin.

Abutidze A., Bibiluri T., Maisurashvili N. 1988: Early Chris- Figures: tian period cemetery of Akhali Armazi. Bulletin Acad. Sci. Georgian SSR, 131, №3, 653-656, Tbilisi, Kharadze (ed.) (in Fig. I – 1. Ieguda – Gurki incribtion 4th-5th cc. AD; 2. Ioseb Bar Georgian). Hasan incribtion, 4th-5th cc. AD; 3. Inscribtion on a bronze Apakidze A. 1963: Cities and Urban life in Georgia, I, Tbilisi seal, 3rd-4th cc. AD; (in Georgian). Fig. II - Inscribtion of Abraham son of Sarah 5th-6th cc. AD. Apakidze A., Nikolaishvili V. et al. 2004: The Mtskheta expedition – field archaeological explorations in 1989-1992.

156 I

Ieguda - Gurki Inscription. 4th-5th cc A.D.

Ioseb Bar Hazan Inscription. 4th-5th cc A.D.

Inscription on a bronze seal. 3th-4th cc A.D.

157 II

Inscription of Abraham son of Sarah. 4th-6th cc A.D.

158 Natela Jabua

ON ARCHITECTURAL POTENTIAL OF PRE-CHRISTIAN GEORGIA

After Christianity had been declared as official Vani, Uplistikhe and etc.) [Apakidze, A. 1963:] testi- religion of Georgia new tasks were set before ar- fy about the existence of many thousands of years chitecture to be resolved with the use of architec- of building art before the adoption of Christian- tural potential existing in the country. Under the ity and represents considerable factual material to conditions of regulated requirement of building reveal as the architectural heredity as the innova- Christian church right the local construction po- tions. tential was stipulating the formation and develop- Archaeological finds related to the epoch of ment of ecclesiastical architecture in Georgia. pre-Christian architecture of Georgia provide us In general the identity of architectural po- with more or less complete information about tential, as we see it, is mainly stipulated by geo- such important issues as construction materials graphic features of the country (specificity of the and ways of their use, specificities of composi- landscape, variety of local building materials, and tional solution of the buildings, nature of histori- intensity of cultural relations stipulated by geopo- cal and cultural relations. litical location), level of the construction business The available data about the building mate- development, peculiarity of psychological type rials of the pre-Christian epoch monuments on and ideology of the native population. the territory of Georgia are diverse. In the sites of The Study of architectural potential at the ancient habitation (5th – 4th millenniums B.C.) the stage of formation of Christian architecture in structures are built of raw bricks. This construc- Georgia is very important and comprises many as- tion material has been used for millenniums. pects. This time we aim to identify some matters The first structures were made only of raw brick that define its identity. (e.g. Shulaveri Hill, Arukhlo, Imiri Hill), afterwards It should be mentioned from the first that there were found walls on a wooden carcass (e.g. geographical specificity and geopolitical location Kvatskhela) and stone foundation (e.g. Amirani of the country have by all means been prerequi- Hill). Raw bricks were used in the first millennium sites of development of construction business in B.C. as well. E.g. in Tsikhia-Goria of IV-III centu- Georgia from the ancient times. Beneficial and di- ries BC walls of 1,5 meters thickness are contin- verse landscape and climatic conditions created ued with brickwork of raw bricks [Tskitishvili, G. environment for the existence of population and 2003:11-25]; and grandiose complex of temple carrying out corresponding construction activ- of Dedoplis Tskaro is completely made of raw ity from the times immemorial. At the same time brick (sizes: 50X50X15 centimeters) [Gagoshidze, closeness of the country to the ancient civilization I. 1981:102-116]. The use of raw brick had been centers allowed to establish relationship with sharply reduced by the end of the first millennium them, which contributed to the simultaneous B.C due to the introduction of mortar. assimilation of architectural and constructional In Georgia, especially in Colchis wood was achievements and resultant stipulation of devel- one of the major construction materials. The re- opment of architecture. gion rich in forests created good opportunities Large quantity and chronological parameters to obtain necessary materials. Greek and Roman of architectural monuments discovered in Geor- authors – Hippocrates, Xenophon, Apollonius gia starting from the ancient settlements of V-IV of Rhodes, Pomponius Mela, Vitruvius, Strabo millenniums B.C. (e.g. Shulaveri Hill, Arukhlo, Im- and etc. - point out in their works about the big iri Hill), [Archaeology of Georgia, II, 1992:] to the number of forests and wooden structures in Col- townships of pre-Christian epoch (e.g. Mtskheta, chis. Wooden dwellings had been evidenced here

159 from the Bronze Age. Dwelling houses, towers, ing materials and corresponding technical means enclosures, fortified dwellings were constructed in Georgia, about the existence of centuries-old of wood there [Gamkrelidze, G. 2002: 111-121]. It tradition of civil engineering. It should be men- should be pointed out, that Roman architect Vit- tioned that basically Christian architecture has ruvius specially reviews “Colchian houses” made used stone as construction material. However the of logs in his celebrated tractate “De Architectura” experience accumulated in the course of building (Vitruvius, II,I,4), which confirms the existence of raw bricks’ and wooden structures has definitely special samples of wooden architecture in Colchis. contributed to the resolution of constructive or As to the rock materials, there are quite di- artistic problems. verse natural resources in Georgia. Volcanic rocks In order to display architectural potential ex- such as andesite basalt, easier to work sandstone, isting in Georgia at the initial stage of Christian tuff and more solid limestone were also used as architecture it is essential to reveal whole reper- construction material. Cobble-stones were widely toire of the planning and compositional solution utilized as well. of the structures interesting in terms of their archi- On the eve of 3rd -2nd millenniums B.C. there tecture. Unfortunately level of preservation of the were built megalithic constructions - menhirs monuments, discovered as a result of archaeologi- (Tsalka, Tetritskaro and other regions of South cal excavations does not generally allow to define Georgia) and dolmens (mainly in Abkhazia). Start- those issues. Accordingly the attempt of functioning from the second half of II millennium B.C. there al identification and reconstruction of the build- may be observed the so-called Cyclopean or dry ings often is of a hypothetic nature. In this context masonry fortified walls (e.g. Avranlo – 2nd millen- the testimonies provided by such monuments as nium B.C., Nordevani –1st millennium B.C.). Tsikhiagora – 4th 3rd centuries B.C. [Tskhitishvili, The technique of cutting stone in quadrels G.2003:11-25], temple complex of Dedoplis Min- had been spread since 4th century B.C. Such qua- dori- 2nd -1st centuries B.C. [Gagoshidze, I. 1981, drels are laid in a dry way, without mortar and are 1981:102-116], temple structure of lower terrace linked with so-called swallow tail pyrones made of of Vani site of ancient settlement - 2nd -1st cen- wood or metal (e.g. Armazi Fortress, Gori, Tsitsam- turies B.C. [Matiashvili, N. 2005:44-45], columned uri). There is used a rustic stonework (e.g. Vani, hall of Armazi fortress – I century B.C. – I century Uplistikhe, Mtskheta). Horizontal laying of the A.C. [Apakidze, A. 1963:105-108], Bagineti six ap- stone rows is observed in the course of building sidal structure – 2nd -3rd centuries [Nikolaishvili, walls, however the rows are of different height. V. 1996:23-25], the initial pre-Christian religious The structures were built as by stone quadrels as structure of three-nave basilica in Uplistikhe, the by raw bricks on the stone. town cut in rock [Khakhutaishvili, D. 1989]. By the end of the 1st millennium B.C. lime mor- Despite chronological, functional and stylistic tar was introduced providing new opportunities difference the indicated monuments have com- in terms of development of the stone architecture. mon feature, expressed in the centrist concept As it is pointed out in a significant testimony by of the planning and internal space. The so-called Strabo Iberia is mostly well inhabited by towns square in square compositional scheme is used in and villages. There are tiled roofs, houses with the fire-worship temples in Tsikhiagora (Fig .I,1) architectural design, markets and etc... (Strabo, and Dedoplis Mindori (pl.III,f.1). In Bagineti quad- XI,III,1,2) Archaeological findings contain lots of rangular poly apsidal structure (Fig.II,2 ) six semi- flat and sulcate tiles proving reality of this testi- circular apses are placed radially to the centre. mony. Size of the tiles (about 52-46x44-47) and Four supports and almost square plan is observed weight testify about the firmness and stability of in the lower terrace temple-type structure in Vani structures covered by them. ancient settlement(Fig. I,2 ) and also in Uplistsikhe Therefore it can be observed that archaeologi- basilica initial constructions period structure(Fig. cal findings testify about the use of diverse build- III, 2). Six-column hall of Armazi fortress is different

160 (Fig.II,1 ). It has a shape of an elongated rectangle same time the capitals and other architectural de- but the entrance is cut through the middle part tails show some stylistic characteristics different of the longitudinal facade. Such solution served to from Greek, Roman or Iranian patterns which has emphasize the centre rather than direct axis when definitely to be evaluated as a manifestation of lo- perceiving the interior. Given that the concept of cal artistic features. It is remarkable that familiar- the plans and internal spaces of the dwellings in ization with the Western and Oriental experience Georgia from the ancient settlements to the peas- is proved by the specificity of masonry of walls in ants’ houses of “Darbazi” were mainly based on different structures. Rustic stonework character- the centrist solution principle we may come to istic of the antique world was spread in Georgia conclusion that those monuments are reflective along with the rule of reducing size of stone qua- of centuries-old local traditions. Accordingly, such drels from the bottom to the top, which was char- compositional concept of the piece of architec- acteristic of the Oriental, especially ancient Iranian ture is one of the essential signs of the identity of art of building (e.g. tomb of Cyrus, king of Persia) Georgian architectural potential, which has influ- and created impression of illusory enlarging of a enced the formation and development peculiari- building. Such concept of the wall stonework is ties of the Georgian church architecture later on. seen in the medieval monuments as well. Notwithstanding the scarcity of the structures In fine, at the initial stage of Christian archi- preserved in different regions of Georgia with dif- tecture there did exist in Georgia architectural ferent scale of completeness, diverse architectural potential having the centuries-old tradition. Its details have been found as a result of the archae- identity, along with other factors, was formed ological excavations. Refinement of their forms, and stipulated by different building materials and coordination of proportions, diversity of the orna- corresponding building methods; by experience mental patterns and craftsmanship testify about of utilizing diverse structural forms and means; high level of architecture and construction busi- by sustainable tradition of centrist layout and in- ness. Archaeological materials testify that in pre- ternal space of a building; by diverse artistic and Christian Georgia they knew very well different stylistic patterns of architectural forms. The most ways of roofing supporting and supported struc- noteworthy is the fact, that intensive relationship tures. It should be emphasized, that arched roof- with the leading cultural centers of the West and ing has been completely preserved in the Mtskhe- East has developed skills of simultaneous assimi- ta tomb. The architects had been aware as about lation and original comprehension of architectur- the principles of mode, as about the forms of sup- al, structural or stylistic innovations. ports typical of oriental art of building. There have The existence of such architectural potential been evidenced Dorian (e.g. Sairkhe, see the Fig. stipulated successful solution of the problems IV,1), Ionian (e.g. Sarkine, see the Fig.IV,2 ), Corin- facing architecture in the period of declaring thian (e.g. Vani , see the Fig.IV,3 ), lotus shape (e.g. Christianity as an official religion of Georgia. The Dedoplis Mindori, see the Fig.IV,4 .) two-protomai centuries-old skills of simultaneous assimilation capitals (e.g. Tsikhiagora, see the Fig.IV, 5), the so- of innovations made it possible to quickly adapt called bell-shaped foundations (e.g. Shiomgvime, to the requirements of the Christian religion. Re- see the Fig.IV, 6). Architectural details decorated sultant of the former was Sioni basilica built in V with different animal, plant and geometrical mo- century distinguished for its architectural value tives, acroterions (e.g. Vani), shaped cornice (e.g. and Manglisi tetraconchal church – specimen of a Vani), caisson ceiling (e.g. Uplistsikhe) and etc. domical architecture. have been found as well. Spreading of the types and forms of Christian This material draws attention because it is in- architecture in Georgia was based on the local dicative of close cultural relationship with the pre- traditions. One of the examples of such attitude Christian western (Greek and Roman) and oriental is a comprehension of three-nave basilica. Based (especially Iranian) centers of civilization. At the on the centrist orientation of the internal space

161 this type acquired specific features. Consequently References: the characteristic of basilica elongated planning and prioritized western entrance was replaced in Apakidze, A. 1963: afaqiZe, an. qalaqebi da saqalaqo Georgia by the near square planning and entranc- cxovreba Zvel saqarTveloSi, Tbilisi, 1963. Archaeology of Georgia, II, 1992: saqarTvelos arqeo- es of the longitudinal facades were prioritized. logia, II, Tb., 1992. E.g. the northern and southern entrances create Gagoshidze, I, 1981: Гагошидзе Ю. Из истории грузино- in the course of perceiving internal space almost иранских взаимоотношенй (Храм II-Iвв. до н.э. Дедо- the same effect as it was reviewed in 6-column плис Миндори), сб. Кавказ и Средяя Азия в древно- сти и средневековье, Москва, 1981. hall of Armazi Fortress. It is to be pointed out that Gamkrelidze, G. 2002: gamyreliZe, g. kolxeTi _ sustainable tradition based on centric solution kylturul-istoriuli narkvevebi, Tbilisi, of the building composition and internal space 2002. Khakhutaishvili, D. 1989: is manifested in the major types of the domical xaxutaiSvili, d. uflis- cixe qalaqi kldeSi, 1989. architecture such as tetraconchal churches (e.g. Matiashvili, N. 2005: maTiaSvili, n. elinisturi xanis Manglisi, Ninotsminda, Jvari of Mtskheta, Bana), kolxeTis istoriis sakiTxebi, Tbilisi, 2005. the Inscribed Cross type (e.g. Tsromi, Samtavisi) Nikolaishvili, V. 1996: nikolaiSvili, v. axali arqe- Polyapses churches (e.g. Bochorma, Katskhi). ologiuri aRmoCenebi armazcixe-bagineTze, Jur. Zeglis megobari, 4(95), Tbilisi, 1996, gv. In the course of understanding and assimilat- 22-25. ing principles of Christian architecture in Georgia Tskitishvili, G. 2003: cqitiSvili, g. cixiagoras sa- it became obvious that the experience of using taZro kompleqsi, Tbilisi, 2003. diverse methods of building, designing and dec- Figures: orating had been of huge importance and facilitated the creation of many different architectural Fig. I - 1. The temples complex from Tsikhiagora. 2. The te m ple and artistic forms. It encouraged further stylistic from Vani. Fig. II - 1. The six-column hall of Armazi fortress. 2. The temple changes from the so-called classic period of VI-VII from Bagineti. centuries to the so-called Baroque of X-XI centu- Fig. III - 1. The temples complex from Dedoplis Mindori. 2. ries. The temple from Uplistsikhe Diverse artistic and stylistic repertoire created Fig. IV - 1. The Dorian capital from Sairkhe. 2 The Ionian capital from Sarkine. 3. The Corinthian capital from Vani. 4. in the pre-Christian epoch on the basis of relation- The lotus shape capital from Dedoplis Mindori. 5. The ship with the centers of civilization of the West and two-protomai capital from Tsikhiagora. 6. The so-called the East stipulated the use of different decorative bell-shaped foundations from Shiomgvime. forms in the first centuries of the Christianity. In the churches of that period there can be observed as the use of classic capitals, marble incrustation, floor mosaic (e.g. Bichvinta, Vashnari), as the embossed compositions made by the influence of Sassanid Iran art (e.g. Bolnisi Sioni, Khashmi). The influence of pre-Christian cultural heritage has weakened at the next stage and the formation of new artistic forms was carried out under the influence of ongoing artistic and stylistic processes. The existence of diverse architectural potential in pre-Christian Georgia defined to considerable extent the distinctive nature of assimilating requirements of Christian religion, originality of architectural and artistic solutions, which placed medieval architecture of Georgia on a distinguished place in the Christian World aborigine.

162 I

163 II

164 III

165 IV

166 Vera Chikhladze

MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS – CYMBALS FROM ARCHAEOLOGICAL MATERIAL OF THE FIRST-FOURTH CENTURIES

Cymbals constitute two hemispherical bronze appeared in this country later and gradually, be- plates with edges stamped with herring-bone or- ing adopted from neighbors. Most of them dis- nament. That section handles are soldered hemi- appeared and even the later generations did not spherically on the convex surface. Dimensions: know the real meaning of their names. A present- diameter - 11-19 cm. heights 8-10 cm, width of day Georgian knows their names only thanks to handle 1, 5 cm. old and new works, haring no insight into their Musical Instruments are scarce in archaeologi- essence. Therefore, the exact meaning of each of cal materials. A bronze statuette of a music player, them, the period of existence and the provenance holding a five-stringed instrument - perhaps a of the instrument should be ascertained accord- harp, is known from the Qazbegi Theasure [Tsitla- ing to the surviving instruments [Javakhishvili I. nadze Z. 1976:40]. An image of a musician with a 1990:20]. harp – a clay terracosta - was brought to light in a In all sixteen cymbals have been discovered layer dated to the 3rd - 2nd cc BC, of the Bambebi at various archaeological sites of Georgia – both former settlement site, at Uplistsikhe [Khakhuta- Eastern and Western. All of them are similar in ishvili D. 1989:54-55, fig. 25]. In Khaishi, Svaneti a form and technique of workmanship. They have gold pendant was found, representing a minia- come to light both at burial grounds and former ture image of a tower with a lean-to. settlement sites. Under the lean-to two figures with the pipe According to Sulkhan-Saba Orbeliani, the and chianuri (“viol”) are depicted [Javakhishvili A. cymbal is a sweet instrument, when tuned singers 1958:147-157]. A bronze statuette of youth pan sang well to is [Orbeliani S.S. 1966:12]. playing a two-reed pipe was found at the station I. Javakhishvili placed the cymbal in the areas vault at Mtskheta [Lomtatidze G. 1951:641-648] Of of rattles. “Cymbal occurs in the translation of the particular interest is the Dzalisi mosaic panel: the Genesis, being the same as Hebrew kvamblin, figure of pan (Ochopintre, Bochi) playing a multi- Greek cumbakon or cumbala, Latin cymbalum reed pipe. Larcheme-soinari-sastvino is specially and symbala, and Armenian stusla. Cymbal was a contrasted to a harpist [Bokhochadze A. 1981: 74- metal plate that was made to produce sound by 75, Fig. LXLU, fig. 7]. ordinary cymbals, there also were brass capper Since time immemorial man successfully tried cymbals [Javakhishvili I. 1990:194]. to satisfy his musical need through using the Cymbal is mentioned in the Oshki manuscript sound of various objects. The following types of (150-; 2-5). “Praise him with fanfares on the trum- instruments are known from ancient times: per- pet, praise him with tambourines and dancing, cussion (jingles and rattles), wind and string. All praise him with flute and strings, praise him with there were known and widespread in ancient the clash of cymbals, and praise him with trium- Georgia for centuries. phant cymbals”. According to ancient Hebrew sources, the ep- Cymbal occurs in Georgian literary sources as onyms of Georgian tribes are referred to as fathers well, thus in Shavteli’s “Abdul-Mesia” we read: The and inventors of wind instruments [Janashia S. sounds poets kettle-drum and cymbal. 1959:73]. The sounds of poets, like sapphires, are heard In his book: “Basic Questions of the History of kettle-drum and cymbal. In Shota Rustaveli’s of Georgian Music” I. Javakhishvili writes: Some “The Man in the Panter’s Skin” musical instru- of them (instruments V.Ch.) existed since ancient ments of almost all groups are mentioned: per- times; the names of some are local, many of them cussion and rattling, string and wind [Papiashvili

167 Ts.1966:19-22]. Cymbal is referred to at the coro- According to the grave goods (tall, pear-shaped nation of Tinatin: “Loud their voices arose, silenc- body, jug, silver ring with a sard gem intaglio ing trumpet and cymbal”. And at the Nauruz festi- (bearing an image of fish) burial complex 246 (fig. val at Gulansharo ... “This for 10 days is heard the II) of the Zhinvali cemetery should be dated to the sound of dairas and cymbals”. and of the third or early fourth century. Cymbal was apparently used together with The grave goods found in burial 348(clay.... jug other instruments – trumpet and kettle drum: and and earrings) may be dated to the third century, its sound `sweetened the sound of the latter in- while the artifacts surviving in the damaged burial struments. 423 may be assigned to the first-second centuries. Sulkhan Saba Orbeliani’s definition of cym- The cited three burials were discovered in the bal as sweet instruments accords with Rustaveli’s section of the cemetery where the burials of war- work. riors are laid and there 3 burials containing weap- Cymbals functioned as a musical instrument ons were uncovered: daggers, spearheads, darts, in 17-th century Georgia too. In Peshang’s histori- arrowheads, knives and whetstones. cal poem we read that when a bride was brought Two analogous cymbals have been discovered to Shahnavaz, during the celebration, the round at the Mdzivianamamulebi cemetery, in v. Tsipra- of the cymbals adorned the house and the streets. nisdziri, in burials containing weapons (spear- A 13-th century miniature of a manuscript of heads) dated to the third–fourth centuries. There the Psalms is interesting. A Georgian artist has bronze cymbals were found at Nedziki cemetery. depicted Solomon’s coronation and with string, One burial belonged to an adolescent, the cym- wind, percussion and rattling instruments, with bals being small in size. In the other two burials the singers clapping and dancing (fig. IV) the weapons were attested (sword and spearhead). first on the left is holding a cymbal [Janelidze D. According to the grave goods found in this burial, 1989:16]. it is dated by the archaeologist Ts. Robakidze to A musician, with instruments that do not pro- the early fourth century. nounce words, is capable of evoking appropriate In Western Georgia, cymbals were found in feelings. Listening to elevated, highly melodious burials 3 and 9 at the Late Roman cemetery of Mo- and sensitive music has a positive impact on hu- donakhi, they are dated to the fourth century [Na- man morality, it raises Music was widely used in diradze J. 1975:45-50]. Burial 3 belonged to adoles- the art of war, as is clear by evidenced by warriors cent. The cymbal, too, was small. One of the plates depicted in ancient imitative arts, with musicians of the cymbal is preserved at the school museum of playing an wind and percussion instruments mov- Koreti. Two cymbals were discovered by the collab- ing in front of the troops [Khuchua P. 1987:77]. orators of the Sh. Amiranashvili State Museum of March... etc. military music was widespread in Art during the 1995-996 archaeological campaign, Georgia too. According to I. Javakhishvili, among at the Late Roman period cemetery of Sairkhe. other things, the purpose of military musical in- The burials belonged to an advanced stratum of struments was to give quick notice to numer- warriors. On the basis of the accompanying grave ous troops what had to be done [Javakhishvili I. goods, the burials were dated to the third-fourth 1990:215]. centuries. A bronze cymbal is kept at the Khoni The archaeological excavations carried out museum. It was discovered in v. Didgvabuna – in a recently in Georgia have brought to light – along burial complex, dug by chance, on the territory ad- with other numerous artifacts – musical instru- joining the Ukemerioni fortress. The complex con- ments, namely cymbals. tained artifacts of the third-fourth centuries. The cymbals discovered in the Aragvi valley, A crushed cymbal plate was found in 1996 in in particular at the burial grounds of Zhinvali, a layer dated to the second-third centuries at the Nedzikhi and Mdzivanamamulebi, generally come floor level of a Late Roman period temple complex from burials dated to the first fourth centuries. at Armazistskhevi-Bagineti, Mtskheta.

