Transcaucasian Bronze Belts 9781407315003, 9781407344713

Citation preview

________ Manuel Castelluccia studied at the University of Udine, and earned a PhD in Turkish, Iranian and Central Asian Studies at the University of Naples ‘L’Orientale’. He has taken part in archaeological projects in Italy, Syria, Oman, Georgia and Armenia, and has lectured in Near Eastern and Iranian Archaeology at the University of Udine.

BAR S2842 2017  CASTELLUCCIA  TRANSCAUCASIAN BRONZE BELTS

The present work catalogues and analyses the so-called ‘bronze belts’ – thin metal plaques, decorated or not – that represent one of the main features of the material culture of the native peoples of the Caucasus area during the Iron Age. Given the amount of material examined, the research has been divided into two parts. The first part is devoted to the study of the belts themselves, their art and style. The second part offers a summary of the archaeological contexts of their recovery. Each site is described by its overall features, followed by a more detailed analysis of the context of provenance of each indivdual belt, represented in most cases by funerary evidence. For each of these burials the set of objects associated with the deceased is laid out in full detail.

Transcaucasian Bronze Belts Manuel Castelluccia with a preface by John Curtis

BAR International Series 2842 9 781407 315003

B A R

2017

Transcaucasian Bronze Belts Manuel Castelluccia with a preface by John Curtis

BAR International Series 2842 2017

by Published in BAR Publishing, Oxford BAR International Series Transcaucasian Bronze Belts © Manuel Castelluccia The Author’s moral rights under the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act are hereby expressly asserted. All rights reser ved. No par t of this work may be copied, reproduced, stored, sold, distributed, scanned, saved in any for m of digital for mat or transmitted in any for m digitally, without the written per mission of the Publisher.

ISBN 9781407315003 paperback ISBN 9781407344713 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407315003 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

BAR titles are available from: BAR Publishing Banbury Rd, Oxford, [email protected] + ( ) + ( ) www.barpublishing.com

,

A

The origins of this work can be traced to long ago when, as a simple student of Near Eastern Archaeology at the University of Udine, I first encountered the elusive cultures of the Caucasus during the preparation of my dissertation on Urartian metalwork. It was then that the idea arose of pursuing further the question of the relationships between the Urartian and Transcaucasian cultures, of which this work represents the first steps. My first thanks therefore go to Prof. Daniele Morandi Bonacossi of the University of Udine, who guided me from the early stages of my career; to him I owe heartfelt gratitude for his invaluable suggestions, for his precise methods, and for having given me the opportunity to take part in his field project in Syria for several seasons. The possibility to study the bronze belts in greater depth was due to my PhD at the University of Naples “L’Orientale”. The present work is in fact an upgrade of my original PhD dissertation. Therefore I owe special thanks to Profs. Bruno Genito and Adriano V. Rossi, for having followed this study with attention throughout its development. I also wish to thank Prof. Mirjo Salvini who carefully read and corrected the very first version of my dissertation, giving me valuable suggestions for the continuation of this work. My particular thanks go also to Prof. John Curtis, former curator of the British Museum and now Chief Executive Officer of the Iran Heritage Foundation, for reading this study with great care and giving me precious suggestions. I also want to thank deeply Dr Arsen Bobokhyan, faculty member of the Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography of the National Academy of Sciences of Armenia, for having read the manuscript and shared with me his deep knowledge of Transcaucasian culture. I would like to thank several scholars and colleagues who, at various stages, kindly helped me to develop this work by sharing information and bibliography. Thus I would like to thank to Dr Walter Kuntner and Dr Sandra Heinsch, faculty members of the “Institut für Alte Geschichte und Altorientalistik” of the University of Innsbruck, for providing me data about their excavation at Aramus, in which I had the pleasure and privilege to take part, as well as their project in Georgia. Moreover I want to thank Antonio Sagona of the University of Melbourne for providing me useful literature concerning his project at Samtavro, and Prof. Sergej Dudarev of Armavir University for sharing with me his study of a bronze belt found near Kislovodsk. I wish to thank as well Christine Lorre, senior curator of the Musée d’Archéologie Nationale of Saint-Germain-enLaye for allowing me to study the material excavated by Jacques de Morgan stored in the museum. Similarly I want also to thank my friend and colleague Artur Petrosyan, faculty member of the Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography of the National Academy of Scienc-

es of Armenia, with whom I had the pleasure to work in Armenia. During the years of research that led to the writing of this book, I have had the opportunity to travel extensively in the southern Caucasus and northern Iran. I must express my deep gratitude especially to the Armenian colleagues who helped me in this research, providing useful literature, sharing with me their knowledge, and accompanying me on several trips to visit local archaeological sites. In this respect I want to thank Dr Pavel Avetisyan, director of the Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography of the National Academy of Sciences of Armenia, and Dr Yervand Grekyan, associate professor of the Armenian State Pedagogical University named after Khachatour Abovyan, World History Department. I owe heartfelt thanks also to my friend and colleague Dr Zviad Sherazadishvili, who helped me to find useful Georgian literature and always hosted me warmly during my visits in Tbilisi. Furthermore I want to thank the library staff of several institutions for having enabled me to assemble the bibliography for this work, namely the CNR-ICEVO, now CNR-ISMA, the University of Naples “L’Orientale”, the Ludwig Maximilians University of Munich and the Institute of Archaeology of the Russian Academy of Science. I owe special thanks also to Dr Silvia Galasso, who took care of the editorial work of both parts, and to Dr Jim Bishop, who carefully checked the English version of the text. And lastly, the biggest thankyou goes to my parents for their help, patience and support during these years of research; without them, this book and all of my experiences abroad would never have come to pass. In conclusion, I deeply thank all the people who helped me in the development of this work, but the responsibility for any remaining errors is mine alone.

iii

T

P

............................................................................................................................................................................ ix

P I|I

1

............................................................................................................................................................ 3 1. H 2. T 3. B

II | C

............................................................................................................................................... 4 L B A A (15 -6 BCE)......... 6 M ......................................................................... 9 3.1 Belts in Iran in the Iron Age ......................................................................................................................... 10 3.2 Bronze belts in the kingdom of Urartu......................................................................................................... 12 ......................................................................................................................................... 15

1. P 2. G

............................................................................................................................................................ 23 .................................................................................................................................................... 24 2.1 Decorated bands ........................................................................................................................................... 25 2.2 Decorated edges ........................................................................................................................................... 26 2.3 Guilloche ...................................................................................................................................................... 27 2.4 Embossed dots.............................................................................................................................................. 28 2.5 Spiral ............................................................................................................................................................ 30 2.6 Urartian-style dotted bands .......................................................................................................................... 30 2.7 Various motifs .............................................................................................................................................. 31 3. F .................................................................................................................................................... 32 3.1 Animals (various arrangements) .................................................................................................................. 34 3.2 Animals (single row) .................................................................................................................................... 34 3.3 Animal and human figures ........................................................................................................................... 35 3.4 Human figures .............................................................................................................................................. 35 3.5 Hunting scenes ............................................................................................................................................. 37 3.6 Snakes .......................................................................................................................................................... 38

III | G 1. T 2. G 3. H 4. S 5. S 6. Z 7. V

IV | A

................................................................................................................................... 39 .............................................................................................................................................................. 39 ............................................................................................................................................................. 41 ......................................................................................................................................................... 43 ........................................................................................................................................................... 43 ................................................................................................................................................................ 44 ................................................................................................................................................................... 44 ............................................................................................................................. 45 .......................................................................................................................................... 47

1. D ....................................................................................................................................................................... 47 2. G ..................................................................................................................................................................... 52 3. H .................................................................................................................................................................... 56 4. C .................................................................................................................................................................... 57 5. C .................................................................................................................................................................... 58 6. F ................................................................................................................................................................... 61 7. B ...................................................................................................................................................................... 62 8. F ......................................................................................................................................................................... 64 9. S ................................................................................................................................................................... 65 10. P ....................................................................................................................................................................... 66 v

Transcaucasian Bronze Belts 11. O

V|H 1. H 2. H 3. F 4. F 5. P 6. O

.................................................................................................................................................... 66 ...................................................................................................................................................... 68 .............................................................................................................................................................. 68 ...................................................................................................................................................... 69 ........................................................................................................................................................ 70 ........................................................................................................................................................ 73 .................................................................................................................................................................... 74 .......................................................................................................................................... 75

VI | R 2. C 3. S 4. H 5. V 6. T

................................................................................ 76 ................................................................................................................................................................ 79 ............................................................................................................................................... 81 ............................................................................................................................................ 82 .................................................................................................................................................... 83 ...................................................................................................................................................................... 83

VII | O

“

VIII | C

........................................................................................................................................ 93

P G

F

”

................................................................................................. 84

................................................................................................................................................................ 94 Composite plain belts ......................................................................................................................................... 96 ........................................................................................................................................................ 97 Decorated bands ................................................................................................................................................. 97 Decorated borders .............................................................................................................................................. 98 Guilloche ............................................................................................................................................................ 99 Spirals............................................................................................................................................................... 105 Urartian-style dotted bands .............................................................................................................................. 106 Miscellaneous................................................................................................................................................... 106 ......................................................................................................................................................... 108 Animals - various arrangements ...................................................................................................................... 108 Animals - in single rows ...................................................................................................................................111 Animal and human figures ............................................................................................................................... 113 Human figures .................................................................................................................................................. 116 Hunting scenes ................................................................................................................................................. 117 Snakes .............................................................................................................................................................. 117

IX | L

................................................................................................................................................ 119

P

....................................................................................................................................................................... 121

P X|I XI | S 1. A 2. A 3. A 4. A 5. A 6. A 7. A 8. B 9. B

2

...................................................................................................................................................... 243 .................................................................................................................................................. 245 ............................................................................................................................................................ 245 ................................................................................................................................................................. 248 ............................................................................................................................................................... 248 ............................................................................................................................................................... 248 ................................................................................................................................................................. 251 ................................................................................................................................................................. 251 B ........................................................................................................................................................ 253 .................................................................................................................................................................. 255 ................................................................................................................................................................... 258 vi

