A VIEW FROM THE HIGHLANDS

 

Archaeological Studies in Honour of

Charles Burney

 

Edited by

Antonio Sagona

 

ANCIENT NEAR EASTERN STUDIES

 

Supplement 12

 

Leuven

PEETERS

2004

 

 

THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE CAUCASUS

DURING THE EARLY METAL AGE:

OBSERVATIONS FROM CENTRAL TRANS-CAUCASUS

 

Giorgi L. Kavtaradze

 

Institute of History and Ethnology

Academy of Science

Melikishvili St. 10

Tbilisi-380079

REPUBLIC  OF  GEORGIA

 

E-mail: [email protected]

 

{p. 539:} The first and second ’radiocarbon revolutions’ have resulted in the separation of ancient world chronology.  On the one hand, the northern periphery of the Near East and Europe is reliant on radiocarbon dates; that is, radiocarbon dates form the basis of absolute time-scales of the Neolithic to Early Metal Age after the archaeological sequence has been established.  On the other is the Near East, with approximate historical chronologies.  The gulf between these two regions can be likened to a ’geological gap’ — a ’fault line.’[1] In addition to the improvement in the geo-chronological methodology, there needs to be intensive research in the field of comparative chronology either side of the above-mentioned gap, and, as much as is possible, to bridge that gap — an urgent task of modern archaeological researches.

This ’fault line’ that tears Europe from the Near East is focused on the Balkan Peninsula and in Caucasia.  Chronological problems of these regions have paramount importance in the foundation of a general Near Eastern - east European chronological system.  In such a system, Caucasia forms an important link in the Old World's chronological chain.  Yet the dating of Caucasian evidence is, in many cases, made possible through comparative materials from well-dated Near Eastern strata and through imported objects from well-dated Syro-Mesopotamian contexts.  The resulting chronological framework reached, underpins the comparative and absolute chronologies of the Caucasian regions in the Early Metal Age.

Before Caucasian chronological data can be included in a common Near Eastern - east European chronological system, a ‘pan-Caucasian’ chronological scale needs to be devised.  In order to construct this scale, it is necessary to address each {p. 540:} of the cultural-geographical regions of Caucasia.  We have seven such regions in Caucasia:

1. Western Trans-Caucasia (actually western Georgia)

2. South-western Trans-Caucasia (north-easternmost part of Turkey)

3. Central Trans-Caucasia (eastern Georgia)

4. Southern Trans-Caucasia (Armenia)

5. Eastern Trans-Caucasia (Azerbaijan)

6. North-western Caucasia

7. North-eastern Caucasia

The last two areas are divided by the middle flow of the Terek River. 

Between all these areas transitional and/or contact zones can be distinguished. Central Trans-Caucasia plays a key role as it is meeting point of all other regions and thus it offers a common ground for the creation of the all-Caucasian chronological system.

            The spatial dimension of the term Trans-Caucasia (or South Caucasia) needs reconsideration after the fall of the Soviet system that functioned as a ‘iron curtain.’  Natural boundaries are located between the Great Caucasian range in the north and the Black and Caspian Seas towards the west and the east.  The southern boundary is confined by the flow of the Araxes River.  The upper reaches of it form a boundary between Trans-Caucasia and Anatolia, going west from the same river along the Palandöken and Kop ranges; and further to the north, the border runs along the middle and lower flow of the Çoruh River. We can consider the term Turkish Trans-Caucasia used in the latest archaeological literature as the manifestation of such a widening interpretation of Trans-Caucasia, for example, in connection with Sos Höyük,[2] an archaeological site situated near the uppermost flows of the Araxes and the Euphrates.  The excavations at Sos Höyük by the team from the University of Melbourne led by A. and C. Sagona has provided a missing link in the chain of the comparative chronology of the Trans-Caucasian-east Anatolian area.[3]

 

EARLY FARMING CULTURES

Central Trans-Caucasia

The mainly sixth millennium chronology of the early farming culture of Shulaveri-Shomu Tepe in central Trans-Caucasia is based on calibrated radiocarbon evidence.  These calibrated dates partially solve the discrepancy between the Near Eastern archaeological parallels of this culture, dated to the seventh-sixth millennia, and the uncalibrated radiocarbon dates of the Shulaveri-Shomu Tepe culture, which were largely {p. 541:} placed in the fifth millennium. 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,[4]  when compared to the pottery of an earlier site, Imiris Gora.[5]  Some Georgian archaeologists argue that similarities can also be observed between the 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 that were discovered in the layers of the Hassuna, Samara and Halaf cultures.[6]  All of these Mesopotamian sites are dated mainly to the sixth millennium.  The Shulaveri-Shomu Tepe culture, both from the perspective of typological and chronological data, can be compared with them; that all were at the same stage of development is not doubted.

Although metal artifacts of the Shulaveri-Shomu Tepe culture originate from the building layers of its later stage, one can consider this culture as predominantly Early Chalcolithic (Eneolithic) because of other, more characteristic traits.  These traits include the degradation of its flint industry and impoverishment of stone tool sets, as well as a lack of certain categories of artifacts, e.g. geometrical microliths as a mass series from its layers known up till now as the lowest.[7]

A following culture displays a certain similarity with the preceding and subsequent cultures, that is between the Shulaveri-Shomu Tepe period and the earliest materials of the Kura-Araxes culture.  A period that is tentatively referred to here as the Middle Chalcolithic Age.  It is represented at Sioni, Tsopi, Delisi, the lowest level of Berikldeebi, sites of the Aragvi ravine, the Alazani valley, etc. 