168 In 1986, while excavating a palace on Dedop- Nadiradze J. 1975: Archaeological sites of the Dzalisi valley, lis Gora, a bronze cymbal (diameter - 19 cm) was Tbilisi. (in Georgian); Orbaliani Sulkhan Saba. 1966: Works, v. IV-2. (in Georgian); found in Room 1 in a layer, dated to the first centu- Papiashvili Ts. 1966: Musical instruments in “The Man in the ry AD. A similar cymbals was discovered at v. Skvi- Panter’s Skin”. - Journal Sakartverlos Khelovneba, N5, tori, about which D. Tsereteli wrote in the “Droeba” Tbilisi. (in Georgian); newspaper: Along with gold items, bronze objects Tsereteli D. 1875: The Hoard from Skhvitori, newpaper Droe- ba: no 37-38 (in Georgian); exactly line the plates used in Roth’s brass band – Tsitlanadze L. 1975: Arhaeological sites of Khevi. Tbilisi. (in were found at Skhvitori [Tsereteli D. 1875]. Georgian); Burials containing cymbals, judging by the Javakhishvili A. 1958: The Khaishi Treasure, Mnatobi. N3. grave goods they contained, doubtless belonged Tbilisi. (in Georgian); Javakshishvili I. 1990: The Basic questions of the History of to warriors, while the small-seized cymbals found Georgian Music. Tbilisi. (in Georgian); in children’s burials to boys-future warriors. Janashia S. 1958: Tubal-Tabal, Tibareni, Iberi. Works, v III. Tbili- Among the burials brought to lights at the Zh- si. (in Georgian); invali cemetery a stratum of warriors may be iden- Janelidze D. 1989: In medieval Georgian novel. - Journal Kino. Tbilisi. (in Georgian); tified, whom Strabo unites under the third genus or tillers of the ground (Strabo, 1564). Among the warriors a group of musicians may be singled Figures: out, whose burials, along with other grave goods, Fig. I - Cymbal discovered in burial 9, Modinakhe cemetery. contain cymbals. The musician – warrior, who Fig. II- Burial complex 246, Zhinvali cemetery. played the cymbal, probably led the detachment Fig. III- Burial complex 423, Zhinvali cemetery. or troops. The Georgian designation of the instru- Fig. IV Burial complex 46, Nedzikhi cemetery . ment tsin-tsil-a amay be derived from this (tsin in Fig. V- Burial complex 78, Nedzikhi cemetery. Georgian means in front ahead). The cymbals, attested in the royal residence – in the temple complex of Armaziskhevi-Bagineti and in the palace-complex at Dedoplis Gora, point to the fact that cymbals were not only a musical instrument of warriors. As described in the works of Georgian writers and poets, it was played at the Georgian royal palace as well. As we see the cymbal, as a musical instruments was used in Georgian from ancient times to the seventeenth century inclusive. It was an ancient Georgian percussion instrument.

References:

Bokhocahdze A. 1981: Archaeological excavations at Aghaiani and Dzalisi, Tbilisi. (in Georgian); Khakhutaishvili D. 1989: Uplistsikhe – a rock cut city. Tbilisi. (in Georgian); Khuchua P. 1987: The world of music. Tbilisi. (in Georgian); Khuchua G. 1996: The Pedagogical Legacy of Marcus Fabius Quintilian. Tbilisi(in Georgian); Lomtatidze G., Tsitsishvili I. 1951: A newly discovered vault at Mtskheta. - Bull. Georgian Academy of Sciences, v. 12.Tbilisi. (in Georgian);

169 I

170 II

171 III

172 IV

173 V

174 Gela Gamkrelidze

THE LAND OF COLCHIS AND THE CITY OF PHASIS (Towards a historico-archaelogical study of western Georgia in the Classical period)

The land of Colchis, famous throughout the early medieval periods were situated, the archae- Classical world, from where – according to the ological study of which yielded items of foreign celebrated ancient Greek myth – the Argonauts manufacture (pottery, adornments, metal and stole the Golden Fleece, was on the eastern coast glass ware). Such settlements at the Rioni river are of the Black Sea, i. e. on the western territory of attested: in Kutaisi; Patriketi-Vartsikhe [Japaridze, modern Georgia. The valley of the Rioni, frequent- V. 1977: 43-50]; Vani [Lordkipanidze, O. 1977: 159- ly referred to in ancient Greco-Roman sources as 175]; Tsikhesulori [Mitsishvili, M. 1977: 32-47]; Sh- the Phasis, lies in central Colchis. According to the uamta [Gamkrelidze, G. 1982: 49-117], Dablagomi archaeological and written sources: Herodotus, [Tolordava, V. 1977: 67-78]; Dapnari [Kighuradze, Scylax of Caryanda, Hippocrates, Apollonius Rho- N. 1976]; Natekhebi (Lake Paliastomi) [Gamkre- dius, Strabo, Appian, Flavius Arrian, Marcus Manil- lidze, G. 1992: 30-48; Gamkrelidze, G. 1987: 98- ius, Procopius, Agathias and others, as well as by 117], and others, with adjoining territory (Pl. I). its physico-geographic environment, the Rioni Hippocrates supplies interesting information (Phasis) valley must have occupied an economi- about the natural data of the Phasis-Rioni basin cally developed position. in his treatise “On Air, Waters and Places”, in which The Rioni rises from the mountain glacier Pha- he speaks of the influence exerted by the climatic sis on the south slope of the Caucasus Range. Up and physical-geographic conditions of the place to Kutaisi the Rioni is a turbulent mountain stream. and its population. It is believed that Hippocrates Leaving Kutaisi, the Rioni flows slowly in the Kolkhi- had visited Colchis and that his reports are the an plain. By its geographic position the Rioni con- result of immediate observations [Qaukhchish- stituted a convenient trade-and-transit waterway. vili, T. 1965: 20]. His evidence appears to deal with Evidence on the use of this river as a commercial the lower and partly middle course of the Rioni. waterway is mainly extant in the works of Strabo But some data extend to the entire basin. For and Pliny. Strabo describes the waterways of the example, when it concerns marshes and numer- Rioni and the Qvirila (Phasis): “It is (Phasis) navi- ous canals the territory in the lower course must gated as far as Sarapana, a fortress capable of admit- be implied: warm weather and frequent rainfalls ting the population even of a city. From here people could not have been characteristic of a small area, go by land to the river Cyrus in four days by a wagon- for they were the same almost all over Colchis. road.”(Strabo, XI, II, 17). The continuation of the wa- Hence it may be assumed that the region under terway is described by Strabo thus: “And he further study and especially its adjoining elevations were says that it is navigable and that large quantities of convenient places for farming, and accordingly Indian wares are brought down on it to the Hyrcanian for settlement. As to forests and structures built sea, and thence on that sea are transported to Albania of planed wooden beams and apparently roofed and brought down on the Cyrus river and through the with reeds, their traces have been found today too region that comes next after it to the Euxine.” (Strabo, on elevations along the Rioni, where they could XI, II, 3) (The Loeb Classical Library, London, 1957). by no means have been erected on water. This cir- It is thus quite clear that Strabo describes the trade cumstance points to the fact that the author was route running from India to the Black Sea through familiar only with the lower, marshy course of the the rivers Cyrus and Phasis. Pliny also describes the Rioni (Phasis), which has remained the same to same route [Latyshev, V. 1904: 178]. the present day. The question arises as to what in- The fact is worthy of attention that it is along duces people to live in houses built on marshland. this route that settlements of the Classical and The local residents were probably harassed by

175 their neighbours; hence they moved to the lower the Black Sea coast to ensure the security of the course of the Rioni-Phasis and began to build their borders. Arrian personally inspected the strong- dwellings on the marsh, for such structures were holds existing there, informing the Emperor almost inaccessible. At many places along the Hadrian in an official report on the voyage. Partic- Rioni remains of plaster and beams are attested, ularly interesting in Arrian’s Periplus is his detailed which – with the aid of archaeological material description of the city at the mouth of the Phasis – are dated to the 4th cent. BC. The evidence of (Arrian, 9, 10). Hippocrates also relates to the same period. A list of the towns of the Rioni valley is given A piece of information of our present interest by the Alexandrian scholar Ptolemy (2nd cent.) in is contained in Xenophon’s Anabasis (see Anaba- his treatise “Geographical Guide” (Book V, Ch. 9). In sis V, 6, 36). Here the land of the Phasianoi implies this work he enumerates towns and villages; the the Valley of the Rioni (Phasis). The region they towns: Mechles, Media, Saraca, Surium, Zadrida, intended to conquer could not have been poor Aea ( Aia); the rivers: Phasis, Hyppus, Cyaneus, Har- at that time, Apollonius Rhodius, a 3rd-century BC ius. Valuable evidence is supplied by Dion Cassius author, writes about the land of Aea (Aia)-Colchis- in his work “Roman History” (XXXVII, 3). Phasis in his poem the Argonautica (III, 215). The The fortification works along the Phasis are poem is the last verse version of the myth. Apol- mentioned by the Byzantine historian Zosymus lonius Rhodius describes the city of Kutaisi in the in his “History” [Qaukhchishvili, S. 1961: 269] but, middle course of the Rioni. According to Strabo’s unfortunately, he does not list them, nor point to Geography (XI, 11; II, 17), Colchis is notable for its their location. Much trustworthy written evidence fruits and all that is needed for shipbuilding. The is found in the work of 6th century Byzantine writer country produces much timber, floating it down Procopius of Caesarea (BG VIII, 14, 17; BP, II, 29; Ag- the rivers. The inhabitants manufacture much lin- athias, II, 19, 22; III, 6, 7, 19, 28; IV, 9, 13). According en and resin. to Agathias Scholasticus, during the war in the 6th Interesting evidence on the Phasis valley is century the Byzantine navy, using the Rioni, sup- supplied by Pomponius Mela (1st century) in: ported her troops against Iran. To this end, at the “inde is locus est ubi finem ductus a Bosphoro confluence of the Tekhuri with the Phasis a strate- tractus accipit, atque inde se in sinu adverse lito- gic beachhead was built, where light ships were ris flexus adtollens angustissimum Ponti facit usually anchored (Agathias, II, 23). angulum. hic sunt Colchi, huc Phasis erumpit, Of the Georgian sources special interest with hic eodem nomine quo amnis est a Themistagora respect to the region under study is evoked by Milesio deductum oppidum, . . .” (Pomponii Melae, “The Lives of the Georgian Kings and Their Forefa- Chorographia. . ., I, 108). More diverse evidence thers and Descendants”, ascribed to Leonti Mrove- on the Phasis valley is preserved in the work of li. The source describes the history of Georgia Pliny the Elder’s “Natural History”. It has been as- from ancient times. The chronicle mentions King certained that in describing Colchis he had re- Parnavaz of Kartli (Iberia), who confirmed Prince course to various sources. He reports on towns Kuji as ruler of lands in Colchis (for details see: lying along the course of the Rioni; the concrete [Gamkrelidze, G. 1985: 86-97]). evidence on them, adduced by him, is of entirely According to historical sources, the Rioni real historical-geographic character. Pliny’s evi- (Phasis) was the main navigable river of Colchis dence on the navigability of the Rioni-Phasis at- (Western Georgia). Owing to the mass felling of tracts special attention. He (Pliny, VI, II) points out forests in the 19th-20th centuries, the water level that the Phasis is navigable to the mouth of the of the Rioni lowered drastically, having a negative Surium river (the name resembles the Sulori river). effect on the navigation in the region. The Rioni Special interest attaches to Arrian’s work: Peri- (Phasis) lows in the Kolkhian Lowland, between plus Euxini (2nd century). He was the Governor of the foothills of the Greater and Lesser Caucasus. Cappadocia in 131; he undertook a voyage along The Kolkhian Lowland has the form of a triangle

176 adjoining the sea with its base. In the east it reach- BC. is represented by fragments of economic and es the vicinity of the confluence of the Qvirila. In household utensils. Fragments of black-gloss Attic terms of its geographical environment the Kolkhi- pottery came to light in the same layer. There also an Lowland and the foothills surrounding it con- is much plaster - scorched clay plastering with im- stitute a unique natural region, allowing setting prints of wood. On the south slope of the same up intensive agricultural production. The local cli- hill a dense layer of scorched plastering was un- mate enables cultivation of a wide range of high- covered. Fragments of scorched beams also came yielding crops. The Kolkhian lowland is character- to light here. The area of the excavations totals ized by a humid subtropical climate. The length of 550 sq. m.; basins, bowls, mugs, etc were found; the vegetation period allows to growing several the pottery is largely dated to the 6th-5th cent. BC harvests annually. In the western, depressed part [Kvirkvelia, G. 1978: 62]. of the lowland, there are swampy soils, and in the According to the data on archaeological exca- eastern part podzol soils. In terms of agro pro- vations on the Gabashvili, Dateshidze and Ukime- ductive indices these soils are more favourable. rioni hills in Kutaisi, an urban-type settlement of Such soils are successfully used to plant vineyards the 6th-5th cent. BC was found to be concentrated. [Maruashvili, L. 1970: 201]. An area of approximately 25 ha was enclosed with At settlements of the Early Bronze Age of the defensive walls; towers and other defensive works Kolkhian Lowland (pl. II) fruits of cultivated plants had been constructed. The high level of the sani- have been found – many-rowed barley, unbeard- tary condition of the city-stronghold is attested ed wheat (type of common), millet, foxtail millet, by the ruins of two bathhouses with heating units spelt, etc. Written sources referred to the cultiva- whitewashed with hydraulic solution. Cultural lay- tion in Colchis of barley, wheat, chestnut, hazelnut, ers of the 7th-1st cent. BC were discovered on the grapes, apples, vegetables, ets; exported from Col- Parnali hill in v. Chognari, in the environs of Kutai- chis were: timber, honey, flax, etc. A comparison of si. Among items of the 6th cent. BC note should the evidence of Greek authors with the specifici- be made of a miniature sculptured representa- ties of the modern Kolkhian Lowland shows that tion of a ram, fragments of black-gloss Attic pot- the nature of this region has not suffered substan- tery of the 5th cent. BC; there is much plaster with tial changes over the past 2500 years, barring the imprints of wood, handles of a Thasian amphora reduction of the areas of forest tracts [Janelidze, of the 3rd cent. BC, bronze bracelets with concave Ch. 1980: 150]. The upper reaches of the Rioni are back and fragments of cups with turned in lips. In rich in various minerals, where from early times v. Chognari (on the Barona hillock, cultural layers copper was mined, having played a leading role of the 7th-1st cent. BC were brought to light (the in the development of copper and bronze met- material is preserved in the archaeological funds allurgy. Tin, gold, cornelian, antimonite and rock (reserves) of the Kutaisi Historical Museum). crystal were mined here. In the middle course of the Rioni, settlement- Such is the geographic environment of the hills are found also in v. Partskhanaqanevi – on Rioni valley that exerted cardinal influence on Sabrialo, Kirinebi and Shroshanebi hillocks. Similar the course of the history of ancient Colchis. The settlements are attested at Kopitnari, Kveda-Me- archaeological material, discovered in Rioni val- tekhi and Kvitiri. These sites have yielded objects ley, attests also to the important place held by of the 7th-2nd cent. BC and plaster with imprints of the cited region in the period under study in the wood. In Kutaisi and its adjoining territory jar buri- economic life of Colchis. Exploratory archaeologi- als have come to light at Tsatskhvebisubani (Kutai- cal work was carried out on the Dateshidze-Ga- si), as well as in the villages: Partskhanaqanevi, bashvili hill in Kutaisi; a cultural layer of the Early Kveda-Meskheti, Maghlaki, Kvitiri, Mukhiani, Iron Age and traces of iron-smelting manufacture Ukaneti, Odilauri and Banoji. The grave goods were brought to light. A cultural layer was also brought to light are uniform: pyriform jugs, bowls found here; Colchian pottery of the 4th-5th cent. with inturned lips, bronze bracelets adorned at

177 the ends with a representation of a snake’s head, on Giorgobiani hill. Attested here are fragments of bronze fingerings, cornelian beads. These jar buri- stone walls built in dry masonry and fragments of als are dated largely to the 3rd cent. BC. Up to elev- plaster; a beam structure was apparently erected en archaeological hoards of the Bronze and Early on this. The remains of the structure are dated – Iron periods have been revealed. with the aid of the pottery – to the pre-Hellenistic As is evident, on the basis of the above-named period. Remains of such settlements are noted settlements, an urban-type settlement appears in on the territory around the Giorgobiani hill. Thus, Kutaisi in the 6th-4th centuries. The geographical the environs of Vartsikhe were settled already in designation of Kutaisi is first mentioned in the the Classical period, while by the early medieval work Alexandra by Lycophron of Chalcis, a Greek period the settlement is concentrated within the poet of the 3rd cent. BC. Kutaisi is mentioned also city-fortress. by Vallimachus of Cyrene (3rd cent. BC). Evidence Of the archaeological sites, uncovered in the on “Kutaisi” is found in the Argonautica of Apollo- Rioni valley, the ancient city site of Vani boasts the nius of Rhodes (3rd cent. BC). Here mention is made longest history of study. It lies on the left bank of of “Kutaisi”, i. e. Aea (Aia). Procopius (BG,VIII,14) the Rioni, in the river Sulori valley, on the hill Akh- identified the Ky(u)taya of Greek written sources vledianis-gora. Excavations on this hill have been with his contemporary fortress “Kotatisi” on the under way for a long time. Vast material has ac- bank of the Rioni. On the basis of archaeological cumulated and proceedings have been published material and written sources the view has become (for the bibliography, see the collected papers established in the specialist literature on the iden- “Vani”). In the past, the rise of an urban-type set- tity of Ky(u)taya-Kotatisi-Kutaisi. tlement on the Akhvledianis-gora hill was appar- The village of Vartsikhe lies in the course of ently facilitated by the ancient settlements whose the Rioni. Materials of the Classical and medieval remains have been discovered in large numbers periods are attested. Special interest in Vartsikhe at Vani and its environs. The Akhvledianis-gora undoubtedly attaches to the remains of an early- hill in the 5th-4th cent. BC was evidently a place of medieval city-fortress, known in Byzantine writ- residence of the local Colchian nobility. Various ten sources under the name of Rhodopolis (Pro- crafts also concentrated here. Concentration of copius, BG, VII (IV); Agathias, IV, 15). The remains handicrafts at definite centres and, accordingly, of an ancient fortress are attested on the promon- the emergence of a market, constitutes one of the tory at the confluence of the Rioni and the Kha- principal features of the urbanization of society nistsqali. The above-ground wall proved to date [Lordkipanidze, O. 1977: 19]. to the period of the late Middle Ages, while the The last stage of the existence of Vani involved walls dating from the early Middle Ages are bur- the entire Akhvledianis-gora hill, fortified with ied underground. Split-stone, cobblestones, lime thick walls and steep slopes. The thickness of the mortar, bricks and tiles were used as construction defensive wall reaches almost three metres, and it material. The archaeological material, brought to is built of rectangular cut stones of large sizes. The light at Vartsikhe, is largely represented by pottery ruins of the city gate have survived on the north- and glass and iron wares. The pottery includes ern side of the former city site. Remains of a cultic fragments of household, table-ware and kitchen structure are found here. At the distance of one ware. Remains of imported pottery have also been hundred metres a fairly large complex of struc- discovered. tures of cultic purpose has come to light. The ar- Study of adjacent territories is attached major chaeological material of the 3rd-1st cent. BC, found attention in ascertaining the genesis of the set- on Akhvlediani-gora, attests to the fact that at that tlements of the city-fortress of Vartsikhe. Here re- time use was made at Vani of the achievements of mains of Classical period settlements have been Hellenistic engineering. brought to light – evidenced particularly inten- Westward of the city site of Vani, approximate- sively two hundred metres to the south of the city, ly at the distance of one kilometre, in the village

178 of Zedatsikhe Sulori, ruins of a fortress have sur- imprints of wood. The remains of the structure vived on the top of the mountain. The mountain are preserved comparatively better on the Na- is protected by natural steep slopes, and the road saqdrevi hill. The upper layer dates from the 7th- linking it with Vani leads to it from the south-east. 5th cent. BC. At Dablagomi the large number of jar Excavations inside the fortress revealed cultural burials evokes special interest. They are arranged layers of Early Medieval and Hellenistic periods. In- on the slopes of the hillocks of Nasakirevi and Nat- teresting material came to light –remains of archi- sikhvari. At Dablagomi, on the west slope of the tectural details: fragments of a cornice, a fragment Natsikhvari hill, a rich burial, covered with a tile, of a column with cannelures, etc. The remains of came to light. Its study revealed that it dates from a wall of the Hellenistic period in the fortress of v. the 3rd cent. BC [Tolordava, V. 1977: 48-54, 78-79]. Zedatsikhe Sulori, as well as the architectural de- Remains of a settlement – typologically and tails and pottery point to the existence here of a structurally similar to those of Dablagomi – were settlement in Hellenistic times as well. It undoubt- discovered within the distance of one kilometre, edly had some connection with the city of Vani, at v. Dapnari; the chronological limits: 4th-3rd cent. and was possibly destroyed together with it [Mit- BC. Apart from this hill, archaeological remains are sishvili, M. 1977]. in evidence on the Chais-gora and Tsqvetili hills. Within 8 km of Vani, in v. Mtisdziri, remains Cultural layers of a settlement were investigated of ancient settlements are traceable on the hills on this territory. The dwellings appear to have “Adeishvilisgora”, “Naktsevigora”, “Nabambevis- been built on the terraces of the hills. Large quan- gora”, and on the territory contained between tities of plaster with imprints of wood and charred these. In this locality archaeological material of beams were brought to light on these terraces. the Classical period and early medieval periods On the Chais-gora hill the remains of a furnace for was attested. At Mtisdziri, the defensive structure smelting iron were found [Kighuradze, N. 1976]. merits special attention: clay, wood and stones Remains of a settlement resembling Mtisdziri, were the basic construction material in erecting Dablagomi and Dapnari have been discovered at the structure. The building is rectangular in shape, Sajavakho, near Dapnari. Colchian pottery of the with two facilities: 26.88m2 and 13.44m2. The so- 6th-2nd cent. BC has come to light here. Excavat- cle is 2.60 m wide. We may be dealing here with tions at Sajavakho have so far not been carried a variety of wooden structures mentioned in the out. works of Xenophon and Vitruvius. At Mtsidziri, On the basis of the above-cited archaeological along with local pottery, a small quantity of im- and written sources, as well as geographical data, it ported ceramic ware was discovered (Chian, Attic, may be presumed that the Rioni valley was dense- Mendean, Sinopean). The archaeological remains ly populated in the period under study. Judging of Mtisdziri are closely related to synchronous re- by the archaeological material discovered in the mains of entire Colchis. By its geographical loca- Rioni valley, the level of economic development tion Mtisdziri held a strategically advantageous of the local population was high. In the period un- place. In the Early Classical and Hellenistic periods der study this was one of the developed regions in Mtisdziri represented a fortified point within the Colchis, forming a definite integral whole from the defensive system of the city of Vani and its envi- economic and geographic viewpoints. However, rons [Gamkrelidze, G. 1982]. its political status differed at various times. Along the course of the Rioni, within 2 km of The archaeological remains, uncovered in the Mtisdziri, lies the village of Dablagomi, situated on Rioni valley, are closely linked with synchronous hillocks at the bank of the Rioni. To date the inner remains of entire Colchis, forming an organic territory as well as the adjoining hills: Natsikhvari, part of this common archaeological culture. In Nasakirevi and Nasaqdrevi have been studied. the period under discussion life in the Rioni val- Almost over the entire area of Dablagomi frag- ley obviously continued uninterruptedly, though ments of plaster have been found, some bearing characterized by varying intensity. By its natural

