daibeWda Sps „printjeo~-Si Tbilisi 2022 Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University CHRONOS Journal of the Ivane Javakhishvili Institute of History and Ethnology 3 Tbilisi 2022 ivane javaxiSvilis saxelobis Tbilisis saxelmwifo universiteti ქ რ ო ნოსი ivane javaxiSvilis saxelobis istoriisa da eTnologiis institutis Jurnali 3 Tbilisi 2022 ivane javaxiSvilis saxelobis Tbilisis saxelmwifo universitetis ivane javaxiSvilis saxelobis istoriisa da eTnologiis institutis yovelwliuri, mravalprofiliani, referirebadi samecniero Jurnali `qronosi~ aqveynebs istoriis, eTnologiis, fizikuri anTropologiis, arqeologiisa da xelovnebis istoriis dargebSi Sesrulebul originalur naSromebs, romlebic exeba saqarTvelosa da masTan dakavSirebul samyaros, rac xels Seuwyobs qarTvelologiis problematikis da regionis istoriis ukeT gaazrebas. The Chronos is a peer-reviewed annual interdisciplinary scientific journal of Javakhishvili Institute of History and Ethnology at Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University. The journal publishes original works on history, ethnology, physical anthropology, archaeology and art history related to Georgia and the surrounding world; this will contribute to a better understanding of the problems of Kartvelology and the history of the region. Jurnalis redaqcia pasuxs ar agebs warmodgenili foto-masalis saavtoro uflebebze. avtori valdebulia Tavad moipovos maTi gamoqveynebis ufleba. The editors of the journal are not responsible for copyright of the presented photographic materials. The authors are obliged to obtain permission for reproducing them. Jurnali daibeWda Sps “printjeo”-Si ISSN 2667-9477 977-2667-9-4700-4 © ivane javaxiSvilis saxelobis istoriisa da eTnologiis instituti, 2022. saredaqcio kolegia liana biTaZe (ivane javaxiSvilis saxelobis Tbilisis saxelmwifo universitetis ivane javaxiSvilis saxelobis istoriisa da eTnologiis instituti), daviT gagoSiZe (saqarTvelos erovnuli muzeumi), Salva gloveli (korneli kekeliZis saxelobis saqarTvelos xelnawerTa erovnuli centri), vaxtang goilaZe (ivane javaxiSvilis saxelobis Tbilisis saxelmwifo universitetis ivane javaxiSvilis saxelobis istoriisa da eTnologiis instituti), mariam didebuliZe (giorgi CubinaSvilis saxelobis qarTuli xelovnebis istoriisa da ZeglTa dacvis erovnuli kvleviTi centri), valerian vaSakiZe (ivane javaxiSvilis saxelobis Tbilisis saxelmwifo universitetis ivane javaxiSvilis saxelobis istoriisa da eTnologiis instituti), aleqsandre TvaraZe, mT. redaqtori (ivane javaxiSvilis saxelobis Tbilisis saxelmwifo universitetis ivane javaxiSvilis saxelobis istoriisa da eTnologiis instituti), erik Tuno (ratgersi, niu-jersis saxelmwifo universiteti, aSS), qevin TuiTi (monrealis universiteti, kanada), hubertus f. iani (kembrijis universiteti, gaerTianebuli samefo, didi britaneTi), xaTuna ioseliani (ivane javaxiSvilis saxelobis Tbilisis saxelmwifo universitetis ivane javaxiSvilis saxelobis istoriisa da eTnologiis instituti), hirotake maeda (tokios metropoliten universiteti, iaponia), salome melaZe (ivane javaxiSvilis saxelobis Tbilisis saxelmwifo universiteti), nino mindaZe (ivane javaxiSvilis saxelobis Tbilisis saxelmwifo universitetis ivane javaxiSvilis saxelobis istoriisa da eTnologiis instituti), daviT mindoraSvili (oTar lorTqifaniZis saxelobis arqeologiuri kvlevebis instituti, saqarTvelos erovnuli muzeumi), goderZi narimaniSvili (saqarTvelos erovnuli muzeumi), anegret plontke-liuningi (ienis fridrix Sileris universiteti, germania), stiven rapi (sem hiustonis saxelmwifo universiteti, aSS), giorgi qavTaraZe (ivane javaxiSvilis saxelobis Tbilisis saxelmwifo universitetis ivane javaxiSvilis saxelobis istoriisa da eTnologiis instituti), xaTuna qoqraSvili (saqarTvelos universiteti), daviT yolbaia (varSavis universiteti, poloneTi), naTia jalabaZe (ivane javaxiSvilis saxelobis Tbilisis saxelmwifo universitetis ivane javaxiSvilis saxelobis istoriisa da eTnologiis instituti). Editorial Board Liana Bitadze (Ivane Javakhishvili Institute of History and Ethnology of Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University), Davit Gagoshidze (Georgian National Museum), Shalva Gloveli (Korneli Kekelidze Georgian National Centre of Manuscripts), Vakhtang Goiladze (Ivane Javakhishvili Institute of History and Ethnology of Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University), Mariam Didebulidze (The George Chubinashvili National Research Centre for Georgian Art History and Heritage Preservation), Valerian Vashakidze (Ivane Javakhishvili Institute of History and Ethnology of Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University), Aleksandre Tvaradze, Editor-in-Chief (Ivane Javakhishvili Institute of History and Ethnology of Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University), Erik Thunø (Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, USA), Kevin Tuite (Université de Montréal, Canada), Hubertus F. Jahn (University of Cambridge, United Kingdom), Khatuna Ioseliani (Ivane Javakhishvili Institute of History and Ethnology of Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University), Hirotake Maeda (Tokyo Metropolitan University, Japan), Salome Meladze (Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University), Nino Mindadze (Ivane Javakhishvili Institute of History and Ethnology of Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University), Davit Mindorashvili (Otar Lordkipanidze Institute of Archaeological Research, Georgian National Museum), Goderdzi Narimanishvili (Georgian National Museum), Annegret Plontke-Lüning (Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena, Germany), Stephen Rapp (Sam Houston State University, USA), Giorgi Kavtaradze (Ivane Javakhishvili Institute of History and Ethnology of Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University), Khatuna Kokrashvili (The University of Georgia), David Kolbaia (University of Warsaw, Poland), Natia Jalabadze (Ivane Javakhishvili Institute of History and Ethnology of Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University). sarCevi istoria jeims beili axali Tvalsazrisi orbelTa ajanyebis daTariRebis da mniSvnelobis Sesaxeb ................................................... 12 evangelos dovasi murvan yrus istoriuli saxis warmoqmnaSi marvan ibn muhamadis rolis axleburi SefasebisaTvis ........................................................................ 24 valerian vaSakiZe „sazRvris“ cneba klasikuri da momdevno xanis berZnulenovan teqstebSi.............................................................. 36 jon leiTem-sfrinqli Ralati da suvereniteti Sua saukuneebis kavkasiaSi .......................... 50 paolo picolo, andrea kartni erovnuli identobisa da istoriuli cnobierebis Zieba metaistoriul movlenebSi: didgoris, Cudis tbis da kosovos brZolebis gavlena koleqtiur mexsierebaze da politikur qmedebaze ............... 64 irakli faRava saxalifos administraciuli erTeulis – – `Tbilisis saamiros~ daarseba ara-naratiuli wyaroebis mixedviT (adreul-arabuli monetebi da lapidaruli warwerebi saqarTvelodan) .......................................... 86 dali CitunaSvili ninos jvris istoriis svinaqsaruli sakiTxavi da misTvis darTuli jvris mogzaurobis qronologia .................................................................... 132 mamuka wurwumia daviT IV da nikifore II foka: samxedro-politikuri portretebi ..................................................... 145 6 eTnologia lavrenti janiaSvili, naTia jalabaZe tradiciis cneba qarTul kulturul konteqstSi......................................................................... 174 fizikuri anTropologia liana biTaZe, elguja laWyepiani travmebis sixSire da tipebi xevsureTSi: ganviTarebuli da gviani Sua saukuneebis ganaTxari masalis mixedviT ................................................................. 189 arqeologia qeTevan diRmelaSvili samefo rangis samarxebi mcxeTidan samefo gansasvenebelTa problematikis WrilSi ............................................. 216 daviT mindoraSvili erTi epizodi xixanis cixis istoriidan ............................................. 230 goderZi narimaniSvili naqalaqari Zalisa (masalebi saqarTvelo – – iranis urTierTobisTvis ax.w. III-IV saukuneebSi) ........................... 241 xelovnebis istoria kiti maCabeli damkveTTa reprezentacia adreqristianul qvajvaraTa reliefur dekorSi ........................................................... 268 7 erga Sneursoni qarTuli eklesiis galerea RvTis saxlis karibWe marTalTaTvis (nawili I) ................................. 292 publikacia zaza sxirtlaZe, julia beniZe ucnobi masalebi garejis mravalmTis wm. ioane naTlismcemlis monastrisa da misi siZveleebis Sesaxeb polievqtos karbelaSvilis pirad arqivSi ......................................................................................... 327 gaxseneba naTela vaCnaZe dro da adamianebi ................................................................................. 352 wignis ganxilva nugzar papuaSvili monografia saqarTvelo-ruseTis politikur da saeklesio urTierTobaTa istoriaze – PhiliPP Ammon, Georgien zwischen Eigenstaatlichkeit und russischer Okkupation. Die Wurzeln des Konfliktes vom 18. Jh. bis 1924, Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann, 2020. ....................................................371 8 CONTENTS HISTORY James Baillie The Dating and Significance of the Orbeli Rebellion: A Reassessment..........................................................................................................12 Evangelos Ntovas Revaluating the Role of Marwān b. Muhammad in the Creation of Murvan Qru...................................................................................24 Valerian Vashakidze The Concept of the Border in the Greek Texts of the Classical and Subsequent Period .....................................................................36 John Latham-Sprinkle Treason and Sovereignty in the Medieval Caucasus .................................................50 Paolo Pizzolo and Andrea Carteny Tracing National Identity and Historical Consciousness through Metahistorical Events: The Impact of the Battles of Didgori, Lake Peipus, and Kosovo Polje on Collective Memory and Political Action....................................................................64 Irakli Paghava Founding the “Tiflīs Emirate”, Administrative Unit of the Caliphate, According to Non-Narrative Sources (Early Arab Coins and Lapidary Inscriptions from Georgia) .........................................................................................86 Dali Chitunashvili A Synaxarion Lesson of the History of St. Nino’s Cross and the Chronology of the Journey of the Cross .....................................................................................132 Mamuka Tsurtsumia David IV and Nikephoros Phokas............................................................................145 9 Ethnology Lavrenti Janiashvili, Natia Jalabadze The Concept of Tradition in the Georgian Cultural Context ...................................174 Physical Anthropology Liana Bitadze, Elguja Latchkepiani Frequency and Types of Traumas in Khevsureti according to the Fossil Material of the High and Late Middle Ages ........................................189 Archaeology Ketevan Digmelashvili The Royal Tombs from Mtskheta, Problems of Locating Kings’ Graves .......................................................................216 David Mindorashvili One Episode from the History of Khikhani Fortress ...............................................230 Goderdzi Narimanishvili Dzalisa Settlement (Materials for the Study of Georgian-Iranian Relations in the 3rd-4th Centuries AD)..........................................241 Art History Kitty Machabeli Commissioners’ Representation in the Relief Decoration of Georgian Early Christian Stone Crosses ...........................................268 Erga Shneurson Georgian Church Porches The Gate to the House of God for the Righteous (Part I) ........................................292 10 Publication Zaza Skhirtladze, Julia Benidze Unknown Materials on the Gareja Monastery of St. John the Baptist and its Antiquities in the Personal Archive of Polievktos Karbelashvili .........................................................327 Memory Natela Vachnadze Time and People.......................................................................................................352 Book Review Nugzar Papuashvili Review of the Monograph on the History of Political and Church Relations between Georgia and Russia – PhiliPP Ammon, Georgien zwischen Eigenstaatlichkeit und russischer Okkupation. Die Wurzeln des Konfliktes vom 18. Jh. bis 1924, Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann, 2020 .....................................................371 11 istoria - HISTORY James Baillie The Dating and Significance of the Orbeli Rebellion: A Reassessment The rebellion of the Orbelis – as it has become known – is a pivotal point in the history of 12th century Georgia, one that significantly reshaped the entire uppermost echelon of society across the Bagrationid polity. Giorgi III’s success in defeating the rebels gave him a brief window of exceptionally high freedom of action as a monarch, one in which he ensured the succession of his daughter Tamar as well as appointing a number of important officials of his choosing to replace defeated rebels. The loss of the Orbeli family in particular from the upper ranks of the Georgian court created space for previously less prominent families to take their place, with the greatest long-term beneficiaries being the Mkhargrdzeli (or, as they are referred to in Armenia, Zakarid) family. The date of the Orbeli rebellion is largely considered to be a settled matter in scholarship on Georgian history: both the Armenian tradition (Vardan Areweltsi and Stepannos Orbelian) and the Georgian tradition (the Chronicle of Giorgi Lasha and His Time) place it in the year 1177, which is far more corroboration than most dating tends to get for the 12th century.1 There are, however, some issues with this dating that may call it into question, which are examined later in this paper. The detail of the rebellion matters for how we understand it not only as an event in its own right but as an expression of the factions and tensions that underpinned it. Historiographically, Georgian scholars have tended to treat the Orbelis as representative of a class tension of sorts between the interests of the landed nobility and the interests of the Bagrationid monarchy and state. In this view, Georgian monarchs tended to prefer centralising power and control in order to extend their material and military capacity, whereas the nobility preferred to retain a weaker monarchy in order to maximise their own power at its expense, in a zero-sum mechanism. Rebellions are an important point for assessing this interpretation, both because they show the conditions under Vardan Arewelts’i, Compilation of History, p. 76; Stepannos Orbelian, History of the State of Sisakan; Met’reveli, Jones (eds.), Kartlis Tskhovreba, p. 202 (Hereafter, KT for brevity). 1 12 which elites were prepared to directly challenge reigning monarchs, and because they may reveal factional connections and allegiances that would not have been recorded or seen as worthy of note in more ordinary times. Background to the Rebellion To properly examine the significance of the Orbeli rebellion, we should first consider the full course of events as they appear in our various materials. The root of the tensions expressed in the 1170s go back at least to the crisis of the mid-1150s in which, with some variants, the elder son of Demet’re I ascended the throne as David V for a period of just a few months before dying unexpectedly. One of David’s few known acts as ruler is that he had given the coveted role of amirsp’asalar to Tirkash, a noble whose father had rebelled against Demet’re and been executed.1 Tirkash himself had, after a period serving the Shah-Armen rulers of Khlat and raiding Georgia, been imprisoned.2 Rumours that David was murdered by the Orbelis who coveted the position of amirsp’asalar survive in some of the Armenian traditions, and certainly other supporters of David V are known to have fled Georgia after his death, indicating that there was a significant factional split.3 Whatever the circumstances of David’s death, his death left not only the role of amirsp’asalar but also his son Demna in the hands of the Orbelis. Whether one sees them noble guardians loyal to his memory (as Stepannos Orbelian portrays them) or cynical murderers maximising their subsequent advantage (as we might expect from Vardan Arewelts’i’s text), the Orbelis were clearly some of the most important nobles at Giorgi III’s court thereafter. As a Georgio-Armenian family, their significance may partly have been derived from their ability to maintain links to Gregorian Armenian as well as Orthodox Georgian subjects of the Bagrationids, with a seat of power at Lori on the marchlands south of Kartli. It is notable in this regard that the Mkhargrdzeli family, who held a similar range of roles after the 1170s and particularly from the 1190s onwards, similarly had both Georgian and Armenian links. Stepannos Orbelian’s portrayal notes the dual Georgian and Armenian naming traditions of the Orbeli family, though he ultimately also provides a semi-legendary origin in which the Orbelis are treated as ultimately being the descendants of Chinese nobles who fled many centuries earlier.4 It is difficult to tell whether long-running tensions formed between the Orbelis and Giorgi III through the 1160s, or whether the crisis was more isolated to the 1170s. 1 2 3 4 Vardan Arewelts'i, Compilation of History, p. 74. Ibid., p. 71. Mkhitar Gosh, The Aghuanian Chronicle, p. 8. Stepannos Orbelian, History of the State of Sisakan, pp. 193-197. 13 Our sources tend to hint at tension: the Georgian chronicles have Ivane holding back Giorgi, both literally and metaphorically, in his war against Eldiguz, and Stepannos Orbelian explicitly mentions distrust between the two men.1 These, however, are vignettes of human interaction, not more concrete maneuverings or actions. All of our material on this period post-dates the 1170s in its writing, and thus tends to see the preceding period in the light of what followed it, with few concrete discussions of events that would definitively show a growing crisis. As such, we cannot reasonably determine whether visions of tension in the chronicle portrayals of the 1160s reflect the contemporary or the post-1170s picture. This brings us to the 1170s. The conventional reading of the narratives says that the Orbelis, likely hoping to install Demna as a more pliant ruler, rose up in 1177. As mentioned above, Georgian scholars have tended to see this as part of a wider tension between the Georgian state and monarchy on the one hand and the senior nobility on the other. Therefore, the assumption is often given that Demna was a simple figurehead at most, and that the Orbelis sought to effectively impose their own rule upon Georgia.2 Certainly it is true that the Orbelis themselves have greater prominence in our source material – but given that all of our material is either from the Georgian victors for whom de-emphasising Demna was important, or from Armenian writers for whom the Georgio-Armenian Orbelis were a more interesting topic than a failed Georgian throne claimant, this should be considered unsurprising. The rebels’ initial attempt to capture Giorgi III at a place called Saxate failed: he fled to Tbilisi. Appointing the Kipchak general Kubasar as his new amirsp’asalar, Giorgi managed to wait the plotters and their army out and bring certain rebels, especially the Armenian general Sargis Mkhargrdzeli, over to his side. The balance of power thus tilted, Giorgi was able to counterattack, with his forces besieging Lori and with his allies the Grigolisdzes defeating the rebel eristavi in Kakheti. As Ivane Orbeli failed to secure rapid support from the Eldiguzids, eventually Demna was scared into surrendering himself personally by sneaking out of the castle. The Orbelis surrendered, and some time shortly thereafter were executed or blinded. There is, however, a major problem with the reading conventionally given for the Orbeli rebellion – namely that the conventional dating is inconsistent with other statements made in our sources. To these we can now turn. 1 2 Ibid., p. 198; KT, p. 233. Met’reveli, The Golden Age, p. 124. 14 The Dating of the Rebellion Whilst kartvelologists have almost unanimously endorsed the 1177 dating of the rebellion, there has been some discussion on the issues around it previously.1 The first particular chronological issue is around Liparit’ Orbeli’s flight to Persia. Stepannos Orbelian and the unnamed Georgian chronicler of the History and Eulogy of Monarchs both have Liparit’ fleeing to Persia during the Orbeli rebellion, and specifically to the court of Atabeg Eldiguz, one of the most powerful regional potentates near to Georgia in Giorgi’s reign.2 We know, however, that Eldiguz was dead by 1177. The Islamic sources make this very clear: the typically accepted year of his death among scholars of the Seljuks, as used recently by Başan and attested by Persian and Arabic chronicles, is 1175.3 Ibn al-Athir puts Eldiguz’ death even earlier, in 1173.4 This problem has been visited before by scholars, in particular by Minorsky, whose proposal was simply that Liparit’ must have in fact fled much earlier in the 1170s.5 This, however, cannot pass with as little comment as it is given in conventional treatments. The implication of this assessment is that there was almost half a decade between the eristavi of Kartli – the governor of the central province in Georgia, the brother of the amirsp’asalar, and thus one of the most senior figures in the realm – fleeing to the court of Giorgi’s greatest regional rival, and the rebellion led by his brother. This implies a scenario in which the middle of the 1170s was dominated by a cold war situation where the rift between the Orbelis and Giorgi was so obvious that one of the most senior officials in the realm had been forced into exile, but neither side was willing to force the issue. We get no sense of this period existing in any of our chronicle materials: both the Georgian and Orbelian sources quite clearly discuss Liparit’ fleeing as if it was part of the general course of events of the war, possibly after the conflict had turned against the Orbelian side. The second chronological issue, and this is one that Minorsky does not consider, is the age of Demna. The prince, handed over to the Orbelis upon his father’s death, must therefore have been born by 1155 and was probably born in 1154 or 1155 given Stepannos Orbelian’s presentation of him as a babe in arms at the time. By 1177, then, we should expect him to have been around 22 years of age. Stepannos Orbelian’s discussion of the causes of the rebellion, though, very explicitly presents Demna reaching javaxiSvili, Txzulebani Tormet tomad, Vol. II, p. 329; Lordkipanidze, Georgia in the 11th12 Centuries, pp. 132-133; Rayfield, Edge of Empires: A History of Georgia, pp. 103-105. 2 Stepannos Orbelian, History of the State of Sisakan, p. 199; KT, p. 236. 3 Başan, The Great Seljuqs, p. 139; The History of the Seljuq State (Akhbār al-dawla al-saljūqiyya), pp. 111-112; The History of the Seljuq Turks from The Jāmi' ai-Tawārīkh, p. 150. 4 The Chronicle of Ibn al-Athir for the Crusading Period, p. 211. 5 Minorsky, ‘Caucasica II’, pp. 875-877. 1 th 15 his majority as being a primary cause of the rebellion breaking out at this point.1 Twenty-two is far older than seems to have generally been treated as the age of majority in this period: for example, Giorgi Lasha, born in 1191, is generally thought to have been co-crowned in 1207 or 1210, thus aged 16 or 19. On the other hand, a date three or four years earlier than 1177 would have Demna’s rebellion at around the age of eighteen which might be a more plausible time. This is not the only explanation that has been raised for the timing of the rebellion: the contemporary sources note, though do not explicitly cite as a reason, the fact of Ivane Orbeli being passed over as a potential ruler for Ani after its capture in the early 1170s (the second time that the city had been captured by the Georgians in Giorgi’s reign). This, too, however, occurred decidedly before 1177 according to our material, in the first half of the decade, so it cannot have been an immediate trigger for an 1177 rebellion. An alternative chronology that fits with our statements in the sources can be outlined. Ivane cannot have rebelled before Giorgi’s second capture of Ani, as just noted: this was in 1174 according to Vardan Arewelts’i. If the chronicles are correct in presenting Liparit’s flight to Eldiguz as being coterminous with the rebellion, then the rebellion cannot have happened after Eldiguz’ death in 1175. This would suggest a window of 1173-5, and most likely 1174, as being the year of the rebellion. This, in turn, fits far better with our other piece of difficult evidence, around the age of Demna: if he was born in around 1155, then 1173 would have been the year he turned eighteen, a much more plausible coming-of-age trigger that might have forced the issue of his potential rights and inheritance to the forefront. The largest problem faced by this alternative chronology is the obvious one of, this being the case, where the widely agreed upon date of 1177 fits into the picture. It is difficult to tell how independent our reporting of this date is between sources, and this would be a useful piece of analysis for a future scholar: certainly it is quite possible that Stepannos Orbelian had access to both the Georgian Chronicles and Vardan Arewelts’i’s text when writing his own later account, so we should not assume that these dates are a simple matter of independent sources corroborating one another. The core problem of where 1177 fits into the mixture, however, is a genuine issue for a re-dating of the rebellion: the most plausible explanation to fit the thesis comes from Vardan Arewelts’i’s text, which places its 1177 dating after discussing not only the rebellion but also the purge and execution of the Orbelis.2 It may, therefore, be the case that if the main body of the rebellion did not happen in 1177 but instead in 1173-4, but the dating 1 2 Stepannos Orbelian, History of the State of Sisakan, p. 198. Vardan Arewelts'i, Compilation of History, p. 76. 16 of 1177, rather than being any sort of error, correctly identifies the point at which the defeated and imprisoned Orbelis were executed. Georgian monarchs did not consistently execute their opponents, and there is no need to assume that the executions happened immediately after the rebellion: for example, Demet’re only imprisoned Ivan Abuletisdze’s son Tirkash for his raids against Georgia, as we noted earlier.1 It is also not clear that his execution of Tirkash’s father came immediately after the plot against him in circa 1130: the Chronicle of Giorgi Lasha dates the execution to the twentieth year of Demet’re’s reign, which would be 1145, fifteen years after the attempted rebellion.2 Tamar is explicitly noted for her forgiveness to enemies, and certainly exiled or forgave rebel elites more often than she had people maimed or executed, but we should not necessarily expect that the converse norm was one of complete purging, and forcing opponents into exile as a routine matter was not an absolute innovation on Tamar’s part.3 This gives some potential credence to the idea that there may have been a time delay between the rebellions and the execution of the key rebels. The trigger for Giorgi to undertake such a purge may have been his strategy to ensure that the route to the throne was clear for Tamar, whose coming of age and co-coronation in the later part of the decade could then go ahead with the faction that had supported Demna permanently silenced. There are reasonable objections to be made to the above alternative chronology: it is a theory rather than a certainty, as the attested 1177 date in multiple sources still has a strong prima facie case. This alternative reading does, however, resolve the outstanding issues of Demna’s age at the time of the rebellion, and the chronicles’ presentation of Liparit’s flight to Eldiguz being during the rebellion itself: additionally, it provides a possible alternative origin for the 1177 date and suggests how it may relate to an 1173-1174 date for the rebellion conflict itself. There are a number of consequences both of this dating discussion and of the rebellion’s wider impact which we should now consider. Outcomes and Implications After the Orbeli rebellion, a number of important shifts happened in the elite social-political structure of Georgia, all of which were made possible by the rebellion. Firstly, a number of new appointments were made, some of which represented the long-term elevation of families to the uppermost echelons of Georgian political society (the Mkhar1 Ibid., p. 74. 2 KT, p. 202. 3 KT, pp. 262-263. 17 grdzeli clan and the Grigolisdzes of Hereti in particular). As noted above, the Mkhargrdzelis formed something of an analogue to the Orbelis, as a fellow Armeno-Georgian noble family. The Grigolisdzes, who became eristavis of Hereti and replaced the K’olonk’elisdze family, seem likely to have been local Heretian aznauris. Other appointments included Kubasar’s term as amirsp’asalar, a post in which he served until early in Tamar’s sole reign. The alignment between the ethnic or regional identities of these people and the roles they were appointed to is notable and needs explanation. Selection of ‘weaker’ external groups who are consequently more reliant on monarchs for their position has been theorised, but is hard to fully corroborate: given the reputation of the Kipchaks under David IV as likely to rebel, making one of their number the amirsp’asalar is unlikely to have been seen as a way to get a dependent, low-risk subordinate.1 If Giorgi III was keen to reduce the power of elites, too, it would have made sense to push hard for Hereti not to go to a family with the deep roots in the area that the Grigolisdzes possessed. This pattern of appointments, in short, makes little sense if interpreted through the lens of a Georgian state keen to maximise its own power at the expense of that of the senior nobility. What best links all of these cases, instead, is an issue of connectivity. We know that for some formal functions, such as raising troops, and likely more so for informal control, Georgian monarchs relied upon a distributed system in which they called upon their senior nobility who in turn called upon local notables, nobles, and generals.2 It was, therefore, likely a necessity for these functions that. The need to have a highly promoted family with Armenian roots and links may thus have been a necessity given the importance of Armenian lands and peoples in Bagrationid territories – and eristavial families needed an effective set of local connections to fulfil their necessary functions in the Georgian hierarchy. After this issue of appointments, the second and perhaps greater key outcome was at the royal level: the rebellion allowed Giorgi to effectively (and brutally) remove Demna from the potential line of succession, clearing the way for Tamar to be the obvious heir apparent. Here, though, we must return to the chronology: for this is why it is not simply a trivial question of historical timings. If we take the conventional view – that the rebellion was in 1177 and Liparit’s flight far earlier – then a number of conclusions should follow. It implies that Giorgi’s plans for Tamar’s accession were the most likely trigger point for the rebellion, as argued by Nikolaishvili.3 Conversely, Ivane Orbeli’s failure 1 2 3 KT, pp. 189-190. KT, p. 249. Nikolaishvili, Byzantium and the Georgian World c. 900-1210, pp. 175-176. 18 to become ruler of Ani and Demna’s own coming of age could not have been as significantly important if three to four years were allowed to elapse between these events and the rebellion itself. This would imply that concerns strictly related to the prospect of Tamar’s succession – most obviously, her femininity – are more likely to have been important concerns for the rebels. Conversely, the 1174 dating reverses many of these assumptions. It lets us follow Stepannos Orbelian’s testimony in assuming that Demna’s coming of age, not that of Tamar, was the primary trigger for rebellion, and it brings Ivane’s failure at Ani far closer to the date of the rebellion, making those features potentially more key to our explanation. Centring Demna more as a trigger point may suggest that elite concerns were more focused on the relative initial strength of his claim at the time of his majority, rather than just seizing on his cause some years later when the prospect of Tamar as ruler came more sharply into focus. All Bagrationids in the twelfth century played heavily on dynastic connection for legitimacy, hence the practice of co-coronation and the heavy use of familial linkages in art containing monarchs.1 Demna’s claim may in fact have been the opposite of the conventional reading of puppet rulership – an attempt to ensure a ruler with a clearer dynastic legitimacy than Giorgi, and thereby best ensure the continued stability of a system in which the Orbelis were well established players. Rather than seeing Demna as necessarily a simple puppet figure, as many scholars have done, these strands together could suggest perhaps a more complex relationship between Demna and the Orbelis than has often been hypothesised. Rather than trying to be simple powers behind the throne or generally weaken the monarchy, the Orbelis may have been most keen to clear their specific “lane” and gain a freer hand in operations in Armenia, much as the Mkhargrdzelis later succeeded in doing. An 1174 date increases the chance that the Orbelis’ failures or frustrations in Ani may have played a significant role. Demna’s cause, too, might have been seen as having more advantages simply from a stability perspective. There was no especially good reason for anyone to assume that Demna would in the long term be a weaker ruler than Giorgi and then Tamar, and if anything the opposite assumption might have been made – he had a clearly stronger patrilineal claim to the throne and, as a man, could have maintained a more traditional style of military leadership. The outcome of the rebellion does not, in short, neatly fit with the conventional reading where the Orbelis were representative of a general tendency towards conflict between the monarchy and powerful nobility. Instead of generic ideas of noble-royal power struggle, we should consider the individual ‘lanes’ or loci of power around which power contests might occur. Many aspects of power that shaped such contests 1 KT, p. 201; Eastmond, Royal Renewal in Georgia: The Case of Queen Tamar, pp. 289-291. 19 were probably inarticulate in nature, involving personal connectivity or regional links or aspects of personal identity, rather than being strictly articulated functions of state office-holding. Conclusions The primary conclusion from the analysis presented here is that the dating of 1177 given in the chronicle materials for the Orbeli rebellion should, contrary to most current readings, not be treated as an unassailable matter of historical fact. If we reimagine our chronicle evidence without the presence of this particular date, historians would very likely conclude from the contextual evidence that the rebellion took place in 1174. Whilst the 1177 date is well attested and we cannot come to a final conclusion on this matter, the 1174 reading should still be taken seriously as a separate option. The multiple testimonies of Liparit’s flight taking place during the rebellion, and Stepannos Orbelian’s suggestion of Demna’s coming of age as the rebellion’s trigger point, should not be ignored or dismissed out of hand. Furthermore, there are alternative possibilities for the introduction and memorialisation of the 1177 date that do not necessarily preclude the majority of the rebellion’s military action having occurred earlier in the decade. This reinterpretation changes a number of variables in how we should see the matter of succession and what we might consider the most important factors in motivating elites to join or oppose it. The suggestion made by Stepannos Orbelian that it was Demna’s majority that triggered the rebellion makes more sense if the rebellion was earlier in the 1170s, and may suggest a preference for Demna’s greater legitimacy as a stabilising option being more important, rather than the rebellion being essentially reactive to Giorgi III proposing to crown his daughter. The wider prosopographical context of the rebellion, too, should let us reconsider some of its impacts on the power structures of Georgia. Contrary to conventional assessments that have focused on the concept of an ongoing power struggle between elites and the monarchy, the turnover of leaders around the Orbeli rebellion does not suggest that it was primarily focused on installing pliant loyalists who would be more easily controlled by Giorgi III: instead, the key pattern is one of connections to particular local areas, elite constituencies or ethnic groups, which suggests the importance of such connectivity to the workings of the Bagrationid polity. In the broad sweep of High Medieval Georgian history, the Orbeli rebellion is one of the best recorded points of conflict within the upper echelons of Caucasus society. Whilst the rebellion only represents a single data point, by looking at both the detail 20 of the events and the nature of the participants – as regards their gender, dynastic backgrounds, and their social and regional links – we can get a sense of the high importance of those elements and how they interacted with articulated office-holding, which can in turn provide an insight into alternative ways of looking at the power balances within Georgian elites in this period and thereby create openings for further reassessments of this critical period of Georgia’s history. Bibliography Primary sources Met’reveli, Jones (eds.), Kartlis Tskhovreba – Met’reveli R., and Jones St. (eds.), Kartlis Tskhovreba, trans. Gamq’relidze D., Abashidze M., and Chant’uria A., Tbilisi, 2013. Mkhitar Gosh, The Aghuanian Chronicle – Mkhitar Gosh, trans. Bedrosian R., The Aghuanian Chronicle, Long Branch, 2007. Stepannos Orbelian, History of the State of Sisakan – Stepannos Orbelian, trans. Bedrosian R., History of the State of Sisakan, Long Branch, 2015. The History of the Seljuq State (Akhbār al-dawla al-saljūqiyya) – Bosworth C. E. (trans.), The History of the Seljuq State: A translation with commentary of the Akhbār al-dawla al-saljūqiyya, Abingdon, 2011. The History of the Seljuq Turks from The Jāmi' ai-Tawārīkh – Luther K. A. (trans.), The History of the Seljuq Turks from The Jāmi' ai-Tawārīkh, Richmond, 2001. The Chronicle of Ibn al-Athir for the Crusading Period – Ibn al-Athir, trans. Richards D. S., The Chronicle of Ibn al-Athir for the Crusading Period, Vol. 2, Aldershot, 2006. Vardan Arewelts'i, Compilation of History – Vardan Arewelts'i, trans. Bedrosian R., Vardan Arewelts'i’s Compilation of History, Long Branch, 2007. Secondary works Başan, The Great Seljuqs – Başan A., The Great Seljuqs: A History, Abingdon, 2010. Eastmond, Royal Renewal in Georgia: The Case of Queen Tamar – Eastmond A., Royal Renewal in Georgia: The Case of Queen Tamar, in Magdalino P. (Ed.), “New Constantines: the Rhythm of Imperial Renewal in Byzantium, 4th-13th Centuries”, Aldershot, 1994, pp. 283-293. javaxiSvili, Txzulebani Tormet tomad, t. II _ javaxiSvili i., Txzulebani Tormet tomad, t. II, Tbilisi, 1983. 21 Lordkipanidze, Georgia in the 11th-12th Centuries – Lordkipanidze M., Georgia in the 11th-12th Centuries, Tbilisi, 1987. Met’reveli, The Golden Age – Met’reveli R., The Golden Age, Tbilisi, 2010. Minorsky, ‘Caucasica II’ – Minorsky V., ‘Caucasica II’, in BSO[A]S, 13, No. 4, 1951, pp. 868-877. Nikolaishvili, Byzantium and the Georgian World c. 900-1210 – Nikolaishvili S., Byzantium and the Georgian World c. 900-1210: Ideology of Kingship and Rhetoric in the Byzantine Periphery, PhD Thesis, Central European University, 2019. Rayfield, Edge of Empires: A History of Georgia – Rayfield D., Edge of Empires: A History of Georgia, London, 2012. jeims beili axali Tvalsazrisi orbelTa ajanyebis daTariRebis da mniSvnelobis Sesaxeb reziume statiaSi axleburad aris Sefasebuli matianeSi daculi cnoba XII saukunis bolos momxdari orbelebis ajanyebis TariRisa da mniSvnelobis Sesaxeb, rodesac orbelebis cnobili gvari warumateblad cdilobda daecva sakuTar biZasTan, giorgi III-Tan dapirispirebuli ufliswuli demnas pretenziebi saqarTvelos taxtze. matianeebSi ajanyebis TariRad Cveulebriv 1177 welia aRiarebuli, magram es ar Seesabameba qarTul da somxur wyaroebSi damowmebul zogierT cnobas, maT Soris ajanyebis monawileTa asakisa da gardacvalebis drois Sesaxeb. am cnobebis ganxilvis safuZvelze, ajanyebis dasaSveb alternatiul savaraudo TariRad statiaSi SemoTavazulia 1174 weli. naSromSi aseve saubaria, Tu ra mniSvneloba aqvs daTariRebas ajanyebisa da misi mizezebis gagebisTvis. TariRiT ganisazRvreba, rom es ajanyeba an savaraudod dakavSirebuli iyo demnas srulwlovanebasTan, an is iyo reaqcia giorgi III-is survilze, rodesac is Tamaris memkvidred aRiarebas apirebda. ajanyebasTan mimarTebaSi qarTvel didebulTa Sexedulebebisa da dajgufebaTa damokidebulebis interpretacia SesaZlebelia nawilobriv moxerxdes ajanyebulTa brZolis 22 mizezTa axsnis safuZvelze. Tu demna iyo ajanyebis mniSvnelovani mizezi, maSin metad savaraudoa, rom ajanyebas memkvidreobis mamis xaziT momdinareobis ideologiam Seuwyo xeli; amaze pirdapir SeiZleba miuTiTebdes is faqti, rom orbelebi 1170-iani wlebis dasawyisSi ver gaxdnen anis mmarTvelebi. piriqiT, Tu ajanyeba Tamaris memkvidred gamocxadebisTvis safrTxes warmoadgenda – am SemTxvevaSi albaT ufro metad unda vivaraudoT ajanyebisTvis ukve damkvidrebuli da gviani TariRi – maSin, meamboxeebis Sexedulebebis CamoyalibebaSi mniSvnelovani roli Tamaris sqess unda eTamaSa. rogorc XII saukunis transkavkasiis elitaruli sazogadoebis erT-erTi yvelaze TvalsaCino da kargad dokumentirebuli gardatexa, orbelTa ajanyeba gadamwyvetia CvenTvis im socialuri kavSirebisa da ideologiebis gasagebad, romlebic safuZvlad edo bagrationTa politikas. zogadad, iTvleba, rom ajanyebis Sedegad giorgi III-is mefobis bolo periodi gamoirCeva mis mier Tanamdebobebze daniSnuli uaRresad erTguli pirebis simravliT. am statiaSi mocemuli analizi warmoadgens alternatiul gagebas, romelSic movlenebis axsnisas upiratesoba eniWeba daniSnul pirTa socialuri kavSirebis mniSvnelobas. movlenebis TariRebis zemoxsenebul detalur analizTan da Sedegad miRebul ajanyebis savaraudo mizezTebTan dakavSirebiT, SegviZlia gamovTqvaT axali varaudi orbelebis ajanyebis da mis safuZvelSi arsebuli socialuri kavSirebis Sesaxeb. amas emyareboda saqarTveloSi dava xelisuflebisaTvis XII saukunis bolos. 23 Evangelos Ntovas Revaluating the Role of Marwān b. Muḥammad in the Creation of Murvan Qru In Georgian sources, Murvan Qru is considered the commander, responsible for the Arab occupation of the country.1 The most important of these sources, Pseudo-Juansher (ca. 800), identifies Murvan Qru with Marwān b. Muḥammad, governor of the northern district of the Caliphate from 732/735 to 744.2 It is common among scholars to regard Pseudo-Juansher’s information about the conquest as a multitude of events, depicting various campaigns integrated as one.3 As a result, many scholars propose that Murvan Qru is a construction of various generals, active in the broader area of the Caucasus. The most prevailing opinion is that Murvan Qru is a compilation of Muḥammad b. Marwān and Marwān b. Muḥammad.4 Others suggest that he was inspired by Maslama b. Abd al-Malik, Abd al ‘Aziz b. Hatim b. an-Nu‘man al-Bahili or even just Muḥammad b. Marwān.5 Regardless of Murvan Qru’s identity, researchers agree that Marwān b. Muḥammad’s Georgian Campaign was the main source of inspiration behind the creation of Murvan Qru’s story.6 They also argue that the former’s campaign was the most decisive Arab military operation in Georgian territory to that date. As a result, every campaign preceding this was abbreviated and presented as sections of Marwān b. Muḥammad’s operation in Pseudo-Juansher’s text. In this paper, we try re-examining the sources to reconsider the above-presented theses about Marwān b. Muḥammad’s Georgian Campaign and its impact on Georgian Juansher Juansheriani, The Life of Vakht’ang Gorgasali, p. 111. Hereinafter: Pseudo-Juansher. Pseudo-Juansher, p. 111: “Murvan the Deaf approached Kartli. He was an Agarian amir and a son of Mohammed’s tribe, who had been sent to Kartli by Eshim [Hisham] the al-mu’menin of Baghdad, who was son of Abdal-Melik of Baghdad of the same tribe”. For his appointment in the Caucasus, see Khalīfa b. Khayyāṭ, Khalifa ibn Khayyat’s History, p. 230. Also see Blankinship, The End of the Jihad State, pp. 170-171. 3 E.g. Martin-Hisard, La domination byzantine, p. 152. 4 E.g., see Toumanoff, Studies in Christian Caucasian History, p. 351; Rapp, Studies in Medieval Georgian Historiography, pp. 384-385; Vacca, Non-Muslim Provinces under Early Islam, p. 153. 5 For the identification with Maslama b. Abd al-Malik, see sanaZe, beraZe, VIII saukunis I naxevris qarTlisa da egrisis politikuri istoriidan [Sanadze, Beradze, On the Political History of Kartli and Egrisi in the First Half of the 8th Century], gv. 70-81, with Abd al Aziz, see Ciqovani, yru baRdadelis vinaobis Sesaxeb [Chikovani, About The Deaf from Bagdadi], gv.132-137, and for Muḥammad b. Marwān, see abramiSvili, stefanoz mamfalis freskuli warwera [Abramishvili, Mural Inscription of Stepanoz Mampal], gv. 27-31. 6 See e.g., Bíró, Marwan ibn Muhammad’s Georgian Campaign, pp. 295-296. 1 2 24 historiography. We propose that this campaign did not actually take place and instead is a fictitious creation of Georgian historiography, operating as a medium of propaganda in domestic affairs. To begin with the critical examination of this operation, it is necessary to analyze the campaign in Pseudo-Juansher’s text.1 According to the historian, the campaign was destructive for both Kartli and Egrisi. When Murvan Qru entered Georgian lands, he demolished all the cities and fortresses in Kartli, while hunting the noblemen escaping in Egrisi.2 There, he captured crucial administrative centers, such as Tsikhe-goji and Apsilian Tskhumi.3 His campaign ended in the fortress of Anakopia, where Kartvelians defeated the weakened by dysentery Arab forces. Finally, while returning to the Caliphate Murvan Qru’s army was decimated, since his forces drowned because of the overflowing rivers of western Georgia.4 Chosroids Mihr and Archil are in the spotlight of this story since they are depicted as the leaders of the resistance against Murvan Qru.5 It must be noted that this text has been used by later narrative sources, regarding Murvan Qru’s campaign.6 However, Arabic sources provide a different view of the Arab operations in the Caucasus during Marwān b. Muḥammad’s governorship than the Georgian one. According to these sources, Marwān b. Muḥammad’s campaigns targeted Khazars and the tribes in Dagestan and not Georgia. Both, Khalīfa b. Khayyāṭ and al-Ṭabarī date Marwān’s first campaigns in the Caucasus at 735/117.7 These campaigns were a twoprong attack against three fortresses under Alan dominion and Tumanshah in the Eastern Caucasus.8 Next year, the Arab general operated against Wartanis in the Eastern Caucasus, while in 737/119 Marwān campaigned against the Khazars.9 Arab historians write that with this operation, Marwān b. Muḥammad managed to occupy Khazar cities For the writer and the dating of the text see Rapp, Studies in Medieval Georgian Historiography, pp. 197-242 and especially pp. 235-242. 2 Pseudo-Juansher, p. 111. 3 Pseudo-Juansher, p. 111. 4 Pseudo-Juansher, pp. 111-112. 5 Pseudo-Juansher, pp. 111-112. 6 This Arab General is the adversary in the Martyrdom of Saints David and Constantine, an eleventh-century hagiographic text. According to this, the two brothers formed the first line of defence against Murvan Qru and were eventually executed, because they refused to accept Islam. According to Sanadze and Arakhamia, the original text was composed regarding events of the sixth century, which was proceeded and edited to simulate the political situation of the eighth century. For more details, see sanaZe, araxamia, VI s. istoriuli qronika [Sanadze, Arakhamia, The VI Century Historic Chronicle], gv. 110-120. For its ideological implications, see Martin-Hisard, Les Arabes en Géorgie occidentale, pp. 113-119. 7 We should not that we will follow a double-dating system in the AD and Hijri years in the present study. 8 Khalīfa b. Khayyāṭ, Khalifa ibn Khayyat’s History, pp. 233-234, al-Ṭabarī, The History of al-Ṭabarī, p. 111. 9 For 736/118, see Khalīfa b. Khayyāṭ, Khalifa ibn Khayyat’s History, pp. 234-235. 1 25 such as Balanjar, Samandar, and al-Bayda while subjugating the Khagan.1 After these events, he attacked the semi-autonomous tribes of Southeastern Caucasus, allies of the Khagan, targeting their subjugation.2 The comparative analysis of the sources leads us to reject at all that Marwān b. Muḥammad campaigned against Georgia during the years 735-740/117-122. This is highlighted by the cautious analysis of the following aspects: a) the area of the conflicts, b) the timing of the campaigns and c) the recognition of Arab authority in Georgia. A) According to the Arabic sources, confronting the Khazars was Marwān b. Muḥammad’s major operational target. Since the beginning of the 720s, the Caliphate tried to consolidate its presence in the broad area and especially in the passes to North Caucasus.3 At the time of Marwān b. Muḥammad, the Caliphate aimed to prevail against the Khaganate and establish peace along the Northern border.4 After causing a severe blow to the Khaganate, Arabs turned to the tribes in the eastern Caucasus to subjugate and then pacify the region. This prioritization is confirmed by numismatics. According to Schindel, numismatic evidence proves that the city-fortress of Derbent flourished during Marwān b. Muḥammad’s governorship in the Umayyad North.5 This can relate to the city’s strategic importance during Marwān’s struggle against the Khazars. It is evident that Marwān b. Muḥammad focused on the regions of conflict with his interest limited to the eastern Caucasus and not Georgia. As a result, Murvan Qru’s campaign could not occur during Marwān b. Muḥammad’s excursions against the Khazars. B) It is of grave importance to determine the campaign’s time frame.6 As shown above, during 735-739/117-121 Marwān b. Muḥammad focused his efforts on the eastern Caucasus, a fact that proves that in this period he could not operate against Georgia. This led Tavadze to propose that the first Arab attacks against Georgia took place in 739/121 with an escalation in 740/122, after the campaigns in Dagestan.7 We must look closer to the duration of Marwān b. Muḥammad’s campaigns in Dagestan. According 1 Khalīfa b. Khayyāṭ, Khalifa ibn Khayyat’s History, p. 235, Balādhūri, The origins of the Islamic state, pp. 325-327. 2 For Marwān b. Muḥammad’s campaign in Eastern Caucasus, especially in modern-day South Dagestan, see Khalīfa b. Khayyāṭ, Khalifa ibn Khayyat’s History, pp. 239-240; al-Ṭabarī, The History of alṬabarī, p. 167; Ya‘qūbī, The Works of Ibn Wāḍiḥ al-Yaʿqūbī, p. 1036; Семёнов, Хронология и маршруты арабских походов, стр. 78-90. 3 For an overview of the aims of Arab policy in the Caucasus in the 720s, see Blankinship, The End of the Jihad State, pp. 121-125. 4 For the mild success of these operations, see Blankinship, The End of the Jihad State, pp. 172-174. 5 Schindel, Umayyad Copper Coinage, p. 11. 6 E.g., Toumanoff dates it in 736, while Bíró proposes 737 as the correct date. See Toumanoff, Studies in Christian Caucasian History, p. 405 and Bíró, Marwan ibn Muhammad’s Georgian Campaign, pp. 295299, respectively. 7 TavaZe, saqarTvelo VIII saukuneSi [Tavadze, Georgia in the Eight Century], gv. 117-125. 26 to Khalīfa b. Khayyāṭ these campaigns took place in 739/121.1 However, we should keep in mind that Khalīfa's description regards more than one military operation while it is evident that Marwān b. Muḥammad faced some difficulties in subjugating the tribes of the eastern Caucasus. These lead us to propose that the duration of the military operations against Dagestan spread more than one year. In support of this, Bal’amī’s report of the one-year siege of the citadel that the lord of al-Sarir had withdrawn to is enough.2 Even if this report is dismissed as Bal’amī’s exaggeration, it is indicative of Marwān b. Muḥammad’s struggle in these campaigns. Based on these, we support that the continuous preoccupation of the Arab armies in the aforementioned conflicts makes an excursion against Georgia impossible. C) Studying the political dependency of Georgia with the Caliphate in the first half of the 8th century leads us towards the rejection of the campaign as a historical event. Even if we ignore the testimonies of the Arabic sources regarding the time and space of the Arab-Khazar hostilities, we cannot justify an Arab operation in Georgia during Marwān b. Muḥammad’s governorship in the Umayyad North. The Arab dominion in Kartli began in 705/86 and was already consolidated before Marwān b. Muḥammad’s campaigns against the Khazars.3 This can be supported by the entrance of Arab armies in Tbilisi in 728/110 and 730/112, since Khalīfa b. Khayyāṭ does not mention an attack against the city, implying that Arabs used it as a station before a Khazar campaign.4 Balādhūri also confirms this, since he writes that al-Jarrah b. Abdallah renewed the submission treaty with the people of Tbilisi, maybe in 730/112, adding a special clause Khalīfa b. Khayyāṭ, Khalifa ibn Khayyat’s History, pp. 239-240. Bal’amī, Chronique de Abou Djafar Mo'hammed, pp. 290-291. Semenov also notices the extending of the campaigns after 739. See Семёнов, Хронология и маршруты арабских походов, стр. 82, 87. Also see Blankinship, The End of the Jihad State, p. 175, in which he states that Marwān b. Muḥammad’s final campaigns against Dagestan can be dated to 740/122. 3 faRava, saqarTveloSi arabTa batonobis periodizacia [Paghava, Periodization of Arab Sway in Georgia], gv. 252-254; faRava, Suasaukunovan saqarTveloSi [Paghava, In the Medieval Georgia], gv. 22-24. 4 Khalīfa b. Khayyāṭ, Khalifa ibn Khayyat’s History, pp. 222 & 224, respectively. 1 2 27 regarding taxing issues.1 This status quo in Tbilisi highlights the Arab overlordship in the region at the beginning of the 730s. So, since the Arab dominion was already consolidated, we should wonder why the Arabs would unleash a destructive attack against their subordinates in Kartli. This can also be attested by looking into the obligations of a subordinate to their suzerain. It is known that the subordinates in the Caucasus were obliged to supply troops to the Caliphate.2 Toumanoff is certain that the Presiding Prince of Kartli provided Marwān b. Muḥammad with troops for his campaigns against the Khazars.3 Even though Toumanoff does not base his hypothesis on the sources, the testimonies of Ibn Aʿtham al-Kūfī and Łewond are able to confirm it. According to the first, when Marwān b. Muḥammad arrived at Kisal, he summoned all Armenian Lords (mulūk Armīnīyah) to fulfill their obligations by campaigning with him against the Khaganate.4 The ethnonym Armenian in the context of an Arabic source usually includes all the people in the administrative district of Armīniya, Armenians, Georgians, and Caucasian Albanians, which implies that Marwān b. Muḥammad summoned all his subordinates in the region.5 Łewond seems to confirm that the subordinates of the Caliph took part in these campaigns. In more detail, the Armenian historian writes that Marwān b. Muḥammad summoned the Armenian Ishkhan, Ashot Bagratuni, and his nakharars with their caBalādhūri, The origins of the Islamic state, p. 317. We can assume that the renewal took place in 730, before the entrance of the Arab armies into the city, in their way to operate against the Khazars. This must be the case, because al-Jarrah b. Abdallah was appointed governor in the Umayyad North in 729, which implies that he could not renew the treaty in 728. C.f. Blankinship, The End of the Jihad State, pp. 122123. Blankinship dates the treaty to 724, proposing that the Arabs captured the city, imposing the kharaj on its people, in their campaign against the Alans. It should be noted that neither Balādhūri nor the other sources describing the Alan campaign of 724, mention an attack against the city of Tbilisi. Moreover, the terms of the renewed treaty and especially the clause about taxing point out that al-Jarrah wanted to reward the people of the city and keep them in the Arab sphere of influence during a period of struggle against the Khazars. This can relate to the city’s strategic importance near the Darial Pass, one of the Arab points of entry in Alania and consequently to Khazars. For al-Jarrah b. Abdallah’s governorship, see Khalīfa b. Khayyāṭ, Khalifa ibn Khayyat’s History, p. 224. 2 E.g., for this clause in the treaty of 654 in Tbilisi, see Balādhūri, The origins of the Islamic state, p. 316. For the Armenian parallel, see Laurent (rev. Canard M.), L’Armenie entre Byzance et l’Islam depuis la conquete Arabe jusqu’en 886, pp. 55-56. 3 Toumanoff, Studies in Christian Caucasian History, p. 405. 4 Ibn Aʿtham al-Kūfī, Kitāb al-futūh, p. 162. 5 We must note that the term Armīniya could also include territories outside of Caliphal borders. Ibn Aʿtham al-Kūfī writes that at the beginning of the campaign, Marwān b. Muḥammad occupied every Armenian fortress (see n. 30). In this case, these fortresses must refer to the regions of the North Caucasus and especially in Alania. This can be confirmed by looking into Khalīfa b. Khayyāṭ’s testimony about the campaigns of 737 (see n. 15). The historian writes that Marwān b. Muḥammad roamed far into Armenia, namely into Alania and Khazaria. So, we propose that these Armenian fortresses should be identified with the three Alan fortresses that Marwān b. Muḥammad captured in 735 (see n. 13). C.f. Blankinship, The End of the Jihad State, p. 172, in which he states that these Armenian fortresses relate to Mamikonian castles. 1 28 valry to campaign on his side against the Khazars.1 The Arab dominion in Kartli and Ashot’s example lead us to accept that the Presiding Prince of Kartli also took part in Marwān’s campaign. But who was this Presiding Prince? Toumanoff, based on the Royal Lists of Georgia, identified the Prince with Guaram III, the Younger.2 Other scholars, based on the Ateni Inscription in Sioni, have proposed that the Chosroid Step’anoz should be considered in this position.3 However, we believe that the identification with Step’anoz cannot be the case. Firstly, he is considered an ally of the Byzantine Empire, as it seems that he received the title of Eristav of Egrisi by the Emperor.4 We can assume that the title of eristav of eristavs of the Kartvels and the Megrels, which appears in the inscription of Ateni, also derived from the Byzantine court and did not refer to the office that Step’anoz had during the Arab dominion of the country. Instead, it may refer to Step’anoz’s claims in Georgia, claims that originated and were backed up by the Byzantines and their allies in the country, as an effort to counterbalance the Arabs. Therefore, the Arab administration would hesitate to recognize a Byzantine ally for the office of Presiding Prince of Kartvelians, especially in a region without a permanent military presence.5 So, it is most likely that the Arabs would bestow the office of Presiding Prince of Kartli in a pro-Arab house, instead of the Chosroids. Given the fact that the Presiding Prince must have belonged to a pro-Arab faction and that Kartvelians helped Marwān b. Muḥammad in his struggle against the Khazars, we should rule out an Arab campaign against Kartli. Consequently, we must study the political situation in Egrisi to completely reject the possibility of an Arab attack in the region during Marwān b. Muḥammad’s campaigns against the Khaganate. According to the sources, the Arab dominion in the region took place at the end of the seventh century. In particular, Theophanes testifies that Egrisi accepted Arab suzerainty in 697 when Patrician Sergius submitted to the Caliph.6 Moreover, he points out that in the first decade of the eighth century, Arabs had been recognized as suzerains of the Łewond Vardapet, Discours Historique, pp. 110-113. Toumanoff, Studies in Christian Caucasian History, pp. 404-405. 3 For the inscription, see abramiSvili, stefanoz mamfalis freskuli warwera [Abramishvili, Mural Inscription of Stepanoz Mampal], gv. 68. For the identification with Step’anoz, see sanaZe, beraZe, VIII saukunis I naxevris qarTlisa da egrisis politikuri istoriidan [Sanadze, Beradze, On the Political History of Kartli and Egrisi in the First Half of the 8th Century], gv. 70-71. 4 sanaZe, beraZe, VIII saukunis I naxevris qarTlisa da egrisis politikuri istoriidan [Sanadze, Beradze, On the Political History of Kartli and Egrisi in the First Half of the 8th Century], gv. 70-71. 5 For their Armenian example, see Τακιρτάκογλου, Η Αρμενία μεταξύ Βυζαντίου και Χαλιφάτου, pp. 119123. We have no reason to doubt that the Presiding Prince of Kartli had the same responsibilities towards the Arab administration. 6 Theophanes, Chronographia, p. 370. 1 2 29 Abasgia, Egrisi and Kartli.1 Later, the chronographer writes about the arrival of an Arab army in Tsikhe-goji, aiming to relieve the city from a Byzantine siege, an event that probably took place at the beginning of the 710s.2 According to al-Ṭabarī, the next Arab attack in the area dates to 738/120, when Sulaymān b. Hishām campaigned against the Byzantines and captured Sindirah (Σιδηροῦν in the Greek sources), a fortress in Abasgia, something that Theophanes confirms.3 These events show that after the Arab subjugation of the region, Arabs campaigned in the western Caucasus either to protect their interests from the Byzantines or to attack military outposts occupied by the Empire. This suggests that Egrisi recognized Arab overlordship in the first half of the eighth century. Since there is no evidence in the sources pointing otherwise, we have no reason to doubt that during Marwān b. Muḥammad’s governorship the situation had been altered.4 So, the Caliphal suzerainty over Egrisi is another testimony that leads us to reject that Marwān b. Muḥammad campaigned against Georgia. Since this is the case, we should wonder why Pseudo-Juansher included Marwān b. Muḥammad in his text. According to some scholars, the text depicts real events, concerning the Arab attacks in Georgia, while others emphasize the issues of ideology and propaganda.5 In particular, Martin-Hisard considers that the text was prompted by a Chosroid environment to highlight their rights in the governorship of the country and their links with the Byzantine Empire.6 It is clear in the text that only the House of Chorsoids and its alliance with the Empire would bring victory in the struggle against the Arabs. This can be attested in the Byzantine and Georgian retreat, which is interpreted as a part of a prophecy, according to which this retreat would be followed by their predominance in the future.7 In this context, the victory against Murvan Qru could work in the text as the validation of that prophecy and as proof that the House of Chosroids was chosen by the Divine Providence to liberate and then rule the country. Given the fact that Pseudo-Juansher wrote in a period when the House of Chosroids had fallen in decline, we can assume that his 1 Theophanes, Chronographia, p. 391. Theophanes, Chronographia, p. 393. 3 al-Ṭabarī, The History of al-Ṭabarī, p. 167; Theophanes, Chronographia, p. 411. 4 We must note that Toumanoff’s thesis that after 729 the Byzantines recaptured the whole region of Egrisi, because of the destruction of the Arab armies by the Khazars cannot be confirmed by the sources. See Toumanoff, Studies in Christian Caucasian History, p. 405 n. 52. 5 For the thesis about the historical accuracy of the text, see TavaZe, saqarTvelo VIII saukuneSi [Tavadze, Georgia in the Eight Century], gv. 118-126. 6 Martin-Hisard, Les Arabes en Géorgie occidentale, pp. 111-112. 7 Pseudo-Juansher, p. 110; Martin-Hisard, Les Arabes en Géorgie occidentale, pp. 110-111. 2 30 target was to propagandize their right to rule the country to his contemporaries at the beginning of the ninth century.1 The importance of a victory against the Arabs that could work as a form of legalization against the other political parties in the county is highlighted by the study of the emperor’s epistle to Archil, after the defeat of the Arabs, which Pseudo-Juansher allegedly saves. According to this, the emperor declared that we [the Byzantines] will destroy the Agarians and all who have been raised by them will fall, while those who glorify us will rise.2 The Arab allies in this passage may be identified with the ruling House of Kartli that recognized the Arab suzerainty. It is evident that Pseudo-Juansher aimed to remind that the Pro-Arab Georgians would be destroyed inevitably when the Byzantines returned to the Caucasus and the Chosroids would be restored as the rulers of the country. Since Georgians did not actually defeat the Arabs during Marwān b. Muḥammad’s time, Pseudo-Juansher had to create a narration to prove his point. Correctly, Martin-Hisard has stated that his target was not to write history but to praise the Chosroids, Mihr, and Archil.3 Pseudo-Juansher’s target was to state that since Chosroids prevailed against the foreign invaders in the past, they will eventually rise against the political factions inside the country supporting them. In this context, we should discuss the introduction of Marwān b. Muḥammad in Pseudo-Juansher’s text. His campaigns in the Caucasus were used as a background in his attempts to create a basis of legitimacy for the Chosroids. This may derive from Marwān b. Muḥammad’s known military activity in the Caucasus. We have already mentioned that in Pseudo-Juansher’s text, we may find information concerning various Arab operations in the area. According to Bíró, there are some events incorporated that can be traced to the so-called “Muddy Campaign”.4 Pseudo-Juansher used the available information to create his narration and we can assume that Marwān b. Muḥammad’s first campaigns against the Alans in 735/117 were employed for these propagandistic purposes. It seems that the information about the Arab army crossing Kartli to attack the Alans was transfigured by the historian in order to create a story about the Great Arab attack on Georgia and its repulsion by the Chosroids. To summarise, we have shown that Marwān b. Muḥammad’s campaigns in the Caucasus did not include Georgia, since geographical, chronological, and political pa1 At this time the Kingdom of Abkhazia had been created, the Arab rule had been consolidated and the Bagratids had started to emerge. It is true that in this political landscape, the House of the Chosroids had been neglected. See Martin-Hisard, Les Arabes en Géorgie occidentale, p. 113. 2 Pseudo-Juansher, p. 112. 3 Martin-Hisard, Les Arabes en Géorgie occidentale, p. 113. 4 For this campaign, see Khalīfa b. Khayyāṭ, Khalifa ibn Khayyat’s History, p. 222 and for the information regarding it in Pseudo-Juansher’s text, see Bíró, Marwan ibn Muhammad’s Georgian Campaign, pp. 298-299. 31 rameters lead us to reject that the campaign happened at all. Marwān’s priority was indeed in the Eastern Caucasus, against the Khazar Khaganate and its allies. Marwān b. Muḥammad was used as a role model for the creation of Murvan Qru because his campaigns in the area of the Eastern Caucasus had some impact on Kartli. Firstly, the Arab Armies used this region as one of their bases before the Khazar campaigns, while Kartvelians sided with Marwān b. Muḥammad in his military operations, as they were his subordinates. Since Marwān b. Muḥammad’s Georgian Campaign is a fictitious creation of Pseudo-Juansher, Murvan Qru was used as a symbol of the destruction that the Arab administration – and mostly the pro-Arab Katrvelian Houses – managed in Georgia. Their pro-Arab stance was condemned by Pseudo-Juansher, since with their assistance towards the Caliphate, they became enemies of the Divine Province and as a result, incapable of running the country, a role that only the pro-Byzantines and glorified in the eyes of God Chosroids could assume. Finally, it is evident that the story of Murvan Qru had been constructed to revive the claims of the Chosroids, a House declining in the 9th century. Bibliography Primary sources al-Ṭabarī, The History of al-Ṭabarī – al-Ṭabarī, The History of al-Ṭabarī (Ta'rikh alrusul wa'l-muluk): The End of Expansion, vol. XXV, (tr. Blankinship Y.K.), New York, 1989. Balādhūri, The origins of the Islamic state – Balādhūri, The origins of the Islamic state, being a translation from the Arabic, accompanied with annotations, geographic and historic notes of the Kitâb fitûh albuldân of al-Imâm abu-l Abbâs Ahmad ibn-Jâbir al-Balâdhuri, (tr. Hitti P.), Columbia, 1916. Bal’amī, Chronique de Abou Djafar Mo'hammed – Bal’amī, Chronique de Abou Djafar Mo'hammed ben Djarir ben Yezin Tabari, traduite sur la version persane d'abou 'ali Mo'hammed Bel'ami, vol. 4 (tr. Zotenberg H.), Nogent le Rotrou, 1874. Ibn Aʿtham al-Kūfī, Kitāb al-futūh – Ibn Aʿtham al-Kūfī, Kitāb al-futūh, vol. 7, (ed. Shīrī ʿA.), Beirut, 1991. Juansher Juansheriani, The Life of Vakht’ang Gorgasali – Juansher Juansheriani, The Life of Vakht’ang Gorgasali (tr. Gamq’relidze D.), The Georgian Chronicles of Kartlis Tskhovreba (A History of Georgia) (ed. Jones S.), Tbilisi, 2014. Khalīfa b. Khayyāṭ, Khalifa ibn Khayyat’s History – Khalīfa b. Khayyāṭ, Khalifa ibn Khayyat’s History on the Umayyad Dynasty (660–750) (tr. Wurtzel C.), Liverpool, 2015. 32 Łewond Vardapet, Discours Historique – Łewond Vardapet, Discours Historique, (tr. Martin-Hisard B.) aven en annexe: La correspodance d’ Umar et de Leon, (tr. Mahe J. P. & ed. Hakobian A.), Paris, 2015. Theophanes, Chronographia – Theophanes, Chronographia (ed. De Boor C.), Leipzig, 1883. Ya‘qūbī, The Works of Ibn Wāḍiḥ al-Yaʿqūbī – Ya‘qūbī, The Works of Ibn Wāḍiḥ al-Yaʿqūbī, An English Translation (ed. Gordon S. M., Robinson F. C., Rowson K. E., Fishbein M.), Leiden & Boston, 2018. Secondary bibliography abramiSvili, stefanoz mamfalis freskuli warwera – abramiSvili g., stefanoz mamfalis freskuli warwera atenis sionSi [Abramishvili G., Mural Inscription of Stepanoz Mampal in the Ateni Sioni], (saqarTvelos istoriis wyaroebi 5), Tbilisi, 1977. Bíró, Marwan ibn Muhammad’s Georgian Campaign – Bíró B. M., Marwan ibn Muhammad’s Georgian Campaign, “Acta Orientalia XXIX Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae”, 1975, pp. 289-299. Blankinship, The End of the Jihad State – Blankinship Y. K., The End of the Jihad State: The Reign of Hisham Ibn Αbd al-Malik and the Collapse of the Umayyads, New York, 1994. Ciqovani, yru baRdadelis vinaobis Sesaxeb – Ciqovani d., yru baRdadelis vinaobisa da marvan ibn muhamedis qarTuli Tikunis Sesaxeb [Chikovani D., About The Deaf from Bagdadi and Marwan ibn Muhamed’s Georgian Nickname], qw, XXI, 2019, gv. 132-137. Laurent (rev. Canard M.), L’Armenie entre Byzance et l’Islam depuis la conquete Arabe jusqu’en 886 – Laurent J. (rev. Canard M.), L’Armenie entre Byzance et l’Islam depuis la conquete Arabe jusqu’en 886, Lisbonne, 1980. Martin-Hisard, La domination byzantine – Martin-Hisard B., La domination byzantine sur le littoral oriental du Pont-Euxin (milieu VIIe-VIIIe siècles), “Byzantinobulgarica”, 7, 1981, pp. 141-156. Martin-Hisard, Les Arabes en Géorgie occidentale – Martin-Hisard B., Les Arabes en Géorgie occidentale au VIIIe siècle. Étude sur l'idéologie politique géorgienne, BK, 40, 1982, pp. 105-138. faRava, saqarTveloSi arabTa batonobis periodizacia – faRava i., saqarTveloSi arabTa batonobis periodizacia (numizmatikuri mona- 33 cemebis gaTvaliswinebiT) [Paghava I., Periodization of Arab Sway in Georgia (Considering the Numismatic Data)], `axlo aRmosavleTi da saqarTvelo~, VIII, 2014, gv. 250-257. faRava, Suasaukunovan saqarTveloSi – faRava i., Suasaukunovan saqarTveloSi numizmatikuri evoluciis analizi (VIII-XIII ss.) [Paghava I., Analysis of Numismatic Evolution in the Medieval Georgia (8th-13th C.)], Tbilisi, 2015. Rapp, Studies in Medieval Georgian Historiography – Rapp S., Studies in Medieval Georgian Historiography: Early Texts and Eurasian Contexts, Leuven, 2003. sanaZe, beraZe, VIII saukunis I naxevris qarTlisa da egrisis politikuri istoriidan – sanaZe m., beraZe T., VIII saukunis I naxevris qarTlisa da egrisis politikuri istoriidan [Sanadze M., Beradze T., On the Political History of Kartli and Egrisi in the First Half of the 8th Century], qw, X, 2004, gv. 70-81. sanaZe, araxamia, VI s. istoriuli qronika – sanaZe m., araxamia g., VI s. istoriuli qronika `daviT da konstantines wamebaSi~ [Sanadze M., Arakhamia G., The VI Century Historic Chronicle in “The Martyrdom of Davit and Kostantin”], Tbilisi, 2013. Семёнов, Хронология и маршруты арабских походов – Семёнов Г. И., Хронология и маршруты арабских походов в нагорный Дагестан в период наместничества на Кавказе Марвана ибн Мухаммада, “Восток” (Oriens), 6, 2018. Schindel, Umayyad Copper Coinage – Schindel N., Umayyad Copper Coinage in the Name of Marwan II. b. Muhammad from the Caucasus – Additional Comments, JONS, 202, 2010, pp. 8-11. TavaZe, saqarTvelo VIII saukuneSi – TavaZe l., saqarTvelo VIII saukuneSi: politikuri istoria [Tavadze L., Georgia in the Eight Century: A Political History], Tbilisi, 2020. Τακιρτάκογλου, Η Αρμενία μεταξύ Βυζαντίου και Χαλιφάτου – Τακιρτάκογλου Κ., Η Αρμενία μεταξύ Βυζαντίου και Χαλιφάτου (885-929), Αθήνα, 2018. Toumanoff, Studies in Christian Caucasian History – Toumanoff C., Studies in Christian Caucasian History, Georgetown, 1963. Vacca, Non-Muslim Provinces under Early Islam – Vacca A., Non-Muslim Provinces under Early Islam: Islamic Rule and Iranian Legitimacy in Armenia and Caucasian Albania, Cambridge, 2017. 34 evangelos dovasi murvan yrus istoriuli saxis warmoqmnaSi marvan ibn muhamadis rolis axleburi SefasebisaTvis reziume statiaSi ganxilulia hipoTeza, romelic qarTul wyaroebSi moxseniebul murvan yrus laSqrobas, kavkasiaSi marvan ibn muhamadis mier 735740 wlebSi ganxorcielebuli laSqrobebidan erT-erTad warmogvidgens. amis sapirispirod, migvaCnia, rom es laSqroba qarTul istoriul wyaroebSi fiqciaa da miznad isaxavs xosroidTa saxlis gandidebas. arabuli, somxuri, berZnuli da qarTuli wyaroebis kritikuli Seswavla cxadyofs, rom: a) marvan ibn muhamadi saerTod ar moqmedebda saqarTvelos winaaRmdeg. amas mowmobs faqti, rom marvan ibn muhamadis mizani am laSqrobebis seriaSi iyo xazarTa saxakanosa da samxreT daRestnis regionSi misi qveSevrdomebis damorCileba. ufro metic, am laSqrobebis qronologiuri CarCo gvafiqrebinebs, rom marvan ibn muhamadis jars im dros saqarTveloze Tavdasxma ar SeeZlo. b) arabTa batonoba saqarTveloSi ukve damkvidrebuli iyo marvan ibn muhamadis xazarTa saxakanos winaaRmdeg laSqrobebamde. aSkaraa, rom VIII saukunis dasawyisidan qarTlma ukve aRiara arabTa siuzerenoba, rac dasturdeba, rogorc werilobiTi wyaroebiT, ise numizmatikuri masaliT. Sedegad, Cven vfiqrobT, rom qarTlis xelmZRvaneli erismTavari, romelic migvaCnia pro-arabuli dajgufebis wevrad qarTlSi da ar vaigivebT mas xosroid stefanozTan, exmareboda marvan ibn muhamads xazarTa winaaRmdeg brZolaSi. g) marvan ibn muhamadis murvan yrud qceva aris xosroianebis sasargeblod warmoebuli propagandis Sedegi, romelic mimarTuli iyo saqarTveloSi arsebuli proarabuli dajgufebebis winaaRmdeg. amis safuZvelze, marvan ibn muhamadis damarcxeba xosroianebTan SeiZleba aixsnas, rogorc fsevdo-juanSeris mcdeloba daamtkicos, rom xosroianebi RvTis gangebiT qveynis gasaTavisufleblad da samarTavad airCies. 35 valerian vaSakiZe „sazRvris“ cneba klasikuri da momdevno xanis berZnulenovan teqstebSi antikuri civilizaciis daaxl. 2000-wlian xangrZliv monakveTSi (Zv. w. II aTaswleulis dasawyisidan ax w. IV saukunemde) qarTveluri modgmis tomebis gansaxlebis arealisa da istoriuli saqarTvelos teritoriaze warmoqmnili politikuri erTeulebis sazRvrebis dadgena-dazustebisaTvis, ZvelaRmosavlur wyaroebTan erTad, berZnulenovan teqstebs pirvelxarisxovani mniSvneloba eniWeba. gansakuTrebiT es iTqmis im xanaze, romelic, tradiciuli dayofiT, klasikur (Zv. w. V-IV ss.), elinistur (Zv. w. IV-II/I ss.) da romaul (Zv. w. II/I-ax. w. IV ss.) periodebs moicavs. Tamamad SeiZleba iTqvas, rom aRniSnuli drois berZen avtorTa Txzulebebi faqtobrivad werilobiT wyaroTa ZiriTadi bazaa, romelic mdidar masalas iZleva Tanadroul istoriul saqarTveloSi mimdinare eTno-kulturuli, politikuri, socialuri da sxva procesebis Sesaxeb. swored maTi mniSvnelobidan gamomdinare, vidre CvenTvis saintereso sakiTxebTan dakavSirebiT ama Tu im cnobis kritikul ganxilvas SevudgebiT, saWirod migvaCnia, pirvel rigSi, gavarkvioT Tavad „sazRvris“ cneba ZvelberZnul mwerlobaSi da is terminebi, romelTac am cnebis gadmosacemad iyenebdnen. zogadad unda aRiniSnos, rom, sayovelTaod gaziarebuli TvalsazrisiT, eTnikur erTobaTa Seqmnis erT-erTi umniSvnelovanesi piroba aris gansazRvruli teritoria, romelic aTaswleulebis manZilze yalibdeba. am xnis ganmavlobaSi mosaxleoba imdenad erwymis mas, rom Tavis ganuyofel nawilad, „mSobliurad“ aRiqvams; Taobidan Taobas gadaecema codna imis Sesaxeb, rom „mSobliuri miwa“ dasabamiTgan dakavSirebulia mocemuli xalxis istoriul bedTan. amavdroulad, nebismieri eTnosis TviTmyofadobis gamovlenis erT-erTi forma mezoblebisgan gamijvnaa. eTnikuri jgufis wevrebi TviTidentifikacias mxolod sxvebTan dapirispirebis gziT axdenen. amitomac uZvelesi kulturis xalxebis warmodgeniT, „samyaro“, „qveyana“ iyo is adgili, sadac „Cven“ jgufi cxovrobda. es iyo mowesrigebuli, kargad nacnobi konkretuli teritoria, sadac wesrigi da adamianTa Soris Tanxmoba sufevda. aRniSnuli geografiuli areali, romelic eTnosis cnobierebaSi mkacrad 36 iyo SemosazRvruli, mkveTrad imijneboda im sivrcisagan, sadac „sxvebi“, „isini“ saxlobdnen.1 amitomac TiToeuli eTnosi TavganwirviT icavda Tavis sakuTar sacxovriss da mis xelyofas verafriT egueboda. n. berZeniSvili SeniSnavs: „qveyana mxolod sazRvrebSi warmoidgineba. usazRvro qveyana uazrobaa. amdenadve nomads, romelmac Tavisi saxetialos sazRvari ar icis, arc qveyana aqvs“.2 ra Tqma unda, mecnieris es Tvalsazrisi ar gulisxmobs imas, rom nomadebs TavianTi sacxovrebeli geografiuli areali ar gaaCniaT, magram klasikuri gagebiT qveyana, rac binadar xalxebs aqvT da romelsac Tavisi istoriuli sazRvrebi axasiaTebs, momTabareTaTvis marTlac ucxo iyo. CvenTvis saintereso sakiTxis SeswavlisaTvis klasikuri da Semdgomi xanis berZnulenovan teqstebis SerCeva SemTxveviT ar momxdara. erT-erTi mizezia is, rom klasikuramdeli periodis (e. i. antikuri Zeglebis gamoCenidan Zv. w. VI s-is bolomde) avtorebisaTvis damaxasiaTebelia realobis miTologiuri azrovnebis kriteriumebiT aRqma da maTSi kavkasia da, Sesabamisad, qarTveluri samyaroc, promeTesa da argonavtebis Tqmulebebis konteqstSia gaazrebuli; klasikur epoqaSi ukve wina planze gamodis faqtebisa da movlenebis kritikuli xedva. am periodSi kavkasia TandaTanobiT legendarulis sferodan realurSi gadadis rogorc terminologiuri, aseve istoriul-geografiuli TvalsazrisiT da iRebs ufro konkretulad gamokveTil xasiaTs.3 bunebrivia, amas xeli Seuwyo „didma berZnulma kolonizaciam“, romelic aRmosavleT SavizRvispireTSi Zv. w. VI s-dan ivaraudeba. am procesma da sxva istoriulma movlenebma (berZen-sparselTa omebi, aleqsandre makedonelis aziaSi laSqroba, romis imperiis aRmosavleTiT gafarToeba da miTridate VI evpatoris omebi, romaul-parTiuli dapirispireba da sxv.) TandaTanobiT gaaRrmava berZen-romael avtorTa codna qarTveluri samyaros Sesaxeb. sxva mizezi imisa, rom Cven klasikuri da Semdgomi periodis berZnulenovani teqstebiT SemovifarglebiT, Tavad antikuri epoqis azrovnebaSi momxdari cvlilebebia. cnobilia, rom Zveli berZnuli sazogadoeba Zv. w. VIII s-mde (e. i. polisur periodamde) warmoadgenda konglomerats martivi dualuri opoziciiT „έσϑλοί-δειλοί“ („warCinebulebi“ – „rigiTi mosaxleoba“), sadac individumebi Seadgend1 2 3 dawvr. ix.: vaSakiZe, saxelmwifo teritoria, gv. 60-67 (lit. iqve). berZeniSvili, saqarTvelos istoriis sakiTxebi, VIII, gv. 107. gordeziani, ugulava, kavkasia/kavkasosi, gv. 28. 37 nen teritoriul-gentilur da ara socialur-politikur erTobas.1 polisur saberZneTSi terminebi „elini“ da „barbarosi“, romlebic Tavdapirvelad mxolod berZnulad da araberZnulad molaparakeebs aRniSnavda, sruliad axal elfers iZens. elinebi polisebSi mcxovrebi Tavisufali da Tavisuflebismoyvare xalxia, barbarosebi ki – yvela danarCeni, Tundac berZenTa monaTesave.2 klasikur xanaSi xdeba gaazreba im niSan-Tvisebebisa, rac saerTo aqvT elinebs. herodotosi (Zv. w. 485-424 ww.) „istoriaSi“ (VIII, 144) sruliad erTmniSvnelovnad aRniSnavs: „elinebs erTi sisxli da erTi ena aqvT. saerTo aqvT RmerTebis taZrebi, msxverplSewirvebi da wes-Cveulebebi“.3 berZeni avtorisaTvis elinebis erTobas ganapirobebs saerTo warmomavloba, ena, religiuri warmodgenebi da masTan dakavSirebuli rituali. amgvari socialuri erTobis aRsaniSnavad termini „έϑνоς“/„eTnosi“ klasikuri periodidan moyolebuli mtkiced ikidebs fexs. am dromde „eTnosi“ (romlis ZiriTadi mniSvnelobaa „jiSi“) gamoiyeneboda rogorc adamianTa, ise sxva cocxali organizmebis warmomavlobis, gvaris, modgmis, saxeobis, jilagis, gundis da a. S. gadmosacemad. amrigad, terminma „eTnosma“ herodotosis droidan berZnul mwerlobaSi SeiZina Tavisi ZiriTadi mniSvneloba; is upiratesad miemarTeba adamianTa sazogadoebas da aRniSnavs „toms“, „xalxs“. Tavad herodotosisTvis „eTnosi“ mkacrad Camoyalibebuli cnebaa, rac kargad Cans zemoT motanili elinTa daxasiaTebidan, Tumca is Tavisi Txzulebis sxva monakveTSi kidev ufro azustebs „eTnosis“ niSnebs. istorikosis azriT, „mTeli egvipte aris is qveyana, romelic egviptelebiTaa dasaxlebuli iseve, rogorc kilikie kilikielebiT da asirie asirielebiT“ (II, 17);4 an „kolxididan midiaSi gadasasvleli didi araa, mxolod erTi tomia am qveynebs Soris, esaa saspeirebis tomi“ (I, 104).5 sruliad cxadia, rom egviptelebs, kilikielebs, asirielebs, kolxebs, midielebs (bunebrivia, saspeirebsac) herodotosi „eTnosebad“ ganixilavs. yovel maTgans Tavisi sakuTari qveyana aqvs, rasac mowmobs terminebi: Aϊγυπτоς – qveyana egvipte da Aίγύπτоι – egviptelebi. Ἀσσυρίη – qveyana asirie/ asiria da Ἀσσύριоι – asirielebi, Κίλικίη – qveyana kilikie/ kilikia da Κίλικες – kilikielebi, Κоλχίς – qveyana kolxida da Κóλχоι 1 2 3 4 5 Яйленко, Архаическая Греция, gv. 154-155. gordeziani, Zveli istoriis narkvevebi, gv. 26. herodote, istoria, t. II, gv. 534. herodote, istoria, t. I, gv. 124. iqve, gv. 76. 38 – kolxebi, Mηδική – qveyana midia da Mῆδоι – midielebi da a. S. gamodis, rom herodotosis azriT, qveyanas, anu konkretul sazRvrebSi moqceul teritorias, erTi eTnosi asaxlebs da es ukanaskneli qveynis saxelis mixedviT iwodeba. e. i. egviptelebi egviptis macxovreblebi arian, kilikielebi – kilikiisa, asirielebi – asiriisa, kolxebi – kolxidisa, midielebi – midiisa. amdenad, Tu zemoTqmuls SevajamebT, miviRebT „eTnosis“ herodotosiseul ganmartebas: „eTnosi“ aris adamianTa sazogadoeba, romelsac aqvs mkacrad gansazRvruli teritoria, anu sakuTari qveyana, saerTo warmomavloba (erTi sisxli), erTi ena, religiuri rwmena da masTan dakavSirebuli rituali. aq ar SeiZleba SeumCneveli dagvrCes is faqti, rom Tavad elinebTan dakavSirebiT herodotosi arsad axsenebs maT saerTo qveyanas. vfiqrobT, es SeiZleba imiT aixsnas, rom herodotosi racionalurad moazrovne istorikosia da misi droisaTvis arsebul realobas uwevs angariSs. aRniSnuli periodisaTvis ki Zveli berZnebi istoriuli samSoblos garda mTel xmelTaSuazRvispireTsa da SavizRvispireTs iyvnen modebulni, xolo saxelmwifos mowyobis polisuri sistemis gamo maT erTiani da iseTive SemosazRvruli qveyana ar gaaCndaT rogorc mag., egviptelebs, asirielebs, midielebsa da sxva eTnosebs. aucileblad unda iTqvas, rom am sakiTxebis ganxilvisas kidev erTi sainteresi kiTxva Cndeba: Tu herodotosiseuli „eTnosis“ cnebis gaazreba met-naklebad gasagebia, rogor esmodaT es termini an misi adgilobrivi Sesatyvisi (aseTis arsebobis SemTxvevaSi) im tomebsa da xalxebs, romelTac berZeni avtori eTnosebad moixseniebs? cxadia, es problema specialur kvlevas moiTxovs da cdeba winamdebare naSromis miznebs. Cven zemomotanili msjeloba imisTvis dagvWirda, rom gveCvenebina, „sazRvris“ cnebis SeswavlisaTvis ratom SemovifarglebiT klasikuri da Semdgomi xanis berZnulenovani wyaroebiT. vidre herodotosis „istoriaSi“ sazRvris cnebas da mis aRmniSvnel terminebs SevexebiT, kidev erTxel unda iTqvas, rom misi winamorbedi avtorebi hekateos miletoseli (daaxl. Zv. w. 560-480 ww.), esqile (Zv. w. 525/524-456/455 ww.), sofokle (Zv. w. 497/496-406/403 ww.), pindarosi (Zv. w. 532/518-443 ww.) qarTveluri modgmis tomebis an maTi sacxovrisis Sesaxeb mxolod zogadi miniSnebebiT kmayofildebian. mag., esqilesTan xalibebis samyofeli aris „zRvis xelmarcxniv“, „pontos sanapiroze“; kolxisi „mdebareobs skviTiaSi“ da a. S. miuxedavad amisa, yuradRebas iqcevs ramdenime pasaJi. imave esqilesTan naTqvamia: „poeti 39 mas (tanaiss) uwodebs sazRvars (ὅρоѵ), ganmsazRvrels (ὁριςμòѵ) da gamyofs xmeleTisa, e. i. ori miwisa – evropisa da aziis, rogorc ambobs agreTve periegetesi: „evropas aziisgan SuaSi yofs (ὁρίζει) tanaisi“.1 berZen tragikosTan gamoyenebuli „ὅρоς“ (horos) aris mijna, samani, sazRvari; „ὁριςμóς“ (horismos) – gammijvneli, ganmsazRvreli, sazRvris damdebi; „ὁρίζω“ (horiZo) ki zmnaa, romelic aRniSnavs sazRvris dadgenas, sazRvris dadebas. bolo ori sityvis Ziria „ὅρоς“ – „horos“. e. i. „sazRvris“ gadmosacemad esqile iyenebs termins „hoross“, rac misTvis or qveyanas, evropasa da azias Soris gamyof mijnas warmoadgens. hekateos miletoselis cnobiT, „mosxebi, kolxebis tomi, matienebis mezobeli (πρоσεχὲς)“.2 es ukanaskneli termini niSnavs maxloblad, mezoblad, mimdebared, mosazRvred myofs. igive avtori wers: „xalibois (e. i. xalibebs – v. v.) samxreTidan esazRvrebian (ὁμоυρέоυσι) armenielebi“.3 „ὅμоρоς“ („ὅμоυρоς“ misi ioniuri formaa) mniSvnelobaa mosazRvre, momijnave, aseve mosazRvre qveynis mcxovrebi-mezobeli. aRsaniSnavia, rom motanili terminis Ziria „ὅρоς“/„horos“, romelzec zemoT iyo saubari. amdenad, gamodis, rom ori xalxis (am SemTxvevaSi xalibebisa da armenielebis) sacxovrisis gasamijnad hekateos miletoselic iyenebs termin „hoross“. Tavidanve unda aRiniSnos, rom xsenebul termins da misgan nawarmoeb sityvebs xSirad mimarTavs herodotosic. misi TqmiT, „midiis sagamgeblosa da lidias Soris sazRvari (оὖρоς) iyo mdinare halisi“ (I, 72).4 „оὖρоς“ aris „ὅρоς“ – „horosis“ ioniuri forma. herodotosi wers, rom meotisis tba „sazRvravs (оὐρίζει) samefo skviTebsa da savromatebs“ (IV, 57).5 „оὐρίζω“ – „ὁρίζω“ aris zmna, romelzec iTqva, rom is niSnavs sazRvris dadebas. vfiqrobT, rTuli SesamCnevi ar aris, rom is nawarmoebia Ziridan „ὅρоς“ – „horos“. rogorc vxedavT, pirvel SemTxvevaSi herodotosi erTmaneTisagan mijnavs or qveyanas, xolo meore SemTxvevaSi – or eTnoss. orive epizodis gadmocemisas istorikosi „sazRvris“ cnebis gadmosacemad iyenebs termins „ὅρоς“ – „hoross“. analogiuri viTarebaa V, 52-Si, sadac naTqvamia: „kilikiisa da armeniis sazRvari („оὖρоς) modis sanaosno 1 2 3 4 5 esqile, mijaWvuli promeTe, gv. 72. hekateos miletoseli, dedamiwis aRwera, gv. 80. iqve, gv. 6. herodotosi, istoria, gv. 83. iqve, gv. 100. 40 mdinareze, romlis saxelic aris evfratesi“.1 amdenad, sruliad erTmniSvnelovnad unda iTqvas, rom herodotosi qveynebis an eTnosebis sacxovrisi teritoriebis erTmaneTisagan gamosayofad iyenebs termins „ὅρоς“ – „hoross“. Tu herodotosis Txzulebidan zemoT motanil magaliTebs davukvirdebiT, cxadi gaxdeba, rom berZeni istorikosisaTvis qveynebsa Tu eTnosebs Soris sazRvari, upirveles yovlisa, bunebriv zRudeebze gadis. gavixsenoT, rom midiasa da lidias md. halisi hyofs, kilikiasa da armenias – md. evfratesi, skviTebsa da savromatebs – meotisis tba. vfiqrobT, es sruliad gasagebia, radgan bunebrivi sazRvrebi yvelaze ukeT mijnavda qveynebsa da xalxebs da es sayovelTaod gavrcelebuli praqtika iyo. iq, sadac amis SesaZlebloba ar arsebobda, sazRvris aRmniSvneli niSnebi gamoiyeneboda. herodotosis TqmiT, qserqsesi „mivida qalaq kidraraSi, romelic mdebareobs frigielTa da lidielTa sazRvarze. aq sveti iyo darWobili, kroisosis mier dadgmuli, romlis warwerac am sazRvarze miuTiTebda“ (VII, 30).2 amdenad, dabejiTebiT SeiZleba iTqvas, rom, herodotosis mixedviT, sazRvari umTavresad bunebriv zRudeebs miuyveboda, xolo aseTis ararsebobis SemTxvevaSi, mis aRsaniSnavad gamoiyeneboda specialuri niSani, aRmarTuli sveti saTanado warweriT. qsenofonis (daaxl. 430-355 ww.) cnobiT, md. kentritesi „sazRvravs (ὁρίζει) armenias karduxebis qveynisagan“ (IV, 3, 1-7).3 zmna „ὁρίζω“, romelsac berZeni avtori iyenebs, niSnavs sazRvris dadebas, gamoyofas da nawarmoebia arsebiTi saxelisagan „ὅρоς“ – „horos“ (sazRvari). amaze zemoT iyo saubari. qsenofoni aRniSnavs, rom elinebi „miadgnen mdinares, romelic makronebis qveyanas skviTinebis qveynisagan sazRvravda“ (IV, 8, 6).4 am SemTxvevaSic gamoyenebulia zmna „ὁρίζω“. igive avtori mogviTxrobs, rom „makronebi maT (berZen molaSqreebs – v. v.) SeZlebisdagvarad kargad amaragebdnen sursaTiT da Tanac sami dRis ganmavlobaSi Tan mihyvebodnen, sanam elinebs kolxebis sazRvarTan (ὅρια) miiyvandnen“ (IV, 8, 6).5 rogorc vxedavT, „sazRvari“ kvlavac gadmocemulia terminiT „ὅρоς“ – „horos“. 1 2 3 4 5 iqve, gv. 103. herodote, istoria, t. II, gv. 422. qsenofoni, kirosis anabasisi, gv. 120. iqve, gv. 130. iqve, gv. 131. 41 „kirosis anabasisSi“ naTqvamia, rom miuaxlovdnen mosinikebis sazRvars“ (V, 4, 1).1 „sazRvris“ aRsaniSnavad aqac gamoyenebulia termini „ὅρоς“ – „horos“. qsenofonis motanili cnobebidan kargad Cans, rom iq, sadac berZenma moqiravneebma gaiares, „sazRvari“ ZiriTadad bunebriv zRudeebs gasdevda. avtoris TqmiT, armenias karduxebis qveynisagan md. kentritesi gamoyofda; makronebis qveyanac skviTinebis qveynisagan mdinariT iyo gamijnuli da a. S. polibiosi (Zv. w. III-II ss.) „istoriaSi“ iq, sadac saubaria samyaros sam nawilad dayofaze, aRniSnavs: „mis erT nawils uwodeben azias, meores – libias da mesames – evropas. maT erTmaneTisgan gamoyofen mdinareebi: tanaisi, nilosi da srute herakles svetebTan“ (III, 37, 2).2 xsenebuli nawilebis gamoyofa-gamijvnisaTis avtori xmarobs zmnas „ὁρίζω“, romelzec ukve iTqva, rom is nawarmoebia arsebiTi saxelisagan „ὅρоς“ – „horos“. sainteresoa, rom polibiosic azias, libiasa da evropas Soris sazRvrebad bunebriv zRudeebs (mdinareebi, srute) miiCnevs. polibiosis TqmiT, „artabaZanesis qveyana, romelic midias esazRvreba, gamoyofilia misgan zed SuaSi mdebare mTianeTiT“ (V, 55, 7).3 aqac or qveyanas Soris bunebrivi sazRvari – mTianeTia dasaxelebuli. cxadia, polibiosic gadmogvcems im uZveles praqtikas, romlis Tanaxmadac samyaros nawilebi, qveynebi da eTnosebis sacxovrisi teritoriebi erTmaneTisgan gamijnuli iyo bunebrivi warmonaqmnebiT (mdinareebiT, sruteebiT, zRvebiTa da tbebiT, maRali qedebiT da a. S.). skimnos qioseli (Zv. w. I s.) Tavis „xmeleTis aRwerilobaSi“ (874885) aRniSnavs: „tanaisze, romelic aziis sazRvaria da xmeleTs orad hyofs, Tavdapirvelad cxovroben sarmatebi“.4 avtori „sazRvars“ gadmoscems terminiT „ὅρоς“ – „horos“, xolo xmeleTis orad gamyof bunebriv zRuded md. tanaiss miiCnevs. CvenTvis saintereso sakiTxze uaRresad sayuradRebo mosazrebebia daculi strabonis (Zv. w. I-ax. w. I ss.) „geografiaSi“. erTgan avtors moaqvs eratosTenesis msjeloba imis Sesaxeb, rom, Tu ar iqneba zusti sazRvari kolitasa da melitas Soris (mag., qvis svetebi an zRudeebi), maSin SesaZlebelia mxolod iTqvas, rom „es kolitaa“ 1 2 3 4 iqve, gv. 134. polibiosi, istoria, gv. 192. iqve, gv. 195. skimnos qioseli (fsevdo), xmeleTis aRweriloba, gv. 203. 42 „an melita“, sazRvrebs ki ver mivuTiTebT; am mizeziT ki xSirad warmoiSveba davebi mag., argoselebsa da lakedemonelebs, aTenelebsa da beotielebs Soris (I, 4, 7). straboni iziarebs gamoTqmul debulebas, magram ekamaTeba eratosTeness: iqneb eratosTenesi miiCnevs, rom qveynebsa da calkeul xalxebs Soris zusti sazRvris dadgena praqtikulad sasargebloa, xolo materikebis erTmaneTisagan gamoyofa zedmetia? iqve geografosi daaskvnis, rom es ukanaskneli aranaklebi mniSvnelobisaa, radgan SesaZloa Zlevamosil mmarTvelTa Sorisac atydes dava materikebis sazRvrebis gamo (I, 4, 8). motanili amonaridebidan naTlad ikveTeba, rom strabonisaTvis qveynebsa da xalxebs, aseve materikebs Soris zusti sazRvris dadgenas udidesi praqtikuli mniSvneloba aqvs. geografosi kidev ufro azustebs Tavis Sexedulebas. misi TqmiT, qveynis sazRvrebi sididiTa da zomiT zustad dadgenilia, roca is SeiZleba Semoifarglos mdinareebiT, mTebiT an zRviT, bolos da bolos tomiT an tomebiT, sadac ki es SesaZlebelia (II, 1, 30). amdenad qveynebsa da xalxebs Soris sazRvris dadebisas upiratesoba eniWeba bunebriv gamyofebs – mdinareebs, mTaTa sistemas, zRvas da a. S. iq, sadac es SesaZlebloba ar arsebobs, unda iyos xelovnuri niSnebi, mag., qvis svetebi, zRude-simagreebi da sxv. miTridate VI evpatoris mier agebuli 75 cixe-simagridan, strabonis azriT, umniSvnelovanesi iyo „hidara, basgoidariZa da sinoria; es aris didi armeniis sazRvarze mdebare adgili, amitomacaa, rom Teofanem uwoda mas sinoria“ (II, 3, 28).1 geografosi „sazRvars“ gadmoscems terminiT „ὅρоς“ – „horos“. motanil frazaSi yuradRebas ipyrobs erT-erTi simagris – sinorias saxelwodeba, romelic, avtoris TqmiT, misTvis Teofanes daurqmevia. „sinoria“(Σιѵоρία), rac berZnulad niSnavs „sazRvarze mdebares“, am cixes adgilmdebareobis gamo ewoda. strabonis cnobiT, iberebi, apolodorosis (Zv.w. II s.) mtkicebiT, „armenias esazRvrebian araqsiT, ufro ki kirosiTa da mosxuri mTebiT“ (I, 3, 21).2 sityvis „esazRvrebian“ gadmosacemad geografosi iyenebs zmnas „ὁρίζει“ (sawyisi forma ὁρίζω). zemoT ukve aRvniSneT, rom am ukanasknelis Ziria „ὅρоς“ – „horos“, rac niSnavs „sazRvars“. imave termins vxvdebiT „geografiis“ sxva TavebSic. mag., sadac laparakia eTiopiis sazRvrebze (II,5,11); evropisa da aziis sazRvarze (XI, 2, 1) da a. S. 1 2 yauxCiSvili, strabonis geografia, gv. 212-213. iqve, gv. 81. 43 zogjer straboni „sazRvris“ gadmosacemad xmarobs termins „μεϑóρια“. mag., frazebSi: „miuTiTeben kolxidisa da iberiis sazRvrebze“ (I, 2, 39); an „albaniisa da armeniis sazRvrebamde“ (XI, 1, 5) da a. S. aqac unda uTqvas, rom xsenebul terminSic aSkarad ikiTxeba Ziri „ὅρоς“ – „horos“. „geografiaSi“ vxvdebiT „ὅρоς“-idan nawarmoeb sxva sityvebsac. vfiqrobT, sainteresoa pasaJi, sadac straboni gadmoscems iberiis mosaxleobis socialur struqturas. avtoris TqmiT, qurumebi, romlebic Seadgenen meore genoss „zrunaven agreTve mezoblebTan (τоὺς ὁμóρоυς) samarTalze“ (XI, 3. 6).1 am terminTan dakavSirebiT T. yauxCiSvili SeniSnavs: „strabonis cnobis ὅμоρоι (Ziria – ὅρоς sazRvari) ki swored imas niSnavs, vinc sazRvarTan gemijneba (da ara imas, vinc sazRvris SigniT mezobelia)“.2 amdenad, SeiZleba davaskvnaT, rom straboni „sazRvris“ (da masTan dakavSirebuli cnebebis, mag., mosazRvred mcxovrebi da sxv.) gadmosacemad iyenebs: termins „ὅρоς“ – „hoross“ da misgan nawarmoeb formebs. analogiurad iqceva diodoros sicilieli (Zv. w. I s.). mag., „biblioTekaSi“ (XIV, 29,5) naTqvamia: „rogorc ki elinebma maTi (makronebis – v. v.) sazRvari gadalaxes, Sevidnen kolxTa qveyanaSi“.3 mocemul fragmentSi „sazRvars“ Seesatyviseba berZnuli „ὅρоς“ – „horos“. amave termins an misgan nawarmoeb formebs iyenebs plutarqosi (I-II ss.). mag., kavkasionis qedis zoli, „hirkaniis zRvamdea gadaWimuli, magram albanebs ar esazRvreba (оὐχ ὁμоρоῦσαι) (pompeusi XXXV).4 saintereso cnobas gvawvdis plutarqosi sazRvris aRmniSvneli niSnebis Sesaxebac. mag., Tezevsma „isTmosSi dadga sayovelTaod cnobili sveti, romelzec qveynis sazRvris aRsaniSnavad gaakeTa ori trimetriiT Sesrulebuli warwera, romelTagan erTi, aRmosavleTisken mimarTuli, ambobda: peloponesi ar aris aq, ioniaa; meore, dasavleTisken mimarTuli ki gvamcnobda: peloponesia aq da ara ionia“ (Tezevsi, XXV).5 es kidev erTxel adasturebs, rom iq, sadac sazRvris dadeba bunebriv gamyofebze ver xerxdeboda, qvis svetebs (Sesabamisi warweriT) an xelovnur zRudeebs aRmarTavdnen. 1 2 3 4 5 yauxCiSvili, strabonis geografia gv. 130. yauxCiSvili, saqarTvelos istoriis Zveli berZnuli wyaroebi, gv. 153. diodoros sicilieli, biblioTeka, gv. 271. plutarqosi, paraleluri biografiebi, pompeusi, gv. 284. plutarqe, rCeuli paraleluri biografiebi, gv. 13. 44 yuradRebas ipyrobs imave avtoris monaTxrobi imis Sesaxeb, Tu rogor xdeboda garkveuli teritoriis SemosazRvra. plutarqosis TqmiT, romulusma daiwyo Txrilis gavleba, raTa momavali qalaqis kedlebi Semoefargla. xolo roca misi Zma, remusi am Txrils gadmoaxta, is mokles. erTni amboben, rom sasikvdilo dartyma mas Tavad romulusma miayena, sxvaTa TqmiT, ki – celerusma, romulusis megobarma... odnav mogvianebiT, romulusma saxnisiT Rrma kvali gaavlo da ase moniSna qalaqis sazRvrebi (romulusi, X-XI). eWvgareSea, rom qalaq romis daarsebis Sesaxeb TxrobaSi plutarqosi gadmogvcems uZveles tradicias, Tu rogor xdeboda sakuTari teritoriis SemosazRvra. rogorc Cans, Tavdapirvelad sazRvrad iyenebdnen Rrma Txrils, SemdgomSi ki xeliT nageb zRudeebs. Zalze sainteresoa plutarqosis azri sazRvris daniSnulebis Sesaxeb. misi TqmiT, zRvari/sazRvari, Tu mas daicav, boWavs Zalas, xolo Tu ara – gamxels ZaladobaSi (numa, XVI). vfiqrobT, motanili amonaridebi kargad aCvenebs sazRvris sakralur mniSvnelobas da mis mimarT berZeni avtoris pativiscemas. dionisiosi (II s.) Tavis „samyaros aRweraSi“ (14-22) wers: „evropas aziisagan Suaze mijnavs tanaisi“; „zeaRmarTulia aziis qveynis kideze erTi yeli _ kaspiisa da evqsinoss Soris. mas miiCneven evropisa da aziis sazRvrad“.1 pirvel SemTxvevaSi avtori iyenebs zmnas „ὁρίζω“, meoreSi ki arsebiT saxels „ὅρоς“ – „hoross“. analogiurad iqceva arianosic (I-II ss.). misi TqmiT, „trapeZuselebis mosazRvreni, rogorc qsenofonic ambobs, arian kolxebi“ (13).2 „mosazRvred mcxovrebis“ aRsaniSnavad aq vxvdebiT termins „ὅμоρоι“, romlis Ziric, rogorc zemoT SevniSneT, aris „ὅρоς“. sxvagan romaeli moxele ambobs, rom esqile „evropisa da aziis sazRvrad (ὅρоѵ) fasiss Tvlis“ (16).3 imave avtoris sxva TxzulebaSi – „aleqsandres anabasisi“ – naTqvamia: „darioss mieSvelnen indoelTagan isini, vinc baqtrielebis mezoblebi (ὅμоρоι) arian (III, 8, 3-6)“.4 „indoeTis ambebSi“ arianosi aRniSnavs: „indoelTa qveynis sazRvari CrdiloeTis qaris mimarTulebiT 1 2 3 4 dionisiosi, samyaros aRwera, gv. 298. arianosi, evqseinos pontosis periplusi, gv. 305. iqve, gv. 307. arianosi, evqseinos pontosis periplusi, gv. 308. 45 aris tavrosis mTa“(2, 1).1 am SemTxvevaSic „sazRvars“ Seesabameba „ὅρоς“ – „horos“. klavdios ptolemaiosis (90-168 ww.) „geografiuli saxelmZRanelos“ mixedviT, „aziis sarmatia CrdiloeTiT esazRvreba ucnob miwas“ (V, 8.).2 erTgan avtori gvamcnobs, rom kolxida CrdiloeTidan SemosazRvrulia sarmatiis nawiliT (IX, 1).3 orive SemTxvevaSi cnebebis `esazRvreba“ da `SemosazRvrulia“ gadmosacemad kvlav vxvdebiT zmnas „ὁρίζω“. analogiuri viTareba gvaqvs Txzulebis sxva monakveTebSic (mag., X, 1; XI, 1; XII, 1; XVIII, 2 da sxv.). dion kasios kokeianosis (II-III ss.) „romis istoriaSi“ iberielebze naTqvamia, rom „es xalxi kirnosis orive mxareze cxovrobs, erTi mxridan albanelebs esazRvrebian (πρóσоρоι), meoredan ki – armenielebs“ (XXXVII, 1).4 motanili sityvis Ziria „ὅρоς“ – „horos“. igive avtori mogviTxrobs, rom publius kanidios krasusi SeiWra iberiis „mezobel (ὅμоρоѵ) albaniaSi“ (XIX, 24).5 aqac „mezobeli“, „mosazRvre qveynis“ gadmosacemad gamoiyeneba sityva, romelic momdinareobs Cven mier araerTgzis xsenebuli terminidan „ὅρоς“. dionisios bizantielis (I–II ss.) „bosporosis anaplusSi“ (2) naTqvamia, rom md. tanaisi aris „ori xmeleTis sazRvari (ὅρоς)“.6 filostratosi (II-III ss.) Tavis TxzulebaSi „apolonios tianelis Sesaxeb“ (VII, 26) aRniSnavs: skviTebs „zRudavs istrosebi, Termodonebi da tanaisebi“.7 avtori aq iyenebs zmnas „ὁρίζω“, romelzec araerTxel iyo saubari. amrigad, Cven SeviswavleT „sazRvris“ cneba da misi aRmniSvneli terminebi klasikuri, elinisturi da romauli xanis berZnulenovan teqstebSi. vfiqrobT, motanili masalidan naTlad gamoikveTa: a) „sazRvars“ ZvelberZnul wyaroebSi Seesabameba termini „ὅρоς“ (horos) da misgan nawarmoebi formebi; b) „sazRvari“ aris eTnosebis/xalxebis, qveynebis, saxelmwifoebisa da samyaros nawilebis/kontinentebis gamyofi mijna; 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 iqve, gv. 312. klavdios ptolemaiosi, geografiuli saxelmZRvanelo, gv. 356 a. iqve, gv. 356 b. dion kasios kokeianosi, romis istoria, gv. 360. iqve, gv. 366. dionisios bizantieli, bosporosis anaplusi, gv. 360. filostratosi, apolonios tianelis Sesaxeb, gv. 375. 