16 Introduction

PROBLEMS IN THE STUDY OF CAUCASIAN ARCHAEOLOGY

These diverse research traditions of Caucasian archaeology pose some challenges. Apart from formulaic Marxist phraseology in Soviet literature (often little more than a veneer in most studies),many past excavations whether of mounds or caves, cemeteries or fortresses, are embedded with problems that make them difficult to interpret.These pertain to theoretical underpinnings, methods employed in the field,as well as practices of post-excavation analysis and publication.Siteand period-specific difficulties are discussed throughout the book, but it is worthwhile to state candidly at the outset some of the major generic constraints that are often encountered. The Caucasus is not alone in the limitations that early investigations pose, but these drawbacks can be notable for their acuteness.

The analysis and interpretation of depositional layers is the first hurdle, for they are neither systematic nor rigorous in early reports. It is often difficult to determine the nuances of a vertical stratigraphic sequence, for instance, because clumping units into thick layers, especially at Palaeolithic sites, was a common practice.This lack of subtlety has resulted in the mixing of discrete archaeological horizons, causing false impressions of continuity.50 Related to this is a shortage or absence of horizontal contextual information. Plans of structures or features rarely note objects in direct relation to each other and to the layers from which they came, limiting the meaning that can be derived from the network of associations.51

Cultural materialism, reflecting an extreme form of empiricist positivism, is another challenge in early studies. Associated with this view was the supposition that communities could be seen as ‘functioning wholes’, producing assemblages that may reflect their distinctive social identities. This approach, which still resonates strongly in many quarters, was expressed through the construction of complex artefact typologies based on local cultural variants derived from sites without solid chronometric dates.The reasoning behind this practice was rarely articulated and it was combined with an aversion to any form of hypotheses, especially during the Stalinist period.The resultant frameworks led to an oversimplification of complex situations, the over-emphasis of local variants, and confusion over the nature of broader cultural change through time.The tendency to slot distinct assemblages into templates of predefined cultures makes it difficult to differentiate between co-existence and linear evolution. Particularism was in vogue, and only ‘facts’ were considered to provide truthful answers.Yet, paradoxically, the occasional sweeping theories, often encompassing several continents, were breathtaking in their simplicity.

50Stratigraphic sections of village settlements, on the other hand, often show the height and depth of features rather than the visible interleaving and relationship of all deposits along the walls of trench. Moreover, Soviet sections were arbitrary lines that crisscrossed a trench drawn after excavation. Hence, it is rarely possible to retrieve information on site formation processes.

51On Soviet field methods, see Shelov 1983;Afanasev 1989.

Subsistence economy was a popular pursuit in Soviet archaeology, yet the methodological foundations of many studies were loose. Animal bones, for instance, were not comprehensively collected (small bone fragments were usually discarded), nor were they studied using zooarchaeological techniques, which involve a core series of procedures such as taphonomy.Instead,the information derived from faunal remains often comprised the presence or absence of species, compiled into lists that cannot in themselves elucidate archaeological matters such as butchery patterns, carcass transport and hunting practices. Again, this can cloud the interpretation of hunter-gatherer sites in particular.

Arguably, the most serious constraint in dealing with early studies is the meagre and patchy quantity of radiocarbon readings, a situation that stemmed from a preference for historical correlations and artefact typologies over chronometric dating.52 The need to nail down the age of deposits is made all the more acute given that many sites have shallow deposits, precluding the recognition of long-term trends in the evolution of artefact groups. Added to this was a tendency for spot dates; that is, taking one sample to represent a long period rather than collecting several samples to provide a cluster of dates.

