Abstracts - International Initiative for Georgian Cultural Studies

vaxtang beriZis saxelobis qarTuli xelovnebis
saerTaSoriso simpoziumi
qarTuli xelovneba evropisa da aziis kulturaTa konteqstSi
21-29, ivnisi, 2008 saqarTvelo
Tezisebi
Vakhtang Beridze International Symposium
of Georgian Art
Georgian Art in the Context of European and Asian Cultures
JUNE 21-29, 2008, GEORGIA
ABSTRACTS
Tbilisi 2008 TBILISI

gamomcemeli:
xelovnebis saerTaSoriso centri
saqarTvelo, Tbilisi, 0108,
n.nikolaZis 7
el-fosta: gacc@gaccgeorgia.org
www.gaccgeorgia.org
proeqtis avtori da xelmZRvaneli
maka dvaliSvili, xelovnebis
saerTaSoriso centri
saredaqcio sabWo:
dimitri TumaniSvili, Tavmjdomare
g. CubinaSvilis sax. qarTuli xelovnebis
istoriis da ZeglTa dacvis erovnuli
kvlevis centri; Tbilisis saxelmwifo
samxatvro akademia
ana kldiaSvili, g. CubinaSvilis sax.
qarTuli xelovnebis istoriis da ZeglTa
dacvis erovnuli kvlevis centri,
Tbilisis saxelmwifo samxatvro akademia
ana SanSiaSvili
xelovnebis saerTaSoriso centri,
Tbilisis saxelmwifo universiteti
mixeil abramiSvili, saqarTvelos
erovnuli muzeumi - Tbilisis
arqeologiuri muzeumi
nana kupraSvili,
Tbilsis saxelmwifo samxatvro akademia
nino RaRaniZe, g. CubinaSvilis sax.
qarTuli xelovnebis istoriis da ZeglTa
dacvis erovnuli kvlevis centri,
Tbilisis saxelmwifo samxatvro akademia
katalogis koordinatori:
ana SanSiaSvili,
xelovnebis saerTaSoriso centri
Targmani:
ana SanSiaSvili, naTia miqelaZe, nino
kitovani, nino mataraZe, irina mebuke,
lado mirianaSvili
inglisuri teqstis koordinatori:
sara bolsoni, kolumbiis universitetis
Teachers College, aSS
dizaini da dakabadoneba:
gega paqsaSvili
foto ydaze:
daviT garejis monasteri. berTubani XIII s.
2
Published by:
Georgian Arts & Culture Center
7, N.Nikoldaze str.,
Tbilisi, 0108, Georgia
e-mail: gacc@gaccgeorgia.org
www.gaccgeorgia.org
Project Leader
Maka Dvalishvili, Georgian Arts & Culture Center
Editorial Board:
Dimiti Tumanishvili, Chairman
G. Chubunashvili National Center of Georgian Art History
and Monuments Protection, Tbilisi State Academy of Arts
Anna Kldiashvili, G. Chubunashvili National Center of
Georgian Art History and Monuments Protection, Tbilisi State
Academy of Art
Anna Shanshiashvili
Georgian Arts & Culture Center, Tbilisi State University
Mikheil Abramishvili, Tbilisi Archaeological Museum of
Georgian National Museum
Nana Kuprashvili, Tbilisi State Academy of Art
Nino Gaganidze, G. Chubunashvili National Center of
Georgian Art History and Monuments Protection, Tbilisi State
Academy of Art
Catalogue coordination:
Anna Shanshiashvili
Georgian Arts & Culture Center
Translation:
Anna Shanshiashvili, Natia Mikeladze, Nino Kitovani, Nino
Mataradze, Irina Mebuke, Lado Mirianashvili
English text coordinator:
Sara Bolson
Teachers College at Columbia University, USA
Design and typesetting:
Gega Paksashvili
Photography on the cover:
David Garedji Monastery. Bertubani 13th. c
dabeWdilia:
Printed in:
© Georgian Arts & Culture Center 2008
© Authors 2008

Sinaarsi
misalmeba
nikoloz vaCeiSvili. saqarTvelos kulturis, ZeglTa dacvis
da sportis ministri -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
maka dvaliSvili. proeqtis avtori da xelmZRvaneli,
xelovnebis saerTaSoriso centri -------------------------------------------------------------
simpoziumis organizatorebi ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 14
simpoziumi madlobas uxdis ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 15
winaTqma
dimitri TumaniSvili. g. CubinaSvilis saxelobis qarTuli xelovnebis
istoriis da ZeglTa dacvis erovnuli kvlevis centri,
Tbilisis saxelmwifo samxatvro akademia -- ---------------------------------------------------19
Teimuraz sayvareliZe. g. CubinaSvilis saxelobis qarTuli xelovnebis istoriis da
ZeglTa dacvis erovnuli kvlevis centri -----------------------------------------------------20
I. seqcia uZvelesi saqarTvelo AG.
nino jayeli. uZvelesi samkauli da xelovnebis sxva nimuSebi ZuZuanis mRvimis
zedapaleoliTuri Zeglidan (dasavleT saqarTvelo) -------------------------------------- 23
nino SanSaSvili. giorgi narimaniSvili. mesopotamiis kulturuli interaqtivoba
samxreT kavkasiaSi adre brinjaos xanaSi ------------------------------------------------------ 24
zurab maxaraZe. xelovnebis nimuSebi cixiagoris mravalfeniani Zeglidan ------------- 24
karen rubinsoni. TrilaeTis Tasisa da sarwyulis kuftiniseuli analizis gadafaseba
Tanamedrove Teoriisa da arqeologiuri codnis fonze ----------------------------------- 25
ana kldiaSvili. gamosaxulebaTa semantika da samyaros modeli
winaqristianuli xanis qarTul kulturaSi --------------------------------------------------- 25
mixeil abramiSvili. CaTalhuiukidan sveticxovlamde - amonaridebi
xaris kultis xangrZlivi istoriidan --------------------------------------------------------- 26
goderZi narimaniSvili, kaxa ximSiaSvili. TrialeTis brinjaos xanis namosaxlarebi ------ 26
qeTevan ramiSvili. cxenis gamosaxulebebi Zvel saqarTveloSi da
mecxeneobasTan dakavSirebuli saxelwodebebi qarTulSi ---------------------------------- 27
nino gomelauri. saqarTvelo da evrazia Zv.w. II-I aTasw-Si
brinjaos mcire plastikis mixedviT ----------------------------------------------------------- 28
manana wereTeli. kolxuri saritualo culi /semantika da mxatvruli stili/ ----------- 29
ori soltesi. “qarTulobis” Camoyalibeba uZveles xanaSi ---------------------------------- 30
vaxtang SatberaSvili. minis ori moxatuli WurWeli sofel xovledan --------------------30
Tamaz sanikiZe. kldis qalaq ufliscixis istoriis ZiriTadi etapebis Sesaxeb ----------- 31
mariam gvelesiani. yaTlanixevis anTropomorfuli figuris interpretaciisaTvis -------32
Teimuraz bibiluri. apolonis taZari did mcxeTaSi ----------------------------------------- 33
amiran kaxiZe, maikl vikersi. aTenisa da kolxeTis savaWro-ekonomikuri da
kul tu ru li urTierTobani klasikur xanaSi (saqarTvelo-britaneTis fiWvnaris
er Tob li vi arqeologiuri eqspediciis masalebis mixedviT) ------------------------------- 33
nino ZnelaZe. berZnuli moxatuli keramika fiWvnaridan ----------------------------------- 34
Tamar SalikaZe, tariel ebraliZe. gonio-afsarosis savaWro ekonomikuri da
kulturuli urTierTobani dasavleT xmelTaSuazRvispireTTan -------------------------34
10
11
3

merab xalvaSi. fiWvnaris importuli amforebi ----------------------------------------------- 35
irine varSalomiZe. romauli monetebi gonio-afsarosidan ---------------------------------- 35
SoTa mamulaZe, emzar kaxiZe. afsarosi - romauli kulturis
centri aRmosavleT SavizRvispireTSi -------------------------------------------------------- 36
II. seqcia Sua saukuneebis saqarTvelo MD
kristofer haasi. ioane zedazneli: qarTveli wmindani siriul asketur tradiciaSi ------- 52
aleqsei lidovi. aRmosavleT-qristianuli “gamosaxuleba-paradigma”: hierotopuli
ganzomileba Sua saukuneebis xelovnebis istoriaSi ---------------------------------------- 52
ekaterine gedevaniSvili, marine yenia. sityvisa da gamosaxulebis urTierTmimarTebis
sakiTxisaTvis Sua saukuneebis qarTul kedlis mxatvrobaSi ------------------------------- 53
ori soltesi. “raindobis” xelovneba da misi konteqsti ------------------------------------ 54
mariam didebuliZe. saero tendenciebi Tamaris epoqis kulturaSi
da Tanadrouli kedlis mxatvroba ------------------------------------------------------------ 54
pavlos florentosi. bizantiuri mozaika da kedlis mxatvroba kviprosis taZrebSi ------- 55
aleqsandra davidov temerinski. esqatologia, ideologia da konteqstualizacia:
saSineli samsjavros scenebi deCanSi, axtalasa da timoTesubanSi ------------------------ 55
ida sinkeviCi. freskuli xatebi qarTul da bizantiur monumentur
xelovnebaSi: maTi arsi da mniSvneloba -------------------------------------------------------- 56
irine mamaiaSvili. postbizantiuri mxatvrobis tendenciebi XVI s-is qarTul
monumentur mxatvrobaSi ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 57
beatriCe tolijiani. qarTuli gavlenebi grigol bakurianisZis mier bulgareTSi,
plovdivis maxloblad daarsebuli monastris negebobaTa fasadebis morTulobaSi --------- 57
Tamar xundaZe. istoriul pirTa gamosaxulebani Sua saukuneebis
(VI-XI ss.) qarTul xuroTmoZRvrul qandakebaSi ---------------------------------------------- 58
ekaterine kvaWataZe. XI saukunis Semdgomi periodis qarTuli Sua
saukuneebis safasade skulpturis ZiriTadi tendenciebi ---------------------------------- 59
peter grosmani. romauli da gvianromauli elementebi egviptis adreqristianul
arqiteqturaSi saqarTvelos viTarebasTan SepirispirebiT ------------------------------- 60
jon vilkinsoni. sad Caisaxa qarTuli eklesia? ----------------------------------------------- 61
irine giviaSvili. qarTuli mravalafsidiani eklesiebi ------------------------------------- 61
qeTevan abaSiZe. safasade qvis wyoba qarTul saeklesio xuroTmoZRvrebaSi ------------- 62
daviT xoStaria. tao-klarjeTis arqiteqtura: istoria da Seswavlis perspeqtivebi --------- 63
bruno baumgartneri. ucnobi da naklebad cnobili qarTuli Zeglebi
Crdilo-aRmosavleT TurqeTSi ---------------------------------------------------------------- 63
markus bogiSi. ramdenime SeniSvna istoriul taoSi (Crdilo-aRmosavleT TurqeTi)
mdebare oSkis taZris “Cawerili jvris” tipis ZiriTadi nawilis Taobaze ---------------- 64
nato gengiuri. qarTuli eklesiebis karibWeebi (adreqristianuli
periodidan ganviTarebul Sua saukuneebamde) ----------------------------------------------- 64
irma berZeniSvili. afxazeTis adre Sua saukuneTa saeklesio xuroTmoZRvreba ------------- 65
edit noibaueri. Sua saukuneebis qarTuli arqiteqtura da skulptura
da romanuli periodi centralur evropaSi -------------------------------------------------- 66
veronika kalasi, iavuz ozkaia. qarTuli aspeqti XIII saukunis anis arqiteqturaSi:
tigran honencis taZari da minuCiris meCeTi ------------------------------------------------- 67
rozmeri beisiki. saqarTvelo da xorvatia: saerTo wyaros magaliTi ---------------------- 68
leila xuskivaZe. ornamenti Sua saukuneebis qarTul WedurobaSi -------------------------68
4

maria lidova. liturgiuli sivrcis Seqmna: ioane cohabis mier
Sesrulebuli sinuri xatebis jgufi ----------------------------------------------------------- 69
nana burWulaZe. qarTuli xatebi sinas mTis wm. ekaterines monasterSi (qarTulbizantiuri
urTierTobebis istoriisTvis) -------------------------------------------------- 70
aleqsandre saminski. berTis saxarebis miniaturebi da misi warmomavloba ---------------- 70
nino qavTaria. XII-XIII saukuneebis qarTul oTxTavTa gaformebis mxatvruli aspeqtebi ------- 71
lali osefaSvili. qarTul liturgikul gragnilTa mxatvruli gaformebis
Taviseburebani (XII-XVI ss) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 72
izolda meliqiSvili. qarTuli saeklesio samosis ferisa
da formis simbolikis sakiTxisaTvis ---------------------------------------------------------- 73
sastendo moxsenebebi --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 93-94
III. seqcia modernizmi saqarTveloSi MIG
gaston buaCiZe. qarTuli ferwera evropis konteqstSi: firosmani,
lado gudiaSvili, daviT kakabaZe --------------------------------------------------------------- 96
giorgi xoStaria. binaruli opozicia niko firosmanaSvilisa da
modernizmis mxatvrobaSi ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 96
liana anTelava. samyaros sivrce/drois kontinualuri modeli
qarTul mxatvrobaSi ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 97
marina meZmariaSvili. firosmanis Semoqmedeba evropuli modernizmis CarCoebSi ------------- 98
nana yifiani. “poeturad binadrobs adamiani” ------------------------------------------------- 98
ana SanSiaSvili. niko firosmanaSvilis ferwera XIX s-is bolosa da XX s-is dasawyisis
evropuli mxatvrobis konteqstSi --------------------------------------------------------------------- 99
nestan TaTaraSvili. evropuli kulturuli memkvidreoba - modernis
stilis arqiteqtura saqarTveloSi ------------------------------------------------------------ 100
maia ciciSvili. eqspresionizmidan „dada“-mde 1910-1930-iani wlebis qarTul
mxatvrobaSi (axlad aRmoCenili masalis safuZvelze) -------------------------------------- 101
irine abesaZe. qarTuli modernizmidan - transavangardamde, anu, kidev
erTxel, terminTa definiciis Sesaxeb --------------------------------------------------------- 102
Tea tabataZe. modernistuli artistuli kafes zogierTi Taviseburebis
gansazRvrisaTvis. „qimerionis“ moxatulobis ideur-Sinaarsobrivi
metyvelebis Sesaxeb ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 103
mzia CixraZe. futuristuli wigni, Tbilisi 1910-1920 --------------------------------------- 104
nino zaaliSvili. 1920-30-iani wlebis qarTuli grafikis zogierTi tendencia ------------- 105
qeTevan SavguliZe. montaJis principebi qarTul scenografiaSi (1920-iani wlebi) ------------- 106
Tea uruSaZe. konstruqtivizmis Tavisebureba qarTul
Teatralur-dekoraciul xelovnebaSi -------------------------------------------------------- 107
sastendo moxsenebebi --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 118
IV. seqcia restavracia /konservacia;qveseqcia:
biodazianebebi kulturul memkvidreobaSi
maia SaviSvili. sarestavracio saqmianobis zogadi mimoxilva ------------------------------ 120
sabina vedovelo. saziaro proeqti ------------------------------------------------------------- 120
erik viurgeri. istoriuli nagebobebis saZirkvlebis gamagrebis axali meTodi -------------- 121
mark gitinsi. qarTuli kedlis mxatvrobis sami nimuSis konservaciisadmi
meTodologiuri da praqtikuli midgoma------------------------------------------------------- 122
5

nana kupraSvili. gelaTis RmrTismSoblis taZris XII saukunis
moxatulobaTa teqnika --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 122
julia kaneva. kedlis mxatvrobis biodazianeba ---------------------------------------------- 123
Tomas varSaidi. biodazianeba kedlis mxatvrobaSi ------------------------------------------- 124
franCesko imperi. uZvelesi kedlis mxatvrobis “gavardisfrebis”
etiologia: molekuluri midgoma -------------------------------------------------------------- 125
nino kitovani. informacia ubisis didi karedis saTave xatis
kvlevisa da konservaciis meTodis Sesaxeb ---------------------------------------------------- 125
darejan gogaSvili. xelnawerTa erovnul centrSi daculi papirusebis
konservaciis zogierTi sakiTxi ---------------------------------------------------------------- 126
mari-klod depasio. restavracia Tu konservacia, ra avirCioT? --------------------------- 127
nino kalandaZe. arqeologiuri brinjaos konservaciis meTodi vanis
naqalaqarze aRmoCenili masalis mixedviT ----------------------------------------------------128
Tea kinwuraSvili. vanis minebis skanirebis
eleqtromikroskopul-energodispersiuli analizi,
rentgeno-flurescenciuri gamokvleva da restavracia-konservacia ------------------- 129
sastendo moxsenebebi --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 139
V. seqcia kulturuli turizmi
knut gerberi. kulturuli turizmis ekonomikuri efeqtis
Sesaxeb - SesaZleblobebi metia Tu riski? ---------------------------------------------------- 141
beTsi haskeli. turizmi saqarTveloSi --------------------------------------------------------- 142
paata SanSiaSvili. saqarTvelos turistuli konkurentunarianobis
gazrda daculi teritoriebis qselis Seqmnis meSveobiT ----------------------------------- 142
niko kvaracxelia. saqarTveloSi kulturuli turizmis ganviTarebis
tendenciebi da perspeqtivebi ------------------------------------------------------------------ 143
doroTea papaTanasiu-zurTi. transinterpret II: memkvidreobis interpretacia,
rogorc gza multisensoruli gamocdilebisaken. saberZneTis magaliTi; “proeqti
“herodote”: istoriuli garemos tursituli gamoyeneba. nou-haus da xarisxis
menejmentis praqtika regionul doneze”. TanamSromlobis qseli regionuli
TviTmyofadobis da kulturuli memkvidreobis popularizaciisaTvis ------------------ 145
mine kadiroRlu. kulturuli turizmi tao-klarjeTSi ------------------------------------ 146
maka dvaliSvili. kulturuli proeqtebi ganviTarebisaTvis ------------------------------ 147
meri qei judi. qarTuli kulturuli memkvidreoba rogorc
ekonomikuri resursi ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 148
mauren doili, jefri doili. kulturuli turizmi da “Ria muzeumi” --------------------- 149
dimitri jafariZe. kulturuli turizmis perspeqtivebi saqarTveloSi ----------------- 150
ia Tabagari. kulturuli turizmi - urTierTobebi eklesiasa
da turizmis industrias Soris ----------------------------------------------------------------- 150
milan prodanoviCi. kulturaTa dialogi da civilizaciaTa konfliqti
saganmanaTleblo/ kulturul turizmTan da regionaluri kulturis evropul
memkvidreobasTan integraciis sakiTxebTan mimarTebaSi ----------------------------------- 150
6

CONTENTS
Preface
Nikoloz Vacheishvili. Minister of Culture, Monuments Protection and Sports of Georgia ------------------- 12
Maka Dvalishvili. Project Leader, Georgian Arts and Culture Center ------------------------------------------ 13
Symposium Bodies ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16
Acknowledgments ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 17
Foreword
Dimiti Tumanishvili. G. Chubunashvili National Center of Georgian
Art History and Monuments Protection, Tbilisi State Academy of Art --------------------------------------------20
Teimuraz Sakvarelidze. G. Chubunashvili National Center of Georgian
Art History and Monuments Protection -------------------------------------------------------------------------------21
I. Section Ancient Georgia AG
Nino Jakeli. Ancient Jewelry and Other Works of Art from the Upper
Paleolithic Site of Dzudzuana Cave (Western Georgian) -----------------------------------------------------------
Nino Shanshashvili, Giorgi Narimanishvili. Cultural Interaction of Mesopotamia
with the South Caucasus in the Early Bronze Age -------------------------------------------------------------------
Zurab Makharadze. The Works of Art from Multilayered Site at Tsikhiagora ---------------------------------
Karen S. Rubinson. A Re-evaluation of Kuftin’s Analysis of the Trialeti Silver Goblet and
Bucket in Light of Modern Theory and Current Archaeological Knowledge ------------------------------------
Anna Kldiashvili. Image Semantics and the Model of the Universe in Pre-Christian Georgian Culture -----------
Mikheil Abramishvili. From Çatalhöyük to Svetitskhoveli - Extracts from the Enduring Cult of the Bull ------------
Goderdzi Narimanashvili, Kakha Khimshiashvili. Bronze Age Settlements in Trialeti ---------------------
Ketevan Ramishvili. Horse Figurines in Old Georgia and Names Relating
to Horse-Breeding in the Georgian Language -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nino Gomelauri. Georgia and Eurasia in the 2nd-1st 38
39
39
40
40
41
41
42
Millennia BC according to Minor Bronze Plastics --------------43
Manana Tsereteli. Colchian Ritual Axe / Semantics and Artistic Style ------------------------------------------43
Ori Soltes. Defining Georgianness in Antiquity --------------------------------------------------------------------- 44
Tamaz Sanikidze. About the Main Stages in the History of the Rock-Carved Town of Uplistsikhe ------------44
Mariam Gvelesiani. For the Interpretation of an Anthropomorphic Figure from Katlanikhevi ------------- 45
Vakhtang Shatberashvili. Two Painted Glass Jugs from the Village Khovle ----------------------------------46
Teimuraz Bibiluri. Temple of Apollo in Greater Mtskheta -------------------------------------------------------- 47
Amiran Kakhidze, Michael Vickers. Trade, Economic and Cultural Connections between
Athens and Colchis in the Classical Period (According to the Material Obtained by
the Joint Georgian-British Expedition to Pitchvnari) ---------------------------------------------------------------47
Nino Dzneladze. Greek Painted Pottery from Pitchvnari ----------------------------------------------------------48
Tamar Shalikadze, Emzar Ebralidze. Commercial and Cultural Ties between
Gonio-Apsaros and the Western Mediterranean --------------------------------------------------------------------- 48
Merab Khalvashi. Imported Amphorae at Pitchvnari ------------------------------------------------------------- 49
Irine Varshalomidze. Roman Coins from Gonio-Apsaros ---------------------------------------------------------49
Shota Mamuladze, Emzar Kakhidze. Apsaros – The Roman Cultural Centre
at the Eastern Black Sea Coast ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 50
II. Medieval Georgia MG
Christopher Haas. Ioane Zedazneli: A Georgian Saint in the Syrian Ascetical Tradition -------------------- 75
Alexei M. Lidov. Eastern Christian ‘Image-Paradigms’: A Hierotopic Dimension of
Medieval Art History ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 75
Ekaterine Gedevanishvili, Marine Kenia. The Correlation of the Word and Image in
the Medieval Georgian Mural Painting -------------------------------------------------------------------------------76
Ori Soltes. The Art of “The Knight” in its Contexts ---------------------------------------------------------------- 76
7

Mariam Didebulidze. Secular Tendencies in the Culture of Queen Tamar’s Epoch and its
Contemporaneous Mural Painting ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pavlos Flourentzos. The Byzantine Mosaics and Wall Painting of Churches in Cyprus ----------------------
Aleksandra Davidov Temerinski. Eschatology, Ideology, Contextualisation:
The Last Judgment in Dečani, Akhtala and Timotesubani ---------------------------------------------------------
Ida Sinkevic. Fresco Icons in Monumental Art of Georgia and Byzantium: Meaning and Significance ----------------
Irine Mamaiashvili. Post Byzantine Tendencies in 16th c. Georgian Mural Painting --------------------------
Beatrice Tolidjian. Georgian Inspiration for External Wall Decoration of Gregorios
Pakourianos Foundations Around Plovdiv, Bulgaria ---------------------------------------------------------------
Tamar Khundadze. The Images of Historical Figures in Medieval (6th -11thc) Georgian Facade Sculpture --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ekaterine Kvachatadze. The Main Trends of the Medieval Georgian Facade Sculpture After 11 th c -----------------
Peter Grossmann. Roman and Late Roman Elements in the Early Christian
Architecture of Egypt in Comparison with the Situation in Georgia ----------------------------------------------
John Wilkinson. Where did Georgia’s Churches Start? -----------------------------------------------------------
Irine Giviashvili. Georgian Polyapsidal Church Architecture ----------------------------------------------------
Ketevan Abashidze. Stone Facing in Georgian Ecclesiastic Architecture --------------------------------------
David Khoshtaria. Architecture of Tao-Klarjeti: History and Perspectives of Study --------------------------
Dr. Bruno Baumgartner. Unknown and Less Known Georgian Monuments in Northeast Turkey ----------------
Markus Bogisch. Some Remarks on Georgian Art History and the Cross-in-square
Core of the Church in Oshki in the Historic Province of Tao (Northeast Turkey) -------------------------------
Nato Gengiuri. Porches of Georgian Churches (From Early Christian Period to Advanced
Middle Ages) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Irma Berdzenishvili. The Ecclesiastic Architecture of Abkhazeti in Early Middle Ages ----------------------
Edith Neubauer. Georgian Medieval Architecture and Sculpture and the Central
European Romanesque Period -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Veronica Kalas, Yavuz Özkaya. The Georgian Aspects of Medieval Architecture at Ani in
the Thirteenth Century: The Church of Tigran Honents and the Mosque of Minuchir -------------------------
Rosemary Basic. Georgia and Croatia: A Case of Common Source --------------------------------------------
Leila Khuskivadze. Ornament in Medieval Georgian Repousse work ------------------------------------------
Maria Lidova. Creating a Liturgical Space: the Sinai Complex of Icons by Ioannes Tsohabi --------------------
Nana Burchuladze. Georgian Icons at St. Catherine’s Monastery on Mount Sinai
(To Georgian-Byzantine interrelations) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alexsander Saminski. The Miniatures and Origin of the Berti Gospel-------------------------------------------
Nino Kavtaria. Artistic Aspects of the 12th-13th 77
77
78
78
79
79
80
81
81
82
82
83
83
84
85
85
86
87
87
88
88
89
89
90
c Georgian Gospels Illumination ----------------------------- 91
Lali Osepashvili. The Peculiarities of the Decorative Design of the Georgian
Liturgical Scrolls (XII-XIV centuries) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 91
Izolda Melikishvili. The Symbolic Meaning of Color and Form of the Ecclesiastic Vestments ------------------- 92
Poster Presentations ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------93-94
III Section Modernism in Georgia MIG
Gaston Buachidze. Georgian Painting in European Context: Niko Pirosmani,
Lado Gudiashvili, David Kakabadze ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gogi Khoshtaria. Binary Opposition in Niko Pirosmanashvili’s Works and Modernist Art ---------------------
Liana Antelava. Continual Model of the Universal Space/Time in Georgian Paintings ----------------------
Marina Medzmariashvili. Pirosmani’s Art in the Framework of European Modernism ---------------------
Nana Kipiani. “Poetically Abides a Man” --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anna Shanshiashivili. The Painting of Niko Pirosmani in the Context of
Late 19th –Early 20th 109
109
110
110
111
c. European Art --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 111
Nestan Tatarashvili. European Cultural Heritage - Art Nouveau Architecture in Georgia --------------------- 112
Maia Tsitsishvili. From Expressionism to Dada: Georgian Painting from
1910 to the 1930s (Based on Recent Discoveries) -------------------------------------------------------------------113
8

Irine Abesadze. From Georgian Modernism to Transavantgardism, a Definition of Terms ------------------------113
Tea Tabatadze. Towards the Definition of Certain Characteristics of Modernist Artistic
Cafes – Conceptual Aspect of the Kimerioni Wall Paintings -------------------------------------------------------114
Mzia Chikhradze. Futurist Book, Tbilisi 1910-1920 -------------------------------------------------------------- 115
Nino Zaalishvili. Several Trends in Georgian Graphic Art of the 1920s and 1930s --------------------------- 115
Ketevan Shavgulidze. The Principle of Montage in Georgian Stage Design (1920s) -------------------------116
Tea Urushadze. Peculiarity of Constructivism in Georgian Stage Design -------------------------------------- 117
Poster Presentations ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------118
IV. Section Restoration/Conservation; Subsection: Biological Deterioration in Cultural Heritage
Maia Shavishvili. General Overview of the Restoration field in Georgia ---------------------------------------
Sabina Vedovello. A Shared Project ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Erik Wurger. New Methods of the Consolidation of the Basement of Historic Structures -------------------------
Mark Gittins. Methodological and Practical Approaches to the Conservation of
Three Georgian Wall Paintings ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nana Kuprashvili. 12th 131
131
132
132
c Painting Techniques of the Main Church at Gelati Monastery ----------------------- 133
Giulia Caneva. Biodeterioration of Mural Paintings -------------------------------------------------------------- 134
Thomas Warsheid. Biodeterioration on Wall-Paintings ---------------------------------------------------------- 134
Francesco Imperi. Understanding the Etiology of Rosy Discoloration on Ancient
Wall Paintings: A Molecular Approach ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 135
Nino Kitovani. The Information on the Study and Conservation Methodology of
the Central Icon of the Ubisi Triptych --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 135
Darejan Gogashvili. Several Issues Relating to the Conservation of the Papyruses Kept
in the National Centre of Manuscripts -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 136
Mari Claude Depassiot. Restoration or Conservation, What to Choose? -------------------------------------- 137
Nino Kalandadze. The Method for Conservation of Bronze Artifacts by theExample of
Findings Unearthed in Ancient Settlement of Vani ------------------------------------------------------------------ 137
Tea Kintsurashvili. Scanning Glassware from Vani by Means of Electronic Microscope-Energy
Dispersive Analysis: Its X-ray-Fluorescence study, Restoration and Conservation ---------------------------- 138
Poster Presentations --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 139
V. Section Cultural Tourism CT
Knut Gerber. About Economic Effects in Cultural Tourism - More Chances Than Risks? ----------------------152
Betsy Haskell. Georgian Tourism ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 152
Paata Shanshiashvili. Advancement of Georgia’s Tourism Competitiveness through
Building of Protected Areas Network ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------153
Niko Kvaratskhelia. Tendencies and Prospects of Cultural Tourism Development in Georgia ---------------------- 154
Dorothea Papathanassiou-Zuhrt. Transinterpret II: Heritage Interpretation as a Vehicle for
Multisensorial Experiences. The Case of Greece
“The Project HERODOT: Tourism use of the historic environment-Know-how transfer and quality
management practices at the regional level”: A collaborative network to promote
regional identities and cultural heritage ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 155
Mine Kadiroğlu. Cultural Tourism in Tao-Klarjeti ---------------------------------------------------------------- 156
Maka Dvalishvili. Cultural Projects for Development -------------------------------------------------------------157
Mary Kay Judy. Georgian Cultural Heritage as an Economic Resource --------------------------------------- 157
Maureen Doyle, Jeffrey Doyle. Cultural Tourism and the Open Museum ------------------------------------- 158
Dimirti Japaridze. Perspectives of Cultural Tourism in Georgia ------------------------------------------------ 159
Ia Tabagari. Cultural Tourism - Relations Between Church and Tourism Industries --------------------------156
Milan Prodanovic. Dialogue of Cultures and the Clash of Civilization Agenda Related to
The Issues of Educational/Cultural Tourism and Related Topics of Regional Culture and
Integration of European Heritage ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 159
9

misalmeba
10
simpoziumi - “qarTuli xelovneba evropisa da aziis kulturaTa konteqstSi”, wlebis
manZilze miviwyebuli mecnieruli Ziebebis erTgvari aRorZinebaa.
qarTuli xelovnebis Sesaxeb arsebuli werilobiTi masala, es im mecnieruli az-
rovnebis nawilia, romliTac sazrdoobs msoflios samecniero sazogadoebrioba. xelovnebis
tradiciuli dargebis erT simpoziumSi warmoCena saSualebas gvaZlevs Tvali
gavadevnoT qarTuli xelovnebis evolucias, davafiqsiroT ama Tu im dargis individualuri
saxe da amovikiTxoT TiToeuli maTganisaTvis damaxasiaTebeli niSnebi.
sayovelTaod cnobilia, Tu raoden didi mniSvneloba hqonda qarTuli kulturisa
da mecnierebis popularizaciisa da saerTaSoriso asparezze gamotanisaTvis g. CubinaSvilis
saxelobis qarTuli xelovnebis istoriis institutis mier 1977-1989 wlebSi
italiasa da saqarTveloSi Catarebul, qarTuli xelovnebisadmi miZRvnil eqvs saerTa-
Soriso simpoziums. maTi iniciatori da sulis Camdgmeli Cveni drois udidesi mecnieri
da sazogado moRvawe, akademikosi vaxtang beriZe iyo. TiTqmis oci wlis intervalis
Semdeg, kvlav dadga msgavsi simpoziumebis Catarebisa da qarTuli xelovnebis saerTa-
Soriso asparezze gamotanis aucilebloba.
simpoziumis mizani - gaaRvivos saerTaSoriso samecniero wreebis interesi qarTuli
kulturisadmi da xeli Seuwyos qarTvel da ucxoel mecnierTa TanamSromlobas - udaod
dadasturda winamdebare krebulSi. masSi Tavmoyrilia Cveni xelovnebisadmi miZRvnili
qarTveli da ucxoeli specialistebis samecniero namoRvawari.
simpoziumi, romelic kidev erTxel farTod warmoaCens qarTul kulturasa da mis
unikalurobas, mniSvnelovani RonisZiebaa qarTul saxelovnebaTmcodneo da, zogadad,
samecniero sivrceSi.
nikoloz vaCeiSvili
saqarTvelos kulturis ZeglTa dacvisa da sportis ministri

keTili iyos Tqveni mobrZaneba saqarTveloSi qarTuli xelovnebis saerTaSoriso
simpoziumze, romelic gamoCenili qarTveli mecnieris da xelovnebis istorikosis,
vaxtang beriZis saxels atarebs.
wlevandel simpoziums erTis mxriv, win uZRvoda 2007 wels q. niu-iorkSi kolumbiis
universitetSi harimanis institutTan arsebuli qarTvelologiis centris, xelovnebis
saerTaSoriso centris da Tbilisis samxatvro akademiis mier organizebuli qarTuli
xelovnebis simpoziumi, xolo meores mxriv ki, gasuli saukunis 70-80-ian wlebSi giorgi
CubinaSvilis saxelobis qarTuli xelovnebis istoriis institutis direqtoris - vaxtang
beriZis TaosnobiT Catarebuli simpoziumebis seria, romlebmac yvela CvenTaganSi, da
rac mTavaria, qarTuli xelovnebis Seswavlis istoriaSi waruSleli kvali datova.
qarTuli xelovnebisadmi miZRvnili saerTaSoriso simpoziumis ganaxlebis da tradiciad
gadaqcevis idea Caisaxa kolumbiis universitetis kedlebSi da 2008 wlis simpoziumi
- “qarTuli xelovneba evropisa da aziis kulturaTa konteqstSi” swored am ideis
realizacias warmoadgens.
simpoziumis msvlelobis dros saqarTvelos, evropis, aziis da aSS-s asze meti wamyvani
mkvlevari warmoadgens saxelobnebaTmcodneo moxsenebebs da sastendo prezentaciebs;
amasTanave, simpoziumze saxelovnebaTmcodneo kvlevasTan erTad, warmoCenili iqneba
saqarTveloSi kulturuli memkvidreobis SenarCunebis problematika da kulturuli
memkvidreobis roli ekonomikuri ganviTarebisaTvis (kulturuli turizmi, kulturuli
proeqtebis ganviTarebis da a.S.). programaSia gasvliTi sesiebi Zeglebze - saqarTvelos
dasavleT da aRmosavleT regionebSi, rac kulturul turizmTan da konservaciasTan
dakavSirebul problematikas warmoaCens.
gansakuTrebiT moxaruli var aRvniSno am wlis simpoziumisadmi mkvlevarTa didi
interesi. simpoziumis 5 seqciaSi warmodgenili iqneba 91 moxseneba da 24 sastendo
prezentacia, rac saerTaSoriso doneze qarTuli kulturis Seswavlis mniSvnelobis
zrdaze mianiSnebs. gansakuTrebul madlobas vuxdi Cvens Rrmad pativcemul kolegebs,
romlebic simpoziumSi monawileobis misaRebad msoflios sxvadasxva kuTxidan
Camodian.
da bolos, minda visargeblo am SemTxveviT da madloba gadavuxado saorganizacio
komitets da simpoziumis proeqtis jgufis yvela wevrs, saqarTvelos oficialuri
struqturebis warmomadgenlebs, adgilobriv da saerTaSoriso donorebs da
sponsor organizaciebs wlevandeli simpoziumis warmatebiT Casatareblad gaweuli
ZalisxmevisaTvis.
maka dvaliSvili
proeqtis avtori da xelmZRvaneli
xelovnebis saerTaSoriso centris prezidenti
11

PREFACE
12
The current symposium “Georgian Arts in the Context of European and Asian Cultures,” dedicated to
Georgian art and culture in general, conveys a significant strategic trend in state cultural policy. By simultaneously
observing our remote past in the light of our vast relations and historical-cultural context, it gives
us an opportunity to have a deeper and more objective comparison.
As it is well known, six international symposiums on the issues of Georgian art, held from 1977-1989
in Italy and Georgia, organized by G. Chubinashvili Institute of Georgian Art History were of special significance
for popularization of Georgian culture and science and for their promotion on an international
scale. Initiator and inspirer of the events was full member of the Georgian Academy of Sciences, Prof. Dr.
Vakhtang Beridze, a prominent scholar and public man of our times. After a nearly 20 years gap, the necessity
to hold analogous symposiums has emerged.
The present collection of papers provides a good affirmation of the goal of the current symposium: To
generate the interest of an international scientific community in Georgian culture and to promote collaboration
between Georgian and foreign scholars. This collection is comprised of the best works from Georgian
and foreign scholars who have written on issues concerning Georgian art.
The symposium, which once again has widely displayed Georgian culture and its originality, is an event
of special significance in art studies and the scholarly environment of Georgia in general.
Nikoloz Vacheishvili
Minister of Culture, Monuments Protection and Sport, Georgia

I would like to wish you all a warm welcome to Georgia for the International Symposium of Georgian
Arts, the Symposium named after noted Georgian scholar and art historian, Vakhtang Beridze.
This year’s Symposium is the first international scholars meeting on Georgian Art to take place in
Georgia after nearly a 20 year hiatus, when Vakhtang Beridze, director of Institute of Georgian Art History
named after Giorgi Chubinashvili, organized the last of six Georgian Arts symposium in 1989. The initial
rebirth of these scholarly discussions on Georgian Art happened in 2007 at Columbia University of New
York City with the initiation and generous support of the Georgian Studies Center at Harriman Institute
of Columbia University, in collaboration with Tbilisi State Academy of Art, the Georgian Arts and Culture
Center, and the Fulbright Scholar Program. Georgian and American scholars gathered on Columbia’s
campus to present their work to leading members of their respective fields as well as to discuss the future
of Georgian cultural studies scholarship. The forthcoming symposium, “Georgian Arts in the Context of
European and Asian Cultures,” builds on and expands the work started in the 2007 Symposium.
With more than 115 leading scholars from the Georgia, Europe, Asia, and the United States presenting
their papers and posters to highlight and summarize discoveries and investigations in the field from the past
20 years, to define trends of further art historical study, and to discuss the mechanisms available to raise
the level of international scholarship of Georgian Cultural Studies, the Symposium likely will define the
best methods of improving international collaboration and networking opportunities between art historians
specializing in the South Caucasus area. Additionally, it will pay particular attention to the ever-evolving
contextualization of Georgian art in relation to its European and Asian counterparts, as well as to Georgia’s
contribution to past and present cultural world heritage.
By taking into the consideration political and social changes in the region, the Symposium will focus
on a combination of academic studies and the practice and problems of cultural heritage preservation in
Georgia thereby fostering much-needed discussions on the practicality of cultural heritage for economic
development via cultural tourism, cultural projects for development, etc. Onsite visits in Tbilisi, Western
and Eastern Georgia will also highlight some of the important issues concerning cultural tourism and preservation.
I have been especially pleased to note how many scholars expressed interest in presenting their works—
this year’s Symposium will feature a total number of 5 sections, with 91 paper and 28 poster presentations—which
speaks to the growing international importance of the subject of Georgian cultural studies. I
would like to thank our many esteemed colleagues who have traveled from all over the world to join our
meeting.
As my final note, I must take this opportunity to thank all the members of the Organizational Committee
and the Symposium Project Team for their creativity and hard work in assembling the program; Georgian
authorities for their advisement; and local and international donor and sponsor organizations for their generous
support in making this year’s Symposium a success.
Maka Dvalishvili
Project Leader
Georgian Arts and Culture Center President
13

simpoziumis organizatorebi
simpoziumi organizebulia saqarTvelos kulturis, ZeglTa dacvis da sportis
saministros da xelovnebis saerTaSoriso centris mier
simpoziumis Tanaorganizatorebi: aWaris avtonomiuri respublikis ganaTlebis,
turizmisa da sportis saministro, g. CubinaSvilis sax. qarTuli xelovnebis istoriis
da ZeglTa dacvis erovnuli kvlevis centri, Tbilisis saxelmwifo samxatvro akademia,
ivane javaxiSvilis saxelobis Tbilisis saxelmwifo universiteti, saqarTvelos
mecnierebaTa erovnuli akademia, saqarTvelos turizmisa da kurortebis
departamenti
mrCevelTa sabWo: nikoloz vaCeiSvili, Tavmjdomare, saqarTvelos kulturis,
ZeglTa dacvisa da sportis ministri; dimitri TumaniSvili, g. CubinaSvilis saxelobis
qarTuli xelovnebis istoriis da ZeglTa dacvis erovnuli kvlevis centri, Tbilisis
saxelmwifo samxatvro akademia; giorgi buRaZe, Tbilisis saxelmwifo samxatvro
akademiis reqtori; Tamaz gamyreliZe, saqarTvelos erovnuli mecnierebaTa akademiis
prezidenti; Tamar beruCaSvili, saqarTvelos saxelmwifo ministris moadgile
evrointegraciis sakiTxebSi; oTar bubaSvili, saqarTvelos turizmisa da kurortebis
departamentis Tavmjdomare; roin (maTe) takiZe, aWaris avtonomiuri respublikis
ganaTlebis, turizmisa da sportis ministri.
samecniero sabWo: dimitri TumaniSvili, Tavmjdomare; mixeil abramiSvili, seqciis
uZvelesi saqarTvelo koordinatori; ana kldiaSvili, seqciis Sua saukuneebis
saqarTvelo koordinatori; nino RaRaniZe, seqciis modernizmi saqarTveloSi
koordinatori; nana kupraSvili, seqciis restavracia/konservacia koordinatori;
julia kaneva, qveseqciis biologiuri dazianebebi kulturul memkvidreobaSi
koordinatori.
proeqtis gundi: maka dvaliSvili, xelmZRvaneli, ana SanSiaSvili, koordinatori;
gega paqsaSvili, dizaineri; eka dvaliSvili, lojistikis menejeri; TaTia Rvineria,
koordinatori; Tamar kiknaZe, koordinatori; Tea gociriZe, eqspozicia; lia
suxitaSvili, koordinatoris asistenti; maia anTaZe, finansebi; maka SavguliZe,
komunikaciebis menejeri; malxaz gelaSvili, teqnikuri menejeri; moli TofuriZe, veb
dizaini; sara bolsoni, inglisuri teqstis koordinatori.
finansuri mxardaWera: aWaris avtonomiuri respublikis ganaTlebis, turizmisa
da sportis saministro, Tbilisis saxelmwifo samxatvro akademia, ivane javaxiSvilis
saxelobis Tbilisis saxelmwifo universiteti, kaxeTis mxareSi saxelmwifo
rwmunebulis – gubernatoris administracia, merab berZeniSvilis saxelobis
kulturis saerTaSoriso centri “muza“, saqarTvelos istoriul ZeglTa dacvis
da gadarCenis fondi, saqarTvelos kulturis, ZeglTa dacvisa da sportis
saministro, saqarTvelos mecnierebaTa erovnuli akademia, saqarTvelos turizmisa
da kurortebis departamenti; al. diumas saxelobis franguli kulturis centri,
aSS saelCo saqarTveloSi, germaniis teqnikuri TanamSromlobis sazogadoeba (GTZ ),
goeTes instituti, evraziis partniorobis fondi, evrokomisiis warmomadgenloba
saqarTveloSi, italiis saelCo saqarTveloSi, kolumbiis universitetis harimanis
institutTan arsebuli qarTvelologiis centri, European Foundation Stepbeyond Mobility
Fund / Open Society Institute Budapest, WORLD MONUMENTS FUND ® the Samuel H. Kress Foundation,
Trust for Mutual Understanding.
maspinZloba, sareklamo da sainformacio mxardaWera: Georgian Palace Hotel, magi stili,
marko polo, mze, Mercury Classic, M jgufi, rusTavi-2, saqarTvelos sazogadoebrivi
mauwyebeli
14

simpoziumi madlobas uxdis
saqarTvelos kulturis, ZeglTa dacvis da sportis saministros da piradad
ministrs, baton nikoloz vaCeiSvils simpoziumis gansakuTrebuli mxardaWerisaTvis;
aseve, xelovnebis saerTaSoriso centrs da mis direqtors qalbaton maka dvaliSvils
am RonisZiebis TaosnobisaTvis.
gansakuTrebiT gvinda aRvniSnoT g. CubinaSvilis sax. qarTuli xelovnebis istoriis
da ZeglTa dacvis erovnuli kvlevis centris, Tbilisis saxelmwifo samxatvro
akademiis, saqarTvelos mecnierebaTa erovnuli akademiis, ivane javaxiSvilis
saxelobis Tbilisis saxelmwifo universitetis, saqarTvelos universitetis,
saqarTvelos istoriul ZeglTa dacvis da gadarCenis fondis, saqarTvelos erovnuli
muzeumis, merab berZeniSvilis saxelobis kulturis saerTaSoriso centris “muza“,
aWaris avtonomiuri respublikis ganaTlebis, turizmisa da sportis saministros,
saqarTvelos turizmisa da kurortebis departamentis, kaxeTis mxareSi saxelmwifo
rwmunebulis – gubernatoris administraciis, saqarTvelos kulturis, ZeglTa
dacvis da sportis saministros Rvawli.
specialuri madloba al. diumas saxelobis franguli kulturis centrs,
saqarTveloSi aSS saelCos, germaniis teqnikuri TanamSromlobis sazogadoebas (GTZ),
goeTes instituts, evraziis partniorobis fonds, evrokomisiis warmomadgenlobas
saqarTveloSi, italiis saelCos saqarTveloSi, kolumbiis universitetis harimanis
institutTan arsebul qarTvelologiis centrs, European Foundation Stepbeyond Mobility
Fund / Open Society Institute Budapest, WORLD MONUMENTS FUND ® the Samuel H. Kress Foundation,
Trust for Mutual Understanding. mxardaWerisaTvis.
aseve, Rrma pativiscemiT gvinda aRvniSnoT samecniero sabWos wevrebis: dimitri
TumaniSvilis, mixeil abramiSvilis, ana kldiaSvilis, nino RaRaniZis, nana kupraSvilis,
julia kanevas Zalisxmeva.
didi madloba magi stils, Georgian Palace Hotel-s, marko polos, mzes, Mercury Classic-s,
M-jgufs, rusTavi-2-s da saqarTvelos sazogadoebriv mauwyebels simpoziumis
maspiZlobis, sareklamo da sainformacio mxardaWerisaTvis.
aseve, gvinda movixsenioT simpoziumis organizebisaTvis proeqtis gundis wevrebis:
ana SanSiaSvilis, eka dvaliSvilis, gega paqsaSvilis, lia suxitaSvilis, maka dvaliSvilis,
maka SavguliZis, malxaz gelaSvilis, maia anTaZis, moli TofuriZis, Tamar kiknaZis,
TaTia Rvinerias, Tea gociriZis, sara bolsonis da aseve, yvela moxalisis mier gaweuli
Zalisxmeva.
15

SIMPOSIUM BODIES
The Symposium is organized by the Ministry of Culture, Monuments Protection and Sport of Georgia
and Georgian Arts and Culture Center
Co-organizers: Department of Tourism and Resorts of Georgia; Georgian National Academy of Sciences;
Giorgi Chubinashvili National Center of Georgian Art History and Monuments Protection; Ivane
Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University; Ministry of Education, Tourism and Sports of Achara Autonomic
Republic; Tbilisi State Academy of Arts.
Advisory board: Nikoloz Vacheishvili, Chairman, Minister of Culture, Monument Protection and Sport
of Georgia; Dimiti Tumanishvili, G. Chubunashvili National Center of Georgian Art History and Monuments
Protection, Tbilisi State Academy of Arts; George Bugadze, Rector of Tbilisi State Academy of Arts;
Otar Bubashvili, Chairman of the Department of Tourism and Resorts of Georgia; Roin Takidze, Minister
of Education, Culture and Sports Achara Autonomic Republic; Tamar Beruchashvili, Deputy State Minister
for Euro-Atlantic Integration; Thomas V. Gamkrelidze, President of Georgian National Academy of
Sciences;
Leading implementing organization: Georgian Arts & Culture Center
Scientific council: Dimitry Tumanishvili, Head of the Scientific Council, Michael Abramishvili, Coordinator
of Section Ancient Georgia; Anna Kldiashvili, Coordinator of Section Medieval Georgia; Nino Gaganidze,
Coordinator of Section Modernism in Georgia; Nana Kuprashvili, Coordinator of Section Conservation/Restoration;
Giulia Caneva, Coordinator of Section Biological Deterioration in Cultural Heritage
Project team: Maka Dvalishvili, Project Leader; Anna Shanshiashvili, Project Coordinator; Eka Dvalishvili,
Logistic Manager; Gega Paksashvili, Designer; Lia Sukhitashvili, Assistant Coordinator; Maka
Shavgulidze, Communication Manager; Maia Antadze, Finances; Malkhaz Gelashvili, Technical Manager;
Molly Topuridze, Web Designer; Tamuna Kiknadze, Project Coordinator; Tatia Gvineria, Project
Coordinator; Tea Gotsiridze, Display coordinator; Sarah Bolson, Special English Coordinator;
Symposium sponsors: Administration of Governor in Kakheti Region, Department of Tourism and Resorts
of Georgia, Georgian Historical Monuments Defense and Survival Center; Georgian National Academy
of Sciences; Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University, Merab Berdzenishvili International Culture
Center «Muza», Ministry of Culture, Monuments Protection and Sport of Georgia, Ministry of Education,
Tourism and Sports of Achara Autonomic Republic, Tbilisi State Academy of Art, Alexander Duma Center
of French Culture, Delegation of the European Commission to Georgia, Eurasia Partnership Foundation,
European Foundation Stepbeyond Mobility Fund / Open Society Institute Budapest, Goethe Institute, GTZ ,
Georgian Studies Center at Harriman Institute of Columbia University,; Italian Embassy in Georgia, Trust
for Mutual Understanding, U.S. Embassy in Tbilisi, Georgia, WORLD MONUMENTS FUND ® the Samuel
H. Kress Foundation.
Hosting and promotional sponsors: Georgian Palace Hotel, Magi Style, Marco Polo, Mercury Classic,
M-Group. Informational Coverige: Georgian Public Broadcasting, Mze, Rustavi 2
16

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Organizational Committee of the International Symposium of Georgian Art owes a special debt to Ministry
of Culture, Monuments Protection and Sport of Georgia and Minister Nikoloz Vacheishvili, personally,
for the generous support of the Symposium and to the Georgian Arts & Culture Center and its director
Maka Dvalishvili for the initiative and organization of this event.
We would like to acknowledge Ministry of Culture, Monuments Protection and Sport of Georgia, Department
of Tourism and Resorts of Georgia; Ministry of Education, Tourism and Sports of Achara Autonomic
Republic, Administration of Governor in Kakheti Region for their support in realization of the
Symposium.
We have the deepest gratitude for Georgian National Academy of Sciences , G. Chubunashvili National
Center of Georgian Art History and Monuments Protection, I. Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University, Tbilisi
State Academy of Arts, Georgian National Museum, The University of Georgia, Georgian Historical Monuments
Defense and Survival Center; Merab Berdzenishvili International Culture Center «Muza».
Our special appreciation and thanks goes to Alexander Dumas Centre of French Culture, Delegation of
the European Commission to Georgia, Eurasia Partnership Foundation, European Foundation Stepbeyond
Mobility Fund / Open Society Institute Budapest, Goethe Institute, GTZ, Harriman Institute at Columbia
University, Georgian Studies Center, Italian Embassy in Georgia, Trust for Mutual Understanding, United
States Embassy in Georgia, World Monuments Fund® Kress Program for their financial support.
We have the deepest gratitude to the members of scientific council Dimitry Tumanishvili, Michael Abramishvili,
Anna Kldiashvili, Nino Gaganidze, Nana Kuprashvili, Giulia Caneva for their enormous work.
Special thanks to the Magi Style, Hosting Company “Mercury” Ltd, Grand Palace Hotel, Marco Polo,
M-group, Georgian Public Broadcasting, Mze & Rustavi-2 for hosting, promotion and informational coverage
of the Symposium.
Particular gratitude to project team members whose efforts made this event possible: Ana Shanshiashvili,
Eka Dvalishvili, Gega Paksashvili, Lia Sukhitashvili, Maka Dvalishvili, Maka Shavgulidze, Malkhaz
Gelashvili, Maia Antadze, Molly Topuridze, Tamuna Kiknadze, Tatia Gvineria, Tea Gotsiridze, Sarah Bolson;
We are also very grateful to all Symposium volunteers for their generous help.
17

winaTqma
vaxtang beriZes, vgoneb, wardgena didad ar unda sWirdebodes. usacilod erTi uTvalsaCinoesi
qarTveli xelovnebis istorikosi, xelovnebaTmcodneebis, arqiteqtorebis,
mxatvrebis, TviT reJisorebisa da msaxiobebis ramdenime Taobis aRmzrdeli, mravali
wamowyebis Tavkaci Tu monawile, igi verc rodis waiSleba qarTuli sazogadoebrivi
mexsierebidan. Cinebulad icnobdnen b-n vaxtangs Cveni qveynis gareTac: kolegebi,
rogorc gamorCeul swavluls, xolo yvela, visac odesme Sexvedria – rogorc farTod
ganaTlebul, moazrovne, xiblian pirovnebas. swored vrceli Tvalsawieri uadvilebda
v. beriZes urTierTobas sul gansxvavebul, sxvadasxva ganswavlis, asakis, erovnebis
adamianebTan. am Tvisebamac gansazRvra warmateba b-ni vaxtangis da qarTuli kulturis
italieli megobrebis, pirvel yovlisa, profesorebis adriano alpago-novelos da nino
yauxCiSvilis mcdelobisa xangamoSvebiT Catarebuliyo saerTaSoriso samecniero Sexvedrebi
Cveni xelovnebis istoriis Taobaze.
qarTuli xelovnebisadmi miZRvnili simpoziumebi 1974-dan 1989 wlamde rogorc cnobilia,
eqvsjer Catarda. sami maTgani g. CubinaSvilis saxelobis qarTuli xelovnebis
istoriis institutis da misi direqtoris, b-ni v. beriZis moTaveobiT, saqarTveloSi
gaimarTa da, saerTo aRiarebiT, masStabiTa da gaqanebiT qarTvelologiur kongresebs
gautolda.
amitomac, araferi gasakviria, rom rodesac 2007 wels niu-iorkSi, kolumbiis universitetis,
xelovnebis saerTaSoriso centris da a. quTaTelaZis sax. Tbilisis saxelmwifo
samxatvro akademiis erTobliv konferenciaze qarTuli xelovnebis Sesaxeb mkvlevarTa
Tavyrilobebis yovelwliurad mowyobis survili gaCnda. daibada simpoziumebis
aRorZinebisa da maTi vaxtang beriZis saxelTan dakavSirebis azric.
momavali gviCvenebs, raoden nayofieri iqneba amjerad qarTveli da sxva qveynebis
xelovnebis mkvlevarTa TanamSromloba, ra sixSiriTa da ra formiT warimarTeba
igi. umTavresi, albaT, isaa, rom gadaidga pirveli nabiji SeerTebuli muSaobis
gasacxoveleblad da didwilad Cvens SemarTebasa da SorsmWvretelobazea damokidebuli,
iqneba Tu ara igi Sedegiani da mravlismomtani.
18
dimitri TumaniSvili
simpoziumis samecniero sabWos Tavmjomare
g. CubinaSvilis sax. qarTuli xelovnebis istoriis da ZeglTa dacvis erovnuli kvlevis
centri

1974 wels italiis qalaq, bergamoSi, gaimarTa qarTuli xelovnebisadmi miZRvnili
saerTaSoriso simpoziumi. am samecniero Tavyrilobis iniciatorebi iyvnen Cveni
italieli kolegebi – Sua saukuneebis evropuli da bizantiuri xelovnebis cnobili
mkvlevari paolo verZone, bergamos universitetis profesori, italiaSi mcxovrebi
Cveni Tanamemamule nino yauxCiSvili, arqiteqtorebi adriano alpago novelo da enco
hibSi. am saintereso oTxeuls mxarSi edga, bunebrivia, vaxtang beriZe, gamoCenili
qarTveli mecnieri da sazogado moRvawe, romelmac aramarto Rirseulad gaagrZela
Tavisi didi maswavleblis, giorgi CubinaSvilis mier dasaxuli farTo samecnierokvleviTi
programa, aramed gansakuTrebuli Rvawli dasdo qarTuli xelovnebisa
da qarTuli xelovnebaTmcodneobis saerTaSoriso asparezze gatanas. bergamos
simpoziums mohyva kidev xuTi aseTi saerTaSoriso simpoziumi, ori isev italiaSi, sami
saqarTveloSi. samive am simpoziumis moTave da gamZRoli (saorganizacio Tu samecniero
sakiTxebis mosagvareblad) vaxtang beriZe gaxldaT. mis gverdiT iyo, cxadia, imxanad
ukve giorgi CubinaSvilis saxelobis qarTuli xelovnebis istoriis instituti,
aqtiurad iyo CarTuli saqarTvelos mecnierebaTa akademia da humanitaruli profilis
yvela instituti, saqarTvelos muzeumebi, galereebi; gvqonda didi mxardaWera da
xelSewyoba respublikis xelmZRvanelobis mxridan. samive es qarTuli simpoziumi
bevrad farTo da masStaburi iyo warmomadgenlobiTobiTac, Camosul stumarTa da
momxsenebelTa saerTo odenobiTac, moxsenebaTa Tematikuri mravalferovnebiT da
gamotanili Zeglebis qronologiuri diapazoniT. sxvadasxva qveynis cnobil xelovnebis
istorikosebs SesaZlebloba miecaT uSualod adgilzeve gacnobodnen saqarTvelos
kulturas, Zveli Tu axali qarTuli xelovnebis sxvadasxva dargis nimuSebs. ucxoel da
qarTvel specialistTa am Sexvedrebs da daaxloebas mohyva is, rom evropis qveynebSi –
italiaSi, safrangeTSi, germaniaSi, belgiaSi, gaCnda qarTuli xelovnebis Semswavleli
centrebi; sxvadasxva qalaqebSi leqciebis wasakiTxad iwveven qarTvel mecnierebs,
amave misiiT saqarTveloSic Camodian specialistebi sazRvargareTidan; gamoqveynda
qarTuli xelovnebis Sesaxeb Cveni ucxoeli kolegebis werilebi, narkvevebi, katalogebi,
didtaniani wignebic, albomebic. araerTi gamofena gaimarTa evropis, amerikis, ruseTis
sxvadasxva muzeumebSi. xolo italiasa da saqarTveloSi gamarTuli simpoziumebi
qarTuli xelovnebis da qarTuli xelovnebaTmecnierebis sayovelTao aRiarebis aSkara
dadasturebad da namdvil zeimad iqca.
“qarTuli xelovneba TandaTan marTlac imkvidrebs im adgils xelovnebis zogadi
evoluciis suraTSi, romelic mas ekuTvnis Tavisi Zeglebis didi mxatvruli da
istoriuli Rirebulebis gamo. Cven ki jer kidev Zalian bevri ram gvaqvs gasakeTebeli
“Sin da gareT~. qarTuli xelovneba amouwuravia. kidev bevri Zegli gamoCndeba, bevri
problema wamoiWreba, istoriis axali furclebi gaSuqdeba, zogi ukve cnobili
furceli, albaT, axlebur gaSuqebas moiTxovs... ar unda Seneldes qarTuli xelovnebis
propaganda aqve, CvenTan, saqarTveloSi, da ucxoeTSi. kargad dawyebuli saqme unda
gagrZeldes da ganmtkicdes”.
- vaxtang beriZis am mowodebis imediani gamoZaxilia dRevandeli simpoziumi.
Teimuraz sayvareliZe
g. CubinaSvilis sax. qarTuli xelovnebis istoriis da ZeglTa dacvis erovnuli kvlevis
centri, saqarTvelo
19

FOREWORD
Vakhtang Beridze is a person who does not need to be introduced. As undoubtedly one of the most distinguished
Georgian art historians; the teacher of a number of generations of art historians, architects, painters,
directors, and actors; and the originator of and participant in many initiatives, he will never vanish from the
memory of Georgian society. He was also famous overseas: colleagues knew him as a distinguished scholar,
whereas others, who have ever met him, found him to be a widely educated intellectual and a fascinating
person. His broad-mind was what supported him in his relations with people of different professional backgrounds,
ages and nationalities. It was this feature that helped determine the success that Vakhtang’s and
his Italian friends, Adriano Alpago-Novello’s and Nino Kaukhchishvili’s (great appreciators of Georgian
culture), had in organizing the International Scientific Meetings on Georgian Art History time after time.
As it is widely recognized, the symposiums of Georgian art were held six times from 1974-1989.
Three of them, initiated by the G. Chubinashvili Institute of Georgian Art History and its director V. Beridze,
were held in Georgia and judging by their reception, their popularity equaled that of the Kartvelologian
congress. Because of this, nobody was surprised, when during the 2007 Symposium in New York – a joint
project of Columbia University, Georgian Arts and Culture Center and the Tbilisi State Academy of Art –
the idea of establishing the annual meeting of scholars of Georgian art was launched. The suggestion to
revive the tradition of the symposiums and dedicate them to the memory of V. Beridze followed.
Only the future will show how productive the cooperation between Georgian and overseas art researchers
will be, and also what will be the frequency and format of the symposiums. Yet, the most significant
fact is that the first steps toward the rebirth of the collaboration have already taken place, and it is now
up to our enthusiasm and long term vision to determine how successful and fruitful it becomes.
20
Dimitri Tumanishvili
Chairmen of Symposium Scientific Council
G. Chubunashvili National Center of Georgian Art History and Monuments Protection

In 1974, in Bergamo, Italy, an international symposium dedicated to Georgian art was held. The event
was initiated by our foreign colleagues: Paolo Verzone, a prominent expert in the history of medieval European
and Byzantine architecture and professor at Bergamo University; Nino Kaukhchishvili, our compatriot
from Italy; and architects Adriano Alpago Novello and Enzo Hibsch. The above individuals received
backing from Vakhtang Beridze, the prominent Georgian scholar and public person, who succeeded, not
only in promoting the scientific-research program thought out Giorgi Chubinashvili, but also in significantly
contributing to the promotion of Georgian art and art studies on an international scale.
Five international symposiums were held after the Bergamo meeting: two of them in Italy and three
in Georgia. Initiator and leader of all three symposiums (both in management and scientific issues) was
Vakhtang Beridze. Significant support was granted by the Chubinashvili Institute of Georgian Art History.
Actively involved were the Georgian Academy of Sciences, different institutes of the humanities, as well as
museums and art galleries. Of note is the support granted by Georgian governmental officials.
From the viewpoint of representation, the number of visiting and local speakers, the thematic diversity
of the presented papers and the chronological range within which fell the discussed monuments, all three
Georgian symposiums can be considered the large-scale events. Prominent art historians from different
countries had a unique opportunity to familiarize themselves with Georgian culture and samples of ancient
and modern Georgian art. These scholarly meetings resulted in a very interesting events: Centers for Georgian
art studies were open in several European countries, including Italy, France, Germany and Belgium;
Georgian scholars were invited to deliver lectures in different European universities; foreign scholars have
visited Georgia with the same mission; our foreign colleagues have published articles, essays, catalogs,
books, and albums dedicated to the Georgian art; exhibitions of the Georgian cultural heritage were held
in Europe, USA, Russia, etc. Symposiums held in Italy and Georgia gained international recognition of
Georgian art and the Georgian school of art studies.
“Step-by-step, Georgian art gains a foothold in the timeline of the general evolution of art; the foothold,
which she deserves, thanks to high artistic and historical values of its own monuments. Still more is to be
done both at home and abroad. Georgian art is inexhaustible. Still more monuments will be revealed and
many problems will be awaiting for us; light will be shed on unknown pages of history; some of the already
conceived pages probably will be elucidated differently in correspondence with newly acquired knowledge.
Popularization of Georgian art both in Georgia and abroad must not be slowed down. Good undertakings
must be continued and strengthened”. The recent symposium is a hopeful response to the above words by
Vakhtang Beridze.
Teimuraz Sakvarelidze
G. Chubinashvili National Center of Georgian Art History and Monuments Protection
21

