| Methodology |
-
The data presented here were collected in the course of an archaeological survey of the region around Vani in the Republic of Georgia, carried out between 2009 and 2011, with follow-up visits in 2014 and 2017. The survey was sponsored by the University of Michigan, the Institute for the Study of the Ancient World at New York University, and the Otar Lordkipanidze Institute of Archaeological Research in Tbilisi.
-
The archaeological site of Vani lies in the territory of ancient Colchis, a triangular area bordered by the Black Sea to the west and by the greater and lesser Caucasus Mountains to the north and south – famous in Greek legend as the land of the Golden Fleece and the home of Medea. Vani itself is situated approximately 70 km inland, in the foothills of the lesser Caucasus. A regional culture recognizable on the evidence of distinctive traditions of pottery and metalworking and the appearance of a network of relatively large settlements had emerged in Colchis by the late second and early first millennia BC. Maps showing the locations of Colchis and Vani are attached to this dataset.
-
Vani is one of the most extensively studied archaeological sites in Colchis. Excavations have revealed a continuous occupation sequence extending from the 8th to the 1st centuries B.C. Especially notable are the rich and unusual graves of the Classical period (6th-4th centuries), the monumental stone architecture of the Hellenistic period (3rd to 1st centuries), especially fortifications enclosing an area of approximately 6 ha, and the extensive evidence for interaction with the Mediterranean and Near Eastern worlds, including not only commercial and luxury imports (Greek transport amphorae, fine bronze and silver utensils from both the Greek world and Persia), but also local production of bronze sculpture and one long Greek bronze inscription.
-
In spite of the richness of the site, however, important questions about its purpose and function over time remain unresolved. How extensive was the ancient settlement? Was Vani an isolated stronghold, a regional population center, a sanctuary, or a combination of two or all three? How does it compare with other sites in Colchis? In addition to ongoing research at Vani itself, regional survey provides an obvious approach to some of these questions. In previous years, examination of a number of outlying sites had already yielded remains extending in date from the Early Bronze Age to the mediaeval period.
-
The purpose of the regional survey project begun in 2009 was to integrate existing knowledge about Vani and environs into the kind of technological and conceptual framework characteristic of contemporary American survey archaeology. Of particular importance was the use of Geographical Information Systems (GIS) as an organizational and analytical tool, and of geophysical prospection both in the immediate environs of Vani and at regional sites. Like all regional surveys, our project recorded evidence of all periods, from prehistory to the present day, but we were particularly interested in questions having to do with the increasing social complexity of Colchis in the mid- and later 1st millennium BC – when Greek explorers began to establish colonies on the Black Sea coast of Georgia, and the Persian empire pushed up against the mountains of the Caucasus. What was the nature of Colchian society in this period? How was it affected by interaction with the larger Greek, Persian, and Pontic worlds? And how can regional survey at Vani and throughout Colchis help us to address these questions?
|
| 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.
-
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).
|
|---|
