386 |
From Fortresses to Fragmentation |
around it. Some 100 m from the hill fort’s eastern entrance, the line bifurcates and becomes two parallel rows that continue for a further 900 m. Buildings are located between these menhirs (Area B), but unlike the houses within the fortress, they are substantial (ca. 160 m2), twin-roomed structures. Forty were documented, of which two have been excavated. Both houses had floors that were lower than the ground surface outside, and House 1 had two entrances; the other house had only one doorway.The walls were constructed from basalt blocks and, in sections, reached a height of 1.5 m. Two postholes in House 1 held supports for the roof. Both houses displayed similar features: one room had a lime-plastered floor with a fixed hearth, while the adjoining room was paved with basalt fl agstones, possibly to keep cattle. The presence of churns, four amongst forty-three ceramic containers found scattered across the floor, demonstrates that milk production was part of the household activities. The churns were black and fine in quality, standing in contrast to the rest of the assemblage – coarse grey vessels tempered with obsidian. Both shape and incised decoration place the pottery around 1400–1300 BC. How and why this site came to an end is unclear.There is no evidence of burning or violence, but abandonment was sudden.
Even the cursory fieldwork that has been carried out in southern Georgia shows up many differences between the sites. Aside from Sabechdavi, there are the intriguing sites at Shaori, Abuli, and Avranlo (Figure 8.2(1–3, 5)).24 Shaori has an unusual plan, rhomboid with circular spaces, and is situated at an altitude of 2700 m, which makes it an unlikely domestic centre. Its date is no more certain, though a Middle Bronze Age date has been assigned to it. Hill fort construction continued into the Early Iron Age (eighth–seventh centuries BC) as attested by Knole, which does have a perimeter wall but no menhirs. Curiously, the seven structures documented at Knole are all located outside the hill fort, and not far to the west of a contemporary cemetery.
Settlements
Turning to settlements, the site Sajoge, situated in the Digomi Plain on the outskirts of Tbilisi, is significant not least because of its secure chronology (ca. 1900/1800–1300 BC) supported by radiocarbon readings.25 So far, excavations have revealed two building horizons with several building phases. The site is extensive, spreading across 20 ha, but is no longer immediately visible. Its cultural layers, averaging between 1.5 and 2 m, are buried up to 3 m beneath the surface of the ground, a situation caused by heavy soil erosion from the surrounding hills.
24Narimanishvili et al. 2010.
25Abramishvili and Orthmann 2008.
The Lchashen-Tsitelgori Horizon (1500–800 BC) |
387 |
Well-planned architecture and a fortification wall suggest an important and substantial settlement.The lowest building horizon (Middle Bronze Age) was difficult to discern, owing to the disturbance caused by the Late Bronze constructions above it. It was not altogether clear whether houses had mud-brick walls or were wooden constructions plastered with clay. But pottery sherds with comb-stamped triangles can be confidently ascribed to the late phase of the Trialeti culture.
There was no doubt about the mode of construction and plan of the Late Bronze Age dwellings (upper horizon), Buildings 2 and 4.They were pit houses, a type that required stepping down onto the floor from outside, built in the drystone technique with large sandstone blocks and occasionally with cobblestone fillers.The walls of Building 2 comprised two rows, while Building 4 had walls built from a single row of stones. On the interior, the walls of both buildings were well finished with a coat of clay or mud plaster.We do not know what type of roof Building 2 had, but that of Building 4 conforms to a characteristic type for the southern Caucasus.Wooden posts were first erected along the wall line, then the stone wall was subsequently built around them.With this method of construction, it was common for posts to be placed in each of the four corners of a room. Circular fl at stones, used as bases for central pillars and found along the axis of the building, represent central support. Next to these stones was a hearth built with flat sandstones set into the floor. Similar hearths were found in Building 5 (Middle Bronze Age horizon) and Building 1.
Building 4 is square in plan with a corridor-like entrance on the eastern wall, and measures approximately 85 m2 in area. Judging by the amount of stone debris, the structure was probably built from mixed media – stone along the lower half and a wooden superstructure. The floors of the house were split-level, with the entrance about 20 cm higher than the floor of the room. A stone step enabled access from the corridor to the room. Remnants of wood may have belonged to the wooden door. Fragments of crystallised wooden beams, one with a carefully cut-out mortise, point to a substantial and elaborately constructed framework. It is not clear whether a doorway connected Buildings 4 and 2 – modern building activity damaged this area – but the space between two structures appears to have been a cooking area. It is heavily burnt, as are many areas of the upper horizon, and has a stone hearth.