I seqcia
uZvelesi saqarTvelo

nino jayeli
saqarTvelos erovnuli muzeumi. saqarTvelo
uZvelesi samkauli da xelovnebis sxva nimuSebi ZuZuanas mRvimis zeda paleoliTuri Zeglidan
(dasavleT saqarTvelo)
daaxloebiT 40.000 wlis win kacobriobis istoriaSi daiwyo erT-erTi yvelaze
saintereso da mniSvnelovani periodi zedapaleoliTi. am dros Cndeba Tanamedrove tipis
adamiani da xdeba misi gansaxleba Zveli samyaros did teritoriebze. qvis industriaSi
xarisxobrivi cvlilebebia, izrdeba iaraRTa tipebi da xdeba maTi standartizacia.
isaxeba Zvlisa da rqis Sedgenili iaraRebi, socialuri da Sida Temuri urTierTobebi
axal fazaSi gadadis. viTardeba samonadireo teqnika, pirovuli gamoxatvis saSualebebi,
rogoricaa sxeulis moxatva Tu samkaulebi da rac mTavaria isaxeba xelovneba.
saqarTvelo da, gansakuTrebiT, misi dasavleTi nawili mdidaria zedapaleoliTuri
ZeglebiT, magram xelovnebis nimuSebis simdidriT ar gamoirCeva. amitomac sainteresoa
da mniSvnelovani ZuZuanaSi xelovnebis mcire formebis aRmoCena da is rom yvela es
nivTi kargad stratificirebuli da daTariRebuli fenidan momdinareobs.
zedapaleoliTeli adamiani TviT-gamoxatvisa da esTeturi moTxovnilebis
dasakmayofileblad iyenebda bunebriv saRebavs, oxras. amis dasturia fenebSi nanaxi
oxris mravali fragmenti, romelic mRvimeSi sagangebodaa Semotanili da qvis jamis
formis WurWeli, romelzedac Cans, da laboratoriuladac dadasturda, oxris dafqvis
kvali.
zedapaleoliTisaTvis damaxasiaTebeli Zvlis ornamentirebuli iaraRidan ZuZuanis
mRvimeSi mxolod erTi, Tevzis formis bologaxvretili maxaTi aRmoCnda cxovelis
simboluri gamosaxulebiT.
monadire-Semgroveblebi niJarebis da cxovelis kbilebidan damzadebul samkauls
iyenebdnen, romlebsac sakulto daniSnulebac hqondaT. adamiani, romelic ZiriTadad
nadirobiT irCenda Tavs, mokluli cxovelis damuSavebul kbils amuletad atarebda,
aseTi amuleti 10 calia nanaxi ZuZuanas mRvimeSi.
paleoliTeli adamiani xvretda ara marto Zvals, cxovelis kbils, aramed qvasac.
ZuZuanaSi nanaxia qvis sami samkauli, ori mZivi da erTi ovaluri formis sakidi, romelsac
garSemo Semouyveba 31 naWdevi. Znelia iTqvas, naWdevi marto ornamentia, Tu mas raRac
simboluri datvirTvac hqonda.
saintereso nivTia Zvlis ornamentirebuli firfita, romlis “aversi” Semkulia
momrgvalebuli amoRarviT, da masze dasmulia wertili, aseTi wertilebi meore
mxaresacaa, magram isini gamWoli ar aris. “reversi” daxazulia urTierTgadamkveTi
xazebiT, romelic oTxkuTxedebs qmnis; xazebis gadakveTis adgilebSi SedarebiT patara
wertilebia dasmuli. geometriuli ornamentis gamoyenebiT Seqmnilia mxatvruli saxe.
samwuxarod nivTi gatexilia.
erT-erTi saintereso aRmoCenaa Zvlis ornamentirebuli sakidi, romelic SeiZleba
CaiTvalos saqarTvelos teritoriaze aqamde aRmoCenil uZveles samkaulad. sakidi C
fenaSia napovni, romlis absoluturi TariRia 22.000-21.000 w.w. sakidze gamoxatulia
e. w. daferdebuli jvari, romelic TiTqos wreSia Casmuli da mas zevidan sworferda
jvari adevs. sakidis bolo Sezneqili kuTxiTaa amoWrili. jvari samyaros oTx mxares
ukavSirdeba, sayovelTaod cnobilia, rom pirvelyofil adamians advilad SeeZlo
garemoSi orientacia da SesaZloa am samkaulze amoWrili jvari samyaros oTx mxares
gamoxatavs, xolo mis garSemo wre ki, samyaros usasrulobas.
aseve jerjerobiT unikaluria C fenaSi nanaxi “paleoliTuri venera”, romelic
dasavleT evropuli e. w. “klaviSiseburi” figuris analogiaa.
saqarTveloSi, iseve rogorc maxlobel aRmosavleTSi, ar gvaqvs kedlis mxatvroba,
aq pirvelyofili xelovneba mxolod xelovnebis mcire formebiTaa warmodgenili.
kulturuli erTianoba Cans ara marto qvis industriaSi, aramed xelovnebaSic.
23

nino SanSaSvili, giorgi narimaniSvili
saqarTvelos erovnuli muzeumi - arqeologiuri kvlevis centri. saqarTvelo
mesopotamiis kulturuli interaqtivoba samxreT kavkasiaSi adre brinjaos xanaSi.
samxreT kavkasiaSi Zv.w. IV-III aTaswleulebis mijnaze, mtkvar-araqsis kulturis
gavrcelebis teritoriaze, Cndeba axali kulturuli elementebi, romelic Crdilo
mesopotamiuri kulturuli gavleniT unda aixsnas. kulturul novaciebs miekuTvneba
alizis aguriT nagebi Senobebi, sacxovrebeli Senobebis iatakis qveS micvalebulTa
dakrZalva, nagebobebis kedlebis poliqromuli moxatuloba, ideogramuli damwerlobis
Seqmnis mcdeloba, moxatuli keramikis gaCena, miniaturuli arqiteqturuli modelebi
– sasakmevleebi, Tixis anTropomorfuli qandakebebi, rqiani zesadgrebi, Stampuri
sabeWdavebi, sabeWdaviT dabeWdili keramika, Tixis anTropomorfuli horeliefi.
kulturis zemoTmotanili elementebi mesopotamiaSi Zv.w. VII aTaswleulSi Cndeba da
yofaSi Zv.w. II aTaswleulis bolomde ganagrZoben arsebobas. samxreT kavkasiaSi aRmoCenili
artefaqtebi ki mesopotamiuri nimuSebis uxeS, adgilobriv minabaZs warmoadgendnen.
ram ganapiroba kulturuli novaciebis SemoRweva samxreT kavkasiaSi? iyo Tu ara es
procesi dakavSirebuli brinjaos xanis dasawyisTan da liTonis importTan? ra saxis
kavSiri iyo samxreT kavkasiisa da mesopotamiis uZveles mosaxleobas Soris?
Zv.w. IV-III aTaswleulebis mijnaze samxreT kavkasiaSi aRiniSna mTeli rigi socialuri
cvlilebebi: Cndeba didi da mcire samlocveloebi; belad-qurumebi Tu “mefeebi”
ikrZalebian gansxvavebul samarxebSi, maT gamorCeuli samarxeuli inventari da insigniebi
gaaCniaT. namosaxlarebze Cndeba sabeWdavebi da sabeWdavebiT dabeWdili WurWeli.
es faqtebi mowmobs, rom arsebobs garkveuli fena, romelic sargeblobs ufro didi
privilegiebiT, vidre Cveulebrivi meTeme. arsebobs sataZro, Tu saTemo sakuTreba,
romelic dacvas saWiroebs da arsebobs niSanTa sistema, romlis saSualebiTac fiqsirdeba
da inaxeba garkveuli informacia. rogorc Cans, es kulturuli siaxleebi dakavSirebuli
iyo savaWro gzebis farTo qselis Seqmnasa da vaWrobisa da gacvlis gaaqtiurebasTan,
romelsac organizebuli xasiaTi mieca.
SesaZloa, mesopotamielTa savaWro interesma gamoiwvia samxreT kavkasiaSi metalurgiis
ganviTareba da brinjaos epoqis dasawyisi, romelsac Tan sdevda saerTo ekonomikuri
da kulturuli aRmavloba. miuxedavad amisa, mtkvar-araqselTa patara soflebi ver
gadaiqcnen qalaqebad, arsad Cans monumenturi arqiteqtura, niSan-simboloebi ver
gadaiqcnen damwerlobad. Zv.w. IV-III aTaswleulebis mijnaze Sida qarTlSi formirebis
stadiaSia administraciuli biurokratiuli aparati, romelic mesopotamiuri sataZro
administraciuli sistemis modelis primitiul asls warmoadgens. Sida qarTlis
namosaxlarebze damwvari fenebis arseboba SeiZleba am mcdelobis warumateblad
damTavrebis maniSnebelia.
zurab maxaraZe
saqarTvelos erovnuli muzeumi - arqeologiuri kvlevis centri. saqarTvelo
xelovnebis nimuSebi cixiagoris mravalfeniani Zeglidan
mravalfeniani Zegli cixiagora mdebareobs Sida qarTlSi, kaspis raionSi, s.
kavTisxevis Crdilo ganapiras, md. mtkvris marjvena napirze. Zeglis Seswavla sam aTeul
welze metia mimdinareobs. kulturuli fenebis simZlavre 6 m aRwevs, gamovlenilia
Semdegi epoqebis fenebi:
adrebrinjaos xanis nasaxlari, xuTi samSeneblo done - Zv. w. III aTasw.
24
uZvelesi saqarTvelo

uZvelesi saqarTvelo
Suabrinjaos xanis yorRanebi, - Zv. w. II aTasw. I nax.
gvianbrinjao-adrerkinis xanis nasaxlari, ori samSeneblo done - Zv. w. II aTasw. II
nax.-I aTasw. I nax.
aqemeniduri xanis nagebobebi, sami samSeneblo done - Zv. w. 5-4 saukuneebi.
elinisturi xanis sataZro kompleqsi, rva samSeneblo done - Zv.w. 3-2 saukuneebi.
cixiagoris sxvadasxva epoqis kulturul fenebSi mopovebuli artefaqtebi xSir
SemTxvevaSi xelovnebis namdvil nimuSebs warmoadgenen, rogorebicaa: mcire plastikis
nimuSebi, ornamentuli motivebi keramikaze, zoomorfuli ritonebi, kapiteli da sxva. am
masalebis analizi saSualebas gvaZlevs Tvali gavadevnoT imas, Tu ra xerxebiT xdeboda
sxvadasxva epoqaSi ideologiuri warmodgenebis gadmocema xelovnebis nimuSebSi.
karen rubinsoni
barnard koleji. aSS
TrilaeTis Tasisa da sarwyulis kuftiniseuli analizis gadafaseba Tanamedrove Teoriisa
da arqeologiuri codnis fonze
boris a. kuftinma Tavis naSromSi “arqeologiuri gaTxrebi TrialeTSi”, TrialeTis
#5 yorRanSi aRmoCenil Tasze gamosaxuli figurebi marTebulad Seadara TurqeTSi
qarxemiSisa da zinijerlis reliefebs. miuxedavad imisa, rom es ori fenomeni
qronologiurad ar emTxveva erTmaneTs, TrialeTis kulturis kavSiri anatoliis
kulturasTan udavoa. amasTan erTad, kuftinma xazi gausva msgavsebas TrialeTis Tasze
mocemul or cxovelsa da TrialeTis #17 yorRanSi aRmoCenili sarwyulis sadgamze
gamosaxul or cxovels Soris.
mocemul naSromSi Cven detalurad aRvwerT #17 yorRanis sarwyulis yovel
elements, davajgufebT maT tipebis mixedviT da ganvixilavT SemorCenili fragmentebis
paralelebs. Tasze dakvirvebiT SemogTavazebT im Tanmimdevrobas, romelsac ostati
Tasis Seqmnisas misdevda (im fotoebze dayrdnobiT, romelTa gadaRebis saSualebac
cxra wlis win momeca). Cven gamovikvlevT rogor moxda garkveuli gamosaxulebebis
“sesxeba” sarwyulidan Tasze da ra kriteriumiT moxda gamosaxulebebis SerCeva. amasTan,
SevecdebiT es SemoqmedebiTi procesi arsebuli garemos konteqstSi CavsvaT, kerZod
ki yuradReba gavamaxviloT imaze, Tu ratom moxda mezobeli axlo aRmosavleTidan
zogierTi gamosaxulebis gavrceleba TrialeTis kulturaSi da zogierTis ki, ara. da
bolos, Cven SevecdebiT kvlav SevafasoT axlandeli (da xSirad cvalebadi) daTariReba,
rogorc kavkasiisa, ise axlo aRmosavleTisa, imisaTvis, raTa davinaxoT ramdenad
SesaZlebelia TrialeTis kulturaSi axloaRmosavluri elementebis arsebobis axsna
uZvelesi istoriis meSveobiT.
ana kldiaSvili
g. CubinaSvilis sax. qarTuli xelovnebis istoriis da ZeglTa dacvis erovnuli
kvlevis centri; Tbilisis saxelmwifo samxatvro akademia. saqarTvelo
gamosaxulebaTa semantika da samyaros modeli winaqristianuli xanis qarTul
kulturaSi
winaqristianuli kultura saxe-xatebiT azrovnebs. am saxe-xatebis Seqmna niSansimboloebis
saSualebiT xdeba. Tavad niSan-simboloebiT ki mTavari siRrmiseuli
sazrisis - samyaros universaluri xatis modelireba xdeba. swored samyaros xatis
rekonstruqciis mcdelobaa Cveni moxsenebis mizani da es ramdenime gamosaxulebis (iremi,
wero, wre) magaliTze moxdeba. am universalur, arqetipul gamosaxulebaTa semantikis
25

gaazreba, maTi kompoziciuri struqturisa da aseve mxatvruli xerxebis analizi
saSualebas mogvcems warmovidginoT imdroindeli adamianis msoflmxedvelobrivi
aspeqtebi, gamovyoT samyaros xatis ZiriTadi maxasiaTeblebis - droisa da sivrcis
gaazreba da maTi urTierTmimarTeba. moxsenebaSi qarTuli masala Sedarebuli iqneba
sxva Zveli kulturebis nimuSebTan. stilisturi analizisa Tu saxelovnebaTmcodneo
kvlevis sxva meTodebis safuZvelze Cven SevecdebiT warmovaCinoT, Tu riT aris
am drois qarTuli kultura sxva kulturebis Tanaziari; amave dros, ra aris
aTaswleulTa ganmavlobaSi masSi konstanturi da ra Taviseburebebi ganapirobebs mis
TviTidenturobas.
mixeil abramiSvili
saqarTvelos erovnuli muzeumi, Tbilisis arqeologiuri muzeumi. saqarTvelo
CaTalhuiukidan sveticxovlamde. amonaridebi xaris kultis xangrZlivi istoriidan
xaris kults adamianis rwmena-warmodgenebSi erT-erTi yvelaze xangrZlivi istoria da
konservatuli xasiaTi gaaCnia. am kultma mkafio asaxva hpova xelovnebis mravalricxovan
ZeglebSi, romelTa geografia moicavs vrcel teritorias - indoeTidan evropamde da
kavkasiidan egviptemde.
miuxedavad imisa, rom xaris gamosaxulebebs ukve qvis xanidan vxvdebiT, misi ZiriTadi
simbolika, romelic nayofierebis, prokreaciuli (STamomavlobis Semqmneli) Zalis
maskulinuri simbolikis matarebelia, dakavSirebulia miwaTmoqmedebis CasaxvasTan,
mwarmoeblur meurneobaze gadasvlasTan - e. w. neoliTur revoluciasTan, romlis yvelaze
TvalsaCino Zegli CaTalhuiukis nasaxlaria Tavisi mravalricxovani samlocveloebiT,
sadac Tayvaniscemis yvelaze mTavar obieqts swored xari warmoadgenda.
xaris kultma ara marto saukuneebsa da aTaswleulebs gauZlo, aramed organulad
Seerwya kidec sxvadasxva religiebs. mis gamoZaxils Suasaukuneebis qarTuli qristianuli
kulturis Zeglebzec vxvdebiT - iqneba es xaris Tavis gamosaxulebebi bolnisis sionis
eklesiis kapitelze, sveticxovlis galavnis dasavleT karibWeze da mis aRmosavleT
fasadze, Tu xaris rqebiT jvrebis Semkobis tradicia Semonaxul maRalmTian svaneTSi.
xaris kultis mravalaTaswlovani istoriis miuxedavad, am kultis ZiriTadi simbolika
uprecedento konservatiulobiT gamoirCeva. imis gamo, rom xari aris is cxoveli
romlis Zalis gamoyenebiT ixvneba miwa, rac axali sicocxlis dabadebis sawindaria, misi
simbolika ukavSirdeba sikvdil-sicocxlis mudmiv cikls, sadac xari gvevlineba rogorc
mediatori amqveyniurobasa da zeciur samyaros Soris. swored am uZvelesi simbolikiT
aixsneba xaris gamosaxvis tradicia saqarTveloSi, da igi sisxlxorceulia Suasaukuneebis
qarTuli qristianuli tradiciisTvis.
goderZi narimaniSvili, kaxa ximSiaSvili
saqarTvelos erovnuli muzeumi - arqeologiuri kvlevis centri. saqarTvelo
TrialeTis brinjaos xanis namosaxlarebi
samxreT kavkasiis teritoriaze warmoebuli arqeologiuri gaTxrebis Sedegad
gairkva, rom brinjaos xanis (Zv. w. III-I aTaswleuli) arqiteqtura sami ZiriTadi tipiTaa
warmodgenili: Zeluri, Tixis da qvis. qviT nageb Zeglebs Soris gansakuTrebuli adgili
”ciklopur~ arqiteqturas ukavia, romlis monumenturoba da namosaxlarTa didi
masStabebi aSkarad gamoarCevs maT samxreT kavkasiis sxva Zeglebisagan.
26
uZvelesi saqarTvelo

uZvelesi saqarTvelo
saqarTvelos ”ciklopuri~ namosax larebisa da simagreebis Ziri Tadi dama xa siaTebeli
niSania rogorc sacxovre beli, ise dasax lebaTa sasi magro kedlebis an calke mdgomi
simag reebis didi zomis daumu Savebeli qvebiT Seneba. amgvari teqnika samxreT kavkasiaSi
Zv.w. III aTaswleulidanaa gavrcelebuli, magram, Zv.w. I aTaswleulis Sua xanebis Semdeg
TiTqmis aRar gvxvdeba. qva gamoiyeneba mxolod nagebo baTa kedlis safuZ vlis gasamarTad,
romelzec zemodan alizis aguria dawyobili. amave dros wina planze gamodis xis arqiteq
tura. xe gamoiyeneba rogorc kedlis armirebisaTvis, ise peran guli wyobisaTvis.
Semav seblad gamoyenebulia wvrili qva da alizis masa. amave dros iwyeba damuSavebuli
qvis gamoyeneba. Sua saukuneebSi, samxreT kavkasiiis mTel rig regionebSi soflebs
da msxvil dasaxlebebsac axasiaTebT mSrali wyoba, magram ar gaaCniaT mSrali wyobiT
nagebi simagreebi an sasimagro sistemebi.
”ciklopur~ namosaxlarebsa da simagreebs mivakuTvnebT mxolod im Zeglebs,
romelTac mSrali wyobiT nagebi TavdacviTi kedlebi gaaCniaT.
”ciklopur~ namosaxlarTa da simagreTa perimetri adgil mdebareobis konfiguracias
emTxveoda. iSviaTi gamo naklisis garda, TavdacviT sistemebs da martiv simag reebs
koSkebi ar gaaCniaT.
”ciklopuri~ sasimagro sistemebis mSenebloba Zv.w. XVI s-Si iwyeba. momdevno epoqaSi
maTi Seneba did masStabebs aRwevs.
TrialeTis platoze gaTxrili ”ciklopuri~ namosaxlarebis mixedviT SeiZleba
iTqvas, rom am tipis Zeglebi Zv.w. XVI saukunidan arseboben (beSqenaSeni), Zv.w. XIII-
VII saukuneSi ki gabatonebul mdgomareobas ikaveben (sabeWdavi, knole, crici, bareTi,
axaldaba, loSo, somxeTis Zeglebi).
samxreT saqarTveloSi dReisaTvis cnobili ”ciklopuri~ Zeglebis Seswavlis
Sedegebis mixedviT (gegmareba, dasaxlebis xasiaTi) SeiZleba iTqvas, rom isini xuTi
ZiriTadi tipiTaa warmodgenili.
didi ”ciklopuri~ dasaxlebebi rTul kompleqsebs warmoadgens. maTi ZiriTadi
maxasiaTe beli niSania mZlavri galavani da citadeli, regularulad dagegmarebuli
sacxovrebeli kvartlebi. isini, rogorc wesi, ramde nime ga magrebul monakveTs
(sabeWdavi, Tezi, loSo), an erTiani ga la vnis SigniT moqceul gamagrebul monakveTebs
(uwylo, bare Ti, axaldaba) Seicavs da centraluri, erTiani dagegma rebis prin cipiT
aris aSenebuli. gaaCniaT Sida cixe, rac mmar Tveli fenis sazogadoebis danarCeni
nawilisagan gamoyofis maniSnebelia.
calke mdgomi simagreebi forpos tebs warmoadgenda da icavda ra erT garkveul
monakveTs, imavdroulad ”ciklopuri~ Zeglebis gavrcelebis teri toriaze gamaval
gzebsac akontrolebdnen.
qeTevan ramiSvili
saqarTvelos erovnuli muzeumi - arqeologiuri kvlevis centri. saqarTvelo
cxenis gamosaxulebebi Zvel saqarTveloSi da mecxeneobasTan dakavSirebuli
saxelwodebebi qarTulSi
mcire plastikis mravalricxovan nimuSebs Soris, gansakuTrebul yuradRebas iqcevs
cxenis figurebi.
miuxedavad imisa, rom maTi ricxvi irmisa da jixvis gamosaxulebebTan SedarebiT
mcirea, isini Semoqmedi sazogadoebis meurneobis, samxedro saqmis, sulierebisa da
socialuri yofis Sesaxeb mniSvnelovan informacias Seicaven. amasTan, cxenis figurebisa
da Tanmxlebi atributebis Sesrulebis manera da mxatvrul-stiluri Taviseburebebi
xelosnobis ganviTarebis doneze migviTiTebs.
27

cxeni saqarTvelosa da kavkasiis teritoriaze uZvelesi droidan yofila
gavrcelebuli, razec dmanisis paleoliTur fenaSi da sagvarjileSi aRmoCenili
Zvlovani masala miuTiTebs. arqeologiuri monacemebiT kavkasiis mosaxleobas cxeni
ukve Cayenebuli hyolia Tavis samsaxurSi maikopis kulturis sawyis safexurze. Sinauri
cxenis naSTebi da Zvlisgan damzadebuli saybeurebi aRmoCenilia aRmosavleT evropis
tye-stepian zolSic Zv. w. III aTaswleulSi. adrebrinjaos xanis ZeglebSi mopovebuli
Zvlovani masalis mixedviT irkveva, rom saqarTvelos teritoriaze mcxovreb
sazogadoebas sxva Sinaur cxovelebTan erTad cxenic hyolia.
maxlobel aRmosavleTSi, romelTanac qarTvelur samyaros mWidro urTierToba
hqonda, cxeni da cxenebSebmuli orTvala etli Zv.w. IV aTaswleulidan iyo cnobili.
samxreT kavkasiaSi mecxeneobis ganviTarebaze miuTiTebs sof.doRlaurTan aRmoCenili
yorRani, sadac dadasturda cxenis ori ConCxi, brinjaos borblisebri saybeurebi, ori
lagami da sxva. meomarTan erTad dakrZaluli cxeni aRmoCnda aragvis xeobis sof.
abanosxevSi. Sildis samlocveloze aRmoCnda cxenis brinjaos figura, xolo werovanis
samarovanze – Tixis cxenis mcire qandakebebi.
cxenis grafikul gamosaxulebaTa nimuSebi uxvadaa warmodgenili kolxur-yobanuri
kulturis samarxeul kompleqsebSi aRmoCenil nivTebzec.
qarTveluri tomebiT dasaxlebul terotoriaze cxeni ganixileboda rogorc wminda
cxoveli, romelic dakavSirebuli iyo nayofierebis RvTaebaTa wresTan, mzesTan da
ciur samyarosTan. cxenis RvTaebriobaze miuTiTebs brinjaos sartylebze gamosaxuli
solaruli niSnebi, romlebiTac cxenis gamosaxulebebia Semkuli.
Tu brinjaos xanaSi Warbobda cxenis stilizebuli gamosaxulebebi, e.w. antikuri
xanidan TandaTanobiT mkvidrdeba cxenis gamosaxvis realisturi manera, ris magaliTsac
warmoadgens axalgoris sasafeTqleebi wyvili cxenis gamosaxulebiT, Tumca stilizeba
kvlav ganagrZobs arsebobas.
axali welTaRricxvis dasawyisSi tradiciul “wminda cxovelTa” Soris naTlad
gamoikveTa RvTaebrivi cxenis upiratesi roli, rasac, garda tradiciulisa asazrdoebda
miTraizmis farTo gavrceleba. am periodis cxenis gamosaxulebaTa nimuSebi mravladaa
aRmoCenili aragvis xeobaSi, alaznis auzis mTiswineTsa da mTaSi, kldeeTSi. moxsenebaSi
sagangebo yuradRebaa gamaxvilebuli swored am masalebze.
naSoms Tan daerTvis cxenTan da mecxeneobasTan dakavSirebuli terminologia.
nino gomelauri
g. CubinaSvilis sax. qarTuli xelovnebis istoriis da ZeglTa dacvis erovnuli
kvlevis centri. saqarTvelo
saqarTvelo da evrazia Zv.w. II-I aTaswleulSi brinjaos mcire plastikis mixedviT
saqarTvelo, ganlagebuli evropasa da azias Soris, uZvelesi droidan CarTuli iyo
Zvel samyaroSi mimdinare istoriul da mxatvrul procesebSi, romelic naTlad aisaxa
materialuri kulturis Zeglebze, maT Soris mxatvrul nawarmzec. gansxvavebuli
mxatvruli nakadebi, romelic winaistoriul periodSi iWreboda saqarTvelosa da
amierkavkasiaSi, utyuar kvals aCnevda am xanis xelovnebas.
Zv.w. II-I aTasw-Si brinjaos nakeTobebiT Tvali edevneba saqarTvelos urTierTobebs
anatoliasa da iranTan. am kavSirebs TvalnaTlivs xdis brinjaos skulpturebis ori
jgufi aRmoCenili saqarTvelos teritoriaze. maTgan erTi gavrcelebulia Zv.w. II
aTasw. Sua xanebSi aRmosavleT saqarTvelosa da mTels centralur amierkavkasiaSi da
genetikurad ukavSirdeba adrebrinjaos xanis centraluranatoliur masalebs, meore
ki, mopovebuli Tbilisis teritoriaze, romelic TariRdeba Zv.w. I aTasw. II meoTxediT,
28
uZvelesi saqarTvelo

uZvelesi saqarTvelo
mis Tanadroul Crdilo-dasavleT iranis mxatvrul nakeTobebs enaTesaveba.
zemoaRniSnuli kavSirebi, am masalebis mixedviT, gansxvavebulia Tavisi xasiaTiT.
mxatvruli tradicia, romelic safiqrebelia rom Semodis anatoliidan, misi matarebeli
eTnikuri elementis Zlier talRasTan erTad, faqtobrivad anatoliuri tradiciis
gagrZelebas warmoadgens. igi mkvidrad ikidebs fexs saqarTvelosa da amierkavkasiaSi
da mis memkvidreobiTobas, aRmosavleT saqarTvelos teritoriaze, Tvali edevneba
xangrZlivi periodis ganmavlobaSi, gvianbrinjaos xanidan dawyebuli aq qristianuli
religiis damyarebamde. maSin, rodesac iranidan Semosuli mxatvruli nakadi
saqarTvelosa da irans Soris arsebul kulturul kontaqtebs asaxavs. igi, winasagan
gansxvavebiT, naklebmomcvelia da sustic Tavisi zegavlenis xarisxiT.
Tbilisis teritoriaze aRmoCenili masalebi, ara mxolod mianiSnebs saqarTvelos
iranul samyarosTan urTierTobebze, aramed igi Zv.w. I aTasw. evraziis farTo kulturul
wreSic eqceva da am teritoriaze mimdinare istoriul procesebs asaxavs, kerZod, im
istoriul movlenebs, romelic am periodSi nomad tomTa gaaqtiurebas ukavSirdeba.
manana wereTeli
saqarTvelos erovnuli muzeumi. saqarTvelo
kolxuri saritualo culi (semantika da mxatvruli stili)
Zv. w. II-I aTaswleulis mijnaze brinjaos metalurgia amierkavkasiaSi ganviTarebis
umaRles safexurs aRwevs. Sesabamisad, aTaswleulis pirvel saukuneebSi mxatvrulad
damuSavebuli liTonis nawarmis arseboba sayovelTao xasiaTs Rebulobs; Sesrulebis
maRali done ki profesional-SemsruleblebiT dakompleqtebuli saxelosnoebis
arsebobaze miuTiTebs. vfiqrobT, rom kavkasiaSi am mravalferovani erTobliobis
yvelaze TvalsaCino saxviT gamovlenas warmoadgens zoomorfuli gamosaxulebebiT
Semku li kolxuri culi. aq mocemuli saxeebi abstraqtulia Tavisi arsiT, radgan maTi
saSualebiT xdeba ara konkretuli, realuri garemos, garkveuli qmedebis asaxva, aramed
swored abstraqtuli ideebis, warmodgenebis simboloebis saSualebiT daqaragmeba.
amgvarad, abstraqtulia stilizaciis sawyisi elementi. aqedan gamomdinare, am
mxatvruli stiliT Sesrulebuli gamosaxulebebis saxiT saqme gvaqvs ara cxovelis
konkretul zoologiur saxeobasTan, aramed ganzogadebul mxatvrul saxesTan,
romelic evoluciis yvela etapze moklebulia yovelgvar naturalizms, yofiT
detalebs. zoomorfuli motivebi am SemTxvevaSi unda ganvixiloT, rogorc religiuri
msoflmxedvelobis zogadi modeli, vizualuri gamovlenis gansxvavebuli variantebiT;
funqciuri daniSnulebis (kolxuri culi, Tavsamkauli) da masalis (brinjao, vercxli,
oqro) moTxovnebis Sesabamisi transformaciiT.
miuxedavad imisa, rom droTa ganmavlobaSi zoomorfuli saxeebi ganicdis garkveul
desakralizacias, qristianul xanamde warmoadgens qarTuli da zogadad kavkasiuri
eTnosis mxatvruli aqtivobis erT-erT mniSvnelovan sferos. drois garkveuli
monakveTiT (adre rkina-gvianantikuri xana) da TematikiT (zoomorfuli gamosaxuleba)
gansazRvruli arqeologiuri masalis semantikuri da stiluri analizis safuZvelze
miviReT Semdegi Sedegi;
1. kolxuri brinjaos kulturis damaxasiaTebeli mxavrul-stiluri niSnebis
erToblioba scildeba erTi movlenis sazRvrebs da mniSvnelovanwilad ganapirobebs
zogadad winaqristianuli xelovnebis xasiaTsa da Semdgom evolucias;
2. Zv.w. I aTaswleulidan dasavleT amierkavkasiaSi gamoiyofa brinjaos kulturis
mniSvnelovani nawili, romlis wamyvani saxea polimorfuli arseba. igi asocirdeba
qarTuli folkloris erT-erT yvelaze popularul saxesTan - faskunjTan. sawyis etapze
29

es gamosaxuleba warmoadgens kosmiur sambunebovan arsebas, romelic dakavSirebuli
iyo sam sknelTan. saukuneebis manZilze moxda miTologiuri saxis TandaTanobiTi
gamartiveba da naturalizacia;
3. adreantikur xanaSi arsebuli diademebi Zv.w. I aTaswleulis pirvel saukuneebSi
Camoyalibebuli Sinaarsis saxviTi Sesatyvisis Semdgomi transformaciis Sedegia;
4. adreantikuri xanis saiuveliro nawarmis mxatvrul dekorSi polimorfuli,
fantastikuri arseba Secvlilia identuri Sinaarsis gamosaxulebiT - stilizebuli xe
da varduli;
5. msgavsi gamosaxulebis variantebi meordeba gvianantikuri xanis TavsamkaulSic
/kldeeTi, gonio, loo/.
ori soltesi
jorjTaunis universiteti. aSS
“qarTulobis” Camoyalibeba uZveles xanaSi
winaqristianuli istoriis ukanaskneli ori aTasi wlisaTvis saqarTvelo imkvidrebs
Tavs aziisa da evropis, sxvadasxva kulturaTa da tradiciaTa gasayarze. “qarTulis”
formireba da gamokveTa mniSvnelovani da saintereso sakiTxia, erTis mxriv, iseTi
umniSvnelovanesi kulturebis fonze, rogoricaa - asuruli, aqemeniduri, berZnuli da
romauli, meores mxriv ki, adgilobriv konteqstSi. araerTgzis aRniSnula is sakiTxi,
rogor esmiT saqarTvelo sxvebs da rogor iTavisebs da aTavsebs saqarTvelo “sxvisas”
sakuTarTan. ra SeiZleba SevityoT am ormxrivi da erTmaneTTan mWidrod dakavSirebuli
sakiTxis Sesaxeb qveynis gareT warmoSobili legendebidan da tradiciebidan? rogorad
Camoyalibda saqarTvelo am xangrZlivi periodis ganmavlobaSi? an ras mogviTxrobs
am or rTul urTierTgadaxlarTul sakiTxze sxvadasxva uZveles da umniSvnelovanes
arqeologiur Zeglze aRmoCenili, stiliT gansxvavebuli, mdidruli arqeologiuri
artefaqtebi? rogor gavarCioT esoden STambeWdavi xelovnebis nimuSebis fonze qarTuli
araqarTulisgan, stilis, Tematikis Tu ostatis TviTmyofadobis TvalsazrisiT esoden
mravalricxovani xelovnebis nimuSebis fonze? da bolos, ra amoZravebs sinTezisa da
Camoyalibebis am process, romelic ori aTasi wlis ganmavlobaSi mimdinareobs da Cvens
epoqaSic grZeldeba?
vaxtang SatberaSvili
saqarTvelos erovnuli muzeumi - arqeologiuri kvlevis centri. saqarTvelo
minis ori moxatuli WurWeli sofel xovledan
2004 wels sofel xovleSi aRmoCnda miTologiuri scenebiT Semkuli, TeTri minis
ori mooqrovebuli WurWeli. orives yelze datanilia wiTel zolebs Soris moqceuli,
oqroTi Sesrulebuli berZnuli warwera “H XAPIC”.
pirveli WurWlis (e.w. dionises sura) tani mowiTalo-moyavisfro saRebaviT datanili
TaRebis meSveobiT xuT tol vertikalur nawilad iyofa. figura, romelic gamosaxulia
pirvel (pl.I-1e) TaRSi axalgazrda, uwveruli dionise unda iyos. meore da mesame (pl.I-1d,
pl.II-1) TaRSi mocemuli figurebis identificireba ver xerxdeba. meoTxe TaRSi (pl.I-1b)
gamosaxulia pani, xolo mexuTe TaRSi (pl.I-1f) warmodgenilia SeSlili likurgosi.
meore WurWeli (belerofontes sura) or scenad iyofa. pirvel scenaze mocemulia
pegasze amxedrebuli belerofontes brZola qimerasTan. meore scenaze warmogvidgenilia
30
uZvelesi saqarTvelo

uZvelesi saqarTvelo
mamakacis muxlebze mjdomi qali. mamakaci savaraudod belerofonte, qali ki mefis
asuli filonoe unda iyvnen.
WurWlis pirdapiri paraleli inaxeba korningis minis muzeumSi. misi forma da
mxatvrobis teqnika analogiuria xovleSi aRmoCenili WurWlisa, aseTive warweraa
WurWlis yelze. TeTri minis msgavsi teqnikiT moxatuli fragmenti aRmoCnda dura
evroposis da tanaisis gaTxrebisas. arsebobs varaudi, rom yvela es WurWeli qr.S. II
saukunis bolos an III saukunis dasawyisSi, antioqiis erT-erT saxelosnoSi unda iyos
damzadebuli da SesaZloa erTi ostatis naxelavic iyos.
Tamaz sanikiZe
g. CubinaSvilis sax. qarTuli xelovnebis istoriis da ZeglTa dacvis erovnuli
kvlevis centri. saqarTvelo
kldis qalaq ufliscixis istoriis ZiriTadi etapebis Sesaxeb
ufliscxis kldeze adamianis saqmianobis kvali Zv.w. I aTaswleulis dasawyisidan
Cans. Semdeg aq, kldis sakraluri Rirsebis gamo, yalibdeba sataZro (Teokratiuli)
Temi, romelic TandaTan Sida qarTlis hegemoni xdeba (mcxeTamde qarTlis dedaqalaqad
ufliscixe ivaraudeba). es xangrZlivi procesi Zv.w. IV-III saukuneebis mijnaze sataZro
qalaqis gamokveTa-aRmSeneblobiT gvirgvindeba. misi imdroindeli zogadi saxe da
ZiriTadi obieqtebi, Zeglis gaTxra-gawmendis Semdeg, dResac naTlad ikiTxeba.
qalaqi dayofili iyo sam ubnad. misi urbanul-funqciuri struqtura zustad
Seesatyviseba strabonis cnobas, romlis mixedviTac samxreT kavkasiis erT-erTi sataZro
sazogadoeba Sedgeboda qurumebis, Teoforitebis (kultis Tavisufali msaxurni) da
hierodulebisagan (taZris monebi).
qalaqs dasavleTidan icavda frialo klde, aRmosavleTidan da CrdiloeTidan
uvlida mZlavri galavani, hqonda oTxi karibWe, mtkvarze Camavali gvirabi da saTavdacvo
Txrili, ganieri platformiT.
antikuri periodis ufliscixis qvabul-nagebobaTa Soris mkafiod gamoiyofa sami
tipologiuri jgufi: 1. kamarovani portikis mqone taZrebi. maTi ZiriTadi sivrcobrivmoculobiTi
elementebia naxevarwriuli kamariT dagvirgvinebuli Ria portiki, mis
ukan daxuruli oTaxi (oTaxebi), wina TavRia ezo-darbazi. aris martivi da rTuli
variantebi. 2. darbazuli taZrebi. ZiriTadi elementebia – brtyelWeriani darbazi da
mis win TavRia ezo-darbazi. 3. mrgvali, gumbaTovani salocavebi.
taZrebi kldeSi gamokveTilia miwiszeda (qvis, xis) arqiteqturisaTvis damaxasiaTebeli
wesebiT. xSirad aris gamoyenebuli svetebi, pilastrebi, bazebi, kapitelebi, TaRebi,
kamarebi, koWebi, kesonebi, anu samSeneblo xelovnebis mTeli repertuari.
qalaqs dafuZnebidan eqvsi-Svidi aswleulis manZilze intensiuri cxovreba ar
Seuwyvetia, rac kargad dasturdeba werilobiTi wyaroebiT da uxvi arqeologiuri
masalebiT.
qveyanaSi qristianobis damkvidrebisTanave ufliscixis roli da mniSvneloba mkveTrad
daqveiTda. VI saukunidan igi kvlav iwyebs aRorZinebas. qalaqis mTavar moedanze gaCnda,
nawilobriv kldeSi gamokveTili, mozrdili samnaviani bazilika. sacxovreblebad
gadakeTda uwindeli taZrebi (zogi or sarTuladac).
IX-X ss. ufliscixe qarTvelTaTvis umTavres qalaqad da qveynis gaerTianebisTvis
mebrZol ZalTa citadelad iqca. X saukuneSia aSenebuli ufliswulis sameklesiani
bazilika, romelsac qalaqis centri uWiravs.
31

ufliscixis aRzevebis es kidev erTi, didi periodi dasrulda XIII saukunis 30-ian
wlebSi. “da iyo qalaqad Cingisamde~ - ambobs vaxuSti. ama mohyva misi dacema-dakninebis
Seuqcevadi procesi. gvian Sua saukuneebSi igi erTxans mcxeTis sveticxovlis kuTvnil
monasters warmoadgenda, xolo Semdeg mefe-feodalTa xelidan xelSi gadadioda. XIX
saukunis dasawyisidan sabolood daicala da gaukacrielda.
Zeglis sistematuri arqeologiuri Seswavla daiwyo 1957 wlidan da kvlavac
grZeldeba.
mariam gvelesiani
saqarTvelos erovnuli muzeumi. saqarTvelo
yaTlanixevis anTropomorfuli figuris interpretaciisaTvis
bunebis didi deda anu mdedruli universalurobis matarebeli qalRvTaeba
saqarTveloSi “didi deda nanas” saxeliT Tayvanicemoda. Sumerul qalRvTaeba “innana”dan
warmoebuli “nana” da misi transliteraciuli formebi (nano, ana, nena, neno, nino,
nina, nane), rogorc sparsul, somxur, TaTrul, tajikur, Turqulenovan, aseve qarTul
dasavlur dialeqtebSi “dedis” mniSvnelobis mqonea. am kultis Tayvaniscemas jer kidev
eneoliTis xanidanve (Zv.w. V aTaswleuli) mowmobs xramis didi goraze gamovlenili,
bunebis mfarveli Zalis - didi dedis gamosaxulebad miCneuli qalis anTropomorfuli
e.w. “naturalisturi” figurebi, romlebic paralels hpovebs swored mesopotamiis,
iranis, mcire aziisa da somxeTis imave epoqis analogiur ZeglebTan.
samecniero mimoqcevaSi damkvidrebuli koncefciiT, qarTvelTa uZveles RvTaebaTa
triadidan (mamrige RmerTi – mTvare, mze-qali anu qal-babari, kviria) ierarqiulad
meore RvTaebis, mze-qalis ipostasia didi deda nana, ris gamoc es ukanaskneli,
tradiciulad, mzesTan dakavSirebul qalRvTaebad moiazreba. Sesabamisad, misi kultis
Tayvaniscemas, arqeologiur masalaSi solaruli atributikis mqone nivTebis (wriuli
formis mqone samlocvelo kerebi, kviristavebi, urmis borblebi, diskoseburi sagnebi
da sxv) arsebobas ukavSireben.
nanas kultisa da mzis qalRvTaebis igiveobis Teoria Tavis droze mxolod
erTdargovani, kerZod – eTnografiuli monacemebis analizis safuZvelze SemuSavda
da Tan imgvarad, rom didi deda nanas genezisis, ganviTarebis, transformaciisa da
sinkretizaciis mTliani sistemuri xazis zogadkulturul, sxva civilizaciaTa
konteqstSi warmoCena ar gamxdara Seswavlis sagani. amgvarma midgomam, Sesabamisad,
sul sxva suraTi mogvca, vidre es gvaqvs saerTaSoriso samecniero mimoqcevaSi, sadac
safuZvlianadaa argumentirebuli am saxeliT cnobili qalRvTaebis ara mzesTan,
aramed mTvaresTan kavSiri. is, rom nana/innana (igive iSTari) saqarTvelos maxlobel
civilizaciebSi mTvaresTan asocirebuli qalRvTaebaa, mogvianebiT nana/innanas fard
sparsul anahitas, elinistur epoqaSi am ukanasknelis monacvle berZnul artemidas,
iseve rogorc Suaaziur qalRvTaeba nanos ikonografiaSic gamovlinda maT Tavze
namgala mTvaris gamosaxvis saxiT.
ufliscixis uZvelesi namosaxlaris, yaTlanixevis I nagebobaSi aRmoCenili TixaSi
naZerwi horeliefi qalis Tavis gamosaxulebiT prof. d. xaxutaiSvilis azriT,
warmoadgens saweso saxviTi xelovnebis Zegls, konkretulad, didi deda nanas
gamosaxulebas, ramdenadac masTan erTad gamovlenil diskosebur sagnebs mkvlevari
mzis kultis materialur gamovlinebad miiCnevs. qandakebis did deda nanad
interpretirebisaTvis, vfiqrobT, arsebiTia iqve napovni xaris mcire zomis qandakeba,
romelic am identifikaciis diametralurad sxva (mTvaris) mimarTebiT argumentirebis
perspeqtivas qmnis.
32
uZvelesi saqarTvelo

uZvelesi saqarTvelo
Teimuraz bibiluri
didi mcxeTis arqeologiuri saxelmwifo muzeum-nakrZali. saqarTvelo
apolonis taZari did mcxeTaSi
didi mcxeTis dedaqalaqobis droindeli istoriis bevri sakvanZo sakiTxi dRemde
araa gamorkveuli. rac ar unda paradoqsulad JRerdes, maT Sorisaa didi mcxeTis im
ubnis istoria, sadac aRmarTulia sveticxovlis kaTedrali.
qarTuli matianeebis (“moqcevai qarTlisa”, “ninos cxovreba”, leonti mrovelis”cxovrebai
qarTvelTa mefeTa”) mixedviT, ax.w. IVs. 20-30 wlebamde mainc, aRniSnul
teritoriaze gaSenebuli iyo samefo baRi - “samoTxe mefisai” da rom pirveli eklesiis
(svetebis mainc), asagebad gamouyenebiT aqve moWrili xe - libanis naZvi Tu kviparosi.
bizantieli avtorebi (rufinusi, sokrate, sozomeni) mxolod taZris agebaze
saubroben.
qarTul-bizantiuri wyaroebis monacemebSi mniSvnelovani koreqtivebi SeaqvT
siriul-koptur xelnawerebs. maTi monacemebis SejerebiT irkveva, rom “mefis samoTxeSi”
qristianuli taZris agebamde mdgara marmarilos svetebiani apolonis samisno (koptur
svinaqsarSi funqcia ar Cans) da swored “am svetebis amoReba da maTi eklesiis kankelSi
Cadgma (xazi Cemia - T.b.) undodaT, magram verafriT dauZravT adgilidan” (borjis
papirusis sinoduri teqsti); “... qalwuli tiriliT Sevedrebia ieso qristes, ris
Semdegac svetebma eklesiaSi gadmoinacvles” (kopturi svinaqsari).
werilobiTi wyaroebis am cnobas sabuTianobas matebs sveticxovlis sakurTxevelSi
aRmoCenili ax. w. II s. korinTuli tipis kapitelebi. gavixsenoT - marmarilos svetebi
kankelSi Casadgmelad undodaT.
“mefis samoTxeSi” apolonis samisnos arsebobas adasturebs aqve gaTxrili qvasamarxi
Zalze saintereso inventariT: maT Soris, saweri mowyobiloba, romlis vercxlis budeze
sam frizad datanili iyo cxra muzis reliefuri, mooqrovili gamosaxuleba (apoloni
- muzageti).
damatebiT argumentebs warmoadgens xazgasmiT Teoforuli saxelis “xvara” (mze)
matarebeli qveynis umaRlesi sasuliero piris gankurneba wminda ninos mier swored
“samoTxeSi” da ara sxvebis, maT Soris dedoflis, msgavsad mayvlovanSi; “samoTxis”
mcveli qalis saxelis anistos berZnuli onomastikonidan warmomavloba da a.S.
yvela monacemis urTierTSejerebisa da saTanado paralelebis moSveliebiT, SeiZleba
gamoiTqvas sakmaod safuZvliani mosazreba imis Taobaze, rom: a) qarTlis samefos
oficialur saxelmwifo religias warmoadgenda mzis Tayvaniscema; b) sveticxovlis
sakaTedro taZrisa da barbareTis eklesiis uSualo siaxloves funqcionirebda naxsenebi
religiis sataZro centrebi.
amiran kaxiZe
baTumis saxelmwifo universiteti. baTumis arqeologiuri muzeumi. saqarTvelo
maikl vikersi
iesus koleji, oqsfordi. didi britaneTi
aTenisa da kolxeTis savaWro-ekonomikuri da kul tu ru li urTierTobani klasikur
xanaSi (saqarTvelo-britaneTis fiWvnaris er Tob li vi arqeologiuri eqspediciis
masalebis mixedviT)
adreklasikuri xanidan fiWvnaris uZveles dasaxlebasTan Cndeba eli nuri eTnosic,
romelic saberZneTis materikul centr aTonTan Cans dakav Sirebuli. aqe dan
mokidebuli mTeli klasikuri xanis ganmavlobaSi savaW ro-ekonomikur Tu kulturul
urTierTobaTa sferoSi hegemonad atika gamodis. am mimarTe biT gansakuTrebiT mdidari
33

da mravalferovani niv Tie ri kultu ris Zeglia mopo ve bu li saqarTvelo-britaneTis
fiWv naris erTob livi eqspediciis aTwlian kvleva-Zie baTa Sedegad. es gansa kuT rebiT
iTqmis fiWvnaris Zv.w. V-IV saukuneebis ber Z nuli nekropolis mi marT, romelic jerje
robiT erTaderTia aRmosavleT pon tospireTSi da, saer Todac, amierkavkasiaSi.
Seswavlilia SesaniSnavad Se mo naxuli 400-ze meti samarxi da aTeu lobiT saritualo
moedani, romlebSic mo po ve bu lia atikuri sada Tu moxatuli brwyinvale vazebi, ioniuri
da kol xu ri Tixis WurWeli, saiuveliro xelovnebisa da torevtikis nimuSebi, feradi
minis WurWeli, numizmatikuri Zeglebi, samkaulebi da a.S. das tur deba, rom Zv.w. V-IV
saukuneebSi kolxebsa da fiWvnarel elinebs So ris arsebobs mSvi dobiani urTierToba,
mWidro kontaqtebi. aqauri eli ne bi gamodian Sua mav lis rolSi metropoliasTan, aTenTan
da SavizRvis pi reTis sxva centrebTan sa va Wro-ekonomikur Tu kulturul urTierToba
Ta sferoSi.
nino ZnelaZe
baTumis saxelmwifo universiteti, baTumis arqeologiuri muzeumi. saqarTvelo
berZnuli moxatuli keramika fiWvnaridan
fiWvnarSi aRmoCenilia moxatuli keramikis rogorc specialurad Seqmnili, ise
seriuli produqciis nimuSebi. mcire zomis keramika aucilebeli iyo dakrZalvis
ritualisaTvis (cnobilia saflavSi lekiTosebis Cayolebis atikuri da beotiuri wesi,
rac arc fiWvnareli berZnebisaTvis da maTi meSveobiT adgilobrivi mosaxleobisaTvis
iyo ucxo). Tematurad SerCeuli moxatuli keramika masze aRbeWdili miTologiuri
saxeebiTa Tu scenebiT, samarxeuli inventaris mniSvnelovani nawilia.
arqeologiuri eqspediciis mier 1987-2007 ww mopovebuli masala siuJetis mixedviT sam
Tematur jgufad iyofa. esaa miTologiuri personaJebisa da scenebis gamosaxulebebi,
maTi alegoriuli saxeebi da uSualod religiuri ritualis amsaxveli scenebi.
moxatuli keramika aRmoCenilia fiWvnaris kolxur samarovanzec, rac metyvelebs
imaze, rom adgilobriv mosaxleobas miuRia dakrZalvis berZnuli ritualis es
formac.
Tamar SalikaZe, tariel ebraliZe
baTumis saxelmwifo universiteti, baTumis arqeologiuri muzeumi. saqarTvelo
gonio-afsarosis savaWro ekonomikuri da kulturuli urTierTobani dasavleT
xmelTaSuazRvispireTTan
gonio-afsarosis teritoriaze aRmoCenil importul nakeTobaTa Soris mniSvnelovani
adgili ukavia dasavleT xmelTaSuazRvispireTis sxvadasxva sawar moo centrebSi
damzadebul wiTellakian keramikas, Wraqebs, keramikul tara-amforebsa da minis
nawarms.
saqarTvelos zRvispireTSi dasavluri warmomavlobis wiTellakiani ke ra mika pirvelad
gonio-afsarosSi aRmoCnda. esenia: Tasebi, jamebi, Wraqebi da a.S., romlebic ax.w.
I saukunis meore-mesame meoTxediTa da II saukunis da saw yi si periodiT TariRdeba.
dasavleT evropis sawarmoo centrebTan urTierTobebis SeswavlisaTvis aseve
mniSvnelovania keramikuli tara, kerZod, italikuri amforebi. Zv.w. I-ax.w. I saukuneebSi
wamyvani adgili ekava keramikuli tipis damzadebasa da eqs ports. afsarosisagan
gansxvavebiT, aRmosavleT SavizRvispireTSi am tipis am fo rebi iSviaTobas warmoadgens.
34
uZvelesi saqarTvelo

uZvelesi saqarTvelo
dasavleT xmelTaSuazRvispireTis sawarmoo centrebSi damzadebuli Canan mo zaikuri
da vertikalurwiboiani minis fialebi, romlebic ax.w. I saukunis meo re da mesame
meoTxediT TariRdeba.
rogorc Cans, dasavleTevropulma produqciam afsarosSi samxedro kon ti ngentTa
gadaadgilebebis Sedegad SemoaRwia. afsarosis funqcionirebis ad re u li
safexurisaTvis ar SeiZleba gamoiricxos dasavleTidan am saxis nawarmis uSualo
mowodebis SesaZleblobac. es gansakuTrebiT iTqmis italikuri amfo re bis mimarT.
merab xalvaSi
baTumis saxelmwifo universiteti, baTumis arqeologiuri muzeumi. saqarTvelo
fiWvnaris importuli amforebi
fiWvnaris antikuri xanis samarovnebze da naqalaqarze mopovebuli amforebis (qiosi,
Tazosi, lesbosi, mende, heraklea, sinopa da a.S.) Seswavla gvawvdis mniSvnelovan
informacias regionis garesamyarosTan urTierTobis formebisa da intensiurobis
dasadgenad.
fiWvnarSi importuli amforebis Semotana antikuri sakolonizacio praqtikis Sedegad
aq warmoqmnil berZnul samosaxlos ukavSirdeba. namosaxlarze da masTan dakavSirebul
nekropolze mopovebuli masaliT SeiZleba vTqvaT, rom fiWvnarSi importuli amforebi
Zv.w. V saukunis 70-60-ian wlebidan Cndeba da maTi Semotana grZeldeba Zv.w. V saukunis
ukanasknel mesamedamde. drois am monakveTSi urTi erToba gansxvavebuli intensivobiT
viTardeboda. SedarebiT regularul xasiaTs iZens Zv.w. V saukunis pirveli meoTxedis
miwurulidan. mesame meoTxedis adreuli wlebidan da meoTxe meoTxedSi gare samyarosa
da kolxeTs Soris intensiuri urTierToba arsebobs. gansakuTrebulia qiosisa da
Tazosis roli.
Zv.w. V-IV ss berZnul da Zv.w. V saukunis kolxur sama rovanze mopovebuli importuli
amforebis statistikuri Sefardeba gviCvenebs, rom savaWro-ekonomikuri kontaqtebi
arseb obs uSualod zemoT dasaxlebul centrebsa da fiWvnaris berZnul dasaxlebas
Soris. adgilobriv mosaxleobasTan ki es nawarmi berZnul TemebTan vaWrobis gziT
xvdeboda.
irine varSalomiZe
baTumis saxelmwifo universiteti, baTumis arqeologiuri muzeumi. saqarTvelo
romauli monetebi gonio-afsarosidan
gonio-afsarosi samxreT-aRmosavleT SavizRvispireTis erT-erTi metad mniSvnelovani
Zeglia. afsarosis qalaquri cxovrebis politikuri da sa vaW ro-ekonomikuri
orientaciis kvlevisaTvis pirvelxarisxovan wya roT mcod neobiT bazas warmoadgens
numizmatikuri monapovari.
1995-2007 wlebSi gonio-afsarosis mudmivmoqmedma arqeologiurma eqspe di -
ciam gamoavlina romauli xanis 150-ze meti moneta. maTi Seswavla gonio-af sarosis
samoneto mimoqcevis politikur da savaWro-ekonomikur urTier To baTa Semdeg suraTs
gvixatavs:
pirvel jgufSi Sedis pirveli saukunis monetebi - 29 cali. maTgan 15 moW rilia
antioqiaSi, 4 pontos samefoSi, 2 romSi, 2 lugdunumSi, TiTo-Ti To bosforSi, iudeaSi,
gadaraSi da efesoSi. monetebis umravlesoba spi len Zisaa. numizmatikuri masalebis
mixedviT Cans, rom I saukunis meore na xe varSi afsarosi politikur-ekonomikuri
urTierTobebiT dakavSirebuli Cans siriis provinciasTan.
35

meore jgufi warmodgenilia II saukuneSi moWrili 36 monetiT. maTgan 15 moWrilia
romSi, 13 kesariaSi, 2 aRmosavleTis zarafxanaSi, 3 tra pe zun t Si, 1 neokesariaSi.
monetebis umravlesoba vercxlisaa.
mesame jgufSi gaerTianebulia 38 moneta. maTgan 23 moWrilia kesa ria Si, 5 romSi, 3
trapezuntSi, 2 TesalonikeSi, erTi sinopSi.
I-III saukuneebSi afsarosSi saqalaqo cxovreba dawinaurebuli Cans. nu mi z ma tikuri
masalis Seswavlis Sedegad irkveva, rom am periodSi afsa ro si mcire aziis gavlenis
sferoa da politikur-ekonomikur urTier To baTa mTa vari ZarRvi mimarTulia kapadokiis
provinciisa da Savi zRvis samx reT sanapiros qalaqebisaken.
SoTa mamulaZe, emzar kaxiZe
baTumis saxelmwifo universiteti, baTumis arqeologiuri muzeumi. saqarTvelo
afsarosi - romauli kulturis centri aRmosavleT SavizRvispireTSi
samxreT-dasavleT saqarTveloSi ori mniSvnelovani antikuri centria: fiWvnari da
afsarosi. pirveli berZnuli kolonizaciis Sedegad warmoiqmna Zv.w. V s-Si. arqeologiuri
masalis mixedviT naTlad ikveTeba adgilobrivi da berZnuli mosaxleobis mWidro
ekonomikuri da kulturuli urTierTobebi, romelic elinistur xanaSi kidev ufro
Rrmavdeba.
afsarosis cixe, romelic ax.w. I s bolo meoTxedSi iqna agebuli, romaelTa samxedrostrategiul
miznebs emsaxureboda da aqedan gamomdinare adgilobriv mosaxleobasTan
kontaqtebi gacilebiT ufro naklebi iyo. aSkaraa kolxuri samSeneblo tradiciebis
farTo gamoyeneba sxvadasxva nagebobebSi (yazarma, principia), rac adgilobrivi
klimaturi pirobebis gaTvaliswinebiT moxda. Tumca, Cvens mier mravali wlis
ganmavlobaSi gamovlenili arqeologiuri masalis mxolod Zalzed umniSvnelo nawili
Seicavs adgilobrivi sameTuneo tradiciebis zegavlenas.
bunebrivia, romauli kulturis radiacia gacilebiT ufro Rrmaa, magaliTad es
kargad Cans gonios ax.w. I-II ss daTariRebuli cnobili ganZidan. Tumca, keramikul
nawarmSi, igive klasikuri da elinisturi periodidan gansxvavebiT, aseTi gavlenis
dafiqsireba sakmaod problematuria.
36
uZvelesi saqarTvelo

I SECTION
ANCIENT GEORGIA

Nino Jakeli
Georgian National Museum. Georgia
Ancient Jewelry and Other Works of Art from the Upper Paleolithic Site of Dzudzuana Cave (Western
Georgian)
The beginning of the Upper Paleolithic Age, one of the most challenging and important periods in
the history of the mankind, dates from about 40,000 years ago. The period saw the emergence of modern
humans and their settlement on large areas of the ancient world. Qualitative changes took place in stone
industry, including the diversification and standardization of tools, introduction of bone and horn tools and
the advancement of social and internal tribal relations into a new phase. Hunting technique developed and
means of self-expression, such as body painting and jewelry and, most importantly, art, emerged.
Georgia, in particular its western region, is rich in Upper Paleolithic artifacts but lacks evidence of artworks.
Therefore the discovery of minor works of art in the cave of Dzudzuana is highly important. One
should emphasize that all these items come from well-stratified and dated layers.
Upper Paleolithic men used ochre-a natural paint-to serve their self-expression and aesthetic needs. This
is evident by the numerous ochre fragments found in the layers of the cave, and by the discovery of a bowlshaped
stone vessels with the traces of ochre verified through the laboratory analyses.
Among the numerous bone tools characteristic of the Upper Paleolithic Age, only one ornamented artifact
was descovered. This is the fish-shaped awl with a pierced end and, a symbolic representation of an
animal.
Hunter-getherers would adorn themselves with jewelry made of shells and animal teeth, both of which
had a religious function. Men of the time, for whom hunting was a means of survival, used worked teeth as
amulets. Ten amulets of this type have been found at Dzudzuana.
Paleolithic man pierced not only bone and animal teeth but stone too. Three items of stone jewelry-two
strings of beads and an oval pendant surrounded by thirty-one notches-have been discovered at Dzudzuana.
Whether the notches are just ornaments or they also bear symbolism is difficult to say.
Also of particular note is an ornamented plate of bone. The “averse” of this plate is embellished with
rounded grooves and bears a point. Similar points, though not piercing, can be seen on the other side too.
The “reverse” is drawn with intersecting lines forming rectangles. The locations where the lines intersect
are marked with relatively smaller points. These geometric patterns are used to create an artistic image.
Regrettably, the item survives in a broken form.
Another interesting find is an ornamented stone pendant, which can be considered as one of the earliest
works of jewelry discovered thus far on the territory of Georgia. The pendant was found in the C layer. It
dates to 22,000-21,000 BP. The pendent shows a so-called “slanting cross”, which seems to be inserted into
a circle topped by a “straight cross”. The end of the pendent has a concave corner. Presumably the cross is
linked to the four sides of the universe. It is widely accepted that primitive man could easily orientate, and
thus one can conclude that the cross carved on this item may refer to the four sides of the universe, while
the circle around it must symbolize infinity. The “Paleolithic Venus,” which finds an affinity with Western
European’s so-called “key-shaped” figurines, remains unique to the present day.
Neither Georgia nor its neighboring Near East have preserved wall paintings. The primeval art surviving
here is mostly represented by forms of minor art. Cultural unity is manifested not only in stone industry,
but in art as well.
38
ANCIENT GEORGIA

