Search Results

Search Constraints

Search Results

  • Vani Archaeological Survey Goals and Methods

    work
    Creator:
    Vani Archaeological Survey
    Description:
    In 2009, an American-Georgian team of four archaeologists, four archaeology students, and a geophysicist carried out a four-week season of “extensive” survey of known archaeological sites, together with geophysical prospection at selected locations. In a second four-week season in 2010, with the additions of a geologist and an archaeobotanist, we continued our program of documentation of known sites and of exploratory geophysical prospection, and we also carried out limited test excavations at a number of sites. We returned for a shorter (one- to two-week) study seasons in 2011 and 2014, focusing on museum and archival research in Vani, Kutaisi, and Tbilisi., The area covered by our survey extends 15 km both east and west of Vani, and as far as 10 km south of Vani, from the Phasis River plain at approximately 50 m above sea level to the lower slopes of the lesser Caucasus, at approximately 1000 m above sea level. The purpose of the program was to visit all the previously identified archaeological sites in the region, and to integrate existing knowledge into a database of sites and a Geographical Information System. Each entry into this database is recorded as a dataset in this deposit. Entries recorded in 2009 are prefaced with the letter “A,” those recorded in 2010 are prefaced with the letter “B.” A single entry added in 2011 received the preface, “C.” In carrying out the survey, we depended heavily on the unpublished dissertation by Sulkhan Kharabadze, “Vanis Qveq’nis” Arqeologiuri Ruk’a (dzv.ts. VIII – akh.ts. III ss.) – Archaeological Map of the Territory of Vani (8th Century BC – 3rd Century AD) (Ph.D. dissertation: Georgian Technical University 2008). A map showing the locations of all the sites recorded by the survey is attached to this dataset., Our procedure for each site visit was as follows: we drove to the nearest village and searched out a local guide who could take us to the place we wished to see. We drove as far as we could to each site, then got out and walked, using GPS-equipped field computers (Trimble Geo-XM) to make a continuous record of our path. We recorded the lay of the land and any artifacts we saw en route (pottery sherds, traces of burnt daub, lithics and stone objects, architectural features in situ). We designated as points of interest any significant archaeological remains (concentrations of pottery, in situ features, notable stray finds, etc.), and every place we could identify where earlier discoveries had been made or archaeological excavations carried out. For every point of interest, we recorded the latitude, longitude, and elevation; took a series of digital photographs; and made a grab bag collection of pottery and other finds if possible. Where appropriate, we took basic measurements of architectural features (e.g., of Mediaeval towers). We also kept records of local place names, the names of our local guides, and any miscellaneous information they gave us. , Certain sites were selected for further investigation. These included Saqanchia A001, where we carried our geophysical survey and limited excavation; Shuamta, Melashvilebisgora A033, where we also carried out geophysical survey and limited excavation; Kveda Bzvani A047, where we carried out controlled collection of surface finds; and Zeda Bzvani, Meskhebisgora, A053, where we also carried out controlled collection of surface finds., The datasets recorded in this deposit include basic descriptions of each site, citations to previous publications, and links to relevant maps, photographs, and drawings. Where they exist, maps for individual datasets are labeled according to the name and number of the site, e.g., DapnariA002Map.jpg. The labels for photographs taken during the field season record their numbers in the sequence of photographs taken that season, e.g., Vani09.0047.jpg. A complete list of all photographs recorded in this way is available for download. Photographs and drawings of artifacts from individual sites made after the season are labeled with the names of the sites followed by the numbers assigned to the objects, with photographs saved as jpeg files, and drawings saved as tiff files; thus KvedaBzvani11-14.jpg is a photograph of objects 11-14 from the site of KvedaBzvani, while KvedaBzvani11-14.tif is a set of drawings of the same objects. Finally, drawings of sites where excavations were carried out are labeled with the name of the site, the number of the trench (if applicable), and the type of drawing, so that Shuamta2010.1Plan is a plan of Trench 2010.1 at Shuamta., and In addition, the collections in this deposit group datasets together according to important characteristics such as period (Bronze Age, Iron Age, etc.) or type (settlement, fortification, burial, and so on).
    Citation to related publication:
    Kharabadze, S.(2008). “Vanis Qveq’nis” Arqeologiuri Ruk’a (dzv.ts. VIII – akh.ts. III ss.) – Archaeological Map of the Territory of Vani (8th Century BC – 3rd Century AD). (Ph.D. dissertation).Georgian Technical University.
    Discipline:
    Social Sciences and Humanities