 

South Trans-Caucasia

The south Trans-Caucasian early farming sites (e.g. Kül Tepe, Teghut, etc.), which mainly belong to a time rather later than the Shulaveri-Shomu Tepe culture, discussed above, are more or less contemporary with the central Trans-Caucasian Middle Chalcolithic or the so-called ‘Sioni’ culture.

The stratigraphy of Dalma Tepe in the Solduz valley of north-west Iran is useful for establishing the comparative chronology of Trans-Caucasian sites.  We must emphasise the fact that of all the Chalcolithic layers at Kül Tepe I (spanning from 12.18 m to {p. 542:} 21.10 m in depth), it was in the lower levels (16.85–20.84 m) that Halafian imports and the sherds of the Dalma painted ware were found.  The Dalma culture was contemporary with Ubaid 3,[8] and the lower levels of Kül Tepe I can also be dated to that period.  This corresponded to the end of the Halaf culture dated to the beginning of the fifth millennium, which slightly overlapped with the Early Northern Ubaid.  We can consider this date as a terminus post quem for the later layers of Kül Tepe I as well as for the Middle Chalcolithic period of Trans-Caucasia, and, at the same time, as a terminus ante quem for the Shulaveri-Shomu Tepe culture or the Early Chalcolithic.

Just as the painted pottery, typical of the lower levels of Dalma Tepe, provides a chronological link to Mil-Karabagh sites and Kül Tepe I, so too, do the Impressed Wares, characteristic  of Late Dalma, found in Ilanly Tepe and the sites of Misharchai and Guru Dere I in the steppe of Mughan, Azerbaijan.[9]  Furthermore, Late Dalma Impressed Ware can be keyed into the Early Siahbid phase of the Kermanshah region although it is not represented in the Late Siahbid deposits.[10]  Dalma Impressed Ware sherds are found at the Ubaid sites of Abada and Kheit Qasim in the Hamrin and at Yorgan Tepe near Kirkuk.  Significantly, sherds characteristic of Tepe Gawra XVI (or of the Ubaid 3 period) are represented at Dalma Tepe.[11]  In turn, the layers of Dalma Tepe and contemporary Trans-Caucasian sites containing Early and Late Dalma Ware can be dated to the first half and middle of the fifth millennium B.C.

Some archaeologists argue that at that time new ethno-cultural elements — the tribes of the Ubaid culture — spread to Caucasia.[12]  But here we recall H. Nissen's discussion connecting the wide distribution of Ubaid-like pottery with the introduction of the tournette or ’slow-wheel’ used in the manufacture of pottery.[13]  We must also consider the possibility of a connection between the high firing of Ubaid pottery and the smelting procedure of copper ore, only attainable  at temperatures in excess of 1100°.[14]

At the same time, it seems possible that the Tepe Gawra XI A – Amuq F – cultural complex had indirect ties with the Trans-Caucasian Middle Chalcolithic, particularly with the materials of its later stage.  For example, some similarities can be observed between the pottery and figurines of Tepe Gawra XI A and Teghut (in the Ararat valley, Armenia).  In regards to architecture, if rectangular houses were characteristic of Tepe Gawra XII, in the subsequent level, Gawra XI A, round houses,[15] {p. 543:} appeared, that are typical of the early farming communities of Trans-Caucasia. It is interesting that the people of Tepe Gawra XII and XI A used various types of copper ores, however, copper of the later level differs in the high content of arsenic.[16]

 

THE KURA-ARAXES CULTURE

An extremely poor metal inventory has been documented for the early phase of the Kura-Araxes culture.  This period corresponds to the Didube-Kiketi and the Sioni (Iori River valley)-Gremi (Alazani River valley) groups and is referred to as the Late Chalcolithic period of central Trans-Caucasia. 

In central Trans-Caucasia, the Kura-Araxes culture is dated mainly to the fourth to first quarter of the third millennium.   In broad terms, the period represents the Late Chalcolithic and first phase of the Early Bronze Age.  The best known sites with fixed stratigraphy of the Kura-Araxes culture of central Trans-Caucasia 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.

It is a widespread view that the metal from the Caucasian ore deposits together with certain types of metal artifacts were distributed to many regions of the Ancient World from the early stages of metallurgical production.  Technological impulses coming primarily from northern Caucasian metallurgical centres were distributed from the river Volga to the Dniepr and even as far as the Carpathian mountains.[17]   Trans-Caucasian metal products were widely distributed to the south throughout Anatolia and Syria-Palestine.  So much so, that any research on Anatolian metallurgy should integrate the evidence of copper ore and arsenic deposits of the Caucasian region.[18]  Caucasian metallic ores and metallurgical traditions appear in the Near East corresponding to the arrival of the Trans-Caucasian population bearing the Kura-Araxes cultural traditions.[19]  Migration routes from their Trans-Caucasian homeland took them south, west, south-west and south-east, into southern Palestine, central Anatolia and central Iran.

