Achaemenid Culture and Local traditions in Anatolia, Southern Caucasus and Iran: New Discoveries

Achaemenid Culture and Local Traditions in Anatolia, Southern Caucasus and Iran New Discoveries

Edited by

Askold Ivantchik and Vakhtang Licheli

LEIDEN • BOSTON

2007

This book is printed on acid-free paper. A C.I.P. record for this book is available from the Library of Congress

ISBN 978 90 04 16328 7 Copyright 2007 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Hotei Publishers, IDC Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. printed in the netherlands

CONTENTS* Askold Ivantchik, Vakhtang Licheli, Introduction ........................ 1 Lâtife Summerer, Picturing Persian Victory: The Painted Battle Scene on the Munich Wood .................................................. 3 Ilyas Babaev, Iulon Gagoshidze, Florian S. Knauß, An Achaemenid « Palace » at Qarajamirli (Azerbaijan). Preliminary Report on the Excavations in 2006 ............................... 31 Jens Nieling, Dongus Tapa – An Iron Age Settlement in the Udabno-Steppe, Eastern Kakheti ..................................................... 47 Vakhtang Licheli, Oriental Innovations in Samtskhe (Southern Georgia) in the 1st Millenium BC ................................... 55 Mikhail Treister, The Toreutics of Colchis in the 5th-4th Centuries BC. Local Traditions, Outside Influences, Innovations ..................................................................................... 67 Amiran Kakhidze, Iranian Glass Perfume Vessel from the Pichvnari Greek cemetery of the Fifth Century BC ......................... 109 Ketevan Dzhavakhishvili, Achaemenian Seals found in Georgia ...... 117 S. Mansur Seyyed Sajjadi, Wall painting from Dahaneh-ye Gholaman (Sistan) ........................................................................... 129 In future issues .................................................................................... 155

* The color illustrations can be found at the back of this issue.

Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 1-2

www.brill.nl/acss

Introduction Askold Ivantchik, Vakhtang Licheli

This special issue of the journal ACSS contains materials from a conference held in Borjomi, Georgia in 2006 (October 7th-14th). This was the third in a series of conferences entitled “Caucasian Iberia and its Neighbours in the Achaemenid and Post-Achaemenid Period”. The first was held in 1998 in Tbilisi in conjunction with Halle University on the initiative of the outstanding Georgian scholar, Academician Otar Lordkipanidze, the founder of the Centre for Archaeological Research of the Georgian Academy of Sciences, of which he was the director for many years. The second conference was held in 2000. Sadly the sudden death of Otar Lordkipanidze on May 19, 2002 meant that many important research projects in Georgia were interrupted, at least for a time. Yet Otar Lordkipanidze’s pupils and colleagues are doing everything they can to ensure that endeavours he had set in motion should be continued after his death and that the traditions he had established should live on. The excavations conducted by him at Vani and also the international conferences on the ancient history and archaeology of the Black Sea region – the renowned Vani Conferences – continue as before. The fact that the third conference on Caucasian Iberia in the Achaemenid period went ahead as planned provides further demonstration of how Lordkipanidze’s work is being carried forward. It shows that the study of the Southern Caucasus as a part of the Achaemenid cultural world – a focus of research of great interest to Otar Lordkipanidze, to which he devoted considerable effort and energy – is being imaginatively and actively developed further in Georgia. It was possible to hold this conference thanks to the combined efforts of the National Museum of Georgia, the Lordkipanidze Institute of Archaeology and the district authorities in Borjomi, to whom we should like to express our sincere gratitude. The conference was dedicated to the memory of Otar Lordkipanidze. The papers delivered at that conference, which form the basis of the articles published here, represent the results of the latest research into the relationship between the ‘imperial’ culture of the Achaemenids and local traditions. Numerous articles are devoted to questions concerning the Southern Caucasus. Readers © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2007

DOI: 110.1163/157005707X212616

2 A. Ivantchik, V. Licheli / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 1-2

can acquaint themselves with the preliminary results of the latest archaeological research (J. Nieling, V. Licheli, I. Babaev, I Gagoshidze, F. Knauß) and also with investigations into specific categories of archaeological finds making it possible to place materials from the Southern Caucasus in the wider context of antiquities from the Achaemenid era within a much larger area (M. Treister, A. Kakhidze, K. Dzhavakhishvili). Other articles are devoted to similar questions which arise when such research is carried further into adjacent territories. The article by L. Summerer is devoted to the publication of a unique work of art: the painting on one of the walls of a wooden tomb in Tatarlı in Western Anatolia, depicting a battle between Persians and warriors of nomadic (Scythian-Saka) appearance. This rare work makes it possible to draw important conclusions about the relative significance of local elements on the one hand and ‘imperial’ culture on the other, in the western margins of the Achaemenid Empire. Finally, the article by S. Sajjadi presents readers with the results of interesting research, which has been going on at the opposite, eastern edge of that empire, in Sistan. All in all, we hope that the articles published here will shed new light on the question of relations between the centre and the outlying areas in the culture of the empire of the Achaemenids and the regions adjoining it.

Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 3-30

www.brill.nl/acss

Picturing Persian Victory: The Painted Battle Scene on the Munich Wood Lâtife Summerer

Abstract The present article analyses the battle scene on the painted beam in Munich, which originally belonged to the ensemble of an extensively painted tomb chamber near Tatarlı, and reviews its interpretation as an historical depiction that was proposed by the first editor Peter Calmeyer. The author concludes that this battle scene bears no clear indications to connect it with a specific historical event; rather, it seems to depict an exemplary Persian victory over enemies, who are conveyed as a unified ethnic group by their uniform costumes and pointed caps. The article analyses the evidence of the iconography in detail with particular regard to the forms of narration and the context, and in the light of this review attempts to show alternative ways how this painted Persian victory may be viewed and interpreted. Keywords Phrygia / Kelainai / Persians / Scythians / Battle / Wood painting / Iconography

Introduction1 In 1989 four pieces of wooden beams of unknown origin were handed over to the “Archäologische Staatssammlung”2 as a gift and permanent loan. In 1993, Peter Calmeyer published a first acquisition report in the „Münchner Jahrbücher”, unfortunately with inadequate and sometimes upside down illustrations.3 Even though shortly thereafter two colour photographs of details of the beams were published in the exhibition catalogue “Orient und Okzident”, these pictures were reproduced the wrong way round,4 so that they were not recognisable as a coherent scenic ensemble. Probably because of this inadequate photographic publication, scholars have hardly taken notice of these important monuments of Achaemenid-era wood painting. Fourteen years 1 2 3 4

I owe thanks to Christopher H. Roosevelt for a critical reading of an early draft of this paper. Formerly the “Prähistorische Staatssammlung”. Calmeyer 1993, 7-18. Zahlhaas 1995, pl. D.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2007

DOI: 10.1163/157005707X212643

4

L. Summerer / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 3-30

after first being published, the Munich beams are still widely unknown. In literature one finds only a few casual references to them.5 The author of this paper was able to prove elsewhere that their original context was an extensively painted wooden tomb chamber in a tumulus near the village Tatarlı, en route from the royal residence of Kelainai to Gordion.6 The Tumulus in Tatarlı was raided by the villagers in 19697 and excavated by the Museum of Afyon in 1970. Some beams of the walls were cut off and taken away during the raiding, while the museum staff dismantled the remaining beams and brought them to the Afyon Museum.8 Detailed technical studies on the planks in the Afyon Museum showed that the beam with the battle scene was sawed off from the east wall by the looters in 1969.9 The dimensions of the timber-lined tomb chamber are reported to be 2.50 m × 2 m in length and width and 1.85 m in height. The northern – i.e. back wall – was made up of 8 beams, while the sidewalls – that is the eastern and western walls – consisted of 4 beams and the gabled roof of 7 beams. From the southern wall a door led to a stone barrel-shaped dromos. Additionally, the wooden chamber was enclosed within a stone chamber before being covered by an earthen mantle. The Tatarlı wooden tomb chamber is the latest known example of the old Phrygian tradition of the timber tomb construction. Unlike the earlier tumuli of the necropolis of Gordion it has a stone mantle and a dromos leading to the chamber. The beam with the battle frieze is 221 cm long and 32 cm high and was sawn in two in recent times, probably to make transportation easier. The two parts which belong together are easily recognisable due to continuity in the imagery (Fig. I). Only 1 mm is missing between the parts belonging together, 5 Casual mentions by Jacobs 1994, 138; Özgen, Öztürk 1996, 45; Boardman 2000, 247, note 150. Borchhardt (2002, 95-96) includes the Munich beams in the catalogue of the historical scenes referring to Calmeyer’s interpretation. In his book “Darius dans l’ombre d’Alexandre”, Briant (2003, 247, fig. 40) republishes a detailed photograph and a drawing of one of the beams with the combat scene. The drawings are unfortunately faulty regarding some details, since they have been created from inadequate photographs. 6 Summerer 2007, 115-164. It seems that along this natural route there were other imposing grave monuments: Athenaeus (XIII, 574 f ) describes the grave monument of Alcibiades, who was killed in 404 BC by the Satrap Pharnabazos in Melisse on the way between Synnada (Suhut) and Metropolis (Tatarlı). 7 The raiding of the Tatarlı Tumulus must be seen in the context of the extensive looting of Lydian tumuli in the years between 1966-1969: Özgen, Öztürk 1996, 12-13; 28-30. See also: Roosevelt, Luke 2006, 173-174. 8 Uçankuş 1979, 306-334; Uçankuş 2002, 23-51. 9 Detailed architectural studies of wood construction by Alexander von Kienlin are forthcoming.

L. Summerer / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 3-30

5

destruction caused by the sawing process. On the smoothed surface of the beam black outlines and red, black, white, brown, grey and blue paint spots still remain. The preservation condition of the colours varies. The black colour, probably a carbonisation product, as well as the red colour, most likely cinnabar, seems to be applied in thin layers.10 The fine particles of pigment apparently penetrated the wooden surface so deeply that the colours are still preserved today. On the other hand the compact fragments of brown, grey/ blue and white suggest that these colours were applied in thick layers, of which only tiny traces remain.

Composition A painted red band, which lines the top and the bottom of the frieze, frames the composition (Figs. I, II). The figures fill the entire height of the frieze. Following the principle of isokephalie, the heads of all figures are rendered at the same height, regardless whether they are mounted or on foot. The arrangement of the figures is not balanced exactly: a concentration of figures can be perceived on the left part of the beam. All figures are moving to a central point in the middle of the frieze towards a triangular composition: two fighting warriors over the dead body of a third. The vertically drawn figures appear in full profile. Horizontal elements are accentuated mainly by the long bodies of the horses, the outstretched arms of the archers and the dead bodies of two fallen warriors. The composition gains an additional dynamic by the elongated shape and the horizontal perspective of the frieze. The curved draught pole, the extended forefeet of the cavalry horses raised in the air and the rearing posture of the wounded horse form the diagonal lines of the composition. Depth is visualized by the echelons of horse-riders drawn in perspective. Multifigured battle compositions with central duels are unknown in Achaemenid art to date, but have parallels in Eastern Greek art, in particular on the painted sarcophagi from Clazomenai.11 However, closer comparison shows that in Eastern Greek art, battle compositions differ in terms of the setting of the figures and in iconography. Unlike the Clazomenian friezes which are 10

Scientific pigment analyses are forthcoming by Stephan Demeter, Erwin Emmerling and Heinrich Piening. 11 Cook 1981, 117-123. A silver alabastron from the Ikiztepe tumulus in Lydia also shows a multifigured battle composition with central duel, which is closer to the East Greek tradition: Özgen, Öztürk 1996, 124-125.

6

L. Summerer / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 3-30

mainly based on Attic hoplite battles, the figures here are arranged strictly symmetrically and in a static manner, general characteristics of Near Eastern art.12 The design of the centrepiece, the riding groups and the infantrymen are equally oriented towards the artistic traditions of Iran. Finally, some parts of the composition are well known in Achaemenid art as isolated motifs, so it is clear that the visual language of the wood painting is mainly based on the Persian iconographic tradition.13

Style The wood painting bears clear stylistic references to Achaemenid art. But the image of the Persian leader (Fig. III), which is the best painted figure of the whole frieze, displays facial details that are usually observed on Greek Vase paintings (fig. 1). Despite the carefully worked details of this figure, the proportions of his body are not well balanced. The head is too big compared to the body. The arms, in particular the right arm, are too long. In contrast to this, the limbs of the warriors coming from the right are too short, in particular those of the leader and of the first infantryman behind him, both of whom exhibit arms that are more like stubs (Fig. IV). Some figures have been executed in an elaborated way, in particular the Persian riders, pointing at the contrast between light and dark parts perhaps to suggest the effect of relief (Figs. V, VI); others have been drawn down sketchily without care (Figs. VIII, XVIII). The painter has been more successful in balancing the proportions and the size of the horses and the riders (Fig. V). The horses all have beautiful dynamic curvilinear bodies with exquisite modelling on the legs, in particular the soft swelling of the knee joints. The rendition of the zigzag-pattern on the trousers of the riders on the left, created by incising and alternating the colours provides a fully three dimensional feel (Fig. VI). The herring-bone patterns of the bridle and collar are carefully painted as well (Fig. VII). In contrast to the refined modelling observed on the figures coming from left, the undifferentiated rendering of the warriors coming from the right is conspicuous. The zigzag pattern of their trousers is neither incised nor multicoloured. However, their pointed tiaras, which slant backwards, are carefully rendered with curved lines (Fig. VIII). 12 Particularly of Assyrian relief sculpture: Strommenger 1962, figs. 209-211; Ivantchik 2001, figs. 131, 132. 13 For the discussion of the iconography see below.

L. Summerer / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 3-30

7

Fig. 1. Detail of the cylix of the Penthesileia painter (Boardman et alii 1977, fig. 140). In style, composition and figure types, the painted battle frieze generally corresponds to the seal images from Daskyleion and the Persepolis Fortification tablets dated between 509 and 494 BC, i.e. during the reign of Darius I.14 But despite its archaic elements, some details in the painting indicate a later date. For example, the head of the Persian commander, the most elaborately painted figure of the whole frieze, shows developed stylistic treatment (Fig. IX). The eye with a long upper eye lash and an iris placed at the open end follows a stylistic development which began in the Early Classical Period of Greek Art (Fig. 1).15 On the other hand, in human representations of the late Archaic period, eyes in profile faces are usually shown in frontal view, without any foreshortening.16 14 15 16

Garrison, Root 2001, 1. The kylix of the Penthesilea-painter of about 460 BC: Boardman et alii 1977, fig. 140. See for example the faces on the wall paintings from Kızılbel (Mellink 1998, pl. 7, b),

8

L. Summerer / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 3-30

Regarding the diverging proportions and stylistic features, it can be assumed that two different figural schemes are combined in this one figure in order to bring up to date a conventional image model. The complex stylistic features of the frieze, however, cannot be discussed in detail in the present article: they merit detailed study by themselves.17

Iconography In the battle scene two groups of warriors proceed towards each other (Figs. I, II). The party coming from the left consists of at least twelve warriors.18 The party on the right side has eleven warriors in total. The unequal number of warriors and the corpses on the ground show that the right party is inferior, while the left side is winning the battle. All warriors wear oriental costumes and are armed with bows and quivers. Evidently, this is a depiction of a battle between the Persians and another oriental group.

The Victors The party on the left consists of three archers on foot, seven riders, and a driver and one or two archers on a chariot.19 The warriors are grouped in formations of infantry, cavalry and are led by a warrior who is the central focus of the frieze.

The Central Duel In the middle of the depiction, the respective leaders of the two parties are standing in front of each other and fighting (Fig. III). The left leader is thrusting his dagger into the stomach of his opponent with his right hand, while he is pulling him towards himself by the beard. He is depicted as larger than his opponent. The right leader holds a red painted bow, which looks like an Gordion (Mellink 1980, figs. 4, 5) and from the Aktepe tomb in Güre (Özgen, Öztürk 1996, 68-69, 71-72, Cat. 2, 3, 4, 7-8) which has been dated stylistically to the last decade of the 6th century BC. 17 The style of the frieze will be explored in detail in a future publication including all painted beams of the grave chamber. 18 The presence of a thirteenth figure on the chariot cannot be established yet. See the discussion below. 19 Calmeyer (1993, 13) lists only six riders and two archers on foot. He seems to have missed the head of the archer on the outer edge and a rider.

