Archaeology Without Borders

Humboldtians in Focus

By Barbara Wieners-Horst


Back in the days of the Iron Curtain, joint research was hardly possible. Now, archaeologists like the Georgian Joni Apakidze work hand in hand with their colleagues in Germany. 

Joni Apakidze really appreciates beautiful things – especially if they are a few thousand years old. And especially if he has discovered them himself: clasps made of bronze, beads made of semi-precious stones, and ceramics with spiral patterns or handles that look like animals’ ears. Even as a student he got excited about bronze axes, halberd blades and spearheads – they allowed him to take a peek at times long gone.

Apakidze is an archaeologist and expert on the culture of Colchis, the ancient, legendary kingdom that stretched from the west of Georgia as we know it today to north eastern Turkey. There is nothing he does not know about the prehistoric finds in the Black Sea region. And he is also acquainted with the strikingly similar Bronze Age finds archaeologists have discovered in northern Italy and the Danube Basin.

In the days of the World Wide Web, when product designs are shooting around the globe and may turn up anywhere at the click of a mouse, such parallels in décor and ornamentation may not seem particularly spectacular. But at the end of the Middle and Late Bronze Ages, the period from the 18th to the 12th century B.C., the question is: What sort of contacts existed between northern Italy and the Black Sea region, two and a half thousand kilometres to the east?

read more >>>

Kolonisation und Akkulturation in Kappadokia Pontica

Dr. Latife Summerer

Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Institut für Klassische Archäologie

Montag, 17. Juni 2002 um 19.00 Uhr c.t. im Hörsaal des Robertinums, 
Universitätsplatz 12 

Die als pontisches Kappadokien bezeichnete antike Landschaft liegt am Schwarzen Meer zwischen den Flüssen Halys und Iris. Ihre alteingesessenen Bewohner werden in den Schriftquellen als Syrokappadoker oder Leukosyrer bezeichnet. Die griechischen Oikisten faßten hier im Zuge der Kolonisationsbewegung am Schwarzen Meer zum ersten Mal wahrscheinlich im 7. Jh. v. Chr. Fuß und gründeten die Stadt Amisos, die unmittelbar südwestlich vom modernen Samsun liegt. Die wenigen Schriftquellen geben widersprüchliche Informationen darüber, woher die griechischen Siedler kamen und welche Kontakte sie mit der einheimischen Bevölkerung pflegten.  

Die Geländeuntersuchungen in der Region und die Bearbeitung des archäologischen Materials aus der indigenen Siedlung Akalan sowie aus dem Bergheiligtum Çirisli Tepe im Hinterland von Amisos bringen neue Erkenntnisse über die Kulturkontakte und Hellenisierungsprozesse im pontischen Kappadokien. 

Literaturauswahl:
  
Å. Åkerström, Die architektonischen Terrakotten Kleinasiens. Lund 1966.
 
N. Baydur, Anadolu´daki kutsal daglar. Istanbul 1994.
 
W. Cummer, Iron Age Pottery from Akalan. Istanbuler Mitteilungen 26, 1976, 34-39
 
H. Kosay, Les fouilles de Pazarli. Entreprises par la Société d´Histoire Turque. Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayinlarindan 5. seri, no. 4, Istanbul 1941.
 
Th. Macridy, Une citadelle archaïque du Pont. MDVG 1907, 1-9

Neue Forschungen zum römischen Kastell Apsaros an der georgischen Schwarzmeerküste

Dr. Annegret Plontke-Lüning

(Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena, Institut für Altertumswissenschaften, Lehrstuhl für Klassische Archäologie)

Die Festung im heutigen Dorf Gonio, 15 km südlich von Batumi und 1 km südlich der Mündung des Tschoroch ins Schwarze Meer gelegen, wird allgemein gleichgesetzt mit dem u.a. bei Plinius, Arrian und Prokop erwähnten römischen Kastell Apsaros. Dieses war die größte Festung in dem sog. "Pontischen Limes", dem spätestens in flavischer Zeit eingerichteten Sicherungssystem der römischen Ostgrenze an der Ostschwarzmeerküste, das verwaltungstechnisch zur Provinz Kappadokien gehörte. Die Festungsmauer, die ihrem Planschema nach in die diokletianisch-konstantinische Zeit zurückgeht, ist bis zu acht Meter hoch erhalten, was auf ihre ständige, mit intensiven Reparaturarbeiten verbundene Nutzung in byzantinischer und osmanischer Zeit zurückzuführen ist. Dementsprechend vielfältig sind die Befunde im Inneren der Festung, wo außer einer in osmanischer Zeit grundlegend erneuerten Thermenanlage und einer spätosmanischen Moschee keine Bauten mehr oberirdisch erhalten sind. Ausgegraben wurden in den letzten Jahren ein großer Bau mit Innenhof und eine weiträumige Thermenanlage, die beide über lange Zeit benutzt wurden. In den letzten Jahren arbeiteten Jenaer Archäologen mit Kollegen aus Batumi gemeinsam in Apsaros. Der Jenaer Schwerpunkt lag dabei auf Untersuchungen in der Umgebung der Festung, um die Beziehungen der römischen Besatzer zur einheimischen Bevölkerung zu klären. Dazu gehörte die Suche nach deren Siedlung, nach Nekropole(n) und nach Kommunikationsanlagen wie Hafen und Straßen. Geophysikalische und Sonar-Untersuchungen wurden in die Arbeiten einbezogen, die zu neuen Ergebnissen führten. 

Literaturauswahl 
Allgemein: 
O. Lordkipanidse: Archäologie in Georgien. Von der Steinzeit bis zum Mittelalter (Weinheim 1991) D. Braund: Georgia in Antiquity. A History of Colchis and Transcaucasian Iberia 550 BC-AD 562 (Oxford 1994) 
Georgien - Schätze aus dem Land des Goldenen Vlies. Katalog der Ausstellung Bochum 2001. 

Zur Festung: 
T. Uspenskij: Starinnaja krepost na ust'e Corocha. - Bulletin de l'Académie Impériale des Sciences de Russie 11 (1917) 163-169. 
V. A. Lekvinadze: Materialy po istorii i architekture Apsarskoj kreposti. - VizVrem 20 (1961) 225-242. 
M. Speidel: The Caucasus Frontier. Second century garrisons at Apsarus, Petra and Phasis. - In: Studien zu den Militärgrenzen Roms III, 13th Int. Limescongress (Stuttgart 1986) 657-658. 
A. Plontke-Lüning: Das römische Kastell Apsaros. - Georgica 17 (1994) 23-28. 
Sh. Mamuladze, E. Kakhidze, M. Khalvashi: Die Römer in Südwestgeorgien. - Georgica 24 (2001) 35-46. 
Š. Mamuladze - M. Chalvaši - L. Aslanišvili: Rimskie garnizony Apsara. - VDI 2002.1 33-39. 
A. Geyer - Sh. Mamuladze (Ed.): Gonio-Apsaros. Erster Vorläufiger Bericht. Arbeiten im Jahr 2000 (Tbilisi 2002).

Fundkontexte griechischer Keramik in Kolchis und Iberien: Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der Interpretation

Ulrich Sens, M.A.

(Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg, Institut für Klassische Alertumswissenschaften)


Um die in den antiken Quellen genannten, allerdings nicht ausgegrabenen bzw. lokalisierten, griechischen Kolonien der östlichen Schwarzmeerküste, Phasis, Gyenos und Dioskurias, gruppieren sich kleinere Siedlungen, Einzelgehöfte und Gräber mit griechischer Keramik, die teilweise bis in die 1. Hälfte des 6. Jhs. v. Chr. zurückreicht. Besonders erstaunlich ist die große Anzahl griechischer Gefäße, die in Pitschwnari zutage kam, einem Fundort, der von keinem antiken Autor erwähnt wird. 

Im Binnenland der Kolchis und der sich östlich anschließenden Landschaft Iberien läßt sich die Verbreitung griechischer Keramik entlang der Flußtäler von Rioni, Kvirila und Kura beobachten. Sie tritt in diesem Gebiet in archaischer und klassischer Zeit hauptsächlich in ‘Fürstengräbern’ auf, die sich durch ein bestimmtes Inventar (Schmuck und Gefäße aus Edelmetall, Pferdegeschirre, Importwaren, Waffen) auszeichnen.

Erst in hellenistischer Zeit erscheinen in der lokalen Keramik in größerer Anzahl Nachahmungen griechischer Formen, jetzt auch in Gräbern, die vermutlich einfacheren Bevölkerungsschichten zuzuschreiben sind.

Für das Küstengebiet machen die Kartierung von Funden griechischer Keramik im Umland der Kolonien und die Interpretation der entsprechenden Fundkontexte deutlich, daß auch hierdurch Rückschlüsse auf die ‘zentralen’ griechischen Niederlassungen möglich sind, wenn auch andere Fundgattungen, wie etwa Inschriften, Stelen oder Münzen, größere Aussagekraft besitzen. Insbesondere bei Keramikfunden in Gräbern sind aufgrund der oft schwierigen oder unmöglichen ethnischen Zuweisung der Interpretation enge Grenzen gesetzt. 

 Literaturauswahl

 Allgemein, mit ausführlichen Bibliographien: 

Braund, D., Georgia in Antiquity (Oxford 1994).
Lordkipanidse, O., Archäologie in Georgien (Weinheim 1991).