Table of contents 10. B ........................................................................................................................................................... 259 11. Č ......................................................................................................................................................... 261 12. C ........................................................................................................................................................ 261 13. C -D .............................................................................................................................................. 263 14. C ................................................................................................................................................................ 264 15. C ........................................................................................................................................................... 264 16. Č .............................................................................................................................................................. 270 17. D ................................................................................................................................................................. 270 18. G ................................................................................................................................................... 272 19. G ............................................................................................................................................................ 273 20. G ............................................................................................................................................................ 275 21. G ........................................................................................................................................................... 277 22. G ................................................................................................................................................. 279 23. K .......................................................................................................................................................... 280 24. K “P ” ......................................................................................................................... 281 25. K .......................................................................................................................................................... 287 26. K B ..................................................................................................................................................... 287 27. K .............................................................................................................................................................. 290 28. K ............................................................................................................................................................. 290 29. K ....................................................................................................................................................... 292 30. K ......................................................................................................................................................... 295 31. K ........................................................................................................................................................ 297 32. K ................................................................................................................................................................ 297 33. K Z .............................................................................................................................................. 303 34. K M ................................................................................................................................................ 304 35. K .................................................................................................................................................... 307 36. L ............................................................................................................................................................... 307 37. L ......................................................................................................................................................... 309 38. L ........................................................................................................................................................ 311 39. L -B .......................................................................................................................................................... 311 40. L ................................................................................................................................................................. 311 41. L ........................................................................................................................................................... 311 42. M D ................................................................................................................................................ 313 43. M ............................................................................................................................................................. 314 44. M ............................................................................................................................................................. 315 45. M ........................................................................................................................................................... 317 46. M ........................................................................................................................................................ 318 47. M ....................................................................................................................................................... 320 48. M -N ....................................................................................................................................... 323 49. M ............................................................................................................................................................... 324 50. M -T .............................................................................................................................................. 324 51. N .......................................................................................................................................................... 325 52. N -G ............................................................................................................................................... 334 53. N ....................................................................................................................................................... 336 54. N B ..................................................................................................................................................... 336 55. O ................................................................................................................................................................ 336 56. O -C ........................................................................................................................................................ 336 57. O ............................................................................................................................................................... 337 58. P .......................................................................................................................................................... 337 59. P .......................................................................................................................................................... 337 60. R L .................................................................................................................................................... 338 61. S .......................................................................................................................................................... 341 62. S ........................................................................................................................................................ 341 63. S ........................................................................................................................................................... 342 64. S ................................................................................................................................................................ 343 65. S ........................................................................................................................................................... 344 66. Š .................................................................................................................................................................. 344 67. S .................................................................................................................................................................. 345 68. Š ............................................................................................................................................................. 345 vii

Transcaucasian Bronze Belts 69. Š .................................................................................................................................................................. 345 70. Š ........................................................................................................................................................... 345 71. S .................................................................................................................................................. 348 72. S ........................................................................................................................................................... 350 73. T .................................................................................................................................................................. 353 74. T .................................................................................................................................................................. 353 75. T ................................................................................................................................................................... 357 76. T ...................................................................................................................................................................... 359 77. T .................................................................................................................................................................. 366 78. V ............................................................................................................................................................... 371 79. V ............................................................................................................................................................ 371 80. V .............................................................................................................................................................. 371 81. Z ......................................................................................................................................................... 372

XII | A C T S G B

.......................................................................................... 376 ............................................................................................................................................................... 377 ....................................................................................................................................................................... 379 .................................................................................................................................................... 381 ............................................................................................................................................................ 384 .................................................................................................................................... 387

XIII | C

................................................................................................................................................... 389

XIV | C

................................................................................................................................................... 392

XV | S

.................................................................................................................................................. 393

XVI | A

................................................................................................................................................. 396

XVII | B

................................................................................................................................................ 397

viii

P

In this pioneering study Manuel Castelluccia has collected together about 350 sheet bronze belts that were found mostly in graves in the South Caucasus region or Transcaucasia (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia and South Ossetia). By far the greatest number ‒ about 150 ‒ come from Tli in Southern Ossetia on the southern slopes of the Caucasus. These belts are thought to date between the 13th and 7th centuries BCE, with production reaching its peak in the 9th-8th century BCE, and many of them have highly distinctive incised designs featuring animal and human figures. Such belts are to be found in museum collections around the world, and although they are often recognized as Caucasian, generally nothing is known about their provenance and some of them may not be authentic antiquities. The great merit of the present work is that Dr Castelluccia has restricted his catalogue to belts with a known find-spot, even though some of them have been found by chance and not recovered in scientifically controlled archaeological excavations. Nevertheless, he is thus able to present a corpus of belts that were definitely found in the Caucasus and are presumably all authentic, and this corpus provides the opportunity for an in-depth and seminal study of the belts. This work is particularly valuable in that nearly all the belts are now in museums in the former Soviet Union or are known only through publications in Russian, Georgian and Armenian, so for the first time this large body of material is made available to western scholars. After presenting a detailed catalogue of the surviving belts, Dr Castelluccia reviews in turn all of the 81 sites or locations where Caucasian belts are reported to have been found. The main purpose of this is to put the belts into their archaeological contexts, but in addition the entries for each site contain a wealth of detailed information that will not easily be found elsewhere, and these entries on their own constitute a valuable resource for all those interested in Caucasian archaeology. This is particularly true given that much of the original literature is in Russian and difficult if not impossible to find in western libraries. The different types of grave are described in detail, and there is also a wealth of information about grave-goods in addition to the bronze belts. These grave-goods include other distinctive products of the Caucasian bronze working industry, such as openwork pendants, sometimes in the shape of birds, bronze axes with incised decoration, and daggers with distinctive openwork pommels. The result is a detailed and valuable overview of burial customs in the Caucasus region in the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age. Some of the belts are plain, some (the greatest number) have geometric decoration of various types, and well over 100 have elaborate figural decoration. It is these, of course, that are of the greatest interest. Most common are animals such as deer, horses and wolves, with the addition of birds,

fish and snakes. Human figures are also shown on some of the belts with the most elaborate decoration. They are engaged in hunting, military, banqueting and possibly religious scenes. These figures are either on foot, on horseback or riding in chariots. They are often armed with bows or spears and sometimes carry shields. Both the belts with geometric decoration on its own and geometric decoration combined with figural decoration are highly distinctive and can be readily be recognized as products of Transcaucasia. We may point for example to the type and range of the geometric motifs such as the running spiral patterns and the identity and form of the animals with their stylized bodies and curiously depicted horns. This type of art is often likened to the so-called animal style of the Russian steppes, but Dr Castelluccia rightly points out that this interpretation is too simplistic, particularly with regard to its occasional inclusion of human figures. Rather, he sees Transcaucasian art (rightly in my view) as “a sub-group within the larger artistic koine of the Eurasian cultures” (p. 83). He also draws a clear distinction between the Transcauasian bronze belts and the decorative bronze belts that are a feature of the art of the kingdom of Urartu that flourished in Armenia and Eastern Turkey in the 9th-7th centuries BCE. These Urartian belts are both technologically different, being embossed and chased as opposed to being simply incised, and they belong much more in the mainstream of Ancient Near Eastern art. Some of the Urartian belts are strongly influenced by the art of Assyria, and others (the so-called popular style) have registers of creatures that are often composite and mythological. The animals on Caucasian belts, on the other hand, although they are often fantastic looking, do not combine the elements of different animals into one. Although this book is essentially about Transcaucasia, it contains much information, directly or indirectly, about neighboring cultures to the north and south. These include the Koban culture on the north side of the Caucasus. Then, in the review of sites in Transcaucasia we learn about contacts with the Middle East through the occasional discoveries of Kassite weights, Mitanian seals, a bead with a cuneiform inscription of the Assyrian king Adad-nirari I (1305-1274 BCE), a bronze plaque with a Mesopotamian style goddess, a bronze belt that contains a parallel with Assyrian iconography, a seal with Egyptian hieroglyphs, and so on. As far as Iran is concerned, reference is made to three bronze belts, two plain and one with dotted decoration (no. 70 in the catalogue), and some bronze plates that may have been parts of belts, that were discovered by Henri and Jacques de Morgan at Chagoula-Dérré in Iranian Talish south-west of the Caspian Sea. Further discoveries were made by the de Morgan brothers nearby across what is now the Iranian border with Azerbaijan.

ix

Transcaucasian Bronze Belts This exemplary catalogue will be compulsory reading and a standard work of reference for all scholars interested in the archaeology of Transcaucasia. John Curtis

x

P

1

I| I

This work is an attempt to catalogue and analyse the socalled “bronze belts” – thin metal plaques, decorated or not – which constitute one of the main features of the surviving Iron Age material culture of the native peoples of the Caucasus area1. In recent years, after the tumultuous post-Soviet period, archaeological research in the lands of Transcaucasia, a geographical region comprising the modern republics of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia, is going through a rather favorable period which will have a stimulating effect on long-term investigations. The fall of communism and dissolution of the Soviet Bloc, the stabilization of the political situation, the emergence of new democratic states that have accentuated the study of their past in search of their origins, sometimes with a certain nationalistic interest, were all factors which facilitated the resumption of fieldwork, also by Western scholars and institutions. During the Soviet period the area in question had been almost totally closed to non-communist research activities. Only a small proportion of the abundant publications of the Soviet period filtered through the Iron Curtain - perhaps in part due to language difficulties - thus causing a certain lack of interest of the western academic world in further studies in the Caucasian area, in favor of more easily accessible areas such as the neighboring eastern Anatolian and northern Iranian plateaus. The end of USSR, therefore, led to a marked improvement: not only was new fieldwork undertaken, but also the huge amount of Soviet-era publications became easily accessible, which made it possible to analyze and compare the available data on the basis of new interpretative parameters and interregional relations. The lands of Transcaucasia have been well studied in this recent period that has emphasized its unique characteristics, with reference also to the extensive documentation available from the Lake Urmia and Lake Van basins. Previous archaeological research, the main results of which are discussed in more detail in the next chapter, had already clearly highlighted how, from the initial stages of the Iron Age, the area in question was characterized by a significant increase in metal production, regarding both bronze and iron. It has also been possible to relate and compare this metalwork production with that from other cultural areas (Anatolia, Iran, Assyria, the Levant and so

on), giving the opportunity to define common features and differences. Transcaucasia is thus only one of those cultural areas where metallurgy was a principal feature; this “metalworking culture” covered a much wider area, ranging from the Anatolian plateau up to the southern offshoots of the Zagros mountain chain (roughly as far as the region of Luristan). It is therefore possible to outline the existence of a sort of a cultural Koine with metalworking in the mountainous highlands north of the great territorial states of Mesopotamia as one of its main features. In addition to Transcaucasia, other important examples are the well-known Kingdom of Urartu, the city of Hasanlu, as well as the Phrygian kingdom and its capital Gordion, the rich and ambiguous corpus of objects from Ziwiye and Luristan, and of course the large mounds of the Scythian and pre-Scythian periods in Southern Russia. To these, we can also add the metalwork production of Assyria, Babylonia, the Levant and Elam, which also had remarkable features. This work therefore also aims to highlight the features of the indigenous cultures and to study in depth one of the main areas where this metalworking occurred. Early on during archaeological research in the Caucasus region, the presence of bronze belts was highlighted as one of the main features of these cultures, and certainly the most noteworthy with regard to its artistic dimension, since it was one of the few cases in which the artistic production of the local population found full expression. The purpose of this study was to collect, catalogue and analyze all the bronze belts (including dubious cases) from the Caucasus area. A number of scholars have already dealt with the subject in the past, but most previous studies have focussed on the analysis of the artistic decoration without considering in detail the archaeological context of provenance. The present study, on the contrary, aims to cover this second aspect. Only by taking into account all available data concerning the archaeological circumstances in which the belts were found can we get useful information that is reliable enough to offer a response to the many questions which remain unanswered: for whom were they produced? When and why were they worn? What is the real meaning of the decorations? Were they objects in common use or prestige items? These are just some of the questions still lacking (satisfactory) answers that this study will attempt to resolve. The analysis of the archaeological contexts and the material associated with it also highlights the general characteristics of the native populations. The study of the archaeological records is not limited only to the grave goods from the tombs in which belts were found, but also takes account of the surrounding human landscape. We should not

The mere use of the geographical term “Caucasus area” is, in truth, a bit too restrictive because it might suggest that the cultural area analyzed in this study is limited to the immediate vicinity of the mountain range. Considering the strong cultural links with adjacent areas, data and features from the surrounding areas will be taken into consideration, especially from the eastern Anatolian and northern Iranian plateaus, as well as the (scarce) information obtainable from areas further afield, such as Mesopotamia or the Euro-Asian steppes.