179 conditions and geographic position the Rioni val- skeptuchies (see Strabo); it was not turned into a ley held an advantageous place in terms of com- Roman province. Historical sources say nothing munications and strategy. The natural relief was about Pompey leaving part of his troops in Col- used successfully for building living and defensive chis. In the strategic respect western Colchis was structures. In building fortified dwelling struc- of special significance for Rome. Successful strug- tures use was primarily made of beams, clay and gle for dominance in the Northern Black Sea re- occasionally stones. Archaeological investigation gion and in the East was impossible without com- has shown that log structures with clay plastering plete influence on the Black Sea littoral of Colchis. were characteristically practised in the Rioni val- One of most interesting and important towns ley, as well as in entire Colchis. of Colchis was Phasis and is generally localized In them – in terms of design and material – a somewhere near the present day Poti town and definite genetic link is observable with the pre- adjacent to it territories (pl. III). ceding periods of the Bronze and Early Iron Ages Study of history of Phasis town has been (see: [Apakidze, D. 1991: 7-75]). The geographical continuing for about a century and a half but environment, the geopolitical situation and eco- scantiness of written records and archaeologi- nomic activity created the preconditions for the cal evidences makes it almost impossible to rise on the territory of Western Georgia (with its throw a light on certain problems connected centre in the Rioni valley) of the Colchian state, to- with it. wards the end of the 6th cent. BC. Phasisi town is mentioned by the follow- According to the archaeological data of the ing authors: Pseudo Skylax (4th century BC), middle course of the Rioni River, from the end of Asia, 81. Aristotle, Fragment 46, Plato “Phedon” the 4th cent.BC qualitatively new elements coexist 109(b), Heraklides Lembos, “Phasians’ Politia” with ancient ones. The changes concern the burial 18, Hippocrates, “About Airs, Waters and Men” custom (jar burials). In the subsequent centuries 15, Theocritus, “Idyle” 13.24, Strabo, “Geogra- a new construction material – tile – appears here, phy” 11. 2t.16.17. 3t.4. Pseudo Plutarch «About pottery suffers considerable typological changes. the Names of Rivers and Mountains...” Phasisi5.1. From the 3rd cent. BC buffer “city-states” – Di- Gaius Plinius Secundus “Natural History” 6. 1. 13. oskurias-Sukhumi, Gyenos-Ochamchire, Phasis- 52, Pomponius Mela “Description of the world” Poti and Kobuleti-Pichvnari – develop between 1. 108, Arrian F. “The Black Sea Periplus” 9. 10. Classical countries and inner Colchis in the Col- ch 1, Claudius Ptolemaeus “Geographic Guide- chian Black Sea littoral, while the hinterland Col- book” 5. 9T. 2, Pseudo-Orpheus “Argonautica” p. chis is subjected to the political and economic 3, Themistios “Words” 27, Castorious so called influence of the Iberian Kingdom. The skeptuchies: Tabula Peutingeriana 10 – 11, Ammianus Marcel- Sairkhe, Kutaisi and Vani were under this influ- linus “History” 22. 8t. 24, an anonimous author ence (according to Strabo, XI, II, 18). Mithridates VI “Euxinus Pontus Periplus ...” 44(3). Zosimos“A Eupator, King of Pontus, appeared on the political new History”1. 32. Stephanos from Bizantium horizon from the end of the 2nd cent. BC, laying his “Ethnica” Phasis(22). Agathias “About the Reign hand on the coastal cities. The policy of the Iberi- of Justinian”3. 19. 20. 21.; 4.23. Menander “His- an kingdom, under whose influence inner Colchis tory” fragment 3 ch, Epiphanius from Constan- was, was probably changeable with respect to the tinople “Life of Andrew” chapter – “Svaneti, Pontic kingdom, as evidenced by Georgian writ- Fusta, Djiketi”(58-81). Theophanes Chorography ten sources and the recent archaeological materi- “Chorography ...” about Phasian episcope Kviros als (for details, see: [Gamkrelidze, G. 1985: 86-97; (103). Georgius Cedrenus “A Historical Review Gamkrelidze, G. 1989: 59-69]. …” about Phasian episcope Kviros (28). Basil Following the defeat of Mithridates VI, Colchis from Sophene“The List of Holy Patriarches”, 27, was invaded by Pompey, appointing Aristarchus Niketas Choniates“Chronicle” Port Phasis (132). as ruler of the country. Colchis was divided into Archangelo Lamberti “Description of Samegre-

180 lo Region” [Lamberti, A. 1938: 172]. J. Chardin According to archaeological evidences Pha- “Journey in Persia and Other Oriental Countries” sis has supposedly left far behind all the other (258) etc. Late Bronze – Early Iron period settlements An important and the oldest information such as: Namarnu, Dziguri, Siriachkoni, Okhodje, about Phasis belongs to Pseudo-Scylax (4th cen- Nandevu, Sagvichio (Zurgani, Konsha), Nagmipi- tury BC)(periplus “Asia” 81). The most impor- dji, Chaladidi (Zurga, Sabazho, Chkhari), Guripu- tant information about the localization of Pha- li, Naokhvamu (Reka village), Ergeta etc. [see Dji- sis town belongs to Strabo (between the turn bladze, L. 2001, 34- 38 and the map], adjacent to of 1st BC – 1st AD): “There is a town of the same Poti and Paliastomi because it occupied a more name at the Phasis river. It is Colchians’ trading convenient area from communication point of post surrounded with the river (Rioni), a lake (Pa- view (the Rioni – Phasisi river delta) and it ap- liastomi) and the Sea” (Strabo “Geography” 11. peared easier to become an urban centre. 2.17). It is fairly apparent that the description Some scholars suppose that a celebrated completely coincides with the present day lo- scientist Hippocrates had himself visited the cality of Poti town. neighboring areas of the Phasisi river [Kaukh- Noteworthy information belongs to a high- chishvili, T. 1965: 8] and included some very im- ranking Roman official Flavius Arrian (2nd centu- portant pieces of information about the journey ry) to whom belongs an inspective report “The in the adjacent territories of Poti – Paliastomi Black Sea Periplus”. F. Arrian wrote: “The fortress in his work “About Airs, Waters and Places:” “… (Phasis) itself which accommodates four hun- I tell you about people who live in Phasis;…” “… dreds of best warriors seemed to me almost People have dwellings built in swamps. They are inaccessible. As to the security of the area it built of timber and rush. People walk little. They is very convenient for visitors. The town walls sail up and down to town (probably to Phasis) are encircled with wide double moats. There or to emporium in their boats because there are were clay walls with timber towers on them many channels there” (Hippocrates, “About Airs some time before but now both of them the … 15). The passage shows that people living in walls and the towers are built of baked bricks. down stream of the Rioni – Phasisi river went to Their foundations are quite firm and there are a special trading post – Phasis emporium. Hip- battering machines on the walls. In whole ev- pocrates as if stresses the fact that in the area erything is arranged so that nobody is able to within the Phasisi river delta (if it is Phasis town) come nearer and siege the garrison stationed there is the locals’ trading post and not a Greek there. The harbor is safe for ships and so are the type town – polis. Normally concentration of adjacent territories settled with retired military trading at special areas points to the presence men and merchants.” (Arrian “Periplus …” 9). of a protourban centre. It seems quite possible A 4th-century BC silver bowl inscribed in that the goods were even distributed from the Greek (about the inscription see below) was area after Greeks come there (e.g. the Antique found at Phasis which is quite frequently men- period imported pieces found at the fortress tioned in Greco – Roman and Byzantine written and the settlements lying along the Rioni river) records but the information is rather controver- which implies the birth of more or less perma- sial because in most cases the data are taken nently functioning market and this in its turn is from one and the same source. one of the principal characteristic feature of an According to the traditional simplified urban settlement. scheme of the written records Phasis was found- It is quite possible that a protourban cen- ed at the area, anciently settled by Kartvelian tre had already existed at the estuary of the (Georgian) population, by Ionian Milesians in river Phasisi when Greeks first came to the area order to contact with the locals through a trad- (let’s recall to our mind the Late Bronze – Early ing post-emporium [Inadze, M. 1982: 119-124]. Iron period settlements), and perceived it as a

181 town and a trading post (emporium). Greeks As to the 6th – 5th centuries BC, the import is had come into contact with the trading settle- very little – about hundred pieces of pot shards. ment and in the course of time there emerged This is why it is early and absolutely groundless an area inhabited with them. The main reason to speak about some kind of intensive Greek for the contacts with the natives was either ex- “colonization”. As to the written records, they port, or local raw materials instead of imported enable me to suppose the presence of only a luxury goods (fine pottery, adornments, metal small Greek trading settlement (something like ware, aromatic ointments etc) which is perfect- an emporium) at or within Phasis town, or in ly borne out by written records and illustrated the Rioni river delta in the 5th century BC, for by the archaeological evidences dating from instance, something like a Genoese factory ex- the period after the 5th century BC. Thus coast- isting at Poti – Phasis in the 14th – 15th centu- al emporii were mutually convenient for both ries. It is a very important fact that there are not the locals and the foreigners. In the course of observed any traces of great changes anywhere time Greek colonies established at Phasisi un- in Colchis in archaeological culture (pottery, derwent symbiosis and transformation in the metallurgy, architecture, ideology, burial rites result of the contacts with the natives which in etc.) during the 8th – 6th and even the 4th cen- its turn were determined with the local biologi- turies BC. The natives kept living traditionally cal, geographic and social habitats [Gamkrelid- at the same territory and there is not seen any ze, G. 1993: 3 – 45]. sign of Greek influence in their everyday terms. Phasis gradually transformed into a buffer, In spite of the fact that the locality of ancient ethnically mixed polis-type town with probable Phasis is in this or that way fixed by the Antique rural areas around it after disintegration of the period written records (see Strabo, Arrian), the Colchis kingdom in the 3rd century BC. In this problem remains still unsolved because the connection there is Heraklides’ (2nd century town of the Classical and Hellenistic periods is BC) very important information about Phasis not archaeologically traced yet though there Politia which implies the presence of certain are found the remains of the Early Byzantine statehood there [Gamkrelidze, G. 1993: 46 – 87]. period Phasis (see below) [Gamkrelidze, G. Another information belongs to a consid- 1987: 97 – 117; Gamkrelidze, G. 2002: 101]. erably later period (5th century) anonymous Now I want to offer twelve different points author who mentions the Caucasian Iberians of view about the localization of Phasis town: in the context with Phasis in his “Periplus” and 1. Dubois de Montpereux considered that the goes on: “There is a Hellenic town, so called Pha- Roman period Phasis lay between Chaladidi sis, founded by Milesians at the mouth of the village and Poti town, namely, in the south river, on the left bank of the Phasis (river) and as of the latter (present day airport) he had it is said there come together people speaking 60 found remains of a fortress and thought different languages among which there are even that it was Arrian’s Phasis [Montpereux, F. D. Indians and Bactrians” (Arrian, Anonymous au- 1839: 63 – 80]. thor, 3). 2. F. Brun thought that Phasis town was in But these somehow summary written re- the south – east section of lake Paliastomi cords probably concern to the period after the [Brun, F. 1880: 250]. 3rd century BC. A so called Great Greek colo- 3. N. Shafranov thought that Phasis was situ- nization of the 8th – 7th centuries BC did not ated at the south side of lake Paliastomi, at touch Phasis town. The archaeologically traced the estuary of the Supsa river [Shafranov, N. settlements (see the list above) at the lower 1880: 3]. stream of the Rioni – Phasisi river clearly testify 4. According to L. Elnitskii Phasis was at the to this fact. There are not found any imported left bank of the Rioni river estuary, approxi- pieces belonging to the period of “colonization”.

182 mately at the area of the present day sea water (or appeared in a swamp of peats) in port [Elnitskii, L. 1938: 319]. the result of local geomorphologic chang- 5. M. Berdznishvili thought that Phasis lay at es and this is why the town was dislocated the left bank of the Rioni river, near Pata- from one place to another at different times ra (small) Poti. As to the Phasisi of Arrian’s but so that it remained within the confines times he agrees with Dubois de Montpereux of the area just mentioned [Gamkrelidze,G. [Berdznishvili, M. 1942: 19 – 20]. 1987: 97 – 117; Gamkrelidze,G. 2002:101]. 6. B. Kuftin considered that Arrian’s Phasis lay Phasis town always was one of the most at the estuary of lake Paliastomi, at the Pi- important transit points of sea and river ways chori river banks [Kuftin, K. 1950, 116]. or land routs. Gold, iron, timber, flax, flax oil, 7. According to N. Khoshtaria the ancient and honey, wine and later oil etc was taken abroad the Roman – Byzantine period Phasisi was through the town port. The name of a bird situated at the area of the modern Poti “pheasant” so common in European languages town. is derived from “Phasis” and quantites of “Pha- 8. N. Lomouri agrees with Dubois de Mont- sian birds” were taken to foreign countries from pereux but thinks that it not the Phasis these areas. Importance of Phasis as a transit mentioned by Arrian, but it is the Phasis of and trading town increased greatly in the Hel- Agathias times (6th century AD). lenistic and Roman periods. 9. G. Grigolia thinks that Phasis should be A Roman commander Pompey while leav- searched for at the east side of lake Palias- ing Iberia (Caucasian) met the navy command- tomi where the Pichori river flows into the er Servilius at Phasis. Servilius’s fleet controlled lake [Grigolia, G. 1973: 54]. the town from the sea. Gradual increase of Ro- 10. A palaeogeographer Dj. Djanelidze consid- man influence over the eastern Black Sea lands ers that Phasis town should be searched resulted in stationing of their garrison at Phasis. for along the Rioni river, in 6 km distance Emperor Hadrian sent Flavius Arrian to Phasis from the sea, at the territory around Patara in 134. He had inspected the readiness of the (small) Poti and Chaladidi village [Djanelid- garrison, all the fortification systems and wrote ze, Dj. 1973: 5 – 16]. an appropriate description. A Latin stamp de- 11. O. Lordkipanidze and T. Mikeladze had coor- serves a special interest from this point of view. dinated all the existing information gleaned It probably belonged to the garrison stationed from the written sources and archaeologi- at Phasis [Shpaidel, M. 1985: 134 – 140]. There cal evidences and came to a conclusion that is a mention of Phasis castellum during the different period towns known under name reign of Emperor Constantine I. A high school of Phasis should be explored through the of rhetoric’s functioned at Phasis in the 4th cen- researches of those archaeological sites tury. Phasis belonged to Lazika (a new Colchis which are lying at the estuary of the Rioni kingdom) in the 4th century. One of the crucial river, at the territory among Kvemo (lower) battles between Byzantine and Iran took place Chaladidi and coastal Grigoleti and Ku- at Phasis in 542 – 562 when Byzantine – Lazika levi villages [Lordkipanidze,O. Mikeladze,T. united troops defeated Iranians. There was an 1973: 33]. episcopate subject to Constantinople in the 12. The next opinion belongs to me. I think that 6th – 8th centuries at Phasis. Phasian bishop the 3rd – 7th century Phasis is the same as Theodore’s signature is on the resolution of the “Natekhebi” settlement found in the south Ecumenical Counsel that took place in 553. One part of Poti town, in the west section of lake more Phasian bishop Kviros became Alexan- Paliastomi. I suppose that a certain part of drian Patriarch. A bit later there Phasis was the Phasis town among Kulevi, the Rioni, Pich- residence of Lazikan Metropolitan. A Genoese ori and Supsa rivers was often covered with trading station functioned at Phasis in the 14th

183 – 15th centuries (see the previously cited writ- cupied 1800 m2. It consisted of following layers: ten records). clay and sand mixture, yellowish clayey soil, re- Archaeological researches at Poti – Phasis mains of burnt structure – plastering and piec- and adjacent territories began long ago. E. Du- es of timber. Middle and lower layers are dating bois de Montpereux had found remains of a for- from the Late Bronze – Early Iron periods. The tress in the east of Poti (present day airdrome) settlement yielded pots, basins, and bowls dec- at the site “Nadjikhuri” in 1834 and considered orated with characteristic handles and bosses that it was the Phasis mentioned by Arrian. He on them, mainly blackish in color. Their bodies even made a drawing of the fortress. N. Khosh- are decorated with slanting incisions of wavy, taria made surface surveys of Poti adjacencies rhomb – like ornaments. There was also found in 1953. A team of Poti archaeological expedi- a mould, a quern, a spindle-whorl, flint sickle tion of Iv. Djavakhishvili Institute of History, Ar- bushes etc. Archaeological excavations were chaeology and Ethnography investigated the carried out at Kvemo (lower) Chaladidi village, neighborhoods of the town. There were made near “Sabazho” (customs) site, in A. Beridze’s geologic boring in 1961 – 5. Later the same farm – yard. Unearthed settlements yielded expedition explored Nadjikhuri site in 1969. burnt pieces of timber and plastering, pot- One more expedition (director T. Mikeladze) tery, a mould and bellows of a melting furnace studied archaeological problems of Phasis in [Mikeladze, T. 1978: 33 – 40]. 1971 – 80. Beginning from 1985 the Centre for Another settlement “Simagre”, supposedly a Archaeological Sciences (Academy of Sciences rural area of Phasis town, was found in the east of Georgia) continued expeditions at Poti. This part of Sakorkio village. The plot belongs to P. time the Black Sea archaeological expedition Patsia. It is on the left bank of the Rioni river. The (director G. Gamkrelidze) found the remains of hill occupies an area of 3 300 m2 and only 200 a settlement dating from the 3rd – 7th centuries m2 has been excavated. A lower layer (depth 60 in lake Paliastomi. cm) yielded timber structures. The settlement The oldest artifacts have been found at Na- consists of several building levels. The artifacts tekhebi site, in the west part of Lake Paliastomi, found there are dating from the 6th – 5th centu- within clay and peats deposits. This is a profiled ries BC. The structures are rectangular, built like ring-base of a black-slip Attic container dat- log cabins. There are also found remains of hur- ing from the 4th century BC and an underside dle fences. The excavators have managed to fix of Rhodos amphora dating from the 3rd cen- floors of the log cabins. One of them measured tury BC. A pair of Colchian Tetri – a 2nd type 112 m2 and contained partitions. The logs were didrachm and several smaller nominals (dis- inserted in one another. There have survived played at the State Museum) dating from the 5th six rows of log walls. The pottery of “Simagre” century BC were found at a neighboring area of settlement is dating from the 6th – 5th centuries Poti town (more precise topography is absent). BC. Most of the wares are manufactured locally Pot – shards identical of Sinopean pottery and and typologically are similar in all the uncov- dating from the 2nd – 1st centuries BC were ered levels. At the same time they are char- found at the depth of 6 m while boring the soil acteristic to the 6th – 5th century BC Colchian at the crossroads of Pirveli Maisi and Kavkasia artifacts: jars, clay cisterns, pots and their lids, streets. A 4th century BC Sinopean and Hera- drinking vessels, pitchers with tubular handles, clea Pontica amphorae were found in the sea at tumblers, dishes, basins, cone-shaped spindle- Maltakva and the Supsa River. whorls, bronze knives, iron lance heads, hoes, Traces of a settlement were uncovered near knives, hooks, bit wears, oblonged querns, Poti at Kvemo (lower) Chaladidi village (right wooden deepers, cornelian and agate beads, bank of the Rioni river, 1.5 km northwards) and a gold triangular pendant decorated with roadside in N. Kipiani’s farm-yard. The hill oc- a granulated meander. A group of imported

