Iberia-Colchis N13

IBERIA - COLCHIS iberia-kolxeTi saqarTvelos klasikuri da adremedievuri periodis arqeologiur-istoriuli kvlevani IBERIA - COLCHIS iberia - kolxeTi Researches on the Archaeology and History of Georgia in the Classical and Early Medieval Period 9771512420006 13 № 13 2017 saqarTvelos erovnuli muzeumis oTar lorTqifaniZis arqeologiis centri GEORGIAN NATIONAL MUSEUM Journal of Otar Lordkipanidze Centre of Archaeology 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 13 Tbilisi 2017 T b i l i s i Editor-in-Chief: Gela Gamkrelidze Editorial & Reviewers Board: Z. Bragvadze, D. Braund (UK), N. Lordkipanidze, D. Kacharava, M. Kvatchadze, G. Kvirkvelia, D. Mindorashvili, M. Charkviani, G. Narimanishvili, V. Shatberashvili Layout: Irakli Khutsishvili, Irakli Devdariani *** mT. redaqtori: gela gamyreliZe saredaqcio-sarecenzio sabWo: zurab bragvaZe, devid braundi, nino lorTqifaniZe, darejan kaWarava, marine kvaWaZe, guram kvirkvelia, daviT mindoraSvili, goderZi narimaniSvili, vaxtang SatberaSvili, maia Carkviani teqnikuri uzrunvelyofa: irakli xuciSvili, irakli devdariani See the web site: http://ancientworldonline.blogspot.com/2014/09/open-access-jpournal-iberia-kolxeti.html http://dspace.nplg.gov.ge/browse?type=author&value=Gamkrelidze%2C+Gela Address: Otar Lordkipanidze Centre of Archaeology 14, D. Uznadze str. Tbilisi, 0102, Georgia E-mail: iberiacolchis@yahoo.com. © saqarTvelos erovnuli muzeumi. 2017 ISSN 1512-4207 UDC 94(479.22)+902. i-315 Sinaarsi CO N T E N T S revaz kvirkvaia, artefaqtebi sof. leRvnidan (Revaz Kvirkvaia, ARTIFACTS FROM LEGHVANI).................................................................................5 goderZi narimaniSvili, aRmosavleT saqarTvelos Zv.w. VII‑ax.w. VII ss. keramika (Goderdzi Narimanishvilli, POTTERY OF 7th CENTURY BC-7th CENTURY AD FROM EAST GEORGIA) ................................................................... 21 giorgi maxaraZe, iberia‑kolxeTi diadoqosebis xanaSi (Giorgi Makharadze, IBERIA-COLCHIS IN THE DIADOCHOI ERA) .........72 ana gabunia, gliptikis nimuSebi saqarTvelos erovnuli muzeumis koleqciidan (Ana Gabunia, ROMAN ENGRAVED GEMS FROM THE COLLECTION OF GEORGIAN NATIONAL MUSEUM) ................................... 87 daviT lomitaSvili, besik lorTqifaniZe, nikoloz murRulia, pol everili, ian qolvini, xunwis cixe (Davit Lomitashvili, Besik Lortkifanidze, Nikoloz Murghulia, Paul Everill, Ian Colvin, FORTRESS OF KHUNTSI) .................99 vaxtang SatberaSvili, Ggiorgi Caduneli, antikuri xanis masala kaspis muzeumidan (Vakhtang Shatberashvili, Giorgi Chaduneli, ARTIFACTS OF CLASSICAL PERIOD FROM KASPI MUSEUM) ..............................................112 qeTevan ramiSvili, zebede SatberaSvili†, gvianantikuri xanis mdi‑ druli samarxebi sof. okamidan (Ketevan Ramishvili, Zebede Shatberashvili, RICH BURIALS OF LATE ROMAN PERIOD FROM THE V. OKAMI)........................ 120 nuca yifiani, dionisur siuJetiani wiTelfiguruli krateri (Nutsa Kipiani, THE RED FIGURE CRATER) ........................................................ 126 marine fircxalava, Zvlis buniki Trelis namosaxlaridan (Marina Pirtskhalava, BOUTEROLLE FROM THE SETTLEMENT OF TRELIGOREBI ...... 129 recenziebi: zurab bragvaZe, alik gabelia _ afxazeTi winarean‑ tikur da antikur epoqaSi................................................... 137 3 PPAPERS IN ENGLISH: Natela Jabua, QUESTIONS OF SUCCESSION IN THE PRE-CHRISTIAN AND EARLY MEDIEVAL ARCHITECTURE OF GEORGIA ......................................................... 140 Paul Everill, Davit Lomitashvili, Nikoloz Murgulia, Ian Colvin, Besik Lortkipanidze, FORTY SEASONS OF EXCAVATION: NOKALAKEVI-TSIKHEGOJIARCHAEOPOLIS ...................................................................................... 146 Nicolas J. PREUD’HOMME, BACURIUS, THE MAN WITH TWO FACES .................... 166 SUMMARIES ................................................................................................... 193 Semoklebebis ganmarteba: ABREVIATIONS ...................................... 203 informacia avtorebisaTvis ........................................................ 204 4 revaz kvirkvaia artefaqtebi sof. leRvnidan sof. leRvani mdebareobs xaragaulis municipalitetSi, md. leRvnulas xeobaSi,D daba xaragaulidan daSorebulia 12 kmiT, xolo rkinigzis sadgur marelisidan 4 km-iT. istoriul wyaroebSi pirvelad moxaseniebulia XVIII s-Si. adgili, romelic „vefxvaZeebis goris” saxeliTaa cnobili, soflis Crdilo-aRmosavleTiT, zRvis donidan 560-562 m. simaRleze, e.w. „pirvel ubanSi” mdebareobs, romelsac „kodabolosac” uwodeben da arc Tu ise maRal borcvs warmoadgens, romlis saerTo farTi ramdenime heqtaria. is axla kerZo sakuTrebaSia da nawilobriv Txilis plantaciaa gaSenebuli. 1978 wels, miwis samuSaoebis dros, daaxloebiT im adgilas, sadac amJamad plantaciaSi Sesasvleli WiSkaria, adamianis Zvlebi da sxvadasxva nivTebi aRmoCnda, romlebic robert vefxvaZem xaragaulis istoriul muzeums Caabara da axlac iq inaxeba (madlobas movaxsenebT xaragaulis muzeumis TanamSromlebs masalaze muSaobisas gaweuli daxmarebisaTvis). koleqcia aSkarad samarxeuli inventaris STabeWdilebas tovebs, Tumca ufro „leRvnis ganZis” saxeliTaa cnobili. koleqcia aqamde mecnierulad Seswavlili ar yofila, mxolod xaragaulis istoriisa da kulturuli memkvidreobisadmi miZRvnil oriode popularul wignsa da statiaSia naxsenebi [vefxvaZe, 2010:256; vefxvaZe, 2016:93]. aRsaniSnavia isic, rom koleqcia SecdomiT Zv.w. meore da pirveli aTaswleulebis mijniT iyo daTariRebuli. Cven ki mas gvinantikuri xaniT - ax.w. II-III ss. vaTariRebT. CvenTvis ucnobia ra viTarebaSi aRmoCnda es nivTebi, amitom arc imis Tqma SegviZlia Tu ramdeni samarxi ganadgurda, aris Tu ara koleqcia erTi kompleqsi da moxvda Tu ara muzeumSi yvela is nivTi, romelic iq aRmoCnda. Aam eWvs aZlierebs isic, rom Cabarebulia mxolod brinjaosa da erTi vercxlis nivTi da araa arc erTi rkinis artefaqti.E es SesaZloa imiTac aixsnas, rom rkinis korozirebul nivTebs yuradReba ar miaqcies da muzeums ar Caabares. Tumca arc isaa gamoricxuli, rom rkinis nivTebi (iaraRi) arc iyo am samarxSi Tu samarxebSi, vinaidan SesaZloa qalebisa da bavSvebis samarxebi yofiliyo. Aam mosazrebis sasargeblod SeiZleba metyvelebdes samkaulisa da samSvenisebis siuxve da patara zomis, bavSvis samajurebi da fibulebi.A araa arc Tixis WurWeli, romelic didi albaTobiT samarxebSi unda yofiliyo. Tu gaviTvalswinebT imas, rom koleqciaSi aris sami Wviruli balTa da Tvrameti zambariseburi sakidi, SeiZleba vivaraudoT, rom ganadgurebulia erTze meti, SesaZloa ori-sami samarxi. bunebrivia, SeuZlebelia samarxTa agebulebasa da dakrZalvis wesze raimes gadaWriT Tqma, agreTve Tqma imisa, individualuri samarxebi ganadgurda, wyviladi Tu koleqtiuri. vinaidan TviTmxilvelTagan araviTar cnobas akldamebis an qviTnagebi samarxebis ganadgurebis Sesaxeb ar vflobT, didi albaTobiT micvalebulebi inhumaciurad iyvnen dakrZaluli, xolo samarxebi ormosmarxebi iyo. gasaTvaliswinebelia isic, rom am periodiT daTariRebuli boris, kldeeTisa da savaraudod, sargveSis mdidruli samarxebic (xaragaulis muzeumSi gavecaniT “sargveSis ganZis” aRmoCenis TviTmxilvelis, daviT CikvaiZis Canawerebs, saidanac irkveva, rom iqac micvalebuli ormosamarxSi yofila dakrZaluli) - ormosamarxebia. rogorc Cans, gvianantikur xanaSi am regionisaTvis, iseve rogorc saqarTvelos sxva regionebisTvisac damaxasiaTebeli yofila micvalebiulTa inhumaciuri dakrZalva ormosamarxebSi [lomTaTiZe, 1957:162]. koleqcia 55 nivTisagan Sedgeba da daniSnulebis mixedviT ramdenime jgufad SeiZleba daiyos (frCxilebSi mocemulia sainventaro nomrebi. grafikuli tabulebi ekuTvnis rusudan beriZes, fotoebi revaz kvirkvaias da rusudan beriZes). samkauli: sakidi. brinjao, bikonusuri, Wviruli. mrgvalganivkveTiani sakidi rgoliT. qveviT aqvs oTxi burTula. simaRle - 4,8 sm (tab. I-1 (1-179), Ffoto 1-1). sakidi. brinjao, bikonusuri, Wviruli. mrgvalganivkveTiani sakidi rgoliT. qveviT aqvs oTxi burTula. simaRle - 4,5 sm (tab. I-2 (179), Ffoto 1-2). 5 sakidi. brinjao, giriseburi. aqvs sakidi rgoli. Sua adgilas da boloSi datanilia kopebi. simaRle - 3,5 sm. (tab. I-21 (178), foto 2). sakidebi (2 c.). brinjao, giriseburi. aqvT sakidi rgoli da damSvenebulni arian kopebiT. 1) simaRle – 3 sm. 2) simaRle - 2,8 sm. (tab. I-11,12 (177).F foto. 3). sakidi. brinjao, naxevarrkaluri. Ggamsxvilebuli Tavebi damSvenebulia „drakonTa” gamosaxulebiT. Reros Sua nawilSi, gabrtyelebul adgilas, aqvs sakmaod didi, ovaluri naxvreti. sigrZe - 3 sm. simaRle - 2,4 sm. (tab. I-24 (477).F foto 4). sakidebi (18 c.). brinjao, zambariseburi. grZel, mrgvalganivkveTian Reroze daxveulia mrgvalganivkveTiani mavTuli. aqvT sakidi rgoli. simaRle - 3,8 - 4 sm. (tab. I-13 (185).F foto 5). sakidi. brinjao, diskos firmis wina mxares amozneqili da ukana mxares Cazneqili. wina mxares, napiras datanilia aTi sakmaod maRali burcobi. Aaseve Semkulia ramdenime rigad datanili kincentruli wreebiTa da Wdeuli xazebiT. aqvs erTi naxvreti, romelic albaT sakidi zonris gasayrelad iyo gankuTvnili. dm. - 8 sm. (tab. IV-37 (1-167).F foto 6). beWedi.B brinjao, brtyelganivkveTiani, Tavebgaxsnili, TavebTan gafarToebuli. dm. - 2,8 sm. (tab. I-8 (183). foto 7). beWedi.B brinjao, brtyelganivkveTiani, Tavebgaxsnili. dm. - 2 sm. (tab. I-23 (184).F foto 8). samajuri. Bbrinjao, mrgvalganivkveTiani, TavebmokauWebuli, Tavebi Semkulia wiwvovani ornamentiT. dm. - 4,5 sm. (tab. I-5 (1-181). foto 9). sayure (?). brinjao, mrgvalganivkveTiani,D deformirebuli. sigrZe -0,8 sm. (tab. I-20 (6962). rgoli.B brinjao, mrgvalganivkveTiani. dm. - 2,8 sm. (tab. I-3 (180). foto 10). rgoli.B brinjao, brtyelganivkveTiani, boloebmokauWebuli. dm. - 3 sm. (tab. I-7 (182). foto 11). samoselTan dakavSirebuli nivTebi: fibula. Bbrinjao, mcire zomis, mSvildiseburi. aqvs ovalurganivkveTiani, ornamentirebuli Rero da oTxkuTxaganivkveTiani, Reroze daxveuli ena. sigrZe - 4,7 sm. simaRle - 3,3 sm. (tab. I-16 (185).F foto 12). fibula.B brinjao, mcire zomis, mSvildiseburi. aqvs ovalurganivkveTiani, or- namentirebuli Rero da wvrili, Reroze daxveuli ena. sigrZe - 4,8 sm. simaRle - 3,2 sm. (tab. I-17 (185). Ffoto 12). fibula.B brinjao, mcire zomis, mSvildiseburi. aqvs ovalurganivkveTiani, ornamentirebuli Rero, mrgvalganivkveTiani, Reroze daxveuli ena, romelic erT adgilas gabrtyelebulia. sigrZe - 4 sm. simaRle - 3,8 sm. (tab. I-19 (185).F foto 12). fibula. Bbrinjao, nakluli, aklia ena. Rero ovalurganivkveTiani, morkaluli da sadaa. sigrZe -3,5 sm. simaRle - 2 sm. (tab. I-18 (185).F foto12). balTa. brinjao, Wviruli, Camosxmuli, Kkvadratuli formis, rTuli kompoziciiT: centraluri figuraa qorbuda iremi, romelis qveS, fexebs Soris gamosaxulia gaurkveveli cxoveli, xolo zurgze xari. win or fexze mdgari cxoveli (ZaRli? mtacebeli?) saxiT irmis drunCs exeba. CarCo Semkulia ornamentiT. wina mxares oTxive kuTxeSi aqvs maRali, konusuri Sverilebi. ukana mxares aqvs kauWi da mamali dugma. balTa deformirebuli da korozirebulia. zomebi: 14X14 sm. CarCos sigane - 2,5 sm. Sverilebis simaRle - 2,5 sm. (tab. II-25 (1-1).F foto 13). balTa. brinjao, Wviruli, Camosxmuli,K kvadratuli formis, rTuli kompoziciiT: centraluri figuraa qorbuda iremi, romelis qveS da zurgze gamosaxulia gaurkveveli cxoveli (mtacebeli?), win ki or fexze mdgari cxoveli (ZaRli? mtacebeli?), romelic saxiT irmis drunCs exeba. CarCos sam rigad Semouyveba TavTaviseburi ornamenti, wina mxares oTxive kuTxeSi aqvs maRali, konusuri Sverilebi.U ukana mxares aqvs kauWi da mamali dugma. zomebi: 11,5X12,5 sm. CarCos sigane – 1,5 sm. Sverilebis simaRle – 1 sm. (tab. II-26 (1-164).F foto 14). balTa. brinjao, Wviruli, Camosxmuli, Kkvadratuli formis, rTuli kompoziciiT: centraluri figuraa cxeni, romlis zurgze dgas xari, fexebs Soris frTagaSlili frinveli, win ki or fexze mdgari cxoveli (ZaRli? mtacebeli?) saxiT cxenis drunCs exeba. CarCos sam rigad Semouyveba TavTaviseburi ornamenti. wina mxares oTxive kuTxeSi aqvs maRali, konusuri Sverilebi,U ukana mxares ki kauWi da mamali dugma. zomebi: 13X13 sm. CarCos sigane - 2 sm. Sverilebis simaRle 3-3,3 sm. (tab. II-27 (1-165). Ffoto 15). balTis fragmenti. CarCos kuTxe. SemorCenilia masze gamosaxuli cxove- 6 lis fexis nawili. CarCos or rigad Semouyveba TavTaviseburi ornamenti (tab. I-15 (6957).F foto 16). insigniis niSani an sakulto nivTi: kverTxisTavi.B brinjao, patara zomis, bikonusuri, gamWoli naxvretiT, SuaSi nawiburiT. damSvenebulia verZis Tavis sami plastikuri gamosaxulebiT. simaRle - 3 sm. xvrelis dm. - 1,2 -1,5 sm. (tab. I-10 (173).F foto 17, 18). mcire plastika (sakulto nivTebi, samSvenisebi): irmis figura (sakidi). brinjao,A aqvs maRali yeli, mogrZo da viwro drunCi, orad gantotili rqebi. ukana fexebi ufro dabalia, vidre wina. muclis mxare brtyelia, zurgisa odnav amoburculi. sakidi darCilulia yelsa da zurgze. simaRle - 3 sm, tanis sigrZe - 2,5 sm. (tab. III28 (1-169). Ffoto 19-1). irmis figura (sakidi). brinjao,A aqvs maRali yeli, mogrZo da viwro drunCi, orad gantotili rqebi. ukana fexebi ufro dabalia, vidre wina. muclis mxare brtyelia, zurgisa odnav amoburculi. pirvel figurasTan SedarebiT, aqvs ufro maRali da gantotili rqebi da ufro maRali wina fexebi. simaRle - 3 sm. tanis sigrZe - 2,8 sm. (foto 19-2). verZis figura (sakidi). brinjao, aqvs maRali yeli, grZeli da viwro drunCi. muclis mxare brtyelia, zurgisa amoburculi. aqvs Caxveuli rqebi, mokle fexebi. zurgze aqvs sakidi rkali. simaRle - 3,4 sm. sigrZe - 4 sm. (tab. III-29 (1-170).F foto 20). verZis figura (sakidi). brinjao, aqvs patara, wawvetebuli drunCi, msxvili, Caxveuli rqebi, morkaluli tani, mokle, gaSlili fexebi, mokle da msxvili kudi, Tvalebi gamosaxulia kopebiT, zurgze da kiserze mimagrabulia sakidi rkali. sigrZe - 2,5 sm. simaRle - 2 sm. sigane - 0,7 sm. (tab. III-35 (1-171).F foto 21). jixvis Tavis figura (sakidi). brinjao, aqvs grZeli da msxvili drunCi, Tvalebi gamosaxulia kopebiT.K kopi aqvs Tavzec. Oori grZeli da gantotili rqa orive mxares TavTan brinjaos RerakiTaa SeerTebuli. rqebs Soris aqvs sakidi rkali. sigrZe - 5 sm., sigane SublTan - 1 sm., sigane rqebs Soris - 5,5 sm. (tab. III-32 (1-172).F foto 22). jixvis Tavis figura (sakidi). brinjao, aqvs grZeli, odnav morkaluli drunCi, Tvalebi gamosaxulia kopebiT,K kopi aqvs Tavzec. Oori grZeli da ganto- tili rqa orive mxares TavTan brinjaos RerakiTaa SeerTebuli. rqebs Soris aqvs sakidi rkali. sigrZe - 3 sm., sigane rqebs Soris - 4,5 sm. (tab. III-34 (1-173).F foto 23). xaris figura (sakidi). brinjao. saxe Zalze stilizebuladaa gamosaxuli: ar etyoba Tvalebi da nestoebi.A aqvs grZeli da morkaluli rqebi. tani sakmaod wvrilia (mWle xaris STabeWdilebas tovebs). oTxive fexi wina aqvs gadadmuli, rac cxovelis figuras dinamiurobas aniWebs. aqvs mokle kudi. zurgze darCilulia sakidi rkali. sigrZe - 5,5 sm. simaRle - 3,8 sm. (tab. III-31 (145).F foto 24). gaurkveveli cxovelisa Tu mcuravi frinvelis figurebi (sakidi. 2 c.). brinjao. aqvT maRali yeli, wvrili da wawvetebuli drunCi (niskarti?), Tavze aziT or-ori kopi. aqvT gabrtyelebuli wina fexebi (TaTebi?), ukana fexebi ara aqvT. tanis ukana nawili gabrtyelebulia. zurgze da kiserze mirCilulia sakidi rkali.O orive figura formiTac da zomebiTac erTnairia. simaRle - 2, 5 sm., tanis sigane - 3 sm. sigane fexebTan - 1,1 sm. (tab. III-30 (1-168). Ffoto 25). gaurkveveli daniSnulebis nivTebi: diskoseburi nivTi. vercxli, wina mxares amozneqili, ukana mxares Cazneqili. SuaSi aqvs farTo, amoburculi Sverili. wina mxares napirTan Semouyveba patara burcobebi. amSvenebs aseTive burcobebiT Seqmnili 5 samkuTxedi, romlebic wveriT centrisaken arian mimarTulni. naxvreti an sakidi rkali ara aqvs. amitomac verafers vambobT misi daniSnulbis Sesaxeb. dm. - 5,5 sm. (tab. IV-36 (1-166).F foto 26). nivTis fragmenti. brinjao. patara, morkaluli. erTi bolo gabrtyelebulia, meore motexili. ornamentirebulia. dm. – 1,5 sm., sigrZe - 4,5 sm. (tab. I-9 (6960). Reraki. brinjao, ovalurganivkveTiani. sigrZe – 2,5 sm. (tab. I-4 (6961). Reraki. Bbrinjao, oTxkuTxaganivkveTiani, morkaluli. sigrZe – 2 sm. (tab. I-22 (6958). Reraki. Bbrinjao, ovalurganivkveTiani. sigrZe – 2 sm. (tab. I-14 (6959). gaurkveveli nivTis fragmenti. brinjao. (tab. III-33 (6702). koleqciis daTariReba araa Zneli, radgan masSi Semavali nivTebis did nawils mravlad eZebneba paralelebi kargad daTariRebul Zeglebze. am mxriv pirvel rigSi sayuradReboa msgavseba 7 kldeeTis samarovnis masalasTan, sadac aRmoCenilia sruliad msgavsi jixvisa da irmis figurebi, bikonusuri, Wviruli sakidebi, zambariseburi sakidebi da Wviruli balTa [lomTaTiZe 1957: tab. VIII, IX, XIII, XIV]. msgavsi jixvisa da irmis figurebi aRmoCenilia borSi [kvirkvaia, da sxv., 2016: 32-33. tab. I-1-3; foto 1-3], aragvis xeobaSi – neZixisa da badrianebis samarovanze [ramiSvili, 2007: tab VII, 5-9; XI, 1-5], samTavros № 540 kramitsamarxSi [manjgalaZe, 1985:70, sur. 337], mogvaTakaris samarovnis № 6 samarxSi [sixaruliZe da sxv., 1985:122, sur. 672, 681], karsnisxevis № 27 kramitsamarxSi [afaqiZe da sxv., 1978: 4851, sur. 261, 264, 266].Y yvela maTgani gvianantikuri xanisaa. leRvanis koleqciaSi Semavali bikonusuri da giriseburi sakidebis msgavsi nivTebi aRmoCenilia Jinvalis samarovnis III s-iT daTariRebul samarxebSi [CixlaZe 2015:72, 75, tab. LXIII, 47-51; LXII, 181-182, 389-390].A aqve aRmoCnda leRvanis koleqciaSi Semavali cxovelisa Tu mcuravi frinvelis msgavsi figurebi, romlebsac v. CixlaZe „cxvris stilizebul gamosaxulebad” miiCnevs [CixlaZe, 2015:96, tab. XXXIX:493-494]. e.w. „drakonisTavian” sakids, romelic Sida qarTlSia aRmoCenili da romlis msgavsi nivTi leRvnis koleqciaSicaa, b. kuftini „parTiuli” xaniT aTariRebs [Куфтин 1949:24, Рис. 3], amave periodisaa olginskoesa (webelda) da liaSi aRmoCenili analogiuri sakidebic [afxazava, 2010:tab. IX-6; wiTlanaZe, 1973:tab. I]. koleqciaSi aris iseTi nivTic, romlis msgavsic versad moviZieT, kerZod, kverTxisTavi verZis Tavebis plastikuri gamosaxulebiT, romelic Cveni azriT, sakulto sagani an insigniis niSani unda iyos. gvianantikuri xanis ZeglebiT es regioni rogorc Cans sakmaod mdidaria. amaze metyvelebs SemTxveviT aRmoCenili nivTebi, romlebic ermitaJSi, saqarTvelos erovnul muzeumSi, quTaisisa da xaragaulis muzeumebSia daculi. marto borisa da sargveSis mdidruli samarxeuli inventari rad Rirs [Придик, 1914; Tschubinaschvili, 1925]. b A orSi SemTxveviT aRmoCenili saintereso koleqciebia daculi saqarTvelos erovnuli muzeumis s. janaSias saxelmwifo muzeumSi [kvirkvaia, da sxv., 2016:31-55], quTaisisa da xaragaulis muzeumebSi.A amas garda, xaragaulis istoriul muzeumSi daculia Wviruli balTa da fibula sof. RoreSadan (foto 29-30), Wviruli balTebi sof. qrolidan (garkveuli mizezebis gamo muzeumis saaRricxvo dokumentebSi balTis aRmoCenis adgilad sof. bazaleTia miTiTebuli. foto 31) da vaxanidan (foto 32), Tixis WurWlis fragmenti qalis profilis reliefuri gamosaxulebiT sof. Crdilidan (foto 33), brinjaos verZis SesaniSnavi qandakeba sof. laSedan (foto 34). im periodSi saqarTvelos teritoriaze arsebobda ori saxelmwifo: iberia da kolxeTi. iberiis samefo sakmaod did teritorias flobda lixTimereTSi.M misi dasavleT sazRvari SesaZloa xSirad icvleboda, magram ZiriTadad, albaT mainc skanda-Sorapnis xazze gadioda. TviT Sorapani, mkvlevarTa umravlesobis azriT, iberiis SemadgenlobaSi iyo. g. lomTaTiZe varaudobda, rom iberia-kolxeTis sazRvari borsa da kldeeTs Soris gadioda [lomTaTiZe, 1957:189]. v. jafariZe Tvlis, rom kldeeTi rogorc politikurad, ise kulturulad kolxeTs ekuTvnoda [jafariZe, 1984:29]. Cveni azriT, rTuli da TiTqmis SeuZlebelicaa gadaWriT Tqma Tu zustad sad gadioda iberia-kolxeTis sazRvari, romelic politikurad im Zalian boboqar xanaSi albaT xSirad icvleboda. rac Seexeba kulturul kuTvnilebas: kldeeTSi sakmaod bevri nivTia iseTi, romelic aris leRvanSic da romelTac, rogorc zemoT avRniSneT, paralelebi uxvad eZebnebaT aRmosavleT saqarTveloSi, mag.: cxovelTa figurebi, giriseburi da zambariseburi sakidebi da sxva. Tumca isic SesaZloa, rom kldeeTelebi ufro metad yofiliyvnen dasavlurqarTuli kulturis matarebelni, vidre leRvnelebi, vinaidan iq aRmoCenili nivTebi dasavlur-qarTul arqeologiur masalasTanac poulobs bevr saerTos. mag., oqros balTebi, romlebic TiTqmis identuria gonios ganZis balTebisa da romlebic kolxuri oqromWedlobis tradiciiT arian damzadebulni, keramika da sxv. mM agram es mainc ar gamoricxavs imas, rom kldeeTi iberiis farglebSi yofiliyo. dResac xaragaulis municipalitetSi aris gverdigverd mdebare soflebi, sadac erTSi xalxi imeruli kiloTi metyvelebs da imeruli tradiciebiT cxovrobs, meoreSi ki qarTluriT, magram oriveni Tavs imerlebad Tvlian. leRvani ki Cveni azriT, teritoriuladac da kulturuladac iberias ekuTvnoda. buzmihr pitiaxSi, romelic ixsenieba borSi aRmoCenili Tasis arma- 8 zul warweraSi, iberiis mefis, farsman qvelis (daaxl. 120-170 ww.) Tanamedrove unda yofiliyo [cqitiSvili, 1966:90] da monapire mxaris, lixTimereTis iberiis mmarTveli iqneboda.E es regioni garda imisa, rom monapire, sasazRvro regions warmoadgenda, mniSvnelovani iyo imiTac, rom aq gadioda msoflio mniSvnelobis savaWro gzebi, romlebic araerT berZen da romael avtors (patrokle, straboni, varoni da sxv.) aqvs moxseniebuli da datanilia „tabula pevtingerianaze”. aqve gadioda adgilobrivi mniSvnelobis gzebic, romlebic aRmosavleT, dasavleT da samxreT saqarTvelos erTmaneTTan akavSirebda.M monapire sapitiaxSos ki qveynis dasavleT sazRvris dacvis garda, albaT am gzebis dacva da gakontrolebac evaleboda. rogorc werilobiTi wyaroebidanaa cnobili, garda pitiaxSebisa, antikuri xanis iberiaSi ufro dabali rangis saxelmwifo moxeleebic iynen: spasalar-aTasisTavebi, xevisTavebi da a.S., romlebic albaT sapitiaxSos ufro mcire teritoriul erTeulebs ganagebdnen.B bevri mkvlevari Tvlis, rom borSi pitiaxSebi da maTi ojaxis wevrebi iyvnen dakrZalulni, xolo kldeeTSi ufro dabali rangis moxeleebi, Tundac aTasisTavebi [janaSia, 1941; lomTaTiZe, 1957:183-184; cqitiSvili, 1955:304; margiSvili, 1988:45-46]. sapitiaxSoebi ki albaT, ufro wvril teritoriul-administraciul erTeulebad iyo dayofili. dRes xaragaulis municipaliteti 19 sasoflo Temadaa dayofili, TiToeul maTganSi ramdenime sofeli da ufro meti nasoflaria.E es dayofa araa SemTxveviTi: sasoflo Temebi ZiriTadad, patara mdinareTa xeobebSi mdebareoben. mag.: leRvnis Temi md. leRvnulas xeobaSia, kicxis Temi borimelas, sargveSis Temi md.Y yarnebis, vaxanis Temi vaxaniswylis, boriTis Temi Zirulas, RoreSas Temi kvadouras, zvares Temi nunisiswylis xeobaSi da a.S. TiToeul xeobas aqvs Tavisi saxnav-saTesi da savenaxe miwebi, saZovrebi, tye da veli – mTeli sasoflo-sameurneo infrastruqtura.A amitomac SesaZloa, rom gvaianantikur xanaSic es xeobebi mikro-ekonomikuri da teritoriul-administraciuli erTeulebi yofiliyvnen. maT albaT TavianTi mmarTveli moxeleebic eyolebodaT, romelTa meSveobiTac saxelmwifo Tavis xelisuflebas axorcielebda, gadsaxadebis akrefa iqneboda es, rekrutireba Tu sxv.G gvianantikur xanaSi, rodesac ukve sazogadoebis so- cialuri diferenciacia Sorsaa wasuli, TiToeul aseT teritoriul-administraciul erTeuls (xevs?) albaT Tavisi maRali da dabali fenac eyoleboda. sof. leRvans leRvnulas xeobaSi gamorCeuli adgili ukavia - xeobis centria. aA mitom SesaZloa II-III ss-Sic swored iq yofiliyo am mikroregionis gamgebeli moxelisa da misi administraciis samyofeli. leRvnis koleqciaSi Semavali nivTebi borSi, sargveSSi da kldeeTSi aRmoCenili nivTebisagan gansxvavebiT, umaRlesi saxelmwifo moxeleTa mdidrul samarxeul inventarad ver CaiTvleba, magram arc Raribulia. amitomac SesaZloa, rom „vefxvaZeebis goraze” am mcire teritoriul-administraciuli erTeulis aristokratia iyo dakrZaluli. kidev erTi nivTi, romelic xaragaulis muzeumSi inaxeba da romelic 1973 wels leRvnis cixis midamoebSia napovni, aris brinjaos Subispiri, grZeli, viwro piriT da maRali qediT. grZeli, gaxsnili masriT, romelzec ori samanWvle naxvretia. sigrZe - 40 sm., piris sigane – 15,5 sm., masris sigrZe – 24,5 sm. (tab. V (1-534).F foto 35). Subispiri gvianbrinjao-adrerkinis xaniT - Zv.w. I aTaswleulis pirveli naxevriT unda daTariRdes. saqarTvelos erovnuli muzeumis simon janaSias saxelmwifo muzeumis ZiriTad fondSi daculia brinjaos kolxuri culi, romelic 1951 wels oTar maRraZes leRvnidan 10 km. daSorebiT, tyeSi upovnia. is kolxuri culebis meore tips miekuTvneba da Zv.w. I aTaswleulis pirveli naxevriT TariRdeba. aqvs Svetili, eqvsad dawaxnagebuli tani, maRali, maxvili yua, ovaluri satare xvreli da odnav asimetriuli, momrgvalebuli piri. sigrZe - 15 sm., sigane - 4 sm., satare xvreli sigrZe – 4,2 sm., satare xvreli sigane - 2,6 sm; (tab. V (16-51).F foto 36). garda amisa, soflis samxreT-dasavleT nawilSi e.w. „Txmelnaris serze” aris sakmaod didi namosaxlari, sadac ramdenime adgilas kargad Cans qvebis (kedlebis?) wyoba da didi raodenobiT ikrifeba gvianbrinjaos xanisa da Sua saukuneebis Tixis WurWlis fragmentebi. yovelive aqedan gamomdinare aSkaraa, rom sof. leRvani arqeologiuri TvalsazrisiT sakmaod mniSvnelovani adgilia da misma Semdgomma kvlevam SesaZloa bevri saintereso masala mogvces Cveni qveynis uZvelesi istoriis araerTi problemuri sakiTxis gasaSuqeblad. 9 brinjaos fibula (fragmenti); 19 (185). brinjaos fibula; 20 (6962). brinjaos sayure (?); 21 (178). brinjaos sakidi; 22 (6958). brinjaos Reraki; 23 (184). brinjaos beWedi; 24 (477). brinjaos sakidi. literatura: afaqiZe an., kalandaZe al., nikolaiSvili v. 1978: mcxeTis mudmivmoqmedi arqeologiuri eqspediciis 1975 w. muSaobis angariSi. – mcxeTa, t. II, Tb., gv. 8-77.B tab II- 25 (1-1). brinjaos balTa; 26 (1-164). brinjaos balTa; 27 (165). brinjaos balTa. tab III- 28 (1-169). irmis figura. brinjao; 29 (1-170); verZis figura. brinjao; 30 (1-168). gaurkveveli cxovelis (mcuravi frinvelis?) figura. brinjao; 31 (1-145). xaris figura. brinjao; 32 (1-172). jixvis Tavis figura. brinjao; 32 (6702). gaurkveveli nivTis fragmenti. brinjao; 34 (1-173). jixvis Tavis figura. brinjao; 35 (1-171). verZis figura. brinjao. afxazava n. 2010: gvianantkuri da adreSuasaukuneTa epoqis afxazeTis eTnikuri situacia, Tb. vefxvaZe iz. 2010: xaragauli, quTaisi. vefxvaZe iz. 2016: xaragauli, quTaisi. kvirkvaia r., davlianiZe r., CxartiSvili n. 2016: arqeologiuri koleqciebi sof. boridan. - semm (sms) VII, (52-B), Tbilisi, Ggv. 31-55. tab IV- 36 (1-166).D vercxlis diskoseburi nivTi; 37 (1-167). brinjos sakidi. lomTaTiZe g. 1957: kldeeTis samarovani, Tb. manjgalaZe g. 1985: samTavros samarovnis gvianantikuri xanis samarxebi. - mcxeTa t. VII, Tb., gv. 43108. tab V - (1-534). Bbrinjaos Subispiri; (16-51:1). brinjaos culi. margiSvili s. 1988: Aantikuri xanis aRmosavleT saqarTvelos mdidrul samarxTa socialuri diferenciaciisaTvis. - macne (iaexis), № 1, Tb., gv. 35-49. fotoebi: 1. Bbrinjaos sakidebi (leRvani); 2.B brinjaos sakidi (leRvani); 3. brinjaos sakidebi (leRvani); 4.B brinjaos sakidi (leRvani); 5. Bbrinjaos sakidebi (leRvani); 6. Bbrinjaos sakidi (leRvani); 7.B brinjaos beWedi (leRvani); 8. brinjaos beWedi (leRvani); 9. Bbrinjaos samajuri (leRvani); 10 .B brinjaos rgoli (leRvani); 11.B brinjaos sakidi (leRvani); 12.B brinjaos fibulebi (leRvani); 13. Bbrinjaos balTa (leRvani); 14.B brinjaos balTa (leRvani); 15. Bbrinjaos balTa (leRvani); 16. Bbrinjaos balTis fragmenti (leRvani); 17.B brinjaos kverTxisTavi (leRvani); 18. Bbrinjaos kverTxisTavi (leRvani); 19. irmis figurebi. brinjao (leRvani); 20. verZis figura. brinjao (leRvani); 21. verZis figura. brinjao (leRvani); 22. jixvis Tavis figura. brinjao (leRvani); 23. verZis figura. brinjao (leRvani); 24. xaris figura. brinjao (leRvani); 25. gaurkveveli cxovelis (mcuravi frinvelis?) figura. brinjao (leRvani); 26. gaurkveveli daniSnulebis vercxlis nivTi (leRvani); 27. Tixis qoTani (bori); 28. Tixis xelada (bori); 29.B brinjaos balTa (RoreSa); 30. Bbrinjaos balTa (qroli); 31.B brinjaos fibula (RoreSa); 32. Bbrinjaos balTa (vaxani); 33. Tixis WurWlis fragmenti (Crdili); 34. verZis figura. brinjao (laSe); 35.B brinjaos Subispiri (leRvani); 36.B brinjaos culi (leRvani). ramiSvili q. 2007: aRmosavleT saqarTvelos mTianeTis mcire plastikis Zeglebi. Tb. sixaruliZe an., abuTiZe an. 1985: mogvTakaris samarovani (katalogi). - mcxeTa t. VII, Tbilisi, gv. 109-131. CixlaZe v. 2015: Jinvalis samarovani. Tbilisi. cqitiSvili g. 1964: antikuri xanis Sorapnis saerisTavos sakiTxisaTvis. - sigk; t. 2, Tbilisi, gv. 72-106. wiTlanaZe l. 1973:A arqeologiuri aRmoCenebi sof. liaSi. - Zm. № 33, Tb., gv. 67-75. janaSia s. 1941: didi SenaZeni. - gaz. „lenineli”, № 72. jafariZe v. 1984: kldeeTis samarovani da dasavleT saqarTvelos gvianantikuri xanis Zeglebis Seswavlis sakiTxi. - Zm. № 68, Tb., gv. 28-31. Придик Е. 1914: Новые Кавказские клады. – Мар, СанктПетербург, с. 94-110. Tschubinaschvili G. 1925: Der fund von Sargveschi. – Икиаи, Тбилиси, с. 83-86. ilustraciebis aRweriloba tab I - 1 (1-179). brinjaos sakidi; 2 (179). brinjaos sakidi; 3 (180). brinjaos rgoli; 4 (6961). brinjaos Reraki; 5 (181). brinjaos samajuri; 6 (1-182). brinjaos rgoli; 7 (1-182). brinjaos rgoli; 8 (183). brinjaos beWedi; 9 (6960). brinjaos nivTis fragmenti; 10 (173). brinjaos kverTxisTavi; 11 (177). brinjaos sakidi; 12 (177). brinjaos sakidi; 13 (185). brinjaos sakidi; 14 (6959). brinjaos sakidi; 15 (6957). brinjaos balTis fragmenti; 16 (185). brinjaos fibula; 17 (185). brinjaos fibula;18 (185); 10 R. KVIRKVAIA 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 goderZi narimaniSvili aRmosavleT saqarTvelos Zv.w. VII – ax.w. VII ss. keramika ( I nawili) Tixisagan WurWlis damzadeba adamianma neoliTis xanaSi daiwyo. am epoqidan mokidebuli keramika arqeologiur Zeglebze mopovebul artefaqtebs Soris yvelaze mravalricxovan da mravalferovan masalas warmoadgens. Tixis WurWlebis formaTa cvalebadoba da teqnologiuri Taviseburebebi, am kategoriis artefaqtebis mixedviT, Zveli kulturuli fenebis SedarebiT zustad daTariRebis saSualebas iZleva. es ki, Sesabamis arqeologiur monacemebTan erTad, kulturul-istoriuli procesis met-nakleb aRdgenas uwyobs xels. naSromSi ganxilulia aRmosavleT saqarTvelos Zv.w. VII – ax.w. VII ss. keramikis damzadebis teqnologia, tipologia, qronologia, formobriv-tipologiuri klasifikacia da stilisturi daxasiaTeba. am periodis keramikis teqnologiis, tipologiisa da qronologiis kvlevis obieqtebi SerCeulia im geografiuli arealidan, romelsac dRevandeli administraciuli dayofiT qarTli, kaxeTi da mesxeT-javaxeTis mxareebi moicavs. es regionebi SerCeuli iqna imitomac, rom am teritoriaze Zv.w. VII – ax.w. VII ss-is yvela qronologiuri jgufis masalaa mopovebuli da amasTan kulturis uwyveti ganviTareba dasturdeba. aRmosavleT saqarTveloSi ukanaskneli asi wlis manZilze warmoebuli farTo arqeologiuri kvleva-Ziebis Sedegad gamovlenilia am periodis mravali Zegli, romelTa mniSvnelovani nawili monografiulad aris Seswavlili. miuxedavad amisa, jer kidev ar arsebobs am regionis keramikis dawvrilebiTi daxasiaTeba, formobriv-tipologiuri klasifikacia da stilisturi analizi. aRmosavleT saqarTvelos keramikis pirveli monografiuli kvleva XX saukunis 80-ian wlebSi Catarda, rasac Sesabamisi naSromis publikacia mohyva [Нариманишвили 1991]. es naSromi Zv.w. V – I saukuneebis keramikis Seswavlas eZRvneboda da ZiriTadad eydnoboda: abelias [kviJinaZe 1975; gagoSiZe 1982], asureTis [kviJinaZe 1967], axalsoflis [Давлианидзе 1977], aleqseevkis [kviJinaZe 1975; kviJinaZe 1973], aRaianis [boxoCaZe 1981; mirianaSvili 1983], bargiyarias [afaqiZe da sxv. 1955], beSTaSenis [Куфтин 1941; menabde, davlianiZe 1968; davlianiZe 1983], gomareTis [gagoSiZe 1982; davlianiZe 1983], daS-baSis [Куфтин 1941; gagoSiZe 1982], daWrilebis [nakaiZe 1980; Tolordava 1980], dedoflis mindvris [gagoSiZe 1975; gagoSiZe 1978], varsimaanTkaris [wiTlanaZe 1983; Рамишвили и др. 1979; Рамишвили и др. 1984; Рамишвили и др. 1985], vasaswyaro-arkneTis [jafariZe 1956], TeTriwyaros [boxoCaZe 1963; Tolordava 1963; Tolordava 1980], kamaraxevis [afaqiZe da sxv. 1978; jRarkava 1983], kazreTis [sinauriZe 1985], kviracxovlis [Гамбашидзе, Квижинадзе 1982; Гамбашидзе, Квижинадзе 1982а; Гамбашидзе и др. 1984], kuSCis [Куфтин 1948; gagoSiZe 1982; davlianiZe 1983], kariakis [davlianiZe 1983], kumisis [Давлианидзе 1977], kaciTavanas [Апакидзе и др. 1987], mcxeTis [Апакидзе и др. 1978; Апакидзе и др. 1982], martazisxevis [afaqiZe da sxv. 1955; narimaniSvili, manjgalaZe 1989; Апакидзе и др. 1987], muxaTgverdis [Апакидзе и др. 1982; Апакидзе и др. 1982а], narekvavis [afaqiZe da sxv. 1983; Апакидзе и др. 1978; Апакидзе и др. 1978a], nastakisis [narimaniSvili 1990; Бохочадзе 1976; Бохочадзе 1977; Бохочадзе и др. 1978; Бохочадзе и др. 1980; Бохочадзе и др. 1981; Бохочадзе и др. 1982; Бохочадзе и др. 1982а; Бохочадзе и др. 1982б], neron-deresis [gagoSiZe 1975; gagoSiZe 1982; Куфтин 1941], samTavros [afaqiZe da sxv. 1955; abramiSvili 1957; Tolordava 1963; Tolordava 1980; nikolaiSvili, manjgalaZe, narimaniSvili 2012], samadlos [gagoSiZe 1967; gagoSiZe 1970; gagoSiZe 1974; Гагошидзе 1979; Гагошидзе 1981]; samadlos miwebis [Апакидзе и др. 1987]; sanTis [gagoSiZe 1982], sayaraulo seris [jinjixaSvili 1980; yazaxiSvili 1980], urbnisis [zaqaraia 1965; qoriZe 1965], ufliscixis [xaxutaiSvili 1964; xaxutaiSvili 1970], qasraanT miwebis [beraZe 1980], RarTiskaris [Апакидзе и др. 1980; Апакидзе и др. 1985; Апакидзе и др. 1982; Апакидзе и др. 1984; Апакидзе и др. 1986; Апакидзе и др. 1987], RrmaxevisTavis [abramiSvili da sxv. 1980], Savsaydaras [boxoCaZe 1963; kviJinaZe 1973; kviJinaZe 1975], Sulaveris [davlianiZe 1975], Soris [tyeSelaSvili 1969], CxikvTas [kviJinaZe 1973; kviJinaZe 1975], cxra-Zmis [narimaniSvili 1991], cixedidisxevis [gagoSiZe 21 li monografia gamoaqveyna germanelma mecnierma nadine ludvigma, romelmac kvleva ZiriTadad, kaxeTSi aRmoCenili Tixis WurWlis tipologiuri klasifikaciis fonze Caatara [Ludwig 2010]. aRmosavleT saqarTvelos materialuri kultura mTeli rigi TaviseburebebiT xasiaTdeba.Ees ganpirobebuli iyo rogorc sazogadoebis SigniT mimdinare kulturul-istoriuli procesebiT, ise misi geografiuli mdebareobiT da kavSiriT mezobel regionebTan. Tixis WurWlebis formobriv-tipologiuri daxasiTebas ZiriTadad daeqvemdebara is keramikuli nimuSebi, romlebic arqeologiuri Zeglebis gaTxrebis Sedegad iqna mopovebuli, gamonaklisis saxiT ganxiluli gvaqvs SemTxveviT mopovebuli masalac. keramikis formobriv-tipologiuri klasifikaciisaTvis agebulia mkacri ierarqiuli sqema (jgufi, saxe, tipi, qvetipi, saxeoba, qvesaxeoba, varianti), romelic daculia yvela saxis WurWlis klasifikaciis dros. Tixis WurWlis klasifikacias mkvlevarebi sxvadasxvanairad iZlevian. samecniero literaturaSi gvxvdeba formis, daniSnulebis, Semkulobis, feris da sxv. niSnebis mixedviT klasificireba. Cven, funqciis (daniSnulebis) mixedviT Tixis WurWeli xuT jgufad davyaviT: sameurneo, samzareulo, sufris, samgzavro, sazogadoebriv-saritualo, romlebSic 27 saxis WurWeli gamovyaviT. Cveni mizania did qronologiur monakveTSi (Zv.w. VII - ax.w. VII ss) gavrcelebuli keramikis ZiriTadi tipologiuri rigebis SemuSaveba, Tixis WurWlis formobrivi ganviTarebis, an axali formebis gamoCenis tendeciis dadgena. amis safuZvelze ki danawevrebuli qronologiis SemuSaveba da Zv.w. VII – ax.w. VII ss. arqeologiur Zeglebze gamovlenili adgilobrivi keramikisaTvis damaTariRebeli mniSvnelobis miniWeba. aRmosavleT saqarTvelos Tixis WurWlis formobriv-tipologiuri daxasiTebas ZiriTadad daeqvemdebara is keramikuli nimuSebi, romlebic zemoT naxsenebi arqeologiuri Zeglebis gaTxrebis Sedegad iqna mopovebuli. qvemoT mocemulia Zv.w.VII - ax.w.VII ss. gavrcelebuli keramikis ZiriTadi tipologiuri rigebi, Tixis WurWlis formobrivi ganviTareba, an axali formebis gamoCenis tendeciebi. formobriv-tipo- 1975; Гагошидзе 1979; Апакидзе и др. 1987], cixia-goras [Цкитишвили 1977], wnisisxevis [kviJinaZe 1983; Гамбашидзе и др. 1984; Гамбашидзе и др. 1985], wiwamuris [afaqiZe 1963; Апакидзе и др. 1987], xovles [musxeliSvili 1978] arqeologiur masalebs. rac Seexeba winamorbedi da momdevno epoqebis Tixis WurWels isini araerT naSromSia ganxiluli, Tumca arc maTi sistemuri kvleva ganxorcielebula dRemde. amdenad, keramikis Seswavlis amgvari mdgomareoba ver asaxavs Zv.w. VII – ax.w. VII ss-is Tixis WurWlis ganviTarebis tendencias, teqnologiur da tipologiur cvlilebebs. dReisaTvis ar arsebobs iseTi naSromi, romelSic Sejamebulia Zv.w. VII – ax.w. VII ss-is Tixis WurWlis Sesaxeb arsebuli monacemebi da naCvenebia am qronologiur monakveTSi mimdinare cvlilebebi. yovelive zemoTqmulis gamo, winamdebare naSromi originaluria. Tumca, mis ZiriTad safuZvlad aRebulia Zv.w. V-I ss qarTlis keramikis safuZvelze Catarebuli kvlevis Sedegebi [Нариманишвили 1991]. naSromi aseve eyrdnoba im statiebsa da monografiebs, romlebic gamocemuli iqna SemdgomSi [mag. cqitiSvili 2003; nikolaiSvili, gavaSeli 2007; margiSvili, narimaniSvili 2004; maxaraZe, narimaniSvili 2001; narimaniSvili, SatberaSvili 2002; Macharadze 2000; Narimanišvili 2000], an exeba im regionebsa (mag. kaxeTi) da qronologiur monakveTebs, romlebic qarTlis Zv.w. V-I ss. keramikis kvlevis farglebs scildeboda. ase magaliTad - Zv.w. VII-VI ss. keramikis daxasiaTebisa da tipologiuri rigebis SemuSavebisas veyrdnobiT xovles [musxeliSvili 1978] da narekvavis [davlianiZe, sadraZe 1993; nikolaiSvili, gavaSeli 2007] arqeologiur masalebs. ax.w. I-III ss keramika mcxeTis [Апакидзе и др. 1980; Апакидзе и др. 1985; Апакидзе и др. 1986; Иващенко 1980; nikolaiSvili 1993; nikolaiSvili, narimaniSvili 1995], urbnisis [WilaSvili 1964], nastakisis da aRaianis [boxoCaZe 1981; mirianaSvili 1983], Jinvalis [Jinvali 1983; Рамишвили и др. 1979: 108-120; Рамишвили и др. 1984: 59-68; Рамишвили 1985: 48-53; Рамишвили 1987: 74-88; CixlaZe 2015], cixiagoras [Macharadze 2000] namosaxlarebsa da samarovnebze mopovebuli Tixis WurWlis formebisa da damzadebis teqnologiis mixedviT aris daxasiaTebuli. adreSuasaukuneebis keramika l.WilaSvils [WilaSvili 1964] da m.sinauriZes [sinauriZe 1966] aqvT Seswavlili. 2010 wels aRmosavleT saqarTvelos Zv.w. I aTaswleulis keramikis Sesaxeb vrce- 22 logiuri klasifikaciis da tipologiuri rigebis Tanxvedris safuZvelze Zv.w. VII – ax.w. VII ss. keramikaSi cxra qronologiuri jgufi gamoiyo. maT gamoyofas safuZvlad daedo WurWlebis forma, teqnologia, Semkuloba. Fformobriv-tipologiuri klasifikaciis Semdeg gairkva Tu romeli saxeobis da tipis WurWlebi gvxvdeba ama Tu im qronologiur jgufSi da rogoria maTi gavrceleba-ganviTarebis xazi. keramikis formobriv-tipologiurma klasifikaciam aRmosavleT saqarTvelos Zv.w. VII – ax.w. VII ss-is keramikaSi cxra qronologiuri jgufis gamoiyofis saSualeba mogvca: 1. Zv.w. VII – Zv.w. VI s-is pirveli naxevari; 2. Zv.w. VI s-is meore naxevari – Zv.w. V s-is dasawyisi; 3. Zv.w. V s-is dasawyisi – Zv.w. IV s-is pirveli naxevari; 4. Zv.w. IV s-is meore naxevari – Zv.w. III s-is dasawyisi; 5. Zv.w. III s. – Zv.w. II s-is dasawyisi; 6. Zv.w. II s. – Zv.w. I s-is pirveli naxevari; 7. Zv.w. I s-is meore naxevari – ax.w. II saukune; 8. ax.w. III – IV s; 9. ax.w. V - VII ss. am periodis keramikis formobriv-tipologiuri klasifikaciisaTvis gTavazobT ierarqiul sqemas – jgufi, saxe, tipi, qvetipi, saxeoba, qvesaxeoba, varianti, qvevarianti, romelic daculia yvela saxis WurWlis klasifikaciis dros. amasTan aRsaniSnavia, rom safuZvlian klasifikacias, rogorc formobriv-tipologiuri, ise qronologiis TvalsazrisiT, eqvemdebareba mxolod is saxeebi, romlebic mravalricxovania da arseboben didi xnis ganmavlobaSi (mag.: qvevrebi, doqebi da sxv.). zogierTi saxis WurWeli TiTo-orolaa aRmoCenili (mag.: maTarebi, oTxkuTxabakoiani WurWlebi da sxv.) da amdenad Znelia qronologiur WrilSi gavadevnoT Tvali maTi formis ganviTarebas. zogierTi WurWeli ki miuxedavad mravalricxovnebisa (mag.: qoTnebi, koWbebi), Znelad emorCileba klasifikacias. es WurWeli didi xnis ganmavlobaSi arsebobs da konservatulobiT gamoirCeva. maT Soris (saxeebs SigniT) formobrivi gansxvaveba imdenad mcirea, rom kvlevis dRevandel etapze Znelia srulyofili formobrivi Tu qronologiuri danawevreba. keramikis formobriv-tipologi- uri klasifikacia. funqciis anu daniSnulebis mixedviT, aRmosavleT saqarTvelos teritoriaze gamovlenili Zv.w. VII – ax.w. VII ss. daTariRebuli WurWlebi xuT ZiriTad jgufad iyofa: sameurneo, samzareulo, sufris, samgzavro, sazogadoebriv-saritualo. am ZiriTad jgufebSi 27 saxis WurWeli gamoiyo. esenia: sameurneo WurWeli: I. qvevri; II. dergi; III. sadRvebeli; IV. TaRari; V. luTeria; VI. Zabri; VII. sawuri; VIII. Wraqi. samzareulo keramika: IX. tafiseburi WurWeli; X. qoTani; XI. koWobi; XII. qila; XIII. badia; XIV. xufi; XV. Cafi. sufris WurWeli: XVI. doqi, xelada; XVII. tolCa/kaTxa; XVIII. sasmisi; XIX. langari; XX. jami; XXI. fiala; XXII. larnaki; XXIII. vaza/Tasi. samgzavro WurWeli: XXIV. maTara. sazogadoebriv-saritualo WurWeli: XXV. oTxkuTxabakoiani WurWeli; XXVI. uyuro doqebi; XXVII. miliani doqebi. sameurneo WurWeli. qarTlis teritoriaze gamovlenili sameurneo WurWels simaRlis didi diapazoni aqvs (Zabrebis garda, romelTa simaRle 10-15 sm-ia). maTi zomebi 30 - 170 sm-s Soris meryeobs. I. qvevri (tab. I-II). qvevris ZiriTad daniSnulebas Rvinis dayeneba, Senaxva warmodgens. amaze miuTiTebs samxreT kavkasiaSi gaTxrili marnebis simravle. qvevrs iyenebdnen marcvleulis Sesanaxadac. amis damadasturebelia is, rom zogierTi qvevris Zirze, zog SemTxvevaSi gamowvamde, zogjer ki gamowvis Semdeg datanilia naxvretebi. am mxriv sainteresoa samadlos arq. namosaxlarze aRmoCenili qvevri, romlis Zirzec gamowvamde gakeTebulia naxvreti. es qvevri adreve gatexila da SeukeTebiaT. gadanatexis orive mxares gaukeTebiaT naxvretebi da rogorc Cans, TasmiT gadaubiaT. aseTi qvevri ki mxolod marcvleulis Sesanaxad SeiZleba gamoeyenebinaT. qvevrebSi SeiZleba mcenareul zeTsac inaxavdnen. RarTiskaris namosaxlaris sasimagro sistemis Sida teritoriaze gaTxril samlocveloSi, centraluri darbazis samxreT-aRmosavleT kuTxeSi aRmoCnda 1/3-ze iatakSi Cadgmuli qvevri. is xanZris Sedegad Cans ganadgurebuli. aq aRmoCenili Tixis WurWlidan mxolod aRniSnuli qvevri iyo damwvar-danaxSirebuli, gawidebuli. es ki im SemTxvevaSi SeiZleboda momxdariyo, Tu qvevrSi mdgari siTxe xels Seuwyobda wvas. aseTi, 23 da gaprialebulia, gvxvdeba moxatuli calebi. naxati wiTeli saRebaviTaa Sesrulebuli. umeteswilad gamosaxulia mcenareuli an geometriuli ornamenti, aseve nadirobis scenebi. gvxdeba martivi da rTuli kompoziciebi. meore tipSi ramdenime qvetipi gamoiyofa: 1. qvevrebi, romelTa qoba zemodan dabrtyelebulia da miRebulia piris SesqelebiT. Semkulia maRali, reliefuri e.w. Tokisebri ornamentiT (mag. xovle, G.N.: kat. # 29); 2. qvevris piri gareT mkveTradaa gadaSlili, qoba gadakecili da daxrili aqvs horizontuli sibrtyis mimarT. maTi erTi nawili Semkulia reliefuri ornamentiT, romlis reliefic pirveli tipis qvevrebis ornamentTan SedarebiT dabalia. zedapiri angobirebuli, gaprialebuli da moxatulia (mag. samadlo, G.N.: kat. # 2,4,25). meore nawili moklebulia reliefur da moxatul ornaments. yelze Wdeuli ornamentiTaa (mag. samadlo, G.N.: kat. # 1,13,21) an am ornamentis gareSea (mag. samadlo, G.N.: kat. # 11). 3. qvevrebis erTi nawilis qoba horizontaluria. maT qobis kide profilirebuli (mag. samadlos miwebi, G.N.: kat. # 17) an dakuTxuli (samadlos miwebi – G.N: kat. # 16,19) aqvT, gvxvdeba SeTxelebulqobiani calebic (mag. samadlo, G.N.: kat. # 5,7,22). maTi yeli meore qvetipis qvevrebze ufro dabalia. qvevrebis umetesobas gaprialebuli zedapiri aqvs (samadlos miwebi, samadlo, G.N.: kat. # 5,6,10,17-19,22), zogi qvevri ki moxatulia (mag. ufliscixe, samadlos miwebi, samadlo, G.N.: kat. # 9,16,20,25). 4. am qvetipis qvevrebi (samTavro, G.N.: kat. # 31) mesame qvetipis qvevrebis msgavsia. Tumca maTi yeli dabalia. aRmosavleT saqarTvelos teritoriaze agreTve gamovlenilia e.w. kolxuri qvevrebi. mag. mcxeTasTan, SiomRvimis monastris samxreTiT, grZel mindorze gaiTxara marani, romelic Zv.w. II s. TariRdeba da ZiriTadad Savad gamomwvari, sqelkeciani, didi qvevrebisagan Sedgeba. maTi tani reliefuri ornamentiTaa Semkuli. rogorc ukve iTqva, aRmosavleT saqarTvelos teritoriaze gamovlenil qvevrebSi ori ZiriTadi tipi gamoiyofa _ dabalyeliani da maRalyeliani. dabalyeliani qvevrebi or qvetipad (dabrtyelebulqobiani da momrgvalebulqobiani) iyofa. am qvetipebis qvevrebi genetikurad TiTqos winamorbedi xanis qocoebTan aris dakavSirebuli. dabalyeliani qvevrebi Zv.w. VII – VI s-is pirvel na- albaT mcenareuli zeTi iyo. qvevrebs agreTve sazeimo, Tu sazogadoebriv-saritualo daniSnulebiTac iyenebdnen (mag. samadlos moxatuli qvevrebi). garkveul etapebze (Zv.w. IV da Zv.w. I – ax.w. IV ss.) zogjer, qvevrs micvalebulis dasakrZalavadac iyenebdnen. uZvelesi qvevris tipis WurWlebi neoliTis epoqidan Cndeba. rkinis xanidan (mag. xovle namosaxlaris V horizonti, Zv.w. XII – X ss.) aq gvxdeba ukve qvevrebis Camoyalibebuli tipi. xovles namosaxlarze qvevri pirvelad VII horizontSia (Zv.w. XIV s.) aRmoCenili [musxeliSvili 1978: 10-11, tab. V, 265-61]. didi moculobis qvevrebidan TiTqos uZvelesia TbilisSi, Treligorebis namosaxlarze gamovlenili qvevrebi, sadac isini rkinis farTo aTvisebis xaniT (Zv.w. VII-VI s-is pirveli naxevari) TariRdeba [Абрамишвили, Николаишвили и др. 1974: 22-23]. Tumca Treligorebis qvevrebi, Cveni azriT, Zv.w. VI s-is meore naxevariT da – V s-is dasawyisiT unda daTariRdes. xovles namosaxlaris VI horizontidan (Zv.w. XIII s.) TiTqmis yvela fenaSi qvevrebis gverdiT dafiqsirebulia qocoebi [musxeliSvili 1978: 16, 23, 34, 41]. amdenad SeiZleba iTqvas, rom I qronologiur jgufSi qvevrebis klasikuri nimuSebi ar gvxdeba. am dros gavrcelebuli qvevris tipis WurWlebi qocoebs warmoadgenen, romlebic momdevno qronologiuri jgufis qvevrebisagan gansxvavebiT mcire zomisaa. Zv.w. VII – ax.w. VII ss qvevrebi or ZiriTad tipad unda gaiyos: 1. dabalyeliani da 2. maRalyeliani. pirveli tipis qvevrebisaTvis damaxasiaTebelia dabali yeli, farTo piri, dabrtyelebuli an momrgvalebuli da Sesqelebuli qoba, gamoberili mxrebi, daqanebuli kalTebi da patara brtyeli Ziri. qvevris qobis gaformebis mixedviT ori qvetipi SeiZleba gamoiyos: 1. dabrtyelebulqobiani (mag. narekvavi Нариманишвили 1991: kat.# 3); 2. momrgvalebulqobiani (mag. xovle – G.N1: kat. # 30). meore tipis qvevrebisaTvis damaxasiaTebelia gadaSlili piri, maRali yeli, viwro brtyeli Ziri. yvela qvevri kargad ganleqili Tixisaa da mowiTalo movardisfrodaa gamomwvari. qvevrebis zedapiri kargadaa damuSavebuli 1 qveviT miTiTebuli G.N.: niSnavs Нариманишвили 1991. 24 xevarSi (I qronologiuri jgufi) TiTqos ar Cans, isini gamoCenas iwyeben am periodis bolos da ZiriTadad Zv.w. VI s-is meore naxevarsa da IV s-is pirvel naxevarSia (II-III qronologiuri jgufebi) gavrcelebuli. uZvelesi dabalyeliani qvevrebi xovles da narekvavis namosaxlarebzea aRmoCenili. isini damzadebulia msxvilmarcvlovani Tixisagan, gamomwvaria muqad – nacrisfrad, an wablisfrad. keci xSirad araTanabradaa gamomwvari, zedapiri xaoiania. am teqnonologiiT damzadebuli qvevrebi mxolod Zv.w. VI-V ss-Sia gavrcelebuli da Semdeg qronologiur jgufebSi aRar gvxvdeba. dabalyeliani qvevrebi Zv.w. IV s-is meore naxevarSic (IV qronologiuri jgufi) gvxdeba (TeTriwyaros, cixiagoras, daWrilebis arqeologiur Zeglebze), Tumca isini narekvavsa da xovleSi aRmoCenili qvevrebisagan gansxvebuli teqnologiTaa damzadebuli. amis garda, qobis gaformebiTac gansxvavdebian. `daWrilebis~ qvevrebis piri ufro gadaSlilia da qoba daxrilia, piris diametric yelTan SedarebiT gacilebiT didia, vidre uxeSkeciani qvevrebisa (narekvavi, xovle, Treligorebi), romelTa piris da yelis diametri TiTqmis Tanabaria. amdenad, daWrilebis qvevrebi Zv.w. VI-IV ss. (II-III qronologiuri jgufi) am tips qvevrebisagan formiTac gansxvavdeba da qobis gaformebiTac. daWrilebis samarovnis dabalyeliani qvevrebi narekvavis da xovles am tipis qvevrebisagan teqnologiurad gansxvavdebian. `daWrilebis~ samarovanze dabalyelian qvevrebTan erTad [narimaniSvili, maxaraZe 2010] Cndeba maRalyelianebic. isini cixiagorazeve da qarTlis sxva Zeglebze aRmoCenili meore tipis, maRalyeliani qvevrebis msgavsia da momdevno qronologiuri jgufis qvevrebTan iCens siaxloves. dabalyeliani qvevrebi Zv.w. III-II s-is dasawyisSi (V qronologiuri jgufi) (samadlos, nastakisis, cixiagoras arqeologiur Zeglebze) mcire raodenobiTaa. am periodSi dabrtyelebuli da momrgvalebuli qoba mxolod qocoebs aqvs (samadlo, nastakisi, cixiagora), qvevrebis pirebi ki daWrilebis samarovnis pirveli tipis qvevrebis analogiuria. dabalyeliani, dabrtyelebulqobiani da momrgvalebulqobiani qvevrebis raodenoba Zv.w. II-I s-is I naxevarSi (VI qronologiuri jgufi) kvlav izrdeba. isini kargad gan- leqili Tixisaganaa damzadebuli da Tanabrad, mowiTalodaa gamomwvari, gvxvdeba moCalisfro egzemplarebic (nastakisi, aRaiani, mcxeTis arqeologiuri Zeglebi). aRsaniSnavia, rom am periodSi meore tipis maRalyeliani qvevrebis raodenoba iklebs, ise, rom Zv.w. I-ax.w. II s-Si (VII qronologiuri jgufi) isini praqtikulad aRar gvxvdeba. VII qronologiuri jgufis qvevrebs ukve dabali yeli da brtyeli Sesqelebuli qoba aqvT (mag. VII qronologiur jgufs miekuTvneba wiwamuri III samarovanze da namosaxlarze gaTxrili qvevrebi [nikolaiSvili, narimaniSvili 1995]). meore tipis qvevrebSi ganviTarebis garkveuli xazi SeiniSneba. maTi yelis simaRle TandaTan dabldeba, rasac Tan sdevs qobis jer gaTxeleba-gadakecva, Semdeg misi gasworeba. amasTan aRsaniSnavia, rom, Tu adreuli, Zv.w. IV s-is meore naxevarisa da Zv.w. III s-is qvevrebis maqsimaluri diametri WurWlis Sua nawilze modis, mogvianebiT (Zv.w II – Zv.w. I s-is I naxevari) is yelisken iwevs da amdenad qvevrebs mxrebi uCndeba, riTac TiTqos emsgavseba pirveli tipis qvevrebs, Tumca meore tipis qvevrebis es jgufi winamorbedebisagan gansxvavdeba Tixis struqturiT, kecis gamowviT, kecis sisqiT da qobis gaformebiT. meore tipis qvevrebi farTod vrceldeba Zv.w. III-II s-is dasawyisSi. meore tipis qvevrebis yeli reliefuri sartylebiTaa Semkuli da moxatulia. Zv.w. II-I s-is I naxevarSi umeteswilad sada, uornamento calebi gvxvdeba. qvevrebis es tipi Zv.w. I s-is II naxevarsa da ax.w. II s-Sic ganagrZobs arsebobas. Tumca amave dros Semodis dabalyeliani, pirbrtyeli qvevrebi, romlebsac e.w. kvercxiseburi forma aqvs da es tipi xdeba wamyvani welTaRricxvaTa mijnidan. am tipis qvevrebi gvianantikuri xanisaTvis aris damaxasiaTebeli. sawyis etapze qvevrebis tani TiTqmis uornamentoa. mogvianebiT qvevrebis korpusze TandaTan Cndeba reliefuri sartylebi. VIII-IX qronologiuri jgufebis qvevrebs aseTi sartyelebi didi raodenobiT amkobs. gamoTqmulia mosazreba, rom sartylebi ornaments ki ar warmoadgens, aramed qvevris damzadebis procesTan aris dakavSirebuli. am tipis qvevrebs ax.w. III-VII saukuneebSi (VIII da IX qronologiur jgufebi) gabatonebuli mdgomareoba ukavia. Tumca amave dros Cndeba sruliad gansxvavebuli formis WurWlebi, romlebsac wagrZele- 25 buli tani, e.w. TiTistariseburi forma aqvT da maTi tani reliefuri sartylebiTaa Semkuli. IX qronologiuri jgufis qvevrebis Tixa winamorbedebTan SedarebiT ufro msxvilmarcvlovania, keci xSirad araTanabradaa gamomwvari – zedapiri yavisferi an wablisferia, gadanatexSi ki Savi an nacrisferi. qvevrebis tani Tokiseburi an qediseburi reliefuri sartylebiTaa Semkuli. es ornamenti wina qronologiuri jgufebisTvisacaa damaxasiaTebeli, Tumca yvela qvevri ar aris ase Semkuli; IX qronologiuri jgufis TiTqmis yvela qvevrs ki reliefuri sartyeli aqvs (nastakisi, Zalisi, mcxeTa da sxv.). II. dergi (tab. III-IX). dergi sameurneo WurWlis erT-erTi gavrcelebuli saxeobaa. mas, albaT ZiriTadad soflis meurneobis produqtebis Sesanaxad iyenebdnen [Нариманишвили 1991: 15-18]. dergebis umravlesoba namosaxlarebzea aRmoCenili da fragmentulad aris warmodgenili, amitom maTi sruli formis warmodgena Wirs. samarxebSi dergi (zogierTi tipis gamoklebiT) Cveulebriv ar gvxvdeba. SeiZleba namosaxlaris sustad Seswavla iyos mizezi imisa, rom dergebis formebis ganviTarebaSi SeimCneva wyvetili. dergebSi gamoiyofa sami tipi: 1. qvevriseburi; 2. oryura, gadaSlilpiriani dergebi; 3. pirswori, pirmoyrili dergebi. TiToeuli tipis dergs, rogorc Cans, sxvadasxva warmomavloba aqvs. formiT isini erTmaneTisgan arsebiTad gansxvavdebian. maT erTad mxolod imitom ganvixilavT, rom erTgvarovani funqcia gaaCniaT. formebis gansxvaveba SesaZlebelia imiT aris gamowveuli, rom dergebis pirveli tipi stacionarulia – nawilobriv miwaSic idgmeboda. meore da mesame tipis dergebi ki gadasaadgilebelia da maT yurebi aqvT. samive jgufis dergs farTo piri da brtyeli Ziri ars. pirveli da mesame tipis dergebi kargad ganleqili Tixisaganaa damzadebuli, kargad gamomwvari da Ria feris keci aqvs. maTi erTi nawili moxatulicaa. meore tipis dergebi umeteswilad uxeSkeciania ruxi feris keci aqvs. pirveli tipis qvevriseburi dergebi formiT TiTqmis ar gansxvavdebian qvevrebisgan, mxolod zomiT arian patarebi da ufro farTo Ziri aqvT vidre qvevrebs. am tipis dergebSi ori qvetipi unda gamoiyos: 1. dabalyeliani da 2. maRalyeliani. dabalyeliani qvetipis dergebisaTvis damaxasiaTebelia farTo piri, momrgvalebuli qoba, dabali yeli, momrgvalebuli muceli da brtyeli Ziri. aseTi dergebi gansaxilveli periodis mTel manZilze gvxvdeba da genetikurad winamorbedi xanis msgavs WurWlebs ukavSirdebian. isini axlo msgavsebas pouloben pirveli tipis qvevrebTan, maTi Tanadrouli arian da maT Semdegac agrZeleben arsebobas. I-III qr. jgufebis dabalyeliani dergebi, damzadebulia ganleqili Tixisagan, gamomwvaria Savad, ruxad an moCalisfrod (narekvavi, xovle, nastakisi da sxv.). maT gadaSlili piri, momrgvalebuli qoba, gamoziduli mxrebi an muceli da brtyeli Ziri aqvT (musxeliSvili 1978; sadraZe, davlianiZe 1993; davlianiZe 1985; nikolaiSvili, gavaSeli 2007).. III-VII qronologiuri jgufis dabalyeliani dergebi gamomwvaria rogorc muqad, ise movardisfrod. muqkeciani calebi gvxvdeba rogorc xaoianzedapiriani (ufliscixe, samadlo, G.N: kat. #. 32,47,48,52,53,61,65,71,72,78,79,80,88,90), ise gaprialebulzedapiriani (G.N.: kat. # 4346,50,51,56,67,68,76,82,83,86-87,89,91,92,94, 95,100,109) da angobirebuli (G.N.: kat. # 49,65,108). movardisfrokecianebi gvxvdeba - xaoianzedapiriani (G.N.: kat. #. 33,62,63,69, 73,81,99,102,105), angobirebuli (G.N.: kat. # 42,55,57,60,74,75,96,98,101,103, 104,107), gaprialebulzedapiriani (G.N.: kat. # 59,77,84, 111), SeRebili (G.N.: kat. # 93) da TeTri angobiT moxatuli (cixia-gora, G.N.: kat. # 70). es ori ukanaskneli SeiZleba qoTnis natexebs warmoadgendes. dabalyeliani qvevriseburi dergebi yvela qronologiur jgufSi gvxdeba. am saxeobis WurWlebi TiTqos, Zv.w. IV s-is meore naxevrsa da Zv.w. III s-is dasawyisSi ar Cans. Tumca, Cveni azriT, es albaT imiT unda aixsnas, rom am periodis namosaxlarebi qarTlSi jerjerobiT gaTxrili ar aris. III-VII qronologiuri jgufis maRalyeliani dergebisaTvis damaxasiaTebelia farTo piri, horizontaluri, dakuTxuli an SeTxelebuli qoba da maRali yeli. yvela maTgani Zv.w. II – I s-is pirvel naxevarSi Tavsdeba. migvaCnia rom isini maRalyeliani qvevrebis mixedviT arian damzadebuli. horizontaluri da dakuTxuli qoba damaxasiaTebelia meore tipis der- 26 gebisTvisac, romlebic Zv.w. I s-is pirvel naxevarsa da ax.w. II saukuneSi Tavsdeba. es ki gvaZlevs saSualebas vivaraudoT, rom qobis amgvari gaformeba ZiriTadad elinistur xanaSi, Zv.w. III-I ss-Sia gavrcelebuli da ax.w. II saukunemde gvxvdeba. qvevriseburi tipis, maRalyelian dergebSi gvxvdeba, rogorc muqad, ise movardisfrod gamomwvari calebi. muqad gamomwvari calebi aris rogorc gauprialebeli (G.N.: kat. #. 27), ise gaprialebuli (G.N.: kat. #. 14,15,24,36) da angobirebulli (G.N.: kat. #. 28, 115) zedapiriT. movardisfrod gamomwvar dergebSi gvxvdeba rogorc xaoianzedapiriani (G.N.: kat. #. 34,35,39,41) ise angobirebuli (G.N.: kat. #. 23) da moxatuli (G.N.: kat. #. 12, 37). amave tips mivakuTvneT dergi (G.N.: kat. #. 115), romelic mkveTrad gansxvavdeba danarCenebisagan. igi damzadebulia ganleqili Tixisagan, gamomwvaria Savad, zedapiri `sarkiseburad~ aris gaprialebuli da Sekruli horizontaluri da vertikaluri reliefuri xazebiT. am niSnebiT igi Zv.w. II – I s-is pirvel naxevarSi gavrcelebuli, msgavsi teqnologiiT damzadebuli da gaformebuli WurWlebis analogiuria. es dergi pirobiTad mivakuTvneT maRalyeliani dergebis tips. sinamdvileSi igi SeiZleba sxva warmomavlobis iyos, iseve rogorc mTlianad sarkisebrad gaprialebuli keramika. meore tips miekuTneba oryura dergebi, romlebSic pirisa da yelis formiT ori qvetipi gamoiyofa: 1. farTopiriani da 2. viwropiriani. farTopiriani dergebis ori saxeoba gvxvdeba: 1. sferultaniani (G.N.: kat. #. 111) da 2. wagrZelebultaniani (G.N.: kat. #. 112). sferultaniani dergebi damzadebulia kargad ganleqili Tixisgan da mowiTalodaa gamomwvari. wagrZelebultaniani dergebi damzadebulia minarevebiani Tixisagan, gamomwvaria araTanabrad, umetes SemTxvevaSi ruxad. aseTebi xSirad samarxebad gamoiyeneboda Zv.w. I s-is meore naxevari - ax.w. II saukuneSi (mag.: nastakisi, wiwamuri, urbnisi da sxv.). wagrZelebultaniani dergebi Zv.w. VII - ax.w. VII saukuneebSi ZiriTadad Zv.w. III – I saukuneebSi gvxvdeba. wagrZelebultaniani dergebis prototipebi Zv.w. XII-VI ss. Zeglebze gvxvdeba [ix. kalandaZe 1982: nax. 33, 109, 149, 229; abramiSvili da sxv. 1980: nax. 74-13, 14; 170-428, 171-433]. III-VII qronologiuri jgufis sferultaniani dergebic damzadebulia kargad ganleqi- li Tixisgan da mowiTalodaa gamomwvari. aseTi tipis dergebi Zv.w. VII – ax.w. VII ss. qarTlis keramikaSi iSviaTad gvxvdeba da mxolod namosaxlarebzea aRmoCenili. III-VII qronologiuri jgufis wagrZelebultaniani dergebi damzadebulia minarevebiani Tixisagan, gamomwvaria araTanabrad, umetes SemTxvevaSi ruxad da Cvili bavSvebis dasakrZalavad gamoiyeneboda. aseTi samarxebi ki ZiriTadad Zv.w. I s-is meore naxevari - ax.w. II saukuneSi gvxvdeba (nastakisi, wiwamuri [Нариманишвили 1991: 17], urbnisi [WilaSvili 1964: 44, tab. XII-2] da sxv.). wagrZelebultaniani dergebi viwropiriani, gamoyvanilyeliani, brtyelZira WurWlebia, romelTac mucelze 2-2 yuri aqvT miZerwili (G.N.: kat. #. 119,114,116), amgvari dergebis zogierTi egzemplari TeTri angobis koncentruli xazebiTaa moxatuli (G.N.: kat. #. 113,114). yvela maTgani movardisfrod aris gamomwvari. wagrZelebultaniani dergebi Zv.w. VII ax.w. VII saukuneebis manZilze ZiriTadad Zv.w. III – I saukuneebSi gvxvdeba, Tumca moxatuli calebi TiTqos ufro adreuli Cans. aseTi dergebi ax.w. III-VII ss. Zeglebzec aris aRmoCenili. am periodis WurWlebs yurebi ZiriTadad pirsa da mxarze aqvT miZerwili, yelze ori an sami wibo Semouyveba. Ziri ki farTo da brtyeli aqvT. wagrZelebultaniani dergebis prototipebi Zv.w. XII-VI ss. Zeglebze gvxvdeba [kalandaZe 1982: nax. 33, 109, 149, 229; abramiSvili da sxv. 1980: nax. 74-13, 14; 170-428, 171-433]. am qvetipis dergebi rkinis farTo aTvisebis xanis UuSualod momdevno periodSi, jerjerobiT ar Cans, albaT, saTanado namosaxlarebis Seuswavlelobis gamo. miuxedavad amisa, mainc SeiZleba vilaparakoT maTi ganviTarebis xazze gvianbrinjaodan gvianantikuri xanis CaTvliT. isini erTmaneTisagan teqnologiiT gansxvavdebian. Zv.w. XII-VI ss WurWeli damzadebulia msxvilmarcvlovani Tixisagan, gamomwvaria Savad an monacrisfrod. antikuri xanis calebi kargad ganleqili Tixisaganaa damzadebuli, gamomwvaria movardisfrod. maT Soris adreuli calebi moxatulia, mogviano ki saerTod ornamentis gareSea. gvianantikuri xanis calebs piri ufro farTo da yeli ufro dabali aqvT, vidre adreulebs. meore qvetipis, viwropiriani dergebi Dgansaxilveli qronologiuri monakveTis mTel manZilze gvxvdeba. Tumca, I – II qro- 27 nologiur jgufebSi isini yvelaze didi raodenobiTaa gavrcelebuli. am qvetipis dergebi damzadebulia ganleqili Tixisgan, gamomwvaria monacrisfrod an Savad. zedapiri xSir SemTxvevaSi gaprialebulia da amoRaruli ornamentiTaa Semkuli. umetesoba sferulmucliania. mesame tipis dergebi, pirveli orisagan mxolod imiT gansxvavdeba, rom maT swori, odnav SigniT gadaxrili piri aqvT. aseT WurWlebs yeli ki ara aqvT, aramed piris SeviwrovebiT warmoqmnili muxli gaaCniaT, romelic tafisebri xufisaTvis (G.N.: kat. #292,293,299-303) aris gankuTvnili (G.N.: kat. # 119-122). am tipis dergebis uZvelesi egzemplarebi (G.N.: kat. # 121, 122, 581, 582) samadlos naqalaqarzea aRmoCenili [Гагошидзе 1979: 89] da Zv.w. III _ II saukunis dasawyisiT TariRdebian. maT saxesxvaobas unda warmoadgendnen ufliscixeSi aRmoCenili calebi (G.N.: kat. # 117-119), romlebic samadloSi aRmoCenili dergebis tipis ganviTarebas warmoadgenen. maTi TariRi Zv.w. II-I s-is pirveli naxevriT unda ganisazRvros. aseve TariRdeba RarTiskaris sasimagro sistemis Sida teritoriaze gamovlenili am tipis dergebi, romelTa piris dm. 30-35 sm-ia [nioraZe 1940: 10, tab. XXV-5]. tipologiurad am tipis dergebis msgavsia erTi qoTani (G.N.: kat. # 290), romelic Zv.w. I saukunis meore naxevriTa da ax.w. II saukuniT TariRdeba. am tipis yvela dergi, Cveni azriT, oryura unda yofiliyo. samadloSi aRmoCenili yvela aseTi WurWeli moxatulia, rac albaT, maT gansakuTrebul daniSnulebaze miuTiTebs. rogorc am tipis WurWelze dakvirveba gviCvenebs, isini zomiT TandaTan pataravdebian da Zv.w. I saukunis meore naxevrsa da ax.w. II saukuneSi isini qoTnebis saxiT arian warmodgenili. aqve unda aRiniSnos, rom am tipis dergebma farTo gavrceleba ver hpova. III. sadRvebeli (tab. X) ZiriTadad karaqis dasamzadeblad gamoiyeneba. am mizniT uZvelesi droidan sxvadasxva masalisagan (tyavi, xe, Tixa, liToni) damzadebul sadRveblebs iyenebdnen. saqarTveloSi Tixisagan damzadebuli sadRveblebi mxolod I-II qronologiur jgufebSi da ufro adrea gavrcelebuli, SemdegSi, ax.w VII saukunis CaTvliT isini aRar gvxvdeba. Tixis sadRveblebs gadaSlili da ganieri piri, mkveTrad gamoberili mxrebi, daqanebuli kalTebi da viwro Ziri aqvT. am periodSi gvxdeba oryura, calyura, iSviaTad uyuro sadRveblebi. IV. TaRari (tab. XI). TaRari (isarna) ZiriTadad meRvineobasTan dakavSirebuli didi zomis WurWelia. TaRari umeteswilad maranSi sawnaxelis win aris gamarTuli da sawnaxelidan momdinare wvenis Casasxmelad da Semdeg qvevrebSi gasanawileblad aris gankuTvnili [masalebi... 1979: 148]. TaRari, agreTve gamoiyeneboda saRebavis an marcvleulis gadasatanad. `meWurWleni qaSanuris misaRebad masSi asxamdnen dafqvili brolis, SuSisa da tyviis naerTs [qarTuli enis ganmartebiTi leqsikoni 1955: 350; zandukeli 1982: 37]. g. zandukels Setanili aqvs pureulisaTvis gankuTvnili WurWlis rigSi [zandukeli 1982: 37]. am mxriv sainteresoa RarTiskaris sasimagro sistemis Sida teritoriaze gaTxrili wisqvili, sadac dadasturda iatakSi naxevramde Cadgmuli ori didi zomis TaRari, romlebSic fqvili an xorbali iyreboda an erTSi xorbali, meoreSi fqvili. TaRars marcvleulis sawyaodac iyenebdnen. TaRars axasiaTebs farTo, odnav gadaSlili piri, TiTqmis vertikaluri kalTebi da patara brtyeli Ziri. TaRarebi arc Tu ise didi raodenobiTaa aRmoCenili. isini formiT didad ar gansxvavdebian erTmaneTisgan. mcire gansxvaveba SeiniSneba mxolod qobis gaformebaSi. am niSnis mixedviT TaRarebi or tipad iyofa. pirveli tipis TaRarebs gadakecili qoba aqvT. maT Soris gvxvdeba TaRarebi SeTxelebuli da momrgvalebuli qobiT (G.N.: kat. # 186), Tanabrad Semsxvilebuli da momrgvalebuli qobiT (G.N.: kat. # 192) da dakuTxuli qobiT (G.N.: kat. #. 