1

3

Transcaucasian Bronze Belts forget that another typical feature of mountainous lands is the appearance of a special type of settlement, i.e. the cyclopean fortress, in all its variants, and the proliferation of these in the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age. Although excellent studies of specific areas have recently appeared (Biscione et alii 2002; Badalyan, Avetisyan 2007; Smith et alii 2009), there is not yet a comprehensive study which examines all of the principal characteristics of these fortresses (such as size, type, chronology and spatial distribution in a wider interregional analysis). In view of the large amount of material to be examined, this research has been divided into two parts. The first is devoted to the study of the belts themselves, their art and style, while the second deals especially with the archaeological contexts of provenance. The first part has been organized as follows. The initial chapters constitute an introduction to the main topic of the part in which specific aspects are considered, such as a brief overview of the history of research on bronze belts, a short presentation of the Late Bronze–Early Iron Age archaeological record in the Caucasus and lastly the presence and use of bronze belts in other archaeologically related contexts. After the introductory chapters, the subsequent part is devoted to an analysis of the belts, their form, dimensions, structural features and, when present, their decorations. The latter will be treated analytically; each decorative component – geometric, animal or human – is considered individually in order to highlight the styles and peculiarities of the iconographic forms. The descriptions of the decorative elements serve as the basis for the subsequent chapter: an overall analysis of Caucasian art, with particular reference to belt decoration. The last section consists of a general catalogue of the belts. All the included items have been assigned a serial number for unambiguous reference; they are ordered according to typological and iconographic characteristics, and their main features are described. At the end of the catalogue drawings of most of the specimens are grouped together in plates. Unfortunately for several belts no drawings were available, but only short descriptions (which are sometimes rather sketchy). In several cases I redrew the fragments myself, since the illustrations present in the original publications were of poor (or very poor) quality. Moreover, all images have been cleaned of possible imperfections resulting from photocopies or scans. These procedures were conducted using electronic drawing tools, such as Adobe Illustrator, Photoshop and Windows Paint; it is not impossible that, in rare cases, this operation has led to small changes in or misinterpretations of the original decoration of a belt. All maps presented here have been taken from Google Earth and then slightly modified. A complete reference list appears at the end of the book. The main difficulty encountered during the course of this work was undoubtedly of a linguistic-bibliographical nature. Since for many decades specialist publications on the subject have been the exclusive preserve of Soviet scholars, by which I mean Russians, Armenians, Azerbaijanis

and Georgians, the results of investigations have appeared almost exclusively in journals and publications with limited circulations in the West. The fall of the USSR and the subsequent opening of its borders have greatly facilitated the availability of these sources. The huge volume of Soviet-era production has – paradoxically – almost constituted an obstacle: data are scattered among many publications, that unfortunately in some cases I have not been able to recover. In addition, although I was able to read texts in Russian, for those in Armenian, Georgian and Azerbaijani (languages not know to me) I had to rely partly on the help of friends and local colleagues who kindly translated important parts useful to me; unfortunately I had to make a selection from a large number of texts, so the possibility exists that some data important for the purpose of this research have been neglected. For the same reasons mentioned above, it is also possible that records of some belts have escaped detection. Moreover, it is very likely that a large number of belts lie “forgotten” in the warehouses of various museums and scientific institutions, since the material from several major excavations, such as the cemeteries of Metsamor, Karašamb and Lčašen (to mention just the most important cases) are yet to be published. Other difficulties have been encountered with regard to place-names. Given the peculiar political history of these lands, which have passed quickly through the most diverse ideologies and political entities, there are at times remarkable changes in the names of the sites, modified due to historical changes in political beliefs and states. A list with all possible variation in toponyms is given at the end of the second part of this study. It should be noted that in general the name most frequently found in the archaeological literature has been preferred, and not the most recent version of a site’s name. One last point concerns the system used for the transliteration of names and words in Russian, Armenian, Georgian and Azerbaijani languages. For the Cyrillic, I used as a base the system ISO: 9 which, unlike the Anglo-American system, offers the possibility to effect a reverse transliteration since, through the use of diacritical marks, it uses a single Latin letter for each Cyrillic letter in almost all cases. As for other languages, I have relied mainly on the Russian version of names in Armenian, Georgian and Azerbaijani or, when these are present in Western academic literature, on the Latin alphabet version.

1. H In recent years some comprehensive presentations of the history of research in the republics of Transcaucasia have appeared in various specialist journals, (Lindsay, Smith 2006; Smith et alii 2009: 9-20; Sagona 2010), which bridge the gap between the early studies, now outdated (Piotrovskij 1949: 3-8; Piotrovskij 1966: 3-30), and the current state of the field. Despite the presence of these detailed works, it is useful 4

Introduction ly active: more bronze belts were found during the expedition led by W. Belck (an engineer for Siemens) to the sites of Kedabek and Kalakent in western Azerbaijan, then followed by E. Rösler (officially a teacher in a local high school), who carried out various excavations in the Nagorno-Karabakh and western Azerbaijan. The fragments found at these sites were mostly sent to Berlin and stored in the Völkerkunde Museum, where they remained largely forgotten for almost a century. The discovery of the belts particularly interested Virchow, who in 1895 devoted a study to Caucasian belts (Virchow 1895). He generally followed the division already proposed by de Morgan, grouping the belts as plain, geometrical and figurative. Although only superficially, Virchow also considered the origin of the belts, defining them as a product of the native peoples. In 1889 a belt of Caucasian inspiration was discovered inside a Grave in the site of Podgorcy, near Kiev. This discovery was taken up by Ivanovskaja (Ivanovskaja 1927), who proposed a further classification of belts, dividing them into three main groups: the first comprising belts with a decoration featuring animals arranged in a single row, the second group with animals arranged in several rows, one above the other, and a third group with animals arranged in no apparent order. M. Farmakovskij too, in his treatment of Russian prehistory (Farmakovskij 1914: 40-49), briefly focused on the subject. He divided the belts into plain, those with poor geometric decorations, and those with poor figurative decorations (seeing in the latter some influence from sub-Mycenaean art). He also detected possible Greek artistic influences, based mostly on some themes featuring a sense of movement of the figures. He also considered possible influences from the late-Hittite culture, but on the other hand denied relations with Babylonian and Assyrian art. He suggested that the depicted images were of religious significance and considered the animals as some sorts of deity (Farmakovskij 1914: 42). Hančar, in his treatment of the Caucasian animal style (Hančar 1934b) proposed connections with both the Scythian animal style and the art of Luristan. The advent of the two world wars, communism and (especially) the Stalinist period definitely closed the area to any possible investigation by Western scholars; it therefore remained the almost exclusive prerogative of local scholars. Latterly, many of them studied belts. A highly decorated item was brought to light by Kuftin during his extensive investigation in the area of Trialeti and dated by him to the Urartian period and placed within the “Koban” cultural sphere (Kuftin 1941: 51). This subject drew the attention of also Piotrovskij. He dated the belts to the second quarter of the first millennium BCE (Piotrovskij 1949: 94) and considered them to possess a religious significance: the zoomorphic figures are linked to the forest deities and are protectors of animals. Amiranašvili (Amiranašvili 1963: 11-55) divided the Caucasian belts into two main groups: those with geometric decorations and those with representations of animals, the latter divided into further subgroups. He thought that

to give as background a brief discussion of the history of studies related to the analysis of bronze belts. The beginning of archaeological research in the Caucasus occurred in the year 1871 when, near Mtskheta (the ancient capital of Georgia) during construction work on the road leading to the nearby monastery of Samtavro, a Grave was discovered. The subsequent excavation was performed by the Austrian amateur archaeologist F. Bayern. The same year A.D. Erinov dug some graves dating to the Iron Age in Vornak (now Akner) in the valley of the River Debed, in north-east Armenia. This was the first systematic excavation of a cemetery in the Caucasus, the results of which were published shortly afterwards in the journal “Kavkaz” (Piotrovskij 1949: 5), nowadays a bibliographic rarity. A further boost for fieldwork occurred in the same year, with the foundation in Tbilisi of a branch of the Imperial Archaeological Commission (Imperatorskaja archeologičeskaja kommissja), that had been created in 1859 in St. Petersburg, and – two years later – of the “Society of Friends of Caucasian Archaeology”. The main defect of this earlier phase of Caucasian studies was the limited contribution of specialists and scant use of (contemporary) up-to-date scientific methods. The Society was mainly composed of amateur archaeologists, mostly Russian officials and members of the local aristocracy. In 1879 Bayern dug a series of Graves at the site of Redkin Lager, near the village of Dilijan (Bayern 1882b; Bayern 1885: 1-26), recovering a metal belt. In the same year the French scholar E. Chantre started an investigation of the cemetery of Koban, in North Ossetia, known since 1869 when a series of bronze objects was discovered by chance by the owner of the land; these were then taken to Vladikavkaz (Chantre 1886: 14). The material brought to light in these excavations finally attracted the attention of the main cultural institutions of Moscow and St. Petersburg. This new interest in pre-classical antiquity led, thanks also to the efforts of local authorities (and not least to Count Uvarov’s interest in the antiquity of the Caucasus), to the organization in Tbilisi in 1881 of the “5th Congress of Russian Archaeology”. More than 400 delegates attended the congress, among them both Chantre and Virchow. The program of the congress was broad and varied, but for the first time particular attention was given to the evidence of pre-Christian cultures and pre-classical eras. The close connection between the scientific institutions of the Caucasus and the Moscow Archaeological Society (Moskovskoe archeologičeskoe obščestvo), founded by A. Uvarov some years earlier, gave a further stimulus to archaeological research. In 1887 the mining engineer J. de Morgan investigated some burial-grounds in the area of Alaverdi, north-eastern Armenia, recovering several bronze belts. The French scholar was thus the first to make an attempt to catalogue these items on the basis of type; he divided the belts into three main groups: plain belts, those with geometric patterns and figurative ones, placing them also in this chronological order (de Morgan 1889: 114-116). He rightly considered that all these belts belonged to the Iron Age. As well as the French, the Germans were also particular5