46 g) avtorebi upiratesobas aniWeben iseT sazRvrebs, romlebic bunebriv zRudeebze (mdinareebi, sruteebi, tbebi, zRvebi, mTaTa sistemebi) gadis, rac maTi Tanadrouli Sexedulebebis asaxvas warmoadgens, romelic, uTuod, arqaul tradiciebs unda efuZnebodes; d) iq, sadac bunebrivi gamyofebi ar arsebobda, sasazRvro niSnebad gamoiyeneboda xelovnuri zRudeebi (Txrilebi, simagreebi da a. S.) an specialuri qvis svetebi saTanado warwerebiT; e) udidesi mniSvneloba eniWeboda sazRvris zustad dadgenas, radgan kargad iyo gacnobierebuli, rom uamisoba mezoblebs Soris teritoriuli davebis mizezi xdeboda; v) antikuri avtorebi sazRvris mimarT saTanado pativiscemas amJRavneben. damowmebuli wyaroebi da literatura arianosi, evqseinos pontosis periplusi – arianosi, evqseinos pontosis periplusi, `antikuri kavkasia~, enciklopedia, t. I, wyaroebi, Tbilisi, 2010, gv. 305. diodoros sicilieli, biblioTeka – diodoros sicilieli, biblioTeka, `antikuri kavkasia~, enciklopedia, t. I, wyaroebi, Tbilisi, 2010, gv. 271. dion kasios kokeianosi, romis istoria – dion kasios kokeianosi, romis istoria, `antikuri kavkasia~, enciklopedia, t. I, wyaroebi, Tbilisi, 2010, gv. 360. dionisios bizantieli, bosporosis anaplusi – dionisios bizantieli, bosporosis anaplusi, `antikuri kavkasia~, enciklopedia, t. I, wyaroebi, Tbilisi, 2010, gv. 360. dionisiosi, samyaros aRwera – dionisiosi, samyaros aRwera, `antikuri kavkasia~, enciklopedia, t. I, wyaroebi, Tbilisi, 2010, gv. 298. esqile, mijaWvuli promeTe – esqile, mijaWvuli promeTe, `antikuri kavkasia~, enciklopedia, t. I, wyaroebi, Tbilisi, 2010, gv. 72. klavdios ptolemaiosi, geografiuli saxelmZRvanelo – klavdios ptolemaiosi, geografiuli saxelmZRvanelo, `antikuri kavkasia~, enciklopedia, t. I, wyaroebi, Tbilisi, 2010, gv. 356 a. plutarqe, rCeuli paraleluri biografiebi – plutarqe, rCeuli paraleluri biografiebi, I, ZvelberZnulidan Targmna, Sesavali werili da ganmartebebi daurTo a. uruSaZem, Tbilisi, 1957. 47 plutarqosi, paraleluri biografiebi, pompeusi – plutarqosi, paraleluri biografiebi, pompeusi, `antikuri kavkasia~ enciklopedia, t. I, wyaroebi, Tbilisi, 2010, gv. 284. polibiosi, istoria – polibiosi, istoria, `antikuri kavkasia~, enciklopedia, t. I, wyaroebi, Tbilisi, 2010, gv. 192. skimnos qioseli (fsevdo), xmeleTis aRweriloba – skimnos qioseli (fsevdo), xmeleTis aRweriloba, `antikuri kavkasia~, enciklopedia, t. I, wyaroebi, Tbilisi, 2010, gv. 203. filostratosi, apolonios tianelis Sesaxeb – filostratosi, apolonios tianelis Sesaxeb, `antikuri kavkasia~, enciklopedia, t. I, wyaroebi, Tbilisi, 2010, gv. 375. qsenofoni, kirosis anabasisi – qsenofoni, kirosis anabasisi, `antikuri kavkasia~, enciklopedia, t. I, wyaroebi, Tbilisi, 2010, gv. 120. hekateos miletoseli, dedamiwis aRwera – hekateos miletoseli, dedamiwis aRwera, `antikuri kavkasia~, enciklopedia, t. I, wyaroebi, Tbilisi, 2010, gv. 80. herodote, istoria, t. I – herodote, istoria, berZnulidan Targmna, winasityvaoba da saZiebeli daurTo T. yauxCiSvilma, t. I, Tbilisi, 1975. herodote, istoria, t. II – herodote, istoria, berZnulidan Targmna, winasityvaoba da saZiebeli daurTo T. yauxCiSvilma, t. II, Tbilisi, 1976. herodotosi, istoria – herodotosi, istoria, `antikuri kavkasia~, enciklopedia, t. I, wyaroebi, Tbilisi, 2010, gv. 83. berZeniSvili, saqarTvelos istoriis sakiTxebi, VIII – berZeniSvili n., saqarTvelos istoriis sakiTxebi, VIII, Tbilisi, 1975. gordeziani, Zveli istoriis narkvevebi – gordeziani l., Zveli istoriis narkvevebi, Tbilisi, 2009. gordeziani, ugulava, kavkasia/kavkasosi – gordeziani r., ugulava g., kavkasia/kavkasosi, `antikuri kavkasia~, enciklopedia, t. III, Tbilisi, 2018, gv. 28. vaSakiZe, saxelmwifo teritoria – vaSakiZe v., saxelmwifo teritoria – „koleqtiuri mexsierebis xati“, `analebi~, 12, 2016, gv. 60-67. yauxCiSvili, saqarTvelos istoriis Zveli berZnuli wyaroebi – yauxCiSvili T., saqarTvelos istoriis Zveli berZnuli wyaroebi, Tbilisi, 1976. 48 yauxCiSvili, strabonis geografia – yauxCiSvili T., strabonis geografia. cnobebi saqarTvelos Sesaxeb, Tbilisi, 1957. Яйленко, Архаическая Греция – Яйленко В. П., Архаическая Греция, В кн.: “Античная Греция”, Т. 1, Становление и развитие Полиса, Москва, 1983, gv. 154155. Valerian Vashakidze The Concept of the Border in the Greek Texts of the Classical and Subsequent Period Summary In establishing and clarifying the boundaries of the settlement of the Kartvelian tribes and political entities on the territory of historical Georgia, in a stretch of about two thousand years of ancient civilization, the data preserved in the Greek texts plays an important role. When using the information preserved in the works of different genres and purposes, the researcher faces a number of problems. One of the most important is to find out what the author means by a particular term. This work is aimed at defining the concept of “border” in the ancient Greek literature of classical, Hellenistic and Roman periods. The study of the works of many authors (Herodotus, Xenophon, Polybius, Strabo, Plutarch, Claudius Ptolemy, et. al.) of the mentioned period revealed: a) The border in Greek texts is expressed by the term: „ὅρоς“ (“Horos”) and its derivative forms; b) The border is the dividing line between ethnic groups, countries, states and parts of the world/continents; c) The authors give preference to borders passing along natural boundaries (rivers, mountain systems, seas, lakes, straits), which is a reflection of their contemporary views and which must undoubtedly be based on archaic traditions; d) Where there were no natural separators, artificial barriers (trenches, fortifications, etc.) or special stone pillars with appropriate inscriptions were used as boundary markers; e) It was very important to establish exact boundaries, since their absence led to territorial disputes between neighbors; f) The ancient Greeks showed proper respect for the border. 49 John Latham-Sprinkle Treason and Sovereignty in the Medieval Caucasus In the medieval period, the Caucasus was invaded on multiple occasions by political entities with their origin in the Eurasian steppes, notably the Seljuk Empire in the 11th century and the Mongol Empire in the 13th century. Our contemporary Caucasian narratives emphasise the destruction these invaders wrought. For example, the Georgian Chronicle of Kartli (matiane qarTlisa¡), part of the Kartlis Tskhovreba annals, dwells on the destruction of the Seljuk invasion of 1080, the “great Turkish time” (didi Turqoba).1 In the 13th century, Georgian, Persian and Armenian sources likewise emphasise the destruction caused by the Mongol invasions of 1236 and 1238-40.2 Much modern historiography repeats this general narrative, and by implication extends these reports of physical destruction to the state and societal structures of the medieval Caucasus. Broadly following the narrative of the next section of the Kartlis Tskhovreba, the Life of David, King of Kings (cxovreba¡ mefeT-mefisa daviTisi), contemporary historiography frequently depicts the Seljuk invasions as a nadir for Georgia, prior to David IV’s brilliant revival.3 Even more emphatically, the Mongol invasions have been blamed for the demise of both the Alan kingdom of the North Caucasus, and for splitting the Georgian kingdom into multiple competing lordships.4 I certainly do not intend to challenge the basic facts of these invasions, or deny that the Seljuk and Mongol armies caused great physical destruction. However, I would like to argue that a focus on states in Caucasian historiography has led to a one-sided interpretation of these events, one which prioritises rulers and their nascent state apparatuses over subordinated aristocrats. For such aristocrats, and even for kings themselves, the arrival of a large, foreign army in the Caucasus could be as much as opportunity as a threat, providing a large, powerful potential ally which could be redirected against 1 Met’reveli, Kartlis Tskhovreba, pp. 290-294; Met’reveli, Jones, Georgia, pp. 159-162. In this article, the term ‘Georgia’ and ‘Georgian’ will refer to a) sources written in the Georgian language, and b) the united kingdom of Kartli and Apkhazeti, ruled by the Bagratid dynasty. The latter is distinguished from the Kingdom of Kakheti, which although culturally Georgian was not incorporated into the Bagratid Kingdom of Georgia until 1105. 2 Met’reveli, Kartlis Tskhovreba, p. 547, Met’reveli, Jones, Georgia, pp. 330-331; Kirakos Gandzakets’i, History, pp. 193-197; Juvaynī, Tārīkh-i Jahān Gushā, Vol. I, pp. 224-225, Juvaynī, World-Conqueror, Vol. I, pp. 268-270. 3 Thus, for example, Rayfield, Edge of Empires, pp. 80-84; Suny, Georgian Nation, pp. 34-35; Shengelia, Georgia, pp. 76-78. 4 See for example Kuznetsov, Alans, pp. 332-341; Rayfield, Edge of Empires, pp. 125-131; Lordkipanidze, Georgia, pp. 7-9; Suny, Georgian Nation, pp. 40-44; Shengelia, Georgia, pp. 112-118. 50 one’s domestic enemies. Such actions are sometimes cast as destructive of unity, or even treasonous; yet these interpretations, I argue, project back in time a modern conflation of political structures and ethnicity, which prioritises loyalty to a state which is seen as an expression of popular will. This article will demonstrate this point with an examination of two incidents: the conversion to Islam of the Kiurikian King of Kakheti, Aghsartan I, in 1068-84, and the co-operation of North Caucasian Alanic princes with the invading Mongol armies in 1239-40. As has long been argued, the identification of a person with the political entity within whose borders they are born is not a natural or automatic process; rather, it is a specifically modern historical one.1 Conversely, we cannot assume that pre-modern states held sovereignty over people within their borders simply by virtue of ‘their’ people being born there – an assumption which underpins the modern world and its focus on citizenship. However, as Giorgio Agamben and Adam T. Smith have argued, certain aspects of the modern state’s behaviour display continuities with pre-Enlightenment states, most notably the fact that sovereignty depends on defining people as citizens or subjects through demonstrations of power over their lives. By contrast with modern international law, in the pre-Enlightenment era sovereignty could not be assumed to be a persistent state of being, linked with the biological life of “the people”, in whom post-Enlightenment liberal thought claims sovereignty is vested.2 Rather, it had to be consistently asserted by a sovereign ruler, frequently through acts of violence, in order to be considered valid. So that we do not retrospectively project modern political conceptions into the medieval period, we therefore first need to examine how claims of sovereignty were made in Caucasian sources of this period. For the Seljuk invasions and the Caucasian reaction to them, our most important sources are Georgian chronicles of the 11th century CE.3 These sources concentrate overwhelmingly on the actions of their dynastic patrons, rather than expressing the sovereignty of a state in territorial terms.4 In terms of a question, our medieval Georgian sources do not ask ‘where is Kakheti (or Georgia, or Alania, or so on) and where are its borders?’, but rather ‘what did the King of Kakheti (or Georgia, etc.) do?’ For example, Anderson, Imagined Communities; Corrigan, Sayer, Great Arch, pp. 1-7; Agamben, Homo Sacer, pp. 127-134; Shnirelʹman, Being Alans, pp. 21-35, 75-76. 2 Smith, Political Machine, p. 6; Agamben, Homo Sacer, pp. 44-47, 63-67. 3 Aghsartan of Kakheti’s conversion to Islam, the subject of this article, is also mentioned in Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Ḥusaynī’s late 12th- early 13th century Arabic chronicle, the Akhbār al-dawla al-saljūqiyya. However, this chronicle will not be extensively analysed here, since this article concentrates on Caucasian political conceptions. It is nonetheless interesting that this source also demonstrates Seljuk Sultan Alp Arslān’s sovereignty by recounting his actions, namely the capture of fortresses, Aghsartan making a gesture of submission by kissing the sultan’s foot, and the sultan giving gifts to Aghsartan and his nobles which the latter accept. See al-Ḥusaynī, Akhbār, pp. 54-56. 4 Rapp, Landscape, pp. 13-18. 1 51 the panegyric ‘Life of David, King of Kings’ closing section enumerates the conditions for a king’s sovereignty thus: `da viTar vin aRracxnes, raodenni saqmeni eTxovebian mefobasa, raodenni marTebani da gansagebelni? kideTa pyrobani, napirTa mWirvani, ganxeTqilobaTa krZalvani, samefo¡sa wynarebisa Roneni, laSqrobaTa mecadinobani, mTavarTa zakvisa cnobani, m£edarTa ganwesebani, saeroni SiSni, sa£eloTa da sabWoTa sjani, saWurWleTa Semosavalni, mociqulTa SemTxuevani da pasuxni, meZRuneTa jerovanni misagebelni, SemcodeTa wyalobiTni wurTani, msaxurebulTa niW-mravlobani, moCivarTa marTalni gamoZiebani, mosakiTxavTa Sesaty¢sni mokiTxvani, spaTa dawyobani da Ronierni mimarTebani...~ (“And who can count how many things a man must do when he reigns; how many people he must govern, how many things he must put in order? A King has to conquer countries, reinforce borders, prevent revolts, ensure tranquillity in the country, launch campaigns, catch the intrigues of the mtavaris [subordinate nobles], command troops, take care of the people’s affairs, appoint officials and judges, look after the treasury’s income, receive envoys and give them answers, reward properly those who present gifts, instruct wrongdoers kindly, lavishly present servants, ensure the fair trial of the accused, demand reports, and organize armies for skilful raids”).1 As we can see from this passage, sovereignty is defined by actions and processes, rather than being a pre-existing state of being within a given territory. While borders are mentioned in passing, it is only in the context of a king’s action towards them, rather than being a pre-existing demarcation of the sphere within which his sovereignty operates. Given the overtly pro-dynastic inclination of Georgian historiography, these characterisations of sovereignty can be fairly said to reflect the messages which these dynasts wished to have sent.2 In other words, sovereignty, according to these sources and those who commissioned them, is seen not as a persistent state, but a consequence of action. When we see it in this way, our sources are packed with demonstrations of sovereignty, most notably through the collection of tribute or taxes, military campaigns, support of the church, and the seizure of fortresses. This is true from the foundational narratives of Georgian historiography onwards. For example, the original act of sovereignty in the Kartlis Tskhovreba is the mythic ancestor Haos’ rejection of the world- 1 2 Met’reveli, Kartlis Tskhovreba, p. 335, Met’reveli and Jones, Georgia, pp. 184-185. For the dynastic orientation of the Kartlis Tskhovreba, see Rayfield, Literature, pp. 62-69. 52 king Nebroth’s tribute, and him defeating Nebroth in battle.1 This account, while ancient in origin, was re-edited in the 1060s and was thus clearly still considered relevant in the period under study.2 A consequence of this action-oriented conceptualisation of sovereignty was that a certain geographical area or point could be the subject of multiple different claims of sovereignty. As we will see, this conception is implicit in our Georgian sources of the high medieval period; however, it can be compared to a more explicit passage in an Armenian source of the same period, Book III of Movses Dasxuranc̣i’s History of the Caucasian Albanians (c. 944). This briefly describes the political situation in Caucasian Albania in the early 8th century. However, rather than a single suzerain, it describes a situation where three different outside powers – the courts of Byzantium, the Umayyad Caliphate, and the Khazar Khaqanate – all demand tribute from Caucasian Albania.3 As Alison Vacca has argued, the demanding of tribute in Armenian sources of the 8th-10th century should be seen as a sign of suzerainty.4 This passage therefore implies that it was possible for a given region to be simultaneously the object of multiple suzerainities – or rather, for multiple different elite actors to attempt to claim suzerainty over it. The actual historical truth of this account is less significant, in this context, than its high medieval historiographical representation. It is therefore notable that it describes a situation of imperial conflict over the Caucasus as leading to ambiguity and disruption in patterns of sovereignty. Indeed, this text laments the situation, longing for a single, more predictable suzerain, the Sassanian Empire, as opposed to tax exactions – backed up by the threat of military force – by multiple putative sovereigns. In this context, we can understand the significance of direct military intervention by an outside power, such as the Seljuks and Mongols. This could create a space of ambiguity in sovereignty, whereby even if a local ruler acknowledged the suzerainty of an outside empire, he could also assert his own sovereignty over a given area, as demonstrated by tax exactions or military prowess. This last point could, at times, be directly backed up by the army of that outside empire, its ruler recognising a subordinate’s rule over a particular territory – or rather, as we will see, the right to forcefully make a claim of sovereignty over it. The basic point that Caucasian dynasts sometimes depended on and utilised the power of outside empires is fairly well-established. While it is not generally foregrounded in studies of the Seljuk and Mongol periods, it is a standard part of another period’s historiography: that of Sassanian, Umayyad and ‘Abbāsid dominion over 1 2 3 4 Met’reveli, Kartlis Tskhovreba, pp. 27-28, Met’reveli and Jones, Georgia, pp. 14-15. Rapp, Historiography, pp. 157-168. Dasxuranci, Caucasian Albanians, p. 202. Vacca, Non-Muslim Provinces, pp. 180-209. 53 the Armenian and Georgian principalities. Between 485 and 885-3, with several interruptions, hegemonic power within the South Caucasus lay with presiding princes appointed by their southern imperial neighbours.1 Such a broad-stroke and discursive continuity masks, of course, considerable changes in this institution, not least between ruling families, the territories they claimed hegemony over, and the extent of imperial central control. However, it is notable that it was sometimes considered not only pragmatic but also acceptable to actively utilise the military force of these princes’ imperial overlords, even in ecclesiastical disputes. One particularly striking example is provided by Movses Dasxuranc̣i. Under the History of Caucasian Albania’s entry for the years 703-5, it mentions an appeal by a group of rebellious bishops of Caucasian Albania to the Armenian catholicos, Elia, for help in suppressing Chalcedonian Christianity. This had been instituted in the country by the Albanian catholicos, Nerses, with the support of the queen, Spram.2 However, rather than limiting this dispute to Christian powers, Elia then wrote to the Umayyad Caliph ‘Abd al-Malik ibn Marwān, claiming that Nerses’ moves towards Chalcedonianism showed the Albanians were trying to ally with the Byzantine Empire. As a result, ‘Abd al-Malik sent an army to Albania, which suppressed the independent Albanian church and instituted full Armenian ecclesiastical control over the region.3 The image projected by our 10th century source is not one of marauding Arab Muslims being opposed by Christian Armenians and Albanians. Rather, we see diverse political actors seeking support from outside political entities: the Albanian bishops appealing to the Armenian catholicos; the Armenian catholicos using the power of the caliphate to further his own church’s position. It is particularly significant that Movses Dasxuranc̣i does not censure the Armenian catholicos for involving the caliphate in this dispute, even though the intervention of a Muslim-led army led to the death of a senior churchman, Nerses of Albania.4 This is especially surprising, since the same book of his history starts with a standard anti-Muslim polemic, describing the Prophet Muhammad as a fraud.5 But rather than continuing in this vein, the story of the return of Albania to Armenian orthodoxy is told via primary source documents: a set of letters with a commentary that even describes ‘Abd al-Malik as “virtuous.”6 I would argue that this treatment of the Armenians’ Umayyad overlords is, nonetheless, consistent with the political situation in the tenth century, when Movses Dasxuranc̣i was writing. As Nikoloz In general see Toumanoff, Armenia and Georgia, pp. 600-613; for a more detailed analysis, see Vacca, Non-Muslim Provinces, pp. 124-133. 2 Dasxuranci, Caucasian Albanians, pp. 189-191. 3 Dasxuranci, Caucasian Albanians, pp. 191-192. 4 Dasxuranci, Caucasian Albanians, p. 192. 5 Dasxuranci, Caucasian Albanians, pp. 186-188. 6 Dasxuranci, Caucasian Albanians, p. 197. 1 54 Alexidze has argued, by the tenth century the primary driver in Armenian ecclesiastical historiography had become the schism between Armenian miaphysite orthodoxy and Chalcedonianism.1 In this context, the real struggle in Movses Dasxuranc̣i is against the spread of this heresy, rather than a proto-national struggle against foreign invaders. I would argue that the Seljuk and Mongol periods saw similar uses of outside military forces by Caucasian dynasts and aristocrats against their regional enemies. The case of Aghsartan I, Kiurikian King of Kakheti and Hereti from 1058 to 1084, demonstrates this point clearly. Kakheti had intermittently been under Bagratid overlordship in the preceding century and a half, but had become fully independent under its first king, K’virik’e III (r.1010-39). During the reigns of K’virik’e’s successors Gagik and Aghsartan I, however, the region of Hereti had been gradually coming under Bagratid control. Our most prominent source for the case of Aghsartan I is the Georgian royal annals, the Kartlis Tskhovreba. This describes the invasion of Seljuk Sultan Alp Arslān in 1068 in apocalyptic terms: `da dayo equsi k¢ra¡, da iwyo o£rebad da £ocad kacisa... da moisra uricx¢ suli qristianeTa¡ da tyue iqmna; da iqmna saZagel queyana¡ qarTlisa¡ saxilvelad kacTa. moo£rdes yovelni eklesiani da simravliTa mZorisa¡Ta arRara daedgmodes queyanasa Tualni. da codvaTa CuenTa mosagebelsa risxvasa RmrTisasa zeciT ca¡ wamebda, da sisxlis mw¢meli Rrubeli aRmosavleTiT moefina qarTlsa zeda. da iqmna Rame ukuni, viTarca naTeln dRisa¡~ (“The Sultan stayed six weeks, and he began to ravage and slay the people… A countless number of Christians were slain and taken prisoner. The land of Kartli was abominable for men to see: all the churches were devastated and one could not set one’s eyes on the ground for the number of dead bodies. The sky above bore witness to God’s wrath for our sins, and a blood-raining cloud covered Kartli in the east, and the light of the day changed into a dark night”.)2 Of course, this is a standard set of apocalyptic imagery, which cannot be taken literally. However, this passage becomes extremely interesting in the context of the one that immediately precedes it. This mentions that Aghsartan of Kakheti, “a man of modest substance” (mcirediTa saqonliTa) renounced his Christian faith and had himself circumcised, in order to gain the Seljuks’ support against the kings of Georgia.3 Moreover, the Kartlis Tskhovreba claims that Aghsartan’s forces actively co-operated with those of the Seljuk Sultan, marching out alongside them in order to take posses1 2 3 Aleksidze, Schism, pp. 129-135. Met’reveli, Kartlis Tskhovreba, p. 291, Met’reveli and Jones, Georgia, p. 160. Met’reveli, Kartlis Tskhovreba, p. 290, Met’reveli and Jones, Georgia, pp. 159-160. 55 sion of fortresses granted to him by Alp Arslān. The effect of juxtaposing these two passages is to further condemn Aghsartan’s apostasy, and to implicitly delegitimise his claims to kingship. It is notable, in this context, that the didebulis (lords) of Hereti, to the south-east of Kakheti proper, are described as being “loyal” (erTgul) to Bagrat’ IV, King of Georgia. This is despite the fact that Hereti was not fully integrated into Georgia, but rather was contested between the Bagratid rulers of Georgia and the kings of Kakheti. The implication is that, to Leonti Mroveli, author of this section of the Kartlis Tskhovreba, the only proper loyalty is to the kings of Georgia – an unsurprising assertion, given that his chronicle was commissioned by Bagrat’.1 I would like to warn against taking Leonti Mroveli’s pro-Bagratid interpretation of loyalty too much at face value, and therefore seeing Aghsartan as a traitor against Georgian unity. We are fortunate that we do have traces of an alternative, pro-Kiurikian royal historical tradition, preserved in Vakhushti Bagrationi’s Life and Deeds of Kakheti and Hereti (qmnuleba da cxovreba kaxeTisa da hereTisa). This 18th century account appears to have utilised an older chronicle sympathetic to the Kakhetian kings, particularly K’virik’e III, one of several sources utilised by Vakhushti which no longer survive.2 It is therefore notable that it treats Aghsartan’s embrace of Islam without any of the judgement levied by the Kartlis Tskhovreba, but rather simply reports these events. Moreover, it explicitly states that this led to the re-unification of Kakheti and Hereti, implicitly condoning Aghsartan’s actions through comparison with the great K’virik’e III, who also had re-unified the two kingdoms.3 This pro-Kiurikian text thus treats Aghsartan’s act as just another pragmatic act of statecraft, rather than a betrayal bringing about a demi-apocalypse. This pragmatic interpretation is supported by the text of the Life of David, King of Kings, which provides an example of both the Georgian and Kakhetian kings seeking the support of outside rulers to enhance their own positions, and of the disconnect between Georgian claims to suzerainty and reality. This depicts Giorgi II, Bagrat’ IV’s successor as King of Georgia, agreeing to pay tribute (kharaj) to the Seljuk Sultan Malikshāh in c. 1081, and thus implicitly to accept his suzerainty.4 In return, Malikshāh is claimed to have granted Giorgi rulership over Kakheti and Hereti. However, in practice, this merely seems to On the authorship and date of the Chronicle of Kartli, see Rayfield, Literature, p. 69. Vakhushti, History, pp. 8-11. One telling piece of evidence is that Vakhushti at one point adds a marginal note to add further information to his account (specifically, that Ilarion, Catholicos of Georgia, was from Kakheti, and was contemporaneous with khorepiskopos Gabriel of Kakheti); this implies that the remainder of the basic text of the account was copied from a pre-existing source without much alteration, in a manner comparable to Vakhushti’s history of Georgia, which is a close paraphrase of the Kartlis Tskhovreba. See Qaukchishvili, Kartlis Tskhovreba, Vol. IV, p. 558; Vakhushti, History, p. 126. 3 Qaukchishvili, Kartlis Tskhovreba, Vol. IV, pp. 562-563; Vakhushti, History, p. 129. 4 Met’reveli, Kartlis Tskhovreba, pp. 304-305, Met’reveli and Jones, Georgia pp. 172, 193. 1 2 56 have been the right to attack Kakheti, since the chronicle next records a Georgian siege of the Kakhetian fortress of Vezhini. In response, Aghsartan once again accepted Islam (having apostatised in the intervening 13 years since his last submission to the Seljuks). He thus regained Malikshāh’s support as ruler of Kakheti and – as the Life and Deeds of Kakheti and Hereti adds, but the Kartlis Tskhovreba does not – Hereti.1 This incident once again shows the pitfalls of relying solely on the Kartlis Tskhovreba’s pro-Bagratid account, since it is clear that both Bagratids and Kiurikids sought out Seljuk support where necessary, with historical traditions alternately condoning or condemning this action, depending on which family is being supported. Moreover, a further examination of both the Kartlis Tskhovreba and Life and Deeds of Kakheti and Hereti show that just as Aghsartan was capable of bringing in outside support against his Bagratid rivals, so were his vassals, the nobility of Hereti. This is made particularly clear by the deposition of Aghsartan’s namesake grandson, Aghsartan II, in 1105.2 Both sources confirm that Aghsartan was captured and overthrown by the didebulis of Hereti, Arishian and Baram, who themselves sought support from the new Georgian king, David IV. In this we see the key to the Kartlis Tskhovreba’s previous description of the didebulis of Hereti as loyal to King Bagrat’ IV and the Bagratids. Rather than this being a case of a rebellious principality split between those remaining loyal to the Bagratids and those disloyal to them, we instead see a layered conceptualisation of sovereignty, with aristocratic leaders at different levels seeking the support of those more powerful than themselves in order to enhance their own positions. A village in Hereti in the 1080s might therefore be the subject of claims of sovereignty by a local Heretian didebuli, King Aghsartan I of Kakheti, King Giorgi II of Georgia, and the Seljuk Sultan Malikshāh, all at the same time. In sum, rather than a simple picture of a single, legitimate Georgian, Christian king, fighting against a single, Muslim, outside invader, we have a picture of multiple, overlapping conceptualisations of sovereignty, with adherents of each conceptualisation seeking the support of outsiders against their own immediate neighbours, overlords, and subordinates. Another example of Caucasian elites supplementing their own power with that of outsiders comes from the Mongol period – specifically, the invasion of the Central North Caucasian region of Alania in 1238-9. While not nearly as well-documented as 11th century Kakheti and Hereti, this shows similar patterns of action, whereby an outside military power (the Mongols) authorised and supported local claims of sovereignty by Caucasian princes. Moreover, the fact that these events are recorded by non-CaucaQaukchishvili, Kartlis Tskhovreba, Vol. IV, p. 563, Vakhushti, History, p. 129. Qaukchishvili, Kartlis Tskhovreba, Vol. IV, p. 563, Vakhushti, History, pp. 129-130; Met’reveli, Kartlis Tskhovreba, p. 311, Met’reveli and Jones, Georgia, p. 175. 1 2 57 sian sources goes to show that this is not just a pattern of literary representation, but a consistent theme in the politics of high medieval Caucasia. Alania was, in the 10th-12th centuries, home to the most powerful kingdom in the North Caucasus, its kings being overlords of the region covered by the modern autonomous republics of Karachai-Cherkassia, Kabardino-Balkaria, North Ossetia, and Ingushetia, and parts of Chechnya, Stavropol’ Krai and Krasnodar Krai.1 However, by the 1230s, it seems that the Kingdom of Alania had collapsed, with its former lands comprising a network of autonomous clans and villages, as most clearly described by Riccardus’ account of Julian of Hungary’s travels.2 As with the South Caucasus, much of the current historiography of this region dwells on the Mongols as an outside, destructive force, with claims that the Alan state and even its (entirely hypothetical) written tradition were destroyed by them.3 However, our best source for the events of this period present a more complex picture. This source is quite a curious one – the Chinese annals of the Mongol Yuan dynasty, the Yuan-Shi. In it, there are a number of biographies of Alan noblemen, who took service with the Mongols and eventually founded noble families in China. However, the opening passages of these biographies tell us about how these families came to submit to the Mongols during their invasion of the North Caucasus. These give us a rather more nuanced picture. Whilst there are some strongholds which resist the Mongols, most famously the former Alan capital city of Magas, a large number of Alan nobles appear to have sided with the Mongols; indeed, one of them, Mataersha, rose to fame through his bravery in attacking Magas.4 Two such princes, Aersilan (Arslan) and Hanghusi, were successively appointed as rulers of all or parts of Alania by the Mongols.5 These leaders and their families prospered from the advancement and material rewards that the Mongol state could offer – not least, the extension of a regularised tax system to a region which previously had possessed no such institution.6 In this way, it was possible to utilise the Mongol state and its war-making capacities to regularise and formalise tributary obligations, and to legitimate violent attempts to assert suzerainty over other coalitions. Moreover, in all likelihood these Alan princes were able to directly utilise the Mongol army to support them against their rivals. Indeed, both Arslan’s son, Asanzhen, and Hanghusi himself were killed in fighting against other North Caucasians, the latter’s conflict being continued by his wife, Waimasi, and son, Anfapu. In general, see Beletskii, Vinogradov, Nizhnii Arkhyz and Senty, pp. 10-65. See Theiner, Monumenta, p. 152. 3 For example, Bliev, Bzarov, Treasure, p. 11; Kuznetsov, Rekom, pp. 131-132; Gadlo, Ethnic History, pp. 164-165. 4 See ‘Yuan-Shi’, in Alemany, Alans, p. 415. 5 Alemany, Alans, pp. 408-412. 6 de Rachewiltz, Secret History, pp. 205-206; Allsen, North Caucasia, p. 33. 1 2 58 This phenomenon was undoubtedly much more widespread, since the Yuan-Shi only records the deeds of individuals whose descendants became prominent military figures in Yuan China; thus, princes and who joined the Mongols but were not deported to China, or whose families did not become influential there, would not have been recorded. In this case most of all, we see an atomised situation, with no overarching authority or overt attachment to ethnicity or kingdom. Rather, we see a relatively polycentric social structure, with individual leaders with smaller or greater numbers of followers – between 20 and 1,000 – either supporting or opposing the Mongols (or perhaps both, at different times) in order to further their own positions, and those of their clans and families.1 In this case, the arrival of a powerful invading army could be as much an opportunity as a threat. Rather than dismissing this kind of action as collaboration, it might be fair to call it an alternative method of dealing with powerful outsiders.2 In the same way that a martial artist can redirect the force of a threat to their own advantage, we can understand all of these anomalous cases – Aghsartan I, and Hanghusi and Aersilan – as examples of ‘political judo throws’ – the (mis)direction of a potential adversary to aid their own positions. The image of politics as martial art is, however, an appropriate one, since the deployment of violence was instrumental to these political strategies. In this context, we can perhaps begin to rethink the Seljuk and Mongol invasions of the Caucasus from the point of view of subordinated peasant communities, the church, and the lower aristocracy. Given the ambiguity over sovereignty that these could create, the direct destruction caused by Seljuk or Mongol raids, and attempts by local Caucasian aristocrats to violently demonstrate their sovereignty over a given area, there was great potential for physical violence to befall the members of these communities, particularly if customary aristocratic protection of a religious or secular community was withdrawn.3 Moreover, in this ambiguous situation, any or all of their self-proclaimed overlords could attempt to levy taxes from a given community, such as the hypothetical village in Hereti that we imagined above. Multiple suzerainty might well have provided a space for those with power to better their own advantage, but it was undoubtedly ruinous for some of the communities subjected to these competing claims of suzerainty. Therefore, rather than seeing the destruction of the Seljuk and Mongol invasions as being a purely external factor to Caucasian history, this implies that we should see Alemany, Alans, pp. 416, 409 respectively. On issues with defining collaborationism, see Hoffmann, Collaborationism. 3 As happened in 1236 to the Armenian chronicler Kirakos Gandzakets’i, who was left with a group of other clergy as guardians of a group of Armenian villagers while local aristocrats withdrew to their fortress (See Kirakos Gandzakets’i, History, pp. 206-214). 1 2 59 this, to a certain extent, as being a continuation of existing Caucasian political conceptions and trends. This is not to deny that Seljuk and Mongol armies directly devastated parts of the Caucasus. Rather, the point we should take is that as well as being physically destructive, these invasions also produced uncertainty, ambiguity and disruption in patterns of sovereignty, opening space for ambitious local elites to violently assert control over contested subordinated communities and other aristocrats. Co-operation with an empire outside the Caucasus, was, in this context, just another tool that aristocratic and dynastic leaders could use in these domestic fields of political competition. In essence, if we see a given society as a series of interlocking, contradictory and ongoing projects, rather than a steady state of being, then we can see that the Seljuk and Mongol invasions of the Caucasus opened up a space of ambiguity in which ambitious elites’ projects of sovereignty could be authorised and pursued.1 Bibliography Agamben, Homo Sacer – Agamben G., Homo Sacer. Sovereign Power and Bare Life, Stanford, 1998. al-Husaynī, Akhbār – Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Ḥusaynī, Akhbār-ad-daulat as-Seldzhukiyya, ed. by Z. M. Buniatov, Moscow, 1980 (in Russian with Arabic facsimile). Aleksidze, Schism – Aleksidze N., The Murder at Mount Kangar: Oral Narratives of the Caucasian “Schism”, in “Tradition and Transformation: Dissent and Consent in the Mediterranean. Proceedings of the 3rd CEMS International Graduate Conference”, ed. by Mitrea M., Kiel, 2016. Alemany, Alans – Alemany A., ed., Sources on the Alans: A Critical Compilation, Leiden, 2000. Allsen, North Caucasia – Allsen T. T., Mongols and North Caucasia, AEMAe, 7, 1987, pp. 5–40. Anderson, Imagined Communities – Anderson B., Imagined Communities. Reflections on the Origins and Spread of Nationalism, revised edition, London, 2006. Beletskii, Vinogradov, Nizhnii Arkhyz and Senty – Beletskii D. V. and Vinogradov A. Iu., Nizhnii Arkhyz and Senty – the Oldest Churches of the Russian Federation. Problems of Christian Art of Alania and the Caucasus, Moscow, 2011 (in Russian). Bliev, Bzarov, Treasure – Bliev M. M. and Bzarov R. S., The Treasure of Alania, Moscow, 2011 (in English and Russian). Corrigan, Sayer, Great Arch – Corrigan P. R. D. and Sayer D., The Great Arch: English State Formation as Cultural Revolution, Oxford, 1985. 1 See Graeber, Value, pp. 254-259. 60 Dasxuranci, Caucasian Albanians – Movses Dasxuranci, The History of the Caucasian Albanians, trans. by C. J. F. Dowsett, Oxford, 1961. Gadlo, Ethnic History – Gadlo A. V., An Ethnic History of the North Caucasus in the 10th-13th Centuries, St. Petersburg, 1994 (in Russian). Gandzakets'i, History – Kirakos Gandzakets’i, History of the Armenians, trans. by Bedrosian R., New York, 1986. Graeber, Value – Graeber D., Toward an Anthropological Theory of Value: The False Coin of Our Own Dreams, Basingstoke, 2001. Hoffmann, Collaborationism – Hoffmann S., Collaborationism in France during World War II, JMH, 40 (3), 1968, pp. 375-395. Juvaynī, History – Juvaynī, `Aṭā Malik ibn Muḥammad, The History of the World-Conqueror, trans. by J.A. Boyle, Manchester, 1958. Juvaynī, Tārīkh-i Jahān Gushā – Juvaynī, ʻAtạ̄ Malik ibn Muḥammad, Tārīkh-i Jahān Gushā, ed. by Muhammad Qazvini and E. G. Browne, Leiden, 1912 (in Persian). Kuznetsov, Alans – Kuznetsov V. A., Essays on the History of the Alans, Vladikavkaz, 1992 (in Russian). Kuznetsov, Rekom – Kuznetsov V. A., Rekom, Nuzal and Tsarazonta, Vladikavkaz, 1990 (in Russian). Lordkipanidze, Georgia – Lordkipanidze M. D., Georgia in the XI-XII Centuries, trans. by George B. Hewitt, Tbilisi, 1987. Met'reveli, Kartlis Tskhovreba – Met’reveli R., ed., Kartlis Tskhovreba, Tbilisi, 2008 (in Georgian). Met'reveli, Jones, Georgia – Met’reveli R., and Jones S., eds., Kartlis Tskhovreba: A History of Georgia, Tbilisi, 2014. Qaukhchishvili, Kartlis Tskhovreba – Qaukhchishvili S., ed., Kartlis Tskhovreba, Tbilisi, 1955-73 (in Georgian). de Rachewiltz, Secret History – de Rachewiltz I., ed., The Secret History of the Mongols, Leiden, 2004. Rapp, Landscape – Rapp S. H., Recovering the Pre-National Caucasian Landscape, in “Mythical Landscapes Then and Now”, ed. by R. Büttner and J. Peltz, Yerevan, 2006. Rapp, Historiography – Rapp S. H., Studies in Medieval Georgian Historiography: Early Texts and Eurasian Contexts, Leuven, 2003. Rayfield, Edge of Empires – Rayfield D., Edge of Empires: A History of Georgia, London, 2012. Rayfield, Literature – Rayfield D., The Literature of Georgia: A History., 3rd edition, London, 2010. Shengelia, Georgia – Shengelia K., History of Georgia, Tbilisi, 2011. 61 Shnirel'man, Being Alans – Shnirelʹman, V. A., Being Alans: Intellectuals and Politics in the North Caucasus in the 20th Century, Moscow, 2006 (in Russian). Smith, Political Machine – Smith A. T., The Political Machine: Assembling Sovereignty in the Bronze Age Caucasus, Princeton, 2015. Suny, Georgian Nation – Suny R. G., The Making of the Georgian Nation, 2nd ed., Bloomington, 1994. Theiner, Monumenta – Theiner A., ed., Vetera Monumenta Historica Hungariam Sacram Illustrantia, Osnabrück, 1968 (in Latin). Toumanoff, Armenia and Georgia – Toumanoff C., Armenia and Georgia, in CMH Vol. IV, “The Byzantine Empire Part I”, ed. by J.A. Boyle, Cambridge, 1966. Vacca, Non-Muslim Provinces – Vacca A., Non-Muslim Provinces under Early Islam: Islamic Rule and Iranian Legitimacy in Armenia and Caucasian Albania, Cambridge, 2017. Vakhushti, History – Vakhushti Bagrationi, History of the Georgian Kingdom, ed. by Nakashidze N. T., Tbilisi, 1976 (in Russian). jon leiTem-sfrinqli Ralati da suvereniteti Sua saukuneebis kavkasiaSi reziume warmodgenili statia kavkasiaSi XI da XIII saukuneebSi selCukTa da monRolTa Semosevebis axal interpretacias gvTavazobs. orive SemTxvevaSi kavkasieli aristokratebi dampyrobel jarebTan TanamSromlobdnen, rasac istoriografiaSi xSirad protonacionaluri erTobisTvis damRupvelad miiCneven. kaxeTis mefis aRsarTan I-is (mefobda 1058-1084 ww.) da CrdiloeT kavkasiis alaniiis mTavrebis Aersilan-is da Hanghusi-s magaliTebze dayrdnobiT, naSromSi dasabuTebulia, rom gare dampyroblebTan TanamSromloba kavkasiuri elitebis saerTo politikuri strategia iyo. ufro metic, aRniSnul dinastTa mxardamWer kavkasiur pirvelwyaroebSi es strategia sakmaod normalurad aris Sefasebuli. imis magivrad, rom suvereniteti ganixilebodes, rogorc teritoriasTan da eTnikurobasTan dakavSirebuli mudmivi atributi, rasac 62 ZiriTadad samefo dinastebi da maTi administracia axorcielebdnen, statiaSi gamoTqmulia mosazreba, rom suvereniteti iyo efemeruli, rac gansakuTrebiT vlindeboda warmatebul samxedro kampaniebSi da gadasaxadebis akrefaSi. suvereniteti, rogorc aseTi, mocemul regionze an Temze SeiZleba hqonoda erTdroulad ramdenime dinasts an aristokrats. am konteqstSi, ucxoel dampyrobelTan TanamSromloba ara mxolod Tavsebadi iyo kavkasieli dinastis sakuTar suverenitetTan, aramed mas Tavisi suverenitetis sxva aristokratebze da glexur Temebze gavrcelebis saSualebebi SeeZlo Seeqmna. Tumca, ucxoelTa Semosevebis gamo warmoqmnil gaurkvevlobas suverenitetTan dakavSirebiT, SesaZloa gamoewvia sadavo teritoriis Zaladobrivi moTxovna ramdenime gansxvavebuli politikuri aqtoris mier, es procesi ki SeiZleba ukiduresad saziano yofiliyo regionSi mcxovrebi adgilobrivi TemebisTvis. 63 Paolo Pizzolo and Andrea Carteny Tracing National Identity and Historical Consciousness through Metahistorical Events: The Impact of the Battles of Didgori, Lake Peipus, and Kosovo Polje on Collective Memory and Political Action Introduction History is not only chronology, nor mere cause and effect relationship, nor an exclusive result of materialistic interactions between social groups. Sometimes, history manifests a spirit that transcends human reason and that can shape the identity of nations as well as the rise and fall of civilizations. When history evolves from a list of sequential, mechanical, progressive facts into an idealistic, ideological, and mythic notion it becomes metahistory. Metahistory considers historical events as immutable values and ideal manifestations that transcend history and that remain in the collective memory of nations. As such, it deprives history of its status as a core of factual truth, pivots on narrative as the substance of historicity, and intertwines history with ideology and rhetoric.1 When historical events transform into metahistorical, a nation forges its identity and its Weltanschauung around them, using them as lenses to describe the surrounding reality, to relate to other nations, and to study the evolution of civilizations. In other words, metahistorical events persist in one nation’s consciousness – and subconsciousness – beyond their concrete unfolding, as part of the folk’s collective memory. Metahistory is based upon what may be called the “mythology of dates”. Chronological dates are perceived as historical moments that mark the cornerstone for the birth of a nation, the emergence of a civilization, or the outbreak of a revolution. In 1936, during one of his speeches to the vast crowds, the Italian dictator Benito Mussolini stated that the year 1915 – when Italy entered World War One – represented the crucial year for the history of the Italian people that may be equalled to the years 476 (the demise of the Western Roman Empire), 1492 (the discovery of the Americas), and 1815 (the European Restoration after Napoleon’s defeat): this represented a typical example of transformation of historical dates into idealistic metahistorical narratives and rhetorical devices. Metahistorical narratives are common to all nations and often commemorate the core events of a civilization: for example, the Protestant Reformation (1517) for Germany, the Glorious Revolution (1689) for England, the American Revolutionary 1 White, Metahistory. 64 War (1775-1783) for the United States, the French Revolution (1789) for France, and the Bolshevik Revolution (1917) for Russia. Oftentimes, nations refer to metahistorical dates that describe a decisive battle that affected, for the good or the bad, their evolution or survival. Marathon (490 BC), Teutoburg Forest (9), Châlons (451), Poitiers (732), Lechfeld (955), Hastings (1066), Liegnitz (1241), Tannenberg (1410), Orléans (1429), Constantinople (1453), Mohács (1526), Lepanto (1571), the Spanish Armada defeat (1588), Vienna (1683), Poltava (1709), Lexington (1775), Trafalgar (1805), Leipzig (1813), Waterloo (1815), Sedan (1870), Vittorio Veneto (1918), Stalingrad (1943) are just few examples. Each of these battles implied either the fulfilment of a nation’s independence or unification, the assurance of a nation’s survival, the rise of a great empire and the decrease of another, or a national catastrophe. In this sense, battles – both when they are won or lost – are the clearest example of metahistorical events capable of creating national identity and collective memory. Through the examples of Georgia, Russia, and Serbia, this article wishes to investigate the role of metahistorical events, specifically military campaigns that culminate in decisive battles, as instruments for shaping the national identity and collective memory of nations. Moreover, it attempts to highlight how in contemporary history metahistorical events have been exploited by socio-political elites to rally their political agenda. Since battles are in itself violent manifestations of political clashes that imply death, sorrow, and mourning, they are particularly effective in stirring the people’s emotions, which can be used as catalysers for political mobilisation. This is the reason why metahistory often does not keep an important event in the realm of historiography, literature, or folklore, but exploits it for recurring claims and revindications associated to the spheres of coeval politics and geopolitics. The article is divided as follows. A first introduction will review the scholarly debate in social sciences dealing with national identity and historical consciousness, describing the core anthropological aspects that characterize a social group as a “nation”, and will highlight the role of metahistorical events as key parameters to assess the construction of peoples’ collective memory. The main part of the contribution will focus on three cases, namely the battle of Didgori for Georgia, the battle of Lake Peipus for Russia, the battle of Kosovo Polje for Serbia. Specifically, these sections will highlight how the three battles have decisively wrought the national identity and collective memory of Georgians, Russians, and Serbs. Particularly, they will focus on the comparative value given by the results of the battles: with two cases resulting in victory and one in a draw, but all celebrated as a time of a higher victory of God and of the destiny of the Nation. Through this point of view, these sections highlight the ethno-symbolist 65 meanings of these battles and how they have been propagandised by the modern and contemporary national narrative. Finally, the conclusion will recapitulate the importance of these metahistorical events, underlining their specific coeval interpretation and how they still stimulate a debate about nation and identity, the West versus the East, religious extremism, and the clash of civilizations. National identity and historical consciousness: An overview What is national identity? The question has fuelled endless debates among social scientists. In order to understand what national identity entails, the concepts of “nation” and “identity” need to be briefly examined. First, let us consider the latter concept. In sociology and anthropology, the concept of identity refers to the perception that an individual has of himself, both at a personal and societal level, making him unique and distinctive. The anthropology of identity has been divided into ethnic identity, which refers to a shared ancestry or fictive kinship, and culture identity, which describes shared representations, norms, and practices.1 An attempt to define ethnic identity was carried out by two main scholarly debates. The first pivoted on the interpretation given by primordialism and instrumentalism. According to primordialism, ethnic identity is deeply rooted in collective experiences that shape a group’s historical evolution, are self-sustaining, and are not dependent on falsification by individuals.2 On the contrary, instrumentalism believes that ethnic identity rose as a consequence of manipulation by political entrepreneurs seeking political gains.3 The second debate hinged on the contraposition between constructivism and essentialism and questioned whether ethnic and national communities were the result of a conscious creation or whether they developed spontaneously out of pre-existing communities. A strand of scholars4 argued the importance of pre-existing ethnicities in a modern context for the development of ethnic identities, while another believed ethnicities and nations to be entirely modern creations forged by the industrial civilization and the modern, Westphalian state.5 Some scholars who promoted the anthropology of identity not only focused on the political-ideological aspects but attempted to understand the deep ontological soul of identities.6 1 2 3 4 5 6 Eriksen, Ethnic Identity, p. 43. Geertz, The Interpretation of Cultures. Cohen, Custom and Politics in Africa; Cohen, Two-dimensional Man. Smith, The Ethnic Origins of Nations; Smith, National Identity. Gellner, Nations and Nationalism; Gellner, Nationalism. Cohen, Self-consciousness; Jenkins, Social Identity. 66 Second, the term nation – which derives from the Latin word “natio”, meaning birth, folk, tribe, or kinship – refers to a community of individuals who share certain characteristics such as geographic location, culture, language, religion, history, traditions, ethnicity and possibly statehood. National consciousness is also crucial for the detection of a nation. Smith defines a nation “a named human population sharing a historic territory, common myths and historical memories, a mass, public culture, a common economy and common legal rights and duties for all members”.1 Likewise, Gellner2 defines a nation as an ethnic group who either controls a state or who have leaders that aim at doing so. Instead, Anderson disconnects the abstract imagined community of the nation from a particular ethnic group.3 Moreover, Boas4 acknowledges that nations emerged throughout history and did not exist from time immemorial, nor do they represent a community of racial descent. When exploited by demagoguery, the ideas of nation and ethnos may become the political reification or construction of a form of authorized version of culture, establishing artificial boundaries, moulding the past to fit contemporary needs, inventing traditions to guarantee a sense of continuity with the past, and nurturing ideologists and politicians who build their agenda on national chauvinism, ethnic contraposition, and xenophobic attitudes.5 Today, the debate around nationhood grounds on four main arguments: there exists a complex relationship between ethnicity and culture; ethnicity characterizes two or more groups, never one single group; ethnicity represents the durable and systematic message of cultural differences among groups; and ethnicity is contingent on a situation and not inherent.6 Recent history has demonstrated, like in the cases of the Yugoslav wars or in the Rwandan genocide, that ethnic affiliation may represent the core aspect to explain the outbreak of civil conflicts. However, even if ignited by ethnonational justifications, most civil conflicts present similar features, including competition over scarce resources and the narrative of greed and grievance.7 This suggests that ethnic affiliation triggers feelings of hatred that are rooted in deeper socioeconomic cleavages. Although most ethnic conflicts are fought over resources that are perceived as scarce – territory, political representativeness, or socioeconomic status –, they all appeal to collective identities based on notions of kinship, historical-geographical traditions, or religious worship. Many studies have attempted to explain the historical origins of nationhood, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Smith, National Identity, p. 14. Gellner, Nationalism. Anderson, Imagined Communities. Boas, Anthropology and Modern Life, p. 92. Eriksen, Ethnic Identity, p. 46. Eriksen, Ethnic Identity, p. 46. Collier, Hoeffler, Greed and Grievance in Civil War. 67 underscoring the importance of state centralization, prolonged warfare, standardisation of vernacular languages, the diffusion of mass literacy, the spread of the press, and the state-sponsored educational system for the development of the concept.1 Therefore, national identity is the combination of the concepts of nationhood and anthropological identity. Specifically, national identity refers to the concept of nationality, i.e., the idea that a group of people who share some common features form a nation and to the intensity of an individual’s attachment to his respective nation. In this sense, national identity represents a synonym of nationality2 and nationality embodies an identity that implies historical continuity.3 National identity, which pivots on the collective sentiment of a nation, has been defined as “the maintenance and continuous reproduction of the patterns of values, symbols, memories, myths and traditions that compose the distinctive heritage of nations, and the identifications of individuals with that particular heritage and those values, symbols, memories, myths and traditions”.4 Another definition describes it as “a collective sentiment based upon the belief of belonging to the same nation and of sharing most attributes that make it distinct from other nations”.5 For some, national identity makes a group believe to have some common features,6 while others focus on how it contributes to shaping national languages.7 According to Hobsbawm, national linguistic homogeneity in multi-ethnic and plurilingual polities can be obtained only through mass compulsion, expulsion, or genocide: for instance, Poland could standardize the Polish language only because its Germans were expelled to the West, its Lithuanians, Byelorussians, and Ukrainians detached to the Soviet Union in the East, and its Jews slaughtered.8 Whereas for ethno-symbolists national identity is conceived as rooted in premodern ethnic and religious affiliations,9 for modernists it represents a product of modernity.10 In other words, ethno-symbolism believes in a cultural continuity between traditional and modern expressions of national identities, while modernism highlights the structural disjointedness, arguing that no national identity existed prior to the modern era. At the same time, empiricists define national identity through empirical evidence stemming from large-scale surveys Breuilly, Nationalism and the State; Mann, The Sources of Social Power. Williams, National Identity. 3 Miller, On Nationality. 4 Smith, Interpretations of National Identity, p. 30. 5 Guibernau, The Identity of Nations, p. 1. 6 Fawn, Ideology and National Identity. 7 Joseph, Language and Identity. 8 Hobsbawm, Language, Culture, and National Identity, p. 1071. 9 Hutchinson, Modern Nationalism; Hutchinson, Nations as Zones of Conflict; Smith, Nations and Modernism. 10 Breuilly, Nationalism and the State. 1 2 68 conducted among a population,1 while interpretivists try to grasp national identity in everyday behaviour.2 Moreover, a strand of the literature believes that there is little evidence to prove the existence of national identities, whether before or after modernity.3 However, the appeals to preserve and safeguard an authentic national identity is often the expression of specific ideological discourses.4 National identity can easily ignite the ideology of nationalism, which is nurtured by phenomena like religious, linguistic, ethnic, or historical affiliation. Unlike national identity, nationalism represents an ideological doctrine and practice whose “presence, intensity and prevalence can be corroborated empirically”.5 Furthermore, nationalism is a relatively recent phenomenon since it required the growth of modern and powerful states for its affirmation, like the examples of pan-Germanism, pan-Slavism, or pan-Americanism show vis-à-vis, respectively, Germany, Russia, and the United States.6 The philosophy of nationalism rests upon several assumptions like the idea that the world is naturally divided into nations with unique features, that nations are the core of political power, that nations offer independence and freedom to humans, that international and domestic peace can be achieved only through the self-determination of nations, and that nations can only be fulfilled in sovereign nation-states.7 In this regard, nation-states embody political entities represented by an ethnically, culturally, and linguistically homogenous population.8 As an ideological thrust that idealizes nationhood, nationalism expropriates individual identity transferring it to an abstract collective bond by some similar features.9 Consequently, ideologies like cosmopolitanism or internationalism – be it liberal or Marxist – are perceived as deadly threats to national collective identity since they promote unpatriotic attitudes and miscegenation. Finally, historical consciousness represents the understanding of the temporality of historical experience or how past, present and future are thought to be connected in the unfolding of a nation’s evolution.10 The spirit of historical consciousness does not rest upon the mere remembrance and transmission of the past but in the way people interpret the present. In other words, historical consciousness exceeds the exclusive preoccupation with what occurred in the past becoming history, using this knowledge Coakley, National Identity; McCrone (et al.), Who are We?; Smith, Kim, National Pride. Edensor, National Identity; Mackey, The House of Difference; Reicher, Hopkins, Self and Nation. 3 Malešević, The Chimera of National Identity; Laitin, Nations, States, and Violence; Kumar, The Making of English National Identity. 4 Malešević, The Chimera of National Identity, p. 273. 5 Malešević, The Chimera of National Identity, p. 286. 6 Bouchard, Coming Out of Hibernation, p. 137. 7 Smith, Nations and Modernism, p. 187. 8 Hobsbawm, Language, Culture, and National Identity, p. 1066. 9 Anderson, Imagined Communities. 10 Lukacs, Historical Consciousness. 1 2 69 as an element in shaping the thoughts and actions that determine the present and the future. As a practice that is not confined to mere retrospective contemplation, historical consciousness draws conclusions from the past to set the goals of the future, creating a crucial interdependence with political action. Political action deriving from historical consciousness is never exclusively undertaken by individuals, but by the unending governmental apparatus that pursues a country’s “grand strategy”. However, historical consciousness is always deeply influenced by the national, social, and political groups in which it is conceived through collective memory. Moreover, historical consciousness can inspire politicians to seek the need for change,1 or it can encourage them to pursue a specific political agenda. When combined with national identity, historical consciousness is wrought by some notable features such as images of past sufferings and injustice – e.g., the Balkan peoples’ rhetoric of sorrow under the Ottoman rule –, the evocation of personal experiences to describe past events – e.g., a Frenchman stating today “We lost in 1815” –, the contraposition between indigenous settlers and allogenous invaders – e.g., the European first-comers vis-à-vis the Oriental, Ural-Altaic nomadic invaders of Europe, from Attila to Genghis Khan –, the reduction of social complexity to simplistic psychological formulas like the creation of the figure of a historical “enemy” – e.g. the Austrians for the Italians, the Germans for the French, the French for the English, the Russians for the Poles, and the Turks for the Greeks. Ultimately, historical consciousness creates the collective memory of a nation, which often is constituted by the remembrance of wars, battles, revolutions, invasions, or struggles for independence and freedom. The battle of Didgori and the role of religious nationalism in Georgia The Battle of Didgori (1121) was fought between the armies of the Kingdom of Georgia and the Seljuk Empire in Didgori, forty kilometres southwest of Tbilisi. The battle ended with a decisive victory of King David IV of Georgia over the invading Seljuk army led by Ilghazi and the subsequent reconquest of Tbilisi, which had remained in the hands of the Muslims for centuries and which became the capital of the Georgian kingdom. The victory at Didgori ushered Georgia’s medieval “Golden Age” and is celebrated in Georgian chronicles as a “miraculous victory”, while modern Georgians continue to remember the event every September in a festival known as Didgoroba [the Day of Didgori].2 The Kingdom of Georgia had been a tributary of the Seljuk 1 2 Schieder, The Role of Historical Consciousness. Suny, The Making of the Georgian Nation, p. 36. 70 Empire since the 1080s; however, in the 1090s the dynamic Georgian king David IV, taking advantage of the internal tensions of the Seljuk nation and the success of Western Europeans in the First Crusade, managed to establish a relatively strong monarchy and to reorganize his army in order to reconquer the lost Georgian lands and to expel the Turks. David revoked the tribute to the Seljuks in 1096, put an end to the seasonal migrations of Turks to Georgia, and retrieved various important fortresses in a series of campaigns from 1103 to 1118. Nonetheless, his main objective was the reconquest of Tbilisi, an ancient Georgian city that had been under the Muslim rule for over four centuries. The resurgent Georgian military energy led to a coordinated response from Muslims, who sent a combined army deployed near Didgori and Manglisi in mid-August 1121. The number of combatants as well as the course of the battle are described differently in contemporary historical reports. The strength of the Seljuk army varies from 200,000 to 600,000 units depending on Turkish, Georgian, Armenian, or European medieval sources. King David’s army, composed by Georgians, Kipchaks and Alans, has traditionally been estimated at 55,000 men. After three hours of rough battle, the Seljuk troops were completely overwhelmed and forced to flee, leaving large quantities of spoils and prisoners to the victors. Due to the difference in the number of forces involved and the alleged invincibility of the Turks, the Georgians defined the battle as dzlevai sakvirveli [miraculous victory]. After the victory, king David moved relentlessly against the remaining strongholds of Muslim resistance and the following year, in 1122, he conquered Tbilisi, definitively expelling the Turks from Georgia, and expanding his sphere of influence up to Armenia. Georgian identity began to shape from the first Georgian states in the first millennium BC up to the ninth century AD. Whereas language was the initial feature that contributed to create Georgian identity, the conversion to Christianity already in the fourth century AD imprinted indelibly Georgian national character. In modern times, the battle of Didgori has been transformed into a metahistorical event, moulding Georgian national identity and collective memory. Specifically, the battle has been interpreted in a nationalistic sense as the example of a crusade for the liberation and independence of the Georgian people from foreign, alien domination. What is crucial is that Georgian freedom could be achieved only through a religious war between Christendom and Islam, thus offering the base for connecting religion and nationhood in Georgia. In other words, the battle served the purpose of linking Georgian national identity and Georgian nationalism to the Christian Orthodox faith: in this sense, Georgian nationalism is a typical example of religious nationalism. 71 Today, to be Georgian means essentially to be a Christian Orthodox: “Georgianness” lies in “being Orthodox”.1 Georgian national consciousness, which reveals itself in art, literature, and traditions, is significantly reliant on language and a sense of homeland, nor could the period of Marxist-Leninist rule replace it with the principles of socialist realism.2 Nationalism first appeared in Georgia in the second half of the nineteenth century thanks to intellectuals like Ilia Chavchavadze and it was initially directed against Russian imperial rule. Later, in the twentieth century, the main thrust of Georgian nationalism was the opposition towards the Soviet Union, the communist ideology, and Marxist atheism. Finally, between the 1980s and early 1990s, Georgian nationalism transformed into the movement for national independence.3 It is interesting to highlight that when it first appeared Georgian nationalism represented a secular ideology aimed at emancipating Georgia from Russian imperial rule, and not a form of religious nationalism, as it turned to be after the dissolution of the Soviet Union.4 Contemporary Georgian nationalism can be interpreted not only as religious but also as a typical example of ethnic nationalism. Ethnic nationalism is characterized by particularism and exclusivism, and is based on the principles of blood, kinship, and descent.5 Unlike Ukraine or Kazakhstan, whose post-Soviet nationalistic manifestations have been considered examples of “civic nationalism”, Georgia has expressed, like Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia, a typical form of ethnic nationalism.6 This kind of nationalism was the major factor that fostered the eruption of ethnopolitical strives in Abkhazia and South Ossetia and finds its origins in the response to Soviet socialist internationalism, which managed for a while to overcome ethnonationalism in the ethnically multifaceted Caucasus. Specifically, current Georgian nationalism represents a strand of ethnic nationalism, namely religious nationalism. Religious nationalism is somewhat typical of societies in which secular ties have begun to crumble, like in the post-Soviet and post-colonial environments, where individuals have turned to ethnicity and religion to ground social identities and political loyalties.7 Typically, religious nationalism presents a two-fold essence: religious fundamentalism and xenophobic nationalism. Put simply, religious nationalism comprises nationalism characterized by shades of religiosity. In this context, the Georgian Orthodox Church plays a pivotal role. Most Georgians view their church and patriarch as the most trustworthy institution in Georgia. Although the 2002 constitutional agreement separates state and church and 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Zedania, The Rise of Religious Nationalism in Georgia, p. 125. Tevzadze, National Identity, p. 439. Tevzadze, National Identity, p. 439. Zedania, The Rise of Religious Nationalism in Georgia, p. 124. Zedania, The Rise of Religious Nationalism in Georgia, p. 121. Zedania, The Rise of Religious Nationalism in Georgia, p. 121. Juergensmeyer, Religion and Global Civil Society. 72 guarantees religious freedom, the Georgian Church enjoys a privileged status. It often acts as a mediator for the neutralization of socio-political tensions. Post-soviet Georgian society still bears a troublesome relation between religiousness and democratic values and tolerance. Orthodox religious identity is still perceived as the precondition for belonging to the ethnic Georgian nation.1 This does not surprise when considering that the Orthodox Church has been for centuries the most influential institution of Georgian society, safeguarding its identity from overwhelming neighbouring nations that professed Islam. In this sense, similarly to Armenians, the Christian faith saved Georgians from being assimilated by the Islamic world. Indeed, the historical legacy and the role of Orthodoxy in the Georgians’ self-identification as a nation helped Georgian society to overcome the identity crisis experienced in the aftermath of the demise of the Soviet Union. Today, the Georgian Church is not only an important social institution, but also a prominent centre of power projection, nourished by the authority and trust that enjoys among the nation. What is crucial is that Orthodoxy is not only viewed as a religion, but as a full-fledged national ideology. Georgian Orthodoxy is national in the sense that, being autocephalous, it represents the Church of the Georgian nation. In conclusion, religious nationalism plays the important role of connecting church and state in Georgia through a nationalistic discourse, with thorough implications for political institutions and civil society. The battle of Lake Peipus, Russian patriotism, and the myth of the salvation of Mother Russia The battle of Lake Peipus (1242) was fought near the current border between Russia and Estonia between the troops of the Principality of Novgorod led by prince Aleksandr Nevsky against the Knights of the Teutonic Order and their Livonian and Danish allies. The decline of Kievan Rus’ dominance in the second half of the twelfth century was followed by the Mongol invasion of Russia in the first half of the thirteenth. Despite the constant pressures of neighbouring peoples, some Russian states gradually managed to acquire a scale of autonomy, among which the most important was the Principality of Novgorod. Located in the north-west of Russia and bordering with the Kingdom of Sweden and the Teutonic Order, its territory had been only partially ravaged by the Mongols. Novgorod’s wealth relied on its commercial power due to the trade routes that crossed its territory, which connected the Baltic and the White Sea with Kiev and Constantinople. In 1240, Sweden, which was competing with Novgorod for political and cultural dominance in Finland, occupied Ingria, putting the trade routes of the city 1 Chelidze, Ethno-Nationalistic and Religious-Nationalistic Components. 73 at risk. Under the command of Aleksandr Yaroslavich, prince of Novgorod, the Russian forces managed to defeat the Swedes in the battle of the Neva, a clash that attributed to the Russian prince the nickname “Nevsky”. In the autumn of 1240, after that the Mongol invasions had undermined the might of the Russian states, the Knights of the Teutonic Order and their allied forces attacked and occupied Pskov and Izborsk, cities under the control of Novgorod. However, during the campaign of 1241, Aleksandr Nevsky, who was appointed as commander of the Russian forces, managed to retake Pskov from the crusaders. In April of 1242, Aleksandr annihilated the invaders at the battle of the Lake Peipus, also known as the “Battle on the Ice”. Some claim that, after the defeat, the fleeing Teutonic Knights fell through the ice of the frozen lake due to the weight of their armours and drowned altogether, although it is likely that this detail was added later for adding a dramatic effect to the story.1 The defeat of the Teutonic Knights and their allies by the forces of Novgorod ended the phase of the Northern Crusades in which Catholic forces attempted to subjugate, around 1240, the territories inhabited by Orthodox Slavs and pagan Finns and Balts in eastern Estonia. More importantly, it guaranteed the independence of the Principality of Novgorod and, in perspective, that of Russia. Like the battle of Didgori, the battle of Lake Peipus was also transformed into a metahistorical event safeguarded by Russian collective memory. In modernity, the meta-historization of the event was reinvigorated especially by the 1938 movie Aleksandr Nevskij by Sergei Eisenstein. The film, a propaganda work of Soviet cinema, shows the clash between the Teutonic Crusaders supported by the Church of Rome and the Russians from a Marxist-Leninist perspective, that is as a clash between a subjugated proletarian mass led by a fearless hero, compared by the director to Stalin himself,2 opposed to ruthless, imperialist conquerors. Eisenstein’s movie was an obvious recall to the role of Germany in World War One, depicting the Germans as warlike Western invaders that have continuously attempted to subjugate Russia throughout history. Aleksandr’s final speech invites anyone to come to Russia, as long as they do so in peace and not with manias of conquest, with a clear allusion to Nazi Germany, with its anti-communist agenda and its eastward expansion projects. Even if in the following year the Molotov-Ribbentrop non-aggression pact would be signed, the movie appears as a gloomy omen when considering that only three years after its release Germany would yet again invade Russia. In this respect, the battle of Stalingrad in 1942-3 would become the “new” battle of the Lake Peipus. 1 2 Anderson, The Teutonic Order Kept at Bay, p. 33. Bergan, Sergei Eisenstein, p. 305. 74 Aleksandr Nevsky’s victory against the Teutonic Knights has been a recurrent theme during the Nazi invasion of Russia, or Great Patriotic War. Stalin’s speech on 7 November 1941 marked the start of the Soviet resistance against the invading “German brigands” and incited the Soviet people to be inspired by Aleksandr Nevsky, among other key figures of Russian history, in contrasting the enemy. For the Russian mentality, the ultimate victory was not attributable to the Red Army, but rather to the narod [people] as a whole.1 Victory was not ensured by Stalin or Zhukov, but rather by the heroic deeds of millions of people. The Russian people were at war not to defend Stalin, but what was dearest to them, that is Matushka Rossiya [Mother Russia].2 In this context, Russian nationalism has less to do with ethnicity or linguistics and much more with patriotism. Russian patriotism is built upon a recurrent theme: the salvation of the Russian motherland from foreign invaders. The idea of invaders that wish to violate and subjugate the Russian territory has created the myth of the salvation of “Mother Russia” from oppressors. Historically, this myth was nurtured by several foreign invasions, including the Mongol, the Teutonic, the Polish, the Swedish, the Napoleonic, the Wilhelmine, and the Hitlerite. Russian national patriotism depicts Russia as a defensive, peaceful country that is constantly attacked by aggressive, interventionist populations. The idea of a peaceful Russia that suffers from unprovoked foreign invasions is closely connected to the idea of “Russian Soul”.3 The “Russian Soul” would shape the nature of Russian people, characterizing them by a kind-hearted and hospitable nature. However, when the motherland is attacked, this “Soul” would stimulate Russians to wage war in defence of their homeland in a last man standing effort. In conclusion, the battle of Lake Peipus has become a metahistorical collective memory. Whenever the Russians are or feel threatened by a foreign power, they recall the heroic deeds of Aleksandr Nevsky in combating and defeating the invading enemies. As metahistorical event, this battle has been transformed in a myth that – also thanks to Soviet cinematic propaganda – can mobilize millions of Russians in defence of their country. This is also the case of contemporary Russia under Vladimir Putin’s government, a country deeply influenced by patriotism and conservatism that takes into high consideration historical consciousness and collective memory. 1 2 3 Bouchard, Coming Out of Hibernation, p. 156. Bouchard, Coming Out of Hibernation, p. 157. Bouchard, Coming Out of Hibernation, p. 158. 75 The battle of Kosovo Polje and the metahistorical lore of Serbian martyrdom The battle of Kosovo Polje (1389) is perhaps the most symbolic and iconic event in the history of the Balkans, comparable, at least for the Serbs, to the sacrifice of the Spartans at Thermopylae. The event concurred markedly in shaping the Serbian nationhood, a crusade mentality, and the Serbs’ self-styled role as Europe’s protectors.1 Unlike Didgori and Lake Peipus, this battle represented in the best scenario a draw and in the worst a defeat. Better said, it represented a draw in the short term, but a defeat in the long since it allowed the Ottoman expansion into the Balkans, which would be halted only at Vienna in 1529 and, again, in 1683. During the fourteenth century, under the leadership of sultan Murad I, who reigned from 1359 to 1389, the Turks began a massive conquest of the Balkans, conquering one region after another. During the late Middle Ages, the Kosovo plain represented one of the most important crossroads of the Balkans and a valuable base for further expansions, making it an enviable target for sultan Murad.2 On 15 June 1389, Vidovdan [Saint Vitus’s Day] according to the Julian calendar, the Christian army made up of a coalition of Serbs, Bosnians, and Albanians commanded by the Serbian knez [prince] Lazar Hrebelyanovic confronted the mighty Ottoman forces. The troops of the Serbian coalition numbered around 25,000 men, while the Ottoman army around 50,000. The battle began with the advance of the Serbian cavalry, which destroyed the Ottoman left wing. The troops commanded by Vuk Brankovic also succeeded in annihilating the right wing of the adversaries, but the Ottomans were finally joined by conspicuous reinforcements and thus were able to defeat the opposing militias, tired and inferior in number. Almost all the Serbian nobility was exterminated on the spot together with knez Lazar. However, during the battle, the Serbian nobleman Milos Obilic managed to kill sultan Murad with a deception. After Murad’s death, his son Bayezid I continued the Ottoman expansion into the Balkans and south-eastern Europe. Notwithstanding, the Kingdom of Serbia managed to survive for another century before finally falling under Turkish rule. Both armies suffered heavy losses, but for Serbia the outcome was catastrophic: a massive number of Serbian knights was slain, and the country saw most of its political and military elite disappear. The myth of the battle of Kosovo Polje transcends the historical event itself, personifying the paramount example of metahistorical experience around which Serbian identity, collective memory, and nationalism have been wrought. Typically, Serbian 1 2 Zimmerman, Origins of a Catastrophe, p. 11. Emmert, Serbian Golgotha, pp. 40-41. 76 nationalism is based on an ethnic interpretation of the history of the Balkans that contemporizes the past and historicizes the present through stories, symbols, and myths.1 In this context, Kosovo Polje exemplifies a sort of “prism” through which Serbs interpret history, peoples, events and through which political mobilization and nationalist action is prompted.2 Even today, the role of Kosovo Polje in the Serbian nationalist discourse is usually to provoke anti-Muslim and anti-NATO sentiments and to carry out Serbian irredentist or revisionist claims in the Balkans. The myth of Kosovo Polje, introduced in Serbian lore and traditions since the battle, shaped Serbian identity with the themes of victimization, violent struggle, justified revenge, and sacrifice for the national cause.3 The cult of Kosovo coincides with a Serbian self-identification with the themes of death, sacrifice, martyrdom, religion, and heroic deeds. The themes of agony and victimhood that characterize Serbian identity recall similar examples, like for instance the Armenian Genocide and the Jewish Holocaust. Moreover, Vidovdan, the specific day when the battle occurred – 15 June for the Julian calendar, 28 June for the Gregorian – has become a recurrent crucial date throughout Serbian history: for instance, the Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria was assassinated by Gavrilo Princip to put an end to the Austro-Hungarian rule in Bosnia-Herzegovina on Vidovdan (28 June 1914). Other important events connected with the history of Yugoslavia occurred on Vidovdan, like the emanation of the constitution of the Yugoslav state of the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes (1921), the expulsion of Yugoslavia by Stalin from the Eastern Bloc (1948), the outbreak of the Yugoslav wars (1991), and the surrendering of Slobodan Milosevic to the authorities of the Hague (2001). Indeed, after Kosovo Polje, Vidovdan became for the Serbs the day of heroism and sacrifice that defined Serbian cultural identity. If deprived of its religious component, Serbian nationalism would lose a major part of its inherent character. Thus, Serbian nationalism fostered by Kosovo Polje represents yet another example of religious nationalism – like in the case of the Croatian and the Bosnian. Basically, since Serbs, Croats, and Bosniaks speak a variant of the same language – Serbo-Croatian – the core feature that defines their identity is the religious affiliation, which is, respectively, Orthodox, Catholic, and Islamic. As a holy land ravaged and violated by infidels, Kosovo is viewed in religious, eschatological terms and is compared to the Passion and Death of the Christ, waiting for the Resurrection. For instance, Emmert describes Kosovo Polje as the “Golgotha” of the Serbian nation, that is the place of suffering and agony like the hill where Jesus suffered on the Cross.4 1 2 3 4 Bieber, Nationalist Mobilization, p. 98. Bieber, Nationalist Mobilization, p. 97. Emmert, Serbian Golgotha. Emmert, Serbian Golgotha, p. 1. 77 In this sense, Kosovo is more than a geographical region, but it resembles the Christ himself. After 1389, the idea of the “Passion of Kosovo” created a typical psychology of suffering in the Serbian mindset, nurtured by the Serbian Orthodox Church. Since the battle, the church and the clergy have cultivated Serbian collective memory through sermons, teachings, and the sanctification of prince Lazar, considered “tzar” and martyr and sometimes portrayed in the icon while holding his severed head. Moreover, from 1346 to 1766, the seat of the patriarchate of the Serbian Orthodox Church was in Kosovo, a land filled with Orthodox monasteries and churches – as Kosovo-Metohija, the former name of the region, illustrates. Being inherently religious, the Kosovo myth has been also named “Kosovo Covenant”, referring to the idea that prince Lazar decided to sacrifice on the battlefield in order to gain the kingdom of heaven for the Serbian nation.1 The myth of Kosovo Polje played a special role in the 1990s during the breakup of Yugoslavia, where it has been massively exploited by Serbs for political purposes to contrast Bosniaks, Albanians, and, to a lesser extent, Croats. On the Vidovdan of 1989, Milosevic hold a speech at the Gazimestan – the memorial site commemorating the battle of Kosovo Poljie –where he did not exclude the possibility of armed battles in the future of Serbia’s national development. General Ratko Mladic – one of the notorious perpetrators of the siege of Sarajevo and of the Srebrenica massacre – identified himself as Prince Lazar and the Bosnian Serbs as the Serbs who fought in 1389.2 Both Radovan Karadzic and Mladic considered the war in Bosnia as the moment of revenge against the “Turks”. The military operations conducted by him against the Muslim Bosniaks follow a narrative of vengeance and retaliation in the emotive context of Serbian metahistorical Kosovo Polje myth. The war in Bosnia in the attempt to forge a Greater Serbia was no common civil war but represented the final showdown to avenge 1389. Similarly, the war in Kosovo exemplified the re-enactment of the battle, where a smaller number of Christian Serbs was confronting the countless ranks of Muslim Albanians, like they did with the Turks in the past – although, ironically, in the battle of Kosovo Polje Albanians fought along with the Serbs. Despite NATO’s intervention and the 2008 unilateral proclamation of independence, Serbia still claims the full sovereignty over Kosovo, which is seen as the core of the historical Serbian state and the historical see of the Serbian patriarchate. In contrast, Albanians claim to enjoy territorial rights over Kosovo maintaining that, as descendants of the Illyrians, they inhabited the Kosovar area – at the time, Dardania – long before the Serbs’ arrival in the sixth century.3 1 2 3 Malcolm, Kosovo. Sell, Slobodan Milosevic. Rogel, Kosovo, p. 169. 78 Conclusion The battles of Didgori, Lake Peipus, and Kosovo Polje represented a turning point for the history and collective memory of three great nations. If Georgia would have lost, the Muslim rule over the country would have probably lasted much longer, Tbilisi could not be turned into the Georgian capital, and Georgian national identity shaped on religious affiliation would have perhaps disappeared. Maybe, without the victory at Didgori the Georgians would have converted to Islam, as occurred for many of them in the Ajaria region. Likewise, if Novgorod would have fallen under the rule of the Germans, the rise of the Russian nation might have been completely compromised. It is almost unimaginable to think how Russian history would have developed if the Teutonic Order would have converted the Russians to the Roman Catholic faith. At the same time, the defeat of the “western front” allowed Russian principalities to concentrate forces against the Mongols and eventually permitted the rise of Muscovy. Finally, if Kosovo Polje would not have occurred Serbian nationalism, with its typical anti-Muslim narrative, would perhaps not have developed. One can speculate whether, without Kosovo Polje, a Srebrenica would have taken place. The anti-Islamic terrorist attack conducted in 2019 in Christchurch, New Zealand was carried out by an extremist who displayed on his rifle, among others, the name “Milos Obilic”, the killer of sultan Murad at Kosovo Polje. After nine hundred years, the battle of Didgori still re-echoes in the collective memory of the Georgian nation. In contemporary Georgian debate, Didgori can be interpreted through novel lenses. Following an ethnonationalist discourse, most Georgians can reinterpret it as the struggle against a new invader, namely Russia, who in 2008 intervened in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, promoting the breakaway of the two regions. In this sense, since Didgori exemplifies the symbol of Georgian national and territorial unity, after the year 2008 its commemoration bears, in geopolitical terms, a clear anti-Russian character. Instead, in the Russian case, Lake Peipus can be understood today as a new potential clash between the West – exemplified by NATO – and Russia. After the 2004 NATO enlargement, which involved former Soviet states in the Baltic, Moscow views the Alliance as the “new Western coalition of the Teutonic Knights” that threatens Russia’s independence and survival. Through these lenses, NATO would represent the ultimate invading threat of the Russian space, against which Russian patriotism is ready to respond with the same vigour performed by Aleksandr Nevsky eight hundred years ago. To avoid this unpleasant scenario, NATO should put an end to its endless expansion towards the post-Soviet space, menacing Moscow’s vital interests, aiming to the 79 neutralization – not integration – of countries contiguous to the respective spheres of influence, while Russia should renounce to the typical siege mentality based on the belief that other countries are constantly ready to invade its territory and build instead closer ties with fundamental partners like the EU and, after all, also NATO. Finally, the meaning of Kosovo Polje in Serbian current debate affects the vision that Belgrade bears vis-à-vis important topics, including the potential accession of Serbia into the EU, as well as its troublesome relations towards the newly born Kosovar republic. The Serbian leadership has the power to choose whether to rely on an historical interpretation of modern politics, grounded on intolerant nationalist sentiments and a revanchist narrative, or to adapt to the new status quo, manifesting a constructive approach towards neighbouring countries after the Balkan nightmare of the 1990s. Still, the issue of Kosovo should be eventually solved through the participation of all actors involved, including Belgrade, and should not be in any way exploited by Tirana as a tool for implementing a Greater Albania, which would not be any better than a Greater Serbia. Indeed, the three battles and their metahistorical role incite debates about the concepts of national identity and nationalism. They also pose infinite questions regarding the struggle between the West and the East, the difficult dialogue among religions and faiths, and the danger promoted by a clash of civilizations. To avoid present and future conflicts, perhaps the wisest choice would be to deconstruct metahistorical events, liberating them from the burden of political exploitation and chronological decontextualization: in one word, making them “historical” again.*1 Bibliography Anderson, Imagined Communities – Anderson B., Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism, London, 1983. Anderson, The Teutonic Order Kept at Bay – Anderson E. B., The Teutonic Order Kept at Bay, “Medieval Warfare”, 4 (1), 2014, pp. 27–33. Bergan, Sergei Eisenstein – Bergan R., Sergei Eisenstein: A Life in Conflict, New York, 1999. Bieber, Nationalist Mobilization – Bieber F., Nationalist Mobilization and Stories of Serb Suffering: The Kosovo Myth from 600th Anniversary to the Present, “Rethinking History”, 6 (1), 2002, pp. 95–110. 1The authors wish to acknowledge the financial assistance of the NAWA Grant (PPN/PRO/2020/1/00003/ DEC/1) from the Polish Academic Exchange Council and NCN grant (ZARZADZENIE NCN 94/2020) from the Polish National Science Council. * 80 Boas, Anthropology and Modern Life – Boas F., Anthropology and Modern Life, New York, 1986. Bouchard, Coming Out of Hibernation – Bouchard M., Coming Out of Hibernation: Russian Nationalism in the 21st Century, In “Nation and Nationalism: Political and Historical Studies”, edited by A. M. Suszycki and I. P. Karolewski, Wrocław, 2007. Breuilly, Nationalism and the State – Breuilly J., Nationalism and the State, Manchester, 1993. Chelidze, Ethno-Nationalistic and Religious-Nationalistic Components – Chelidze A., Ethno-Nationalistic and Religious-Nationalistic Components of Identity in Post-Soviet Georgia, OPREE, 34 (2), 2014, pp. 1–20. Coakley, National Identity – Coakley J., National Identity in Northern Ireland: Stability or Change?, “Nations and Nationalism”, 13 (4), 2007, pp. 573–598. Cohen, Custom and Politics in Africa – Cohen A., Custom and Politics in Africa: A Study of Hausa Migrants in a Yoruba Town, London, 1969. Cohen, Two-dimensional Man – Cohen A., Two-dimensional Man: An Essay on Power and Symbolism in Complex Society, London, 1974. Cohen, Self-consciousness – Cohen A., Self-consciousness: An Alternative Anthropology of Identity, London, 2002. Collier, Hoeffler, Greed and Grievance in Civil War – Collier P., and Hoeffler A., Greed and Grievance in Civil War, Oxford EP, 56 (4), 2004, pp. 563–595. Edensor, National Identity – Edensor T., National Identity, Popular Culture and Everyday Life, Oxford, 2002. Emmert, Serbian Golgotha – Emmert Th., Serbian Golgotha: Kosovo, 1389, New York, 1990. Eriksen, Ethnic Identity – Eriksen Th. H., Ethnic Identity, National Identity, and Intergroup Conflict: The Significance of Personal Experiences, In “Social Identity, Intergroup Conflict, and Conflict Reduction”, edited by R. D. Ashmore, L. Jussim, D. Wilder, Oxford, 2001. Fawn, Ideology and National Identity – Fawn R., Ideology and National Identity in Post-Communist Foreign Policies, In “Ideology and National Identity in Post-Communist Foreign Policies”, edited by R. Fawn, London, 2003. Geertz, The Interpretation of Cultures – Geertz C., The Interpretation of Cultures, New York, 1973. Gellner, Nations and Nationalism – Gellner E., Nations and Nationalism, Oxford, 1983. Gellner, Nationalism – Gellner E., Nationalism, London, 1997. Guibernau, The Identity of Nations – Guibernau M., The Identity of Nations, Cambridge, 2007. 81 Hobsbawm, Nations and Nationalism – Hobsbawm E., Nations and Nationalism since 1780, Cambridge, 1990. Hobsbawm, Language, Culture, and National Identity – Hobsbawm E., Language, Culture, and National Identity, “Social Research”, 63 (4), 1996, pp. 1065–1080. Hutchinson, Nations as Zones of Conflict – Hutchinson J., Nations as Zones of Conflict, London, 2005. Hutchinson, Modern Nationalism – Hutchinson J., Modern Nationalism, London, 1994. Jenkins, Social Identity – Jenkins R., Social Identity, London, 1996. Joseph, Language and Identity – Joseph J., Language and Identity: National, Ethnic, Religious, New York, 2004. Juergensmeyer, Religion and Global Civil Society – Juergensmeyer M., Religion and Global Civil Society, Oxford, 2005. Kumar, The Making of English National Identity – Kumar K., The Making of English National Identity, Cambridge, 2003. Laitin, Nations, States, and Violence – Laitin D. D., Nations, States, and Violence, Oxford, 2007. Lukacs, Historical Consciousness – Lukacs J., Historical Consciousness: The Remembered Past, Piscataway, NJ, 1968. Mackey, The House of Difference – Mackey E., The House of Difference: Cultural Politics and National Identity in Canada, London, 1999. Malcolm, Kosovo – Malcolm N., Kosovo: A Short History, New York, 1988. Malešević, The Chimera of National Identity – Malešević S., The Chimera of National Identity, “Nations and Nationalism”, 17 (2), 2011, pp. 272–290. Mann, The Sources of Social Power – Mann M., The Sources of Social Power II: The Rise of Classes and Nation States, 1760–1914, Cambridge, 1993. McCrone (et al.), Who are We? – McCrone D., Stewart R., Kiely R., and Bechhofer F., Who are We? Problematising National Identity, “The Sociological Review”, 46 (4), 1998, pp. 629–652. Miller, On Nationality – Miller D., On Nationality, Oxford, 1995. Reicher, Hopkins, Self and Nation – Reicher St., and Hopkins N., Self and Nation, London, 2001. Rogel, Kosovo – Rogel C., Kosovo: Where It All Began, “International Journal of Politics, Culture and Society”, 17 (1), 2003, pp. 167–182. Schieder, The Role of Historical Consciousness – Schieder Th., The Role of Historical Consciousness in Political Action, H&T, 17 (4), 1978, pp. 1–18. 82 Sell, Slobodan Milosevic – Sell L., Slobodan Milosevic and the Destruction of Yugoslavia, Durham, 2002. Smith, Nations and Modernism – Smith A. D., Nations and Modernism, London, 1998. Smith, Interpretations of National Identity – Smith A. D., Interpretations of National Identity, In “Modern Roots: Studies of National Identities”, edited by A. Dieckhoff, and N. Gutierrez, Hampshire, 2001. Smith, The Ethnic Origins of Nations – Smith A. D., The Ethnic Origins of Nations, Oxford, 1986. Smith, National Identity – Smith A. D., National Identity, Reno, NV, and London, 1991. Smith, Kim, National Pride – Smith T. W., and Kim S., National Pride in Cross-national and Temporal Perspective, IJPOR, 18 (1), 2006, pp. 127–136. Suny, The Making of the Georgian Nation – Suny R. G., The Making of the Georgian Nation, Bloomington, IN, 1994. Tevzadze, National Identity – Tevzadze N., National Identity and National Consciousness, “History of European Ideas”, 19 (1–3), 1994, pp. 437–440. White, Metahistory – White H., Metahistory: The Historical Imagination in Nineteenth-century Europe, Baltimore, MD, 2014. Williams, National Identity – Williams L., National Identity and the Nation State: Construction, Reconstruction and Contradiction, In “National Identity”, edited by K. Cameron, Exeter, 1999. Zedania, The Rise of Religious Nationalism in Georgia – Zedania G., The Rise of Religious Nationalism in Georgia, “Identity Studies in the Caucasus and the Black Sea Region”, 3, 2011, pp. 120–128. Zimmerman, Origins of a Catastrophe – Zimmerman W., Origins of a Catastrophe: Yugoslavia and Its Destroyers, New York, 1996. 83 paolo picolo, andrea kartni erovnuli identobisa da istoriuli cnobierebis Zieba metaistoriul movlenebSi: didgoris, Cudis tbis da kosovos brZolebis gavlena koleqtiur mexsierebaze da politikur qmedebaze reziume erovnuli identoba dakavSirebulia erovnulobis cnebasTan, rac gulisxmobs, rom saerTo enis, religiis, eTnikuri warmomavlobis, folkloris an istoriuli bedis niSniT gaerTianebuli jgufis wevrebi, socialur kavSirebs erTmaneTTan ufro advilad amyareben, vidre sxva, ucxo jgufis wevrebTan. istoriulad, iseTi didi jgufebis warmoqmnam, romlebic sakuTar Tavs erT erad aRiarebdnen, xeli Seuwyo eri-saxelmwifoebis Camoyalibebas. nacionalur identobas xSirad amyarebs metaistoriuli movlenebi, anu is, rac inaxeba erTi eris cnobierebasa da qvecnobierSi – konkretuli movlenis moxdenis Semdgom, rogorc xalxis koleqtiuri mexsierebis nawili. xSirad es metaistoriuli movlenebi warmodgenilia brZolebis an omebis saxiT, rasac an mivyavarT gamarjvebis, damoukideblobisa da TviTgamorkvevisken, an damarcxebis, damorCilebisa da Tavisuflebis dakargvisken. erebis umetesobas gaaCnia umniSvnelovanesi metaistoriuli movlenebi, romlis safuZvelzedac maT TavianTi erovnuli identoba aaSenes. statia exeba metaistoriuli movlenebis mniSvnelobas didgoris (1121), Cudis tbis (1242) da kosovos (1389) brZolebis SedarebiTi Seswavlis magaliTze. saqarTvelos SemTxvevaSi, didgoris brZola warmoadgens saqarTvelos damoukideblobisa da erovnuli TviTmyofadobis niSansvets, xolo ruseTis SemTxvevaSi, Cudis tbis brZola gaxda „dasavleli“ dampyroblebis winaaRmdeg ruseTis damoukideblobisTvis brZolis simbolo; da bolos, serbeTis SemTxvevaSi, brZola kosovos velze aris serbeTis istoriaSi erT-erTi yvelaze mniSvnelovani movlena da serbuli erovnuli grZnobebis inspiraciis wyaro. statiaSi dasabuTebulia, rom es sami brZola gaxda Sesabamisad qarTveli, rusi da serbi 84 erebisTvis erovnuli identobisa da TviTSegnebis Senebis metaistoriuli qvakuTxedi. maTi metaistoriuli amocana axal da uaxles istoriaSi politikuri da religiuri elitebis mier TavianTi socialuri da politikuri moqmedebebis gamarTleba da, aseve, erovnuli grZnobebis gaZlierebaa. 