3/24/2020 RCCHD : Trialeti Petroglyphs – Under Destruction

Regional Co-operation for Cultural Heritage Development რეგიონალური თანამშრომლობა კულტურული მემკვიდრეობის განვითარებისათვის Տարածաշրջանային համագործակցություն հանուն մշակութային ժառանգության զարգացման Національна політика щодо культурної спадщини Mədəni irsin inkişaf Etdimilməsi üçün regional əməkdaşlıq Рэгіянальнае супрацоўніцтва ў мэтах развіцця культурнай спадчыны

Home Project Partners News and Events Follow Us Useful Links Contact

Heritage Conservation Regional Network E- Journal №5 Journal

Heritage at Risk Trialeti Petroglyphs – Under Destruction

Dr. Manana Gabunia Georgian National Museum Dr. Mariam Gabashvili Documents, Publications G. Chubinashvili National Research Centre for Georgian Art History and Heritage Preservation Introducing_Young_People_to_the_Protection_of_Heritage_Sit Ilia State University ENG

Details In early twentieth century when the whole series of the Paleolithic cave paintings and engraved drawings (petroglyphs) were discovered over the five continents, the scientific community faced fundamental problems of interdisciplinary character. It primarily concerned the questions of origin and development of art, artistic perception and creative processes.

For art historians, archaeologists and anthropologists the prehistoric art is the significant clue helping to explore the mode of life and culture of ancient peoples. The conclusions and interpretations linked with the former constitute the hypothesis turning the visual art of prehistoric era into the most puzzling field. These peculiar “documents” expressed by artistic means represent invaluable material concerning the exciting processes occurring in the mankind’s development – namely, mode of life of the primitive societies, their Networking Policies husbandry, spiritual world, worldview, social relationships, ethnical processes, cultural contacts, migration routes, and for the exploration of their cultural genesis, as well as for the reconstruction of the paleobiogeographical environment in which Homo sapiens sapiens – the ancient man lived. This is the essential part of the problems under study that are still topical for the global archaeology nowadays. Essential for the study of the problem are the unique Trialeti pethroglyphs – yet the only monument of the prehistoric rock art on the Public territory of Georgia, whereas the samples of the visual art of the same range are found in the neighbouring regions of the South Caucasus – Armenia and Azerbaijan, as well as North Caucasus (e.g. Chuval-Khvarab-Noho, Chinna-Hita andHaritan petroglyphs in Dagestan, awareness Workshops etc.).

Trialeti petroglyphs are found12 km away from little town Tsalka, in the narrow gorge of the river Avdristskali – the right tributary of the river Ktsia, at the edge of the village Gantiadi (former village Tak-Kilissa) in Kvemo Kartli (Lower Kartli). Since earlier the name of the river Avdristskali was Patara Khrami, the name of the petroglyphs found there was established in the scholarly literature as “Patara Khrami Petroglyphs”. E-Resources of National policy for Heritage The named gorge is made-up of four pseudo-terraces the provenance of which is explained by the lava flow of four andesitic-basalts of the developed Late Pleistocene and by the irregular wash away of the rocks feeble for the soil erosion which are located among basalts. At the foundation of the fourth lava flow the rock caves have developed. On the stretch between them, over the bare, irregular rock surface, geometric, zoomorphic and anthropomorphic rock engravings – petroglyphs – are found (Figs. 1a, b). Follow us on: Discussion of this artistic site gives us the best opportunity to follow the origin and further development of the artistic forms not only based on the above mentioned sample but by the exploration of the contemporary artifacts to reveal the significant cross-cultural relations and Like 158 Share specify the place of Trialeti engravings among the world cultural heritage properties.

The research of the Trialeti petroglyphs is highly topical as the only white spot on world map indicating the spread of the prehistoric art The project is funded by the European Union has so far been the territory of Georgia. Therefore, the importance of the petroglyphs and the need to study them is obvious, now that the EU is not responsible preliminary study outcomes have already deserved lively interest among the wide scholarly circles. for the content of this website

However, at present the principal problem is the protection of this unique site. The rock panels covered with the engravings and over the centuries situated in the open air have been damaged by the natural hazards or mechanical interventions so far as they are mostly overgrown with moss or vegetation (the site is situated at the edge of the village, therefore, it is easily accessible to the inhabitants. Besides, the site is located in the close proximity to the local pasture for the cattle or the sheep and goats. Thus, the engravings are easily liable to involuntary or purposeful damage. After the last archaeological expedition on the site in 1976, it was visited only in June, 2011 by the group of the scholars (archaeologists M. Gabunia, N. Jakeli, T. Aghapishvili, art historian M. Gabashvili). The visit aimed at the assessment of the present state of the petroglyphs and was stimulated by the greatest desire to undertake a monographic research of the site[1].