184 pottery consists of Chios, Lesbos and Samian crossing grooves and pot-shards of corrugat- amphorae, Ionian table wares basins, oil-lamps ed pottery. One more collection of the Early and kylixes, Attic black-slip and black-figured Medieval period pot-shards (of clay cisterns, kylixes. 5th – 4th century BC plastered log struc- corrugated amphorae etc) were unearthed in tures were uncovered in 9 km distance from the south-west of “Nadjikhuri”, where the river the sea, along the left terrace of the Rioni river. Shavi flows into lake Paliastomi. There were found Colchian wares – pots, tum- There are several artifacts bearing Greek blers, lids, jugs with tubular handles. The Hel- and Latin inscriptions connected with Phasis: A lenistic period pieces were found in the south silver chalice (diameter -21 cm) with swelling in- of “Simagre” settlement. These were pot-shards wards underside. It comes from Kuban so called of rimmed clay cisterns and Colchian ampho- Zubov kurgan. The chalice is decorated with a rae, also the undersides of Sinopean amphorae snake’s and deer’s heads. A Greek inscription [Mikeladze, M. 1978: 50 – 78]. runs round the rim - AΠΟλλΩΝΟΣ·‘НГЕМОNOΣ· A pair of concave sided, Early Medieval, lo- ’ЕIMI·TOM·ΦАΣI –. It belongs to Apollo the cally manufactured amphorae and rectangular leader who is in Phasis. The inscription is made bricks with two crossing grooves were found in Ionian dialect of the Greek language and is at Poti arboretum, in the north-east of the air- palaeographically dated to the 4th century port. Pieces of bricks and tiles, pot-shards of [Lordkipanidze, O. 2000: 7 – 11; Tsetskhladze, G. an amphora with corrugated exterior, Emperor 1994: 199 – 216]. Hadrian’s (117 – 138) silver didrachm minted in A stamped tile with Latin inscription Caesarea town were found next to Poti airport emerged among the ruins of Tsikhisdziri castel- inside a trench made in the north of Nadjikhuri lum (now in the State Museum, Tbilisi): - VEX site. [illatio] FA[siana]. The tile is considered to be Remains of a cemetery and a structure built made for the garrison stationed at Phasis in the of stone, brick and lime mortar were uncovered 2nd century [Shpaidel, M. 1985: 140]. in the north-east of Simagre settlement (dis- A 6th century concave sided amphora with tance 300 m), on the left bank of the Rioni river. a graffito of Greek letters “φω“ (Version -- F Bricks with crossing grooves, single-handled [ASIS] W [NHTOS] - I purchased in Phasis) pitchers, mugs, two-handled pots, and basins was found in the north-west of lake Paliastomi also were found there. The pottery is made of at “Natekhebi” area (now at the Poti Museum). well worked clay and baked in pale brown col- A Sinopean amphora with a graffito – BIK or. The finds are dating from the Early Medieval (Version — B [IKOS] I[EROS] K[AJAROS] // period. [KOLQIS] (?) - High quality Colchian wine was The Early Medieval period pot-sherds sacrificed with this amphora) was found in the (pointed saucers of clay cisterns, basins and sea, near the Supsa river canyon. concave sided amphorae) came to light while A chalice bearing a Georgian secular in- building a bridge across the Kaparchina river scription was found at Poti, near lake Paliastomi in the south-east part of Poti town, at lake Pa- (now at the Kutaisi Museum of History, # 3788). liastomi. A corrugated amphora was found at A special hydro archaeological exploratory the left estuary of lake Paliastomi (the Thko- expedition was organized at the Centre for Ar- rina river). Pot-shards of the Early Medieval chaeological Studies (Academy of Sciences of period came to light at the mouth of the Pi- Georgia) in 1985 (Director G. Gamkrelidze). The chori river which also flows into lake Paliasto- team had to investigate the Black Sea coastal mi. Another group of pot-shards of the same areas of Georgia and first of all create a special period were uncovered at “Nadjikuri” (discov- hydro archaeological map of quite a large ter- ered by Dubois de Montpereux), present Poti ritory. Besides making the map the team had airdrome. The group consisted of bricks with to reconsider all the existing written records,

185 geographical and geomorphologic data and the toponym through the old Greek language collate all of them from hydro archaeologi- – “an old estuary” - PALAIOS-STOMA. Karl cal point of view. Poti town and neighboring Koch agreed with him [Koch, K.; Spenser, O. areas seem the most interesting and such cir- 1981: 173]. There are cases when some of Greek cumstances had determined the first steps of written records mentioned two words together the team. Remains of a dew stone wall was un- - limno // stóma (liman, estuary,). It is clear covered in the south part of lake Paliastomi, that the terms mentioned above have several, at the end of the Kaparchina river, at “Naekle- somehow synonymic, meanings. It is also a very siari” area, but the pot shards picked there did interesting fact that one of the meanings of the not allow the scholars to date the site and the word - stómωma – is a castellum. If so it could pieces properly. be Palaieostom // Palaiestomoma. Remains of a 3rd–8th century settlement were Pottery predominates among the artefacts uncovered in a distance of 0.5 km from lake Pa- uncovered at “Natekhebi” settlement excavated liastomi estuary (Maltakva) at “Natekhebi” area in lake Paliastomi which together with other ar- where the lake forms a bay. As soon as we be- chaeological evidences (archaeotopographic, gan the explorations there emerged a question glass wares and metal pieces etc) help to create – was the pottery brought by the river Rioni or an impression about the life of ancient settlers were they the remains of a settlement. Further of “Natekhebi” and their trade contacts. Pot- researches showed that it was a settlement ac- shards found in Paliastomi (“Natekhebi” settle- cording to a number of sound features: First – ment) may be grouped this way: – building ma- large quantities of pottery gathered at a certain terial, container and household wares. area. Second – several amphorae vertically dug Building material consists of bricks and into the soil. Third – remains of a burial. Fourth tiles. The bricks are 3 – 5 cm thick. They are of – several test-pits yielded the same pottery as the same size as those picked at the Early Medi- picked on the bottom of the lake. eval period towns of west Georgia – Bichvinta, The remains of “Natekhebi” settlement oc- Sokhumi, Ochamchire, Gudava, Nokalakevi, cupy an area of about 900 m2. The bottom of Mtisdziri, Vashnari, Kobuleti – Pichvnari, Tsikh- the lake is covered with sand (about 300 m to- isdziri, Gonio ets. The tiles are flat with their wards the centre), layers of clay and peats. At sides turned up (solen – like). The height of the some of the areas the peats are covered with turned up side is 3.5 – 5 cm, thickness of the sand. It is not at all excluded that there may be tile – 1.5 – 2.5 cm. They are made of reddish- artifacts of earlier periods beneath the clay and brown clay with some (limestone, quartz) in- peats. Lake Paliastomi occupies an area of 18 clusions. Among the shards some belong to flat km2. The levels of the Black Sea and the lake imported tiles, and their clay is like Sinopean are equal. The rivers flowing into the lake come clay. Together with the bricks and tiles there from swampy areas and the deepest among were found the remains of logs and burnt plas- them is the Pichori. tering. It seems quite possible that log cabins, Geomorphologists believe that a lake – La- plastered with clay and roofed with tiles, were guna Paliastomi as a sea-born relic. In ancient built onto a ground floor built of bricks. Flavius times there was a estuary of the Rioni river Arrian noted: “Earlier the walls were made of [Dzvelaia, M. 1973: 25 – 33]. It seems quite clay with timber towers standing on them at natural that seafarers used the estuary as a very Phasis town but now the walls and the towers convenient harbor and then continued their both are built of bricks” [Arrian, F. 1961: 40]. way via Paliastomi sailing upstream the Rioni Amphorae container make the majority, River – a very popular transit trading seaway. or even the main part of the containers un- Dubois de Montpereux offered an interest- covered at “Natekhebi” settlement. These lo- ing interpretation of “Paliastomi”. He explained cally produced concave sided amphorae are

186 very close to those found at Nokalakevi. Nor- sides come from Bichvinta, Tsebelda, Sokhumi mally such amphorae are common at the Late and Tsikhisdziri. There are also undersides of Antique – Early Medieval sites of west Georgia Samian amphorae which are common at Bich- such as Gantiadi village, Bichvinta, Sokhumi, vinta, Sokhumi, Ochamchire, Tsikhisdziri, Tse- Ochamchire, Gudava, Mtisdziri, Tsikhisdziri, Var- belda, Nokalakevi and Varditsikhe. The latter is ditsikhe, Kobuleti – Pichvnari. quite far from the Black Sea coastal area. Household pottery consists of basins, jugs, There is a group of brown-burnished am- pots and luteris. The pots are plain, broad- phorae container among the ones found at bodied and short-necked. Their rims are evert- “Natekhebi” settlement. The clay of such vessels ed, clay is 6 – 8 mm thick, undersides are with contains fine inclusions of mica. These ampho- concentric lines, diameter – 7 – 10 cm. Basins rae have tubular necks and rollers around their make the majority of “Natekhebi” settlement rims. Their handles are horizontally attached kitchen pottery. They are mostly with rounded, at their rims. In form they are similar of those low sides and flat undersides. There were also found in the 2nd – 3rd century layers of the north- found rim and side pieces of luteris (clay is 8 – ern Black Sea towns, but are rather infrequent 10 mm thick). The clay of the luteris is brownish at Georgian Black Sea coastal sites. There were with limestone, mica and quartz inclusions and also uncovered several pot-shards of red-slip it means that they were produced locally. Such ware at the settlement. They are plain with the luteris are common at Varditsikhe, Vani, Bichvin- rims curved inwards. Their well-worked brown- ta, Ochamchire, Gudava, Nokalakevi, Mtisdziri ish clay, with fine inclusions of mica, is baked etc. In addition to above mentioned household evenly. A red slip has survived perfectly. Such containers there were found clay cisterns with wares are common in the 4th – 5th century layers concentric, relief lines around their bodies and of west Georgian sites such as: Gonio, Tsikhis- flat undersides. Their clay is dark brown, 16 – 19 dziri, Ochamchire, Sokhumi, Bichvinta, Vash- mm thick. nari, Nokalakevi, Kutaisi, Tsebelda, Mtisdziri etc. A quantity of imported pottery (25 %) found It is important to note that large quantities of at “Natekhebi” settlement enables me to create such pottery have been found at coastal towns a general impression about the contacts be- of the country (e.g. Sokhumi, Bichvinta etc). tween the natives and the foreigners. These are Glassware’s make one more group of con- imported amphorae, red slip basins and glass tainers found at the settlement. These mostly wares. The clay of the amphorae is like Sinopean are pedestal led goblets. In addition to them – it is pale grayish with a violet shade. There are there were scraps of some unidentified glass also underside, side, and handle pieces of the vessels and also pieces of a window pane. The amphorae with corrugated bodies. There are glass is transparent, pale greenish though there several groups of amphorae made of clay like are sky-blue pieces too. Such glass is unearthed Sinopean. Such amphorae come from Bichvin- at Tsebelda, Gudava, Mtisdziri, Sokhumi, Nokal- ta, Sokhumi, Ochamchire, Gudava, Tsikhisdziri, akevi etc. Similar pedestalled goblets are dating Tsebelda etc. Reddish-brown amphorae make from the 4th – 8th centuries and plenty of them another group among “Natekhebi” household are found at coastal settlements of the Medi- pottery. They are made of well-worked clay and terranean and Black seas. They are also found have medium size. Similar amphorae have been in regions far from the seas – in the Asia Minor, found at Bichvinta, Tsikhisdziri, at the agora of Caucasia and Near East. Stemmed glass goblets Athenae. It is also possible that they are of the come from Mtskheta, Urbnisi, Rustavi, Zhinvali, Mediterranean origin. The settlement yelded Tbilisi, Bichvinta, Sokhumi, Tsebelda, Ocham- also semispherical undersides of corrugated chire, Gudava, Tsikhisdziri, Vashnari, Mtisdziri, amphorae with small warts on their tips. They Vardistsikhe and the other Early Medieval pe- are made of reddish-brown clay. Such under- riod settlements. They differ in form and color.

187 The ones found at coastal settlements seem The localization of Phasis town is as if strict- comparatively similar. ly fixed by the authors of Greek and Latin writ- There were remains of a pit tomb in the ten records – the town lay at the left bank of the north-east underwater part of “Natekhebi” Phasisi river delta and after this they mention settlement. The tomb yielded a concave sided a lake (probably Paliastomi). Such description amphora with a broken rim. The amphora was completely coincides with the present day lo- lidded with an underside of another one. The cality of Poti town. This is why all the scholars amphora contained burnt bones of poultry note that Phasis town is to be searched for at and a pig. An individual was next to the am- Poti and adjacent territories [see: Berdznish- phora. The pit tomb also contained a bronze vili, M. 1942, 3 – 21; Grigolia, G. 1973, 36 – 55, pin (length 7.7 cm), three bow-shaped bronze Lordkipanidze, O. Mikeladze,T. 1973, 17 – 36; pins with long, sharp tips (length 4.3 cm, 4.3 cm Gamkrelidze,G. 1993]. In spite of the circum- and 5.2 cm) dating from the 6th century, a rect- stances like this Phasis of the Classical – Hel- angular, flat piece of lead, a pedestalled glass lenistic periods is not yet discovered and the goblet (pedestal diameter 4.3 cm), a Byzantine reason for it is a very complicated palaeogeo- 20 nummi copper coin with a letter “K” on the morphological situation existing in the area reverse, while the obverse is illegible. The coin [Djanelidze, Ch. 1973: 5 – 16, 21 – 33; Dzvelaia, is minted during the reign of Justinian II (565 – M. 1973; Djanelidze, Ch. 1980: 21 – 64]. From 578). Another copper coin of emperor Constan- geomorphologic point of view Kulevi – Poti – tius II (337 – 361) was uncovered in the west Ureki seaside is as if a missing link in a Georgian part of “Natekhebi” settlement. Archaeological coastal context (330 km in length). The fact of material of “Natekhebi” settlement is in the Poti global regression and transgression of the Black town Site Museum storage [For more detailed Sea with regard to Phasis seems more than ob- information see Gamkrelidze, G. 1987, 98 – 117; scure. The problem of local dynamics of the Gamkrelidze, G. 1992: 30 – 48; Gamkrelidze, G. coastal shelf remains still uncertain. Very often 1990: 215-219; Gamkrelidze, G. 1992: 101-119; geomorphologists rely upon archaeologists’ Gamkrelidze, G. 1990: 223-236]. information and make their own inferences ac- At the present stage of study “Natekhebi” cording the locations of the settlements. As to settlement discovered under the waters of lake me, I am sure that this problem needs an all – Paliastomi may be dated to the 3rd – 8th cen- embracing investigation but first of all the geo- turies. As to the pit tomb found there, it may morphologists should tell us what the coastal belong to the 6th century. The artifacts found dynamics was like and where exactly the Rioni at the settlement point to a close parallelism to flew into the sea. They should also take into other contemporaneous sites of west Georgia consideration global (regression and transgres- (Kutaisi, Mtisdziri, Vashnari, Tsebelda etc) and sion of the sea) and local (hill – wash or ballast especially to Bichvinta, Sokhumi, Ochamchire, brought by the rivers, also old beds of the Rio- Gudava and Nokalakevi. It seems fairly pos- ni, Pichori, Khobi and Supsa rivers swampy and sible that “Natekhebi” settlement structures are peaty territories) data. the remains of the Byzantine period Phasis de- It seems preferable to use properly deci- scribed by Agathias and Procopius of Caesarea phered space photos in palaeogeomorphologi- as lying at the estuaries of the rivers Pichori, cal investigations in order to clarify once and Shavi and Kaparchina. The town was probably for ever where exactly the Phasisi – Rioni flew dislocating because of certain geomorpho- into the sea and how the Late Bronze – Early logic changes [For more detailed information Iron and Antique period settlements were re- see Gamkrelidze 1987: 97 – 117; Gamkrelidze, lated with the river. Unfortunately air photos G. 1992: 211-216; Gamkrelidze, G. 1992: 30 – 48; appeared absolutely useless in the case like Gamkrelidze, G. 1992: 101 – 119]. this. It is also important to note that the Rioni

188 river has been carrying an enormous amount of amphora (rim diameter - 12 cm) with tubular ballast since the periods mentioned above and neck (15 cm high), solid handles (ovoid in sec- it seems quite natural to suppose that the river tion) on the shoulder was uncovered near the delta is dislocated and vast areas are under wa- Supsa river canyon in the sea. Another Heraclea ter today. Pontica amphora dating from the 4th century BC There are series of settlements along Kulevi was found again in the sea at Maltakva. – Poti – Ureki coastal areas: the Late Bronze – So, collation of the present day geomorpho- Early Iron period ones at the estuary of Khobi logical and topoarchaeological information en- river, at Kulevi village, in the north of Poti town. ables me to conclude that the Classical and Hel- A 6th – 4th century BC one at the Tsiva river, at lenistic period Phasisi is to be searched for on the the estuary of the Supsa river, in the south of land and in the sea within the radius of approxi- Poti town. Here belong “Natekhebi” settlement mately 12 km or more precisely in the triangle of too which is in lake Paliastomi, at the same Poti Poti – Kulevi – Supsa and Chaladidi – Sakorkio. where a 4th century BC pot-shard of a black- Because of local geomorpgological changes ie slip container and a base-ring of a Rhodosian accumulation of ballast (carried by the rivers), amphora (see above) was found. dislocation of peats, extremely moistened soil, It is important to note that an area of about change of the sea level etc a part of Phasis town 200 m width was covered with the sea during was probably covered with water from time to 1872 – 1965 [Kekelia, J. 1981: 505 – 508]. It time. This is why the town was often dislocated seems so that Phasis town sank in the sea. This within the confines of the just mentioned terri- fact is amply illustrated. The information offered torial triangle ( see Fig. I, II, III). by geographers – says that a so called Phana- gorian regression in the Black sea finished at approximately between the turn of BC and AD Bibliography: and began its transgression [Djanelidze, Ch. 1973: 5 – 16; 1980: 148 – 159]. In the result the Arrian F. 1961: ariane flavius, mogzauroba Savi level of the sea became about 3 m higher and zRvis garSemo, berZ nuli teqsti qarTuli TargmaniT n. keWaRmaZisa, Tbilisi. covered all the then settlements [Djanelidze, Apakidze, D. 1991: Апакидзе Д. Б., Центральная колхида Ch. 1973: 16]. Similar process developed in the в эпоху поздней бронзы – раннего железа, Тбилиси. northern [Blagovolin, N. Shcheglov, A. 1968: 15 Berdznishvili, M. 1969: berZniSvili m. qalaq fazi- – 27] and southern (e.g. Sinope) Black Sea lands sis istorisaTvis, Tb. Blagovolin, N. Shcheglov, A. 1968: Благоволин Н., Ще- where a certain number of the Antique period глов А., Колебания уровня Черного морья по дан- towns were covered with water. ным археолого-геоморфологических исследований A geomorphological situation of Poti – в Юго-Западном Крыму. Известия АН СССР, сер. гео- граф., М., №2, с. 15-27. Grigoleti shelf is too complicated. The sea is Boltunova, A. 1979: Болтунова А. Эллинские апоикии и muddy and it is extremely difficult to see any- местное население Колхиды. Материалы I симпозиу- thing in it at the estuary of the Rioni river south ма по древней истории Причерноморья, Цхалтубо ramification. The river carries silt which forms 1979, Тб., с. 256-274. Brun, F. 1880: Брун Ф. Восточный берег Черного моря по under water dunes during the storms. Accord- древним периплам и по компасным картам. – Черно- ingly if imagine that the process has been go- морье, т. II, Одесса. ing on for centuries it will be easier to suppose Braund, D. 1994: Georgia in Antiquity, Clarendon press, Ox- that the remains of Phasis town are covered ford. Djanelidze, Ch. 1973: with the thickest layer of sand. janeliZe W., fasisis lokalizaciis geografiuli aspeqtebi, fasisisadmi Good sized pot-shards of concave sided miZRvni li sesiis Tezisebi, Tb., gv. 5-16. amphorae were found during hydro archaeo- Djibladze, L. 2001: jiblaZe l., dasavleT saqarT- logical researches in a distance of 25 m from velos brinjao-adrerkinis xanis namosax- the beach in the sea. An early period Sinopean

189 larebis arqeologiuri ruka, arq. kc-is Zie- Inadze, M. 1982: inaZe m., aRmosavleT SavizRvispire- bani, # 8, gv. 34-38. Tis berZnuli kolonizacia, Tb. Dzvelaia, M. 1973: Zvelaia m., kolxeTis dablobi Kaukhchishvili, T. 1965: yauxCiSvili T., hipokrates (geologia), Tb. cnobebi saqarTvelos Sesaxeb, Tb. Djaparidze, V. 1977: jafariZe v. Zveli vardcixe Kaukhchishvili, T. 1957: yauxCiSvili T., strabonis “vardigora,” kreb. Zeglis megobari, Tb., # 46, gv. geografia; cnobebi saqarTvelos Sesaxeb (ber- 43-50. Znuli teqsti qarTuli TargmaniTurT), Tb. Dundua, G. 1987: Дундуа Г. Нумизматика античной Гру- Kaukhchishvili, T. 1969: yauxCiSvili T., heraklide зии, Тб. da misi cnobebi saqarTvelos Sesaxeb, kreb. aR- Djanelidze, Ch. 1980: Джанелидзе Ч. П. Палеогеография mosavluri filologia, Tb. Грузии в голоцене, Тбилиси. Kaukhchishvili, S. 1961: yauxCiSvili s. georgika, I Elnitskii, L. 1938: Ельницкий Л. Из исторической геогра- (berZnuli teqsti qarTuli TargmaniTurT), фии древней Колхиды. – ВДИ, № 2, с. 315-320. Tb. Gamkrelidze, G. 1982: gamyreliZe g. centraluri Kekelia, J. 1981: kekelia j., fasisis lokalizaciis kolxeTis Zveli namosaxlarebi, Tbilisi. geografiuli aspeqtebis Sesaxeb, saq. mec. akad. Gamkrelidze, G. 1987: gamyreliZe g. wyalqveSa arqe- moambe, Tb., #2, (102), gv. 505-508. olgiuri eqspediciis kvleva-Zieba q. foTis Koch, K.; Spenser, O. 1981: koxi k., spenseri o., cno- midamoebSi, saq. mecn. akad. “macne,” istoriis ... bebi saqarTvelosa da kavkasiis Sesaxeb, gamos- seria, Tb., #1, gv.98-117. ca l. mamacaSvilma, Tb. Gamkrelidze, G. 2002: gamyreliZe g. kolxeTi (kul- Kartlis Tskhovreba, hereinafter - K.Ts.; 1955: The Life of the turul-istoriuli narkvevi), gamomc. “logo- Georgian Kings and of their Fathers and Ancestors from si”, Tb. the Earliest Times”; qarTlis cxovreba (gamosca s. Gamkrelidze, G. 1985: gamyreliZe g. azo-farnavazis yauxCiSvilma), I t., Tb. droindeli kolxeTis istoriisaTvis, “macne,” Kuftin, B. 1950: Куфтин Б. Материалы к археологии Кол- istoriis ... seria, Tb., # 3, gv. 86-99. хиды, т. I., Тб. Gamkrelidze, G. 1989: gamyreliZe g. miTridate evpa- Kvirkvelia, G. Квирквелия Г. Т., 1987: Раскопки в ЦПКО им. tori da kolxeT-iberiis istoriis zogierTi Габашвили г. Кутаиси, ПАИ, Тбилиси, с. 62 sakiTxi, saq. mecn. akad. “macne” (ist... seria), Kiguradze, N. Кигурадзе Н. Ш., 1976: Дапнарский могиль- Tb., # 2, gv. 59-69. ник, Тбилиси. Gamkrelidze, G. 1993: gamyreliZe g. istoriul_ Kacharava, D. 1991: The town of Phasis as Described in topoarqeologiuri Ziebani, Tb. Graeco-Roman and Byzantine Literary in Sources 1 – Gamkrelidze, G. 2003: gamyreliZe g. qalaq fasisis 14, Tbilisi. adgilmdebareobis da definiciis sakiTxisaT- Lamberti, Arkandjelo 1938: lamberti arq., samegrelos vis, _ kreb. iberia-kolxeTi, _ #1, Tb., gv. 170- aRwera, italiu ridan Targmna al. Wyoniam, Tb. 185. Latyshev B., 1904-1906: Латышев В.В., Scythica et Cau- Gamkrelidze, G. 1992: Гамкрелидзе Г. А., К археологии casica; E veteribus scriptoribus Graecis et Latinis, II, сб. долины Фасиса, изд. АНГ «Мецниереба,» Тбилиси. «Записки классического отделения археологическо- Gamkrelidze, G. 1985: Гамкрелидзе Г. А. Экспедиция на го общества», (греческие и латинские тексты с русск. озеро Палеостоми, АО, Москва, с. 567-569. переводом). St.-Petersbourg. Gamkrelidze, G. 1990: Гамкрелидзе Г., Гидроархеологи- Lordkipanidze, O. 1977: Лордкипаниде О. Д., Ванское го- ческие работы в зоне предполагаемого расположе- родище, сб. «Вани», III, Тбилиси, с. 159-175. ния древнего Фасиса. Причерноморье в VII-V вв. до Lordkipanidze, O.; Mikeladze T. 1973: lorTqifaniZe н.э. - Материалы V симпозиума по древней истории oT.; miqelaZe T., fasi sis istoriul- Причерноморья, Тб., с. 215-219. arqeologiuri Seswavlis problema, fasi- Gamkrelidze, G. 1992: Hydroarchaeology in the Georgian sisadmi miZRvnili sesiis Tezisebi, Tb., gv. 17- Republic (the Colchian littoral), The International Journal 36. of Nautical Archaeology, London-New York, vol.21, N 2, Lordkipanidze, O. 2000: Phasis. The river and city in Colchis, p. 101-119. Stuttgart. Gamkrelidze, G. 1990: Travaux hydroarcheologiques de Maruashvili, L. 1970: maruaSvili l., saqarTvelos localisation de l ancienne Phasis, Le Pont – Euxin vu fizikuri geografia, t. II, Tb. par les Grecs Universite de Besancon 223 – 236, Paris. Mikeladze, T. 1978: miqelaZe T., arqeologiuri kvl- Gamkrelidze, G. 1998: Ein Rhyton Götterdarstellung aus der eva-Zieba rionis qvemo welze, Tb., 1978. Kolchis, Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan, Micishvili, M. 1977: miwiSvili m., cixesuloris Dietrich Reimer Verlag, Berlin, Band 30, S. 211-216. 1973w. gaTxrebis Sedegebi, kreb. vani III, Tb., gv. Grigolia, G. 1973: grigolia g., fasisis lokaliza- 43-51. ciisaTvis, fasisisadmi miZRvnili sesiis mox- Musxelishvili, D. 1986: Мусхелишвили Д. Л., Некоторые senebebi, Tb., 1973 gv. 36-55. проблемы источниковедческой критики грузинских