85 irakli faRava saxalifos administraciuli erTeulis – `Tbilisis saamiros~ daarseba ara-naratiuli wyaroebis mixedviT (adreul-arabuli monetebi da lapidaruli warwerebi saqarTvelodan) winamdebare kvleva m i z n a d isaxavs dazustdes saqarTvelos istoriaSi erT-erTi umniSvnelovanesi movlenis – arabTa batonobis gamyarebis, kerZod, saqarTveloSi maTi administraciis SemoRebis qronologia. saqarTveloSi arabobis periodizaciis Cvens mier SemoTavazebuli, axleburi klasifikaciiT,1 – romelic, vfiqrobT, istoriuli realiebis (Tu maTze Cveni warmodgenebis) ufro logikur kategorizacias warmoadgens – saqarTveloSi araboba xuT periodad daiyo.2 msjelobis sagnad SeiZleba rCebodes calkeuli periodebis qronologiuri CarCoebi. am etapze Cveni kvlevis sagania qronologiuri sazRvari saqarTveloSi arabobis I da II periodebs Soris, rodesac arabebisTvis xarkis gadaxda (I, mexarkeobis periodi), Seicvala saqarTveloSi arabTa Zalauflebis ganmtkiceba-gaRrmavebiT, saqarTvelosa da TbilisSi mainc arabuli administraciis SemoRebiT (II, konsolidaciis periodi). * rogor TariRdeba istoriografiaSi Tbilisis saamiros daarseba (rasac saqarTveloSi arabTa Zalauflebis konsolidacia-gamyarebis tol1 faRava, saqarTveloSi arabTa batonobis periodizacia (numizmatikuri monacemebis gaTvaliswinebiT), gv. 250-257; Пагава, Периодизация арабского владычества в Грузии (с учетом новых данных), gv. 85-91. saqarTveloSi arabobis originaluri klasifikacia SemoTavazebuli hqondaT aseve m. lorTqifaniZesa da o. cqitiSvils (lorTqifaniZe, arabTa mflobelobis xasiaTi saqarTveloSi, gv. 73; cqitiSvili, arabeT-saqarTvelos kulturuli urTierTobis istoriidan [X-XI ss.], gv. 104). 2 faRava, saqarTveloSi arabTa batonobis periodizacia (numizmatikuri monacemebis gaTvaliswinebiT), gv. 251-256. arabobis bolo, V periods (Tbilisis TviTmmarTveloba, Turq-selCukebis met-naklebad qmediTi egidis qveS) Cveni ramdenime naSromi mieZRvna (Paghava, Muslim Tiflis before Georgian Conquest: Numismatic Evidence [Monetary Issues in the Name of al-Mustazhir], gv. 1155-1158; faRava, mansur II ja‘farianis samoneto emisia maliq-Sahis saxeliT – Tbilisi da qvemo qarTli bagratovanTa da did selCukTa Soris, gv. 9-61. aseve monografia, romelic mzaddeba gamosaqveyneblad). 86 fas movlenad miviCnevT)? aucileblad migvaCnia naSroms sakiTxis Tundac Zalian mokle i s t o r i o g r a f i u l i m i m o x i l v a wavumZRvaroT. iv. javaxiSvili, ramdenimejer saubrobs aRmosavleT saqarTveloSi arabTa mmarTvelobis gamkacreba-gamyarebis Sesaxeb,1 magram qronologiur miTiTebebs erideba; misi monaTxrobic ar aris qronologiurad mkacrad dawyobili,2 amrigad, raime konkretuli daskvnis gamotana gaZnelebulia. s. janaSia Tvlis, rom `amier-kavkasiis namdvili dapyroba arabebis mier mxolod VIII s. pirvel naxevarSi xdeba~.3 Tumca, ara aqvs dazustebuli, saubaria VIII saukunis dasawyisze, Tu 30-ian wlebze. mkvlevari Tvlis, rom “VIII s. damdegs arabebi msxdaran tfilisSi, amas [...] maTi aq 704-5 w. moWrili fuli amtkicebs~,4 Tumca, imasac aRniSnavs, rom “murvanis moqmedebam sabolood daamkvidra arabTa batonoba qarTlSi~.5 m. lorTqifaniZe uSvebs TbilisSi arabebis yofnas `VIII s-is damdegsac [...] (am droisTvis TbilisSi moWrili arabuli fulic mogvepoveba)~,6 magram aRmosavleT saqarTveloSi arabebis mier fexis mtkiced mokidebas is mainc VIII saukunis 30-iani wlebiT aTariRebs, murvan yrus laSqrobis Semdgomi droiT.7 Tumca, numizmatikur masalas gverds ver uvlis da imasac aRniSnavs, rom `SedarebiT myari mdgomareoba saqarTveloSi arabebs me-8 saukunis dasawyisSi SeqmniaT. 704/5 wlebSi maT TbilisSi sakuTari moneta mouWriaT~.8 a. bogveraZe, o. cqitiSvili da b. silagaZe (aRmosavleT) saqarTveloSi arabebis uSualo batonobis damyarebasa Tu saamiros daarsebas murvan yrus laSqrobas ukavSireben.9 istorikos-numizmatebisTvis, TbilisSi arabebis gaCenis qronologiis kuTxiT, mTavari, bunebrivia, numizmatikuri monacemebi iyo. e. paxomovi calsaxad aRniSnavs, rom h. 85 wlis Tbilisuri dirhemis arjavaxiSvili, qarTveli eris istoria, wgn. II, gv. 86-87, 89. amrigad, Cveni azriT, ara aqvs gadamwyveti mniSvneloba, teqstis ra fragments romeli mohyveba (Sead. alasania, Tbilisis saamiros daarsebis TariRisaTvis, gv. 4). 3 janaSia, araboba saqarTveloSi, gv. 28, 30. 4 iqve. 5 iqve, gv. 35. 6 lorTqifaniZe, Tbilisis saamiros istoriidan, gv. 186. 7 iqve, gv. 186; lorTqifaniZe, arabTa mflobelobis xasiaTi saqarTveloSi, gv. 73. 8 iqve, gv. 74. 9 bogveraZe, qarTlis politikuri da socialur-ekonomikuri ganviTareba IV-VIII saukuneebSi, gv. 97; cqitiSvili, arabeT-saqarTvelos kulturuli urTierTobis istoriidan (X-XI ss.), gv. 103-104; silagaZe, arabTa batonoba saqarTveloSi, gv. 107. 1 2 87 seboba miuTiTebs, rom 704 wels qalaqi Tbilisi arabebis xelSi iyo.1 d. kapanaZec, aSkarad, ixreba im azrisken, rom araboba aRmosavleT saqarTveloSi swored `VIII saukunis dawyebisTanave~ gamyarda.2 g. alasania aRiarebs, rom VIII saukunis dasawyisSi `arabTa kontroli qarTlSi gamkacrda, Tundac mokle xniT~,3 Tumca, TbilisSi moWril omaianur Tu omaianuri tipis (h. 85 wlis) dirhems, Cans, qarTvelebis moWrilad Tvlis, da, Sesabamisad, ugulebelyofs mis mniSvnelobas saamiros qronologiis dasadgenad.4 mkvlevari miuTiTebs, rom Tbilisis amiraTa Sesaxeb yvelaze adreuli cnobebi gvxvdeba al-qufisTan da ioane sabanisZis hagiografiul TxzulebaSi.5 g. alasania eyrdnoba al-qufis cnobas, romlis Tanaxmadac armini¡as gamgeblad al-hasan b. kahtaba dainiSna, man ki jurzanis da Tbilisis gamgeblad Tavisi vaJi, ibrahimi gamoagzavna; swored am ibrahims miiCnevs avtori Tbilisis pirvel (ioane sabanisZis mier moTxrobili ambis Tanamedrove) amirad – `[...] CvenTvis misawvdom wyaroebSi Tbilisis amira amaze adre ar Cans. [...] Tu Cveni varaudi misaRebia, gamodis, rom Tbilisis saamiro [...] Seiqmna VIII s-is ara 30-ian an 40-ian, aramed 70-ian wlebSi~.6 Cvens 2014 wels gamoqveynebul naSromSi pirvelad vcadeT Tbilisis saamiros daarsebis sakiTxs axleburad mivdgomodiT – movlenis qronologiis dasadgenad daveyrdeniT VIII saukunis dasawyisSi TbilisSi arabTa umniSvnelovanesi administraciuli institutis, zarafxanis amuSavebis faqts.7 2016 wlis naSromSi aseve moviSvelieT Tbilisis milis qvac, rogorc VIII saukunis dasawyisSi qarTlSi arabTa adminis1 Пахомов, Монеты Грузии, gv. 39. Sead. alasania, Tbilisis saamiros daarsebis TariRisaTvis, gv. 9-10. 2 kapanaZe, qarTuli numizmatika, gv. 54. Sead. alasania, Tbilisis saamiros daarsebis TariRisaTvis, gv. 10. 3 iqve. 4 iqve. 5 iqve. 6 iqve, gv. 10-12. aRsaniSnavia, rom Tavad al-qufis cnobebis gamomqveynebeli (cqitiSvili, arabTa mflobelobis winaaRmdeg qarTveli xalxis ganmaTavisuflebeli brZolis istoriidan [ahmad ibn asam al-qufis cnobaTa mixedviT], gv. 73-82; cqitiSvili, ahmad ibn asam al-qufi arabTa pirveli laSqrobebis Sesaxeb saqarTveloSi, gv. 92-104) o. cqitiSvili Tbilisis saamiros daarsebas ufro adreuli droiT aTariRebda – marTalia, ufro adreul naSromSi (cqitiSvili, arabeT-saqarTvelos kulturuli urTierTobis istoriidan [X-XI ss.], gv. 103-104). 1988 wlis publikaciaSi ki o. cqitiSvils aRniSnuli aqvs Semdegi: `gairkva, rom ukve 772 w. Tbilisis amirad mjdara al-hasan ibn kahtabas vaJiSvili ibrahim ibn al-hasani~ (cqitiSvili, qarTlis erismTavris nerses politikuri moRvaweobis sakiTxisaTvis, gv. 205). 7 faRava, saqarTveloSi arabTa batonobis periodizacia (numizmatikuri monacemebis gaTvaliswinebiT), gv. 250-257. 88 traciuli saqmianobis kidev erTi mowmoba.1 orive SemTxvevaSi e. w. Tbilisis saamiros daarseba VIII saukunis dasawyisiT davaTariReT. g. legaSvili iTvaliswinebs Cvens naSroms,2 da Tbilisis zarafxanis amuSavebisa da iq h. 85 wels omaianuri dirhemis moWris safuZvelze amtkicebs, rom `[...] rogorc Cans, swored am droidan unda flobdnen arabebi Tbilisis cixes da aq SeiaraRebuli garnizonic unda hyolodaT~.3 Tumca, `Tbilisis saamiros Seqmna~ mainc xazarTa `762-764 wlis laSqrobis~ Semdegdroindel movlenad miaCnia, da emxroba g. alasanias mier SemoTavazebul daTariRebas.4 e. astaxiSvilis, n. axmetelisa da g. narimaniSvilis naSromSi ki, garkveuli sifrTxiliT, upiratesoba, TiTqos, Cvens mier gamoTqmul mosazrebas eniWeba.5 l. TavaZe, imeorebs Cvens mosazrebas,6 da miuTiTebs numizmatikur masalas, `romelic konkretizaciis safuZvels iZleva. 704 wels TbilisSi arabuli monetebi moiWra. aRniSnuli imis dasturia, rom muslimebma qarTlis dedaqalaqi uSualod daikaves da amis aRsaniSnavad fulis moWra daiwyes. qarTlis centrSi arabuli armiis Sesvla, administraciis daarseba, zarafxanis gaxsna da qufuri monetebis emisia islamuri formulebiT xalifatis eqspansiis gaZlierebis maCvenebelia~.7 avtori did mniSvnelobas aniWebs saqarTveloSi murvan yrus Semosvlasac.8 magram, saboloo jamSi, g. alasanias mosazrebas9 imeorebs: `ibrahimi qarTlSi al-huseinis moadgilis funqcias asrulebda. SeiZleba iTqvas, rom is Tbilisis erT-erTi pirveli amira iyo, calke Tbilisis saamiro jer kidev ar iyo Camoyalibebuli, magram ibrahimis daniSvna Tbilisis saamiros, rogorc calke administraciuli erTeulis, Camoyalibebis wina etapi an misi dasawyisi iyo~.10 Пагава, Периодизация арабского владычества в Грузии (с учетом новых данных), gv. 85-91. faRava, saqarTveloSi arabTa batonobis periodizacia (numizmatikuri monacemebis gaTvaliswinebiT), gv. 251-254. 3 legaSvili, marvan ibn muhammadis laSqroba kavkasiaSi, gv. 253-254. 4 iqve, gv. 254. 5 astaxiSvili, axmeteli, narimaniSvili, qarTvelebi da gare samyaro. IV-X saukuneebi, gv. 319. 6 faRava, saqarTveloSi arabTa batonobis periodizacia (numizmatikuri monacemebis gaTvaliswinebiT), gv. 251-254. 7 TavaZe, saqarTvelo VIII saukuneSi. politikuri istoria, gv. 68. 8 iqve, gv. 113. 9 alasania, Tbilisis saamiros daarsebis TariRisaTvis, gv. 10-12. 10 TavaZe, saqarTvelo VIII saukuneSi. politikuri istoria, gv. 156, sqolio 559. 1 2 89 amrigad, saqarTveloSi arabuli administraciis uSualod SemoRebis drois Taobaze istoriografiaSi sami versia ikveTeba: VIII saukunis 1) dasawyisi; 2) 30-iani wlebi, saqarTveloSi murvan yrus laSqrobis Semdgom; 3) 70-iani wlebi. * ganvmartavT Cven m e T o d o l o g i u r m i d g o m a s . pirvel rigSi, aRsaniSnavia, rom, kvlevisas daveyrdeniT upirveles yovlisa, da eqskluziuradac, – aranaratiul pirvelwyaroebs; savsebiT viziarebT leofold fon ranqes mier SemoTavazebul da danergil midgomas: naratiuli wyaroebi, xSirad gviandeli da, SesaZloa, Seryvnilic, didi albaTobiT, subieqturic, Seudareblad nakleb Rirebuli da sandoa, aranaratiulTan SedarebiT; istoriis rekonstruqciisas mizanSewonilia daveyrdnoT movlenebis Tanadroul da ara-naratiul wyaroebs. SeuZlebelia ar gavixsenoT a. bogveraZis sentencia – `arabTa mflobelobis xanis qarTlis saSinao-politikur viTarebaze Zalze cota ram viciT, radgan vidre IX s-mde qarTuli saistorio wyaroebis sandooba seriozul eWvs iwvevs~.1 am mxriv ramdenadme ukeTesi mdgomareobaa arabuli wyaroebis mxriv, magram, kritikul ganxilvas, bunebrivia, isinic unda daeqvemdebaros. rasakvirvelia, naratiuli pirvelwyaroebis sruli ugulebelyofa ar iqneboda gamarTlebuli; miT ufro, rodesac ara-naratiuli arca gvaqvs. magram, imdenad, ramdenadac es winamdebare statiis sagans Seexeba, sabednierod, Cvens gankargulebaSia arcTu cota ara-naratiuli pirvelwyaro. amitom, am naSromSi mainc, Segnebulad gadavwyviteT yvela naratiuli wyaros ignorireba mogvexdina, yuradReba gavemaxvilebina eqskluziurad ara-naratiul pirvelwyaroebze, da istoriuli movlenebis aRdgena swored maT safuZvelze gvecada. meTodologiuri TvalsazrisiT, aseve, aRniSvnis Rirsia, rom garda ara-naratiuli pirvelwyaroebiT xelmZRvanelobisa, sakiTxis kvlevisas Cveni Zalisxmeva mivmarTeT ara im pirovnebis moZiebaze, romelic Tbilisis pirveli amira iyo, aramed saqarTveloSi/TbilisSi arabuli administraciuli institutebisa Tu maTi moqmedebis nakvalevis Zieba-analizze. rasakvirvelia, romelime pirvelwyaroSi moxseniebuli `amira~ aseve amirobis institutis arsebobas adasturebs; bogveraZe, qarTlis politikuri da socialur-ekonomikuri ganviTareba IV-VIII saukuneebSi, gv. 97. 1 90 Tumca, cxadia, gasaTvaliswinebelia sxva arabuli administraciuli institutebic. amasTan dakavSirebiT, aucileblad migvaCnia terminologiuri wiaRsvla gavakeToT. terminis Tbilisis saamiro realuri politikur-administraciuli Sinaarsi ar iyo ucvleli; ar arsebobs aranairi istoriuli miTiTeba imaze, rom Tbilisis saamiro arsebobis pirvel saukuneSi iseTive damoukidebeli yofiliyos saxalifos centrisgan, rogorc, davuSvaT, XI saukuneSi; rom TbilisSi arabTa axalgamagrebulma dajgufebam dauyovnebliv daiwyo urCoba da omaianTa Tu abasianTa saxalifos centraluri xelisuflebisgan secesias cdilobda; Tundac, naratiul istoriul wyaroebSi sruliad sapirispiro suraTia – provincia armini¡a (romlis CrdiloeT nawilsac warmoadgenda jurzani – qarTli, mTeli aRmosavleTi saqarTvelos mniSvnelobiT) Seiqmna arabTa sagareo eqspansiis Sedegad, rogorc saxalifos ganuyofeli nawili, da aseTad karga xans rCeboda; arabebis moqmedeba regionSi aSkarad xalifas inspirirebulia da xalifas mier marTuli.1 gavixsenoT s. janaSias klasikuri ganmarteba: `tfilisis saamiro (samxedro-administraciuli organizacia, romelic, cvalebadi moculobiT, aRmosavleT saqarTvelos gulisxmobs arabTa mflobelobis qveS) metnaklebad dakavSirebulia arabTa saerTo saxelmwifosTan, xalifatTan, da am ukanasknelis evoluciis saerTo aspeqtSi unda iyos gaSuqebuli iseve, rogorc ganxiluli unda iyos mWidro urTierTobaSi TviT saqarTvelos Sinagani ganviTarebis tendenciebTan~.2 amrigad, Tbilisis saamiros kvlevisas, imdenad, ramdenadac saubaria VII Tu VIII saukunis mdgomareobaze, kvlevis obieqts warmoadgens ara politikuri erTeuli Tbilisis saamiro (arab mmarTvelTa Tu moxeleTa raime dinastiiT saTaveSi), aramed, arabTa saxalifos, kerZod, provincia armini¡as administraciuli erTeuli; am erTeulis saTaveSi mdgar moxeles, udidesi albaTobiT, Tavidanve amira erqva; magram es iyo xalifas moxele, da ara (naxevrad-)damoukidebeli mmarTveli. Sesabamisad, SeiZleba marTlac visaubroT Tbilisis saamiroze (da mis saTaveSi mdgom amiraze) – jer kidev saxalifos daSlamdel periodSic, magram adreuli da gviandeli Tbilisis saamiro Zalian mkafiod unda gaimijnos – maTi geopolitikuri buneba principulad gansxvavebuli iyo. swored amitom, Cveni naSromis saTaurSi gamotanili termini brWyalebSi CavsviT – `Tbilisis saamiro~. 1 2 silagaZe, arabTa batonoba saqarTveloSi, gv. 35-137. janaSia, araboba saqarTveloSi, gv. 3. 91 rasakvirvelia, Tbilisisa Tu jurzanis mmarTveli sul pirveli arabi moxelis, arabi amiras vinaobisa da zeobis dadgenis SemTxvevaSi, gavigebT kidevac, Tbilisis saamiro Tu rodidan daarsda. magram, ramdenad realisturia Tbilisis, jurzanis pirveli amiras vinaobis dadgena? g. alasanias samarTliani SeniSvniT, `yvelaze adreuli cnobebi Tbilisis amiraTa Sesaxeb gvxvdeba or werilobiT ZeglSi. esenia [...] al-qufis ‘dapyrobaTa wigni’ (IX-X ss.) da qarTveli hagiografis ioane sabanisZis ‘abo tfilelis martviloba’ (VIII s.)~.1 magram, niSnavs Tu ara es imas, rom Cven SegviZlia vamtkicoT – wyaroTmcodneobiTi bazis simwiris pirobebSi, – iqamde Tbilisis amira ar arsebobdao? Cveni azriT, am SekiTxvas calsaxad uaryofiTi pasuxi unda gaeces: SemorCenili wyaroebis dumilis safuZvelze mtkiceba, rom al-qufis mier moxseniebul ibrahimamde TbilisSi arabi mmarTveli ar iyo – iqneboda klasikuri (SedarebiT, nakleb validuri) argumentum ex silentio. swored amis gaTvaliswinebiT, Tbilisis saamiros adreuli istoriis kvlevisas, misi daarsebis qronologiis dadgenisas, upiratesoba mivaniWeT ara anTropocentrul midgomas – Tbilisis pirveli amiras Ziebas, rac, wyaroebis simwiris gaTvaliswinebiT, kvlevis araproduqtiul mimarTulebad migvaCnia, aramed mokvlevas, Tu ra droidan Cndeba saqarTvelosa Tu TbilisSi arabuli administracia; xolo arabuli administraciis Semosvlaze ki vmsjelobT arabuli administraciuli institutebis arseboba-ararsebobis safuZvelze. meTodologiuri TvalsazrisiT aseve aRsaniSnavia, rom Cveni erT-erTi wamyvani pirvelwyaros, Tbilisis milis qvis (ix. qvemoT) kvleva-ganxilvis farglebSi farTod viyenebT SedarebiT analizs sxva regionebSi aRmoCenil analogiur masalasTan. * maS, ra i s t o r i u l i s a k v l e v i m a s a l a – ra ara-naratiuli pirvelwyaroebi Tu saqarTveloSi arabuli administraciuli institutebis nakvalevi gagvaCnia Tbilisis saamiros daarsebasa da am movlenis qronologiaze msjelobisaTvis? miuxedavad ganvlili drois sididisa da sidiadisa, im epoqidan arc Tu cota ram SemogvrCa, rac aqamdec cnobili iyo, Tu bolo or aTwleulSi gamoCnda. saubaria epigrafikul pirvelwyaroebze: numizmatikur da lapidarul Zegleb1 alasania, Tbilisis saamiros daarsebis TariRisaTvis, gv. 10. 92 ze; vgulisxmobT (daTariRebul Tu daTariRebad) monetebsa da lapidarul warwerebs, romlebic, rogorc vaCvenebT, Tbilisis saamiros epoqas miekuTvneba da misi daarsebis dasaTariRebladac gamodgeba. am uaRresad mniSvnelovan, da, naratiul wyaroebze Seudareblad ufro obieqtur pirvelwyaroebs gzadagza qvemoT ganvixilavT. Tbilisis saamiros daarsebis qronologiaze daskvnebis gamosatanad, ganvixiloT Semdegi ara-naratiuli (epigrafikuli) pirvelwyaroebi:1 numizmatikuri masala TbilisSi arabebis mier moWrili, qronologiurad uadresi (arsebuli monacemebiT) moneta aris klasikuri omaiuri, reformis-Semdgomi tipis dirhemi, romelzedac moWris adgilis garda (têÇ»QL), aRniSnulia aseve TariRic hijriT – 85 weli (704/5). es samoneto tipi jer kidev XIX saukuneSi gaxda cnobili,2 da samamulo istoriografiaSi iTvleboda, rom es moneta unikaluri iyo, Tumca, jer kidev 2002 wels miSel qlam miuTiTa sxvadasxva koleqciaSi amgvari eqvsi monetis arsebobaze.3 kidev erTi egzemplari,4 romlis aRwerilobac qvemoT mogvyavs, 2015 wels gamovaqveyneT;5 kidev erTi calic warmodgenili iyo aSS-Si Semdgar auqcionze – Stephen Album Rare Coins Auction 43, 12-15 May 2022, lot 186 (winamdebare statiaSi gTavazobT am monetis pirvel samecniero publikacias, sur. 1, 2.76 g.) 1 yvela maTgani aqamdec ganxilula, kolegebisa Tu Cvens mier. Tumca, am SemTxvevaSi xsenebul monacemebs specifiur konteqstSi vaanalizebT, garkveuli kvleviTi amocanis amoxsnis farglebSi. 2 Пахомов, Монеты Грузии, gv. 38-39. 3 Klat, Catalogue of the Post-Reform Dirhams. The Umayyad Dynasty, gv. 90. 4 es moneta aRmosavluri monetebis onlain monacemTa bazaSi Zeno 2005 wlis 10 aprils vadim kalininma atvirTa (#13778). 5 faRava, Suasaukunovan saqarTveloSi numizmatikuri evoluciis veqtorebi (VIII-XIII ss.), gv. 22-23. 93 sur. 1. (Fig. 1.) omaianebi, Tbilisi, dirhemi, h. 85 w. aRmosavluri monetebis onlain monacemTa baza zeno, #293729 Subli: centrSi ËC çÆC Ë äjbÜ çÇÆC çÆ _énv Ë ar aris RmerTi garda RmerTisa erTisa ar hyavs mas moziare irgvliv wriuli legenda, centridanulad: ÛêÚÖT Ü tÖf öÚr têÇ»QL ×åmjÆC Clå Kn¤ çÇÆC ×sL saxeliTa RvTisaiTa, moiWra ese dirhami Tbiliss, welsa oTxmocdaxuTsa irgvliv sami wertilovani rkali, romlis gareTac 12, 3, 6 da 9 sT-ze patara rgolebia. irgvliv kidev erTi wertilovani rkalia. zurgi: centrSi çÇÆC jbC çÇÆC Ü jÇé ×Æ jÖ¡ÆC ÛÃé ×Æ Ü jÆÝé ×Æ jbC Cݻ çÆ allahi erTia allahi absoluturia ar uSvia da ar Sobila da erTic ar yofila badali misi irgvliv wertilovani rkali, romlis gareTac yuranis me-9 suris 33-e aiaTi: ØÝÂnwÖÆC än ÝÆÜ çÇ ÛéjÆC ëDZ änæ®êÆ ÀcÆC ÛéiÜ ìjæÆDL çÇrnÆ ÓC ÅÝrm jÖcÕ 94 muhammadi mociqulia allahisa; igia, vinc warmoagzavna wrfeli gziTa da WeeSmaritebis sarwmunoebiT, raTa gaamarjvebinos mas yvela rwmenaze, Tundac es sZagdeT warmarTT cnobilia TbilisSi momdevno, h. 86 wels (705) moWrili monetac (wona 2.66 g):1 sur. 2. (Fig. 2.) omaianebi, Tbilisi, dirhemi, h. 86 w. aRmosavluri monetebis onlain monacemTa baza zeno, #148182 Subli: centrSi igive zedwerili irgvliv wriuli legenda, centridanulad: ÛêÚÖT Ü Rr öÚr têÇ»QL ×åmjÆC Clå Kn¤ çÇÆC ×sL saxeliTa RvTisaiTa, moiWra ese dirhami Tbiliss, welsa oTxmocdaeqvssa irgvliv sami wertilovani rkali, romlis gareTac 12:30, 3, 5:30 da 8 sT-ze (aseve 10 sT-ze?) patara rgolebia. irgvliv kidev erTi wertilovani rkalia. zurgi: igive zedwerili da rkalebi. Semdgomi wlebis omaianuri vercxlis dirhemebi, moWrili Tbilisis zarafxanaSi, ucnobia. magram, es ar niSnavs, rom zarafxanam samudamod Sewyvita muSaoba. cnobilia spilenZis monetebi, felsebi, romlebic TbilisSi murvan yrus saxeliT moiWra. pirvelad amgvari moneta2 samir Sammam gaiqve, gv. 23-24. Tiubingenis universitetis islamuri numizmatikis kvleviTi centris numizmatikur koleqciaSi Senaxuli cali (Forschungsstelle für Islamische Numismatik der Universität Tübingen, AM10B3). 1 2 95 moaqveyna, fotosuraTis gareSe; misi azriT, moneta xalifa marvan II b. muhammadma gamouSva.1 SemdgomSi, ramdenime msgavsi moneta saqarTveloSic ipoves. dReisTvis, jamSi, ukve 4-5 egzemplaris arsebobis Sesaxeb viciT. samoneto tipi gamoqveynda, da saTanado adgilic daikava qarTul numizmatikur istoriaSi.2 moviyvanT samoneto tipis aRwerilobas yvela cnobili egzemplaris mixedviT: sur. 3. (Fig. 3.) omaianebi, amira marvan b. muhammad, Tbilisi, felsi, uTariRo aRmosavluri monetebis onlain monacemTa baza zeno, #286712 Subli: centrSi çÆC Ë çÇÆC ËC ar aris RmerTi garda RmerTisa irgvliv wertilovani rkali, romlis gareTac, wriuli legenda, centridanulad: oDf têÇ»QL tÇ»ÆC Clå Kn¤ çÇÆC ×sL saxeliTa RvTisaiTa, moiWra es felsi TbilisSi. moqmedi irgvliv gareTa wertilovani rkali. zurgi: centrSi jÖcÕ ÅÝrm çÇÆC Shamma, A Catalogue of ‘Abbasid Copper Coins, gv. 233. Paghava, Turkia, The Umayyad Fulus Minted in the Name of Marwan b. Muhammad (the Deaf) in Georgia and Elsewhere in South Caucasus, gv. 16-18; Schindel, Umayyad Copper Coinage in the Name of Marwan II b. Muḥammad from the Caucasus – Additional Comments, gv. 8-11; faRava, Suasaukunovan saqarTveloSi numizmatikuri evoluciis veqtorebi (VIII-XIII ss.), gv. 24-27. 1 2 96 muhammadi mociqulia allahisa irgvliv wertilovani rkali, romlis gareTac, wriuli legenda, centridanulad: jÖcÕ ÛL ØÜnÕ nÕËC çL nÕC DÖÕ tÇ»ÆC Clå am felsis moWra brZana amiram marvan b. muhammadma irgvliv gareTa wertilovani rkali. monetaze miTiTebuli marvan b. muhammad gaigivebulia qarTuli wyaroebis murvan yrusTan, romelic SemdgomSi omaiani xalifac gaxda, iqamde ki saxalifos CrdiloeTs marTavda. arabebis mier dapyrobili samxreT kavkasiis samarTavad marvani h. 114 wels gamoagzavnes (732/3), xalifa ki 744 wels gaxda. Tbilisuri felsebis zemoT ganxiluli tipi daTariRebuli ar aris, magram, marvani amiras wodebiTaa miTiTebuli; Sesabamisad, es samoneto tipic Semdegi SualediT unda daTariRdes: h. 114-126 wlebiT. marvan b. muhammadis mier TbilisSi monetis emisia imdenad moulodnel da gaugebar movlenad ar unda mogveCvenos, Tu gaviTvaliswinebT marvan b. muhammadis saxeliT amierkavkasiaSi arabul samflobeloebSi sxvaganac spilenZis felsebis emisiis faqtebs: qalaq al-babSi (darubandi) h. 115 (733/4) (ori sxvadasxva qvetipis), 119 (737) da 125 (742/3) wlebiT daTariRebuli felsebi (cnobilia aseve mmarTvelis saxelis aRniSvnis gareSe moWrili felsebic, h. 121 (738/9) wlis tipi moWrili al-babSi da h. 123 (740/1) wlis tipi moWrili zarafxana armini¡aSi).1 gamovTqvamT varauds, rom am spilenZis monetebis emisia arabuli garnizonebis, da, paralelurad, mosaxleebis momravlebis Sedegi iyo. calsaxaa, rom TbilisSi zarafxana agrZelebs muSaobas – arabuli, amjerad ukve spilenZis monetebis emisias – 730-740-ian wlebSic (h. 114-126/7, = 732/3-744). axlaxans s. Turqiam da i. faRavam dadgines, rom TbilisSi arabuli fuli iWreba marvan b. muhammadis wasvlis Semdegac.2 Sesabamisi naSromis beWdur publikaciamde detaluri ganxilvisgan Tavs SevikavebT; Paghava, Turkia, The Umayyad Fulus Minted in the Name of Marwan b. Muhammad (the Deaf) in Georgia and Elsewhere in South Caucasus, gv. 16-18; Schindel, Umayyad Copper Coinage in the Name of Marwan II. b. Muhammad from the Caucasus – Additional Comments, gv. 8-11. 2 aRmoCena moxsenda 2022 wlis 19 oqtombers, g. wereTlis aRmosavleTmcodneobis institutis mudmivmoqmed seminarze (s. Turqia, i. faRava, `yasabi TbilisSi [epizodi saqarTveloSi arabobis istoriidan]~). 1 97 Tumca, es faqti damatebiT adasturebs Tbilisis arabuli zarafxanis muSaobis stabilurobas. * Tbilisis zarafxanis nawarmis garda, saqarTveloSi arabebma CvenTvis saintereso epoqaSi aseve moWres spilenZis safase, romelzedac moWris adgili aRniSnes rogorc `jurzan~ (resp. `qarTli~ / `saqarTvelo~): cnobilia jurzanSi moWrili unikaluri (oqros) dinari, daTariRebuli h. 240 wliT (2/VI/854-21/V/855), romlis ganxilvac scdeba winamdebare naSromis miznebs (Tumca, es oqros moneta damatebiT adasturebs `jurzanis zarafxanis~ arsebobas), – da, aseve, jurzanSi moWrili unikaluri (spilenZis) felsi, daTariRebuli h. 152 wliT (14/I/769-3/I/770).1 wona 2.42 g., kveTa 22.5 mm., siqaTa Tanafardoba 9 sT-ze: sur. 4. (Fig. 4.) ‘abasianebi, `jurzani~ (= Tbilisi), felsi, h. 152 w. avtoris foto Subli: centrSi çÆC Ë çÇÆC ËC ar aris RmerTi garda RmerTisa irgvliv xazovani rkali, romlis gareTac 7:30-ze iwyeba wriuli zedwerili, centridanulad: çÆ _énv Ë äjbÜ erTisa, ara hyavs mas moziare 1 Paghava, Turkia, New Mintname “Georgia” (“Jurzān”), gv. 228-258. 98 irgvliv wertilovani rkali. zurgi: centrSi jÖcÕ ÅÝrm çÇÆC muhammadi / mociqulia / allahisa irgvliv 1:00-dan wriuli zedwerili, centridanulad: öðÕ Ü ÛêsÖf Ü ÛêQÚTC öÚr ØConX tÇ»ÆC Clå Kn¤ ÓC ×sL saxeliTa RvTisaiTa, moiWra es felsi jurzans welsa as ormocdaTormetsa irgvliv wertilovani rkali. Sesabamis naSromSi jurzanis zarafxana dawvrilebiT gvaqvs ganxiluli.1 dadgenilia, rom geografiuli terminiT jurzan arabebi aRniSnavdnen saqarTvelos, an, yovel SemTxvevaSi, qarTls (farTo, mTeli aRmosavleT saqarTvelos gagebiT).2 moyvanili gvaqvs argumentacia, romlis ZaliTac jurzanis zarafxana, sadac, arabebis mier, arabuli fuli iWreboda, mdebareobda TbilisSi; moviyvaneT msjelobac, Tu ratom amjobines arabebma monetaze zarafxanis saxelad mieTiTebinaT provinciis, da ara qalaqis saxeli (amierkavkasiis teritoriaze gvaqvs sxva msgavsi wyvilebic – arrani da barda‘a albaneTisTvis, armini¡a da dabili somxeTisTvis).3 es unikaluri arabuli moneta, felsi, romelsac mimbaZvelobis araferi etyoba, rogorc ukve aRvniSneT, daTariRebulia h. 152 wliT (14/I/769-3/I/770). maSasadame, TbilisSi 760-iani wlebis bolos moqmedebs zarafxana, romelSic iWreba klasikuri arabuli moneta; anu, davaskvniT, TbilisSi zarafxana am periodSic moqmedebs da am zarafxanas arabebi akontroleben. lapidaruli warwerebi gadavideT epigrafikuli Zeglebis sxva jgufze, lapidarul warwerebze. vgulisxmobT saqarTveloSi aRmoCenil qufur arabul monumentur warwerebs. saqarTveloSi sul sami qufuri warweraa aRmoCenili. aqedan ori uSualod exeba Cveni kvlevis Temas. 1 2 3 iqve. jafariZe, qarTvelebisa da saqarTvelos arabuli saxelwodebebi, gv. 11-16. Paghava, Turkia, New Mintname “Georgia” (“Jurzān”), gv. 238-239. 99 * pirveli warwera warmoadgens mils (ÈêÕ), an, sxvanairad, milis qvas. es aris 31/45 sm. zomis, sakmaod dazianebuli (CanartyamebiT), usworo kideebis mqone fila, romelic Zvel TbilisSi, seidabadSi, 1930-ian wlebSi SemTxveviT aRmoaCina samuSaoTa mwarmoebelma, vinme moqalaqe kiknaZem.1 sur. 5. (Fig. 5.) Tbilisis milis qva2 g. wereTlis aRmosavleTmcodneobis institutis arqivi mogvyavs am milis qvis warweris teqsti:3 çÇÆC ×sL ÅDêÕC öUÇT tÇ»P ÛÕ saxeliTa RvTisaiTa sami mili Tbilisidan 1 wereTeli, semituri enebi da maTi mniSvneloba qarTuli kulturis istoriis SeswavlisaTvis, gv. 123; Крачковская, Памятники арабского письма в Средней Азии и Закавказье до IX в., gv. 88-89, sur. 16; Крачковская, Пособие по арабской эпиграфике, gv. 23. povnis drois Sesaxeb informaciis mowodebisa da v. kraCkovskaias gamouqveynebeli naSromis gaziarebisTvis guliTad madlobas movaxsenebT ufros kolegas, g. beraZes. 2 g. wereTlis aRmosavleTmcodneobis institutis (ilias saxelmwifo universiteti) arqividan. fotoilustracia gamouqveynebeli naSromisa Крачковская, Пособие по арабской эпиграфике. 3 Крачковская, Памятники арабского письма в Средней Азии и Закавказье до IX в., gv. 88-89, sur. 16. 100 es mili pirvelma didma qarTvelma aRmosavleTmcodnem, g. wereTelma ganixila, 1946 wels, moxsenebaSi, da, Semdeg, Zalian mokled, 1947 wels dastambul naSromSi.1 misgan miRebuli anabeWdiT,2 1952 wels es mili, SedarebiT dawvrilebiT, gamoCenilma arabistma, v. kraCkovskaiam gaaanaliza.3 v. kraCkovskaias statiis recenzirebisas Tbilisis mils gakvriT Seexo o. grabaric, 1957 wels.4 1971 wels unda dastambuliyo v. kraCkovskaias naSromi arabul epigrafikaze,5 sadac TvalsaCino adgili im droisTvis cnobil milis qvebsac daeTmoboda,6 magram, naSromi, samwuxarod, gamouqveynebeli darCa. Semdgom periodSi Tbilisis mili erTgvar daviwyebas mieca; kerZod, Cvens mier damuSavebuli publikaciebis mixedviT, dasavluri samecniero sazogadoebisTvis is absoluturad ucnobi rCeba (miuxedavad o. grabaris mier JurnalSi Ars Orientalis xsenebisa).7 vfiqrobT, rom warweris istoriuli Rirebuleba jer ar aris srulad gaTvaliswinebuli; mizanSewonilia komparatiuli analizis Catarebac, romlis gareSe warweris istoriuli mniSvneloba nawilobriv gauxsneli rCeba. analogiuri da paraleluri masalis ganxilva gansakuTrebiT aqtualuri xdeba imis gaTvaliswinebiT, rom bolo aTwleulebSi sakmaod didi raodenobiT axali milebic gamoCnda da gamoqveynda (vide infra). ganvixiloT sxva milis qvebi, pirvel rigSi, ‘abd al-maliqis epoqis droindeli; aseve ‘abasianTa milebic. omaianTa (dakveTiT damzadebuli) milebi: warwera bab al-vadidan, me-8 mili ierus a l i m i d a n . ‘abd al-maliqis droindeli: 39/57 sm. kvadri; zevidan Semotexilia; napovnia ierusalimidan ar-ramlasken mimaval gzaze (sayuradReboa diakritikuli niSnebis miTiTeba):8 1 wereTeli, semituri enebi da maTi mniSvneloba qarTuli kulturis istoriis SeswavlisaTvis, gv. 123 (pirveli publikacia – wereTeli, semituri enebi da maTi mniSvneloba qarTuli kulturis istoriis SeswavlisaTvis [1947], gv. 15-52). 2 Крачковская, Памятники арабского письма в Средней Азии и Закавказье до IX в., gv. 88, sqolio 7. 3 iqve, gv. 88-90, sur. 16. 4 Grabar, Epigrafika Vostoka (Oriental Epigraphy), Edited by V. A. Krachkovskaia, gv. 557. 5 Крачковская, Пособие по арабской эпиграфике. 6 iqve, gv. 18-24. 7 Sead., Rashid, A Critical Study of the Pilgrim Road between Kufa and Mecca (Darb Zubaydah), gv. 10-16; Sharon, Corpus Inscriptionum Arabicarum Palaestinae, gv. 96-97; Lindstedt, Arabic Rock Inscriptions up to 750 CE, gv. 413-414, 421. 8 Van Berchem, Matériaux pour un Corpus Inscriptionum Arabicorum, gv. 19-27. 101 ... ... ... ... Àén©ÆC _ÇÖÆC jM± çÇÆC jM± çÇÆC RÖbm ÛêÚÕÝÖÆC nêÕC Clå ëÆC DêÇéC ÛÕ çêDZ ÅDêÕC öêÚÖT ÈêÖÆC ... ... ... gzisa ... monam RvTisa ‘abd al-maliqma mbrZanebelma marTlmorwmuneTa allahis wyaloba (iyos) masze ili¡adan1 am milisken rva mili2 qvemoT dekoratiuli elementi. warwera abu RuSidan, me-7 mili ierusalim i d a n . ‘abd al-maliqis droindeli: 30/30 sm. zomis dazianebuli kvadri:3 ... ... ... [ÅDêÕËC ö]²Úz Ü À[én©ÆC] [_ÇÖÆC] jM± çÇÆC jM[±] [çÇÆC RÖ]bm ÛêÚÕÝÖÆC nêÕC [ÈêÖÆC Clå] ëÆC DêÇéC ÛÕ çêDZ [ÅDêÕ]C ö²Mr ... ... ... gzisa da gakeTeba [milebisa] monam RvTisa ‘abd [al-maliqma] mbrZanebelma marTlmorwmuneTa allahis wyaloba (iyos) masze ili¡adan [am milisken] Svidi mili qvemoT marjvniv dekoratiuli elementi. warwera akva belladan – ‘ain hemedidan, m e - 5 m i l i i e r u s a l i m i d a n . ‘abd al-maliqis droindeli: 17/27 sm. kvadris natexi; napovnia ierusalimidan dasavleTis mimarTulebiT 12 km-is manZilze, akva bellas – ‘ain hemedis maxloblad:4 ... ... ... ÛÕ ... ösÖf ÈêÖÆ[C] ... ÅD[êÕC] ...-dan ... milisken xuTi mili ierusalimidan; sayuradReboa, rom miTiTebulia Zveli romauli toponimi. qarTul teqsts striqonebad ar vanawilebT; Cveni Sromis miznidan gamomdinare, CvenTvis mTavaria milis qvebis warwerebis Sinaarsi da ara teqstis ganawileba; amis gakeTeba gaZnelebulicaa, arabulisa da qarTulis gansxvavebuli gramatikuli wyobis gaTvaliswinebiT. 3 iqve. 4 Cytrin-Silverman, The Fifth Mīl from Jerusalem: Another Umayyad milestone from southern Bilād alShām, 603-610. 1 2 102 pirvelad publikaciaSi avtorma milis warweris teqstis Zalian masStaburi rekonstruqcia SemogvTavaza, sxva milebis, pirvel rigSi, bab al-vadis milis warweris safuZvelze.1 ueWvelia, rom akva-bellas warwera Zalian emsgavseba ierusalimidan mimaval gzaze ganTavsebul danarCen or mils, bab al-vadisa da abu RuSis (daSorebuls, safiqrebelia, mxolod, Sesabamisad, 3 da 2 miliT, Tuki samive milis qva erTsa da imave gzaze mdebareobda). amrigad, amgvari rekonstruqcia dasaSvebad migvaCnia, oRond, mxolod im farglebSi, raSic darwmunebuli SeiZleba viyoT xsenebul milebis safuZvelze (religiuri formulebis gareSe, romelTa arsebobac, bunebrivia, savaraudoa, magram, ramdenad vrceli formiT, rTuli saTqmelia), da, rasakvirvelia, sityvebis striqonebs Soris gadanawilebis gareSe (filis Tavdapirveli zomebi xom absoluturad ucnobia). Cven am milis qvis warweris teqstis Semdeg hipoTetur rekonstruqcias warmovadgendiT: ÛÕ [çêDZ çÇÆC RÖbm ÛêÚÕÝÖÆC nêÕC _ÇÖÆC jM± çÇÆC jM± ÅDêÕËC ö²Úz Ü Àén©ÆC] ösÖf ÈêÖÆ[C Clå ëÆC DêÇéC] ÅD[êÕC] [... gzisa da gakeTeba milebisa monam RvTisa ‘abd al-maliqma mbrZanebelma marTlmorwmuneTa allahis wyaloba (iyos) masze [ili¡a]dan [am] milisken xuTi mili warwera xan al-hasruradan, damaskodan 1 0 9 - e m i l i . ‘abd al-maliqis droindeli: 30/40 sm. kvadri; napovnia damaskodan ierusalimisken mimaval gzaze:2 [çêDZ çÇÆC ëÇz] ... ... ... [õmDÖ²L nÕC] ×Çr Ü Ü Àén©ÆC [C]lå jM± ÅDêÕËC ö²Úz C _ÇÖÆC jM± çÇÆC çÇÆC RÖbm ÛêÚÕÝÖÆC nêÕ Clå ëÆC ÀwÕi ÛÕ çêDZ ÈêÕ öéDÕ Ü ö²sP ÈêÖÆC 1 2 iqve, gv. 605-607. Van Berchem, Matériaux pour un Corpus Inscriptionum Arabicorum, gv. 17-29. 103 ... [(dae) ilocos allahma masze] da (misces) mSvidoba [brZana SekeTeba] am gzisa da gakeTeba milebisa monam RvTisa ‘abd al-maliqma mbrZanebelma marTlmorwmuneTa allahis wyaloba (iyos) masze damaskodan am milisken as cxra mili warwera de¡r al-kalTidan (de¡r mar jir¡is i d a n ) , d a m a s k o d a n 1 0 ( X = 3 - 1 0 ) m i l i . ‘abd al-maliqis droindeli: 31/39 sm. dazianebuli kvadri; napovnia ierusalimidan damaskosken mimaval gzaze:1 [Àén©ÆC Clå õmDÖ²L nÕC ×Çr Ü çêDZ çÇÆC ëÇz] ... ... ... jM±ÅD[êÕËC ö²Úz Ü] nêÕC _ÇÖÆ[C jM± çÇÆC] C RÖbm [ÛêÚÕÝÖÆC] C ÀwÕi ÛÕ ç[êDZ çÇÆ] ÈêÖÆC Cl[å ëÆ] ÈêÕ öéDÕ Ü ÅDêÕ[C ?10-3] …... [(dae) ilocos allahma masze da (misces) mSvidoba brZana SekeTeba am gzisa da gakeTeba] milebisa monam [RvTisa ‘abd a]l-maliqma mbrZanebelma [marTlmorwmuneTa] allahis wyaloba (iyos) masze damaskodan am milisken [3-10??] mili da asi mili warwera al-fikidan, 53 mili damaskodan. ‘abd al-maliqis droindeli, daTariRebulia hijris 85 wlis Sa‘abanis TviT (704 wlis 8 agvisto – 5 seqtemberi); 39.5/80 sm. kvadri, CamoTlili marcxena mxares; napovnia al-fikis dasaxlebaSi (golani):2 [×ê]bnÆC ÛÖbnÆC çÇÆC ×sL [ÅÜrm jÖ]cÕ çÆ _énv Ë äjbÜ çÇÆC ËC çÆC Ë [C jM±] çÇÆC jM±ÅDêÕËC älå ö²Ú¡L nÕC çÇÆC [ÛêÚÕÝÖÆC n]êÕC ëÆÝÕ mÜDsÕ ìjé ëDZ ÛêÚÕÝÖÆC nêÕC _ÇÖÆ [ÌêÕ ÛêsÖf Ü] öUÇT Clå ëÆC ÀwÕi ÛÕ ÛêÚÖT Ü tÖf öÚr ÛÕ ØDM²v íº saxeliTa RvTisaiTa mowyalisa mwyaloblisa ar aris RmerTi garda RmerTisa erTisa ar hyavs mas moziare3 muha[mmadi mociqulia] allahisa brZana gakeTeba am milebisa monam RvTisa [‘abd a]l-maliqma mbrZanebelma marTlmorwmuneTa xeliTa musavirisa mavlaisa mbrZaneblisa iqve, gv. 17-29. Elad, The Significance of Two Newly Discovered Milestones of ‘Abd al-Malik, gv. 36-38; Sharon, Corpus Inscriptionum Arabicarum Palaestinae, gv. 221-222. 3 am da momdevno warweraSi, m. Saronis mosazrebiT, basmalas miTiTeba, faqtiurad ‘abd al-maliqis politikuri kredos gamomxatvelia (Sharon, Corpus Inscriptionum Arabicarum Palaestinae, gv. 223). 1 2 104 [marTlmorwmuneTa] Sa‘abansa wlisa oTxmocda xuTisa damaskodan am {milisken} sami [da ormocdaaTi1 mili] warwera al-fikidan, 52 mili damaskodan, ‘abd al-maliqis droindeli, daTariRebulia hijris 85 wliT (704/5); 28.5/28.5 sm. kvadri, oTxive mxridan aris SemoWrili kvadratuli filis misaRebad; napovnia al-fikis dasaxlebaSi (golani):2 [×êbnÆC ÛÖbnÆC çÇÆC ×sL]3 [Ürm jÖcÕ ç]Æ _énv Ë [äjbÜ4 çÇÆC ËC çÆC Ë] [jM±ÅDêÕËC Cl]å ö²Ú¡L nÕC çÇÆC Å [ìjé ëDZ ÛêÚÕÝ]ÖÆC nêÕC _ÇÖÆC jM± çÇÆC [... íº ÛêÚÕÝÖ]ÆC nêÕC ëÆÝÕ mÜDsÕ [ëÆC ÀwÕi ÛÕ Ûê]ÚÖT Ü tÖf öÚr ÛÕ ÈêÕ ÛêsÖf Ü ÛêQÚTC Clå [saxeliTa RvTisaiTa mowyalisa mwyaloblisa ar aris RmerTi garda RmerTisa erTisa] ar hyavs mas moziare [muhammadi] mociqulia allahisa brZana gakeTeba am [milebisa monam] RvTisa ‘abd al-maliqma mbrZanebelma marTlmorwmuneTa [xeliTa] musavirisa mavlaisa mbrZaneblisa marTlmorwmuneTa [romeliRac Tvesa] wlisa oTxmocdaxuTisa [damaskodan] am {milisken} ori da ormocdaaTi mili sofel al-fikis am or warweras droSi win uswrebs, magram maTTan uSualo kavSirSia kidev erTi, al-fikis mTaze gadasvlelis warwera; 64/52 sm. zomis bazaltis qva, daTariRebulia hijris 73 wlis muharramis TviT (692 wlis 23 maisi – 21 ivnisi):5 [ÛÖbnÆC ç]ÇÆC ×sL [C] ËC çÆC Ë ×êbnÆC _énv Ë äjbÜ çÇÆ nÕC çÇÆC ÅÜrm jÖcÕ çÆ jM± öM¿²ÆC älå ÈêæsQ[L] ÝÖÆC nêÕC _ÇÖÆC jM± çÇÆC C ÛL ëêcé ìjé ëDZ RÇÖ± Ü ÛêÚÕ VÇT öÚr ÛÕ ÔncÖÆC íº ×ÃcÆ [Ûê²Mr Ü] aTeuli al-fikis meore warweris mixedviT aris aRdgenili. Elad, The Significance of Two Newly Discovered Milestones of ‘Abd al-Malik, gv. 33-35, 37-38; Sharon, Corpus Inscriptionum Arabicarum Palaestinae, gv. 220-221. 3 zeda striqoni aRdgenilia al-fikis meore warweris mixedviT. 4 Sead. Sharon, Corpus Inscriptionum Arabicarum Palaestinae, gv. 222-223. 5 Sharon, An Arabic Inscription from the Time of the Caliph ‘Abd al-Malik, gv. 367-372; Sharon, Corpus Inscriptionum Arabicarum Palaestinae, gv. 95-96, 222. 1 2 105 saxeliTa RvTisaiTa mowyalisa mwyaloblisa ar aris RmerTi garda RmerTisa erTisa ar hyavs mas moziare muhammadi mociqulia allahisa brZana gaadvileba am gadasasvlelisa monam RvTisa ‘abd al-maliqma mbrZanebelma marTlmorwmuneTa da Sesrulda es xeliTa1 iahia b. al-haqamisa muharramSi wlisa samisa [da samocdaaTisa2] ‘abasianTa (dakveTiT damzadebuli) milebi warwera 1 napovni saudis arabeTSi, daudg e n e l a d g i l a s , ‘ a b a s i a n T a p e r i o d i s . granitis fila:3 C öêÚÖT ÝåÜ ÅDêÕ íUÇT ÛÕ ë¿én©ÆC öºÝÃÆC rva mili rac ori mesamedia gzisa qufadan warwera 2 napovni saudis arabeTSi, daudg e n e l a d g i l a s , ‘ a b a s i a n T a p e r i o d i s . 42/50 sm. zomis granitis fila:4 ÛÕ ÈêÕ jénMÆC C ëDZ ÝåÜ ÛêQr Ü ÛêQÚT ÛÕ jénL öºÝÃÆC mili barididan romelic samocdameore baridia qufadan warwera 3 napovni saudis arabeTSi, ‘abas i a n T a p e r i o d i s , a l - m a h d i s s a x e l i T :5 C çL nÕC DÕ Clå çÇÆC jM± ìjæÖÆ ori xeliTa. aTeulis wardgenili mniSvneloba efuZneba im garemoebas, rom ‘abd al-maliqis zeoba daiwyo h. 65 wels, xolo iahia b. al-haqami ki gardaicvala h. 80 wels; amrigad, 3-iT daboloebuli TariRi SeiZleba iyos mxolod 73. iahia b. al-haqami warweris gamomcemels gaigivebuli hyavs xalifa ‘abd al-maliqis biZasTan mamis mxridan (Sharon, An Arabic Inscription from the Time of the Caliph ‘Abd al-Malik, gv. 371). 3 Rashid, A Critical Study of the Pilgrim Road between Kufa and Mecca (Darb Zubaydah), 310; gv. 124, 128 ,[Àê¿cP Ü örCmi] írDM²ÆC n¡²ÆC ÛÕ öêÇêÕ mDYbC ö²LmC .jvnÆC 4 Rashid, A Critical Study of the Pilgrim Road between Kufa and Mecca (Darb Zubaydah), 310-311; gv. 124, 128 ,[Àê¿cP Ü örCmi] írDM²ÆC n¡²ÆC ÛÕ öêÇêÕ mDYbC ö²LmC .jvnÆC 5 gv. 124, 129 ,[Àê¿cP Ü örCmi] írDM²ÆC n¡²ÆC ÛÕ öêÇêÕ mDYbC ö²LmC .jvnÆC 1 2 106 C nêÕC çÇÆC jM± ìjé ëDZ ÛêÚÕÝÖÆ ërÝÕ ÛL Ûê©¿é ëÚTC ëDZ Clå jénL ÛÕ ÌêÕ nw± (?)OmDw²ÆC iÝrC esaa rac brZana mahdim monam RvTisa monam RvTisa mbrZanebelma marTlmorwmuneTa ¡akTin b. musas xeliTa es (aris) Tormeti mili barididan asvad ala‘aSar[?]… warwera 4 napovni saudis arabeTSi, meqas C r d i l o - a R m o s a v l e T i T , ‘ a b a s i a n T a p e r i o d i s :1 C ö²LmC VÇT ÈêÕ jénL öÃÕ ÛÕ oTxi mili mesamedi baridi meqadan warwera 5 al-rabazadan, ‘abasianTa drois, d a u T a r i R e b e l i ; 28/25 sm., ruxi granitis fila; etyoba Savi saRebavis kvali (grafemebi ufro advilad wakiTxvadi rom yofiliyo):2 C õnw± ÛÕ ÅDêÕ jénMÆC aTi mili barididan gamomcemeli warweras ‘abasianTa droiT aTariRebs – es warwerac da oTxic sxva, avtoris mier ufro adre gamoqveynebuli da ‘abasianTa epoqisadmi mikuTvnebuli, yvela e. w. d a r b z u b a ¡ d a s miekuTvneba, anu, momlocvleTa gzas qufadan meqamde.3 ufro metic, paleografiuli niSnebiTac warwera aseve ‘abasianTa periods miekuTvneba.4 davamatebT imasac, rom warweraSi moxseniebulia b a r i d i , gansxvavebiT omaianuri epoqis yvela milisagan. warwera 6 al-manSi¡adan (iordania), al-mahdis saxeliT, daTariRebuli h. 135 wlis zilh i j j a s T v i T ( 7 5 3 w l i s 8 i v n i s i – 6 i v l i s i ) ;5 1 2 3 4 5 iqve. Rashid, A New ‘Abbāsīd milestone from Al-Rabaḏa, gv. 138-143. iqve, gv. 138-140. iqve, gv. 142. Al-Jbour, The Discovery of the First Abbasid Milestone in Bilād ash-Shām, gv. 171-176. 107 62/45 sm. zomis dazianebuli fila, romelsac Semotexili aqvs marcxena kide da qveda marjvena kuTxe. zeda 4 da qveda 3 striqons Soris carieli adgilia; warwera nakluli, Cans, ar aris, magram, aSkarad, dausrulebelia.1 Cveni wakiTxva mcirediT gansxvavdeba gamomcemlis2 mier wardgenili teqstisgan: ×êbnÆC ÛÖbnÆC çÇÆC ×sL [j]ÖcÕ çÆ _énv Ë äjbÜ çÇÆC ËC çÆC Ë [(?)ö²Ú]¡L3 nÕC ×Çr Ü çêDZ çÇÆC ëÇz çÇÆC ÅÜrm ìjæÖÆC ÅDêÖÆC öÚr õj²¿ÆC ìk íº ØDÖU± Û[L] ÛÕ öéDÕ Ü ÛêQÇT Ü tÖf ÈêÖÆC Clå ëÆC OD±mkC saxeliTa RvTisaiTa mowyalisa mwyaloblisa ar aris RmerTi garda RmerTisa erTisa ar hyavs mas moziare muhammadi mociqulia allahisa (dae) dalocos allahma da (misces) mSvidoba brZana ... [gakeTeba(?)] milebisa al-mahdim b. usmanma zilhijjas welsa xuTsa da ocdaaTsa da assa asra‘aTidan4 am milisken sanam Tbilisis milis ganxilvaze da SedarebiT analizze gadavidodeT, aucilebelia mimovixiloT milis qvebis istoriuli mniSvneloba. daviwyebT imis aRniSvniT, rom omaiani xalifebisTvis, romelTa rezidenciac siriaSi iyo, arabeTTan stabiluri komunikaciebis SenarCunebas didi mniSvneloba hqonda: religiuri mosazrebebiT, da, aseve, hijazis provinciaSi sakuTari mamulebis flobidan gamomdinare;5 garda amisa, bunebrivia, aranaklebi mniSvneloba eqneboda im garemoebasac, rom mowyobili sagzao qseli efeqturi, rogorc samoqalaqo aseve samxedro daniSnulebis komunikaciis aucilebel winapirobas warmoadgenda, rac esoden mniSvnelovani iyo saxalifos erTianobis SesanarCuneblad da samarTavad.6 amrigad, ar aris gasakviri, rom xalifebi warweris rekonstruqciis mcdelobisTvis ix. iqve, gv. 175. iqve, gv. 172. 3 gamomcemeli am adgilas kiTxulobs sityvas Clå. iqve, gv. 172. aRsaniSnavia, rom gamomcemlis statiaSi striqonebs Soris sityvebis ganawileba ar Seesabameba iqve warmodgenil arc fotosuraTs da arc grafikul pirs. 4 am dasaxlebis Sesaxeb, ix. iqve, gv. 173-174. 5 Rashid, A Critical Study of the Pilgrim Road between Kufa and Mecca (Darb Zubaydah), gv. 10-11. 6 Sharon, Corpus Inscriptionum Arabicarum Palaestinae, gv. 96. 1 2 108 gansakuTrebul zrunvas iCendnen arsebuli gzebis keTilmowyobaze, an, axlebis gayvanaze – amis damadasturebeli orgvari wyaroebi gvaqvs: mematianeebis cnobebi da arqeologiuri aRmoCenebi.1 ase, magaliTad, at-tabari orjer axsenebs ‘abd al maliqis (685-705) Zis, al-validis (705-715) Sesabamis gankargulebebs (Webis amoTxra, mTebze gadasasvlelebis mowyoba, Suqurebis gakeTeba); omar II-c (717-720) da hiSamic (724-743) aseve zrunavdnen meqaSi mimavali gzis keTilmowyobaze (momlocvelebisTvis wylis rezervuarebis mowyoba), rac arqeologiuri aRmoCeniTac dasturdeba.2 sxvaTa Soris, al-kalkaSandis mixedviT, al-validi iyo is pirveli xalifa, romelmac gzebis gayolebaze manZilis qvebi Caadgmevina.3 Tumca, sxva wyaroTi, pirveli milebi (marTalia, safiqrebelia, maRali da svetismagvari, warwerebis gareSe, an mxolod numeraciiT) meqadan mimaval gzaze aRmarTa jer kidev marvan b. haqamma (momavalSi xalifam 684-685 wlebSi), 661-668 wlebis periodSi.4 Tumca, am SemTxvevaSic, ara-naratiuli, artefaqtuli pirvelwyaroebi ewinaaRmdegebian da asworeben naratiuls, rac empiricistuli midgomis upiratesobis (Tuki xerxdeba) kidev erTi mowmobaa – ‘abd al-maliqis saxelis matarebeli milis qvebis aRmoCena adasturebs, rom milebiT gzebis moniSvnis iniciatori da pirveli sulis Camdgmeli al-validi ki ara, swored, yvelaze cota, ‘abd al-maliqi iyo.5 ‘abd al-maliqis zrunvas sagzao qselze namdvilad adasturebs al-fikis gadasasvlelis zemoT moyvanili warwerac, romelic h. 73 wlis muharramiT aris daTariRebuli.6 piradad Cven ar viziarebT a. eladis mosazrebas,7 rom milis qvebze çêDZ çÇÆC RÖbm allahis wyaloba (iyos) masze formulis gamoyeneba miuTiTebs imaze, rom ‘abd al-maliqis saxelis matarebeli am milebis gakeTeba, marTalia ‘abd al-maliqis zeobaSi Rashid, A Critical Study of the Pilgrim Road between Kufa and Mecca (Darb Zubaydah), gv. 11. iqve, gv. 11-14. 3 iqve, gv. 12. 4 Elad, The Significance of Two Newly Discovered Milestones of ‘Abd al-Malik, gv. 41-44. 5 Rashid, A Critical Study of the Pilgrim Road between Kufa and Mecca (Darb Zubaydah), gv. 15, Elad, The Significance of Two Newly Discovered Milestones of ‘Abd al-Malik, gv. 49-50. 6 Sharon, An Arabic Inscription from the Time of the Caliph ‘Abd al-Malik, 367-372; Rashid, A Critical Study of the Pilgrim Road between Kufa and Mecca (Darb Zubaydah), gv. 15. 7 Elad, The Significance of Two Newly Discovered Milestones of ‘Abd al-Malik, gv. 38. es mosazreba q. siTrin-silvermanmac gaiziara (Cytrin-Silverman, The Fifth Mīl from Jerusalem: Another Umayyad milestone from southern Bilād al-Shām, gv. 609). 1 2 109 daigegma, magram, sinamdvileSi, ukve ‘abd al-maliqis sikvdilis Semdeg ganxorcielda, anu, isini, ase vTqvaT, sikvdilSemdgomia. sazogadod, sagzao qselze zrunva am omaiani xalifas samoqalaqo administraciis erT-erT ZiriTad amocanad, da, davamatebT, miRwevadac ki unda CaiTvalos.1 saxalifoSi secesionisturi moZraobebis damamarcxebel ‘abd al-maliqs sagzao qselze, anu komunikaciis sistemaze zrunvis aucilebloba, safiqrebelia, kargad eqneboda Segnebuli.2 gzebis moniSvna qvebiT, sadac damaskosa da ierusalimidan aTvlili manZili iqneboda aRniSnuli, SeiZleba miuTiTebdes mTeli saxalifos gzebis mosawyobad mimarTul saxelmwifo proeqtze.3 naratiuli pirvelwyaroebiT Tu vimsjelebT, ‘abd al-maliqis saqmianoba al-validmac gaagrZela, Tumca, cxadia, am aqtivobis masStabi da geografiuli ganvrcoba ucnobia4 – s. raSids gamoTqmuli aqvs mosazreba, rom gzebis keTilmowyobas omaiani xalifebi hijazSic awarmoebdnen, da ara marto did siriaSi, Tumca, Sesabamisi arqeologiuri mtkicebulebebi, jerjerobiT mainc, ar aris napovni.5 samagierod, meqasTan damakavSirebeli gzis Tu gzebis keTilmowyobaze namdvilad zrunaven ‘abasiani xalifebi – abul ‘abbasi (750-754), abu jafari (754-775), al-mahdi (775-785): amaze miuTiTebs qronistebis cnobebi (at-tabari, ibn al-asiri, al-kaSkaSandi),6 da, rac mTavaria, ‘abasianTa epoqis, zogjer ‘abasiani xalifas saxelis matarebeli milis qvebi.7 sagangebo ganxilvis Rirsia e. w. b a r i d i s sistema,8 vinaidan termini `baridi~9 xSirad gvxvdeba (‘abasianTa periodis) milebze. arabulma literaturam Semogvinaxa cnobebi, rom baridi, anu, fostisa da dazvervis saxelmwifo samsaxuri pirvelma SemoiRo pirvelma omaianma xalifam, mu’avi¡a b. abu suf¡anma.10 rasakvirvelia, baridis sistema praqtiSharon, Corpus Inscriptionum Arabicarum Palaestinae, gv. 96. iqve. 3 iqve, gv. 96-97. 4 iqve, gv. 97. 5 Rashid, A Critical Study of the Pilgrim Road between Kufa and Mecca (Darb Zubaydah), gv. 16. 6 iqve, gv. 312, 324-325. 7 iqve, gv. 310-312; Rashid, A New ‘Abbāsīd milestone from Al-Rabaḏa, gv. 138-143; Al-Jbour, The Discovery of the First Abbasid Milestone in Bilād ash-Shām, gv. 171-176. gv. 123-142, [Àê¿cP Ü örCmi] írDM²ÆC n¡²ÆC ÛÕ öêÇêÕ mDYbC ö²LmC .jvnÆC 8 Sead. Rashid, A Critical Study of the Pilgrim Road between Kufa and Mecca (Darb Zubaydah), gv. 314-317. 1 2 Крачковская, Пособие по арабской эпиграфике, gv. 19; Rashid, A Critical Study of the Pilgrim Road between Kufa and Mecca (Darb Zubaydah), gv. 314. 9 10 Elad, The Significance of Two Newly Discovered Milestones of ‘Abd al-Malik, gv. 48; Sharon, Corpus Inscriptionum Arabicarum Palaestinae, gv. 97. 110 kulad, sagzao qsels efuZneboda, ase rom, milis qvebica da Suqurebic, faqtiurad, baridis gzebs moniSnavda.1 Tumca, m. Saronis mosazrebiT, romelic logikuri gveCveneba, naratiuli pirvelwyaroebi am SemTxvevaSi nakleb sandoa, da baridis sistemis xelaxali danergva mainc isev da isev ‘abd al-maliqs unda mivaweroT, islamuri imperiis xelaxla gamaerTianebels da misi originaluri administraciuli, samoneto da religiuri sistemebis fuZemdebels.2 faqtia, rom ‘abd al-maliqamdeli milis qvebi ucnobia, rac Seesabameba koncefcias, romlis Tanaxmadac baridis sagzao qselze aqtiuri zrunva swored am xalifam daiwyo. baridis sistema ganaviTares ‘abasianma xalifebmac, magaliTad, abul ‘abbasma (750-754) da al-mahdim (775-785).3 gansakuTrebuli yuradRebis Rirsia at-tabaris cnobebi: h. 134 wels (751 wlis 30 ivlisi – 752 wlis 17 ivlisi) abul ‘abbasis zeobaSi qufadan meqisken mimaval gzaze Suqurebisa da milis qvebis sistemis mowyobaze;4 da, aseve, h. 161 wels (777 wlis 9 oqtomberi – 778 wlis 27 seqtemberi), al-mahdis zeobaSi imave gzaze infrastruqturis, maT Soris, milis qvebis ganaxlebaze.5 rogorc Cans, swored amis gaTvaliswinebiT, s. raSidi qufa-meqis gzaze napovn milis qvebs, termin baridis moxseniebiT, ‘abasianTa periodiT aTariRebs.6 * gadavideT T b i l i s i s m i l i s q v i s a d a m i s i i s t o r i u l i m n i S v n e l o b i s ganxilvaze. pirvel rigSi, gamovTqvamT Cvens mosazrebebs T b i l i s i s m i l i s d a T a r i R e b a z e . rogorc davinaxeT, Tbilisis mili dauTariRebelia; masze arc vinme adgilobrivi mmarTvelis Tu sxva piris (xelosnis) saxelia aRniSnuli, romelic, Teoriulad mainc, dagvexmareboda qvaze warweris amokveTis miaxloebiT mainc daTariRebaSi. miuxedavad amisa, arc g. wereTels da arc v. kraCkovskaias, da arc o. grabars, eWvi ar SehparviaT, rom Tbilisis qva ‘abd al-maliqis periods miekuTvneba: g. wereTlis mixedviT, es qva `hijris I saukunis boiqve; Elad, The Significance of Two Newly Discovered Milestones of ‘Abd al-Malik, gv. 49; Крачковская, Пособие по арабской эпиграфике, gv. 19. 2 Sharon, Corpus Inscriptionum Arabicarum Palaestinae, gv. 98, Elad, The Significance of Two Newly Discovered Milestones of ‘Abd al-Malik, gv. 49. 3 Rashid, A Critical Study of the Pilgrim Road between Kufa and Mecca (Darb Zubaydah), gv. 325-326. 4 Al-Ṭabarī, Volume XXVII. The ‘Abbasid Revolution. A.D. 743-750/A.H. 126-132, gv. 203-204. 5 Al-Ṭabarī, Volume XXIX. Al-Manṣūr and al-Mahdī. A.D. 763-786/A.H. 146-169, gv. 198. 6 Rashid, A Critical Study of the Pilgrim Road between Kufa and Mecca (Darb Zubaydah), gv. 324-326. 1 111 los ekuTvnis~;1 v. kraCkovskaia ki am warweras miaxloebiT h. 100 wliT (718/9) aTariRebda, an, hijris 80-iani wlebiTac ki (699-708).2 o. grabarsac ar Seutania eWvi v. kraCkovskaias daTariRebaSi.3 ras emyareba aRniSnuli daTariReba? Tbilisis milis mikuTvneba ‘abd al-maliqisadmi fsiqologiurad advilad aixsneba; rodesac zemoT moxseniebuli naSromebi iwereboda, sxva xalifas manZilis qvebi saerTod ucnobi iyo. Tumca, amJamad, rodesac ukve viciT ufro gviandeli periodis milis qvebis arsebobis Sesaxeb, aucileblad migvaCnia – davubrundeT am sakiTxs, da, vcadoT, gavarkvioT, drois Tu ra periods miekuTvneba Tbilisis mili. g. wereTels miTiTebuli daTariRebis sasargeblod raime argumentacia moyvanili ar hqonda;4 safiqrebelia, rom mkvlevari am dros palestinuri analogebis, ‘abd al-maliqis milebis arsebobiT xelmZRvanelobda (o. grabarsac ubralod aRniSnuli aqvs, rom Tbilisis mili Zalian emsgavseba siriaSi napovn milis qvebs5). v. kraCkovskaias daTariReba ki emyareba Tbilisis milis qvis warweris arssa da paleografiul maxasiaTeblebs; yovel SemTxvevaSi, pativcemuli avtoris Tanaxmad, `TbilisSi napovni milis qvis warweris arc xeli, da arc Sinaarsi ar ewinaaRmdegeba SedarebiT adreul daTariRebas, daaxloebiT 100/718-719 w., da SesaZloa, saerTod, I/VIII s-is oTxmociani wlebiT~.6 vera kraCkovskaia am warweras kavkasiaSi yvelaze adreulad miiCnevs.7 misi ganmartebiT, filaze moTavsebuli warweris xeli qufuria, sworxazovani da kuTxovani, mrudwiruli elementebi ki minimalurad aris gamoxatuli.8 v. kraCkovskaias mixedviT, paleografiuli kuTxiT Tbilisis mili gansakuTrebiT bab al-vadis mils emsgavseba.9 misive mosazrebiT, Tbilisis milis zedwerilis `teqstis lakonurobac, da maRalCinosan moxeleTa saxelebis ararseboba, ufro adreuli, vidre gviani drois damaxasiaTebel niSnad SeiZleba CaiTvawereTeli, semituri enebi da maTi mniSvneloba qarTuli kulturis istoriis SeswavlisaTvis, gv. 123. 2 Крачковская, Памятники арабского письма в Средней Азии и Закавказье до IX в., gv. 90; ix. aseve Крачковская, Пособие по арабской эпиграфике. 3 Grabar, Epigrafika Vostoka (Oriental Epigraphy), Edited by V. A. Krachkovskaia, gv. 557. 4 wereTeli, semituri enebi da maTi mniSvneloba qarTuli kulturis istoriis SeswavlisaTvis, gv. 123. 5 Grabar, Epigrafika Vostoka (Oriental Epigraphy), Edited by V. A. Krachkovskaia, gv. 557. 6 Крачковская, Памятники арабского письма в Средней Азии и Закавказье до IX в., gv. 90. 7 iqve. 8 iqve, gv. 89. 9 iqve, gv. 90. 1 112 los, radgan Tavad omaiani xalifebis wodebuleba Zalian mokrZalebuli iyo~.1 omaianTa da ‘abasianTa milebis warwerebis SedarebiTi paleografiuli analizi s. raSidma Caatara; man gamohyo paleografiuli niSnebi, romlebic ganasxvavebs ori gansxvavebuli epoqis warwerebs.2 Sedareba cxadhyofs, rom milebis zedwerilebis kaligrafia ‘abd al-maliqisa da pirvel ‘abasian xalifaTa milebze, marTlac, sakmaod gansxvavebulia. omaianTa periodisTvis damaxasiaTebeli paleografiuli niSnebis gamoyofa SeiZleba arc iyos advili (miT umetes, rom xelosnebs individualuri xeli eqnebodaT; da arabul-islamuri samyaros sxvadasxva regionSic arabuli paleografiis evolucia SeiZleba gansxvavebulad warmarTuliyo,3 magram, mainc, Tbilisis milis warweris dazianebis miuxedavad, Cans, rom, paleografiuli niSnebiT, teqsti Tbilisis milze, namdvilad, adreul, sakmaod kuTxovan, monumenturi xasiaTis qufur warweras warmoadgens da gacilebiT met msgavsebas avlens ‘abd al-maliqis milebTan, vidre ‘abasian xalifaTa qvebTan. sazogadod, lakonuroba ufro ‘abasianTa milebisTvis aris damaxasiaTebeli, ase rom, am kriteriumiT Tbilisis milis qva, TiTqos, ufro ‘abasianTa epoqas unda mivakuTvnoT. Tumca, aRsaniSnavia, rom ‘abasianTa periodisadmi mikuTvnebul, lakonur milebze manZili Cveulebriv miTiTebulia baridTan mimarTebaSi, eqvsidan xuT SemTxvevaSi. SedarebiT lakonur warwerebSi baridi yovelTvisaa moxseniebuli; vrcel warwerebSi ki, vrceli formularis farglebSi, ‘abasiani xalifas saxelicaa; iseve rogorc, omaianTa periodis milebis vrcel warwerebSi yovelTvis ‘abd al-maliqis saxelia. amrigad, Tbilisis milis lakonur warweraSi baridis miuTiTebloba, da manZilis eqskluziurad milebSi gansazRvra, Cveni azriT, damatebiTi da arsebiTi argumentia milis qvis omaianTa periodisadmi mikuTvnebis sasargeblod. rasakvirvelia, zemoT moyvanili argumentacia ar aris absoluturi xasiaTis. saTiTaod, TiToeul argumentSi SesaZlebelia eWvis “Лаконизм текста, отсутствие имен высоких чинов скорее можно считать признаком раннего времени, чем позднего, так как титулатура самих омайядских халифов была чрезвычайно скромна” (iqve). 2 Rashid, A Critical Study of the Pilgrim Road between Kufa and Mecca (Darb Zubaydah), gv. 319-324; gv. 142 ,[Àê¿cP Ü örCmi] írDM²ÆC n¡²ÆC ÛÕ öêÇêÕ mDYbC ö²LmC .jvnÆC Rashid, A New ‘Abbāsīd milestone from Al-Rabaḏa, gv. 142. 3 Lindstedt, Arabic Rock Inscriptions up to 750 CE, gv. 414. 1 113 Setana. Tumca, vfiqrobT, rom erTobliobaSi ganxiluli, isini mainc sakmaod maRali sarwmunoobiT aTariRebs Tbilisis mils omaianTa, da ara ‘abasianTa periodiT. amrigad, veTanxmebiT winamorbedebs, da, ‘abasianTa dinastiis pirveli xalifebis milis qvebis arsebobis miuxedavad, Tbilisis milis qvas omaianTa periods mivakuTvnebT. Tumca, sifrTxiles gamoviCenT, da Tavs SevikavebT Tbilisis milis maincdamainc ‘abd al-maliqisadmi mikuTvnebisgan; ver gamovricxavT, rom al-validis periodisac iyos – wyaroebis mixedviT [ix. zemoT] gzebis keTilmowyobiT xom al-validic iyo dakavebuli. al-fikis warwerebma1 dagvanaxa, rom gzis (keTil)mowyobis dawyebasa da milis qvis dadgmas Soris, zogjer mainc, sakmaod didi dro gadioda (daaxloebiT 12-12.5 weliwadi al-fikis gzis SemTxvevaSi),2 rac gzis gayvana-mowyobaze ixarjeboda – milis qvis dadgma, safiqrebelia, samuSaoebis sul bolo etaps warmoadgenda, da, faqtiurad, maT dasrulebas niSnavda. aqedan gamomdinare, gasaTvaliswinebelia, rom Tbilisis milis SemTxvevaSic, qvis dadgmas win uswrebda, raRac drois ganmavlobaSi mainc, Sesabamisi gzis gayvana-keTilmowyobac. samwuxarod, Tbilisis mili, iseve rogorc milebis umravlesoba, ar aris aRmoCenili in situ. seidabadSi is, safiqrebelia, meoradi gamoyenebisTvis Camoitanes (igive bedi ewia sxva omaianur milebsac).3 es ki aZnelebs dadgenas, Tavdapirvelad Tu ra adgilas mdebareobda, anu, sad gadioda Sesabamisi gza, romelsac niSnavda es qva. isic ki ucnobia, Tu ra manZilze mdebareobda is Zveli Tbilisidan; Cven xom ar viciT, mili Tu zustad ra manZils aRniSnavda – sxvadasxva gamoTvliT miiReba cifrebi 1500-2500 metris farglebSi;4 Tumca, sazogadod, gasaTvaliswinebelia am gamoTvlebis pirobiToba: milebi ar aris napovni in situ; ucnobia Tanadrouli Sesabamisi gzebis zusti marSruti; safiqrebelia, ar arsebobda teqnikuri saSualeba, `miwaze~ zusti manZili gaezomaT (did distanciebze); sazogadod, diskusiis sagania, arsebobda Tu ara amgvari universaluri fiqsirebuli manZilis erTeuli.5 Elad, The Significance of Two Newly Discovered Milestones of ‘Abd al-Malik, gv. 33-38; Sharon, Corpus Inscriptionum Arabicarum Palaestinae, gv. 95-96, 222. 2 Sharon, An Arabic Inscription from the Time of the Caliph ‘Abd al-Malik, gv. 367-372; Sharon, Corpus Inscriptionum Arabicarum Palaestinae, gv. 95-96, 222. 3 iqve, gv. 98-99. 4 ix. msjeloba Elad, The Significance of Two Newly Discovered Milestones of ‘Abd al-Malik, gv. 4648; Sharon, Corpus Inscriptionum Arabicarum Palaestinae, gv. 105-108. 5 iqve, gv. 105-106. 1 114 * damzadebis qronologiis met-naklebad garkvevis Semdeg, SesaZlebeli xdeba ganvixiloT T b i l i s i s m i l i s q v i s i s t o r i u l i d a i s t o r i o g r a f i u l i m n i S v n e l o b a , romelic orgvaria. is: gvexmareba saqarTveloSi arabobis istoriis erT-erTi sawyisi fazis qronologiis dazustebaSi (rasac eZRvneba kidevac winamdebare naSromi); da, Rirebuli pirvelwyaroa, sazogadod, saxalifos administraciuli mowyobisa da omaiani xalifebis mier ganxorcielebuli administraciuli RonisZiebebis sakvlevad. palestina-siriaSi, aseve arabeTSi aRmoCenili milis qvebis sistemis analizi calsaxad aCvenebs, rom milis qvebis dayeneba gzebis keTilmowyobis farglebSi keTdeboda. g. wereTelTan vkiTxulobT: `arab istorikosebs aRniSnuli aqvT, rom arabebi TavianTi laSqrobis dros ganvlil manZils zomavdnen da saTanado svetebiTa da warwerebiT aRniSnavdnen~.1 wyaro ucnobia. amgvari `svetebisa da warwerebis~ nimuSebs ar vicnobT; Cvenamde moRweuli qvebis teqsti ki calsaxad miuTiTebs, rom milis qvebis dayeneba gzis / gzebis mowyobas ukavSirdeboda: yovel SemTxvevaSi, ‘abd al-maliqis milebidan, gza (Àén©ÆC) moixsenieba 7 warweridan 3-Si, da kidev 2-Si ivaraudeba (ix. zemoT); uSualo kavSiria, aseve, golanis warwerebs Soris, romelTagan ori milis qvaa (maTSi, gza, marTalia, ar moixsenieba); samagierod, mesame warwera samTo gadasasvlelis mowyobas eZRvneba. amrigad, vfiqrobT, sruli ufleba gvaqvs samive regionis – palestina-siria, erayi-arabeTi, aRmosavleTi saqarTvelo – mimarT erTnairi daskvnebi gamovitanoT: palestina-siriaSi ‘abd al-maliqis (Tu, aseve, al-validis) zeobaSi, aseve, arabeTsa Tu iordaniaSi, pirveli ‘abasiani xalifebis zeobaSi, milis qvebis gaCena gzebis keTilmowyoba-moniSvnis procesis Semadgenel nawils warmoadgenda; qarTlSic milis qvis gaCena zustad igive – adgilobrivad gzebis keTilmowyoba-moniSvnis procesis Semadgenel nawils, da, amasTanave, indikatorsac warmoadgenda. sxvanairad rom vTqvaT, Tbilisis mili, Tavisi arsebobis ZaliT, zedwerilis Sinaarsis detalebidan damoukideblad, adasturebs, rom ‘abd al-maliqis, Tu misi memkvidris, al-validis administraciuli saqmianoba, kerZod, mcdeloba, axladSeqmnili imwereTeli, semituri enebi da maTi mniSvneloba qarTuli kulturis istoriis SeswavlisaTvis, gv. 123. 1 115 peria gzebis qseliT ufro mWidrod SeekraT, (aRmosavleT) saqarTvelosac gadawvda. Cveni azriT, Tbilisis milis unikalurobam ar unda gvafiqrebinos, rom saqarTveloSi napovni es mili raRac gamonaklis movlenas warmoadgenda da mis safuZvelze daskvnebis gamotana SeuZlebeli iyos. Tundac erTi amgvari artefaqtis gadarCena da Cvenamde moRweva calsaxad adasturebs fenomenis (qarTlis gzebis arabebis mier keTilmowyoba-moniSvna) arsebobas; udidesi albaTobiT, sxva qvebic iqneboda (sxva omaianuri milebis zedwerilebi gvafiqrebs, rom milis qvebi yoveli milis Semdeg idgmeboda – ase, magaliTad, al-fikis milis qvebi damaskodan 52-e da 53-e milis manZils aRniSnaven; gvaqvs aseve ierusalimidan me-8, me-7 da me-5 milis qvebic); magram, JamTa siavis gaTvaliswinebiT, Tbilisis sxva milebs Cvenamde ar mouRweviaT (an, dRemde ar aris aRmoCenili). sakmarisia gavixsenoT, rom damaskodan, anu, omaianTa saxalifos dedaqalaqidan da mTavari administraciuli kvanZidan gamomaval gzebze dadgmuli milis qvebidan Cvenamde moaRwia marto oTxma (sic) (arada, mxolod erT gzaze yvelaze cota 109 iqneboda, sinamdvileSi ki, safiqrebelia, bevrad metic);1 xolo momlocvelTa erT-erT wamyvan marSrutze – qufadan meqamde – dadgmuli qvebidan Cvenamde moaRwia mxolod xuTma. arabulenovani milis qvis Cadgma, miT ufro, saxalifos sxva regionebis gamocdilebis gaTvaliswinebiT, adasturebs, rom am RonisZiebis ukan arabebi idgnen. gzebis mosaniSnad manZilis Tbilisidan aTvla miuTiTebs, rom Tbilisi saxalifos sagzao qselis erT-erT kvanZs warmoadgenda, iseTives, rogorc damasko an ierusalimi ‘abd al-maliqis epoqaSi. v. kraCkovskaia Tbilisis milis qvis ganxilvisas pirdapir wers, rom `unda uzrunveleyoT regularuli kavSirebi saxalifos centrTan; aucilebeli iyo safosto samsaxuris mowyoba, iseTivesi, rogoric ‘abd al-maliqma mTel saxelmwifoSi moawyo~.2 arabebze damokidebulebis winare etapze myof, ubralod, moxarke regionSi, amisTana investiciis Cadeba – gzebis gayvana Tu ara, keTilmowyoba-moniSvna mainc, warmoudgenlad gveCveneba. Tbilisis milis qva miuTiTebs uSualod arabebis mier adgilobrivad gzebis gayvanasa Tu ara, maT keTilmowyobaze mainc. es ki umniSvnelovanesi administraciuli RonisZieba iyo, romelic miuTiTebs adgilobrivad arabuli administraciis SemoReba-arsebobaze. ar aris gamoricxuli, rom omaianTa milebis nawili ‘abasianebma gaanadgures (Sharon, An Arabic Inscription from the Time of the Caliph ‘Abd al-Malik, gv. 372). 2 Крачковская, Пособие по арабской эпиграфике, gv. 24. 1 116 Tbilisis milis qva, misi zomebidan gamomdinare (31/45 sm.), damoukideblad, calke moTavsebisas, savaraudod, kargad ver gamoCndeba. amitom, SeiZleba vivaraudoT, iseve rogorc es navaraudevia omaianuri, aseve ‘abasianuri milebisTvis,1 rom is raime wamoweuli konstruqciis – svetisa an nagebobis kedelSi iqneboda Camagrebuli. amiT arabuli milebi arsebiTad gansxvavdebian romauli milebisgan, romlebic metrze ufro maRal cilindrul, svetismagvar konstruqciebs warmoadgendnen.2 msjelobis masStabi rom gavzardoT, da jurzanis gzebis keTilmowyobas ufro farTo perspeqtividan SevxedoT, naTeli gaxdeba, rom Tbilisis milis qva adasturebs – ‘abd al-maliqis (Tu, aseve, al-validis) didi gegma, saxelmwifo administraciulad gzebiT SeekraT, moicavda ara marto omaianTa saxalifos guls – palestinasa Tu did sirias,3 romelTac ‘abd al-maliqi, safiqrebelia, marTlac gansakuTrebul yuradRebas uTmobda, aramed islamuri imperiis SedarebiT daSorebul, da SedarebiT axaldamorCilebul provinciebsac, kerZod, saqarTvelos / jurzans (ar aris gamoricxuli, mTlianad provincia armini¡as). jer kidev o. grabarsac hqonda SemCneuli, rom aRniSnuli mili gviCvenebs, Tu ramdenad iyo inkorporirebuli axalSeqmnil imperiaSi (samxreT) kavkasiis regionic.4 saqarTvelo saxalifos centrebisgan (siria-palestina, ‘abasianTa periodSi – erayi) udavod, sakmaod Sors mdebare regions warmoadgenda. miuxedavad amisa, aseTi daSorebiT (Tbilisis) milis ganTavsebis faqts Semdeg interpretacias mivcemdiT: ‘abd al-maliqis / al-validis administraciis Canafiqrs (romlis ganxorcielebac misma administraciam nawilobriv mainc moaxerxa) warmoadgenda mTeli saxalifos gzebis keTilmowyoba-moniSvna, safiqrebelia, baridis sistemis farglebSi. amrigad, istoriografiaSi dasmul SekiTxvas – ‘abd al-maliqis zeobaSi sxva gzebzedac Tu moTavsda miRashid, A Critical Study of the Pilgrim Road between Kufa and Mecca (Darb Zubaydah), gv. 317-318; Sharon, Corpus Inscriptionum Arabicarum Palaestinae, gv. 97, 220; Cf. Elad, The Significance of Two Newly Discovered Milestones of ‘Abd al-Malik, gv. 45, gansakuTrebiT sqolio 46. 2 Rashid, A Critical Study of the Pilgrim Road between Kufa and Mecca (Darb Zubaydah), gv. 317. 3 jer kidev g. wereTels aqvs aRniSnuli, rom `amgvari Zeglebi aqamde arc erTi qveynisaTvis ar iyo aRmoCenili, garda palestinisa~ (wereTeli, semituri enebi da maTi mniSvneloba qarTuli kulturis istoriis SeswavlisaTvis, gv. 123). 4 “The milestone from Transcaucasia is interesting in another respect. It is quite similar to the milestones found in Syria and serves to indicate the extent to which, already in the Umayyad period, Transcaucasia, actually even the Caucasus itself, was fully fitted into the new empire” (Grabar, Epigrafika Vostoka [Oriental Epigraphy], Edited by V. A. Krachkovskaia, gv. 557). 1 117 lis qvebi1 – axla ukve SeiZleba dadebiTad vupasuxoT. sainteresoa aseve xazarebTan omis farglebSi meomrebis safosto cxovelebiT transportirebaze miTiTeba at-tabarisTan h. 112 wlisTvis (730 wlis 26 marti – 731 wlis 14 marti).2 aRsaniSnavia, rom ‘abasianTa periodSi gzebis milebiT moniSvnis geografiuli areali, rogorc Cans, aseve farTovdeba: sul bolo dromde cnobaSi moyvanili yvela cali Tu erayidan meqasken mimaval gzas miekuTvneboda,3 axla ukve cnobili gaxda iordaniaSic napovni milic al-mahdis saxeliT.4 Tbilisis mili arsebiTi pirvelwyaroa milebis daniSnulebis sakvlevadac; Tbilisis mili, ‘abd al-maliqis yvela sxva milTan SedarebiT, Tavisi sityvaZvirobiT gamoirCeva. sazogadod, xelmisawvdomi masala – Cvenamde moRweuli milis qvebi, Tbilisis milis CaTvliT, gviCvenebs, rom milebis warwerebis formulari SedarebiT moqnili iyo da uSvebda garkveul gadaxrebs standartisgan5 (Tuki SesaZlebelia, sazogadod, amgvar standartze msjeloba6). ase, magaliTad, milebis formularSi SeiZleba Sesuliyo, an, ar Sesuliyo, TariRi da zedamxedveli piris saxeli; Tanadrouli xalifas saxelic ki. sakmaod gansxvavdeboda warwerebis paleografiac, Tumca, am SemTxvevaSi, udavod, garkveul rols TamaSobda samuSao masalac – bazaltis qvebze grafemebis amoWra gaZnelebuli iyo, rasac ar SeeZlo ar emoqmeda maTi moyvanilobis sinatifeze (yovelTvis Tu ara, zogjer mainc, magaliTad, al-fikis warwerebis SemTxvevaSi).7 amasTanave, saxezea ornairi formularis – vrcelisa, da lakonuris – gamoyeneba. Sharon, Corpus Inscriptionum Arabicarum Palaestinae, gv. 97. Al-Ṭabarī, Volume XXV. The End of Expansion. The Caliphate of Hisham. A.D. 724-738/A.H. 105-120, gv. 69-70. 3 Rashid, A Critical Study of the Pilgrim Road between Kufa and Mecca (Darb Zubaydah), gv. 310-317; Rashid, A New ‘Abbāsīd milestone from Al-Rabaḏa, gv. 138-143; Sharon, Corpus Inscriptionum Arabicarum Palaestinae, gv. 97. gv. 123-142 ,[,ê¿cP Ü örCmi] írDM²ÆC n¡²ÆC ÛÕ öêÇêÕ mDYbC ö²LmC .jvnÆC 4 Al-Jbour, The Discovery of the First Abbasid Milestone in Bilād ash-Shām, gv. 171-176. 5 Sharon, Corpus Inscriptionum Arabicarum Palaestinae, gv. 108. 6 swored amitom vamjobinebT didi sifrTxiliT movekidoT milis qvebis dakarguli teqstis masStabur rekonstruqcias, romelic gvxvdeba literaturaSi (magaliTad, Cytrin-Silverman, The Fifth Mīl from Jerusalem: Another Umayyad milestone from southern Bilād alShām, gv. 605-607; Sharon, Corpus Inscriptionum Arabicarum Palaestinae, gv. 104-105; Al-Jbour, The Discovery of the First Abbasid Milestone in Bilād ash-Shām, gv. 175). 7 Sharon, Corpus Inscriptionum Arabicarum Palaestinae, gv. 108. 1 2 118 milis vrceli warwerebis formulari SeiZleba Semdegnairad warmovadginoT:1 1) basmala da sxva sawyisi religiuri formulebi, romelSic saubaria allahsa da mis mociqulze; 2) xalifas moxsenieba; 3) Catarebuli samuSaos uSualo zedamxedvelis moxsenieba; 4) samuSaos Sesrulebis TariRi; 5) manZili mniSvnelovani (urbanuli?) centridan; 6) am centris dasaxeleba. milis lakonuri warwerebi ki Seicavda informaciis minimums: 1) religiuri formulebi, rogorc wesi, gamotovebulia (sic); 2) miTiTebulia manZili, rogorc wesi (‘abasianTa milebis SemTxvevaSi, milebSi baridis sistemis farglebSi); da 3) dasaxelebulia punqti, saidanac aiTvleba manZili. omaianTa milebis SeemTxvevaSi mxolod 1-ia lakonuri (Tbilisis, romelsac omaianTa epoqas paleografiuli niSnebisa da baridis mouxsenieblobis safuZvelze mivakuTvnebT), da 7 ki vrceli (erTgvar deklaraciasac ki warmoadgens); ‘abasianTa milebis SemTxvevaSi proporcia sakmaod gansxvavebulia: 4 lakonuri da 2 vrceli (ix. zemoT). Tbilisis mili gviCvenebs, rom omaianTa (da ara marto ‘abasianTa) periodis milis warwerebis formulari SeiZleba Zalian lakonuric yofiliyo. Tbilisis milis warweris safuZvelze amJamad SegviZlia vamtkicoT, rom, zogjer mainc, milis qvis daniSnuleba, omaianTa epoqaSic, praqtikulad, eqskluziurad, utilitaruli iyo (utilitarobaSi vgulisxmobT religiuri deklaraciisa da sxva saxis informaciis minimumamde dayvanas, praqtikulad, mxolod dasaxlebuli punqtisa da manZilis miTiTebiT Semofargvlas). zogierTi milis lakonuroba, anu, Zalian praqtikuli midgoma zedwerilis Sinaarsis SerCevisadmi, miT ufro gasagebi xdeba, Tu vivaraudebT milis qvebis masobriv damzadebas, mraval aTas kilometrsa da milze gadaWimuli saxalifos gzebis TiTo milis SualediT mosaniSnad. ar SeiZleba isic ar aRiniSnos, rom saxalifos CrdiloeT ganapiras omaianTa periodis epigrafikuli Zeglebi imdenad iSviaTia, rom erT-erT bolodroindel naSromSi avtorma isic ki aRniSna, rom erayis 1 Sead. Lindstedt, Arabic Rock Inscriptions up to 750 CE, gv. 421. 119 CrdiloeTiT omaianTa erTi epigrafikuli Zeglic ki ar eguleboda.1 Tbilisis milis mniSvneloba am kuTxiTac sagulisxmoa. * saqarTvelos meore qufuri warwera ki h. 147 wlis Sa‘abaniT aris daTariRebuli (764 wlis 3-31 oqtomberi). warweris dazustebuli wakiTxvisadmi da, sazogadod, warweris istoriuli mniSvnelobisadmi miZRvnili naSromi mzaddeba gamosaqveyneblad.2 am etapze ki yuradRebas gavamaxvilebT mxolod warweris TariRis dazustebis istoriul mniSvnelobaze. sur. 6. (Fig. 6.) Tbilisis h. 147 w. Sa‘abanis warwera3 avtoris foto moviyvanT warweris aRwerilobas: moTavsebulia 107 / 34 sm. zomebis qviSaqvis kvadrze. met-naklebad ikiTxeba kvadris mxolod qveda nawilSi ganTavsebuli sami striqoni; gamoTqmulia varaudi, rom warwera amave kvadrze iwyeboda, anu, mxolod eqvsstriqoniani iyo. zeda sami striqonisgan praqtikulad araferia darCenili; maTi wakiTxva sruliad SeuZlebelia. zevidan meoTxe striqonic sakmaod dazianebulia, grafemebis nawili ar ikiTxeba, da azris gamotana am etapze mainc, SedarebiT gaZnelebulia. samagierod, srulad ikiTxeba qveda ori 1 Lindstedt, Arabic Rock Inscriptions up to 750 CE, gv. 413. iqve omaianTa periodis epigrafikuli Zeglebis klasifikacia geografiuli principiT, warwerebis tipis miTiTebiT (iqve, gv. 413-414). 2 Paghava, Dzneladze, Topuridze, The Monumental Kūfic Inscription Dated Sha‘bān AH 147 (3-31 October 764) From Tiflīs. 3 avtoris foto 120 striqoni, romelic Seicavs, warweris, SesaZloa, yvelaze mniSvnelovan komponents, romlis gaTvaliswinebac aucilebelia Tbilisis saamiros daarsebis qronologiaze msjelobisas – warweris (Sesrulebis) TariRs. mogvyavs swored qveda ori striqoni da maTi Targmani (wiladis xazi aRniSnavs ikiTxvisebs): ëº KDMb/ØDêb/ØDMb ÛL ÔÌr NQÂ Ü ... öéDÕ Ü Ûê²LmC Ü ³Mr öÚr ØDM²v ... da dawera salam ibn ha¡anma/habbanma/habbabma [-Si] Sa‘abans welsa Svidsa da ormocsa da assa aRniSnuli warweris Sinaarsis ZiriTadi nawili daRupulia da ar ikiTxeba; magram, ueWvelia, rom es qufuri arabuli lapidaruli warwera arabebis SekveTiT aris gakeTebuli; kaligrafiis gamarTulobidan gamomdinare, xelosanic arabi unda yofiliyo. faqtia, rom h. 147 wlis Sa‘abanis TveSi, anu, 764 wlis oqtomberSi, ukve ‘abasianTa epoqaSi, TbilisSi arabebi arian da qvaze warweris amoWras axerxeben. analizi da Sefaseba raze metyvelebs Cvens mier zemoT ganxiluli saqarTveloSi Seqmnili da Cvenamde moRweuli arabuli epigrafikuli masala? daviwyoT numizmatikuri ZeglebiT. eWvi ar gvepareba imaSi,1 rom h. 85 wlis Tbiluri omaianuri dirhemi ar warmoadgens arc qarTvelTa mier moWril `ucxo monetas~ da arc qarTvelTa mier moWril `erovnul monetas ucxouri simbolikiT~, romelic ver `gamodgeba saamiros institutis dasaTariReblad~.2 am tipis da TariRis vercxlis monetebi warmoadgens klasikur arabul, kerZod, omaianur dirhemebs, romelic mxolod moWris adgiliT gansxvavdeba omaianTa saxalifos sxva zarafxanebSi moWrili monetebisgan; h. 85 wlis Tbilur dirhemebs araferi etyobaT iseTi (magaliTad, arabuli grafemebis damaxinjeba, an, sulac, qarTuli grafemebis gaCena), rac mogvcemda saSualebas gvevarauda, rom isini moWrilia ara arabebis, aramed qarTvelebis mier (arabebis uSualod administrirebisgan Tavisufal qarTlSi). es ar aris `erovnuli moneta ucxouri simbolikiT~,3 faRava, saqarTveloSi arabTa batonobis periodizacia (numizmatikuri monacemebis gaTvaliswinebiT), gv. 253. 2 alasania, Tbilisis saamiros daarsebis TariRisaTvis, gv. 10. 3 iqve. 1 121 aramed, aris, swored rom, `ucxo fuli~, romelic moWrilia `ucxo Zalis, arabebis mier – is, bunebrivia, ar warmoadgens arabebze qarTvelebis ‘politikuri damokidebulebis niSans’ am sityvebis pirdapiri mniSvnelobiT, ar warmoadgens qarTuli administraciis, rogorc samoneto warmoebis subieqtis, moqmedebis nayofs, aramed saqarTveloSi arabebis politikuri uzenaesobis niSania; aseve saqarTveloSi arabebis damkvidrebis, saqarTveloSi arabebis zarafxanis gaxsnis mowmobaa; TbilisSi, zarafxanis saxelis miTiTebiT, ara minabaZis, aramed metrologiur-kaligrafiuli kuTxiT srulyofili monetis gamoSveba qarTuli administraciis mier ver ganxorcieldeboda~.1 igives Tqma SeiZleba CvenTvis saintereso epoqaSi Tbilisis / jurzanis zarafxanis mier gamoSvebul sxva arabul monetebzedac, romelTa arsebobac adasturebs, rom VIII saukunis pirvel aTwleulebSi Tbilisis (arabuli) zarafxana arc ise sporadulad moqmedebda, rogorc SeiZleba gvefiqra h. 85 wlis dirhemis Semdgomi, zemoT aRwerili monetebis aRmoCenamde. absoluturad yvela maTgani, iseve rogorc h. 85 wlis dirhemebi, warmoadgens klasikur arabul vercxlisa Tu spilenZis monetas, Sinaarsobrivad da paleografiulad gamarTuli arabuli legendebiT. davaskvniT, rom h. 85-152 wlebis SualedSi (704-770) TbilisSi moWrili arabuli monetebis ramdenime seria, warmoadgens arabul samoneto emisias, da ara adgilobriv (qarTul) minabaZs. es ki imas niSnavs, rom drois am SualedSi – 704-770 wlebSi – TbilisSi funqciobs, Tundac wyvetilad, arabuli zarafxana; arabuli zarafxana, romelsac arabebi marTaven, da romelic wminda wylis arabul monetas uSvebs. arabuli zarafxana ki arabuli administraciuli institutia; TbilisSi arabuli zarafxanis moqmedeba ucilobeli mowmobaa TbilisSi arabuli administraciis arsebobisa da moqmedebisa. 704 weli (h. 85 w.) warmoadgens Tbilisis zarafxanis amuSavebis dasawyiss, an, yovel SemTxvevaSi, muSaobis dawyebis kuTxiT, terminus post quem non. numizmatikuri monacemebiT, saqarTveloSi arabuli administracia yalibdeba ara ugvianes VIII saukunis dasawyisisa. gasaTvaliswinebelia lapidaruli epigrafikuli Zeglebic. ganxiluli gvaqvs Tbilisis milis qva. am arabulwarwerian qvis filaze aRniSnulia manZili dasaxlebuli punqtidan, am SemTxvevaSi, faRava, saqarTveloSi arabTa batonobis periodizacia (numizmatikuri monacemebis gaTvaliswinebiT), gv. 253. 1 122 Tbilisidan, da is warmoadgens Sesabamis periodSi arabTa saxelmwifos mier gzis keTilmowyobis, moniSvnis sabuTs. Tbilisis milis qvisTvis gagvaCnia arcTu Zalian mcirericxovani paraleluri masala napovni did siriaSi da arabeTSi. Tbilisis arabulenovani da arabul-grafikiani warwera, bunebrivia, qarTvelebis damzadebuli ar aris. es ar aris qarTvel gamgebelTa saqmianobis nayofi – qarTlis gzebi moewyoT da moeniSnaT; es aris produqti arabTa administraciuli saqmianobisa – mTlianad saxalifos gzebi moewyoT da moeniSnaT, da swored am administraciuli saqmianobis Sedegad Seiqmna kidevac iseTi arabuli epigrafikuli Zegli, rogoric Tbilisis milia. maSasadame, Tbilisis milis qva, romelzedac aRniSnulia manZili `sami mili Tbilisidan~ warmoadgens qarTlSi, TbilisSi moRvawe arabuli administraciis arsebobis dadasturebas. magram rodis moRvaweobda es administracia? Tbilisis mili dauTariRebelia, magram, am manZilis qvis warweris Sinaarsisa da paleografiuli niSnebis omaianTa da ‘abasianTa epoqis analogiur milebTan Sedarebam cxadhyo, rom Tbilisis mili omaianTa epoqas miekuTvneba. marTalia, xalifas saxeli miTiTebuli ar aris, magram, rogorc vaCveneT, es unda iyos ‘abd al-maliqisa (685-705) an al-validis (705-715) administraciuli saqmianobis Zegli. naratiuli pirvelwyaroebi gviyvebian al-validis mier gzebis keTilmowyobaze; Tumca, omaianuri periodis yvela dRemde SemorCenili mili ‘abd al-maliqisaa (da ara al-validis). al-fikisa da al-fikis gadasasvlelis sami warwera gviCvenebs, rom gzebis keTilmowyoba-moniSvna namdvilad warmoebda ‘abd al-maliqis zeobis bolo 12 wlis ganmavlobaSi (ver gamovricxavT, rom Sesabamisi saqmianoba am omaian xalifas ufro adrec daewyo, saxalifos erTianobis aRdgenis Semdeg). Sesabamisad, Tbilisis milis qvas zogadad 690-iani wlebi – 715 wlis periodiT davaTariRebdiT, Tumca, ‘abd al-maliqis zeobis bolo wlebi, anu, periodi daaxloebiT 690-iani wlebidan 705 wlamde, ufro mosalodnel daTariRebad gveCveneba. sxvaTa Soris, TvalSi sacemia droSi damTxveva Tbilisis zarafxanis amuSavebasTanac. lapidaruli masala gvidasturebs rom arabebi TbilisSi imyofebian h. 147 wlis Sa‘abanSic, anu, 764 wlis oqtomberSic. Sesabamisad daTariRebuli, Sinaarsobrivad, enobrivad da damwerlobis mxriv arabuli warwera, bunebrivia, qarTvelebis amoWrili ver iqneba. raki 764 wlis TbilisSi arabebi arian da qvaze warwerasac ukveTaven, e. i. TbilisSi am dros kvlavindeburad arabuli administraciaa. 123 amrigad, lapidaruli masala miuTiTebs arabebis mier qarTlSi, Tbilisis sanaxebSi mainc, gzebis keTilmowyoba-moniSvnaze, romelic warmoebda, udidesi albaTobiT, VIII saukunis dasawyisSi. raki gzebis mowyoba calsaxad teritoriis marTvis, administrirebis erT-erTi formaa, e. i. lapidaruli monacemebiT, saqarTveloSi arabuli administracia yalibdeba ara ugvianes VIII saukunis dasawyisisa. rogorc numizmatikuri, aseve lapidaruli epigrafikuli masala iZleva saSualebas obieqturad vimsjeloT qarTlsa da TbilisSi arabuli administraciis Semosvlaze; da is davaTariRoT kidevac. orivenairi epigrafikuli pirvelwyaroebi eTanxmeba erTmaneTs da miuTiTebs VIII saukunis dasawyisze. d a v a s k v n i T : saqarTveloSi arabobis I, mexarkeobis periodi Seicvala II, konsolidaciis periodiT, rodesac arabebma aRmosavleT saqarTveloSi mainc, sakuTari administraciac SemoiRes. rasakvirvelia, Tbilissa da qarTlSi arabTa batonoba ar iyo uwyveti. periodulad arabebi Tbiliss met-naklebad didi droiT kargavdnen kidevac. isic ki gvaqvs aRniSnuli, rom saqarTveloSi arabTa Zalauflebis konsolidacia gulisxmobda `urTierTsapirispiro ori veqtoris urTierTqmedebas – teritoriulad saqarTveloSi arabuli samflobeloebis Sekvecas Tan axlda SemorCenil teritoriaze arabuli xelisuflebis ganmtkiceba da arabuli administraciis SemoReba~.1 magram am periodis ZiriTadi maxasiaTebeli aris mainc saqarTvelosa Tu qarTlis teritoriaze qarTulis paralelurad, arabuli administraciis amoqmedeba. arabuli administraciis pirvelad gaCena VIII s a u k u n i s d a s a w y i s i T u n d a d a T a r i R d e s . arabuli administraciis SemoReba ki Tbilisis saamiros, rogorc saxalifos erT-erTi administraciuli erTeulis, daarsebas niSnavda. T b i l i s i s s a a miros daarseba VIII saukunis dasawyisiT TariRdeba. guliTad m a d l o b a s movaxsenebT arabuli warwerebis garCevaSi gaweuli daxmarebisa da konsultaciebisaTvis b-nebs grigol beraZesa da irakli TofuriZes. 1 iqve, gv. 254. 124 gamoyenebuli wyaroebi da literatura juanSeri, cxorebaY vaxtang gorgaslisa – juanSeri, cxoreba¡ vaxtang gorgaslisa, teqsti gamosacemad moamzades zurab sarjvelaZem, sofio sarjvelaZem, wignSi: q. cx., mTavari redaqtori: roin metreveli, Tbilisi, 2008, gv. 151-246. Al-Ṭabarī, Volume XXV, The End of Expansion. The Caliphate of Hisham, A.D. 724-738/A.H. 105-120 – Al-Ṭabarī, The History of al-Ṭabarī, An Annotated Translation, Volume XXV, The End of Expansion, The Caliphate of Hisham, A.D. 724-738/A.H. 105-120, Translated by Khalid Yahya Blankinship, Albany, 1995. Al-Ṭabarī, Volume XXVII, The ‘Abbasid Revolution, A.D. 743-750/A.H. 126-132 – Al-Ṭabarī, The History of al-Ṭabarī, An Annotated Translation, Volume XXVII, The ‘Abbasid Revolution, A.D. 743-750/A.H. 126-132, Translated by John Alden Williams, Albany, 1985. Al-Ṭabarī, Volume XXIX, Al-Manṣūr and al-Mahdī, A.D. 763-786/A.H. 146-169 – Al-Ṭabarī, The History of al-Ṭabarī, An Annotated Translation, Volume XXIX, AlManṣūr and al-Mahdī, A.D. 763-786/A.H. 146-169, Translated and annotated by Hugh Kennedy, Albany, 1990. alasania, Tbilisis saamiros daarsebis TariRisaTvis – alasania g., Tbilisis saamiros daarsebis TariRisaTvis, wignSi: misive, saistorio krebuli, Tbilisi, 2007, gv. 3-14. astaxiSvili, axmeteli, narimaniSvili, qarTvelebi da gare samyaro. IV-X saukuneebi – astaxiSvili e., axmeteli n., narimaniSvili g., qarTvelebi da gare samyaro. IV-X saukuneebi, gamomcemloba `Semoqmedi angelozi~, 2019. bogveraZe, qarTlis politikuri da socialur-ekonomikuri ganviTareba IV-VIII saukuneebSi – bogveraZe a., qarTlis politikuri da socialurekonomikuri ganviTareba IV-VIII saukuneebSi, Tbilisi, 1979. TavaZe, saqarTvelo VIII saukuneSi. politikuri istoria – TavaZe l., saqarTvelo VIII saukuneSi. politikuri istoria, Tbilisi, 2020. kapanaZe, qarTuli numizmatika – kapanaZe d., qarTuli numizmatika, Tbilisi, 1969. legaSvili, marvan ibn muhammadis laSqroba kavkasiaSi – legaSvili g., marvan ibn muhammadis laSqroba kavkasiaSi, ssuS (humanitarul da socialur-politikur mecnierebaTa seria), XVIII, 2018-2019, gv. 247-263. 125 lorTqifaniZe, arabTa mflobelobis xasiaTi saqarTveloSi – lorTqifaniZe m., arabTa mflobelobis xasiaTi saqarTveloSi, mski, nakv. 35, Tbilisi, 1963, gv. 71-96. lorTqifaniZe, Tbilisis saamiros istoriidan – lorTqifaniZe m., Tbilisis saamiros istoriidan, `saqarTvelos ssr mecn. akad. iv. javaxiSvilis sax. ist. inst-is mimomxilveli~, t. II, 1951, gv. 185-201. silagaZe, arabTa batonoba saqarTveloSi – silagaZe b., arabTa batonoba saqarTveloSi, Tbilisi, 1991. faRava, mansur II ja‘farianis samoneto emisia maliq-Sahis saxeliT – Tbilisi da qvemo qarTli bagratovanTa da did selCukTa Soris – faRava i., mansur II ja‘farianis samoneto emisia maliq-Sahis saxeliT – Tbilisi da qvemo qarTli bagratovanTa da did selCukTa Soris, sk, 5, 2015, gv. 9-61. faRava, saqarTveloSi arabTa batonobis periodizacia (numizmatikuri monacemebis gaTvaliswinebiT) – faRava i., saqarTveloSi arabTa batonobis periodizacia (numizmatikuri monacemebis gaTvaliswinebiT), `axlo aRmosavleTi da saqarTvelo~, VIII, 2014, gv. 250-257, 342. faRava, Suasaukunovan saqarTveloSi numizmatikuri evoluciis veqtorebi (VIII-XIII ss.) – faRava i., Suasaukunovan saqarTveloSi numizmatikuri evoluciis veqtorebi (VIII-XIII ss.), sadisertacio naSromi wardgenili ilias saxelmwifo universitetis mecnierebaTa da xelovnebis fakultetze istoriis doqtoris akademiuri xarisxis miniWebis moTxovnebis Sesabamisad, Tbilisi, 2015. cqitiSvili, arabeT-saqarTvelos kulturuli urTierTobis istoriidan (X-XI ss.) – cqitiSvili o., arabeT-saqarTvelos kulturuli urTierTobis istoriidan (X-XI ss.), macne, iaexs, 4, 1980, gv. 102-113. cqitiSvili, arabTa mflobelobis winaaRmdeg qarTveli xalxis ganmaTavisuflebeli brZolis istoriidan (ahmad ibn asam al-qufis cnobaTa mixedviT) – cqitiSvili o., arabTa mflobelobis winaaRmdeg qarTveli xalxis ganmaTavisuflebeli brZolis istoriidan (ahmad ibn asam al-qufis cnobaTa mixedviT), macne, iaexs, 1986, N1, gv. 73-82. cqitiSvili, ahmad ibn asam al-qufi arabTa pirveli laSqrobebis Sesaxeb saqarTveloSi – cqitiSvili o., ahmad ibn asam al-qufi arabTa pirveli laSqrobebis Sesaxeb saqarTveloSi, macne, iaexs, 1984, N1, gv. 92-104. cqitiSvili, qarTlis erismTavris nerses politikuri moRvaweobis sakiTxisaTvis – cqitiSvili o., qarTlis erismTavris nerses politikuri moRvaweobis sakiTxisaTvis, smam, 129, N1 1988, gv. 205-208. 126 wereTeli, semituri enebi da maTi mniSvneloba qarTuli kulturis istoriis SeswavlisaTvis (1947) – wereTeli g., semituri enebi da maTi mniSvneloba qarTuli kulturis istoriis SeswavlisaTvis, `Tbilisis saxelmwifo universitetis sesiebi~, 1 (2-4 marti 1946), moxsenebaTa krebuli, Tbilisi, 1947, gv. 15-52. wereTeli, semituri enebi da maTi mniSvneloba qarTuli kulturis istoriis SeswavlisaTvis – wereTeli g., semituri enebi da maTi mniSvneloba qarTuli kulturis istoriis SeswavlisaTvis, wignSi: misive, rCeuli Sromebi xuT tomad, t. I, urartologia, semitologia, ebraistika, Tbilisi, 2004, gv. 104-126. javaxiSvili, qarTveli eris istoria, wgn. II – javaxiSvili iv., qarTveli eris istoria, wgn. II, wignSi: misive, Txzulebani Tormet tomad, t. II, Tbilisi, 1983, gv. 06-08, 1-449. janaSia, araboba saqarTveloSi – janaSia s., araboba saqarTveloSi, tfilisi, 1933. jafariZe, qarTvelebisa da saqarTvelos arabuli saxelwodebebi – jafariZe g., qarTvelebisa da saqarTvelos arabuli saxelwodebebi, `Ziebani saqarTvelosa da axlo aRmosavleTis istoriaSi~, t. I, Tbilisi, 2012, gv. 11-32. Al-Jbour, The Discovery of the First Abbasid Milestone in Bilād ash-Shām – AlJbour K., The Discovery of the First Abbasid Milestone in Bilād ash-Shām, SHAJ, VIII, 2004, pp. 171-176. Cytrin-Silverman, The Fifth Mīl from Jerusalem: Another Umayyad milestone from southern Bilād al-Shām – Cytrin-Silverman K., The Fifth Mīl from Jerusalem: Another Umayyad milestone from southern Bilād al-Shām, BSO[A]S, 70, 3, 2007, pp. 603-610. Elad, The Significance of Two Newly Discovered Milestones of ‘Abd al-Malik – Elad A., The Southen Golan in the Early Muslim Period. The Significance of Two Newly Discovered Milestones of ‘Abd al-Malik, “Der Islam”, Bd. 76, 1999, S. 33-88. Grabar, Epigrafika Vostoka (Oriental Epigraphy), Edited by V. A. Krachkovskaia – Grabar O., Epigrafika Vostoka (Oriental Epigraphy), Edited by V. A. Krachkovskaia, Akademiya Nauk SSSR, Moscow-Leningrad, Volumes I to VIII, AO, II, 1957, pp. 547560. Klat, Catalogue of the Post-Reform Dirhams – Klat М., Catalogue of the Post-Reform Dirhams. The Umayyad Dynasty, London, 2002. Lindstedt, Arabic Rock Inscriptions up to 750 CE – Lindstedt I., Arabic Rock Inscriptions up to 750 CE, In: The Umayyad World, Editor Andrew Marsham, Routledge, 2020, pp. 411-437. 127 Paghava, Muslim Tiflis before Georgian Conquest: Numismatic Evidence (Monetary Issues in the Name of al-Mustazhir) – Paghava I., Muslim Tiflis before Georgian Conquest: Numismatic Evidence (Monetary Issues in the Name of al-Mustazhir), “XV International Numismatic Congress. Taormina, 2015, Proceedings, Volume II, Roma-Messina, 2017”, pp. 1155-1158. Paghava, Dzneladze, Topuridze, The Monumental Kūfic Inscription Dated Sha‘bān AH 147 (3-31 October 764) From Tiflīs – Paghava I., Dzneladze M., Topuridze I., The Monumental Kūfic Inscription Dated Sha‘bān AH 147 (3-31 October 764) from Tiflīs and Its Historical Significance (In print). Paghava, Turkia, New Mintname “Georgia” (“Jurzān”) – Paghava I., Turkia S., New Mintname “Georgia” (“Jurzān”): Researching the History of Georgia and the ‘Abbāsid North in the 8th-9th Centuries, “The Ukrainian Numismatic Annual”, 5, 2021, pp. 228-258. Paghava, Turkia, The Umayyad Fulus Minted in the Name of Marwan b. Muhammad (the Deaf) in Georgia and Elsewhere in South Caucasus – Paghava I., Turkia S., The Umayyad Fulus Minted in the Name of Marwan b. Muhammad (the Deaf) in Georgia and Elsewhere in South Caucasus, JONS, 201, 2009, pp. 16-18. Rashid, A Critical Study of the Pilgrim Road between Kufa and Mecca (Darb Zubaydah) – Rashid S., A Critical Study of the Pilgrim Road between Kufa and Mecca (Darb Zubaydah) with the Aid of Fieldwork, A Thesis presented for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the University of Leeds, Volume I: Text, June, 1977. Rashid, A New ‘Abbāsīd milestone from Al-Rabaḏa – Rashid S., A New ‘Abbāsīd milestone from Al-Rabaḏa in Saudi Arabia, “Arab. arch. epig.”, 3, 1992, pp. 138-143. Schindel, Umayyad Copper Coinage in the Name of Marwan II b. Muḥammad from the Caucasus – Additional Comments – Schindel N., Umayyad Copper Coinage in the Name of Marwan II b. Muḥammad from the Caucasus – Additional Comments, JONS, 202, 2010, pp. 8-11. Shamma, A Catalogue of ‘Abbasid Copper Coins – Shamma S., A Catalogue of ‘Abbasid Copper Coins, Al-Rafid, 1998. Sharon, An Arabic Inscription from the Time of the Caliph ‘Abd al-Malik – Sharon M., An Arabic Inscription from the Time of the Caliph ‘Abd al-Malik, BSO[A]S, 29, 1966, pp. 367-372. Sharon, Corpus Inscriptionum Arabicarum Palaestinae – Sharon M., Corpus Inscriptionum Arabicarum Palaestinae (CIAP), Volume Three. -D-F-, Leiden, Boston, 2004. Van Berchem, Matériaux pour un Corpus Inscriptionum Arabicorum – Van Berchem M., Matériaux pour un Corpus Inscriptionum Arabicorum. Syrie du Sud, Vol. I, Jérusalem, Ville, Vol. II, Jérusalem, Ḥaram, Le Caire, 1922. 128 Крачковская, Памятники арабского письма в Средней Азии и Закавказье до IX в. – Крачковская В., Памятники арабского письма в Средней Азии и Закавказье до IX в., ЭВ, Т. 6, 1952, с. 46-100. Крачковская, Пособие по арабской эпиграфике – Крачковская В., Пособие по арабской эпиграфике, Тбилиси, 1971 (машинопись, хранится в архиве Института востоковедения им. Г. Церетели, Тбилиси, Грузия). Пагава, Периодизация арабского владычества в Грузии (с учетом новых данных) – Пагава И., Периодизация арабского владычества в Грузии (с учетом новых данных), “Нумизматические чтения Государственного исторического музея 2016 года. Москва, 22 и 23 ноября 2016 г. Материалы докладов и сообщений”, 2016, с. 85-91. Пахомов, Монеты Грузии – Пахомов Е., Монеты Грузии, Тбилиси, 1970. - [Àê¿cP Ü örCmi] írDM²ÆC n¡²ÆC ÛÕ öêÇêÕ mDYbC ö²LmC .jvnÆC 142@123 ,1990 ,5 ,mÝ¡²ÆC .[Àê¿cP Ü örCmi] írDM²ÆC n¡²ÆC ÛÕ öêÇêÕ mDYbC ö²LmC .jvnÆC pép²ÆC jM± ÛL j²r Irakli Paghava Founding the “Tiflīs Emirate”, Administrative Unit of the Caliphate, According to Non-Narrative Sources (Early Arab Coins and Lapidary Inscriptions from Georgia) Summary The Goal of this work is to ascertain the chronology of Arab sway in Georgia, particularly the timeframe when Arabs managed to consolidate their control over Kartli, the eastern part of the country, by creating the so called Tiflīs Emirate (initially administrative unit of the Caliphate, rather than the [semi] independent state). We reviewed the historiography of this issue (three different dates were suggested for founding the Tiflīs Emirate: beginning of the 8th c., the 730s, and 770s) and discussed the empiricist methodology we employed: deliberately ignoring the non-contemporary and relatively unreliable narrative (Georgian, Armenian and Arabic) sources but considering the contemporary non-narrative primary sources, i.e. the epigraphic monuments; searching for the traces of Arab administrative activities, rather than the first Emir of Tiflīs (presumably unproductive approach, due to the dearth of primary sources). Comparative approach was employed when analysing the Tiflis mīl (as many 129 new remarkable Umayyad and ‘Abbasid milestones have been discovered since the 19th century; we reviewed them all). The following material was analyzed: 1) Silver and copper coinage issued by Tiflīs mint; 2) Copper coinage issued by “Jurzān” mint; 3) Tiflīs mīl, undated; 4) Kufic inscription from Tiflīs, dated Sha‘bān AH 147. We demonstrated that the silver and copper coins, issued by Tiflīs and “Jurzān” (presumably, = Tiflīs) mints in AH 85 and 86, the 730s-740s, and also AH 152, constituted the original Arab currency of the Caliphate, rather than local Georgian imitations. Minting the coinage of this type testified to at least intermittent functioning of Arab mint in Tiflīs in the first 7 decades of the 8th c. Considering the archeological artifacts, ‘Abd al-Malik was the first caliph who developed the postal / communication (barīd) system within the Caliphate (also adopting many other reforms) by fixing the roads and relevant infrastructure, including the milestones; the ‘Abbāsid caliphs paid particular attention to the Kūfah-Makkah pilgrimage road also ordering mīls. We demonstrated that the Tiflīs milestone, albeit undated and bearing no name, pertains to the Umayyad epoch, i.e. the reign of ‘Abd al-Malik (685-705) or al-Walīd (705-715). Making of Tiflīs mīl with inscription in Arabic proves that the Arabs made some effort to improve the road infrastructure in the early 8th century Georgia (and that the Umayyad efforts to establish the barīd system extended to South Caucasus and Georgia). The Kufic inscription from Tiflīs, dated Sha‘bān of AH 147 (October 764) makes it clear that the Arabs controlled the city before the 770s. The Arab coins minted at Tiflīs mint as well as the Arab road infrastructure, along with ordering monumental inscriptions in Tiflīs in Arabic, are clear vestiges of Arab administrative activity locally. Both numismatic and milestone evidence points to the beginning of the 8th century as the time period when the Arab administration, i.e. the Tiflīs Emirate, was established in Georgia. 130 Illustrations: Fig. 1. Umayyads, Tiflīs, dirham, AH 85 (Online Oriental Coins Database Zeno, #293729) Fig. 2. Umayyads, Tiflīs, dirham, AH 86 (Online Oriental Coins Database Zeno, #148182) Fig. 3. Umayyads, emir Marwan b. Muhammad, Tiflīs, fals, no date (Online Oriental Coins Database Zeno, #286712) Fig. 4. ‘Abbāsids, “Jurzān” (=Tiflīs), fals, AH 152 (Photograph by the author) Fig. 5. Tiflīs mīl (The Archives of G. Tsereteli Institute of Oriental Studies) Fig. 6. Inscription from Tiflīs, dated Sha‘bān AH 147 (Photograph by the author) 131 dali CitunaSvili ninos jvris istoriis svinaqsaruli sakiTxavi da misTvis darTuli jvris mogzaurobis qronologia somxuri saistorio wyaroebidan ramdenime exeba qarTlis gaqristianebis sakiTxs. maTSi Semonaxuli TiToeuli cnoba Tu monacemi didi xania samecniero sazogadoebis interess iwvevs. amjerad Tqveni yuradReba gvinda SevaCeroT somxur svinaqsarebSi dacul „ninos jvris sakiTxavze“, romelic somxuri svinaqsarebis mixedviT 30 an 31 marts ikiTxeboda. sakiTxavis svinaqsaruli versia momdinareobs X saukunis pirveli naxevris somexi avtoris, aharon vanandelis „ninos jvris istoriidan“,1 amitom, pirvel rigSi, ramdenime sityviT SevexebiT aharon vanandelis naSroms.2 Txzuleba, romlis avtoric vanandis monastris Zmobis wevri aharonia, mogviTxrobs „nunes, qarTvelTa winamZRolis jvrad“ wodebuli siwmindis istorias, romlis qargac Semdegi saxisaa: qarTli wminda nunes (ninos) daxmarebiT qristiandeba, aRimarTeba jvari, romelsac SemdgomSi wminda SuSaniki qmris gandgomis gamo gzavnis sakuTar mamulSi – taronSi, sahakis mowafis – beri andreasis daxmarebiT, Tumca jvari taronamde ver aRwevs da parxlis mTebSi Cerdeba, saidanac is ukanasknel cocxal mamikonians – hmaik mamikonianis vaJs, grigols, SuSanikis gardacvalebis Semdeg miaqvs kapuitis cixeSi. gzad grigols berZnebTan Setakeba uxdeba, romelic misi gamarjvebiT sruldeba. kapuitis cixidan jvari vanandSi gadaaqvT da mis saxelze monasters aSeneben. aharonis Txzulebis bolos jvari gadatanilia karinis cixis (!) dasavleTiT mdebare sofelSi,3 romelsac mis pativsacemad ‛jvari’ uwodes, siwmindis saxelze specialuri msaxurebaa dawesebuli da bagratunTa gvaris warmomadgenlebi am siwmindes soflebs swiraven. aharon vanandelis Txzulebam ori xelnaweriT da ori gansxvavebuli redaqciiT moaRwia Cvenamde. pirvel redaqcias Seicavs ierutradiciulad aharoni X saukunis avtorad iTvleba, bolo dros gaCnda misi axleburi daTariRebac XI s. ix.: Rapp, Studies in Medieval Georgian Historiography, p. 124. 2 samecniero wreebSi aharon vanandelis Txzulebis Sesaxeb informacia R. aliSanma Semoitana jer kidev XIX saukuneSi, ix. Ալիշան, Այրարատ, էջ 214: Ալիշան, Հայապատում, էջ 153-154: 3 vanandelis teqstis struqtura gviCvenebs, rom karinis maxloblad jvris gadatana mogviano CanarTi unda iyos da ar ekuTvnis Tavad aharon vanandels. 1 132 salimis wminda iakobis monasterSi daculi XV saukunis xelnaweri.1 am xelnaweris safuZvelze „ninos jvris istoria~ gamoaqveyna n. akinianma 1944 wels, masve ekuTvnis Txzulebis detaluri wyaroTmcodneobiTi analizic.2 ierusalimur xelnawerSi daculi teqstis mxolod pirveli nawili rusuli TargmaniT, misTvis gagzavnili fotopiris safuZvelze, 1941 wels gamosca leon meliqseT-begma.3 ierusalimuri xelnaweris teqsti gadmowera, Tumca ar gamouqveynebia niko mars.4 aharonis Txzulebis meore redaqcia matenadaranis XVIII s-is xelnawerSi (№1885) aris daculi. am teqsts miakvlia da is qarTuli TargmaniTa da gamokvleviT gamosca ilia abulaZem monografiaSi „qarTul-somxuri literaturuli urTierTobebi IX-X saukuneebSi“.5 n. akinianisa da il. abulaZis mier gamoqveynebuli teqstebi aharon vanandelis Txzulebis or sxvadasxva redaqcias warmoadgens, rac naTlad Cans maTi SedarebiT: n. akinianis gamocemaSi SuSanikis istorias mxolod ramdenime striqoni eTmoba, matenadaranis fragmentSi warmodgenili Txroba SuSanikis Sesaxeb „SuSanikis wamebis~ qarTuli teqstis nawilis Targmans Seicavs, rac saTanadod daadastura il. abulaZis kvlevam,6 Sesabamisad, matenadaraniseuli nusxa n. akinianis mier gamocemul aharon vanandelis istoriis teqstze ufro vrceli unda yofiliyo. aharon vanandelis `ninos jvris istoriis~ kritikuli teqsti yvela arsebuli xelnaweris gaTvaliswinebiT gamosca p. muradianma 1998 wels, Tumca meore redaqcia calke ar gamoyo da misi gansxvavebuli nawili me-13, bolo, muxlad daurTo sakuTar gamocemas,7 rac teqstologiuri TvalsazrisiT gaumarTlebeli gvgonia. 1999 wels gamoqveynda ‛istoriis’ vanandeliseuli teqstis inglisuri Targmani.8 xelnaweri ramdenjerme aris aRwerili ix. Սիւրմեանց, Մայր ցուցակ: aseve, Պողարեան, Մայր ցուցակ, էջ 28: 2 Ակինեան, Հայաստանի և Վրաստանի: amave xelnawerze dayrdnobiTa da akinianis gamocemis gaTvaliswinebiT istoria gamoaqveyna g. hovsefiancmac, ix. Յիշատակարանք ձեռագրաց: Չորս հատորով: Գարեգին Ա Կաթողիկոս մեծին տան կիլիկիա, էջ 9-16: 3 Меликсет-Беков, История Креста святой Нины, стр. 59-63. rogorc Cans, l. meliqseT-begs ierusalimuri xelnaweris arasruli fotoasli gaugzavnes, winaaRmdeg SemTxvevaSi misTvis arc nawarmoebis daweris drois gansazRvra iqneboda rTuli da arc „aRmosavleli vostikanis – spqis“ figura ucnobi, ix. Меликсет-Беков, История Креста святой Нины, стр. 61. 4 Марр, Предварительный отчет, стр. 36. 5 abulaZe, qarTul-somxuri literaturuli urTierTobebi. 6 abulaZe, qarTul-somxuri literaturuli urTierTobebi, gv. 0179-0182. 7 Մուրադյան, Սուրբ Շուշանիկ, էջ 123-145: 8 Passion of Saint Shushanik. 1 133 dResdReobiT, rodesac ar Cans vanandelis Txzulebis Semcveli iseTi xelnaweri, romelic matenadaraniseuli xelnaweris msgavsi iqneboda da Tanac sruli, rTulia msjeloba Txzulebis am redaqciis xasiaTsa da mis wyaroebze, Cven isRa gvrCeba, vixelmZRvaneloT n. akinianisa da p. muradianis mier gamocemuli vanandelis teqstiT da mxolod maTze dayrdnobiT gamovTqvaT Cveni varaudebi. aqve aRvniSnavT, rom am naSromis mizani ar aris imis garkveva, ramdenad Seefereba sinamdviles jvris saqarTvelodan gatanis istoria, radgan es sakiTxi saTanadod aqvs Seswavlili q. asaTians naSromSi `ninos jvris istoriisaTvis~.1 Cveni mizania SeviswavloT somxur svinaqsarebSi daculi ninos jvris sakiTxavisaTvis boloSi darTuli ninos jvris mogzaurobis qronologia da ganvsazRvroT, romeli somxuri wyaroebiTa da ra codniT ixelmZRvanela somexma avtorma am tipis qronologiis Seqmnisas, raTa mkiTxvelisaTvis damajerebeli gaexada mis mier moTxrobili ambebi. rogorc ukve aRvniSneT, `ninos jvris sakiTxavi~ Setanilia somxur svinaqsarebSi 30 an 31 marts. zogadad, somxurma svinaqsarma ganviTarebis didi gza gaiara,2 misi bolo, erovnuli redaqciis Sedgena grigol xlaTelis saxelTan aris dakavSirebuli (1349-1425 ww.), swored grigolis redaqciis svinaqsarebSia daculi CvenTvis saintereso sakiTxavic. ninos jvris svinaqsaruli sakiTxavi, rogorc amas mkvlevrebic aRniSnaven,3 swored aharonis Txzulebas eyrdnoba – svinaqsarul sakiTxavSi jvris mogzaurobis istoria vanandSi misi aRmoCenis Semdgom periods mogviTxrobs da grZeldeba XIII saukunis 30-ian wlebamde: jvris istoriis svinaqsaruli sakiTxavi SuSanikis mier jvris taronSi gagzavniT iwyeba (gamotovebulia misi mcxeTaSi aRmarTvis ambavi), Semdeg modis grigor mamikonianisa da masTan dakavSirebuli istoriebi (jvris gadatana kapuitis cixeSi, berZenTa da somexTa jarebis brZola), jvris gadatana vanandSi, yarsSi suqmanis SeWra, yarsidan jvris anisSi gadatana da misi dakargva. svinaqsaruli Txrobisa da aharonis istoriis Sedareba gviCvenebs, rom svinaqsarul versias aklia aharonis Txrobis ramdenime pasaJi (mcxeTaSi jvris aRmarTva, saswaulebrivi svetis gaCena valentinianes mier romis aRebis win da sxv.), magram mTavari xazi ucvleli rCeba da emateba jvris Semdgomi Tavgadasavali XIII saukunis ocdaaTian wlebam1 2 3 asaTiani, vazis jvris istoriidan, gv. 34-45. Ավդալբեգյան, «Հայսմաւուրք»: Ակինեան, Հայաստանի և Վրաստանի, էջ 114: 134 de, rodesac, Txrobis mixedviT, anisSi gadatanili jvari 1236 wels, monRolebis mier qalaqis aRebis Semdeg, ikargeba.1 jvris istoriis svinaqsarul versias bolos darTuli aqvs aRweril movlenaTa qronologia, sadac mocemulia informacia, Tu sad ramdeni weli gaatara wminda ninos jvarma da rodis da ra viTarebaSi daikarga. ninos jvris sakiTxavis somxuri teqsti qarTuli TargmaniT jer kidev 1938 wels gamoaqveyna ilia abulaZem,2 somxuri teqsti gamoqveynebuli aqvs nerses akiniansac.3 amjerad Tqveni yuradReba swored ninos jvris mogzaurobis qronologiaze gvinda SevaCeroT.4 `ninos jvris sakiTxavis~ qronologiis nawili somxur svinaqsarTa mravalricxovani xelnawerebisa da gamocemebis mixedviT ori variantiT aris SemorCenili:5 pirveli versiiT: anisSi jvari miitanes somxuri welTaRricxvis ԵՃԽԳ (5-jer 100+43= 543+551/2=1094) wels; mcxeTaSi iyo ՀՃԵ (175) weli; kapuitSi, vanandsa da jvris monasterSi ԴՃ da ԺԹ (4x100+19); yarsSi – ՃԿԴ (164) weli; mcxeTidan anisamde gavida ԸՃ-sze (800-s) Դ (4) wliT naklebi, anu 796; anisSi darCa ՃԽ (140) weli; daikarga monRolebis mier anisis aRebis Semdeg (1094+140 =1234).6 meore versiiT: anisSi jvari miitanes somxuri welTaRricxvis ՇԽԳ (1094) wels;7 mcxeTaSi iyo ՃՀԵ (175) weli; kapuitSi, vanandsa da jvris monasterSi ՆԾԹ (459); yarsSi – ՃԿԴ (164) weli; mcxeTidan anisamde gavida Պ-sze abulaZe, SuSanikis wameba, gv. 59-63. iakob curtaveli, mart¢loba¡ SuSanikisi. 3 Ակինեան, Հայաստանի և Վրաստանի, էջ 114-118: 4 jvris istoriis svinaqsarul sakiTxavSi Semonaxul qronologias pirvelad yuradReba laSa janaSiam miaqcia, misi interesis sfero „istoriaSi“ SuSanikis wamebasTan dakavSirebuli sakiTxebis ganxilva iyo. l. janaSias daskvniT, wyaro „arasandoa“ da masSi dacul qronologias „met-naklebad aklia sizuste“, ix. janaSia, SuSanikis wameba, gv. 209-211. 5 ninos jvris istoriis svinaqsaruli redaqciis gamocemuli teqstebis garda, Cven gamoviyeneT xelnawerTa erovnul centrSi daculi amave redaqciis svinaqsaris Semcveli xelnawerebic, romlebic CvenTvis saintereso „istorias“ Seicaven. 6 xelnawerTa erovnuli centri, Arm 262. 