DERANSCHNITT

ZEITSCHRIFT FÜR KUNST UND KULTUR IM BERGBAU

 

BEIHEFT 9

THE BEGINNINGS OF METALLURGY

  

The Beginnings of Metallurgy

Proceedings of the International Conference „The Beginnings of Metallurgy", Bochum 1995

 

 

Editors:

Andreas Hauptmann

Ernst Pernicka

Thilo Rehren

Ünsal Yalçin

 

Bochum 1999

 

  

 

The International Symposium „The Beginnings of Metallurgy" was supported by the Volkswagen-Stiftung, Hannover, by Kontron Phystech GmbH, Eching/Munich, and by Norddeutsche Affinerie, Hamburg.

 

The publication of the proceedings was supported by Deutsches Bergbau-Museum Bochum and Vereinigung der Freunde für Kunst und Kultur im Bergbau e.V., Bochum.

 

 

Montanhistorische Zeitschrift

DER ANSCHNITT. Beiheft 9

= Veröffentlichungen aus dem Deutschen

Bergbau-Museum, Nr. 84

 

 

Redaktionsleitung

Privat-Dozent Dr. Andreas Hauptmann

Deutsches Bergbau-Museum

Institut für Archäometallurgie

Herner Straße 45

D-44787 Bochum

Layout und Titelgestaltung

Dipl.-Ing. Angelika Friedrich

Druck

DZS GmbH Essen

Die Deutsche Bibliothek - CIP-Einheitsaufnahme

The beginnings of metallurgy: proceedings of the International Conference The Beginnings of Metallurgy, Bochum 1995 / Andreas Hauptmann ... - Bochum: Dt. Bergbau-Museum, 1999

(Veröffentlichungen aus dem Deutschen Bergbau-Museum

Bochum; Nr. 84) (Der Anschnitt: Beiheft: 9)

ISBN 3-921533-63-5

 

 

Frontispiece

The Illustration points to one of the basic questions of the incipient stages of metallurgy, exemplified at copper:

Was the earliest metal used by man during the Pre-Pottery Neolithic native metal as it occurs in nature or was it produced by smelting ores? To distinguish native and smelted copper, both metallographic studies and trace element analyses were successfully applied, and numerous experiments were carried out in laboratories to solve this problem.

Extractive metallurgy started in Anatolia at the end of the sixth millennium B.C., and it was commonly practiced in the Near East during the fourth millennium B.C. first by smelting ores in crucibles using blowpipes, later in furnaces. Simulation of smelting processes in crucibles are described in this this volume by Fasnacht (page 291) from where this photograph is taken.

 

 

DER ANSCHNITT

Herausgeber:

Vereinigung der Freunde von Kunst und Kultur im Bergbau

e.V. Vorsitzender des Vorstandes:

Bergassessor Dipl.-Kfm. Achim Middelschulte

Vorsitzender des Beirats:

Assessor des Bergfachs Friedrich H. Esser, M. Sc.

Geschäftsführer:

Museumsdirektor Prof. Dr. phil. Rainer Slotta

Redaktionsleitung (verantwortlich):

Dr. phil. Werner Kroker

Wissenschaftlicher Beirat:

Dr. phil. Evelyn Kroker, M. A., Dr.-Ing. Siegfried Müller,

Dr.-Ing. habil. Dr. rer. nat. Thilo Rehren,

Prof. Dr. phil. Gerd Weisgerber

 

Anschrift der Geschäftsführung und der Redaktionsleitung:

Deutsches Bergbau-Museum

Am Bergbaumuseum 28 • D-44791 Bochum

Telefon (02 34) 5 87 70

Telefax (02 34) 5 87 71 11

Einzelheft 15,- DM, Doppelheft 25,- DM; Jahresabonnement

(6 Hefte) 90,- DM; kostenloser Bezug für die Mitglieder der

Vereinigung (Jahres-Mitgliedsbeitrag 70,- DM) Versand:

Verlag Glückauf GmbH, Postfach 185620, D-45206 Essen

 

 

Table of Content

Foreword 7

List of authors 8

Native Copper

Mehmet Özdoğan / Asli Özdoğan:

Archaeological evidence on the early metallurgy at Çayönü Tepesi 13

Ufuk Esin:

Copper objects from the pre-pottery neolithic site of Aşıklı (Kızılkaya Village, Province of Aksaray, Turkey) 23

Ulf-Dietrich Schoop:

Aspects of early metal use in neolithic Mesopotamia 31

Robert Maddin / James D. Muhly / Tamara Stech:

Early metalworking at Çayönü 37

Ünsal Yalçin / Ernst Pernicka:

Frühneolithische Metallurgie von Aşikli Höyük 45

Michael L. Wayman / M. John M. Duke:

The effects of melting on native copper 55

 

Regional Studies: Southwest Asia

Giorgi Leon Kavtaradze:

The importance of metallurgical data for the formation of Central Transcaucasian chronology 67

VIadimir Ruzanov:

Zum frühen Auftreten der Zinnbronze

in Mittelasien 103

Vincent C. Pigott:

A heartland of metallurgy Neolithic/Chalcolithic metallurgical origins on the Iranian Plateau 107

Abdolrasool Vatandoust:

A view on prehistoric Iranian metalworking: Elemental analyses and metallographic examinations 121

 Alberto M. Palmieri / Marcella Frangipane / Andreas Hauptmann / Karsten Hess:

Early metallurgy at Arslantepe during the Late Chalcolithic and the Early Bronze Age lA-IB periods 141

John Merkel / Beno Rothenberg:

The earliest Steps to copper metallurgy in the western Arabah 149

Karin Reiter:

Metais and metallurgy in the Old Babylonian Period 167

 

Regional Studies: Europe

Paul T. Craddock:

Paradigms of metallurgical innovation in prehistoric Europe 175

Paul Ambert:

Les minerais de cuivre et les objets metalliques en cuivre à antimoine-argent du sud de la France.

Preuves d'une exploitation minière et métallurgie du début du III0 millenaire av. J.C. 193

J. Peter Northover:

The earliest metalworking in southern Britain 211

William O'Brien:

Resource availability and metal supply in the insular Bronze Age 227

Henrieta Todorova:

Die Anfänge der Metallurgie an der westlichen Schwarzmeerküste 237

Jozef Bátora / Ernst Pernicka:

Chemische Zusammensetzung der Kupferartefakte aus dem frühbronzezeitlichen Gräberfeld von

Jelsovce, Südwestslowakei 247

Peter D. Marshall / Sarah L. O'Hara / Barbara S. Ottaway:

Early copper metallurgy in Austria and methods of assessing its impact on the environment 255

Metallurgical - Technical Studies

Hans-Gert Bachmann:

On the early metallurgy of gold: Some answers and more questions 267

Friedrich Begemann / Konrad Kallas / Sigrid Schmitt-Strecker / Ernst Pernicka:

Tracing ancient tin via isotope analyses 277

Wen Yi / Paul Budd / Rona A.R. McGill / Suzanne M.M. Young / Alex N. Halliday / Randolph Haggerty /

Brett Scaife / A. Mark Pollard:

Tin isotope studies of experimental and prehistoric bronzes 285

Walter Fasnacht:

Experimentelle Rekonstruktion des Gebrauchs von frühbronzezeitlichen Blasdüsen aus der Schweiz:

Kupferverhüttung und Bronzeguß 291

Sariel Shalev:

Recasting the Nahal Mishmar Hoard: Experimental archaeology and metallurgy 295

Markus Ratka / Peter R. Sahm / Wolfgang G.J. Bunk:

Numerical Simulation of historical casting processes for bronze 301

John E. Rehder:

High temperature technology in antiquity: A sourcebook on the design and Operation of ancient furnaces 305

Ingo Keesmann / Auxiliadora Moreno Onorato:

Naturwissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zur frühen Technologie von Kupfer und Kupfer-Arsen-Bronze 317

Edward Sangmeister:

Bemerkungen zur Vergleichbarkeit von Analysengruppen mit archäologischen Daten 333

Farbtafeln/Plates 353

 

 

Forword

The International Symposium "The Beginnings of Metallurgy" was held at the Deutsches Bergbau-Museum in Bochum (DBM) from 24 to 26 April 1995. It was the third venue in a series after Heidelberg 1987 and Donji Milanovac 1990 dedicated to this special topic. It was jointly organized by the DBM and the Max-Planck-lnstitut für Kernphysik, Heidelberg. Archaeometallurgy as an interdisciplinary research field in its own right owes much to the impetus provided by the Volkswagen Foundation through the funding program established in 1986 for the Support of investigations in the development and spread of early metallurgy - probably the most decisive Stimulus for scientific work in this field worldwide! The proceedings of the Symposium in Bochum in 1995 may be considered as a review of the activities at the end of this funding program.The title of the Conference refers to one of the main questions of archaeometallurgy that were tackled by several research projects within this program.

At the time of the Heidelberg Symposium in 1987 very little was known about the incipient stages of metallurgy before the spread of metais in the Bronze Age, and the copper objects of Çayönü Tepesi were unique. Since then our knowledge of early metallurgy has increased enormously by new discoveries and dedicated scientific research. More evidence has come to light on the use of metais in the early Neolithic, e.g. at Aşıklı Höyük and other sites in southwest Asia. It is now clear that the use of native copper also implied heat treatment that eventually may have led the way towards the smelting of ores. Analytical techniques have greatly improved so that ever more precise analyses of ever smaller samples have become feasible and the sourcing of metais a realistic perspective. In addition, the political developments in the former Soviet Union enabled access to regions important for early metallurgy, like Transcaucasia and central Asia, that were almost unknown territories archaeometallurgically speaking.

The Symposium in Bochum gathered 91 colleagues from many countries all over the world who presented 43 contributions in oral lectures or posters. Many colleagues took the Chance to attend post-conference field trip over three days to the famous traditional mining region at the Erzgebirge. This excursion focussed on silver and tin mining. The group studied unique medieval silver mining in the "Reiche Zeche" of Freiberg and tin mining at the large pinge of Altenberg and at the "Tiefer Bünaustollen" near Zinnwald. The world famous mineral collection of the Bergakademie Freiberg will be remembered by many as will be the traditional miner's party in the old count house of the "Reiche Elisabeth". This volume on "The Beginnings of Metallurgy" contains 28 articies, i.e. almost 70 percent of the contributions to the Symposium. A special chapter is dedicated to "Native Copper" as perhaps the decisive Stimulus for the very beginnings of metallurgy. Two chapters contain "Regional Studies", i.e. reviews of early metal artefacts and models of developments in southwest Asia and in Europe. The last chapter, "Metallurgical - Technical Studies", contains contributions on gold and tin, on early smelting and casting processes, the evaluation of chemical data and slag investigations. All manuscripts were refereed and the authors were given the opportunity to revise their manuscripts. We gratefully acknowledge the help of many colleagues, in particular lan Freestone, Robert Heimann, Anja Herold, James D. Muhly, Volker Pingel, Edgar Pusch, Bernt Schröder, David Scott and Gerd Weisgerber.

With this volume, we present another contribution to archaeometallurgy and hope that it will receive as much popularity as the last one ("Old World Archaeometallurgy", Der Anschnitt, Beiheft 7,1989) which was soon out of print.

Bochum, September 1999

Andreas Hauptmann

Ernst Pernicka

Thilo Rehren

Ünsal Yalçin

 

 

 

List of authors

 

Dr. Paul Ambert

Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique

190 rue des Genévriers Le Clos

F - 34830 Clapiers

 

Prof. Dr. Hans-Gert Bachmann

Wildaustraße 5

D - 63457 Hanau

 

Prof. Dr. Marcella Frangipane

Dip. di Scienze dell'Antichità Università La Sapienza Via Palestro 63

l -00185 Roma

 

Dr. Randolph Haggerty

Ancient Metallurgy Research Group

Department of Archaeological Sciences

University of Bradford

GB - Bradford West Yorkshire, BD7 1 DP

 

Dr. Jozef Bátora

Archeoloicky ústav Slovenskej akademie vied

94921 Nitra

SLOWAKIA

 

Prof. Dr. Friedrich Begemann

Max-Planck-lnstitut für Chemie (Otto-Hahn-Institut)

Saarstraße 23

D-55122 Mainz

 

Dr. Paul Budd

Ancient Metallurgy Research Group

Department of Archaeological Sciences

University of Bradford

GB - Bradford West Yorkshire, BD7 1 DP

 

Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Bunk

Lehrstuhl für Angewandte Metallkunde

RWTH Aachen

Kopernikusstraße 14

D - 52074 Aachen

 

Dr. Paul T. Craddock

The British Museum

Department of Scientific Research

Great Russel Street

GB - London WC1 B 3DG

 

M.John M. Duke

SLOWPOKE Reactor Facility

University of Alberta

CAN - Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2G6

 

Prof. Dr. Ufuk Esin

Prehistorya Anabilim Dali

Edebiyat Fakultesi

Istanbul Üniversitesi

TR - 34459 Istanbul

 

Walter Fasnacht

Schweizerisches Landesmuseum

Hardturmstraße 185

CH - 8005 Zürich

 

Prof. Dr. Alex N. Halliday

Department of Geological Sciences

University of Michigan

Ann Arbor Ml 48109-1063

USA

 

PD Dr. Andreas Hauptmann

DMT-Deutsches Bergbau-Museum

Institut für Archäometallurgie

Am Bergbaumuseum 28

D - 44791 Bochum

 

Dr. Karsten Hess

DMT-Deutsches Bergbau-Museum

Institut für Archäometallurgie

Am Bergbaumuseum 28

D - 44791 Bochum

 

Konrad Kallas

Max-Planck-lnstitut für Chemie

(Otto-Hahn-Institut)

Saarstraße 23

D-55122 Mainz

 

Dr. habil. Giorgi Leon Kavtaradze

Institute of History and Ethnography

Academy of Science

Melikischwili Street 10

Tbilisi

GEORGIA

 

Prof. Dr. Ingo Keesmann

Arbeitsgruppe Archäometallurgie

Institut für Geowissenschaften, FB 22

Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz

Saarstraße 21

D-55122 Mainz

 

Prof. Dr. Robert Maddin

7 Highwood Way, P.O.B. 568

New Seabury, MA 20649

USA

 

Peter D. Marshall

English Heritage

Ancient Monuments Laboratory

23 Savile Row

GB-London W1X1 AB

 

Dr. Rona A.R. McGill

Ancient Metallurgy Research Group

Department of Archaeological Sciences

University of Bradford

GB - Bradford West Yorkshire, BD7 1 DP

 

Dr. Auxiliadora Moreno Onorato

Facultad de Filosofia y Letras

Departamento de Prehistoria y Arqueologia

Universitad de Granada Cartuja

E-18071 Granada

 

Prof. Dr. James D. Muhly

American School of Classical Studies

54 Souidias Street

G - 10676 Athens

 

Dr. Peter J. Northover

Department of Materials

University of Oxford

Parks Road

GB - Oxford 0X1 3PH

 

Dr. William O'Brien

Department of Archaeology

National University of Ireland

IR - Galway

 

Dr. Asii Özdoğan

Prof. Dr. Mehmet Özdoğan

Prehistorya Anabilim Dali

Edebiyat Fakültesi

Istanbul Üniversitesi

TR - 34459 Istanbul

 

Sarah L. O'Hara

Dept. of Archaeology and Archaeological Science

University of Sheffield

2 Mappin Street

GB - Sheffield, S1 4DT

 

Dr. Barbara S. Ottaway

Dept. of Archaeology and Archaeological Science

University of Sheffield

2 Mappin Street

GB - Sheffield, S1 4DT

 

Dr. Alberto M. Palmieri

Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche

Cas. Post. 10

l - 00016 Monterotondo Stazione/Roma

 

Prof. Dr. Ernst Pemicka

Lehrstuhl für Archäometallurgie

TU Bergakademie Freiberg

Gustav-Zeuner-Straße 5

D - 09599 Freiberg

 

Dr. Vincent C. Pigott

Museum Applied Science Center for Archaeology

(MASCA)

The University Museum of Archaeology and

Anthropology University of Pennsylvania

3rd and Spruce Streets

Philadelphia, PA 19104-6324

USA

 

Prof. Dr. A. Mark Pollard

Ancient Metallurgy Research Group

Department of Archaeological Sciences

University of Bradford

GB - Bradford West Yorkshire, BD7 1 DP

 

Markus Ratka

Lehrgebiet Wärmetechnik und Industrieofenbau

RWTH Aachen

Kopernikusstraße 16

D - 52056 Aachen

 

Dr. John E. Rehder

36 Castle Frank Road 309

CAN - Toronto M4W 2Z7

Dr. Karin Reiter

Benzmannstraße 10

D-12167 Berlin

 

Dr. Volodja D. Ruzanov

Institute of Archaeology

Academy of Science Uzbekistane Republic

3, Academic Abdullayewa St.

703051 Samarkand

UZBEKISTAN

 

Prof. Dr. Peter R. Sahm

Lehrstuhl für Angewandte Metallkunde

RWTH Aachen

Kopernikusstraße 14

D - 52074 Aachen

 

Prof. Dr. Edward Sangmeister

Institut für Ur- und Frühgeschichte

Albert Ludwig-Universität

Beifortstraße 22

D - 79098 Freiburg

 

Dr. Brett Scaife

Ancient Metallurgy Research Group

Department of Archaeological Sciences

University of Bradford

GB - Bradford West Yorkshire, BD7 1 DP

 

Ulf-Dietrich Schoop, MA

Institut für Ur- und Frühgeschichte

Jüngere Abteilung

Schloß Hohentübingen

D - 72070 Tübingen

 

Dr. Sigrid Schmitt-Strecker

Max-Planck-lnstitut für Chemie

(Otto-Hahn-Institut)

Saarstraße 23

D-55122 Mainz

 

Dr. Sariel Shalev

Weizmann Institute of Science

IL-Rehovot 76100

Dr. Tamara Stech-Smith

422 Upper Hollow Hill Road

Stowe, VT 05672

USA

Prof. Dr. Henrieta Todorova

Archäologisches Institut der Bulgarischen Akademie

der Wissenschaften

Boulv. Stambolijski 2

1000 Sofia

BULGARIA

 

Prof. Dr. Michael L. Wayman

Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering

University of Alberta

CAN - Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2G6

 

PD Dr. Ünsal Yalçin

DMT-Deutsches Bergbau-Museum

Institut für Archäometallurgie

Am Bergbaumuseum 28

D - 44791 Bochum

 

Dr. Wen Yi

Department of Geological Sciences

University of Michigan

Ann Arbor MI 48109-1063

USA

 

Suzanne M.M. Young

Archaeometry Laboratories

Harvard University

Peabody Museum

11 Divinity Avenue

Cambridge MA 02138

USA

 

Prof. Dr. Abdolrasool Vatandoust

Director, Research Centre for Conservation of Cultural

Relics (RCCCR)

Iranian Cultural Heritage Organization

P.O.B. 11365-4834

Tehran 11365

IRAN

 

 

The Beginnings of Metallurgy Der Anschnitt, Beiheft 9, 1999

 

Giorgi Leon Kavtaradze

 

The importance of metallurgical data for the formation of a Central Transcaucasian chronology

Archaeology in Georgia, as in other countries, is the science which studies human activities in the past and tries to reconstruct this past as comprehensively as possible. It was stated that the past is the main thing in our life, everything that exists belongs to it (A. France). Indeed, to reconstruct the past, archaeology needs as many ingredients based on the full range of technical and natural sciences as life itself is diverse. More and more archaeology becomes a meeting field for various sciences.

As scientific development is easily attainable in the zones of contacts and interactions between different sciences, completely new perspectives are opened for archaeology through its integration in other sciences. Archaeometallurgy is among the most important branches developed in consequence of this qualitative change - or better: the transformation of archaeology.

 In Tbilisi, the capital of Georgia, three laboratories carry out analysis of metal artefacts: the State Museum of Georgia, the Metallurgical Institute and the Centre for Archaeological Studies. The metal inventory was investigated by Josef Grdzelishvili, Ferdinand Tavadze, Tamar Sakvarelidze, Rusudan Bachtadze, Tsisana Abesadze, Tina Dvali, Givi Inanishvili, Teimuraz Mudzhiri, Natela Saradzhishvili and others.

The study of metal and other kinds of artefacts, together with chronological and environmental studies, are usually considered as three of the prime areas of modem archaeological science. At the same time chronological studies are essentially connected with artefact studies. Already in the first half of the 19th century, Christian Thomson based the first archaeological periodisation on the kind of substances used for the artefacts and classified archaeological material by the chronological order as belonging to the Stone, Bronze and Iron Ages. This correlation of time and type of material in use was known even to the old Greeks.

Among all types of artefacts, metal objects in general and tools and weapons in particular, are subjected most of all to innovations - the development of society is considerably connected with their functional abilities. Therefore metallurgical data of the ancient societies - of one and the same geographical zone - have, in contrast to the data of other archaeological sources, such as pottery, architecture, burial habits and others, which are more apt to indicate the genetical relations, a special importance in the establishment of a relative chronology.

The first and second ..radiocarbon revolutions", the use of the radiocarbon dates for the creation of absolute time-scales first and the use of calibrated 14C dates afterwards, provoked the separation of the areas dated by the 14C technique - the northern periphery of the Near East and Europe - from the areas with historical chronologies, /.e. the Near East. The separation of these two regions from each other caused something like a "geological gap" - a "fault line" between them (Renfrew 1973: 104, Figs. 20, 21). The need to fill this gap is an urgent task of the contemporary archaeological studies. Besides the further improvement of the geochronological methods, it demands an intensive stimulation of the research in the field of relative chronology on both parts of the above-mentioned gap, and, as much as it is possible, to connect them.

One of the regions along the ,,fault line" is the Caucasus. Therefore chronological problems of this region have paramount importance in the foundation of a general Near Eastern - East European chronological system; it seems that the Caucasus is an important link in the Old World's chronological chain. The inclusion of the Caucasian chronological evidence into the common Near Eastern - East European chronological system must be preceded by the formation of an all-Caucasian chronological scale.

The Great Caucasian Ridge represents a barrier dividing the Caucasus in two main parts: Transcaucasia or the South Caucasus, and the North Caucasus. At the same time, the role of the pathes crossing it permits to consider the Caucasus as one and the same geo-political zone. Among the Caucasian regions Central Transcaucasia (i.e. Eastern Georgia, old Iberia) holds a key position (Fig. 1) - it is encircled by all other Caucasian regions (Western, Southern and Eastern Transcaucasia, North-Western and North-Eastern Caucasus), and therefore it represents a basis for the elaboration of the all-Caucasian chronological scale (Figs. 2, 3).