ANCIENT GEORGIA
Nino Shanshashvili, Giorgi Narimanishvili
Archaeological Research Center of National Museum of Georgia. Georgia
Cultural Interaction of Mesopotamia with the South Caucasus in the Early Bronze Age
The period from the late fourth millennium BC to the beginning of the third millennium BC was marked
by the spread of Kura-Araxes culture in the South Caucasus coupled with the emergence of new cultural
elements influenced by the relations with the North Mesopotamia. Cultural innovations included: the use
of adobe in building; burying the dead under dwelling floors; the adornment of building walls with polychrome
paintings; attempting to create ideogram scripts; the development of painted pottery and miniature
architectural models, such as incense burners, anthropomorphic clay figurines, horned pot stands, seals and
stamped pottery; and an anthropomorphic clay hot-relief. Such cultural practices emerged in Mesopotamia
in the seventh millennium BC and remained in use until the second millennium BC. The artifacts discovered
in the South Caucasus were local imitations of Mesopotamian works.
What instigated the penetration of cultural innovations into the South Caucasus? Was this process linked
to the beginning of the Bronze Age and to the import of metal? What kind of interaction was there between
the ancient communities of the South Caucasus and Mesopotamia?
The period between the end of the fourth millennium BC and the beginning of the third millennium BC
in the South Caucasus was marked by a series of social changes. The period saw the emergence of large
and small shrines and the burial of pagan priests and “kings” in special graves with distinct burial inventory
and insignia. Seals and stamped pottery also have been uncovered at ancient settlements from this period.
These facts attest to the presence of a social class enjoying greater privileges than ordinary community
members. Religious, or community property already existed in this culture, that needed protection. The
sign system served to record and to store related information. These cultural innovations must have been
linked to the expansion of trade routes and to the promotion of trade and exchange, which was becoming
more organized.
It is possible that the commercial interests of the Mesopotamians spurred the development of metallurgy
as well as the beginning of the Bronze Age with its concurrent economic and cultural revival. Despite this,
small villages of the Kura-Araxes culture failed to develop into cities/towns. There are no traces of monumental
architecture, and sign-symbols failed to turn into written language. At the turn of the third millennium,
an administrative bureaucratic machine, which was a primitive copy of the Mesopotamian theocratic
administrative model, was in the process of forming in Shida Kartli. Evidence of burnt strata at Shida Kartli
ancient settlements may well be a sign of the final failure of this attempt.
Zurab Makharadze
Archaeological Research Center of National Museum of Georgia. Georgia
The Works of Art from Multilayered Site at Tsikhiagora
The multilayered site of Tsikhiagora is located in shida (inner) Kartli, in the Kaspi region, north of the
village of Kavtiskhevi and on the right bank of the Mtkvari River. For more than three decades, exploration
of the site has been progress. The cultural layers, which were up six meters, unveil the layers of following
epochs:
rd • Early Bronze Age settlement, five building layers – 3 millennium BC;
nd • Middle Bronze Age Kurgans – 2 millennium BC;
nd • Late Bronze-Early Iron Age settlement, two building layers – second half of 2 millennium - first
39

half of 1st millennium BC;
th th • Structures of Achaemenid Period, three building layers –5 -4 century BC;
rd nd • Hellenistic temple complex, eight building layers – 3 to 2 century BC.
The artifacts unearthed in different layers at Tsikhiagora, such as miniature plastic, ornamental motives
on ceramics; zoomorphic rythons and capitals of columns often represent authentic works of art. Analysis
of these items give rise to the possibility of having an overview of the artistic means which reveal the ideological
conception of different periods in works of art.
Karen S. Rubinson
Barnard College. USA
A Re-evaluation of Kuftin’s Analysis of the Trialeti Silver Goblet and Bucket in Light of Modern
Theory and Current Archaeological Knowledge
Boris A. Kuftin was prescient when, in Arkheologicheskie Raskopki v Trialeti, he compared figures on
the goblet from kurgan 5 of Trialeti with reliefs from Carchemish and Zinjerli in Turkey. Although we
know now that they are not chronologically synchronous, nevertheless the relationship of the art of the
Trialeti culture with that of Anatolia remains important. In addition, Kuftin also noted the significant relationship
between at least two animal images on the goblet and two of those at the base of the bucket from
Trialeti kurgan 17.
In this paper I will closely describe all elements of the vessel from kurgan 17, group them by type, and
discuss detailed artistic parallels for the preserved elements. In looking at the goblet, I will propose the
order in which the artist worked on the goblet, based on photographs I had the opportunity to take nine
years ago. I will look at how images from the bucket might have been borrowed to be applied to the
goblet, and why some elements were copied but not others. I will also try to place this artistic process into
the setting in which it occurred, looking at the question of why some images from the adjacent Near East
resonated with the artists of the Trialeti culture and others did not. Finally, I will once more evaluate the
current (and frequently shifting) chronologies of both the Caucasus and the adjacent Near East to see how
the ancient history might explain the presence of the ancient Near Eastern elements clearly borrowed into
the Trialeti Culture.
Anna Kldiashvili
G. Chubinashvili National Center of Georgian Art History and Monuments Protection; Tbilisi State Academy
of Art. Georgia
Image Semantics and the Model of the Universe in Pre-Christian Georgian Culture
Pre-Christian culture expresses itself with image-icons. These image-icons were created via signs and
symbols that were meant to shape the main idea of the universal image of the universe. The purpose of this
paper is to reconstruct this image of universe using the examples of several icons (deer, stork and circle).
Comprehension of the semantics of these universal archetypal images and analysis of their structural and
artistic means will help to uncover their weltanschauung aspects and define the major features of the image
of universe – time and space and their correlation. The paper will compare Georgian material to the artifacts
of other ancient cultures. Employing the methods of stylistic analysis and other means of art historical
research, the author will make an attempt to highlight the traits that made Georgian culture of this period
“the sharer” of other cultures, explore constants throughout millenniums and the features that determine its
identity.
40
ANCIENT GEORGIA

ANCIENT GEORGIA
Mikheil Abramishvili
Georgian National Museum, Tbilisi Archaeological Museum. Georgia
From Çatalhöyük to Svetitskhoveli - Extracts from the Enduring Cult of the Bull
Having an enduring history, the bull cult is one of the most conservative of human beliefs. It appears on
numerous works of art spanning a large area from India to Europe and from the Caucasus to Egypt.
Although the first images of the bull are traced back to the Stone Age, its chief symbolic meaning, associated
with fertility and a procreative power imbued with the idea of masculinity, emerged during the
transition to a farming economy – the so-called “Neolithic Revolution”. The most obvious example of bull
iconography of this period comes from the ancient Çatalhöyük settlement with its numerous shrines, in
which the bull was the primary object of worship.
Besides having endured for millennia, the bull cult has merged harmoniously with various religions. The
signs of this cult are evident at some of the medieval Georgian Christian sites, e.g. the bull heads on the
capital of Bolnisi Sioni Church and on the west porch of the Svetitskhoveli circuit wall and on its eastern
elevation, as well as the tradition of embellishing a cross with bull horns in highland Svaneti.
Despite having a history counting several thousand years, the symbolism of this cult appears to be highly
conservative. Normally used to plough the land, which is the precondition of the birth of new life, a bull
symbolizes a permanent life-death cycle and acts as a mediator between earth and heaven. It is this ancient
symbolism that explains the practice of bull depiction in Georgia, which is inherent to the Medieval Georgian
Christian tradition.
Goderdzi Narimanashvili, Kakha Khimshiashvili
Archaeological Research Center of National Museum of Georgia. Georgia
Bronze Age Settlements in Trialeti
The findings of the archaeological digs on the territory of the South Caucasus suggest that the local architecture
of the Bronze Age (from the third to the first millennium BC) was dominated by three main types
of buildings: cribwork, clay and stone. Of particular note among stone buildings are “cyclopean” structures,
the monumentality of which, as well as the large scale of the respective ancient settlements, make this type
of architecture different from the rest of the monuments found in the South Caucasus.
“Cyclopean” ancient settlements and fortifications contained dwellings, fortified walls and separately
standing fortresses characterized by masonries consisting of large rocks. This building technique was prevalent
in the South Caucasus region beginning from the third millennium BC to the middle of the first millennium
BC, when it was almost fully abandoned. After that time, stone was only used for the foundations
of walls, above which adobe brick was laid. Simultaneously, timber architecture became widespread. Wood
was employed both for wall reinforcement and facing masonry. Small stone and adobe mass were used as
a filler material. It was also at that time that ashlars stone began to be used in construction. In the Middle
Ages, though villages and large settlements in various regions in the South Caucasus were characterized by
dry masonry, no fortresses or fortified systems were built using this construction technique.
Only the sites with dry masonry fortified walls can be considered as ancient “cyclopean” settlements
and fortifications.
The perimeter of such settlements and fortifications coincided with the outline of the site. With a few
exceptions, defense systems and simple fortresses have no towers. The construction of “cyclopean” fortifications
started in 16 th century BC and developed further in the following epoch. The discovery of ancient
“cyclopean” settlements unearthed on the Trialeti plateau can be used to date this type of monument to
41

the 16 th century BC (Beshkenasheni). Sites in Sabechdavi, Knole, Tsritsi, Bareti, Akhaldaba, Losho, and
Armenia prove that “cyclopean” settlements reached dominant position in the period from the 13 th to the
7 th century BC.
The findings of a study on planning and settlement patterns of “cyclopean” sites discovered in Southern
Georgia suggest that five main types exist. One type is large “cyclopean” settlements, which are complex
systems characterized by a strong circuit wall and a citadel, and residential quarters of regular planning.
Usually containing several fortified sections (as in Sabechdavi, Tezi and Losho) or fortified sections surrounded
by an unbroken circuit wall (as in Utsklo, Bareti, Akhaldaba), they follow a principle of central
planning. They also contain an inner fortress, which indicates the separation of the governing class from
the rest of the society. Separately standing fortifications served as strongholds. Defending a specific section,
they also controlled roads running through the areas within “cyclopean” monuments.
Ketevan Ramishvili
Archaeological Research Center of National Museum of Georgia. Georgia
Horse Figurines in Old Georgia and Names Relating to Horse-Breeding in the Georgian Language
Numerous works of minor plastics horse figurines found in Georgia are of particular interest. Despite the
smaller number of such sculptures as compared to deer and Caucasian goat figurines, they provide valuable
evidence on the economic, military, spiritual, and social life of the creative society. Also, the manner of
execution of horse figurines and their attributes suggests high level of craftsmanship.
That the horse has long been present in Georgia and across the Caucasus is attested by bone material
found in the Paleolithic layers in Dmanisi and in Sagvarjile. According to archaeological records, the Caucasian
population domesticated the horse at an early stage of Maikop culture. Remains of domestic horse
and bone cheekpieces have also been unearthed in forest-steppe stripe of Eastern Europe dating from the
third millennium BC. Bone finds from the early Bronze Age sites attest that among other domestic animals,
people inhabiting the territory of Georgia also had horses.
In the Near East, to which Georgian tribes had close ties, horse and horse driven chariot appears in the
fourth millennium BC.
A burial mound, discovered at the village of Doghlauri, provides further evidence of advanced horsebreeding
practice. In it, two horse skeletons, wheel-type bronze cheekpieces, two horsebits and other items
were found. In addition, a horse together with a warrior was also uncovered in the village of Abanoskhevi in
the Aragvi valley; a bronze horse figurine was found at the Shilda shrine; and a horse clay minor sculptures
were uncovered at the Tserovani cemetery. Furthermore, graphical representations of the horse also widely
occur on objects unearthed at the Colchian-Koban culture cemeteries.
On the territory populated by Georgian tribes a horse was seen as a sacred animal and was associated
with the deities of fertility, the sun and the world of heaven. Solar signs, represented on bronze belts, with
which horse representations are adorned, refer to the divine nature of horses. If in the Bronze Age it was
stylized representations that prevailed, beginning from the Classical period, a realistic manner of horse depiction
became pronounced. Examples of this style can be found on Akhalgori temple pendants that bear a
representation of a pair of horses., though stylized rendering was still practiced.
The role of a divine horse, leading among ‘sacred animals,’ became especially obvious in the beginning
of the new millennium. This idea, apart from traditions, was encouraged by the spreading of Mithraism.
A large number of examples of horse representations from this period have been discovered in the Aragvi
valley, at the foothills of the Alazani basin and in the mountains of Kldeeti. My paper makes particular
emphasis on this material evidence.
The work is enclosed with horse and horse-breeding related terminology.
42
ANCIENT GEORGIA

ANCIENT GEORGIA
Nino Gomelauri
G. Chubinashvili National Center of Georgian Art History and Monuments Protection. Georgia
Georgia and Eurasia in the 2 nd -1 st Millennia BC according to Minor Bronze Plastics
Located between Europe and Asia, Georgia has since ancient times been engaged in a variety of historical
and artistic processes, which has found reflection on its material culture, in general, and artistic works,
in particular. Diverse artistic trends which crossed the borders of Georgia and Transcaucasia in pre-historic
times left their mark on the art of the period.
Bronze objects dating from the second to first millennium BC allow us to trace the ties Georgia had with
Anatolia and Persia. Two groups of bronze sculptures discovered in the territory of Georgia provide further
evidence on these relations: One group, dating from the mid-second millennium and found in eastern Georgia
and the entire central Transcaucasia, is genetically akin to the central Anatolian materials dating from
the early Bronze Age; the other group, unearthed in the territory of Georgia, and dating from the second
quarter of the first millennium, finds an affinity with contemporary artistic output of north-west Persia.
The aforementioned ties, according to these materials, have a specific character. The artistic tradition,
which must have arrived from Anatolia, together with a strong wave of ethnic elements, is a certain continuation
of Anatolian tradition. It found a strong foothold in the territory of Georgia and the entire Transcaucasia
and its legacy in eastern Georgia can be traced from the late Bronze Age to the adoption of Christianity.
The artistic trend exported from Persia, however, reflects cultural ties between Georgia and Persia and
compared to Anatolian tradition, is smaller in scope and weaker in terms of its influence.
The materials unearthed on the territory of Tbilisi not only point to the relations between Georgia and
the Persian world but also allow us to locate them within a broader cultural context of Eurasia during the
first millennium BC, reflecting the historical processes related to the increased activities of nomadic tribes
in Eurasia.
Manana Tsereteli
Georgian National Museum. Georgia
Colchian Ritual Axe (Semantics and Artistic Style)
Bronze metallurgy reached its apex in Transcacasia at the end of the second millennium BC and the
beginning of the first millennium BC, which explains the wide spread of artistic metalwork items that
date to this time. The high level of craftsmanship of such pieces points to the presence of workshops
that were staffed with skilled craftsman. A Colchian axe, adorned with zoomorphic figures, seems to be
the most notable example of this varied unity. Referring to abstract ideas and symbolizing visions rather
than depicting real, concrete environment, the images represented are nonfigurative in their essence. Thus,
the major element of stylization of the period is abstractness. Therefore, the representations rendered in
such style shall not be considered as images of specific zoomorphic species but rather as generalized,
fictional images devoid of naturalism at any stage of evolution and of every-day details of life. Zoomorphic
motifs shall in this case be viewed as a general model of a religious world outlook in which various visual
manifestations are adapted to functional needs (Colchian axe and head ornaments) and differ according to
the material employed (bronze, silver and gold).
Despite gradual desacralization, zoomorphic imagery was extensively used by Georgian and Caucasian
artists before the Christian Period. The following are the findings from a semantic and stylistic analysis
of the archaeological evidence belonging to a limited period of time (from the early Iron Age to the late
43

Classical Period) and restricted by a specific theme (zoomorphic representations):
1. The unity of artistic and stylistic features typical of Colchian Bronze culture defines the nature of
not only one artistic phenomenon, but rather the character of the entire pre-Christian art and its further
evolution;
2. An important segment of Bronze culture in Western Transcaucasia in the first millennium BC is
dominated by polymorphic creature images associated in Georgian folklore with one of the most popular
image - a griffon. At the initial stage, this image represented a cosmic tri-hypostatic creature that related to
the three worlds. Over the centuries, the mythological image became simpler and more natural;
3. The diadems dating from early Classical Period are the product of the further transformation of the
expressive correlate of the content formed in the early centuries of the first millennium;
4. A polymorphic, fantastic creature characteristic of early Classicle Period jewelry is replaced by a
figure of identical content – a stylized tree and a rosette;
5. The variants of similar representations recur on late Classical Period head ornaments (Kldeeti,
Gonio and Loo).
Ori Soltes
Georgetown University. USA
Defining Georgianness in Antiquity
By the time history arrives into the last two thousand years or so of pre-Christian antiquity, Georgia is
already establishing itself as a crossroads and meeting point for diverse cultures and traditions. The shaping
of “Georgianness,” both from the perspective of some of those key cultures-notably the early Assyrian,
Achaemenid Persian, the Greek and the Roman-and from the perspective of Georgia herself, is an important
issue. The question of how exactly Georgia is referred to and understood by others and that of how she
interweaves aspects of those others with her own unique personality is continuously being implicitly addressed
throughout this time. What may we infer from stories and traditions that emerge from outside and
within what is becoming Georgia during that long period-and even more so, from the artifacts of diverse
media exhibiting diverse stylistic elements that have emerged archaeologically from so many significant
ancient sites-regarding this double, interwoven issue? How do we distinguish what is Georgian from what
is not, in terms of style, subject and artist identity, across an astonishing array of artifacts? What is set in
motion as a process of synthesis and definition that will continue for the two millennia that carry out of that
era to our own?
Vakhtang Shatberashvili
Archaeological Research Center of National Museum of Georgia. Georgia
Two Painted Glass Jugs from the Village Khovle
Two vessels with gilded and cold painted decorations were found in the village Khovle in 2004. The
decoration on the body divide the vessels into two registers with identical borders above, between and
below. The neck of both vessels contains a gilded inscription in Greek capitals “H XAPIC”, i.e. “Grace”.
The body of the first vessel is divided into five vertical, equal parts via the arches outlined with reddishbrown
paint. The figure depicted in this (pl.I-1e) first arch must be the young, beardless Dionysus. Figures
depicted in the second (pl.I-1d, pl.II-1) and third (pl.I-1c) archs are not yet identified. The figure depicted in
44
ANCIENT GEORGIA

ANCIENT GEORGIA
the fourth arch (pl.I-1b) is Pan. The figure illustrated in the fifth arch (pl.I-1f) expresses the mad Lycurgus.
The second vessel is divided in two scenes. In the first scene Belerophon is sitting on Pegasus (pl.I-c,
pl.II-2) while fighting the chimera (pl.I-2b). The other scene (pl.I-2d) depicts a woman sitting on the knees
of a man. The kneeling figure can be identified as Belerophon and the woman must be interpreted as
princess Phylonoe.An exact parallel of the ewers is kept at the Corning Museum of Glass. Its shape and
painting technology is fully analogous to the Khovle vessels and contains the same inscription on the
neck. A fragment in white glass and painted with the same technology was found in Dura Europos and at
Tanais excavations. It is assumed these vessels were made in the same workshop, even by the same master
around the end of the second or beginning of the third century AD in Antioch-on-Orontes. Notwithstanding
whether the hypothesis concerning their place of production is right or wrong, it is proved with confidence
that the five vessels from Khovle, Kerch, Tanais and Dura Europos were produced at the same workshop,
if not by one single master.
Tamaz Sanikidze
G. Chubinashvili National Center of Georgian Art History and Monuments Protection. Georgia
About the Main Stages in the History of the Rock-Carved Town of Uplistsikhe
The first sign of human activity on the cliff of Uplistsikhe can be traced to the beginning of the first
millennium BC. It was at that time that the formation of a theocratic community, later to reach hegemony in
Shida (Inner) Kartli, began (it is assumed that before Mtskheta, Uplistsikhe had been the capital of Kartli).
At the end of the fourth and the beginning of the third century BC, this long process was culminated by the
construction of the capital, the overall appearance and separate structures of which have been discovered
after excavating and cleaning the area.
The city was divided into three parts. Its urban and functional structure fully agrees with Strabo’s note,
which stated that one of the theocratic communities in the South Caucasus consisted of pagan priests,
theophorites (free servants of the cult) and hierodules (temple slaves).
On the west, the city was guarded by a steep cliff and on the east and the north by a strong wall. It had
four gates, a tunnel leading down to the Mtkvari River and a defensive ditch with a broad platform.
The caves made in the period of Antiquity can be classified into three distinct typological groups: i)
temples with a vaulted portico, characterized by a semi-circular vault topped by an open portico with
closed room(s) behind and an open yard-hall in front, of which simple and complex variants exist; ii) halltype
temples characterized by a hall with a flat ceiling and an open yard-hall in its front; iii) round, domed
temples.
Rock-carved temples followed the rules of aboveground (stone and timber) architecture. Pillars, pilasters,
bases, capitals, arches, vaults, beams, and caissons were widely used. Thus, a wide repertoire of building
art was employed.
During its six to seven hundred years of existence, the city lived a continuously vibrant life, which can
be evidenced by written records and rich archaeological material uncovered on the site.
But with the adoption of Christianity in the country, the role and significance of Uplistsikhe reduced
significantly. In the sixth century, however, a new revival of the site began. A large three-nave basilica,
partly carved in cliff, was constructed and former temples were converted into dwellings, some of which
were double-storied.
In the ninth to tenth century, Uplistsikhe became a prominent city and a citadel, which united all the
45

forces fighting for the unification of the country. A three-nave basilica in honor of the prince was constructed
in the centre of the city in the 10 th century.
The 1230s saw the end of this long period of advancement in Uplistsikhe. ”And it was a city until
Genghis,” said the 18 th century historian and geographer, Prince Vakushti Bagrationi. This period was
followed by an irrevocable decline. In the late Middle Ages, the city’s structures became a monastery
belonging to Svetitskhoveli at Mtskheta, and were later passed on from one king or feudal lord to another.
Beginning in the 19 th century, the city was finally deserted.
Regular archaeological investigations of the site commenced in 1957 and continue to the present day.
Mariam Gvelesiani
Georgian National Museum. Georgia
For the Interpretation of an Anthropomorphic Figure from Katlanikhevi
The Great Mother of Nature or the female deity associated with femininity used to be worshipped as the
“Great Mother Nana” in Georgia. “Nana”, which derives from the Sumerian goddess “Innana”, as well as
its transliterated forms-Nano, Ana, Nena, Nino, Nina and Nane- means “mother” in Persian, Armenian, Tatar,
Tajik, Turkish as well as west Georgian dialects. That this cult was worshipped in the Chalcolithic Age
(fifth millennium BC) is evidenced by female anthropomorphic, so-called “naturalistic”, figurines from
Khramis Didi-Gora, which are considered to be images of the Great Mother, guardian of nature. They find
parallels with contemporaneous figurines unearthed in Mesopotamia, Persia, Asia Minor, and Armenia.
It has been accepted in scientific literature that the hypostasis of the Sun-woman, which ranks second
in the triad of ancient Georgian deities (God – the moon, the Sun-Woman and Kviria) is the Great Mother
Nana. Consequently, the latter is perceived as a female deity associated with the Sun. Therefore according
to archaeological inventory, worship of its cult is linked to solar attributes (circular shrines, spindleweights,
cart wheels, disco-shaped items, etc).
The theory of sameness of the cult of Nana and the Sun deity was developed based on the findings of a
mono-disciplinary study, namely the analysis of ethnographic evidence, and without the consideration of a
systemic line of the genesis, development, transformation and synchronization of Mother Nana in a broader
context of culture and civilizations. Such approach has therefore yielded results different from those adopted
in international scholarly circles, where the correlation between this well-known female deity and the
Moon, rather than the Sun, is supported by sound arguments. The supposition that Nana/Innana (the same
as Ishtar) is the female deity associated with the Moon in the civilizations neighboring Georgia is backed by
the iconography of Nana/Innana’s Persian correlate Anahita, her Greek correlate during the Hellenic period,
Artemid, and her Central Asian correlate, the deity Nano, in the form of a crescent above the heads of the
figures of these divinities.
Clay hot-reliefs with female heads found in the first structure of Katlanikhevi at the ancient settlement
of Uplistsikhe are considered by Prof. D. Khakhutaishvili as works of ritual fine arts. The scholar makes
particular note of the Great Mother Nana in his analysis of the disco-shaped items unearthed together,
which he associates with the material manifestation of the solar cult. Of special note is a small ox figurine
found nearby, which offers evidence suggesting an entirely different interpretation of the identification of
the figurine as the Great Mother Nana (identification with the moon).
46
ANCIENT GEORGIA

ANCIENT GEORGIA
Teimuraz Bibiluri
Mtskheta State Archaeological Museum. Georgia
Temple of Apollo in Great Mtskheta
Many of the key points from the history of Greater Mtskheta of the time when it was the capital remain
largely unaddressed to the present day. Strangely enough, this is also true for the history of that very spot in
Greater Mtskheta where the Svetitskhoveli Cathedral stands.
According to Georgian chronicles (Conversion of Georgia, The Life of St Nino, and The Life of Georgian
Kings by Leonti Mroveli), at least through the 320-330s, royal gardens, also referred to as the “King’s
Eden”, stood at this location, and the first church (or at least the pillars) on this spot was built by using a
local tree, namely a cedar of Lebanon or a cypress.
Byzantine authors (Rufinus, Socrates, Sozomen) only refer to the building of a church, but Syrian and
Coptic manuscripts substantially revise the information given in Georgian-Byzantine records. The compilation
of these data suggests that Apollo’s Oracle with marble columns (it is impossible to establish its function
from the Coptic synaxarion) stood in front of the building of a Christian church and it was the “removal
of these columns and their placement in the chancel barrier that they wanted but failed to (Synodic text from
the Borji papyrus); “... the virgin pleaded to Jesus Christ and after that the columns shifted themselves into
the church”.
The note given in these written sources is further supported by Corinthian capitals of the second century
AD unearthed in the sanctuary of Svetitskhoveli. (Remember - the marble columns were to be placed in the
chancel barrier.)
The existence of Apollo’s Oracle in the King’s Eden is evidenced by the grave in stone box uncovered
nearby, which contains highly interesting inventory, including a writing tool, the silver case of which was
adorned with a gilt relief of nine muses (Apollo – Musagete) arranged in three friezes. Furthermore other
arguments for its existence include the healing of the highest ecclesiastical authority in the country bearing
a theophoric name, “Khvara” (the Sun), given by St Nino in “Eden” and not by blackberry bushes as
was the case with others, including the Queen; the origin of the name of the female guardian of the Eden,
Anistos from the Greek onomastics, etc.
Comparing the existing data and taking into account respective parallels, it is reasonable to assume that
i) the sun worshipping was an official religion of the Kingdom of Kartli; ii) temples worshipping the sun
were located in the close vicinity to Svetitskhoveli Cathedral and Barbareti Church.
Amiran Kakhidze
Batumi State University and the Archaeological Museum. Georgia
Michael Vickers
Jesus College, Oxford. Great Britain
Trade, Economic and Cultural Connections between Athens and Colchis in the Classical Period
(According to the Material Obtained by the Joint Georgian-British Expedition to Pitchvnari)
The Hellenic ethnos, which seems to have been related to Athos – the centre of mainland Greece – first
appeared at the ancient settlement of Pitchvnari in the early Classical period. Beginning from that time and
throughout the Classical period, Attica enjoyed hegemony in the realm of commercial and cultural relations.
Samples of especially rich and diverse material culture have been obtained by the joint Georgian-
British expedition to Pitchvnari during its ten years of research. The most notable in this regard is a Greek
47

necropolis of the fifth to fourth century BC, which is incredibly unique in the eastern coast of the Pontos
and moreover, in the Transcaucasia.
More than four hundred finely preserved graves and dozens of ritual squares-from which plain and
painted Attic vases, Ionic and Colchian ceramics, jewelry and toreutics, colour glassware and numismatic
objects were unearthed-have been studied. Evidence shows that the Colchians and the Hellenic community
of Pitchvnari coexisted peacefully and had close ties with each other in the fifth to fourth century BC. The
Hellenes also acted as mediators in the metropolis, between such cities as Athens and other centres of the
Black Sea littoral, in the sphere of commercial and cultural relations.
Nino Dzneladze
Batumi State University and the Archaeological Museum. Georgia
Greek Painted Pottery from Pitchvnari
Painted pottery, including custom-made and serial samples, was discovered in Pitchvnari. Minor items
of pottery were essential attributes of funerary rites. (The Attic and Biotic tradition of placing lekithoi in a
grave was a practice also familiar to the Pitchvnari Greek community and through them to the local population).
Thematically selected painted pottery with the images of mythological characters and scenes are an
important part of the burial inventory.
The material uncovered in 1987-2007, can be broken into three thematic groups. These are representations
of mythological characters and scenes, their allegorical images and scenes of religious rituals. Painted
pottery also has been discovered in the Colchian cemetery of Pitchvnari, which suggests that the local
population had also adopted this form of Greek funerary rite.
Tamar Shalikadze, Tariel Ebralidze
Batumi State University and the Archaeological Museum. Georgia
Commercial and Cultural Ties between Gonio-Apsaros and the Western Mediterranean
The majority of the imported objects unearthed in Gonio-Apsaros include red-varnished pottery, oil
lamps and ceramic containers, such as amphorae and glass items, which had been produced in various
Western Mediterranean workshops. Gonio-Apsaros is a site where red-varnished ceramic items of western
origin, including various vessels and oil lamps, were discovered for the first time on the Georgian coast.
The unearthed objects date from the second to third quarter of the first century AD and the early second
century.
Ceramic containers, such as Italic amphorae, also provide valuable information for the study of relations
with various workshops of Western Europe. The production and export of ceramics prevailed in the period
from the first century BC to the first century AD. Amphorae of this type are very rare in the eastern Black
Sea littoral, while they are more common in Apsaros. Uncovered inlaid glass phialai, also dating from the
second and third quarters of the first century AD, seem to have been produced in the western Mediterranean.
It is most likely that Western European products arrived in Apsaros because of military contingent displacements.
However, the possibility of direct supply of these products, and in particular of Italic amphorae,
from the West to Apsaros at an early stage cannot be totally ruled out.
48
ANCIENT GEORGIA

ANCIENT GEORGIA
Merab Khalvashi
Batumi State University and the Archaeological Museum. Georgia
Imported Amphorae at Pitchvnari
The study of the amphorae discovered in ancient cemeteries and cities (Kios, Thassos, Lesbos, Mende,
Heraclea, Sinope, etc) has yielded substantial evidence that help to establish a type and intensity of relations
that the region had with the outside world.
The import of amphorae into Pitchvnari is related to the Greek settlement founded that was following
the Attic colonization. The materials unearthed on the settlement site and the necropolis related to it, suggest
that the import of amphorae began in Pitchvnari in the 470-460s BC and lasted until approximately
330 BC. The relations were characterised by different degrees of intensity becoming relatively regular
from the first quarter of the fifth century BC. In the early years of the third quarter and in the fourth quarter
Colchis was engaged in intensive relations with the outside world. Kios and Thassos played a key role in
this relationship.
The statistical correlation between the amphorae found in fifth to fourth century Greek cemeteries and
those unearthed in the fifth century Colchian cemeteries confirms the presence of commercial ties between
the aforementioned centres and the Greek colony of Pitchvnari. It appears that the works reached the local
population thanks to the trade ties with Greek communities.
Irine Varshalomidze
Batumi State University and the Archaeological Museum. Georgia
Roman Coins from Gonio-Apsaros
Gonio-Apsaros is one of the most important sites of the southeast Black Sea littoral. Numismatic finds
provide a primary source for the study of political and commercial characteristics of urban life in Apsaros.
From 1995 to 2007, the archaeological expedition at Gonio-Apsaros unearthed more than 150 Roman
coins. The study of these coins offers the following findings on the political and commercial connections
relevant to the flow of coins to the region:
The first group comprises 29 coins from the first century, 15 of which were struck in Antioch, four in the
kingdom of Pontus, two in Rome, two in Lugdunum, and one each in Bosporus, Judea, Gadara and Ephesus.
Most of the coins are of copper. Numismatic evidence points to the political and economic relations
between Apsaros and Syria during the second half of the first century;
The second group is represented by 36 coins minted in the second century, of which 15 were struck in
Rome, 13 in Caesarea, two in eastern mint, three in Trebizond, and one in Neocaesarea. Most of these coins
are of silver;
The third group united 38 coins, of which 23 were minted in Caesarea, five in Rome, three in Trebizond,
two in Thessalonica and one in Sinope.
The period between the first and the third centuries saw the advance of urban life. The study of the numismatic
evidence has shown that Apsaros was then under the influence of Asia Minor. It also appears that
it had most intense political and economic relations with Cappadocia and the southern cities and towns of
the Black Sea coast.
49

50
ANCIENT GEORGIA
Shota Mamuladze, Emzar Kakhidze
Batumi State University and the Archaeological Museum. Georgia
Apsaros – The Roman Cultural Centre at the Eastern Black Sea Coast
Southwest Georgia has two important centres of the Antiquity: Pitchvnari and Apsaros. The site
of Pitchvnari emerged as a result of Greek colonization, in the fifth century BC. There is enough
archaeological evidence to assume that local and Greek communities had close economic and
cultural relations, which were further reinforced in the Hellenistic period.
Built in the last quarter of the first century AD, the fort Apsaros served military and strategic
purposes for the Romans and, therefore, was less engaged in contacts with the local population.
Various structures of the fort (barracks, principia) reveal a profound influence of the Colchian
building tradition, which is due to specific local climate. However, a negligible portion of the
archaeological evidence we obtained also shows the influence of local pottery traditions.
It is obvious that Roman culture had a much broader impact. This can be attested by a wellknown
treasure of Gonio, which dates from the first to second century AD. However, it is difficult
to observe Roman influence on ceramics, as opposed to objects dating from the Classical and
Hellenistic periods in which the impact of those cultures is more pronounced.

II seqcia
Sua saukuneebis
saqarTvelo

kristofer haasi
vilanovas universiteti. aSS
ioane zedazneli: qarTveli wmindani siriul asketur tradiciaSi
meeqvse saukunis pirvel naxevarSi, saqarTveloSi qristianobaze Zlieri zegavlena
moaxdina axladSemotanilma monasticizmma. es ukavSirdeba iberiis dedaqalaq mcxeTaSi
wm. ioane zedaznelis da misi 12 mowafis Camosvlas, romlebic qarTuli tradiciaSi
aTcameti asureli mamis saxeliT arian cnobilni. wm. ioanes mowafeebi male mimoifantnen
mTels iberiaSi da maTi winamZRvris mgavsad, asketur cxovrebas, saswaulmoqmedebas da
saxarebis qadagebas Seudgnen.
zogierTi avtoris mtkicebiT, asureli mamebi ara sirieli, aramed qarTvelebi
iyvnen, romelTac siriul asketizmTan hqoniaT kavSiri. sxvani maT ganixilaven, rogorc
monofizitebs, romlebic iustinesa da iustinianes mier antiqalkedonelebis devnas
gamoeqcnen. aRniSnuli berebis warmoSobisa da xasiaTis kvlevisaTvis mniSvnelovania
asurel mamaTa Soris erT-erTi yvelaze cnobili beris - wm. ioane zedaznelis swavlebisa
da asketuri cxovrebis analizi. rogorc asurel mamaTa sulieri winamZRvari, wm. ioane
zedazneli maTTvis Tavisi cxovrebis asketuri wesiT mniSvnelovan magaliTs da maTi
swavlebis mniSvnelovan pirvelwyaros warmoadgenda.
moxsenebis sagania wm.ioane zedaznelis cxovrebisa da qadagebis amsaxveli adreuli
wyaroebi, romlebic Sedarebulia adreul siriul wyaroebTan, rac miznad isaxavs meeqvse
saukunis saqarTveloSi samonastro cxovrebis wamowyebaTa da maTi savaraudo siriuli
fesvebis kavSirTa gamovlenas. amasTn, moxseneba aseve ikvlevs wm. ioane zedaznelis
adgils qarTuli istoriuli cnobierebis CamoyalibebaSi, da im xerxebs, romelic mas
ukvdavhyofs qarTul ikonografiasa da kedlis mxatvrobaSi.
aleqsei lidovi
ruseTis saxviTi xelovnebis akademia. ruseTi
aRmosavleT qristianuli “gamosaxuleba-paradigma”: hierotopuli ganzomileba Sua
saukuneebis xelovnebis istoriaSi
moxsenebaSi ganxilulia aRmosavleTqristianuli xelovnebis istoriisadmi
axali midgoma, romelic kavSirSia qarTuli kulturisa da xelovnebis Seswavlis
meTodologiur aspeqtebTan. upirveles yovlisa, SevexebiT avtoris mier axlaxans
SemoTavazebul da mecnierTa saerTaSoriso jgufis mier sxvadasxva publikaciebSi
SemuSavebul hierotopiis (sakraluri sivrceebis Seqmna) koncefcias. am kvlevam
mniSvnelovani Teoriuli sakiTxi warmoaCina. mraval SemTxvevaSi vizualuri kulturis
ganxilva ar unda dadiodes mxolod nimuSis pozitivistur aRwerasa an misi Teologiuri
Sinaarsis analizze. zogierTi fenomenis ganxilva SesaZlebelia mxolod gamosaxulebaideis
doneze, rasac Cven “gamosaxuleba-paradigmas” vuwodebT da rac ar warmoadgens
arc sailustracio suraTs da arc ideologiur koncefcias.
es cneba erTgvari gamosadegi instrumentum studiorum-i unda iyos, rac fenomenis
garkveuli Sreebis gagebaSi gvexmareba. gamosaxuleba-paradigma ar warmoadgens romelime
konkretuli teqstis ilustracias, Tumca is erTgvari gagrZelebaa werilobiTi da
simboluri Sinaarsisa da asociaciebisa. amgvari saxiTmetyveleba gansxvavdeba imisagan,
rasac ikonografiuli xerxi ewodeba. imdenad, ramdenadac gamosaxuleba-paradigma
52
Sua saukuneebis saqarTvelo

Sua saukuneebis saqarTvelo
xiluli da cnobadia, is vizualur kulturas miekuTvneba, Tumca mas dadgenili forma
ar hqonia, arc mxatvruli saxis da arc mentaluri struqturis TvalsazrisiT. am
TvalsazrisiT gamosaxuleba-paradigma metaforas hgavs, romelic azrs kargavs misi
gardaTxrobis, gameorebis an danawevrebis SemTxvevaSi. is exeba ara raime mistikur,
aramed specifikur cnobierebas, romelic zogierT simbolur struqturas da uamrav
konkretul mxatvrul motivsac gansazRvravs. amasTanave, is angrevs Cvens fundametur
meTodologiur damokidebulebas gamosaxulebisadmi, rogorc ilustraciisadmi da
sibrtyobrivi suraTisadmi. moxsenebaSi Cven ganvixilavTzogierT aRmosavleTqristianul
“gamosaxuleba-paradigmas~ da maT Soris ramdenime umniSvnelovanes qarTul
magaliTsac.
ekaterine gedevaniSvili, marine yenia
g. CubinaSvilis sax. qarTuli xelovnebis istoriis da ZeglTa dacvis erovnuli
kvlevis centri. saqarTvelo
sityvisa da gamosaxulebis urTierTmimarTebis sakiTxisaTvis Sua saukuneebis qarTul
kedlis mxatvrobaSi
wminda xatebaTa Sinaarsis gaxsnaSi, saxviTi xerxebis garda, arsebiTi roli
gamosaxulebaTa Tanmdev warwerebs eniWeba. ga mosaxulebisa da teqstis urTierTmimarTebis
sakiTxs Sua saukuneebis sa x viT xelovnebaSi araerTi ucxoeli mkvlevaris naSromi mie-
ZRvna (b. Se le valdi, l. brubei keri, h. maguaieri, r. nelsoni da sxvani).
qarTul mecnierebaSi, mxatvrobis ikonografiuli programis anali zi sas, Cveulebriv,
sagangebo yuradReba eTmoba calkeul scenaTa gan mar tebiT warwerebs, winaswarmetyvelTa
da wm. eklesiis mamaTa gragnile bisa Tu satriumfo TaRebis warwerebs,
romelTa gaTvaliswinebiT moxatulo bis saerTo Teologiuri idea ixsneba (T. vi rsalaZe,
a. volskaia, e. pri va lo va, i. lorTqifaniZe, a. oqropiriZe, m. dide bu liZe, z.
sxi rtlaZe da sxvani).
qarTvel mkvlevarTa mier damuSavebuli masala Tu bolodro indeli kvlevis
Sedegebi am problemis sagangebo Seswavlisa da monacem Ta kla sifikaciis saSualebas
iZleva. winaswaruli daskvnebis safuZ velze Sem degi “funqciuri” jgufebis gamoyofaa
SesaZlebeli:
• martivi, lakoniuri ganmartebiTi warwerebi, romlebic gamosaxule bis raobas an
vinaobas aRniSnavs - es yvelaze farTod gavrcelebu li tipis warwe rebia, romlebic,
erTi mxriv, sacnaurs xdis gamo saxulebas da, amasTan, mis pirvelsaxesTan mistikur
kavSirs mow mobs.
• gavrcobili, TxrobiTi ganmartebiTi warwerebi, romlebic ara mxolod azustebs,
damatebiTi niuansebiTac amdidrebs gamosaxule bis sazriss. maTgan SeiZleba gamoiyos
- e.w. “memorialuri” mni Svnelobis warwerebi (mag., martvilobis scenaTa ganmartebani),
rom lebic si ty vieri formiT avrcobs gamosaxulebis Sinaarss; ase ve Se darebiT iSviaTi
tipis warwerebi, romlebsac pirobiTad “fsiqo logiuri” SeiZleba vuwodoT - amgvari
ganmartebani, Tavisi mxa tvruli formiT, mnaxvels/mkiTxvels gamosaxuli movlenis
Tanamo na wiled aq cevs.
• warwerebi, romlebic moxatulobaTa ikonografiul programaSi sa gan gebo
Teologiur maxvilebs gamokveTs. am tipisaa, mag., rogorc calkeuli gamosaxulebis
Tanmdevi warwerebi, ise mxatvrobis saer To ansambl Si CarTuli liturgiuli te qstebi,
citatebi Tu pere frazebi saRmrTo werilidan (winaswarmetyvelTa, wm. eklesiis mama Ta
gragni lebis teqstebi Tu satriumfo TaRebis warwerebi) - am warweraTa erTobliobiT
53

54
Sua saukuneebis saqarTvelo
ixsneba mxatvrobis dogmatur-simboluri sazrisi.
warweraTa zemoxsenebuli jgufebis gavrcelebis qronologiuri sa zRv rebi vrcelia,
mravalferovania maTi gamoyenebis wesic: zogan erTi ro melime “funqciis” warwerebia
warmodgenili, romlis Tanadrouladac ramdenime “funqciuri” jgufis Tanaarse boba
dasturdeba.
ori soltesi
jorjTaunis universiteti. aSS
“raindobis” xelovneba da misi konteqsti
“vefxistyaosani” qarTuli erovnuli eposis tipiuri nimuSia. moxsenebaSi warmodgenili
iqneba sami erTmaneTTan mWidrod dakavSirebuli sakiTxi. pirveli aris is, Tu ratom aris
poema eposi, romelic Sinaarsisa da stilis mixedviT SesaniSnavad jdeba dasavluri eposis
tradiciis istoriaSi, moyolebuli uZvelesi aRmosavleTidan da gilgameSis eposidan,
damTavrebuli italiuri aRorZinebiTa da tasos “ierusalimi mirTmeuliaTi”. moxseneba
aseve exeba im sakiTxs, Tu ra aris eposaTvis saxasiaTo elementebi - saxismetyveleba, riTmis
forma, sagmiro ganwyoba, erTmaneTSi Caqsovili sasiyvarulo da sabrZolo pasaJebi, RvTiuri
gangebis roli; aseve imas, Tu rogor aris yovelive es asaxuli qarTul poemaSi. meore
sakiTxi ukavSirdeba imas, Tu ramdenad unikalurad qarTulia poema, romelic qarTuli
kulturis Rirebulebebsa da Taviseburebebs asaxavs; rogoria gmiris buneba kulturuli
da religiuri TvalsazrisiT, da rogor asaxavs Tavad gmiri da misi istoriiT wamoWrili
kiTxvebi im socialurad da religiurad mravalferovan garemos, romelSic poema Seiqmna.
sxvagvarad rom vTqvaT, ramdenad asaxavs “vefxistyaosani” qarTul bunebas, Semwynareblobas
da sxvadasxva kulturaTa da tradiciaTa gadakveTaze myofi qveynis xasiaTs. zemoaRniSnuli
ori sakiTxi safuZvels udebs mesames, romelic Seexeba eposis mxatvrul gaformebas
-miniaturebsa da ilustraciebs, romlebic (zemoxsenebuli ori sakiTxis gaTvaliswinebiT)
aseve mosalodnelia, rom sxvadasxva gavlenebsa da imavdroulad adgilobriv niSnebs
asaxavdes. moxsenebaSi ganxiluli iqneba vefxistyaosnis XV-XVIII saukuneebis miniaturebi
msgavseba amave periodis iranul, Turqul da evropul gamosaxulebebTan, da is sakiTxic,
Tu maTgan romeli SeiZleba SevadaroT “vefxistyaosnis” mxatvrul gaformebas da ratom.
mariam didebuliZe
g. CubinaSvilis sax. qarTuli xelovnebis istoriis da ZeglTa dacvis erovnuli
kvlevis centri. saqarTvelo
saero tendenciebi Tamaris epoqis kulturaSi da Tanadrouli kedlis mxatvroba
sayovelTaodaa aRiarebuli, rom Tamaris epoqis qarTul kulturaSi SeiniSneba saero
ganwyobis sagrZnobi gaZliereba, rac yvelaze naTlad SoTa rusTvelis saxelganTqmul
“vefxistyaosanSi” aisaxa da safuZveli misca mkvlevarebs “aRmosavluri renesansis”
idea wamoeyenebinaT. msgavsi tendenciebi bizantiuri samyaros sxva nawilebSic iCens
Tavs, gansakuTrebiT konstantinopolsa da masTan daaxloebul wreebSi.
Tumca mainc sakamaToa, ramdenad SeiZleba im drois qarTul saxviT xelovnebaSi
renesansuli mxatvruli tendenciebis amokiTxva dasavleTevropuli gagebiT.
marTlac, Tu Tamaris epoqis kedlis mxatvrobis nimuSebis mixedviT, gansakuTrebiT ki
maTi programebis SemadgenlobiT vimsjelebT, romlebSic marTlmadideblobis triumfisa
da mwvaleblobebTan dapirispirebis ideebi Warbobs, da romlebic ganmartoebul
savaneebsa da asketuri monastrebis taZrebs amkobs, grZnobad-sagnobrivisa da miwieri
sawyisis prioriteti nakleb SeigrZnoba.
Tu maincdamainc, saubari ufro individualur-pirovnulis gamZafrebul gancdaze

Sua saukuneebis saqarTvelo
SeiZleba, romelic kvlav RmerTTan ufro Rrma mistikuri kavSirisken ltolvaze
miuTiTebs.
xelovnebis nimuSebi Tamaris drois adamianTa fsiqologiis saintereso xedvas
gvTavazobs - erTgvarad gaorebulsa da ambivalenturs, RmerTis mistikuri wvdomis
gamZafrebuli gancdiT da, amvadroulad, amqveyniuris “danaxviT”, Tumca saeklesio
xelovnebaSi “es qveyana” gaiazreba swored rogorc uflis qmnileba da misi madliT
gamSvenierebuli.
pavlos florentosi
siZveleTa departamenti. kviprosi
bizantiuri mozaika da kedlis mxatvroba kviprosis taZrebSi
kviprosze qristianobis gavrcelebas Tan axlda iatakis da kedlis mozaikiT
mdidrulad morTuli taZrebis mSenebloba. mozaikis nimuSebia panagia kanakariasa da
panagia angeloktistosis taZrebis VI saukunis sakurTxevlis mozaikebi RmrTismSobel
mariamis gamosaxulebiT.arabTa SemosevebiT gamowveuli dacemis xangrZlivi periodis
Semdeg, kunZuli kvlav moeqca bizantiis mmarTvelobis qveS, ramac xeli Seuwyo
konstantinopolis gavleniT aRbeWdili xelovnebis gavrcelebas. XI-XII saukuneebSi,
kviprosi ayvavebis axal xanaSi Sevida, rac naTlad aisaxa kunZulis mTel teritoriaze
eklesia-monastrebis mSeneblobaSi. kedlis mxatvrobis iseTi nimuSebi, rogoricaa
panagia forviotisa panagia tu arakosi, aios nikolaos tis stegis da aios ioanis
lapmpaditis im periodis konstantinopolur, kerZod komnenosTa xelovnebis stilTan
mWidro kavSirze miuTiTebs.
frankebis samefom, romelic kviprosSi 1192 wlidan darsda qveyanaSi dasavluri tipis
feodaluri sistema Semoitana. kedlis mxatvrobis mravali Zegli - panagia forviotisa,
aios nikolaos tis stegis, panagia (moutoulasi) da wminda jvari asaxavs qtitorebs,
romelTac dasavluri yaidis samosi acviaT.
veneciis mmarTvelobis periodSi (1472-1571) mTavarangeloz miqaelisa da wminda
jvris agiasmatis taZrebis kedlis mxatvroba siaxloves amJRavnebs konstantinopolSi
gavrcelebul paleologosur stilTan, aseve zogierTi niSniT enaTesaveba e.w.
“jvarosanTa” xelovnebas, romelic ZiriTadad dasavleTidan wamosuli ostatebis mier
bizantiuri mxatvrobis adgilobrivi tradiciebis safuZvelze SemuSavda palestiSi.
da bolos, veneciuri mmarTvelobis dros kedlis mxatvroba ori mimarTulebiT
ganviTarda. erTi mxriv, panagia podiTous mxatvroba misdevs kviprosis italo-bizantiur
skolas, romelmac moaxdina klasikuri bizantiuri elementebis sinTezi italiuri
aRorZinebis niSnebTan, meore mxriv, macxovris feriscvalebis taZris moxatuloba
asaxavs individualurad gamomJRavnebul paleologosur reminiscenciebs.
aleqsandra davidov temerinski
kulturuli memkvidreobis dacvis instituti. serbeTi
esqatologia, ideologia da konteqstualizacia: saSineli samsjavros scenebi deCanSi,
axtalasa da timoTesubanSi
saSineli samsjavros unikalur da gavrcobil cikls, romliTac morTulia deCanis
monastris kaTolokonis pantokratoris taZris naosis dasavleT nawili, uaxloesi
paraleli saqarTveloSi, ufro adreuli taZrebis - axtalisa (1205-1216) da timoTesubnis
55

(1205-1215) moxatulobaSi moepoveba. am moxsenebaSi am fenomenis axsnas Sevecdebi.
saqarTvelosa da serbeTs Soris arsebuli geografiuli daSorebisa da Sua saukuneebSi
am or saxelmwifos Soris politikuri da kulturuli urTierTobebis arqonisas
erTgvar mxatvrul „gacvla-gamocvlaze“ saubari gamoricxulia. deCanis, axtalisa da
timoTesubnis taZrebis saSineli samsjavros msgavseba SeiZleba aixsnas am taZrebis
moxatvis droisaTvis serbeTisa da saqarTvelosaTvis saerTo, msgavsi ideologiuri
konteqstiT. am sami Zeglidan arcerTSi ar aris aqcentirebuli didaqtikuri an moraluri
mxare, Tumca, rogorc wesi, es mogviano bizantiuri xelovnebis bolo periodis «saSinel
samsjavroTa» erT-erTi yvelaze damaxasiaTebeli niSania. bizantiuri magaliTebisgan
gansxvavebiT, serbul da qarTul ZeglebSi xazgasmulia WeSmaritebis dogmaturi arsi
da marTlmadidebluri rwmena.
moxsenebis mizania, aseve, kvlav gadavxedoT Cvens codnas bizantiur xelovnebasa
da kulturaSi «saSineli samsjavros» gamosaxulebis Sesaxeb. imis gamo, rom aRniSnuli
kompozicia, rogorc wesi, taZris dasavleT nawilSi gamoisaxeboda, is ki, Tavis mxriv,
yvelaze xSirad ganicdida ngrevasa da aRdgenas, monumentur ferweraSi saSineli
samsjavros scenis ganviTareba da Camoyalibebis xazi Tu mTilanad ara, nawilobriv
mainc, ucnobi rCeba. amdenad, am scenis ueWveli „tipiuri niSnebis“ gansazRvrisas jer
kidev mravali kiTxva Cndeba, romelTac pasuxi meti sifrTxiliT unda gaeces.
ida sinkeviCi
lafaiet koleji. aSS
freskuli xatebi qarTul da bizantiur monumentur xelovnebaSi: maTi arsi da
mniSvneloba
rogorc bizantiis, ise misi gavlenis qveS myofi qveynebis monumentur xelovnebaSi
vxvdebiT kedelze daxatul, freskul e.w. fiqtiur xatebs. aRniSnul xatebs, romlebic XI
saukunidan Cndeba, wriuli an oTxkuTxa forma aqvs. xsenebuli gamosaxulebebi wmindanTa
figurebs xatis realisturad gadmocemul CarCoSi warmogvindens. realuri, dasakidi
xatis imitaciis Sesaqmnelad CarCoebze xSirad Camosakidi kavis gamosaxulebasac ki
vxvdebiT.
qarTuli Zeglebis garda, aRniSnul freskul xatebs vxvdebiT oxridis wm. sofias
eklesiaSi, baCkovos monasteris saZvleSi, kievis wm. kiriles monasterSi, jurjevi
stupovSi, nerezSi da mistras eklesiebSi. miuxedavad imisa, rom cnobebis simcire xels
uSlis am gamosaxulebebis warmoSobisa da pirvelwyaros dazustebiT gansazRvras,
maTi gavrcelebis farTo geografiuli areali: makedoniidan - serbeTamde, ruseTidan
- saqarTvelomde, warmoSobs varauds, rom aRniSnuli xatebis saTuo, Tumca SesaZlo
warmoSobis adgilad bizantiis dedaqalaqi - konstantinopoli unda ganvixiloT.
kalender hane jameSi msgavsi xatebis arseboba aRniSnul mosazrebas ufro sarwmunos
xdis.
eklesiis moxatulobaSi e.w. fiqtiuri xatebis gamosaxvas ufro xSirad xsnian, rogorc
mcdelobas moqmedebis adgilis moniSvnisa da xatis sakraluri mniSvnelobis xazgasmisa.
es dasturdeba qarTuli nimuSebiTac, Tumca qarTuli eklesiebis: berTubnis, beTaniis
da yincvisis moxatulobaSi arsebuli magaliTebi aRniSnul xatebs damatebiT Sinaarssa
da mniSvnelobas sZens. moxsenebis mizania saqarTvelos eklesiebis moxatulobaSi
arsebuli freskuli xatebis kvleva da Sua saukuneebis xelovnebasa da kulturaSi maTi
mravalmxrivi kulturuli rolis gansazRvra da Sefaseba.
56
Sua saukuneebis saqarTvelo

Sua saukuneebis saqarTvelo
irine mamaiaSvili
g. CubinaSvilis sax. qarTuli xelovnebis istoriis da ZeglTa dacvis erovnuli
kvlevis centri. saqarTvelo
postbizantiuri mxatvrobis tendenciebi XVI s-is qarTul monumentur mxatvrobaSi
XVI s-is qarTuli monumenturi mxatvrobis ZeglebSi sxvadasxva mxatv ruli tendencia
aRiniSneba. XV s-is bolos da XVI s-is dasawyisSi, mZime poli tikur da socialur
pirobebSi, rodesac profesiul mxatvarTa ricxvi aSka rad Semcirebulia, Zlierdeba
e.w. “xalxuri~ nakadi. niSandoblivia, rom am xanaSi, arc sxva marTlmadidebel qveynebSi
aRiniSneba SemoqmedebiTi aqti voba.
“xalxursa~ da profesiul mxatvrobas Soris Sualedur xasiaTs atarebs gelaTis
RmrTismSoblis taZris XVI s-is 20-ian wlebSi Sesrulebuli mxatvro ba. masSi Cans kavSiri
gvianpaleologosur ferwerasTan (fi guraTa proporcie bi, saxis tipi, tansacmlis
nakecebis xasiaTi da damuSave bisas zogan kontras tuli feris gamoyeneba), magram,
amasTan erTad, vlindeba niSnebi, romlebic Tanxvdeba “xalxuri~ mxatvrobis saxviT
saSualebebs (kom poziciaTa xazgasmu lad ateqtonikuri xasiaTi, gamartivebuli naxatis
wamyvani mniSvneloba, formaTa ornamentul-dekoratiuli damuSaveba, gulubryvilo
gamomsaxveloba). gamartivebisa da gaubraloebis tendencia, romelic dasaxe lebul
mxatvro baSi aRiniSneba, saerTod axasiaTebs postbizantiuri mxatv robis ganviTarebis
adreul etaps.
postbizantiuri mxatvrobis wamyvani dinebis, kretul-aTonuri skolis gavlena
aSkarad Cans kaxTa mefis levanis (1520-1574), imereTis mefis bagrat III-is (1510-1565) da
misi Zis giorgi II-is (1565-1583) dakveTiT Sesrulebul moxatu lobebSi (alvanis, gremis,
nekresis, axali SuamTis, gelaTis RvTismSoblis taZris da wm. giorgis eklesiis XVI
s-is II naxevris mxatvroba). garTulebuli da datvirTulia ikonografiuli programebi,
SeTvisebulia saqarTvelosTvis axali ikonografiuli Temebi. miuxedavad amisa, aTonur
da sxva marTl madidebeli qveynebis moxatulobebTan Sedarebisas (rumineTi, ruseTi,
serbe Ti), qarTuli mxatvrobani naklebadaa gadatvirTuli gavrcobili ciklebiT,
wmindanTa uamravi gamosaxulebiT. drois saerTo tendenciebis farglebSi, adgilobriv
tradiciasTan kavSiris maCveneblad SeiZleba miviCnioT im wmin danTa gamosaxva,
romelTa kulti gansakuTrebiT popularulia saqarTveloSi; saqtitoro portretis
Taviseburebani; moxatulobaTa stilis zogierTi niSa ni (miswrafeba mxatvro bis agebis
mkafioebisken, kompoziciaTa lakoniuroba, naklebad Wreli fera dovani gama).
amrigad, XVI s-is qarTuli mxatvroba postbizantiuri xelovnebis saerTo
kalapotSi viTardeba, Tumca, garkveuli niSnebiT igi inarCunebs kavSirs adgilobriv
tradiciebTan.
beatriCe tolijiani
kolumbiis universiteti. aSS
qarTuli gavlenebi grigol bakurianisZis mier bulgareTSi, plovdivis maxloblad
daarsebuli monastris negebobaTa fasadebis morTulobaSi
aleqsi I komnenosis mmarTvelobis dros, 1084 wels dasavleTis didma domestikosma
(mTavarsardalma) - grigol bakurianisZem bulgareTSi, sof. stanimakos (dRevandeli
asenovgradis) maxloblad daaarsa petriwonis RmrTismSoblis saxelobis (baCkovos)
monasteri. grigol bakurianisZis iniciativiT agebuli nagebobebidan Cveni kvlevis
57

sagans warmoadgens baCkovos monastris saZvle da wm. giorgis “metoSkis” taZari.
savaraudod, orive nageboba 1083-1086 wlebs Soris unda iyos agebuli. naSromSi mTavari
aqcenti gakeTebulia am ori Zeglis fasadebis morTvis wesze, romelSic Tavs iCens Sua
saukuneebis taZrebis fasadebis morTvis bulgareTisaTvis sruliad ucxo, Semotanili
dekoratiuli sistema. sqema, romelic saerToa orive magaliTisaTvis warmoadgenilia
ormagi CakveTili dekoratiuli TaRnariT, Ziritadi elementi SuaSi naxevarsvetis
mqone pilastria, naxevarcilindris kveTis am svetebs uSualod, ukapitelod TaRebi
agrZelebs, ase rom svetebica da TaRebic erTiani naxevarwriulad amoziduli
“organizmis~ nawilebad warmogvidgeba.
aRniSnuli dekoratiuli programa farTod aris gavrcelebuli kavkasiaSi, sadac
is ZiriTadad gamoiyeneboda saeklesio nagebobebis eqsterieris mosarTavad, Tumca
iSviaTad is interierSic mouxmariaT. mecnierebi ZiriTadad, taZris fasadebis morTvis
am tradicias somxeTs miaweren., Tumca avtori asaxelebs ufro adreul, kerZod 864
wlis qarTul magaliTs. sxva amgvari qarTuli Zeglebi X da XI saukunis I naxevriT
TariRdeba.
kvlevis mizania grigol bakurianisZis mier bulgareTSi daarsebuli monastris
xsenebuli ori Zeglis stilisa da funqciis da qarTuli Zeglebis SedarebiTi
analizi, imisTvis, raTa warmoaCinos, rom es mxatvruli xerxi nasesxebia kavkasiis Sua
saukuneebis taZrebis morTulobidan, romelTa Soris uadresi swored saqarTveloSi
dasturdeba. fasadebis morTvis mxatvruli ideis kavkasiuri programidan sesxebis
es precedenti saqarTvelosa da bulgareTis am mxaris qarTvel berTa saZmos mWidro
urTierTobasTan, metadre ki monastris damaarsebelTa da saqarTvelos uaxloes
kavSirTan SepirispirebiT iqneba ganxiluli.
Tamar xundaZe
g. CubinaSvilis sax. qarTuli xelovnebis istoriis da ZeglTa dacvis erovnuli
kvlevis centri. saqarTvelo
istoriul pirTa gamosaxulebani Sua saukuneebis (VI-XI ss.) qarTul xuroTmoZRvrul
qandakebaSi
qristianuli samyaros Sua saukuneebis saxviT xelovnebaSi istoriul pirTa
gamosaxulebebs mniSvnelovani adgili uWiravs.
saqarTveloSi am Temis uadresi nimuSebi qvis reliefebze SemogvrCa. qarTul eklesiaTa
fasadebze xSirad gvxvdeba qtitorTa - saero xelisufalTa da sasuliero pirTa, iseve
rogorc mSenebelTa Tu ostatTa gamosaxulebani. maTi ganTavsebis adgili taZris
xuroTmoZRvrul korpusze ar aris mkacrad reglamentirebuli - isini gamoikveTebian
eklesiis kedlebis qveda nawilSic, kar-sarkmelTa Tavzec da gumbaTzec ki.
istoriul pirTa reliefur gamosaxulebebs imTaviTve saTanado yuradReba mieqca
qarTul saxelovnebaTmcodneo mecnierebaSi, g. CubinaSvilis, r. Smerlingis, l.
rCeuliSvilis, n. CubinaSvilis, g. alibegaSvilis, n. aladaSvilis, a. volskaias, k.
maCablis naSromebSi mniSvnelovani adgili eTmoba saqtitoro kompoziciebis mxatvrul-
stilistur analizsa da istoriul informacias. reliefTa Tanmxlebi warwerebisa da
istoriuli wyaroebis Sejerebis Sedegad moxerxda bevri gamosaxulebis identifikacia.
bolo oci wlis naSromebSi (n.aladaSvili, l. xuskivaZe, d. xoStaria, i. nikoleiSvili,
g. gagoSiZis, i. giviaSvili, T. xundaZe da sxv.) ki meti interesi Cans saqtitoro
kompoziciebis Sinaarsobriv-saxismetyvelebiTi konteqstis mimarT.
58
Sua saukuneebis saqarTvelo

