Metalwork

Figure 8.5. Tsitelgori Barrow 1 and some of its assemblage (after Abramishvili and Abramishvili 2008).

ore, samples of the ore itself, crucibles (often with residue of metals), moulds, fragments of scrap metal, and waste products – are evident at many settlements and dedicated workshops.To judge by the many clay crucibles found in Artik Burial 285, the tomb was without doubt the resting place of a well-respected metalworker.33 A grave from Gantiadi, dated to the last centuries of the second millennium, is also believed to be a metalworker’s grave.34 It contained twopart moulds for the east Georgian battle-axes and fl at axes, metalworking tools, crucibles, and some semi-finished products.

Although bronze remained the metal of choice, by Iron Age I there was an increase in the quantity of iron tools and weapons. In addition, there was experimentation in the form of bimetallic objects. In Armenia, these are known as Sevan daggers and have an iron blade with a bronze scabbard and pommel. Other metal tools and weapons include iron spearheads, and bronze-barbed arrowheads and knives. Equestrian trappings such as bar-shaped horse bits are plentiful, and amongst personal items we have bronze notched bracelets and bronze belts.35

Looking at the weapons of the day, the so-called Central Trans-Caucasian battle-axe is one of the most typical. Examples are found in eastern Georgia, Armenia, northern Azerbaijan, and Nakhichevan, where they are considered part of the Ghodshali-Kedabeg horizon.36 They have a wide and symmetrical blade with upward pointing ends, and a shaft hole that is oval in shape and defined by relief edges and a knob on the top (Figure 8.6(1–2)). A derivative form,elongated and fl at (Figure 8.6(4–5)),could have been used in leatherwork (to scrape fat off hides prior to tanning) and woodworking.Another variation with an almost circular blade and zigzag ornamentation around the shaft was found at Artik (Figure 8.8(11–12)). The axes are generally found in tombs, though some form part of hoards, such as the one near Mekhchri fortress, in which a large number were included. Attested throughout most of eastern Georgia, a few of the axes have also been discovered in western Georgia, where a mould was found at Itkvisi, and also in north-eastern Turkey.37 These axes were first produced around 1400 BC and continued in use until about 600 BC, when iron types displaced them.Amongst the earliest examples are those from the hoard at Kvemo Sasireti.

The earliest Late Bronze Age swords come in two varieties, both with composite handles. One is the Kedabek type (Figure 8.7(4)) which in design lies between the Near Eastern sword (with framed hilt), and the second type, the Kakhetian or east Georgian sword, which has a hilt cast in one piece together with its blade, and a pommel in the form of a hemispherical cap, decorated in

33Khachatrian 1975: 231. On metallurgy in the Armenian highlands see, Gevorkian 1980.

34Avalishvili 1974, pls. IV–VII; Picchelauri 1997: pl. 12, 109–14.

35Smith et al. 2009: 83.

36Picchelauri 1997: pls. 13–26; for examples from Kalakent attributed to GhodshaliKedabeg see, for instance, Nagel and Strommenger 1985: pls. 23, 32, 46, 50.

37Işıklı and Baştürk 2010.

an openwork design (Figure 8.7(1–3)). Apart from the handle design, the two swords are very similar, though the Kakhetian variety is overall slightly longer. They both have squared shoulders, incised decoration in the upper blade, and fluting down their lengths. These two basic types evolved into a number of variants, which Pitskhelauri has classified into four main categories based on typological attributes – blade length, shape, and thickness; ornamentation; hilt design; and pommel design.38 Unfortunately, we have no secure absolute dates to anchor their development, but by making a series of intricate connections, their lifespans can be bracketed within the 1600–700 BC timeframe.

A range of daggers further emphasise that we are dealing with a warrior society.39 One class has a triangular-shaped blade and is simply a smaller version of the Kakhetian sword (Figure 8.7(1.1)).A second type is a leaf-shaped dagger (ca. 25 cm in length) with a bronze hilt, which was prevalent in Shida Kartli and associated by some with the so-called Samtavro horizon. The weapon was cast in two parts – blade and hilt – that were subsequently attached to each other. Its blade is thin and oblong in form, with sharp edges, a rounded point, and a central ridge on both sides.The hilt is thickened and distinctive. It is crescent-shaped along the lowest edge (the guard), narrows in the middle (the grip), and ends in a wide horizontal edge (the pommel). Hilts were also decorated. Some have a vertical row of linked wave spirals running down the handle and solid knobs along the edge. Other daggers have a blade that has the shape of an elongated triangle or an ogive. Perforations at the shoulder suggest that their hilts were made from another material (probably wood) and attached.

Spearheads have an open socket and an oval or triangular blade (Figure 8.7(5–7)).40 A high ridge, an extension of the socket, extends all the way to the tip. Most are undecorated, though the example from Shilda in Kakheti is unique for the pattern of zigzags and stylised snakes running down its length. Iron Age (ca. eighth century BC) arrowheads have long, acutely angled, wings (Figure 8.7(8–9)). Their shafts are very long and have a crosssection that changes from square to round at the lower end. Mace heads have a long history in the Caucasus, extending back to the Neolithic. In the Late Bronze Age they are lobed, some ornately incised with animal or fish designs (Figure 8.8(13, 16)).41 Large forks (bidents) or single hooks also feature during this period and recall the much earlier examples from the Maikop culture (Figure 8.8(14–15)).42 Like their north Caucasian prototypes, their function is unclear, though is conceivable that a pair of forks might have been used to skewer meat while it roasted.

38Picchelauri 1997: 17–21, pls. 37–47.

39Picchelauri 1997: 21–3, pls. 50–69.