It is quite probable that the lure of the economical importance of Arslantepe VI A (Malatya) as well as Late Uruk enclaves and outposts, such as Hassek Höyük 5, Habuba Kabira-Tell Qanas, Jebel Aruda and Tepecik 3, attracted the attention of these northern invaders, the bearers of the Kura-Araxes culture, who ultimately brought about the violent destruction of these sites.  The same fate befell the Late Uruk colony in Godin Tepe V, in central Iran.  Their presence in the Hamadan valley severed commercial {p. 544:} routes to the east.  After a short interval, Godin IV emerged with characteristic  Kura-Araxes material culture of the Yanik Tepe I type.[20]

Elsewhere in the northern part of the Near East, in the second half of the fourth millennium, the same sequence of events took place.  Late Uruk period sites were destroyed by Kura-Araxes people who introduced their own red-black, hand-made and burnished pottery.  They brought with them a copper metallurgy with high-arsenic content and metal artifacts peculiar to them.  ‘Wattle and daub’ houses and a distinctive type of hearths are hallmarks of their presence.  The intrusive Kura-Araxes culture is evident at Arslantepe VI B, where they caused an interruption to the stratigraphic sequence.  Subsequently, they were followed by a locally developed, Reserved-Slip pottery horizon.[21]

Copper artifacts with a high arsenical content, cast in open and two-piece moulds, appeared in the Elâzığ region of Turkey when Kura-Araxes (‘Early Transcaucasian’) groups became culturally dominant there at the beginning of Early Bronze Age.[22]  Besides the Red-Black Ware of the east Anatolian type, the Kura-Araxes presence can be detected through the architectural remains in the Arslantepe VI B (subsequent to the Arslantepe VI A).  Houses had a double line of post-holes, which is typical of Kura-Araxes buildings.[23]  It is difficult to refute that the appearance of the Arslantepe VI B1 village, built upon the razed ruins of Arslantepe VI A dwellings, epitomizes the recession of the Late Uruk cultures while coinciding with the expansion of the Trans-Caucasian groups.[24]  Based on this evidence, we can date the appearance of Trans-Caucasian population in the Malatya- Elâzığ area to the Late Uruk period.  What remains unclear is whether the first vestages of the Kura-Araxes culture in the territories south of the Taurus range were also contemporary with the Late Uruk period. 

Kurban Höyük is located in the Karababa basin, north-west of Urfa and on the left bank of the Euphrates.  Here, in the Late Chalcolithic (Period VI), which corresponds to Tell Judeidah (Amuq) Phases F-F/G, three fragments of the Kura-Araxes pottery (‘Karaz Ware’) were discovered.  They are all diagnostic and consist of a dense brownish clay with varying amounts of fine grit and chaff temper.  One of them is uniformly black, but two have bichrome surfaces, with orange interior and black exterior.[25]  All resemble Kura-Araxes pottery shapes.[26]  Karaz Ware would appear to have been long-lived in the Karababa region because, in the subsequent Early Bronze Age levels (Phases V and IV) of Kurban Höyük, a few fragments of the same {p. 545:} ware were also discovered.[27] These finds support the evidence for long-term presence of Trans-Caucasian elements in the regions adjacent to the upper flow of the Euphrates. 

Single sherds of Karaz Ware were also found in other Late Uruk sites such as at Samsat, ca. 7 km upstream from Kurban Höyük, but on the right bank of the river, and at Jebel Aruda, a mountaintop settlement that appears to have been an administrative and religious centre of Late Uruk settlements of the area.[28] 

A few sherds of the Karaz Ware were found in Hassek 5 dated to the Late Uruk period; the site is on the left bank of the Euphrates near Urfa.  That these finds of Karaz Ware at Hassek were not accidental, as formerly believed, is strongly suggested by the discovery of a red-slipped pot with four handles, typical of Uruk Ware, next to an ovoid pot with a plastic, chevron design common to the Kura-Araxes pottery.[29]  Both were found in the Room 2 of Building 2 in level 5.[30]  The colour of the latter varies from dark-grey to brown-grey and is characteristic of the East Anatolian-Trans-Caucasian black-burnished pottery.  An exact parallel — in shape and decoration — to this pot was discovered in Tepecik 3; the site lies east of Elâzığ and is thought to be a Late Uruk outpost.[31]  The relief decoration of a stag with horns on the central part of the vessel also occurs on other ’Kura-Araxes’ vessels at sites such as Geoy Tepe, Pulur (Sakyol) and Kvatskhelebi.[32]  The rounded body shape with slightly flaring, high neck has been recorded at Amiranis Gora, Nakhidrebis Chala, Ghrmakhevistavi and Keti, among other sites.[33]  A similar pot, but with a wider, spherical body and decorated with cord impression was found in the Ukraine, in the Mikhailovka I settlement (on Pidpilna, a tributary of the lower Dniepr) dated to the late fourth millennium.  This settlement has affinities on the one hand, with the Maikop culture of northern Caucasia, and on the other, with the Usatovo barrows near Odessa.[34]

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 the Uruk tradition and early Karaz pottery.[35]  Karaz Ware became common at that site during the following Early Bronze period, as well as at Hassek 4, representing a part of the overall spectrum {p. 546:} of pottery.  The metal of Hassek Höyük is thought to have came from the area located between Erzurum and the southern coast of the Black Sea.  It was also stated by C. Burney that the metal artifacts from the hoard found in Arslantepe VI A (from A 113 Room of Building III), do not belong to the local copper deposits because they have high arsenic admixtures (up to 4%) and no trace of nickel.  Instead, they might have originated in the northern provenance of Trans-Caucasia.[36]

            Arslantepe VI A, Tepecik 3 and Hassek 5 are thought to be contemporary and, like Kurban Höyük, roughly coeval with Habuba Kabira-South (8 km downstream from Jebel Aruda).  Hence, they must correlate somewhere within the middle Hama K levels and the transitional Amuq F/G, revealed at Tell al-Judaidah and Çatal Höyük (Amuq).[37]  Despite the substantial similarities 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.[38]  It is possible that Hassek, Tepecik and Habuba Kabira were important members of a foreign enclave and that Arslantepe was a local center of power in its own right.  In the opinion of C. Burney, metalwork was a major item of trade that passed through Arslantepe.[39]  But in spite of the characteristics of the sites mentioned, it seems that the first appearance of the Trans-Caucasian Kura-Araxes culture to the north, as well as to the south of the Tarsus range, must be dated to the Late Uruk period.