 Zu ausgewählten Fundorten:

Gagošije, It’xvisis samarxi, Sak’art’velos saxelmcip’o muzeumis moambe 25 V, 1968, 31-46. 
Kachidze, A., Vostotschnoe Pritschernomore v antitschnuju epochu (Batumi 1981)
Kvirkvelia, G., On the Early Hellenistic Burials of North-Western Colchis, AA 1995, 75-82.
Lordkipanidse, O., Vani - ein antikes religiöses Zentrum im Lande des Goldenen Vlieses (Kolchis), JbZMusMainz 1995, 353-401. 
Ders., Phasis. The river and city in Colchis (Stuttgart 2000).
Lordkipanidzé, O. - Lévêque, P. (Hrsg.), Le Pont-Euxin vu par les Grecs (Paris 1990).
Lordkipanidzé, O. - Lévêque, P. (Hrsg.), Sur les traces des Argonautes (Paris 1996).
Lordkipanidzé, O. - Lévêque, P. (Hrsg.), La mer Noire. Zone des contacts (Paris 1999).
Mik’elaje, T.K., Rionis k’vemo celis ark’eologiuri jeglebi (Tbilisi 1978). 
Nadiraje, D., Sairxe - sak’art’velos udsvelesi kalaki (Tbilisi 1990). 
Šamba, G.K., Ešerskoe gorodištsche (Tbilisi 1980). 
Tsetskhladze, G., Pichvnari and its environs (Paris 1999)
Ders., Die Griechen in der Kolchis (Amsterdam 1998).
Trapš, M.M., Drevnii Suchumi. Trudy I (Suchumi 1969).
Voronov, J.N., Novye materialy anti noi epochi is okrestnostjei Dioskuriady, SovA 1991, 225-234.
Ders., Dioskuriada-Sebastopolis-Zchum (Moskau 1980).
Ders., Achul-Abaa - poselenie antitschnogo vremeni v okrestnostjach Suchumi, Materialy po archeologii Abchasii, 1979, 32-36.

Die Koban-Kolchis-Kultur im östlichen Schwarzmeerraum

”Die Koban-Kolchis-Kultur im östlichen Schwarzmeerraum” 

Dr. Ingo Motzenbäcker 

Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, 
Eurasienabteilung (Berlin) 

Mittwoch, 7. Februar 2001 um 19.00 Uhr s.t. im Hörsaal des Robertinums, 
Universitätsplatz 12 

Zwischen der georgischen Schwarzmeerküste und oberem Terek ist aus der späten Bronze-bis frühen Eisenzeit (ca. 14.-6. Jh. v. Chr.) eine stattliche Anzahl von Bronzefunden aus Gräbern, Siedlungen und Horten vorhanden, die aus forschungsgeschichtlichen Gründen bis in die jüngste Vergangenheit zwei verschiedenen Kulturen - der Kolchis-Kultur in Westgeorgien und der Koban-Kultur in Zentral- und Nordkaukasien - zugeordnet worden sind.

Der Begriff Koban-Kultur ist dabei forschungshistorisch der ältere. Er leitet sich von Gräberfeldern beim Aul Koban, Nordossetien, im nördlichen Hochgebirgskaukasus unweit der Georgischen Heerstraße gelegen, her und wurde 1881 von dem berühmten Berliner Arzt und Anthropologen Rudolf Virchow geprägt. Virchow hatte am Fundort selbst Ausgrabungen vorgenommen und seine Ergebnisse bald dem europäischen Fachpublikum präsentiert. Aufgrund der reichen Metallbeigaben in den Gräbern und einer vermuteten ähnlichen Zeitstellung hatte man Koban auch das "Hallstatt des Ostens" genannt.

Die in der Folgezeit (bis heute) durchgeführten Ausgrabungen in den Gebirgstälern zwischen den Zu- und Quellflüssen von Kuban im Westen und Terek im Osten förderten ähnliche Funde zutage, so daß der Begriff "Koban-Kultur" zu einem feststehenden Terminus in der nordkaukasischen Archäologie wurde.

Als charakteristische Merkmale dieser Kultur sind zu nennen: in der Regel Bestattungen (auch von mehreren Individuen) in Steinkistengräbern, ausgestattet mit reichen Waffen- bzw. Schmuckbeigaben aus Bronze, wovon hier die häufig mit Gravurornamenten verzierten, s-förmig gebildeten Äxte sowie mannigfaltigen plastisch gestalteten Tierfiguren hervorgehoben werden sollen. Weitere Merkmale (insbesondere Bogenfibeln) erinnerten in der Tat an Formen spätbronze- und früheisenzeitlicher Kulturen in den Donauländern, so daß man sogar an eine Einwanderung danubischer Stämme dachte, die zu einer "Hallstattisierung" Nordkaukasiens geführt habe.

Mit der zunehmenden archäologischen Erforschung Westgeorgiens, der antiken Kolchsi, ab den dreißiger Jahren des 20. Jahrhunderts, gelangten Hunderte von Hortfunden ans Tageslicht, die einerseits Bronzegegenstände enthielten, welche denjenigen aus der Koban-Kultur stark ähnelten, andererseits aber auch Geräte, die aus dem Norden nicht bekannt waren. Ähnlichkeiten in der Ornamentik führten schnell zur Erkenntnis, daß man es hier mit verwandten und gleichzeitigen kulturellen Phänomenen zu tun haben müsse. Da aber diese Hortfunde wie auch Siedlungen mit entsprechenden Funden nur in dem festumrissenen geographischen Raum Westgeorgien festgestellt werden konnten, wählte man die Bezeichnung "Kolchis-Kultur" für diese Erscheinung. Der "Reichtum" dieser Kultur und ihr Verbreitungsgebiet (Schwarzmeerküste und Hinterland) führten zur (noch nie durch eindeutige Funde bewiesenen) Annahme, daß hinter der Argonautenfahrt eine tatsächliche Unternehmung mykenischer Seefahrer im Schwarzen Meer gestanden haben könnte.

Ob es sich hier tatsächlich um zwei "Kulturen" handelt, wird aufgrund folgender Überlegungen diskutiert: 1.) die verschiedenen archäologischen Quellen sind ungleichmäßig verteilt: im Norden (Koban-Kultur) überwiegen eindeutig Grabfunde, im Süden (Kolchis-Kultur) Horte und Siedlungen; 2.) auffallende Ähnlichkeiten bei bestimmten Gerätetypen und Zierweisen sind nachgewiesen 3.) Bergbau und Metallverarbeitung könnten zu einer Vereinheitlichung in bestimmten Kulturbereichen geführt haben. Der Vortrag hat sich somit zur Aufgabe gestellt, diese Aspekte sowie die Frage nach der Entstehung dieser Kultur(en) zu diskutieren.

Ausgewählte Literatur:
  
E. N. CHERNYKH, Ancient metallurgy in the USSR. The Early Metal Age (Cambridge 1992). 
M. CHIDAŠELI, Die Gürtelbleche der älteren Eisenzeit in Georgien. Beiträge zur Allgemeinen und Vergleichenden Archäologie 8, 1986 (1989) 7-72. 
J. V. DOMANSKIJ, Alte künstlerische Bronzen aus Kaukasien [russ.] (Moskau 1984). 
O. M. DZAPARIDZE, Bronzeäxte aus Westgeorgien. Sovjetskaja Archeologija 18, 1953, 281 ff. 
F. HANCAR, Hallstatt - Kaukasus. Ein Beitrag zur Klärung des Kimmerierproblems. Mitteilungen der Anthropologischen Gesellschaft Wien 73-77, 1947, 152 ff. 
D. L. KORIDZE, Geschichte der Kolchis-Kultur (T'bilisi 1960). 
V. I. KOZENKOVA, Serzen'-Jurt. Ein Friedhof der späten Bronze- und frühen Eisenzeit. Materialien zur Allgemeinen und Vergleichenden Archäologie 48 (Mainz 1992). 
E. I. KRUPNOV, Urgeschichte Nordkaukasiens [russ.] (Moskau 1960). 
B. A. KUFTIN, Materialien zur Archäologie der Kolchis [russ.] Band 1 (T'bilisi 1949) Band 2 (T'bilisi 1959). 
O. LORDKIPANIDSE, Archäologie in Georgien. Von der Altsteinzeit zum Mittelalter. Quellen und Forschungen zur prähistorischen und provinzialrömischen Archäologie 5 (Weinheim 1991). 
I. MOTZENBÄCKER, Sammlung Kossnierska. Der digorische Formenkreis der kaukasischen Bronzezeit. Museum für Vor- und Frühgeschichte SMPK Bestandskataloge 3 (Berlin 1996). 
T. MIKELADZE, Zur Archäologie der Kolchis [russ.] (T'bilisi 1990). 
B. V. TECHOV, Zentralkaukasien vom 16.-10. Jh. v. u. Z. [russ.] (Moskau 1977). 
R. VIRCHOW, Das Gräberfeld von Koban im Lande der Osseten, Kaukasus. Eine vergleichend-archäologische Studie (Berlin 1883).

Kulturgeographie der Spätbronze- und Eisenzeit im Nord- und Westkaukasus

Kulturgeographie der Spätbronze- und Eisenzeit im Nord- und Westkaukasus

 Von Dr. des. Sabine Reinhold, Institut für Prähistorische Archäologie, Freie Universität Berlin

 Die Spätbronze- und Eisenzeit in Kaukasien ist eine Zeit der kulturellen Blüte. Reich ausgestattete Grabfunde, Metalldeponierungen, Siedlungen und Produktionswerkstätten geben Auskunft über die Lebenswelt der prähistorischen Gruppen nördlich und südlich der Hochgebirgskette des Großen Kaukasus.

In der russischen Forschung wird dieser Kulturraum traditionell der Koban Kultur im Norden und der Kolchis Kultur im Südwesten zugewiesen. Beide Kulturen sind einander sehr ähnlich und wurden in der Forschung auch lange als ein zusammengehöriger Kulturraum angesehen. Er stand neben einem zweiten, vergleichbaren Kulturraum in Ost- und Südgeorgien, Armenien und Azerbeidžan. Nach einer Periode der Differenzierung der spätbronze- und eisenzeitlichen Kulturen in kleinere territoriale Einheiten, wie sie seit den 50er Jahren des vorigen Jahrhunderts vor allem durch Forscherpersönlichkeiten wie E.I. Krupnov, V.I. Kozenkova, D. Koridze oder T. Mikeladze vertreten wurden, setzt sich in jüngere Zeit langsam wieder die Einsicht durch, dass die verschiedenen Regionalgruppen im Nord- und Westkaukasus doch Teil eines größeren Ganzen sind.