67

 

 

G.L. Kavtaradze

List of sites:

1. Alikemektepesi

2. Amiranis Gora

3. Arich

4. ArukhIo/Nakhiduri

5. Arslantepe

6. Baba Dervish

7. Bashkapsaara

8. Berikideebi

9. Chalagan Tepe

10. Dalma Tepe

11. Delisi

12. Didube

13. Dikha Gudzuba

14. Dzagina

15. Gargalar Tepesi

16. Garni

17. Gawra

18. Ghrmakhevistavi

19. Geoy Tepe

20. Gudabertka

21. Guru Dere

22. Gutansar

23. Habuba Kabira

24. Halaf

25. Hassek Höyük

26. Horom

27. llanly Tepe

28. Imiris Gora

29. Ispani

30. Jebel Aruda

31. Karashamb

32. Karaz

33. Karmirberd

34. Khizanaant Gora

35. Khramebi

36. Khramis Didi Gora

37. Kiketi

38. Koreti

39. Kül Tepe

40. Kurban Höyük

41. Kvardzakheti

42. Kvatskhelebi

43. Machara

44. Martqopi

45. Metekhi

46. Misharchai

47. Mokhra Blur

48. Murgul

49. Nakhidrebis Chala

50. Pichori

51. Pulur (Sakyol)

52. Sagebi

53. Sagvardzhile

54. Samsat

55. Satkhe

56. Shomu Tepe

57. Shulaveri

58. Sioni (Aragvi r.)

59. Sioni (Shulaveri r.)

60. Teghut

61. Tell Sotto

62. Tell Qanas

63. Tepecik

64. Tetri Mgvime

65. Toira Tepe

66. Tsartsis Gora

67. Tsitelisopeli

68. Tsopi

69. Tvlepias Tskaro

70. Uch Tepe

71. Ulevari

72. Urbnisi

73. Verin Naver

74. Yanik Tepe

75. Yarim Tepe

76. Zaargash

77. Zeiani

78. Zhinvali

79. Zophkhito

80. Ananauri

81. Ghait Mazi

82. Ghebi

83. Keti

84. Kvemo Sarali

85. Tsikhia Gora

86. Nineveh

87. Taşkun Mevkii

88. Nadarbazevi

89. Irganchai

90. Ozni

91. Kulbakebi

92. Medzhvriskhevi

93. Chagar Bazar

94. Hassuna

95. Ust-Jegutinski

96. Bakurtsikhe

97. Telebi

98. Sachkhere

99. Vanadzor
lOO. Iğdir

As a background for the map a sketched map was used made by P. Wilski in 1909 (v. Lehmann-Haupt 1910).

68

 

 

Metallurgical data for a Central Transcaucasian chronology

B.C.

NORTH-WESTERN AND CENTRAL CAUCASUS

NORTH-EASTERN CAUCASUS

WESTERN GEORGIA

EASTERN GEORGIA

ARMENIA

AZERBAIJAN

 

 

KOBAN

KUBAN CULTURE

KAYAKENT-

NOSIRI IV

LBA STAGE III - EARLY IRON AGE

LATE BRONZE AGE LCHASHEN METSAMOR

KHOJALI-KEDABEK

1000

KNOROCHAI CULTURE

HIATUS (?)

CULTURE

 

 

NOSIRI III

LBA STAGE 11

LBA EARLY STAGE

GRAVES

 

 

STAGE III CAUCASIAN FOOTHIILS C. CULTURE

BATIN-KALE-DAI

 

GINCHI CULTURE

NOSIRI II

TRANSITIONAL STAGE

KIKOVAKAN-TRIAIETI STAGE OF THE TRIALETI CUITURE

MBA STAGE IV

<T>

MBA PERIOD III

NOSIRI I

MBA STAGE III

STAGE II

STAGE I

NORTH-CAUCASIAN C.

MBA PERIOD II

SEVAN -

OZERLIK MBA STAGE II

2000

DIKHA GUDZUBA

 

SACHKHERE

 

 

OCHAMCHIRE

 

SAMELE-KLDE

I

 

 

MACHARA IV SAMELE-KLDE II

 

 

SAMELE- KLDE III

 

 

ANASEULI II

 

ODISHI

 

ANASEULI I

MBA PERIOD I

KARMIRBERD (TAZAKEND) CULTURE

MBA STAGE I

 

 

NOVOSVOBODNAYA STAGE

UST-JEGUTINSK

MAIKOP STAGE

BEDENI CULTURE

& EBA STAGE III

K-A C. STAGE III

K-A C. STAGE II

UCHTEPE,STEPANAKERT KHACHENAGET KURGANS, KUC STAGEIII III

 

 

CHIRKEY (SETTLEMENT)

GEME-TIUBE UPPER L.

EBA STAGE II

KUC STAGE III

3000

GALGALATLI I

GEME-TIUBE I

LOWER LAYER

KURA-ARAXES

CULTURE or

EBA. EBA STAGE I

K-A C. STAGE I

KURA-ARAXES CULTURE STAGE II

3500

MESHOKO LOWER LAYERS

NALCHIK CEMETERY

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

GINCHI LOWER LEVEL

LATE ENEOLITHIC or DIDUBE-KIKETI STAGE OF K-A C.

 

 

 

 

TEGUT

 

 

 

 

SHULAVERI - SHOMU TEPE ENEOLITHIC (or NEOLITHIC) CULTURE

 

ALIKEMEK

TEPESI UPPER LEVELS

 

KIULTEPE I

 

 

 

SHULAVERI - SHOMU TEPE ENEOLITHIC (or NEOLITHIC) CULTURE

SIONI

(THE SHULAVERI RAVINE)

4000

 

 

SHULAVERI - SHOMU TEPE ENEOLITHIC (or NEOLITHIC) CULTURE

 

 

5000

 

 

6000

Fig. 2: Traditional chronological framework for the Eneolithic-Bronze Age cultures of the Caucasus.

 

The Early Farming cultures

The earliest metal artefacts of the Caucasian zone originated from this region - Central Transcaucasia. They appeared in the layers of the settlements of Shulaveri-Shomu Tepe culture of Central and Eastern Transcaucasia - in sites on the middle flow of Kura - Khramis Didi Gora and Arukhlo/Nakhiduri I in South-Eastern Georgia and Gargalar Tepesi in the western part of Azerbaijan. In the lower levels (VII, VI) of Khramis Didi Gora, in a depth of 5.09 m, a semicircular hollow object with pointed ends

 

and four beads were found (Kiguradze 1986: 93f.; Menabde et al. 1980: 34) with following contents: Cu - high, Sn - 0.03, Pb - 0.001, Ag - 0.002, Fe - 0.02 and Cu - high, Sn - 0.001, Ag - 0.002, Fe - 0.01 (Tavadze et al. 1987: 46). In the unstratified layers of Arukhlo/Nakhiduri I, an unidentified object of metal plate was detected (Dzhavakhishvili et al. 1987: 8). A cylindrical bead made of twisted plate was discovered in Gargalar Tepesi (Arazova et al. 1972: 435). According to R. Munchaev, it is similar to the beads excavated by him (together with N. Merpert) in the Hassuna period levels of Yarim Tepe I, in the Sindzhar

 69

 

 

G. L. Kavtaradze

B.C.

NORTH-WESTERN AND CENTRAL CAUCASUS

NORTH-EASTERN CAUCASUS

WESTERN GEORGIA

EASTERN GEORGIA

ARMENIA

AZERBAIJAN

 

 

KOBAN

 

KUBAN

CULTURE

KAYAKENT-KHOROCHAI

NOSIRI IV

EARLY IRON AGE

LATE BRONZE AGE

KHOJALI-KEDABEK CULTURE

1000

 

 

CULTURE

L

BA

PHASE III

NOSIRI III

PHASE II

PHASE I

MBA STAGE IV

 

 

NCC-STAGE III

BELTINSKI CEMETERY GATIN-KALE-DAI

GINCHI

CULTURE

NOSIRI II

MB A

PHASE II

KIKOVAKAN-TRIALETI STAGE

MBA STAGE III

 

 

NCC (CAUCASI-AN FOOTHIILS Cult.) STAGE Il

PHASE I

 

 

SEVAN

KARMIRBERD (TAZAKEHD) CULTURE

OZERLIK CULTURE (MBA STAGE Il)

2000

NOSIRI I

 

 

E

 

B

 

A

PHASE III B

TRIALETI Cult.

A

 

 

 

MIDDLE BRONZE AGE STAGE I

 

 

NORTH-CAUCASIAN Cult. STAGE l

DIKHA GUDZUBA I SACHKHERE

 

 

 

OCHAMCHIRE

 

SAMELEKLDE I

 

 

 

 

 

MACHARA IV SAMELE KLDE II

 

 

SAMELE KLDE III

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ANASEULI II ODISHI

 

 

B

EBA PHASE II

BEDENI Cult. A

K-A Cult.

STAGE III

 

 

STEPANAKERT KHACHENAGET KURGANS

K-A C. STAGE III

^

 

 

NOVOTITAROVSK.NOVOSVOBODN. STAGE

UST-JEGUTINSK

MAIKOP STAGE

CHIRKEY (SETTLEMENT)

GEME-TIUBE UPPER

EBA PHASE I C

3000

GALGALATLI I GEME-TIUBE I LOWER LAYER

K-A Culi.

STAGE II

UCH TEPE KURGANS

K-A C. STAGE II

 

 

EBA PHASE I B

A

 

 

MESHOKO LOWER LAYERS

NALCHIK CEMETERY

 

 

 

GINCHI LOWER LEVEL

K-A Cult.

STAGE I

KURA-ARAXES Cult. STAGE I

4000

LATE ENEOLITHIC STAGE (K-A C.)

 

 

 

TEGUT

 

 

 

 

 

SHULAVERI-SHOMU TEPE

CULTURE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ALIKEMEKTEPESI UPPER LEVELS

 

 

KIUL TEPE I

 

 

SHULAVERI-SHOMU TEPE

CULTURE

 

 

 

 

MIDDLE ENEOLITHIC (SIONI)

 

 

 

 

 

SHULAVERI-SHOMU TEPE

CULTURE

 

 

 

 

 

5000

6000

 

Fig. 3: Proposed chronological framework for the Eneolithic-Bronze Age cultures of the Caucasus. Figs. 2 and 3 were presented at the Soviet - American archaeological Symposium held in Tbilisi - Sighnaghi, Georgia, in September - October 1988.

 valley, Iraq (Munchaev 1982; cf. Merpert & Munchaev 1977: 157, Fig. 1.4.) (Fig. 4.1). These levels of Yarim Tepe are dated to the first half of the sixth millennium B.C. (Porada et al. 1992: vol. l: 81-83; vol. II: 94, Fig. 2).

All Transcaucasian sites mentioned above belong to the final stage of the Shulaveri-Shomu Tepe culture according to the periodization by Georgian archaeologists (Kiguradze 1986: 100). The dating of Shulaveri-Shomu Tepe culture is based on radiocarbon dates. According to the calibrated 14C dates, this culture belongs mainiy to the sixth millennium.

The 14C dates of this culture are: Shulaveris Gora, 0.2 m, 5213-4460 cal B.C. (TB-15), 2.4 m, 5677-5330 cal B.C. (TB-16). Repeated analyses of the same sample (TB-16) are: TB-72, 5588-5482 cal B.C. and SOAN-1292, 5064-4832 cal B.C. Shulaveris Gora, 1.6 m, 5621-5522 cal B.C. (LE-1099), 0.1 m, 5416-5077 cal B.C. (LE-1100); Imiris Gora, from the levels IV-I, 5332-5077 cal B.C. (TB-27); ArukhIo/Nakhiduri l, upper strata, 5473-5384 cal B.C. (TB-92), level II, 5671-5584 cal B.C. (TB-277), lower strata, 6007-5886 cal B.C. (TB-300), level VI, 5677-5585 cal B.C. (TB-309); Khramis Didi Gora, level V, 5560-5386 cal B.C. (LJ-3270), middle strata, 5433-5291

70

 

 

Metallurgical data for a Central Transcaucasian chronology

cal B.C. (TB-301), 5.4 m, 5446-5342 cal B.C. (TB-322); Gargalar Tepesi, lower strata, 5200-4944 cal B.C. (LE-1084), lowest stratum, 5662-5579 cal B.C. (LE-1083); Toira Tepe, 2 m, 5208-4839 cal B.C. (TF-372); Shomu Tepe, 1 m, 6413-6221 cal B.C. (LE-631). Calibrated 14C dates partially solve the discrepancy between the Near Eastern parallels dated to the seventh-sixth millennia and the uncalibrated 14C dates of the Shulaveri-Shomu Tepe culture which were largely placed in the fifth millennium (all the dates used here are obtained with one sigma, v. Stuiver & Reimer 1993: 215-230). We bear in mind the assumption about the special closeness of this culture in all stages of its existence with the Hassuna culture on the one hand and with the Umm Dabaghiah-Tell Sotto culture of the Pre-Halafian period on the other.

It seems that the decorations of the Umm-Dabaghiah pottery are not as analogous to the ornaments of the Arukhlo/Nakhiduri I, as J. Mellaart thought (Mellaart 1975: 304), but to the pottery of an earlier site - Imiris Gora (cf. Kavtaradze 1981: Table I and II). As to some Georgian archaeologists, a similarity can also be observed between small figurines of the upper levels of Khramis Didi Gora - a site which belongs to the final stage of the Shulaveri-Shomu Tepe culture - and similar figurines which were discovered in the layers of the Hassuna, Samarra and Halaf cultures (Glonti et al. 1975: 97). All these Mesopotamian cultures and sites are dated mainly to the sixth millennium, and it is obvious that the Shulaveri-Shomu Tepe culture from the point of view of typological and chronological data is quite comparable with them - the same stage of their development can be stated without any doubt.

Although all metal artefacts of the Shulaveri-Shomu Tepe culture originate from the building layers of its later stage, it seems possible to consider this culture as mainly Early Eneolithic (Chalcolithic) because of the obvious signs - observed by some specialists - the degradation of flint industry and impoverishment of the sets of stone tools, together with a lack of certain categories of artefacts, e.g. geometrical microliths as a mass series from its layers known up till now as the lowest (Chubinishvili & Chelidze 1978: 66; Chelidze 1979: 30).

We must also take into account the favourable conditions existing in Transcaucasia for metallurgical activities. There, in the mountains, accumulations of the products of oxidation zone were formed; the layers of copper on the surface could have satisfied the needs of early metalworkers. Exactly the southern region of Central Transcaucasia is supposed to be the basis of raw material for the development of initial copper metallurgy in the Caucasus.

Although there were requirements available for the development of local metalworking, nothing definite can be said about the first steps of metallurgy in the Caucasus, and particularly in Central Transcaucasia. It is supposed that metal artefacts of the Early Farming culture were made of local arsenic-copper ores, but it is not clear how the early metallurgists extracted the ore.

More than thirty years ago, in the Marneuli district, south of Tbilisi, near the village of Tsitelisopeli, traces of an ancient working place with lumps of slags and large grooved stone hammers were discovered (Lordkipanidze 1989: 104, note 11). These objects are quite similar to the well-known hammers (chisels) found in Arukhlo/Nakhiduri I, Kül Tepe I and other early sites. Such chisels are thought to have been used for the extraction of ore, but an exact dating of this working place cannot be considered as finally solved, because similar tools were also characteristic of the Kura-Araxes culture of the fourth and third millennia (Chubinishvili 1971: 30; Kushnareva & Chubinishvili 1970: 113, Fig. 5, 19).

Thirty years ago, it was thought that metalworking was introduced into Transcaucasia only at the time of the Kura-Araxes culture from the Near East. Today the same questions are raised in connection with the Early Farming culture of Transcaucasia. We must take into account the metal artefacts of the South Transcaucasian Early Farming sites (e.g., Kül Tepe, Teghut etc.) too, which mainly belong to a time rather later than the Central and Eastern Transcaucasian Shulaveri-Shomu Tepe culture, and because of that there is no sufficient reason to unite it with the latter.

In Central Transcaucasia, the culture of this period, tentatively referred by us to the Middle Eneolithic Age, is represented by Tsopi, Sioni of the Shulaveri ravine, Delisi, the lowest level of Berikldeebi, sites of the Aragvi ravine and the Alazani valley. This culture is intermediate between the Shulaveri-Shomu Tepe and the earliest materials of the Kura-Araxes culture and displays a certain similarity with the preceding and subsequent cultures.

The metal artefacts supposedly of this period were detected in Delisi (northwestern part of Tbilisi). They represent bronze pins and an awl which contain, together with other elements, up to 4% tin. Apart from the chemical composition of such early artefacts dated even by the traditional chronology to the end of the fifth - beginning of the fourth millennia (Abesadze & Bakhtadze 1987: 51), certain doubts arise concerning the circumstances of their discovery.

Unfortunately we have only one 14C date for this period from Zhinvali in the Aragvi ravine, 5206-4807 cal B.C. (TB-326). Therefore, in order to date the Middle Eneolithic culture of Central Transcaucasia, an attempt can be made by taking into consideration the data from contemporary sites of other parts of Transcaucasia, which at the same time are richer in metal inventory. E.g. in the lowest level of Kül Tepe I of Nakhichevan, considered as contemporary with the final stage of the Shulaveri-Shomu Tepe culture, seven copper artefacts: a small quatrilateral piercer, a rhomboic copper plate

71

 

 

G.L. Kavtaradze

object (maybe an arrowhead), two beads and three fragments of unidentified objects were discovered (Fig. 4.2-5). All of them, except the quatrilateral piercer, were found in the depth of 18-17 m and contained an admixture of arsenic; the piercer, which apart from arsenic also has nickel (1.6%), was discovered in a depth of 15.05 m (Abibulaev 1963: 161f, Fig. 4; id. 1982: 78f; Selimkhanov & Torosiyan 1969: 230).

It was supposed that because of the absence of nickel-copper deposits in the Caucasus this object was imported to Kül Tepe from the Near East (Kushnareva & Chubinishvili 1970: 120, 129), but nickel is characteris-tic of easternmost Georgian, Kakhetian, artefacts of later times (Abesadze 1980: 148). The fact that in the depth of 19 m of Kül Tepe l, a pot, typical of the Halaf culture, was found, is usually considered as an indication of the connection of the eneolithic population of Transcaucasia with the Near East.

We must underline the fact that in the same lower levels of Kül Tepe l, in a depth of 16.85-20.84, of all the eneolithic layers between 12.18 and 21.1 m, together with Halafian Imports, sherds of the Dalma painted wäre of the Solduz valley of North-West Iran were found (Munchaev 1975:128f). The Dalma culture undoubtedly is contemporary with Ubaid 3 (Voigt 1992: 158, 175), and it seems that the lower levels of Kül Tepe l must be dated to the period, when the end of the Halaf culture was slightly overlapped with the Early Northern Ubaid, that means to the beginning of the fifth millennium. We can consider this date as a terminus post quem for the later layers of Kül Tepe l as well as for the Middle Eneolithic period of Transcaucasia, and at the same time as a terminus ante quem for the Shulaveri-Shomu Tepe culture or the Early Eneolithic.

The 14C date for Kül Tepe l from a depth of 18.2 m is 4763-4506 cal B.C. (LE-477), somewhat later than the 14C date of the Dalma culture - 4947-4782 cal B.C. (P-503). The stratigraphy of Dalma Tepe is usefui from the point of view of the chronology of Transcaucasian sites. As it was observed, if the painted pottery typical of the lower levels of this site was represented in the Kül Tepe l and Mil-Karabagh sites, then the Impressed Ware, typical of the Late Dalma, was found in llanly Tepe and the sites of Misharchai and Guru Dere l in the steppe of Mughan, Azerbaijan (Munchaev 1975: 128f). At the same time, the Late Dalma Impressed Ware provides a chronological link with the Early Siahbid phase in the Kermanshah region and it is not represented in the Late Siahbid deposits (Voigt 1992: 158, 175). Sherds of Dalma Impressed Ware are also found at the Ubaid sites as Abada and Kheit Qasim in the Hamrin and Yorgan Tepe near Kirkuk. On the other hand, at Dalma Tepe sherds characteristic of Tepe Gawra XVI (or of the Ubaid 3 period) are represented (Voigt 1992:175). Because of that, a dating of the layers of Dalma Tepe and the Transcaucasian sites containing Early and Late Dalma Ware in the first half and middle of the fifth millennium B.C., can be proposed.

From East Transcaucasian sites metal artefacts were found in Chalagan Tepe (near Agdam) - two copper pins in the burials and an awl in a building level (Dzhavakhishvili et a/. 1987: 8). The 14C date of this site is 5411 -5259 cal B.C. (TB-318). Also in Azerbaijan, in the steppe of Mughan, in Alikemektepesi, a copper bead and an awl were found (Dzhavakhishvili et al. 1987: 8). This site is important from the chronological point of view, because in the lower levels material comparable to the Kül Tepe l was discovered, and in the upper levels pottery of the North Ubaid type, similar to the ex-amples found at the Armenian site Teghut (Narimanov 1980: 93, 102f, 271; cf. Munchaev 1975: 120). This fact has a special importance for defining the chronological Position of the Central Transcaucasian Middle Eneolithic because in Alikemektepesi, in the upper levels, aside from pottery of the North Ubaid type, sherds with combed surface and burnished interior (Narimanov 1980: 78, 208) like the pottery from Sioni, and quite un-known in Kül Tepe l, were found.

Several metal objects were discovered in Teghut, Ararat valley: a knife (Fig. 4.6), a drill and two fragments of quadrilateral awls. All of them are made of arsenical copper with an admixture of other minor components. The knife contained 5.4% of arsenic, a piece of awl 3.6% (Selimkhanov & Mareshal 1966: 145f, Table 3). The fact that certain types of copper artefacts, as weapons and tools, had for the time concerned a rather high content of arsenic, was considered as an indication of the existence of artificial alloys (Gevorkiyan 1980: 37; Narimanov & Dzafarov 1988: 22; Kushnareva 1993: 205), but recently it was suggested that in a variety of areas the real development of alloying probably only appeared with the use of tin-bronze (Northover 1989:117).

The difference of admixtures in the content of the Transcaucasian metal inventory usually is explained by various types of ores. For the southern part of Transcaucasia, in Opposition to the northern regions, the deposits of Dzhulfa-Zangezur, Madzor and Kafan were possibly used (Dzhaparidze 1989: 229).

In the opinion of some archaeologists, a new ethno-cultural element - the group of the tribes of the Ubaid culture - spread at that time to the Caucasus (cf. Narimanov 1991: 32). But in this respect we must recall H. Nissen's Suggestion about the explanation of the wide distribution of the Ubaid-like pottery with the introduction of the tournette or „slow-wheel" for the manufacture of pots (Nissen 1988: 46). We must also take into consideration the possibility of an interconnection between the manufacture of the highiy fired Ubaid pottery and the real smelting procedure of copper ore, attainable only at a temperature higher than 1100 °C (cf. Pernicka 1990: 46, 117).

