You are on page 1of 12

Subartu XXXVIII

At the Northern Frontier of Near Eastern Archaeology


Sub a r t u
Editorial Board

Marc Lebeau, M. Conceio Lopes, Lucio Milano,


Adelheid Otto, Walther Sallaberger, Vronique Van der Stede

With the support of the following institutions:


Universit Ca Foscari di Venezia, Universit Libre de Bruxelles,
Universidade de Coimbra, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universitt Mnchen,
Johannes Gutenberg-Universitt Mainz

Subartu a peer-reviewed series


is edited by the European Centre for Upper Mesopotamian Studies

Manuscripts are to be submitted to:


Marc Lebeau, ECUMS-Brussels, 41 Boulevard A. Reyers, Bte 6, B-1030 Brussels, Belgium

Order forms to be mailed to:


Brepols Publishers, Begijnhof 67, B-2300 Turnhout, Belgium

BREPOLS PUBLISHERS
THIS DOCUMENT MAY BE PRINTED FOR PRIVATE USE ONLY.
IT MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE PUBLISHER.
Elena ROVA & Monica TONUSSI
(editors)

AT THE NORTHERN FRONTIER OF NEAR EASTERN


ARCHAEOLOGY
RECENT RESEARCH ON CAUCASIA AND ANATOLIA IN THE BRONZE AGE
AN DER NORDGRENZE DER VORDERASIATISCHEN
ARCHOLOGIE
NEUE FORSCHUNG BER KAUKASIEN UND ANATOLIEN IN DER
BRONZEZEIT

(Publications of the Georgian-Italian Shida Kartli


Archaeological Project, 2)

(Proceedings of the international Humboldt-Kolleg Venice,


January 9th -January 12th, 2013)

F
H
Elena Rova & Monica Tonussi (eds)
At the Northern Frontier of Near Eastern Archaeology
(=Subartu XXXVIII), Brepols, Turnhout, 2017
A4, sewn, 8 + 587
Contents: Archaeology, Bronze Age, Caucasus, Anatolia, Metallurgy

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a


retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means,
electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise,
without the prior permission of the publisher.

ISBN 978-2-503-54897-5
D/2017/0095/131

Printed on acid-free paper

BREPOLS PUBLISHERS
THIS DOCUMENT MAY BE PRINTED FOR PRIVATE USE ONLY.
IT MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE PUBLISHER.
Table of Contents

Elena ROVA &


Monica TONUSSI Editors Introduction 1

Section I
The Late Chalcolithic and the Early Bronze Age
Andrej BELINSKIJ The Great Kurgan from Nalik. A Preliminary Report 13
Svend HANSEN &
Sabine REINHOLD

Sergey N. KORENEVSKIY Military and Elite Symbolism in the Funeral Practices of the
Maikop-Novosvobodnaia Community 33

Alexey REZEPKIN The Influence of the Near East in the Formation of the Early
Bronze Age in the Northern Caucasus 43

Barbara HELWING Networks of Craft Production and Material Distribution in


the Late Chalcolithic: Metallurgical Evidence from Iran and
the Southern Caucasus 51

Judith THOMALSKY Large Blade Technologies in the Southern Caucasus and in


Northern Mesopotamia in the 6th-4th millennia BC 79

Georgi Leon KAVTARADZE An Attempt at Dating the Starting Point of the Kura-Araxes
Culture on the Background of the Uruk Cultural Phenomenon 91

Giulio PALUMBI Push or Pull Factors? The Kura-Araxes Expansion from


a Different Perspective: the Upper Euphrates Valley 113

Monica TONUSSI Salt in the Economic System of Early Transcaucasian Culture


New Perspectives in the Interpretation of the Migration Theory
in the Southern Levant 133

Elena ROVA, Zurab MAKHARADZE Khashuri Natsargora: New Research on the Kura-Araxes
& Marina PUTURIDZE and Bedeni Cultures in Central Georgia 153

Eleonora CARMINATI The Martqopi and Bedeni Components of the Early Kurgan Complex
in Shida Kartli (Georgia): A Reappraisal of the Available Data 173

Winfried ORTHMANN Burial Mounds of the Martqopi and Bedeni Cultures


in Eastern Georgia 189

Section II
The Middle and the Late Bronze Age
Stephan KROLL Early to Middle Bronze Age Transition in the Urmia Basin 203