In fact, as it was presumable, some engravings were accompanied by the inscriptions and drawings of the “contemporary style”, while some images recorded earlier appeared to be lost; parts of the rock surfaces are broken off (Figs. 2a, b, c). Of certain interest is the general picture seen by the discoverer of the site, who had come across it by chance in the environs of Tsalka:

“Dear Sir, Evgeny Gustavovich, it is awfully pity you have not come to Tsalka and that is why: imagine, in the gorge of the village Tak- Kilissa I discovered caves, walls of which are covered with engravings of hunting scenes. This is a whole gallery of the drawings of wild tribes who once lived in present Tsalka”… [1]. Such unexpected notes open a letter addressed to the enthusiast for history E. Weidenbaum, sent to him by the enthusiast archaeologist A. Ioakimov who by chance stumbled across the site. The letter dates back to the 1880s. The above mentioned letter is the first evidence of the engravings in the caves in Tsalka region.

Tsalka, the central part of the south-east Georgia, historical Kvemo Kartli (Lower Kartli) or Trialeti region became known to the international scientific community in 1930s as the centre of the great archaeological discovery – Trialeti Culture (second half of the third millenniumBC – first half of the second millennium BC). Archaeologist Boris Kuftin active in Georgia had laid foundation to the study of Trialeti Culture, and no wonder that at first he showed interest in Trialeti rock art evidenced by the above mentioned letter; however, as the basic researcher of the Trialeti Culture, he took the evidence skeptically.

Notwithstanding this fact, in the 1940s scholars began searching the engravings mentioned in the letter in the area of the village Tak- Kilissa (archaeologist Nino Berdzenishvili and art historian Alexander Javakhishvili), but in vain. Nothing was found and they shared B. Kuftin’s viewpoint that A. Ioakimov’s note had nothing to do with the reality. However, the letter had raised keen interest of another younger archaeologist M. Gabunia who excavated the area in the 1970s. Finding of the petroglyphs was of double interest for her as for an archaeologist of the Paleolithic era and a researcher of the region. M. Gabunia thought that such a letter could not be a fancy as it was considered by B. Kuftin [2].

Georgia, the country rich in archaeological sites of almost all periods, lacked the samples of the rock art of Paleolithic era until 1976, when the whole complex of peculiar petroglyphs once reported by A. Ioakimov was rediscovered by the Trialeti expedition (head of the expedition M. Gabunia) in the gorge of the river Patara Khrami on the smooth rock surfaces, under the moss and vegetation.

The engravings are the first and yet the only complex of the prehistoric rock art on the territory of Georgia where the earliest zoomorphic and anthropomorphic images are found. We can also clearly see the week tendencies of the compositional arrangements.

The Patara Khrami engravings presumably belong to various chronological stages, the earliest of which is the Mesolithic era and the latest is dated back to the Middle Bronze Age [1] (it is essential to mention that before the engravings of Patara Khrami, other engravings were found in Mgvimevi caves (West Georgia, Chiatura Municipality) by S. Zamyatnin in 1937. The Mgvimevi engravings – crosses, circles, dots, depressions, crossing lines, etc. – were scattered upon the walls of the Upper Paleolithic cave complexes without any order. rcchd.icomos.org.ge/?l=E&m=4-4&JID=5&AID=40&fbclid=IwAR0X9wnJfqyvseqMFVMoksGkmh1OCHbRUdtjSW9sQEqsHHGNfaDKsY7m46k 1/9 3/24/2020 RCCHD : Trialeti Petroglyphs – Under Destruction S. Zamyatnin came to the conclusion that they had magic ritual function [3]. By late 1950s, another cave complex with the Paleolithic engravings was found by L. Soloviov near the village Anukhva in Abkhazia (west Georgia), in Agtsa. Similar to Mgvimevi engravings the Agtsa “images” contained horizontal and vertical crossing lines scattered in disorder on the surfaces of the walls. The Agtsa engravings are also associated with a certain magic ritual [4]. Both Mgvimevi and Agtsa engravings are non-figurative examples, besides, discussion of the earliest stages of the compositional tendencies are absolutely groundless.