72

 

 

Metallurgical data for a Central Transcaucasian chronology

 

Fig. 4:1 - Copper bead from Yarim Tepe I (Merpert & Munchaev 1977: Fig. 1-4); 2,3,4,5 - Copper inventory of Kül Tepe I (Munchaev 1982: Table XLII, 19-22); 6 - Copper knife from Teghut (ibid: Table XLVIII, 11).

At the same time, it seems possible that the Tepe Gawra XI A - Amuq F cultural complex had hereditary ties, though perhaps not direct ones, with the Transcaucasian Middle Eneolithic, particularly with the materials of its later stage, represented e.g. in Teghut. Some kind of similarity can be observed in the pottery and figurines between Tepe Gawra XI A and Teghut. Beside the rectangular houses, exclusively characteristic of Tepe Gawra XII, in the subsequent XI A level also round

houses appeared (Tobler 1950: Tables VI, VIII), typical of the Early Farming culture of Transcaucasia. It is interesting that the population of the XII and XI A levels used in Tepe Gawra various types of copper ores. The copper of the later level differs in the high content of arsenic together with some other components (nickel etc.) (Tobler 1950: 212).

As to Western Transcaucasia (i.e. Western Georgia, old Colchis), it is not quite clear which copper deposits were used there. The first copper artefacts of this region, hooks from Sagvardzhile, ascribed to the Eneolithic period, resemble the forms of bone examples. At the same site also a quadrilateral awl, made of pure copper by cold forging, was discovered (Lordkipanidze 1989: 67). In the eneolithic level of Tetri Mgvime (near Kutaisi) a copper dart or a leaf-like knife, which contained up to 0.7 % of arsenic, was found (Abesadze & Bakhtadze:1987: 51).

The 14C date of Machara IV (Abkhazia) is 4754-4495 cal B.C. (LE-1347).

In the following Early Bronze Age the Western Transcaucasian metal inventory was manufactured already of arsenic-copper alloys. Moulds of axes were discovered in Ispani (near Kobuleti) and also in Pichori (near Gali) of the later type; in both sites together with other signs of metallurgical activities.

The Kura-Araxes culture

The remains comprising the material of the early stage of the Kura-Araxes culture, including the Didube-Kiketi and Sioni (the lori river valley)-Gremi groups, referred to the Late Eneolithic period of Central Transcaucasia, have an extremely poor metal inventory. In Central Transcaucasia the Kura-Araxes culture is presumably dated mainly to the fourth millennium, and apart from the Late Eneolithic it comprised the first phase of the Early Bronze Age and partially, in the first quarter of the third millennium, also the second phase of the same period.

The best known sites with fixed stratigraphy of the Kura-Araxes culture of Central Transcaucasia are Khizanaant Gora, Kvatskhelebi (near Kareli) and Tsikhia Gora (near Kaspi) in the central and Amiranis Gora (Akhaltsikhe) in the south-western parts of the region. We have a few 14C dates for this period: 3644-3376 cal B.C. (LE-157) from Kvatskhelebi C 1; 3636-3356 cal B.C. (TB-831) (this date, TB-831, 2900 ±110 B.C., is published with a half-life of 5730 ± 40 year in Makharadze 1994: 61) from Tsikhia Gora, level B 2 of the final period of the Kura-Araxes culture of Shida Kartli, and 3790-3373 cal B.C. (TB-4) and 3630-3048 cal B.C. (TB-9) from Amiranis Gora. The dates from Amiranis Gora are generally in agreement with the 14C date received from the lowest layer of the same Kura-Araxes culture in Pulur (Sakyol), Eastern Anatolia: 3500-3336 cal B.C. (P-2040). Other dates of the latter site are: level IX, 2890-2409 cal B.C. (M-2173), level VIII, 3346-2888 cal B.C. (M-2172),

73

 

 

G.L. Kavtaradze

level VI, 2866-2203 cal B.C. (M-2171), level V, 3092-2669 cal B.C. (M-2170). It is interesting that the earliest „Kura-Araxes" material of Pulur (Sakyol) reveals traits typical of Amiranis Gora (Kavtaradze 1983: 89f).

The more or less contemporary Kül Tepe II 14C date should also be taken into consideration: 3766-3543 cal B.C. (LE-163). Recently three dates were received from the AMS Facility at the University of Arizona for Satkhs, the site which is situated in Dzhavakheti (8 km northeast of Nino Tsminda), i.e. in the southeast direction from Amiranis Gora and Kura-Araxes layers of which have ceramic parallels with Mokhra Blur (Ararat valley), Kvatskhelebi and Amiranis Gora: 3072-2916 cal B.C. (AA-7768), 3343-3043 cal B.C. (AA-12853) and 3301-2926 cal B.C. (AA-12854) (Isaak et a/. 1994: 26, 28f). One date was obtained from a level associated with Early Bronze Age materials of the north-west Armenian site Horom in the Shirak valley: 3371-3136 cal B.C. (AA-7767) and two dates were from a tomb of the same site: 3341-3048 cal B.C. (AA-10191) and 3990-3823 cal B.C. (AA-11130). All three vessels of this tomb reveal in the opinion of the excavators relatively early forms of the Kura-Araxes culture (Badaljan et al. 1994: 14,Table Illc).

Special attention must be paid to the first 14C date of Amiranis Gora 3790-3373 cal B.C. (TB-4), because it was obtained from the charcoal of the metallurgical workshop which belonged to the earliest building horizon of Amiranis Gora (Kushnareva & Chubinishvili 1970: 114) (Fig. 5.1). Undoubtedly this fact, together with the other data, is an evidence of a division of the metallurgical production in the extractive and processing branches.

It should be also mentioned that two 14C dates were received from the copper smelting place in Murgul (near Borçka, the northeasternmost part of modern Turkey), immediately south-west of the southwestern part of Central Transcaucasia, that means of the region where Amiranis Gora is situated. These dates are: 3338-3037 cal B.C. (HD 12679-12254) and 3638-3375 cal B.C. (HD 12680-12234) (Wagner et al. 1989: 657). In Eastern Anatolia, at Değirmentepe and Norşuntepe, the traces of metallurgical activities are dated already by the Chalcolithic period (Esin 1989: 137; Hauptmann 1982: 59f; Zwicker 1980: 17).

In Amiranis Gora an arched kiln of stone had been constructed which contained heavily grounded technical charcoal, necessary for achieving high temperatures. The supplies of such charcoal, from which abovemen-tioned 14C date stems, were stored in a big clay vessel, discovered in the floor level of the same workshop. There were also clay tuyeres - a real confirmation of the smelting procedure - as well as a clay mould for a pig (Chubinishvili 1971: 57f) (Fig. 5.2-4). Clay tuyeres were found, too, in Kül Tepe II and Misharchai (Makhmudov et al. 1968: 19, Fig. 4,2) (Fig. 5.7).

A furnace of another type was discovered in Baba-Dervish II, Azerbaijan. There, on the periphery of the settlement, three oval pits - the foundation of the melting kilns with vaults of clay above - were found. Two of these furnaces had special openings with a ditch - an evidence of the technique of blowing (Fig. 5.5). This circumstance is confirmed by the fact that there also clay tuyeres were found (Fig. 5.6). Another remainder of the smelting process at that site was discovered in the form of technological waste - slags (Kushnareva & Chubinishvili 1970:114f, Fig. 40; Chubinishvili 1971; 102f).

Slags were also found in Khizanaant Gora, Kül Tepe II and Garni (Armenia). In these sites traces of metal on the walls of vessels, ladles, crucibles and moulds of f'ire-proof clay for the pouring of the liquid metal were discovered, too (Kushnareva & Chubinishvili 1970:114, Fig. 40, 17) (Fig. 6.13). In the building layers of Khizanaant Gora, a sickle was found, the forging of which was not finished (Kushnareva & Chubinishvili 1970:114).

In Kvatskhelebi C 1 as well as in Garni, Shengavit, Kül Tepe and Baba-Dervish II casting moulds of axes were discovered (Kushnareva & Chubinishvili 1970: Fig. 40, 3-5, 9) (Fig. 5.8; 6.1-4). The clay moulds to cast special bars in the shape of little ingots in Gudabertka (near Gori) and Iğdir (eastern Anatolia) were found (Kushnareva & Chubinishvili 1970: Fig. 40,13, 14) (Fig. 6.11,12).

The main part of the metal inventory of the Kura-Araxes culture was made of arsenical copper. The content of arsenic in alloys reaches on average from 2 to 8% (Tavadze et al. 1987: 45). The distribution of the lead admixtures in the greater part of the copper inventory of this period indicates in the opinion of Georgian archaeometallurgists that ores were used which contained natural arsenic admixture. Such natural alloys were possibly obtained from polymetallic ores, rich in elements (Abesadze & Bakhtadze 1987: 52). In the Caucasus the copper deposits are of the polymetallic type which contain from 3 to 10% and more the so-called usefui components - arsenic, antimony, tin, lead, zinc, iron, nickel, silver etc. Among these elements arsenic is mainly associated with copper, which occurs in the territory of Central Transcaucasia in the form of realgar and auripigment types (cf. Abesadze & Bakhtadze 1987: 52).

It is supposed that at the time of the Kura-Araxes culture, comparatively easily smeltable polymetallic-arsenical ores were used. The metal artefacts of this period did not contain sulphur, a fact which possibly indicates the use of the carbonized and oxidized upper layers of copper deposits (cf. Rapp 1989:107-110). The spectral analyses of the artefacts of the Kura-Araxes culture and their correlation with the composition of the copper ores of the Great and Little Caucasus demonstrate that at that time metal was gained by the process of straight reduction (Tavadze et al. 1987: 45).

74

 

 

Metallurgical data for a Central Transcaucasian chronology

Fig. 5:

1 - Reconstruction of Room III, or copper-melting workshop, of Amiranis Gora (Chubinishvili 1971: Table XXIV, 1); 2 - Melting kiln of stone (ibid.: Table XXIV, 2); 3 - Inventory of Room III (ibid.: Table XXIV, 4); 4 - Fragment of clay tuyere (ibid.: Table XXIV, 3); 5 - Copper-melting kiln of Baba-Dervish (Makhmudov et al. 1968: Fig. 3); 6 - Clay tuyere from Baba Dervish (ibid.: Fig. 4,1); 7 - Clay tuyere from Misharchai (ibid.: Fig. 4,2); 8 - Mould from Baba Dervish (ibid.: Fig. 4,3).

75

 

 

G.L. Kavtaradze

Together with arsenic, various amounts also of other ore admixtures were transmitted in the metal, since the recovery of them was conditioned by the process of smelting. Therefore it was supposed that all the content of these admixtures were originally in the ore (Abesadze & Bakhtadze 1987: 51 f). But it is quite obvious that ancient metallurgists in Transcaucasia were intentionally choosing copper with high or low content of arsenic, according to the functional destination of the artefacts; e.g. for ornaments from 7 to 22.7%, for tools and weapons much less, otherwise their functional abilities would be significanly low (cf. Kushnareva 1993: 235). In this connection it is worthwhile to note that the copper inventory of the late fourth millennium hoard of Nahal Mishmar (Palestine) with a very high concentration of arsenic and antimony is explained by the smelting of selected ores and not of artificially manufactured alloys (cf. Pernicka 1990: 48, 50). At the same time, copper alloys with an arsenic content ranging from 3 to 10 % are considered as to be gained by the direct addition of arsenic (Palmieri et al. 1993: 574).

It is interesting that the metal artefacts of various functional use do not differ from each other by their composition in the Kura-Araxes culture. Such a divergence began to exist only in the later part of this period, when some ornaments were manufactured out of high arsenic copper, with the content of arsenic exceeding 10 % and up to 20%: e.g. biconical beads and a rhomboic pendant from Urbnisi, curl-rings from Dzagina (Tavadze et al. 1987: 45; Abesadze & Bakhtadze 1987: 52). In such cases it is possible to suppose that arsenic was intentionally added to increase the melting ability of copper and to obtain an alloy with a silver-like colour. Some artefacts have high amounts of antimony and lead (Tavadze 1987: 45).

Genuine silver ornaments (pendants, spirals, curl-rings) from the territory of Georgia were found in the earliest layers of the advanced stage of Kura-Araxes culture at Amiranis Gora and Kvatskhelebi (Dvali 1974: 62).

In the later period of the Kura-Araxes culture, partially contemporary with the second phase of the Early Bronze Age or the Early Kurgan period of Central Transcaucasia, together with the primitive types of artefacts rather complicated shapes and of various types began to appear in the inventory: flat axes and shaft-hole axes with downward directed butts, spearheads, daggers, bayonet-like weapons, chisels, awls, tools for farming, sickles, pins with T (crutch)-, loop- and double-spiral-shaped heads, axe-adzes, earrings, pendants, bracelets, rings, curl-rings, beads, a diadem (Figs. 6, 7,10) (see below).

From the metallurgical point of view particular interest was given to tools of combined type - an axe-adze which was uniting a wedge-shaped axe with a long beak stretched on the butt. This artefact was found in sites of south-eastern Georgia - in the region rich in metal deposits. Therefore these artefacts were considered as tools used for the obtaining of ore (Lordkipanidze 1991: 50). The clay casting mould for a flat axe from the level C of Kvatskhelebi is similar to the axe from Sachkhere and has early parallels in Near Eastern and East European sites (Dzhavakhishvili & Glonti 1962: 58, Table 4, N 489; Kavtaradze 1983: 85).

It is a widespread view that the metals from the Transcaucasian ore deposits together with certain types of metal artefacts were distributed in many regions of the Ancient World from the early stages of metallurgical activities. Impulses coming from the Transcaucasian metallurgical centre through the northern Caucasus penetrated wide territories, from the river Volga to the Dniepr and even farther, reaching the Carpathian mountains (Chernykh 1992: 91, 159). In the southern direction metal of Transcaucasian provenance was widely distributed in Anatolia and Syria-Palestine. In the opinion of archaeometallurgists, the research on Anatolian metallurgy should be integrated with the location of both - copper ore deposits and arsenic occurences in the Caucasian regions (Palmieri et al. 1993: 591). It seems that Caucasian metallic ores and metallurgical traditions were used in the Near East at the time when the Transcaucasian population, bearers of the Kura-Araxes cultural traditions, were spread there (e.g. in Geoy Tepe, north-western Iran (cf. Burton Brown 1951)). They migrated in most cases to the south, west, south-west and south-east, from the Transcaucasian homeland of this culture, to southern Palestine, central Anatolia and central Iran. Along with the pottery, metal, obsidian and characteristic architecture and graves, a strong indicator of this culture, a peculiar type of hearth, was distributed in far off lands.

This event chronologically is placed in the early third millennium, but it seems that the second half of fourth millennium was the time of initial penetration of certain elements of the Transcaucasian Kura-Araxes culture and possibly also that of the population - bearers of this culture - in the northern part of the Near East.

It was stated that the metal artefacts from the hoard of the East Anatolian Late Chalcolithic site of Arslantepe (Malatya) VI A hoard (from A 113 Room of Building III) do not belong to the local copper deposits, as they have high arsenic admixtures (up to 4 %) and no trace of nickel, but might rather be of a northern provenance (Burney 1993: 314f). Besides the tradition of arsenic-bronze metallurgy, the northeastern direction is indicated also by twelve poker-butted, leaf-shaped spearheads with a cylindroid mid-rib and at the same time containing 1.3-4.3% of arsenic (Palmieri 1981: 108f, Fig. 4), found together with nine swords and a quadruple spiral piaque of the same hoard. They have dose parallels in the northwestern part of Central Transcaucasia by the similar copper spearhead found in Tsartsis Gora (Sachkhere) (Kuftin 1949: 74, Table LIX) (Fig. 7.3)

76

 

 

Metallurgical data for a Central Transcaucasian chronology

Fig. 6:1-46 (Chubinishvili 1971: Table XXV). 1, 29, 31, 35, 40, 41 - Kvatskhelebi; 2, 21 - Garni; 3, 5, 6, 20, 32, 34 - Kül Tepe II; 4 - Shengavit; 7, 8, 22, 30 - Amiranis Gora; 9 - Mughan; 10 - Geoy Tepe; 11 - Gudabertka; 12 - Iğdir; 13 - Khizanaant Gora; 14 - Kuymri (Leninakan, North-Western Armenia); 15, 38 - Kulbakebi (near Gori); 16 - Marneuli (south of Tbilisi); 17 - Zemo Avchala (north of Tbilisi); 18 - Medzhvriskhevi (east of Gori); 19 - Karaz; 21 - Garni, 23, 27 - Dzagina; 24, 25, 46 - Koreti; 26 - Sachkhere; 28 - Beshtasheni (Trialeti); 36, 45 - Tsartsis Gora; 37 - Akhaltsikhe; 39 - Trialeti; 42-44 - Elar (near Erevan).

77

 

 

G.L.Kavtaradze

Fig. 7: 1, 2 - Pins with T-shaped heads from Nacherkezevi (Sachkhere) and Tsartsis Gora (Dzhaparidze 1961: Table IX, 2,3); - Spearhead from Tsartsis Gora (ibid: Table XVI,2); 4 - Shaft-hole axes with downward directed butts from barrows of Sachkhere (ibid: Table XVI, 3-6); 5 - Pin with double-spiral-shaped head from Koreti (ibid., Table XIX, 1); 6, 12, 15, 16 - Daggers from Koreti, Tskhinvali (north of Gori) and Nacherkezevi (ibid: Tables XIX, 2, XVI, 12, IX, 5,6); 7, 11,14 - Pins with loop-shaped heads from Koreti (ibid: Tables IX,5, XIX, 6, 12); 8 - Chisel from Sachkhere (ibid: XVI, 8); 9 - Flat axe from Sachkhere (ibid: Table XVI, 9); 10 - Gold ring from Tsartsis Gora (ibid: XVI, 10); 13 - Fragment of pin from Koreti (ibid: Table XVIII, 1).

78

 

 

Metallurgical data for a Central Transcaucasian chronology

which likewise contained no nickel but 4.66% of arsenic and 0.30% of antimony (Table 1, no. 21) and which must be dated by the period following to the Central Transcaucasian Kura-Araxes or contemporary with its latest levels. To the character and typology of the Arslantepe hoard, important chronological implications are given for the evaluation of the origin of Anatolian and North Syrian metallurgies (Palmieri 1981: 109; Yakar 1985: 276). Some scientists believe that metal-work was a major item of trade through Arslantepe (e.g. Burney1993: 314).

It is quite probable that the economical importance of Arslantepe VI A as well as of such Late Uruk enclaves and outposts as Hassek Höyük 5, Habuba Kabira-Tell Qanas, Jebel Aruda and Tepecik 3 was the reason of their violent destruction by the intruders from the north - the bearers of the Kura-Araxes culture. This phenomenon has a parallel in the western part of central Iran by the destruction of the Late Uruk colony in Godin Tepe V, which ceased its existence as the result of the invasion of the Kura-Araxes population east of the site, in the Hamadan valley, cutting off commercial routes to the east. After a short interval of time Godin IV emerged, with the material of the Kura-Araxes culture of the Yanik Tepe I type (Weiss & Young Jr. 1975: 15).

It seems that in the second half of the fourth millennium in the northern part of the Near East one and the same phenomenon - the destruction of the sites, revealing traits typical of Late Uruk period by a population of northern provenance, characterized by the red-black, hand-made burnished pottery, the high-arsenic copper metallurgy and certain types of metal artefacts, the ,,wattle and daub" houses and the particular type of hearthes - took place.

The intrusive character of the Kura-Araxes culture in this area became quite obvious after the exposure of the stratigraphical sequence, documented at Arslantepe, where layers containing the material of this culture interrupted the preceding and following local development of the horizons with the Reserved-Slip pottery (Palmieri 1985: 208).

It was emphasized that copper artefacts with a high arsenical content, cast in open and two-piece moulds, appeared in the Elâzığ region of Turkey after Kura-Araxes (,,Early Transcaucasian") groups became the culturally dominating factor in the Jocal" population at the beginning of the Early Bronze Age (Yakar 1985: 276). Besides the Red-Black Ware of the East Anatolian type, the Kura-Araxes provenance can also be proved by the architectural data of the Arslantepe VI B layers subsequent to the Arslantepe VI A: there a double line of postholes was found, indicating the building technique typical of the Kura-Araxes culture (Palmieri 1984: 71-78). It is difficult not to agree that the appearance of the VI B1 period hut village upon the razed ruins of Arslantepe VI A epitomizes the recession of the Late Uruk world almost contemporary with the expansion of the Transcaucasian groups (Conti & Persiani 1993: 406). This fact gives us the very convenient possibility to date the beginning of intrusion of the Transcaucasian population in the Malatya-Elâzığ area by the Late Uruk period. It is not quite clear if the first appearance of impulses coming from the Kura-Araxes culture to the territories south of the Taurus range were also contemporary with the Late Uruk period.

At Kurban Hoyuk (Karababa basin, north-west of Urfa, on the left bank of the Euphrates), in the Late Chalcolithic VI period, which equates with Tell Judeidah (Amuq) phases F-F/G sequence, three fragments of Kura-Araxes pottery (,,Karaz Ware") were discovered. They all are diagnostic and consist of a dense brownish clay with varying amounts of fine grit and chaff tempering. One of them is uniformly black, but two have bichrome surfaces, with orange interior and black exterior (Algaze 1990: 260, 268, Table 42, G,F,H; Helwing 1996: 75). Also all of them resemble by their shape the Kura-Araxes pottery (cf. Sagona 1984: Forms 81, 82 Fig. 36, 2,5,6, Form 34 Fig. 21, 6). There are indications of the long existence of the Karaz Ware in the neighbourhood of the Karababa region, because in the subsequent Early Bronze Age (V and IV) levels of Kurban Höyük a few fragments of the same ware were also discovered (Algaze 1990: 289, 333, Table 90, J,K.). These finds agree with the long existence of a population of Transcaucasian origin in the regions adjacent to the upper flow of the Euphrates.

Single sherds of Karaz Ware were also found in other Late Uruk sites in this area, in the levels of Samsat, ca. 7 km upstream from Kurban Höyük, but on the right bank of the river (excavated by Özğüç), and at Jebel Aruda, a mountaintop settlement which appears to be an administrative and religious center of Late Uruk settlements of the area (D. Surenhagen, pers. comm.).