L. Summerer / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 3-30

9

Fig. 2. Cylinder seal, British Museum (Curtis, Tallis 2005, 229, Cat. 415). attribute rather than a weapon ready for use. His destitute posture contrasts with the nonchalant attitude of the leader on the left. This is a very well known scheme in Achaemenid art. On the palace reliefs and on other depictions, the so-called royal hero kills the rampant creature in the same manner: the hero grasps the monster either by its horn or the throat with one hand, while he thrusts his dagger into the stomach with his other hand.20 A variation of this image type shows the hero with the lunged right arm holding the sword.21 The image of the so-called combatant Persian or royal hero occurs in several variations in Achaemenid minor art, as numerous seals show.22 However, this killing motif seems to be used rarely in fighting scenes with human enemies.23 On two cylinder seals in the Bibliothèque Nationale and in the British Museum, the warrior is fighting against an enemy with pointed cap (Figs. 2, 3), as does the Persian leader on the painted beam.24 Contrary to the depiction on the wood painting, here he does not pull his opponent by his beard, but instead grips him by the foresection of his headgear as if it were the horn of a rampant creature. Compared to other representations of the “combatant Persian”, the lack of the winged sun disk over the composition is remarkable. Obviously, this Persian religious symbol was not considered as important by the painter and so it was omitted.

20 For example, Kaptan 2003, 65, DS 18; Boardman 2000, fig. 5, 26; Curtis, Tallis 2005, 82, Cat. 42. 21 Boardman 2000, fig. 5, 15. 22 Boardman 2000, fig. 5, 15; Garrison, Root 2001, 217-308, pl. 218, i; Kaptan 2003, 57-58 and vol. II, 157-164. 23 On a seal from the Oxus-Treasure in the British Museum there is a “combatant Persian” thrusting his spear into the back of an enemy dressed in nomad style, but without headgear: Boardman 2000, 160, fig. 5, 5; Pracht und Prunk 2006, 29. 24 Ghirshman 1964, fig. 331; Curtis, Tallis 2005, 228, fig. 415; Lebedynsky 2006, 46.

10

L. Summerer / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 3-30

Fig. 3. Cylinder seal, Bibliotheque National (Ghirshman 1964, fig. 331).

The Commander Costume: The commander is wearing a fully sleeved and pleated red robe that reaches down to the ankles. The appliqué edges sown onto the sleeves and the pleats are indicated by short black lines (Fig. III). The drapery of this costume is similar to the so called Achaemenid robe or court robe.25 The central fold of its lower part runs down as a crosshatched line. The hemline is in the shape of a sharp arch, leading to a pinched waist underneath. However, the “Achaemenid robe” usually has wide pseudo-sleeves26 and not long closely sewn sleeves as depicted on the wooden frieze. Peter Calmeyer explains this peculiarity by claiming an inability of the painter to render pseudo-sleeves,27 but it was obviously not the intention of the painter to depict pseudo-sleeves here. Rather, he has indicated that he meant to show sown 25 Sekunda 1992, 4; Calmeyer 1988, 34-36. The origin of the “Achaemenid robe” is unknown. Some regard it as being of Elamite origin (Calmeyer 1988, 27-51), while others think it was native Persian. Some scholars identify the “court robe” with the Greek word kypassis: Bittner 1985, 100; E. Rehm in: Pracht und Prunk 2006, 205. 26 Bittner 1985, 106-110; Pracht und Prunk 2006, 119. For the style of this costume see: Koch 1992, 206, fig. 151. 27 Calmeyer 1993, 13.

L. Summerer / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 3-30

11

sleeves using fine black lines. This oddity may merely reflect the unfamiliarity of the painter with this garment typical of the Early Achaemenid period.28 On the seal images the wide sleeves of the “Achaemenid robe” sometimes appear in pushed up position due to the movement of the arms (Figs. 2, 3).29 The painter, who was apparently not aware of this costume, reinterpreted his model as closely sewn sleeves instead of depicting naked arms with rolled-up sleeves. Shoes: Although the painting in the lower part of the scene is largely faded, the red triple strapped shoes of the Persian leader are still visible (Fig. III). Such strapped boots were worn by the so called royal hero or victorious warrior as well as by infantry soldiers.30 Deniz Kaptan has observed that in the combat scenes on the seals from Daskyleion the victorious Persian is always shown wearing strapped boots, while his opponent’s shoes are omitted.31 She suggests that this iconographic detail was used to demonstrate the superiority of Persian power. Weaponry: The commander is equipped with a bow, a quiver and a dagger (Fig. III). He thrusts his dagger into the stomach of his opponent. The dagger has a large blade and a pommel with a convex bowed contour at the top. Similar daggers are depicted on the Persepolis reliefs in the hands of the second delegation, and frequently on clay seal impressions.32 The quiver and the bow extend symmetrically on the shoulder behind the neck. The bow has a round shape and duck’s beak ends. The square shaped quiver has three tied-down tassels that are hanging down from its rear.33 Such 28 It is supposed that this “court or Achaemenid robe” was discarded during the reign of Darius I by the king and army in favour of the Median trouser costume. This suggestion is mainly based on a comment of Herodotus (I, 135: “No race is as ready to adopt foreign ways as the Persians: for instance, they wear the Median costume as they think it handsomer than their own”, Xenophon (Cyr. VIII, 1, 40) confirms the change to Median dress, though he attributes the change to the reign of Cyrus the Great. According to Sekunda (1992, 13) the “Achaemenid robe” was impractical for riding and therefore it was discarded, but it is possible that it continued to be used by the King for certain traditional ceremonies. The “Achaemenid robe” never appears in representations on the Greek vases that follow the Persian Wars. Therefore Sekunda (1992, 15) assumes that “the field army in the West ceased to use it some time during the first half of the 5th century”. 29 Garrison, Root 2001, pl. 179. 30 Bittner 1985, pl. 9, 3; Calmeyer 1993, 14; Garrison, Root 2001, 129, PFS 301, Cat. No. 54; Kaptan 2003, 60. 31 Kaptan 2003, 60. 32 Walser 1966, pls. 9, 36; Koch 1992, fig. 51; Head 1992, 18; Kaptan 2003, 60, pl. 9, A. Such a dagger is also to be found on the statue of Darius from Susa: Boardman 2000, 114, fig. 3, 36a,b. 33 The function and meaning of the three tassels hanging down are not clear: Bittner 1985, 135 “Ein mit Glocken oder Metallstücken versehenes Schurgehänge“. They are supposedly used to clean arrowheads: Pracht und Prunk 2006, 29.

12

L. Summerer / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 3-30

square shaped quivers together with round shaped bows appear with the guardsmen on the glazed bricks of Susa and on the great relief sculptures of Persepolis, as well as with the so-called combatant Persian on seals.34 This weaponry was part of the Achaemenid robe, the typical outfit of Persian warriors.35 Hair dress, beard and facial features. The leader has long hair shaped to a chignon at the nape and a long and square-tipped beard (Fig. IX). He wears a cylindrical crown with a horizontal band and points on the top. A round earring painted red is still visible on his earlobe. His facial profile has a long, faintly curved nose line; his lower lip sticks out slightly. A curved eyebrow line surrounds his large eye, which is angled at one end but open towards the front. He has a heavy chin and a thick black mustache. The long beard extends over the left shoulder down to his armpit. The neck is indicated at the back under the hair, which is bundled in a full round shape. Calmeyer calls the headgear of the victor a kidaris.36 The term kidaris is used by Greek authors for a royal hat, the identification of which is still much debated.37 Contrary to widespread opinion, the wearing of a dentate or crenellated cylindrical crown was not reserved to kings.38 Such crowns were worn by other noble Persians, so called royal archers, women, servants, sphinxes and also by Ahura Mazda.39

34 Glazed-brick tiles of Susa: Boardman 2000, 112, fig. 3, 33; Pracht und Prunk 2006, 119. Seals: Garrison, Root 2001, pl. 179, g; Pracht und Prunk 2006, 29, 55 top. Persian type round bows: Calmeyer 1988, 33-34; Sekunda 1992, 20. The delegation of Elamites on the Apadana reliefs bears such round bows with duck’s beak ends: Koch 1992, 260, fig. 186; Sekunda 1992, 10, top figure. 35 E. Rehm in: Pracht und Prunk 2006, 206-208. 36 Calmeyer 1993, 13. 37 Referring to Calmeyer, Borchhardt goes even further and identifies this headgear as the kidaris of the Great King: Borchhardt 2002, 95. For the latest discussion on the identification of the royal hats, kidaris and tiara orthé, see: Ch. Tuplin, Treacherous Hearts and Upright Tiaras: The Achaemenid King’s Head-Dress, which is to be published in: The Proceedings of The Celtic Conference in Classis held at Rennes in 2004. I am grateful to the author for sending me his unpublished manuscript. 38 Schlumberger 1971, 375-383. Latest discussion: Kaptan 2003, 58-60. 39 Dentate crowns on the heads of so-called royal heroes fighting against a monster animal: Henig, Whiting 1994, Cat. 19-21. Dentate crowns on the heads of women: stele from Daskyleion (Nollé 1992, fig. 3 a, b); Pazyryk tapestry (Moorey 2002, 208, fig. 1); crowned beardless palace attendants on the Persepolis reliefs (Roaf 1983, 132, fig. 132). Crenelated crowns on the heads of the so-called royal archers: on coins (Stronach 1989, pls. 1-2); on silver vessels (Özgen, Öztürk 1996, 87, Kat. 33); on seals (Vollenweider 1995, 38, Cat. 24). Sphinxes with dentate crowns: Henig, Whiting 1994, Cat. 22; Boardman 2000, fig. 5, 85 a. Ahura Mazda wearing a dentate crown: Boardman 2000, figs. 5, 9; 5, 18. Kaptan 2003, 58-60; vol. II, 157 ff.

L. Summerer / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 3-30

13

But the crenellated crowns are usually taller than the headgear on the wooden frieze. A low crown with horizontal bands and top points as on the painted beam is depicted on a painted pottery sherd from Gordion (Fig. X).40 As much as one can see on this small fragment, the bearded Persian is visibly fighting with a spear. Presumably, this was also a depiction of the combatant Persian. The articulated features of his face distinguish the leader from the other figures of the frieze, all of which equally show undifferentiated bird like faces. The curved outline of the forehead, the aquiline nose and the emphasised lower lip give an expression of an individual face, so we may be dealing with an ideal portrait of a Persian. These facial features once again have parallels on the painted pottery sherd from Gordion (Fig. X).41

Chariotry The two-wheeled chariot is pulled by a biga (Fig. XI). Red painted, eight spoke wheel is studded with hobnails (Fig. XII). The spokes feature a decorative carving about midway of their length. The axle end appears at the rear of the box that is indicated as a red painted disc without decoration. The chariot body is quite deep and its top edge is approximately at the hip of the occupants. The side of the box is curved at the upper rim. The box is covered in white, but its rim is carefully preserved in order to indicate nails with red and black dots on the wooden surface. On the rear, two symmetrically incised quivers are recognisable which are not further differentiated by the painting (Fig. XIII). A short pipe-like object with a round shaped end extends from the back floor frame (Figs. XII, XX). The function or the meaning of this object remains obscure. The draught pole seems to rise from the front siding of the box with a very steep upward curve and ends at the necks of the horses. A small triangular object is hanging at the draught end, which may represent a small bell.42 Two black vertical lines connect the draught pole with the neck yoke (Fig. XI). The

40 Dimensions: 4,6 × 3,5 cm. Voigt, Young 1999, 197, fig. 1. I owe Mary Voigt thanks for the permission to publish this pottery sherd in this article. 41 Gordian pottery fragment: Voigt, Young 1999, fig. 1. A grafitto incised on a relief in Persepolis (Nylander, Flemberg 1981/1983, 61-64; Boardman 2000, 157-158, fig. 4, 3) and on a red figure bell crater in New York (Metzler 1971, 93, pl. 1, 6) is also comparable. 42 Bronze bells were found in the BT 89 tumulus in Bintepe (Lydia) together with parts of a chariot. Kökten Ersoy (1998, 120, fig. 7, c, d ) suggests that they were attached to the harnessing straps of the horses. Bronze bells in the graves of Eurasian nomads: Ivantchik 2001, 26.

14

L. Summerer / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 3-30

horses are long-bodied and ram-headed, with short, thick necks and heavy crests. Their long tails reach the ground.43 The manes are indicated by short black strokes. The harnessing is elaborately rendered with herring bone decoration to indicate a woven structure. It consists of a neck strap, to hold the yoke in place, and a backing element in the form of a strap that passes under the belly and joins up with the yoke. Two further straps decorated with strokes lead along the bodies of the horses and intersect each other under the horses’ tails and finally disappear under the box of the chariot. The paintings of the cheekstraps are not preserved. Four reins, two red and two black, appear first at the cheek of the horses, then pass through the ring at the yoke and finally go back to the driver’s hands. Remarkably, the horses are shown in ambling posture, which contrast the galloping horses behind them. Ambling chariot horses are in fact typical for convoy scenes,44 but quite odd in a battle scene.45 This oddity may indicate that the motif of the chariot was borrowed from a procession scene, such as the one that has been depicted on the north wall of the same tomb chamber.46 On the chariot, a two-man-crew is clearly recognisable: an archer and a horse-controller are differentiated by their garments (Fig. XII). The man in the background has his right hand on the reins while he holds a whip with his left hand. He wears a red tiara on his head. The upper part of his body is painted in red, probably indicating a tunic. The lower part of his body is covered by the siding of the chariot, but a fringe cuirass goad or pteryges, is still visible (Fig. XIII).47 In the foreground an archer is stretching his bow with his right arm (Fig. XII). Judging by the wide sleeves, which are hanging down, he seems to wear a red “court robe”. A red painted tiara is clearly indicated on his head. The combination of this headgear with the “court robe”

43 Libyan chariot horses also have such long tails on the Apadana Reliefs: Walser 1966, pl. 29. Long tailed led horses: Walser 1966, pls. 24 and 26. See also Gabrielli 2006, 74, fig. 15. 44 Littauer, Crouwel 1979, fig. 80; Nefëdkin 2001, 332; Gabrielli 2006, figs. 5-6. 45 On the Assyrian battle reliefs the chariot horses are always shown in elongated gallop: Strommenger 1962, figs. 209, 214; Yadin 1965, figs. 386, 387, 399; Littauer, Crouwel 1979, figs. 53, 57, 58. Ambling horses usually occur in chariot procession scenes: Strommenger 1962, figs. 210, 212, 214; Czichon 1992, pl. 50, 3; 51, 2; Postgate 2000, fig. 1; Nefëdkin 2001, 318, 319. Ambling chariot horses in a battle scene occur on some late Hittite reliefs (Nefëdkin 2001, 108, 279) and rarely on the Assyrian reliefs (Littauer, Crouwel 1979, fig. 56). 46 Summerer 2007. 47 The use of pteryges by the Persian soldiers is well attested: Stele from Bozkır (Sekunda 1992, 25), stele from Konya (Sekunda 1992, 24, top left; Sekunda 1996, 13, fig. 6), the grave stele of a Persian military man in the Salihli Museum (Dedeoğlu 2003, 62) and the Alexander Sarcophagus (Sekunda 1992, 49).

L. Summerer / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 3-30

15

is odd, since it was usually worn with a crenellated crown. This divergence is probably a reinterpretation by the local painter of an originally Iranian model. Another oddity with this figure is that he holds his bow with his right hand, while all other archers do this with their left hands. An additional right arm appears at the nape of the archer and draws the string of the bow. This arm together with the outline of the head which runs parallel to his tiara’s outline could have belonged to a second archer on the chariot. However, considering other oddities noted already, it is more likely that the painter mistakenly drew both arms of the archer as right arms and misguidedly outlined his head twice.48 The type of chariot box with curved siding and the studded wheel with eight spokes corresponds to Achaemenid chariot depictions.49 The quivers incised on the siding of the chariot box occur often on the Assyrian armoured chariots.50 The arch-shaped draught pole of the chariot and the harnessing of the horses, however, are quite unusual. This war chariot type seems to be a particular one since it also appears on the northern rear wall of the Tatarlı tomb chamber, but it is attested nowhere else.51 The role of chariotry within the Persian army as a whole is a much discussed topic. Modern views of chariot warfare are especially confusing and contradictory. According to some scholars, war chariots were primarily a “mobile firing platform”. Others consider the chariot as a prestige vehicle of social standing.52 According to Littauer and Crouwel, the charioty “was designed to terrify the enemy and break up his battle formation, thus enabling the mounted troops and infantry that followed to charge and decide the battle”.53 Ancient authors mention the use of scythes on chariots in the Persian army.54 These were war chariots with blades attached both at the axle-housing

48 A figure with two left hands is drawn on the wall painting Karaburun II: Mellink 1971, 252, pl. 56, fig. 27. 49 Representations of chariots with eight spokes on Achaemenid seals: Boardman 2000, 5, 9-10; Garrison 2000, fig. 29. Chariot models in the so called Oxus Treasure: Curtis 2000, fig. 70. 50 Strommenger 1962, figs. 203, 204, 206; Yadin 1965, 386, 389. 51 Summerer 2007. The specialists in ancient vehicles have not yet analysed the chariot type shown on the Munich wood so far. On Near Eastern chariot representations see: Littauer, Crouwel 1979; Nefëdkin 2001. Joost Crouwel (Amsterdam), after having studied the wood paintings from photographs, kindly informed me that a chariot with such a curved draught pole is not known elsewhere. 52 Head 1992, 44-45; Nefëdkin 2001, 427-448; Ch. Eder in: Pracht und Prunk 2006, 136. On the use of war chariots in the Assyrian army: Postgate 2000, 89-107. 53 Littauer, Crouwell 1979, 152. 54 Xen. Hell. IV, 1, 17-19; Dio XVII, 53, 2; Arr. Tact. 19, 4.

