Double-Spiral-Headed Pins from Georgia

doi: 10.2143/ANES.51.0.3038720 ANES 51 (2014) 227-233

Double-spiral-headed Pins from Georgia

Jean-Louis HUOT

Abstract

Double-spiral-headed pins are one of the most distinctive objects of the Early Trans-Caucausian (Kura- Araxes) culture. This paper updates the nuanced typology of these objects by assembling new examples from Anatolia and Georgia, the southern Caucasus.

Recent publications have attracted my attention to double-spiral-headed pins from Georgia. These publications are additions to an already venerable body of research, begun before the Second World War, resumed afterward and continued two decades later.1 I recently proposed an assessment of this research,2 unfortunately without the knowledge of important work concerning the discoveries at Arslantepe.3 The publication of the tombs at Natsargora and other cemeteries in the region of Shida Kartli has added still more to this body of research.4 In 1969, I first wrote about the abundance of double-spiral-headed pins from the Caucasus. I divided these pins of various forms into several groups: my sub-type A1 (no. 13, Kabardino), my sub-types B2 (no. 49, Kortsa), C3a (no. 58, Gaten Kale), C3b (no. 62, Rachta Galiath) and C3c (no. 69, Kumbulte), and my sub-type X2 (no. 73, Kabardino). The Caucasus region seemed to me to be abundantly represented. Approaching this subject with a focus on new publications, A. Sagona brought attention in a more detailed way to this region.5 He emphasised that the earliest double-spiral-headed pins come from “Early Transcaucasian” sites in Georgia (Samshvilde and several sites in Kvemo Kartli). In the southern Caucasus, the “Early Transcaucasian Culture” (ETC), or Kura-Araxes culture, is considered to be a period of the early Bronze Age, situated generally between 3500 and 2200 cal. BC. In this context, Sagona rightly compared the example from Samshvilde to others from Kvatskhelebi and Urbnisi. He also referred to two examples, from Ghait Mazi and Dzagina, of clearly different form, as well as a more ordinary pin from Beshtasheni. I took up this question,6 believing it judicious to distinguish, in the context of a general typo- logical classification, between two different Georgian types: Type 2, with a triangular enlarge- ment that is pronounced or indented (no. 29, Samshvilde; that is, Sagona 1981, fig. 1.1, to which

1 Childe 1936; Piggott 1948; Huot 1969. The latter article, to my knowledge, has had no successor except one: Sagona 1981. 2 Huot 2009. 3 Palumbi 2008. 4 Puturidze and Rova 2012a; 2012b. My thanks to C. Chataigner for calling my attention to these publications, and for guiding me in a field that is very familiar to her. 5 Sagona 1981. 6 Huot 2009.

997075.indb7075.indb 227227 110/09/140/09/14 09:4909:49 228 J.-L. HUOT

I compare various pins from Anatolia, my nos. 30 to 32, and 51) and Type 6, with a triangular plane and rounded top, quite close to Type 2, but belonging to Georgia. In fact, to my no. 73 (Huot 1969), from Kabardino, I add, following Sagona, an example from Ghait Mazi7 (Sagona’s fig. 1.3) and especially no. 57 from Kvatskhelebi tomb 8 (Sagona’s fig. 1.2). I add no. 58 from Urbnisi tomb 44 and no. 59 from Bazum, recently published. The latter type seems to me “characteristic of the early Bronze or ETC” of Georgia and Armenia. I estimated that “the only difference is that the examples of the ETC group (my Type 6) are rounded at the top, whereas the Anatolian- Caucasian variant (my Type 2) has a top where the start of the two spirals is clearly marked by an indentation in a widely open V shape.”8 A recently published pin from Tomb 375 at Natsargora9 renders useless this clear-cut distinc- tion. This beautiful pin, classified by M. Tonussi as “one of the most typical productions of the Transcausasian area in the late 4th and of the 3rd millennia”10 appears to me to be intermediate between my Type 2 and my Type 6.11 The top is very slightly concave and not convex, but it is not clearly “indented”. The three variants (indented, convex or slightly concave) are attested for the identical period (ETC) in central Georgia, in the middle Kura valley. These three Georgian variants appear to be simply the products of different workshops that were near to each other. It is probably necessary, on the other hand, to clearly distinguish a sub-type with a wide and highly rounded head, attested at Ghait Mazi (Huot 2009 no. 56 = Sagona 1981 fig. 1: 3). In the interesting work of G. Palumbi mentioned above, one plate is worthy of comment.12 It groups together pins from Georgia and Anatolia. Palumbi’s no. 6 is too incomplete to be classified and his no. 10 is a pendant, and so these must be discounted. For the remaining objects, the pins with wide, highly rounded heads should be considered together and could be called the Ghait Mazi group (his no. 9), usefully comparable to the Anatolian examples (his nos. 2 and 5, from Norsuntepe). As for the other Georgian pins (Palumbi’s nos. 7, 8 and 13), it should be pointed out that the drawing of no. 13 (from Sagli I) is probably erroneous (why make round a slightly concave top?) and that on this plate two variants are placed side by side, one with a concave, almost indented top, his no. 7 (from Samshvilde) and his no. 8 (from Kvatskhelebi). I also consider the Georgian variants (indented, convex or slightly concave) to be from workshops that are all Georgian. And descendants for these variants can be proposed thanks to an Anatolian example from Kalecik,13 northwest of Tilkitepe on the east bank of Lake Van. This very interesting pin was the first mentioned for my Type 2,14 of which I reported that in my opinion “we have here a clear but rare link between the shores of the Mediterranean and Transcaucasia. The earliest example would have come from the Kura-Araxes culture (ETC culture) of Transcaucasia and the latest from Poliochni II.”15