Transcaucasian Bronze Belts they came from Urartu and concentrated particularly in the analysis of belts with depictions of men: fantastic animals and geometric symbols that favoured fertility were surrounded by mythical heroes and deities. Kušnareva proposed a dual function for the belts: one purely practical, as part of the armour of the holder, while the second had a symbolic meaning (Kušnareva 1951: 270-271); she also considered them as being derived from Urartu. Metal belts recovered in Azerbaijan were the topic of a study made by Chalilov (Chalilov 1962), unfortunately published in Azeri but with an attached summary in Russian. He followed the same division proposed by Virchow but added a category of belts with depictions of plant motifs and identified the area of the Central Caucasus as the place of origin, more precisely the area of Kedabek and Alaverdi. Martirosjan discovered several belts in 1954 in the site of Golovino (Martirosjan 1951: 76-78), and later also in other places (Martirosjan 1964: 132-141). He proposed that the belts from the northern part of Armenia showed mostly real animals while those from the eastern Caucasus bore fantastic ones. Both styles are, however, considered conceptually Caucasian (Martirosjan 1964: 137), made by and reflecting the taste of local populations. In 1964, B. Techov published the belts he had discovered in the cemetery of Tli (Techov 1964: 261), the site which furnished the greatest number of belts currently known. He placed them in the second and first millennium BCE, basing his analysis on a correct assessment of the archaeological context. He noticed that they were worn by both men and women, thus reversing the theory previously emphasized by both de Morgan (de Morgan 1889: 116) and Bayern (Bayern 1885: 14). Techov too divided the belts in three main groups: simple, geometric and those with zoomorphic scenes, all considered as the product of native cultures. In 1966 S. Esajan discovered richly decorated belts in the cemetery of Astchi blur, northern Armenia, and dated them to the ninth and eighth centuries (Esajan 1967: 226); according to his interpretation ritual scenes were depicted on them, with the worship of sun in connection with fertility. Of particular importance is the work devoted to the study of Samtavro belts carried out by Urušadze, analyzed after conservation treatment of the objects. A richly decorated belt found in Grave 121, according to her interpretation, showed oxen connected to working the land in different seasons. She also reconsidered the use of the belt excavated by Rösler in Karabach, on which she saw the presence of water-related symbols: zigzag lines, spirals and semicircles; these too are taken to refer a topic related to agriculture (Urušadze 1973: 54-69). In 1973 A. Israeljan (Israeljan 1973) devoted a brief study to the question of figurative belts. According to his interpretation, hunting scenes have a meaning connected to fertility and to an ancestor cult. Esajan and Mnacakanjan studied belts found at Lčašen and Lori-Berd (Esajan, Mnacakanjan 1977: 276-281). These were dated to the first half of the first millennium BCE and once more interpreted

as depicting scenes related to fertility. Unfortunately most of these studies, except for the earliest by Chantre, Virchow and de Morgan, were published almost exclusively in Russian, Armenian, Azerbaijani and Georgian languages, thus making access to them very difficult for Western scholars. A great step forward was made in 1984 by S. Esajan, who managed to publish a comprehensive catalogue of belt discoveries in Armenia in a German scientific journal (Esayan 1984), two years later this was followed by a similar work by M. Chidašeli, devoted to the study of belts found mainly in Georgia (Chidašeli 1986). Despite the difficulties in accessing Soviet work, new studies, mainly stimulated by the acquisition of objects from museums and private collections in the West, occasionally appeared in Western literature. The first to address the subject was the Turk O. Tasyürek, who considered a typically Caucasian belt which was said to have been found in an Urartian Grave in Giyimli. He suggested that there was some Urartian influence on Caucasian belts (Tasyürek 1977: 121), especially in the position and arrangement of the animals on the figurative register, and also erroneously saw the spiral element as being Urartian – whereas it is typically Caucasian. R. Ghirshman too considered Caucasian belts to have been derived from the Kingdom of Urartu (Ghirshman 1969: 178-179). The best study available today is still that published by Culican & Zimmer in 1986 (Culican, Zimmer 1986). The most recent inventory of Caucasian belts was produced by two Russian scholars, M. Pogrebova and D. Raevskij (Pogrebova, Raevskij 1997), which, however, deals exclusively with belts bearing figurative decorations. In conclusion, the general tendency of previous studies has been to dwell mainly on the analysis of the engraved decorations, regarded in most cases as clear expressions of religious beliefs.

2. T L B

A (15 -6

A BCE)

The century-old archaeological research in Transcaucasia has produced a huge amount of data, but several problems still remain with regard to the proper periodization of the various cultural phases that occurred between the Late Bronze Age and the Hellenistic period. This lacuna is largely due to the substantial absence of complete stratigraphic sequences from excavated sites; this is especially true of southern Caucasia and the eastern part of the Anatolian plateau, while more data are available regarding the nearby Lake Urmia basin. The archaeology of Transcaucasia is essentially an archaeology of burials, in which the study of inhabited sites has, except for some well-known cases (such as the Urartian and Hellenistic sites in Armenia and Georgia), been of secondary importance. It is also true that inhabited settlements with deep stratigraphy – and therefore long sequences – are almost absent. Moreover, the amelioration projects carried out during So6

Introduction viet times have led to the destruction of many sites located on the plains, while others have probably been heavily damaged and covered by the expansion of modern settlements. Moreover, available radiocarbon dates are scarce and refer especially to to the Bronze Age (Kušnareva 1997: 83; Badalyan et alii 2009) while the very few inscribed objects belong only to the Urartian period (Salvini 2012), thus being from the 8th century onwards. It has been recently proposed that a similar system of dating should be adopted for Transcaucasia (Badalyan et alii 2009: 34, fig. 2, 68, 73-83), where the Iron Age I coincides roughly with the early Iron Age; this is followed by the Iron Age II, marked by the advent of the kingdom of Urartu; the Iron Age III runs from the end of the Urartian dominion until the Hellenistic period. Moreover, the transition phase between Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages has been divided into six different stages, called the “Lčašen-Metsamor horizon” (Badalyan et alii 2009: 34, fig. 2; 68, 73-83). This dating system, however, can function only for the area under the control of – or in direct contact with – Urartu, while the remaining areas of Transcaucasia (i.e. most of the territory) remain excluded from this system, making interregional comparisons even more complicated. These chronological issues have direct consequences for this study, since the time-span during which the belts were used roughly corresponds to a period from the final stages of the Late Bronze Age until the Middle Iron Age, whose limits are well known, bounded by the fall of the Urartian authority and the penetration of the Scythians into Transcaucasia. The Late Bronze Age, generally dated in southern Caucasia to about 1500-1200 BCE (while in northern Iran this date roughly corresponds to the Iron Age I), is essentially a well-documented period, thanks especially to the large number of excavated and published cemeteries, in first place that of Artik (Chačatrjan 1963, 1975, 1979), for which radiocarbon dates are available. At the end of the period the spread of iron objects begins. One of the most distinguishing features of the period is a marked development in settlement structure. The Late Bronze Age saw the widespread introduction of large cyclopean fortresses, which subsequently became one of the characteristic features of the Iron Age and the later Urartian kingdom; this resulted from the development of indigenous social and architectural structures that had already been the basis of the previous period (Badalyan et alii 2003: 165). They are built on high ground, rocky spurs, hills and mountain tops and not in open plain areas. As Biscione has pointed out (Biscione 2009: 123) the term “cyclopean”, which conventionally refers to fortifications built with very large, irregular stones, is imprecise and impressionistic and should not be used. The term ‘hill-fort’ is preferable, since it is generic and used to indicate forts, fortresses and fortified settlements built on hilltops or promontories. They became the most distinctive form of settlement in the mountainous highland. Hill-forts were not associated with tepes, either undefend-

ed or with mudbrick walls. Undefended sites did exist but they appear as pottery scatters or sites with a very shallow archaeological deposit, evidence of settlements which were short-lived and/or with structures distributed over a wide area. There is, however, also clear evidence of dwellings around fortresses (Badalyan et alii 2003: 159, fig. 7.5). Fortresses and forts are military sites with large defensive walls, located in naturally well-defended positions, the only difference between the two being their size (Biscione 2002: 352). A fortress might be defined as a strongly defended settlement. They are built with very large irregular stones. Other types of defensive works of the same periods are known, especially throughout the territory of present-day Iran, but they mostly feature mudbrick structures, generally in or around tepes and therefore located on plains or valley floors. These two classes of fortifications are conceptually and culturally very different. Such settlement types are scattered all over the southern part of Transcaucasia, northern Iran and Eastern Anatolia. Information from the territories that are now Azerbaijan and Georgia shows that this kind of settlement was rare; few are known (Shanshashvili, Narimanishvili 2013), but it must be noted that they have not been studied in depth (and so the situation might be different). In some areas, there has been intensive survey work, such as on Mount Aragats and in the Sevan basin, which highlighted an organization into small-scale political entities distinguished by the simultaneous presence of cyclopean fortresses and settlements, burial grounds and small outposts for the control of the territory (Badalyan et alii 2003: 159-163; Smith 2009a: 30-31; Smith 2009b: 396397), and also structured on different hierarchical levels (Biscione 2002: 358). In the transition phase to the Iron Age these features underwent notable changes: the distribution and complexity of both fortresses and cemetery increased. The architectural structure of the fortified settlements was still fairly simple, but in some cases towers/buttresses also began to appear (Badalyan et alii 2003: 158, fig. 7.4), although generally they were still irregular in shape and variously sized. Unfortunately, few of these fortresses have been extensively excavated and therefore their internal organization is not well documented, although some finds suggest the presence of workshops, religious areas and storerooms (Gevorkyan 2002). Contacts with Mesopotamia were still quite scarce, archaeologically attested by sporadic finds of Kassite weights and a seal with Egyptian hieroglyphic found in Metsamor necropolis (Khanzadian, Piotrovskii 1992; Khanzadian et alii 1992) plus several Mitanni seals recovered in various cemeteries (Pogrebova 2000; Pogrebova 2011: 44-51). The Early Iron Age shows continuity with the previous phase; archaeologically speaking it is not possible to observe a clear gap, although considerable differences also exist. Neighbouring areas such as the north Iranian plateau and eastern Anatolia seem to use decorative patterns and exhibit styles of material culture already established in Transcaucasia. The appearance of grey pottery, progressive use 7