Marina PUTURIDZE On the Origins and Development of Gold Working in


the Middle Bronze Age Trialeti Culture 213

Gian-Maria DI NOCERA Die Mittelbronzezeit am oberen Euphrat: Siedlungscharakter


und kulturelle Identitt 229

v
Table of Contents

Armaan ERKANAL-KT Panaztepe in der Sptbronzezeit: Eine Studie ber die


materielle Kultur im mittleren West-Anatolien 247

Stefania MAZZONI Uakl Hyk and the Bronze Age of Central Anatolia 269

Elena DEVECCHI The Eastern Frontier of the Hittite Empire 283

Aynur ZFIRAT The Late Bronze Early Iron Age Urartu Complex at Bozkurt
on the Southern Slope of Mt. Ar 299

Martina BABETTO Late Bronze/Early Iron Age Pottery from Natsargora,


& Katia GAVAGNIN Khashuri Region (Georgia): A Preliminary Overview 311

Sabina BRODBECK-JUCKER Die Keramik von Udabno I als Anhaltspunkt fr die Datierung
der figrlich verzierten Bronzegrtel in Ostgeorgien 329

Sabine REINHOLD Late Bronze Age Architecture in Caucasia and Beyond:


Building a New Lifestyle for a New Epoch 337

Section III
Iron Age developments
Aye Tuba KSE Transition from Sedentary Farming to Nomadic and
Transhumant Pastoralism in the Iron Age: A View from
the Upper Tigris Region 369

Manuel CASTELLUCCIA The Talesh Region in the Iron Age and its Relations
with Transcaucasia 391

Arianna ZISCHOW South Caucasian Bronze Belts in Context 411

Mirjo SALVINI Aufstieg und Fall des Reiches Urartu 427

Claudia ANTONETTI Greek Colonisation in the Black Sea: Reflections on


Recent Research and Methodological Trends 449

Attilio MASTROCINQUE The Caucasus in the Geographic and Cosmological


Conceptions of the Greeks in the Archaic Period 459

Silvia PALAZZO Kingship between East and West in Mithridates Eupator 467

Section IV
Metallurgy and Circulation of Metal Ore and Metal Objects

Evgenii N. CHERNYKH Caucasus as a Bridge and a Barrier between South and


North: The Early Metal Age 477

Mikheil ABRAMISHVILI Southern Caucasia in the Near Eastern Bronze Age


Economic System 493

Arsen BOBOKHYAN Society and Metal in Bronze Age Armenia 501


Ren KUNZE, Khachatur
MELIKSETIAN & Ernst PERNICKA

Antoine COURCIER, Maise Metallurgical Developments in Azerbaijan from the


RAGIMOVA, Netjaf MUSEIBLI Neolithic to the Early Bronze Age: Recent Archaeometallurgical
& Bakhtiyar JALILOV Research in the Middle Kura River Valley 525

BREPOLS PUBLISHERS
vi
THIS DOCUMENT MAY BE PRINTED FOR PRIVATE USE ONLY.
IT MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE PUBLISHER.
Table of Contents

Zviad SHERAZADISHVILI Technical and Typological Improvements and Innovations


in Bronze Weapons in the Southern Caucasus: (From the
3rd to the First Half of the 2nd Millennium BC) 543

David KUPARADZE The Development of Mining, Metallurgy and the Production of Cold
Dimitri PATARIDZE Steel Arms in Georgia: A Geological and Archaeological Review 569
Elena ROVA
Mamuka KAPIANIDZE
Gotcha LAGIDZE &
Zaqro NONIKASHVILI

vii
BREPOLS PUBLISHERS
THIS DOCUMENT MAY BE PRINTED FOR PRIVATE USE ONLY.
IT MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE PUBLISHER.
Technical and Typological Improvements and Innovations
in Bronze Weapons in the Southern Caucasus
(From the 3rd to the First Half of the 2nd Millennium BC)
Zviad Sherazadishvili
(Tbilisi State University Georgia)

Abstract

From the first half of the 3rd to the first half of the 2nd millennium BC the following cultures were
existing on the territory of the Southern Caucasus: the Kura-Araxes Culture, the Alazani-Bedeni
and Samgori-Martkopi phases of the Early Kurgan Period, and the Trialeti Culture. In spite of
the fact that the majority of researchers consider the Early Kurgan period as part of the Middle
Bronze Age, the bronze weapons of this period take their origin from the Early Bronze Age.
Considering typological and technical innovations, the Trialeti Culture differs from the previous
cultures, although the chemical composition of the weapons is closer to that of the Early Kurgan
Period, in particular to the Bedeni phase. Among the innovations of the Trialeti Culture we can
name the blade and the rapier. Within the weapon assemblage of this period the most significant
and obvious technical progress concerns spearheads, which from earlier specimens with a
long tongue became socketed spearheads. During the Early Bronze Age and the Early Kurgan
Period, local bronze weapon production was very similar in the northern and in the southern
territories of the Southern Caucasus. It is very important to observe that Near Eastern and South
Caucasian weapons of the same type often date to the same period. This is the result of very
close relations between these two regions.