Considering the absolute date of the Late Uruk period, in the middle of the second half of fourth millennium, one can to push higher the traditional low date of the central Trans-Caucasian Kura-Araxes culture.  It should be possible to draw on the dates obtained for the Near Eastern strata in which Trans-Caucasian elements first appear and hence, to establish the relative chronology of Kura-Araxes culture of Trans-Caucasia.  Put simply, the Kura-Araxes culture at its point of origin is logically earlier than its manifestations in the Near East.  In the construction of a comparative chronology, the regional variants of the Kura-Araxes culture must be taken into account.  The earliest Kura-Araxes material discovered in Level XI at Pulur (Sakyol), as stated above, seems contemporaneous with the middle layers of Amiranis Gora in south-western central Trans-Caucasia.[40]  At the same time, Pulur (Sakyol) XI has close parallels with Arslantepe VI B especially in regard to the forms and incised decorations of pot stands.[41] {p. 547:}

One could speculate that the infiltration of the Kura-Araxes population into the Near East stimulated Mesopotamian sea commerce in the Arabian Gulf of the Jamdat Nasr period.  Their presence may have triggered political disruption in eastern Anatolia, northern Syria and western Iran.  The desertion of the Uruk sites in these areas brought about economic changes especially in regard to distribution and trade in metal ores and other artifacts; probably increasing local control over these resources.[42]

The determination of the chronology of the Kura-Araxes culture is of paramount importance for the establishment of a common chronological system for the Ancient World, considering the distribution of this culture between regions dated by historical chronologies of the Near East based on the literary sources, on the one hand, and regions dated mainly by the use of radiocarbon dates, on the other.  I can not agree with the view-point that, in the absence of a large series of the radiocarbon dates from Georgian and adjacent sites for the Kura-Araxes period, it is premature to consider the reliability of the existing calibrated radiocarbon dates for this culture.[43]

First of all, the ‘widely accepted‘ absolute chronology of the Kura-Araxes culture in the third millennium is based mainly on the "old", uncalibrated radiocarbon dates.  The same can be said of the preceding, Eneolithic (Chalcolithic) culture dated to the fifth-fourth millennia and the subsequent, Trialeti culture attributed to the first part of the second millennium B.C.[44]   The current chronological framework needs to be re-considered in view of this underlying fact.  Nor the re-calculation of the existing radiocarbon dates by the new (5730±40) period of half-life[45] has any sense from the chronological point of view because of the variations in concentration of radiocarbon with time on the earth.[46]

            Secondly, the statement of some archaeologists that the calibration curves and tables based on the dendroscales of the Californian pine have not received full acceptance and, moreover, that it is therefore better to refrain from using them,[47] after the publication of the calibration curves based on the joint American and European data (the real indicators of the simultaneous fluctuation of carbon-14 content in the northern hemisphere) must be considered as completely obsolete.  The calibration curves that recommend for the correction of the radiocarbon dates are published systematically in the journal Radiocarbon,[48] and follow the calibration curve for the preliminary correction of the radiocarbon dates that became available already in 1981 after the First Radiocarbon and Archaeology Symposium in Groningen.[49] {p. 548:}

            Thirdly, for some time, there has been scope to challenge the traditional chronological position of the Trans-Caucasian Kura-Araxes through the re-assessment of the accumulating archaeological data, independent of radiocarbon results.  In other words, we can now draw on,

·       the dates obtained for those Near Eastern strata that contained Kura-Araxes remains such as Arslantepe/Malatya, Godin Tepe, etc.

·       the cultural ties in the Late Uruk period at the time of the initial distribution of the Kura-Araxes material culture or people into the Near East

·       and the contemporaneity of Georgian Kura-Araxes and early Kurgan metallurgy (and in some cases artifacts) with those of the Near East of the Late Uruk – Early Dynastic periods[50]

Uncertainty caused by the different approaches to the problems of the chronology of the Palaeometallic Age is reflected in some publications concerning the Caucasian archaeology of this period.  This is clearly evident in the Archaeology of Georgia, a two volume work published recently in Tbilisi; some authors based their work on calibrated radiocarbon dates, others on the uncalibrated ones.

