240 |
Encounters Beyond the Caucasus |
Figure 5.5. Chobareti radiocarbon dates.
While Structure 3 and phase one of Structure 4 date to 3300–3200 BC and have predominately pale brown ceramics, Structure 6 has mostly red-black vessels dated to the period 3100/3000-2900 BC.
Another distinctive feature of Chobareti are its fifteen pits. For the most part they are pear-shaped, though their complete form is often difficult to discern, owing to erosion and modern destruction. One example (Pit 14) reaches a depth of 1.80 m, but most are half that size or less.That a number of pits were used for storage purposes and later for the disposal of waste is clear, though we must also consider whether some pits were also used for ritual purposes, as indicated by their structured deposits.104
Semi-Subterranean Structures
The settlements at Velikent and Mingechaur represent yet another type – a village of large, semi-subterranean structures (pit houses) that were most
104 On structured pit deposits, see Chapman 2000b.
Chronology, Periodisation, and the Problem of Transformations |
241 |
likely used by an extended family.105 At Velikent two mounds, Karsu Tepe and Zemovar Tepe, had pit houses associated with bell-shaped storage pits. Some of the houses were quite large with diameters up to 6 m, and built with mud bricks reinforced with wattle-and-daub structures. One structure, at Zemovar Tepe, was multi-roomed. At Mingechaur houses were rectangular in plan and varied in size, but some measured up to 14 x 8 m. Walls consisted of a post framework daubed with clay, which supported a fl at roof. Some of the larger structures had internal partitions that divided the space into three longitudinal sections, and provided further roof support. Floors were paved with pebbles, though shells and pottery sherds were also used as a base that was coated with mud. Although quite different in design and construction, the round stone houses at Gemitiulitshch I and II (Dagestan) were also semi-subterranean.106
Fortifi cations and Protective Walls
The vast majority of Kura-Araxes sites are not fortified, but a handful do have impressive walls that can be interpreted either as defensive or as perhaps a social boundary. These walls and the investment of resources they represent have significant implications for an incipient social complexity amongst certain communities of the Kura-Araxes cultural province. A few sites in the Ararat Plain have reported large walls, including Ada Blur and Mokhra Blur.107 At Shengavit, recent excavations have exposed a massive 4 m-wide wall with two faces of basalt blocks and a rubble core.108 The scale of this wall, plus the small tower and connecting tunnel to the river below,might suggest a defensive purpose. Fortifications are also a feature at Bet Yerah, where the community built an impressive stone and mud-brick system (Fortification B), reinforced with round and square towers, that is dated to the Early Bronze Age III and associated with Khirbet Kerak ware.109
A substantial wall is also a feature at the large site of Köhne Shahar in western Azerbaijan, Iran.110 Covering an area of around 15 ha, with an equally impressive 2.5 ha citadel, Köhne Shahar has revealed five architectural levels and a massive wall, buttressed with round towers, along the vulnerable northern face of the citadel; the steepness of the slope on the other sides provided natural fortifications. Stratigraphic evidence indicates that the wall was built when the community established the settlement, which an early surface survey indicates consisted of neighbourhoods of round and rectilinear houses separated by clear pathways. Moreover, the excavators have noted that the earliest settlement
105Aslanov, Baidov, and Ione 1959; Kohl and Magomedov 2014: 99–101.
106Gadzhiev 1989: 33.
107Areshian 2005, 2007.
108Simonyan and Rothman 2015: 20.
109Greenberg et al. 2006: Greenberg and Paz 2005.
110Alizadeh et al. 2015; for an early 1970s survey of the site, see Kleiss and Kroll 1979.
242 Encounters Beyond the Caucasus
did not evolve organically, but rather reflects a clearly pre-determined plan. Despite preliminary results, Karim Alizadeh and his team have suggested that the monumental wall points to a defensive purpose, even though expressions of militarism are generally lacking in the Kura-Araxes culture.
The inhabitants at Sos Höyük also felt the need to build a large, curved wall on the crest of the site, shortly after they arrived, around 3500 BC.111 The foundation of the wall is constructed with a tight packing of small field stones and hard clay, and measures 2.5 m wide.Although only a quarter of the wall has been exposed, it appears to have encircled the core of the settlement. Given that domestic architecture was built on either side of the wall, its purpose was probably not defensive. Instead, it appears to have defined the centre of the village, and so may have had a socio-political function. Is it possible, for instance, that residents but not visitors had access to the inner area? Disaster struck about 3100 BC, possibly as a result of an earthquake, and part of the wall collapsed.The community did not re-build the structure immediately, as is clearly attested by the remains of three dwellings and floors – a floor composed of crushed pottery, a rectilinear house, and a round house – sandwiched between the two building phases of the wall.112 Around 3000 BC the wall was reconstructed, but it did not remain intact for very long. Shortly after the re-building, it collapsed again and was left in ruins.