In 1980 a joint monograph “Patara Khramis Petroglipebi – Petroglyphs of Patara Khrami” was published comprising the results of the expedition. The authors, archaeologist M. Gabunia and paleontologist A. Vekua give comprehensive information in terms of geological, paleontological, paleobiogeographical and archaeological data. The figurative and geometric representations on the rock surfaces are revealed as much as possible. Their photo and graphic copies are reproduced. During the expedition, part of the engravings covered with moss and plants were cleaned; major panels and separate images were measured [5].

The engravings are grouped in small six panels on the surfaces of the rock (Fig. 3). The panels are extended upon the rock surface on 50 meter. The zoomorphic figures represent local fauna: deer, horses, “fantastic” or hybrid animals, as well as serpents, birds and fish. Among the geometric figures the crosses, the beamed solar representations are visible with scratches of divert size and depth. The anthropomorphic figures are represented by three small-sized hunters with bows and arrows. The drawings are small-sized (approximately 2.5 – 18-20 centimeters, basically 1-2 millimeters depth and width). Entire drawings comprise approximately one hundred engravings. The partial zoomorphic figures are inserted among them. The drawings are all schematic but the artistic differences between them are quite obvious – the earlier engravings dated to the Mesolithic era are distinguished by flexible line (Figs. 4a, 4b).We cannot analyze all the samples but will mention only their common characteristic features: the petroglyphs are displayed upon one surface without any foreshortening, proportions are distorted. Notwithstanding the schematic simplicity of the figures, they are easily identifiable due to their skillfully expressed characteristic configurations and “mimic” nuances, which even create certain artistic allusions.

The small figures of the schematic hunters are particularly significant. Frontally represented and standing motionless they are holding cudgel or spear in their hands. The arrow and the bow are engraved on their left. Their proportions are distorted; their silhouettes remind kids’ drawings. Around the hunters the deer or horses and, in some cases, donkey and mount goats are standing. This fauna existed in this region from upper Pleistocene up to the mid Holocene and seems to have been the object of the hunting for people of that time, who lived on the territory of Patara Khrami (it should be mentioned that existence of camels is yet unexplained). Similar to the hunters, the figures of the animals are motionless as if they have no connection with each other. We think that these are symbolically represented hunting scenes (Figs 5a, 5b, 5c). The earliest compositional tendencies are revealed in the scene, where the herd of the mount goats grouped together is directed to the right except one wounded deer standing opposite it at a certain distance (Fig. 6a). The figure of the goat contributes to certain dynamism of the scene and breaks the monotony of the “composition”. We can ascribe this skillfully represented scene to the significant observation of the engraver.

Two representations seem likely to be linked with the cult of fertility: one of them is a deer with a horned roebuck standing between its legs as if sucking. Another scene represents a horse with a humpbacked foal between its legs (Fig. 6b).

The existence of hybrid animals appeared puzzling. Among them we can discover humpbacked horses, “fantastic” animal with two humps, and tortoise with two paws of the bird with a serpent between them (Figs. 2c; figs. 7a, b). The animals in hunting net are also frequently found; the figures are also accompanied by solar signs – suns, checked “boards” and plenty of engravings depicted without any order, as well as schematic and abstracting representations.

Geometric figures in the shape of the so called “Bolnisi” cross are represented on the separate panel ((Fig. 8). According to some scholars the “cross-shaped figures, which bore complex ideological concepts in the early agricultural era, are associated with the earliest period of the prehistory, namely, the Middle Paleolithic era” [6]. H. Breuil and A. Leroi-Gouran maintain almost the same viewpoint, when they represent the evolution of the cross and discuss its significance [7; 8]. For the semantics of the representations significant is the fact that compositions composed by them find their origins in the archaic era. They are interpreted within the frames of the cosmogonic and religious beliefs of the people: since zoomorphic motifs are associated with the initial periods of art, more specifically, the Paleolithic era and are ideologically restricted by the frames of the imaginations of the society producing it – by agriculture magic, totems and so on [9].

Trialeti petroglyphs have no direct analogies beyond Georgia. The only parallel can be found in Anatolia, in particular with the representations of the Mesolithic era in Palanli Cave [10]. Trialeti petroglyphs have nothing in common with the engravings of the neighboring Armenia, in Gegami Mountains or in Syunik, where the basic scenes represent the motifs associated with the cult beliefs of tribes of hunters and cattle-breeders, hunting scenes and domestic items. These examples are dated back to the fifth-third and second- first millennia BC [11; 12]. Worth mention is great difference of Trialeti petroglyphs from the samples of the well-known Gobustan rock art in Azerbaijan, although weekly revealed common traits can be found in the figures of some animals [13]. Much more drastic difference is observed with the above mentioned Dagestan engravings in North Caucasus.