 

Unterschiedliche archäologische Phänomene erlauben es im Analogieschluss zu primordialen Gesellschaften lokale Identitäten und überregionale Kommunikationsstrukturen zu erschließen, die Grundlage von solchen archäologischen Kulturen oder Kulturräumen sein können. Die Verbreitung von (Grab)Trachten, Begräbnissitten und bestimmten Formen der materiellen Kultur geben Hinweise auf regionale kulturelle Spezifika und lokale Identitäten. Die Ethnographie weist die Wahrnehmbarkeit solcher Identitäten und die scharfe Grenzziehung zu benachbarten Gruppen als besondere Charakteristika von Bevölkerungen aus, die in Gebirgsregionen siedeln. Entsprechende Grenzen finden sich auch im archäologischen Material des Kaukasus immer wieder. Dennoch existieren parallel dazu Elemente, die mehreren Gruppen gemein sind, die als Exporte, Kultur- oder Materialtransfer zu werten sind. Methodisch stellt sich demzufolge die Frage, auf welcher Ebene man die archäologischen Kulturen dieser Region definieren soll, wo ihre Territorialgrenzen zu ziehen sind und wo überregionale Kommunikationsstrukturen beginnen.

 

Als zweiter Schwerpunkt soll mit diesem Beitrag der Frage nachgegangen werden, in welchem Verhältnis die Gruppen der vorskythischen Epoche zum Schwarzmeerraum standen. Zu nahezu allen Zeiten existieren Kontakte in die Räume nördlich des Schwarzen Meeres. In der Eisenzeit sind es hauptsächlich die immer wieder mit reiternomadischen Kimmeriern in Verbindung gebrachten Prunkwaffen und Pferdeschirrungen, die solche Kontakte belegen. Sie finden sich zwischen Kaukasus und Karpatenbecken in nahezu identischer Form wieder und wurden lange Zeit als Hinweise auf die Raubzüge dieser Reiternomaden gedeutet. Andere Autoren sehen in ihnen hingegen Zeichen einer lang anhaltenden, gegenseitigen kulturellen Beeinflussung, in der kaukasische Reiterkrieger langsam zum militärischen Vorbild der nordpontischen und osteuropäischen Eliten wurden. Aus kaukasischer Perspektive zeigt sich, dass die Objekte in der Tat Elemente eines Austauschsystems zwischen den lokalen Regionalgruppen im nordkaukasischen Vorgebirge waren, in die auch weitere Regionen in der eurasischen Steppen- und Waldsteppenzone eingebunden waren. Diesem Austauschsystem steht ein anderes gegenüber, das die Gruppen im Hochgebirge und im westlichen Transkaukasien verbindet. Auch dieses System ist in den pontischen Raum eingebunden, wie etwa der Hortfund von Ordu oder die vermutlich kolchische Keramik an der Südküste des Schwarzen Meeres zeigen. Zu fragen wird sein, in wie weit der Schwarzmeerraum jenseits des östlichen Teilabschnitts, der durch das kaukasische Gebirge eingenommen wird, Impulsgeber oder Impulsnehmer war, und auf welcher Ebene die kulturellen Kontakte stattfanden.

 
Einführende Literatur in Deutsch/Englisch

Sergej L. Dudarev/Jakov B. Berezin. Neue präskythische Funde aus der Umgebung von Pjatigorsk, Nordkaukasien. Eurasia Antiqua 5, 1999, 177-209.

Olga R. Dubovskaja, Zur ethnischen und kulturellen Einordnung der 'Novočerkassk-Gruppe'. Eurasia Antiqua 3, 1997, 277-327.

Georg Kossack, Tli Grab 85. Bemerkungen zum Beginn des skythenzeitlichen Formenkreises im Kaukasus. Beitr. zur Allg. und Vergl. Arch. 5, 1983, 89-177.

Georg Kossack, Neufunde aus dem Novočerkassker Formenkreis und ihre Bedeutung für die Geschichte steppenbezogener Reitervölker der späten Bronzezeit. Il Mare Nero 1, 1994,19-54.

Valtenina I. Kozenkova, Seržen'-Jurt. Ein Friedhof der späten Bronze- und frühen Eisenzeit im Nordostkaukasus (Mainz 1992).

Carola Metzner-Nebelsick, Kimmerier. Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde 16 (Berlin/New York 2000) 504-523.

Ingo Motzenbäcker, Sammlung Kossnierska. der Digorische Formenkreis der kaukasischen Bronzezeit (Berlin 1996).

Sabine Reinhold, Traditions in transition: some thoughts on late Bronze Age and early Iron Age burial costumes from the Northern Caucasus. European Journal of Archaeology 6/1, 2003, 25-54.

Biba, Teržan. Das Land der Medeia? In: Uwe Finkbeiner/Rainer Dittman/Harald Hauptmann (Hrsg.), Beiträge zur Kulturgeschichte Vorderasiens (Festschrift R. M. Böhmer) (Mainz 1995) 627-637.

V. B Vinogradov/Sergej L. Dudarev. Spätbronzezeitliche Gräberfelder bei Majrtup in Čečenien. Eurasia Antiqua 6, 2000, 361-403.

 

Einführende Literatur in Russisch

Sergej L. Dudarev, Vzaimootnošenija plemen Severnogo Kavkaza s kočevnikami Jugo-Vostočnoj Evropy v predskifskuju epochy (IX – pervaja polovina VII v. do n.e.) (Armavir 1999).

Valentina I. Kozenkova, Chronologija kobanskoj kul’tury: dostiženija, opyt utochenija, nerešennye problemy. Sovetskaja Archeologija 1990, 4, 64-92.

Valentina I. Kozenkova, Kul’turno-istoričeskie processy na Severnom Kavkaze v ëpochu pozdnej bronzy i v rannem železnom veke (Uzlovye problemy proischoždenija i razvitnaja kobanskoj kul’tury (Moskau 1996).

Bagrat V. Techov, Tlijskij mogil’nik 1-3 (Tbilisi 1980-1985).

 
Theorie und Methodik

Fredkik Barth, Introduction. In: Fredrik Barth (Hrsg.), Ethnic Groups and Boundaries. The Social Organisation of Cultural Difference (Oslo/London 1969) 9-38.

Stefan Burmeister, Zum sozialen Gebrauch von Tracht. Aussagemöglichkeiten hinsichtlich des Nachweises von Migrationen. Ethn. Arch. Zeitschr. 38, 1997, 177-203.

Mats Burström, Reconstructing the spatial extension of ancient societies: a Scandinavian Viking Age example. Archaeologia Polona 34, 1996, 165-181.

Hermann Kreutzmann, Ethnizität im Entwicklungsprozeß. Die Wakhi in Hochasien (Berlin 1996).

Günter Smolla, Analogien und ihre Grenzen. In: Urgeschichte als Kulturanthropologie (Festschrift Karl J. Narr I) Saeculum 41, 1990, 326-221.

Ulrike Sommer, Materielle Kultur und Ethnizität - eine sinnlose Fragestellung? In: Spuren und Botschaften: Interpretation materieller Kultur (Münster/New York/München/Berlin 2003) 205-224.

Jörg Stadelbauer, Bergnomaden und Yaylabauern in Kaukasien. Zur demographischen Entwicklung und zum sozioökonomischen Wandel bei ethnischen Gruppen mit nicht-stationärer Tierhaltung. Paideuma 30, 1984, 201-225.

J.C. Watkins, Spirited Women. Gender, Religion, and Cultural Identity in the Nepal Himalaya (New York 1996).

M. Wobst, Stylistic behaviour and information exchange: In: Ch. E. Cleveland(Hrsg.), For the director: Research Essays in honour of James B. Griffin (Ann Arbor 1977) 317-342.

Alison Wylie, The Reaction against Analogy. In: M.B. Schiffer (Hrsg.), Advances in archaeological method and theory 8, 1985, 63-111.


http://www.blacksea-archaeology.org/de/lectures/archiv/mai_2004.html

SOME BORROWED NUMERALS IN PROTO-KARTVELIAN

published in Dhumbadji!, Vol. 3, No. 1, Summer 1996, (Letters to the Editor)
REVIEW OF ALEXIS MANASTER RAMER'S
Dhumbadji!, Vol. 2, No. 3, December 1995, pp. 16-17


Patrick C. Ryan


 Professor Alexis Manaster Ramer concludes his article by modestly saying: "We are very far from being able to say the last word on the subject", a sentiment with which I can heartily agree.

Actually, I find the article marred by strange terminology, inadequate research, and flawed logic; points I will detail in the course of this review.

The theme, which might conceivably have been candidly included in the title of this article, is borrowing.

Professor Ramer borrows the research of Van Ginneken, Frei, Klimov, Pisani, and Winter, which purports to show that the Proto-Kartvelian etymon for the numeral "4", which he "posits" as *os1tx- ("or perhaps os1txw- or *os1txo"), was borrowed from Proto-Indo-European. Since "posit" means "put forward as fact or truth", I am sure that he is sure that one of these forms is factual but slightly at a loss to know which one of them he actually "posits".

We are not given a time-frame for this borrowing so we cannot really form a judgment about the necessity or desirability for speakers of Proto-Kartvelian to borrow a word for "4". Perhaps herds were very small in the PK homeland; and wealth was unknown (because uncountable!)

How shall we imagine the situation to have been? A people with a developed language who had no need to count? Or should we think that the PIE term for "4" struck them as more expressive?

Or should we suspect, as I do, that phonetically related terms for semantically related concepts are most easily explained by a common relationship, i.e. origin?


Allan R. Bomhard (and John C. Kerns) in The Nostratic Macrofamily (1994) — and in other works — has made a prima facie case for the derivation of PK from Nostratic, which also produced IE and Afroasian (AA). This possibility was not discussed or was allusion made to it. Before borrowing is assumed, I would think that common origin needs to be ruled out.

