saqarTvelos mecnierebaTa erovnuli akademiis moambe, t. 8, #2, 2014 BULLETIN OF THE GEORGIAN NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, vol. 8, no. 2, 2014

B O O K R E V I E W

Innovations in Archaeology of the Caucasus

One-volume collection of works “Ethnocultural chaeological Expedition to Troy at Eberhard-Karls- System of the South-East Caucasus in the Bronze- University in Tübingen, etc. He had scholarly con- ”, in four languages (Georgian, German, Eng- tacts with American, Turkish and Italian colleagues. lish and Russian), was published within the Georgian A series of lectures on the antiquities of National Academy of Sciences (, 2013, 559 pp.). in the Caucasus delivered by the author in Germany The author of the book is a prominent Georgian for many years inspired the interest of some Euro- archaeologist Konstantine Pitskhelauri. pean young researchers in studying the past of Geor- The editors of the volume are academicians Otar gia. To my mind, it was a great event for Japaridze and Roin Metreveli. The volume under Caucasiologists to receive published research in the review familiarizes us with the results of a system- context of antiquities data of Asian Near East and atic, labor-consuming research conducted by the Europe. The author’s purpose was to show the reader scholar. that “while interpreting archaeological cultures each Kakheti being a blank spot, terra incognita on concrete issue must be studied only against the back- ’s archaeological map for a long time, longed ground of a new database and the reality created for an intelligent, talented, well-educated, purpose- with it”. ful, devoted researcher and this very person turned Konstantine Pitskhelauri presented the results of out to be Konstantine Pitskhelauri. In 1960, being his tireless long-term research in one-volume collec- quite young, he was appointed the head of Kakhetian tion of works in the following major directions: archaeological group. He determined the directions - the dynamics of archaeological works in Kakheti, for the future research Udabno, Sighnaghi, Cheremi, problems, prospects; etc. and founded the centers equipped with deposi- - archaeological excavations in Kakheti and their re- tories and libraries and laboratories. Within a short sults; period of time he turned Sighnaghi into a large re- - stages of the formation of state institutions in the search centre for archaeological study of Kakheti central part of the Southern Caucasus; where archaeologists work fruitfully side by side with - interdisciplinary researches, ethnicization of ar- anthropologists, historians, ethnologists, art histori- chaeological cultures; ans, paleobotanists, paleozoologists, etc. His long- - principles of the topography of settlements, term archaeological strategy based on the latest meth- periodization and chronology. ods and technologies approved in the world ap- Of great value are chronological schemes for the peared to be very successful. Archaeological inves- south-eastern Caucasus, Georgia of the Bronze-Iron tigations conducted under his leadership in Kakheti Age compiled in the research centers of Russia, Eu- region were completed with brilliant discoveries. Over rope, attached to the volume (pp. 483, 557), the years Konstantine Pitskhelauri has been in close which will be extremely useful to the specialists in collaboration with such leading research centers as ancient history of the Caucasus. German Archaeological Institute at Saarland Uni- I focus my attention just on a few of the main versity, the Martin Luther University of Halle, Ar- research directions, where the author’s vision seems