 

KURGAN CULTURES

The second phase of the Early Bronze Age of Central Trans-Caucasia witnesses the final stages of Kura-Araxes culture. This phase is represented in the final layers of Level B at Kvatskhelebi-Khizanaant Gora, in the bulk of the Early Bronze Age material from Sachkhere and in the latest burials of Amiranis Gora.  The Early Kurgan culture of central Trans-Caucasia also belongs to this time and two groups are distinguishable.  The first comprises 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 and chronologically subsequent group, is represented by the kurgans of the Bedeni plateau (near Trialeti) and the Alazani valley (in Kakheti, the eastern part of east Georgia), as well as by the later kurgans of the early Trialeti and the later group of Martqopi kurgans with pit graves.[51]

This phase appears to be contemporary with the particularly wide diffusion of the Kura-Araxes culture in the Near East.  Overall, it should be dated to the first half and the middle of the third millennium.  Such a date is substantiated by the typological parallels between the metalwork finds in this phase.[52]

While the pottery found in the first group of kurgans is close to the Kura-Araxes culture,  the pottery in the second, and later, group is characterized by the so-called {p. 549:} ‘pearl-like’ ornaments.  This decoration is typical of the Novosvobodnaya (Tsarskaya) stage of the north Caucasian Maikop culture and Early Bronze Age north-east Iranian sites (Tureng Tepe III C, Shah Tepe III, Tepe Hissar II B, Yarim Tepe); two such sherds were found in the ‘Late Chalcolithic’ levels of Alishar (central Anatolia).[53]

The Trans-Caucasian dates can also be pushed higher on the basis of finds from the kurgan of Karashamb.  This unique complex (replete with copious golden, silver and bronze artifacts) of the second group of the kurgans of the Trialeti culture, in the opinion of some specialists, has some traits that are characteristic of the Ur III dynasty (twenty-first–twentieth centuries B.C.), but at the same time, it reveals connections with the earlier central Anatolian culture of the Royal Tombs of Alaca Höyük.[54]

For the dating of the general Transcaucasian Middle Bronze Age some importance can be given to the obsidian from south Transcaucasian sources found at Tal-i-Malyan in the Iranian province of Fars.  Obsidian was recovered from the deposits of the Kafteri phase (2100–1800 B.C.) and its origin was determined by the analytical laboratory of conservation of the Smithsonian University.  One group was similar to the obsidian used in Alikemektepesi (Azerbaijan).  The other group came from the Gutansar complex of Armenia (western slope of Gegam) where obsidian was found in great quantity in the sites of the Ararat valley, south of the source in the Gegam mountain.  Contact with southern lands is demonstrated by the necklaces that were found in the eight kurgans of the Karmirberd culture; they can be dated to the time of Old Babylonian king, Samsu-iluna, 1806–1778 B.C.  Among the necklaces, were some shell beads of the sea molluscs, which were obtained either at the estuary of the Persian Gulf or on the south Iranian coast.[55]  The obsidian artefacts and shell ornaments clearly demonstrate  trade connections between southern Trans-Caucasia,  south-western Iran and southern Mesopotamia.  A date in the eigtheenth century B.C. can be assigned to the late Karmirberd and early Sevan-Userlik cultures of southern Trans-Caucasia and to the final part of the Trialeti culture.[56]

Overall, the latest of the Trialeti barrows heralding some traits that are peculiar to the Late Bronze Age, together with other settlements that are contemporary with them, can be dated to the latest part of the Middle Bronze Age.  This period can be considered to post-date Trialeti times, falling approximately in the middle of the second millennium B.C. {p. 550:}

 

THE CAUCASIAN CHRONOLOGY AS A PART OF THE OLD WORLD'S COMMON CHRONOLOGICAL SYSTEM

In order to integrate a Caucasian chronological scheme into the common Near Eastern – east European chronological system, it is necessary to address the five aspects:

1. The methodological study of the different Caucasian cultural-geographical regions, outlined above. 

2. The formation of the common Trans-Caucasian (south Caucasian) as well as the common north Caucasian time-scales.

3. The pan or common Caucasian chronological scheme has to be constructed, connecting Trans-Caucasian and north Caucasian time-scales with each other on the basis of coincidences of archaeological materials.

4. On the basis of the north Caucasian evidence, this common Caucasian chronological scheme can be interconnected with the sites of the north Pontic - south Russian steppe and on the basis of the Trans-Caucasian evidence - with the east Anatolian - north Iranian sites.  Relative and absolute, as well as historic, data have spanned the chronological 'fault line'.  And absolute dates for the Caucasian time-scale of the Early Metal Age can be argued with some confidence.

5. The Caucasian chronological scheme, thus established, can be integrated with the evidence of the north Pontic region, the Balkan Peninsula and south-eastern Europe.  Dates obtained for south-eastern Europe and western Anatolian contexts can, in turn, be evaluated and incorporated.

One might also consider fluctuations of the Black Sea levels and the corresponding phenomena observed for the Aegean and Mediterranean Seas.  Such changes could be assessed against the background of the archaeological record and the common chronological system.

The dates for the northern fringe cultures of the ancient Near East when correlated with the historical chronologies of Egypt and Mesopotamia, constitute per se the necessity to shift back the dates for the whole of Caucasia, inclusive of its northern part.  Therefore, one can now argue that the so-called ‘North Caucasian Culture’ of the post-Maikop period, which at the same time retained many traits of the preceding culture, must be synchronous with the ‘Royal tombs’ of central Anatolia.

At the same time, it is possible to relate the Hatti population of central Anatolia — whose language displays definite affinities to the Abkhazo-Adighean languages — to the culture of central Anatolian ‘Royal tombs.’  The latter, for its part, shows some structural and material similarity, namely in the arrangement and contents of these tombs, to the kurgans of the northern stock-breeders.  The appearance of the Hattians in central Anatolia seems to have been connected with migrations from northern Caucasia in the ‘Maikop’, or, more probably, in the early ’post-Maikop’ period. {p. 551:}

The question arises as to the ethnic affinity of the central and northern Anatolian pre-Hatti population.  In this connection the non-Indo-European stratum in Hittite, which has no explanation in Hattic, should be considered.  It is probable that this language was substrative for Hittite and possibly for Hattic as well. Considering these linguistic data and also the existing similarities between the Hattic and Kartvelian languages, we can suggest that Proto-Kartvelian tribes settled in Anatolia in the Early Bronze Age.