190 средневековых источников, Известия АН Грузии, №3, с. 57-70. Montpereux, Frederik Dubois 1839: Voyage autour du Caucase, v.III, Paris. Shafranov, N. 1880: Шафранов Н. Где была греческая ко- лония Фазис? – «Кавказ,» № 71, Тифлис, с. 3. Spaidel, M. 1985: Spaideli m., kavkasiis sazRvari, II s. garnizonebi afsarosSi, petrasa da fasisSi, saq. mecn. akad. macne (ist. arq. ... seria), Tb., # 1, gv. 134-140. Tolordava, V. 1977: Tolordava v. arqeologiuri gaTxrebi dablagomSi 1973-1974 w.w. kreb. vani II, Tb. gv. 71-80. Tsetskhladze, G. 1994: The Silver Phiale Mesomphalos from the Kuban, Oxford Journal of Archaeology 13, 199 – 216, Oxford. Tsetskhladze, G. 1998: Die Griechen in der Kolchis (histo- risch-archäologischer Abriβ), Amsterdam.

Figures: Fig. I – The Map of Classical and Early Medieval Archaeo- logical sites of West Georgia (Colchis); Fig. II - The Map of Late Bronze- Early Iron Age Archaeological sites of Colchis; Fig. III - The Map of Classical and Early Medieval Archaeologi- cal sites In the vicinity of town Poti.

191 I

192 II

1. Namarnu, 2. Dziguri, 3. Nosiri, 4. Tskemi, 5. Siriachkoni Okhidjc, 6. Nandevu, 7. Sagvichio (Zurgani Konsha), 8. Nagmipidji, 9. Chaladidi (Zurga, Sabazho, Chkhari), 10. Choga 1, 2, 11. Ochkomuri, 12. Betlebi, 13. I ki. 14. Khorshi- Lomura, I5. GuripulL, 16. Naokhvamu (Reka village), 17. Kvaloni Dikha - Gudzuba, 18. Gedjeti, 19. Noko, 20. Sakiri1. 21. Senaki (at cement fabric), 22. Batnaokhure, 23. Kulevi 1, 24. Kulevi 2,25. Hill at the Pichori river bank, 26. Tsiva, 27. Ureki, 28. Anaklia, 29. Ergeta, 30. Chopola, 31. Mukhurcha, 32. Nigvziani. x — The 6th centurv' ВС pot-sherds of imported containers; Simagre (Sakorkio village), Zurga (Chaladidi village), Sagvichio, Namamu, Kulevi. at Supsa (in the sea), Palaeostomi (at "Natekhebi"), at Maltakva (in the sea).

193 III

194 Gela Gamkrelidze

ON THE EVOLUTION THE COLCHIAN AMPHORAE (the 4th cent. BC to the 3rd cent. AD)

A study of these ties between the Greek world of producing amphorae in West Georgia (Col- and Colchis (Western Georgia) are of interest not chis). Archaeologist R. Puturidze was the first only as regards the history and Archaeology of who began studying of amphorae. R. Puturidze Old Georgia, but also as regards the Greek world had treated the Late Classical and Hellenistic and its relations with the Pontus Euxinus (Black period concave sided amphorae and regarded sea) seaboard. them as manufactured in Colchis. In 1959 R. Pu- In the Hellenistic epoch, one of the commer- turidze had gained herself at the archaeological cial routes connecting East and West lay through sites and Georgia’s museums and paid a special Old Georgia. This route ran from India as far as the attention to the concave sided amphorae from Caspian Sea, then through the Caucasus along the the Kutaisi, Poti and Vani museums. riv. Kur, across the Lixiis cedi pass, down the Black I. Zeest, speaking about Bosphorus’ ceramic sea at the city Phasis and the stretched across the container had singled out one group among sea to the cities in Asia Minor and on the Black sea the Hellenistic period amphorae and called seaboard. them “brown clay amphorae” produced some- Imported amphorae in Colchis, the eastern where in the southern Black Sea lands. O. Lord- Black Sea area in western Georgia, emerge as kipanidze orally stated opinion and wrote that commercial containers from the second half of the Hellenistic period brown clay amphorae the 6th cent. BC. Amphorae made at urban centers were pottered in Colchis. A. Kakhidze too had of the Black and Mediterranean Seas are attested agreed with the opinion and divided Pichvnari here [Puturidze, R. 1976:79-90]. amphorae of this type into two groups: Colchi- The manufacture of local “Colchian amphorae” an comparatively high amphorae of brown clay (resp. brown-clay) began from the second half of with cylindrical ring-bases and Colchian shorter the 4th cent. BC. By this period, Colchian ampho- ones with button-like ring-bases. O. Lordkipan- rae resemble their Sinopean counterparts. In the idze believed that the Colchian origin of brown numerous archaeological finds of Colchian am- clay amphorae has been borne out by not only phorae of western Georgia, different typological their wide distribution in Colchis or with close variants are noticeable in terms of form, capac- similarity of the local clay used for manufactur- ity and clay. [Puturidze, R. 2003:98-109; Putu- ing of native pottery but also by the signs made ridze, R. 1977:68-71; Lordkipanidze, O. 1966:137- on them before baking which are like those 140; Kakhidze, A. 1971:55-63; Lordkipanidze, G. made on Colchian pithoi. I. Zeest agreed with 1970:81-82; Gamkrelidze, G. 1982: 69-98; Brash- Georgian archaeologists about the possibility inski, I. 1980:pl. XXIII; Vnukov, S. Tsetskhladze, G. of producing brown clay amphorae in Colchis 1991:170-185; Khalvashi, M. 2002:10-20, and oth- and stressed how important it was to localize ers]. There is a difference chronologically as well. the manufacturing centre. G.Tsetskhladze had Colchian amphorae appear to have been manu- made numbers of petrographic analyses and factured at many sites on the territory of western contributed to the study of the problem. He Georgia. Amphorae of local production from the has published a number of his own papers and second half of the 4th cent. BC to the 8rd cent. AD some more in co-authorship with other schol- were made subsequently too with various modifi- ars. He has rendered great services to the prob- cations (Fig.IV). lem of dating of Colchian amphorae found in In 1950 archaeologist B. Kuftin was the first the northern Black Sea lands. He had singled who put forward an idea about the possibility them out and then dated them properly.

195 Find of burning kilns together with pot drical and comparatively short; clay on the surface shreds of brown clay amphorae, other pottery is coarse and of brownish hue; light-brown speci- and tiles around them once again proved that mens also occur (pl.II, fig.2-4). In general, one of amphorae were made in Colchis not only in the principal characteristics of Colchian Ampho- the Hellenistic period but even later and they rae is a spiral at the bottom (Fig.III), the so-called had various forms and shapes, even more, they rosette-like in some researchers’ terminology. were produced at many Colchian sites. Such spirals are not characteristic of foreign Am- Excavations of Vani town were exclusively phorae. The clay structure of Colchian Amphorae productive and important from the point of is nappy-porous. The clay contains whitish and view of Colchian amphorae, which made it blackish small-fragment specks. Admixtures occur easier to date them better according to their of diabase and basalt; pyroxenites, quartz, mica, find spots and accompanying artifacts. Most iron (III) hydroxide, etc. Mineralogical-petrograph- of them had completely been restored. In the ic analysis of the clay has been carried out, dem- result we have got a full picture of alterations onstrating its identity with local, Colchian clays in their forms and shapes beginning from the of different regions [see Morchadze, T. 1979:81; later half of the 4th century BC and until the 1st Poporadze, U. Paradashvili, I. Akhvlediani, D. Gasi- century BC when the town was perished. Many tashvili, A. 2006: 220-224]. dozens of shreds of Colchian amphorae were Some specimens of Colchian Amphorae of the found in the suburb of Vani town. 2nd-1st cent. BC bear signs (e. g. see Fig.V, fig. 2). Native amphorae dating from the 2nd – 1st Perhaps they were made by the potter to indicate centuries BC are found in abundance at Vani the capacity of the vessel or the number of speci- town that enables me to suppose that they mens made. The signs on Colchian Amphorae re- had almost completely displaced other kinds semble those made on locally made wine pithoi of such vessels. They had been found in the ru- and tiles. It should be noted also that in one lo- ins of the town and many of them were even cal amphora, brought to light at Vani, the surface restored. It appeared that they slightly differ is treated in the same way as local wine pithoi – from one another that make it possible to sup- horizontal bands or vertical lines [Puturidze, R. pose that either they were made at different 1977:68-69]. local workshops, or they were made by differ- Kilns for firing pottery have been discovered in ent potters. Signs engraved on unbaked sur- Colchis, where fragments of amphorae have been faces of necks, handles and seldom on bodies attested along with those of other types of ceram- of these amphorae (but not on all of them) first ic wares. A kiln of this type has been found near appeared in the Late Hellenistic period. About the village of Gvandra (Abkhazia), dating from the 40 different signs made on the amphorae have 3rd cent. BC. A similar kiln came to light on the “Red been found at Vani town. Beacon” settlement site near Sukhumi. Remains In general, typological-chronologically, Col- of a kiln have been studied on a settlement site chian Amphorae present the following picture: south-west of v. Gulripshi. Colchian Amphorae of the second half of the 4th Colchian amphorae of the 2nd cent. BC and 1st cent. BC to the first half of the 3rd cent. BC recent. BC have a special spiral at the bottom. The semble Sinopean ones; however, the surface of cylindrical foot assumes mushroom-like rounded the clay is coarser, and the color brownish. Light- shape and the end is thickened. The walls of Col- brownish specimens also occur. The body of local, chian amphorae of this period are relatively thin. Colchian Amphorae is egg-shaped, close to cylin- Some scholars even call it button-like. The body of drical; the handles are equally curved and oval in the amphora has more concavity; scholars believe section (Fig.I, fig. 1-4). that this concavity is connected with transporta- Colchian Amphorae of the 2nd cent.-1st cent. BC tion on land. The concavity would easier hold the develop a concavity in the belly; the neck is cylin- rope and it would be easier to load it on a horse

196 or ass. The capacity of Colchian amphorae ranges 1.9 cm), with an equal-beam cross in it; the stamp from 13 to 22 liters. is an epigraphic; the cross is slanted in relation to Amphorae with ribbed neck and concave body the handle (Fig.V, fig. 1). of the 2nd-3rd cent. AD must be a continuation of Until quite recently, circular stamped Colchian the subsequent period of Colchian amphorae of amphorae were unknown to scholarship. At pres- the 2nd-1st cent. BC; they have an elongated body, ent cross stamps placed within a circle have been almost equally curved handles and a spiral at the brought to light, resembling one another: from bottom. Their walls are relatively thinner, and they Poti, Pichvnari-Choloki, former city site of Vani. To have a rib on the neck, at the place of attachment date nine specimens are known in all. One piece of the handles. Amphorae of this type have been is attested by oral communication. The stamps of found at Bichvinta, Sukhumi, Eshera, Tsebelda, Poti this type are attested on a wine jar of local produc- (Paliastomi), Ureki, Kobuleti Pichvnari, Tsikhisdziri, tion. Gonio, etc (Fig.IV, 3); [Khalvashi, M. 2002:10-20]. A cross placed within a circle may have been a From the 3rd-4th cent. AD a new type of Colchi- sign of a prominent person of authority of some an amphora with concave body and spiral at the urban settlement or region of Colchis. The product bottom develop. The handles of these amphorae of the ceramic workshops under him was branded are sharply curved in the upper part, and the body with such an emblem. “Vani”, “Kobuleti-Pichvnari” is narrower and elongated. Some specimens have or Phasis may have been such an urban centre. low corrugation on the body. The handles lose its The raw material and manufacture of Colchis were oval shape in section, becoming flatter (Fig.IV, 4). exported onto the international market via the Colchian amphorae have been discovered in city of Phasis. It is not ruled out that these brands large numbers on settlement sites of the 2nd-1st belonged to a king’s official who was charged cent. BC all over the territory of historical Colchis. with control of the manufacture of amphora- There is almost no former settlement site here containers and was responsible for the quality of with such amphorae not coming to light. It is al- the commodities to be transported in them. Bear- most unanimously acknowledged in the specialist ing in mind the well-known brands of 3rd cent. BC literature that these amphorae are of local, Colchi- Colchian amphorae from Dioscurias-Eshera, with an, manufacture. Colchian Amphorae are attested the name of the city inscribed [see Puturidze, R., at the following points: Eshera, Sukhumi, Ocham- 2003; pl. I, 2], then a brand with a cross may be chire, the River Inguri valley, the area adjoining Poti, taken for an emblem of some other city, e. g. the v. Ureki, the interfluve of the Supsa-Natanebi, v. trading city of Phasis. This city was an important Tsikhisdziri, Pichvnari near Kobuleti, v. Makhvilauri, trade centre [Lordkipanidze, O. 2000; Gamkrelid- Batumi, v. Gonio, v. Bukistsikhe, v. Gurianta, v. Dap- ze, G. 2003:170-185; Braund, D. 1994:102-103; nari, v. Dablagomi, v. Mtisdziri, the environs of Kutai- Gamkrelidze, G. 1992:6-29, and others], (Fig.I). It si, v. Sagvichio, Vani and its environs, and others. Col- is mentioned by the following authors: pseudo- chian Amphorae of the 2nd-1st cent. BC have come Scylax (4th cent. BC), Aristotle , Plato, Heraclides to light at various settlement sites of the northern Zembos, Hipocrates, Theocritus, Strabo, pseudo- Black Sea area, namely Gorgippia, , Cyteus, Cepoi, Plutarch, Pliny, Gaius Secundus (Elder), Pomponius Naples (Scythian), Chersonesus, Donuzlav, Belyaus, Mela, Flavius Arrian, Plutarch, Claudius Ptolemaios, Karatobe, Cercinitides, etc [Vnukov, S. Tsetskhladze, pseudo-Orpheus, Themistios, Castorius, Ammianus G. 1991:170-185]. Marcellius, Zosimus, Stephanus Byzantinus, Agath- A high relief stamp is fixed on the upper part ias, Theophanes the Chronograph, George Cedre- of the handle of the Colchian amphora discov- nus, and others [see Gamkrelidze G. 2003:170-173]. ered in the lower layer of “Natekhebi”(in Poti). The The city of Phasis was one of the principal handle is of oval section; the clay brownish, with points of the sea and river transit commercial whitish and blackish noticeable in it; the surface is route of Asia-Europe. Through the city of Phasis coarse-nappy-porous. The stamp is circular (diam.: iron, timber, flax, linseed oil, honey, wax, wine,

197 etc. were exported abroad [Lordkipanidze, O. Khalvashi, M. 2002: xalvaSi m. keramikuli tara go- 1966:117-120; Gamkrelidze, G. 1992:6-18]. nio-afsarosidan, baTumi. Lordkipanidze, M. 1975: lorTqifaniZe mar. kolx- Thus, on the basis of the recent archaeological eTis Zv. V- III ss. sabeWdavi-beWdebi, Tb. evidence discovered in Western Georgia or Col- Lordkipanidze, O. 1966: lorTqifaniZe oT. antikuri chis, as well as by recourse to and consideration samyaro da Zveli kolxeTi, Tb. of other artifacts we may conclude that from the Lordkipanidze O. 2000: Phasis, The river and City in Colchis, Stuttgart. th nd second half of the 4 -to the 2 cent. BC inclusive Lordkipanidze, G. 1970: Лордкипанидзе Г. К истории amphorae were made in Colchis, on which pro- древней Колхиды, Тб. prietary, trade brands were stamped, as was the Monakhov, S. 1999: Монахов С.Ю. Греческие амфоры в practice in Mediterranean and Black Sea urban Причерноморье, изд. СУ, Саратов. Morchadze, T. 1979: morCaZe T. Sida qarTlis anti- centre. I believe these stamps constitute the pro- kuri periodis keramika, Tb. prietary (legal) emblem of an urban centre (e.g. Poporadze, N.; Paradashvili, I.; Akhvlediani, D.; Gasitashvili, Phasis) of Colchis or of some person of advanced A. 2006: foforaZe n., faradaSvili ir., axvle- position who was in control of the manufacture diani d., gasitaSvili an. 2006: keramikis min- eralogiuri da petrografiuli kvleva (vanis of amphorae and assumed responsibility for the masalebis magaliTze) _ akc-s kreb. Ziebani _ quality of the products, exported in these com- oT. lorTqifaniZe (red.), # 17-18, Tb., gv. 220-224. mercial vessels (containers). This, in its turn points Puturidze, R. 1976: fuTuriZe r. importuli am- to the higher level of development of the Colchian forebi vanis naqalaqaridan, kreb. vani II _ oT. lorTqifaniZe (red.), Tb., gv. 79-90. society of the period and to the quality of its inte- Puturidze, R. 2003: fuTuriZe r. amforebis warmoeba gration in advanced urban centre of the Mediter- kolxeTSi, _ kreb. iberia-kolxeTi,_ g. ga- ranean and Black Seas. myreliZe (red.) #1, Tb., gv. 98- 109. Puturidze, R. 1977: Путуридзе Р. Колхидские амфоры из Вани, - Краткие сообщения, Инст. Археологии, №151, Мос., с. 68- 71. References: Vashakidze, N. 1971: vaSakiZe n. gurianTis antikuri xanis arqeologiuri Zegli, _ kreb. samxreT- Brashinski, I. 1980: Брашинский И.Б. Греческий керамиче- dasavleT saqarTvelos Zeglebi, II, _ as. inaiS- ский импорт на нижнем Дону, Ленинград. vili (red.), Tb., gv. 5- 27. Braund D. 1994: Georgia in Antiquity, Clarendon press, Ox- Vnukov, S.; Tsetskhladze, G. 1991: Внуков, С.; Цецхладзе, ford. Г. Колхидские амфоры Северо-Западного Крыма. - сб. Gamkrelidze, G. 2002: gamyreliZe g. kolxeTi (kul- Памаятники железного века в окрестностях Евпато- turul-istoriuli narkvevi), gam. “logosi,” рии, изд. Мос. университета, с. 170-185. Tb. Gamkrelidze, G. 1982: gamyreliZe g. centraluri kolxeTis Zveli namosaxlarebi, gam. « mec- Figures: niereba », Tb. Gamkrelidze, G. 2003: gamyreliZe g. qalaq fasisis Fig. I - 1-4 Colchian Amphorae from Kobuleti – Pitchvnari adgilmdebareobis da definiciis sakiTxisaT- settlement; vis, _ kreb. iberia-kolxeTi, №1, Tb., gv. 170- Fig. II - 1,2, 4 - Colchian Amphorae from Vani; 3 - Colchian Am- 185. phora from Grigoleti settlement; 5 - Colchian Amphora Gamkrelidze, G. 1992: Гамкрелидзе Г. К археологии доли- from Poti Natekhebi settlement; ны Фасиса, Тб. Fig. III - Bases of Colchian Amphorae from the Hellenistic Gigolashvili, E.; Kacharava, D.; Puturidze, R.; . . . 1979: gig- period settlements of West Georgia; olaSvili el. kaWarava d. fuTuriZe r. fircxa- Fig. IV – 1. Colchian Amphorae of the 3rd c. BC.; 2. Colchian lava m. Wyonia an. vanis naqalaqaris zeda ter- Amphorae of the 2nd -1st cc. BC.; 3. Colchian Amphorae asaze 1970-1977 wlebSi mopovebuli arqeolo- of the 1st – 3rd cc. AD.; 4. Colchian Amphorae of the 4th giuri masalis katalogi, _ kreb. vani IV _ oT. -8th cc. AD.; lorTqifaniZe (red.), Tb., gv. 41-114. Fig. V – 1. Stamped handles of Colchian Amphorae of the Kakhidze, A. 1971: kaxiZe am. keramikuli tara fi- Hellenistic period; 2. The inscriptions on the Colchian Wvnaris antikuri xanis naqalaqaridan, kreb. Amphorae of the Hellenistic period. samxreT-dasavleT saqarTvelos Zeglebi, II, _ as. inaiSvili (red.), Tb., gv. 28- 66.