Next, Ramer denies the possibility of a metathesis of -k^t- in PIE *ok^to:(u)-, "eight" to -tx- in the PK form *os1tx-, "four", putting aside for the moment the discrepancy in meaning. Since metathesis usually involves consonant shifts that facilitate pronunciation — and in any language, -k^t- is probably going to be easier to pronounce than -tx- — Ramer is most certainly correct.

The PK *os1tx(w/o)- produces Georgia and Mingrelian otx-, Laz o(n)txo-, otxu-, and Svan woštx(w)-, all meaning "4".

The first very obvious characteristic of the PK forms quoted is that Svan, which seems to be showing the least modified form, can be reconstructed with -(w)-; and that Laz -u- points in the same direction.

Strangely (inadvertently?), the PIE form is never cited in this article in the form appearing in Pokorny (1922): ok^to:(u), showing a (n optional) -u that invariably represents PIE /w/ even though Ramer must be dimly aware of it because he cites Old Indian aSTau (sic!), in which he fails to indicate the long and accented a(á:).

Indeed, it is never made clear in the article why Ramer "posits" *os1tx- as the PK form, i.e. without the -w when the normal procedure is to assume the full form is the original form (Klimov's os1txw-), or is this something Ramer "posits" also?

There is, of course, a further totally neglected anomaly: the sporadic appearance of (n) in Laz o(n)txo-. No discussion of sporadic appearances of non-cognate -n- in Svan can be discovered in the article; and we should expect, at the minimum, that notice was taken of it.

By the normal rule, the full attested form is the original form, we might reconstruct PK *o(n)s1txw- based on the attestations cited in the article.

There is no problem with adding an -n- to the IE form, although it is nowhere attested in IE because a) a pattern of deletion of the nasal feature of dorsal nasals is abundantly apparent: e.g. IE 2. ank-, ang-, bend, shows Old Indian añcati and ácati, bends, curves; a root, from which Greek agkó:n, bend (of the knee, shoulder), elbow, is derived.

This last citation is of more than casual interest when we acknowledge (as Ramer does not explicitly do) that the expected rationale for number terminology is the configuration of the hand or fingers used in finger-counting, or alternatively, the body part touched (body-counting).


I do not know if Ramer is familiar with Georges Ifrah's One to Zero (1985), which explains these matters in satisfying detail.

Although the only thing we know about PIE and PK and AA and Nostratic finger-counting is what we can learn from analysis of the terminology, we can see in Ifrah that the Torres Strait Islanders used the shoulder as a body-counting touch-point for "8" while the Elemas of New Guinea used the elbow similarly.

On page 28 of his fascinating book (and I recommend it to Ramer), examples of various finger-counting methods are illustrated.

Illustration A-4 shows one method of finger-counting in which the little finger is bent while all other fingers are extended; it designates "4".

Interestingly, PIE has another root which is listed as wek-, we-n-k-, bend, in Pokorny, from which Old Indian váñcati, goes crookedly or slopingly, is derived.

Both these Old Indian examples show palatal dorsal (nasal) consonants; and please note that I prefer dorsal to indicate consonants articulated by the contact of the dorsum to a particular part of the mouth, usually the palate or the velum.

I am somewhat surprised by Ramer's characterization of PIE "*(sic! Are these somehow to be considered roots???)/k', g', g'h/" as "palatovelars". They are palatal dorsal stops else why would the tick (') be there? Ramer may not be aware that the term "palatovelar" was originally created to describe dorsals which often were pronounced with either one of two contact points: the palate or the velum.

Now there are points which Ramer makes that seem defensible; I do not think many will have a problem with reconstructing PK s1t as the cluster underlying the Kartvelian manifestations but the assertion of Ramer that the PK form, which I believe is correctly reconstructed as *wos1tx(w)-, is to be derived from Akkadian hamištu, "5", is the pure fantasy of an investigator who is determined to account for every similarity through borrowing, whatever the offense to common sense.

The two paragraphs purporting to explain how Akkadian hamištu, "5", is really to be interpreted as phonetically representing "[hawitu] or [xawitu]" will not satisfy any AAist or even general linguist; and trite examples like "Thus, innovative English spellings like lite and nite do not indicate that the words light [lait] and night [nait] have suddenly acquired a final vowel" will strike many readers of a journal devoted to philology as condescending and completely unconvincing.

Then, in another round of borrowing frenzy, Ramer tells us that the PKs borrowed "PIE *g'lHV-, daughter-in-law, sister-in-law'...(as) PK *-j1al-, and...PIE *mlg'-, milk' (itself a loanword from Semitic)...as PK *mL1j1e- milk'."


One can only wonder what (perhaps totally unattested) language may have been the original lender for these ubiquitous borrowings.

Now, Ramer candidly informs us that "The semantic mismatch between '4' and '8' also calls for some comment".

Bear in mind, he has told us on the previous page that "PK *xus1t- '5',...comes directly or indirectly from a form like Akkadian hamištu".

I would think that the "semantic mismatch" between "4", the previously assigned meaning for Ramer's PK *xus1t-, and his sudden assignment of the meaning "5" to the same word "calls for some comment" also. But, unfortunately, we do not have the benefit of Ramer's arguments for this sudden (and quite unexpected) transformation.

I say unexpected' because Ramer now launches into a paragraph or so on the relationship of "4" and "8"; perhaps, "5" was just a wayward thought which may better have remained lost.

Ramer borrows from Henning the idea that Avestan "ašti 'width of four fingers'" may be the singular form (as a hypothetical "4") for "PIE *ok^to:- as the dual of two (sic!): a hypothetical *ok^t-"; and then borrows from Johnson the idea that PIE "*penkwe '5',...denoted the whole fist", for which he claims to have found comparative support in Uralic and Altaic.

In view of Old Indian ásthi-, "bone" and Avestan ast(i)-, "leg, bone", the probable source of Avestan ašti is as a variant derivation from PIE ost(h)-, "bone". Four fingers is about the width of my leg. But, in any case, where is the (n) of Laz?

In the next paragraph, Ramer asserts that "all PK numerals above '3' are loanwords from Indo-European or Semitic", basing this rather wide claim on work which he has "(submitted)". Perhaps "submitted" is somehow a higher status of work than "manuscript" although I am not aware of the distinction. But if the reasoning is comparable to that which we see in this article, I am afraid that "manuscript" may be the appropriate designation.

Let us review. Ramer has told us that PK borrowed from PIE the base form "*ok't-", which he assumes on no evidence that I can see, meant *four, presumably at a time when PIE employed it for "4". Somehow or other, the PK form, which is borrowed from PIE, "came directly from a form like Akkadian hamištu", which meant "5".

Well, which came first — the Akkadian or the PIE?


It seems to be "4" of one and "5" of another. I confess I am not able to riddle out the meaning of these seemingly contradictory statements. Perhaps Ramer will submit a response to clarify matters for us all.

Next, Ramer tells us rather authoritatively that "the */x/ of PK *os1tx- has (sic!!!) to be a reflex of a PIE laryngeal" but the laryngeal in *ok'toH- represents the very dual suffix which is assumed to be responsible for the meaning "8".

Ramer's answer for this high hurdle that would have halted many a less talented jumper to conclusions is to "assume that the meanings '4' and '8' were interchanged in PK".

I do not believe that many readers will find this probable; and I, personally, find it incredible as an explanation for a relationship that is founded on so many other apparent contradictions. Something aside from fact that 2 x 4 = 8 must be presented for this thesis to have any merit.

I have read exchanges between Ramer and Bomhard on electronic discussion lists in which Ramer "deplores" Bomhard's wrong ideas" about Nostratic but having read this article, I can only hope that Ramer relents and reads Bomhard's work, which shows a more realistic approach to interlanguage comparisons than is shown here.

The only thing that I find almost inexcusable is Ramer's failure to identify as a numeral formant. Just a little research in Egyptian, with which he might not be familiar but certainly should have been done if AA comparisons are being contemplated, would have revealed that Egyptian numerals are regularly formed with -w. Gardiner (rev. 1973) reconstructs "1 w'(yw) 2 snw(y) 3 Hmt(w) 4 fdw 5 diw 6 srsw or sisw 7 sfx(w) 8 Hmn(w) 9 psD(w) 10 mD(w)...50 diyw", etc.

Ramer cited "*penkwe 5'"; and, although he overlooked the usually reconstructed (u) of *ok^to:(u)-, which actually supported his abortive comparison (-u of Laz otxu; -(w) of Svan woštx(w)), surely he is aware of the (u) of IE *dwo:(u), "two". Would he expect assume to assume that *dwo:(u) is the dual of a totally unattested *dwo, "*one"; or perhaps "penkwe" is the dual of an unattested *penk, "two-and-a-half"?

Well, I think it is clear that Ramer's article has not moved me to conviction.

Since I have also discussed matters with Ramer electronically, I will do what Ramer failed to do (in my opinion) in our discussions, and offer up my own interpretation of the facts to the sacrificial knife of Ramer's sharp wit.

Nostratic is a reconstructed language that is the antecedent of IE, AA, and (P)K, as Bomhard as shown in many publications over many years.

The relationships among the words discussed is not borrowing but derivation from Nostratic roots that were, at least, originally common to all.


We should expect differences in numeral terminology because counting methods were subject to preference and improvement.

The (P)K term for "4", correctly reconstructed as *wo(n)s1tx(w) is based on a Nostratic *wank(y)-, "bend" (IE *wenk^-); and tells us that the Kartvelian-speakers used a finger-counting method that involved the bending of one finger to indicate "4".

The -t of the PK is Nostratic -t and IE -t, a former of ordinal from cardinal and collective numerals. The final -(w) is probably Nostratic -*wa, a suffix indicating numerals generally.

I cannot, at present, offer a reasonable suggestion for the significance of (P)K -x- but I do accept the possibility that it may represent a guttural (which I will not specifiy as laryngal or pharyngal) that is reponsible for length of o: in IE *ok^to:u and *dwo:u, with a significance that remains to be determined.