Ultimately, an Anatolian homeland for Proto-Kartvelians receives corroboration through the results of recent studies, which associate Hattic language directly with Northwestern Caucasian, and Hurro-Urartian language with Northeastern Caucasian groups within the north Caucasian linguistic family.  In such a scenario, there would be no place for Kartvelian, not only in Caucasia, but also in the regions south-west and south of it.  Instead, these areas were inhabited by the Hattian-Northwestern Caucasian (Abkhazo-Adighean) and Hurro-Urartian-Northeastern Caucasian (Nakho-Dagestanian) entities.

Western Trans-Caucasia and eastern Anatolia were the contact zones between three important cultures of the northern periphery of the Near East, in the late fourth-early third millennia B.C.  They are the ‘Büyük Güllücek,’ the Maikop and the Kura-Araxes cultures, which can be identified, albeit within indistinct perimeters, with the ancestors of South (Kartvelian), Northwestern and Northeastern Caucasian languages.

Not only the territories inhabited by Northeastern Caucasian languages speakers coincided with the Caucasian homeland of the Kura-Araxes culture, but also the Hurrians, living in upper Mesopotamia in the late-third millennium B.C., may have had their earliest homeland in eastern Anatolia, in one of the earliest centres of the same culture.  C. Burney was the first to put forward the suggestion that the people of eastern Anatolia in the Early Bronze Age could be identified as Hurrians and that they were the main population component of the Early Trans-Caucasian or Kura-Araxes culture.[57]  Over time, the material culture of the Hurrians became, all but indistinguishable, from other Near Eastern cultures where they settled.[58]  Their characteristic  painted ware was similar to other contemporary, Near Eastern painted pottery types.[59]

Under the weight of a revised chronological framework, we are led to a reassessment of a number of cultural-historical, ethno-genetic and social-economical events.  In so doing the interrelationships between the ancient Near Eastern and east European societies appears in a rather different light. {p. 552:}

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 

ABRAMISHVILI, R., GIGUASHVILI, N. and KAKHIANI, K.

   1980  Ghrmaxevistavis arkeologiuri dzeglebi.  Tbilisi: Metsniereba (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 Town and  Country 2–3 (text,

             plates), edited by G.Algaze.  Chicago: Oriental Institute Publications.

BEHM-BLANCKE, M.

   1983  "Die Ausgrabungen auf dem Hassek Höyük im Jahre 1982," in V. Kazı Sonuçlari  

  Toplantisi, pp. 163–168, 419–423. Istanbul: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi.

   1984  "Hassek Höyük 1983," in VI. Kazı Sonuçlari Toplantisi, pp. 181–190. Ankara: Türk  

  Tarih Kurumu Basımevi.

BURLEIGH, R.

   1982  "Symposium at Groningen, Netherlands."  Antiquity 56: 138–139.

BURNEY, C. A.

   1958  "Eastern Anatolia in the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages."  Anatolian Studies 8:

157–209.

   1989  "Hurrians and Proto-Indo-Europeans: the ethnic context of the Early Trans-

   Caucasian Culture," in Anatolia and the Ancient Near East: Studies in Honor of Tahsin  

   Özgüç, edited by K. Emre, B. Hrouda, M. Mellink and N. Özgüç, pp. 45–51.  Ankara:  

   Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi.

   1993  "Arslantepe as a gateway to the highland: a note on Periods VI A-VI D," in Between

   the Rivers and Over the Mountains. Archaeologica Anatolica et Mesopotamica Alba Palmieri  

   Dedicata, edited by Frangipane, M., Hauptmann, H., Liverani, M., Mathhiae, P. and M.

   Mellink, pp. pp. 311–317. Rome: Dipartimento di Scienze Storiche Archeologiche e 

   Antropologiche dell’Antichita, Universita di Roma ‘La Sapienza’.

BURTON BROWN, T.

   1951  Excavations in Azarbaijan, 1948.  London: John Murray.

CHELIDZE, L. M.

   1979  "Orydiya truda eneoliticheskogo poseleniya Arukhlo I."  Materialy po Arkheologii   

Gruzii i Kavkaza 7: 19–31.

CHERNIKH, E. N.

   1992   Ancient Metallurgy in the USSR, the Early Metal Age.  Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

CHUBINISHVILI, T. N.

   1971   K drevnei istorii Yuznego Kavkaza.  Tbilisi: Metsniereba.

CHUBINISHVILI, T. N. and CHELIDZE, L. M.

   1978  "K voprosu o nekotorykh priznakakh rannezemledelcheskoi kultury VI-IV

tysyacheletii do n.e."  Matsne, seriya istorii 1: 55–73.

CONTI, A. M. and PERSIANI, C.

   1993  "When worlds collide: Cultural developments in eastern Anatolia in the Early Bronze  Age,"

             in Between the Rivers and Over the Mountains. Archaeologica Anatolica et Mesopotamica

             Alba Palmieri Dedicata, edited by Frangipane, M., Hauptmann, H., Liverani, M., Mathhiae,

             P. and M. Mellink, pp. 361–413. Rome: Dipartimento di Scienze Storiche Archeologiche e

             Antropologiche dell’Antichita, Universita di Roma ‘La Sapienza’. {p. 553:}

D'IAKONOV, I. M.