7 xelnawerTa erovnuli centri, Arm 3 – anisSi jvari miitanes somxuri welTaRricxvis ԵՃԽԳ (1094) wels; mcxeTaSi iyo ՃՀԵ (175) weli; kapuitSi, vanandsa da jvris monasterSi ԴՃ da ԾԹ (459); yarsSi – ՃԿԴ (164) weli; mcxeTidan anisamde gavida ԷՃ – ՂԶ (796); anisSi darCa ՃԽԲ (142) weli; daikarga monRolebis mier anisis aRebis Semdeg (1094+142 =1236). 1 2 135 (800-s) Դ (4) wliT naklebi – 796; anisSi darCa ՃԽԲ (142) weli; daikarga monRolebis mier anisis aRebis Semdeg (1094+142 =1236).1 meore versiis Tanaxmad, anisSi jvris yofnis xangrZlivoba gansazRvrulia 142 wliT da ara 140 wliT, rogorc es pirvel variantSia; amasTanave, kapuitSi, vanandsa da jvris monasterSi jvris yofnis wlebis saerTo raodenobad miTiTebulia 459 weli da ara 419. romeli ricxvia zusti? xelnawerTa didi nawili mxars meore variants uWers da, amdenad, swori, swored es ukanaskneli unda iyos. pirvel variantSi ki 419 wlis gaCena 459-is nacvlad, vfiqrobT, grafikuli aRrevis Sedegi unda iyos. rogorc Cans, xelnaweris gadamwerma erTmaneTSi auria somxuri ծ (w, ricxviTi mniSvneloba 50) da ժ (J, ricxviTi mniSvneloba 10) grafemebi, romlebic nusxuris doneze sakmaod hgavs erTmaneTs. qronikis orive variantis Tanaxmad, gansxvavebulia mcxeTidan anisamde gasuli wlebis raodenobac, miuxedavad imisa, rom qronikis orive varianti am wlebis saerTo jamad 796 wels uTiTebs, am ricxvs ar gvaZlevs qronikis variantebSi warmodgenili monacemebis Sejameba: Tu pirvel versias daveyrdnobiT, ricxvebis saerTo jami gvaZlevs 175+419+164=758 wels da ara 796-s, rogorc uSualod xelnawerSia miTiTebuli, meore versia ki – 175+459+164=798 wels, rac 2 wliT metia teqstSi dasaxelebul Semajamebel cifrze. faqti, rom xelnawerebsa da gamocemebSi warmodgenili qronika SesaSuri simtkiciT wlebis saerTo raodenobad 796 wels asaxelebs,2 gvafiqrebinebs, rom Tavdapirvelad qronikaSi swored es ricxvi iqneboda miTiTebuli, Secdoma ki gadamwerebis mier unda iyos daSvebuli ricxvebis saerTo CamonaTvalidan romelimeSi – grafemaTa aRrevis safuZvelze. aseTad ki Cven mcxeTaSi jvris mier gatarebuli wlebis raodenoba ՀՃԵ (175) migvaCnia, radgan grafikulad Ե (e-5) da Է (e meSvide – 7) grafemebis aRreva SedarebiT advilia, Tumca gadavxedoT im TariRebs, romlebsac sakiTxavisaTvis darTuli jvris mogzaurobis qronologia gvaZlevs: Ակինեան, Հայաստանի և Վրաստանի, էջ 114-118: xelnawerTa erovnul centrSi dacul Arm 310 xelnawerSi (388v-389r) warmodgenili jvris istoriis qronika gansxvavebas swored mcxeTidan anisamde wlebis raodenobis miTiTebisas gvaZlevs, teqstis mixedviT, „anisSi jvari miitanes somxuri welTaRricxvis ԵՃԽԳ (1094) wels; mcxeTaSi iyo ՃՀԵ (175) weli; kapuitSi, vanandsa da jvris monasterSi ԴՃ da ԾԹ (459); yarsSi – Ճ և ԿԴ (164) weli; mcxeTidan anisamde ki gavida Ո և ՀԳ (673); daikarga monRolebis mier anisis aRebis Semdeg“. rogorc vxedavT, am xelnaweris mixedviT, jvris mcxeTidan gatanisa da anisSi mitanamde gavida 673 weli, am SemTxvevaSi mcxeTidan jvris gatanis TariRad 421 wels viRebT, rac Zalian scildeba SuSanikis martvilobis periods da gadamweris mier daSvebul Secdomas unda warmoadgendes. 1 2 136 anisis aRebisa da jvris dakargvis TariRi –1236 yarsidan anisSi gadatanis TariRi – 1094 (1236-142) vanandidan yarsSi gadatanis TariRi – 930 (1094-164) kapuitSi aRmoCenis TariRi – 471 (930-459) mcxeTaSi jvris aRmarTvis TariRi – 296/94 (471-175/7) jvris mogzaurobis qronologiaSi mocemuli erTaderTi TariRi, romelic somxuri welTaRricxviT aris mocemuli – jvris anisSi gadatanis TariRia. teqstis mixedviT, jvari anisSi gadaitanes somxuri welTaRricxvis 543 wels (Եւ բերին զսուրբ Խաչն ի յԱնի ի թուականին հայոց ՇԽԳ), es TariRi orive variantSi meordeba da 1094 welia (543+551/2=1094/95). gadavamowmoT, ramdenad Seesabameba qronologiaSi dasaxelebuli istoriuli movlenebi somxur wyaroTa Cvenebebs. jvris svinaqsaruli istoria, iseve rogorc aharonis istoria, pirdapir arafers ambobs ninos jvris vanandidan yarsSi (qarTuli wyaroebiT – kari) gadatanaze da mxolod ricxvebiT mijnavs jvris vanandSi yofnis drosa da yarsSi yofnis dros. teqstis mixedviT, yarsidan anisSi jvari 1094 wels gadaitanes, yarsSi ki is 164 weli imyofeboda, Sesabamisad, yarsSi jvris gadatanis TariRad 930 weli gamodis. es ki swored is periodia, rodesac yarss somexi bagratunebi (aSot erkaTis STamomavlebi) flobdnen da is somxeTis dedaqalaqad iTvleboda. Tu gavixsenebT aharonis istorias, swored bagratunebi gvevlinebian jvris mfarvel-mepatroneebad mamikonianTa istoriis scenidan gaqrobis Semdeg.1 svinaqsaris sakiTxavis mixedviT, jvari yarsidan anisSi barseR somexTa kaTalikosma gadaitana, amira suqmanis yarsSi misvlis Semdeg. somxuri saistorio wyaroebi arafers gveubnebian yarsSi suqmanis Sesvlaze,2 radgan im droisaTvis yarsi ukve didi xnis gadasuli iyo selCukTa xelSi,3 Tumca suqmanis mier mamikonianTa gvaris gaJletis ambavs swored ninos jvarTan dakavSirebuli ambebis Txrobisas ixseniebs XIII saukunis somexi istorikosi vardan arevelci (aRmosavleli). sainteresod emTxveva erTmaneTs ninos jvris sakiTxavis teqsti da vardan aRmosavlelis cnobebi. vardanTan vkiTxulobT: „amave xanebSi anisSi moitanes wm. nunes jvari, romelic qarTveli mmarTvelis varsqenis sarwmunoebidan gadaxvevis dros gadatanil iqna parxlis mTebSi Ակինեան, Հայաստանի և Վրաստանի, էջ 112-113: suqmanis urhaze galaSqrebis Sesaxeb, ix. Վարդան Բարձրբերդեցի, Պատմութիւն Տիեզերական, էջ 145-147: vardan arevelci, msoflio istoria, gv. 131-132. 3 aristakes lastivertci, istoria, gv. 86. 1 2 137 wmida sahakis mowafis, wmida beris andreasis mier, sadac darCa 7 weli, es rom gaigo grigor mamikonianma hmaiakis vaJma, [brZana] gadaetanaT is cixe-simagre kapuetSi; aqedan is gadaitanes vanandSi da ewoda vanandis jvari. rodesac ukeTurma suqmanma gaJlita mamikonianTa gvari barseRis patriarqobisas, [es jvari] moitanes anisSi. dResaswauli mis saxelze dawesebulia kviras, jvarTamaRlebis merve dRes“.1 vardanisa da sakiTxavis cnobebi TiTqmis identuria, aRmosavlelis Txrobas mxolod jvris gauCinarebis ambavi aklia, rac SeiZleba imiT avxsnaT, rom vardani 1236-1265 wlebis istorias saerTod ar aRwers da am periodis movlenebis Sesaxeb wers: „685 (1236) wlidan somxuri welTaRricxviT 714 (1265) wlamde, romelSic Cven vcxovrobT, rac moimoqmeda moisarTa tomma... agviweres Cvenma mamam RvTis wmindanebTan erTad gandidebulma vardapetma vanakanma da Cvenma megobarma vardapetma kirakosma...“.2 sakiTxavisa da vardan aRmosavlelis cnobaTa msgavseba gvafiqrebinebs, rom vardanica da sakiTxavic ninos jvris mogzaurobis aRwerisas saerTo wyaroTi sargebloben, romelic dResdReobiT ar Cans. anisSi jvris gadatanis iniciatori, barseR kaTalikosi, somxur istoriografiaSi kargad cnobili piria. misi moRvaweobis Sesaxeb cnobebs gvawvdian somexi istorikosebi maTe urhaeli, kirakos ganZakeli, vardan aRmosavleli, mxiTar airivaneli da sxv. laSa janaSia, romelic erT-erTi pirveli iyo, romelmac ninos jvris sakiTxavisaTvis darTul qonologias miaqcia yuradReba, barseR anelis kaTalikosad moxseniebas 1094 wels anaqronizmad Tvlis, radgan barseRis kaTalikosobis TariRad tradiciulad 1105-1113 wlebi iTvleba.3 1 «Առ այսու ժամանակաւք եմուտ սորբն խաչն Նունեայ 'ի յԱնի՝ այն որ ի յուրացման Վազգենի՝ ազգին Վրաց առաջնորդի, գաղթեցաւ ի խորշս լերինն Պարխարու ի ձեռն սուրբ վանականին Անդրէասայ՝ յաշակերտաց սուրբ Սահակայ, և կացեալ անդ զեօթն ամ. և ապա ազդ արարեալ Մամիկոնեան Գրիգորոյ՝ որդւոյ Հմաիկի, տարաւ ի Կապոյտ կոչեցեալ բերդ, և անտի փոխեցաւ 'ի Վանանդ և կոչեցաւ Վանանդայ խաչ: Եւ 'ի բառնալ տանն Մամիկոնէից յանօրինէն Սուքմանայ՝ բերաւ յԱնի ի հայրապետութեանի տեառն Բարսղի և կարգեցաւ նմա տօն կիւրիակէն , որ զկնի ութօրէիցն խաչավերացն տօն:», Վարդան Բարձրբերդեցի, Պատմութիւն Տիեզերական, էջ 147: vardan arevelci, msoflio istoria, gv. 132-133. 2 «Արդ ի վէց հարիւն ութ և հինգ թուականէնմինչև յեօթն հարիւր չորեքտասան յորում եմքս մեր, զօր ինչ արարին ազգն նետողաց ընդ իշխանս և ընդ իշխանութիւնս .... գրեալ են մանրամասնաբար հայր մեր և ընդ սուրբս Աստուծոյ փարաւորեալ Վանական վարդապետ, և հարազատն մեր՝ Կիրակոս վարդապետ...», Վարդան Բարձրբերդեցի, Պատմութիւն Տիեզերական, էջ 192: vardan arevelci, msoflio istoria, gv.164. aqve aRvniSnavT, rom kirakos ganZakelis istoriaSi ar Semonaxula aranairi cnoba ninos jvrisa da misi Tavgadasavlis Sesaxeb, ix. Կիրակոս Գանձակեցի, Պատմութիւն Հայոց, 1961: 3 janaSia, SuSanikis wameba, gv. 211. 138 barseR aneli kaTalikosad marTlac 1105 wels ekurTxa, Tumca, rogorc somexi istorikosebis cnobebi gviCveneben, mas kaTalikosad ukve 1081 wlidan moixseniebdnen, es TariRi ki misi kaTalikosis adgilis mcvelad kurTxevis TariRia.1 XII saukunis pirveli naxevris somexi istorikosi, maTe urhaeli mogviTxrobs: „somexTa welTaRricxvis 530 wels xeldasxmul iqna ufali barseRi“ [«ի թուականութեանն հայոց ի յամի ՇԼ...ձեռնադրեցին զՏէր Բարսեղ»], rac barseRis aRsaydrebis TariRad 1081/2 wels gvaZlevs.2 XIII saukunis somexi istorikosi kirakos ganZakeli barseRis gardacvalebis Sesaxeb gviambobs: `somxuri welTaRricxvis 562 (1113/2) wels miicvala ufali barseRi, epyra ra mamadmTavroba 33 weli)“ [«Ի ՇԿԲ թուականին վախճանեցաւ տէր Բարսէղ՝ կալեալ զհայրապետութիւնն ամս երեսուն երեք»].3 Tu miTiTebul TariRs gamovaklebT barseRis mamadmTavrobis wlebis saerTo raodenobas (33-s), miviRebT 1080/81 wels. amrigad, kirakos ganZakelisaTvisac barseRis aRsaydrebis TariRi 1080/81 welia da misi moxsenieba kaTalikosad 1094 wels Sua saukuneebis istorikosebisaTvis anaqronizms ar warmoadgens. eWvs ar iwvevs arc barseRis anisSi yofna 1094 wels, vardan aRmosavleli gvamcnobs, rom 1092 wlisaTvis barseR kaTalikosi kesariis gavliT urhaSi Cavida, aqedan ki anisSi gaemgzavra.4 amrigad, 1094 wlisaTvis barseR kaTalikosis anisSi yofna somxuri wyaroebisaTvis faqtia da mis saxelTan ninos jvris anisSi gadatanis dakavSirebac somex mkiTxvelebSi kiTxvis niSnebs ar gaaCenda. Tu jvris anisSi misvlis TariRs – 1094 wels, gamovaklebT svinaqsarSive miTiTebuli wlebis im raodenobas, romelic gaiara jvris aRmarTvidan mis anisSi misvlamde, miviRebT 298 wels (1094-796=298). amrigad, sakiTxavis mixedviT, gamodis, rom jvari mcxeTaSi aRimarTa 298 wels. es TariRi sakmaod scildeba qarTlis gaqristianebis oficialur versias da somxuri samociqulo eklesiis mier somxeTis gaqristianebis miRebul oficialur TariRze (301 w.) adreulicaa. marTalia, „ninos jvris sakiTxavSi“ amaze saubari ar aris, radgan teqstSi ar aris motanili aharonis istoriis pirveli nawili – jvris mcxeTaSi aRmarTvis Txroba, magram isic qarTlis gaqristianebas griՔրիստոնեայ Հայաստան, էջ 175: Պատմութիւն Մատթէոս Ուրհաեցւոյ, էջ 265-66: 3 Կիրակոս Գանձակեցի, Պատմութիւն Հայոց, էջ 108: 4 Վարդան Բարձրբերդեցի, Պատմութիւն Տիեզերական, էջ 143: vardan arevelci, msoflio istoria, gv. 129-130. 1 2 139 gol ganmanaTlebelTan unda akavSirebdes, somxeTis gaqristianebis TariRad ki unda iRebdes III saukunis 90-ian wlebs. rogoric ar unda iyos realuri TariRi, faqtia, rom sxvadasxva somxuri wyaro sruliad gansxvavebul versiebs gvawvdis somxeTis gaqristianebis Sesaxeb, maT Soris gvxvdeba III saukunis ukanaskneli aTwleulic. magaliTad, mose kalankatuelisaTvis somxebi romaelTa welTaRricxvis 43-e wels gaqristianebulan, rac 291 wels gvaZlevs.1 Sesabamisad, mcxeTaSi jvris aRmarTva, anu qarTlis gaqristianebis TariRad 298 wlis miRebac Cveni somexi qronistisaTvis qronologiuri aRreva ki ara, movlenebis logikuri Tanmimdevrobaa. kidev erTi saintereso faqti: Tu svinaqsariseuli jvris aRmarTvis TariRs mivumatebT wlebis im raodenobas, romelic man mcxeTaSi gaatara, miviRebT 473 wels (298/9+175/7=473/75), rac sainteresod uaxlovdeba SuSanikis gardacvalebis TariRs,2 ra aris es – damTxveva Tu gamiznuli miniSneba? vfiqrobT, is, vinc ninos jvris sakiTxavis damatebiT, qronologiis nawils qmnida, sakmaod kargad iyo gaTviTcnobierebuli Tanadroul qarTul da somxur istoriografiasa da hagiografiaSi. 473/5 welTan dakavSirebiT SeiZleba vinme Segvedavos, rom svinaqsaris mixedviT, ninos jvarma mcxeTa SuSanikis gardacvalebamde datova da is 7 wlis ganmavlobaSi parxlis mTebSi inaxeboda,3 magram, Cans, es 7 weli svinaqsaruli versiis avtorisaTvis im 175/7 welSi Sedis, romelic jvris mcxeTaSi yofnas ukavSirdeba, radgan Semdgomi ricxvi 459 weli jvris kapuitsa da vanandSi gatarebuli wlebis saerTo raodenobis amsaxvelia da arsad aRar aris naxsenebi speri an parxali.4 TariRi, romelic jvris dakargvis TariRad aris gamocxadebuli, anisis monRolebis mier aRebasTan aris dakavSirebuli, svinaqsaris mixedviT, jvarma anisSi dayo 142 weli da daikarga monRolebis mier qalaqis aRebis Semdeg. qronikis monacemebiT, Tu 1094 wels davumatebT 1 Movses Dasxuranci, The History of the Caucasian Albanians, gv.173, Sen.1; aseve, ix. MacDermot, The Conversion of Armenians, p. 295. 2 abulaZe, SuSanikis wameba, gv. 21-23. 3 swored am 7 welze aqvs saubari n. janaSiasac, rodesac qronikis mixedviT mcxeTaSi jvris aRmarTvis TariRad 289 wels iRebs, ix. janaSia, SuSanikis wameba, gv. 210. 4 SesaZloa, mcxeTasa da parxlis mTebSi gatarebuli wlebis raodenoba 175/7 erTad aris warmodgenili, radgan am wlebis ganmavlobaSi, svinaqsaris avtoris azriT, jvars ar dautovebia saqarTvelos teritoria da misi aRqmiT, speri – es saqarTveloa, Sesabamisad, ricxvebic dajgufebulia geografiis mixedviT: pirveli – saqarTvelos teritoriaze misi yofna (mcxeTasa da sperSi) – 175/7, meore – somxeTSi gadatana da kapuitsa da vanandSi yofna – 459 weli, yarsi – 164 da bolos, anisi – 142. 140 142-s, miviRebT 1236 wels, es TariRi ki namdvilad emTxveva anisis aRebis TariRs.1 amrigad, vinc unda iyos ninos jvris sakiTxavis avtori, qarTlis gaqristianebasTan dakavSirebiT da jvris istoriis gadmosacemad iyenebs da eyrdnoba im istoriul monacemebs, romlebic cnobili da miRebuli iyo somex istorikosebTan, Sua saukuneebis somxur garemoSi da maTi saSualebiT agebs da met damajereblobas aZlevs Tavis Txrobas. damowmebuli wyaroebi da literatura abulaZe, qarTul-somxuri literaturuli urTierTobebi – abulaZe il., qarTul-somxuri literaturuli urTierTobebi IX-X saukuneebSi, Tbilisi, 1944. abulaZe, SuSanikis wameba – abulaZe il., SuSanikis wameba, Tbilisi, 1974. aristakes lastivertci, istoria – aristakes lastivertci, istoria, Tbilisi, 1974. asaTiani, vazis jvris istoriidan – asaTiani q., vazis jvris istoriidan, ss, 4-5, 2003, gv. 34-45. vardan arevelci, msoflio istoria – vardan arevelci, msoflio istoria, Tbilisi, 2002. iakob curtaveli, mart¢loba¡ SuSanikisi – iakob curtaveli, mart¢loba¡ SuSanikisi, qarTuli da somxuri teqstebi gamosca, gamokvleva, variantebi, leqsikoni da saZieblebi daurTo il. abulaZem, Tbilisi, 1938. janaSia, SuSanikis wameba – janaSia n., SuSanikis wameba, Tbilisi, 1986. MacDermot, The Conversion of Armenians – MacDermot B., The Conversion of Armenians in the 294 A.D., REArm, t. VII, 1970, pp. 281-359. Movses Dasxuranci, The History of the Caucasian Albanians – The History of the Caucasian Albanians by Movses Dasxuranci, translated by C. J. F. Dowesett, New York, Toronto, 1961. Passion of Saint Shushanik – Passion of Saint Shushanik, The Martyrdom of St. Vardan Mamikonian’s Daughter, Translated with an Introduction by Rev. Father Krikor Vardapet Maksoudian, Edited by Ch. H. Zakian, In memory of Yeretsgin Agnes Rose Maksoudian, 1999. 1 Կիրակոս Գանձակեցի, Պատմութիւն Հայոց, էջ 258-259: 141 Rapp, Studies in Medieval Georgian Historiography – Studies in Medieval Georgian Historiography: Early Texts and Eurasian Contexts by St. H. Rapp Jr, Lovanii, 2003. Ալիշան, Այրարատ – Ղ.Ալիշան, Այրարատ, Բնաշխարհ Հայաստանեայց, Վենետիկ, 1890: Ալիշան, Հայապատում – Ղ.Ալիշան, Հայապատում, պատմիչք և պատմութիւնք Հայոց, I, Վենետիկ, 1901: Ակինեան, Հայաստանի և Վրաստանի – Ն. Ակինեան, Հայաստանի և Վրաստանի Քրիստոնէութեան դարձ, 1949: Ավդալբեգյան, «Հայսմաւուրք» – Մ. Ավդալբեգյան, «Հայսմաւուրք» ժողովածուները և նրանց պատմագրական արժեքը, Եր., 1982: Կիրակոս Գանձակեցի, Պատմութիւն Հայոց – Կիրակոս Գանձակեցի, Պատմութիւն Հայոց, Երեվան, 1961: Պատմութիւն Մատթէոս Ուրհաեցւոյ – Պատմութիւն Մատթէոս Ուրհաեցւոյ, Յերուսաղեմ, 1869: Մուրադյան, Սուրբ Շուշանիկ – Պ. Մուրադյան, Սուրբ Շուշանիկ վկայաբանություն, Եր., 1998: Սիւրմեանց, Մայր ցուցակ – Մայր ցուցակ Հայերեն ձեռագրաց Երուսաղեմի սրբոց Յակոբեանց Վանքի, հատ. Ա: Կազմեց Արտաւազդ արք. Սիւրմեանց, Վենետիկ, 1948: Վարդանայ Բարձրբերդեցի, Պատմութիւն Տիեզերական – Մեծի Վարդանայ Բարձրբերդեցւոյ Պատմութիւն Տիեզերական, Մոսկվա, 1861: Պողարեան, Մայր ցուցակ – Մայր ցուցակ Հայերեն ձեռագրաց Երուսաղեմի սրբոց Յակոբեանց, հատոր Առաջին, կազմէգ Նորայր Եպս.Պողարեան, Երուսաղեմ, 1966: Քրիստոնեայ Հայաստան – Քրիստոնեայ Հայաստան Հանրագիտարան, Երեվան, 2002: Марр, Предварительный отчет – Марр Н., Предварительный отчет о работах на Синае веденных в сотрудничестве с И. А. Джаваховым и в Иерусалиме в поездку 1902 (Апрель-Ноябрь), СИППО , т. XIV, ч. II, 1903. Меликсет-Беков, История Креста святой Нины – Меликсет-Беков Л., История Креста святой Нины, ИАФАН СССР, № 9 (14), 1941, стр. 59-63. 142 Dali Chitunashvili A Synaxarion Lesson of the History of St. Nino’s Cross and the Chronology of the Journey of the Cross Summary In Armenian Synaxarion (Haimsavurks) on March 30 or 31, the lesson of St. Nino’s Cross is preserved, which tells the story of the cross from its erection in Mtskheta to its loss after the capture of Anis by the Mongols. It is believed that the history of the lesson of the Cross is based on the 10th century Armenian author Aharon of Vanand’s work “The story on the Holy Cross of Nune”. The work, the author of which is Aharon, a member of the brotherhood of the Vanand monastery, tells the story of the Holy Cross of “Nune, the leader of the Georgians”; the plot is as follows: Kartli becomes Christian with the help of Saint Nune (Nino), the cross is erected, which Saint Shushanik later sends to her homeland – Taron – due to the apostasy of her husband, with the help of monk Andreas, a disciple of Sahak, however, the cross does not reach Taron and stops in the Parkhali mountains, from where it is taken by the last living Mamikonian – Grigol, the son of Hmaik Mamikonian, to the Castle Kapuit after the death of Shushanik. On the way, Grigol has a fight with the Greeks, which ends with his victory. The cross is moved from the Castle Kapuit to Vanand and a monastery is built in its name. At the end of Aharon’s work, the cross is moved to the village west of the Castle Karin, which was named “Cross” in its honour. A special service is established in the name of the Holy Cross and the representatives of the Bagratuni dinasty donate this sanctity to the villages. The comparison of the Synaxarion narrative and the story of Aharon shows that the Synaxarion version lacks several passages of the Aharon’s narrative (the raising of the cross in Mtskheta, the appearance of the miraculous pillar before the capture of Rome by Valentinian, etc.); however, the main line remains unchanged and the postcross adventure is added until the 1230s, when, according to the narrative, the cross that was moved to Anis in 1236, was lost after the capture of the city by the Mongols. 143 A detailed study of the chronology attached to the lesson shows that its author is well acquainted with both Armenian and Georgian historical sources and relies on those historical data (the Christianization of Armenia in 291; the death of Shushanik in 473/5; the rule of the Bagratuns in Vanan – 10th century; the years of the activity of Catholicos Barseg – 1081-1113, the capture of Anis by the Mongols – 1236), which were known and accepted by Armenian historians in the Armenian environment of the Middle Ages, thus building and giving more credibility to his narrative. 144 mamuka wurwumia daviT IV da nikifore II foka: samxedro-politikuri portretebi 2021 wels Sesrulda 900 weli didgoris brZolidan, sadac saqarTvelos udidesma mefem daviT IV aRmaSenebelma Tavisi yvelaze cnobili gamarjveba moipova; amave wels gavida 1060 weli kretis gaTavisuflebidan, rodesac erT-erTma udidesma bizantielma mxedarTmTavarma nikifore fokam kunZuli waarTva muslimebs. winamdebare naSromic am or istoriul figuras eZRvneba, ufro zustad ki miznad isaxavs maT Soris paralelebis gavlebas, romlebic dagvanaxebs, rom aRmosavleTis qristianul samyaroSi daviT aRmaSenebels hyavda prototipi da winamorbedi, masaviT saxelganTqmuli mxedarTmTavari, bizantiis imperatori nikifore II foka. nikifore foka (912-69), romlis saxelic ki gamarjvebis momtans niSnavda,1 mcire aziis mZlavr da samxedro tradiciebiT ganTqmul ojaxSi daibada. fokebis gvari imperiis umaRles samxedro aristokratias ekuTvnoda da kapadokiaSi hqondaT mamuli. am ojaxis warmomadgenlebTan mniSvnelovanwiladaa dakavSirebuli bizantiis warmatebebi arabTa winaaRmdeg brZolebSi da X saukuneSi imperiis mTavari mtris – alepos hamdanianTa damarcxeba da damorCileba. ZmebTan – leonsa da konstantinesTan erTad, nikifore axalgazrdobidanve omobda mamis xelqveiT alepos saamirosa da kilikielTa winaaRmdeg da mraval brZolaSi miiRo monawileoba.2 944 wlis dekemberSi (an 945 wels) konstantine VII porfirogenetma nikifore anatolikonis Temis strategad daniSna.3 955 wels, saif ad-daula ibn hamdanTan brZolaSi warumateblobis gamo, Secvala xanSiSesuli mama, barda foka sxolebis domestikosis (imperiis jarebis sardlis) Tanamdebobaze.4 axalma domestikosma energiulad daiwyo arabebTan brZola da 957 wels hamdanianebs waarTva hadaTi.5 amas jer kidev aTanase aToneli aRniSnavda (Byzantine Monastic Foundation Documents, t. 1, gv. 253). 2 Cheynet, Les Phocas, gv. 298. 3 John Skylitzes, A Synopsis of Byzantine History, gv. 230. 4 Theophanes Continuatus, gv. 42-45; The Chronicle of Pseudo-Symeon, gv. 114-115. nikifore fokas sardlad daniSvna iTvleba Semobrunebis wertilad X saukunis bizantiis armiis istoriaSi (McGeer, Sowing the Dragon’s Teeth, gv. 179). 5 Histoire de Yahya-ibn-Sa‘ïd d’Antioche, gv. 774. 1 145 960 wels, romanoz II-is mmarTvelobaSi, imperiis samxedro saqme mTlianad fokebis ojaxis xelSi gadadis:1 nikifore aRmosavleTis domestikosi (anu imperiis aziuri nawilis jarebis sardali), xolo leoni dasavleTis domestikosi (anu bizantiis evropuli nawilis jarebis sardali) xdeba.2 960-61 wlebSi nikifore xelmZRvanelobs eqspedicias kretis winaaRmdeg, romelic uaRresad saxifaTo wamowyebad iTvleboda.3 is orjer amarcxebs arabebs, mZime brZolebisa da 8-Tviani alyis Semdeg iRebs kretis dedaqalaq xandaqss da TiTqmis saukune-naxevris win dakargul kunZuls ubrunebs bizantias.4 962 wels nikifore ukve aRmosavleTis frontze ibrZvis, aoxrebs kilikias da iRebs anazarbas. foka utevs hamdanianebsac, amarcxebs saif ad-daulas jarebs da dekemberSi iRebs alepos.5 samxedro kampaniebis msvlelobisas nikiforem muslimTa 60-ze meti simagre aiRo.6 am gamarjvebebma ukiduresad daasusta hamdanianebi da faqtobrivad izolirebuli datova kilikia.7 963 wels, romanoz II-is sikvdilis Semdeg, nikifore foka taxtze adis. 964 wels iberiel da somex mokavSireebTan erTad utevs kilikias8 da iRebs 20 simagres.9 965 wels nikifore ipyrobs mofsuestas, amarcxebs tarsoselebs da iRebs maT qalaqs, riTic amTavrebs kilikiis dapyrobas.10 amave xanebSi bizantielebi ibruneben kviprossac.11 966 wels nikifore uwyvets xarkis xdas bulgarelebs da iRebs maT sasazRvro simagreebs.12 amave wels laSqravs sirias da romanoz II-is dros, 960 wlis zafxulSi imperiis umaRlesi samxedro Tanamdeboba orad, aRmosavleTisa da dasavleTis domestikosad iyofa (Cheynet, Les Phocas, gv. 302). 2 Theophanes Continuatus, gv. 64-65; The Revised Chronicle of Symeon the Logothete, gv. 96-97; The Chronicle of Pseudo-Symeon, gv. 118-119. 3 820-ian wlebSi arabebis mier kretis dapyrobis Semdeg, bizantielebma eqvsjer (!) warumateblad scades kunZulis ukan dabruneba. uzarmazari xarjisa da saguldagulo momzadebis miuxedavad, katastrofuli aRmoCnda 911 da 949 wlis eqspediciebic (Makrypoulias, Byzantine Expeditions against the Emirate of Crete, gv. 347-356). 4 The History of Leo the Deacon, gv. 60-69, 76-80; John Skylitzes, A Synopsis of Byzantine History, gv. 240-241; Theophanes Continuatus, gv. 66-79; The Revised Chronicle of Symeon the Logothete, gv. 96-101; The Chronicle of Pseudo-Symeon, gv. 118-121. 5 John Skylitzes, A Synopsis of Byzantine History, gv. 243; The Revised Chronicle of Symeon the Logothete, gv. 100-103. 6 The History of Leo the Deacon, gv. 82. 7 Garrood, The Byzantine Conquest of Cilicia and the Hamdanids of Aleppo, gv. 133-135. 8 John Skylitzes, A Synopsis of Byzantine History, gv. 257. 9 The History of Leo the Deacon, gv. 101-102. 10 John Skylitzes, A Synopsis of Byzantine History, gv. 257-258; The History of Leo the Deacon, gv. 106-109. 11 John Skylitzes, A Synopsis of Byzantine History, gv. 259. 12 The History of Leo the Deacon, gv. 109-111. 1 146 manbijidan (hierapolisi) keramioni1 moaqvs.2 968 wels awyobs reids sanapiros gaswvriv, aRwevs tripolamde da iRebs arqas.3 antioqia blokirebulia da 969 wels nebdeba bizantielebs.4 wlis bolos alepoc iZulebulia Tavi imperiis vasalad da moxarked cnos.5 amave wlis 11 dekembers imperatori SeTqmulebma mokles, romelTa saTaveSi misi Zveli TanamebrZoli da naTesavi, ioane cimisxi idga.6 nikifore foka ara marto brwyinvale sardali, aramed novatoric iyo samxedro saqmeSi da mravali taqtikuri siaxle aqvs danergili.7 mis saxelTanaa dakavSirebuli armiaSi mZimed SeWurvili mxedrobis (katafraqtebis) aRorZineba, ramac mravali warmateba moutana bizantias.8 mas Tavisi wvlili aqvs Setanili samxedro TeoriaSic, rogorc traqtatebis Praecepta Militaria-s avtors da De velitatione bellica-s sulisCamdgmels. arabTa winaaRmdeg omebSi warmatebebis gamo mas `sarkinozTa TeTri sikvdili~ uwodes.9 bizantieli poetis, jariskacisa da beris ioane geometris leqsSi, romelic gardacvlil imperators eZRvneba da kicxavs mis mkvlelebs, amomwuravadaa CamoTvlili nikifores mTavari miRwevebi: `maxvilma momkveTa Tavi sibneleSi, samefos daeufla mkvlelis xeli, magram ra saWiroa brZola usulo gamosaxulebebTan, maTi damxoba? falarisisa10 da eqetosis11 gaafTrebac rom warmovidginoT, vis SeuZlia Tavisi sibraziT Semusros Cemi gamarjvebis Zeglebi, didi kreta da didebuli kviprosi, auRebeli tarsosi, kilikielTa dacemuli simagreebi, kecze aRbeWdili macxovris xelTuqmneli xati. Histoire de Yahya-ibn-Sa‘ïd d’Antioche, gv. 805. 3 The History of Leo the Deacon, gv. 119-122. 4 John Skylitzes, A Synopsis of Byzantine History, gv. 261-262; The History of Leo the Deacon, gv. 123125, 132-134. 5 Histoire de Yahya-ibn-Sa‘ïd d’Antioche, gv. 823-824. 6 John Skylitzes, A Synopsis of Byzantine History, gv. 268-269; The History of Leo the Deacon, gv. 134139. 7 Cheynet, Les Phocas, gv. 301. 8 e. makgiri X saukunis katafraqtebs miiCnevs erT-erT yvelaze warmatebul eqsperimentad bizantiis samxedro istoriaSi (McGeer, Sowing the Dragon’s Teeth, gv. 214-217, 286289, 313-318). 9 The Complete Works of Liudprand of Cremona, gv. 244. 10 falarisi – agrigentis umowyalo tirani. 11 eqetosi – epiris sastiki mefe. 1 2 147 antioqiis kedlebi, asirielTa qalaqebi, sparselebi, finikielebi, arabebi? uricxvi xalxi dedamiwaze morCilebda Cems moqneul Subs. vis SeuZlia amis daknineba? CamoglijeT Cemi portretebi kedlebidan, Cemi kvali miwaze da gulebSi mainc ukvdavia~.1 nikifore fokam waruSleli kvali datova bizantielTa mexsierebaSi. mas xSirad ixsenebdnen imperiis SeWirvebis Jams. X saukunis miwuruls epikoposi ioane meliteneli uxmobs gardacvlil imperators, rom man saflavidan uSvelos Tavis qveyanas: `gardaagde samaris qva, romelic xels giSlis da Caaqvave mxecebi, ukuagde warmarTebi... magram, Tu mainc ar SegiZlia saflavis datoveba, miwidan amosZaxe mtrebs – esec ki sakmarisi iqneba maT dasafantad~.2 ra kavSiri SeiZleba arsebobdes daviT aRmaSenebelsa da nikifore fokas Soris, anki ra hqondaT maT saerTo, garda warmatebuli samxedro karierisa?3 daviwyoT Soridan da jer davadginoT kavSirebi nikiforesa da zogadad qarTvelebs Soris. zogierTi mkvlevari Tvlis, rom fokebis ojaxi warmoSobiT saqarTvelodan iyo. J.-k. Sene ganixilavs fokebis gvaris warmomavlobis sxvadasxva versiebs da yvelaze damajereblad miiCnevs maT qarTul fesvebs.4 m. viTou wers, rom qarTvelebi (iberielebi) barda fokas TavianT naTesavad da megobrad Tvlidnen. misi azriT, fokebis ojaxi an Tavad iyo saqarTvelodan an, ufro safiqrebelia, rom isini qarTvelebs enaTesavebdnen.5 nikifore fokas kavSirebze qarTvelebTan mravali faqti metyvelebs. qarTvelebi monawileoben mis omebSi muslimeMcGeer, Sowing the Dragon’s Teeth, gv. 223. John Skylitzes, A Synopsis of Byzantine History, gv. 270. 3 1089 wels, rodesac 16 wlis daviTi taxtze avida, samefo selCukebs uxdida taxts, misi mmarTvelobis dasasruls ki saqarTvelo Savsa da kaspiis zRvebs Soris gadaWimul imperias warmoadgenda. daviT IV-m ganamtkica centraluri xelisufleba, srulyo saxelmwifo aparati, moaxdina eklesiis reorganizacia da gaatara samxedro reforma; man aRkveTa Turqmen momTabareTa TareSi, SemoierTa kaxeT-hereTi (1104), gaaTavisufla samSvilde (1110) da rusTavi (1115), aiRo lore da daipyro taSir-Zoragetis samefo (1118), didgoris brZolaSi daamarcxa muslimTa koaliciuri laSqari (1121), aiRo Tbilisi (1122), gandevna Sirvanidan erayis selCukTa sulTani (1123) da daipyro qveyana (1124), aiRo dmanisi (1124) da daamTavra saqarTvelos gaerTianeba, xelT igdo anisi (1124). 4 Cheynet, Les Phocas, gv. 290. 5 Whittow, The Making of Byzantium, gv. 364. 1 2 148 bTan.1 swored nikifore unda iyos is imperatori, romelmac daumtkica daviT III taoels `zemoni queyanani~,2 riTac jer kidev konstantine porfirogenetTan asaxuli Zveli dava imperiasa da taos samefos Soris dasrulda araqsis xazze gamijvniT da CrdiloeT basianis daTmobiT qarTvelebisaTvis.3 ix. John Skylitzes, A Synopsis of Byzantine History, gv. 257. iovanesa da efTvimes cxovrebaSi giorgi mTawmideli ar asaxelebs imperators, romelmac `zemoni queyanani daviT kurapalatsa miscna da aznaurTa Svilni mZevlad iTxovna misgan~ (giorgi mTawmideli, cxoreba¡ iovanesi da efT¢mesi, gv. 43). gansxvavebiT, efTvime mTawmidelis svinaqsarul cxovrebaSi es imperatori nikifore fokaa (ix. gabiZaSvili, efTvime mTawmidelis cxovrebis svinaqsaruli redaqcia, gv. 24, 43-44). v. kopaliani miiCnevs, rom daviTs es miwebi nikifore fokam uboZa, kilikielTa winaaRmdeg kampaniaSi monawileobis gamo (kopaliani, bizantia-saqarTvelos urTierTobis istoriidan, gv. 115-117; misive, saqarTvelosa da bizantiis politikuri urTierToba, gv. 23-25). am mosazrebas iziareben rogorc qarTveli (S. badriZe, e. cagareiSvili), ise dasavleli (m. viTou) mkvlevrebi (badriZe, saqarTvelos urTierTobebi bizantiasa da dasavleT evropasTan, gv. 58; cagareiSvili, somxuri wyaroebi, gv. 159; Whittow, The Making of Byzantium, gv. 364). k. kekeliZis dakvirvebiT, giorgi mTawmideli mxolobiTSi moixseniebs wyalobis gamcem da mZevlebis mimReb bizantiis imperators (`berZenTa mefeman~, `mZevlad mohguares mefesa~), xolo mZevali Svilis wamosayvanad misul iovanes ukve `mefeni~ xvdebian. misi azriT, basianis mxare kurapalats romanoz II-m dauTmo da mZevlebic manve moiTxova, magram misi gardacvalebis gamo, iovanes konstantinopolSi romanozis mcirewlovani Svilebi (basili da konstantine) daxvdnen (kekeliZe, ori eqvTime, gv. 92-93). am mosazrebas iziarebs a. bogveraZec (ix. bogveraZe, „zemo qveyanani“, gv. 19-22). aseTi msjelobisas auxsneli rCeba is garemoeba, rom mcirewlovani (xuTi da sami wlis) basili da konstantine ver iqnebodnen iovanes simamris abuharbis mcnobni (`mefeni mecnier iyvnes abuharbisa~); isini verc iovanes `siyuaruls aCvenebdnen~, verc `keTilad moikiTxavdnen~ da verc `bWobiTa mefeTa¡Ta~ Svils gamoatandnen (giorgi mTawmideli, cxoreba¡ iovanesi da efT¢mesi, gv. 43). a. bogveraZis azriT, `mZevlebi daviTisTvis nikifore fokas rom moeTxova, giorgi mTawmindeli veRar ityoda, rom eqvTimes olimpoze wayvanis dros saberZneTSi `mefeni~ isxdneno~ (bogveraZe, „zemo qveyanani“, gv. 20). Teoriulad es mainc iyo SesaZlebeli, Tuki gavixsenebT, rom basilic da konstantinec (umcros) imperatorebad iTvlebodnen nikifores (da Semdeg, cimisxis) mmarTvelobis drosac (The Chronographia of Michael Psellus, gv. 27; aseve ix. gabiZaSvili, efTvime mTawmidelis cxovrebis svinaqsaruli redaqcia, gv. 25). aseT SemTxvevaSi, mZevlebi nikifores SeeZlo moeTxova, xolo iovanes konstantinopolSi samive imperatori (`mefeni~) daxvedroda. magram es mainc ver xsnis asakTan dakavSirebul sxva winaaRmdegobebs giorgi mTawmidelis TxrobaSi, romelic erTmniSvnelovnad Secdomad unda CaiTvalos. am Secdomis gaTvaliswinebiT, upiratesoba unda mivaniWoT svinaqsaruli cxovrebis cnobas da swori Cans e. gabiZaSvilis varaudi, rom `nikifore mefis saxeli miCqmalulia~ (iqve). am garemoebas a. bogveraZec iTvaliswinebs, Tumca mis araswor axsnas iZleva: `Tuki simarTle svinaqsaruli redaqciis mxaresaa, maSin unda davuSvaT, rom giorgi mTawmindeli fokas pirovnebis ignorirebas axdens, ramdenadac misma qorwilma romanozis qvrivTan didi ukmayofileba gamoiwvia bizantiis umaRles samRvdeloebasa da sasaxlis karis did moxeleebs Soris~ (bogveraZe, „zemo qveyanani“, gv. 21-22). saqme isaa, rom fokebis gvaris warmomadgenlebi, nikifores mokvlis Semdeg, ioane cimisxidan dawyebuli, lamis yvela imperatoris winaaRmdeg ilaSqrebdnen da dakarguli poziciebis aRdgenas cdilobdnen. XI saukunis 40-ian wlebSi, rodesac giorgi mTawmideli Tavis Txzulebas werda, erT dros uZlieresi fokebis ojaxi ukve damdablebuli iyo. rogorc Cans, am realobis gaTvaliswinebiT, giorgi mTawmideli Segnebulad moerida Serisxuli fokebis ojaxis yvelaze cnobili warmomadgenlis moxseniebas Tavis TxzulebaSi (nikifores saxelis devnisaTvis ix. ioane geometris leqsi). 3 ix. Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De Administrando Imperio, gv. 206-215. 1 2 149 daviT kurapalati nikifores ZmisSvil barda fokasTan megobrobda 968-69 wlebidan, rodesac is taos mosazRvre xaldiis Temis duqsi iyo.1 nikiforem patrikiosis maRali tituli mianiWa Tornike erisTavs da savsebiT SesaZlebelia, rom 960-ian wlebSi Tornikeca da bardac erTad monawileobdnen imperatoris aRmosavlur kampaniebSi.2 nikifore foka kargad icnobda aTonze moRvawe samive qarTvel bers – iovanes, efTvimesa da Tornikes. iovane aToneli, daviT kurapalatis sardal-yofili,3 miRebuli iyo samefo karze, xSirad Cadioda konstantinopolSi da saboZvrebi mohqonda aTonis lavrisaTvis.4 efTvime aTonelis svinaqsaruli cxovreba gvatyobinebs iovanes erTi aseTi vizitis Sesaxeb dedaqalaqSi, `winaSe nikifor RmrTis-msaxurisa mefisa~, rodesac man mZevlad wamoyvanili efTvime mosTxova imperators.5 iovanes pativiT Sexvdnen da neba darTes TavisTan, aTonze waeyvana Svili, rac mowmobs iovanesa da nikifores axlo urTierTobebze. r. morisi aRniSnavs, rom miqael maleinossa da aTanase aTonelTan erTad, iovane qarTvelic nikifores samefo karze sasurveli stumari iyo.6 saqme isaa, rom wmindanad Seracxuli miqael maleinosi (894961) nikifore fokas biZa iyo (dedis mxridan) da didi gavlena hqonda masze. nikifore materialurad exmareboda miqael maleinosis kiminis monasters, biTviniaSi, olimpos (ulumbos) mTaze. is da misi Zma leoni xSirad stumrobdnen miqaels monasterSi, sadac 950-ian wlebSi dauaxlovdnen miqaelis moswavles aTanases, SemdgomSi aTonelad wodebuls.7 961 wels, nikifores TxovniT, aTanasem droebiT datova aTonis mTa da mas CaakiTxa kretaze brZolebis dros. gamarjvebulma fokam nadavli aTanasesac uwilada aTonze monastris asagebad.8 miqaelisa da aTanases wabaZviT, nikifore beradac ki apirebda Sedgomas.9 John Skylitzes, A Synopsis of Byzantine History, gv. 309. Whittow, The Making of Byzantium, gv. 364-365. 3 giorgi mTawmideli, cxoreba¡ iovanesi da efT¢mesi, gv. 42. 4 Actes de Lavra, t. 1, gv. 44. 5 gabiZaSvili, efTvime mTawmidelis cxovrebis svinaqsaruli redaqcia, gv. 43-44. 6 Morris, The Two Faces of Nikephoros Phocas, gv. 102. 7 fokebsa da aTanases erTmaneTi 945 wlis axlo xanebSi konstantinopolSi, maleinosTan, unda gaecnoT (Laiou, The General and the Saint, gv. 406-407; Byzantine Monastic Foundation Documents, t. 1, gv. 250-251). 8 Byzantine Monastic Foundation Documents, t. 1, gv. 206. 9 sikvdils imperatori maleinosis mier naqon flasSi gaxveuli Sexvda (The History of Leo the Deacon, gv. 134; John Skylitzes, A Synopsis of Byzantine History, gv. 268). 1 2 150 Tavis mxriv, aTanase aToneli1 iovanes maswavlebeli iyo, romelsac, albaT, jer kidev ulumbodan icnobda, sadac iovane Tavmdablad msaxurebda.2 984 wels aTanases mier gacemuli sigelidan vigebT im axlo megobrobaze, romelic massa da iovanes Soris arsebobda: `uRvTisnieresi monazoni ioane rogorc ki movida Cvens mTaze da SemierTda me, sawyalobelsa da codvils, da daemorCila Cems sawyaloblobas, da RvTis mcnebis gziT da sakuTari saTnoebiT da RvTisnierobiT miaRwia mraval da da sxvadasxvagvar sulier warmatebas, Seasrula mravali da didi msaxurebani da zemoT moxsenebuli morCilebis dros, amiT man ara marto RmerTs, aramed mec, sawyalobels da mTel Cvens qristes mimarTs Zmobas emsaxura ise, rogorc arc erTma sxvam, arc Cvens droSi da arc Zvel wlebSi rom brwyinavdnen. rameTu amdeni iSroma da iRvawa am kacma, xSirad sameufo qalaqSic Cadioda, xvdeboda imdroindel mefeebs maradsaxsenebel mefiT ufal nikiforeTi dawyebuli vidre dRemde, ise rom misi sasargeblo rudunebiT da keTili SuamdgomlobiT miiRo xrisobuli ufal ioane mefisagan, romelic Seicavda Cveni lavrisTvis lemnosis Semosavlidan (solemnidan) 244 nomizmis boZebas, rasac Cven dRevandlamde vRebulobT yovelwliurad. ufal basili mefemac uZRvna mas sxva xrisobuli kunZul neonis Sesaxeb, da es man aCuqa lavras kunZulTan erTad. Semdeg RvTis TanaSewevniT Tavisi sakuTari lavra rom daafuZna da Tavis mflobelobaSi da winamZRvrobaSi daimkvidra, amiT ki ar Seuwyvetia Tavisi moRvaweoba, an sruliad mouspia Tavisi sulis dadeba Cveni TavisTvis da Cveni lavrisaTvis, aramed kvlavac CvenTan erTad Sromobda, iRvwoda da gverdiT edga yvela Cven saqmes, da mogvaniWebda xolme, Tu Seityobda, rom Cven rame gvesaWiroeboda~.3 aTanase ise afasebda iovanes, rom fokas fuliT agebul did lavraSi Tavisi anderZiT is da misi Svili (efTvime) datova zedamxedvelad,4 lavris mkvidrebs ki maTi siyvaruli daubara.5 es ar iyo urTierToba mxolod moswavlesa da maswavlebels Soris: rogorc Tavad aTanase sainteresoa, rom aTanases deda kolxi iyo (ivironis aqtebi, t. I, gv. 27). `mTasa ulumbo¡sasa miiwia da monastersa erTsa Sina JamTa ara-mciredTa jorTa msaxurebisa Ruawli axovnad Tavs-idva da sxuani undoni msaxurebani da Seuracxni simdabliT aRasrulna~ (giorgi mTawmideli, cxoreba¡ iovanesi da efT¢mesi, gv. 43). aTanases kargad moexseneboda Tornikes Sesaxebac: `arca didi aTanasi umecar iyo Tornikis saqmesa da warCinebulobasa da axovnebasa~ (iqve, gv. 44). 3 georgika, t. VIII, gv. 173-174. 4 Byzantine Monastic Foundation Documents, t. 1, gv. 275. 5 iqve, gv. 276. am anderZs j. denisi uwodebs aTanasesa da qarTvelTa Soris arsebuli xangrZlivi megobrobis kulminacias (iqve, gv. 209). 1 2 151 aRniSnavs, iovane SemdgomSic, ukve sakuTari monastris flobis Jamsac, gverdSi edga aTanasesa da lavras.1 sayuradReboa, rom qarTvelebi Suamavlad gamodian lavrasa da bizantiis imperatorebs Soris, TviT nikifores winaSec ki.2 es samefo karze maT gavlenasa da fokasTan axlo urTierTobaze metyvelebs. nikifore fokas mkvlelobis Semdegac, aTonelebi ar iviwyebdnen TavianT mfarvels da xels uwyobdnen misi kultis popularizaciasa da gavrcelebas.3 aseT viTarebaSi, cxadia, rom qarTvelebs, romlebic aTonis mTisa da didi lavris cxovrebaSi aqtiurad monawileobdnen, 1 aqve moviyvan aTonis istoriaSi qarTvelTa rolis Sefasebas berZeni mkvlevris d. papaxrisanTus mier: `qarTvelebi exmarebodnen ara marto lavras, aramed aTonis mTis yvela monasters, romlebic im dros siRaribeSi cxovrobdnen. iovane qarTveli gascemda mniSvnelovan Tanxas, Zvirfas nivTebs, saeklesio wignebs, saqonels da sxv. cxadia, rom qarTvelebma iTamaSes didi roli aTonis ganviTarebaSi X saukunis bolo meoTxedsa da XI saukunis dasawyisSi: politikuri roli, radganac maTi liderebi iovane, Tornike da efTvime warCinebuli ojaxebidan iyvnen da hqondaT axlo urTierToba samefo karTan da nikifore fokadan dawyebuli, yvela imperatorTan; ekonomikuri roli, radgan isini flobdnen did Tanxebs, romlebsac uSurvelad gascemdnen; dabolos, sulieri roli, radgan ioane da efTvime gamoCenili adamianebi iyvnen da aTonelebs Soris didi prestiJiT sargeblobdnen. aTanase aRfrTovanebiT saubrobs maTze da tovebs Tavisi saqmis zedamxedvelebad, rasac ar Caidenda, maT zneobriv da sulier Rirsebebze erTob maRali warmodgenis rom ar yofiliyo~ (Actes du Prôtaton, gv. 85). 2 am mxriv sainteresoa Semdegi garemoeba: tradiciis Tanaxmad, 964 wels nikiforem sxva saCuqrebTan erTad aTanases lavras aCuqa Zeli cxovelis fragmenti, romelic dRemdea daculi lavraSi. Jak lefori da ivironis aqtebis sxva gamomcemlebi fiqroben, rom es unda iyos iovanesa da efTvimes cxovrebaSi, sxva saCuqrebTan erTad, moxseniebuli Zeli cxovelis nawili, romelic iovane iberma moupova lavras: `amaT RirsTa da sanatrelTa mamaTa CuenTa didni safaseni da mravalni turfani Sewirnes didsa lavrasa da yovelTa monasterTa mTawmidisaTa, romelni-igi mas Jamsa wuTRa glaxak iyvnes da ara ganmravlebul esoden. da saSovalsa, romel ars yovlisa mTisa Sesakrebeli, friadni sa£marni da monagebni miscnes [...] didsa ukue lavrasa misces, viTarca vTquT, oqrobeWedi ganZisa oras ormeocda oTxisa drahknisa¡, CimiSkisa boZebuli iovanesda, da ese yovelTa welTa aqus palatiT lavrasa, da kunZuli, romelsa neos ewodebis, basili mefisa boZebuli iovanesdave, romlisagan gamovals gamosavali yovelTa welTa id litra¡, gina aTxuTmeti da odesme ocica. da kualad misces oqro¡ ganZad aTualuli ke litra¡, da Zelisa cxorebisa nawili vecxlisa budiTa [...] sxua¡ xati gardamo£sna¡, nikifor mefisa niWebuli~ (giorgi mTawmideli, cxoreba¡ iovanesi da efT¢mesi, gv. 52-53; ivironis aqtebi, t. I, gv. 27-28, Sen. 6). r. morisis SefasebiT, am mosazrebis sawinaaRmdegod metyvelebs iovane qarTvelis aTonze mosvlis dro, romelic tradiciulad 965 wliT TariRdeba, Tumca Zeli cxovelis ori fragmentis arsebobasac ar gamoricxavs (Morris, The Two Faces of Nikephoros Phocas, gv. 104-105, Sen. 72). 3 iqve, gv. 106. 152 eqnebodaT zedmiwevniT zusti informacia nikifores Sesaxeb da wvdoma mraval xelnawerze misi cxovrebisa da moRvaweobis Sesaxeb.1 albaT, ar SevcdebiT, Tu vivaraudebT, rom daviTs xeli miuwvdeboda fokebis ojaxis istoriaze, romelic amJamad dakargulad iTvleba da Tavis mxriv, warmoadgenda wyaros ioane skilicesa da leon diakvanisaTvis. am wyaros, saidanac daviTs SeeZlo amoekiTxa nikifore fokas cxovrebisa da moRvaweobis Sesaxeb, a. kaJdani pirobiTad `fokebis istorias~ uwodebs.2 amas garda, mixeil ataliate aRniSnavs, rom nikifore fokas Sesaxeb mravali Zveli Txzuleba mogviTxrobda.3 amasve ambobs miqel pselosic: `imperator nikifore fokas Sesaxeb bevri daiwera dawvrilebiT, rogorc TanamedroveTa, ise Semdgom avtorTa mier~.4 ase rom, nikifore fokas istoria advilad SeiZleba aRmoCeniliyo qarTveli mefis xelT. metic, daviTis istorikoss wakiTxuli unda hqondes Teodosi diakvanis poema nikifore fokas mier kretis dapyrobis Sesaxeb, rogorc amas mowmobs Sinaarsobrivad identuri adgili orive Txzulebidan. am monakveTSi orive, berZeni da qarTveli avtori gamokveTs qebis SemsxmelTa rols pirovnebis ukvdavyofis saqmeSi. Teodosi amtkicebs, rom `aqilevsis da aleqsandre makedonelisa da sxva brwyinvale sardalTa dideba dRemde maTze monaTxrobma moitana; maT dResac umReris da aqebs homerosi, plutarqe da sxvani~.5 Semdeg CamoTvlis warsulis berZen da romael gmirebs, romelTa saqmeni, Teodosis daxasiaTebiT, verc Seedreba nikifores mier Cadenils. am xerxs is araerTxel iyenebs. gansakuTrebiT damaxasiaTebelia monakveTi, sadac bizantieli avtori dascinis homerosis mier aRweril troas xangrZliv alyas da am dros TiTqosda Cadenil gmirobebs, romlebic sinamdvileSi mxolod homerosis mWevrmetyvelebis nayofia.6 zustad am meTods iyenebs qarT1 fokebis ojaxTan megobrobas qarTvelebi nikifores sikvdilis Semdegac agrZelebdnen: 979 wels daviT kurapalatis mier gagzavnili armiis wyalobiT barda fokam skliarosi daamarcxa. 987-89 wlebSi kurapalati meoredac daexmara barda fokas, amjerad basili II-is winaaRmdeg mowyobil warumatebul ajanyebaSi (Whittow, The Making of Byzantium, gv. 363-365, 370-373). 1022 wels ukve bardas Svili nikifore foka gvevlineba giorgi I-is mokavSired da zurgSi ujanydeba saqarTveloze gamolaSqrebul basili II-s (John Skylitzes, A Synopsis of Byzantine History, gv. 346; aristakes lastiverteci, istoria, gv. 48-50). 2 Каждан, Из истории византийской хронографии X в., gv. 120. 3 Michael Attaleiates, The History, gv. 406-407. 4 Michael Psellus, Historia Syntomos, gv. 98-99. 5 Theodosios the Deacon, The Capture of Crete, gv. 134-135. 6 iqve, gv. 136-139, 186-187. 153 veli mematianec, roca Teodosis kvaldakval asaxelebs berZen-romael gmirebs, romlebic ufro maTi mexotbeebiT gaxdnen cnobilni, vidre Cadenili saqmeebiT da berZeni avtoriviT, daviTis namoqmedars adarebs troas xangrZliv alyas, romelsac arc Tvlis qebis Rirsad: `xolo amad ra¡ Txrobad moviwive, vaebisa Rirsad Sevracxen didni igi da saxelovanni gamometyuelni, vity¢ ukue umiross da aristovles ellinTa, xolo iosipos ebraelsa, romelTaganman erTman troadelTa da aqevelTani Seamkvna Txrobani, Tu viTar aRamemnon da priamos, anu aqilevi da ektor, mermeca odiseos da oresti ekueTnes, da vin vis mZle eqmna; da meoreman aleqsandresni warmoTquna m£ne-kacebani da Zleva-Semosilobani; xolo mesameman vespasiane-tito¡smierni metomeTa T¢sTa zedani Wirni miscna aRwerasa. da vina¡Tgan amaT nivTni saqmeTani ara aqundes kmad misaTxrobelad, amisT¢sca £elovnebiTa ritorobisa¡Ta ganavrceles, viTarca ity¢s T¢T sadame aleqsandre: ‘ara did iyav, aqilevi, aramed didsa miemTx¢e maqebelsa – umiross’. rameTu ocdarva wel gangrZobasa troadelTa brZolisasa verara¡ Rirsi qebisa¡ iqmna, xolo mefisa daviTisi eseodenTa mimarT wina-ganwyoba¡ sam Jamadmde iyo, da verca pirvelsa kueTebasa SeuZles wina-dadgromad. hqonebodesmca amaT brZenTa nivTad TxrobaTa saqmeni daviTisni da maTmca aRwernes jerovnad maTisaebr ritorobisa, da maSinRamca Rirs-qmnil iyvnes jerovansa qebasa!~1 aRmaSenebeli rom warsulis gamocdilebiT sargeblobda, amaze pirdapir saubrobs misi mematiane. daviTis istorikosi miuTiTebs, rom mefis warmatebebis saidumlo mis mier wakiTxul da gaTvaliswinebul Zvel istoriebSi imaleboda,2 romelTa codnis gareSec is agrerigad ver amaRldeboda: `xolo vTqua eseca, viTarmed ukueTumca ara werilTa mecnierebani da gardasrulTa saqmeTa Semecnebani, pirvel yofilTa mefeTa keTil-ZRuanebulTa anu ver[r]asa warmarTebulTa SemTxueulni, wina-gansakrZalebelad da saxed ara Semoexunes da ara moe£marnes, – cxoreba¡ mefeT-mefisa daviTisi, gv. 325-326. wignebisadmi mefis ltolva kargad iyo cnobili: `eseoden ucalosa wignnive aqundes usaswrafoesad saqmed~, ambobs misi mematiane (iqve, gv. 334). daviT aRmaSenebels Tan dahqonda mozrdili biblioTeka da omisa da laSqrobis drosac ar eSveboda kiTxvas: `dRe da Rame mimoslvaTa Sina mimdemTa, laSqrobaTa mouwyenelTa, SromaTa ganusuenebelTa wignebi et¢rTa simravlesa jorTa da aqlemTasa; da sada garda£dis hunesa, pirvel yovlisa wignni moaqundian £eliTa da ara daacadis kiTxva, vidre ara daSuris. xolo Semdgomad serobisa, naculad Zilisa anu sx¢sa rasme saqmisa, kualad kiTxva wignTa. da raJams Tualni daSurian, sasmenelni anacvalnis. da ara garewarad, aramed friadca frTxilad ismenn winaSe T¢ssa mkiTxvelisasa, gamoeZiebn, hkiTxavn, ufroRa T¢T ganhmartebn Zalsa da siRrmesa maTsa~ (iqve, gv. 331-332). 1 2 154 viTarca ity¢s solomon, viTarmed: ‘icnis qceulebani JamTani, aR£snani igavTani da gardasrulTa Sesamsgavsni momavalni’, – ara Tumca eseni esreT, kuerTxi mefobisa¡, eseoden damdablebuli, eseoden Zneli da nand¢lve did-gansagebeli, ra¡Ta ipyra esreT maRlad da viTar vervin sxuaman? rameTu ganbrZnda ufro¡s beselielisa da umetes eTa[n]is i[z]raitelisa, werilisaebr~.1 warsulis gakveTilebis gaTvaliswineba, albaT, yvelaze kargad aRmaSeneblis samxedro moRvaweobaSi Cans, sadac is mefis winaSe mdgomi amocanebis gadasawyvetad gamoiyeneba. daviT IV-is mefobaSi momTabare TurqmenebTan brZola da maTi marbieli reidebis aRkveTa erT-erT upirveles da urTules amocanas warmoadgenda. momTabareebTan dapirispireba xasiaTdeboda mcire masStabis, magram maRali intensivobis SetakebebiT, romlebic dinamiurobiTa da mobilurobiT gamoirCeoda. maTTan brZola omis specifikur meTodebs moiTxovda. marbieli reidebis winaaRmdeg brZolis Teoriuli safuZvlebi ukve SemuSavebuli hqonda bizantiur samxedro azrs, romelmac X saukuneSi iseTi detalurad Camoyalibebuli da praqtikuli saxelmZRvanelo mogvca, rogoricaa De velitatione bellica. misi avtori nikifore II fokas TanamebrZoli da, SesaZloa, fokebis ojaxis wevric ki iyo.2 traqtatis dawera, imperatoris Canawerebis safuZvelze,3 mas Tavad nikifore II-m daavala.4 qarTvelTa mefem mowinaaRmdegis marbielTan brZolis es Zveli bizantiuri taqtika warmatebiT gamoiyena axal viTarebaSi axali mtris (Turqmeni momTabareebis) winaaRmdeg. daviT aRmaSeneblis samxedro moRvaweobaSi vxvdebiT rogorc De velitatione bellica-s rekomendaciebis gaTvaliswinebas,5 ise traqtatis SemoqmedebiTad gaazrebis Sedegsac,6 iqve, 334. Skirmishing, gv. 139; Кучма, К проблеме авторства трактата “De velitatione bellica”, gv. 133. 3 McGeer, Sowing the Dragon’s Teeth, gv. 173-178. 4 Skirmishing, gv. 148-149. 5 rogoricaa strategiuli barieris formireba da mcire ZalebiT mowinaaRmdegis SeCereba mTian regionSi (TrialeTis brZola, 1110 w.), mtris banakis ganadgureba masTan faruli miaxloebiTa da moulodneli TavdasxmiT (1116 wels imiertao, 1120 wels botora da sxv.), mowinaaRmdegis gamotyueba da misi Semdgomi ganadgureba (avWalasTan Casafreba da Tbilisidan TurqTa gamotyueba), da sxv. 6 ase magaliTad, daviT IV mimarTavda mowinaaRmdegis gamotyuebas rogorc taqtikur (avWalis epizodi), ise strategiul doneze (lixs iqiT gadasvla), rac imas niSnavs, rom man traqtatis rekomendaciebi taqtikuri gamotyuebis Sesaxeb strategiul doneze aiyvana. mefes axal simaRleze ahyavs De velitatione bellica-Si mocemuli sxva rekomendaciac. Tu traqtatis yvelaze gabeduli manevri mtris gamosvlis Sesaxeb cnobis miRebisTanave mowinaaRmdegis sazRvrispira regionSi Sekavebas gulisxmobs, daviTi, Sesabamisi sadazvervo informaciis miRebis Semdeg, momTabareebs qveynis gareT, sazRvrispira regionebSic esxmis Tavs. 1 2 155 rac imas niSnavs, rom daviT IV warmatebiT iyenebda bizantiis imperiis samxedro gamocdilebas da sakuTari naazreviTac amdidrebda mas.1 axla, rodesac viciT, rom daviT IV nikifore fokas mdidar samxedro-Teoriul memkvidreobas iyenebda, albaT, upriani iqneba davsvaT kiTxva, kidev ra saerTo SeiZleba vipovoT am or gamorCeul mmarTvels Soris? rogorc qvemoT davinaxavT, maT Soris marTlac bevri msgavsebis aRmoCena SeiZleba. albaT, gasakviri ar aris, rom iseTi Rrmad morwmune pirovnebebi, rogorebic iyvnen nikifore foka da daviT aRmaSenebeli, omis warmoebisas erTnairi ideologiuri doqtriniT xelmZRvanelobdnen. nikifore fokam, winamorbedTa naazrevis gaTvaliswinebiT, gza gaukvala saqristianos dacvis saomar koncefcias, romelic jihadis sapirwone unda gamxdariyo. daviT aRmaSenebelma, islamis samyarosTan mZafri dapirispirebisa da mis dros gaSlili jvarosnuli omebis fonze, srulad gamoiyena es ideologia. bizantiuri samxedro traqtatebis Seswavlam Jilber dagroni im daskvnamde miiyvana, rom imperiis samxedro doqtrinas muslimebTan brZolam gamokveTili religiuri xasiaTi SesZina.2 islamis dapirispirebam qristianobasTan, muslimuri da qristianuli socialur-politikuri sistemebis SeuTavseblobam globaluri xasiaTi SeiZina da gascda samxedro sferos.3 muslimebi mkveTrad gamoirCeodnen imperiis sxva mtrebisagan. barbarosebisagan gansxvavebiT, islamsa da saxalifos universaluri imperiis yvela niSani gaaCnda. ideologiur frontze bizantielebi cdilobdnen islami qristianul eresamde daeyvanaT, rasac kidev hqonda azri VII saukuneSi, magram absurdi iyo X saukuneSi.4 rogorc J. dagroni aRniSnavs, islamTan brZolis 250 wlis Semdeg bizantiaSi gamoCnda saxelmwifo moRvawe, romelmac kompleqsurad dainaxa da gaiazra imperiis winaSe mdgomi problema: leon VI brZenma muslimTa warmateba, samxedro organizaciis specifikis garda, maTi rwmeniT da jihadis ideiT ganpirobebuli armiis moralur-fsiqologiuri mdgomareobiT axsna, rasac daupirispira `qristesmieri laSqris~ koncefcia. am koncefciis mixedviT, bizantiis armiis mTavar amocanas qrisvrclad, bizantiuri traqtatisa da daviTis IV-is omebSi misi gamoyenebis Sesaxeb, ix. Tsurtsumia, De velitatione bellica and Georgian Art of War During the Reign of David IV, gv. 1-16. 2 Dagron, Byzance et le modèle islamique au Xe siècle, gv. 226-230; Le traité sur la guérilla (De velitatione), gv. 145-149. 3 De velitatione bellica, gv. 36. 4 Le traité sur la guérilla (De velitatione), gv. 146. 1 156 tianebis dacva da saqristianosaTvis brZola warmoadgenda.1 nikifore fokas mier inspirirebul traqtatSi (De velitatione bellica) es koncefcia kidev ufro mkveTrad aris gamoxatuli:2 jariskacebi warmodgenili arian, rogorc `qristianTa damcvelebi da, RmerTis Semdeg, maTi upirvelesi mxsnelebi~.3 is rac leon VI-Tan mxolod survili Tu proeqti iyo, nikiforem sazogadoebrivi cnobierebis sruli mobilizaciis programad aqcia4 da daasrula nacionalur-religiuri ideis Camoyalibeba.5 swored mas, mxedarTmTavarsa da askets, lamis beruli cxovrebiT mcxovrebs, SeeZlo aseTi gadamwyveti nabijis gadadgma da sabrZolo pirobebSi msgavsi ideologiis danergva.6 `qristesmieri laSqris~ koncefcia aitaca da ganavrco daviT aRmaSenebelma, romelmac selCukTa religiur fanatizms qristianuli wminda omis (`qristes rjulisaTvis~ omis) idea daupirispira.7 daviTis epoqaSi, rodesac qarTvelebs mouwiaT arsebobisaTvis brZola selCukTa imperiasTan, islamTan ideologiuri brZola saxelmwifo politikis qvakuTxedi xdeba. daviT IV-is xeldasxmiT es ideologia mowesrigebul, `mecnierulad~ dasabuTebul safuZvels iZens – swored misi mefobis xanaSi xdeba qarTuli polemikuri literaturis Casaxva da naTargmni Tu originaluri antimuslimuri polemikuri traqtatebis Seqmna.8 axali mebrZoli ideologia Tavis umaRles gamoxatulebas daviTis titulaturaSi aRwevs. muslimTa mravali damarcxebisa da Tbilisis aRebis Semdeg (1122) mefis mier moWril fulze Cndeba axali tituli – mesiis maxvili.9 tituli naTlad gamoxatavs daviTis politikas, romelic mTel amierkavkasiaSi qristianTa dacvasa da qomagobas gulisxmobs.10 is ikiTxeba arabulad zedweril monetebze, rac niSnavs, rom aRmaSeiqve, gv. 145-149; Кучма, Религиозный аспект византийской военной доктрины, gv. 77-78. De velitatione bellica, gv. 38. 3 Skirmishing, gv. 216-217. 4 Le traité sur la guérilla (De velitatione), gv. 148-149. 5 De velitatione bellica, gv. 43-44. 6 nikiforem kidev ufro Sors wasvla scada da moindoma brZolaSi dacemuli jariskacebi mowameebad Seeracxa, rac muslimebTan brZolas wminda omis xasiaTs miscemda, magram am iniciativaze mas uari uTxra patriarqma polievqtosma da sinodma (John Skylitzes, A Synopsis of Byzantine History, gv. 263). 7 vrclad ix. mamuka wurwumia, omis ideologia, gv. 228-247. 8 iqve, gv. 224-226. 9 daviT IV-is am tipis monetebisaTvis ix. Paghava, The first Arabic coinage of Georgian monarchs, gv. 222-239. Tuki sinaze daculi wm. giorgis xatis warweris d. kldiaSviliseuli wakiTxva zustia, daviT aRmaSenebels es tituli ufro adrec, 1104 wlis Semdeg SeiZleba mieRo (ix. kldiaSvili, sinis mTis wm. giorgis xati, gv. 121-126). 10 lorTqifaniZe, saqarTvelo XI s. bolosa da XII s. pirvel meoTxedSi, gv. 257. 1 2 157 nebelma demonstraciulad gamoucxada muslimur samyaros qristianobis iaraRiT dacvis miseuli ideologiuri programa.1 daviTis dros xdeba sarwmunoebaze damyarebuli erovnuli gansakuTrebulobis ideis2 oficialur doqtrinad aRiareba, ris Sedegadac qarTveli eri rCeul erad, meore israelad gvevlineba, romelic muslimebTan brZolaSi RmerTis SemweobiT sargeblobs.3 ruis-urbnisis krebis ganCineba qarTul marTlmadideblobas acxadebs `ubiwo sarwmunoebad~4 da fics debs mis erTgulebaze.5 Zegliswera aseve krZalavs marTlmadideblis jvrisweras sxva rjulis adamianTan.6 nikifore fokas da daviT IV-is samxedro-politikur meTodebSi meti saerToc SeiZleba vipovoT. miuxedavad imisa, rom mxurvale marTlmadidebeli iyo, imperiis saWiroebidan gamomdinare, axladganTavisuflebul da muslimebisagan daclil miwebze nikifore Tanabrad asaxlebda siriel iakobitebsa7 da somex monofizitebsac.8 ase iqceoda daviT aRmaSenebelic, romelic xels uwyobda da mfarvelobda somxebs da qmnida maT dasaxlebebs samefoSi.9 nikiforem konstantinopolSi miiwvia iakobiti patriarqi da misi oTxi episkoposi da patriarq polievqtosis TanxlebiT mravali Sexvedra moawyo, rom religiuri eraSkaraa, rom tituli mesiis maxvili mebrZoli qristianobis gamoxatulebaa (jafariZe, saqarTvelo da maxlobeli aRmosavleTis islamuri samyaro, gv. 231). b. lominaZe wers, rom daviT IV ibrZvis `qarTuli qristianuli eklesiis ara marto dacvisaTvis, aramed gavrcelebisTvisac~ (lominaZe, saxelmwifosa da eklesiis urTierToba, gv. 87). n. berZeniSvilic SeniSnavs, rom mefisaTvis `qristianoba, misi dacva, misi gavrceleba, gamocxadebulia miznad~ (berZeniSvili, saqarTvelos istoriis sakiTxebi, w. II, gv. 29). daviT aRmaSenebeli, romelmac muslimTagan mravali adgili daixsna, qarTveli mematianis qebas imsaxurebs, romelic mas pavle mociqulsa da konstantine I-s adarebs: `raTamca yoveli sofeli mostaca eSmaksa da SeasakuTra RmerTsa, romliTa moiRo madli mociqulobisa¡, viTarca pavle da viTarca didman kostantine~, da `raodenni eklesiani, warmarTTagan Seginebulni, ganwmidna saxlad RmrTisad, raodenni naTesavni warmarTTani Svilad wmidisa embazisad moiyvanna da Seawynarna qristesa~ (cxoreba¡ mefeT-mefisa daviTisi, gv. 337-338). 2 qarTuli mesianisturi idea Casaxvas iwyebs X-XI ss. sazRvargareTis samonastro centrebSi (WyoiZe, `rCeuli eris~ gageba, gv. 6). 3 ix. wurwumia, omis ideologia, gv. 237-238. 4 qarTuli marTlmadideblobis `ubiwo~ da `Seuryeveli~ xasiaTi qarTuli gamorCeulobis religiuri markeria (WyoiZe, `rCeuli eris~ gageba, gv. 9-11). 5 `ara gecruvneT Sen, siwmidiT mSobelo Cueno kaTolike eklesiao, arca gangcemT Sen, siqadulo Cueno marTlmadideblobao, romlisa arca ganmcemel qmnil varT~ (Zegliswera¡ ruis-urbnisis krebisa¡, gv. 114). 6 `kualad ganvawesebT, ra¡Ta arca marTlmadidebeli mamakaci mwvalebelsa gina warmarTsa dedakacsa, anu dedakaci mamakacsa SeeuRlen~ (iqve, gv. 120). 7 Whittow, The Making of Byzantium, gv. 352. 8 The History of Leo the Deacon, gv. 80. 9 davlianiZe, maTe urhaelis cnobebi, gv. 247-248. 1 158 TobisaTvis mieRwia.1 amave mizniT moiwvia kreba daviT IV-mac, romelsac eswrebodnen somexi episkoposebi da monasterTa winamZRvrebi da qarTveli sasuliero pirebi kaTalikos iovanes meTaurobiT.2 orive cda unayofod damTavrda, Tumca metyvelebs daviTisa da nikifores mier gamoyenebuli meTodebis msgavsebaze. orive mmarTvels, bizantielsa da qarTvelsac, Tanamedroveni sayvedurobdnen saxelmwifo cxovrebaSi samxedro saqmisaTvis yvelaze didi rolis miniWebas. nikifore foka erT-erTi saukeTeso sardali iyo bizantiis istoriaSi da sicocxlis udidesi nawili omsa da samxedro banakSi gaatara.3 mas bralad sdebdnen omisa da samxedro saqmis xarjze samoqalaqo cxovrebis ugulebelyofas, iseve rogorc saxelmwifosa da mosaxleobaze samxedro tvirTis gazrdas.4 miqel pselosi aRniSnavs, rom imperatorad gaxdomis Semdegac nikifores ar dausvenia da `Seuneleblad agrZelebda saomar Zalisxmevas~.5 aseTive braldebas uyenebdnen daviT aRmaSenebels misi `mabralobelni~, romlebic xSir laSqrobebs `adgilTa mwuanvilovanTa zeda mosmurobasa da gancxromas~ amjobinebdnen: `arian vinme mabralobelni mefisani jereTca eseoden mWirsed molaSqreobisaT¢s da m£edrobaTa misTa ganusuenebelisa mimoslvisa da Wirvebisa, viTarmed: ‘arca mS¢ldi Tavs-idebso maradis gardacumulobasa da arca Zali orRano¡sa¡ maradis gansxirpulobasa, rameTu Jamsa £marebisa maTisasa TiToeuli maTi u£mar ipoviso’~.6 iahia antioqieli wers, rom nikifore samarTliani mmarTveli iyo.7 miqel pselosis TqmiT, nikifore fokaze `ar moqmedebda pirferoba da is mxolod simarTlisaken iyo midrekili, ar iswrafoda fufunebisaken da ar aniavebda samefo xazinas~.8 leon diakvani gviambobs imperatoris im Tvisebebze, romlis gamoc is ar iyo popularuli: `saxelmwifo saqmeebSi iyo didsulovani da mowyale, samarTliani msajuli da mtkice kanonmdebeli [...] bevrs ar moswonda misi survili, rom yvela yofiliyo zneobrivi da ar gaqceoda samarTals. kanondamrRvevebs is mkacrad sjida, ris gamoc damnaSaveebi sastikad da uwyalod Tvlidnen da sZuldaT uzneo cxovrebis moyvarulT~.9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Whittow, The Making of Byzantium, gv. 353. cxoreba¡ mefeT-mefisa daviTisi, gv. 340-341. Norwich, Byzantium, gv. 176. Morris, The Two Faces of Nikephoros Phocas, gv. 87-88, 95-97. Michael Psellus, Historia Syntomos, gv. 100-101. cxoreba¡ mefeT-mefisa daviTisi, gv. 341-342. Histoire de Yahya-ibn-Sa‘ïd d’Antioche, gv. 826. Michael Psellus, Historia Syntomos, gv. 100-101. The History of Leo the Deacon, gv. 139-140. 159 sagulisxmoa, rom daviTis mematianec msgavsi TvisebebiT ajildoebs qarTvelTa mefes da aRniSnavs, rom is yvelasagan, da pirvel rigSi samRvdeloebisagan, iTxovda wesierebasa da patiosnebas: `da kualad mRdelTmoZRuarTa, mRdelTa da diakonTa, monazonTa da yovelTa kacTa eseve saqme eqmna wesiereba da gza yovelTa saTnoebaTa mimarT; rameTu SiSiTa misiTa ver ikadrebdian uwesod slvad, vina¡Tgan uwyodian arara¡sa dafaruloba¡ winaSe missa, da mis mier qeba¡ saTnoebisa¡ da Zageba¡ ara-egeviTarTa¡ – arawmidaTa da uwesoTa saqmeTa¡. rameTu verca msoflio¡ vinme da verca moqalaqe, ver m£edari da ver romeli pativi da hasaki ikadrebda gandrekilad slvad; rameTu yovelTa kacTa iyo wesiereba, yovelTa kanon, yovelTa patiosneba; da T¢T maT meZavTaca yovelTa krZaluleba, yovelTa SiS da mmarTebel gzaTa saRmrToTa da mS¢dobisaTa~.1 gasakviric ar aris, rom aseTi mefis winaSe, romelic mkacrad iTxovda brZanebis Sesrulebas, yvela krToda: `amisT¢sca SiSi didi da zari misi ganiTqua kideTa queyanisaTa, da gankrTes yovelni mk¢drni queyanisani~.2 udidesi warmatebis miuxedavad, mkacri xasiaTis gamo nikifore foka ar sargeblobda sayovelTao siyvaruliT. mas arc saeklesio ierarqebi wyalobdnen, Tumca ber-monazvnebsa da gandegilebs uyvardaT da pativs scemdnen.3 misi mkvlelobis Semdeg, savaraudod aTonis mTaze, nikifore fokas saxelze daaweses akoluTia – liturgia axali wmindanis gamo, sadac imperatori martvilad da wmindanad Seracxes.4 liturgia xazs usvams mis warmatebebsa da TavSekavebas, uwodebs mas `imperatorsa da askets~,5 monazonsa da monazvnobis nimuSs: `asketTa sruli codniT aRWurvili, Sen iyavi sardali (strategosi) da monazoni, iaraRi mtris winaaRmdeg, monazvnobis nimuSi da qristes uebro jariskaci~.6 samxedro saqmis garda, nikifores mxolod religia ainteresebda, asketurad cxovrobda da wminda mamebTan urTierTobda.7 leon diakvani gadmogvcems, rom nikifore foka ar iyo midrekili gancxromisadmi,8 ar xiblavda xorcieli vnebebi,9 xorcis Wamisaganac cxoreba¡ mefeT-mefisa daviTisi, gv. 339-340. iqve, gv. 340. 3 Сюзюмов, Об источниках Льва Диакона и Скилицы, gv. 153. 4 Успенский, История Афона, t. I, gv. 384; Morris, The Two Faces of Nikephoros Phocas, gv. 106; Akolouthia for St Nikephoros Phokas, gv. 192-237. 5 Akolouthia for St Nikephoros Phokas, gv. 206-207. 6 iqve, gv. 202-203. 7 Norwich, Byzantium, gv. 176. 8 The History of Leo the Deacon, gv. 64. 9 iqve, gv. 139. 1 2 160 ki ikavebda Tavs1 da saimperatoro sawolis nacvlad iatakze eZina.2 is iyo daucxromeli uflisadmi locvebsa da RamisTevebSi3 da mis RvTismosaobas xazgasmiT da mravalgzis aRniSnavs mixeil ataliatec.4 misi Tanamedrovis Teodosi diakvanis poemaSi nikifore foka warmodgenilia, rogorc gamocdili sardali da Rrmad religiuri pirovneba.5 973-75 wlebSi dawerili aTanases lavris tipikoni xotbas asxams nikifore fokas asketizms: `Tumca [saxelmwifo saWiroebis gamo] monazvnis samosiT ar Semosila [...] is mainc aRemateboda monazvnebs, romlebmac [aTonis] mTaze gaatares cxovreba saTnoebis wvrTniT, gonebis moTokviT, xangrZlivi marxviT, mZime RamisTeviTa da miwaze ZiliT. is agrZelebda Tavis brZolas [xorcTan] da ise alagma Tavisi survilebi, rom sityviT ver aRiwereba~.6 msgavs suraTs gvixatavs daviTis istorikosi mefis daxasiaTebisas. misi sityvebiT, rogorc aleqsandre makedoneli aRemateboda yvelas saero saqmeSi (`da raoden sawuToTa da £orcielTa Sina igi misTa sworTa da moJameTa yovelTa umaRles da uzeSTaes iyo~), ise daviTi (`axali aleqsandre~) aRemateboda mas (aleqsandres) saRmrTo saqmeSi (`egeoden ese saRmrToTa da qristes-mcnebaTa Sina £orcielTave Tana misTa pirvel[sa] hmatda~): `rameTu ara sca Zili TualTa, arca ruli wamTa, arca gansueneba¡ £orcTa T¢sTa; ara midrka gemovnebaTa mimarT, arca nebisa £orcTa¡sa, ara saWmel-sasumelTa, arca simRera-siRodaTa da ra¡TurTiT araraTa eSmakeulTa da £orcielTa, SemkrvelTa gonebisaTa da dasulebad da udebebad damzidvelTa nebisaTa, garna saRmrToTa da sasulieroTa yovelTa~.7 mematiane arc Tvlis saWirod mogviTxros, Tu ra TavdadebiT loculobda da marxulobda mefe: `kualad locvisa da marxvisaT¢s radRa sa£mar ars Tquma¡, romlisa [m]aqmar igi oden iyo~.8 daviTis istorikosi wers, rom mefe ufals `sruliTa guliTa msaxurebda da maT iqmoda, romelni nebisad RmrTisad daamtkicnis da iqve, gv. 99. iqve, gv. 134. 3 iqve, gv. 139. 4 Michael Attaleiates, The History, gv. 406-417. 5 Theodosios the Deacon, The Capture of Crete, gv. 129. 6 Byzantine Monastic Foundation Documents, t. 1, gv. 251. 7 cxoreba¡ mefeT-mefisa daviTisi, gv. 321. n. urbneli spartanuls uwodebs daviTis cxovrebis wess (urbneli, mefe daviT aRmaSenebeli, gv. 16). 8 cxoreba¡ mefeT-mefisa daviTisi, gv. 336. 1 2 161 saTno-yofilad misda aRuCndis~.1 mematianis TqmiT, daviTis mier Cadenil gansacvifrebel saero saqmeebsac ki aRemateboda misi saRmrTo saqmeni: `ese £orcielni saqmeni, warmoTqumulni friad undod da ararad, povnes, viTarca namd¢l mciredni da sasawuToni dadgromadTa maT Tana mtkiceTa da saukunod RmerT-myofelTa misTa saqmeTa, romelTa igi umetes amaTsa maT moqmedebda da usaswrafoes aqunda~.2 somexi istorikosi maTeos urhaeli aRmaSenebels `keTilmsaxur da wminda mefes~ uwodebs3 da aRniSnavs mis RvTismoSiSobas: `iyo mefe daviTi wminda da saTno, yovlad Semkuli RvTis mosavobiT da keTili samarTlianobiT~.4 Tavis `galobani sinanulisanSi~, sadac daviTi ukiduresad mkacrad afasebs ganvlil cxovrebas, ambobs, rom mravali codvis miuxedavad, mas ar uRalatia uflisa da qristianuli sarwmunoebisaTvis: `daRacaTu esreT ganvxrwnen yovelni grZnobani da yovlad-xrwnileba viqmen, garna arave aRvixuen £elni, arca davdev sasoeba¡ Cemi RmrTisa mimarT ucxo¡sa, arca ucxoTesli ra¡me sarwmunoeba¡ sawurTel vyav sulisa, gareSe missa, romeli maswaves RmrTismetyuelTa SenTa~.5 nikifore fokas msgavsad, daviT IV gansakuTrebul pativs scemda da mfarvelobda Sav samRvdeloebas: `vin jerovnad warmoTqunes pativis-pyrobani monazonTani, simdabliT SemTxuevani da mokiTxvani, da siyuaruliT Sewynarebani maTni, T¢Toeulisa niWni da sa£marni, romliTa uzrunvel yvnis yovelTa saWiroTagan~.6 cnobilia mefis axlo damokidebuleba Sio-mRvimis monastris berebTan,7 iseve rogorc axpatis somxuri monastris winamZRvar ioane sarkavagTan.8 iqve, gv. 312. iqve, gv. 330-331. 3 davlianiZe, maTe urhaelis cnobebi, gv. 248-249. 4 iqve, gv. 247. 5 daviT IV, galobani sinanulisani, 22.26. amave dros, miuxedavad imisa, rom daviT aRmaSenebeli iyo morwmune qristiani, romelmac uflis rwmena upirveles ideologiur iaraRad aqcia, miuxedavad imisa, rom mefis mematiane Zal-Rones ar iSurebs warmoadginos is keTilmorwmune qristianad, igi rCeboda pragmatul moazrovned, romelsac Tavisuflad SeeZlo eWvi Seetana qristianuli swavlebis garkveul debulebebsa Tu tradiciul gadmocemebSi. nikoloz gulaberisZem, saqarTvelos kaTalikosma XII saukunis II naxevarSi, Semogvinaxa gadmocema daviT IV-is religiuri skepticizmis Sesaxeb, sadac mefem eWvi Seitana sveticxovlis mniSvnelobasa da uflis kvarTis Sesaxeb arsebuli gadmocemis raobaSi: `rameTu didi igi mefeTa Soris sanatreli daviT sityuasa yovelsa zeda ufro¡s yovelTa kacTasa msasoebeli RmrTisa¡ da m£urealed trfiali RmrTismsaxurebisa¡, garna ukue xolo amis suetisa cxovelisa mimarT mxolod gandrekilobda, reca gonebiT da esreT orgulebiT metyuelebda, viTarmed, ra¡ uwyi, Tu ra¡ ars konqsa amas Sina anu rasa Tayuanis-vcemT~ (sakiTxavi suHtisa cxovelisa¡, gv. 110). 6 cxoreba¡ mefeT-mefisa daviTisi, gv. 337. 7 ix. aRmaSeneblis 1123 wlis anderZi mRvimisadmi (qisk, IX-XIII ss., gv. 53-59). 8 qarTlis cxovrebis Zveli somxuri Targmani, gv. 255. 1 2 162 Tavisi religiurobis miuxedavad, mmarTvelobis dasawyisSive nikifore fokam Seamcira eklesiisaTvis gankuTvnili sargo, aukrZala eklesiebs miwis nakveTebis gadideba, akrZala masTan SeTanxmebis gareSe episkoposebis arCeva da xeldasxma; episkoposis gardacvalebisas eparqiis Semosavals saxelmwifo moxele aRwerda da zedmetis konfiskacias axdenda.1 manve aiZula eklesiis ierarqebi mieRoT tomosi, romlis mixedviTac sinodi imperatoris sanqciis gareSe gadawyvetilebas ver miiRebda.2 964 wels nikiforem gamosca kanoni (XIX novela), romelic mkacr regulaciebs uwesebda eklesias: is krZalavda eklesia-monastrebisaTvis axali miwebis boZebas, iseve rogorc axali savaneebis agebas da upiratesobas aniWebda Zvelis aRdgena-ganaxlebas.3 imperatori, romelic Tavad iyo asketuri cxovrebis mimdevari, ver faravs gaRizianebas eklesiis momxveWeli politikis mimarT: `axla, rodesac vxedav, Tu ra xdeba monastrebsa da sxva wminda saxlebSi, me vamCnev aSkara sens, radganac mxolod sneuleba SeiZleba vuwodo aseT sixarbes. me ar vici rogor vuwamlo am borotebas, an rogor aRmovfxvra aseTi sixarbe. romel wminda mamebs misdevdnen isini an vis rCevebs ugdebdnen yurs, rom aseT ukiduresobamde da ugunurebamde mividnen. mTeli TavianTi suliereba maT miwebis, saucxoo Senobebis, uricxvi cxenis, xaris, aqlemisa da sxva pirutyvis yoveldRiuri SeZenisaken mimarTes da monazvnis cxovreba daamsgavses eriskacisas, aRsavses yovelgvari amao sazrunaviT [...] rodesac vumzer maT, vinc monazvnobis aRTqma dado da Sesabamisad Semosilma rogor aqcia sicrued Tavisi fici da Tavisi qceviT uaryo misi Sinaarsi, ar vici Tu ratom ar unda vuwodo ama yovels qristes abuCad asagdebad mogonili uSinaarso Teatraluri warmodgena~.4 Semdeg nikifore Tavs esxmis maT, vinc cdilobs eklesiisaTvis Sewiruli qonebiT saxeli moixveWos: `vin ar ityvis, rom RvTismosaoba iqca pativmoyvareobis safarvelad, rodesac sikeTis mqmneli, amas imitom sCadis, rom sxvam dainaxos. isini ar kmayofildebian mxolod TanamedroveTa mowmobiT, aramed surT, rom momavalma Taobebmac icodnen maT saqmeTa Sesaxeb [...] es yvelasaTvis naTelia, radgan Cven ar vxarjavT fuls JamTa svliT Selaxuli aTasobiT monastris aRsadgeJohn Skylitzes, A Synopsis of Byzantine History, gv. 262-263. The History of Leo the Deacon, gv. 148. 3 Thomas, A Disputed Novel of Basil II, gv. 273. 988 wels es kanoni basili II-m gaauqma (iqve, gv. 273-283). 4 Charanis, The Monastic Properties and the State in the Byzantine Empire, gv. 56. 1 2 163 nad, romlebic Svelas saWiroeben, magram gulisyuri gvaqvs mipyrobili sakuTari axali monastrebis agebisaken. da es imitom, rom gvsiamovnebs Cvens saxelze raime axlis dafuZneba, da imitomac, rom viswrafviT Cveni wamowyeba iyos amis aSkara mowmoba, bolomde gankerZoebiT mdgomi, raTa gagviTqvas saxeli qveyanaze~.1 kanonma akrZala axali monastrebis daarseba, mamulebis micema yvela religiuri dawesebulebisaTvis, Tumca neba darTo fuliT daxmarebodnen ukve arsebuls: `amitomac dReidan yvelas ekrZaleba miwebisa da mamulebis Cuqeba monastrebisa Tu RaribTa saxlebisa da sacxovreblebisaTvis, mitropolitebisa da episkoposebisaTvis, radganac aseT saCuqars ar moaqvs maTTvis sargebloba. amasTanave, Tuki arsebul religiur saxlebsa da monastrebs ar gaaCniaT miwa, maT SeeZlebaT aucilebeli miwis SeZena saimperatoro mokvlevisa da nebarTvis Semdeg. Cven ar vkrZalavT senakebisa da lavrebis dafuZnebas, rac TavisTavad saqebi saqmea, Tuki es senakebi da lavrebi ar moindomeben gareSemo miwisa da mamulebis dauflebas~.2 imperatorma kargad icoda, rom misi kanoni ukmayofilebas gamoiwvevda gavlenian sasuliero wreebSi, magram winaswar Seguebuli iyo aseT Sedegs: `vici, rom aseTi rekomendaciebi da kanonmdebloba bevrs mZime naTqvamad moeCveneba da ar daeTanxmeba, magram es ar maRelvebs, radganac pavle mociqulis msgavsad, me msurs vaamo ufals da ara kacs~.3 aseTi mkacri zomebi ar yofila mimarTuli monastruli cxovrebis winaaRmdeg. nikifore foka Rrmad religiuri pirovneba gaxldaT, romelsac monazvnobisken miuwevda guli. mas gansakuTrebiT uyvarda gandegilebi.4 amitomac, is ar krZalavda beruli senakebis Senebas, Tuki maT ukan sxva interesebi ar idga. nikifores kanoni msxvili religiuri instituciebis winaaRmdeg iyo mimarTuli, romelTac mamulebis gadideba ekrZalebodaT. samonastro cxovrebis mowesrigebis garda, nikifore politikur da ekonomikur amocanebsac isaxavda. msxvili monastrebi imden miwas flobdnen, rom mis damuSavebas ver audiodnen da imperatori am viTarebis gamosworebas lamobda, ris gamoc ar krZalavda fuladi saxsrebis mimarTvas miwis ukeT damuSavebis mizniT.5 iqve, gv. 57. iqve. 3 iqve, gv. 58. 4 leon diakvani gvidasturebs, rom nikifore Zalian afasebda monazvnebs (The History of Leo the Deacon, gv. 99). 5 Charanis, The Monastic Properties and the State in the Byzantine Empire, gv. 58-59. 1 2 164 Tavisi didi winamorbedis msgavsad, daviT aRmaSenebelic Seuvalia eklesiis naklovanebaTa mimarT da mis reformirebas axdens. daviT aRmaSeneblis istorikosis gadmocemiT, qarTul eklesiaSi Zalaufleba xelT epyraT „avazakebs“, romlebic mZlavrebiTa da `usjuloebiT~ gamoirCeodnen: `rameTu wmidani eklesiani, saxlni RmrTisani, quab avazakTa qmnil iyvnes, da uRirsTa da uwesoTa mamulobiT ufro¡s, vidre RirsebiT, daepyrnes ufro¡sni saepiskoposoni, – ara kariT mwyemsebr Sesrul[Ta], aramed avazakebr erdo¡T; da maTnive msgavsni xucesni da qorepiskoposni daedginnes, romelni, nacvalad sjulTa saRmrToTa pyrobisa, usjuloebasa awurTides maTqueSeTa. da T¢T saxliT uflisa¡T da mRdelTagan gamovidoda usjuloeba¡ da codva¡~.1 aseTi viTareba yovlad Seuwynarebeli iyo daviT IV-isaTvis, romelsac erTguli mokavSire esaWiroeboda muslim mowinaaRmdegesTan ideologiur omSi. mefis saeklesio reformis Sedegad, ruis-urbnisis krebam, didgvarovanTa winaaRmdegobis miuxedavad, gadaayena uRirsi mRvdelmTavrebi: `uRirsad gamoCinebulni gankueTnes da gardamosTxivnes saydarTagan, daRaTu ara-advil iyo ese naTesavTa maTTa ZlierebiTa; rameTu iyvnes kacni mTavarTa da warCinebulTa Svilni, romelTa uwesod daepyra saydrebi; da maT wil WeSmaritni da saTnoni RmrTisani mwyemsni daadginnes~.2 krebam ganaCina, rom qorespiskoposad mxolod mcodne (`sjulisa da saRmrToTa wignTa mecnieri~) da patiosani samRvdelo piri unda SerCeuliyo3 da amasTanave akrZala monastrebSi moZRvarTa simravle.4 arasasurvel pirTa CamoSorebis garda, mefe zrunavs eklesiis moralur saxeze da cdilobs qcevis normebi daudginos samRvdeloebas. misi ZalisxmeviT miRebuli kanoni gmobs `simonias~ da krZalavs samRvdelo pirTa xeldasxmisaTvis qrTamis aRebas: `xolo qrTamisaT¢s da safasisa, romelsa miiReben £elTdamsxmelni [...] moispos egeviTari-igi eklesiisagan da aRi£ocos mRdelobisagan, makurTxevelisa T¢sisa Tana [...] da numca miiReben [...] nu odes [...] nuca qrTamsa, nuca ZRuensa~.5 Zegcxoreba¡ mefeT-mefisa daviTisi, gv. 310. iqve, gv. 311. amasve mogviTxrobs ruis-urbnisis krebis Zegliswera: „da pirvelad episkoposni vinme ver-RirsebiT Semosrulni pativsa mRdelT-mTavrobisasa da uRirsni [...] ganvkueTeniT da ucxo-vyveniT mRdelobisagan [...] da nacvalad maTda sxuani davadgineniT“ (Zegliswera¡ ruis-urbnisis krebisa¡, gv. 114-115). 3 iqve, gv. 118. 4 `didTa monasterTa Sina or-ori, xolo mcireTa Sina TiTo¡ xolo kma iyos moZRuari~ (iqve). 5 iqve, gv. 116. 1 2 165 liswera krZalavs saeklesio qonebis aradaniSnulebisamebr xmarebas1 da gankanonebas uqadis eklesia-monastrebis ezoebSi sufraTa gamSlelebs („krebulTa dasxma“) da movaWreebs: `wesi igi, romelsa krebulTa dasxmad uwesen, nuRaramca kadrebul ars qmnad amieriTgan, nuca monasterTa Sina Seqmna¡ savaWroTa eris krebaTa¡~.2 Tavisi reformebiT daviTma daimorCila eklesia, romelic amieridan yovel wes-kanons samefo karidan Rebulobda: `da kualad monasterni da saepiskoposoni da yovelni eklesiani wessa da rigsa locvisasa da yovlisa gangebisa saeklesio¡sasa darbazis kariT miiRebdian, viTarca kanonsa ucTomelsa, yovlad Sueniersa da dawyobilsa, keTilwesierebasa locvisa da marxvisasa~.3 rogorc vxedavT, daviT aRmaSenebelsa da nikifore fokas bevri ram hqondaT saerTo: orive mkacri da samarTliani iyo da erTnairad iwvevda momxreTa aRfrTovanebasa da mowinaaRmdegeTa SiSs; orives Rrmad swamda RmerTi da asketurad cxovrobda; arcerTi ar iwynarebda eklesiis gadacdomebs da zRudavda mas; orives erTnairad uyvarda da pativs scemda monazvnebs; orive saxelovani mxedarTmTavari da daucxromeli molaSqre iyo; orive erTnairi ideologiiT suldgmulobda da Semtevi qristianobis gansaxiereba iyo; orives jvarze aRbeWdili sityvebi mflobelTa damsaxurebebze metyvelebda;4 orives sikvdilma Seawyvetina Cafiqrebuli didi gegmebis ganxorcieleba.5 iqve, gv. 116-117. iqve, gv. 119. 3 cxoreba¡ mefeT-mefisa daviTisi, gv. 336. 4 nikifores naqon Zelicxovlis sanawileze vkiTxulobT: `odesRac es jvari qristem misca Zlevamosil imperators konstantines misi xsnisaTvis. axla nikifore, uflis nebiT da misi flobiT aotebs barbarosebs~ (Morris, The Two Faces of Nikephoros Phocas, gv. 109). daviTis salaSqro jvars aweria: `RmerTo, yovlisa dambadebelo, adide Sen mier guirgunosani daviT, afxazTa da qarTvelTa, herTa da kaxTa mefe, mze qristianobisa¡, amin~ (sayvareliZe, mze qristianobisa, gv. 75). 5 iahia antioqielis mixedviT, `yvela darwmunebuli iyo, rom nikifore foka daipyrobda mTel sirias, diar-mudars, diar-rabiasa da diar-baqrs, radgan is aoxrebda maTi qalaqebis Semogarensa da cecxls aZlevda maT soflebs, miyavda tyveebi da saqoneli. anadgurebda mosavals da SimSilisTvis wiravda maT. da ar isvenebda, aramed wlidan wlamde amas sCadioda, sanam ar danebdebodnen [...] man ramdenjerme gailaSqra arabTa winaaRmdeg, daamarcxa da gawyvita mravali maTgani. muslimebs sastikad eSinodaT misi da gaurbodnen. veravis warmoedgina misTvis winaaRmdegobis gaweva~ (Histoire de Yahyaibn-Sa‘ïd d’Antioche, gv. 825-826). mefis gardacvalebis win daviTis istorikosi wers: `da eguleboda gazafxul qmna¡ didTa saqmeTa¡ da ufro¡sTa laSqrobaTa¡, vina¡Tgan aravin iyo wina-aRmdgom; da T¢T sultani mun, sada iyo, Zrwoda SiSisagan misisa; da arcaRa T¢sTa Zuel marTebulTa qalaqTa da queyanaTa esvida T¢sad qonebad, aramed raodenca Sors iyvis, egreca eoceboda mZinaresa SiSi da mR¢Zaresa – sikudili~ (cxoreba¡ mefeT-mefisa daviTisi, gv. 329). 1 2 166 aq unda davasruloT am or did mmarTvels Soris saerTos Zebna: politika arasodes yofila nikifore fokas, am pirquSi asketis Zlieri mxare da arsebulma viTarebam mas arc misca siRrmiseuli reformebis (garda samxedrosi) gatarebis saSualeba, daviT IV-is politikurma, saeklesio da samxedro reformebma ki saqarTvelo regionul supersaxelmwifod aqcia, romelic saukuneze metxans inarCunebda Zlierebas; mis winaaRmdeg mowyobili SeTqmulebebis miuxedavad,1 daviT aRmaSenebeli mSvidad aResrula da samefo taxti Tavis memkvidres dautova, nikifore II foka ki SeTqmulTa msxverpli gaxda;2 orive wmindanad Seracxes, Tumca daviTis am statusis eWvqveS dayeneba aravis ucdia, nikifores wmindanobam ki ver hpova sayovelTao aRiareba berZnuli eklesiis mier, rac erTxel kidev asaxavs im didebul da amave dros tragikul beds, romelic am gamorCeul pirovnebas xvda wilad.3 damowmebuli wyaroebi da literatura aristakes lastiverteci, istoria – aristakes lastiverteci, istoria, qarTuli Targmani gamokvleviT, komentarebiTa da saZieblebiT gamosca e. cagareiSvilma, Tbilisi, 1974. badriZe, saqarTvelos urTierTobebi bizantiasa da dasavleT evropasTan – badriZe S., saqarTvelos urTierTobebi bizantiasa da dasavleT evropasTan (X-XIII ss.), Tbilisi, 1984. berZeniSvili, saqarTvelos istoriis sakiTxebi, w. II – berZeniSvili n., saqarTvelos istoriis sakiTxebi, w. II, Tbilisi, 1965. bogveraZe, „zemo qveyanani“ – bogveraZe a., „zemo qveyanani“ saqarTvelo-bizantiis politikur-diplomatiur urTierTobaSi, `qarTuli diplomatia~, 4, 1997, gv. 18-30. gabiZaSvili, efTvime mTawmidelis cxovrebis svinaqsaruli redaqcia – gabiZaSvili e., efTvime mTawmidelis cxovrebis svinaqsaruli redaqcia, wignSi: misive, Sromebi, t. II, Tbilisi, 2010. 1 `raoden-gzis yivCayTa T¢sTa ganizraxes Ralati, da ganaCinnes kacni m£neni, romelnime £rmliTa, romelnime SubiTa, sxuani isriTa; da ese ara erT da or, gina sam, aramed mraval gzis; da araodes miuSua ‘RmerTman kuerTxi codvilTa marTalsa mas zeda’, arca odes ‘misca igi £elTa meZiebelTa’ misTasa~ (iqve, gv. 346). 2 nikifore fokas daRupvis mizezebisaTvis ix. braldebebi mopirispire banakidan: John Skylitzes, A Synopsis of Byzantine History, gv. 260-265. 3 j. norviCi ase afasebs mis mkvlelobas: `nikifore foka, sarkinozTa TeTri sikvdili, siriisa da kretis gmiri, wmindani da sazareli, didebuli da autaneli, ukeTes xvedrs imsaxurebda~ (Norwich, Byzantium, gv. 210). 167 georgika, t. VIII – georgika, t. VIII, Tbilisi, 1970. giorgi mTawmideli, cxoreba¡ iovanesi da efT¢mesi – giorgi mTawmideli, cxoreba¡ iovanesi da efT¢mesi, wignSi: Zeglebi, w. II, Tbilisi, 1967. daviT IV, galobani sinanulisani – daviT IV, galobani sinanulisani, red. n. naTaZe, Tbilisi, 2015. davlianiZe, maTe urhaelis cnobebi – davlianiZe l., maTe urhaelis cnobebi daviT aRmaSeneblis Sesaxeb, `saqarTvelo rusTavelis xanaSi~, red. g. meliqiSvili da sxv., Tbilisi, 1966, gv. 242-252. ivironis aqtebi, t. I – ivironis aqtebi, t. I, red. J. lefori, n. ikonomidisi, d. papaxrisanTu, e. metrevelis TanaavtorobiT, frangulidan Targmna c. bibileiSvilma, Tbilisi, 2008. kekeliZe, ori eqvTime – kekeliZe k., ori eqvTime Zvel qarTul mwerlobaSi, wignSi: misive, etiudebi Zveli qarTuli literaturis istoriidan, t. 4, Tbilisi, 1957. kldiaSvili, sinis mTis wm. giorgis xati – kldiaSvili d., sinis mTis wm. giorgis xati daviT aRmaSeneblis portretuli gamosaxulebiT, `mravalTavi~, XV, 1989, gv.117-135. kopaliani, bizantia-saqarTvelos urTierTobis istoriidan – kopaliani v., bizantia-saqarTvelos urTierTobis istoriidan (tao-klarjeTi da bizantia 970-980-ian ww.), `Tsu Sromebi~, t. 61, 1956, gv. 109-141. kopaliani, saqarTvelosa da bizantiis politikuri urTierToba – kopaliani v., saqarTvelosa da bizantiis politikuri urTierToba 9701070 wlebSi, Tbilisi, 1969. lominaZe, saxelmwifosa da eklesiis urTierToba – lominaZe b., saxelmwifosa da eklesiis urTierToba VIII-XII saukuneebis saqarTveloSi, `saqarTvelo rusTavelis xanaSi~, red. g. meliqiSvili da sxv., Tbilisi, 1966, gv. 66-92. lorTqifaniZe, saqarTvelo XI s. bolosa da XII s. pirvel meoTxedSi – lorTqifaniZe m., saqarTvelo XI s. bolosa da XII s. pirvel meoTxedSi. daviT IV aRmaSenebeli, sin, t. III (saqarTvelo XI-XV saukuneebSi), red. z. anCabaZe, v. guCua, Tbilisi, 1979, gv. 210-262. sakiTxavi suHtisa cxovelisa¡ – sakiTxavi suHtisa cxovelisa¡, kuarTisa sauflo¡sa da kaTolike eklesiisa¡, wignSi: saqarTvelos samoTxe, gamocemuli g. p. sabininis mier, peterburRi, 1882. sayvareliZe, mze qristianobisa – sayvareliZe T., mze qristianobisa: ori sawinamZRvro jvari daviT aRmaSeneblis warweriT, `jvari vazisa~, 1, 1989, gv. 74-77. 168 urbneli, mefe daviT aRmaSenebeli – urbneli n., mefe daviT aRmaSenebeli da misi dro, tfilisi, 1894. qarTlis cxovrebis Zveli somxuri Targmani – qarTlis cxovrebis Zveli somxuri Targmani, qarTuli teqsti da Zveli somxuri Targmani gamokvleviTa da leqsikoniT gamosca i. abulaZem, Tbilisi, 1953. qisk, IX-XIII ss. – qisk, IX-XIII ss., Seadgines da gamosacemad moamzades T. enuqiZem, v. silogavam, n. SoSiaSvilma, Tbilisi, 1984. cagareiSvili, somxuri wyaroebi – cagareiSvili e., somxuri wyaroebi saqarTvelo-bizantiis urTierTobis Sesaxeb X-XI saukuneebSi, `mravalTavi~, II, 1973, gv. 157-209. cxoreba¡ mefeT-mefisa daviTisi – cxoreba¡ mefeT-mefisa daviTisi, teqsti gamosacemad moamzada m. SaniZem, wignSi: q. cx., red. r. metreveli, Tbilisi, 2008. Zegliswera¡ ruis-urbnisis krebisa¡ – Zegliswera¡ ruis-urbnisis krebisa¡, wignSi: qsZ, t. III, Tbilisi, 1970. wurwumia, omis ideologia – wurwumia m., omis ideologia saqarTvelosa da axlo aRmosavleTSi: qristianuli saRvTo omi da islamuri jihadi, Tbilisi, 2019. WyoiZe, `rCeuli eris~ gageba – WyoiZe e., `rCeuli eris~ gageba qarTul hagiografiaSi, `kadmosi~, 2, 2010, gv. 5-24. jafariZe, saqarTvelo da maxlobeli aRmosavleTis islamuri samyaro – jafariZe g., saqarTvelo da maxlobeli aRmosavleTis islamuri samyaro XII-XIII s-is pirvel mesamedSi, Tbilisi, 1995. Actes de Lavra, t. 1 – Actes de Lavra, pt. 1: Des origines à 1204, eds. P. Lemerle et al., Paris, 1970. Actes du Prôtaton – Actes du Prôtaton, édition diplomatique par D. Papachryssanthou, Paris, 1975. Akolouthia for St Nikephoros Phokas – Akolouthia for St Nikephoros Phokas, in The Rise and Fall of Nikephoros II Phokas: Five Contemporary Texts in Annotated Translations by D. Sullivan, Leiden, 2018. Byzantine Monastic Foundation Documents, t. 1 – Byzantine Monastic Foundation Documents: A Complete Translation of the Surviving Founders’ Typika and Testaments, vol. 1, edited by J. Thomas and A. C. Hero with the assistance of G. Constable, Washington, D.C., 2000. Charanis, The Monastic Properties and the State in the Byzantine Empire – Charanis P., The Monastic Properties and the State in the Byzantine Empire, DOP, vol. 4, 1948, gv. 51-118. 169 Cheynet, Les Phocas – Cheynet J.-C., Les Phocas, in Le traité sur la guérilla (De velitatione) de l’Empereur Nicéphore Phocas (963-969), texte établi par G. Dagron et H. Mihăescu, traduction et commentaire par G. Dagron, Paris, 1986. The Chronicle of Pseudo-Symeon – The Chronicle of Pseudo-Symeon, in The Rise and Fall of Nikephoros II Phokas: Five Contemporary Texts in Annotated Translations by D. Sullivan, Leiden, 2018. The Chronographia of Michael Psellus – Fourteen Byzantine Rulers: The Chronographia of Michael Psellus, translated, with an introduction by E. R. A. Sewter, London, 1966. The Complete Works of Liudprand of Cremona – The Complete Works of Liudprand of Cremona, translated with an introduction and notes by P. Squatriti, Washington, D.C., 2007. Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De Administrando Imperio – Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De Administrando Imperio, ed. by Gy. Moravcsik, trans. by R. J. H. Jenkins, revised edition, Washington, 1967. Dagron, Byzance et le modèle islamique au Xe siècle – Dagron G., Byzance et le modèle islamique au Xe siècle. A propos des Constitutions tactiques de l’empereur Léon VI, “Comptes rendus des séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres”, 1983, 127/2, gv. 219-243. Garrood, The Byzantine Conquest of Cilicia and the Hamdanids of Aleppo – Garrood W., The Byzantine Conquest of Cilicia and the Hamdanids of Aleppo, 959-965, AnSt, vol. 58, 2008, gv. 127-140. John Skylitzes, A Synopsis of Byzantine History – John Skylitzes, A Synopsis of Byzantine History, 811-1057, translated by J. Wortley, with introductions by J.-C. Cheynet and B. Flusin and notes by J.-C. Cheynet, Cambridge, 2010. Histoire de Yahya-ibn-Sa‘ïd d’Antioche – Histoire de Yahya-ibn-Sa‘ïd d’Antioche, Continuateur de Sa‘ïd-ibn-Bitriq, éditée et traduite en français par I. Kratchkovsky et A. Vasiliev, PO, 1924, 18, gv. 699-833. The History of Leo the Deacon – The History of Leo the Deacon, introduction, translation, and annotations by A.-M. Talbot and D. F. Sullivan, with the assistance of G. T. Dennis and S. McGrath, Washington, 2005. Laiou, The General and the Saint – Laiou A. E., The General and the Saint: Michael Maleinos and Nikephoros Phokas, “ΕΥΨΥΧΙΑ. Mélanges offerts à Hélène Ahrweiler”, ed. M. Balard, t. II, Paris, 1998, gv. 399-412. Makrypoulias, Byzantine Expeditions against the Emirate of Crete – Makrypoulias Ch. G., Byzantine Expeditions against the Emirate of Crete c. 825-949, “Graeco-Arabica”, 7-8, 2000, gv. 347-362. 170 McGeer, Sowing the Dragon’s Teeth – McGeer E., Sowing the Dragon’s Teeth: Byzantine Warfare in the Tenth Century, Washington, D.C., 1995. Michael Attaleiates, The History – Michael Attaleiates, The History, translated by A. Kaldellis and D. Krallis, Cambridge, MA, 2012. Michael Psellus, Historia Syntomos – Michael Psellus, Historia Syntomos, ed. by W. J. Aerts, Berlin, 1990. Morris, The Two Faces of Nikephoros Phocas – Morris R., The Two Faces of Nikephoros Phocas, BMGS, 12, 1988, gv. 83-115. Norwich, Byzantium – Norwich J. J., Byzantium: The Apogee, London, 1991. Paghava, The first Arabic coinage of Georgian monarchs – Paghava, I., The first Arabic coinage of Georgian monarchs: rediscovering the Specie of Davit IV the Builder (1089-1125), King of Kings and Sword of Messiah, in The 3rd Simone Assemani symposium on Islamic coins, eds. B. Callegher, A. D’Ottone, Trieste, 2012. The Revised Chronicle of Symeon the Logothete – The Revised Chronicle of Symeon the Logothete, in The Rise and Fall of Nikephoros II Phokas: Five Contemporary Texts in Annotated Translations by D. Sullivan, Leiden, 2018. Skirmishing – Skirmishing, in Three Byzantine Military Treatises, text, translation, and notes by G. T. Dennis, Washington, 1985. Theodosios the Deacon, The Capture of Crete – Theodosios the Deacon, The Capture of Crete, in The Rise and Fall of Nikephoros II Phokas: Five Contemporary Texts in Annotated Translations by D. Sullivan, Leiden, 2018. Theophanes Continuatus – Theophanes Continuatus, in The Rise and Fall of Nikephoros II Phokas: Five Contemporary Texts in Annotated Translations by D. Sullivan, Leiden, 2018. Thomas, A Disputed Novel of Basil II – Thomas J. P., A Disputed Novel of Basil II, GRBS, 24, 1983, gv. 273-283. Tsurtsumia, De velitatione bellica and Georgian Art of War During the Reign of David IV – Tsurtsumia M., De velitatione bellica and Georgian Art of War During the Reign of David IV, JMMH, vol. XX, 2022, gv. 1-16. Le traité sur la guérilla (De velitatione) – Le traité sur la guérilla (De velitatione) de l’Empereur Nicéphore Phocas (963-969), texte établi par G. Dagron et H. Mihăescu, traduction et commentaire par G. Dagron, Paris, 1986. Whittow, The Making of Byzantium – Whittow M., The Making of Byzantium, 6001025, Berkeley, 1996. De velitatione bellica – De velitatione bellica (О боевом сопровождении), wignSi: Два византийских военных трактата конца X века, издание подготовил В. В. Кучма, Санкт-Петербург, 2002. 171 Каждан, Из истории византийской хронографии X в. – Каждан А. П., Из истории византийской хронографии X в., ВВр, 20, 1961, gv. 76-96. Кучма, К проблеме авторства трактата “De velitatione bellica” – Кучма В. В., К проблеме авторства трактата “De velitatione bellica”: новая гипотеза, ВВр, 1994, 55/1, gv. 132-137. Кучма, Религиозный аспект византийской военной доктрины – Кучма В. В., Религиозный аспект византийской военной доктрины: истоки и эволюция, wignSi: misive, Военная организация Византийской империи, Санкт-Петербург, 2001. Сюзюмов, Об источниках Льва Диакона и Скилицы – Сюзюмов М. Я., Об источниках Льва Диакона и Скилицы, ВО, 2, 1916, gv. 106-166. Успенский, История Афона, t. I – Успенский П., История Афона, т. I, Москва, 2007. Mamuka Tsurtsumia David IV and Nikephoros Phokas Summary 2021 marks the 1060th anniversary of the liberation of Crete, when one of the greatest Byzantine general Nikephoros Phokas seized the island from the Muslims. The same year marks 900 years since the battle of Didgori, where the greatest king of Georgia, David IV the Builder, won his most famous victory. The present paper is dedicated to these two historical figures, more precisely, it aims to draw parallels and find common features between them. There is evidence indicating that Nikephoros Phokas had personal connections with Georgians, who participated in his wars against the Muslims. Nikephoros must have been the emperor who presented David III of Tao’s “upper lands”, thus ending the old dispute between the empire and the Tao kingdom, described by Constantine Porphyrogenitus, by splitting along the Aras line and ceding northern Basian to the Georgians. Nikephoros Phokas was well acquainted with all three Georgian monks living on Mount Athos – John, Euthymios and Tornikios. 172 It would not be a mistake to assume that David the Builder had access to the history of the Phokas family and other writings about Nikephoros Phokas. Moreover, David’s chronicler must have read the poem by Theodosius the Deacon about the conquest of Crete by Nikephoros Phokas, as evidenced by a semantically identical passage in both works. It can be argued that David IV used the rich military-theoretical legacy of Nikephoros Phokas since he effectively used a detailed and practical Byzantine manual – De velitatione bellica, which was based on the emperor’s records and commissioned by Nikephoros himself. The Georgian king took these tactics to new heights and expanded them creatively. As it is shown in the paper, Nikephoros Phokas and David the Builder had much in common: they were both strict and just and equally aroused admiration from their supporters and fear from opponents; aroused equally the admiration of their supporters and the fear of opponents; both of these monarchs deeply believed in God and lived ascetically; neither tolerated the transgressions of their Church and restrained them; they both equally loved and respected the monks; both were famous generals and tireless campaigners; both were inspired by the same ideology and were the epitomes of warrior Christianity. 173 eTnologia _ ETHNOLOGY lavrenti janiaSvili, naTia jalabaZe tradiciis cneba qarTul kulturul konteqstSi XXI saukunis qarTul sazogadoebaSi eTnikuri tradiciebis mimarT araerTgvarovani damokidebuleba Camoyalibda. sazogadoebis erT nawils miaCnia, rom am tradiciebis umetesobam dro moWama da progresisa da ganviTarebis muxruWad iqca, sxvebs ki qarTvelTa TviTdamkvidrebisa da eTnikuri vinaobis SenarCunebis mTavar iaraRad swored tradiciuli Rirebulebebi miaCnia. savaraudod, am urTierTsawinaaRmdego Sexedulebebs safuZvlad progressa da qarTveli eTnosis ganviTarebis perspeqtivaze gansxvavebuli warmodgenebi udevs, rasac garkveuli winapirobebi gaaCnia. eTnokulturuli tradiciebi, a. robaqiZis gansazRvrebiT, warmoadgens eTnosis (tomis, xalxis, eris) Seqmna-ganviTarebis procesSi istoriulad Camoyalibebul, Taobidan TaobaSi gardamaval da erToblivad aRiarebul princips, romelic safuZvlad edeba adamianTa Soris mravalmxriv urTierTobaTa normebs cxovrebis yvela sferoSi. tradicia, imave dros, aris rogorc eTnogenezis wyaro, ise eTnikuri TviTSegnebis ganmtkicebis erT-erTi mniSvnelovani piroba.1 amitom, gasakviri araa, rom tradiciis dinamikis kvleva eTnologiis umTavres amocanad iTvleba da mas didi yuradReba eTmoba, rogorc qarTvel, ise ucxoel mkvlevarTa naSromebSi. bolo xanebSi aqtualuri gaxda ara marto ama Tu im tradiciis warmoSoba-ganviTarebisa da funqcionirebis, aramed srulad an TiTqmis gamqrali tradiciebis aRorZinebis, anu revitalizaciis, kvleva. gansakuTrebiT aRsaniSnavia tradiciul samarTalTan dakavSirebuli naSromebi, romelic am movlenis arsis gagebis da misi zemoxsenebul procesebTan mimarTebiT Seswavlis axlebur cdas warmoadgens. zogi mecnieri (f. benda-bekmani, q. benda-bekmani, b. Terneri da sxv.) paradoqsad 1 robaqiZe, tradicia, gv. 3. 174 Tvlis globalizaciisa da samarTlis transnacionalizaciis pirobebSi tradiciuli samarTlis uwyvet arsebobas, an mis revitalizacias. isini amis mizezad mTeli rigi praqtikuli da socio-politikuri faqtorebis garda, tradiciis, rogorc identobis erT-erTi markeris funqcias miiCneven.1 amasTan, simptomaturia, rom garkveul viTarebaSi SesaZlebelia aRorZindes kulturis iseTi elementic, Tundac, e. w. mavne tradicia, romelic manamde negatiur prizmaSi ganixileboda. termini t r a d i c i a , Seesatyviseba qarTul w e s s , C v e u l e b a s . Cveni dakvirvebiT, saqarTveloSi XX saukunis dasawyisamde es termini qarTvelTa leqsikonSi ar gvxvdeba; savaraudod, igi rusulidan unda Semosuliyo, rogorc Cveulebis aRmniSvneli ucxouri sityva; Cans, is rusul enaSic mogvianebiT damkvidrda, radgan gasuli saukunis 50-ian wlebSic ki, gansakuTrebiT ucxouridan Targmnil literaturaSi, tradiciis nacvlad xmarobdnen – о б ы ч а й , с т а р ы й о б ы ч а й (Cveuleba). qarTul werilobiT teqstebSi da sasaubro, Tu oficialur enaSi tradiciis Sesatyvisad gamoiyeneboda terminebi: w e s - C v e u l e b a , w e s i an ubralod C v e u l e b a . sulxan-saba orbelianis ganmartebiT `wesi uwodian Cveulebasa ganmtkicebulsa da mdgomaresa~.2 n. xizanaSvilis azriT: `[...] Cveuleba wminda kanonia, dauwereli gonebaa, romelic inaxavs xalxis Tvisebebs~. igi xalxis vinaobis gamomxatvelia, xolo Cveulebis samudamod gaqrobas Tan miaqvs `niSani Cveni vinaobisa~.3 qarTuli saliteraturo enis akademiur leqsikonSi tradicia ganmartebulia, rogorc `istoriulad Camoyalibebuli, Taobidan Taobaze gadacemuli wes-Cveulebebi, yofaqcevis normebi, Sexedulebebi da sxv~.4 faqtobrivad, terminebi C v e u l e b a , w e s - C v e u l e b a da t r a d i c i a erTidaimave Sinaarsis gamomxatvelia da maT Soris gammijvneli mkafio zRvari ver gaivleba, Tumca, sabWoTa periodSi, garkveuli ideologiur-politikuri mosazrebiT, cdilobdnen mecnierulad daesabuTebinaT am cnebaTa Soris gansxvaveba. saqarTvelos ruseTis daqvemdebarebaSi yofnis mTel periods (ruseTis imperia, ssr kavSiri), Tan sdevda erovnuli Cveulebis, rogorc identobis erT-erTi ganmsazRvreli niSnis winaaRmdeg mimarTul RonisZiebaTa mTeli seria. pirvel rigSi, es iyo qarTuli samarTlis 1 2 3 4 Bayer, Revitalization, invention, gv.141-171; Benda-Beckman (et al), Vitality and revitalization. sulxan saba orbeliani, leqsikoni, gv. 374. xizanaSvili, eTnografiuli werilebi, gv. 2-4. qarTuli leqsikoni, eleqtronuli versia. 175 da qarTuli eklesiis winaaRmdeg gatarebuli reformebi, sasamarTlo sistemis unifikacia da rusuli wes-kanonebis damkvidreba, qarTuli eklesiis rusul yaidaze gardaqmna, aseve saganmanaTleblo sistemis transformacia da a. S. imavdroulad, qarTuli sulierebis gadarCenisTvis mebrZoli inteligencia cdilobda, erTi mxriv, ganemtkicebina Cveulebebi, rac erovnuli cnobierebis SenarCunebasa da konsolidacias Seuwyobda xels, meore mxriv ki, uari eTqva dromoWmul da saziano tradicebze. ilia WavWavaZe Tavis SemoqmedebaSi gansakuTrebiT amaxvilebda yuradRebas qarTuli TviTidentobisa da erovnul CveulebaTa urTierTmimarTebaze; igi Cvens Cveulebas xalxisgan mama-papiT aRiarebul simarTles uwodebda.1 XIX saukunis bolo meoTxedisaTvis misi TaosnobiT daiwyo xalxuri wes-Cveulebebisa da eTnografiuli yofis amsaxveli sxvadasxva masalebis Sekreba. ilia xazs usvamda erovnuli kulturuli memkvidreobis gadarCenis mniSvnelobas da yvelas, specialistsa da araspecialists, mouwodebda saTanado monacemTa fiqsaciisaken. es iyo erTgvari kampania, romelic qarTuli erovnuli ideologiisa da wes-Cveulebebis mospobis rusifikatoruli politikis winaaRmdeg iyo mimarTuli. aSkara iyo, rom eTnikuri tradicia ganamtkicebda da ayalibebda eris iersaxes. tradiciis dakargvas ki misi Semqmnel-matarebeli xalxis mospoba mohyveboda, ris Semdegac, maT nafuZarze ucxoTa damkvidrebis xelsayreli pirobebi iqmneboda.2 xsenebulis miuxedavad, isic cxadi iyo, rom garkveuli tradiciebi xels uSlida sazogadoebis ganviTarebas da saWiro iyo maTze uaris Tqma. rogorc n. xizanaSvili werda, saWiro iyo mxolod iseTi Cveulebebis dacva, romelic `xalxis vinaobis gamomxatvelia da amasTanave zneobiTs kanons ar ewinaaRmdegeba~.3 qarTuli sazogadoebis progresulma nawilma XIX saukunis meore naxevarSi e. w. mavne wes-Cveulebebs brZola gamoucxada.4 qarTuli inteligencia (s. mesxi, p. umikaSvili, a. yazbegi da sxv.) im wes-Cveulebebis winaaRmdeg ibrZoda, romelic ekonomikur tvirTs umZimebda mosaxleobas (xalxmravali qelexebi, `qvrivis daZaxeba~ da a. S.).5 gansxvavebul xasiaTs atarebda `kavkasiaSi marTlmadidebel-qristianuli sarwmunoebis aRmdgeneli sazogadoe1 2 3 4 5 WavWavaZe, Txzulebani, gv.94. kekelia, erovnuli tradiciebis, gv. 7. xizanaSvili, eTnografiuli werilebi, gv. 3. Ciqovani, mavne tradiciebis, gv. 34-71. iToniSvili, qarTvel mTielTa saojaxo, gv. 74-76. 176 bis~ saqmianoba, romelic mavne tradiciebTan brZolis mizniT eklesiaSi garkveuli Zveli wesebis aRmofxvras da e. w. warmarTuli elementebis ganadgurebas cdilobda; e. w. `blaRoCinebi~ awyobdnen revizia-mogzaurobebs sxvadasxva adgilebSi, eweodnen propagandas, rasac xSirad sdevda jvar-xatebis rbeva da urCi xatis msaxurebis winaaRmdeg administraciuli zomebis miReba.1 gasakviri araa, rom qristianobis ganwmendis lozungiT mimdinare saqmianoba eTnikur diskriminaciad aRiqmeboda da xSirad adgilobrivi mosaxleobis ukmayofilebis mizezi xdeboda. tradiciebis mimarT araerTgvarovani damokidebuleba saqarTvelos gasabWoebis Semdegac SenarCunda. ssrk-s Seqmnis pirvelive wlebidan sabWoTa kanonmdeblobam marqsistul-leninur msoflmxedvelobasTan Seusabamo yvela CveulebiTi norma anaqronizmad gamoacxada, radgan miaCnda, rom is Seurigeblad ewinaaRmdegeboda socialistur urTierTobebs, komunisturi moralis normebs da materialur zarals ayenebda sazogadoebas. Zveli Cveulebebi `mavne gadmonaSTad~ Seracxes da gadawyvites, rom isini Zirfesvianad unda aRmofxvriliyo. saqarTvelos ssr 1928 w. sisxlis samarTlis kodeqss erTvoda Svidmuxliani debuleba – `im danaSaulTa Sesaxeb, rac sagvareulo yofa-cxovrebis nimuSs warmoadgenda~.2 komunisturi sazogadoebisaTvis sruliad miuRebelad gamocxadda Zveli qarTuli sazogadoebrivi yofierebisaTvis damaxasiaTebeli wes-Cveulebebi da zneobrivi normebi, romlebic Seesatyviseboda feodalur sazogadoebriv formacias da SeusabamobaSi iyo socialistur wyobasaTan.3 xsenebul RonisZiebebs garkveulwilad emsgavseba mavne wes-CveulebebTan da tradiciebTan brZolis kampania XX saukunis 70-iani wlebis meore naxevarSi. 1975 wels saqarTvelos kp centralurma komitetma miiRo dadgenileba mavne wes-CveulebebTan da tradiciebTan brZolis gaaqtiurebis Sesaxeb. dadgenilebis cxovrebaSi gatarebisaTvis ideologiuri safuZvlis Sesamzadeblad gadawyda am saqmianobaSi mecnierTa Cabma. gasuli saukunis 70-80-ian wlebSi gamovida mravali naSromi, romlebic swored mavne tradiciebis gansazRvrasa da maTi aRmofxvris gzebs exeboda.4 Ciqovani, mavne tradiciebis, gv. 84. kekelia, erovnuli tradiciebis, gv. 11. 3 furcxvaniZe, adamianis pativisa da Rirsebis, gv. 35. 