The IE word for "8", *ok^to:u is composed of the same final elements as the (P)K but the first element is seen in IE 2. *ank(^)-, *ang(^)-, bend (Nostratic *ank(y)), indicating a body-counting method for IE, and designating either the 'elbow' or the 'shoulder'.

However, the Nostratic root underlying (P)K wo(n)s1txu- may be present in IE also but in a disguised form and with a different meaning.

Ifrah illustrates the body-counting system of the Torres Strait Islanders, and shows the (right) wrist as "6", which is also "6" for the Papuans and Elemas.

Though "6" is usually reconstructed as *swek^s, there are some IE languages which show *wek^(s) : *uk^(s): e.g. Armenian vec. and Greek héx.

To judge by Armenian gangur, "flexus", IE *we-n-k-, "bend", may have once designated the "bendable" joint of the wrist though the -s remains to be explained (perhaps as a multiplicative suffix). I ask no one to accept this purely speculative suggestion.

I am not saying that IE exclusively had a terminology for numerals based on body-counting since I see traces of finger-counting in other numerals but I assert that Proto-Language "1" and "2" were also part of a body-counting system: PL na, "nostril", "1 (of two)"; and PL fa, "palm", "2" (possibly also PL no, "abdomen", "nine?"). IE oi-no(s), "1" is based on a simple combination of PL ?e-$e, "that (yonder)" + na, "1", while Old Indian e:ka, "one" is simply PL ?e-$e, "that (yonder)" + khe, "other" + fa, "two, number".

Ramer's exercise here is a perfect example of what mischief can be perpetrated when someone who should know better substitutes assumption for analysis and imagines borrowing where only genetic relationship exists.



BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bomhard, Allan R. and John C. Kerns. 1994. The Nostratic Macro-family A Study in Distant Linguistic Relationship. Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs 74. Berlin, New York City: Mouton de Gruyter

Gardiner, Sir Alan. 3rd edition, revised 1973. Egyptian Grammar: being an Introduction to the Study of the Hieroglyphs. London: Oxford University Press

Ifrah, Georges. 1985. From One to Zero: A Universal History of Numbers. (translation of Histoire Universelle des Chiffres) New York: Viking Penguin, Inc.

Pokorny, Julius. 1959. Indogermanisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch. Volume I. Bern and Munich: Francke Verlag

Ryan, Patrick C. 1990. Pre-Nostratic "Pronouns" Early Noun Substitutions. Mother Tongue 11, September 1990.

1993. An Inquiry or Thought Paper. Mother Tongue 19, Spring 1993.

1994. Proto-Language "He" and "It" IE -l/-n Nouns. Dhumbadji! Vol. 1, No. 4. Winter 1994.

1996. Merritt Ruhlen's Two Books on Language Origins. (Review). Eurasian Studies Yearbook. Vol. 68 (1996). Berlin, Bloomington, London, Paris, and Toronto: Eurolingua

LAPISLAZULI-FUNDE DES 3. UND 2. JAHRTAUSENDS V. CHR. IN DER KAUKASUSREGION-- EIN BEITRAG ZUR HERKUNFT DES LAPISLAZULI IN TROIA

Joni Apakidze

ABSTRACT
Lapis lazuli from the Caucasus is a topic of great interest when seen from the perspective of its means of reaching Troy.
Jewellery with lapis lazuli has been recovered in Bronze Age sites in the Caucasus as well, in specific: the Maikop kurgan, kurgan 1 in Novosvobodnaja (Carskaja), the hoard from Storomišastovsk (Maikop culture), and kurgan 17 in Trialeti (the Middle Bronze Age Trialeti culture). Nevertheless, it appears to date that lapis lazuli was used less than other semi-precious stones, such as carnelian.
While outcrops of lapis lazuli are not found in the Caucasus and in Anatolia, it does occur in Afghanistan (Badakhshan) and the Pamir region. Jewellery with lapis lazuli was plenteous in ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia. Lapis lazuli must have been imported into Anatolia and the Caucasus, and a possible route might have been through Mesopotamia. Even more likely is that lapis lazuli , like tin, was transported from Afghanistan across the Turkmenian steppe and northern Persia to the Caucasus and Anatolia.
Presumably lapis lazuli was imported as a raw material for the production of "local" hemispherical or biconical, spherical or cylindrical beads or cultic axes in Maikop, Trialeti and Troy. In support of this the author draws attention to similarly shaped beads in the Caucasus, which are made of carnelian and other stones in the same technique. Likewise in Troy, comparable axes were made of nephrite, jade and other less costly stone material.

Studia Troica, Band 9 : 1999

Bronze and Early Iron Ages settlements and settlement systems of Colchian Culture in West Georgia

Joni Apakidze

Sukhumi Branch of Tbilisi Staty Univesity, Department of Ancient History, Archaeology and Ethnology, Tbilisi-Georgia

The geoclimatic conditions of Colchian Plain determined the emergence of a peculiar type of settlement here. In conditions of high humidity and marshiness dwelling houses and economic facilities were constructed on platforms built of thick wooden beams or on clay mounds, preventing underground water and moisture from penetrating into the settlement. The size of platforms, made of clay mounds and beams, usually coincided with the area of the settlement, but there are instances of the latter exceeding the former, e.g. the Nosiri 1st (basic) layer settlement site considerably exceeds the boundaries of the clay mound.

Some artificial settlement mounds are noticeably elevated from the contemporary surface, being elliptical, oval or round in shape. In the Colchian Plain the highest man-made mound is the Patriketi hillock: 9 m and the smallest the one found on the right bank of the river Tsivi: 0,5 m. The largest area is occupied by the medium height Namarnu mound with the diameter of 160 m, while the Lekhaindrao dikha-gudzuba occupies the smallest area with diameter of 20 m.

The artificial settlement mounds are mainly multi-layered monuments, some of them simultaneously comprising Early, Middle, Late Bronze, Early Iron and Classical Period layers. There are cases when out the epochs listed only one is presented, e.g. Naokhvamu, Chaladidi Zurga, Abedati dikha-gudzuba, etc. are. represented solely by Late Bronze and Early Iron cultural layers.

The total area of Colchian dwelling mounds ranged from 1500 to 3000 sq. m. It should be assumed that the buildings at these settlements stood close to one another, for every inch of the artificial embankment, wrested from the marsh, must have been highly prized. It should be noted that the area allotted for construction was much smaller in size than the area of the mound itself. The dwelling mounds were surrounded with intricate drainage and defensive systems (ditch, earth embankment, paling with wooden towers at intervals). Due to the natural conditions of the Colchian Plain digging of ditches around settlement sites was dictated by objective necessity. Because of frequent rains and river erosion the territory adjoining the sites often turned into a swamp. If the swampy place was linked to a ditch, the danger of swamping disappeared, as the water accumulated in the ditches emptied into the canals, and thence the nearest brook or river. Slightly elevated farming plots, surrounded with ditches, abutted on the dwelling mounds.

At the early stage of Colchian Bronze culture two principal types of settlements prevailed in Colchis (Western Georgia): artificial dwelling mounds and settlements on natural hills and elevations. At the last stage of this culture (Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages) there were already five different settlement types: artificial mounds, settlements on natural hills and elevations, dune settlements, and “open-type” unfortified settlements, situated on river banks and terraces and manufacturing-settlements.

Settlements in plains, on river banks and terraces represent sites of open, unfortified type, occupying an area of above 1ha. In addition to dwelling and economic facilities, workshops were also built here, in close proximity to the other structures. So-called dune settlements

appear in the coastal zone and reveal thick cultural layers.

On the grounds of archaeological data, the author assumes that large and compactly populated settlements of different types flourished in Colchis by the end of the 2nd beginning of the 1st millenium B.C. They were situated not far from each other. The Colchis lowland and foothills were intensively developed. According to the authors view, settlements dated by this period were protourbanistic settlements.

Auf den Spuren von Medeas Gold

Reportage
Woher hatte das antike Volk der Kolcher das Gold für seine legendären Schätze? In Georgien sind Archäologen der Sage vom Goldenen Vlies auf der Spur.
Und dann ist auch noch das Pferd weg. Es war ohnehin ein harter Tag für die achtköpfige Mannschaft gewesen: bis zu den Knien im grauen, kalten und reißenden Wasser, einen Eimer Geröll nach dem anderen schaufelnd, unzählige Pfannen Schlick und Sand siebend – ohne dass Nennenswertes zu Tage gefördert worden wäre.
Der vollständige Artikel ist erschienen in » epoc, 03/08

The Interrelationship between the Transcaucasian and Anatolian Populations by the Data of the Greek and Latin Literary Sources.

Giorgi Leon KAVTARADZE

Published in: The Thracian World at the Crossroads of Civilisations, I. Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress of Thracology (Constanta-Mangalia-Tulcea, 20-26 May 1996). Edited by P. Roman in collabration with S. Diamandi and M. Alexianu. Bucharest, the Romanian Institute of Thracology and the Publishing House Vavila Edinf SRL, 1997, 352-361.

Read more (full text)

THE INTERRELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TRANSCAUCASIAN AND ANATOLIAN POPULATIONS BY THE DATA OF THE GREEK AND LATIN LITERARY SOURCES

Giorgi Leon KAVTARADZE (1996). The Interrelationship between the Transcaucasian and Anatolian Populations by the Data of the Greek and Latin Literary Sources, in: The Thracian World at the Crossroads of Civilisations, I. Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress of Thracology (Constanta-Mangalia-Tulcea, 20-26 May 1996). Edited by P. Roman in collabration with S. Diamandi and M. Alexianu. Bucharest, the Romanian Institute of Thracology and the Publishing House Vavila Edinf SRL, 1997, 352-361..