40Picchelauri 1997: 23–6, pls. 71–86.

41Picchelauri 1997: 26, pls. 87–8.

42Picchelauri 1997: 26, pl. 89.

Jewellery items include pins, diadems, bangles, massive cast loop bracelets (possibly ingots), which are sometimes decorated, and pendants and pectorals of various forms (Figure 8.8(1–10)). From Melaani Tomb 85 we have a complex piece, comprising an upper semi-circular and lower rectangular section. Both have cut-out designs and are edged with wave spirals. Down the middle of the upper section is a row of five relief frogs, a popular motif at the site. Six loops are attached to the lower section, from which were hung openwork bird figurines attached to chains.

Amongst the most striking items of jewellery across the Caucasus are the ornamented bronze belts.43 The total number of belts with a known provenance stands at 349.A good many are exquisitely incised and would have been expensive to manufacture. Created as a tensile band of bronze skilfully curved to fit the waist line of the wearer, these items are often found in three or four fragments that still retain some curvature.Their ends were usually perforated with holes that served as eyelets for lacing.While some belts are plain, or bear geometric designs, many are decorated with eye-catching and dynamic designs executed with incised point and line work and punched patterns (Figure 8.9– 8.10). A decorative border, comprising a range of twist patterns, running triangles, spirals or lozenges, surrounds a central field of animals and fillers.

Although the borders are almost mechanical in their precision, the animals are rendered with vitality. Lions and bulls, horses and antelopes, often with open mouths, are depicted running across the field, sometimes in a frenetic manner, or standing with head tilted back. There are also scenes of animals, their bodies decorated with intricate geometric markings and their tails swept up over their backs, confronting each other in a heraldic show of boldness. Birds are also shown, usually riding on the back of one of the larger animals. Humans, by comparison, are much less active. They are sometimes seated in a banquet scene, or depicted as archers. Not all the belts have orderly scenes. One example from Mouci Yeri, for instance, now in the Saint-Germaine-en- Laye Museum, depicts animals in a hodgepodge manner and cheek to jowl.44

The style of these belts and the dynamism they depict can be attributed to a distinctive Caucasian folk art, quite different to the rather static and ‘wooden’ renderings found on Urartian belts. William Culican and Jenny Zimmer offer precise descriptions of the decorative variations found on these belts and propose four stylistic groups.45 At Tli, a site that shares both Koban and south Caucasian affinities (Chapter 9), belts show animal processions and hunting and banquet scenes. Another group is termed the Mouci Yeri, with rather motionless animals and humans. But the examples from Armenia and Azerbaijan reflect a development from highly stylised to vibrant scenes, with

43For the definitive study on belts, see Castelluccia 2017; Culican and Zimmer 1987.

44Castelluccia 2013: fig. 2.

45Culican and Zimmer 1987: 197–8. See now Castelluccia’s (2017) categorisation.

animals often rendered in a semi-kneeling gallop. These belts include those discovered at Kalakent and said to belong to the Ghodshali-Kedabeg tradition.46 Samtavro Tomb 276, dated to 800–650 BC, included a fine example of an engraved bronze belt.The largest fragment depicts a complex and lively scene framed along the top and bottom by four rows of a stylised wave motif (linked spirals). A similar band is placed in the middle of the belt, separating two friezes. Elongated triangles, filled with various motifs, are placed at both ends of the belt, so that they formed a lozenge when it was buckled up. In the top frieze is a row of animals and humans: two stags confront each other in battle; behind one of them stands a pair of hunters and a dog. Other animals depicted include wild boar and birds.The lower frieze has more animals, smaller in size and depicted in a rather haphazard fashion, but without losing any of the vitality. Amongst these animals are two seated individuals (men?) facing each other and holding various objects.

Moulded, hollow animal figurines, ornamented with openwork design (usually swastikas, rows of triangles, herringbone patterns, and sunburst motifs) are amongst the most distinctive items (Figure 8.11).They were standard finials, attached to the vehicle pole, but were also designed as rattles. Bronze balls inserted in the hollow bodies of the figurines ensured they rattled as the vehicle moved along, eventually to be placed in a burial chamber. These figurines are sophisticated in their artistry and technical excellence. The stag and bird figurines from Tsitelgori Barrow I are good examples.47 The stag (Figure 8.11(1–2)) has a long cylindrical body, a rounded chest perforated with lozenge and triangular apertures, and a tall neck, which tapers towards the top. The muzzle is long and narrow, and the eyes deeply socketed. Relief swastikas decorate the back and rump, and on the shoulder are oblique lines, originally filled with copper and silver.

Similar figurines have been found at,amongst other sites,Berikldeebi Barrow 4 and Kvemo Sasireti in Georgia, and Lchashen and Artik in Armenia, where the ibex standard held appeal (Figure 8.11(3–6)).The bird standard (Figure 8.11 (5–6)), possibly an ibis or pelican to judge from its beak, likewise displays a high standard of craftsmanship. The ball and socket design of some bird figurines, in which the ball-shaped end of the figurine fits into the cup-like depression of the standard (Figure 8.11(1–2)), allowing the figurine to rotate, speaks for a sophisticated technology. Bird figurines – with a high neck, upward tilted head, and lowered tail – were also manufactured in great numbers across the whole culture province, as trinkets and to be attached to pendants. Such was the variety and popularity of these items that local workshops, such as one in Meskheti, catered for specific tastes, producing styles with a restricted distribution.48

46Nagel and Strommenger 1985: pls. 20, 22, 26, 41, 43, 55, 56, 66; Culican and Zimmer 1987.

47Abramishvili and Abramishvili 2008.

48Gomelauri 2008: 366.