4 soxaZe, wes-Cveulebebis avkargianobis kriteriumebisaTvis; nadareiSvili, xecuriani, zogi mavne Cveulebis Sesaxeb; Ciqovani, mavne tradiciebis; axvlediani, tradiciebis problema, da a. S. 1 2 177 mecnierebs unda ganesazRvraT, pirvel rigSi, tradiciebis avkargianoba. am mimarTebiT mTavar kriteriumad gamocxadda tradiciebis mimarTeba progresTan. imdroindeli SefasebiT: `arsebobs dadebiTi tradiciebic da uaryofiTi tradiciebic. erTi sazogadoebis winsvlas, progress emsaxureba, meore ki, rogorc koSmari, mZime tvirTad awevs Tanamedrove adamianis cxovrebas~.1 aTeistur sazogadoebaSi, mmarTvelma partiam mavne tradiciebad, pirvel rigSi, religiuri xasiaTis Cveulebebi Seracxa. mravlad gvxvdeba cnobebi imis Sesaxeb, Tu rogor atarebdnen sxvadasxva RonisZiebas partiuli funqcionerebi religiuri tradiciebis aRmosafxvrelad. farTod iyo gavrcelebuli aRdgomis uqme dRisaTvis `SabaTobebis~ damTxveva, komkavSirelebsa da kompartiis wevrebs ekrZalebodaT eklesiaSi Sesvla da religiur ritualebze daswreba, ewyoboda specialuri reidebi aseTi pirebis gamosavlenad. imdroindel studentebs kargad axsovT, Tu rogor ukrZalavdnen gulze naTlobis jvris tarebas, da sxv. saintereso detals ixsenebs qvemo qarTlSi mcxovrebi svani ekomigranti: `sagarejoSi svanebma erT adgilas jvari gaakeTes. maSin mZRolad vmuSaobdi. raikomis mdivanma wamiyvana da mibrZana – es jvari amoaZvre da wamoiReo. me amas rogor gavakeTebdi, vuTxari – ager, Tqveni manqana da rac gindaT is qeniT-Tqo – da wamovedi. ori dRis mere damibrunes manqana. jvris amoRebas imiT amarTlebdnen, rom TiTqosda mZRolebi im adgilas manqanebs aCereben da Rvinos svameno~.2 oficialur dokumentebSi, romlebic exeba ssrk-Si erovnul kulturebTan dakavSirebul problemebs, terminebi Cveuleba da tradicia gamoiyeneboda, rogorc gansxvavebuli cnebebi (magaliTad – 1975 wlis 25 noembris rezolucia `mavne Cveulebebisa da tradiciebis winaaRmdeg brZolis gaZlierebis Sesaxeb~). mecnierTa winaSe dadga sakiTxi momxdariyo am terminTa definiciuri gamijvna. gamoiTqva ramdenime mosazreba, rom am cnebebs Soris gansxvaveba pirvel rigSi maTi moqmedebis sferoebSi unda gveZebna. tradiciis moqmedebis sfero Cveulebisagan gansxvavebiT ufro farTo unda yofiliyo – tradicia mTel sazogadoebas exeba, Cveuleba ki ojaxsa da yofas.3 ganasxvavebdnen maTi damkvidrebisTvis saWiro dros – CveulebisTvis ufro dids, tradiciisTvis ki ufro mcire periods; miiCnevdnen, rom 1 2 3 axvlediani, tradiciebis problema, gv. 3. janiaSvili, savele masala. kekelia, erovnuli tradiciebis, gv. 7. 178 tradicias ufro internacionaluri xasiaTi gaaCnda, vidre Cveulebebs, amitom sxadasxva xalxis tradiciebs ufro meti saerTo hqonda, vidre maT Cveulebebs. Cveulebebi tradiciebTan SedarebiT ufro Zveli iyo. konservatuli bunebidan gamomdinare, Cveulebebis transformacia ufro Zneli iyo, vidre tradiciisa, da a. S. Tumca isic unda aRiniSnos, rom zogierTi avtori Cveulebasa da tradicias erTmaneTisagan ar mijnavda.1 aSkaraa, rom komunisturi eTosiT gamsWvaluli yvela es argumenti, ayalibebda safuZvels ideisaTvis, rom Cveuleba konservatulia da moZvelebuli, tradicia ki advilad ganicdis adaptacias da ufro metad sazogadoebrivi xasiaTi gaaCnia; rom ar SeiZleba iyos axali Cveulebebi, magram SesaZlebelia axali tradiciebis Seqmna; da realuradac, rodesac gamocxadda brZola Zveli Cveulebebis winaaRmdeg, paralelurad iqmneboda da inergeboda axali tradiciebi (magaliTad, axali dResaswaulebi – SoTaoba, Tbilisoba, vaJaoba da a. S.); erovnuli dResaswaulis Seqmnis ideiT SefuTuli da qarTuli tradiciebis formirebis codnaze damyarebuli es qmedebebi sinamdvileSi Cveulebebis winaaRmdeg mimarTuli politikis nawili iyo, raTa pirvel etapze religiuri dResaswaulebi saeroTi CaenacvlebinaT. saboloo mizans ki aTeisturi sazogadebis formireba da `homo sovietikusis~ ideologiis gamarjveba warmoadgenda. xsenebulis miuxedavad, Zveli, CveulebiTi normebi komunistur epoqaSic mniSvnelovan rols asrulebdnen socialur urTierTobebsa da yoveldRiur yofaSi, gansazRvravdnen pirovnebis ufleba-movaleobas sakuTari sociumis mimarT. Zveli tradiciiT, sazogadoeba zogierT qmedebas danaSaulad da sasjelis Rirsad miiCnevda, zogi gakicxvis an dacinvis sagani xdeboda, sxva ki – piriqiT, sayovelTao mowonebasa da qebas imsaxurebda. miuxedavad imisa, rom, CveulebiTi samarTlis institutis damsjeli meqanizmebi im epoqaSi SezRuduli iyo, sazogadoebis ZiriTadi nawilis damokidebuleba tradiciuli normebis damrRvevTa mimarT mainc negatiuri rCeboda. komunisturma mTavrobam ver SesZlo SedarebiT progresuli genderuli Tanasworobis principis damyareba da verc am sferoSi arsebuli tradiciebis aRmofxvra. 1926 w. gamoqveynda saqorwino, saojaxo da sameurveo kanonTa axali proeqti, romelic axal ideologias safuZvels umyarebda. kerZod, iurdiuli Zala moespo saeklesio qorwinebas da mis nacvlad daaweses samoqalaqo qorwineba. gaamartives 1 iqve, gv. 8. 179 muRleTa ganqorwinebis wesi (sakmarisi iyo am survilis mmaCis biuroSi dafiqsireba), daaregulires meuRleTa qonebrivi mdgomareoba da a. S.1 es kanonebi momdevno wlebSi drois moTxovnebis Sesabamisad icvleboda, Tumca xalxur yofaSi bolo xanebamde efeqturad funqcionirebda ara formaluri, aramed CveulebiTi samarTlis normebi; Tundac, sufrasTan qalisa da mamakacis cal-calke jdomis Zveli wesi. a. l. niJaraZe svanur sadResaswaulo sufras ase aRwers: `svanebSi samxiarulo sufrebi, Cveulebriv, xsnilisa da mTvaris momatebis periodSi iSleboda. samisod gamoiyeneboda svanuri saxlis meore sarTuli ‘darbaz’, SemdgomSi axali sacxovrebeli saxlis didi oTaxi – palati. qvemo qarTlis svanebi sufras e. w. sefaSi Slian. mcire samxiarulo sufris dros am mizniT iyeneben sacxovrebeli saxlis did oTaxs. svanur sufraze mamakacebisa da qalebis jdomis wesi gansazRvruli iyo. mamakacebi erTad sxdebodnen, qalebi ki erTad~.2 unda aRiniSnos isic, rom ritualur sufrasTan sxdomis amgvari wesi dResac farTodaa gavrcelebuli saqarTvelos sxvadasxva kuTxis soflebSi. tradiciuli sociumisTvis damaxasiaTebeli normatiuli urTierTobebidan, bunebrivia, gamonaklisi yovelTvis arsebobda. iSviaTi saojaxo davebis erT-erT magaliTad m. gegeSiZes motanili aqvs zemo svaneTSi dafiqsirebuli saintereso SemTxveva, rodesac momCivani mamakaci iTxovda oficialurad ganqorwinebas. wlebis ganmavlobaSi igi samegreloSi muSaobda, sadac meore ojaxsac moekida. naTesavebs ucdiaT misi pirveli ojaxis SenarCuneba (svan meuRlesTan) da werilobiTi xelSekrulebiT piroba CamourTmeviaT, rom Zvel ojaxs ar daangrevda. radganac am pirovnebam ver SesZlo pirobis Sesruleba, sasamarTlom misi saqme ganixila da ganqorwinebiT daakmayofila.3 Tavad is faqti, rom mkvlevarma genderul Tanasworobaze agebuli sazogadoebisaTvis metad Cveulebrivi movlena (ganqorwineba), naSromSi Seitana, cxadyofs, rom msgavsi precedenti am sociumSi iSviaTi iyo. m. gegeSiZis monacemebiT 1964-1979 ww. zemo svaneTSi arc erTi saqme ar moinaxa, romelic ojaxur gayrasa Tu sxva saxis ojaxur areulobas exeboda. saxalxo sasamarTlos Tavmjdomarem ki mas daudastura, rom am saxis saqmeebi ar aRwevdnen saxelmwifo sasamarTlomde, radgan mogvareTa ufrosi da Wkviani kacebis Careva da maT mier miRebuli gadawyvetileba miiCneoda ukanasknel sanqciad. mecnieri xazgasmiT aRniSnavs, rom 1 2 3 varZieli, saqorwino, saojaxo da sameurveo, gv. 4-5. niJaraZe, qvemo qarTlis svanebis, gv. 27. gegeSiZe, saqarTvelos mTis zonis mosaxleobis, gv. 117. 180 sasamarTlos Tavmjdomare oficialurad acxadebda kmayofilebas arsebuli mdgomareobis gamo, radgan amgvari gziT gamotanili ganaCeni yovelTvis samarTliani iyo. tradiciuli urTierTobebi mtkiced iyo SenarCunebuli naTesaur gaerTianebebSi. erTi gvaris wevrebi miiCnevdnen, rom maT saerTo Wiri da lxini hqondaT; gardacvlils glovobda ara marto gardacvlilis ojaxi, aramed maTi yvela mogvare. im faqts, rom gasuli saukunis 60-ian wlebSi Sinaojaxuri sakiTxebis mogvarebis Taobaze svaneTis sasamarTloebSi umniSvnelo odenobis saqme iyo ganxiluli, m. gegeSiZe ojaxisa da mogvareTa moraluri erTianobis argumentad miiCnevs.1 SeiZleba iTqvas, rom social-kulturuli da fsiqologiuri faqtorebis gavleniT, ara marto saqarTvelos mTaSi, aramed sxva regionebSic, adamianebi, ZiriTadad erTguli darCnen im Zveli Cveulebebisa (ufrosis pativiscema, stumarTmoyvareoba, sityvis kacoba, saojaxo urTierTobebi, qonebis gayofis wesi, egzogamia, genderuli urTierTobebi da a. S.), rac yoveldRiur yofaSi dRemde vlindeba. savele-eTnografiuli masalis mixedviT, sabWoTa periodSi, saqarTveloSi CveulebiTi samarTlis mixedviT ara marto samoqalaqo saqmeebi wydeboda, aramed mTaSi Zlieri iyo tradiciis zegavlena sisxlis samarTlis saqmeebzec. konkretuli magaliTebis moSveliebiT respondentebi gadmogvcemen, rom svanur TemSi yvela sakiTxis regulireba adre adaTebiT xdeboda da dResac xSirad asea. amgvar mdgomareobas adasturebs samecniero literaturac. postsabWoTa periodSi erovnuli tradiciis, rogorc identobis erT-erTi markeris moqmedeba ufro metad SeuzRudavi gaxda da gansxvavebuli datvirTva SeiZina. gansakuTrebiT ki im SemTxvevaSi, rodesac eTnikuri kulturis an misi elementebis arseboba safrTxis winaSe dgeboda. praqtikam aCvena, rom tradiciuli da aratradiciuli kulturis elementTa dapirispirebam SesaZloa ukve miviwyebuli tradiciis aRorZineba gamoiwvios. magaliTad, gasuli saukunis miwuruls, afxazeTis omis Sedegad devnili svanebis nawili mama-papeul soflebs daubrunda. bevrma maTganma winaparTa kuTvnili miwebi daibruna da damoukidebeli cxovreba daiwyo. devnilTa Soris iyo mcire nawili, romlebis iehovas mowmeTa mimdevrebi iyvnen. isini am `swavlebis~ svaneTSi gavrcelebas cdilobdnen. maTma, xSir SemTxvevaSi, agresiulma damokidebulebam tradiciuli qarTuli faseulobebisadmi, 1 iqve, gv. 115-116. 181 suli Caudga eceris TemSi ukve miviwyebuli xalxuri dReobis saTemo locvis `lalxora miSladeRis~ aRdgenas. seqtantebma ver gaarRvies religiuri tradiciiT nasazrdoebi tradiciuli cxovrebis wesi, romlis xelyofac, safrTxes uqmnida mTel mxares.1 am SemTxvevaSi religiuri dResaswaulis aRdgena, tradiciis revitalizaciis magaliTia. es procesi gamowveulia tradiciuli sazogadoebis SiSiT aratradiciuli ideologiis danergvis da tradiciuli Rirebulebebis dakargvis gamo, rac jgufis eTnikur identobas uqmnis safrTxes. Zveli CveulebiTi normebis aRorZinebas xeli Seuwyo krizisulma viTarebam gasuli saukunis 90-ian wlebSi, rodesac saxelmwifo institutebi SedarebiT uZluri iyvnen ganexorcielebinaT efeqturi mmarTveloba. qvemo qarTlSi Casaxlebuli svanebi stabiluri viTarebis SenarCunebis mizniT tradiciul yrilobas (lalxor) iwvevdnen da xatze ificebdnen, rom ar dauSvebdnen tradiciuli normebidan gadaxvevas da danaSauls TavianT sofelSi. savele masalis Tanaxmad, qvemo qarTlSi Casaxlebul svanTa soflebSi e. w. Svidkaca Camoayalibes: `uxucesTa sabWo gvqonda, romelic Tavad Cven, sazogadoebam SevqmeniT. am Svidkacas ekisreboda sofelSi wesrigis dacvaze pasuxismgebloba, saorganizacio sakiTxebis gadawyveta da a. S. magaliTad, erTi axlgazrda kaci Secda, niRabi gaikeTa da gaZarcvis mizniT Tavs daesxa Tavissave naTesav qals. diasaxlisma Seicno Tavdamsxmeli, ar Seepua momxdurs da cecxlis saCxreki, astami, Cascxo saxeSi. axalgazrda kacma gaqceviT uSvela Tavs. yvirilze mezoblebi mocvivdnen da yaCaRs daedevnen, Seipyres igi da gaTokes. meore dRes uxucesTa sabWo Seikriba da damnaSave mis ojaxTan erTad soflidan gaaZeva~. Cveni meore mTxrobeli, romelic warmoSobiT balszemo svaneTidanaa (latalis Temidan) gviambobs – `90-ian wlebSi areuloba rom iyo, bevri ubedureba moxda latalSi. axalgazrdebma iaraRi aiRes, xSiri iyo mkvlelobebi da qurdobebi. latalSi 7 mkvleloba moxda. axla warmoidgine, latalSi 18 gvaria da yvela erTmaneTs gadaemtera~. sazogadoeba TviTganadgurebis winaSe dadga da iZulebuli gaxda xsnis gza moeZebna. `mTeli latalis warmomadgenlebi SevikribeT, visac sityva gveTqmoda da mTeli Temi davaficeT. mosisxle gvarebi SevarigeT. qurdobisa da yaCaRobis problemac movagvareT da axla dolarebi rom dayaro quCaSi, iqve dagxvdeba, xels aravin axlebs. yovelwliurad 5 oqtombers vikribebiT da latalobas (latalis Temis dResaswauls – l. j.) aRvniSnavT. da1 gujejiani, qarTvel mTielTa, gv. 128-130. 182 naSaulebaTa aRmosafxvrelad 24 kaciani komisia SevqmeniT, romelic dResawaulis wina dRes ikribeba da saqmeebs arCevs. Zveli meTodic gamoviyeneT: Temis nebismieri wevri, vinc ki danaSauls Seeswreba, unda ecados damnaSavis SeCerebas. Tu danaSauli mainc moxda, maSin igi valdebulia, Cvens komisias Seatyobinos. CaSvebis instituti SemoviReT, ra!~.1 analogiisaTvis movitanT erT istoriul sabuTs, romlis msgavsi mravladaa daculi istoriul wyaroebSi. XV saukunis `saerTo da saerTpiro~ dokumentSi `dawerili saerTo da saerTpiro erTobilisa kalisa £evisa kalis mTisa saqmisaTvis~ naTqvamia, rom rac ki kalis TemSi danaSauli moxdeboda, pasuxs erTobil kalis xevi gascemda.2 zemoT aRniSnuli urTierTobebi sakmaod Zvel istoriul tradiciebs emyareba da TvalnaTliv gviCvenebs, rom xSirad saTanado viTarebaSi sociumi ixsenebs da praqtikuladac aRadgens ukve daviwyebul Zvel instituts. saerTod, SeiZleba iTqvas, rom saqarTvelos mTaSi CveulebiTi normebis konservacia ZiriTadad ganpirobebuli iyo aq saxelmwifo institutebis moqmedebis SezRuduli SesaZleblobebiT. rogorc Cans, am garemoebas emyareba mcdari Sexeduleba, rom Tanamedrove yofaSi damkvidrebuli tradiciebi mxolod mTis mosaxleobas ukavSirdeba. zogierTi avtori tradiciuli qarTuli sufris warmoSobasac aRmosavleT saqarTvelos mTas ukavSirebs. g. TevzaZe wers: „dRevandeli qarTuli sufris warmoSobis Sesaxeb, saqarTvelos axal istorias unda mivmarToT: me-19 saukunis bolos da me-20 saukunis dasawyisSi gaZlierda migracia aRmosavleTis mTianeTidan qarTlSi: zogjer es migracia nebayoflobiTi iyo, zogjer iZulebiTi. Camosul xalxs Tavisi wesCveulebebi Camohqonda, romlebsac warmatebiT inarCunebda kompaqturad dasaxlebul adgilebSi. wina saukunis 80-ian wlebSic ki, axalcixe, axalqalaqi, erTawmindas garSemo soflebSi SexvdebodiT xevsurebis da moxeveebis Camotanil, sul odnav gadasxvaferebul dReobis sufrebs, qali TamadebiT qalebis sufraze da orive, kacebis da qalebis sufraze smis da sadRegrZeloebis mkacrad gansazRvruli wesiT. rogorc Cans, mTidan Camotanilma dReobis sufram, qarTlis mosaxleebSi naxevrad sekularizacia ganicada, SeiTvisa Tamadis da smaSi Sejibrebis wesebi (am ukanasknels aRmosavleT saqarTvelos mTianeTis 1 vardebis revoluciis Semdeg korufciis aRmosafxvrelad da e. w. kriminaluri cnobierebis Secvlis mizniT, saqarTveloSi SemoiRes kanoni, romelic eWvmitanils sasjels umsubuqebs, Tu igi iTanamSromlebs gamoZiebasTan da daasmens danaSaulSi monawile sxva pirebs. amas xalxSi `CaSvebis instituti~ uwodes. 2 ingoroyva, svaneTis saistorio Zeglebi, gv. 70. 183 dReobis sufra gamoricxavda) da Camoyalibda TiTqmis iseTad, rogorsac vicnobT. im mosazrebas, rom sityva ‘Tamada’ da misi wesi am drosaa Semosuli qarTlSi, isic mowmobs, rom am sityvas sulxan sabas ‘sityvis kona’ ar icnobs“.1 xsenebuli mosazreba mTlianad qarTuli eTnikuri garemosaTvis damaxasiaTebeli da saukuneebis wiaRidan momdinare wes-Cveulebis daviwroebis (aRmosavleT saqarTvelos mTisaTvis mikuTvnebis) da mis SedarebiT axal movlenad gamocxadebis mcdelobas warmoadgens. sasmeli, gansakuTrebiT Rvino, saqarTveloSi yvelgan RvTis Sesawirad iTvleboda. rodesac ojaxi yurZens dakrefda da dawuravda, Rvinis erT nawils zedaSed, Sesawir Rvinod gaamzadebda; amisaTvis sagangebod gankuTvnil qvevrs gaavsebda da romelime wmindanis saxelze daTqvamda. am Rvinos xels veravin axlebda da mxolod xatobaSi daileoda im wmindanis sadideblad, romlis saxelzec Rvino mzaddeboda. zedaSe Seewireboda soflis, sagvareulos Temisa da xevis uzenaes „patronebs“ da mfarvelebs. damowmebulia zedaSeebi – saRvTo, sakalando, samaiso, saWabuko, samagiero da a. S. yurZnisa da Rvinis kultis wyalobiT saTayvanebeli gaxda Rvinis Sesanaxi Senoba, marani da Ria WurisTavic. es adgili wmindad iTvleboda, iq klavdnen Sesawiravs, awyobdnen qorwilsa da naTlobas.2 genderuli TvalsazrisiT mkacrad iyo reglamentirebuli Rvinis dayenebasa da movla-patronobasTan dakavSirebuli saqmianoba. qals akrZaluli hqonda yurZnis dawurva, qvevris garecxva, Rvinis gadaReba, qvevris moxda da iqedan Rvinis amoReba. Tumca purobaze qalebic mamakacebis msgavsad yvelgan monawileobdnen da maT Rvinis sma ar ekrZalebodaT. religiur weszea damyarebuli qarTuli sufris ritualuri mxarec. sufris aucilebel personaJs warmoadgens xelmZRvaneli (Tamada, tolumbaSi, Zveli formebia – puris ufali, mTavari taZrisai, mxnis Tavi), romlis ZiriTad funqcias sadRegrZelos Tqma – dalocva warmoadgens. x. ioselianis dakvirvebiT, svanur sufraze aucileblad saTqmeli pirveli sami sadRegrZelo pirdapir gadmotanilia locvidan, romelic zedaSis, ritualuri kverebisa da saklavis gulRviZlis Sewirvisas eklesiaSi iTqmeboda; garda amisa, svanurSi termin Tamadis damkvidrebamde ixmareboda termini, romelic sityva-sityviT „damlocvels“ aRniSnavda, xolo qarTul enaSi sadRegrZelos Tqma, igive 1 2 TevzaZe, sxva istoria, gv. 92. bardaveliZe, aguna-angura, gv. 12. 184 locva/dalocvaa. SesaZlebelia, Tavdapirvelad religiuri ritualis Semsrulebeli, locvis mTqmeli, droTa ganmavlobaSi sufris ufrosad da moTaved gadaiqca.1 am mosazrebis garkveul mtkicebulebad SeiZleba CaiTvalos isic, rom tradiciuli qarTuli puroba dResac mkacrad reglamentirebulia, sadac sadRegrZeloebis rigi mkafiod Camoyalibebuli TanamimdevrobiT iTqmeba. yoveldRiur purobazec ki sasmelis ubrad (sadRegrZelos gareSe) daleva miuRebelia. aucilebelia RvTis sadidebeli da gardacvlilebis Sesandobari sadRegrZeloebis warmoTqma. amasTanave, dRemde sasurvel Tamadad lxinis Tu Wiris sufraze sasuliero piri iTvleba. imavdroulad, sufris warmmarTvelebi cdilobdnen daecvaT ukve Camoyalibebuli wesebi da sadRegrZelom damwyalobeba/dalocvis formasTan msgavseba dRemde Semoinaxa. es yovelive ki qarTuli purobis (sufris) tradiciis siZveleze miuTiTebs. xolo Zvel qarTul garemoSi termin Tamadis ararsebobiT Zvel saqarTveloSi dRevandeli sufris analogis uaryofa igivea, rom vamtkicoT termin tradiciis Semotanamde tradiciebi ar arsebobdao. amrigad, daskvnis saxiT SeiZleba iTqvas, rom eTnokulturuli tradiciebi eTnosis (tomis, xalxis, eris) Seqmna-ganviTarebis procesSi istoriulad Camoyalibebul, Taobidan TaobaSi gardamaval da erToblivad aRiarebul princips warmoadgens, romelic safuZvlad edeba adamianTa Soris mravalmxriv urTierTobaTa normebs cxovrebis yvela sferoSi. termini tradicia mogvianebiT damkvidrda saqarTveloSi da Seesatyviseba qarTul `wess, Cveulebas~. XIX saukuneSi daiwyo erTgvari kampania, romelic qarTuli erovnuli ideologiisa da wes-Cveulebebis (tradiciebis) mospobis rusifikatoruli politikis winaaRmdeg iyo mimarTuli; rusuli saxelmwifo institutebi mavne tradiciebTan brZolis mizeziT cdilobdnen erovnuli Cveulebebis aRmofxvras. qarTul tradiciebTan brZola gagrZelda sabWoTa periodSic. miuxedavad amisa, Zveli CveulebiTi normebi saqarTveloSi yovelTvis mniSvnelovan rols asrulebdnen socialur urTierTobebsa da yoveldRiur yofaSi, gansazRvravdnen pirovnebis ufleba-movaleobas sakuTari sociumis mimarT. postsabWoTa periodSi erovnuli tradiciis, rogorc identobis erT-erTi markeris moqmedeba ufro metad SeuzRudavi gaxda da gansxvavebuli datvirTva SeiZina. gansakuTrebiT ki im SemTxvevaSi, rodesac eTnikuri kulturis an misi elementebis arseboba safrTxis winaSe dgas. xSirad dapirispirეba tradiciulsa da aratradiciuls 1 ioseliani, stumarmaspinZlobis tradicia svaneTSi, gv. 95. 185 Soris iwvevs ukve daviwyebuli tradiciis aRorZinebas. saxelmwifo institutebis moqmedebis SezRuduli SesaZleblobebis gamo CveulebiTi normebis konservaciis xarisxi ufro maRalia saqarTvelos mTaSi. rogorc Cans, swored amas emyareba arcTu argumentirebuli Sexeduleba, rom qarTvelTa Tanamedrove yofaSi damkvidrebuli Cveulebebi (magaliTad tradiciuli sufra), mxolod mTis mosaxleobas ukavSirdeba. damowmebuli wyaroebi da literatura axvlediani, tradiciebis problema – axvlediani g., tradiciebis problema XVIII-XIX saukuneebis qarTveli istorikosebis naSromebSi, Tbilisi, 1984. bardaveliZe, aguna-angura – bardaveliZe v., aguna-angura, Zm, 16, 1968, gv. 12-14. gegeSiZe, saqarTvelos mTis zonis mosaxleobis – gegeSiZe m., saqarTvelos mTis zonis mosaxleobis ekonomikuri da socialuri aqtivizaciis sakiTxebi, I svaneTis konkretul-sociologiuri gamokvleva, m. gegeSiZis saerTo redaqciiT, Tbilisi, 1975. gujejiani, qarTvel mTielTa – gujejiani r., qarTvel mTielTa mentalobis istoriidan, svaneTi, Tbilisi, 2008. varZieli, saqorwino, saojaxo da sameurveo – varZieli i., saqorwino, saojaxo da sameurveo kanonTa axali kodeqsis proeqti, `sabWoTa samarTali~, 1926, #1, gv. 4-7. TevzaZe, sxva istoria – TevzaZe g., sxva istoria, Tbilisi, 2018. iToniSvili, qarTvel mTielTa saojaxo – iToniSvili v., qarTvel mTielTa saojaxo urTierTobis istoriidan, Tbilisi, 1960. ingoroyva, svaneTis saistorio Zeglebi – ingoroyva p., svaneTis saistorio Zeglebi, nak. 2, Tbilisi, 1941. ioseliani, stumarmaspinZlobis tradicia svaneTSi – ioseliani x., stumarmaspinZlobis tradicia svaneTSi, Tbilisi, 2005. kekelia, erovnuli tradiciebis socialuri funqcia –kekelia m., erovnuli tradiciebis socialuri funqcia, Tbilisi, 1989. nadareiSvili, zogi mavne Cveulebis Sesaxeb – nadareiSvili g., zogi mavne Cveulebis Sesaxeb, Tbilisi, 1979. niJaraZe, qvemo qarTlis svanebis – niJaraZe l., qvemo qarTlis svanebis sameurneo yofa da materialuri kultura, Tbilisi, 1999. 186 sulxan saba orbeliani, leqsikoni – sulxan saba orbeliani, leqsikoni qarTuli, II, Tbilisi, 1993. soxaZe, wes-Cveulebebis avkargianobis – soxaZe a., wes-Cveulebebis avkargianobis kriteriumebisaTvis, Tbilisi, 1985. robaqiZe, tradicia – robaqiZe a., tradicia da cxovrebis wesi, Tbilisi, 1981. furcxvaniZe, adamianis pativisa da Rirsebis – furcxvaniZe b., adamianis pativisa da Rirsebis dacva sisxlis samarTlis kanonmdeblobaSi, Tbilisi, 1949. Ciqovani, mavne tradiciebis – Ciqovani v., mavne tradiciebis winaaRmdeg brZola XIX saukunis meore naxevris qarTuli periodikis mixedviT, Tbilisi,1979. qarTuli leqsikoni – qarTuli saliteraturo enis rvatomiani akademiuri leqsikoni, arn. Ciqobavas redaqtorobiT, eleqtronuli versia, https://www.ice.ge/liv/liv/ganmartebiti.php n.xizanaSvili, eTnografiuli werilebi – xizanaSvili n., eTnografiuli werilebi, Tbilisi, 1940. WavWavaZe, Txzulebani – WavWavaZe i., Txzulebani, t. VI, Tbilisi,1956. janiaSvili, savele masala – janiaSvili l., savele masala, qvemo qarTli, 2009. Bayer, Revitalization, invention – Bayer J., Revitalization, invention and continued existence of the Kyrgiz Aksakal Courts: listening to pluralistic accounts of History, JLP, 53-54, 2006, pp. 141-171. Benda-Beckman (et al.), Vtality and revitalization– Benda-Beckman F., Benda-Beckman, K., Eckert J., Pirie F., Turner B., Vitality and revitalization of tradition in law: going back into the past or future oriented development? http://www.eth.mpg.de/ cms/en/research/d3/ 187 Lavrenti Janiashvili, Natia Jalabadze The Concept of Tradition in the Georgian Cultural Context Summary In recent years, some European social anthropologists have paid great attention to the study of the dynamics of ethno-cultural traditions. Specialists have studied not only their origin but also the conditions and causes for their disappearance or revitalization. Ethno-cultural traditions are transient and collectively recognized principles, historically formed from generation to generation in the process of creation and development of an ethnos (tribe, people, nation); norms of multifaceted relations between people in all spheres of life are based on them. The term “tradition” was adopted in the Georgian language late and corresponds to the term “customs”. In the 19th century, a campaign began against the policy of Russification in Georgia, aimed at eradicating Georgian national ideology and customs; the entire period of Georgia’s being under Russian rule including the period of the Soviet regime was accompanied by various measures against national traditions and customs. First of all, it was a series of reforms carried out against Georgian legislation, the unification of the judicial system and establishment of Russian laws, the transformation of the Georgian Church and the education system, etc. Russian state institutions tried to eliminate national customs under the pretext of fighting against harmful traditions. In Soviet times, in the 1920s, as well as in the 1970s there was organized a largescale campaign against harmful customs and traditions. Traditions have been assessed as positive and negative, by their role in social progress. There was declared a fight against all the customs and traditions that were contrary to progress. Nevertheless, the old customary norms in Georgia have always played an important role in social relations and everyday life, defining the rights and obligations of a person to their society. In the post-Soviet period, the operation of the national tradition as one of the markers of identity has become more unlimited and has acquired a different meaning. Especially when the existence of an ethnic culture or its elements is under threat. Often, the confrontation between the traditional and the non-traditional leads to the revival of an already forgotten tradition. Due to the limited capacity of state institutions, the degree of preservation of customary norms has been higher in the mountains of Georgia. It seems that this is the basis for a little reasoned opinion that the customs that have developed in the modern life of Georgians (for example, the traditional s u p r a ) refer only to the mountain communities. 188 fizikuri anTropologia PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY liana biTaZe, elguja laWyepiani travmebis sixSire da tipebi xevsureTSi: ganviTarebuli da gviani Sua saukuneebis ganaTxari masalis mixedviT Sesavali travma (berZ. Trauma, Wriloba, dazianeba) organizmis dazianebaa, romelsac iwvevs garemo faqtorebis (fizikuri, qimiuri, biologiuri, meqanikuri da sxva) zemoqmedeba. is aseve SeiZleba iyos mwvave da qronikuli, yofiTi, sawarmoo, sabrZolo da sxv. travmis gansakuTrebuli saxea mZime gancdebTan dakavSirebuli fsiqikuri travma, romelic SeiZleba garTuldes.1 janmrTelobis moSlas da sikvdils yvelaze xSirad meqanikuri travma iwvevs. yvelaze xSiria sayofacxovrebo travma, romelic SemTxveviTi garemoebebis an ganzrax (cemis, mkvlelobis, TviTmkvlelobis da sxv.) dazianebis Sedegia. saqarTvelos statistikis erovnuli samsaxuris monacemebiT, 1994 wlidan 2020 wlis CaTvliT gardacvalebis mizezebSi pirveli adgili ukavia sisxlis mimoqcevis sistemis avadmyofobebs, Semdeg simsivneebs, mesame adgili ki – travmebs. zogadad, am mizezTa klasis mixedviT, 2010-2020 wlebSi gardacvlilTa raodenoba saqarTveloSi orjer gaizarda, xolo mamakacebis xvedriTi wili qalebTan SedarebiT metia.2 ZaladobiT gamowveul travmebTan da gardacvalebebTan dakavSirebiT bolo ori wlis statistikuri monacemebi albaT ufro mZafr suraTs aCvenebs. Zaladoba sazogadoebaSi arsebuli daZabulobis, dabali socialur-ekonomikuri ganviTarebis, arasaTanado ganaTlebis, agresiulobis maCvenebelia. 1 2 qse, t. 10, gv. 30. bunebrivi moZraobis statistika saqarTveloSi, 2020 wlis angariSi, cxr. 13, gv. 34. 189 travmatizmisa da masTan dakavSirebuli Sedegebis anTropologiuri analizi saqarTveloSi siRrmiseulad Seswavlili ar aris. qarTuli anTropologiuri skolis erT-erTi fuZemdeblis, akad. m. abduSeliSvilis mier Seswavlilia saqarTvelos yvela periodis paleomosaxleoba;1 gansazRvrulia anTropologiuri tipis cvalebadoba droSi, epoqaluri transformaciebis mimarTuleba;2 qarTvelebSi gamoyofilia sami anTropologiuri tipi (kolxuri, iberiuli, kavkasionis), romelic winaaziuri rasis kavkasiur nairsaxeobas miekuTvneba,3 rac dRes dnm-markerebis geno-geografiuli kvlevebiT dasturdeba; Seqmnilia kavkasiis mosaxleobis originaluri klasifikacia4 da a. S. amdenad, misi interesTa sfero mTlianad eTnikuri anTropologia anu eTnosis anTropologiuri istoria iyo, ris gamoc imave Tavis qalebze arsebuli travmebi mas specialurad ar ukvlevia. erTaderTi naSromi aRmosavleT kavkasionis mosaxleobis travmatizmze S. laliaSvils ekuTvnis.5 avtori aRniSnavs, travmebis maRal sixSires kavkasiis mTielebSi eTnikuri kuTvnilebis ganurCevlad. am naSromSi ar ganxilula travmatizmTan dakavSirebuli rigi sakiTxi. mag., ra tipis iaraRiT iyo miyenebuli travmebi, ra dro gavida miyenebuli travmidan da ramdeni gaxda uSualod gardacvalebis mizezi. zemoT aRniSnulidan Cans, rom sakiTxi aqtualuria da saTanado gamokvleva dRemde ar ganxorcielebula. am naSromis mizania davadginoT travmebis sixSire, lokalizacia, iaraRi, riTac umetes wilad ayenebdnen travmas, miRebuli monacemebi SevadaroT xevsureTis Sesaxeb dacul werilobiT wyaroebsa da eTnologiur masalas. zogadad, travmatizms ganvixilavT, rogorc faqtors, romelic axdens gavlenas adamianis gardacvalebasa da sicocxlis xangrZlivobaze. samomavlod, miznad dasaxuli gvaqvs, dRes arsebuli Zaladobis mizezebis garkveviT, aRvadginoT uZveles sazogadoebebSi cxovrebis donis kavSiri agresiulobasTan arqeologiuri konteqstis, paleodemografiuli profilis da paleodaavadebebis mixedviT. abduSeliSvili, kavkasiis mosaxleobis anTropologia; abduSeliSvili, kavkasiis anTropologia feodalur xanaSi; abduSeliSvili, kavkasiis anTropologia brinjaos xanaSi; abduSeliSvili, saqarTvelos anTropologia rkinis xanaSi. 2 Абдушелишвили, Об эпохальной изменчивости. 3 Абдушелишвили, Антропология древнего, 1964; Абдушелишвили, Древние и современные народы, 2003. 4 Абдушелишвили, Антропология древнего, стр. 66-73. 5 Лалиашвили, Частота и локализация травм, стр. 81-82. 1 190 masala da kvlevis meTodebi mosaxleobis cxovrebis wesis rekonstruqciis rTul procesSi anTropologias istoriis Semswavlel erT-erT wyarod ganixilavdnen.1 amocanebidan gamomdinare, aseT rekonstruqciebSi sxvadasxva indikatorebs iyeneben. magaliTad, Tvalbudis hiperostozi (Cribra orbitalia) anemiis, malariis da organizmSi parazitebis arsebobaze miuTiTebs;2 travmis sixSire Tavis qalaze da ConCxis Zvlebze gvaZlevs saSualebas, aRvadginoT mosaxleobis profesiuli saqmianoba, agresiuloba an saomar moqmedebebSi monawileoba.3 saqarTveloSi cnobebs travmasTan dakavSirebiT vxvdebiT sxvadasxva eTnologiur naSromebSi. erT-erTi gaxlavT eqim g. TedoraZis wigni `xuTi weli fSav-xevsureTSi~, romelSic aRwerilia travmebi da masTan dakavSirebuli mkurnalobis meTodebi saxalxod cnobili dastaqrebis mier (1930).4 keWnaoba (Wra-Wriloba) ewodeboda xevsureTSi gavrcelebul farikaobas, romelic xmlebiT, patara farebiT da TiTebze wamosacmeli sabrZolo rgolebiT, e. w. `saTiTeebiT~, xorcieldeboda. xevsurebi erTmaneTs iwvevdnen keWnaobaSi, romelic ufro xSirad xdeboda xatSi, dReobaSi an SemTxveviTi qeifis dros. erTi gvaris warmomadgenlebi erTmaneTSi iSviaTad waiCxubebdnen, mowinaaRmdeges sxva gvaridan iwvevdnen. umetesad amis mizezi iyo Zveli wyena da ibrZodnen Selaxuli Tavmoyvareobis aRsadgenad. erTmaneTs Wridnen msubuqad, umeteswilad – arasasikvdilod. Tu vinme mokvdeboda, es gamarjvebulisTvisac did ubedurebas niSnavda. far-xmalis xmarebaSi vinc mardi, swrafi da moxerxebuli iyo, is imarjvebda. zogi ise didostaturad flobda iaraRs, rom erT Wrilobasac ar miiRebda, mowinaaRmdeges ki ramdenimes miayenebda. g. TedoraZe aRniSnavs: `yoveli axalgazrda xevsuri aris daWrili Sublze, saxeze, Tavze an xelze. yoveli axalgazrda xevsuri atarebs far-xmals, vinaidan TviTeul maTgans hyavs mteri, romelic mudam Jams SeiZleba Sehxvdes. amitomaa, rom isini, Tundac mokle manZilze, ufar-xmlod ar gaivlian~.5 Wriloba, umravles SemTxvevaSi, iyo msubuqi, patara da uxifaTo. xmlis moq1 2 3 4 5 Дебец, Левин, Трофимова Антропологический материал, 1952. Angel, Porotic hyperostosis, p.761. Бужилова, Древнее население, стр. 45. TedoraZe, xuTi weli fSav-xevsureTSi. TedoraZe, xuTi weli fSav-xevsureTSi, gv.111. 191 nevaSi mxrisa da idayvis saxsrebi ar monawileobdnen, mxolod majis saxsrebs da mis momxrel kunTebs iyenebdnen. xmlis moqnevis amplitudisa da dartymis Zalis ver mozomvis pirdapiri mizezi iyo simTvrale, rac Semdeg sananebeli xdeboda orive mxarisaTvis. damWreli valdebuli iyo mkurnalobis xarjebi mas gaeRo, xolo raime organos funqciis dakargvis SemTxvevaSi, Sesabamisi gasamrjelo gadaexada. Wrilobis Rirebulebis gansazRvra damokidebuli iyo imaze, Tu sxeulis romel nawilze iyo igi. Tu Wriloba saxeze iyo miyenebuli, maSin misi gamoangariSeba xdeboda xorblis marcvlebis raodenobiT. saxis farglebSi igulisxmeboda: zemodan Sublis sami naoWi, qvemodan nikapi, gverdebidan ki – yuris Zirebi. rodesac Wriloba srulad ganikurneboda da nawiburi darCeboda, Wrilobas gazomavdnen ZafiT, Zafs ficarze dadebdnen, masze daawyobdnen wminda xorblis marcvlebs erTmaneTis mijriT sworad da gardigardmod, bolo marcvlebs Tavsa da boloSi moaSorebdnen da Semdeg daTvlidnen marcvlebs. damWrels TiTo marcvalSi unda gadaexada TiTo Zroxa an Zroxis safasuri. kacis Semokvdoma xevsureTSi Cveulebriv gardacvalebaze gacilebiT ufro met ubedurebad aRiqmeboda. g. TedoraZis naSromSi vxvdebiT cnobebs xevsuri dastaqrebis Sesaxeb: `[...] isini patara Wrils ufro aRrmaveben, iCxrikebian Sig, fxeken mas, aRweven Zvlamdi da iq eZeben mis nafleTs. es imitom, rom Tu Zvali amoiRo Wrilobidan, maSin is gacilebiT met xelfass Rebulobs. [...] 1) Tavze Wrilobis morCena, Zvlis amouReblad fasdeba sam cxvarad anu 7 girvanqa spilenZad; 2) Tu daWril Tavis qalaze Zvali amoiRo, maSin gasamrjelo Rirs oTxi cxvris safasuri an aTi girvanqa spilenZi; 3) Tu orive Zvali amoiRo e. i. Tu Tavis qalas Zvlis garda amoayola kidev Zvlis Sua fenis Cximis qvemo nafleTi, am didi garjisaTvis is Rebulobs ori Zroxis safasurs – oc girvanqa spilenZs~.1 aqve vecnobiT cnobebs mkurnalobis teqnikis Sesaxeb: `sazogadod xevsureTis Sinauri dastaqrebi Tavis trepanacias akeTeben erTnairi meTodiT: jer dazianebul adgilas qalas burRaven trepaniT da Semdeg fxekis saSualebiT sWrian Tavis qalas. fxeken e. w. xowiT (skalpeliT), romelic ubralo rkinisgan aris gakeTebuli. igi ornairi formisaa: pirvels kavis msgavsi moyvaniloba aqvs da piri pirdapir aris wamaxuli, meore ufro kavis magvaria da piri orsave moxril mxareze aqvs wabasruli, pirvelis daniSnulebaa zevidan qalas Zvlis TandaTanobiTi fxeka, meoresi ki ukve amonaWreli Zvlis maxvili 1 TedoraZe, xuTi weli fSav-xevsureTSi, gv. 113-114. 192 kideebis moblagva anu moqlibva, ris gamoc Zvlis moqlibuli pirebi aRar daazianebs – magaris, rbilis da sacris magvar garsebs, rodesac tvini feTqvas iwyebs WrilSi. aris Zvlis amosaRebi iaraRic, romelsac isini wepwkals (pinceti) eZaxian, aris Zlier maxvili dana [...]~.1 Cveni kvlevis interesis sferos warmoadgens uZvelesi mosaxleobis cxovrebis wesis rekonstruqcia da paralelebis gavleba eTnologiur monacemebsa da anTropologiur Zvlovan masalas Soris, rac gulisxmobs im specifikuri niSnebis aRmoCenas, rac eTnologTa mier aris dadasturebuli. aRniSnuli kvlevisaTvis gamoyenebulia anTropologiuri masala, romelic daculia Tsu iv. javaxiSvilis saxelobis istoriisa da eTnologiis institutis anTropologiuri kvlevis laboratoriis ZvalsacavSi, sadac saqarTvelos TiTqmis mTeli teritoriidan Tavmoyrilia 3000-ze meti Tavis qala eneoliTis xanidan moyolebuli Tanamedroveobis CaTvliT. winamdebare naSromSi gamokvlevuli iqneba xevsureTidan mopovebuli ori periodis Tavis qalebi: ganviTarebuli Sua saukuneebidan – 22 kacis, 20 qalis da 7 bavSvis, xolo gviani Sua saukuneebis seriidan – 32 kacis, 17 qalis da 8 bavSvis Tavis qala. sasamarTlo anTropologiaSi Zvlovani masalis SeswavliT, pirovnebis sqesis, asakis, simaRlis, sxvadasxva pirovnuli maxasiaTeblis gansazRvris Semdeg xdeba Zvalze arsebuli travmis interpretacia – misi Sefaseba da travmis miyenebis xandazmulobis dadgena.2 Zvalze travmis aRmoCenisas zustdeba: aRniSnuli dazianeba sikvdilis win (ante mortem), sikvdilamde axlo periodSi (peri mortem), Tu sikvdilis Semdgomaa ganviTarebuli (post mortem).3 sicocxlis droindeli motexilobis gansazRvra Zvlovan masalaze SedarebiT martivia, vinaidan motexilobis ganviTarebidan Sexorcebis procesi maleve iwyeba da ukve ramdenime kviraSi Zvlovani korZi warmoiqmneba. misi Camoyalibeba bevr faqtorzea damokidebuli – pirovnebis janmrTelobis mdgomareoba, rogoria kvebiTi statusi da, rac mTavaria, travmis, motexilobis tipi. perimortuli (peri mortem) travmis Sefaseba mniSvnelovania, radgan is dakavSirebulia sikvdilis procesTan. travmis gaanalizebiT SesaZloa ganisazRvros sikvdilis mizezi. motexilobis Semdeg, rogorc wesi, iwyeba regeneraciis, remodelirebis da Sexorcebis procesi. antemortuli da perimortuli mo1 2 3 TedoraZe, xuTi weli fSav-xevsureTSi, gv. 87-98. kilasonia, sasamarTlo medicina, gv.111-112. Sauer, The timing of injuries, pp. 321-332. 193 texilobebis ZiriTadi ganmasxvavebeli niSania gaZvalebis procesis Sefaseba. antemortuli dazianebis SemTxvevaSi is gaadvilebulia, xolo perimortuli travmis SemTxvevaSi, vinaidan sikvdili male dgeba, SexorcebiTi procesi aRar viTardeba.1 cocxali Zvali, elastiurobis gamo, Zalis zemoqmedebis adgilze jer gaiWimeba, Semdeg ki motydeba. mkvrivi-blagvi sagnis Zlieri dartymis SemTxvevaSi Zalis modebis adgilas rkaliseburi bzarebiT SemosazRvruli damsxvreuli motexilobis kera viTardeba. am keridan ki radialurad xazovani bzarebi gamodian. rac ufro Zlieria travma, miT metia rkaliseburi bzarebiT SemosazRvruli namsxvrovani motexilobis kera.2 postmortuli travma sikvdilis Semdeg viTardeba. mSrali Zvlis biomeqanikuri Tvisebis gamo, is mniSvnelovnad gansxvavdeba wina or motexilobisagan, romlebic viTardebian cocxal Zvlebze da romelTa struqtura notioa, xolo postmortulis SemTxvevaSi ki ukve gamomSralia. rogorc zemoT avRniSneT, wina or SemTxvevaSi motexilobis dros Zvals aqvs Tviseba warmoqmnas bzarebi da fragmentebi, xolo postmortuli motexilobebisas motexilobis kideebi gamoSrobis gamo xasiaTdebian moxris elastiurobis simciriT da masze miyenebuli motexilobebi xasiaTdebian swori da maxvili kideebiT. aseve mniSvnelovania motexilobis kideebis feri, vinaidan postmortuli motexilobebi SeiZleba ganviTardes Zvlis miwaSi yofnis periodSi, rasac tafonomikuri cvlilebebi ewodeba an uSualod arqeologiuri gaTxrebis dros, rodesac Zvlebis amoReba xdeba. am SemTxvevaSi, motexili Zvlis kideebis feri arabunebrivad Ria feris iqneba.3 Sedegebi da ganxilva orive periodis Zvlovani masalis detaluri aRweris Sedegad dadginda, rom travmebis kvali aRmoCenili iqna mxolod kacebis Tavis qalebze. gviani Sua saukuneebis periodiT daTariRebuli 32 kacis Tavis qaladan travmis kvali aRmoCenili iqna 19 SemTxvevaSi, asaki meryeobs 20 wlidan 65 wlamde. maT Soris Semdegi asakobrivi jgufebi: 20-25 w. – 1 Tavis qala; 25-39 w. – 2 Tavis qala; 30-40 w. – 1 Tavis qala; 35-45 1 2 3 Ubelaker, Adams, Differentiation of perimortem and postmortem trauma, pp. 509-512. kilasonia, sasamarTlo medicina, gv. 111-112. Waldron, Palaeopathology, pp. 32, 57. 194 w. – 3 Tavis qala; 40-50 w. – 6 Tavis qala; 45-55 w. – 3 Tavis qala; 5060 w. – 1 Tavis qala; 55-65 w. – 2 Tavis qala. ZiriTadad aRiniSneboda sicocxlis droindeli travmebi, romelTa miyenebis Semdeg pirovnebas aTeulobiT weli unda ecxovra, Tumca, sicocxlis droindel travmebTan erTad, 6 Tavis qalaze aseve damowmebulia perimortuli, sikvdilamde axlo periodSi ganviTarebuli travmebi, xolo sikvdilis Semdgomi travma mxolod 2 Tavis qalaze iqna aRmoCenili. travmis gamomwvevi savaraudo sagnis gansazRvrisas gamoyofili iqna, erTis mxriv, mkvrivi-blagvi, xolo, meores mxriv, mWreli-mCexavi sagnebi. 8 SemTxvevaSi orive tipis sagniT miyenebuli dazianebebi gvxvdeba, 4 SemTxvevaSi mxolod blagvi, danarCen 7 SemTxvevaSi ki mxolod mWreli-mCexavi Tvisebis mqone sagniT ganviTarebuli travmebi. travmebis lokalizacia umetesad ganlagebulia Sublis midamoSi, Semdeg Txemze, safeTqelze, kefasa da saxeze. travmebi gvxvdeba rogorc marjvena, aseve marcxena mxares, Tumca umetesi nawili mdebareobs marcxniv, rac gvafiqrebinebs, rom mowinaaRmdegis pirispir mdgar pirovnebas dazianebebi miadga marjvena xelidan. 12 SemTxvevaSi gvxvdeba kombinirebuli travmebi rogorc marjvena, aseve marcxena mxares, 1 SemTxvevaSi mxolod marjvniv, xolo danarCen 6 SemTxvevaSi marcxniv. Tavis qalebis detaluri SeswavliT 4 SemTxvevaSi aRmoCnda samedicino manipulaciis, Tavis qalas trepanaciis kvali. is damowmebulia: safeTqlis, Txemis da kefis midamoebSi. Tavis qalebze miyenebuli travmis tipidan da moculobidan gamomdinare 6 SemTxvevaSi sikvdilis mizezi swored qala-tvinis travma unda gamxdariyo. rogorc zemoT iTqva, Zvlovan masalaze travmis kvali mxolod kacebis Tavis qalaze iqna aRmoCenili. g a n v i T a r e b u l i S u a saukuneebis periodiT daTariRebuli 22 kacis Tavis qaladan travmis kvali aRmoCenili iqna 6 Tavis qalaze. asaki meryeobs 18-dan 60 wlamde. dazianebebis umetesi wili SeiniSneba 40-dan 60 wlamde mamakacebSi. sam Tavis qalas aReniSneboda sicocxlis periodSi miyenebuli travmebi, xolo sam maTgans sikvdilamde axlo periodSi mkvrivi-blagvi sagniT gamowveuli travmebi, romlebic unda gamxdariyvnen sikvdilis mizezi. erT SemTxvevaSi sagani unda yofiliyo rogorc mkvrivi-blagvi, aseve mWreli Tvisebis mqone, xolo danarCen 5 SemTxvevaSi mxolod mkvrivi-blagvi. dazianebebis lokalizacia am SemTxvevaSic upiratesad gvxvdeba Sublis, Semdeg ki safeTqlisa da saxis midamoebSi. gviani Sua saukuneebis periodiT daTariRebuli Tavis qalebisgan gansxvavebiT, 195 am seriaSi travmebis umetesoba marjvena mxareze modis. Tavis qalebis morfologiuri analiziT ganisazRvra travmebis ori kategoria: sikvdilamde axlo da gardacvalebamde bevrad adreuli periodebi. ukanaskneli travmebi ar gaxda gardacvalebis mizezi, xolo sikvdilamde axlo periodSi miyenebuli travmebis detaluri analizi moyvanilia qvemoT. N283 mamrobiTi sqesis 20-25 wlis individis Tavis qala. masze nakerebi srulad ar aris gaZvalebuli, sagitaluri da lambdoiduri nakeri nawilobriv Riaa. aRniSnul Tavis qalaze aris ramdenime sicocxlisdroindeli dazianeba (sur.1-3). Sublis Zvalze marcxniv, koronaruli nakeridan 4 sm-iT win, aRiniSneba irib-sigrZivad mdebare swori kideebis mqone, gluvi zedapiruli Zvlovani defeqti zomiT 1,4 sm. x 0,2 sm. Txemis midamoSi marjvniv, ukana naxevarSi, sagitaluri nakeridan 2,4 sm-iT marjvniv da lambdoiduri nakeridan 2,5 sm-iT win aRiniSneba aseTive xasiaTis, swori kidebis mqone zedapiruli Zvlovani defeqti zomiT 2,2 sm. x 0,6 sm. Txemis Zvalze marjvniv, sqvamozidan 1,6 sm-iT zemoT aRiniSneba irib-sigrZivad mdebare swori kideebis mqone naCexi, romelic gadadis kefis Zvalze. Sesabamisad, gaxsnilia qalas Rru (sur. 2). erTi brma motexilobis xazi miemarTeba win Sublis Zvlisken, meore ki uerTdeba marjvena safeTqlis Zvlis kides. gaxsnilia qalas Rru da aRiniSneba safeTqlis Zvlis Zvlovani defeqti. motexilobis mTliani zomaa 10,97 sm. x 0,7 sm. aRniSnuli motexilobis ukana kididan 2,2 sm-iT zemoT, marjena Txemis Zvalze aRiniSneba kefis Zvalze gardamavali motexiloba zomiT 10,9 sm. x 5,0 sm., romelic moicavs qalasarqvlis yvela Sres. am SemTxvevaSic gaxsnilia qalas Rru. orive motexilobis kideebi araerTgvarovania da mimdebare Zvlovani stuqturisgan makroskopulad ar gansxvavdeba. orive motexilobis qveda kidis zeda zedapirebi wakveTilia iribad, qvemodan zemoT. marjvena safeTqlis Zvalze da marjvena yvrimal-Tvalbudis kedelze aRiniSneba CamokveTili ubani, srulad aris mokveTili dvrilisebri morCi da gareTa sasmeni xvreli. motexilobis ukana naxevarSi aris Zvlovani defeqti da gaxsnilia qalas Rru. dazianebis zoma daaxloebiT 13,5 sm. x 4,5 sm-ia. marjvena yvrimal-Tvalbudis kedelsa da safeTqlis Zvalze CakveTili ubani mdebareobs erT sigrZiv xazze, rac gvafiqrebinebs, rom aRniSnuli dazianeba ganviTarebulia erTi qmedebiT, raime mWreli/mCexavi sagniT, romelic mimarTuli iyo ze- 196 modan-qvemoT, mcired iribad da marjvnidan marcxniv. ar aris gamoricxuli, rom aRniSnuli travmis Sedegad aseve dazianebuliyo yuri da srulad momxdariyo marjvena yuris amputacia. samive travma imdenad masiuria, rom qalasarqvlis Zvlebis motexilobasTan erTad adgili unda hqonoda rogorc Tavis tvinis magari garsis, aseve Tavis tvinis qsovilis dazianebasac, rac ueWvelad gaxdeboda gardacvalebis mizezi. aRniSnuli sami dazianeba miyenebulia sikvdilamde uaxloes periodSi, vinaidan Zvlis struqtura erTgvarovania da ar gansxvavdeba mimdebare Zvlovani stuqturisgan. samive motexiloba ganviTarebula mWreli Tvisebis masiuri sagnebis zemoqmedebiT sikvdilamde axlo periodSi. zeda ori motexiloba gamoiwvia damazianebeli sagnis mimarTulebam qvemodan zemoT, marjvnidan marcxniv (mcired iribad Semavali qalas RruSi), xolo qveda motexiloba mimarTulia zemodan qvemoT mcired marjvnidan marcxniv, iribad. swori kidebis mqone sada, gluvi zedapiris mqone zedapiruli defeqtebi ganviTarebulia raime mWreli Tvisebis mqone sagnis moqmedebiT, sicocxlis periodSi. 1.5, 1.6, 1.7 da 2.6, 2.7 kbilebze cveTa sustadaa gamoxatuli, danarCeni kbilebi kbilbudeebSi ar aReniSneba, carielia, dakargulia gardacvalebis Semdeg. N284 mamrobiTi sqesis 40-50 wlis individis Tavis qala. aRniSnul Tavis qalaze ormxriv, Sublis midamoSi aRiniSneba irib-grZivad mdebare swori kideebis mqone CaRrmavebebi, romelTa kideebi gluvi da erTgvarovania (zomebi: marjvniv 3,9 sm. x 0,1 sm., marcxniv 4,5 sm. x 0,1 sm.). Txemis Zvalze marjvniv, lambdoiduri nakeridan 1,4 sm-iT win da sqvamozuri nakeridan 1,2 sm-iT marcxniv damowmebulia irib-sigrZivi, swori kideebis mqone dazianeba zomiT 2,5 sm. x 0,2 sm. misi zedapiruli Sris fskeri SedarebiT usworoa, amotexilia da Zvlis struqtura araerTgvarovania. aRniSnuli travmidan motexilobis bzarebi miemarTeba lambdoiduri da sqvamozuri nakerisaken sadac brmad mTavrdebian. Txemis midamoSi, sagitaluri nakeridan 1,5 sm-iT marjvniv aRiniSneba irib-grZivad mdebare 6,0 sm. x 2,5 sm. zomis dazianeba, romelic marjvena Txemis Zvalze mosazRvravs 2,5 sm. x 1,1 sm. zomis Zvlovan defeqts. Sesabamisad, gaxsnilia qalas Rru. aRniSnul dazianebaze marcxena naxevarSi aRiniSneba ramdenime irib-sigrZivad mdebare swori kideebis mqone alag zedapiruli, alag qalasarqvelis yvela Sremde damavali defeqtebi. misi marjvena mxaris kideebi usworo da amo- 197 texilia, Tumca zogan aqac SeimCneva swori kideebi. usworokideebiani defeqtis ukana naxevarSi SeimCneva savaraudo moqlibvis (kideebis gagluvebis mcdelobis) kvali. mravlobiTi swori kideebis mqone defeqtebi da aseve moqlibvis kvali gvaZlevs saSualebas vivaraudoT, rom saqme gvaqvs qalasarqvlis trepanaciasTan, romelic Sesrulebulia raime primitiuli iaraRebiT dastaqris mier. aRniSnuli manipulacia gvafiqrebinebs, rom am midamoSi gvqonda travma, rac iwvevda qalasarqvlis Zvlis fragmentacias. manipulacia mimarTuli iyo imisken, rom momxdariyo fragmentebis moSoreba, raTa damatebiTi zewola ar gamoewvia dazianebul fragmentebs magar garssa da tvinis qsovilze, rac gaxdeboda qalas RruSi infeqciis ganviTarebis mizezi. amavdroulad es qmedeba axdenda sisxldenis prevencias. makroskopuli dakvirvebiT, Zvlis zrdisaTvis damaxasiaTebeli cvlilebebi ar aris dazianebis kideebze, rac gvafiqrebinebs, rom dastaqris mcdeloba uSedego unda yofiliyo. savaraudod es gaxdeboda pirovnebis gardacvalebis mizezi. 1.7 kbilze cveTa zomieradaa gamoxatuli, 1.4 kbili Catexilia fesvis doneze, xolo 1,6 da 1.8 kbilebi sicocxleSia mocvlili. 2.2 kbili fesvis donezea Catexili, xolo centralurad aReniSneba kariesuli, moSavo feris Rru. danarCeni kbilebi kbilbudeebSi ar aRiniSneba, dakargulia gardacvalebis Semdeg. aRniSnuli Tavis qalis SeswavliT dadginda, rom Tavis qalaze arsebuli sworkideebiani, gluvi zedapiris mqone defeqtebi ganviTarebulia raime mWreli Tvisebis mqone sagnis moqmedebiT sicocxlis periodSi, marjvniv Txemze arsebuli sworkideebiani zedapiruli defeqti sikvdilamde axlo periodSi mWreli Tvisebis mqone sagnis moqmedebiT, xolo marjvniv Txemze arsebuli sworkideebiani da usworokideebiani defeqtebi unda warmoadgenden sikvdilamde axlo periodSi Catarebuli samedicino manipulaciis, savaraudod trepanaciis, Semdgom kvals. N285 mamrobiTi sqesis 55-65 wlis individis Tavis qala. aRniSnul Tavis qalas ormxriv Sublis midamoSi aReniSneba irib-sigrZivad mdebare swori kideebis mqone CaRrmavebebi, romelTa kideebi gluvi da erTgvarovania, zomebi: marjvniv 2,7 sm. x 0,1 sm., marcxniv TiTqmis erTmaneTis paralelurad mdebare ori dazianeba zomebiT 1,5 sm. x 0,1 sm. da 0,9 sm. x 0,1 sm.. marcxniv Txemis Zvalze, safeTqlis Zvlis sqvamozuri nakeridan 3,3 sm-iT marjvniv da koronaruli nakeridan lambdoidur nakeramde aRiniSneba gardamavali swori kideebis mqone iribsigrZivad mdebare motexiloba, romelic moicavs qalas sarqvlis yve- 198 la Sres da Seadgens 12 sm. x 0,2 sm-s. Sesabamisad, gaxsnilia qalas Rru. motexilobis wina da ukana boloebi SedarebiT usworoa da bzarebi brmad mTavrdeba qalasarqvelze. marcxniv, Subl-safeTqel-kefis midamoSi damowmebulia irib-sigrZivi, swori kideebis mqone motexiloba, romelic moicavs qalasarqvlis yvela Sres (zoma 21,9 sm. x 0,3 sm.), romelsac TiTqmis centralurad aReniSneba 9,0 sm. x 2,5 sm. zomis Zvlovani defeqti. gaxsnilia qalas Rru. marjvena safeTqlis Zvlis zeda kideze, ukana naxevarSi SeiniSneba irib-ganivad mdebare ramdenime, TiTqmis urTierTparaleluri swori kideebis mqone dazianeba. maTi mopirdapire kideebi momrgvalebuli da erTgvarovania. aRniSnuli dazianebebidan ramdenadme qvemoT qalasarqvelze aRiniSneba mcire zomis, swori kideebis mqone amotkeCvis ubani. Sesabamisad, qalasarqvlis gareTa Sre mocilebuli ar aris, mxolod aweulia (amotkeCilia). araaerTjeradi kvali masiuri dazianebis kideebSi gvaZlevs imis saSualebas davaskvnaT, rom aRniSnuli manipulaciebi travmis miRebis Semdeg aris Catarebuli dastaqris mier. vinaidan safeTqlis Zvali SedarebiT Txeli Zvalia, misi motexiloba da fragmentacia damatebiT safrTxes uqmnis tvinis garss, sisxlZarRvebsa da tvinis nivTierebas. zemoT aRwerili defeqti (safeTqlis Zvlis ararseboba) gvafiqrebinebs, rom e. w. trepanaciiT moxda Wrilobis gasufTaveba, motexili Zvlovani fragmentebis Wrilobidan amoReba da motexili Zvlis basri kideebis dagluveba, raTa ar momxdariyo tvinis qsovilis da mimdebare struqturebis damatebiTi dazianeba. Sublze arsebuli dazianebebi gamowveulia raime mWreli sagnis moqmedebiT sicocxlis periodSi, xolo bolo ori motexiloba ganviTarebulia sikvdilamde axlo periodSi raime mWreli da garkveuli masis mqone sagniT, rac mizezi iqneboda msgavsi masiuri dazianebebisa. Tavis qalaze aRmoCenili savaraudod araerTi samedicino manipulaciis kvali iZleva im varaudis safuZvels, rom marjvniv safeTqlis midamoSi arsebuli motexiloba ueWvelad gaxdeboda gardacvalebis mizezi. marcxniv Txemze arsebuli motexiloba ganviTardeboda raime sagnis zemodan _ qvemoT, xolo marjvniv arsebuli dazianeba marjvnidan _ marcxniv mimarTulebiT miyenebuli dartymebiT, romlebic mcired iribad iqneboda mimarTuli. kbilbudeebis mixedviT, RrZilebi gadasworebuli da erTgvarovania. e. i. yvela kbili sicocxleSivea dakarguli. N1467 mamrobiTi sqesis 55-60 wlis individis Tavis qala. mas Sublis marjvena midamoSi aReniSneba 0,6 sm. diametris osteoma; Txemis 199 midamoSi, marcxniv safeTqlis Zvlis nakeridan TiTqmis mTel Txemis Zvalze irib-ganivad mdebare, swori kideebis mqone, gluvi zedapiruli defeqti, romlis zomaa 9,3 sm. x 0,2 sm. aRniSnuli dazianeba miyenebulia sicocxlis periodSi mWreli sagnis moqmedebiT, ris Semdegac pirovnebam didi xani icocxla. aRwerili dazianebidan win, TiTqmis koronarul nakerze dasturdeba aseve irib-ganivi, swori kideebis mqone motexiloba, romelic moicavs qalasarqvlis yvela Sres, boloebSi gadadis bzarovan motexilobaSi, xolo centralurad warmoqmnis Zvlovan fragments, romelic Cazneqilia qalas Rrusken. ZiriTadi motexiloba Seadgens 4,0 sm. x 0,9 sm-s. wina nawilSi motexilobis bzarebi moicavs safeTqlisa da solisebri Zvlis lateralur kedlebs. motexilobis kideebi erTmaneTTan perpendikularuladaa ganTavsebuli da irib-maxvili kuTxiT eSvebian qalas Rrusken. marjvena Txemis Zvalze, ukana naxevarSi aRiniSneba irib-sigrZivad mdebare rkalovani formis motexiloba, romlis sruli zomaa 11,6 sm. x 0,3-01 sm. ukana naxevarSi ZiriTadi ganaWrelia, romlis zomaa 6,3 sm. x 0,3 sm., zedapiruli bzarebi wina naxevarSi mTavrdeba koronarul nakerze, xolo ukana naxevarSi – marjvena Txemis Zvalze. aRniSnuli dazianebis ganviTareba gamoiwvia mWreli Tvisebis masiuri sagnis moqmedebam, romelic uknidan win, qvemodan zemoT iyo mimarTuli. marjvena Txem-safeTqlis da kefis Zvalze SeimCneva 10,2 sm. x 3,5 sm. x 2,5 sm. zomis swori kideebis mqone motexiloba, romelic moicavs qalasarqvlis yvela Sres. gaxsnilia qalas Rru. centrSi ki safeTqlis Zvlis saproeqcio midamoSi warmoiqmneba Zvlovani defeqti. aRniSnuli motexilobebidan zedapiruli bzarebi miemarTebian win – soliseburi Zvlis lateraluri kedlisaken, ukan – kefis Zvalze; zemoT, Txemis Zvlisken miemarTeba ori motexilobis xazi, romlebic ar hkveTen marjvena Txemis Zvalze arsebul motexilobas, rac miuTiTebs imaze, rom marjvena Txem-safeTqel-kefis midamoSi arsebuli motexilobis miyenebisas, marjvena Txemis Zvalze ukve iyo zemoT aRwerili dazianeba (motexilobebis rigiToba: 1. marjvena Txemis, 2. marjvena TxemsafeTqel-kefis). aRweril Zvlovan defeqtze, safeTqlis Zvlis zeda kideze aRiniSneba ramdenime irib-ganivad mdebare swori kideebis mqone defeqti, xolo wina naxevarSi SeimCneva savaraudo moqlibvis (kideebis gagluvebis) kvali. mravlobiTi swori kideebis mqone defeqtebi da aseve moqlibvis kvali gvaZlevs saSualebas vivaraudoT, rom saqme gvaqvs dastaqris mier primitiuli iaraRebiT qalasarqvlis trepana- 200 ciasTan. aRwerili motexiloba gamoiwvevda marjvena safeTqlis Zvlis fragmentacias, rac saSiSroeba iqneboda sasicocxlod mniSvnelovani struqturebisaTvis. dastaqris mcdeloba, pirvel rigSi, mimarTuli unda yofiliyo motexili fragmentebis, Semdeg ki basri da mWreli Tvisebis mqone Zvlovani qsovilebis moSorebaze, risi kvalic namdvilad aRiniSneba aRweril Tavis qalaze (gvaqvs safeTqlis Zvlis defeqti da SeiniSneba savaraudo manipulaciis kvali). bolo motexilobis ganviTareba mWreli Tvisebis masiur sagans unda gamoewvia, romelic mimarTuli iqneboda zemodan qvemoT, marcxnidan marjvniv. Tavis qalaze arsebuli mravlobiTi dazianebebi imdenad masiuri da sicocxlisTvis saxifaToa, rom isini sikvdilsac ueWvelad male gamoiwvevdnen. micvalebuls yvela kbili sicocxleSi aqvs dakarguli. cxr. 1-Si moyvanili monacemebidan Cans, rom travmatizmi gamokvleulTa ricxovnobis zrdasTan erTad matulobs, xolo travmebiT gardacvlilTa raodenoba mcirdeba. Tumca Seswavlili Tavis qalebis mcirericxovnebis gamo dakvirveba statistikurad validuri ar aris. ufro realurad gveCveneba travmiT gamowveul gardacvlilTa procenti gamokvleulTa saerTo ricxvidan iyos gansazRvruli. magram Tu ganvixilavT travmebis raodenobas mTlianobaSi, rodesac erTi adamiani sicocxlis ganmavlobaSi iRebda mraval dazianebas, suraTi icvleba. SevadgineT cxrili, sadac SeviyvaneT Tavis qalebze miyenebuli yvela dazianeba. ganviTarebuli Sua saukuneebis mosaxleobaSi 6 Tavis qalaze aRmoCnda 10 sxvadasxva xarisxis dazianeba, sadac 1-ze meti aReniSna sam individs: erTs – sami; ors – or-ori da sams – TiTo. gviani Sua saukuneebis 19 individs 54 travma aReniSna. mravlobiTi dazianebis ricxvi zogierT Tavis qalaze 5, 6 da 8-c ki iyo. (cxr. 2). am cxrilidan ufro naTlad Cans travmebis zrda droSi. xevsurebis am orive seriaSi mamakacebis nawils saerTod ar aReniSneba travmebi, nawils ki 1-dan 8 travma aqvs. aseTi gansxvaveba riTi unda iyos gamowveuli? travmirebulebi iyvnen meomrebi da travmis gareSe myofni mSvidobiani mosaxleoba? an, SesaZloa, yvela iyo meomari, magram zogi imdenad gawvrTnili, rom Tavad ar ziandeboda, rogorc amas aRniSnavs giorgi TedoraZe.1 Tavis mxriv, yuradRebas iqcevs keWnaoba. is gavrcelebuli iyo mxolod xevsurebSi da sxva qarTveli mTielebi farikaobis aseT saxeobas ar flobdnen. Cveni azriT, albaT imitom, rom xevsurebi saukuneTa ganmavlobaSi pirvelni idgnen qveynis 1 TedoraZe, xuTi weli fSav-xevsureTSi, gv. 111. 201 CrdiloeT gadmosasvlelebis sadarajoze, didi misia ekisrebodaT da mudmivi mzadyofnisa da meomris daostatebisaTvis gamoimuSaves TavianTi brZolis taqtika. imis gasarkvevad, Tu ra gavlena iqonia xevsurebSi gavrcelebulma farikaobis tradiciam, cxovrebis wesma, maT sicocxlis xangrZlivobaze, ganvsazRvreT orive periodis mosaxleobis asaki gardacvalebisas da vawarmoeT gardacvalebis saSualo asakis statistikuri gaTvlebi (cxr. 3). miRebuli Sedegebis mixedviT erTmniSvnelovnad gamoikveTa, rom gardacvalebis saSualo asaki ufro dabalia im individebSi, romlebsac Tavis qalaze aReniSnebodaT travmebi; gansxvaveba gardacvalebis saSualo asakSi 2-1,5 welia. gvian Sua saukuneebSi mcxovrebTa gardacvalebis saSualo asaki ufro dabalia, vidre ganviTarebuli Sua saukuneebis mosaxleobisa; travmis gareSe gardacvlilTa individualuri asakis dispersia yvelaze maRalia ganviTarebul Sua saukuneebSi, rac realobaa da minimaluri da maqsimaluri asakebiTac Cans. rac Seexeba sakiTxs, ra kavSiria gardacvalebis asaksa da travmebis jeradobas (anu mraval dazianebas) Soris, maTi pirdapiri kavSiris mtkicebisagan amjerad Tavs SevikavebT, radgan saqarTvelos teritoriaze mopovebuli masalebiT gardacvalebis saSualo asaki bevrad solidur masalaze ufro dabali aRmoCnda, vidre cxr. 3-Sia moyvanili. Sua saukuneebis saSualo asaki gardacvalebisas gamoTvlilia 128 mamakacis Tavis qalaze da udris 41,4 wels. igive gaTvlebi ganviTarebul Sua saukuneebSi 489 mamakacis Tavis qalis mixedviT aris 43,9 weli.1 orive periodis mosaxlebis asakis gaangariSeba warmoebulia jamurad, masala ar iyo diferencirebuli jgufebad (travmebis mqone da travmis gareSe gardacvlilebi). garda amisa, lokaluri jgufebi xasiaTdebian Tavisi gansxvavebuli sicocxlis unarianobiT, garemosTan adaptaciiT, sxvadasxva kvebis dietiT da mravali sxva. daskvna eTnologiur literaturaSi aRwerili tradiciebi da maTTan dakavSirebuli travmatizmis anarekli naTlad Cans xevsureTidan mopovebul da Cven mier Seswavlil ganviTarebuli da gviani Sua saukuneebis, Zvlovan masalaze. gvini Sua saukuneebis xevsurebs ZiriTadad aReniSnebodaT sisocxlis droindeli travmebi, romelTa miyenebis Semdeg pirovnebas aTeulobiT weli unda ecxovra, amas adasturebs zogi1 biTaZe, saqarTvelos uZvelesi mosaxleobis. 202 erT Tavis qalaze sxvadasxva dros miyenebuli mravlobiTi travmebi. travmis gamomwvevi savaraudo sagnis gansazRvrisas gamoyofili iqna, mkvrivi-blagvi da mWreli-mCexavi sagnebi. 8 SemTxvevaSi orive tipis sagniT miyenebuli dazianebebi gvxvdeba, 4 SemTxvevaSi mxolod blagvi, danarCen 7 SemTxvevaSi ki mxolod mWreli-mCexavi Tvisebis mqone sagniT ganviTarebuli travmebi. travmebis lokalizacia umetesad ganlagebulia Sublis midamoSi, Semdeg Txemze, safeTqelze, kefasa da saxeze. travmebi gvxvdeba rogorc marjvena, aseve marcxena mxares, Tumca umetesi nawili mdebareobs marcxniv, rac gvafiqrebinebs, rom mowinaaRmdegis pirispir mdgar pirovnebas dazianebebi miadga marjvena xelidan. 12 SemTxvevaSi gvxvdeba kombinirebuli travmebi rogorc marjvena, aseve marcxena mxares, 1 SemTxvevaSi mxolod marjvniv, xolo danarCen 6 SemTxvevaSi marcxniv. Tavis qalebis detaluri SeswavliT 4 SemTxvevaSi aRmoCnda samedicino manipulaciis, Tavis qalas trepanaciis kvali. is damowmebulia: safeTqlis, Txemis da kefis midamoebSi. Tavis qalebze miyenebuli travmis tipidan da moculobidan gamomdinare 6 SemTxvevaSi sikvdilis mizezi swored qala-tvinis travma unda gamxdariyo. ganviTarebuli Sua saukuneebis periodiT daTariRebuli 22 kacis Tavis qaladan travmis kvali aRmoCenili iqna 6 Tavis qalaze. sam Tavis qalas aReniSneboda sicocxlis periodSi miyenebuli travmebi, xolo sam maTgans sikvdilamde axlo periodSi mkvrivi-blagvi sagniT gamowveuli travmebi, romlebic unda gamxdariyvnen sikvdilis mizezi. erT SemTxvevaSi sagani unda yofiliyo rogorc mkvrivi-blagvi, aseve mWreli Tvisebis mqone, xolo danarCen 5 SemTxvevaSi mxolod mkvrivi-blagvi. dazianebebis lokalizacia am SemTxvevaSic upiratesad gvxvdeba Sublis, Semdeg ki safeTqlisa da saxis midamoebSi. gviani Sua saukuneebis periodiT daTariRebuli Tavis qalebisgan gansxvavebiT, am seriaSi travmebis umetesoba marjvena mxareze modis. yvela epoqaSi adamianis sicocxle uzenaesia da miuxedavad umZimesi travmebisa, rac Tavis qalebze iqna mikvleuli, xevsuri dastaqrebi mainc energias da codnas ar iSurebdnen, raTa gadaerCinaT sikvdilis piras myofi adamianebi. xevsurebis simamace da vaJkacobis kvali naTlad Cans anTropologiur Zvlovan masalaze. ganviTarebuli da gviani Sua saukuneebis Tavis qalebze travma (Sesabamisad) 27,2% და 59,4%-Si gamovlinda. xevsureTSi gavrcelebulma farikaobis tradiciam gardacvalebis saSualo asaki 2-1.5 wliT Seamcira. gvian Sua saukuneebSi mcxovrebTa gardacvalebis saSualo asaki ufro dabalia, vidre gan- 203 viTarebuli Sua saukuneebis mosaxleobisa; travmis gareSe gardacvlilTa gardacvalebis individualuri asaki yvelaze maRalia ganviTarebul Sua saukuneebSi, rac realobaa da minimaluri da maqsimaluri asakebiTac Cans. saqarTvelos teritoriaze mopovebuli masalebiT, gviani Sua saukuneebis da ganviTarebuli Sua saukuneebis gardacvalebis saSualo asaki bevrad dabalia, vidre Sesabamisi periodebis xevsurebSi, rac lokaluri jgufis wes-CveulebebiTa da garemosTan adaptaciiT aixsneba. aseve mniSvnelovania, rom travmis kvali mxolod kacebis Tavis qalebze iqna aRmoCenili, rac imaze miuTiTebs, rom xevsurebi ar gamoxatavdnen agresias, qalebis da bavSvebis mimarT ar Zaladobdnen. damowmebuli wyaroebi da literatura abduSeliSvili, kavkasiis mosaxleobis anTropologia – abduSeliSvili m., kavkasiis mosaxleobis anTropologia gvianantikur xanaSi, Tbilisi, 1978. abduSeliSvili, kavkasiis anTropologia feodalur xanaSi – abduSeliSvili m., kavkasiis anTropologia feodalur xanaSi, Tbilisi, 1980. abduSeliSvili, kavkasiis anTropologia brinjaos xanaSi – abduSeliSvili m., kavkasiis anTropologia brinjaos xanaSi, Tbilisi, 1982. abduSeliSvili, saqarTvelos anTropologia rkinis xanaSi – abduSeliSvili m., saqarTvelos anTropologia rkinis xanaSi, Tbilisi, 1987. biTaZe (da sxva), praqtikuli anTropologia – biTaZe l., cecxlaZe o., laliaSvili S., Wkadua m., kakabaZe e., praqtikuli anTropologia (saxelmZRvanelo), ivane javaxiSvilis saxelobis Tbilisis saxelmwifo universiteti, humanitarul mecnierebaTa fakultetis kavkasiologiis instituti, Tbilisi, 2014. biTaZe, saqarTvelos uZvelesi mosaxleobis – biTaZe l., saqarTvelos uZvelesi mosaxleobis sicocxlis xangrZlivobis dinamika, `klio~, 26, 2005, gv. 103-113. bunebrivi moZraobis statistika saqarTveloSi, 2020 wlis angariSi – bunebrivi moZraobis statistika saqarTveloSi, 2020 wlis angariSi, cxr.13, gv. 34. veb saiti: https://www.geostat.ge (gadamowmebis TariRi: 24 seqtemberi, 2021). TedoraZe, xuTi weli fSav-xevsureTSi – TedoraZe g., xuTi weli fSav-xevsureTSi, Tbilisi, 1930. 204 kilasonia, sasamarTlo medicina – kilasonia b., sasamarTlo medicina, Tbilisi, 2011. qse, t. 10 – qse, t. 10, 1986. Angel, Porotic hyperostosis – Angel J. L., Porotic hyperostosis, anemias, malarias, and marshes in prehistoric Eastern Mediterranean, “Science”, 153, 1966, pp. 760-763. Ubelaker, Adams, Differentiation of perimortem and postmortem trauma – Ubelaker D. H. and Adams B. J., Differentiation of perimortem and postmortem trauma using taphonomic indicators, JFS, 40(3), 1995, pp. 509-512. Sauer, The timing of injuries – Sauer N., The timing of injuries and the manner of death: Distinguishing among antemortem, perimortem, and postmortem trauma, In “Forensic Osteology: Advances in the Identification of Human Remains”, Ed. by K. J. Reichs, 2nd ed., Springfield, IL, 1998, pp. 321-332. Waldron, Palaeopathology – Waldron T., Palaeopathology, London, 2009. Абдушелишвили, Об эпохальной изменчивости – Абдушелишвили М. Г., Об эпохальной изменчивости антропологических признаков, КСИЭ, т. ХХХIII, 1960, стр. 91-101. Абдушелишвили, Антропология – Абдушелишвили М. Г., Антропология древнего и современного населениия Грузии, Тбилиси, 1964. Абдушелишвили, Древние и современные народы Кавказа – Абдушелишвили М. Г., Древние и современные народы Кавказа, Труды Международной научной конференции «Горизонты антропологии» памяти академика В. П. Алексеева, Москва, Салтыковка, 20-22 сентября, 1994 г., Российская академия наук, Институт археологии, Институт этнологии и антропологии, Москва, 2003, стр. 248-265. Бужилова, Древнее население – Бужилова А. П., Древнее население. Палеопатологические аспекты исследования, Москва, 1995. Дебец, Левин, Трофимова, Антропологический материал – Дебец Г. Ф., Левин М. Г., Трофимова Т. А., Антропологический материал как источник изучения вопросов этногенеза, СЭ, 1952, №1, стр. 22-35. Лалиашвили, Частота и локализация травм – Лалиашвили Ш. Г., Частота и локализация травм в некоторых сериях средневекового населеня восточного Кавкасиони, Международная научная конференция «Археология, этнология фольклористика Кавказа», Тбилиси, 2004, стр. 81-82. 205 Liana Bitadze, Elguja Latchkepiani Frequency and Types of Traumas in Khevsureti according to the Fossil Material of the High and Late Middle Ages Summary The traditions and the reflection of the traumatism associated with them, described in the ethnological literature, are clearly visible on the studied bone material of the High and Late Middle Ages, obtained in Khevsureti. Among Khevsurs in the late Middle Ages, there are mainly intravital injuries, after which a person lived for decades, as evidenced by multiple injuries inflicted on some skulls at different times. When determining the probable objects that caused these traumas, blunt-solid and sharp-cutting objects were identified. In 8 cases, injuries were caused by both types of objects, in 4 cases, only by blunt objects, and in the remaining 7 cases, only by sharp-cutting ones. The traumas are mainly localized in the forehead, then on the crown, temple, occiput and face. They are observed both on the right and on the left sides, however, most of them are located on the left, suggesting that the person facing the enemy was wounded by the opponent’s right hand. In 12 cases, combined injuries are observed both on the right and on the left sides, in one case, only on the right, and in the remaining 6 cases, only on the left. A detailed study of the skulls revealed traces of medical manipulations, particularly, trepanation in 4 cases. They were located in the areas of the temple, crown and occiput. Judging by the types and sizes of the skull injuries, the cause of death in six cases should have been precisely a cranial trauma. Of the 22 skulls dating back to the High Middle Ages, traces of trauma were found on 6 skulls. Three skulls showed injuries inflicted during life, and another 3 had traumas inflicted by blunt-solid objects shortly before death, which should have been the cause of death. In one case, the object had to be both blunt-solid and sharp, and in the remaining 5 cases only blunt-solid. Here, too, the injuries are localized mainly in the forehead, and then in the temples and face. In contrast to the skulls dating from the late Middle Ages, most of the injuries in this series occur on the right side. In all eras, human life is the most valuable, and, despite the severe injuries found on the skulls, Khevsuretian traditional healers spared no effort and knowledge to save people who were on the verge of death. Traces of bravery and courage of Khevsurs are clearly seen on the bone anthropological material. Cranial traumas were detected in 27.2 % and 59.4 % of cases on the skulls of the High and Late Middle Ages, respectively. The fencing tradition, widespread in Khevsureti, reduced 206 the average age of death by 2-1.5 years. The average age of death of the population of the Late Middle Ages is lower than that of the population of the High Middle Ages. The individual average age of those who died without injuries is the highest in the High Middle Ages, which is a reality and can be clearly seen from both the minimum and maximum ages. According to materials obtained in Georgia, the average age of death in the High and Late Middle Ages is significantly lower than that of the Khevsurs of the corresponding periods, which is explained by the customs of the local group and its adaptation to the environment. It is also important that traces of injuries were found only on the skulls of men, which indicates that Khevsurs did not show aggression towards women and children and did not use violence against them. 207 cxrili 1 travmebis sixSire xevsurebSi niSnebi ganviTarebuli Sua saukuneebi N=22 gviani Sua saukuneebi N=32 N % N % 1. travmebis raodenoba 6/22 23,3 19/32 59,4 2. miyenebuli travmebidan ramdeni iyo sasikvdilo 3/6 50,0 6/19 31,6 3. travmis mizeziT populaciaSi gardaicvala 3/22 13,64 6/32 18,75 4. sxva daavadebebiT gardacvlilTa ricxvi 19/22 26/32 81,25 208 86,36 cxrili 2 travmebis saSualo raodenoba ganviTarebuli Sua saukuneebi gviani Sua saukuneebi N 6 19 Min 1 1 Max 3 8 Mean 1,67 2,84 Std. error 0,33 0,45 Variance 0,67 3,92 Stand. dev 0,81 1,97 209 cxrili 3 gardacvalebis saSualo asaki xevsureTSi ganviTarebuli Sua saukuneebi gviani Sua saukuneebi travma travmis gareSe travma travmis gareSe 6 16 19 13 Min 32,5 22,5 22,5 22,5 Max 57,5 72,5 60 60 Mean 46,67 48,75 43,51 45 Std. error 3,69 3,71 2,22 3,20 Variance 81,67 220,83 94,13 133,35 Stand. dev 9,04 14,86 9,70 11,54 Median 46,25 47,5 45 45 210 sur. 1 (Pict. 1) sur. 2 (Pict. 2) perimortuli, sworkideebiani motexiloba marjvena Tvalbudis lateralur kedelze; sworkideebiani, naCexi motexilobebi marjvniv Txem-kefisa da safeTqlis midamoebSi sur. 3 (Pict. 3) Txemis midamoSi marjvniv arsebuli Sexorcebuli sicocxlis droindeli motexiloba 211 sur. N4 (Pict. 4) sur. N5 (Pict. 5) Tavis qalas winxedi da ukanaxedi. trepanaciis kvali marjvniv Txemis midamoSi sur. N6 (Pict. 6) Tavis qalas ukanaxedi. perimortuli sworkideebiani motexilobis kvali marjvniv Txemis midamoSi, saidanac bzarebi miemarTebian kefis Zvlisaken 212 sur. N7 (Pict. 7) Tavis qalas winxedi sur. N8 (Pict. 8) sworkideebiani motexilobis Sexorcebis Semdgomi kvali marjvniv Sublis midamoSi sur. N10 (Pict. 10) naCexi motexiloba marjvniv safeTqlis da kefis midamoSi sur. N9 (Pict. 9) naCexi motexiloba marcxniv Txemis midamoSi, saidanac motexilobis bzari grZeldeba kefis midamoSi 213 sur. N11 (Pict. 11) Tavis qalas winxedi sur. N12 (Pict. 12) antemortuli da perimortuli motexilobebi marcxniv TxemsafeTqlis midamoSi sur. N13 (Pict. 13) perimortuli motexilobebi marcxniv TxemsafeTqlis midamoSi. samedicino manipulaciis kvali marjvena safeTqlis Zvalze 214 Illustrations: Pict. 1-2. Perimortem, straight-edged fracture on the lateral wall of the right eye socket; Straight-edged, incised wound in the right occipital and temporal region. Pict. 3. A healed lifetime trauma on the right side of the parietal bone. Pict. 4-5. Anterior and posterior view of the skull. Traces of trepanation on the right side of the parietal bone. Pict. 6. Posterior view of the skull. Traces of a perimortem straight-edged fracture on the right occipital area, from where the cracks move towards the occipital bone. Pict. 7. Anterior view of the skull. Pict. 8. A post-healing trace of a straight-edged injury in the right frontal area. Pict. 9. Incised wound on the left side of the scalp, from where the crack continues to the occipital area. Pict. 10. Incised wound on the right temporal and occipital area. Pict. 11. Anterior view of the skull. Pict. 12. Antemortem and perimortem fractures in the left parieto-temporal region. Pict. 13. Perimortem fractures in the left parieto-temporal region. Traces of medical manipulation on the right temporal bone. 215 arqeologia _ ARCHAEOLOGY qeTevan diRmelaSvili samefo rangis samarxebi mcxeTidan samefo gansasvenebelTa problematikis WrilSi „da mokuda farnavaz, da dafles winaSe armazisa kerpisa“.1 leonti mrovelis es fraza erTaderTia, romelic qarTlis samefos warmarT mefeTa Tu maTi ojaxis wevrTa gansasvenebels gvamcnobs. ar viciT sad da rogor ikrZalebodnen qarTlis mefeebi mirianamde da iyo Tu ara raime kanonzomiereba maTi darkZalvis adgilis SerCevisas. leontis cnoba ki farnavazis dakrZalvaze Tavisive aRmarTuli kerpis fexebTan, orientiradac ver gamodgeba, radgan, misi siswore arqeologiurad arc gadamowmebula, miT ufro, rom armazis kerpis aRmarTvis zusti adgilic araa cnobili. Tu zogad tendencias miviRebT mxedvelobaSi, romliTac samefo samarxebi samefo qalaqebSi imarTeboda, aseve uZvelesi droidan arqeologiurad dadgenil wess, rom samarxebi sacxovrebeli adgilis siaxloveSi, SemogarenSi mdebareobda, unda vifiqroT, rom qarTlis mefeTa samarxebic, pirvel rigSi, mcxeTaSia saZiebeli. samwuxarod, mcxeTaSi dRemde ar aRmoCenila samarxi, romelic qarTlis samefos romelime mefis gansasvenebelTan pirdapir iqneboda dakavSirebuli. Tumca, samarxTa Soris aris oTxi, romlebic samefo ojaxis wevrebs ukavSirdeba. maTgan pirvelad aucileblad unda davasaxeloT mcxeTis rkinigzasTan, qarTlis mTis ZirSi 1951 w. aRmoCenili mavzoleumi (sur. 1), romelic mcire zomis darbazuli nagebobaa orferda saxuraviT. nagebia naTali qviSaqvis kvadrebiT da gadaxurulia brtyeli da Rariani kramitiT. mavzoleumi dasavleT-aRmosavleTis RerZzea gamarTuli da Sesasvleli aRmosavleTidan aqvs. mavzoleumis sagangebod momzadebul ezoSi dakrZaluli iyo cxeni. mavzoleumi imTaviTve gauZarcvavT, amitom micvalebulis ConCxic mimofantuli iyo da nivTebis udidesi 1 leonti, mefeTa cxovreba, gv. 26. 216 nawilic waRebuli. is ki rac mZarcvelebs adgilze darCaT aris TvlebiT mooWvili oqros abzinda, kilitebi da mZivebi, minis da naxevrad Zvirfasi qvis mZivebi, lomisa da frinvelTa gamosaxulebiani sakidebi, salamurze damkvreli Wabukis brinjaos qandakeba, minis sanelsacxeblebi, saferumarile lambaqebi da niJarebi, Tixis WurWeli da 80-mde moneta, romelTa Sorisaa parTuli draqmebi, aleqsandre makedonelis adgilobrivi minabaZebi da romis imperatorTa monetebi. maTgan yvelaze gviani vespasianesia (69-79 ww.). am monetebis mixedviT mavzoleumi I s. bolosaa gamarTuli. gadarCenili arqeologiuri masala da mavzoleumis arqiteqturuli maxasiaTeblebic amaveze miuTiTeben.1 vis sakrZalavs warmoadgenda mavzoleumi zustad Tqma SeuZlebelia. Tumca, mZarcvelebisTvis gadarCenili masalis mixedviT Tu vimsjelebT, dakrZaluli iyo qalbatoni (Zvlebis cudad daculobis gamo, rogorc Cans, asakis da sqesis zusti gansazRvra ar momxdara). xolo Tu gaviTvaliswinebT mavzoleumis faqtors, romelic cxadia umaRlesi wris warmomadgenlis sakrZalavia, gadarCenil inventars da samarxis win dakrZalul cxens, qalbatoni, samefo ojaxTan unda davakavSiroT (dedofali?). SedarebiT mets gveubneba 905-e qvis samarxi akldama, romelic aRmoCnda 1985 w. samTavros dedaTa monastris win, gzis piras. samarxi qviSaqvis filebiT Sedgenili qvayuTia orferda gadaxurviT. samarxSi 2 micvalebuli esvena TaviT aRm-isken. orive gverdze xel-fex mokeciT. CrdiloeTiT dakrZaluli 45-50 wlis iyo da sqesi ar ganisazRvra (Tumca, arqeologebi samarxis Sesaxeb gamoqveynebul statiis daskvniT nawilSi uTiTeben, rom qalbatoni iyo), xolo samxreTiT meore daukrZalavT, 25-30 wlis qali.2 micvalebulTaTvis Catanebuli mdidruli inventaridan, romlebSic gvxvdeba rogorc oqros samkauli, ise vercxlis WurWeli da sxvadasxva masalisa da daniSnulebis nivTebi, gansakuTrebiT gamosayofia pirveli micvalebulisTvis Catanebuli vercxlis kolofi gorgonasa da ori mamakacis gamosaxulebiT, aqatis saferumarile lambaqi da vercxlis sarke dionises gamosaxulebiT (sur. 2), romlebic romaul imports warmoadgens da saqarTveloSi analogic ar moepovebaT.3 samarxSi aRmoCenili masala yvelaze axlo paralels poulobs bagineTis akldamis (ix. qvemoT) da armazisxevis pitiaxSTa sagvareulo 1 2 3 lomTaTiZe, ciciSvili, axladaRmoCenili akldama, gv. 641-648. anTropologiuri masala daculia saqarTvelos erovnul muzeumSi. afaqiZe, nikolaiSvili, mcxeTis warCinebulTa gansasvenebeli, gv. 7-80. 217 samarxebSi aRmoCenil masalebTan da zogadad I-III ss. TariRdeba.1 Tumca, samarxSi dadasturebuli monetebis mixedviT (gotarzes, avgustusis, neronis, traianes da adrianes monetebi), SesaZlebelia samarxSi meore qalbatonis dakrZalvis TariRad II s. 40-iani wlebi vivaraudoT (sxva SemTxvevaSi Semdgomi periodis monetebi aucileblad moxvdeboda samarxSi). samarxis gamarTvis TariRad ki arauadres igive saukunis 2030-iani wlebi unda miviCnioT (samarxSi pirveli micvalebuli daZruli da gverdiT miweuli araa, rac dakrZalulTa erTi ojaxis wevrobaze metyvelebs da nivTebic qronologiurad araTu ar gansxvavdeba erTmaneTisgan, rig SemTxvevaSi orive micvalebuls Catanebuli aqvs identuri nivTebi). rac Seexeba dakrZalulTa statuss da vinaobas, vfiqrobT, isini samefo ojaxis wevrebad upirobod unda iqnen miCneulni. amaze, garda Catanebuli mdidruli inventarisa, miuTiTebs kidev ori faqti: pirveli, esaa samarxis aRmoCenis adgili – samTavros dedaTa monastris win. 2002 wels samTavros taZarSi Catarebuli arqeologiuri gaTxrebis dros gaiwminda IV-VI ss. bazilikis naSTebi da amiT dadasturda naratiuli wyaroebis gadmocema mirian mefis mier qalaqis zRudis CrdiloeTiT mayvlovanSi taZris mSeneblobis Sesaxeb. magram am bazilikis qveS, aseve aRmoCnda rotondis tipis nageboba (15 m. radiusis mqone) didi saparado TaRovani SesasvleliT, romelic bazilikis mSeneblobamde mdgara aq da is im doneze iyo mosworebuli, rac bazilikis mSeneblobisTvis iyo saWiro, misi arqiteqturuli detalebi ki bazilikaSi iyo gamoyenebuli.2 rotonda imTaviTve samarTlianad iqna moazrebuli warmarTul sakulto nagebobad. Tu gavixsenebT „moqceva¡ qarTlisa¡“-s da leonti mrovelis monaTxrobs, rom wminda nino mcxeTaSi Camosvlisas jer samefo baRSi Cerdeba, romelSic apolonis taZari dgas (mis Sesaxeb qvemoT SevCerdebiT), xolo Semdeg mayvlovans irCevs jvris samalavad da saswaulebis mosaxden adgilad,3 unda vivaraudoT, rom wyaroebis mayvlovani zustadac unda yofiliyo warmarTuli salocavi adgili. amas garda, araerTi magaliTi gvaqvs imisa, rom qristianuli taZrebi warmarTul sakulto adgilebze Sendeboda (Sors rom ar wavideT: zedazeni da nekresic kmara). amdenad, gamodis, rom 905-e akldama sakulto nagebobis siaxloveSia gamarTuli. msgavsi SemTxveva dafiqsirebulia sveticxovlis 1 2 3 afaqiZe, nikolaiSvili, mcxeTis warCinebulTa gansasvenebeli, gv. 7-80. yifiani, mefe mirianis bazilika, gv. 11-36. `moqceva¡ qarTlisa¡~, gv. 122-124; leonti, mefeTa cxovreba, gv. 93-94. 218 ezoSi, razec qvemoT gveqneba saubari da ufro cxadi gaxdeba, ratom unda miviCnioT 905-e samarxi samefo rangisad. meore esaa samarxSi Catanebuli vercxlis langari (sur. 3), romelzec punsonis teqnikiT parTul arameulze Sesrulebulia warwera: „tiridat sefewulis var“. warwera paleografiulad ax. w. I saukuniT TariRdeba, xolo tiridatSi k. wereTeli parTiis mefeTa qronologiis gaTvaliswinebiT, moiazrebs tiridat sefewuls, romelic romis imperator tiberiusis daxmarebiT parTiaSi gamefda ax. w. 36 w. romauli wyaroebiT ki cnobilia, rom am procesSi mas daxmarebas uwevda iberTa mefe miTridate I, farsman I-is mama. Tasze warwera Sesrulebuli unda iyos mis gamefebamde 35-36 wlebSi da amave dros unda moxvedriliyo is iberiaSi, rogorc ufliswulis ZRveni misi mokavSirisadmi.1 bunebrivia, qarTlis mefisTvis gamogzavnili langari verafriT moxvdeboda arasamefo ojaxis wevris samarxSi, miuxedavad imisa, rom ZRvenis gamogzavnasa da mis samarxSi Catanebis faqtebs erTmaneTisgan sul mcire 80 weli aSorebs (msgavsi SemTxvevidan unda gavixsenoT armazisxevis N3 samarxi, romelic masSi Catanebuli numizmatikuri masalis safuZvelze III s. meore naxevriT TariRdeba. samarxi miCneuli iyo bersuma pitiaxSis sakrZalavad, masSi Catanebuli vercxlis langris gamo, romelzec amokveTili berZnuli warweriT vigebT, rom langari flavius dadesma uZRvna bersuma pitiaxSs.2 ukanaksnelma kvlevebma uCvena, rom langarze moxseniebuli flavius dadi igive qarTlis mefe miTridate II-ea da langaric mis mieraa Tavisi pitiaxSisadmi boZebuli I s. 80-ian wlebSi,3 romelic TiTqmis ori saukunis Semdeg moxvda qarTlis pitiaxSis ojaxis wevris samarxSi). amdenad, 905-e akldama samefo ojaxis wevrTa gansasvenebelia, romelic samarxis TariRidan gamomdinare (II s. pirveli naxevari) qarTlis mefis – farsman qvelis mefobis drosaa gamarTuli. samwuxarod, akldamaSi dakrZalulTa vinaobis ufro dakonkreteba SeuZlebelia, miT ufro, rom zustad pirveli micvalebulis sqesic araa gansazRvruli (misTvis Catanebuli arqeologiuri masalac ar Seicavs iseT ganmsazRvrel nivTebs, romlebic mkveTrad gamoxatavda mis sqess, radgan sarkofagSi aRmoCenili masala sxva SemTxvevebSi gvxvdeba rogorc qalTa, ise mamakacTa samarxebSi). 1 2 3 wereTeli, arameuli damwerlobiT, gv. 155-178. afaqiZe, lomTaTiZe, kalandaZe, mcxeTa, gv. 52-54. gagoSiZe, margiSvili, mefe flavius dadis vinaobisTvis, gv. 20-59. 219 mesame samarxi, romelzec unda SevCerdeT, yvelaze bednieri SemTxvevaa Tavisi informaciulobiT. esaa sveticxovlis N14 samarxi, romelic aRmoCnda 2001 w. sveticxovlis taZris Crd-aRm. kuTxis qveS. samarxi saguldagulod damuSavebuli qviSaqvis naribandebiani oTxi filisgan iyo Sekruli da is gadaxuruli gaxldaT qviSaqvis sami filiT. iatakad Tixis sami fila iyo gamoyenebuli. 45-50 wlis qalbatoni TaviT dasavleTiT iyo dakrZaluli gulaRma, xelebi muclis areSi ewyo, xolo fexebi muxlebSi gadaSlili marjvniv da marcxniv.1 micvalebulisTvis Catanebuli samkaulidan da sxvadasxva nivTidan gansakuTrebuli mniSvnelobis aRmoCnda vercxlisa da oqros masalisgan damzadebuli sawer-kalamis kompleqti (penali kalmebiT, samelne, saweri dafa [?]), romlis analogi ar arsebobs (sur. 4-5) da samefo beWedi, romelic micvalebuls marcxena xelze ekeTa.2 oqros beWedSi Casmul sardionis Tvalze amoWrilia qalis biusti berZnuli warweriT – dedofali ulpia mbrZanebeli (sur. 6). m. mSvildaZis mosazrebiT, dedofals saxeli romis moqalaqeobis Sedegad unda mieRo romis imperatorisgan da es unda momxdariyo antoniusebis dinastiis dros.3 imave samarxSi aRmoCenilia oqros sakidi falerebi markus avreliusis colisa da Svilis – faustina umcrosisa da lucilas gamosaxulebiT da lucilas mcirewlovani vaJebis gamosaxulebiani kameo-sakidebi, romlebic iseTive ZRvens warmoadgens dedofal ulpiasadmi gamogzavnils,4 rogorc es magaliTad, markus avreliusis gamosaxulebiani langari an asparug pitiaxSis samarxSi aRmoCenili antinoes gamosaxulebiani langaria. ulpiasadmi gamogzavnili saCuqrebi qronologiurad 165-182 wlebSia damzadebuli da iberiaSi moxvedrili, lucilas gardacvalebamde.5 amdenad, am masalis mixedviT, dedofali ulpia markus avreliusis Tanamedrove iberiis dedofalia da is qarTlis mefe ustamosis meuRlea, romlis Sesaxebac istoriuli wyaroebi arafers amboben. Tumca, misi mefoba qarTlSi daadastura ulpias samarxSi Catanebulma sawerma mowyobilobam, romlis berZnuli warwera gveubneba, rom mowyobiloba mefe ustamosis kuTvnilebas warmoadgenda – „mefe ustamosisa da evgeniosisa “.6 1 2 3 4 5 6 anTropologiuri masala daculia saqarTvelos erovnul muzeumSi. afaqiZe, sveticxovlis, gv. 69-123. mSvildaZe, ulpias sabeWdavi, gv. 53-61. mSvildaZe, flaviusebis, gv. 103-115. mSvildaZe, flaviusebis, gv. 103-115. yauxCiSvili, berZnulwarweriani nivTebi, gv. 124-127. 220 cnobilia, rom II s. pirveli naxevari da meore naxevris dasawyisi farsman qvelis mefobis periodia, mis Semdeg ki mefe xdeba xsefarnugi, romelic, rogorc Cans, farsmanis vaJi ar iyo da taxti daikava mefis mokvlisa da saxelmwifo gadatrialebis Semdeg.1 Tumca, zustad rodis xdeba es da rodemdea xsefarnugi mefe, ucnobia. magram, radgan sveticxovlis N14 samarxis penalis mixedviT, markus avreliusis Tanamedroved ustamosia, gamodis, rom xsefarnugis mefoba II s. mesame meoTxedSi unda vigulisxmoT, romlis Semdegac taxtze adis ustami. qarTuli naratiuli wyaroebi arc xsefarnugs da arc ustams ar icnoben. „moqceva¡ qarTlisa¡“ da leonti mroveli farsman qvelis Semdeg sul sxva mefeebs asaxeleben: „moqceva¡ qarTlisa¡s“ Satberduli teqsti ubralod CamoTvlis – roksa da Radams,2 xolo leonti mroveli yveba mirdatze, romelic farsman qvelis mokvlis Sedegad gaxda mefe, adamze – farsmanis vaJze da farsmanze – adamis vaJze.3 Semdeg ki orive wyaroSi qarTlis mefed amazaspia saxeldebuli, romlis mefoba III s. 4060-ian wlebSi dasturdeba rogorc sasanuri paleografiiT, ise bagineTze aRmoCenili berZnuli warwerebiT.4 naratiuli wyaroebis romel mefeebs Seesabamebian armazis bilingvisa da sveticxovlis N14 samarxis paleografiiT cnobili qarTlis mefeebi, an saerTod Seesabamebian Tu ara, es calke kvlevis sakiTxia. Tumca, is, rom farsmanis Semdeg ukve viciT ori mefis saxeli – xsefarnugi da ustami – es cxadia. davubrundeT ulpiasa da ustams. ras gveubneba samarxis mdebareoba? Tu gavixsenebT `moqceva¡ qarTlisa¡“-sa da leonti mrovelis monaTxrobs, sveticxoveli aSenda iq, sadac samefo baRi – samoTxe mdebareobda.5 ufro konkretuli cnoba moipoveba borjias papirusis sinodur teqstSi, sadac naTqvamia, rom sveticxovlis mSeneblobis dawyebisTvis im adgilas idga apolonis taZari, marmarilos svetebiT, romlis gamoyenebac amaod ucdiaT sveticxovlis mSeneblebs.6 XX s. 60ian wlebSi sveticxovlis interierSi gaTxrebis dros aRmoCnda svetTa korinTuli kapitelebi, romlebic TavisTavad cxadia, arafriT ukavSirdeba sveticxovlis taZars da isini warmarTuli sakulto nagebobis leonti mroveli, mefeTa cxovreba, gv. 53; meliqiSvili, saqarTvelo, gv. 534. „moqceva¡ qarTlisa¡“, gv. 82-83. 3 leonti mroveli, mefeTa cxovreba, gv. 53-54. 4 SoSiaSvili, qarTlis samefos, gv. 69-71; yauxCiSvili, romauli tipis abano, gv. 1114; nikolaiSvili, armazcixe, gv. 54. 5 `moqceva¡ qarTlisa¡”, gv. 122-123, 132-133; leonti mroveli, mefeTa cxovreba, gv. 93-94,111-112; diRmelaSvili, qristianuli simbolika, gv. 133-135. 6 TamaraSvili, qarTuli eklesia, gv. 204. 1 2 221 kuTvnili unda iyvnen.1 amdenad, cxadia, rom sveticxoveli dgas mefeTa warmarTul salocavze. xolo dedofali dakrZalulia am taZris siaxloves, mis ezoSi. aq kidev erTxel unda gavixsenoT leonti mrovelis cnoba, rom farnavazi kerpis fexebTan dakrZales. Tu am gadmocemasa da ulpias samarxis mdebareobas gaviTvaliswinebT, ismis kiTxva – xom ar SeiZleba ustamosic kerpis/samlocvelos siaxloves daekrZalaT?! samwuxarod, sveticxovlis ezo arqeologiurad Seuswavlelia da am mxriv jerjerobiT arafris mTqmelic. meoTxe SemTxveva samefo rangis samarxisa bagineTis samarxia, romelic aRmoCnda 1946 w. armazcixis kldekarSi (sur. 7). sarkofagi Sedgeba qvaSi amoWrili Casasveneblis da orferda saxuravisgan. sarkofagSi micvalebulis ConCxi ar aRmoCenila, rac gvafiqrebinebs, rom SesaZloa kenotafTan gvqondes saqme. iyo mxolod 7-8 wlis bavSvis kbilebi, romlebic, albaT, ufro amuletebad unda miviCnioT, vidre samarxis mesakuTris nawilad (Znelad asaxsnelia kbilebis dakrZalva Tu SeZles, ConCxis Tundac calkeuli nawilebis dakrZalva ratom ar moxerxda meoradi damarxviT mainc, rogorc es armazisxevis e. w. „bersuma pitiaxSis samarxSia“ (amasTan, samarxi gauZarcvavi iyo, rac imas niSnavs, rom Zvlebi samarxidan ver mimoifanteboda). samarxSi bavSvTa kbilebis Cayolebis faqti ki cnobilia. Sors rom ar wavideT, magaliTad moviyvanT armazcixis N7 sarkofagis SemTxvevas, sadac, bavSvis kbili Cadebuli iyo gulsakid kolofSi.2 bagineTis akldama savse iyo oqrosa da vercxlis nivTebiT, maT Soris iyo dasakrZalavi sareclis fexebis vercxlis SeWediloba, vercxlis WurWeli da oqros samkauli, romlebic ZiriTadad imeorebs armazisxevis pitiaxSTa da samTavros N905-e samarxebSi dacul nivTebs. samarxi daTariRebulia II s. miwuruliTa da III s. pirveli naxevriT.3 Tumca, vinaidan samarxSi aRmoCenilia markus avreliusis gamosaxulebiani vercxlis langari (sur. 8), romelic II s. 70-ian wlebis nakeTobas warmoadgens da imperatoris saCuqari unda iyos qarTlis mefis karze (rogorc irkveva, langari damzadebulia saimperatoro karTan specialurad Seqmnil erT-erT saxelosnoSi, romlebSic mokavSire da megobari qveynebis mmarTvelebisTvis gankuTvnili sasaCuqre nawarmi mzaddeboda),4 unda vivaraudoT, rom samarxic II-III ss. mijnazea gamarTuli. visi unda iyos samarxi? cxadia, misi 1 2 3 4 yifiani, kedlis burjTa, gv. 61-63. afaqiZe, lomTaTiZe, kalandaZe, mcxeTa, gv. 85. nikolaiSvili, armazcixe, gv. 46. Мачабели, Торевтика, сс. 48-50. 222 mdebareobidan gamomdinare, samarxi upirobod unda CaiTvalos samefo rangis samarxad. Tumca, masSi ConCxis ar aRmoCena saSualebas ar iZleva, iTqvas qalis samarxad iyo gamiznuli is Tu kacisad. amaze aqcentireba SeuZlebelia samarxSi Catanebuli masaliTac, radgan msgavsi nivTebi igive armazisxevis Tu samTavros samarxebSi gvxvdeba rogorc mamakacTa, ise qalTa inventarad. erTaderTi, rac SeiZleba iTqvas, es aris is, rom samarxi mefe ustamis ojaxs unda ukavSirdebodes, romelic, rogorc zemoT gairkva, qarTlis mefea II s. bolos. amdenad, am monacemebis SejerebiT, am etapisTvis qristianobamdeli qarTlis samefo ojaxis gansasveneblebidan gvaqvs mxolod: I s. meore naxevarSi mcxovrebi dedoflis gansasvenebeli armazcixis siaxloves (rkinigzasTan), romlis vinaoba ucnobia; II s. dasawyisSi mcxovrebi farsman qvelis samefo ojaxis wevr qalbatonTa gansasvenebeli samTavrodan, romelTa vinaoba aseve ucnobia, II s. meore naxevarSi mcxovrebi dedofal ulpias samarxi sveticxovlidan, romelic mefe ustamis Tanamecxedrea da II-III ss. mijnaze gamarTuli samefo akldama armazcixidan, romelic aseve ustam mefis ojaxTanaa dakavSirebuli. samefo samarxTa ganxilvisas, ismis kiTxva: aris SesaZlebeli msjeloba imaze, ra principiT irCeoda samefo sakrZalavebi iberiis samefoSi qristianobis miRebamde? Cvens mier ganxiluli monacemebis SejerebiT, qarTlis mefeTa saojaxo sakrZalavebad gvevlineba armazcixe, axlandeli rkinigzis ubani, samefo walkoti, anu salocavi adgili dRevandeli sveticxovlis adgilas da aseve salocavi adgili dRevandeli samTavros teritoriaze. amaTgan, armazcixis akldama cixis mTavar kldekarSia gamarTuli da Znelad warmosadgenia samefo rezidenciis mTavari kldekari Tundac samefo ojaxis samarovnad gamoeyenebinaT. amis arc sivrcea iq, arc SesabamisobaSi modis cixis cxovrebasTan da arc aRmoCenila sxva samarxi. amitom bagineTis akldamis am kldekarSi gamarTva sxva mizezebiT unda aixsnas. rac Seexeba kldekaris mavzoleums, is ganyenebuladaa gamarTuli, Tumca, Tu gaviTvaliswinebT misgan dasavleTiT ramdenime aseul metrSi dadasturebul I-III ss. samarovans, romelic gamTxrelTa mier elinizebuli, ucxo eTnikuri jgufis samarovnad aris miCneuli da iqve mdebare namosaxlars, romelic gaigivebulia qarTlis cxovrebaSi naxseneb mogvTakarTan, III-IV ss. movlenebis konteqstSi rom Cndeba,1 maSin SesaZloa, samefo mavzoleumic amave ubanTan kavSirSi gangvexila. Tumca, am Se1 sixaruliZe, abuTiZe, mogvTakaris samarovani, gv.109-131. 223 mogarenis mWidro dasaxleba da misi arqeologiurad srulad Seuswavleloba meti msjelobis saSualebas ar iZleva. miT ufro imis axsnisas, ra kavSiri aqvs samefo mavzoleums ucxo eTnikuri – elinizebuli mosaxleobis samarovanTan. rac Seexeba danarCen or samarxs, am SemTxvevaSi maTi gamarTva warmarTuli samlocveloebis siaxloveSi, vfiqrobT, unda miuTiTebdnen samefo samarxTa gamarTvis garkveul tradiciaze sakulto ZeglebTan. principSi, swored am tradiciisTvis unda daedo safuZveli farnavazis armazis fexebTan dakrZalvas. damowmebuli wyaroebi da literatura leonti mroveli, mefeTa cxovreba – leonti mroveli, mefeTa cxovreba, q. cx., teqsti dadgenili yvela ZiriTadi xelnaweris mixedviT s. yauxCiSvilis mier, t. I, Tbilisi, 1955. „moqceva¡ qarTlisa¡“ – moqceva¡ qarTlisa¡, Zeglebi, I, Tbilisi, 1963. afaqiZe, lomTaTiZe, kalandaZe, mcxeTa – afaqiZe a., lomTaTiZe g., kalandaZe a., mcxeTa, I, Tbilisi, 1955. afaqiZe, nikolaiSvili, mcxeTis warCinebulTa gansasvenebeli – afaqiZe a., nikolaiSvili v., `mcxeTis warCinebulTa gansasvenebeli ax.w. III saukunisa – akldama 905, mcxeTa, arqeologiuri kvleva-Ziebis Sedegebi~, XI, Tbilisi, 1996, gv. 7-80. afaqiZe (da sxva), sveticxovlis – afaqiZe a., yifiani g., nikolaiSvili v., manjgalaZe g., kapanaZe m., sveticxovlis ezoSi Catarebuli arqeologiuri samuSaoebi, mcxeTa, 2001, kreb.: `VI samecniero sesia, 2001 da 2002 wlebis savele-arqeologiuri kvleva-Ziebis Sedegebi~, Tbilisi, 2003, gv. 69-123. afaqiZe, bagineTis kldekaris sarkofagi – afaqiZe g., bagineTis kldekaris sarkofagi, Zm, 33, 1973, gv. 59-65. gagoSiZe, margiSvili, mefe flavius dadis vinaobisTvis – gagoSiZe i., margiSvili s., mefe flavius dadis vinaobisaTvis, `onlain arqeologia~, 4, 2013, gv. 20-59. vebgverdis misamarTi: heritagesites.ge/uploads/ files/59ef489029ea8.pdf diRmelaSvili, qristianuli simbolika – diRmelaSvili q., qristianuli simbolika I-VI ss., istoriis doqtoris akademiuri xarisxis mosapoveblad wardgenili sadisertacio naSromi, Tbilisi, 2010. TamaraSvili, qarTuli eklesia – TamaraSvili m., qarTuli eklesia dasabamidan dRemde, Tbilisi, 1995. 224 lomTaTiZe, ciciSvili, axladaRmoCenili akldama – lomTaTiZe g., ciciSvili i., axladaRmoCenili akldama mcxeTaSi, smam, t. 12, N10, 1951, gv. 641-648. meliqiSvili, saqarTvelo – meliqiSvili g., saqarTvelo ax. w. I-III ss., sin, I, red.: g. meliqiSvili, Tbilisi, 1970, gv. 500-570. mSvildaZe, ulpias sabeWdavi – mSvildaZe m., ulpias sabeWdavi beWdis Seswavlis sakiTxisaTvis, siiS, XII, 2017, gv. 53-61. mSvildaZe, flaviusebis – mSvildaZe m., flaviusebisa da antoninusebis saimperatoro gvarTan dakavSirebuli nivTebi sveticxovlis N14 mdidruli akldamidan, siiS, XIII, 2018, gv.103-115. nikolaiSvili, armazcixe – nikolaiSvili v., armazcixe qarTlis samefo rezidencia, Tbilisi, 2011. sixaruliZe, abuTiZe, mogvTakaris samarovani – sixaruliZe a., abuTiZe a., mogvTakaris samarovani, katalogi, `mcxeTa~, VII, Tbilisi, 1985, gv. 109-131. SoSiaSvili, qarTlis samefos – SoSiaSvili n., qarTlis samefos sagareo politika da diplomatia III saukunidan V s. I naxevramde, `qarTuli diplomatiis istoriis narkvevebi~, I, red.: r. metreveli, Tbilisi, 1998. gv. 63-83. wereTeli, arameuli damwerlobiT – wereTeli k., arameuli damwerlobiT Sesrulebuli axali warwera mcxeTa-samTavrodan, macne, iaexs, 1987, N3, gv.155-178. yauxCiSvili, romauli tipis abano – yauxCiSvili T., romauli tipis abanos maxloblad aRmoCenili warweris gaSifvrisa da termin „mamamZuZes“ gagebisTvis, narkvevebi, sxsm, IV, 1998, gv.11-14. yauxCiSvili, berZnulwarweriani nivTebi – yauxCiSvili T., berZnulwarweriani nivTebi mcxeTidan, `VI samecniero sesia, 2001 da 2002 wlebis savele-arqeologiuri kvleva-Ziebis Sedegebi~, Tbilisi, 2003, gv.124-127. yifiani, kedlis burjTa – yifiani g., kedlis burjTa korinTuli kapitelebi sveticxovlis ezodan, narkvevebi, sxsm, III, 1997, gv. 21-28. yifiani, mefe mirianis – yifiani g., mefe mirianis bazilika, `qarTuli arqiteqturis Teoriisa da istoriis sakiTxebi~, Tbilisi, 2007, gv.1136. Мачабели, Торевтика – Мачабели К., Торевтика позднеантичной Грузии, Тбилиси, 1976. 225 Ketevan Digmelashvili The Royal Tombs from Mtskheta, the Problem of the Location of the Royal Burial Site Summary The Notice of Leonty Mroveli is the only historical source that specifies the location of the pagan kings and the graves of their family members. It is also the unique source that mentions that king Parnavaz was buried next to the feet of the statue of the Armazi idol. However, we do not know in reality how or where the kings were buried before the king Mirian, the first Christian king, or if there was any regularity in choosing the location of the graves. According to common custom, before Christianity, the tombs of kings were mostly located near populated areas of the city. We think that the tombs of the Iberian kings should be located at Mtskheta town. Yet, no indications have been found of it in the excavated graves of Mtskheta. However, there were four graves which thought to be the representatives of the royal family. A tomb of the unknown queen was discovered near the railway line next to the Armazi castle, and dates to the second half of the I century A. D. The second is grave N905 from Samtavro Necropolis in which 2 individuals (females) were buried in tomb. The individuals are considered to be the family members of King Parsman II the Valiant. The grave dates back to the beginning of the II century A. D. The third grave is from the garden of Svetitskhoveli church. The tomb N14 belonged to queen Ulpia (the wife of king Ustam) dates back to the II half of the II century A. D. The last fourth tomb is also considered to be related to the family of King Ustam from the end of II and the beginning of the III century A. D. It was located next to the Armazi castle. Unfortunately, not a single skeleton was found in the tomb for further analysis. As we see, in the course of past archaeological expeditions to Mtskheta, significant material was collected to discuss the answer to the question of whether the locations of the burial sites were based on some system. Considering all the circumstances, the royal family members were used to buried in the Armaztsikhe (near the railway). We also think that mentioned N905 and N14 tombs were placed right next to pagan temples. Those temples were located at the same place where nowadays Samtavro and Svetitskhoveli churches are situated. We think that the tradition of constructing tombs next to the pagan temples began with King Parnavaz when he was buried next to the feet of Armazi Idol. 226 sur. 1 (Photo 1) sur. 2 (Photo 2) sur. 3 (Photo 3) sur. 4 (Photo 4) 227 sur. 5 (Photo 5) sur. 6 (Photo 6) sur. 7 (Photo 7) sur. 8 (Photo 8) 228 ilustraciebi: sur. 1. dedoflis mavzoleumi rkinigzasTan (foto q. diRmelaSvili). sur. 2. 905-e akldamaSi aRmoCenili vercxlis sarkis saxuravi da yuri (foto: saqarTvelos erovnuli muzeumi). sur. 3. 905-e akldamaSi aRmoCenili tiridat sefewulis kuTvnili vercxlis langari (foto: saqarTvelos erovnuli muzeumi). sur. 4. dedofal ulpias samarxSi (sveticxovlis me-14 samarxi) aRmoCenili saweri mowyobiloba (foto: saqarTvelos erovnuli muzeumi). sur. 5. dedofal ulpias samarxSi (sveticxovlis me-14 samarxi) aRmoCenili saweri mowyobilobis detali mefe ustamosis moxseniebiT (foto: saqarTvelos erovnuli muzeumi). sur. 6. dedofal ulpias gamosaxulebiani oqros beWedi (foto: saqarTvelos erovnuli muzeumi). sur. 7. bagineTis akldama (foto q. diRmelaSvili). sur. 8. bagineTis akldamaSi aRmoCenili markus avreliusis gamosaxulebiani langari (foto q. diRmelaSvili). Illustrations: Photo 1. Queen’s Mausoleum near the railway (photo by K. Digmelashvili). Photo 2. Lid and handle of a silver mirror found in tomb N905 (photo by Georgian National Museum). Photo 3. Plate of prince Tiridates discovered in tomb N905 (photo by K. Digmelashvili). Photo 4. A writing complect found in the tomb of Queen Ulpia (tomb N14 in the yard of Svetitskhoveli) (photo by Georgian National Museum). Photo 5. Detail of a writing complect found in the tomb of Queen Ulpia (tomb N14 in the yard of Svetitskhoveli), referring a King Ustamos (photo by Georgian National Museum). Photo 6. A gold ring with the depiction of Queen Ulpia (photo by K. Digmelashvili). Photo 7 Tomb of Bagineti (photo by K. Digmelashvili). Photo 8. A plate with the depiction of Marcus Aurelius found in the Bagineti’s tomb (photo by K. Digmelashvili). 229 daviT mindoraSvili erTi epizodi xixanis cixis istoriidan xixanis cixe, romelic Sua saukuneebSi abuserisZeTa Zlieri sagvareulos sakuTreba iyo, maRalmTiani aWaris erT-erTi mniSvnelovani Zeglia. werilobiTi wyaroebis mixedviT, XI s-is Sua xanebisaTvis abuserisZeni flobdnen: artanujs, cixis-jvars, awyurisa da xixanis cixeebs.1 am punqtebis mflobeli abuserisZeni ekonomikurad didad SeZlebuli da politikuradac sakmaod gavleniani sagvareulo iyo. maTi erT-erTi TvalsaCino warmomadgeneli gaxldaT XIII s-is cnobili mwignobari da mecnieri tbeli abuserisZe. xixanis cixe mdebareobs arsianis qedis erT-erT ganStoebaze, xixaniswylis marcxena mxares, aWara-SavSeTis sazRvarze mTebiT garSemortymul maRal kldeze (geografiuli koordinatebi: X 0296895, Y 4601756) (tab. I1-2, II). cixem mkvlevarTa yuradReba jer kidev XIX s-Si miipyro (g. yazbegi, p. uvarova, T. saxokia, z. WiWinaZe). SemdgomSi cixis SeswavlaSi didi wvlili Seitanes x. axvledianma da S. mamulaZem. 2013-2017 wlebSi, aWaris kulturuli memkvidreobis dacvis saagentos TaosnobiT, xixanze ganxorcielda arqeologiuri gaTxrebi, romlebic Seexo cixis eklesias, sasaxles, marnebs, koSks da sxv. (tab. II). gaTxrebis Semdeg naTeli warmodgena Segveqmna cixis nagebobaTa arqiteqturaze, samSeneblo xelovnebaze; dazustda SenobaTa gegmebi, zomebi; Sesworda cixis gengegma; damuSavda gaTxrebisas mopovebuli mravalferovani artefaqtebi da sxv. gaTxrebis Sedegad aRmoCenilma masalam rig SemTxvevaSi sruliad axleburad dasva da gadawyvita cixis istoriis manamde burusiT moculi sakiTxebi. gairkva, rom xixanis kldovan mTaze cixis pirveli nagebobebi ukve X s-Si Cndeba. XIII s-is Semdgom cixeze intensiuri cxovrebis kvali TandaTan qreba. xixanis ganviTarebuli Sua saukuneebis nagebobebis Sesaxeb araerTi naSromia gamoqveynebuli.2 amitom maTze sityvas aRar gavagrZeleb. ganviTarebuli Sua saukuneebis nagebobebis garda, cixeze gaiTxara mogviano xanis Senobebi, romlebic ar gamoirCevian Tavisi masStabebiTa matiane qarTlisa, gv. 3009. mindoraSvili, xixanis cixeze 2013 wels Catarebuli, gv. 132-183; misive, xixanis cixeze 2014-15 wlebSi Catarebuli, gv. 323-379; misive, xixanis cixis istoriidan, gv. 122-140; misive, xixanis cixe. 1 2 230 Tu arqiteqturuli iersaxiT. Tumca, isini dakavSirebuli Canan cixis istoriis mniSvnelovan epizodTan da am mxriv sainteresod gamoiyurebian (tab. II, III2-7, IV). aRniSnuli nagebobebi pirobiTad or jgufad SeiZleba daiyos: I. Senobebi gamaTbobeli saSualebebis gareSe da II. buxriani Senobebi. I jgufis Senobebi xuTia. maTgan oTxi, kvadratuli gegmis miwuria, da mSrali wyobiTaa nagebi. zomiT patarebia (farTobi – 2,35x2,40, 4,80x4,50, 4x3,70 m.) (tab. III3-7). mexuTe Senoba cixis centralur nawilSi gaiTxara. igi galavanze miSenebuli ovalurkedliani miwuria (5x3,40 m.) (tab. III3). yvela nageboba cixis galavniT Semofarglul teritoriazea ganlagebuli. maTSi arqeologiuri masala iSviaTad Cndeboda. Tumca, zogierTSi gamovlinda keramikis ramdenime fragmenti – keci, samarile, doqi da sxv. (tab. III8). arqeologiuri masalis simravliT gamoirCeva ovalurkedliani Senoba, romelSic aRmoCnda zarbaznis 166 Wurvi (tab. III9). nagebobaTa daniSnulebis Sesaxeb SeiZleba iTqvas, rom buxriani Senobebisgan gansxvavebiT, isini sacxovreblad gamousadegaria da maT mxolod damxmare saTavsebis (sawyob-sacavebis) funqcia SeiZleba hqonodaT. gviandeli Senobebis II jgufs Seadgens buxriani miwuri nagebobebi. cixis teritoriaze rva aseTi Senobaa gamovlenili. erTi maTgani (5,60x4,70 m.) gamarTulia ganviTarebuli Sua saukuneebis sasaxleSi (tab. III2). meore nageboba (4,10x3,40 m.) sasaxleze garedan miuSenebiaT. orive Senobis mSralad nageb kedlebSi meoradi gamoyenebiT CarTuli iyo sasaxlis kirxsnaris kvaliani qvebi da eklesiis lorfinebi (tab. III2). erTi buxriani nageboba (4,10x3 m.) gaumarTavT ganviTarebuli Sua saukuneebis gauqmebul maranze (tab. IV1). danarCeni Senobebi uSualod zRudis kedlebis gaswvriv (tab. II, IV2,3,4) an mis gareTaa agebuli (tab. II, IV5,6). isinic mSrali wyobiTaa nagebi da maT kedlebSic aqa-iq sasaxlis qvebi Tu eklesiis lorfinebia CarTuli. SenobaTa farTobebi mokrZalebulia – 3,20x3,45, 3,80x3,30, 3,60x3,50, 3,30x3,10, 4,20x4,30 m. nagebobebi savaraudod, yavriT unda yofiliyo daxuruli. buxrebis garda, kedlebSi TaxCebic CaurTavT. II jgufis Senobebis TariRisa da funqciis Sesaxeb Tavis droze vwerdi, rom nagebobaTa TariRi, savaraudod, XVII-XVIII ss-iT unda ganisazRvros. isini ar warmoadgenen raime droebiT, sezonur sadgomebs, vinaidan yvela maTganSi buxaria gamovlenili. Tavisi mcire farTobis gamo, Senobebi ojaxis sacxovreblad ar gamodgeboda. amdenad, ufro 231 safiqrebeli iyo, rom es mcire zomis Senobebi osmalebs aegoT cixisa da misi mimdebare teritoriis gasakontroleblad. am miznisaTvis maT cixis oTxi Zveli koSkic unda gamoeyenebinaT.1 xixanis istoriis Semdgomi kvlevis Sedegad gairkva, rom osmalebs cixesTan kavSiri arasdros hqoniaT XIX s-is dasawyisis erTi SemTxvevis garda, romelzec qvemoT visaubreb. ukve aRiniSna, rom xixanze intensiuri cxovrebis kvali XIII s-is Semdgom TandaTan qreba. konkretulad ra periodamde gagrZelda es procesi da sabolood rodis dakarga cixem Tavisi funqcia – Zneli saTqmelia. erTi cxadia – gviandeli Sua saukuneebis bolo etapisaTvis xixanis teritoria ukve mitovebulia da iq aRaravin cxovrobda. xixanis gaTxrebisas gamovlenili zemoT aRwerili mcire zomis mSrali wyobiT nagebi Senobebi unda ukavSirdebodes XIX s-is dasawyisSi cixis teritoriaze ganviTarebul movlenebs. werilobiTi wyaroebidan cnobilia, rom 1803 wels abdula-beg ximSiaSvilis Svilma selim-begma isargebla axalcixis faSis Serifis rTuli politikuri situaciiT, is axalcixidan gandevna da faSoba TviTon Caigdo xelT. bolos man sulTansac urCoba gamoucxada. amis gamo, sulTanma selim-begs faSoba CamoarTva da sikvdili miusaja. 