188). meore tipis TaRarebisaTvis horizontaluri qobaa damaxasiaTebeli, romelTa erT nawils dakuTxuli qoba (G.N.: kat. # 184,187,189,190,192), meore nawils profilirebuli (G.N.: kat. # 185), mesame nawils ki Sesqelebuli, momrgvalebuli qoba aqvs [Цкитишвили 1977: 91, sur. 4-1]. TaRarebis piris dm 30 sm-dan 150 sm-mde meryeobs. mag.: cixiagoraze gamovlenili am tipis yvelaze patara WurWlis piris dm 30 sm-ia, udidesisa ki 140 sm-s udris, ufliscixisa da dedoflis mindvris – 8090 sm., samadlos calebisa 100-150 sm–s Soris meryeobs (G.N.: kat. # 189). sididis mixedviT WurWlebs sami (N: kat. # 186), an ori horizontuli yuri (G.N.: kat. # 192) aqvT. yvela maTgani damzadebulia kargad ganleqili Tixisgan, gamomwvaria movardis- 28 frod da moxatulia wiTeli saRebaviT. TaRaris magvari WurWlebi, gadmosaRvreliani didi zomis badiebi da jamebi, aRmoCenilia xovles namosaxlaris III da II horizontebSi [musxeliSvili 1978: 4748 1284-2-S; gv. 55, 1305-S]. es faqti miuTiTebs, rom am tipis WurWlebi Zv.w. VII-VI ss-Sic unda iyos gavrcelebuli. Tumca, am periodisaTvis ufro iseTi badiebia damaxasiaTebeli [mag. narekvavis namosaxlarze da samarovanze – davlianiZe, sadraZe 1993: tab. XXXI-1,7, XXXII-7, XL-7; LII-2, LXI-2; nikolaiSvili, gavaSeli 2007: LIII-1282, LX-1359], romlebsac qobis ZirSi siTxis gadmosaRvereli mili (sadinari) aqvT datanebuli. aseTi tipis badiebs xSirad ori yuri aqvT. Zv.w. VII-VI saukuneebis gadmosaRvreliani da oryuriani badiebi ki qarTlis antikuri xanis Zeglebze aRmoCenil luTeriumis tipis WurWlebs ufro gavs da ara didi zomis TaRarebs. Tumca, aRsaniSnavia, rom am saxeobis WurWlebs Soris raime genetikuri kavSiri ar Cans. yvela TaRari, garda xovlesi da dedoflis mindvrisa (G.N.: kat. # 192), Zv.w. IV-III ss. aris daTariRebuli [gagoSiZe 1981: 19,26,33; Цкитишвили 1977: 87,90; xaxutaiSvili 1970: 87,128]. TviT WurWlebis formis ganviTarebaze dakvirvebiT gveqmneba STabeWdileba, rom maT Soris uZvelesia pirveli jgufis WurWlebi, romlebic Zv.w. III s-is dasawyissa da Zv.w. II s-is dasawyiss Soris unda moTavsdes. Semdeg xdeba qobis TandaTan gasworeba da WurWlis zomebis Semcireba, ise rom Zv.w. I s-is meore naxevarsa da ax.w. II saukuneSi gvxvdeba horizontul da dakuTxulqobiani, SedarebiT patara zomis WurWlebi (G.N.: kat. # 192), romlebic samadlos naqalaqarze gamovlenili kraterebis gviandel replikas warmoadgenen. Semdeg xanaSi ki, Cvens mier ganxiluli TaRaris tipi saerTod aRar Cans. V. `sarZeve WurWeli~/luTeriumi (tab. XII) didi zomis badiiseburi WurWelia, romelsac gadmosaRvreli aqvs. ZiraTadad gamoiyeneboda siTxis da marcvleulis amosaRebad, aseve erTi rezervuaridan meoreSi gadasatanad. aseTi WurWlebis piris diametri 30 – 50 sm-s udrida. am zomis luTeriumebs uwodeben sarZeve WurWlebs. Tumca, gvxdeba ufro didi zomis WurWlebic. luTeriumi/sarZeve WurWeli ZiriTadad ganleqili Tixisaganaa damzadebuli da kargadaa gamomwvari. mas farTo, moyrili piri, maRali da daqanebuli gverdebi da didi, brtyeli Ziri aqvs. Zv.w. VII - ax.w. VII ss-Si gadmosaRvrelis mixedviT ori tipis luTeriumia gavrcelebuli. pirveli tipis WurWlebs gadmosaRvreli pirs qvemoT aqvs datanili da milis forma aqvs. meore tipis WurWlebis gadmosaRvreli qobazea gaformebuli da piris gagrZelebas warmoadgens. aseT gadmosaRvrelebs Rarisebuli forma aqvT. pirveli tipis WurWlebi gansaxilveli periodis mTel manZilze gvxdeba. Tumca, maT I da II qronologiuri jgufebis manZilze gabatonebuli mdgomareoba ukaviaT. SeiZleba iTqvas, rom drois am monakveTSi meore tipis WurWlebi praqtikulad ar gvxdeba. es ukanaskneli mxolod III qronologiuri jgufis miwuruls, ufro ki, IV qronologiur jgufSi iCens Tavs da mokle xanSi gabatonebul mdgomareobas ikavebs. VI. Zabri (tab. XI) qarTlSi Tixis sul ori Zabria aRmoCenili. erTi xovles namosaxlaris I horizonts miekuTvneba [musxeliSvili 1978: 59, tab.LIX-1431] da Zv.w. IV s-iT TariRdeba, meore ki narekvavis namosaxlaris II horizontSia aRmoCenili [davlianiZe, sadraZe 1993: 47, tab. XXXIV-10, LXXXIX-5] da gamTxrelebis mier Zv.w. VII saukunis miwuruliT da Zv.w. VI saukuniT TariRdeba [davlianiZe, sadraZe 1993: 65]. Cven es ukanaskneli Zv.w. VI-V ssiT gvaqvs daTariRebuli [Нариманишвили 1991: 20]. orive maTgani damzadebulia minarevebiani Tixisgan, xeliTaa gamoZerwili, gamomwvaria monacrisfro-movardisfrod. maT farTo, odnav moyrili piri da mrgvali mili aqvT. VII. sawuri. sameurneo da samzareulo daniSnulebis nivTia. gamoiyeneboda Txevadi masis gasafiltrad. Tixisagan damzadebuli aseTi WurWeli iSviaTia arqeologiur Zeglebze. vfiqrobT, am mizniT sxva masalisagan damzadebuli sawurebi iyo xmarebaSi. VIII. Wraqi (tab. XIII). Wraqi/lampari gasanaTebeli/sanaTi WurWelia, romelsac liTonis, qvis da Tixisagan amzadebdnen. Tixis Wraqebi formiT jam-fialebs hgavs. kamaraxevisa da muxaTgverdis samarovnebze mopovebul amgvar WurWlebze dakvirvebiT gairkva, rom maTi umravlesoba tuCis garSemo Sebolilia. gamoricxuli ar aris, rom samzareulo jamebic gamoeyenebinaT Wraqebad. zogierTi Wraqis piris dm 30 sm-ze meti iyo. WraqebSi gvxv- 29 deba pirmoyrili, profilirebulpiriani da pirswori calebi. yvela Wraqi brtyelZiriania. erT nawils aqvs yuri, meore nawili ki uyuroa. WraqebSi oTxi ZiriTadi tipi gamoiyofa: 1. saxeluriani, 2. yuriani, 3. uyuro da 4. ornawiliani. saxeluriani Wraqebi (G.N.: kat. # 225) Zv.w. V s-iT TariRdeba [davlianiZe 1983: 30,115]. Wraqebis es tipi yvelaze adreuli Cans da Zv.w. V s-iT TariRdeba (III qronologiuri jgufi). saxeluriani Wraqebis ganviTarebul saxes SeiZleba kamaraxevSi aRmoCenili Wraqi warmoadgendes, romelsac saxeluris nacvlad cerisebri Sverili aqvs (G.N.: kat. # 842, 934). yuriani Wraqebi yurisa da piris donis Sefardebis mixedviT or qvetipad iyofa: 1. pirvel qvetips miekuTvneba Wraqebi, romelTac lenturi yurisa da piris done erT sibrtyeze aqvT. pirveli qvetipis WraqebSi sami saxeoba unda gamoiyos – 1. pirmoyrili (G.N.: kat. # 193196,200,201,203,205-207), 2. pirswori (G.N.: kat. # 199) da 3. profilirebulpiriani (G.N.: kat. # 198, 202). 2. yuriani Wraqebis meore qvetips miekuTvneba is calebi, romelTa yuric piris zemoT aris aziduli. am qvetipis WraqebSi gvxvdeba sami saxeobis Wraqi 1. dabrtyelebuli da pirmoyrili (G.N.: kat. # 204,209,213,216,217,221-224); 2. profilirebulpiriani (G.N.: kat. # 197,208,210212,214,215). yuriani Wraqebis pirveli qvetipi ZiriTadad samarovanzea aRmoCenili da Zv.w. V – IV s-is pirvel naxevars miekuTvneba. kamaraxevis samarovanze gamovlenil WraqebSi ukve SeiniSneba yuris piris zemoT acileba (G.N.: kat. # 197,204) da kidis profilireba (G.N.: kat. # 197), rac mogviano xanis, meore tipis WraqebisTvis aris damaxasiaTebeli, romlebic ZiriTadad Zv.w. IV s-is meore naxevarsa da Zv.w. III s-is dasawyisSi Tavsdebian; 3. Wraqebi romlebsac piri moyrili aqvT, kide ki momrgvalebuli. am tipis Wraqebis simaRle yurTan ufro metia, vidre tuCTan. amasTan yuradRebas iqcevs is, rom samadlos calebs (G.N.: kat. # 222-229) yuri tuCis mopirdapired aqvs da ara yuris mimarT marTi kuTxiT, rogorc yvela danarCens. aRniSnuli gansxvavebani, rogorc Cans, maT qronologiur gansxvavebaze unda miuTiTebdes. kerZod, kamaraxevis cali Zv.w. V – IV s-is pirvel naxevarSi, ufro mis meore naxevarSi Cans gavrcelebuli; ufliscixis, asureTis, muxaTgverdis, kavTisxevis ki, Zv.w. IV s-is meore naxevariTa da Zv.w. II s-iT unda daTariRdes. uyuro WraqebSi ori qvetipi unda gamoiyos – 1. pirmoyrili (G.N.: kat. # 220,828,888-891,934) da 2. pirswori (G.N.: kat. # 928, 929). orive am tipis WurWeli formiT ar gansxvavdeba jamebisgan. maTi erTaderTi ganmasxvavebeli niSania tuCi, romelzec cecxlis kvalia SemorCenili. aseTi calebi ZiriTadad Zv.w. III – I ss. gvxvdeba. mcire zomis uyuro Wraqebi didi raodenobiTaa aRmoCenili I-VI saukuneebis qarTlis Zeglebze (mcxeTa, bagineTi, armazisxevi, Zalisi da sxva). pirmoyrili Wraqebis maqsimaluri diametri 6.0-7.0 smia, simaRle ki 3.0 sm-s ar aRemateba. ornawiliani Wraqi narekvavis namosaxlaris # 3 saxlSi aRmoCnda [davlianiZe, sadraZe 1993; davlianiZe 1975: XLIV-10). igi III horizonts ganekuTvneba da VII s-is I naxevriT aris daTariRebuli [davlianiZe, sadraZe 1993: 65]. aqvs sakmaod farTo da grZeli tuCi, mkveTrad daqanebuli mxrebi, sferuli muceli, Zirze sami fexi hqonia. samzareulo WurWeli. IX. tafiseburi WurWeli (tab. XIV) samzareulo keramikis erT saxes warmoadgens. mas didi diametris (50 – 80 sm), odnav gareT gadaSlili piri, dabali (5 – 12 sm) kalTebi da didi brtyeli Ziri aqvs. yvela maTgani uxeSi Tixisagan damzadebuli da sqelkedliania. ori tipis tafiseburi WurWeli gvxvdeba. pirveli tipis tafiseburi WurWlebis bortebi Tanabari simaRlisaa da arsad ar aris gaxsnili. meore tipis tafiseburi WurWlebis kalTebi erT monakveTSi dadablebas iwyebs da Semdeg Camodis Ziris donemde, ise, rom WurWlis erT mxares 10 – 15 sm-is siganis Riobi warmoiqmneba. tafiseburi WurWlebi aris rogorc stacionaluri, romlebic Rumelis Tavzea daZerwili, ise gadasatani. X. qoTani (tab. XV-XVII). qoTnebi samzareulo WurWlis erT-erT yvelaze gavrcelebul saxea. maT absolutur umravlesobas farTo piri, gareT gadaSlili qoba, dabali yeli, momrgvalebuli muceli da brtyeli Ziri aqvs. zedapiri umetes SemTxvevaSi uornamentoa (G.N.: kat. # 23-25). am tipis WurWlis forma didi xnis ganmavlobaSi TiTqmis ucvleli rCeba. ar icvleba maTi damzadebis teqnolo- 30 giac – Tixa minarevebiania, uxeSi keci gamomwvaria ruxad (G.N.: kat. # 126,127, 132,134,136,146,171,177,655,657,659,662,66 9,673,680,695,697, 699), zogierTi maTgani gamomwvaria araTanabrad (G.N.: kat. #123,647,654,658,663,667,675,676,681,682694, 696), gvxvdeba zedapirgaprialebuli (G.N.: kat. # 125,129,141,142,152,156,164170,172-175,178,183), iSviaTad angobirebuli (G.N.: kat. # 138,162) calebi. qoTnebis nawils Ria feris keci aqvT (G.N.: kat. # 124,128,137,660,661,654,666,668,670, 672,674,678,700,701), gvxvdeba zedapir gaprialebuli (G.N.: kat. # 135,140,143,144,147, 148,150,151,153-155,157-161), iSviaTad gvxvdeba angobirebuli (G.N.: kat. # 163) da moxatuli (G.N.: kat. # 130) calebi. qoTnebSi ori tipia: 1. uyuro da 2. yuriani. isini formiT ar gansxvavdebian erTmaneTisgan. uyuro qoTnebi msgavsebas iCenen dergebTan. yuriani qoTnebi ki tolCebis erT jgufTan avlens siaxloves. uyuro qoTnebi, piris gaformebis mixedviT, or qvetipad unda daiyos: 1. dakuTxulqobiani (G.N.: kat. # 139,140,142-148,151,152,154,158,162,168170,180,181,183) calebi ZiriTadad samadlos naqalaqarzea aRmoCenili da V qronologiur jgufSi Tavsdeba. 2. momrgvalebulqobiani (G.N.: kat. #123130,132-138,141,153,155,157,160,162-167,171174,179,182) qoTnebi ufliscixeSi da samadloSia aRmoCenili. aseTi WurWlebi Zv.w. III saukunidan Zv.w. I s-is pirvel naxevramde gvxvdeba. uyuro qoTnebis meore qvetipSi SeiZleba gamoiyos ori saxeoba: 1. qoTnebi romlebsac qoba gadakecili da SeTxelebuli aqvs (G.N.: kat. # 137), kavTisxevSia aRmoCenili da Zv.w. IV s-is meore naxevarsa da Zv.w. III s-is dasawyiss miekuTvneba. 2. horizontalurqobiani qoTani (G.N.: kat. # 130), romelic ufliscixeSia aRmoCenili da misi TariRi Zv.w. I s-is meore naxevriTa da ax.w. II saukuniT unda ganisazRvros. yuriani qoTnebic or qvetipad iyofa: 1. dakuTxulqobiani da 2. momrgvalebulqobiani. dakuTxulqobian qoTnebSi (G.N.: kat. # 647,650,654,655,658,669,672-678,683-690,698) sami saxeoba gamoiyofa: 1. yuri miZerwilia pirsa da mxarze (G.N.: kat. # 678), 2. Sesqelebulqobiani (G.N.: kat. # 677) da 3. horizontalurqobiani (G.N.: kat. # 698), es sami ukanaskneli cali samadlos naqalaqarzea aRmoCenili da Zv.w. III - Zv.w. I s-is pirvel naxevars miekuTvneba. yuriani qoTnebis didi nawili RrmaxevisTavis samarovanzea aRmoCenili da ZiriTadad Zv.w. V s-is dasawyissa da Zv.w. IV s-is pirvel naxevarSi Tavsdeba, muxaTgverdis samarovanze mopovebuli cali (G.N.: kat. # 655) ki, Zv.w. IV s-is meore naxevarsa da Zv.w. III s-is dasawyiss miekuTvneba. 2. momrgvalebulqobian qoTnebSi, piris daxrilobis mixedviT erTi, pirswori saxeoba gamoiyofa (G.N.: kat. # 651,672,673). meore tipis WurWlebi ZiriTadad Zv.w. V-IV ss. da Zv.w. II - ax.w. II saukuneebs miekuTvnebian. amasTan, Zv.w. V s-is dasawyisidan Zv.w. IV s-is pirvel naxevramde da Zv.w. I s-is meore naxevaridan ax.w. II saukunis CaTvliT ufro didi raodenobiTaa dadasturebuli, vidre Zv.w. IV s-is meore naxevaridan Zv.w. III s-is dasawyisamde da Zv.w. II saukunidan Zv.w. I s-is pirvel naxevramde. miuxedavad imisa, rom qoTnebi formiT ar gansxvavdebian erTmaneTisgan, maT Soris mkveTri teqnologiuri sxvaoba SeiniSneba. Zv.w. VII-VI ss Zeglebze aRmoCenili yuriani qoTnebi mravalferovania da teqnologiurad am epoqaSi gavrcelebuli Tixis WurWlebis analogiuria. am periodis qoTnebi ganleqili Tixisaa, gamomwvaria monacrisfrod, an yavisfrad da Carxzea damzadebuli. mag. narekvavis namosaxlaris II-III horizontebSi aRmoCenil qoTnebs Soris gvxvdeba rogorc uyuro, ise yuriani [davlianiZe, sadraZe 1993: 86, tab. XV-2, XVII-2] calebi. qoTnebi narekvavis namosaxlaris I horizontSic gvxvdeba. maT gadaSlili piri, dabali yeli, daqanebuli mxrebi, sferuli tani da brtyeli Ziri aqvs. erTs yelTan koncentruli xazebi da iribi Wdeebi [davlianiZe, sadraZe 1993: 35, tab. XXVII_11], meores ki talRiseburi ornamenti [davlianiZe, sadraZe 1993: 35, tab. XXVII-13] aqvs. am dros jer kidev gvxvdeba zoomorfulyuriani calebi. mag. narekvavis namosaxlaris II horizontSi aRmoCenili 10 qoTnidan, sams zoomorfuli yuri aqvs [davlianiZe, sadraZe 1993: 46-47, tab. XXXIV 7-9; XXXV 1-4]; qoTnebis nawils badiseburi an talRovani ornamenti, koncentruli Rarebi an naWdevi ornamenti aqvs mxarze da Zirze. ornamenti ZiriTadad amoRaruli, amokawruli da gaprialebuli xazebiT aris Sedgenili. Zv.w V - Zv.w. III s-is dasawyisis WurWlebi ufro msxvilmarcvlovani Tixisaa (iSviaTi gamonaklisis garda) gamomwvaria araTanabrad – ruxad, absoluturi umravlesoba xe- 31 liTaa naZerwi. Zv.w. II – ax.w. II saukuneebis WurWlebi, maTTan SedarebiT, kargad ganleqili Tixisganaa damzadebuli. isinic umetesad muqkecianebia (Tumca am dros ufro meti mowiTalod gamomwvari WurWeli gvxvdeba, vidre adre). damzadebulia Carxze. maTi zedapiri kargad aris mosworebuli, gaprialebuli da zogjer angobirebulic. ax.w. IV-VII saukuneebis qoTnebis umravlesoba Ria ferisaa, Tumca gvxdeba uxeSkeciani da ruxad gamomwvari nawarmic. XI. koWobi (tab. XVIII-XXI). koWobi qoTnis formis, patara zomis (yvelaze maRali 15 sm-ia) WurWelia romelsac farTo, gadaSlili piri, dabali, gamoyvanili yeli, sferuli, bikonusuri an profilirebuli tani da brtyeli Ziri aqvs. koWbebi umetesad msxvilmarcvlovani Tixisganaa damzadebuli da gamomwvaria muqad (G.N.: kat. # 227-234,236,238,239,243,251,255,256,258260,262,265-286,288), romelTa Soris gvxvdeba araTanabrad gamomwvari calebi (G.N.: kat. # 231,242,245,263,264,287,289), iSviaTia gaprialebulzedapiriani (G.N.: kat. # 240,257) da angobirebuli (G.N.: kat. # 241) WurWlebi. koWbebis nawils Ria feris keci aqvT (G.N.: kat. # 149,237,246250,254), iSviaTia SeRebili (G.N.: kat. # 235) da moxatuli (G.N.: kat. # 252, 261) egzemplarebi. koWbebi tanis formis mixedviT sami ZiriTadi tipisaa: 1. sferulmucliani, 2. bikonusurtaniani, 3. profilirebultaniani. sferulmucliani koWbebi ramdenime qvetipad iyofa – 1. momrgvalebulqobiani, 2. dakuTxulqobiani da 3. gadaxriliqobiani da horizontalurqobiani. pirveli qvetipis, momrgvalebulqobiani koWbebis erT nawils sada zedapiri (G.N.: kat. # 227,228,231-235,237-240,242,244252,254,257-265,281,282,284-286), meore nawils mucelze daZerwili kopebi (G.N.: kat. # 266-277), mesames ki acqvetili yurebi (narekvavi) aqvs. momrgvalebulqobiani koWbebi gvxvdeba xovles III horizontSi (Zv.w. VI s.) da isini xovleze axal formas warmoadgnen; aseTi WurWeli sul sami cali aRmoCnda. erTi maTgani maRalyeliania, mucelganieri da Zirbrtyeli [musxeliSvili 1978: 46, tab. 54, 1279-S]; sferulmucliani erTi koWobi wiTelkeciani da SeRebilia, yelis ZirSi wvrili daStampuli wrexazebis sartyliT [musxeliSvili 1978: 46, tab. 54-1317]; mesame sferulmucliani koWobi legadaa gamomwvari da vardisferzedapiriania [musxeliSvili 1978: 46. tab. 54814-S]. sferulmucliani da momrgvalebulqobiani koWbebi narekvavSi mxolod II horizontSi aRmoCnda. maT maRali yeli, sferuli muceli da brtyeli Ziri aqvT [davlianiZe, sadraZe 1993: 43, tab XXX8,10,11,12]. sferulmucliani koWbebi gansakuTrebiT didi raodenobiT gvxvdeba Zv.w. V-IV s-is pirvel naxevarSi (G.N.: kat. #227,228,231-235,237-239,242,245, 248,250252,258-260,262-264,281,284,285), SemdegSi, Zv.w. IV s-is meore naxevaridan Zv.w. II s-is dasawyisamde (G.N.: kat. # 240,265,285) TiTqos iklebs. Zv.w. I s-is meore naxevarsa da ax.w. II saukuneSi ki isev izrdeba maTi raodenoba (G.N.: kat. # 244,246,247,249,252, 254,257,261). am qvetipis moxatuli koWobi (G.N.: kat. # 252) mxolod erTi calia aRmoCenili kamaraxevSi, romelic Zv.w V s-is dasawyissa da Zv.w. IV s-is pirveli naxevars miekuTvneba (III qronologiur jgufSi). momrgvalebulqobiani koWbebis erT nawils mucelze kopebi aqvs daZerwili. kopebiani WurWeli aRmoCenilia narkvavis II samSeneblo horizontSi (davlianiZe, sadraZe 1993: 43, tab. XXX-8,11), kamaraxevSi (G.N.: kat. # 266-274, 277) da muxaTgverdSi (G.N.: kat. # 275). narekvavis calebi Zv.w. VII saukune – Zv.w. VI s. pirvel naxevars, kamaraxevisa Zv.w. V s-is dasawyisi – Zv.w. IV s-is pirvel naxevars, muxaTgverdisa ki Zv.w. IV s-is meore naxevari – Zv.w. III s-is dasawyiss miekuTvneba. adreuli periodis koWbebze kopebi WurWlis amoyvanis Semdeg aris miZerwili tanze. Sulaveris samarovanze aRmoCenili cali (G.N.: kat. # 276), romlis kopebic WurWlis kedlebis gamobervis Sedegadaa miRebuli, Zv.w. I s-is meore naxevarisa da ax.w. II saukuneSi Tavsdeba da im WurWlebis jgufSi eqceva, romlebic msgavsi teqnikiT Sesrulebuli kopebiTaa Semkuli da gvian antikur xanaSia gavrcelebuli. gvxdeba koWbebi, romlebsac mxarze ori acqvetili yuri aqvT daZerwili. acqvetilyurian koWbebs gadaSlili piri, mrgvali bako, dabali gamoyvanili yeli aqvs. mxarTan gamoberilia [davlianiZe, sadraZe 1993: 42-43, tab. XXX-9]. aseTi koWobi narekvavis II horizontSia dafiqsirebuli. sferulmucliani koWbebi, romlebsac dakuTxuli (G.N.: kat. # 236,243,253,255) an gadaxrili qoba aqvT (G.N.: kat. # 229,230) mcire raodenobiTaa aRmoCenili da amitom Semdgomi klasifikacia Znelia. dakuTxulqobiani koWbebi (G.N.: kat. # 236,243,253,256) Zv.w V s-is dasawyisiT da 32 Zv.w. IV s-is pirveli naxevriT TariRdeba. koWbebi gareT gadmoxrili qobiT ori calia (G.N.: kat. # 229, 230) aRmoCenili da Zv.w. IV s-is meore naxevarsa da Zv.w. III s-is dasawyiss, koWbebi ki, romelTac horizontaluri qoba aqvT (G.N.: kat. # 241) Zv.w. III-II s-is dasawyiss miekuTvneba. meore tipis, bikonusurtaniani da mesame tipis, profilirebultaniani koWbebi iSviaTobas wamoadgenen da ZiriTadad Zv.w V s-is dasawyisi – Zv.w. IV s-is pirvel naxevarSi (G.N.: kat. # 278,279,280,283,289) da naklebad Zv.w. IV s-is meore naxevari – Zv.w. III s-is dasawyisSia (G.N.: kat. # 288) gavrcelebuli. am periodSi da SemdegSic saerTod SeiniSneba koWbebis raodenobis klebis tendecia. TiTqos Zv.w. III saukunidan Zv.w. I s-is pirvel naxevramde maTi raodenoba minimumamdea dasuli. ax.w. II - IV ss. Zeglebze sferulmucliani, pirgadaSlili koWbebis raodenoba TiTqos isev matulobs, Tumca Semdeg, ax.w. V-VII ss. isini aRar gvxdeba. XII. qila (tab. XXII-XXIII). wagrZelebuli formis Tixis WurWelia, romlis simaRle muclis diametrze samjer metia. maTi simaRle 20 – 50 sm-s Soris meryeobs. XIII. badia (tab. XXIV-XXV). didi zomis xis, liTonis an Tixis jamis formis WurWelia, romelsac farTo, moyrili piri, maRali kalTebi da brtyeli Ziri aqvs. badiebis simaRle 10 - 30 sm-s, piris diametri ki 20 - 40 sm-s Soris meryeobs. samzareuloSi ZiriTadad myari an Txevadi sakvebis gadasaadgileblad gamoiyeneboda. Tixisgan damzadebuli badiebi ZiriTadad erTi tipis iyo, gansaxilveli epoqis yvela etapze gamoiyeneboda da farTod iyo gavrcelebuli XIV. xufi (tab. XXVI). xufi/sarqveli damoukidebel WurWels ar warmoadgens, igi ixmareba dergebis, qoTnebis an qilebis sarqvelad [Нариманишвили 1991: 27-28]. sarqvelebi gvxdeba xis, qvis da Tixis. Tixisgan damzadebuli xufebi arc Tu ise didi raodenobiT aris aRmoCenili arqeologiur Zeglebze. Tixis xufebi sami saxis gvxdeba: 1. diskosebri, 2. tafisebri, 3. fialisebri. diskosebur xufebSi ori tipi gamoiyofa: saxeluriani (G.N.: kat. # 296) da usaxeluro (G.N.: kat. # 294). diskoseburi jgufis xufebi damzadebulia msxvilmarcvlovani Tixisgan da gamomwvaria ruxad. e.w. tafiseburi xufebi damzadebulia kargad ganleqili Tixisgan, gamomwvaria movardisfrod. xufebis nawili moxa- tulia (G.N.: kat. # 293,301,303,304). gvxvdeba SeRebili (G.N.: kat. # 292) da zedapirgaprialebuli calebic (G.N.: kat. # 302). rogorc Cans, maT Soris uZvelesia moxatuli calebi, romlebic aseve moxatuli piqsidiseburi WurWlis (G.N.: kat. # 121,122,581,582) sarqvelebs unda warmoadgendnen. ar aris gamoricxuli, rom piqsidiseburi WurWlebi gansakuTrebuli (saritualo) daniSnulebisac iyos. tafisebur xufebSic ori tipi gamoiyofa: xufebi, romelTac kideze ori naxvreti aqvT (G.N.: kat. # 292,293,299,301-304) da xufebi, romelTac Zirze, SuaSi erTi naxvreti aqvT (G.N.: kat. # 291). ornaxvretian xufebs kideze naxvretebi, albaT, imitom aqvT, rom maTSi gayrili TasmiT xufi WurWlis yurebze magrdeboda. xufis maRali borti da piqsidiseburi WurWlis aseve maRali piris kide WurWlis saimedod daxufvis saSualebas iZleoda. amgvarad daxufuli WurWlebi gadasaadgilebladac advili iqneboda. erTnaxvretiani xufi, Tavisi formiT, zedapiris gaformebiT yvelaze mogviano Cans da dakavSirebulia aseve mogviano qoTnebTan (G.N.: kat. # 290). erTi naxvreti albaT ufro sasule iyo, vidre xufis dasamagrebeli. fialiseburi xufebis jgufSic ori tipi gamoiyofa: saxeluriani (G.N.: kat. # 297) da usaxeluro (G.N.: kat. # 295,298,300). tafiseburi xufebi ZiriTadad Zv.w. III saukunidan Zv.w. I s-is pirvel naxevramde gvxvdeba. ar SevcdebiT, Tu xufebs romlebsac ori naxvreti aqvT xSirad gadasaadgilebeli, xolo diskosebur da fialisebur xufebs ki, stacionaruli WurWlebis sarqvelebad miviCnevT. unda aRiniSnos, rom xufebi, gansakuTrebiT diskoseburi da fialiseburi, yvela qronologiur jgufSi unda arsebobdnen da Tu isini jer-jerobiT mcire raodenobiTaa aRmoCenili, es isev gaTxrili namosaxlarebis simciriT unda aixsnas. Zv.w. VII - VI s-is dasawyisSi gavrcelebulia e.w. konusuri xufebi, romlebic xovles uZveles fenebSic gvxdeba [musxeliSvili 1978: tab. XXIV - 46-61, 110-61, 19361; XXXVIII - 2340,2287,2330). konusuri xufebi aRmoCenilia xovle IV [musxeliSvili 1978: 39, tab. XLVII - 2322) da III horizontebSi [musxeliSvili 1979: 43-44, tab. LIV - 1000S]. aseTive xufebia napovni narekvavis namosaxlaris III horizontSic [davlianiZe, sadraZe 1993: 57, tab. XLII - 5,6,7]. XV. Cafi (tab. XXVII-XXVIII). didi zomis 33 Tixis WurWelia, romelic formiT doqis msgavsia, Tumca masze didia. CafSi 10 litrze meti siTxe eteva. Cafi aucilebel WurWels warmoadgens maransa da samzareuloSi. gvianSuasaukuneebSi Cafi gamoiyeneboda sawyaod da is kokis meoTxeds Seadgenda. Zv.w. VII – ax.w. VII saukuneebis arqeologiur Zeglebze dafiqsirebuli Cafebi kargad ganleqili Tixisaganaa damzadebuli da Txelkeciania. maT mrgvali piri, Seviwrovebuli yeli, mxriani, sferuli, an wagrZelebuli formis tani da brtyeli Ziri aqvT. erTi yuri ZiriTadad pirsa da mxarzea miZerwili. am periodis Cafebi didi moculobisaa (12-25 litri siTxe). statiis gagrZeleba ix. Semdeg nomerSi. ciis 1975 wlis muSaobis angariSi. - mcxeTa II, Tbilisi, gv. 8-80. afaqiZe da sxv. 1983: afaqiZe a., nikolaiSvili v., meliTauri k., sixaruliZe a., sadraZe v., ZnelaZe m., manjgalaZe g., xecuriani l., WaniSvili T., giunaSvili g., davlianiZe r., gavaSeli e., iremaSvili S., bibiluri T., Rlonti n. didi mcxeTa, 1979. – mcxeTa, t. VI, gv. 191-218 afaqiZe da sxv. 2004: afaqiZe a., nikolaiSvili v., giunaSvili g., davlianiZe r., narimaniSvili g., sadraZe v., ZnelaZe m., iremaSvili S., noneSvili al., xecuriani l., gavaSeli e. mcxeTis eqspedicia, savele-arqeologiuri kvleva-Zieba 1990-1992 wlebSi (mokle angariSebi), Tbilisi, gv. 70-80. literatura beraZe 1980: beraZe e. adreantikuri xanis ormosamarxebi `qasraanT miwebis~ samarovnidan. - kavTisxevis arqeologiuri Zeglebi, Tbilisi, gv. 14-17. abramiSvili 1957: abramiSvili r. samTavros samarovanze aRmoCenili gviani brinjaos xanisa da rkinis farTo aTvisebis xanis Zeglebis daTariRebisaTvis, ssmm, t. XIX-A da XXI- B, gv. 115-140. boxoCaZe 1963: boxoCaZe a. antikuri xanis samarxebi TeTriwyarodan. mska, III, 1963, gv. 27-38. abramiSvili da sxv. 1980: abramiSvili r., giguaSvili n., kaxiani k. RrmaxevisTavis arqeologiuri Zeglebi, Tbilisi. boxoCaZe 1981: boxoCaZe a. arqeologiuri gaTxrebi aRaiansa da ZalisSi, nastakisis arqeologiuri eqspediciis Sromebi I, Tbilisi. avaliSvili 1974: avaliSvili g. qvemo qarTli Zv.w. I aTaswleulis pirvl naxevarSi. Tbilisi. bragvaZe, daviTaSvili 1993: bragvaZe z., daviTaSvili am. mcxeTijvris elinisturi xanis samarxebi, Tbilisi. amiranaSvili 1997: amiranaSvili j. sakravelis samarovani. - Zm # 3, (98) gv. 15-17. afaqiZe 1963: afaqiZe a. qalaqebi da saqalaqo cxovreba Zvel saqarTveloSi, Tbilisi. gagoSiZe 1967: gagoSiZe i. elinisturi xanis masalebi samadlodan. - ssmm, t. XXVII-B, gv. 53-93. afaqiZe da sxv. 1955: afaqiZe a., gobejiSvili g., kalandaZe al., lomTaTiZe g. armazisxevis arqeologiuri Zeglebi. - mcxeTa I, Tbilisi. gagoSiZe 1970: gagoSiZe i. samadloSi mopovebuli moxatuli WurWeli. - Zm, #23, gv. 41-46. afaqiZe da sxv. 1978: afaqiZe a., kalandaZe a., nikolaiSvili v., manjgalaZe g., sixaruliZe a., xecuriani l., jRarkava T., ZnelaZe m., davlianiZe r., giunaSvili g. mcxeTa 1976, mcxeTis arqeologiuri eqspediciis 1976 wlis muSaobis angariSi, mcxeTa, arqeologiuri kvleva-Ziebis Sedegebi, t. II, Tbilisi, gv. 81-156. gagoSiZe 1975: gagoSiZe i. samadlos arqeologiuri eqspediciis 1972 wlis muSaobis angariSi. - ssmae, t. IV, gv. 59-63. gagoSiZe 1974: gagoSiZe i. warmarTuli taZari dedoflis mindorze. - Zm, #35, gv. 70-78. gagoSiZe 1978: gagoSiZe i. dedoflis mindvris sataZro kompleqsis 1976-1977 ww gaTxrebis angariSi. - ssmae, t. VI, gv. 62-76. afaqiZe da sxv. 1978a: afaqiZe a., kalandaZe a., nikolaiSvili v. mcxeTa 1975, mcxeTis mudmivmoqmedi arqeologiuri eqspedi- gagoSiZe 1982: gagoSiZe i. TrialeTis samarovnebi, katalogi III, antikuri xanis 34 samarovnebi, Tbilisi. davlianiZe 1985: davlianiZe r. narekvavis samarovani. mcxeTa VII, gv. 6-40. xanis Zeglebi samxreT-aRmosavleT saqarTvelodan, sakandidato disertacia (xelnaweri), Tbilisi. davlianiZe, sadraZe 1993: davlianiZe r., sadraZe v. narekvavis namosaxlari da samarovani, Tbilisi. kviJinaZe 1983: kviJinaZe k. wnisisxevis adreelinisturi xanis samarovani, Zm, #63, 28-32. davlianiZe 1975: davlianiZe c. antikuri xanis samarxi. – qvemo qarTlis arqeologiuri eqspediciis angariSi (1965-1972 ww.). gv. 173-185. kvirkvelia 2011: kvirkvelia g., murvaniZe b., nikolaiSvili v., orjonikiZe al. arqeologiuri gaTxrebi graklianis goraze 2009 wels. Ziebani #20, gv. 47-67 davlianiZe 1976: davlianiZe c. adreantikuri xanis Zeglebi qvemo qarTlidan. ssmm, t. XXXII-B, gv. 118-147. lorTqifaniZe, da sxv. 1972: lorTqifaniZe oT., fuTuriZe r., Tolordava v., Wyonia a. arqeologiuri gaTxrebi vanSi 1969 wels, vani I, Tbilisi, gv. 198-242. davlianiZe 1977: davlianiZe c. sof. gomareTSi Catarebuli dazverviTi arqeologiuri gaTxrebis mokle angariSi. ssmm, t. V, gv. 84-102 lorTqifaniZe da sxv. 1981: lorTqifaniZe o., gigolaSvili el., kaWarava d., liCeli v., fircxalava m., Wyonia an., Zv.w. VI-V ss-is kolxuri keramika vanis naqalaqaridan. vani V davlianiZe 1983: davlianiZe c. qvemo qarTlis (TrialeTis) kultura Zv. w. I aTaswleulis meore naxevarSi, Tbilisi. lorTqifaniZe da sxv. 1983: lorTqifaniZe o., fuTuriZe r., kaWarava d., maTiaSvili n., Tolordava v., fircxalava m., Wyonia an., lorTqifaniZe m., gigolaSvili el., liCeli v., gamyreliZe g. antikuri importi vansa da mis midamoebSi, vani VII, 7-156 zandukeli 1982: zandukeli m. qarTuli xalxuri keramika, zaqaraia 1965: zaqaraia p. naqalaqar urbnisis xuroTmoZRvreba, Tbilisi. Tolordava 1963: Tolordava v. masalebi iberiis samefos istoriisaTvis Zv.w. I aTaswleulis bolo saukuneebSi. – mska, t. III, gv. 137-163 maTiaSvili 1977: maTiaSvili n. Zv.w. III-I ss-is kolxeTis qalaqebis ekonomikis istoriidan. Tolordava 1980: Tolordava v. dakrZalvis wesi elinisturi xanis saqarTveloSi (qvevrsamarxebi), Tbilisi. maTiaSvili 1983: maTiaSvili n. Zv.w. III-II ss-is Savlakiani keramika, _ vani VII, gv. 60-75 Tolordava 1986: Tolordava v. centraluri terasis Crdilo-aRmosavleTi ferdi (1975-1979 ww. gaTxrebis Sedegebi), vani VIII, Tbilisi, gv. 79-92. margiSvili, narimaniSvili 2004: margiSvili s, narimaniSvili g. algeTis xeobis antikuri xanis arqeologiuri Zeglebi. masalebi... 1979: masalebi saqarTvelos Sinamrewvelobisa da xelosnobis istoriisaTvis, t. II, red. iv. javaxiSvili. kalandaZe 1982: kalandaZe al. samTavro, winaantikuri xanis arqeologiuri Zeglebi. mcxeTa VI, gv. 7-138 maxaraZe 1999: maxaraZe z. axali aRmoCenebi cixiagoraze. – Ziebani #4, gv. 57-66. kviJinaZe 1967: kviJinaZe k. 1966 w aRmoCenili adreantikuri xanis Zeglebi aruxlos `geoiTefesa~ da `samaCveTis~ samarovanze, samecniero sesia miZRvnili 1966 wlis savele-arqeologiuri kvlevaZiebis Sedegebisadmi, Tbilisi, gv. 64, 65. maxaraZe, narimaniSvili 2001, maxaraZe, narimaniSvili g. cixiagora aqemenidur xanaSi. – Ziebani, # 7 gv. 47-53. manjgalaZe 1985: manjgalaZe g. samTavros samarovnis gvianantikuri xanis samarxebi. katalogi. – mcxeTa, VII, gv. 43-108. kviJinaZe 1973: kviJinaZe k. TeTriwyaros antikuri xanis Zeglebi, mska, t. V, gv. 39-51 menabde, davlianiZe 1968: menabde m., da- kviJinaZe 1975: kviJinaZe k. adreantikuri 35 vlianiZe c. TrialeTis samarovnebi I, katalogi, Tbilisi. maniSvili g., manjgalaZe g. martazisxevis qvevrsamarxi, mcxeTa IX, Tbilisi, gv. 163171. mirianaSvili 1983: mirianaSvili n. Sida qarTlis materialuri kulturis istoriidan. narimaniSvili, maxaraZe 2010: narimaniSvili g., maxaraZe z. axali monacemebi `cixiagoras~ Zv.w. VI-IV ss. Zeglebis Sesaxeb. – iberia-kolxeTi, # 6, gv.105-116. murvaniZe 2005: murvaniZe b. eli-babas samarovani. – Ziebani, #15-16, gv. 147-163 narimaniSvili da sxv. 2010: narimaniSvili g., amiranaSvili j., kvaWaZe m., SanSaSvili n. avranlos arqeologiuri Zeglebi. – baqo-Tbilisi-jeihani, samxreT kavkasiis milsadeni da arqeologia saqarTveloSi. Tbilisi, gv. 340-409 musxeliSvili 1978: musxeliSvili d. xovlegoras namosaxlaris arqeologiuri masala, Tb. nakaiZe 1980: nakaiZe n. Zv. w. IV-III ss. qvevrsamarxebi `daWrilebis~ samarovnidan. - kavTisxevis arqeologiuri Zeglebi, Tbilisi, gv. 28-41. narimaniSvili, SatberaSvili, 2002: narimaniSvili g., SatberaSvili v, Zv.w.V-I ss-is wiTlad moxatuli keramika qarTlidan. - Ziebani #9 54-70 narimaniSvili 1988: narimaniSvili g. wiTlad gamomwvari keramikis gavrcelebis sakiTxisaTvis. smam V,12, #2, gv. 141-143. nikolaiSvili 1978: nikolaiSvili v. gvianantikuri xanis Zeglebi diRmis xeobidan. - saqarTvelos arqeologiis sakiTxebi. I, gv. 91-104 narimaniSvili 1990: narimaniSvili g. nastakisis antikuri xanis samarovani, aZ, Tbilisi, gv. 85-110. narimaniSvili 1997: narimaniSvili g. qarTlSi wiTlad gamomwvari keramikis gavrcelebisaTvis. ssmm t V-B, gv. 180-183 nikolaiSvili 1993: nikolaiSvili v. karsnisxevis meTune-xelosanTa dasaxleba, Tbilisi. narimaniSvili 1998: narimaniSvili g. xaSuris nacargoris antikuri xanis samarovani. xelnaweri. nikolaiSvili, gavaSeli 2007: nikolaiSvili v., gavaSeli ed. narekvavis arqeologiuri Zeglebi, Tbilisi narimaniSvili 1999: narimaniSvili g. antikuri xanis samarxi patarZeulidan. Ziebani #3, gv. 68-70 nikolaiSvili, manjgalaZe, narimaniSvili, 2012: samTavros adreantikuri xanis qvasamarxebi. – iberia-kolxeTi, # 8, gv. 57-61 narimaniSvili 2004: narimaniSvili g. walka-TrialeTis arqeologiuri eqspediciis mier eli-babas samarovanze 2003 wels Catarebuli savele kvleva-Ziebis angariSi (xelnaweri). nikolaiSvili, narimaniSvili 1995: nikolaiSvili v., narimaniSvili g. wiwamuri III, mcxeTa X, Tbilisi, gv. 58-96. nioraZe 1940: nioraZe g. arqeologiuri gaTxrebi alaznis velze, Tbilisi. narimaniSvili 2009: narimaniSvili g. daraqois namosaxlari da samxreT kavkasiis aqemeniduri xanis istoriis zogierTi sakiTxi. – iberia-kolxeTi, # 5, gv. 94-125. nucubiZe 1978: nucubiZe a. alaznis velis Zv.w. XIV-XII ss. arqeologiuri Zeglebi. 1980, Tb. narimaniSvili 2016: narimaniSvili g. knoles samarovani. – Ziebani #23 Jinvali 1983: Jinvali, t. I, red. r. ramiSvili. narimaniSvili 2016a: narimaniSvili g. armazisxevis arqeologiuri eqspediciis angariSi. (xelnaweri). robaqiZe 1982: robaqiZe c. aragvispiris samarovnis Tixis WurWeli. – aZ, gv. 85-92. saginaSvili, gagoSiZe 1973: saginaSvili m., gagoSiZe iul. algeTis fialebi, - saqarTvelos mecnierebaTa akademiis moambe, # 4, gv. 81-98 narimaniSvili 2016b: narimaniSvili g. bagineTis arqeologiuri eqspediciis angariSi. (xelnaweri) narimaniSvili, manjgalaZe, 1989: nari- 36 sinauriZe 1966: sinauriZe m. aRmosavleT saqarTvelos adrefeodaluri xanis keramika. – masalebi saqarTvelos materialuri kulturis istoriisaTvis. gv. 39-90 ri urbnisi, Tbilisi. sinauriZe 1985: sinauriZe m. kazreTis xeobis arqeologiuri Zeglebi. xaxutaiSvili 1964: ufliscixe, t. I, Tb. xaxutaiSvili d. xaxutaiSvili 1970: ufliscixe, t. II, Tb. xaxutaiSvili d. javaxiSvili, Rlonti 1962: javaxiSvili al., Rlonti l. urbnisi, Tbilisi. sixaruliZe, abuTiZe 1985: sixaruliZe a., abuTiZe a. mogvTakaris samarovani (katalogi). - mcxeTa VII, gv. 109-131. jafariZe 1956: jafariZe oT. arqeologiuri gaTxrebi sof. arkneTSi, Tsu Sromebi, t. 63, gv. 183-205. tyeSelaSvili 1969: tyeSelaSvili oT. foladauris xeoba. Zv.w. VI-V ss.Mmaterialuri kulturis Zeglebi Soris nasoflaridan. Tb. jafariZe 1957: jafariZe oT. arqeologiuri gaTxrebi sof. oJoraSi, Tsu Sromebi, t. 65, gv. 181-216. jinjixaSvili g. 1980: jinjixaSvili g. Zv. w. I da ax. w. I ss. qvevrsamarxebi sayaraulo seris samarovnidan, kavTisxevis arqeologiuri Zeglebi, Tbilisi, gv. 42-59. qarTuli enis ganmartebiTi leqsikoni, 1955 qoriZe 1955: qoriZe d. Tbilisis arqeologiuri Zeglebi. naw. I, Tbilisi jRarkava 1983: jRarkava T. kamaraxevis samarovani. - mcxeTa VI, gv. 139-188 qoriZe 1958: qoriZe d. Tbilisis arqeologiuri Zeglebi, t. II, Tb. Абрамишвили и др. 1974: Абрамишвили Р., Николаишвили В., Окропиридзе Н., Рамишвили Ал. Итоги археологической экспедиции Большого Тбилиси, ПАИ в 1973 г, Тб., с. 21-23. qoriZe 1961: qoriZe d. materialuri kulturis uZvelesi Zeglebi (saCxeris r-ni). Tb. qoriZe 1965: qoriZe d. kolxuri kulturis istoriisaTvis, Tbilisi. Апакидзе и др. 1980: Апакидзе А., Николайшвили В., Абдушелишвили М., Сихарулидзе А., Манджгаладзе Г., Садрадзе В., Джгаркава Т., Гиунашвили Г., Иремашвили Ш. Мцхета результаты археологических исследований, ПАИ в 1977 г, Тбилиси, с.130-146. yazaxiSvili 1980: yazaxaSvili l. antikuri xanis ormosamarxebi da qvayuTebi `sayaraulo seris~ samarovnidan. - kavTisxevis arqeologiuri Zeglebi, Tbilisi, gv. 60-67. Апакидзе и др. 1982: Апакидзе А. М., Николайшвили В. В., Манджгаладзе Г. Н., Садрадзе В. Г., Дзнеладзе М. С., Хецуриани Д. Г., Давлианидзе Р. В., Гавашели Э. И., Сихарулидзе А. Н., Гиунашвили Г. Д., Мелитаури К. Н., Иремашвили Ш. А. Результаты полевых исследовании на территории Мцхета, ПАИ в 1979 г, Тбилиси, с. 68-79. cqitiSvili 2003: cqitiSvili g. cixiagoras sataZro kompleqsi, Ziebani, damatebani XI. SatberaSvili 1999: SatberaSvili v. ecos samarovnis qronologiuri sakiTxi. – Ziebani #3, gv. 57-67. SatberaSvili 2012: SatberaSvili v. xevxmelas xeoba antikur xanaSi. – iberia-kolxeTi, #8, gv. 98-115. Апакидзе и др. 1982а: Апакидзе А. М., Николайшвили В. В., Манджгаладзе Г. Н., Сихарулидзе А. Н., Хецуриани Д. Г., Садрадзе В. Г., Иремашвили Ш. А., Дзнеладзе М. С., Чанишвили Т. В., Мелитаури К. Н., Гиунашвили Г. Д. Мцхетская экспедиция в 1980 г, ПАИ в 1980 г, Тб., с. 35-39. CixlaZe 2015: CixlaZe v. Jinvalis samarovani. Tb. ZnelaZe, CixlaZe 2012: arqeologiuri aRmoCenebi Tbilisis wm. ormoc sebastiel mowameTa monastris teritoriaze. – iberia-kolxeTi, # 8, gv. 83-97 Апакидзе и др. 1984: Апакидзе А. М., Николайшвили В. В., Сихарулидзе А. Н., Садрадзе В. Г., Хецуриани Д. Г., Гиунашвили Г. Д., Иремашвили Ш. А. Результаты полевых изисканий в Мцхета, ПАИ в 1981 г, Тб., с. 45-50. A wiTlanaZe 1983: wiTlanaZe l. varsimaanTkaris samarovani. – Jinvali I, gv. WilaSvili 1964: WilaSvili l. naqalaqa- 37 Апакидзе и др. 1985: Апакидзе А. М., Николайшвили В. В., Гиунашвили Г. Д., Манджгаладзе Г. Н., Дзнеладзе М. С., Садрадзе В. Г., Давлианидзе Р. В., Глонти Н. В. Археологические раскопки в Мцхета и её округе, ПАИ в 1982 г, Тб., с. 44-46. швили Н.Г., Нариманишвили Г.К. Работы Настакисской археологической экспедисии. ПАИ в 1977 г, Тбилиси, с.187-209. Бохочадзе и др. 1981: Бохочадзе А.В., Мирианашвили Н.Г., Нариманишвили Г.К. Настакисская археологическая экспедисия Мцхетского района. ПАИ в 1978 г, Тбилиси, с.143-159. Апакидзе и др. 1986: Апакидзе А. М., Николайшвили., Мелитаури К. Н., Манджгаладзе Г. Н., Хецуриани Д. Г., Абутидзе А. В., Дзнеладзе М. С., Давлианидзе Р. В., Гиунашвили Г. Д., Глонти Н. В., Молашвили Н. И. Мцхетская экспедиция, ПАИ в 1983 г, Тбилиси, с. 31-37. Бохочадзе 1981а: Бохочадзе А. В. Античное городище Дзалиса, всесоюзная конференция `Культурные взоимосвязи народов Средней Азии и Кавказа с окружающим миром в древности и средневековье~, тезисы докладов, Москва, с. 23-24.тезиси Апакидзе и др. 1987: Апакидзе А. М., Николайшвили В. В., Сихарулидзе А. Н., Мелитаури К. Н., Гагошидзе Ю. М., Хецуриани Д. Г., Гиунашвили Г. Д., Манджгаладзе Г. Н., Нариманашвили Г. Н., Давлианидзе Р. В., Садрадзе В. Г., Глонти Н. В., Иремашвили Ш. А. Археологические раскопки в Мцхета и её округе, ПАИ в 1984-1985 гг, Тбилиси, с. 47-51. Бохочадзе и др. 1982: Бохочадзе А.В., Мирианашвили Н.Г., Нариманишвили Г.К., Надиваидзе М.Т., Настакисская археологическая экспедисия Мцхетского района. ПАИ в 1979 г, Тб., 93-106. Бохочадзе и др. 1982 а: Бохочадзе А.В., Мирианашвили Н.Г., Нариманишвили Г.К., Надиваидзе М.Т., Карая К.В., Сургуладзе В.Г. Настакисская археологическая экспедисия Мцхетского района. ПАИ в 1980 г, Тбилиси, с.44-51. Апакидзе и др. 1995: Апакидзе А. М., Николайшвили В. В., Нариманашвили Г. Н., Давлианидзе Р. В., Садрадзе В. Г., Хецуриани Л. Г., Иремашвили Ш. А., Нонешвили А. Мцхетская экспедиция, ПАИ в 1987 г, Тбилиси, с. 89. Гагошидзе 1979: Гагошидзе Ю.М. Самадло (археологические раскопки), Тбилиси. Артилаква и др. 1979: Артилаква В., Иремашвили Ш., Годзиашвили Н., Гочиашвили М. Отчёт о полевойA работе глданской археологической экспедиции. ПАИ в 1976 г. с. 197-204. Гагошидзе, 1981: Гагошидзе Ю.М. Самадло (каталог археологического материала), Тбилиси. Гамбашидзе, Квижинадзе 1982: Гамбашидзе О., Квижинадзе К.Д. Отчёт Месхет-Джавахетской археологической экспедисии. ПАИ в 1979 г, Тбилиси, с.57-62. Бохочадзе 1976: Бохочадзе А. Результаты работ настакисской археологической экспедиции, ПАИ в 1974 г, Тбилиси, с. 61-70. Гамбашидзе, Квижинадзе 1982а: Гамбашидзе О., Квижинадзе К.Д. Месхет-Джавахетская экспедиция. ПАИ в 1980 г, Тбилиси, с.29-31 Бохочадзе 1976а: Бохочадзе А. Результаты работ археологической экспедиции на навастройках двуречья Ксани и Арагви, Археологические исследования на навастройках Грузинской ССР, Тбилиси, с. 66-78. Гамбашидзе и др. 1984: Гамбашидзе О., Квижинадзе К.Д., Ткешелашвили О.В., Личели В.Т., Месхет-Джавахетская экспедиция. ПАИ в 1981 г, Тбилиси, с.18-21 Бохочадзе 1977 а: Бохочадзе А. В. Настакиси, Саркине, Дзалиси-города Иберии античной эпохи (некоторые результаты полевых исследовании), КСИА, вып. 151, с. 93-102. Гамбашидзе и др. 1985: Гамбашидзе О.С., Квижинадзе К.Д., Ткешелашвили О.В., Абрамишвили М.,Р. Отчёт о работе Месхет-Джавахетской экспедиции. ПАИ в 1982 г, Тбилиси, с.31-37 Бохочадзе 1978: Бохочадзе А. В. Исследование настакиской археологической экспедиции Мцхетского района, ПАИ в 1975 г, Тбилиси, с.4154. Давлианидзе 1977: Давлианидзе Ц. О некоторых неопубликованих материалах ранне античной эпохы из Юго-восточной Грузии. – КСИА 151, c. 124, p. 2-6, Москва.) Бохочадзе 1979: Бохочадзе А. Раскопки на территории городища Саркине и Грдзели Миндори. ПАИ в 1976 году. с.106-117 Дундуа 1987: Дундуа Г. Нумизматика античной Грузии, Тбилиси Бохочадзе и др. 1980: Бохочадзе А.В., Мириана- 38 Иващенко 1980: Иващенко М. М. Самтаврские погребения первых трех веков н.э., mcxeTa III, Tbilisi. Москва, Сланов 1979: Сланов А. Некоторые итоги исследования сохтинского могильника. - ПАИ в 1976 г. 1979, с. 175-176. Маисурадзе 1952: Маисурадзе З. Технология черных и серих лощёных сосудов грунтовых погребений в Самтавро. – macne, t. XIII, # 4, Тирацян 1965: Тирацян Г.А. О расписной керамике древней Армении. – ИФЖ №3, Ереван, 265-280 Кахиани, Иорданишвили 1984: Кахиани К. Иорданишвили Ж. Археологическая экспедиция в ущелье р. Машавера. ПАИ в 1981 г. с. 197-204. Тирацян 1971: Тирацян Г.А. О расписной древнеармянская керамика из раскопок Армавира. – ИФЖ №1, Ереван, с. 216-228 Квижинадзе 1983: Квижинадзе К. Д. Работы цнисисхевского отряда Месхет-Джавахетской экспедиции. ПАИ в 1983 году, Тбилиси, с. 27-29. Тушишвили 1987: Тушишвили Н., Амиранашвили Дж., Маргишвили С. Археологическая экспедиция Алгетского ущелья, ПАИ в 19841985 гг, Тбилиси, с. 20-21. Квижинадзе 1987: Квижинадзе К. Д. Отчет о работе Цнисского отряда. ПАИ в 1984-1985 гг., Тбилиси, с. 32-35. Тушишвили 1991: Тушишвили Н., Маргишвили С. Экспедиция Алгетского ущелья, ПАИ в 1986 г, Тбилиси, с. 34-40. Куфтин 1941: Куфтин Б. Н. Археологические раскопки в Триалети, Тбилиси. Куфтин 1948: Куфтин Б. Археологические расскопки 1947 года в Цалкинском районе, Тб. Тушишвили 1995: Тушишвили Н., Маргишвили С. Алгетская экспедиция в 1987 году. – ПАИ в 1987 году. Нариманишвили Г. Керамика Картли в V-I до н.э. 1991 Пицхелаури 1977: Пицхелаури К. Н. Памятники второй половины 1 тысячелетия до н.э. на территории Кахетии. - СА №3, с.221-229 Наридзе 1998: Наридзе Г. Археологические исследования могильника в с. Нацаргора. - ПАИ в 1988 г. с. 85-87. Тбилиси Пицхелаури 1979: Пицхелаури К. Н. В о с т о ч ная Грузия в конце бронзового века. Тбилиси. Наридзе 1991: Наридзе Г. Итоги исследования могильника в с. Нацаргора. ПАИ в 1986 году. Тб., стр. 25-27. Цкитишвили 1977: Цкитишвили Г. Результаты работ на Цихиа-гора (1971-1974 гг.), КСИА № 151, с. 87-93. Наридзе 1995: Наридзе Г. Итоги исследования могильника в с. Нацаргора. ПАИ в 1987 году. Тб., стр. 74-75. Цкитишвили и др. 1991: Цкитишвили Г. , Гветадзе Дж., Квиташвили Р., Махарадзе З., Казахишвили Л. Экспедиция Каспского р-на.ПАИ в 1986 года. Тб., с.65-67. Рамишвили и др. 1979: Рамишвили Р, Джорбенадзе В. и др. Жинвальская экспедиция, ПАИ в 1975 г. с.108-120 Herink 1978: Herink E. Painted pottery of the Ardabil style in Azerbaidjan (Iran). – Iranica Antiqua. Leiden, p. 75-82 Рамишвили и др. 1984: Рамишвили Р, Джорбенадзе В. и др. Работы Жинвальской комплексной археологической экспедиции, ПАИ в 1981г. с.59-68 Ludwig 2010: Ludwig N. 2010: Ostgeorgische fundplätze des I. Iartauzends v. chr. Die Keramik Рамишвили 1985: Рамишвили Р, Джорбенадзе В. и др. Археологические исследования в Арагвском ущелье, ПАИ в 1983г. 48-53 Luschey 1939: Luschey H. Die Phiale. Macharadze 2000: Macharadze Z. Neue funde aus Zichia-Gora. – Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan. Band 32, S. 143-158. Рамишвили 1987: Рамишвили Р, Джорбенадзе В. и др. Археологическое изучение Арагвского ущелья, ПАИ в 1984-1985гг. 74-88 Narimanišvili 2000: Narimanišvili G. Die Keramik Kartlis (Iberiens) in achaimenidischer und postachaimenidischer Zeit. – Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan. Band 32, S. 227-242. Рамишвили 2003: Рамишвили Р. Грузия в эпоху ранего средневековья (4-8 вв.). – Археология. Крым, Северо-Восточное Причерноморье и Закавказье в эпоху средневековья. 4-13 века. Zkitishvili 1995: Der Frühhellenistische Feuertempel von Kavtiskhevi. – AA, S.83-98 39 tabulebis aRweriloba li, 2004; murvaniZe 2005]; 5. tyisbologora - I-II qr. jgufi [Ludwig 2010]. TaRari: 6,10. ufliscixe - VI qr. jgufi [xaxutaiSvili 1970]; 7,8. dedoflis mindo- I. qvevri: 1,2. cixiagora - IV qr. jgufi [maxaraZe, na- ri - VI qr. jgufi [gagoSiZe 1978]; 9. samadlo - V qr. rimaniSvili 2010]; 3,6. cixiagora - V qr. jgufi [Zki- jgufi [Гагошидзе 1981]. tishvili 1995]; 4. ufliscixe - VI qr. jgufi [xaxutaiS- XII. luTeriumi: 1. narekvavi - I-II qr. jgufi [niko- vili 1970]; 5. samadlo - V qr. jgufi [Гагошидзе 1981]. laiSvili, gavaSeli 2007]; 2,3. rkiniskalo - I-II qr. II. qvevri: 1. narekvavi - - III qr. jgufi [davlianiZe jgufi [Ludwig 2010]; 4-6. kamaraxevi - III qr. jgufi 1993]; 2,4. cixiagora - IV qr. jgufi [maxaraZe, nari- [jRarkava 1983]; 7-9. armazisxevi - IX qr. jgufi [na- maniSvili 2010]; 3. wiwamuri - VII qr. jgufi [niko- rimaniSvili 2016a]; 10-12. bagineTi - VIII qr. jgufi laiSvili, narimaniSvili 1995]; 5,6. Tbilisi - IX qr. [narimaniSvili 2016b]; 13-21. urbnisi - IX qr. jgufi jgufi [ZnelaZe, CixlaZe 2012]; 7. grakliani – VIII qr. [sinauriZe 1966]. jgufi [kvirkvelia 2011]. XIII. Wraqi: 1. beSTaSeni - III qr. jgufi [Нариманишвили III. dergi: 1,2,4,5. eli-baba - I-II qr. jgufi [narima- 1991]; 2. gomareTi - IV qr. jgufi [Кахиани и др. 1984]; niSvili, 2004; murvaniZe 2005]; 3. knole - I qr. jgu- 3,11-16. kamaraxevi - III qr. jgufi [jRarkava 1983]; 4-10. fi [narimaniSvili 2016]; 6. narekvavi - I-II qr. jgufi muxaTgverdi - IV qr. jgufi [Нариманишвили 1991]; [nikolaiSvili, gavaSeli 2007]; 7,8. RrmaxevisTavi - I 17,18. armazcixe - IX qr. jgufi [narimaniSvili 2016a]; qr. jgufi [abramiSvili da sxv. 1980]. 19, 20, 22. bagineTi - VIII qr. jgufi [narimaniSvili IV. dergi: 1-3. ganTiadi - I qr. jgufi [Кахиани и др. 2016b]; 21. aRaiani - VII qr. jgufi [mirianaSvili n. 1983]; 1984]; 4. eli-baba - I-II qr. jgufi [narimaniSvili, 23-30. urbnisi - VIII-IX qr. jgufi [sinauriZe 1966]. 2004; murvaniZe 2005]; 5. urbnisi – VII qr. jgufi [Wi- XIV. tafisebri WurWeli: 1-5. eli-baba - I-II qr. jgu- laSvili 1964]; 6. armazisxevi - VIII qr. jgufi [nari- fi [narimaniSvili, 2004; murvaniZe 2005]; 6-11. dara- maniSvili 2016a]. qoi - I-II qr. jgufi [narimaniSvili 2009]. V. dergi: 1. nacargora - I qr. jgufi [narimaniSvili XV. qoTani: 1. ganTiadi - I qr. jgufi [Кахиани и др. 1998]; 2. daraqoi - II qr. jgufi [narimaniSvili 2009]; 1984]; 2,3. RrmaxevisTavi - I qr. jgufi [abramiSvili 3,4,6. knole - I qr. jgufi [narimaniSvili 2016]; 5. wi- da sxv. 1980]; 4. ufliscixe - VI qr. jgufi [xaxutaiS- wamuri - VII qr. jgufi [nikolaiSvili, narimaniSvi- vili 1970]; 5-9,11. urbnisi - IX qr. jgufi [sinau- li 1995]. riZe 1966]; 10. Tavkveri - IX qr. jgufi [Артилаква и VI. dergi: 1,2. ufliscixe - VI qr. jgufi [xaxutaiS- др. 1979]; 12. wiwamuri - VIII qr. jgufi [nikolaiSvi- vili 1970]; 3. samadlo - V qr. jgufi [Гагошидзе 1981]; li, narimaniSvili 1995]; 13. Tbilisi - IX qr. jgufi 4. usaxelo gora - I qr. jgufi [Ludwig 2010]; 5,6. dara- [ZnelaZe, CixlaZe 2012]; 14. samadlo – VI qr.jgufi qoi - II qr. jgufi [narimaniSvili 2009]. [Нариманишвили 1991]. VII. dergi: 1,6. ufliscixe - VI qr. jgufi [xaxutaiS- XVI. 1-3,6. nacargora - II-III qr. jgufi [narimaniSvi- vili 1970]; 2,5. samadlo - V qr. jgufi [Гагошидзе li 1998]; 4,5,8,9. eli-baba - I-II qr. jgufi [narimaniS- 1981]; 3. TelaTgori - IV qr. jgufi [Цкитишвили Г. и vili, 2004; murvaniZe 2005]; 7. ganTiadi - I qr. jgufi др. 1991]; 4. cixiagora - IV qr. jgufi [Zkitishvili 1995]. [Кахиани и др. 1984]; 10. narekvavi - I qr.jgufi [niko- VIII. dergi: 1. eli-baba - I qr. jgufi [narimaniSvili, laiSvili gavaSeli 2007]; 11. xaSuri - II qr. jgufi 2004; murvaniZe 2005]; 2. knole - I qr. jgufi [nari- [narimaniSvili 1998]; 12. daraqoi - II qr. jgufi [na- maniSvili 2016]; 3,5,6. ufliscixe - VI qr. jgufi rimaniSvili 2009]. [xaxutaiSvili 1970]; 4. armazisxevi - VIII qr. jgufi XVII. qoTani: 1-7. RrmaxevisTavi - III qr. jgufi [ab- [narimaniSvili 2016a]. ramiSvili das xv. 1980]; 8. nacargora - I qr. jgufi IX. dergi: 1-6. armazisxevi - VIII qr. jgufi [narima- [narimaniSvili 1998]; 9. daraqoi - II qr. jgufi [nari- niSvili 2016a]. maniSvili 2009]; 10-12. nacargora - II-III qr. jgufi X. sadRvebeli: 1. sagarejo - I qr. jgufi [Ludwig [narimaniSvili 1998]; 13,14. Tavkveri - IX qr. jgufi 2010]; 2. Jinvali - IX qr. jgufi [Рамишвили 2003], 3. [Артилаква и др. 1979]; 15,16. urbnisi - VIII qr. jgufi knole - I-II qr. jgufi [narimaniSvili 2016]. [sinauriZe 1966]; 17,18. eli-baba - I-II qr. jgufebi XI. Zabri: 1. xovle - I qr. jgufi [musxeliSvili 1978]; [narimaniSvili, 2004; murvaniZe 2005]; 19. nacargora 2. narekvavi - I qr. jgufi [davlianiZe, sadraZe 1993]. - III qr. jgufi [narimaniSvili 1998]; 20. quSanaanTgo- sawuri: 3,4. eli-baba - I-II qr. jgufi [narimaniSvi- ra - III qr. jgufi [Рамишвили 2003]. 40 XVIII. qoTani: 1-10. eli-baba - I-II qr. jgufi [narima- fi [narimaniSvili 2016]; 8,9. cixiagora - IV qr. jgufi niSvili, 2004; murvaniZe 2005]; 11-15. nacargora - II- [narimaniSvili, maxaraZe 2010]; 10-12,15. kamaraxevi III qr. jgufi [narimaniSvili 1998]; - III qr. jgufi [jRarkava 1983]; 13,16-18. armazisxevi XIX. qoTani: 1,2,3,6. ufliscixe - VII qr. jgufi [xa- - VIII qr. jgufi [narimaniSvili 2016]; 14. narekvavi - II xutaiSvili 1970]; 4. muxaTgverdi - IV qr. jgu- qr. jgufi [nikolaiSvili, gavaSeli 2007]; 19,21. arma- fi [Нариманишвили 1991]; 5. RrmaxevisTavi - III qr. zisxevi - IX qr. jgufi [narimaniSvili 2016a]; 20. Tavk- jgufi [abramiSvili da sxv. 1980]; 7. arkneTi - VI veri - IX qr. jgufi [Артилаква и др. 1979]. qr. jgufi [jafariZe 1956]; 8,10. kamaraxevi - III qr. XXVI. xufi: 1,3,9. samadlo - V qr. jgufi [Гагошидзе jgufi [jRarkava 1983]; 9. samTavro - VII qr. jgufi 1981]; 2. kazreTi - IV qr. jgufi [sinauriZe 1985]; 4. [Нариманишвили 1991]; 11-15,17-20. wiwamuri - VII qr. kamaraxevi - VII qr. jgufi [jRarkava 1983]; 5. kamara- jgufi [nikolaiSvili narimaniSvili 1995]; 16. samT- xevi - III qr. jgufi [jRarkava 1983]; 6. samadlos miwe- avro - VII qr. jgufi. bi - VI qr. jgufi [Апакидзе и др. 1987]; 7. armazisxevi XX. koWobi: 1-4,6-11. narekvavi - I-II qr. jgufi [niko- - VIII qr. jgufi [narimaniSvili 2016a]; 8. armazisxevi laiSvili, gavaSeli 2007]; 5. ganTiadi - I-II qr. jgufi - IX qr. jgufi [narimaniSvili 2016a]; 11-13. samadlo [Кахиани и др. 1984]; 12,14,15,20. nacargora - II-III qr. - V-VI qr. jgufi [Гагошидзе 1981]; 13,14. narekvavi - I jgufi [narimaniSvili 1998]; 13. eli-baba - II-III qr. qr. jgufi [nikolaiSvili, gavaSeli 2007]; 15. urbni- jgufi [narimaniSvili, 2004; murvaniZe 2005]; 16-19. si - IX qr. jgufi [sinauriZe 1966]. eli-baba - I-II qr. jgufi [narimaniSvili, 2004; mur- XXVII. Cafi: 1-6. narekvavi - I-II qr. jgufi [nikolaiS- vaniZe 2005]. vili, gavaSeli 2007]; 7. RrmaxevisTavi - I-II qr. jgu- XXI. koWobi: 1. nacargora - II-III qr. jgufi [narima- fi [abramiSvili da sxv. 1980]; 8,9. knole - I-II qr. niSvili 1998]; 2-4,6. eli-baba - I-II qr. jgufi [narima- jgufi [narimaniSvili 2016]. niSvili, 2004; murvaniZe 2005].5,8,12,16-18. kamaraxe- XXVIII. Cafi: 1. daraqaoi - III qr. jgufi [narimaniSvi- vi - III qr. jgufi [jRarkava 1983]; 7,14. muxaTgverdi li 2009]; 2,5. armazisxevi - IX qr. jgufi [narimaniS- - IV qr. jgufi [Нариманишвили 1991]; 9,10. kavTisxevi vili 2016a]; 3,4. urbnisi - IX qr. jgufi [Рамишвили - VII qr. jgufi [Нариманишвили 1991]; 11. qasraanT mi- 2003]; 6. armazisxevi - VIII qr. jgufi [narimaniSvili webi - III qr. jgufi [beriZe 1980]; 13,15. RrmaxevisTa- 2016a]. vi - III qr. jgufi [abramiSvili da sxv. 1980]; 19. ar- XXIX. Cafi: 1-4,6-9. narekvavi - I-II qr. jgufi [niko- mazisxevi - VIII qr. jgufi [narimaniSvili 2016a]; 20. laiSvili, gavaSeli 2007]; 5,10-12. eli-baba - I-II qr. urbnisi - IX qr. jgufi; jgufi [narimaniSvili 2004]. XXII. qila: 1-6,9. narekvavi - I-II qr. jgufi [niko- XXX. Cafi: 1-8,11. eli-baba - I-II qr. jgufi [narima- laiSvili, gavaSeli 2007]; 7,8. xovle - I-II qr. jgufi niSvili 2004]; 9,10,12. knole - I-II qr. jgufi [narima- [musxeliSvili 1978]; niSvili 2016]. XXIII. qila: 1-3. narekvavi - I-II qr. jgufi [nikolaiSvili, gavaSeli 2007]; 4,6,7,17. eli-baba - I-II qr. jgufi [narimaniSvili, 2004; murvaniZe 2005]; 5,9-12. samadlo - V-VI qr. jgufi [Гагошидзе 1981]; 8,13. kamaraxevi - III qr. jgufi [jRarkava 1983]; 14. kavTisxevi - III qr. jgufi; 15. aleqseevka - III qr. jgufi; 16. RrmaxevisTavi - III qr. jgufi [abramiSvili da sxv. 1980]; 18-20. Tavkveri - IX qr. jgufi [Артилаква и др. 1979]. XXIV. badia: 1-4. narekvavi - I-II qr. jgufi [nikolaiSvili, gavaSeli 2007]; 5. usaxelo gora - I-II qr. jgufi [Ludwig 2010]; 6. knole - I-II qr. jgufi [narimaniSvili 2016]; 7,8,11,13-15. qvemo qedi - I-II qr. jgufi [Ludwig 2010]; 9. ciskaraanT gora - I-II qr. jgufi [Ludwig 2010]; 11. grZeli gubeebi - I-II qr. jgufi [Ludwig 2010]; 12. rkinis kalo - I-II qr. jgufi [Ludwig 2010]. XXV. badia: 1-4,6,7. eli-baba - I-II qr. jgufi [narimaniSvili, 2004; murvaniZe 2005]; 5. knole - I-II qr. jgu- 41 G. NARIMANISHVILI I 42 II 43 III 44 IV 45 V 46 VI 47 VII 48 VIII 49 IX 50 X 51 XI 52 XII 53 XIII 54 XIV 55 XV 56 XVI 57 XVII 58 XVIII 59 XIX 60 XX 61 XXI 62 XXII 63 XXIII 64 XXIV 65 XXV 66 XXVI 67 XXVII 68 XXVIII 69 XXIX 70 XXX 71 giorgi maxaraZe iberia‑kolxeTi diadoqosebis xanaSi (babilonidan triparadaisamde) Zv.w. 323 wlis zafxulSi babilonSi moulodnelad gardaicvala aleqsandre makedoneli. falangasa da getairebs (mxedrebs) Soris momxdari Sexla-Semoxlis Semdeg uzarmazari imperiis regentad (mefe arideusTan) da “samefo jarebis” mTavarsardalad dainiSna aleqsandres piradi mcveli da megobri perdika. evropis strategosoba SeinarCuna antipatrma, romelic ajanyebul berZnebs lamiis akropolisSi hyavdaT gamoketili (lamiis omi). aleqsandres megobars da makedonelTa usayvarles sardal kraters unda daexsna igi alyidan da aRedgina kontroli regionze [Дроизен 1995: 20-25]. amis Semdeg dadga satrapiebis gadanawilebis droc. yuradRebas gavamaxvilebT perdikas sam daniSvnaze, romelmac gavlena iqonia amierkavkasiaSi arsebul viTarebaze. midiis satrapad dainiSna aleqsandre makedonelis piradi mcveli piToni, romelmac Tavi gamoiCina falangis ajanyebis CaxSobaSi. kraterTan, hefestionTan da leonatTan erTad igi jer kidev aleqsandres sicocxleSi monawileobda brZolebis dagegvmaSi. perdika regentad swored man daasaxela. samefo armiidan piTons gadaeca 3000 qveiTi da 800 mxedari ajanyebuli berZeni kolonistebis SesaCereblad, romlebmac samSobloSi dabruneba gadawyvites. mowinaaRmdege 20000 qveiTs da 3000 mxedars iTvlida. amitom, gaica gankarguleba da piTons ekbatanaSi mezobeli satrapiebidan mosuli 10000 qveiTi da 3000 mxedari daxvda. makedonelebma gaJlites mowinaaRmdege da maTi qoneba daisakuTres [Дроизен 1995: 11]. midiuri ambebis aRwerisas wyaroebSi ar Cans atropati, romelic aleqsandre makedonelma midiis satrapad Zv.w. 328 w-s daniSna [Дроизен 1995: 445]. amierkavkasiel mokavSireebTan erTad (kaspiebi, kadusiebi, sakebi da albanelebi) atripati monawileobda gavgamelas brZolaSi. es tomebi misi vasalebi Zv.w. IV s-is 50-ian wlebSi gaxdnen. Zv. w. 358 wlis dekemberSi gardaicvala artaqserqse II da taxti daikava artaqserqse III oxma (Zv.w.358-338). am reformatori mefis saxels ukavSirdeba aqemeniduri iranis Zlierebis xanmokle reanimacia. moRvaweoba am energiulma mmarTvelma aRmosavleT amierkavkasiaSi laSqrobiT daiwyo [Дандамаев 1985:249]. wyaroebis Tanaxmad, es iyo pasuxi kadusiebis Tavdasxmaze, romlebmac isargebles artaqserqse II-is sikvdiliT da morigi Tavdasxma ganaxorcieles iranze (Just., X, 3). kadusiebi lokalizdeba md. araqsis qvemo dinebis samxreT-aRmosavleTiT mdebare mTian regionSi, manas samefos (urmiis tbis)GCrdiloaRmosavleTiT [Дьяконов 1956: 339]. ktesiusi diodoresTan pirdapir miuTiTebs, rom kadusiebi midielebs ar daumorCilebiaT (Diod, II, XXXIII). aRmosavleT amierkavkasiis dapyroba kiros didis saxels ukavSirdeba. qsenofontes Tanaxmad, kirosma aRmosavleT amoerkavkasiis, midiis, manas daA armeniaurartus mmarTvelad Tavisi Svili tanaoqsari (bardia) daniSna (Xen. Cyrop., VIII, 7, 11). Zv.w. 620 w-s darios I-ma es uzarmazari teritoria or satrapiad dahyo _ X midia, XII armenia. mogvianebiT calke gamohyo dasavleT armenia da “kaspiana” [Дьяконов 1956: 343]. rogorc Cans, swored es ukanaskneli administraciuli olqi moicavda albanelebis, kaspiebis, kadusiebis da sakebis miwa-wyals. Zv.w. V s-is meore naxevridan aRmosavleT amierkavkasiuli tomebi iwyeben permanentul Tavdasxmebs iranze, rac niSnavs, rom aqemenidebma dakarges kontroli kaspianaze. Zv.w. 404 w. kadusiebis winaaRmdeg laSqrobas saTaveSi Caudga TviT artaqserqse II (Xen. Hell.,11, 1, 13), Tumca, uSedegod. Tu raoden angariSgasawevi Zala iyo es tomebi,G Cans ktesiusis naSromidan P”persika”. profesiiT eqimi, hipokrates mowafe ktesiusi, Zv.w. 414 wels tyved Cauvarda iranelebs da 17 wlis ganmavlobaSi cxovrobda artaqserqse II-is karze. igi arasando avtorad aris miCneuli Tavisi Txzulebis im monakveTis gamoklebiT, sadac iranSi misi yofnis ambebia gadmocemuli. ktesiusis cnobebebs adasturebs faqtebi: I _ aRmosavleT amierkavkasia im olqebis ricxvSia, romlebzec kontroli aqemenidebma yvelaze adre dakarges; II _ kadusiebis alagmva ver SeZles midiisa da armeniis satrapebma; III _ saWiro gaxda brZolaSi iranis Sahis uSualo CarTva. miuxedavad amisa, aqemenidurma iranma 72 ver gadaWra kadusiebis problema mTeli Zv.w. IV s-is pirveli naxevris ganmavlobaSi. meore mxriv, istorikosebi aRniSnaven, rom SeuZlebelia kadusiebs brZolis velze gamoeyvanaT 200000 meomari da safrTxe SeeqmnaT uzarmazari imperiisaTvis [Дьяконов 1956: 448]. fiqroben, rom kadusiebis saxeli ktesiusTan calkeul SemTxvevebSi faravs mTlianad aRmosavleT amierkavkasiur tomebs. iseve, rogorc manamade termini kaspiebi moicavda herodotesTan CamoTvlili aq mcxovrebi xalxebis saxelebs: pavsikiebi, pantimatebi, dereitebi, igive kadusiebi. am ukanaskneli jgufis, rogorc uSualod aqemeniduri iranis sazRvarze mcxovrebi tomis wina planze wamoweva xdeba SedarebiT gvian, ktesiusis iranis samefo karze yofnis dros [Дьяконов 1956: 447]. “kaspianis” dakargvam ganapiroba kavkasionis, rogorc damcavi barieris CamoSla da Crd. kavkasiis stepebSi mcxovrebi nomadebis gaaqtiureba. amierkavkasiuri tomebi momTabareebTan erTad ukve realur safrTxes Seuqmnidnen irans. gamarjvebis mopoveba kadusiebze im SemTxvevaSi moitanda Sedegs, Tu artaqserqse III daibrunebda kontrols darubandze. kadusiebTan gamarTul brZolaSi iranelebma gaimarjves. Tavi gamoiCina arsam kodomanma, aqemenianTa Soreulma naTesavma (Tavisi 80 Zma artaqserqse III oxma taxtze asvlisTanave gaJlita), romelmac mogvianebiT darios III saxeliT aqemeniduri iranis taxti daikava. brZolis dawyebamde, sruliad axalgazrdam orTabrZolaSi daamarcxa kadusiebis `falavani,~ rac kargi sawindari gaxda gamarjvebisaTvis (Just. X, 3). artaqserqse III oxma midiis satrapad daniSna atropati, pirovneba, romlis saxels dResac atarebs mezobeli azerbaijanis respublika [Дьяконов 1956: 448]. laSqrobis Sedegad miRweul iqna yvela dasaxuli mizani: erTxel da samudamod Sewyda Tavdasxmebi iranze; kadusiebi, kaspiebi, albanelebi da sakebi erTguli darCnen aqemeniduri iranisa mis dacemamde da monawileobdnen gavgamelas brZolaSi. Tumca, ara rogorc aqemenidebis qveSevrdomni, aramed atropatis mokavSireebi [Дьяконов 1956: 339. прим.3. vasalitetis es forma gvagonebs formulas: “Cemi vasalis vasali Cemi vasali ar aris.”]. stabilurobis aseTi donis miRweva mxolod represiebiT SeuZlebeli iqneboda. atropatma moaxerxa dasayrdenis povna adgilobrivi tomebis sazogadoe- baSi. erTaderTi, risi SeTavazebac SeeZlo atropats, iyo dacva nomadebisgan, rac gulisxmobs darubandze kontrolis damyarebas. amis damadasturebeli pirdapiri monacemebi ar arsebobs, magram i. diakonovi yuradRebas amaxvilebs or garemoebaze: I - atropatma indoeTidan dabrunebul aleqsandre makedonels mihgvara (moawyo saCvenebeli varjiSebi) 100 meomari tyve-qali. es ki niSnavs, rom atropats saSualeba hqonda moewyo samxedro reidebi CdiloeT kavkasiaSi, sadac am dros sarmatebi dominirebdnen. sarmati meomari qalebis samarxebi arqeologiuri gaTxrebiT aris dadasturebuli [Дьяконов 1956: 449]. arqeologiuri gaTxrebis dros darubandSi aRmoCnda aqemeniduri xanis sasimagro kedlebi [Кудрявцев 1974: 155]. am monacemebis fonze yuradsaRebia qarTlis cxovrebis cnoba: `ardam erisTavman aRaSena qalaqi zRvis-kars, da uwoda saxeli darubandi, romeli iTargmanebis `daxSa kari~ [qc. I. 1957; 13]. dasaSvebia, artaqserqse III oxs arsam kodomanisaTvis, kadusiebTan gamarTuli omis gmirisaTvis miendo warmatebuli laSqrobis dagvirgvineba da darubandis dakaveba. jer kidev v. kovalevskaiam, romelic swavlobda `qarTlis cxovrebis~ cnobebs skviTebis wina aziaSi laSqrobebis Sesaxeb, SeniSna, rom ardam erisTavis `epizodi~ amovardnilia konteqstidan da misi mibma Zv.w. VII-VI ss-is movlenebTan ver xerxdeba [Ковалевская 1975: 66]. aRniSnul sakiTxs Seexo m. sanaZec. mkvlevari ardam erisTavze arsebul gadmocemas miakuTvnebs e.w. sparsul cikls, romelSic gamoyofs cnobebis or jgufs: I-adreuls (kirosisa da dariosis epoqa) da II –gviandels, ardam erisTavis epizods, romelis qronologiur CarCoebs Zv.w. V s-is dasasruliT da Zv.w. IV s-is pirvel naxevariT Semofarglavs [sanaZe 2001: 57]. aseT SemTxvevaSi unda dauSvaT, rom `qarTlis cxovrebaSi” Semonaxulia cnobebi darios III-is moRvaweobis Sesaxeb. Zv.w. IV s-is 50-ian wlebSi Camoyalibebulma vasalitetma uzrunvelyo stabiluroba regionSi da SesaZlebeli gaxada darubandis gasasvlelis kontroli. aleqsandre didis gadawyvetileba midiaSi sparseli satrapis datovebis Sesaxeb iTvaliswinebda aRmosavleT amierkavkasiaSi Seqmnil viTarebas. atropatis erTgulebis wyalobiT misi imperiis sazRvari darubands aRwevda. magram, am periodidan atropati mxolod mcire midias (yofili ma- 73 nas samefo) da aRmosavleT amierkavkasias akontrolebs. midiis danarCen nawilSi, sadac gadioda imperiis ZiriTadi magistralebi, makedonelTa samxedro manqana dominirebda. babilonSi satrapiebis pirveli gadanawilebisas piTons midiis swored es nawili (ekbatana) xvda wilad. midia-atropatena ki faqtobrivad damoukidebeli saxelmwifo gaxda [Дроизен 1995: 25-26]. amrigad, Zv.w.323w-is Semodgomaze saqarTvelos aRmosavleTiT Camoyalibda damoukidebeli saxelmwifo midiaatropatena. mis saTaveSi idga sparseli satrapi, avtoritetuli da gamocdili politikosi atropati. sparsi aristokratiisa da magebis mdgomareoba regionSi ar Seryeula. uSualod saqarTvelos sazRvarTan, md. mtkvris CrdiloeTiT albanuri tomebi da mis samxreTiT mcxovrebi iranulenovani momTabare sakebi, kadusiebTan da kaspiebTan erTad atropatis samxedro Zlierebis dasayrdens warmoadgendnen. vasaliteti, romelic Seesabameba mokavSiris statuss da efuZneba saerTo interesebs, am SeTanxmebis wyalobiT midia-atropatena Sedga, rogorc saxelmwifo. rodis gamoacxada atropatma Tavi mefed cnobili ar aris. perdika atropatis siZe iyo. amitom, SesaZloa es moxda regentis sikvdilis Semdeg. mefeebad Tavis gamocxadeba pirvelad iranelma satrapebma daiwyes. diadoqosebi amis uflebas Tavs ar aZlevdnen Zv.w. 306 wlamde. Zv.w. 323 w-s mZime viTareba Seiqmna amierkavkasiis samxreT-dasavleT misadgomebTan. kapadokiis sparselma satrapma ariaratma isargebla imiT, rom aleqsandre didis armiis marSruti ascda mis olqs da Tavi mefed gamoacxada. ariaratis gankargulebaSi iyi 30000 qveiTi da 15000 ganTqmuli kapadokiuri kavaleria. 