Transcaucasian Bronze Belts of iron objects and the widespread distribution of fortified settlements are seen in the Lake Urmia basin area from the second half of the second millennium onwards (Piggott 1980: 418). Fortresses also seem to spread in eastern Anatolia (Belli, Konyar 2003; Marro, Özfırat 2003, 2004, 2005; Özfırat 2006, 2007), similar to those attested in Southern Caucasia and northwest Iran. There is a degree of homogenization of social and political structures covering the whole mountain area to the north and east of Mesopotamia, in which, however, cultural uniqueness is not observed. Detailed analysis of the burial evidence and building remains reveals that certain areas – such as around the three large lakes, Van, Sevan and Urmia, which in the following centuries became the political and economic centres of Urartu – were distinct cultural units. Changes during the Iron Age were even more pronounced in Transcaucasia. Clearly identifiable and important local cultures emerged, “Koban”, “Colchis”, “Ganja-Karabach”, “Samtavro” and “Lčašen-Metsamor” – but their territories, limits and characteristics are not sufficiently clear-cut, as in certain areas they seem to overlap, disappear or interact. Progressive increase in the interchange of decorative patterns and objects (maybe even populations) between the two sides of the Caucasus is well attested and particularly evident in the spread of the Koban culture, which extended over almost the entire northern slope of the Caucasus and part of the southern side (Kozenkova 1996: fig. 26). There are also well attested interactions between the Caucasus and northern Iran, in which a key role was played by the region of Talish (Piller 2013; Castelluccia 2015b), whereas contacts with Mesopotamia were still few. The main feature of the Iron Age, however, is the strong expansion of metallurgy, a development partly favoured by the abundance of raw materials throughout the Caucasus (Chernykh 1992). Other new features are also discernible with respect to burial customs and structures. In the Late Bronze Age burials show the gradual abandonment of objects in precious metals – which are common in Middle Bronze kurgans - in favour of those in bronze; these were however usually limited to few weapons and items of adornment, while pottery, sometimes decorated, was much more frequent. The Iron Age saw a reversal of this trend. There was an increase in the presence of metal objects, especially weapons (Gevorkyan 2009). Practically almost every male burial is accompanied by a selection of weapons, at times more than one spear, axe or sword for the same individual. Objects of personal adornment are also widespread among both male and female individuals. Moreover, for the Middle Bronze Age the main funerary evidence consists of large burial mounds. In the Late Bronze Age (1500-1200 BCE) large mounds continued to be erected, usually marked with a cromlech, namely a circle of stones that enclosed the base of the mound (Tumanjan 2009), but a more decisive shift toward substantially smaller and simpler structures occurred. The richest tombs of several cemeteries, for example Lčašen (where, among other remains, chariots have been found), Lori-Berd, Met-

samor and Keti, still have grave goods including bronze objects and precious materials, but the amount of work and wealth invested in the funeral ritual was considerably less than in the tombs of the Middle Bronze Age. A rather unusual construction type are the “catacomb” tombs of the necropolis of Artik, in north Armenia, which were underground burial chambers with access through a vertical shaft (Chačatrjan 1975: 138, pl. 2). In the subsequent period this tendency toward the simplification of burial types increased. The progressive simplification and “individualization” of graves may be seen: most are in fact simple cist graves. This seems to be a sign of the gradual expansion and homogenization of the power structure. The landscape of Transcaucasia at the beginning of the Iron Age, prior to the Urartian period, seems to have been divided among many different local polities, centred on fortresses. Establishing the nature of these entities is problematic (chiefdoms? early or primitive states?) because differences between these models are difficult to recognize with any certainty (Lamberg-Karlovsky 1994: 405; Arnold, Gibson 1995: 2-3; Marcus-Feinman 1998: 5-7). The marked expansion of weaponry, well attested also by their frequent occurrence in graves, can be interpreted as a shift toward a highly militarized society.The gradual conquest of the southern part of the Armenian plateau by the Urartian king Argišti I began in the eighth century, but did not lead to major changes in the social structure of these lands. The areas more directly controlled by the Urartians were affected by intense building activity, such as the construction of new fortresses, agricultural works and hydraulic systems. Territorial organization was reorganized according to a state-control policy: the settlements maintained their military character and were all located in strategic positions, controlling both economic resources and trade routes, all arranged in a region-wide pattern instead of the more limited extension of the pre-Urartian period. Urartian authority over the Armenian highland was, though, based on a strong interaction with indigenous cultures, themselves involved in the control of the region. Local settlements and local-tradition pottery styles remained in use. Burial evidence clearly shows the presence of both Urartian and locally-made objects, even within the same grave. Several sites conquered by the Urartians were still inhabited, while the area not directly under their control seems not to have been affected, or at least not strongly influenced. All of Transcaucasia is thought to have been affected by the penetration of nomadic people at the end of 7th century, resulting in the fall of the Urartian state. Most Urartian sites were destroyed and a number of Scythian-type objects are widely found throughout Transcaucasia (Techov 1980; Esajan, Pogrebova 1985; Mehnert 2008). The subsequent phases are more difficult to assess in detail. The period between the fall of Urartian authority and the onset of the Achaemenid epoch is referred to as the Median period, which is archaeologically very difficult to bring into focus. In this period, however, some new forms are 8

Introduction attested which are linked to the pottery tradition that has been found farther south in Media at Nush-i Jan (Stronach 1978) and Godin Tepe (Gopnik 2011). Kroll has rightly proposed to call it the “Median pottery tradition”, a term used however in a wider geographical sense, because the first and possibly earliest evidence for this pottery comes from the region of ancient Media (Kroll 2014, 205). At the end of the 6th century, however, the whole territory fell under Achaemenid control (Ter-Martirosov 2000; Bill 2003, 2010; Kroll 2003; Knauss 2005, 2006). Tracing the Achaemenid presence in the Armenian highland as a basis for understanding the organization of the local political and social structure is somewhat difficult due to the lack of sufficiently reliable information. Unmistakable signs of Achaemenid activity are generally few, and the evidence is often scattered and ambiguous. This situation depends in particular on the lack of well-documented excavated sites; too frequently the available archaeological evidence is inadequate for comparison with historical sources. The Achaemenid period seems to be characterized by a decrease in the number of known inhabited settlements: it appears that the whole Armenian highland was under-populated at this time. Most of the previous fortified sites had been either destroyed or abandoned, while those with 6th -5th century occupation showed no signs of particular rebuilding or the construction of new defensive walls. Most sites seem thus to have lost their typically military features which were, conversely, major distinguishing characteris-

tics of the Early Iron Age and Urartian kingdom. It must be specified, however, that the development of the human landscape during the Achaemenid period is not uniform since in some areas (Tavush, Aragats) various fortresses were still in use or had been reoccupied and a few were even of new foundation. Such a change might be tentatively explained by the new political situation of the Achaemenid empire: no longer was Transcaucasia divided into many independent polities fighting each other for the control of economic resources, but was finally united under a single power.

3. B

M

In 1967 P.R.S. Moorey, in a short article concerning the study of some bronze belts preserved in the Ashmolean Museum at Oxford, was the first scholar to offer a synthesis, albeit brief, of the use of metal belts in the Ancient Near East (Moorey 1967). He pointed out that prior to the Iron Age metal belts, decorated or not, were virtually absent from archaeological sites in the Near East, or very few in number. The oldest examples come from Ur, where they were found in the Graves of the Early Dynastic III period, and were made of silver (Woolley 1934: vol. II: 51, pl. 13b; 156, fig. 35). A belt devoid of decoration comes from Tell El-Far’ah (de Vaux, Steve 1947: pl. 20, no. 1), in southern Israel, and one from Grave J3 in Jericho (Kenyon

Fig. 1 | Belt from Tell El-Far’ah (de Vaux, Steve 1947: pl. 20, no. 1. Courtesy of Peeters Publishers).

Fig. 2 | Belt from Jerico (Kenyon 1960: 312, fig. 117, nos. 3-4)

9

Transcaucasian Bronze Belts 1960: 312, fig. 117, no. 3.4); the latter is decorated with a repoussé pattern of circles and dots. Both belts are dated to the Middle Bronze Age (Figs. 1-2). There is no clear archaeological evidence of metal belts during the Late Bronze Age, although several artistic depictions on statues and reliefs suggest their presence. Layard reported that in 1851 during cleaning of Room AB in the NW palace of Nimrud, in cauldrons he found bands of copper, rounded at the ends, probably belts (Layard 1853: 180). They have been recently published by Curtis: the best preserved is rounded at one end and has a circular hole, centrally-positioned (Curtis 2013: 122; pl. 94). During the Iron Age sporadic cases of use of bronze belts also appear in the Greek world (D’Acuto 2007) and in the Phrygian kingdom (Young 1981: 17-20). They are much more common in Central and Eastern Europe (Holste 1951: pl. 44; Hundt 1958: pl. 15; Gimbutas 1965: 74, fig. 35, no. 9, 328, figs. 229-230; Kilian-Dirlmeier 1972; Kilian-Dirlmeier 1975; Mozsolics 1985: 59-60). In the Near East, however, there are basically two major cultural spheres within which the use of metal belts is widely attested: the Kingdom of Urartu and cultures of the Iranian Plateau.

bronze items on the antiquities market; Western archaeology set itself the goal of investigating the roots of the large iconographic corpus abundantly documented in European and American museum catalogues. The first noteworthy fieldwork was carried out by the American Oriental Institute at the site of Surkh Dum, in the region of Kūh-ī Dasht. Digging was conducted for just a few days in 1938 and the results were published only partially in an American magazine (Schmidt 1938). More famous were the Belgian missions conducted by Vanden Berghe in the 1960s and the Danish ones directed by H. Thrane. Unfortunately these investigations were published only partially, usually with a series of annual reports published in Iranica Antiqua and Acta Archaeologica, the only exception being the publication of the cemetery of Khūrvīn (Vanden Berghe 1964). These were obliged to stop as a result of the Revolution, which – paradoxically – had in some respects a positive impact on the continuation of archaeological studies in the field of Iranian archaeology: the interruption of the major fieldwork allowed (or compelled) many scholars to focus on the analysis and subsequent publication of all the material collected in the preceding decades. In rapid succession were thus published the final results of the Holmes Expedition of the Oriental Institute, the excavations of Tepe Guran and – most importantly – the complete work of Vanden Berghe, a total of seven monographs, appeared in Luristan Excavations Documents. Extensive documentation of the Japanese excavations in the region of Gilan, on the Caspian Sea, (Egami 1965, Fukai, Ikeda 1971) may be added to these, as well as the most recent archaeological work of Iranian scholars (Khalatbari 2004a, 2004b), conducted in the border area of Talish which featured in the earliest work of J. de Morgan. All of these works, in addition to the numerous cemeteries excavated in recent decades, such as Hasanlu, Sialk Tepe, Marlik and Khūrvīn, offer a quite complete picture of the funeral evidence of western Iran and the area around Lake Urmia. These sites include thousands of well documented graves, but have yielded very few belts. Buckles or other metal parts of belts, similar to those found at Tepe Sialk, are not included in this count. Several metal plates of generally rectangular shape, which could be interpreted as parts of a quiver or belt, were found inside a temple structure in the site of Surkh Dum (Schmidt 1938: 211); they bear simple geometric, plant or animal decorations

3.1 Belts in Iran in the Iron Age Following the widespread availability of material of supposedly Iranian provenance, referred to as a part of the corpus of the so-called “Luristan Bronzes”, the British scholar Moorey dwelt in particular on the analysis of certain iconographic belts and their artistic links with Iranian culture (Moorey 1967). A decade after Moorey’s work, R. Ghirshman took up the subject, giving an overview of the use of these objects in the Kingdom of Urartu, Transcaucasia and the Iranian plateau until Sassanid times; he did not, however, distinguish between decorated metal plates and simple bronze buckles used to fasten belts made of perishable materials (Ghirshman 1979). The French scholar’s study was primarily based on specimens preserved in museums and private collections, all without archaeological context, but supposedly of Iranian origin, mostly said to come from Luristan. It was precisely this region, located a short distance from the current border with Iraq, that attracted the most interest, driven perhaps by popularity gained by the numerous

Fig. 3 | Dotted belt from Hasanlu Hasanlu (Rubinson 2012: 394, fig. 27.2. Courtesy of Peeters Publishers).