7 Huot 2009, no. 56. 8 Huot 2009, p. 198. 9 Puturidze and Rova 2012b, p. 11; Tonussi 2012, pp. 49–50 and p. 145 fig. 7 no. 3. 10 Tonussi 2012, p. 49. 11 In Huot 2009. 12 Palumbi 2008, p. 131 fig. 4:19. 13 Palumbi 2008, no. 4. 14 Huot 2009, no. 30. 15 Huot 2009, p. 190 and pl. 6 Type 2.

997075.indb7075.indb 228228 110/09/140/09/14 09:4909:49 DOUBLE-SPIRAL-HEADED PINS FROM GEORGIA 229

To sum up, the middle valley of the Kura in Georgia has produced a beautiful series of pins, all of which come from tombs of the ETC culture. Most of these have a head that is convex in profile (Fig 1: 1– 4). An example from Samshvilde (Fig. 1: 5) has a head with indented profile. Whether the example from Sagli 1 is considered to have a head with a convex or a concave profile (Fig. 1: 6), this beautiful pin belongs to the same group. It comes from a cemetery in North Ossetia. For this Georgian series, the comments of Palumbi are most useful. He consid- ers the pins to be “a characteristic element of the Kura-Araxes culture in the fourth and third millennia.”16 The example from Kalecik (Fig. 1: 7) is an important link with the Anatolian pins. The latter have a head with indented profile (Fig. 2: 1– 3) like those of Kalecik and Samshvilde. Whether they have a convex or concave top, or even a widening with rounded top (variant of Ghait Mazi, Fig. 2: 4–5), these Georgian pins are the prototypes for a series of Anatolian pins, from Arslantepe (Fig. 3: 1– 3) and Tarsus (Fig. 3: 4– 6), which are my sub-types 1.1 and 1.2.17 These double-spiral-headed pins were to have a good future, as much to the west in the Ana- tolian domain as to the east of the Caucasus, towards northern Iran, central Asia (at Gonur: Fig. 3: 7), the Helmand valley (at Said Qala, south of Mundigak, Fig. 3: 8) and as far as Manda at the India-Pakistan frontier (Fig. 3: 9). Very similar pins appear regularly on the antiquities market (Fig. 3: 10, 11). In Georgia itself, the variants do not appear to be important, and the existence of workshops belonging to this region can be recognised, as I proposed in 2009. Their products are found in tombs that definitely belong to the ETC culture of Transcaucasia. The period of production remains hazy, however — from the end of the fourth millennium to the first half of the third. But the precise chronology of the ETC culture remains a subject of discussion for specialists, and consensus has not yet been reached.

Bibliography

Childe, V. G. 1936 “The axes from Maïkop and Caucasian metallurgy,” Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology 23: 113–119.

Huot, J.-L. 1969 “La diffusion des épingles à tête à double enroulement,” Syria 46: 57–93. 2009 “Quelques réflexions sur les épingles à double spirale,” Syria 86: 181–202.