45000 kaci diadoqosebis epoqaSi did armiad iTvleboda. igive krateri antipatris dasaxmareblad 10000 veteraniT gaemarTa. babilonSi satrapiebis pirveli gadanawilebisas swored kapadokia, paflagonia da Savi zRvis sanapiro trapezundamde ergo aleqsandres pirad mdivans da misi skolis SesaZloa yvelaze niWier sardal berZen evmens. paflagonielebi nebayoflobiT damorCildnen makedonelebs. amitom iTvleboda, rom ariaratis damarcxebiT evmenis Zalaufleba avtomaturad gavrceldeboda regionze. [Дроизен 1995: 20-25]. magram, aqemeniiduri iranis XIX “qar- Tuli sartapia” dasapyrobi iyo. mosxebi kapadokiis Crdilo-aRmosavleT sazRvarTan (TokaT-yarayisar-giumiuS xanes raionSi) [Хазарадзе 1991: 7], maT CrdiloeTiT tibarenebi Savi zRvis sanapiroze q. ordus midamoebSi, ufro aRmosavleTiT mosinikebi, romlebsac zRvis sanapiro zolis garda ekavaT qserqsene, igive derqsene, somxuri derjani (Strabo., XI, 14, 5), makronebi trapezunis raionSi da mis aRmosavleTiT damoukideblobas inarCunebdnen (Xen. Anab. IV, 8, 2324). qsenofontes anabazisidan Cans, rom Zv.w. V s-is bolos, roca aq berZenma daqiravebulebma gaiares XIX satrapia aRar arsebobda [meliqiSvili 1970; 418]. swored am Tavisufal zonaSi iRebs saTaves mosxebis-mesxebis cnobili migraciuli procesi, romelic Zveli qarTuli istoriuli tradiciis Tanaxmad erTiani qarTuli saxelmwifos CamoyalibebiT dasrulda. Zv.w. 323 w-is Semodgomaze mcire aziaSi Seqmnili viTareba makedonelTa dauyonebliv Carevas moiTxovda. perdikas brZanebiT helespontis, anu mcire frigiis satrapad daniSnul aleqsandres pirad mcvels da sardal leonats 20000 qveiTiTa da 2500 mxedriT, didi frigiis satrap antigonis mxardaWeriT unda daepyro kapadokia evmenisaTvis. Tu antigoni Tavidanve ar apirebda regentis brZanebis Sesrulebas, leonats azri antipatrisa da aleqsandre makedonelis dis kleopatras mier gamogzavnilma elCebma Seacvlevines. lamiis cixeSi gamoketili evropis strategosi Svelas iTxovda, kleopatra ki xels sTavazobda macdunebeli perspeqtiviT. leonats SeeZlo krateris armiis moaxloebamde berZnebis damarcxeba, antipatris Zalauflebis damxoba da makedoniis taxtis daufleba. igi imdenad iyo darwmunebuli warmatebaSi, rom evmens TanamSromloba SesTavaza. RamiT evmenma 500 mxlebliTa da 5000 talanti oqroTi banaki datova da perdikasTan gamocxadda [Дроизен 1995: 68]. Zv.w. 322 w-is dasawyisSi regentma “samefo armia” kapadokiisken daZra da Tavisi pirveli gamarjveba moipova. 4000 kapadokieli da sparseli brZolis velze daeca, 6000 tyved Cavarda. ariarati ojaxis wevrebTan da naTesavebTan erTad jvarze gaakres. evmenma Caibara satrapia da ganaxorciela daniSvnebi. kapadokielebs danaSauli epatiaT, daubrundaT qoneba da uflebebi. leonati berZnebTan brZolaSi damarcxda da daiRupa. antipatri 74 lamiidan gamovida da misi armiis narCenebs SeuerTda. is mSvidad SeiZleba dalodeboda kraters. berZnebis SeteviTi potenciali amowuruli iyo. kilikiaSi dabanakebuli perdika antipatris qaliSvilze daqorwinda da imedovnebda, rom evropis strategosi mxars ar dauWerda masTan Sefarebul didi frigiis satrap antigons, romelic urCobisaTvis samefo sasamarTloze daibara. movlenebi perdikasTvis sasurvelad viTardeboda. usiamovnebebi swored am dros daiwyo. Zv.w. 322 w-is gazafxulze ajanyebam ifeTqa armeniaSi. perdikas brZanebiT evmeni kapadokiaSi dabrunda, sadac mas armeniidan gaZevebuli neoptolemosi eaxla. am ukanasknelis mxridan es marTlac mZime nabiji iyo. neoptolemoss sZulda evmeni da amave dros Surda misi. aq ki iZulebuli gaxda kardieli berZenis darigebebi moesmina [Дроизен 1995: 69]. armeniis satrapia darios I-is administraciuli reformis pirmSoa, romelic Zv.w. VI s-is 20-iani wlebis bolos ganxorcielda. herodotes mixedviT, olqSi oTxi “didi” xalxi gaerTianda: alarodiebi (urartelebi), matienebi (xuritebi), armenebi (somxebi) da sasperebi (qarTvelebi). cnoba im periods ganekuTvneba, roca maxlobel aRmosavleTSi dasrulebulia maStaburi politikuri da EeTnikuri Zvrebis, ZalTa arsebiTi gadajgufebis epoqa da dadga stabilurobis periodi. armeniis satrapad darios I-ma Svidi didi sparsidan gamorCeuli vidarna daniSna. faqtobrivad, mas samarTavad urartus samefo da mis dasavleTiT mdebareA armenia gadaeca. amgvari viTareba SenarCunda Zv.w. V saukunemde, roca es administraciuli olqi danawevrda aRmosavleT da dasavleT armeniad. Zv.w. 401 w. roca kunaqsTan gancdili marcxis Semdeg qsenofontem am regionze gaiara aRmosavleT armenias, anu alarodiebisa da matienebis miwa-wyals vidarnas STamomavlebi marTavdnen, xolo somxebi da sasperebi dasavleT armeniis SemadgenlobaSi arian gaerTianebuli (Xen. Anab. II, 4, 8; III, 5, 17; IV, 3) [Дьяконов 1956: 344-445]. orad gaiyo ara somxeTi, aramed armeniis satrapia. Cven gankargulebaSia aqemeniduri iranis armeniis satrapiis “samefo gzis” monakveTis “Wrili”. herodotes mixedviT, sardebidan momavali “samefo” gza aRmosavleT armeniaSi (somxeTSi) kilikiidan Semodioda. amisTvis navebiT iyo gadasalaxi md. evfrati (yara-su), romlis marcxena sanapiroze 57 farsa- ganis manZilze 15 gadasasvleli mdebareobda. Semdeg iwyeboda matienebis qveyana (matiena) da aRmosavleT armeniis sartapia. aq kisiamde 136 farsaganis manZilze 34 gadasasvleli iyo mowyobili. matienas navebiT gadasalaxi oTxi mdinare seravda. maTgan yvelaze dasavleTiT mdebareobda md. tigrosi, romelic saTaves armeniaSi iRebda, magram “samefo gza” mas matienaSi kveTda (V, 49). herodotes cnobebze dayrdnobiT aRniSnavda i. manandiani, rom Zv.w. V s-Si armenebs eWiraT “somxeTis” zeganis mxolod samxreT-dasavleTi raionebi [abdalaZe 2001: 242. literatura iqve]. md. evfratis dasavleTiT mdebare armenia aRmosavleTidan esazRvreboda kapadokias, CrdiloeTidan kilikias, xolo samxreTidan aqemeniduri iranis #19 “qarTul” satrapias. Zv.w. V s-Si somxuri eTnikuri elementi md. evfratis napirze Til-garimu-melitenas raionSia koncentrirebuli. i. diakonovis azriT, es regioni protoarmenebma Zv.w. VII s-is dasawyisSi daekaves, roca asureTis mefe sinaqeribem Til-garimudan ocdaaTaTasiani semituri garnizoni gaiyvana [Дьяконов 1956: 50-51]. Til-garimu, bibliuri Togarma, “qarTlis cxovrebis” Targamosi yvela kavkasielisa da somexis eponimia. legendaruli qarTlosi da haosi, igive somxuri haiki - misi Svilebi, e.i. Til-garimus saxlis vasalebi arian [qc I. 1955; 3-4]. herodotesTan warmoCenili suraTis umTavresi siaxle swored md. evfratis (yara-su) orive napirze gadaWimuli armeniaa. igi ar Cans maxlobeli aRmosavleTis Zv.w. VII-VI ss-is politikur rukebze. movses xorenacisa da ktesiusis cnobebze dayrdnobiT varaudoben, rom aqemenidebs daxvdaT amgvari viTareba regionSi da warmatebas somxebma urartus ngrevisa da midiis samefos firmirebis procesSi miaRwies. urartus dasavleT olqebze, maT Soris armenebis miwebze Seteva yiaRsarma Zv.w. 605 w-s qarxemiSTan gamarTuli brZolis Semdeg, Zv.w. 604 w. wamoiwyo. am omSi somxebi yiaRsaris mokavSireebi iyvnen da Tavs midielTa qveSemrdomebad Tvlidnen. herodotes Tanaxmad, yiaRsaris mmarTvelobis periodSi erTi xalxi batonobda meoreze, xolo yvelaze erTad midielebi. isini uSualod ganagebdnen Tavis mezobel qveynebs, xolo am ukanasknelTa mmarTvelebi Tavis mosazRvreebs. (Herod. I, 134) [Дьяконов 1956: 336]. somxeTi midiidan imarTeboda, ufro dasavleTiT arsebul viTarebas ki mi- 75 dielTa saxeliT somxeTis “mefeebi” awesrigebdnen (mag. kapadokias). miaRwies ra politikuri upiratesobas armenebi msoflio mniSvnelobis magistralebis gaswvriv gansaxldnen da swrafi ganviTareba daiwyes. winamorbed periodSi am regionSi wamyvani xuri-urartuli, luviuri, xeTuri, semituri, kavkasiuri eTnikuri elementia. arsebobs vrceli literatura imis mecnieruli dasabuTebiT (zogjer urTierT gamomricxavi), Tu rogor ganxorcielda kacobriobis istoriaSi uprecedento asimilaciis procesi [Дьяконов 1981: 50-51]. Zv.w. VI s-is bilos behistunis warwaraSi fiqsirdeba Aarmeniis satrapia (babilonur qronikebSi igi am etapzec `uraStu” formiT ixsenieba), xolo Zv.w. V s-Si herodotesTan qveyana armenia, sadac lingva franca, mogvianebiT ki koinec somxuri gaxda [Дьяконов 1968: 232]. amitom, i. diakonovi ar gamoricxavs, rom Zv.w. 553548 ww-Si (kiros-astiagis brZolis xanaSi) somxebma marTlac scades damoukidebeli saxelmwifos Seqmna. aseTi daSvebis SemTxvevaSic ki mis arsebobas Zv.w. 547 w. bolo mouRo kiros didma, romelmac armeniis cixeebSi sparsuli garnizonebi Caayena (Xen. Cyrop. II, 4, 12; III, 3, 5). amave dros, kapadokia man lidiis satraps daumorCila, rac aseve somxebis gavlenis Sesustebas isaxavda miznad. midiuri da somxuri aristokratiis orientaciam kirosze uaryofiTi Sedegebi moutana, rogorc somxebs, aseve midielebs. maT dakarges damoukidebloba da aqemeniduri iranis rigiT satrapiebad Camoyalibdnen [Дьяконов 1956: 354]. sruliad gansxvavebuli viTareba iyo aRmosavleT armeniis satrapiaSi. urartus aRmosavleTi da dedaqalaqi tuSpa, anu matienebiT da alarodiebiT dasaxlebuli teritoria midiis mefe yiaRsarma Zv.w. 609-606 ww-Si daipyro. midielebma aq mkacri kontroli daaweses. xuri-urartuli eTnikuri elementi unda Segueboda saxelmwifoebrivobis dakargvas. Zv.w. V s-is dasawyisSi regioni calke administraciul erTeulad Camoyalibda. samasi wlis ganmavlobaSi (midiuri periodidan) lingva franca aq iranuli iyo. ar unda dagvaviwydes, rom urartul periodSi somxur eTnikur elements damonebuli xalxis statusi hqonda. armenebi ZaliT ayares mkvidri adgilebidan (sadRac gviandeli dasavleT armeniis satrapiis teritoriidan) da daasaxles urartus samefos sxvadasxva kuTxeebSi. maT aiZulebdnen grandiozul infrastruqturul proeqtebSi monawileobas (sarwyavi arxebis mSenebloba, gzebis gayvana da a.S.). Marmenebi Seadgendnen urartus mosaxleobis mxolod sam procents. maTi anklavebi izolirebuli iyo erTmaneTisgan adgilobrivi tomebis masivebiT, rac aferxebda somxuri tomebis konsolidaciis process. midiur periodSi armenebis mdgomareoba Semsubuqda, magram ara imdenad, rom isini wamyvan Zalad Camoyalibebuliyvnen da moexdinaT xuri-urartebis da maTi mmarTveli elitebis sruli armenizacia. movses xorenacis mixedviT, artaSes I-is gamefebamde md. araqsis Sua welze arasomxuri mosaxleoba cxovrobda. somexi istorikosi am xalxs “marebs,” xolo mmarTvel dinastias aJdahakis STamomavlebs uwodebs (movses xorenaci II, 46). es monacemebi savsebiT Seesabameba herodotes cnobebs, romelic armeniis satrapiis erTerT did xalxad alarodiebs, urartelebs asaxelebs. i. diakonovis azriT, aq igulisxmeba xuriurartuli eTnikuri elementi da raRac adgilobrivi substrati, romelic Zv.w. VIII s-Si daxvdaT md.Aaraqsis xeobaSi urartelebs [Дьяконов 1956: 336]. Zv.w. 522-520 ww-Si somxebma mxari dauWires darios I-is winaaRmdeg mimarTul fravartiSis ajanyebas midiaSi. saomar moqmedebebSi armenebma xuTi brZola gaumaTes iranelebs da mZime danaklisic ganicades. Yyvelaze meti tyve iranelebma swored armeniidan wamoasxes. amave periodSi dakarges maT midiur pariodSi mopovebuli privilegiebi [Дандамаев 1985: 92]. darios I-ma armeniis ajanyebis kerebis Caqroba vidarnas (berZnuli oront, somxuri ervand, qarTuli iared-iaredos) daavala. Zneli dasajerebelia, rom Zv.w. V-IV ss-Si, aqemeniduri imperiis arsebobis periodSi ganxorcielebuliyo sparsuli aristokratiis, maT Soris misi naRebis (vidarna Svidi sparsidan erTerTia) armenizaciis procesi. aqemeniduri iranis dasustebis Semdeg vidarnas STamomavlebi monawileobdnen centraluri xelisuflebis winaaRmdeg mimarTul TiTqmis yvela SeTqmulebaSi. maTi domeni ervanduniki urartus samefos dedaqalaq tuSpis raionSi mdebareobda da Tavs urartus mefeebis memkvidreebad miiCnevdnen. maT mizans Seagenda ara somxuri, aramed zogadad damoukidebeli saxelmwifos Seqmna. amitom, Zv.w. 352 w-s artaqserqse III oxma 76 orontidebs satrapia CamoarTva, xolo armeniis mmarTvelad kadusiebTan gamarTuli omis gmiri arsam kodomani daniSna [Дандамаев 1985: 249]. am droisaTvis, man kvlav aRadgina darios I-is droindeli urmiis tbidan kapadokiamde gadaWimuli administraciuli olqi da arsam kodomans centraluri da dasavleT amierkavkasiis mimarTulebiT moqmedebis saSualeba misca. satrapiebis danawevreba an piriqiT, maTi gaerTianeba ufro msxvil administraciul erTeulebSi Cveulebrivi movlenaa aqemeniduri iranis istoriaSi. mag. kiros umcrosi erTdroulad sami - ioniis, lidiisa da kapadokiis satrapi gaxda, misi momdefno –tisaferni ki oTxis (damatebiT karia miiRo) [Дьяконов 1956: 342]. igive armenias, Zv.w. V s-is meore naxevarSi, darios II-is mefobis dros erTi satrapi marTavda. SemTxveviT aRmoCenili babilonuri sabeWdavis teqstSi moxseniebulia uraStusa da melidus (melitena) mmarTveli hidingu-beli (meore rangis satrapia am dros pontos samefos damaarsebeli miTridate ktistic (qalaq kiusis Tavia). pirveli rangis satrapi kapadokiaSi, TviT ariaratia). aleqsandre makedonelma da perdikam armeniaSi aseve erTi satrapi ganamweses (jer miTreni, mogvianebiT neoptolemosi). armeniis satrapiis gaerTianebis sasargeblod metyvelebs armeniis Zv.w. 322 w-is ajanyebis geografiac (ix: qvemoT). amrigad, Zv.w. 336 wlamde armeniis satrapi arsam kodomani, TviT darios III iyo. centraluri da dasavleT amierkavkasiis mimarTulebiT artaqserqse III oxis mier wamowyebuli reforma cxovrebaSi swored man gaatara. sataxto saxeli dariosi SemTxveviT ar airCia. darios I-is msgavsad man farda axada saWuris bagois SeTqmulebas, romelmac mowamla artaqserqse III da misi ojaxi. mokla uzurpatori da aqemenidebs kanonieri xelisufleba daubruna [Дандамаев 1985: 254-255]. armeniis satrapad man oronti (somxuri ervand, qarTuli iarediaredos) daniSna. taxtisaTvis brZolaSi (iseve, rogor Tavis droze vidarna) igi mxarSi edga arsam kodomans, romelmac sagvareulos Zveli dideba da pativi daubruna. armeniis satrapias oronti eqvsi wlis ganmavlobaSi marTavda da gavgamelas velze 30000 qveiTiT da 15000 mxedariT gamocxadda. aseTive armiiT ariaratma Tavi mefed gamoacxada. “qarTlis cxovreba,” romelic ar icnobs armeniis Zv.w. V-IV s-is pirveli naxevris satrapebs, Zv.w. IV s-is Sua xanebisTvis gvawvdis moulodnelad sando da vrcel informacias ardam erisTavze (arsam kodomani). siuJeti moicavs artaqserqse III oxis aRmosavleT amierkavkasiaSi laSqrobis epizods (ardamis mier darubandis mSenebloba), aseve qarTlSi samxedro da saaRmSeneblo moRvaweobis aRweras. wyarom “icis,” rom ardami samefo gvars ekuTvnis: sparsTa mefem `warmogzavna erisTavi Tvisi spiTa didiTa, romelsa saxeli erqva ardam, Svili nebroTis naTesavTa” [qc I. 1955: 13]. nebroTi “qarTlis cxovrebaSi” aqemenidebis sagvareulos ganasaxierebs [sanaZe 2001: 151]. wyaros cnobiT, ardamis Semdeg armeniaSi oTxma mmarTvelma Secvala erTmaneTi: “xolo Semdgomad ardam erisTavisa gardaicvalnes d erisTavni” (oronti, miTreni, neoptolemosi da evmeni). ardamis memkvidred asaxelebs iareds, _ “masve xvda wilad qarTli, romelsa saxelad erqva iared” (berZnuli oront) da mas ukavSirebs qarTvelTa ganTavisuflebas: “...mokles orTa ZmaTa iared, Zma maTi. maSin poves Jami marjve qarTlosianTa” [qc I. 1955: 13-14]. cxadia, aq igulisxmeba gavgamelas brZolis Semdeg Seqmnili viTareba, roca aleqsandre makedonelma damorCilebul satrapebTan Sexvedraze oronti Tanamdebobidan gadaayena. saxeli iared igivea, rac iared-os. sxvaoba daboloebaSi informaciis berZnulenovani wyarodan momdinareobiT aris ganpirobebuli. m. sanaZe sagangebod amaxvilebs yuradRebas am garemoebaze. “qarTlis cxovrebis” mixedviT arian qarTlis mmarTveli azo swored iaredos-is Zea [qemerteliZe 2000: 33]. mkvlevarma ara erTi magaliTis safuZvelze aCvena, rom Zvel qarTul wyaroebSi Zeoba upiratesad gulisxmobs vasalitets da ara naTesaur kavSirs [sanaZe 2001: 38]. amdenad, wyaro pirdapir miuTiTebs, rom qarTlis (iberiis) pirveli mefe azo Zv.w. 336-331 ww-Si armeniis satrap orontis vasali gaxda. istoriis asparezze azo armeniis Zv.w. 322 wlis ajanyebis sxva liderebTan erTad gamodis, rac ndobiT gangvawyobs qarTuli wyaroebis monacemebis mimarT. aleqsandre makedonelis laSqrobis marSruti ascda armenias. Sua aziisa da indoeTis kampaniebis dros gavrcelda cnobebi misi daRupvis Sesaxeb. imperiaSi sruli ganukiTxaoba sufevda [Дроизен 1995: 70]. aleqsandre makedonelis sikvdili gamoiyenes kapadokiisa da midia-atro- 77 patenis satrapebma, magram armeniaSi movlenebi sxva “scenariT” ganviTarda. orontis gadayenebiT armeniaSi moiSala mTeli saxelisuflo vertikali. mTel administraciul olqSi aqemenidebis xelisufleba daemxo, xolo axali, makedonuri ar damkvidrda. Seiqmna xelisuflebis vakuumi. amitom, iniciativa meore rangis satrapebis xelSi gadavida. isini am dros adgilebze realur Zalauflebas floben da aravis vasalebi ar arian. TiToeuli maTgani arCevanis winaSe dgas. aRiaros makedonelTa xelisufleba, gaxdes vasali an Tavi mefed gamoacxados. gadawyvetilebis misaRebi droc aris. armeniaSi satrapi aleqsandre makedonelma Zv.w. 325 w-s dainiSna [Шифман 1988: 186]. ZiriTadi Semakavebeli faqtori gaxda makedonelebTan mosalodneli dapirispireba. diadoqosebis epoqa SedarebiT mcirericxovani, magram kargad ekipirebuli da dakopleqtebuli profesionaluri armiebis xanaa. daaxloebiT cnobilia im SenaerTebis rixvi, romliTac operireben makedonelebi. mag: piToni midiaSi: 13000 qveiTi, 3800 mxedari; mowinaaRmdege: 20000 qveiTi, 3000 mxedari; leonati saberZneTSi: 20000 qveiTi, 2500 mxedari; berZnebi: 22000 qveiTi, 5000 mxedari; krateri kapadokiaSi: 25000 qveiTi, 2500 mxedari. ufro mcirericxovan armias sardlobda neoptolemosTan da kraterTan brZolaSi evmeni. gamarjvebis garantias aseTi armiebi ar iZleoda. magram, brZolebSi gamobrZmedil makedonur armiasTan Ria SejaxebisTvis armeniis satrapiis Zalebi danawevrebuli aRmoCnda. Zveli somxuri istoriuli tradiciis Tanaxmad gavgamelas velze daiRupa armenTa samefo gvaris ukanaskneli warmomadgeneli, legendaruli haikis STamomavali vahe [Абаза 1888: 31]. am brZolam safuZveli daudo politikuri daqucmacebulobis periods somxeTSi, romelmac TiTqmis mTeli Zv.w. III s. gastana. qveynisaTvis uaRresad rTul viTarebaSi somxuri aristokratia winamZRolis gareSe darCa da pirvelobisaTvis brZolaSi Caeba. naTeli iyo, warmatebuli antimakedonuri ajanyebis lideri axali samefo dinastiis damfuZnebeli xdeboda, rac Semaferxebeli garemoeba gamodga antimakedonuri koaliciis formirebis procesSi. yvelaze myari poziciebi armeniaSi aqemenidebs tradiciulad “samefo gzaze” hqondaT. igi sagangebod iyo gamagrebuli da mis cixe-simagreebSi sparsuli garnizonebi idga. Zv.w. 331 w-dan “samefo gza” gadaiqca aleqsandre didis mier Seqmnili imperiis ZiriTad magistralad da cxadia, makedonelTa kontrols daeqvemdebara. sxvagvarad warmoudgenelia fostis aseTi gamarTuli muSaoba, an samxedro SenaerTebis mobiluri gadaadgileba aRmosavluri kampaniis dros. am TvalsazrisiT, armeniaSi midiis msgavsi situacia ikveTeba, ”samefo” gzaze makedonuri samxedro manqana dominirebda [Тер-Мартиросов 1995: 63]. sparsuli garnizonebis mxardaWeris gareSe orontis gavlenis areali vanis tbis raioniT Semoifargla, sadac urartus dedaqalaq tuSpis raionSi mdebareobda misi domeni ervanduniki [ТерМартиросов 1995: 63]. amitom, armeniis Zv.w. 322 w-is ajanyebis epicentri alarodiebis qveyana gaxda. mis saTaveSi idga armaviris armazdis taZris mTavari qurumi magi mergami [Глинка 1832: 117]. md. araqsis Sua welze, urartul qalaq argiStixinilis adgilze aRmocenebuli axuramazdas salocavi Zv.w. V-IV ss-Si regionis religiur, ekonomikur da politikur centrad Camoyalibda [Глинка 1832: 117]. swored magi mergami sardlobda alarodiebis samxedro SenaerTs, romelic neoptolemosis banakTan gamocxadda. rogorc Cans, sparsuli aristokratia misi droSis qveS ibrZoda. Zv.w. 322 w-is armeniis ajanyebis dReebSi magi mergami damoukideblad, Tumca somxur dajgufebasTan SeTanxmebiT moqmedebs [Глинка 1832: 117]. rogorc aRiniSna, Zv.w. 325 w-s aleqsandre didma armeniis satrapad sparseli miTreni (var. mihran, mihrdat) daniSna [Шифман 1988: 188]. igi misaRebi kandidatura armoCnda, rogorc sparsuli, aseve somxuri aristokratiisTvis. swored es mihrdati (da ara pontos samefos damaarsebeli miTridate ktisti) hyavs mxedvelobaSi movses xorenacis, roca saubrobs iberTa mmarTveli dinastiis warmomavlobaze [meliqiSvili 1999: 379; Sdr. mamulia 1979: 71-72]. 334 w-s granikis brZolis Semdeg miTrenma makedonelebs sardebi da iqve daculi samefo saganZuri nebayoflobiT Caabara. aleqsandrem daiaxlova igi da Tavis aRmosavlur laSqrobaSi iaxla. arCevani miTranze SemTxveviT ar SeCerda. igi vidarnas sagvareulos ekuTvnoda, romelic ori saukune marTavda armenias [Tommanff 1963: 280, 289]. miTrenis daniSvna moxda Zv.w. 325 w-s makedonelTa da sparselTa cnobili da- 78 moyvrebis, aTiaTasi qorwinebis Semdeg. imperiis makedonelTa da sparselTa kuTvnilebad gamocxadebiT aleqsandrem gaiCina dasayrdeni armeniaSi da poziciebi gaimyara regionSi, sadac mis armias arc ki gauvlia. Zv.w. 322 w-is ajanyebis meore kera somxeTSi mdebareobda. misi Tavkaci ardoardi Zveli somxuri istoriuli tradiciis Tanaxmad ukanaskneli haikiani mefis STamomavalis vahes siZe iyo da mis mxardamxar ibrZoda gavgamelaze. miTrenma mas sardloba uboZa (rogorc Cans, somxuri SenaerTebis), rac ardoardis upiratesobis aRiarebas niSnavda. igi Primus inter pares gaxda da es pirvelobisaTvis brZolis mxolod dasawyisi gamodga. ra Tqma unda, gamefebisaTvis es sakmarisi ar iyo. ardoardi eris mxsneli anu soteri unda gamxdariyo. amitom, neoptolemosis daniSvnvnidan rva TveSi uyoymanod Caudga saTaveSi antimakedonur gamosvlas armeniaSi [Глинка 1832: 116]. miTrenis xanmokle mmarTvelobis periodi somxur istoriografiaSi dadebiTad, makedonelTa batonoba ki nominalurad aris Sefasebuli [Глинка 1832: 117]. qveyana ixdida gadasaxadebs, saWiroebis SemTxvevaSi gamohyavda samxedro SenaerTebi. wyaroebidan ar Cans, ra bedi ewia miTrens SemdegSi. faqtia, rom babilonSi satrapiebis gadanawilebisas es Tanamdeboba vakanturi aRmoCnda. iseve, rogorc valakris SemTxvevaSi reagireba momxdarze perdikas mouwia. armeniis satrapad daniSnul neoptolemoss droizeni arxigipaspists uwodebs. uaRresad pativmoyvare pirovneba, romelsac Tavi mohqonda eakidebis dinastiis memkvidred. gipaspistebi makedonuri armiis elitaruli qveiTi SenaerTi iyo. maTi ricxvidan aleqsandrem Camoayaliba saxelganTqmuli argiraspidebis (vercxlis farosnebi) agema (samiaTas kacamde). meTaurad aq parmenionis vaJi nikanori dainiSna. Sua aziaSi, misi daRupvis Semdeg indoeTSi, gidaspis brZolaSi argiraspidebs selevki sardlobs. babilonSi qveiTi gvardiis sardali ukve neoptolemosia. piTonisgan da kraterisgan gansxvavebiT neoptolemoss babilonSi samxedro SenaerTi ar gadaeca, rac miuTiTebs, rom Zv.w. 323 w-is zafxulSi armeniaSi viTareba kontrols eqvemdebareboda [Дроизен 1995: 24]. Zv.w. 322 wlis krizisi armeniaSi provocirebuli iyo neoptolemosis saldafonuri mmarTvelobiT. amitom, ganviTarda metad araxelsayrel politikur viTarebaSi. kapadokiaSi perdi- kam yvelas naTlad daanaxa, rom urCobas aravis apatiebda. axla is kilikiaSi, armeniis samxreTiT idga, evmeni dasavleTidan, kapadokiidan axlovdeboda. yvelaze mZime mdgomareobaSi ardoardi aRmoCnda, radgan orive armia armenias, sakuTriv somxeTs uqmnida saSiSroebas. viTarebas amwvavebda is garemoeba, rom kapadokiis mefe ariaratis memkvidre armenias afarebda Tavs. am droisaTvis evmens ukve dawyebuli aqvs kapadokiaSi sakuTari armiis formireba. magram, misi dakopleqteba da wrTvna dasrulebuli ar aris. kardieli berZeni gamWriaxi mmarTveli da kargi administratori gamodga. man SeunarCuna privilegiebi adgilobriv aristokratias da rigi SeRavaTebi dauwesa ojaxebs, vinc Svilebi mis kavaleriaSi Caricxa. mokle xanSi evmenis gankargulebaSi aRmoCnda 5000 kargad ekipirebuli mxedari (saxsrebis naklebobas is namdvilad ar ganicdida). kavaleriis enTuziazmi gadaedoT qveiTebs, romlebsac evmeni makedonuri brZolis wesebs aswavlida [Дроизен 1995: 69]. armeniaSi laSqroba makedonur-kapadokiuri armiis pirveli samxedro operacia gaxldaT. Tumca, evmeni arc apirebda oms. aTviTcnobierebda ra mowinaaRmdegis uimedo mdgomareobas konfliqti mSvidobiani gziT moagvara. molaparakebis procesSi ardoardma ganacxada, rom ajanyeba mimarTuli iyo neoptolemosis despotiis da ara makedonelebis winaaRmdeg. es niSnavda, rom somxuri samefos Seqmnis meore mcdeloba marcxiT dasrulda. makedoneli petzetairebiT zurg gamagrebul neoptolemos armeniaSi mefuri daxvedra mouwyes. satrapia man sikvdilamde, Zv.w. 321 w-is gazafxulamde SeinarCuna [Глинка 1832: 119-120]. ajanyebis msvlelobis procesSi wyaroebSi ar Cans armeniaSi mcxovrebi ori “didi” xalxi - matienebi da sasperebi. matienebTan mimarTebiT SeiZleba iTqvas: Zv.w. 322 w-is gazafxulze makedonelTa poziciebi jer kidev sakmaod myaria imisaTvis, rom maT mTlianad daekargaT kontroli imperiis ZiriTad magistralze. SemTxveviTi araa, rom armeniis satrapiis samxreT-aRmosavleTi nawili matiena, selevkidebis samefos SemadgenlobaSi Sevida armeniis satrapiis saxelwodebiT [Ломоури 1981: 37]. rac Seexeba sasperebs, isini wyaroebSi uSualod armeniis ajanyebis win, jer kidev aleqsandre didis sicocxleSi ixsenebian. strabonis Tanaxmad, aleqsandres mier svispiriTSi 79 oqros sabadoebis dasaufleblad gagzavnil iqna menoni jariskacebiTurT, magram mkvidrma mosaxleobam is ukuagdo (XI, 14, 9). brZolaSi daiRupa menonic. sasperebis qveyana lokalizdeba armeniis satrapiis Cr. dasavleT nawilSi, istoriuli speris, taos, md. Woroxis, araqsis, evfratis (yara-su) saTaveebis raionSi. igi urartuli wyaroebidan kargad cnobili diauxis memkvidrea regionSi. sasperebis saxelwodebaSi enaTmecnierebi gamoyofen qarTvelurisaTvis damaxasiaTebel “sa” TavsarTs (sa-sper, sa-mcxe, sa-qarTvelo). g. meliqiSvilisa da i. diakonovis gamokvlevebiT Zv.w. VI-IV ss-Si es regioni qarTveluri da megrulWanuri tomebis gansaxlebis arealSi Sedioda [Меликишвили 1959: 52-57. Дьяконов 1956: 355]. armeniis satrapiis sxva “didi” xalxebisgan gansxvavebiT sasperebma midiur periodSi damoukidebloba SeinarCunes. h H erodotes mixedviT, “meotidis tbidan mdinare fazisisa da kolxebis qveynamde aris 30 dRis gza qveiTisaTvis. kolxeTidan midiamde ki gza didi ar aris; am qveynebs Soris mxolod erTi xalxi cxovrobs _saspeirebi; maT gascdebi Tu ara, ukve midiaSi xar (Herod I. 104). aqemeniduri iranis SemadgenlobaSi sasperebi darios I-is dros aRmoCdnen, rogorc fiqroben, fravartiSis ajanyebis Caqrobis Semdeg. zusti TariRi cnobili ar aris. (i. diakonovi ar iziarebs germanis mier SemoTavazebul TariRs _Zv.w. 515 s-s [Дьяконов 1956: 345]). Zv.w. 401 w-s sasperebi mxarSi udganan dasavleT armeniis giparxs, mefis uzangis damWer tiribazs, romelic berZnebis aTiaTasian armias upirispirdeba. aqedan Cans, rom sasperebi angariSgasawevi Zalaa. berZenma daqiravebulebma Tavi aarides Setakebas, mZevlad aiyvanes tiribazis elCebi da brZolis vels gaecalen (Xsen. Ana., IV, 4,4-6) j. roulisoni, mkvlevari, romelmac SeimuSava sasperebis istoriis qronologia, Zv.w. V-IV ss-s gamohyofs, rogorc sasperebis aqemeniduri iranis SemadgenlobaSi yofnis periods [Rowlison. 1862: 186-187]. g. meliqiSvilis azriT, am dros Cndeba mcneba “arian qarTli,” anu ariuli qarTli, rac persarmeniis, armenoxalibis Sesatyvisi terminia [meliqiSvili 1970: 440]. aleqsandre didis brwyinvale gamarjvebebis fonze meorexarisxovani marcxi svispiritSi mkrTalad gamoiyureba. magram, sasperebisTvis, maTi liderisTvis es legendaruli gamarjveba iqneboda (makedonelebis damarcxeba aleqsandres sicocxleSi). SeiZleba aqedan momdinareobs Zvel qarTul da somxur wyaroebSi Semonaxuli tradicia speris mmarTveli dinastiis “sardlobis gansakuTrebuli niWis” Sesaxeb [meliqiSvili 1999: 376]. es aris makedonelTa pirveli marcxi mTel kampaniaSi da yuradRebas imsaxurebs: I. svispiritamde makedonuri armia daubrkoleblad gadaadgildeba somxeTis an alarodiebis teritoriaze (es imasTan dakavSirebiT, rom armeniaze arc erT makedonel sardals ar gauvlia); II. samxedro operaciis mizani mokrZalebulia. menons daevala ara sasperebis morCilebaSi moyvana, aramed oqros sabadoebis daufleba; III. sasperebma SeinarCunes es mniSvlelovani resursi; IV. sasperebis xelSi aRmoCnda samxedro Zala makedonuri armiis dasamarcxeblad; IV. iseve, rogorc valakris da miTrenis SemTxvevaSi, reagireba momxdarze babilonSi perdikam moaxdina, rac miuTiTebs, rom svispiritSi laSqrobas adgili hqonda aleqsandre didis sicocxlis bolos, miTrenis armeniaSi mmarTvelobis dros. Zv.w. 325 w-s armeniaSi satrapis daniSvna, Zv.w. 324 w-s (ara ugvianes 323 w-is gazafxulisa) sadamsjelo eqspediciis gagzavna svispiritSi miuTiTebs, rom sasperebma ar scnes miTreni, Sesamamisad ar cnes makedonelTa xelisufleba. strabonis cnobaze dayrdnobiT miuTiTebda herodotes Txzulebis inglisur enaze mTargmneli da gamomcemeli j. roulisoni, rom sasperebma damoukidebeloba Zv.w. 331 w-s moipoves (misi qronologiiT, maTi istoriis III periodis sawyisi), rac savsebiT Seesabameba qarTuli wyaroebis cnobebs. [Rowlison. 1862: 186-187]. gamodis, rom armeniis satrapiaSi mcxovrebi xalxebidan sasperebma gamoiyenes Zv.w. 331-325 ww-Si Seqmnili viTareba da damoukidebloba moipoves. magram, saidan aRmoCnda sasperebis gankargulebaSi Zala mokavSireebis gareSe wamoewyoT ajanyeba da Riad dapirispirebodnen makedonelebs. armeniis Zv.w. 322 w-is antimakedonuri gamosvlis organizeba mas Semdeg moxerxda, rac gaerTiandnen ardoardi, oronti da magi mergami. swored am SeTanxmebam Secvala ZalTa Tanafardoba regionSi da roca ardoardi da magi mergami or kolonad neoptolemosis banakTan gamoCndnen, man brZola ver gabeda [Глинка 1832: 114]. sasperebis warmateba ganxilul unda iqnas ara marto armeniis Zv.w. 322 w-is 80 ajanyebis konteqstSi, aramed im movlenebTan kavSirSi, romelic brZolis Semdeg ganviTarda. imperiis ganapiras, xelisuflebis vakuumis pirobebSi sasperebi moeqcen aranakleb mniSvnelovani da dinamiuri procesebis epicentrSi. “moqcevai qarTlisai-s” qronika qarTuli saxelmwifos Seqmnas speris mmarTvel dinastias da mesxTa migracias ukavSirebs. arian qarTlis mmarTveli azo aTi mesxi tomis beladis (“aTi saxli mama-mZuZeTani” var. “aTi saxli mTavarTagan palatisagan”) TanxlebiT qarTlSi Semodis da iberiis pirveli mefe xdeba. arian qarTlidan azos Camoaqvs Tavisi salocavi kerpebi (gaci da ga) [“moqcevai qarTlisai” 1963: 82] da Camohyavs rva saxli “mdabioi uflisai” (var. “mdabioi uflisai da moqlaqe”). am masis “dedawuliT daSenebam” Sida qarTlSi gamoiwvia materialuri kulturis transformacia, demografiuli da urbanuli afeTqeba [Лордкипанидзе 1989: 312], safuZveli daedo samadlos tipis arqeologiuri Zeglebis gafurCqvnis saukunovan periods [gagoSiZe 1970; 41-46; Гагошидзе 1979: 130]. SeiZleba iTqvas, rom qarTveli eris istoriaSi yvelaze maStaburi da Sedegebidan gamomdinare mniSvnelovani migracia dokumenturad dasturdeba Zveli qarTuli werilobiTi wyaroebiT da arqeologiuri gaTxrebis Sedegad gamovlenili masaliT.Mamjerad, interesis sagans warmoadgens migraciis ara finaluri stadia, erTiani qarTuli saxelmwifos Seqmna, aramed misi sawyisi faza, roca arian qarTlis mmarTveli azo mamamZuZeobis institutis wyalobiT dukavSirda mesx beladebs, qarTuli saxelmwifos pirvel aznaurebs. xelovnuri danaTesavebis, mamaZuZueobis instituti stadialuri xasiaTis movlenaa msoflios xalxebis istoriaSi. qarTveluri tomebiT dasaxlebul teritoriaze igi moqmedebs Zv.w. XI-IX ss-dan, rkinis farTo aTvisebis pirveli safexuridan. klasobrivi sazogadoebis genezisis procesSi mamamZuZeobis instituti gabatonebis gzaze mdgomi fenebis konsolidacias isaxavda miznad, radgan xelovnuri naTesaoba sisxliT naTesaobas utoldeboda [mamulia 1979: 71-72; gagoSiZe 1970: 41-46]. mesxma beladebma scnes azos upiratesoba (rangiT igi ardoardis, magi mergamis da orontis Tanasworia, anu gaaCnia legitimacia), sapasuxod, azom mosxebi-mesxebi daasaxla Tavisi qveynis im nawilSi, romelsac dResac samcxe, anu mesxeTi hqvia. mesx- eTis lokalizacias samxreT-dasavleT saqarTveloSi, iberiis, kolxeTisa da armeniis sazRvarze iZleva straboni, Zv.w. I s-Si arsebuli viTarebis daxasiaTebisas (Strabo XI, 2, 14). Zv.w. V s-Si herodote mesxebs-mosxebs XIX satrapiaSi, kapadokiis Crd. dasavleT sazRvarTan aTavsebs, n. xazaraZis Tanaxmad Tanamedrove TokaTyirayisar-giumuSxanes raionSi [Хазарадзе 1991: 7]. aqemeniduri iranis #19 administraciuli olqi dasavleTidan uSualod ekvroda armeniis satrapiis qarTul provinciebs: spers, romelic im dros moicavda taos. agreTve, xalibebiT dasaxlebul karenits, igive karnu-qalaqs, arzrums, md. dasavleT evfratis saTaveSi, agreTve mosinikur qserqsenes, igive derqsenes (somxuri derjani) aRmosavleTiT (Strabo., XI, 14, 5). qarTveluri tomebiT dasaxlebuli es regioni mesxTa migraciis erTaderTi perspeqtiuli mimarTuleba iyo da am “didi moZraobis” marSrutic naTlad ikveTeba. arqeologiuri wyaroebis mixedviT mesxTa migraciuli talRa Sida qarTlSi Zv.w. IV s-is bolos Semovida [gagoSiZe 1970: 41-46], rasac win uZRoda maTi gansaxleba samxreT-dasavleT saqarTveloSi, sakuTriv mesxeTSi. xalxis aseTi maStaburi gadaadgilebis pirobebi maxlobel aRmosavleTSi gavgamelis brZolis Semdeg Seiqmna, roca Tavisufali aRmoCnda qarTveluri tomebis mTeli masivi samxreT-dasavleT SavizRvispireTidan hereTamde, maT Soris aqemeniduri iranis administraciul sistemaSi CarTuli “svispiriti,” qarTuli wyaroebis arian-qarTli. Zv.w. 331-325 ww-Si “samefo gzis” armeniis monakveTisgan armenebisa da alarodiebis buferuli zoniT gamijnul regionSi mimdinare procesebze makedonelebi reagirebasac ki ver moaxerxebdnen. Zv.w. 331 w. es derefani gaixsna, Zv.w. 225 w. sasperebi ar daemorCilnen miTrens, Zv.w. 324 w. ki (ara ugvianes Zv.w.323 w. gazafxulisa) daamarcxes makedonelebi. vfiqrobT, ZalTa Tanafardobis aseTi mkveTri cvlileba mesxTa migraciis Sedegi iyo. Zv.w. 331-325 ww-Si biZgi am `did moZraobas” SeiZleba misca kapadokiaSi mimdinare procesebma. omisTvis mzadebis procesSi ariarati yovelmxriv axalisebda antimakedonur ganwyobas mezobel xalxebSi. warmatebas man kilikiaSic miaRwia. aleqsande makedonelis mier sagangebo uflebebiT aRWurvili satrapi valakri swored adgilobriv tomebTan brZolaSi daiRupa. satrapiebis gadan- 81 awilebisas babilonSi perdikam mis adgilze filota daniSna. esec kapadokiis mosazRvre regionia da qronologiuradac makedonelTa meore marcxi istoriis CvenTvis saintereso monakveTs Seesabameba [Дроизен 1995: 20-21]. antimakedonuri ajanyebis wamowyeba am etapze wminda wylis avantiura iyo. imperiaSi obieqturad ar arsebobda Zala, romelic daupirispirdeboda perdikas “samefo” armias (amitom, ariarati didi armiiT damarcxda, xolo berZnebma 28000 kaciT gaimarjves). diadoqosebis xana avantiuristebis epoqaa. gavixsenoT selevki, romelic kuTvnili babilonis dasabruneblad 800 qveiTiTa da 200 mxedriT gaemarTa. TanamebrZolebi mis nabijs sigiJes uwodebdnen. selevkma SturmiT aiRo satrapis sasaxle babilonSi da yvelaze didi elinisturi saxelmwifo daafuZna. Tumca, umravlesobas bedi ase ar umarTlebda. perdika, krateri, piToni, leonati, neoptolemosi, antigoni, evmeni, ariarati TavdaviwyebiT ebmebian avantiuraSi, erTbaSad uzarmazar Zalauflebasa da simdidres euflebian, Semdeg ki yvelafers kargaven sicocxlesTan erTad. qarTuli wyaroebis mixedviT qarTlis (iberiis) pirveli mefe azo swored aseTi personaJia. aleqsandres getairi (patriki), axalgazrda, ambiciuri, “sardlobis niWiT dajildoebuli.” isaxasvs miznebs, romelic TanamebrZolebs sigiJe hgoniaT”. azos Tavgadasavali siuJeturad da qronologiurad diadoqosebis xanas ganekuTvneba (ar hgavs farnavaziani mefeebis istoriebs, ar ganicdis aRmosavlur gavlenebs, ar Seicavs orTabrZolebs bumberazebTan da sxva). mxolod aseTi avantiurisruli midrekilebebis pirovnebas Seswevda Zala iseTi maStaburi proeqtis ganxorcielebisa, rogorica aris mesxi xalxis gadasaxleba. Aazo pirvelia, vinc qveynis mefurad marTva daiwyo. mis xelT arsebuli oqros sabadoebi, mesxTa samxedro Zala da mokavSireebi (kolxeTis samefo da qarTlis samamasaxliso) gvaZlevs safuZvels vifiqroT, rom es ar iyo TavzexelaRebuli nabiji. gacilebiT ufro did riskze wavida Zv.w. 322 w-s ardoardi, roca saTaveSi Caudga antimakedonur gamosvlas somxeTSi. Zneli saTqmelia, rogor ganviTardeboda movlenebi, rom ara aleqsandre makedonelis moulodneli sikvdili. faqtia, rom gamarjvebis Semdeg sasperebma sasicocxlod mniSvnelovani mSvidobiani pauza miiRes (mesxebis “daSenebisTvis,” regionis aTvisebisTvis, ZalTa gadajgufebisaTvis). Zv.w. 322 w-is gazafxulze makedonelebma dakarges somxeTi da alarodiebis qveyana. marTalia, poziciebi Zv.w. 321 w-is gazafxulze aRidgines, magram neoptolemosis miswrafebebi am dros mTlianad mcire aziiskenaa mimarTuli. viTareba imperiaSi Zirfesvianad Seicvala. devnili antigoni antipatrma megobrulad miiRo. krateris mier mowveul samxedro TaTbirze regentis moqmedebebi dagmes da gaformda diadiqosebis pirveli koalicia: imperiis prostati krateri, evropis strategosi antipatri da aleqsandres piradi mcveli da megobari (zogierTi versiiT naxevarZma) egviptis satrapi ptoleme lagidi. antigoni jer CrdilSi rCeba. realur Zalauflebas is ar flobs da Tavis dros elis. ptoleme lagidma Tavidanve damoukidebeli saxelmwifos Camoyalibebaze aiRo gezi. amitom, momzadebuli Sexvda oms. man sajarod gaasamarTla da sikvdiliT dasaja Tavisi winamorbedi kleomeni, xolo misi moxveWili 8000 talanti oqro armiis formirebisTvis gamoiyena. perdika samarTlianad Tvlida mas Tavis ZiriTad miwinaaRmdeged. amotom, samefo armia egviptisken daZra [Дроизен 1995: 64]. armeniis saqmeebis brwyinvaled mogvarebis Semdeg perdikam evmeni mcire aziis strategosad daniSna. kapadokiapaflagoniasTan erTad Zv.w. 322 w-is Semodgomaze mas samarTavad gadaeca leonatis helespontis frigia, asandris karia, antigonis likia da didi frigia. regentma evmens daumorCila Tavisi Zma alketa, lidiis satrapi menandri, armeniis satrapi neoptolemosi da kilikiis satrapi filota, romlis satrapia filoksens gadaeca. miuxedavad imisa, rom makedonelebs sZuldaT evmeni perdikam icoda_erTad-erTi visac SeeZlo krateris SeCereba evmeni iyo. mas daevala ar daeSva mowinaaRmdegis SemoWra makedoniidan. Tumca, mteri daubrkoleblad gadmosxda mcire aziaSi da makedonurma garnizonebma masiuri gadasvla daiwyes krateris mxareze. mxardaWeris SemTxvevaSi krateri evmens damatebiTi satrapiebis gadacemas Sepirda.M magram, kardieli berZeni antipatrs ar endo da kapadokiisken daixia. viTareba aqac arasaxarbielo daxvda. alketam uari Tqva brZanebis Sesrulebaze. pirdapir 82 ganacxada, rom misi makedonelebi ar ibrZolebdnen evmenis sardlobiT krateris winaaRmdeg. neoptolemosma elCebi gagzavna mtris banakSi. irwmuneboda, rom iZulebuli gaxda mimxroboda perdikas da saqmiT daamtkicebda Tavis loialurobas. man mkvlelebi miugzavna evmens, romelmac damala momxdari, neoptolemos brZaneba gaegzavna dauyonebliv gamocxadebuliyo masTan banakSi, TviTon ki makedoneli oficrebiT dakompleqtebuli kapadokiuri armiiT armeniisken daiZra [Дроизен 1995: 11]. Zv.w. 321 w. gazafxulze neoptolemosis gankargulebaSi arsebuli samxedro Zala aRemateba evmenis armias, rogorc ricxviT, aseve xarisxiT. mis xelSi aRmoCnda makedonuri falanga, romelic im droisaTvis daumarcxeblad iTvleboda. neoptolemosma Tavis sasargeblod gamoiyena is faqti, rom ariaratis memkvidre ardoards hyavda Sefarebuli. ar daasmina igi evmenTan. piriqiT, daavala sagangebod daemala da daecva taxtis memkvidre, riTac sardlobas Camoacila. satrapiis kavaleria man Tavidanve oronts Caabara. rogorc fiqroben, es daniSvna evmenis rCeviT ganxorcielda da miznad isaxavda armeniis ajanyebis liderebis magi mergamisa da ardoardis gavlenis Sesustebas (es naTlad warmoaCens raoden dabali iyo orontis statusi am periodSi). neoptolemosi imedovnebda, rom gamarjvebis SemTxvevaSi evmenis kapadokia, paflagonia da Sav zRvaze gasasvleli mas darCeboda. brZolaSi gadamwyveti aRmoCnda kapadokiuri kavaleriis Seteva. flangebze evmenma gafanta mtris mxedroba, falangas garSemoertya da danebebuli makedonelebi kvlav regentis erTgulebaze daafica. Zv.w. 321 w-is Semodgomaze evmeni damatebiT armeniis satrapi gaxda, xolo oronti, ardoardi da magi mergami misi vasalebi [Глинка 1832: 122]. exla is mzad iyo kraterTan brZolisTvis. antipatrTan banakSi gamocxadebul neoptolemoss yvela daeTanxma, rom aseTi mowinaaRmdegis zurgSi datoveba saxifaTo iqneboda. amitom, kraters gadaeca TiTqmis mTeli makedonuri armia 25000 qveiTi, 2500 mxedari. evmens ar surda mis oficrebs gaegoT, rom kraters upirispirdebodnen. amitom, yvelani daarwmuna, rom moRalate kapadokielebis mxardaWeriT neoptolemosi Tavdasxmis gameorebas apirebda. uSualod brZolis win ki gaafrTxila kavaleria: mtris danaxvisTanave yovelgvari molapara- kebebis gareSe ieriSi mietanaT mowinaaRmdegeze. Tavis flangze evmenma orTabrZolaSi mokla neoptolemosi. sawinaaRmdego flangze daiRupa krateri. kardielma berZenma xmiT daitira megobari da makedonelebs sapatio zavi SesTavaza. Rame evmens Wrilobebi gaumizezda da cieba daewyo. amiT isargebles makedonelebma da antipatrTan gaiparnen. sapasuxod evmeni mcire aziisken daiZra da dakarguli poziciebi aRidgina. demoralizilebuli armiiT siriaSi mdgari antipatri Tavad gaeba maxeSi. gza makedoniisken moWrili aRmoCnda. aT dReSi evmenma orjer daamarcxa ricxviT aRmatebuli makedonuri armia da Zlierebis zenits miaRwia. Tu regenti warmatebiT daasrulebda egviptur kampanias aleqsandre makedonelis imperiaSi evmeni meore kaci gaxdeboda. regentis gamarjvebaSi ki eWvi ar epareboda. perdikas gankargulebaSi xom msoflioSi saukeTeso, “samefo” armia iyo [Дроизен 1995: 64]. fortuna xSirad dascinis diadoqosebs. ptoleme lagidi “samefo” armiaSi aranaklebi gavleniT sargeblobda. rogorc fiqroben, man ubralod “iyida” perdikas sardlebi. Tavi gvardiam Seircxvina. nilosis forsirebisas gancdili warumateblobis Semdeg gamarTul TaTbirze falangistebma piTonis TaosnobiT daumorCilebloba gamoacxades da regentis karavi datoves, romelSic xiliarxi selevki da argiraspidebis meTauri antigeni Sevidnen. pirveli dartyma maxviliT perdikas swored man miayena. gaigo Tu ara momxdari ptoleme lagidi amaliT samefo armiis banakSi mivida, komfliqts gaugebroba uwoda da yvelaferi perdikas daabrala. jarma igi erTxmad regentad daasaxela. magram, ptolemes lagids faraonoba surda. amitom, droebiT regentad jars piToni da arideusi SesTavaza. pirovneba, romelmac perdikas brZanebis miuxedavad aleqsandres didis neSti aleqsandriaSi gadaasvena. swored am dros movida samefo armiis banakSi kraterisa da neoptolemosis daRupvis ambavi. es cnoba ori dRiT adre rom mosuliyo perdikas egvipturi kampania SeiZleba warmatebiT dasrulebuliyo. exla ki aravin gaaxara. sagangebod mowveul Sekrebaze evmensa da perdikas Zmas alketas sikvdilis ganaCeni gamoutanes. gagzavnes elCebi antipatrTan siriaSi, antigonTan kviprosze brZanebiT, dauyovnebliv gamocxadebuliyvnen md.O orontze, triparaidisSi [Дроизен 1995: 64]. 83 makedonelTa Tavyrilobaze piTonma da arideusma moixsnes nakisri valdebulebebi. regentad da samefo armiis mTavarsardlad antipatri dasaxelda. argiraspidebma mas aleqsandre makedonelis mier Sepirebuli gasamrjelo da saCuqrebi mosTxoves. saldafonuri pirdapirobiT antipatrma ganacxada, rom aseTi Tanxa ar gaaCnda. mdgomareoba daiZaba. qveiTebma md. orontze xidi gadaketes. SeSfoTebulma antigonma sruli aRWurvililobiT mdinare gadmokveTa da makedonelebs sityviT mimarTa. amiT isargebla xiliarxma selevkma. getairebis SuagulSi moaqcia antipatri da nawilobriv Zalis gamoyenebiT mdinareze gadaiyvana. ase moipova selevkma im drois ori yvelaze gavleniani diadoqosis _ ptoleme lagidisa da antipatris mxardaWera. SemTxveviTi ar aris, rom selevks triparaidisSi yvelaze mdidari babilonis satrapia argunes. aleqsandre makedonelis laSqrobaSi selevkma Tavi SedarebiT gvian, indoeTSi gamarTul gidaspis brZolaSi gamoiCina. arnaxuli mamacobisa da Tavganwirvis wyalobiT man gardatexa Seitana mefe poris saomar spiloebTan SetakebaSi, saidanac momdinareobs metsaxeli “nikatori.” fizikuri Zalis garda igi gamWriaxobiT gamoirCeoda. man saTanadod Seafasa perdikas, rogorc imperiis SenarCunebis partiis marcxi. xiliarxis saxelo daTmo (satrapoba arCia) anipatris vaJis kasandris sasargeblod, romelic ar monawileobda aleqsandres laSqrobaSi da aseT maRal Tanamdebobas armiaSi ar imsaxurebda [Дроизен 1995: 103]. triparaidisSi antipatrma Tavidan moicila yvela buntis wamomwyebi argiraspidebi. maT sapatio davaleba miecaT: suzianadan zRvis sanapiromde aleqsandre makedonelis oqros saganZuris transportireba. ptoleme lagidma SeinarCuna egvipte, antigonma didi frigia da likia. CvenTvis ki Tavyriloba triparaidisSi imiT aris saintereso, rom gadasanawilebeli satrapiebs Soris aRar aRmoCnda armenia [Дроизен 1995: 107]. ardoardma Tavi mefed gamoacxada. amjerad dro kargad SeirCa. evmenis poziciebis Sesusteba TviT makedonelTa interesebSi Sedioda. movlenebis Semdgomma ganviTarebam aCvena, rom kavSiri ardoardis, magi mergamisa da oronts Soris am etapzec ZalaSi rCeba [Глинка 1832: 122]. es saerTo interesebze dafuZnebuli nebayoflobiTi aliansi iyo. dia- doqosebis epoqis gariJraJze mxolod msxvil saxelmwifo warmonaqmnebs SeswevdaT Zala makedonelTa Setevebis mogeriebisa. samxedro TvalsazrisiT wamyvani am kavSirSi somxeTi iyo, ardoardi ki koaliciis lideri. Tumca, Zv.w. 321 w. armeniis samefos Sida struqtura myifed gamoiyureba. magi mergami da oronti damoukidebeli politikuri figurebi Canan.A ardoardis poziciebi somxeTSi da koaliciis doneze Primus inter pares Seesabameba. SemTxveviTi ar aris, rom evmenma moaxerxa am kavSiris gaxleCa. Tumca, meti TviTonac aRar dascalda (daiRupa diadoqos antigonTan omSi). gadasanawilebeli satrapiebis ricxvSi triparaidisSi arapirdapir ixsenieba midia-atropatena. piTons xasgasmiT midia kaspiis gasasvlelamde gadaeca. Zala aseTi sirTulis amocanis gadaWrelad mas ar hqonda. amitom, piTons damatebiT zemo satrapiebis strategosoba mieniWa.M saTanado mobilizebis pirobebSi mizani savsebiT miRwevadi Canda (evmenis magaliTi yvelas Tvalwin hqonda). makedonelTa aseTi mkveTri reaqcia midia-atropatenaSi mimdinare procesebs unda gamoewvia. ardoardis Tamami gadawyvetilebis fonze SesaZloa Tavi mefed atropatmac gamoacxada. sakuTari siZis, regentisa da mTavarsardlis veraguli mkvleloba sababad gamodgeboda. atropati ukeT flobda viTarebas regionSi da icoda, piTonis brZanebebis Sesrulebas aRaravin apirebda. `zemo” satrapiebi makedonelTa SinaomSi CarTvisTvis emzadebodnen. midia-atropatenis an armeniis sakiTxis mogvareba am etapze mxolod umaRlesi rangis diadoqoss, magaliTad antipatrs SeeZlo. magram, Tavis ZiriTad mowinaaRmdeged igi perdikas partiis narCenebs ganixilavda.A am Zalebma makedoniis flotis sardal atalTan erTad mcire aziaSi alkestasTan daiwyes Tavmoyra, sadac evmeni isedac myar poziciebs flobda.A makedoniaSi dabrunebis win antipatrma mcire aziis strategosad antigoni (ciklopi) daniSna da sakmaod mwiri resursi dautova - 8500 qveiTi, 70 saomari spilo da kasandris kavaleria, evmenis 20000 qveiTis, 30 saomari spilosa da kapadokiuri kavaleriis winaaRmdeg. perdikas momxreebi kordinirebul moqmedebaze mainc Tu SeTanxmdebodnen antigoni ase Tamamad ver imoqmedebda. magram, alketam TanamSromlobaze uari Tqva. arc evmenis makedonelebi apirebdnen kardieli berZenisTvis morigi gamar- 84 jvebis mopovebas. evmenms ukan daxevamac ver uSvela. dislokaciis adgilis Secvlisas makedonurma SenaerTebma CamorCena daiwyes antigonis mxares gadasvlis mizniT. evmenma mkacrad aRkveTa yvela aseTi mcdeloba, faqtiurad ki saomar moqmedebebs sakuTar armiasTan awarmoebda. sabolood antigonma aiZula igi mieRo brZola. moxda is, risic evmens eSinoda. makedonuri SenaerTi brZolis dros antigonis mxares gadasvlas Seecada. evmenma isRa moaxerxa, rom moRalate sardali TanamebrZolebis Tvalwin xeze CamoaxCo da viwro xeobebs Seafara Tavi. antigonis dadevnebul kavalerias ostaturad Tavgza aubnia, brZolis velze Tavxedurad dabrunda da daRupul TanamebrZolebs wesi augo. antigonic aRfrTovanebuli darCa. evmenma rCeuli TanamebrZolebiT likiis sazRvarTan mdebare cixe-simagre noraSi provianti Sezida da iq gamagrda. antigonma kapadokia daikava, noras alya Semoartya da ZiriTadi ZalebiT alketasken daiZra. alketa damarcxda da danebebas TviTmkvleloba arCia. 60000 qveiTiT, 70 saomari spiloTi da 10000 kavaleriiT antigoni yvelaze Zlieri diadoqosi gaxda [Дроизен 1995: 135]. TiTqos Sinaomi dasrulda da makedonelebs dakarguli poziciebis aRdgenis Sansi miecaT. Zv.w. 219 w. antipatris moulodnelma sikvdilma yvelaferi Secvala. Zalaufleba man sakuTar Svil kasandrs ki ar gadasca, aramed Tavis TanamebrZol polisperxonts. kasandri mcire aziaSi antigonTan gaiqca. samefo ojaxi, romelic antipatrisa da kasandris aRzevebas savsebiT samarTlianad safrTxed aRiqvamda CaTvala, rom gadamwyveti momenti dadga da gadarCenisTvis brZola wamoiwyo. aleqsandre makedonelis dedam olimpiadam piradad miwera noraSi evmens da samefo ojaxis mfarveloba sTxova. polisperxontis gankargulebiT igi aziis strategosad dainiSna da moqmedebis sruli Tavisufleba mieniWa. masve daumorCiles argiraspidebis SenaerTi. GbrZanebis Tanaxmad maT unda SeewyvitaT makedoniaSi oqros zRviT transportireba da darCenili Tanxa evmenisTvis gadaecaT. mokavSireebis mozidvis mizniT olimpiadam samefo ojaxis saxeliT evmens dinastebis mefed aRiarebis ufleba misca. aseTi winadadebiT evmenma ardoards mimarTa. mas umoklesi gza Wirdeboda zemo satrapiebisken. sen-martenze dayrdnobiT viTarebas s. glinka ase ganmartavda. midiis satrapi piToni, babilonis satrapi selevki da ardoardi antigons miemxren, xolo “qarTveli” da persidis satrapi pevkesta evmens. antigoni uzarmazari armiiT mcire aziaSi armeniisTvis realur safrTxes qmnida. evmenis Riad mxardaWera antigonisTvis omis gamocxadebis tolfasi nabiji iqneboda. amitom, ardoardma usaxsroba moimizeza da molaparakebebi CaSala [Глинка 1832: 125]. `qarTvelisTvis” gadamwyveti samefo ojaxis aRiareba gaxda. armeniis samefos arsebobis pirobebSi mcire aziaSi dabanakebuli antigoni realur safrTxes ar warmoadgenda. amrigad, Zv.w. 321 w. makedonelebma meored, amjerad sabolood dakarges armenia da alarodiebis qveyana. istoriuli saqarTvelos mTeli perimetri ganTavisuflda makedonelTa batonobisgan. Zalaufleba centralur, dasavleT da samxreT-dasavleT amierkavkasiaSi sami qarTuli saxelmwifo warmonaqmnis xelSi gadavida. isini damoukidebeli politikuri erTeulebia da socialur-ekonomikuri ganviTarebis TvalsazrisiT daaxloebiT erT safexurze dganan. esec saerTo safrTxis winaSe warmoqmnili nebayoflobiTi aliansia. yvelaze myifed swored es dajgufeba gamoiyureba. dRis wesrigSi dadga erTiani qarTuli saxelmwifoebis Seqmnis aucilebloba da am `frontzec” upiatesobas samxreT-dasavleTma dajgufebam, arian qarTlis mefis Ze azom mesxebis mxardaWeriT miaRwia. 85 Lliteratura abdalaZe 2001: abdalaZe a. qvemo qarTli Zv.w. II sdan ax.w. IV s-mde, dmanisi III, Tb. Абаза 1888: Абаза В. История Армении. Санкт Петербург. gagoSiZe 1970: gagoSiZe i. samadlos moxatuli keramika.“sabWoTa saqarTvelo”. #23. Tb. Глинка 1832: Глинка С. Обозрение истории Армянского народа. Москва. liCeli 2001: liCeli v. kolxeTisa da iberiis kulturis sakiTxebi. Tb. Дандамаев 1985: Дандамаев М. Политическая история Ахеменидской державы. Москва. mamulia 1979: mamulia g. klasobrivi sazogadoebisa da saxelmwifos Camoyalibeba Zvel qarTlSi. Tbilisi. Дроизен 1995: Дроизен И. История Элинизма. Т.2. Ростов. Гагошидзе 1979 : Гагошидзе Ю. Самадло.Тбилиси. Дьяконов 1956: Дьяконов И. История Мидии. Москва. meliqiSvili 1970: meliqiSvili g. kolxeTi Zv.w. VI-IV ss-Si. saqarTvelos istoriis narkvevebi. t. I. Tb. Дьяконов 1968: Дьяконов И. Предыстория армянского народа.История Армянского нагоръя с 1500 по 500 г. до н. э. Хетты,Лувиицы,протоармяне. Ереван. meliqiSvili 1970: meliqiSvili g. qarTlis (iberiis samefo). saqarTvelos istoriis narkvevebi. t. I. Tbilisi. Дьяконов 1981: Дьяконов И. Малая Азия и Армения около 600 гю до н. э. и северные походы Вавилонских царей, ВДИ., №2. Москва. meliqiSvili 1999: meliqiSvili g. Zveli qarTuli, somxuri da berZnuli saistorio tradicia da qarTlis (iberiis) samefos warmoqmnis sakiTxi. Ziebani saqarTvelos kavkasiis da axlo aRmosavleTisZveli istoriis dargSi. Tb. Ковалевская 1975: Ковалевская В. Скифы, Мидия, Иран во взаимоотношениях с Закавказьем по данным Леонти Мровели. `macne~ istoriis, arqeologiis, eTnografiisa da xelovnebis istoriis seria #3. Tb. Кудрявцев 1974: Кудрявцев А. К истории др. Дербента. Древности Дагестана. Махачкала. “moqcevai qarTlisai” 1963: Zveli qarTuli agiografiuli literaturis Zeglebi, i. abulaZis redaqciiT, Tbilisi. Ломоури 1981: Ломоури взаимоотнашения. Тб. sanaZe 2001: sanaZe m. `qarTlis cxovreba~ da saqarTvelos istoriis uZvelesi periodi. Tb. Н. Грузино-Римские Лордкипанидзе 1989: Лордкипанидзе О. древней Грузии. Тб. qc 1955: qarTlis cxovreba. teqsti dadgenili yvela ZiriTadi xelnaweris mixedviT s. yauxCiSvilis mier. t. I. Tb. Наследие Меликишвили 1959: Меликишвили Г. К истории древней Грузии. Тб. Нариманашвили 1991: Нариманашвили Картли V- I вв. до н. э. Тбилиси. qemerteliZe 2000: qemerteliZe T. qarTlis (iberiis) samefos warmoqmnis TariRis Sesaxeb. saqarTvelos xelovnebis saxelmwifo muzeumis narkvevebi. VI. Tb. Г. Керамика Тер-Мартиросов 1995: Тер-Мартиросов Ф. Образование царства Армения в контексте исторических данных и исторической памяти. Ереван. Rowlison 1862: History of Herodotus in Four Bobur. By Jorje Rowlison. London. Шифман 1988: Шифман И. Александр Македонский. Ленинград. Tommanff 1963: Tommanff C. Studies in Christians Caucasian History. Хазарадзе 1991: Хазарадзе Н. К вопросу о расселении Мосхов VI-Vвв.до н.э. amierkavkasiis istoriis problemebi. Tb. 86 ana gabunia gliptikis nimuSebi saqarTvelos erovnuli muzeumis koleqciidan winamdebare naSromSi Seswavlilia saqarTvelos erovnuli muzeumis gliptikis fondSi daculi 24 romauli gema, romelTa qronologia moicavs drois monakveTs ax.w. I s-dan - ax.w. IV s-is CaTvliT. ganxiluli gliptikuri Zeglebis erTi nawili arqeologiuri gaTxrebis Sedegadaa mopovebuli (mcxeTis akldama, mcxeTa-samTavro 1958-59 ww., urbnisi 1972 w., TxoTis mTis samarovani, Jinvalis samarovani), meore - SemTxveviTi monapovaria. gemaTa umravlesoba pirvelad Semodis samecniero mimoqcevaSi, mcire nawili ki mxolod zogad arqeologiur publikaciebSia ganxiluli Tanmxleb masalasTan erTad [maTiaSvili, 2016:24; mirianaSvili, 1983:84; ramiSvili, 1983:93]. gliptikuri Zeglebi daTariRebulia gamosaxulebaTa stilis, Semdeg, beWdis formis da samarxSi aRmoCenil sxvadasxva nivTis gaTvaliswinebiT. romis imperiis sxvadasxva centrebSi damzadebuli gemebis SedarebiTi analizis safuZvelze gansazRvrulia intalioebis gamosaxulebaTa Sinaarsi, rac naTel suraTs gvixatavs Tu romel RvTaebebs scemdnen pativs, ra simboloebs iyenebdnen yoveldRiur cxovrebaSi, da ramdenad mihyvebodnen romaul sazogadoebaSi arsebul modas ax.w. I-IV ss-Si saqarTvelos teritoriaze mcxovrebi mosaxleoba. gemebis umravlesoba gansakuTrebiT maRali mxatvruli RirsebiT ar gamoirCeva. umTavresad gvxvdeba masobrivi warmoebis nimuSebi, romlebic didi raodenobiTaa aRmoCenili romis imperiasa da masTan urTierTobaSi myof qveynebSi. am gemebze umetesad gamosaxulia adamianis piradi qonebisa da keTildReobis mfarveli RvTaebebi da maTi simboloebi. gamosaxulebani mkacrad kanonizirebulia. RvTaebebi gvxvdeba statualur pozaSi. esenia: aTena, apoloni, nike, hermesi, asklepiosi, eroti, nemesida. gvxvdeba agreTve, nayofierebisa da siuxvis simboloebi: puris TavTavebi, krateri TavTavebiT, xelis mtevani, niRabi. Tanxmobis, kavSirisa da qorwinebis sim- bolo -xelis CamorTmeva. gemebze warmodgenilia cxovelTa da frinvelTa samyaro: ZaRli, cxeni, Tevzi da delfini. stilisturi analizis gaTvaliswinebiT gvxvdeba rogorc kargi - plastikuri da moculobiTi namuSevrebi, ise daudevari - uxeSi xazebiT Sesrulebuli, sqematuri gamosaxulebani. formisa da moyvanilobis mixedviT aris rogorc brtyeli, ise odnav amoburculi da beWedSi Casmuli mkveTrad amoburculi intalioebi, moyvanilobis mixedviT dominirebs ovaluri gemebi, Tumca gvxvdeba ramdenime mrgvali Wrila qvac. ganxiluli yvela gema intalios warmoadgens da beWdis Tvlebadaa gamoyenebuli. masalad naxevradZvirfasi qvebi (sxvadasxva feris sardioni, granati, nikolo) da minaa gamoyenebuli. beWdebi damzadebulia rogorc Zvirfasi liTonisgan – oqrosa da vercxlisagan, ise brinjaosa da rkinisagan. Cvens naSromSi warmodgenili beWdebis umravlesoba formiT ar gansxvavdeba mTels romaul samyaroSi gavrcelebuli beWdebisgan, amitomac maTi daTariReba moxda SedarebiTi analizis safuZvelze. gliptikuri Zeglebis gavrceleba saqarTveloSi mniSvnelovnadaa damokidebuli gare samyarosTan qveynis politikur, ekonomikur da kulturul urTierTobebze. amdenad, gliptikuri Zeglebi mniSvnelovan arqeologiur wyaros warmoadgens saqarTvelos mosaxleobis materialuri da kulturuli donisa da gare samyarosTan urTierTobis sakiTxis SeswavlisaTvis. dasasruls, minda didi madloba gadavuxado qeTevan javaxiSvilsa da qeTevan ramiSvils sakiTxze muSaobisas daxmarebisa da konsultaciisaTvis. katalogi: 1. inv. N#28-51:15. intalio granatisa, piropi. mcxeTis akldama, 1951w. [maTiaSvili, 2016:24, sur.16]. gema ovaluria, odnav amoburculi piri aqvs. pirze gamosaxulia mdgomare apoloni, profiliT marcxniv. gemis mxolod natexia SerCenili, amitom 87 gamosaxulebis mxolod fragmenti ikiTxeba. apoloni SiSvelia. marjvena, daSvebul xelSi, dafnis toti uWiravs romlis mxolod mcire nawili - foTlebia SerCenili. intalioze gamosaxuli unda iyos romaul gliptikaSi gavrcelebuli siuJeti - SiSveli apoloni, romelsac cal xelSi dafnis toti uWiravs, meore idayvSi moxrili aqvs da svets eyrdnoba, an xelze mantia aqvs gadakidebuli. gamosaxuleba mkafioa, moculobiTi da plastikuri. sakmaod kargi namuSevaria. msgavsi gamosaxulebani cnobilia: ix. [javaxiSvili, 1972: tab. III, sur. 42; Hening, 1987:№ 47, 48, 55]; stilisturad msgavsi gamosaxuleba gvxvdeba: sad? [Zwierlein-Diehl, 1973:№ 409]. gamosaxulebis stilis mixedviT intalio ax.w. I s-iT TariRdeba. daculoba: intalio gatexilia. 2. inv. #1118. intalio moyavisfrowiTeli sardionisa, rkinis beWedSi. mcxeTa, samTavro. 1958 wlis arqeologiuri eqspedicia. kramitsamarxi №6 (samarxi 8). gema ovaluria, brtyeli piri aqvs. pirze gamosaxulia ZaRli. igi mirbis. kveTa mkafioa, gamosaxuleba faqizi. foni gaprialebulia, gamosaxuleba mqrqali. msgavsi gamosaxulebani ix.: [javaxiSvili, 1972: gam. № 6, 26, 124; Walters, 1926:№ 24192422]. beWdis rkali mxrebisken farTovdeba da uSualod TvalbudeSi gadadis. qva amoweulia budidan. gamosaxulebis stilis mixedviT intalio ax.w. I-II ss-iT unda davaTariRoT. daculoba: qva kargadaa Senaxuli. beWedi daJangulia. rkalis didi nawili aklia. zomebi: sigrZe-10 mm, signe-7 mm. 3. inv. #N1117. intalio moyavisfrowiTeli sardionisa, rkinis beWedSi. mcxeTa, samTavro. 1958 wlis arqeologiuri eqspedicia. kramitsamarxi №6 (samarxi 8). gema ovaluria, brtyeli piri aqvs. pirze gamosaxulia nemesida, profiliT marjvniv. Semosilia qitoniT. marcxena xelSi kverTxi uWiravs, marjvenaSi-sazomi (?). Tavze modiumi adgas. kveTa mkafioa, gamosaxuleba ramdenadme sqematuri. foni mqrqalia, gamosaxuleba gaprialebuli. gemebi, romelzec nemesidaa gamosaxuli sazomiT xelSi gamovlenilia urbnisis samarovanze [javaxiSvili, 1972:№ 105, 126]. beWdis rkali mxrebisken farTovdeba da uSualod TvalbudeSi gadadis. intalio gamosaxulebis stilis mixedviT ax.w. I-II ss-iT unda daTariRdes. daculoba: qva kargadaa Senaxuli, beWdis mxolod Tvalbude da mxrebia SerCenili. zomebi: intalios sigrZe-11 mm, sigane-7mm. 4. inv.N1119. intalio narinjisferi sardionisa, rkinis beWedSi. mcxeTa, samTavro. 1958 wlis arqeologiuri eqspedicia. kramitsamarxi №7 (samarxi 9). gema ovaluria, brtyeli piri aqvs. pirze gamosaxulia asklepiosi. marjvena xelSi kverTxi uWiravs, romelzec gvelia Semoxveuli. wels qvemoT mantiiTaa Semosili, romlis bolo marcxena xelze aqvs gadakidebuli. asklepiosi wels zemoT SiSvelia. mkveTradaa gamosaxuli torsis kunTebi. gamosaxuleba mkafioa, wminda namuSevaria. msgavsi gamosaxulebani ix.: [javaxiSvili, 1972: gam. №68; Furtwangler, 1896:№ 2357, 8390; Richter, 1971: № 127; Walters, 1926:#1682, 1683, 1688; Richter, 1956:№ 340; Милчева, 1980: №104]. beWdis rkali mxrebisken farTovdeba da uSualod TvalbudeSi gadadis. gamosaxulebis stilis mixedviT, da amave samarxSi aRmoCenili kotis I-is monetis mixedviT, intalio ax.w. I –II saukuneTa mijniT TariRdeba. daculoba: qva kargadaa Senaxuli. beWeds rkalis nawili aklia. zomebi: sigrZe -12 mm, sigane-9 mm. 5. inv.N #1150. intalio nikolosi, oqros beWedSi. mcxeTa, samTavro. 1958 wlis arqeologiuri eqspedicia. kramitsamarxi №4 (samarxi 5). gema ovaluria, odnav amoburculi piri aqvs. pirze gamosaxulia axalgazrda kacis biusti, mxrebs qvemoT gadaWrili, profiliT marjvniv. gamoirCeva individualuri niSnebiT. mas swori, odnav wvetiani cxviri, patara tuCebi, Seberili loyebi, patara nikapi da farTod gaxelili Tvali aqvs. Tma mokled aqvs SeWrili. mxari qitoniT Semosili da bafTiT Sekruli. gamosaxuleba nawilobliv gaprialebulia. sakmaod kargi namuSevaria. beWeds wvrili rkali aqvs, romelic mxrebisken TandaTan farTovdeba da uSualod TvalbudeSi gadadis. qva budidan amoweulia. 88 gamosaxulebis stilisa da beWdis formis mixedviT gemiani beWedi ax.w. I-II saukuneebiT unda daTariRdes. daculoba: kargi. intalios sigrZe-10 mm, sigane-6 mm. beWdis dmD-14 mm, simaRle-20 mm. 6. inv. # 1115. intalio gamWvirvale granatisa, brinjaos beWedSi. mcxeTa, samTavro. 1958 wlis arqeologiuri eqspedicia. kramitsamarxi №1 (samarxi 2). gema mrgvalia, Zlier amoburculi piri aqvs. pirze gamosaxulia mamakacis niRabi. gamosaxuleba sqematuria, kveTa araRrmaa. msgavsi gamosaxulebani ix: [Pannuti, 1983:№ 227, 228]. beWeds wvrili rkali aqvs, romelic mxrebisken farTovdeba da uSualod TvalbudeSi gadadis. rkali Signidan brtyelia, garedan amoburculi. Tvali budidan mkveTradaa zemoT amoweuli. msgavsi formis beWdebi: ix. [Henkel, 1913: tab. IX, № 159, 162, 163]. gemiani beWedi ax.w. I-II ss-iT unda daTariRdes. daculoba: kargi, intalios sigrZeD-7 mm, rkalis Ddm-16 mm, simaRle-21 mm. 7. inv.# N1265. intalio mowiTalo-yavisferi sardionisa, rkinis beWedSi. mcxeTis arqeologiuri eqspedicia, 1959 weli. kramitsamarxi N1 (samarxi 2). gema ovaluria, odnav amoburculi piri aqvs. pirze gamosaxulia biga - etlSi Sebmuli ori cxeni, romelzec nika dgas. marjvena, win gawvdil xelSi, gvirgvini uWiravs, marcxenaSi - cxenis sadaveebi. gulmodgine, wminda namuSevaria. cxenis gamosaxuleba anabeWdze maRal reliefs iZleva. qalRmerTis gamosaxuleba SedarebiT sqematuria. msgavsi gamosaxulebani ix.: [javaxiSvili, 1972: gam. № 37; Richter, 1971:№ 682; Walters, 1926:№ 1723; Furtwangler, 1896:№ 8413; Hamburger, 1968: №69; Krug, 1980:№ 637-639]. gamosaxulebis stilis mixedviT intalio ax.w. I-II ss-iT unda daTariRdes. daculoba: qva kideebSi Camotexilia. qvedapiri daJangulia. beWedi gatexilia samad da daJanguli. zomebi: sigrZe-18 mm, sigane-15 mm. 8. inv. # 1000. intalio muqi narinjisferi sardionisa, rkinis beWedSi. aRmoCenilia qarelis raionSi, sof. ruisSi, SeZenilia g. nasyidaSvilisgan, gliptikis kabinets gadmoeca 1963 w. intalio ovaluria, brtyeli piri aqvs. pirze gamosaxulia mamakacis biusti - kisris qvemoT gadaWrili, profiliT marjvniv. mamakacs mokle Tma da maRali kiseri aqvs. tlanqi namuSevaria. saxis nakvTebi sqematuria. foni gaprialebulia, gamosaxuleba-mqrqali. gamosaxulebis stilis mixedviT intalios ax.w. I-II ss-iT TariRdeba. daculoba: qva kargadaa Senaxuli. beWdis mxolod Tvalbudea darCenili. sigrZe-10 mm, sigane-7 mm. 9. inv. # 1113. intalio muqi wiTeli granatisa. mcxeTa-samTavro, 1958 wlis arqeologiuri eqspedicia, qvayuTi №1 (samarxi 1). gema ovaluria, amoburculi piri da Cadrekili qvedapiri aqvs. pirze gamosaxulia qalis biusti profiliT marjvniv. mandilosans maRali Subli aqvs, swori, odnav wagrZelebuli cxviri, Txeli bageebi, odnav win wamoweuli nikapi, farTo, maRali kiseri. sada Tavsaburavi axuravs. gamosaxuleba portrets unda warmoadgendes. amave samarxidanaa intalio erotis gamosaxulebiT. gamosaxulebis stilis da amave samarxSi aRmoCenili gemiani beWedis mixedviT intalio ax.w. II saukuniT unda daTariRdes. daculoba: kargi. zomebi: sigrZe 11 mm, sigane-10 mm. 10. inv. №1112. intalio moyavisfronarinjisferi sardionisa, brinjaos beWedSi. mcxeTa, samTavro. 