Trialeti engravings have certain single elements in common with the drawings of Western Europe. For example, the limbs of one of the horses from La Pasiega Cave in Spain reveal vivid analogy to the limbs of the Trialeti animal (Fig. 4a). La Pasiega example is dated back to the Upper Paleolithic era. It is noteworthy that the representation of a roebuck in Combarelli Cave (France, Upper Paleolithic) as well as a partial figure of a schematically depicted animal in La Ferrasse (France, Orinyak) finds certain parallels in Trialeri engravings [14]. The above mentioned engravings are of almost natural size, contrary to Trialeti samples. More examples can also be quoted, but we will confine to the already mentioned.

All these samples are only distant analogies to the Trialeti engravings. The above mentioned petroglyphs are associated with them neither in terms of execution nor the subject matter. As already mentioned, the affinity is noticeable basically in single elements or details only.

It is noteworthy that the next chronological group of the Trialeti engravings is distinguished by more schematic and stylized character. Formed by means of straight-line geometrical scratches, these engravings show strong resemblance with the representations of Middle Bronze Age stones from the burial mound (Kurgan) in Zurtaketi (Dmanisi municipality). Based on this resemblance, the engravings can be dated to Early or Middle Bronze Age.

Thus, Trialeti petroglyphs have no direct parallels beyond Georgia, except the Palanli Cave drawings, but in Georgia, as already mentioned, they are associated with the stone engravings from Zurtaketi burial mound [15; 16] and in addition, with the ritual drawings on the walls of the churches and dwellings in Svaneti (highlands of West Georgia)[17]. Mentioned similarities indicate local archaic roots of these representations, reflecting continuity of specific cultural traditions.

We think this brief art historical and historiographic overview should have shown historical and artistic value of the Trialeti complex. Regretfully, this significant cultural heritage site is unprotected and under-esteemed and what is more deplorable we are losing it day by day. The site requires further comprehensive study to ensure its due recognition within scholarly community. In this respect, first of all, the question of its listing as a heritage site should be put on agenda, since we avail of no tools or instruments to save and protect it. Listing of the site would be the first important step towards the preservation of this significant prehistoric cultural heritage. This will considerably contribute to its comprehensive study, as well as revealing of new representations supposed to be there. If the site is not given to proper protection, Georgia, Georgian science and future generations will loose it once and for all.

References

1. Gabunia M., Vekua A., Patara Khrami Petroglyphs, Tbilisi, “Metsniereba”, 1980, pp. 9-10; 58-72 (in Georgian); 2. Kuphtin B. A., Archaeological Excavating in Trialeti, Tbilisi, “Metsniereba”, 1941 (in Russian); 3. Zamyatnin S. N., Cave Shelters of Mgvimevi Near Chiatura, Sovetskaya Arkheologia, 3, 1937 (in Russian); 4. Soloviov L. N., Primitive Society on the Territory of Abkhazia, Man and Nature of the Lower and Middle Paleolithic Abkhazia, Sukhumi, 1960 (in Russian); 5. Vekua A. K., Gabunia M. K., Klopotovskaya N. B., On Dating of Patara Khrami Petroglyphs (with Georgian summary). Soobshcheniya ANGSSR, 91, № 3, Tbilisi, “Metsniereba”, 1978, pp. 741-744 (in Russian); 6. Urushadze N., Decorative Symbolism of Paleolithic Georgia, Tbilisi, “Metsniereba”, 1989 (in Russian); 7. Breuil H., Quatre cents ciecles d’art parietal, les cavernes ornées de l’âge du Rénne. Réalisations Fernand Windels, Montignac (Dordogne), Centre d’études et de documentation préhistoriques, 1952; 8. Leroi-Gouran A., Préhistoire de l’art occidental, Paris, Éditions Mazenod, 1965; 9. Surguladze I., Myth, Cult and Ritual in Georgia, Tbilisi, “Metsniereba”, 2003 (in Georgian); 10. Anati E., Arte preistorica in Anatolia, Capo di Ponte Edizioni del Centro, Italia, 1972; rcchd.icomos.org.ge/?l=E&m=4-4&JID=5&AID=40&fbclid=IwAR0X9wnJfqyvseqMFVMoksGkmh1OCHbRUdtjSW9sQEqsHHGNfaDKsY7m46k 2/9 3/24/2020 RCCHD : Trialeti Petroglyphs – Under Destruction 11. Martirosyan A. A., Israelyan A. P., Archaeological Monuments of Armenia. Rock Art; ed., II, Rock Art of Ghegam mountains, AN Armenian SSR, Yerevan, 1971 (in Russian); 12. Karakhanyan G. S., Saphyan P., Archaeological Monuments of Armenia, 4; Rock Art of Siunik, AN Armenian SSR, Yerevan, 1970 (in Russian); 13. Japharzade I. M., Gobustan, “ELM”, 1973 (in Russian); 14. Graziosi P., Die Kunst der Altesteinzeit, Florenz, 1956; 15. Japaridze O., Archaeological Excavations in Trialeti (for the History of Georgian Tribes in Second Millennium BC), “Sabchota Sakartvelo”, Tbilisi, 1969 (in Georgian); 16. Häusler A., 1975: Petroglyphen Aus Trialeti, Tramskaukasien, Halle, Deutschland. Bollettino del Centro Camuno di Studi Preistorici, B 12, Edizioni del Centro, 1975; 17. Bardavelidze V., Ancient Religious Beliefs and Ritual Graphic Art of Georgian Tribes, Tbilisi, 1957 (in Russian).