Sua saukuneebis saqarTvelo
am reliefebis ZiriTad Temas adamianis sulis xsnisaTvis locva-vedreba da
uflis mier misi kurTxeva warmoadgens. Tumca, am mTavari ideis farglebSi adgili
aqvs Sinaarsobriv variaciebs, rac iwvevs kompoziciur sqemaTa mravalferovnebas
- gvxvdeba macxovris, RmrTismSoblis, wmindanebis an angelozTa winaSe vedrebiT
mimarTuli istoriuli pirebi; vedrebis an orantis pozaSi calke gamosaxuli figurebi;
mravalricxovania istoriul pirTa figurebi eklesiis simboluri gamosaxulebiT xelSi
makurTxeveli macxovris, Cviledi RmrTismSoblis, wmindanTa Tu winaswarmetyvelTa
winaSe, aseve gvxvdeba gankiTxvis dRis kompoziciaSi CarTuli da calke warmodgenili
erTi an ori qtitori eklesiis gamosaxulebiT; araerTi magaliTi gvaqvs jvris orsav
mxares vedrebis JestiT mimarTuli istoriuli pirebisa, sadac Cans jvris Tayvaniscemis
uZvelesi adgilobrivi tradicia.
gvxvdeba erTeuli originaluri kompoziciebi, mag., sami istoriuli piri eklesiis
gegmis win, eklesiis kurTxevis scena, liturgiuli msvleloba, cxenebze amxedrebuli
istoriuli pirebi da sxv.
mravalferovani azrobrivi da kompoziciuri interpretaciiT xasiaTdeba xuroTmoZRvar-ostatTa
gamosaxulebanic - isini xan vedrebis pozaSi, xan - samuSao iaraRebiT,
xanac - muSaobis procesSi gamoisaxebian.
araerTgvarovania agreTve Sua saukuneebis qarTuli saqtitoro reliefebis
stiluri Sesruleba, sadac vlindeba sxvadasxva epoqaTa Tu regionTa maxasiaTebeli
gansxvavebuli mxatvrul-esTetikuri niSnebi da gemovneba.
ekaterine kvaWataZe
g. CubinaSvilis sax. qarTuli xelovnebis istoriis da ZeglTa dacvis erovnuli
kvlevis centri. saqarTvelo
XI saukunis Semdgomi periodis qarTuli Sua saukuneebis safasade skulpturis ZiriTadi
tendenciebi
XI s-is bolodan qarTul qandakebaSi krizisis xana dgeba. swored amitom XI s-is
Semdgomi xanis skulpturis istoriis es xangrZlivi periodi met-naklebad xelovnebaTmcodneTa
yuradRebis miRma darCa. jerac rTulia, momdevno saukuneebis plastikis
ganviTarebisa Tu problematikis mTeli sisruliT gaanalizeba, magram ukve SesaZlebeli
unda iyos am epoqis reliefuri skulpturis Sesaxeb erTgvari mosazrebebi mainc
gamovTqvaT.
saukuneebis manZilze (XII-XVI saukuneebSi) qarTuli taZrebis gare kedlebze erTiani
ideiT gamoxatul, fasadTa gamamTlianebel siuJetur kompoziciebs veRar vxvdebiT.
isini naklebadac iqmneboda da, nawilobriv, albaT, JamTa siavis gamoc, ver SemorCa
(gansakuTrebiT XIV-XV ss-Si). am saukuneebis Semonaxul eklesiaTa (fitareTi, kazreTi,
erTawminda, wuRruRaSeni, dmanisis sioni, maRalaanT eklesia, safara, sadgeri, CiTaxevis
samreklo da sxv.) fasadebze, umetesad erTmaneTTan daukavSirebeli, mxolod calkeuli
reliefuri kompoziciebi Tua saxilveli. sxvadasxva rigis ostatobiT Sesrulebuli
es, umeteswilad mcire zomis, safasade reliefebi, romlebic xSirad ornamentaciis
wnulSia Caqsovili, Tavisi erTgvari miniaturulobiT mcire plastikis ZeglebTan
amJRavnebs siaxloves; es ki, bunebrivia, safasade skulpturisTvis damaxasiaTebeli
monumenturobis Zalis damakninebelia. gamosaxulebaTa dekoratiuli xasiaTis
miuxedavad, am, xSirad simbolur-Teologiuri SinaarsiT datvirTuli skulpturuli
59

eliefebiT arqiteqturis sakralurad mniSvnelovani adgilebia gamaxvilebuli.
Semdgom etapze ki - gviani Sua saukuneebis (XVII-XVIII ss.) mqandakeblobis mxatvrul
(erT-erT) amocanad monumenturi safasade skulpturis sistemis Seqmnis mcdeloba
daisaxa.
gviani Sua saukuneebis pirveli Zegli, sadac, mTeli simZlavriT “amoifrqva”
Sua saukuneebis qarTul safasade plastikaSi ase didi xniT miviwyebuli, erTiani
mxatvruli programiT, rTuli saRvTismetyvelo SinaarsiT gaerTianebuli reliefuri
gamosaxulebebi, ananuris taZaria. uSualod ananurs mosdevs sagarejos petre-pavles
eklesiis safasade dekoric, iseve rogorc ananurTan axlos dgas yincvisis “gigos
saydari”, gamorCeulia leCxumis “mcxeTa”.
skulpturuli Ziebebi, romlebic qarTul plastikaSi XI s-is Sua xanebSi wydeba, arc
gvian Sua saukuneebSi (XVII-XVIII ss-Si) xdeba gamococxlebuli SemoqmedebiTi Zalebis
mTavari mamoZravebeli. qvis qandakebis mxatvruli Ziebebis amosavali eklesiis fasadTa
Teologiuri SinaarsiT gamTlianebuli skulpturis programis Seqmna-aRorZinebaa.
triumfalur-esqatologiuri niSniT aRbeWdili jvrebis mklavebqveS “iSleba” taZrebis
safasade programaTa Zveli Tu axali aRTqmiseuli saxeebiT gajerebuli reliefuri
dekoris umTavresi idea.
gviani Sua saukuneebis reliefuri skulpturis mxatvruli stili iseve
araerTmniSvnelovani da araerTgvarovania, rogorc am epoqis, rig SemTxvevebSi,
aratipiur-araordinaruli, Znelad “wasakiTxi” ikonografia.
peter grosmani
arqeologiis germanuli instituti qairoSi, germania
romauli da gvianromauli elementebi egviptis adreqristianul arqiteqturaSi
saqarTvelos viTarebasTan SepirispirebiT
avgustusis periodidan moyolebuli egvipte romis imperias ekuTvnoda. IV saukuneSi
da kidev ufro adrec, egviptelebma uari Tqves diad “faraonul” tradiciaze da
TavianT arqiteqturul garemoSi elinisturi da romauli elementebi Seitanes.
maT arqiteqturaSi wayvani romauli stili gaxda, Tu ar CavTvliT mcirericxovan
gamonaklisebs, romlebic ufro xangrZlivi istoriis mqone tradicias misdevdnen.
adreqristianuli arqiteqturis taZris uadresi tipi - bazilika, romelic mTels
msoflioSia gavrcelebuli, egvipteSi winaqristianul formas inarCunebs. egviptis
centraluri gegmarebis taZrebis umetesoba ucxoeTidan Semotanil models misdevs,
maTi arqiteqturuli morTuloba ki bizantiis imperiis dedaqalaqis - konstantinopolis
gavlenis kvals atarebs.
saqarTveloSi mkveTrad gansxvavebul suraTs vxvdebiT. saqarTvelo arasdros yofila
romis imperiis nawili. qarTuli saeklesio xuroTmoZRvreba gansxvavdeba bizantiis
imperiis gavleniT nasazrdoebi arqiteqturisagan. aq bazilikis tipis taZrebi iSviaTad
gvxvdeba, centraluri gegmarebis mqone nagebobebi ki, rogorc Cans, saqarTveloSi ufro
adre gavrcelda vidre imperiis sxva nawilebSi. amasaTan, qarTuli taZrebis umetesoba
qviT aris nagebi, xolo maTi morTuloba tipiurad qarTulia. romauli (bizantiuri)
gavlenebis kvals mxolod iSviaT SemTxvevebSi vxvdebiT.
60
Sua saukuneebis saqarTvelo

Sua saukuneebis saqarTvelo
jon vilkinsoni
britaneTis arqeologiis skola ierusalimSi. didi britaneTi
sad Caisaxa qarTuli eklesia?
1995 wels gamimarTla da wilad mxvda bedniereba profesor vaxtang beriZes
Sevxvedrodi. cameti wlis manZilze uZvelesi eklesiebis Sesaxeb misi naSromis kiTxvam
didi codna SemZina. ar vici ramdenad dameTanxmeboda qvemoT moyvanil mosazrebaSi,
Tumca erTi ram udaoa, rom guldasmiT momismenda.
sayovelTaod miCneulia, rom eklesiaTa forma bazilikidan unda momdinareobdes.
Tumca, am mosazrebas safuZvlad is udevs, rom XIX saukuneSi mecnierebis centri iyo
romi. romis gavlena igrZnoba yvelgan, radgan swored romSi gamoica pirveli wignebi
xelovnebaze, romelTa done nebismieri standartis gaTvaliswinebiT saukeTeso iyo.
Tavis mxriv, romael avtorebze didi STabeWdileba moaxdina leon batista albertis
(romelic aseve vatikanSi cxovrobda) naSromma arqiteqturaze. albertim Tavisi naSromi
1485 wels gamoaqveyna da pirvelad swored aq daistamba Teoria imis Taobaze, rom
bazilika eklesiis formis pirvelwyaros warmoadgens.
aris Tu ara eklesiis bazilikidan warmoSobis Teoria marTebuli? saqarTvelos
SemTxvevaSi yuradReba unda mieqces sakurTxevlis ganlagebas, romelic yvela
taZrisaTvis erTnairi ar aris. Tumca niSani, romelic sayovlTaoa aris proporcia,
proporcia aRTqmis kidobnisa karvisa Tu ierusalimis taZrisa. amdenad, Cemi azriT,
eklesiis arqiteqtura Tavdapirvelad efuZneboda im nagebobebs, romelTac mWidro
kavSiri hqondaT sawamebelTan an Tavad taZris struqturasTan da es nagebobebi ebrauli
sinagogebia.
irine giviaSvili
damoukidebeli mkvlevari. saqarTvelo
qarTuli mravalafsidiani eklesiebi
Cems mier Catarebuli kvlevis mizania mravalafsidiani eklesiebis saxeliT cnobili
arqiteqturuli tipebis Sesaxeb arsebuli codnis Tavmoyra da am tipis eklesiaTa
aRmocenebisa da ganviTarebis mizezebisa da etapebis gansazRvra.
“mravalafsidianis~ saxeliT ganvixilavT Senobebs, romelTac afsidi edgmis ara
mxolod aRmosavleTiT (sakurTxevlisaTvis), aramed ganiv RerZze (samxreTiT da
CrdiloeTiT), aseve dasavleTiTac, anda gumbaTqveSa sivrcis irgvliv; am saxeliT
erTiandeba is arqiteqturuli tipebi, rogoricaa trikonqi, tetrakonqi, xuTafsidiani,
eqvsafsidiani da rvaafsidiani taZrebi. mravalafsidiani Senobebi ganxilulia aseve
centrul mravalmklava taZrebTan Sedarebisasac. amgvari Senobebi an maTi nangrevebi
SemorCenilia rogorc saqarTveloSi, ise istoriul tao-klarjeTSi (TurqeTi) da
hereTSi (azerbaijani).
qarTuli saxelovnebaTmcodneo skolis fuZemdeblis giorgi CubinaSvilis monografia
“Памятники типа Джвари~, Tbilisi, 1948, tetrakonqebis saqarTveloSi warmoSobisa da misi
evoluciis Sesaxeb, zogadad qarTuli arqiteqturis kvlevis safuZvels warmoadgens.
araerTi kvleva mieZRvna mravalafsidian qarTul eklesiTa calkeul nimuSebs, aseve
calkeuli tipebis klasifikaciasa da gaanalizebas.
rogorc winaswarma kvlevam aCvena, ama Tu im tipis saqarTveloSi gamoCena garkveuli
61

stilisturi moTxovnilebebis Sesabamisad xdeba. klasikuri periodis esTetika kargad
tetrakonqul moculobas exameba. mravalafsidiani eklesiebis Senebis xana “gardamaval
xanas” emTxveva, xolo trikonqis arqiteqturuli tipi axali masStabis moTxovnilebebs
akmayofilebs da e.w. sakaTedro arqiteqturad ikidebs fexs.
mravalafsidian taZarTa klasifikaciisas mniSvnelovania liturgiuli moTxovnilebebis
gaTvaliswineba, rac iyo kidec ganmsazRvreli ama Tu im tipis taZarTa
formebis da masStabebis Camoyalibebisas. am kuTxiT sainteresoa banas kaTedralis
struqturuli analizi.
qarTuli mravalafsidini eklesiebis kvleva SeuZlebelia mezobeli qveynebis,
qristianuli aRmosavleTisa Tu adreqristianuli xanis paraleluri masalis Sedarebis
gareSe, ufro metic, romauli tradiciebisa da qristeanobamdeli nimuSebis ganxilvis
gareSe.
kvlevam gviCvena, rom ama Tu im tipis Camoyalibeba da ganviTareba drois Sesabamisad
da erTmaneTisagan damoukideblad mimdinareobda, Tumca mWidro kavSirisas da
urTerTgavlenebisas mezobeli qveynebis sataZro arqiteqturasTan. Sua saukuneebis
saqarTvelos sataZro arqiteqtura xom imave tipologiuri mravalferovnebiTaa
warmodgenili, rogorc qristianuli aRmosavleTis saeklesio arqiteqtura.
qeTevan abaSiZe
g. CubinaSvilis sax. qarTuli xelovnebis istoriis da ZeglTa dacvis erovnuli
kvlevis centri. saqarTvelo
safasade qvis wyoba qarTul saeklesio xuroTmoZRvrebaSi
Tavisi sivrciT saqarTvelo evropis patara saxelmwifoebs emsgavseba. misi reliefi
mravalferovnebiT xasiaTdeba. aq, SedarebiT mcire teritoriaze, TiTqmis yvela tipis
bunebrivi landSaftia warmodgenili.
mravalferovani da mravalsaxaa saqarTvelos buneba, klimati, mcenareuloba...
Sesabamisad mravalnairi da mravalferadia qvebic - aq aris sxvadasxva feris da naxatis
mqone mkvrivi marmariloebi, sarkesaviT gakrialebuli teSenitebi, oqrosferi tufebi,
mwvane feris albitofirebi, muqi nacrisferi bazaltebi, nacrisferi, mowiTalo-iisferi
andezitebi, nairferi kirqvebi da qviSaqvebi, travertinebi (Sirimi), fiqali...
qvaTa jiSebis amgvari nairsaxeoba, cxadia, saqarTvelos geologiuri warsulis
siZveleze metyvelebs. Sesabamisad, samSenelo kultura saukuneTa siRrmeebSi midis.
moxsenebis Temaa safasade qvis wyoba Sua saukuneebis qarTul saeklesio xuroTmoZRvrebaSi.
moxsenebaSi warmodgenilia saqarTveloSi nagebobaTa (ganurCevlad sakulto Tu
sae-ro) safasade qvis wyobis xasiaTi, uZvelesi droidan vidre qristianul taZarTmSeneblobamde
da Semdgom masTan uwyvet istoriul konteqstSi ganxilulia qarTuli
saeklesio xuroTmoZRvrebis erT-erTi gamorCeuli, gansakuTrebuli Tviseba -
xazgasmulad mxatvruli SemoqmedebiTi muxtiT Sesrulebuli safasade qvis wyoba -
sxvanairad mas nagebobis (taZris) perangi, an taZris “Sesamoseli~ ewodeba. taZrebis qviT
gamoqsovili “kvarTi~ uZveles adgilobriv samSeneblo tradiciebze dasaZirkvlda.
qva, Tavisi feriTa da wyobiT, eklesiis, rogorc xuroTmoZRvruli mTelis saerTo
saxis-xatis Seqmnisas, taZarTa fasadebis mamkob kveTil- nakvTian saxeebTan erTad
erT-erTi mTavari “komponentia~ da mas Tanabrad konstruqciul-seismuri, mxatvrulesTetikuri
da simboluri daniSnuleba aqvs.
62
Sua saukuneebis saqarTvelo

Sua saukuneebis saqarTvelo
daviT xoStaria
g. CubinaSvilis sax. qarTuli xelovnebis istoriis da ZeglTa dacvis erovnuli
kvlevis centri. saqarTvelo
tao-klarjeTis arqiteqtura: istoria da Seswavlis perspeqtivebi
tao-klarjeTis siZveleebis mimarT arqeologiuri interesi pirvelad XIX saukune-
Si gaCnda (k. koxi, d. baqraZe, g. yazbegi, pr. uvarova). arqiteqturuli TvalsazrisiT
tao-klarjeTis siZveleebi gamoikvlies a. pavlinovma, n. marma da e. TayaiSvilma. am
ukanasknelma regionSi aTeulobiT taZari, monasteri da cixe-simagre moinaxula da
Rirebuli masalac gamoaqveyna, romelic aRwerebs, fotoebsa da Canaxatebs Seicavs.
pirveli msoflio omis Semdeg, tao-klarjeTis arqiteqturis Seswavla Sewyda, Tumca
xangrZlivi periodis Semdg kvlav gagrZelda n. da m. tierebis, v. jobaZis, r. edvardsis
da b. baumgartneris wyalobiT. 1980 wlidan tao-klarjeTis Zeglebis aRwerasa da
kvlevaSi aqtiurad Caebnen m. kadiroRlu da sxva Turqi mkvlevarebic.
1980-iani wlebisTvis, tao-klarjeTis arqiteqturis kvleva qarTveli mecnierebisTvis
prioritetul sferod iqca, Tumca, politikuri situaciis gamo qarTveli mkvlevarebi
ver axerxebdnen e.w “TurqeTis saqarTvelos” siZveleebis adgilze Seswavlas. jer
kidev 1930-ian wlebSi mianiSnebda g. CubinaSvili qarTuli ariqteqturis ganviTarebis
istoriaSi tao-klarjeTis xuroTmoZRvrebis gansakuTrebul rolze. SemdgomSi,
v. beriZem es roli kidev ufro srulad warmoaCina Tavis zogadi xasiaTis naSromSi.
mxolod sabWoTa reJimis damxobis Semdeg moaxerxes qarTvelma mkvlevarebma TurqeTSi
eqspediciebis mowyoba.
ukanasknel wlebSi, tao-klarjeTis arqiteqturis kvlevaSi axali perspeqtivebi
gamoikveTa. TurqeTis teritoriaze arsebuli qarTuli Zeglebis aRweris mizniT Seiqmna
erToblivi Turqul-qarTuli jgufi (o. aitekini. i.elizbaraSvili). m. bogiSis ZalisxmeviT
moxerxda tao-klarjeTisadmi dasavluri samecniero wreebis interesis xelmeored
gamoRviZeba. swored amis Sedegi unda iyos, rom bizantiuri kvlevebis XXI saerTaSoriso
kongresze, londonSi, specialurad tao-klarjeTisadmi miZRvnili sastendo moxsenebis
wardgena moxda, rac am sakiTxis gamo sxvadasxva qveynis mecnierebis pirveli Sekreba
iyo. 2007 wels stambulSi gamarTuli samuSao Sexvedra am mimarTulebiT kidev erTi
win gadagmuli nabiji iyo. Sexvedram xeli Seuwyo saerTaSoriso multidisciplinaruli
jgufis Camoyalibebas (f. bairami, d. xoStaria, i. giviaSvili, a. pikoki), romelic taoSi
kvlevebis dawyebas 2008 wlis zafxulSi gegmavs.
bruno baumgartneri
venis universiteti. avstria
ucnobi da naklebad cnobili qarTuli Zeglebi Crdilo-aRmosavleT TurqeTSi
tao-klarjeTis (an zemo qarTlis, rogorc qarTvelebi moixseniebdnen md. Woroxisa
da md. mtkvris zeda welSi mdebare terotorias) kvleva garkveul sirTuleebs
ukavSirdeba, ramdenadac es teritoria ruseTsa da TurqeTs Soris moqceul regionSi
mdebareobda. Cemi daintereseba tao-klarjeTiT 1982 wels aRmosavleT anatoliaSi
turistuli mogzaurobisas daiwyo, romlis drosac pirvelad movinaxule taoklarjeTis
iseTi mniSvnelovani Zeglebi, rogoricaa oSki, iSxani, xaxuli, dolisyana
da eni rabaTi.
momdevno wlebSi manqaniT kidev oTxjer moviare tao-klarjeTi. 1985, 1986, 1988 da
63

1990 wlebSi il. zdaneviCis mier naxsenebi TiTqmis yvela mniSvnelovani Zegli movinaxule.
gzebis Tanamedrove rukebiTa da Turquli armiis rukebiT (Harta Genel Müdürlüğü)
aRWurvilma movaxerxe araTu TiTqmis yvela qarTuli Zeglis adgilmdebareobis
gansazRvra, aramed maTi umetesi nawilis azomva da fotografirebac.
1989 wels Cems mier klarjeTSi Catarebuli kvlevis angariSi warvadgine qarTuli
xelovnebis saerTaSoriso simpoziumze, TbilisSi. momdevno wlebis ganmavlobaSi
ramdenime werili gamovaqveyne avstriasa da safrangeTSi, 1997 wels ki venis
universitetSi davicavi disertacia - “tao-klarjeTis istoriuli geografia”,
romelSic Tavmoyrilia tao-klarjeTis TiTqmis yvela taZris, monastrisa da cixesimagris
aRwera da fotoebi.
warmodgenil moxsenebaSi, pirvel rigSi, aRvwer ramdenime eklesias mtkvris xeobis
zeda welSi kolas, artaanisa da javaxeTis provinciebSi. maTi umetesoba e. TayaiSvilis
mere, anu XX saukunis dasawyisis Semdeg, Tanamedrove mecnierebs aRar unaxavT, esenia:
Cikori, oTxTa eklesia, alagozi, skibeirehatuni, olTeki, eruSeTi, borki, sikiribi da
gogubani.
Sevexebi, aseve SedarebiT ucnobi eklesia-monastrebis meore mniSvnelovan jgufs,
romelic mdebareobs md. bardizis, oltu penekis mdinaris xeobaSi. maT Sorisaa:
leqsori, kalkusi, orTulis vanqi, bardizi, kopi, qoTrisi da bobisgeri.
markus bogiSi
kopenhagenis universiteti. dania
ramdenime SeniSvna istoriuli taoSi (Crdilo-aRmosavleT TurqeTi) mdebare oSkis taZris
“Cawerili jvris” tipis ZiriTadi nawilis Taobaze
oSkis monastris mTavar taZars (963-73) gaaCnia cxra monakveTad dayofili ZiriTadi
sivrce, romlis gumbaTis mzidic oTxi Tavisuflad mdgomi burjis meSveobiT iqmneba.
arsebiTad, es kvadratSi Cawerili “jvris tipis” stuqturaa, Tumca ufro monumenturi
masStabis nagebobaa. am tipis nagebobebi IX saukunidan farTod gavrcelda bizantiis
imperiaSi. Tumca, maTi warmoSobis sakiTxi jer kidev sakamaToa. warsulSi Catarebuli
sxvadasxva tipis kvleva moicavs rogorc evoluciis da socialur-ekonomikur Teoriebs,
ise fenomenologiur interpretaciebs. am moxsenebis mizani, ara imdenad oSkis ZiriTad
nawilsa da konstantinopolSi SemorCenili “Cawerili jvris” gegmarebis taZrebis
formaluri an tipologiuri msgavsebis kvlevaa, aramed maTi qristianuli ekumenis
sakraluri arqiteqturis zogad konteqstSi ganxilva. samxreT kavkasiasa da wminda miwas
Soris tradiciulad arsebuli kavSirebis gaTvaliswinebiT, SevecdebiT warmovaCinoT is
formaluri, konceptualuri da ideologiuri maxasiaTeblebi, romelic oSkis taZars
ierusalimis zogierTi saxelganTqmuli eklesiis arqiteqturasTan akavSirebs.
nato gengiuri
SoTa rusTavelis saxelobis Teatrisa da kinos saxelmwifo universiteti.
saqarTvelo
qarTuli eklesiebis karibWeebi
(adreqristianuli periodidan ganviTarebul Sua saukuneebamde)
qar Tu li ar qi teq tu ris is to ria mow mobs, rom sa ek le sio xu roT moZ Rvre bis ar sebo
bis yve la etap ze taZ ris Se sas vlels gan sa kuT re bu li gu lis yu riT ud ge bod nen, rac
mis mxat vrul-ar qi teq tu rul ga for me ba Si ga mo i xa ta. ka ris mniS vne lo ba, ro me lic mi si
64
Sua saukuneebis saqarTvelo

Sua saukuneebis saqarTvelo
mxat vru li ga daw yve ti Taa xaz gas mu li, zo ga dad qris ti a nu li xu roT moZ Rvre bis Tvi saa
sa xa si a To. aq ga dam wyve tia sa kul to na ge bo bis, ise ve ro gorc mi si cal ke u li na wi lis
sim bo lu ri ga az re ba. es xa zi mka fi od ga mo i xa ta Sua sa u ku ne e bis da sav le Tev ro pul arqi
teq tu ra Sic da ama ve pe ri od Si Seq mnil ko men ta reb Si, sa dac bib li u ri na ge bo be bis
ga az re bis ori for ma re a li z de ba. esaa ide a lu ri ar qi teq tu ru li siv rcis ver ba lu ri
aR we ra da am siv rcis ale go ri u li ga ge ba. yo ve li ve aC ve nebs sa kul to ar qi teq tu ris ormxriv
mniS vne lo bas, rac Se sas vle lis sa kiT xsac un da da vu kav Si roT. ram de na dac taZ ris
ked le bi ga i az re ba ori sam ya ros - sa a qa o sa da sa uf los sim bo lur saz Rvrad, ek le si is
Se sas ve ls sa uf los Tan Sex ved ris sa Su a le bis azri eZleva. am de nad, mi si gan Tav se ba, ekle
si is mTli an or ga niz mTan da qvey ni e re bis mxa re eb Tan mi mar Te ba da mxat vrul-ar qiteq
tu ru li re a li ze bis for ma gan sa kuT re bul mniS vne lo bas iZens. es is sa kiT xe bia, romel
Ta Ses wav la qar Tul sa ek le sio xu roT moZ Rvre bas Tan mi mar Te ba Sic un da mox des.
sa qar Tve lo Si met-naklebad mniS vne lo van ek le si eb Si Se sas vlel Tan ka rib Wis, rogorc
cal ke ar qi teq tu ru li mo cu lo bis aR mar Tva sa val de bu lo iyo. ar se bobs ka rib Wis
sa xe o ba, ro me lic yve la pe ri od Si gvxvde ba. esaa oTx bur jze day rdno bi li, sam mxa res
Ta Re biT gax sni li por ti ki. amis pa ra le lu rad, das tur de ba sxva for mis ka rib We e bic.
Se sas vlel Ta aq cen ti re bis xer xe bi ic vle ba ar qi teq tu ris sti lis tu ri gan vi Ta re bis
kva lad. sxva das xva is to ri ul etap ze qar Tul ar qi teq tu ra Si ka rib We Ta ram de ni me nair
sa xe o ba das tur de ba. Tval sa Ci noa, rom kon kre tul pe ri od Si ka rib Wis ro me li me erT
for mas eni We ba upi ra te so ba.
ad req ris ti a nul xa na Si Se sas vle ls bur jze an bur jeb ze ga das ro li li Ta Re biT gamo
yo fen. V-VIIss-Si ume tes wi lad ka rib We cal ke ar qi teq tu rul mo cu lo bad ar aris
ga mo yo fi li. is gar Se mo sav le lis er Ti an “di ne ba Sia~ Car Tu li (bol ni sis si o ni, qve mo
bol ni si, kon da mi a ni, va zi su ba nis ba zi li ka, ol Ti si, ta ba ki ni da a.S.)
gar da ma val xa na Si, er Ti mxriv, Se nar Cu ne bu lia ka rib Wis Zve le bu ri for ma da, me o re
mxriv, mim di na re obs Zi e ba axa li, sam na wi li a ni ka rib Wis Seq mnis mi mar Tu le biT. VIII-IX ss-
Si das tur de ba ka rib We e bis for ma Ta va ri a ci e bi (am ba ra, cxva ri Wa mia, dva ni, vaC na Zi a nis
yve law min da). am Zi e be bis Se de gad ya lib de ba mom wi fe bul Sua sa u ku ne eb Si po pu la ru li
ka rib Wis sa xe o ba, ro me lic sam na wi li a ni arqi teq tu ru li mo cu lob isa gan Sed ge ba da
Cu qur Tme biT mdid ru la daa ga for me bu li. ase Ti ka rib We mo i cavs cen trSi amaR le bul,
fron to niT das ru le bul na wils da gver diT frTebs, ro mel nic nak le bi si maR li saa
da cal fer da sa xu ra vi Taa ga da xu ru li. isi ni XI s-dan mo yo le bu li gvxvde ba, ro gorc
gum ba To van, ise ugum ba To ar qi teq tu ra Si (ze mo kri xi, ma Ra la anT ek le sia, man gli si, be-
Ta nia, qva Ta xe vi, da a. S.).
irma berZeniSvili
saqarTvelos erovnuli muzeumi - arqeologiuri kvlevis centri. saqarTvelo
afxazeTis adre Sua saukuneTa saeklesio xuroTmoZRvreba
afxazeTis adre Sua saukuneTa saeklesio xuroTmoZRvreba metwilad arqeologiuri
gaTxrebis Sedegad gamovlenili arqiteqturuli ZeglebiTaa warmodgenili. cnobilia,
rom aRniSnuli regioni, romis imperiisagan devnili pirveli qristianebis gadasaxlebis
adgils warmoadgenda, rac, garkveulwilad, xelisSemwyobi faqtori iyo aq axali,
qristianuli mrwamsis gasavrceleblad.
dReisaTvis afxazeTSi adreqristianuli xanis 26 arqiteqturuli Zeglia gamovlenili,
romelTa qronologiuri CarCo IV-VIII saukuneebSi Tavsdeba.
65

uZvirfases Zegls regionisaTvis, ra Tqma unda, biWvinTa warmodgens, sadac,
savaraudod, ukve III s-is miwurulidan arsebobda organizaciulad gaformebuli
adreqristianuli Temi, rac arqeologiuri aRmoCenebiTac dadasturda. IV-VI ss-
Si biWvinTasa da mis midamoebSi 9 qristianuli taZari Sendeba, VI s-dan ki aqtiurad
iSleba saeklesio mSenebloba afxazeTis mTel teritoriaze, rogorc zRvispira zolSi
(ganTiadi, gagra, anakofia, miusera, soxumi, oCamCire, gudava), aseve afxazeTis mTiswina
da mTian regionebSi (xaSufse, lixni, dranda, jgerda, webelda, Sapka, mramba). swored
saeklesio mSeneblobas ukavSirdeba mrambaSi, webeldaSi, anakofiaSi, soxumSi, kulambasa
da drandaSi aRmoCenili qristianul siuJetebze reliefuri skulpturis Zeglebi.
afxazeTis teritoriaze gamovlenili adreqristianuli sakulto arqiteqtura,
ZiriTadad, bazilikuri tipis ramdenime variantiTaa warmodgenili: ornaviani bazilika
(biWvinTa), samnaviani bazilika (biWvinTis #2 da #3 eklesiebi, alahaZe, ganTiadi, soxumi)
da sameklesiiani bazilika (gagra, miusera, abaanTa, qiaC-aba). garda amisa, warmodgenilia
darbazuli tipis eklesia (biWvinTa, anakofia, gienosi, webeldis #2 da #3 eklesiebi,
mramba, Sapka, xaSufse), baptisteriumi, rogorc calke mdgomi Senoba (gudava) da jvargumbaTovani
tipis taZari (dranda).
afxazeTis adreqristianul saeklesio xuroTmoZRvrebaSi kargad Cans dasavluri da
aRmosavluri samSeneblo tradiciebis Serwyma. samSeneblo teqnikis mxriv afxazeTis
Zeglebi konstantinopolisa da mcire aziis zRvispira regionis Zeglebs uaxlovdeba;
meore mxriv, isini garkveul msgavsebas avlens mcire aziis Sida regionis ZeglebTan.
afxazeTSi arsebul ZeglTa kompleqsuri kvleva dReisaTvis ramdenadme garTulebulia
Seqmnili politikuir situaciis gamo; Tumca, cnobilia, rom arqeologiuri kvleva-
Zieba afxazeTSi dRes, da gansakuTrebiT, bolo xuTi wlis ganmavlobaSi, sakmaod
aqtiurad mimdinareobs - afxazeTSi rusul-afxazuri eqspedicia muSaobs, romelmac
aqamde ucnobi araerTi arqeologiuri Zegli gamoavlina, romelTac metad mohfines
Suqi regionis siZveleTa kvlevasTan dakavSirebul sakiTxebs da rigi axali sakiTxebic
wamoWres. friad samwuxaroa, rom es samuSaoebi qarTuli mxaris sruli ugulebelyofiT
da ignorirebiT mimdinareobs.
edit noibaueri
laipcigis universiteti. germania
Sua saukuneebis qarTuli arqiteqtura da skulptura da romanuli periodi centralur
evropaSi
saqarTveloSi qristianoba saxelmwifo religiad jer kidev 337 wels gamocxadda.
warmarTuli kerpebi ganadgurda da, xSir SemTxvevaSi, maT adgilas RvTismsaxurebisa
da naTlobisaTvis qristianuli taZrebi aRimarTa, anu aq saqme gvaqvs fenomenTan,
romelic “kultmsaxurebis adgilis uwyvetobis” saxeliT aris cnobili. maSin ar
arsebobda qristianuli taZrebisTvis rame savaldebulo nimuSi.. IV-VII saukuneebSi
qarTvel xuroTmoZRvarTa sazrianoba-gonebamaxvilobis wyalobiT bazilikisa da jvargumbaTovani
taZris mravali sxvadasxva varianti Seiqmna.
centruli gumbaTovani taZrebi (mcxeTis jvari 586/87-604/05) da jvargumbaTovani
taZrebi calke mdgomi oTxi svetiT (wromis macxovris taZari 626-34) axleburi,
aRmosavleT qriatianuli samyarosaTvis unikaluri variaciebia. am mniSvnelovan
monapovarTa SemweobiT saqarTvelos bizantiisagan damoukidebloba warmoCinda.
66
Sua saukuneebis saqarTvelo

Sua saukuneebis saqarTvelo
adreqristinuli xuroTmoZRvrebis damaxasiaTebeli niSansagani reliefuri qandakebis
gamoyenebaa, rac meoTxe saukunis bazilikebSic gvxvdeba, Tumca Tavdapirvel periodSi
gansazRvruli koncefciis gareSe. jvarSi da wromSi SemTxveviToba ukve gamoricxulia,
vinaidan nagebobis yoveli nawilis morTuloba dadgenili ideologiuri programis
mixedviT aris Sesrulebuli. am mimarTulebiT imedismomcemi ganviTareba arabebis 200wlianma
mmarTvelobam Sewyvita. X saukune qristianuli arqiteqturisa da, amasTanave,
monumenturi skulpturis aRorZinebis xanaa.
meore mniSvnelovani niSani reliefis taZris portalis timpanze gamoyenebaa.
adreqristianul qveynebSi saeklesio xuroTmoZRvrebasTan mimarTebaSi reliefiT
morTuli timpani mxolod saqarTvelosa da somxeTSi gvxvdeba. qarTuli da germanuli
romanuli periodis wirTlebis, moCarCoebebis da mxatvruli programebis Sedareba
gasaocar msgavsebas aCevenebs. gamoZaxilia es Tu paraleluri gadawyveta?
aqamde monumenturi stilisa da reliefis ganviTarebas eklesiaTa fasadebTan
mimarTebaSi gansakuTrebuli yuradReba ar eqceoda. 600 wlis axlos Sesrulebuli
reliefi jvris aRmosavleT fasadze pioneruli qmnilebaa. misi antikurobasTan,
urartus Tu aRmosavlur xelovnebasTan mimavali fesvebi jer kidev ar aris saTanadod
Seswavlili. saqarTvelosa da somxeTSi monumenturi skulpturis ganviTarebuli stili
Tavs X saukunis dasawyisSi, axtamarsa da oSkSi iCens. am impulsma bizantias, Zvel
ruseTs, germaniasa da safrangeTsac miaRwia.
veronika kalasi
veinis saxelmwifo universiteti. aSS
iavuz ozkaia
arqiteqturis sarestavracio saxelosno “prometi”. TurqeTi
qarTuli aspeqti XIII saukunis anis arqiteqturaSi: tigran honencis taZari da minuCiris
meCeTi
tigran honencis taZari da minuCiris meCeTi TurqeTis Crdilo-aRmosavleT
nawilSi mdebare Sua saukuneebis mitovebuli qalaqis - anis (romelic sxvadasxva
periodSi bizantiis, somxeTis, saqarTvelosa Tu TurqeTis mflobelobaSi imyofeboda)
umniSvnelovanes Zeglebs warmoadgens. TurqeTis kulturisa da turizmis saministros
mier wamowyebuli kampaniis farglebSi, romelic amasTanave miznad isaxavda qveynis
ganuviTarebeli periferiebisadmi yuradRebis mipyrobas, am ori umniSvnelovanesi
Zeglis gadasarCenad Seiqmna specialuri komisia. 2006 wlis gazafxulsa da zafxulSi
ankaraSi dafuZnebuli arqiteqturuli firmis - prometis mier Catarda tigran honencis
taZrisa da e.w. meCeTis dokumentacia. am moxsenebaSi ganvixilavT am kvlevis zogierT
mniSvnelovan moments, maT Soris naxazebs da samganzomilebian maketebs, romlebic am
proeqtis farglebSi Seiqmna. Cven aseve SevexebiT imas, Tu ramdenad didi mniSvneloba
SeiZleba mieniWos Sedgenil masStabur dokumentacias am regionis Sua saukuneebis
(XIII s-is) arqiteqturis istoriis kvlevaSi. es ori Zegli warmoadgens TvalsaCino
sabuTs XIII saukuneSi aRmosavleT anatoliasa da kavkasias Soris arsebuli kulturuli
urTierTobebisa. Cven gansakuTrebul yuradRebas gavamaxvilebT am ori nagebobis
qarTul aspeqtze da SevexebiT rogorc nagebobebis qronologias, teqnikas da stils,
ise maT TviTmyofadobasTan, funqciasa da SinaarsTan dakavSirebul sakiTxebs.
67

ozmeri beisiki
oklahomas universiteti, aSS
saqarTvelo da xorvatia: saerTo wyaros magaliTi
moxsenebaSi ganxilulia TvalsaCino stilisturi elementebi, romelnic erTmaneTTan
akavSirebs XI saukunis RmrTismSoblis xats wm. kvirikesa da ivlitas saxelobis lagurkas
taZridan da XIII saukunis RmrTismSoblis xats spalatodan (spliti), xorvatiidan.
miuxedavad imisa, rom es nimuSebi oficialurad sxvadasxva geografiuli da religiuri
tradiaciis kuTvnilebaa, maT anaTesavebs saerTo stili, romelic am or nimuSSi asaxuli
unikaluri da ekleqturi gamomsaxvelobiTi maneris Semqmneli ostatebis mier unda
yofiliyo SemuSavebuli da savaraudod, gavrcelebulic.
Cemi mizania, am ori nimuSis Seqmnis winapirobebis kvleva da ramdenime qvemoT
moyvanil kiTxvaze savaraudo pasuxis SemoTavazeba: sad da rodis Camoyalibda aRniSnuli
stili? aRiarebuli faqtia, rom X saukunidan qarTveli ostatebi uars amboben iudeopalestinur
modelebze da mas konstantinopolis saeklesio tradiciiT anacvleben. am
droisaTvis, bizantiis dedaqalaqi saxelganTqmuli iyo ikonografistebiT, romlebic
sxvadasxva “inovaciur” stils qmnidnen da imperiis sxvadasxva nawilSi “nimuSebis
wignebis” meSveobiT avrcelebdnen. aRniSnuli ostatebis savaraudod italiuri
warmoSoba, rogorc amas xorvatiul nimuSSi vxvdebiT, ganapirobebda SemuSavebuli
stilis “originalurobas” da mas Tavisebur - e.w. “maniera laTina”-s stilSi gardaqmnida.
meore mxriv, qarTuli nimuSi erTdroulad amJRavnebs rogorc wminda bizantiuri
stilis, ise “maniera laTina”-s saxasiaTo niSnebs.
savaraudod, aRniSnuli nimuSebis gamomsaxvelobiTi enis wyaro unda iyos egviptis
sinas udabnos mZlavri berZnuli kera - wm. ekaterines monasteri, sadac sxvadasxva
mxatvruli saxelosnoebi xatebis Seqmnisa da gavrcelebis xangrZliv procesSi, aqtiurad
monawileobdnen kulturulad da religiurad “gamravalferovnebuli” ikonografiis
SeqmnaSi, gavrcelebasa da SenarCunebaSi.
leila xuskivaZe
g. CubinaSvilis sax. qarTuli xelovnebis istoriis da ZeglTa dacvis erovnuli
kvlevis centri. saqarTvelo
ornamenti Sua saukuneebis qarTul WedurobaSi
ornamentuli dekori Sua saukuneebis qarTuli xelovnebis yvelaze warmatebuli
sferoTagania. am mxriv, xuroTmoZRvrebasTan erTad, gansakuTrebiT gamorCeulia
oqromWedloba. es umdidresi da mravalferovani masala warmogvidgens Sua saukuneebis
qarTuli ornamentikis rTul da araerTgvarovan suraTs. masSi aSkaradaa asaxuli
Zveli aRmosavleTisa da berZnul-romauli samyaros tradiciebi da agreTve Sua
saukuneebis mxatvruli kulturis saerTo miRwevebi. amave dros, aq gamovlenilia is
Taviseburebebi, rac qarTveli ostatebis SemoqmedebiTma midgomam, maTma mdidarma
fantaziam da ganviTarebulma dekoratiulma miswrafebebma moitana. qarTuli Weduri
ornamenti, zogadad, garkveul kavSirs bizantiurTan amJRavnebs, magram masSi mimdinare
stilisturi cvlilebebi - es, pirvel rigSi, exeba foTlovan-yvavilovan ornaments,
68
Sua saukuneebis saqarTvelo

Sua saukuneebis saqarTvelo
ufro berZnuli da dasavleT evropuli ornamentis evoluciur procesebTan iwvevs
asociaciebs. qarTuli Weduri ornamentis mniSvnelovani roli imiTac ganisazRvreba,
rom misi saSualebiT xerxdeba mxatvruli skolebisa da saxelosnoebis gamoyofa.
Sua saukueneebis qarTuli Weduri ornamentis warmatebul ganviTarebas Tavisi
wanamZRvrebi hqonda - erTi mxriv, saqarTvelos winaqristianuli xelovnebis mdidari
tradiciebi, da, meore mxriv, xalxuri Semoqmedeba, gansakuTrebiT ki xeze kveTa.
qarTuli Weduri ornamentis specialuri kvleva sxvadasxva mimrTulebiT unda
warimarTos: ornamentuli motivebis dajgufeba qronologiuri ganviTarebis metnaklebi
dacviT, maTi funqciis, simbolikis, stilis, Taviseburebebis, Sesrulebis
teqnikuri xerxebis dadgena, rac SeiZleba farTo da mdidari paraleluri masalis
moZieba, maTi mimarTeba gansakuTrebiT qarTul xuroTmoZRvrul dekorTan.
amgvari Seswavlis Sedegad gamotanili daskvnebi gansazRvravs qarTuli Weduri
ornamentis Rirseul adgils rogorc qarTuli, aseve msoflio ornamentuli dekoris
istoriaSi.
maria lidova
Scuola Normale Superiore. italia
liturgiuli sivrcis Seqmna: ioane cohabis mier Sesrulebuli sinuri xatebis jgufi
moxseneba Seexeba eqvs xats, romelnic egvipteSi, sinas mTaze, wm. ekaterines
monastris koleqciaSi inaxeba. oTxi maTgani kaledaruli xatia, mexuTeze gamosaxulia
saSineli samsjavro, meeqvse ki RmrTismSoblis xuTi saswaulmoqmedi xatis da qristes
saswaulebisa da vnebebis TxrobiTi ciklis unikaluri gamosaxulebaa. am xatTa TariRi
XI saukunis bolosa da XII saukunis dasawyiss Soris meryeobs.
xatebis es jgufi erT-erTi mowmobaa Sua bizantiur xanaSi sinas mTaze qarTveli berebis
aqtiuri moRvaweobisa. qarTuli warmoSoba dasturdeba ara mxolod im eqspresiuli
stiliT, romelic jer kidev moelis detalur analizsa da qarTul mxatvrobebTan
Sedarebas, aramed orenovani warwerebiTac (yovel berZnul saxels Tan erTvis Sesabamisi
qarTuli). mokle qarTuli warwera, romelic saSineli samsjavros scenaSi macxovris
saydris qvemoT aris mocemuli, mRvdel ioane cohabs xatebis damkveTad warmogvidgens.
igive saxeli - ioane, romelic mocemulia oTxi didi berZnuli epigramiT, xatebis ukana
mxares amkobs. es berZnuli warwera Seusrulebia ostat-poets, romelic berZnuli
teqstebisa da literaturis didi mcodne unda yofiliyo.
miuxedavad imisa, rom es xatebi araerTxel ganixila sxvadasxva xelovnebaTmcodnem,
garkveuli sakiTxebi gadauWreli rCeba. Catarebuli kvleva ZiriTadad calkeul xatebs
ganixilavda. am moxsenebaSi Cven SevecdebiT xatebi ganvixiloT rogorc erTiani,
erTmaneTTan mWidrod dakavSirebuli proeqti. Cveni azriT, sruliad dasaSvebia, rom
eqvsive xati erTad yofiliyo warmodgenili, rac garkveul liturgikul sivrces qmnida
da gansazRvravda. am erTianobas adasturebs rogorc daxvewili berZnuli epigramebi,
ise maTi Taviseburi ikonografiuli programebi da stilisturi da tipologiuri
msgavseba. xelnawerTa miniaturebTan da monumenturi mxatvrobis nimuSebTan SedarebiT
SesaZlebelia sinas xatebis jgufis specialuri liturgikuli mniSvnelobis Cveneba.
da bolos, am xatebs udidesi mniSvneloba eniWeba ormxrivi qarTul-bizntiuri
urTierTobebis kvlevis sakiTxisaTvis.
69

nana burWulaZe
saqarTvelos erovnuli muzeumi. saqarTvelo
qarTuli xatebi sinas mTis wm. ekaterines monasterSi (qarTul-bizantiuri
urTierTobebis istoriisTvis)
sinas mTasa da wm. ekaterines monasters gansakuTrebuli adgili ukavia qristianuli
aRmosavleTis sasuliero centrebs Soris. qarTvelebi odiTganve miiltvodnen am
wminda adgilisken - maTi iq yofnis kvali jer kidev VI saukuneSia dadasturebuli
sinas mTaze qarTvelTa moRvaweoba gansakuTrebiT IX-X saukuneebSi gaaqtiurda.
qarTveli ber-monazvnebis mier iq iwereboda da iTargmneboda saeklesio literaturis
mravalricxovani Zeglebi, iqmneboda RvTivsulieri xatebi. xatweris nimuSTa sinur
koleqciaSi saqarTvelodan Catanil-Sewiruli siwmindeebic aris.
bolo xans qarTvel mecnierebs miecaT saSualeba SeeswavlaT sinaze daculi qarTuli
xelnawerebi - gamoica am saunjis katalogic. rac Seexeba qarTul xatebs, maT Sesaxeb
jer kidev Zalze mcire ramaa cnobili.
cxadia, amgvar viTarebaSi metad aqtualuria wm. ekaterines monasterSi arsebuli
TiToeuli qarTuli xatis gamovlena da Seswavla, vinaidan isini aRrmavebs codnas
qarTvelTa sasuliero moRvaweobis Sesaxeb sinas mTaze. Zalze mniSvnelovania agreTve
dokumenturi masalis Sekreba Tavis droze wm. ekaterines monastris kuTvnili, XIX
saukuneSi rus koleqcionerTa mier wamoRebuli da aw ukve gamqrali xatebis Sesaxeb
Cveni kvlevis saganic swored esaa. moxsenebaSi warmodgenili iqneba sinaze naklulad
daculi erT-erTi mravalkaredi xati qarTuli warwerebiT, romelzec zogadad
qristianuli eklesiis wmindanebTan erTad gamosaxuli arian “mnaTobni qarTvelTa”
- asureli da aToneli wm. mamebi da sxva cnobili qarTveli sasuliero moRvaweebi.
xatis adgilze Seswavla da masze arsebuli informaciis moZieba gviCvenebs, rom igi
samecniero literaturaSi arasworadaa gaSuqebuli.
xatze muSaobisas SevZeliT dagvedgina misi Semadgenloba da ikonografiuli programa,
gamogvekvlia Sesrulebis teqnika da stili da SedarebiTi analizis safuZvelze es
maRalmxatvruli nawarmoebi XIV saukunis pirveli naxevriT dagveTariRebina.
amasTan, aRniSnuli mravalkaredis gamokvlevas davurTeT SeZlebisdagvarad sruli
informacia sinaze odesRac da dResac daculi qarTuli xatebis Sesaxeb.
vfiqrobT, rom Catarebuli kvlevis Sedegebi erTnairad saintereso da sasargeblo
iqneba rogorc qarTuli xatweris, iseve sinas mTis wm. ekaterines monastrisa da
-saerTod, marTlmadidebluri xatebis istoriisTvis.
aleqsandre saminski
andrei rubliovis muzeumi. ruseTi
berTis saxarebis miniaturebi da misi warmomavloba
berTis saxareba (Tbilisi, Q-906) misi mooqruli vercxlis ydis gamoa cnobili,
romelic XII saukunis bolos opizis monasterSi oqromWedel beSqenis mier iqna
Sesrulebuli. xelnaweri mezoblad mdebare berTis monasters Seswira berma ioane
mTavraiZem, romelmac saxareba memkvidreobiT Zmisa da biZisagan miiRo. miuxedavad
imisa, rom anderZi ar asaxelebs saxarebis gadaweris adgils, xelnaweris miniaturebi
70
Sua saukuneebis saqarTvelo

Sua saukuneebis saqarTvelo
Tavis warmoSobaze Tavad miuTiTeben. miuxedavad imisa, rom isini calke inaxeboda,
miniaturebis gverdebis zoma da maT mindorze arsebuli nakeris naxvretebi, romlebic
emTxveva xelnawerisas, miuTiTebs, rom isini Tavdapirvelad erT mTlian kodeqsad iyo
akinZuli.
berTis saxareblis wm. lukas gamosaxuleba Dumbarton Oaks-is koleqciaSi daculi
XII saukunis miwurulis xelnaweri 4-is miniaturis zusti aslia. xelnawerebi msgavsia
agreTve formatis, asoTa moyvanilobis da TiToeul gverdze moTavsebuli striqonebis
raodenobis mxrivac. isini maxloblad mdebare monastrebSi unda iyos gadawerili.
vaSingtonSi daculi miniaturebis maRalmxatvruli Sesruleba konstantinopolur
warmoSobaze unda miuTiTebdes, Tumca wiTeli melniT SedarebiT mokrZalebulad
Sesrulebuli TavsarTebi da pergamentis saSualo xarisxi sxva varaudebis
SesaZleblobasac ar gamoricxavs.
berTis saxarebis maxareblebis portretebi axlo msgavsebas amJRavnebs peterburgSi
aRmosavleTmcodneobis institutSi dacul qarTul xelnawerTan E45. aRniSnul
xelnawer wigns SesaZloa hqondes igive warmoSoba, rac berTisa da vaSingtonis
saxarebebs. maTes gamosaxulebis qveS misi mflobelis mier Sesrulebuli berZnuli
warwera miuTiTebs, rom 1832 wels saxareba berZnul garemoSi yofila. misi zogierTi
TavsarTi axlo msgavsebas amJRavnebs antioqiaSi, XI saukuneSi Sesrulebul berZnul
da qarTul xelnawer kodeqsebTan. erT-erTi am xelnawerTagania TbilisSi daculi
kodeqsi - Q-371, romelic 1091 wels mRvdel ioane mTvaraiZis mier iqna gadawerili.
amdenad, savaraudoa, rom berTis saxarebis mflobelis - ioane mTvaraiZis sagvareulos
warsulSi garkveuli kavSirebi hqonda antioqiasTan.
nino qavTaria
xelnawerTa erovnuli centri. saqarTvelo
XII-XIII saukuneebis qarTul oTxTavTa gaformebis mxatvruli aspeqtebi
XII-XIII saukuneebis politikurma da kulturulma aRmavlobam ganapiroba qarTuli
xelnaweri wignis mxatvruli donis amaRleba. qveynis SigniT Tu mis ga reT arsebuli
mravalricxovani samonastro kerebis skriptoriumebi ak ma yo fi lebdnen wignze,
gansakuTrebiT ki xelnawer oTxTavze, gazrdil moT xo v nilebas.
moxsenebis mizania XII-XIII ss.-is qarTuli xelnaweri oTxTavebis mxatvruli aspeqtebis
Cveneba. sayovelTaod cnobil xelnawerebis, gelaTis oTxTavTan-Q-908, jruWi II -H-1667-
Tan da vanis saxarebasTan A-1335 erTad Cven ganvixilavT XII-XIII ss. im xelnawerebs,
romlebic naklebadaa cnobili da Seswavlili.
maTi gaformeba ki mxolod dekoratiuli elementebiT (kamarebi, TavsarTebi,
inicialebi) da maxarebelTa gamosaxulebebiT Semoifargleba (A-281, Q-906, Q-907, Q-929,
H-1707, H-2075, H-1706 – XII s.; Q-883, Q-900, A-498, A-1563, Q-899 – XII-XIII ss.; A-138, A-494,
S-110, A-26 –XIII s) am xelnawerTa gaformebaSi naTlad gamoikveTa stilis ganviTarebis
erTiani xazi, gaZlierebuli de ko ra tiuloba, formaTa sirbile, saerTo feradovneba,
ornamentuli mo ti ve bis mravalferovneba da siuxve. imavdroulad, TvalnaTliv Cans
ferweruli da gra fikuli tendenciebis Serwyma. saerTo bizantiuri gavlenebis fonze,
ca l keul xelnawerTa gaformebaSi gamJRavnebulia adgilobrivi mxatvruli tradiciebi.
saxasiaToa isic, rom am drois xelnawerebSi singuriT da fe ri li ornamentuli
samkaulebi scildeba CarCos sazRvrebs, erwymis inicials, te qstSi iWreba da masTan
erTad erT mTlianobas avlens, xolo etratis spi losZvlisferi feris mniSvnelobiT
71

gamoyeneba im drois sa kmaod gavrcelebuli meTodia.
naSromis amocanaa warmoaCinos sxvadasxva mxatvruli skolebis iko no gra fi uli,
stiluri da mxatvruli Taviseburebani, aCvenos qarTuli wignis xelovnebis evoluciuri
ganviTarebis gza am saukuneebSi.
lali osefaSvili
SoTa rusTavelis saxelobis Teatrisa da kinos saxelmwifo universiteti.
saqarTvelo
qarTul liturgikul gragnilTa mxatvruli gaformebis Taviseburebani (XII-XVIss)
xelnawerTa erovnul centrSi daculia liturgikuli gragnilebis garkveuli
raodenoba, romelTaTvis Tvalis gadevneba gaformebis Taviseburebebis Sesaxeb
daskvnebis gamotanis saSualebas iZleva.
cnobilia, rom xelnaweri liturgikuli gragnilebi XI saukunis inovaciaa. am
epoqis pirveli qarTuli xelnaweri gragnili mourTvelia. XII saukunidan (S-4980) ukve
yalibdeba maTi morTulobis specifika. amjerad sxva kanonikuri xelnawerebis msgavsad
gragnilsac gaaCnia Tavfurceli, anu I kefi, romelzec gamoisaxeba an simboluri
xasiaTis konpozicia an avtoris portreti. magaliTad, Tu XII saukunis gragnilis
Tavfurcelze gamosaxulia Zeli, anu sveti-cxoveli, XIII saukunis gragnilis (A-922)
I kefze ki, wm. ioane oqropiria, viTarca avtori liturgiisa, xolo XVI saukunis
gragnilze (H-516) aSkaraa, rom Tavfurclis miniatura garkveul varirebas ganicdis.
aq gamosaxulia monumenturi jvari da liturgiis avtorebi-wm. basili didi da wm. ioane
oqropiri anu gaerTianebulia golgoTas msxverpli da evqaristiuli msxverpli.
XII saukunidan marginalur areebze ukve sazedao asoebia ganTavsebuli. SesaZlebelia
maTi diferencireba: 1. martivi sazedao aso - singuriT moxazuli; 2. rTuli agebulebis
sazedao aso-mcenareuli an zoomorfuli ornamentebiT Semkuli da 3. siuJeturi
sazedao aso, romlis gaformebaSic gamosaxulebaa CarTuli.
gragnilTa morTulobis es specifika, romelic XII saukunidan iRebs saTaves, XVI
saukunemde met-naklebi sxvaobiT grZeldeba. moipoveba gragnilebi, romelnic mxolod
sazedao asoebiT aris morTuli: H-521(XV s.); H-511(XVI s.)
miuxedavad gragnilTa morTulobis specifikisa, mxatvari misdevs xelnawerTa
morTulobis Camoyalibebul normebs, vTqvaT ise, rogorc uxvad ilustrirebul
oTxTavebSia. magaliTad, sveticxovliseul gragnilze iq, sadac ziarebazea Txroba,
teqsti horizontaluradaa gaWrili da sami zolisebri scenaa gamosaxuli-jer “qriste
mociqulebiTurT” da “ziareba”jer sefiskveriT, Semdeg zedaSiT.
Cven SegviZlia aseve qarTuli liturgikuli gragnilebi bizantiurs SevadaroT,
rac kidev erTxel mowmobs, rom qarTuli kultura, erTi mxriv, isrutavs mowinave
qveynis miRwevebs da, meore mxriv, myar erovnul tradiciebs qmnis. saamiso nimuSad
SeiZleba movitanoT erTi magaliTi: aso Q-ons qarTveli mxatvari bizantielTa msgavsad
medalionad ar iyenebs da masSi ar aTavsebs gamosaxulebas, qarTveli mxatvari mas wris
ki ara ovalis formas aniWebs, qristes gamosaxulebas mis zemoT aTavsebs, viTarca
dominants, romelic sufevs yovelsa zeda.
amdenad, liturgikuli gragnilis morTuloba saukuneTa manZilze myar saxes iRebs:
teqsti naweria erT svetad nusxuriT, gaaCnia Tavfurceli, marginalur areebze ki
sazedao asoebi.
72
Sua saukuneebis saqarTvelo

Sua saukuneebis saqarTvelo
izolda meliqiSvili
saqarTvelos erovnuli muzeumi. saqarTvelo
qarTuli saeklesio samosis ferisa da formis simbolikis sakiTxisaTvis
qarTuli mxatvruli qargulobis nimuSebi yvelaze mniSvnelovani saxiT saqarTvelos
erovnuli muzeumis S. amiranaSvilis saxelobis xelovnebis muzeumSia warmodgenili.
es koleqcia or ZiriTad jgufadaa gayofili: saero da sasuliero daniSnulebis
naqargoba, es ukanaskneli ki aerTianebs sasuliero pirTa da saeklesio msaxurebisTvis
saWiro nivTebs da samoss. jer kidev Zveli aRTqmis mixedviT, samosi, romelic RmerTma
“daumtkica” aaronsa da sxva mRvdelmTavarT, ganasaxierebda maT gamorCeulobas sxva
adamianTagan.
amave principidan gamomdinare, axali aRTqmis eklesiam Tavis msaxurTaTvis daawesa
samosi, romlis warmomavlobas mociqulTa cxovrebis xanas ukavSireben. arsebobs mravali
varaudi, Tu rogori formisa da feradovnebis iyo uZvelesi saRvTismsaxuro samosi,
magram erTi ram yvela saxis literaturaSi (rogorc saeklesio, aseve samecniero)
xazgasmiTaa aRniSnuli, rom uZvelesi samosi iyo TeTri - “angelozTa samosis feri”.
am samosis tarebis ufleba da masTan dakavSirebuli dogmatika gansazRvruli iyo da
aris saeklesio krebebis dadgenilebebiT. aqedan gamomdinare dawesda saeklesio pirTa
ierarqiis sami xarisxis samosi. aseve dadginda TiToeuli saeklesio xarisxis Sesabamis
SesamoselTa raodenoba (diakoni imoseba sami, mRvdeli - xuTi da mRvdelmTavari Svidi
saxis samosiT). simboluri TvalsazrisiT, saRvTismsaxuro es is samosia, romelsac
macxovari atarebda miwieri cxovrebis, misi Sepyrobisa da gasamarTlebis dros.
am samosis formisa da feris simbolika am konteqstSi unda iqnes ganxiluli.
saqarTvelos erovnuli muzeumis koleqciebSi daculi saRvTismsaxuro samosis
Seswavlam garkveuli daskvnebis gamotanis saSualeba mogvca:
1. iseve rogorc mTel marTlmadidebel samyaroSi, qarTuli saeklesio samosis
formebSic ori ZiriTadi arsi Zevs: jvari - macxovris miwieri da zeciuri cxovrebis
aRmniSvneli simbolo da wre - misi maradiuli arsebobis, uwyvetobis, usasrulobisa da
“simrTelis” niSani.
2. samosis simbolika emyareba wminda ricxvTa gamoyenebas. rac ukavSirdeba “orobis”,
“samebisa” da “Svidobis” arsis Cadebas saeklesio samosis formaTa gaazrebaSi.
3. feri, romelic aRmosavleT saqristianos xelovnebaSi yovelTvis asrulebda
umniSvnelovanes rols, qarTul saeklesio samosSic mniSvnelovani simbolikiTaa
datvirTuli; bizantiis ferTa kanonikaSi ukve VI saukuneSi Camoyalibda Svidi ZiriTadi
feri da swored am ferTa struqturazea agebuli RvTismsaxurTa qarTuli Sesamoselis
ferTa gamac.
4. feri da feradovneba qarTul saeklesio samosSi TviTmyofadobiTa da
TaviseburebebiT - sisadaviT da ferTa TavSekavebuli gamiT gamoirCeva. feri simboluri
gagebiT macxovrisa da wm. mamebis mier dadgenili samsaxuris maradiulobis, ubiwobisa
da WeSmariti rwmenis gamoxatvis erT-erTi umniSvnelovanesi saSualebaa.
73

seqcia II SECTION
MEDIEVAL GEORGIA

Christopher Haas
Villanova University. USA
Ioane Zedazneli: A Georgian Saint in the Syrian Ascetical Tradition
During the first half of the sixth century, the character of Georgian Christianity was profoundly
influenced by the introduction of monasticism. This is attributed to the arrival of St.Ioane Zedazneli (John
of Zedazeni) at the Iberian capital of Mtskheta with twelve of his monastic co-laborers, known collectively
in the Georgian tradition as the Thirteen Syrian Fathers. St. John’s disciples soon fanned out across Iberia,
following his example of asceticism, miracle-working and evangelization.
Some commentators have argued that the Syrian Fathers were, in fact, not Syrian at all, but Georgians
who had come into contact with Syrian ascetics. Others have viewed them as Monophysite dissidents
who fled as refugees from Chalcedonian persecution under Justin and Justinian. One profitable avenue of
inquiry into the origins and character of these monks is to engage in a close analysis of the teachings and
ascetic practices of St. Ioane Zedazneli, one of the best known of the Syrian Fathers. As a spiritual leader
to the other Syrian Fathers, St. Ioane Zedazneli served as their most important model for the ascetic life, as
well as the principal source for their teachings.
This paper examines the early sources, which depict the life and teachings of St.Ioane Zedazneli. These
works are then compared with representative sources from the early Syrian ascetical tradition to reveal the
various links between the pioneers of sixth century Georgian monasticism and their purported Syrian roots.
In addition, this paper will examine St. Ioane Zedazneli’s place in the formation of Georgian historical
memory, and the ways in which he has been commemorated in Georgian iconography and mural painting.
Alexei M. Lidov
Russian Academy of Fine Arts. Russia
Eastern Christian “Image-Paradigms”: A Hierotopic Dimension of Medieval Art History
The paper deals with new approaches to the history of Eastern Christian art, which relate to the methodological
aspects in studies of medieval Georgian art and culture. It, first of all, concerns the concept of
hierotopy (the creation of sacred spaces), recently proposed by the author of this paper and elaborated in
several publications by an international group of scholars. These studies have revealed an important theoretical
issue. In many cases, the discussion of visual culture can not be reduced to a positivist description of
artifacts, or to the analysis of theological notions. Some phenomena can be properly interpreted only on the
level of image-ideas, I prefer to term them “image-paradigms”, which do not coincide with the illustrative
pictures or ideological conceptions.
This special notion seems a useful instrumentum studiorum, which helps to explain a layer of phenomena.
Image-paradigms were not connected with the illustration of any specific text, although they remained
a part of a continuum of literary and symbolic meanings and associations. This type of imagery is quite
distinct from what one may call an iconographic device. At the same time the image-paradigm belonged to
visual culture, it was visible and recognizable, but it was not formalized in any fixed state, either in a form
of the pictorial scheme or in a mental construction. In this respect, the image-paradigm looks similarly to
the metaphor that loses its sense in re-telling, or in its de-construction into parts. It does not concern any
mystic but a special type of consciousness, which determined several symbolic structures as well as numerous
concrete pictorial motifs. In addition, it challenges our fundamental methodological approach to the
image as illustration and flat picture. In the paper, I am going to discuss some particular Eastern Christian
“image-paradigms”, including very important Georgian examples.
75