It is difficult to ascertain whether these few but massive walls represent defensive works. Their sheer size lends itself to the notion of fortification, yet expressions of warfare are not elements we associate with the majority of Kura-Araxes communities. Greenberg has pointed out that the fortifications at Bet Yerah were built in times of crises, which might also explain the Köhne Shahar wall. As for weaponry, we do have the swords from the elite tomb at Arslantepe, where different dynamics were at play.113 But in the south Caucasus, well over a hundred Kura-Araxes cemetery sites have not yielded comparable material.114
Another slant to take is to view the walls at Sos Höyük, and possibly Köhne Shahar and Shengavit, as part of a public works project, which had the aim of mobilising labour from a population that in every other respect did not display signs of centralisation or social differentiation.The Great Houses of the Pueblo peoples of south-western America might offer an interpretative analogy.115
111Sagona 2000; Sagona and Sagona 2000.
112Sagona and Sagona 2000.
113Frangipane et al. 2001.
114For a list of the sites, see Poulmarc’h 2014a.Although the Kura-Araxes complex includes spearheads, the earliest sword in the central south Caucasus, found in one of the barrows at Saduga (Picchelauri 1997: 17), does not appear until the first half of the second millennium BC.
115I would like to thank Mitchell Rothman for drawing my attention to this possibility and analogy.
Chronology, Periodisation, and the Problem of Transformations |
243 |
Burial customs
Kura-Araxes communities practised a variety of burial rites.In a thorough study, Modwene Poulmarc’h has identified 111 burial sites and 6 tomb types: earthen pit, stone cist, horseshoe-shaped, stone-lined of variable shapes, small cairn, and barrow (or kurgan).116 Few cemeteries belong to the earliest phase of the Kura-Araxes.117 The distribution of the tombs, the burial structures, the nature of the human remains, and the grave goods reveal regional mortuary practices. On the whole, cemeteries were located outside but within proximity to settlements, though at Kvatskhelebi, Ilto, Gudabertka, and Dvin the dead were laid to rest within the village.118 At Chobareti, the eastern end of the site was turned into a cemetery as the village moved westward along the terrace. Other sites, such as Samshvilde and Talin, do not seem to be associated with any nearby settlements. This shift from the practice of burials under the floor of houses heralds a new relationship between the living and the dead. As Palumbi has suggested, extramural burials may signal a new form of territoriality and the re-shaping of the political landscape.119 In terms of grave goods, Kura-Araxes burials reveal a ‘sameness’ with ceramics, stone tools, and jewellery, and the occasional metal object comprising the main items. None compares to the richness found at the Arslantepe ‘Royal’ tomb, or the elite burials at Maikop.
1. Earthen pit: this type comprises a simple pit occasionally paved with stones, but without structural walls or roof. It has been documented at twenty-three sites throughout the southern Caucasus,with the majority located in the Shida Kartli region of Georgia.120 Most graves contained the remains of a single individual, though multiple interments (up to six in Tomb 25 at Aradetis Orgora) were also practised. Earthen pit tombs have been found at, amongst other sites, Kvatskhelebi, Khizanaant Gora, Aradetis Orgora, Urbnisi, Dzaghina, Nachivchavebi, and Tiselis Seri.121 At Kvatskhelebi, the burials showed no signs of disturbance. Skeletons were found fully articulated and lying on their right sides in a contracted position, with the head often to the south.122 The community at Aradetis Orgora followed a similar practice, though when a tomb was
116Poulmarc’h et al. 2014b, based on Poulmarc’h 2014a. Amongst regional studies see, Kalantaryan 2007.
117Poulmarc’h et al. 2014b: 233 draws the line at 3100 BC for the phase I–II transition.
118Kvatskhelebi (Glonti et al. 2008); Ilto (Dedabrishvili 1969: 46–8); Gudabertka (Mindiashvili et al. 2012).
119Palumbi 2016: 23.
120Poulmarc’h et al. 2014b: fig. 4B, and Poulmarc’h 2014a: fig. 250 for a listing of sites.
121Glonti et al. 2008 (Kvatskhelebi); Chilashvili 1964 (Urbnisi); Kikvidze 1972 (Khizanaant Gora); Koridze and Palumbi 2008 (Aradetis Orgora); Jalabadze and Palumbi 2008 (Takhtidziri); Chikovani, et al. 2010 (Nachivchavebi); Gogochuri and Orjonikidze 2010 (Tiselis Seri); Jalabadze et al. 2012.