198 I

199 II

200 III

201 IV

202 V

203 Gela Gamkrelidze

TWO SILVER RHYTONS FROM WEST GEORGIA – COLCHIS (Mtisdziri and Gomi)

Rhytons were the vessels used for drinking. found in the 6th burial of Armaziskhevi, at Mtskhe- Mainly two types of them existed: some had short ta town. Another goddess with a horn in her hand necks and animals’ heads, others - horn-like body was depicted on a silver dish found at Tsikhisdziri decorated with small figures of various creatures. village and one more find comes from Vani town The horn-shaped vessel in Georgia used for wine – a sculpture of a goddess with a horn in her hand drinking is called ”qantsi’’. The ancient roots of [Voronov 1969: PL. XLVIII; Tsitlanadze 1976: Pl. 7, 9; wine-making in Georgia warrant’s the assump- Inaishvili 1993: 33, Pl. 81; Gamkrelidze 2001: 135 – tion that “qantwi-rhyton” is one of the oldest 138; Simon 1999: 30]. forms of drinking vessel. Quite often a “Horn of Plenty” – horn-rhyton There are different opinions about the origin was one of the attributes of gods and goddesses. of rhytons [Svoboda, Cončev 1956: 6 – 15]. Some The frequent occurrence of rhytons in burials and scholars consider that they were first made in the in some cases their unfitness for use as drinking Asia Minor [Amiranashvili 1961: 51]; others think vessels would lead one to the assumption that that Iran is the mother land of a rhytons [Rostovt- one of the sacred functions of the rhyton was its sev 1929: 8 – 14]. Some authors suppose that the use in rituals connected with the dead, (placing it drinking vessel like a rhyton could not be made in the grave or drinking from it for the repose of the only at one certain place [Trever 1940: 107 – 108; dead man’s soul on his remembrance day, etc.). Maksimova 1956: 215 – 235], and really, rhytons The same theme is attested outside Georgia could easily be made in any region of the world as well. The conceptualization of the rhythons as where the cattle-breeding was carried out [Gam- a “Horn of Plenty” or cornucopia points also its sa- krelidze 1982: 73 – 81], because a scraped horn is a cred and religious function. The “Horn of Plenty” is natural drinking vessel which is very easy to make. a wide-spread symbol of wealth and abundance. Originally rhytons were made of animals’ Such a “qantsi – rhython” or cornucopia was one horns but in the course of time various materi- of the attributes of Gaea, Kirene, Pluto, Fortuna, als (clay, metal, ivory, glass) and forms appeared. Tyche, sometimes of Cybele Dionysus or some More developed ones were those made of metal. other gods or goddesses. It seems that a rhyton obtained a significance of Rhytons have been found at many sites of a ritual vessel at that time and was widely spread Georgia, namely, at Gudauta site of Bombora – in the Black Sea littoral, Caucasus, eastern Anato- the rhyton with a protome of a wild goat [Krivitskii lia and Iran [Arakelian 1976: 36 – 47]. Twenty-one 1977: 33], two silver rhytons from Kazbegi town rhytons were found in the lands along the river : one with a ram’s protome [Tsitlanadze 1976: 52, Dnestr and Northern Caucasus (burial mounds of Pl. 153 ] and another with a calf’s head on it (the Semibratni, Kelermess, Uliap, Kuloba, Tolstaya Mo- latter is at the Hermitage department of East, St. gila, Solokha, Mordvinov, Talaev, Karagodenashkh Petersburg), the bronze rhyton from Borjomi Bor- etc) [Vlasova 1999: 65]. nigele cemetery , the silver rhyton from Mtisdziri The depictions of persons with horn – rhy- village site Nashuebi [Gamkrelidze 1998: 211 – tons in their hands were found in Georgia too: e.g. 216], Vani town clay rhyton with a boar’s head on near Gudauta town (a site Bombora). It is a figure it, Uplistsikhe ancient town clay one . Glass rhy- of a sitting man with a horn-rhyton in his hand. tons were found at the Tsebelda river gorge (three The statuette of two men holding rhyton in their examples) [Voronov 1975: 76 – 77, fig. 20 7, 8, 11], hands was found at Kazbegi town. A depiction of one at the ancient city-site of Urbnisi [Saginashvili a goddess with “Amalthea’s Horn” in her hand was 1970: 72, Pl. 124], and another one from Sam-

204 tavro cemetery of Mtskheta town [Ugrelidze 1967: horns is characteristic of the Achaemenid art. 26, fig. 3]. Rhytons with relief, horizontal stripes and flute oc- Below we are going to describe and discuss cur frequent ly being of Oriental provenance. The some problems around two all metal made rhy- representation of animal ears on the chest of the tons from Georgia, which were found in Mtisdziri man-he-goat is also characteristic of Oriental style. and Gomi. It should be noted that the so-called herringbone A badly damaged burial was discovered at the ornament, which is typical of Colchian pot tery of a place Tsabla-ghele in the village of Mtisdziri within definite period was used in rendering the figure of 8 km of the ancient city-site of Vani. Only few arti- the man-he-goat. The same can be said about the facts from this grave - golden, so-called radial ear- geometric ornament that has much in common ring, golden torque, fragments of the bronze ves- with the style of the 5th-6th cent. B.C. gold adorn- sel and a silver rhyton have survived. Based on the ments of Colchian origin (gold diadem, “radial” archaeological material the burial must be dated and openwork earrings, temporal rings) [Lordki- to the 4th cent. B.C. [for details see Gamkrelidze panidze 1971: 51-63]. Some of their orna ments G. 1982: 73-81; Gamkrelidze G. 1998: 211-216]. recur on silver articles of the same period. The Most interesting artifact found at Mtisdziri is She Mtiedsiri rhyton must be the work of a a silver rhyton (fig. I and II) which is unfortunately local master, influ enced by Oriental Achaemenid so much damaged that only two fragments have style but its subject (the face of the figure) seems survived: the figure of a man-he-goat (fig. I, 1) at- to be the result of local religious beliefs. As not- tached to the lower end of the rhyton and a badly ed above, the end of the qantsi-rhyton features damaged fragment of the rim of the rhyton with a half-man and half-goat, i.e. a man-he-goat. I an ivy ornament (fig. I, 2). First it was thought that have identified it with the animal-protector god these two fragments belonged to two separate Ochopimtre-Ochopinte-Ochokochi, some parts vessels [Khoshtaria 1959:154-161]. of whose body is human and others of a goat, as The figure on the protome has a human head represented on the Mtisdziri rhyton. while its ears, horns and lower extremities are Ochopintre, an animal-protector god must have those of a goat. Its ears are alert characteristic of been a common mythological image in ancient a wild goat, the neck being thick and massive. The Georgia. Interest attaches to Ekvtime Mtatsmin- beard reaches the chest, the oval eyes are set close, deli’s evidence on the name of a Geor gian pagan the eyeb rows are joined, and cheek-bones are god (Bochi) which was identified with Ochopintre: prominent, the nose is straight and massive. The see “The name of the pagan idols regarded by them circularly channeled horns were manufactured as gods – some of men and some of women - were separately and afterwards attached to the head of completely dest royed: Dios, or Apollo, or Artemis, the figure. On the chest of the figure an image of or Bochi (Ochopintre), and Gatsi, and Badagon, and a creature is noticeable with long ears, hairy head Armaz at treating wine they would pronounce the and lowered legs. The figure of the man-he-goat name of the depraved Dionysus with a guffaw, and has hoofs typical of a goat. Both the man-he-goat all this is diabolical...” [The Small Nomocanon 1972: and the rhyton itself are richly decorated with a 58]. relief ornament. The master tried to render the It is significant that the name of the god Bo- muscles and separate fea tures by an ornament chi (Ochopintre) is mentioned together with the of scaly, fan-shaped and slanting notches, using name of Dionysus. It is conceivable that there was the technique of scratching and incision. Specially a link between the man-he-goat and Dionysian poin ted tools were also used. mysteries. This is suggested by the representation The artistic style of the Mtisdziri rhyton is of ivy ornament on the rhyton which is character- somewhat related to the sо-called Achaemenid istic of gods of the Dionysus circle and of vessels style, and has less in common with the so-called for drinking wine. Eastern Greek style. Circular channeling of the

205 By its function and appearance Ochopintre re- and narrowing to the bottom body (its protome is sembles the Greek god Pan which is often repre- missing) suggests that the vessel is a rhyton. sented as a he-goat. The Greeks imagined Pan as Decoration of the vessel consists of three dif- a merry god of the woods. The representa tion of ferent bands. The first one is made around the rim. Pan is found in some places of Georgia. After the It is a frieze of dense flutes. The second represents forma tion of general Greek religion Pan became four fighting men, and the third one – a pair of dif- one of the attendant gods of Dionysus. ferent animals and a tree. All figures are disposed It cannot be ruled out that the Georgians had symmetrically. a local Dionysus-type god and its companions Two pairs of fighting men are depicted below (Ochopintre) that later became assimilated to the the flutes. Each pair is facing each other. Dionysus cult earning from Greece. The first warrior on the left is a bearded man. Some ritual traditions preserved in Georgian He wears a helmet, short clothes and shoes on his folklore and Ethnography (wrapping into a goat- feet – depicted with bands around his ankles. He skin, mask making e.g. Berikaoba, etc) seem to is holding a spear in his right hand and a rectan- suggest that the man disguised as a goat on the gular shield in his left one. The spear is lifted up, Mtisdziri rhyton personified Ochopintre taking ready to thrust the enemy. part in the mysteries connected with these gods. The second warrior wears a helmet, a sleeve- A silver rhyton representing a scene of a bat- less jacket and similar shoes. He is aiming his ar- tle (Fig. III) is an absolutely unique specimen of row towards his foe. toreutics. It has been found in a high land region The third warrior is standing with his back to- of Georgia Upper Racha in the village of Gomi and wards the second one and facing the fourth. He was brought to Kutaisi museum with other aris wearing a helmet, holding a dagger in his right tifacts: a copper bowl, a bronze belt – plate, two hand and a rectangular shield (similar the first bronze bracelets, a pair of bronze pins and a bronze one) in his left one. The fourth warrior is holding finger-ring, remains of a glass adornment, another a spear. Some details of the men’s figures are de- finger-ring made of horn, a strand of beads and 16 formed and damaged. A tree with eight branches, scraps of other beads. All these pieces are quite a wolf and a doe are depicted below the warriors. common for the pre – Christian cemeteries. The Some figures depicted on the rhyton are im- nearest archaeological site to Gomi village is Brili pressed, others are scratched out and the rest are multilayer cemetery excavated at Gebi village. It hammered from the inner side. All of them are seems quite natural to suppose that all the arti- schematic and naturalistic, made in low relief with facts just cited are stray pieces found at Gebi and impressed lines. The craftsman who made the re- taken to Gomi. liefs does not seem to be skilled enough. All four The depictions on the rhyton capture a special men are depicted in the three – fourth with their interest of scholars. The vessel has a form of an ob- heads in profile. A spatial solution of upper and long cone. Dimensions of its preserved part are: lower devices is simple. The doe and the tree make height – 13 cm, rim diameter – 6.5 cm, weight – 86 an illusion of differing planes. Horizontal dashes gr. The rim of the vessel is damaged and its lower on the men’s shields create an illusion of an artis- part is missing. Now it is kept safe at the Kutaisi tic perspective. Dynamic postures of the warriors State Museum’s reserve of precious metals (no show a rather aggressive attitude. The tree depict- 111) (Fig. III, 1, 2). The rhyton is made in one single ed on the background connects the upper and piece of a silver plate. As it seems, first the scene lower scenes and functions as a key motif. was depicted on the flat surface. Afterwards the The rhyton found at Gomi village belongs to needed, horn-like shape was given to the plate. the type of horn-like ones. Two of the four warriors Probably, that is why the figures are somehow portrayed on it are holding similar shields which deformed and distorted [Bochoridze 1994: 254]. cover them from their pelvis to the shoulders. The shape of the vessel with its cylindrical neck The shields are rectangular and their right upper

206 corners are cut out. They are rendered so that it rectangle and slightly bent ones appeared about is easy to see how they are tied to the arms and the 3rd century BC. Polybius (History 6. 23. 2 – 4) in addition to it they should have attachments for wrote that shields were made of planks covered grasping them. It was very convenient to hold a with leather (120 by 80 cm). Both ends of such shield this way because a warrior then was able to shields were bound with metal pieces. Later rect- use both of his hands if needed (such attachments angular, ovoid hexahedral and rhomb-shaped were first used by Hoplites) [Kvirkvelia 2001: 35]. shields coexisted but the ends of the latter were The cut out right corners of the shields allowed cut away. The shields had round metal umbons in the warriors to watch the enemy’s actions. Such their central parts. All three types of shields (rect- detail of a shield is depicted only on the rhyton angular, hexahedral, and ovoid) are depicted on from Gomi village and it seems quite possible to the reliefs of Lucius Septimius Severus’ triumphal consider it as a local novelty. Shields with visors arch in Rome. Rectangular shields are depicted are quite common but they are not asymmetrical, on the scenes of gladiators’ battle found in Pom- e. g. so called semi lunar ones, or the one depict- peii. Roman infantrymen used rectangular shield ed on the 1st century relief of Chersoneses town. – scutum at the time of Marcus Furious Camilus’ The shields of Gomi rhyton are rendered with the dictatorship. From this time until 3rd c. AD on type help of vertical lines that creates an impression of of shields remained common among Roman in- a wood – as if long pieces of it are bound together fantrymen (cavalry soldiers used ovoid shields). It with two pieces of metal bands (upper and lower is quite probable that Pompeii’s legionaries were ones) and between them there is a horizontal sign equipped with such rectangular shields when or emblem like Latin “v” (<). they first came to the Transcaucasia in 65 BC and Rectangular shields with rounded corners are fought against the Kartlian (Caucasian Iberia) King depicted on Karashamba silver bowl found in the Artoke [Gamkrelidze G. 2001: 57 – 69]. At the 2nd millennium burial near the Razdan River [Oga- times of the Roman Empire the shields became nesian 1988: 145]. Trapezoid shields are depicted smaller and they covered the soldiers’ torsi only. on the belt-plate found in the Late Bronze period A rectangular wooden shield with angle – burial in Stepanavan [Martirosian 1964, fig.65]. irons at the corners and covered with a sheathings The assault of town Sugun is depicted on a bronze of nails was found in west Georgia, at Tsebelda. It sheathing of a door – Assyrian warriors are hold- was included in the context uncovered on a hill of ing oblong rectangular shields [Piotrovskii 1959: Stekliannaya and dated to the 4th century (48 by Pl. 4]. On the scene of Kadesh battle (1312 BC.) 68 cm) [Voronov 1975: 95, fig. 33]. from Abu – Simbel temple the warriors fighting A collection of the Late Classical period arti- against Ramzes II are standing in the race-chariots facts preserved in the State Museum of Georgia and holding hurdle rectangular shields. [Istoria was found in Tbilisi, at Delisi suburb. The collec- … 1914: 132, fig. 1]. A so called Scythian warrior tion contained a figure of a warrior (no 5 – 996: 7) holding a rectangular shield with rounded corners with a rectangular shield in his hand. is depicted on a gold comb found in Solokha buri- Shields with round bronze or iron umbons al [Mantsevich 1987: 34]. Here I have to note that are quite frequently found in Georgia. Wooden or shields are less characteristic to the Scythian – Sar- leather pieces of the shields perish easily in the matian world and they are almost absent among soil. Roundness of an umbon does not mean that their numerous archaeological material. From the a shield should be round too (e.g. rectangular Ro- burials only five shield remains are known [Meli- man scutum with round umbons). An assumption ukova 1964: 78; Khazanov 1971: 63]. about roundness of a shield is strengthened with According to Herodotus (7. 61), Xerxes’ Iranian ethnographic examples characteristic to Georgian warriors had round shields of hurdle. Rectangu- highlands where the locals used the shields with a lar shield was not characteristic to the Aegean – diameter of 30 – 40 cm [Cholokashvili 1954: 227 – Greek world. Earlier Roman shields are round or 232]. I think that at Varsimaantkari cemetery there

207 are unearthed only umbonis and not the shields wear short clothes covering their pelvis. The gar- themselves [Mukhigulashvili 1986: 67 – 72]. ments are rendered in vertical lines. The first and Round metal umbons and sheathings are very the second warriors wear as if sleeveless jackets common in Georgian Late Bronze – Early Iron pe- over their shirts. The clothes of the first and the riods, namely, they were found at Badiauri, Lilo, third ones are belted. As I have already noted the Melaani, Vanta, Ureki, Kazbegi, Samtavro, Kamara- figures are diagrammatic and it is difficult to say khevi, Varsimaantkari, Vani, (the 9th burial), Khut- anything surely. It cannot even be excluded that subani, Eshera, Brili etc. the warriors are dressed in suites of armor, or the It is notable that round Hoplite shields were diagrammatic lines depict something like a Ro- found in the 7th burial at Tsiteli Shukura and in man lorica. Akhul – Abaa burial [Kvirkvelia 2001: 32 – 40]. It The third warrior has even trousers on so char- is quite possible that foreign shields with metal acteristic to the Scythian – Sarmatian world. Let sheathings and umbons were used by high-rank- me return to Solokha comb in this connection – a ing persons. It is absolutely clear at Varsimaantkari warrior depicted on it is dressed in a short jacket where among 166 burials only in two grave as- (shirt) and trousers. He is holding a shield in his semblages umbons were found (d. 30 cm) [Mukh- hand. igulashvili 1986: 71]. As to ordinary soldiers, they Xenophon (5.4.13) says that Mosinikes “… probable used either hurdle, or wooden shields wore short sackcloth chitons which did not reach sheathed with leather and it is natural that they their knees” and adds that “Khalibes wore flax have perished. suites of armor reaching the lower area of their Shields of Kartvelian tribes (Colchis, Mosinikes, stomach belted with tightly twisted ropes” (4. 7. Moskhes, and Khalibes) are mentioned in Greek 15) i.e. belts. written sources. Herodotus (7.78.79) noted that Three warriors are bare-legged but they have “Colchians wore wooden helmets, small shields shoes on their feet which are fastened at their an- of rawhide, short spears and knives”. Xenophon kles like Roman legionaries. It is a well-known fact (Anabasis 4.7.22) mentions Khalibes with ox-hide that Greek warriors covered their legs with cnemi- shields and Mosinikes who “held ivy-leaf-like des. So did Khalibes (Xenophon, Anabasis 4.7.16). shields covered with white ox-hide” (5.12). Strabo Bronze and iron mail links and scales of armor (Geography 11.4.5) wrote that the Albanians are are found in Georgia, namely, at Vani, Eshera, Tagil- “soldiers on foot and bow-men. They have raw- oni, Kldeeti, Tsebelda (Shapka). About hundred hide suites of armor and shields like those of the holed iron scales were found in a warrior’s burial Iberians”. Here is also mentioned a shield similar (№2) at Vani town. This kind of ammunition is to Roman scutum – jureØc. It is very important called a scaly armor. Pierced scales were attached to note that this passage of Strabo’ “Geography” to a leather or sackcloth garment which covered chronologically concerns to the fight of a Roman a warrior’s torso [Lordkipanidze 1976: 183 – 184]. commander Pompeii against Albanians and Iberi- As I have already noted it is possible that the war- ans. riors depicted on Gomi rhyton are dressed in such According to the written sources just cited Col- suites of armor rendered diagrammatically. chians, Khalibs, Mosinikes and Iberians used small All four warriors, depicted on the rhyton, are ox-hide, ivy-leaf and scutum-like shields made of wearing hemispherical helmets. Some of them hurdle or wood and sheathed in hide. Archaeolog- have nose and jaw covers which are not at all com- ically attested umbons point to the fact that metal mon for the pre classical period [Yesaian 1966: 101, was frequently used in making the shields. Pl. 16]. They were not characteristic to the Iranian On the Gomi rhyton scutum-like shields are world. As to the Greek and then Roman periods, depicted but they have visors at the right up- jaw covers were considerably frequent [Bottini et per corner which distinguishes them from other al. 1988: 65 – 136, 327 – 365]. specimens. The Warriors depicted on Gomi rhyton

208 So called Chalkidian and Hopletian helmets so important which is witnessed by Herodotus (7. are found at different sites of Georgia: Sokhumi, 78. 79) and Xenophon (4. 3. 7. 8. 15 – 16; 5. 2. 4. Kutaisi, Kokhi (Adjara) and Shukhuti (Lanchkhuti 12. 22). They cite and describe the weapons of Col- district). Recently a Roman hemispherical helmet chians, Moskhians, Mosiniks and Khalibes but do has been found in Kakheti region, Dedoplistskaro not mention either a bow, or an arrow. But later, district, Zemo Kedi village. at the time of Roman (Pompeii) campaign Strabo Helmets were furnished with additional belts enlists the weapons of Iberians (Caucasian) and at the forehead in the period of Roman republic, Albanians and mentions a bow and an arrow too just like the ones depicted on the helmets of the (Strabo 11. 4. 5). Iberian archers are mentioned first and second warriors of Gomi rhyton. Nose by Appian (Misthridat’s wars 101) and Dio Cassius covers are less characteristic to Roman helmets of (37. 2). Strabo points to poisoned arrows of Svans the Republican and Imperial periods [Bottini et al. (11. 2. 19). 1988: 327 – 365; Connolly 1988: 228]. It is quite The third and the fourth warriors depicted on possible that Gomi rhyton represents mixed types the rhyton are fighting to each other with a short, (Greek – Roman) of helmets. Herodotus speaks double-bladed dagger and a spear. Iron daggers about Colchian (7. 79) and Moskhian (7. 78) wood- are fewer than spears among the Classical peri- en helmets. While describing the fight of Pompeii od weapons of Georgia but comparatively more legionaries and Iberians Strabo (11.4.5.) notes appear in the Late Classical period e.g. at Arma- that the latter wore leather helmets. ziskhevi, Kldeeti, Chkhorotsku, Brili, Tsebelda, The first warrior of Gomi rhyton is holding a etc [Puturidze 1959: 74 – 75]. Herodotus (7. 79) spear lifted up in his hand. The tip of the spear is mentions short daggers (knives?) together with directed downwards, as if ready to stub. It is short spears. Xenophon (4. 7. 16) says that Khalibs wore with a rhomb-like spear-head. A tie-line of its haft- short daggers hanging on their belts. ing is stressed with a pair of horizontal lines. Simi- A doe and a wolf are depicted on the lower lar warrior with a spear is depicted on the Emperor part of the rhyton. These animals live in the Cauca- Constantine’s triumphal arch in Rome. The down sian mountains even today. There is a tree behind directed spear-head points to the fact that the the doe. I suppose that this is an allegorical depic- warrior is ready to stub not to throw. tion of a dualistic struggle between a virtue and Quantity of spear-heads far exceeds other an evil (characteristic to Zoroastrism and later to weapons of the Classical period Georgia. It means Manichaeism). The tree in this case is on the side that it was a basic weapon during the period. The of virtue (behind the doe). The lower scene is an same is witnessed in the written sources. Herodo- allegorical rendering of the upper one i.e. fight- tus (7. 78. 79), Xenophon (5. 2. 4. 12. 22. 25), Strabo ing warriors. The doe is a symbol of virtue and (11. 4. 5) wrote that a spear-head was a leading the wolf of an evil. As to the tree – it is a symbol weapon among Colchians, Khalibes, Moskhes, of fertility, victory of life and defeat of an enemy. and Iberians (Caucasian). About a special group of I could also offer here an idea of an antithetical Iberian soldiers with spears speaks even Plutarch triad – confrontation of a doe and a wolf against (Luculus 31). the background of a tree. The second warrior on Gomi rhyton grasps a It seems quite possible that Gomi rhyton bow and an arrow in his left hand aiming to the was made as an offering to a high-ranking war- one with a spear in his hand. The bow is small with rior who died in a battle and later used in per- a string tied horizontally. The arrowhead is trian- forming his burial rites. Now, let us return to the gular, with ogee shoulders. Such arrowheads are previous scene depicted on the rhyton. I think it mostly characteristic to the Late Hellenistic – Ro- is much more realistic to explane this scene as a man world [Lordkipanidze 1976: 180]. Percent- fight of southerners against the north Caucasians age of arrowheads in Georgia of this period is not – Sarmats or Alans [Khazanov 1971: 3 – 4]. A local large. Supposedly a bow and an arrow were not craftsman mirrored the event that he had already