1958 wlis arqeologiuri eqspedicia. qvayuTi №1 (samarxi №1). intalio ovaluria, brtyeli piri aqvs. pirze gamosaxulia mdgomare eroti, profiliT marjvniv. erots xelSi CiraRdani uWiravs. niadagis zoli mokle xaziTaa aRniSnuli. gamosaxuleba mkafioa, didi ostatobiT ar gamoirCeva. foni mqrqalia, gamosaxuleba gaprialebuli. msgavsi gamosaxulebani ix.: [lorTqifaniZe, 1961tab. IV gam. № 29; javaxiSvili, 1972:tab. IV, gam. № 60; Furtwangler, 1896: № 980, 1636; Richter, 1920: № 148, 137; Walters, 1926:tab. XXXIV, № 3475, tab. XX, № 1469]. beWeds wvrili rkali aqvs, romelic mxrebisken farTovdeba da TvalbudeSi gadadis. rkals sigrZiv gauyveba waxnagi. qva budidan amozidulia. msgavsi fomis beWdebi ax.w. II s-is miwuruliTa da III s-is 89 dasawyisiT TariRdeba [javaxiSvili, 1972: gam. № 93, 95, 97, 100]. daculoba: qva kargadaa Senaxuli. rkals didi nawili aklia. intalios sigrZe-9 mm, sigane-7 mm. gamosaxulebis stilisa da beWdis formis mixedviT intalio ax.w. II-III ss-Ta mijniT unda daTariRdes. 11. inv. № 1116. intalio mowiTalo narinjisferi sardionisa, rkinis beWedSi. mcxeTa-samTvro. 1958 wlis arqeologiuri eqspedicia. qvayuTi №1 (samarxi № 1) intalio ovaluria, brtyeli piri aqvs. pirze gamosaxulia delfini da Tevzi TavSeqceviT. kveTa mkafioa, gamosaxuleba didi ostatobiT ar gamoirCeva. delfinisa da Tevzis wyviladi gamosaxulebis povna ver moxerxda. gemebi, romelzec calke delfini an calke Tevzia gamosaxuli romaul xanaSi farTodaa gavcelebuli. saqarTvelos terotoriaze mopovebul gemaTagan wyviladi Tevzis, Tevzisa da delfinis cal-calke gamosaxulebani gvxvdeba ix.: [javaxiSvili, 1972:gam.№ 89, 78, 86; lorTqifaniZe, 1958:gam. № 12; Максимова, 1950:tab. II, gam. № 54, 46, 26]; agreTve: [Furtwangler, 1896: № 7939, 7941, 2346; Walters, 1926:№ 2512]. beWdis rkali mxrebisken farTovdeba da uSualod TvalbudeSi gadadis. gamosaxulebis stilis mixedviT intalio ax.w. II-III ss-iT TariRdeba. daculoba: qva zurgis mxridan odnav atkecilia, beWedi gatexilia. daJanguli. rkals nawili aklia. Tvali budidan amovardnilia. zomebi: intalios sigrZe-9 mm, sigane-7 mm. 12. inv. №1120. intalio muqi narinjisferi sardionisa, brinjaos beWedSi. mcxeTa, samTavro. 1958 wlis arqeologiuri eqspedicia. kramitsamarxi №7 (samarxi 9). intalio ovaluria, brteli piri aqvs. pirze gamosaxulia krateri, romelSic Reroebia (TavTavebi?) Cawyobili. gamosaxuleba mkafioa da sqematuri. romaul gemebze WurWlis gamosaxva ar aris iSviaTi. msgavsi gamosaxulebani ix.: [javaxiSvili, 1972: gam. № 99; Richter, 1956: № 569; Furtwavngler, 1896:№ 7119, 2271]. beWdis rkali mxrebisken farTovdeba da uSualod TvalbudeSi gadadis. qva aweulia budidan. rkalze, sigrZiv gauyveba waxnagi. msgavsi formis beWdebi ax.w. II s-is miwuruliTa da ax.w. III s-is dasawyisiT TariRdeba [javaxiSvili, 1972: gam. № 92, 95, 97, 100]. gamosaxulebis stilisa da beWdis formis mixedviT intalio ax.w. II-III saukuneTa mijniT unda daTariRdes. daculoba: qva kargadaa Senaxuli. beWdis rkals nawili aklia. zomebi: intalios sigrZe-8 mm, sigane-7 mm. 13. inv. №1202. intalio narinjisferi sardionisa, rkinis beWedSi. urbnisis arqeologiuri eqspedicia, 1972 w., XXV ubani, samarxi № 277. intalio ovaluria, brtyeli piri aqvs. pirze gamosaxulia xelis mtevani. kveTa zedapirulia. plastikuroba aklia. foni gaprialebulia, gamosaxuleba mqrqali. msgavsi gamosaxulebani ix.: [Furtwangler, 1896: № 8088]. beWeds viwro rkali aqvs, romelic mxrebisken farTovdeba da TvalbudeSi gadadis. qva budidan amozidulia. intalio gamosaxulebis stilis mixedviT ax.w.II-III s-iT TariRdeba. daculoba: qva kargadaa Senaxuli. beWeds rkalis nawili aklia. zomebi: sigrZe-7 mm, sigane- 5 mm. 14. inv. №1203. intalio yavisferi sardionisa, rkinis beWedSi. urbnisis arqeologiuri eqspedicia, 1972 w., XXV ubani, samarxi 277. intalio ovaluria, brtyeli piri aqvs. pirze gamosaxulia puris ori TavTavi. daudevari namuSevaria. gamosaxuleba sqematuria. msgavsi gamosaxulebani romaul gemebze farTodaa gavrcelebuli. saqarTvelos teritoriaze mopovebul gemaTagan ix.: [javaxiSvili, 1972:gam. №119; lorTqifaniZe, 1958: tab.II, gam. №2; Максимова, 1950:tab. II, gam. № 59; mSvildaZe, 2012:tab. IX,6]. beWeds viwro rkali aqvs, romelic mxrebisken farTovdeba da uSualod TvalbudeSi gadadis. qva budidan aweulia. intalios gamosaxulebis stilis mixedviT ax.w. II-III ss-iT TariRdeba. 15. inv.# 1134. intalio muqi narinjisferi sardionisa, brinjaos beWedSi. Tbilisi, RrmaRele, 1960-61 ww. intalio ovaluria. brtyeli piri aqvs. pirze gamosaxulia xelisCamorTmeva. daudevari namuSevaria. gamosaxuleba sqematuri. foni mqrqali, gamosaxuleba 90 gaprialebuli. msgavsi gamosaxulebani ix.: [javaxiSvili, 1972: gam. № 92, 94, 115; Furtwangler, 1896:№ 6654, 8051; Hamburger, 1968:№129]. beWeds wvrili, Signidan brtyeli, garedan odnav amoburculi rkali aqvs. rkali mxrebisken TandaTan farTovdeba da uSualod TvalbudeSi gadadis. mxrebi odnav aqcentirebulia. qva budidan amoweulia. msgavsi formis beWdebi ax.w. II s-is miwuruliTa da ax.w. III s-is dasawyisiT TariRdeba [javaxiSvili, 1972: gam. № 92, 95, 97, 98, 100]. daculoba: kargi. intalios sigrZe- 7 mm, sigane- 6 mm. beWdis dm. -16 mm, simaRle-16 mm. 16. inv. №1001. intalio muqi narinjisferi sardionisa. aRmoCenilia qarelis raionSi, ruisSi. SeZenilia g. nasyidaSvilisgan. gliptikis kabinets gadmoeca 1963 w. intalio ovaluria, brtyeli piri aqvs. pirze gamosaxulia RvTaeba, Tavi profilSi marcxniv, taniT pirdapir. Semosilia grZeli qitoniT. marcxena xelSi kverTxi uWiravs, marjvena-idayvSi moxrili win aqvs gawvdili. niadagis zoli mokle xaziTaa aRniSnuli. gamosaxuleba sqematuria, daudevari namuSevaria. foni mqrqalia, gamosaxuleba gaprialebuli. msgavsi gamosaxulebani ix: [lorTqifaniZe, 1967: gam. №69; javaxiSvili, 1972: gam.№ 80, 98]. gamosaxulebis stilis mixedviT intalio ax.w. II-III saukuneebiT unda daTariRdes. daculoba: kargi. zomebi: sigrZe -10 mm, sigane- 8 mm. 17. inv. №1221. intalio moyavisfronarinjisferi sardionisa, rkinis beWedSi. SemTxveviTi monapovari wyneTis skolis ezoSi, 1965 w. intalio ovaluria, brtyeli piri aqvs. pirze gamosaxulia xelisCamorTmeva, Tanxmobisa da kavSiris simbolo. gamosaxuleba sqematuria. kveTa mkafioa. foni gaprialebulia, gamosaxuleba mqrqali. msgavi gamosaxulebani ix.: [javaxiSvili, 1972:gam. №92, 74, 94, 115; lorTqifaniZe, 1961:tab. IX, gam. №28; lorTqifaniZe, 1967: tab. V, gam. №49; Максимова, 1950:gam. 30; Hamburger, 1968: № 129; Финогенова, 2012:№157; Милчева, 1980:№ 241a]. beWeds viwro rkali unda hqondes, romelic mxrebisken farTovdeba da uSualod farakSi gadadis. Tvalbude Sig beWedSia amoWrili. qvis zedapiri Tvalbudis napiris simaRleze mdebareobs. intalio ax.w. II s-is boloTi da III s-is dasawisiT unda daTariRdes. daculoba: qva kargadaa Senaxuli. beWedi daJangulia. darCenilia mxrebi da Tvalbude. zomebi: intalios sigrZe- 8 mm, sigane-6 mm. 18. inv. #1198. intalio mowiTaloyavisferi sardionisa, vercxlis beWedSi. urbnisis arqeologiuri eqspedicia, 1972 w., XXV ubani, samarxi 273. intalio ovaluria. brtyeli piri aqvs. pirze gamosaxulia xelisCamorTmeva. gamosaxuleba sqematuria. uxeSi namuSevaria. msgavsi gamosaxulebani ix.: [javaxiSvili, 1972:№ 92, 94, 115; lorTqifaniZe, 1961: tab. IX, gam. № 28]. beWdis rkali Signidan brtyelia, garedan, mTel sigrZeze waxnagi Camouyveba. rkali mxrebisken TandaTan farTovdeba. masze mirCilulia dabali Tvalbude. beWeds patara, horizontuli mxrebi aqvs. msgavsi beWdebi ax.w. III saukuniT TariRdeba [Henkel, 1913:œœœ. XXII, № 431, 431a, 431b, 432 a, 432 b, 1260, 1261]. gamosaxulebis stilisa da beWdis formis mixedviT intalios ax.w. III saukuniT vaTariRebT. daculoba: vercxli rekristalizebulia. intalios sigrZe 8 mm, sigane- 6 mm, beWdis dm D- 16 mm, simaRle – 23 mm. 19. inv. N#1199. intalio mowiTeliyavisferi sardionisa, vercxlis beWedSi. urbnisis arqeologiuri eqspedicia, 1972 w., XXV ubani, samarxi 273. intalio ovaluria, brtyeli piri aqvs. pirze gamosaxulia cxeni. Tavi daxrili aqvs. erTi wina fexi ukan moxrili. gamosaxuleba sqematuria. daudevari namuSevaria. foni gaprialebulia, gamosaxuleba mqrqali. msgavi gamosaxulebani ix.: [Zweirlein-Diehl, 1973:№ 376, 377; Guiraud, 1988:№ 633A]. beWeds mrgvalganivkveTiani, Tanabari sisqis rkali aqvs, romelic ganivi naWdevebiTaa Semkuli. rkalze, sigrZiv, mirCilulia dabali, ovaluri Tvalbude. qva budidan amoweulia. msgavsi beWdebi ax.w. III saukunisTvisaa damaxasiaTebeli [braundi da sxv., 2009: № 2,5, 2,4]. intalio gamosaxulebis stilisa da beWdis formis mixedviT ax.w. III s-iT unda davaTariRoT. 91 daculoba: beWedi deformirebulia, vercxli rekristalizebuli. intalios sigrZe-12 mm, sigane 8 mm. beWdis Ddm-21 mm, simaRle- 24 mm. 20. inv.№1200. intalio mowiTalo-narinjisferi sardionisa, vercxlis beWedSi. urbnisis arqeologiuri eqspedicia, 1972 w., XXV ubani, samarxi 273. intalio ovaluria, brtyeli piri aqvs. pirze gamosxulia SuaSi krateri da aqeT-iqiT TiTo TavTavi. gamosaxuleba sqematuria. daudevari namuSevaria. msgavsi gamosaxuleba ix.: [Terrakotten der antike 1980:№ 77]. beWeds wvrili rkali aqvs, romelic mxrebisken farTovdeba da TvalbudeSi gadadis. rkali Signidan brtyelia, garedan, mTels sigrZeze waxnagi dauyveba. msgavi formis beWdebi ax.w. III s-iT TariRdeba [Henkel, 1913:№ 1250, 1250 a, b. 1251]. gamosaxulebis stilisa da beWdis formis mixedviT intalio ax.w. III saukuniT TariRdeba. daculoba: vercxli rekristalizebulia. beWedi SuaSi amotexili. intalios sigrZe-12 mm, sigane-8 mm. beWedis dm D-17 mm, simaRle- 25 mm. 21. inv. №1201. intalio miniseburi pastisa, vercxlis beWedSi. urbnisis arqeologiuri eqspedicia, 1972 w., XXV ubani, samarxi 273. intalio ovaluria, brtyeli piri aqvs. pirze gamosaxulia hermesi, profiliT marcxniv. marjvena, gawvdil xelSi qisa uWiravs, marcxenaSi - kerikeioni. amave mklavze mosasxami aqvs gadakidebuli. mina irizebulia, gamosaxulebas simkveTre aklia. msgavsi gamosaxulebani ix.: [javaxiSvili, 1972: № 7; lorTqifaniZe, 1967: № 44,45; Максимова, 1950: № 8, 3, 58; Hening, 1987: №79-82]. beWeds wvrili, Signidan brtyeli, garedan amoburculi rkali aqvs, romelic mxrebisken farTovdeba da ovalur moedans qmnis. masze mirCiluli iyo ovaluri Tvalbude. msgavsi beWdebi ax.w. III saukunisTvisaa damaxasiaTebeli [Henkel, 1913:№ 341, 341a, 341b]. beWdis formis da gamosaxulebis stilis mixediT intalios ax.w. III s-iT vaTariRebT. daculoba: vercxli rekristalizebulia. Tvalbude amovardnilia. mina irizebuli. zomebi: intalios sigrZe-11mm, sigane-9 mm, beWdis Ddm-13 mm; simaRle-20 mm. 22. inv. №1228. intalio wiTeli sardionisa, vercxlis beWedSi. axali Jinvalis samarovani, 1971 w., samarxi N5 [ramiSvili, 1983:93, tab. XXXVII, 5]. intalio ovaluria, odnav amoburculi piri aqvs. pirze gamosaxulia frTosani nemesida, profiliT marcxniv. RvTaebas grZeli, usaxelo qitoni acvia. xelSi qitonis bolo uWiravs, fexTan gamosaxulia borbali. niadagis zoli mokle xaziTaa aRniSnuli. gamosaxuleba sqematuria, kveTa araRrma. foni mqrqali, gamosaxuleba gaprialebuli. msgavsi gamosaxulebani ix.: [Walters, 1926:#1695, 1697; Brandt 1968:№1631; Henig, 1987: № 204206; Милчева, 1980:№ 100]. beWeds Signidan odnav amoburculi rkali aqvs, garedan, mTels sigrZeze, dauyveba waxnagi. rkali SuaSi SedarebiT wvrilia, mxrebisken farTovdeba da horizontul mxrebSi gadadis. mxrebze mirCilulia ovaluri Tvalbude. qva budidan odnav amoweulia. msgavsi formis beWdebi ax.w. III s-iT TariRdeba [Максимова, 1950:№6; lorTqifaniZe, 1958:sur. №29; lorTqifaniZe, 1954: fer.tab. II. gam. № 18, 19; Henkel, 1913: № 220, 220 a, b]. gamosaxulebis stilis, beWdis formis da samarxis asakis mixedviT intalio ax.w. III s-iT TariRdeba. daculoba: vercxli rekristalizebulia. Tvalbudis napirebi mcired dazianebulia. zomebi: intalios sigrZe-15 mm, sigane-10 mm, beWdis Ddm -18 mm, simaRle21mm. 23. inv. #999. intalio muqi narinjisferi sardionisa, oqros beWedSi. SeZenilia i. bubiakinisgan 1962 wlis 2 maiss, sagarejos r-Si. intalio ovaluria. brtyeli piri aqvs. pirze gamosaxulia aTena parTenosi. Tavze korinTuli muzaradi axuravs. marjvena xelSi Subi uWiravs, marcxena mxares, fexTan, fari udevs. TeZosTan gamosaxulia satevari qarqaSSi, e.w. parazoniumi. marcxena xeli win aqvs gawvdili da zed nika udgas. grZeli qitoniTaa Semosili. mklavze mosasxami aqvs gadakidebuli. wminda namuSevaria. fonic da gamosaxulebac gaprialebulia. msgavsi gamosaxulebani ix.: [javaxiSvili, 1972: gam. №40; Richter, 1971: № 93-96; Henig, 1987: № 153-157; 92 da samarxis asakis mixedviT, intalioc ax.w. IV saukuniT unda daTariRdes. daculoba: Tvalbudis Zirze oqros firfita CaWyletilia, Tvalbudis napirebi momtvreuli. zomebi: intalios sigrZe-12 mm, sigane-10 mm, beWdis dmD-14 mm, simaRle-21 mm. Финогенова, 2012: № 50. Pannuti, 1983:№13; Hamburger, 1968: №36; Brandt, 1968:№ 2477]. beWdis Tvalbude oqros Txeli firfitisganaa damzadebuli. cilindruli formisaa. SuaSi, garSemo daWdevebuli salte Semouyveba. rkali oqros wvrili, mrgvalganivkveTiani mavTulisganaa damzadebuli. rkalis TvalbudesTan SeerTebis adgilas, orive mxares or-ori burTulaa mirCiluli. msgavsi tipis beWdebi, romelTa Tvalbude calke mzaddeba da rkalze mirCilvis adgilas burTulebi uCndeba ax.w. IV saukinis dasawyisidan Cndeba. msgavsi beWdebi ix.: [ramiSvili, 1979: tab. № 24, sur 1, feradi tab. №1; WilaSvili, 1964: sur. N34; javaxiSvili, 1972:tab. XIV, gam. № 126; Henkel, 1913:tab. XIV, № 274, 1823 a, b. Marshall, 1907:tab. XIV, 513]. beWedi ax.w. IV saukuniT TariRdeba, vfiqrobT, gema ufro adreulia, SesaZloa ax.w. I-II saukunisa unda iyos. daculoba: Tvalbude napirebSi SeWyletilia. intalios sigrZe-11mm, sigane-9 mm. beWdis dmD-21mm, simaRle-21 mm. Tvalbudis sigrZe-14 mm, sigane-12 mm, simaRle-4 mm. 24. inv. N#1223. intalio mowiTalo sardionisa, oqros beWedSi. TxoTis mTis samarovani, Tixis sarkofagi [mirianaSvili, 1983:84, sur. 161]. intalio ovaluria. odnav amoburculi piri aqvs. pirze gamosaxulia mdgomare hermesi, profiliT marjvniv. marjvena win gawvdil xelSi qisa uWiravs, marcxenaSi - kerikeoni. amave mklavze mosasxami aqvs gadakidebuli. gamosaxuleba sqematuria. uxeSi namuSevaria. msgavsi gamosaxulebani ix.: [javaxiSvili, 1972:№ 6; Максимова, 1950: tab. I, gam. № 8, 31, tab. II-58; lorTqifaniZe, 1967:gam. № 45; Henig 1987: № 79-82.; Милчева, 1980:№ 67-72]. beWedi oqros ori firfitisganaa damzadebuli. rkali SuaSi SedarebiT viwroa, mxrebisken farTovdeba. beWeds aqvs daqanebuli, Zirs daSvebuli dakuTxuli mxrebi da maRali Tvalbude. amgvari beWdebi mravladaa aRmoCenili aRmosavleT saqarTvelos teritoriaze ix.: [lorTqifaniZe, 1961: sur, № 48, 50, 52, 57, 58, 59, 60, 62. afaqiZe da sxv., 1955: sur 136. gam. 1-8; nadiraZe, 1975: sur. № 11] da ax.w. IV s-iT TariRdeba. gamosaxulebis stilis, beWdis formis Lliteratura: afaqiZe an., gobejiSvili g., kalandaZe al., lomTaTiZe g., 1955: armazisxevis arqeologiuri Zeglebi 1937-46 ww. ganaTxari masalis mixedviT. mcxeTa I,Tbilisi. braundi d., javaxiSvili q., nemsaZe g. 2009: saganZuri zRuderidan. elinisturi samarxebi kavkasiis iberidan romaul xanaSi ax.w. 200-250 ww., Tb. lorTqifaniZe m. 1958: saqarTvelos saxelmwifo muzeumis gemebi II, armazisxevsa da bagineTze aRmoCenili gliptikuri Zeglebi, Tb. lorTqifaniZe m. 1961: saqarTvelos saxelmwifo muzeumis gemebi III, saqarTvelos teritoriaze mopovebuli gliptikuri Zeglebis katalogi, Tb. lorTqifaniZe m. 1967: saqarTvelos saxelmwifo muzeumis gemebi IV, katalogi, Tb. maTiaSvili n. 2016: mcxeTis akldama. Tb. mirianaSvili n. 1983: Sida qarTlis materialuri kulturis istoriidan (aRaianis arqeologiuri Zeglebi). - nastakisis arqeologiuri eqspediciis Sromebi II, Tb. mSvildaZe m. 2012: biWvinTis naqalaqaris gliptikuri Zeglebi, Tb. nadiraZe j. 1975: yvirilis xeobis arqeologiuri Zeglebi, Tb. ramiSvili r. 1983: axali Jinvalis samarovani da namosaxlari 1971-1973ww. ganaTxari masalis mixedviT. - Jinvali I, Tbilisi, gv. 81-130. WilaSvili l. 1964: naqalaqari urbnisi, Tb. javaxiSvili q. 1972: urbnisis naqalaqaris gliptikuri Zeglebi. - saqarTvelos saxelmwifo muzeumis gemebi V, Tb. Максимова М. 1950: Геммы из некрополя МцхетыСамтавро, ВМГ. - saxelmwifo muzeumis moambe, XVI-В, Tb. Милчева А. 1980: Антични Геми и Камен от Национал. археологически Музей в София, София. Финогенова С. 2012: Мир в миниатюре. собрания ГМИИ им. А.С. Пушкина, Москва. Геммы из Brandt E, 1968: Antike Gemmen in Deutschen Sammlungen, Band I, Staatliche Münzsammlung, München. Furtwangler A. 1896: Beschreibung der Geschnittenen Steine im Antiquarium, Berlin. 93 ilustraciebis aRweriloba: Guiraud H. 1988: Intailles et Camees de l’epoque Romaine en Gaule, Roma. Hamburger A. 1968: Gems from Caesarea Maritima. Jerusalem. 1.inv. #28-51:15 intalio granatis. apoloni. mcxeTis akldama. Henkel F. 1913: Die romischen Fingerringe der Rheinlande, Berlin. 2.inv. #1118. intalio sardionisa. ZaRli. mcxeTa, samTavro. Henig M., Whiting M. 1987: Engraved Gems from Gadara in Jordan. - The Sa’d collection of Intaglios and Cameos. Oxford. 3.inv. #1117. intalio sardionisa, nemesida(?), mcxeTa, samTavro. Krug A. 1980: Antike Gemmen im Römisch-Germanischen Museum Köln, Berlin. 4.inv. #1119. intalio sardionisa, asklepiosi. mcxeTa, samTavro. Marshall F. 1907: Catalogue of Finger Rings, Greek, Etruscan and Roma, In the British Museum, London. 5-5a. inv. #1150. intalio nikolosi, portreti. mcxeTa, samTavro. Pannuti U. 1983: Cattalogo Della Collezione Glittica. - Museo Archeologico Nazionale Di Napoli, Roma. 6-6a. inv. #1115. intalio granatisa. niRabi. mcxeTa, samTavro. Richter G. 1920: Catalogue of Engraved Gems of the Classical Style, New York. 7. inv. #1265. intalio sardionis, ori cxeni Sebmuli etlSi. mcxeTa, samTavro. Richter G. 1956: Catalogue of Engraved Gems Greek, Etruscan and Roman, Roma. 8. inv. #1000. intalio sardionisa, portreti, SemTxveviTi monapovari qarelidan. Richter G. 1971: Engraved Gems of the Romans, New York. Terrakoten Der Antike 1980: Antike Gemmen, Basel. 9. inv. #1113. intalio granatisa, portreti. mcxeTa, samTavro. Walters H. 1926: Catalogue of the Engraved Gems and Cameos Greek, Etruscan and Roman, London. 10.-10a. inv. #1112. intalio sardionisa. eroti, mcxeTa, samTavro. Zwierlein-Diehl E.1973: Die antiken Gemmen des Kunsthistorisches Museums im Wien, I, München. 11.inv. #1116. intalio sardionisa. delfini da Tevzi. mcxeTa, samTavro. 12.-12a. inv. #1120. intalis sardionisa, krateri, mcxeTa, samTavro. 13.inv. #1202. intalio sardionisa, xelis mtevani. urbnisi. 14.inv. #1203. intalio sardionisa, puris ori TavTavi, urbnisi. 15.-15a. inv. #1134. intalio sardionisa, xelisCamorTmeva, Tbilisi, Rrma-Rele. 16. inv. #1001. intalio sardionisa. RvTaeba. SemTxveviTi monapovari s. ruisidan. 17.inv. #1221. intalio sardionisa. xelisCamorTmeva, wyneTidan. 18-18a. inv. #1198. intalio sardionisa. xelisCamorTmeva. urbnisi. 19.-19a. inv. #1199. intalio sardionisa. cxeni. urbnisi. 20.-20a. inv. #1200. intalio sardionia. krateri TavTavebiT urbnisi. 21. inv. #1201. intalio miniseburi pastisa. hermesi, urbnisi. 22.-22a. inv. #1228. intalio sardionisa. nemesida. Jinvalis samarovani. 23.-23a. inv. #999. intalio sardionis. aTena parTenosi. SemTxveviTi monapovari sagarejodan. 24.-24a. inv. #1223. intalio sardionisa, hermesi. TxoTis mTis samarovni. 94 A. GABUNIA I 95 II 96 III 97 IV 98 daviT lomitaSvili, besik lorTqifaniZe, nikoloz murRulia, pol everili, ian qolvini. xunwis cixe gabrunda. ucbaT is raRac senma Seipyro da magrad mohkida mas xeli; amitom meti wili Tavis jarisa, umamacesni, dastova iq qonebis dasacavad, TviTon ki gadavida iberiis qveyanaSi. da ai, aq, egreTwodebul qalaq mesxTaSi is Zalian cudad Seiqna, veRar gauZlo sens da nadvilad, gadaicvala. mermeroe, kaci sparselTa Soris saxelovani, metad gonieri da niWieri, saomar saqmeebSi gamobrZmedili da vaJkacuri sulis patroni!~ (agaTia.1936: 38-42) onogurisis did mniSvnelobaze miuTiTebs agaTias cnobebi, sadac is saubrobs bizantielebis ganzraxvaze am cixis ukan dabrunebis Sesaxeb. maTma sardlebma, 554 wels martinem da rustikem moiTaTbires sxva mxedarTmTavrebTan iustinesTan da buzesTan, raTa egrisis mefe, gubazTan erTad daegegmaT onogurisze laSqroba. maT gubazi daibares xobiswyalTan, sadac maT Soris aseTi saubari gaimarTa: `maSin rustikem, uTxra: `aba, gubaz, sparselebis winaaRmdeg mivdivarT, romlebic onogurisSi Camsxdaran; gamogvyevi da CvenTan erTad miiRe monawileoba am laSqrobaSi. sircxvili iqneba, Tu isini kvlav Tavisuflad isxdebian Cveni qveynis Sua gulSi, miT umetes rom isini mcirericxovanni arian da brZolis unariTac ver Segvedrebian~. `es laSqroba, Se kai kaco, xom marto Tqven gexebaT – miugo gubazma,_ radgan mxolod Tqven migiZRviT brali imaSi, rac moxda. rom Tqven ase ugunurad da daudevrad ar mopyrobodiT saqmes, arc es cixe iqneboda Cven winaaRmdeg gamagrebuli, arc ase usircxvilod da qudmoglejili gaiqceodiT da arc sxva rame moxdeboda am Seuferebeli ambebidan~ (agaTia 1936: 48-49). swored am kamaTis dros mokles gubazi rustikem, misma Zmam ioanem da martinem. am faqtis Semdeg bizantielma sardlebma gadawyvites sakuTari ZalebiT aeRoT onogurisi, ris Semdegac maTi azriT, gauadvildebodaT am mkvlelobis gamo bizantiis imperator iustiniane I-Tan Tavis marTleba. agaTia wers: `martines waqezebiT romaelebma mTeli Tavisi jariT ieriSi miitanes onogurisSi Camjdari sparselebis winaaRmdeg. es saxeli Zveladve Seerqva am adgils SesaZlebelia imis gamo, rom hunnebi, romelTac martvilis municipalitetis sof. xunwi md. cxeniswylis marjvena sanapiroze, martvili-xoni-quTaisis damakavSirebeli samanqano gzis me-8 km-ze mdebareobs. aq, soflis CrdiloeT nawilSi, quqiTis gorakze, romelic unagira mTis Semadgeneli nawilia, nacixari (“najixu”) mdebareobs (GPS koordinatebi: 42.400033°; 42.415467°. simaRle zRvis donidan: 275 m). ukanasknel xans gamoiTqva mosazreba, rom swored aq mdebareobda VI saukunis bizantiel istorikos agaTia sqolastikosTan moxseniebuli onogurisis cixe. agaTia sqolastikosi erT-erTi imaTgania, vinc aRgviwera 542-562 wlebSi bizantiasa da sasanianTa irans Soris dasavleT saqarTveloSi mimdinare saomari operaciebi. es dapirispireba saistorio literaturaSi `did omianobad egrisSi” moixsenieba. am omis dros agaTia ramdenjerme ixseniebs onogurisis cixes, romelsac Zalian did mniSvnelobas aniWebdnen rogorc bizantielebi, aseve iranelebi. 553 wels mxedarTmTavari mermeroe, romelic egrisSi moqmed sparsul jars meTaurobda, telefisis cixis da qitropoliaSi mdebare bizantiuri banakis aRebis Semdeg onogurisisken gaemarTa. agaTia mogviTxrobs:„qitropoliaSi rom mivida mermeroe, sasacilod aigdo imaTi silaCre, vinc urCoba gamoiCina, Zalian gakicxa isini; man gadawyvita ar ganegrZo winsvla da arc nesosze mietana ieriSi, vinaidan arc sursaTis Sovna iyo SesaZlebeli mtris Suagul qveyanaSi aseTi mravalricxovani jarisTvis da arc sxva mxriv alyis SemortymisaTvis momzadeba. amitom man kvlav telefisisa da iqauri Znelsavali adgilebisken gabruneba ki ar miiCnia mizanSewonilad, aramed ficrebisa da sagangebod amisTvis damzadebuli tivebis saSualebiT SeaerTa fasisis napirebi, ase vTqvaT xidi gasdo, da Tavisuflad gadaiyvana mTeli jari, ise rom aravis aRmouCenia dabrkoleba. onogurisis cixeSi, romelic mas winaT gaexada arqeopolisis midamoebSi romaelTa winaaRmdeg saWiro sasimagro safarad, Cayenebuli iyvnen sparselebi da, ai, es sparselebi man gaamxneva, sxva razmic dautova, iqauroba, ramdenadac SesaZlebeli iyo, gaamagra da kvlav kotaisisa da muxirisisken 99 onogurebi ewodebodaT, am adgilas Sebmian kolxebs warsul wlebSi da damarcxebulan da am gamarjvebis niSnad da Zeglad adgilobriv mcxovreblebs es saxeli SeurqmeviaT am adgilisaTvis.amJamad bevri ase ki aRar uwodebs, aramed, radgan aq dafuZvnebulia im wminda stefanes taZari, romelic, rogorc amboben, sakuTari nebiT Seeba mters saukeTeso qristianTa gulisTvis da Caqolil iqmna mowinaaRmdegeTa mier, misi saxeli ewoda am adgils. Cven ki, vfiqrobT, araferi gviSlis xels Zveli saxelwodeba vixmaroT, miT umetes rom mwerloba amas mxars uWers. amrigad, romaelebis jari onogurisis winaaRmdeg gasalaSqreblad emzadeboda. Aamas moiTxovdnen gubazis mkvlelobis sulis Camdgmelni, romelTac imedi hqondaT, rom am cixes male daipyrobdnen: amis wyalobiT – fiqrobdnen isini – mefes rom kidevac gaego maTi veragobis ambavi, ismaT mainc-da-mainc ar gauwyreboda da, radgan ukanaskneli laSqroba warmatebiT damTavrdeboda, sayvedursac aicdendnen Tavidan~ (agaTia 1936: 51-53). aq sam faqts mivaqcevT yuradRebas: erTi, rom saxeli onogurisi onogurebis tomTanaa dakavSirebuli; meore, saxeli onogurisi sxva TxzulebaSicaa dafiqsirebuli da mesame, onogurisSi idga wm. stefanes saxelobis eklesia. pirvel informaciasTan dakavSirebiT SeiZleba iTqvas, rom Cveni azriT, onogurebis saxelTan cixis saxelwodebis dakavSireba xelovnuri Cans. Tavad agaTia gviambobs, rom es saxeli am adgils ZvelTaganve daerqva. ufro misaRebad migvaCnia is mosazreba, romelic samecniero literaturaSia dafiqsirebuli da mas `unagiras mTas~ ukavSireben [Brosset 1851: 90, 101-102; georgika III 1936 : 59-61, SeniSvna 1]. rac Seexeba sxva TxzulebebSi onogurisis moxseniebas, es CvenTvis ucnobia. am SemTxvevaSi agaTia albaT gulisxmobs Turquli modgmis toms onogurebs, romlebic V-X saukuneebSi mosaxleobdnen azovis zRvis midamoebsa da CrdiloeT kavkasiaSi da romlebsac agaTiamde ixseniebdnen sxvadasxva avtorebi – priske panioneli (V s.), zaqaria retori (V-VI ss.), xolo SemdgomSi unugurebs vxvdebiT Teofilaqte simokattasTan (VII s.), onogurebis saepiskoposos - VII-VIII saukeneebis bizantiuri eparqiebis nusxaSi, qveyana onogorias raveneli anonimis `kosmografiaSi~ (VIIIIX ss.), onogurebis toms – IX saukuneSi moRvawe fsevdo-kalisTenes im xalxebis CamonaTvalSi, vinc daimorCila aleqsan- dre makedonelma, xolo onogundurebsunogundurebs – Teofane JamTaaRmwerlis `qronografiaSi~ (VIII-IX ss.), aseve anastasi biblioTekarTan (IX s.) da konstantine porfirogenetTan (X s.), romlebic am toms bulgarelebTan aigiveben. sakuTriv onogurisis cixe ki sxva arc erT TxzulebaSi ar ixsenieba. rac Seexeba wm. stefanes saxelobis eklesias, p. zaqaraiam da T. kapanaZem yuradReba miaqcies noqalqevidan 10-12 kilometrSi, md. abaSis xeobaSi mdebare sof. sefieTis bazilikis berZnul warweras, romelSic wm. stefane ixsenieba. es warwera Tavis droze waikiTxa T. yauxCiSvilma: `wmindao stefane yvela wmindanebTan erTad iSuamdgomle monisa filktistesaTvis da yovelTa mis codvaTaTvis~ [yauxCiSvili 1951: 89-91].am warweras T. yauxCiSvili VIVII saukuneebiT aTariRebda. p. zaqaraia da T. kapanaZem bazilika V-VI saukuneebiT daaTariRes da gamoTqves varaudi, rom SesaZlebelia es eklesia Tavis droze wm. stefanes saxelobis iyo, Tumca is onogurisTan ar daukavSirebiaT. miTumetes, rom sefieTi vake adgilze mdebareobs da iq raime cixis kvali ar aris gamovlenili [zaqaraia p. kapanaZe 1991: 198-215]. axla davubrundeT onogurisis cixeze bizantielTa ieriSs. es samxedro operacia bizantielebisTvis savalalod dasrulda. Tumca am SemTxvevaSi CvenTvis sainteresoa is monacemebi, romlebic uSualod cixis mdebareobas exeba: `da, ai, strategosebic da mTeli jaric, romelnic arqeopolisis dablobSi iyvnen dabanakebulni, amzadeben egreTwodebul spalionebs, didi qvebis satyorcnelebs da sxva amgvar iaraRebs, raTa, Tu saWiro iqneboda, zRudisaTvis daeSinaT~ (agaTia 1936: 53). ukve brZolis procesis aRwerisas ki agaTia wers: `erTni (sparselebi-d. l., b. l., n. m., p. e., i. q.) ibrZoden sakuTari sicocxlis gadasarCenad da ara mcireoden xifaTs miscemoden, meoreni ki (bizantielebi - d. l., b. l., n. m., p. e., i. q..) – ufro imitom, rom rcxvenodaT – raxan moviden, uSedegod rogor gabrunebuliyvnen ise, rom arc es cixe aeRoT da arc arqeopolisi ganeTavisuflebinaT mtris mezoblobisagan~ (agaTia. 1936: 56). es cnobebionogurisis arqeopolisTan siaxloveze metyvelebs. onogurisi rom aseve quTaisTan da moxirisTan axlos mdebarobda, miuTiTebs agaTias Semdegi monacemebi. bizantielebma ieriSis mzadebis procesSi tyved aiyvanes erTi sparseli 100 molaSqre, romlis sityvebiT muxirisSi da quTaisSi mdgari sparsuli jari apirebda onogurisis cixis damcvelebis dasaxmareblad wamosvlas (agaTia 1936: 54). igiveze metyvelebs agaTias Semdegi Txroba: `danarCeni sparselebi ki, daaxloebiT sami aTasi kaci, mamaci cxenosani, - dairazmnen da kotaisisa da muxirisidan gamoswies onogurisisken. isini sakmaod udardelad modiodnen, sruliadac ar egonaT, Tu mteri Sexvdeboda~ (agaTia 1936: 56-57). am raodenobis damxmare jaris gamogzavna onogurisis mniSvnelobaze metyvelebs. Zalian mniSvnelovnad migvaCnia agaTias Txroba brZolis msvlelobis Sesaxeb: bizantielebi `cixes ecnen da maSinve Seudgnen saqmes. imaT aamoZraves manqanebi da scades cixis karebis aReba, gars Semoertynen zRudes da yoveli mxridan dauSines. sparselebi gaifantnen cixis kbilanebze da, ramdenadac SesaZlebeli iyo, icavden Tavs Seqmnil pirobebSi~ (agaTia 1936: 56). Tu gavaanalizebT am cnobas, Cans rom onogurisi ar mdebareobs miudgomel adgilas da misi ieriSi ramdenime mxridanaa SesaZlebeli. sxvaTaSoris agaTia sxva cixeze, magaliTad telefisze aRniSnavs, rom is mtkice da miudgomelia (agaTia 1936: 31), rasac onogurisze ar wers. marTalia moxirisidan da quTaisidan gamogzavnili damxmare jari, maT winaRmdeg gagzavnilma bizantielTa 600 kacianma razmma ukuagdo, magram onogurisSi mdgarma sparsulma garnizonma SeZlo bizantielTa ieriSis mogerieba. metic isini cixidan gamovidnen da bizantielebs daedevnen, romlebmac miatoves iqve gaSlili banaki, gverdi auares arqeopolisTan mdebare Zvel banaksac da egrisis Sida soflebs Seafares Tavi (agaTia 1936: 59). es cnobac am cixis arqeopolisTan siaxloveze metyvelebs; Tan imave cnobidan Cans, rom gaqceuli bizantielebi md. kaTarze gadebul viwro xidze gaiWednen da aqac bevri mebrZoli dakarges. s. yauxCiSvili am mdinares md. abaSasTan aigivebda, romelic Tanamedrove martvilis municipalitets gamoyofs senakis municipalitetidan, konkretulad ki sof. noqalaqevidan, sadac mdebareobda cixegoji-arqeopolisi. onogurisis cixe agaTiasTan amis Semdeg mxolod gubazis mkvlelebis sasamarTlo procesze ixsenieba. misma erTerTma mkvlelma, rustikem Tavis dasacav sityvaSi kvlav xazi gausva dedaqalaq arqeopolisTan mimarTebaSi onogurisis mniSvnelobas: `sparselebs hqondaT dapyrobili onogurisis cixe, romelic maT CamoeglijaT arqeopolisis midamoebidan, da CvenTvis autanel sircxvils warmoadgenda is, rom mtris jari mtkiced Camjdariyo zRudis SigniT Cvens miwawyalze. strategosTa TaTbirze gaimarjva im azrma, rom mTeli jariT gavmgzavrebuliyaviT imaT winaaRmdeg. gagvenadgurebina isini da, amrigad, gavTavisuflebuliyaviT metad saxifaTo Casafrebisagan. Cven, rasakvirvelia, gvWirdeboda kolxTa jaric, ara marto imitom, rom kolxebi, rogorc am adgilebis mcodneni ufro metad, vidre am adgilTa armcodneni, sasargeblo rCeva-darigebas mogvcemden, aramed imitomac rom, radgan brZola mogvixdeboda gamagrebul adgilas Camjdar da kargad SeiaraRebul mebrZolebTan da agreTve imaTTanac, romlebic albaT muxarisidan movidoden maT saSvelad, kolxebsac gaewiaT CvenTvis daxmareba, CvenTan erTad ebrZolaT~. (agaTia 1936: 146-147). amis Semdeg onogurisis cixe arc agaTiasTan da arc sxva wyaroSi ar ixsenieba. onogurisis lokalizacias agaTias naSromis TargmanisTanave Seecada s. yauxCiSvili [georgika III. 1936: 59-62, SeniSvna 1]. rogorc ukve zemoT aRvniSneT, is daeTanxma m. broses da am cixis saxeli daakavSira martvilisa da xonis raionebis sazRvarze mdebare unagira mTasTan. s. yauxCiSvili Tvlida, rom onogurisis cixe dRevandeli martvilis da xonis raionebis sazRvarze, aRmosavleT da dasavleT lazeTis sazRvarze, arqeopolissa da quTaiss Sua unda moeZia. man yuradReba miaqcia agaTias cnobas, rom 554 wlisTvis sparselebs lazeTi uWiravT cxeniswylamde, xolo bizantielebi gamagrebulan cxeniswylis dasavleTiT. Tumca imave cnobebidan Cans, rom onogurisi sparselebma egrisis dedaqalaqis, arqeopolisis damcavi cixe iyo da is md. cxeniswylis marjvena sanapiroze, unagira mTasTan anu Tanamedrove samegrelos teritoriaze unda mdgariyo [georgika III.1936 : 38-41, SeniSvna 2]. am SemTxvevaSi s. yauxCiSvili aseve daeyrdno vaxuSti batoniSvilis cnobebs, romlis Tanaxmadac „xolo sigrZe imereTisa ars lixis mTis Txemidam unagiramde Zuelad, da aw qarTlis sazRvridam, romeli aRvswereT, cxeniswylamde“ [batoniSvili vaxuSti 1973 : 747]. vaxuSti batoniSvili sxva adgilasac miuTiTebs, rom „amas uwodeben unagiras. am mTas mzRvriden odesme 101 imerTa da odiSTa sazRvrad“ [batoniSvili vaxuSti 1973: 777]. aq kidev gvinda movitanoT vaxuStis erTi cnoba, romlis Tanaxmad VIII-IX saukuneebis mijnaze axlad Seqmnili dasavlur qarTuli afxazeTis samefo, mefe leonma dayo 8 saerisTavod. Aam saerisTavoebis sazRvrebi d. musxeliSvilis dakvirvebiT imeorebs egrisis samefos administraciul dayofas: afxazeTis saerisTavo moicavda afxazeTs da jiqeTs, cxumis saerisTavo afSileTs da SesaZloa misimianeTs, bediis – rionis marjvena sanapiros, Sida egriss, guriis – rionis marcxena sanapiros Woroxamde, raWa-leCxumis – egrisis droindel skvimnias, svaneTis- egrisis droindel svaneTs, Sorapnis – argveTs, xolo quTaisis – moxirisis mxares rionamde [musxeliSvili. 1980: 140-154]. am cnobaSic vaxuSti quTaisis da bediis saerisTaos (Sida egrisis) sazRvrad md. cxeniswyals asaxelebs [batoniSvili vaxuSti 1973:796]. am monacemebidan Cans, rom istoriuli aRmosavleT da dasavleT lazikis (egrisis) sazRvari mdinare cxeniswyalTan, unagira mTasTan gadioda. rogorc ukve aRvniSneT, unagira mTa cxeniswylis marjvena sanapiroze mdebareobda. am mTis erT-erT Txemze iyo agebuli arqeopolisi, xolo aseve s. yauxCiSvilis azriT, onogurisi da VI saukunis bizantiel mematiane prokopi kesarielTan xsenebuli uqimerionis cixe, erTi da igive unda iyos. agaTia prokopisgamgrZelebeli iyo da misi Txzuleba iwyeba im droidan, sadac prokopi wyvets Txrobas. s. yauxCiSvilma miaqcia yuradReba, rom iseTi mniSvnelovani cixe, rogoric prokopis TxrobaSi uqimerionia, agaTiasTan saerTod ar ixsenieba, xolo agaTias onoguriss prokopi ar icnobs. Tu imasac gaviTvaliswinebT, rom onogurisis Sesaxeb agaTia ambobs, rom amJamad mas sxva saxeli hqviao, SesaZloa am ori punqtis erTidaigiveobis daSveba. s. yauxCiSvilma yuradReba miaqcia prokopi kesarielis im cnobasac, romlis Tanaxmadac uqimerionis aRebis Semdeg sparselebi „mtkiced daepatronen lazikes. magram marto lazike ki ar Caigdes xelT sparselebma, aramed skvimniac da svaniac, da, amrigad, moxirisidan vidre iberiamde mTeli miwawyali gamoecalaT xelidan romaelebsa da lazTa mefes“ (prokopi 1965: 202). mniSvnelovania prokopis meore cnobac, romlis Tanaxmad uqimerioni quTaisis maxloblad mdebareobda da aq yavdaT lazebs kargi mcveli razmi. misi sityvebiT, vinc uqimerions da moxiriss flobda, is svaneTSi da skvimniaSi (leCxumi) mimaval gzas akontrolebda (prokopi 1965: 196197). es cixe sparselTa sardalma mermeroem motyuebiT, ubrZolvelad aiRo. Tu gavixsenebT agaTias mier moyvanil gubazis sityvebs, romelic man bizantiel sardlebs uTxra da brali dasdo maT, onogurisis uTavbolobiT dakargvaSi, SeiZleba s. yauxCiSvilis mosazreba am ori punqtis erTidaigiveobis Sesaxeb, gaviziaroT; Tumca es mosazreba jerjerobiT mxolod hipoTezad darCeba. onogurisis identifikaciis Taobaze SemdgomSic gamoiTqva araerTi mosazreba. n. berZeniSvilic am cixis saxelwodebas unagira mTasTan akavSirebda da mas md. cxeniswylis marjvena sanapiroze, sof. banZis da noqalaqevis midamoebSi eZebda. n. berZeniSvili miuTiTebda, rom banZasTan axlos mdebare sof. onoRias `onogurisTan~ dakavSireba macdunebeli iyo [berZeniSvili 1975: 463-465]. Tumca am dakavSirebas xels uSlis is garemoeba, rom onoRia vakeze mdebareobs da aq arc raime nacixaris msgavsia aRmoCenili. noqalaqevis arqeologiurma eqspediciam XX s-is 80-ian wlebSi arqeologiuri samuSaoebi awarmoa martvilis raionSi mdebare abedaTis cixeze da samecniero literaturaSi dafiqsirda varaudi, rom swored es cixe unda iyos onogurisi [zaqaraia. kapanaZe 1991: 127-137; leqvinaZe 1993: 209-222]. es varaudi daefuZvna s. yauxCiSvilis zemoT ukve naxseneb dakvirvebas, rom onogurisi md. cxeniswylis marjvena sanapiroze mdebareobda da misi saxeli unagira mTas ukavSirdeboda; aseve agaTias cnobebs onogurisis arqeopolisTan axlos mdebareobis Taobaze. abedaTis cixe noqalaqevis Crdilo-aRmosavleTiT, martvilis municipalitetis mTian zolSi, unagira mTis zolis Sua Txemze mdebareobs. Tumca isic unda aRiniSnos, rom p. zaqaraia da T. kapanaZe aRniSnavdnen, rom ufro logikuri iqneboda onogurisi arqeopolisis aRmosavleTiT gveZebna, magram aq mdinareebis abaSis, noRelas da cxeniswylis dablobebia, sadac cixis arseboba araa mosalodneli da arcaa dafiqsirebuli (sof. onoRiac swored aq mdebareobs)[zaqaraia. kapanaZe 1991: 130]. winamdebare statiis avtorebi sofel abedaTSi gamovlenili cixisa da onogurisis igiveobis sakiTxs ar eTanxmebian. d. lomitaSvilis ganmartebiT, 102 romelic abedaTSi warmoebul gaTxrebs xelmZRvanelobda, cixeze mopovebul masalebSi “TiTqmis ar Cans IV-VI ss-is ZeglebisTvis damaxasiaTebeli iseTi nakeTobani, rogoricaa qvevrebi, welSezneqili Tu ucxouri amforebi, sferul mucliani qoTnebi, sasufre keramika, importis sagnebi da sxv.” [lomitaSvili 2003: 209], garda amisa, abedaTis cixis garSemo reliefze dakvirveba aSkarad mianiSnebs imaze, rom cixis mTavari funqcia unagira mTaze arsebuli samxreT–CrdiloeT mimarTulebis viwro gadasasvlelis Caketva unda yofiliyo. imavdroulad abedaTis cixe sakmao manZiliT aris daSorebuli imereTidan (istoriuli moxirisis regionidan) arqeopolisisaken mimaval gzas da, Sesabamisad, abedaTis cixidan arqeopolisis aRmosavleT misadgomebis dacva gaWirdeboda [murRulia 2013a: 155]. onogurisis identifikaciis sakiTxs Seexo a. failoZec [failoZe 2003: 27-32]. agaTia sqolastikosis Txzulebis mixedviT man Seiswavla onogurisis geografiuli mdebareoba da manac gamoTqva mosazreba, rom abedaTi ar SeiZleba onogurisi yofiliyo, radgan sakmaodaa daSorebuli quTaiss. aseve miaqcia yuradReba, rom unagiras qedi imereTis sazRvarTan, sof. maTxojis pirdapir, cxeniswylis gaRma sof. zeda xunwis gorakidan iwyeba. am goraks ki adgilobrivebi najixus anu `nacixars~ uwodeben. a. failoZem moinaxula am gorakze SemorCenili nagebobebis naSTebi da daaskvna, rom onogurisi swored xunwSi unda veZeboT. axla kvlav davubrundeT Tavad xunwis cixes. rogorc aRvniSneT, is mdebareobs md. cxeniswylis marjvena sanapiroze, mdinaridan, Crdilo-aRmosavleTiT 1.40 km moSorebiT. cixes Crdilo-aRmosavleTidan 750 metrSi Camoudis kidev erTi mdinare, noRela, romelic sofels Suaze kveTs. Cveni azriT, SesaZloa am mdinaris onogurisis saxelTan dakavSireba. aq gvinda movitanoT kidev erTi saintereso gadmocema, romelic adgilobrivma mosaxleobam Semoinaxa da is Caiwera lecicxvaies sajaro skolis moswavlem lizi mosiZem. es legenda gamoqveynda adgilobriv presaSi. gadmocemis Tanaxmad es cixe gvian SuasaukuneebSi, XVI-XVII saukuneebSi augiaT. cixis centrSi mdgara salocavi niSi. imave periodSi cxeniswylis gadaRma, maTxojis cixeSi Turquli garnizoni mdgara. Turqebma erT dRes gadawyvites xunwis cixis aReba da sofels Tavs daesxnen. adgilobrivma mosaxleobam, romelic am dros yanebSi iyo gasuli samuSaod, saswrafod Tavi Seafara cixesimagres. qarTvelebi ramdenime dRes icavdnen xunwis cixes, magram mowinaaRmdegis siZlieris gamo iZulebuli gaxdnen CrdiloeTiT mdebare saidumlo gvirabiT, noRelas xeobiT sofel kvaiTisken gaqceuliyvnen. Turqebi karga xans yofilan cixeSi, Tumca garnizonSi epidemia gavrcelebula da raRac daavadebiT daRupulan. mosaxleoba sofelSi dabrunebula, magram cixes aRar ekarebodnen. am legendaSi mniSvnelovnad migvaCnia samlocvelo niSis arseboba da mowinaaRmdegis mier cixe-simagris dakaveba. aq warmoebuli dazvervebis da Semdeg arqeologiuri gaTxrebis Sedegad gvianSuasaukeneebis masala da aseve amave drois arqiteqtura jerjerobiT ar gamovlenila. ar Cans Turqebis yofnis kvalic (magaliTad, imave martvilis raionis abedaTis cixeze arqeologiuri masalis umetesoba, maT Soris Turquli monetebi da Cibuxebi, gviani SuasaukuneebiT TariRdeba). Cveni azriT, ar aris gamoricxuli am legendaSi ufro Zveli periodis, kerZod sparselebis mier cixis aRebisa da garkveuli droiT aq maTi garnizonis arsebobis ambavia daleqili. Tumca es mainc samuSao hipoTezaa da momavali kvleva ufro met informacias mogvawvdis. rogorc ukve aRiniSna, cixe mdebareobs 20 metri simaRlis quqiTis goraze da daax. 6000 m2 farTobs moikavebs. cixis galavnebi miwis donezea dangreuli. mxolod mis CrdiloeT nawilSia SemorCenili galavnis erTi fragmenti.amitom cixis gegmarebis dadgena mxolod aerofotoebis saSualebiT xerxdeba (sur. 1). aerofoto dakvirvebam aCvena, rom mcenareebi amosulia swored galavnebis naSTebze da maTi gavrceleba cixis gegmarebas emTxveva. jerjerobiT swored mcenareuli safaris konturebis mixedviT aris SesaZlebeli cixis gegmarebisa da zomis dadgena. cixis teritoria borcvis reliefs mihyveba da samxreT-aRmosavleTidan Crdilo-dasavleTisken aris wagrZelebuli. maqsimaluri sigrZe 120 metria, sigane - 60 metri.cixeSua galavniT savaraudod or Tanabar marTkuTxa formis nawilad aris gayofili, romelic zeda da qveda cixes aerTianebs. citadels mokavebuli unda hqonoda samxreT-dasavleTi nawili. cixis Crdilo-dasavleT daboloebaze SeimCneva ori an sami koSkis naSTi. 103 cixis teritorias Crdilo-dasavleTis mxridan Rrma da damreci ferdobi ekvris. am mxridan is miudgomelia. aRmosavleTidanmas damreci ferdobi esazRvreba.am mxridan cixemde misvla SeuZlebeli ar aris,Tumca yvelaze advili misagomi samxreTis mxridan iqneboda. aqedanmas naklebi qanobis ferdobi esazRvreba da safiqrebelia, rom mTavari Sesasvlelic am mxridan iqneboda. 2014 wlis arqeologiuri kampaniis dros, noqalaqevis qarTul-inglisuri arqeologiuri eqspediciis ramdenime wevrma moinaxula zemo xunwis goraki. imave wels Catarda zedapiruli dazvervebi, romlis Sedegad dadginda, rom marTlac, am gorakze SemorCenilia sxvadasxva nagebobebis naSTebi, romelic savaraudod V-VI saukuneebiT SeiZleba daTariRdes. aseve gamoiTqva mosazreba, rom am naSTebis funqciis garkveva, misi daTariReba da iyo Tu ara xunwSi mdebare cixe-simagre onogurisi, mxolod momavali kvlevis Sedegad iqneboda SesaZlebeli. amitom 2015 wlidan saqarTvelos kulturuli memkvidreobis dacvis erovnuli saagentos da martvilis municipalitetis mxardaWeriT daiwyo Zeglis gegmazomieri Seswavla. 2015-2016 wlebis arqeologiurma samuSaoebma mniSvnelovani siaxleebi mogvca xunwis cixis istoriis SeswavlisaTvis: 1. samxreT-dasavleT nawilSi gamovlinda ucnobi daniSnulebis nagebobis nawili, sakmaod ucxo da saintereso arqiteqturul-samSeneblo detalebiT. savaraudodes aris Crdilo-dasavleT samxreT-aRmosavleT orientaciis nagebobis (romlis aRmosavleTi bolo samxreTisken aris mcirediT gadaxrili) Crdilo-dasavleT nawili, romelsac CrdiloeT da dasavleT kuTxeebi wakveTili aqvs da gegmaSi oqtagons mogvagonebs (sur. 2). nageboba miwis donezea dangreuli da mxolod kedlebis 4-5 rigia SemorCenili. kedlebis safasade wyoba nagebia kargad gaTlili 20-dan 40 sm-mde zomis kirqvebiT, rigebis dacviT.saduRabe masalad gamoyenebulia kiri. sapire wyobebs Soris Cayrilia fleTili kirqva da Casxmulia kiri. kedlis maqsimaluri SerCenili simaRle 0.90 m-s ar scildeba. kedlis sisqe sxvadasxva monakveTebSi 0.95 m-dan 1.05 m-mde meryeobs. nagebobis sigane (Crd.-das. - samx.-aRm. xazze) 8 metrs aRwevs, sruli sigrZe ki mobiluri operatoris mier dadgmuli nage- bobis gamo ar dgindeba. nagebobis Sida sivrcis gawmendis procesSi aRmoCnda oTxi svetis Ziri, romlebic uSualod kedlebzea mibjenili. aseve hidravlikuri xsnariTa da Tixis filebiT mokirwyluli iataki. iatakis qveS ki kamarovani gadaxurviT mowyobili saZvale aRmoCnda (sur. 3). gamomdinare iqidan, rom nagebobis nawili mobiluri operatoris mier dadgmuli nagebobis qveS aris moqceuli, misi mxolod nawilobriv Seswavla moxerxda da Sesabamisad, nagebobis daniSnulebis gansazRvra jer-jerobiT ver xerxdeba. 2. gamoikveTa cixis CrdiloeT galavnis daaxloebiT 25 metramde sigrZis monakveTi (sur. 4). kedlebis sapire wyoba nagebia kargad gaTlili kirqvebis rigebiT, xolo sapire wyobebs Soris kiris duRabTan erTad Cayrilia sxvadasxva zomis da jiSis qvebi. galavnis kedlebi 70 sm siRrmis saZirkvelze dgas. am tipis samSeneblo teqnika tipuria IV-VI saukuneebis egrisis cixesimagreebisaTvis [zaqaraia. kapanaZe 1991: 126-164; murRulia 2013a]. Sesabamisad, galavnebis zogadi TariRic am periodiT unda ganisazRvros. 3. TxrilebSi aRmoCnda Zalian didi raodenobisa da nairsaxeobis sameurneo (amforebi, qvevrebi, luTeriumebi) da samSeneblo (agurebi, kramitebi, filebi) keramikuli masalebi (sur. 6-7). maTi absoluturi umravlesoba IV-VI saukuneebiT TariRdeba da Sesabamisad, aRniSnul periodSi cixis funqcionirebis qronologias kidev erTxel adasturebs. sainteresoa, rom dRemde Seswavlil monakveTebze samzareulo da sufris WurWlis framentebi umniSvnelo raodenobiT aris aRmoCenili, rac SesaZloa miuTiTebdes im faqtze, rom xunwis cixe ufro metad samxedro-strategiul punqts warmoadgenda, vidre romelime didebulis sacxovrebel rezidencias. rogorc ukve aRiniSna, cixis galavnebis umetesi nawili miwis donezea dangeruli da Sesabamisad, xunwis cixis daniSnulebis dadgenisTvis mniSvnelovania misi mdebareobis analizi. simagris asaSeneblad SerCeulia mdinare cxeniswyalis marjvena sanapiro, iq sadac mdinare Rrma kldovani xeobidan gamodis da vakeze miedineba. Sesabamisad, aSkaraa, rom xunwis cixis erT-erTi mTavari funqcia cxeniswylis xeobaze gamavli gzis kontroli da Caketva iyo. cxeniwylis xeoba Sua saukuneebSi dasav- 104 leT saqarTvelos mTisa da baris (CrdiloeT - samxreTis mimarTulebis) erT-erTi mniSvnelovani damakavSirebeli gza iyo; konkretulad xunwis cixis arsebobis periodSi, e.i. egrisis samefos Zlierebis xanaSi ki es gza moxirisis qveyanas skvimniasTan (raWa-leCxumTan) da svaneTTan akavSirebda [lorTqifaniZe, murRulia. 2014: 109-110]. amitomac, safiqrebelia, rom aRniSnuli ori regions Soris urTierTobis daregulireba xunwis cixis mflobelis prerogativa iqneboda, rogorc savaWro-ekonomikuri TvalsazrisiT, ise samxedro-strategiuli kuTxiTac. xunwis cixis mdebareoba saSualebas iZleoda md. cxeniswylis xeobaze gamavali CrdiloeT - samxreTis mimarTulebis gzasTan erTad daecva da gaekontrolebina aRmosavleT - dasavleT mimarTulebis, anu moxirisis qveynidan (dR. imereTi) centraluri egrisisaken (dR. samegrelo) mimavali gzac. am or regions Soris arsebuli bunebrivi gamyofi zoli antikuri xanidan Sua saukuneebis CaTvliT swored mdinare cxeniswyali iyo. am zolis dacva da kontroli gansakuTrebuli yuradRebis qveS moeqca VI saukuneSi mimdinare egrisis didi omis dros, rodesac cxeniswylis aRmosavleTiT sparselebi, xolo dasavleTiT bizantielebi da lazebi iyvnen ganlagebuli. aqve Tu gavixsenebT xunwis cixisa da onogurisis igiveobis albaTobas, aSkara xdeba, rom xunwis cixe kontrols uwevda aRmosavleTi da centraluri egrisis damakavSirebel erT-erT mTavar gzas. rogorc ukve aRiniSna, xunwis cixe, mcire zomis borcvzea agebuli, Tumca fortifikatorebs teritoria ise SeurCeviaT, rom cixis teritoriidan sam mxares vrceli teritoriebis vizualuri kontrolia SesaZlebeli: 1. dasavleTiT kargad moCans 3 km-Si mdebare maRali borcvi, romelzec martvilis monasteria ganTavsebuli. martvilis monastris teritoriis adreuli istoria calke kvlevis sagania da winamdebare statiis sazRvrebs scdeba, Tumca mxolod SeniSvnis saxiT SeiZleba aRiniSnos, rom monastris teritoriaze dakvirveba aSkarad iZleva varaudis safuZvels, rom aq monastris daarsebamde samosaxlo, samlocvelo da/an egeb sasiamgro sistemac arsebuliyo. uRrublo amindis dros xunwis cixidan samxreT-dasavleTiT 18 km-Si kargad Cans egrisis samefos dedaqalaq noqalaqeviarqeopolisis citadeli da misi koSkebi, rac mecixovneebs cecxlis da kvamlis meSveobiT sasignalo-sagangaSo komunikaciis saSualebas miscemda. 2. xunwis cixidan aRmosavleTiT kargad moCans 2-3 km-Si mdebare md. cxeniswylis viwro da daklaknili xeoba, rac, rogorc ukve aRvniSneT, skvimnia-svaneTisken iq gamavali gzis, rogorc vizualuri, ise fizikuri kontrolis saSualebs iZleoda. kidev ufro Sors ki, 25 km-Si mdebare xvamlis mTa moCans (sur. 5). 3. cixidan samxreT-aRmosavleTiT iSleba mdinare cxeniswylisa da abaSis ormdinareTis vrceli xedi. Sesabamisad, xunwis cixidan moxirisis qveynisa da centraluri egrisis vake teritoriis,maT Soris quTaisidan da moxirisidan momavali gzis vizualuri kontroli sakmaod vrcel arealze (daax. 15-20 km), iyo SesaZlebeli. egrisis samefos TavdacviT sistemaSi Semavali cixesimagreebi Cven mier Sedgenili funqciuri klasifikaciiT sam ZiriTad kategoriaSi erTiandebian: 1. xeobis gzis Camketi, 2. saguSago-sasignalo da 3. administraciul-sabaJo daniSnulebis [murRulia n. 2013b: 165].sainteresoa, rom xunwis cixe, misi mdebareobis, masStabebisa da gamovlenili arqeologiuri masalis analizis mixedviT, SesaZlebelia zemoT CamoTvlil samive daniSnulebas asrulebda: 1. sruliad aSkaraa, rom cixis umTavresi daniSnuleba samxreTCrdiloeTisa da dasavleT-aRmosavleTis mimarTulebis gzebis Caketva, dacva da kontroli iyo; 2. cixisTvis SerCeuli teritoria mecixovneebs saSualebas aZlevda erTdroulad sami mimarTulebiT sakmaod vrceli da mniSvnelovani teritoria daezveraT da amasTanave kavSiri hqonodaT sxva simagreebTan (mag. dedaqalaq noqalaqevi-arqeopolisTan); 3.cixis zomebidan gamomdinare (60 X 120 m) aSkaraa, rom is ar iyo rigiTi saguSago-sasignalo an mxolod xeobis Camketi simagre. winaaRmdeg SemTxvevaSi fortifikatorebi mcire zomis cixis aSenebiT Semoifarglebodnen. aseTebi ki istoriuli egrisis teritoriaze mravlad aris gamovlenili. magaliTad, kotianeTis, squris, ekisa da sxva cixeebi. Sesabamisad, safiqrebelia, rom xunwis cixe egrisis samefos erT-erTi mniSvnelovani administraciuli simagre iyo. Tumca, rogorc zemoT aRiniSna arqeologiur 105 monapovrebSi aSkarad Warbobs sameurneo daniSnulebis keramikuli tara, xolo samzareulo da sufris WurWeli Zalze mcire raodenobiT gvxvdeba, rac gvafiqrebinebs, rom cixe arc romelime didebulis rezidencia iqneboda da arc mniSvnelovani savaWro-ekonomikuri gacvlis adgili. ufro safiqrebelia, rom xunwis cixe misi zomebidan gamomdinare mniSvnelovani samxedro-administraciuli centri iyo. daskvnis saxiT SeiZleba iTqvas, rom dRemde Seswavlili istoriuli wyaroebis, arqeologiuri masalebisa da geografiuli maxasiaTebelebis analizis safuZvelze aSkaraa, rom xunwis cixe egrisis samefos erT-erT umniSvnelovanes cixesimagres warmoadgenda. amasTanave arsebuli monacemebis mixedviT mosazreba xunwis cixisa da agaTia sqolastikosis onogurisis igiveobis Sesaxeb sruliad sarwmunod migvaCnia. sistema IV-VI ss-Si (arqeologiuri masalebisa da istoriuli wyaroebis mixedviT). sadoqtoro naSromi arqeologiis doqtoris akademiuri xarisxis mosapoveblad. Tb. murRulia n. 2013b: egrisis samefos cixeebis klasifikacia. Jurnali - saqarTvelos erovnuli muzeumis moambe, t. IV (48-B), Tb. gv. 159-169. musxeliSvili d. 1980.saqarTvelos istoriuli geografiis ZiriTadi sakiTxebi, II. prokopi kesarieli. 1965: georgika, II. bizantieli mwerlebis cnobebi saqarTvelos Sesaxeb, berZnuli teqsti qarTuli TargmaniTurT gamosca da ganmartebebi daurTo simon yauxCiSvilma. Tb. failoZe a. 2003: matiane xonisa, nawili meore, baTumi. yauxCiSvili T. 1951: berZnuli warwerebi saqarTveloSi. Tb. Brosset M-F.1851: Additions et éclaiwrcissements à l’histoire de la Géorgie depuis l’Antiquité jusqu’en 1469 de J.-C. Saint Petersburg: Académie impériale des sciences. literatura: ilustraciebis aRweriloba: agaTia sqolastikosi.1936: georgika, III, bizantieli mwerlebis cnobebi saqarTvelos Sesaxeb, berZnuli teqsti qarTuli TargmaniTurT gamosca da ganmartebebi daurTo simon yauxCiSvilma. tfilisi. batoniSvili vaxuSti.1973: aRwera samefosa saqarTvelosa. qarTlis cxovreba, IV. berZeniSvili n. 1975: saqarTvelos istoriis sakiTxebi, VIII. georgika, III, 1936: bizantieli mwerlebis cnobebi saqarTvelos Sesaxeb, berZnuli teqsti qarTuli TargmaniTurT gamosca da ganmartebebi daurTo simon yauxCiSvilma. tfilisi. zaqaraia p., kapanaZe T. 1991: cixegoji-arqeopolisi-noqalaqevi. xuroTmoZRvreba. Tb. sur. 1. xunwis cixis teritoria. aerofoto. sur. 2. oqtagonis formis nagebobis naSTi. sur. 3. nagebobis iatakis qveS gamovlenili saZvale. sur. 4. cixis CrdiloeT galavnis fragmenti. sur. 4a. galavnis fragmentis axlo xedi. sur. 5. xedi xunwis cixidan aRmosavleTiT - md. cxeniswlis xeoba da xvamlis mTa. sur. 6. keramikuli tara cixis CrdiloeT monakveTidan. sur. 7. samSeneblo keramika cixis citadelSi gamovlenili nagebobidan. leqvinaZe v. 1993: noqalaqevi-arqeopolisi, III. Tb. lorTqifaniZe b., murRulia n. 2014: svaneTi bizantia-sasanianTa sparseTis urTierTobaSi V-VI saukuneebSi. saqarTvelos erovnuli muzeumis moambe, t. V (49-B), Tb. gv. 95-116. murRulia n. 2013a: egrisis samefos gamagrebis 106 D. LOMITASHVILI 107 108 109 110 111 vaxtang SatberaSvili, Ggiorgi Caduneli antikuri xanis masala kaspis muzeumidan kaspis muzeumSi araerTi saintereso da mniSvnelovani arqeologiuri artefaqtia daculi. arqeologiuri koleqcia moicavs masalas qvis xanidan Sua saukuneebamde da ZiriTadad, Sedgeba municipalitetis teritoriaze Catarebuli arqeologiuri gaTxrebis Sedegad Semosuli da adgilobrivi mosaxleobis mier mowodebuli, SemTxveviT aRmoCenili artefaqtebisagan. interess iwvevs muzeumSi daculi, antikuri xaniT daTariRebuli arqeologiuri masala kavTisxevis cixiagoradan, daWrilebidan, xovledan, sasireTidan, gostibedan, metexidan, xandakidan, renedan, okamidan da sxv. qvemoT SemogTavazebT am periodiT daTariRebuli, kaspis muzeumSi daculi ramdenime saintereso nivTis mokle mimoxilvas. muzeumSi warmodgenilia mravalferovani keramikuli nawarmi. maT Sorisaa wiTlad moxatuli qvevrebis fragmentebi cixiagoradan (Zv.w. III saukune, tab. I 1,2); wiTlad moxatuli xeladebi sof. axalcixidan (SemTxveviTi monapovari, Zv.w. IV saukune, tab. I 6), kaspidan (SemTxveviTi monapovari, Zv.w. I-ax.w I saukuneebi, tab. I 3), moxatuli koWobi kaspidan ( SemTxveviTi monapovari, Zv.w. I-ax.w I saukuneebi, tab. I 7), Caidniseburpiriani doqi Tvaladidan (Zv.w. IV saukune, tab. I 4), Savad gamomwvari konusurZiriani sasmisi kaspidan (Zv.w. II-I saukuneebi, tab. I 8). aRsaniSnavia selisagan damzadebuli konusurZiriani sasmisi sayaraulo seridan, romlis Sidapiri fisiTaa molesili (Zv.w. II-I saukuneebi, tab. I 5). sof. sasireTSi 1982 wels gaTxril Zv.w. III saukunis ormosamarxSi aRmoCenilia ramdenime saintereso nivTi: disko, vercxlis, mooqrovili (dm15 sm), nivTis kideze 15 palmetia gamosaxuli, koncentrul xazebs Soris ki mcire burcobebi da vardulebia datanili ( tab. II 1); amave samarxidanaa vercxlis kirkali dm.- 16,5 sm) ( tab. II 2); sasireTis amave samarxidan unda momdinareobdes Tixis msxliseburtaniani xelada, romlis tanzec amokawrulia svastika, laTinuri X-is magvari gamosaxuleba da xar-iremi. WurWlis simaRle – 14 sm-ia (tab. II, 3,4). dionises qandakeba, brinjaosi (sof kodiswyaro, SemTxveviTi aRmoCena,simaRle – 19 sm. tab. III), TariRdeba Zv.w. III-II saukuneebiT. nivTi Camosxmulia cvilis modelis dakargvis meTodiT. qandakebas aklia marcxena fexi. rogorc Cans, igi garkveuli kompoziciis nawili unda yofiliyo. qandakebis Tavze suros foTlebiani bafTaa, yurebze dakidebulia yurZnis mtevnebi, Tvalebi vercxliT iyo inkrustirebuli. SiSveli tani qalurad nazi da moxdenilia. marcxena xeliT igi unda eyrdnobodes ayvavebul kverTxs _ tirsoss, marjvena, odnav gawvdil xelSi ki sasmisi unda eWiros. ikonografiuli monacemebis mixedviT, es uwveruli dionise unda iyos, romlisaTvisac damaxasiaTebelia sxeulis qaluroba, agreTve xelebis zemoTaRwerili moZraoba [mizandari m., 1988: 111- 116]. oinoxoia, brinjaosi (sof. zemo xandaki, SemTxveviTi aRmoCena, tab. IV). oinoxoias tani (h-25 sm.) Camosxmulia, ris Semdegac igi Carxze daumuSavebiaT. calke Camosxmuli yuri WurWlis pirsa da mxarze iyo mirCiluli. nivTs aklia yuris nawili, dazianebulia da cudadaa Semonaxuli misi kalTebi da Ziric. WurWels aqvs mkveTrad gadaSlili, horizontaluri piri, romlis cal mxares zemoT aweuli tuCia.yeli odnav gamoyvanili da saSualo simaRlisaa, mxari pirdapir gadadis momrgvalebul mucelSi. kalTa savaraudod maRali unda yofiliyo (SemorCenilia misi fragmenti). Ziri gamokveTilia, odnav SeRrmavebuli. WurWlis mxarze gravirebiT gamoyvanilia rkaliseburi formis, bafTebiT Sekruli wagrZelebuli da wawvetebuli formis (dafnis?) foTlebis oTxi wnuli. TiToeuli rkalis SigniT TiTo, oTxfurcela vardulia. wnulebs erTmaneTTan amave teqnikiT Sesrulebuli, xaris Tavis ori stilizebuli gamosaxuleba akavSirebs. ornamenti vercxliT iyo inkrustirebuli, romlis mxolod mcire nawiliRaa SemorCenili. yuri Semkulia e.w. eniseburi ornamentiT, mis Tavsa da boloSi ki gamosaxulebebia, romlebic 112 yurTan erTadaa Camosxmuli. yuris pirTan mierTebis adgilas moTavsebulia qalis skulpturuli gamosaxuleba, romelsac mxrebsa da Tavze lomis tyavi aqvs mosxmuli. qalis gamometyveleba mrisxanea, igi WurWelzea gadamxobili da mis siRrmeSi iyureba. misi Tvalebi da lomis eSvebi vercxliT iyo inkrustirebuli. savaraudod, es gamosaxuleba unda ekuTvnodes berZnuli miTologiis personaJs, lidiiis dedofal omfales. yuris qveda nawilze, iq, sadac yuri WurWlis tans uerTdeba, maRali reliefiT gamosaxulia dionises wris RvTaeba, misi aRmzrdeli sileni, romelsac damaxasiaTebeli niSnebi – gadmokarkluli Tvalebi, cxoveluri yurebi, Semelotebuli Tavi da sqeli tuCebi aqvs. silenis tuCebi da yurebi spilenZiTaa inkrustirebuli, Tvalebi ki vercxliT (inkrustacia fragmentuladaa SemorCenili). nivTi TariRdeba ax.w. pirveli saukuneebiT [Shatberashvili 2013:234]. Tasi, vercxlis (sof. gostibe, ormosamarxi, 1982 w. SemTxveviTi aRmoCena). Tasi damzadebulia vercxlis mTliani furclisagan, mis Zirze mirCiluli iyo fexi, romelic ar Semonaxula. igi ornamentirebulia: Sidapiri oTx tol nawiladaa dayofili TegviT gamoyvanili, oTx-oTxi, erTmaneTTan Setyupuli yvavilis furclis msgavsi ornamentiT. WurWlis centrTan darCenili sivrce Sevsebulia amokveTili xazebiT datanili Txebis sqematuri gamosaxulebiT, WurWlis kidesTan ki wertilovani ornamentiT yurZnis mtevnebia gamosaxuli. SemorCenili simaRle 4,7 sm-ia, maqsimaluri diametri- 18 sm [sZa1990: 151]. balTa, brinjaosi (sof. gostibe, ormosamarxi, 1982 w. SemTxveviTi aRmoCena). Wviruli, kvadratuli formis (8,5 X 8,5 sm), damzadebulia cvilis modelis dakargvis meTodiT, balTaze gamosaxuli centraluri figura cxens warmoadgens, mis zurgsa da mucelTan ki SedarebiT mcire zomis figurebia [sZa1990: 151]. oqros sayure, beWedi da gaurkveveli daniSnulebis nivTi okamidan (dawvrilebiT ix. Jurnalis amave nomerSi q. ramiSvilisa da z. SatberaSvilis naSromSi gvianantikuri xanis mdidruli samarxebi okamidan). ritoni, vercxlis. 1976 wels kavTisxevis arqeologiurma eqspediciam sof. xovleSi, adgil zesurebze gaTxara gvianantikuri xanis oTxi samarxi, romelTagan erT-erTi, # 1 keramikuli filebiT nagebi mdidruli samarxi iyo. # 1 samarxSi aRmoCenilia vercxlis ritoni [Цкитишвили и др. 1979:117-130]. samarxi II-III saukuneebiT TariRdeba. masalis nawili saqarTvelos erovnul muzeumSi inaxeba, xolo vercxlis ritoni ki kaspis municipalur muzeumSia daculi. nivTi damzadebulia vercxlis erTi mTliani furclisagan, kedelze etyoba Carxze damuSavebis kvali. piri Zabriseburad gafarTovebulia da gareTaa gadmokecili, kedlebi Zirisaken rkaliseburad viwrovdeba. SemorCenilia ritonis mxolod zeda nawili. simaRle- 15,5 sm, piris sigane -13 sm. literatura: mizandari m. 1988: mizandari m., dionises qandakeba qarTlis miwaze, sabW. xelovneba, #8, gv.111- 116; sZa 1990 – saqarTvelos istoriisa da kulturis ZeglTa aRwera, t. V; Рамишвили К., Шатберашвили З., 2000: Рамишвили К., Шатберашвили З., Раннесреднековый Памятник из с. Оками, Археологияи Этнография Кавказа, III, Баку, с. 99; Цкитишвили Г. …1979: Цкитишвили Г., Гветадзе Д., Накаидзе Н., Берадзе Э., Квиташвили Р., Рамишвили А., Иремашвили Ш., Челидзе Л., Нуцубидзе А., Итоги Работ Кавтисхевской Археологической Экспедиции, ПАИ в 1976 г., Тб., с. 117-130; Shatberashvili V. 2013: Shatberashvili V., The Bronze Oinochoia from Metekhi, jur. Iberia-Colchis, # 9, pp 234-239. ilustraciebi: tab I – 1,2. moxatuli qvevrebis faragmentebi cixiagoradan; 3. wiTlad moxatuli xeladasof. axalcixidan; 4. Caidniseburpiriani doqi Tvaladidan; 5. selisagan damzadebuli konusurZiriani sasmisi sayaraulo seridan; 6. wiTlad moxatuli xeladakaspidan; 7. moxatuli koWobi kaspidan; 8. Savad gamomwvari konusurZiriani sasmisi kaspidan. tab II _ 1. vercxlis mooqrovili disko sasireTidan; 2. vercxlis kirkali sasireTidan; 3. msxliseburtaniani xelada sasireTidan; 4. gamosaxuleba sasireTis xeladaze. tab III _ dionises qandakeba kodiswyarodan. tab. IV _ brinjaos oinoxoia zemo xandakidan. tab V _ 1,2. brinjaos Wviruli balTa gostibedan; 3,4. vercxlis Tasi gostibedan. tab VI _ vercxlis ritoni xovledan. 113 V. SHATBERASHVILI, G. CHADUNELI 114 115 116 117 118 119 qeTevan ramiSvili, zebede SatberaSvili † gvianantikuri xanis mdidruli samarxebi sof. okamidan sofeli okami mdebareobs kaspis municipalitetSi, md. qsnis marjvena napirze, kaspidan 15 kilometrSi. sofelSi adrerkinis xanisa da Sua saukuneebis Zeglebia dafiqsirebuli: soflis dasavleTiT, Tanamedrove sasaflaosTan, adrerkinis xanis nasaxlaria, sadac ikrifeba moSavo-monacrisfrod gamomwvari Tixis WurWlis natexebi; sofelSi ki wminda giorgis saxelobis, gviani Sua saukuneebis darbazuli eklesia da XVIIIXIX ss-is RvTismSoblis saxelobis darbazuli eklesiaa [sZa 1990: 183]. 1974 wels okamis samxreT-dasavleT nawilSi SemTxveviT aRmoCnda qvis samarxi, romlis inventaris umetesi nawili daikarga, gadarCenili nawili ki kaspis mxareTmcodneobiT muzeumSi inaxeba. SemTxveviTi aRmoCenis adgilze gaemgzavra kavTisxevis arqeologiuri eqspediciis razmi (z. SatberaSvili, a. nucubiZe, q. ramiSvili), romelmac azoma da daafiqsira zemoT naxsenebi, dazianebuli samarxi da misgan samxreTiT, 0,6 m-Si gavlebul sadazvervo TxrilSi aRmoaCina sami filiT gadaxuruli samarxi. SemTxveviT aRmoCenili qvis samarxi (samarxi # 1) Sedgenilia qviSaqvis kargad gaTlili filebisagan (zomebi - 2,1 X 0,75 m, filis sisqe 0,2m). samarxSi iwva gulaRma, TaviT dasavleTisaken damxrobili erTi micvalebuli. inventari: 1. beWedi (sur. 7), damzadebulia furclovani oqrosagan, e.w. armazuli, mxrebdaSvebuli beWdebis tipisa. beWdis bude momaRlo, kolofiseburi moyvanilobisaa; piris qvemoT, garedan wvrili salte Semouyveba. budis Ziri calke mirCiluli firfitisaganaa damzadebuli. beWdis rkali Txeli, Signidan dabrtyelebuli mavTulia, romelic mxrebisaken ganzidulia da mcired farTovdeba. daqanebuli mxrebi mcire waxnagiTaa gamoyofili. budis piri mrgvalia; Tvali budidan amovardnilia. zomebi: simaRle – 24 mm, rkalis dm – 23 mm, piris dm – 17 mm. daculoba – beWedi aqa-iq umniSvnelodaa CaWyletili, Tvali dakargulia da bude ufero pastiTaa amovsebuli; 2. sayure, oqrosi (sur. 6), rgolovan-Rerovani formisa. sayuris rgoli warmoadgens cal mxares gaxsnil wvril oqros mavTuls, romelzedac qvemodan mirCilulia mozrdili yunwi, masze wamocmuli yulfiani Reraki-sakidi. Rerakze qvemodan zemoT Semdegi nivTebia asxmuli: oqros wyvili varduli, lurji minis e.w. rodiniseburi mZivi, Semdeg isev wyvili varduli da bolos margalitis momsxo mZivi. Rerakis bolo dabrtyelebulia, rac zed asxmul nivTebs adgilze aCerebs. zomebi: sayuris sigrZe – 40 mm, rgolis dm. - 21 mm., sakidis sigrZe - 19 mm. mina irizebulia, margaliti gamofituli; 3. gaurkveveli daniSnulebis nivTi (an misi nawili) ( sur. 8), damzadebulia mTliani furclovani oqrosagan. igi warmoadgens mTlian mils, romelic SuaSia Seviwrovebuli da welze odnav SemaRlebuli satyeli aqvs. sartyeli xuTadaa datixruli da TiTo gamoyofil nawilSi Zowis marTkuTxa Tvali aqvs Casmuli. nivTis sigrZe - 15 mm., sigane - 12 mm. nivTi mTelia, oRond liToni aqa-iq odnav CaWyletilia. meore samarxi, romelic kavTisxevis arqeologiuri eqspediciis razmma gaTxara, sami, ganivad gadebuli qviSaqvis filiT iyo gadaxuruli, romelTagan Sua fila Catexili iyo, ris gamoc samarxi mcired dazianebuli gamodga. samarxi warmoadgenda riyis qvebiT nageb akldamas, romlis kedlebi qvitkiriT iyo Selesili, aseve qviT nagebi da Selesili iyo akldamis iatakic. (zomebi: akldamis sigrZe - 2,3 m., sigane – 2,35 m., simaRle -0,9 m., kedlebis sisqe – 0,3 m.). samarxSi dakrZaluli iyo gulaRma mwoliare da TaviT dasavleTiT damxrobili 2 micvalebuli – mamakaci da qali. marcxniv moTavsebuli micvalebulis gulmkerdis areSi aRmoCnda oqros gul- 120 sakidi da oqrosave moneta, marjvena micvalebulis ki (ufro momcro tanisas da kbilebis mdgomareobis mixedviT ufro axalgazrdas –qals) orive xelSi TiTo mcire sanelsacxeble eWira, Tavis areSi ki or-ori wyvili oqros sayure aRmoaCnda (masala saqarTvelos erovnul muzeumSia daculi). inventari: 1. gulsakidi, oqrosi (sur. 2). Sedgeba ori ZiriTadi nawilisagan: oqros Zewkvisa da oqrosave sakidiT Semkuli medalionisagan. medalioni warmoadgens furclovani oqrosagan damzadebul ovalur, brtyel kolofs, romlis Ziri odnav amoburculia. Zirisa da zeda nawilis SeerTebis adgilas medalions kideze Semouyveba dakeWnili mavTuli, romelic gavarsis imitacias qmnis. danayofebi am mavTulze Tanabari ar aris: ori moklea, Semdeg erTi ufro mogrZoa da isev ori mokle, Semdeg mogrZo da a.S. es xerxi moCarCoebas ufro lamaz da mdidrul iers aZlevs. medalionis zedapiri dayofilia oTxi Txeli tixriT, romlebic medalionis gare nawils yofen oTx, rkaliseburi moyvanilobis mogrZo budeebad. am budeebSi zis lurji feris minis Tvlebi, laJvardis imitacia. ori maTgani adgilzea, ori ki amovardnilia. amgvari arSiis SigniT medalionis zedapirze aris oqros ganieri, sada salte, romelic gars akravs centrSi Casmul, didi zomis granatis (piropis) Tvals. qva ovaluri moyvanilobisaa, zedapiramoburculi da zedmiwevniT gaprialebuli. mis elvarebas aZlierebs Zirze dafenili oqros firfita. medalions zemoT mirCiluli aqvs mozrdili, sam nawilad daRaruli yunwi, romelSic oqrosave, grZeli Zewkvia gayrili. Zewkvi moZravad ki ar aris gayrili, aramed patara mavuliT myaradaa dabmuli yunwTan. yunwi Sedgeba rvianiseburad erTmaneTze mirCiluli patara rgolebisagan, romlebic erTmaneTSia gayrili. medalionis Zirze darCilulia mcire yunwi, romelzec yulfiT kidia mcire sakidi: oqros RerZze wamocmuli oqros rgoliseburi mZivebi da maT Soris iseTive formis, odnav ufro maRali, lurji minis mZivi da qvemoT mozrdili margalitis mZivi. zomebi: medalionis sigrZe – 30 mm.; sigane 24 mm.; qvis piris sigrZe – 20 mm.; sigane _ 15 mm.; sakidis sigrZe – 19 mm; Zewkvis sigrZe – 50 sm. medalionis zedapiri daWyletilia, ori minis Tvali amovardnili da dakargulia; 2. moneta, oqrosi, diokletianes aureusi. Sublze gamosaxulia imperatoris biusti, profilSi marjvniv, Tavze dafnis gvirgviniT. gars akravs laTinuri warwera DIOCLET IANUS AUG. zurgze gamoxatulia fexze mdgomi, himationmosxmuli iupiteri, marjvena xelSi elva uWiravs, marcxenaSi ki kverTxi. mis ferxTiT ki naxevrad frTebgaSlili arwivia. 