In the "Geography" of Strabo there is a story about the migration of peoples from Asia Minor to the Caucasus, according to which mythical Amazons, together with Gargareans, went away from the Temiscyra and resettled in the eastern part of the Caucasus, in the Keraunian mountains, above Albania, where they met Eobeoans and Thracians who migrated also to the Caucasus from the west (XI, V, 1-49).

If Strabo's indication about the penetration of the above-mentioned tribes to the Caucasus would be an isolated one, it could be considered as totally legendary, but also other authors of the Classical times frequently mention the migration of peoples to the Caucasus from south-west, mainly tribes of Pelasgian provenance.

We cannot say anything about the Thracians mentioned by Strabo in connection with the Caucasus, but for the archaeologists, ethnographers, linguists and anthropologists firm and multilateral ties between the ancient populations of Anatolia and the Caucasus existed without any doubt.

Many characteristics of the various aspects of life of the Ancient Near East still exist among the population of the Caucasus, who at the same time was genetically connected with the earliest inhabitants of the Near East and the Aegean. Except well-known parallels detected among the materials of Çatal Höyük and the Caucasian ethnographical data, attention can be also paid to the man's sculpture of cultic character, discovered by H.Hauptmann in Nevali Çori (South-East Anatolia). The sculpture has a big protuberance at the middle of its breast1 which is difficult to understand, but which becomes understandable by comparing it with the western Georgian (Colchian) mythological image of Ocho-Kochi, who instead of hair on his breast, has a protuberance in the form of a pointed bone or a stone-axe. He throws himself on the people passing by, whom he kills, by embracing them2.

The territorial proximity of Anatolia and Transcaucasia seems to have been also a precondition of the ethnical similarity of both regions.

It is mentioned by scholars as a fact that in the Byzantine historiography, Cappadocians - inhabitants of Central Anatolia - were the same as the Moschs or Meschs, a tribe of Kartvelian (i.e. Georgian) origin.

Much earlier, in the 6th century BC, Hecataeus of Miletus wrote that the Moschs are a Colchian tribe who lived near Matienians (fr. 188). The definition of the Moschs as a Colchian tribe is a remarkable fact because at that time, as we

353

know by Herodotus, they were included together with other Pontic tribes in the same Achaemenian satrapy, while the Colchians were in reality independent from Iranians (cf. Hdt, III, 94, 97). On the other hand, the information by Hecataeus on the conjunction with another fragment of the same author about the location of the Matienians town Hiope in the neighbourhood of Gordies and about the Paphlagonian type of the clothes of the population of this town (fr. 189), makes obvious that in the above-mentioned Matienians western Matienians were implied who lived near the Phrygians of the city of Gordion and near the Paphlagonians. Because of it, it is possible to localize the Moschs in Cappadocia.

As to the information of Georgian chronicles, the name of the father of Haos and Kartlos, the ancestors of Armenians and Georgians, was Targamos. This name is derived from the biblical "Togarma", and it is thought to be connected with the designation of the Cappadocian town Til-Garimu, known from Assyrian inscriptions, which, on its hand, has its origin in the name of the former Hittite region - Tegarama. According to Georgian chronicles, the main protector of Georgians, St. George, and the person who brought them Christianity, St. Nino, were of Cappadocian origin.

By the Georgian tradition, the name of the Mosch-Meschs is connected with the name of the Iberian capital - Mtskheta, In any case, there can be little doubt that the population who settled in Mtskhela were the bearers of the Hittite-Analolian cultural traditions. According to the scholars, the old Georgian gods of Mtskheta like Armazi, Zadeni, Gatsi and Ga correspond to the Anatolian deities: Arma, Santa, Atis and Kibela3.

As to some Georgian archaeologists, the active settlement of a new population, probably the Meschs, the bearers of the Hittite-Asia Minor traditions in the north, in Mtskheta, had already begun in the second part of the fourth century BC, and this fact caused the spread of a new type of culture in Eastern Georgia which was quite different from the local Late Bronze - Early Iron age traditions4.

It is remarkable that Josephus Flavius, the Jewish-Roman historian of the first century AD, considered the Moschs, as well as the Iberians, as being of Anatolian origin. In his commentary to the biblical "Meshech" he wrote that the Mosocheans were derived from Meshech and that they afterwards received the name of "Cappadocians", though from the designation of their capital "Mazaca", it is obvious that the name of all their tribes was the same. In the text of Eustates, Erzbishop of Antiochia, of the first half of the fourth century, as well as in the "Chronography" of the Byzantine writer Leon the Grammatikus, the name of this tribe is identical with the name of the ancient Georgian tribe of Meshs - Μεσχινοι. The Georgian tribe of the Meschs lived in the Classical and Medieval times in the Moschian mountains - between Erzurum, Kars and Batumi.

354

By the information of Leo Allazius in the commentary to Josephus Flavius' above-mentioned fragment, the Meschians were a people known by the old authors as Moschikoi or Mosynoeci. At first they lived in the Pontic littoral and afterwards they had become Cappadocians, but finally they once again were forced to move to the north. It is known that Leo Allazius was acquainted with many books which are now lost.

In connection with Allazius' information it is perhaps worthwhile to recollect the Middle Assyrian inscription of Tiglath-Pilesar I. By this inscription in ca. 1164 BC, the land of Alzi, alias Enzi/Enzite, as same as Sophene, on the lower stream of the Murat (Eastern Euphrates), and the land of Kadmuhi, in the valley of the upper Tigris, were occupied by Mushki5.

This circumstance makes it possible to establish cultural attribution of Mushki; the territory where Alzi was located, 20-25 years ago was thoroughly studied by Keban dam expedition. In the opinion of archaeologists the Early Iron age pottery discovered there, in the Elâzığ region, and which must be attributed to Mushki, has no connection at all with the western Anatolian homeland of the Phrygians and reveals traits typical of the Transcaucasian (East Georgian, Armenian), North-Eastern Anatolian and North-Western Iranian materials6.

It is interesting that the East Georgian mountaindwellers are known to their Daghestanian neighbours as Mosok/Masek/Mosoch7.

We must take into account that the ethnonym "Moschi" of the Greek sources from the phonetical point of view corresponds to the Assyrian-Urartian "Mushki"8. At the same time, as to the linguists, the form "Mosx/Musx" represents a West Georgian (Colchian or Megrel-Lazian) equivalent of the East Georgian ethnonym "Meschi"9.

In the opinion of some authors, Moschs also lived in the territory of Northern Colchis - in Abkhazia10. Such a location of the Moschs mainly goes back to Strabo who defined their settlement in the north-eastern Black Sea littoral, between the Cercetae and Colchians, because of the data by the historians of Mithridatic wars (XI, II, 14). On the other hand, by the information of' Periplus" of Pseudo-Scylax, in the same territory of the north-eastern Black Sea littoral the following tribes lived from the north-west to the south-east: Cercetae, Toretes, Achaiae, Heniochoi, Coraxes, Colles, Melanchlaenies, Gelonies and Colchians (73-81).

It can be easily noticed that instead of the Moschs of Strabo in the Pseudo-Scylaxes "Periplus", several tribes are mentioned - Toretes, Achaeans, Heniocheans, Coraxes, Melanchlaenies and Gelonies. In one of these tribes it is possible to detect Strabo's Moschs. By the same fragment of Strabo we are also informed that above the Cercetae, Moschs and Colchians, the Pteriophagi (i.e. the lice-eaters) and Soanes lived. On the other hand, Flavius Arrian informs us in his


355

"Periplus" that the Scythian tribe of "lice-eaters" at earlier times lived west of Pitius and that this tribe was mentioned by Herodotus in the description of the "Land of Scythians" (18). Herodotus, for his part, considers the tribe of Budini as "lice-eaters", who, in his opinion, were erroneously taken by the Greeks as Gelonies (IV, 103).

In the light of Herodotus and Flavius Arrians data, it is obvious that the Gelonies, mentioned by Pseudo-Scylax as neighbours of the Melanchlaenies and Colchians, correspond to Strabo's Pteriophages (or "lice-eaters") who lived above the Cercetae, Moschs and Colchians (i.e. in the mountains). This coincidence makes possible to identify also their neighbours, the Melanchlaenies with the Moschs.

By the data of Hecataeus (fr. 154), Herodotus (IV, 107) and after them other Classical writers, the Melanchlaenies got this name because they had "black coats". In Greek μελας, μαλλαινα, μελαν means "black", "of the black colour". The same meaning in the Svanian language of the Kartvelian linguistic family has the word "meshkhe". The hissing consonant (sh) in Greek is transmitted as the sibilant (s).

Consequently, we have no reason to speak about the residence of the Moschs/Meschs as being in the territory of Abkhazia. As for the ethnonym "Moschi", used by Strabo, following the historians of Mithridatic wars, it gives us the possibility to localize the Svanian-speaking tribes (Strabo's "Soanes") in the neighbourhood of the Melanchlaeni whose name was probably preserved in Strabo's "Geography" in the Svanian form.

A similar phenomenon - a wrong use of an ethnonym - we have presumably also in Xenophons "Anabasis". There in the final part only such countries and tribes were enumerated which, in accordance with the basic text, were on the route of Greeks. Among others there is mentioned an ethnonym "Hesperitae" (VII, VIII, 25).

The problem of settlement of Hesperitae is a crucial one, because on the base of their location, by some scholars, in Speri (İspir), on the upper flow of Chorokhi (Choruh), the Achaemenian empire is thought to be spread there at the beginning of 4th century BC11.

I think the fact must be taken into consideration that at the time of the identification of the Hesperitae and the definition of their location, Tiribas, mentioned in the final part of the "Anabasis" as a governor of the Phasianoi and Hesperitae, in accordance with the basic text, was the satrap of Western Armenia (IV, IV, 4). Thus in the final part of the "Anabasis", the main function of Tiribas - that of a ruler of Western Armenia - was changed to the task of a ruler of the Phasianoi and Hesperitae and instead of Armenians, subjects of Tiribas whose country was situated on the route of Xenophons Greek companions, are mentioned Hesperitae.


