The Trialeti Complex (The Developed Stage)

Vanadzor, Lori Berd, Karashamb, and Nerkin Naver) and Azerbaijan (Uzerlik Tepe) delineate the southern and eastern borders.73

Categorisation

The excavations that first defined the Trialeti culture were those led by Boris Kuftin during 1936–40 and again in 1947 on the Tsalka Plateau along the Khrami River basin. These were salvage campaigns, ahead of the construction of the Tsalka Dam, and Kuftin excavated barrow burials and settlements stretching from the Early Bronze Age to the Late Bronze Age. The majority of burials, however, belonged to the Trialeti culture of the second millennium BC and included Kurgans 1–19, 22–25, and 27–46.74 Kuftin’s discoveries were promptly reported in western literature, though several decades passed before detailed re-analyses were undertaken.75 Zhorzhikashvili and Gogadze composed a catalogue of the available finds (some had gone missing in the interim), and Gogadze also proposed a new chronology for the Trialeti culture.76 Equally important were the second round of investigations, carried out by Otar Dzhaparidze, and more recently by Goderzi Narimanishvili.77 Amongst the many interpretative studies, attention should be drawn to the ongoing work by Karen Rubinson, which has elucidated significant connections between the southern Caucasus and neighbouring lands, in particular Anatolia.78

According to Dzhaparidze, the Trialeti barrows and their rites can be grouped into three broad types, which reflect social classes.79 First, there are the lavish and grandiose log structures that required a large investment of energy and resources to construct.These rich barrows represent the elite social class, who practised cremation.Ashes of the dead were placed on a wooden cart or a litter. In the second rank, the dead were interred. Some of these tombs were also rich, as is evidenced by the remains of four-wheeled vehicles, or parts

73Martirosian 1964; Oganesian 1992b; Dzhaparidze 1994;Achundov and Narimanov 1996; Smith et al. 2009: 53–66.

74Kuftin 1941. It should be noted that while these burials are known as ‘Trialeti’, referring to the district in which they were located, they had individual names, including Beyuk Tepe, Kol’tsevoi, Korukh Tash, Chuchuk Tepe, Apostolin Tepesi,Tumasin Tepesi, Beshtasheni, Shepiaki, Kammenyi, Sabitakhcha, Dzhinisi, Kushchi, Olenii, Bednyi, Top Kar, Taparavanskii, Tabatskuraskii ‘bol’shoi’, Tabatskuraskii ‘malyi’ zemliunoi, and Tabatskuraskii. In recent years Armenian archaeologists (Avetisyan and Bobokhyan 2008) have used the more expansive term ‘Trialeti-Vanadzor’ to signal the culture’s distribution in northern Armenia.

75For western literature see Minns 1943; Schaeffer 1943, 1944a, 1944b, 1948; Kuftin and Fields 1946; Burney 1958; Piggott 1969; Gimbutas 1965; Rubinson 1976, 1977; Orthmann 2014.

76Gogadze 1972; Zhorzhikashvili and Gogadze 1974.

77Dzhaparidze 1960, 1964, 1969; Narimanishvili 2004, 2009, 2010.

78Rubinson 1976, 1977, 2003.

79Dzhaparidze 1994: 81.

thereof, which must have been considered prestige items. Many of these graves contained the skull and limb bones of cattle, whose carcasses were consumed during the ritual feast. Finally, tombs with meagre assemblages, mostly ceramics, and small barrows represent the third group. Marine Puturidze developed Dzhaparidze’s scheme further and identified four social groups based on the quantity and richness of grave goods.80

Mound Types

Looking at tomb architecture, the Trialeti kurgans essentially comprised a mound of earth and stone that covered a burial area. The barrows varied in size and shape, as did the burial area. Mounds were either round or oval in plan, except for Kurgan 15, which was rectangular with rounded corners. One of the largest barrows (no. 36) measured 65 m in diameter and rose 5 m above the plain. Other mounds were much smaller and constituted low rises of no more than 1 m. Construction methods varied too. Some mounds were built entirely from stone – either large blocks or fist-sized gravel. Mounds of smaller dimensions were often earthen, whereas another category combined both earth and stone. Layering the building media was not uncommon, and continued the tradition of the Martkopi and Bedeni barrows. Kurgan 23, for instance, comprised two layers of stones that were covered by earth.An intriguing variation is seen with Kurgans 37 and 38, whose builders saw fit to cover the mound with obsidian fl akes.