122Glonti et al. 2008.
244 |
Encounters Beyond the Caucasus |
|
re-opened, the remains of the earlier individual were re-arranged to |
|
make room for the recently deceased; some bones were also removed.123 |
|
Particularly noteworthy is Kvatskhelebi Tomb 6, because the remains of |
|
two young individuals were found lying on the top of the grave, recall- |
|
ing the practice at the elite tomb at Arslantepe.124 Whether or not these |
|
Kvatskhelebi individuals were the victims of human sacrifice, as was the |
|
case at Arslantepe, is difficult to say, owing to the absence of physical |
|
anthropological analysis. But the presence of a diadem with a punc- |
|
tate design in the Arslantepe Royal Tomb and another in Kvatskhelebi |
|
Tomb 2 supports a connection between Shida Kartli and the Turkish |
|
Upper Euphrates. Most of the nine pit graves from Tiselis Seri were |
|
poorly furnished and contained the remains of one individual; Tombs |
|
7 and 9, however, were double burials, both of males.125 The animal |
|
remains found in the graves, especially cattle heads and feet, are inter- |
|
esting, and foreshadow a practice that became popular during later |
|
Bronze Age barrow burials.Also noteworthy is Kalavan-1, north-east of |
|
Lake Sevan, where the individual in UF2, whose age or sex could not |
|
be determined, had his (or her) hands tied behind the back.126 This rare |
|
practice recalls the later (early Trialeti) burial at Sos Höyük.127 |
2. Stone cist: this form is essentially an earthen pit with one or two large |
|
|
stone slabs along both lengths and one slab at either end (Figure 5.6(1)). |
|
Two large stone slabs were generally placed across the top to seal the |
|
tomb. Here we follow Poulmarc’h in distinguishing between stone cist |
|
and stone-lined (Type 3). Only eight sites spread across Georgia and |
|
Armenia have recorded this tomb type.128 Guram Mirtskhulava and his |
|
team excavated thirty-seven tombs at Samshvilde, but only a few (for |
|
example, nos. 2 and 3) can be classified as true stone cist; a variation has |
|
slabs combined with smaller, irregular field stones.129 A small number |
|
of tombs were paved with stones; most had an earthen floor. Collective |
|
burials appear to be the norm, though it is difficult to discern the num- |
|
ber of individuals. |
3. |
Stone-lined: field stones, as opposed to stone slabs, were used to line the |
|
tomb walls of this type.The shape of these tombs varies from rectangular |
123Koridze and Palumbi 2008.The removal of bones as a secondary stage of a protracted funerary ritual is clearly evident in other periods, especially the Late Antique; see for example Sagona et al. (forthcoming).
124Glonti et al. 2008: 155.
125Gogochuri and Orjonikidze 2010.
126Poulmarc’h et al. 2014b: 236.
127Sagona 2000.
128Poulmarc’h et al. 2014b: fig. 3A, and Poulmarc’h 2014a: fig. 253 for a listing of sites. Cf. Palumbi 2007b for examples in the EuphratesValley.
129Mirtskhulava 1975.
Figure 5.6. Kura-Araxes burial types: (1) stone cist tomb, Elar Tomb 10 (after Khanzadian 1979); (2–3) stone-lined, Chobareti Burial 2 (after Kakhiani et al. 2013);
(4) stone-lined, Takhtidziri Tomb 35 (after Jalabadze and Palumbi 2008); (5) horse- shoe-shaped, Kiketi Tomb 7 (after Pkhakadze 1963).