A few sherds of 'Karaz Ware' were found in Hassek 5 of the Late Uruk period on the left bank of the Euphrates (near Urfa). That these finds of 'Karaz Ware' were not accidental, as formerly believed, becomes obvious by the discovery of a red-slipped pot with four handles, a typical product of Uruk Ware (Fig. 8,1) next to an ovoid pot with a plastic chevron design (Fig. 8.2) in Room 2 of Building 2 from the same level 5 (Hoh 1981: 5; Behm-Blancke 1983: Fig. 5; id. 1984: 38; Hoh 1984: 68, Table 17, 3, 4; Helwing 1996: 74, 87, 92). The colour of the latter varies from dark-grey to brown-grey and is characteristic of the East Anatolian-Transcaucasian black-burnished pottery with the exact parallel at Tepecik 3 (east of Elâzığ, a Late Uruk outpost) (Esin 1979: Table 57, 6, Table 61, 12; id. 1982: Table 73, 8, Table 74, 11). The plastic chevron decorations are typical of the Kura-Araxes pottery (Fig. 8.9,10) (Sagona 1984: 78). The relief representations of the stag or of its horns on the central part of the vessels except that from Tepecik character-

79

 

 

G.L. Kavtaradze

ize also other Kura-Araxes sites, as Geoy Tepe, Pulur (Sakyol), Kvatskhelebi (Fig. 8.12-19 cf. 11) (Sagona 1984: Fig. 122). Pots with a rounded body and a slightly flaring high neck were found in Amiranis Gora, Nakhidrebis Chala, Ghrmakhevistavi, Keti (Fig. 8.5-8) etc. (Chubinishvili 1971: Table XV, 5; Table XVII, 2; Kushnareva & Chubinishvili 1970: Fig. 21, 6; Petrosyan 1989: Table 30, 4; Kushnareva 1993: Fig. 19, 6; Abramishvili et al. 1980: 70, Table V, Fig. 41, 390). In Nakhidrebis Chala and Ghrmakhevistavi the pots were presumably with handles. A similar pot, but with a wider, spherical body and decorated with cord Impression was found in the Ukraine, in the Mikhailovka l settlement (on Pidpilna, a tributary of the lower Dniepr) of the late fourth millennium. This settlement shows affinities on the one hand with the Maikop culture of the North Caucasus and with the Usatovo barrows near Odessa on the other (Gimbutas 1992: 403f).

It must be emphasized that in Tepecik 3 a similar Uruk type red-slipped pot with four handles was also found, together with bevelled rim bowls of Uruk tradition and Early Karaz pottery (Behm-Blancke 1983: 167; Behm-Blancke 1984: 38; Hoh 1984: 72). The Karaz Ware was common at that site during the following Early Bronze period, as well as at Hassek 4, where it obviously represented a part of the spectrum of pottery. According to specialists, the metal of Hassek Höyük came from the area located between Erzurum and the southern coast of the Black Sea (Schmitt-Strecker et al. 1992:122).

Arslantepe VI A, Tepecik 3 and Hassek 5 are thought to be contemporary and, like Kurban Höyük, roughiy coeval with Habuba Kabira-South (8 km downstream from Jebel Aruda). Hence, they must fall somewhere in the middle Hama K levels and the transitional Amuq F/G, revealed at Teil al-Judaidah and Çatal Hüyük (Amuq) (Trentin 1993: 184). Despite the substantial similarity between Arslantepe VI A, Tepecik 3 and Hassek 5, the links between Tepecik and Hassek seem to be stronger than those with Arslantepe, essentially due to their greater affinities with Habuba Kabira and with the south (Frangipane & Palmieri 1987: 298). It is possible that Hassek, Tepecik and Habuba Kabira were important members of a foreign enclave and Arslantepe a local center of power (Trentin 1993: 197). But in spite of the characteristics of the sites mentioned, it seems that the first appearance of the Transcaucasian Kura-Araxes culture to the north, as well as to the south of the Tarsus range, must be dated to the time of the Late Uruk period.

If we take into account the absolute date of the Late Uruk period, placed in the middle of the second half of fourth millennium, the necessity of pushing back the traditional low date of the Central Transcaucasian Kura-Araxes culture will be without doubt. The dates obtained for the Near Eastern layers, characterized by the appearance of Transcaucasian elements, represent a good possibility to date the Kura-Araxes culture of Transcaucasia - the latter being earlier than the Near Eastern sites with material of Kura-Araxes provenance. From the point of view of comparative chronology of regional variants of the Kura-Araxes culture, it must be taken into account that the material discovered in the oldest Kura-Araxes XI level at Pulur (Sakyol), as it was stated above, seems contemporaneous with the middle layers of Amiranis Gora in south-western Central Transcaucasia (Kavtaradze 1983: 89f). At the same time Pulur (Sakyol) XI has dose parallels with Arslantepe VI B as to the forms and incised decorations of pot Stands (Palmieri 1981: 112, Fig. 7,6,8).

As an additional possibility to date the initial penetration of the Kura-Araxes population in the Near East, the evidence of the growing Mesopotamian sea commerce in the Arabian Gulf of the Jamdat Nasr period can be used. This event seems to be caused by changed political circumstances in Eastern Anatolia, Northern Syria, Western Iran and the desertion of the Uruk sites in these areas and as a consequence the passing of the distribution of traded ores and artefacts to local control (Moorey1982:15).

The determination of the chronological position of the Kura-Araxes culture is of a paramount importance for the establishment of a common chronological System for the Ancient World, considering the intermediary area of distribution of this culture; between regions dated by historical chronologies of the Near East, based on the literary sources, and regions dated mainly by the use of geochronological methods.

l cannot agree with the point of view that, before receiving the large series of radiocarbon dates from the Georgian and the adjacent sites of the Kura-Araxes culture, it is premature to consider the reliability of the calibrated 14C dates for this culture (Munchaev 1994: 17). First of all, the „widely accepted" absolute chronology of the Kura-Araxes culture in the third millennium as well as of the preceeding eneolithic culture in the fifth-fourth millennia and of the subsequent Trialeti culture in the first part of the second millennium B.C. is based mainly on uncalibrated „traditional" radiocarbon dates (Munchaev 1994:16; cf. Kushnareva & Chubinishvili 1963:16f). This fact makes by itself necessary to re-consider the „widely accepted" chronological framework. Also the proposal to re-calculate the 14C dates by the new period of half-life, which would make dates 200 years older (Munchaev 1994: 16), has any sense from the chronological point of view because of the variations in concentration of radiocarbon with time (cf. Kavtaradze 1983:18f).

Secondly, the statement that the calibration curves and tables based on the dendroscales of the Californian pine have not still received the füll acknowledgement, and that therefore it is better to be refrained from their use (Munchaev 1994: 17), after the publication of the calibration curves based on the joint American and Eu-

80

 

 

Metallurgical data for a Central Transcaucasian chronology

ropean data (the real witnesses of the simultaneous fluctuation of the content of carbon-14 in the northern hemisphere), must be considered as completely obsolete. The calibration curve officially recommended for the correction of the 14C dates was published in the journal Radiocarbon, 1993 (Stuiver & Reimer 1993), but also already in 1981, at the symposium in Groningen, the use of the available calibration curves for the preliminary correction of 14C dates was suggested (Burleigh 1982: 139).

Thirdly, the fact must be taken into account that, as the data of relative chronology for a long time indicated, there was a need to revise the traditional chronological position of the Transcaucasian Kura-Araxes culture even independently from the results of geochronological studies. I mean the dates obtained for those Near Eastern layers which contained the remains of Kura-Araxes provenance (Arslantepe/Malatya, Godin Tepe etc.), the cultural ties pointing at the Late Uruk period as to the time of the initial distribution of the Kura-Araxes culture or the penetration of its bearers in the Near East and the stadial proximity between the Georgian Kura-Araxes and Early Kurgan metalworking (and even of some artefacts) and those of the Near East of the Late Uruk - Early Dynastic periods (Kavtaradze 1983: 85-104, 109-115; id. 1987: 12-15; id. 1992: 46-50; cf. Munchaev 1994: 17). (Uncertainty caused by different approaches to the problems of the chronology of the Palaeometallic Age are in the extreme form reflected in some publications concerning the Caucasian archaeology of this period. E.g. in two volumes of the ,,Archaeology of Georgia" (published recently in Tbilisi) some authors are operating with calibrated 14C dates, others based themselves on the uncalibrated ones).

The Kurgan cultures

The second phase of the Early Bronze Age of Central Transcaucasia comprises the final levels of the Kura-Araxes culture, including the final layers of level B of Kvatskhelebi-Khizanaant Gora, the bulk of the Early Bronze Age material of Sachkhere and the latest burials of Amiranis Gora. In this phase, it is possible also to include the Early Kurgan culture of Central Transcaucasia, in which two groups are distinguishable: The first group, comprising the kurgans (barrows) of the Martqopi/Ulevari and Samgori valleys (east of Tbilisi) and the earliest among the so-called ,,Early Bronze Age kurgans of Trialeti"; the second, chronologically subsequent group, represented by the kurgans of the Bedeni plateau (near Trialeti) and the Alazani valley (in Kakheti, eastern part of East Georgia), as well as by the later kurgans among the early group of Trialeti and later group of Martqopi kurgans with pit graves (Dzhaparidze et al. 1980: 40; Dzhaparidze 1994: 75, 77).

This phase seems to be contemporary with the particularly wide diffusion of the Kura-Araxes culture in the NearEast; thus it should be dated to the first half and the middle of the third millennium. Such a date must find corroboration in the typological parallels of the metal inventory of this phase (Kavtaradze 1983:109-116).

While the pottery of the first group of kurgans is close to the Kura-Araxes culture, the pottery of the second, later group is characterized by the so-called "pearl-like" ornaments which is typical of the Novosvobodnaya (Tsarskaya) stage of the North Caucasian Maikop culture and Early Bronze Age north-east Iranian sites (Tureng Tepe IIIC, Shah Tepe III, Tepe Hissar IIB, Yarim Tepe); two such sherds were found in the Late Chalcolithic levels of Alisar (Central Anatolia) (Kavtaradze 1983: 108n.341).

Radiocarbon dates of the first group are: TB-317, Martqopi kurgan no.3, 2279-2050 cal B.C.; four dates are obtained for the Martqopi kurgan no.4: 2611 -2457 cal B.C. (TB-325), 2035-1934 cal B.C. (LE-2198), 2459-2207 cal B.C. (Bin-291) and 2877-2405 cal B.C. (GX-9252); two dates of Zeiani (near Sagaredzho) kurgan no.1 are quite distinct from each other: 2452-2138 cal B.C. (TB-328) and 3497-3131 cal B.C. (TB-329); cereals from the settlement layers of Berikldeebi (near Kareli) gave 3692-3547 cal B.C. (LE-2197). We must take into account also the dates received for the Uch Tepe kurgans (in the steppe of Mil, Azerbaijan), 3364-2925 cal B.C. (LE-305) and 3930-3356 cal B.C. (LE-300). The dates of North Caucasian Ust-Jegutinski graves of the post-Maikop period are: 2866-2507 cal B.C. (LE-693), 2615-2468 cal B.C. (LE-687) and 2464-2284 cal B.C. (LE-692). We have the following 14C dates for the second group of the Early Kurgans of Central Transcaucasian Early Bronze Age: Alazani valley kurgans, 2566-2458 cal B.C. (TB-243), 2317-2137 cal B.C. (LJ-3271) and 2875-2500 cal B.C. (UCLA-?); Khramebi (near Gurdzhaani), 2587-2468 cal B.C. (TB-242). The date of the Bedeni kurgan, 1680-1520 cal B.C. (TB-30), seems to be anomalous.

In this period most of the artefacts are the result of a complicated production. Simultaneous casting with subsequent hot and cold forging was employed. The composition of such artefacts contains admixtures - determined by excellent smelting abilities of alloys used (Tavadze et al. 1987: 47). After the exhaustion of copper rich oxide ores, it was necessary to exploit deeper sulfidic deposits, chalcopyrite, which required preliminary roasting for the removal of the sulfureous minerals and the oxidation of ore. This caused a significant reduction of arsenic in the cast metal. Therefore, in the opinion of Georgian archaeometallurgists, the artefacts with high arsenic content were won from oxidized arsenic-copper ores, and after the beginning of the use of sulfide ores, the ,,soft" copper, smelted from sulfureous minerals, needed the admixture of other alloying elements to increase its melting and mechanical characteristics (Abesadze & Bakhtadze 1987: 52f).

81

 

 

G.L.Kavtaradze

  Fig. 8: 1 - Hassek Höyük (Hoh 1984: Fig. 12, 4); 2 - Hassek Höyük (ibid.: Fig. 12, 5); 3 - Tepecik (Esin 1979: 61, Fig. 12); 4 -Tepecik (Esin 1982: 74, Fig. 11); 5 - Amiranis Gora (Chubinishvili 1971: Table XVII, 2); 6 - Nakhidrebis Chala (ibid.: Table XV, 5); 7 -Keti, grave 5 (Petrosyan 1989: Table 30, 4); 8 - Amiranis Gora, Level III (Kushnareva & Chubinishvili 1970: Fig. 21, 6); 9 -Kvatskhelebi (Sagona 1984: Fig. 1, 3); 10 - Samshvilde (southern part of Eastern Georgia) (ibid.: Fig. 40, 2); 11 - Geoy Tepe K 1 (Chubinishvili 1971: Table XII, 6); 12 - Kvatskhelebi (ibid.: Fig. 105, 1); 14 - Geoy Tepe K 1 (Chubinishvili 1971: Table XII, 7); 15 - Pulur (Sakyol) (Sagona 1984: Fig. 122, 242); 16 - Pulur (Sakyol) (ibid.: Fig. 122, 243); Geoy Tepe (ibid.: Fig. 122, 244); 18 - Pulur (Sakyol) (ibid.: Fig. 122, 245); 19 - Pulur (Sakyol) (ibid.: 122, 246).

82

 

 

Metallurgical data for a Central Transcaucasian chronology

The typical artefacts of this period are various types of pins, earrings, tubes, beads (Fig. 6.39,40), bracelets (Fig. 6.27), rings (Fig. 7.10), awls, chisels (Fig. 7.8), sickles, arrowheads, "standards", daggers and spearheads (Figs. 6.37,38; 7.3,6,12,15,16), flat (Fig. 7.9) as well as shaft-hole axes. The chronological value of the pins of this period - with loop- (Fig. 7.7,11,14), toggle- (Fig. 6.30), double-spiral-heads (cf. Sagona 1981, 152-155) (Figs. 6.28,29,31; 7.5) - is rather diffuse. Because of that, only their earliest appearances in the various areas of the Near East and the Eastern Mediterranean region need to be mentioned.

The pins with loop-shaped heads, formed by drawing out the wire into a loop and winding it around the shaft, characteristic of the so-called Cypriot pins, existed in the Near Eastern sites from the late Predynastic tombs of Egypt (Negada graves 162, 1856, 1233, 293, Hemanieh grave 1647, Badari grave 3932, Armant) (Mas-soulard 1949: 211, 250, Table LXVII, 4), Fara of the Jamdat Nasr period (Klein 1992: 126), Sialk IV (Ghirshman 1938: Table XXIX, 1a; Table XCV, s. 1602, a), Taşkun Mevkii 2B (Helms 1973: 116, Fig. 10,71/17).

The toggle-pins were detected already in Thermi of the Early Bronze Age first period (Branigan 1974: 30, 173, Table 15 (1195)), Troy la (Blegen et al. 1950: 43, 86, Fig. 215 (36-417)), Kusura B (Lamb 1937: 39, Fig. 18,3), Alişar I (Schmidt 1932: 61, Fig. 69, b512; cf. Kilian-Dirlmeier 1984: 23), Karataş IV (Warner 1994: 113, 180, 207, Table 189b (KA 754)), Tarsus of the Early Bronze Age second period (Goldman 1956: 285f, 296, Fig. 431 (210-221)), Syrian sites of the Nineveh 5 period (Klein 1992: 271, 276), Chagar Bazar 5 (Mallowan 1936: 27f., Fig. 8,2 (ME 629), 5 (ME 623), 8 (ME 624); Mallowan 1937: 132, Fig. 12,1; Mallowan 1947: 190, 217f., Table XLII, 8, Table LV, 13, 14 (E-10); cf. Mellink 1970; 248), Tepe Gawra VII (Speiser 1935: 109, 114, Table L, 8), and the Royal Graves of Ur (Woolley 1934:239, 310, Table 231, type 4).

The earliest specimens of the double-spiral-headed pins are known, apart from Transcaucasian sites, from Sialk IV 1 (Ghirshman 1938: Table XCV, s. 1602, e, Table XXIX, 1, b), Hissar IIB (Schmidt 1937: 119, Table XXIX, H 4856), the Turkmenian sites of the Namazga IV-III stages - Kizil Arvat and the second cemetery of Parkhai (Kuzmina 1966: 78, Table XVI, 281 (no. 4); Khiopin 1981: 26). Mundigak II 3 (Schaffer 1978: 141, Fig. 3.36, no. 6), Tepecik of the Late Uruk period (Klein 1992: 128,278, Table 127,12), Poliochni (Lemnos) ,,Azzuro" (Bernabò Brea 1964: 591 f., Table LXXXVI,e), Chalandriani (Syros) of the Early Cycladic 2 (graves 468 and 469) (cf. Kilian-Dirlmeier 1984: 24), and the late Gumelniţa sites of Bulgaria and Rumania (Renfrew 1970: 31-33, Figs. 7; 12,6; Todorova et al. 1975: 63f, Table 128,4, Table 129,6). A double-spiral, also characteristic of this period (Fig. 6.23,24), was found at Hissar II (Schmidt 1937: 121, Table XXX, H 2659, H 2982) and Taşkun Mevkii 2A

(Helms 1973:116,120, Fig. 10,70/4) and a plaque of the quadruple-spiral shape in Arslantepe VIA (Palmieri 1981: 110, Fig. 3,5).

The pins with T-, crutch- or hammer-shaped heads (Fig. 7.1,2,13) have the most parallels in East European sites (north Pontic and north Mediterranean regions), but, as stated above, weapons and tools are of a higher chronological value, since, because of their greater functional possibilities than those of the ornaments, the need of their improvement was much more important.

The shaft-hole axes with slightly cut butts and wide blades, except from Kulbakebi, Marneuli and Medzhvriskhevi (Fig. 6.15,16,18), were discovered in the Bedeni kurgan no. 2, Martqopi kurgan no. 3, Kvemo Sarali (near Marneuli) kurgan no. 9 and Nadarbazevi (Tetritsqaro region). Among the shaft-hole axes a peculiar type with a long, thin, very curved blade and a narrow tubular shaft-hole blade, found mainly in Sachkhere burials, can be distinguished (Fig. 7.4). The shaft-hole axes from the Martqopi kurgans nos. 4 and 5 (Abesadze & Saradzhishvili 1989: 49, 53, fig. 15-18; Dshaparidse 1995b: 230 (no. 69), 232 (no. 76)) are of an intermediate type between the above mentioned two types.

It has been supposed that the diffusion of the technology of casting shaft-hole axes in Asia Minor and Western Asia in the Middle Bronze Age was connected with the spread of traditions of East European and North Caucasian "pastoralists" (Chernykh 1992: 300). Without excluding such an explanation concerning one particular type of shaft-hole axes, we must at the same time take into consideration the finds of the shaft-hole axes in the Near Eastern Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age sites. They are known from Susa I, the second half of the fifth millennium, and Tepe Ghabristan, a late fourth millennium North Iranian site (Pernicka 1990: 37, Fig. 10, Table 9, 1). Shaft-hole axes were discovered also in Khazineh, Susiana (Khusistan, south-western Iran) in the layers contemporary with the Early Dynastic period in Mesopotamia (Maxwell-Hyslop 1949: 91, 94f, Table XXXIV, 4) and Central Anatolian Early Bronze Age site Kalinkaya (De Jesus 1980: 147). A casting mould, presumably of a shaft-hole axe, was found in Poliochni ,,Azzuro" (Branigan 1974: 79, 82, Fig. 4 (M89)). It must be also taken into account that Transcaucasian axes usually are considered as weapons which, more than other copper-bronze artefacts of palaeometallic age, reveal exact and close stadial, morphological features common to the whole Transcaucasian region: hence this region can be considered as one and the same metalworking center (Gogadze 1990: 89).

At the same time, it is quite obvious that small workshops which used ores with different chemical compositions sometimes existed in one and the same region, e.g. metal artefacts from Kvemo Kartli, southern part of Eastern Georgia, despite their morphological similarity

 83

 

 

G.L. Kavtaradze

contained different chemical elements: the weapons from Kvemo Sarali and earlier items from Ghait-mazi (near Marneuli) - zinc, but artefacts from Nadarbazevi and Bedeni - nickel and antimony. The difference of the contents among bronze artefacts was also detected in Shida Kartli of the latest stage of the Trialeti culture (Abesadze 1974b: 56).

The date of the bayonet-like weapon from Tsartsis Gora (Fig. 6.36) is usually connected with the years of reign of the Akkadian king Manishtushu (23th Century) or the ruler of Elam Pusur Shushinak (22th Century) because of the existence of similar weapons with the inscriptions of their names (Kuftin 1949: 74). We must take into account that similar weapons were already discovered in the Royal Graves of Ur and they have, like the spearhead from Tsartsis Gora, an octalateral section of the foundation of blade (Woolley 1934: 303, Table 227, la (U-7925), Ib (U-7930)). Earlier bayonet-like weapons were also found in Transcaucasia itself: at Kül Tepe (Nakhichevan) (Fig. 6.34) and the Tvlepias-Tskaro cemetery (ca. 200 m north from Kvatskhelebi) (Abibulaev 1982: 161, Table 4, 5; Dzhavakhishvili & Glonti 1962: 43, Table XXXVI) (Fig. 6.35). In the C 1 level of Kvatskhelebi a weapon of the same bipyramidal shape was found, but made from bone (Dzhavakhishvili & Glonti 1962: 28f). Local production of this type of weapon in Transcaucasia seems quite possible.

The sickles known from Khizanaant Gora B (Kushnareva & Chubinishvili 1970: Fig. 42,31) and Amiranis Gora (Fig. 6.22), together with sickles from the other sites of the Kura-Araxes culture (Fig. 6.20,21) (Khanzadyan 1964: 94, Fig. 1,3), have more developed parallels, e.g. from Tarsus of the second level of Early Bronze Age (Goldman 1956: 281). Curved points, possibly from sickles, were found in Tarsus in the first level of Early Bronze Age (Goldman 1956: 281).

In the Early Kurgan period metalwork of gold and silver gained importance and achieved already a high level. To this period belong golden pins, rings, beads, the excellent small figurine of a lion from the Alazani valley kurgan, the necklace, presumably with a phallic representation, from Ananauri (northeasternmost part of Kakheti, near Lagodekhi) (Dshaparidse 1995a: 71, Fig. 50; cf. the analogous representation on the stone-curved door-slab from the Castelluccio rock-cut tomb (Early Bronze Age, Sicily) (Bernabò Brea 1957: Table 33). The golden pearls with higher middle ribs than those of the Ananauri necklaces are known from Tall Munbāqa (northeast from Habuba Kabira, on the opposite, left bank of the Euphrates (Wäfler 1974: 36, Fig. 51). (The Ananauri pearls and the analogous pearls of the Martqopi necklace of the kurgan no. 4 (Dshaparidse 1995b: 75, Fig. 55) have a configuration similar to the head and stem of some maces („Standards" or „sceptres") of the Nahal Mishmar hoard (cf. Müller-Karpe 1968: Table 107A), revealing the same level of technological sophistication). Silver pins, bracelets, daggers and knives are known from Tsartsis Gora and early kurgans of Trialeti.