209 seen and demonstrated his own philosophy in a dza, Tsikhisdziri [Machabeli 1976: 28 – 29; Putu- sacral scene which was quite characteristic to that ridze 1959: 72 – 74; Djavakhishvili 1958: 149 – epoch. 150]. Some of the Late Classical period pieces of Gomi rhyton is artistically independent and toreutics found in Georgia were common even for unique. It differs from analogous pieces of art the 4th century. Silver pieces of later periods be- of neighboring countries. The rim of the rhyton long to the Christian times and bear the features is decorated with a band of flutes and so called corresponding to the philosophy of this religion. domed vaults at its end. Local bronze wares with Chemical analysis of silver attests the fact that flutes were common even in the Late Bronze – Ear- a container, made of this metal, makes any liquid ly Iron period Georgia e.g. fluted situlae found in less harmful because silver destroys bacilli. This Lechkhumi [Sakharova 1976: 11, Pl. 9] and at Tlia quality of silver was perfectly known in the an- [Tekhov 1977: 75, Fig. 63]. Flutes were very com- cient times and people tried to use the containers mon on the Pre Classical period Colchian pottery made of this metal in performing sacral rituals. It which carried on the tradition in the early Classi- is noteworthy that the Classical period Georgian cal period [Lordkipanidze et al 1981: 57] but they silver was of high standard. As to the Christian pe- were not ended with domed vaults. riod, there was used an alloy of silver and copper Vertical flutes were not characteristic to the in order to make the metal firmer. Objects made of Classical period Greek pottery (in contrast to Ar- such alloy patinate in the course of time and be- chitecture). They are not seen on Achaemenid come greenish [Goginashvili 1997: 79 – 81]. or Sassanian decorative vessels. A relief orna- Gomi rhyton is made of whitish silver contain- ment, namely flutes, appeared in the Hellenistic ing stibium which is a silver-like whitish metal – Roman world on pottery and toreutics [Froning itself and its ore deposits are in Racha, near Brili 1982: 179, 280, 288 – 303; Blavatskii 1953: 238 – (Zopkhito). As to silver, it is mined at Kvaisa (Djava 254] e.g. a Roman rhyton dated to the 1st century district). It should not be forgotten that there is BC [Kobilina 1939: Fig. 9]. Flutes, friezes and so a well-known Brili site near Gomi village and the called fan-like decoration became widespread in metal pieces found at Brili contain stibium (chem- the Hellenistic and Late Classical periods [Kropot- ist Dr. G. Inanishvili). According to Strabo (12. 3. 19) kin 1970: 24 – 25, Fig. 45]. Khalibes mined not only iron but silver too. Presumably frieze less flutes appeared in the I think that the horn-rhyton found at Gomi Caucasus (first on metal wares and then on pot- village in Upper Racha, on the south slope of the tery) even in the Late Bronze – Early Iron Age so Caucasian mountain ridge was produced locally the ornament may even be considered as tra- and comes from Brili cemetery. It is dated to the ditional. As to the frieze-like flutes with domed Late Hellenistic – Late Classical periods. The rhy- vaults at one end, they are characteristic to the ton was made for performing a burial ritual. As to Late Classical period. Just this kind of frieze em- the subject matter – it is a depiction of the crafts- bosses Gomi rhyton. man’s perception of the reality which shows cer- The Late Classical period of Georgia is dis- tain closeness with the north Caucasian (Sarma- tinctive with the abundance of toreutics [Macha- tian) on one hand and the Roman worlds on the beli 1976: 9 – 23; Lordkipanidze 1968: 77 – 101, other. 111] found at Tagiloni, Ureki, Tsikhisdziri, Ban- dza, Kldeeti, Bori, Sargveshi, Khaishi, Kvashkheti, References: Zguderi, Tskhinvali, Zhinvali, Ertso, Armaziskhevi, Bagineti, Samtavro etc. It had been influenced by Amiranashvili, Sh. 1961: The History of Georgian Art, (in Georgian), Tbilisi. the Roman world [Machabeli 1976: 138 – 147]. As Arakelian, B. 1976: Studies of Art History of Ancient Armenia, to Gomi rhyton the influence is seen in a manner (in Russian), Yerevan. of rendering the flutes. The Late Classical period Arakelyan. B. Treasure of Silver Ware from Erebun, (in Rus- fluted wares are found at Tagiloni, Khaishi, Ban- sian), SA, (Soviet Archaeology), 1971, #1, p. 143-153.

210 Blavatskii, V. 1953: The History of Classical Period Painted Maksimova, M. 1965:, N. The Rhyton from Kelermes, in Rus- Pottery, (in Russian), Moscow. sian, SA, ( Soviet Archaeology) XXV, p. 215-235. Moscow. Bochoridze, G. 1994: Historical Sites of Racha – Lechkhumi, Mantsevich, A. 1987: Kurgan Solokha, (in Russian), Lenin- (in Georgian), Tbilisi. grad. Bottini, F., Egg, M., Hase F., Pelug H., Schaaff, V., Schauer, P. Martirosian, A. 1964: Armenia in the Bronze and Iron Ages, and Waurick, G. 1988: Antike Helme. Verlag des Römisch (in Russian), Yerevan. – Germanischen Zentralemuseums (Mainz). Meliukova, A. 1964: The Armament of Skyths, (in Russian), Cholokashvili, K. 1954: Georgian Weapons –SSMAE, (Archae- SAI (Collection of Archaeological Sources D 1 – 4 Mos- ological Expeditions of the State Museum of Georgia) 18 cow. B,( in Georgian) Tbilisi. Mukhigulashvili, N. 1986: Bronze Shields from Varsimaant- Connolly, P. 1988: Greece and Rome at War, London. kari Cemetery, (in Georgian), journal Dziebani 6, 65 – 75 Djavakhishvili, Al. 1958: Khaishi Hoard, Journal Mnatobi, 3, Tbilisi. 149 – 157, (in Georgian), Tbilisi. Oganesian, V. 1988: Sillver Goblet from Karashamba, (in Rus- Froning, H. 1982: Katalog der Griechischen und Italischen sian), Historical Philological Journal of the Academy of Vasen. Museum Folkwang Essen. Science of Armenia, 4, 145 – 161 ,Yerevan. Gamkrelidze, G. 2001: Colchological Essays, (in Georgian), Piotrovskii, B. 1959: Kingdom of Van (Urartu), (in Russian), Tbilisi. Moscow. Gamkrelidze, G. 1982: Ancient Settlements of Central Col- Puturidze, R. 1959: Archaeological Monuments of Late Clas- chis, (in Georgian), Tbilisi. sical period from the West Georgia, (in Georgian), MSKA Gamkrelidze, G. 1998: Ein Rhyton mit Götterdarstellung aus (Materials for Georgian and Caucasus Archaeology) 2, 54 der Kolchis, Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und – 94, Tbilisi. Turan, Band 30, 211 – 216. Rostovtsev, M. 1929: The Animal Style in South Russia and Goginashvili, N. 1997: Restoration and Conservation of Silver China, London. Archaeological Artifacts, Essays of the National Museum Saginashvili, M. 1970: Glass Vessels from Urbnisis Cemetery, of Art, 3, 79 – 84, (in Georgian), Tbilisi. (in Georgian), Tbilisi. Inaishvili, N. 1993: Archaeological Sites of Tsikhisdziri of 1st – Sakharova, L. 1976: Bronze Hoards from Lechkhumi, (in 6th cc., (in Georgian), Tbilisi. Georgian), Tbilisi. Khazanov, A. 1971: Essays in the Military Science of Sarmats, Simon, E. 1999: Amalthea – Trade on the Black Sea in the (in Russian), Moscow. Archaic and Classical Periods: Historical Perspective of Khoshtaria, N. 1959: Archaeological Researches in Vani and the Silk Road. Abstracts of the 9th Symposium at Vani, Vani Region in 1952, (in Russian), MSKA (Materials for Georgia, 62 – 63, Tbilisi. Georgian and Caucasus Archaeology) 2, 149-161, Tbilisi. Svoboda, B. and Cončev, D. 1956: Neue Denkmäler antiker Kobilina, M. 1939: The Art of Ancient Rome, (in Russian), Toreutik. Praha. Moscow – Len. Tekhov, B. 1977: Central Caucasus in 16th – 10 th centuries Krivitskii, V. 1977: Bronze Rhyton from Hermitage, (in Rus- B.C. , (in Russian), Moscow. sian), SGE (Short Bulletins of the State Hermitage), 42, 33 The Small Nomocanon, 1972: (in Georgian), Tbilisi. – 36, Moscow. Trever, K. 1940: Monuments of Greco- Bactrian Art, (in Rus- Kropotkin, V. 1970: Roman Imported Goods in the Eastern sian), Moscow – Len. Europe (2nd c. B.C.), (in Russian), SAI (Collection of Archae- Tsitlanadze, L. 1976: Archaeological Sites of Khevi, (in Geor- ological Sources), D 1 – 27, Moscow. gian), Tbilisi. Kvirkvelia, G. 2001: Hoplitian Shields from Colchis, (in Geor- Ugrelidze, N. 1967: For the History of Glassmaking in Early gian), Dziebani 7, 32 – 40, Tbilisi. Medieval Kartli, (in Russian), Tbilisi. Lordkipanidze, G. 1976: Weapons an Tools, (in Georgian), Vlasova, E. 1999: The Horn-like Vessels from Semibratni and Vani 2, 167 – 190 Tbilisi. Uliapsk Kurgans. Abstracts of the 9th Symposium at Vani, Lordkipanidze, G. 1976: For the History of War Science in the (in Russian), 65 – 67, Tbilisi. Classical period Colchis, (in Georgian), Proceedings of Voronov, I. 1969: Archaeological Map of Abkhazia, (in Rus- Tbilisi State University, 205, 95 – 107, Tbilisi. sian), Sokhumi. Lordkipanidze, O. 1968: The Classical world and Kartli (Ibe- Yesanian, S. 1966: Weapons and the War Science in the An- ria), (in Georgian), Tbilisi. cient Armenia, (3rd – 1st mil. B.C.), (in Russian), Yerevan. Lordkipanidze O. 1971: Materials for the History of the Col- chian Artistic Culture of the 5th cent. B.C., in Georgian, Proceedings of Tbilisi State University. В. 1 (138), p.51-63. Figures: (in Georgian), Tbilisi. Lordkipanidze, O., Gigolashvili, E., Kacharava D., and Chko- Fig. I – 1-3 A silver rhyton from Mtisdziri. nia, A.: 1981, Colchian Pottery of 6th- 4th cc. B.C. from Vani, Fig. II – A silver rhyton from Mtisdziri, new graphical recon- (in Georgian), Vani 5, Tbilisi. struction . Machabeli, K. 1976: Late Classical period Toreutics of Geor- Fig. III -1. A silver rhyton from Gomi village, Upper Racha region. 2. gia, ( in Georgian), Tbilisi. The depiction on the Rhyton.

211 I

212 II

213 III

214 SUMMARIES

Zurab Bragvadze

ARCHAEOLOGICAL EXCAVATIONS IN THE VILLAGE GVANKITI

In 2006, the expedition of Terjola district of the Otar Lortkipanidze Centre of Archaeology excavated the site in the village Gvankiti. The expedition was funded by the Georgian Pipeline Company and was focused to research the building which was partially excavated in 1998. The building seemed to be the remains of the church and was dated to the Early Medieval Period. The trench of 140 square meters was excavated. Two Cultural Layers were revealed here. The walls of the building had damaged the layer 2. This layer was attested near the N, S and E walls of the building and was destroyed by the walls. As for the layer 1, it was not disturbed and was attested at the upper level of the building. According to the stratigraphical profile, Layer 1 was of 35-40 centimeters, and the layer 2 – 40 – 50 centimeters. The layers were separated with the sterile layer of 20- 25 centimeters thickness. Figures: Fig. I - 1 – Gvankiti, the plan of the building revealed during the excavations; 2 – Stratigraphic profile; Fig. II – Archaeological material of the layer I; Fig. III - Archaeological material of the layer II.

Iulon Gagoshidze

GEORGIA AND “GRECO-PERSIAN” GEMS

Meeting and cooperation of Greeks and Persians in the sphere of glyptics is represented in so called Greco-Persian gems, were dated from the 5th-4th cc BC and were related mainly to Asia Minor (Furt- waengler, Maksimova, etc.). Further researchers of “Greco-Persian” glyptics showed that several more or less different groups can be distinguished in this large class of gems, identified on the basis of style, shape and motif, chronology of which covers Hellenistic period too, and the area of extension reaches such remote places in the East, as Taxila, in Pakistan, and as the major part of these gems was produced not for particularly the Persian market, it is reasonably to call them “Greco-Oriental gems” (Boardman). Ancient Georgia (Colchis and Iberia) was also one of those countries where contacts between Oriental (Achaemenian) and Greek (or: strongly Hellenized) cultures occurred already in Achaemenid epoch. This was followed by typologically the same kind of events, as in other regions of Persian and Alexander’s empires. Metal finger-rings, common in Georgia in the 5th-3rd cc BC (M. Lordkipanidze) must be included in the above mentioned class of Greco-Oriental gems. These rings form several local groups, but they are identified by the shape and engraving technique, which are obviously of Greek origin, and by the motifs of engraved representations, which are mainly local or (more) Achaemenid, adopted and developed on local grounds. Gems of different types (bezel-rings, scarabeoids, tabloids), in general sense, included in the circle of Greco-Oriental gems, were produced on the territory of Georgia during the whole Hellenistic epoch until early Roman period, including. Blue glass polyhedrons (tabloids) form a peculiar, independent group of gems of Greco-Oriental circle, common in Iberia (Kartli Kingdom), where

215 they were produced in the 1st (2nd-1st) cc BC, but remained in use until the 2nd c AD. Thus, ancient Georgia (Caucasia?) was a kind of reservation, where “Greco-Persian” (therefore: Iranian-Achaemenid) traditions of Achaemenid epoch were preserved till Roman period, both in old objects, as well as in active production. This idea concerns not only the sphere of glyptics. The same situation seems in other spheres of minor art (engraved bone plates, bronze buckles, etc.) and in architecture (temples of Dedoplis Mindori) too. Figures: Fig. I - The table of superposition of Blue glass polyhedrons (tabloids); Fig. II - 1-3 - Blue glass polyhedrons (tabloids): 1 – from Neron Deresi; 2 – from Neron Deresi, Abelia and Arkneti; 3a - from Neron Deresi, Abelia, Tuiachqochori, Lochini, and Azerbaijan (Karakopatepe); 3b – from Lochihi, Urbnisi, Sokhta, Brili, Nastagisi, Ossethia and Armenia (Gegadir, Leninakan); 4-14 - Metal finger-rings (signets) of th4 – century BC: 4-6 – from Sazeguri (silver); 7-8 - from Sazeguri (gold); 5-7 – from Kanchaeti (silver); 10, 12, 13, 14 - from Takhiziri (silver); 11, 18 - from Takhiziri (bronze); 15, 16, 17 – engraved bone sheet of 1st c. AD from Dedoplis Gora.

Irma Berdzenishvili

ABOUT EARLY CHRISTIAN TEMPLES IN SOKHUMI

The archaeological researches of Sokhumi began from 1950 and is continuing untill today. In 1987- 1990 and 2001-2003, during the archaeological excavations on the territory of Sokhumi fortress the remains of two Early Christian temples were revealed. First was the octagonal building, and the second - three naval basilica with pentahedral apse. It is noteworthy that during the excavations of octagonal temple the fragment of the tile with the stamp of XV Legio Apollinaris and the grave stone with Greek inscription “Here lies the soldier – legionnaire, Orestus, for the commemoration of whom this church was built “were unearthed. Near by, Christian burials built with brick were revealed. On the territory of Sokhumi fortress the ceramics decorated with Christian symbols (cross and the Symbol of Christ), dated by the bronze coins of Justinian period minted in 544-545 were revealed. The Temple complex of Sokhumi may be built in the 5th century, but the archaeological data and the written sources approve that some construction activities were undertaken in the 6th century. From the forties of the 6th century Bichvinta (Pitiunt) lost his leadership of the Christian Center in the region. Sebastopolis became the religious center and in the written sources of the 7th century it is mentioned as the Sebastopolis eparchy, later as the autonomous archbishop’s eparchy. The advancement of Sebastopolis was conditioned by its Geographical location. The road from to the north Caucasus was running through the Kodori gorge. This road had an important role for Sebastopolis from the 6th century, when the “Silk Road” was transferred to the north and the merchants were using Kodori gorge as the road from the north Caucasus to the Black Sea, where the main harbor was Sebastopolis. Figures: Fig. 1. Complex of early Christian churches in Sokhumi (after L. Khroushkova).

216 Irina Demetradze

GREEK POTTERY WARES FROM ATSQURI

The modern village of Atsquri lies in Akhaltsikhe district, in south Georgia. The village is located at the beginning of Borjomi Gorge, at about 900 m AMSL, on the valley, which is divided by the Kura river. A favourable environment and geographical location created constructive setting for the formation of an advanced settlement. Written sources as well as archaeological materials point out that, this area was crossed by one of the trade routes coming from east Anatolia. According to Georgian historical tradition the political centre of south Georgia was Atsquri. The archaeological investigations carried out in Atsquri revealed the settlement dated to the sixth-first centuries BC on the left bank of the Kura river. The settlement yielded a number of Greek imported pottery wares, alongside with the locally made items. Exposed artefacts significantly enriched and nuanced our understanding of Greek imports distribution within south Georgia and regional socio-economical history.The Greek imports were classified into two groups according to manufacturing centres and chronology. East Greek and Attic pottery wares demonstrated that Archaic, Classical and Hellenistic periods’ ceramics were imported into south Georgia. Archaic East Greek Band wares were mainly represented by cups, while Attic painted and black-glazed pottery by cups, plates, bowls, and skyphoi. All these artefacts displayed typical to their group’s clay texture, paint, and glaze. Among numerous archaeological sites of south Georgia only 12 are regarded as synchronous to the Atsquri Greek pottery. It is worth of mentioning that Greek imported pottery has only been documented at Atsquri site. The chronological range of Greek pottery indicates that the import has not been brought to Atsquri incidentally. It had accumulated there as a result of a long process, over broad time span that had its grounds. Greek pottery was represented mainly by tableware, which probable was used by nobility. The existence of a distinguished layer among the community of Atsquri, who owed valuable belongings emphasizes a differentiated society and on the other hand indicates the standing of the settlement. The fact that exclusively in Atsquri was identified expensive imported pottery, which means that the noble layer inhabited there, illustrates the status of the settlement as socio-economically advanced centre of the region. The discovery of wealthy burials near the settlement confirms these ideas as well. The findings of Greek imported pottery are rare in east and mountainous parts of Georgia. Atsquri imported pottery is still a single case in south Georgia. For that reason, gener- ated an opinion that Greek imports were mainly limited to Colchis (west Georgia). The Atsquri discovery changed presumption existed up to that time. However, most probably, Greek pottery reached south Georgia not by means of direct interactions with Greeks, but via links with west Georgia, where numerous archaeological sites yielded Greek pottery of Classical and Hellenistic periods in a great abundance. But, Greek Archaic pottery wares were only recognized at a few coastal sites of Colchis. Therefore, it thought to be that Greek pottery penetrated into south Georgia from particular western Georgian sites (Vani, Kobulet-Pichvnari, Simagre, Batumi Fortress). Western and eastern parts of Georgia were connected via Zekari and Goderdzi ridges since antiquity. Greek pottery wares were probable imported by this route. Thus, the discovery of Greek imported pottery in south Georgia is thought to be significant, since it highlighted an involvement of Atsquri community in an exchange system of antiquity. Figures : Fig I. Greek Imported Pottery Wares: 1. Rim and handle of Archaic East Greek banded cup; 2. Fragment of Archaic East Greek banded wares; 3. Fragments of Archaic East Greek banded wares; 4. Rim and handle of Attic pained skyphos; 5.Neck of Attic pained lekythos; 6. Rim of Attic black-glazed unidentified vessel; 7. Rim of Attic black-glazed bowl; 8. Handle of Attic black-glazed unidentified vessel; 9. Bottom of stemless Attic black-glazed cup; 10. Heel of Attic black-glazed unidentified vessel; 11. Heel of Attic black-glazed unidentified vessel; 12. Rim and body of Attic black-glazedplate; 13. Rim and body of Attic black-glazed incised bowl;

217 Fig. II. Greek Imported Pottery Wares: 1. Rim and handle of Archaic East Greek banded cup; 2. Frag- ment of Archaic East Greek banded wares; 3. Fragment of Archaic East Greek banded wares; 4. Rim and handle of Attic pained skyphos; 5. Neck of Attic pained lekythos; 6. Bottom of stemless Attic black- glazed cup; 7. Rim of Attic black-glazed plate; 8. Rim of Attic black-glazed bowl; 9.Rim and body of Attic black-glazed incised bowl.

Revaz Kvirkvaia

THE MAP OF PREHISTORIC AND CLASSICAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES OF MESKHET-JAVAKHETI

Historical province of Georgia, Meskhet – Javakheti, which includes Borjomi, Adigeni, Akhaltsikhe, Aspindza, Akhalqalaqi and Ninotsminda districts, is rich with Prehistoric and Classical period archaeological sites. In this article the archaeological sites found and excavated by various researchers are gathered. The sites are mapped with an approximate accuracy. The type of the site, dating and the books dealing with this question (mainly excavation reports) are pointed out. Figures: Fig. I – The Maps of Borjomi and Adigeni districts; Fig. II – The Maps of Akhaltsikhe and Aspindza districts; Fig. III – The Maps of Akhalqalaqi and Ninotsminda districts.