16

L. Summerer / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 3-30

and extending horizontally beneath the chariot box.55 Contrary to frequent descriptions in ancient literature, no depiction, Greek or Persian, of scythed chariots is known. Indeed, horizontally extending blades at the axles could be rendered only in a three-quarter view of chariot, and, therefore, they might have been omitted on chariots depicted in full profile. At this point, it is possible to ask whether the painter of the wooden frieze attempted to depict such a blade with the tube like object attached at the bottom of the chariot box (Fig. XX), although there is no other evidence to support this interpretation.56

Cavalry The chariot is followed by two formations of mounted archers, in two rows behind each other. The first row consists of four riders (Figs. V, XIV), while three riders form the second row (Fig. XV).57 All riders are wearing trousers with multicolour zigzag patterns and black or red tunics. The heads of the horsemen are covered by round comb tiaras which alternate between red and brown. The equipment of the horsemen consists of double curved bows and quivers. The quiver, only one-third of which is visible on the rider in foreground, apparently represent a gorytos. Since the riders’ hands are engaged with drawing the bows they are not holding the reins. Thus, they seem to drive the horses with their thighs, even though they are riding without spurs. The ram-like, heavy headed horses, probably Nisaeans, are alternately coloured black, white and red (Figs. V, XIV).58 All 16 legs of the galloping horses are rendered correctly in number and perspective. The tails are tied up according to an Iranian custom.59 The fringed edge of the saddle covers suggests an 55 Xenophon (Hell. IV, 1, 17) describing the scythed chariots at the battle of Cunaxa says: “These had thin scythes extending at an angle from the axle and also under the driver’s seat, turned to the ground”. On the scythed chariots: Rivet 1979, 130-132; Nefëdkin 2001, 268-349. 56 Indeed, the scythed chariots are said to have been drawn by a quadriga: Nefëdkin 2001, 271-281; Pracht und Prunk 2006, 134. The effectiveness of scythed chariots is not entirely clear. It is believed that the scythed chariots could plow through infantry lines, cutting combatants in half or at least opening gaps in the line which could be exploited. Nefiodkin (2004, 369-378) proposes that the scythed chariots were first introduced at some point between 467-458 BC. 57 Mistakenly Calmeyer (1993, 13) only counts six riders. This error is also taken over by Borchhardt (2002, 95). 58 Such horses are commonly suggested to be the Nisaean breed mentioned by Herodotus (III, 106; VII, 40, 57-59): Gabrielli 2006, 29-30. 59 Gabrielli 2006, figs. 18-21, 28. In the burials at Pazyryk horses with tails both cropped and tied up were found: Farkas 1967/1968, 67, note 37. Horses with tied up tails are depicted on

L. Summerer / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 3-30

17

irregular zigzag pattern.60 The bridle and collar of every horse are painted in a different colour. The neck strap is decorated, as with the chariot horses, with a herringbone pattern, probably to suggest a woven structure.61 All the riders are drawing their double-curved bows. In the second formation there are three riders which have the same costume and weaponry as the first row (Fig. XV). Only the colour of the horses varies. The first horse is white, the second black and the third red. In contrast to the riders in the first row, the bows of the riders are only rendered with simple black lines and depicted with less accuracy, which may indicate their lower rank. The trouser costume of the horsemen is usually called a Median or Iranian riding outfit.62 The composite bows, which differ from the round bows of the infantry, are considered to be of Scythian origin.63 The horsemen formed a vital part of the Persian army, which was comprised of contingents of Persians as well as subject and allied peoples.64 Since the mounted archers are distinguished from other Persian warriors by dress and equipment they may represent mercenary cavalrymen. On the other hand, this riding costume was also worn by Persians,65 hence, it does not allow us to come to any conclusions as to the ethnic origin of the mounted archers. While the presence of cavalry in the Persian army is certainly well documented in written sources, mounted archery seems to have been depicted rarely, or at least not portrayed in monumental art. But the evidence of the battle frieze from Tatarlı and isolated representations of riders with horses in extended gallop in minor arts66 are suggestive of an iconographic tradition of this motif within Achaemenid art. seals and gems (Curtis, Tallis 2005, Cat. 416, 418; Kaptan 2003, 78, Cat. DS 68.7177.79.90). 60 Knauer 1986, 265-266. 61 Such bridle decoration is also to be found on a horse shaped rhyton: Gabrielli 2006, fig. 7. 62 Widengren 1956, 228-284; Bittner 1985, 180-198. Calmeyer (1993, 7) calls this costume West Iranian-Cappadocian, because Medes, Armenians, and Cappadocians are wearing such trousers on the Apadana reliefs. 63 Snodgrass 1999, 82; Brentjes 1995/1996, 180. The bows discovered in Xinjiang are as important to the study of archery as the frozen tombs in Pazyryk were to the general studies of the Scythians. Until these discoveries were made, only fragments of Scythian bows and representations could be studied. See for example: Wang 2001, 109. 64 According to written sources several Iranian tribes still living as nomads were used in the army, for example Sagartians: Herodotus (VII, 85). The Battle of Marathon stiffened by some Saka regiments (Hdt. VI, 113); Sekunda 1992, 20-21; Head 1992, 33. 65 Sekunda 1992, 12-13; Head 1992, 20-22. In Greek vase painting the Persians are usually depicted with this trouser costume: W. Raeck in: Pracht und Prunk 2006, 151-154; Ivantchik 2006, 248-252. 66 According to Farkas (1967/1968, 66-79), a continuity between horse rider motifs in the Achaemenid minor arts and the horsemen-motif of Assyrian art is unlikely. She suggests that the

18

L. Summerer / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 3-30

Infantry As previously noted, two further archers on foot follow the horsemen (Fig. XVI). They are equipped with Persian type bows and quivers. Of the warrior on the extreme left, only the head and outstretched left arm remains, while his body must have been sawed off by the tomb raiders. These two archers have the same hair and beard styles and the same headgear as the leader of the group. Also, they too are dressed in “court robes”. Since these figures are painted with less detail, some fine points, such as the top of the headgear and the pleats of the garments are not well indicated. The only real difference between the commander and these infantrymen is the manner of carrying the quiver. Instead of hanging over the back like the leader’s quiver, it hangs around the waist. The uniform costume and weaponry of these two archers indicate an infantry unit, to which the leader also belonged. Infantry regiments of the Persian army were equipped with bows and spears, and thence they were distinguished as “spear-bearers” (aršibara) and “bow-bearers” (vaččačbara).67 The lack of the spear-bearers is remarkable in this battle-scene. This is even more astonishing as they are depicted in a procession frieze that accompanied the battle frieze in the same tomb chamber.68

The Defeated Enemy The warriors coming from the right represent the defeated enemy: five archers on foot and six riders are depicted (Figs. I, II). The leader of the group is about to be killed by the Persian commander. One warrior on foot is already dead, lying on the ground, while one of the riders has fallen off his injured horse (Fig. XVII). The warrior on foot on the right hand outer edge has been hit in the neck by an arrow (Fig. VII). Only the five horsemen in the middle seem to be ready for battle (Fig. XVIII). But an arrow, which is flying in the air above the injured horse (Fig. XVII), points out that these warriors too will be put out of action in the next few moments. The first victim lying at the feet of the victor has been wounded or killed by two arrows which were presumably shot from the chariot. Apparently, the Persian chariotry broke the ranks of the enemies and inflicted a crushing defeat. horse and rider motif could have originated in Eastern Greece rather than in Persia. Archers on horseback on the bullae from Daskyleion: Kaptan 2003, II, 200, pls. 217-222. 67 On the Behistun relief infantrymen are shown either with spear or bow: Sekunda 1992, 10. But on the relief sculpture the so-called guards bear both spears and bows: Curtis, Tallis 2005, 71, Cat. 28 (stone relief from Persepolis), 87-88. Cat. 51-52 (glazed bricks from Susa). 68 Summerer 2007.

L. Summerer / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 3-30

19

Unlike their Persian opponents, the right hand party does not have a war chariot. All the warriors wear Median trouser costumes with simple zigzag patterns and red painted tunics that look similar to those of the mounted archers of the Persian army. However, these are distinguished from the cavalry of the opponent group by their tall pointed tiaras which slant backwards (Fig. XIX). They are also armed with a double-curved composite bow and gorytos. The warriors on foot additionally carry battle axes with pointed and rounded ends which hang down from the waist. The rendering of the enemies in uniform nomadic dress, headgear and identical equipment surely qualifies them as a specific ethnic group. The “otherness” of these enemies is expressed clearly by the pointed hat, since no Persian warrior wears it. Peaked hoods are usually associated with the Scythians and the Sacae, because the Behistun inscription labels one of the rebel “kings” with the exceedingly tall pointed tiara as “This is Skunkha, the Saca” in Old Persian.69 In addition, there is people in the list of the subject nations on the same monument that is characterized as Sakâ tigraxaudâ, i.e. “Those who wear the cap pointed”. Based on this evidence, delegation No. 11 in the so-called tribute-procession of the Apadana, whose members equally wear the characteristic tall hats, is also identified with the pointed-hat Sacae.70 But the pointed type headgear was apparently worn by other Scythian tribes too. On the royal tomb reliefs in Naqš-i Rustam there are different groups of throne bearers who wear pointed headgear.71 Thus, it is not sure that the Persians associated this headgear only with one specific ethnic group. In fact, the Persians, as well as the Greeks, referred to different northern nomadic peoples with the ethnic name Sacae / Scythians.72 The Sakâ tigraxaudâ,

69 Shahbazi 1982, fig. 1; Pracht und Prunk 2006, 42; Lebedynsky 2006, 48. Latest discussion on the Behistun inscriptions: Bae 2002, 16-30. 70 Walser 1966, 84-86, pls. 18, 56-58, 83; Shahbazi 1982, 226. 71 At Darius’ tomb in Naqš-i Rustam, there is a relief depicting the king standing on a three step pedestal in front of an altar. This scene is supported by throne bearers representing the twenty-eight nations of the empire. The trilingual cuneiform inscriptions on three panels of the rock wall either enumerate the twenty-eight nations upholding the throne or glorify the king and his rule: Schmidt 1970, 80-90. The throne-bearer Sakâ haumavargâ is shown in the 14th position in the upper row, followed by Sakâ tigraxaudâ in the 15th position in the lower row. Others are labelled with Sakâ paradraya (Sacae beyond the sea): Walser 1966, Falttaf. 1, 15; Shahbazi 1982, 210; Pracht und Prunk 2006, 49, fig. The pointed part of the cap was therefore bent into an arc in order to avoid the asymmetry that the tall pointed tip of the cap would otherwise produce. 72 Walser 1966, 35. The Sakâ tigraxaudâ (‘Sacae with pointed hats’) were defeated in 520/519 BCE by the Persian king Darius the Great, who gave this tribe a new leader. One of the earlier leaders was killed; the other, named Skunkha, was taken captive and is visible on the relief at

20

L. Summerer / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 3-30

the Orthocorybantians of Herodotus (of the pointed hats); the Sakâ haumavargâ, the Amyrgioi Scythians of Herodotus (drinkers of the sacred haoma) and the Sakâ paradraya (Sacae beyond the sea), probably the Scythians who lived in the Northern Black Sea region. The double-curved bow, which was composed of several parts, was an invention of Eastern or Northern Asia.73 Although it is usually called the Scythianstyle bow, its use was not limited to one specific ethnic group. The double-headed battle axes are named as a characteristic weapon of the Amyrgian Scythians by Herodotus (VII, 64). The armed delegation No. 17 on the Apadana reliefs, therefore, is identified with sakâ haumavargâ, because its members bear such battle axes.74 With the uniform equipment and costume and in particular the pointed hats, the painter tries to convey that the enemies of the Persians were of a specific nomadic ethnicity.75 The assumption might be justified, that they represent the sakâ tigraxaudâ, but the evidence is flexible enough that it could be made to fit with other Iranian Sacae entities as well.

Narrative Form The painted frieze illustrates the complete collapse of the army of “the pointed hats” in a narrative mode. Their formations of infantry and cavalry are dissolved; some warriors have perished, others have been disabled by wounds or

Behistun: Shahbazi 1981, fig. 1. Herodotus (III, 92) calls the Sakâ tigraxaudâ the Orthocorybantians (‘pointed hat men’), and states that they lived in the same tax district as the Medes. This suggests that the Sakâ tigraxaudâ lived on the banks of the ancient lower reaches of the Amudar’ya, which used to have a mouth in the Caspian Sea south of Krasnovodsk: Shahbazi 1982, 223-226; Nagel 1983, 169-189. The Sakâ paradraya (‘Sacae across the sea’) were living on the Northern Coast of the Black Sea. In 514 /513 BC King Darius launched a disastrous campaign against the Sakâ paradraya. Herodotus gives a long description of the Scythian campaign of Darius. The latest discussions on this topic: Georges 1987/1995, 97-146; Jacobs 2000, 93-102; Lebedynsky 2006, 48-49. 73 Brentjes 1995/1996, 187; Lebedynsky 2006, 194-195. 74 The double bladed axes are usually called Scythian type: Bittner 1985, 176, note 6, pl. 14, 3. Double headed battle axes are found from Anatolia to Siberia in different regions, thus, it does not seem to be specific for a region or ethnic: Ivantchik 2001, fig. 22; Lebedynsky 2006, 116 above right. 75 Analysing the representations on the Archaic Attic vases, Ivantchik (2006, 197-271), concludes that the images of the archers with pointed caps were not associated with Scythians or any other ethnic entity, but rather with the second rank character of the warrior. After the Persian Wars, on the Attic vases the pointed hat became a characteristic for the Persians.

L. Summerer / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 3-30

21

left behind. The painter conveys the reasons for this disastrous defeat very clearly: firstly the weakness of their leader; secondly the lesser standard of their equipment and the inferior number of their army. Such an image of the enemy might have been a reflection of the prejudices of the Persians. Thus through the portrayal of the weaker enemy, the viewer recognises the fact of the Persian self-definition as the superior nation. The representation celebrates the Persian victory. The Persian army shows excellent leadership. The commander, who is obviously a recurrent determining factor in bringing victory, exercises his role on the battlefield by exemplary fortitude. His superior tactical skill in face-to-face battle is conveyed on the one hand by his purposeful thrust and on the other hand by the gesture of his opponent, who is unable to defend himself. Confidence in his equipment and self-confidence in front of his army show his quality in military virtues and his leadership. The bond between leader and led is shown by the uniform costume and equipment. The Persians win because of their superior battle discipline, which is visible in the closed formations of their regiments. The superior weaponry provides the Persians with the ability to outreach the enemy. Additionally, the hostile troops seem to suffer casualties under pressure from the superior numbers of the Persians, which is indicated by one extra warrior. Such an image must have created aversions against the enemy, but solidarity with the victorious Persian army in the viewer’s mind. Thus, from this narrative the following “message” can be extracted: “We Persians are right and destined to be victorious, while the enemy is in the wrong and destined to be defeated”. It defines clearly oppositions between “the collective self and a collective enemy”.76 Such a narrative mode of “speaking” battle scenes is unknown in Achaemenid art to date, since illustrations of warfare are generally rare. The Persian “superpower” is only conveyed in extremely abbreviated combat scenes mainly on seal images (Figs. 2, 3), where the enemy can be depersonalized and dehumanized.77 The evidence of the Munich painting suggests that these abbreviated illustrations of “Persian victory” were possibly adopted from detailed battle representations, which are not preserved for us.

76 For the Greek and Roman war representations Hölscher (2003, 4) singles out four basic aspects: 1. War as reflection of psychological experience of threat, violence and death. 2. War as creation of a distinction between a “collective self and a collective enemy”. 3. War as legitimised killing. 4. War as a foundation of political power. 77 Garrison, Root 2001, 56-60; Kaptan 2003, 60-64.