Palumbi, G. 2008 The Red and Black: Social and Cultural Interaction between the Upper Euphrates and Southern Caucasus Communities in the Fourth and Third Millennium BC ( Studi di Preistoria Orientale, 2). Rome: Sapienza Università di Roma.

Piggott, S. 1948 “Notes on certain metal pins and a mace-head in the Harappan culture,” Ancient India 4: 26–40.

16 Palumbi 2008, pp. 128–129 and p. 131 fig. 4:19. 17 Huot 2009.

997075.indb7075.indb 229229 110/09/140/09/14 09:4909:49 230 J.-L. HUOT

Puturidze, M. and Rova, E. 2012a “The Joint Shida Kartli Archaeological Project: Aims and Results of the First Field Season (Autumn 2009),” in Proceedings of the 7th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East: 12 April-16 April 2010. Vol. 3 Fieldwork & Recent Research, Posters, edited by R. Matthews and J. Curtis, pp. 51–70. Wiesbaden: Harrassowits Verlag. 2012b Khashuri Natsargora: The Early Bronze Age Graves (Publications of the Georgian-Italian Shida Kartli Archaeological Project, 1; Subartu 30). Turnhout: Brepols.

Sagona, A. 1981 “Spiral-headed pins: A further note,” Tel-Aviv, 8, no. 2: 152–159.

Tonussi, M 2012 “Metal objects”, in Khashuri Natsargora: The Early Bronze Age Graves (Publications of the Georgian- Italian Shida Kartli Archaeological Project, 1; Subartu 30), edited by M. Puturudze and E. Rova, pp. 49–52. Turnhout: Brepols.

Jean-Louis HUOT Université de Paris I-Panthéon-Sorbonne E-mail: [email protected]

997075.indb7075.indb 230230 110/09/140/09/14 09:4909:49 DOUBLE-SPIRAL-HEADED PINS FROM GEORGIA 231

Fig. 1. ETC Pins. N° 1-4: Convexe Profile: 1 Natsargora, Burial 375, after Puturidze and Rova 2012b, fig. 7 n° 3; 2 Kvatskhelebi, Burial 8, after Huot 2009, n° 57 = Sagona 1981, n° 2; 3 Kvatskhelebi, Burial 5, after Puturidze and Rova 2012b, fig. 13c, n° 3; 4 Urbnissi, Burial 44, n° 5, after Puturidze and Rova 2012b, fig. 27, 5. N° 5-7: Indented Profile: 5 Samshvilde, after Palumbi 2008, fig. 4.19 n° 7; 6 Sagli 1, after Palumbi 2008, fig. 4.19 n° 13; 7 Kalecik, after Palumbi 2008, fig. 4.19 n° 4.

997075.indb7075.indb 231231 110/09/140/09/14 09:4909:49 232 J.-L. HUOT

Fig. 2. Anatolian Pins: 1 Poliochni II, after Huot 2009, n° 31; 2 Alaca III 5-8, after Huot 1969, n° 51; 3 Çayıryolu, after Huot 2009, n° 32. Ghait Mazi variant: 4 Dzaghina, Burial 1, after Puturidze and Rova 2012b, fig. 44a n° 3; Ghait Mazi, after Huot 2009, n° 56.

997075.indb7075.indb 232232 110/09/140/09/14 09:4909:49 DOUBLE-SPIRAL-HEADED PINS FROM GEORGIA 233

Fig. 3. Anatolian Pins: 1 Arslantepe VI B, after Huot 2009, n° 1; 2 Arslantepe VI B, after Huot 2009; n° 3; 3 Arslantepe VI B, after Huot 2009, n° 2; 4 Tarsus Middle Bronze, after Huot 2009, n° 5; 5 Tarsus Middle Bronze, after Huot 2009, n° 6; 6 Tarsus Middle Bronze, after Huot 2009, n° 7. Central Asia Pins: 7 Gonur, after Huot 2009, n° 9; 8 Said Qala, after Huot 2009, n° 8; 9 Manda, after Huot 2009, n° 12. Unknown Provenance (Central Asia?): 10 Paris, Private collection, after Huot 2009, n° 10; 11 Paris, Private collection, after Huot 2009, n° 11.

997075.indb7075.indb 233233 110/09/140/09/14 09:4909:49