For the manufacture of jewellery all the existing methods were already used - casting, forging, embossing, plating etc. It has been suggested that since the decorations applied to the jewellery are repeated on the huge pots and other objects of household, they must be products of local craftsmen (Pitskhelauri 1987: 24) (e.g., cf., Fig. 9.13 and 23).

Two daggers from Sachkhere (from Tsartsis Gora and Koreti) with decorated hilts (Fig. 6.45,46) must be considered as the earliest examples of the artistic metalworking. Their blades were forged, but the hilts were cast. The dagger from Tsartsis Gora has a flat hilt, decorated with the broken line and wattled relief patterns. The other dagger from Koreti has also similar wattled ornamentation, but in the form of spiralic tendrils. This decorations of the Sachkhere daggers were obtained by casting in wax mould, a sign of the high Standard of metalworking in this period (Abesadze et al. 1958: 22).

On the diadem from the latest burials of uppermost Kvatskhelebi B period the representations of birds, deer and astral signs were made by punching on the thin plate of copper (Fig. 6.41). The closest analogues to this diadem are a golden diadem from the Ur Royal Graves and a silver one from Chalandriani (Kavtaradze 1983: 115).

The Early Kurgan period in Central Transcaucasia is marked by the introduction of tin bronze. However, the chemical-technological analyses of the two stages of this period show a considerable difference between them. The bronze artefacts of the first, so-called „Martqopi-Ulevari stage", except some artefacts of pure copper, are mainly manufactured of arsenic-antimony bronzes with a high content of alloying elements. The admixture of arsenic in the artefacts from Martqopi kurgans is from 1 to 4.6%, lead 0.001-0.5%, iron 0.001-0.6%, zinc 0.001-0.32%, antimony 0.001-0.4%, silver 0.001-0.03%, nickel 0.001-0.05% (Abesadze & Saradzhisvili 1989: 54, 59f). Only in two cases tin bronzes were found there with 3.2 and 6 % of tin with the addition of zinc and lead. (Both artefacts, the curl-ring and the standard, were found in the Martqopi kurgan no. 3 (Inanishvili 1989:127, note 25; cf. Abesadze & Saradzhishvili 1989: 54). Another standard with 7.25% Sn is from the Martqopi kurgan no. 5. The kurgans nos. 3 and 5 are the latest among the Martqopi kurgans and must be factually synchronous with the Bedeni stage (Dzhaparidze 1994: 77; Schillinger 1997: 27). At the same time, in A. Schillinger's opinion the earliest tin bronze artefact of Transcaucasia is the quatrilateral awl detected in Telebi (on the right bank of the Alazani, near Telavi), the East Georgian site of the late Kura-Araxes times, and it contained already 11.3% Sn (Schillinger

84

 

 

Metallurgical data for a Central Transcaucasian chronology

Fig. 9: 1-26 - Trialeti culture (Müller-Karpe 1980: 896, Table 547).

85

 

 

G. L. Kavtaradze

1997: 24f). On the other hand, in the artefacts of the second, Bedeni-Alazani stage, the content of tin is from 8 to 15%. At that time the metal inventory is represented mainly by tin bronze (Inanishvili 1989: 127, note 25. Four artefacts from Bakurtsikhe (Eastern Georgia, near Gurdzhaani) kurgans: two spearheads, dagger and spike contained 10-13.7% Sn (Abesadze & Saradzhishvili 1989: 55)).

In the subsequent, so-called Middle Bronze Age Trialeti culture of the „brilliant barrows", tin bronze also prevails with the same percentage of tin content (Pitskelauri 1987: 24) as during the second stage of the Early Kurgan period, its amount in most cases fluctuates between 4.30 and 14%. Only few items are without any trace of tin; two of them are kettles, one with 9.85% of arsenic and another with 1.5%. In this period, except other elements mainly lead (0.2-0.7%), silver (0.05-0.15%), arsenic (0.2-0.5%), iron (till 0.12%) and nickel (till 0.03%) were used. Zinc was not detected (Abesadze 1974b: 50).

According to the conclusion of Georgian archaeometallurgists, the artefacts of tin bronze were made by smelting the local copper ores with the addition of im-ported tin. At the same time, in certain cases the import of separate metal objects was supposed. It is interesting that in the western part of Georgia twenty deposits with tin content were discovered by geologists, but unfortunately without any trace of ancient exploitation. Georgian specialists emphasize the fact that tin is genetically connected with granitoid intrusions, characteristic of the Caucasus (Abesadze 1980: 148-156; Abesadze & Bakhtadze 1987: 54; Abesadze & Saradzhishvili 1989: 58).

Taking the dates of the Early Kurgan culture of Transcaucasia into consideration it appears possible to place the beginning and initial stages of the Trialeti culture of the „brilliant barrows" in the second half of the third millennium. Even from the point of view of stadiality, the culture of the „brilliant barrows" of Trialeti is essentially a typical product of the Early Bronze Age of the Near East and its periphery. Numerous parallels can be found in the materials dating back to the third millennium for the early materials of these kurgans, noted already by B. Kurtin (cf. Kuftin 1941; Gogadze 1972; Kavtaradze 1983).

The typical trait of the Trialeti Middle Bronze Age kurgans is their poverty of weapons. There were only isolated spearheads, rapiers, daggers and knives discovered, among them a silver dagger. It must be taken into account that there is no difference between weapons and decorations as to their chemical composition (Abesadze 1974b: 50f). This fact can be considered as an evidence of a simultaneous production of both types of artefacts.

The Trialeti kurgans are very rich in gold. An exceptionally high Standard of the goldsmith is witnessed by a well-known golden cup with curls and friezes outlined in the double filigree and set with turquoises and carnelianes (Fig. 9.13) and by pierced silver pins with golden heads set with the same precious stones and granulations (Fig. 9.8,9). The central piece of agate mounted in gold (Fig. 9.11) of the big golden beads is similar to the jewellery of the Ur III period from Uruk (Kuftin 1941: 94, Fig. 98; Maxwell-HysIop 1971: 75), but by its shape more similar to the agate pendant from the Ur burials of the Akkad period (cf. Woolley 1934: 371 f, Fig. 79; Kavtaradze 1981: 104f., Table VII). The silver cup from the Trialeti barrow no. 5 decorated with mythological scenes (Fig. 9.1) has a recently discovered analogue in the Karashamb kurgan of Armenia (on the bank of the Razdan, in the Ararat valley). Both these cups are dose to the silver and golden ones of Troy llg by their shape (cf. Schliemann 1885: 586, 594, no. 840, 841, 858).

From Irganchai, in the western part of Kvemo Kartli, near Dmanisi, recently series of 14C dates for the various periods of the Trialeti culture were received; for the later stage: kurgan no. 1 of Irganchai, 2122-1910 cal B.C. (TB-475), kurgan no. 2, 1932-1749 cal B.C. (TB-476), kurgan no. 3, 2284-1984 cal B.C. (TB-545), kurgan no. 4, 1886-1706 cal B.C. (TB-477), kurgan no. 5,1512-1406 cal B.C. (TB-478), kurgan no. 9,1872-1679 cal B.C. (TB-496), kurgan no. 18, 1678-1208 cal B.C. (TB-548); for an earlier stage, the Middle Bronze Age material of which reveals some traits typical even of the Bedeni culture: kurgan no. 21, 2132-1951 cal B.C. (TB-546), kurgan no. 25, 2460-2138 cal B.C. (TB-811), kurgan no. 26, 2200-1934 cal B.C. (TB-812), kurgan no. 27, 2856-2409 cal B.C. (TB-817), kurgan no. 28, 2578-2285 cal B.C. (TB-818), kurgan no. 30, 2582-2328 cal B.C. (TB-835), kurgan no. 32, 2033-1749 cal B.C. (TB-834), kurgan no. 37, 3336-3036 cal B.C. (KN-4499). Two dates gained from the II kurgan of Aruch (Armenia), typical of the later stage of Trialeti culture: 2112-1772 cal B.C. (Bln-2727) and 2032-1890 cal B.C. (Bln-2801). The dates obtained for layer II of Dikha Gudzuba in Anaklia, in Western Georgia, which is dated more or less contemporary with the Trialeti culture, are: 2273-2044 cal B.C. (TB-274), 2391-2146 cal B.C. (TB-275) and 2117-1930 cal B.C. CTB-276).

The necessity of the pushing back the Transcaucasian dates was also recently demonstrated by the finds of the kurgan of Karashamb. This unique complex (with the copious golden, silver and bronze artefacts) of the second group of the kurgans of the Trialeti culture has some traits characteristic of the third dynasty of Ur (21th-20th centuries B.C.), but at the same time it reveals connections with the earlier Central Anatolian culture of the „Royal Tombs" of Alaca Höyük (Golovina 1990: 230; Oganesian 1992: 84, 100 note 1).

At the time of the later part of Trialeti culture, mainly in Western Transcaucasia, a new type of alloy, namely arsenic-antimony bronze appeared. If tools and weapons were made of firmer and better forgeable arsenic and

86

 

 

Metallurgical data for a Central Transcaucasian chronology

tin bronzes, ceremonial and cult inventory were cast from less firm, although easily handled arsenic-antimony bronzes which at the same time had a silver-like appearance. Often beads of antimony were found. Casting with the wax mould was widely used. Such a development of metallurgy was possible because of the existence of local resources.

On the upper stream of the Rioni (the ancient Phasis, the main river of Western Georgia) copper and arsenic-antimony deposits (in Zopkhito, Sagebi, Kvardzakheti etc.) are known. At the same time, there (near the village of Ghebi, in Racha) were found traces of ancient exploitation - nearly 100 copper and 30 antimony mining places with waste heaps of more than 100 000 tons (Mudzhiri et al. 1987: 235f; Kushnareva 1993: 245).

Apparently this is the reason why in Georgia (mostly in the western part) and the Northern Caucasus arsenic-antimony bronzes were used so widely in the Middle and Late Bronze Ages. Radiocarbon dates of the antimony mines of Racha are: Zopkhito, 1379-1167 cal B.C. (TB-335) and 1517-1083 cal B.C. (TB-302); Sagebi, 1895-1748 cat B.C. (TB-310) and 1882-1698 cal B.C. (TB-334). In the opinion of specialists they were exploited from the beginning of the second millennium B.C. (cf. Kushnareva 1993: 245). The traces of ore melting workshops and ore-threshing stone hammers found there were dated to the beginning of the Bronze Age (Abesadze 1980: 27). In Ghebi copper ores have 8% of copper. There specimens of antimony ore from a mining place situated 6 km from Ghebi contained following elements: I, antimony - 27.26%, lead - 0.66%, arsenic -4.64%, copper - 0.11%, iron - 2.08%, sulphur -12.37%; II, antimony - 40.47%, arsenic - 0.56%, lead -0.87%, iron -1.90%, sulphur - ; III, antimony - 27.31 %, arsenic - 1.41 %, lead - 0.87%, iron - 5.66%, sulphur -15.83% (Abesadze 1980: 26).

By taking into account the fact of the existence of high antimony copper objects from the Early Bronze Age materials of Sachkhere (south of Racha), which are sometimes also characterized by a high content of arsenic (Abesadze 1969: Table III-V, NN 76-117; Kushnareva 1993: 234) (Table I), it seems to be possible to date the initial exploitation of such ores already to the early third millennium B.C. For the dating of the earliest materials from Sachkhere, importance should be given to the abovementioned spearhead found in Tsartsis Gora, as well as to similar spearheads discovered in the Late Chalcolithic VI A level of Arslantepe-Malatya.

An awl from Ozni (Kvemo Kartli) containing 2.7 % of antimony and a curl-ring from Kvatskhelebi B with 5% of antimony are dated to a rather early time (Abesadze 1969: 99,101). At the same time, while materials of Dzagina and Kvatskhelebi (Shida Kartli) has a high content of antimony in the artefacts from Koreti, of the site from the outskirts of Sachkhere, no traces of antimony were detected (Abesadze et al. 1958: 19; Abesadze 1969: 102,104).

In North-Western Georgia, Abkhazia, the watershed mountain of the ravines of Kodori and Bzyp, 20 ancient copper mining places were discovered (Abesadze 1980: 35). We have following 14C dates from mine no. 4 of Bashkapsaara: eastern part, 3015-2148 cat B.C. (LE-4198), northern part, 1518-994 cal B.C. (LE-4197), western part, 1750-1318 cal B.C. (LE-4196), central part, 2906-2137 cal B.C. (LE-4199) (Kushnareva 1993: 244, 280).

In the territory between Abkhazia and Racha, in mountanous Svaneti, in Zaargash, on the upper flow of the Enguri, a polymetallic deposit was discovered which was exploited at the times contemporary with the mines of Racha (Chartolani 1988; Kushnareva 1993: 245). Svaneti is exeptionally rich in lead-zinc and arsenic ores (Abesadze 1980: 28).

In the Middle Bronze Age the cultures of Eastern and Western Georgia (Central and Western Transcaucasia) had different metallurgical sources, but it seems that they had strong ties. As the consequence of such an interrelationship, tin was spread to Western Georgia from the Trialeti culture, but antimony from the western part of Georgia to Eastern Georgia (Abesadze 1980: 24). The presence of zinc and lead, beside antimony, is typical of the contents of West Georgian bronze artefacts. There, at the same time, zinc (till 1.25 %) is detected in arsenic-antimony bronzes of Abkhazia and lead (1.8-6.3 %) in tin bronze artefacts of Racha and also sometimes in the Trialeti culture (1-3.5 %, in one case - 8.38 %). Because zinc and lead were already found in Kura-Araxes artefacts of Georgia (1.2-2.5 %), it was supposed that they must represent natural admixtures, typical of the copper ores of Georgia (Abesadze 1980: 24).

For the dating of the common Transcaucasian Middle Bronze Age certain importance can be given to the obsidian of south Transcaucasian provenance revealed in Tal-i-Malyan in the Iranian province of Fars in deposits of the Kafteri phase (2100-1800 B.C.) and determined by the Conservation Analytical Laboratory of the Smithsonian Institution. If one part of them was similar to the obsidian used in Alikemektepesi (Azerbaijan), another part, coming from the Gutansar complex of Armenia (western slope of Gegam), was found in great quantity in the sites of the Ararat valley, i.e. south of its "birthplace" - the Gegam mountain. At the same time, in the eight kurgans of the Karmirberd culture, necklaces were found dated to the time of the Babylonian king Samsu-iluna, 1806-1778 B.C. Among the necklaces some consisted of shells of sea molluscs which were obtained either at the estuary of the Persian Gulf or on the south Iranian coast (cf. Simonyan 1984).

The discovery of the south Transcaucasian obsidian in the southern Iran and of south Iranian or south

 87

 

 

G. L. Kavtaradze

Mesopotamian ornaments in Transcaucasia can be considered as the reflection of one and the same phenomenon - the existence of trade connections between southern Transcaucasia on the one hand and south-western Iran and southern Mesopotamia on the other which determines the coexistence of the late Karmirberd and early Sevan-Userlik cultures of southern Transcaucasia and of the final part of the Trialeti culture in the 18th Century B.C. (Kavtaradze 1992: 51f;cf. Kushnareva 1994: 117).

The upper date of the Trialeti culture, and together with it the Middle Bronze Age of Central Transcaucasia, was assigned to the middle of the fifteenth Century B.C. on the basis of the date of the shaft-hole spearhead with a ferrule at the end of the kurgan no. 15 of Trialeti (Scha-effer 1948: 512) (Fig. 9.15). But since in the Near East shaft-hole spearheads seem to have come from the Early Dynastie period (Thomas 1967: 73) and the spec-imens with ferrule appear from the end of the third millennium there must be a reason to put into doubt the correctness of the above date for the Trialeti spearhead and to shift it back, together with the end of the Trialeti culture, to the middle of the first half of the second millennium (cf. Kavtaradze 1983: 130-134). The same can be stated concerning the Aegean parallels of the seventeenth century B.C. to the silver bowl with a cotton-reel handle from the Vanadzor (Kirovakan) kurgan of the Trialeti culture because of the existence of a similar bowl in Upper Egypt, among the treasure of Tôd, dated back to the time of Amenemhet II (1929-1892 B.C.), Pharaoh of the XII Dynasty, and the findings of similar cotton-reel handles in the Anatolian sites of the end of the third millennium B.C. (Vandier 1937: 174; Maxwell-Hysiop 1995: 243-245, 250).

 

The latest group of Trialeti barrows revealing also some traits peculiar to the Late Bronze Age, together with other sites contemporary with them, can be united in the latest part of the Middle Bronze Age and dated by the post-Trialeti times - approximately in the middle of the second millennium B.C. Up to now the only 14C date of this period is known from the Metekhi burial (near Kaspi): 1526-1426 cal B.C. (TB-31).

Conclusion

The dating of the Transcaucasian metal artefacts and complexes containing them is in many cases possible by the consideration of the dates of materials from well-dated Near Eastern strata. The chronological conclusions received by this way, that is by correlation with the data of other archaeological materials and geochronological analyses, represent the decisive factor for the formation of relative and absolute chronologies of Central Transcaucasia of the Palaeometallic Age.

Acknowledgements

l am very much indebted to G. Burger, E. Schalk and E. Pernicka for reading the text and giving usefui advices, as well as to K. Kakhiani and A. Paghava for the possibility to publish 14C dates of Irganchai. Discussions with E. Pernicka, R. Gläser and D. Sürenhagen have been of highiy important value. l would also like to thank B.B. Helwing and A. Schillinger for allowing me to cite their theses. l want to express my gratitude to the organisers of the very interesting Conference in Bochum and to the Volkswagen-Foundation which made my participation possible.

88

 

 

 

Table 1: Chemical composition of some metal artefacts from Central Transcaucasia; northwestern part (the region of Sachkhere) nos. 1-54, southwestern part (Meskheti) nos. 55-65, north-central part (Shida Kartli) nos. 66-144, south-central part (Kvemo Kartli) nos. 145-206, eastern part (Kakheti) nos. 207-240. For the compiling of columns, data by Abesadze et at. 1958: 8-19; Dzhaparidze 1961: 197-201; Kushnareva & Chubinishvili 1970: 134-135; Abesadze 1969: Tables I-IV; Abesadze 1974a: 19; Abesadze 1974b: 66-73; Abesadze 1980: 156,157; Tavadze et al. 1984: 46, were used.

No.

Artefact Type

Locality

Cu

Sn

Pb

As

Fe

Sb

Zn

Mn

Ni

Bi

Ag

Au

Co

Ti

1

Shaft-hole axe

Sachkhere

94.31

-

-

3.00

-

2.60

tr.

-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2

Shaft-hole axe

Sachkhere

95.30

-

-

2.45

-

2.10

tr.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3

Dagger

Sachkhere

88,45

-

tr.

4.98

tr.

1.86

1.03

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4

Shaft-hole axe

Sachkhere

92.90

-

0.16

1.82

0.20

1.21

-

+

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5

Shaft-hole axe

Sachkhere

95.35

-

-

3.19

-

1.20

tr.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6

Shaft-hole axe

Sachkhere

98.05

-

-

0.78

-

1.16

tr.

 

 

0.05

0.01

0.1

-

-

-

7

Chisel

Sachkhere

95.60

-

-

3.14

-

1.11

-

-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8

Shaft-hole axe

Sachkhere

95.43

-

-

3.20

-

1.00

tr.

+

0.3

-

0.1

-

-

-

9

Shaft-hole axe

Sachkhere

93.92

-

0.07

2.00

0.17

0.75

-

+

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10

T-shaped pin

Sachkhere

95.00

-

-

3.84

0.30

0.74

-

-

0.15

0.1

0.1

-

-

 

 

11

Shaft-hole axe

Tsartsis Gora

94.48

-

-

1.20

0.15

0.70

-

-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

12

Shaft-hole axe

Tsartsis Gora

95.00

-

-

1.90

0.29

0.61

•

-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

13

Dagger

Sachkhere

95.00

-

-

1.95

0.11

0.60

-

-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

14

Shaft-hole axe

Sachkhere

95.25

-

-

1.75

0.18

0.43

tr.

+

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

15

Dagger

Sachkhere

94.48

•

0.12

2.10

0.17

0.41

-

-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

16

Shaft-hole axe

Koreti

95.76

-

-

1,35

0.30

0.41

tr.

+

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

17

Curl-ring

Nacherkezevi

high

0.23

0.05

>6.0

tr.

0.4

0.1

-

0.01

-

<0.1

-

•

>tr.

18

Dagger with decorated hilt

Tsartsis Gora

95.46

-

0.09

2.05

0.32

0.37

-

-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

19

Shaft-hole axe

Sachkhere

95.11

-

0.15

2.00

0.28

0.35

tr.

+

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

20

Bayonet

Tsartsis Gora

95.76

-

-

2.00

0.18

0.31

-

-

tr.

-

low

-

tr.

 

 

21

Spearhead

Tsartsis Gora

94.29

0.12

-

4.66

-

0.30

-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

22

Pin

Sachkhere

85.91

tr.

tr.

2.96

0.75

0.30

+

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

23

Shaft-hole axe

Koreti

95.72

-

0.11

1.50

0.22

0.22

tr.

+

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

24

Dagger with decorated hilt

Tsartsis Gora

95.84

-

0.08

1.80

0.22

0.21

-

0.013

tr.

tr.

low

-

tr.

 

 

25

Spiralic bracelet

Sachkhere

high

•

0.05

5.0

tr.

0.2

0.1

-

0.01

-

-0.1

-

-

tr.

26

Spiralic bracelet

Sachkhere

high

-

0.2

2.5

tr.

0.1

0.05

-

tr.

-

-0.1

-

-

tr.

27

Curl-ring

Tsartsis Gora

high

-

0.2

2.0

tr.

0.1

0.02

-

0.01

-

-0.1

-

-

tr.

28

Spiralic bracelet

Sachkhere

high

-

0.2

1.5

<0.01

0.1

<0.05

-

0.01

-

-0.1

-

-

tr.

29

Spiralic bracelet

Sachkhere

high

<tr.

0.05

5.0

0.01

0.09

0.05

-

0,01

-

-0.1

-

-

tr.

30

Chisel

Sachkhere

 

 

0.02

0.05

1.5

>tr.

0.08

tr.

-

0.04

-

-0.1

-

-

tr.

31

Flat axe

Sachkhere

94.67

<0.01

tr.

5.0

>tr.

0.08

0.05

-

0.04

tr.

-0.1

-

-

tow

32

Blade of dagger

Koreti

high

-

0.05

4.00

0.05

0.05

-

 

 

<0.01

 

 

0.1

 

 

 

 

 

 

89

 

 

No.