22

L. Summerer / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 3-30

The narrative form of this battle frieze has parallels in the painted tomb chambers and city-reliefs of Lycia.78 This artistic tradition in Anatolia is supposed to have originated in Assyrian art.79

Is the Persian Commander the King? Peter Calmeyer assesses whether the commander of Persians could be the Great King (Figs. III, IX). With reference to the strapped boots he comes to the conclusion that this cannot be the case.80 The smooth royal shoes are usually not strapped.81 Regardless of this discussion, Jürgen Borchhardt interprets the Persian leader as the Great King in the framework of his “DependenzTheorie” and sees the archer on the chariot as the tomb owner, who, according to Borchhardt, was a Phrygian aristocrat.82 Borchhardt only tries to justify his identification with the headgear of the commander. The problem with the identification of this headdress with the royal hat kidaris has been discussed previously. As Bruno Jacobs and Wouter Henkelmann have shown independently of each other, the wearing of a crenellated crown was not a privilege of the king, as such a crown can be found on the heads of numerous non-royal figures, both so called Persian nobles and guards at Persepolis.83 Figures styled similarly with court robes and crenellated crowns appear grouped or isolated in different contexts.84 As has been discussed above, the battle scene provides two more archers dressed in court robes, who also bear the same headgear, and have the same hair and beard style as the leader.85 Thus, the headgear provides 78 Painted tomb chambers in Karaburun and Elmalı: Mellink 1971, pl. 52, fig. 22; Mellink 1972, pls. 59-60; Mellink 1998. The “city-reliefs” of Lycia are considered to be historical representations: Childs 1978, 91-97; Borchhardt 2002, 101-110. Also, it is known from written sources that there was a tradition of historical representations in Anatolia, such as the painting of Mandrokles and Bularchos (Hölscher 1973, 4-35; Borchhardt 2002, 91, 93-94). We know of an Oriental love story that was depicted on walls of temples and private houses of Persians in Anatolia from a fragment of Chares of Myteline quoted by Athenaeus (XIII, 575f.). 79 Childs 1978, 49-54, 89-91; Mellink 1998, 63-64. 80 Calmeyer 1993, 14: „ . . . wir müssen also überprüfen, ob der Vorkämpfer, offensichtlich auch der Anführer der siegenden Partei ein Großkönig gewesen sein kann – und ob es Dareios I. sein kann. Das ist nicht der Fall“. 81 Calmeyer 1988, 47-48; Koch 1992, 211, fig. 143. 82 Borchhardt 2002, 95. 83 Henkelmann 1995/1996; Jacobs 1994, 138. See also: Kaptan 2003, 58-60. On the crenellated crowns of the kings on the Persepolis reliefs: Roaf 1983, 131-133. 84 For example, on the gem in the Bibliothèque Nationale (Sekunda 1992, 3 bottom figure) and the silver phiale from the so-called Lydian Treasure (Özgen, Öztürk 1996, 87). 85 On the discussion of kidaris Jacobs (1994, 138) refers to the Munich wood painting and argues against the interpretation of the crenellated headgear as the King’s crown.

L. Summerer / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 3-30

23

no good grounds for identifying the commander as the Great King. On the other hand, Calmeyer’s argument, that the king never wears strapped boots, can easily be rebutted since the royal smooth shoes appear in explicit sculptural representation of the king in ceremonial guise and not in battle scenes. The headgear is no evidence to support royalty, but neither are the shoes evidence to the contrary. As has been discussed above, the iconographic relation between the central duel in the battle scene and the royal hero is evident; this is the most frequently represented theme on the seals of the Persian court in the centre of the empire. The antecedents of this very old theme originally lie in pre-dynastic Mesopotamia.86 The iconography of the isolated motif of the combatant Persian on Achaemenid seals has been discussed exhaustively. The recent scholarship tends to see a royal hero rather than the king in such figures, an ideological construct symbolizing the collective force of Persian power.87 On the painted frieze, however, the figure of the combatant Persian appears as head of the Persian army for the first time. This particular context once again raises the question whether the army could have been led by the king. A close look at the contexts of images evidently representing the king may help to clarify this question. In fact, Persian kings are rarely represented in direct conflict with the enemy. The only example showing King Darius I triumphant over rebels, is the Behistun relief.88 Based on this, comparanda images showing the Persian warrior clad in the “Achaemenid robe” and crenellated crown bringing captives, all tied by the same rope, on some seal images are suggested to be representations of the king.89 On some seal representations, the triumphant Persian is shown thrusting his dagger or spear into an enemy while standing on a corpse, as does the Persian commander on the wood painting.90 Some of them are labelled with the respective king’s name.91 But these names have no iconographic significance for the interpretation of the crowned and robed Persian in principle, since the inscribed name of the king does not necessarily prove the presence of the king. Thus, evidence for the representation of the king actively engaged in a battle is lacking in Achaemenid art.

86

Kaptan 2003, 55-56 with literature. Curtis, Tallis 2005, 228. Garrison and Root (2001, 57) suggest “that there were cultural taboos in the Iranian tradition of kingship that inhibited explicit depictions of the king in any position of potential vulnerability”. 88 Koch 1992, 1-3. 89 Boardman 2000, fig. 5, 5. The victorious Persian with Greek captives: Stähler 1992, pl. 5, 1. 90 Boardman 2000, fig. 5, 5; Stähler 1992, pl. 5, 2. 91 Garrison, Root 2001, 57; Kaptan 2003, 87. 87

24

L. Summerer / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 3-30

However, the most striking argument against the presence of the king on the painted frieze is the presence of the two infantrymen on the far left, who differ neither in outfit nor in equipment from the commander. As has been discussed above, they apparently represent a military unit to which the commander also belongs. For this reason, the interpretation of the leader as a triumphal Persian or a brave warrior seems to be more likely than that of him as king.

Is the Battle Scene an Historical Representation? The important question at this point is whether this unique battle scene is intended to be of historical significance in the sense that a specific historical battle is represented, or whether an old iconographical tradition has been altered to correspond with general Persian exploits without specific reference to a particular event. Past commentaries on the battle frieze voice no doubt that it depicts a specific Persian campaign. This was first suggested by Peter Calmeyer who linked the frieze with one of the Scythian campaigns of Darius I.92 Following Calmeyer’s suggestion Jürgen Borchhardt adds the wood painting to the catalogue of illustrations of contemporary historical events (“zeitgenössische Ereignisbilder”) and identifies the Persian commander as Darius the Great.93 Pierre Briant goes even further and compares the battle scene with the Alexandermosaic in Naples. Again referring to Calmeyer he puts his attribution in concrete terms and denotes the battle scene as an illustration of the second campaign of Darius I against the Scythians in 513 BC in “the Ukraine”.94 92 Calmeyer 1993, 14-15. Indeed, Calmeyer titles his article „Zwei mit historischen Szenen bemalte Balken der Achaemenidenzeit“, however, he considers only one of the beams, the one with the battle scene, to be an historical representation. 93 Borchhardt 2002, 95: „Unter historischen Gesichtspunkten kommen die Feldzüge Dareios gegen die Skythen in Frage. Mit anderen Worten, der Grabinhaber, in dem wir einen bedeutenden Aristokraten erkennen können, rühmt sich, einen der Feldzüge des Dareios mitgemacht zu haben. Vor dem Streitwagen erscheint in Bedeutungsproportion eine persisch gekleidete Gestalt mit Bart und zylinderförmiger, quergeriffelter Kopfbedeckung mit aufgesetzten Ornamenten in der man die Kidaris des Großkönigs erkennen könnte“. 94 Briant 2003, 247: “Si l’on admet, avec le premier éditeur, qu’il s’agit d’une représentation de la guerre menée par Darius Ier contre les Scythes d’Ukraine, la peinture pourrait dater des alentours de 500 avant notre ère. Quoi qu’il en soit, sur l’image on distingue clairement, à gauche, une première figure royale, qui, de son arc bandé, décoche des flèches contre des cavaliers scythes. À l’avant, devant un char, on distingue plus clairement encore un Grand roi, qui porte la longue robe perse (le kandys) et couronne crénelée, et qui, saisissant un Scythe par sa barbe, lui plonge son épée courte dans le corps . . .”. However, these statements are incorrect in several

L. Summerer / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 3-30

25

However, Pierre Briant makes no argument for the concreteness of his interpretation. He seems to have misunderstood Calmeyer’s comment. Advancing from the premise that the ethnic identity of the enemies is evident, Peter Calmeyer argues that the Perso-Scythian wars are only attested in written sources for the last quarter of the 6th century and that in later times, the Scythians played no role as enemies of the Persians. Consequently, Calmeyer thinks, that the painted battle scene must have referred to one of these events. But it is not clear whether Calmeyer primarily argues with the dating of the painted frieze around 500 BC or whether he derives this date from the supposed historical context. Equally, Jürgen Borchhardt is also not precise about this point,95 but since he believes the wood to be firmly dated by 14 C to around 500 BC, he regards its painting as a depiction of a contemporary historical battle between Persians and Scythians “with good reasons”. However, this supposed historicity of the painting does not stand up to criticism. As the previous discussion of the iconography has shown, the fighting groups are systematically distinguished by their headgear. Additionally, they are determined also by the direction in which they are fighting: the victorious Persians come from the left hand the defeated nomads from the right.96 They meet in the middle, where the respective leaders stand opposite each other in close battle. No details of the natural setting of the event are rendered; thus, the locality of the battlefield remains obscure. None of the warriors is personalised sufficiently to be named. Even the ethnicity of the enemies cannot be determined precisely. The only information which can be extracted from the narrative form of the depiction is the victory of the Persians over a certain group of nomad enemies with attributes specific only to a certain degree, such as dress, armour or way of fighting. It is not intelligible whether the Persians defeated their pointed hatted enemies in a specific battle with particular circumstances, or whether such battles occurred more often, always with the Persians emerging victorious. Contrary to the comments of Borchhardt, the wood of the frieze is far from firmly dated by 14C.97 Consequently, the date of the painting does not necessarily coincide with the Scythian campaigns of Darius. Generally speaking,

respects: Firstly, the first editor Calmeyer does not state that the battle scene renders the war of the Darius I in the Ukraine. Secondly the “figure royale” does not shoot arrows against “Scythes”. And thirdly the dress of the “rois” is not a kandys. 95 Borchhardt 2002, 96. 96 Victorious warriors coming from the left side are a convention of battle representations: Lushey 2002, 17-18. 97 Calmeyer 1993, 7; Borchhardt 2002, 95. The samples of the Munich beams were carbon dated by H. Willkomm, of the C-14 Laboratory of the Institute for Pure and Applied Physics at

26

L. Summerer / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 3-30

any conflict between Persians and Scythians or Sacae, known or unknown to us from the written sources could be applicable to the battle frieze on the wood. As Calmeyer himself points out, Strabo (XV, 3, 15) relates a legendary battle between the Persians and Scythians that happened in Zela in Northern Anatolia. According to this account, the Scythians raided and destroyed the domains of the Cappadocians. However, the Persian generals stationed in Cappadocia attacked the Scythians at night and repulsed them successfully. We do not know when this event occurred, but it must have been formative for the Persians, because there was an annual celebration, a cultic festival, up to the time of Strabo. Also, the Scythians may have been conceptualised as a generic enemy for the Persians long after the historical wars.98 As noted above, the latest stylistic elements of the painting point to a date in the middle of the 5th century BC.99 A possible later date does not, however, exclude the possibility that the battle scene might refer to an historical combat between Persians and Scythians.100 Indeed, it is hardly believable that the sophisticated composition of the frieze was first created for this artistically undemanding wood painting. Plausibly, a celebrated battle painting was used

the University of Kiel. In his letter of 8th January 1991 addressed to Dr. Gebhard, Prof. Willkomm writes the following results obtained by the tests of two samples:  13C  –22,8 23,2

14

C-Age B.P. ± 1 2420 ± 90 2490 ± 65

Calendar Years %95 790-275 BC 795-415 BC

The first sample gives a date between 790 BC and 275 BC and the second one between 795 BC and 415 BC. Willkomm explains the discrepancy of dating between the both samples due to imprecision of the results. But he also stresses that a more precise dating could be reached only through crossdating with tree rings. I am grateful to Dr. Gisela Zahlhaas for sending me a copy of the letter of Prof. Willkomm. On the problem of dating of the Tatarlı wood see Kuniholm’s appendix in Summerer 2007, 153-156. 98 The appearance of the battle scenes between Greeks and Persians on fourth century Greek vases shows that the images of generic enemies could return regardless of actual conflicts: W. Raeck in: Pracht und Prunk 2006, 157. See, for example, on the Athenian red-figured hydria in the British Museum: Curtis, Tallis 2005, 213, Cat. 425. 99 The beams of the Tatarlı tomb chamber including the beams in Munich are scientifically tested. According to the tests, carried out by Peter Kuniholm in cooperation with Bernd Kromer in 1996, the timbers were cut in 451 BC±22. However, after the most recent radiocarbon results, Kuniholm is now arguing strongly for an earlier date in the year 478 BC +4/±7. But he also stresses that the precise dating of the Tatarlı tomb will remain open until more overlapping wood material is found: see appendix in Summerer 2007. 100 The depiction of the battle of Marathon in the stoa poikile was commissioned thirty years after the event of this war: Hölscher 1973, 50; Hannestad 2001, 112; Borchhardt 2002, 99.

L. Summerer / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 3-30

27

as a model. Depictions of historical events on so called tabulae are mentioned by some ancient authors. According to Pliny (N.H. XXXV, 55), an historical illustration of the defeat of the Magnesians was painted on wood by the Greek artist Bularchos about 700 BC.101 Herodotus mentions wooden pinakes with the representation of Darius’ floating bridge and the Persian army crossing the Bosporus.102 Accordingly, it is quite possible that a painting of the subsequent Scythian wars was also commissioned by the Great King or by one of his officers. But any attempt to determine a concrete relationship between this supposed historical depiction of Darius’ wars in 513/512 BC and the wood painting in Munich is trapped in a vicious circle. Accordingly, the claim that the battle scene on the Munich beam is “eine zeitgenössische Ereignisdarstellung” of Darius’ Scythian wars cannot really be entertained.103 Therefore, the depicted Persian victory should not be seen as an historical documentation, but rather as a more generic battle “Persians versus enemy”, perhaps an ideological construct which was determined by the warfare experience of Persians. The question whether the Munich wood depicts an historical event or not is misleading. We should rather ask how it relates to Persian military practice and how the experienced battle was perceived by the Persians at the time of the Persian Wars. To conclude, the Munich wood painting probably used a painting of the Archaic period showing a battle scene between the Persians and their pointed hatted nomad enemies as a model. But the question to what extent a specific historical impulse played a role in this supposed prototype must remain open since we have no means to exclude that it was completely a product of imaginative construction. At any rate, in the Classical period this Archaic model was transformed and realised with details according to the ability and needs of both painter and commissioner. It is also worth of noting that the other known battle images from the Anatolian funeral contexts such as the wall paintings in Karaburun tomb and the grave-stele from Yalnızdam in Lycia as well as the relief on the sarcophagus 101

Borchhardt 2002, 91. Hdt. IV, 88, 1: “Mandrokles [a Samian architect who made a floating bridge for the Persians across the Bosporus] had a picture made with them, showing the whole bridge of the Bosporus, and Darius [the Persian] sitting aloft on his throne and his army crossing; he set this up in the temple of Hera, with this inscription: ‘After bridging the Bosporus that teems with fish, Mandrokles dedicated a memorial of the floating bridge to Hera, having won a crown for himself, and fame for the Samians, doing the will of King Darius’”. The pinakes of Mandrokles are considered as an historical depiction: Hölscher 1973, 36; Borchhardt 2002, 93-94. 103 According to Borchhardt (2002, 95-96) the archer on the chariot was the tomb owner or commissioner of the wood paintings who participated on the Scythian campaigns of Darius either in 519 or in 513 BC. 102

28

L. Summerer / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 3-30

from Çan in the Troas,104 depict a spear-bearing Persian riding down the Greek enemy and follow a Greek iconographic model.105 In contrast to this, the Iranian nomads with pointed hats oppose the Persians on the Tatarlı wall paintings and the image follows here traditional oriental models, including clearly connected to Persia. This particularity can be explained by vicinity of Tatarlı to the Achaemenid royal residence Kelainai.