1809 wels axalcixis safaSoSi situacia garTulda. mZime ekonomikuri pirobebis gamo xalxSi mRelvareba daiwyo. amas isic daemata, rom selims sakuTari Svilic aujanyda. Seqmnili viTarebiT isargebla Serif-faSam da axalcixeSi dabrunda. selim-begi iZulebuli gaxda axalcixe mietovebina da aWaraSi gadasuliyo. 1812 wels selimma faSoba kvlav daibruna.2 Tumca, osmalTa imperiis winaaRmdeg urCobas mainc ganagrZobda da poziciebis gasamyareblad amierkavkasiis imdroindel rus mmarTvelebTan kavSiris gabmas cdilobda. 1812 wels ruseT-osmaleTis omi buqarestis zaviT dasrulda. zavis pirobebiT, axalcixis kanonier mmarTvelad Serif-faSa cnes. bunebrivia, amis Semdeg selim ximSiaSvili meamboxed da TviTmarqvia mmarTvelad iqna gamocxadebuli.3 selim-begi kargad grZnobda, rom adre Tu gvian aucileblad mouwevda sulTanis gamogzavnil jarTan brZola. amitom, poziciebis ganmtkicebis mizniT, man xixans miaSura da Tavisi cxovrebis bolo ramdenime wlis manZilze cixe saimedod gaamagra. momavali saomari moqmedebebisaTvis mzadebis periodSi selimsa da mis TanamebrZolebs gamouyenebiaT cixis Zveli galavani da koSkebi. naTq1 2 3 mindoraSvili, xixanis cixe, gv. 35. samxreT-dasavleT saqarTvelos istoriis, gv. 283-284. iqve, gv. 287. 232 vamis sailustraciod aRvniSnav, rom mag., xixanis me-4 koSkis gaTxrebisas, masSi aRmoCnda gviandeli periodis kecebi, jamebi, Cibuxi, astami da sxva masala, romelic selim-begis mebrZolTa danatovari unda iyos. maTve unda aegoT cixis teritoriaze da mis garSemo Seswavlili mcire zomis damxmare saTavsebi da buxriani Senobebi (tab. III2-7, IV). XIX s-is dasawyisisaTvis abuserisZeTa sasaxle ukve dangreuli iyo. meamboxeebs sasaxlis aRmosavleTi nawili gauwmendiaT da sasaxlis Zveli qvebiTa da eklesiis lorfinebiT aqve augiaT naxevrad miwuri buxriani Senoba, romelic yvelaze didia mogviano xanis sxva msgavs nagebobebs Soris (tab. I1, III2). Tavisi zomisa da adgilmdebareobis mixedviT, savaraudoa, rom sasaxlis interierSi gamarTuli Senoba selim-begis samyofeli iyo. aseTive nageboba sasaxlisaTvis garedanac miuSenebiaT (selimis mcvelebisTvis?) (tab. I1, III2). danarCeni buxriani Senobebis umetesoba galavnis gaswvriv an galavnis gareT, ferdobebzea agebuli, ise rom meamboxeebs cixisaken misasvleli gza-bilikebi gaekontrolebinaT (tab. II). 1815 wlis gazafxulze sulTanma selim-begis winaaRmdeg 15 000 kaciani jari gamogzavna arzrumis seraskiris baba-faSa fehlevanis meTaurobiT. 12 aTasiani laSqriT gamovida trapizonis seraskiri seid-suleiman faSa. selim-begma Tavi aarida mravalaTasian jarTan Sebmas da 400 mebrZoliT xixanis miuval cixeSi gamagrda.1 ori Tvis manZilze amaod ebrZodnen osmalebi selim-begs.2 am brZolis amsaxveli masalis nawili mikvleulia cixis galavanze miSenebul ovalurkedlian nagebobaSi (tab. III3). rogorc ukve aRvniSne, Senobis iatakze aRmoCnda erT adgilas Tavmoyrili mcirekalibriani zarbaznis 166 Wurvi (tab. III9).3 eWvs gareSea, Wurvebi ekuTvnodaT cixis mcvelebs, romelTac sabrZolo masala bolomde gamouyenebeli darCaT. ZaliT rom verafers gaxdnen, osmalebma selim-begi 31 maiss cixidan RalatiT gamoiyvanes. 3 ivniss xixanis cixis siaxloves mdebare sof. bakos zemoT, adgil `seriyanis~ ferdze osmalebma selim ximSiaSvils Tavi mohkveTes. cnobilia misi ukanaskneli sityvebic: `me mWriT Tavs, magram getyviT – gurjistani osmalos samudamod ar SerCeba. amis xsovnas me Cems Svilebs iqve, gv. 288. saxokia, mogzaurobani, gv. 283-284. 3 zarbaznis erTi Wurvi gamovlinda eklesiis dasavleTi kedlis Ziras. ori Wurvi mikvleul iqna cixis samxreT ferdobze mdebare marnis gaTxrisas. ovalurkedlian nagebobaSi aRmoCenili Wurvebi sami sxvadasxva kalibrisaa. amdenad, SeiZleba iTqvas, rom meamboxeebs SeiaraRebaSi Tu ufro meti ara, sul mcire sami zarbazani mainc unda hqonodaT. 1 2 233 davutoveb~! selimis Tavi sulTanisaTvis miurTmeviaT. Tavi Semdgom stambolSi daumarxavT, tani ki selimis meuRles sof. nigazeulSi daukrZalavs. selim-begis sikvdiliT dasjis Semdeg, xixanSi gamagrebulma meamboxeebma iaraRi dayares. Cans, cixis ovalurkedlian nagebobaSi arsebul zarbaznis Wurvebs veRaravin mixeda da sabrZolo masala ganimarxa. cixis teritoriaze da mis siaxloves arsebuli patara nagebobebi ki, romelTac selim-begi da misi TanamebrZolebi iyenebdnen, TandaTan miwiT daifara. amrigad, xixanis cixeze arqeologiuri gaTxrebis Sedegad gamovlenili mcire zomis buxriani nagebobebi Tu sawyob-sacavis funqciis mqone miwurebi cixeze unda gaCeniliyo 1812-1815 wlebSi, mas Semdeg, rac selim-beg ximSiaSvili Riad daupirispirda osmaleTis imperias da mravalricxovan mterTan brZolis mTavar simagred xixanis miudgomeli cixe airCia. damowmebuli wyaroebi da literatura matiane qarTlisa – matiane qarTlisa, q. cx., t. I, teqsti dadgenili yvela ZiriTadi xelnaweris mixedviT s. yauxCiSvilis mier, Tbilisi, 1955. mindoraSvili, xixanis cixeze 2013 wels Catarebuli – mindoraSvili d., xixanis cixeze 2013 wels Catarebuli arqeologiuri gaTxrebis angariSi, kr. `aWara, warsuli da Tanamedroveoba~, t. II, baTumi, 2015, gv. 132-183. mindoraSvili, xixanis cixeze 2014-15 wlebSi Catarebuli – mindoraSvili d., xixanis cixeze 2014-15 wlebSi Catarebuli arqeologiuri gaTxrebis Sedegebi, kr. `aWara, warsuli da Tanamedroveoba~, t. III, baTumi, 2017, gv. 323-379. mindoraSvili, xixanis cixis istoriidan – mindoraSvili d., xixanis cixis istoriidan, Zxd, #8, 2017, gv. 122-140. mindoraSvili, xixanis cixe – mindoraSvili d., xixanis cixe, baTumi, 2019. samxreT-dasavleT saqarTvelos istoriis – samxreT-dasavleT saqarTvelos istoriis narkvevebi, t. II, baTumi, 2009. saxokia, mogzaurobani – saxokia T., mogzaurobani, Tbilisi, 1985. 234 David Mindorashvili One Episode from the History of Khikhani Fortress Summary Khikhani fortress is located on the border of Adjara and Shavsheti, on the left bank of the Khikhanis-Tskali River, on an impregnable rock (coordinates: X 0296895, Y 4601756) (Tab. I1-2, II). In 2013-2017, archaeological excavations were carried out on the territory of the fortress. Besides the buildings of the 10th-13th centuries, small dugouts of dry masonry of a later period were found here; a hearth was also found in some of them (Table II, III2-7, IV). At that time, I considered the mentioned buildings to have been built by the Ottoman conquerors in the 17th-18th centuries. Further research showed that the Ottomans had no contact with Khikhani fortress until 1815. These buildings must be related with the events that took place on the territory of the fortress in the early 19th century. It is known that in 1803 the ruler of Zemo (Upper) Adjara, Selim-bek Khimshiashvili, captured Pashalik of Akhaltsikhe and finally, he disobeyed the Ottoman sultan. Selim knew well that he would definitely had to fight the Sultan’s army. Therefore, in 1812-1815, in order to strengthen positions, he reliably fortified the Khikhani fortress. In addition to repairing the old ramparts and towers, Selim and his comrades built small buildings on the castle grounds and outside the ramparts. Some of them had the function of a warehouse. Buildings with chimneys were supposed to become posts of the Khikhani guards and observation posts. In 1815, Selim Khimshiashvili and his 400 fighters, who fortified themselves in the fortress of Khikhani, were besieged by the Sultan’s army. Part of the material depicting this battle – 166 cannon shells – was traced in the oval-walled building of the castle (Plate III3,9). The shells belonged to the fortress guards, whose ammunition remained unused. Unable to do anything by force, the Ottomans, after two months of fighting, tricked Selim out of the fortress. On June 3 he was executed. Thus, the later buildings of Khikhani should have appeared on the fortress in 1812-1815, after Selim-bek Khimshiashvili openly opposed the Ottoman Empire and chose the Khikhani fortress as the main stronghold in the fight against numerous enemies. 235 236 237 238 239 tabulebis aRwera tab. I. 1. xixanis cixis sasaxle gviandeli minaSenebiT. xedi CrdiloaRmosavleTidan. 2. cixis me-2 koSki. xedi dasavleTidan. tab. II. xixanis cixe. gengegma. tab. III. 1. sasaxlis Tavdapirveli gegma. 2. sasaxle gviandeli minaSenebiT. 3-7. gviandeli nagebobebi. 8. nagebobebSi mikvleuli Tixis WurWeli. 9. zarbaznis Wurvebi. tab. IV. cixis buxriani Senobebi. Description of tables Tab. I. 1. The palace of Khikhani Fortress with later constructions. View from the northeast. 2. The second tower of the fortress tower. View from the west. Tab. II. Khikhani Castle. General plan. Tab. III. 1. The original plan of the palace. 2. Palace with later additions. 3-7. later buildings. 8. Clay pots found in buildings. 9. Bell shells. Tab. IV. Chimney buildings of the castle. 240 goderZi narimaniSvili naqalaqari Zalisa (masalebi saqarTvelo - iranis urTierTobisTvis ax.w. III-IV saukuneebSi) saqarTvelosa da iranis kulturul-ekonomikuri urTierTobis amsaxveli uZvelesi masalebi, arqeologiuri monacemebis mixedviT, jer kidev Zv.w. IV aTaswleulidan fiqsirdeba.1 iran-saqarTvelos urTierTobis erT-erT saintereso epoqas sasanuri xana warmoadgens. Zalisas naqalaqari yovelTvis dakavSirebuli iyo romaul samyarosTan da TiTqos, arqeologiuri masalis mixedviT, iranuli gavlena ar SeiniSneboda. 2017-2019 wlebis arqeologiurma gaTxrebma ki sasanuri iranis Zlieri kvali warmoaCina. gansakuTrebiT aRsaniSnavia sasanuri iranis Sahis saxelmwifo kancelariasTan dakavSirebuli bulebis dafiqsireba Zalisas erT-erT arqiteqturul kompleqsSi. saqarTveloSi gaTxril am periodis arqeologiur Zeglebze araerTi sasanuri artefaqtia aRmoCenili. maT Soris gamoirCeva bulebi,2 romelTa mcire nawilze iranis Sahebis gamosaxulebebi gvxvdeba. bulebis erTi nawili ki iranis saxelmwifo kancelariasTan aris dakavSirebuli. iranis Sahebis an samefo ojaxis warmomadgenlebis bulebi saqarTvelos istoriul regionSi, qarTlSi, or arqeologiur Zeglze – Zalisas da ufliscixis naqalaqarebzea aRmoCenili. Z a l i s a s n a q a l a q a r i mdebareobs mcxeTis municipalitetis sof. ZalisSi. antikuri xanisa da adre Sua saukuneebis naqalaqari gaSenebuli yofila md. narekvavis orive napirze, q. mcxeTidan Crdilo-dasavleTiT 20 km-is daSorebiT (tab I-1). naqalaqari identificirebulia antikuri xanis qalaq ZalisasTan (Zalissa), romelsac ax.w. II saukunis berZeni geografosi klavdios ptolemaiosi (Κλαύδιος Πτολεμαίος; ax.w. 90-168 ww.) „geografiul saxelmZRvanarimaniSvili, SanSaSvili, narimaniSvili, vaWroba da savaWro gzebi; narimaniSvili, iberia da iranuli samyaro, gv. 39-41; narimaniSvili, aRmosavleT amierkavkasia da iranuli samyaro Zv.w. V-I saukuneebSi, gv. 19-22; narimaniSvili, darakovis namosaxlari, gv. 94-125. 2 ramiSvili, saqarTvelos sasanuri gemebi; ramiSvili, sasanuri gliptikis, gv. 62-69; Jinio, saqarTvelos, gv. 89-91. 1 241 neloSi“ (Geographike Hyphegesis) iberiis aRwerisas sxva qalaqebTan erTad ixseniebs.1 Zalisas naqalaqaris arqeologiuri Seswavlis istoria. Zalisasa da mis midamoebSi, 1971-1990 wlebSi, arqeologiur samuSaoebs awarmoebda saqarTvelos mecnierebaTa akademiis arqeologiuri eqspedicia (xelmZRvaneli aleqsi boxoCaZe). 2016 wels naqalaqaris da mimdebare teritoriaze samuSaoebi Caatara saqarTvelos erovnuli muzeumisa da varSavis universitetis qarTul-polonurma arqeologiurma eqspediciam (TanaxelmZRvanelebi – g. narimaniSvili, piotr iavorski). gaTxrebiT mopovebuli masalebis mixedviT SeiZleba davaskvnaT, rom qalaqma Zv.w. II saukunidan ax.w. VIII saukunis 30-ian wlebamde iarseba. pirveli dasaxleba md. narekvavis marjvena napirze mdebare goraze (II arqeologiuri ubani) gaCenila. antikur xanaSi, Zveli da axali welTaRricxvebis mijnaze, gazrdili mosaxleobis nawili md. narekvavis marcxena napirze arsebul vakeze gadasula sacxovreblad (I arqeologiuri ubani), sadac didi dasaxleba warmoqmnila. ax.w. I-III saukuneebSi qalaqma ganviTarebis umaRles dones miaRwia; IV saukuneSi qalaqi Zlieri xanZris Sedegad ganadgurda. Tumca, maleve daiwyo misi aRdgena. IV-V saukuneebSi qalaqi mdinaris orive napirze agrZelebs arsebobas. VI saukunis dasawyisisaTvis ZalisSi saqalaqo cxovreba wydeba. VI-VII saukuneebSi naqalaqris teritoriaze uRimRamo cxovreba kvlav gagrZelda, xolo VIII saukunis 30-ian wlebSi, arabTa Semosevis dros, dasaxlebam sabolood Sewyvita arseboba. amdenad, Zalisas naqalaqari ori nawilis, vakeze gaSenebuli qalaqis (I arqeologiuri ubani, tab. I-1) da Zalisis goraze gamarTuli akropolisisgan (II arqeologiuri ubani, tab. VII) Sedgeba. qalaqis ZiriTadi sacxovrebeli kvartlebi md. narekvavis marcxena napirze yofila ganlagebuli. misi farTobi daaxloebiT 1.0 kvadratuli kilometria (tab. I), romelic moicavs aristokratTa kvartals, sacxovrebel kompleqsebs da saxelosno ubans. 1971-1990 ww. Zalisas naqalaqaris teritoriaze gaiTxara sameurneo da sacxovrebel nagebobaTa naSTebi (tab. I-2), koleqtorebi, Tixisa da tyviis milebiT Sedgenili wyalsadenis qseli (tab. II-1), aguriT mokirwyluli quCebi da moednebi, mozaikuri iatakebi, arqiteqturuli detalebi, Tixisa da minis WurWeli da sxv. naqalaqaris teritoriaze samSeneblo masalad ga1 Claudius Ptolemy, Geography, 5, 10,3. 242 moyenebulia alizis aguri, riyis qva, tufisa da qviSaqvis qvaTlilebi, keramikuli aguri, keramikuli filebi, brtyeli da Rariani kramitebi.1 akropolisi muxranis velze, md. narekvavis marjvena napirze, gancalkevebulad mdgar borcvzea gamarTuli (naqalaqaris II arqeologiuri ubani). TavdacviTi kedeli uSualod mdinaris marjvena napirs miuyveba, Semdeg borcvs (daaxl. 200 m. diametri) uvlis garSemo. Zalisas aristokratTa kvartalSi (I ubani) gamoirCeva: 1. mcire sasaxle; 2. abano; 3. didi sasaxle; 4. absidebiani kompleqsi; 5. sacurao auzi. m c i r e s a s a x l i s kompleqsidan SemorCenilia: 1. oTxi didi darbazi, fasadis kolonebiT da bazaltis qvis bazisebiT; 2. mozaikur iatakiani darbazebi da 3. mcire abano. sasaxles ori Sesasvleli aqvs da orive samxreT fasadSia gaWrili. erTi SesavleliT kompleqsis dasavleT nawilSi mdebare oTx did darbazSi SeiZleba moxvedra. darbazis kedlebi gajiT Selesili da moxatulia. yvela darbazSi gamarTuli iyo samsxverplo-sakurTxeveli. sasaxlis am nawilis fasadis gaswvriv bazaltis qvis bazisebia Camwkrivebuli. SemorCenilia xuTi bazisi. maTi ganlageba uCvenebs, rom kolonada sasaxlis ezos dasavleTidan da CrdiloeTidan sazRvravda. mozaikuriatakian darbazs Sesasvleli samxreTidan aqvs. darbazis zRurblis win tufis, qviSaqvis Tlili qvebiT da ori feris kenWebiT mogebuli moedania gamarTuli. mozaikuriatakiani darbazis (48 kv.m.) iatakis mozaika 12 feris qvis kenWebiTaa Sedgenili. mozaikis centraluri nawili kompozicias ukavia, romelic gamosaxavs mevenaxeobisa da meRvineobis mfarvel RvTaeba dionises da mis meuRles ariadnes (tab V-2). gamosaxulebebs axlavs berZnuli warwerebi: „ariadne“, „dionise“. isini vazis xeivnis qveS moTavsebul taxtze sxedan. maT garSemo, xeivnis qveS gamosaxulia siringaze damkvreli pani, samfexa magida kilikebiT (tab V-1), oinoxoia da sxv. mozaikaze aseve gamosaxuli arian frTosani Wabuki da qalebi.2 sakravian qalTa gamosaxulebebs Soris moTavsebulia didi berZnuli warwera „moxsenebuli iqnas priskosi amis boxoCaZe, arqeologiuri gaTxrebi; mirianaSvili, axali arqeologiuri monacemebi, gv. 153-160; Бохочадзе, Исследование, gv.41-55; Бохочадзе, Мирианашвили, Нариманишвили, Археологическая экспедиция в 1977 году, gv. 187-209; Бохочадзе, Мирианашвили, Нариманишвили, Археологическая экспедиция в 1978 году, gv. 143-159; Бохочадзе, Мирианашвили, Нариманишвили, Надибаидзе, Настакисская археологическая экспедиция в 1979 году, gv. 93-106. 2 boxoCaZe, arqeologiuri gaTxrebi; boxoCaZe, naqalaqari Zalisa, gv. 17-25; boxoCaZe, Zalisis naqalaqaris, gv. 25-30; Бохочадзе, Настакиси, Саркине, Дзалиси, gv. 93-102. 1 243 gamkeTebeli“.1 mozaikis nawili Sevsebulia geometriuli da mcenareuli ornamentiT. mcire sasaxlis kompleqsSi Semavali abano romauli tipisaa (tab. IV). Sedgeba 3 ganyofilebisagan, romlebic erTmaneTs kariT ukavSirdeba. abanos cxeli da Tbili ganyofilebis iataki kaloriferzea gamarTuli, kaloriferis svetis Tavze keramikuli filebia, romlebzec hidravlikuri xsnaria dasxmuli da feradi mozaikiT Semkuli iatakia gamarTuli. iatakze orstriqoniani berZnuli warweris („laidas“ da „priskosi“) naSTebia SemorCenili.2 civ ganyofilebaSi moTavsebulia abazana. iataki aqac mozaikuria (tab. IV-1), romelzec gamosaxulia mcenareuli da zRvasTan dakavSirebuli (delfini, zRvis niJara, Tevzebi, bade) motivebi. civi abano kariT ukavSirdeba viwro derefans da gasaxdels, romlis mozaikuri iataki Semkulia geometriuli ornamentebiT. gasaxdeli kariT ukavSirdeba mozaikuriatakian darbazs. amdenad, mozaikis farTobi 90 kv.m-ia. mcire sasaxle agebuli Cans ax.w. II s-Si, romelic IV saukuneSi ganadgurda. didi abano. kompleqsis (tab I-2) aRmosavleTi nawili ukavia atriums, gasaxdels da sameurneo senakebs. atriumi (Ria ezo) gegmiT oTxkuTxaa. iataki mofenilia tufisa da qviSaqvis Tlili qvebiT. atriumis centrSi Sadrevnis auzia, romlis kuTxeebSi aRmarTuli yofila oTxkuTxa kolonebi. atriumze miSenebulia gasaxdeli, romelsac akravs mosacdeli, cecxlfareSis da sxv. daniSnulebis senakebi. atriumis dasavleTiT romauli tipis abanoa gamarTuli (tab. II-2), civi, Tbili da cxeli ganyofilebebiT. abanos cxel ganyofilebas CrdiloeTiT miSenebuli aqvs cecxlfareSis senaki. senaks garedan midgmuli aqvs sakvamle mili (dm. 2,7 m.), romlis CrdiloeTiT wylis auzia (tab. III) gamarTuli, romelic duRabiT nagebi ormagi wyalsadeniT maragdeboda (tab. II-1). amave wyalsadens miuyveba Tixis milebiT Sedgenili wyalmomaragebis ramdenime xazi. abanos kompleqsSi Semavali atriumi TariRdeba ax.w. I-II ss-iT. abanos kompleqsi II-V ss-Si araerTxelaa gadakeTebuli. sasaxlisa da abanos kompleqsis qveS gamovlinda Zv.w. I s-is dasaxlebis naSTebi. d i d i s a s a x l e (tab. I-2) Sedgeba sxvadasxva sididis, formisa da daniSnulebis 30-mde oTaxisgan. sasaxlis centrSi gamarTulia 1 2 yauxCiSvili, saqarTvelos berZnuli warwerebis korpusi, gv. 215. yauxCiSvili, saqarTvelos berZnuli warwerebis korpusi, gv. 215. 244 qviSaqvisa da tufis qvaTlilebiT nagebi atriumi, romlis centrSi Sadrevnis oTxkuTxa auzia (28,5 kv.m.) mowyobili. s a c u r a o a u z i gegmaSi wesieri sworkuTxedia (farTobi 395,6 kv.m.). oTxive mxares Sua nawilSi aqvs afsidebi (tab. III). kedlebi mopirkeTebulia Tlili, erTmaneTze mijriT miwyobili qviSaqvis filebiT. CrdiloeT kedelSi gamarTul afsidaSi, romliTac is abanos kompleqss ukavSirdeba, 9 safexuriani kibea gamarTuli. kuTxeebSi mowyobilia dasasvenebeli merxebi. auzi wyliT ivseboda abanos kompleqsSi dasavleTis mxares Semoyvanili ori ormagi wyalsadenis saSualebiT. a f s i d i a n i n a g e b o b a (saerTo farTobi 703,7 kv.m.) auzTan da sasaxlesTan SedarebiT mogviano xanisaa da V s-iT unda daTariRdes. afsidian nagebobaSi yofila 7 darbazi. didi sasaxle, afsidiani nagebobisa da sacurao auzis kompleqsi TariRdeba ax.w. I-V ss-iT. Zalisas naqalaqris goris ubanSi (II ubani) gamovlenili TavdacviTi sistemis (akropolisi) Sida teritoriaze dafiqsirebulia sacxovrebeli da sameurneo nagebobebi, didi arqiteqturuli kompleqsi (sasaxle?), warCinebul pirTa dasakrZalavi akldamebi da sxvadasxva tipis samarxebi. Zalisis borcvis centri dRes Tanamedrove sasaflaos ukavia, danarCen farTobze sacxovrebeli saxlebi da sasoflo-sameurneo nagebobebia gaSenebuli, rac arTulebs am ubnis arqeologiur Seswavlas. amitom, aq, 1971-1972 wlebSi, mxolod sadazvervo samuSaoebia Catarebuli. maSin TavdacviTi sistemis mxolod mcire nawili iqna Seswavlili. borcvis kideebze gavlebul ramdenime sadazvervo TxrilSi dafiqsirda alizis aguriT nagebi kedlis naSTebi, romelTa sigane 2.0-2,5 metrs udris, SemorCenili simaRle ki 0,4-0,6 metria. alizis kedlebs riyis qvis safuZveli aqvs. sameurneo nagebobebi ZiriTadad marnebiTaa warmodgenili. dReisaTvis gaTxrilia sami marnis naSTi. akldamebi (tab. VI) borcvis centralur nawilSia koncentrirebuli. isini qviSaqvis kvadrebiTaa nagebi. akldamis interieri da dromosi kargad gaTlili qvebiTaa amoyvanili, TaRisebur gadaxurvaSi antikuri xanis arqiteqturuli detalebis meoradi gamoyenebis SemTxvevac gvaqvs. akldamebi V-VI saukuneebiT TariRdeba. sxva tipis samarxebis Sesaxeb informacia mxolod SemTxveviTi aRmoCenebiT mogvepoveba. 2017 wels naqalaqaris II arqeologiur ubanze ganaxlda samuSaoebi da daiwyo didi arqiteqturuli kompleqsis gaTxra (tab. VII). dReisaTvis gaTxrilia 650 kv.m., gamovlenilia oTxi didi darbazi (srulad 245 gaTxrilia #1 da #2), ori derefani da sameurneo saTavsebi. kompleqsis kedlebi nagebia alizis aguriT (sigane 0,48 – 0,52 m-s, sisqe ki 0,14 – 0,16 m-s S o r i s m e r y e o b s ). gare kedlebis sisqe 1,5 m-ia, Sida sivrceSi dafiqsirebuli tixrebisa ki 1,2 m., alizis kedlebi dayrdnobilia riyis qviT gawyobil safuZvelze, romlebic yvela kedlis qveS fiqsirdeba. kompleqsi kramitiT yofila gadaxuruli. gaTxrebis mTeli farTobi dafaruli iyo 0.2-0.3 m. sisqis kramityriliT, romelSic didi raodenobiT iyo Sereuli alizis baTqaSebi, xis morebis da dawnuli totebis anabeWdebi. morebis anabeWdebis diametri 40-50 sm-s udrida, totebisa ki 5-10 sm-s. xis damwvari Zelebi kompleqsis Tixatkepnil iatakebzec dafiqsirda. es faqtebi miuTiTebs imaze, rom kramitis saxuravi xis morebiT Sekrul karkasze iyo dayrdnobili. karkasSi xis totebis wnulic iyo gamoyenebuli. mTeli es konstruqcia ki alizis masiT iyo Selesili. amdenad, dafiqsirda, rom kompleqss Tixatkepnili iataki, alizis aguriT nagebi kedlebi da xis ZelebiT Sedgenili Weri hqonda. mTeli am konstruqciis Tavze gamarTuli iyo saxuravi, romelic orferda unda yofiliyo. saxuravs agvirgvinebda wiTlad SeRebili kramitebis saburveli. 2017-2019 wlebSi srulad gaiTxara didi arqiteqturuli kompleqsis ori saTavso da ori derefani, gamovlinda kidev xuTi saTavsos konturebi (tab. VII): # 1 s a T a v s o (sigrZe 7.0 m-ia, sigane 5,0 m.). saTavso imiTaa gamorCeuli, rom mis Tixatkepnil iatakze aRmoCnda Tixis ori bula, romlebzec sasanuri iranis Sahebis gamosaxulebebi da arameuli warwerebi ikiTxeba (tab. IX-1,5). iatakis centrSi Cadgmuli iyo Tixis qoTani, romelSic minis oTxi WurWeli aRmoCnda. # 2 s a T a v s o s (sigrZe 7,0 m. sigane 6,3 m.) kedlebis SemorCenili simaRle 1,0 – 1,5 metria. misi interieri martivia. is warmoadgens oTxkuTxa formis saTavsos, romelsac Tixatkepnili iataki aqvs (tab. VII-2, VIII). alizis kedlebi Selesili yofila alizisave xsnariT. Cans, rom iataki da kedlebis Selesiloba samjer Tu oTxjer yofila ganaxlebuli. saTavsos tixari yofs. saTavsos im nawilSi, romelic tixris dasavleTiTaa, artefaqtebi ar dafiqsirebula. tixris aRmosavleTiTki xeluxleblad iyo darCenili interieri da iq arsebuli artefaqtebi (tab. VIII). kuTxeebSi aRmoCnda oTxi qvevri. samxreTi kedlis gaswvriv, samxreT-aRmosavleT kuTxeSi gamarTuli yofila samiarusiani Taro. Taros qveS, iatakze oTxi Tixis WurWeli mdgara. pirvel Taroze rki- 246 nis nivTebi, maT Soris saxnisi da uzangebi, qvis salesavebi da obsidianis anamtvrevebi ewyo, meore Taroze mcire zomis xeladebi da qoTnebi mdgara (tab. X), sul zeviT ki xelsafqvavis qvebi hqoniaT Senaxuli. Taro yofila gamarTuli Crdilo-aRmosavleT kuTxeSic, Taroze sxvadasxva zomis WurWlebi ewyo. aRsaniSnavia, rom WurWlebis am masaSi aRmoCnda Tixis sami bula (tab. IX-3, 4, 6). aqve dafiqsirda Tixis gundebi (tab. IX-404, 405), romlebiTac qoTnebi da dergebi yofila daluquli. samxreTi kedlis gaswvriv didi raodenobiT napovnia mTis brolis da ameTvistos (tab. XI-308, 310-312) sxvadasxva zomis nimuSebi. aRsaniSnavia, rom aqve dafiqsirda mTis brolisagan damzadebuli mravalwaxnaga sabeWdavebis (tab. XI-391, 393, 394) da ovaluri formis damuSavebuli calebi (tab. XI-395, 400, 401). aqve aRmoCnda mwvane minis aseTive formis nivTebi. aqve dafiqsirda Tixis bulebi (tab. XI-404, 405), qvis (tab. XI403) mcire zomis sakurTxeveli (?), saqsovi dazgis sawafi (tab. XI-408) da rkinis nivTebis fragmentebi. #2 senakis am monakveTis gaTxram gviCvena, rom didi arqiteqturuli kompleqsis (sasaxle) is monakveTi, romelic 2017-2019 wlebSi iTxreboda am kompleqsis sameurneo nawils warmoadgens. kerZod es aris sacavebi, sadac mniSvnelovani dokumentebi da maragi inaxeboda. #2 senakSi dafiqsirebulma faqtebma da, gansakuTrebiT, micvalebulis aRmoCenam, gvavaraudebina, rom didi arqiteqturuli kompleqsis es monakveTi gansakuTrebuli yuradRebis sagani yofila. Cans, rom aq daculi simdidris xanZris dros gadarCena upirveles amocanas warmoadgenda. yuradRebas iqcevs is faqti, rom #1 senakSi artefaqtebi praqtikulad ar aRmoCenila. is pirwmindad iyo dacarielebuli. maSinve gaCnda azri, rom is gamiznulad iyo daclili. gaTxrebma aCvena, rom artefaqtebisagan aseve Tavisufalia orive derefani da #2 senakis dasavleTi nawili. aRsaniSnavia, rom #1 senakSic da #2 saTavsos dasavleT nawilSi Tixis bulebi aRmoCnda. gansakuTrebiT aRsaniSnavia #1 senakSi napovni ori bula (tab IX-1,5). vfiqrobT, kompleqsis yvela es monakveTi xanZris dros daicala. Tumca, yvela senakis dacla maT ver moaxerxes da evakuaciis erT-erTi monawile gadarCeniT samuSaoebs Seewira kidec. micvalebuli #2 senakis samxreT-aRmosavleT kuTxeSi dafiqsirda. is pirqve egdo iatakze. mas zurgze mownuli kalaTa hkidebia. Zvlebs Zlieri cecxlis kvali amCnevia. vfiqrobT, man, gaqcevis momentSi, kvamlis zemoqmedebiT goneba dakarga da senakis iatakze daeca. 247 daskvna. 2017-2019 wlis gaTxrebma ara mxolod Zalisas, aramed qarTlis/iberiis istoriis ucnobi mxareebi warmoaCina. am gaTxrebamde qalaq Zalisas istoria mxolod romaul samyarosTan iyo dakavSirebuli. I ubanze gaTxrili yvela arqiteqturuli kompleqsi romauli stilisaa. am faqtma, sruliad samarTlianad, qalaqis warmoSoba romis imperiis mier qarTlSi/iberiaSi ganxorcielebul politikas daukavSira. klavdios ptolemaiosis cnoba da Zalisas arqeologiuri gaTxrebis monacemebi gviCvenebs, rom qalaqi II saukuneSi ukve qarTlis erTerT mniSvnelovan centrs warmoadgenda da is romauli kulturis Zlier gavlenas ganicdida. qarTlis/iberiis istoriaSi mniSvnelovani cvlileba III saukuneSi xdeba. es cvlileba sasanuri iranis mier romis imperiis winaaRmdeg mimarTul samxedro-politikur aqtivobasTan aris dakavSirebuli. dapirispirebis erT-erT mniSvnelovan areals samxreT kavkasia warmoadgenda. iranis aqtiuri politikis sferoSi qarTlis/iberiis samefoc moeqca, romelic ax.w. I-II saukuneebSi romis imperiis mokavSire iyo. samxreT kavkasiaSi pirveli laSqroba iranis Sahma ardaSir I-ma (230-240 ww.) moawyo. am mimarTulebiT did warmatebas miaRwia Sabur I-ma (240-270 ww.). vfiqrobT, rom iranis mier samxreT kavkasiis qveynebis daxarkva Sabur I-is mefobis dasawyisSi unda moxdariyo. 242 wels romis imperatori gordiane III iranis winaaRmdeg daiZra. man garkveul warmatebas miaRwia, Tumca 244 wels gardaicvala. iranelebma daiwyes didi Seteva samxreT kavkasiaze da iberia, albania da armenia daikaves. armeniis didi mefe gaxda Sabur I-is Svili hormizd-ardaSiri, SemdgomSi iranis Sahi hormizd I (270-271 ww.). romis hegemonia aRmosavleTSi dasrulda 260 wels, rodesac Sabur I-ma imperatori valeriane daatyveva. Sabur I-is Tanamedrovea iberiis mefe amazaspi (230-265 ww.), romelic `zoroastris qaabas~ warweraSi iranel didebulebTan erTad aris dasaxelebuli. III-IV saukuneebSi romsa da irans Soris arsebuli dapirispireba gardamavali upiratesobiT mimdinareobda. 297 wels iranis Sahma narsem (somxeTis Sahi 274-293 ww., iranis Sahi 293-302 ww.) mmarTvelobis dasawyisSi romis winaaRmdeg garkveul warmatebas miaRwia, Tumca armeniaSi damarcxda da 299 wels iZulebuli iyo romis imperator diokletianesTan nisibinis zavi daedo. am zavis pirobebis mixedviT, 248 armenia da iberia romis gavlenis sferoSi moeqcnen.1 zavis moqmedebis vada 337 wels amoiwura da iranis Sahi Sapur II armeniaSi SeiWra, riTac ganaxlda omi iransa da roms Soris. 363 wels romsa da irans Soris daido meore zavi, romlis mixedviT sazRvari md. evfratze iqna gavlebuli. armenia iranis gavlenis qveS moqca, iberia ki romis. romma iberiis taxtze saurmag II daamtkica (363-378 ww.). 364 wels, romis imperatori gardaicvala, Sabur II kvlav gaaqtiurda da iberiis mmarTvelad asfaguri (varaz-bakuri) daadgina. 379 wels gardaicvala Sapur II da iranSi garkveuli areulobebi daiwyo. amiT isargebla imperatorma Teodosim da qarTli isev romis gavlenas dauqvemdebara. Tumca, 387 wels Sah Sapur III-is dros (383-388 ww.) romsa da irans Soris daido axali sazavo xelSekruleba (nisibinis meore zavi), romlis mixedviT iberia da armeniis didi nawili iranis gavlenis qveS moeqcnen.2 iberia/ qarTli, albania da armenia bahram IV-is (388-399 ww.) drosac sasanianTa gavlenis sferoSi rCeboda. aseTia samxedro-politikuri mdgomareoba iberiasa da armeniaSi III-IV ss manZilze. iransa da roms Soris mimdinare xangrZlivma omebma mniSvnelovani gavlena iqonia iberiis (qarTlis samefo) qalaqebis mdgomareobaze da maT Semdgom ganviTarebaze. iberiis sasanur iranTan mWidro kavSiris maniSnebelia Zalisis II ubnis didi arqiteqturuli kompleqsis gaTxrisas dadasturebuli Tixis bulebi. maTi erTi nawili miuTiTebs, rom am bulebiT daluquli mniSvnelovani gzavnilebi sasanuri iranis saxelmwifo kancelariidan iyo wamosuli. Sahis kancelarias unda ukavSirdebodes ufliscixeSi aRmoCenili bulac (tab. IX-8).3 Zalisas teritoriaze eqvsi bula aRmoCnda. sami maTgani mcire zomis Tixis gundas warmoadgens, romlebzec sasanuri gliptikisaTvis damaxasiaTebeli gamosaxulebebi SeiniSneba (tab. IX-3,4,6,7). vfiqrobT, am bulebiT Tixis WurWlebi iyo daluquli da daluqva aqve, ZalisSi ganxorcielda. sami bula didi zomisaa da isini Sahis kancelarias ekuTvnian. erT-erT bulaze iranis Sahia gamosaxuli (tab. IX-1). gamosaxulebis garSemo arameuli warweraa, romelic prof. Turaj dariaes (Touraj Daryaee) mixedviT ase ikiTxeba: `is vinc aris RmerTebis modgmidan, mazdeani mbrZaneblis, iranelTa mefeTa mefe Sapuris Svili~. mkvlevari fiqrobs, rom bulaze iranis Sahi Sapur III-a gamosaxuli. 1 2 3 saqarTvelos istoriis narkvevebi, gv. 59. saqarTvelos istoriis narkvervebi, gv. 28-29. xaxutaiSvili, ufliscixe, gv. 83, tab. 50-8. 249 dRes arsebuli monacemebis mixedviT SeiZleba iTqvas, rom Zalisis naqalaqaris II ubanze gaTxrili didi arqiteqturuli kompleqsi III-IV saukuneebs miekuTvneba. gaTxrebis Sedegad aRmoCenili bulebi miuTiTebs, rom kompleqsi IV saukunis miwuruls aris dangreuli da is Zlieri xanZris Sedegad aris ganadgurebuli. aRniSnuli katastrofis Semdeg am teritoriaze cxovreba ar ganaxlebula. V saukuneSi kompleqsis mimdebare teritorias samarovani ikavebs, sadac did akldamebsac ageben, romelTa kedlebSi antikuri xanis nagebobaTa arqiteqturuli detalebia CaSenebuli. vfiqrobT, rom qalaqi Zalisa Sapur III-is erT-erT dasayrden punqts warmoadgenda iberiaSi da amiT aris gamowveuli aq aRmoCenili sasanuri administraciis gzavnilebis simravle. iranis eqspansiam ganapiroba is, rom romauli qalaqidan Zalisa sasanuri iranis erT-erT administraciul punqtad iqca. am periodidan iwyeba saqalaqo cxovrebis dacema. arabTa Semosevebma ki am teritoriaze cxovreba sabolood daasrula. damowmebuli wyaroebi da literatura Claudius Ptolemy, Geography – Claudius Ptolemy, Geography, 5, 10,3. boxoCaZe, Zalisis naqalaqaris – boxoCaZe a., Zalisis naqalaqaris teritoriaze aRmoCenili sasaxle, absidiani nageboba da sacurao auzi, Zm, #4, 1987, gv. 25-30. boxoCaZe, naqalaqari Zalisa – boxoCaZe a., naqalaqari Zalisa, Zm, #46, 1977, gv. 17-25. mirianaSvili, axali arqeologiuri monacemebi – mirianaSvili n., axali arqeologiuri monacemebi Zalisas naqalaqaridan, `iberia-kolxeTi~, saqarTvelos antikuri periodis arqeologiur gamokvlevaTa krebuli, #2, redaqtori g. gamyreliZe, Tbilisi, 2005, gv. 153-160. narimaniSvili, iberia da iranuli samyaro – narimaniSvili g., iberia da iranuli samyaro, samecniero sesia: `msoflio kulturul-istoriuli procesi da saqarTvelo~, moxsenebaTa Tezisebi, Tbilisi, 1993, gv. 3941. narimaniSvili, aRmosavleT amierkavkasia da iranuli samyaro – narimaniSvili g., aRmosavleT amierkavkasia da iranuli samyaro Zv.w. V-I saukuneebSi, samecniero sesia: `msoflio kulturul-istoriuli procesi da saqarTvelo~, moxsenebaTa Tezisebi, Tbilisi, 1994, gv. 19-22. 250 narimaniSvili, darakovis namosaxlari – narimaniSvili g., darakovis namosaxlari da samxreT kavkasiis aqemeniduri xanis istoriis zogierTi sakiTxi, `iberia-kolxeTi~, #5, redaqtori g. gamyreliZe, Tbilisi, 2009, gv. 94-125. narimaniSvili, SanSaSvili, narimaniSvili, vaWroba da savaWro gzebi – narimaniSvili g., SanSaSvili n., narimaniSvili g., vaWroba da savaWro gzebi samxreT kavkasiasa da axlo aRmosavleTs Soris, Tbilisi, 2016. ramiSvili, saqarTvelos sasanuri – ramiSvili q., saqarTvelos sasanuri gemebi, Tbilisi, 1979. ramiSvili, adreuli Sua sakuneebis – ramiSvili q., adreuli Sua saukuneebis qarTlis gliptikis Zeglebis ramdenime Taviseburi jgufis Sesaxeb, `Ziebani~, #10, arqeologiuri kvlevis centris Jurnali, redaqtori g. gamyreliZe, Tbilisi, 2002, gv. 62-71. ramiSvili, sasanuri portreti – ramiSvili q., sasanuri portreti sarTiWalis sabeWdav-beWedze, `iberia-kolxeTi~, #1, 2003, gv. 62-69. ramiSvili, ori bula – ramiSvili q., ori bula mcxeTis sveticxovlis ubnidan, `Ziebani~, #15-16, saqarTvelos mecnierebaTa akademiis arqeologiuri kvlevis centris Jurnali, redaqtori g. gamyreliZe, Tbilisi, 2005, gv. 186-193. saqarTvelos istoriis narkvevebi – saqarTvelos istoriis narkvevebi, t. II, redaqtori S. mesxia, Tbilisi,1973. xaxutaiSvili, ufliscixe – xaxutaiSvili d., ufliscixe, t. I, Tbilisi, 1964. yauxCiSvili, saqarTvelos berZnuli warwerebis korpusi – yauxCiSvili T., saqarTvelos berZnuli warwerebis korpusi, t. II, Tbilisi, 2000, gv. 215. Jinio, saqarTvelos – Jinio f., saqarTvelos saxelmwifo muzeumis sasanuri bula, ssmm, XXXV-B,1981, gv. 89-91. Бохочадзе, Исследование – Бохочадзе А., Исследование настакисской археологической экспедиции Мцхетского района, Полевые археологические исследования в 1975 году, Тбилиси, 1979, gv. 41-55. Бохочадзе, Мирианашвили, Нариманишвили, Археологическая экспедиция в 1977 году – Бохочадзе А., Мирианашвили Н., Нариманишвили Г., Археологическая экспедиция Мцхетского района, Полевые археологические исследования в 1977 году, Тбилиси, 1980, gv. 187-209. Бохочадзе, Мирианашвили, Нариманишвили, Археологическая экспедиция в 1978 году – Бохочадзе А., Мирианашвили Н., Нариманишвили Г., Археологиче- 251 ская экспедиция Мцхетского района, Полевые археологические исследования в 1978 году, Тбилиси, 1981, gv. 143-159. Бохочадзе, Мирианашвили, Нариманишвили, Археологическая экспедиция в 1979 году – Бохочадзе А., Мирианашвили Н., Нариманишвили Г., Надибаидзе М., Настакисская археологическая экспедиция Мцхетского района. Полевые археологические исследования в 1979 году, Тбилиси, 1982, gv. 93-106. Бохочадзе, Настакиси, Саркине, Дзалиси – Бохочадзе А., Настакиси, Саркине, Дзалиси – города античной эпохи, КСИА, вып. 151, Москва, 1977, gv. 93-102. Goderdzi Narimanishvili Dzalisa Settlement (Materials for the Study of Georgian-Iranian Relations in the 3rd-4th Centuries AD) Summary Cultural and economic relations between Georgia and Iran, according to the archaeological materials, started in the 4th mill. BC. One of the most interesting periods in Georgian-Iranian relations was the Sassanid epoch. In the sites of this period excavated in Georgia, many Sasanian artifacts were discovered. Among them are several bullae. Some of them depict portraits of Iranian shahs, and some are related to the Sasanian royal administration. These bullae, which belong to Shahs or representatives of the royal family, were discovered in the historical Georgian region of Kartli at two sites, namely Dzalisa and Uplistsikhe. Dzalisa Settlement is located in the municipality of Mtskheta in the village of Dzalisi. The settlement, which dates back to the Antique period and Early Middle Ages, was built on both banks of Narekvavi River, 20 kilometers northwest of the city of Mtskheta. The settlement is identified with the town of Dzalisa (Dzalissa) of the Antique period, which is mentioned by the Greek geographer of the 2nd century AD, Claudius Ptolemy (Κλαύδιος Πτολεμαίος 87-165 AD) in his Geography, along with other towns of Iberia. The excavations of 2017-2019 brought to light unknown sides of the history of not only Dzalisa, but also the history of Kartli/Iberia. Excavations have shown an im- 252 portant Iranian trace there. Special attention must be paid to the discovery of the bullae of the royal administration of Iran, in one of the architectural complexes in Dzalisa. Prior to these excavations, the history of the town of Dzalisa was only related to the Roman world. All architectural complexes excavated in Area I are of Roman style. This fact quite rightly connected the origin of the city with the policy pursued by the Roman Empire in Kartli/Iberia. The information of Claudius Ptolemy and the data of archaeological excavations show that the city was already one of the important centers of Kartli in the 2nd century and was strongly influenced by Roman culture. An important change in the history of Kartli/Iberia took place in the 3rd century. This change is connected with the military-political activity of Sasanian Iran against the Roman Empire. One of the important areas of the conflict was the South Caucasus. The kingdom of Kartli/Iberia, which was an ally of the Roman Empire in the 1st-2nd centuries AD, also entered the sphere of Iran’s active policy. The first military campaign in the South Caucasus was organized by the Iranian Shah Ardashir I (230-240). Shapur I achieved great success in this direction. As it seems, exactly at the beginning of Shapur I’s reign, the states of the South Caucasus were taxed. In 242, the Roman Emperor Gordian III started a military campaign against Iran. He achieved some success but died in 244. Subsequently, the Iranians launched a massive attack on South Caucasus and conquered Iberia, Albania, and Armenia. Hormizd-Ardashir, the son of Shapur I, later Shah Hormizd I of Iran (270-271 AD) became the great king of Armenia. Roman hegemony in the East ended in 260 when Shapur I captured the emperor Valerian. A contemporary of Shapur I was the Iberian king Amazasp (230-265), who is mentioned together with Iranian nobles in the inscription of the Ka'ba-ye Zartosht. The confrontation between Iran and Rome, which took place in the second half of the 3rd century, ended in 299 with the Peace of Nisibis. According to this treaty, Rome retrieved its hegemony in the Caucasus. The treaty was infringed by Shapur II in the 330s. In 337, Shapur II entered Armenia and renewed the war between Iran and Rome. In 363, another treaty was signed. According to it, the border was established along the Euphrates River. Armenia fell under Iranian influence and Iberia under Roman. Rome appointed Saurmag II (363-378) as king of Iberia. In 364, the emperor of Rome died, and Shapur II made a new move, assigning Aspagur (Varaz-Bakur) as the ruler of Iberia. For the town of Dzalisa and the Kingdom of Kartli/Iberia, the treaty of 387 between Shapur III and Rome was significant. According to it, most of Armenia and Iberia came under Iranian influence. 253 We believe that the town of Dzalisa used to be an important post of Shapur III in Iberia. That is how one could explain the discovery in Dzalisa of a big number of packages from the Sassanian administration. On the territory of Dzalisa, six bullae were discovered. Three of them are small clay balls with images characteristic to the Sassanian glyptic. The other three are big and belong to the royal administration. On one of the bullae there is a portrait of a Shah. According to Prof. Touraj Daryaee this is a portrait of Shah Shapur III. Taking into account the existing information, we can say that a large complex excavated in the 2nd district of Dzalisa belongs to the 3rd-4th cc. AD. The bullae, discovered during excavations, indicate that the complex was destroyed at the end of the 4th century. It was destroyed by strong fire, and it was never brought back to life after this catastrophe. In the area surrounding the complex, burial vaults were built in the 5th century, but in such a way that the remnants of the complex were not damaged. 254 I 255 II 256 III 257 IV 258 V 259 VI 260 VII 261 VIII 262 IX 263 X 264 XI 265 tabulebis aRweriloba: I.1. Zalisa, I arqeologiuri ubani. aerofoto; 2. I arqeologiuri ubani. gegma. II.1. I ubani. didi abanos da sacurao auzis wyalmomaragebis sistema; 2. didi abano. saerTo xedi. III.1. sacurao auzi. gegma; 2. sacurao auzi. saerTo xedi. IV.1. mcire abano. mozaikuri abano (Canaxati giorgi leJavasi); 2. mcire abano. saerTo xedi. V.1. mcire sasaxle. mozaikuri iataki. detali; 2. mcire sasaxle. mozaikuri iataki. detali. VI.1. II arqeologiuri ubani. akldama. detali; 2. akldama. Canaxati. VII.1. II arqeologiuri ubani. didi arqiteqturuli kompleqsi. gegma; 2. didi arqiteqturuli kompleqsi. aerofoto. VIII. didi arqiteqturuli kompleqsi. #2 saTavsos xedebi. IX. didi arqiteqturuli kompleqsis gaTxris dros aRmoCenili bulebi. X. didi arqiteqturuli kompleqsis gaTxris dros aRmoCenili keramika. XI. didi arqiteqturuli kompleqsis gaTxris dros aRmoCenili artefaqtebi: 391, 393, 394, 396 – minis mravalwaxnaga firfitebi; 395, 400, 401 – mTis brolisgan damzadebuli firfitebi; 308, 310-312 – ameTvistos nukleusebi; 403 – qvis sakurTxeveli(?); 408 – sawafi, Tixis; 404-405 – Tixis bulebi. Description of Tables: I.1. Dzalisa, I archaeological site. Aerial photo; 2. I archaeological site. Plan. II.1. I Site. Water supply system for a large bath and swimming pool; 2. Large bath. General view III.1. Swimming pool. Plan; 2. Swimming pool. General view. IV.1. Small bath. Mosaic bath (sketch by Giorgi Lezhava); 2. Small bath. General view. V.1. A small palace. Mosaic floor. Detail; 2. A small palace. Mosaic floor. Detail. VI.1. II archaeological site. Crypt. Detail 2. Crypt. Sketch. 266 VII.1. II archaeological site. A large architectural complex. Plan; 2. A large architectural complex. Aerial photo. VIII. A large architectural complex. #2 storage room. View. IX. Bullae discovered during the excavation of a large architectural complex. X. Ceramics discovered during the excavation of a large architectural complex. XI. Artifacts found during the excavation of a large architectural complex: 391, 393, 394, 396 – multi-faceted glass plates; 395, 400, 401 – plates made of mountain crystal; 308, 310-312 – amethyst nuclei; 403 – stone altar (?); 408 – clay sinker; 404-405 – clay bullae. 267 xelovnebis istoria _ ART HISTORY kiti maCabeli damkveTTa reprezentacia adreqristianul qvajvaraTa reliefur dekorSi adreuli Sua saukuneebis qarTuli saero portreti Tavisi mxatvrulistoriuli mniSvnelobiT gansakuTrebul yuradRebas imsaxurebs. am Temam ukve miiqcia mecnierTa yuradReba, magram kvlav rCeba garkveuli sakiTxebi, romelTa ganxilva Seavsebs Cven codnas adreuli Sua saukuneebis qarTuli saero portretis Sesaxeb.1 Sua saukuneebSi, iseve, rogorc winaqristianul xanaSi, portretma SeinarCuna Tavisi kulturuli da politikuri mniSvneloba. mkacr ierarqiaze dafuZnebuli feodaluri sazogadoebis struqtura religiur xelovnebaSi aisaxa. adreqristianuli xanis saqarTveloSi, romisa da bizantiis msgavsad, xelovnebaSi imdroindeli sazogadoebis kompleqsuroba da socialuri urTerTmimarTebebi iCens Tavs. saqarTveloSi taZrebis fasadebze mmarTvelTa reliefuri portretebi wminda saxeebTan erTad VI-VII saukuneebSi Cndeba. es procesi erTgvarad exmianeba adrebizantiur xelovnebaSi arsebul viTarebas. am droisaTvis bizantiaSi taZrebis kedlebze macxovris, RmrTismSoblisa da wmindanTa winaSe imperatorisa da didebulTa portretebis gaCena xelisuflebis „RvTiT rCeulobas“ adasturebda. es movlena bizantiaSi Zalauflebis RvTaebrivi mfarvelobis ideis gaZlierebas ukavSirdeboda da politikur da socialur urTierTobaTa axal sistemas moaswavebda.2 sakralur sivrceSi saero portretis ganTavsebas religiuri და socialuri safuZveli hqonda. adreuli Sua saukuneebis qarTvel warCinebulTa reliefuri portretebi taZrebTan erTad sakulto Zeglebma – qvajvarebma SemomaCabeli, saero portreti, gv. 98-112; misive, adreuli Sua saukuneebis, gv. 120-141; misive, portreti adreuli, gv. 131-161; misive, Certains aspects gv. 35-44. 2 Grabar, L’Empereur, gv. 163-180; Meyendorff, The Byzantine Legacy, gv. 43-66; Курбатов, Ранневизантийские портреты, gv. 230-251. 1 268 gvinaxa. taZrebis fasadebze qveynis mmarTvelTa – erismTavarTa portretebi gamoisaxeboda. qveynis feodaluri wreebis warmomadgenlebi Tavisi socialuri Rirsebis dasturad, qristianuli rwmenisadmi erTgulebis niSnad da zeciuri mfarvelobis mosapoveblad qvajvarebs aRmarTavdnen. adreul Sua saukuneebSi qvajvarebi – rwmenis Taviseburi niSansvetebi – aqtiurad iyo CarTuli xalxis religiur cxovrebaSi. qvajvaraTa reliefuri dekoris ikonografiuli programa moicavda jvris Temas, qristes amaRlebisa da didebis siuJetebs, RmrTismSoblis gandidebis Temas, mTavarangelozebisa da wmindanebis reliefur „xatebs“, Zveli da axali aRTqmis siuJetebs, romlebic zustad gansazRvruli principiT nawildeboda qvajvaraTa zedapirze da morwmuneTaTvis vizualur „teqsts“ qmnida.1 qvajvara, mTeli Tavisi xatovani sistemiT, kargad gaazrebul mxatvrul mTlianobas warmoadgenda, romelsac mkafio Teologiuri programa edo safuZvlad. misi daniSnuleba, rogorc votivuri da salocavi Zeglisa, reliefuri dekoris mkafioebasa da misawvdomobas gulisxmobda. swored am mwyobr, kargad gaazrebul Teologiur qargaSi CaerTo am sakulto Zeglebis damkveTTa, adreuli Sua saukuneebis qarTvel didebulTa portretebi. qvajvaraTa umetesobam Cvenamde Zalze dazianebuli saxiT moaRwia. ramdenime aTeuli saero portreti calkeuli fragmentebis saxiT aris SemorCenili. portretebis nawils Tan axlavs asomTavruli warwerebi, rac zrdis maT kulturul-istoriul mniSvnelobas. warwerebSi gamosaxulis saxelTan erTad zogjer misi titulebic aris moxseniebuli (`mamfali arSuSa patrikiosi~ – jvris baza, abasTumani, VII-VIII ss. mijna, `mamasaxlisi grigol~ – wromis qvasvetis fragmenti, VI-VII ss., `grigol vipatosi~ – kataulas qvajvara, VII s.).2 warwerebi, romlebSic am epoqis adgilobrivi qarTuli da bizantiuri titulebi aris moxseniebuli, adasturebs, rom qvajvaraTa aRmarTva qveynis feodaluri elitis privilegia iyo. es warwerebi adreuli Sua saukuneebis saqarTvelos mniSvnelovani saistorio sabuTebia, romlebSic ucnobi istoriuli pirovnebebis ara mxolod saxelebi, aramed titulebic aris moxseniebuli. qvajvarebi warmoadgenda sakralur sivrces, romelSic momgebelTa portretebis ganlagebas unda aesaxa maTi pozicia feodalur ierarqiaSi. SemkveTTa gamosaxulebebis ganTavsebis adgili da for1 2 Мачабели, Каменные кресты, gv. 220-249. SoSiaSvili, qarTuli warwerebis korpusi, gv.103, 131-132, 120. 269 ma qvajvarebze sakmaod gansxvavebulia. me Sevecdebi aRvadgino saero portretis adgili qvajvaraTa reliefuri dekoris sistemaSi, gavarkvio, ra principiT iyo CarTuli qarTvel didebulTa saxeebi maT mier aRmarTul qvajvaraTa mwyobr reliefur programebSi, rogor iqmneboda religiuri da saero Temebis erTianoba. vidre qvajvarebis damkveTTa portretebs Sevexebode, unda ganisazRvros Tavad qvajvarebis ganTavsebis sakiTxi, rasac didi mniSvneloba aqvs reliefuri dekoris principebis CamoyalibebaSi, radgan oTxwaxnaga svetebze reliefur gamosaxulebaTa ganawileba iTvaliswinebda am sakulto Zeglebis sivrceSi arsebobas. Ria cis qveS aRmarTuli qvajvarebi zustad iyo orientirebuli qveynis mxareebTan – mTavari iyo dasavleTi mxare, radgan aRmosavleTisken locviT mimarTul morwmuneTa Tvalwin qvajvaras dasavleTi waxnagi iSleboda, romelzec Teologiuri programis yvelaze mniSvnelovani Temebi da mTavari wminda personaJebi gamoisaxeboda. es viTareba saSualebas gvaZlevs gaverkveT svetis waxnagTa „ierarqiaSi“. qvajvaraTa nawili eklesiebTanac aRimarTeboda. samwuxarod, eklesiasTan arsebuli qvajvarebidan mxolod ramdenime SemorCa Tavdapirvel adgilas: kumurdos taZarTan aRmarTuli qvajvara,1 qvajvaras nawili Zveli musxis eklesiasTan2 da qvajvaras monumenturi baza ratevanis eklesiasTan.3 taZrebTan arsebul am sakulto ZeglTa mdebareoba wminda miwasTan dakavSirebul erT metad mniSvnelovan religiur praqtikaze migvaniSnebs. saqme exeba eklesiasTan qvajvaraTa mimarTebas. am sakiTxTan dakavSirebiT qarTul werilobiT wyaroebSi veraviTar miniSnebas ver mivakvlie. magram aris erTi garemoeba, romelsac SeuZlia naTeli mohfinos qvajvarebis aRmarTvis am mniSvnelovan aspeqts. zemoaRniSnul qvajvaraTa da maTi fragmentebis mdebareobis gaTvaliswineba garkveul kanonzomierebaze mianiSnebs. eklesiebis maxloblad mdebare qvajvarani taZris samxreT-dasavleT nawilTan arian aRmarTulni. kategoriul daskvnebs kidev damatebiTi masala sWirdeba, magram axlac SeiZleba varaudis gamoTqma da qarTul qvajvaraTa aRmarTvis praqtikis dakavSireba ierusalimis wminda miwaze arsebul Zvel qristianul tradiciasTan. 1 2 3 Северов, Чубинашвили, Кумурдо и Никорцминда, nax. 1, il. furc. XVI. maCabeli, Zveli musxis, gv. 45-59. maCabeli, bolnisis raionis, gv. 4. 270 IV saukuneSi ierusalimis siwmindeebis momlocvelTa aRwerebSi naxsenebia, rom anastasisis rotondasTan, Ria cis qveS `wmida jvari~ iyo aRmarTuli, masTan sruldeboda RvTismsaxureba, aRevlineboda locvebi, iTqmoda sagaloblebi, ismoda qadagebebi. piligrimebi mogviTxroben, Tu rogor scemdnen Tayvans Zels cxovrebisas garkveuli saeklesio dResaswaulebis dros, ra saxis ritualebi sruldeboda anastasisis eklesiasTan da golgoTis jvarTan.1 qarTul qvajvaraTa umetesoba Ria cis qveS aRmarTuli votivur-memoriuli Zeglebia, magram rogorc Cans, im SemTxvevebSi, rodesac maT eklesiebTan aRmarTavdnen, maTi mdebareoba eklesiis mimarT iTvaliswinebda wminda miwaze adre arsebul, liturgiiT ganpirobebul uZveles qristianul tradicias. am kavSirs adasturebs iseTi werilobiTi Zegli, rogoric aris VII saukunis `ierusalimis ganCineba~, romelic saukuneTa ganmavlobaSi, ierusalimisa da sinis eklesiebis garda, qarTuli eklesiis RvTismsaxurebasac aregulirebda.2 portretis ganTavsebis dros yuradReba eqceoda rogorc qvajvaras nawils, aseve svetis mxares da religiur TemebTan da wminda personaJebTan saero portretebis mimarTebas. dasavleT waxnagis Semdeg mniSvnelovani iyo qvajvaras CrdiloeTi mxare, romelic eklesiisken iyo mimarTuli. rac Seexeba qvajvaras aRmosavleT mxares, umetes SemTxvevaSi igi ornamentebiT imkoboda. amis mixedviT SesaZlebelia ganisazRvros damkveTis socialuri statusi. damkveTTa portretebis pozicia qvajvaraze momlocvelTaTvis Taviseburi miniSneba iyo pirovnebis adgilze feodalur sazogadoebaSi. qvajvaraTa reliefur dekorSi saero portretis poziciebis gasarkvevad Cven xelT gvaqvs mxolod oTxi SedarebiT kargad Semonaxuli qvajvara, romlebSic saero portretebs garkveuli adgilebi aqvs miCenili. esenia VI saukunis dasasrulis brdaZorisa da nazRauras qvajvarebi, kataulas qvajvaras sveti (VII s.) da usaneTis qvasveti (VIII-IX ss.). CvenTvis saintereso sakiTxis ganxilvaSi davaTis qvajvaras fragmentic (VI s.) gvexmareba. amas garda gvaqvs ramdenime qvajvaras kapiteli saero pirTa gamosaxulebiT. aRniSnul qvajvarebze damkveTTa gamosaxulebebi sxvadasxvagvarad aris warmodgenili. SesaZloa, amgvari viTarebis erT-erTi mizezi iyo is garemoeba, rom qristianuli xelovnebis Camoyalibebis adreul etapze jer kidev ar iyo dadgenili damkveTTa gamosaxvis zusti wesebi. 1 2 К источнику воды, gv. 195-197; Кондаков, Археологическое путешествие, gv. 156-157. Кекелидзе, Иерусалимский канонарь, gv. 13, 33. 271 VI saukunis dasasrulis qvajvarebze saero portretis ganTavsebis principebis ganxilvas daviwyeb brdaZoris qvajvaradan, romelzec ramdenime portreti aris gamosaxuli.1 brdaZoris qvajvaras reliefuri dekoris ikonografiulma programam Cvenamde sakmaod karg mdgomareobaSi moaRwia, Tu ar CavTvliT reliefebis zedapiris dazianebas. amitom mis safuZvelze SeiZleba gavarkvioT, rogor aris CarTuli damkveTis portretebi qvajvaras reliefur programaSi. brdaZoris qvajvaraze damkveTTa gamosaxulebebi sam kompoziciaSi aris warmodgenili: mamakacis erTi portreti moTavsebulia qvajvaras mTavari, dasavleTi waxnagis zeda kompoziciaSi, sadac mas miCenili aqvs adgili aRsaydrebuli RmrTismSoblis gverdiT; qvasvetis samxreT waxnagze, ori wminda personaJis qvemoT moTavsebuli aris ori samfiguriani kompozicia – mamakaci, qali da bavSvi („ojaxuri portreti“). gansakuTrebiT sayuradReboa svetis zeda registrSi RmrTismSoblis marjvniv gamosaxuli mamakacis portreti. zemoT ukve aRiniSna, qristes, RmrTismSoblisa da wmindanTa winaSe vedrebiT warmdgar imperatorTa da didebulTa portretebi bizantiaSi iustinianes xanaSi Cndeba da Semdgom es Tema myar tradiciad iqceva. sainteresoa, rom VI saukunis qvajvaraze Cven gvaqvs am bizantiuri tradiciis Taviseburi gamoZaxili. saero kostiumiT mosili mamakaci, romlis socialur statusze metyvelebs yvavili mis marjvena xelSi, uTuod, maRali feodaluri wris warmomadgenelia. sasanianTa imperiaSi miRebuli yvavili-insignia, rogorc pirovnebis gamorCeulobis niSani, gavrcelda saqarTveloSi, risi araerTi magaliTi gvavaqvs adreuli Sua saukuneebis qarTul reliefebze.2 sagulisxmoa, rom mamakacis Cacmuloba, tipuri mxedruli samosi – qamriT gadaWerili grZeli „kaba“, damaxasiaTebeli formis rkaliseburi moxazulobis ornamentuli qobiT, gverdebze vertikalurad CaWrili kalTiT – xSiria am epoqis qarTvel warCinebulTa gamosaxulebebze.3 qvajvaraze, romelic aRimarTa qristesa da RmrTismSoblisadmi mimarTuli Sewevnisa da mfarvelobis vedrebiT, bunebrivia RmrTisЧубинашвили, Хандиси, gv. 71-74; maCabeli, qristianuli Temebi, gv. 43- 60; misive, qarTuli qvajvarebi, gv. 78-120. 2 adreul Sua saukuneebSi sasanur iranSi gavrcelebuli yvavilis simboluri Temis Sesaxeb ix. Орбели, Тревер, Сасанидский металл; Ackermann, Sasanian Seals, gv. 784-815; Тревер, Новое сасанидское блюдо, gv. 256-270; Ghirshmann, Iran. Parthes, gv. 297-230; Мачабели, Позднеантичная торевтика, gv. 112-113; Луконин, Искусство древнего, gv. 156, 163, 169. 3 maCabeli, qarTuli istoriuli, tab. 18, gv. 61-63. 1 272 mSoblis winaSe sakulto Zeglis damkveTis gamosaxva. es reliefuri kompozicia organulad aRiqmeba adreuli Sua saukuneebis mariologiur gamosaxulebaTa konteqstSi. brdaZoris qvajvaras es kompozicia Cven winaSe warmodgeba, rogorc adreqristianul epoqaSi gavrcelebuli ikonografiuli sqemis variacia, romelic moicavs Tayvansacem wminda saxes da momgeblis portrets. amgvari gamosaxulebebi gvxvdeba rogorc monumentur xelovnebaSi, aseve xatebsa da reliefebze. magaliTad SeiZleba moviyvanoT poreCis (parencos) bazilikis centraluri absidis mozaika (VI s.), sadac RmrTismSoblis gverdze qtitorebi arian gamosaxulni,1 Tesalonikis wm. demetres eklesiis gverdiTi navis mozaika (gviani VI s.) aRsaydrebuli RmrTismSoblis gverdiT SemkveTis ojaxis gamosaxulebiT,2 komodilas katakombebis erT-erTi samarxis freska (romi, 530) aRsaydrebuli RmrTismSoblisa da ori wmindanis gverdiT gardacvlili qalbatonis turturas gamosaxulebiT.3 brdaZoris qvajvaras es reliefuri kompozicia unda ganvixiloT, rogorc adreqristianuli epoqis mowinave xelovnebaTa sistemaSi arsebuli erovnuli Semoqmedebis nayofi, romelSic Cans rogorc axali qristianuli xelovnebis mier SemoTavazebuli nimuSebis aTviseba, aseve adgilobrivi mxatvruli tradiciebis Zala, rac formebis plastikur gadmocemaSi iCens Tavs. adreuli Sua saukuneebis qvajvaraTa reliefebTan dakavSirebiT araerTxel aRminiSnavs koptur xelovnebasTan ikonografiuli da stiluri kavSirebis arseboba. am konkretul kompoziciis plastikuri gadawyveta da struqturuli wyoba garkveul siaxloves avlens VI-VII saukuneebis koptur qvis reliefebTan. analogiuria ara mxolod mxatvruli midgoma, aramed konkretuli detalebic. amis magaliTia kairos kopturi muzeumis erT-erTi reliefi RmrTismSoblis gamosaxulebiT (n. 8006), sadac angelozis Jesti brdaZoris didebulis Jestis identuria. analogiuria figuraTa sqematizaciis xasiaTi, formis plastikuri gadmocema.4 arsebobs mosazreba, rom am tipis kopturi reliefebi5 sakmaod xelosnurad imeorebs spilos Zvlis bizantiur diptiqis RmrTismSoblis reliefur xats.6 am viTarebam unda dagvafiqros im 1 2 3 4 5 6 Прелог, Мозаики Пореча, gv. 1-2. Barber, Early Represenrations, tab. 197-198. iqve, tab. 196. Beckwith, Coptic Sculpture, tab. 113. iqve, tab. 111-112. Volbach, Elfenbeinarbeiten, n. 137. 273 nimuSebze, romlebic qarTvel moqandakeT hqondaT xelT TavianTi reliefebis Seqmnisas. brdaZoris qvajvaras svetis samxreTi waxnagis sul zeda nawilSi ganlagebulia orfiguriani kompozicia – samRvdelmTavro samosiT mosili ori frontaluri figura da mis qvemoT – erTnairi sqemiT agebuli, TiTqmis identuri ori samfiguriani reliefi: marcxniv – mamakaci, romelsac mkerdTan mitanil marjvena xelSi yvavili uWiravs, marcxenaTi ki mis gverdiT mdgomi bavSvis xeli ukavia, marjvniv – mosasxamSi gaxveuli qalis figura. jgufuri reliefi uTuod zemoT gamosaxuli didebulis ojaxis wevrebs unda asaxavdes. es „ojaxuri portreti“ VI saukunis saqarTvelos feodaluri sazogadoebis erTerT sagvareulos unda ekuTvnodes. am reliefze gamosaxuli mamakacis kostiumi, misi socialuri statusis markeri, RmrTismSobelTan gamosaxuli mamakacis Cacmulobas imeorebs. analogiuri samosiT aris mosili bavSvi. qvasvetis waxnagebis mxatvrul-ideuri mxare zustad aris gaTvlili. Tu mTavari – dasavleTi waxnagi, romlis zeda nawilSi RmrTismSoblis gverdiT saero piri aris gamosaxuli, bibliuri siuJetebiT aris dafaruli, samxreTis waxnagze upiratesad wminda personaJebis wyvilebi da saero pirebi arian gamosaxulni. moqandakem saero portretebs gamosaxulTa socialuri poziciisa da sagvareuloSi maTi adgilebis Sesabamisi poziciebi miuCina. svetis zeda nawilSi RmrTismSoblis winaSe didebulis wardgenas orgvari axsna SeZleba moeZebnos. erTi mxriv, qvajvarebis reliefur dekorze dakvirvebam gviCvena maTi erTgvari kavSiri adreqristianuli taZrebis absidebis programebTan, romlebSic qtitorebi gamoisaxebodnen macxovrisa da RmrTismSoblis winaSe.1 niSandoblivia, rom qvajvaraTa reliefur dekorSi ierarqiis igive principi aris gamoyenebuli, romelsac efuZneboda taZrebis freskuli dekori – mTavari, zeciuri zona iyo absidis konqi da gumbaTi. savaraudoa, rom qvasvetis mTavari, dasavleTis waxnagis zeda nawilSi gamosaxuli saero piri yvaviliT-insigniiT xelSi feodaluri sagvareulos ufrosi wevria da am gamorCeuli adgiliT xazi gaesva mis gansakuTrebul statuss. rac Seexeba or „ojaxur“ portrets, isini qvasvetis ufro „mokrZalebul“, samxreT waxnagze arian ganTavsebulni, magram maTi poziciac saGrabar, Martirium, gv. 87-199; Ihm, Die Programme, gv. 12-40; Brenk, The Apse, the Images, gv. 88-91. 1 274 gangebod aris gaTvlili. es ori jgufuri portreti ganlagebulia kapitelis unikaluri kompoziciis – „RmrTismSoblis sulis amaRlebis“ qvemoT. kapitelisagan maT gamoyofs orfiguriani scena – samRvdelmTavro samosSi gamowyobili ori personaJi, romelTagan erTs xelSi sacecxluri upyria, meores – kodeqsi. am wminda saxeebs ar axlavT warwerebi, magram maTi pozicia RvTismSoblis sulis amaRlebis kompoziciasTan cxadyofs maT vinaobas. sacecxluriT xelSi wm. petre unda iyos, xolo kodeqsiT xelSi – wm. andria. es ori mociquli amgvari atributebiT RmrTismSoblis miZinebis (koimesis) scenis ucvleli monawileebi arian.1 amgvarad, damkveTTa „ojaxebi“ uSualod RmrTismSoblisa da mociqulebis mfarvelobis qveS eqcevian. saero portretebis aseT diferencirebul ganTavsebas sxva axsnac moepoveba. SesaZloa, RmrTismSobelTan gamosaxuli didebuli ojaxis gardacvlili wevria. amasTan dakavSirebiT SeiZleba gavixsenoT adrebizantiuri katakombebis kedlis mxatvrobis nimuSebi, sadac ojaxis gardacvlili wevrebi zeda registrSi gamoisaxebodnen.2 saero portreti aris CarTuli dmanisis raionSi (nazRaura) aRmoCenil qvajvaras reliefur dekorSi.3 qvajvaras svetis mxolod erTi waxnagi aris Semkuli figuruli gamosaxulebebiT (naTlisReba, wmindanebis da mociqulebis ori wyvili), kapitelis oTxive waxnagi reliefebiT aris dafaruli. kapitelis mTavar, dasavleT waxnagze aRsaydrebuli Cviledi RmrTismSoblis reliefuri xatia, mis momijnave samxreT waxnagze ori saero piri aris gamosaxuli. aRmosavleT da CrdiloeT waxnagebze farSevangisa da lomis simboluri gamosaxulebebia. kapiteli, qristianuli „vertikaluri ierarqiis“ mixedviT, mxatvrulad da ideurad qvajvaras yvelaze mniSvnelovani nawilia, romelsac uSualod eyrdnoba damagvirgvinebeli skulpturuli jvari. ori saero piris portretebis moTavseba qvajvaras am nawilze uTuod am pirovnebaTa maRali socialuri statusis mimaniSnebelia. kapitelze, qvajvaras umaRles zonaSi, ikonografiuli programis gamorCeul adgilas, RmrTismSoblis xatis momijnave waxnagze saero pirTa gamosaxva maT dawinaurebul mdgomareobaze unda miuTiTebdes. isini VI saukunis dasasrulis aRmosavleT saqarTvelos feodaluri sazogadoebis maRali wris warmomadgenlebi arian. frontalurad mdgomi mamakacebi zustad erTnairi JestebiT arian gamosaxulni, orives 1 2 3 Evangelatou, The Symbolism of the censer, gv. 119-120. Caillaud, Le figure du commanditaire, gv. 66-121. maCabeli, qvajvara aRsaydrebuli, gv. 55-82. 275 marcxena xeli pativiscemis JestiT mkerdTan aqvs mitanili. RmrTis mSoblis xatTan ufro axlo mdgom mamakacs, romelic zomiTac odnav aRemateba meores, xelSi jvari upyria, meores – yvavili-insignia. gansxvavebulia mamakacTa Cacmuloba, rac maT sxvadasxva socialur rangze miuTiTebs. marjvena mamakacis samoseli – grZelsaxeloebiani `qveiTi~ kaba da marcxena mxarze damagrebuli mosasxami adrebizantiuri saimperatoro karis Cacmulobis Taviseburi variaciaa (tunica laticlavia da palium), romlis analogs vxedavT samwevrisis reliefur filaze (V-VI ss. mijna) jvris Tayvaniscemis scenaSi gamosaxul saero piris kostiumSi.1 meore mamakaci Semosilia adreuli Sua saukuneebis saqarTveloSi gavrcelebuli mxedruli kostiumiT. es aris qulajis msgavsi, gverdebze CaWrili, balTiani qamriT gadaWerili kaba morkaluli qobiT. mamakacs zeaRmarTul xelSi SroSanisebri yvavili ukavia, rogorsac vxedavT am epoqis qarTul reliefur portretebze (ix. qarTvel didebulTa reliefuri saxeebi samwevrisis, dmanisis, brdaZoris, bolnisis, baliWis qvajvaraTa svetebze).2 qarTul qvajvaraTa reliefur portretebze xSiria am `kavkasiuri~ kostiumis sxvadasxva variacia, rac uTuod gamosaxul pirovnebaTa gansxvavebul socialur statusze miuTiTebs. kostiumis xasiaTi reliefebze gamosaxuli qarTveli warCinebulebis wodebrivi mdgomareobis anareklia, radgan feodalur sazogadoebaSi mkacrad iyo reglamentirebuli sxvadasxva socialuri fenis Cacma-daxurvis wesi. pirovnebebi diferencirebulni arian CacmulobiT da atributebiT. garkveuli gradacia Cans RmrTismSoblis xatis mimdebare waxnagze maT ganlagebaSic. safasado mxares uSualod emijneba bizantiur oficialur kostiumTan daaxloebuli samosiT mosili, zomiT gamorCeuli mamakaci. igi socialurad ufro dawinaurebuli unda iyos. jvari mis xelSi sxvadasxvagvarad SeiZleba iyos interpretirebuli: erTi mxriv, Tu gaviTvaliswinebT VI-VII ss-Ta koptur samarx stelebze micvalebulmaCabeli, qarTuli istoriuli, gv. 20-22. saqarTveloSi bizantiuri modis Semosvla ukve V_VI saukuneebSi aRiniSneba, rac bizantieli mwerlebis cnobebiT dastureba. erT-erTi bizantiuri qronika mogviTxrobs imperator iustines dros (522) lazTa mefis waTes konstantinopolSi Casvlis Sesaxeb. man imperatorisagan miiRo samefo niSnebi, romelTa Soris iyo paraduli samosi: TeTri stiqari-paragaudi, oqromkediT amoqarguli iustines portretiT (Беляев, Украшения позднеантичной, gv. 28-29). analogiur ambavs vigebT bizantieli istorikosis agaTia sqolastikosis (538-582) Txzulebidan (georgika, t. III, gv. 84). 2 am heraldikuri motivis Sesaxeb ix. N11. 1 276 Ta jvriT xelSi gamosaxvas,1 SesaZloa, igi am pirovnebis gardacvalebaze miuTiTebdes. meore mxriv, SeiZleba davuSvaT, rom jvriT xelSi gamosaxva sagvareulos ufrosis qristianuli sarwmunoebisadmi erTgulebaze miuTiTebs. insignia-yvavili `kavkasiuri~ kostiumiT Semosili mamakacis xelSi ki uTuod mis garkveul samoxeleo Rirsebas unda aRniSnavdes. SesaZloa, es ori mamakaci erTi sagvareulos ori Taobis warmomadgenelia da ostatma amgvarad gamoxata maTi adgili socialur ierarqiaSi Tu ojaxSi. saero portretebis simravliT gamoirCeva kataulas qvajvara (VII s.), romelic jerjerobiT erTaderTia CvenTvis cnobil qvajvaraTa Soris, romelzec saero gamosaxulebebis raodenoba religiur Temebs aWarbebs.2 zemoganxiluli qvajvarebisgan gansxvavebiT, religiuri siuJetebi mxolod svetis mTavar dasavleT waxnagze aris ganTavsebuli (wmindanTa da mociqulTa reliefebi da qveda registrSi – jvris gandidebis scena), CrdiloeTi da samxreTi waxnagebi mTlianad saero pirTa portretebs aqvs daTmobili. es aris unikaluri SemTxveva, rodesac qvasvetze feodaluri sagvareulos/ojaxis mravalricxovani wevrebia gamosaxuli. maT ganTavsebas garkveuli principi udevs safuZvlad: CrdiloeT waxnagze mamakacebi arian warmodgenilni, samxreTisaze – qalebi. qvasvetis dazianebis gamo (Camotexilia svetis rogorc zeda, ise qveda nawilebi) ver xerxdeba am feodaluri ojaxis sruli Semadgenlobis dadgena. SemorCenilia mamakacTa da qalTa xuT-xuTi portreti, Tumca zemoT da qvemoT darCenilia figurebis fragmentebi. portretebs Tan axlavs asomTavruli warwerebi, romelTagan bevri dazianebulia, magram darCenili warwerebi mniSvnelovan istoriul sabuTebs warmoadgens. CrdiloeT waxnagis erT-erT figurasTan warweraa: „wmidao Tevdore da ilarion, Seiwyale grigol vipatosi“.3 bizantiis imperatori sakariskaco tituls vipatoss, sxva titulebis msgavsad (kurapalati, patrikiosi), Tavisi gavlenis qveS myofi qveynebis feodalur mflobelebs uboZebda keTilganwyobis niSnad da maTi adgilobrivi avtoritetis gasaZliereblad. kataulas qvajvaras SemkveTi didebulis socialuri statusis warmosadgenad sakmarisia gavixsenoT, rom tituli vipatosi moxsene1 2 3 Effenberger, Koptische Kunst, tab. 36. maCabeli, adreuli Sua saukuneebis, gv. 120-141. SoSiaSvili, qarTuli warwerebis, gv. 120. 277 bulia erisTavTa ojaxis wevrTan, mcxeTis jvris erT-erT qtitorTan – demetre vipatosTan1 da wromis taZris (VII s.) samxreT fasadis warweraSi: „wmidao eklesiao, stefanoz vipatosi Seiwyale“.2 am garemoebis gaTvaliswinebiT, unda vivaraudoT, rom kataulas qvajvaras SemkveTi grigol vipatosi qveynis maRali feodaluri wris warmomadgeneli unda iyos. amas isic adasturebs, rom mis mier aRmarTuli votivur-memoriuli Zegli misi ojaxis/sagvareulos wevrebis portretebis simravliT gamoirCeva. grigol vipatosis qvemoT gamosaxuli mamakaci analogiuri Targis kostiumiT aris mosili. grigolisagan gansxvavebiT, romelsac orive xeli vedrebis JestiT mkerdTan aqvs mitanili, am mamakacs xelSi kverTxi upyria, romelic sagvareulos am warmomadgenlis samoxeleo statusze mianiSnebs. kostiumis detalebis mixedviT (grigolis sazeimo samoseli gamorCeulia Tavisi SemkulobiT) am mamakacs grigolTan SedarebiT ufro dabali socialuri pozicia unda hqonoda, rasac qvajvarebze miRebuli vertikaluri ierarqiis principi mianiSnebs.3 kataulas qvajvara unikaluri sakulto Zeglia, romelzec adreuli Sua saukuneebis qarTvel qalTa portretebia gamosaxuli. es aris VII saukuneSi qveynis feodaluri sagvareulos Taviseburi „genealogiuri xis“ iSviaTi nimuSi, sadac pirovnebebi garkveuli ierarqiuli wesiT arian ganlagebulni. qvasvetis samxreT waxnagi daTmobili aqvs feodaluri ojaxis qalebis portretebs. xuTi gadarCenili portretidan ori SedarebiT kargad aris Semonaxuli. paradul samoselSi gamowyobili mandilosnebis portretebs warwerebi axlavs. zeda portretis dazianebul warweraSi darCenilia mxolod saxelis daboloeba „...ri“. kargad ikiTxeba zemodan meore portretis warwera: „juaro patiosano, mariam mxevali Seni Seiwyale“. mis qvemoT gamosaxul qalbatonTan moTavsebul dazianebul warweraSi ikiTxeba „esak...“.4 am SemTxvevaSic vertikaluri ierarqiis wesi aris daculi – ufro mdidrulad Semosili mariamis portreti zeda registrSia ganTavsebuli, rac ojaxSi (Tu sagvareuloSi) mis aRmatebul Rirsebaze mianiSnebs. Чубинашвили, Памятники типа, gv. 143, tab. 211. T. Jordaniam wromis warwera XIX saukunis dasasruls waikiTxa da daaskvna, rom masSi moxsenebuli aris stefanoz II (629-62), romelic `qarTlis cxovrebaSi~ naxsnebia, rogorc `maSenebeli eklesiaTa~ (qronikebi, w. I, gv. 69-70). 3 am portretsac asomTavruli warwera axlavs, magram Zlieri dazianebis gamo misi wakiTxva ver xerxdeba. n. SoSiaSvili kiTxulobs mas rogorc saxels `muWel~ (SoSiaSvili, qarTuli warwerebis, gv. 121). 4 SoSiaSvili, qarTuli warwerebis, gv. 123. 1 2 278 qvasvetis waxnagebze mamakacTa da qalTa portretebis ganawilebaSi garkveuli tendencia SeiniSneba. erTi SexedviT, qvasvetis gverdiT waxnagebze maTi erTnairi raodenobiT gamosaxva genderul Tanasworobaze miuTiTebs, magram Zalze frTxili xerxiT mainc upiratesoba mamakacTa portretebs aqvs miniWebuli. zemoT Cven ganvixileT eklesiasTan aRmarTuli qvajvarebis oTxwaxnaga svetebis mimarTeba sakuTriv eklesiasTan da amasTan dakavSirebiT svetis waxnagTa garkveuli „ierarqia“. qvajvaras Crd. waxnagi eklesiisken aris mimarTuli, riTac kataulas qvajvaraze moTavsebul mamakacTa portretebs upiratesoba aqvs miniWebuli. vinaidan Cemi amocana aris qvasvetebis reliefur dekorSi saero portretis CarTvis pricipebze dakvirveba, me ar vexebi fragmentulad Semonaxul saero portretebis sakmaod mravalricxovan calkeul nimuSebs. magram ar SeiZleba ar vaxseno aseve Zalze fragmentulad Semonaxuli davaTis qvajvaras svetis nawili damkveTTa portretebiT. davaTis qvajvaras fragmentze mxolod sami reliefuri scena aris darCenili, amitom msjeloba mis srul ikonografiul programaze SeuZlebelia, magram fragmentis simciris miuxedavad, zustad SeiZleba qvasvetis waxnagebze Temebis ganawilebis garkveva.1 qvasvetis zeda sibrtyeSi ar aris bude skulpturuli jvris Casadgmelad, rac cxadyofs, rom svetis zeda nawili Camotexilia. mTavar dasavleT waxnagze SemorCenilia ori reliefuri kompozicia: qvemoT – donatorTa ori erTnairi figura zemoTken mimarTuli maniSnebeli JestiT da maT zemoT ori mTavarangelozi (erT-erT angelozTan aris daqaragmebuli warwera „m l“ – miqael). qvajvarebis zeda registrebis analizma gviCvena, rom mTavarangelozebis aseTi pozicia gvxvdeba reprezentatiul, sazeimo kompoziciebSi (qristes amaRleba, RmrTismSoblis Tayvaniscema, jvris Tayvaniscema).2 mopirdapire aRmosavleT waxnagze moTavsebuli RmrTismSoblis reliefuri xati uflebas gvaZlevs vivaraudoT qvasvetis zeda nawilSi qristes amaRlebis kompoziciis arseboba, radgan RmrTismSobeli am scenis mudmivi monawilea da qvajvarebze am Temas mudam axlavs RmrTismSoblis gamosaxuleba.3 maCabeli, davaTis qvasvetis, gv. 69-85. ix. xandisis, brdaZoris, dmanisis, mamulas qvajvarebi (maCabeli, adreuli, il. 8-9, 10-20, 35). 3 amis magaliTebia: bauitisa da saqaras kopturi taZrebis kedlis mxatvroba (VI s.) (Dalton, Byzantine Art, nax. 336-337, gv. 548), rabulas siriuli saxarebis miniatura (586), egvipturi warmomavlobis monumenturi naqsovi xati (VI s.) (Weitzmann, Age of Spirituality, gv. 455, sur. 68; n. 477, tab. XIV, gv. 532-533). 1 2 279 am wyvilis anonimurobis miuxedavad, cxadia, rom aq gamosaxulni arian aRmosavleT saqarTvelos warCinebulni, razec miuTiTebs maTi socialuri statusis niSani – kostiumi, romelic adreul Sua saukuneebSi qarTul niadagze bizantiuri sakariskaco kostiumis originalur transformacias warmoadgens. amave dros qtitorTa samoseli garkveul siaxloves avlens mcxeTis jvris samxr. fasadze gamosaxul erisTavTa ojaxis umcrosi wevris qobul-stefanozis samoselTan.1 es gvafiqrebinebs, rom davaTis qvajvaras donatorebi sazogadoebis im fenas ganekuTvnebian, romelic axlos iyo erisTavTa sagvareulosTan, magram maTTan SedarebiT ierarqiuli kibis ufro dabal safexurze idga. davaTis qvasvetis darCenili scenebis simciris miuxedavad, kargad Cans maTi urTierTkavSiri. qveda registrSi gamosaxuli damkveTni, mTavarangelozTa wyvili, romelic amaRlebis scenaze migvaniSnebs, mopirdapire waxnagze gamosaxuli Cviledi RmrTismSobeli – yvelaferi erTad warmogvidgens adrebizantiur xanaSi gavrcelebul Temas – qristesa da RmrTismSoblis winaSe SemwirvelTa wardginebas, rac zustad Seesatyviseba qvajvaraTa aRmarTvis mizans – RvTaebrivi Semweobisa da mfarvelobis vedrebas. sruliad gansxvavebulad aris gamosaxuli damkveTi usaneTis qvajvaraze (VIII-IX ss.), romelic Tavisi saxviTi saSualebebiT da stiliT gamoirCeva VI-VII saukuneTa zemoganxiluli qvajvarebisagan.2 me ar Sevexebi qvajvaras reliefuri programis detalebs, ganvixilav mxolod eklesiisken mimarTul qvasvetis CrdiloeT mxares, sadac ori mTavarangelozis qvemoT rTuli oTxfiguriani scena aris gamosaxuli. svetis zedapiri Zalze dazianebulia, rac arTulebs kompoziciis garCevas. marcxena qveda kuTxeSi Tavisi zomiT gamorCeuli muxlmodrekili figuraa, mavedrebeli JestiT zeaRmarTuli xelebiT. mis gverdiT vertikalurad warweraa ganTavsebuli: `wm(ida)o kvirike ka...o... S(ei) w(yal)e~.3 kompoziciis centrSi, scenis zeda nawilSi patara figuraa, romelic mfarvelobis JestiT muxlmodrekili figuris Tavs xeliT exeba. am figuras warwera axlavs: `wm(ida)ჲ kvirike~. misgan marcxniv angelozis frontaluri figuraa, romelsac marcxena xelSi gragnili ukavia, marjvenaTi ki wm. kvirikes TavTan mowamis jvriani gvirgvini Чубинашвили, Памятники типа, tab. 22. maCabeli, Zveli qarTuli, gv. 65-75. 3 am warweris Sesaxeb ix. barnaveli, usaneTisa da wromis, gv. 191-202; SoSiaSvili, qarTuli warwerebis, gv. 124. 1 2 280 ukavia. wmindani da angelozi kompoziciis zeda – „zeciur sferoSi“ arian gamosaxulni. scenis marjvena nawilSi, angelozis qvemoT Zalze dazianebuli patara figura ganirCeva. mis gverdze warweraa: `wm(ida)o kvirike S(eiwyal)e~ (mavedreblis saxeli dazianebulia da ar ikiTxeba). usaneTis qvajvara gamorCeulia ara mxolod Tavisi stiliTa da mxtavrul-kompoziciuri TaviseburebiT, aramed sruliad gansakuTrebuli siuJetiT, romelSic realurad aris asaxuli SemwirvelTa vedrebiT mimarTva wm. kvirikesadmi. es scena mokrZalebulad qvasvetis qveda nawilSi aris ganTavsebuli. SesaZloa, damkveTTa amgvar gamosaxvaSi maTi survili iyo gaTvaliswinebuli. aRsaniSnavia, rom usaneTis qvajvarazec damkveTTa gamosaxuleba svetis CrdiloeT mxares aris ganTavsebuli, romelic tradiciulad eklesiisken unda yofiliyo mimarTuli, rac aZlierebs mavedreblis kontaqts sakralurTan. saero portretebis ganTavseba qvajvarebze garkveul ideur da socialur safuZvlebs emyareboda. CvenTvis dRes sakmaod rTuli aris kategoriuli daskvnebis gakeTeba, rac gacilebiT met masalas saWiroebs. qvajvarebze saero portretebis ganlageba damkveTTa RvTismosaobis garda, maTi socialuri statusis demonstrirebas isaxavda miznad. portretis pozicia qvajvaraze Taviseburi miniSneba iyo sazogadoebaSi pirovnebis mdgomareobaze. ase magaliTad, savaraudoa, rom brdaZoris qvajvaras svetis dasavleT waxnagis zeda registrSi RmrTismSoblis winaSe mdgomi mamakaci feodaluri sazogadoebis dawinaurebeli fenis warmomadgeneli unda iyos. igive SeiZleba iTqvas davaTis qvajvaras svetis dasavleT mxares, amaRlebis kompoziciis qvemoT gamosaxul personaJebze, romlebic bizantiur sakariskaco kostiumTan miaxlovebuli samosiT arian Semosilni. nazRauras qvajvaras kapitelze RmrTismSoblis xatis gverdiT gamosaxuli mamakacebic uTuod sazogadoebis maRal wres miekuTvnebian. ierarqiuli gradacia arsebobda qvajvaras CrdiloeT da samxreT mxareTa Soris. brdaZoris qvajvaraze ori „ojaxuri portreti“ svetis samxreT mxares aris gamosaxuli, rac miuTiTebs am ojaxis wevrTa adgilze feodalur ojaxSi. igive SeiZleba SevniSnoT kataulas qvajvaraze, sadac erTi SexedviT qvasvetis waxnagebze erTnairad ganTavsebul mamakacTa da qalTa portretebs Soris eklesiisken mimarTul CrdiloeT mxareze ganTavsebiT upiratesoba mamakacTa Stos eniWeba. ganxiluli magaliTebidan gamoCnda, rom qvajvarebze damkveTTa portretebis ganTavsebas garkveuli principi edo safuZvlad. igi iT- 281 valiswinebda momgeblis pozicias feodalur ierarqiaSi, mis wodebriv Tu samoxeleo mdgomareobas. qvajvaraTa reliefur kompoziciebSi CarTuli saero portretebi adreuli Sua saukuneebis saqarTvelos socialur da politikur istoriasTan dakavSirebul mniSvnelovan informacias Seicavs, romlis relevanturi „wakiTxva“ mniSvnelovania adreuli Sua saukuneebis saqarTvelos istoriisTvis. damowmebuli wyaroebi da literatura barnaveli, usaneTisa da wromis – barnaveli T., usaneTisa da wromis stelebis TariRisaTvis, macne smasmgo,1969, N1, gv. 191-212. maCabeli, Zveli qarTuli – maCabeli k., Zveli qarTuli plastikis sawyisebTan, sx,1984, N10, gv. 65-75. maCabeli, saero portreti – maCabeli k., saero portreti adrefeodalur saqarTveloSi, `xelovneba~, 1991, N2, gv. 98-112. maCabeli, davaTis qvasvetis – maCabeli k., davaTis qvasvetis adgili qarTuli plastikuri xelovnebis ganviTarebaSi, macne, iexs, 1991, N1, gv. 67-85. maCabeli, adreuli Sua saukuneebis – maCabeli k., adreuli Sua saukuneebis saero portretis istoriidan (kataulas qvasveti), lx,1993, N1, gv. 120-141. maCabeli, qristianuli Temebi – maCabeli k., qristianuli Temebi Zvel qarTul plastikaSi (brdaZoris qvasveti), `xelovneba~,1993, N2 gv. 4360. maCabeli, portreti adreuli – maCabeli k., portreti adreuli Sua saukuneebis qarTul plastikaSi (VI-VIIss.), lx, 1998, N4, gv. 131-161. maCabeli, qarTuli qvajvarebi – maCabeli k., qarTuli qvajvarebi, Tbilisi, 1998. maCabeli, adreuli – maCabeli k., adreuli Sua saukuneebis qarTuli qvajvarebi, Tbilisi, 2008. maCabeli, qvajvara aRsaydrebuli – maCabeli k., qvajvara aRsaydrebuli RmrTismSoblis gamosaxulebiT, k. kaxiani, g. WaniSvili, j. kopaliani, k. maCabeli, z. aleqsiZe, e. RliRvaSvili, n. patariZe, „adreqristianuli saeklesio kompleqsi dmanisidan“, red. g. gamyreliZe, Tbilisi, 2012. maCabeli, qarTuli istoriuli – maCabeli k., qarTuli istoriuli kostiumi, Tbilisi, 2013. 282 maCabeli, Zveli musxis – maCabeli. k., Zveli musxis qvajvaras interpretaciisaTvis, `analebi. istoriis, eTnologiis, religiis Seswavlisa da popularizaciis samecniero centri~, eZRvneba iv. javaxiSvilis 140 wlisTavs, 12, 2016, gv. 45-59. maCabeli, bolnisis raionis – maCabeli კ., bolnisis raionis adreqristianuli plastika (xelnaweri, g. CubinaSvilis sax. qarTuli xelovnebis istoriisa da ZeglTa dacvis erovnuli kvleviTi centris arqivi, Tbilisi, 2009). qronikebi, w. I – qronikebi, w. I, tfilisi, 1895. georgika, t. III – georgika, t. III, Tbilisi, 1963. SoSiaSvili, qarTuli warwerebis – SoSiaSvili n., qarTuli warwerebis korpusi, I (V- X ss.), Tbilisi, 1980. Ackermann, Sasanian Seals – Ackermann Ph., Sasanian Seals, SPA, I, ed. A. U. Pope, London-New York, 1938, gv. 784-815. Barber, Early Representations – Barber Ch., Early Representations of the Mother of God, “Mother of God. Reprsentations of the Virgine in Byzantine Art”, ed. M. Vassilaki, Athens, 2000, gv. 253-261. Beckwith, Coptic Sculpture – Beckwith J., Coptic Sculpture, London, 1963. Brenk, The Apse, the Images – Brenk B., The Apse, the Images and the Icon. An Historical Perspective of the Apse as a Space for the Images, Wiesbaden, 2010. Caillaud, Le figure du commanditaire – Caillaud A., Le figure du commanditaire dans l’art funéraire des catacombes de Rome (IIIe-VIe siècles), S. Brodbeck, A.-O. Poilpré (eds.), “La culture des commanditaires. L’oeuvre et l’empreinte”, Paris, 2015, gv. 66121. Dalton, Byzantine Art – Dalton O. M., Byzantine Art and Archeology, New York, 1904. Effenberger, Koptische Kunst – Effenberger A., Koptische Kunst, Leipzig, 1974. Evangelatou, The Symbolism of the censer – Evangelatou M., The Symbolism of the censer in Byzantine representation of the Dormition of the Virgine, “Image of the Mother of God. Perception of the Theotokos in Byzantium”, ed. M. Vassilaki, Burlington, 2005, gv. 117-132. Ghirshmann, Iran. Parthes – Ghirshmann R., Iran. Parthes et Sassanides, Paris,1962. Grabar, L’Empereur – Grabar A., L’Empereur dans l’art byzantin, London, 1971. Grabar, Martirium – Grabar A., Martirium: recherches sur le culte des réliques et l’art chrétien antique, London, 1972. Ihm, Die Programme – Ihm C., Die Programme der christlichen Apsismalerei, 4.-8. Jahrhundert, Stuttgart, 1992. 283 Machabeli, Certains aspects – Machabeli K., Certains aspects du portrait laïque géorgien du Haut Moyen Age, 40, “Zograf”, 2016, gv. 35-44. Meyendorff, The Byzantine Legacy – Meyendorff J., The Byzantine Legacy in the Orthodox Church, New York, 1982. Volbach, Elfenbeinarbeiten – Volbach W. F., Elfenbeinarbeiten der Spätantike und des frühen Mittelalters, Berlin, 1929. Weitzmann, Age of Spirituality – Weitzmann K., Age of Spirituality, New York, 1979. Беляев, Украшения позднеантичной – Беляев Н. М., Украшения позднеантичной и ранневизантийской одежды, Сборник статей, посвященных памяти Н. П. Кондакова. Археология, История искусства, Византиноведение, SemKond, Прага, 1926, gv. 201-228. Кекелидзе, Иерусалимский канонарь – Кекелидзе К., Иерусалимский канонарь VII века (грузинская версия), Тифлис,1912. К источнику воды – К источнику воды живой. Письма паломницы IV века, Санкт Петербург, 1860 (Москва, 1994). Кондаков, Археологическое путешествие – Кондаков Н. П., Археологическое путешествие по Сирии и Палестине, С. Пб., 1904. Курбатов, Ранневизантийские портреты – Курбатов Г. Л., Ранневизантийские портреты. К истории общественно-политической мысли, Ленинград, 1991. Луконин, Искусство древнего - Луконин В. Г., Искусство древнего Ирана, Москва, 1997. Мачабели, Позднеантичная торевтика – Мачабели К., Позднеантичная торевтика Грузии, Тбилиси, 1976. Мачабели, Каменные кресты – Мачабели К., Каменные кресты Грузии, Тбилиси, 1998. Орбели, Тревер, Сасанидский металл – Орбели И. А., Тревер К. В., Сасанидский металл, Москва-Ленинград, 1935. Прелог, Мозаики Пореча – Прелог М., Мозаики Пореча, Белград, 1959. Северов, Чубинашвили, Кумурдо и Никорцминда – Северов Н. П., Чубинашвили, Г. Н. Кумурдо и Никорцминда, Москва, 1947. Тревер, Новое сасанидское блюдо – Тревер К. В., Новое сасанидское блюдо Эрмитажа (Из истории культуры народов Средней Азии), М.-Л., 1960. Чубинашвили, Памятники типа – Чубинашвили Г. Н., Памятники типа Джвари, Тбилиси, 1948. Чубинашвили, Хандиси – Чубинашвили Н. Г., Хандиси, Тбилиси, 1972. 284 Kitty Machabeli Commissioners’ Representation in the Relief Decoration of Georgian Early Christian Stone Crosses Summary Incorporating representations of laymen in works of religious art was a well-established Christian tradition originated in early Christian times. Historical figures depicted in church art are predominantly commissioners of artifacts. Relief portraits of commissioners, mostly local nobility and members of their families, are preserved both on early medieval Georgian stone crosses and on church facades. The distribution of donor figures on stone crosses standing in the open air outside churches, follows its own logic. The paper attempts to retrace the “topography” of commissioners’ images in the decoration system elaborated for such crosses. I argue that the placement of commissioners’ figures was conditioned by their social status, corresponding to the social hierarchy of that time. In order to understand the hierarchic order of representations of laymen on stone crosses the spatial position of these devotional objects must be taken into consideration, particularly, their spatial interrelation with the church buildings. According to Palestinian tradition, stone crosses were erected to the south-west part of churches (e. g. Kumurdo, Ratevani, Dzveli Muskhi, etc.). The stone cross pillars and their capitals are decorated with narrative compositions, ornaments, crosses, and other Christian symbols. New Testament scenes are combined with Old Testament compositions. There is no fixed place for commissioner figures on the pillars of stone crosses. They can be found in various places and in different contexts – there are single inframed figures, couples and families (parents with a child) on various parts of the stone shafts. Some reliefs preserve the names and titles of the depicted individuals (e. g. Grigol upatos, Arshusha patrikios, Grigol mamasakhlisi, etc.) Commissioners’ representations aimed to demonstrate their piety and advanced social status. Special attention is paid to the dress and attributes emphasizing the privileged position of depicted characters. The stone crosses of medieval Georgia, with their developed iconographic systems, communicate important religious messages and demonstrate the active engagement of representatives of power in the creation of mentioned cult objects. The presence of the representatives of local feudal society in the iconographic programs of these cult objects served to promote their influence and rank. 285 tab. 1 (Tab. 1) 1 2 3 286 tab. 2 (Tab. 2) 5 4 6 287 tab. 3 (Tab. 3) 7 9 8 10 288 11 tab. 4 (Tab. 4) 12 13 14 15 289 ilustraciebis sia: 1. brdaZoris qvajvara. damkveTis figura. 2. brdaZoris qvajvara. `ojaxis portreti~. 3. brdaZoris qvajvara. sqema. 4. nazRauras qvajvara. 5. nazRauras qvajvara. kapiteli. 6. nazRauras qvajvara. sqema. 7. kataulas qvajvara. sqema. 8. kataulas qvajvara. grigolis portreti. 9. kataulas qvajvara. didebulis portreti. 10. kataulas qvajvara. mariamis portreti. 11. kataulas qvajvara. esakis portreti. 12. davaTis qvajvara. 13. davaTis qvajvara. damkveTni. 14. usaneTis qvajvara. sqema. 15. usaneTis qvajvara. Semwirvelis vedreba wm. kvirikes winaSe. List of illustrations: 1. Stone cross. Brdadzori. Commissioner’s figure. 2. Stone cross. Brdadzori. Depiction of “Family”. 3. Stone cross. Brdadzori. 4. Stone cross. Nazgaura. 5. Stone cross. Nazgaura. Capital. 6. Stone cross. Nazgaura. 7. Stone cross. Kataula. 8. Stone cross. Kataula. Portrait of Grigol. 9. Stone cross. Kataula. Portrait of nobleman. 10. Stone cross. Kataula. Portrait of Mariam. 11. Stone cross. Kataula. Portrait of Esak. 12. Stone cross. Davati. 13. Stone cross. Davati. Portraits of commissioners. 14. Stone cross. Usaneti. 15. Stone cross. Usaneti. Praying commissioner before St. Cyricus. 290 fotoebi: 1, 2, 8-13, 15 (giorgi CubinaSvilis saxelobis qarTuli xelovnebis istoriisa da ZeglTa dacvis erovnuli kvleviTi centris sergo qobulaZis saxelobis xelovnebis ZeglTa fotofiqsaciis laboratoria); 4, 5 (avtoris arqivi); sqemebi – manana beliaSvili. Photos 1, 2, 8-13, 15 (The Sergo Kobuladze Monuments Photo Recording Laboratory of the G. Chubinashvili National Research Centre for Georgian Art History and Heritage Preservation); 4, 5 (The archive of the author); Schemes – Manana Beliashvili. 291 Erga Shneurson Georgian Church Porches The Gate to the House of God for the Righteous “This is the gate of the Lord, the righteous shall enter through it” Psalms 117:20 Introduction Wandering through Georgia is an adventurous journey through Land, History, and Culture. Historical landmarks are vividly embodied by the towering churches and cathedrals with their imposing façades, dominating the rural landscape, the centers of villages, and cities. These edifices, with their vast exterior reliefs of foliage, geometric forms, and biblical scenes, present a mystical experience which uplifts the viewer to the heavenly realm and revelation. Several churches and cathedrals exhibit splendid architecture in their porches. The more I delved into these porches – their structure, decoration, and function – the more I became convinced that they play an essential role in the church, beyond a liminal zone connecting the outside world and a spiritual religious one. The sheltering entrance welcomed those approaching a passage area into the building which fulfilled a symbolic mission in the religious life of the congregation and liturgical rituals, both independently of the church and as an integral part of it. Façades became a significant element of church decoration and were a widespread phenomenon across medieval Georgia.1 These beautiful sculptures attracted attention due to their enigmatic presence and their unexpected appearance on the outer church walls. I argue that despite the impression that this was a separate entity which functioned as a liminal area, one should see it as a vital organ of the edifice’s wholeness and an integral element of the overall exterior decorative messages of the façades.2 The function and decoration of porches played a significant role within the Divine For a general introduction to the intricate subject of sculptural decoration in Georgian churches see the seminal studies Takaishvili, Arkheologicheskaya ekspeditsiya; Barkava (et al.), Chubinashvili; Djobadze, Early Medieval Georgian Monasteries; Beridze, Alpago-Novello and Lafontaine-Dosogne, Art and Architecture. For the figural decoration and its political meaning, see the studies of Aladashvili, Pamyatniki; Eastmond, Royal Imagery. On the façade’s decoration read, forthcoming, Shneurson, Veil of Sacredness. 2 Kaffenberger, Liminal Spaces, pp. 117-137 designated the porch as liminal space of the church, while emphasizing its importance. 1 292 Liturgy of the church,1 reflecting theological and philosophical theories which evolved throughout the Byzantine Empire and Georgian society over the centuries. Porches occupied a space that served as an entrance vestibule, a liminal zone between the outside world and the inner ‘paradisiacal vision’ of the sanctuary. Georgian porches, in most cases, were located at the south façade.2 Many structures were richly decorated with reliefs, and some wall paintings have partly survived until today. The existence of porches and porticos raises enigmatic questions which I aim to investigate:3 Why were they decorated so extensively and what message did they convey? Furthermore, why did the initiators pay them so much attention? Assuming that they fulfilled political and geopolitical purposes, what were they? What other functions did they hold, if any? Are there differences in structure, function, and meaning between one place and other? Studying the culture, history, and the façades decoration reveals that Georgia was a sophisticated society in which the written word was a crucial component in its cultural development.4 It is apparent that the stylistic effect of the edifices was also significant. The decorative system adorning the façades proves it, and even more. The meanings, symbolism, and theological ideas greatly impacted the façades’ sculpture throughout the centuries.5 Examining Georgian historical architectural and artistic literature, together with current research, one can find various interpretations and information about the porches, such as the articles written by Thomas Kaffenberger on Manglisi church and Nato Gengiuri on Georgian church porches. However, one should bear in mind the philosophical perceptions attached to this architectural element by Georgian society, as well as its theological and liturgical implications. After all, the porch was the first area which the congregant entered upon arrival to the church. What was the role of the portico/porch in the liturgy, if any? These were neglected in many case studies, and they will be a central theme of this investigation. It makes no sense to detach the cultural aspects from their architectural and artistic development. The visual elements played a significant cultural role in harnessing art 1 On liturgical aspects of the porches, see Marinis, Architecture and Ritual, p. 1. Marinis argues that some parts of the church functioned apart from the liturgy, occasionally acquiring new or different uses than “form follows function,” an idea that dominated the Byzantine church architecture. 2 Eastmond, Art and Identity, p. 35. 3 A porch is defined as an extension of the floor edifice, which appears either on the front or back entrance. It may be covered with an inclined roof and have light frame walls extending from the main structure. A portico is a type of porch supported by a regular arrangement of columns, leading to an edifice. Marinis, Architecture and Ritual, pp. 88-90. 4 Dolidze and Kochlamazashvili, Old Georgian Translations, p. 580. Already in the early period, Georgian translations were mainly from Greek, although we also find translations from Armenian, Syriac, and Arabic. 5 Shneurson, Veil of Sacredness, forthcoming. 293 and the written words to express theological and philosophical perceptions combined with political messages and historical events alongside them. Recognizing the meaning and symbolism behind architectural elements seems to be one aspect which led to the porch’s development.1 Thus, the primary purpose is to establish a theoretical foundation to the porch phenomenon based on their architectural construction and decoration. In addition, the focus is on the possible liturgy conducted at the gate, entrances, porch, annex, and doors, as well as on theological and philosophical thoughts expressed in early Christianity, and finally on the political climate and cultural environment of the period under discussion. Several stages of investigation underscore this study. First and foremost, the starting point is the subject of the veil as it appears in the OT. The reason is because the OT is the oldest and most significant source for Christianity throughout history, and the veil was a unique and essential object in the OT. It is an object of separation, playing various roles in the Ohel-Moed, the Tabernacle, and the first and second Temples. Next, the study introduces the reader to diverse kinds of porch structure that evolved in Georgia. In the second stage, the study shows how the churches exemplify each type of porch as test cases. Each form of architecture and decoration is compared to other churches in Georgia and beyond; consequently, several churches will serve as a test case. Furthermore, the study examines the liturgical elements derived from theological aspects related to the porch. The relationship between Georgia and Byzantium fluctuated between development and changes; these were both influential and competitive, and they had a tremendous impact on Georgian culture. Thus, the architectural and liturgical influences between the two entities are intertwined throughout this study. Philosophical perceptions of the period under discussion are also crucial to this research. The Georgian elite placed tremendous importance on the Greek philosophy of Plato, Calcidius, Neoplatonism, and Pseudo Dionysius the Areopagite Christian philosophy. The current study addresses theological, philosophical perceptions through the prism of their approaches and interpretations of the relationship between the Creator and the created, the earthly versus the celestial realm, and how they may have influenced porch structure and development. Entrance – Gate – Door – Porch Reverberated in Christian Theology Porches had a significant architectural and ritualistic role in the church edifice and daily congregational life. The ritualistic aspects consisted primarily of a liturgical cere1 Kaffenberger, in his article devoted much attention to the architectural aspects of the porches. I thus provide a note to his article when it is relevant. 294 mony, a series of codified services that composed the Byzantine rite. Services such as the Divine Liturgy – the Eucharist – are the main focus. The decoration of the porches is significant and reflects theological ideas expressed in the artistic architecture and its adornment. However, how can this approach be extracted from the scriptures and theology? Historical evidence from written sources shows that Georgians were well acquainted with the corpus by Pseudo Dionysius the Areopagite (hereafter Ps. Dionysius) from the sixth-seventh century, and nowadays, some scholars have shown that he was of Georgian origin.1 However, one controversial question about Ps. Dionysius’s perception is the relation between Dionysius’ texts and architecture. Ps. Dionysius’s theological perceptions on church architecture and its influence on Christian liturgy and rites are of great importance and had tremendous implications on the overall development of Christianity. In the Christian East, historical evidence is limited, and surviving textual references to the Dionysian legacy in arts and architecture are sparse. However, the complex surviving architectural programs of the buildings tell a different story. It seems reasonable that some specifically Dionysian themes of light, hierarchy, and symbolism were used in medieval architecture and monumental decoration.2 In his corpus, the section about the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy (hereafter EH) deals with hierarchical structure.3 Dionysius divided the church into sections and linked them to various liturgical categories, social groups of worshipers who were activated by the division, and fulfillment of theological destinations. Ps. Dionysius’s principle was based on the coordination between the macrocosm and the microcosm, outer and inner, objective and subjective, institutional and personal. He also divided the church edifice into three hierarchical levels that served as areas of action: Within the veiled sanctuary and all the actions around the altar was the liturgy of heaven. The liturgy of earth took place in the nave for individual Christians. The catechumens gathered outside the entrance doors to the church. This division occurred in the following order: first the holy man was typified by the sacrament; second coordination between heaven and earth liturgies occurred; and third, there was identification of the altar on high with God, and the altar on Earth with man.4 “It is both celestial and of Law, for it occupies a place halfway between two opposites.” The ecclesiastical hierarchy is linked to the celestial one by means of spiritual contemplation and legal hierarchy, through various perceptible symbols leading to the The theme has been studied by Zaga Gavriilović, in the Abastasis at Dečani church, Serbia. Bogdanović, Rethinking the Dionysius Legacy, p. 113. 2 Bogdanović, Rethinking the Dionysius Legacy, p. 118. 3 Golitzin, Mystagogy, p. 44. 4 Golitzin, Mystagogy, p. 45; Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy (hereafter abbreviated EH), IV.3.12 484d-485A, Pseudo-Dionysius, Complete Works, p. 232. 1 295 divine. The legal hierarchy is the law given by Moses, the first leader according to the Law, which was fulfilled by Christ.1 The analogy between Moses and Christ was well established in Christianity. Moses’ entry into the divine darkness of Sinai was developed in Ps. Dionysius’s Mystic Theology. Moses was stripped of all human knowledge, and the same thing occurred during the progression in the church. Leaving the outside world, a worshiper enters the church directed by his senses, yet as he approaches the altar, he must leave them behind and enter the realm of spirituality. Entering the sanctuary occurred only after one was stripped of every concept of knowing. It had to be “burned up” to enter fully into God.2 Ps. Dionysius considered the outside world as a shadow of reality, one that has tumbled and fallen. “Outside the doors” is an expression that Ps. Dionysius used in EH.3 His words “outside world,” or ‘outside the doors’ concern the church. He not only explained the meaning of “outside” but placed the term in the context of the church and the clergy’s work. The church allowed for participating in the One, which meant being and life, inside the church.4 The alternative is the outside world and the possible sliding into multiplicity which results in non-being. The One and multiplicity here reflect Neoplatonic perceptions, yet no less important, he refers to Mark 5:13, “And the unclean spirits went out, and entered into the swine. And the herd ran violently down a steep place into the sea.” These forces govern the loss of balance and the internal ordering of reason, irritability, and desire in the soul.5 These are the ruling powers of the world. Behind all loss and division stands the devil. Inside the church, one first was baptized. Entering Christianity’s world through baptism was a means of forgiving personal sins, and achieving purity by being raised according to a Christian life. The baptism is Christ’s divine birth. Death and burial signify the end of earthly struggles.6 The fulfillment of baptism, the ‘divine birth,’ is the EH V.1.2 501B, D, Pseudo-Dionysius, Complete Works, p. 234. Golitzin, Mystagogy, p. 46; Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, The Mystical Theology, I. 997A-1001A, Pseudo-Dionysius, Complete Works, pp. 135-137. 3 “There [outside the doors] followed the destructive rejection of what was really good, a trampling over the sacred law laid down in paradise for man. [….] Wandering far from the right path […] but its enemies who, out of their innate lack of pity, took the cruelest advantage of its weakness and dragged it down to the deplorable peril of destruction and dissolution of being.” EH, III.3.11 440C-441A, Pseudo-Dionysius, Complete Works, p. 220. 4 Golitzin, Mystagogy, p. 209. 5 Irritability is defined as “the excitatory ability that living organisms have to respond to changes in their environment. The term is used for both the physiological reaction to stimuli and for the pathological, abnormal or excessive sensitivity to stimuli. Irritability can be demonstrated in behavioral responses to both physiological and behavioral stimuli, including environmental, situational, sociological, and emotional stimuli.” Irritability, „Merriam-Webster“. 6 EH, II.1 392B, Pseudo-Dionysius, Complete Works, p. 2. 1 2 296 sacred re-birth and the resurrection to become a ‘member of Christ.’1 Human activity is not totally characterized by free choice. The One, benevolently rules with universal authority and the capacity for union with the divine. The union with the One cannot fulfill itself ‘outside the doors.’2 Ps. Dionysius opened the EH by telling the story of an adult who had only recently been baptized. On the axis of hierarchy, from outside the doors leading to the altar, the neophyte was allowed to stand outside the church, and he progressed, explaining the mystery of the church at the end with the altar.3 Three sacraments are at the center of the axis: the outside with the narthex/porch – the nave – the sanctuary. The baptism’s sacrament was conducted outside the church edifice, and in later periods, at the narthex and baptistery. The Eucharist’s sacraments, and the Holy Chrism, were meditated through the church and in the altar. According to Ps. Dionysius, this mystery is the whole purpose of the hierarchy, operated by the priesthood through Jesus’ order.”4 The ecclesiastical hierarchy’s mission is to direct the worshipers through material symbols on the road to exaltation and union with God. The exaltation journey starts behind closed doors – outside the doors, it advances with the baptism, and then the purification process. It follows by discovering the truth about the sacrament of the Eucharist. Culminating with the consecration of the Chrism, which means “participation in, contemplation of the divinity that embraces all, and whose Providence knows its definitive revelation in the person of Jesus.”5 The movement gradually advances through the porch, the nave towards the sanctuary, and the altar. Spiritually the movement leaves fear outside the doors in a state of non-being. After baptism and rebirth, the newly converted individual is ready for his journey to the sacred area, climbing a spiritual ladder, participating in the Eucharist, leaving his senses behind to the final pivot stage. The final point of one’s life is death and burial, so one moves once again to the outside of the church. The ductus axis from behind the door to the altar stands for the core credo of the faith.6 In Ps. Dionysius’s words, “let us behold the divine symbols which have to do with the divine birth and let no one who is uninitiated approach this spectacle.”7 The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy was designated to fulfill these tasks. Ps. Dionysius’s provide ten steps of moving through the stages of the rites.8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 EH, VII.1.1 552D-553B, VII.1.3 556B, Pseudo-Dionysius, Complete Works, pp. 249-251. Golitzin, Mystagogy, p. 208. Golitzin, Mystagogy, p. 214. EH, I.1 372B, Pseudo-Dionysius, Complete Works, p. 196. Golitzin, Mystagogy, p. 214; EH I.3 373C, Pseudo-Dionysius, Complete Works, pp. 196-197. On Ductus read, Crossley, Ductus and Memoria, pp. 214-249. EH, II.1 392C, Pseudo-Dionysius, Complete Works, p. 201. Golitzin, Mystagogy, p. 216, EH, II.2.2 393B-396B-D, Pseudo-Dionysius, Complete Works, pp. 200-203. 