Artefact Type

Locality

Cu

Sn

Pb

As

Fe

Sb

Zn

Mn

Ni

Bi

Ag Au

Co

Ti

33

Spiralic bracelet

Sachkhere

high

-

0.05

2.5

tr.

0.02

<0.05

-

<tr.

-

-0.1

-

tr.

34

Curl-ring

Tsartsis Gora

high

0.01

0.04

2.0

0.01

0.02

0.02

-

0.02

-

-0.1

-

tr.

35

Dagger

Sachkhere

96.00

-

-

3.10

tr.

0.01

-

-

0.12

0.5

0.1

-

 

 

36

Shaft-hole axe

Sachkhere

93.30

-

-

6.0

tr.

tr.

-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

37

Shaft-hole axe

Koreti

94.50

-

-

5.08

tr.

tr.

tr.

-

<0.01

0.001

0.1

-

 

 

38

Shaft-hole axe

Sachkhere

95,00

-

-

3.73

tr.

tr.

-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

39

T-shaped pin

Sachkhere

94.40

-

-

3.30

tr.

tr.

-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

40

Shaft-hole axe

Koreti

96.38

-

-

3.10

tr.

-

-

-

0.08

-

0.1

 

 

 

 

41

Dagger

Sachkhere

95.30

-

-

3.01

tr.

tr.

0.5 -1

0.3

0.1

-

 

 

42

Flat dagger

Sachkhere

97.80

-

-

1.80

tr.

tr.

-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

43

T-shaped pin

Koreti

90.41

tr.

tr.

7.91

tr.

-

+

-

0.03

0.01

0.1

 

 

 

 

44

Loop-shaped pin

Koreti

90.05

tr.

tr.

7.82

tr.

tr.

tr.

-

0.05

0.01

0.1

-

 

 

45

Shaft-hole axe

Koreti

93.87

-

-

5.50

tr.

-

tr.

-

0.01

-

0.1

-

 

 

46

Blade of dagger

Koreti

94.88

tr.

-

5.00

tr.

tr.

tr.

-

0.01

-

0.1

-

 

 

47

Flat axe

Sachkhere

94.0

-

tr.

5.0

0.55

-

-

-

0.15

-

0.1

>0.01

-

48

Loop-shape pin

Sachkhere

94.40

-

-

4.90

tr.

-

-

-

0.07

0.05

0.1

-

 

 

49

Decorated hilt of dagger

Koreti

94.55

-

tr.

4.00

tr.

tr.

-

-

0.15

0.05

0.1

 

 

 

 

50

Blade of dagger with decorated

Koreti

94.55

-

tr.

4.00

tr.

tr.

tr.

-

0.15

0.05

0.1

-

 

 

51

Dagger with decorated handle

Koreti

94.55

-

-

4.00

tr.

-

-

-

0.15

0.05

0.1

-

 

 

52

Dagger with ?

Koreti

94.55

-

-

4.0

tr.

-

tr.

-

0.08

-

0.1

-

 

 

53

Dagger

Koreti

94.55

-

-

4.0

tr.

-

-

-

0.08

-

0.1

-

 

 

54

Blade of dagger

Koreti

96.38

-

-

3.4

-

-

-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

55

Shaft-hole axe

Koreti

96.38

-

-

3.1

tr.

-

-

-

0.08

-

0.1

-

 

 

56

Small dagger

Koreti

96.38

-

-

3.10

-

-

-

-

0.08

-

0.1

-

-

57

Blade of dagger

Koreti

96.86

-

-

2.83

tr.

-

tr.

-

0.01

-

0.1

-

 

 

58

T-shaped pin

Koreti

95.13

-

-

2.68

 

 

-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

59

Axe

Nacherkezevi

97.63

-

-

1.99

tr.

-

-

-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

60

Pendant

Koreti

high

<0.01

0.03

high

0.05

-

0.05

-

0.01

0.01

0.1

• -

 

 

61

Anchor-shaped pendant

Zveli

high

-

-

13.6

-

-0.01

-

 

 

tr.

-

0.16

 

 

 

 

62

,,Pear"pendant

Zveli

high

-

-

10.8

0.02

-0.01

-

 

 

0.03

-

0.03

 

 

 

 

63

Spearhead

Akhaltsikhe?

93.13

-

-

4.51

tr.

-

-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

64

Dagger

Amirans Gora

96.12

-

-

4.00

0.16

-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

65

Flat axe

Akhaltsikhe?

96.95

-

-

2.66

tr.

-

-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

66

Dagger

Akhchia kurgan 1

high

tr.

1.1

1.35

-

-

0.08

 

 

-

-

0.02

 

 

 

 

67

Dagger

Akhchia kurgan7

high

6.5

0.5

0.65

tr.

tr.

-

 

 

tr.

-

tr.

 

 

 

 

90 

 

 

No.

Artefact Type

Locality

Cu

Sn

Pb

As

Fe

Sb

Zn

Mn

Ni

Bi

Ag

Au

Co

Ti

68

Dagger

Akhchia kurgan 1

high

5.05

1.3

0.3

-

-

 

 

0.03

-

0.1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

69

Twisted tube

Akhchia kurgan 3

high

5.75

1.3

0.23

tr.

tr.

5.16

 

 

tr.

-

0.17

 

 

 

 

 

 

70

Spearhead

Akhchia kurgan 3

high

4.83

0.22

-

0.02

-

-

 

 

-

-

0.03

 

 

 

 

 

 

71

Biconoid bead

Kvatskhelebi gr.2

63.18

 

 

 

 

22.7

 

 

1.11

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

72

Biconoid bead

Kvatskhelebi gr.2

71.37

-

-

16.55

low

0.86

-

 

 

 

 

 

 

low

 

 

 

 

 

 

73

Biconoid bead

Kvatskhelebi gr.2

79.13

 

 

 

 

14.63

 

 

-0.5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

74

Curl-ring

Dzagina

68.80

1.85

-

11.92

-

12.64

-

-

 

 

-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

75

Curl-ring

Dzagina

high

0,01

0.2

>10.0

<0.01

5.0

1.5

-

<0.01

-

-0.1

-

-

tr.

76

Curl-ring

Dzagina

high

0.05

0.2

>10.0

<0.01

5.0

>2.0

-

tr.

-

-0.1

+

-

tr.

77

Rhomboid pendant

Urbnisi gr.44

high

-

tr.

<10.0

<0.01

-

<0.05

-

-

1 -

-0.1

-

-

tr.

78

Axe

Kvasatali

high

tr.

0.4

7.2

0.02

5.12

-

 

 

0.04

-

0.5

 

 

 

 

 

 

79

Dagger

Nuli

high

-.

-

7.2

tr.

-0.01

0.05

 

 

0.5

-

0.85

 

 

 

 

 

 

80

Biconoid bead

Kvatskhelebi gr.2

high

 

 

0.0025

>7.0

1.0

 

 

1.1

0.035

0.018

 

 

0.01

 

 

 

 

 

 

81

Spearhead

Nuli

high

9.78

3.2

>6.0

0.4

0.25

0.5

 

 

0.4

-

1.0

 

 

 

 

 

 

82

,,Mushroom" pin

Nuli

high

-

-

>6.0

tr.

-0.01

0.05

 

 

0.2

-

0.5

 

 

 

 

 

 

83

Flat pin

Nuli

high

0.2

-

>6.0

tr.

tr.

0.4

 

 

0.2

-

0.75

 

 

 

 

 

 

84

Spearhead

Nuli

high

0.15

tr.

>6.0

0.01

tr.

0.4

 

 

0.5

•

1.0

 

 

 

 

 

 

85

Spearhead

Nuli

high

-

-

>6.0

tr.

tr.

0.4

 

 

0.3

 

 

1.1

 

 

 

 

 

 

86

Dagger

Kvasatali

high

-

-

5.25

tr.

0.01

-

 

 

0.01

 

 

0.1

 

 

 

 

 

 

87

Curl-ring

Urbnisi B

high

tr.

-

5.0

tr.

5.0

2.5

-

tr.

-

0.02

-

<0.01

 

 

88

Biconoid bead

Kvatskhelebi gr.2

high

 

 

0.001

5.0

0.025

 

 

0.012

<0.001

0.0006

 

 

0.03

>0.001

 

 

 

 

89

Discoid pin

Nuli

high

0.4

-

4.75

tr.

-

-

 

 

0.2

-

0.75

 

 

 

 

 

 

90

Dagger

Khovle k.1

92.3

<0.01

0.05

4.6

<0.01

-

1.5

-

0.02

0.04

-0.1

-

-

tr.

91

Spearhead

Nuli

94.34

-

tr.

4.5

tr.

0.01

-

 

 

0.5

-

1.2

 

 

 

 

 

 

92

Dagger

Nuli

high

-

-

4.5

tr

tr.

0.01

 

 

0.25

-

0.85

 

 

 

 

 

 

93

Discoid pin

Nuli

high

0.2

0.38

4.5

0.02

tr.

5.72

 

 

0.2

-

0.85

 

 

 

 

 

 

94

Curl-ring

Nuli

high

-

0.05

2.5

<0.01

tr.

<0.05

-

<0.01

-0.1

-

-

tr.

 

 

95

Spearhead

Nuli

high

-

1.3

4.4

tr.

-0.07

-

 

 

0.2

-

0.8

 

 

 

 

 

 

96

Spearhead

Nuli

high

-

0.28

4.4

tr.

-

0.05

 

 

0.04

-

0.75

 

 

 

 

 

 

97

Pin quadrilat.

Nuli

high

3.25

3.5

4.0

tr.

0.6

-

 

 

0.03

-

0.8

 

 

 

 

 

 

98

Bracelet

Nuli

high

0.2

0.6

4.0

tr.

-0.03

0.01

 

 

0.15

 

 

0.65

 

 

 

 

 

 

99

Bayonet Tvlepias Tskaro gr.3

96.99

-

0.06

3.75

low

low

-

tr.

tr.

 

 

low

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

100

Knife?

Khizannant Gora

high

-

0.001

3.5

0.002

0.05

0.8

-

0.002

-

0.01

 

 

 

 

 

 

101

,,Pear" pendant

Tvlepias Tskaro

91.5

1-1.5

3.30

low

1.15

1.0

 

 

tr.

0.001

-

 

 

 

 

 

 

102

Curl-ring

Nuli

high

0.01

<0.01

3.30

0.04

high

-

 

 

0.15

-0.01

-0.1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 91

 

 

No.

Artefact Type

Locality

Cu

Sn

Pb

As

Fe

Sb

Zn

Mn

Ni Bi

Ag

Au

Co

Ti -

103

Triple sh. bead

Urbnisi gr. 44

96.83

 

 

 

 

3.16

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

104

Bracelet

Dzagina

high

-

0.05

3.0

0.01

0.02

<0.05

-

0.01 -

-0.01

-

-

tr.

105

Dagger

Nuli

95,0

tr.

0.28

3.0

0.01

-0.01

-

 

 

0.3 -

0.8

 

 

 

 

 

 

106

Cylindric bead

Tvlepias Tskaro gr.2

77.47

-

0.04

2.77

low

low

-5.0

 

 

<0.001

-

 

 

 

 

 

 

107

Pin

Rveli

high

0.8

0.16

2.6

tr.

0.07

-

 

 

0.3 -

0.1

 

 

 

 

 

 

108

Pin

Rveli

high

1.2

0.17

2.6

0.01

0.02

-

 

 

0.2 -

0.1

 

 

 

 

 

 

109

Curl-ring

Dzagina

high

<0.01

0.04

2.5

tr.

0.2

>0.05

 

 

<0.01 -

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

110

Spiralic bracelet

Dzagina

high

-

0.05

2.5

<0.01

tr.

<0.05

-

<0.01 -

-0.1

-

-

tr.

111

Biade of dagger

Khovle k.1

high

tr.

<0.05

2.5

<0.01

-

>2.0

-

tr. -

-0.1

-

-

tr.

112

Cylindric.bead

Tvlepias Tskaro gr.4

96.38

. -

0.03

2.32

low

low

-

 

 

tr. <0.001

low

 

 

 

 

 

 

113

«nife?

Kvatskhelebi gr.3

high

-

tr.

2.3

<0.002

tr.

-

-

0.006 0.001

0.03

 

 

 

 

 

 

114

Spearhead

Nuli

high

0.2

0.2

2.2

tr.

0.07

0.05

-

0.5 -

1.2

 

 

 

 

 

 

115

Cylindric. bead

Tvlepias Tskaro gr.3

97.44

-

0.02

2.11

low

low

-

 

 

tr.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

116

Discoid pin

Nuli

high

<0.01

-

2.09

<0.02

high

-

 

 

0.01 -0.1

-0.1

 

 

 

 

 

 

117

Spiralic bracelet

Kvatskhelebi

96.22

•

0.1

2.09

low

0.018

0.3

-0.001

0.35

0.4

 

 

 

 

 

 

118

Double-spir. pin

Kvatskhelebi

high

-

-

2.0

0.05

-

0.8

-

0.15 -

0.1

-

>0.01

 

 

119

Knife?

Khizanaant Gora

high

-

0.005

1.2-2.0

0.2

-

0.06

-

0.003 -

0.003

-

>0.01

 

 

120

Pyramid.pin

Nuli

high

2.85

1.8

1.9

tr.

0.05

-

 

 

0.2 -

0.85

 

 

 

 

 

 

121

Bracelet

Nuli

high

0.2

8.38

1.9

0.01

-0.01

0.01

 

 

0.3 -

0.65

 

 

 

 

 

 

122

Bead

Urbnisi

97.8

-

-

1.9

tr.

-

-

-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

123

Spira'ic bracelet

Urbnisi

96.85

 

 

 

 

1.7

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

124

Dagger

Nuli

high

-

-

1.6

tr.

0.01

-

 

 

0.15 -

0.1

 

 

 

 

 

 

125

Fiat bracelet

Rveli

high

3.2

2.8

1.6

tr.

0.01

-

 

 

0.07

0.1

 

 

 

 

 

 

126

Discoid pin

Kvasatali

high

5.65

1.8

1.6

0.3

tr.

-

 

 

0.03 -

0.1

 

 

 

 

 

 

127

Arrowhead

Kvatskhelebi

77.92

-

-

1.56

+

low

<0.01

tr.

tr.

-

 

 

 

 

 

 

128

Diadem

Kvatskhelebi

high

-

0.009

1.5

0.011

0.022

-

 

 

0.003 -

0.04

-0.1

 

 

 

 

129

Spearhead

Nuli

93.58

-

•

1.5

0.28

-

0.1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

130

Sickie

Khizanaant Gora

high

-

-

1.5

tr.

-

0.1

-

0.12 -

<0.02

-

<0.01

 

 

131

Double-spir. pin

Urbnisi gr.44

98.4

 

 

 

 

1.5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

132

Knife

Dzagira

high

-

<0.01

high

0.01

-

-

-

<0.01 -

0.1

-

-

tr.

133

Fiat dagger

Dzagira

high

-

<0.01

high

0.01

-

-

-

<0.01 -

-0.1

-

<0.01

 

 

134

Fiat dagger

Dzagina

high

-

tr.

high

tr.

-

-

-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

135

Shaft-hole axe

Medzhvriskhevi

97.26

0.53

-

1.32

-

 

 

-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

136

Curl-ring

Tkviavi

high

0.002

0.03

1.1

0.02

0.02

-

 

 

- -

0.03

-

-

 

 

137

Awl

Urbnisi

high

-

0.001

1.1

0.01

0.001

-

 

 

0.001 -

0.01

-

-

 

 

 92

 

 

No.

Artefact Type

Locality

Cu

Sn

Pb

As

Fe

Sb

Zn

Mn

Ni

Bi

Ag

Au

Co

Ti

138

Dagger

Galuata

high

0.2

3.5

1.1

0.5

-

-

 

 

0.2

-

0.1

 

 

 

 

 

 

139

Chisel

Avnevi

high

0.8

0,5

0.8

0.3

0.02

<0.05

tr.

0.08

0.02

-0.1

tr.

-

tr.

140

Awl

Tkviavi

high

0.001

0.001

0.75

0.01

0.01

-

 

 

0.001

-

0.01

 

 

 

 

 

 

141

Flat axe

Rveli

high

6.25

1.3

0.7

tr

0.01

-

 

 

0.01

-

0.1

 

 

 

 

 

 

142

Flat bracelet

Rveli

high

7.25

4.7

0.65

tr.

0.01

-

 

 

0.06

-

0.1

 

 

 

 

 

 

143

Bracelet

Rveli

high

1.35

0.1

0.65

-

tr.

-

 

 

0.07

-

0.1

 

 

 

 

 

 

144

Spearhead

Kvasatali

high

3.20

1.4

0.6

tr.

tr.

-

 

 

0.1

-

0.08

 

 

 

 

 

 

145

Dagger

Metekhi

high

3.88

1.25

0.6

0.02

-

-

 

 

0.1

-

0.06

 

 

 

 

 

 

146

Dagger

Metekhi

high

3.75

1.4

0.6

0.05

-

-

 

 

0.04

-

0.06

 

 

 

 

 

 

147

Knife

Metekhi

high

5.25

3.0

0.4

tr.

-0.01

-

 

 

0.04

-

0.08

 

 

 

 

 

 

148

Ring

Metekhi

high

6.89

3.2

0.4

tr.

-0.01

-

 

 

-0.01

-

0.1

 

 

 

 

 

 

149

Pin

Metekhi

high

3.85

3.1

0.4

tr.

tr.

-

 

 

tr.

-

0.1

 

 

 

 

 

 

150

Dagger

Nuli

high

7.52

3.5

0.4

0.05

tr.

0.05

 

 

0.3

•

0.75

 

 

 

 

 

 

151

Curl-ring

Rveli

high

2.2

0.4

0.4

0.02

tr.

0.5

 

 

0.2

-

0.06

 

 

 

 

 

 

152

Bead

Rveli

high

2.3

0.2

0.4

0.05

tr.

0.4

 

 

0.07

-

0.06

 

 

 

 

 

 

153

Spearhead

Rveli

 

 

3.15

1.8

0.3

0.05

0.01

-

 

 

0.01

-

0.1

 

 

 

 

 

 

154

Knife

Tkviavi

high

-

0.001

0.25

0.03

0.001

-

 

 

0.001

' -

0.01

-

-

 

 

155

Bracelet

Rveli

high

3.95

0.46

0.25

tr.

tr.

-

 

 

0.02

-

0.05

 

 

 

 

 

 

156

Spearhead

Metekhi

high

6.25

1.8

0.22

0.01

0.35

-

 

 

0.04

-

0.1

 

 

 

 

 

 

157

Dagger

Kvasatali

high

4.96

1.4

0.22

-

tr.

-

 

 

tr.

-

0.05

 

 

 

 

 

 

158

Pendant

Rveli

high

8.17

1.2

0.16

0.05

0.01

0.7

 

 

0.01

tr.

0.1

 

 

 

 

 

 

159

Discoid pin

Kvasatali

high

5.25

1.25

0.16

tr.

-

-

 

 

tr.

-

0.05

 

 

 

 

 

 

160

Awl

Ozni

high

+

+

+

+

low

-

-

low

tr.

 

 

 

 

-

 

 

161

Awl

Urbnisi

high

-

tr.

+

+

low

-

-

+

-

-0.1

-

<0.1

 

 

162

Fragment

Urbnisi

high

tr.

low

+

+

tr.

tr.

tr.

tr.

-

low

 

 

-

-

163

Bended tube Urbnisi

high

-

tr.

+

+

tr.

tr.

tr.

-

tr.

low

 

 

-

-

 

 

164

Bead

Urbnisi

high

+

tr.

tr.

+

tr.

tr.

-

-

-

low

 

 

-

-

165

Dagger

Didi Akhali Sopeli

92.0

5.54

-

 

 

0.1

-

0.38

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

166

Knife

Trialeti k.XIX

high

<0.01

0.5

5.0

0.5

0.1

0.1

-

0.01

-

-0.1

-

-

tr.

167

Dagger

Trialeti k.XL

high

0.05

0.2

4.5

0.05

0.05

<0.05

-

0.01

0.1

-0.1

tr.

-

tr.

168

Dagger

Zurtaketi k.3

high

-10.0

0.2

4.5

0.05

tr.

<0.01

 

 

0.01

0.01

0.1

 

 

 

 

 

 

169

Axe

Sadakhlo

94.48

-

-

4.17

-

-

-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

170

Dagger

Shulaveri k.1

95.30

tr.

tr.

3.77

tr.

-

-0.05

 

 

-0.02

-

tr.

 

 

 

 

 

 

171

Chisel

Nadarbazevi

92.53

-

tr.

3.54

-0.2

0.50

-

-

0.1

-

0.1

tr.

-

-

172

Spearhead

Trialeti k.XL

high

0.023

0.5

2.5

0.05

-

<0.05

-

0.02

0.03

-0.1

tr.

-

tr.

93 

 

 

No.

Artefact Type

Locality

Cu

Sn

Pb

As

Fe

Sb

Zn

Mn

Ni

Bi

Ag

Au

Co

Ti

173

Spearhead

Bagineti

high

-

0.5

2.5

0.01

-

<0.02

-

0.01

-

>0.1

tr.

-

tr.

174

Shaft-hole axe

Zemo Avchala

95.40

-

-

2.21

tr.

0.72

-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

175

Double-spir. pin

Ghaitmazi

high

-

0.2

2.0

<0.01

tr.

<0.01

-

-

-

-0.1

-

-

tr.

176

Spiral

Ghaitmazi

high

0.02

0.2

2.0

tr.

tr.

0.4

-

0.01

-

<0.1

-

-

tr.

177

Spiralic bracelet

Ghaitmazi

high

-

0.2

2.0

0.2

-

0.01

-

-

-

-0.1

-

-

tr.

178

Piercer

Trialeti k. XL

high

0.02

0.05

2.0

tr.

-

<0.05

-

0.03

0.025

-0.1

tr.

tr.

low

179

Fragm. armour

Trialeti k. XL

97.61

tr.

-

1.97

tr.

-

-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

180

Pick axe

Dmanisi

97.3

-

-

1.91

tr.

-

-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

181

Spiralic bracelet

Ozni

97.42

-

-

1.8

tr.

-

-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

182

Leaf-shaped-dagger

Kvemo Sarali

high

-

0.2

1.8

0.2

-

<1.0

 

 

-

 

 

tr.

 

 

 

 

 

 

183

Shaft-hole axe

Kvemo Sarali

high

-

0.2

1.7

0.2

-

0.05

 

 

-

 

 

<0.1

 

 

 

 

 

 

184

Flat axe

Kvemo Sarali

high

-

0.2

1.7

0.15

-

1.5

 

 

-

 

 

-0.1

 

 

 

 

 

 

185

Knife, small

Ozni

high

-

-

1.6

tr.

-

-

-

-

-

0.02

tr.