Methodological underpinnings in the 1960s should also be considered, and not just those analyses carried out in Soviet laboratories.53 The potential scale of the ‘old wood’ effect, for instance, was not recognised by the early laboratories.54 Nor were background standards, mostly affecting dates less than 10,000 years, adhered to in any uniform manner. Even today, some scientists do not consider adequate the use of graphite (for AMS) or coal (for AMS or radiometric) for organic carbon background standards.55

This leads us to a related issue,namely the uncritical comparison of corrected radiocarbon readings. Giorgi Kavtaradze’s landmark study of south Caucasian chronology, based on the corrected readings using the R. M. Clark curve, was the earliest attempt at re-calibration, which has had a lasting impact.56 The result is that Clark’s calibrated dates are still being compared with recent readings calibrated using the OxCal programme. This uncritical comparison

52See, for example,Andreeva’s resistance (1987: 276) to Kavtaradze’s (1983) high chronology study based on radiocarbon dates.

53See, for example, the critique by Manning and Kromer (2011) of the early analyses of samples collected from Gordion.

54Any charcoal or wood sample may suffer from the ‘old wood’ effect, resulting in errors of up to a few hundred years, unless the sample selected is from short-lived tree species or twigs.Two issues may contribute to this age distortion. First, the selection of the innermost tree rings, as opposed to the outermost ones, which would indicate when the tree was cut down. Second, if the timber was seasoned for a lengthy period before use, or if it was reused in a later period.

55I would like to express my gratitude to Alan Hogg and Fiona Petchey (Waikato Radiocarbon Laboratory) for their elucidating comments on radiocarbon analysis.

56Kavtaradze 1983. Kavatardze’s later studies (2004, 2014) have developed the idea of a high chronology and the integration of the Caucasian sequences with those of the Near East.

18 Introduction

of dates using different calibration curves can be misleading and signals a need for caution. In this study, I adhere to the international standard known as the Trondheim Convention in quoting radiocarbon readings.57 These results are conventional radiocarbon ages.58 The calibrated date ranges have been calculated using a probabilities method at a resolution of one year and OxCal v4.1.7.59 Accordingly, date ranges are quoted with the end points rounded to single years. Ranges are quoted at 68.2 per cent and 95.4 per cent confidence; the calibrated date ranges referred to in the commentaries are those with the highest probability for 95.4 per cent confidence, unless otherwise specified.

Finally, we come to the dissemination of results. Detailed field reports are rare for the Caucasus. For the most part, the gist of field research was published as short notices (or ‘communications’), usually in limited print runs and mostly distributed locally, or within period-specific synopses.This has less to do with researchers, who worked under very difficult conditions, than the restrictions placed on word length (and also on the production and state-sanctioned distribution of literature of any kind). Investigators were most often allocated just a few pages of text and even fewer for illustrations, onto which were crammed as many illustrations as possible.60 The result was generally miniscule images, often badly drawn and of limited value.

This presentation of information was clearly an irritant to many western scholars, none more so than Stuart Piggott, who, when writing on wheeled vehicles, noted perhaps rather harshly that ‘the woeful little scratchy plans and sections (where these exist), the muddy half-tones of bad photographs, the lack of any scale drawings or technical details of vehicle remains, constitute a melancholy memorial to ignorance or disregard of the minimal standards of international scholarship’.61 In defence of Soviet archaeology, while many publications do confirm Piggott’s description, the original notes, drawings, and photographs (kept in so-called passports) can, by contradistinction, be of an acceptable, or even outstanding quality.62

Despite these seemingly insurmountable difficulties, Caucasian archaeology is extraordinarily rich; a treasure trove of information with some exemplary studies.We owe much to the dedication and passion of early investigators, and our task now is to work through their extensive results and to showcase the bountiful heritage of the region.

57Stuiver and Kra 1986.

58Stuiver and Polach 1977.

59Stuiver and Reimer 1986; Bronk Ramsay 2010.

60I would like to thank Mikheil Abramishvili for pointing out this practice to me.

61Piggott 1992: 22.

62One example is the Samtavro archives, whose legacy data relating to excavations conducted in the 1960s through 1980s provide a wealth of rich information and no less than 20,000 black and white photographs. See, Sagona et al. 2010: 317.