297 The process of personal Christianization was a long one that took several months. What is crucial to understand is his perception of temporal architecture as illustration and revelation, ignoring the passage of time and space.1 The movement started from the ‘outside doors’ into the church. From the darkness into the truth, it is a long journey to strive for exaltation and union with the Providence.2 Golitizin argues that for Ps. Dionysius, Providence refers to the “Trinity, specifically to the Second Person of the Three who has acquired a human face:”3 Col 1:15 “Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature.” Ps. Dionysius’s philosophical theology opened up a path for scholars to re-evaluate the church’s edifice and architectural structure and the clergy’s role in fulfilling the Christian sacraments and the ecclesiastical tradition. For the world in his era, Ps. Dionysius’s thoughts harnessed the church edifice’s architectural structure, the liturgy, rite, and ecclesiastical ranks, combining them into a unified wholeness and perfection of the Church experiencing Christian faith. Another important source that reflects the devotions and rites correlated with the entrance to the church can be found in the Georgian Lectionary (hereafter GL). It is reasonable to date its primary sources, as witnessed by the Jerusalem liturgy, to between the late fifth and the eighth centuries.4 The GL reports and reflects upon developing the stational Jerusalem liturgy, conducted during the Holy Week and all year round.5 The sources of the Armenian Lectionary confirm the origins of the Georgian version of the hagiopolite stational system prior to the eighth century (hagiopolite – “of the Holy City”).6 Baldovin claims that the origin of the stational system in Jerusalem is connected to ecclesiastical requirements, as well as to a process of historicizing the liturgy.7 The GL’s importance lies in how it exposes to the reader the Jerusalem liturgical ritual between the fifth to eighth centuries and their adaptation by the Georgian community in the Holy Land. 1 According to Ps. Dionysius the baptism was in the nave, this was possibly at an early stage after Christianization. One should take into consideration baptism was conducted in later periods in the Baptistery and in the late Byzantine period in various places in a special place outside the church like in the Balkans. It was mostly due to the size of the congregation. See, Stanković, At the Threshold of the Heavens, pp. 17, 26-27 n. 26, 189, 458. 2 Golitzin, Mystagogy, p. 214; EH II.2.1 393A, II.2.2 393B, Pseudo-Dionysius, Complete Works, p. 201. 3 Golitzin, Mystagogy, p. 218. 4 Baldovin, Urban Character, p. 73. 5 Georgian Lectionary: GL is actually a typikon which was collected from a series of manuscripts by M. Tarchnishvili. In 1912 K. S. Kekelize first edited some of the pieced together series. The GL is a much more extensive calendar than the AL (Armenian Lectionary), and many manuscripts feature in the compilation. It is therefore hard to determine its date. Baldovin, Urban Character, pp. 72-79. 6 Baldovin, Urban Character, p. 73. 7 Baldovin, Urban Character, p. 93. 298 The GL assigned an Entrance psalm for every Eucharistic celebration. Jerusalem, the site of the Christian faith’s birth and its most significant events, naturally served as a model for several sites in Rome, Constantinople, and the periphery. The Christian centers contained the liturgical calendar, the choice of readings, the shape of the Eucharistic Entrance rite, and most importantly, the whole model which other cities, towns and subsequent liturgies adopted. It is apparent that outdoor processions were used everywhere in the Christian world, even though they were reduced during the late Byzantine period; they originated, developed, and were shaped by Jerusalem’s model. The Lite and the ‘Entrance rite’ represent the outdoor processions in public with the congregation’s participation.1 The Entrance rite and Eucharist – the Divine Liturgy, were among the most important services performed throughout the year.2 The existence of processions, such as in the Jvari church, shed light on their importance and significance in public religious life.3 Through the GL, one can learn about the liturgy conducted at the church entrance or gate.4 Scrutinizing through the year-round church liturgy of the GL, I found special occasions where the gates, entrance, doors were the site of a ritual procedure that took place during the day. The occurrences I found, are given in note.5 The GL mentions the church gates several times, reflecting on its role during the liturgical year. The GL replicates the practices during the fifth to eighth centuries, as they were upheld in Jerusalem by the Georgian community. On line 898, the GL states: “Wednesday after Pentecost. Appearance of the venerable cross at Mc’xet’a.” This line demonstrates that the GL was meant to be followed in Georgia, thus it mentions the cross in Mc’xet’a being addressed for local Georgian worshipers. 1 In 1261, Emperor Michael VIII Palaiologos reign, another synthesis occurred. The process started earlier in the tenth-eleventh centuries, known as neo-Sabbatic synthesis. The synthesis was between the Stoudite typika and the neo-Sabatic usage. Through Mount Athos, the new usage spread to Constantinople. It is the Neo-Sabatic typikon that is in use today in the churches of the Byzantine tradition. One of the most significant changes involved was the Divine Liturgy. In early Christianity, during the first part of the service, the Liturgy of the Word started with the First Entrance. The people that did not participated in the procession waited outside the church in its atrium. When the procession arrived, they join to enter the church building to continue the rite. During the Middle Byzantine period, a gradual process on changes that brought from the eleventh century a decline of outside procession in urban cities. Marinis, Architecture and Ritual, pp. 15-16, 21-23, 55-56. 2 Marinis, Architecture and Ritual, p. 4; Taft, Divine Liturgies, pp. 82-84. 3 On Jvari’s processions, read here, p. 307. 4 Tarchnishvili, Le grand lectionnaire, pp. 204-205. The introduction (188/9) is in French, and the text of the lectionary (189/10, 204-205/13-14) is presented in Georgian with a facing-page Latin translation done by Tarchnischvili. An English translation by Kevin P. Edgecomb is available online: Edgecomb, The Georgian Lectionary. 5 Instances of the GL mentioning the door and gate rite are: Epiphany on lines 83 and 92; the Quadragesima – Forty Days of Lent on line 478; and the Holy Thursday, of the Holy Week on line 626. 299 OT and Jewish Literature Resonates on Gate, Doors, Entrance The OT tells the story of the gate, doors, and entrance in Exod. 25-31, referring to the model shown to Moses on Mt Sinai. The account of Exod. 35-40 delivers the realization of Ohel-Moed or Mishkan and the veils it contains according to the instructions given to the Israelites. The “veil” in the OT is mentioned several times using different terms, such as screen, curtains, hangings, and more, meaning an entrance and a gate.1 It is essential to note that the Greek translation of the OT, the Septuaginta, used the word “katapetasma” 31 times, for the inner veil before the Holy of Holies.2 The three primary functions of the veil in the OT are as follows: 1. A place of divine revelation. 2. A place where sacrifices would be offered and atonement made. 3. A place where God’s presence in the tent would signify his promise to dwell with Israel. The Scriptures use the terms Mikdash ((‫שדקמ‬, meaning sanctuary or temple (Exod. 25:8); Mishkan (‫)ןכשימ‬, meaning tabernacle (Exod. 26:1); and Tent of meeting (Ohelmoed -‫( )דעומ להא‬Exod. 27:21). In all the different descriptions of the tabernacle, various materials were said to be in use for the construction and hangings.3 Curtains of the Courtyard “For the entrance to the tent make a curtain of blue, purple, and scarlet yarn and finely twisted linen – the work of an embroiderer.” Exodus 26:36. The curtain located at the entrance to the tent – Mishkan or Ohel Moed – is discussed in Exod. 27:9-16 as being shown to Moses on the mountain. Exod. 27:16 “And for the gate of the court shall be a hanging of twenty cubits.” The instructions to build the courtyard were given to the Israelites in Exod. 38:12. A similar curtain was hung at the entrance to the courtyard, this time it mentions a screen Exod. 38:18 “And the hanging for the gate of the court was needlework, of blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine twined linen: and twenty cubits was the length, and the height in the breadth was five cubits, answerable to the hangings of the court.” The importance of the courtyard enOn the Veil in the OT, see Gurtner, The Torn Veil, pp. 9-46. Regarding the term “veil,” Gurtner provides comprehensive research addressing the OT, the NT, and historical sources to understand the term according to its various meanings and functions. 2 Gurtner, The Torn Veil, p. 33. 3 While these are beyond the scope of this article, Gurtner addressed them in detail. See Gurtner, The Torn Veil, pp. 36-39. 1 300 trance, its valuable material, unique colors, and beauty are extracted from Exodus and as a direct order from God. The Courtyard curtains, as barriers separating the outside world from the incrementally holy parts of the Temple surrounding areas, appropriated the idea of the gate and doors in the church. The chapters cited above describe the materials and the locations on the south, north, and west sides of the courtyard. According to Grunter’s diagram, the order for placing a curtain at the entrance to the courtyard is the first mention of a screen or a curtain leading to the Tabernacle.1 The Septuagint traditionally refers to them as “katapetasma” in the same way they are addressed in the Parochet. The entrance receives the morning and evening burnt offerings, Exod. 29. Furthermore, it is the place of atonement rites. Verses 4, 11, 32, and Verse 42: “This shall be a continual burnt offering throughout your generations at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the Lord: where I will meet you, to speak there unto thee.” Nevertheless, the precise function of the curtains is unclear. However, the location ordered Israelites to worship and designated those who were allowed to pass through a particular barrier to fulfill the requirements of the ritual of purity prayers and offerings. It means that gentiles and impure Jews were prevented from entering. Another assumption that can be drawn is that it was a place for communal ritual activity, in which the curtain was a passive element. The parochet, in its exclusive functioning as the entrance to the Holy of Holies, contains six characteristic forms; only the parochet possesses all six and refers only to the inner veil.2 The parochet differed significantly from other means of separation due to the workmanship involved in its creation, the presence of cherubim, and its function in Israel’s cultic worship.3 Curtains that were designated to the other part of the tabernacle mainly differed from the parochet in terms of the creativity with which they were crafted.4 The OT includes a lengthy discussion of the veil. The core idea relevant to this study is the separation between levels of gradually increasing holiness between areas within the tabernacle and the courtyard, and between various groups of people entering the tabernacle. Ps. Dionysius followed this pattern, dividing the church edifice into three structural divisions and three spiritualistic liturgical roles. Prophet Ezekiel had a vision of the Temple, Ezek. 40:1-42; verse 40 specifically relates to the north gate. Verse 20 refers to the inner courtyard’s gate, the passage to the outside yard. In chapter 10:18-19, he dramatically visioned the east gate of the temple that Glory hovered above, means that the gate considered an area of holyness. 1 2 3 4 Gurtner, The Torn Veil, p. 204. Gurtner, The Torn Veil, p. 52. Gurtner, The Torn Veil, p. 52, n. 32. Gurtner, The Torn Veil, p. 56. 301 “Then the Glory of God left the Temple entrance and hovered over the cherubim. I watched as the cherubim spread their wings and left the ground, the wheels right with them. They stopped at the entrance of the east gate of the Temple. The Glory of the God of Israel was above them.” The protective wall that serves to separate the holy from the profane is described in Ezekiel’s temple, Ezek. 42:20. The Second Temple built around 19-20 B.C. by Herod and was patterned after Solomon’s.1 The separation and divisions of sociological groups, religious areas, and liturgical functions continued on to the Herodian Temple. It was reflected in the Qumran scrolls, as a possible way of life of the group settled there and in the rabbinical hermeneutics. The Herodian Temple also contained veils, but it is unclear how many curtains there were and which one is the ‘katapetasma’ mentioned in the Septuaginta. Most of the curtains were inner veils. The symbolic value of the veil evolved into a symbol of the heavenly firmament (Gen. 1:6.) and developed an ideology beyond and independently of its original intent.2 Various texts of Second Temple and Rabbinic Judaism employed the sacred texts about the veil for their ideological usage. The Qumran documents include the Temple Scroll, the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, Damascus Document, and Apocryphon of Moses. They mainly refer to the inner curtains. These documents assume that they represented the ideal sanctuary or the heavenly Temple since the people of Qumran had been excluded from entering the Temple by the rabbinical leaders of Jerusalem. So, the idea of a symbolic veil and an ideal temple coincide and harmonize the understanding of the entrance as a kind of separation that fulfills the same function and idea of heavenly worship,3 proving the importance of the veil and gate. Another vital source found at Qumran, the Apocryphon of Moses, refers to the veil and influenced Christian perceptions. Moses’ prayers are behind a curtain. On the other hand, the veil served to prohibit access not just to God himself but to the Ark of the Covenant that is ‘hidden.’4 The veil stands as an idea of separation in different cases, thus not the inner veil only. In Isa 40:22, we see the idea of God “stretching out heavens like a curtain, and spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.” The veil corresponds to the firmaments. Hofius dates the tradition to Philo and the time of the Hebrews, with rabbinic traditions around the second century.5 Gurtner quotes Philo’s assertion that the Gurtner, The Torn Veil, p. 73. Gurtner, The Torn Veil, p. 80. 3 The Temple Scroll presumably speaks of a screen at the vestibule entrance, though it is poorly preserved. Gurtner, The Biblical Veil, pp. 57-79; Gurtner, The Torn Veil, pp. 83-85. 4 Num 4:5 and Num Rab. 4:13; Lev 16:2. 5 Gurtner, The Torn Veil, p. 91, cited Hofius, Vorhang vor dem Thron, p. 25. 1 2 302 inner veil should be named ‘the veil’ and the outer veil should be called ‘the covering.’1 He further stated that the rabbinic and, in the Hellenistic – Jewish texts, the curtain outlines the heavenly world as the area of highest holiness of the earthly world.2 The rabbinical corpus shows that the Temple was considered a gateway between heaven and earth, where beings lived and worshipped in a distinctly apocalyptic literary context. In this respect, the veil was understood to be the barrier between heaven and earth.3 The barrier, however it be called in Hebrew – Pargode, Screen, Curtains, Veil – correlated between itself and the heavens for concealment. Behind the veil is a place of secrecy, where God is present in profoundly apocalyptic texts. It seems that the veil mentioned was the inner veil, though it marked other separations in the Temple that function as outer veils for concealing purposes. The idea explained in Exod 19:9. “ The Lord said to Moses, I am going to come to you in a dense cloud, so that the people will hear me speaking with you and will always put their trust in you. Then Moses told the Lord what the people had said.” The term “dense cloud” means something behind a barrier that prevents seeing but allows hearing, like a veil.4 The veil was taken to function as a barrier in other places in the Temple, and the rabbinic texts added more layers to term.5 For Josephus Flavius and Philo of Alexandria, the veil served to obscure from the public view the mystery of the dwelling of God and to reserve it to the priesthood.6 Philo’s portrayal of the veil allegorically presents the curtains in a cosmic element. Though he did not mention the inner veil directly, he intended to describe it. On the other hand, the allegorical meaning and the symbolism that are integral to his description alluded to the symbolism of the entrance and the gate. The symbolism elevated separations within the temple and courtyard to a level of allegory and emblematic structure. Philo and Josephus understood the symbolism and allegory of the veil to resemble the separation of heaven and earth – that heaven is the dwelling place of God and Earth is where human beings reside, the identification of the veil as the heavenly ether. The veil was depicted as a tent spread over the world. In this way, all parts of the Temple stand for this symbolism.7 The entrance and gate of the courtyard divided the inner world of the temple from the outside world. Gurtner, The Torn Veil, pp. 73-77. Gurtner, The Torn Veil, p. 92, cited Hofius, Vorhang vor dem Thron, p. 27. 3 Gurtner, The Torn Veil, p. 88, and nn. 95-96. 4 The verse expresses the idea of announcing from behind the veil for those who were prohibited access within the curtains. The idea is analogous to the Christian prohibition of the catechumens entering the church before being baptized. 5 Gurtner, The Torn Veil, p. 92. The Mishnah does not discuss the outer curtain, but we do read about the outer veil in other Qumran sources. 6 Gurtner, The Torn Veil, p. 93 and n. 119. 7 Isa 40:22 presents the idea of God ‘stretching out heavens like a curtain, and spreads them out like a tent to dwell in’. 1 2 303 From the corpus of materials in the Qumran texts and other Jewish sources, the Temple veil began to evolve an ideology of its own.1 The Temple (and the veil within it) became a symbol of something beyond itself as early as the Greek translation of Ben Sira (Sir. 50:5).2 The correlation between the inner and the outer veil and the allegorical symbolism of the entrance, gate, and doors were extracted from the OT. These were revealed in many occurrences. Historical Architectural Evolution of the Porch in Georgia Nato Gengiuri gave a historical evaluation of the porch in Georgian churches.3 Gengiuri claims that the Georgian churches’ entrances had a vital status throughout all stages of their development. Accordingly, several types of porches can be found in Georgia. No specific period preference was necessarily correlated with each of the types, though on the other hand, one can see that in each period, one style dominated. Three types of porches are dominant.4 a. Porch – open by arched entrance as part of the ambulatory or the elongated façade. b. Portico/Porch – supported by four pillars, opened by arches on three sides, but when closed by walls, it was referred to as the ‘porch.’ c. Porch – of three-part stoa-porch or porch-chapel.5 Type A. Porch – open by arched entrance as part of the ambulatory or elongated façade. The early period after Christianization is primarily designated by churches’ inclusion of an entrance in an elongated façade.6 This structure can be found in Old Shuamta basilica (fifth c.), Bolnisi Sioni (478-493), Vazisubani church (sixth c.), and Oltisi (sixth-seventh c.), which features a single nave with an annex. The St. George church in Kvemo Bolnisi is known as a ‘three-church basilica’ (first half of sixth c.),7 along with Kondamiani church (sixth c.) and Zegani church (sixth-seventh c.). In the churches Gurtner, The Torn Veil, p. 96. Gurtner, The Torn Veil, p. 74 quotes Sirach, 50:5. “How he was glorified as he spun around the shrine, as he exited from the house of the veil.” 3 Gengiuri, Georgian Churches Porches, pp. 196-200. 4 The distinction between porch and portico is in accordance with the definition of the terms, here note 5. 5 Kaffenberger terms this type of porch as ‘porch-chapel.’ Kaffenberger, Liminal Spaces, p. 118. 6 Gengiuri, Georgian Churches Porches, p. 196. 7 The term ‘three-church basilica’ relates to a ground plan that merged together three types of churches: A longitudinal structure, a Latin cross with dome structure, and a centralized trichonch church. The combination creates a basilica which contains three aisles that are separated by walls between them. Loosley, Architecture and Asceticism, pp. 115-121; Silagadze and Dundua, Three-Church Basilica Type, pp. 7980; Beridze, Alpago-Novello and Lafontaine-Dosogne, Art and Architecture, p. 308. 1 2 304 mentioned above, the entrances are included on the elongated façade and emphasized by an open arcade flank at the entrance, adding a sense of grandeur. The arches served as an architectural element to lend uniqueness to the entrance, which shared a single pitched roof with the annex or ambulatory. Eighth-ninth-century entrances consisted of the same structure, but the churches were mostly domed rather than being a basilica. Nekresi church is an example of this sub-type, and following it are the ninth-century Eredvi (906) village churches and Vardzia (eleventh c.), which were an exception to the rule.1 Eredvi church of St. George. There is an early tenth-century Georgian church in the village of Eredvi in the Shida Kartli region (Fig. 1).2 It was constructed by the architect Tevdore Taplaisdze, who laid the foundation of the church in 906, as relayed in a Georgian inscription on the building. The church was a three-nave basilica, which, despite later reconstructions, largely preserved its original architectural features until 2008. The basilica, of a three-nave design, is not a distinctive design for early medieval Georgian architecture and was defined by the art historian Giorgi Chubinashvili as “three-church” basilicas.3 An ambulatory at St. George church at Eredvi envelopes the church from all four sides, including the eastern façade, a feature unusual for the contemporaneous churches of this type, which usually had an ambulatory running on three sides. The entrance to the church is from the south, and additionally, from the west. Kaffenberger does not distinguish this type as an ambulatory but as a porch-chaple. Kaffenberger, Liminal Spaces, p. 118. 2 During the August 2008 Russian hostilities, the curtain wall of the Eredvi church was partially damaged and on 2017, the largely ruined village Eredvi, deprived of its ethnic Georgian population, was completely demolished. 3 On “three-church” basilica, read here notes 7 (p. 304) and 2 (p. 311). 1 305 Fig. 1. St. George church at Eredvi.*1 Courtesy of Rolf Schrade, in Georgien. Wehrbauten und Kirchen, p. 179, fig. 269 Type B. Porches supported by four pillars, opened by arches on three sides This group can be found throughout all periods of Georgian Christian architecture. The porches in this group consist of four pillars, or two pilasters, and two pillars, creating open arches on three sides of the porch. This type appears on the south façade or south transept’s façade, advancing the structural line of the façade, covered with a single umbrella dome. This type could have appeared as a closed porch advancing the entrance with a vault ceiling. However, we do not have a surviving variant of this type from the early stages of Christianity, only remnants in a ruined condition which do not reveal the whole structural appearance of the porch. The porches are decorated in a rich manner with reliefs and sometimes with wall paintings. The porch size varies from one church to the other, and they appear as a splendid organ of the edifice. Being a relatively small space, one can hardly imagine what function the open porch served besides welcoming the congregants entering the church and as a shelter from harsh weather on their way to entering the house of God. However, it is deceiving to think that such a sophisticated society was not motivated by other ideas, theology, and philosophical perspectives rooted in their culture when they created such an intricate organ for their churches. The study investigates several churches that exemplify this type of porch. * All images were taken by the author unless otherwise is mentioned. 306 Jvari Church Today, the Jvari church (596-604) has no porch, yet one wall still exists, proving that a porch once preceded the south façade (Fig. 2).1 The structure is unclear; yet the remnants today are evidence that the porch had a vault covering, creating a short vestibule leading to the entrance. It can only be hypothesized that the porch was decorated majestically, considering the Cross’s relief in Clypeus borne by two angels in the tympanum seen today. It is possible to hypothesize that the porch was open from south and east, and not closed from all sides, leaning on two pillars, as surviving portion of the structure aluding to open porch. Processions in front of the cross, mentioned in the Georgian Annals, testify to the liturgical function of the façade and its sculptures.2 Fig. 2. Jvari from the East-south Fig. 2a. Jvari Porch. Courtesy of Rolf Schrade, in Georgien. Wehrbauten und Kirchen, p. 137, Fig. 194 1 On Jvari church: Eastmond, Royal Imagery, pp. 15-17; Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 385-391; Tchubinachvili, Monuments architectoniques; Djobadze, Sculpture on Eastern Façade (I), pp. 122-135; Djobadze, Sculpture on Eastern Façade (II), pp. 70-77. 2 The subject is futher disscussed, here on page 319-320. 307 Oshki Church (963) Oshki church represents a unique architectural structure embedded with outstanding decorative elements.1 It has two sub-types of porches on the south façade, rich in ornamental reliefs and messages. The church features two organs that can be seen as an entrance, even though they are dissimilar in their structure or function. The first is located in the church’s southern transept as an entrance (Fig. 3) of the Porch – supported by the four pillars type.2 It is constructed of a tri-arched open space advancing the south transept’s façade. The second is an elongated space along the south façade, acting as a lateral chapel or narthex.3 [I address it here as a narthex, to distinguish it from the church’s main entrance – the porch]. Fig. 4. South Porch’s Hemispheric Umbrella Dome Fig. 3. Oshki’s South Porch For more on Oshki church facades decoration, read in Shneurson, Veil of Sacredness, forthcoming. Kaffenberger terms both as porches. My understanding is that one function as entrance while the other is more like a narthex or elongated lateral chapel that has a different function. 3 Antony Eastmond considers the Oshki south lateral chapel as ‘ambulatories around the naves,’ yet, it is not around the church but a lateral north long chamber and south long chamber, that have no connection with each other. In my opinion, the south should be termed as a narthex or south chapel, which had a unique functionality. Eastmond, Art and Identity, p. 34; On the Jvari church’s porch (in ruin) see drawing of the church ground plan, Beridze, Alpago-Novello and Lafontaine-Dosogne, Art and Architecture, pp. 385-387, pl. 387, 423. 1 2 308 1. The South Transept’s Porch The porch (Fig. 3), advancing the south transept’s arm, functions as the main entrance to the church. It features a long inscription on the entrance tympanum written in red pigment, providing details on how, when, and by whom the edifice was built and to whom it is dedicated. The porch’s structure is square, consisting of one bay with three sides of open arches, a pitched roof hovering above a scalloped hemispheric ‘saucer dome,’ or the ‘umbrella dome.’ The hemispheric umbrella dome consists of three narrow rows of blocks, alternating in their colors, white and red, resulting in wide-armed red and white crosses (Fig. 4). The porch’s structure rests on the two south pillars and the two west pilasters located on the façade, which creates the church’s entrance. The pillars (fig. 5) and pilasters are decorated with vegetal and geometric forms of reliefs. Djobadze’s conclusion drawn from his investigation of the porch is that Georgian artisans sustained the porches and the narthex’s structure and decoration throughout the centuries, particularly in porches with one bay. However, he asserted that there were no direct prototypes for the porch in Oshki, which is novel. Examples from the first half of the eleventh century are Nikortsminda (1010-14), Kumurdo (964), Katzkhi (1010-14), Manglisi (fourth c., and rebuilt in 1014-27), Samtavro (eleventh c.).1 Fig. 6. Oshki’s South Narthex. Fig. 5. Sculpted South Porch’s Pillars Djobadze, Early Medieval Georgian Monasteries, pp. 103-104; Nikortsminda, here p. 49; Katzkhi, here pp. 48-49; and Manglisi, here pp. 44, 46-48. 1 309 The size of the Oshki porch is small. This fact alone limits the possibility of it functioning as anything more than an entrance to the church. On the other hand, its decoration is rich and subtly artistic. The striking element is the umbrella dome with unique red and white crosses on the ceiling (Fig. 4). Such an exceptional architectural organ needs to be re-evaluated in-depth. It should be understood on the basis of theological and philosophical perspectives, discussed further on in the study, and the cult of the cross’s existence in Georgia from the early-stages following Christianization. 2. The South Chapel structure – Narthex What Markus Bogisch referred to as the south open chapel or side chambers, or what Djobadze termed a porch, raised many questions and varied interpretations in Oshki (Fig. 6).1 The richness of various decorative elements testifies to additional functions and dedications of the narthex. In a previous article, I argued that the stylites’ panels on the sculpted pillar and the west façade were crucial and resulted from the stylites’ status in Georgia and the political message the rulers extracted from their popularity and spiritual values.2 The unique liturgy and rites conducted around the pillar of Simeon Stylite the Elder and the Younger could have been one, yet crucial, reason for developing the necessity of the narthex and the open arcade for processions in front of the south façade. Moreover, the possible option of the role of the narthex was to accept new participants to the Christian faith, who were not allowed to enter the church before being baptized. Another possibility is that the narthex’ chambers were devoted to relics of saints, but this is only a hypothetical argument, which at this stage, is derived from a comparison with Iviron cathedral in Athos (hereafter). The open chapel or side chambers (after Djobadze) are barrel-vaulted with an ornamented flat umbrella dome in each of the four narthexes bays.3 Each bay is square and of a similar dimension; they open to the south with arcades and rest on four columns. All of them are decorated with different geometric and vegetal reliefs that feature various carvings, geometric interlaces, plant motifs, and crosses. In Djobadze’s opinion, part of the pattern is reminiscent of Byzantine textile designs.4 Each of the four bays has a flat umbrella dome that is rich in decorative elements such as carved ribs and conoid webs, and it rests on semicircular lunettes and pendentives, transforming the square bays into an octagon with four pendentives. The use of a semi-S relief motif and the tendency to reject natural forms in favor of abstract geometric characteristics 1 2 3 4 Bogisch, Some Remarks, p. 190; Djobadze, Early Medieval Georgian Monasteries, p. 101. Shneurson, An Imperializing Column, pp. 34-38. Djobadze, Early Medieval Georgian Monasteries, p. 102, Plan C. Djobadze, Early Medieval Georgian Monasteries, pp. 103-104. 310 is apparent. Djobadze finds in many of the shapes and forms connections to Syrian churches and primarily to St. Simeon Stylite’s church reliefs in Syria.1 The bays also have a niche on the north wall of the bays (this wall runs west to east, and it is the south wall of the western arm of the church), and the east bay culminates with a deep apse decorated with paintings. An arcade, built parallel to the bays, which runs west to east and is constructed of four columns, ends with small apses to the east. (pl. 1 + Figs. 6,7). The structure that is ‘like’ a second arcade, running parallel to the inner one, enlarges and widens the bays with an additional side aisle and creates a whole unique organ of the south façade. According to Kaffenberger, the open narthex’s structure was derived from the ‘three church basilica, like Kvemo Bolnisi.’2 Fig. 7. Oshki Narthex’ Inner Arcade Djobadze, Early Medieval Georgian Monasteries, p. 103. The term relates to a ground plan that merged together three types of churches: A longitudinal structure, a Latin cross with a dome structure, and a centralized trichonch church. This combination creates a basilica which contains three aisles that are separated by walls between them. Loosley, Architecture and Asceticism, pp. 115–121; Silagadze and Dundua, Three-Church Basilica Type, pp. 79-80; Eastmond, Royal Imagery, p. 228; Beridze, Alpago-Novello and Lafontaine-Dosogne, Art and Architecture, p. 308. 1 2 311 Pl. 1. South narthex with double arcades. After Djobadze, Early Medieval Georgian Monasteries, Plan C., p. 102. Djobadze finds a stylistic connection between the various decorative columns of the south side of the arcade with antique or Early Christian models, such as the Justinianic columns in Diyarbakir, the St. Simeon monastery west to Antioch on the Orontes, and more. Djobadze proposed that Syrian architecture inspired sixth-century Constantinople architecture and influenced Georgian architecture.1 Sassanian architecture could have served as models for the Georgians, as well, due to the eastern trade routes that passed through Georgia. However, Georgia developed and transformed the shapes and forms radically and created its own means of expression.2 1 2 Djobadze, Early Medieval Georgian Monasteries, p. 103. Bogisch, Some Remarks, pp. 188, 191; Shneurson, Veil of Sacredness, forthcoming. 312 Fig. 8. Pillar with Symeon Stylite the Elder The first western column of the open arcade presents a unique decorative system, topped with a panel of Simeon the Stylite the Elder (Fig. 8). It alludes to Syriac influences on Georgian architecture and the popularity of the stylite in Georgia for many centuries.1 The stylite panel’s existence is yet an additional element that is crucial in understanding and interpreting the whole essence of the south façade. Oshki and Iviron Monastery in Athos Iviron Monastery on Mount Athos was dedicated to the Dormition of the Mother of God, and was constructed during the years 980-983. The monastery had a tremendous impact on the further development of theology, philosophy, everyday religious practice, and Georgian monasticism and culture. The prominent figures that lived and acted in Iviron had massive influence on the Orthodox Church of Georgia.2 The Georgian monks in Athos had been one of only a few groups permitted to pray in their own language, were granted their own church name Iviron, and had prominent status within the On the Stylites in Oshki, read in Shneurson, An Imperializing Column, forthcoming. Grdzelidze, Georgian Monks on Mount Athos, p. 11. The translation of the life of John and Euthymios are in chapter 2 of the book, titled “The Life of our Blessed Fathers John and Euthymios, and the Story of their Worthy Citizenship as Described by the Poor Hieromonk George the Hagiorite,” pp. 53-97. 1 2 313 Athos community. John and his son Euthymios, and George, his cousin, were originally from the Tao-Klarjeti region.1 The Oshki church was built around 963, in the same period as the Iviron church. One should bear in mind the characteristic events of the Byzantine literary tradition of Macedonian (876-1056) and Komnenian (1081-1185) periods that impacted the empire and its periphery.2 The connections between Oshki and Iviron are apparent and probably were caused from mutual collaboration and interests. Both, Oshki and Iviron shared the same spiritual ideas that had a tremendous impact on the architecture of the edifices and on the figures acted at that period. However, Iviron provided the theological and spiritual authority. Iviron monastery in Athos was rebuilt on the Monastery of Clement site and was given to the Georgian community in Athos. The first abbot of Iviron was John (980-1005), followed by his son St. Euthymios the Iberian (1005-1019; died in 1028), and the third in the chain was George, Euthymios’s cousin (1019-1029).3 The church’s Grdzelidze, Georgian Monks, p. 13. The Macedonian Renaissance usually refers to a classicist revival that took place mainly during the Macedonian dynasty (867-1056). Macedonian Renaissance indicates the revival of Greek science in Byzantium during the ninth century, following the iconoclastic period. Two scholars were prominent during this revival: John the Grammarian and Leo the Mathematician (Nikolaidēs, Science and Eastern Orthodoxy). After the end of iconoclasm, there was a ‘renaissance’ of science in which a library was created. A renewed interest in Aristotelian logic led to the reading of philosophical texts and natural philosophy and, soon afterward, the revival of art and science and translation of Greek science texts into Arabic. John the Grammarian contributed to this renaissance, as did Leo the Mathematician. Constantine Porphyrogenitus, 913-959, also contributed to the institutionalization of nonreligious education, which allowed it to advance even further (Nikolaidēs, Science and Eastern Orthodoxy, p. 59.). They copied the ancient manuscripts, and in astronomy, they contributed a table of thirty bright stars which dated back to 854. Patriarch Photius (c. 810-893) and Arethas, archbishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia (approximately 860 to 932/944), were among the chief leaders of the radical literary development of the period. The latter played a significant role in the tradition of classical and Christian authors. He copied MSS (and occasionally added scholia himself). At least eight of them have survived; they those that were written by include Euclides, Plato (24 dialogues), Aristotle, Lucian, Aelius Aristides, Christian apologetics, Clemens of Alexandria, Justin, as so forth. Georgian figures relevant to the Macedonian Renaissance are considered by the acts of Maria of Alania and Anna Komnene (Treadgold, The Macedonian Renaissance, pp. 75-98; Wilson, Scholars of Byzantium, pp. 79-147; Garland, Mary ‘of Alania’, Anna Komnene, and the Revival of Aristotelianism in Byzantium, pp. 123-163). Mary of Alania, a native of Georgia, was the center of a circle of literati in Constantinople during the early years of the reign of Alexios I. The court of her first husband, Michael VII Doukas (1050-1090), had seen the revival of interest in philosophy and natural science, with renewed study of both Plato and Aristotle, as well as works composed for the emperor and court on philosophical and scientific topics by scholars such as Psellos, John Italos, and Symeon Seth. Following this interest in natural science, including meteorology, in the 1070s, Maria continued such studies at her own court at the Mangana Palace, where she commissioned works on theology and natural science. She was the tutor to her son Constantine Doukas (1074-1095) and Anna Komnene (1083-1153) was the sister of Constantine Doukas. She gained her interest in intellectual pursuits from Mary, with whom she lived for several years as a girl. Mary’s interests played a part in shaping Anna. However, Anna focused primarily on literature and philosophy rather than theology and natural science. Anna was to play a key role in the revival of Aristotelian scholarship as patron of a circle of scholars working on commentaries. In the history of Byzantium. The Macedonian Renaissance was a period of the blossoming of Byzantine culture, science, and art. It also known as the era of Byzantine encyclopedism since of the attempts to systematically organize and codify knowledge. 3 Stanković, At the Threshold of the Heavens, p. 62; Grdzelidze, Georgian Monks on Mount Athos, p. 11. 1 2 314 original core construction was a cross in a square nave with a three-bayed, two-storied narthex. Around 1005-1028, it was appended with the north chapel, and more changes occurred during that period. A second narthex or exonarthex was added towards the middle of the eleventh century. The exonarthex changed later, around 1513, with the addition of an upper floor – the monastery underwent further changes and additions through the centuries. The phialē (outer structure with baldachino designed mainly for baptism) dates to 1744. Iviron’s narthex is the original architectural form, but its paintings are of a later period, thus reflecting the architecture developed in Tao-Klarjeti. The Iviron’s narthex is divided into three spaces. The central bay is square and covered with a blind dome, while the other two are smaller and covered with double barrel vaults (groin-vault).1 The initial role of the narthex’s two lateral bays was to provide additional access from outside. It was altered to connect the main church utilizing two other doors with the two parekklesia, and later, further modifications were made to these doors. These parts of the narthex served as a burial place for St. Euthymios’ relics and other monastery founders.2 Historical Architectural and Functional Development of the Narthex The narthex was an elongated, rectangular space which served as an entrance vestibule, a liminal zone between the outside world and the inside ‘paradisiacal vision’ of the sanctuary. The narthex hosted liturgical rituals after the ninth century, becoming a functionally diverse space in a Byzantine church. 3 In the Early Christian period, the narthex served as preparation for the First Entrance rite, consisting of a procession of clergy members and lay people from the atrium into the naos and the bema. In the Middle Byzantine period, the patriarch or bishop waited at the First Entrance, seated in the narthex, and from there, he recited the interior prayer.4 Along with the patriarch, the subdeacon was also seated in the narthex.5 Further, the narthex was a place for penitents, menstruating women, and the catechumens, though it was used for a multitude of daily services. From the typikon of monasteGrdzelidze, Georgian Monks on Mount Athos, p. 63. Kaffenberger also suggets that the Oshki’s narthex could have been used for burial but this is a hypothetical assumption. Kaffenberger, Liminal Spaces, p. 130; Stanković, At the Threshold of the Heavens, p. 64 and n. 127. The upper floor of the narthex designated for the Katechoumeneion worshipers, a group which was not allowed to enter the nave before being baptized. The upper floor was added at a later period and thus not relevant to the churches in the Georgian mainland. 3 Marinis, Architecture and Ritual, p. 64. 4 Marinis, Architecture and Ritual, pp. 21, 68-69; Taft, The Pontifical Liturgy, pp. 105-111; Constantine Porphyrogennetos, Book of Ceremonies, pp. 64-65. 5 Taft, Skeuophylakion of Hagia Sophia, I, pp. 1-35 and II, pp. 53-87; Taft, Divine Liturgies, chapters VII, VIII; Taft, History of the Liturgy of the Hours, pp. 130-158. 1 2 315 ries and cathedral practice, one can notice that some of the rituals were performed in the narthex and the exonarthex, mostly following the Mount Athos practice.1 In cases where a service began in the narthex and moved progressively toward the sanctuary, it reflected the ancient processional character of the Byzantine rite, and symbolized the move from the earthly narthex to the heavenly sanctuary. According to the typikon of the Great Church in Athos, the Washing of the Feet on Holy Thursday took place in the narthex. It is interesting that in some katholika such as Hosios Loukas and Nea Moni in Chios, the mosaic of Christ Washing the Feet is found in the narthex. Evidence can be found in other parts of the Byzantine world, such as in Mount Athos and Cyprus, which demonstrates the common practice of this rite.2 The images that appeared in the narthex complemented a series of depictions inspired by the Passion cycle, as in Hosios Lukas.3 It thus created a mimetic relationship between the rite and its prototype. The celebration of the rite was not restricted to the narthex. During the Middle and Late Byzantine periods in Constantinople, the narthex and exonarthex served as burial places, a common practice in Asia Minor, Greece, and the Balkans. An early example of women’s burial can be found in the seventh-century sarcophagus containing the bodies of Constantina, Emperor Maurice’s wife, and their children, placed on the left side of the monastic narthex church of St. Manas. It reflects a burial outside the liturgical center of the church, but is situated within the building.4 There are more examples that attest to this customary practice.5 Marinis claims that the idea of lateral spaces, such as outer aisles, along with porches or chapels, existed in most Middle Byzantine churches of Constantinople.6 The role of such sections is not clear, but they added to the monumentality of a façade while offering shelter for people attending outdoor services and processions.7 Narthex programs had multivalent 1 Marinis, Architecture and Ritual, pp. 69-70. In Constantinopolitan euchologion dated to 1027, the service entitled “Another service and order of the ‘Blessing of the Water’ or ‘Lesser Blessing of the Water’” took place in some churches in the narthex or close to other sections with a basin; this mainly happened in Serbia and Macedonia. Marinis, Architecture and Ritual, pp. 71-72. 3 Marinis, Architecture and Ritual, p. 73. 4 Marinis, Architecture and Ritual, p. 75. Marinis brings the following as example: Nikephoros, founder of the monastery tou Medikiou in Bithynia, was buried in 813 in the church of the Archangel Michael, in the left side of the narthex. 5 See Pseudo Dionysius on the funerary character of the narthex. Galadza, The Evolution of Funerals, pp. 225-226. 6 The use of the porch and chapel gave access to upper-level parts of the church, but all evidence of this has been lost. Marinis, Architecture and Ritual, p. 89 and n. 72. 7 Marinis, Architecture and Ritual, p. 90. 2 316 religious and political messages.1 Both the narthex and the exonarthex were dominated, in their outer decoration, by the same prominent design of the exterior church façades, giving them an integral appearance of the original church.2 Oshki and Iviron: Political and Cultural Ties Four significant manuscripts regarding the foundation of Iviron originated from Oshki, Otkhta Ekklesia, and Khakhuli churches, located in the Tao region.3 The ties between Iviron Cathedral, Tao region, Oshki, and the families of the region, were long-lasting and deep.4 Nevertheless, on the other hand, Iviron played a significant role in Mount Athos’ development during that period. The Georgian manuscripts in Iviron reflect the characteristic events of the Byzantine literary tradition of the Macedonian – Komnenian period, namely the Macedonian Renaissance. This period was characterized by new redactions of manuscripts which generated codices with diverse educational tendencies of the marginalized art-decorative system. “This vital reform of Christian writing and manuscripts tradition has been inherited by the Iviron Monastery from the Tao-Klarjeti scriptoriums.”5 Accordingly, texts, combined with educational trends, were shaped in decorative schemes of manuscripts made in Tao-Klarjeti centers. So too were the preparations for the launch of the Georgian Laura on Mount Athos and Iviron’s library. The manuscripts copied in the Oshki Monastery were made especially for the Georgian Laura Iviron’s library on Athos. From this perspective, it was a straightforward way to turn the Oshki church into an architectonic, decorative jewel of the area and period. The initiator of these changes was John (Iovane) the Iberian, who settled, as a monk, at Athos. The book translation project started before the foundation of Iviron monastery in 975, by Euthymios, John’s son and the second abbot of Iviron. For the task of translating books into the Georgian language and editorial work, Euthymios recruited a group of talented bookmen, transforming Iviron’s library into an outstanding center of Georgian culture, studying, education, and theology. During the abbacy of Euthymios they followed the early Jerusalemite translations. The Macedonian literary reform was completed a bit 1 Marinis, Architecture and Ritual, p. 66, n. 10. The author provides the following readings: Nelson, Chora and the Great Church; Nelson, Taxation with Representation; Nelson, Heavenly Allies; Osterhout, Kariye Camii, p. 22; Osterhout, The Virgin of the Chora. 2 Stanković, At the Threshold of the Heavens, p. 65. 3 The manuscripts are: The Oshki Bible; “The Flower of the Paradise” [“Samotkhe”], The paradise polykephalio; The Life of John Chrysostom; The Treasure/Gandzi in Moscow Synodal Library. Kalandadze, Patrological Collection; Grdzelidze, Georgian Monks on Mount Athos, pp. 28, 32, 34. 4 Grdzelidze, Georgian Monks on Mount Athos, pp. 29-31, 33. 5 Chkhikvadze (et al.), The Georgian Manuscript Book, pp. 188-189. 317 later by George the Hagiorite (1009-1065) and Ephrem Mtsire (1027-1103), who was a Hellenophile, creating a link with the translation of works into Georgian. Both George and Ephrem made interpretations of ancient texts, liturgical calendars, and commentaries with their work’s scientific approach. The literary center’s goal was to provide a convincing answer in their quest for the Georgian Church’s autocephaly.1 To achieve that goal, the Iviron center leaders copied a complete collection of OT texts in the Monastery of Oshki in 978 and transferred the manuscripts to the Iviron collection. The most critical aspect of the Oshki collection was its archaic recension characteristics, including early Byzantine redactions adopted from Tao-Klarjeti, which are of particular interest. The immense work done during the end of the tenth century and throughout the eleventh, at and by the Tao-Klarjeti, and Iviron communities, gave to the world written evidence of knowledge on Byzantium and the Orient, otherwise unknown. More than that, this historical chapter shed light on Georgian society in Tao-Klarjeti and Oshki church’s leading role in it. Examining Oshki church in general, and the outstanding porch and open chapel-narthex in particular, it seems obvious how they reflect this society’s formative transformation during that period, expressed through architecture and art. The manuscripts were commissioned by leading members of the Chordvaneli family, who became the kteteors and benefactors of Iviron. Most of the information that comes from the colophons of these manuscripts’ points to consistency with what Iviron’s Synodikon and other documents contained, published in the Actes d’Iviron.2 The ties between Iviron monastery and dominant families in the Tao region were heightened due to John the Iberian’s will. His legacy demanded that the abbots be chosen from the Chordvaneli family circle, which was the case until 1029.3 Up until then, the Byzantine ruler approved the nomination according to the will. From 1030 onwards, the Byzantine’s involvement grew, and broader considerations navigated the region’s political life. However, the strong ties between Iviron and Tao region still exist.4 The project of translating books to the Georgian language has continued, while the role of cultivating the spiritual and political aspirations of the Georgians has endured.5 Chkhikvadze (et al.), The Georgian Manuscript Book, p. 190. Lefort, Oikonomidès and Papachryssanthou, Actes d’Iviron: I, vol.1, pp. 20, 39; Lefort, Oikonomidès and Papachryssanthou, Actes d’Iviron: II, vol. 1, pp. 2-31. This book provides the translation of the history of Iviron in that period, with the copy of the monks Greek written source. 3 Grdzelidze, Georgian Monks on Mount Athos, p. 34. 4 Grdzelidze, Georgian Monks on Mount Athos, p. 35. 5 Grdzelidze, Georgian Monks on Mount Athos, pp. 37-38. 1 2 318 Symbolism, Rituals, and Functions of the Porch and the Narthex The ground plan of churches was designed theologically and interpreted according to the hierarchy of holiness. The horizontal axis features three divisions which are repeated in various ways. The bema on this axis was considered the most sacred part, and the narthex was the least holy.1 The edifice is divided into three sections, the atrium and/ or narthex, the naos, and the sanctuary. Theologically, Trinitarian signifiers divided the church into three sociological groups, including the clergy, the perfectly faithful, and the repentant. The sociological division of groups may symbolize the divine church as “on earth, on heavens, and those beyond heavens.”2 Accordingly, it means that the narthex is the earth, the naos is the heavens, and the most holy bema is beyond the heavens. According to Ps. Dionysius, the outside world was a dark and misguided area, while the porch was considered the purified site that welcomed worshipers to enter the body of the church. The participants in the nave, while fully engaged or “perfectly faithful,” according to other theologians, were still at the first stage of knowledge.3 Then, there were the monks at the gates of the sanctuary, those who had already reached a higher level, towards the “pure attendance upon God,” the clergy, within the enclosure.4 Ps. Dionysius refers to the three parts of the church, the entrance doors, the nave, and the sanctuary doors with the enclosed area of the altar. He addressed these areas and the hierarchical groups in each one, from the lowest level to the highest of all.5 In accordance with Neoplatonic vocabulary, Ps. Dionysius claimed that the bishop occupies the place of Christ when standing before the altar as the icon of God.6 From that standpoint, God’s sacramental energies streamed into creation by the angelic hierarchy to the lowest level on earth in the church, toward those not yet purified. Golitzin asserts, “Finally, it disperses and disappears from view in the night of ignorance and sin outside the doors.”7 The bishop’s passage through the church is a realization of the activity of Providence that he typifies. The strict division between the darkness outside the church’s porch and the gradually expanded pureness inside the nave follows the Neoplatonic perception of dividing the world into two parts, the earthly world versus the ideal world. The narthex played a significant role in the Divine Liturgy during EH V.1.6 508AB, Pseudo-Dionysius, Complete Works, pp. 237-238. Marinis, Architecture and Ritual, p. 66 and n. 12. Marinis brings Symeon of Thessalonike words. 3 Golitzin, Et introibo, p. 158. 4 Golitzin, Et introibo, p. 159; EH V.1.6 505D-508B, Pseudo-Dionysius, Complete Works, pp. 237-238. 5 EH, V.1.3 373C, Pseudo-Dionysius, Complete Works, p. 196. 6 EH, V.1.3 373C, V.1.5 505B, V.1.7 508C and 509A, Pseudo-Dionysius, Complete Works, pp. 196, 237, 239-240. 7 Golitzin, Et introibo, p. 160. 1 2 319 the first part of the service. It served as a preparations area for the First Entrance rite which included the procession of the clergy and people from the atrium to the naos and the bema during the early period of Christianity. During the Middle Byzantine period the liturgy was very gradually transferred inside the church in Constantinople and urban places with growing populations. The patriarch or bishop waited for the First Entrance seated in the narthex, and some of the minor orders took place in the narthex as well.1 Others that used the narthex were penitents and other categories that did not fully participate in the liturgy inside the church. On the horizontal axis of holiness, the porch welcomes the participants and prepares them for their next step into the house of God. In Oshki’s porch, they hovered under the umbrella roof with the porch’s decorative cross (Fig. 4), creating a distinctive sacred place and initiating the applicants who climbed the ladder of spiritualism toward their journey of exultation inside the nave. The narthex played a vital role on the axis of holiness in Oshki due to the Porch’s small size. It also served the repentant sinners’ needs as an area they were allowed to enter, proving that the narthex was less holy than the rest of the church. In the twelfth century, Dionysius of Alexandria testified that women could stand in the narthex because it is “not the church,” meaning it is not the same as the rest of the church.2 In Oshki, the participants were filled with energy and eagerness of spiritual exultation due to the distinctive structure of the narthex, the unprecedented umbrella roof, the paintings, the reliefs, and the existence of the apses in the narthex structure. Not much is known about the rite conducted in and around the Oshki church. The church’s architectural structure, the porch and narthex, and reliefs on the façades attest to ritual and liturgy being conducted along the west – south façades. The elaborate south façade with the narthex and the south porch not only conjures up memories of beauty and decoration, but also had a participatory role in processions and rites, messages, and declarations of the rulers of the church. Moreover, they manifest the central role in outdoor rites and the probable function during the Holy Week rituals, yet not solely. Written evidence regarding the cross and related rituals can be found in both Juanšer’s chronicle from the ninth century and Sumbat Davit’is-dze’s chronicle from about the eleventh century. The chronicles give a short report on the construction of the Jvari church (c. 597) and the cross’s veneration 3 “Decreed a gathering every Friday. All bishops and priests of that place and re1 2 3 Marinis, Architecture and Ritual, p. 68. Marinis, Architecture and Ritual, p. 67. Rapp, Sumbat Davitʿis-dze, pp. 354, 381; Juanšer, Vaxt'ang Gorgasali, pp. 236-237. 320 gion gathered with the Catholicos in front of the Venerable Cross; they celebrate Friday like Good Friday. There are gatherings in the (church of the) Catholicosate every Thursday, and they celebrate (at) the holy Sion as on Holy Thursday with the mystery of the body and blood of Christ. At Mc’xet’a there is a gathering every Tuesday at the Episcopal (Church).”1 From this brief evidence, it is apparent that outdoor processions were conducted in Jvari since the early stages of construction of the church. The chronicle’s description of the processions is limited, but the model of Jerusalem is prominent. The second element from the above citation points to the Holy Week liturgy around the church and under the cross decorating the porch. Jvari and Oshki churches demonstrate the spread of rituals throughout the country. The first part of this investigation culminates with a discussion of the liturgy during the Middle Byzantine period. It marks the gradual changes that the church underwent in Constantinople and the periphery. In Georgia, the country evidently faced geopolitical changes and development, which brought about dramatic cultural, literary, and theological modifications. The ties of Tao-Klarjeti region with Iviron flourished and, spreading a new approach to the monastic movement. The project of translating books to the Georgian language continued. The next part of the article continues to explore other porches from the eleventh-twelfth centuries. In this way, it reveals the new waves of theology and monasticism across borders that refined the spiritual and political aspirations of the Georgians. The second part of the article will be published in the next issue of the journal 1 Juanšer, Vaxt'ang Gorgasali, p. 236; Rapp, Medieval Georgian Historiography, p. 381. 321 Bibliography Aladashvili, Pamyatniki – Aladashvili N., Pamyatniki drevnego iskusstva, monumentalnaya skulptura Gruzii, figurnie relyefi V-XI vekov [Monuments of Ancient Art of Monumental Georgian Sculpture in Bas-Relief, 5th-11th Centuries], Moscow, 1977 (in Russian, with French résumé). Baldovin, Urban Character – Baldovin J. F., The Urban Character of Christian Worship: The Origins, Development, and Meaning of Stational Liturgy (Orientalia Christiana analecta, no. 228), Rome, 1987. Barkava et al., Chubinashvili – Barkava M., Dolidze E., Gurgenidze N., Beridze V. and Nakashidze T., Georgii Chubinashvili 1895-1973: Bibliografia, Tbilisi, 1976. Beridze, Alpago-Novello and Lafontaine-Dosogne, Art and Architecture – Beridze V., Alpago-Novello A., and Lafontaine-Dosogne J., Art and Architecture in Medieval Georgia, Louvain la Neuve and Milan, 1980. Bogdanović, Rethinking the Dionysius Legacy – Bogdanović J., Rethinking the Dionysius Legacy in Medieval Architecture: East and West, „Dionysius Areopagite between Orthodoxy and Heresy“, ed. by F. Ivanović, Cambridge, 2011. Bogisch, Some Remarks – Bogisch M., Some Remarks on Georgian Art History and the Cross-in-square Church at Oshki in the Historic Province of Tao in North-Eastern Turkey, „Georgian art in the context of European and Asian cultures. Proceedings of Vakhtang Beridze 1st international symposium of Georgian culture, June 21–29, 2008“, ed. by M. Dvalishvili, P. Skinner, D. Tumanišvili, Tbilisi, 2009, pp. 188-195. Chkhikvadze (et al.), Georgian Manuscript Book – Chkhikvadze N., Karanadze M., Kekelia V. and Shatirishvili L., The Georgian Manuscript Book Abroad, Tbilisi, 2018. Constantine Porphyrogennetos, Book of Ceremonies – Constantine Porphyrogennetos, The Book of Ceremonies, ed. and tr. by A. Moffatt and M. Tall, 2 vols. (Byzantina Australiensia, nos. 18.1 and 18.2), Canberra, 2012. Crossley, Ductus and Memoria – Crossley P., Ductus and Memoria: Chartres Cathedral and the Workings of Rhetoric, „Rhetoric beyond Words: Delight and Persuasion in the Arts of the Middle Ages“, ed. by M. Carruthers (Cambridge Studies in Medieval Literature, no. 78), Cambridge, 2010. Djobadze, Early Medieval Georgian Monasteries – Djobadze W., Early Medieval Georgian Monasteries in Historic Tao, Klarjet’i, and Šavšet’i, Stuttgart, 1992. Djobadze, Sculpture on Eastern Façade (I) – Djobadze W., The Sculpture on Eastern Façade of the Holy Cross of Mtzkheta (I), OC, 44, 1960, pp. 122-135. Dolidze and Kochlamazashvili, Old Georgian Translations – Dolidze T. and Kochlamazashvili E. T., Old Georgian Translations of Gregory of Nyssa’s Works, in 322 „Gregory of Nyssa: The Minor Treatises on Trinitarian Theology and Apollinarism. Proceedings of the 11th International Colloquium on Gregory of Nyssa (Tübingen, 17– 20 September 2008)“, ed. by V. H. Drecoll and M. Berghaus, Leiden and Boston, 2011, pp. 577-592. Eastmond, Art and Identity – Eastmond A., Art and Identity in Thirteenth-Century Byzantium: Hagia Sophia and the Empire of Trebizond, London and New York, 2016. Eastmond, Royal Imagery – Eastmond A., Royal Imagery in Medieval Georgia, University Park PA, 1998. Edgecomb, The Georgian Lectionary – Edgecomb, K. P. (tr.), The Georgian Lectionary, „Biblicalia“, 2002, Web address: http://bombaxo.com/the-georgian-lectionary-tarchnischvili/ (accessed 24.02.2022). Galadza, The Evolution of Funerals – Galadza P., The Evolution of Funerals for Monks in the Byzantine Realm: From the Tenth to the Sixteenth Century, OCP, 70, 2004, pp. 225-257. Garland, Mary ‘of Alania’, Anna Komnene, and the Revival of Aristotelianism in Byzantium – Garland L., Mary ‘of Alania’, Anna Komnene, and the Revival of Aristotelianism in Byzantium, BSl, 1-2, pp. 123-163. Gengiuri, Georgian Churches Porches – Gengiuri N., Georgian Churches Porches: Early Christian Period to High Middle Ages, „Georgian art in the context of European and Asian cultures. Proceedings of Vakhtang Beridze 1st international symposium of Georgian culture, June 21–29, 2008“, ed. by M. Dvalishvili, P. Skinner, D. Tumanišvili, Tbilisi, 2009, pp. 196-200. Golitzin, Et introibo – Golitzin A. (hieromonk), Et introibo ad altare Dei: The Mystagogy of Dionysius Areopagita, with Special Reference to its Predecessors in the Eastern Christian Tradition (Analecta Vlatadon, no. 59), Oxford, 1994. Golitzin, Mystagogy – Golitzin A., Mystagogy. A Monastic Reading of Dionysius Areopagita, ed by. B. G. Bucur (Cistercian Studies Series, no. 250), Collegeville MN, 2014. Electronic book: ProQuest Ebook Central, Web address: https://ebookcentral. proquest.com/lib/tau/detail.action?docID=4546386 (accessed 11.10.2021). Grdzelidze, Georgian Monks on Mount Athos – Grdzelidze T., Georgian Monks on Mount Athos. Two Eleventh-Century Lives of the Hegoumenoi of Iviron, London, 2009. Gurtner, The Biblical Veil – Gurtner D. M., The Biblical Veil in the Dead Sea Scrolls, QC, 14, 2006, pp. 57-79. Gurtner, The Torn Veil – Gurtner D. M., The Torn Veil: Matthew’s Exposition of the Death of Jesus (Society for New Testament Studies, no. 139), Cambridge, 2006. 323 Hofius, Vorhang vor dem Thron – Hofius O., Der Vorhang vor dem Thron Gottes: Eine exegetisch-religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zu Hebräer 6,19 f. und 10,19 f., Tübingen, 1972. Irritability, „Merriam-Webster“ – Irritability, „Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary“, Web address: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irritability (accessed 11.10.2021). Juanšer, Vaxt’ang Gorgasali – Juanšer, The History of Vaxt’ang Gorgasali, „Rewriting Caucasian History: The Medieval Armenian Adaptation of the Georgian Chronicles“, tr. by R. W. Thomson, Oxford, 1996, pp. 153-250. Kaffenberger, Liminal Spaces – Kaffenberger Th., Liminal Spaces of Memory, Devotion and Feasting? Porch-capels in Eleventh Century Georgia, in „Georgia as a Bridge between Cultures. Dynamics of Artistic Exchange“, ed. by M. Studer-Karten, N. Chitishvili, Th. Kaffenberger, and K. Doležalová („Convivium supplementum“, 6), Brno, 2021, pp. 117-137. Kalandadze, Patrological Collection – Kalandadze G., Patrological Collection “Samotkhis Quavili” (The Flower of the Paradise), its Sources, Specificity and Origin, „Litinfo“, 10/1, 2017, Web address: https://www.litinfo.ge/vol.10.-iss-1/kalandadze. pdf (accessed 11.10.2021). Lefort, Oikonomidès and Papachryssanthou, Actes d’Iviron: I – Lefort J., Oikonomidès N. and Papachryssanthou D., Actes d‘Iviron: I. Des origines au milieu du XIe siècle, 2 vols. (Archives de l’Athos, no. 14), Paris, 1986. Lefort, Oikonomidès and Papachryssanthou, Actes d’Iviron: II – Lefort J., Oikonomidès N., and Papachryssanthou D., Actes d‘Iviron: II. Du milieu du XIe siècle à 1204, 2 vols. (Archives de l’Athos, no. 16), Paris, 1990. Loosley, Architecture and Asceticism – Loosley Leeming E., Architecture and Asceticism: Cultural Interaction between Syria and Georgia in Late Antiquity (Texts and Studies in Eastern Christianity, no. 13), Leiden and Boston, 2018. Marinis, Architecture and Ritual – Marinis V., Architecture and Ritual in the Churches of Constantinople. Ninth to Fifteenth Centuries, New York, 2014. Nelson, Chora and the Great Church – Nelson R. S., The Chora and the Great Church: Intervisuality in Fourteenth-Century Constantinople, BMGS, 23, 1999, pp. 67-101. Nelson, Heavenly Allies – Nelson R. S., Heavenly Allies at the Chora, „Gesta“, 43, 2004, pp. 31-40. Nelson, Taxation with Representation – Nelson R. S., Taxation with Representation: Visual Narrative and the Political Field of the Kariye Camii, „Art History“, 22, 1999, pp. 56-82. 324 Nikolaidēs, Science and Eastern Orthodoxy – Nikolaidēs E., Science and Eastern Orthodoxy: from the Greek Fathers to the Age of Globalization, Baltimore, 2011. Osterhout, Kariye Camii – Osterhout R., The Architecture of the Kariye Camii in Istanbul, Washington, 1987. Osterhout, The Virgin of the Chora – Osterhout R., The Virgin of the Chora, „The Sacred Image East and West“, ed. by R. Ousterhout and L. Brubaker, Urbana IL, 1995, pp. 91-109. Pseudo-Dionysius, Complete Works – Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, The Complete Works, ed. P. Rorem, trans. C. Luibheid, New York, 1987. Rapp, Medieval Georgian Historiography – Rapp St. H., Jr., Studies in Medieval Georgian Historiography: Early Texts and Eurasian Contexts (Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, Subsidia, no. 113), Louvain, 2003. Rapp, Sumbat Davitʿis-dze – Rapp St. H., Jr., Sumbat Davitʿis-dze and the Vocabulary of Political Authority in the Era of Georgian Unification, JAOS, 120/4, 2000, pp. 570576. Shneurson, An Imperializing Column – Shneurson E., An Imperializing Column – Axis Mundi – Oshki’s Stylite: Reflections of Georgian Politics, „Crossing Boundaries: Oriental Christian Cultures and Ideas in Motion“, ed. by C. Horn (Eastern Mediterranean Texts and Contexts, no. 3), Warwick, forthcoming. Shneurson, Veil of Sacredness (2019) – Shneurson E., A Veil of Sacredness. Architectural Façades Sculpture in Georgia. S’ John the Baptist Church in Oshki, „Le rideau, le voile et le dévoilement du Proche-Orient ancien à L’Occident médiéval“, ed. by L.-J. Bord, V. Debiais and É. Palazzo, Paris, 2019, pp. 313-338. Shneurson, Veil of Sacredness – Shneurson E., Veil of Sacredness: Framing Georgian Church Façades, ed. by C. Horn (Eastern Mediterranean Texts and Contexts, no. 4), Warwick, forthcoming. Silagadze and Dundua, Three-Church Basilica Type – Silagadze N. and Dundua T., Three-Church Basilica Type in Georgia, „Fidelio“, 10/1, 2001, 79-80. Stanković, At the Threshold of the Heavens – Stanković N., At the Threshold of the Heavens: The Narthex and Adjacent Apaces in Middle Byzantine Churches of Mount Athos (10th-11th Centuries) – Architecture, Function, and Meaning, Dissertation, Princeton NJ, 2017. Taft, Divine Liturgies – Taft R. F., Divine Liturgies – Human Problems in Byzantium, Armenia, Syria and Palestine, Aldershot, 2001. Taft, History of the Liturgy of the Hours – Taft R. F., Quaestiones Disputatae in the History of the Liturgy of the Hours: The Origins of Nocturns, Matins, Prime, „Worship“, 58, 1984, pp. 130-158. 325 Taft, Skeuophylakion of Hagia Sophia – Taft R. F., Quaestiones disputatae: The Skeuophylakion of Hagia Sophia and the Entrances of the Liturgy Revisited (I & II), OC, 81, 1997, pp. 1-35 and 82, 1998, pp. 53-87. Taft, The Pontifical Liturgy – Taft R. F., The Pontifical Liturgy of the Great Church According to a Twelfth-Century Diataxis in Codex British Museum Add. 34060. II: Commentary, OCP, 46, 1980, pp. 89-124. Takaishvili, Arkheologicheskaya ekspeditsiya – Takaishvili E. S., Arkheologicheskaya ekspeditsiya 1917-go goda v iuzhnye provintsii Gruzii [Archaeological Expedition of 1917 to the Southern Provinces of Georgia], Tbilisi, 1952 (in Russian). Tarchnishvili, Le grand lectionnaire – Tarchnishvili M., ed., Le grand lectionnaire de l’Eglise de Jerusalem (Corpus scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, nos. 188-189, Scriptores Iberici, nos. 9-10), Louvain, 1959-1960. Tchubinachvili, Monuments architectoniques – Tchubinachvili G., Monuments architectoniques du type de Djvari, Tbilisi, 1948. Toumanoff, Studies – Toumanoff C., Studies in Christian Caucasian History, Georgetown, 1963. Treadgold, The Macedonian Renaissance – Treadgold W., The Macedonian Renaissance, in: W. Treadgold (ed.), “Rennaissance Before the Renaissance: Cultural Revivals of Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages”, Stanford, 1984, pp. 75-98. Wilson, Scholars of Byzantium – Wilson N. G., Scholars of Byzantium, London, 1996. ilustraciebis sia:* sur. 1. eredvis wm. giorgis eklesia. rolf Srades nebarTviT wignidan: Georgien. Wehrbauten und Kirchen, gv. 179, sur. 269. sur. 2. wm. jvris eklesia. xedi samxreT-aRmosavleTidan. sur. 2a. wm. jvris eklesiis karibWe. rolf Srades nebarTviT wignidan: Georgien. Wehrbauten und Kirchen, gv. 137, sur. 194. sur. 3. oSkis eklesiis samxreTi galerea. sur. 4. oSkis eklesiis samxreTi galereis naxevarsferuli gumbaTi. sur. 5. oSkis eklesiis samxreT galereis ornamentirebuli svetebi. sur. 6. oSkis eklesiis samxreTi galerea. sur. 7. oSkis eklesiis galereis Sida TaRedi. sur. 8. sveti svimeon mesvete ufrosis gamosaxulebiT. * miTiTebulis garda, yvela foto gadaRebulia avtoris mier 326 publikacia _ PUBLICATION zaza sxirtlaZe, julia beniZe ucnobi masalebi garejis mravalmTis wm. ioane naTlismcemlis monastrisa da misi siZveleebis Sesaxeb polievqtos karbelaSvilis pirad arqivSi dekanoz polievqtos karbelaSvilis (1855-1936) pirad arqivSi, romelic saqarTvelos saistorio centralur arqivSia daculi, swavluli sasuliero piris mravalmxrivi moRvaweobis amsaxvel masalebs Soris moipoveba garejis mravalmTis monastrebisa da siZveleTa aRwerilobebi.1 am masalebis mixedviT, 1885 wlis miwuruls Tbilisis qalTa saeparqio saswavleblis RmrTismSoblis taZrad miyvanebis eklesiidan sagarejos wm. svimeon mesvetis eklesiaSi gadayvanili dekanozi polievqtosi garejis udabnos pirvelad oriode Tvis Semdeg, momdevno wlis 4 Tebervals ewvia mizniT – aRenusxa mravalmTis samonastro gaerTianebis imxanad moqmedi kerebis wignTsacavebSi daculi xelnawerebi da Seedgina katalogi. pirvelad es katalogi gazeT „iveriis“ 1886 wlis 24 ivlisis 159-e nomerSi gamoqveynda.2 sakmaod vrceli, as aTi xelnaweris aRwerilobis momcveli, nusxa wm. daviTis lavris mdidari wignTsacavis mxolod nawils moicavda. dekanozi polievqtosi aRniSnavda, rom drois uqonlobis gamo ver moaxerxa im nabeWdi wignebis aRwera, romelTa ricxvic orjer aRemateboda xelnaweri wignebisas. mis mier Sedgenili mokle aRwerilobebi moicavs informacias xelnaweri wignebis raobis, zomis, masalis, gverdebis raodenobis, damwerlobisa da TariRis Sesaxeb (cxadia, Tuki aseTi monacemebi SemorCenili iyo). 1 dekanoz polievqtos karbelaSvilis moRvaweobisa da saqarTvelos siZveleebis aRnusxva-kvlevasTan dakavSirebuli misi naSromebis Sesaxeb ix.: togoniZe, maCuriSvili, dekanozi polievqtos karbelaSvili, gv. 17-18; karbelaSvili, macxovris taZris winamZRvari polievqtos karbelaSvili, gv. 26-27; togoniZe, Zmebi karbelaSvilebi. 2 karbelaSvili, katalogi daviT garesjis udabnos Zvelis xelTnaweris wignebisa, Sedgenili 4 Tebervals 1886-s w., gv. 3-4. 327 sur. 1. dekanoz polievqtos karbelaSvilis ubis wignaki. garejSi mogzaurobis aRwera, saqarTvelos erovnuli arqivi, fondi 1461, saqme #48 sur. 2. dekanoz polievqtos karbelaSvilis narkvevi garejSi mogzaurobis Sesaxeb, saqarTvelos erovnuli arqivi, fondi 1461, saqme #59 328 katalogSi warmodgenil xelnawerTagan ocdaori etratze yofila naweri, danarCeni – qaRaldze. garda Sinaarsobrivi Tu mxatvruli Rirebulebebisa, umetesi maTganis furclebze Sesrulebuli yofila mravali mniSvnelovani anderZ-minaweri, romelTagan dekanoz polievqtoss mxolod nawilis gadmowera mouxerxebia. es masalebi imave gazeTis furclebze mogvianebiT, 1889 wlidan, drodadro qveyndeboda.1 aRsaniSnavia, rom katalogSi №1-iT Sesuli moxatuli saxareba, daTariRebuli 1070 wliT, aris samxreT saqarTveloSi gadawerili wyarosTavis pirveli oTxTavi (saqarTvelos xelnawerTa erovnuli centri, xeln. A-98),2 romlis erT-erTi adreuli aRweriloba swored polievqtos karbelaSvils ekuTvnis. wm. svimeon mesvetis eklesiaSi samTviani msaxurebis Semdeg dekanozi polievqtosi gurjaanis wm. ioane naTlismcemlis eklesiaSi ganamweses. swored gurjaanSi moRvaweobis periodSi miubrunda igi ramdenjerme garejis monastrebs da mis siZveleebs. 1893 wels, polievqtos karbelaSvili dainteresda garejis mravalmTis wm. daviTis lavraSi daculi sigel-gujrebiT. naTeli iyo, rom garejSi daculi mdidari masalis Seswavla ara mxolod Seavsebda qveynis istoriis calkeul monakveTebs da did samsaxurs gauwevda istorikosebs, aramed saSualebas miscemda mkiTxvels, Seecno is mniSvneloba, rac garejis udabnos saukuneebis ganmavlobaSi hqonda qarTvelTa cxovrebaSi. monasterTa samoweseo ganwesebis, iseve rogorc mefeebis, mRvdelmTavrebisa Tu sxva pirTa mier mravalmTis sasuliero kerebze zrunvis amsaxvel saistorio dokumentebs polievqtos karbelaSvilma daurTo SeniSvnebi; manve paraleluri masalis moxmobiTa da gaTvaliswinebiT Seadgina garejis udabnos winamZRvarTa sia da yovelive es imave wels gazeT „iveriis“ ToTxmet nomerSi gamoaqveyna.3 wm. daviT garejelis xsenebis dResaswaulze, 1895 wels, mRvdeli polievqtosi kidev erTxel ewvia garejs. imave wels gamoqveynebul sagazeTo werilebSi igi aRwers wm. daviTis saflavis Tayvansacemad misul mlocvelTa msvlelobas mravalmTis wm. daviTis lavrisken.4 karbelaSvili, saistorio da sabibliografio minawerebi daviT garesjis udabnos tyavzed naweris xel-nawerebisa, `iveria~, 1889, №26, gv. 2-3; №28, gv. 3; №30, gv. 3; №32, gv. 2-3. 2 qarTul xelnawerTa aRweriloba, A koleqcia, I1, gv. 448-449. 3 cxviloeli, daviT garesjis udabnos gujrebi. 4 cxviloeli, daviT garesjis udabnoSi. 1 329 am masalebis garda, polievqtos karbelaSvilis savele ubis wignakebSi daculia mis mier garejis ramdenime monasterSi gadmoRebuli lapidaruli warwerebi, eklesia-samlocveloTa mokle aRwerilobebi da monacemebi iq daculi siZveleebis (maT Soris – siwmindeebis) Sesaxeb. gurjaanis wm. ioane naTlismcemlis eklesiaSi polievqtos karbelaSvili kidev sami weli agrZelebda msaxurebas. 1898 wlis 14 ivliss igi iniSneba Tbilisis anCisxatis eklesiis winamZRvrad. aqedan moyolebuli mis publikaciebSi aRar Cans masalebi garejis mravalmTis monastrebisa da siZveleebis Sesaxeb. polievqtos karbelaSvilis pirad arqivze muSaobis procesSi, saqarTvelos sxvadasxva kuTxeSi misi mogzaurobis amsaxveli masalebis dajgufebisas, gamovyaviT garejis mravalmTis samonastro gaerTianebis Sesaxeb arsebuli is Canawerebi, romlebic Tavis droze Jurnal-gazeTebis furclebze ar moxvedrila. aseTi masalebi dekanoz polievqtosis piradi fondis (№1461) or saqmeSia daculi. esenia: sur. 3. wm. ioane naTlismcemlis monastris saerTo xedi samxreTaRmosavleTidan, T. qiunes foto, 1913 w. 330 sur. 4. wm. ioane naTlismcemlis monastris samreklo. d. ermakovis foto, 1880-iani wlebi 331 saqme N48 (ubis wignakebi sxvadasxva xasiaTis istoriuli CanawerebiT, qarTul da rusul enebze, avtografi, uTariRo) – Sesulia warwerebis (maT Soris – epitafiebis) gadmonawerebi, moxatulobaTa aRwerebi, Canaxatebi, agreTve saarqivo (umTavresad saqarTvelo-imereTis sinodis kantoris) dokumentebidan amowerili informacia garejis samonastro cxovrebis Sesaxeb (sur. 1). am masalis umetesi nawili uTariRoa, Tumca erTsa da imave periodSi Cawerili masalebis garCeva mainc SesaZlebelia. aRsaniSnavia, rom isini erTmaneTs Tanmimdevrulad ar mihyveba – moTavsebulia sxvadasxva furcelze, romelTa Soris CarTulia sxva masalebic. sur. 5. wm. ioane naTlismcemlis monastris ezos centraluri nawili, xedi aRmosavleTidan T. qiunes foto, 1913 w. saqme N59 („mraval mTis udabnoebSi“, avtografi, uTariRo) – mTlianad garejis samonastro gaerTianebas eTmoba. avtori vrclad aRwers momlocvelebTan erTad mis mogzaurobas martyofidan mravalmTis udabnomde, saxeldobr wm. ioane naTlismcemlis monastramde. 332 sur. 6. wm. ioane naTlismcemlis monastris ezos centraluri nawili, xedi aRmosavleTidan, T. qiunes foto, 1913 w. detali am mgzavrobis dros mas aRuweria monastris samlocveloebi, moxatulobebi, aRunusxavs lapidaruli da freskuli warwerebis nawili, imJamad iq daculi saeklesio siwmindeebi maTze arsebuli warwerebiT. Canawerebs erTvis mravalmTis wm. ioane naTlismcemlis monastris winamZRvarTa nusxa 1639 wlidan 1840-ian wlebamde (sur. 2). rogorc zemoT aRiniSna, qveynis sxvadasxva kuTxeSi polievqtos karbelaSvilis mogzaurobebTan da mis mier siZveleebis aRnusxva-SeswavlasTan dakavSirebuli saarqivo masalebis umetesoba uTariRoa. es exeba garejis mravalmTis samonastro gaerTianebis Sesaxeb arsebul Canawerebsac. gamonaklisia mxolod saqme N48, sadac miTiTebulia Canawerebis Sesrulebis dro – 1914 wlis 23-24 ivnisi. amasTan dakavSirebiT sagulisxmoa is garemoeba, rom saqme N59-Si gaerTianebuli masalebis mixedviT momlocvelTa jgufma mRvdel polievqtosis monawileobiT garejisken msvleloba daiwyo martyofidan; Sesabamisad savaraudoa, rom polievqtos karbelaSvili garejs kidev erTxel unda 333 sur. 7. wm. ioane naTlismcemlis monasteri. stela wm. evstaTe plakidas nadirobis gamosaxulebiT swveoda maSin, roca igi martyofis macxovris xelTuqmneli xatis eklesiis winamZRvari iyo, saxeldobr, 19081918 wlebSi. orive saqmeSi fanqriT da Savi feris melniT naweri teqsti zog SemTxvevaSi gadaxazulia; adgil-adgil Camatebulia abzacebi da sqolioebi. es imaze metyvelebs, rom avtori mis mier Tavmoyril masalebs gamosacemad amzadebda. Cans, rom garejSi mogzaurobis periodSi mas Tan hqonda is ubis wignaki, romelic saqme N48-Sia daculi, xolo Semdgom, masalebis gamosacemad momzadebisas, savele Canawerebi gadauweria calke furclebze, romlebic Sesulia saqme N59-Si. am mxriv isicaa niSneuli, rom saqme N59-Si teqsts aqvs saTauric – „mraval mTis udabnoebSi“. martyofidan garejamde, saxeldobr wm. ioane naTlismcemlis monastramde mogzaurobis aRwera Tavisi qargiT garkveulwilad Tanagvaria im narkvevisa, romelic 1895 wels garejisken msvlelobas da mravalmTis wm. daviTis lavraSi aRsrulebul msaxurebasa da gamarTul dResaswauls aRwers.1 amasTanave, es narkvevi winaze bevrad ufro datvirTulia radgan masSi moipoveba mokle miTiTebebi sasuliero keris (am SemTxvevaSi wm. ioane naTlismcemlis monastris) siZveleebis – eklesia-samlocveloebisa da senakebis, moxatulobebis, jvar-xatebis, saRmrTismsaxuro Tu sameurneo WurWlis Taobaze, warwerebiTurT (sur. 3). narkvevi cocxlad da emociurad gadmoscems jgufis msvlelobas mravalmTis samonastro gaerTianebis erT-erTi uZvelesi da udidesi 1 cxviloeli, daviT garesjis udabnoSi, 1895. 334 kerisken: mgzavrobis aRweraSi, bunebis mxatvrul da emociurad datvirTul daxasiaTebasTan erTad CarTulia adgilobrivi toponimebi (maTi nawili dRes dakargulia); calkeul adgilebTan dakavSirebiT avtori msjelobs maT imJamindel sameurneo-socialur mdgomareobaze, agreTve maTTan dakavSirebul warsul movlenebze. pirvelwyaros mniSvnelobas iZens avtoris mier aRnusxuli monacemebi. aseTTa rigisaa kompleqsis karibWis rkinis karis warwera, cnobebi sawinamZRvro palatze da mis aRmSeneblebze (savaraudod, aRmdgen-ganmaaxleblebze) – bodbel mitropolit ioanesa1 da wm. daviTis lavris winamZRvar arqimandrit ioaneze (sur. 4-6);2 avtoris yuradReba miuqcevia monastris koSks,3 mTavari eklesiis SesasvlelSi arsebul stelas wm. evstaTes nadirobis amsaxveli reliefiT (sur. 7);4 gansakuTrebiT sagulisxmoa mokle miTiTebebi monastris mTavari eklesiisa da misi mxatvrobidan darCenili fragmentebis Sesaxeb – saqarTvelos samefo karis warmomadgenelTa saxeebis gamaerTianebel im vrcel saqtitoro rigSi, romelic taZris CrdiloeT da dasavleT kedlebzea warmodgenili, dasaxelebulia daviT IV aRmaSenebeli (1089-1125), demetre I (11251156), giorgi III (1156-1184), Tamari (1184-1210) (sur. 8).5 aRweridan cnobodbeli mitropoliti ioane mayaSvili (1743-1837) – XVIII saukunis meore naxevrisa da XIX saukunis pirveli mesamedis cnobili saeklesio moRvawe. 1770-ian wlebSi igi garejis mravalmTis wm. ioane naTlismcemlis monasterSi mTavardiakvnad msaxurebda. garejSi ioane bodbelis saqtitoro moRvaweobasTanaa dakavSirebuli 1817 wels agebuli saTavdacvo koSki (Чубинашвили, Пещерные монастыри Давид Гареджи, gv. 115-116, tab. 31, 32); kompleqsis dasavleT nawilSi arsebuli misi senaki gamoirCeva xuroTmoZRvruli gadawyvetiTa da mxatvruli gaformebiT (Чубинашвили, Пещерные монастыри Давид Гареджи, gv. 114-115, tab. 29, 36/4; bulia, TumaniSvili, daviT garejis monastrebi. naTlismcemeli, berTubani, gv. 22, sur. gv. 17-ze, 84-ze da 85-ze). 2 arqimandriti ioane jorjaZe, eniselT mouravis, givis Ze – wm. daviTis lavris winamZRvari 1736-1763 wlebSi; imavdroulad, 1740-1751 wlebSi iyo nekreseli, xolo Semdgom, 1751-1763 wlebSi – bodbeli episkoposi. ix. lominaZe, qarTuli feodaluri urTierTobis istoriidan, gv. 150-151. 3 ix. zemoT, Sen. 8. 4 stela gadmotanil iqna saqarTvelos saxelmwifo muzeumSi; amJamad inaxeba muzeumis qvis fondSi. Чубинашвили, Хандиси, gv. 90-93; qarTuli warwerebis korpusi, lapidaruli warwerebi, I, gv. 114-115, sur. 41, tab. 26. 5 am samefo saqtitoro rigis Sesaxeb ix.: Алибегашвили, Светский портрет в грузинской средневековой монуметнальной живописи, gv. 40-41; sxirtlaZe, samefo ktitoruli portreti garejis naTlismcemlis monasterSi, gv. 96-110; sxirtlaZe, kvlav naTlismcemlis saktitoro gamosaxulebebis Sesaxeb, gv. 108-113; Вольская, Росписи Пещерных монастырей Давид-Гареджи, gv. 145-146; Skhirtladze, Les portraits de l'église principale du monastère Natlismtsemeli a Garedja, gv. 5-14; Eastmond, Royal Imagery in Medieval Georgia, gv. 124141, sur. 60-64; bulia, istoriul pirTa gamosaxulebebi `naTlismcemlis~ monastris sakrebulo taZarSi, gv. 168-202. 1 335 bili xdeba, rom mTavari eklesiis garda kankeli hqonia samkveTlos sakurTxevelsac – qvisa, moxatuli. winamdebare publikaciaSi ibeWdeba dekanoz polievqtos karbelaSvilis mier gamosaqveyneblad momzadebuli teqsti (saqme N59). mas boloSi erTvis mravalmTis udabnoSi mogzaurobisas mis mier gakeTebuli, dRemde gamouqveynebeli mokle Canawerebi (saqme N48), romlebic publikaciisTvis gamiznul teqstSi ar yofila Setanili. dekanozi polievqtos karbelaSvili mraval mTis udabnoebSi Cven, qarTvelebs, sazogadoT erTi didi satkivari dagvCemda am asiode wlis Semdeg: Cveni qveynis warsuli, av-kargi, adgil-mdebareoba da sxva ar viciT; am mxriv sxva erebis warsuli da maTi qveynebis geografia ukeT viciT. mag., vin icis qarTl-kaxeTSi, yaraiazed mdebare Zveli udabnoebi – daviT garejisa da naTlis mcemlisa, ra auarebels da fasdaudebel saunjeebs warmoadgenen qarTveli eris kulturisa? Cvenis TiTqo saeroT gadaqceuli daudevrobiT gveRupeba diadi mamapapaTagan naanderZevi samkvidrebeli da samagieros ras vakeTebT? arafers. yvelafers rom Tavi davaneboT, marto dRevandeli daviT garesjis udabno Tavis TerTmeti ganyofilebiT mTel saqarTvelos warsul didebasa da SemZleobas Tval win gviyenebs, Zveli saqarTvelo aq isev cocxalia da sxivmosili. es udabno cxoveli xatebaa ierusalimis sabas lavris da sxva monastrebisa. dRes me am udabnos gaveraneba ki ar matirebs, me mawuxebs Cveni Zlieri, frTebSesxmuli daudevroba, romelmac lamis aris sruliaT amorecxos qarTvelebis gulidgan siyvaruli samSoblos warsuli didebisa da imdroindeli naanderZevis saganZurisa... daviT garejis udabno xom wmidaTa-wmidaa qarTvelis erisa, magram mnaxveli ara hyavs dRes, Tavs aravin icxelebs, rom movidnen da Tavis TvaliT ixilon Zveli saqarTvelo da misi kultura, ixilon es WeSmariti „savane gmirTa“ da maTi namoqmedari!... esreTi mware fiqrebiT am erTis Tvis winaT movelaparake Cems oriode megobrebs da Cemi Tqma unayofoT ar daSTa: 23 ama ivniss s. 336 martyofSi Seikribnen dilis eqvs saaTzed mR. p. karbelaSvilTan: mR. ioane TuSmaliSvili, petre nikolozis Ze WilaSvili, trifon merabis Ze panjaviZe, giorgi karbelaSvili, grigol navrozaSvili, giorgi ebitaSvili, simon WilaSvili, petre WilaSvili, lado CitrekaSvili, aleqsi maTiaSvili, ivane baneTiSvili, andria nikoliSvili, mixeil axalkaciSvili, samfson keJeraSvili, iason WilaSvili. es Teqvsmeti cxenosanni gavemgzavreniT martyofidgan Cven mamapapaTa sisxliT morwyul vel-mindvrebisaken. piroba davdeT gza-gza mogvegonebina, sadac ra ambavi moxda uwin, metadre erekle mefis dros. [gaviareT] „ulevari“, sacxenisis xevi, gadavediT Wiaferas ferdobzed da lekis Reles bolozed.(1) CaviareT vazianzed.(2) aq uSno bRuiliT mZimeT migogavda kaxeTis gzis orTqlmavali xuTi sabargo vagoniT. unda mogaxsenoT, rom qalaqidgan sarTis Walamde 36 verstia da am manZilzed uxerxulaT gayvanils Sara gzas gaayoles rkinis gzac. metaT samwuxaroa, rom martyofs – norios, axalsofels – sacxeniss – nasomxars – muRanlos – ujarmas – xaSms amodena soflebs ase auqcies es gza da usargebloT gaxades maTTvis... vazianidgan gavemarTeniT qacnianisaken da „mayvlis wyarozed“ SevnayrdiT. iqneboda aTi saaTi, rom did qacnianis wylidgan kaxabrianT gorebSi gavediT. am manZilzed metaT sacodav suraT[s] warmogvidgenda mindori: naxnav-naTesi Zalian mcire mosavals ubrunebs patronebs, arsad balaxi aramcTu gasaTibi, aramed saZovaric ki, xangrZlivis gvalvebisa gamo. CavuareT marjvniv qva-kacs, mijnaa martyofisa, sarTiWalisa da demurCisalisa. erTi saaTis Semdeg gadavediT axaSnis xevis wyalzed. aq cota xans SevasveneT cxenebi, radgan metaT oRro-CoRro savleli gvqonda: xan daveSvebodiT daqanebul ferdobzed, xan avemarTebodiT. gavswieT maRlob vakezed, saidganac marjvniv ase Teqvsmetiod verstis manZilzed miizlazneboda Cveni sayvareli mtkvari. gaRmidam garkveviT moCanda iaRluja,(3) soRaluRi, imis qveviT yazaxi, xolo marcxniv – mTagoriani da balaxovani suhyuliani.(4) aqedgan cota odnaT samxreT-aRmosavleTisaken vqeniT piri, raki mravalmTis ori umaRlesi kldovani qedebi davinaxeT. adgil-mdebareoba ufro vakdeboda Tan da Tan da bolos gavediT uSvelebels yaraiis udabur mindorzed, madlianis wvimebisagan mSvenieri balaxiT Semosiliyo. visac guli erCoda, afrines cxenebi da diad suraTs warmoadgenda Teqvsmeti cxenosanis xmauroba, sicil-yiJini, cxenTa frutun-Wixvini: sad kurdReli wamoxta, sad mela; gvelxokera da gveli erTi vai-vagla- 337 xiT mieSurebodnen aqeT-iqiT dasamalaT, frinvelis xseneba arsad iyo. bolos, ase SuadRis ukan, or saaTzed kargaT gavarCieT sayaraulo koSki naTlismcemlis udabnosi da TviT samonastro Senobani, mercxlis budeebisaviT kldeebzed mikrulni; yvelam movixadeT qudi, gamovisaxeT sasoebiT pirjvari da simRera-galobiT mwyobraT gavemarTeT danarCen gzasa. ase miuaxlovdiT monastersa, saidganac gamoifina karga blomaT xalxi. CamovxdiT cxenebidgan da SevediT mSvenier oTxkuTx koSk qveS Semaval rkinagadakrul karis bWeSi.(5) sufTa ezoSi griloda: Crdilovani uzarmazari xarTuTa da sx. xexili amSveneben kldovan monastersa. marcxniv kldeSi gamokveTil eklesiaSi Sedis karebi, mis dasavleTiT – satrapezo palatSi. ezo sworea da ramdenime micvalebulis saflavis qvebia aqa-iq. TviT ezo xelovnuria, rogorc mTeli monasteric. TiTqmis rva saJenis simaRle godol-zRudea amotanili dabla kldeebzed da mere moziduli miwiT gavakebuli. aRmosavleTiT karia gareT gamavali. trapezsa da karis bWis Sua dakibuli biliki adis maRla, ufro grZels da farTo ezoSi. aqedgan patara viwro kibeebiT adian maRla kldeSi gamokveTil ber-monazonTa sadgom oTaxebSi. marjvniv ki asavalia vrcel sawinamZRvro saxlSi, romelic ostaturaT gadmodgmulia zed saydarzed avdrisa da wvimis niaRvrebisagan dasafaravaT. sawinamZRvro saxls kidev zed gadmodgmuli aqvs dafarebuli aivani oTaxebiT, ioane bodbelisa (mayaSvilis) da biZina arximandritisa (jorjaZis) Sromilni. aqedgan diadi gadasaxedavia samxreTis mxriv, yaraiis mindori, mtkvari, iaRlujis mTa, borCalo, soRaluRi, Tbilisi da mTawmidis mama daviTis saydari mSvenivraT ixilvebian; Rame ganaTebuli Tbilisi xom sasiamovno sayurebelia. maRla kldis mwvervalzed dasavleTisaken mamacuraT amarTulia mSvenieri mrgvali sayaraulo cixe, simaRliT rva saJeni, Siga da Sig momwvano qaSanuris aguris salteebiT Semovlebuli ise, rogorc bodbis wm. ninos taZris dasavleTis mxare. dabla ezodgan am cixeSi dakibuli gvirabi adis; ramdenime Cveni mgzavrni avidnen da maRla cixidgan, dastkbnen oTxivmxriv dids manZilzed sanaxaobiTa.(6) Cven gaveSureniT taZris sanaxavaT. ezodgan SevediT kldeSi gamokveTil ekvderSi.(7) aqedgan marjvniv kibiT axvalT wm. dimitris patara saydarSi. aq marjvniv ori ucnobi winamZRvris saflavi etyoba (iqneb mRvdelTmTavrebisaa?). am ekvderis Zveli moxatulobidgan cotaRaa darComili. didis saydris karebis Tavzed macxovaria da marjvniv 338 kacis simaRlezed eqvsi wm. mociqulni, danarCeni eqvsi meore mxares iqneboda winaT, magram exla TeTraT galesilia mTeli ekvderiviT. SevediT taZarSi. aq erTi mixed-moxedva gaCvenebT qristianobis pirvel saukunis naSTs mTlaT kldeSi gamokveTils, sigrZiT ase Tvramets arSins, siganiT rva. taZari mTlaT moxatulia, zogi feradi wamlebi cota gaxunebula, magram metaT mSvenieri sanaxavia: sakurTxevlis TaRSi macxovaria gamoxatuli – garsSemo maRla winaswarmetyvelebiT, Semdeg mociqulebiT, dabla mRvdelTmTavrebiT. maRla TaRzed meoreT mosvlaa daxatuli; dasavleT kedelzed mxatvroba gadasulia, magram Crdilo-dasavleT mxares dabla kargaT etyoba saqarTvelos mefeni – wm. daviT aRmaSenebeli, dimitri, giorgi III da Tamar mefe. ama taZris saukeTeso samkauls Seadgens mxatvrobis Semdeg saucxovo kankeli SabaqaT nakeTebi alabastrisagan, didis xelovnebiT gakeTebuli. oTxi rigi xatebi tilozedaa daxatuli da mere dakruli Tav-Tavis adgilas. am oTx rigSi dabla xatebia friad saintereso, igini warmoadgenen ioane naTlismcemlis ilustracias, rac ki saxarebaSia naTqvami: midgoma zaqariasi da elisabedisi (marcxena xeli-xelT uWiravT CamorTmeuli), dadumeba zaqariasi, elisabedis mier mokiTxva mariamisa, Soba naTlismcemlisa, nadimi irodisa da sx. Semavali karis pirdapir CrdiloeTisaken aris gamokveTili vrceli salaro, amis aRmosavleTiT vrcelive samkveTlo mSvenieri qvis kankeliT, mTlaT moxatuli. am samkveTlodgan aris mxoloT sakurTxevelSi Sesavali, radgan marto aRsavlis karia kankelSi datanebuli. es amodena naSromi Cveni Zveli ber-monazonebisa saxea ierusalimis sabas lavris saydrisa, romlis damaarsebeli wm. saba kabadukieli qarTveli iyo da pirvelidganve qarTveli ber-monazonebi aq mravalni moRvaweobdnen. esreTi msgavseba SeniSna rusis cnobilma mogzaurma a. n. muravievma 1846 w. naTlis mcemlis udabnoSi bevri aRara moipoveba Zveli droჲs Sewirul nivTTagan. uZvelesi xati naTlismcemlisaa, gaxizvnis dros dakarguli da gomborzed napovni meTvramete saukuneSi.(8) danarCeni nivTni Semowirul arian XVIII saukuneSi da Semdegac. trapezis jvarni(9) bevria; barZim feSxumi ramdenimea(10) da yovelive saxmari iaraRi mravalia. aqvea warweriani xatebi – macxovrisa da RmrTis mSoblisa.(11) mraval vercxleulSi Cven vnaxeT warweriT – ori sazedaSe Careqa, aTi Tasi, erTi kandeli, erTi sirCa-barZimi.(12) 339 daviareT, davaTvaliereT sasoebiani guldadebiT ber monazonTa sadgomni. erTgan vnaxeT moskovSi dabeWdili 1744 w. ioan damaskelis wigni anton kaTalikozisagan Sewiruli.(13) vnaxeT meore gamokveTili oTaxic da gawyobili mRvdelmonazonis rafiel buniaTovis mier.(14) aq TvalsaCinoa ioane bodbelis naSromi senakebi da karis wm. dimitris mSvenieri saydari. yoveli ese dauxuravs muxis koWiT da WeriT ioane (biZina) arximandrits, jorjaZes. am ramdenime wlis winaT yovelive ese rkiniT gadauxuravs pativcemuls arximandrits, cnobils ambrosis (xelaia) da am Zvirfasi wminda binadrobisaTvis Tavidgan aucilebia wvimis niaRvrebisagan dangreva da Semusvra. daukargvelobisaTvis aqve daurTav ama naTlismcemlis udabnos winamZRvarTa sias: m a r k o z – 1639 w. ese daadgina mefe Teimurazma aoxrebul udabnoTa gansaaxleblad. aoxrebis Semdeg 26 weli daviT garejis da naTlis mcemlis udabnoebi aoxrebulni da ukacurni iyvnen, aha TviT Teimurazis sigeli: „...sisxlis msmeli da mteri qristianeTa Sahabaz da spani agarianTa kaxeTsa zeda aRaoxrnes monasterT udabnoni, sofelni da qalaqni da warstyuHnes, romelnime tyuH (hyunes) da romelnime maxviliTa aRasrules da ganasrules wameba mravalTa da SeeZines qristesa. da gvwrTuna RmerTman codvaTa CvenTaebr, viTarca ra iwvarTis urCi Svilni mamaTagan da ara sruliad ganurisxdis. xolo Cven ltolvili gardavediT lixTimers da davyaviT welni ocdaeqvsni, xolo mraval mowyaleman RmerTman ara ugulebelshyo da arca sruliad ganguwirna mowyalebiTa misiTa da SemweobiTa kvalad vgieT mefobasa da patronobasve CuHnsa zeda da kvalad £elvhyofT aw Senebad udabnoTa TquHnTa. ganvageT da davayeneT winamZRuarad kaci Rirsi da RuTis moSiSi markoz asre rome wina-ukana sagarejos gamosaRebi naxevari udabnos miiRebodes sazrdelaT iq mdgomTa monazonTaTvis, viTarca £elmwifeT sigelSi sweria da ganCenili aris im guaraT da Cven gansrulebiT ver davanebeT verca yma da verca sazrdo puri, amisTvis rome CuHni sa£elmwifo aoxrebuli iyo usjuloTagan zemore vTqviT da iq mdgomni monozonnica cotani iyunen da ara e£marebodaT srulobiT, romelica amaT ar e£marebodaT, CuHn v£marobdiT. awe iprianos RmerTman da ZalSemweobaman Tqvenma – rodesac aSendes CuHni sa£elmwifo da mand mdgomni monazonni ganmravlden, rogorc amas winaT £elmwifeT papaTa da mamaTa sigliTa gaurigebiaT, CuHnca asre srulebiT gagiTaoT da daganeboT da ara mogiSaloT. awe vinca £elmwifeman da mepatrone- 340 man ese CuHngan dadebuli wigni... da an maSin naxoT da £elmwifis papisa da mamis CuHnis dadebuls sigels miemTxvivneT, rogoraca daedvas da gaerigos, TquHnca im guaraT gaarigeT da nu mouSliT. CuHn ra¡me Temis oxrobisaTvis da iqac cotani monazonni iyunen da misTvis... TquHn nu ikadrebT da nuca £elhyofT moSlad. ese brZaneba da wigni niSnad dagvidebia. daiwera sigeli ese qks tkz“. n a u m – 1659-1675 ww. amis dros metaT gaWirvebaSi iyvnen bermonazonni, ZmaTa Soris iyvnen: simon mR. monazoni orbeliani da Zma misi besarion, iero diakoni. simonma da besarionma gaiyoles monazonebi Tan onofre CitaZe da Sila da gahvidnen sagarejoSi ninowmidel iosebTan (aragvis erisTavi) da Semweoba sTxoves naTlis mcemlis udabnos ganaxlebisaTvis. iosebma Sewevnisa da nugeSiscemis magier dalanZRa da gamoreka. maSin berebi gadavidnen kawareTSi samebel nikolozTan (ColoyaSvili). aman istumra berebi, siyvaruliT Seitkbo da yovelive saTxovari aRusrula – „ganwmediTa da ganaxlebiTa ekklesiisa da monastrisaTa, saekklesio samsaxurebelisa nivTebiTa yovelTave, wignebiTa da SesamosliTa da sazrdeliTa“. amis mizeziTa gamoexua naTlismcemlisa monasteri ninowmidelTa da hmarTviden samebel-kawarelni. Semdeg mefe erekle (nazarali xani) ityoda xolmeo – „mikvirs ninowmidelisagan iosebisa, raT utevebs mwysad kawerelsa samwyso¡sa Tvisisa da aZlevs monastersa wmidisa winamorbedisasa“. x a r i t o n – 1676-1689 ww. aman didaT iRvawa monastris ganaxlebisaTvis. xaSmzed aRaSena samonastro zvari da wisqvili, ekklesia da sx. asaflavia aqve. 1704 w. cocxali iyo, gujr. gv. 19. n i k o l o o z – 1690-1715 ww. avalisSvili. b e s a r i o n – 1716-1724 ww. orbeliani, Semdeg kaTolikoz-patriarqi. g e r a s i m e – 1725-1737 ww. arximandriti. sruli mgalobeli da mweral-mwignobari. s i m o n – 1738-1748 ww. orbeliani. z e n o n – 1749-1754 ww. s e r a f i o n – 1755-1762 ww. jereT 22 wlis axalgazrdam dauteva sofeli, Sevida naTlis mcemlis udabnoSi, iswavla wera-kiTxva da RrmaT moxucebuls, mxneobiT savses Teimuraz mefem uboZa arximandritoba da winamZRvroba. iyo kaci sakvirvelTmoqmedi, ubiwo cxovrebisa (ix. mefe giorgis cx. gv. 51, 52 da Zveli saqarTvelo, I, gv. 50, statia 126. † 120 w.). miicvala 1762 w. da dasaflavda naTlismcemlis ekklesiis karebTan garedgan. 341 s i m o n – 1762-1764 ww. winaT berTubneli. n i k o l a o z – 1764-1774 ww. i o a k i m e – 1774-1776 ww. e f T v i m e – 1776-1801 ww. didi moRvawe, ubiwo cxovrebisa; iyo moZRvari da maxlobeli mrCeveli. efTvimes micualebis Semdeg kaTolikosma antonma daniSna naTlismcemlis winamZRuaraT domenti, stefane rusTavelis wardgeniT. amis gamo antonma sTxova cicianovs – ubrZane cicianovs monastris yma da mamuli Caabaroso. cicianovma upasuxa – winaT saero mTavrobas ekiTxebodiTo magisTana saqmeSi, Tqven ki ara mkiTxeT ra da Semweobas ki mTxovTo. Tqveni werilis miRebis win miviRe aTanase niqozelis Txovna – „siberis gamo eparqiis movla ar SemiZliano, momeciT naTlismcemlis winamZRvroba, Tu ara weliwadSi 120 man. sikvdilamdeo“. daniSneT aTanasi da TanaSemwed domenti da 120 man. eZleodes weliwadSio sanam cocxaliao. niqozis eparqia samTavrosas SeuerTeT Tu aTanases ar daniSnavT, macnobe male rom imperatorTan giCivlovo, rom esreTi arev-darevaao aq sulier wodebaSio. T e o d o r e – 1827-1840 ww. es iyo Telaveli (xelaSvili?) miqelisSvili, aznauri, Ze giorgi dekanozisa. swavla dausrulebia Telavis seminariaSi 1800 w. da kaTalikoz-patriarqma antonma akurTxa mTavraT Telavis soborozed 1801 w. 16 ianvars, xolo 1802 w. 21 aprils mRudlaT. 1804 w. martis 25 dekanozoba uboZa. 1812 w. kaxeTSi ajanyebis dros rusis jarSi iyo da mRudel moqmedebas usrulebda. 1814 w. agvistos 29 raki dekanozma zaqaria sidamonovma Tavi daaneba, gaamweses Tbilisis keTilSobilTa saswavlebelSi qarTulis enis maswavleblad – Rrammatikisa, ritorikisa da loRikisa. 1819 w. agvistos 26 man iCivla – imereli mRvdlebi bevria aq uadgiloTao, Teofilaqtesac es undoda. 1820 w. 14 ivliss veliaminovi sTxovs egzarxoss Teofilaqtes – annas 3 xarisxis ordenzed waradgineo. dekanozi nikolozi kaxeTSi saekklesio mamulebis gamgeblaT iyo. 1827 w. damdegs Seimosa beroba da 1 Tebervals arximandritaT akurTxes da naTlis mcemlis udabnos winamZRvraT dainiSna. saxelaT Teodore uwodes (ix. saq. kantorisa 1832 w. N2684). 