Ekaterine Gedevanishvili, Marine Kenia
G. Chubinashvili National Center of Georgian Art History and Monuments Protection. Georgia
The Correlation of the Word and Image in the Medieval Georgian Mural Painting
Along with pictorial language, the idea of holy icons is primarily unveiled by inscriptions, which accompany
such images. The issue surrounding the correlation of the “Word” and “Image” in the medieval art
is continuously being addressed by different foreign scholars (B. Schellewald, L. Brubacker, G. McGuer,
R. Nelson and others). In Georgian scholarship, in addition to analyzing iconography special attention has
been paid to the accompanying explanatory inscriptions of several scenes, as well as to the inscriptions on
the prophet scrolls and triumphal arches, which help to uncover the coalesced theological idea emphasized
by the paintings (T. Virsaladze, A. Volskaia, E. Privalova, I. Lortkifanidze, A. Okropiridze, M Didebulidze,
Z. Skhirtladze and others).
The material of these studies by Georgian scholars and the results of the recent research give rise to the
possibility of making certain classification. According to preliminary conclusions, findings are likely to
determine the following “functional” groups:
• Simple, laconic explanatory inscriptions, unveiling the subject or identity of the image – this is
the most common type, which, on one hand, makes the image recognizable and, on the other, indicates the
mystical connection with the prototype.
• Widespread, narrative explanatory inscriptions, which not only specify the essence of the image,
but also enrich the image with additional details. Among these are so-called “memorial” inscriptions (i.e.
the explanations of martyrdom scenes), which give the narrative extension to the meaning of the image and
rare inscriptions, which we can refer to as “Psychological” ones, which in with their pictorial form grip the
spectator as a participant of the event.
• Inscriptions that emphasize the key highlights of the theological program. To this type belong accompanying
inscriptions of separate images, as well as the liturgical texts included in the ensembles (the
scroll texts of prophets and St. Fathers, the inscription of triumphal arches) – these inscriptions help to
explore the dogmatic-symbolic meaning of the painting.
The chronological constraints of the use of these inscriptions are profound and the rules for their application
are quite diverse: whereas in some cases we have just one “functional” type of the inscriptions, in
other, contemporary cases we observe the simultaneous use of different “functional” groups.
Ori Soltes
Georgetown University. USA
The Art of “The Knight” in its Contexts
The Knight in the Panther’s Skin is typically referred to as Georgia’s national epic poem. This paper
will consider three interwoven issues. The first is how the poem is an epic that fits well into the history
of the Western epic tradition that extends in time and space from the ancient Middle East and the Epic of
Gilgamesh to the Renaissance in Italy and Tasso’s Jerusalem Delivered, in terms of content and in terms
of style. What are the elements-the imagery, rhythmic patterns, heroic goals, interweave of issues of love
and strife, role of divinity-that define an epic and how does the Georgian poem exhibit those elements?
The second issue is how the poem is uniquely Georgian, reflecting the values and sensibilities of Georgian
culture. What is the nature of the hero - culturally and religiously - and what does he and the questions
raised by his adventure reflect of the socio-religiously diverse world in which the poem was created? Put
otherwise: how does The Knight in the Panther’s Skin reflect the nature of Georgia as a realm of tolerant
synthesis, a place of meeting among diverse cultures and traditions? These two issues will form the basis
for the third, which is to consider the visual imagery that has attached itself to the epic - the illuminations
and illustrations that, given the first two issues addressed in this paper, might be expected to offer a synthesis
of diversely influenced and indigenous elements. How does the imagery that connects to the epic
76
MEDIEVAL GEORGIA

from the 15th-18th c compare with imagery in the Persian, Turkish and European worlds of that era? What
sort of imagery within these other traditions is specifically comparable to the imagery of the Knight in the
Panther’s Skin and why?
Mariam Didebulidze
G. Chubinashvili National Center of Georgian Art History and Monuments Protection. Georgia
Secular Tendencies in the Culture of Queen Tamar’s Epoch and its Contemporaneous Mural
Painting
It is widely recognized that the Queen Tamar’s epoch is marked by the noticeable rise of a secular
spirit, as most clearly reflected in the famous “Knight in the Panther’s Skin” by Shota Rustaveli. This has
given scholars the right to argue that idea of a Western Renaissance existed in Georgia. The same kinds of
tendencies are also observed in other parts of Byzantine world, especially in Constantinople and its close
associates.
However, it is still difficult to find artistic trends of the Renaissance from a Western European perspective
in Georgian fine art from the period. Indeed, judging by the mural paintings of Queen Tamar’s epoch,
especially by the content of their programs, which demonstrate the triumph of Orthodoxy and the idea
of rejection against heresies, and also by the fact that they adorn the isolated abbeys and the churches of
ascetic monasteries, the sensual, physical and mundane is hardly noticeable. It is only possible to cite the
acute sensation of individual and personal, which points to the aspiration to a more deep mystical union
with God.
Such artworks demonstrate the interesting aspect of human psychology during Queen Tamar’s epoch,
which on one hand was somehow dual and ambivalent, aspiring to reach a mystical union with god; while
on the other, it perceived the earthly world. However, “this world” in ecclesiastic art is analyzed particularly
as the creation of God, beautified by his divine blessing.
Pavlos Flourentzos
Department of Antiquities. Cyprus
MEDIEVAL GEORGIA
The Byzantine Mosaics and Wall Painting of Churches in Cyprus
The spread of Christianity in Cyprus was accompanied by the construction of numerous churches richly
decorated with floor and mural mosaics. The sixth century wall mosaics of Panagia Kanakaria and Panagia
Angeloktistos are both unique examples of mosaics found in apses that depict the Virgin Mary.
After a long period of decline following the Arab raids, Byzantine rule was reestablished on the island,
once again promoting art that emanated directly from Constantinople. During the 11 th and 12 th centuries,
Cyprus entered a new era of prosperity as is witnessed by the number of churches and monasteries built all
over the island. Wall paintings such as those of Panagia Phorviotissa, Panagia tou Arakos, Ayios Nikolaos
tis Stegis, and Ayios Ioannis Lampadistis display strong links between contemporary Comnenian art as it
was evolving in Constantinople.
The Frankish kingdom, established in Cyprus in 1192, lasted three centuries and introduced the island
to a western type of feudal system. Many of the wall paintings of this period found at Panagia Phorviotissa,
Ayios Nikolaos tis Stegis, Panagia (Moutoulas), and the Holy Cross depict donors dressed in western
style.
During Venetian rule (1472-571), the wall paintings of Archangel Michael and of the Holy Cross
Agiasmati reflect the Paleologian style developed in Constantinople; elements of the so-called “Crusader”
77

style of painting, which was developed mainly in Palestine by western artists; and the local tradition of
Byzantine painting.
Finally, after Venetian occupation ended, wall paintings developed in two distinct directions. The wall
paintings of the church of Panagia Podithou follow the Italo-Byzantine school of Cyprus, which combine
classical Byzantine elements with those of the Italian Renaissance. On the other hand the wall paintings of
the church of the Transfiguration of our Saviour reflect the Palaeologian revival in a personal character.
Aleksandra Davidov Temerinski
Institute for the Protection of Cultural Monuments. Serbia
Eschatology, Ideology, Contextualisation: The Last Judgment in Dečani, Akhtala and Timotesubani
The unique and grandiose cycle of the Last Judgment that decorates the western part of the naos of the
Pantokrator Church, the katolikon of the monastery Dečani in Serbia (app. 1345), finds its closest parallels
in some earlier Georgian churches: Akhtala (1205-1216) and Timotesubani (1205-1215). In this paper I will
try to explain this phenomenon.
Given the vast geographical distance between Serbia and Georgia and the fact that political, trading
or cultural liaisons between these two medieval states did not exist, it is clear that any kind of artistic
“exchange” should have been excluded. The similarity of the Last Judgement images in Dečani, Akhtala
and Timothesubani could be explained as a consequence of the similar ideological context in Serbia and
Georgia at the time when these churches were painted. In none of these three compositions is the didactic or
moral message emphasized, although, generally speaking, that was the most recognizable Last Judgement
feature in the last period of Byzantine art. On the contrary, in both Serbian and Georgian monuments, the
most prominent aspect of the scene is the dogmatic sense of the true, orthodox faith.
The second aim of this paper will be an appeal for reconsidering our knowledge of the Last Judgement
image in Byzantine art and culture. Considering that the compositions were represented in the western
parts of the churches that had most often been ruined or rebuilt, the development and standardisation of the
monumental Last Judgement scenes still represents, at least partly, the terrain of a terra incognita. Our certainty
in establishing its “typical characteristics” still poses various questions which we have yet to answer
with more caution.
Ida Sinkevic
Lafayette College. USA
Fresco Icons in Monumental Art of Georgia and Byzantium: Meaning and Significance
Painted icons, also referred to as fresco icons or even fictive icons, are found in the monumental art of
both Byzantium and the countries within the orbit of its influence. Known since at least the eleventh century,
these painted images of panel icons are either circular or rectangular in shape, displaying holy figures
within realistic frames often topped with a painted hook to imitate the appearance of the actual hanging
icons. In addition to Georgian monuments, we also see fresco icons in the Church of St. Sophia in Ohrid;
the Ossuary of Backovo Monastery; the Monastery of St. Cyril in Kiev; Djurdjevi Stupovi; Nerezi; and the
churches of Mystra. While paucity of evidence precludes the knowledge of their sources, the wide geographic
range of places where they appear, from Macedonia and Serbia, to Russia and Georgia, may suggest
the Byzantine capital, Constantinople, as a tentative but possible place of their origin. The appearance of
fictive icons in Kalenderhane Camii supports this claim.
The presence of fictive icons in church decoration has been most commonly explained as an attempt to
78
MEDIEVAL GEORGIA

define the place of action and emphasize its sacred character. While this is generally true of fresco-icons
in Georgian churches too as the examples prove, those at Bertubani, Betania and Q’inc’visi, suggest additional
meaning and significance of these icons. It is the purpose of this paper to examine fresco-icons in
Georgian churches and assess their importance in understanding the multiplicity of cross-cultural roles that
these icons held in medieval art and culture.
Irine Mamaiashvili
G. Chubinashvili National Center of Georgian Art History and Monuments Protection. Georgia
Post Byzantine Tendencies in 16 th c. Georgian Mural Painting
Sixteenth century Georgian mural paintings are marked with a variety of different tendencies. At the
end of 15 th , beginning of 16 th centuries, during a period of political and social turmoil when the number of
professional painters was reduced, a so-called “Folk paintings” became dominant in murals painting. Like
Georgia, other countries of the Orthodox world did not experience a period of intense creative activity during
the time.
The realm between “Folk paintings” and professional painting in Georgia is occupied by the murals of
the Church of the Virgin at Gelati, executed in the 1520s. On one hand, features of Palaeologan style (figure
proportions, face types, and the use of clothing drapery and color contrasts) are obvious; and on the other
hand, some features coincide more with typical characteristics of “Folk paintings” pictorial elements (the
evident non-tectonic nature of compositions, simplicity of drawing, ornamental-decorative embellishment
of form, and the naive expressiveness). The tendency toward the simplification, which is peculiar to these
paintings, is generally common to the early stage of development of Post-Byzantine art.
The influence of mainstream Byzantine art, and namely of the schools of Crete and Mount of Athos,
is clearly demonstrated by paintings donated by Levan, King of Kakheti (1520-1574); Bagrat III - King
of Imereti (1510-1565); and his son George II (1565-1583). Such paintings can be found at Alvani, Gremi,
Nekresi, Akhali Shuamta, Church of the Virgin and St. George at Gelati. The iconographic programs
get more complex as they are enriched with new, previously unknown iconographic themes for Georgia.
However, Georgian examples, unlike the paintings of other Orthodox countries, are less “overfilled” with
extended cycles and different Saints’ images. The depiction of Saints, which were especially venerated in
Georgia, the peculiarities of donor portraits, as well as a number of features of painting style, such as a trend
toward the clarity of structure, laconic compositions, and less variegated palette, can be ascribed to local
traditions. Thus the 16 th century Georgian painting evolved within the mainstream of Post-Byzantine art,
though at a certain extent it retained its ties to local traditions.
Beatrice Tolidjian
Columbia University, USA
MEDIEVAL GEORGIA
Georgian Inspiration for External Wall Decoration of Gregorios Pakourianos Foundations Around
Plovdiv. Bulgaria
In 1084, Gregorios Pakourianos, the grand Domesticos of the West during the reign of Alexios I Comnenos
founded a monastery dedicated to the Theotokos at Petrizos, (Bachkovo Monastery) near the village
of Stanimacos, present day Asenovgrad, Bulgaria. Of the building campaigns of Pakourianos, the foundations
of interest for the present study are the Bachkovo Monastery ossuary and the Church St. George
“Metoshki.” They both would have been built between 1083 and 1086. This study in gestation focuses on
the manner of the decorative treatment of the facades in each of the two cases. One observes features never
79

efore seen on Bulgarian lands as pertaining to the external decorative scheme of medieval churches. A
feature shared by both the ossuary and Metoshki consists of a twice recessed blind arcade. Its main unit
consists of a pilaster, to the center of which is attached a semi-column.These engaged columns with semicylindrical
profiles rise to form arches in a continuous manner, i.e. uninterrupted by capitals. The columns
and the arches become part of the same continuous organism projecting the exact same semi-cylindrical
profile.
This decorative program is well-known in the Caucasus, where it has been used extensively, mainly for
embellishing parts of the exterior of ecclesiastical buildings, while very occasionally it has been used in the
interior as well. Scholarship has traditionally pointed to Armenian precedents for this type of church facade
decoration. This author, however, puts forth in this study, an even earlier Georgian example, namely from
864. Other Georgian examples exist from the 10 th and the early part of the 11 th century.
This study proposes to make a comparative analysis with respect to style and function of the external facade
decoration of the two Pakourianos foundations in Bulgaria and the Georgian buildings with the intent
of showing that this artistic idiom has been borrowed from the medieval buildings of the Caucasus, with
the earliest extant exponent coming from Georgia. This notion of the importation of artistic ideas from the
Caucasian program of facade decoration will be examined in light of the close politico-socio-religious ties
that existed between Georgia of the third quarter of the 11 th century and the Georgian community of monks
in this region of Bulgaria, and most importantly in light of the founder’s own intimate ties with the lands
of the Caucasus.
Tamar Khundadze
G. Chubinashvili National Center of Georgian Art History and Monuments Protection. Georgia
The Images of Historical Figures in Medieval (6 th -11 th c) Georgian Facade Sculpture
The images of historical figures form an important part of Christian medieval art. The earliest examples
of these images in Georgia are preserved on stone carvings. The facades of Georgian churches often bear
the images of donors, such as governors and clergy, as well as of architects and masters. The exact place for
these images on the exterior was not strictly determined – we see them on the lower part of the building,
above the doors and windows, and even on the dome.
The stone carved images of historical persons became the focus of Georgian scholarship from the very
beginning of this area of study. Significant research by G. Chubinashvili, R. Schmerrling, L. Rcheulishvili,
N. Chubinashvili, G. Alibegashvili, N. Aladashvili, A. Volskaia, K. Machabeli is dedicated to analysis
of the style and historical information provided by these images. Juxtaposing carvings’ accompanying
inscriptions with historical sources helped to identify the historical figures depicted. In the past twenty years,
studies by N. Aladashvili, L. Khuskivadze, D. Khoshtaria, I. Nikoleishvili, G. Gagoshidze, I. Giviashvili, T.
Khundadze, among others, mainly focused on the thematic and symbolic context of donor compositions.
The central idea of these images is the plea for the salvage of human soles and for divine protection. In
terms of this general idea, there are some thematic variations that result in a diversity of composition and
schemes: We have the images of historical persons approaching the Savior, the Virgin, the Saints, and the
Angels with the gesture of prayer; the separate praying, Orant figures; and the donors with church models
in their hands before the Savior, the Virgin, the Saints or Prophets. Furthermore, images of historical figures
with church models are included in scenes of The Last Judgment. In addition, we have some examples of
historical figures flanking the cross, which reflects the longlasting local tradition of cross veneration. Some
unique compositions include donors facing the plan of the church, the consecration of church, liturgical
procession, historical figures riding horses, among others.
Diversity of thematic and compositional interpretation is also present in the images of architects and
80
MEDIEVAL GEORGIA

MEDIEVAL GEORGIA
masters: Sometimes they are depicted with the gesture of prayer, sometimes with their working tools or even
during the working process. The medieval Georgian donor reliefs also vary in terms of a style, reflecting
the artistic and aesthetical taste and features of different historical epochs, as well as the peculiarities of
various regions of the country.
Ekaterine Kvachatadze
G. Chubinashvili National Center of Georgian Art History and Monuments Protection. Georgia
The Main Trends of the Medieval Georgian Facade Sculpture After 11 th century
The end of 11 th century marks a period of crises in Georgian sculpture, and as a consequence, the history
of sculpture after this time remained beyond the focus of scholars. Though it is still difficult to analyze
comprehensively the development and problematic nature of the sculpture of these centuries, there are
some hypotheses we can put forward.
During the 12 th -16 th century, scenes and images emphasizing integral ideas are not found on the exteriors
of Georgian churches at any further extent. Due to political turmoil, the creative process was interrupted
and some examples became dilapidated (especially from the 14 th -16 th century). On the facades of the surviving
churches from this period (Pitareti, Kazreti, Ertatsmnida, Tsugrugasheni, Dmanisi Sioni, Magalaant
Eklesia, Sapara, Sadgeri, Chitakhevi Belfry, etc.), we can observe separate and unrelated stone carved
compositions. These miniature facade reliefs, often interwoven with the ornamental decor, display different
qualities of craftsmanship and are close stylistically to miniature sculpture. This diminishes their monumentality,
which generally characterizes facade decoration. Despite their overall decorative nature, these
sculptural reliefs, which often bear deep symbolic and theological meaning, highlight the most important
parts of the building.
In the following period of Late Middle Ages (17 th - 18 th century), we witness an attempt to create a system
of facade decoration. At Ananuri Church, the long abandoned tradition of creating an integral artistic
program of facade decoration to express one idea and a complex theological meaning is rediscovered.
This is followed by a system of facade decoration at St. Peter and Paul Church in Sagarejo and “Gigos
Sakdari” in Kintsvisi, which stands close to Ananuri. The “Mtskheta” church in Lechkhumi is somewhat
distinguished.
The artistic interest in volumetric forms, which had waned after 11 th century, is not a driving force, even
for the revitalized creative explorations of 17 th -18 th century. The main intention of such artistic explorations
was the creation and revival of the sculptural programs incorporated to express one theological idea. Beneath
the arms of crosses marked with the triumphal-eschatological features evolved the main idea for the
decoration program that reflected Old and New Testament images.
The artistic style of late medieval relief sculptures is as polysemantic and dissimilar, as in some cases,
non-typical and difficult to interpret iconography of this period.
Peter Grossmann
German Institute of Archaeology in Cairo. Germany
Roman and Late Roman Elements in the Early Christian Architecture of Egypt in Comparison with
the Situation in Georgia
Since the time of Augustus Egypt belongs to the Roman Empire and since the 4 th century or even before
the Egyptians abandoned their great Pharaonic tradition and used for the architectural arrangement of their
surroundings motives from the Hellenistic and Roman art. The style of their architecture became Roman
81

with a few minor exceptions based on longer lasting traditions. The basilica, common type of early church
architecture all over the world, keeps in Egypt its pre-Christian shape. All centralized churches in Egypt
follow foreign models and the architectural decoration is heavily influenced from the development in C/pel,
the capital of the Late Roman Empire.
With Georgia the situation is completely different. It was never as long part of the Roman Empire. The
Georgian ecclesiastical architecture is indeed rather different from the influence of the Late Roman Empire.
Examples which used the style of the basilica are rare and it seems that a centralized building type came in
Georgia earlier into use than in other parts of the Empire. Apart of this the Georgian churches are nearly all
built of stone material and the decorative elements are typical Georgian. Only in rare cases one can observe
traces of later Roman influences
John Wilkinson
The British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem. (Retired Director) UK
Where did Georgia’s Churches Start?
I was lucky enough in 1995 to meet Professor Vachtang Beridze. Over 13 years I have benefited greatly
by reading his book on ancient churches. I do not know whether he would have agreed with what I am going
to say about their origin, but he would certainly have given it a fair hearing.
It used to be the case that the design of churches was supposed to come from the basilica. But this was
because so much nineteenth century scholarship was based in Rome. Roman influence was everywhere
because Rome was the first to publish art books which, by any standard, were excellent. And Roman
scholars were very impressed by the author of a book on architecture, Leon Battista Alberti, who was also
an inhabitant of the Vatican. Alberti published his book in 1485, and this was the first time that his theory
about the basilica as the origin of church design was printed.
Is this theory of the basilica leading to the church correct? In Georgia, you only have to look at the
position of the altar on the plan. It is not exactly the same in every church. But the thing which links all these
altars is the proportion, the proportion of the Ark in the Tabernacle or in the Jerusalem Temple. So, in my
personal opinion, the churches were originally based on some buildings with a close link to the Tabernacle
or the Temple, and these are the Jewish synagogues.
Irine Giviashvili
Freelance Scholar. Georgia
Georgian Polyapsidal Church Architecture
The aim of my work is to bring together and analyze the developments of the type of medieval church
known as Polyapsidal. A polyapsidal church has more than one apse. In these churches a semicircular wall
covered with a conch can be found not only the east part of the sanctuary, but also on the lateral, north and
south sides, and on the west too. These buildings are reffered to as triconches, tetraconces, five-apsed and
hexaconces. Such Polyapsidal buildings will be discussed in comparison with six arm and eight arm buildings.
The remains of these kind of buildings are preserved in Georgia, as well in historic Georgian provinces
of Tao-Klarjeti (Turkey) and Hereti (Azerbaijan).
The evaluation of the tetraconch church type in Georgia was published by Prof. G. Chubinashvili, founder
of the School of Art History studies in Georgia. His work Monuments of the Jvari type, Tbilisi 1948,
remains not only as the main publication of this type of church building in Georgia but also as the key study
of Medieval Georgian Architecture in general. Numerous publications by other scholars were dedicated to
82
MEDIEVAL GEORGIA

MEDIEVAL GEORGIA
the different Polyapsidal churches of Georgia, as well as on the rendering these types.
According the preliminary research the appearance of this type of architecture in Georgia is connected
to contemporary stylistical movements. The aesthetics of the so called “classical” period contributed to
the popularity of tetraconches. By contrast, the period of building hexaconces and eight armed churches
corresponds a period known as the “transitional period”, time when architects are in search to achieve new
scale and new style. The Building time of triconches corresponds to the new needs of 0-11 th centuries and
becomes a major type of cathedral architecture.Order to classify Polyapsidal churches it is important to take
into consideration the liturgical needs that contributed to the development of the forms and sizes of these
types. In this regard it is important to discuss the structure of Bana Cathedral and compare this example
with the other buildings of the same type.- the tetraconch in rotunda.
Georgian Polyapsidal church architecture must be discussed in relationship to similar buildings found in
neighboring regions of the Christian East and in roman and pre-Christian architecture. Medieval Georgian
church architecture represents a typological diversity which is similar to that of church architecture in the
Eastern Christian world.
Ketevan Abashidze
G. Chubinashvili National Center of Georgian Art History and Monuments Protection. Georgia
Stone Facing in Georgian Ecclesiastic Architecture
Georgia’s land resembles that of other small European counties. Its relief is marked by diversity, as on
this relatively small territory one will come across almost every type of natural landscape.
The nature, climate and flora in Georgia are varied as well. So too are its stones: one can find multicolored
and differently drawn solid marble; mirror-like teshenites; gold tuffs; green albitophire; dark gray basalt;
gray and lilac-colored andesite; different colored limestone and sandstones; travertine and shale.
Diversity in stone types points to the geological ancientness of Georgia. Likewise, the roots of building
traditions in Georgia date back to the hoary past. The paper focuses on the façade stone cladding of Georgian
ecclesiastic architecture. It explores the characteristics of the façade stone facing of both ecclesiastic and
secular buildings, from ancient times through the period of Christian church building and beyond. The
paper analyses the peculiar feature of Georgian churches, artistically executed masonry such as on “the
robe” (in Georgian) of the building. Such craftsmanship bears the traces of a special creative impulse. A
church “robe” that was made of stones draws upon the ancient local building traditions.
The stone’s color and placement plays an important role in creating the entire image of the church.
Furthermore, together with carved ornamentation, it is one of the most important elements of church facade
embellishment, because it simultaneously bears the constructive-seismic, artistic-aesthetic and symbolic
meaning.
David Khoshtaria
G. Chubinashvili National Center of Georgian Art History and Monuments Protection. Georgia
Architecture of Tao-Klarjeti: History and Perspectives of Study
Archaeological interest in the antiquities of Tao-Klarjeti started in the nineteenth century (K. Koch, D.
Bakradze, G. Kazbegi, Pr. Uvarova). From the architectural point of view, they were explored by A. Pavlinov,
N. Marr, and E. Taqaishvili who visited many churches, monasteries, and fortresses in the region and
published valuable materials including descriptions, photographs, and drawings.
After the First World War, the study of the architecture of Tao-Klarjeti was interrupted and was resumed
83

after a long time owing to N. and J.-M. Thierry,V. Djobadze, R. Edwards, and B. Baumgartner. From 1980s,
M. Kadiroğlu and other Turkish scholars are also actively engaged in the inventory and study of the monuments
of Tao-Klarjeti.
By the 1980s, the architecture of Tao-Klarjeti was already determined as a priority aspect of research by
Georgian scholars. However, political obstacles prevented them from exploring the antiquities of “Turkish
Georgia” in situ. As early as 1930s, G. Chubinashvili argued the exceptional role of Tao-Klarjeti in the
development of the Georgian architecture. Subsequently V. Beridze fully revealed this role in his general
work. Only after the collapse of the Soviet regime, Georgian scholars managed to arrange expeditions in
Turkey.
In the recent years, new perspectives emerge in the study of the architecture of Tao-Klarjeti. A joint
Turkish-Georgian team (O. Aytekin, I. Elizbarashvili) was formed for the inventory of Georgian monuments
in Turkey. Due to the efforts of M. Bogisch, there is a revival of the interest in Tao-Klarjeti in the
Western scholarship, which resulted in a special panel at the XXI International Congress of Byzantine
Studies in London 2006. Actually, it was the first gathering of scholars studying the subject from different
countries. Workshop in Istanbul 2007 was an important further step in this direction. It gave an incentive to
the creation of the international multidisciplinary team (F. Bayram, D. Khoshtaria, I. Giviashvili, A. Peacock),
which plans to start investigations in Tao in Summer 2008.
Dr. Bruno Baumgartner
University of Vienna. Austria
Unknown and Less Known Georgian Monuments in Northeast Turkey
The exploration of Tao-Klarjeti, or better of Zemo Kartli (Upper Kartli) how the Georgians have called
the provinces situated in the valley of the river Çhorkhi and in the upper reaches of the river Kura (Mtkvari)
was dominated by its difficult position in the region between Turkey and Russia.
My own researches in Tao-Klarjrti began with a touristical journey to Eastern Anatolia in 1982 when I
visited the first time some important monuments of Tao-Klarjeti as Oshki, Ishkhani, Xaxuli, Doliskana and
Yeni Rabat.
During the following years I undertook with a car of my own four journeys to Tao-Klarjeti In 1985,
1986, 1988 and 1990 I could travel to nearly all places cited by Zdanevich. Assisted by the aid of modern
street maps and the Map of the Turkish Army (Harta Genel Müdürlüğü) I was able not only to locate nearly
all Georgian monuments but also to measure and photograph most of them.
In 1989 at the International Symposium of Georgian Art History in Tbilisi I reported about my researches
in Klarjeti. During the following years I published some articles in Austria and France and in 1997 I finished
at the University of Vienna my dissertation Studies on the historical geography of Tao-Klarjeti, where you
can find new descriptions and photos of nearly all churches, monasteries and fortresses in Tao-Klarjeti.
First I want to describe some churches in the upper region of the Kura/Mtkvari valley, the former Georgian
provinces Kola, Artaani and Javaxeti. The greatest part of them was not visited by modern scholars
since the days of Takaishvili at the beginning of the 20th century:
Cicor, Dörtkilise, Alagöz, Eskibeyrehatun, Ölçek, Eruљeti, Börk, Sikirib and Gogubani.
Another interesting group of nearly unknown churches and monasteries is situated in the valley of the
Bardiz river, an important collateral valley of the Oltu-Penek river. Here we can find :
Leksori, Kalkus, Ortulis Vanki, Bardiz, Kop, Kotris and Bobisgeri.
84
MEDIEVAL GEORGIA

Markus Bogisch
University of Copenhagen. Denmark
MEDIEVAL GEORGIA
Some Remarks on Georgian Art History and the Cross-in-square Core of the Church in Oshki in the
Historic Province of Tao (Northeast Turkey)
The main church of the monastery in Oshki (963-973) has a core which is divided into nine bays by the
four free-standing piers that support the dome. In essence, this is a cross-in-square structure, albeit on a
monumental scale. Churches of this building type became predominant all over the Byzantine Empire from
the ninth century onwards. The origin of the building type, however, remains still disputed. Various modes
of explanation have been employed in the past, ranging from evolutionary and socio-economical theories
to phenomenological interpretations. The intention of this paper is not that much to focus on the formal
and typological similarities between the core structure of Oshki and the Middle Byzantine cross-in-square
churches of Constantinople, but also to analyse it within the framework of the sacred architecture of the
Christian East. Considering the traditionally close relations between Georgia and the Holy Land, I want to
show that there are certain formal, conceptual and ideological traits that ultimately link Oshki to the architecture
of Jerusalem.
Nato Gengiuri
Shota Rustaveli Theatre and Cinema University Georgia. Georgia
Porches of Georgian Churches
(From Early Christian Period to Advanced Middle Ages)
The artistic-architectural decoration of church porches proves that the entrance to a church was a focus
of Georgian architecture throughout all stages of its development. The importance of the entrance, which is
highlighted by its artistic embellishment, is a feature common to Christian architecture in general. Central
to it is the symbolic interpretation of both the entire ecclesiastic building as well as its separate parts. This
idea is emphasized by western European medieval architecture and its contemporaneous texts, in which
ecclesiastic buildings are interpreted in two ways: in terms of verbal description of ideal architectural space
and its allegorical understanding. This unveils the double meaning of ecclesiastic architecture which is
also present at entrances. Considered a symbolic border between the two worlds, the entrance acquires the
meaning of a meeting point. Hence its location, conjunction with the church’s main body and its orientation
to the different sides of the world (East, West, North, and South) take on the special importance. These issues
should be addressed also in terms of Georgian ecclesiastic architecture.
Construction of the entry porches, as separate architectural volumes, was compulsory in almost every
important monument in Georgia. Certain types of porches, such as the arched construction supported by
four free standing pillars and open in three directions, are common to every stage of architectural development.
But at the same time, the existence of other forms of porches is also observable. In addition, the
means by which the importance of the porch is emphasized varies according to the development of different
architectural styles. Because different stages of architectural development mark changes in porch varieties,
certain porch types are more common to certain periods.
In early Christian epoch, the entrance was highlighted through the arched pillared construction. In the
fifth through seventh centuries the entrance, which was not separated from the main body of the church,
is in “one flow” with the structure’s detour, as can be seen in Bolnisi Sioni, Kvemo Bolnisi, Kandamiani,
Vazisubani, Oltisi, and Tabakini, among elsewhere.
85

During the transitional period, there was a tendency both to maintain already established patterns and to
explore the new three-parted porch style. The eighth and ninth century monuments, such as the churches of
Ambara, Tskhvarichamia, Dvani, and Vachnadziani, display a variety in porch types. The widespread threeparted
and richly stone carved porch type, which is typical to the advanced Middle Ages, was formed as a
result of these artistic explorations. They have central parts with double-pitched pediment ended roofs and
sides with lower single-pitched roofs. This type of the porch spreads in popularity from the 11 th century on
and is observable in church structures with and without domes (Zemo Krikhi, Magalaant Eklesia, Manglisi,
Betania, and Kvatakhevi, etc.).
Irma Berdzenishvili
Archaeological Research Center of National Museum of Georgia. Georgia
The Ecclesiastic Architecture of Abkhazeti in Early Middle Ages
The ecclesiastic architecture of early Middle Ages in Abkhazeti is mainly known from unearthed architectural
monuments. The spread of Christianity in this area was partly due to the fact that this region served
as an asylum to first Christians persecuted by the Roman Empire. Today we know of about 26 fourth to
eighth century architectural monuments discovered on the territory of Abkhazeti. Among these, the earliest
and most valuable site is Bichvinta (Pitiunt), where the existence of a strong, organized Christian community,
which dates to the late third century, can be observed. This is also proven by archeological finds. In
fourth to sixth century, nine Christian churches were built on the territory of Bichvinta and its surroundings.
From the sixth century onward, intensive ecclesiastic building activities spread throughout all Abkhazeti,
including its costal area (Gantiadi, Gagra, Anakopia, Miusera, Sokhumi, Ochamchire, and Gudava), inland
and mountainous regions ( Khashupse, Likhne, Dranda, Jgerda, Tsebelda, Shapka, and Mramba). Examples
of Christian relief sculpture discovered in Mramba, Tsebelda, Anakophia, Sokhumi, Kulamba, and
Dranda, are linked with these progressing building activity.
Early Christian ecclesiastic architecture in Abkhazeti is manly represented by basilica-type churches:
two- (Bichvinta) and three-aisled basilicas (Bichvinta #2 and #3 churches, Alahadze, Gantiadi, Sokhumi
churches), and by triple-church basilicas (Gagra, Miusera, Abaanta abd Kiach-aba Churches). Along
with basilica structures are some single-nave churches (Bichvinta, Anakopia, Gienosi, Tsebelda #2 and #3
churches, Mramba, Shapka and Kashupse), free standing baptisteries (Gudava) and a cross-domed church
(Dranda).
The early Christian ecclesiastic architecture of Abkhazeti bears evidence of traces of the synthesis between
eastern and western building traditions. On one hand, the building techniques used link the monuments
of Abkhazeti with those of Constantinople and the costal area of Asia Minor; and on the other, some
features relate to the monuments of the inland regions of Asia Minor.
Due to the current political situation, further investigation into the monuments of Abkhazeti became difficult.
However a team of Russian-Abkhazian archeologists have been studying in the area for the last five
years and has discovered many previously unknown archeological sites. Though we regret the fact that the
abovementioned investigations have occurred without the participation Georgian scholars, it is clear that
such recent discoveries have shed light on many vague issues as well as raised many new and interesting
questions concerning the study of the antiquities in this region.
86
MEDIEVAL GEORGIA

Edith Neubauer
University of Leipzig. Germany
MEDIEVAL GEORGIA
Georgian Medieval Architecture and Sculpture and the Central European Romanesque Period
Georgia had adopted Christianity as a state religion as early as 337 AD. The pagan idols
disappeared and at the same places Christian churches for worship and baptism were often been erected,
a phenomenon known as “Continuity of the place of cult.” There were no examples of Christian churches
to follow. In the time between the fourth and the seventh centuries the inventive mind of Georgian architects
created numerous manifold forms of basilicas and domed cruciform churches.
The domed centralized church (Mtskheta, Jvari church 586/87 – 604/05) and the domed cruciform
church with four freestanding pillars (Tsromi, Redeemer church 626 -34) became new variations, unique
in the eastern Christian world. Georgia manifested its political and cultural independence of Byzantium
with these remarkable achievements. A distinguishing feature of early Christian architectures is the use
of relief sculpture which was already included in basilicas from the fourth century, but initially without a
fixed concept. In the Jvari church and the Redeemer church no part of the building was ever adorned by
pure chance, rather a fixed ideological programme existed. This promising development was interrupted
by a 200-year of Arabic rule. The beginning of the tenth century was the renaissance of Christian church
architecture and at the same time the renaissance of the monumental relief sculpture.
A second significant use of relief sculpture are the tympana which are linked with the portal of a
church. In the early Christian countries sculptured tympana in connection with church architecture can only
be found in Armenia and Georgia. The comparison of Georgian and Romanesque German jambs, frames
and pictorial programmes shows an astonishing similarity. Reception or parallel solution?
Up to date the development of the monumental style of relief sculpture linked with fades of churches
has not yet been given any regard. The first appearance about 600 AD (Jvari church, east façade) was
a pioneering event. The multitude of its roots - Antiquity, Urartu art, and oriental art – have not been
examined sufficiently. In Georgia and Armenia the mature style of monumental relief sculpture appeared
in the early tenth century in Achtamar and Oshki. The impetus reached Byzantium, Old Russia, Germany
and France.
Veronica Kalas
Wayne State University. USA
Yavuz Özkaya
Architectural Restoration PROMET. Turkey
The Georgian Aspects of Medieval Architecture at Ani in the Thirteenth Century:
The Church of Tigran Honents and the Mosque of Minuchir
The Church of Tigran Honents and the Mosque of Minuchir at Ani stand among the most important
buildings of the abandoned medieval Byzantine, Armenian, Georgian, and Seljuk city of Ani in northeastern
Turkey. In a campaign to salvage major monuments in eastern Turkey that have been neglected for decades
and to bring attention to underdeveloped regions of the country, Turkey’s Ministry of Culture and Tourism
offered a special commission for the preservation of these two structures. During the spring and summer
of 2006, Tigran Honents and the so-called mosque were the object of intensive survey by the architectural
firm PROMET based in Ankara. In this paper, we present some of the highlights from this study, including
the most important drawings and three-dimensional models produced from the survey. We also discuss
87

the ways in which this significant work of primary documentation may lead toward a better understanding
of medieval architectural history in the region, especially during the thirteenth century. These buildings
testify to a complex period of cultural interactions in eastern Anatolia and the southern Caucasus during the
thirteenth century. We will focus on the Georgian aspects of these two buildings, and explore the problems
of building chronology, technology and style, as well as issues of identity, function and meaning.
Rosemary Basic
The University of Oklahoma. USA
Georgia and Croatia: A Case of Common Source
This paper explores some striking stylistic elements shared by a famous eleventh-century icon of Our
Lady of Tenderness from the Church of SS Cyricus and Julitta in Lagurka, Svanetia, and thirteen-century
example of the Virgin Mary with Child from the Church of Virgin Mary from Spalato (Split) in Croatia.
Despite the fact that both paintings officially belong to different geographical and religious traditions, they
share traces of formative style that was originated and perhaps transmitted by masters who appropriated an
eclectic and rather unique manner of expression recognized in these two works.
It is my intention to trace the background of these two examples and offer possible answers on the
following questions: where and when this style was formatted? It is a known fact that from tenth century
on, the Georgian masters were turning away from Judeo-Palestinian models replacing them with the tradition
of the Church in Constantinople. At the time, the Byzantine capital was famous for iconographers
who created numerous innovative styles that were transmitted with model-books to various parts of the
Empire. The cultural origin of these masters, like in Croatian case, was most likely Italian, enhanced the
“originality” of appropriated style and transformed it in what is known as the maniera latina work. On the
other hand, the Georgian example reveals the mixture of both, genuine Byzantine and maniera latina elements.
The possible source of both versions of this mode of expression was the Monastery of St. Catherine,
a Greek stronghold at the Sinai desert in Egypt, where numerous artistic workshops were engaged in
creating, transmitting, and preserving multicultural and religiously diversified iconography of long-lasting
icon producti
Leila Khuskivadze
G. Chubinashvili National Center of Georgian Art History and Monuments Protection. Georgia
Ornament in Medieval Georgian Repousse work
Ornamental decoration is the branch of Georgian medieval art, distinguished with great accomplishments. In
this regard, alongside with the architecture, repousse work occupies an important place. The array of these
rich and diverse artworks demonstrates the complexity and variety of Georgian ornamental art, which on
one hand reflects the traditions of Ancient Eastern and Greek-Roman world, and on the other, demonstrates
the accomplishments of medieval culture in general. In addition the latter unveils the peculiarities,
developed due to the Georgian masters’ creativity, rich imagination and their relish for decorativeness.
Georgian ornaments are someway linked with the Byzantine ones; however the ongoing stylistic changes,
especially of foliage ornaments associate them with evolution processes of Greek and Western European
ornament. The fact that repousse ornaments help to identify certain artistic schools or workshops assume
the additional important role to them.
The successful development of medieval repousse ornament in Georgia had a broad background – on one
hand the rich traditions of pre-Christian Georgian art, and on the other, of folk art and namely of wood
88
MEDIEVAL GEORGIA

carving.
The study of Georgian repousse ornaments should be conducted in many different directions: the
chronological grouping of ornamental motives, definition of their function, symbolic meaning, style,
peculiarities, techniques, a search for a wide and rich parallel material, as well as their links with Georgian
architectural decoration. As a consequence the conclusions of these studies will define the worth place of
Georgian repousse ornament in the Georgian and world history of ornamental decoration.
Maria Lidova
Scuola Normale Superiora. Italy
Creating a Liturgical Space: the Sinai Complex of Icons by Ioannes Tsohabi.
This paper deals with six icons from the collection of St. Catherine’s monastery on Mount Sinai in Egypt.
Four of the panels are calendar icons. A fifth represents the Last Judgment while the last one bears a unique
representation of five miraculous icons of the Virgin and a narrative cycle dedicated to the miracles and passions
of Christ. A range from the late eleventh early twelfth century has been proposed for the dating of these
images.
This group of icons is one of several testimonies pointing to the active presence of Georgian monks on
Sinai in the Middle Byzantine period. The Georgian origin of these images is confirmed not only by a particularly
expressive style that still awaits detailed analysis and comparison with Georgian paintings, but also
by bilingual inscriptions (every Greek name is complemented by its Georgian equivalent). A short Georgian
inscription under the throne of Redeemer in the scene of the Last Judgment records the priest Ioannes Tsohabi
as a commissioner of the icon. The same name, Ioannes, is cited in four large Greek epigrams that decorate
the reverses of the icons. These Greek inscriptions are a work of a master poet, a great connoisseur of Greek
texts and literature.
Though these icons have already been discussed by various art historians, several problems remain unresolved.
Previous studies have generally treated the icons individually. In this paper, I will analyze the icons
as a single and coherent project. In my view, it is quite probable that all six were displayed together and thus
created and defined a particular liturgical space. Their unity is confirmed by the sophisticated Greek epigrams,
their original iconographic programs, and their stylistic and typological similarity. Through a comparison
with illuminated manuscripts and monumental paintings, it is possible to demonstrate that the Sinai complex
of icons had specific liturgical meanings. Finally, these icons are of great importance for understanding the
mutual relations between Georgian and Byzantine art.
Nana Burchuladze
Georgian National Museum. Georgia
MEDIEVAL GEORGIA
Georgian Icons at St. Catherine’s Monastery on Mount Sinai (To Georgian-Byzantine
Interrelations)
The Mount Sinai and the monastery of St. Catherine are among the most important spiritual centers
of the Christian East. Georgians were always attracted to this sacred site – traces of their presence can be
detected from the 6 th century.
The activities of Georgians were especially intense between the ninth and tenth centuries as evident
from the amount of translated ecclesiastic literature and icons painted by Georgian monks. The Sinai collection
of icons also comprised these relics brought from Georgia. Recently Georgian scholars were given
the opportunity to study Georgian manuscripts kept on the Mount Sinai. The catalogue of this treasure was
89

also published. As for Georgian icons, little information exists on them.
Obviously, in this situation the unveiling and study of each Georgian icon is of a special importance, as
they provide the valuable information on the spiritual life and activities of Georgian monks on the Mount
Sinai. The collection of documentary information regarding these icons from the collection of St. Catherine’s
Monastery and which were subsequently bought by a Russian collectors in the 19 th century and which
are lost for today, is a very important issue.
The paper aims at presenting one of those Sinai icons, particularly the fragmented polyptych with
Georgian inscriptions, which depicts common Christian Saints alongside Georgian saints—the Syrian and
Athonite fathers and other Georgian eminent spiritual figures. The onsite study of the icon and of related
material reveals that information regarding this work of art in scientific literature is misleading.
While studying the icons, we had the opportunity to determine their composition and iconographic program,
investigate the technique and style in which they were executed, as well as date this masterpiece to
the first half of 14 th century based on the comparative analyses. Along with the study of the aforementioned
polyptych, we have also submitted relatively comprehensive information regarding the Georgian icons,
which formed and continue to form a part of the Sinai Collection. We hope that the results of this accomplished
study will be interesting and useful both for the study of the medieval Georgian icon painting and
for the history of Sinai and Orthodox icons in general.
Alexsander Saminski
Andrei Rublev Museum, Russia
The Miniatures and Origin of the Berti Gospel
The Berti Gospel book (Tbilisi, Q-906) is famous for its late-twelfth-century silver-gilt covers made
by the goldsmith Beshken at the Opiza Monastery. The manuscript was donated to the neighboring Monastery
of Berti by a monk named Iovane Mtavraidze, who inherited it from his brother and uncle. Though
his dedicatory inscription does not specify where the Gospel was copied, the book’s miniatures provide
key evidence for its origin. Though presently kept separately, they were at first integral to the volume, as it
can be deduced from their page size and from the marginal traces of sewing holes that match those of the
codex’s binding.
The Berti portrait of Saint Luke is a direct copy of a miniature in a late-twelfth-century manuscript at
Dumbarton Oaks, Ms 4. The codices are also similar in terms of format, ruling type and number of lines per
page. They should have been written at adjacent locations. The excellent execution of the Washington miniatures
suggests Constantinopolitan origin, but the volume’s modest headpieces in red ink and the mediocre
quality of its parchment show that other possibilities should not be excluded.
All of the Berti Gospels’ evangelist portraits find close counterparts in a Georgian manuscript held at the
St. Petersburg Institute of Oriental Studies, E 45. This codex probably has the same origin as the Berti and
Washington ones. A Greek inscription of its owner under the image of Matthew suggests that in 1832 it was
in a Greek milieu. Some of its headpieces closely resemble Greek and Georgian manuscripts produced in
Antioch in the 11 th century. One of those books is the present Tbilisi Q-371 copied by a priest named Iovane
Mtavaraidze in 1091. The family of the owner of the Berti Gospels - Iovane Mtavraidze thus seems to have
had old connections with Antioch
90
MEDIEVAL GEORGIA

MEDIEVAL GEORGIA
Nino Kavtaria
National Center of Manuscripts. Georgia
Artistic Aspects of the 12 th -13 th c Georgian Gospels Illumination
The political and cultural flourish in the 12 th -13 th century determined refined quality of Georgian manuscript
illumination. Scriptoriums at numerous monastic centers throughout the country and abroad helped
to meet the rising demand for books and especially on manuscript gospels.
The paper aims at unveiling the artistic aspects of 12 th -13 th century Georgian manuscript gospels. Alongside,
the famous Gelati Q-908, Jruchi #2 H-1667, and Vani A-1335 Gospels, the author explores the relatively
less-known and studied 12 th -13 th century manuscripts. Their embellishment is reduced to such decorative
elements as frames, headpieces, capital letters and the images of evangelists (A-281, Q-906, Q-907,
Q-929, H-1707, H-2075, H-1706 – 12 th c.; Q-883, Q-900, A-498, A-1563, Q-899 – 12 th -13 th c.; A-138,
A-494, S-110, A-26 –13 th c). The illumination of these manuscripts clearly demonstrates an integral course
of development, amplified decorativeness and outline softness, common palette, and diversity and richness
of ornamental motives. Simultaneously, the synthesis of colorific and graphical tendencies is clearly
observable. Despite common Byzantine influences, the illumination of several manuscripts also reflects
the local artistic traditions. The ornamental decoration applied in cinnabar goes beyond the frame borders,
conflates the capital letters, penetrates the text and altogether becomes one single whole. In addition, the use
of ivory-white shade of the parchment as a color was a widespread method for that time.
The paper aims at unveiling the iconographic, stylistic and artistic peculiarities of different artistic
schools and at demonstrating the evolutionary course of Georgian manuscript illumination during these
centuries.
Lali Osepashvili
Shota Rustaveli Theatre and Cinema University. Georgia
The Peculiarities of the Decorative Design of the Georgian Liturgical Scrolls (XII-XIV centuries)
The National Center of Manuscripts maintains a number of liturgical scrolls, the review of which will
help us to make conclusions concerning the peculiarities of their design.
It is known that manuscript liturgical scrolls are an innovation of the 11 th century. The first Georgian
manuscript scroll of this epoch is without any embellishment. From the 12 th century, their design becomes
more elaborate (S-4980). As with other canonical manuscripts, the scroll has its cover page (so called
“kephi”) on which a symbolic composition or an author’s portrait is represented. The development of the
cover page design can be explained as follows: If the cover page of the 12 th -century scroll is decorated with
the image of the life-giving column, the cover page of the 13 th -century scroll (A-922) represents St. John
Chrysostom as the author of the liturgics, while the miniature on the cover page of the 16 th -century scroll
(H-516) reveals some variations on both design. On the 16 th -century scroll, we see a monumental cross and
the authors of the liturgics, St. Basil the Great and St. John Chrysostom, integrating the Eucharistic and
Golgotha (the Mount Calvary) misteries.
From the 13 th century there appear the capital letters appear on the marginal spaces. It is possible to
differentiate them: 1) A simple first capital letter, outlined in cinnabar; 2) A complex featured capital letter,
decorated with foliage or zoomorphic ornaments; and 3) Capital letters, with an image included in its
ornamentation.
This specificity of the scrolls design, starting from the 13 th century evolved through the 16 th century with
some distinctions. We maintain scrolls decorated only with capital letters: H-521 (15 th century); H-511 (16 th
91

century). Notwithstanding the specificity of a scroll design, the artist pursues the specified standards of a
scroll design, as seen in the abundantly illustrated Gospels. For example, on the scroll from Svetistskhoveli,
the text narrating the story of the Eucharist is divided horizontally by three horizontal compositions: “Christ
with the Apostles,” “Eucharist” initially with bread (“Sephiskveri”), and than with wine (“Zedashe”).
We can also compare the Georgian Liturgical Scrolls with those of Byzantine, which confirms that, on
the one hand, Georgian culture absorbs the accomplishments of the region’s leading country, and on the
other hand, formed stable national traditions. For example, unlike the Byzantines, the Georgian artist never
uses the letter “Q” as a medallion and does not represent an image in it; Georgian artist makes it oval instead
of circular and depicts Christ above it as a lord – dominant and all-mighty.
Consequently, the design of the Liturgical Scrolls acquires the determined structure over centuries: the
text is written in one column in Nuskhuri, has a cover page and capital letters on the marginal spaces.
Izolda Melikishvili
Georgian National Museum. Georgia
The Symbolic Meaning of Color and Form of the Ecclesiastic Vestments
Georgian artistic embroidery is most amply represented by the collection of the Georgian National Museum:
Sh. Amiranashvili Art Museum. This collection in divided in two groups: secular and ecclesiastic
embroidery, the latter unites the vestments of both clergy and ritual objects. According to the Old Testament,
the clothing which the Lord approved to Aaron and other priests was to demonstrate their distinction
from other humans. Likewise, the New Testament church established specific clothing for clergy, the
origins of which date back to the period of Apostle’s .
Many assumptions exist regarding the outline and color of ancient worshiping vestment; however, one
trait commonly mentioned (both in ecclesiastic and scientific literature) is that the ancient garment was
white, like the “robes of angels”. The right to wear this kind of vestment was and still is determined by the
canons of Ecumenical Councils, which defined three types of ecclesiastic clothing and the number of clothing
each religious figure should wear according to a pre-determined hierarchy (a deacon three, a priest five
and an archbishop seven pieces). These vestments symbolize the clothing worn by the Savior during his
earthly life and passions. Hence, the meaning of the outline and color of ecclesiastic vestments should be
analyzed in this context.
The study of the ecclesiastic vestments kept in the collection of Georgian State Museum gives rise
to the following possible conclusions:
1. Like the rest of the orthodox world, the outline of Georgian ecclesiastic vestment draws upon
two major outlines: the cross-the symbol of earthly and heavenly life-and the circle-a representation of
perpetuity of existence, continuity, infinity and integrity.
2. The symbolic meaning of vestment rests upon the use of sacred numbers, which is connected
with the notion of “duality”, “trinity” and “seveniity”.
3. Color, which played an important role in the eastern Christian World, has significant symbolic
meaning in Georgian ecclesiastic vestment as well. The palette of seven major colors was already formed
by the sixth century Byzantine color canonic; similarly, the vestment palette in Georgia also draws upon the
structure of these colors.
4. The Georgian ecclesiastic vestment is distinguished by its modest and harmonious color
spectrum. Color, with its symbolic meaning, is an important way of representing the infinity and chastity of
service established by the Savior and St. Fathers and the verity of the true faith.
92
MEDIEVAL GEORGIA

sastendo moxsenebebi / Poster Presentations
giorgi gagoSiZe. saqarTvelos erovnuli muzeumi. saqarTvelo
qarTvelTa monasteri RaliaSi (kviprosi)
Giorgi Gagoshidze. Georgian National Museum. Georgia
Monastery of Georgians in Ghalia (Cyprus)
giorgi pataSuri. g. CubinaSvilis sax. qarTuli xelovnebis istoriis da ZeglTa dacvis
erovnuli kvlevis centri. saqarTvelo
mcxeTis sveticxovlis fasadebze XI saukunis fenis gamoyofa da maTi rekonstruqciis
cda
Giorgi Patashuri. G. Chubinashvili National Center of Georgian Art History and Monuments
Protection. Georgia
The definition of 11 th c. Layer on the Facades of Svetitskhoveli and the Attempt its Reconstruction
gulnaz baraTaSvili. saqarTvelos erovnuli muzeumi. saqarTvelo
dafarnaTa kompleqti Tbilisis sionis taZridan
Gulnaz Baratashvili. Georgian National Museum. Georgia
The Aers from Sioni Church in Tbilisi
dea gunia. axalgazrduli arasamTavrobo organizacia “dro da memkvidreoba”.
saqarTvelo
safaris miZinebis taZari
Dea Gunia. Youth NGO “Time and Heritage”. Georgia
The Church of the Dormition of the Virgin at Sapara
eTer ediSeraSvili. g. CubinaSvilis sax. qarTuli xelovnebis istoriis da ZeglTa
dacvis erovnuli kvlevis centri. saqarTvelo
nadarbazevis sameklesiani bazilikis safasade skulptura (programis rekonstruqcia)
Eter Edisherashvili. G. Chubinashvili National center of Georgian Art History and monuments
protection. Georgia
The Façade Sculpture of the Nadarbazevi Triple Church Basilica, (the Reconstruction of Program)
eka berelaSvili. saqarTvelos erovnuli muzeumi. saqarTvelo
mRvdelmTavar mitrofanes mitra
Eka Berelashvili. Georgian National Museum. Georgia
Mitre of Archbishop Mitrophane
elene kavlelaSvili. saqarTvelos erovnuli muzeumi. saqarTvelo
mxemis moxatuloba
Elene Kavlelashvili. Georgian National Museum. Georgia
Mkhemi Church Painting
93

vera SaniZe. saqarTvelos kulturis, ZeglTa dacvisa da
sportis saministro. saqarTvelo
XVI-XVIII saukuneebis saero arqiteqtura saqarTveloSi, iranuli stilistikis
zegavlena Tu qarTuli auTentizmi?
Vera Shanidze. Ministry of Culture, Monument protection and Sport of Georgia. Georgia
The 16 th -18 th c Secular Architecture in Georgia, Persian Stilistic Influencies or Georgian Authenticity?
irine mirijanaSvili. iv. javaxiSvilis sax. Tbilisis saxelmwifo
universiteti, saqarTvelo
Sua saukuneebis saqarTvelos sazRvrispira provinciebSi arsebuli monastrebis
mniSvneloba (istoriuli hereTis magaliTze)
Irine Mirijanashvili. I. Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University. Georgia
The Role of the Monasteries of the Marchlands of Medieval Georgia (on the Example of Hereti)
maia karanaZe. xelnawerTa erovnuli centri. saqarTvelo
ioane-zosimes xeliT Semosili kidev erTi xelnaweri
Maia Karanadze. National Center of Manuscripts. Georgia
One More Manuscript Adorned by Ioane Zosime
mzisTvala kecxoveli. saqarTvelos erovnuli muzeumi. saqarTvelo
samRvdelo olari anCidan
Mzistvala Ketskhoveli. Georgian National Museum. Georgia
Priest’s Orarion from Anchi
nino giorgobiani. sasuliero akademia. saqarTvelo
bolnisis sionis moxatuloba da
misi qtitorebi _ episkoposi nikolozi da mefe giorgi XI
Nino Giorgobiani. Georgian Seminary. Georgia
The Bolnisi Sioni Painting and its Donors: The Episcope Nikoloz and the King George XI
nino daTunaSvili. saqarTvelos erovnuli muzeumi. saqarTvelo
Tesalonike - gremi: aTonis mTis mxatvruli tradicia da
leon kaxTa mefis RvawliT Seqmnili bolo ferweruli ansambli
Nino Datunashvili. Georgian National Museum. Georgia
The Thessalonica-Gremi: The Athonite Artistic Tradition and the Last Paintings Executed
with the Efforts of Leon, King of Kakheti
nino CixlaZe. saqarTvelos erovnuli muzeumi. saqarTvelo
paleologosTa mxatvruli stilis moxatulobis fragmentebi martvilis eklesiidan
Nino Chikhladze. Georgian National Museum. Georgia
The Fragments of Palaeologan Style Paintings in Martvili
94