<0.01

 

 

186

Fragm. armour

Trialeti k. XL

97.57

-

-

1.58

tr.

-

tr.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

187

Axe

Tsintskaro

98.86

-^

-

1.5

0.15

-

-

-

-

-

low

-

-

tr.

188

Double-spir. pin

Ghaitmazi

high

-

0.05

1.5

0.01

tr.

<0.01

-

-

-

-0.1

-

-

tr.

189

Chisel

Kvemo Sarali

high

-

tr.

1.5

tr.

-

tr.

 

 

-

 

 

-0.1

 

 

 

 

 

 

190

Shaft-hole axe (fragm.)

Sabid-Akhcha k.5

high

tr.

-

1.5

-

-

-

 

 

0.03

-

0.1

 

 

 

 

 

 

191

Kettle (fragm.)

Trialeti k.V

high

-

0.2

1.5

0.5

-

-

 

 

tr.

-

0.09

 

 

 

 

 

 

192

Fragm. armour

Trialeti k. XL

97.65

-

-

1.48

tr.

-

tr.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

193

Awl

Ozni

97.69

tr.

low

1.3

+

low

-

-

+

-

 

 

 

 

-

 

 

194

Awl

Ozni

91.43

tr.

low

1.2

+

2.7

-

low

low

tr.

 

 

 

 

-

 

 

195

Spiralic bracelet

Ozni

98.0

-

tr.

1.2

tr.

0.4

-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

196

Flat axe

Tetritsqaro

92.53

-

tr.

1.2

-0.2

tr.

-

-

tr.

-

low

tr.

-

-

197

Awl

Trialeti

high

0.001

0.01

1.2

0.02

0.01

-

 

 

 

 

-

0.02

 

 

 

 

 

 

198

Flat axe

Bedeni

97.80

-

tr.

1.2

-0.1

tr.

-

 

 

tr.

 

 

0.1

 

 

 

 

 

 

199

Flat axe

Nadarbazevi

97.80

-

tr.

1.2

-0.1

tr.

-

-

0.1

-

-0.1

tr.

-

-

200

Awl

Kvemo Sarali

high

-

tr.

1.2

0.01

-

tr.

 

 

-

 

 

tr.

 

 

 

 

 

 

201

Arrowhead

Shulaveri k.4

high

-

- '

1.1

tr.

tr.

-

-

0.02

-

tr.

tr.

<0.01

-

202

Spearhead

?

high

-

-

1.1

0.03

tr.

0.4

-

0.015

-

0.01

-

<0.01

-

203

Shaft-hole axe

Nadarbazevi

98.5

-

tr.

1.08

tr.

-0.1

-

-

0.1

-

0.1

tr.

-

-

204

Shaft-hole axe

Tsitelisopeli

96.7

-

tr.

1.05

low

1.80

-

 

 

low

0.001

low

tr.

 

 

 

 

205

Awl

Trialeti

high

0.02

0.04

1.0

0.015

0.15

-

 

 

 

 

-

0.01

 

 

 

 

 

 

206

Awl

Trialeti

high

0.001

0.02

1.0

0.015

0.1

-

 

 

 

 

-

0.01

 

 

 

 

 

 

207

Kettle (fragm.)

Trialeti kurgan XV

high

tr.

0.42

0.85

0.05

-

-

 

 

0.03

.-

0.1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 94

 

  

 

 

Artefact Type

Locality

Cu

Sn

Pb

As

Fe

Sb

Zn

Mn

Ni

Bi

Ag

Au

Co

Ti

208

Thin plate

Trialeti kurgan XL

high

0.01

0.04

0.8

tr.

-

<0.05

-

>tr.

0.02

-0.1

tr.

-

tr.

209

Needle?

Shulaveri k.4

high

-

-

0.8

0.35

-

0.06

-

tr.

-

tr.

-

-

-

210

Awl

Trialeti k.XXIV

high

<0.01

0.2

0.7

0.3

0.08

0.2

-

0.01

-

-0.1

tr.

-

tr.

211

Awl

Ozni

high

tr.

<0.05

0.7

<0.01

tr.

0.5

-

0.04

-

-0.1

-

-

tr.

212

Chisel

Bedeni

98.45

-

tr.

0.6

tr.

tr.

-

 

 

0.1

 

 

0.1

 

 

 

 

 

 

213

Awl

Zurtaketi k.3

high

>10.0

0.2

0.55

0.03

tr.

<0.01

 

 

1.0

 

 

0.1

 

 

 

 

 

 

214

Bead

Trialeti kurgan XXIX

high

6.15

0.2

0.5

0.08

-

-

 

 

0.03

-

0.05

 

 

 

 

 

 

215

Dagger

Shulaveri k.4

high

tr.

-

<0.5

tr.

tr.

-

-

-

-

tr.

-

>0.01

-

216

Arrowhead

Shulaveri k.6

high

tr.

-

<0.5

-

-

0.1

-

-

-

0.005

tr.

-

-

217

Bracelet

Sabid-A. k.1

87.69

8.60

-

0.4

-

tr.

-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

218

Knife (blade)

Trialeti k.XVIII

high

7.25

0.7

0.4

0.05

-

-

 

 

0.03

-

0.15

 

 

 

 

 

 

219

Dagger

Sabid-A. k.5

91.28

8.37

-

0.38

-

tr.

-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

220

Awl

Trialeti

high

0.02

0.04

0.3

0.01

0.15

-

 

 

-

-

0.01

-

-

 

 

221

Awl

Trialeti k.XV

high

4.52

0.6

0.2

tr.

-

-

 

 

-0.01

-

0.1

 

 

 

 

 

 

222

Dagger (fragm.)

Trialeti k.XXXVI

high

6.60

0.26

tr.

0.01

-

-

 

 

0.02

-

0.03

 

 

 

 

 

 

223

Ring

Trialeti k.XV

high

4.32

0.7

tr.

0.05

-

-

 

 

0.03

-

0.03

 

 

 

 

 

 

224

Dagger

Trialeti k.XXIX

84.98

13.96

0.42

tr.

0.12

-

-

 

 

tr.

-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

225

Spearhead

Trialeti k.XV

high

8.25

1.7

tr.

0.03

-

-

 

 

-

-

0.1

 

 

 

 

 

 

226

Dagger

Trialeti k.XV

high

6.48

0.4

tr.

0.02

-

-

 

 

tr.

-

0.5

 

 

 

 

 

 

227

Pendant

Shvindiani

high

0.03

0.01

7.5

0.15

0.2

0.1

-

0.6

 

 

0.7

 

 

 

 

 

 

228

Dagger

Didi Serebi

high

0.03

-0.1

7.3

tr.

-

0.1

-

0.03

 

 

0.05

+

tr.

-

229

Piercer (ftagm.)

Telebi

high

0.01

-

6.5

0.01

0.13

0.3

-

0.02

 

 

0.1

-

-

-

230

Pendant

Shvindiani

high

0.2

0.1

6.5

0.2

0.2

0.7

tr.

0.3

 

 

0.2

+

-

-

231

Mirror?

Khramebi

high

0.01

0.003

6.3

0.02

0.1

2.5

0.03

0.01

 

 

0.8

-

-

-

232

Dagger

Kokhra Gora

59.0

tr.

0.04

5.0

0.35

0.1

<0.05

tr.

<0.01

-

<0.1

tr.

-

tr.

233

Dagger

Martqopi k.2

high

-

0.001

4.6

0.001

0.001

0.15

 

 

0.03

 

 

0.001

 

 

 

 

 

 

234

Dagger

Tsiteltskaro

high

0.015

0.15

4.5

0.03

0.001

-

-

tr.

 

 

0.02

+

tr.

-

235

Dagger

Sakobiano

high

0.6

1.1

4.2

0.01

0.08

-

-

0.15

 

 

0.05

+

tr.

-

236

Axe

Areshi

high

0.01

-

3.1

0.001

-

0.02

-

-

 

 

0.001

-

-

-

237

Dagger

Dilicha

high

8.6

0.9

2.8

-

-

-

 

 

0.008

 

 

0.001

 

 

 

 

 

 

238

Dagger

Lilo k.6

high

0.15

0.46

2.6

0.02

tr.

-

 

 

0.5

-

0.15

 

 

 

 

 

 

239

Dagger-knife

Alazani k.1

high

14.6

6.8

2.3

-1.0

0.5

-

-

0.12

 

 

tr.

tr.

-

 

 

240

Dagger

Khramebi

high

0.01

1.4

2.3

0.35

0.2

0.1

-

0.6

 

 

0.02

-

-

-

241

Piercer discoid

Khramebi

high

0.015

-0.1

2.3

0.02

0.2

0.3

0.03

-

 

 

0.2

-

-

-

242

Blade of dagger

Telebi

high

0.01

0.02

2.3

0.1

0.15

6.6

-

0.03

 

 

0.05

tr.

-

 

 

 95

 

  

No.

Artefact type

Locality

Cu

Sn

Pb

As

Fe

Sb

Zn

Mn

Ni

Bi

Ag

Au

Co

Ti

243

Spike

Bakurtsikhe k.1

high

-

-

2.3

-

-

0.8

 

 

0.05

 

 

0.001

 

 

 

 

 

 

244

Arrowhead, quadrilat.

Khramebi

high

0.015

-

2.0

0.01

0.15

0.6

-

0.2

 

 

0.03

tr.

tr.

-

245

Awl, quadrilat

Telebi

high

11.3

1.8

1.9

0.15

0.1

-0.1

-

0.2

 

 

0.2

-

tr.

-

246

Pick-axe

Simoniat Khevi

97.3

-

-

1.85

-

-

-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

247

Ring

Shvindiani

high

5.7

2.5

1.8

0.5

0.4

1.1

-

0.5

 

 

0.8

tr.

-

>tr.

248

Flat axe

Martaqopi k.4

high

-

0.001

1.8

-

-

0.01

 

 

-

 

 

0.02

 

 

 

 

 

 

249

Arrowhead

Martaqopi k.4

high

-

0.3

1.8

-

-

0.01

 

 

-

 

 

0.003

 

 

 

 

 

 

250

Arrowhead

Martaqopi k.2

high

0.2

0.02

1.7

0.01

0.4

0.35

 

 

0.05

 

 

0.005

 

 

 

 

 

 

251

Arrowhead

Martaqopi k.3

high

0.5

0.1

1.7

0.6

-

0.1

 

 

0.01

 

 

0.001

 

 

 

 

 

 

252

Standard

Martaqopi k.3

high

-

0.001

1.7

-

-

0.05

 

 

-

 

 

0.001

 

 

 

 

 

 

253

Arrowhead

Martiqopi k.1

high

-

0.5

1.7

0.35

-

0.2

 

 

0.001

 

 

0.03

 

 

 

 

 

 

254

Dagger

Lilo k.6

high'

0.15

-

1.7

0.5

•

-

 

 

0.2

-

0.15

 

 

 

 

 

 

255

Spearhead

Kistauri

high

13.2

1.25

1.6

0.3

0.2

0.4

-

0.03

 

 

0.3

-

tr.

-

256

Dagger

Kachreti k.4

high

-

0.02

1.6

0.05

-

0.1

 

 

0.001

 

 

0.003

 

 

 

 

 

 

257

Shaft-hole axe

Martqopi k.4

high

-

-

1.6

-

-

0.001

 

 

-

 

 

0.002

 

 

 

 

 

 

258

Spearhead (handle)

llto

high

tr.

2.2

1.5

0.02

0.1

0,1

-

0.3

 

 

0.5

tr.

-

>tr.

259

Dagger

Martqopi k.4

high

-

-

1.5

0.001

-

0.002

 

 

-

 

 

0.001

 

 

 

 

 

 

260

Arrowhead

Kachreti k.4

high

-

0.01

1.5

-

-

0.1

 

 

-

 

 

0.003

 

 

 

 

 

 

261

Shaft-hole axe

Martqopi k.4

high

-

-

1.5

-

-

0.001

 

 

-

 

 

0.001

 

 

 

 

 

 

262

Chisel

Martqopi k.4

high

-

-

1.5

-

-

0.001

 

 

-

 

 

0.001

 

 

 

 

 

 

263

Dagger

Zemo Alvari

high

12.5

1.3

1.4

0.1

0.15

-

tr.

0.2

 

 

0.1

tr.

tr.

-

264

Arrowhead

Martqopi k.1

high

-

0.001

1.4

0.02

-

0.15

 

 

0.001

 

 

0.002

 

 

 

 

 

 

265

Dagger

Martqopi k.4

high

-

0.3

1.4

0.001

-

0.002

 

 

-

 

 

0.001

 

 

 

 

 

 

266

Dagger

Martqopi k.4

high

-

-

1.4

0.001

-

0.002

 

 

-

 

 

0.001

 

 

 

 

 

 

267

Dagger-knife

Alazani k.1

high

15.2

0.001

1.4

-1.0

-

-

0.01

0.02

 

 

0.2

-

-

-

268

Arrowhead

Martqopi k.2

high

-

0.12

1.3

0.03

0.15

0.35

 

 

0.04

 

 

0.03

 

 

 

 

 

 

269

Arrowhead

Martqopi k.4

high

-

0.2

1.3

-

-

0.001

 

 

-

 

 

0.001

 

 

 

 

 

 

270

Arrowhead

Martqopi k.3

high

-

-

1.3

0.001

-

0.1

 

 

-

 

 

0.001

 

 

 

 

 

 

271

Spearhead (blade)

llto

high

fr.

2.3

1.2

0.15

0.1

-0.1

-0.01

0.3

 

 

0.7

tr.

•

>tr.

272

Piercer

Alazani k.2

high

0.01

0.001

1.2

-1.0

-

-

0.01

0.03

 

 

tr.

-

-

-

273

Awl

Martqopi k.3

high

-

-

1.2

-

-

0.001

 

 

0.002

 

 

0.001

 

 

 

 

 

 

274

Flat axe

Martqopi k.4

high

-

-

1.2

-

-

0.002

 

 

-

 

 

0.001

 

 

 

 

 

 

275

Flat axe

Martqopi k.4

high

-

-

1.2

-

-

0.001

 

 

-

 

 

0.001

 

 

 

 

 

 

276

Shaft-hole axe

Martqopi k.4

high

-

0.001

1.1

-

-

0.001

 

 

-

 

 

0.001

 

 

 

 

 

 

277

Shaft-hole axe

Martqopi k.4

high

-

-

1.1

-

-

0.001

 

 

-

 

 

0.001

 

 

 

 

 

 

96 

 

 

No.

Artefact Type

Locality

Cu

Sn

Pb

As

Fe

Sb

Zn

Mn

Ni

Bi

Ag

Au

Co

Ti

278

Awl, quadrilat.

Martqopi k.4

high

-

0.2

1.1

-

-

-

 

 

-

 

 

0.002

 

 

 

 

 

 

279

Chisei

Martqopi k.3

high

-

-

1.1

-

-

-

 

 

-

 

 

0.001

 

 

 

 

 

 

280

Shaft-hole axe

Martqopi k.3

high

-

0.001

1

-

-

0.01

 

 

-

 

 

0.001

 

 

 

 

 

 

281

Awl, quadrilat.

lilo

high

7.05

2.8

0.65

0.02

tr.

0.8

 

 

0.03

 

 

0.1

 

 

 

 

 

 

282

Axe

Sioni

high

-

-

0.5

-

-

-

-

tr.

 

 

tr.

-

-

-

283

Dagger

Lilo

high

6.75

3.5

0.1

0.01

tr.

0.05

 

 

tr.

 

 

0.07

 

 

 

 

 

 

284

Spearhead with silver ferrate

Bakurtsikhe k.1

high

13.7

1.2

0.001

0.002

-

0.1

 

 

0.02

 

 

0.001

 

 

 

 

 

 

285

Macehead

Zemo bodbe k.4

high

7.8

0.06

tr.

0.02

-

0.7

-

tr.

 

 

tr.

-

-

tr.

286

Rapier

Lilo k.1

87.21

10.08

1.09

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

287

Dagger (blade)

Zemo Bodbe kurgan 4

high

7.0

0.5

-

0.2

2.7

-

tr.

 

 

tr.

-

-

-

 

 

288

Dagger (handle)

Zemo Bodbe kurgan 4

high

7,8

0,06

-

0.03

-

2.0

-

tr.

 

 

tr.

-

-

tr.

289

Dagger (blade)

Zemo Bodbe kurgan 5

high

4.8

-

-

0.01

-

1.5

-

tr.

 

 

tr.

-

-

tr.

290

Dagger (handle)

Zemo Bodbe kurgan 5

high

7.8

-

-

0.1

-

1.7

-

tr.

 

 

tr.

-

-

tr.

291

Dagger (blade)

Zemo Bodbe kurgan 7

high

5.0

0.05

-

0.01

-

2.5

-

tr.

 

 

•

-

-

-

292

Dagger (handle)

Zemo Bodbe kurgan 7

high

7.2

-

•

0.03

-

0.7

-

tr.

 

 

-

-

-

-

293

Arrowhead

Martqopi k.2

high

-

0.01

-

-

0.12

0.32

 

 

0.09

 

 

0.001

 

 

 

 

 

 

294

Arrowhead

Tsiteligorebi

high

-

0.02

-

-

0.001

0.4

 

 

0.006

 

 

-

 

 

 

 

 

 

295

Dagger

Bakurtsische k.1

high

13.2

0.03

-

-

-

0.1

 

 

0.01

 

 

0.001

 

 

 

 

 

 

296

Spike

Bakurtsische k.1

high

11.5

-

-

-

-

0.4

 

 

-

 

 

0.001

 

 

 

 

 

 

297

Spearhead

Bakurtsische k.1

high

10.2

0.8

-

0.001

-

0.5

 

 

0.02

 

 

0.001

 

 

 

 

 

 

298

Curl-ring

Martqopi k.3

high

6.0

-

-

0.2

-

0.1

 

 

0.05

 

 

0.001

 

 

 

 

 

 

299

Standard

Martqopi k.3

high

3.2

0.001

-

-

-

0.01

 

 

0.001

 

 

0.001

 

 

 

 

 

 

300

Macehead

Zemo Bodbe k.7

high

7.8

0.05

-

0.02

0.17

-

tr.

 

 

tr.

-

-

-

 

 

301

Awl

Bakurtsische k.1

high

-

-

-

-

-

0.1

 

 

-

 

 

0.001

 

 

 

 

 

 

97 

 

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ABESADZE, T.:

1969 Litonis tsarmoeba Amierkavkasiashi dzv.c. III atastsleulshi (Mtkvar-Araksis kultura), Tbilisi (in Georgian).

1974a Kvemo Kartlis qorghanebshi mopovebuli litonis nivtebis kimiuri shedgenilobis shestsaviisatvis. In: Samuzeumo eksponatta restavracia, konservacia, teknologia l, Tbilisi, 9-20 (in Georgian).

1974b Trialetis kulturis spilendz-brindznaos metalurgiis istoriisatvis. In: Samuzeumo eksponatta restavracia, konservacia, teknologia l, Tbilisi, 27-77 (in Georgian).

1980 Adre da shuabrindzhaos xanis litonis natsarmi Kaxetidan. In: Samuseumo eksponatebis restavracia, konservacia, teknologia III, Tbilisi, 135-163 (in Georgian).

ABESADZE, T., BAKHTADZE, R., DVALI, T. & DZHAPARIDZE, O.:

1958 Spilendz-brindzhaos metalurgiis istoriisatvis Sakartveloshi, Tbilisi (in Georgian).

ABESADZE, T. N. & BAKHTADZE, R. A.:

1987 Iz istorii drevneishei metallurgii Gruzii. In: K.M. Pitskhelauri & E. Chernikh (eds.), Kavkaz v sisteme paleo-metallicheskikh kultur Evrazii, materialy l simpoziuma -„Kavkaz v epokhu rannego metalla" (Telavi-Signakhi 1983), Tbilisi 51-54 (in Russian).

ABESADZE. T. & SARADZHISVILI, N.:

1989 Kaxetis adreuli xanis qorghanebshi mopovebuli litonis nivtebis kimiuri shedgenilobis sescavlisatvis. In: akartvelos saxelmtsipo muzeumis moambe 40-B, Tbilisi (in Georgian).

ABIBULAEV, O.A.:

1963 Nekotorye itogi izucheniya kholma Kül-tepe v Azerbaijane. Sovetskaya Arkheologiya 3, 157-168 (in Russian).

1982 Eneolit i bronza na territorii Nakhichevanskoi ASSR, Baku (in Russian).

ABRAMISHVILI, R., GIGUASHVILI, N. & KAKHIANI, K.:

1980 Ghrmaxevistavis arkeologiuri dzeglebi, Tbilisi (in Georgian).

ALGAZE, G.:

1990 Period VI: Late Chalcolithic; Period V: The early part of the Early Bronze Age; Period IV: The middle-late part of the Early Bronze Age. In: G. Algaze (ed.), Town and country 2-3 (text, plates), Chicago, Oriental Institute Publications 110.

ARAZOVA, R.B., MAKHMUDOV, F. R. & NARIMANOV, l. G.:

1972 Eneoliticheskoe poselenie Gargalartepesi. In: Arkhelogicheskie otkritiya za 1971 g., Moscow, 478-480 (in Russian).

BADALJAN, R., KOHL, P. L, STRONACH, D. & TONIKJAN, A. V.:

1994 Preliminary report of the 1993 excavations at Horom, Armenia. Iran 32, 1 -22.

BEHM-BLANCKE, M.:

1983 Die Ausgrabungen auf dem Hassek Höyük im Jahre 1982. In: V. Kazı Sonuçlari Toplantisi, Istanbul, 163-168, 419-423.

1984 Hassek Höyük 1983. In: VI. Kazı Sonuçlari Toplantisi, lzmir,181-190.

BERNABÒ BREA, L.:

1957 Sicily before the Greeks, London.

1964 Poliochni città preistorica nell'isola di Lemnos l, Roma.

BLEGEN, C.W., CASKEY, J.L, RAWSON, M. & SPERLING, J.:

1950 Troy, general introduction, the first and second settlements l, Princeton.

BRANIGAN, K.:

1974 Aegean metalwork of the Early and Middle Bronze Age, Oxford.

BURLEIGH, R.:

1982 Symposium at Groningen, Netherlands. Antiquity 56. 138-139.

BURNEY, C.:

1993 Arslantepe as a gateway to the highland: a note on periods VI A-VI D. In: M. Frangipane, H. Hauptmann, M. Liverani, P. Matthiae & M. Mellink (eds.), Between the Rivers and over the Mountains, Archaeologica Anatolica et Mesopotamica Alba Palmieri Dedicata, Rome, 311-317.

BURTON BROWN, T.:

1951 Excavations in Azarbaijan, 1948, London.

CHARTOLANI, S.G.:

1988 Mednye gornorudnye mestorozhdeniya Svanetii. In: Tezisy dokladov: Bashkapsaarskii polevoi arkheologicheskii seminar „Mednye rudniki Zapadnogo Kavkaza Ill-l tys. do n.e. i ikh rol v gorno-metallurgicheskom proizvodstve drevnego naseleniya", Sukhumi (in Russian).