Nino Mindadze

THE PERSPECTIVE OF MEDICAL- ANTHROPOLOGICAL RESEARCHES BY THE EXAMPLE OF ANCIENT COLCHIS

The article refers to the problem of the role of diseases in the process of historical developement of the society. The speciphic Bio-Geo Environment – swampy feature supported spreading of malaria on the Kolchian Plane. Malaria had impacted the traditional culture of the Kolchian Plane population which accumulated the empirical knowledge about malaria, worked out the means of treatment and adaptation to the speciphic environment. It is supposed that the cult of malaria woman deity and it’s temples existed in ancient Colchis.

Vaja Sadradze

THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES OF ROMAN (LATE CLASSICAL) PERIOD FROM UREKI

It is supposed that the golden agraffe, finger-rings, thick bracelets, the plaque decorated with almandine stones, coins, iron bed etc, found at the archaeological sites of Roman Period in Ureki belong to the necropolis of the high aristocracy – Eristavs – Pitiakshs who were governing the province of Supsa – Natanebi. Due to the interests of Kartli (Iberia) kingdom, it is possible that officials of the Kingdom were controlling the road and the part of to the Black sea shore from this region. The process of formation of Guria Saeristavo – Sapitiaksho could begin from the Hellenistic or Early Roman Period.

218 Figures: Fig. I. 1 – Ureki, 1942, the remains of the iron bed from the so called hoard; 2 -amphora; 3 - golden finger ring; 4, 5 - golden finger ring with gem; 6 - golden bracelet; 7. - golden finger ring with almandine; 8-golden amulet; 9-11. – the fragment of golden pendant with markezit ; 12 – golden necklace; 13 – golden ear-ring with ruby ; 14 – golden agraffe Fig. II –1-3 – golden belt; 4 – silver finger ring; 5, 6 – silver ear-cleaner ; 7-9 – silver fibulae; 10 – glass beads; 11-14 – the fragments of silver pendant; Fig. III –1 – silver dish; 2-4 – glass vessels; 5 – golden buckle decorated with almandine stones.

Medea Sherozia

ABOUT THE DENARIUS OF THE EMPEROR AUGUSTUS AND IT’S LOCAL IMITATIONS

The basic means used in trade from the 2nd half of the 1st c AD. in Iberian kingdom was the denarius of Roman Emperor Augustus (Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus, 27 BC. - 14 AD.) At the same time Parthian drachma of Artabanus II (10-38 AD.) was used in the circulation. According to the previous attribution this coin was called Gotarze’s drachma. Both coins were used by the biggest part of the population. This was characteristic only for Iberia locally and didn’t include other Caucasian countries of that time, namely neighboring Albania and Armenia. 350 denarii of the Emperor Augustus are revealed on the territory of Georgia. The history of each discovery is documented, and 200 hundred out of these 350 were discovered in the old capital Mtskheta and its surroundings. 235 Parthian drachmas of Artabanus II were discovered also in Mtskheta and its surroundings. Next biggest number of these two coins was discovered at Jinvali cemetery in Aragvi gorge - the road to north Caucasus. 90% of Augustus denarii and Artabanus II drachma were discovered in the graves dated to the 2nd -3rd centuries AD. Due to the fact that Augustus denarius had a long history of circulation in Iberia, some scholars suggest that some part of those coins were minted locally. Though it is quite obvious today that low quality barbarian imitations of those coins were minted locally. In the numismatic funds of Georgian National Museum 15 barbarian imitations are preserved. They were discovered in different regions of Georgia - mainly in peripheries. Some of them were found in the well dated graves, as a result we can assume that these imitations existed already in the 1st century B.C. and that they were minted in the 2nd -3rd centuries also. Also it’s noteworthy that this coin was used as Charon’s obol that means that it had some importance in the money circulation. Although minting that kind of barbarian imitations was not a priority for the central government of the Kingdom, it was done by private persons mostly in provinces from time to time. Supposedly two or three centers existed independently from each other. Figures : Fig. I - 1. Mtskheta, Baiatkhevi, 1986, grave # 23, Mtskheta Archaeological Expedition,# 131; 2. Mtskheta, Samtavro, 1976: grave # 126, Mtskheta Archaeological Expedition,#339; 3. Tsitsamuri II, 1985, grave #3, Mtskheta Archaeological Expedition,# 40; 4. Jinvali, 1979: pit grave # 248, Numismatic Collec- tion of the National Museum of Georgia, Fund of Hoards #25340; 5. Mtskheta, Samtavro, 1976: grave # 164, Mtskheta Archaeological Expedition, #334; 6. Mtskheta, Nattakhtari I, 1981, pit grave # 5, Mtskheta Archaeological Expedition, #31; 7. Mtskheta, Karsniskhevi, 1976: pit grave # 35, Mtskheta Archaeological Expedition, #397; 8. Mtskheta, Samtavro, 1939: stone grave 144, Numismatic Collection of the National Museum of Georgia, Fund of Hoards #10011; 9. Mtskheta, Samtavro, 1939: stone grave 144, Numismatic Collection of the National Museum of Georgia, Fund of Hoards #10010; 10. Mtskheta, Samtavro, 1939: stone grave 144, Numismatic Collection of the National Museum of Georgia, Fund of Hoards #10007; 11.

219 Mtskheta, Samtavro, 1939: stone grave 144, Numismatic Collection of the National Museum of Georgia, Fund of Hoards #10008; 12. Mtskheta, Mogvtakari, 1977: tile-grave 6, Mtskheta Archaeological Expe- dition,#35; 13. Mtskheta, MogvTakari, 1977: tile-grave 3, Mtskheta Archaeological Expedition, #20; 14. Mtskheta, MogvTakari, 1977: tile-grave 3, Mtskheta Archaeological Expedition, #22;15. Mtskheta, Sam- tavro, 1939: tile-grave 116, Numismatic Collection of the National Museum of Georgia, Fund of Hoards #9981; 16. Mtskheta, Samtavro, 1938: tile-grave 32, Numismatic Collection of the National Museum of Georgia, Fund of Hoards 9953; 17. v. Qeleti, Khashuris region, 1971: accidental find, Numismatic Collec- tion of the National Museum of Georgia, Fund of Hoards #22623; 18. v. Cheremi, Gurjaani region, 1986: grave 2, Numismatic Collection of the National Museum of Georgia, Fund of Hoards #25755; Fig. II - 19. Dedoplis Gora, v. Doglaura, Qareli district, room 15, 2004: Numismatic Collection of the National Museum of Georgia, Fund of Hoards #26274; 20. Numismatic Collection of the National Muse- um of Georgia, Main Fund of Georgian Coins #4049; 21. Numismatic Collection of the National Museum of Georgia, Main Fund of Georgian Coins #1704; 22. Numismatic Collection of the National Museum of Georgia, Main Fund of Georgian Coins #3372; 23. Historical Museum of Erevan ( Armenia), #14162; 24. Pushkin Fine Art State Museum (Moscow, Russia); 25. Numismatic Collection of the National Museum of Georgia, Main Fund of Georgian Coins #4050; 26. Numismatic Collection of the National Museum of Georgia, Main Fund of Georgian Coins # 4051; 27. Numismatic Collection of the National Museum of Georgia, Main Fund of Georgian Coins #4052; 28. Numismatic Collection of the National Museum of Georgia, Main Fund of Georgian Coins #4053; 29. Numismatic Collection of the National Museum of Georgia, Main Fund of Georgian Coins #4054; 30. Numismatic Collection of the National Museum of Georgia, Main Fund of Georgian Coins #54; 31. Chiatura, Numismatic Collection of the National Museum of Georgia, Main Fund of Georgian Coins #1705; 32. Tsageri, Lechkhumi, 1946: Numismatic Collection of the National Museum of Georgia, Fund of Hoards #9446; 33. v. Baga, Dusheti region, 1982: grave 17, Nu- mismatic Collection of the National Museum of Georgia, Fund of Hoards #25444; 34. Svaneti, v. Tskhu- muri, Numismatic Collection of the National Museum of Georgia, Fund of Hoards #5103; 35. Numismatic Collection of the National Museum of Georgia, Main Fund of Georgian Coins #3425; 36. Numismatic Collection of the National Museum of Georgia, Main Fund of Georgian Coins #53.

Merab Dzneladze, Tamar Khokhobashvili

THE GRAVE WITH THE THRESHING BOARD FROM ABULMUGI

In 1985, archaeological expedition of Mashavera gorge in Kvemo Kartli, Dmanisi district found and excavated the cemetery of Early Hellenistic period (4th - 3rd cc. BC.) Abulmugi 1. Noteworthy is the grave # 22, which was covered with flat stones and the wooden threshing board. 20 graves with threshing boards are revealed in Transcaucasus – 17 from them are from Georgia: 1. Tsagvli (Khashuri district), The end of the Middle Bronze age, 17th – 16th centuries BC.; 2. Bornigele (Borjomi district) – 14th c BC; 3. Dzveli Qanda (Mtskheta district), 14th -13th cc. BC. 4. Digasheni; 5, 6. Gantiadi (Dmanisi district), 13th - 12th cc. BC.; 7. Samtavro (Mtskheta district), 8th – 7th cc. BC.; 8-9. Madneuli- Kazreti (Bolnisi district), 7th -6th cc. BC; 10. Kulbakevi (Tskhinvali district), 7th -6th cc. BC; 11. Abulmugi (Dmanisi district), 4th – 3rd cc, BC.; 12. Katlanikhevi (Gori district), 3rd – 2nd cc. BC.; 13-15. Nastakisi (Mtskheta district), 1st c. BC.; 16-17. Klde (Akhaltsikhe district) 4th 5th c. AD.; 18. Khanlar (Azerbaijan) the late of the 2nd millennium BC.; 19. Artik (Armenia), 12th – 11th cc. BC.; 20. Akhtala (Armenia), Early 1st millennium BC. All graves with threshing boards (except of Akhtala grave) are pit graves. In Katlanikhevi, Gantiadi And Samtavro the human remains were placed on the threshing boards, at other sites the board was covering the deceased.

220 Nutca Kipiani

RED-FIGURE SKYPHOI FROM VANI SITY-SITI

The article refers to two skyphoi unearthed in Vani. One of them was found in the grave # 24, another is a casual find outside the site. Both belong to the Atttic red-figure pottery of FB group. First is dated to the 4th c BC., another to the 375-350 BC. Figures: Fig. I - 1-2. Red-figure skyphos from Vani grave # 24 (Graphics by G. Kipiani); 3. Red-figure skyphos, casual find outside the site (Graphics by G. Kipiani); 4. Red-figure skyphos, casual find outside the site, side A, (Photo by G. Gogotishvili); 5. Red-figure skyphos, casual find outside the site, side B, (Photo by G. Gogotishvili).

Ketevan Javakhishvili

ACHAEMENID SEALS FROM GEORGIA

Six Achaemenid seals found in Georgia represents the variety of achaemenid seals. The seals are cla- siified according to the classification of J. Boardman. 1. Racha, v. Joisubani, west Georgia. On the surface of stripy agate cylindrical seal the Tree of Life and two standing, winged lions are depicted. This depiction belongs to the so called Eastern Court Style, the seal is dated to the 5th c. BC, or earlier period. 2. Kareli district, village Takhtidziri, East Georgia. On the prominent surface of the conical, blue chalcedony seal the stylized Tree of Life and wild goats are depicted. The depiction belongs to the Eastern Court Style, the seal is dated to the 1st half of the 5th c. BC. 3. Mtskheta, East Georgia. On the prominent surface of the piramydal chalcedony seal the crowned deity in his both hands holds the tails of two winged lions. The depiction belongs to the Western Court Style, the seal is dated to the 1st half of the 5th c. BC. 4. Mtskheta, Baiatkhevi. The depiction is carved on the four facets of the chalcedony tabloid. On the lower, wide facet the Persian horseman killing the lion with the spear is depicted. On the upper, small facet Maltese dog is depicted, and on other two, side facets leaping deer and gazelle. This Tabloid belongs to the so called Greco-Persian or Greco-Oriental seals and is dated to the second half of the 5th c – first half of the 4th c. BC. 5. Kakheti, v. Jimiti East Georgia. On the surface of the white chalcedony scarabeoid the horseman is fighting with big horned bull. Belongs to the so called Bern group and is probably dated to the 2ng c BC. 6. Bolnisi district East Georgia. On the surface of small, white chalcedony scarabeoid the lion is attacking the animal (roe?). Belongs to the so called Bern group and is probably dated to the 2ng c BC. Three Achaemenid seals discovered in Georgia (Mtskheta pyramidal seal, Baiatkhevi tabloid and Ji- miti tabloid) were found in the graves of Roman period ; the Joisubani cylindrical seal in the grave dated to the 4th c. BC.; Takhtidziri conical seal in the grave dated to the 4th – 3rd cc. BC. So we can see that all seals are found in more or less later context.

Figures : Fig. I – 1-2 - Stripy agate cylindrical seal from the village Joisubani, west Georgia ; 3-4 – Conical chalcedony seal from the village Takhtidziri, east Georgia; 5-6 – piramydal chalcedony seal from Mtskheta, rich tomb # 905, east Georgia; 7-9 - chalcedony tabloid from Mtskheta, Baiatkhevi, east Georgia ; 12-13 – chalcedony scarabeoid seal from Bolnisi district, east Georgia.

221 Goderdzi Narimanishvili

DARAQOI SETTLEMENT AND SOME PATTERNS OF HISTORY OF ACHAEMENID EPOCH TRANSCAUCASUS

Village Daraqoi is located in the historical region of Georgia, Kvemo Kartli, on the S slope of Trialeti mountain ridge, 15 kilometers to the NW from Tsalka (Fig. I, 1). The settlement is situated on the left bank of the small gorge near the village.The settlement was built on 2.5 hectares and only 300 square meters were excavated, where 9 dwellings, 20 storage pits and 2 pits with stone walls were revealed. The settlement consist of two cultural layers and several construction horizons. The upper layer is represented by dwellings, storage pits and pits with stone walls. The lower layer is represented by the storage pits (Fig. II, III). The upper layer is dated to the 5th and the mid 4th cc. BC. The lower layer is dated to the 6th century BC. Noteworthy is the red colored and painted pottery which is supposed to be originated from thr Achaemenid Iran. This kind of pottery could distributed in Kartli in that period when the Achaemenid Empire was focused on strengthening it’s northern border – mainly after 522-521 BC, when the activities of the Empire on this direction reched it’s peak. From the late 6th century BC the East and South parts of Transcaucasus were included in the Empire as Satrapies (11th, 18th and 19th). The central part of Trans- caucasus (subsequently Kartli Kingdom) was ruled by Mamasakhlisi of Kartli, who was controlling this part of Caucasus mountain passes untill the collapse of the Empire. The west part of Transcaucasus was controlled by the rulers of Egrisi. The political status of Kartli (and Transcaucasus was conditioned by the important military-strategic location and trading crossroads. The Natural border – Caucasian mountains was important for stopping the nomad tribes of northern steppes. Neutralizing the nomad tribes during the confrontation of south and north and defending the northern border was one of main strategic goals of Achaemenid empire which was trying to control Caucassian mountain passes. In 522-521 BC Achaemenid Empire concured Armenia, in 515 BC –Thrace and was ready to invade Scythia. King Darius the Great, presumedly should also control the Caucasian passes. Due to the archaeological material and written sources, it becomes clear that for the moment of invading in Scythia the strong fortification system was existing, which was begining in Central Azia and included Caucasus and Thrace. This defence line was built across the river Amudaria, Caucasian mountains and r. Danube. Figures: Fig. I – 1. The map of Transcaucasus and Near East; 2. Topo plan of Daraqoi settlement; Fig. II – 1. Daraqoi settlement, plan (level II); 2. Daraqoi settlement, plan (level III); Fig. III – 1. Daraqoi settlement, profiles; Fig. IV – 1. dwelling # 4, detail; 2. dwelling # 7, altar; 3. dwelling # 1, general view from east; 4. dwelling # 5 and # 4, general view from east; Fig. V – 1, 2. dwelling # 4, hearth; 3, 4. dwelling # 4, hearth. Plans and profiles; Fig. VI – 1, 2. dwelling # 1, altar; 3. dwelling # 1, hearth, drawing; 4. dwelling # 1, altar, drawing; Fig. VII. Red painted pottery from Daraqoi settlement -1,13,17,19,24,42,46 -dwelling #1; 2,3,5-7,912,16,21,22,25,27-29,33,36,41,43,44,47,49 - dwelling # 6; 4. pits with stone walls # 2; 8,14,15,18,20,23,26,30-32,34,35,38,39,45,48. dwelling # 7; 37 - dwelling # 4. 40 - dwelling # 5. Fig. VIII. Pottery from Daraqoi settlement -1,6,7,11-16,18-20,24 - dwelling # 6; 2-4,8,29,37,41,44,45, 48,49,51,52 - dwelling # 4; 5,9,33- dwelling # 2; 17,21-23,25-28,34,35,38,42,43,46,47,50,53- dwelling # 1; 30-32, 36,39,40- dwelling # 7; Fig. IX. Pottery from Daraqoi settlement - 1,2,4,7,10,12-19,21-41,43,45-50- dwelling # 1; 3,5,6,8,9,11,20,42 - dwelling # 6; 44 - dwelling # 2; Fig. X. Pottery from the pits excavated at Daraqoi settlement -1,2,22,23,29,33,37,43,49. pit # 13; 3,4,11- 13,30,32,34-36,38,39,41,44 - pit # 11; 5-9,14-18,21,26 - pit # 8; 10,42,47. pit # 2; 19,51. pit 7; 20,24,45. pit # 10; 25,27,40 - pit # 6; 28,31,48,50 - pit # 1; 46 - pit # 12; Fig. XI. Pottery from the pits and pits with stone walls excavated at Daraqoi settlement -1,4,5,7- 15,18,22-24,26,27,34,36,40 – pit # 16; 2,3,20,30,32,35,41. – pit with stone walls # 1; 6,16,17,19,21,25,28,29,42 – pit # 15; 31,33,37-39. pit # 19.

222 SemoklebaTa ganmarteba ABBREVIATIONS akc – arqeologiuri kvlevis centri aZ – arqeologiuri Ziebani enimki – enis, materialuri kulturisa da istoriis instituti iberia-kolxeTi – saqarTvelos klasikuri da adremedievuri periodis arqeologiur-istoriuli kvlevani Tstug – Tbilisis saxelmwifo teqnikuri universitetis gamomcemloba mska _ masalebi saqarTvelosa da kavkasiis arqeologiaSi mski _ masalebi saqarTvelosa da kavkasiis istoriisaTvis sdsZ – samxreT-dasavleT saqarTvelos Zeglebi ssmae _ saqarTvelos saxelmwifo muzeumis arqeologiuri eqspediciebi smam – saqarTvelos mecnierebaTa akademiis moambe ssmm _ saqarTvelos saxelmwifo muzeumis moambe qc - qarTlis cxovreba Zm - Zeglis megobari АО – Археологические Открытия ВВр. – Византийский Временник ВГМГ – Вестник государственного музея Грузии ВДИ – Вестник древней истории. ИФЖ – Историко-филологический журнал ЗКВАМР – Записки Коллегии востоковедов при Академии Музея Россииской Академии Наук. ИКИИ – Известия Кавказского Историко-Археологического Института ИРАИМК – Известия Россииской Академии Истории Материальной Культуры КСИИМК – Краткие сообщения Института Истории материальной Культуры МАК- Материалы по археологии Кавказа МАР - Материалы по археологии России МИА – Материалы и исследования по археологии СССР ПАИ – Полевые археологические исследования СА – Советская археология ТОНГЭ – Труды отдела нумизматики Государственного Эрмитажа AA – Archäologischer Anzeiger AMAT – Archäologische mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan DHA – Dialogues d'historie ancienne JHS – Journal of Hellenic Studies

223 avtorTa sayuradRebod

saqarTvelos erovnuli muzeumis oTar lorTqifaniZis arqeologiis centris kre- bulSi _ `iberia-kolxeTi~ saqarTvelos klasikuri da adremedievuri periodis arqeologiur-istoriuli, samecniero xasiaTis statiebi ibeWdeba. amieridan krebulSi statiebi qarTul da inglisur enebze iqneba. redaqcia iRebs statiebs 15 gverdamde. am moculobaSi Sedis: statia, literaturis sia, grafikuli tabulebis da fotoebis aRweriloba, sailustracio masala. redaqcias unda Cabardes statiebis eleqtronuli versiebi da maTi amonabeWdebi. gverdis zoma – A4; Srifti – LitNusx, zoma – 12, erTi intervali. damowmebuli literaturis miTiTebis wesi: teqstSi miTiTeba kvadratul fr- CxilebSi xdeba. Mmag.: [lorTqifaniZe oT. 1987: 129, tab. I, sur. 5]. literaturis sia, biloSi, dalagebuli unda iyos anbanis rigiT _ qarTuli, rusu- li, laTinuri; Tu aucilebelia, sxva Sriftebze warmodgenili literaturis dasax- eleba (mag. berZnuli SriftiT), is sias boloSi erTvis. avtoris gvari, inicialebi, gamocemis weli, saxelwodeba, gamocemis adgili. mag.: lorTqifaniZe oT. 2002: Zveli qarTuli civilizaciis saTaveebTan. Tbilisi. perioduli gamocemis an krebulis miTiTebisas maTi saxelwodeba unda gamoiyos defisiT. aucilebelia gverdebis sruli miTiTeba. mag.: Gamkrelidze G. 1998: Ein Rhyton mit Götterdarstellung aus der Kolchis. - Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan, Band 30, Ber- lin, S. 211-216. Tu erTsa da imave avtors erT weliwadSi ori an meti naSromi aqvs gamo- qveynebuli, isini unda dalagdes saTaurebis anbanuri rigis mixedviT da dainomros laTinuri asoebiT. mag.: Шелов Д. 1956a: Шелов Д. 1956b: calke gverdze unda iyos warmodgenili gamoyenebul SemoklebaTa ganmartebis sia. moTxovnebi ilustraciuli masalis mimarT: fotoebis eleqtronuli versia, maRali xarisxis, aranakleb 300 rezoluciis, mkveTri gamosaxulebiT. grafikuli tabulebi kompiuterulad Sesrulebuli, Tiff formatSi, aranakleb 600 rezoluciis. ilustraciul masalas Tan unda axldes suraTebisa da tabulebis aRwera. statia unda Cabardes arqeologiis centris, krebul _ `iberia-kolxeTi”-s saredaqcio sabWos mdivans m. Carkvians an mT. redaqtors _ g. gamyreliZes.