3. oqros wyvili sayure (sur.4), rgolovan-Rerovani tipisa. rgoli warmoadgens oqros momsxo mavTuls, cal mxares gaxsnils, romlis qveda nawilSi yunwia mirCiluli, romelzec wamocmulia sakidi – Reraki. Rerakze asxmulia oqros ori rgoliseburi mZivi da bolos msxvili, zemoTken odnav wagrZelebuli margalitis mZivi. Reraks qvemoT samagri aqvs. zomebi: wyvilis erTi sayuris sigrZe -34 mm; rgolis dm-10 mm; Rerakis sigrZe 20 mm; margalitis mZivis sigrZe 10 mm. meore sayure analogiuri formisaa, mxolod odnav ufro grZelia da misi rgoli ufro msxvili mavTulisaganaa damzadebuli, margaliti ki ufro wvrili da mogrZoa. sayuris sigrZe -38 mm; margalitis mZivis sigrZe 12 mm.; 4. oqros wyvili sayure (sur. 5), #3is analogiuri formisa, oRond ufro momcro. aq Rerakze oqros mZivebs Soris mwvane minis amave formis mZivia, margalitis mZivis formac gansxvavebulia – igi ornawiledia: zeda, patara margaliti mWidrod zis qveda, ufro didi zomisaze, rac mZivs mTlianad msxlisebur formas aZlevs. orive sayuris sigrZe -30 mm.; 5. sanelsacxeble (sur. 1), baci momwvano feris minisa. mina dabalxarisxovania, sqelkedliani. mas aqvs mogrZo tani, gamoyvanili yeli, sqeli da gadaSlili piri, odnav Sedrekili Ziri. cal mxares, yelsa damucels Soris mcire saxeluri aqvs miduRebuli. zomebi: simaRle 55mm; sigane muclis areSi – 20 mm; piris dm. - 18 mm; 6. sanelsacxeble, (sur. 3). moyviTalo feris, minisa. mina dabalxarisxo- 121 vania, sqelkedliani, fenaSi SeiniSneba buStukebi. sanelsacxeble wagrZelebuli formisaa, Ziri momrgvalebuli aqvs. yelis are odnav viwroa da pirdapir gadadis odnav gadaSlil, sqel pirSi, romlis kideebi SigniTaa Cakecili. WurWlis Zirze SeiniSneba Sig CarCenili sunamos danaleqi. yeli amovsebuli iyo mkvrivi, Tixovani masiT. sanelsacxebles gaxsnis Semdeg mkveTri, aromatuli suni amovarda. zomebi: simaRle 52mm; sigane muclis areSi – 19 mm; piris dm - 15 mm. Cvens mier aRweril masalas mravali analogia moepoveba armazisxevis, samTavros, urbnisis, Tbilisis midamoebsa da saqarTvelos sxva Tanadroul samarxebSi. samarxebSi dakrZalvis aseTi wesi da samarxTa formebic III-IV saukuneebis saqarTveloSi farTodaa gavrcelebuli. TariRis gansazRvrisas, upirveles yovlisa, mniSvnelovania #2 samarxSi aRmoCenili, imperator diokletianes (mmarTvleobis wlebi - 286-305) aureusi, romelic gvaZlevs Terminus Post Quem-s – IV saukunis dasawyiss. Cvens mier aRweril TiToeul sagans mravali analogia eZebneba rogorc formebis, ise stilisa, teqnikuri xerxebisa da bolos, gemovnebis erTianobis TvalsazrisiT. es masala kidev erTxel gvaCvenebs adgilobrivi oqromWedluri xelovnebis myar, gamokveTil saxes da mis farTo gavrcelebas qarTlis samefos teritoriaze. qvemoT mokled davasaxelebT yvelaze axlo analogiebs sxva punqtebidan: #1 samarxidan momdinare rgolovan-Rerovani sayuris msgavsia armazisxevis ## 40, 42, 43 qvasamarxebSi aRmoCenili vardulebiT, rodiniseburi mZiviTa da margalitiT Semkuli sayureebi [afaqiZe a., da sxv. 1955: tab. 13]. urbnisis # 10 samarxis sayureebi ufro rTuli formisaa, magram ZiriTadi elementebi meordeba [WilaSvili 1964 : 67, sur 34]. okamis meore samarxis wyvili sayure emsgavseba armazisxevis ## 12, 13 da 41 samarxebis sayureebs [afaqiZe a., da sxv.1955:104-106]. #1 samarxis mxrebdaSvebuli, furclovani oqrosagan damzadebul beWeds analogebi eZebneba armazisxevis # 42 samarxSi (tritonis gamosaxulebiani beWedi) [afaqiZe a., da sxv. 1955: 104 tab XIV] da samTavros # 17 qvasamarxSi (sasanur gemiani beWedi [Максимова М. 1963 № 67]. amave samarxSi aRmoCenili, furclovani oqrosagan damzadebuli da piropis TvlebiT Semkuli, gaurkveveli daniSnulebis nivTi saerTo ieriT, teqnikiTa da granatis Txeli firfitebiT morTvis wesiT Zalze axlos dgas armazisxevis oqros nivTebTan, romlebis aseTive qvebiTaa Semkuli. #2 samarxSi aRmoCenili sanelsacxebleebs analogiebi eZebneba samTavrosa da urbnisis IV saukunis masalebSi. kerZod, n. ugreliZis mier XIII tipis II qvetipSi moqceuli gverdebSebrtyelebuli da brtyelZiriani WurWeli [ugreliZe 1967: 33, sur. 15]. XI tipis ori sanelsacxeble da XII tipi (tanmomrgvalebuli, mcired pirgadaSlili, piris kide SigniT Cakecili) [ugreliZe 1967:32, sur. 13], romlebic n. ugreliZis mier IV-V saukuneebis jgufSia gaerTianebuli. analogiuria agreTve urbnisis IV saukunis # 48 samarxis gverdebSedrekili WurWeli [WilaSvili 1964 : 71]. okamis sanelsacxebleebi dasaxelebul analogiebs uaxlovdeba minis xarisxiT (mdarexarisxovani, sqelkedliani mina), feriT, (baci mwvane, moyviTalo), formebiTa da zomebiTac ki, magram am masalidan maT saxeluris arseboba ansxvavebs, rac, maT TiTqos ufro arqaul iers aniWebs. SesaZloa, aq antikur xanaSi farTod gavcelebul am niSnis gviandel gamoZaxiTan gvaqvs saqme. okamSi aRmoCenil nivTTagan gansakuTrebiT sainteresoa #2 samarxSi mopovebuli gulsakidi. msgavsi formis gulsakidebi, kerZod medalionebi, mcxeTaSi adrec iyo aRmoCenili, kerZod armazisxevis # 2 samarxSi, sadac medalioni sardoniqsis kameiT iyo Semkuli da masze ZaRli iyo gamoxatuli [afaqiZe a., da sxv. 1955: 190]. medalioni okamis calis msgavsi formisaa da msgavsi teqnikiTaa damzadebuli: centraluri budis irgvliv aqac datixruli area, mxolod fosoebi granatis Txeli firfitebiTaa amovsebuli (da ara lurji miniT). armazisxevis medalions okamis egzemplari- 122 sagan gansxavebiT Zirze sami sakidi amkobs da TiToeuli okamis calis mgavsad margalitis mZiviT bolovdeba. aRsaniSnavia, rom armazisxevis #2 samarxSi aRmoCenili es margalitis mZivebi pirveli SemTxvevaa armazisxevis samarxebSi margalitis mZivebis aRmoCenisa, aqedan moyolebuli ki III-IV saukuneebSi am TvliT morTva farTod vrceldeba. okamis medalionTan formiT, damzadebis teqnikiTa da yunwis moyvanilobiT (yunwi samive SemTxvevaSi warmoadgens zemodan sam rigad, reliefurad daRarul, medalionze ganivad darCilul milaks.) kidev ufro axlos dgas samTavros samarovanis # 4, gaZarcvul qvis samarxSi aRmoCenili medalioni. am medalionze okamis egzemplaris msgavsad gavarsis imitaciaa, tixrebs Soris fosoebSi aqac ufero pastis naSTia SemorCenili, xolo zemodan dafenili qva ar Semoinaxa. unda vifiqroT, rom aqac granatis, an lurji minis firfitebi iyo dafenili. aseTi msgavseba gvafiqrebinebs, rom es nivTebi Tanadroulia da erTi da igive stilis, SesaZloa erTi saxelosnos nawarmsac warmoadgens. dasaSvebia, rom isini adgilobrivi oqromWedluri xelovnebis nimuSebia. sainteresoa, rom samTavros zemoTnaxseneb medalionSi, centralur budeSi moTavsebulia ara sada granatis Tvali, aramed mamakacis biustis gamosaxulebiani gema. es gema da misi moCarCoebac (e.i. medalioni) gamocemulia m. maqsimovas mier [Максимова., 1950:271, kat. # 82]. avtori mas parTul xanas miakuTvnebs da aRniSnavs, rom portreti stilisturad gansxvavdeba sasanuri xanis portretebisagan, xolo medalions parTuli xanis samkaulSi eZebneba analogebi. rac Seexeba armazisxevis kameiT Semkul medalions, igi m. lorTqifaniZis mieraa gamocemuli da gvian romauli xaniT, kerZod ki II saukunis boloTi da III saukunis dasawyisiT iyo daTariRebuli [lorTqifaniZe 1955; afaqiZe a., da sxv. 1955: 46]. rodesac Cven samTavros samarovnis iranuli warmoSobis gliptikuri Zeglebi SeviswavleT, analogiebze dayrdnobiT, #4 samarxis portretiani gema sasanur xanas mivakuTvneT [ramiSvili q. 1969: 24-25] da igi arauadres IV saukunis pirveli naxevriT davaTariReT. stilisturad igi marTlac gansxvavdeba oficialuri sasanuri portretebisagan – masSi ar aris is paraduloba, igrZnoba gvianromauli stilis erTgvari gavlena Tmis varcxnilobasa da saxis nakvTebSi, magram es niSnebi swored adre sasanuri xelovnebisaTvisaa damaxasiaTebeli [Борисов, Луконин 1963:12-20]. okamis #2 samarxis aRmoCenam (kompleqsi diokletianes aureuss Seicavs, romelic saqarTveloSi sul sami calia mopovebuli: maTgan ori egzemplari, okamisa [Рамишвили, Шатберашвили 2000] da erwosi [ramiSvili 1979: 48], originalia erTi ki, axalgorisa, mogviano imitaciaa [Javakhishvili, Sherozia 2010:168]), romelSiac samTavros medalionis msgavsi medalioni aRmoCnda, ganamtkica Cveni mosazreba imis Sesaxeb, rom samTavros gemac da okamis medalionic Tanadroulia, xolo armazisxevis ZaRlis gamosaxulebiani kameiT Semkuli medalionic daaxloebiT amave xanas _ III saukunis miwurulsa da IV saukunis dasawyiss SeiZleba mivakuTvnoT. am masalam kidev erTxel dagvanaxa gvianromauli da adreSuasaukuneebis xanis qarTlis oqromWedluri xelovnebis ganviTarebis maRali done; aseve stilisa da gemovnebis sakmaod myari, erTiani saxe, rac vlindeba iseTi rTuli teqnikuri xerxebis gamoyenebaSi, rogoricaa Txeli, furclovani oqrosagan nivTebis damzadeba, gavarsisa da gavarsis imitaciis farTod gamoyeneba da bolos, zedapiris poliqromuli morTva; ferisa da masalis gemovnebiT Sexameba (mag. muqi yviTeli oqros fonze granatis (muqi wiTeli), muqi lurji an mwvane minis Tvlebisa da margalitis gamoyeneba. aRsaniSnavia, rom zogadi niSniT am periodis qarTuli oqromWedloba savsebiT Tavsdeba e,w. romanizebuli aRmosavleTis ZeglTa wreSi. III saukunis miwurulidan sruliad qreba oqros zedapiris gravireba da iwyeba carieli areebis feradi TvlebiT Sevseba (poliqromuli morTuloba), ramac mogvianebiT, adrebizantiur da maxlobel aRmosavlur xelovnebaSi oqros zedapiris cariel sivrceze kabuSonebiT, Zvirfa- 123 si TvlebiT, margalitiTa da skarabeebiT Semkoba daamkvidra [Coche de La Ferte, 1956:86-93]. rogorc aRvniSneT, III-IV saukuneebis qarTul oqromWedlobaSi naTlad aisaxa romauli samyarosa da romanizebuli aRmosavleTis ZeglebisaTvis damaxasiaTebeli yvela niSani, Tumca mTeli rigi specifikuri niSnis Taviseburebebi, aseve aRmoCenili masalis simravle da erTgvarovneba saSualebas gvaZlevs vifiqroT, rom es masala adgilobrivi saxelosnoebis nawarms warmoadgens. literatura: afaqiZe an., da sxv. 1955: afaqiZe an., gobejiSvili g., kalandaZe a., lomTaTiZe g., mcxeTa, arqeologiuri kvleva–Zebis Sedegebi, t. I., TBb. lorTqifaniZe marg., 1955 : lorTqifaniZe marg., saqarTvelos saxelmwifo muzeumis gemebi (armazisxevsa da bagineTze aRmoCenili gliptikuri Zeglebi) II, TBb. ramiSvili q. 1969: ramiSvili q., sasanuri gemebi saqarTveloSi, TBb. ramiSvili r., 1979: ramiSvili r., erwos veli gvianarmazul xanaSi, Tb. sZa 1990: saqarTvelos istoriisa da kulturis ZeglTa aRweriloba, t. 5, TBb. ugreliZe n., 1967: ugreliZe n., adreul Sua saukuneTa qarTlSi minis warmoebis istoriisaTvis, TBb. WilaSvili l., 1964: urbnisi, TBb. WilaSvili l., naqalaqari Борисов А.Я. , Луконин В. Г. 1963: Луконин В. Г. Сасанидские геммы. Борисов А.Я. , Максимова М. 1950 - Максимова М. Геммы из некрополя Мцхета – Самтавро, saqarTvelos saxelmwifo muzeumis moambe XVI B, TBb., gv. 221-274. Рамишвили К., Шатберашвили З., 2000: Рамишвили К., Шатберашвили З., Раннесреднековый Памятник из села Оками, Археология и Этнография Кавказа, III, Баку,2000, с. 99. Et. Coche de La Ferte 1956 - Et. Coche de La Ferte, Les Bijoux Antique, Paris. Javakhishvili K, Sherozia M. 2010 - Ketevan Javakhishvili, Medea Sherozia. New discovery in Akhalgori village, Jur. iberia-kolxeTi № 6, gv. 167-169. ilustracia: 1-5. okamis @#2 samarxis inventari; 6-8. okamis # 1 samarxis inventari. 124 K. RAMISHVILI, Z. SHATBERASHVILI 125 nuca yifiani dionisur siuJetiani wiTelfiguruli krateri krateri _ Κρατηρίζω _ Sereva, gazaveba, da marTlac, Rvinisa da wylis erTmaneTSi gasazavebeli WurWlis am mimzidvelma da mravalnairma formam saukuneebis manZilze araerTi cvlileba ganicada. daxvewil formasTan erTad maTi moyvanilobis mixedviT Serqmeuli saxelwodebebic ipyrobs yuradRebas, rom aRaraferi vTqvaT Tavad naxatze, da naxatis mniSvnelobaze, romelic maTzea gamosaxuli. Tumc naxatmac saukuneebis manZilze ganicada cvlilebebi da dakarga pirvandeli efeqti da gaxda nakleb mimzidveli, dakarga sinatife da raRac garkveuli periodis (Zv.w. IV s-is meore naxevris) vazaTmxatvrobam mkvlevarTa interesic ki Seasusta. da es Sesusteba gamowveulia moxatuli keramikuli WurWlis masobrivi warmoebiT, naxatis degradirebiT da daudevrad gamoyvanili figurebiT. wiTelfiguruli pelikis Seswavlis Semdeg [ix. yifiani n. 2016:120], romelic Zv.w. 350 wliT davaTariRe da mis masobriv xasiaTsa da dakninebul naxatze vimsjele, wilad mxvda xelovnebis muzeumis sacavSi (saqarTvelos erovnuli muzeumis, xelovnebis muzeumis dasavleT evropis fondi) SevWidebodi wiTelfigurul kraters, romlis A mxare momxiblavad gamoiyureba - sami figura dinamikaSi, xolo B mxaris naxati gvaxsenebs robert kukis mier aRweril am periodis vazebs: krateris ukana mxare, romelzec gamosaxulia gardauvali sami, an mogvianebiT ori Semosili axalgazrda da yovelTvis yoveli momdevno Wabuki kidev ufro daudevradaa gamoyvanili, vidre wina vazis naxati... vgoneb mec swored aseT SemTxvevasTan maqvs saqme, oRond gasarkvevia, Cems mier Seswavlili romeli vazis naxatia ufro gviandeli . am periodis vazebis wina mxare eTmoba, rogorc wesi, vazaTmxatvrobis wamyvan mxatvrul saxeebs - dionisesa da afrodites siuJetebTan dakavSirebul scenebs [Cook 1972:185. Boardman 2001:193] da ra gasakviri iqneba, Cveni vazis A gverdze rom dionises scena amovikiTxoT, radgan samfiguriani kompoziciidan advili amosacnobia dionises Tanmxlebi pirebi: marcxnidan pirveli figura panis aris, razec misi kudi metyvelebs. mas marjvena xelSi mrgvali formis sagani uWiravs, rac savaraudod timpanoni (musikaluri sakravi) unda iyos. centraluri figura, romelic TeTr ferSia gamoyvanili, xSirad gvxvdeba dionisur scenebSi. marjvena figura ki, savaraudod, menadaa, xelSi dionisesa da misi Tanmxlebi pirebis atributiT, TirsosiT - surosa da yurZnis foTlebiT Semkuli grZeli joxiT - aris gamosaxuli. misi samosi gamoiyureba ise, rogorc am periodis vazaTmxatvrobaSi mosavT qalebs, menadebs, ufro metad ariadnas [Alexandrescu 1978: tab. 53:452 ]. kabis zeda nawili Wrelia, qveda nawili ki SedarebiT sadaa. aRsaniSnavia zednadebi TeTri saRebaviT gamoyvanili qalis samkauli: marjvena xelze samajuri ori rgolis saxiTaa gamosaxuli. msgavsi, or rgolad gamoyvanili samajurebi xSirad gvxvdeba berZnul vazaTmxatvrobaSi da is unda iyos am periodSi berZnul samyaroSi sakmaod popularuli samajuris tipi, romelic spiralurad exveva xels da mxolod majis cal mxares qmnis or rkals. aseTi spiraliseburi samajurebi Zv. w. IV saukunis bolo mesamediT TariRdeba [ Kalashnik 2014:194]. marcxena xelis samajuri aseve TeTri zednadebi saRebaviTaa gamoyvanili, oRond erT rkalad. yuris da Tavis areSic SeimCneva TeTri zednadebi saRebavi, da aqac aqsesuaris gamosasaxatavad. xolo Sua centraluri figura, frTosani eroti, mTlianad TeTri zednadebi saRebaviTaa gamoyvanili. mxolod misi frTebi da Tmebia Tixis ferSi datovebuli. is profiliT marjvniv, ariadnaskenaa mimarTuli, marjvena xelic misken aqvs gawvdili, xolo marcxenaSi masac timpanoni uWiravs, es dairiseburi dasartyami instrumenti, romelic xis an metalis salteze orive mxridan gadakrul cxovelis tyavisganaa damzadebuli. es sakravi Zalian popularulia dionises kultSi. is atikur vazebze Zv.w. V s-is bolo meoTxedidan Cndeba. marcxena figura, rogorc ukve vTqviT, panis aris, mas Tavze TeTri zednadebi saRebavi aqvs datanili. saerTo jamSi, es samfiguriani kompozicia sakmaod dau- 126 devrad aris gamoyvanili: panis marcxena xeli, erotis frTebi, ariadnas marcxena fexi (kabis qveS gamoyofili) – yvelaferi es metyvelebs gakrul da dauxvewav xelze. rac Seexeba B mxares, ra Tqma unda, saqme gvaqvs isev palestras TematikasTan, romelic dayvanilia orfigurian kompoziciamde: erTmaneTis pirispir mdgomi, qimationSi gaxveuli figurebi, erTmneTisaken xelebgawvdilni. maT Soris TiTqos raRac svetia aRmarTuli. orive maTgans axasiaTebs loyaze Savi laqa, TiTqos daudevrobiT gamoyvanili piris kvali. aseTi laqa FB jgufs axasiaTebs. `sveti“ metad daudevradaa gamoyvanili, imdenad , rom gansazRvrac ki Znelia, ratom SeiZleba mas `sveti„ vuwodoT. cota ufro adreuli periodis palestris Tematikian vazebze, sadac garkveviT aris warmodgenili detalebi, naxatSi gvxvdeba sveti. ase magaliTad, boloniaSi, batistinis samarovanze, N 4 samarxSi wiTelfigurul kraterze (zariseburze), romlis A mxareze simpoziumia gamosaxuli, B mxareze cnobili samfiguriani palestras Temaa. aq aRsaniSnavia arqiteqturuli detali - doriuli svetis saxiT (es vaza Zv.w. 440-430 ww - iT TariRdeba) [Rouillard, Verbanck-Piérard 2003:344]. ase rom, Cveni vazis B mxaris or figuras Soris Sverili Tavisuflad SeiZleba svetad CaiTvalos, da misi gamoukveTaoba naxatis degradirebis Sedegi unda iyos. mogviano periodis kilikebis Sida zedapirze xSirad gvxvdeba svetis ukve damcirebuli modeli - `degradirebuli sveti“ [Bonet 2003:347]. rac Seexeba WurWlis formas, is kaliqsiseburia (yvavilis gvirgviniseburi), krateris es forma jer kidev Savfiguruli teqnikis dros warmoiSva atikur keramikaSi Zv.w. VI saukuneSi da mis warmoSobas didi vazaTmxatvris, eqsekesiasis saxels miaweren. Tumc krateris am formam gaZlo wiTelfiguruli teqnikis dasasrulamde [Sparkes, Tallcot 1970:54-63]. paraleluri masalis mixedviT Tu vimsjelebT, naxati da forma gvaZlevs imis saSualebas, rom es vaza Zv.w. IV saukunis 40-iani wlebiT davaTariRoT. literatura: Alexandrescu P . 1978: La сėramique d ’ ėpoque archaïque et classique (VII - IVs.). Histria IV. Bucureşti. Boardman J. 2001: Athenian Red-Figure Vases. The Classical Period. Cook R. 1972: Greek Painted Pottery. Second edition. London. Kalashnik Y. 2014: Greek Gold in the Hermitage Collection. St. Petersburg Rouillard P., Verbanck-Piérard A. 2003: Le vase grec et ses destins. München. Sparkes A. Tallcot L. 1970: The Athenian Agora. Black and plain pottery. Volume XII. Part 1. New-Jersey. yifiani n. 2016: arimaspi pelikaze. Jur. iberiakolxeTi, #12, gv. 120-123. ilustraciebis aRwera: tabula I: sur. 1. xelovnibis muzeumis dasavleT evropis fondSi daculi wiTelfiguruli krateris A gverdi. sur. 2. xelovnibis muzeumis dasavleT evropis fondSi daculi wiTelfiguruli krateris B gverdi. 127 N.KIPIANI 128 marine fircxalava Zvlis buniki Trelis namosaxlaridan 2004 wlis savele sezonis dros Treligorebis namosaxlaris erT-erTi saTavsos nangrevebSi, ufro zustad am saTavsoSi misi ngrevis dros Cavardnil fenaSi, aRmoCnda maxvilisa Tu satevris qarqaSis Zvlis buniki, romlis orive gverdze e.w. skviTuri cxovelsaxovani stiliT Sesrulebuli cxovelebis figurebia gamosaxuli. buniki Zvlis mTliani naWrisganaa gamoTlili da aqvs metad uCveulo moyvaniloba, romelic ori formis kombinirebis Sedegad aris miRebuli: brtyel, wagrZelebul naxevarelifsur formas asimetriulad ebmis naxevarwriuli moxazulobis daboloeba. nivTi Signidan qarqaSis wveris formis Sesabamisad aris amoRaruli, zeda nawilSi erT xazze ganlagebuli ori gamWoli naxvreti aqvs tyavis an xis (ufro es iqneboda tyavgadakruli xe) safuZvelze misamagreblad. misi sigrZe 6 sm-ia, udidesi sigane – 3,5 sm. nivTi dazianebulia, momtvreuli aqvs erTi gverdis mcire nawili da meoris TiTqmis mTeli zeda monakveTi. bunikis formas mTlianad moicavs dabal reliefSi Sesrulebuli kompozicia. mis orive gverdze amokveTilia e.w.katiseburi mtaceblis ori urTierT dapirispirebuli figura. cxovelebi warmodgenilia profilSi, isini wvanan specifikur garTxmul pozaSi, moxril TaTebze, bunikis TiTo gverdze ori urTierTdapirispirebuli figura saxiT erTimeorisken da zurgiT bunikis grZivi kideebisken. aRqmis gasaioleblad aRwerisas SedarebiT dauzianebeli mxare movixsenioT, rogorc А gverdi, xolo nakluli sapirispiro mxare, rogorc В gverdi (tab. I). yvelaze srulad SemorCenilia А gverdis marcxena nawilze gamosaxuli figura. esaa adreskviTur maneraSi Sesrulebuli, e.w. katisebri mtaceblis Zlier stilizebuli gamosaxuleba; cxovelis Tavs bunikis zeda marcxena kuTxe ukavia, is gamosaxulia or rigad ganTavsebuli reliefuri formebis saxiT: zeda rigze bunikis zeda kidis gaswvriv erT xazze ganlagebulia yuri (esaa mrgvali reliefuri forma SuaSi CaWrili samkuTxediT), Tvali (reliefuri rgoli SuaSi Rrma wertiliT) da drunCi (reliefuri ormagi lilvaki SuaSi Rrmad CaWrili samkuTxediT). meore rigSi isev erT rigadaa Camwkrivebuli loya (mrgvali amozneqilobis saxiT) da yba (romelic e.w. Suaze gaWrili gulisebri formisaa SuaSi samkuTxa CaRrmavebiT); da ai aq vxvdebiT ybisken wveriT mimarTul detals – es ukve meore, marjvena cxovelis drunCia, romelsac mosdevs Tvali – SemorCenilia mxolod reliefuri rgolis nawili, da drunCs qvemoT yba – analogiuri marcxena cxovelis ybisa. aklia yuri da, albaT, loya. gamodis, rom marjvena cxovelis Tavi marcxenas drunCis qveS Sedis da amdenad figurebis dapirispirebuloba asimetriulia. bevrad ufro dazianebulia bunikis meore mxare В: TiTqmis mTlianadaa motexili misi zeda nawili, sadac gamosaxuli iqneboda orive figuris Tavebi da wina TaTebi; SerCenilia ukana TaTebi da kudebi. oTxive figuris TaTebi gacveTilia, magram Cans, rom isini erT xazzea ganTavsebuli, saxsrebSi moxril mdgomareobaSi; naTlad ikiTxeba maTi e.w. rgoluri daboloebani – momrgvalebuli forma SuaSi CaRrmavebiT. rac Seexeba kudebs – yovel figuras gansxvavebuli moyvanilobis kudi aqvs: А gverdis marcxena cxovelis grZeli kudi miemarTeba muclis gaswvriv cxovelis korpusis paralelurad, Tavisi e.w. rgoluri daboloebiT ybas ebjineba da am gverds or nawilad yofs. amave А gverdis marjvena figuris kudi, marcxenisgan gansxvavebiT, qvemoTaa daSvebuli, is bunikis kidis konturs miuyveba, narnarad gadadis bunikis qveda asimetriul detalze da rgoluri daboloebiT uxvevs. uCveulo suraTs vakvirdebiT bunikis meore, В mxareze:B misi Sua nawili dazianebulia da isea Sewepebuli, rom detalebis xazebi darRveulia; am gverdis marjvena figuris SedarebiT ukeT daculi konturebis mixedviT iseTi STabeWdileba iqmneba, TiTqos am figuris kuds aqvs gantoteba – erTi miemarTeba zeviT, cxovelis tanis gaswvriv, meore ki, zemoT ganxiluli А gverdis figuris kudis msgavsad, bunikis qveda naxevarwriul nawilze gadadis. aRsaniSni dagvrCa В gverdis marcxena cxo- 129 velis kudi – mokle, kauWismagvari wveriT. katiseburi mtaceblis gamosaxva satevris an maxvilis qarqaSis bunikze adreskviTur xelovnebaSi kargadaa cnobili (igulisxmeba Zv.w. VII saukunis meore naxevari da Zv.w. VI s). miuxedavad amisa, arc bunikis formas, da arc masze gamosaxul kompozicias, skviTuri tipis bunikebs Soris zusti analogia ar eZebneba, paralelurad, Treligorebis buniki skviTuri cxovelsaxovani stilis xelovnebisaTvis specifikuri elementebis erTgvari nakrebia, romlis yoveli Semadgeneli sxvadasxva SeTavsebiTa da variaciebiT kargadaa cnobili katiseburi mtaceblis adreskviTur gamosaxulebebs Soris [Шкурко 1969: 32-35]. Trelis bunikze TiTqmis ar aris elementi, romelic ucxo iqneboda adreskviTuri manerisaTvis e.w. kelermes–zivies, an gnebavT, kavkasiur– winaaziur stadiaze. gansakuTrebul yuradRebas ipyrobs sruli Tanxvedra Treligorebis bunikis mtaceblis Tavsa da kelermesis Zvlis e.w. gamanawilebel asxmulaze gamosaxul cxovelis Tavs Soris (tab. II, 6); maT aaxloebs saerTo sqema _ orive cxovelis Tavi Sedgeba or rigad, da erTi da imave TanamimdevrobiT, ganTavsebuli identuri formebisagan [Галанина 1997: tab. 16, 259; Иванчик 2001: sur. 34, 1]. nivTis formis Sesaxeb unda iTqvas, rom wagrZelebuli korpusi ar aris damaxasiaTebeli adreskviTuri qarqaSis bunikebisaTvis, romelTa umravlesobas, aqvs e.w. naxevarovaluri moyvaniloba (tab. II, 1-5). wagrZelebulia karmir–bluris Zvlis buniki (tab. II, 14), romelTanac Treligorebis buniks aaxloebs rogorc faqtura, ise Sesrulebis manera _ esaa Rrmad CaWrili detalebi yurebis, Tvalebis, ybis, TaTebisa da kudebis daboloebebis centralur nawilebSi; aseve teqnikuri detali – gamWoli naxvretebi, safuZvelze misamagreblad gankuTvnili [Пиотровский 1970: sur. 96]. rac Seexeba bunikis qveda, gafarToebul nawils, romelmac gansazRvra bunikis Taviseburi forma, unda iTqvas, rom misi konturi Tanxvdeba faskaus cnobili brinjaos bunikis Sverilis moyvanilobas [Ильинская, Тереножкин 1983: 45, sur. 3] (tab. II, 13) da es aris jerjerobiT Treligorebis bunikis formis erTaderTi analogia. amave dros faskaus brinjaos buniks Treligorebis nimuSTan masze gamosaxuli katiseburi mtaceblis figuris arsebobis faqtic aaxloebs. axla yuradReba mivaqcioT imas, rom qve- daSvebuli kudebis daboloebebi Treligorebis figurebze moTavsebulia bunikis qveda detalis swored im nawilSi, sadac faskaus brinjaos bunikis Sverilze vxedavT frinvelis Tavis sqematur gamosaxulebas. kudis es rgoluri daboloeba Treligorebis bunikze amave dros mogvagonebs e.w. damatebiT elements katiseburi mtaceblis figurebze – saxeldobr, frinvelis Tavs didi TvaliT, rasac mravlad vxvdebiT adreskviTuri xelovnebis nimuSebze [Маисурадзе, Пирцхалава 2011:71-77]; kudis es rgoluri daboloeba ukve zivies stadiaze Cndeba Caxveuli maryuJis saxiT (tab. II, 7, 9, 12), romelic skviTur xelovnebaSi rgolad Camoyalibdeba; es elementi – pirobiTi rgoli – zog SemTxvevaSi frinvelis Tavad gardaiqmneba, ori mimarTulebiT: rgoli gaazrebulia, rogorc mtacebeli frinvelis Tvali, an Caxveuli maryuJi transformirdeba frinvelis niskartad (tab. III, 15). orive SemTxvevaSi es frinvelia. dasaSvebi mgonia, rom Treligorebis bunikis es rgolic gaazrebulia, rogorc Tvali da rogorc kudis bolo erTdroulad; Tu es misaRebia, maSin saxezea skviTuri xelovnebisTvis specifikuri e.w. `zoomorfuli gardasaxvis” magaliTi, rodesac cxovelis sxeulis erT–erTi elementi amave dros sxva arsebis tanis sxva nawils warmoadgens. Treligorebis bunikis ZiriTadi Tavisebureba mdgomareobs misi figurebis pozasa da kompoziciaSi: Cvens winaSea katiseburi mtaceblebis adreskviTur maneraSi Sesrulebuli antiTezuri gamosaxulebani, romlebic warmodgenilia damaxasiaTebel ganrTxmul pozaSi, moxril TaTebze. kompoziciisa da pozis msgavsi SeTavseba adreskviTur siZveleTa Soris ar gvxvdeba. rac Seexeba calke kompozicias – anu dapirispirebul figurebs, skviTuri stiliT gadmocemuli es sqema qarqaSis bunikebze metad iSviaTia. kelermesisa da melgunovis saparado akinakebis qarqaSebis bunikebze urTierTdapirispirebuli lomebi tradiciuli asuro–urartuli stiliTaa warmodgenili [Черненко 1980: 24, sur. 12, 15; Погребова, Раевский 1992: 110]. CvenTvis saintereso kompozicias, Sesrulebuls skviTur stilSi, Cven vxvdebiT zivies koleqciis cnobil oqros bunikze (tab. II, 12) – es aris ori urTierTdapirispirebuli figuris Zlier stilizebuli gamosaxuleba [Погребова, Раевский 1992: sur. 1, ж], da aseve ukve naxsenebi karmir bluris 130 Zvlis bunikze, sadac mtaceblis moxrili figura gaazrebulia, rogorc antiTezuri wyvilis Taviseburi gadmocema. ase rom Treligorebis buniki mesamea bunikebis im mcirericxovan seriaSi, sadac heraldikuri kompozicia skviTuri cxovelsaxovani stiliTaa Sesrulebuli. axla rac Seexeba cxovelTa pozas. e.w. ganrTxmuli poza (rac gulisxmobs, rom cxoveli wevs mucelze, moxril TaTebze) skviTuri cxovelsaxovani repertuaris kargad cnobili motivia. am sqemis metyveli nimuSebia katiseburi mtaceblis gamosaxulebebi malgobekis Zvlis danis tarze [Виноградов 1972:160, sur. 7, 6] (tab. III, 18), darevkis Zvlis kovzze [Погребова, Раевский 1992: sur. 5, б] (tab. III, 17), Jurovkis brinjaos nalisebur saganze [Ильинская, Тереножкин 1983:257; Погребова, Раевский 1992: 96-97, sur. 5, а] (tab. III, 16). amave dros Treligorebis bunikis figurebi pozis mxriv did siaxloves avlenen zivies e.w. skviTuri plastis cxovelebTan (tab. II, 7-11). maTgan CvenTvis gansakuTrebul interess iwvevs Tixis WurWlis yuri (tab. II, 8), dawyvilebuli cxovelebis saxiT warmodgenili [Погребова, Раевский 1992: sur. 1, е]; masze, Treligorebis cxovelebis msgavsad, heraldikuri wyvili ganrTxmul pozaSia gamosaxuli; garda pozis da kompoziciis am iSviaTi SeTavsebisa, WurWlis saxelurze gamosaxul cxovelebs aqvT iseTive grZeli, muclis gaswvriv cxovelis korpusis paralelurad mimarTuli kudi, rogoric aqvs Treligorebis or katisebur mtacebels. ase rom zivies WurWlis saxelurSi Tavmoyrilia is niSnebi, romlebic gansazRvraven Treligorebis gamosaxulebis Taviseburebas. axla Cven mivuaxlovdiT im sakiTxs, risTvisac dagvWirda aseTi detaluri analizi; kargadaa cnobili, rom araerTi Teoria arsebobs zogadad skviTuri cxovelsaxovani stilis, da konkretulad katiseburi mtaceblis motivis sawyisebis Sesaxeb. am mosazrebebs Soris gamovyofdi erTs, romlis mixedviT adreskviTuri xelovneba Zlieraa damokidebuli ZvelaRmosavlur saxeebze da motivebze, saxeldobr, luristanis animalisturi saxeebis repertuarze. es hipoTeza gamyarebulia maria pogrebovas da dimitri raevskis bolo naSromebSi konkretuli saxeebis da xerxebis detaluri Seswavlis safuZvelze [Погребова, Раевский 1992: 96-98, 101104, 159-161]; da ai, am konteqstSi, Cven vikvlevT buniks, romelSic Tavmoyrilia niSnebi, romlebic met damajereblobas matebs am hipoTezas. pirvel rigSi es aris ganrTxmuli pozisa da antiTezuri kompoziciis SeTavseba, rac iSviaTia skviTur Zeglebze da farTod aris warmodgenili luristanis xelovnebaSi: Cven mas mravlad vxvdebiT brinjaos qinZisTavebze (Zv.w. VIII-VII ss) [Bronzes du Luristan 2008: 135, #119-121], rgolur saybeurebze (tab. IV, 22-24) da e.w. kerpebis gamosaxulebebze (Zv.w. I aTaswleulis pirveli naxevari) [Bronzes du Luristan 2008: 108, ## 64, 174, 183, 185]; es TaTebze gawolili cxovelebi, rogorc wesi, Seadgenen antiTezur kompozicias. sayuradReboa, rom am mwoliare figurebs luristanis rgolisebur nivTebze, Treligorebis cxovelebis msgavsad, aqvT vertikaluri agebuleba. kidev erTxel davubrundeT Treligorebis cxovelebis qvedaSvebul kudebs – adreskviTur Zeglebze msgavsi sqema ar aris cnobili. maTi moyvaniloba (gansxvavebuli stilis miuxedavad) Zalian hgavs luristanis e.w. brinjaos kerpebze (tab. IV, 19-21) warmodgenili kompoziciebis katiseburi mtaceblebis kudebis modelirebas [Bronzes du Luristan 2008: ## 175, 177, 178, 182, 183]; maTi qvedaSvebuli kudebis konturi maryuJiseburad Caxveuli kuwuboTi sruliad Tanxvdeba Treligorebis figurebis kudebs; SeiZleba vivaraudoT, rom aq saqme gvaqvs formaTwarmoqmnis ideis dasesxebasTan. adre vTqvi, rom dasaSvebia Treligorebis qvedaSvebuli kudebis rgoluri daboloebis frinvelis Tvalad gaazreba. Tu misaRebia es varaudi, maSin Cven SegviZlia movitanoT unikaluri analogiuri motivi luristanidan (tab. IV, 21): brinjaos e.w. kerpebis seriaSi aris erTi nimuSi, sadac dapirispirebuli katiseburi mtaceblebis daSvebuli kudebis orive kuwubo frinvelis Tavebis saxiTaa gaformebuli [Bronzes du Luristan 2008: 182, #179]; Tanac am Tavebis modelireba Zireulad gansxvavdeba im e.w. mamlebis Tavebisagan (tab. IV, 25), romlebic ase xSirad gvxvdeba luristanis brinjaos nakeTobebis katiseburi mtaceblis figurebze da mogvagonebs ukve naxsenebi Jurovkas naliseburi nivTis figuris kudis boloze gamosaxuli frinvelis Tavs (tab. III, 16); swored cxovelis am figuraSi xedavdnen m. pogrebova da d. raevski rogorc zivies da sakuTriv skviTuri wris mxatvruli maneris maxasiaTeblebs, aseve niSnebs, romlebic am gamosaxulebas luristanis mtaceblebTan aaxloebs 131 [Погребова, Раевский 1992: 96-98]. da bolos, Sevecdebi avxsna Treligorebis bunikze gamosaxuli cxovelebis grZeli, muclis gaswvriv mimarTuli kudebis mniSvneloba: kudi am bunikze erT– erTi arsebiTi detalia; am nivTze Cven vxedavT mis xuT gamosaxulebas (tab. I), radgan A gverdis marjvena figuris kuds aqvs ori gantoteba; iqmneba STabeWdileba, rom aq qvedaSvebuli kudis arsebobis pirobebSi aucilebeli gaxda urTierTdapirispirebuli cxovelebis gamijvna; es ki imas unda niSnavdes, rom aq Taviseburadaa gadmocemuli samnawiliani antiTezuri kompozicia, romlis centraluri elementia grZeli kudi, flankirebuli mtaceblis ori figuriT. aq uadgilo ar iqneba movuxmoT d. raevskis Teorias, romelsac araerTi mimdevari hyavs, romlis Tanaxmad skviTuri cxovelsaxovani stili azrobrivi funqciis matarebelia dekoratiulTan erTad; es aris niSanTa simboluri sistema, romelsac safuZvlad udevs saxeebis nakrebi; es aris miTologiuri azrovnebis Sedegi, erTgvari zoomorfuli kodi, gamosaxulebiTi teqstebi, romlebic wakiTxvas saWiroebs [Раевский 1985: 77, 122]. konkretulad katiseburi mtaceblis motivi da misi stabiluri kavSiri bunikebTan ki, unda savsebiT Seesabamebodes cxovelsaxovani stilis matarebelTa moTxovnebs. ase rom Treligorebis bunikis momxmarebeli, Tu Semqmneli ostati, uTuod flobda codnas am ”kodis” Sesaxeb. rogorc vxedavT, Trelis Zvlis buniki mravalmxrivi informaciis Semcvelia. is skviTuri cxovelsaxovani stilis xelovnebis yvelaze popularuli motivis – katiseburi mtaceblis – gamosaxulebiani erT–erTi uadresi nivTia, adreskviTuri maneriT Sesrulebuli, romelic amave dros Seicavs dasesxebul formebs da motivebs, romlebic mxolod am stilisa da xedvebis Sesabamisad aris gadamuSavebuli; da am niSnebis gamo is mniSvnelovan adgils ikavebs skviTuri cxovelsaxovani stilis formirebisa da evoluciis procesSi. A literatura: Виноградов В. 1972: Центральный и Северо-Восточный Кавказ в скифское время (VII-IV века до н.э.), Грозный. Галанина Л. 1997: Келермесские курганы. «Царские» погребения раннескифской эпохи. - Степные народы Евразии. Том I. М. Иванчик А. 2001: Киммерийцы и Скифы. - Степные народы Евразии. Том II. М. Ильинская В., Тереножкин А.И. 1983: . Скифия VII-IV вв. до н.э. Киев. Маисурадзе В., Пирцхалава М. 2011: Бутероль из села Патардзеули (Кахетия, Восточная Грузия), - ВДИ.. № 3. Пиотровский Б. 1970: Кармир Блур, Альбом. Л. Погребова М., Раевский Д.С. 1992: Ранние Скифы и Древний Восток. М. Раевский Д. 1985: Модель мира скифской культуры. М. Черненко Е. 1980: Древнейшие парадные (Мельгунов и Келермесс). - Скифия и Кавказ. Киев. мечи Шкурко А. 1969: Об изображении свернувшегося в кольцо хищника в искусстве лесостепной Скифии, СА. № 1. Bronzes du Luristan 2008: Enigmes de L’ Iran ancien - IIIe - Ier millénair av.J.-C., edit. Nicolas Engel. Paris-Musées, Paris. ilustraciebi: tab. I. Zvlis buniki Treligorebis namosaxlaridan: A gverdis foto; B gverdis foto; a gverdis grafikuli Canaxati; b gverdis grafikuli Canaxati. tab. II. 1-5. qarqaSis e.w. naxevarovaluri moyvanilobis bunikebi katiseburi mtaceblis morkaluli figuris gamosaxulebiT. 6. Zvlis e.w. ganmanawilebeli asxmula kelermesidan. 7-11. katiseburi mtaceblis gamosaxulebebi zivies wris nivTebze. 12. oqros buniki ori katiseburi mtaceblis dapirispirebuli figuris Zlier stilizebuli gamosaxulebiT. 13. qarqaSis brinjaos buniki faskaudan. 14. Zvlis buniki karmir-bluridan. tab. III. 15. Zvlis nivTebi frinvelis Tavebis - Zlier hiperbolirebuli Tvalisa da niskartis - gamosaxulebebiT. 16. ganrTxmul pozaSi warmodgenili katiseburi mtaceblis figura Jurovkas brinjaos nalisebur saganze. 17. igive pozaSi gamosaxuli figura darevkis Zvlis kovzze. 18. TaTebze ganrTxmuli mtacebeli malgobekis danis Zvlis tarze. tab. IV. katiseburi mtaceblebis gamosaxulebebi e.w. luristanis brinjaos industriis nakeTobebze: 19-20. e.w. kerpebis figurebi qvedaSvebuli da maryuJiseburad Caxveuli kudebiT. 21. figurebi, frinvelis TavebiT daboloebuli kudebiT. 22-24. mtaceblebi ganrTxmul pozaSi brinjaos rgolur saybeurebze. 25. e.w. mamlis Tavebi, moTavsebuli mtaceblebis figurebze. 132 M. PIRTSKHALAVA 133 134 135 136 recenzia alik gabelia _ afxazeTi winareantikur da antikur epoqaSi gasagebi mizezebis gamo ukanasknel wlebSi afxazeTSi gamosuli istoriul-arqeologiuri samecniero literatura xelmiuwvdomeli an naklebad xelmisawvdomia qarTveli specialistebisTvis. isic unda aRiniSnos, rom sakuTriv afxazeTSi aseTi saxis publikaciebi xSiri ar aris da yoveli axali monografia afxazi mecnierebisTvis aRiqmeba mniSvnelovan movlenad. istoriis mecnierebaTa kandidati, prof. alik gabelia cnobili afxazi arqeologia. igi amJamad aris afxazeTis saxelmwifo universitetis istoriis fakultetis dekani da arqeologiur gaTxrebs ZiriTadad soxumSi awarmoebs. sur.1 sur.2 2014 wlis bolos afxazeTis saxel. universitetis istoriis, arqeologiisa da eTnologiis kaTedram gamosca misi sqeltaniani (500 gverdiani) wigni `afxazeTi winareantikur da antikur epoqaSi” (sur.1). wignis ZiriTadi nawili rusul enazea, aseve warmodgenilia cxra samecniero moxseneba inglisur enaze. wigni Sedgeba oTxi nawilisgan. pirveli nawili eZRvneba afxazeTis winare antikuri xanis arqeologiis Seswavlas. aRniSnuli nawili Sedgeba oTxi Tavisgan da Tanmimdevrulad ganxilulia afxazeTis teritoriaze kolxuri kulturis Zeglebis Seswavlis istoria, Zv.w. II-I aTaswleulebis pirveli naxevris namosaxlarebis topografia, gegmareba da mSeneblobis teqnika, kolxuri kulturis keramika da gvianbrinjao-adrerkinis xanis meurneobis ZiriTadi dargebi. meore nawilSi dioskuriis magaliTze ganxilulia afxazeTis adreantikuri xanis arqeologiis ZiriTadi sakiTxebi. wignis es nawili ZiriTadad moicavs or ganyofilebas, sadac avtoris mier Seswavlilia Zveli berZnuli kolonizaciis problemebi afxazeTSi da dioskuriis istoriisa da arqeologiis umTavresi sakiTxebi. iseTebi, rogorebicaa: dioskuriis Seswavlis istoria; werilobiTi wyaroebi da qalaqis daarsebis dro; dioskuriis materialuri kultura; dioskuria elinistur xanaSi; dioskuriis ekonomikuri viTareba da dioskuria miTridates omebis epoqaSi. wignis mesame nawilSi warmodgenilia avtoris mier sxvadasxva wlebSi saerTaSoriso samecniero konferenciebze wakiTxuli moxsenebebi, romlebic exeba Zveli soxumis (dioskuria-sebastopolisis) arqeologiuri Seswavlis problemebsa da sxvadasxva sakiTxebs. gansakuTrebiT aRsaniSnavia wignis meoTxe nawili, romelSic gaerTianebulia qalaq soxumsa da soxumis cixeze 1999-2007 wlebSi avtoris xelmZRvanelobiT Catarebuli arqeologiuri gaTxrebis samecniero angariSebi (ix. sur. 2), sadac detaluradaa 137 gadmocemuli uaxlesi arqeologiuri aRmoCenebis Sesaxeb. wignis es nawili miTufro mniSvnelovania im realobis gaTvaliswinebiT, rom CvenTvis xelmiuwvdomelia informaciebi afxazeTis uaxlesi arqeologiuri aRmoCnebis Sesaxeb da es gamocema namdvilad dagvexmareba dazustebuli informaciis miRebis saqmeSi. aqve unda iTqvas isic, rom wigni gamocemulia maRal poligrafiul doneze da uxvad aris ilustrirebuli Sav-TeTri da feradi tabulebiTa da maRali xarisxis fotoebiT. bunebrivia, mcire sarecenzio werilSi dawvrilebiT ver ganvixilav am sqeltanian wignSi gamoTqmul yvela mosazrebas Tu Sexedulebas. Tumca, aucileblad misasalmebelia avtoris pozicia, rodesac igi obieqturad aRniSnavs qarTveli mkvlevarebis rols da damsaxurebas afxazeTis gvianbrinjao-antikuri xanis arqeologiuri Zeglebis gamovlenisa da mecnieruli Seswavlis saqmeSi. cxadia, yvelamaTgans aq ver CamovTvliT, magram minda aRvniSnoT, rom al. gabelias naSromSi daviwyebuli ar aris arc erTi im arqeologis Rvawli, romlebsac Tundac erTi samecniero statia mainc gamoucia afxazeTis Zv.w. II-I aTaswleulis arqeologiis ama Tu im sakiTxTan dakavSirebiT. Y ra Tqma unda, avtoris mier gamoTqmuli mosazrebebi zogierT SemTxvevaSi sakamaToa da maTi gaziarebac gaWirdeba. gansakuTrebiT es exeba kolxeTis samefos genezisis problemas Tu berZnuli kolonizaciis calkeul sakiTxebs, sadac batoni gabelia imeorebs afxazur istoriografiaSi iu. voronovisa da sxva arqeologebis mier damkvidrebul Sexedulebebs, romlebic isedac cnobilia dainteresebuli mkiTxvelisTvis da maTze sityvas aRar gavagrZeleb. saerTod, afxazur istoriografiaSi myarad damkvidrda Sexeduleba, romlis Tanaxmadac Zv.w. VI saukunidan dasavleT saqarTvelos teritoriaze kolxeTis samefos arseboba aris mxolod miTi da aranairad ar mtkicdeba arqeologiuri monacemebiT da werilobiTi wyaroebis cnobebiT. am SemTxvevaSi, a. gabelia cdilobs e.w. `oqrosSualedis” gamonaxvas da garkveulwilad iziarebs a. boltunovas mosazrebas imasTan dakavSirebiT, rom Tu kolxeTis samefo marTla arsebobda, misi CrdilodasavleTi teritoria ar moicavda Tanamedrove soxumis (dioskuriis) sanaxebs da am mileTur kolonias araferi hqonda saerTo kolxeTis samefosTan. SesaZlebelia aseve naklebad gasaziarebeli iyos avtoriseuli Sexeduleba gienosis, fasisisa da dioskuriis berZnul qalaqebad gamocxadebis Taobaze. am SemTxvevaSic TiTqmis sruliad ugulvebelyofilia oT. lorTqifaniZis mosazreba aRmosavleT SavizRvispireTSi berZnuli kolonizaciis Taviseburi xasiaTisa da emporionebis arsebobis Sesaxeb. aqve isic aucileblad unda aRiniSnos, rom jer kidev vanis cnobili simpoziumebis dros qarTvel, rus da afxaz arqeologebs Soris cxare kamaTi da polemika mimidinareobda swored aRniSnuli problemebis irgvliv da bunebrivia, rom am SemTxvevaSi afxazi arqeologis mosazrebebi ar gamoirCeva originaluri xasiaTiT da erTgvari gagrZelebaa im tendenciebisa, rac esoden popularuli Teza iyo jerkidev sabWoTa kavSiris droindel rus da afxaz arqeologebs Soris. amis miuxedavad cxadia, rom b-n alik gabelias wigni “afxazeTi winareantikur da antikur epoqaSi” sayuradRebo gamocemaa da eWvsgareSea, rom igi mniSvnelovani siaxle iqneba im qarTveli mecnierebisTvisac, romlebic ikvleven afxazeTis Zv.w. II-I aTaswleulebis istorias da arqeologias. miTumetes, rom is aris mravali siaxlis Semcveli da Zveli kolxeTis arqeologiis ara erTi problema ganxilulia siRrmiseulad da argumentirebulad. wigni sakmaod sainteresod ikiTxeba da dainteresebuli mkiTxveli masSi aRmoaCens misTvis saintereso ara erT sakiTxs. sarecenzio naSromi kidev erTxel adasturebs im WeSmaritebas, rom afxazeTis istoriisa da arqeologiis calkeuli Tu fundamenturi problemebis kvleva-Zieba SeuZlebelia saqarTvelos istoriis safuZvliani codnisa da qarTveli istorikosebisa da arqeologebis naSromebis gaTvaliswinebis gareSe; iseve rogorc sakuTriv saqarTvelos istoriis Seswavla ver moxdeba afxazeTis konteqstisgan mowyvetilad da Sesabamisad, qarTvel mkvlevarebsac marTebT afxazeTis arqeologiuri viTarebis safuZvliani codna. am kuTxiT ki warmodgenili monografia sworedac rom Zalian saWiro da sasargeblo publikaciaa. Cemi mxridan vulocav aRniSnuli wignis gamocemas afxaz kolegas da vusurveb momaval warmatebebs. ist. doqtori zurab bragvaZe. 138 PAPERS IN ENGLISH Natela Jabua QUESTIONS OF SUCCESSION IN THE PRE-CHRISTIAN AND EARLY MEDIEVAL ARCHITECTURE OF GEORGIA The spread of Christianity occurred in different countries in different historical and cultural stages of their development. Consequently, each of them has taken their own way of mastering and coping with the new tasks in all areas, including architecture. From this point of view, it would be interesting to consider the example of Georgia and demonstrate interrelation between the pre-Christian (4th century BC - 3rd century AD) and the early medieval (4th-7th cent.) architecture. In the present paper, we are going to discuss only some questions of this difficult and multi-aspect topic. Georgia is a country of ancient civilization, where the process of origin and evolution of architecture dates back to the Period of Early Agricultural Culture (6th-4th millennia, BC). The favorable geographical and climatic conditions, the existence of a variety of construction materials provided necessary conditions for the continuous development of architecture on this territory. Lots of dwellings, burial mounds, megalithic fortreses, dolmens of various types and structures of some other purpose of use are found as a result of archaeological excavations. Although the state of preservation does not allow to present their architectural design in full, they still make it possible to create a general picture of the development of construction for thousands of years. More information about the historical and political situation and the varied factual material is available to us from the second half of the 1st millennium BC. The data on the pre-Christian architectural monuments in Georgia confirm the presence of the epoch-specific advanced architectural innovations, methods, and means which is indicative of quite high levels of development of architecture. Following Georgia’s conversion to Christianity in the 4th century, starts the qualitatively new stage in terms of historical, political, ideological or socioeconomic development – the early Middle Ages. It is associated with fundamental changes in different areas of culture and art, including architecture. In order to cope with new tasks in architecture, it was necessary to use new approaches and forms and introduce new rules. All of this should have been necessarily based on the current potential. Therefore, the point is to discuss the aforesaid questions so that to display the matters related to succession in a better way. It should be noted that, due to the geopolitical location of Georgia, one of the distinctive characteristics of its culture is the ability to absorb and process new information that has been developed for centuries as a result of continuous communication with the outer world. From this point of view, the possibilities provided by the multi-vector relationship in different epochs have had a beneficial impact on the development of culture and art. It enabled to use in architecture modern technical or architectural innovations, which was of great importance for maintaining a fairly high level of development. This feature was well demonstrated at the time of the adoption of Christianity when the requirements of the new religion were rapidly perceived. It is evidenced by the nature of architectural and artistic solutions of early churches and the construction of such a high-profile monument as Bolnisi Sioni (5th) or Mtskheta Jvari (end of 6th beginning of 7th cent.). It is also remarkable that Georgia had been in harmony with the process of formation of Christian architecture unlike the countries (e.g. Kiev’s Russia, Serbia), who adopted Christianity after centuries and shared from Byzantium well-developed architectural types or separate forms 140 and approaches. Thus, the fact itself, that the tasks of the new stage have been handled simultaneously and at a high level, can be interpreted as a demonstration of appropriate experience and inherited ability. Apart from the above-mentioned historical and cultural features specific for Georgia, the common properties are observed when comparing the architecture of pre-Christian and early Medieval epochs, both in approach to important architectural issues and in the use of individual forms and methods. As it is known, the building materials represent one of the most important components of the architecture. They define as the peculiarity of the structure, as their appearance and artistic expression. Georgia is characterized by the diversity of building materials. The use of a variety of stone dressing methods is observed in the pre-Christian era for different kinds of rock (sledged stone, finely or roughly processed quadrels, rusticated stone and boulder stone) as well as different settings (dry, dowel, adhesive mortar, etc.). All of this evidence good skill in respect of the use of these materials characterized by durable technical parameters and, at the same time, well suited for decorations. Thus, it is obvious that by the early Middle Ages there had been the broad experience of construction with the use of stone materials which was applied to resolve the challenges of this epoch. In the early Middle Ages stone was the main material for building various structures, including the churches. The wall structure, along with some of the construction methods has been altered through modification of the old mode and in accordance with the new challenges. It is noteworthy that in this period the stone material replaced mud brick, which had been used in Georgia since the Early Agriculture Period. One of the reasons for this was the extensive spread of lime mortar. The walls of raw brick were constructed in the pre-Christian times (e.g. Dedoplis Mindori) or raw brick on stone foundation or stone walls (such as the Tsikhiagora, Armaztsikhe), while from the early centuries mud brick becomes less common and this building material is almost no longer used since the early Middle Ages. The woodwork was widely spread especially in West Georgia. Colchis has always been distinguished for rich forests as it is indicated back in the works of Ancient Greek authors. The dwelling houses and defense structures were built of wood. It is noteworthy, that Vitruvius especially focuses on the description of the houses in Colchis in his famous DE ARCHITECTURA (Vitruvius, II.I.4). The so-called Jargvali-type log-houses, round log and log and plaster structures are observed as in pre-Christian, as in early Middle Ages and thereafter [Gamkrelidze 2002: 111-121]. Hence the construction of dwelling houses suited to local conditions has been continuously maintained through centuries. The roofing of the structures with clay tiles was introduced in the pre-Christian period. It is remarkable, that the use of the tiles continued up to the Middle Ages. The size and some details changed but the way of using clay tile roofing in buildings remained. Thus, the great experience of construction by stone or wooden materials accumulated in the pre-Christian period, and the possession of the appropriate methods and means had become the basis for the successful solution of new challenges in the early Middle Ages. Despite the poor state of preservation of the buildings of pre-Christian times, scarce information about their architectural types, it is possible to identify certain information not only of construction materials and a number of structural modes but of the architectural forms and plans of the buildings. This gives the possibility of defining the repertory of architectural forms at the beginning of the early Christian times, which could be used when fulfilling new tasks. 141 In the architecture of pre-Christian era we can observe the buildings with supports (e.g. the Armaztsikhe six-column building, the Dedoplis Mindori church, Vani church and others), rock foundations and capitals are also preserved (e.g.: Vani, Shiomghvime, Tsikhiagora, etc.), as well as the buildings with the apses (e.g. Armaztsikhe, Dzalisa) and vaulted roofing (Mtskheta entombment). These architectural forms discovered in different parts of Georgia as a result of archaeological excavations are saying a lot since they are indicative of their wide distribution in early Christian times. The results of archaeological discovery in eastern and western Georgia allow us to talk about the widespread use of supports with stone capitals and bases. Unfortunately, no fragments of the bodies of the columns have been found. Hence there is an assumption that they were wooden. The fact of constructing the buildings with supports both the civil (e.g. the Dzalisa palace) and the religious ones (e.g. Tsikhiagora, Dedoplis Mindori, the Vani temple) clearly demonstrates understanding of the principles of interrelation of the bearing and carried structures, or the expansion of internal space of the building with the aid of supports. This experience was brilliantly used in the architecture of early Middle Ages, especially in ecclesiastical architecture such as the basilicas or in-built cross-type churches. Unlike pre-Christian monuments, the supports in the buildings of early Middle Ages are entirely made of stone. There are observed the columns with classical capitals, as well as the supports of the cross, rectangular or T-shapes. The apse which in the Eastern Christian world was established as the main sacred part of the church – the altar was for the first time observed in the ancient Roman architecture. It is noteworthy that the same is also confirmed in Georgia of the pre-Christian era. A so-called six-apse temple was discovered in Armaztsikhe [Nikolaishvili 2011: 28-32]. Of course, no direct connection between the aforesaid building and the Christian temples, including the triconchs, tetraconchs, or multi-apse temples, is likely, but the fact itself of the existence of the building with the six-apse plan is noteworthy. It should be noted that the building with apses, presumably an administrative building [see Bokhochadze 1987: 27] was also discovered in Dzalisa ancient town. The apsidal arrangement is also observed in the central section of Dzalisa big basin’s all four sides. This form is also observed in the Roman baths confirmed in Georgia. As we can see, the method of building an apse-shaped structure and including it in the structural arrangement of the building is often used in pre-Christian Georgia. These experiences have definitely contributed to the use of apses in the temples from the beginning of the early Middle Ages and resulted in a scarcity of the monuments with rectangular altars. It is noteworthy that the first domed church dating to the 5th century is Manglisi [see Dvali 1974: 67] and is a tetraconch with a four-apse layout. It should be emphasized that the main difficulty of constructing apses in the monuments of early Middle Ages was the putting up of the conch. Unfortunately, the state of preservation of the monuments of the preChristian era does not allow to establish its existence in the apses (which does not refer to Dzalisa Basin), however, the existence of apsidal arrangement at the plan scale is doubtless. Information about the roofing of the pre-Christian buildings which is one of the most difficult and important issues from the architectural and constructive point of view is very limited, as the majority of the discovered monuments are preserved at the plan scale. However, in some cases, there is a possibility to make assumptions and we can talk about the existence of flattop roofing, while in case of discovering the tiles-about the sloping roofs. In the situation like this, it was especially valuable to discover the tomb with very well preserved roof near the Mtskheta Railway Station in 1951. The tomb has a semi-circular vault made of sandstone ashlars and gable roof covered with tile. This monument dating to the 1st century [see Matiashvili 2016: 35-39] clearly demonstrates the spread of vaulted roofing in Georgia and high level of construction activity 142 in Georgia of the pre-Christian era. The so-called caisson hall in Uplistsikhe which is an imitation of vaulted roofing makes this consideration even more credible [see Khakhutaishvili 1965: 12]. Taking into consideration that the rock-cut structures, as a rule, repeat the well-known and widespread forms, the fact of the prevalence of vaulted roofing in Georgia is apparent. This tradition continued in the early Middle Ages. In this regard, we have more information about church structures because they are better preserved. The data about the basilica with three naves is of particular interest [Jabua 2009: 57-60]. As it is known, in the western and eastern circles of the early Christian times the naves had a timber framing or vaulted roofing. The first type was spread in basilicas of both circles, while the second type, the vaulted roofing, is mostly found in the eastern circle countries. Among them is Georgia where all the monuments with preserved roofs have vaults. Thus, it is quite possible that such a large spread of vaulted roofing in early medieval basilicas is associated with the experience of pre-Christian times. The architectural forms and details of pre-Christian monuments are important not only for architectural and artistic aspects but in terms of establishing cultural links [ Kipiani 2000:85-90]. From this point of view, the different types of capitals are especially informative [Lezhava 1979: 9-15]. The discovery of Dorian (Sairkhe), Ionian (Sarkine) or Corinthian (Vani) capitals prove the connection with the Antiquity and the use of the order system. On the other hand, the twoprotomai (Tsikhiagora, Vani) and lotus form (Dedoplis Mindori) capitals speak of the existence of oriental influence. Apart from the capitals, there are some other details (e.g., acroterium, rain drain, fragments of decor, etc.), which confirm pre-Christian Georgia’s close cultural connections with and integration into the Hellenistic world. The influence of the Roman architecture is more evident [see Gamkrelidze 2012: 183-190], not only in the use of separate details (e.g. caissons) and methods but also in the spread of the Roman-type baths. They are constructed in various parts of Georgia, which proves the adequate assimilation of this difficult architectural and technical system. The West-East vector of influence was maintained in the early Middle Ages. The Western, Byzantine influence is particularly strong in Western Georgia and is observed as in brickwork (Opus mixtum), as in the classical capitals (Bichvinta, Vashnari basilicas), floor mosaic (Bichvinta basilica) and other architectural forms and approaches. At the same time, the tradition of centuries-old Oriental, particularly Iranian influences, has continued but weakened after the spread of Christianity. At this time, the interest of Iran in Georgia has not decreased, which is reflected in ideological and cultural attempts. All of this is reflected in various fields of culture, including architecture. In the pre-Christian times, the fire-worship temples in Tsikhiagora [Tskitishvili 2003:11-19], Dedoplis Mindori [Gagoshidze 1981:102-115] or Uplistsikhe [Khakhutaishvili 1965:12] showed the full effect of the influence, the influence of Sassanian Iran is for instance found in Bolnisi Sioni reliefs [Chubinashvili 1940:154-184] in the early Middle Ages. The trace of Oriental influence is seen in many aspects of Georgian architecture, which is a subject of special research and encompasses many interesting points. In this case, it should be pointed out that despite the preservation of the oriental influence, Georgia’s conversion to Christianity had defined more congeniality with the West, especially Byzantine, which was reflected in the art and architecture. This is primarily related to ecclesiastical architecture. Thus, Georgia of early Middle Ages had continued to exist under the conditions of multi-vector cultural relationship, which always promoted development. This happened in the early Middle Ages which is evidenced by the highly artistic monuments built as a result of active creative processes in the architecture of that period. The monuments of ecclesiastical architecture give the possibility to present the architecture 143 of the early Middle Ages in the best way as they are in a good state of preservation. Therefore, there is more data about their typological, architectural, constructive, artistic and expressive issues as compared with dwelling houses, fortifications, or other structures. However, there is no doubt that the secular architecture contains a wide variety of materials. The construction of towns in Georgia which dates back to the middle of the 1st millennium BC intensively continued in the pre-Christian times. The favorable natural conditions and variety of trade routes, the familiarization with the advanced construction approach through Greek and later Roman settlements on the Black Sea coast have largely contributed to the process. The results of archaeological excavations, as well as written sources, confirm the high level of urban life in Georgia. Strabo, for instance, writes: “Iberia is largely populated by towns and villages, there are tile roofs, houses are arranged architecturally, there are markets and etc.” [Strabo XI, III, 1, 2]. Mtskheta, Dzalisa, Uplistsikhe, Rustavi, Vani, Shorapani, Bichvinta and many other points there have been identified defensive systems, paved streets, civil and religious buildings of various purposes. All this highlights the high level of urban development. The epitaph found in Mtskheta - “Aureli Akolis, Architect and Chief Painter” - confirms the fact that there was a special position of the head of urban development, which evidences the significance of urban development in that period of time. It is therefore clear that by early Middle Ages there had been a very large and important construction and architectural potential in that field which was applied during the construction of new cities in Tbilisi, Ujarma and the others. The tradition of urban planning had been actively continued in the early Middle Ages. Speaking of the architectural and construction potential in Georgia of the early Middle Ages, special attention should be paid to understanding the relationship between the environment and internal spacing. The attitude towards these vital topics in Georgia has evolved over the centuries. It had become more orderly in the pre-Christian times and subsequently played a role in the formation of the medieval architectural features. The diversity of the landscape of Georgia is the factor that had greatly contributed to the actualization of the problem of linking the building with the environment and determined the existence of different options. Relevant approaches were developed for the residential buildings or for important architectural facilities in the lowland, highland, narrow gorges, on the sea coast or in other environments. The factual material confirms that the importance of selection of a place for settlement has been well understood back from the early agriculture period. According to the preserved monuments, it is clear that in the pre-Christian times the location of towns, settlements, or individual buildings was calculated and tailored to the peculiarity of the landscapes in view of many aspects. This centuries-old experience has become one of the essential features of the medieval Georgian architecture and is manifested in various housing sites, as well as in fortifications and monuments of religious or urban architecture. Architecture is an art of creating space, so the nature of the spatial resolution of interior space of the building greatly determines its artistic look. It is noteworthy that according to the preserved data, a tendency to the centered resolution of planning and internal space is observed in the architecture of the pre-Christian era. This approach originates from the old residences of 6th-5th millennia and appears as in the pre-Christian dwellings as in fire temples, Armaztsikhe six-apse and Vani temples and other buildings. It is noteworthy that in the Middle Ages this approach is found in ecclesiastical architecture as well. The three-nave basilicas are illustrative examples which in general have an elongated layout. These architectural patterns which are spread throughout the Christian world show in Georgia a tendency towards the shortening of the west-east axis and space centering [Jabua 2009:264-271]. This peculiarity is definitely related 144 to the local tradition. Thus, the review of some aspects of the relation of the pre-Christian and early Middle Ages architecture show that despite the fundamental historical, political or ideological difference, the architecture of Georgia on the eve of the epochs has successfully solved the challenges it faced based on the rich experience accumulated through centuries. Individual forms and approaches used in pre-Christian times have been transformed in accordance with new challenges. Old heritage and traditions have become the means of solving the relevant tasks of the early Middle Ages as well as the source for maintaining the identity. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Bokhochadze 1987: Bokhochadze Al. The Palace, the Building with Apce and the Swimming Pool Discovered on territory of Dzalisi, Dzeglis Megobari, 4, pp.25-30, Tbilisi, 1987, (in Georgian). Chubinasvili 1940: Чубинашвили Г. Болниси, Известия ГАИМК-а, Тбилиси, 1940. Dvali 1974: Dvali M. Manglisi, Тбилиси. 1974, (in Georgian). Gagoshidze 1981: Гагошидзе Ю. Из истории грузино-иранских в заимоотношений (храм II-I вв. до н.э.), сб. Кавказ и Средняя Азия в древности и средневековье), с.102-115, Москва, 1981. Gamkrelidze 2002 : Camkrelidze G. COLCHOLOGICAL ARTICLES, (Historical-Cultural Researches), II, Tbilisi, 2002, (in Georgian); http://dspace.nplg.gov.ge/handle/1234/11039 Gamkrelidze 2014: Gamkrelidze G., Archaeology of the Roman period of Georgia (Iberia-Colchis), (Essay and Catalog), Tb., 2014. http://dspace.nplg.gov.ge/handle/1234/40056?locale=en Khakhutaishvili 1965: Khakhutaishvili D. The Rock Cut Town, Tbilisi, 1965 (in Georgian). Kipiani 2000: Kipiani G. The Pagan Temples of Colchis and Iberia and the Problems of Origin of Georgian Christian Architecture, Tbilisi, 2000 (in Georgian). Lezhava 1979: Lezhava G. The Ancient Georgian Architectural monuments, Tbilisi, 1979 (in Georgian). Matiashvili 2016: Matiashvili N. Mtskheta Tomb, Tbilisi, 2016. Nikolaishvili 2011: Nikolaishvili V. Armaztsikhe The Royal Residence of the Kingdom of Kartli, Tbilisi, 2011. Tskitishvili 2003: Tskitishvili G. Tsikhiagora Temple Complex, Tbilisi, 2003 (in Georgian). Jabua 2009: Jabua N. Architectural Type of Three-nave Basilica in Georgia, Tbilisi, 2009 (in Georgian). 145 Paul Everill, Davit Lomitashvili, Nikoloz Murgulia, Ian Colvin, Besik Lortkipanidze FORTY SEASONS OF EXCAVATION: NOKALAKEVI-TSIKHEGOJI-ARCHAEOPOLIS Abstract. The ruins in the small village of Nokalakevi in Samegrelo, west Georgia, have attracted scholarly interest since the first half of the 19th century. They were first excavated in 1930, confirming their identification as the remains of the fortress of Archaeopolis mentioned in early Byzantine historical sources, and known as Tsikhegoji or ‘the triple-walled fortress’ by the Georgian chroniclers. The 40th season of excavation took place in 2015, part of an on-going collaboration between the Anglo-Georgian Expedition to Nokalakevi, established in 2001, and the S. Janashia Museum expedition to Nokalakevi, which started work on the site in 1973. The fortifications enclose a naturally defensible area of approximately 20ha, with a steep limestone river gorge to the north, west and (to a lesser extent) the south, and a hilltop citadel standing more than 200m above the lower town. The site has seen human activity since at least the 8th century BC, with indications of a much earlier presence in the area. This paper seeks to outline the key results of the 40 seasons of excavation, against the backdrop of the shifting political landscape of Georgia. Introduction. In 2015 the multi-period site of Nokalakevi in western Georgia hosted its 40th season of excavation. Situated in Samegrelo (Figure 1), 15km from the modern regional capital of Senaki, the ancient settlement was an important administrative and/ or military centre of Colchis and its successor states from the 8th century BC to the 8th century AD. Most famous today for the standing remains of the early Byzantine period fortress of Archaeopolis, the site would have commanded an important crossing point of the river Tekhuri (Figures 2 and 3), at the junction with a valuable strategic route that still winds through the neighbouring hills to Chkhorotsqu in central Samegrelo. Nokalakevi-Archaeopolis played a pivotal part in the major wars fought between the Byzantines and Sasanians in the South Caucasus during the sixth century AD. It was one of the key fortresses guarding Lazika (modern west Georgia) from Sasanian Persian and Iberian (East Georgian/ Kartlian) attack, and was part of a complex chain of forts and towers established along the northeastern frontier of the Byzantine Empire [Murgulia 2013; Colvin et al 2014]. During the war of AD 540-562, the Persians’ failure to take Nokalakevi-Archaeopolis from the Byzantines and their Laz allies eventually cost them control of Lazika. Semi-mythical accounts attribute the earliest fortification of the site to the Hellenistic-period, West Georgian ruler Kuji, from whom the site derives the Georgian name, Tsikhegoji (“the fortress of Kuji”). However, the earliest surviving fortifications at Nokalakevi date to the 4th century AD. They were strengthened in the 5th century, and significant additional fortifications were added in the 6th century AD, including a remodelling of defensive works around the eastern gate. The early Byzantine defensive fortifications of Nokalakevi-Archaeopolis are augmented by its topographic position (Figures 2 and 3) next to the river Tekhuri, which, to the west of the fortress, has carved a gorge through the limestone geology. Furthermore, the steep and rugged terrain to the north of the site made the citadel that was situated there largely unassailable. A wall connected this 146 ‘upper town’ to the ‘lower’ town below, meaning that a total area of approximately 20ha is contained within the fortifications. Occupation appears to have been focussed in the lower town, however, on relatively level ground between the steep slope of the Unagira ridge and the gorge of the Tekhuri (Figure 2 and 3). Excavations in the area of the lower town have revealed substantial stone buildings of the 4 to 6th century AD (Figure 4), including the extant Forty Martyrs’ Church – first built in the 6th century – and two phases of a 5th century church immediately to its south, visible today only as the foundations exposed by archaeological investigation. Immediately south of these foundations lies the ruin of a large stone-built building, interpreted as a palace, constructed around the beginning of the 6th century AD and converted into a wine-cellar in the 16th-17th centuries. A small vaulted, stone gatehouse, or bell-tower, lies approximately 25m east of, and centred on, the first church. The surviving walls along which it is located suggest that it was constructed as the entrance to the earliest ecclesiastical precinct. Other stone structures revealed over many years’ work in the lower town include: the remains of baths along the inside of the southern fortifications; a tunnel down to the river at the south-west of the site; a small bathhouse 35m east of the tunnel, apparently supplied by a cistern constructed up the slope, 50m to its northwest; and a rectangular building near the southeast of the area, which possibly housed the military commanders of the Byzantine and Laz garrison of the 5th/6th century. Excavations have also shed more light on the fortification works. This includes the protruding towers of the first wall, dated to the 4th century AD, made flush in the construction of the second phase in the 5th century, and the 6th century re-modelling that included moving the gate and changing the approach to it so as to prevent a frontal attack. Excavations in the upper town, or citadel, have revealed multiphase towers at the northwest and northeast of the fortifications, and another small gate and probable guardhouse in the southwest corner (Figure 4). th Beneath the early Byzantine period structures and layers of the lower town is evidence of several earlier phases of occupation and abandonment from the 8th to 1st centuries BC, which includes a substantial Hellenistic period (4th to 1st centuries BC) settlement and necropolis. Current evidence from OSL dating of ceramics indicates a prehistoric origin for settlement at the site, which is hardly surprising given the wealth of resources and easily-defendable character of the topography. Whatever the early origins of settlement at Nokalakevi, by the 8th/7th century BC there was clearly a significant population engaged in complex ritual activity unique to the region. Double-headed zoomorphic figurines (Figure 5) dating to this period have only been found at Nokalakevi and at Vani, 40km to the southeast in Imereti. These finds indicate a unified socio-cultural system that spanned the Colchian plain. The settlement appears to have become more substantial in the Early Antique period (6th/5th centuries BC), continuing to grow in the Hellenistic period, before the Laz kings and their Byzantine allies built the mighty fortifications at Nokalakevi that can still be seen today. The Swiss philologist Dubois de Montpéreux (1839), was the first to associate the walls of Nokalakevi with the Byzantine period fortress of Archaeopolis – though he also erroneously concluded that it had been built on the ruins of the Colchian city of Aea – and his sketch of the Forty Martyrs’ Church, surrounded by the decaying walls of the lower town (Figure 6), is the earliest known image of the site. Madame Carla Serena was among the western travellers attracted to the ruins, most likely, by Dubois de Montpéreux’s account and her descriptions of the area in 147 the mid-1870s are particularly informative. She describes the difficulty of getting to Nokalakevi in the years before she visited, as a result of the marshes by then made passable by a new road from Senaki; and the often fast-flowing Tekhuri river, being bridged at the time of her visit. Having reached the site she wrote: “As for other quite numerous ruins to be seen inside the present city, they are, it would seem, the remains of houses and churches. At the central point of the hill arises a spacious gateway, the only one that affords entry to the city, the dressed stones of which it is constructed are so massive that you ask yourself how, without the aid of machinery, these gigantic blocks could be transported.” [Serena 2015: 22]. Serena concludes her description by writing, “The thickly wooded mountain, teeming with game, which dominates these ruins is known as Mount Unagira. An excellent lunch, washed down with champagne, was offered to me at the foot of these venerable ruins, the philosophic visions of the past were thus agreeably combined with the legitimate enjoyment of the present moment.” [Serena 2015: 22]. The first archaeological excavations in Nokalakevi took place from the end of November 1930 to the end of January 1931, and were funded by the Emergency Association of German Science (Der Notgemeinschaft der Deutschen Wissenschaft) in collaboration with the National Education Commission for the Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic and the Museum of Georgia in Tbilisi [Kirchhoff 2003: 338]. The museum had been founded, in 1852, as the Museum of the Caucasian Department of the Geographic Society. It became the Caucasian Museum in 1865 and then, in 1919, during Georgia’s three year independence between the overthrow of Tsarist rule and the Soviet occupation, the Museum of Georgia. It was renamed once more in 1947 in tribute to the Georgian historian S. Janashia. In 2004 the S. Janashia Museum of Georgia, by then an important tourist attraction in Tbilisi and a curatorial organisation in its own right, became a constituent element of the new Georgian National Museum, as part of the modernising of cultural heritage organisations after the bloodless Rose Revolution. Throughout the 40 seasons of excavation since 1930 the museum (as the Museum of Georgia, the Janashia Museum, or the Georgian National Museum) has been one of the few constants. This paper is the first to summarise the results of those 40 seasons and, in doing so, considers them in their shifting socio-political context. Season One: The First Nokalakevi Expedition. The plans for the trial excavations in 1930, a collaboration between Weimar German and Soviet Georgian specialists, were conceived by Joseph Sauer of the Deutsches Archäologisches Institut following his visit to the region in 1929. Sauer’s friendship with Friedrich Schmidt-Ott of the Notgemeinschaft proved exceptionally useful and funding was provided for Sauer’s student, Alfons Maria Schneider, to undertake the work [Arnold 1999] with the support of Georgian specialists Levan Muskhelishvili and Giorgi Gozalishvili. Gozalishvili [1981: 243-248] noted that Giorgi Chubinashvili and Shalva Nutsubidze had presented an exhibition in Germany at the beginning of November 1930, and accompanied Schneider to Georgia on their return. Schneider and Gozalishvili arrived in Senaki on the 24th November, where they met local authorities before moving on to Nokalakevi. After six weeks’ of excavation, excluding days lost to winter weather [Muskhelishvili 1987: 292], the excavation was concluded by 27th January 1931 when they gave a presentation to local authorities in Senaki, before leaving for Zugdidi the following day. During this first season, the team of archaeologists and workmen traced the line of the fortifi- 148 cation walls, and excavated a number of towers and, to the east of the Forty Martyrs Church, an area Schneider interpreted as the ancient ‘agora’ – now believed to be the walls and bell tower of the 5th/ 6th century ecclesiastical complex. They appear to have excavated 22 test pits during their field season, though the location of them is not precisely recorded in the notebooks kept by the excavators. Research is currently being undertaken in the original Georgian and German archives to shed more light on the work of this expedition. According to the only published work to be produced at the time, Schneider concluded from the, rather slim, archaeological evidence that there is no evidence available at all that the place was already inhabited in pre-Roman times. The earliest which demonstrably survives is a little settlement on the western slope of the acropolis, which must be ascribed to sometime after the early Roman Iron Age, based on meagre finds of potsherds. [Schneider 1931: 354] He argued that in the 4th century AD a large city with strong fortifications sprang up on the site, the Tsikhegoji of the Georgian chronicles [Kartlis tskhovreba]. These original fortification walls were, in his opinion, destroyed by an earthquake at the end of the 6th century AD and rebuilt at the end of the 6th or the beginning of the 7th century. According to Schneider, these new walls were damaged by another earthquake and repaired with cobbles, though he was unaware that there were actually three walls. Schneider believed that the cultural layer contained 4th to 8th century AD pottery. Furthermore, a hoard of 23 gold coins (Figure 7) of the Emperor Maurice (582-602 AD) was found in one of the towers. Schneider’s expedition was the first to excavate a burial at Nokalakevi, which was found to the north of the Forty Martyrs Church beyond the precinct wall. It contained two small ceramic jugs, two bronze bracelets, five beads of glass-like paste and an irregularly shaped piece of bronze sheet. Schneider dated this burial to the 2nd or 3rd century AD, though the description of the grave goods certainly sound far more typical of those of the Hellenistic period that have been excavated since. Seasons Two to Twenty One: The Nokalakevi Expedition under the Georgian SSR. There was no further archaeological excavation at Nokalakevi for a generation, though after the Second World War the standing remains were occasionally the subject of survey work or architectural analysis. The second season of excavation was not until 1968, with a handful of testpits opened by the West Georgian Exploratory Archaeological Expedition, directed by G. Grigolia [Grigolia et al 1973]. Grigolia’s team returned in 1971 and, in the process of excavating further test pits, unearthed a Hellenistic period pot burial with an associated bronze bracelet [Grigolia et al 1972]. This was the first burial to be discovered in a large ceramic vessel, a pithos, at Nokalakevi. A second was found in 1974, and six more between 1975 and 1977. Further examples were excavated between 1978 and 1988, however the majority of graves in the vast Hellenistic period necropolis, later dissected by the eastern fortifications, were flexed in humations. The burial ground was interpreted, according to Gvinchidze [1988: 25], as representing three chronological phases: 1. Inhumations containing tightly flexed burials, dating tothe end of the 4thto the middle of the 3rd century BC; 2. Pithos (large ceramic vessels) graves, dating to the middle of the 3rdto the end of the 2nd century BC; 3. Inhumations containing moderately flexed burials, dating tothe end of the 2ndto the end of the 1st century BC; 149 Twenty further Hellenistic burials were found between 2003 and 2010, and while none were within a pithos they did includecremation burials; jar/ dergi burials; and amphora burials, none of which had previously been identifiedin Nokalakevi. Concerted efforts to study and conserve the site (Figure 8) began with the fourth season of excavation in 1973, when the Department of Medieval Archaeology of the S. Janashia Museum of Georgia in Tbilisi established a Nokalakevi Expedition, led by P. Zakaraia and N. Lomouri. From 1973 until 1990 (Seasons Four to Twenty One of work at Nokalakevi) the annual excavations were well funded by the relevant agencies of the Georgian SSR. The budget from the Academy of Sciences increased from 5000 Roubles for excavation in 1973 to 75000 Roubles by 1990; and from 40000 Roubles (from the Department of Monument Preservation of the Ministry of Culture) for restoration and conservation of the standing remains in 1974, to 200000 Roubles by 1990. This significant sum, totalling 275000 Roubles (approximately 200000 US$) a year by 1990, enabled six-month-long field seasons of excavation and conservation. The results of the excavations from 1973 to 1989 were published in three volumes in the 1980s and 90s [Zakaraia 1981; 1987; 1993]. In 1973 and 74 work, reported in Zakaraia (1981), was focused on the initial assessment of the archaeological remains, which revealed a large bathhouse along the southern wall of the fortifications and the south end of a large stone-built building, interpreted as a palace (Figure 9). Excavations revealed that the latter had been constructed around the beginning of the 6th century AD and was converted into a wine-cellar in the 16th-17th centuries. The east gate was investigated and it was confirmed that the city had not only a ‘land’ gate but a ‘river’ gate as well. The former was the arched gateway in the east wall of the city, while the latter was actually a tunnel running down to the river at the western end of the lower town. In 1975 and 76 the excavation of the eastern fortifications continued, and this revealed that there were actually three parallel defensive walls [Zakaraia 1981]. The inner wall was constructed of dressed limestone blocks and was preserved in places to a height of up to 4 metres. This wall was reinforced by square protruding towers, of which two protected the gate house and one situated half way up the hill slope protected the lower fortifications from being overtopped. A second wall was subsequently constructed between, and flush with, these protruding towers. Later excavations, in the 1990s and early 2000s, revealed that the first wall has a very substantial foundation; however the second wall lacks any proper foundations, its wide base resting close to the surface and its upper levels tapering. The third wall, of large ashlar blocks, was clearly added last. The excavators dated the first wall to the 4th century AD, the second to the turn of the 4th and 5th centuries, and the third to the end of the 5th or the early 6th century. At the end of 1974 work was begun on the construction of a building for the management of the Nokalakevi State Farm, which now houses the local museum. This was situated 100 metres to the east of the lower terrace fortifications. An archaeological watching brief on the work recorded a pot burial at the point of convergence of the trenches dug for the foundations of the north and the east walls [Zakaraia 1981]. Further excavations in this area in the following years, up to 1977, revealed 24 more graves belonging to an ancient cemetery. Of these, two inhumations date back to the 5th or the middle of the 3rd centuries BC; six pot burials to the middle of the 3rd or to the 2nd century BC [Zakaraia 1981]. During the 1973-1976 excavations, work was confined to the lower terrace of the fortress, 150 on the area above the Tekhuri river. In 1977, however, the completion of a road to the top of the mountain allowed the expedition to start excavations in the citadel. Work began with the clearing of the towers in the fortification wall of fallen masonry. A number of articles in the first volume of reports from Nokalakevi-Archaeopolis are devoted to publishing the most important archaeological materials recovered between 1973-1977 [Abdushelishvili and Tsiuma 1981; Gvinchidze 1981; Kaukhchishvili 1981; Lekvinadze and Khvedelidze 1981]. Coin finds belong almost exclusively to the late 5th-early 7th centuries AD (these are Byzantine coins of the Emperors Anastasius to Maurice 491-602AD). Metalwork found between 1973 and 1977 includes a variety of military and domestic artefacts [Zakaraia 1981]. The most interesting find was a significant portion of a bronze ‘choros’ (a light hanging introduced in Byzantine domed churches from the 7th century) with a cruciform personal monogram reading ‘Evstrat’, and another inscription reading ‘OEOTOKE’ (meaning Virgin), which was found in the two-storey palace. Between 1978 and 1987 work continued both in the upper citadel and on the lower terrace [Zakaraia 1987; 1993]. The remains of two churches were fully exposed in the central part of the lower town near the Forty Martyrs Church (Figure 9). The first of these was dated to the middle or the second half of the 4th century. It is rectangular in plan, with a semi-circular apse at its east end. It was replaced by a large, three-aisled basilica erected directly over it in the middle of the 5th century. This was in turn destroyed after which another aisled basilica was built to its north. This, the extant Forty Martyrs Church, appears to have undergone several phases of repair and extension during the middle ages, finally becoming a domed church [Kapanadze 1987]. Two other new buildings were discovered in the lower terrace during this period. In the southeastern part of the site, near the fortification walls, the stone foundations were uncovered of a rectangular building, which possibly housed the military commanders of the Byzantine and Laz garrison of the 5th/6th century. The foundations of another building – a small basilica with an apse situated to the west of the Forty Martyrs church – has been interpreted as a baptistery. Work also continued in the upper citadel, including excavations in the multi-phased towers at the northwest and the east end of the fortified area atop the hill. In the southwest corner of the citadel another small gate was discovered, and clearance along the southern citadel wall provided a clearer indication of the manner in which the fortification had been laid out. In 1990, with Georgian independence from the Soviet Union on the horizon, limited archaeological excavation took place at three sites. The first was located to the west of the lower town, about 50m north of the tunnel that provided secure access to the Tekhuri. Excavations at this location revealed a square building orientated northwest-southeast, the southwest wall of which was 26.5m long. The walls that run northeast from this survived to a length of 7m, were 1.2m thick and not more than 1.5m in height. The walls define an area of more than 100 cubic metres. The main southwest wall includes two pipes which extend the full width of the wall, and together with hydraulic mortar led to the building being interpreted as a reservoir which supplied water to a 5th/ 6th century AD bathhouse 70m to the south, down a steep slope. Excavation of deposits within the building produced archaeological material from various periods, some of which was present as a result of colluvial movement including Hellenistic pottery, and two sherds of pottery dated to the 9th-11th centuries AD. In the same year work took place on some of the interior fortifications located in the southeast of the lower town, near the first palace. Surviving walls were conserved to prevent their collapse, 151 and a small excavation associated with this work produced only two small sherds of pot and two sherds of amphorae dated to the 4th-6th centuries AD. Excavations also began to the northeast of the ‘bell tower’. As is the case with much of the lower town, particularly at its northern edge where the terrace meets the bottom of the steep slope to the north, there was a great deal of mixing of material resulting from colluvial movement. For this reason fragments of pipe-handled vessels from the 6th-4th centuries BC were found in the same contexts as Hellenistic-period beads and ceramic, and glass and metal wares dating to the Early Byzantine period. Excavations from 1973 to 1990 in the eastern and central part of the lower terrace produced finds from the main periods of occupation of Nokalakevi, namely the 8th - 7th centuries BC; the Early Antique (6th/5th centuries BC), and Hellenistic (4th-1st centuries BC) periods; and the 4th - 6th centuries AD. Finds of the 8th-7th centuries BC include a variety of precious and semi-precious stones relating to bead-manufacture; evidence of metal-working; and the discovery of a large number of fragmentary, double-headed zoomorphic figurines (Figure 5). Occupation of the site appears to have been particularly intensive during the 6th - 4th centuries BC, with ceramic finds from this period representing a range of typical domestic wares - sherds of pithoi, cooking pots, jugs, bowls, drinking vessels etc. The numerous finds of the 4th - 6th centuries AD, unearthed between 1973 and 1989, included local imitations of Roman and Byzantine red slip ware. Evidence of on-going occupation of the site, though on a smaller scale, was found in the form of two distinct groups of later ceramic: one group with deep dimples and incisions made in the thicker elements (for example the base and handles) before firing; the second group made of white clay, with hard, thin walls and a burnished surface. Some examples were decorated with patterns in red slip. Both groups of late pottery are dated stylistically to the 7th - 11th centuries AD [Lekvinadze 1987]. Relatively few coins were found during the excavations that took place between 1973-1989 and, apart from the famous hoard from “Schneider’s tower” (Figure 7), this is true of most of the archaeological investigations at Nokalakevi, though individual coins of Hadrian (117-138), and Constantius Chlorus (293-306) or Constantine the Great (306-337) were found. Colchian ‘tetri’ of the 4th century BC constitute the bulk of the numismatic material found at Nokalakevi. Byzantine coins - reflecting the political, economic and military relations between Lazika and Byzantium were also found in small numbers, as were West Georgian ‘kirmaneuli’, the standard currency in the 13th to 15th centuries. There were also finds of Turkish coinage, evidence of the expansion of Ottoman influence into the area [Abramishvili 1987, 1993]. Seasons Twenty Two to Twenty Five: A difficult decade. During the difficult period that followed Georgian independence from the Soviet Union in 1991 there was little continuity, with only four seasons of excavation (between 1995 and 1998) undertaken at Nokalakevi in the years immediately following Georgian independence. These were generally small archaeological investigations undertaken by Janashia Museum staff, often unpaid and with little or no institutional support. Work in this period included continued excavation in the trench northeast of the bell tower. Excavation through the mixed colluvial deposits produced very interesting archaeological material - including sherds of pitchers, pots, amphorae, jugs and other ceramic vessels; military weapons; and a Byzantine coin. Some conservation work took place in 1994, but with a greatly reduced budget and challenging political situation, a great deal more ingenuity was required. Senior army officers from the Senaki barracks were 152 persuaded to supply soldiers to help with the work that was undertaken that year. In 1995 small investigations took place towards the west of the lower terrace, on agricultural land to the north of the expedition dig house. This part of Nokalakevi had been virtually unstudied yet, while cultivating the ground, locals had unearthed dressed limestone indicating a nearby building. Initial work involved the digging of test pits, which produced no structural evidence. As a result it was initially interpreted as a processing area for building material, however the results of further investigation in 1996 added some further credence to the notion that a building was located nearby. The focus of excavation in 1996 was on the Hellenistic necropolis situated in the eastern half of the later town, and extending east of the extant walls. Work here in the early 1980s had revealed a significant number of graves. A single trench was opened, and no further graves were found. Being located at the bottom of the steep slope, archaeological layers were shown to be subject to the same colluvial movement that had produced very mixed upper layers in other areas of Nokalakevi. Seasons Twenty Six to Forty: The Anglo-Georgian Expedition to Nokalakevi (AGEN). By the end of the 1990s, initial discussions were already underway between the Nokalakevi team at the Janashia Museum and British specialists about establishing a collaborative expedition, and 2001 witnessed the first season of the Anglo-Georgian Expedition to Nokalakevi (kartul-inglisuri ekspeditsia nokalakevshi). AGEN was conceived in discussions between Ian Colvin (a Byzantine historian attached to Cambridge University) and Prof. Davit Lomitashvili (then at the S. Janashia Museum and now Deputy Director of the National Agency for Cultural Heritage Preservation of Georgia). Co-founders and project directors for that first season also included Dr Besiki Lortkipanidze (a leading Georgian historian and now curator of the Parmen Zakaraia Nokalakevi Architectural-Archaeological Museum-Reserve) and Nick Armour (a field archaeologist with the Cambridge Archaeological Unit). In 2002, Dr Nino Kebuladze (Head of Restoration at the S. Janashia Museum), Dr Paul Everill (a field archaeologist, now Senior Lecturer in Applied Archaeological Techniques at the University of Winchester), and Benjamin Neil (osteoarchaeologist with the Cambridge Archaeological Unit) joined the staff, with Dr Nikoloz Murgulia (now of the S. Janashia Museum) joining the following year. Excavating every year since 2001, 2015 was the 15th season of Anglo-Georgian collaboration and the 40th season of excavation at Nokalakevi. An edited monograph, reporting the results of the first ten seasons of AGEN’s work, was published in 2014 [Everill 2014]. A short-lived Georgian-Swiss expedition excavated in Nokalakevi in 2006 and 2007, however the continuity in terms of specialists involved and the concurrence of the work means that these excavations are not considered as additional seasons. Trench A. The expedition’s first trench was opened on the 18th July 2001 and originally measured 9m x 10m, including an area to its southeast that had previously been opened along the inner wall in 1995. It was extended to its final size of 13m east-west x 13.5m north-south in 2004. The trench was orientated parallel to the fortification walls and was situated about 5m to the north of the main, eastern, gate - immediately to the west of the 6th century AD steps and their associated foundations. The 2001 season (and the extension of the trench during the 2004 season) encountered 153 modern overburden, containing very mixed deposits including finds from the Hellenistic period through to the 20th century. Directly underlying these deposits were large sections of masonry that had fallen from the fortification walls sealing the underlying deposits, testament to the longterm degradation of the standing Byzantine remains once they had ceased to be maintained. Underneath the masonry, deposits relating to various phases of wall construction from the 4th to the 6th centuries AD were revealed, along with associated occupation. Somewhat surprisingly, though perhaps providing evidence of ground clearance at the time of the Laz/ early Byzantine fortification of the site, Hellenistic period (4th - 1st centuries BC) burials were revealed from 2003 onwards, directly underlying the earliest of these deposits. These burials included flexed inhumations with associated jewellery, cremations and inhumations within amphorae and cooking vessels. Evidence suggests that the Hellenistic period was a time of great change at Nokalakevi, with structures dating to that time stratigraphically underlying the burials, though physically very close. This may indicate a shift in the focus of the settlement in those centuries and absolute dating techniques may, in the future, further clarify the temporal relationship between these phases, as further excavations elsewhere at the site shed more light on settlement foci. Early Antique period deposits (6th-4th centuries BC) were revealed from 2010, and the impression from the structural evidence for the 6th-5th/ 4th centuries BC is largely one of continuity into the Hellenistic period. The orientation and alignment of the walls certainly suggests that occupation of the site continued into the Hellenistic period, but more noteworthy is the notion that some of the structures, or at least phases of them, may have overlapped. The presence of a bronze scale of 6th-4th centuries BC armour and Attic pottery in one layer, at a time when the Black Sea coast was being settled by Greek traders, represents an interesting indication of the significant inland trade of Greek goods. The 8th/7th centuries BC are also well-represented in Nokalakevi, and Trench A provided further evidence for this period. It is interesting to note, in light of the discovery of an early palaeochannel underlying the archaeological deposits, that no structures or graves were found, but that the deposits seemed primarily related to ritual activity – in particular the significant numbers of broken double-headed zoomorphic figurines. Given that this must have been very wet ground for a considerable period after the palaeochannel had filled, with groundwater continuing to move down it as the expedition’s own recent experience in Trench A testifies, it seems entirely plausible that this was a rather liminal area in the 8th/7th centuries BC – i.e. marshy ground on the edge of the habitable area higher up the slope. It seems reasonable to suggest that these two aspects are in fact related, and that the Early Iron Age inhabitants of Nokalakevi were deliberately destroying, or sacrificing, the zoomorphic figurines prior to their deposition at the edge of, or in, the marshy ground. This kind of water-/ marsh-edge rituality is well-documented elsewhere (including examples such as the fens of East England, where traditions of ritual deposition emerge by the late Bronze Age and continue for many centuries [Rogers 2013]; and the bogs of Northern Europe) and it may well explain the pattern of archaeological evidence observed in the lower deposits in Trench A. The Trench was finally excavated down to natural in summer 2016, with 3.5m of stratified deposits revealing the full extent of human activity in the area. Trench B. The second trench was opened on the 21st August 2002 and originally measured 7.5m x 7.5m. It was extended to its final size of 7.5m east-west x 20m north-south in 2003. It was situated 30 154 metres to the north east of the Forty Martyrs Church, which was first constructed in the 6th century AD and still serves as the main church for the modern settlement of Nokalakevi. Elements of the ecclesiastical precinct wall survive above ground to the south and west of the trench, along with a small square building with arches and a vaulted ceiling ten metres to the south. This would historically have served as an entrance to the precinct, and is used as a makeshift bell tower by the current church authorities. Trench B was located on the northern edge of the ‘lower town’ of historic Nokalakevi, where flatter ground gives way to the steep hillside to the north, immediately west of the small trench first opened in 1990. Archaeologically, Trench B was sealed by a number of thick layers representing several episodes of colluvial movement. The upper layers contained a very mixed assortment of finds – plastic and metalwork dating from the second half of the 20th century; 19th century pottery and metalwork; Byzantine pottery and glass and Hellenistic pottery. Photographs of the area around the site, taken in the 1960s and 1970s, show the hillside to the north under low shrub, rather than mature trees like today. Schneider recorded the line of the fortification walls and some of his plans show the cemetery walls still clearly above ground at this point. Putting these facts together suggests that the hillside was cleared of vegetation to allow further investigation and this resulted in a substantial quantity of material from the hill being deposited around the area of Trench B in the last 70 years. If the tree-felling was for the benefit of, or resulting from the work of, the first archaeologist to excavate in Nokalakevi, it is ironic that these actions appear to have ultimately led to the burial of the walls and the creation of a new archaeological record. Its areas of principal archaeological interest can be summarised as follows: 1. A Christian cemetery first established in the early Byzantine period (about the 5th/6th century AD), revealed in the southwest corner of the trench. This produced 37 burials in excavations from 2002-2005 and 2009-2012, with two further partial burials revealed beyond the crude wall which apparently defines the cemetery enclosure. This wall measures between 0.8m and 0.92m wide, with a maximum surviving height of 1m. It was constructed from a mixture of riverstone; large, natural limestone boulders; and small, dressed limestone blocks, possibly robbed from the first two phases of fortification wall (4th–5th century AD). It also includes one large, dressed limestone block, presumably robbed from the final, early Byzantine (6th century AD) phase of fortifications, as a cornerstone at the outside northeast corner. This indicates that the cemetery wall must certainly post-date the late-6th century, though it is not known precisely when the fortifications ceased to be maintained. The requirement to preserve the wall precluded the archaeological assessment of directly underlying layers, but it seems likely that it was constructed no earlier than the 17th century, possibly replacing an earlier boundary. The intercutting nature of many of the burials, combined with associated 5th/6th century AD material culture in some graves, and the apparent survival of coffin timber in one other appear to suggest that the cemetery was in use from the early Byzantine period through to the 20th century - with the intensity of its use reflecting the periods of growth and decline of the settlement. All bar three burials appear to have been laid out in a standard Christian manner, with the three – two adults and a neonate – being orientated north-south (feet to the south) in a supine position, and may represent a socially liminal family group buried at the northeast corner of the cemetery. 2. A Hellenistic period clay and timber structure and associated deposits located towards the north of the trench. Somewhat surprisingly these remains were sealed by a series of substan- 155 tial colluvial layers. This underscores the oddity of the apparent absence of layers from the first three centuries AD at the site, and perhaps also indicates that settlement in the early Byzantine period was not as dense as might have been expected. However, a series of absolute dates for the sequence, to be obtained during future investigations, will allow for more detail to be applied in future analyses. The method of construction can be inferred from the small area of the building exposed, and is consistent with the evidence of analogous buildings revealed from 2006 onwards in Trench A. It involved the laying of an unbonded line of large limestone blocks as a foundation, or sill, onto which was placed a wooden beam or beams. Upright posts measuring approximately 0.1m in diameter, such as the ones found as charcoal, or as impressions in pieces of daub, were fixed to this horizontal beam. A wattle and daub wall was constructed on this framework. There was no archaeological evidence for the roofing material, which is most likely to have been wooden shingles or thatch. To the south of the building a large yard surface, formed of a dense layer of angular limestone pebbles and cobbles, was found. The cemetery area was excavated down to natural deposits in 2012, with the area north of the cemetery wall excavated from 2003-2005; and then from 2010-2014. Trench B was finally completed towards the start of the 2014 season. This was the first of the recent trenches to expose natural deposits, which, in this part of the lower terrace, consisted of a very firm reddish brown clay. The first archaeological deposit overlying this was colluvial in character, with a substantial quantity of angular limestone cobbles. The material culture retrieved from it included worked flint, the butt end of a polished stone tool with a drilled hole for the haft, and pottery that was OSL-dated to the Bronze Age. Trench C. Following the completion of Trench B, Trench C was opened on the 3rd July 2014 and measured 5m x 5m. It was situated 9.5 metres to the west of the current Dig House, which was first constructed as the Director’s house around 1977. Elements of the original Dig House, such as concrete steps and the north wall of the ground floor where it also served as revetment against the slope, survived to the east and north of the trench. This building was originally constructed as the village hospital towards the end of the 19th century, or early in the 20th century, and appears in photographs taken by D. Gozalishvili during the 1930-31 expedition. The excavation of Trench C allowed for the first investigation of the western end of the ‘lower town’ with modern techniques. The results were not dissimilar to those observed in Trench B and are revealing as much for what is absent as what its present. Aside from the fascinating opportunity to excavate the material remains of the expedition’s Soviet-period precursor, those upper layers underlying the dig house were colluvial sediments, containing mixed material culture, including OSL dated ceramics from the Hellenistic to perhaps as late as the 12th century AD. As was the case in the north part of Trench B, the first in situ ancient remains, observed in 2015, were a wall sill/ base formed of unbonded limestone blocks. Underlying this, with further parallels to Trench B, was a minimum of one metre of colluvial sediments overlying a primary archaeological layer containing ceramic, OSL-dated to the Bronze Age, but no related structural evidence. The trench was completed in the last few days of the 2015 season. Trench D. The expedition’s fourth area of activity involved archaeological work in and around the Forty Martyrs’ Church, which took place from 25th August to the 12th September 2014. It followed a 156 request from Bishop Shio (Mujiri) of the Senaki and Chkhorotsqu Diocese of the Patriarchate of Georgia for the investigation of certain elements of the site, and the work was undertaken by a small team after the main field season had been completed. The work was funded by the National Agency for Cultural Heritage Preservation of Georgia, and undertaken by members of the Anglo-Georgian Expedition to Nokalakevi utilising the expedition’s established excavation and recording methodology. Trench D in fact consisted of two foci (the south nave and the south porch) which were unified into one area of investigation during the excavation. Concurrent with the excavation inside the church, an examination of the Dadiani family crypt against the external north wall was also undertaken to assess condition. The archaeological work within the church was primarily intended to evaluate the survival of evidence relating to the Church’s dedication to the Forty Martyrs and revealed a grave in the south porch which had been capped by rows of round pilae, presumably reused from the ancient bathhouse. Although the pilae had been disturbed by the digging of a small modern pit, perhaps for the purpose of concealing a silver icon frame from the Bolsheviks, it seemed likely that they originally consisted of four rows of ten pilae referencing the Forty Martyrs. The porch had been thought to date to the 16th or 17th centuries, however the skeleton was associated with a distinct type of buckle. The closest Georgian analogy was with buckles discovered in Samtavro, which are similar to Avarian types and are dated to the 7th century AD. The buckle found in Nokalakevi was even more similar to the buckles discovered in the Volga Federal District, in the cemetery of the earlier Bulgarians, and these are dated to between the 8th century and the 10th century AD. Consequently the burial has been dated broadly to the 7th-10th centuries AD and, while the porch may have been constructed over an earlier tomb, it seems more likely that it was integral to this structure and that the porch itself is far earlier than previously thought. Trench E. The fifth trench was first opened in 2015 and measured 10m north-south x 9m east-west. The trench was orientated parallel to, and 30m from, the eastern fortifications and was therefore not on a true north-south alignment. An open area trench was opened at this location to investigate properly the results of a small test trench that had been excavated outside the walls in 2006. This original trench had revealed archaeological layers indicating the presence of a significant defensive ditch, but the small size of the trench itself made it impossible to draw conclusions. At the time of writing work is ongoing in Trench E. Trench F. The most recent trench was opened at the start of the 41st season, in 2016. It was located at the northern edge of the old Trench B, with the express purpose of properly investigating the Hellenistic period structure observed there in 2005. Initially measuring 10m east-west x 5m north-south, Trench F revealed a continuation of the east-west wall line as well as further walls north of the original Trench B, again indicated by lines of unbonded limestone blocks. Further work is required in order to fully understand the various wall alignments, however early indications are of a series of overlying phases of construction and occupation at the base of the slope, above the lower terrace. Conclusions The site of Nokakalevi has been well-studied since the first archaeological investigations in 1930, and yet the size and complexity of the site means that a great deal more needs to be done. 157 Looking at the results of the significant excavations from 1973 onwards, the story of Nokalakevi appears to be one that begins in the Bronze Age with limited human activity but, as yet, no evidence for actual settlement of the site. The first indication of more significant human presence appears in the 8th/ 7th centuries BC, with concerted ritual activity. This included, most notably, the deliberate breaking and deposition of double-headed zoomorphic figurines at the edge of the habitable area where it bordered a waterlogged, possibly marshy, space on the eastern lower terrace. However, to date no structures have been identified from this period and it is possible that this evidence will be found further up the slope. From the 6th century BC, possibly reflecting more favourable climatic conditions that also saw the flourishing of the Kingdom of Colchis, there is ample evidence of settlement on Nokalakevi’s lower terrace, and this continues through the Hellenistic period. There is sparse evidence of activity at the site in the first three centuries AD, before it became an important regional centre in the 4th century. For the following three centuries it was a key military fortification of the Kingdom of Lazika, with the final phase of walls and towers being constructed to accommodate a combined Laz and Byzantine garrison in the 6th century AD. It is unclear exactly when the fortifications slipped into disrepair. They may have been slighted during Byzantine-Persian warfare at the beginning of the 7th century or – according to Georgian historical sources – by Arab invaders in the early 8th century. Archaeological work at Nokalakevi will continue, as the current expedition and our successors shed more light on the fascinating history of the site. As methods evolve, and scientific techniques become more precise, we can only imagine what details might emerge over the next 40 seasons of excavation. Acknowledgements. The authors wish to gratefully acknowledge the important contribution made to our understanding of the site by those specialists who came before us. We would also like to extend our thanks to all those who have participated in excavations at Nokalakevi, particularly to the more than 200 students from Georgia, Britain and elsewhere who have taken part in the Anglo-Georgian Expedition since 2001. AGEN is especially grateful to the British Institute at Ankara, and the British Academy Black Sea Initiative, which helped fund our early seasons. 158 BIBLIOGRAPHY: Abdushelishvili, M., Tsiuma, N. 1981: ‘Anthropological materials of Hellenistic times from Nokalakevi’, in P. Zakaraia (ed.), Nokalakevi-Archaeopolis I. Archaeological excavations 1973-1977. Tbilisi, 200-219 (in Georgian). Abramishvili, T. 1987: ‘Coins from Nokalakevi and Nodjikhevi’, in P. Zakaraia (ed.), Nokalakevi-Archaeopolis II. Archaelogical excavations 1978-1982. Tbilisi, 274-287 (in Georgian). Abramishvili, T. 1993: ‘The Numismatic Material found at Nokalakevi’, in P. Zakaraia (ed.), Nokalakevi-Archaeopolis III. Archaeological excavations 1983-1989. Tbilisi, 270-272 (in Georgian). Arnold, C. 1999: Christian Antiquity and Roman Catholic German Science. The Freiburg Church Historian and Archaeologist Joseph Sauer (1872-1949). Paper presented at the Thirteenth International Conference on Patristic Studies, Oxford, 16.-21. August 1999. https://www.academia. edu/11268598/Christian_Antiquity_and_Roman_Catholic_German_Science._The_Freiburg_ Church_Historian_and_Archaeologist_Joseph_Sauer_18721949_Thirteenth_International_Conference_on_Patristic_Studies_Oxford_16.-21._August_1999_ (Accessed December 2016). Colvin, I., Lortkipanidze, B., Murgulia, N. 2014: ‘Historical overview of Colchis-Egrisi-Lazika’, in P. Everill (ed.), Nokalakevi – Tsikhegoji – Archaeopolis. Archaeological excavations 2001-2010. Anglo-Georgian Expedition to Nokalakevi. BAR International Series 2612. Oxford, Archaeopress. Dubois de Montpéreux, F. 1839: Voyage autour du Caucase, chez les Tcherkesses et les Abkhases, en Colchide, en Géorgie, en Arménie et en Crimée. Volume III. Paris, Librairie de Gide. Everill, P., Marter, P., Lomitashvili, D., Murgulia, N. 2011: ‘Mapping Archaeopolis: GPS survey at the multi-period site of Nokalakevi’. Bulletin of the Georgian National Museum. Series of Social Sciences #2 (47-B): 117-130 (in Georgian). Everill, P. (ed.) 2014: Nokalakevi – Tsikhegoji – Archaeopolis. Archaeological excavations 2001-2010. Anglo-Georgian Expedition to Nokalakevi. BAR International Series 2612. Oxford, Archaeopress. Gvinchidze, G. 1981: ‘Burials at Nokalakevi’, in P. Zakaraia (ed.), Nokalakevi-Archaeopolis I. Archaeological excavations 1973-1977. Tbilisi, Metsniereba: 150-183 (in Georgian). Gvinchidze, G. 1988: The history of the population of Colchis in the Hellenistic period. Tbilisi, Metsniereba (in Georgian). Gozalishvili, G. 1981: ‘Several words about the beginning of Archaeological excavation in Nokalakevi’, in P. Zakaraia (ed.), Nokalakevi-Archaeopolis I. Archaeological excavations 1973-1977. Tbilisi, Metsniereba: 243-248 (in Georgian). Grigolia, G., Okropiridze, N., Japaridze, V., Tsirghvava, V., Chartolani, Sh. 1972: ‘The results of the West Georgian Exploratory Archaeological Expedition work in 1971’. Archaeological investigation in Georgia in 1972: 29-31 (in Georgian). Grigolia G., Pkhakadze, G., Baramidze, M., Lortkipanidze, G. 1973: The results of the West Georgian Exploratory Archaeological Expedition work in 1968. MSKA. Vol. 5: 17-37 (in Georgian). Kapanadze, T. 1987: ‘Basilicas at Nokalakevi’, in P. Zakaraia (ed.), Nokalakevi-Archaeopolis II. Archaeological excavations 19781982. Tbilisi, Metsniereba:: 90-125 (in Georgian). Kaukhchishvili, T. 1981: ‘Greek Inscriptions from Nokalakevi’, in P. Zakaraia (ed.), Nokalakevi-Archaeopolis I. Archaeological excavations 1973-1977. Tbilisi, Metsniereba: 197-199 (in Georgian). Lekvinadze, V. 1987: ‘Mass Archaological Material of the 4th to the 11th centuries discovered on the site of Nokalakevi in 1978-1982’, in P. Zakaraia (ed.), Nokalakevi-Archaeopolis II. Archaeological excavations 1978-1982. Tbilisi, Metsniereba: 237-248 (in Georgian). Lekvinadze, V., Khvedelidze, L. 1981: ‘Mass archaeological finds from excavations at Archaeopolis’, in P. Zakaraia (ed.), Nokalakevi-Archaeopolis I. Archaeological excavations 1973-1977. Tbilisi, Metsniereba: 120-149 (in Georgian). Murgulia, N. 2013: ‘The fortification system of the kingdom of Egrisi in the 4th-6th centuries’. Unpublished doctoral thesis. Tb., (in Georgian). Muskhelishvili L. 1987: ‘The Journal and results of the excavations 1930-1931’, in P. Zakaraia (ed.), Nokalakevi-Archaeopolis II. 159 Archaeological excavations 1978-1982. Tbilisi, 289-305 (in Georgian). Rogers, A. 2013: ‘Water and Roman Urbanism: Towns, waterscapes, land transformation and experience in Roman Britain’. Leiden, Brill. Schneider, A.M. 1931: ‘Archaeopolis (Nokalakewi)’ Forschungen und Fortschritte 27: 354-355. Serena, C. 2015: Excursions in the Caucasus: From the Black Sea to the Caspian Sea 1875-1881 (Edited by P.F. Skinner). New York, Narikala Publications. Zakaraia, P. (ed.) 1981: Nokalakevi-Archaeopolis I. Archaeological excavations 1973-1977. Tbilisi, Metsniereba (in Georgian). Zakaraia, P. (ed.) 1987: Nokalakevi-Archaeopolis II. Archaeological excavations 1978-1982. Tbilisi, Metsniereba (in Georgian). Zakaraia, P. (ed.) 1993: Nokalakevi-Archaeopolis III. Archaeological excavations 1983-1989. Tbilisi, Metsniereba (in Georgian). FIGURE CAPTION: Figure 1: Regions of Georgia, showing Nokalakevi in Samegrelo, northeast of Senaki. Figure 2: 3D model of Nokalakevi (looking north) derived from GPS survey in 2009 (Everill et al 2011). Figure 3: Drone photo of Nokalakevi, looking east (© National Agency for Cultural Heritage Preservation of Georgia). Figure 4: Annotated site plan of Nokalakevi (co-ordinates in WGS84 UTM Zone 38N). Figure 5: An example of the double-headed zoomorphic figurines from Nokalakevi (Everill 2014:xiii). Figure 6: Ruins of Nokalakevi around the Forty Martyrs’ Church – Drawing by P. Sellier, after Dubois de Montpéreux (Serena 2015: 23). Figure 7: Byzantine coin hoard discovered during Schneider’s excavations at Nokalakevi (Everill 2014). Figure 8: The eastern walls of Nokalakevi in the early stages of cleaning and conservation (Zakaraia). Figure 9: Drone photo showing the extant Forty Martyrs’ Church, left, the foundations of two 4th/ 5th century churches, centre, and the remains of the ‘palace’, on the right (©National Agency for Cultural Heritage Preservation of Georgia). Figure 10: Anglo-Georgian Expedition to Nokalakevi, location of Trenches A to E. 160 P. EVERILL, D. LOMITASHVILI... Figure 1 Figure 2 161 Figure 3 Figure 4 162 Figure 5 Figure 6 163 Figure 7 Figure 8 164 Figure 9 Figure 10 165 Nicolas J. Preud’homme BACURIUS, THE MAN WITH TWO FACES (Sorbonne Université, Paris) With Peter the Iberian, Bacurius can be considered among the most famous of the emigrants from Iberia in the Roman Empire. However, the tracks that this character left in various sources have not removed many uncertainties, as evidenced by the high hypothetical content of sometimes-divergent positions held by historiography in his regard. Understanding who Bacurius was is crucial to trace the origins of Christianization in K’art’li, not only because of the story about the Iberian king’s conversion that this man would have conveyed to Rufinus of Aquileia, but also for considering the movement of men and ideas, the operation of ethnic or religious community networks transcending the borders of the Late-Antique world. Due to their late writing, the Georgian chronicles of the K’art’lis C’xovreba and the Mok’c’evay K’art’lisay tell us much more about K’art’velian society from the beginning of the Bagratid era (8th 11th century) than about ancient Iberia. A careful approach would keep scholars from the temptation of taking at face value the as detailed as romanticized accounts of the medieval chronicles written around half a millennium after evoked events. However, these medieval sources have conserved the traces of a pre-Bagratid past colored by Iranian culture and vague reminiscences of ancient royal annals and court oral traditions. A patient work of erudition crossing various sources should bring out this nutshell of truth from its coating of rewriting and extrapolations; despite being unable to reconstitute a clear account of indubitable facts, it is nevertheless liable to generate fruitful hypotheses and refute false truths generated by hasty and partial statements. I. – The king without a throne: Bacurius, the Iberian monarchy and the bidaxšate of Gugark‘ / Somxit’i 1) « Little King » Bacurius a) Hypotheses for identifying Bacurius with a King Bakur Called gentis ipsius rex by Rufinus of Aquileia2 and βασιλίσκος by Socrates of Constantinople3, Bacurius was commonly identified by scholars with an Iberian sovereign whose rule would have been roughly contemporary with the years when Rufinus of Aquileia composed his ecclesiastical history. If we put aside the testimony of Themistius, Rufinus is indeed our first source to mention namely this royal function for Bacurius. The kingly title appears first in the presentation that Rufinus made of this character, before those of comes domesticorum and dux of the limes in Palestine. For Françoise T HELAMON, the order in which Rufinus lists the various functions of Bacurius would indicate the stages of his career back in time; as a result, it would seem logical to admit that Bacurius is king of Iberia at the beginning of the fifth century, at the time when Rufinus was writing4. For further evidence of this opinion, Françoise T HELAMON relies on an excerpt from the biography of Maštoc‘, written by his disciple Koriwn in the fifth century. Koriwn asserts that his master, supposed to have been the inventor of Armenian writing, would have also developed an alphabet for the K’art’velians with the help of the “King Bakur” (t‘agawor [...] Bakur, թագաւոր [...] Բակուր), Movsēs, “the bishop of the country” 1 I would like to express my special thanks to Jean-Yves Preud’homme and Victoria Davidson for their help in translating this paper. 2 Rufinus of Aquileia, Ecclesiastical History, I, 10 / §236. 3 Socrates of Constantinople, Ecclesiastical History, I, 20, 20. 4 T HELAMON F. 1981: 94. 