© 2014 Bull. Georg. Natl. Acad. Sci. Innovations in Archaeology of the Caucasus 143 particularly important and, in my opinion, makes a chaeological artifacts of neither previous nor subse- significant contribution to the development of quent periods. The multilayered settlement of the Caucasiology as a science. This volume clearly shows Khashuri Natsargora revealed in the Khashuri dis- that Konstantine Pitskhelauri holds the view accord- trict casted light on the understanding of this issue. ing to which in Neolithic period western and eastern Typical ceramic products of the Alazani-Bedenic cul- Georgia represented one cultural area and distinctive ture were detected just on this archaeological monu- features between two large regions emerged only in ment. In the context of this innovation, on the one the Eneolithic period. hand, chronological frames of archaeological culture In the reviewed volume several works of were specifically determined and, on the other hand, Konstantine Pitskhelauri are devoted to the scrupu- the light was finally shed on its cultural genesis. It lous analysis of the monuments of the Eneolithic became obvious that it appeared in completely formed period of the central part of the south Caucasus. In way in this region of the Caucasus. these essays the attention is mainly focused on infil- While studying the above issue, K. Pitskhelauri tration of the Mesopotamian Uruk culture in the first discovered numerous monuments belonging to the half of the fourth millennium BC. In the author’s ar- Alazani-Bedenic culture in Kakheti in the form of a gumentative viewpoint, this culture penetrates to the large burial constructions (in this respect it would be southern Caucasus by several ways, totally covers it sufficient to mention a complex containing a monu- and throughout the Great Caucasus Range spreads ment of a golden lion), which played a great role in to the North Caucasus too and lays the foundation the study of Georgia’s culture. to the brilliant Maikop culture. The scholar assumes Konstantine Pitskhelauri made assumption on the that the infiltration of the Uruk metallurgists in the existence of the layers belonging to the Alazani- Caucasus was most probably motivated by the de- Bedenic culture based on accidentally obtained ce- sire for the search of metal raw materials and con- ramic material on multilayered settlement of the Alazani cludes that the formation of local Kura-Araxes cul- valley and Iori gorge settlement. Unfortunately, the ture in the Southern Caucasus during the Early Bronze scientific study of these valuable artifacts has not Age must have been realized with participation of yet been conducted due to the various objective or the migrants. It should be also noted that the scholar subjective reasons. links the explosive development of metallurgy and Alazani-Bedenic culture is not genetically linked exceptional advancement of culture in the Southern with the early culture of the Kura-Araxes of the cen- Caucasus during the Early Bronze Age with the ap- tral part of the Southern Caucasus in the Early Bronze pearance of a Mesopotamian ethnic flow. According Age. As seen from the book it is quite clear for the to the author the trace of the Uruk migrants has not author that since that time Alazani-Bedenic culture been sufficiently revealed so far and it is necessary steadily takes roots in that region and already at the to expand and deepen research in this direction. final stage of the Kura-Araxes culture takes an active It is known that on the territory of the present- part in its formation together with the southern vari- day eastern Georgia, on the Tsalka Plateau, in the ant of this culture. The author considers as such the Mtkvari River valley and Iori-Alazani basin at the monuments of the so-called “Martkopi group”. This end of the last century there was revealed a brilliant, assumption expressed by Konstantine Pitskhelauri so-called Alazani-Bedenic culture of the Early Bronze represents an important scientific novelty and makes Age, mainly as the burial mounds. Naturally, this dis- the basis for more valid understanding of the monu- covery was accompanied with a number of unan- ments of the contemporary to that time culture. Ac- swered questions. The thing is that the materials be- cording to the scholar the arrangement of the large longing to this culture are genetically related to ar- mould in the central region of the Southern Cauca-