Introduction
The period from the first half of the 3rd to the first half of the 2nd millennium BC is one of the most
important and chronologically complicated ones in South Caucasian archaeology. It includes part of the
Kura-Araxes Culture (Kuftin 1943; Chubinishvili 1965; Kushnareva, Chubinishvili 1970; Kavtaradze
1981: 71-101; Sagona 1984; Orjonikidze 2004), the Early Kurgan Period (Japaridze 1988: 25-40; 1989:
26-40; 1998; Mindiahsvili 1993; Jalabadze 1998; Carminati 2011; Orjonikidze 2015) (i.e. the transition
from the Early to the Middle Bronze Age; this period includes the Bedeni and the Martkopi phases1),

1
The chronological interdependence of these two stages is still debated among scientists. Part of the researchers
think that the Martkopi phase is earlier than the Bedeni phase (based on comparing ceramic production from the
Kura-Araxes and Martkopi sites), while another group supposes the opposite (according to the evidence provided by
settlements and barrows). It is also interesting to observe that a group of archaeologists considers the Martkopi phase
as belonging to the Early Bronze, and the Bedeni phase as belonging to the Middle Bronze Age, whereas the remaining
ones include both of these phases either in the Middle, or in the Early Bronze Age. At the same time contradictory
opinions are expressed concerning their chronological attribution (for detailed information about the Early Kurgan
Period see: Kuftin 1941: 101-105; Kushnareva, Chubinishvili 1963; Dedabrishvili 1979; Gobejishvili 1981; Kavtaradze
1981, 1999, 2004; Japaridze 1988, 1989, 1991: 136-152; 1998; Mindiahsvili 1993; Makharadze 1994; Asatiani 1997;
Jalabadze 1998; Makharadze, Orjonikidze 2007; Orjonikidze 2011: 222-235; Carminati 2011; Orjonikidze 2015).
Due to a number of very important unsolved problems, we think it is still unclear whether Martkopi and Bedeni can
be defined as cultures. In fact, in order to define a group of sites with common features as a culture, a number of
important determinant elements are needed, such as: metal production with characteristic features, pottery, architecture,
settlement planning, common burial rites, etc. However, it should be mentioned that more Bedeni sites (both settle-
ments and, mostly, barrows) were excavated than Martkopi ones, so that, based on the present stage of research, Bedeni
shows several signs which would allow to refer to it as a culture. On the other hand, very important and significant
issues, e.g. the chronological and genetic interdependence between the Kura-Araxes Culture and the Martkopi phase,
the Kura-Araxes and the Bedeni phase, and also the Early Kurgan Period and the Trialeti Cultures, are still open and
unclear, and have to be solved, or at least given a clearer and comprehensive definition before a decision can be taken.