III seqcia
modernizmi
saqarTveloSi

modernizmi saqarTveloSi
gaston buaCiZe
de l’Académie de Bretagne et des Pays de la Loire. safrangeTi
qarTuli ferwera evropis konteqstSi: firosmani, lado gudiaSvili, daviT kakabaZe
kiril da ilia zdaneviCebTan erTad, franguli warmoSobis mxatvari miSel le
dantiu monawileobs firosmanis “aRmoCenaSi”. firosmanis nawarmoebebi gamofenil
iqna parizSi (andre marlos iniciativiT) da nantSi, 1999 wels. nantSi gamocemuli
mSvenieri katalogi, franguli presis gamoxmaureba. le dantium, lui aragonma (da
sxva xelovnebaTmcodneebma) firosmani Seadares jotos. p.pikaso xatavs firosmanis
portrets. “aqtrisa margarita” TiTqosda ewviao firosmanis gamofenas parizSi
sakuTari portretis sanaxavad.
1920-i an wlebSi daviT kakabaZe da lado gudiaSvili Sedian “parizis skolaSi” da
mraval gamofenaSi monawileoben. 1925 wels moris reinali gudiaSvils monografias
uZRvnis. gudiaSvilis naxatebi goias “kapriCosaa” Sedarebuli. gudiaSvili xvdeba
iaponel fuJitas, italiel modilianis, polonel z. valiSevskis (gudiaSvili miziarebs
samiveze Tavis mogonebebs). 1997 wels gudiaSvilis gamofena imarTeba parizSi, erovnul
sakrebuloSi. katalogis gamocema.
daviT kakabaZe aqveynebs parizSi statiaTa or qarTul krebuls (“parizi, 1920-1923”,
“xelovneba da sivrce”, parizi, 1924-25) da erT wigns frangulad, (“konstruqtiuli
suraTis Sesaxeb”, gamomcemloba “Sen ver:). 1973 wels miSel sefori miziarebs Tavis
mogonebebs da mesaubreba kakabaZis Semoqmedebaze. xelovnebis sakuTari koncefciis
Camoyalibebisas, kakabaZe gansakuTrebiT leonardo da vinCisaken ixreba. 1982 wels,
luiji magarotosa da misi kolegebis mier momzadebuli koleqtiuri krebuli gamodis
veneciaSi: “avangardi TbilisSi”, sadac saubaria, kerZod, gudiaSvilsa da kakabaZeze.
kakabaZis peizaJebi moicaven sivrces misi mSobliuri imereTidan moyolebuli
bretanamde. kakabaZis TqmiT, WeSmariti erovnuli xelovneba universaluri xelovnebis
SeqmnaSi monawileobs.
giorgi xoStaria
g. CubinaSvilis sax. qarTuli xelovnebis istoriis da ZeglTa dacvis erovnuli
kvlevis centri. saqarTvelo
binaruli opozicia niko firosmanaSvilisa da modernizmis mxatvrobaSi
niko firosmanaSvilis mxatvrul wyobaSi aRiniSneba iseTi struqturuli
Taviseburebebi romlebic arsebiTia Tanamedrove mxatvrobisTvisac. es aRniSnuli aqvT
misi Semoqmedebis sxvadasxva mklevarebs (i. zdaneviCi, e. kuznecovi da sxv.) Tumca isini
ar iZlevian am faqtis siRrmobriv analizs.
modernizmis, rogorc epoqaluri movlenis erT-erT arsebiT maxasiaTeblad migvaCnia
mxatvruli mTlianobis axleburi gaazreba binaruli opoziciis gamZafrebis safuZvelze.
sxvadasxva skolebi, meTodologiuri principebis mqone mimarTulebebi Tu individebi
sxvadasxva doneze, sxvadasxva siRrmiT iazreben am problemas. uaRresad saintereso
da amasTan bolomde auxsnel faqtad gvevlineba is, rom n. firosmanaSvilTan vxedavT
swored am mxatvrul-SemoqmedebiTi problemis Rrma, organul gaazrebas da maRal doneze
96

modernizmi saqarTveloSi
gadawyvetas. uaxlesi drois xelovneba iazrebs ra binaruli opoziciis fundamentalur
sawyisebs, kerZod im faqts, rom nebismieri suraTi, rogorc mxatvruli nawarmoebi,
warmoadgens ormagi niSnobrivi rigis gaerTianebas erT did niSanSi da, amdenad, suraTi
aris samganzomilebiani, dinamikuri, SemousazRvravi. suraTgareSe arsebuli samyaros
niSnebis gadatana organzomilebian SemosazRvrul materialur safuZvlebze, aZlierebs
am dapirispirebas da cdilobs miiRos axali tipis mxatvruli mTlianoba.
Tanamedrove xelovnebis etapebi da mimarTulebebi ZiriTadSi ganisazRvreba
swored imiT, Tu rogor, ra doneze gaiazreba aRniSnuli problematika. am gzaze did
etapobriv movlenad gvevlineba e. delakruas, impresionistebis da, gansakuTrebiT p.
sezanis Semoqmedeba. sainteresoa, rom n. firosmanaSvilis Semoqmedebis Camoyalibeba
xdeba imave periodSi, 1880-90-ian wlebSi, rodesac p. sezani agvirgvinebs Tavis Ziebebs.
magram saocreba isaa, rom araviTari kontaqti n. firosmanaSvils parizTan da frangul
skolasTan ar hqonia. am periodSi saqarTveloSi araTu Tanamedrove mxatvrobis, aramed
zogadad realisturi dazguri mxatvrobis pirvel nabijebTan gvaqvs saqme. mxolod 1900iani
wlebis dasawyisidan Cndeba saqarTveloSi pirveli niSnebi Tanamedrove mxatvrobisa,
im dros rodesac firosmanaSvilTan swored 1900-ian wlebSi vxedavT ara pirvel nabijebs,
aramed iseT maRali donis gadawyvetebs, romelic, rogorc wesi, miiReba mniSvnelovani
evoluciuri gzis Semdgom. am problemis gadawyvetisas warmoqmnil winaaRmdegobaTa
mogvarebis erT-erT arsebiT maorganizebel principad gvevlineba Sesrulebis mZafri
lakonizmi, romelsac firosmanaSvilTan vxedavT ufro adre, vidre parizuli skolis
mxatvrebTan. Cveni amocanaa aRniSnul debulebaTa TvalnaTlivi Cveneba.
liana anTelava
Tbilisis saxelmwifo samxatvro akademia. saqarTvelo
samyaros sivrce/drois kontinualuri modeli qarTul mxatvrobaSi
mxatvroba tradiciulad drois ar mqone sivrciT xelovnebaTa rigs ganekuTvneba.
Tumca udaoa, rom yovelives, rac myofobs, gaaCnia droiTi maxasiaTebeli.
drois specifikas warmoadgens is, rom igi grZnobaTa organoebis mier ar aRiqmeba,
arasensorulia, zegrZnobadia da amitomac misi saxe mWidrodaa mijaWvuli metaforasTan
(risi meSveobiTac xdeba zegrZnobadis modelireba) da ganpirobebulicaa metaforebiT.
sivrciT xelovnebad artikulirebul mxatvrobaSi dro metaforis saxiT monawileobs.
drois yvelaze ufro arsobriv da sayovelTao maxasiaTebel niSanTa rigs miekuTvneba
sivrcesTan kavSiri. amitom bunebrivia drois arsis axsna sivrcisaTvis damaxasiaTebeli
niSnebis meSveobiT. sivrce da dro warmoadgens samyaros suraTis dRemde cnobili
ganmartebis “mzidav konstruqcias~.
mxatvrobaSi dro metaforulad vlindeba tiloze. sivrce/drois urTierobiT
mJRavndeba samyaros xedva/gancda. sivrce/drois kontinualur modelSi akumulirebulia
ama Tu im kulturis, epoqis, stilis, mxatvris ZiriTadi fenomenuri niSnebi, romelTa
gamovlena-Seswavla mkafiod warmoaCens ama Tu im kulturis gansakuTrebul
individualobas.
warmodgenil moxsenebaSi es sakiTxi ganxiluli iqneba niko firosmanaSvilis da daviT
kakabaZis namuSevarTa magaliTze.
97

modernizmi saqarTveloSi
marina meZmariaSvili
g. CubinaSvilis sax. qarTuli xelovnebis istoriis da ZeglTa dacvis erovnuli
kvlevis centri. saqarTvelo
firosmanis Semoqmedeba evropuli modernizmis CarCoebSi
moxseneba eZRvneba TviTnaswavli xelovanis - niko firosmanis da dasavleT evropisa
da ruseTis modernizmis Tematikas. moxsenebaSi ganixileba firosmanis xelovnebis
ramdenime aspeqti, rogorc saqarTveloSi modernizmis pirveli gamoxatuleba.
firosmans ar miuRia profesiuli ganaTleba da igi tfilisis sazogadoebis yvelaze
dabali fenis warmomadgeneli iyo.
firosmanis fenomeni mxatvris SemoqmedebaSi grZnobebis asaxvaSi mdgomareobs,
romelic codnas ar eqvemdebareba. firosmanis Semoqmedebis sawyis etapze Seiqmna
namuSevrebi, romelic me-20 saukunis dasawyisSi axali iyo dasavleT evropisa da
ruseTisaTvis, amasTan ki, ucxo saqarTvelosaTvis.
firosmanis namuSevrebi agreTve mniSvnelovania sivrcis, feris da formis
gansakuTrebuli, SemoqmedebiTi midgomis TvalsazrisiT. aRniSnuli problemebi imave
dros arsebobda ruseTis, safrangeTisa da germaniis SemoqmedebiT samyaroSi. moxsenebaSi
firosmanis Sedarebulia a. rusos, p. pikasos, n. gonCarovas, m. Sagalis, a. makisa da sxva
SemoqmedTa namuSevrebs. moxseneba miuTiTebs firosmanis Semoqmedebis zegavlenaze
rusul “neo-primitivizm”-sa da avangarduli xelovnebis sxva mimdinareobebze.
rusma mxatvrebma - m. le dantium da m. SevCenkom firosmanis namuSevrebi gadaakeTes.
zemoaRniSnuli sakiTxi dRemde TiTqmis Seuswavleli iyo. rusi mxatvrebis is
namuSevrebi, romlebic sazogadoebisaTvis iyo cnobili, arasodes ganixileboda,
rogorc reproduqciebi.
Cven yuradRebas vamaxvilebT rusi avangarduli mimdinareobis wamyvani mxatvris -
le dantiusa da futuristTa - iliazdisa da kirile zdaneviCis rolze, romlebmac
aRmoaCines firosmani da misi namuSevrebi gaacnes saqarTvelos, ruseTsa da safrangeTs
(1972 wels p. pikasom Seqmna firosmanis portreti).
firosmanis fenomeni dasavleTisa Tu aRmosavleTis, erovnuli Tu msoflio
xelovnebis mimarTulebebiT, folklorisa da modernizmis SemoqmedebiTi ideebiTaa
gamsWvaluli.
nana yifiani
g. CubinaSvilis sax. qarTuli xelovnebis istoriis da ZeglTa dacvis erovnuli
kvlevis centri. saqarTvelo
“poeturad binadrobs adamiani”
XX saukunis dasawyisis qarTuli saxviTi da literaturuli modernizmi, romelsac
tfilisur modernizmsac uwodeben, axali da uaxlesi qarTuli kulturis istoriaSi
yvelaze Tavisufalia Tavisi arsiT da imavdroulad yvelaze tragikuli bedis mqone.
moxsenebis mizania dasvas tfilisuri modernizmis erovnuli identurobis problema,
rac xsenebuli Tavisufali kulturul-mxatvruli cnobierebis pirobebSi mis vizualur
Tu sityvier teqstebSi wakiTxvadia.
identurobis problemis dayeneba aqtualuria gamomdinare qarTuli modernizmis
98

modernizmi saqarTveloSi
aRniSnuli tragikuli bedidanac. mas, romlis droiTi sazRvrebi sul ori aTwleulia,
(1910-1920-iani wlebi), dReisaTvis mcire niSac ar ukavia msoflios/dasavleTis
modernizmis istoriaSi. amis mizezi saqarTvelos politikur-kulturuli mdgomareobaa
- erTi mxriv, sabWouri 1930-iani wlebidan, zogadad modernistuli xelovneba, Tavad
rusuli revoluciuri avangardic ki, ukve represirebulia. meore mxriv, 1921 wels
aneqsirebuli saqarTvelos kulturam erTiani sabWouri kulturul-esTetikuri
sivrcis Seqmnis mizniT lokalurad, Tavad saqarTveloSic ki, ara Tu mis sazRvrebs
miRma, akrZalvebis Sedegad marginalizacia ganicada.
sabWoTa kulturis politikis mier erovnuli kulturebis marginalizacias
darTulma modernizmis akrZalvam Cveni mexsierebidan srulad amoSala XX saukunis
dasawyisis qarTuli saxelovnebo cxovreba. Cven axla viwyebT ara Tu am fenomenis
gaazrebas istoriul-RirebulebiTi, mxatvrul-RirebulebiTi TvalsazrisiT, aramed
faqtobrivi masalebis aRmoCena-aRwera-dokumentaciasac ki. arsebobs kidev erTi
Seferxeba, rac modernisti mxatvrebis Semoqmedebis interpretacias, maT arazust
konteqstSi ganTavsebas Seexeba: sabWour periodSi represiebs fizikurad gadarCenili
modernistebis 1910-20-iani wlebis Semoqmedeba gasagebi garemoebebis gamo ganixileboda
axalgazrda mxatvarTa modernizmiT erTgvari “gatacebis” periodad, sabWoTa periods
Tanxvedrili maTi represirebuli xelovneba ki, erTgvar evoluciur-ganviTarebad
WrilSi warmodgnideboda, da Zalauneburad socialisturi realizmis konteqstSi
Tavsdeboda. dRes es ase aRar aris, magram jer-jerobiT mainc ar xdeba am ori
mdgomareobis - modernulisa da socialistur-komunisturis, konceftualurad Tu
konteqstualurad urTierTgamijnva, rac moitans Tavad tfilisuri modernizmis
reabilitacias, misi mxatvruli da istoriuli Rirebulebebis gansazRvras; meore
- sabWouri sistemis mier Seqmnili da dRemde moqmedi kulturuli da saxelovnebo
ierarqiis demontaJs.
moxsenebaSi identurobis konteqstSi daismeba erTi problema kategoriaTa WriliT.
esaa sivrcis kategoria: romeli sivrcea tfilisuri modernizmisTvis faseuli; rogori
mniSvnelobisaa igi dro-sivrcis urTierTobis modernistul konteqstSi. sivrcis
gaazrebis specifika asaxavs tfilisuri modernizmis erT Taviseburebas.
moxseneba daeyrdnoba SedarebiT analizs: 1. Tanadroul dasavlur da rusul
masalasTan da, 2. qarTuli Sua saukuneebis arqiteqturasa da kedlis mxatvrobasTan.
moSveliebuli iqneba rogorc evropuli Sua saukuneebis, ise bizantiuri arqiteqturisa
da mxatvrobis nimuSebi.
ana SanSiaSvili
xelovnebis saerTaSoriso centri
iv. javaxiSvilis sax. Tbilisis saxelmwifo universiteti. saqarTvelo
niko firosmanaSvilis ferwera XIX s-is bolosa da XX s-is dasawyisis evropuli
mxatvrobis konteqstSi
qarTuli ferweris erT-erTi yvelaze mniSvnelovani figuris _ niko firosmanaSvilis
Semoqmedebas mravali iseTi Tavisebureba axasiaTebs, rac mis mxatvrobas XIX s-is bolosa
da XX s-is dasawyisis evropuli xelovnebis sxvadasxva mimdinareobebTan akavSirebs.
cnobilia, rom firosmanaSvils xSirad TviTnaswavl “naiv” an “primitivist” mxatvrad
ganixilaven, Tumca mkvlevarTa umetesoba aRiarebs qarTveli mxatvris Semoqmede-
99

modernizmi saqarTveloSi
bis gansakuTrebul siRrmes da mravalmxrivobas - firosmanis figuris mniSvnelobas
erTiorad zrdis is, rom qarTveli mxatvari Tavisi Semoqmedebis manZilze sruliad
damoukideblad, intuitiurad mivida imave mxatvrul principebamde, romlebsac
amave periodis dasavleT evropaSi mTeli mxatvruli skolebi da mimdinareobebi
amuSavebdnen.
qarTvel mxatvars gamoarCevs detalisa da mTlianobis erTdroulad SegrZnebis Tandayolili
unari. mis namuSevrebSi ukugdebulia bevri detali, rac mis mier Seqmnil
saxeebs pirobiT, monumentur, zogjer erTgvar “abstraqtul” saxeebad warmogvidgens.
es principi mas evropuli modernizmis sxvadasxva mimdinareobebTan anaTesavebs: cnobilia,
rom formis “sisufTavis”, sisadavis problema Tanamedrove mxatvrobis erT-erT
umTavres principad iqca. mTavari, formis naturalisturad asaxvis nacvlad, asaxulis
arsis wvdoma da garkveuli deformaciiT, meorexarisxovani detalebis nivelirebiT
Tu pirobiTobis xarisxis gazrdiT misi warmoCena gaxda. swored es principi, romelic
TvalsaCinod da Taviseburadaa gamovlenili firosmanis SemoqmedebaSi safuZvlad
daedo Tanamedrove xelovnebis sxvadasxva mimdinareobas: esqpresionizs, kubizms,
abstraqcionizms da a.S.
p. sezanis, matisisa da derenis muSaobis stils mogvagonebs niko firosmanaSvils
farTo monasmi, weris Tavisufali manera, erTi amosunTqviT muSaoba. P. sezanis muSaobis
teqnikasTan msgavsebaze miuTiTebs firosmanis Sav muSambaze xatvis manerac. cnobilia,
rom p. sezani Tavis mxatvrobaSi tilos TeTr fers iseve iyenebda, rogorc amas niko
Savi muSambis SemTxvevaSi akeTebda _ rodesac Savi feri sWirdeboda, fonad Tavisufal
adgils tovebda.
amave kavSirze miuTiTebs mxatvris mier sxvadasxva ferebisTvis miniWebuli simboluri
mniSvneloba, rac Tanamedrove evropuli mxatvrobis sxvadasxva mimdinareobebis:
postimpresionizmis, simbolizmis Tu abstraqcionizmisaTvis aris damaxasiaTebeli.
igive SeiZleba iTqvas naxatSi warwerebis damoukidebel kompoziciur elementad
CarTvze, rac evropaSi pirvelad 1911 wels kubistebma gamoiyenes.
mxatvrobis Tavisufali teqnika, kompoziciis sisadave, feris mniSvneloba Tu
warwerebis gamoyeneba niko firosmanaSvils modernizmis epoqis mowinave mxatvarTa
rigSi ayenebs.
nestan TaTaraSvili
damoukidebeli mkvlevari. saqarTvelo
evropuli kulturuli memkvidreoba - modernis stilis arqiteqtura saqarTveloSi
XIX s-is dasasruls evropaSi Camoyalibebuli axali stili, romelsac saqarTveloSi
moderns vuwodebT, sxvadasxva saxeliT - Art Nouveau, Jugendstil, Secession, Modernista, Liberty
da sxv. swrafad damkvidrda msoflios bevr qveyanaSi da maT Soris saqarTveloSic. sxva
stilebisgan gansxvavebiT, moderni ar gvTavazobs winaswar SemuSavebul da dadgenil
formebs. is gamoricxavda meqanikur gameorebas da iTxovda mxolod sakuTari ideebisa
da Temebis Tavisufal improvizacias, rasac Cvenma ostatebma warmatebiT gaarTves
Tavi.
saqarTveloSi modernis stiliT Sendeboda ara marto dedaqalaq TbilisSi, aramed
sxva, SedarebiT patara qalaqebSi: soxumSi, baTumSi, foTSi, quTaisSi, gagraSi, axal
aTonSi, qobuleTSi, duSeTSi.
100

modernizmi saqarTveloSi
sacxovrebeli da saSemosavlo saxlebis garda, Zalze xSiria modernis sxva funqciis
Senobebic: bankebi, saswavleblebi, maRaziebi, saavadmyofoebi, saxelosnoebi, Teatrebi,
oranJerea. aRsaniSnavia, rom gvaqvs, agreTve, modernis stilis Tambaqos fabrika da
Tboeleqtrosadguri TbilisSi, xolo biblioTeka da etlebis sadgomi - foTSi.
modernis SesaniSnavi memorialuri Zeglebia daculi Zvel, istoriul sasaflaoebze.
gansakuTrebuli aRniSvnis Rirsia modernis stilis kinoTeatrebi. cnobilia, rom
modernisa da kinos gaCenisa da gavrcelebis TariRebi TiTqmis emTxveva erTmaneTs da
amitom Zalian mniSvnelovania, rom maSindeli msoflios am ori novaciis Tanxvedra
ase warmatebulad ganxorcielda saqarTveloSi.
samwuxarod, modernis Senobebis gamovlenis samuSaoebi, iseve rogorc sruli saarqivo
kvleva - dausrulebelia, Tumca Cven xelT arsebuli masala naTlad adasturebs,
rom evropasTan aRdgenilma kulturul-ekonomikurma urTierTobam saqarTvelos
saSualeba misca daenerga da gaevrcelebina maSindel msoflioSi yvelaze popularuli
- modernis stilis arqiteqtura. moderns Tavisi kuTvnili adgili sWirdeba ara marto
qarTul samecniero naSromebSi, aramed saswavlo saxelmZRvaneloebsa da turistul
gzamkvlevebSi.
saqarTvelos modernis stilis arqiteqturam ukanasknel wlebSi cnobili
saerTaSoriso organizaciebis: niu iorkis “msoflio ZeglTa fondis”, briuselis
“modernis qselisa” da barselonas “modernis evropuli marSrutis” yuradReba miipyro
da amJamad Cveni modernis amsaxveli masalebi maT mier rogorc internetSi, agreTve
sxvadasxva saerTaSoriso gamocemebSia ganTavsebuli.
saqarTvelos moderni - evropuli kulturuli memkvidreoba - Tavad evropam
ukve Seafasa da mas saTanado adgilic miuCina. jeri axla Cvenzea, radgan moderni
saqarTveloSi dRemde kvlav srulyofilad Seuswavleli da amasTanave - Seufasebeli
da daucvelia; daucveli rogorc ngrevisa da ganadgurebisgan, aseve ukanasknel wlebSi
gaxSirebuli mcdari da samecniero safuZvels moklebuli restavraciisgan.
maia ciciSvili
iv. javaxiSvilis sax. Tbilisis saxelmwifo universiteti. saqarTvelo
eqspresionizmidan dadamde 1910-1930-iani wlebis qarTul mxatvrobaSi (axlad
aRmoCenili masalis safuZvelze)
bolo wlebis ganmavlobaSi, yvela, vinc ki 1910-1930-iani wlebis qarTul avangards
Sexebia, cnobili mizezebis Sedegad faqtobrivad ucnobs, imdenad gaocebula misi
daxvewili saxviTobiT, Taviseburi, TiTqos faruli simZafriT, sisadavis mniSvnelovnebiT,
mravalferovnebiTa da TavisTavadobiT, rom aSkarad moulodnelobisa Tu gakvirvebis
gamo es movlena nawilobriv SemTxveviTobas miewera. yvela es Tviseba, romelic XX saukunis
pirveli mesamedis qarTul xelovnebas Tanadrouli evropulisgan ramdenadme gamoarCevs,
faqtobrivad ucvlel niSnad gasdevs mas mTeli arsebobis manZilze. am periodis qarTvel
xelovanTa SemoqmedebaSi (ferwera, grafika, Teatraluri mxatvroba da wignis grafika)
gaziarebulia evropuli avangardis TiTqmis yvela ZiriTadi mimdinareoba.
XX saukunis dasawyisSi, maSin rodesac avangardulma ganwyobam evropis mravali
qalaqi moicva, Tbilisic Tavisi tradiciuli gaxsnilobiTa da axlis miRebis mzaobiT,
CarTuli aRmoCnda am Tanadroul mowinave saerTaSoriso moZraobaSi. SeiZleba iTqvas,
qarTuli mxatvroba yvelaze bunebrivad da Tavisuflad swored 1910-1920-ian wlebSi
101

modernizmi saqarTveloSi
viTardeboda. sagulisxmoa, rom avangardul xelovnebas yvela mxatvari individualurad
miudga: Tu zogierTis SemoqmedebaSi mxolod erTi an ori mimdinareobis midevneba
vlindeba (S. qiqoZe, v. sidamon-erisTavi, k. zdaneviCi, i. zdaneviCi, e. axvlediani, d.
TavaZe), sxvebTan ramdenime mimarTulebis Tanmimdevruli gadamuSaveba da gaTaviseba
iCens Tavs (d. kakabaZe, l. gudiaSvili, i. gamrekeli, d. SevardnaZe), zogjer ki, qarTveli
modernistis nawarmoebebi imdenad saxecvlili da Taviseburia, rom pirdapiri analogis
moZiebac ki Zneldeba (p. ocxeli).
sazogadoebisaTvis naklebad cnobili da, gansakuTrebiT ki, ukanaskneli sami
wlis manZilze aRmoCenili ucnobi masalis, Tamami, zogjer ukiduresad avangarduli
nawarmoebebis, Cveneba da ganxilva kidev ufro srulad warmoadgens qarTveli
modernistebis Semoqmedebas da garkveulad Secvlis aqamde arsebul Sexedulebas maT
mxatvrobaze. ra Tqma unda mravali wlis manZilze faqtobrivad miuwvdomeli masalis
Ziebebisa da aRmoCenebis procesi grZeldeba, Tumca Sesrulebuli samuSao ukve iZleva
xSirad moulodneli da metad sagulisxmo nawarmoebebis garkveulwilad Sejamebisa da
analizis saSualebas.
irine abesaZe
SoTa rusTavelis saxelobis Teatrisa da kinos saxelmwifo universiteti.
saqarTvelo
qarTuli modernizmidan - transavangardamde, anu kidev erTxel terminTa definiciis
Sesaxeb
xelovanis mier samyaros aRqmisas, mkveTrad gamoxatulma negaciam, msoflio omebiTa
da revoluciebiT provocirebulma, erTmaneTis miyolebiT warmoSva is mxatvruli
mimdinareobebi, romlebic erTi saerTo saxelwodebis “modernizmis” qveS gaerTianda.
am mimarTulebaTa mimdevrebi adamianis miusafrobis, gaucxoebis SegrZnebis, totaluri
Zaladobis winaSe SiSis sindromis ama Tu im formiT dafiqsirebas cdilobdnen. samyaros
mosalodneli aRsasrulis mtkivneulma gancdam, esqatologiurma xilvebma Tavis apogeas
XX s-is 60-70-ian ww. miaRwia, rodesac sakacobrio WerqveS erTmaneTisgan damoukideblad,
cnobili kulturologebi da filosofosebi alaparakdnen imis Sesaxeb, rom amgvarad
veRar gagrZeldeboda. SemTxveviTi ar aris, rom XX saukunis udides filosofoss
m. haidegers egzistencializmTan erTad, postmodernistuli msoflmxedvelobis erTerT
pirvel Semoqmedad miiCneven. swored mas ekuTvnis azri, rom ”postmodernizmi
imitom ki ar warmoiSva, rom daasamaros misi winamorbedi modernistuli mimarTuleba,
aramed imisaTvis, rom samyaros axali sazrisi SesZinos”.
marTalia, XX s-is 80-90-ian ww. qarTul kulturul arealSi mimdinare samxatvro
procesebze saubari, maTi Sefasebis TvalsazrisiT, jer kidev naadrevia, vinaidan, jer
kidev ar dasrulebula maTi ideur-formaluri Camoyalibeba. dReisaTvis mxolod im
tendenciebis konstataciaa SesaZlebeli, romelic saxezea, esenia: 1) abstraqciuli
mxatvrobis nonfiguratulobis sapirispirod, neofigurativizmis damkvidreba; 2)
groteskis,ironiis ZiriTad mxatvrul xerxebad gamoyeneba; 3)stiluri ekleqtizmis
damkvidreba, interteqstualoba;4) religiuri da miTologiuri motivaciebis arseboba;
5) istoriuli warsulis nostalgia.; 6) ormagi kodirebis tendencia.
aRsaniSnavia, rom terminebi “modernizmi” da “avangardizmi”, iseve, rogorc
102

modernizmi saqarTveloSi
maTi Semdgomi, mimarTulebebi “postmodernizmi” da “transavangardi” samecniero
literaturaSi xSirad erTmaneTiTaa Canacvlebuli urTierTTavsebadi bunebisa da
arsobrivi identurobis gamo. aqedan gamomdinare, mxolod SeTanxmebis doneze unda
gadawydes qarTul saxelovnebo sivrceSi romeli definiciebia ufro morgebuli, rom
ar daibnes gaucnobierebeli recipienti. Tu gaviTvaliswinebT, rom XX -is 80-ani w.
kulturuli tendenciebis misamarTiT termin “postmodernizms” pirvelad vxvdebiT
frangi filosofosis J. bodriaris naSromebSi, Semdeg italieli p.portogezi am termins
mxolod 80 - 90-ani ww. arqiteqturasTan mimarTebiT ixmars, termin “transavangards”ki,
safuZvels umagrebs meore italieli profesori b. oliva, romelmac pirvelma wamoayena
xelovnebis ganviTarebis transavangarduli koncefcia. aqedan gamomdinare, SesaZloa
Tanamedrove qarTuli mxatvrobis konteqstSi ufro upriania “transavangardis”
gamoyeneba. erTi ram cxadia, romeli terminic ar unda SeirCes XX-is 80-ani ww.
samxatvro tendenciebis aRsaniSnavad, postsabWour sivrceSi moxvedrilma saqarTvelos
SemoqmedebiT-inteleqtualurma garemom spontanurad moaxdina adekvaturi reaqcia
da transavangarduli elementebiT gaajera qarTuli saxviTi xelovneba. amaSi ki, mas
safuZveli XX s.dasawyisis qarTulma avangardulma memkvidreobam gaumagra.
Tea tabataZe
Tbilisis saxelmwifo samxatvro akademia. saqarTvelo
modernistuli artistuli kafeebis zogierTi Taviseburebis gansazRvrisaTvis.
(„qimerionis“ moxatulobis ideur-Sinaarsobrivi metyvelebis Sesaxeb)
artistuli kabare/klubi/kafe adreuli modernizmis erT-erTi mniSvnelovani
movlenaa. swored XIX saukunis bolosa da XX saukunis dasawyisis evropasa da
ruseTTan mimarTebaSi saubroben kabaretul moZraobaze, kabaretul stilze, “kafes
kulturaze”. am sakiTxTan dakavSirebuli literaturis analizi gvafiqrebinebs,
rom artistuli kabare/klubi/kafeebis Seqmna konkretuli kulturul-esTetikuri -
modernuli konteqstis, qveynis politikur-socialuri viTarebisa da sazogadoebis
garkveuli fsiqologiuri ganwyobis erTobliobiT iyo ganpirobebuli, rac misi
gaerTianebis, erTad yofnis survilsa da safuZvels qmnida; am dawesebulebaTa
daarsebis qronologias, funqcionirebis xasiaTsa da sazogadoebaSi maT socialuresTetikur
funqcias gansazRvravda. amitomac, artistul kabareebs yvela qveyanasa
da qalaqSi sxvadasxva dros Tavisi saxe, ganumeorebeli garemo, sakuTari « Tema »
hqonda. es konteqsti TbilisSi 1910-iani wlebisTvis iqmneba da swored am periodSi
vrceldeba CvenSi „kabaretuli epidemiac“. artistuli kafe-klubebis tradicia
saqarTveloSi ruseTidan Semodis, maTi daarseba qarTvelebTan erTad im periodSi
TbilisSi myofi sxvadasxva erovnebis modernistebis mier xdeba. ruseTis artistul
klubebs ukavSirdeba maTi moxatvis tradiciac. amasTanave, XX saukunis 10-iani wlebSi
am dawesebulebaTa simravle da aqtiuri, mravalferovani funqcionireba miuTiTebs,
rom es kafeebi Tbilisis kulturuli sivrcis bunebrivi da logikuri nawilia, rac,
garkveulwilad, imis maniSnebelicaa, rom am periodis qarTuli kultura modernizmis
erTiani diskursis nawilad moiazreba.
meore mxriv, Tbilisis artistuli kafeebi, kerZod „qimerioni“, gansvavebuli
xasiaTisaa, radgan im garemos, im sazogadoebis sulieri, msoflmxedvelobrivi,
103

modernizmi saqarTveloSi
esTetikur/eTikuri miswrafebebis Sesabamisad yalibdeba, romlis wiaRSic ibadeba.
am xasiaTis ganmsazRvrelad ramdenime faqtori gvesaxeba: 1. istoruli da politikuri
viTareba (damoukideblobis wlebi), rac sazogadoebis fsiqologiur ganwyobasac
ganapirobebs; 2. Tavad qalaqi Tbilisi - misi Tvisebrioba, misi cxovrebisa Tu masSi
Tanacxovrebis wesi. 3. Tbilisis modernuli kulturis, xelovnebis xasiaTi: misi
mraval-Tu-internacionaluri buneba da am periodis qarTvel SemoqmedTa umTavresi
esTetikuri amocana: “erovnuli da sayovelTao” - xelovnebis daniSnulebisa da
qveynis mimarT damokidebulebis gansazRvra; am damokidebulebis mimarT maSindeli
sazogadoebis erTsulovneba;
“qimerioni” sinTezuri struqturaa - kedlis mxatvrobiT Semkuli garkveuli funqciis
mqone sivrce, Sesabamisad, istoriul-droiTi Tu socialuri mimarTebebi, XX saukunis
dasawyisis Tbilisis SemoqmedebiTi sazogadoebis msoflmxedveloba da miswrafebebi
esTetikuri formiT ganivrcoba kafes moxatulobaSic - upirveles yovlisa, mis ideur-
Sinaarsobriv metyvelebaSi. am mxriv „qimerionis“ mxatvroba erTiani sistema, mxatvruli
mTlianobaa, Tumca ki, es mTlianoba sam individualobas (l.gudiaSvili, d.kakabaZe,
s.sudeikini), sam subieqtur xedvas, sam damoukidebel Tematikas da or gansxvavebul
kulturas moicavs.
mzia CixraZe
g. CubinaSvilis sax. qarTuli xelovnebis istoriis da ZeglTa dacvis erovnuli kvlevis
centri. saqarTvelo
futuristuli wigni, Tbilisi 1917-1919
moxseneba Seexeba Tbilisis kuturuli cxovrebis erT-erT mniSvnelovan mxatvrul
movlenas - 1910-1920-ian wlebSi gamocemul futuristul wignebs, rac mxatvarTa
da literatorTa interkulturuli, internacionaluri TanamSromlobis magaliTs
warmoadgens. naSromSi daxasiaTebulia is winapirobebi, rac aRniSnul movlenas uZRoda
win, anu warmodgenilia am periodis Tbilisuri mxatvrul-kulturuli cxovrebis mokle
mimoxilva.
naSromSi ganxilulia Tanamedrove xelovnebis mimdinareoba, romelic cnobilia
futurizmis saxeliT da aRniSnuli mimdinareobis iseTi umniSvnelovanesi movlena,
rogoricaa futuristuli wigni. warmodgenilia evropuli (italiuri) da rusuli
futurizmis SedarebiTi daxasiaTeba, mimoxilulia italiuri futuristuli wigni
da masTan kavSirSi sxva mxatvruli movlenebi, romelTac seriozuli roli iTamaSes
modernizmisa da, konkretulad, futuristuli wignis Seqmnasa da ganviTarebaSi.
xazgasmulia aRniSnuli mimdinareobis fuZemdeblis filipo tomazo marinetis roli
futurizmis da futuristuli wignis CamoyalibebaSi. aseve ganxilulia miseuli
futuristuli filosofiis Teoriuli safuZvlebi.
gansakuTrebuli adgili eTmoba rusul futuristul wigns, romelic gamoicemoda
moskovsa da peterburgSi 1910-ian wlebSi da romelmac didwilad ganapiroba Tbilisuri
futuristuli wignis warmoSoba. warmodgenilia rusuli da Tbilisuri futuristuli
wignebis paraleluri analizi, dadgenilia maTi saerTo niSnebi da agreTve Tbilisuri
futuristuli broSurebis ganmasxvavebeli, specifikuri maxasiaTeblebi.
gamokveTilia poet ilia zdaneviCis figura da misi mniSvneloba qarTuli modernizmis
104

modernizmi saqarTveloSi
ganviTarebisaTvis, xazgasmulia misi wvlili futuristuli xelovnebisa da dadaizmis
CamoyalibebaSi 1910-iani wlebis TbilisSi.
ganxilulia futuristuli organizaciis “41 0 ” sagamomcemlo saqmianoba 1917-1919
wlebSi, rac umniSvnelovanesi furcelia Tbilisis kulturul cxovrebaSi. organizaciam
kruConixis, terentievis, ilia da kirile zdaneviCebis, valiSevskis TaosnobiTa da
monawileobiT sxvadasxva gamomcemlobaSi mravali saintereso wigni dabeWda, romlebic
1912-1913 wlebSi peterburgsa da moskovSi gamocemuli futuristuli wignebis xelaxali
gamocema iyo. gansakuTrebuli yuradReba aqvs daTmobili futuristuli literaturis
erTgvar anTologiad qceul krebuls, romelic msaxiob sofia melnikovas mieZRvna.
wigni 1919 wels gamovida da is ara marto qarTuli da rusuli, aramed saerTod,
Tanamedrove evropuli wignis grafikis xelovnebis mniSvnelovan monapovrad iqca.
daskvnaSi gamokveTilia TbilisSi 1910-1920-ian wlebSi gamocemuli futuristuli
wignebis, rogorc mxatvruli movlenis, mniSvneloba qarTuli modernizmis Camoyalibebisa
da ganviTarebisaTvis, xazgasmulia misi wvlili zogadad futuristuli
wignis ganviTarebaSi.
nino zaaliSvili
Tbilisis saxelmwifo samxatvro akademia. saqarTvelo
1920-30-iani wlebis qarTuli grafikis zogierTi tendencia
XX saukunis dasawyisSi qarTul grafikaSi adre dawyebuli sakuTari saxis Ziebis
procesi, romelic daiwyo SedarebiT martivad, Zveli qarTuli xelovnebis sxvadasxva
dargis nimuSebis ubralo citirebiT, gagrZelda miRebuli impulsebis gaazrebuli,
SemoqmedebiTad aTvisebis mimarTulebiT.
amasTan, mxatvrebi ar ifarglebodnen mxolod amgvari ZiebiT _ maTi interesis
sagans warmoadgenda rogorc evropuli, ise aRmosavluri xelovneba. gansakuTrebuli
mniSvneloba SeiZina modernis stilma da garkveulwilad o.berdsleis Semoqmedebamac.
modernis stilma saqarTveloSi gavlena ufro didxans SeinarCuna, vidre evropaSi, rasac
xels uwyobda 1922 wels daarsebul samxatvro akademiaSi peterburgidan revoluciis
Semdgom gadmosaxlebuli mxatvrebis, “mir iskustvas” warmomadgenlebis e.lanseres da
i.Sarlemanis SemoqmedebiTi da pedagogiuri saqmianoba.
avangardistuli mimdinareobebis farTo speqtri grafikaSi popularuli gaxda 1918-
21 wlebSi damoukidebel saqarTveloSi emigrirebul rus mxatvrebTan kontaqtebis
Sedegad. i.gamrekelis, b.gordezianis, k.zdaneviCis, e.la laevas eqspresionistuli,
konstruqtivistuli namuSevrebi aisaxa qarTuli wignis da saJurnalo grafikaSi, dazgur
furclebSi. zogierTi grafikosis SemoqmedebaSi (l.grigolia) garkveuli mniSvneloba
mieca ramdenime popularuli evropeli mxatvris Semoqmedebasac (f.valatoni,
f.mazereeli). scenograf petre ocxelis grafikul furclebSi aseve aqtiurad
SeigrZnoba o.berdsleis, l.baqstis, g.klimtis namuSevrebis gamoZaxili. 1930-iani
wlebis ideologiurma wnexma negatiuri gavlena qarTul grafikazec moaxdina. mravali
grafikosi (zemoT dasaxelebul mxatvrebTan erTad k,kvesi, k.gricai, i.Stenbergi)
gamoeTiSa samxatvro process, p.ocxeli daxvrites.
1930-ian wlebSi da mogvianebiTac grafikosebi l.gudiaSvili, s.gabaSvili agrZeleben
Tavis ilustraciul da dazgur grafikaSi evropuli da aRmosavluri xelovnebis
105

modernizmi saqarTveloSi
qarTul ZirebTan Sejerebis process. ramdenadme gansxvavebuli mimarTulebiT muSaobs
s.qobulaZe, romelic aqcents renesansis xelovnebis interpretirebaze akeTebs, Tumca
sicocxlis bolos p.pikasos neogrekuli stiliT interesdeba. saukeTeso namuSevrebSi
qarTvel grafikosTa Taobebi agrZeleben 1920-30-ian wlebSi gamokveTil miswrafebas
kulturul dialogSi monawileobisaken, erovnuli xelovnebis harmoniuli CarTvisaken
msoflioSi mimdinare aqtualur samxatvro procesebSi.
qeTevan SavguliZe
Tbilisis saxelmwifo samxatvro akademia. saqarTvelo
montaJis principebi qarTul scenografiaSi (1920-iani wlebi)
1920-ian wlebSi novatori reJisorebisa da scenografebis namuSevrebSi montaJis
principebma da kinoxelovnebis specifikurma saSualebebma aqtiurad iCina Tavi. rusuli
Teatris scenaze vs. meierholdis xelmZRvanelobiT Seqmnili speqtaklebis saerTo
sadekoracio sistemaSi uSualod iqna CarTuli ekrani, romelic agitaciuri xelovnebis
efeqtur saSualebad iqca. msoflio Teatris masStabiT sayuradRebo movlenas
warmoadgenda germaniaSi e. piskatoris da dadaisti mxatvrebis mier proeqciuli
dekoraciis dargSi ganxorcielebuli avangarduli Teatraluri eqsperimentebi.
1920-ian wlebis miwuruls qarTveli scenografebi sasceno sivrcis gegmarebis
axali principebis Ziebis procesSi novatoruli _ kinematografiuli xerxebiT
dainteresdnen. speqtaklis “hopla, Cven vcocxlobT!” (es 1928w. k. marjaniSvilis
TaosnobiT Camoyalibebuli quTaisi-baTumis saxelmwifo dramatuli Teatris pirveli
warmodgenaa) d. kakabaZis mier, el. axvledianis saintereso scenografiuli namuSevrebi
mohyva (“rogor?”, “moxuci enTuziasti”, “xatije”). speqtaklebis sadekoracio sistemaSi
CarTuli iqna specifikuri kinematografiuli saSualebebi _ ekrani da proeqciuli
aparatura. scenuri moqmedebis ganviTareba-gagrZelebis mizniT ekranze specialurad
speqtaklisaTvis gadaRebuli kinokadrebis demonstrireba xdeboda. Teatris msaxiobis
mier kinokadrSi “dawyebuli” moqmedeba igive msaxiobis mier sasceno moedanze
grZeldeboda da piriqiT. Teatraluri warmodgenis saerTo struqturasTan organulad
Serwymuli kadrebi moqmedebis xSir cvlasTan dakavSirebiT warmoqmnili problemebis
daZlevis efeqtur saSualebas warmoadgenda.
vs. meierholdis da e. piskatoris TaosnobiT ganxorcielebul speqtaklebSi _
“dedamiwa yalyze” (mxatvari l. popova), “iZlevi evropas” (i. Slepianovi), “ruseTis
dRe”, “miuxedavad yvelafrisa”(d. hartfildi), “mZvinvare nakadi” (e. zuri), “hopla, Cven
vcocxlobT!” (t. miuleri), ekranze agitaciuri Sinaarsis lozungebis, politikuri
plakatebis, mowodebebis, titrebis, dokumenturi, qronikaluri kadrebis da mokle
filmebis proeqcireba xdeboda. revoluciuri moZraobis progresuli xasiaTis xazgasmis,
piesis ideis ganzogadebis mizniT, nawarmoebSi aRwerili konkretuli faqtebi montaJis
xerxis meSveobiT msoflio mniSvnelobis movlenebis fonze iyo gaSuqebuli.
k. marjaniSvilis xelmZRvanelobiT d. kakabaZis da el. axvledianis mier gaformebul
speqtaklebSi proeqciul saSualebebs gansxvavebuli Sinaarsobrivi datvirTva hqonda
miniWebuli. piesebis agitaciuri mimarTulebis xazgasma da politikuri ideebis
propaganda maTTvis TviTmizans ar warmoadgenda. ganyenebuli Sinaarsis vizualuri
masalis demonstrirebis nacvlad, ekranze proeqcirebuli kadrebi uSualod iyo
106

modernizmi saqarTveloSi
dakavSirebuli konkretul dramaturgiul nawarmoebSi aRweril faqtebTan da
sivrcobrivi problemebis daZlevis, piesis fabuliT gaTvaliswinebuli mniSvnelovani
movlenebis xazgasmis da speqtaklis mxatvruli iersaxis gamdidrebis metyvel da
efeqtur xerxs warmoadgenda.
Tea uruSaZe
iv. javaxiSvilis sax. Tbilisis saxelmwifo universiteti. saqarTvelo
konstruqtivizmis Tavisebureba qarTul Teatralur-dekoraciul xelovnebaSi
XX saukunis dasawyisSi istoriulma movlenebma, dramaturgiaSi mimdinare procesebma,
reJisorisa da mxatvris urTierTTanamSromlobis axalma principebma ganapiroba sasceno
sivrceSi gansxvavebuli stilis dekoraciuli sistemebis aRmoceneba. am periodSi
msoflio xelovnebaSi avangardistuli mimdinareoba ikidebs fexs. avangardizms ver
ascda scenografiac da TeatrSi axali gamomsaxvelobiTi esTetikis Camoyalibebas
Seuwyo xeli. am TvalsazrisiT dekoraciuli xelovnebis istoriaSi yuradsaReb
monakveTs warmoadgens konstruqtivizmi, romelic saerTo movlenaa im drois sabWoTa
dekoraciul xelovnebaSi.
konstruqtivizmi gaformebis or ZiriTad princips ayalibebs: pirveli - es aris erTiani
danadgari, romelic mTeli warmodgenis ganmavlobaSi ar icvleba, meore ki, gaxlavT
funqcionaluri scenografia. es principi iTvaliswinebs ZiriTad konstruqciasTan
mibmuli moZravi elementebis funqcionalur datvirTvas. funqcionaluri scenografia
gaformebis kompoziciur erTianobas warmoadgens. amgvari konstruqciis TiToeuli
elementi emsaxureba, rogorc dramaturgiuli masalis “ambis” Txrobas, aseve misi
plastikuri formis Seqmnas. amasTan erTad konstruqtivizmi gaformebis dazgur
princips uaryofda. aqedan gamomdinare, man mniSvnelovani roli Seasrula sasceno
sivrcis ganaxlebis procesSi da sxvadasxva Teatris scenaze, kerZod saqarTveloSic,
gansxvavebuli xelweriT gamovlinda.
qarTuli dekoraciuli xelovnebis saTaveebTan mdgomma mxatvrebma konstruqtivizmis
mniSvnelovani mxareebi ostaturad gamoiyenes da Taviseburad ganaviTares: sasceno
sivrcis reorganizacia, Casmuli danadgarebis funqcionaloba, sasceno iatakis
aSlis principi, metyveli pirobiToba, feris da Suqis intensiuri qmedeba, saxviTi
enis lakonizmi da, rac metad mniSvnelovania, gaformebis am sistemas istoriuli
konkretuloba da Sinaarsobrioba SesZines.
konstruqtivizmis ganviTarebam mTlianad Secvala sagnobrivi sivrce, Seqmna axali
garemo, samyaros axleburi xedva daamkvidra. im drois mignebebma, mravali stilis
matarebeli niSnebis warmoqmnam, maT mxatvrul formebSi transformaciam is Rrma ideuri
safuZveli Seqmna, ramac Semdgom wlebSi sabolood ganapiroba qarTuli Teqtralurdekoraciuli
xelovnebis saxe.
gazrdili interesi 1920-30-ian wlebSi momuSave Teatraluri mxatvrebis
namuSevrebisadmi gamowveulia im mniSvnelovani faqtiT, rom qarTul scenografiaSi
misi ganviTarebis procesSi, konstruqtivizmis ideebs gansxvavebuli midgomiT da
datvirTviT yovelTvis vxvdebiT da dResac mas aqvs ganviTarebis Taviseburi saxe da
perspeqtiva.
107

III SECTION
MODERNISM IN GEORGIA

Gaston Buachidze
de l’Académie de Bretagne et des Pays de la Loir., France
Georgian Painting in European Context: Niko Pirosmani, Lado Gudiashvili, David Kakabadze
Together with Kiril and Ilia Zdanevichs, the artist of a French origin - Michel Le Dantu participates
in “discovery” of Pirosmani. Pirosmani’s artworks are exhibited in Paris (initiated by Andre Malaux) and
in 1999, in Nantes, where the high quality catalogue was published. This event was followed by the wide
reception in French Media. Le Dantu, Louis Aragon and other art critics compared Pirosmani to Giotto.
Picasso paints the Portrait of Pirosmani. The “actress Margarita” is said to visit Pirosmani’s Exhibition in
Paris to see her own portrait.
In 1920s David Kakabadze and Lado Gudiashvili enter the “The school of Paris” and participate in
many exhibitions. In 1925 Maurice Raynal dedicates his monograph to L. Gudiashvili. The latter is compared
with F. Goya’s “Caprices”. L. Gudiashvili meets Japanese Foujita, Italian Modigliani and Polish
Walishewski (Gudiashvili shares his memories of three of them to me). In 1997 Gudiashvili’s exhibition is
held in Paris, in National Assemble, followed by the publication of catalogue.
David Kakabadze publishes two of his Georgian papers in Paris (Paris, 1920-1923; “The art and the
space”, Paris, 1924-25) and one book in French (“Regarding the constructivist picture”, Chene Vert edition).
In 1973 Michel Seuphor shares his memories to me and discusses the art of D. Kakabadze. While
elaborating his conception on art, D. Kakabadze “leans” toward the art of Leonardo de Vinci. In 1982 the
collective catalogue - “avant-garde in Tbilisi”, published by Luigi Magarotto and his colleagues in Venice,
concerns L. Gudiashvili and D. Kakabadze. The landscapes of D. Kakabadze encompass the space between
his homeland - Imereti and Bretagne. According to the words of D. Kakabadze the authentic national art
contributes in creation of a universal art.
Gogi Khoshtaria
G. Chubinashvili National Center of Georgian Art History and Monuments Protection. Georgia
Binary Opposition in Niko Pirosmanashvili’s Works and Modernist Art
Niko Pirosmanashvili’s painting system contains structural features which are inherent to contemporary
art. This has been suggested by researchers of his art, including I. Zdanevich and V. Kuznetsov, but without
providing an in-depth analysis of this phenomenon.
One of the most essential characteristics of Modernism, as an epoch-making phenomenon, was the
revised perception of artistic unity through more polarized binary oppositions. Various art schools, movements
with methodological principles of their own and individuals have been interpreting the problem with
different degrees of complexity. The deep insight into the essence of this artistic problem as well as its perfect
solution offered by Niko Pirosmanashvili is immensely interesting and difficult to explain at the same
time. Having reconsidered the fundamental essence of binary oppositions—namely the fact that any picture
as a work of art represents a convergence of two semiotic planes into a single sign and the respective transfer
of a dynamic, borderless three-dimensional world into the material two-dimensional limited space—
contemporary art further increases the opposition and attempts to achieve artistic unity of a new type.
Stages and movements of contemporary art are mainly defined by the level of insight taken into the
aforementioned problem. The works by E. Delacroix, Impressionists and, especially, P. Cezanne were epoch-making
in this regard. Strangely enough, Pirosmanashvili’s art was shaped during the period (1880-
1890s) when P. Cezanne culminated his artistic endeavors. What is especially difficult to explain is that
Pirosmanashvili had no connection with Paris or the French school of painting. At that time in Georgia, only
early steps were made in the development of realist easel painting, and it was not until the early 1900s that
109

110
MODERNISM IN GEORGIA
signs of contemporary art emerged. However, it is in Pirosmanashvili’s paintings dating from the 1900s that
we see artistic solutions which are normally achieved at the end of an artist’s evolutionary path rather than
at the beginning of it. In Pirosmanashvili’s art, extremely laconic rendering is one of the key organizing
principles applied in addressing the controversies faced, and this can be evidenced by his paintings created
well before the works of the artists of Paris school.
Liana Antelava
Tbilisi State Academy of Art. Georgia
Continual Model of the Universal Space/Time in Georgian Paintings
Painting is traditionally attributed to spatial arts. However, it is also without doubt that everything that
exists has a temporal dimension. A specific feature of time is that it is not subject to perception. Being
non-sensorial, the image of time is closely linked to and defined by metaphors (through which the nonsensorial
is modeled). Thus in painting, traditionally articulated as spatial art, time manifests itself through
metaphor.
Connection with space is inherent to time. It is therefore natural that time can be explained through features
characteristic of space. Space and time are “bearing structures” of the image of the world known to us.
The correlation between space and time reflects the vision/perception of the outside world. The continuum
of space and time accumulates basic phenomenal features of a given culture, epoch, style, and artist. The
study of these features shall demonstrate the individual character of a given culture.
The presentation will address this issue by presenting works by Niko Pirosmanashvili and Davit Kakabadze.
Marina Medzmariashvili
G. Chubinashvili National Center of Georgian Art History and Monuments Protection.Georgia
Pirosmani’s Art in the Framework of European Modernism
This paper addresses self taught artist Niko Pirosmani and modernism in Western Europe and Russia.
The paper discusses some aspects of Pirosmani’s art as the first signs of modernism in Georgia.
Pirosmani had not received any professional education and represented the member of Tiflis’ lowest
levels of society, thus his art reflected his feelings but not any knowledge. Pirosmani’s original art created
issues, which were new to Western Europe and Russia in the first years of XX century, but were unknown
in Georgia.
Pirosmani’s works are also successful in a very specific, artistic way - that is how they dealt with space,
color and shape. The same problems at the same time were raised in the Russian, French and German
artistic world. The lecture compares Pirosmani’s works with the paintings of H.Russo, P. Picasso, N. Goncharova,
M. Chagall, A. Macke and others. The lecture points at the influence of Pirosmani’s art on Russian
“neo-primitivism” and other areas of avant-garde art.
Russian artists M. Ledantu and M. Shevchenko created remakes of Pirosmani’s works, an issue almost
untouched until today. Though, some of the works of these Russian painters were known to public, they
were never reviewed as remakes.
We would like to stress the role of the leaders of Russian avant-garde, including M. Ledantu, and of
futurists, such as Iliazd and Kiril Zdanevich, in the discovery of Pirosmani and introduction of his works to
Georgia, Russia and France (in 1972 year Picasso created Pirosmani’s portrait).
Pirosmani’s phenomenon lays in the natural sublimation of artistic ideas from East and West, in the national
and international trends in art, and in the combination of folklore and modernism.

MODERNISM IN GEORGIA
Nana Kipiani
G. Chubinashvili National Center of Georgian Art History and Monuments Protection.Georgia
“Poetically Abides a Man”
Early 20 th century Modernism in Georgian fine arts and literature, which is also referred to as “Tbilisian
Modernism,” is the most liberal in its essence and yet, the most tragic, of all trends in modern and recent
history of Georgian culture. The goal of the paper is to address the national identity of Tbilisian Modernism,
which can be traced in the visual and verbal texts of this movement and in the presence of liberal cultural
and artistic perception.
The problem of identity is relevant, considering the tragic fate of Georgian Modernism. With only a
two-decade existence (from 1910 to the late 1920s), it failed to establish even a small niche of its own in the
realm of international/western Modernism. This is mainly due to the political and cultural circumstances:
Following Sovietization in the 1930s, modernist art, including even Russian revolutionary avant-garde art,
suffered repression. Along with that, after the 1921 annexation, the culture of Georgia became marginal as
a result of severe restrictions on art and a sweeping movement towards a common cultural and aesthetic
space.
The ban of Modernism, which occurred simultaneously with the marginalization of national cultures
by the Soviet culture policy, has totally erased from memory artistic life of the early 20 th century Georgia.
It is only now that scholars have begun to assess the historical and artistic importance of this phenomenon
and, moreover, started to trace, describe and register its factual material. One obstacle in interpreting the
works of modernist artists is their improper affiliation to various movements: the work of the modernist
artists of the 1910-20s, who had escaped the Soviet repressions, were, for obvious reasons, considered as
a product of certain infatuation and their “repressed” art, created in the Soviet period, was presented as an
evolutionary and transitional phenomenon, which was thus placed within the borders of Socialist Realism.
The situation has changed, but nevertheless, the two settings, that of Modernism and Socialism/Communism,
have been demarcated neither conceptually nor contextually. The latter, however, is essential for the
rehabilitation of Tbilisian Modernism and for the definition of its artistic and historical significance on one
hand, and for the dismantling of the still surviving cultural and artistic hierarchy established by the Soviet
system on the other.
This paper raises another problem in the context of identity, namely the category of space, and will
respond the following related questions: which space is valuable for Tbilisian Modernism and what value
does it have in the modernist context of the correlation between time and space? The specific character of
the interpretation reflects a peculiarity of Tbilisian Modernism. The speech also makes use of comparative
analysis with i) contemporary western and Russian material and ii) medieval Georgian architecture and
mural painting. Samples of medieval European as well Byzantine architecture and painting will be used
Anna Shanshiashivili
Georgian Arts and Culture Centre.I. Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University. Georgia
The Painting of Niko Pirosmani in the Context of Late 19 th -Early 20 th c. European Art
The paintings of Niko Pirosmani, some of the most significant representations of Georgian fine art,
unveil traits, which link him to different artistic movements of late 19 th - early 20 th century European art.
Known as a self-taught artist, Pirosmani is often interpreted as a “Naive” or “Primitive” painter; however,
the majority of scholars acknowledge a particular depth and comprehensiveness that distinguish Georgian
painter from other naives. The fact that Pirosmani independently and intuitionally came to the key principals
of modern painting, elaborated by different painting schools and artistic movements in contemporane-
111

ous Europe, gives greater importance to his work.
Pirosmani is distinguished by a unique, intuitive, inherited sense of the simultaneous comprehension of
the whole and the detail, principal and secondary. In order to represent his subjects in a greater context, the
painter often neglects details, thus transforming the subject of his painting into a monumental and even “abstract”
imagery. This principle connects him to different artistic movements of European modernism. It’s
widely known that the desire to “pure plastic” and to achieve simplicity of form became one of the major issues
of modern painting. Central to these tenets was the exploration of essence, revealed through the neglect
of superfluous details in order not to encroach upon the essential elements and alteration or simplification of
natural forms instead of their naturalistic depiction. These principles form a basis for the majority of artistic
movements of modern art, such as Expressionism, Cubism, Abstractionism and etc.
Moreover, Pirosmani’s free, quick manner of painting and use of wide brushstrokes resemble the styles
of Paul Cézanne, Henri Matisse and Andre Derain. Furthermore, Cézanne used white canvas in the same
manner as Pirosmani - with a black oilcloth; when he needed black colour, he simply left that part bare.
The symbolic meanings attributed to different colours by Pirosmani are another feature that relates his
painting to Post-Impressionism, Symbolism and Abstractionism, whereas the incorporation of inscriptions
as an independent compositional element in the picture plain associates the Georgian painter to the art of
Cubists, who did the same in 1911.
Such qualities as a free manner of painting, simplicity of composition and pictorial means, symbolic
language of colors and, finally, the use of inscriptions in composition help to establish Pirosmani amongst
the greatest artists of modernism.
Nestan Tatarashvili
Freelance Scholar. Georgia
European Cultural Heritage - Art Nouveau Architecture in Georgia
The late 19 th century saw the emergence of a new style in Europe, referred to as Modern in Georgia,
which spread quickly in various countries, including in Georgia, under names as diverse as Art Nouveau,
Jugendstil, Secession, Modernista, Liberty, etc. Unlike other styles, Art Nouveau refused to follow preliminarily
established forms. It rejected mechanical repetition and promoted free improvisation with ideas and
themes, which Georgian artists also accomplished successfully.
Art Nouevau architecture was built not only in the capital city of Tbilisi, but in other smaller cities and
towns, such as Sokhumi, Batumi, Poti, Kutaisi, Gagra. Akhali Atoni, Kobuleti and Dusheti.
Apart from being used as residential and tenement houses, Art Nouveau buildings also were used for
banks, schools, shops, hospitals, workshops, theatres and an oranjerie. Of particular note are a tobacco plant
and a thermal power station in Tbilisi, as well as a library and a shed for horse-drawn carriages in Poti, all
designed in Art Nouveau. Brilliant memorial monuments survive in old, historical cemeteries. Mention
must be made of Art Nouveau cinema houses. It is well-known that the dates of the emergence and spread
of Art Nouveau and the cinema are almost identical, and it is therefore important that the convergence of
these two innovations was such a success in Georgia.
Regrettably, there is still much to be done to reveal Art Nouveau buildings and complete related archival
studies. The material available, however, attests that the renewed cultural and economic relations with Europe
allowed Georgia to adopt and promote Art Nouveau - the most popular trend in architecture at the time.
Art Nouveau must be duly addressed not only in Georgian scholarly papers, but also in school textbooks
and tourist itineraries.
Georgian Art Nouveau architecture has recently drawn the attention of various internationally acknowledged
organizations such as the World Monuments Fund in New York, Reseau Art Nouveau Network in
Bruxelle and Art Nouveau European Route in Barcelona. As a result, Georgian Art Nouveau heritage is now
represented on their websites as well as in numerous international publications.
112
MODERNISM IN GEORGIA

MODERNISM IN GEORGIA
Georgian Art Nouveau - part of the European cultural heritage - has been duly evaluated by Europe.
Now it is our turn as Art Nouveau still lacks appreciation and protection; protection from deterioration as
well as from wrong and scientifically non-justified restoration efforts, the number of which has increased
over the last years.
Maia Tsitsishvili
I. Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University. Georgia
From Expressionism to Dada: Georgian Painting from 1910 to the 1930s (Based on Recent
Discoveries)
During recent years everyone who has ever been in touch with the 1910-1930s Georgian avant-garde
movement was so surprised to find the hidden acuity, simplicity, diversity and uniqueness of previously
unknown material (owing to the existing political situation), that the discovery of these qualities were
partly referred to as a fortuity. These traits, which to some degree distinguish Georgian painting of the first
half of 20 th century from its contemporaneous European art, are observable during the entire course of its
existence. The art of this period (painting, graphic, and theatrical stage design, as well as book illumination)
reflects nearly all artistic movements of the European avant-garde.
During the first half of 20 th century, when many European cities overflowed with the avant-garde spirit,
Tbilisi - with a peculiar openness and readiness to absorb new ideas was also incorporated into this contemporaneous
progressive movement. One may say that Georgian painting evolved most naturally during this
period between 1910 and 1920s. It is noteworthy, that every single painter had an individual approach to the
avant-garde art: some of them followed just one or two artistic trends (Sh. Kikodze, V. Sidamon-Eristavi,
K. Zdanevich, I. Zdanevich, E. Akhvlediani, D. Tavadze); others were engaged in analyzing and developing
many different movements (D. Kakabadze, L. Gudiashvili, I. Gamrekeli, D. Shevardnadze); and the works
of some Georgian modernists are so unique that it is difficult to find their direct analogues (P. Otskheli).
The presentation to the public at large and analysis of these bold and in some cases extremely avantgarde
works, which were discovered during the last three years, will contribute to fully recognizing the
importance of Georgian modernists and help to change already established views on their work. Although
the process of exploration of this unknown material is ongoing, already unveiled artworks that are at once
unexpected and remarkable offer the possibility for recapitulation and analysis.
Irine Abesadze
Shota Rustaveli Theatre and Cinema University. Georgia
From Georgian Modernism to Transavantgardism, a Definition of Terms
The sharply pronounced negation in the perception of the outside world, as provoked by world wars and
revolutions, one after another, gave birth to artistic movements which were united under the name of “modernism”.
The followers of this movement attempted to convey the sense of homelessness and alienation of
the humans and the fear of totalitarian violence in various forms. The painful perception of the anticipated
tragic end of the universe and eschatological visions reached their apex in the 1960-70s, when renowned
culturologists and philosophers began asserting, independently from each other, that the life could not go on
the same way. It is as a result that the greatest philosopher of the 20 th century, M. Heidegger, is considered
one of the forefathers of not only Existentialism, but Postmodernism as well. To him belong the following
words: “Postmodernism originated to add new notion to the world rather than to finish off the trend of
Modernism.”
It is too early to discuss artistic processes taking place in the 1980-1990s in the Georgian cultural milieu
as their conceptual formation is still underway. Today it is only possible to state the trends in evidence: i)
113

the establishment of Neo-figurativism in contrast to non-figurativeness of abstract art; ii) the extensive use
of artistic devices, such as grotesqueness and irony; iii) the establishment of the style of eclecticism and
inter-textualism; iv) the presence of religious and mythological motivations; v) nostalgia of historical past;
and vi) double coding.
The terms “Modernism” and “Avant-gardism”, as well as “Postmodernism” and “Transavant-garde”,
which came after, are often interchangeably used in scholarly literature due to their compatible nature and
essential similarities. Therefore it seems more reasonable to agree on which definitions are more applicable
to the Georgian artistic milieu in order not to confuse unaware recipients. The terms “Postmodernism” was
first applied in respect to cultural trends in the 1980s by the French philosopher J. Baudrillard and later by
P. Portogezi in the 1980-1990s in relation to architecture. The term “Transavantgarde” was supported by
another Italian professor B. Oliva, who first published the Transavantgarde concept of art development.
Therefore it is more appropriate to use the term “Transavantgarde” to explain this movement. What is clear
though is that whatever term is selected to denote the 1980s’ artistic trends, the creative and intellectual
context of Georgia, having found itself in the Soviet space, spontaneously reacted by saturating Georgian
fine art with Transavantgarde elements. The grounds for this had been prepared by early 20 th century avantgarde
art.
Tea Tabatadze
Tbilisi State Academy of Art Georgia. Georgia
Towards the Definition of Certain Characteristics of Modernist Artistyle Cafes - Conceptual Aspect
of the Kimerioni Wall Paintings
The artistic cabaret/club/café is a notable phenomenon of early Modernism. It was at the end of the 19 th
and beginning of the 20 th century that the cabaret movement, cabaret style and “café culture” became relevant
in Europe and Russia. The analysis of the related literature suggests that the establishment of artistic
cabarets/clubs/cafés was facilitated by a combination of cultural, aesthetic (modernist context), political,
and social circumstances in the country, as well as because of the psychological disposition of the public. A
shared public consciousness created the need, desire and grounds for this unity and defined the chronology,
nature of the function of these establishments and their social and aesthetic purpose to the public. Therefore,
artistic cabarets in all countries and cities had their own, distinctive context, their own “theme”.
Tbilisi of the 1910s had the right context for the “cabaret epidemic”. The tradition of artistic cafés and
clubs was imported from Russia. Apart from Georgians, they were founded by modernists of various nationalities
living in Tbilisi at the time. The tradition of adorning cafés with murals also came from Russia.
But despite Russian influence, the differing functions of these establishments attest to the fact that they
were natural and logical elements of the Tbilisi cultural milieu, which, in its turn, suggests that Georgian
culture of the time contributed towards the unified modernist discourse.
Though influenced by the spiritual, aesthetic/ethical aspirations from which they emerged, Tbilisi’s artistic
cafés, and the Kimerioni in particular, had a distinctive character that was their own. This was defined
by the following factors: I) historical and political settings (the years of national independence); II) Tbilisi
itself - its character, its way of life; III) the nature of the modernist culture and art: its multi- or international
character; the main aesthetic object of the Georgian artists of the time - “national and universal” - which
defined the function of art and its relation to the country; and the unanimous understanding of the society
during this period of this relationship.
Kimerioni is a synthetic structure - a functional space adorned with murals containing historical, time
and social references and depicting the world outlook and aspirations of early 20 th century Tbilisi through
the aesthetic form. In this regard, the Kimerioni presents a shared artistic system, though this unity is represented
by three individual artists (L. Gudiashvili, D. Kakabadze and S. Sudeyikin), three subjective visions,
three distinctive themes, and two distinct cultures.
114
MODERNISM IN GEORGIA

MODERNISM IN GEORGIA
Mzia Chikhradze
G. Chubinashvili National Center of Georgian Art History and Monuments Protection.Georgia
Futurist Book, Tbilisi 1917-1919
The paper touches on one of the most important artistic occurrence of cultural life of Tbilisi - the futurist
books issued in 1910-1920ies, which was a good example of intercultural, international cooperation of artists
and literary men. In the work there are overviewed the preconditions of the above mentioned phenomenon,
i.e. it is done the short survey of the artistic-cultural life of Tbilisi of that period.
In the work there is observed the modern art movement futurism and very important part of that movement
the futurist books. There is done the comprehensive analysis of European (Italian) and Russian futurism,
it is surveyed Italian futurist book and in this connection other artistic phenomenon, which plaid an
essential role in founding and development of Modernism and particularly, futurist book. There is stressed
the role of the founder of the movement Fillipo Thomaso Marinetti in establishing of futurism and futurist
book there. It is also presented the theoretical basing to his futurist philosophy.
The special place is given to the analysis of Russian futurist books, which were issued in Moscow and
Petersburg in 1910s, those books greatly promoted the arising of Tbilisi futurist books. It is done the parallel
analysis of Russian and Tbilisi futurist books and also it is revealed the common and the specific characteristics
of Tbilisi Futurist book.
In the work there is marked out the figure of the poet Ilia Zdanevich and his importance for the development
of Georgian Modernism, it is underlined his contribution to futurist art and establishment of Dadaism
in 1910s in Tbilisi.
It is considered the publishing activity of futurist organization “41 0 ” in 1917-1919, which was a very
important event in cultural life of Tbilisi of that period. The organization under the leadership of Kruchonikh,
Terenteev, Ilia and Kirill Zdanevich and Valishevski published many interesting books inn different
publishing houses of Tbilisi, those were republished futurist books which have been issued in Moscow
and Petersburg in 1912-1913. The special place is given to the collection dedicated to the artists Sophia
Melnikova, that book became a real anthology of futurist literature. The collection was issued in 1919 and
it is considered as the important attainment not only of Georgian and Russian, but also Modern European
book design art.
As a conclusion it is marked out the significance of the futurist books published in 1910-1920ies in
Tbilisi and it is shown the importance of that artistic event for founding and development of Georgian
Modernism in general and particularly, advancing the art of futurist book.
Nino Zaalishvili
Tbilisi State Academy of Art. Georgia
Several Trends in Georgian Graphic Art of the 1920s and 1930s
The search for self-identification, launched earlier with simple quotations from Georgian works of art,
was continued in the 20 th century by creative reproduction of the impulses received. This was not, however,
the only pursuit of artists of the time. They took equal interest in European and oriental arts. Art Nouveau
then became particularly relevant, and works by also A. Beardsley fell into focus to some extent. In Georgia,
this style retained its influence for a period longer than in Europe. This was facilitated by creative and
pedagogical activities of E. Lansere and I. Scharleman who had fled Petersburg and worked at the Academy
of Art established in 1922.
A wide range of avant-garde movements gained popularity between 1918 and 1921 as a result of contact
115

with Russian artists who had emigrated to an independent Georgia. Expressionist and constructivist works
by I. Gamrekeli, B. Gordesiani, K. Zdanevich and E. Lalaeva were featured in Georgian book and magazines
and on leafs of paper. The works of some graphic artists (L. Grigolia) reflect the style of a number of
popular European artists (F. Vallaton and F. Masereel). The graphical paper leafs by the stage designer Petre
Otskheli are reminiscent of A. Beardsley, L. Baxt and G. Klimt. The ideological suppression in the 1930s
had a negative impact on Georgian graphic art: numerous graphic artists, including K. Kwees, K. Gritsai, I.
Stennberg, had to quit, while P. Otskheli was executed.
In the period during and after the 1930s, the graphic artists L. Gudiashvili and S. Gabashvili proceeded
with their attempts to synthesize European and oriental art with Georgian art in their illustrations and
easel graphics. Slightly different was the style in which S. Kobuladze worked; he emphasized the interpretation
of Renaissance art, though in his final years the artist took interest in Picasso’s Neo-Greek style.
Continuing the spirit of the 1920-30s, following generations of the best Georgian graphic artists have
opted to engage in a cultural dialogue and to achieve inclusion of national art into processes unfolding on
the international artistic arena.
Ketevan Shavgulidze
Tbilisi State Academy of Art. Georgia
The Principle of Montage in Georgian Stage Design (1920s)
The works of innovative stage producers and designers during the 1920s was marked by the use of the
principles of montage and by specific cinematographic techniques. On the Russian stage, a screen was included
into the common system of settings by V. Meyerhold, which became an effective means of artistic
propaganda. Avant-garde drama experiments performed by E. Piscator and Dadaist artists in the field of
projective decoration in Germany was an important novelty for the international theatrical world.
In the late 1920s, Georgian stage designers, in their search for new principles of space organization,
took interest in innovative cinematographic techniques. The first attempt made in this regard was D. Kakabadze’s
stage design for the play Hoppla, We’re Alive (the first performance held at the Kutaisi-Batumi
State Drama Theatre, which was founded by K. Marjanishvili in 1928). This was followed by interesting
stage sets created by E. Akhvlediani for How?, An Old Enthusiast, Khatije. The decorative system of these
performances included specific cinematographic facilities, such as a screen and projective equipment. Specially
made film shots were shown on the screen to develop and continue stage acts. The action “started” by
an actor in the film shot would continue by the same actor on the stage and the other way round. Harmoniously
merging with the overall structure of the drama performance, the shots were an effective means of
overcoming problems resulting from frequent changing of acts.
The performances staged by V. Meyerhold and E. Piscator - The Earth Upside Down (stage designer L.
Popova), Giving Europe (I. Shlepyanov), Russian Day, Despite Everything (D. Hatfield), Raging Current
(E. Zur), and Hoppla, We’re Alive (T. Muller), featured a screen projecting propaganda slogans, political
posters, appeals, subtitles, documental shots and short films. To highlight the progressive nature of the revolutionary
movement and to generalize the idea of the play, specific facts described were, through the use of
montage technique, displayed against the background of the events of universal relevance.
Different was the conceptual function of projections used in the performances under K. Marjanishvili
and by D. Kakabadze and E. Akhvlediani’s direction. The emphasis on the agitation and propaganda of
political ideas was not a self-goal. Instead of demonstrating abstract visual material, the projected shots
were linked to the facts described and served to overcome spatial problems. They were an expressive and
effective means of underlining the important events in the plot of the play.
116
MODERNISM IN GEORGIA