10

Introduction

Fig. 4 | Belts from Mārlik (Negahban 1995: 99, figs. 86, 87, 89, 91).

lar characteristics that strongly distinguish them from Caucasian belts. About fifteen mostly fragmentary belts come from Marlik. Unfortunately little remained of the skeletons in the tombs, but on the basis of the grave goods it is likely that they were burials of adult males. A couple of graves, nos. 26 and 52 (Negahban 1996: 19-20, 23-24), contained more than one belt along with some of the most exceptional finds, including a large number of objects in precious metal. The standard length of the fragments did not exceed 50 cm in total. They can be divided into two main groups. The principal feature of the first group consists of terminations with two mirror-image spirals (Fig. 4). There is some doubt about the identification of a metallic object found in the cemetery of Khūrvīn (Vanden Berghe 1964: 67, pl. 34, n. 277); the piece, completely preserved, measures 21 cm in length and 8.5 in height, and would seem to be a diadem, as originally interpreted by Vanden Berghe, although the decoration is practically identical to that of the specimens from Marlik (Fig. 5). A bracelet from Luristan also has the same form (Godard 1931: pl. 27, n. 81). The second group is more varied but retains the common feature of having the surface decorated with repoussé dots of various sizes (Fig. 6). This kind of decoration strongly suggests some contacts between the two cultural spheres, also attested by the presence of other objects of common inspiration. To conclude, it can be said that the use of bronze belts underwent no particular development in Iran between

(Schmidt et alii 1989: pls. 200-201). None, however, possess holes along the edges or other means of attachment to any base, so their interpretation as remnants of belts or quivers remains rather uncertain; they might well be considered, as already suggested by Muscarella (Muscarella 1981a: 334), to be simple votive plaques. The only two sites in Iran in which a significant number of bronze belts have been discovered are Marlik and Hasanlu, while an isolated gold belt was found by a Japanese mission in Dailaman (Egami 1965: pl. 32, no. 2, pl. 75, n. 36). The largest number comes from Hasanlu, where about ten made of metal sheet have been found, in both the citadel and the cemetery. However, it is uncertain whether several items should be interpreted as belts, since they are very fragmentary. They have certain characteristics similar to Caucasian belts, such as their structure, size, styles and decorative techniques, but cannot be included within this corpus, given the peculiarities of this site. The belt from Hasanlu, kept in the Metropolitan Museum and already published at the time by Muscarella (Muscarella 1988: 4748, n. 54), was recently the subject of an excellent study by K. Rubinson (Rubinson 2012), which clearly demonstrates that this type of dotted band decoration precedes the Urartian period (Fig. 3). The belt, in fact, was found in a male Grave with some pottery, a bronze spear, an iron dagger and various ornaments, and belongs to the period Hasanlu IVB, dated between 1100 and 800 BCE. The metal belts from Marlik, on the contrary, have particu11

Transcaucasian Bronze Belts

Fig. 5 | Belt or diadema from Khūrvīn (Vanden Berghe 1964: pl. 39, no. 277).

Fig. 6 | Belts from Mārlik (Negahban 1995: 101, figs. 92-96).

ological context, since not a great number of specimens had been found in situ. Recently this writer focused particularly on an analysis of the archaeological circumstances in which the belts were found, as well as on the study of previously neglected bibliographic material. It thus proved possible to define a new set comprising about 100 specimens from controlled excavations (although these were not all sufficiently well documented) and place a special emphasis on an evaluation of the archaeological context of discovery. I concluded that the belts are mostly confined to the private sphere, in that almost all of the fragments were from burials. Only a few specimens were found inside fortresses and royal cities, and only in one case inside a temple2. Urartian burial practices may involve either cremation or inhumation; in most cases belts were found in male graves, along with weaponry. Most of the graves in question were, however, cremations; the belt was usually broken or bent and placed beside the urn. In just a few cases, the belt was placed on the waist of the deceased or next to it; in one case – in the chamber tomb of Altıntepe – it was inserted, together with other metal objects, inside a bronze cauldron (Özgüç 1983: 37, pl. 16c-d). The practice of placing the belt on the waist of the deceased clearly resembles a widespread practice that is extremely widespread in the Caucasian world3. These metal plates are also rectangular in shape but in the vast majority of cases they feature along the edges a series of closely-spaced holes for attachment to a leather base. The fastening method is different from that of Caucasian belts. Urartian belts are most often equipped with hooks that pass

the Late Bronze Age and the Hellenistic period; their use was in any case limited to the northern areas where contact with the Caucasian cultures was more direct, while it seems that they are not known from Luristan, Media or the Achaemenid Empire. 3.2 Bronze belts in the kingdom of Urartu The use of metal belts was most important in the Kingdom of Urartu, which flourished in eastern Anatolia between the 9th and 7th century BCE. Metalwork production played a primary role in the development of the artistic tradition of Urartian culture whereas, conversely, the use of other techniques – in particular stone sculpture, both in the round and in relief – was very limited in extent. The wide local availability of raw materials and the control of important trade routes probably contributed significantly to the development of a substantial production of high-quality objects in bronze and, to a lesser extent, gold and silver, which has no parallels in any other realm of the ancient Near East. Urartian craftsmen produced a wide range of bronze objects, such as shields, helmets, quivers and belts, both as votive offerings and as objects for use (Merhav 1991; Seidl 2004). Within this rich metalwork corpus the belts have an important place and have attracted the attention of a number of scholars. Early attempts to classify the belts were made by T. Lorenz (Lorenz 1984) and O.A. Taşyürek (Taşyürek 1975), followed a decade later by the excellent work of J.H. Kellner (Kellner 1991a; Curtis 1996), who managed to gather together about 400 items kept in museums and private collections, but mostly of unknown origin. This work classified all known fragments according to their iconographic characteristics and outlined a chronological subdivision on the basis of decoration – rather than archae-

2 These are two small fragments found inside the susi temple of Erebuni (Esayan 1984: 133). 3

12

For a detailed analysis of this aspect, please refer to Part 2.

Introduction

Fig. 7 | Belt fragments from Nor Areš (Martirosjan 1964: pls. 25-27).

Fig. 8 | Belt from Dedeli Dedeli (Tasyürek 1975: fig. 18).

inside a ring placed at the opposite end of the plaque. The most obvious differences concern the decoration, since Urartian art is essentially a clear derivation of first millennium Assyrian art (Figs. 7-11). This influence is clearly visible in the realistic rendering of the figures, the use of numerous fantastic creatures, often obtained through the juxtaposition of parts of real figures, and in the widespread depiction of lions and bulls. Another feature evidently borrowed from Neo-Assyrian models is the use of the hunting scene with chariot or the procession of armed men, a clear reflection of the artistic tradition of Neo-Assyrian orthostates. Another key feature of the Urartian belts is an almost obsessive respect for symmetry. Humans and animals may be spread over multiple rows in horizontal development,

but the figures are almost always arranged symmetrically to each other. The figured belts are quite varied, with an abundant artistic repertoire, which however closely follows the guidelines listed above. Overall, then, the decoration is less “imaginative” than that found on the Caucasian belts, where the craftsmen seems to have had a greater stylistic freedom. Urartian belts, on the other hand, follow precise canons, probably under the influence of royal authority. The Urartian craftsmen also produced some belts with geometric decorations. Mainly they are decorated with “dotted bands” which partially resemble Caucasian items which will be discussed in more detail in the following chapters. Another typical Urartian geometric decoration is 13

Transcaucasian Bronze Belts the “zigzag” motif, arranged according to the usual pattern in continuous, concentric bands. Some belts with different geometrical motifs such as diamonds, rosettes or shoots

(Kellner 1991a: pls. 80-84) exist only on the antiquities market.

Fig. 9 | Belt from Metsamor (Xanzadyan et alii 1973: fig. 170).

Fig. 10 | Fragmentary belts from Nachičevan and Toprakkale (A: Bahşaliev 1997: 117, fig. 26; B: Wartke 1990b: 75-78, pl. 20).

Fig. 11 | Belt from Karahasan (Tasyürek 1973: 202).

14

II | C

As already briefly mentioned at the beginning, one of the major difficulties encountered in the course of this work concerns the correct interpretation of the various metal plaques preserved as remnants of bronze belts, since in many cases they are in a very bad state of preservation. In many images in the plates there are many fragments of very small size, simple metal plaques without any particular features. It is necessary, therefore, to consider exactly what it is that defines a bronze belt. On the bases of preserved items the basic features may be outlined. It is essentially a single metal sheet1, about 1-2 mm thick and rectangular in shape; the sizes varies depending on the fragments. With regards to height, it may vary from 4 to 20 cm, with an average of around 10 cm. Determining the actual length is more complicated because few specimens are entirely preserved but, on the base of known specimens, is however possible to estimate an average length of between 80 and 90 cm. The material used is almost always bronze, in which the percentages of other metals alloyed with the copper can be most varied; unfortunately exact alloy composition determinations have not been conducted on Caucasian belts of known provenance. X-ray fluorescence measurements have been carried out on two unprovenanced but typical Caucasian belts kept in the British Museum (Curtis, Kruszyński 2002: 53-56, 93-98). XRF is a surface analysis method and thus the results regard the composition of the surface metal, including any overlying patina or corrosion, which does not necessarily correspond to that of the whole object. Apart from copper and tin, they had very low percentages of other elements. Detailed analyses were also carried out on two Urartian belts kept in the British Museum, which can also be used as a yardstick for comparison. These have a relatively high proportion of tin (86.5% copper and 13.5% tin), plus small amounts of other elements such as arsenic, silver and antimony (Curtis 1996: 123). There are also rare cases of belts in precious metals. One in silver was found in Altıntepe and one in gold in Dailaman, both already cited above; both specimens, however, are not to be considered classic Caucasian belts2. Two main techniques are used to decorate the belts: engraving and repoussé. The first is the practice of incising a design onto a hard, usually flat surface, by cutting grooves

into it. Engravers mostly use a hardened-steel tool, usually called a burin, or graver, to carve the design into the surface. The design is thus represented by shallow grooves. This technique was used to create the profile of the figures and many geometric designs, to define some anatomical details, like ears and eyes, as well as to fill the space within the figures with small lines and dots. Repoussé is a technique in which a metal sheet is ornamented or shaped by hammering from the reverse side to create a design in low relief. It is mainly used to create embossed dots. The illustration below (Fig. 12) shows a classic example of a bronze belt, illustrating its main features. It also includes some terminology used in this work in order to describe the individual specimens in this catalogue using technical language that is as uniform as possible. It should, however, be noted that this “ideal” specimen is only rarely found in reality. The upper and lower limits are defined here as the belt edges. With regard to the plain belts, and in part for the geometric ones as well, it is not possible to determine the actual direction in which the belt was worn. Close to the ends holes for fastening are present; they are variable in number and served for the passage of the ties by means of which the two ends of the belt were linked. Along the edges and often at the ends, smaller holes, usually in closely-spaced rows, are cut. They were probably used to attach the metal plaque to a base made of perishable material, probably leather3. It must be said that only a small proportion of belts possess these holes along the edges and their presence has therefore been considered a possibly diagnostic feature. The belt-endings may be of different shapes; these too, when recognizable, have been taken to be characteristic features. Five main types of endings have been recognized. The use of the terminology is totally subjective and can lead to different interpretations since the differences between the groups are often quite blurred. Because this terminology is used in the catalogue which follows, a brief description of each group is provided in order to better explain it to the reader. 1. Right-angled (Fig. 13) Right-angled: The extremity of the belt is vertical and perpendicular to the edges, forming a right-angled end. It must be said that in the majority of cases this turns out to be slightly rounded due to wear of the metal at the corners. In many cases the angle might be even less sharp.