   1990  "Language contacts in the Caucasus and the Near East," in When Worlds Collide:

the Indo-Europeans and the Pre-Indo-Europeans, edited by T. L. Markey and J. A. C.

Greppin.  Ann Arbor: Karoma.

DZHAPARIDZE, O.

   1994  "Trialetskaya kultura," in Rannyaya i srednyaya bronza Kavkaza, Arkheologiya,

edited by K. K. Kushnareva, and V. I. Markovin, pp. 75–92.  Moscow: Nauka.

DZHAPARIDZE, O., KIKVIDZE, I., AVALISHVILI, G., and TSERETELI, A.

   1980  "Kaxetis arkeologiuri ekspediciis angarishi (1978–1979 cc.)."  Sakartvelos

saxelmcipo museumis arkeologiuri ekspediciebi 7: 35–41 (in Georgian).

ESIN, U.

   1979  "Tepecik Excavations, 1973," in Keban Project 1973 Activities, pp. 97–112, pls 46–

65. Ankara: Middle East Technical University Keban Project Publications, Series I, no. 6.

1982 "Tepecik Excavations, 1974," in Keban Project 1974–1975 Activities, pp. 95–118,

pls 53–78.  Ankara: Middle East Technical University Keban Project Publications, Series

I, no. 7.

FRANGIPANE, M. and PALMIERI, A.

   1987  "Urbanisation in perimesopotamian areas: The case of eastern Anatolia," in Studies

in the Neolithic and Urban revolutions, the Gordon Childe Colloquium, edited by L.

Manzanilla, pp. 295–318.  Mexico and Oxford: Bristish Archaeological Reports,

International Series no. 349.

GIMBUTAS, M.

   1992  "Chronologies of eastern Europe: Neolithic through Early Bronze Age," in

Chronologies in Old World archaeology (third edition), edited by R. W. Ehrich, volume

I, pp. 395–406, volume II, pp. 364–384.  Chicago and London: University of Chicago

Press.

GLONTI, L. I., DZHAVAKHISHVILI, A. I. and KIGURADZE, T. V.

   1975  "Antropomorfnye figury Khramis Didi Gora."  Vestnik Gosudarstvennogo Muzeya

Gruzii 31–B: 85–97.

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.

HELWING, B. B.

   1996  Hassek Höyük. Die spätchalkolitische 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.

KAVTARADZE, G. L.

   1981  Sakartvelos eneolit-brindzhaos xanis arkeologiuri kulturebis kronologia axali

             monacemebis shukze.  Tbilisi: Metsniereba (in Georgian).

   1983  K khronologii epokhi eneolita i bronzi Gruzii.  Tbilisi: Metsniereba.

   1999  "The importance of metallurgical data for the formation of a central Transcaucasian

Chronology," in The Beginnings of Metallurgy. Proceedings of the International

Conference "The Beginnings of Metallurgy", Bochum 1995, edited by A. Hauptmann, E.

Pernicka, Th. Rehren and Ü. Yalçin, pp. 67–101.  Bochum: Deutsches Bergbau-Museum. {p. 554:}

   2000  "Some problems of the interrelation of Caucasian and Anatolian Bronze Age

Cultures."  Quaderni  di Archeologia Università di Messina 1, 1: 107–123.

KUSHNAREVA, K. K.

   1994  "Karmirberdskaya (Tazakendskaya) kultura," in Rannyaya i srednyaya bronza

Kavkaza, Arkheologiya, edited by K. K. Kushnareva, and V. I. Markovin, pp. 106–117.

Moscow: Nauka.

KUSHNAREVA, K. K. and CHUBINISHVILI, T. N.

   1963  "Istoricheskoe znachenie Yuzhnogo Kavkaza v III tysyacheletii do n.e."  Sovetskaya

arkheologiya 3: 10–24.

   1970  Drevnye kultury Yuzhnogo Kavkaza.  Leningrad: Nauka.

MARRO, K.

   2000  "Vers une chronologie comparee des pays du Caucase et de l'Euphrate aux IV^e–III^e

millenaires," in Chronologies des Pays du Caucase et de l'Euphrate aux IV^e–III^e

Millenaires, Actes du Colloque International Organisé par l'Institut Français d'Etudes

Anatoliennes d'Istanbul, edited by C. Marro and H. Hauptmann, pp. 473–482.  Paris:

l'Institut Français d'Etudes Anatoliennes d'Istanbul and de Boccard.

MELLAART, J.

   1975  The Neolithic of the Near East.  London: Thames and Hudson

MOOREY, P. R. S.

   1982  "The archaeological evidence for metallurgy and related technologies in

Mesopotamia c. 5500-2100 B.C."  Iraq 44: 13–38.

MUNCHAEV, R. M.

   1975  Kavkaz na zare bronzovogo veka.  Moscow: Nauka.

   1994  "Kuro-Arakskaya kultura," in Rannyaya i srednyaya bronza Kavkaza,

Arkheologiya, edited by K. K. Kushnareva, and V. I. Markovin, pp. 8–57.  Moscow:

Nauka.

NARIMANOV, I. G.

   1991  "Ob eneolite Azerbaidzhana," in Kavkaz v Sisteme Paleometalicheskikh Kultur

Evrazii, edited by K. Pitskhelauri, pp. 21–33, pls II–VI.  Tbilisi: Metsniereba (in

Russian).