Bibliography Bae, C.-H. 2002: Comparative Studies of King Darius’s Bisitun Inscription. Cambrige Mass, Harvard Univ. Diss. 2001 (Ann Arbor). Bittner, S. 1985: Tracht und Bewaffnung des persischen Heeres (Munich). Boardman, J. et alii 1977: Die griechische Kunst (Munich). Boardman, J. 2000: Persia and the West (London). Borchhardt, J. 2002: Narrative Ereignis- und Historienbilder im mediterranen Raum von de Archaik bis in den Hellenismus. In M. Bietak & M. Schwarz (eds.), Krieg und Sieg. Narrative Wanddarstellungen von Altägypten bis ins Mittelalter. Internationals Kolloquium. 29.-30. Juli 1997 im Schloss Haindorf, Lanenlois (Vienna), 81-136. Brentjes, B. 1995/1996: Waffen der Steppenvölker (II): Kompositbogen, Goryt und Pfeil. Ein Waffenkomplex der Steppenvölker. Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran 28, 179-210. Briant, P. 2003: Darius dans l’ombre d’Alexandre (Paris). Calmeyer, P. 1988: Zur Genese altiranischer Motive. X. Die elamisch-persische Tracht. Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran 21, 27-51. Bruns-Özgan, Ch. 1987: Lykische Grabreliefs des 5. und 4. Jh. v. Chr. (Tübingen). Calmeyer, P. 1993: Zwei mit historischen Szenen bemalte Balken der Achaemenidenzeit. Münchner Jahrbücher 43, 1993, 7-18. Childs, W. A. P. 1978: The City-Reliefs of Lycia (Princeton). Cohen, A. 1997: The Alexander Mosaic. Stories of Victory and Defeat (Cambridge). Cook, R. M. 1981: Clazomenian Sarcophagi (Mainz). Czichon, R. 1992: Die Gestaltungsprinzipien der neuassyrischen Flachbildkunst und ihre Entwicklung vom 9. zum 7. Jh.v.Chr. (Munich). Dedeoğlu, H. 2003: The Lydians and Sardis (Istanbul). Farkas, A. 1967/1968: The Horse and Rider in Achaemenid Art. Persica 3, 57-76. Gabrielli, M. 2006: Le cheval dans l’Empire achéménide (Istanbul). Garrison, M. B. 2000: Achaemenid Iconography as Evidenced by Glyptic Art: Subject Matter, Social Function, Audience and Diffusion. In Chr. Uehlinger (ed.), Images as Media. Sources for the Cultural History of the Near East and the Eastern Mediterranean (1st Millennium BCE) (Göttingen), 115-164. Garrison, M. & Cool Root, M. 2001: Seals on the Persepolis Fortification Tablets I. Images of Heroic Encounter (Chicago). Georges, P. 1987/1995: Darius in Scythia. The Formation of Herodotus’ Sources and the Nature of Darius’ Campaign. American Journal of Ancient History 12, 97-146. Ghirshman, P. 1964: Iran. Protoiraner, Meder, Achämeniden (Munich).

104 105

Mellink 1972, 23-24; Bruns-Özgan 1987, pl. 20, 2; Sevinç et al. 2001, fig. 11. Cohen 1997, fig. 11-16.

L. Summerer / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 3-30

29

Hannestad, L. 2001: War and Greek Art. In T. Bekker-Nielsen & L. Hannestad (eds.), War as Cultural and Social Force. Essays on Warfare in Antiquity (Selskab), 110-117. Head, D. 1992: The Achaemenid Persian Army (Stockport). Henig, M. & Whiting, M. 1994: Classical Gems. Ancient and Modern Intaglios and Cameos in the Fitzwilliam Museum (Cambridge). Henkelmann, W. 1995/1996: The Royal Achaemenid Crown. Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran 28, 275-293. Hölscher, T. 1973: Griechische Historienbilder des 5. und 4. Jh. v. Chr. (Beiträge zur Archäologie 6) (Würzburg). Hölscher, T. 2003: Images of War in Greece and Rome: Between Military Practice, Public Memory, and Cultural Symbolism. Journal of Roman Studies 93, 1-17. Ivantchik, A. 2001: Kimmerier und Skythen (Berlin, Moskau). Ivantchik, A. 2006: „Scythian“ Archers on Archaic Attic Vases: problems of Interpretation. Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 12, 196-271. Jacobs, B. 1987: Griechische und persische Elemente in der Grabkunst Lykiens zur Zeit der Achämenidenherrschaft. (Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 78) ( Jonsered). Jacobs, B. 1994: Drei Beiträge zu Fragen der Rüstung und Bekleidung in Iran zur Achämenidenzeit. Iranica Antiqua 29, 125-67. Jacobs, B. 2000: Achaimenidenherrschaft in der Kaukausus-Region und in Cis-Kaukasien. Archäologische Mittelungen aus Iran und Turan 32, 93-102. Kaptan, D. 2003: The Daskyleion Bullae. Seal Images from the Western Achaemenid Empire (Achaemenid History 12) (Leiden). Knauer, E. R. 1986: The Persian Saddle Blanket. Gleanings. Studia Iranica 15, 265-266. Koch, H. 1992: Es kündet Dareios der König . . . . Vom Leben im persischen Großreich (Mainz). Kökten Ersoy, H. 1998: Two wheeled vehicles from Lydia and Mysia. Istanbuler Mitteilungen 48, 107-133. Littauer, M. A. & Crouwel, J. H. 1979: Wheeled Vehicles and Ridden Animals in the Ancient Near East (Leiden). Lebedynsky, I. 2006: Les Saces. Les „Sycthes“ d’Asie, VIIIe siècle av. J.-C.- IVe siecle apr. J.-C. (Paris). Luschey, H. 2002: Rechts und Links. Untersuchungen über Bewegungsrichtung, Seitenordnung und Höhenordnung als Elemente der antiken Bildsprache (Tübingen). Mellink, M. 1971: Excavations at Karataş-Semayük and Elmalı 1970. American Jounal of Archaeology 75, 245-255. Mellink, M. 1972: Excavations at Karata-Semayük and Elmalı 1971. American Jounal of Archaeology 76, 250-255. Mellink, M. 1973: Excavations at Karataş-Semayük, Lycia 1972. American Jounal of Archaeology 77, 297-301. Mellink, M. 1974: Excavations at Karataş-Semayük and Elmalı. American Jounal of Archaeology 78, 351-359. Mellink, M. 1980: Archaic Wall Paintings from Gordion. In K. de Vries (ed.), From Athens to Gordion. The Papers of a Memorial Symposium for Rodney S. Young (Philadelphia), 91-98. Mellink, M. J. 1998: Kızılbel: An Archaic Painted Tomb Chamber in Northern Lycia (Philadelphia). Metzler, D. 1971: Porträt und Gesellschaft. Über die Entstehung des griechischen Porträts in der Klassik (Münster). Moorey, R. M. S. 2002: Novelity and Tradition in Achaemenid Syria. The case of the clay “Astarte” plaques. Iranica Antiqua 37, 203-218. Nagel, W. 1983: Frada, Skuncha und der Saken-Feldzug des Darius I. In H. Koch & D. N. Mackenzie (eds.), Kunst, Kultur und Geschichte der Achämenidenzeit und ihr Fortleben (Berlin), 169-189.

30

L. Summerer / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 3-30

Nefëdkin, A.K. 2001: Boevÿe kolesnitsÿ i kolesnichie drevnikh grekov (St Petersburg). Nefiodkin, A. K. 2004: On the origin of the Scythed Chariots. Historia 53/3, 369-378. Nollé, M. 1992: Denkmäler vom Satrapensitz Daskyleion: Studien zur graeco-persischen Kunst (Berlin). Nylander, C. & Flemberg, J. 1981/83: A Foot-Note from Persepolis. Anadolu 22, 57-68. Özgen, E. & Öztürk, J. 1996: Lydian Treasure. Heritage Recovered (Istanbul). Pracht und Prunk 2006: Pracht und Prunk der Großkönige. Das Persische Weltreich. Catalogue of the Exposition in the Historisches Museum der Pflaz Speyer (Stuttgart). Postgate, J. N. 2000: The Assyrian Army in Zamua. Iraq 52, 89-108. Rivet, A. L. F. 1979: A note on scythed chariots. Antiquity 53, 130-132. Roaf, M. 1983: Sculptures and Sculptors at Persepolis (London). Roosevelt, Ch. H. & Luke, Ch. 2006: Looting Lydia: the Destruction of an Archaeological Landscape in Western Turkey. In N. Brodie et alii (eds.), Archaeology, Cultural Heritage, and the Antiquities Trade (Grainesville FL), 173-187. Schmidt, E. F. 1970: Persepolis. III. The Royal Tombs and other Monuments (Chicago). Schlumberger, D. 1971: La coiffure du Grand-Roi. Syria 48, 375-383. Sekunda, N. 1992: The Persian Army. 560-330 BC (London). Sevinç, N. et al. 2001: A New Painted Graeco-Persian Sarcophagus from Çan, Studia Troica 11, 383-420. Shahbazi, A. Sh. 1982: Darius in Scythia and Scythians in Persepolis. Archäologische Mittelungen aus Iran 15, 189-235. Snodgrass, A. M. 1999: Arms and Armor of the Greeks (Baltimore, London). Stähler, K. 1992: Griechische Geschichtsbilder klassischer Zeit (Münster). Strommenger, E. 1962: Fünf Jahrtausende Mesopotamien (Munich). Stronach, D. 1989: Early Achaemenid Coinage: Perspectives from the Homeland. Iranica Antiqua 24, 255-279. Summerer, L. 2007: From Tatarlı to Munich. The Recovery of a Painted Wooden Tomb Chamber in Phrygia. In I. Delemen & O. Casabonne (eds.), Proceedings of the International Workshop in Istanbul. The Achaemenid Impact on Local Population and Cultures in Anatolia (6th-4th B.C.), May 19-22 May, 2005 (Istanbul) 129-156. Tallis, N. 2005: Transport and Warfare. In J. Curtis & N. Tallis (eds.), Forgotten Empire. The Wold of Ancient Persia (London), 210-217. Uçankuş, H. 1979: Afyon’nun Tatarlı kasabasında bulunan Phryg tümülüsü kazısı. Türk Tarih Kurumu Kongresi (Ankara), 306-334. Uçankuş, H. 2002: Afyon’nun Tatarlı kasabasında bulunan Phryg tümülüsü kazısı. Arkeoloji ve Sanat 106, 23-51. Voigt, M. & Young, T.C. [jr.] 1999: From Phrygian Capital to Achaemenid Entrepot: middle and late Phrygian Gordion. Iranica Aniqua 34, 191-242. Vollenweider, M.-L.1995: Camées et intailles. Catalogue raisonné. Les portraits grecs du Cabinet des médailles I (Paris). Walser, G. 1966: Die Völkerschaften auf den Reliefs von Persepolis (Berlin). Wang, B. 2001: The Ancient Corpse of Xinjiang. The People of Ancient Xinjiang (Beijing). Widengren, G. 1956: Some Remarks on Riding Costume and Articles of Dress among Iranian Peoples in Antiquity. Arctica 11, 228-284. Yadin, Y. 1963: The Art of Warfare in Biblical Lands in the Light of Archaeological Study (New York). Zahlhaas, G. 1995: Orient und Okzident. Kulturelle Wurzeln Alteuropas 7000 bis 15 v. Chr. Exhibition Catalogue Prähistorische Staatssammlung München (Munich).

Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 31- 45

www.brill.nl/acss

An Achaemenid « Palace » at Qarajamirli (Azerbaijan) Preliminary Report on the Excavations in 2006 Ilyas Babaev, Iulon Gagoshidze, Florian S. Knauß

Abstract Excavations on a small mound near the village Qarajamirli in western Azerbaijan provided remains of a monumental building, as well as quite a number of fragments of limestone column bases. The symmetrical ground plan of the building, the architectural sculpture and the pottery found on the floor closely follow Persian models from the Achaemenid era. Similar structures are known from Sary Tepe (Azerbaijan) and Gumbati (Georgia). These, as well as the building in Qarajamirli, can be interpreted as the residences of Persian officials, who left this area when the Achaemenid Empire collapsed. The painted pottery from the following period, when some peasants or herdsmen occasionally lived there, so far finds parallels only in Eastern Georgia. Keywords Achaemenid Empire / Azerbaijan / Architecture / Column bases / Pottery

Sponsored by the Gerda-Henkel-Foundation and with the support of the Academy of Sciences at Baku (Dr. Maia Ragimova), of the Georgian National Museum in Tbilisi (Prof. David Lordkipanidze) and of the local authorities in Shamkir (Azerbaijan), archaeological excavations were carried out at the site of Qarajamirli in western Azerbaijan between August 1st and August 28th 2006. 35 years ago a limestone column base with cyma-recta-profile was found near the village Qarajamirli, Shamkir district. According to Prof. Ideal Narimanov (Baku) a torus, originally belonging to this base, vanished shortly after the discovery. Now the base, cut in two pieces by its finder Hamid Jussibov, a resident of the village, rests in front of his house and in his courtyard (Fig. 1, 1a). So far, only a sketchy drawing of the base has been published.1 On March 18th, 2001 the authors of this report, together with the late Prof. Narimanov visited the site and decided afterwards that archaeological investigations should be carried out here. The above mentioned base is a typically Achaemenid piece of architectural decoration and its prototypes are known 1

Furtwängler & Knauß 1996, 374-376, fig. 9-10; Knauß 2005, 208; Knauß 2006, 97-98, fig. 18. © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2007

DOI: 10.1163/157005707X212652

32

I. Babaev et al. / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 31- 45

Fig. 1. Hamid Jussibov on a fragment of the bell-shaped base found accidentally in Qarajamirli in the 1970s. from Susa and Persepolis. The Qarajamirli variant belongs to the type of bellshaped bases which were in use at least from Dareios I until Artaxerxes II (521-359 BC). Such column bases have exclusively been found in connection with monumental buildings owned by high Achaemenid officials. It is especially significant that they are usually restricted to the core region of the Achaemenid Empire (Susa, Persepolis, Babylon etc.), with the only exception of South Caucasus, where quite a few such bases have been found in recent years. We know “palaces”, i.e. residences of Persian officials or local authorities

I. Babaev et al. / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 31- 45

33

Fig. 1a. The same fragment. subordinated to Persia, at Gumbati (Georgia),2 Sary Tepe (Azerbaijan)3 and Benjamin (Armenia).4 In 1971, one more bell-shaped base of minor size was discovered in Kavtiskhevi, which is also known as the discovery site of a double protoma capital corresponding to this base; the base and the capital are dated to the 4th century BC5 (Fig. 2). The similarities between the bases from Qarajamirli and Gumbati are so close that we are inclined to suggest their common origin, probably from a masonry workshop near Qarajamirli where such limestone can easily be found. The base lead to the assumption that there may have been a similar important building at Qarajamirli. During the first campaign on a small and flat mound, not far from the find spot of the base, situated only a few kilometres northeast from the village Qarajamirli, we uncovered not only significant remains of monumental architecture but we also found a great number of fragments of column bases. Walls (1,0-1,6 m wide) are preserved of up to three layers of mud brick. The size of 2 Furtwängler 1995, 177-211, figs. 6-7, 10-11; Furtwängler & Knauß 1996, 363-381, figs. 2-4, 6-8. 3 Narimanov 1960. 4 Ter-Martirosov 1996, 187-189; Ter-Martirosov 2001, 158-161, figs. 4-5. 5 Gagoshidze & Kipiani 2000, 59-64, figs. 1.7-8, 2-3.

34

I. Babaev et al. / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 31- 45

Fig. 2. Distribution map of Achaemenid bell-shaped column bases (after Furtwängler & Knauß 1996, 378).

I. Babaev et al. / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 31- 45

35

the mud bricks is ca. 34 cm x 34 cm x 12 cm. The ground plan of the building immediately calls Persian models to mind (Figs. 3, 4). The building measures at least 25 x 22 m, but probably it was much larger. From the east a wide entrance gave access to a columned hall – obviously in the central axis of the building. In this hall the wooden beams of the roof were supported by four columns resting on bell-shaped limestone bases (Figs. 5-8). One of those bases has been found in situ (Fig. 9). These bases are decorated with vertical leaves and have a torus above. The maximum diameter is 88 cm, the lower diameter of the column shafts measuring 52 cm. Although none of the bases have been completely preserved it is still certain that the height of the bases was originally around 60 cm, as has been asserted by the graphic reconstruction of the base (Fig. 10). It is remarkable that the height of the base from Sary Tepe is equal to its upper, smallest diameter, i.e. the diameter of the bottom of the column (53 cm).6 Behind this columned hall one of the main rooms may have been situated. However, the greatest part of it still remains to be excavated. On both sides of this room and the columned hall there are long corridors. Further walls prove that the building was even wider and the walls of these corridors cannot have been the outer walls of the complex.

Fig. 3. Qarajamirli-2006. Plan of the excavated area. 6

Narimanov 1960, 164.

36

I. Babaev et al. / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 31- 45

Fig. 4. Qarajamirli-2006. General view of the excavation of the “palace”.

Fig. 5. Qarajamirli-2006. Fragment of a column base.

I. Babaev et al. / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 31- 45

Fig. 6. Qarajamirli-2006. Fragment of a column base (drawing by T. Turkiashvili).

37

38

I. Babaev et al. / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 31- 45

Fig. 7. Qarajamirli-2006. Fragment of a column base (drawing by T. Turkiashvili).

I. Babaev et al. / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 31- 45

Fig. 8. Qarajamirli-2006. Fragment of a column base (drawing by T. Turkiashvili).

39

40

I. Babaev et al. / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 31- 45

Fig. 9. Qarajamirli-2006. Column base in situ.