The only exception is found in a belt from Djönü, in Talish Persian, no. catalogue 111. In the cemetery of Seržen’-Yurt, Chechnya, instead of a typical “sheet belt”, a series of bronze rings linked by a rope were found (Kozenkova 1992: 56).

1

2 The total does not include the entirely complete belt found in a deposit or hoard of metal objects in 1908 near the village of Sadzeguri (Akhalgori district) in Georgia. This exclusion is due to the dating of the whole treasure to the fifth or fourth century BCE, a historical period a few centuries later than that considered in this study. In this regard see Lordkipanidze 2003.

Remains of leather or other materials were found on belts from Karmir berd, Astchi blur (Esayan 1984: 98) and Krasnyj Majak (Trapš 1969: 107-108).

3

15

Transcaucasian Bronze Belts

Fig. 12 | Framework of an “ideal” bronze belt with its terminology.

2. Elongated (Fig. 14) In this group the terminal part is roughly triangular in shape, with a continuous curved profile, in which there is a certain distance between the vertex and edges, serving to give the termination an elongated shape.

similar in style to those occurring in the corpus of the decorated belts. Many metal buckles have been found in tombs often not associated with a metallic belt. This observation can be explained by the probable use of simple leather belts, the buckle of which was the only metal part. The second group is represented by a semi-circular metal plate (Fig. 18) and its presence seems to be limited in the cemetery related to the “Koban” culture, comprising an area roughly halfway between Georgia and the north Caucasian area. The interpretation of these plates as part of belts is reliable because they were found on the waist of the skeletons (Chantre 1886a: 25, fig. 2), but in most cases not associated with a metal belt. We must, therefore, conclude that these endings were mainly associated with leather belts. Those of the third and final group (Fig. 19) possess metal plates roughly rectangular in shape, sometimes with a decorated surface. Their occurrence is quite limited, mainly in sites in the vicinity of the Caucasus range, sometimes coincident with the “Koban” culture. Of these buckles, however, only those of the third group were taken into consideration in this work, which in some cases (catalogue nos. 67-69) were found attached to metal belts. They are so numerous that they need to be dealt with separately in a specific study. As mentioned above, one of the main problems concerned the correct identification of the fragments examined as remnants of metal belts. The action of the soil on extremely thin bronze sheets, over a long period of time, has led to a high degree of corrosion of the plates themselves, with – in many cases – the partial or total loss of decorations, and often indeed the disappearance of large portions of the belt itself. As can be seen in the following catalogue of plates, in a number of cases, particularly with regard to plain belts, the objects are of quite small size, in many cases lacking

3. Rounded (Fig. 15) This group has in principle the same characteristics as the previous one; these belts, however, have a less markedly elongated shape, which makes the terminal part slightly rounded, with a continuous profile. 4. Trapezoidal (Fig. 16) The termination of these belts resumes the main feature of the first two groups, i.e. the extremity of the metal sheet is marked by a vertical cut. They differ, however, in the shape of the corners. In the first case (L) they are rounded, but clearer and longer than the groups with right-angled endings. In the remaining two cases the curved line is abandoned in favour of a simple straight line, as represented by the examples M and N, and can have different lengths. The endings are also linked to the metal buckles which may be associated with the belt itself. There are many examples and different types, often bearing significant geometric and figurative decorations. Three main models can be identified. The first is the most simple and also the most common (Fig. 17). It has a roughly rectangular shape, sometimes even slightly triangular, and it is of the same height as the belt to which it is attached. A series of small holes, through which the belt was fixed to the main body, is disposed vertically along the inner boundary. Many specimens have also a decorated surface, with both figurative and geometric motifs, 16

Categories and types

Fig. 13 | Examples of right-angled end.

Fig. 14 | Examples of elongated end.

Fig. 15 | Examples of rounded end.

Fig. 16 | Examples of trapezoidal end.

in diagnostic characteristics such as holes for fastening. In such cases their interpretation as the remains of belts might be questionable; alternatives might be proposed. We can exclude, however, that they are votive plaques such as those found in the sanctuary of Surkh Dum, in Luristan (Schmidt 1938: 211; Schmidt et alii 1989: pls. 200-201) and in the well-known Urartian site of Giyimli (Caner 1998). The plaques from both sites lack decorations and are roughly cut. In addition, the few sanctuaries excavated in Transcaucasia have not yielded any votive metal plaques. Excluding a religious function, these sheets could possibly be regarded as an additional protective component of armour. There are many cases of metal items used as parts of armour: these are generally round objects and fixed to a leather base. Parts of these were found in several tombs in Transcaucasia, but it seems likely that, rather than protective devices, they are actually decorative elements (Fig. 20). A piece of sheet armour similar to that used in the Urartian period – as demonstrated by finds made in Altıntepe (Barnett, Gökce 1953: 126) and Karmir Blur (Piotro-

vskij 1955: fig. 21) – was discovered in the vicinity of Nor Bajazet by Lalajan (Esayan 1990: 98). The latest interpretation, which applies especially to thinner belts, sees them as parts of diadems; several such finds are known. In certain cases they can also be decorated, but generally one of the belts is oval in shape rather than rectangular (Fig. 21). Some diadems of precious metal are also known, such as a silver piece from Gegarot (Martirosjan 1964: 91, fig. 43) and one in gold found in the cemetery of Lori-Berd (Devedžjan 1981: fig. 32a-b). None of these three alternative interpretations is completely convincing, so the proposal that they are parts of belts remains the most satisfactory. Moreover, in some published burials it is clear that many of these simple plain metal sheets were actually found by the waist of the deceased. The last matter to be dealt with before tackling a more detailed analysis of the belts regards a terminological subtlety related to geographical location. In the specialist literature the terms “Caucasian” and “Transcaucasia” are both found, although the latter offers a much more precise localization. 17

Transcaucasian Bronze Belts

Fig. 17 | Examples of first type of buckles.

Fig. 18 | Examples of second type of buckles.

Fig. 19 | Examples of third type of buckles.

18

Categories and types

Fig. 20 | Examples of bronze armour. A: Artik; B: Dilžan; C: Kirovabad; D: Nor Bajazet; E: Golovino; F-G: Karmir blur (Esayan 1990: pl. 8, no. 1, 3; pl. 9, no. 3; pl. 10, nos. 1, 2, 4, 5).

Fig. 21 | Examples of bronze diadems. A: Artik; B: Gegarot; C: Šikachoch; D: Tandžaver; E: Šikachoch and Nor-Bayazit; F: Arzvanik; G: Tli (Esayan 1990: pl. 8; Techov 1980: pl. 19, fig. 1).

The distribution map below shows that the great majority of the known fragments come from the area just south of the main Caucasus range; in fact only four specimens come from the northern side4. In this corpus, belt fragments that

were reused for other purposes are not taken into account. For example, part of a belt was used to repair the cheek protection of a bronze helmet found in Lori-Berd (Devedjyan 2010: 87, fig. 3), while other small fragments were found in Achymlov burial-ground, in Siberia (Patrušev 1982).

For obvious reasons of space the map does not include the specimen from Podgorcy village (no. 59), which is now incorporated within the

4

urban area of Kiev.

19

Transcaucasian Bronze Belts

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27.

Achmachi Achpat Airivank Akhtala Aparan Aramus Astchi blur Bajan Bdžni Beštašeni Čabaruchi Chačbulag Chagoula-Dérré Chirsa Chodžali Čovdar Djönü Gamdlisckaro Gantiadi Gogdaja Golovino Grmachevistavi Kalakent Kalakent Paradiesfestung Karabach Karmir Berd Kazach

28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54.

Kedabek Khnatsakh Kirovakan Kislovodsk Koban Krasnoe Znamiya Krasnyj Majak Kulanurchva Lčašen Leninakan Lernagüch Lori-Berd Lorut Lugovoe Maralyn Deresi Mastara Melaani Meligele Mingečaur Mouçi-yéri Mtskheta-Nabagrebi Mucan Muchannat-tapa Narekvavi Nerkin Getašen Noemberjan Nor Bajazet

Fig. 22 | Overall map of findings of bronze belts.

20

55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81.

Odzun Orc-chlebi Ošakan Pasanauri Podgorcy Redkin lager Sadachlo Sagaredžo Samtavro Sanain Sarigüch Šaroi Sevan Šikaoch Širak Širakavan Stepantsminda Styrphaz Takia Talin Tegh Tli Treli Vaagni Vardenis Vornak Zorakarer

Categories and types

Fig. 23 | Findings in southern Armenia and northern Iran.

Fig. 24 | Findings in Armenia and western Azerbaijan.

All the items included in this corpus have been divided into three main categories: plain, geometrical and figurative belts. This division partially follows those adopted by various previous studies on the subject, and has been done for reasons of organizational simplicity. It does not have, therefore, any chronological, geographical or functionally-interpretative value: these aspects will be considered in specific sections in this work. To this tripartite division some subgroups reflecting shared characteristics

have been added. These (entirely subjective) divisions were made in order to facilitate consultation of the catalogue and to avoid huge single groups that were difficult to manage. Some groups were created on the basis of the presence of one precise type of decoration; for others, the decision was more complex, and therefore also susceptible to errors of assessment, since some belts, especially those with figurative scenes, might possess features of two or more groups. 21

Transcaucasian Bronze Belts

Fig. 25 | Findings in central-eastern Georgia.

Fig. 26 | Findings in western Georgia and northern Caucasus.