245
246 |
Encounters Beyond the Caucasus |
and square through oblong to circular. The number of inhumations ranges from one to several events. Stone-lined tombs are recorded at thirty-one sites, with the overwhelming majority located in Armenia and Georgia, and only one outlier in Azerbaijan, at Khinisli, in the eastern region.130 At Samshvilde, most tombs were rectangular in form (ca. 2.5 x 1.5 m), though some approached a trapezoidal shape; two (nos. 8 and 12) were small and circular, and each contained the remains of a child.The same can be said for Kvatskhelebi.There was no standard orientation, nor was the construction of the walls formalised, thus blurring the distinction between stone cist and stone-lined. Stone-lined tombs also occur at Takhtidziri (Figure 5.6(4)). Most skeletons at Samshvilde were no longer anatomically connected.The Elar tombs had stones of small size stacked up to three courses high; and at Takhtidziri,Tomb 35 had a few steps leading down into the tomb.131 Occasionally this tomb type is stone-paved, such as in the case of Burial 1 at Nachivchavebi, which contained the remains of two males, two females, and a female juvenile; Burial 2 had a male, an adult female and a female adolescent.132
At Chobareti, the stone-lined tombs are later than Structure 4 (Figure 5.6(2–3)).The tops of the tombs were sealed with short timber beams and covered with stone slabs.All tombs had an entrance, located either on the eastern side (Tombs 1–3, 7, and 8) or the southern side (Tomb 4), blocked by a substantial slab of stone, which was removed if other occupants had to share the space at a later time.Tomb 2 was the only example of re-use.The remains of earlier individuals were pushed aside, unceremoniously it seems, and the recently deceased was placed in a crouched position. No preference is shown in orientation in any of the tombs, with individuals placed either on their right or left sides, and heads pointing east (Burials 1–3, 8), south (Burial 4), or north (Burial 7). Grave goods were modest. Burial 1, for instance, yielded a ceramic vessel and a spindle whorl, Burial 4 a spindle whorl, and Burial 8 a jar. Attention should be drawn, however, to the practice attested in Burials 2, 5, and 8 of paving the earthen floors with fragments of large ceramic containers, recalling the Sos Höyük VA ‘ceramic floor’. At Chobareti, this feature was presumably part of a specific burial rite.
4. Horseshoe-shaped stone tomb: this is a variant of the stone-lined type and examples come from Kiketi (Figure 5.6(5)), Amiranis Gora, and Elar. They date to the late fourth and early third millennia. At Kiketi, the bones of the previously deceased were pushed into the bend of the horseshoe as new occupants were laid to rest.133 The form of these
130Poulmarc’h et al. 2014b: fig. 3B, and Poulmarc’h 2014a: fig. 251 for a listing of sites.
131Jalabadze and Palumbi 2008: 118.
132Chikovani et al. 2010: 96.
133Pkhakadze 1963.
Chronology, Periodisation, and the Problem of Transformations |
247 |
tombs is quite possibly symbolic, given the prominence of horseshoeshaped hearths in the Kura-Araxes traditions.
5. Small cairn: the distinguishing feature is essentially a pile of stones to mark the position of the tomb, usually an earthen pit. Of the fifteen cairns that are documented, thirteen are in Georgia.134
6. A barrow of earth and stone: also known as kurgans, these mounds are the most widely distributed in space of all the types, and they are recorded at most sites (thirty-two).135 They reach from north-west Georgia (Koreti) through the middle Araxes valley to the shores of the Caspian. Most of these mounds are relatively small, averaging about 15 m in diameter and rising no more than 2 m above the surface of the ground. Those in the Mil Steppe, however, are quite large. Both their size and their grave assemblages have suggested to some that they do not belong to the Kura-Araxes horizon.136 In general, the chambers the mounds covered varied greatly – an earthen pit (rectangular or round), lined with stone, mud brick, or wood, sometimes with a dromos.The Sapar-Kharaba barrow sealed a horseshoe-shaped tomb containing the remains of a 50–60-year-old male.137 Other chambers were constructed on the ground. In some cases, the dead were laid directly on the ground and covered with stones, or the barrows covered no burial at all and were thus cenotaphs.138
In one tomb at Osman Bozu, thirty-four individuals were laid to rest on their sides, in a crouched position, together with an array of ceramic containers.139 The rectangular stone cist was sealed with wooden beams, four running down the length of the chamber and twelve placed across the width.
The Mentesh Tepe barrow burial containing some forty individuals is no less impressive. It appears that around the mid-third millennium BC, groups of Early Bronze Age villagers made regular use of this early barrow for their own collective burial customs. They dug a large and deep funerary chamber, which they lined with postholes.As the newly deceased were laid to rest, the remains of the older ones were pushed aside. Considering the number of individuals, the barrow contained very few provisions. A distinctive trait found amongst the barrows in north-west Azerbaijan is the burning of the chamber before closure of the barrow, foreshadowing a later Middle Bronze Age custom.140
134Poulmarc’h et al. 2014b: fig. 7A, and Poulmarc’h 2014a: fig. 248 for a listing of sites.
135Poulmarc’h et al. 2014a: fig. 7B, and Poulmarc’h 2014b: fig. 249 for a listing of sites.
136Munchaev 1975: 171.
137Shanshashvili 2010: 164.
138Kesamanly et al. 1979: 514.
139Kesamanly et al. 1978: 498.
140Lyonnet et al. 2012: 94.