Fig. 10. Qarajamirli-2006. Graphic reconstruction of the bell-shaped column-base of the “palace” (drawing by F. Knauß).

I. Babaev et al. / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 31- 45

41

Although great parts of this building remain to be uncovered, the symmetrical plan and the elaborated architectural sculpture let us assume that this was the residence of an important person in the time of Achaemenid rule in the Caucasus. All limestone fragments belonged to at least six columns. This means that there must have been further columned rooms or porticoes. The mud brick walls, as well as the column bases, each had a thin rubble stone foundation; the walls and the floors were plastered with clay. This “palace” was erected without any doubt during the Achaemenid period (550-330 BC), according to the architectural sculpture and the small finds discovered on the floor. The historical background, as well as the comparison with similar structures in Gumbati and Sary Tepe, suggest that this took place in the late 6th century BC, perhaps when Dareios I (521-486 BC) tried to subject the Scythians north of the Black Sea to his rule in 513/12 BC.7 The pottery from the “palace”-levels belongs to the mid 5th to early 4th centuries BC (Figs. 11-12). Many shapes are influenced by Persian models. However, similar pottery has been found in Kakheti, in Kwemo Kedi and in Gumbati. The fragment of a blue glass bowl (Fig. 12 below) shows that even luxury goods from the centre of the empire were imported. When the Achaemenid Empire collapsed, the residents of the “palace” left Qarajamirli. There is no indication for any violent destruction at that time. Before the invaders came to this region, there had not been any settlement on this mound. When the Persians left the Caucasus the monumental building was not regularly used any more. However, fireplaces observed at several spots do show that the building must have been occasionally in use. The pottery belonging to this phase is painted. This includes ceramics painted red as well as such with parallel lines of white paint characteristic of Georgia in the 4th century BC.8 This is the first case in which this type of painted pottery has been found on the territory of Azerbaijan. Here we also discovered tiles, which are apparently the earliest on the territory of Azerbaijan. Furthermore, there are more mounds in the vicinity of the “palace”. Chance finds of limestone column bases of a slightly different type (torus and undecorated cyma-recta-profile) indicate that there must have been at least one more monumental building nearby (Fig. 13). Similar bases have been found at several sites in Iran and Iraq.9 However, it seems probable that these bases are approximately from the same period as the bell-shaped bases, i.e. from the Achaemenid era. On another hill, about 500 m southeast of the “palace”, a great number of small ceramic finds from the surface also belong to the same period. 7 8 9

Jacobs 2000. Gagoshidze 1979, 79-80, 90-95. Kleiss 1972, 197-198, fig. 63; Huff 1989, 285-295, figs. 2-4, pls. 1 a, b, d, e.

42

I. Babaev et al. / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 31- 45

Fig. 11. Qarajamirli-2006. Pottery of the Achaemenid period. The results of this first campaign give ample proof that there was an important administrative centre of the Achaemenids near the modern village of Qarajamirli. The Caucasus region once was under strong Persian (Achaemenid) influence. The architecture in Sary Tepe and Gumbati could only partly be reconstructed by the excavated remains. In Qarajamirli we have the opportunity to find additional evidence concerning the architecture of residences of Persian officials or local authorities subordinated to Persia. Further excavations may not only give us a more complete picture of the monumental structure in Qarajamirli, but also of its surroundings, additional official buildings as well as the settlement of the local population. Whereas in Eastern Georgia a great number of imports from Achaemenid workshops as well as local imitations have come to light,10 Iron Age Azerbaijan almost completely remains terra incognita until the present day. Unfortunately, 10

Gagoshidze 1996; Knauß 2005, 197-207; Knauß 2006.

I. Babaev et al. / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 31- 45

43

Fig. 12. Qarajamirli-2006. Pottery and a glass bowl of the Achaemenid period.

the results of the important excavations in Sary Tepe are only poorly published. This makes Qarajamirli even more important, since it enables us to get the first insights into the development of the local culture of this region. Iron Age remains from Lake Mingechevir are mainly from later periods (so-called Jaloilu-Tepe culture).11 A comparison of western Azerbaijan, its architecture as well as its artes minores (especially pottery), with Eastern Georgia, which has been intensively investigated in recent years, seems promising. In the future surveys of the neighbouring sites shall enable us to put the results from Qarajamirli into a wider cultural context. Such a procedure was extremely successful in Eastern Georgia during the campaigns of the German-Georgian Kakheti expedition (Furtwängler – Knauß – Gagoshidze). The region around Qarajamirli has been extremely fertile since ancient times (Strabo 11, 4, 2-3). Most probably, we owe the poor state of knowledge about the situation in antiquity and the lack of identified archaeological 11

Aslanov et alii 1959; Kaziev 1960.

44

I. Babaev et al. / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 31- 45

Fig. 13. Qarajamirli-2006. Fragment of a column base from Daraya Takh, approximately 1 km north of the “palace” (drawing by T. Turkiashvili).

I. Babaev et al. / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 31- 45

45

monuments from here to the fact that there has hardly been any archaeological investigation of this region. Qarajamirli could be the start to explore it for the first time ever.

Bibliography Aslanov, G., Vaidov, R., Ione, G.1959: Drevnii Mingechaur (Baku). Furtwängler, A. 1995: Gumbati. Archäologische Expedition in Kachetien 1994. 1. Vorbericht. Eurasia antiqua 1, 177-211. Furtwängler, A. & Knauß, F.1996: Gumbati. Archäologische Expedition in Kachetien 1995. 2. Vorbericht. Eurasia antiqua 2, 363-381. Gagoshidze, Ju. 1979: Samadlo. Arkheologicheskie raskopki (Tbilisi). Gagoshidze, I. 1996: The Achaemenid Influence in Iberia. Boreas 19, 125-136. Gagoshidze, Ju. & Kipiani, G. 2000: Neue Beobachtungen zur achaimenidischen Baukunst in Kartli. Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 32, 59-65. Huff, D. 1989: Säulenbasen aus Deh-Bozan und Taq-i Bostan. Iranica Antiqua 24, 285-295. Jacobs, B. 2000: Achaimenidenherrschaft in der Kaukasus-Region und in Cis-Kaukasien. Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 32, 93-102. Kaziev, S. 1960: Arkheologicheskie raskopki v Mingechaure. Al’bom kuvshinnykh pogrebenii (Baku). Kleiss, W. 1972: Bericht über Erkundungsfahrten in Iran im Jahre 1971. Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran 5, 132-242. Knauß, F. 2001: Persian Rule in the North. Achaemenid Palaces on the Periphery of the Empire. In I. Nielsen (ed.), The Royal Palace Institution in the First Millennium BC. Regional Development and Cultural Interchange between East and West. Monographs of the Danish Institute at Athens 4 (Aarhus), 125-143. Knauß, F. 2005: Caucasus. In P. Briant & R. Boucharlat (eds.), L’Archéologie de l’Empire achéménide: nouvelle recherches. Persika 6 (Paris), 197-220. Knauß, F. 2006: Ancient Persia and the Caucasus. Iranica Antiqua 41, 79-118. Narimanov, I. G. 1960: Nakhodki baz kolonn V-IV vv. do n. é. v Azerbaidzhane. Sovetskaya arkheologiya, No. 4, 162-164. Ter-Martirosov, F. 1996: Un ‘paradis’ de l’Antiqité Classique: Le Site du Drashkhanakert, à Benjamin. In J. Santrot (ed.), Arménie. Trésors de l’Arménie ancienne, des origines au Ier siècle (Paris), 187-189. Ter-Martirosov, F. 2001: The Typology of the Columnar Structures of Armenia in the Achaemenid Period. In I. Nielsen (ed.), The Royal Palace Institution in the First Millennium BC. Regional Development and Cultural Interchange between East and West. Monographs of the Danish Institute at Athens 4 (Aarhus), 155-163.

Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 47-54

www.brill.nl/acss

Dongus Tapa – An Iron Age Settlement in the Udabno-Steppe, Eastern Kakheti Jens Nieling

Abstract The article is a preliminary report on an excavation carried out on the Iron Age settlement Dongus Tapa in Kakheti (Eastern Georgia). This fortified settlement existed from the Late Bronze Age till the 7th century BC and lasted longer than the settlements in the Shiraki plain, which end in the same century. Keywords Settlement system / Early Iron Age / Georgia / Nomadism

In the later Early Iron Age a dense settlement system existed in Kakheti, visible in sites like Noname, Ciskaraant, Tqisbolo or Didi Gora.1 It seems that most of the settlements suffered destruction by foreign invaders during the 7th century BC. This need not necessarily be the case at a settlement called Dongus Tapa, which was visited in 2003 by the author and received its name after a nearby hilltop. It is located very close to the Azerbaidjanian border in Eastern Kakheti. With the help of Prof. Kiasso Pizchelauri a first exploration-campaign was undertaken in 2004. M. Böttcher and Dipl.-Ing. P. Maier, geodesists of the Fachhochschule Karlsruhe, established a measuring-grid. A plan of the settlement was drawn and two small test-trenches were excavated. The results of this work are presented in the following. The area of the settlement, which covers roughly 2 ha, is relatively small. It rests high above the valley or wadi of the river Alandere, which runs into the river Iori some 8 km further east. On three sides the settlement is protected by steep slopes, which make the site difficult to access and easy to defend. On the highest part of the ridge a rectangular fortification was built, of which ramparts and houses are still visible on the surface. They are relatively 1

See Furtwängler & Knauß 1997; Furtwängler et alii 1998; Korfmann et alii 2002.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2007

DOI: 10.1163/157005707X212661

48

J. Nieling / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 47-54

well preserved, but slowly being destroyed by erosion cutting into the hill from a south-western direction. On a terrace below the fortification walls of rectangular houses are detectable, most probably the ruins of a village-like living quarter. They are constructed above the modern and most probably ancient entrance-way leading towards the settlement from the west. The site overlooks a third bowl-shaped terrace, which is enclosed by geologic structures, as if they were ramparts. The soil inside consists of very fertile black-earth, which provided a small area of arable land for the settlement, with the possibility for gardening crops or keeping large herds of animals safe. In the western part of this plain-like zone the remains of totally ruined clay or mud-brick structures are still visible, which did not yield any archaeological material, when a sounding-trench was dug into one of the heaps of debris (area I/J22). On the surface only a few sherds of modern ceramic vessels were found, although some of them could be dated to the Iron Age as well. The features of the citadel. Within the fortress the walls of large houses, up to a length of 10 m, are visible on the surface. They all run parallel to the rectangularly arranged ramparts, built of stone. On the southern flank of the citadel, where erosion has already exposed a good part of such a wall, the opportunity was taken to cut in a small test-trench (area R17). It became obvious, that this wall is still preserved to a height of 1,5 m and was constructed directly on virgin soil without any foundation. This might have been the reason why it collapsed at a certain time. To the east of it a cultural layer of 1,2 m thickness was excavated, in which no horizontal divisions were visible. Nevertheless it was separated into three artificial strata. In the lowest stratum (Beh. Nr. 16) mainly dark, wheal-made pottery with incised grooves and nail-marks was found, together with some handmade fragments as well. This type of pottery was in use throughout the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age and is very hard to date precisely. In the middle part (Beh. Nr. 13) a good amount of this ware, mainly in light grey, but including some red or buff sherds appeared. One grey fragment shows an interesting polished design: a grain or flower in a hanging triangle above a frieze of diagonal lines (Fig. 5.1). The uppermost stratum (Beh. Nr. 10) again contained black sherds and grey-wares, among which some brick-red fragments occurred. One of them bears a fine incised decoration (Fig. 4.9). This red-ware was considered by Othar Lordkipanidze to be typical for the later 7th and 6th century BC.2 In association with it a carinated bowl of the traditional Bronze Age form, painted

2

Lordkipanidze 1991, 73.

J. Nieling / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 47-54

49

with black colour on a grey surface and showing a radial pattern inside was found (Fig. 4.1). The closest parallels to the above mentioned pottery from Dongus Tapa are to be found in Ciskaraant Gora, period E, where carinated bowls with radial decoration and grooved ware with nail-marks were found in abundance. These layers were radiocarbon-dated to the end of the 8th – beginning of the 7th century BC.3 Very similar pottery was excavated at Noname Gora, where again grooved ware and polished patterns, such as grids, grains or bushes, occur together with fragments of red-ware. On the other hand polished and painted decorations with hanging triangles resemble those of the vessels from the settlement at Samadlo, 15 km to the west of the town of Mtskheta.4 This leads to the suggestion that the settlement of Dongus Tapa might have lasted longer than the settlements in the Shiraki plain, which end in the 7th century BC. The thickness of 1,2 m of the cultural layer within the fortress itself indicates a somewhat extended period of settlement-activity in the citadel. So far it remains unclear which wares and types of pottery were used in the 6th century BC. The function of the settlement as relay station and watch tower. Even in a mainly pastoral economic system, based on far reaching transhumance, there is a need for certain settled places which act as “petrol-stations on a highway”, where shelter can be found, repairs of equipment can be done and products can be traded on occasional markets. Sites like this may have served for gatherings and administrative purposes as well. A second function of Dongus Tapa may have been that of a guard-post overlooking the Iori-valley and a side-passage along the river Alandere. Situated on the south-eastern edge of the Udabno-Steppe, the inhabitants of Dongus Tapa may have controlled people coming from the Kura-valley in the south. The settlement may, in this sense, be an Iron Age equivalent to the medieval David Garedji cloister some 20 km further west.

Bibliography Furtwängler, A. & Knauß, F. 1997: Archäologische Expedition in Kachetien 1996. Ausgrabungen in den Siedlungen Gumbati und Ciskaraant Gora. Mit Beiträgen von H. Loehr und I. Motzenbäcker. Eurasia Antiqua 3, 353-388. Furtwängler, A., Knauß, F. & Motzenbäcker, I. 1998: Archäologische Expedition in Kachetien 1997. Ausgrabungen in Širaki. 4. Vorbericht. Mit Beiträgen von J. Gagošidse und E. Kvavadse. Eurasia Antiqua 4, 309-365. 3 4

Furtwängler & Knauß 1997, 360; Furtwängler et alii 1998, 320. Gagoshidze 1981, pls. 43, 44, 53 and 56.

50

J. Nieling / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 47-54

Gagoshidze, Yu. M. 1981: Samadlo II. Katalog arkheologicheskogo materiala (Tbilisi). Korfmann, M., Pizchelauri, K., Bertram, J.-K. & Kastl, G. mit Beiträgen von Ürpmann, H.-P., Ürpmann, M., Kvavadze E. 2002: Vorbericht zur 3. Grabungskampagne am Didi Gora im Jahre 1999 mit einem Anhang zu den Auswertungsarbeiten im Jahre 2000 (Kachetien/Ostgeorgien). Studia Troica 12, 467-500. Lordkipanidze, O. 1991: Archäologie in Georgien (Weinheim).

Fig. 1. The position of Dongus Tapa in relation to other EIA-settlements in Eastern Georgia. 1. Shilda, 2. Sagaredzho, 3. Udabno I-III, 4. Kacreti, 5. Arashenda, 6. Melaani, 7. Melighele, 8. Nukriani, 9. Tachty, 10. Gochebimountain, 11. Tqisbolo Gora, 12. Didi Gora, 13. Dongus Tapa, 14. Noname Gora, 15. Ciskaraant Gora.

J. Nieling / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 47-54

Fig. 2. Plan of the settlement. Grid: 20 m, Orientation N-E.

51

52

J. Nieling / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 47-54

Fig. 3. Dongus Tapa 2004. Pottery collected on the surface.

J. Nieling / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 47-54

Fig. 4. Dongus Tapa 2004. Area R17, Beh. Nr. 10.

53

54

J. Nieling / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 47-54

Fig. 5. Dongus Tapa 2004. Area R17. 1: Beh. Nr.13; 2-8: Beh. Nr. 16.

Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 55-66

www.brill.nl/acss

Oriental Innovations in Samtskhe (Southern Georgia) in the 1st Millenium BC Vakhtang Licheli

Abstract The only archaeological monument of the 1st Millennium BC in Southern Georgia (Samtskhe), which is systematically explored, is a multi-layer settlement and necropolis in Atskuri. The assemblages of the 6th-2nd centuries BC from Atskuri testify to the close relation with the Greek world on one side and with the Achaemenian cultural area on the other. Rich burials excavated in Atskuri in the last years contain numerous objects of Achaemenian type, which are mostly local imitations of Achaemenian objects. This material also shows that Achaemenian traditions continued to exist in Southern Georgia into the post-Achaemenian era. Keywords Southern Georgia / Atskuri / Iron Age / Achaemenian influence

Monuments in southern Georgia dated to the 1st Millennium BC have hardly been studied at all. The only archaeological monument systematically explored is a multi-layer settlement and necropolis in Atskuri1 (Figs. 1, 2). The oldest archaeological traces discovered on the territory of Atskuri date back to the 16th century BC. This is a burial with a stone embankment containing pottery, bronze and gold artifacts. The stone embankment was cleaned over the entire area of the trench; no regularity was observable in the arrangement of the stones. It is made of split stones of roughly equal sizes, between 25-30 cm in diameter. The upper stones lay 1.2 below the reference point. The circular form of the stone “carapace” which took shape after cleaning measured ca. 3.8 m in diameter. As a result of the damage to the central part of the stone embankment, the best preserved bones were concentrated along the southern and western walls of the trench. After the bones were removed, a gold disc ornamented with concentric circles (D. 4.5 cm) was found together with bronze discoid pins. Fragments of black pottery lay next to the disc. It would thus appear that the deceased had been laid over the pottery. No trace 1

Licheli 1997, 129; Ličeli 2000a, 139-142; Licheli 2000b, 246-249; Licheli 2001, 249-257. © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2007

DOI: 10.1163/157005707X212670

V. Licheli / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 55-66

Fig. 1. Map of Georgia.