Bull. Georg. Natl. Acad. Sci., vol. 8, no. 2, 2014 144 Nana Khazaradze sus begins just at the stage of functioning of the arrived at the conclusion that culture almost Bedenic culture, which testifies to the fact that in the reached the coast including southern Geor- society of that time the rich and socially advanced gia. strata were formed. From the author’s discussion it is The scholar pays attention to that important cir- clearly seen that rich tombs of the so-called “Martkopi cumstance that the monuments of the Trialeti culture period” in his view are largely due to Alazani-Bedenic bear not only the features of the Western Asia cul- culture. In the central part of the Southern Caucasus ture but also those of the north-steppe catacombs the appearance of four-wheeled wooden wagon-buri- which at the final stage of Trialeti culture was re- als became traditional at the final stages of the Early flected both in the diversity of the tombs and adorn- Bronze Age and characteristic to the Middle Bronze ment of ceramic items. the so-called Trialeti culture. The volume under review also presents some The ideas maintained by the author of the single other important results of the scholarly researches volume relating to the Alazani-Bedenic culture which conducted by Konstantine Pitskhelauri. The scholar are quite possible to be shared, fail to go beyond the is the first in Georgian archaeology who managed to scope of hypothesis so far. It will become possible to discover the settlements of the Trialeti culture un- achieve the truth only as a result of discovery of known before, which he attributed to agricultural ac- multilayered settlements and archeological study. It tivity. At the same time, it was he, who as a result of is noteworthy that according to the author it would paleoecological research conducted in the Iori-Alazani be very difficult to establish genetic relatedness of basin established that natural conditions in this re- the cultures in the central part of the Southern Cau- gion changed because of incorrect economic activ- casus between the Early and Middle Bronze Ages if ity in the post-Middle Bronze Age. According to the we take into account customs and traditions of bury- highly significant assumption developed by the ing the dead, construction of burial vaults, topogra- scholar, if paleohydrological network is recovered phy of the dwellings and some details of the building on the entire territory of distribution of Trialeti cul- technique. Moreover that by the existing archaeo- ture of the Middle Bronze Age, especially on the Tsalka logical materials the difference between them is even Plateau, in the lowland region of the Mtkavari middle more visible than the similarity. The author also of- flow and David Gareji Mravalmta caves, numerous fers a way out of this circumstance. In his view mul- currently dogmatic views related to economic and tilayered intensive study of the Alazani valley where social life of the archeological cultures in the 2nd mil- cultural levels of this period stratigraphically cover lennium BC will substantially change. each other is desirable and obligatory. However, the The reviewed volume evidences once more the author also mentions that these works are so difficult unique contribution of its author to the research of to implement because this region is distinguished by the cultures in the central part of the Southern Cau- underground waters. casus of the initial centuries of the second half of the As is seen from this collection the author has 2nd millennium BC and the beginning of the 1st millen- obtained rather interesting results while studying the nium BC that represents a major field of his scholarly monuments of the Middle Bronze Age in the Iori and research. Alazani area. The boundaries of the spread of the It is known that a sharp discontinuity was found Trialeti culture in the northern, eastern and western between cultures of the Middle and Late Bronze Age directions were circled by him with certainty. (in the middle of the 2nd millennium BC) in the central Moreover, taking into consideration the views part of the Southern Caucasus both according to the expressed by other authors and the exposition mate- archaeological materials and from the point of socio- rials from the museums of north-eastern Turkey, he economic development and it was even qualified as a