543
Zviad Sherazadishvili

the Trialeti Culture2 (Kuftin 1941; Japaridze 1969; Gogadze 1972) and the end of the Middle
Bronze Age.
There are two main ideas about the chronology of the Early and Middle Bronze Ages of the Southern
Caucasus, the traditional (Japaridze 1961: 120; Gogadze 1972: 95; Kavtaradze 1981: 32) and the more
recent one (Kavtaradze 1981: 33; 1999, 2004). According to the traditional chronology, the Kura-Araxes
Culture dates back from the second half of the 4th millennium BC to the first half of the 3rd millennium BC;
the Early Kurgan Period corresponds to the second half of the 3rd millennium BC and the Trialeti Culture
occupies the first half of the 2nd millennium BC. The introduction of calibrated 14C dates caused a shift of
several centuries (3 to 6 in average) backwards in the proposed dates. Though, not every scientist agrees
with this new chronology.
It is of course very important to clarify the chronology of the Southern Caucasus in the 3rd millennium
BC, but in the case of our paper and at the present stage of research we think that it would be not less
important to determine the chronological interdependence of the sites where metal objects were found. In
fact, our aim is not to discuss the different scholarly opinions about chronological issues, and try to solve
this problem, unless this gives us a definition of the date of the complexes which contain the weapons. On
the contrary, while separating the stages of technical development of a certain weapon, we need to find out
whether it is earlier or later than its analogues.
During the Kura-Araxes Culture, almost all main kinds of metal weapons (axes, spearheads and dag-
gers) developed on the territory of the Southern Caucasus. The same period is also marked by the rise of
metalwork, which was developed as a strong independent branch of craft production, and was differentiated
in several directions. One of the innovations of the Kura-Araxes Culture in the Southern Caucasus is the
use of square-type spearheads (Javakhishvili, Ghlonti 1962: fig. XXXVI). The innovations of the Trialeti
Culture are blades and rapiers (Chubinishvili 1955: 23-24; Lomtatidze 1974: 145-147, fig. XIX/6; Kush-
anreva, Risin 2001; Abramishvili 2001, 2003), as well as the beginning of the use of socketed spearheads.
Shaft-hole axes of the Kura-Araxes Culture and Early Kurgan Period were replaced by the so called Ghr-
maghele type axe (Kuftin 1941: 18, fig. 20) of the Trialeti Culture, which probably takes its origin from axes
found in Tepe Gawra VI (Speiser 1935: 106, 179, pl. XLVIII; Maxwell-Hyslop 1949) and Tell Billa V (Ml-
ler-Karpe 1995: 273). In spite of the fact that the earliest metal finds made of tin bronze were found in the
Chalcolithic settlement of Delisi and at Kura-Araxes Culture sites (4 artefacts) (Ghambashidze et. al. 2010:
117-119), the massive use of this league started only during the Bedeni phase of the Early Kurgan Period.
The amount of chance finds of weapons is quite large. This makes it difficult to propose well-grounded
hypotheses about their chronological and cultural attribution. The detailed description and determination
of characteristic features can only help to propose an approximate date for such finds. Thus, we base the
chronological estimation only on in situ finds. Almost all chance finds have analogies with in situ finds;
this makes it easier to discuss their chronology, typological and technical significance. In our paper, only
if a chance find has very close parallels among in situ artefacts, then we will try to determine its date and
include it in the general typology.
In spite of the fact that the Kura-Araxes and the Early Kurgan Period sites were not distributed in the
whole of Western Georgia, typological interdependence of finds from this region with Eastern Georgian
materials is very close. For example, the weapons of the Dolmen Culture (Northwestern Georgia, mainly
Aphkhazeti) are very similar to contemporary Eastern Georgian material, thus we group them together with
the Kura-Araxes and Early Kurgan Period bronze weapons. Due to the very close typological and chronolo-
gical similarities between Kura-Araxes and Early Kurgan Period weapons, they will be presented together.
Due to the size limits of this article, we will present only summary results of our research. The majority of
the analysed weapons come from Georgia, but materials from Armenia and Azerbaijan are also included in
the discussion.

However, most of the researchers agree that the Early Kurgan Period represents a transition between the Kura-Araxes
and the Trialeti Cultures, which witnessed a series of very significant changes in the development of the society (metal-
work, pottery manufacturing, jewels production and architecture) (Gobejishvili 1981; Japaridze 1998; Carminati 2011).
In the current work, considering the Early Kurgan Period as a transition stage between the Early and the Middle Bronze
Ages means only outlining its general chronological borders, and doesnt aim at referring it to any of these two ages. In
fact, we agree with part of archaeologists, who think that, according to the evidence from certain sites, the final stage of
the Kura-Araxes Culture chronologically coincides with the Early Kurgan Period, especially with the Bedeni phase. In
spite of the above mentioned suggestions, the very close typological and technological similarities between these two
periods allowed us to discuss them together.
2
From the discovery of the Trialeti Culture until today several very different opinions about its chronology have been
expressed. For detailed information see: Kuftin 1941; Japaridze 1969; Gogadze 1972; Kavtaradze 1981, 1999, 2004;
Abramishvili 2001, 2003; Kushnareva, Risin 2001; Narimanishvili 2009.

BREPOLS PUBLISHERS
544
THIS DOCUMENT MAY BE PRINTED FOR PRIVATE USE ONLY.
IT MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE PUBLISHER.
Technical and Typological Improvements and Innovations

The aim of the paper is to present a general overview of the process of technical and typological impro-
vements and innovations in bronze weapons metalwork during the above mentioned period. One of its ori-
ginal aims was to discuss the weapons starting from the beginning of the 3rd millennium BC but, since part
of these weapons first appear in the third or fourth quarters of the 4th millennium BC, i.e. during the earlier
stages of Kura-Araxes Culture, the chronological scopus of the paper has been increased.
The object of the current work is to establish a typology of the different kinds of weapons. This will
make possible the presentation of morphological developments and different stages of change taking place
over shorter or longer periods of time. We will also attempt to investigate the origin of certain types of
weapons and to use them for the determination of inner and outer cultural relations. It is very important to
identify, based on the well dated sites, the stages of technical development of weapons and to clarify impro-
vements and innovations from this point of view.