MODERNISM IN GEORGIA
Tea Urushadze
I. Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University. Georgia
Peculiarity of Constructivism in Georgian Stage Design
The historical circumstances coupled with the processes unfolding in the dramatic arts and the emerging
principles of director-artist cooperation in the early 20 th century contributed to the development of decorative
systems of a new style of stage design. World art at the time was marked by the advancement of the
avant-garde movement. This movement affected stage design by fostering the development of expressive
theatre aesthetics. It was also connected to Constructivism, which characterized the Soviet art of the period
and provides an interesting segment of the history of decorative art.
The concept of constructivist stage design rests on two major principles. It implies the presence of a
monolithic structure throughout a performance and functional scenography. The latter implies giving functional
importance to adjustable elements attached to the main structure. Functional scenography builds on
the compositional unity of the design. Each element of such structure adds to the “narration” of dramatic
materials and formation of its plastic form. Constructivism also rejected the use of easel painting. It thus
played an important role in the renewal of stage art and found different manifestations on various stages
throughout Georgia.
The artists who were at the root of Georgian decorative art took advantage of Constructivism and developed
it in their own way by reorganizing the stage space, adding functionality to installed structures and
introducing the principles of a disordering stage floor, expressive conventionality, an intensive use of color
and light, laconism of expressive vocabulary and, most importantly, historical specificity and meaningful
content to this system of design.
The development of Constructivism brought about an extensive change to “object space” and contributed
to the establishment of a new environment and to the creation of new world outlook. The solutions
found at that time, as well as the emergence of features characterized by a mixture of styles and their transformation
into artistic forms set conceptual grounds which shaped the image of Georgian decorative art in
the years to come.
The growing interest in the works of stage designers active in the 1920s-30s is largely due to the Constructivist
ideas that manifested in different ways in the history of Georgian stage design, and which still
have a distinctive image and perspectives for further development.
117

118
sastendo moxsenebebi / Poster Presentations
TaTia Rvineria. Tbilisis saxelmwifo samxatvro akademia. saqarTvelo
elene axvledianis Semoqmedebis ucnobi aspeqti (parizuli periodis studiur
Canaxatebze dayrdnobiT)
Tatia Ghvineria. Tbilisi State Academy of Art. Georgia
The Unknown Aspect of the Art of Elene Akhvlediani (Based on The Studio Sketches of Parisian Period)
naTia ebanoiZe. Tbilisis saxelmwifo samxatvro akademia. saqarTvelo
organuli formis sakiTxi Salva qiqoZisa da elene axvledianis SemoqmedebaSi
Natia Ebanoidze. Tbilisi State Academy of Art. Georgia
The Issue of Organic Form in the Art of Shalva Kikodze and Elene Akhvlediani
qeTevan cecxlaZe. Tbilisis saxelmwifo samxatvro akademia. saqarTvelo
qarTuli modernizmi -tradicia da Tanamedroveoba
Ketevan Tsetskhladze. Tbilisi State Academy of Art. Georgia
Georgian Modernism -Tradition and Contemporariness
qrinstine darCia. Tbilisis saxelmwifo samxatvro akademia. saqarTvelo
klara kveesis Semoqmedeba (XX saukunis 20-iani wlebis qarTuli ferweris ucnobi
furceli)
Kristine Darchia. Tbilisi State Academy of Art.Georgia
The Art of Clara Kvees (The Unknown Page of Georgian Painting of 1920s)

IV seqcia
restavracia/konservacia
biodazianebebi kulturul memkvidreobaSi

maia SaviSvili
saqarTvelos kulturis, ZeglTa dacvisa da sportis saministro. saqarTvelo
sarestavracio saqmianobis zogadi mimoxilva
ukanasknel periodSi siZveleTa dacvisa da kulturuli memkvidreobis nimuSTa
restavracia-reabilitaciis procesi saministros mier sul ufro da ufro aqtiurad
imarTeba. dargi viTardeba multidisciplinarul kvlevebsa da saerTaSoriso gamocdilebaze
dayrdnobiT, risTvisac saministros mier mimdinareobs saqmianoba mravali
mimarTulebiT - xorcieldeba “unikalur ZeglTa gadarCenis saxelmwifo programa”,
romlis farglebSic restavrirebul iqna kedlis mxatvrobis, xuroTmoZRvrebis,
xelnawerTa Tu sxva saxis asobiT Zegli. gansakuTrebuli yuradReba eqceva, agreTve
UNESCO-s Zeglebs; swored amJamad mimdinareobs gelaTis samonastro kompleqsis
reabilitaciisa da infrastruqturis mowyobis proeqti, aseve mcxeTis wm. jvris mcire
taZris gadaudebeli sareabilitacio samuSaoebi, quTaisis “bagratis” taZris azomviTi
da kvleviTi samuSaoebi.
dargis ganviTarebisa da swori mimarTulebiT warmarTvis mizniT, saministro
TanamSromlobs aseve sxvadasxva fondebTan, romelTa TanadgomiTac dafinansebul iqna
iseTi mniSvnelovani specialuri naSromebis Targmna da gamocema, romelTa avtorebic
arian i. iukileto, j. kaneva, i. masari, krebuli “xuroTmoZRvrebis konservacia”
da sxv. 2004 wels a. quTaTelaZis sax. Tbilisis saxelm. samxatvro akademiis bazaze
daarsda saxviTi xelovnebisa da arqiteqturis restavraciis fakulteti, romelic
manamde integrirebuli iyo sxva fakultetebTan. aqve Seiqmna diagnostikur-kvleviTi
laboratoria, saerTaSoriso standartebiT SemuSavebul iqna specialuri saswavlo
programa.
yovelive amis Sedegad, gaizarda interesi dargis mimarT, saxelmwifos mxridan
yuradRebis mipyrobam sarestavracio saqmianobisadmi, TandaTanobiT gamoiwvia misi
popularizacia, gaizarda moTxovnileba da, movida axali Taoba, romelic izrdeba
pro-fesionalebis gverdiT.
amas garda, saministroSi, integrirebul iqna adre damoukideblad arsebuli ZeglTa
dacvis departamentis arqivi, romelSic ganTavsebulia Zeglebze 1920-iani wlebidan
dawyebuli da dRes mimdinare saproeqto samuSaoebis amsaxveli masala, romlis nawilic
ukve TavisTavad kulturuli memkvidreobis Zegls warmoadgens da xSirad Tanamedrove
Carevebis dros fasdaudebel daxmarebas uwevs restavratorebs.
sabina vedovelo
Conservazione Beni Cultural,italia
saziaro proeqti
am moxsenebaSi mimovixilav im xangrZlivi TanamSromlobis istorias, romelic 1996
wels msoflio bankis Italian Trust Fund-is dafinansebiT daiwyo. am gamocdilebam safuZveli
Cauyara qarTuli kulturuli memkvidreobis ZeglebTan dakavSirebuli principuli
problemebis gaazrebas, proeqtebis dagegmvasa da sakonservacio sakiTxebis Sesaxeb
mosazrebaTa gacvla-gamocvlas.
ganxorcielda sami erToblivi proeqti: yincvisSi, timoTesubansa da martvilSi.
imasTan erTad, rom yoveli SemTxveva konkretuli Zeglis damaxasiaTebeli problematikis
kuTxiT iqna Seswavlili, proeqtebis ganxorcielebam gamokveTa is midgoma, romlis
misadagebac sxva SemTxvevebSic SeiZleba. amasTan, unda aRiniSnos, rom adgilobrivi
specialistebi xSirad ufro maRali donis profesionalizmiT da damoukidebeli
120
restavracia/konservacia

estavracia/konservacia
gadawyvetilebebis miRebis unariT gamoirCeodnen.
sami sxvadasxva proeqtis mimoxilva warmoaCens im niuansur gansxvavebebs, ramac
SemdgomSi maTi sxavadsxva gziT ganviTareba gamoiwvia, da im sirTuleebs, romelTa
winaSec videqiT. aseve warmoaCens im gzas, romelmac sxvadasxva mkacri kriteriumebiT
SemuSavebul sakonservacio meTodikamde migviyvana.
aRniSnul Zeglebze dadasturebuli biologiuri dazianebebis kvleva udaod yvelaze
sainteresoa im problemaTagan, romelTa winaSec mogviwia dadgoma, Tumca ufro zogadi
konteqstisaTvis Cven gvsurs aseve ganvixiloT;
• restavratorebis, xelovnebaTmcodneebisa da sazogadeobrivi struqturebis
TanamSromloba sakonservacio treningebsa da memkvidreobis dacvaSi, diagnostikisa
da teqnikuri dokumentaciis sakiTxSi.
• sakonservacio sakiTxebTan dakavSirebuli codnis gafarToeba kedlis mxatvrobis
udidesi memkvidreobis mqone ori qveynis - saqarTvelosa da italias Soris mWidro
TanamSromlobiT.
• da bolos, sakonservacio problematikis Seswavlis da samuSaoebis dagegmvis
sakiTxSi interdisciplinaruli jgufis TanamSromloba.
erik viurgeri
damoukidebeli mkvlevari. germania
istoriuli nagebobebis safuZvlebis gamagrebis axali meTodi
kulturul memkvidreobaze da saganZurze zrunva kulturuli eris ZiriTadi
maxasiaTebelia. amaSi igulisxmeba istoriuli nagebobebis: eklesiebis, monastrebis,
taZrebis, minareTebis da aseve teqnikuri nagebobebis: xidebis, akvedukebis da a.S movla
da Senaxva.
komerciuli daniSnulebis anu turizmis garda, aseTi istoriuli nagebobebi,
upirveles yovlisa, saxelmwifos erovnul identurobas emsaxureba. Senaxvisa da movlis
garda, xSirad aucilebeli xdeba am nagebobebis rekonstruqciac.
saukuneTa ganmavlobaSi nagebobebi ziandeba ara mxolod meteorologiuri
movlenebis, araprofesionaluri minaSenebis an miwisZvrebis Sedegad, aramed sakmaod
xSiria saZirkvelis dazianebebic.
gruntis wylebis dawevam SeiZleba xis ximinjebiani saZirkvelis lpoba gamoiwvios, ris
Sedegadac warmoiqmneba bzarebi. niadagSi warmoiqmneba iseTi araxelsayreli pirobebi,
romelnic nagebobis araerTgvarovan jdomas ganapirobebs. amis kargi magaliTia pizis
koSki.
rogorc wesi, fundamentis rekonstruqcia Zalian rTulia da did xarjebs
ukavSirdeba.
axali meTodis danergvidan TiTqmis 25 weli gavida. miuxedava imisa, rom igi jer kidev
sakmaod Zviria, es meTodi dazianebuli saZirkvlebis rekonstruqciis SedarebiT iol
meTods warmoadgens. amis garda, es meTodi imis saSualebasac iZleva, rom fundamenti
gruntis wylebis donis qveviTac gamagrdes.
axali meTodis mTavari azri isaa, rom mzidi kedlebis qveS arsebuli grunti
Tavdapirvelad gaTxevaddes, xolo Semdeg cementis damatebiT miwa-betonad iqces.
mas Semdeg, rac vertikaluri burRva niadagisTvis aucilebel siRrmes miaRwevs,
burRis Tavidan didi wneviT gamoiSveba wylis Wavli. wylis WavliT burRis garSemo
arsebul niadags xsnian da aTxevadeben. burRis milis neli trialiTa da amoweviT
cilindruli formis gaTxevadebuli niadagi warmoiqmneba. burRis milis amowevisas
meore reaqtiuli mfrqvevanadan cementi gamoiSveba da gruntSi iwnexeba.
gaTxevadebuli niadagi cementTan erTad warmoqmnis svetis formis miwa-cementis
121

sxeuls, romelsac myar gruntze msxvili betonis ximinjiviT SeuZlia nagebobis simZimis
zidva.
moxsenebaSi aRwerili meTodi, romelsac samSeneblo literaturaSi reaqtiuli Wavlis
meTodi anu Jet Grouting-i ewodeba, warmodgenili iqneba avstriasa da xorvatiaSi
ganxorcielebuli ramdenime eklesiis rekonstruqciis magaliTze.
mark gitinsi
Conservazione Beni Culturali. italia
qarTuli kedlis mxatvrobis sami nimuSis konservaciisadmi meTodologiuri da
praqtikuli midgoma
moxsenebis mizania ganvixiloT sakonservacio samuSaobi, romlebic 1996-2008
wlebSi saqarTveloSi sam Zeglze, kerZod yincvisis wm. nikolozis da timoTesubnis
da martvilis RmrTismSoblis taZrebis moxatulobebis sakonservacio proeqtebis
farglebSi ganxorcielda.
proeqtebSi CarTuli iyvnen sxvadasxva profesiis qarTveli da ucxoeli
specialistebi.
sakonservacio samuSaoebis dagegmvisas gaTvaliswinebul iqna zogadi sakonservacio
meTodologiis sakiTxebi, iseve, rogorc ufro konkretuli sakiTxebi, romlebic zogadad
qarTuli Zeglebis, konkretulad ki, am mxatvrobebis konservaciis specifikasTan iyo
dakavSirebuli.
magaliTad, aseTi sakiTxia SezRuduli biujeti, romelic gulixmobs, rom
prioritetad gamoiyo yvelaze aucilebeli samuSaoebis Catareba, Tumca Tavis mxriv es
kargad eTanxmeboda e.w minimaluri Carevis princips, romliTac samuSao jgufis yvela
wevri xelmZRvanelobda.
aseve, mniSvnelovani iyo fizikuri da qimiuri SeTavsebadobis sakiTxi: magaliTad,
is faqti, rom moxatulobaTa umetesi nawili sveli teqnikis nacvlad mSrali teqnikiT
aris Sesrulebuli niSnavada imas, rom agresiuli gamwmendi masalis gamoyenebis sakiTxi
TavisTavad gamoiricxa.
masalis SerCevisas, aseve, gaTvaliswinebuli iyo misi stabiluroba da SemdgomSi freskis
dazianebis wyarod qcevis saSiSroebac: magaliTad, mikroorganizmebis gavrcelebis
riskis gamo gadawyda ar gamoyenebuliyo aqerclili ferweruli fenis gasamagrebeli
tradiciuli saSualeba - kazeini.
da bolos, ukanaskneli periodis sakonservacio samuSaoebisas yuradReba mieqca
ferweruli fenis danakargis Sevsebisas esTetikur mxaresac, rac erTis mxriv miznad
isaxavs, rom freskis dazianeba maqsimalurad naklebad TvalSi sacemi iyos mnaxvelisaTvis,
Tumca meores mxriv eyrdnoba “minimaluri Carevis” princips.
nana kupraSvili
Tbilisis saxelmwifo samxatvro akademia. saqarTvelo
gelaTis RmrTismSoblis taZris XII saukunis moxatulobaTa teqnika
gelaTis mravalricxovan moxatulobaTa Soris qronologiurad yvelaze adreulia
XII s-Si Sesrulebuli narTeqsis, samxreT-aRmosavleT egvteris, samxreTi egvteris
karibWisa da Crdilo-dasavleT egvteris moxatulobebi.
narTeqsis mxatvrobis Seswavlisas yuradRebas iqcevs misi Sesrulebis teqnika.
Sua saukuneebis qarTuli kedlis mxatvrobis istoriaSi es nimuSi erT-erTia im
mcirericxovan ZeglTagan, romlebic Sereuli teqnikiTaa Sesrulebuli. am moxatulobis
122
restavracia/konservacia

estavracia/konservacia
Selesilobis ZiriTadi komponentia kiri, rac aucilebeli pirobaa Sereuli teqnikiT
xatvisas. mosamzadebeli naxatisaTvis ZiriTadad gamoyenebulia miwis saRebavebi, xolo
sruli saxiT SemorCenil fragmentebze iseTi ZviradRirebuli pigmentebic gvxvdeba,
rogoricaa ultramarini, singuri da surinji.
gelaTSi SemorCenil moxatulobaTagan qronologiurad momdevno unda iyos
samxreT-aRmosavleTi egvteris moxatulobis qveda fena. TinaTin virsalaZe mas XII s-iT
aTariRebs da narTeqsis moxatulobis Tanadroulad miiCnevs. es fena egvterSi dRes
arsebuli mxatvrobis qvemodan adgil-adgil Cans.
es mxatvrobac Sereuli teqnikiTaa Sesrulebuli. fragmentebi mosamzadebeli naxatis
donezea SemorCenili.
samxreT-aRmosavleTi egvteris moxatulobis pirveli fenisa da narTeqsis mxatvrobis
SelesilobaTa analizma gviCvena, rom nalesobani gansxvavdeba, rogorc SemadgenlobiT,
aseve, - sisqiT.
kidev erTi adreuli moxatulobis Selesilobis kvali SemorCenilia samxreTi egvteris
karibWeSi. mxatvrobis kvali aq faqtiurad aRarsad Cans. nalesobis Semadgenloba ki
narTeqsis nalesobis Semadgenlobis identuria.
nalesobaTa analizis safuZvelze SeiZleba vivaraudoT, rom narTeqsi da samxreTi
karibWe erTdroulad moixata XII s-Si, xolo samxreT-aRmosavleTi egvteris pirveli
fena odnav mogvianebiT, narTeqsisa da karibWis Semdgom.
gelaTis adreuli moxatulobebis jgufSi Sedis Crdilo-dasavleT egvterSi samxreT
kedelze, TaRSi mosamzadebeli naxatis doneze SemorCenili sami wminda dedis
figura, romlebic Sereuli teqnikiTaa Sesrulebuli. mosamzadebeli naxati aqac wiTeli
oqrisaa. mxatvrobis Selesilobis analizma metad saintereso monacemebi gamoavlina: es
nalesoba samxreT-aRmosavleTi egvteris pirveli fenis Selesilobis identuria.
amgvarad, gelaTis adreul moxatulobaTa Selesilobis analizis Sedegebis
safuZvelze SeiZleba vivaraudoT, rom gelaTSi Tavdapirvelad mxatvroba Sesrulda
narTeqssa da samxreT karibWeSi (1125-1130 ww.), odnav mogvianebiT ki moixata samxreTaRmosavleTi
da Crdilo-dasavleTi egvterebi. am moxatulobaTa zusti TariRis
dadgena damatebiT kvlevas moiTxovs.
julia kaneva
romis III universiteti. italia
kedlis mxatvrobis biodazianeba
martvilis RmrTismSoblis eklesiis kedlis mxatvrobis biologiuri dazianebis
kvleva Catarda floristuli da ekologiuri meTodiT. es problema gansakuTrebiT
mniSvnelovani iyo eklesiis dasavleT karibWeSi, sadac SeiniSneboda Savi, mwvane da
vardisferi fena, rac wyalmcenareebis (Chroococcale) da sxva baqteriuli formebis
arsebobam gamoiwvia. es baqteriuli koloniebi Seswavlil iqna optikuri mikroskopis
da standartuli eleqtronuli modulis saSualebiT, da gamoikveTa, rom gansxvaveba
sxvadasxva fenomenologiebs Soris ZiriTadad raodenobrivia, garda vardisferi
patinisa. es ukanaskneli, faqtiurad, sxva baqteriul formebs miekuTvneba, romelic
karotenoiduli pigmentebs Seicavs, rac dakavSirebulia ganaTebasTan SedarebiT nakleb
tenianobasTan.
zogadad, i biodazianebis cvlilebebi kavSirSia sinaTlisa da haeris cirkulacias-
Tan, gansakuTrebiT teniani haerisa da nislis mimarTulebasTan zamTarSi. masalaTa
(samSeneblo xsnari da qva) forianobis da karibWeSi arsebuli gansxvavebuli garemo
pirobebis gaTvaliswinebiT, am organizmebisa da maTi, rogorc bioindikatorebis,
123

gavrcelebis gamoyenebiT, SemuSavebul iqna kedlebis tenianobis donis maCvenebeli
ruka.
zogierT sakonservacio samuSaos win uswrebda winaswari testi masalis efeqturobaze,
kerZod testebi Catarda ori biocidis gamoyenebiT (rocima 110 da preventol R80,
oTxmagi amoniumis marilebi, pirvel SemTxvevaSi amas emateba organotinis xsnari),
romlebic farTodaa Semowmebuli da gamoyenebuli warsulSi. Zeglis mikroklimaturi
pirobebis Sefasebis saSualebiT, SeTavazebul iqna garemo pirobebSi Careva, imisaTvis,
raTa SezRudul iqnas am organizmebis zrdis ekologiuri SesaZlebloba da es
sakonservacio problema xangrZlivi droiT gadaiWras.
Tomas varSaidi
LBW-Bioconsult. germania
biodazianeba kedlis mxatvrobaSi
mikroorganizmebis biodamazianebeli efeqtebi istoriul kedlis mxatvrobaSi
emyareba nagebobis struqturis (anu tenianoba, temperatura, ventilacia), mocemuli
istoriuli masalebis tipis (anu struqtura, Termo-higruli Tvisebebi, kvebiTi
efeqti), iseve rogorc mikroflorisa da maTi metaboluri aqtivobis kompoziciis
rTul urTierTqmedebas.
istoriuli kedlis mxatvrobis dazianeba, ZiriTadad, ganisazRvreba ferweruli
fenis forianobiT, mineraluri, Sesabamisad organuli matricis stabilurobiT,
nestisa da tenianobis Sewovis unariT, xsnadi marilebis raodenobiT da garemo
mikroklimaturi pirobebiT. Sedegad miRebuli damazianebeli procesi xasiaTdeba
marilebis kristalizaciiT, gamkvrivebiT da pigmenturi fenebis gaTiSviT, iseve
rogorc damangreveli koroziiT, rasac mosdevs moxatuli zedapiris gafxviereba da
kedlis moxatulobis struqturis erTianobis saboloo dakargva.
aRweril damazianebel formebs xSirad Tan axlavs mikrobuli zegavlena, rogoricaa
gamauferulebeli pigmentebis biogenuri zrda (anu qlorofilebi, melaninebi,
karotinoidebi), nestis Semwovi, gamkvrivebuli da webovani biofirebis warmoSoba,
sokos SeRweva da meqanikuri zewola, fermentuli ieriSi organul safuZvelze (anu
istoriuli SemaerTeblebi, sakonservacio konsolidantebi), aseve organuli mJavebis
gamoyofa.
aq, “seko” moxatulobebi ufro xSirad xdeba biodazianebis msxverpli, vidre
“freskuli” mxatvroba, ramdenadac isini gvTavazoben organuli warmoSobis farTo
speqtrs (saxamebeli, webo, kazeini, zeTi, kvercxis guli), magram sakuTriv anTropogenul
zegavlenebsac SeuZlia xeli Seuwyos mikrobuli dazianebis process organuli wvrili
mtveriT gazrdili damtverviT, iseve rogorc polimeris konsolidantebis gamoyenebiT
restavraciis procesSi. adgilze arsebuli klimaturi pirobebi sabolood gansazRvraven
potenciuri mikrobuli zrdis zomas. imisaTvis raTa gamovlindes Tu ra gavlenas
axdens kompleqsuri biodazianeba kedlis mxatvrobaze, winaswari mikrobiologiuri
Seswavlis safuZvelze ganxilul iqneba atenis eklesiis magaliTi; saqarTveloSi da
evropaSi msgavsi dazianebis mqone Zeglebi.
124
restavracia/konservacia

estavracia/konservacia
franCesko imperi
romis III universiteti. italia
uZvelesi kedlis mxatvrobis “gavardisfrebis” etiologia: molekuluri midgoma
uZvelesi moxatulobis biologiuri dazianebis gamomwvevi mikroorganizmebis aRwera
sarestavracio samuSaoebis ganuyofeli nawilia. materaSi (italia) “pirveli codvis”
kriptis Sua saukuneebis freskebis ”gavardisfrebis” gamomwvevi mikrobi gamokvleul
iqna mikroskopuli, molekuluri da stereoskopuli meTodebiT. baqteriuli koloniebi
moxatulobis sami sxvadasxva “vardisferi” adgilidan, gamokvleul iqna 16S rRNA genuri
meTodebiT. eubaqteriuli kolonizacia ZiriTadad Sedgeboda aqtinobaqteriebisgan,
romelTa Soris gamosxivebisadmi mdgradi rubrobaqteria Seadgenda 16S rRNA
genetikuri fondis 63-87% erTi sinjisaTvis. arqea, romelSic Warbobs haloarqeas
msgavsi biotipebi, aRmoCenil iqna samidan erT adgilze, sadac is Seadgenda mTeli
16S rRNA genetikuri fondis

saqarTveloSi dRemde, calkeuli SemTxvevebis garda, xatweris teqnika jer kidev
ar gamxdara Tanmimdevruli, interdisciplinaruli kvlevis sagani. am mxriv ubisis
xatis kompleqsuri kvleva gansakuTrebiT mniSvnelovania, miT umetes, rom. xatis
avTentikuroba ar aris darRveuli Semdgomi restavracia-ganaxlebebiT.
kvlevisaTvis gamoviyeneT Cvens xelT arsebuli Semdegi mikrodestruqciuli
meTodebi: xis dafis, tilos da cvilis Semkvrelis mikrobotanikuri, (paleobiologiis
instituti), pigmentebis mikroqimiuri( Tbilisis samxatvro akademiis rest. ak. lab.)
analizebi da Semkvrelebis fotospeqtrometruli (infrawiTeli speqtrometria)
kvlevis meTodebi (stu minerfalogiis kaTedris lab.). aucilebelia xatis gamokvleva
sxva fiziko-optikuri (u.i, i.w.,. radiografiuli) meTodebiTac.
gamoyenebuli Semkvrelebis SeswavlisaTvis jer Catarda Semkvrelebis etalonebis,
Semdeg ki xatis mikrofragmentebis kvleva.
kvlevis Sedegebze dayrdnobiT xatis konservaciisaTvis Cvenis azriT mizanSewonili
iqneba Semdegi meTodikis gamoyeneba: 1. tilos antiseptireba da sokos sporebis
meqanikuri wesiT mocileba; 2. zevidan dakruli qaRaldis mSrali wesiT moxsna; 3.
levkasisa da ferweris gamagrebis procesSi yoveli mikrofragmentisaTvis adgilis
povna da damagreba maT qveS organuli webos mikrodozis SeyvaniT. es procesi
aucilebelad binokularuli mikroskopis, el.dozimetris, teflonis mikroSpatelisa
da firfitis gamoyenebiT unda Catardes. 4. tilos dakvra Sesaferisi simkvrivis iaponur
qaRaldze; 5. dafis dezinseqticireba anoqsiis meTodiT da gansakuTrebiT darbilebuli
adgilebis konsolidacia paraloid B-72-iT, dafis nakluli adgilebis Sevseba msubuqi
merqnisagan damzadebuli fragmentebiT (es aucilebeli iqneba Weduri fragmentebis
damagrebisaTvis); 6. ferweriani tilos damagreba xis safuZvelze;
Zeglis Semdgomi dauzianeblobisaTvis aucilebeli iqneba specialuri vitrinakonteineris
damzadeba pleqsiglasis markis orgminisagan.
darejan gogaSvili
Tbilisis saxelmwifo samxatvro akademia. saqarTvelo
xelnawerTa erovnul centrSi daculi papirusebis konservaciis zogierTi sakiTxi
xelnawerTa erovnul centrSi daculia Zv. w. III – ax. w. VIII ss. 160-mde papirusis
fragmenti, romelic moicavs berZnul enaze Sesrulebul astrologiur da samedicino
traqtatebs, iuridiul dokumentebs, sxvadasxva xasiaTis qviTrebs, fsalmunis,
epistolaruli da mxatvruli teqstebis fragmentebs da sxva.
papirusebi gasuli saukunis 50-ian wlebSi mouTavsebiaT or minas Soris. maTi umetesi
nawili myife da msxvrevadia. teqsti ZiriTadad Sesrulebulia karbonuli, iSviaTad
ki rkina-galuri melniT. moxsenebaSi ganxilulia melnis fenis dazianebis calkeuli
SemTxvevebi da misi gamomwvevi mizezebi. xSiria papirusis furclis Semadgeneli
vetikaluri da horizontaluri zolebisa da boWkoebis ganSreveba, deformacia,
gvxvdeba papirusze dawebebuli qaRaldis fragmentebi, furclis zedapirze SeiniSneba
miwa, WuWyi da mtveri. papirusis aseTi saxis dazianebas ganapirobebs papirusis, rogorc
saweri masalis damzadebis teqnologia, xelnaweris forma (gragnili, kodeqsi) da
garemo pirobebi (maTi umetesi nawili miwaSi iyo Camarxuli).
papirusis da minis zedapirze xSirad SeiniSneba gamoleqili marilis kristalebi.
gamoleqili marilis identifikaciisaTvis damzadda sakvlevi nimuSebi da Catarda
Tvisobrivi analizi Na + , K + , Cu2+ , Fe2+ , Cl- 2+ SO ionebis aRmosaCenad. natriumis, kaliumis
4
126
restavracia/konservacia

estavracia/konservacia
da spilenZis ionebis arseboba ganisazRvra atomur absorbciul speqtro-fotometrze,
Perkin Elmer 300 aparatze. rkinis ionebis aRmosaCenad gamoviyeneT kaliumis rodanidi,
2+ qloris ionebis aRmosaCenad-vercxlis nitrati, SO -is arseboba ganiszRvra BaCI2 -iT.
4
analizis Sedegad sakvlev xsnarSi aRmoCnda natriumis da qloris ionebi. NaCl-is gamoleqva
zedapirze permanentuli, TandaTanobiTi procesia da gamowveulia temperaturisa
da tenianobis cvalebadobiT.
moxsenebis daskvniT nawilSi, Catarebuli kvlevebis sfuZvelze, SeTavazebulia
SesaZlo sakonservacio samuSaoebi. konservaciis meTodebisa da masalebis SerCevisas
gaTvaliswinebulia papirusis mdgomareoba, dazianebis calkeuli SemTxvevebi da misi
gamomwvevi mizezebi, sakonservacio masalebis da melnis urTierTmimarTeba.
mari -klod depasio
gabriel Sapotas sax. arqeologiuri masalis kvlevisa da konservaciis centri.
safrangeTi
restavracia Tu konservacia, ra avirCioT?
didi xnis manZilze sazogadoeba restavratorisagan moiTxovda xelovnebis nimuSebis
srul restavracias, anu maTTvis pirvandeli mdgomareobis dabrunebas. magram Tu
gaviTvaliswinebT imas, rom droTa ganmavlobaSi Zveldeba, ziandeba da saxes icvlis
nebismieri masala, gasagebi xdeba, rom nivTisaTvis e.w. pirveladi mdgomareobis
dabruneba mxolod moCvenebiTi movlenaa.
Tu xelovnebis bazarze msgavsi midgoma jer kidev arsebobs, samecniero-profesiul
da zogadad kulturul wreebSi restavratorisagan ukve gansxvavebul midgomas
moelian, rac gacilebiT nakleb Carevas, magram did pasuxismgeblobas gulisxmobs.
saqarTveloSi ganxorcielebuli proeqtebis dros Cavatare antikuri xanis minisa da
keramikis nimuSebis restavracia : 2005-Si sof. xovleSi aRmoCenili minis ori unikaluri
suris, xolo 2007-Si mcxeTis muzeumis kuTvnili minisa da keramikuli WurWlis
ramdenime nimuSis konservacia/restavracia. amasTanave es iyo saswavlo mecadineobebi
Tbilisis samxatvro akademiis restavraciis fakuletis studentebisaTvis, sadac
praqtikuli restavraciis teqnikisa da meTodebis swavlebasTan erTad Sevecade maTTvis
amexsna konservaciis eTikis umTavresi principebi: mkafiooba (Zeglis avTentikurobisa
da nebismieri sarestavracio Carevis mkafiod aRqmis SesaZlebloba), Zeglis mdgradoba
da Seuqcevadoba.
swored konservaciis mizanSewonilobaze, miznebze da profesiuli eTikis principebze
dafiqrebis saSualebas iZleva mcxeTis muzeumsa da safrangeTSi, leis sen-Jermenis
arqeologiis erovnul muzeumSi (MAN) daculi brinjaos sartylebisa da maTi
restavraciis meTodebis msgavseba.
saqme exeba 1885-88 wlebSi saqarTvelo-somxeTis sazRvarze warmoebuli arqeologiuri
gaTxrebis Sedegad aRmoCenil da baton j. morganis mier safrangeTSi wamoRebul
brinjaos sartylebs.
1997 da 2000 wlebSi ganxorcielda sartylebis xelaxali restavracia. samwuxarod
20-ian da 1978-79 wlebSi araswori da Seuqcevadi meTodebis gamoyenebiT Catarebuli
restavraciis, agreTve, arasrulfasovnad Sedgenili, mwiri dokumentaciis gamo Tavis
droze arsebuli informaciis nawili dRes ukve samudamodaa dakarguli; SeuZlebelia
gravirebuli dekoris srulad wakiTxva. Semonaxulia morganis mier gakeTebuli ramdenime
SeniSvna, xolo daculobis mdgomareobis aRwera ar arsebobs.
127

nivTebis sruli diagnostireba/ Seswavla SesaZlebeli gaxda mxolod 1997-2000 ww-Si
ganxorcielebuli radiografiuli kvlevis Sedegad.
Zeglebis konservacia/restavraciis miznebisa da koncefciis Camoyalibebis sirTule,
SesaZlo riski, profesiuli eTikis moTxovnebi da samuSaoTa fasi restavrators
sul ufro xSirad aiZulebs upasuxos kiTxvas, Tu ramdenad mizanSewonilia ama Tu im
sakonservacio Carevis ganxorcieleba. amitom umjobesia avirCioT konservacia da ara
restavracia.
nino kalandaZe
saqarTvelos erovnuli muzeumi. Tbilisis saxelmwifo samxatvro akademia.
saqarTvelo
arqeologiuri brinjaos konservaciis meTodi vanis naqalaqarze aRmoCenili masalis
mixedviT
2007 wlis kampaniis dros vanis arqeologiurma eqspediciam gamoavlina
naqalaqarisaTvis manamde ucnobi saxis arqeologiuri Zegli-ganZi. is dafluli iyo
kldovan dedaqanSi saxeldaxelod amoWil oTkuTxa ormoSi (sigrZe-1,85 m; sigane-0,85
m; siRrme-0,85 m), naqalaqaris qveda terasaze. es monakveTi warmoadgens naqalaqaris
samxreT-aRmosavleT kides. aq dafiqsirda qalaqis damcavi kedlis naSTebi. rogorc
Cans, ganZi daflulia mas Semdeg, rac kedeli daingra da misi saZirkvlis qvebi amoRebul
iqna Semdgomi moxmarebisaTvis. ganZi Sedgeba rkinisa da brinjaos nawarmisagan. ganZs
gamTxreli arqeologi dimitri axvlediani Semadgeneli nivTebiT gvianelinisturi xaniT
aTariRebs, xolo, ganZis daflva, misive azriT, unda momxdariyo Zv.w. I s-is SuaxanebSi
qalaqis dangrevis Semdeg. mogexsenebaT, rom amierkavkasiis qveynebze da, maT Soris,
kolxeTzec gadioda savaWro-satranzito gza, romelic dasavleTs aRmosavleTis
qveynebTan akavSirebda. berZen-romael avtorTa cnobebis mixedviT irkveva, rom es gza
indoeTidan kaspiis zRvamde miemarTeboda, xolo Semdeg amierkavkasiis teritoriis
gavliT (md.mtkvari, suramis uReltexili, rioni) aRwevda Savi zRvis sanapiros qalaq
fasisTan da mere ukve sazRvao gziT SavizRvispireTisa da mcire aziis qalaqebs
ukavSirdeboda. swored am garemoebebis gamo, Zalze saintereso da, amavdroulad, xSirad
rTulic aris msjeloba ama Tu im nivTis warmomavlobisa da konkretuli regionisadmi
mikuTvnebis Sesaxeb. kolxeTis oqroTi simdidreze saubroben berZeni da romaeli
avtorebi. vanis arqeologiurma gaTxrebma daadastura, rom berZen da romael avtorTa
cnobebs kolxeTSi oqros simravlis Sesaxeb realuri safuZveli hqonda. 2003-2004-2007
wlebis uaxlesma arqeologiurma aRmoCenebma naTelhyo, rom vani ara mxolod oqros,
aramed vercxlis, brinjaosa da rkinis simravliTac iyo gamorCeuli. jer kidev ori
aTasi wlis win didi berZeni istorikosi straboni aRniSnavda, rom “am qveynis simdidre
oqroTi, vercxliT, rkiniTa da spilenZiT gvixsnis argonavtTa laSqrobis sababs” [T.
yauxCiSvili “strabonis “geografia”, Tb., 1957, gv. 70-71]. moxsenebaSi warmogidgenT 2007
wels aRmoCenili ganZis ori brinjaos artefaqtis sarestavracio sqemebs, romelic
gamoyenebul iqna Cvens mier. yuradReba gamaxvilebul iqneba restavracia-konservaciis
procesis dagegmvasa da kvlevebis specifikaze.
128
restavracia/konservacia

estavracia/konservacia
Tea kinwuraSvili
saqarTvelos erovnuli muzeumi. Tbilisis saxelmwifo samxatvro akademia.
saqarTvelo
vanis minebis skanirebis eleqtromikroskopul-energodispersiuli analizi, rentgenoflurescenciuri
gamokvleva da restavracia-konservacia
uZvelesi minis qimiuri Sedgenilobisa da teqnologiis SeswavliT mopovebul
informacias, arqeologiur gamokvlevebTan erTad, gadamwyveti roli SeuZlia
Seasrulos aRmoCenili minis nimuSebis ama Tu im regionisadmi mikuTvnebis sakiTxSi da
am regionis kulturuli ganviTarebis donis SefasebaSi.
samxreT kavkasiaSi, kerZod, saqarTveloSi, romelic yovelTvis imyofeboda Zveli
savaWro gzebis gzajvaredinze, mopovebulia didi raodenobiT minis masala, romelic
asaxavs ara mxolod am regionis, aramed Zveli samyaros minis warmoebis praqtikulad
yvela etaps. uZvelesi epoqidan am saxis produqcias gansakuTrebuli adgili ukavia
kacobriobis istoriaSi, Sesabamisad, didia mecnieruli interesi am saxis nawarmisadmi.
saqarTvelo miekuTvneba msoflios im regionTa ricxvs, romlebSic minis warmoebas
uZvelesi droidan icnobdnen. saqarTvelos teritoriaze mopovebuli minisa Tu minisebri
nivTierebebisagan damzadebuli uZvelesi sagnebi Zv.w. III aTaswleuliT TariRdeba. es
aRmoCenebi saSualebas iZleva, sxva qveynebTan erTad, saqarTveloc mivakuTvnoT minis
warmoebis erT-erT uZveles keraTa ricxvs, saidanac igi CrdiloeTiT gavrcelda.
Cveni kvlevis obieqts warmoadgens vanSi aRmoCenili Zv.w. V-IV ss. minis WurWeli.
naSromis mizania minis restavracia-konservacia, rentgeno-flurescenciuri
gamokvleviT Semferavi nivTierebebis dadgena, skanirebis eleqtromikroskopulenergodispersiuli
analiziT minaSi Semaval elementebze informaciis mopoveba da
warmomavlobis dadgena, radgan minis warmoebasTan erTad, zemoT aRniSnul periodSi,
gavrcelebuli iyo minis nawarmis importica da eqsportic.
129

IV SECTION
RESTORATION/CONSERVATION
BIOLOGICAL DETERIORATION IN CULTURAL HERITAGE

Maia Shavishvili
Department of Cultural Heritage of the Ministry of Culture, Monuments Protection and Sport of Georgia.
Georgia
General Overview of the Restoration field in Georgia
Recently the processes of heritage protection, as well as restoration and rehabilitation of cultural heritage
sites, have been more actively managed by the Ministry of Culture, Monuments Protection and Sport
of Georgia. The branch developed out of multidisciplinary studies and is based on international experience.
Its work is promoted in different directions: “State Program for Rescuing Unique Monuments” is currently
under way. Some one hundred monuments, including paintings, architecture and manuscripts, have been
restored under this program. Special emphasis has also been placed on the monuments listed as the UNES-
CO World Heritage Sites, and activity has begun on the following sites: Rehabilitation and infrastructure
development of the Gelati Monastery complex; urgent intervention in a small Jvari Church in Mtskheta;
documentation in the “Bagrati Church” in Kutaisi and carrying out research activities.
The ministry collaborates with foundations for development of the branch to promote its work. Thanks
to the support granted, the following work has been accomplished: translation and publication of a professional
book under the authorship of I. Jakiletto, G. Caneva and I. Massari; publication of the collection of
works “Conservation of Architectural Monuments”, among others.
The Faculty of Restoration of Fine Arts and Architecture, earlier integrated with other faculties, was
founded in 2004 as an individual unit at the A. Kutateladze Tbilisi State Academy of Art. A diagnosticresearch
laboratory was set up at the above facility, and a special education program, which meets international
standards, was developed.
As a result, interest in the field has increased. Georgian government grants have paid more attention
to restoration activities. Popularization of the branch has generated great demand. It is attracting young
people, who now have of the opportunity to gain skills by working along side professionals.
The Archives of the Department of Monuments’ Protection, formerly an independent body, was also
integrated into the Ministry. Materials on restoration projects since 1920s are preserved in the archives. Today,
parts of these documents can also be considered “monuments” of cultural heritage. They are of special
value to restorers when accomplishing restoration and intervention activities.
Sabina Vedovello
C.B.C. Conservazione Beni Culturali. Italy
A Shared Project
In this paper I would like to provide an overview of a long period of collaboration which began in 1996
with funding from the World Bank Italian Trust Fund.
That initial experience laid the foundations for an understanding of some of the principal problems
facing the cultural heritage of Georgian monuments, and for the exchange of ideas about project planning
and treatments.
Three joint projects have been worked on up till now, in the churches at Kintsvisi, Timotesubani and
Martvili. In each case, while the problems specific to the individual structures have been studied, at the same
time each project has thrown light on approaches which can be applied in other situations. Furthermore, in
each project Georgian professionals have shown ever higher levels and stronger senses of autonomy.
The illustration of the three different projects, pointing out their intrinsic differences and sketching their
separate evolutions, provides an idea of the complexity of the situations that had to be faced, and also shows
how we arrived at the various treatment methods adopted, in each case following strict criteria aimed at
131

132
RESTORATION/CONSERVATION
protecting the works.
The study of the biological degradation found at the monuments is certainly one of the more interesting
facets of the problems faced. However, at a more general level we would like to discuss:
- the collaboration between conservators, art historians and public institutions dealing with both
conservation training and heritage protection, particularly in terms of diagnostics and technical
documentation
- the broadening of understanding of issues concerning conservation through direct links between Italy
and Georgia, two countries with a large and extensive heritage of wall paintings
- the joint efforts to involve a wide range of different specialists and institutions in the planning and study
of problems in conservation
Erik Wurger
Freelance Schola., Germany
New Methods of the Consolidation of the Basement of Historic Structures
The care for the cultural heritage and treasures is a feature of cultural nations. This includes preservation
and maintenance of such historical buildings as: churches, monasteries, minarets as well as technical
structures: bridges, aqueducts and etc.
Alongside the commercial and touristic function these kinds of buildings serve as examples of countries’
national identity. Besides their maintenance and preservation these buildings often need reconstruction.
Throughout centuries the structures are affected by meteorological damage, earthquakes and inappropriately
attached constructions. Quite often the damage to the basement occurs.
The dropping down of the soil water level might cause the decay of basement’s wooden supports, resulting
the cracking. The soil is causative of inappropriate conditions that cause the non-homogenous sagging
of the structure. The Pisa Tower can serve a good example for that.
The reconstruction of the basement is usually very difficult and expensive. It is already 25 years that
this new method has been introduced. Despite the fact that this method of basement reconstruction is still
expensive, it is relatively simple. This method also gives the possibility to reinforce the basement under the
level of soil waters.
The method is based on the dilution of soil under the supporting walls and its transformation into a soilconcrete
by the cement injection.
While reaching the proper deepness of soil through the vertical drilling, the drill capping sprays the
water with high pressure. It dissolves the nearby soil and dilutes it. The slow rotation of the drill the diluted
soil forms a cylinder. Simultaneously to this process the second sprayer pours cement and presses it into
the soil.
The diluted soil mixed with cement form the soil-concrete columns, which serves as concrete supports
for the building.
The paper presents the described method referred as Jet Grouting in engineering literature using the
examples of reconstruction of several churches in Austria and Croatia.
Mark Gittins
C.B.C. Conservazione Beni Cultural. Italy
Methodological and Practical Approaches to the Conservation of Three Georgian Wall Paintings
This paper aims to discuss the treatments which have been implemented in a series of conservation
projects to conserve the wall paintings in three churches in the Republic of Georgia – the Church of St

RESTORATION/CONSERVATION
Nicholas, Kintsvisi, the Church of the Mother of God, Timotesubani and the Church of the Virgin, Martvili
– over the period 1996-2008.
The projects have involved both Georgian and foreign experts from a variety of disciplines.
Designing the treatments has involved following a series of general methodological issues applicable to
conservation treatments in general, as well as a series of questions tied more particularly to Georgian works
and to these projects in particular.
For example budgetary constraints meant that treatments had to be highly prioritised to identify the
most necessary treatments, though this was very much in accordance with a principal of minimal intervention
favoured by all members of the teams.
Problems of physical and chemical compatibility were also to the fore: for example, the fact that most of
the paintings considered in the projects were not executed in buon fresco but rather using secco techniques
meant that the use of aggressive cleaning agents was out of the question.
Materials also had to be selected for their long term stability and evaluated against the possibility of their
leading to further deterioration: for example, due to the risk of attack by microorganisms, it was decided
not to use traditional fixatives such as casein to reattach flaking paint.
Finally, in the most recent treatments the perhaps underappreciated problem of aesthetic presentation of
the paintings has also been considered, in terms of the treatment of losses, which attempts to minimise disturbances
to the viewer caused by damage to the images, while at the same time adhering to the principals
of minimal treatment
Nana Kuprashvili
Tbilisi State Academy of Art. Georgia
12 th c Painting Techniques of the Main Church at Gelati Monastery
Among the numerous murals of Gealti monastery the 12 th c frescos of the narthex, the south-eastern the
southern porch and the north-western chapels are the earliest ones.
The study of the painting in the narthex unveiled that the techniques in which the murals are executed is
of a special interest. These painting belong to the minority of those medieval Georgian murals, which are
executed in the mixed technique. The major component of the plaster of these murals is lime - the crucial
factor while employing the mixed technique. The earth pigments are used for the preparatory drawing,
whereas the painting uses the precious pigments such as ultramarine, cinnabar and red led.
Chronologically, from the paintings survived in Gelati the first layer of the murals in south-eastern chapel
comes next. T. Virsaladze dated these murals to 12 th c and considered them to be contemporaneous to
the paintings of narthex. This layer is still visible from the existing painting in some places.
This painting is also executed in the mixed technique. The fragments are survived on the level of preparatory
drawing.
The analyses of the painting of south-eastern chapel and those of narthex revealed that their plasters
differ in terms of both - their content and thickness.
The traces of another example of the early painting are observed in the southern porch, where the painting
is almost vanished. The content of the plaster is similar to that of narthex.
The plaster analyses give rise to the assumption that the narthex and southern porch were painted simultaneously
in 12 th c., whereas the first layer of south-eastern chapel was applied slightly later.
Among the earliest paintings of Gelati also are the three figures of Holy women survived on the level
of the preparatory drawing on the southern wall of north-western chapel, which are also executed in mixed
techniques. The preparatory drawing is applied in red ochre. The plaster analyses unveil the interesting fact
that its plaster is similar to that of the first layer of the south-eastern chapel.
133

Giulia Caneva
University Roma Tre. Italy
Biodeterioration of Mural Paintings
The biological attack of the mural paintings of the church of the Virgin in Martvilli was analysed, with
a floristic and ecological approach. This problem was particularly relevant in the case of the western porch
of the church, where diffuse growths of blackish, green and pink patinas, due to cyanobacteria (and other
bacterial forms were detected. These biological colonisations were studied through optical microscopy
and SEM, and differences between the different phenomenologies appeared mainly quantitative, with the
exception of the pink ones. These latter seem, in fact, to referred to other bacterial forms, with carotenoid
pigments, linked to high light input and lower values of humidity.
In general, the changes in biodeterioration appeared to be correlated mainly to light and to the air circulation,
especially the direction of humid air and fog during winter. Considering the porosity of the materials
(mortars and stone) and the different environmental conditions in the porch, a map of the humidity level of
the walls was carried out, using these organisms and their distribution as bioindicators.
Some conservation treatments were carried out with preliminary tests of efficiency, using two biocides
(Rocima 110 and Preventol R80, quaternary ammonium salts, in the first case plus an organotin compound)
widely tested and used in the past. Through a microclimatic evaluation of the site, further interventions of
environmental conditioning were also suggested, in order to limit the ecological ability of these organisms
to grow, and solve this problem in a long lasting way.
Thomas Warsheid
LBW-Bioconsult. Germany
Biodeterioration on Wall-Paintings
The biodeteriorating effects of microorganisms on historical wall-paintings is based on a complex interaction
between building physiscs (i.e. humidity, temperature, ventilation), the type of historical materials
present (i.e. structure, thermal-hygric properties, nutritive effect) as well as the composition of the referring
microflora and their metabolic activity.
The deterioration of historical wall-paintings is basically determined by the porosity of the painted layer,
the stability of their mineralic respectively organic matrix, the absorption of moisture and humidity, the load
of soluble salts and the surrounding microclimatic conditions. Resulting damage processes are characterized
by salt efflorescence, swelling and detaching pigment layers as well as disintegrating corrosion leading
to powdering painting surfaces and the final loss of coherence of the wall paintings structure.
The described damage forms are often accompanied by microbial impacts such as the biogenic enrichment
of discolouring pigments (i.e. chlorophylls, melanins, carotinoids), the formation of moistureabsorbent,
swelling and sticky biofilms, the penetration and mechanical stress by fungal hyphae, the enzymatic
attack on organic substrates (i.e. historical binders, conservating consolidants) as well as the excretion of
organic acids.
Here, “Secco”-paintings are far more often victims of biodeterioration processes than “Fresco”-paintings
since they offer a wider range of organic subtrates (i.e. starch, glue, casein, oil, egg yolk), but even
anthropogenic influences can additionally support microbial deterioration processes by the increased deposition
of organic fine dust as well as the application of polymer consolidants in the course of restoration
treatments. Nevertheless the climatic conditions at site finally determine the extent of the potential microbial
endargement. The complexity of biodeterioration impacts on wall-paintings will be discussed based on
preliminary microbiological studies at the church of Ateni (Georgia) and related objects in Europe
134
RESTORATION/CONSERVATION

RESTORATION/CONSERVATION
Francesco Imperi
University Roma Tre. Italy
Understanding the Etiology of Rosy Discoloration on Ancient Wall Paintings: A Molecular
Approach
The inventory of microorganisms responsible for biological deterioration of ancient paintings has become
an integral part of restoration activities. Here, the microbial agent of rosy discoloration on medieval
frescoes in the Crypt of the Original Sin (Matera, Italy) was investigated by a combination of microscopic,
molecular and spectroscopic approaches. The bacterial community from three rosy-discolored painting sites
was characterized by 16S rRNA gene-based techniques. The eubacterial population was composed prevalently
of Actinobacteria, among which Rubrobacter radiotolerans-related bacteria accounted for 63–87% of
the 16S rRNA gene pool per sampled site. Archaea, with prevalence of Haloarchaea-related species, were
detected in one of the three sites where they accounted for < 0.1% of the total 16S rRNA gene pool. Raman
spectroscopy confirmed the identity between R. radiotolerans carotenoids (bacterioruberins) and pigments
responsible for color alteration of frescoes. This investigation provides the first evidence of a causal relationship
between heavy contamination by Rubrobacter-related bacterioruberin producing bacteria and rosy
discoloration of ancient wall paintings.
Nino Kitovani
Georgian National Museum. Georgia
The Information on the Study and Conservation Methodology of the Central Icon of the Ubisi
Triptych
The Ubisi icon of the Virgin (SEG#657, MM 225/a; 33X27 sm. Wood, canvas, gesso, gold, egg tempera,
repousse), an important example of 13 th century Georgian icon painting and metalwork, forms a part of the
treasury of Ubisi Monastery and represents the central icon of the triptych specially created for this monastery.
It was already damaged in 1925 when it was brought from Ubisi, together with other icons, to the Sh.
Amiranashvili Museum of Art, where it is still kept today.
Today, the icon remains in pieces. Its board has been split in two: the canvas with the painting and silver
plates with gilded repousse décor. At this time, we will discuss only the condition of the ground paint layer,
wood and canvas, and their methods of their study and conservation.
There has been complex damage wrought to the organic and non-organic materials of the work, which
make up its structural elements. Due to humidity and biological attacks present throughout the centuries,
the chemical alterations and loss of mechanical stability to the piece is obvious. The binding material has
disintegrated, the denseness of gesso (levkas) paint layer has decreased and the adhesiveness of the layers
has weakened. There are paint losses, especially in the parts under the repousse. The board has been damaged
by worms, powdered and fragmented; the canvas is fragile and fragmented as well. The glue used to
attach the paper to the paint layer has also disintegrated.
To determine the best methods of conservation and to better understand the technique and technology of
Georgian icon painting, it was necessary to undertake the complex investigation of contents of the remaining
parts. Only few cases of the systematic and interdisciplinary study of the icon painting technique exist.
Considering this, the complex study of Ubisi icons is especially important, as long as the authenticity of the
icon is not lost by the restoration/rehabilitation of the work.
We have used the following available microdestructural methods: A microbotanical analysis of board,
canvas and wax (performed by The Institute of Paleobiology); a microchemical analysis of the pigments
135

(performed at the laboratory of the Tbilisi Art Academy); and photospectometral analysis of the binder—an
infrared spectrometry (performed at the STU laboratory of the Chair of Mineralogy). Further investigation
of the icon using physical-optical (radiographic) methods is necessary.
In order to investigate the binder used first the etalons were studied and then the micro fragments of the
icon itself.
Based on the result of the study, we consider that for the conservation of the icon the following methods
should be used:
Antisepticise the canvas and mechanically remove the fungi; 2) Remove the paper from the surface using
dry method; 3) Individually allocate and fix all the micro fragments during the consolidation of gesso and
painting by micro injecting organic glue under each fragment; this should be performed using binocular,
dosimeter, Teflon plates, and microspatel while fixing the painting; 4) attach of the canvas on the Japanese
paper of relevant thickness; 5) Anoxia of the board and further consolidation of especially fragile parts with
Paraloid B-72; filling the board losses with light wooden fragments; (This is also necessary for the fixation
of repousse fragments). 6) After conservation, the canvas with the painting should be attached to a board.
And, finally, to protect the icon from further damage, it is necessary to encase it in a special container
with a Plexiglas organic glass cover to ensure stable climate conditions.
Darejan Gogashvili
Tbilisi State Academy of Art Georgia. Georgia
Several Issues Relating to the Conservation of the Papyruses Kept in the National Centre of
Manuscripts
The National Centre of Manuscripts keeps approximately 160 papyrus fragments, including astrological
and medical treatises, legal documents, psalms, a variety of receipts, and fragments of epistolary and literary
texts, which range in date from the 3rd century BC to the 8th century.
In the 1950s, many of these artifacts were placed between two sheets of glass. Most of the papyruses
are fragile and brittle. The texts were executed primarily in carbon, and occasionally, in iron gall ink. This
presentation examines damages to this ink layer as well as studies the causes of such damage. There are
many instances of stratification and deformation of vertical and horizontal stripes and of fibers. Some of
the papyruses also preserve paper fragments that have been glued to them. Earth, dirt and dust can be seen
on the folio surfaces. Damage can be explained by the technologies used in producing papyrus as writing
material, the form of manuscripts (a scroll or codex) and their settings in which the papyruses were found
(their majority had been buried in earth).
Furthermore, crystals of precipitated salt can be detected on the papyruses and glass surfaces. Research
samples were prepared for salt identification. Qualitative analysis has been conducted to detect Na + , K + ,
Cu2+ , Fe2+ , Cl- 2+ SO ions. The content of natrium, potassium and copper ions was determined on an atomic
4
absorption spectrometre, Perkin Elmer 300. Potassium rhodante was used for the detection of iron ions,
2+ and silver nitrate for detection of chlorine nitrate, while the presence of SO content was determined by
4
means of BaCI Analysis has also shown the existence of natrium and chlorine ions in the solution that was
2.
studied. The precipitation of NaCI is a permanent, gradual process caused by the changing temperature and
humidity.
Relying on the findings of the research, the conclusive part of the presentation provides recommendations
on conservation measures. The state of preservation of the papyruses, the type of damages and their
causes, as well as the compatibility of conservation material and ink were taken into account while choosing
conservation methods and materials.
136
RESTORATION/CONSERVATION

RESTORATION/CONSERVATION
Mari Claude Depassiot
Municipal Center of Archaeological Studies and Restoration.France
Restoration or Conservation, What to Choose?
For a long time, restorers demanded to restore fully works of art, i.e. to return them to their initial appearance.
However, if we consider the fact that over time every material gets older and is affected by various
conditions and thus altered, restoring the initial appearance of an object seems elusive. Though this
approach may still exist on the art market, the scientific-professional and cultural society expects a different
approach from the restorer: minimal intervention and great responsibility.
Within the scope of projects carried out in Georgia, I have implemented the restoration/conservation
of antique glass and ceramics artifacts, namely of two unique glass jugs discovered in village Khovle in
2005 and some unique examples of glass and ceramic vessels kept in the Museum of Mtskheta. At the same
time, I have provided the students of restoration at Tbilisi State Academy of Art with workshops, where I
have demonstrated and explained the major principals of conservation ethics: clarity (the clear perception
of the authentic image and the traces of any kind of intervention) and maintaining the stability of the work
of art.
Comparing the similarities between the restoration methods applied to the bronze belts kept in the
Mtskheta Museum and those in National Museum of Archeology in Saint Germain in Laye (MAN), which
were discovered near the Armenian-Georgian border in 1885-88 and later brought to France by J. Morgan,
give us more ground to analyze the principles of the professional ethics of restoration, its goals and appropriateness.
In 1997-2000, restoration work on the belts was performed for the second time. But, unfortunately, due
to the incorrect and irreversible methods of restoration used in ‘20s and in 1978-79, and as a result of a lack
of documentation of these methods, it is now entirely impossible to read the engraved décor. Though some
notes by Morgan exist, there is no description of the belts’ previous condition.
The complete diagnostic study of the items became possible only after a radiographic investigation was
performed in 1997 -2000.
The difficulties related to the determination of the goals and conception of conservation/restoration, its
risk factors, the demands of professional ethics, and the cost of restoring works are the factors which make
the restorer think about the appropriates of any conservation intervention. That’s why we should preference
conservation, rather then restoration.
Nino Kalandadze
Georgian National Museum.Tbilisi State Academy of Art. Georgia
The Method for Conservation of Bronze Artifacts by the Example of Findings Unearthed in Ancient
Settlement of Vani
The 2007 archaeological campaign in Vani was marked by the unearthing of buried treasure unusual for
the site: iron and bronze artifacts. The treasure was buried in a quadrangular pit, hastily cut in the living
rock (length – 1.85 m, width – 0.85 m, depth – 0.85 m) on the lower terrace of the city. The site under consideration
lies at the south-east edge of the settlement. Remains of a defensive wall of the city can be traced
there. Most likely, the treasure was buried after the defensive wall collapsed and substructure stones were
removed to be re-used. Dimitri Akhvlediani, the archaeologist responsible for unearthing the treasure, dated
the findings back to the Late Hellenic period. At the same time, he assumed that the treasure was buried in
mid-first century B.C., after the city was razed to ground.
137

As it is well known, a transit trade road passed through the territories of the Transcaucasian countries, including
Colchis, linking east with west. According to the accounts of Greek-Roman authors, the trade road
started in India, passed along the Caspian Sea, crossed Transcaucasus (Mtkvari River, Surami pass, Rioni
River), and went on to the Black Sea shore city of Phasis. From there, it went still further along the Black
Sea and reached Asia Minor cities. Due to such circumstances, it is difficult to state from where exactly an
artifacts excavated at the site originates.
As the writings of Greek-Roman authors reveal, Colchis was rich in gold. Excavations carried out in
Vani have proved that the accounts of Greek-Roman authors are well-grounded. The recent (2003, 2004,
2007) archaeological findings have uncovered evidence to suggest that Vani was rich not only in gold, but
in silver, bronze and iron as well. Two thousand years ago, the Greek historian Strabo wrote the following:
“The wealth of the regions about Colchis, which is derived from the mines of gold, silver, iron, and copper,
suggest a reasonable motive for the expedition [of Jason], (Strabo, The Geography, I, 2.39).
The paper deals with restoration schemes applied by us to two bronze artifacts excavated in Vani in
2007. The planning process for restoration and conservation and the specificity of the approach used will
be accentuated.
Tea Kintsurashvili
Georgian National Museum. Tbilisi State Academy of Art. Georgia
Scanning Glassware from Vani by Means of Electronic Microscope-Energy Dispersive Analysis: Its
X-ray-Fluorescence study, Restoration and Conservation
Information obtained in a process of studying the chemical composition and production technology of
ancient glassware, jointly with archaeological data, can be decisive for attributing glass artifacts to a certain
region and for evaluating the level of cultural development of that region.
Glass artifacts unearthed in abundance in the south Caucasus region, namely in Georgia, which lies at
the crossroad of ancient trade routes, carry information on glass manufacturing stages characteristic of not
only of the region, but of the entire ancient world in general. As glassware has been of special importance
in the history of mankind, scholarly interest in its samples is of special significance.
Georgia is among the regions throughout the world, which produced glass since ancient times. The most
ancient artifacts from glass and glass-like materials unearthed throughout the territory of Georgia are dated
to the third millennium B.C. These findings enable us to identify Georgia as the most ancient site of glass
production, from where the technology was spread to regions in the north.
The objective of our study concerns glassware dating to the fifth - fourth cenutry B.C. unearthed in
Vani. The paper deals with restoration and conservation of glass artifacts, as well as with determination
of dye-stuffs used in the process of manufacturing by means of X-ray fluorescence technology; collecting
information on the components used for glass production by means of electronic microscope-Energy dispersive
X-ray fluorescence technology; electronic microscope-energy dispersive scanning analysis of the
composition; and establishing the place of pruduction. The latter issue is of special importance, as in the
period under consideration, in addition to producing glass locally, importing and exporting glassware was
a widespread practice.
138
RESTORATION/CONSERVATION

sastendo moxsenebebi / Poster Presentations
guram WeiSvili. Tbilisis saxelmwifo samxatvro aKademia. saqarTvelo
martvilis taZris (VII-XIXss) diagnostikuri kvlevis, arqiteqturis
reabilitaciis da freskebis konservaciis proeqti
Guram Cheishvili. Tbilisi State Academy of Art. Georgia
The Project of the Diagnostic Studies, Rehabilitation of Architectural Structure and Conservation
of Frescos of Martvili Church (7th -19thc) guram WeiSvili. Tbilisis saxelmwifo samxatvro aKademia. saqarTvelo
timoTesubnis taZris (XII-XIII ss) diagnostikuri kvlevis, arqiteqturis
reabilitaciis da freskebis konservaciis proeqti
Guram Cheishvili. Tbilisi State Academy of Art. Georgia
The Project of the Diagnostic Studies, Rehabilitation of Architectural Structure and Conservation
of Frescos of Timotesubani Church (12th-13th c)
Tamar iaSvili. s. durmiSiZis sax. bioqimiisa da bioteqnologiis instituti.
saqarTvelo
mikrobiologiuri dazianebis kvlevis meTodebi da prevencia
Tamar Iashvili. S. Durmishidze biochemical and biotechnology Institute, Georgia
The Methods of Study of Biodeterioration and Its Prevention
139