166 (episkopos ašxarhin, եպիսկոպոս աշխարհին), and a K’art’velian translator named J̌ ałay5. The hypothesis of Bacurius’ identification with King Bakur in Koriwn is attractive insofar as it establishes a continuity between a Bacurius delivering the story of the conversion of Iberia to Christianity, and a king Bakur devoted to the conversion of his countrymen. However, this idea meets serious flaws of consistency both in chronological matters and in the prosopography of Bacurius’ / Bak[k]ourios’ / Bakur’s apparitions in our sources. Two counterarguments can thus be advanced at this position, one based on the Caucasian sources, Koriwn and two Georgian chronicles, Royal List II and the Life of the Successors of Mirian, which can also be crossed with the Syriac version of the Life of Peter the Iberian, whereas another objection is based on the review of two Greek accounts, the New History of Zosimus and the Ecclesiastical History written by Socrates of Constantinople. b) Bacurius, Bak’ar I, Aspacures, Bakur and Varaz-Bak’ar A first issue is about the identity of King Bakur mentioned by Koriwn and the dating of his reign. As potential candidates, the Life of the Successors of Mirian refers to two sovereigns: Bak’ar I (r. 361 / 363-365?), who was Mirian’s son, and Varaz-Bak’ar (r.380-394?). This first Bak’ar, known to be a devout Christian, comes too early, however, to coincide with the mission of Maštoc‘, and his death allegedly placed during the second half of the fourth century prevents any identification with Bacurius in Rufinus. Another Iberian character of the fourth century is alike, at least by name, to Bacurius: the Iberian King Aspacures. According to Ammianus Marcellinus, in 368 AD approximately, the Persians succeeded in overthrowing the pro-Roman king of Iberia, Sauromaces, and replaced him by his cousin Aspacures. The involvement of the comes and dux Armeniae Terentius with twenty legions for Sauromaces gave rise to an artificial division of Iberia into two kingdoms, separated by the river Kura / Mtkvari: to the west, the area under Roman influence, in the east, the area under Persian influence. This situation continued until the Persian candidate managed to bring together the two territories under his thumb, towards the end of 3706. This conflict between Sauromaces and Aspacures known in Ammianus Marcellinus doesn’t explicitly appear in the Georgian chronicle Life of the Kings, but this medieval tale seems to have kept certain traits. There are indeed some interesting details: on the one hand, the name of Bak’ar is not so far from that of Aspacures (Varaz-Bakur?); like the latter, Bak’ar appears as an ally of Iran and is facing competition from one of his parents, supported by the Armenians. Moreover, the bidaxšate of Gugark‘ / Somxit’i, territory held by P’eroz and his heirs, is once again involved in these rivalries, since this territory was profoundly reshaped by this struggle of influences between supporters of Bak’ar and those led by Rev’s son. If the partition of Iberia to which Ammianus Marcellinus referred does not appear here, then we note an exchange of territories which strengthens the control of the Iberian king on his eastern borders: Bak’ar, allied with the Iranians, received from the bidaxš7 the territory of Ran confining to Albania, while the guardian of the marchland acquired in exchange a territory ranging from Samšwlde to Aboc’i, located further to the west, at the borders of Armenia. The šāhan šāh as well as the Roman emperor allegedly involved themselves in the resolution of the conflict that vaguely reminds of 5 Koriwn, Life of Maštoc‘, XV, 1-2. RAPP S. H. Jr. 2014: 73. Ammianus Marcellinus, Roman History, XXVII, 12, 16-17 and XXX, 2, 2; Epic Histories, V, 15; Themistius, Speeches, XI, 149 b. 7 The word bidaxš is a Pahlavi form finding its equivalents in other languages: vitaxe in Latin, pitiaxe in Greek, piṭaḥš in Aramaic, bdeaxš in Armenian, pitiaxši in Georgian, p̄ ṭaḥšā in Syriac and bit’qas in Arabic. The function of bidaxš was equivalent to that of a marcher-lord, or in other cases of a commandant of army occupying the second rank in kingdoms nourished by Iranian culture. Strabo, Geography, XI, 3, 6; RAPP S. H. Jr. 2014: 6271; T OUMANOFF C. 1963: 154-158, 183-192, 260-264, 467-475. 6 167 the diplomatic game between Valens and Šāpūr II in the years 368-378. It seems plausible to identify this Bak’ar’s nephew with Sauromaces, and Bak’ar with Aspacures, even if strong contradictions exist in comparison to Ammianus Marcellinus8. Figure 1 – Family tree of the early Mihranid-Chosroid kings of Iberia Reserves can be expressed to qualify such identification of the conflict between Bak’ar and his nephew with the rivalry between Aspacures and Sauromaces. The Life of the Successors of Mirian offers indeed a more complex picture, in which Bak’ar must face not only the claims of Rev’s son, but also other nephews who aren’t named in this source. Precisely, the territory that receive Bak’ar’s nephews, the country of Kuxet’i, is located in modern Eastern Georgia, between the rivers Iori and Alazani. Furthermore, these nephews have the title of erist’avi, and not the royal one. The city of Rust’avi where these princes are supposed to reside is located between the capital of Armazi-Mc’xet’a in the north and the bidaxšate of Gugark‘ / Somxit’i in the south, combined with the Iberian king. Therefore, it is unlikely to see the kingdom of Sauromaces there as described by Ammianus Marcellinus, as this account of the Life of the Successors of Mirian mentions no Roman military intervention. 8 I share this assumption of identifying Bak’ar and Aspacures with T OUMANOFF C. 1969: 24-26. However, there are limits to this identification. Ammianus Marcellinus argues that Sauromaces reigned on the throne of Iberia until Aspacures usurps the throne, while the Life of the Successors of Mirian made Bak’ar the only legitimate sovereign. Cyril T OUMANOFF suggests the existence of a reign of Sauromaces (r. 361-363, co-r. 370378) obliterated by the editor of this chronicle of the K’art’lis C’xovreba who had interest to hide Aspacures / Bak’ar’s usurpation and the poor image resulting from this conflict between the first successors to Mirian, who were supposed to have been pious Christians. About the fact that Bak’ar and the son of Rev were respectively uncle and nephew, and not cousins as in the case of Aspacures and Sauromaces, Cyril T OUMANOFF gives further reason to Ammianus Marcellinus and guess a fault also attributable to the Life of the Successors of Mirian, whose redactor would have confused the relationship between Sauromaces and Bak’ar with the cousinship between Sauromaces and Mirdat III (r.365-380?), who had meanwhile succeeded his father Bak’ar. This hypothesis supposes that Sauromaces was diarch with the son of Aspacures / Bak’ar, an idea that Ammianus Marcellinus does not support. Is also a difficulty to reconcile in chronology the reigns of Mirian, Bak’ar and Mirdat III in the K’art’lis C’xovreba with data from ancient sources. It is difficult to believe that Mirdat III had succeeded his father Bak’ar by 365 since Aspacures is mentioned in 370 by Ammianus Marcellinus. 168 Varaz-Bak’ar’s portrait (allegedly r.380-394) dressed in the Life of the Successors of Mirian is hardly comparable to those of Bacurius in Rufinus as well as of Bakur in Koriwn. Varaz-Bak’ar is indeed described as “an impious (urcmuno, ურწმუნო) man and a hater of [the] religion (możule sǰulisa, მოძულე სჯულისა)”9. Fearing the reaction of his subjects, Varaz-Bak’ar would have hidden his apostasy from them. However, he did not care to build new churches or to adorn the already existing ones. In punishment for his sins, the Sasanians invaded the country. Varaz-Bak’ar ignored the advice of his nobles and an alliance proposed by the king of Armenia; he fled to Kaxet’i and was forced to yield territories around Albania to Iran, i. e. the Ran and the Movakani. Having lost its legitimacy, the king had to deal with a revolt of the inhabitants of Klarǰet’i, who then turned to the Romans. Varaz-Bak’ar thereby also lost territories in the south-west of K’art’li10. No stay in the Roman Empire is mentioned for this king, whose reign spans the period when Bacurius held high office in the imperial army. Both paths are consequently distinct. Nor can Varaz-Bak’ar be identified with Bakur in Koriwn. In addition to their obvious differences of religious policy, details concerning the prelates who ruled during their reigns are disjointed. Georgian sources indeed mention no prelate named Movsēs for the reigns of Bak’ar I and Varaz-Bak’ar. For the rule of this last, the Royal List II refers only to an archbishop whose name is Iov / Iob, whereas under Bakur, Rev’s son, prelates Iovane and Iakob were ruling the K’art’velian Church11. In the Georgian version of the Life of Peter the Iberian, a Varaz-Bakur appears as a Christian king of K’art’li in the time of Theodosius II (r.408-450)12. This Varaz-Bakur described as a fervent lover of the faith can hardly be identified with impious Varaz-Bak’ar, nor with the other kings described in the K’art’lis C’xovreba, because none of them contains a resembling name13. However, indications delivered by Syriac version of Peter the Iberian’s vita can allow to identify this Varaz-Bakur with Bakurios, King Arč’il / Arsilios’ brother, whose reign (allegedly 411-435) was contemporary with Theodosius II. c) About Peter the Iberian’s genealogy Neither Royal List II nor the Life of the Successors of Mirian mention specifically any character resembling Bacurius by name. The key to solving this problem is to be found in the hagiography of Peter the Iberian (c.413 / 417-491), whose Syriac version, in its beginning, traces the genealogy of this holy man14. This Syriac vita identifies Bakurios as the maternal grandfather of Peter the Iberian and as the brother of the Iberian King Arsilios. Jean-Pierre MAHÉ supposes from this source that King Arsilios and his brother Bakurios were probably coregents, the latter exercising royal functions without having the corresponding title. It would explain the fact that Koriwn places the teaching of Maštoc‘ both under Life of the Successors of Mirian (K’art’lis C’xovreba), S. QAUXČ’IŠVILI ed.: 13523 = R. W. T HOMSON transl.: 149. RAPP S. H. Jr. 2014: 267. 10 Life of the Successors of Mirian (K’art’lis C’xovreba), S. QAUXČ’IŠVILI ed.: 13523-1376. 11 Royal List II (Mok’c’evay K’art’lisay), I. ABULAŻE ed.: 9115-19; 9137-923 = C. B. LERNER transl.: 146147. 12 Life of Peter the Iberian (Georgian), II, I. ABULAŻE ed.: 2155-17, in the variants Ⴀ and Ⴁ. However, this document presents Varaz-Bakur as “the fifth king since Mirian’s reign” (“მეოთხე მეფე იყო ესე მირიან მეფობითგან”), while in the K’art’lis C’xovreba , Varaz-Bak’ar’s reign appears in fourth position from Mirian. 13 In Royal List II however (I. ABULAŻE ed.: 9115-29 and 9212-17 = C. B. LERNER transl.: 146-147), two Mihranids called Bakur appear: the first one instead of Bak’ar, the other one in fifth position from Mirian, after Bakur, T’rdat and Varaz-Bakur (i.e. Varaz-Bak’ar) successively, and before P’arsman IV. Even if this last Bakur doesn’t appear jointly with King Arč’il, his presence could be reminiscent of this pious Varaz-Bakur or of Bakurios, Arsilios’ brother, appearing respectively in the Georgian and Syriac versions of the Life of Peter the Iberian. 14 John Rufus, Life of Peter the Iberian (Syriac): §6-7, C. B. HORN and R. R. PHENIX Jr. ed.: 6-9. 9 169 the reign of Bakurios and under the reign of Arjiwł / Arsilios / Arč’il15. However, the pieces of information provided by the silver dish of Bori, with an Aramaic inscription found mentioning “Buzmihr, the good bidaxš”, are of little use here because the object has been dated to the third century of our era, thus preventing this Buzmihr to be the father or even the grandfather of Peter the Iberian16. It is also unclear whether the Buzmihr mentioned on this dish of Bori was a bidaxš of the ArmenoK’art’velian marchland or another dynast. Figure 2 – The genealogy of Nabarnugios based on the Life of Peter the Iberian (Syriac) The timing problem of the possible reign of Bakurios joint with those of his brothers Arsilios and Bosmario still remains, with the prelature of Movsēs supposed to be contemporary. However, the K’art’velian sources don’t mention any prelate named Movsēs for Arč’il’s reign. We can certainly take this data with suspicion, considering that many genealogical details of the Life of Maštoc‘ and the Life of Peter the Iberian are actually wrong17. There is, however, an alternative to the hypercritical posture, namely that Koriwn would have inserted a prelature of Movsēs between those of Swm[e]on and Iona, roughly between 410 and 42518. This Bakurios would have been, according to the Syriac version of the Life of Peter the Iberian, the first Christian sovereign of the kingdom19, in contrast to the Georgian tradition attributing this title to Mirian (r. 284-361?). On this point Bernard F LUSIN gives his interpretation: for Christian history in 15 Koriwn, Life of Maštoc‘, XV, 1; XVIII, 2; J.-P. MAHÉ transl. 2005-2007: 78, n.151; 83, n.190. Movsēs Xorenac‘i, History of Armenia, III, 60 = A. and J.-P. MAHÉ transl.: 309, also mentions an Ardzil, king ruling over the land of Virk‘ (Iberia) at the time when Mesrop / Maštoc‘ sent his students to Constantinople as well as to Edessa to translate Greek works and Syriac into Armenian. MAHÉ J.-P. 2005-2007: 78 n.151 regards Bosmarios as a younger brother of Bakurios and Arč’il. However, the Life of Peter the Iberian (Syriac), §7, mentions only Arsilios as Bakurios’ brother. This Bosmarios, i. e. Nabarnugios’ paternal grandfather, appears in fact as the foster brother or at least as a fellow of Arsilios and Bakurios. 16 T OUMANOFF C. 1963: 260-261. About the dish of Bori, see GIORGADZE G. 2008: 255; BURNEY C. A. and LANG D. M. 1971: 227-228. However, the description of royal figures in the hagiography of Peter the Iberian is very unprecise, creating confusion between the institution of the marzban and the bidaxš. RAPP S. H. Jr. 2014: 75. 17 T OUMANOFF C. 1969: 33. Following the hypothesis expressed in DJOBADZE W. Z. 1976: 63 n. 2, Bakur would have abandoned arianism for the Nicene orthodoxy, for which he received from Nicaean people the recognition of first Christian king in K’art’li; however, no source supports this assumption. 18 RAPP S. H. Jr. 2003: 329 n. 67. 19 Life of Peter the Iberian (Syriac), §6, 7 and 11: this latter chapter identifies “the great Bakurios” as “the first Christian king of the Iberians” = C. B. HORN and R. R. PHENIX Jr. ed.: 13. As the conversion of P’eroz took place under the reign of Bak’ar during his bidaxšate, we can say that Bakurios could be the first bidaxš to have been a Christian since his accession to the post. RAPP S. H. Jr. 2014: 74-75. 170 Iberia, the fact that Bakur the Great (or Bakurios) can be presented as the first Christian king of the Iberians seems to imply that between the converted king whom Bacurius recalls (and who would be later identified with Mirian), and, on the other hand, the grandfather of Peter the Iberian reigning at the beginning of the fifth century, several non-Christian rulers could be inserted: in particular, without doubt, Pharsamanios, Peter’s great-uncle20. Bernard FLUSIN is so partisan of an identification of Bacurius’ lineage to that of the kings of Mc’xet’a. The challenge is therefore to test the compatibility of this genealogy compared to the data given in the Life of the Successors of Mirian. Actually, most of the names given in the Syriac version of the Life of Peter the Iberian are not in the narrative of the Life of K’art’li. Certainly, two names of kings in Mc’xet’a can be corroborated: Arsilios, maternal grandfather of Peter the Iberian, with Arč’il, and maybe the great-uncle of Peter the Iberian, Pharsamanios, with King P’arsman IV in K’art’lis C’xovreba. However, no Bosmarios / Buzmihr indeed seems to have been king of Iberia at the end of the fourth or in early fifth century, from the indications of this compilation of chronicles; in addition, King Mirdat V, son and successor to the throne of Arč’il, also no longer appears in the genealogy of the Life of Peter the Iberian. Three deductions are to be drawn from this genealogical investigation. On the one hand, if Peter the Iberian’s great-uncle was King Arč’il, the saint would be descended through him from Mirian. On the other hand, if one accepts the identification of Pharsamanios with P’arsman IV21, then Peter the Iberian would be a descendant of the bidaxš P’eroz, the first of these leaders in the Armeno-K’art’velian marchland of Gugark‘ / Somxit’i to have accepted Christianity. Accordingly, Bosmarios and Bakurios would be members of one or several younger branches of the dynasty of the Chosroids-Mihranids, and their kingship on the Iberians would not affect the monarchy of Mc’xet’a, but rather their princely sovereignty in the Gugark‘ / Somxit’i marchland. 2) Was Bacurius the bidaxš of the Gugark‘/ Somxit’i marchland? Several sources considered as kings dynasts who had not the title strictly speaking. Bacurius can be placed in this category of almost-kings owing to these fluctuations in the designation of his royal title through Greek and Latin sources. Indeed, the man called rex in Rufinus of Aquileia, and basiliskos in Socrates of Constantinople and Theodore the Reader, gets no royal title in the Anonymous (PseudoGelasius) of Cyzicus, who noted, however, that Bacurius was “the most illustrious of the royal family of these Iberians” (τοῦ βασιλικοῦ γένους τῶν παρ’ αὐτοῖς Ἰβήρων περιφανέστατος)22. On the other hand, the study of Peter the Iberian’s genealogy suggests familial ties between the rulers of Mc’xet’a and the bidaxš of Somxit’i / Gugark‘. The fact that Zosimus describes that Bacurius is native from a family of Armenia (ἐξ Ἀρμενίας τὸ γένος)23 could thus refer to a possible homeland of Bacurius in the ArmenoK’art’velian marchland24. 20 FLUSIN B. 1991: 366. P’arsman IV was the eldest son of Varaz-Bak’ar and the grandson of P’eroz, who was Mirian’s coregent and alleged bidaxš of Gugark‘ / Somxit’i. Life of the Successors of Mirian (K’art’lis C’xovreba), S. QAUXČ’IŠVILI ed., 13718-1384. 22 Anonymous of Cyzicus (Pseudo-Gelasius), Ecclesiastical History, III, 10, 21. 23 Zosimus, New History, IV, 57, 3. 24 RAPP S. H. Jr. 2014: 73. This region was called Somxit’i, the marchland of Armenia by K’art’velians, and Gugark‘, marchland of Virk‘ or Iberia, by the Armenians. Accordingly, for a K’art’velian, Bacurius came from the marchland of Armenia. According to the hypothesis (unlikely in my opinion) that Bacurius would be the keeper of this marchland, this character should, however, not be confused with another bidaxš named Bakur, Armenian well this time, but in another border territory, Ałjnik‘ located southwest of Armenia, bordering with Syria. Movsēs Xorenac‘i, History of Armenia, III, 4 = A. and J.-P. MAHÉ transl.: 252, reports indeed during the reign of 21 171 In terms of chronology and genealogy, Stephen H. RAPP Jr. believes that after 394 Bacurius was invested as bidaxš of the Armeno-K’art’velian marchland and that he reigned there until after 43025. Cyril T OUMANOFF considers for his part that Bacurius had arrived at the head of this Gugark’ / Somxit’i marchland after 39426, and even identifies him as the son of the bidaxš P’eroz, first of these marchland leaders to have accepted Christian faith27. We’ll see below the impossibility of this assignment insofar as Bacurius seems effectively to have died at the Battle of the Frigidus on 5 and 6 September 394. 3) Bacurius, grandson of Mirian? A last possibility would be to identify Bacurius with Rev’s son28, using an excerpt from the Royal List II (in Mok’c’evay K’art’lisay) where it is written that after the death of Mirian, “Bakur, the son of Rev, sat upon the throne”29. On the other hand, according to K’art’lis C’xovreba, the first successor of Mirian was Bak’ar, another of his sons, Rev’s brother 30. The difference between the two documents can certainly be explained by confusion over one of them31, but it is also possible to attribute this contradiction to the actual existence of a Bakur, son of Rev, who would have been called to the Iberian throne but who would have been then supplanted by his uncle Bak’ar. According to the Life of the Successors of Mirian, Bak’ar’s affirmation for royal power had caused a rallying of the bidaxš ruling on Somxit’i / Gugark‘, P’eroz, to oppose the machinations of the Armenian king willing to impose on the Iberian throne Bak’ar’s nephew, the son of Rev, related by his mother Salome at T’rdat the Arsacid king of Armenia32. The Life of the Successors of Mirian is silent on what happened to Rev’s son, even if it refers to other Bak’ar nephews who would have been settled at Rust’avi as erist’avis with a government in Kuxet’i33. This source is also silent on Sauromaces, who could have been among the contenders for the throne supported by Armenians in the dynastic conflict between them and Bak’ar. Could this pretender to the throne who remains anonymous in the Life of the Successors of Mirian find his name in Royal List II, thus identifying Bakur, son of Rev, to this Iberian ruler who would not have reigned? If this is the case, the identification of this Bakur with Bacurius would likely be true. Constantius the revolt of this bidaxš wishing to defend his autonomy, which led him to join the šāhan šāh. This pro-Iranian orientation allows to differentiate this Bakur from a pro-Roman Bacurius. 25 RAPP S. H. Jr. 2014: 74. 26 T OUMANOFF C. 1971: 133, n. 90. 27 T OUMANOFF C. 1969: 32. The daughter of Mirian would have been the mother of Bacurius according to this hypothesis. No direct evidence does, however, support this possibility which operates a conjecture from the silence of the sources about the identity of the bidaxš ruling Armeno-K’art’velian borderland, between P’eroz, still alive during the reign of Bak’ar, and Bakurios in the Life of Peter the Iberian, living during the first decades of the fifth century. 28 Rev II, son of Mirian, co-regent with his father from 345 to 361, according to T OUMANOFF C. 1969: 24, and RAPP S. H. Jr. 2014: 386. 29 Royal List II (Mok’c’evay K’art’lisay), I. ABULAŻE ed.: 9115-16, variant Ⴀ : « და დაჯდა მეფედ ბაკურ, ძჱ რევისი »; LERNER C. B. 2004: 146 (Conversion of K’art’li, A I, 3); RAPP S. H. Jr. 2003: 303. 30 Life of the Successors of Mirian (K’art’lis C’xovreba), S. QAUXČ’IŠVILI ed., 13018-1312. 31 Indeed, the Royal List II doesn’t mention any removal of Bakur and seems to assimilate him completely with Bak’ar, since it attributed to Bakur the construction of the church of Cilkani that started Bak’ar in the Life of the Successors of Mirian. It is possible to assert that the Royal List II deals with Bak’ar under the name of Bakur, attributing wrong ancestry to Bak’ar. This is the choice apparently adopted by T OUMANOFF C. 1969: 26. However it seems that the Royal List II had in view a character who occupied a distinct dynastic place from Bak’ar, as it is for the Iberian king T’rdat (r.394-406?) the brother of Bakur; now the Life of the Successors of Mirian considers T’rdat as another son of Rev, which corresponds entirely with the Royal List II. There was therefore a lineage from Rev able to take the succession to the Iberian throne at the expense of the lineage of Bak’ar. Royal List II (Mok’c’evay K’art’lisay), I. ABULAŻE ed.: 9115-29 = C. B. LERNER transl.: 146; Life of the Successors of Mirian (K’art’lis C’xovreba), S. QAUXČ’IŠVILI ed.: 1318-11 = R. W. T HOMSON transl.: 147. 32 Life of the Successors of Mirian (K’art’lis C’xovreba), S. QAUXČ’IŠVILI ed.: 13018-1316. 33 Life of the Successors of Mirian (K’art’lis C’xovreba), S. QAUXČ’IŠVILI ed.: 1317-8. 172 Once removed from the throne, despite the support brought to him by the King of Armenia, Bacurius would have given up his claims and integrated the Roman army to start a military career in the service of the Emperor Valens, leaving Sauromaces, probably one of his parents, the role of a suitor assigned by the Romans. Although the identification of Bacurius with the son of Rev, and thus nephew of Bak’ar, remains fragile, we know the context in which Bacurius was forced into exile out of Iberia seems to be sufficient to exclude the possibility of making the latter the bidaxš of Gugark‘ / Somxit’i. At the time of Bak’ar’s advent, the Life of the Successors of Mirian seems to suggest that P’eroz occupied this function34. On the other hand, the party of P’eroz consisted in staunch support for the cause of Bak’ar. If the latter is identifiable with Aspacures, the bidaxš’s position would be that of an enemy of the pro-Roman party and of Sauromaces. As a result, it is difficult to consider that Bacurius was present (or at least remained) in the entourage of P’eroz. In the absence of more specific sources on the functions occupied by different dynasties of Mc’xet’a and Gugark‘ / Somxit’i at the end of the 360’s, it is impossible to determine with certainty if Bacurius held, prior to his departure from Iberia, a position of king or royal heir, bidaxš, or the bidaxš’s heir, of erist’avi or a simple suitor without title. Whether Bacurius was a prince or even king, his office in Iberia could take place only before the arrival in imperial territory of this character in 367 or early 368, date from the beginning of his career in the Roman army. Gugark‘ / Somxit’i, territory located at the edge of Armenia, and passed to the fourth century under the obedience of the monarchy of Mc’xet’a, was indeed able to be assimilated by the penchant sources to a Caucasian kingdom. Its marchland situation could justify that Greek and Latin sources have placed the homeland of Bacurius sometimes in Iberia (Rufinus of Aquileia), sometimes in Armenia (Zosimus)35. In any case, this prestigious ancestry would have thus allowed Bacurius to assume a kingly title, or at least almost kingly. Bacurius’ death at the Battle of the Frigidus (5 and 6 September 394), deducted from the indications of Zosimus crossed with those of Socrates of Constantinople, allows to disprove the hypotheses identifying Bacurius with the more or less homonymous Iberian kings and princes living in the first decades of the fifth century. The rivalry between monarchy and bidaxšate, inconspicuous in the Life of Peter the Iberian as in the first chronicles of the K’art’lis C’xovreba, can be nevertheless invoked to explain the silence of the Georgian Chronicles on Bacurius; they are indeed pro-royal and so very reluctant to tell the high points of this almost-king prince. It was therefore in another context, in the Roman East, that Bacurius’ name entered history. II. – Bacurius at the service of the Empire: an Iberian network in the Roman army 1) The Iberians in the imperial army Contemporary with the time when Rufinus of Aquileia was writing his Ecclesiastical History, several testimonies dating back to the turn of the fourth and the fifth century allow to detect an Iberian presence in the Roman army, a phenomenon not only visible in the auxiliary body formed according to 34 Life of the Successors of Mirian (K’art’lis C’xovreba), S. QAUXČ’IŠVILI ed., 1311. = R. W. T HOMSON transl.: 146. 35 Another hypothesis to explain the Armenian origin of Bacurius in Zosimus would be to see a closeness of this man with the court of Armenia, which could support him against his pro-Iran rivals from Iberia before his departure to the Empire. If Bacurius can be identified with hypothetical Bakur I, son of Salome and Rev, and therefore grandson of Trdat the Arsacid by his mother, he would be a half-Armenian prince by his origins. 8 173 an ethnic factor, but also attested through the individual careers of a few senior officers who climbed the ladder of the hierarchy of dignities 36. a) Iberian auxiliary troops The speech n. 15 of Themistius, pronounced January 19, 381 in front of the Senate of Constantinople, for the second anniversary of Theodosius’ advent, is the first explicit testimony of the presence of Armenians and Iberians in the auxiliary corps of the late Roman army. “For the love of God, beloved friend, do not hide ourselves from the justice of God, let us make sure that by it all of these goods are provided to us: let it remain among us, immaculate, sitting next to you, on a pure throne, maintaining together the destinies of men. You do not need for yourself guards or soldiers, slingers or archers, no contingent of Armenians and Iberians, either as squires or bodyguards: you only “are sufficient for yourself”, because the will is sovereign in this area. The prince who does not treat justice is justified in nothing; he can’t blame the vileness of the soldiers or the ineptitude of the subordinates. You alone, sitting on the throne, you are responsible, suffice you a word or a nod to preserve justice and get with it this universal power”.37 Another documentary evidence, the Notitia Dignitatum, whose eastern part was written in 401 according to Constantine ZUCKERMAN 38, lists the great commandments of the Roman army and units that each senior officer had at his disposal. This administrative text was formed by a series of layers of updates, that go from the time of Diocletian until at least the beginning of the fifth century39. For the eastern part of the Empire, two auxiliary units composed of Caucasian Iberians can be identified: an ala prima Hiberorum based on Thmou in Upper-Egypt and entrusted to the dux Thebaidos40, as well as a Palatine auxiliary wing of Iberians among the eighteen at the disposal of the magister militum praesentalis41. It is likely that the command of these auxiliary units, provided by officers of Iberian origin, was, for the latter, the first step of their career in the Roman army, before they could reach the higher positions in the military hierarchy. b) Pharsamanios, Subarmachios, and Nabarnugios: Iberians at the imperial Court Bacurius’ itinerary is not unique in its kind, because several nobles of Iberian origin, like him, had a career in the Roman army, reaching prestigious positions integrated into the influential circles of the imperial Court. In his part tracing the genealogy of Peter the Iberian, the Syriac version of his hagiography comes to describe briefly the path of Pharsamanios, soldier at the court of Arcadius (r.395408). “The brother of Osduktia, his paternal grandmother, was Pharsamanios, the one who was held in glory at [the court of] Arcadius, emperor of the Romans, having both the honor of a military leader and of the first honors. Subsequently, after Pharsamanios had fled from the injury of Eudoxia, wife of Arcadius, and was able to hide himself, he hastily returned to his country. Once he became king over the Iberians and 36 About this type of career, see HOFFMANN D. 1978: 314. Themistius, Speeches, XV, §6 /189C-190A. Personal translation from R. MAISANO ed.: 557. 38 ZUCKERMAN C. 1998: 146. 39 LE BOHEC Y. 2006: 64-65. 40 Notitia Dignitatum in partibus Orientis, O. SEECK ed.: XXXI, 46. 41 Notitia Dignitatum in partibus Orientis, O. SEECK ed.: V, 60. This unit shouldn’t be confused with the scola scutariorum sagittariorum (XI, 7), whose command was put under the responsibility of the master of offices, and which worked in the imperial guard. It is in this unit that Bacurius could his career and would have fought in the battle of Adrianople. 37 174 had brought along with him the White Huns who are the neighbors of the Iberians, he was the cause of many evils for those who are subject to the Romans”.42 According to Stephen H. R APP Jr., it is possible that this Pharsamanios, Peter the Iberian’s greatuncle, is identifiable as King P’arsman IV (r. 406-409?), whose alleged reign is close to that of the Emperor Arcadius (r. 383-395 with his father Theodosius, r. 395-402 alone on the throne of Constantinople)43. The major problem with this hypothesis is that our only source on P’arsman IV, the Life of the Successors of Mirian, describes this sovereign as an ally of the Romans, to the point that he would have revolted against the Persians. A point of agreement between the two sources lies nevertheless in the warlike qualities of this character, described as a fearless hero of Iranian type, “a pious man, an intrepid mounted warrior” (kac’i morcmune, mq’edari šemmart’ebeli)44. However, neither the stay in the Roman Empire, nor the alliance with the Huns is mentioned in the notice of the Georgian chronicle. It is certainly possible that the veracity of this is failing due to the lateness of his writing, not earlier than the ninth century. Also contemporary to the reign of Arcadius, the career of another Roman officer from Iberian origin appears through a notice in Suda containing a fragment of the history written by Eunapius of Sardis (fourth - fifth century)45. The eunuch Eutropius, for whom Subarmachios would have been a loyal henchman, was the praepositus sacri cubiculi, all-powerful in the East since the murder of the prefect of the praetorium Rufinus on November 395 until his own fall on August 399. Subarmachios would have served with him as a commander of a special unit of sagittarii, probably of mounted archers, because the scholae palatinae were all cavalry units 46. His functions are still discussed, given that the authors of the Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire identified him as comes domesticorum of the East47, while he appears here as a “leader of the guards” (τῶν δορυφόρων ἡγεμών). This man would be “a pure Colchian from beyond Thermodon and Phasis”, an origin neighboring geographically the Iberian area. Finally, the case of Nabarnugios (c.413 / 417-491), alias Peter the Iberian after his conversion, is located a few decades after the time of Bacurius, Subarmachios and his great-uncle Pharsamanios. According to Syrian historian Zachary the Rhetor48, Nabarnugios received a military commission while he was a hostage in Constantinople, and served as equis regiis praepositus. For his part, David BRAUND thinks that Pierre the Iberian was probably the tribune of a schola of domestici equites49. In short, it is quite surprising to see that one ethnic group could almost monopolize the command of a schola palatina and produce several high-ranking officers, sharing their royal or princely origins for many of them. A further investigation into the case of Bacurius should allow to better understand this type of career. 42 John Rufus, Life of Peter the Iberian (Syriac) §6, C. B. HORN and R. PHENIX Jr. ed.: 9. RAPP S. H. Jr. 2014: 72, n. 196. 44 Life of the Successors of Mirian (K’art’lis C’xovreba), S. QAUXČ’IŠVILI ed., 13721 : “[…] კაცი მორწმუნე, მჴედარი შემმართებელი” = R. W. T HOMSON transl.: 151. RAPP S. H. Jr. 2014: 268. 45 Suidas 1, Lexicon, 793 = fragment 67.8 in BLOCKLEY R. C. 1983: 104-106; fragment 77 in Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum 4, K. MÜLLER, T. MÜLLER and V. LANGLOIS ed., Paris, 1874-1885. WOODS D. 1996: 365 for translation. 46 WOODS D. 1996: 365-367. 47 MARTINDALE J. R. 1980: 1037, s. v. “Subarmachius”. 48 Zachary the Rhetor, Ecclesiastical History, III, 4, mentioned in WOODS D. 1996: 367, n. 15. 49 BRAUND D. 1994: 285. 43 175 2) Bacurius military: a career for the service of Rome a) Tribune of a Palatine schola at the Battle of Adrianople The first explicit appearance of Bacurius in sources figures in the history of Rome from Ammianus Marcellin, who reports his participation at the battle of Adrianople on August 9, 37850. Bacurius then probably commanded a unit of archers on horseback recruited at the eastern borders of the Empire51. His colleague Cassio, who is not known otherwise, probably headed a unit of scutarii, i.e. horsemen carrying shields 52. Warlike Bacurius’ fearlessness, which seems to be a trait shared with Subarmachios, appears to match the ideal of the Iranian hero portrayed in Armenian and pre-Bagratid Georgian epic literature. It was in large part of their warrior value from which the Caucasian rulers rooted in the Iranian culture were supposed to draw their legitimacy. In the Life of the Kings and the Life of Vaxtang Gorgasali, K’art’velian sovereigns are indeed described as heroes-kings of Iranian type. These texts are characterized by the salience of the words gmiri (გმირი, “hero”), goliat’i (გოლიათი, “Goliath”, i.e. “giant”), and bumberazi (ბუმბერაზი) (duelist champion). Occasionally, we find the term čabuki (ჭაბუკი), derived from the old Persian chāpūka, “young”53, similar to the Persian mardjuwān (“young man”), with its qualities of male prowess, courage and manly strength. There were also K’art’velian equivalents of the asabārān, i. e. elite warriors of the Sasanian army54. The asbār (in Old Persian asbāra, in Pahlavi aswār) was a specialist in single combat (mard-u-mard) and an elite rider; he accumulated honors by proving his prowess and his manhood, including the detention of the hizārmard, namely a distinction which indicated that the asbār had the strength of a thousand men, the title of mubāriz (in Georgian bumberazi, ბუმბერაზი), those of pahlawān (“hero”), of jahān pahlawān (“hero of the world”) and zih sawār (“exceptional horseman”)55. In the case of Bacurius, we find this same passion in the narrative drawn up by Socrates of Constantinople in his account of the Battle of the Frigidus, heroism that probably cost him his life56. b) Dux of the Palestinian limes and comes domesticorum Bacurius held high positions in the Roman army, serving as dux Palaestinae and comes domesticorum. The testimony of Rufinus is the most accurate on the rank that the officer of Iberian origin was able to achieve in his career. 50 Ammianus Marcellinus, Roman History, XXXI, 12, 16: “eo ad uallum hostile tendente sagittarii et scutarii, quos Bacurius Hiberus quidam tunc regebat et Cassio, auidius impetu calenti progressi iamque aduersis conexi, ut inmature proruperant, ita inerti discessu primordia belli foedarunt”. 51 Note, however, that the formulation of Ammianus Marcellin remains quite vague, and it is possible that Cassio has ordered the mounted archers, and Bacurius the scutarii. 52 Even if there were scutarii and sagittarii in the Roman army outside the units of the imperial guard, I believe that a cross-checking with indications delivered in Themistius’ speech n. 8, §116a-c/174-175 allows to think that Bacurius was in one of the Palatine scholae. DELMAIRE R. 2008: 40: according to Ammianus Marcellinus (XVI, 10, 8), the Emperor is surrounded by riders carrying shields (scutarii) and armored riders (clibanarii) would come further: these are the oldest corps and the other scholae created later, armaturae, gentiles, sagittarii would further follow the imperial procession. The Notitia Dignitatum gives for the East, at the beginning of the fifth century, seven Palatine scholae under the command of the magister officiorum: “Sub dispositione viri illustris magistri officiorum: Scola scutariorum prima. Scola scutariorum secunda. Scola gentilium seniorum. Scola scutariorum sagittariorum. Scola scutariorum clibanariorum. Scola armaturarum iuniorum. Scola gentilium iuniorum” (Notitia Dignitatum in partibus Orientis, XI, 3-10). 53 Life of the Kings (K’art’lis C’xovreba), S. QAUXČ’ IŠVILI ed., 2017 about P’arnavaz. 54 ZAKERI M. 1993: 68-87, 113-114 and following. 55 RAPP S. H. Jr. 2009: 663-664. 56 Socrates of Constantinople, Ecclesiastical History, V, 25, 13. 176 “This is Bacurius, man in whom you could trust, the king of this nation, who was comes domesticorum with us and very concerned about religion and truth, who told us that things had gone so when, being then dux of the limes of Palestine, he lived on very good terms with us in Jerusalem”.57 In the late imperial military hierarchy, the counts were immediately after the magistri militum. The word “count” comes from the Latin comes, “companion”, and has two meanings. On the one hand, it could be only an empty honorary title, on the other hand it is also possibly a real function. In the Early Empire, the count designated any character that is part of the entourage of the Emperor, a lawyer, a writer, or any other friend of the sovereign, although he had no political or military office. The Roman State distinguished some of them, those occupying army, comites rei militaris58, at the top of whom were the masters of militias. The title was also given to less important characters placed at the head of the army in secondary areas, from the military point of view, compared to those which were assigned to the magistri militum. A count could take the lead of several legions, or only a few detachments 59. The Notitia Dignitatum and sometimes Ammianus Marcellinus attribute counts to Egypt and Isauria in the East, to Africa, to Britain, to Tingitana, to the region of Mainz and the Saxon shore, corresponding to the coast of Southeast Britain and Northwestern Gaul. For the less important and border provinces, the Roman State had planned the duces, one per province: Ammianus Marcellin signals their presence in Egypt, Phoenicia, Mesopotamia, Thrace and Moesia 60. They were also placed under the authority of the count if there was one, and masters of the militias in all cases. They could receive important responsibilities. The title of dux can also be used to name any officer 61. The Anonymous of Cyzicus (Pseudo-Gelasius) introduces the idea that Bacurius ordered a campaign against Saracens in the mountains of Palestine, which would have resulted in a brilliant victory62. These territories are probably the Sinai and the edge of the Negev where several groups, collectively known as Saracens, were practicing nomadism63. After the reorganization of the Eastern provinces by Diocletian in the late third century, Sinai became indeed a part of the Palaestina Tertia or Salutaris, created in 357-358, while the northwest part of the Sinai Peninsula was attached administratively to Egypt. After 297 the limes arabicus was also strengthened, especially in the region extending south from Bosra to the upstream part of the Wādi Sirhān, to prevent incursions by the warriors of the desert64; during the 360’s and 370’s, new forts were built in the area located at the southsouth-east of Bosra, to which belong the castella of Umm ej-jemal and Deir el-Kahf65. During the fourth century, a process of Christianization sprang up in the Sinaitic margins through pilgrimage and monasticism, particularly visible in the Jebel Musa site frequented by faithful 57 Rufinus of Aquileia, Ecclesiastical History, I, 10 / §236: “Haec nobis ita gesta, fidelissimus uir Bacurius, gentis ipsius rex, et apud nos domesticorum comes, cui summa erat cura et religionis et ueritatis, exposuit, cum nobiscum Palaestini tunc limitis dux, in Ierosolymis satis unanimiter degeret”. Translation adapted from T HELAMON F. 1972: 8. 58 Ammianus Marcellinus, Roman History, XXVII, 10, 6 and 12, 13. 59 LE BOHEC Y. 2006: 81. 60 Ammianus Marcellinus, Roman History, XVI, 9, 2 ; XXIV, 1, 9 ; XXV, 1, 2 ; XXV, 8, 7 ; XXIX, 6, 14 ; XXX, 2, 4 ; XXXI, 4, 9, 5 ; 1, 5, 6. 61 LE BOHEC Y. 2006: 81 for this development. 62 Anonymous (Pseudo-Gelasius) of Cyzicus, Ecclesiastical History, III, 10, 21 : “<ὃς> σατράπης Ῥωμαίων καταστὰς καὶ ταῖς ἀκρωρείαις τῆς Παλαιστίνης κατὰ τῶν Σαρακηνῶν βαρβάρων ἐπιστρατεύσας πόλεμον ἄκρως ὅτι μάλιστα τὴν κατ’ αὐτῶν νίκην ἤρατο” : “[Bacurius] established as a commander of the Romans, led a campaign against the Saracens in the moutains of Palestine and won a major victory against them”. Personal translation. 63 Ammianus Marcellinus, Roman History, XIV, 4; Expositio totius mundi, XX. 64 T HELAMON F. 1981: 128. 65 T HELAMON F. 1981: 134. 177 people66. Rufinus of Aquileia reports the conversion in the 370’s of a Saracen tribe led by Queen Mauvia and identified as being the Tanūkhids67. This people would have led a series of attacks on the Roman fortified positions in Palestine and Arabia, and would greatly compromise the Roman army, commanded by the dux of Phoenicia as well as by the magister equitum Victor68. During peace negotiations, the Queen Mauvia (or Mavia) would have received, among others, Moyse, a loner ascetic living in an area neighboring Saracen territory, to be ordained bishop of his people, probably in the Sinai Peninsula 69. It is therefore likely that Bacurius, in charge of the confines of Palestine, could build relationships with these Saracen communities, including those engaged in a process of Christianization. Operations in which Bacurius engaged in Palestine as a commander must have occurred only between his tribunate of a Palatine schola in Adrianople (August 9, 378), and June 388, days when the war began against Maximus, in which Bacurius was also involved. Moreover, a new revolt of the Tanūkhids broke out against Rome between 378 and 383, the latter date being that of the crushing of their uprising70. The presence of the magister militum Richomer in Antioch in 383 allows one to regard him as the commander of the military campaign against the revolted Tanūkhids71; as a dux of the limes in Palestine, Bacurius was therefore one of his employees in the conduct of repressive operations. The success of the Iberian prince probably favored his ascension through the military hierarchy in the Theodosian army. c) General of Theodosius against Maximus and Eugenius Socrates of Constantinople reports the role of Bacurius as a general (ὁ στρατηλάτης) in the service of the Emperor Theodosius twice. “Rufinus said having learned it [sc. the story of the conversion of the Iberians] from Bakkourios, who was initially a little king among the Iberians, but who then, by moving to the Romans, was established as a taxiarch on the army of Palestine. After that, he fought as a general with Emperor Theodosius against the tyrant Maximus”.72 [Account of the Battle of the Frigidus] “Bakkourios, a general, took so much courage that he rushed with fighters on the front line to the side where the barbarians were under pressure; he breaks through the ranks of the enemies and puts to flight those who pressed them before”.73 The first quotation refers to the war of Theodosius against the usurper Maximus (r. 383-388)74, which occurred from June to August 388, in which Socrates of Constantinople is the only one to involve 66 BLUMELL L. and alii 2014: 57-61. Rufinus of Aquileia, Ecclesiastical History, II, 6. SHAHID I. 1984: 203. 68 Victor 4 according to JONES A. H. M. and alii 1971: 957-959. Ammianus Marcellinus, Roman History, XXVI, 5, 2; Zosimus, New History, IV, 2, 4. T HELAMON F. 1981: 135. 69 T HELAMON F. 1981: 123-147. 70 SHAHID I. 1984: 203-205. 71 SHAHID I. 1984: 210-211. After their defeat, the Tanūkhids lost their supremacy on the Arabs for the benefit of the Salīhids. 72 Socrates, Ecclesiastical History, I, 20, 20 : “Ταῦτα φησὶν ὁ Ῥουφῖνος παρὰ Βακκουρίου μεμαθηκέναι, ὃς πρότερον μὲν ἦν βασιλίσκος Ἰβήρων, ὕστερον δὲ Ῥωμαίοις προσελθὼν ταξίαρχος τοῦ ἐν Παλαιστίνῃ στρατιωτικοῦ κατέστη καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα στρατηλατῶν τὸν κατὰ Μαξίμου τοῦ τυράννου πόλεμον τῷ βασιλεῖ Θεοδοσίῳ συνηγωνίσατο”. Translation adapted from P. MARAVAL, 2003. 73 Socrates, Ecclesiastical History, V, 25, 13: “Βὰκκούριος γὰρ ὁ στρατηλάτης αὐτοῦ τοσοῦτον ἐπερρώσθη, ὥστε σὺν τοῖς πρωταγωνισταῖς εἰσδραμεῖν, καθ´ ὃ μέρος οἱ βάρβαροι ἐδιώκοντο· καὶ διαρρήσσει μὲν τὰς φάλαγγας, τρέπει δὲ εἰς φυγὴν τοὺς πρὸ βραχέως διώκοντας”. Translation adapted from P. MARAVAL, 2006. 74 KELLY C. 2015: 215-217. 67 178 Bacurius. On the war of Theodosius with Eugenius 75 (393-394), the second quotation from Socrates of Constantinople shows the offensive role that Bacurius played, portraying a personality like that which Ammianus Marcellinus had described for the same character fighting in Adrianople. On this war against Eugenius, the testimony of the poet Claudian (c. 370 - c. 404), although more vague, reflected nevertheless the presence of soldiers in the East countries in Theodosius’ army76. Claudian is here referring to the civil war between Theodosius and Eugenius (“abject client” v. 67) supported by Arbogast (“barbarian exile” v. 66). While the latter are despised, no mention being made about supports that the usurper had gathered in the West, Claudian gushes about Theodosius’ supports through a catalogue of his troops. The poet then takes pleasure in highlighting the scale of the Roman rule over the Eastern world: Mesopotamia, Asia Minor, Syria, Arabia, Media, Anatolia and the Caspian shores would have provided their own contingents. Of noticeable interest is the geographical inaccuracy of the author regarding the Phasis, river of Colchis corresponding to the current Rioni, as part of Armenia77. This inventory is more in line with the epic tradition than with historical data78, since the presence of the 20 000 Goths of Gaianas and Alaric has been concealed: these soldiers also paid a heavy price for victory, but subsequently become very cumbersome for their employers. This indication given by Claudian about the presence of Orientals, although dubious, can, however, be backed by sources attesting the presence of Bacurius in the ranks of the Theodosian army. The New History of Zosimus indeed completes the testimony of Socrates thereon, by mentioning the presence of a Bakourios among the generals commanding the Theodosian forces at the Battle of the Frigidus (5 and 6 September 394). The testimony of Zosimus in this regard poses several problems, to the point that the identification of this character with Bacurius in Rufinus and Ammianus Marcellinus has not been made without hesitation79. “Bakourios also had with them a part of the command; he was a native of Armenia, and it was a man devoid of any bad feeling and more trained to war; such was the way in which he [sc. Theodosius] fixed the choice of generals”.80 We saw above that the mention of Armenia as Bacurius homeland should not be taken literally, given that Zosimus could either point through this the border territory of Gugark‘ / Somxit’i, or, as Claudian did, confuse the Armenian territory with another Caucasian area like Iberia. Further, once he 75 MODÉRAN Y. 2003: 154-155. Claudian, Panegyric for the third consulship of the Emperor Honorius, v.67-72: “Pro crimen superum! Longi pro dedecus aeui! / Barbarus Hesperias exul possederat urbes / sceptraque deiecto dederat Romana clienti. / Iam princeps molitur iter gentesque remotas / colligit Aurorae, tumidus quascumque pererrat / Euphrates, quas lustrat [H]alys, quas ditat Orontes: / turiferos Arabes saltus, uada Caspia Medi, / Armenii Phasin, Parthi liquere Niphatem”. This poem dates from the beginning of the year 396. 77 The origin of this confusion dates back at least to Xenophon, Anabasis, IV, 6, 4, who during his description of his route in Armenia seems to designate by Phasis the Araxes, thinking that this river led to the river Phasis of Colchis, today Rioni in western Georgia. I. K. PARADEISOPOULOS, 2014: 220, 231. 78 Zosimus, New History, IV, 57, 2, does not support the presence of Eastern troops. 79 T HELAMON F. 1981, 93, n. 19, considers as conditional Bacurius’ death at the Battle of the Frigidus reported by Zosimus, then (p.94) ignore it and qualifies Bacurius as an Iberian king who would have reigned “before 361 or after 395”. 80 Zosimus, New History, IV, 57, 3: “Ἐκοινώνει δὲ τῆς ἀρχῆς αὐτοῖς καὶ Βακούριος ἔλκων μὲν ἐξ ‘Αρμενίας τὸ γένος, ἔξω δὲ πάσης κακονθείας ἀνὴρ μετὰ τοῦ καὶ τὰ πολεμικὰ πεπαιδεῦσθαι - ἠ μὲν οὖν ἀρχαιρεσία τοῦτον αὐτῷ διετέθη τὸν τρόπον”. Translation adapted from F. PASCHOUD , 1979. 76 179 has completed the account of the battle, Zosimus returns to the singular figure of this general (στρατηγός, maybe in the sense of magister militum)81. “That same day, the allies of the Emperor Theodosius in their majority were killed, including Bakourios: among their generals, he faced the danger with the greatest courage, while the others, in an unexpected way, fled with survivors”.82 The essential fact is that Socrates appears as the only author making obviously one character out of the Bacurius delivering the story of the conversion in Iberia and the Bacurius fighting in the Theodosian army. Although Zosimus is the only author to indicate the death of the general during the Battle of the Frigidus, since Socrates of Constantinople mentions only his presence in the confrontation, we can deduce that Bacurius in Rufinus and his successors is well comparable to the Bakourios of Zosimus, thanks to the link of identification carried out by Socrates of Constantinople. Bacurius’ death in 394 is consequently a certain fact, and constitutes a crucial factor in deciding the issues of identification which involve Bacurius facing his Armeno-K’art’velian namesakes83. Bacurius’ presence in Jerusalem mentioned by Rufinus has therefore not been continuous between 380 and 392, but was interrupted by various military and political activities to which the character took part. However, this career in the Roman army did not prevent Bacurius, far from there, from building bridges of cooperation and friendship with the civilian elite of the Roman East. III. – Bacurius, a sociable man: beliefs and conviviality Enjoyed as much among Christians as among Pagans, Bacurius appears as a man who managed to build relationships and win the friendship of characters as opposed as Rufinus and Libanius. The notion of conviviality tends to express this logic of togetherness between individuals who are not of the same religious allegiance, a life of relationships with its agreements, mutual contributions but also conflicting friction between the various components of a multicultural society. 1) An inter-confessional sociability a) Friend of Christians Rufinus of Aquileia described Bacurius as “a very trustful man” (fidelissimus uir), “who took greatest care of religion and truth” (cui summa erat cura et religionis et ueritatis)84. Socrates of Constantinople and Theodore the Reader do not extend to the moral qualities of the character; as for Sozomen and Theodoret of Cyrus, they fail to report the identity of the one who reported the story of the conversion of the Iberians. However, the Anonymous of Cyzicus (Pseudo-Gelasius) evokes the “very loyal Bakkourios, a man filled with the fear [of God]” (ὁ πιστότατος Βακκούριος ὑφηγητὴς γέγονεν ἀνὴρ εὐλαβέστατος [...])85. Bacurius’ fides is underlined with insistence all the more since it is the guarantee of the validity of his testimony in the eyes of Rufinus of Aquileia and his successors. 81 See François PASCHOUD ’s critical apparatus in his edition of the New History of Zosimus, Paris, 1979: 463-464, n. 208. 82 Zosimus, New History, IV, 58, 3 : « [...] κατ αὐτὴν τὴν ἠμέραν, τὸ μὲν πολὺ μέρος τῶν Θεοδοςίῳ τῷ Βασιλεῖ συμμαχούντων ἀποθανεῖν, καὶ τῶν στρατηγῶν Βακούριον ἀνδρειότατα τῶν σφετέρων προκινδυνεύσαντα, τοὺς δὲ ἄλλους παραλόγως ἄμα τοῖς περιλειφθεῖσι διαφυγεῖν ». Translation adapted from F. PASCHOUD , 1979. 83 That’s the reason why, about Georgian inscription n. 1 found at Bir-el-Qutt in Palestine (dating from first half of the fifth century), the Christian Bakur mentioned on it could not be our Bacurius died several decades earlier. FÄHNRICH H. 2013: 179-180, n. 112. 84 Rufinus of Aquileia, Ecclesiastical History, I, 10 / §236. 85 Anonymous of Cyzicus (Pseudo-Gelasius), Ecclesiastical History, III, 10, 21. 180 This praise remains paradoxically imprecise on the confession professed by Bacurius, who was incidentally not specifically called Christian. Rufinus and his successors have thus retained an active spirituality, integrated, curious and respectful of Christianity, rather than a displayed confession in a partisan way. Such a choice of life combining piety and open mind seems allowing Bacurius not to limit his support to Christians alone, as is shown by the favor that this character received from some Pagans. b) Friend of Pagans If the first face of Bacurius is that of a witness to the expansion of Christianity in Iberia, through his account of the royal conversion in this country told to Rufinus86, then another side of this character appears through the testimony of the rhetor Libanius. This man was also frequented by Bacurius, the latter having met especially during a visit to Antioch probably in 391. Three mentions of Bacurius appear in correspondence of the professor of Antioch. One of these references is a letter from Libanius to Bacurius himself. “Your letter came to us while we were just talking about you, as we do to keep the circle of friends, and as the good opportunity that comes to praise your person gives us immense joy. As subjects of praise, one pleads in favor of your righteousness and of your belief that the gods see and know everything that happens on Earth, another one praises your moderation and the fact that you master your desires more than your soldiers, a third finally praises your wisdom that gives victory to your weapons. We are told that your soul was never afraid of any danger. But the largest of your merits seems to me that you like speeches and each of those who work on them; and that makes you the favorite of these gods, who have interest in the speech; they have interest in them, because that is their gift. Among these species of flowers so we stayed, and you were the meadow on which they grew, this is where the messenger got me your letter in the hands, which provides evidence of your love for speeches. Indeed, if the man who cultivates the art of war honors and carries in his heart the man of speeches, honoring him not only by his thought, but also by what he writes – how could it not come from a man who honors the rhetoric by what constitutes the lot of orators? However often I am about to write you, and yet some reason stopped me, not always the same, but still any reason, and it is also the same reason that the gods have sent you to increase your happiness. Because it is not the same to write a letter and answer a letter”.87 The letter would intervene shortly after Bacurius’ travel to Constantinople in 392 after his appointment to the position of comes domesticorum by Theodosius88. It raises the question of Libanius’ relationship with the military. While in general, men-at-arms were despised by the Antiochian professor, as being presented as rude, greedy for booty, and mostly uneducated, Bacurius would represent – according to Bernadette C ABOURET – “a counter-model”89, with his qualities of justice, moderation, self-control, wisdom, piety and love of literature. The fact that Libanius appears favorable to a cultivated general, even a barbarian one, demonstrates that the cultural factor prevails over the ethnic factor in terms of criteria for categorization of others in the Roman East elites’ mentalities. In this letter, we guess interested motive, namely the quest by Libanius for an ally able to defend the cause of a Paganism deeply undermined since the reversal of the emperor in favor of the supremacy of Christianity in the Empire90. 86 Since Rufinus was present in Palestine between 380 and 397, Bacurius could tell him this story only between 380 and 394. VESSEY 2004: 318-327. 87 Libanius, Letters, n. 1060 in the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae. Translation adapted with Rebecca L AFFIN ’s help from G. FATOUROS and T. KRISCHER ed., Munich, 1980, 72: 180-183. 88 G. FATOUROS and T. KRISCHER ed. 1980: 461-463. RAPP S. H. Jr. 2014: 73, suggests an earlier date, 380. 89 CABOURET B. 2012: 433. 90 Since the emperor’s penance before Ambrosius at Christmas 390, Theodosius operated a turning point in his religious policy by giving overall support to official Christianity institutions. New measures were taken 181 However, it appears disturbing to read Libanius praising Bacurius’ belief in “that the gods see and know everything that happens on Earth”, the same uir fidelissimus who gave to Rufinus of Aquileia the account of the Iberian conversion to Christianity. The way in which the very pagan Zosimus portrayed him favorably might also suggest that Bacurius had not completely broken with the preChristian beliefs. It seems fruitless to try to see a hypothetical conversion of Bacurius to Christianity from the time of his correspondence with Libanius and his encounter with Rufinus of Aquileia. Indeed, Bacurius was comes domesticorum of Theodosius when the professor of Antioch praised his respect for the gods, and only dux of the limes of Palestine – the previous grade – when he delivered his testimony to Rufinus, according to the latter (cum nobiscum Palaestini tunc limitis dux). A conversion in the reverse direction (from Christian to Pagan) is also unlikely, since Rufinus’ account was written in the very first years of the fifth century, namely after Bacurius’ death91. Regardless of the intimate content of the beliefs of Bacurius, which remains inaccessible to us, it is nevertheless remarkable that this man could make use of them to attract such laudatory opinions, especially from personalities as contrasted as Libanius and Rufinus. What is more, two other mentions of Bacurius in another two Libanius’ letters attest that the orator did not double talk about this character. “A nice letter came to us, from someone good through someone good, having well received it from you through Bakourios, brilliant as much by the body than by what he gave to his similar soul. I had not ordered it to you, but you, for love of us, you thought of doing it on your own in having sent up to here the diligent Bakourios [...]”.92 “Bakourios, having delivered Aristaenetus’ letter, since he had been persuaded to do it with pleasure, said that this one was for you, from Leontius. [...]” 93 These letters show a Bacurius amicably deigning to serve as a messenger between some Libanius’ correspondents: Aristaenetus (II) of Antioch94, born in 371, an alumnus of Libanius, to whom he was related, briefly held the post of prefect of the city of Constantinople somewhere between June 25, 392 and February 27, 393; Leontius (VI) was also a former student related to Libanius as well as Aristaenetus (II), and become consularis Phoenices in 39295. So Bacurius tied familiar relationships with influential figures of the senior administration in the eastern part of the Roman Empire, links that probably contributed to his rise in the military hierarchy. 