[1]The above mentioned prospecting expedition was personally financed its members. The expedition was foreseen within the 2012 year project proposal: “Trialeti Petroglyphs on the Crossroads of Near Eastern and European Prehistoric Cultures”, submitted to the ShotaRustaveli National Science Foundation (the head of the project – M. Gabunia, the leading organization – Georgian National Museum). Regretfully, the project had received no funding.

General view of the site

rcchd.icomos.org.ge/?l=E&m=4-4&JID=5&AID=40&fbclid=IwAR0X9wnJfqyvseqMFVMoksGkmh1OCHbRUdtjSW9sQEqsHHGNfaDKsY7m46k 3/9 3/24/2020 RCCHD : Trialeti Petroglyphs – Under Destruction

Petroglyphs damaged by various contemporary inscriptions, scratches and broken off surfaces

Situational plan

rcchd.icomos.org.ge/?l=E&m=4-4&JID=5&AID=40&fbclid=IwAR0X9wnJfqyvseqMFVMoksGkmh1OCHbRUdtjSW9sQEqsHHGNfaDKsY7m46k 4/9 3/24/2020 RCCHD : Trialeti Petroglyphs – Under Destruction

Stylized figure of a horse. Mesolithic Era

Stag. Early Bronze Age

rcchd.icomos.org.ge/?l=E&m=4-4&JID=5&AID=40&fbclid=IwAR0X9wnJfqyvseqMFVMoksGkmh1OCHbRUdtjSW9sQEqsHHGNfaDKsY7m46k 5/9 3/24/2020 RCCHD : Trialeti Petroglyphs – Under Destruction

Hunters with bows and arrows. Mesolithic Era

rcchd.icomos.org.ge/?l=E&m=4-4&JID=5&AID=40&fbclid=IwAR0X9wnJfqyvseqMFVMoksGkmh1OCHbRUdtjSW9sQEqsHHGNfaDKsY7m46k 6/9 3/24/2020 RCCHD : Trialeti Petroglyphs – Under Destruction

Herd of stags and mount goats. Drawing. Early Bronze Age

Horned roebuck sucking a deer; humpbacked foal sucking a horse

rcchd.icomos.org.ge/?l=E&m=4-4&JID=5&AID=40&fbclid=IwAR0X9wnJfqyvseqMFVMoksGkmh1OCHbRUdtjSW9sQEqsHHGNfaDKsY7m46k 7/9 3/24/2020 RCCHD : Trialeti Petroglyphs – Under Destruction

Composite and abstracted animals. Mesolithic Era

rcchd.icomos.org.ge/?l=E&m=4-4&JID=5&AID=40&fbclid=IwAR0X9wnJfqyvseqMFVMoksGkmh1OCHbRUdtjSW9sQEqsHHGNfaDKsY7m46k 8/9 3/24/2020 RCCHD : Trialeti Petroglyphs – Under Destruction

Panel with “Bolnisi” crosses and checked “boards“

rcchd.icomos.org.ge/?l=E&m=4-4&JID=5&AID=40&fbclid=IwAR0X9wnJfqyvseqMFVMoksGkmh1OCHbRUdtjSW9sQEqsHHGNfaDKsY7m46k 9/9