V seqcia
kulturuli turizmi

knut gerberi
GTZ. germania
kulturuli turizmis ekonomikuri efeqtis Sesaxeb - SesaZleblobebi metia Tu riski?
saqarTvelos, rogorc kulturuli turistebis mzardi raodenobis maspinZeli
qveynis Sesaxeb, dRes ufro meti kiTxva meqneboda, vidre pasuxi...
evropaSi “kulturul turizms” zurgs mniSvnelovani faqtebi da monacemebi umagrebs,
magaliTad turistTa saerTo raodenobis 23,5% “kulturul turistebze” modis,
maTgan 31-ze meti “zogadad kulturuli”, xolo 3,5% ki “konkretuli kulturuli”
turistia. es Suqs hfens mosalodnel Sedegebs, rogorc maspinZeli regionebisaTvis,
ise adgilobrivi macxovreblebisa da kulturuli memkvidreobisaTvis.
raSi mdgomareobs (kulturuli) turizmis ekonomikuri efeqtis dadebiTi mxare?
es aris, ZiriTadad, moxmareba, rac mosdevs turistTa meti raodenobiT Camosvlas
da RamisTeviT darCenas. es gulisxmobs met sagadasaxado Semosavals maspinZeli
regionisaTvis da ekonomikuri efeqtis Semdgom gavrcelebas adgilobriv turistul,
kulturul da sxva samsaxurebze.
kulturuli turizmi qmnis samuSao adgilebs, kulturul da sawarmoo seqtorebSi.
muSa xelze gazrdil moTxovnas Tan sdevs dadebiTi gavlena socialur da sagadasaxado
sferoze.
kulturuli turizmi did rols asrulebs daniSnulebis adgilis axali profilis
SeqmnaSi. es exmareba garkveuli adgilis “saTuTi” mxareebis gamovlenas, rasac
did mniSvnelobas aniWeben investorebi gadawyetilebebis miRebisas da mas, aseve,
gaaCnia xarisxobrivi da aramaterialuri funqcia samomavlo sacxovrebeli garemos
CamoyalibebaSi.
kulturuli turizmi sezonuri ar aris, ris gamoc turistTa raodenoba ar aRwevs
sezonur piks da, Sesabamisad, ekonomikuri efeqtic mTel welze nawildeba.
kulturul turizms wvlili Seaqvs endogenuri potencialis ganviTarebaSi. es
xels uwyobs regionis/qalaqis TviTmyofadobis da Sesabamisad bazarze gayidvis
unikluri SeTavazebis (USP) gaCenas, amasTanave, xels uwyobs adgilobrivi mosaxleobis
da mewarmeTa saqmianobis dakavSirebas da, Sesabamisad, axali saqmiani kontaqtebis da
SesaZleblobebis gaCenas.
raSi mdgomareobs (kulturuli) turizmis ekonomikuri efeqtis negatiuri mxare?
pirvel rigSi, es aris Tavad turizmis komercializacia! am SemTxvevaSi kulturuli
momomsaxurebis mizania mxolod mogebis miReba da ara kulturis sxva faseulobebis
warmoCena.
imisaTvis, rom CamomsvlelTa raodenoba maqsimalurad gaizardos da a.S., kulturuli
momsaxureba xSirad modificirebulia turistis molodinis gasamarTleblad, magram,
aseT SemTxvevebSi, xSirad ikargeba identuroba da yvelaferi mxolod sanaxaobas
emsgavseba! amas mivyavarT adgilobrivi TviTmyofadobis da mis miRma arsebuli
koncefciis dayvanas kulturuli produqtis donemde.
yvelaze mniSvnelovani is aris, rom meti turistis Camosvlas mosdevs meti
sacobi, xmauri, dabinZureba da sxva datvirTva garemosaTvis, amiT adgilis
momxibvleloba klebulobs, rom araferi vTqvaT nagebobaTa istoriuli arsis “cveTis”
Seuqcevadobaze.
141

eTsi haskeli
turizmis komiteti, amerikis savaWro palata saqarTveloSi. aSS
turizmi saqarTveloSi
saqarTvelo mdidaria siZveleebiT, kulturuli da arqeologiuri RirsSesaniSnaobebiT
da mimzidveli adgilia stumrobisaTvis. saqarTveloSi nebismieri, vinc samoTx
metrze miwas gaTxris, qveynis TiTqmis yvela mxareSi V an VI saukunis naqalaqars an
nasoflars aRmoaCens. amas saqarTvelos mravalferovani topografiac emateba, dawyebuli
kavkasiis qedis umaRlesi mwvervalebidan, damTavrebuli daviT garejis monastris
udabno SemogareniT. saqarTvelo, aseve, mdidaria unikaluri floriTa da fauniT,
Tumca amJamad qveynis simdidris aRmosaCenad mogzaurs didi simamace marTebs, rac
imiT aris gamowveuli, rom bolo 20 wlis ganmavlobaSi infrastruqturis ganviTarebaSi
investicia ar Cadebula. gzebi gauvalia, ar arsebobs sagzao niSnebi, kargi sastumroebi
da restornebi Znelad mosaZebnia. zomieri klimatisa da Tavgadasavlebis maZiebel
turistTa interesis miuxedavad sabWoTa periodis gadmonaSTebisagan gaTavisuflebas
Zalze xangrZlivi dro dasWirda.
komunistur periodSi saqarTveloSi turizmSi investiciebis simciris erT-erTi
mizezi, albaT, is iyo, rom sabWoTa kavSiris Caketil sivrceSi saqarTvelo yvelaze
popularul daniSnulebis adgils warmoadgenda - da radganac pirobebis miuxedavad
saqarTvelo mainc popularobiT sargeblobda, infrastuqturis gasaumjobeseblad
aRaraferi gakeTebula. bolo xanebamde turistebis mizidvis koncefciis SemuSaveba,
komfortuli da usafrTxo sastumroebis mSeneblobisa da nangrevebis aRdgenis sakiTxis
ganxilva, iseve rogorc, qarTuli da rusuli enebis garda, Tanamedrove informaciis
sxva enebze miwodeba warmoudgeneli iyo da yovelive amis mcdeloba drois fuW kargvad
aRiqmeboda.
miuxedavad yvelafrisa, vardebis revoluciis Semdeg da prezidentis mier
Setanilma cvlilebebma da dasaxulma prioritetebma turistuli infrastruqturis
ganviTarebisaTvis investiciebis mozidva prioritetad aqcia. qalaq siRnaRis
infrastruqturis mosawesrigeblad gamoiyo daaxloebiT 30 milioni lari. amJamad
qalaqi saocrad mSvenieria, Tumca adgilobrivebs jer kidev gasacnobierebeli aqvT
maRaziebis, kargi restornebisa da kafeebis arsebobis saWiroeba. msgavsi investicia iqna
Cadebuli quTaisis Zvel nawilSic. mTavrobis dabal procentiani sesxebis saSualebiT,
yvelgan Sendeba axali sastumroebi, magram maRaziebis, restornebisa da kafeebis
koncefcia jer kidev ar aris aqtiurad SemuSavebuli.
am bolo xanebSi dasrulebul strategiul gegmaSi, romelic turizmisa da
kurortebis departamentma aSS-s mTavrobis TDA dafinansebiT SeimuSava, dasaxulia
arsebuli problemebi da maTi mogvarebis strategia. vimedovnebT, rom am problemebis
gadasaWrelad saqarTvelos mTavroba saWiro resursebs gamohyofs.
paata SanSiaSvili
aSS Sinagani departamentis saerTaSoriso teqnikuri daxmarebis programa.
saqarTvelo
saqarTvelos turistuli konkurentunarianobis gazrda daculi teritoriebis qselis
Seqmnis meSveobiT
saqarTvelo mTagoriani qveyanaa, romlis mosaxleoba mxolod ramdenime milionia.
misi landSafti moicavs mtknari wylis uxv hidrografiul qsels, mTiswina da mTian
regionebs, sub-alpur da alpur mdeloebs, myinvarebs, didi da mcire kavkasionis
142
kulturuli turizmi

kulturuli turizmi
TovliT dafarul mwvervalebs, romlebic zRvis donidan 5 000 metrs aRwevs, Savi
zRvis sanapiroebs, Warbtenian teritoriebs, dasavleT saqarTvelos notio dablobebis
tyeebs da samxreT-aRmosavleT saqrTvelos aridul stepsa da naxevrad aridul
udabnoebs. qveynis 40% dafarulia tyiT. sxvadasxva bio-geografiuli pirobebi xels
uwyobs saxeobaTa mravalferovnebas, endemizmis maRal dones da iSviaTi habitatebis
tipebis simravles, iseve, rogorc istoriuli da kulturuli landSaftebis gamorCeul
mravalferovnebas da unikalurobas.
daculi teritoriebis sistemis Seqmna, romelic emsaxureba bunebrivi da kulturuli
erovnuli memkvidreobis SenarCunebas, qveynis mdgradi ganviTarebis erT-erTi umTavresi
Semadgenelia. is erTdroulad momgebiania ekologiuri da ekonomikuri TvalsazrisiT
da, amasTanave, ucxoel da adgilobriv vizitorebs mimzidvel da esTetikurad sasiamovno
saganmanaTleblo, rekreaciul da saTavgadasavlo SesaZleblobebs Tavazobs.
erovnuli daculi teritoriebis kanonmdebloba adgens samarTlebriv CarCos 6
erovnuli da 3 globaluri kategoriisaTvis (msoflio memkvidreobis ubani, ramsaris
ubani da biosferuli rezervati).
erovnuli daculi teritoriebis kategoriebi gamiznulia:
• mkacri dacvisaTvis – nakrZali;
• ekosistemis konservaciisa da rekreaciisaTvis _ erovnuli parki;
• unikaluri bunebrivi warmonaqmnebis SesanarCuneblad – bunebis Zegli;
• aqtiuri menejmentis saSualebiT konservacisaTvis – aRkveTili;
• kulturuli landSaftis konservaciisa da rekreaciisaTvis _ daculi
landSafti;
• bunebrivi ekosistemis mdgradi gamoyenebisaTvis _ mravalmxrivi gamoyenebis
daculi teritoria;
erovnuli parkis, bunebis Zeglis da daculi landSaftis erT-erTi upirvelesi mizania
vizitorTa momsaxureba. turistuli saqmianoba eTavseba aRkveTilsa da mravalmxrivi
gamoyenebis dacul teritorias, xolo formaluri saganmanaTleblo saqmianobis
warmarTva erT-erTi mizania nakrZalisTvisac.
daculi teritoriebi vizitorebs RamisTevis, kvebisa da samaSvelo momsaxurebasTan
erTad bunebrivi da kulturuli resursebis materialuri da aramaterialuri
faseulobebis Semecnebis saSualebas, mravalferovan rekreaciul da saTavgadasavlo
perspeqtivebs Tavazobs.
vizitorTa infrastruqturis ganviTarebas safuZvlad udevs mdgradi ganviTarebis
da garemos dacvis eTikis principebi. aramaterialuri resursebis Seswavla da saTanado
gamoyeneba am procesis principuli nawilia.
niko kvaracxelia
Tbilisis ekonomikur urTierTobaTa saxelmwifo universiteti. saqarTvelo
saqarTveloSi kulturuli turizmis ganviTarebis tendenciebi da perspeqtivebi
XX saukunis 80-iani wlebidan kulturuli turizmi xasiaTdeba swrafi ganviTarebiT,
rac gamowveulia, erTi mxriv, saerTaSoriso konferenciebisa da kongresebis xSiri
organizebiT, xolo, meore mxriv, turizmSi mecnieruli kvlevebis Sedegad gakeTebuli
rekomendaciebis danergviT da samogzauro Tematikis daxvewiT da misi daaxloebiT
momxmarebelTa moTxovnebTan. turoperatorTa winadadebebi ufro metad daefuZna
mimzidveli obieqtebis gamorCevas.
Tanamedrove turizmis warmatebebi sul ufro damokidebuli xdeba sam umniSvnelovanes
pirobaze:
143

masebis keTildReobis zrda: meore msoflio omis Semdeg industriuli evropis
sazogadoebis wevrTa wliuri Semosavlebi 25-jer gaizarda. gaizarda mosaxleobis
msyidvelobiTi unari da SesaZleblobebi. gaumjobesda cxovrebis done, rac aisaxa
Tavisufali drois dagegmvis srulyofaSi. adamianebma SeZles meti Tanxebi da dro
dauTmon dasvenebas da mogzaurobas.
drois mzardi biujeti: drois zemoaRniSnul periodSi evropaSi Semcirda samuSao
kviris saaTebi da Sesabamisad gaizarda adamianis Tavisufali dro. es, gansakuTrebiT
wlis ganmavlobaSi, mosaxleobisTvis uqme da gamosasvleli dReebis raodenobaSi gaxda
SesamCnevi. adamianebs gauCndaT meti arasamuSao dro da es realoba kidev ufro gaizrdeba
da maqsimums 2020 wlisaTvis miaRwevs. kviraSi xuTi samuSao da ori gamosasvleli dRe,
erovnuli da religiuri dResaswaulebi, Svebulebis dReebi - yvelaferi erTad iZleva
Tavisaufali drois did monakveTs, romelsac dagegmva da Sinaarsianad gatarebisTvis
zrunva sWirdeba.
mogzaurobebiT adamianebis gataceba: survili, romelic adamians samogzaurod
ubiZgebs, calke Seswavlis Rirsia da igi ar aris erTgvarovani, magram evropis
mosaxleobaSi arsebuli samogzauro mobiluroba namdvilad TvalSisacemia da masobrivi
xasiaTisaa. mecnierTa azriT amas xeli Seuwyo satransporto sistemisa da komunikaciebis
gaumjobesebam. magram turizmis industriis sasaxelod unda iTqvas, rom igi Rirseulad
momzadebuli Sexvda masebis moTxovnebs da uzrunvelyo maTi survilebi warmoudgenlad
mravalferovani SeTavazebebiT. turizmis ekonomika am mravalferovnebas efuZneba.
turistuli saqmianobis is nairsaxeoba, romelsac kulturul turizms vuwodebT,
moicavs rogorc humanitarul, ise biznesis sferos. imavdroulad kulturuli turizmi
aris teritoriuli erTeulis ekonomikuri da kulturuli ganviTarebis erTerTi yvelaze
perspeqtiuli seqtori. mraval turistul qveyanaSi es seqtori miCneulia ganviTarebis
prioritetul mimarTulebad. saqarTveloc am qveynebs ganekuTvneba, miTumetes,
rom kulturuli turizmis ganviTarebisaTvis aq namdvilad didi potenciali arsebobs:
mimzidveli buneba, klimati, landSaftebi, erovnuli parkebi, sakurorto adgilebi,
mTis kurortebi mdidari mineraluri wylebiT da sxva samkurnalo TvisebebiT da
saqarTvelos istoriuli Zeglebi umdidresi Tavisi raodenobiTa da mravalferovnebis
xarisxiT, romlebic mravladaa qveynis yvela kuTxeSi. 12 aTasi istoriuli Zeglidan
5 aTass icavs saxelmwifo, xolo oTxi maTgani Setanilia iuneskos unikalur ZeglTa
siaSi.
gamomdinare potencialidan, Sesabamisad adeqvaturi unda iyos SeTavazebac.
samwuxarod, unda aRiniSnos, rom mTels saqarTveloSi receptiuli turistuli
firmebis ricxvi, romlebic miRebaze warmatebiT muSaoben, aTeuls ar aRemateba.
mraval xelisSemSlel mizezTa Soris qvemoTCamoTvili mizezebis gaTvaliswinebaa
aucilebeli:
1. saqarTveloSi kulturuli turizmis turebi moicavs, rogorc wesi, erTxel
amorCeul obieqtebs da aseTi turi gadis ramdenime turistuli firmis mier
gakvalul marSrutebze. aravin cdilobs siaxlis Setanas da inovaciuri meTodebis
danergvas. uamravi STambeWdavi Zegli rCeba turistuli firmebisa da, Sesabamisad,
turistebis yuradRebis gareSe.
2. saxelmwifo ar aris dakavebuli turoperatorebisaTvis rekomendaciebis
momzadebiT, maTTvis Zeglebis nusxis SedgeniTa da maTi informaciuli
uzrunvelyofiT. ar aris kavSiri saxelmwifosa da kerZo seqtors Soris.
3. turoperatorebi faqtiurad ar ewevian profesiul saqmianobas axali
turistuli marSrutebis Sesaqmnelad, radgan maTTvis aseTi saqmianoba ar aris
didi mogebis momtani.
144
kulturuli turizmi

kulturuli turizmi
4. uRimRamoa turistuli reklama, aravinaa dakavebuli saprezentacio da
sasuveniro produqciis xarisxiT. ar xdeba moTxovna-miwodebis kvleva.
5. kulturul turizmSi TiTqmis araa CarTuli raionebisa da soflebis muzeumebi.
ar arsebobs maTi gamoyenebis programa an gegma.
6. unda Seiqmnas kulturuli turizmis sainformacio uzrunvelyofis saxelmwifo
programa, romelic saTanado RonisZiebebs dasaxavs.
doroTea papaTanasiu-zurTi
egeosis universiteti, IRIS kvleviTi laboratoria. saberZneTi
transinterpret II: memkvidreobis interpretacia, rogorc gza multisensoruli
gamocdilebisaken. saberZneTis magaliTi
miuxedavad imisa, rom farTo sabazro segmentebisaTvis memkvidreobis resursia
mogzaurobis ZiriTadi motivi, naklebad cnobili kulturuli memkvidreoba Tanamedrove,
rogorc aseTi, adamianis mexsierebis da rogorc aseTi, Semecnebis procesis miRma rCeba.
xiluli Zeglebi SeiZleba aRqmul iqnas, rogorc epoqaluri maniSneblebi, romlebic
mnaxvels istoriaSi mogzaurobas sTavazobs. amdenad, msgavsi epoqaluri maniSneblebi
mravalferovani auditoriis moTxovnebs unda akmayofilebdes. siaxlis da ukve kargad
nacnobis, avTenturisa da Tqmulebebis dabalansebiT, Zeglis warsulsa da awmyos
SeuZlia misi adgilis gansazRvra zogad istoriul procesSi.
saberZneTis periferiebSi kargad aqvT gaazrebuli adgilobrivi memkvidreobis
turistuli potenciali. da mainc, xSirad, adgilobriv mTavrobebs ar ZaluZT Seqmnan
turizmis ganviTarebis damoukidebeli srulyofili gegmebi, maSin, roca adgilobriv
mosaxleobas sul ufro metad awuxebs ukontrolo turistuli nakadis gavlenisagan
sakuTari TviTmyofadobis, garemos, bunebrivi da kulturuli simdidris dacvis
problemebi. amavdroulad, sxvadasxva turistuli segmentebi axorcielebs zewolas
turistul industriaze gamocdilebaTa mravalferovnebisa da aqtivobaTa diapazonis
gasafarToveblad. aRniSnuli moxseneba warmogvidgens dagegmvis im process, rasac
unda mohyves memkvidreobis TviTkoordinirebul mimarTulebaTa dasaxva saberZneTis
periferiebis istoriul mravalferovnebaze dayrdnobiT, transinterpret II-is
farglebSi da C.I. Leader+-is egidiT.
transinterpret II aviTarebs memkvidreobis interpretaciasTan dakavSirebul
proeqtebs, dinamikurad mzard monacemTa bazis standartebisa da rekomendaciebis
gaTvaliswinebiT. amasTan, is uzrunvelyofs xarisxis niSniT monacemTa specifikaze
dayrdnobiT Seqmnil interpretaciul proeqtebsa da momsaxurebas. transinterpret II
miznad isaxavs sazogadoebis CarTvas da regionuli mTavrobisa da akademiuri wreebis
TanamSromlobis xelSewyobas, imisaTvis, raTa: a) aamaRlos procesSi monawile mxareebis
codna memkvidreobis interpretaciis mniSvnelobaze; b) moaxdinos rekreaciul zonebSi
damsvenebelTa Tavisufali drois realizacia; g) gaacnos adgilobriv da ucxoel
stumrebs regionis istoriuli da kulturuli memkvidreobis RirsSesaniSnaobebi da
d) Seqmnas saberZneTis soflebisa da periferiebis unikaluri turistuli saxe.
“proeqti “herodote”: istoriuli garemos tursituli gamoyeneba. nou-haus da
xarisxis menejmentis praqtika regionul doneze”: TanamSromlobis qseli regionuli
TviTmyofadobis da kulturuli memkvidreobis popularizaciisaTvis
saerTaSoriso da multidisciplinarul doneze mimdinare decentralizaciis procesi,
romelic uzrunvelyofs turizmis produqtis maRal damatebiT Rirebulebas, yovelTvis
utopia ar aris. saberZneTsa da italias Soris arsebuli erTaSorisi TanamSromlobis
145

qseli - “herodote”, romelic C.I.P. arqimede IIIB-s mier finansdeba, miznad isaxavs
istoriuli garemos turizmis “agentad” gaazrebas, rac partniorTa teritoriebis
farglebSi memkvidreobis marTvisa da turizmis dagegmvis saukeTeso gamocdilebis
gavrcelebis saSualebiT unda ganxorcieldes. “herodote” amkvidrebs TanamSromlobis
axal formas akademiur wreebsa da periferiis mkvidrTa Soris, virtualur da realur
garemoSi turizmisaTvis Rirebuli informaciis marTviT, rekreaciul saswavlo
garemoSi sakomunikacio politikis gamoyenebisa da memkvidreobis interpretaciis
meTodis meSveobiT. adgilobrivi/regionuli memkvidreobis valorizaciisaTvis farTod
gavrcelebuli naklovanebebisa da warmatebebis faqtorTa kvlevis saWiroebis gaazrebis
Semdeg, “herodote”-m am naklovanebebis aRmosafxvrelad Seqmna partniorTaSorisi
SemecnebiTi qseli. aTi partniori italiidan da saberZneTidan, romlebic warmoadgenen
akademiur dawesebulebebs, adgilobriv avtoritetebsa da regionul doneze turizmis
industriasTan dakavSirebul sxvadasxva erTeulebs, erTad SemuSavebuli gegmarebiTi
meTodebiTa da resursebiT xelmZRvanelobs. qselis mravalerovani xasiaTi xels
uwyobs partniori qveynebis seqtorTaSoris TanamSromlobas, rac, Tavis mxriv, dadebiT
gavlenas axdens regionul politikaze, stimuls aZlevs samewarmeo inovaciebs da
xmelTaSuazRvispireTSi xarisxis menejmentis praqtikas avrcelebs.
qseli ZiriTadad damokidebulia mowinave nou-haus danergvasa da SemdgomSi
TiToeuli partnioris mier regionul da adgilobriv doneze mis damoukideblad
gavrcelebaze. procesis dinamika scdeba programis finansur CarCoebs, rac iZleva
proeqtis mdgradobis da saukeTeso praqtikis sxvadasxva teritorialur da socialur
garemoSi gavrcelebis garantias. specifikuri instrumentebisa da meTodologiebis
erTad SemuSaveba uzrunvelyofs regionul/adgilobriv doneze turizmis “agentebis”
profesionaluri codnis amaRlebas turizmis dagegmvis, memkvidreobis marTvis da
interpretaciis Sesaxeb. gamocdilebis gacvla-gamocvla (seminarebi sxvadasxva erovnebis
warmomadgenelTaTvis da xuT sxvadasxva regionSi Catarebuli kvleva) xels Seuwyobs
memkvidreobis menejmentis partniori mxareebisaTvis specifikuri strategiebis
SemuSavebas da wvlils Seitans turistuli regionis Seucvleli iersaxis SeqmnaSi.
proeqtebis ganxorcielebis Sedegad gamokveTili saukeTeso praqtika warmoaCens
saerTaSoriso TanamSromlobis meSveobiT SeZenil jamur nou-haus, romelic SemdgomSi
gavrceldeba regionul/adgilobriv doneze, rogorc erTgvari gzamkvlevi xarisxiani
turistuli produqtebis danergvisaTvis.
mine kadiroRlu
bulent isleri. avstria
kulturuli turizmi tao-klarjeTSi
moxsenebis mizania Crdilo-aRmosavleT anatoliaSi Sua saukuneebis qarTuli
kulturuli memkvidreobis mimarT saerTaSoriso interesis gamoRviZeba, tao-klarjeTsa
da mis mimdebare teritoriaze kulturuli turizmis ganviTarebis saSualebiT.
amJamad is turistebi, romlebic stumroben tao-klarjeTis Zeglebs, umetesad, Sua
saukuneebis qarTuli arqiteqturis ZeglebiT dainteresebuli qarTvelebi arian,
Tumca Tavisufali turebi, aTi an meti dRis xangrZlivobiT, romlebic moicavs oSkis,
iSxanis, tbeTis da sxv. saeklesio Zeglebze eqskursiebs, SeiZleba organizebul iqnas
xandazmuli momlocvelebisaTvis, maSin, rodesac “moxetiale” turebi Tvalwarmtaci
peizaJis fonze mowyobil unda iqnas enTuziazmiT savse SezRuduli Tavisufali drois
mqone, Tumca energiuli axalgazrda momlocvelTaTvis.
turistebis kidev erT jgufs Seadgenen Turqi, umetesad, qarTuli warmomavlobis
146
kulturuli turizmi

kulturuli turizmi
mqone biznesmenebisagan, romelnic saqarTvelos respublikaSi komerciuli (savaWro)
da industriuli miznebiT mogzauroben. aRniSnuli jgufi moicavs warmatebul
da ganaTlebul Turq moqalaqeebs, romelTa interesic qarTuli kulturuli
memkvidreobisadmi gamoRviZebul unda iqnas. imis mere, rac siamovnebas miiReben
qarTvelTa stumarTmoyvareobiT, maRali xarisxis RviniT, samzareuloTi da
ZviradRirebuli sastumroebiT, isini datkbebian kavkasiis umSvenieresi peizaJebiTa da
gaecnobian unikalur Zeglebs, biznesmenebi aRar daiSureben Zalisxmevas tao-klarjeTSi
konservaciis mcdelobaTa mxardasaWerad. amis xelSesawyobad, mokle (magaliTad, 5 an
6 dRiani) eqskursiebi unda iqnas organizebuli, dawyebuli tao-klarjeTis ukeTesad
daculi Zeglebidan - saqarTvelos yvelaze STambeWdavi samonastro kompleqsebiT da
Tbilisis muzeumebis CaTvliT.
TurqeTSi dasavleTidan da aRmosavleTidan mimaval turistebs, romelTa ricxvic
yovelwliurad izrdeba, stimuli unda mieceT tao-klarjeTis qarTuli Zeglebis
mosanaxuleblad. kavkasiis mimarTulebiT “moxetiale” turebi unda daigegmos dawyebuli
tao-klarjeTidan an saqarTvelos nebismieri sxva adgilidan da unda moicavdes qarTuli
Sua saukuneebis zogierT ukeT dacul Zegls. specialurad qarTuli Sua saukuneebis
Zeglebis mosanaxuleblad dagegmili eqskursiebi xels Seuwyobs fasdaudebeli qarTuli
kulturuli memkvidreobis popularizacias mTels msoflioSi.
Tumca, avtori kvlav eWvis TvaliT uyurebs masobrivi turizmis pozitiur Sedegebs,
gansakuTrebiT SedarebiT mitovebul adgilebSi, sadac kuturuli memkvidreobis
naSTebia SemorCenili; is acnobierebs im upiratesobebs, rac, SesaZloa, msoflio
masStabis aRiarebam moutanos Sua saukuneebis qarTul kulturul memkvidreobas taoklarjeTSi.
yovelive aqedan gamomdinare, moxseneba moicavs RonisZiebebs, rogoricaa
kargad gansazRvruli marSrutebis SeTavazeba ara mxolod tao-klarjeTSi, aramed
saqarTvelos nebismier sxva mxareSi, Turquli, qarTuli, evropuli da aziuri
turistuli gzamkvlevebisaTvis vizualuri masalisa da teqstebis momzadebas, aseve,
seminarebisa da leqciebis organizebas sastumros administratorebisa da Zeglebisa da
muzeumebis siaxloves mcxovrebTaTvis. es SeiZleba ganxilul iqnas sawyisad qarTul-
Turquli TanamSromlobisa, romelic miznad isaxavs ara mxolod kulturuli turizmis
kargad aRWurvili da organizebuli programis realizacias, aramed masobrivi turizmis
uaryofiTi efeqtebis Semcirebasac.
maka dvaliSvili
xelovnebis saerTaSoriso centri. saqarTvelo
kulturuli proeqtebi ganviTarebisaTvis
kultura istoriis manZilze aRiqmeboda da ganixileboda, rogorc elitaruli
- “gansakuTrebuli” sazogadoebrivi fenis Semoqmedebis an “moxmarebis” sferod.
saxelmwifos mier subsidirebuli sfero, naklebad aRiqmeboda ekonomikurad momgebian
saqmianobad an biznesad (Tu ar CavTvliT xelosnobas). kulturisadmi msgavsi
damokidebuleba dResac grZeldeba da ZiriTdad Semoifargleba esTetikuri Rirebulebis
miniWebiT da gansxvavebiT dasavleTis qveynebisagan moklebulia ekonomikur xedvas.
sabazro ekonomikis pirobebSi cneba - kultura ekonomikuri ganviTarebis datvir-
Tvasac iZens. amis naTeli maCvenebelia dasavleT evropisa da aSS-s praqtika, sadac
kulturuli produqciis saSemosavlo wili procentulad utoldeba da, xSir SemTxvevaSi,
aRemateba, magaliTad warmoebis iseT sferoebs, rogoricaa mcire biznesi, turizmi,
rewva, rom araferi vTqvaT kinomatografiaze an musikis industriaze.
kulturis sfero, rogorc ekonomikuri ganviTarebis erT-erTi wyaro, gansakuTrebul
147

Rirebulebas iZens iseT qveyanaSi, rogoric saqarTveloa, sadac xelovneba istoriis
uZvelesi periodidan dawyebuli, warmoadgens qarTuli erovnulobis, tradiciulobis
maxasiaTebels, msoflmxedvelobis Tu cnobierebis erT-erT ganuyofel nawils. sadac
dResac, miuxedavad saerTo qarTuli kulturuli fenomenis daqveiTebisa, kulturuli
TviTmyofadoba warmoadgens sazogadoebis cnobierebis organul nawils. yovelive
es iZleva noyier niadags organizebuli marTvis pirobebSi kulturisa da xelovnebis
dargebi iqces ekonomikurad momgebian sferod. sabazro ekonomikis pirobebSi kulturis
gardaqmna ekonomikurad momgebian produqtad, SesaZlebelia ekonomikuri ganviTarebis
erT-erTi wyaro gaxdes. Tumca, amavdroulad, dgeba mniSvnelovani sakiTxi, sad unda
gaevlos zRvari kulturis komercializaciasa da WeSmarit Semoqmedebas Soris. kulturis
ekonomika moicavs iseT gamoyenebad sferoebs, rogoricaa: kulturuli turizmi,
kulturuli (SemoqmedebiTi) industriebi, kulturuli infrastruqturis ubnebi da
yovelive amis biznesad gardasaxva qmnis pirobas am dargebis ganviTarebisaTvis da
Sesabamisad cxovrebisunarianobis SenarCunebisaTvis. (aq gansakuTrebiT unda aRiniSnos,
rom es exeba mxolod utilitaruli xelovnebis dargebs, da aramc da aramc natif
xelovnebas).
da bolos, ZiriTadi da mniSvnelovani postulatia, rom kulturis ekonomikur,
“gamoyenebad” produqtad gardaqmna, ar unda emuqrebodes mis mxatvrul Rirebulebas.
Sesabamisad, unda ganisazRvros da SemuSavdes mxatvruli Rirebulebis dacvis
meqanizmebi. magalaTad dRes, rodesac saqarTveloSi kulturuli turizmi ganvi-
Tarebis sawyis safexurzea, Tavidanve iqnas Seswavlili da gaTvaliswinebuli stiqiuri
turizmis uaryofiTi Sedegebi, kerZod, iseTi magaliTebi, rogoric veneciaa, sadac
turizmi damangrevel zemoqmedebas axdens adgilobriv kulturul memkvidreobaze da
infrastruqturaze.
moxseneba Seicavs mosazrebebs da zemoaRniSnuli problematikis analizs da
warmoadgens saqarTveloSi kulturis menejmentis ganviTarebis SesaZleblobebs.
meri qei judi
arqiteqturuli da kulturuli memkvidreobis konservacia. aSS
qarTuli kulturuli memkvidreoba, rogorc ekonomikuri resursi
moxsenebis mizania warmoaCinos qarTuli kulturuli memkvidreobis marTvis da
samarTlebrivi dacvis dadebiTi roli adgilobrivi ekonomikis ganviTarebaSi.
imis garda, rom adgilobrivi kulturuli memkvidreobis dacvas sasicocxlo
mniSvneloba eniWeba erovnuli istoriisa da TviTmyofadobis momavali TaobebisaTvis
SesanarCuneblad, is, aseve, mniSvnelovan resurss warmoadgens. Zveli Tbilisi, Sua
saukuneebis eklesiebi da freskebi, vansa da dmanisSi bolodroindeli arqeologiuri
aRmoCenebi, svaneTis koSkebi, bolo xanebSi aRiarebuli modernistuli xelovneba da
sxva - samomavlod saqarTvelos ekonomikuri ganviTarebis SesaZleblobaTa momcvelia.
qarTuli kulturuli memkvidreoba, mis Seucvlel faseulobebTan erTad, aseve
warmoadgens mniSvnelovan ekonomikur resurss kulturuli turizmis xelSewyobisaTvis,
adgilobrivi biznesis mxardaWerisaTvis, urbanuli gamococxlebisaTvis, dasaqmebis
SesaZleblobebisaTvis, sakuTrebis Rirebulebis zrdis da ucxouri investiciebis
waxalisebisaTvis. ucxouri investicia, Tavis mxriv, ekonomikuri ganviTarebis procesSi
qmnis qveynisaTvis sasicocxlo mniSvnelobis sagadasaxado bazas.
qarTuli kulturuli memkvidreobis sami Zegli Seyvanilia iuneskos msoflio
memkvidreobis siaSi. es potenciali mraval sxva qarTul Zeglsac gaaCnia. axlaxans,
2006 wels, timoTesubnis RmrTismSoblis eklesiis restavraciam evropis sabWos oqros
148
kulturuli turizmi

kulturuli turizmi
medali - evropa nostras jildo miiRo.
saerTaSoriso aRiarebis kidev erTi sabuTia isic, rom saqarTvelo iyo pirveli
qveyana, romelsac gamorCeuli kulturuli memkvidreobis safuZvelze, 1998 wels
msoflio bankma ekonomikuri ganviTarebis sesxi gamouyo.
moxsenebaSi konkretuli qarTuli magaliTebis ganxilvamde, warmodgenili iqneba
saerTaSoriso kvlevebis magaliTebic, Tanmdev finansur monacemebTan erTad, rac kidev
erTxel warmoaCens kulturuli memkvidreobis ekonomikurad momgebian da, amavdroulad,
mdgrad resursad qcevis SesaZleblobas. Tumca aRsaniSnavia, rom es ar gulisxmobs
resursebis eqpluatacias an mdgradi ganviTarebis principebis gaTvaliswinebis gareSe
turizmis xelSewyobas. samagaliTo kvlevebSi ganxilul iqneba Semdegi:
• memkvidreobiTi turizmi:
turizmis wvlili qveynebis mTlian Sida produqtSi
(mSp): magaliTad, turizmis wili kviprosis mSp-s 25 %-ia, maltaze _ 20% mSp,
germaniSi _ 8% mSp, xolo safrangeTSi _ 7% mSp.
• adgilobrivi biznesis mxardaWera:
makaos calobiTi gayidvis Semosavlis 60%
gamomuSavdeba qveynis memkvidreobis konservaciis zonebSi.
• sakuTrebis gazrdili Rirebuleba:
niu iork siTis mTavrobis mier gamoqveynebuli
ekonomikuri dokumentacia niu iork siTiSi istoriul RirsSesaniSnaobaTa raionSi
nagebobebis sakuTrebis Rirebulebis zrdis Sesaxeb.
• dasaqmebis SesaZleblobebi:
norvegiaSi istoriuli rekonstruqciis proeqtebi
warmoqmnis saSualod 20%-iT met samuSao adgils, vidre didi biujetis mqone
axali samSeneblo proeqtebi. safrangeTSi sarestavracio samuSaoebSi srul
ganakveTze 40 000 adamiania dasaqmebuli.
• mesakuTreTa waxaliseba:
britaneTsa da italias aqvs sakuTrebis gadasaxadebis
wamaxalisebeli programebi memkvidreobis kerZo mflobelebisaTvis, rac xels
uwyobs memkvidreobis dacvas, rac Tavis mxriv, xels uwyobs kulturuli
memkvidreobis ekonomikur resursad qcevas.
saerTaSoriso precedentebis magaliTze kulturuli memkvidreobis ekonomikuri
SesaZleblobebis analizis Semdeg, gamovlenili iqneba saqarTveloSi Catarebuli
kvlevebi, romelic xels uwyobs turizmis ganviTarebas da, amasTanave, ekonomikurad
mdgradia.
moxseneba dasruldeba gadasaxadebis anulirebis da brunvadi sesxebis SemoRebis
ramdenime wamaxalisebeli gegmisa da modelis ganxilviT. es winadadebebi
gaTvaliswinebulia saqarTveloSi adgilobrivi xelisuflebis da arasamTavrobo
organizaciebisaTvis, raTa maT, Tavis mxriv, arqiteqturuli memkvidreobis saxelmwifo
da kerZo mflobelTa wreSi aamaRlon codna maTi sakuTrebis “momgebianobis” Sesaxeb.
mauren doili, jefri doili
“heritansi”. aSS
kulturuli turizmi da “Ria muzeumi”
turizmi - sxvadasxvaobaze dafuZnebuli industriaa. kulturuli turizmi stumars
Txrobis saSualebiT izidavs, rac sxvadasxvaobisa da mravalferovnebis gamovlenas
emsaxureba. “didi muzeografiisaken” gza realuri adamianebis da movlenebis
Sesaxeb mimzidvel da damajerebel Txrobaze gadis. amis saukeTeso saSualeba yvela
personaJisaTvis “xmis miniWebaa”, ramdenadac, mosayolad Rirebul yvela istorias,
rogorc wesi, ramdenime mxare aqvs.
amasTan, inkluziuri Txroba, romelic muzeums ufro sainteresos da mimzidvels
xdis stumrisaTvis, zogadad momgebiania sazogadoebisaTvisac, da ara mxolod gazrdili
149

turistuli Semosavlis gamo - “Ria muzeumis” atmosfero xels uwyobs konstruqciul
da mravalmxriv dialogs, rac nebismieri pluralistuli sazogadoebis safuZvelia.
“heritans”-ma “Ria muzeumis” koncefcia Camoayaliba imisaTvis, raTa waaxalisos
da xeli Seuwyos Ria da inkluziur muzeumebs. “heritans”is xedva “Ria muzeumze” sam
ZiriTad princips efuZneba:
Ria muzeografia. imisaTvis, rom sxvas gaugo, pirvel rigSi, mis istorias unda mousmino
da sakiTxs misi TvaliT unda Sexedo. “Ria muzeumi” eqponatebs swored ise gamofens,
rom istoriebs sxvadasxva da erTmaneTis sapirispiro kuTxiT warmogvidgens.
Ria mmarTveloba. “heritans”-is rwmeniT mxolod gamWvirvale, inkluziuri da Ria
mmarTvelobis mqone muzeumi SeZlebs saTanadod da sarwmunod warmoaCinos nebismieri
sazogadoebis mravalferovneba. ufro metic, Ria mmarTvelobis principi aZlierebs
sazogadoebas mSvidobiani Tanaarsebobisa da adgilobrivi avtonomiisaTvis aucilebeli
praqtikis demonstrirebiT.
sajarooba. “Ria muzeumebi” qmnis garemos, romelic gaxsnili da misawvdomia muzeumiT
dainteresebul pirTa mTeli speqtrisaTvis. es gulisxmobs muzeumis daaxloebas
xalxTan moZravi gamofenebis, skolebis monawileobis, warmodgenebis, dResaswaulebis
da internetis saSualebiT.
“heritans”-i dafuZnebul iqna 2007 wlis TebervalSi da saqmianobis pirveli wlis
ganmavlobaSi adgilze Caatara seminarebi, konsultaciebi da grantebi gadasca muzeumebs
rva qveyanaSi, romelTa Sorisaa kolumbia, kenia, meqsika, ruanda da samxreT afrika.
dimitri jafariZe
saqarTvelos turizmisa da kurortebis departamenti. saqarTvelo
kulturuli turizmis perspeqtivebi saqarTveloSi
ia Tabagari
kavkazus Treveli. saqarTvelo
kulturuli turizmi _ urTierTobebi eklesiasa da turizmis industrias Soris
milan prodanoviCi
novi sadis universiteti. serbeTi
kulturaTa dialogi da civilizaciaTa konfliqti saganmanaTleblo/ kulturul
turizmTan da regionaluri kulturis evropul memkvidreobasTan integraciis
sakiTxebTan mimarTebaSi
150
kulturuli turizmi

V SECTION
CULTURAL TOURISM

Knut Gerber
GTZ. Germany
About Economic Effects in Cultural Tourism - More Chances Than Risks?
Concerning Georgia as a host country of increasing number of cultural tourists I would have more questions
than answers today…
Behind the “cultural tourism” in Europe stand some hard facts& figures, i.e. 23,5% of all tourist arrivals
are coming from “cultural tourists”, from them are more than 31 Mio so called “general cultural tourists”
and 3,5 Mio “specific cultural tourists”. This gives a flash light of possible consequences for host regions,
for their inhabitants and even for the heritage of any cultural resource.
What stands for economic effects of (cultural) tourism?
Mainly more consumption through more arrivals and overnight stays, That means more tax income in
host region including additional multiplication of similar effects for local entrepreneurs in tourism, culture
and productive services.
Cultural tourism creates working places, in cultural, and in productive sectors. The increased demand in
labor force is followed by social and again positive tax effects.
Cultural tourism is becoming more important for designing a new profile of a destination. It helps to
develop the soft factors of a location, being more and more important for investor’s decision making processes
and it has also qualitative and immaterial aspects for future living environment.
Cultural tourism is working all seasons. That means the location has no peaks in high season and all
economic effects are existing during year.
Cultural tourism has a share in development of endogen potentials. A region/city will have its own
identity which creates an USP at markets, helps to develop cross border tolerance of inhabitants and entrepreneurs
activities and therefore creates new business contacts and opportunities.
What stands for negative economic effects in cultural tourism?
First the commercialization of tourism itself! In case cultural services are given only for profit reasons
and not longer for presenting the internal value of a cultural good. To have a maximum in arrivals etc.,
very often cultural services are deformed to find a much better access to tourist’s expectations. But then the
identity is very often lost, because of being only a show! This leads to a shrinking local identity with the
cultural product and the concept behind.
Most relevant is that more tourist arrivals lead to more traffic, to more noise, pollution and other burdens
for environment. The attraction of a destination is decreasing. Not to forget the not reversible wear of
historical substance of buildings.
Betsy Haskell
Tourism committee, American Chamber of Commerce in Georgia. USA
Georgian Tourism
Georgia is rich in antiquities, cultural and archeological sites and is a fascinating place to visit. Anyone
with a spade who digs three to four meters down in almost any part of Georgia will uncover a fifth or sixth
century town or village.
In addition, Georgia has a varied and legendary topography, from the highest peaks of the Caucasus
range to the desert-like terrain surrounding the Monastery of Davit Gareji. Numbers of unique examples
of flora and fauna are found in Georgia as well, but, at the moment, it takes an intrepid traveler to find and
152
CULTURAL TOURISM

CULTURAL TOURISM
enjoy its riches. This is because for the past 20 years or so, no investment in infrastructure was made.
Roads are impassable, signage completely missing, and good hotels and restaurants hard to find. Despite
its moderate climate, and great appeal to tourists in search of new adventures, the hangover from the Soviet
period has taken a very long time to recover from.
One of the reasons for the lack of tourist-friendly investment in Georgia during communist times was
because Georgia was probably the most popular destination in the closed-Soviet Union and since people
came to visit regardless of the conditions, no efforts were made to enhance their experience. Until very
recently, the concept of attracting tourists, building comfortable and safe accommodations, restoring
crumbling ruins, or, indeed, providing up-to-date information in languages other than Georgian and Russian
was unheard of and efforts to do so were dismissed as a waste of time.
However, with the Rose Revolution and the changes in attitude and priorities wrought by the President,
new investment in infrastructure for attracting tourism has become a priority. The medieval walled town of
Signaki received over 30 million Lari in investment in electricity, water and sewage lines, completely new
streets and tiled roofs were installed, and the town is now absolutely beautiful, though the villagers have yet
to understand the need for shops, good restaurants and cafes. A similar investment is being made in the old
part of Kutaisi . Because of government low-interest loan initiatives, new hotels are popping up all over,
but still, the concept of shops, accessible restaurants and cafes hasn’t taken hold.
A recently completed Strategic Plan, developed with a TDA grant from the US Government to the
Department of Tourism and Resorts, lays out the problems, along with a strategy to address them. We
are all hoping that the necessary resources will be allocated by the Government of Georgia to solve these
problems.
Paata Shanshiashvili
International Technical Assistance Program of U.S. Department of the Interior. Georgia
Advancement of Georgia’s Tourism Competitiveness through Building of Protected Areas Network
Georgia is a small mountainous country with a population of few million people. Its landscapes include
a rich freshwater hydrographic network, foothills, mountain forests, sub-alpine and alpine meadows,
glaciers, the snowcapped mountain peaks of the Greater and Lesser Caucasus, which rise five thousand
meters above see level, the Black Sea coast, wetlands, the humid lowland forests of western Georgia, and
the arid steppe and semi-deserts of southeastern Georgia. Forests cover 40% of the country. The varied biogeographic
conditions contribute to the species richness, high level of endemism and global rarity of major
habitat types, as well as to the uniqueness and exceptionally high diversity of historic-cultural landscapes
Creating a protected areas system, focused on conservation of the nation’s natural and cultural legacy,
is a crucial part of the overall sustainable development of the country. It provides the nation with numerous
ecological and economic benefits, as well as offers international and local visitors attractive and aesthetically-pleasant
educational, recreational and adventure opportunities.
The National Protected Areas legislation provides legal framework for designation of 6 national and 3
global categories (World Heritage Site, Ramsar site and Biosphere Reserve).
The national protected areas categories mainly are managed for:
• Strict protection - Strict Nature Reserve / Wilderness Area
• Ecosystem conservation and recreation - National Park
• Conservation of natural features - Natural Monument
• Conservation through active management - Habitat / Species / Management Area
• Cultural Landscape conservation and recreation - Protected Landscape
• Sustainable use of natural ecosystems – Multiple Use Protected Area
Visitor use is a primary objective for National Park, Natural Monument and Protected Landscape. Tourism
activities are applicable for the Managed Nature Reserve and Multiple Use protected areas Categories.
153

Provisions for formal educational opportunities are the secondary objective of a Strict Nature Reserve
category.
In protected areas, besides offering basic services related to accommodation, sustenance, and safety,
visitors are provided with unique opportunities for enjoyment, inspiration of material and nonmaterial values
of natural and cultural resources, as well as adventure and recreation prospects.
Visitor infrastructure development is guided by the principles of sustainable design and environmental
ethics. Inventory and adequate use of nonmaterial resources are also critical parts of the process.
Niko Kvaratskhelia
Tbilisi State Economic University. Georgia
Tendencies and Prospects of Cultural Tourism Development in Georgia
Cultural tourism development in Europe has been remarkable since 1980s. The reason for this is twofold:
On one hand, a large number of international conferences and congresses have taken place in the
region, and on the other hand, recommendations proposed by scholarly studies of tourism issues have been
implemented, consumer demands have been considered and the travel thematic refined. As a result, tour
operator offerings are comprised of a selection of better attractions.
Success of the contemporary tourism industry has depended on three major conditions:
Improvement of the well-being of the people: The annual income of citizens of the industrial European
countries increased 25-fold after World War 2. Purchasing capacity has also increased. Standard of
living has improved, influencing the planning of free time. People can spare more money and time for rest
and travel.
Increasing time resource: During the above mentioned period, work duration decreased in Europe, and
correspondingly people have more free time. The number of day-offs and holidays during the course of
year are quite large. People have more free time. This tendency will continue, reaching its maximum level
in 2020. Five day work-weeks with two day-offs, not including national and religious feasts and vacations,
all result in more free time, which should be properly planned and spent.
Keenness on traveling: This is an issue for individual study as it is not a uniform process. What one can
say for sure is that the attraction of Europeans to tourism is obvious and mass tourism increases. Scholars
consider that this was stimulated by the development of road infrastructure and communications. It should
be noted that the tourism business was ready for mass demands and has proposed a wide variety of services.
The economics of tourism results of this variety of offerings.
Cultural tourism envelops both humanitarian and business spheres, and is one of the best prospects
among the tourism segments for economical and cultural development of the territorial entity. Many countries
consider its development a priority. Georgia is among these countries. It has significant resources to
encourage tourism development: a picturesque environment, mild climate, diverse landscapes, national
parks, resort zones, mountain resorts famous for mineral spas, and a great number of historical monuments
found at every step. Five out of twelve thousand monuments are under protection of state,four of them are
enrolled on UNESCO’s list of World Heritage sites.
Proposed services should be adequate to meet the region’s the existing potential. Unfortunately, it must
be noted that the number of successful tourism operators currently does not exceed a dozen. Among the
reasons for the industry’s unmet potential, the following should be taken into consideration:
1. Cultural tourism routes in Georgia, as a rule, are restricted to pre-selected sites. They follow
the routes already paved by different tourism firms. All are reluctant to introduce novelties
and implement innovations. As a result, the firms, and correspondingly the tourists, take
no notice of many monuments of interest.
2. The state has not concerned itself with drawing recommendations for tour operators, or
supplying them with list of monuments and necessary information. The link between the
154
CULTURAL TOURISM

CULTURAL TOURISM
state and private sector does not exist.
3. It is a fact that tour operators do not work on developing new tourism routes, as this activity
does not bring them much income.
4. Tourism advertising has not become relevant to the travel industry. Nobody is concerned
with the quality of presentation materials or souvenirs. Demand and delivery issues have not
been studied.
5. Museums in the provinces are not involved in cultural tourism. No plans for their involvement
exist.
6. A state program for developing a cultural tourism database is to be launched, which will
assist in planning respective activities
Dorothea Papathanassiou-Zuhrt
University of the Aegeant; The IRIS Research Laboratory. Greece
Transinterpret II: Heritage Interpretation as a Vehicle for Multisensorial Experiences. The Case of
Greece
Although heritage resources are the main travel motive for a wide range of market segments, in unfamiliar
heritage settings the distant past is beyond the contemporary individual memory and as such beyond
the process of understanding. Visible monuments can be understood as time markers, able to move visitors
back and forth in history. Such time markers should be managed so as to appeal to diverse audiences. By
creating a balance between novelty and familiarity, authenticity and the stories told, a site’s past and present
can demonstrate its place in the historical continuity.
Many peripheral areas throughout Greece recognise the potential to use local heritage for tourism. Still
in many cases local governances are not equipped to create autonomously comprehensive tourism development
plans, whilst local populations are increasingly anxious to preserve their identity, environment, and
natural and cultural wealth from the impact of uncontrolled tourism flows. At the same time diverse tourist
segments exercise pressure upon the tourism industry for a variety of experiences and a range of activities.
This paper presents the planning process followed to create a series of self-guided heritage trails using the
diversity of historic environments in rural areas in Greece within the framework of TRANSINTERPRET
II, a multilateral cooperation, under the umbrella of C.I. Leader+.
TRANSINTERPRET II develops projects concerned with Heritage Interpretation according to the
standards and recommendations of a dynamically evolving database, providing all interpretive projects
and services, created according to collected specifications, with a quality label. TRANSINTERPET II reflects
an effort to combine community involvement, regional governance and academic research in order
to a) educate stakeholders on the values of heritage interpretation; b) manage leisure time for non-captive
audiences in recreational settings; c) to communicate to domestic and foreign visitors the highlights of the
region’s historical and cultural heritage; and d) to create a non-exchangeable tourism image for sites located
in rural and peripheral areas in Greece.
“The Project HERODOT: Tourism use of the historic environment - Know-how transfer and quality
management practices at the regional level”: A collaborative network to promote regional identities
and cultural heritage
A decentralized process within a transnational and multidisciplinary framework, able to guarantee for
high-added value tourism products is not necessarily a utopia. HERODOT, a transnational collaborative
knowledge network between Greece and Italy, funded by C.I.P. Archimed IIIB, aims to promote the historic
environment as an agent for tourism within the partners’ areas through the dissemination of best practices
in heritage management and tourism planning. HERODOT pioneers a new form of co-operation between
155

academic research and rural development, managing successfully information with tourism value in virtual
and in situ environments by applying communication policies with the public in recreational learning environments
and interpretive heritage presentation methods.
Recognising the necessity to investigate widespread shortcomings and factors of success for the valorisation
of local and regional heritage, HERODOT has created a knowledge network among partners to
deal with these shortcomings. Ten partners from Italy and Greece, representing academic institutions, local
authorities and various partners related to the tourism industry at regional level, share commonly developed
planning tools and resources. The network’s transnational character promotes cross-sectoral synergies in
the partners’ areas, influences regional policies, motivates entrepreneurial innovation, and disseminates
quality management practices in the Mediterranean area.
The network relies heavily on advanced know-how transfer and on further diffusion at regional and local
levels by each partner separately. Its dynamism exceeds the program’s financial framework, guaranteeing
long-term project viability and diffusion of best practices at multiple spatial and social levels. Common
development of specific tools and methodologies provide tourism-involved agents at regional/local level
with vocational skills in tourism planning, heritage management and interpretation. Experience exchange
(transnational workshops and in situ research in five different regions) will elaborate partner specific heritage
strategies and serve tourism by creating non-exchangeable destination images. Best practices deriving
from implemented projects will reflect the summative know-how acquired through the transnational co
operation. These will be further diffused at regional/local level serving as a guide to implementing quality
tourism products
Mine Kadiroğlu
Bulent Isler. Austria
Cultural Tourism in Tao-Klarjeti
The aim of the presented paper is to discuss possibilities to augment international interest in medieval
Georgian cultural heritage in northeastern Anatolia by means of cultural tourism in and around Tao-Klarjeti.
Currently the tourists visiting the monuments in Tao-Klarjeti are mostly Georgians with interest in medieval
Georgian architectural monuments. But leisurely tours, with a duration of ten days or longer, that include
sight-seeing trips to the religious monuments of Oşki, İşkhani, Tbeti, etc., can be organized for elderly
pilgrims, whereas “wander” tours within the picturesque landscape should be developed for the enthusiastic
younger generation of pilgrims with less time but more energy.
Another group of tourists are the Turkish businessmen, mostly of Georgian origin, who travel to the
Republic of Georgia for trade and for industrial purposes. This group includes prosperous and well-educated
Turkish citizens whose curiosity for Georgian cultural heritage must be awakened. Once businessmen, who
begin to enjoy the hospitality of the Georgians, the high quality of wine and food and the luxurious hotels,
get acquainted with the unique monuments within the wonderful scenery of the Caucasus, they surely
will do their best to support conservation attempts in Tao-Klarjeti. To facilitate this, short, (i.e. 5 or 6-day)
excursions, starting at the better-preserved monuments in Tao-Klarjeti, extending to the most impressive
monastic complex in Georgia and ending at a museums in Tbilis, should be organized.
Western and eastern tourists to Turkey, whose numbers seems to increase each year, need to be encouraged
to visit the Georgian monuments in Tao-Klarjet. “Wander” tours should be developed along the Caucasus,
starting either from Tao-Klarjeti or elsewhere in Georgia, and include some of the better-preserved medieval
Georgian monuments. Various excursions, arranged specifically to visit the medieval Georgian monuments,
will be indispensable to promoting Georgia’s invaluable cultural heritage across the world.
The presenters of this paper, while remaining doubtful about the positive effects of mass tourism,
especially at deserted sites with remnants, are aware of the advantages that world-wide fame could bring
to the medieval Georgian cultural heritage in Tao-Klarjeti. Therefore this paper includes measures, such as
156
CULTURAL TOURISM

suggesting well-defined itineraries both in Tao-Klarjeti and elsewhere Georgia, preparing visual material
and texts for Turkish, Georgian, European and Asian tourist guides, and organizing seminars and lectures
for hotel administrators and inhabitants in the vicinity of the monuments and museums, which will be
discussed with the intention of initiating a Turkish-Georgian cooperation, not only to realize a well-equipped
and organized program for cultural tourism but also to diminish the negative effects of mass tourism.
Maka Dvalishvili
Georgian Arts and Culture Center. Georgia
Cultural Projects for Development
CULTURAL TOURISM
Throughout history, “Culture” (in particular “Art”) was considered to be a field of creativity, and of
consumption of “noble” and “extraordinary” strata in society. Culture in the counties of the Soviet Union
was subsidized by the government and was almost never regarded as an economically beneficial activity
or business (except for artisanship). Contrary to in the West, this approach to culture still continues in
Post Soviet countries, where the role of culture is merely reduced to aesthetic rather than economic value/
function.
Therefore in terms of the market economy, culture should acquire an important role in economic
development. The Western European and US experience proves that the percentage of cultural product
income equals—and some cases exceeds—profits garnered in fields such as small businesses, tourism,
crafts-based enterprises, and the movie or music industries.
The field of culture acquires a special economic importance in a country such as Georgia, with its deeprooted
cultural heritage and its tradition of cultural philosophy that has been an integral part of Georgian
national identity for centuries. Despite the observed trends of overall cultural decline in modern Georgia,
the idea of a national cultural identity has strong hold in Georgian consciousness, which makes transforming
culture into profitable field viable.
However, it is important to draw line between commercialized culture and authentic art. The culture
economy is comprised of such field as cultural tourism, creative industries, cultural districts etc. that fosters
an environment for further development of these fields as well as improves their sustainability. (It must be
noted that this concerns only the applied fields but not the fine arts).
Finally, the most important point is that transformation of culture into a profitable product should
not threaten the artistic value of the art. Consequently, the tools for protection of artistic values should
be determined and worked out. It is especially true that while cultural tourism is in its early stages of
development in Georgia, all negative impacts of non-organized tourism should be investigated. To do so,
we can consider the experiences of such cities as Venice, where the growth of the tourism industry has had
a negative impact on local cultural heritage and infrastructure;
The paper analyzes and presents considerations for the development cultural management and studies
cases of cultural project development in Georgia.
Mary Kay Judy
Architectural and Cultural Heritage Conservation. USA
Georgian Cultural Heritage as an Economic Resource
The paper will establish that stewardship and legal protection of Georgian cultural heritage has direct
benefits as a resource for local economic development.
While the protection of local cultural heritage is vital for the preservation of national history and identity
for generations to come- it also comprises a myriad of resources from Old Tbilisi, medieval churches and
157

wall paintings, the exceptional recent finds archaeological finds at Vani and Dmanisi, the towers of Svaneti,
and more recently recognized Modernist heritage are imbued with great possibilities for Georgia’s future
economic growth.
Georgian cultural heritage, in addition to its intrinsic and irreplaceable values, also represents an
important economic resource for the promotion of heritage tourism, support of local businesses, urban
revitalization, increased employment opportunities, enhanced property values and the encouragement of
foreign investment. Foreign investment in turn creates a vital tax base for the country in its continued
economic development.
The value of Georgian cultural heritage has been acknowledged internationally by the inscription of three
UNESCO World Heritage Sites- and has the potential for many more sites to be nominated. Most recently,
the restoration of the Virgin Church of Timotesubani received a Gold Medal in 2006 by the European
Union’s Europa Nostra.
This international stature was further illustrated by Georgia being the first country ever to be awarded an
economic development loan on the basis of its exceptional cultural heritage by the World Bank in 1998.
Before considering Georgian specific sites, international case studies will be presented with supporting
financial data reflecting how cultural heritage is both an economically viable and sustainable resource. It
is important to note however, that this does not propose the exploitation of resources or the promotion of
unsustainable tourism. Potential case studies will include the following:
• Heritage Tourism: The contributions of tourism to countries gross domestic product (GDP): For
example, tourism in Cyprus accounts for 25% of the GDP, Malta 20% GDP, Germany 8% GDP and
France 7% GDP.
• Local Business Support: 60% of Macau’s retail revenue is generated in the country’s heritage
conservation zones.
• Enhanced Property Values: Published economic documentation on the rise of property values on
buildings within Historic Landmarks Districts in New York City, by the New York City government.
• Employment Opportunities: In Norway, historic restoration projects create on average 20% more
jobs than comparably budgeted new construction projects. In France, 40,000 craftspeople are employed
full-time in restoration work.
158
CULTURAL TOURISM
• Owner Incentives: Britain and Italy both have property tax incentive programs for private heritage
property owners that support and promote preservation, which in turn supports cultural heritage as
an economic resource.
After the international precedent of cultural heritage’s economic viability of cultural heritage has been
established, existing and potential Georgian case studies that generate tourism and are economically
sustainable will be profiled.
The paper will conclude with proposals for several incentive plans and models, including tax credits/
abatements and revolving loans, designed for the local government and NGO’s to implement to promote
awareness and benefits for the government and local private property owners of heritage buildings in
Georgia.
Maureen Doyle, Jeffrey Doyle
Heritance. USA
Cultural Tourism and the Open Museum
Tourism is an industry based on difference. Cultural tourism engages the visitor by making difference
and diversity intelligible through narrative. The key to great museograpy is telling engaging and convincing
stories about real people and real events. And the best way to do this is to give all the characters a voice,
because any story worth telling always has more than one side.

At the same time, the inclusive narrative that makes a museum interesting and engaging for tourists is
also beneficial to society at large, and not just because of increased tourist revenues: the atmosphere of an
open museum fosters the constructive and inclusive dialog that is the bedrock of any enduring pluralistic
society.
Heritance developed the concept of the Open Museum in order to foster and promote open and inclusive
museums. Heritance’s vision of the Open Museum is based on three core principles:
Open Museography. Understanding others depends on listening to their stories and seeing things from
their point of view. Open museums display objects and organize exhibits that tell stories from multiple
and contrasting perspectives.
Open Governance. Heritance believes that only museums that practice transparent, inclusive and open
governance can consistently and reliably represent the diversity of any community. Moreover, open
governance strengthens the community by modeling the practices essential to peaceful coexistence
and local autonomy.
Open Access. Open museums create an environment that is welcoming and accessible to the entire
range of museum stakeholders. This means bringing the museum to the people through traveling
exhibits, school outreach, performances, celebrations, and the Internet.
Heritance was founded in February 2007 and during the first year of operation, delivered on-site workshops,
consultations and seed grants to fifteen museums in eight countries, including Colombia, Kenya,
Mexico, Rwanda, and South Africa
Dimirti Japaridze
Department of Tourism and Resorts of Georgia. Georgia
Perspectives of Cultural Tourism in Georgia
Ia Tabagari
Caucasus Travel. Georgia
Cultural Tourism - Relations Between Church and Tourism Industries
Milan Prodanovic
University of Novi Sad. Serbia
CULTURAL TOURISM
Dialogue of Cultures and the Clash of Civilization Agenda Related to The Issues of Educational/
Cultural Tourism and Related Topics of Regional Culture and Integration of European Heritage
159

160
vaxtang beriZis saxelobis qarTuli xelovnebis saerTaSoriso simpoziumi
Vakhtang Beridze International Symposium of Georgian Art
SeniSvnebi
NOTES