Bull. Georg. Natl. Acad. Sci., vol. 8, no. 2, 2014 Innovations in Archaeology of the Caucasus 145 total shift of culture. Konstantine Pitskhelauri has ture based on the irrigated agriculture. According to completely changed this established view and ge- the author’s assumption the small agricultural units netically connected these two epochs with each provide the preconditions for state formation. other. This rather hard task was solved by the author The scholar considers the concentration of set- on the basis of correct analysis of the earlier known tlements around a certain hydrological network or archaeological complexes and the data obtained by other minerals, which were the main driving force in him. Between these two epochs he additionally sin- their economic life, to be an indicator of the high gled out three new stages of development: level of socio-economic development of the society. 1. Final stage of the Middle Bronze Age; For the author of no less importance is the planning 2. The monuments of transitory period between of the settlements according to the project designed the Middle and Late Bronze Ages which equally carry in advance. the features characteristic to both epochs; Konstantine Pitskhelauri also takes into account 3. The initial first stage of the Late Bronze Age the fact that a citadel stands out from the main settle- that is termed by the scholar as “Central ment and both parts are encircled by a strong forti- Transcaucasia culture”, because it is within the fied system. The scholar has also confirmed the fact boundaries of distribution of the Trialeti culture. that during planning of the settlements of particular It should be noted that a new chronological sys- importance was the construction of water supply net- tem elaborated for the monuments of the central part work as a tunnel system. The scholar did not pass of the Southern Caucasia is based just on the re- over the important fact that just from that time on searches conducted by the author. The innovative there appeared religious centers separated from the viewpoint offered by K.Pitskhelauri is proved by new settlement which must be an indicator of ideological interpretations of the monuments of the Mtkvari mid- unity of the society. The scholar also has established dle flow and Armenia. In addition to this, the chrono- that according to the burial material of that epoch all logical scheme developed by the author of the single the men were equipped with weapon that in author’s volume as far back as half century ago is still of great view indicates great military potential of the contem- service for the specialists in the history of the an- porary society. Special importance is given by the cient Caucasus. author to the discovery of military chariots in the I will dwell on the author’s one more important excavated materials and he arrives at the conclusion view attested in this volume. The question concerns that in the main body of troops regular bodies of the novelty introduced by the scholar in the dynam- soldiers must have existed in the early centuries of ics of the development of archaeological cultures dur- the 1st millennium. In author’s view in this region of ing the second millennium BC, in the assessment of the Southern Caucasus the high level of the devel- its characteristics. Unlike the viewpoint expressed in opment of the society was determined by the ad- the scholarly literature, he presented the Late Bronze vancement of the economic life (irrigated agriculture, Age as much more advanced epoch both from the iron production). As the scholar attests, this espe- viewpoint of production in all directions and social cially advanced culture completely seized its func- system as compared with the Middle Bronze Age. tioning in the south-eastern Caucasus, the region of One of the most important scholarly achievements of his study, on the Iori Plateau in the first half of the 1st Konstantine Pitskhelauri must be considered the dis- millennium BC. As has been justly pointed out by the covery of civilization in the central part of the South- author, the identification of archaeological cultures ern Caucasus on the Iori Plateau in the second half of with concrete ethnic formations is a task of primary the 2nd millennium and in the first half of the 1st millen- importance. Unfortunately, in the Caucasus the con- nium. Here we deal with the stage of the state struc- duction of research in this direction is connected with

Bull. Georg. Natl. Acad. Sci., vol. 8, no. 2, 2014 146 Nana Khazaradze a number of problems. The main thing is that we still from the very beginning of the 2nd millennium and have no access to the written monuments reflecting represent the chain of each other’s continuous de- historical processes taking place in these ancient ep- velopment. The author also takes into account that ochs which could help in ethnic attribution of this or numerous peculiarities of this single block of cul- that archeological culture. In spite of this, as it is tures are distinguished from the whole outer world. evidenced from the reviewed collection, the scholar The reality obtained from the comparison of Leonti has reached an important result in this direction Mroveli’s records and archaeological artifacts dis- that is invaluable in reconstruction of the ancient covered by the scholar creates a complete basis for history of the Georgian people. dating the records of Leonti Mroveli himself that It is interesting to note the author’s understand- would be a great novelty in making chronology of ing of those passages from the composition of the Georgia’s ancient history more precise. 11th-century Georgian chronicler, Leonti Mroveli Even from this comparatively brief survey it is “History of the Kings and Patriarchs of the Geor- clear that newly issued volume “Ethnocultural Sys- gians” which deals with the genesis of Caucasian tem of the South-Eastern Caucasus in the Bronze- ethnikoses and the range of their settlement. Iron Age” (Tbilisi 2013, 559 pp.) by the known Geor- Konstantine Pitskhelauri connected Leonti Mroveli’s gian archaeologist Konstantine Pitskhelauri is a great data with the reality of different epochs obtained as a acquisition for Caucasiology and Georgian Studies result of aracheological studies and arrived at the (Kartvelology). It not only sums up the path traversed important conclusion that the boundaries of the by the scholar with discoveries and achievements territories of Caucasian ethnikos and descendants but points out to the necessity of solving some im- localized by Leonti in the majority of cases coincide portant tasks to be realized in the future. with the boundaries of distribution of archaeological The scholarly value of the reviewed work is con- culture of south-eastern Caucasus in the Middle and siderably increased by the abundance of the maps, Late Bronze Ages. topographic plans of archaeological monuments, Based on the above mentioned it is quite natural schemes of burial mounds and settlements, tables for the author that the research in the direction of reflecting the results of geomagnetic fundamental grounding the identity of archaeological cultures studies of archeological monuments, dishes, weapon, spread in the Eastern Georgia with Georgian substrate jewellery and already mentioned chronological Ta- is promising, moreover that in the Georgian written bles obtained as a result of archaeological research. source the data on the boundaries of Targamon and I hope this one-volume edition of Konstantine his descendants settlement and the archaeological Pitskhelauri will occupy a dignified place in Georgian cultures found on this territory, with local groups and Caucasian historiography. organically related to them, germinated on one root