356

Consequently, the question is inevitable: Was the population of Western Armenia, mentioned in the basic part of "Anabasis", implied under the name of' "Hesperitae" of the final part of the same text?

The validity of such an assumption can be reinforced by the fact that the Greek word εσπερα means "west" and εσπεριος/εσπερος - "western". It is important to notice that Strabo used the term "Hesperitae of Lybia" to designate Western Lybians (XIV, I, 39). Therefore it seems quite possible that the term of the final part of the "Anabasis", "Hesperitae" or "inhabitants of west" was used for the designation of Western Armenians, and this fact was apparently dictated by the wish to detach them from the Armenians who lived in the satrapy of East Armenia and the territory of which the Greeks passed, until they reached the land of the satrapy of Western Armenia (cf. IV, III, 1, 3,4, 20; IV, IV, 1-4). In a similar way for the distinguishing of the Chalybes, living at the Black Sea littoral from the Chalybes of the East Anatolian highlands, the ethnonym "Coites" was used (cf. III, V, 17; IV, III, 3; IV, IV, 4). Therefore we can approve that the final part of the "Anabasis" from the point of view of its contents is by no means contradictory to the main basic part.

Consequently, we must exclude any possibility to consider the West Armenian "Hesperitae" of Xenophons "Anabasis" as a Kartvelian tribe or as a population of Speri, of the upper flow of Chorokhi.

Another example of a wrong use of the ethnonyms we can find in Flavius Arrians "Campaign of Alexander".

According to Flavius Arrian, in 329-328 BC, the king of the Central Asian Chorasmeans, Pharasmanes, escorted by 1500 horsemens, appeared before Alexander the Great who stayed at that time on the bank of the Central Asian river Oxus (modern Amu-Daria); he told Alexander that he lived in neighbourhood of the Colchians and Amazons and offered to accompany him and to get the supply for his campaign if Alexander wished to conquer the tribes who lived in the region extended to the Pontus Euxinus (i.e. Black Sea). Alexander replied to the king of the Chorasmeans that he had no time now to begin a campaign to Pontus, but after the conquest of Asia and his return through the Hellespontus and Propontidis to Greece, he would break profoundly into Pontus with the help of all his forces, both marine and military ones and only then he would accept Pharasmanes' help (XV, IV, 14,15).

The historiographical literature contains quite a competent remark, namely that it is incredible that the author of "Peripluses of the Black Sea", Flavius Arrian, thought the residence of Colchians to be in Central Asia, in the neighbourhood of Chorasmeans and not in the environment of Trapezunt on the Black Sea. This error appeared obviously in the Greek manuscripts: it is difficult to imagine the king of Central Asian Chorasmeans to be mentioned in the original text together with the Colchians12.

357

That the text by Arrian concerns the Pontic region and not Central Asia, beside the fact that it refers to Colchians, Amazons and Pontus Euxinus, can to some degree be stated by Alexander the Great's words, that he would go towards the Pontus after his return to Greece through the Hellespontus and Propontidis (i.e. after his return from Central Asia) using land - as well as marine forces. This last remark makes clear that he was not about to return to Central Asia.

If, on the one hand, the king of Chorasmeans, Pharasmanes, mentioned by Arrian, expected Alexander's help against his neighbours - the Colchians and Amazons - on the other hand, by the information of Georgian and Armenian chronicles, Alexander the Great installed his follower as a ruler after his arrival in Kartli (Iberia). According to the Georgian chronicle of the 9th century, "The Christening of Kartli", Alexanders follower, Azo, was the son of the king of Arian-Kartli and he took his compatriots and idols Gatsi and Ga to Kartli.

Arseni Beri, the author of metaphrastical reduction of "The life of St. Nino" and tutor of the Georgian king David, the Restorer, explained this information in the following way: "We, Georgians, are descendants of the newcomers from Arian-Kartli, we speak their language and all the kings of Kartli are descendents of their kings".

By the generally accepted opinion Arian-KartIi must be searched south-west of modem Georgia, in the northeastern part of modem Turkey.

Georgian annals are not the only ones to connect the emergence of the statehood in Central Transcaucasia with the name of Alexander the Great. According to Moses Khorenatsi, an Armenian historian of the 5th century, Alexander took with him Mihrdat, one of the satraps of Darius and left him as a prince over the captives from among the Iberian people, whom Nebukhadnezzar had taken as prisones and settled on the right side of the Pontus Sea after having attacked the land of the Lybians and Iberians.

There is no doubt that in fact above-mentioned Mihrdates represents a member of the Pontic dynasty of the Mithridatians. The information concerning the resettlement of the population from Africa (Lybia) and the Iberian peninsula (Western Iberia) by the Babylonian king Nebukhadnezzar II, of the early 6th century BC, was ascribed to the historian Megastenes already at the Classical times. It is worthwhile to remark that Megastenes lived in the late 4th - early 3rd centuries BC; thus the information about the migration of Georgians to the Caucasus, if such event really took place, must be dated earlier than the period of the reign of Alexander the Great.

Although Plinius (IV, 39) and Solinus (IX, 19) mentioned the supremacy of the Macedonians in Iberia, it is known that Alexander never marched towards the Caucasus. In connection with this topic it is interesting to recall the fact mentioned

357

by Strabo, that Alexander sent Menon with an army to the Sispiridis (XI, XIV, 9), which by some investigators is identified with the region of Speri (modern İspir)13.

I think exactly in the north-eastern parts of Anatolia not only Arian-Kartli mentioned in the Georgian chronicles should be searched, but also the country of Pharasmanes, the enemy of the Colchians and Amazons. The name of this country presumably was mixed up with the designation of the country in Central Asia -"Chorasmii".

In connection with the problem concerned, we must pay attention to Strabo's information that by Artaxias (the Armenian king Artashes I) and Zariadr (the Armenian military leader Zareh) Armenian lands were enlarged by cutting off from Iberians beside the Gogarene, the slopes of Pariadres mountains and Chorzene (XI, XIV, 5). This event can be dated to the 2nd century BC.

Chorzene, apparently included the old Georgian provinces Tao-Klarjeti and Kola-Artaani and was located in the area, the central part of which is the mountaneous ridge of Arsiani (modem Yalnizçam Dağlari), mentioned as the mountain of Chorziani in the "Life of St. Grigoli of Khantza" by Giorgi Merchule of the 10th century.

So we can assume that in Flavius Arrian's "Campaign of Alexander" under the name of the Chorasmeans king Pharasmanes the ruler of the Iberian province of Chorzene should be detected, and that the information by the Georgian chronicles about the son of the king of Arian-Kartli, Azo, who became king in Mtzkheta (Kartli) because of the help of Alexander the Great, with the information by Flavius Arrian in a certain way is connected.

It is worthwhile to say that the name "Azo" reveals a similarity with the name of the king of Dayaeni (i.e. Urartian Diaukhi), Asia, mentioned in the inscription of the Assyrian king, Shalmanasar III, which was dated to 844 BC.14 The land of Dayaene/Diaukhi was located to the north of the source of Kara-su (Western Euplirates) in the territory which is known from Georgian and Armenian literary sources as Tao or Taik.

An additional data may be provided by the name of the royal city of Diaukhi - Šašilu15 which possibly was situated on the place of the Medieval Georgian village of Sasire (immediately west from the castles of Tortumi and Okale), on the upper flow of Tortumis-tskali (Tortum-çai), ca. 15 km north-west of the source of Euphrates (Dumlu-su). It must be taken into account that by the Assyrian cuneiform inscription which was taken over in Urartian, it is impossible to distinguish from each other the sounds š and s, l and r, u and o16. Such a location of Šašilu seems quite reasonable if we will correlate the fact mentioned in the above inscription of Shalmanasar III that he erected his statue in the anonymous city of Asia when the latter came to him to the source of Euphrates and "fell before his

359

feet" with the information of the Urartian king Menua that nearly after half a century of this fact he destroyed the royal city of Diaukhi, mentioned by the name "Šašilu".

It was assumed that the anthroponym "Azo" of the Georgian chronicles had the meaning of a personification of the country of Azzi, of the Hittite times17, situated by the opinion of some scholars in the territory of later Diaukhi.

Anyway, by the correlation of the data of the Greek and Roman authors with earlier Hittite and Assyrian epigraphical sources, it is possible to deduce that some Transcaucasian tribes of the Classical times were evidently descendents of the population who lived formerly in the regions situated more to the south-west - in the inner parts of Eastern and Central Anatolia.

Apparently "rising tides" and "ebb tides" of the populations of the Transcaucasia and the southern Black Sea littoral, in connection with the inner regions of Anatolia, had been conditioned by the political situation of the latter.


NOTES

1. Hauptmann 1993, 66, Fig. 26.

2. Cf.Haussig l986, 44.

3.Tsereteli l935, 45-50.

4. Lordkipanidze 1989, 312.

5. Cf. Budge/King 1902, 35.

6. Burney/Lang 1971, 98, 161; Sevin 1991, 96 f.

7. Uslar l889, 22.

8. Cf. Diakonov 1981, 15; Tsereteli 1954, 111-118.

9. Topuria 1970, 118-122.

10. E.g. Melikishvili 1959, 87 f.

11. Melikishvili 1959, 117 f., 232 f., 267 f.; Adontz 1908, 83; Lehmann-Haupt 1931, 790.

12. Kaukhchishvili 1976.

13.E.g. Lasserre l975, 175.

14. Diakonov 1951, 299.

15. Melikishvili 1960, 157-160, 234 f., 247.

16. Melikishvili 1960, 46.

17.Kapantsyan l975, 342f.


360

BIBLIOGRAPHY


Adontz.N.:

- 1908 Armeniya v epokhu Yustiniana, St. Petersburg 1908 (in Russian).

Budge, E.A W./King, L.M.:

- 1902 Annals of the kings of Assyria I, London 1902.

Burney, C./Lang, D.M.:

- 1971 The peoples of the hills, London 1971.