Shaft-hole Axes
Axes are one of the most widespread among bronze weapons in the territory of the Southern Caucasus
during the 4th-3rd millennia BC. Up till now we have gathered 115 specimens (68 chance finds and 46 in situ
finds). 29 of them were discovered in Kura-Araxes sites (4 are from settlements, 25 from grave materials)
(Ghambashidze et. al. 2010: 310, 312, 343, 350-353, 361, 368-369, 371-372, 397-398), 8 on Bedeni sites3
(2 from settlements, 5 from grave materials) (Ghambashidze et. al. 2010: 342, 402-403, 441, 448, 450, 458,
460, 462-463), 4 on Martkopi sites (all of them from grave materials) (Ghambashidze et. al. 2010: 406-
407), and 5 on Dolmen Culture sites (Ghambashidze et al. 2010: 491-494, 498-499).
During the Kura-Araxes Culture and the Early Kurgan Period different types of shaft-hole axes were
attested which, according to the existing materials, were no longer used in the later periods. At the time of
the Trialeti Culture, as we mentioned before, the so-called Ghrmaghele type axes were introduced.
From a technical point of view, the evaluation of the axes focuses on several details, which are respon-
sible for their peculiarities and technical developments. In case of South Caucasian axes, these details are:
length, shape and diameter of the shaft-hole, width and thickness of the junction between the blade and the
shaft-hole, length, thickness, width and shape of the blade. Observations on the later axes (Trialeti Culture
Ghrmaghele type and Late Bronze Age Central Caucasian axes) showed that, in comparison with axes
having curved and long blades, specimens with a long, wide and oval shaft-hole, wide and thick junction
between blade and shaft-hole, short, thick and wide blade are more effective for a long period of time.
Among Kura-Araxes and Early Kurgan axes, the specimens of the third type of our typology (Fig. 1/A/ III)
(all five axes in this type belong to the Bedeni phase) are closest to the above mentioned criteria. The
only detail, which they are missing, is an oval-shaped shaft-hole, which is very important in order to fix
the handle. Almost all Kura-Araxes, all Martkopi and Dolmen axes have a round shaft-hole. Only the
examples from Tiselis Seri (Fig. 1/A/I) (Ghambashidze et al. 2010: 312; Gogochuri, Orjonikidze 2007),
Badaani (Mirtskhulava 2008: 106, fig. 7/1; Ghambashidze et al. 2010: 397, fig. XXXI/523), grave no. 2 at
Nacherkezevi (1955 excavations) (Japaridze 1961: 129, fig. 14/1) and Tsartsis Gora (1945 excavations, two
specimens) (Japaridze 1961: 132, fig. 15/4) have slightly oval-shaped shaft-holes (all of them belong to the
Kura-Araxes culture). The axe found in grave no. 41 at Modinakhe (Lomtadze 1997: 3-11, figs VII-VIII)
belongs to the Bedeni phase and has a very clear and evident oval-shaped shaft-hole. With an oval-shaped
shaft-hole the handle is fixed harder in comparison with a round one, and doesnt roll. The Modinakhe item
is the only axe discovered in situ on a Bedeni site which shows such a feature.
The typology of axes is based on the shape of the blades. 5 types and 8 subtypes are differentiated
(Fig. 1/A). Kura-Araxes axes (27 items) are represented in every type, except for the third one. The third
type consists only of Bedeni axes; together with axes of the final stage of the Kura-Araxes culture, the latter
are also represented in the second subtype of the fourth type. Martkopi axes (4) only belong to the second
subtype of type 2, together with axes of the final Kura-Araxes stage. Two axes from dolmens are present in
the same subtype. Besides this group, axes discovered in dolmens are also included in the third subtype of
the second type and in the third subtype of the fourth type.
Kura-Araxes Culture axes are dominant in all types except for the third one, so that they show the largest
typological variety. Martkopi axes have the most homogenous shapes. However, we should mention the
large number (approx. 45 axes) of chance finds discovered on the territory occupied by the Kura-Araxes and
Early Kurgan Period cultures. Nonetheless, all these chance finds have very close analogies with specimens
included in the typology, and this circumstance helps to suggest their approximate date.

3
In this total number is also included the clay gauge of the axe from the Berikldeebi settlement, which is quite com-
pletely preserved, so that it can be attributed to a specific axe type. On the contrary, a fragment of an axe found at
Berikldeebi is also included in the general total, but it was not used in the typology.

545
BREPOLS PUBLISHERS
THIS DOCUMENT MAY BE PRINTED FOR PRIVATE USE ONLY.
IT MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE PUBLISHER.

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

You might also like