Three samples of charcoal from the upper building horizon have placed it in the second half of the second millennium. Radiocarbon analyses calibrated at the 95 per cent probability have yielded the following readings: 3180±50 BP (OZG 363), sample 1, Building 2; 3260 ± 40 BP (OZG 364), sample 2, Building 2; 3070± 40 BP (OZG 366), sample 4, Building 1.26
26Abramishvili and Orthman 2008: 278; the early date provide by a further sample 3500 ± 50 BP (OZG 365), sample 3, Building 1 can be explained as backfill caused by the Late Bronze Age builders.
388 |
From Fortresses to Fragmentation |
Summing up, Sajoge is important because it is a well-defined settlement of the Lchashen-Tsitelgori culture, otherwise mostly known from tombs and fortresses.The settlement plan of the village, with carefully laid out buildings, some quite large, and fortification walls, suggests a substantial and prosperous community. Connections between the Lchashen-Tsitelgori culture and the earlier Middle Bronze Age Trialeti culture are reflected in certain ceramics traits and also in the persistence of barrow burials, some quite rich. Given the extensive burning in the upper horizon, it appears that the Late Bronze Age settlement was destroyed at the tail end of Lchashen-Tsitelgori culture. The lack of complete vessels suggests that the community had time to gather their belongings and move on. According to Rostom Abramishvili the LchashenTsitelgori tradition gradually petered out between 1300 and 1200 BC, a view now supported by the Sajoge radiocarbon analyses.Although the lower Middle Bronze Age settlement has not provided a coherent plan, it is no less significant, given the absence of settlements clearly attributable to theTrialeti culture.
Burial Customs
There are many cemeteries of the Lchashen-Tsitelgori horizon, and the tomb types are varied. In eastern Georgia simple earthen graves are common, whereas in Armenia cromlechs were preferred.27 The cemetery at Artik, on the other hand, investigated by T. Khachatrian during the 1960s, only has shaft- and-chamber tombs (so-called catacombs).28 Some 641 tombs, which have a square shaft and oval chamber, were cut into the tufa bedrock and plugged with stones or large blocks of tufa of a different colour to the bedrock (Figure 8.3(2)). Despite the uniformity of their tomb architecture, burial practices at Artik varied and the tombs hardly ever contained the bones of children.
The excavator discerned an evolution from individual to collective burials at Artik. Individual burials, the most common and earliest form, saw the deceased laid to rest on either side in a tightly flexed position.Then came double inhumations, followed by tombs with three to seven individuals, whose bones were disarticulated.A curious variation on this collective type is found with Tombs 217 and 223, which had a complete skeleton at one end of the chamber and six skulls stacked on top of one another at the opposite end.The area in between had the disarticulated bones belonging to the skulls; and only the articulated skeleton was associated with grave goods.29 In contrast to this are sixty tombs of the same type that were empty (cenotaphs).The developmental chronology of the Artik cemetery has been debated, and Badalyan and Avetisyan’s attempt at it is the most convincing. They argue for a threefold division – Group 1
27Bertram 2003.
28Khachatrian 1979; Badalyan and Avetisyan 2007: 67–79.
29Badalyan and Avetisyan 2007: 68.
The Lchashen-Tsitelgori Horizon (1500–800 BC) |
389 |
Figure 8.3. Artik: (1) Tomb 422, Mitannian cylinder seal; (2) typical catacomb tomb (no. 1 drawn by C. Sagona after Khachatrian 1975; no. 2 after Badalyan and Avetisyan 2007).
(ca. 1500–1450 BC); Group 2 (ca. 1450–1250 BC) the majority of tombs, with cylinder seals bearing Mitannian motifs (Figure 8.3(1)) in Tombs 53, 422 and 635 providing links to the Near East; and Group 3 (ca. 1200–700 BC), assigned to the Early Iron Age.30
Cromlechs covered by a tumulus of earth and stone, such as those at Late Bronze Age Hnaberd, Khjabagher, and Aparan II (Figure 8.4), form another grave type. The burial chamber beneath generally comprised a rectangular earthen pit, or a cist tomb with walls, and occasionally a floor lined with stone blocks.The roofs of cist tombs were sealed with stone slabs that were, in turn, encircled by one or two rows of stones.31 By the Early Iron Age, the practice of marking tombs with a cromlech had started to wane in Armenia, but the basic tomb types remained unchanged if somewhat larger in size. Each tomb
30Badalyan and Avetisyan (2007: 68) include tombs 33 and 260 in Group 1, and 19 tombs (206, 208–09, 211, 217–19, 221, 223, 295, 298, 369, 417, 420–421, 428, 431, 539, and 631) in their Group 3. For a cylinder seal from Metsamor inscribed in Egyptian see, Khanzadian and Piotrovskii 1992.
31Badalyan and Avetisyan 2007: 114–21.
390 |
From Fortresses to Fragmentation |
Figure 8.4. Aparan II cromlech,Tombs 2, 4 and 5 (after Badalyan and Avetisyan 2007).