CHELIDZE, L M.:

1979 Orydiya truda eneoliticheskogo poseleniya Arukhlo l. Materialy po Arkheologii Gruzii i Kavkaza 7,19-31, Tables 4-17 (in Russian).

CHERNYKH, E. N.:

1992 Ancient metallurgy in the USSR, the Early Metal Age, Cambridge.

CHUBINISHVILI.T.N.:

1971 K drevnei istorii Yuznego Kavkaza, Tbilisi (in Russian).

CHUBINISHVILI, T. N. & CHELIDZE, L M.:

1978 K voprosu o nekotorykh priznakakh rannezemledelcheskoi kultury VI-IV tysyacheletii do n.e. Matsne, seriya istorii 1, 55-73 (in Russian).

CONTI, A. M. & PERSIANI, C.:

1993 When worlds collide, cultural developments in Eastem Anatolia in the Early Bronze Age. In: M. Frangipane, H. Hauptmann, M. Liverani, P. Matthiae & M. Mellink (eds.), Between the Rivers and over the Mountains, Archaeologica Anatolica et Mesopotamica Alba Palmieri Dedicata, Rome, 361-413.

DE JESUS, P. S.:

1980 The development of prehistoric mining and metallurgy in Anatolia, BAR Internat. Series 74, Oxford.

DSHAPARIDSE, O.:

1995a Die Zeit der frühen Kurgane. In: A. Miron & W. Orthmann (eds.), Unterwegs zum Goldenen Vlies, Saarbrücken, 69-72.

1995b Die Kurgane von Martqopi. In: A. Miron & W. Orthmann (eds.), Unterwegs zum Goldenen Vlies, Saarbrücken, 73-75.

DVALI, T.:

1974 Vercxlis metalurgiis istoriidan. In: Samuzeumo eksponatebis restavracia, konservacia, teknologia II, Tbilisi, 62-73 (in Georgian).

DZHAPARIDZE, O.:

1961 Kartveli tomebis istoriisatvis litonis tsarmoebis adreul sapexurze. Tbilisi (in Georgian).

1989 Na zare etnokulturnoi istorii Kavkaza, Tbilisi (in Russian),

1994 Trialetskaya kultura. In: K.KH. Kushnareva & V.l. Markovin (eds.), Rannyaya i srednyaya bronza Kavkaza, Arkheologiya, Moscow (in Russian), 75-92 .

DZHAPARIDZE, 0., KIKVIDZE, l., AVALISHVILI, G. & TSERETELI, A.:

1980 Kaxetis arkeologiuri ekspediciis angarishi (1978-1979 cc.). In: Sakartvelos saxelmtsipo museumis arkeologiuri ekspediciebi VII, Tbilisi, 35-41 (in Georgian).

DZHAVAKHISHVILI, A. & GLONTI, L:

1962 Urbnisi l, Tbilisi (in Georgian).

DZHAVAKHISHVILI, A. l., NARIMANOV, l. G. & KIGURADZE, T. V.:

1987 Yuzhnyi Kavkaz v VI-IV tys. do n.e. In: K.N. Pitskhelauri & E.N. Chernikh (eds.), Kavkaz v sisteme paleometallicheskikh kultur Evrazii, materialy l simpoziuma -„Kavkaz v epokhu rannego metalla" (Telavi-Signakhi 1983), Tbilisi, 5-9 (in Russian).

98

 

ESIN, U.:

1979 Tepecik excavations, 1973. In: Keban Project 1973 activities, Ankara, 97-112, Tables 46-65 (Middle East Technical University Keban Project Publications, Series l, Nr. 6).

1982 Tepecik Excavations, 1974. In: Keban Project 1974-1975 activities, Ankara, 95-118, Tables 53-78 (Middle East Technical University Keban Project Publications, Series l, Nr. 7).

1989 An early trading center in Eastern Anatolia. In: Emre et. al., (eds.): Anatolia and the Ancient Near East, Studies in Honor of Tahsin Özgüç, Ankara, 135-141.

FRANGIPANE, M. & PALMIERI, A.:

1987 Urbanisation in Perimesopotamian areas, the case of Eastern Anatolia. In: L. Manzanilla (ed.), Studies in the Neolithic and Urban revolutions, BAR Internat. Series 349, 295-318, Oxford.

GEVORKIYAN, A. TS.:

1980 Iz istorii drevneishei metallurgii Armyanskogo nagorya. Yerevan.

GHIRSHMAN, R.:

1938 Fouilles de Sialk, près de Kashan 1933, 1934, 1937, l, Paris (Musèe du Louvre - Dèpartement des antiquités Orientales, serie Archéologique, Tome IV).

GIMBUTAS, M.:

1992 Chronologies of Eastern Europe: Neolithic through Early Bronze Age. In: R.W. Ehrich (ed.), Chronologies in Old World Archaeology, Chicago, London, vol. l, 395-406, vol. II, 364-384.

GLONTI, L. l., DZHAVAKHISHVILI, A. l. & KIGURADZE, T. V.:

1975 Antropomorfnye figury Khramis Didi Gora. In: Vestnik Gosudarstvennogo Muzeya Gruzii XXXI-B, 85-97 (in Russian).

GOGADZE, E.:

1972 Trialetis qorghanuli kulturis pehodizacia da genezisi, Tbilisi (in Georgian).

1990 Nekotorye voprosy izucheniya metallurgicheskogo proizvodstva Yuznogo Kavkaza rannykh etapov razvitiya. In: Mezhdistsiplinarnye issledovaniya kulturogeneza i etnogeneza Armyanskogo nagorya i sopredelnykh oblastei, Erevan, 89-101, Tables l-lll (in Russian).

GOLDMAN, H.:

1956 Excavations at Gözlü Kule, Tarsus, II, from the Neolithic through the Bronze Age, Phnceton.

GOLOVINA,V.A.:

1990 Drevneishaya metallurgiya starogo sveta, IV sovetsko-amerikanskii simpozium po arkheologii (Tbilisi-Signakhi, 28 sentyabrya - 5 oktyabrya 1988 g.). Vestnik Drevnei Istorii 2, 225-232 (in Russian).

HAUPTMANN, H.:

1982 Die Grabungen auf dem Norşuntepe, 1974. In: Keban-Project 1974 - 1975 activities, Ankara, 41-70, Tables 13-52 (Middle East Technical University Keban Project Publications, Series l, Nr. 7).

HELMS, S.:

1973 Taşkun Mevkii 1970-71. Anatolian Studies 23,109-120.

HELWING, B.B.:

1996 Hassek Höyük. Die spätchalkolithische Keramik. Dissertation, Ruprecht-Karl-Universität Heidelberg.

HOH, M. R.:

1981 Die Keramik von Hassek Höyük. Istanbuler Mitteilungen 31, 31 -82.

1984 Die Keramik von Hassek Höyük. Istanbuler Mitteilungen 34, 66-91.

INANISHVILI, G.:

1989 In: O. Lordkipanidze, Nasledie drevnei Gruzii, Tbilisi 127, note 25.

ISAAC, B., KIKODZE, Z., KOHL, P. L, MINDIASHVILI, G., ORDZHONIKIDZE, A. & WHITE, G.:

1994 Archaeological investigations in Southern Georgia 1993 (Appendix A). Iran 32, 22-29.

KAVTARADZE,G.:

1981 Sakartvelos eneolit-brindzhaos xanis arkeologiuri kulturebis kronologia axali monacemebis shukze, Tbilisi (in Georgian).

1983 K khronologii epokhi eneolita i bronzi Gruzii, Tbilisi (in Russian).

1987 Nekotorye voprosy khronologii Gruzii epokhi eneolita -rannei bronzy. In: Pitskhelauri & Chernykh (eds.), 10-16 (in Russian).

1992 Voprosy etnicheskoi istorii Kavkaza i Anatolii i problema khronologii i periodizacii (Vl-l tysyacheletiya do n.e.),Tbilisi (in Russian).

KHANZADYAN, E.V.:

1964 O metallurgii drevnebronzovoi epokhi v Armenii. Sovetskaya Arkheologiya 2, 92-101 (in Russian).

KHLOPIN, l. N.:

1981 The Early Bronze Age cemetery of Parkhai II, the first two seasons of excavations: 1977-78. In: P.L. Kohl (ed.), The Bronze Age civilizations of Central Asia, recent Soviet discoveries, New York, 3-34.

KIGURADZE, T.:

1986 Neolitische Siedlungen von Kvemo-Kartli, Georgien, München (Materialen zur allgemeinen und vergleichenden Archäologie 29).

KILIAN-DIRLMEIER, l.:

1984 Nadeln der frühhelladischen bis archaischen Zeit von der Peloponnes, Prähistorische Bronzefunde XIII, 8, München.

KLEIN, H.:

1992 Untersuchung zur Typologie bronzezeitlicher Nadeln in Mesopotamien und Syrien, Saarbrücken (Schriften zur Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 4).

KUFTIN, B.A.:

1941 Arkheologicheskie raskopki v Trialeti, Tbilisi (in Russian).

1949 Arkheologicheskaya marshrutnaya ekspeditsia 1945 goda v Yugo-Osseiyu i Imeretiyu, Tbilisi (in Russian).

KUSHNAREVA.K.KH.:

1993 Yuzhnyi Kavkaz v IX-II tys. do n.e., etapy kultumogo razvitiya, Sankt-Petersburg (in Russian).

1994 Karmirberdsxkaya (Tazakendskaya) kultura. In: Kushnareva & Markovin (eds.), 106-117 (in Russian).

KUSHNAREVA, K. KH. & CHUBINISHVILI, T. N.:

1963 Istoricheskoe znachenie Yuzhnogo Kavkaza v III tysyacheletii do n.e. Sovetskaya arkheologiya 3, 10-24 (in Russian).

1970 Drevnye kultury Yuzhnogo Kavkaza, Leningrad (in Russian).

KUZMINA, E.E.:

1966 Metallicheskie izdeliya eneolita i bronzovoga veka v Srednei Azii, Moscow (Arkheologiya SSSR, svod arkheologicheskikh istochnikov B 4-9) (in Russian).

LAMB, W.:

1937 Excavations at Kusura near Afyon Karahisar. Archaeologia 86,1 -64.

LEHMANN-HAUPT,C.F.:

1910 Armenien einst und jetzt, Bd. l, Berlin.

LORDKIPANIDZE, O.:

1989 Nasledie drevnei Gruzii, Tbilisi (in Russian).

1991 Archäologie in Georgien, Weinheim.

MAKHARADZE, Z.:

1994 Cixia goris Mtkvar-Araksuli namosaxlari, Tbilisi, (Kavtisxevis arkheologiuri dzeglebi II) (in Georgian).

99

 

 

MAKHMUDOV, P.A., MUNCHAEV, R. M. & NARIMANOV, l. G.:

1968 O drevneishei metallurgii Kavkaza. Sovetskaya Arkheologiya 4, 16-26 (in Russian).

MALLOWAN, M.E.L.:

1936 The excavations at Tall Chagar Bazar and an archaeological survey of the Habur region 1934-35. Iraq 3, 1 -86.

1937 The excavations at Tall Chagar Bazar and an archaeological survey of the Habur region, second

campaign 1936. Iraq 4, 91-185.

1947 Excavations at Brak and Chagar Bazar. Iraq 9, 1-266, Tables I-LXXXIV.

MASSOULARD, E.:

1949 Préhistoire et protohistoire d'Egypte, Paris (Université de Paris, Travaux et Mémoires de l'lnstitut d'Ethnologie 53).

MAXWELL-HYSLOP, K. R.:

1949 Western Asiatic shaft-hole axes. Iraq U, 90-129, Tables XXXVIII-XXXIX.

1971 Western Asiatic jewellery c.3000-612 BC, London.

1995 A note on the Anatolian connections of the Tod treasure. Anatolian Studies 45, 243-250.

MELLAART, J.:

1975 The Neolithic of the Near East. London.

MELLINK, M.J.:

1970 Excavations at Karataş-Semayük and Elmalı, Lycia, 1969. American Journal of Archaeology 74. 245-253, Tables 55-61.

MENABDE, M., KIGURADZE, T. & GOTSADZE, E.:

1980 Kvemo-Kartlis ekspediciis (1978-1979 cc.) mushaobis shedegebi. Sakartvelos saxelmtsipo muzeumis arkeologiuri ekspediciebi 7, Tbilisi, 19-33 (in Georgian).

MERPERT, H. l. & MUNCHAEV, R. M.;

1977 Drevneishaya metallurgiya Mesopotamii. Sovetskaya Arkheologiya 3, 154-161 (in Russian).

MOOREY, P.R.S.:

1982 The archaeological evidence for metallurgy and related technologies in Mesopotamia c. 5500-2100 BC. Iraq 44,13-38.

MUDZHIRI, T. P., GOBEDZHISHVILI, G.G., INANISHVILI, G.V. & MAISURADZE.V.G.:

1987 Drevneishye surmyannye rudniki Gruzii i ikh radioaktivnye datirovki. In: Pitskhelauri & Chernikh (eds.), 235-236 (in Russian).

MÜLLER-KAPRE, M.:

1968 Handbuch der Vorgeschichte, Bd. 2: Jungsteinzeit, München.

1980 Handbuch der Vorgeschichte, Bd. 4: Bronzezeit, München.

MUNCHAEV, P.M.:

1975 Kavkaz na zare bronzovogo veka, Moscow (in Russian).

1982 Eneolit Kavkaza. In: Eneolit: Arkheologiya SSSR, Moscow, 93-164 (in Russian).

1994 Kura-Arakskaya kultura. In: K.KH. Kushnareva & V.l. Markovin (eds.), Rannyaya i srednyaya bronza Kavkaza, Arkheologiya, Moscow (in Russian), 8-57.

NARIMANOV, I.G.:

1980 Kultura drevneishego zemledelcheskogo skotovodcheskogo naseleniya Azerbaijana, Tbilisi,

dissertation (Institute of History of Georgia no. 673), unpublished (in Russian).

1991 Ob eneolite Azerbaijana. In: K. Pitskhelauri (ed.), Kavkaz v sisteme paleometallicheskikh kultur Evrazii, Tiblisi, 21-33, Tables II-VI (in Russian).

NARIMANOV, l. G. & DZHAFAROV, R. F.:

1988 K istorii drevneishei metallurgii Azerbaijana. In: Tezisy dokladov: Bashkapsaarskii polevoi arkheologicheskii seminar „Mednye rudniki Zapadnogo Kavkaza Ill-l tys. do n.e. i ikh rol v gorno-metallurgicheskom proizvodstve drevnego naseleniya", Sukhumi (in Russian).

99

 

 

NISSEN, H.J.:

1988 The early history of the Ancient Near East 9000-2000 BC, Chicago, London.

NORTHOVER.J.P.:

1989 Properties and use of arsenic-copper alloys. In: A. Hauptmann , E. Permicka & G.A. Wagner (eds.), Old World Archaeometallurgy, Der Anschnitt, Beiheft 7, Bochum, 111-118.

OGANESIAN,V.E.:

1992 A silver goblet from Karashamb. Soviel Anthropology and Archaeology 30.4. 84-102.

PALMIERI, A.:

1981 Excavations at Arslantepe (Malatya). Anatolian Studies 3l,101-119,Tables XIII-XVI.

1984 Excavations at Arslantepe, 1983. In: VI. Kazı Sonuçlari Toplantisi, Izmir, 71 -78.

1985 Eastern Anatolia and early Mesopotamian urbanization: remarks on changing relations. In: M. Liverani et. al., (eds), Studi di Palentologia in Onore di Salvatore M. Puglisi, Rome, 191 -213.

PALMIERI, A.M„ SERTOK, K. & CHERNYKH, E.:

1993 From Arslantepe metalwork to arsenical copper technology in Eastern Anatolia. In: M. Frangipane, H. Hauptmann, M. Liverani, P. Matthiae & M. Mellink (eds.), Between the Rivers and over the Mountains, Archaeologica Anatolica et Mesopotamica Alba Palmieri Dedicata, Rome, 573-599.

PERNICKA, E.:

1990 Gewinnung und Verbreitung der Metalle in prähistorischer Zeit. Jahrb. des Römisch-Germanischen

Zentralmuseum 37, Mainz, 21-129.

PETROSYAN, LA.:

1989 Raskopki pamyatnikov Keti i Voskeaska (Ill-l tys. do n.e), Erevan (in Russian).

PITSKHELAURI, K. N.:

1987 Tsentralnoe Zakavkazie v kontse III i nachale II tys. do n.e. In: Pitskhelauri & Chernikh (eds.), 21 -26 (in Russian).

PORADA, E., HANSEN, D. P., DURHAM, S. & BABCOCK, S. H.:

1992 The chronology of Mesopotamia, ca. 7000-1600 BC. In: R.W. Ehrich (ed.), Chronologies in Old World Archaeology, Chicago, London, vol. l, 77-121, vol. II, 90-124.

RAPP, G., Jr.:

1989 Determining the origins of sulfide smelting. In: A. Hauptmann , E. Pernicka & G.A. Wagner (eds.), Old World Archaeometallurgy, Der Anschnitt, Beiheft 7, Bochum, 107-110.

RENFREW, C.:

1970 The autonomy of the South-East European Copper Age. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society for 1969, New Series 35, 12-47.

1973 Before civilization, the radiocarbon revolution and prehistoric Europe, London.

SAGONA,A.G.:

1981 Spiral-headed pins: a further note. Tel Aviv 8,152-160.

1984 The Caucasian region in the Early Bronze Age, Oxford BAR Internat. Series 214.

SCHAEFFER, C.F.A.:

1948 Stratigraphie comparée et Chronologie de l'Asie Occidentale, London.

SCHAFFER, J. G.:

1978 The later prehistoric periods. In: S.R. Allchin & N. Hammond (eds.), The archaeology in Afghanistan from earliest times to the Timurid period, London, 71-186.

SCHILLINGER, A.:

1997 Die früheste Zinnbronze im Schwarzmeerraum. Magisterarbeit, Universität Tübingen.

SCHLIEMANN, H.:

1885 //ios, ville et pays des troyens, Paris.

100

 

 

SCHMIDT, E. F.:

1932 The Alishar Hüyük seasons of 1928 and 1929, part l, Oriental Institute Publications 19, Researches in Anatolia 4, Chicago. 1937 Excavations at Tepe Hissar, Damghan, Philadelphia.

SCHMITT-STRECKER, S., BEGEMANN, F. & PERNICKA, E.:

1992 Chemische Zusammensetzung und Bleiisotopenverhältnisse der Metallfunde vom Hassek Höyük. In: M.R. Behm-Blancke (ed.), Hassek Höyük, Naturwissenschaftliche Untersuchungen und lithische Industrie, Tübingen, 108-123.

SELIMKHANOV, l. R. & MARESHAL, J.K.:

1966 O rannykh etapakh drevnei metallurgii medi na territorii Evropy i Kavkaza v novykh poniyatii i resultatov analiza. In: Doklady i soobshcheniya arkheologov SSSR na VII Mezhdunarodnom kongresse doistorikov i protoistorikov, Moscow (in Russian).

SELIMKHANOV, l. R. & TOROSIYAN, R. M.:

1969 Metallograficheskii analiz drevneishikh metallov v Zakavkazie. Sovetskaya Arkheologiya 3, 229-235 (in Russian).

SIMONYAN.A.E.:

1984 Dva pogrebeniya epokhi srednei bronzy mogilnika Verin-Naver. Sovetekaya Arkheologiya 3, 122-135 (in Russian).

SPEISER, E.A.:

1935 Excavations at Tepe Gawra l, Philadelphia.

STUIVER, M. & REIMER, P.J.:

1993 Extended 14 C data base and revised calib 3.0 14C age calibration program. Radiocarbon 35, 215-230.

TAVADZE, F. N., SAKVARELIDZE, T. N. & INANISHVILI, G. V.:

1987 Etapy razvitiya metallurgii v Gruzii. In: K.N. Pitskhelauri & E.N. Chernikkh (eds.), 44-50 (in Russian).

THOMAS, H. L:

1967 Near Eastern, Mediterranean and European chronology, Studies in Mediterranean archaeology XVII, Lund.

TOBLER, A.J.:

1950 Excavations at Tepe Gawra, Philadelphia.

TODOROVA, KH., IVANOV, ST., VASILIEV, V., KHOPF, M., KVITA, KH. & KOL, G.:

1975 Selitshnata Mogila pri Golyamo Delchevo. Raskopki i prouchvaniya 5, Sofiya (in Bulgarian).

TRENTIN, M. G.:

1993 The early reserved slip wares horizon of the upper Euphrates basin and Western Syria. In: M. Frangipane, H. Hauptmann, M. Liverani, P. Matthiae & M. Mellink (eds.), Between the Rivers and over the Mountains, Archaeologica Anatolica et Mesopotamica Alba Palmieri Dedicata, Rome, 177-199.

VANDIER, J.:

1937 A propos d'un dépôt de provenance Asiatique trouvé a Tôd.Syna18,174-182.

VOIGT, M. M.:

1992 The chronology of Iran, ca. 8000-2000 BC. In: R.W. Ehrich (ed.), Chronologies in Old World Archaeology, Chicago, London, vol. l, 122-178, vol. II, 125-153.

WÄFLER, M.:

1974 Ausgewählte Kleinfunde. In: Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft zu Berlin 106. 36, Fig. 51.

WAGNER, G.A-, BEGEMANN, F., EIBNER, C., LUTZ, J., ÖZTUNALI, Ö., PERNICKA, E. & SCHMITT-STRECKER, S.:

1989 Archäometallurgische Untersuchungen an Rohstoffquellen des frühen Kupfers Ostanatoliens. Jahrb. des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums 36. Mainz, 637-686, Tables 46-52.

WARNER, J. L:

1994 Elmalı-Karataş II, The Early Bronze Age village of Karataş, Bryn Mawr.

WEISS, H. & YOUNG, T.C., Jr.:

1975 The merchants of Susa, Godin V and plateau lowland relations in the late fourth millennium BC. Iran 13.1-17.

WOOLLEY.C.L:

1934 Ur excavations 2, the Royal Cemetery, Oxford.

YAKAR, J.:

1985 The later prehistory of Anatolia, the Late Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age, Oxford, BAR Internat. Series 268.

ZWICKER, U.:

1980 Investigations on the extractive metallurgy of Cu/Sb/As ore and excavated smelting products from Norşuntepe (Keban) on the upper Euphrates. In: W.A. Oddy (ed.), Aspects of early metallurgy, 13-26, British Museum Occasional Paper 17.

101

 

Back:

publications2.htm

or

http://www.geocities.com/komblege/kavta.html

IPSO FACTO

1