Below the general characteristics of these groups are described, as well as a superficial analysis of the representations and decorative schemes. The specific treatment of the single artistic elements is discussed in the following paragraphs. We shall here examine only some “structural” characteristics, such as size, method of fastening and attachment, plus some preliminary considerations on the decorations. Each paragraph is accompanied by a distribution map showing the findspots of the belts belonging to the group. The sites’ reference numbers are the same in both parts. For any additional information regarding the sites and

their place names, please refer to the specific sections in the second part. Some further detail with regard to place names is required: in most cases items were found in well-defined sites that were easy to mark on the map. For others, unfortunately, the original literature is not very clear and often limited to an approximate indication of provenance, such as “from the territory of...”. The same problem concerns several chance finds for which only general information regarding the area of discovery is available. It must be specified that all the interpretations and subsequent subdivisions were made on the basis of the 22

Categories and types

Fig. 27 | Findings of plain belts.

average height of the belt, when worn by the owner, was between 5 and 6 cm, and in some cases only 4 cm. Establishing the length is more difficult; only a few specimens are complete in this respect and therefore it is not possible to reach definite conclusions. Some of these belts even exceed one meter in length, thus corresponding quite plausibly to the waist measurement of an adult male. Others, and it would seem the greater number, are around 60-70 cm long, too short to fit an adult, but rather more suitable for young males or females. This question is linked to the way in which the belt was fastened around the waist. Almost all the specimens have at the ends a series of small holes, varying in number from a minimum of one to a maximum of eight, through which, probably, a series of laces were fastened. It is not possible to establish whether the two ends joined at the back, or whether a gap remained between them when the belt was fastened. This detail is not of secondary importance. For the smaller belts, those between 60 and 70 cm in length, other interpretations are possible. If the ends joined at the back, they could only have been worn by young men or women. If not, they could also be worn by an adult male. Perhaps this variability allowed the same belt to be used for a rather long period of time, probably throughout the growth of its owner. Other considerations related to these aspects will be discussed in the second part on the base of the archaeological context of discovery.

illustrations published in the original reports and not, except rare cases, observation of the original objects. Often, unfortunately, these are images of poor quality, and this is particularly true for the oldest publications; some parts are not easily recognizable and could have been misinterpreted.

1. P The undecorated belts are defined here as plain. This group has been divided into two categories: the first one comprises belts totally devoid of decorations; the second, here named “composite”, consists of belts bearing some additional metal parts, usually at the ends, attached to the main bronze sheet. In some case these extensions are decorated. Due to the poor state of preservation of most of the fragments, it was not possible to refer to a specific feature in the creation of subgroups, such as the size of the objects or the shape of their extremities. It was therefore decided to treat all the samples as a single group, while taking into account some specific features that were identifiable. A total of 69 belts, mostly fragmentary, belong to the first category. The distribution map shows how they are spread throughout the Caucasus. With regard to size, some properties may be noted. Firstly, and this is true for the majority of the fragments considered here, these metal plaques are extremely narrow ‒ the 23

Transcaucasian Bronze Belts

2. G

Another feature regards the method of fixing the metal sheet to a base of leather or some other perishable material. There are a few fragments with holes along the edges, suggesting attachment to some perishable material. The majority do not have any holes, so that the metal plaque adhered directly to the body of the wearer. Some differences regard the “composite” belt category, which includes belts with not completely homogeneous characteristics that have been grouped together for simplicity. The particular feature shared by these items is that the main part of the belt is devoid of decoration – just like those described above – but they also possess some additional metal parts either at the ends or in the middle. In some cases these appliqués might have a decorative purpose (no. 65), and in others perhaps some sort of functional role, such as protecting the lower abdomen (no. 66). The distribution of plain belts is concentrated mainly in the plains of Širak and Ararat, in Armenia, plus a small group near the northern shore of Lake Sevan. Two small groups are present in the southern part of the Armenian province of Syunik and in the northern part of Lori. Another small corpus comes from the Kakheti province, in western Georgia, but unfortunately the archaeological record regarding these items is not detailed. The last group, numerically the largest, comes from an area in the foothills of the Caucasus. Strangely, belts without decoration are not known from certain zones which abound in decorated specimens, such as Mtskheta in central Georgia, and western Azerbaijan.

This category includes all belts bearing geometric patterns on both the body and extremities. Given the variety of decorations found, a series of sub-groups have been created according to their specific patterns. In some cases it was relatively easy to pigeonhole the specimens on the basis of a single and well defined geometric decoration, such as spiral or dotted bands, while in other cases a purely subjective subdivision has been implemented. This concerns particularly those belts with a multiplicity of geometric decorations, which therefore qualified for more than one subgroup. With regard to these “hybrid” items, precedence was given to any decoration which for size, quality or disposition seemed more important than others. Therefore, for certain specimens placed in the groups of belts with spiral or guilloche decorations, I decided arbitrarily to put them in these groups, notwithstanding the presence of other geometric decorations. Some of these have characteristics that are difficult to define or of uncertain attribution. The poor quality of the original illustrations does not always allow a clear identification of the decorations and could thus have led to a misinterpretation of the object itself. In some cases the original images have been added to allow comparison with the graphic reconstruction proposed here. Many belts without a clearly predominant geometric pattern have been put together in one group, conventionally defined as “various”. The distribution map shows a substantial uniformity, but with a concentration of specimens in north-central Armenia.

Fig. 28 | Findings of geometric belts.

24

Categories and types

Fig. 29 | Findings of belts with decorated bands.

An obvious difference compared to the previous group concerns the size of the objects. Although some fragments are 4-5 cm high (such as nos. 88, 96 and 100), the average of the majority is around 10 cm, and some even reach 18-20 cm (for example nos. 211 and 214). In this group too, most specimens have holes for fastening only at the ends, which themselves have a wide variety of shapes: most are rounded, but there are also right-angled and only slightly rounded terminations. Most of the decorations have been created using the same technique, i.e. engraved lines on the metal surface. The presence of more complex and repeated decorations, such as spirals or guilloche, suggests that craftsmen may have used engraving tools. The dotted belts were produced using a different method; these protrusions, roughly circular in shape, were made by means of repoussé.

the belt, although usually the outer band runs along the edge of the belt and is continuous. There is a second band towards the centre, parallel to the first, and finally a central band. This decorative scheme, with some variations – such as the absence of the second concentric band – is also found on dotted Urartian belts (Fig. 31b). It might be possible to identify a common source for this type of decoration, for it cannot be through mere coincidence that it is shared by these two cultures.

2.1 Decorated bands The main feature of this group is the presence of horizontal bands decorated inside with a series of geometric patterns (Fig. 30). Usually they are repoussé dots arranged in horizontal lines, while in other cases only one repoussé motif, usually oval in shape (nos. 70, 71, 73) is present. Perpendicular stripes formed of small incised lines are also attested (nos. 77, 76, 83). In some cases these bands are framed by a continuous repoussé line; this feature also occurs on Urartian geometric belts. Another typical feature is that they are not horizontally continuous, but instead form a sort of concentric frame (Fig. 31a). In fact, they do not start and the ends of

Fig. 30 | Detail of a belt with oval-shape repoussé decoration, from Chagoule-Dérré (Courtesy of the Musée d’Archéologie Nationale-Domaine National de Saint-Germain-en-Laye).

25

Transcaucasian Bronze Belts

Fig. 31 | Detail of the end part’s decoration of a “Transcaucasian” belt from Talin (A) and an “Urartian” belt from Toprakkale (B); (drawings of the author).

Establishing whether this type of decoration originated in Urartu or the Caucasus would only be possible through a detailed analysis of archaeological contexts, which would allow the chronological sequence to be determined. This group comprises 14 belts, mostly fragmentary, but in three cases reassembled to their full length (nos. 70, 71, 73). They are quite close to the overall average with regard to dimensions, measuring approximately 10 cm in height and 90 cm in length. Only the items from Gantiadi (no. 71) and Tli (no. 82) have a series of holes along the edges; in the rest they are only present at the extremities. There is great variety in the shape of the latter, with right-angled shapes, straight blunt, rounded or trapezoidal. The belts found in Chagoula-Dérré, Gantiadi and Samtavro (nos. 70, 71, 73) are very similar, despite their different findspots and divergent chronology. They clearly have the same decoration, oval-shaped protuberances in repoussé, arranged in a horizontal row enclosed within brackets. The specimen from Samtavro (no. 73) is slightly different: there is also a central longitudinal band. The example from Chagoula-Dérré does not share the arrangement in concentric bands, instead with bands running horizontally along the body of the belt. The use of repoussé dots seems to have had a certain popularity in Caucasian iconography. They are also widely found in another group of geometric belts, here simply named “dotted belts”, which differ from the present ones due to the absence of a typical subdivision in bands. An item similar to Urartian belts is represented by a fragment from Leninakan (no. 72), in north-western Armenia. It possesses a double row of dots and a grooved line, clearly resembling Urartian items although with some differences. The site location, far beyond the limits of Urartian domination in Transcaucasia, argues for a local production. We cannot distinguish between the possibilities of an imported object, or a local production strongly influenced by Urartian style. From the fortress of Karmir Blur, for example, comes a specimen which has two bands each containing three lines of dots, partly similar to the piece from Leninakan (Piotrovskij 1950: 41, fig. 24).

Several fragments from Tli (nos. 75-80) are unfortunately too poorly preserved for the decorative scheme to be understood in its entirety – and indeed there may be some doubt regarding their status as belts. One of these pieces (no. 81), with numerous series of rather narrow concentric bands filled with a number of dots, resembles Urartian specimens from Burmageçit (Yıldırım 1991: 131148, figs. 10.1; 10.2.1, 10.2.2) in eastern Turkey, as well as other unprovenanced belts (Kellner 1991b: pl. 84, no. 412). The presence of a buckle in the vicinity of the metal plaque, however, suggests that this large fragment was part of a belt. Due to the poor quality of the original image, it is difficult to understand the decorations present on a belt from Talin and another from Tli (nos. 74, 83). The design with concentric bands is repeated but the bands seem to be filled with a series of small oblique engraved lines. The belt from Chagoula-Dérré (no. 70) also exhibits some peculiarities. The left terminal part, of trapezoidal shape, is not known from any other belt. In addition, in a space left free towards the centre of the decoration in bands, there is a double vertical row of points containing a zigzag line. Another vertical row of dots is present at the right-hand end. Remarkably, this kind of decoration is not known from north-central Armenia, corresponding roughly to the province of Lori, an area otherwise rich in belts. It is also totally lacking from the area west of Lake Sevan, as well as the entire southern part of the Armenian plateau. 2.2 Decorated edges This small corpus contains only 12 items and is characterized by the presence of decoration only along the edges and, to a lesser extent, in proximity to the extremities. This simple decoration was made by engraving small vertical or oblique lines, sometimes parallel (no. 84), sometimes crossed so as to create a grid (nos. 91, 94). The most common geometric decoration is a design in the shape of “