2) Faith and politics: Bacurius’ projects for Iberia a) The story of the Iberian conversion - a plea for a Roman intervention in Caucasia? Bacurius’ periods of presence in Palestine, roughly between 380 and 392, are contemporary with the reign of Theodosius (r. 379-392 on the East, and 392-395 on the Empire). The time coincides against Paganism: in February 391, sacrifices and visits to the temples were prohibited. on 8 November 392 was completely prohibited the worship to the pagan gods. CHUVIN P. 1991: 63-95. 91 T HELAMON F. 1972: 5. 92 Libanius, Letters, n. 1043 to Aristaenetus: “Ἧκεν ἡμῖν γράμματα καλὰ παρὰ καλοῦ διὰ καλοῦ, παρὰ σοῦ καλῶς ἔχοντα διὰ Βακουρίου τοῦ λάμποντος μὲν τῷ σώματι, ψυχὴν δὲ ὁμοίαν ἐκείνῳ παρεχομένου. Σὺ δ’ ἡμῶν ἐρῶν οὐκ ἀρκεῖν σοι τοῦτο νομίζων προσέθηκας σαυτῷ τὸν χρηστὸν Βακούριον [...]”. Greek text from Thesaurus Linguae Graecae, Irvine: University of California, 2001-. Personal translation. 93 Libanius, Letters, n. 1044 to Leontius: “Δοὺς τὴν ἐπιστολὴν τὴν Ἀρισταινέτου Βακούριος, ἐπειδὴ ἀνέγνωστό τε καὶ μεθ’ ἡδονῆς, αὕτη δὲ ἔφη σοι <παρὰ> Λεοντίου. [...]”. Greek text from Thesaurus Linguae Graecae, Irvine: University of California, 2001-. Personal translation. 94 Aeristaenetus II should not be confused with Aristaenetus I, who was the best friend of Libanius, dead in the earthquake of Nicomedia on 24 August 358. 95 See the commentary on Libanius delivered in G. FATOUROS and T. KRISCHER ed. 1980: 461-463. 182 with a phase of negotiations with the King Šāpūr III to address the issue of Armenia. Wishing to avert the Persian danger, Theodosius was induced to conclude a treaty of peace and friendship, whereby Armenia was split between two Arsacid puppet kings. This Treaty of Acilisene, probably concluded in 387, yielded four fifths of the Armenian area to the kingdom protected by the Persians 96. The fact that the territories bordering the Iberia north and northwest have been included in this area of Iranian influence has probably raised concerns among the pro-Roman Iberian elites to which Bacurius belonged. If one reads the story of the Iberian conversion through this political reading, it would be possible to detect a message intended for the Emperor Theodosius and his successors. The closing of the narrative on the Iberian embassy to Constantine would in this sense defend a model of the good emperor attentive to the interests of the Church everywhere it grows. The integration of Iberia into Christianity would counterbalance its belonging to the Iranian world, and would arouse a political response from the guarantor of Christianity: namely the Roman emperor. The fact that the story narrating the appearance of Christianity in Iberia was developed in a Roman context, by a high-ranking officer benefiting from privileged links with the imperial Court and the ruling elite, very probably inspired a political reading of a religious phenomenon that was much less so before its recovery and its restatement by Bacurius. Certainly, once transcribed in the forms of ecclesiastical history, this episode tended to become more of the celebration of the work of the universal Church rather than a program of imperial strategy in the Caucasus. However, can we believe that Bacurius told his story to Rufinus only? It remains an open question, for lack of sources, but an affirmative answer would tend to give back all its political content to the first context of the reception of this story. Whatever may have been the religious convictions of Bacurius, his friends, Christian as well as Pagan, leads to believe that his action was not monopolized by a confessional factor. As a result, his account of the conversion of Iberia to Christianity was not so much aimed to celebrate a religious phenomenon already half a century old when Bacurius was supposed to say it, as it was to keep Iberia in Theodosius’ political agenda while the Treaty of Acilisene was being negotiated. Replacing Bacurius in the political history of international relations helps to capture the attitudes of these pro-Roman Iberian elites towards their hosts as well as about ideas dominating the minds in these host communities. b) Bacurius’ arrival to Valens’ Court In March 368, the orator Themistius visited Marcianopolis, a city not far from the Danubian border in Thrace. It is in this place that the emperor Valens, engaged in a campaign against the Goths, celebrated the fifth anniversary of his ascension to the throne (quinquennalia)97. The public attending the ceremony was largely made up of soldiers. Despite the martial nature of the circumstances, the eighth discourse of Themistius, titled Πενταετηρικός and pronounced on this occasion, is essentially devoted to the issues of tax justice and governance. On behalf of his fellow senators, Themistius expressed implicitly and skillfully his disagreement on the warmongering policy led by the sovereign, arguing that economic and financial problems should take precedence over those of the defense against external enemies. From Themistius’ perspective, the Roman state isn’t able anymore to provide the means for a policy of conquest: such means also benefited small groups of individuals, while the benefits of a policy of tax fairness and repopulation of the countryside would concern the whole of the Empire if such measures were implemented98. Nevertheless, Themistius shall save the image of the military as an 96 STEIN E. 1959: 205. I disagree with HOFFMANN D. 1978: 314, who chooses March 369. The quinquennalia were indeed celebrated at the beginning of the fifth year of reign, and not at the end of the fifth year. CHASTAGNOL A. 1980: 106. As Valens was called to join on the imperial throne his brother Valentinian in March 28, 364, the fifth year of his reign began March 28, 368. 98 See introductory note to speech n. 8 of Themistius in R. MAISANO ed. 1995. 97 183 instrument of imperial glory. It is in this last tone that takes place a passage describing a body of mounted archers, the flagship of Valens’ army, then the arrival of a character who, although not named, presents several details that could remind one of Bacurius. “Only yesterday I saw an army, better trained than any chorus. Homer is obviously quite outdated in admiring Menestheus as one fit to handle infantry and cavalry. The poet did not know the ordered movement of your phalanx, the instinctive understanding of your cavalry or those trained to live with their weapons, nor was he ever struck with joyful amazement at such a sight. He would, I believe, mock the story of the line and the dove99, having seen the mobile archers who, leaving the reins to their steeds, shoot more accurately than those with their feet on the ground. It is not surprising that Priam called Agamemnon blessed for bringing so many Phrygian soldiers from Greece100. Now in your case, there is a man who, rejecting his ancestral throne – and that of no obscure kingdom – comes as a wanderer to bear arms: a good omen of victories in the East”.101 If Themistius doesn’t explicitly associate the two facts, it would be tempting to assume that this ex-king or this prince, come to serve Valens, has been, someway or another, bound with a corps of mounted archers. These archers could have been recruited by his own care, unless he was himself part of them, maybe as a commander, such a hypothesis would bind the mounted archers in Themistius’ speech with the schola scutariorum sagittariorum appearing a decade later at the battle of Adrianople and commissioned by Bacurius, always on behalf of Valens102. A future participle qualifies the position occupied by this royal prince: δορυφορήσων, “intended to be a bodyguard [literally spear holder]”, apparently poorly compatible with the hypothesis of a body of mounted archers. The δορυφόρος operates at the base as a Greek equivalent of the Latin protector domesticus103, namely, an officer belonging to a privileged body attached to the service of the emperor and his staff104. It seems that during the 360’s there was a schola domesticorum, formerly known as schola protectorum, bringing together the cavalry of the imperial guard105. These Palatine scholae consisted partly of soldiers of foreign origin106. Admittedly, all units of elite riders were armed with spear and shield, except the sagittarii employing bows and arrows. However, it is possible that 99 In Iliad, XXIII, 850 and following, an archery competition was given on the funeral games in honor of Patroclus, where a bird was attached by a link. Teucer missed the bird and cut through the rope with his arrow, but Meriones won the prize for killing the bird in flight. Libanius means so that Homer would make fun of his own story, and the exploits of Valens’ mounted archery Valens would surpass those of heroes in Iliad who stood on the floor. HEATHER P. J. and J. MATTHEWS 2004: 31 n.55. 100 Iliad, III, 164-190. 101 Themistius, Speeches, 8, §116a-c/174-175 = HEATHER P. J. and J. MATTHEWS 2004: 31, slightly modified. See n. 56 p.31 for the identification of this character with Bacurius. 102 Ammianus Marcellinus, Roman History, XXXI, 12, 16. On the other hand, Themistius, Speeches, XV, §6-189C, evokes of the “slingers and archers” appearing in conjunction with the “contingents of Armenians and Iberians” of the Roman army (οἱ σφενδονῆται καὶ οἱ τοξόται οὐδὲ Ἀρμενίων ἶλαι οὐδὲ Ἰβήρων). In case the prince would be not part of this unit of mounted archers when Themistios gave his speech, it is possible to simply imagine a career development leading Bacurius to exercise successively in the scutarii and the sagittarii. We saw however also that the formulation of Ammianus was vague enough to leave open the possibility that Bacurius ordered the scutarii, and not the sagittarii, in the battle of Adrianople. 103 DELMAIRE R. 2008: 38. 104 BABUT E.-C. 1914: 267-269. 105 BABUT E.-C. 1914: 262-265. 106 See especially for the reign of Constantius the testimony of Ammianus Marcellinus, Roman History, XIV, 7, 9: the protectores are cited together with scholae palatinae, scutarii and gentiles, i.e. the units of the Palatine guard, shields-holders and “foreigners”. 184 Themistius wouldn’t have used δορυφορήσων in its strict sense of “carrying the spear”, but in a more generic one, to serve in the imperial guard, regardless of the weapon107. Another decisive argument for the identification of this prince in Themistius with Bacurius: the portrait of the man described by the orator at Marcianopolis corresponds perfectly with what is known of Bacurius from the indications of Rufinus of Aquileia and his successors of ecclesiastical history, because each of these documents deals with a man of royal rank come to serve the Empire in the Eastern army. The fact that neither the precise identity of this character nor the kingdom from which he is supposed to come are mentioned in Themistius could be explained by the fact that this information was already known to the audience of high-ranking military officers. It is likely that this man himself attended Themistius’ speech. If he was Bacurius, a very probable hypothesis, this would be a confirmation of the favorable image enjoyed by this character in elite circles of the Roman East, thus corroborating Libanius’ evidence. Three points can be drawn up from the admittedly allusive Themistius’ indications about the circumstances of the emigration of this royal character. The phrase “τὰ σκῆπτρα ὑπεριδὼν τὰ πατρῷα”, with an aorist participle meaning literally “having looked down”, and that can be translated as “having despised / scorned / given up the paternal scepter”, seems to suggest that the reason that led this character to emigrate in the Empire must have more to do with a voluntary departure than a forced exile. On the other hand, the presence of an adjective referring to the legacy of the ancestors to qualify the royal power held by this character could mean that this man would not have the opportunity to exercise the kingship, but that he was destinated to. Finally, the way by which Themistius praises the arrival of this prince in the Roman army suggests that this was, at the time when the speech n. 8 was pronounced, a recent event. For the first two reasons given above, the possibility that this warrior of royal rank in Themistius designates the king Sauromaces in Ammianus Marcellinus can be reasonably excluded108. Sauromaces’ fall was the upshot of Sasanian intervention during a period of Iranian supremacy in South Caucasia after Julian’s defeat, although we cannot determine with certainty whether the departure of the Iberian king had been or had not been included in the terms of the Treaty of Jovian with the Persians July 10, 363. One hypothesis would be to see in this passage of Themistius’ speech the praise of king Sauromaces working to recover his throne, efforts which would eventually lead to the campaign led by Terentius in 370109. However, some details in Themistius’ text don’t seem to correlate with Sauromaces’ situation. The departure of the latter was obviously forced; as a result, the Iberian king couldn’t have “despised the scepter of his ancestors” that he sought to recover with the help of the Romans. Moreover, the mention of the paternal scepter would appear somewhat incongruous if it applied to a king who had already ruled before emigrating in the Empire, which is precisely the case for Sauromaces. The date of Sauromaces’ arrival in the Empire could be practically coincident with that of Bacurius, even if we don’t know precisely when Sauromaces was expelled from his throne: Ammianus Marcellinus places it at the reversal of Šāpūr II, after this Persian sovereign was shown to be “during some time friend of the Romans” (cum suis paulisper nobis uisus amicus), and was interested in Armenia 107 DELMAIRE R. 2008: 40. Moreover, the fact that the official designation of the Palatine schola of mounted archers is “Scola scutariorum sagittariorum”, “schola of scutarii and archers”, could explain this trend of Greek authors to designate the imperial guards only as carrying spears and shields. A limit to this argument in our case is that Themistius mentions explicitly Valens’ mounted archers and therefore could have said simply that the prince was part of them, if it had been the case. 108 Ammianus Marcellinus, Roman History, XXVII, 12, 1-4 and 12, 15-18. 109 BAYNES N. H. 1910: 637-638, opts for 371. 185 once again. In the sequence of events described by the author of the Roman History, Sauromaces’ expulsion is placed after the capture and death of the Armenian king Aršak II, tortured by the Persians in the jails of the fortress Agabana. This capture is set commonly in 367 110, however, the matter is discussed111. It would give for the arrival of Sauromaces a possible date in 367, 368 or 369. In the case of low dating from Norman H. BAYNES 112 — namely during Sauromaces’ expulsion in 369, the arrival of this Iberian king would intervene after Themistius’ speech, disabling at the same time his hypothetical identification to the royal prince mentioned by this orator. The alternative hypothesis to see in Themistius’ royal character prince Pap113, king of Armenia (r.367/368-374) doesn’t seem to surpass Bacurius’ track. This Pap, son of the king Aršak II, could escape from the besieged citadel of Artogerassa to reach Roman soil, where he was greeted by Valens, who allowed him to reside in Neocaesarea, a city of Pontus. This episode is placed by Ammianus Marcellinus114 in the direct continuation of the story narrating Sauromaces’ expulsion, suggesting that these two events were almost coincident. However, as pointed out by Dietrich HOFFMANN, Pap was only a high-ranking refugee who obviously was not hired as a bodyguard in the imperial service115. Consequently, if the royal prince in Themistius can be identified with Bacurius, his arrival in the Empire can be dated to 367 or during the first three months of the year 368. If one accepts that the arrival of Bacurius occurred shortly after the Persian intervention drove Sauromaces from his throne in favor of Aspacures, we could interpret it as a sign of a migration of Iberian pro-Roman elites fleeing the new plan introduced by pro-Sasanian elites supported by the Persians. Epic Histories allege that around 370, shortly before the restoration of Sauromaces’ power and the partition of Iberia, sparapet Mušeł, a sympathizer of the Romans, led a campaign against what should be supporters of the Sasanians in South Caucasia. Now in this campaign, Mušeł “seized and beheaded the bdeašx of Gugark‘, who had formerly served the king of Armenia and subsequently revolted”116. It is highly probable to locate the reasons of this reversal operated by the bidaxš of Somxit’i / Gugark‘ in the particular context of 367-368, marked by the fall of the allies of Rome in Armenia with the capture of Aršak II, as well as in Iberia by the exile of Sauromaces 117. The Armeno-K’art’velian marchland from which Bacurius left had therefore tipped in the pro-Sasanian camp as it changed allegiance for Aspacures’ protection. The chances are high that some members of this pro-Roman Caucasian elite, notably Bacurius in Gugark‘ / Somxit’i marchland, were reluctant to see their territory exposed to the appetites of the pro-Sasanian parties emerging especially in the monarchy of Mc’xet’a, and would have sought a necessary support to counter the risks of destabilization induced by political and military changes in South Caucasia at the end of the 360’s. Bacurius’ arrival in the imperial army thus occurs at a crossroads in the Iberian history when the question arises of a new Roman intervention in the Caucasus to overthrow King Aspacures protected by the Sasanians. The testimony of Themistius evokes implicitly the presence of Iberian protagonists enjoying a close relationship with the community leaders of the imperial Court of the East, able to influence the foreign policy of the Romans. Beside these casual factors, cultural features can be detectable in what appears to be a real family tradition for sending young Iberian nobles to the imperial Court in order to receive an education for 110 518. See the chronology of Arsacid sovereigns’ reigns in Armenia delivered by L ANG D. M. 1983: 517- 111 BAYNES N. H. 1910: 636 refuses to date this event before late 368 or even the beginning of 369. BAYNES N. H. 1910: 637. 113 About this Pap, see JONES A. H. M. and alii 1971: 665-666. 114 Ammianus Marcellinus, Roman History, XXVII, 12, 5-10. 115 HOFFMANN D. 1978: 307-318. 116 Epic Histories, V, 15 = N. G. GARSOÏAN transl.: 201, very slightly modified. 117 Ammianus Marcellinus, Roman History, XXVII, 12, 1-4. 112 186 fighting and ruling. A network seems to be implemented on at least three generations from Bacurius, including Subarmachios, Pharsamanios and Nabarnugios. Even if we know clear links only between these last two characters, respectively great-uncle and nephew, it is not impossible to see in this succession the testimony of a longer chain of intergenerational solidarity, in that a young Iberian performing his military training path would be supported upon arrival in the Empire by an older relative occupying a higher rank, taking on the role of guardian (მზრდელი, mzrdeli) or foster father (მამამძუძე, mamamżuże), a typically Iranian educational institution118. As for the Romans, they could find a pool of senior officers, talented and loyal, able to ensure the recruitment and management of auxiliary units whose composition may have been ethnically dominated, and whose expertise was recognized and appreciated in the Roman army. The fact that these princes have likely received an education of the letters, including Greek, the main language of communication with Armazian in Iberia, was also sure to please the refined elites of the Roman East. It is difficult to draw all the conclusions about Bacurius’ background and identity with certainty. The numerous homonyms concerning this name as well as the gaps in our documentation complicated the demonstration aimed to identify the same figure and distinguish it from that of other Caucasian princes. Nevertheless, the Bacurius frequented by Rufinus and Libanius would have every chance to designate a unique character, having served in the Roman army in the last third of the fourth century, before falling during the Battle of the Frigidus. In any case, there is no definitive evidence, in my opinion, to demonstrate that there would have been rather several Bacurius having gained such notoriety in the Empire. On the other hand, the man who reported the story of the conversion of the Iberians is properly distinguished from the Armeno-K’art’velian bidaxšes and Iberian kings active in the early decades of the fifth century. If Sauromaces and Pap could return to their homeland in 370 with the expedition led by the dux Terentius, Bacurius did not go back to his country, possibly for the greatest happiness of the historian, who otherwise may not have known the story of the conversion of the Iberians transcribed by Rufinus of Aquileia and his successors. Whatever it is, the most memorable of Bacurius’ legacies remains without doubt this figure of the captiua, modestly hatched in this first story, from which a long and rich tradition developed into the cycle of St. Nino. Bibliography Sources Unless otherwise stated, references to classical literary sources are given under the conventions of the Library of Latin Texts and the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae Online. 118 RAPP S. H. Jr. 2014: 88-89. I don’t consider that these four senior officers of the Iberians would have known personally each other and would have directly taken turns at the head of the same position, because our information is much too fragmentary to restore the number and details of such careers involving Iberian princes. For we know about Pharsamanios and Nabarnugios, we see that the second was born around 413 / 417 — between nine and thirteen years after the terminus ad quem for the departure of his great-uncle Pharsamanios from the imperial Court, which had to happen before 404, date of the death of his persecutor Eudoxia, wife of Arcadius. Accordingly, Pharsamanios could be the guardian of his nephew Nabarnugios in his early military career within the Empire. On the other hand, the fact that Pharsamanios, Nabarnugios and probably Bacurius have belonged to the same family of bidaxšes in Somxit’i / Gugark‘, related to the ruling dynasty of Mc’xet’a, shows that a familial solidarity should exist and involve co-operation and support between its members, particularly in relation with the ruling elite of the Roman world. 187 Ammianus Marcellinus, Roman History. Ammien Marcellin, Histoires, Paris: Les Belles Lettres, six volumes: É. GALLETIER (ed.), 1968 (volume I, books XIV-XVI); J. FONTAINE (ed.), 1996 (volume III, books XX-XXII), 2002 (volume IV, books XXIII-XXV); M.-A. MARIÉ (ed.), 1984 (volume V, books XXVI-XXVIII); G. S ABBAH (ed.), 1970 (volume II, books XVII-XIX), 1999 (volume VI, books XXIX-XXXI). Anonymus of Cyzicus (Pseudo-Gelasius), Ecclesiastical History. Anonymus von Cyzicus, Historia ecclesiastica, Kirchengeschichte, G. C. HANSEN (ed.), Turnhout: Brepols, 2008. Two volumes. Claudian, Panegyric for the third consulship of the emperor Honorius. Claudien, Œuvres, J.-L. CHARLET (ed.), volume II, Poèmes politiques : 395-398, Paris: Les Belles Lettres, Collection des Universités de France, 2000. Epic Histories (Buzandaran Patmut‘iwnk‘) (ex-Faustus of Byzantium / ps. P‘awstos Buzand). Փաւստոս Բուզանդացի, Պատմութիւն Հայոց, ի չորս դպրութիւնս, ՎենետիկԻ Տպարանի Սրբոյն Ղազարու, 1933. Republished on the website of the Digital Library of Armenian Literature. URL: http://www.digilib.am/book/310/ The Epic Histories Attributed to P‘awstos Buzand (Buzandaran Patmut‘iwnk‘), English translation by N. G. GARSOÏAN. Cambridge Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1989. Expositio totius mundi et gentium. Expositio totius mundi et gentium, J. ROUGÉ (ed.), Paris: Cerf, Sources chrétiennes, n. 124, 1966. Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum. Fragmenta historicorum graecorum ... auxerunt, notis et prolegomenis illustrarunt, indici plenissimo instruxerunt Car. et Theod. Mulleri. Accedunt marmora parium et rosettanum, hoc cum Letronnii, illud cum C. Mulleri commentariis. K. MÜLLER, T. MÜLLER and V. LANGLOIS (ed.), Paris: Firmin Didot, 1841-1873. Five volumes. John Rufus, Life of Peter the Iberian (Syriac version). The Lives of Peter the Iberian, Theodosius of Jerusalem, and the Monk Romanus, C. B. HORN and R. R. P HENIX Jr. (ed.), Atlanta (Georgia): Society of Biblical Literature, 2008. Koriwn, Life of Maštoc‘. Կորիուն, Վարք Մաշտոցի : բնագիրը, ձեռագրական այլ ընթերցվածներով, թարգմանությամբ՝ առաջաբանով եվ ծանոթություններով ի ձեռն Մանուկ Աբեղյանի / M. ABEŁEAN (ed.), Երևան: Հայպետհրատ, 1941. Republished on the website of the TITUS Project, Կորիւն, Վարք Մաշտոցի. Last update on 06 May 2016. URL: http://titus.unifrankfurt.de/texte/etcs/arm/koriwn/koriw.htm MAHÉ J.-P., “Koriwn, La Vie de Maštoc‘, traduction annotée”, Revue des Études Arméniennes, 30, 2005-2007, p.59-97. 188 Libanius, Letters. Libanios, Briefe, G. F ATOUROS and T. KRISCHER (ed.), Munich: Mü nchen Heimeran Verl., 1980. Life of K’art’li (K’art’lis C’xovreba) = Georgian Chronicles. Life of the Kings. Conversion of K’art’li by Nino. Life of the Successors of Mirian. Life of Vaxtang Gorgasali. ქართლის ცხოვრება, ს. ყაუხჩიშვილი / S. QAUXČ’ IŠVILI (ed.), ტომი I, თბილისი: სახელგამი, 1955. Reprinted as K‘art‘lis C‘xovreba: The Georgian Royal Annals and Their Medieval Armenian Adaptation, S. H. R APP Jr. (general ed.), volume 1, ACS, Delmar, New York: Caravan Books, 1998. Republished on the website of the Association of Modern Scientific Investigation (AMSI). URL : http://www.amsi.ge/istoria/qc/. Rewriting Caucasian History – The Medieval Armenian Adaptation of the Georgian Chronicles, English translation by R. W. T HOMSON, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996. Life of Peter the Iberian (Georgian version). “ცხორებაჲ და მოქალაქობაჲ წმიდისა და ნეტარისა მამისა ჩუენისა პეტრე ქართველისაჲ, რომელი იყო ძე ქართველთა მეფისა”, in ძველი ქართული აგიოგრაფიული ლიტერატურის ძეგლები, წიგნი II. ი. აბულაძე / I. ABULAŻE (ed.), თბილისი: საქართველოს სსრ მეცნიერებათა აკადემიის გამომცემლობა, 1967, p.213263. Movsēs Xorenac‘i, History of Armenia. Movsisi Xorenac‘woy Patmowt‘iwn Hayoc‘, M. ABEŁEAN and S. YAROWTՙIWNEAN (ed.), Tpՙłis, 1913 (Armenian). Republished on the website of the TITUS Project, Մովսէս Խորենացի, Հայոց պատմութիւն. Last update on 09 December 2008. URL : http://titus.fkidg1.uni-frankfurt.de/texte/etcs/arm/mokhor. Histoire de l’Arménie par Moïse de Khorène, French translation by A. and J.-P. MAHÉ, Paris: Gallimard, 1993. Moses Khorenats‘i: History of the Armenians, English translation by R. W. T HOMSON, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1978. Notitia Dignitatum. La “Notitia dignitatum”: nueva edición crítica y comentario histórico. C. NEIRA F ALEIRO, J. ARCE and L. BORHI (ed.), Madrid: Consejo superior de investigaciones científicas, 2005. Text reworked from the PhD thesis of C. NEIRA F ALEIRO, directed by J. J. DE ARCE MARTÍNEZ, sustained in the Universidad Complutense of Madrid, Facultad de Filología, Departamento de Filología Clásica, 28 April 1998. Notitia dignitatum; accedunt Notitia urbis Constantinopolitanae et laterculi prouinciarum, O. SEECK (ed.), Berlin: Weidmann, 1876. 189 Royal List II in Mok’c’evay K’art’lisay (Conversion of K’art’li). ძველი ქართული აგიოგრაფიული ლიტერატურის ძეგლები, წიგნი I (V-X სს.). ი. აბულაძე / I. ABULAŻE (ed.), თბილისი: საქართველოს სსრ მეცნიერებათა აკადემიის გამომცემლობა, 1963-1964, 9115-9633 for Royal List II. Republished on the website of AMSI. URL: http://www.amsi.ge/istoria/qm/. The Wellspring of Georgian Historiography: The Early Medieval Historical Chronicle, the Conversion of K’art’li, and the Life of St. Nino, English translation by C. B. LERNER, London: Bennett & Bloom, 2004, p.146-150 for Royal List II. Rufinius of Aquileia, Ecclesiastical History. Rufini Aquileiensis presbyteri Historiae Ecclesiasticae libri duo, in Patrologia latina database, volume 21. Alexandria: Chadwyck-Healey, 1995-1996. Electronic text adapted from: MIGNE J.-P. Patrologia Latina, volumes 1-217: 1844-1864. - volumes 218-221: Indices generales simul et speciales, patrologiae latinae. I-IV [1963]. Paris: Migne ed.; then Turnhout: Brepols, 1844-[1963]. Socrates of Constantinople, Ecclesiastical History. Socrate de Constantinople, Histoire ecclésiastique, G. C. HANSEN, P. MARAVAL and P. P ÉRICHON (†) (ed.), Paris: Cerf, Sources chrétiennes. Four volumes. Book I, 2004. Books IIIII, 2005. Books IV-VI, 2006. Book VII, 2007. Themistius, Speeches. Discorsi di Temistio, R. MAISANO (ed.), Torino: Unione tipografico-editrice Torinese, 1995. Zosimus, New History. Zosime, Histoire nouvelle, F. P ASCHOUD (ed.), Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1971-1989, new edition 2000. Five volumes. Works BABUT E.-C. 1914: “Recherches sur la Garde impériale et sur le corps d’officiers de l’armée romaine aux IVe et Ve siècles (Suite et fin)”, Revue historique, CXVI, fascicle 2, p.225-293. BAYNES N. H. 1910: “Rome and Armenia in the Fourth Century”, The English Historical Review, volume 25, n. 100, p.625-643. BLOCKLEY R. C. 1983: The Fragmentary Classicising Historians of the Later Roman Empire: Eunapius, Olympiodorus, Priscus and Malchus, Liverpool: F. Cairns, 1981-1983. Two volumes. BLUMELL L., J. CIANCA, P. RICHARDSON and W. TABBERNEE 2014: “The Roman Near East”, in W. T ABBERNEE (ed.), Early Christianity in Contexts: An Exploration across Cultures and Continents, Grand Rapids (Mich.): Baker Academic, Division of Baker Publishing Group, p.11109. BRAUND D. 1994: Georgia in Antiquity: A History of Colchis and Transcaucasian Iberia 550 BC-AD 562, Oxford: Clarendon Press. 190 BURNEY C. A. and D. M. LANG 1971: The Peoples of the Hills: Ancient Ararat and Caucasus, New York: Praeger. CABOURET B. 2012: “Libanios et les militaires”, in B. CABOURET, A. GROSLAMBERT, C. WOLFF (ed.), Visions de l’Occident romain, Hommages à Yann Le Bohec, Paris: CEROR, p.433448. CHASTAGNOL A. 1980: “À propos des quinquennalia de Constantin”, Revue numismatique, volume 6, n. 22, p.106-119. CHUVIN P. 1991: Chronique des derniers païens: la disparition du paganisme dans l’Empire romain, du règne de Constantin à celui de Justinien, Paris: Les Belles Lettres. DELMAIRE R. 2008: “Les soldats de la garde impériale à l’époque théodosienne, le témoignage des sources religieuses”, Antiquité tardive, 16, p.37-42. DJOBADZE W. Z. 1976: Materials for the Study of Georgian Monasteries in the Western Environs of Antioch on the Orontes, Louvain: Corpussco. F ÄHNRICH H. 2013: Die ältesten georgischen Inschriften, Leiden-Boston: Brill. FLUSIN B. 1991 : “Conférence de M. Bernard Flusin”, in École pratique des hautes études, Section des sciences religieuses, Annuaire, tome 100 (1991-1992), p.365-369. G IORGADZE G. 2008: “The Armazian Script”, in FURTWÄNGLER A., I. GAGOSHIDZE, H. LÖHR and N. LUDWIG (ed.), Iberia and Rome: The Excavations of the Palace at Dedoplis Gora and the Roman Influence in the Caucasian Kingdom of Iberia, Langenweißbach: Beier & Beran, p.253255. HEATHER P. J. and J. MATTHEWS 2004: The Goths in the Fourth Century, Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. HOFFMANN D. 1978: “Wadomar, Bacurius und Hariulf. Zur Laufbahn adliger und fürstlicher Barbaren im spätromischen Heere des 4 Jahrhunderts”, Museum helveticum, volume 35, n. 4, p.307-318. JONES A. H. M., J. R. MARTINDALE and J. MORRIS 1971: The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire. Volume I A. D. 260-395, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. KELLY C. 2015: “Pliny and Pacatus – Past and Present in Imperial Panegyric”, in W IENAND J. (ed.), Contested Monarchy: Integrating the Roman Empire in the Fourth Century AD, New York: Oxford University Press, p.215-238. LANG D. M. 1983: “Iran, Armenia, and Georgia”, in YARSHATER E. (ed.), The Cambridge History of Iran, volume 3, part 1. The Seleucid, Parthian and Sasanian periods, Cambridge (Great-Britain); New York; Melbourne [etc.]: Cambridge University Press, p.505-536. LE BOHEC Y. 2006: L’Armée romaine sous le Bas-Empire, Paris: Picard. LERNER C. B. 2004: The Wellspring of Georgian Historiography: The Early Medieval Historical Chronicle, the Conversion of K’art’li, and the Life of St. Nino, London: Bennett & Bloom. 191 MARTINDALE J. R. 1980: The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire. Volume II, A. D. 395-527, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. MODÉRAN Y. 2003: L’Empire romain tardif 235-395 ap. J.-C., Paris: Ellipses. PARADEISOPOULOS I. K. 2014: “Route and Parasangs in Xenophon’s Anabasis”, Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies, 54, p.220-254. RAPP S. H. Jr. 2003: Studies in Medieval Georgian Historiography: Early Texts and Eurasian Contexts, CSCO, volume 601, Subsidia, volume 113, Louvain: Peeters. RAPP S. H. Jr. 2009: “The Iranian Heritage of Georgia: Breathing New Life into the Pre-Bagratid Historiographical Tradition”, Iranica Antiqua, volume XLIV, p.645-692. RAPP S. H. Jr. 2014: The Sasanian World through Georgian Eyes: Caucasia and the Iranian Commonwealth in Late Antique Georgian Literature, Farnham, Surrey, England; Burlington, Vt.: Ashgate. SHAHID I. 1984: Byzantium and the Arabs in the fourth century, Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks research library and collection. S TEIN E. 1959: Histoire du Bas-Empire. Tome premier, de l’État romain à l’État byzantin, 284-476, Paris : Desclée de Brouwer. French translation by Jean-Rémy PALANQUE. T HELAMON F. 1972: “Histoire et structure mythique : la conversion des Ibères”, Revue Historique, volume 247, fascicle 1, 501, p.5-28. T HELAMON F. 1981: Païens et chrétiens au IVe siècle. L’apport de l’« Histoire ecclésiastique » de Rufin d’Aquilée, Paris: Études Augustiniennes. T OUMANOFF C. 1963: Studies in Christian Caucasian History, Washington: Georgetown University Press. T OUMANOFF C. 1969: “Chronology of the Early Kings of Iberia”, Traditio, volume 25, p.1-33. T OUMANOFF C. 1971: “Caucasia and Byzantium”, Traditio, volume 27, p.111-158. T OUMANOFF C. 1990: Les Dynasties de la Caucasie chrétienne de l’Antiquité jusqu’au XIXe siècle : Tables généalogiques et chronologiques, Roma: [publisher not identified]. VESSEY M. 2004: “Jerome and Rufinus”, in YOUNG F. M., L. AYRES and A. LOUTH (ed.), The Cambridge History of Early Christian Literature, Cambridge-New York, p.318-327. WOODS D. 1996: “Subarmachius, Bacurius, and the Schola Scutariorum Sagittariorum”, Classical Philology, volume 91, n. 4, p.365-371. ZAKERI M. 1993: Sāsānid Soldiers in Early Muslim Society: A Discussion of Historical Continuities, PhD diss., Salt Lake City: University of Utah. ZUCKERMAN C. 1998: “Comtes et ducs en Égypte autour de l’an 400 et la date de la Notitia Dignitatum Orientis”, Antiquité tardive, 6, p.137-147. 192 SUMMARIES Revaz Kvirkvaia ARTIFACTS FROM LEGHVANI The village Leghvani is located in west Georgia, Imereti, Kharagauli municipality. In 1978, artifacts and human bones were accidentally found during the agricultural activities in the place called “Vefkhvadzeebis Gora” (NW part of village). The artifacts are now preserved in Kharagauli municipal museum and are known as Leghvani hoard, however, they apparently belonged to the grave assemblage. The collection consists of 55 items, 54 of them were made of bronze and one from silver (statuettes of wild goat, deer, bull, rams, and uncertain animals (Pl. III. Photo 19-25); also pendants (Pl. I-1 (1-179); 2 (179); 21 (178); 11,12 (177); 24 (477); 13 (185); IV-37 (1-167. Photo 1-6; 11), ear ring (Pl. I-20), finger ring (Pl. I-8 (183); 23 (184). Photo 7-8), fibulae (Pl. I-16 (185); 17 (185); 19 (185). Photo 12), belt-buckles(Pl. II, Photo 13-15), mace-head(Pl. I-10 (173). Photo 17-18), and the artifacts of uncertain function (Pl. I-9 (6960); 4 (6961); 22 (6958); 14 (6959); III-33 (6702).). Taking into account the parallels of these artifacts, the collection can be dated to the 2nd-3rd cent. AD. The region is rich with casually found artifacts (some of them are preserved at Kharagauli municipal museum) and archaeological sites of above mentioned period. It should be noted that during the first centuries AD the region was an important, frontier part of strong Iberian kingdom and was supposedly ruled by king’s governor (Pitiaxes). The burials of these high ranked officials with rich grave assemblages were found in the beginning of the 20th century, near the v. Leghvani, in the v. Bori (most of artifacts are preserved in Hermitage, St. Petersburg, Russia). Nevertheless, archaeological excavations were not conducted here. The region ruled by Pitiaxes could be divided into smaller units (supposedly small river gorges), which should have their rulers too. The village Leghvani is located in such small gorge – Leghvanula, which, according to its location, could be the center of such micro-region. The social differentiation in Georgia of the first centuries AD is reflected on burial inventory. Definitely, Leghvani collection cannot be considered as a burial inventory of the highest state officials, but is not a property of poor. Supposedly it could belong to the aristocracy of this micro-region. One more artifact, casually found in the vicinity of Leghvani fortress and preserved in Kharagauli municipal museum is the bronze open socketed spear, dated to the Late Bronze- Early Iron Age (photo 35). To the same period belongs the Colchian bronze axe preserved in the Georgian National Museum also found in the vicinity of Leghvani (photo 36).In addition, in the place called “Tkhmelnaris seril” (SW part of the village) the stone walls of a big settlement are preserved. Here Late Bronze Age and Medieval period pottery was found during the field surveys. In conclusion, we can say that the v. Leghvani is an interesting place in archaeological point of view and its excavations can give an interesting information about the ancient history of Georgia. 194 Illustrations: Pl. I - 1 (1-179). Bronze pendant; 2. (179). Bronze pendant; 3. (180). Bronze spear; 4. (6961).Bronze stem;5. (181).Bronze bracelet; 6. (1-182). Bronze ring; 7. (1-182). Bronze ring. Pl. II - 8 (183). Bronze ring; 9 (6960); Fragment of bronze artifact; 10 (173). Bronze mace ; 11 (177). Bronze pendant ; 12 (177). Bronze pendant ; 13 (185). Bronze pendant ; 14 (6959). Bronze pendant ; 15 (6957 Fragment of bronze buckle. Pl. III - 16 (185). Bronze Phibula ; 17 (185). Bronze Phibula ; 18 (185). Bronze Phibula (Fragment) ; 19 (185). Bronze Phibula ; 20 (6962). Bronze ear-ring ; 21 (178). Bronze pendant ; 22 (6958). Bronze stem ; 23 (184). Bronze finger-ring ; 24 (477). Bronze pendant ; Pl. IV - 25 (1-1). Bronze buckle ; 26 (1-164). Bronze buckle; 27 (165). Pl. V - 28 (1-169). The statuette of deer, bronze; 29 (1-170). The statuette of ram, bronze; 30 (1-168). The statuette of unidentified animal, bronze; 31 (1-145). The statuette of ox, bronze; 32 (1-172). The statuette of wild goat’s head, bronze; 32 (6702). The fragment of unidentified artifact, bronze; 34 (1-173). The statuette of wild goat’s head, bronze; 35 (1-171). The statuette of ram, bronze; Pl. VI - 36 (1-166). Disc-shaped silver artifact; 37 (1-167). Bronze pendant ; Pl. VII - 38(1-534). Bronzespear ; 39(16-51 :1) Bronze axe. Photos: 1. Bronze pendants (Leghvani) ; 2. Bronze pendant (Leghvani) ; 3. Bronze pendant (Leghvani) ; 4. Bronze pendant (Leghvani) ; 5. Bronze pendants (Leghvani) ; 6.B Bronze pendant ((Leghvani) ; 7. 26 (1-164). Bronze finger-ring (Leghvani); 8. Bronze finger-ring (Leghvani); 9. Bronze bracelet (Leghvani); 10. Bronze ring (Leghvani); 11. Bronze pendant (Leghvani); 12. Bronze Phibulae (Leghvani); 13.Bronze buckle (Leghvani); 14.Bronze buckle (Leghvani); 15.Bronze buckle ((Leghvani); 16.Fragment of bronze buckle (Leghvani); 17.B Bronze mace (Leghvani); 18.Bronze mace (Leghvani); 19.Statuettes of deer, bronze (Leghvani); 20. The statuette of ram, bronze (Leghvani); 21.The statuette of ram, bronze (Leghvani); 22.The statuette of wild goat’s head, bronze (Leghvani); 23. The statuette of ram, bronze (Leghvani); 24.The statuette of ox, bronze (Leghvani); 25.The statuette of unidentified animal, bronze (Leghvani); 26.The fragment of unidentified artifact, silver (Leghvani); 27. Pot, Clay ( Bori); 28. Jug, clay (Bori); 29. Bronze buckle (Ghoresha); 30.Bronze buckle (Qroli); 31. Bronze Phibula; (Ghoresha); 32. Bronze buckle (Vakhani); 33.The fragment of pot, clay (Chrdili); 34.The statuette of ram, bronze with stibium (Lashe). 35. Bronze ring (Leghvani); 36. Bronze axe (Leghvani). 195 **** Goderdzi Narimanishvilli POTTERY OF 7TH CENTURY BC - 7TH CENTURY AD FROM EAST GEORGIA The article refers to the technology of production, chronology, typological classification and stylistic characteristics of pottery of 7th century BC – 7th century AD from east Georgia, where 27 species of pottery were distinguished. Main typological ranges and the development of shapes of vessels are discussed in the article. On the basis of formal–typological classification and compatibility of typological ranges; also shapes, technology and ornamentation of vessels 9 chronological groups were distinguished among the pottery of 7th century BC – 7th century AD. The formal–typological classification made clear which species and types of vessels were characteristic for each chronological group; the area of their spreading and the line of development. According to their function following main groups can be distinguished: household, kitchenware, tableware, vessels for traveling and ritual vessels. This is the first part of the article, the second one will be published in the next issue of the Journal. *** Giorgi Makharadze IBERIA-COLCHIS IN THE DIADOCHOI ERA In the summer of 323 BC Alexander the Great suddenly died. This led to the collapse of his great Empire. In the autumn of 323 BC Media Atropatene became independent. In the spring of 322 a revolt broke out in Armenia. It was led by the high priest of Armavir Aramazd temple - Magi Mergam, a former Satrapy Orontes of Darius III Armenia (Armenian Ervand, Georgian Iared-IaredosIarvand) and Ardoardy. According to the old historical tradition, he was married to the sister of the last Hayk king Vahe (who did not have an heir) and claimed the Armenian throne. The rebels, led by Ardoard and Magi Mergam, expelled Neoptolemos from Armenia, who was appointed as Satrapy of Armenia by the Empire regent. He found refuge in Cappadocia. Thus, even the nominal government of the Macedonians fell in Armenia and in the country of Alarodians. During the rebellion, two “big” people living in Satrapy of Armenia - Matienes and Saspers, did not appear. In respect of Matienes, we can say that in the spring 322 BC positions of the Macedonians were still sufficiently strong to completely lose the control on “The Royal Road”, which was the main highway of the Empire. It is not accidental that the south-west part 196 of Armenia, in particular Mati ena eventually became a part of Seleucid Kingdom called the Satrapy of Ar menia. As for Saspers, they are mentioned in the sources before the revolt. According to Strabo, Alexander the Great sent his commander Molon to Svispirit, who was defeated and killed in the battle. The Armenian uprising was organized after Magius Mergam, Ardoard and Orontes had united. How did Saspers manage to start a revolt without allies and defeat Macedonians? Such a change in the balance of forces must have been caused by the migration of Meskhetians, which happened after the battle of Gaugamela in 331-325 BC in vacuum of the Macedonian government. Of course, it was a pure venture. Objectively, there was no force in the Empire capable of opposing Perdiccas (Royal Army). However, the Diadochi period was the time of adventurers. Azo, who according to old Georgian historical tradition led the migration of Meskhetians, is exactly this type of person and Alexander the Great’s hetairos (Patrick). Apparently, in 325 BC, when Alexander the Great appointed Persian Mihdrate as the Satrap of Armenia, Azo was ready for a war and did not obey him. This was followed by a punitive expedition (not later than in the spring of 323 BC), which ended in defeat. But, what was the life of heteiros without luck? The death of Alexander the Great in 323 BC and the loss of Armenia and the country of Alarodians in the spring of 322 BC showed that the risk was justified. Although Neoptolemeus managed to recover positions in Armenia, but he could not find time for Saspers. During the internecine he supported Perdicca’s opponents, because he hoped that Evmen Cappadocia, Paphlagonia and the Black Sea exit would remain to him. Thus, the army marched to Cappadocia. But, in the spring of 321 BC Evmen prevailed and Neoptolemeus was killed in the battle. Ardoard announced himself as the king of Armenia and the country of Alarody became independent as well. In 219 BC, after Antipater’s death, anew internal war broke out in the Empire, during which Ardoard supported Antigon. He had no other choice. Antigone was in Asia Minor with his huge army and represented a real threat. “The Georgian” supported Evmen, who had been granted the right of recognition of local dynasty king by the royal family. It was determinant for the “Georgian”. During the existence of Armenian kingdom Antigon did not represent a real threat. 197 *** Ana Gabunia ROMAN ENGRAVED GEMS FROM THE COLLECTION OF GEORGIAN NATIONAL MUSEUM The article is the sixth volume of glyptic materials from the Collection of Georgian National Museum. The Catalogue includes 24 Roman gems dated to the 1th -4th centuries AD. Gems are preserved in the glyptic department of Simon Janashia State Museum. Part of the collection of these gems comes from the excavations (Mtskheta Tomb, Mtsketa-Samtavro, Urbnisi, Tkhoti cemetery, Jinvali cemetery), while the other part is found by accident. Glyptic materials are dated according to their style of engraving, shape of the ring and other materials found in the grave. The depictions of the intaglios are defined, which helps us to find out which deities were popular, what symbols were used in a daily life and how people from Georgia followed the fashion of roman society in 1th -4th centuries AD. Illustrations: Pic 1. Inv. #28-51:15. Intaglio, garnet, with the depiction of Apollo. Mtskheta Tomb. Pic 2. Inv. #1118. Intaglio, cornelian, with the depiction of dog. Mtskheta, Samtavro. Pic 3. Inv. #1117. Intaglio, cornelian, with the depiction of Nemesis. Mtskheta, Samtavro. Pic 4 . Inv. # 1119. Intaglio, cornelian, with the depiction of Asclepius. Mtskheta, Samtavro. Pic 5a. Inv. # 1150. Intaglio, nicolo, with the depiction of portrait. Mtskheta, Samtavro. Pic 6a. Inv. #1115. Intaglio, garnet, with the depiction of mask. Mtskheta, Samtavro. Pic 7. Inv. #1265. Intaglio, cornelian, with the depiction of horse in chariot. Mtskheta, Samtavro. Pic 8. Inv. #1000. Intaglio, cornelian, with the depiction of portrait. found by accident in Kareli. Pic 9. Inv. #1113. Intaglio, garnet, with the depiction of portrait. Mtskheta, Samtavro. Pic 10a. Inv. #1112. Intaglio, cornelian, with the depiction of Eros. Mtskheta, Samtavro. Pic 11. Inv. #1116, Intaglio, cornelian, with the depiction of dolphin and fish. Mtskheta, Samtavro. Pic 12a. Inv. #1120. Intaglio, cornelian, with the depiction of krater. Mtskheta, Samtavro. Pic 13. Inv. #1202. Intaglio, cornelian, with the depiction of hand. Urbnisi. Pic 14. Inv. #1203. Intaglio, cornelian, with the depiction of ears of wheat. Urbnisi. Pic 15a. Inv. #1134, Intaglio, cornelian, with the depiction of two-clasped hand. Tbilisi. Pic 16. Inv. #1001. Intaglio, cornelian, with the depiction of goddess. Found by accident in Ruisi. Pic 17. Inv. #1221. Intaglio, cornelian, with the depiction of two-clasped hand. Found by accident in Tskneti. 198 Pic 18a. Inv. #1198. Intaglio, cornelian, with the depiction of two-clasped hand. Urbnisi. Pic 19a. Inv. #1199. Intaglio, cornelian, with the depiction of horse. Urbnisi. Pic 20a. Inv. #1200. Intaglio, cornelian, with the depiction of krater with ears of wheat. Urbnisi. Pic 21a. Inv. #1201. Intaglio, glass, with the depiction of Hermes. Urbnisi. Pic 22a. Inv. # 1228. Intaglio, cornelian, with the depiction of Nemesis. Jinvali cemetery, 1971. Pic 23a. Inv. #999. Intaglio, cornelian, with the depiction of Athena. Found by accident in Sagaredjo. Pic 24a. Inv. #1223. Intaglio, cornelian, with the depiction of Hermes. Tkhoti cemetery. *** Davit Lomitashvili, Besik Lortkifanidze, Nikoloz Murghulia, Paul Everill, Ian Colvin FORTRESS OF KHUNTSI The village of Khuntsi is located in the Martvili municipality of Samegrelo, western Georgia, on the west bank of the Tskhenistskali River, on the road that links Martvili, Khoni and Kutaisi. A few short sections of wall on Kukiti Hill (known locally as ‘Najikhu’, translating roughly from Mingrelian as ‘ruins (remains) of a castle’) indicate the presence of a fortress. Six years ago, the installation of amobile phone mast and associated infrastructure without consultation with the appropriate archaeological agencies revealed and damaged archaeological structures. Animal bone and fragments of pottery were retrieved, and are currently stored in the school in Khuntsi. It was information from a local school teacher, Zoya Gadelia, that led the Anglo-Georgian Expedition to Nokalakevi to investigate the site in 2015. Agathias of Myrina or Scholasticus, a sixth-century Byzantine historian, is among those who described military engagements in west Georgia in AD 542 between Byzantium and its Laz allies on the one side, and the Sassanid Persian Empire on the other. It was part of a confrontation that lasted for more than 20 years, and contemporaneous accounts describe it as the ‘Great War of Egrisi’. Agathias refers several times to the fortress of Onoguris, which was strategically important to both the Byzantines and the Iranians, and he notes this as the ancient name of the place, known as Hagios Stephanos in his day (Stepantsminda in Georgian, Saint Stephen in English). In the 1980s, the Nokalakevi expedition undertook archaeological excavations at Abedati fortress, in the Martvili district, and publications linked the site with Onoguris. In recent years, this issue was discussed by A. Pailodze, who, in studying the work of Agathias and the geographic descriptions, stated that it was impossible to identify Abedati with Onoguris because of the distance from Kutaisi. He also noted that the mountain ridge of Unagira begins at the border with Imereti, near the village of Matkhoji on the opposite bank of the River Tskhenistsqali from the hill of upper Khuntsi, known as ‘Najikhu’. Pailodze reported some standing remains on the hill at Khuntsi, which 199 he suggested might be the remains of Onoguris, but he did not excavate. An archaeological evaluation, through the excavation of four test pits, was undertaken by a small team from the Anglo-Georgian Expedition to Nokalakevi in 2015, referring to the site as Khuntsistsikhe (‘the fortress of Khuntsi’). The initial aim was to examine archaeological layers inside the possible fortress, to study the stratigraphy and to retrieve finds in order to determine a site chronology. Investigation of the site was significantly expanded in 2016, with five trenches designed to shed further light on the structural remains indicated by the test pits. This archaeological work revealed more information on the size and scale of the fortifications, exposing a 25m-length of wall along the northern edge of the crown of the hill. Excavations also produced a large number of fragmentary fifth- to sixth-century ceramics, including amphorae, dergi (cooking vessels), pithoi (large storage vessels) and ceramic building material. A trench at the top of the hill revealed a hydraulic mortar floor with a finely ground ceramic pozzolan— an additive that produced a more durable, waterproof surface—contained within further substantial stone walls. To the west of this building, an adult male skeleton was revealed. He had been buried in a supine position, with the head to the west and the arms crossed across his abdomen. Within the adjacent building, areas of tiled surface survived, as did four fragments of rectangular column bases. When a small hole unexpectedly appeared in the floor of this building, it was possible to observe elements of a vaulted space underneath. It is certainly conceivable that, rather than representing a tower within the fortress as was first thought, this building was a chapel with a vaulted crypt. Illustrations: Pic. 1. The territory of Khuntsi fortress aerial photo. Pic. 2. Remains of octagonal structure. Pic. 3. The burial revealed under the floor of the structure. Pic. 4. Fragments of north wall of the fortress. Pic. 5. Ceramic containers from north part of the fortress. Pic. 6. Building ceramics from the structure in the citadel Pic. 7. The view from Khuntsi fortress to the east – r. Tskhenistskali gorge and mountain Khvamli. 200 *** Vakhtang Sharberashvili, Giorgi Chaduneli ARTIFACTS OF CLASSICAL PERIOD FROM KASPI MUSEUM The archaeological collection of Kaspi municipal museum is rich and includes the items of all periods (from stone Age to Medieval Period). The artefacts of Classical Period (5th century BC – 4th century AD) are also represented in the Collection. The article briefly reviews some interesting items of Classical Period preserved in Kaspi municipal museum (for the list see illustrations). Illustrations: Pl I – 1,2. Fragments of red painted pythoses from Tsikhiagora; 3. Red painted jug from v.Akhaltsikhe; 4. Cattle-like jug, clay, Tvaladi ; 5. Flask, wattle from flax, Kavtiskhevi, Sakaraulo seri burial ground; 6. Red painted jug from Kaspi; 7. Red painted smallpot from Kaspi; 8. Vessel with conic bottom from Kaspi; Pl II – 1. Gilt silver disk from Sasireti; 2.Silver neck-ring from Sasireti; 3. Pear-shaped jug, clay, from Sasireti; 4. The depiction on the jug from Sasireti; Pl III – The sculpture of Dyonisus from Kodistkaro; Pl IV – Bronze oinochoia from Zemo Khandaki; Pl V – 1,2. Bronze Buckle from Gostibe; 3,4. Silver bowl from Gostibe; Pl VI – 1-3 . Golden adornments from Okami; 4. Silver rhython from Khovle. *** Ketevan Ramishvili, Zebede Shatberashvili RICH BURIALS OF LATE ROMAN PERIOD FROM THE V. OKAMI In 1974 in the south-western extremity of the village Okami (Central Georgia, Kaspi municipality) a large quadrangular tomb (# 1) was accidentally discovered during earthworks. Small scaled archaeological excavations were undertaken here during the same year. The trench near the recent find revealed another tomb (# 2). In the tomb # 1 one deceased was buried. It was built of flat limestone slabs (measuring 2,1 X 0,75 m.). The burial assemblage included golden finger-ring, golden ear-ring with pearls and unidentified golden item. In the second burial man and women were buried. The tomb was roofed by limestone slabs and the walls were built of cobblestones (measuring 2, 3 X– 2,35 m.). The burial assemblage of grave #2 included golden medallion, golden coin of the Roman Emperor Diocletian, two pairs of golden ear-rings with pearls and a glass unguentarium. The Aureus of Diocletian gives a Terminus Post Quem, which is the beginning of the 4th century AD. Illustrations: 1-5. The grave assemblage of tomb # 2; 6-8. The grave assemblage of tomb # 1. 201 *** Nutsa Kipiani THE RED FIGURE CRATER The aim of this article is to publish the calyx crater from the collection of red figure vases kept in the fund of West European Art of the Georgian National Art Museum. Despite of being out of archaeological context it deserves an interest thanks to its high artistic value. On one side (A) of the crater the three figure dionysiac scene is depicted, on the other side (B) we see two figure composition of the so-called palestra theme. The comparable study of the crater leads us to assume that this vessel can be dated to the middle of the IV cent. B.C. *** Marine Pirtskhalava BOUTEROLLE FROM THE SETTLEMENT OF TRELIGOREBI The bone bouterolle was discovered over the course of archaeological field work in 2005 at the settlement of Treligorebi (NW part of Tbilisi) in the layer which dates from the 2nd half of the 7th - 6th c. BC. It is a scabbard chape of an oblong shape, on both sides of which figures of antitethical felines are carved. The animals are represented in profile, they are laying in the characteristic posture, stretched over the bended legs. The study of the shape of the bouterolle, as well as of the postures, of the composition and of the style of feline figures has shown, that the bouterolle from Treligorebi is one of the earliest specimens of felines images interpreted in the specific Scythian manner; stylistically they are close to images of felines on various objects from Ziwiye and despite the variety of compositions and postures, evince a stylistic unity with them; at the same time these feline figures bear features which lead us to the world of Luristan bronzes. Illustrations: Pl. I. The bone bouterolle from Treligorebi: side A and B, photographs and drawings. Pl. II. 1-5. The scabbard chapes of so-called half-oval shape with feline figures. 6. The bone so-called divider from Kelermes. 7-11. The feline images on the items from Ziwiye. 12. The gold bouterolle with antitethical felines’ fugures. 13. The bronze scabbard chape from Fascau. 14. The bone chape from Karmir-Blour. Pl. III. 15. Bone items in shape of birds with hyperbolical eye and curved beak. 16. Bronze horseshoe shaped item with feline figure from Jhurovka. 17. The bone spoon with felines’ figure from Darevka. 18. The bone handle of knife with felines’ figure from Malgobek. Pl. IV. 19-24. The feline figures from the world of Luristan Bronzes. 25. The so-called cock-heads adorning felines figures frm Luristan. 202 Semoklebebis ganmarteba • ABREVIATIONS: akc – arqeologiuri kvlevis centri. aZ – arqeologiuri Ziebani. bam Sromebi – baTumis arqeologiuri muzeumis Sromebi, baTumi g.k. _ gliptikis kabineti. enimki – enis, materialuri kulturisa da istoriis institute. iberia-kolxeTi – saqarTvelos erovnuli muzeumi. saqarTvelos klasikuri da adremedievuri periodis arqeologiur-istoriuli kvlevani. iaexis – istoriis, arqeologiis, eTnografiisa da xelovnebis istoriis seria. kae Sromebi – kaxeTis arqeologiuri eqspediciis Sromebi. kaZ - kavTisxevis arqeologiuri Zeglebi. mse – masalebi saqarTvelos eTnografiisaTvis mska _ masalebi saqarTvelosa da kavkasiis arqeologiaSi. mski _ masalebi saqarTvelosa da kavkasiis istoriisaTvis. sakZ – savele arqeologiuri kvleva-Zieba. sdsZ – samxreT-dasavleT saqarTvelos Zeglebi. sigk - saqarTvelos istoriuli geografiis krebuli. sikZa – saqarTvelos istoriisa da kulturis ZeglTa aRweriloba. sin _ saqarTvelos istoriis narkvevebi. smam _ saqarTvelos mecnierebaTa akademiis macne, istoriis, arqeologiis, eTnografiis da xelovnebis istoriis seria. sms - sazogadoebriv mecnierebaTa seria. ssmae _ saqarTvelos saxelmwifo muzeumis arqeologiuri eqspediciebi. ssmm _ saqarTvelos saxelmwifo muzeumis moambe. ssmm – s. janaSias saxelobis saqarTvelos saxelmwifo muzeumis moambe, Tbilisi qc - qarTlis cxovreba. Zm – Zeglis megobari. Ziebani – Ziebani saqarTvelos arqeologiaSi. АО – Археологические Открытия. ВДИ – Вестник древней истории. Икиаи - Известия Кавказского историко- археологического института. МАК- Материалы по археологии Кавказа. МАР - Материалы по археологии России. МИА – Материалы и исследования по археологии СССР. ПАИ – Полевые археологические исследования. СА – Советская археология. САИ - Свод археологических источников, Москва AA – Archaologischer Anzeiger. LIMC – Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae RM – Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archaologischen Instituts , Romische Abteilung AGSM – Annual of Georgian State Museum 203 informacia avtorebisaTvis saqarTvelos erovnuli muzeumis oTar lorTqifaniZis sax. arqeologiis centris JurnalSi _ `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), samecniero xasiaTis statiebi ibeWdeba. statiebi qarTul (inglisuri reziumeTi) da inglisur enaze miiReba; daaxloebiT 18 gverdi. am raodenobaSi Sedis: ZiriTadi teqsti, literaturis sia, tabulebis aRweriloba da tabulebi. redaqcias unda Cabardes statiebis eleqtronuli versia da misi amonabeWdi. gverdis zoma, standartuli, A4; fonti (Srifti) – _! Kolhety, an AcadNusx. zoma – 11. striqonebs Sua intervali _ 1,15. damowmebuli literaturis miTiTebis wesi: teqstSi miTiTeba kvadratul frCxilebSi unda iyos. MmagaliTad _ [lorTqifaniZe 1987: 129, tab. I, sur. 5]. boloSi, literaturis sia unda iyos anbanze dalagebuli (qarTuli, laTinuri da sxv.) _ avtoris gvari, inicialebi, gamocemis weli, saTauri, gamocemis adgili. MmagaliTad _ lorTqifaniZe oT. 2002: Zveli qarTuli civilizaciis saTaveebTan. Tbilisi. perioduli gamocemis an krebulis miTiTebisas win daurTe _ kreb. Jur. da Tu SesaZlebelia redaqtoris gvari; aucilebelia gverdebis miTiTeba. MmagaliTad _ Gamkrelidze G. 1998: Ein Rhyton mit Gutterdarstellung aus der Kolchis. - Archaologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan, Band 30, Berlin, S. 211-216. Tu erTsa da imave avtors erT weliwadSi ori an meti naSromi aqvs gamoqveynebuli, isini unda dalagdes anbanze. M magaliTad _ Шелов Д. 1956 a; Шелов Д. 1956 b. calke gverdze unda iyos warmodgenili gamoyenebul SemoklebaTa ganmartebis sia. moTxovnebi ilustraciuli masalis mimarT: fotoebis eleqtronuli versia _ JPEG formatSi, maRali xarisxis, aranakleb 300 rezoluciis. grafika _ TIFF an JPEG formatSi, aranakleb 500 rezoluciis. tabulebs Tan unda axldes aRwera. statia unda Cabardes arqeologiis centris, Jurnals _ `iberia-kolxeTi”- saredaqcio sabWos mdivans maia Carkvians an marine kvaWaZes. 204 IBERIA - COLCHIS iberia-kolxeTi saqarTvelos klasikuri da adremedievuri periodis arqeologiur-istoriuli kvlevani IBERIA - COLCHIS iberia - kolxeTi Researches on the Archaeology and History of Georgia in the Classical and Early Medieval Period 9771512420006 13 № 13 2017