NISSEN, H. J.

   1988  The Early History of the Ancient Near East 9000–2000 BC.  Chicago: University of

Chicago Press.

OGANESIAN, V. E.

   1992  "A silver goblet from Karashamb."  Soviet Anthropology and Archaeology 30, 4:

84–102.

PALMIERI, ALBA

   1981  "Excavations at Arslantepe (Malatya)."  Anatolian Studies 31: pp. 101–119, pls

XIII–XVI.

   1984  "Excavations at Arslantepe, 1983," in VI. Kazı Sonuçlari Toplantisi, pp. 71–78. 

               Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi.

   1985  "Eastern Anatolia and early Mesopotamian urbanization: Remarks on changing

relations," in Studi di Paletnologia in Onore di Salvatore M. Puglisi, edited by M.

Liverani, Alba Palmieri and R. Peroni, pp. 191–213. Roma: Universida di Roma

"La Sapienza".

PALMIERI, A. M., SERTOK, K. and CHERNIKH, E.

   1993  "From Arslantepe metalwork to arsenical copper technology in eastern Anatolia," in Between

             the Rivers and Over the Mountains. Archaeologica Anatolica et Mesopotamica Alba

Palmieri Dedicata, edited by Frangipane, M., Hauptmann, H., {p. 555:} Liverani, M., Mathhiae, P. and M. Mellink, pp. 573–599. Rome: Dipartimento di Scienze Storiche Archeologiche e Antropologiche dell’Antichita, Universita di Roma ‘La Sapienza’.

PERNICKA, E.

   1990  "Gewinnung und Verbreitung der Metalle in prähistorischer Zeit."  Jahrbuch des

Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseum 37: 21–129.

PETROSYAN, L. A.

   1989   Raskopki pamyatnikov Keti i Voskeaska (III–I tys. do n.e).  Erevan: Izdatel'stvo Academii nauk

Armyanskoj SSR.

POTTS, T.

   1994   Mesopotamia and the East. An Archaeolo­gical and Historical Study of Foreign

Relations ca.3400-2000 BC.  Oxford University Committee for Archaeology.

RENFREW, C.

   1973  Before Civilization, the Radiocarbon Revolution and Prehistoric Europe.  London:

Jonathan Cape.

SAGONA, A. G.

   1984  The Caucasian region in the Early Bronze Age, British Archaeological

Reports, Inter. Series no. 214. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.

   2000  "Sos Höyük and the Erzurum Region in Late Prehistory: A Provisional Chronology

for Northeast Anatolia," in Chronologies des Pays du Caucase et de l'Euphrate aux IV^e-

III^e Millenaires, Actes du Colloque International Organisé par l'Institut Français

d'Etudes Anatoliennes d'Istanbul, edited by C. Marro and H. Hauptmann, pp. 329–373. 

Paris: l'Institut Français d'Etudes Anatoliennes d'Istanbul and de Boccard.

SCHACHNER, A.

   2001  "Azerbaycan: Eine terra incognita der Vorderasiatische Archäologie, " in

Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft zu Berlin 133, 251–332.

SCHMITT-STRECKER, S., BEGEMANN, F. and PERNICKA, E.

   1992  "Chemische Zusammensetzung und Bleiisotopenverhältnisse der Metallfunde vom

Hassek Höyük," in Hassek Höyük, Naturwissenschaftliche Untersuchungen und lithische

Industrie, edited by M. R. Behm-Blancke, pp. 108–123.  Tübingen: Erst Wasmuth.

SIMONYAN, A. E.

   1984  "Dva pogrebeniya epokhi srednei bronzy mogilnika Verin-Naver," Sovetskaya

Arkheologiya 3, 1984, 122–135.

STUIVER, M. and REIMER, P. J.

   1993  "Extended ¹⁴C data base and revised calib 3.0 ¹⁴C age calibration program." 

Radiocarbon 35: 215–230.

TOBLER, A. J.

   1950  Excavations at Tepe Gawra.  Philadelphia: University Museum, University of Pennsylvania.

TRENTIN, M. G.

   1993  "The early reserved slip wares horizon of the upper Euphrates basin and Western

Syria," in Between the Rivers and Over the Mountains. Archaeologica Anatolica et

Mesopotamica Alba Palmieri Dedicata, edited by  Frangipane, M., Hauptmann,

H., Liverani, M., Mathhiae, P. and M. Mellink, pp. 177–199. Rome: Dipartimento di Scienze

Storiche Archeologiche e Antropologiche dell’Antichita, Universita di Roma ‘La Sapienza’. {p. 556:}

VOIGT, M. M.

   1992  "The chronology of Iran, ca. 8000–2000 BC," in Chronologies in Old World

archaeology (3rd ed.), edited by R. W. Ehrich, volume I, pp. 122–178, volume II, 125–

153.  Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.

WEISS, H. and 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.

WILHELM, G.

   1995  "The kingdom of Mitanni in second millennium upper Mesopotamia," in

Civilizations of the Ancient Near East III, edited by J. M. Sasson, J. Baines, G. Beckman

and K. S. Rubinson, pp. 1243–1254.  New York: Scribners.

YAKAR, J.

   1985  The Later Prehistory of Anatolia: The Late Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age. British

Archaeological Reports, Inter. Series 268. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.

 

Back:

http://www.geocities.com/komblege/publications2.htm

or

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