Diakonov, I.M.:

- 1951 Assiro-Vavilonskie istochniki po istorii Urartu, in: Vestnik Drevnei Istorii 2, 1951 (in Russian).

Diakonov, I.M.:

- 1981 Malaya Aziya okolo 600 g. do n.e. i severnye pokhodj vavilonskikh tsarei, in: Vestnik Drevnei Istorii 2, 1981 (in Russian).

Haussig, H.W. (ED.):

- 1986 Götter und Mythen der kaukasischen und iranischen Völker, Stuttgart 1986.

Hauptmann, H.:

- 1993 Ein Kultgebäude in Nevali Çori, in: Frangipane, M./Hauptmann, H./Liverani, M./Matthiae, P./Mellink, M. (eds.): Between the rivers and over the mountains. Archaeologica Anatolica et Mesopotamica, Alba Palmieri dedicata, Rome 1993.

Kapantsyan, G.A.:

- 1975 0 vzaimootnosheniakh armyanskogo i lazo-megrelskogo yazikov, in: Istoriko-lingvisticheskie raboty 2, Erevan 1975 (in Russian).

Kaukhchishvili, T.:

- 1976 Sakartvelos istoriis dzveli berdznuli tskaroebi, Tbilisi 1976 (in Georgian).

Lasserre, FR.:

- 1975 Lexique des noms de Lieux, in: Strabon, Geographie VIII, Paris 1975.

Lehmann-Haupt, C.F.:

- 1931 Armenien einst und jetzt 2:2, Berlin/Leipzig 1931.

Lordkipanidze, O.:

- 1989 Nasledie drevnei Grusii, Tbilisi 1989 (in Russian).

Melikishvili, G.A.:

- 1959 K istorii drevnei Gruzii, Tbilisi 1959 (in Russian).

Melikishvili, G.A.:

- 1960 Urartskie klinoobraznie nadpisi, Moscow 1960 (in Russian).


361

Sevin,V.:

-1991 The Early Iron age in the Elâzığ region and the problem of the Mushkians, in: Anatolian Studies 41, 1991.

Topuria, G.:

- 1970 Kartul-kartveluri lingvisturi sakitkhebi 1, meskh-etnonimis istoriisatvis, in: Iberiul-kavkasiuri enatmecniereba 17, Tbilisi 1970 (in Georgian).

Tsereteli, K.:

- 1954 Kartuli etnikuri termini's "meskh "-is istoriisatvis, in: Sakartvelos metsnierebata akademiis moambe 15, Tbilisi 1954 (in Georgian).

Tsereteli, M.:

- 1935 The Asianic (Asia Minor) elements in national Georgian paganism, in: Georgia 1:1, London 1935.

Uslar, P.:

-1889 Etnografiya Kavkaza, in: Yazikoznanie 3, Avarskii yazik, Tiflis 1889 (in Russian).

Laz positional verbs: semantics and use with inanimate Figures

Silvia Kutscher N. Sevim Genç

In this article, we discuss the meaning and use of positional verbs in the South-Caucasian language Laz. Positional verbs are defined as those verbs which — in combination with one of several locational verbal prefixes (preverbs) — may appear in the basic construction that functions as an answer to a “where” question, the so-called basic locative construction (BLC). Within this class of verbs, we pay particular attention to those positionals which are used regularly in our data to describe the configuration of inanimate movable objects. Laz is shown to be a multiverb language, i.e., a language that uses a comparatively large set of verbs in the BLC. The fourteen verbs in question are PRV-dgun 'stand', PRV-ren 'stand', PRV-zun 'lie', PRV-xen 'sit, stay', PRV-bun 'be located as mass', PRV-mpiy 'be spread', PRV-sun 'be smeared', PRV-tun 'cover', PRV-bun 'hang', PRV-noy 'stick, be stuck', PRV-nun 'be dipped', PRV-abun 'stick to, be sticky', PRV-orun 'be bound', PRV-gzun 'burn'. The semantics and the use of these verbs are described in some detail including nontypical configurations, which trigger variation among speakers due to alternative categorizations and prototype effects.

Linguistics, 2007, Volume: 45 | Issue: 5 part 6: 1029-1064

DID THE GREEKS GO TO COLCHIS FOR METALS?

GOCHA R. TSETSKHLADZE

A too simple understanding of the process of Greek colonisation, especially the reasons for it, sometimes leads modern scholars to unrealistic conclusions. This paper examines the view commonly found in the literature that the main reason for the arrival of the lonians in Colchis in the middle of the 6th century BC was the area's richness in metals. Archaeological material discussed here shows that Eastern Pontus was far from being so well endowed, and that the local tribes were less advanced in metallurgy than is often believed. The Scythian ‘incursion’into Colchis at the end of the 7th century BC both introduced Colchians to iron metallurgy and gave rise to a lacuna in the material culture of the area. New tribes in the Eastern Black Sea in the middle of the 6th century BC revived the iron industry, but it never again reached the scale of production achieved in the 7th century BC. The involvement of the Greeks in iron metallurgy is a matter of which, so far, we know nothing. Nevertheless, the Greeks, trying to adapt their art to the tastes of the local rulers, established in Colchis in the 5th century BC schools of gold- and silver-smiths, as well as the production of metal seals and engraved gems.

Oxford Journal of Archaeology 14 (3), 307–331.

Fine Linen from Colchis?

MARGALITH O

Résumé / Abstract
Le mot srad est employé une seule fois pour caractériser le vêtement du Grand-Prêtre (Exode 31: 10, 35: 19, 39: 1, 41, bigdé ha-srad). Son origine et son sens sont obscurs. L'A. signale une hypothèse: le lin fin de Colchis, dont Hérodote dit qu'il est hupo Hellènon Sardonikon keklètai, Sardonikon venant phonétiquement du çrath sanskrit: "toile fine".

Journal Title
Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Berlin
1983, vol. 95, no3, pp. 430-431

The Cult of Mithras in Ancient Colchis

Gocha R. TSETSKHLADZE

The cult of Mithras in Colchis was widespread from the Hellenistic period onward. This has been borne out by a fragment of a Colchian amphora discovered during excavations at the city-site of Pichvnari, bearing the circular imprint of a seal described in detail here (it depicts a horseman, a six-pointed star, a bird and a sprig). This cult made its way to Colchis from the neighbouring state of the Achaemenids. Its syncretic character enabled it gradually to blend into the cult of the sun, Helios being a widely venerated deity in Colchis. Mithras must have been the precursor of Saint George in pagan Georgia.

Gocha R. TSETSKHLADZE, «The Cult of Mithras in Ancient Colchis», Revue de l'histoire des religions, 2/1992, [En ligne], mis en ligne le 28 août 2007. URL : http://rhr.revues.org/document1605.html. Consulté le 19 décembre 2007.

Mischung der Kulturen

Deutscher Archäologe untersuchte persischen und griechischen Einfluss im Transkaukasus

Nur wenig ist bekannt über die einheimische Bevölkerung des Transkaukasus in der Antike, im Besonderen das Gebiet des heutigen Zentral- und Ostgeorgiens, nur wenige Schriftquellen griechischer und assyrischer, später auch römischer Herkunft geben Auskunft über die Kolcher und Iberer. Wie Griechen und Perser die einheimische Kultur beeinflussten, ob die weiterentwickelten Kulturen die lokale auslöschte oder befruchtete, ist Teil des Schwerpunktprogramms "Formen und Wege der Akkulturation im östlichen Mittelmeerraum und Schwarzmeergebiet in der Antike" der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft. Sie förderte die Arbeit von Dr. Florian Knauß und seinen Mitarbeitern vom Archäologischen Seminar mit rund 300.000 Euro innerhalb von dreieinhalb Jahren.

lesen sie mehr

Eastern Black Sea Region—A sample of modular design in the vernacular architecture

Nilhan Vurala, Serbülent Vurala, Nihan Engina and M. Reşat Sümerkana aFaculty of Architecture, Department of Architecture, Karadeniz Technical University, 61080 Trabzon, Turkey Received 11 April 2006; revised 23 June 2006; accepted 13 July 2006. Available online 31 January 2007.

Abstract
Rural settlements of Eastern Black Sea Region have an original architectural charateristics which are shaped by the climate and topographic conditions, local materials, and the social living style. But, this characteristic structure which is covering the vernacular houses, has been started to lose its specifications because of new buildings which are unconsidering the importance of local conditions and the architecture. The target of this study is to design model houses which are in accord with the vernacular architecture and climatic–topographic conditions, and will answer varying needs of the modern life. The realizations of these designs (with a prefabricated system which is easily carried, buildable on inclined topography, and simply installed) is important due to the regional conditions. Therefore, local texture will be saved, and a contemporary system will be adapted with the vernacular architecture.

read more

COLCHIS

By Alexander Mikaberidze and George Nikoladze

In ancient geography, Colchis or Kolchis (in Laz Kolxa — and in Greek — Κολχίς, kŏl´kĬs) was a nearly triangular ancient Caucasia region and kingdom in the Caucasus, which played an important role in the ethnic and cultural formation of the Georgian nation. [The Kingdom of Colchis as an early Caucasian state contributed significantly in developing the medieval Caucasian statehood after its unification with the Kingdom of Iberia-Kartli,

Read more

GEORGIA: EARLY HISTORY (ca 600 BC - 650 AD )

Andrew Andersen

Most historians of Georgia as well as anthropologists, archeologists and linguists tend to agree that the ancestors of modern Georgians inhabited southern Caucasus and northern Asia Minor since neolith. Experts usually refer to them as Proto-Kartvelian tribes (from the word Kartveli which is the Georgians’ own name for themselves) whose origins are quite unclear. Some of European historians of the 19th century (eg, Humboldt, Krettschmer) came to the conclusion that Proto-Kartvelians were closely related linguistically and culturally to Pre-Aryan (in thus context “Aryan” means Indo-European) aboriginal peoples of ancient Europe among them Etruscans and Proto-Basques.


Read more