Burial Customs and Tomb Architecture

The tomb form and burial rites within the Trialeti barrows fall into three classes: directly onto the earthen surface, in a grave-pit, or within a stone-built chamber. Generally speaking, human skeletons are absent from the Trialeti barrows, whereas animal bones, especially those of cattle, are commonplace and most likely part of the funerary rites. Trialeti communities preferred to cremate their deceased and place their ashes in wooden containers.This shift from the presence of a primary figure at Martkopi and Bedeni to barrows with no bodies has meaning. According to Smith, the mortuary rituals of the large barrows, with their conspicuous consumption of wealth and human sacrifice, also involved ‘the transfiguration of a physical body into a metaphysical one’.81 This had the effect of entrenching power and authority of the leader and his kinfolk. In the Middle Bronze Age II this custom was replaced by cremation, only to appear again in the subsequent period.

Burials on the surface of the ground featured in Trialeti Barrows 5, 6, 8, 9, 18, 32, 33, and 41; other barrows – 3, 14, 35, and 39 – and also Sabit Akhcha Kurgan 3 may belong to the same type, though the reports are not clear.82 The

80Puturidze 2003.

81Smith 2015: 147.

82Dzhaparidze 1960: 40; Zhorzhikashvili and Gogadze 1974: 15–24; Bertram 2003: 28.

areas they covered varied in size, with Trialeti Barrow 9 measuring 90 m2, and Barrow 8 covering 64 m2, where a layer of wood superimposed by large stones was reported.83 A variant of this type is Barrow 18, whose burial area was surrounded by upright stones forming a square enclosure. Irganchai Barrows 3 and 18 also had no pit or funerary construction, but a much smaller burial area (ca. 4–7.5 m2), which was situated off centre, as was Trialeti Barrow 8.84

Rectangular pit graves have been recorded at fourteen sites in Georgia, including Trialeti, and at Keti in Armenia, where there are four.85 The pits were mostly rectangular and generally narrowed in size as they approached the floor of the grave, which in one case (Trialeti Barrow 7) was paved with pebbles.86 On the whole, pits were quite substantial and deep, and more often than not orientated along the east–west axis.The size of the pits varied from Trialeti Barrow 17, the largest (15 x 11 x 5.5 m) through Trialeti Barrow I (10 x 6.5 x 2 m) to Sioni Barrow 4, which measured 2.2 x 1.15 m across the top. The Trialeti pit graves had their walls lined with wood and were sealed with wooden planks; in some cases the roof was then covered with a heap of stones.Variants on the rectangular shape were also found, the most divergent being Irganchai Barrow 21, which had a circular pit about 4.5 m in diameter that yielded a single radiocarbon date of the early second millennium.87

Earthen pit graves with a smaller pit dug within a larger pit, creating a stepped effect, were found at four sites in the southern Caucasus.88 This variant was widespread during the Middle Bronze Age in the northern Caucasus, but south of the mountains it found clear expression at Sabit Akhcha Kurgan 5.89 The lower pit, roofed by wooden beams, contained a four-wheeled vehicle, which stood on a mat laid across the floor of the pit. Placed on the mat were limb bones of cattle, an ovoid wooden tray with handle, and, around the left front wheel of the vehicle, a bronze dagger and jewellery. On top of the vehicle were five ceramic containers and positioned again on the left front wheel were a cattle skull and other animal bones.

Graves with an attached passageway reached their peak with stone-built chambers, but we do have a number of examples associated with rectangular pit graves, all located in the central south Caucasus.90 The tomb at Tqisbolo Gora, dated to the late Middle Bronze Age, had the longest passageway. It was

83Kuftin 1941: 86.

84Despite later intrusions, the Irganchai barrows are generally placed within the Middle Bronze Age. Kakhiani et al. 1997: 59.

85Bertram 2003: Tables 5 and 6.

86The grave within Barrow 2 at Oruzmani showed the greatest contraction with depth. Measuring 5.5 x 4.4 m across the top, the pit narrowed to 3.45 x 2.85 m at its base (Bertram 2003: 34; Kakhiani et al. 1995).

87Kakhiani et al. 1997: 60.The reading was 1910 ± 50 BC (2278 ± 109 cal BC).

88Bertram 2003: Map 6.

89Dzhaparidze 1960: 40–3; 47–51.

90Bertram 2003: Map 8.