Nana Khazaradze

Academy Member, Georgian National Academy of Science

Bull. Georg. Natl. Acad. Sci., vol. 8, no. 2, 2014 Innovations in Archaeology of the Caucasus 147

w i g n i s m i m o x i l v a

inovaciebi kavkasiis arqeologiaSi

recenzia eZRvneba cnobili qarTveli mecnieris konstantine ficxelauris mier 2013 wlis damlevs gamoqveynebul oTxenovan (qarTul, germanul, inglisur, rusul) erTtomeuls `samxreT-aRmosavleT kavkasiis eTnokulturuli sistema brinjao-rkinis xanaSi“, Tbilisi, 559 gv. redaqtorebia akademikosi oTar jafariZe da akademikosi roin metreveli. recenziaSi naCvenebia, rom erTtomeuli faqtobrivad ajamebs mecnieris mier Catarebuli mravalwliani urTulesi da Sromatevadi kvleva-Ziebebis mniSvnlovan Sedegebs. recenziaSi Tanmimdevruladaa warmoCenili avtoris mier Catarebuli arqeologiuri samuSaoebis dinamika kaxeTSi, problemebi, perspeqtivebi: arqeologiuri gaTxrebi kaxeTSi da maTi Sedegebi; saxelmwifo institutis Camoyalibebis safexurebi samxreT kavkasiis centralur nawilSi; interdisciplinuri kvlevebi, arqeologiur kulturaTa eTnizacia; namosaxlarTa topografiis principebi, periodizacia da qronologia. kavkasiis, arqeologiis, istoriis rekonstruqciisaTvis esoden aqtualuri yvela es aspeqti konstantine ficxelaurs siRrmiseuli mecnieruli analizis safuZvelze aqvs Seswavlili da am mizeziT yvela mis mier miRebuli daskvna argumentirebuli da gasaTvaliswinebelia. Catarebuli Ziebebis SedegebTan erTad recenzentis TvalsazrisiT fasdaudebelia naSromisaTvis TandarTuli ruseTis, evropis, somxeTis samecniero centrebSi Sedgenili samxreT-aRmosavleT kavkasiis, brinjao-rkinis xanis saqarTvelos qronologiuri sqemebi, aseve yoveli narkvevisaTvis uxvad TandarTuli rukebi, arqeologiuri Zeglebis topogegmebi, samarxTa da namosaxlarTa sqemebi, arqeologiuri Zeglebis geomagnituri fundamenturi Seswavlis Sedegebis amsaxveli cxrilebi, aseve, arqeologiuri kvlevis Sedegad moZiebuli WurWeli, iaraRi, samkauli da sxv. konstantine ficxelauris sarecenzio erTtomeulis gacnobas recenzenti im marTebul daskvnamde mihyavs, rom igi qarTuli mecnierebis Zvirfasi SenaZenia. nana xazaraZe akademikosi

Bull. Georg. Natl. Acad. Sci., vol. 8, no. 2, 2014