1834 w. 12 maisidgan kantoris mindobilobiT gaakeTa exlandeli ninowmindis saydari saxliT da marniT 150 man. amis naxevari kantoras akisrebina, naxevari ki 70 komlma mrevlma. moaxsena kantoras 10 marts 1835 w. yvelaferi mzaT ariso. kantoris arxitektorma rokovma ki 342 Seadgina angariSi (смета), 13069 man. 80 kop. moundebao. Teodose daTxovnil iqmna kantorisagan moxucebisa gamo (62 w.) 1840 w. noembris 25. daviT garejaSi, 24/VI/1914 [epitafebi]: †barbare mixeilis asuli zurab andronikovis meuRle, 1867 w. martis 19. †sagarejos mouravi adam papas Ze vaCnaZe 51 w. martis 10 1817 w. †1832 w. 10/11 zaqaria yandareli, gmiri CaCanTagan mokluli 27 wlisa. †1812 w. meiTari zurabis Ze andronikovi 60 w. †1852 w. ivlisis 17, oTar ivanes Ze eliozovi beraT Semdgari. †1837 w. martis 29, JT wlisa kneina maia, meuRle solomon andronikovisa. †1828 w. martis 23 anastasia meuRle T~a ioane andronikovisa, Rubernski sekretarisa, asuli ioanesi, 32 wlisa. †1837 w. Tebervlis 21, [zurab] solomonis Ze andronikovi. †1863 w. noemberSi lazare gurgeniZe. madlis qvis kolofzed, vercxlisa – „es kolofi Sevwire daviT garejis udabnos ioseb zaqarias Ze andronikovma“. samzareuloSi – „SewevniTa : R˜Ta : me : T˜d : c˜i : endronikeSvili : nikoloz : ninowmideli : movel : w˜asa : amas : udabnos : da davyav : didmarxva : erT : da vevedre sasoebiT : w˜a daviTs meoxaT qristes winaSe : amin. JamTa Pemwifis patronis arCil mefisaTa : q˜ks tnia. vincavin mobZandeT aqa Sendobasa gvibZanebdeT“. aleqsandre mefis koSkSi – „wmidao da mamao daviT mona da madidebeli siwmindisa Senisa mixail“. dodoSi: „q. ganvediT : £orcTagan da davideviT samaresa amas : C˜n codvilni da uRirsni orni Zmani sulierni : Ze eniselT mouravisa : karis winamZRvari nkz da CemTana mdebare ese Weremeli nkz da vinc : aRmoikiTxvideT : C˜n z˜a mdebaresa amas : lodsa : Sendobas yofdeT R˜TisaTvis q˜ks ud“. dodos saflavis ferxTiT maRla – „R˜o S˜e amazed mSromeli dekanozi g˜i an“. dasavleTiT nangrevSi – „ganmisvene ႣႰႡႪ da damicev codvili zaqaria“ (aq aris saflavi zaqaria arxim. winamZRvrisa). 343 (1) aq momagonda, rom Wiafrisa [da] sacxenes Sua saqonels aZovebdnen ori martyofeli biWi 1814 w., frewuaSvili sixaruli amxanagiT. lekis Reledgan Camoeparnen lekebi da xelebgakruli yarajalis fonze gaiyvanes da stambolis salayboze dayides. im dRiTve acnoba rusTvelma stefanem mTavrobas, magram gulSematkivari vin iyo? 1795 w. enkenisTvis gasuls oTxi aTasi leki gadmovida ialnos mTazed qalaqidgan gaxiznuli xalxis asaklebad, magram mTaSi xalxi ro ver naxes, Camovidnen s. norioSi, bevric daxoces da tyvec bevri waasxes, saqoneli da saxlis aveji sxva iyo. lekebi saCqaroT Cavidnen da norio xevidgan Wiaferazed, rogorc aefinnen da lekis Releze adiodnen, ciknis gorasTan (CrdiloeTis mxriv mesame gora samgorzed) Casafrebuli martyofis mouravi kuziani zaal andronikaSvili gadeeRoba win xuTasi kaciT lekis TareSs da RvTis risxva dasca Tavsa. tyveebic daayrevina, nadavlic da ori aTasamde kaci gaJlita, daWrils viRa mosTvlis, vinc gadarCnen daeSvnen yarajalisaken, gavidnen mtkvarSi da axalcixisaken gaudgnen gzasa. (2) 1615 w. 20 Tebervals, Tevdorobis SabaTs Semovida Sahabazi kaxeTSi. aprilSi rom martyofi ahyara, ramdensame aTas tyves aq vazianSi mouyares Tavi da aqedgan gairekes sparseTisaken, sadac dResac scxovroben maTni STamomavalni. am xuTiode wlis winaT movidnen saqarTveloSi onikaSvili da xuciSvilebi. xuciSvili martyofSi movida, aq inaxula Tavis saxlis kacni xuciSvilebi, yvelas gadaexvia da gadahkocna; bolos daemxo pirqve da dedamiwas hkocnida TvalT creml moreuli da mwareT tiroda. (3) 1795 w. enkenisTvis 8, ereklem gaigo aRamamad xanis moaxloeba jariT, amitom Tbilisidgan maSinve gagzavna mefem Tavisi fareSTxucesi naTaliSvili gorjaspi iaRlujazed sayaraulod da Tan gaatana Tormeti rCeuli mxedari – kaxni da qiziyelni. aq moulodnelaT Sexvdnen yizilbaSTa yaraulni da SeeqnaT omi; gorjaspim iTakila xmlis mouqnevlaT gamobruneba. aq dauxoces Tormeti gmiri amxanagni. gorjaspis moukles cxeni, maSinve mokla erTi Turqmeni, moaxta mis cxens da sisxlSi amosvrilma mohkurcxla ereklesaken ambavis misatanaT. ix. q.-cx. daviT batoniSvilisa, gv. 43. (4) erekle mefe aq Causafrda samasi kaciT 1760 w. maisSi javaxeTidgan momavals dids lekis jars nadavliT da tyveebiT da erTis SeteviT gaanadgura, xuTasze meti daixoca, tyveebi da nadavlic erTianaT daayrevina. ix. q. cx. daviT batoniSvilisa, gv. 11. (5) rkinis karebzed aweria mxedrulaT: „q. me : f˜d : codvilman : zaza : yofilman efTvimi Zeman uxucesman : sionis : dekanozisa : ioanesman : mogiWedine : kari : ese : Sen didebuls : garejis : naTlismcemels : Sesandobelad da saoxad sulTa : mamadedaTa : CemTa : daiwera maisis damdegs q˜ks uz“ (=1719 w.). 344 (6) am cixes aqvs warwera: „Cyiz (=1817) welsa, q. adiden RmerTman orsave Sina cxovrebasa aRmaSenebeli pirvelad palatisa da samreklosi da aw cixisaca amis yovlad usamRvdeloesi mitropoliti qisiyisa da siRnaRisa bodbeli ioane mayaevi“. (7) aq karis amyol koxis qvazed, simaRlezed gamosaxulia wm. mowame evstaTi xelSi mSvild-isriT, Tavzed qorbudiani iremi da sxivosani macxovari. qveS aweria meaTe saukunis xucuri asomTavruliT: „ese juari me mart¢¢ri avmarTe salocvelad Cemda da colisa da Svilisa...“. (8) nawilebian xats zurgzed aweria xucuri CarTuli asomTavruliT: „q. udidebuleso naSobTa dedaTasa qristes naTlismcemelo, dRegrZelobiT da keTilad daicuen orTave Sina cxovrebaTa mefeT-mefe aleqsandre da dedofalTdedofali TinaTin amin. winamorbedad da qadagad sinanulisa da uzesTaes naSobTasa wodebuli, ¥i ioane qristes naTlismcemelo! romelman ese Seamko saxe Seni, Seamkev didebiTa aleqsandre“. usxeds 18 iagundi, ocda sami momsxo firuzi, gvirgvinSi usxeds – sami margaliti, ori firuzi, ori iagundi wvrilebi. ix. xaxanaSvilis gujrebi 1891 w. gv. 171. meore naTlismcemlis xats aweria Semdegi ambiko: „q. qeba, Svenier TxzvaobaY vin Rirsi uZlos naTlisa uzadoYsa mis mzisa winamorbedis mbadisa mis naTlisa, erTebr aRmyvani zesTa brwyinvaT mnaTisa avalovisa zenaT mxedi sam-mzisa“. aq moxseniebuli avalovi aris giorgi meiTris ioanes Ze, mefis giorgis despani ruseTSi. (9) uZveless aweria: „q. Semiwiravs jvari ese gabriel winamZRvars daviT garesjis udabno naTlis mcemlisTvin, vinc miemTxKvneT, SendobiT momixseneT, q˜ks ukd“. (=1736 w). (10) erTzed aweria: „q. wmindisa naTlis mcemlis monastrisa, mravalmTisa garesjisa Semwirveli feSxumisa amis mefis sZali qeTevan, qiziyis mouravis (papuas) asuli, da meuRle misi mefis iraklis Ze giorgi da Zeni Cvenni da asulni Cvenni. wmindano mamano, Sendobasa hyofdeT Cven uRirsTaTvis xristes (sic) siyvarulisaTvis. welsa CRpb“. (11) macxovris xats aweria iambiko: „q. vazad saRmrTosa vaelmonis venaxsa, rwyuli sibrZniTa mamyof-namyof saRmrTosa, srul WeSmariti rto furclovan samyoTa aRsvliT zenadmi movimk erTeb nayofTa, naTelT manaTlo, mfarevd mrCobl kec samyoTa“. 345 RmrTis mSoblis xatzed: „q. winaT uwyebul Svid-naTlovan naTelsa, zesT brwyinvalisa, saydrad yovelTa RuTisa, qvenaT-zenaYT yovelTa dedoflisa, wyevis daxsniTa mfenraT daxsnisa mzisa umrumoT brwyinviT anaTl Cemsaca sulsa...“ (12) kandelzed aweria: N10. „q. Cven yovlad uRirsman saqarTvelos mefis Zem giorgim Semogwire mcire ese Sesawiravi kandeli vercxlisa Sen sasosa da meoxsa Cvensa naTlis mcemlis monastersa mravalmTisasa, raTa mfarvel meqmna mrCoblsa cxovrebasa Sina meuRliT CemiT, ZeebiTa da asulebiT. welsa CRpb, misxali o. winamZRurobasa efTKmisasa“. sirCazed: „q. Semogwire saqarTvelos mefis sZalman muxranbatonis asulman qeTevan knini ese Sesawiravi naTlis mcemlis monastersa RuTis mSoblis micvalebis eklesiasa, Sen sasosa Cemsa RuTisa dedasa. febervals kH, CRpH, ostati nikolooz“. Careqazed: „q. Careqa ese sazedaSe monastersa naTlismcemlisasa Seewira. Semomwirveli momixsene ufalo macxovaro! uRirsi efTvimi winamZRvari vakeTebineb. misxali oH, qristes aqeT CRoH, aprilis k“. Careqazed: „arximandriti domenti, misxali rmb“. Careqazed: „q. Semogwire vercxlis zedaSis Careqa wmidis naTlismcemlis monastersa me SinjikaanT basilas asulman barbare. Cymi welsa, sulisa saoxad“. azarfeSazed: „abel ColoyaSvilisa, naTlismcemlis monastersa. Cykd welsa“. Taszed: „mefe ereklesia“. Taszed: „q. batonisSvilis makrinasia, misxali ld“. Taszed: „mefis Zis giorgisa var misxali kT“. Taszed: „Tamar batonisSvilis gamdeli SaRbaTam Seswira udabnos“. Taszed: „SemogwireT wm. naTlismcemels RuTisaTKs SekrebulTa krebaTa me giorgi avaliSvilma saoxad sulTa CemTa da gansaZliereblad meuRleTa, ZeTa da asulTa CemTa. misxali Yd“. Taszed: „q. udabnosa ioane naTlismcemlisasa Semogwire Tasi ese aRsazrdelad Zisa Cemisa svimonisa monaman Senman bero pavliaSvilman. CRpH, misxali kd“. Taszed: „q. me ziraq berma Semogwire naTlismcemlis monastersa“. Taszed: „q. ese Tasi sosias niSnisa var. misxali lH“. Taszed: „CitrekaSvilma nacvalma lazarem Semogwire Cemis meuRlis mariamis sulis saoxad, Sen naTlismcemlis monastersa, misxali lg“. 346 Taszed: „martyofeli bananaSvili abram“. (13) „q. Cven mefeTa Saravandedman da maRalTa PelmwifeTa tomman da samociqulosa ekklesiasa zedan mjdomareman yovlisa saqarTvelosa makurTxevelman kaTalikoz-patriarqman Zeman mefis iesesaman antonim giZRven da mogaxseneT Sen yovelTa naSobTa umetessa, didebulsa da yovlad qebulsa naTlismcemlis monastersa, Cvenis Relva-gvemulebisa navTsayudelsa, raTa meox meyo aqaca da saukunesa. aramed ZRvnis imrTmevle ese sulTa ganmanaTlebeli patiosani RuTismetyveleba damaskelisa yovliTurT sruli da unaklulo. qristes aqaT CRmv (=1746 w.) kaTolikozi anton“ (xveuliT). (14) am senakSi, CrdiloeTis mxares marmarilozed aweria iambiko: „welsa Cyia (=1811) febervals kb. dResa welni oTxaTni davyuHn aqa me SromiT, monozoneba miviRe ra mRudelobiT, buniaTovman rafailad wodebiT, ese senakni vkuHTen, ganvkazmen yovliT, Semdgom mxilvelno momixseneT me locviT. qks uJT“. ama rafiel mR. monazonma uanderZa ese gamarTuli senaki Tavis aRzrdils mR. monazons gerasimes, romelmac am monasterSi gaatara 55 weliwadi da miicvala 3 marts 1871 wels. damowmebuli wyaroebi da literatura bulia, istoriul pirTa gamosaxulebebi `naTlismcemlis~ monastris sakrebulo taZarSi – bulia m., istoriul pirTa gamosaxulebebi `naTlismcemlis~ monastris sakrebulo taZarSi, ss, 7-8 (2005), gv. 168-210. bulia, TumaniSvili, daviT garejis monastrebi. naTlismcemeli, berTubani – bulia m., TumaniSvili d., daviT garejis monastrebi. naTlismcemeli, berTubani, Tbilisi, 2010. karbelaSvili, saistorio da sabibliografio minawerebi – karbelaSvili p., saistorio da sabibliografio minawerebi daviT garesjis udabnos tyavzed naweris xel-nawerebisa, `iveria~, 1889, №26, gv. 2-3; №28, gv. 3; №30, gv. 3; №32, gv. 2-3. karbelaSvili, macxovris taZris winamZRvari polievqtos karbelaSvili – karbelaSvili a., macxovris taZris winamZRvari polievqtos karbelaSvili, `qvakuTxedi~, 2009, N1 (31), gv. 26-27. 347 lominaZe, qarTuli feodaluri urTierTobis istoriidan – lominaZe b., qarTuli feodaluri urTierTobis istoriidan, senioriebi, I, Tbilisi, 1966. sxirtlaZe, samefo ktitoruli portreti garejis naTlismcemlis monasterSi – sxirtlaZe z., samefo ktitoruli portreti garejis naTlismcemlis monasterSi, sx, 1983, N11, gv. 96-110. sxirtlaZe, kvlav naTlismcemlis saktitoro gamosaxulebebis Sesaxeb – sxirtlaZe z., kvlav naTlismcemlis saktitoro gamosaxulebebis Sesaxeb, sx, 1987, N3, gv. 108-113. togoniZe, Zmebi karbelaSvilebi – togoniZe l., Zmebi karbelaSvilebi, Tbilisi, 2012. togoniZe, maCuriSvili, dekanozi polievqto karbelaSvili – togoniZe l., maCuriSvili g., dekanozi polievqto karbelaSvili: 1855-1936, `sapatriarqos uwyebani~, 2008, N22, gv. 17-18. qarTul xelnawerTa aRweriloba, A koleqcia, t. I1 – qarTul xelnawerTa aRweriloba, A koleqcia, t. I1 Seadgines da dasabeWdad moamzades T. bregaZem, m. qavTariam da l. quTaTelaZem, el. metrevelis redaqciiT, Tbilisi, 1973. qarTuli warwerebis korpusi, lapidaruli warwerebi, I – qarTuli warwerebis korpusi, lapidaruli warwerebi, I, aRmosavleT da samxreT saqarTvelo (V-X ss.), Seadgina da gamosacemad moamzada n. SoSiaSvilma, Tbilisi, 1980. cxviloeli, daviT garesjis udabnoSi – cxviloeli [karbelaSvili p.], daviT garesjis udabnoSi, `iveria~, 1895, №116, gv. 3; №117, gv. 2-3; №122, gv. 3; №179, gv. 1-2. cxviloeli, daviT garesjis udabnos gujrebi – cxviloeli [karbelaSvili p.], daviT garesjis udabnos gujrebi, `iveria~, 1893, №72, gv. 2-3; №78, gv. 2; №87, gv. 3; №88, gv. 3-4, №89, gv. 3-4; №90, gv. 2-3; №91, gv. 3; №93, gv. 2-3; №95, gv. 3; №97, gv. 2; №130, gv. 3; №135, gv. 3; №136, gv. 2; №140, gv. 2-3. Eastmond, Royal Imagery in Medieval Georgia – Eastmond A., Royal Imagery in Medieval Georgia, University Park, PA., 1998. Skhirtladze, Les portraits de l’église principale du monastère Natlismtsemeli a Garedja – Skhirtladze Z., Les portraits de l’église principale du monastère Natlismtsemeli a Garedja, Zograf, 23, 1993-1994. 348 Алибегашвили, Светский портрет в грузинской средневековой монументальной живописи – Алибегашвили Г., Светский портрет в грузинской средневековой монуметнальной живописи, Тбилиси, 1979. Вольская, Росписи Пещерных монастырей Давид-Гареджи – Вольская А., Росписи Пещерных монастырей Давид-Гареджи, krebulSi: gareji [kaxeTis arqeologiuri eqspediciis Sromebi: 8], Tbilisi, 1988. Чубинашвили, Пещерные монастыри Давид Гареджи – Чубинашвили Г., Пещерные монастыри Давид Гареджи, Тбилиси, 1948. Чубинашвили, Хандиси – Чубинашвили Н., Хандиси. Проблема рельефа на примере одной группы стел последней четверти V в., VI и первой половины VII в., Тбилиси, 1976. Zaza Skhirtladze, Julia Benidze Unknown Materials on the Gareja Monastery of St. John the Baptist and its Antiquities in the Personal Archive of Polievktos Karbelashvili Summary Materials on the Gareja Desert monastic association and its antiquities collected during the years by archpriest Polievktos Karbelashvili (1855-1936), were often published in Georgian periodicals at the turn of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. In addition, unpublished materials of the learned ecclesiastic can be found in his personal archive which is kept in the National Archives of Georgia (Fund N1461). These materials are preserved in two files. These are: File N48 includes excerpts from inscriptions (including epitaphs), descriptions and sketches of wall paintings, as well as excerpts from old documents concerning the monastic life in the Gareja desert. Most of this materials are not dated, although the grouping of materials of the same period is still possible. File N59 is dedicated entirely to the Gareja monastic association. The author describes in details his journey with the pilgrims from Martq’op’i to the Gareja desert, namely the monastery of St. John the Baptist. During this journey he has described the 349 churches and the murals of the monastery, recorded part of lapidary and fresco inscriptions, antiquities currently preserved there by that time and the inscriptions on them. A list of Abbots of the monastery of St. John the Baptist from 1639 to 1840 is attached to the records. In the file N48 the date of the journey – 23-24 June, 1914 – is indicated. While studying archival materials, it becomes evident that during the trip to the Gareja desert Archpriest Polievktos had a small personal notebook with him, which is presereved in the file N48. Later, while the materials were being prepared for publication, the field-records were edited and rewritten on separate sheets of paper, which are included in file N59. In this regard it is worth mentioning that in addition, the edited text is entitled: “In the Gareja Desert”. Description of the journey from Martq’op’i to the Gareja desert, to the monastery of St. John the Baptist is not inferior in importance to the essay, which describes a trip to the Gareja in 1895 and a service performed there, as well as a feast dedicated to the Saint (Published in the newspaper “Iveria” in 1895, NN 116, 117, 122, 179). In addition to previous essay, the one describing the monastery of St. John the Baptist is more complete due to fact that it contains records on the local antiquities: churches and cells, paintings, church objects and their inscriptions. The essay vividly and emotionally conveys the march of the group to one of the oldest and largest spiritual centre of the Gareja monastic association; Local toponyms (some of which are now lost) are included in the description of the trip, along with the artistic and emotionally charged descriptions of nature. Polievktos Karbelashvili discusses the past events related to certain places. Records of the local antiquities include inscription on the doors of the monastic gate, references to the chamber of the abbot and its builders – Ioane the Metropolitan of Bodbe and Archimandrite Ioane, the abbot of the Lavra of St. David. The attention of the author was attracted by the defense tower, the stone pillar at the entrance of the main church with the relief image of the miracle of St. Eustathios Placidas. Particularly noteworthy are the brief references to the main church of the monastery and the fragments left from its wall paintings – in the wide donor row of the images of royal representatives of Georgian kingdom which are presented on the north and west walls of the church David IV the Builder (1089-1125), Demetre I (1125-1156), George III (1156-1184), and Queen Tamar (1184-1210) are named. In the present publication the text is published from the file N59, which was prepared by Archpriest Polievktos Karbelashvili for the publication. In the end it is followed by short records on the trip to the Gareja desert from the file N48, which also remained unpublished until today and was not included in the text prepared for publication. 350 List of Illustrations 1. Fieldwork notebook of Archpriest Polievktos Karbelashvili. Description of the Gareja Desert Monasteries and their Antiquities (National Archives of Georgia, fonds 1461, file №48). 2. Archpriest Polievktos Karbelashvili’s Account of the trip to the Gareja desert (National Archives of Georgia, fonds 1461, file №59). 3. Monastery of St. John the Baptist, General View from South-East, Photo by Th. Kühne, 1913. 4. Bell Tower of the Monastery of St. John the Baptist. Photo By D. Ermakov, 1880s. 5. Monastery of St. John the Baptist. Central part of the Inner Yard. Photo By Th. Kühne, 1913. 6. Monastery of St. John the Baptist. Central part of the inner Yard. Photo By Th. Kühne, 1913. Detail. 7. Monastery of St. John the Baptist. Stone Pillar with the Image of the Miracle of St. Eustathios Placidas, Photo by Th. Kühne, 1913. 351 gaxseneba _ MEMORY naTela vaCnaZe dro da adamianebi vuZRvni qalbaton mariam lorTqifaniZis naTel xsovnas prologi mogoneba erTi Cveulebrivi qarTuli sityvaa, TiTqos martivi, yvelasTvis gasagebi, sinamdvileSi ki mravlismetyveli, sulac mravlismomcveli, romelsac Tavisi kuTvnili adgili uWiravs literaturaTmcodneobaSi. erTi misi niSan-Tviseba gaxlavT didad sainteresod moTxroba adamianze an adamianTa erTobaze, movlenebze, aTasgvar koliziebze, magram es SeuZliaT mxolod uaRresad did mwerlebs. erTi ki namdvilad vici – simarTle da mxolod simarTle moeTxoveba genialur mweralsac, miT ufro mas, da Cveulebriv mokvdavsac. istorikosis dawerili erT wess unda efuZnebodes: zust aRweras movlenis, movlenaTa mTeli speqtris, sazogadoebis an calkeuli individis. faqtebis mimarT istorikosis damokidebuleba maTi aRwerisas, kidev erTi sayovelTaod miRebuli wesiT, usaTuod iCens Tavs da misi Sejereba imave epoqis an igive sazogadoebis, anda, ufro xSirad, individis Sesaxeb saSualebaa warmovisaxoT realobasTan miaxloebuli suraTi. mogonebis werisas xSirad Cndeba Tavad damweri, ivane javaxiSvilis gamonaTqvami rom vixmaroT, Tanamedrove `piri utyuveli,~ `TviT-mxilveli~, `Tanadamxudari~ da Tanamonawilec ki mogonebaSi aRwerili faqtebisa. amiT vimarTleb Tavs mkiTxvelis winaSe, Tumc isic kargad vici, rom Tavis marTleba didad sanaqebo saqme araa. amis gamo bodiSs vuxdi mkiTxvels. 352 * netavi vin Tqva, rom mogonebis dawera advili saqmea?! ramdenjerac kalams aiReb, imdenjer eflobi warsulSi, fiqrob, fiqrob da ekiTxebi sakuTar Tavs: `rogor Seqmna gangebam amdennairi adamiani?!~ kinokadrebiviT gairbens warsulSi Sens garSemomyofTa saxeebi, TiToeulisTvis damaxasiaTebeli sakuTari TvisebebiT: metyvelebis maneriT, intonaciiT, JestebiT da, rac mTavaria, xasiaTis TvisebebiT, romelTagan gamovarCev, Cemi azriT, yvelaze mTavars – umadurobas. bednieria Tavad is adamiani, romelsac axsovs sikeTe, misTvis gaRebuli, miT ufro maswavleblisgan. am mxriv namdvilad bednieri adamiani gaxldaT qalbatoni marika, igi pirdapir aTayvanebda Tavis maswavlebels, romelmac aspirantad aiyvana da didi cxovrebis gza gauxsna represirebuli ojaxisSvils. es gaxldaT batoni simon janaSia, romlis suraTi im wuTidanve kedlidan dascqeroda madlierebiT aRsavse mowafes, ra wuTSic SemobrZanda universitetSi TanamSromlad, ukve meored, didi intervalis Semdgom, axla ukve saqarTvelos istoriiis kaTedris gamgis rangSi. umtkivneulod arc am ambavs Cauvlia: zogni Zalisxmevas ar iSurebdnen, rom kaTedris gamgis Tanamdebobaze daeyoliebinaT Cveni Taobis maswavleblebi, ukve asakSi myofni, damsaxurebuli profesorebi, batonebi konstantine grigolia da abel kikviZe, magram maT ar isurves... q-ni marikas mowinaaRmdegeebs ra gegmebi hqondaT, kaTedris danarCenma wevrebma ar vicodiT, magram raRac gegma usaTuod rom iarsebebda, es yvelam vicodiT... adamianur TvisebaTagan kidev gamovarCevdi udides siyvaruls skolis megobrebis mimarT, erTgulebas da, amasTanave, pativiscemas. miuxedavad didi Sromisa da jafisa, arasdros akldeboda maT Sekrebebs, piriqiT, iqac, rogorc yvelgan, pirveli iyo da, rac mTavaria, arasdros wamocdeboda sityva `dakavebuli var~. isinic ufrTxildebodnen, darekvas sjerdebodnen da mxolod erT SekiTxvas usvamdnen: `marika, rogor xar?~ Cemi TvaliT danaxuli q-ni marika ar gaxldaT ampartavani, adamianebs yovelTvis pativiscemiT esaubreboda, masTan momsvlelebsa da mosaubreebs ki ra gamolevda?! saubari yovelTvis saqmiani iyo: adamianebs ainteresebdaT misi azri saqarTvelos warsulze da, gansakuTrebiT, awmyoze. didad TavSekavebuli gaxldaT, auRelvebeli, magram aseTad eCveneboda mxolod maT, vinc kargad ar icnobda. sinamdvileSi yvelaferi gulTan mihqonda, metadre is, rac mis qveyanas da qarTul 353 mecnierebas exeboda... did simkacres iCenda maT mimarT, vinc saqarTvelos istoriis gayalbebas Seecdeboda; gansakuTrebiT qveynis gareT, saerTaSoriso mniSvnelobis Tavyrilobebze iyo Seupovari, mebrZoli, marad guSagiviT SemarTuli... bevrs eSinoda misi gamoCenis, radgan icodnen, rom mas sityvas aucileblad miscemda sabWoTa delegaciis xelmZRvaneli, akademikosi zinaida vladimirovna udalcova, romelic kavkasiis qveynebis istoriis sakiTxebSi qalbatoni marikas imedad gaxldaT. erTi ki iyo, pirad saubrebSi ucxoelebi, didad moxiblulni misi farTo ganaTlebiTa da sakiTxis Sesaxeb wyaroTa monacemebis ganzogadoebis iSviaTi unariT, rasac gulwrfelad aRniSnavdnen kidec, pativiscemas gamoxatavdnen, magram Tvalsazrisebs mainc ar icvlidnen... metad mZime gaxldaT qalbatoni marikas mdgomareoba, rodesac romelime sabWoTa mecnieri saqarTvelos istorias mrude sarkeSi warmoadgenda, radgan sabWoTa delegaciis wevrebs Soris kamaTi ikrZaleboda: isini erT qveyanas warmoadgendnen, `erT ers~ da erT dauwerel kanons eqvemdebarebodnen. pikantur winadadebas mogaxsenebT, oRond ar vici vis ekuTvnis; saqveynod cnobil amerikel mecnierze, erovnebiT somexze, baton kiril Tumanovze iTqva: Tumanovi berad imitom aRikveca, rom surs sibereSi moinanios codvebi, romlebic qarTvelebis mimarT Caudeniao. Tu es simarTlea, vfiqrob, misi locva qarTvelTagan, pirvel rigSi, q-n marikas ekuTvnis... q-ni marika suliT Zlieri pirovneba gaxldaT, imdenad Zlieri, rom Tu TviTon ar getyoda, ra xdeboda mis Tavs, Sen verasgziT amoicnobdi. ramdenime aseTi dRis mowmec var da monawilec. erTi maTgani is dRe iyo, rodesac moskovSi yofnisas damireka da Sexvedra SemomTavaza. saRamoxani iyo. xelSi raRac qaRaldi eWira. `netav, sul ar moecaT~, miTxra aRelvebulma. teqsti iuwyeboda, rom mama – daviT grigolis Ze lorTqifaniZe – reabilitirebulia... ramdeni udanaSaulo adamiani daixvrita, vin moTvlis?! marto im rigSi, sadac qalbatoni marika im dRiT dilidan saRamomde idga, ramdeni adamiani iyo, vinmem daTvala?! magram yvelaze didi ubedureba, romelic Tavs daatyda, mainc Tvrameti wlis sruliad udanaSaulo SviliSvilis – daTo oTxmezuris mkvleloba gaxldaT... Svils deda – manana maisuraZe – gayva... am yvelafers unda gadatana Tu ara?! bedad dahyolia qalbaton marikas ojaxis udanaSaulo wevrTa sicocxlis xelyofa. mavani ityvis: `dro iyo aseTi!~ magram es ori movlena naxevar saukuneze, Tu metiT ara, daSorebulia erTmaneTs... qalbaton marikaSi am SemTxvevaSic gon- 354 ma ajoba emocias... gadaavleT Tvali meoce da ocdameerTe saukuneebis istorias.(1) qalbaton marikaSi gonma emocias ajoba im wyeul 1951 welsac, rodesac biZamisis Svilebs – TinaTin da vaxtang miqelaZeebs, romelTac mama daxvretili hyavdaT, xolo deda Soreul Sua aziaSi gadasaxlebuli, navTluRis sadguridan moxuci ZiZis imedad dedis gzaze ayenebdnen, oRond xom ar ggoniaT, rom dedasTan axlos? ara, Zalian Sors Caasaxles, rom ar exilaT erTmaneTi! ilia WavWavaZis saxelobis Tbilisis qalTa 23-e saSualo skolis mecxre pirvel klass im dRiT sakontrolo hqonda maTematikaSi. Tina, romelic niWiT aRsavse adamiani iyo, araCveulebrivad swavlobda, amitomac evedreboda RamiT SemoWril `stumrebs~, neba daerToT daewera sakontrolo, Semdgom aucileblad marto mividoda navTluRSi da SeuerTdeboda Tavisianebs... sabralo gogona... es istoria piradad Cemi uaxloesi adamianis, swored Tina miqelaZisgan momismenia, qalbaton marikas – Cemze bevrad, bevrad adre... kvlav ityvis mavani: `ki, batono, aseTi dro iyo~-o, diax, iyo, magram amden xans rogor iyo?! mxolod saqarTveloSi ratom ganxorcielda 1951 wlis operacia?! gana sxva sabWoTa respublikaSi ar cxovrobdnen adamianebi, romelTa ojaxis erTi wevri an erTi uaxloesi naTesavi mainc ar yofiliyo gadaxvewili ucxoeTSi?! ratom Catarda aseTi operacia mxolod da mxolod aq, saqarTveloSi, imis nacvlad, rom arsad Catarebuliyo?! anda ra dauSaves sabWoTa saxelmwifos im germanelma qalbatonebma, romlebic qarTvel mamakacebze iyvnen gaTxovilni, maT gvarebs atarebdnen, Cveni qveynis bavSvebs aswavlidnen germanul enas, literaturas, kulturas da, Sua aziaSi gadasaxlebulni, kvlav saqarTveloSi brundebodnen Tavisi missiis aRsasruleblad, dasjilni ki mxolod imitom iyvnen, rom RmerTma germanelebad gaaCina. magaliTad f r a u l i z a o r a g v e l i Z i s dasaxeleba kmara... qalbatoni marika didi taqtiTa da diplomatiuri niWiT dajildoebuli adamiani gaxldaT, magram am Tvisebas mxolod didi mniSvnelobis mqone sakiTxebis gadaWrisas da martooden qveynis sakeTildReod iyenebda. ise ucbad gailia Cveni TanamSromlobis ocdaToTxmeti weli, keTilganwyobili urTierTobis, rom ar vTqva megobrobis xana, rom verc ki gavige, magram amgvari urTierToba 2006 wlis `reformis~ Semdegac gagrZelda, im avbediT 2018 wlis 8 ianvramde, rasac mowmobs q-n marikas survili, vyofiliyavi misi nawerebis krebulebis Semdgeneli da redaqtori. es Txovna Sevusrule: jer kidev mis sicocxleSi gamovida 355 qalbaton marikas `rCeuli nawerebis~ wigni I, avtoris winasityvaobiT, redaqtoris svetiT, x e l a x a l i s a m e c n i e r o k o r e q t u r i T a d a S e s w o r e b u l i a p a r a t i T .(2) amave wesiT gakeTda momdevno wigni II.(3) ... dadga gasuli saukunis 80-iani wlebis meore naxevari. iatakqveSeTidan saaSkaraoze gamovida erovnuli moZraoba. sazogadoebis erTi nawili iTxovda qalbaton marikas CarTvas masSi, radgan, maTi azriT, ar iyo sakmarisi is, rasac qalbatoni marika TavauRebeli SromiT aRwevda. isini misgan moiTxovdnen gansakuTrebul mxardaWeras, sxva aseTi SemTxveva me ar vici. magondeba erTi dila, rodesac igi universitetis pirveli korpusisken moemarTeboda da miwisqveSa gadasasvlelSi apirebda Casvlas, rogor Semoertynen gars aRelvebuli qalebi, da rom bedad ar gamoCeniliyo gogi demetraZe, qalbaton marikas didi pativismcemeli, ar gaerRvia wre da ar `exsna~ igi, es arasasiamovno scena, vin icis, ramden xans gastanda... mitingze igi arasdros yofila, namdvilad arasdros, Tvlida, rom rogorc cxovrobda, ise unda ecxovra, mxolod ise. sapirispiro mxare ki Tvlida, rom axla qveyana sxva gamowvevebis winaSea, amitomac man cxovrebis wesi unda Secvalos da dadges iq, sadac ramdenime aseulaTasobiT moqalaqe dgas da amiT uCvenos xelisuflebas, rom maT mimarT, vinc quCaSia, igi solidarulia. aris kidev erTi garemoeba: SesaZloa Tavad Tvlida, rom ar iyo tribuni? ar vici, amitom verafers getyviT. arc batoni Tamaz gamyreliZe eswreboda mitingebs, magram rogor gamovida sabWoTa kavSiris umaRlesi sabWos deputatTa yrilobaze?! rogori sityva Tqva?! rogor Seafasa 1989 wlis 9 aprils TbilisSi datrialebuli tragedia mTeli msoflios gasagonad?! misma sityvam elviseburad ifeTqa da mswrafl moefina civilizebul samyaros. erTxel, me var mowme, universitetis baRSi, ezoSi, qalebi idgnen da leqciebis dasrulebas elodnen. maT Soris Zalian bevri Cemi nacnobi iyo, ori – uaxloesi megobari, erTi – literatori, meore – musikosi, romelTac miTxres, rom batoni Tamazis naxva surT da elian mis gamosvlas universitetis pirveli korpusidan... magram unda iTqvas, rom es sul sxva Sexvedra iyo saubris toniT, leqsikiT, JestebiT, da rac mTavaria, arsiT. Txoulobdnen batoni Tamazis mxardaWeras im saqmeSi, romlis gansaxorcieleblad saxelmwifoTa manqanebi ukve amoqmedebuli iyo ... batoni Tamazi kategoriulad ver daiTanxmes... sul sxva wesiT cxovrobda batoni oTar jafariZe, gamoCenili arqeologi da araCveulebrivi adamiani, qalbatoni marikas ganuyreli megobari da 356 uerTgulesi, magram masTan mokamaTec. mxolod erT SemTxvevas gavixseneb. qalbatonი marika xSirad saubars iwyebda erTi, mis mier sagangebod mofiqrebuli da warmoTqmuli fraziT: `erTma didma kacma miTxra, rom...~ da miayolebda Tavissave saTqmels. me piradad, albaT sxvebsac, mafrTxilebda, enisTvis kbili daმeWira, magram baton oTarTan saubrisas namdvilad erTi didi Tanamdebobis mqone kacis sityvebi gaaxmovana: istoriis fakultetis profesor-maswavleblebi komunisturi partiis wevrebi unda iyvneno. es, pirvel rigSi, qalbatoni marikasa da batoni oTaris misamarTiT iyo naTqvami. qalbatoni marika arwmunebda baton oTars, rom es misTvis aucilebeli iyo, magram ver daiTanxma. rogorc Semdeg gairkva, saqarTvelos mecnierebaTa akademia morigi arCevnebisTvis emzadeboda. qalbatonma marikam am arCevnebSi gaimarjva da akademiis sasaxelod, SesaZlebelia mTavrobisac, ar vici, unda iTqvas, rom upartio batoni oTari umtkivneulod gavida. an netavi, vis moubrundeboda xeli, rom oTar jafariZisTvis xma ar mieca?! im dRes ki iseTi kamaTi hqondaT, megona aRarasdros gascemdnen xmas erTmaneTs, magram, nuras ukacravad, batonma oTarma Zveleburad mimarTa megobars: `marik, marik, aba, xvalamde~... qalbatoni marikasTvis yvela kabinetis kari Ria iyo, TviTon ki ar midioda, mas urekavdnen da sTxovdnen mibrZanebuliyo. erTi sapirispiro SemTxveva kargad maxsovs. is me mexeboda: ar miSvebdnen arc erT qveyanaSi, demokratiulSic ki, meoTxedi saukune. qalbatoni marika wavida saqmis mosagvareblad saqarTvelos profesiuli kavSirebis TavmjdomaresTan, romelTanac Zalze kargi, SeiZleba iTqvas, megobruli urTierToba hqonda. es gaxldaT zinaida kvaWaZe. am saqmidan araferi ki ar gamovida, magram xom wavida?! me vfiqrob, rom zog sakiTxSi ise Rrmad ar iyo Caxeduli, rogorc mas egona da bevri ram, rogorc axla didad miRebuli gamoTqmaa, feikad miaCnda... ... erTxelac gangaSi atyda – istoriis fakultetze uSiSroebis samsaxuri sakurso namuSevrebs amowmebso. rogorc Semdeg gairkva, erTi studentis naweri ainteresebdaT. es iyo Tamar CxeiZe. Tema Cemi xelmZRvanelobiT iyo Sesrulebuli, amdenad, studentTan erTad, da SeiZleba ufro metadac, pasuxs xelmZRvaneli agebda. im dRiT me universitetis maRliv korpusSi mqonda leqciebi, romelTa mitoveba komunikaciis arsebobis pirobebSic ki dauSvebeli iyo, vinmes gamogzavnas azri ar hqonda, radgan dro ileoda. amitom qalbatonma marikam Cems Tanakurselsa da megobars mito leTodians daavala naweri moeZebna 357 im auarebel nawers Soris, kaTedraze xuTi weli rom inaxeboda da waekiTxa. im foriaqSi vis daebada aseTi azri, ar vici, vici mxolod erTi – Tormetfurcliani rveulidan pirveli ramdenime gverdi ostaturad iyo amoxeuli Sesabamis bolo gverdebTan erTad... am SemTxvevamac Caiara... es jgufi, saqarTvelos istoriis jgufad wodebuli, Zalian niWieri da patriotulad ganwyobili studentebisgan Sedgeboda. me maT kuratorad damniSnes, rac imas niSnavda, rom pasuxs vagebdi maT qmedebebze universitetSic da mis farglebs gareTac da, rac mTavaria, arasaleqcio saaTebSic. me maTTan speckurss vatarebdi cxris naxevarze. erT dResac Sevdivar, arc erTi studenti auditoriaSi ar aris, magram Cans, rom viRac aq namyofi ukve iyo... sanam me davikave Cemi adgili, studentebic Semomyvnen. pirvel merxze, orive mwkrivSi fotoqaRaldebi elaga. mivxvdi, rac iyo, magram ra ewera, ar vicodi. misalmebis Semdeg vTxove, zedmeti Tu ram ewyo – zogs palto ar Caebarebina, zogs qurTuki – veubnebi: `mgoni, ver moaswariT garderobSi Cabareba, amitom me yovelTvis odnav adre movdivar. Tu SeiZleba aalageT yvelaferi da daviwyoT~, vambob xmamaRla, radgan vici, rom auditoriebSi, zogSi mainc, aparaturaa CamontaJebuli, me ki vfiqrob, rom am naTqvamiT yoveli SemTxvevisTvis mafrTxilebdnen... davamTavre leqcia, Camovdivar, mivemarTebi kaTedrisken da vgrZnob, rom raRac xdeba. Turme erT-erT leqtors, visac leqcia hqonda imave kursis sxva jgufTan, analogiuri fotoqaRaldebi, arc meti arc naklebi, pirdapir pirvel ganyofilebaSi Cautania... gavida ramdenime dRe, meubnebian, qalbatoni marika geZebTo. Turme universitetSi daurekavs a. puSkinis saxelobis pedagogiuri institutis reqtors, naTela vasaZes, studenti lamzira totoCava xval diliT CemTan mobrZandeso. reqtoratidan darekes istoriis fakultetis dekanTan, man daureka kaTedris gamges, anu qalbaton marikas, romelmac brZana administraciis saerTo azri – kuratori gayveso. `Tu sakiTxi seriozulia, gayves fakultetis dekani an erT-erTi moadgile~, vambob yvelas gasagonad. am saqmidan araferi gamovida... araCveulebrivi adamiani iyo lamzira totoCava – wynari, mSvidi, dinji, swavlas mowyurebuli studenti, Camosuli surebidan, cis kidurze ganfenili ulamazesi soflidan, rogorc erTma gurulma amiwera, me ki arasdros menaxa, arc maSin da arc dRes. SevediT, vRelav, magram ar vimCnev. gamogitydebiT, aseTi ganrisxebuli qali ar minaxavs mTeli Cemi cxovrebis manZilze. axlac maxsovs misi Tvalebi. `iciT Tu ara Tqven, rom am studentma dayara proklamaciebi Cvens (Tu Cems) ins- 358 titutSi?~ – mekiTxeba reqtori. `pirvelad mesmis, lamzira amas ar Caidenda, raRac mcdari informacia mogawodes mis Sesaxeb~, vpasuxob. reqtorma gamoiZaxa institutis partiuli komitetis mdivani, Cemze ukan rom swavlobda erTi an ori klasiT, saxelovani ojaxidan (gamoCenili mwerlis), magram Tavi ise eWira, TiTqos, pirvelad mxedavs. Cemi skolis arc erTi mowafis Sesaxeb araferi amdagvari ar msmenia. es iyo Zalze cnobili da gansakuTrebuli, ilia WavWavaZis saxelobis Tbilisis qalTa yofili 23-e saSualo skola Tavisi brwyinvale maswavlebelTa korpusiT... is dRe iyo da is dRe, Cems Tanaskolels arasdros mivsalmebivar... Tavad incidentma ki Caiara, raSic, vfiqrob, qalbatoni marikas xeli eria, Tumc TviTon araferi uTqvams. qalbatoni marika rom Zalian karg urTierTobaSi iyo gamoCenil moRvawe qalebTan, maT Soris naTela vasaZesTan, me vicodi, radgan moskovSi erT-erTi Camosvlisas, sadac me kvalifikaciis amaRlebis kursebze vimyofebodi da paralelurad sadoqtoro disertaciaze profesor aron iakovleviC gureviCis xelmZRvanelobiT msoflio istoriis institutSi vmuSaobdi, qalbatonma marikam miTxra, rom sastumros nomerSi naTela vasaZesTan erTad cxovrobda. maSin ganmimtkicda azri, rom qalbatonma marikam studenti universitetidan mglis bileTiT garicxvas, me ki umaRles skolaSi swavlebis akrZalvas da axalgazrdobasTan kontaqtis samudamo gawyvetas gadamarCina.(4) qalbatoni marika rom sanimuSo megobari iyo, amas mowmobs misi Taobis, gansakuTrebiT skolis, universitetis da istoriis institutis Sua saukuneebis saqarTvelos istoriis ganyofilebis adamianTa mogonebebi an zepiri monaTxrobebi masze. erTi aseTi SemTxveva maxsendeba: saqarTvelos pirvelma prezidentma mas ivane javaxiSvilis saxelobis universitetis reqtoroba SesTavaza, magram qalbatonma marikam uari ganacxada da am Tanamdebobaze, Tvalis dauxamxameblad, baton oTar jafariZis kandidatura wamoayena. misi uaris mizezi ar vici, magram vfiqrob, rom es uari erT garemoebas SeiZleboda gamoewvia, iseve, rogorc baton Tamaz gamyreliZis uari, anda baton oTaris erTTviani reqtoroba da sakuTari nebiT gadadgoma... gadadga, magram qalbatonma marikam xom daasaxela? sayovelTaod cnobilia, rom iyo dro, rodesac didi ivane javaxiSvilis daarsebuli universiteti ar gaxldaT mxolod umaRlesi saswavlebeli, is sxva, didi da mniSvnelovani funqciis matarebeli, ideaTa generatori, maTi cxovrebaSi aRsrulebisTvis mebrZoli Taobis aRzrdas emsaxureboda. am mxriv gansakuTrebiT gamoirCeodnen momava- 359 li istorikosebi, filologebi, fizikosebi, miuxedavad maTi erovnuli da konfesiuri kuTvnilebisa, maTi didi nawili ideaTa brZolis `frontis~ wina xazze iyo, bevric axladgamoCenil da legalurad moqmed erovnul moZraobas farulad gulSematkivrobda, magram qveyana yvelas erTnairad uyvarda. saerTod universitetis students anda kursdamTavrebuls gansakuTrebuli statusi hqonda miniWebuli, rasac sityva universiteteli gamoxatavda. universitetis istorias, yovel SemTxvevaSi im wlebisas da im kuTxiT, romelsac me vgulisxmob, Tu ar vcdebi, erTi mkvlevaric ki ar gamouCnda da es im dros, rodesac amave universitetis profesori, SemdgomSi akademikosi giorgi Citaia jer kidev gasuli saukunis 50-iani wlebis damlevs gvinergavda momaval eTnografebs seminarebze, Tavis saSinao `skolaSi~, didi gulmodginebiT Segveswavla yoveli nivTis istoria gamoCenili germaneli mecnieris lipsis wignis mixedviT – `nivTebis warmomavloba~, romlis rusuli Targmani Cvens studentobamde bevrad adre ukve arsebobda. xazgasmiT unda aRvniSno, rom igive sakiTxze Zalian didxans saubrobda profesori aron iakovleviC gureviCi leqciaze ivane javaxiSvilis saxelobis universitetSi, sadac leqciebis mTeli cikli waikiTxa Cems auditoriaSi da Cemi sagnis nacvlad, ra Tqma unda, qalbatoni marikas TanxmobiTa da reqtorTan SeTanxmebiT. q a l b a t o n i m a r i k a n o v a c i e b i s m o y v a r u l i c i y o . Cven kaTedraze Semodiodnen xolme gasagebad, rodis romeli leqtori Camodis da ra Temaze igegmeba leqciaTa ciklebi. am gziT Cvenma studentebma moismines iuri lvoviC bessmertnis, genadi grigorieviC litavrinis, iakov nikolaeviC liubarskis leqciebi. qalbatoni marika imden sazogadoebriv da saganmanaTleblo saqmeSi gaxldaT CarTuli, rom ucxoelTaTvis saqarTvelos istoriisa da Semdgom saqarTvelos istoriis wyaroebis individualurad swavlebisTvis dro aRar rCeboda. ase gaiares CemTan ramdenimewliani specialuri kursebi: margit birom (ungreTi), oliver raisnerma (germania), donald re¡fildma (gaerTianebuli samefo) da sxvebma, agreTve, zogadi kursebi fridrix Sileris saxelobis ienis universitetis ramdenime studentma, romelTagan erTi kargad maxsovs: es gaxlavT Stefi iungerxotivari; agreTve, Cvens universitetSi Caricxulma studentTa mTelma jgufebma avRaneTidan, TurqeTidan... swored am jgufis studentebisgan Sevityve pirvelad, rogori programiT aswavlian TurqeTis istorias am qveynis bavSvebs zogad-saganmanaTleblo skolebSi... 360 universitetSi, ra Tqma unda, SeiZleboda Seqmniliyo sagangebo struqtura imgvarad, rogorc qalbatonma marikam, ra Tqma unda, reqtorTan SeTanxmebiT da misi mxardaWeriT daafuZna. es gaxldaT saqarTvelos soflebis istoriis Semswavleli samecniero-kvleviTi laboratoria, romelsac saTaveSi profesori givi jamburia Cauyena; Cven, kaTedris danarCen wevrebs, aucileblad unda gvemuSava ramdenime studentTan Tu ara, erTTan mainc. aRniSnul Tematikaze jer unda daweriliyo sakurso namuSevari, romelsac ori weli Tu ara, erTi mainc dasWirdeboda, gafarTovebis SemTxvevaSi ki SesaZlebeli iyo misi sadiplomo naSromad warmodgena. es struqtura Seiqmna ukrainaSi ukve arsebulis analogiiT: profesori guram lorTqifaniZe mivlinebuli gaxldaT ukrainaSi, s a d a c u k v e g a m o c e m u l i y o fila ukrainis soflebis istoriis amsaxveli enciklopedia ormoc tomad. warmogidgeniaT, ra ganZia igi dRes?! erT epizods Sevexebi kidev. qalbatoni marika mTavazobs universitetis pirvel korpusSi S e y v a n a s k v i r a d R e s , 1989 wlis 16 aprils. mas aqvs mosawvevi, mets aravis Cveni kaTedridan. arsad aris gamokruli gancxadeba, arc aravin icis raime am dRis Sesaxeb, magram ra Tqma unda, ician maT, vinc oficialuradaa miwveuli, maT Soris studentebic, oRond sagangebod SerCeuli da cotani. am dRes universitetSi mobrZandnen razumovski, SevardnaZe da gumbariZe. mTeli pirveli korpusi garSemortymuli iyo policielebiT, maT ekavaT misadgomebi, baRis nawili, centraluri Sesasvlelis mimdebare teritoria. swored am Tavyrilobaze gaisma eduard SevardnaZis cnobili sityvebi: „...плакал я и плакал товарищ Разумовский“. sainteresoa daiZebnos am Tavyrilobis stenograma, oqmi, anda gamomsvlelTa sityvebi. aq, am dRes qalbatoni marika SesaniSnavi sityviT gamobrZanda rusul enaze... ...mavans, albaT, hgonia, rom qalbatoni marikas mTeli cxovreba ia-vardiT iyo mofenili, magram es ase namdvilad ar iyo. amasTan dakavSirebiT erTi ambavi maxsendeba, misive monayoli. muSaobda istoriis, arqeologiisa da eTnografiis institutSi, daculi hqonda sakandidato disertacia (1948), agrZelebda muSaobas sadoqtoroze. aT welze meti xani gavida, naSromi Seiqmna da gadaeca recenzents, romlis recenziis safuZvelze saqmes msvleloba unda miscemoda. qalbatonma marikam SekiTxviT mimarTa recenzents disertaciis dabrunebisa da masze dawerili recenziis gacnobis Sesaxeb, pasuxad miiRo: `ra geCqa- 361 reba, jer xom axalgazrda xar~-o? arada, erTi weli ukve gasuli yofila dRidan naSromis gadacemisa. me ar vici, rodis Sedga maTi saubari, arc is vici, kidev ramden xans grZeldeboda Seyovneba, vici dacvis TariRi (1963), romelsac Tavadac asaxelebs, agreTve, vici adgili, sadac dacva Sedga, romelsac mec veswrebodi. es gaxldaT universitetis saaqto darbazi. es ar iyo arc pirveli da arc ukanaskneli gulistkena... ... axlovdeboda 1976, didi ivane javaxiSvilis dabadebidan 100 weli. am TariRTan dakavSirebiT mTavrobam miiRo gadawyvetileba didi mecnieris `TxzulebaTa~ mravaltomeulis gamocemisa da sxva RonisZiebaTa Sesaxeb. Seiqmna saredaqcio kolegia, ganawilda samuSaoebi, TiTqos, Tanmimdevrobis sakiTxic dadginda – pirvel tomad unda wasuliyo batoni ivanes daarsebuli seriis: `istoriis mizani, wyaroebi da meTodebi winaT da axla~, wigni I: `Zveli qarTuli saistorio mwerloba~, romlis redaqtori qalbatoni marika gaxldaT. saqme swrafad miiwevda win, kaTedris ramdenime wevri aqtiurad monawileobda, gansakuTrebiT, wyaroebisa da literaturis moZiebasa da sxva sakiTxebSic. maxsovs sruliad axalgazrda Tamar qoriZis Tavdadeba, erTi didi nawili Tqvenma mona-morCilmac gavakeTe, ase rom, 1976 wlisTvis tomi mzad iyo gadasacemad, magram ukanasknel momentSi tomebis Tanmimdevroba Seicvala, qalbatoni marikas redaqtorobiT momzadebul toms VIII ewoda da 1977 wels daibeWda, Tormettomeulis gamocema ki `qarTveli eris istoriis~ pirveli wigniT daiwyo, romlis saTaveSi gamoCenili istorikosi, qarTuli aRmosavleTmcodne – istorikosTa skolis fuZemdebeli, Tavisi aspirantebisa da axalgazrda mkvlevarTa didi patroni, agreTve, sakuTari mignebebis, jer gamouqveyneblis uSurvelad gamcemi sxvaTaTvis, rogorc TavisianebisTvis, romelTac mec vakuTvneb Tavs, rac unikaluri SemTxvevaa, batoni valerian gabaSvili idga. iyo kidev erTi sakiTxi – mecniers unda hqonoda saSualeba gamgzavrebuliyo ucxoeTSi msoflio kongresis muSaobaSi monawileobisTvis da Tu mas es ar SeeZlo, maSin maRal instanciaSi unda ezrunaT iseTi rangis mecnieris gagzavnaze, iseTi mebrZolis, respeqtabeluris, rogoric qalbatoni marika gaxldaT, romelsac SeeZlo saqarTvelos istoriidan nebismier sakiTxze argumentirebuli msjeloba, miT ufro, nebismieri mecnieris sapasuxod, vinc Seecdeboda misi qveynis istoriis gayalbebas, `mrude sarkeSi~ warmoCenas. rac ufro didi saerTaSoriso 362 avtoritetis mqone da saxelis matarebeli iyo is mecnieri, miT meti iyo qalbatoni marikas brZolisunarianoba. misi gamgzavrebis sakiTxi, vfiqrob, unda mogvarebuliyo. marTalia, sloveniaSi Catarebul kongresSi (2016) monawileoba, SesaZloa, ukve TviTon arc surda, magram kopenhagenis (1996), parizis (2001), londonis (2006) da sofiis (2011) kongresebSi – Zalian undoda. Tu raime ewyineboda, arc ityoda da arc gagrZnobinebda. Zalian Zlieri iyo da cdilobda yvelaferi Tavad gadaexarSa, Cveuli forma ar daekarga, Sefasebisas gvarianad akvirdeboda vinmes an raimes, samarTliani iyo da keTilmosurne, taqti arasdros moklebia mis naTqvams. erT biografiaSi Tavisi xeliT dawera: `akademiaSi gatarebuli `reformis~ Semdeg konkursSi monawileoba aRar mimiRia~. da iqve: `universitetSi gatarebuli `reformebis~ Semdeg konkursSi monawileoba ar mimiRia~. es orive ambavi erTsadaimave istoriul xanaSi moxda, qalbatoni marikas mier dasmulma brWyalebma ki kargad aCvena erTi didi movlenis arsi. paralelisTvis magaliTs movitan imis sailustraciod, Tu rogor eqceodnen Cveni uaxloesi mezobeli eris Svilebi TavianT mecnierebs, oRond somxeTis miwaze mkvidrT – ara. amaSi araerTxel davrwmunebulvar.(5) kidev erTi, Zalze mniSvnelovani epizodi, dakavSirebuli miqelaZeebTan, romelic qalbaton marikas CemTvis uambnia, exeba qalbatoni marikasa da baton gigas dedis, qalbaton nino miqelaZis biZaSvils, uniWieres qarTvels, gamoCenil diriJors, tragikulad daRupul evgeni miqelaZes (Женя-s, rogorc mas axloblebi eZaxdnen). es epizodi dakavSirebulia zaqaria faliaSvilis operis – `latavra~-s dadgmasTan Tbilisis saopero TeatrSi. es is dRe iyo, rodesac am operis generaluri repeticia, ufro ki speqtaklis Cabareba mimdinareobda, romelsac evgeni miqelaZis mowafe Salva azmaifaraSvili diriJorobda. baton evgenis am gasinjvaze dapatiJebuli hyavda sruliad axalgazrda marika da masze xuTi wliT patara giga. speqtaklis dasrulebis Semdgom biZam axalgazrdebi zemelamde gamoacila,(6) gamoemSvidoba da gabrunda TeatrSi, sadac, savaraudod, an samxatvro xelmZRvanelis an Teatris direqtoris kabinetSi samxatvro sabWos sxdoma unda Catarebuliyo, romelzedac speqtaklis avkargianobaze saubris Semdgom, premieris dRe unda CaniSnuliyo. rodesac batoni evgeni salaroebis mxares Teatris erT-erTi karisken miemarTeboda, orma mamakacma, uecrad gamoCenilma, aiyvana... amis Semdgom misi gza da kvali daikarga... qalbatoni 363 marikas monaTxrobis sruli WeSmariteba, dRes, roca es striqonebi iwereba, damidastura misma qaliSvilma – T a m a r o T x m e z u r m a , romelmac es ambavi ara dedisgan, aramed bebiisgan, jer kidev axalgazrda nino miqelaZisgan moismina ukve mozardma. am monaTxrobiT aRniSnuli epizodi mniSvnelovnad Seivso. es epizodi imiTaa saintereso, rom evgeni miqelaZis TavisianebTan yofnis, maTTan saubris ukanasknel wuTebs moicavs. speqtaklze axalgazrdebTan erTad miwveuli gaxldaT qalbatoni nino miqelaZis Zma – mixeil miqelaZe, saxelmwifo sagundo kapellis momRerali, uaxloesi garemos aRweriT, araCveulebrivi adamiani, axalgazrdebisTvis – sayvareli Zia miSa. am sabediswero dRes, prospeqtze gaseirnebisas, saubari ufrosebs Soris saopero TeatrSi mimdinare movlenas, kerZod, `latavras~ premieras Seexeboda. saqme is gaxlavT, rom batoni evgeni miqelaZis azriT, operas sWirdeboda repeticiebi, igi musikalurad jer mzad ar iyo sapremierod. baton evgenis, rogorc Teatris samxatvro xelmZRvanelsa da mTavar diriJors, sruli ufleba hqonda premiera ramdenime xniT gadaewia, razedac batoni mixeili mokrZalebiT afrTxilebda: informacia operis premieris Sesaxeb gasulia, afiSebi da programebi dabeWdili. aseT viTarebaSi speqtaklis moxsna did usiamovnebas gamoiwvevs da nu izam amaso. ar daujera... da rom ambobdnen Teatrs Seewirao, erTi mxriv marTalia, Teatrs, meore mxriv, ufro Tu davakonkretebT, T a v i s maRal profesionalizms, daumorCileblobis g a m o x a t v a s . is gaxldaT Tavisufali xelovani, Tavisi principebi hqonda, mona iyo mxolod da mxolod im kanonebis, romlebic saopero xelovnebas marTavda. swored am principebis dacvas emsxverpla... es sabediswero dRe erTia mxolod im mravalTa Soris, romelTa Sesaxeb wera Zalian Sors wagviyvans. rac Seexeba `latavras~, misi bedi amgvarad warimarTa: ramdenime xans elodnen samxatvro xelmZRvanelis mobrZanebas, magram rodesac Seityves misi ambavi, imave wams mSvidad daiwyes bWoba da mividnen daskvnamde, rom gegmas unda gahyolodnen. amitomac Zalian male, imave 1937 wlis Semodgomaze `latavras~ ganmeorebiTi dadgmis premierac Sedga (mgoni imave noembris TveSi), pultTan batoni evgenis mowafe, diriJori Salva azmaifaraSvili idga. qalbaton marikasa da baton gigas dedis – qalbaton nino miqelaZis – disSvili, n i n o ( n i n u l i ) x o t i v a r i a d a s t u r e b s monaTxrobebis WeSmaritebas `latavras~ Sesaxeb. baton evgenis uaxloesi naTesavebis TqmiT, misi ayvana noemberSi unda momxdariyo. erT samecniero statiaSi 364 aris miTiTeba `latavras~ axal dadgmaze. es gaxlavT 1938 weli. vfiqrob, rom premieris TariRis dasadgenad damatebiTi masalebis kvlav daZebnaa saWiro.(7) garda amisa, aucilebelia aseTi rudunebiTa da TavdadebiT Seqmnil am udidesi mniSvnelobis mqone naRvaws gamouCndes patroni, raTa misi meore, Sesworebuli da Sevsebuli gamocema ganxorcieldes. magondeba erTi saRamo, qalbaton marikasTan erTad Tbilisis saxelmwifo konservatoriis mcire darbazSi gatarebuli. universitetSi iyo, muSaobda, uecrad gadawyvita koncertze wamosvla. koncertis dawyebidan ramdenime wuTSi gaisma saRamos wamyvanis xma, romelic mas scenaze iwvevda. qalbatoni marika scenaze ar abrZanebula, radgan aqedan asasvleli saerTod ar iyo, amitom rampasTan axlos mivida da auditorias Zalian saintereso mogoneba gaacno. am gamosvliT man im TvalsazrisiT gamaoca, rom arc erT biografiaSi ar dauweria da arc arasdros uxsenebia, rom swavlobda niWier bavSvTa aTwledSi, fortepianos ganyofilebaze da, rac yvelaze mTavaria, qarTuli pianizmis skolis brwyinvale warmomadgenelTan, qalbaton anastasia virsalaZesTan. daamTavra Tu ara es saswavlebeli, me ar vici, magram Tavad faqtma gamaoca. isev T a m a r o T x m e z u r i s naambobs mogaxsenebT, romelic batoni evgenisa da mozardi marikas dialogs Seexeba: „Когда я выросту и буду пианисткой, ты же мне будешь дирижировать?“ pasuxi: „Дорогая, я дирижирую талантливых музыкантов; а из Гиги сделаю большого дирижёра“. am ori winadadebidanac ki warmogesaxebaT am adamianTa fsiqologiuri portretebi... ... gavida dro... dro ki ara, cxovreba, arc Tu ise xanmokle, magram mainc cota ggonia iseTi adamianisTvis, rogoric mariam lorTqifaniZe gaxldaT: energiuli, Semtevi, mebrZoli, respeqtabeluri, Wkviani, udidesi SromismoyvareobiTa da organizebulobiT gamorCeuli, TavdaWerili, WirTa momTmeni, adamianTa mimarT keTilganwyobili, miuxedavad maTi warmomavlobisa, socialuri kuTvnilebisa... kidev ramdeni ram SeeZlo mieca Tavisi xalxisTvis, samSoblosTvis, ramdeni SesaniSnavi leqcia Caetarebina axalgazrdebisTvis, ramdeni moxseneba waekiTxa da daebeWda ucxoeTSi, gamosuliyo sajaro leqciebiT televiziiT, radiomauwyeblobiT... magram rac gaakeTa, isic sakmarisia imisTvis, rom vTqvaT: Tavisi moRvaweobiT namdvilad daimkvidra kuTvnili adgili qarTuli mecnierebis istoriaSi, agreTve, gaafarTova ucxoel mecnierTa Tvalsawieri, sxvadasxva enaze gamocemuli samecniero naS- 365 romebiTa da ucxoeTSi wakiTxuli moxsenebebiT mniSvnelovnad sacnauri gaxada Cveni qveynis istoria da didi roli iTamaSa saerTaSoriso samecniero asparezze misi gatanisa da popularizaciis saqmeSi. yvelaferi, rac mis samecniero da sazogadoebriv moRvaweobas moicavs, Zalze mniSvnelovania dRes, rodesac Cveni qveyana axali gamowvevebis winaSe dgas. SeniSvnebi (1) erT faqts Sevexebi mxolod, romelic Cems adreul bavSvobaSi xdeboda da mTeli cxovreba sakuTari aCrdiliviT damyveba. Cveni saxli idga da dRemdea SemorCenili aleqsandre WavWavaZis quCis bolos, niaRvris quCisa da cxemis Sesaxvevis gadakveTaze, mTawmindis ZirSi, SemozRudulia maRali, wiTeli aguriT agebuli kedliT. SuaRamisas, ase or an sam saaTze gaismoda xolme kakuni karze. `movidnen!~, ityoda ojaxis romelime wevri. marTlac movidnen, da ara erTxel, papaCemis – nikoloz yaflanis Ze vaCnaZis wasayvanad iq, sadac mihyavdaT milionobiT sabWoTa moqalaqe, mTeli misi danaSauli ki imaSi mdgomareobda, rom verafriT miawerines werili sakuTari ZmisTvis – daviTisTvis – imis Taobaze, rom aRarasdros gamoegzavna aRarc werili da arc amanaTi, radgan xels iRebda mis Zmobaze (mkiTxvels ganvumartav, rom daviT vaCnaZe ar gaxlavT 1924 wlis ajanyebis gmiri daviT [daTa, daTaSa] vaCnaZe, Tumc es ukanaskneli, iseve rogorc elizbar vaCnaZe, Cveni naTesavia). daviT vaCnaZe 1924 wlis ajanyebis marcxiT damTavrebis Semdgom, parizSi gadaixvewa ojaxiT (garda erTi qaliSvilisa). amitomacaa, rom Cvens sagvareulo albomSi, romelic inaxeba mamidaCemis – anna nikolozis asul vaCnaZis ojaxSi, daviTis qaliSvilebis mxolod adreuli asakis fotoebia, Semdgomdroindelebi – aRar. papas werili ar miuweria, magram erTi msaxiobis (qarTveli gastrolioris) saSualebiT Cvens ojaxs SeuTvlia viTareba saqmisa, arada ufrosi qaliSvili, romelsac rusul yaidaze Маруся-s eZaxdnen (axal qarTulad, Sesatyvisad Y sWirdeba, romelic, samwuxarod, ar ixmareba), brwyinvale saopero momRerali, saopero Teatris namdvili varskvlavi, Semdgom milanis saopero Teatris – la skala-s profesori, parizSi silamazis konkursSi gamarjvebuli, mxolod naalafav kinofilmSi – `jariskacis bedi amerikaSi~ – vixileT momdevno Taobebma, isic kikeTSi, mindorSi, saxeldaxelod gadaWimul ekranze, mTavrobis nebiT, magram 366 aralegalur Cvenebaze ucxoeTisTvis. rogorc mogexsenebaT, xelovnebis yoveli nimuSi, sxva qveyanaSi gatanili, Rirs safasuri. misi erTi foto, romelic memkvidreobiT mergo, mamidas vaCuqe, vinc icnobda da visac uyvarda. mas sxvebic hqonda, romelTac saTuTad, magram farulad inaxavda ramdenime aTeuli wlis ganmavlobaSi. yvela foto, garda Cemi naCuqarisa, sadac igi gadaRebuli iyo rozinas rolSi kompozitor rosinis operaSi `sevilieli dalaqi~, gamoaqveyna batonma giorgi WeiSvilma krebulSi `samecniero paradigmebi~ (gamomcemloba `meridiani~, Tb., 2009, XIV foto). rac Seexeba zemoxsenebulT, agreTve, afiSebs, programebs da sxva saintereso masalas, Cemma mamidaSvilma, manana asaTianma, aRasrula ra dedis aTeulobiT wlis survili, erT oficialur, saxelmwifos didi Tanamdebobis pirs gaatana milanis saopero TeatrisTvis gadasacemad. es masalebi am Teatris istoriisTvisac saintereso iqneboda, magram, samwuxarod, adresatamde ver miaRwia... Tavad ambavi TariRdeba XXI saukunis pirveli aTeulis meore naxevriT. (2) mariam lorTqifaniZe, `rCeuli nawerebi~, wigni I, Semdgeneli da redaqtori naTela vaCnaZe, gamomcemloba `meridiani~, Tbilisi, 2016. (3) mariam lorTqifaniZe, „rCeuli nawerebi“, wigni II, gamosacemad moamzada gamomcemloba „nekerma“, daibeWda ivane javaxiSvilis saxelobis saxelmwifo universitetis gamomcemlobis stambaSi, 2020 weli. (4) qalbaton marikas erT-erT saiubileo saRamoze, sadac mxolod iubilars hqonda neba garedan piradi stumrebis mowvevisa, erTad isxdnen: viqtoria siraZe, neli gurgeniZe, madona mgelaZe, naTela vasaZe. meore rigSi vijeqi, radgan erT-erTi gamomsvleli viyavi, es qalbatonebi Cems ukan isxdnen. me, Cveulebisamebr, mivesalme maT, rogorc iubilaris pirad stumrebs, gansakuTrebiT madona mgelaZes, romelic profesorma aleqsandre (alik) aleqsiZem gamacno odesRac erTi SemTxvevis gamo. universiteti akompleqtebda turistul jgufs saberZneTSi samogzaurod. batonma aleqsiZem saqarTvelos ucxoeTis qveynebTan megobrobis sazogadoebis TavmjdomaresTan wardgineba ver SeZlo, magram moadgilesTan ise damaxasiaTa, rom mas eWvic ki ar Sehparvia saqmis keTilad dasrulebaSi. bevri magaliTi dausaxela imisa, Tu rogor vaswavli saqarTvelos istorias filologiis fakultetis rusul seqtorze, sadac Tavad antikuri literaturis istorias kiTxulobda; uambo, rogor damyavda eqskursiebze mTeli kursi yovel dasvenebis dRes, es ki didi mniSvnelobis saqmed CamiTvala, radgan k u r s i m r a v a l e r o v a n i i y o . universitetis reqtoratis sasaxelod unda iTqvas, rom am saqme- 367 Si yovel jerze didad miwyobda xels. Tavmjdomaris moadgile swored madona mgelaZe gaxldaT, magram am saqmidanac araferi gamovida, radgan misi kompetencia sakmarisi ar iyo, amgvari sakiTxis gadawyveta sxva uwyebaSi xdeboda... rodesac davasrule sityva qalbaton marikaze da davubrundi Cems adgils, naTela vasaZe gadmoiwia Cemsken da miTxra: „ra SesaniSnavi sityva warmoTqviT, siamovnebiT gismendiT“-o. aSkarad ver micno. mere raRacas CurCulebdnen, veraferi gavigone, garda kidev ufro Cumad warmoTqmuli gvarisa – Jordania... qalbatoni marikas dabadebidan 85 wlisTavisadmi miZRvnil krebulSi ganTavsebulia erTi foto warweriT: „mariam lorTqifaniZe, sergo zaqariaZe da naTela vaCnaZe, qarTuli kulturis dReebi gdr., 1969 w.“, oRond es me ar var, naTela vasaZea; agreTve, imave wignSi warmomadgines iubilaris bibliografiis Semdgenelad, rac simarTles ar Seefereba. am wignis SeqmnaSi monawileoba ar mimiRia. ix.: `mariam lorTqifaniZe 85, Tbilisis universitetis gamomcemloba, Tb., 2007“. (5) Zalze cnobil amerikel mecniers, erovnebiT somexs, nina giorgievna garsoians Cveni qveynis istoriis mimarT, rbilad Tu vityviT, arasamarTlians, somxebma parizSi uyides saxli, SesaZloa bina, ar vici, magram sad, iciT? meTeqvsmete ubanSi, mare rom hqvia, sadac mxolod umdidresi adamianebi cxovrobdnen. parizis kongresze Camosuls, nina giorgievnas, ukve SeeZlo sastumroSi ki ar ecxovra, aramed sakuTar saxlSi da stumrebic ki mieRo. im Camosvlaze masTan cxovrobda Zalian cnobili moskoveli bizantinologi viada aruTiunova-fidaniani, mec mimiwvia TavisTan sacxovreblad, didi madloba gadavuxade da sxva droisTvis gadavde... meore SemTxveva exeboda Zalze cnobil leningradel arqeologs, friad sapativcemulo qalbatons, karine kuSnariovas. igi yovel wels mofrinavda somxeTSi dvinis gaTxrebSi monawileobis misaRebad. eqspedicias mravali wlis manZilze saTaveSi didi saxelis mqone arqeologi karo grigorieviC kafadariani edga, ukve solidur asakSi myofi, Zalze daqveiTebuli mxedvelobiT da mZime xasiaTiT. Cemma somexma kolegebma mkiTxes, romel eqspediciaSi mainteresebda muSaoba, me dvini avirCie, didxansac viyavi da ise davumegobrdi eqspediciis wevrebs, sadac mxolod qalebi iyvnen, rom Zalian did xans gagvyva yvelas iq Casaxuli megobroba. TbilisSi dabrunebuli, ramdenjerme Zalian didxans vesaubre baton oTars, jafariZes, bevri ram vuTxari, maT Soris yvelaze mTavari: Любимчик публики, rogorc masze 368 ambobdnen somxeTSi. batonma oTarma miTxra, rom karo grigorieviCi wyneTeli somexiao. karine kuSnariova sinamdvileSi kuSnariani yofila, Zalian didi musikosis Svili. is gaxldaT leningradis konservatoriis erT-erTi wamyvani profesori, romelTanac qarTveli musikosebi, vinc ki swavlobda am saxelovan umaRles saswavlebelSi, maT Soris evgeni miqelaZe, gadiodnen Sesabamis sagnebs. mxolod maSin gaxda CemTvis cnobili, ratom epyroboda amgvari siTboTi da siyvaruliT batoni karo karines... marTalni aRmoCndnen Cemi somexi megobrebi... erevnis operisa da baletis saxelmwifo TeatrSi Tanamedrove qarTuli opera – `mindia~ – idgmeboda. am movlenasTan dakavSirebiT vimyofebodi erevanSi. somxeTSi Casuls, Zalian mominda im taZris naxva, sadac grigol ganmanaTlebels frinveli fanjridan awvdida sakvebs. am survilis aRsrulebaSi isev somexi megobrebi unda damxmarebodnen. maTken mimavals operis Teatris baRi unda gadamekveTa. uecrad momesma raRac Zalian nacnobi xma, ara somxuri, aramed rusuli intonaciiTa da sityvebiT, dedis wamoZaxili: `Ашотик! Ашотик!~ movixede da viada SemrCa Tavisi xuTi wlis vaJiT. gavemarTeT erTmaneTisken. vicodi, rom misi meuRle erevneli somexi iyo, specialobiT mxatvari. saubrisas vkiTxe, xom ar gadagiwyvetia aqeT gadmosvla-meTqi, razedac gulianad icina, jer araferi mipasuxa, magram saxeze iqaurobis mimarT aSkarad ukmayofileba gamoexata, Semdeg ki dabejiTebiT miTxra – `RmerTma nu qnas, aq ra mindao?!~ (6) zemels eZaxdnen Tbilisis macxovreblebi erT patara ubans, sadac Tavs iyrida Zveli golovinis anu dRevandeli rusTavelis prospeqtis dasasruli, Zveli moskovis anu amJamindeli Zmebi kakabaZeebis, ivane javaxiSvilis anu mixeil zandukelis, Zveli leninis, axlandeli merab kostavas quCebisa da veris daRmarTis dasawyisi monakveTebi. saxelwodeba momdinareobs gvaridan zemel, vinc iyo TbilisSi Zalze cnobili provizori, romelsac swored am adgilas hqonda sakuTari afTiaqi, anu gvari iqca toponimad. (7) ix.: `qarTuli musikis enciklopediuri leqsikoni~, avtor-Semdgenlebi da redaqtorebi: rusudan quTaTelaZe, mzia jafariZe, Tb., 2015; aqve ixilavT statiebis CamonaTvals masze, romlebic ganTavsebulia agreTve, mraval sxvadasxva rogorc qarTul, ise rusulenovan gazeTsa da specialur JurnalSi. monografiebi: giorgi TaqTaqiSvili, `evgeni miqelaZe~, Tb., 1959; кн. Тактакишвили Г. `Евгений Микеладзе~, Тб., 1963; 369 Москва, 1973; anton wulukiZe, `evgeni miqelaZe~, Tb., 1968. isini pirvelad `qarTuli musikis enciklopediur leqsikonSia~ dabeWdili. rac Seexeba monaTxrobebs masze, am adamianTa mexsierebaSi SemorCenilT, isini sruliad ar ewinaaRmdegeba qalbaton marikas monaTxrobebs biZamisze, aramed ganamtkicebs maT. msurda axali TaobebisTvis memcno qalbatoni marikas interviu, Cawerili da gamocemuli qalbaton lia meliqiSvilis mier missave Sedgenil gamocemaSi: „saqarTvelos didi qalbatoni, Tsu gamomcemloba, Tb., 2013“, magram, Cemda samwuxarod, winamdebare gamocemaSi ver daibeWdeba Tugind erTxel dabeWdili masala, vinc ar unda iyos misi avtori. 370 wignis ganxilva _ BOOK REVIEW nugzar papuaSvili monografia saqarTvelo-ruseTis politikur da saeklesio urTierTobaTa istoriaze PhiliPP Ammon, Georgien zwischen Eigenstaatlichkeit und russischer Okkupation. Die Wurzeln des Konfliktes vom 18. Jh. bis 1924, Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann, 2020, 238 gverdi, ISBN 978-3-902878-45-8. saqarTvelosa da ruseTis mravalsaukunovan urTierTobebs araerTi qarTveli Tu ucxoeli swavluli Sexebia. ase rom, am dargis bevri Tema da sakiTxi safuZvlianad aris Seswavlili da gamokvleuli rogorc qarTul da rusul, ise sxva enebze. amis miuxedavad evropul enebze ar mogvepoveba iseTi naSromi, romelic aRniSnul urTierTobaTa istorias Sejamebulad warmoadgens. am danaklisis Sevsebas isaxavs miznad germanul enaze Seqmnili monografia, romlis avtori gaxlavT berlineli istorikosi da enaTmecnieri – filip amoni. cnobilia (da am naSromidanac Cans), rom is SesaniSnavad flobs rusul da qarTul enebs, rac mas sakvlevi masalis uSualod gacnobisa da damuSavebis SesaZleblobas aZlevs. gansaxilvel gamocemas, romlis satitulo saTauri qarTulad ase iTargmneba: „saqarTvelo saxelmwifoebriv damoukideblobasa da rusul okupacias Soris. qarTul-rusuli konfliqtis fesvebi me-18 saukunidan pirveli qarTuli respublikis dasasrulamde (1921)“, axlavs minaweri: Dem Freund Kacha Kazitadse gewidmet, rac niSnavs: avtori am naSroms megobris – profesor kaxa kacitaZis (1959-2012), qarTveli filosofosisa d samxedro eqspertis – xsovnas uZRvnis. Cven xelTaa am naSromis meore gamocema (pirvelad 2015 wels gamoica). orive garemoeba (miZRvna da meored gamocema) migvaniSnebs, rom avtori gulSi im qveynis mimarT, romlis warsulsa da politikur beds misi monografiis Tema ukavSirdeba, gansakuTrebul interessa da pativiscemas atarebs. 371 es faqti kidev ufro avaldebulebs winamdebare striqonebis avtors, rogorc aRniSnuli qveynis moqalaqes, rom am naSromis ganxilvisa da Sefasebis dros meti pasuxismgebloba da obieqturoba gamoiCinos. gamokvleva moicavs aT Tavs paragrafebiTurT, daskvniT nawilsa da bibliografias (me-9 da me-10 Tavi). avtoris teqsts mosdevs Uwe Halbach-is Tanmxlebi werili (Nachwort), romelSic mocemulia naSromis mokle, magram sagnobrivi da safuZvliani analizi. Tavad naSromis aRnagoba zogadad ase warmogvidgeba: 1. Sesavali, romelSic ganmartebulia sxvadasxva Teoriuli da meTodologiuri aspeqti, 2. saqarTvelos istoriis sakvlevi monakveTis winaistoria (`Das christliche Georgien und das Dritte Rom [qristianuli saqarTvelo da mesame romi]“) da 3. istoriis am monakveTis qarTul-rusuli politikur-samxedro da kulturul-religiuri xasiaTis konfliqtebis aRnusxva da analizi. Sesavali da winaistoria mkiTxvelebs exmareba, rom gamokvlevaSi mocemuli faqtebi, sakiTxebi da problemebi ukeTesad aRiqvan da gaiazron. vxedavT, rom miznis – ruseT-saqarTvelos urTierTobaTa istoriaSi arsebuli konfliqturi SemTxvevebis konstatirebisa da maTi siRrmiseuli ganxilvis – misaRwevad avtors didi da mravalmxrivi kvleviTi samuSao Cautarebia: TiTqmis yvela mniSvnelovani dokumenturi da naratiuli wyaro Seukrebia da daumuSavebia; gacnobia sxvadasxva enaze Seqmnil didZal specialur literaturas; kvlevis meTodad moumarjvebia analitika da kritika. mkvlevars gaazrebuli aqvs, rom aRniSnul konfliqtebs saqarTvelos samoqalaqo da saeklesio istoriaSi gansakuTrebuli adgili unda daeTmos. man icis, rom es istoria aris xangrZlivi da dRemde dausrulebeli, Sedegi ki katastrofuli – ruseTsa da saqarTvelos Soris 2008 wlis „xuTdRiani omi“, romelsac ori qarTuli administraciuli erTeulis, afxazeTisa da samxreT oseTis, okupacia mohyva. avtori amCnevs da mkiTxvelic xedavs, rom qarTul-rusuli urTierTobebis istoria ambivalenturi xasiaTisaa: konfliqtebis garda is ara erTsa da or iseT saamo epizods moicavs, romelic orive mxares sargebels sZens. radgan es namdvilad asea, meti simwvaviT wamoiWreba kiTxvaTa mTeli seria am cxare da zogjer saSineli konfliqtebis gamomwvevi mizezebis Sesaxeb. aseT kiTxvebs, cxadia, Cveni mkvlevaric svams da xSirad iseT pasuxebsa da ganmartebebs gvTavazobs, romlebsac ara mxolod viwro samecniero – ara mxolod qarTvelologiuri – mniSvneloba aqvs, aramed isini faseulia zogadad politologiisa da 372 konfliqtologiisTvisac. es araa gasakviri, radgan erebsa da qveynebs Soris aRmocenebuli konfliqtebi Sesabamis internacionalur urTierTobebs efuZneba da bunebrivia, rom Cveni avtoric rusul-qarTuli urTierTobebis istorias gansakuTrebul mniSvnelobas aniWebs. misi monaTxrobis meSveobiT germanulenovan publikas eZleva SesaZlebloba, am istoriis arsebiTi da mniSvnelovani konturebi dainaxon da gaiTvaliswinon. naSromSi warmodgenili ruseT-saqarTvelos urTierTobebis istoria Semdegnairad Sejamdeba: konstantinopolis dacemis Semdeg (1453 wlidan) saqarTvelos qristianuli samefo izolaciaSi aRmoCnda. es niSnavs: am samefos kavSirurTierToba sxva Tanamorwmune xalxebTan SeizRuda da is islamuri saxelmwifoebis garemocvaSi moeqca. paralelurad saqarTvelos erTiani samefos danawevrebis procesic daiwyo da es maSin, rodesac iranma da osmaleTma am qveynis mimarT dampyrobluri gegmebi gaafarToves. amis gamo qarTveli mefeebi da mTavrebi iZulebuli gaxdnen, politikuri mokavSire da samxedro daxmareba qristianul samyaroSi moeZebnaT. vinaidan dasavleT evropisaken mimavali gzebi am dros osmalTa saxanos ukve Caexerga, qarTvelma mefeebma, mTavrebma da episkoposebma politikur-religiuri da kulturuli veqtori metwilad CrdiloeTisaken, caristuli ruseTisaken anu „mesame romisaken“ warmarTes. am nabijiT maT „ganaTlebul evropasTan“ daaxloeba ewadaT. avtori safuZvlianad SeniSnavs, rom qarTveli morwmuneebi, ise rogorc „osmalebisagan dapyrobili sxva erebi“, imedis Tvals maTi saxelmwifoebrivi da sulieri gadarCenis Taobaze „TeTri CrdiloeTis did ruseTs“ miapyrobdnen. „gamomxsneli RmerTis mimarT saerTo sarwmunoeba qarTvelebisaTvis sakmarisad damarwmunebeli aRmoCnda, rom TavianTi bedi ruseTis mklavebisaTvis CaebarebinaT“ (gv. 40-41). am rwmeniTa da imediT daiwyo ruseT-saqarTvelos urTierTobebi 1484 wlidan, anu mas Semdeg, rac kaxeTis mefe aleqsandre I-ma pirvelad daamyara mfarvelobiTi kavSiri qristianul CrdiloeTTan. ase daiwyo rusul-qarTuli diplomatiuri kontaqtebis samas welze meti xnis istoria, rasac filip amoni dawvrilebiT da saqmis codniT aRwers. misi teqstis meSveobiT mkiTxvelebs am istoriis sakvanZo epizodebis gacnobis SesaZlebloba gveZleva. vxedavT, rom ruseTis mxridan araerTi dapireba ismoda. zogjer misi sajariso kontingentis saqarTvelos teritoriaze ganlagebis mcdelobasac hqonda adgili, raTa daxmareba qmediTi da realuri yofiliyo. Tumca faqtia, rom qar- 373 Tuli samefoebi da samTavroebi sxvadasxva mizezisa Tu sababis gamo mravali mtris winaSe martoni rCebodnen. amis miuxedavad qarTveli mefeebi da mTavrebi ruseTTan mfarvelobiT kavSirs kvlav da kvlav eswrafvodnen. aseTi swrafvis Sedegia 1783 wlis georgievskis traqtati mefe erekle meorisa da imperatrica ekaterine didis xelmoweriT, romelmac aRmosavleT saqarTveloze ruseTis proteqtorati gamoacxada. Cveni mkvlevari am dokuments detalurad aRwers da aRniSnavs, rom qarTuli mxare mis mimarT did imeds amyarebda (gv. 48-51). mkiTxvelisaTvis amasTanave cxadia, rom es imedi ar gamarTlda. amis mizezs mkvlevari ase ganmartavs: im dros ruseTi sami mimarTulebiT awarmoebda oms: Svedebis, Turqebisa da polonelebis winaaRmdeg, ris gamoc mas „xelSekrulebiT nakisri valdebulebebis Sesruleba“ naklebad SeeZlo (gv. 51). da marTlac: 1795 wels moxda sisxlismRvreli Setakeba rusebisagan bedis anabarad mitovebul qarTvelebsa da sparselebs Soris – krwanisis omi, romelic saqarTvelosaTvis katastrofuli SedegebiT, kerZod ki Tbilisis miwasTan gasworebiT damTavrda. am movlenis aRweras monografiaSi didi adgili eTmoba (III, 5: Die Katastrophe von 1795). iq Cvens yuradRebas gansakuTrebiT is komentari iqcevs, romelic damafiqrebeli unda iyos rogorc saerTaSoriso, ise (da, ra Tqma unda, metadre) qarTveli mkiTxvelisaTvis: „1795 wels aRmosavleT saqarTveloze datexilma katastrofam ganapiroba qarTvelebis SegnebaSi stereotipis damkvidreba; ruseTis mier georgievskis xelSekrulebiT nakisri valdebulebebis Seusruleblobam gamokveba warmodgena rusebis arasaimedoobasa da sulac moRalateobaze. (...) am ori eris urTierTobaSi dRemde sagrZnob fsiqologiur dabrkolebas warmoadgens qarTvelebis rwmena-warmodgena [rusebis] moRalateobaze. magram aris ki aseTi sayveduri marTlzomieri? gvmarTebs vaRiaroT, rom Ralatis kategoria ucxoa imperiuli elitis politikur sityvaTxmarebaSi, mis ritorikulad gamoyenebis garda. (...). 1795 wlis katastrofa, rusul RalatTan erTad, sxva mizezmac ganapiroba. esaa qarTuli gulgriloba sakuTari qveynis bedis mimarT (...)“ (gv. 53-54). wyarod dasaxelebulia devid langisa da artur laistis Txzulebebi, romelTa Tanaxmad oms mosaxleobis didma nawilma aarida Tavi. ufliswulebidan, magaliTad, mTavarsardals mxolod vaxtangi gahyva, magram ra? misma meomrebma siRnaRSi uari Tqves brZolaze da ukan im motiviT gabrundnen, rom Semodgomis mosavali auRebeli darCeboda da gafuWdeboda. 374 monografiaSi detaluradaa aRwerili saqarTvelos Semdgomdroindeli ambebi, kerZod is, Tu rogor gaxda iZulebuli qarTlkaxeTis ukanaskneli mefe giorgi XII, rom suverenitetis garkveuli nawili ruseTisaTvis nebayoflobiT daeTmo samefo taxtis xelSeuxeblobis pirobiT da imediT; Tu rogor ar Seasrula ruseTma es piroba da, aRniSnuli taxtis daqvrivebis Semdeg, Tu rogor moaxdina man jer aRmosavleT, Semdeg ki (1810 wlidan) dasavleT saqarTvelos samefo-samTavroebis inkorporacia da maT teritoriebze saimperio reJimis damyareba, rasac naxevar saukuneze meti dro dasWirda. didi interesiT ikiTxeba is monakveTebi, romlebic saeklesio istoriis dramatul epizodebs exeba. esaa saqarTvelos marTlmadidebeli eklesiis mravalsaukunovani avtokefaliis Zaladobrivi gauqmeba, sinodaluri mmarTvelobis SemoReba egzarqatis saxiT da adgilobrivi saeklesio tradiciebis rusuli saeklesio tradiciebiT Canacvleba (rusifikacia), rasac sarwmunoebis TvalsazrisiT mZime Sedegebi mohyva: mosaxleobis TvalSi eklesiis avtoriteti daeca. ase rom, qarTuli samoqalaqo da saeklesio sazogadoebebi rusulma kolonializmma Tanabrad daazarala, ramac protesti rogorc saero, ise sasuliero wreebSi gamoiwvia; gaiSala erovnul-ganmaTavisuflebeli moZraoba Tanmxlebi dramatuli da, zogjer, tragikuli movlenebiT. naSromSi cal-calke paragrafebi eZRvneba saqarTvelos axali istoriis iseT sakvanZo epizodebs, rogoricaa: bagrationTa taxtebis gauqmeba, imereTis saeklesio ajanyeba („Imeretien: Aufstand für Tradition und Kirche“), 1832 wlis SeTqmuleba, batonymobis gauqmeba, panslavuri represiebi, samocianelebi da brZola damoukideblobis aRdgenisa da warTmeuli avtokefaliis dabrunebisaTvis, 1905 da 1917 wlebis revoluciebi saqarTveloSi, saxelmwifoebrivi suverenitetis mopoveba da dakargva, avtokefaliis gamocxadeba da brZola misi ratifikaciisaTvis, meored okupacia da gasabWoeba, rasac daerTo devnileba da represiebi erovnul-politikur da religiur safuZvelze. es sakiTxebi ganxilulia sagnobrivad da vrclad, razec Sesabamisi teqstis moculobac migvaniSnebs – 55-idan 211 gverdamde. sayuradReboa Philipp Ammon-isa da misi Semfaseblis, Uwe Halbach-is, analizi (gv. 216-220, 235-238), romlis Tanaxmad ruseT-saqarTvelos urTierTobis istoria ambivalenturia. aneqsiasa da kolonializms, rasac ruseTi saqarTveloSi axorcielebda, cxadia, isinic gmoben, magram aRiareben, rom saqarTvelos ruseTTan SeerTebas pozitiuri 375 Sedegebi mohyva. filip amonis TqmiT, „ruseTis damsaxurebani saqarTvelos winaSe metwilad ukve aRiarebulia. politikur mogebad miiCneva is faqtic, rom saqarTvelos gaerTianeba swored rusuli aneqsiis meSveobiT moxerxda. mxolod ruseTis samefo skiptris qveS gaxda SesaZlebeli saqarTvelos Zveli erTianobis TiTqmis mTlianad aRdgena“. amasTanave aRniSnulia, rom, amis miuxedavad, saqarTvelos „Svilebi“ (urapatriotebi? n. p.) winaaRmdegi arian ruseTTan Sexmatkbilebuli elitisa („in Gegensatz zu den angepassten oder russifizierten Eliten“) da „ruseTumed“ moixseneben mas (gv. 216). aqve davZenT, rom winamdebare striqonebis avtorsac hqonda SemTxveva, saqarTvelos istoriis es monakveTi Seefasebina da aseTi Tvalsazrisi Camoeyalibebina: „am [imperiuli] reJimis pirobebSi (cxadia, amave reJimis imperiuli interesebis Sesabamisad) moxerxda TurqeTisagan dapyrobili provinciebis (...) saqarTvelosaTvis dabruneba, saqarTvelos dasavleTi da aRmosavleTi regionebis erT kulturul-erovnul sivrceSi gaerTianeba da am reglamentSi erTiani saqarTvelos sazRvrebis aRdgena. aranaklebi mniSvnelobis movlenad unda CaiTvalos kulturuli dialogi evropasTan, romelic me-19 saukunis saqarTveloSi maRal safexurze avida. amasTanave: gaRrmavda saqarTvelos kontaqtebi germaniasa da germanel xalxTan“ (nugzar papuaSvili, evangelur-luTeranuli eklesiis istoriidan saqarTveloSi: winaistoria da istoria, Tbilisi, 2018, gv. 87-88; Nugzar Papuashvili, Aus der Geschichte der evangelisch-lutherischen Kirche in Georgien: Vorgeschichte und Geschichte, Tbilissi 2018, S. 106). gvmarTebs, es Tvalsazrisi amjerad Semdegi faqtis konstataciiTac SevavsoT: amave reJimis pirobebSi ara mxolod qarTuli samefoebisa da samTavroebis gaerTianeba moxerxda, aramed – ori qarTul-avtokefaluri eklesiisac erTi egzarqatis qveS. Semdeg ki, rodesac Sesabamisi dro dadga da saTanado pirobebi Seiqmna, rusul sinodalur mmarTvelobas „sruliad saqarTvelos eklesia“ CamoSorda. aqve davZenT: SesaZlebelia, rom am realobis aRiarebam ruseT-saqarTvelos konfliqtis mogvarebis saqmeSi garkveuli wvlilis Setana SeZlos. winamdebare mimoxilvaSi yuradRebas metwilad, Cveni specialobidan gamomdinare, saeklesio Tematikaze gavamaxvilebT da Tavs uflebas mivcemT, es recenzia ramdenime mokrZalebuli, magram kritikuli SeniSvniTac SevavsoT. erT-erTi mTavari da zogadi SeniSvna Seexeba Tanamedrove samecniero literaturiT sargeblobis sakiTxs. naSroms 376 mravalricxovani bibliografia axlavs, Tumca masSi qarTuli akademiuri gamocemebis nakleboba igrZnoba. gvrCeba STabeWdileba, rom avtori zogjer Zvel gamocemebsa da aRwerilobebs did ndobas ucxadebs da gansaxilvel naSromSi yovelTvis ar aris gaTvaliswinebuli kvleva-Ziebis uaxlesi Sedegebi. ruseT-saqarTvelos saeklesio-kulturuli da saeklesio-politikuri urTierTobebis istoriis aRwerisas mkvlevari ZiriTadad Zveli epoqis or cnobil avtors – episkopos (SemdegSi kaTalikos-patriarq) kirion saZagliSvilsa da nikoloz durnovos (Николай Николаевич Дурново) – eyrdnoba da maT Sefasebebsa da informaciebs TiTqmis yovelTvis gansjis gareSe Rebulobs. magaliTad: rodesac avtori qristianul-slavuri kulturis qmnadobis procesSi qarTuli monastrebisa da qarTveli bermonazvnebis damsaxurebebs CamoTvlis, metwilad episkopos kirionis mier 1910 wels gamocemul naSroms – „Культурная роль Иверии в истории Руси“ – imowmebs (gv. 28 da S.). aq is, sxvaTa Soris, axsenebs episkopos kirionis Tvalsazriss imis Taobaze, rom glagolica „qarTuli saeklesio anbanis“ gavleniT aris Seqmnili. rigiT mkiTxvels iseTi STabeWdileba darCeba, rom es TiTqos sayovelTaod aRiarebuli da gaziarebuli Teoriaa. Tuki asea, samecniero naSroms amis mkafiod miTiTeba moeTxoveba, xolo Tu ase ar aris – saTanado komentari. magram saqme is gaxlavT, rom msgavs Teorias samecniero literatura, – arc qarTuli da arc slavuri paleografia, – ar icnobs. filip amoni rusul saeklesio okupaciasa da Sesabamis danaSaulobebs ZiriTadad nikoloz durnovos cnobebis mixedviT gadmoscems, ise rogorc bevri sxva avtori, romelic amave sakiTxs exeba. am cnobebis Tanaxmad ki rusebma saqarTvelodan didZali saeklesio Zvirfaseuloba gazides; zogi gayides da zogic gaasaCuqres (gv. 158-163). maT Soris dasaxelebulia saxelganTqmuli xati – xaxulis RvTismSobeli, romelic TiTqos quTaisis general-gubernatorma levaSovma (Владимир Васильевич Левашов) gaitaca. ramdenadac cnobilia, nikoloz durnovos rusul-marTlmadideblur sinodTan konfliqturi damokidebuleba hqonda, ris gamoc mocemul da msgavs saqmeebze msjelobisas misi tendenciuroba savaraudoa. amitom mis teqstSi warmodgenili informaciebis Seumowmeblad miReba gaumarTlebelia, miT umetes, rom iq wyaro, rogorc wesi, miTiTebuli ar aris da amis gamoc am informaciebis safuZvlianoba bevr SemTxvevaSi saeWvoa. da marTlac: quTaisis saistorio arqivis direqtorma merab kezevaZem dokumenturi masale- 377 bis meSveobiT daadgina, rom xsenebul moxeles „xaxulis RvTismSoblis saqmesTan“ Sexeba ara aqvs da arc SiZleba hqondes: im wels, rodesac es xati gelaTis monastridan gaitaces, is saqarTveloSi Camosuli ar iyo. mecnieris SefasebiT, es gataceba Cveulebrivi kriminaluri aqtia da sxva araferi (merab kezevaZe, gelaTis monasteri egzarqosobis dros, quTaisi, 2006, Tavi 6, § 4: „gelaTis monastris 1859 wlis 19 maisis gaZarcva“, gv. 168-184). avtori ramdenime saeklesio da kulturul-enobriv konfliqts exeba. maT Sorisaa sisxliani drama, romelic 1886 wlis 25 (Tu 24) maiss Tbilisis sasuliero seminariaSi datrialda, rodesac studentma ioseb laRiaSvilma reqtori, dekanozi pavle Cudecki (Павел Иванович Чудецкий), Tavis samuSao kabinetSi gangmira. monografiaSi vkiTxulobT: „is [reqtori] qarTul enas imdenad amcirebda, rom mas ‘ZaRlebis enas’ uwodebda. (...) mis mokvlasTan dakavSirebiT rusma egzarqosma pavle lebedevma arnaxuli reaqcia („unerhörte Schärfe~) gamoamJRavna. man (...) mTeli qarTveli eri sajarod dawyevla („sprach öffentlich den Bannfluch über die gesamte georgische Nation aus“)“ (gv. 94). cnoba xsenebuli reqtoris mier qarTuli enis aseTi Seuracxyofis Taobaze CemTvis da, vfiqrob, sxva mkvlevrisTvisac ucnobia. viciT mxolod, rom sityvebi „mTeli qarTveli eris sajarod dawyevlis“ Sesaxeb, romelic egzarqosma TiTqos reqtoris dakrZalvis dRes warmoTqva, imdroindel qarTul sazogadoebaSi vrceldeboda, Tumca saflavze warmoTqmuli am sityvis (epitafiis) teqsti, romelic „kavkazSi“ gamoqveynda (SemoklebiT Targmnilia qarTulad: kalistrate cincaZe, Cemi mogonebebidan, Tbilisi, 2001, gv. 23-24), aseT pasaJs ar Seicavs. amasTanave ar moipoveba met-naklebad sando wyaro, anu cnobili ar aris adamiani, romelic daadasturebda da ityoda, Cemi yuriT movismine sityvebi: „wyeuli iyos qarTveli eri!“. Tavad egzarqosi, cxadia, kategoriulad uaryofda am braldebas; mis Sesaxeb mxolod xalxSi moaruli xma laparakobda. dimitri yifianic ki, romelsac avtori imowmebs, xsenebuli braldebis realurobaSi darwmunebuli ar iyo, ris gamoc is braldebuls am sityvebiT mimarTavda: „Tuki es sityvebi Tqven marTla warmoTqviT, dauyovnebliv unda datovoT samwyso“. da marTlac: msgavsi saqcieli fsiqiurad janmrTeli anu srul Wkuaze myofi samRvdelo pirisagan warmoudgenelia. daismis kiTxva: icnobs ki eklesiis istoria „mTeli eris“ aseT dawyevlas anu, rac igivea, anaTemas? Tu ara (da aseT rames istoria namdvilad ar icnobs), am SemTxvevaSi, Cveni azriT, sasurveli 378 iqneboda saTanado samecniero-Teologiuri analizis Catareba. „mTeli eris dawyevla“ eklesiis enaze niSnavs am eris (naciis) eklesiisagan gankveTas. am SemTxvevaSi Cveni avtori iyenebs gamoTqmas „Bannfluch“ anu, igive, „Kirchenbann“, rac eklesiidan gaZevebas (garicxvas, gasaxlebas) niSnavs. Tuki egzarqosma episkoposma „mTeli qarTveli nacia“, eric da beric, eklesiidan garicxa (cxadia, Tavisi WkuiT), srul absurdamde mivalT: viRas episkoposad moiazrebda is Tavs saqarTveloSi? is xom qarTvel mRvdlebTan da episkoposebTan erTad wirva-locvas am ambebis Semdegac ganagrZobda?! mas taZarSi, sxvaTa Soris, mkvlelis Tanakurseli (SemdegSi kaTalikos-patriarqi da dRes wmindanad gamocxadebuli) kalistrate cincaZe emsaxureboda, romelic, aseve, ar (Tu ver) adasturebs „qarTveli eris dawyevlis“ Sesaxeb gavrcelebuli xmebis adekvaturobas; is wers: „ar vici, iTqva Tu ara [egzarqosis mier] es sityvebi“ (ix. misive aq damowmebuli naSromi, gv. 24). amis miuxedavad faqtia, rom Tanamedrove saqarTvelos politikur wreebSi es da msgavsi gamonaTqvamebi erTgvari siamovnebiTac ki aris aRqmuli rogorc udavo WeSmariteba, rac xels uwyobs zogadi antirusuli fonis gaZlierebas. swored amis gamoc sasurvelia, rom aseTi gamonaTqvamebi publikaciebSi (miT ufro samecnieroSi da sulac evropul samecniero literaturaSi) gadmoices akribiulad – koniunqtiviT da TurmeobiTi kiloTi anu ise, rogorc sinamdvilea: ambobdnen, rom man Turme ase da ase Tqva; mas Turme esa da es ganucxadebia. saqarTvelos istoriis meore tragikul furclad, gansaxilveli Txzulebis mixedviT, kirion meoris, – am qveynis marTlmadidebeli eklesiis avtokefaliis aRdgenis Semdeg pirveli kaTalikos-patriarqis da dRes wmindanad Seracxili adamianis, – aRsasruli warmogvidgeba. farTo sazogadoebisaTvis imTaviTve cnobili gaxda Semdegi: uwmindesi kirioni, eklesiis saWeTmpyroblad arCevidan da aRsaydrebidan cxra Tvis Semdeg, 1918 wlis 27 ivnisis dilas, Tavis sazafxulo rezidenciaSi, martyofis monasterSi, tyviiT gangmiruli ipoves. saZinebeli oTaxis kari da fanjara Signidan daketili aRmoCnda, revolveri ki gvamis gverdiT ido. dRemde ar arsebobs sarwmuno da iuridiulad Camoyalibebuli pasuxi kiTxvaze: ra moxda im RamiT martyofis monasterSi – mkvleloba Tu TviTmkvleloba? Tanamedrove saqarTveloSi popularobiT pirveli versia sargeblobs, meoreze ki aravin laparakobs. rac Seexeba imdroindel sapatriarqos, dasmul kiTxvaze mas mkafio pasuxi ar Camou- 379 yalibebia, Tumca TiTqos ufro meore versiisaken gadaixara; mrevls simSvidisaken mouwoda da dumili arCia. mis pozicias axmovanebda sakaTalikoso sabWos warmomadgeneli, iuristi da politologi, SemdegSi emigranti mRvdeli, cnobili sazogado moRvawe da kalmosani – rafiel ivanicki-ingilo, rodesac misi uwmindesobis dakrZalvis dRes gaurkvevlobaSi myof, dabneulsa da daqsaqsul sazogadoebas barux spinozas sityvebiT mimarTavda: `Nec ridere, nec lacrimari, sed intelligere [arc itiroT, arc icinoT, aramed gonebas mouxmeT]“ da dasZenda: „martyofis saidumloeba gamoucnobelia! (...) saukunoebSi warxdomilma unetaresma kaTalikozma saflavSi Caitana martyofis tragediis axsna, misi sasikvdilo iaraze mikruli xeli ki hfaravs uRrmes mwuxarebasTan erTad mivardnil monastris saidumloebasac“ („saqarTvelo“, 1918, 7.VII, №132, gv. 2). es aris da es: oficialuri gancxadeba arc sapatriarqo sinodsa da arc sakaTalikoso sabWos mxridan ar gakeTebula. oponentebma, cxadia, TviTmkvlelobis versias erTsulovnad dauWires mxari. maTi saTqmeli gamoxatulia egzarqatis erT-erTi maRali Cinosnis, Semdgom rusuli emigrantuli eklesiis arqimandritis, serafim verbinis, statiaSi, resp. memuarSi, romelic gamoqveynebulia saTauriT „Русские священномученики и мученики в Грузии“ (am statiis qarTuli Targmani Cveni komentarebiTurT: kalistrate cincaZe 150, saiubileo krebuli, Tbilisi, 2017, gv. 187-224). masSi uwmindesi kirionis, ise rogorc saqarTvelos saxelmwifoebrivi damoukideblobis ideis mimarT ukiduresad negatiuri ganwyobileba dasturdeba, ris gamoc misi TiToeuli sityva mkacr kritikas saWiroebs, Tumca marTebuli arc yvelafris xelaRebiT ugulebelyofa iqneba. samwuxarod, samecniero literaturaSi mkiTxveli iseT kiTxvebzec ki ver ipovis pasuxs, rogoricaa: ra gaakeTa maSindelma gamoZiebam, ra masalis Segroveba moaxerxa man da ram SeuSala daskvnis gamotanas xeli? gvrCeba STabeWdileba, rom Cveni avtori meore, anu TviTmkvlelobis, versias ar icnobs, radgan mis Sesaxeb arafers ambobs. monografiaSi vkiTxulobT: „(...) 1918 wlis 17 (28) ivniss saqarTvelos saeklesio avtokefaliis avangardi („Vorkämpfer georgischer Autokephalie“) Tbilisis maxloblad, martyofis monasterSi, mokles. mkvlelobis safuZveli dRemde gaurkvevelia“ (gv. 196). CvenTvisac gaurkveveli da amouxsnelia: vis unda Caedina es aqti da ris gamo? am problemas Cven aseve SevexeT prof. sergo vardosaniZis naSromisadmi miZRvnil recenziaSi, romelic dabeWdilia humanitarul kvlevaTa JurnalSi „kadmosi“ (5, 380 2013, gv. 281-290), da aRvniSneT: „(...) patriarq kirionis mkvlelobis versiis gamyarebis mcdeloba am didi saeklesio, erovnuli da kulturuli moRvawis wmindanad Seracxvis safuZveli gaxda“ (gv. 285). kanonizacia 2002 wlis 17 oqtombers Sedga, ramac sayovelTao sixaruli gamoiwvia. amitom araa gasakviri, rom dRevandeli saqarTvelos politikur wreebSi swored teroris versiaa propagandirebuli da mis politikur da, kerZod, panslavur motivSi TiTqos aravis epareba eWvi. arsebobis ufleba, cxadia, orive versias aqvs, Tumca arcerTi maTgani dRemde siRrmiseulad gaanalizebuli ar aris. amitom umjobesi iqneba, Tuki ruseT-saqarTvelos konfliqtebis mkvlevari orive versias kritikulad ganixilavs da kvalificiur pasuxs gascems kiTxvas: ganekuTvneba Tu ara martyofis tragedia ruseT-saqarTvelos saeklesio konfliqtebis sferos? im qarTul saeklesio tradiciebs Soris, romlebic Zaladobrivi rusuli saeklesio politikis Sedegad mospobil iqna, avtori „Zvel qarTul liturgias“ asaxelebs. rusebma, misi warmodgeniT, saqarTveloSi „slavuri liturgia“ („slawischen Ritus“) Semoitanes da „Zveli qarTuli wirva“ („altgeorgische Messe“) „saeklesio slavuri liturgiiT“ (durch die „kirchenslawische Liturgie“) Secvales. monografiaSi, amasTanave, vkiTxulobT: „saqarTveloSi am dromde (rusebis Semosvlamde, n. p.) Jams sami Zveli qristianuli liturgiiT – iakobis, basilisa da oqropiris liturgiebiT – swiravdnen ZvelqarTulad. rogorc ki slavuri wesi Semoitanes, iakobis liturgiiT sargeblobis praqtika moispo“ (gv. 159). pirvel rigSi aseTi kiTxva daismis: mainc ras gulisxmobs aq cneba „slavuri wesi“ („slawischer Ritus“)? aseTi wesi qristianuli liturgiis istoriaSi cnobili ar aris; cnobilia mxolod wirva-locvis berZnul-bizantiuri wesis (Τυπος-is) Zveli slavuri redaqcia (tradicia), romlis mimarT „wesis“ gamoyeneba gamarTlebuli ar aris. Tavad berZnul-bizantiuri wesi sam liturgias moicavs: ioane oqropiris, basili kesariakabadokielis da pap grigol didis („pirvelSewirulis“) liturgiebs. yvela berZnul-bizantiuri tradiciis eklesia, maT Soris slavuri, qarTuli da a. S., sazogado RvTismsaxurebaSi aRniSnul liturgiebs iyenebs. dekanozis, SemdgomSi akademikosis, sasuliero mwerlobisa da, gansakuTrebiT, liturgikis ganxriT msoflio mniSvnelobis mecnieris – korneli kekeliZis – monumenturi naSromiT „Литургические грузинские памятники в отечественных книгохранилищах и их научное значение“ (Tbilisi, 1908) garkveulia, rom RvTismsaxurebis berZnul-bizantiuri 381 tipikoni saqarTveloSi me-10 saukunis bolo wlebidan Semodis. manamde ki qarTul eklesiebSi RvTismsaxureba ierusalimis ganCinebis anu qristes saflavze me-5 saukuneSi SemuSavebuli ganawesis qarTuli versiis mixedviT sruldeboda (arsebobs am versiis rusuli da laTinuri Targmanebi). aRniSnuli ganCinebis anu, igive, tipikonis Tanaxmad, saRvTo msaxureba iakobisa da petres wirvebis mixedviT unda warimarTos. iakobis wirvis qarTuli versia, romlis teqsti Cvenamde me-11 saukunis xelnawerebiT aris moRweuli, pirvelad korneli kekeliZem Seiswavla da gamosca: Древне-грузинский Архиератикон, Тифлис, 1912. am versiis teqsti Targmnilia rusul, laTinur da inglisur enebze da TiToeuli Targmani mecnieruladaa gamocemuli (ix. sxvaTa Soris: P. M. Tarchnishvili, Eine neue georgische Jakobusliturgie, in: „Ephemerides Liturgiae“, 62/1948). Sesabamisi gamokvlevebiT dadgenilia, rom qarTul saeklesio sivrceSi me-10 saukunis bolos da me-11 saukunis dasawyisSi Catarda reforma, romlis Sedegad RvTismsaxurebis ierusalimuri praqtika berZnul-bizantiurma praqtikam Caanacvla. es is droa, rodesac warmoiqmna saqarTvelos erTiani samefo, romlis saeklesio msaxurebis unificireba saxelmwifos interesis sagans warmoadgenda. amdenad, aRniSnulma reformam iakobisa da petres liturgiebis saeklesio RvTismsaxurebis velidan gaqroba bunebrivad gamoiwvia da arcerTi mociqulis liturgiis teqstiT saqarTveloSi Jami me-11 saukunidan aRar iwireboda. amitomaa, rom es teqstebi mogviano xanis xelnawerebSi aRar dasturdeba. ase rom, rusebi „iakobis liturgiis funqcionirebas“ („die Praxis der Jakobus-Liturgie“) ver akrZalavdnen, radgan es liturgia daviwyebas bunebrivi dinebiT rusebis kavkasiaSi gamoCenamde didi xnis win mieca da qristianuli arqeologiis (farTo gagebiT) sakuTrebad iqca. anonimurad gamocemuli broSura „Судьбы Грузинской Церкви“ (Москва, 1907), romlis avtori ueWvelad aris zemoT xsenebuli nikoloz durnovo, aseT informaciasac Seicavs (gv. 26): rusebis mier „qarTveli berebi gandevnili iqnen (...) safaris, zarzmis, kabenis, mamkodis, drandis, samebis, biWvinTis“ monastrebidan (qarTuli Targmani z. kaxaberiZisa: bedi qarTuli eklesiisa, Tbilisi, 1997, gv. 13). sarecenzio naSromis im TavSi, romlis saTauria `Der Tod des Lazarus [lazares sikvdili]“, es informacia komentaris gareSe aris mocemuli (gv. 162), rac migvaniSnebs, rom Cvens avtors misi realurobis sjera. daismis kiTxva: rogor SeeZloT rusebs, magaliTad, zarzmisa da safaris monastrebidan berebis gaZeveba, maSin rodesac es monastrebi, ise rogorc samc- 382 xe-saaTabagos, afxazeTisa Tu saqarTvelos sxvadasxva regionis ara erTi da ori monasteri, rusul okupaciamde didi xniT adre bermonazvnebisagan daclili, wirva-locvisagan daqvrivebuli da metwilad dangreuli iyvnen?! mizezi gasagebia da cxadi: osmaluri da sparsuli okupacia rig sxva faqtorTan erTad. rasac durnovo da misi stilis mkvlevrebi am saganze weren da amboben, sxva araferia, Tu ara anaqronizmi da safuZvels moklebuli gamonaTqvami, romlis seriozulad aRqma SeuZlebelia. ramdenime SeniSvna kaTalikos ambrosi xelaiasTan dakavSirebul informaciebs Seexeba. sarecenzio naSromi, ise rogorc bevri sxva naSromi, imeorebs zepirgadmocemas imis Sesaxeb, rom braldebulma kaTalikosma sasamarTlo procesze TiTqos warmoTqva sayovelTaod cnobili sityvebi: „Cemi suli ekuTvnis RmerTs (...)“. Semonaxulia aRniSnuli procesis aRwera da braldebulis saboloo sityvis teqsti, saidanac irkveva, rom man Sinaarsobrivad zepirgadmocemis msgavsi sityva marTlac warmoTqva. imis Sesaxeb, Tu rogor gaformda es sityva koleqtivis mexsierebaSi im formulad, romelic cnobili da popularulia, Cveni azri Camoyalibebuli gvaqvs naSromSi „kalistrate cincaZe sarwmunoebis, moqalaqeobisa da kulturis Sesaxeb“ (ix.: kalistrate cincaZe, qadagebebi da sityvebi, gamosacemad moamzada, Sesavali da gamokvleva daurTo nugzar papuaSvilma, Tbilisi, 2014, gv. 280-281), romlis gaTvaliswineba, vfiqrobT, am SemTxvevaSi sasurveli iqneboda. filip amonis mixedviT kaTalikosi ambrosi „1927 wels sapyrobileSi gardaicvala“ (gv. 210), rac, cxadia, sinamdviles ar Seesabameba, radgan viciT (da araferia saeWvo), rom uwmindesi ambrosi Tavis rezidenciaSi gardaicvala. es epizodi TiTqmis detalurad aqvs aRwerili mis Tanamosaydres mitr. (Semdg.: kaTalikos-patriarq) kalistrate cincaZes naSromSi „mware mogonebani saqarTvelos eklesiis axlo warsulidan“. masSi vkiTxulobT: saqarTvelos eklesiis „droebiTma mmarTvelobam“ dadgenileba kaTalikos-patriarqis „saqmeTa warmoebisagan“ „ganTavisuflebis“ Sesaxeb mis uwmindesobas 1927 wlis 23 marts gamoucxada. „am gamocxadebis meore dRes kaTolikoz-patriarqma ambrosim dahkarga enis xmarebis SesaZlebloba (martis 25), martis 27 gonebac, xolo martis 29 dilis sam saaTze ki ganuteva suli“ (`mwignobroba qarTuli~, 9, Tbilisi, 2010, gv. 473-474). aRniSnuli memuaridanac Cans, rom es saqarTvelos kaTalikos-patriarqis maSindel rezidenciaSi moxda. 383 yvela SeniSvnas, rac moniSnuli maqvs, am formatSi ver ganvixilav. maTi umravlesoba faqtebisa da movlenebis Cems pirad aRqmasa da Sefasebas gamoxatavs, rac zogjer Cveni avtoris Sexedulebebs ar eTanxmeba. magaliTad: is darwmunebulia, rom prezident zviad gamsaxurdias winaaRmdeg mowyobili SeiaraRebuli amboxeba inspirirebuli iyo ruseTis mier (gv. 7). es, cxadia, moaruli da popularuli azria, ufro sworad, – rwmena. me ar vici, ramdenad adekvaturia es rwmena, magram udavoa, rom msgavs SemTxvevaSi albaT sasurveli unda iyos damatebiTi argumentebis Tu ganmartebebis warmodgena. es SeniSvnebi anu magaliTebi, vfiqrobT, sakmarisia imis saCveneblad, rom monografiis zogierTi adgili dazustebas saWiroebs. eWvi araa, rom konfliqtebis sarwmuno da sargeblis momtani istoriis Sedgena SesaZlebelia mxolod faqtebisa da movlenebis adekvaturi aRqma-warmoCenis Sedegad. religiuri Tematika am istoriis yvelaze mgrZnobiare aspeqtad gamoiyureba, ris gamoc yuradReba gansakuTrebiT eklesiasTan dakavSirebul sakiTxebze gavamaxvileT. cxadia, magaliTebis ricxvis gazrda SegveZlo, magram amis saSualebas sarecenzio reglamenti ar gvaZlevs da aucileblobasac ver vxedavT. sxva SeniSvnebs avtors piradad movaxseneb, Tuki saSualeba momecema da mas survili eqneba. daskvnis saxiT aRvniSnav, rom filip amonis monografiis mniSvneloba didia rogorc mecnieruli, ise sazogadoebrivi da praqtikuli TvalsazrisiTac. masSi Tavmoyrilia uamravi istoriuli dokumenti, cnoba da bibliografiuli miTiTeba, rac ruseT-saqarTvelos konfliqtebis istoriiT dainteresebul adamianebs did samsaxurs gauwevs. amis gamo am naSromis mesame, gadamuSavebuli da dazustebuli versiis momzadeba, misi qarTul-rusul enebze Targmna da droulad gamocema sasurvel da sasargeblo saqmed warmogvidgeba. 384 SemoklebaTa ganmarteba Abbreviations georgika georgika, bizantieli mwerlebis cnobebi saqarTvelos Sesaxeb, berZnuli teqsti qarTuli TargmaniTurT gamosca da ganmartebebi daurTo s. yauxCiSvilma Tsu Sromebi Tbilisis saxelmwifo universitetis Sromebi lx literatura da xelovneba macne, iaexs saqarTvelos ssr mecnierebaTa akademiis macne: istoriis, arqeologiis, eTnografiisa da xelovnebis istoriis seria macne, iexs saqarTvelos mecnierebaTa akademiis macne: istoriis, eTnografiisa da xelovnebis istoriis seria macne, smasmgo macne: saqarTvelos ssr mecnierebaTa akademiis sazogadoebriv mecnierebaTa ganyofilebis organo mski masalebi saqarTvelosa da kavkasiis istoriisaTvis narkvevebi, sxsm narkvevebi, akademikos Salva amiranaSvilis saxelobis saqarTvelos xelovnebis saxelmwifo muzeumi siiS Tsu saqarTvelos istoriis institutis Sromebi sin saqarTvelos istoriis narkvevebi sk saistorio krebuli smam saqarTvelos ssr mecnierebaTa akademiis moambe ss saqarTvelos siZveleni ssmm saqarTvelos saxelmwifo muzeumis moambe ssuS soxumis saxelmwifo universitetis Sromebi sx sabWoTa xelovneba qisk qarTuli istoriuli sabuTebis korpusi qronikebi qronikebi da sxva masala saqarTvelos istoriisa (da mwerlobisa), gamocemuli Tedo Jordanias mier qse qarTuli sabWoTa enciklopedia qsZ qarTuli samarTlis Zeglebi, gamocemuli isidore doliZis mier q. cx. qarTlis cxovreba qw qarTuli wyaroTmcodneoba Zeglebi Zveli qarTuli agiografiuli literaturis Zeglebi Zm Zeglis megobari Zxd Zveli xelovneba dRes 385 AEMAe AnSt AO BK BMGS BSl BSO[A]S CMH DOP GRBS H&T IJPOR JAOS JFS JLP JMH JMMH JONS OC OCP OPREE Oxford EP PO QC REArm SemKond SHAJ ВВр ВО ИАФАН СССР КСИА КСИЭ СИППО СЭ ЭВ Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi Anatolian Studies Ars Orientalis Bedi Kartlisa, Revue de Kartvélologie Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies Byzantinoslavica – Revue Internationale des Etudes Byzantines Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies The Cambridge Medieval History Dumbarton Oaks Papers Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies History and Theory: Studies in Philosophy of History International Journal of Public Opinion Research Journal of the American Oriental Society Journal of Forensic Sciences Journal of Legal Pluralism The Journal of Modern History Journal of Medieval Military History Journal of the Oriental Numismatic Society Oriens Christianus: Hefte für die Kunde des christlichen Orients Orientalia Christiana Periodica Occasional Papers on Religion in Eastern Europe Oxford Economic Papers (UK) Patrologia orientalis The Qumran Chronicle Revue des Etudés Armeniennés Seminarium Kondakovianum Studies in the History and Archeology of Jordan Византийский Временник Византийское обозрение Известия Армянского филиала АН СССР Краткие Сообщения Института Археологии (Российская Академия Наук) Краткие Сообщения Института Этнографии Сообщения Императорского Православного Палестинского Общества Советская Этнография Эпиграфика Востока 386 avtorTa Sesaxeb List of Authors beili jeims Baillie James avstriis mecnierebaTa akademia, avstria Austrian Academy of Sciences, Austria eleqtronuli fostis misamarTi / Email address: james.baillie@oeaw.ac.at beniZe julia Benidze Julia ivane javaxiSvilis saxelobis Tbilisis saxelmwifo universiteti Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University eleqtronuli fostis misamarTi / Email address: juliabenidze@gmail.com biTaZe liana Bitadze Liana ivane javaxiSvilis saxelobis Tbilisis saxelmwifo universitetis ivane javaxiSvilis saxelobis istoriisa da eTnologiis instituti Ivane Javakhishvili Institute of History and Ethnology of Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University eleqtronuli fostis misamarTi / Email address: liana.bitadze@tsu.ge diRmelaSvili qeTevan Digmelashvili Ketevan saqarTvelos kulturuli memkvidreobis dacvis erovnuli saagento National Agency for Cultural Heritage Preservation Georgia eleqtronuli fostis misamarTi / Email address: ketisha80@gmail.com 387 dovasi evangelos Ntovas Evangelos ianinis universiteti, saberZneTi University of Ioannina, Greece eleqtronuli fostis misamarTi / Email address: evntovas@gmail.com vaSakiZe valerian Vashakidze Valerian ivane javaxiSvilis saxelobis Tbilisis saxelmwifo universitetis ivane javaxiSvilis saxelobis istoriisa da eTnologiis instituti Ivane Javakhishvili Institute of History and Ethnology of Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University eleqtronuli fostis misamarTi / Email address: valerian.vashakidze@tsu.ge vaCnaZe naTela Vachnadze Natela wm. andrias qarTuli universiteti St. Andrews Georgian University eleqtronuli fostis misamarTi / Email address: n.vachnadze@sangu.edu.ge kartni andrea Carteny Andrea la sapiencas universiteti, romi, italia La Sapienza University of Rome, Italy eleqtronuli fostis misamarTi / Email address: andrea.carteny@uniroma1.it laWyepiani elguja Latchkepiani Elguja ssip `levan samxaraulis saxelobis sasamarTlo eqspertizis erovnuli biuro~ Levan Samkharauli National Forensics Bureau eleqtronuli fostis misamarTi / Email address: ELachkepiani@expertiza.gov.ge 388 leiTem-sfrinqli jon Latham-Sprinkle John gentis universiteti, belgia Ghent University, Belgium eleqtronuli fostis misamarTi / Email address: John.lathamsprinkle@ugent.be maCabeli kiti Machabeli Kitty giorgi CubinaSvilis saxelobis qarTuli xelovnebis istoriisa da ZeglTa dacvis erovnuli kvleviTi centri The George Chubinashvili National Research Centre for Georgian Art History and Heritage Preservation eleqtronuli fostis misamarTi / Email address: kmachabeli@yahoo.fr mindoraSvili daviT Mindorashvili David saqarTvelos erovnuli muzeumi, oTar lorTqifaniZis saxelobis arqeologiuri kvlevebis instituti Georgian National Museum, Otar Lordkipanidze Institute of Archaeological Research eleqtronuli fostis misamarTi / Email address: datomindorashvili@yahoo.com narimaniSvili goderZi Narimanishvili Goderdzi saqarTvelos erovnuli muzeumi Georgian National Museum eleqtronuli fostis misamarTi / Email address: goderdzi_narimanishvili@yahoo.com papuaSvili nugzar Papuashvili Nugzar korneli kekeliZis saxelobis saqarTvelos xelnawerTa erovnuli centri Korneli Kekelidze Georgian National Centre of Manuscripts eleqtronuli fostis misamarTi / Email address: nugzarpa@yahoo.de 389 picolo paolo Pizzolo Paolo iagelonis universiteti, krakovi, poloneTi Jagiellonian University in Kraków, Poland eleqtronuli fostis misamarTi / Email address: paolo.pizzolo@uj.edu.pl ORCID identification: 0000-0003-4066-2968 sxirtlaZe zaza Skhirtladze Zaza ivane javaxiSvilis saxelobis Tbilisis saxelmwifo universiteti Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University eleqtronuli fostis misamarTi / Email address: zazaskhirtladze@gmail.com faRava irakli Paghava Irakli ilias saxelmwifo universiteti, giorgi wereTlis aRmosavleTmcodneobis instituti Ilia State University, Giorgi Tsereteli Institute of Oriental Studies eleqtronuli fostis misamarTi / Email address: mesefi@gmail.com Sneursoni erga Shneurson Erga hale-vitenbergis martin luTeris universiteti, aRmosavleTmcodneobis instituti, qristianuli aRmosavleTis da bizantiuri kvlevebis ganyofileba, hale (zaale), germania Martin-Luther-University Halle-Wittenberg, Oriental Institute, Department of Oriental Christian and Byzantine Studies, Halle (Saale), Germany eleqtronuli fostis misamarTi / Email address: erga124@gmail.com 390 CitunaSvili dali Chitunashvili Dali ivane javaxiSvilis saxelobis Tbilisis saxelmwifo universiteti Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University eleqtronuli fostis misamarTi / Email address: dali_chitunashvili@yahoo.com wurwumia mamuka Tsurtsumia Mamuka damoukidebeli mkvlevari Independent researcher eleqtronuli fostis misamarTi / Email address: Mamuka@mkhedari.ge jalabaZe naTia Jalabadze Natia ivane javaxiSvilis saxelobis Tbilisis saxelmwifo universitetis ivane javaxiSvilis saxelobis istoriisa da eTnologiis instituti Ivane Javakhishvili Institute of History and Ethnology of Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University eleqtronuli fostis misamarTi / Email address: natia.jalabadze@tsu.ge janiaSvili lavrenti Janiashvili Lavrenti ivane javaxiSvilis saxelobis Tbilisis saxelmwifo universitetis ivane javaxiSvilis saxelobis istoriisa da eTnologiis instituti Ivane Javakhishvili Institute of History and Ethnology of Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University eleqtronuli fostis misamarTi / Email address: lavrenti.janiashvili@tsu.ge 391 Sps `printjeo~, 2022 Tbilisi, 0131, demetre Tavdadebulis q.18, : +995 32 222 06 08 E-mail: ichachanidze@mail.ru 392