56

V. Licheli / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 55-66

57

Fig. 2. Aerial photo of Atskuri region.

of a wooden bed, that might be expected in such cases, was found.2 The floor of the chamber lay 2 m below the reference point. In this grave 62 persons were buried accompanied by hundreds of artefacts. The monuments of the following period are divided into several chronological groups: The 7th-beginning of the 6th centuries BC (burials); The 6th-4th centuries BC (architectural and burial monuments); The 4th-3rd centuries BC (mostly burials); The 3rd-2nd centuries BC (architectural remains and burials); The 1st century BC-AD first centuries (architectural remains and burials); 2

Licheli 2004b, 218-225.

58

V. Licheli / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 55-66

The materials dated to the 6th-2nd centuries BC are of special interest from the point of view of the relations with the external world. They include pottery imported from different Greek cities as well as items produced in Achaemenian world, or their local imitations. Relations with the Greek world are observed since an early period. In this case, an important role was played by the trade route which appears to have been used as early as the 7th century BC and kept functioning during the 1st millennium BC; it was also periodically used, during later periods.3 This was the most active route connecting the southern part of the Transcaucasia with Colchis and, correspondingly, with the Black Sea. The first big redistribution centre, which supplied Southern Georgia with Greek goods, was Vani, where not only Colchian wealth was accumulated but also the greater part of the imported goods from Greece of the 6th and the 5th centuries BC. However, it appears that other routes were also used, connecting Southern Georgia with the Southern Pontic Greek cities. Due to these relations, Greek imports of different periods were discovered in Southern Georgia, namely in Atskuri: Ionian bowls of the Archaic period, a kylix decorated with palmette of the Late Archaic period, black glazed pottery of the Early Hellenistic period and black glazed pottery of the Hellenistic period produced in Asia Minor (Fig. 3). Literary tradition, preserved in historical chronicles of the Middle Ages, according to which temples of Artemis and Apollo existed in Atskuri in the 1st century AD,4 indicates close relations with the Greek world. “Charon’s Obol” discovered in a burial dated to the 1st century also testify to a particularly high level of Hellenization. Another direction of contacts was obviously oriental. It emerges later than the Greek one, apparently on the verge of the 5th-4th centuries BC, and is represented by straw-coloured jugs decorated with various red-tinted motives (triangles, nets). It is likely that this pottery was imported to the Caucasus and on to the territory of Georgia from Iran, possibly from Southern Azerbaijan.5 Achaemenian influence is obvious on the verge of the 4th-3rd centuries: the burials of this period clearly show features influenced by the Achaemenian world (Fig. 4). In this respect, the burial No. 2004-5 is of particular interest, which was constructed on the foundation of a building dated to the 4th century BC (Fig. 5). It consists of a pit-burial where two persons were buried, both in crouched posture, placed on the right side. Together with the humans, a bull was buried, the skeleton of which lays on its back in the southern part 3 4 5

Licheli 1999, 113-115; Licheli 2000b, 246-249. Licheli 2004a, 87. Narimanashvili 1991, 69.

V. Licheli / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 55-66

59

Fig. 3. Greek pottery from Atskuri. of the structure. A great amount of jewellery, mostly decorated with incised ornaments, was deposited with both of the dead individuals. First of all, these are a bronze ring showing horse images and bronze bracelets with typically Achaemenian images of double-protomae horses that have no analogues in Georgia (Fig. 4A, 5, 9). It is known that double-protomae capitals were discovered in eastern (Tsikhia-Gora)6 and in western Georgia (Sairkhe).7 6 7

Tskitishvili 2003, 11. Kipiani 1987.

60

V. Licheli / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 55-66

Fig. 4. A. Achaemenid type material from Atskuri; B. Achaemenid cup from « Akhalgori Hoard ». Among other images (mountain goat, horses, crescent, stars, sun, scorpion, etc.) particular attention should be given to an agate cylindrical pendant, with incised images on both sides: one – anthropomorphic figure walking, with the right hand crooked in front and the left one to the back, with open wings on both of the hands (Fig. 4A, 1, 6 ). Above and around the head there are five rays which may be considered as the image of a crown. The body lines are indicated well, with strong breast, narrow waist broad and muscular thighs; the figure entirely covers the round relief. The motive incised on the other side cannot be distinguished clearly. Possibly, it represents a scorpion. It is likely that the winged figure symbolizes a stylized image of the “Winged Genius” (or “Winged Angel”) widely-spread in the Achaemenian world. The image found in Atskuri reveals some (rather distant) analogy with that of Pasargadae, gate H. This is a Winged Genius in motion, though, in contrast with the Atskuri one it wears long clothes and the direction of the wings is slightly different. The image in Pasargadae, as well as the one from Atskuri, has a crown on the head. It is assumed that it may be an Egyptian crown8 insofar 8

Boardman 2000, 101.

V. Licheli / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 55-66

61

Fig. 5. Grave No. 2004-5 from Atskuri. as the lines that depict wings (rays?) have slightly circling ends. In my opinion the figure from Atskuri has wings and not rays, as in the case of one of the images of Anahita.9 From the point of view of stylization of the wings on the image from Atskuri, a good parallel is presented by a golden plate discovered in Sardis, where Ahuramazda’s wings are also modified.10 In the 3rd century Achaemenian influence is still obvious in Atskuri. It is reflected both in ceramics and in metal objects. One of these is a bronze seal from burial No. 2004-2, showing a quadrangular relief, with circling handle at the back (Fig. 4A, 4 ). Lightly cut lines surround the edges of the square, 9 10

Briant 1996, 265, fig. 30. Koch 1996, 41.

62

V. Licheli / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 55-66

which is completely occupied by the figure of a horse. It is slightly stylized; front and back legs are similarly bent, giving an unnatural impression. The body is also somewhat schematic and the incised lines are not clear. The horse has a long neck, with ears towards the front; the tail is depicted as one line. Behind the horses back a crescent is depicted. The incision is well performed, it is deep and even. Triangular and quadrangular bronze seals with handles appear to be widespread in the east of Georgia, dating to the 3rd-1st centuries BC and were locally produced.11 Indeed, the majority of them seems to have been discovered on the territory of Iberia: Kavtiskhevi “Necropolis of the wounded”, Tsikhia-gora temple cluster, at the villages of Tsagvli (Khashuri region), Samtavisi, Urbnisi, Monasteri (Tetri Tskaro region), etc. The object found in Atskuri has several analogues. First of all, these are images of a horse and a crescent preserved on a clay lump in Tsikhia-gora, as well as images of horses among the materials discovered in the villages Tsagvli, Shroma and Kvemo Meskheti.12 The horse and crescent depicted on the seal found in Atskuri, as well as other similar objects discovered in Georgia, should be related to Achaemenian traditions. Thus, a local production of objects with Achaemenian motives existed in Kartli in the 4th and 3rd centuries BC. It testifies, in its turn, to a demand for goods with Zoroastrian motives in the post-Achaemenian era in Kartli. The situation is similar in Samtskhe. This corresponds very well to the information from written sources. It should be especially stressed that the distribution area of this type of motives is broad and covers Kartli and Samtskhe entirely. As far as the pottery is concerned, a bowl with omphalos decorated with almond-shaped relief, which was discovered in Atskuri burial No. 2004-2 is of special interest (Fig. 4A, 10). Its shape is close to that of a glass bowl discovered in the rich burial at Tsintskaro, which, according to the latest studies, dates to the 4th-3rd centuries BC.13 The bowl discovered in Atskuri has some morphological resemblance with funerary material from Qanchaeti, which at present is dated to the early Hellenistic period.14 But the bowl from Atskuri is totally different, not only in material, but also in decoration: it is highly primitive and could be described as a parallel to a metal bowl discovered in Akhalgori, which has four almond-

11 12 13 14

Matiashvili 2005, 6; Tolordava 1980, 38-40. Tolordava 1980, 38-40. Narimanashvili 1991, 41-46. Lordkipanidze 2003, 34.

V. Licheli / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 55-66

1

63

2

Fig. 7. 1. Pithos-like vessel from Atskuri; 2. Vessel from Sairkhe. shape reliefs placed in lockets, though it is decorated with rather complex ornaments (Fig. 4B).15 Similar ceramic bowls have been found among the materials from Kavtiskhevi, Grmakhevistavi and Samadlo (Eastern Georgia), though they do not have exact parallels.16 On the basis of these analogies, the bowl from Atskuri should be dated to the 3rd-2nd centuries BC. Another vessel produced under the influence of Achemenian forms was found in the same burial. This is the so called pithos-like vessel (Fig. 7, 1); similar vessels were discovered in Algeti gorge, Beshtasheni necropolis (5th century BC), in Nastakisi (2nd or 1st centuries BC) and Tskhradzma necropolis (second half of the 4th century BC).17 The vessels discovered in the burials of the Late Bronze Age in Samtavro are believed to be their earliest parallels. In my opinion however, such a distant analogy is not very convincing insofar as there exist closer chronological and typological parallels which could have been models for pithos-like vessels. Namely silver and golden items (diadem, ear-rings, necklaces, bracelets) and various vessels made of metal – silver bowls, cylix, spoons, oinochoe, etc., including long-necked, open-mouthed bowls of oval form,18 were discovered in burial No. 13 at Sairkhe (Western Georgia), which is dated to the

15 16 17 18

Lordkipanidze 2003, 40. Margishvili & Narimanishvili 2004, 24. Margishvili & Narimanishvili 2004, 24. Gigolashvili 2005, 57-62.

64

V. Licheli / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 55-66

5th century BC (Fig. 7, 2). The body is decorated with flutes, the neck and the side with zoomorphic motives. In the specialized literature we find that vessels of similar shape were already known in the 7th century BC. They were discovered on the territory of Lydia (Ikiz-tepe).19 A glass vessel of the same form with similar ornaments is also known.20 A golden amphora dated to the 4th or the early 3rd centuries BC from Bulgaria is considered to be the proof for a long existence of this type of vessels.21 However, I believe that this point requires some more evidence. In this context it is interesting that the Sairkhe example is considered to be an example of Graeco-Persian art. Correspondingly, it can not be excluded that the vessel discovered in Atskuri represents a simplified analogue of the similar silver vessels and is genetically related to GraecoPersian production. It must also be pointed out that in this burial, where Achaemenian type objects dominate, a bull was also buried. The habit of depositing a bull is unique for this period. However, the head of bull was laid down in burials during the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age, especially in the 15th-14th centuries BC; the burials of this period sometimes contain skulls of bulls, mostly, in the eastern part of the burial.22 In general, the habit of burying the head of a bovid is well known in the central Transcaucasia and Anatolia in the Middle Bronze Age. I think, however, that burying an entire bull at the beginning of the Hellenistic period, in the context of cultural ‘Achaemenisation’, reflects a conceptually new attitude. It could be related to the strengthening of the cult of Mithras, killing a bull and with this giving life. Moreover, according to local traditions, the most honourable sacrifice was a bull and then a cow.23 According to such local traditions from the mountains of Georgia, often a bull and smaller hoofed animals were buried with every dead person. This type of burial rite is observed in the burial No. 2004-2, where together with a bull smaller hoofed animals are buried (an entire bull was buried only in burial No. 2004-5). Thus, a religious syncretism, which existed in Samtskhe, is, in my opinion, attested by the archaeological finds from Atskuri. A late example of the reminiscence of a very ancient idea is probably given by an image depicted on one of the rings found in burial No. 2004-5. This is a bronze ring made from a single plate. Only a small part of the ring is preserved. It contains an image of prolonged pyramidal shape (more exactly, an equallyangled triangle), a figure (?), the interior part of which is decorated with hori19 20 21 22 23

Gigolashvili 2005, 62. Gigolashvili 2005, 57-65. Gigolashvili 2005, 57-62. Gambashidze 1996, 11. Bardavelidze 1953, 66-119.

V. Licheli / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 55-66

65

zontal lines. In the front part of the triangle (?) we see the image of a twig preserved with a row of leaves on both sides (length: 1.5 cm, width: 1.2 cm). The interpretation of this image is rather difficult, since it is not completely preserved. It can only be presumed that a human being or a deity should have been shown, the decorated triangle thus being a representation of clothes covering the body. It is to be mentioned, that long clothing of sculptures is known to have been made of different materials (gold, silver, bronze). In the period to which the depiction from Atskuri dates, long clothes dominate; this becomes clear from those preserved in Achaemenian, as well as in the Greek world, although in this case it is difficult to find any precise analogy for the image from Atskuri. The existence of the cults of Apollo and Artemis attested by Georgian Historical sources (cf. supra) on the territory of southern Georgia was probably the result of a metamorphosis of the cult of Mithra and Anahita.24 Thus, the archaeological material from Atskuri shows that southern Georgia was part of the cultural area strongly influenced by Achaemenian culture. Like in Kartli (Iberia), Achaemenian traditions continued to exist in the post-Achaemenian era. This was related to the presence of representatives of the Achaemenian administration on the territory of Georgia.25 Atskuri was probably a peripheral region at this time since no elite objects of the so called “palace style” have yet been found here.

Bibliography Bardavelidze, V. 1953: Qartuli (svanuri) saceso grafikuli xelovnebis nimushebi (Tbilisi). Boardman, J. 2000: Persia and the West (London). Briant, P. 1996: Histoire de L’Empire Perse (Paris). Gambashidze, I. 1996: Carchinebul pirta samarkhebi bornigeles samarovanze. In: Monument’s Friend (Tbilisi ) 4 (95), 11-15. Gigolashvili, E. 2005: Verckhlis churcheli sairkhedan. In G. Gamkrelidze (ed.), Iberia – Colchis (Tbilisi), 57-62. Kipiani, G. 1987: Kapitelebi (Tbilisi). Koch, H. 1996: Es kundet Dareios der Konig Vom Leben im Persischen Grossreich. Kulturgeschichte der Antiken Welt 55 (Mainz). Licheli, V. 1997: Black-glazed pottery in Transcaucasia. Its diffusion route. In J. Fossey (ed.), Proceedings of the first international Conference on the Archaeology and History of the Black Sea (Amsterdam), 34-40.

24 25

Licheli 2004a, 87; Licheli 2005, 35-37. Lordkipanidze 2003, 28.

66

V. Licheli / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 55-66

Licheli, V. 1999: The Black Sea – Vani – Samtskhe: the spreading route of Black-glazed Pottery. In O. Lordkipanidze, P. Lévêque (eds.), La Mer Noire zone de contacts. Actes du VII e Symposium de Vani (Paris), 101-107. Ličeli, V. 2000a: Achämenidische Fundorte in Samcche (Südgeorgien). Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 32, 139-142. Licheli, V. 2000b: Greeks (Hellenism) in Hinterland of Georgia (4th-1st cent. B.C.). In R. Gordeziani (ed.), Phasis. Greek and Roman Studies (Tbilisi) 2-3, 246-249. Licheli, V. 2001: Caucasian Iberia in the Post-Achaemenid Period. The Chronology of the principal monuments. In I. Nielsen (ed.), The Royal palace Institution in the First Millennium BC. Monographs of the Danish Institute at Athens 4 (Kopenhagen), 249-257. Licheli, V. 2004a: Carmartuli xanis Ackuri. In M. Chkhartishvili & L. Mirianashvili (eds.), Archaeology Ethnology, Folkloristics of Caucasus (Tbilisi), 87-88. Licheli, V. 2004b: A burial with a stone Embankment at Atskuri. Journal of Georgian Archaeology 1, 218-225. Licheli, V. 2005: Kultis sakitkhi antikuri khanis samckheshi. In D. Muskhelishvili (ed.), Christianity in our Lives: past, present, future. 2nd international symposium (Tbilisi), 249-257. Lordkipanidze, O. 2003: Akhalgoris “gandzi”. Dziebani 11, 28-71. Margishvili, S. & Narimanishvili, G. 2004: Algetis kheobis antikuri xanis arqeologiuri dzeglebi (Tbilisi). Matiashvili, T. 2005: Kavtiskhevis (Cikhia-gora) gliptikuri dzeglebi. Synopsis of a PhD dissertation (Tbilisi). Narimanashvili, G. 1991: Keramika Kartli v V-I vekakh do n.é. (Tbilisi). Tolordava, V. 1980: Dakrdzalvis cesebi elinisturi khanis saqartveloshi (Tbilisi). Tskitishvili, G. 2003: Cikhia-goras satadzro kompleqsi (Tbilisi).

Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 67-107

www.brill.nl/acss

The Toreutics of Colchis in the 5th-4th Centuries BC Local Traditions, Outside Influences, Innovations Mikhail Yu. Treister

Abstract Two silver vessels: a silver aryballos from the mid-5th century BC burial No. 11/1969 in Vani and a silver goblet from the ritual complex No. 1 of the Ulyap barrow No. 1 in the Kuban basin, dated to the late 5th-early 4th century BC, are discussed. The similarities in details of the vessels and their decoration with those of the silver vessels found in Lydia and the vicinity of Sinope are pointed out. A group of items of toreutics from the 5th-4th centuries BC complexes in Colchis and outside it is singled out: they are decorated with incised animal or mythological images, the bodies of which are covered with vertical rows of horizontal notches. One can not exclude, that this kind of decoration goes back to the images on the Colchian bronze axes and belts of the 8th-6th centuries BC. The characteristic rosette decorating the bottoms of the vessels from Vani, Ulyap and the phiale No. 61 from the Treasure of Akhalgori is analysed; its genesis is discussed going back to the rosettes on the 6th century BC phialai from Iran, Asia Minor and the Balkans. Further the examples of Lydian metalware found in Colchis are discussed, including the phiale with the votive inscription to the temple of Apollo in Phasis found in the later Sarmatian burial in the Kuban basin. Finally, the problem of the ‘international Achaemenid style’ and the regional school of Achamenid-inspired toreutics is analysed. In general the author comes to the conclusion of the strong influence of toreutics of the Lydian-Ionian school and Anatolia in a broad sense of this term on the local school of toreutics, which emerged in Colchis in the 5th-4th centuries BC. Keywords Toreutics / Silver vessels / Metalware / ‘International Achaemenid style’ / ‘Lydian Achaemenid style’ / Colchis / Asia Minor /Lydia

1. A Silver Aryballos from the Burial No. 11/1969 in Vani and A Silver Goblet from the Ulyap Barrow No. 1/1982 I am going to discuss certain items of toreutics originating both from the territory of Colchis, and outside it. In the centre of the discussion will be a silver aryballos1 from the mid-5th century BC burial No. 11/1969 in 1 Aryballos with a rim of lekythos-shaped vessel, spherical body and handles in form of flatfigures of ducks with the heads turned backwards, with feathers shown by engraved parallel lines. On the necks of the ducks there are fixed chains, which were originally connected (?) to a lid or

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2007

DOI: 10.1163/157005707X212689

68

M. Y. Treister / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 67-107

Vani2 (Fig. 1) and a silver goblet from the ritual complex No. 1 of the Ulyap barrow No. 1/1982 in the Kuban basin, dated to the late 5th-early 4th century BC3 (Fig. 2). The Ulyap goblet has not been discussed specially. The aryballos from Vani was identified by O. Lordkipanidze as an item of Attic manufacture of the first half of the 5th century BC. This view, expressed by Lordkipanidze as early as in 1971,4 was later repeated in numerous publications, both written by him5

stopper. The figures of the ducks are soldered to the rectangular bases. Two rectangular plates with rounded edges are attached by two rivets each to the neck of the vessel. The necks of the ducks are soldered to these plates. The stopper is a circular plate with a concave upper surface with a vertical plug, soldered in the middle of the lower surface, the diameter of which corresponds exactly to that of the neck of the vessel. The upper and the lower parts of the body are decorated with petals, the contours of which are showed by double lines. Between the ovalshaped endings of the petals there are engraved five-petal palmettes. The middle part of the body is decorated with a frieze showing a procession of sphinxes with the front right paws lifted upwards to the left. Six figures of sphinxes remain of originally ten (?). – Silver, forged, engraving, soldering. – Ht. 8.5 cm. Dm. of the rim 3.3 cm, dm. of the body – 7.5-8.0 cm. Dm. of the rosette 3.2 cm. Frieze: ht. 2.5 cm; ht. of the sphinxes ca. 2.2 cm. – Ht. of the handles 2.4 cm. – Basements of the handles: l. 1.2 cm, w. 0.4 cm. – Stopper: dm. 2.7 cm, plug: dm. 1.0 cm, h. 1.1 cm. – Tbilisi, Georgian National Museum. Inv.-No.10-975: 101 (07: 1-69/10) -783. – Date: first half – middle of the 5th century BC. – Literature: Lordkipanidze 1971, 282-284, fig. 19-19a; Lordkipanidze et alii 1972, 235, No. 48, fig. 210; Lordkipanidze 1973; Lordkipanidze 1976, 143; 149 f.; figs. 9, 11; Lordkipanidze 1979, 160, fig. 44; Boardman 1980, 254, fig. 294 (about 500 BC); Lordkipanidze 1983, 90, No. 404, pl. 40; Matchabeli 1983, No. 11; Lordkipanidze 1985, 37 (fig.); Pfrommer 1987, 97, Anm. 577; Lordkipanidze 1989, 265; 267-268, fig. 131-131A; Lordkipanidze 1991, 130, pl. 26, 4; Boardman 1994, 218, fig. 6. 45; Kacharava 1995, 69, 71, fig. 12; Vani IX 1996, pl. 9, third row in the middle; Gigolashvili 1999, 605-613; Bill 2003, 235, No. 49, pl. 175, 3. The author is grateful to Guram Kvirkvelia and Mindia Dzhalabadze for the possibility to study the aryballos in October 2006. 2 Bill 2003, 233-235. 3 A vessel with an egg-shaped body and a high neck with slightly thickened and out-turned rim. On the neck a scene of a pursuit of a hoofed animal (a doe?) by a lion is engraved. The lower part of the neck is decorated with six rows of feathers, which are divided from the figural frieze with a band of ovae. A raised ring, decorated with pearled pattern, is observed at the junction of neck and body. The upper and the lower parts of the body are decorated with petals drawn with double lines. Between the oval endings of the petals there are flowers composed of four punched circles. The middle part of the body is decorated with a frieze composed of stylized lotus flowers, connected with arcs in the lower part. At the conjunction of the arcs similar flowers composed of four punched circles were placed. The bottom of the vessel is decorated with a rosette. – Silver, forged, engraving. – Ht. 17.7 cm. Dm. max. 8.7 cm. Wt. 79.3 g. – Moscow, State Museum of Orient. Inv. No. 1 M-IV. – Date: middle – second half of the 5th century BC. – Literature: Cat. Moscow 1985, No. 361, fig. 63; Cat. Moscow 1987, No. 104, pls. XIX-XX; Cat. Mannheim 1989, No. 104, pl. 20, fig. 37; Leskov 1990, No. 59, figs. 183-185; Cat. Speyer 1991, No. 108; Cat. Moscow 2002, No. 615; Bill 2003, 104. 4 Lordkipanidze 1971, 282. 5 See, e.g., Lordkipanidze 1973; Lordkipanidze 1976; Lordkipanidze 1985, 37.

M. Y. Treister / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 67-107

69

and by his colleagues.6 Not going into a detailed analysis of the vessel, J. Boardman mentioned this aryballos, which reminded him of “silver products of Lydo-Ionian Anatolia”.7 Later on E. Gigolashvili also suggested, that the aryballos is not Attic, pointing to the Rhodian-Ionian and Achaemenid elements of its decoration, but he did not come to a certain conclusion about its origin.8 The vessel from the Ulyap barrow (Fig. 2) has prototypes among the silver goblets with egg-shaped body and high widening upwards neck, originating from the illegal excavations of the tumuli in Ikiztepe in Lydia.9 The body and the neck of the Lydian vessels, as on the Ulyap goblet, are separated with a raised ring; on one of the vessels from Ikiztepe this rim is also decorated with vertical notches10 (Fig. 3, 1-2). A similarly shaped silver goblet with a frieze of incised vertical notches was also found in the burial No. 11/1969 in Vani11 (Fig. 3, 3). A silver goblet from the 5th century BC burial in Sairkhe has a similar shape, its neck is decorated with incised images of the animals, the body is fluted and there is also a raised ring with vertical notches at the junction of neck and body12 (Fig. 3, 4 ). Similar raised rings with vertical notches at the junction of body and neck are known on the vessels of other shapes (Fig. 4), both in silver and bronze and originating from Lydia (Sardis,13 Ikiztepe14 (Fig. 4, 1), Basmaci),15 southern coast of the Black Sea16 (Fig. 4, 2), as well as from Colchis and Iberia, the latter

6

Kacharava 1995, 69. A. Bill (2003, 235, No. 49) also considers the piece as Attic. Boardman 1994, 218. 8 Gigolashvili 1999, 605-609. 9 Uşak, Inv. Nos. 1.51.96; 1.52.96: Özgen and Öztürk 1996, Nos. 65-66. 10 Uşak, Inv. No. 1.52.96: Özgen and Öztürk 1996, No. 66. 11 A goblet with a flat bottom, egg-shaped body and high neck widening upwards. The body and the neck are divided with a frieze of short vertical notches. – Silver, forged, engraving. Deformed. – Ht. 8.5 cm. Dm. of the bottom 3.6 cm. – Tbilisi, Georgian National Museum. Inv. No. 10-975:103 (3-69/437). – Date: first half – middle of the 5th century BC. – Literature: Gigolashvili 1990a, 317-319, fig. 2; Guigolachvili 1990b, 280 f., 313, fig. 33; Tsetskhladze 1993/94, 19; Vani IX 1996, pl. 9, third row to the right; Bill 2003, 235, No. 50, pl. 175, 4. 12 Gagoshidze 2003, PPT slides 28-29. 13 Bronze jugs, New York, MMA, Inv. Nos. 14.30.28; 26.164.14: Waldbaum 1983, Nos. 976, 978, pl. 57. 14 Silver jug, Ankara, Inv. No. 75-7-66: Toker 1992, No. 148; Özgen and Öztürk 1996, No. 22. 15 Bronze oinochoe, Uşak, Inv. No. 1.6.89: Akbiyikoğlu 1991, 4-5, 20, fig. 15; Akbiyikoğlu 1994, 6, fig. 5; Özgen and Öztürk 1996, No. 223; Silver alabastron, Uşak, Inv. No. 1.1.89: Akbiyikoğlu 1991, 7, 21-22, fig. 11; Akbiyikoğlu 1994, 6-7, fig. 6; Özgen and Öztürk 1996, No. 228 (Fig. 4, 3). 16 Silver oinochoe from Sinope, earlier in the Stathatos collection, now Athens, National Museum: Amandry 1953, 13, fig. 17; Amandry 1953-54, 13-13, fig. 3, pl. 2; Summerer 2003, 24, fig. 3. 7

70

M. Y. Treister / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 67-107

Fig. 1. Silver aryballos from the burial No. 11/1969 in Vani. Tbilisi, Georgian National Museum. Inv. No. 10-975: 101 (1, 4 – after Boardman 1994; 2-3 – photo by M. Treister).

M. Y. Treister / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 67-107

71

Fig. 2. Silver goblet from Ulyap barrow No. 1/1982. Moscow, State Museum of Orient. Inv. No. 1-M-IV (after Cat. Mannheim 1989; Leskov 1990).

72

M. Y. Treister / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 67-107

Fig. 3. Silver goblets from Lydia and Colchis: 1 – Ikiztepe. Uşak, Museum. Inv. No. 1.52.96 (after Özgen and Öztürk 1996); 2 – Ikiztepe. Uşak, Museum. Inv. No. 1.51.96 (after Özgen and Öztürk 1996); 3 – Vani, burial No. 11/1969. Tbilisi, Georgian National Museum. Inv. No. 10-975: 103 (after Guigolachvili 1990b); 4 – Sairkhe (after Gagoshidze 2003).

M. Y. Treister / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 67-107

73

including the silver goblets from the burial No. 24/2002 in Vani17 and from the Treasure of Akhalgori18 (Figs. 4, 4; 5). Silver aryballoi comparable in shape to the vessel found in the burial No. 11/1969 in Vani (Fig. 1) are unknown to me. Given the characteristic shape of the neck and the spherical shape of the body, the aryballos from Vani finds the nearest parallels among the so-called Mediterranean core-formed glass aryballoi of the type I:3A, according to the classification by D. Grose,19 including the piece from Rhodes, now in Toledo, dated to the second half of the 5th-early 4th century BC.20 A comparable aryballos in the Hermitage is dated to the 5th century BC by N. Kunina.21 I would also mention the similar faience aryballoi, not only in the shape but also in the decoration (petals in the lower and the upper part of the body), for instance the vessel of unknown provenance, which is kept in the Antikensammlung Berlin and which dates to the first half of the 6th century BC.22 Another analogous piece originates from Camirus on Rhodes.23 The core-formed aryballoi discussed have loop-shaped handles. The handles of the aryballos from Vani in the form of the duck figures (Fig. 1, 1) may be to certain extent compared with the handles of the silver alabastra in the form of duck heads from Ikiztepe24 (Fig. 7, 1), Basmaci25 (Fig. 7, 2) in Lydia and from Sinope,26 as well as with those of the silver incenseburner found also in Ikiztepe and bearing a Lydian graffito.27 Such silver alabastra with similar handles were in use in Asia Minor in the Early Hellenistic

17 Paper by D. Akhvlediani, D. Kacharava and G. Kvirkvelia at the 11th International symposium on the ancient history and archaeology of the Black Sea area in Vani, September 2005. 18 A goblet with a spherical body and high neck with the edge turned outwards, with a raised ring at the junction of body and neck, decorated with vertical relief notches. – Silver, forged, hammered, engraving. The body is partly lost. – Ht. ca. 12.5 cm. – Tbilisi, Georgian National Museum. – Date: 4th century BC (?). – Literature: Smirnov 1934, 47 f., No. 66, pl. XII; Bill 2003, 211, No. 81.90, pl. 125, 3. Cf. a silver goblet from the burial No. 10 in Sairkhe, dated to the 4th century BC: Nadiradze 1990a, 165, pl. XL, 4; Nadiradzé 1990b, 215, 220, fig. 5: first half of the 4th century BC; Bill 2003, 104, 215, No. 21; pl. 136, 10. 19 Grose 1989, 127, 130. 20 Toledo, Inv. No. 23.81: Grose 1989, 112, 152, No. 121. 21 St. Petersburg, State Hermitage, Inv. No. E 2066: Kunina 1997, No. 26. 22 Berlin, Antikensammlung, Inv. No. V. I. 8844: CVA Berlin 4, pl. 170, 6-7; Webb 1978, 112, No. 746; Antikenmuseum Berlin 1988, 50-51, No. 8. 23 London, British Museum, Inv. No. 60.4-4.71: Webb 1978, 121, No. 819, pl. XVIII. 24 Uşak, Inv. Nos. 1.58.96; 1.59.96; 1.60.96; 1.61.96: Özgen and Öztürk 1996, Nos. 75, 76, 77, 78. 25 See above note 15. 26 Athens, National Museum (earlier: Stathatos Collection): Amandry 1953-1954, 15; Summerer 2003, 23, 25, fig. 4. 27 Uşak, Inv. Nos. 1.55.96: Özgen and Öztürk 1996, No. 71.

74

M. Y. Treister / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 67-107

Fig. 4. Silver vessels with raised rings at the junction of body and neck from Asia Minor and the Caucasus: 1 – Ikiztepe. Ankara, Museum of Anatolian Civilizations. Inv. No. 75-7-66 (after Toker 1992); 2 – vicinities of Sinope. Athens, National Museum (after Amandry 1953-54); 3 – Basmaci. Uşak, Museum. Inv. No. 1.1.89 (after Özgen and Öztürk 1996); 4 – Akhalgori. Tbilisi, Georgian National Museum (after Smirnov 1934).

M. Y. Treister / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 67-107

75

Fig. 5. Distribution map. Metal vessels with raised rings at the junction of body and neck. period as well, exemplified by the finds from Sinope28 and from Western Asia Minor.29 It is also worth noting that the silver alabastron from Sinope, now in Athens,30 as well as the alabastron mentioned above from Basmaci (Fig. 7, 2) have stoppers, similar to that of the aryballos from Vani. In the Treasury in Persepolis a tray was found of grey polished stone with four handles terminating in ducks’ heads.31 Another tray of marbled red stone found in the same Treasury shows one handle in the shape of a duck’s head.32 Silver vessels dated to the 6th-5th centuries BC, and decorated with incised friezes with warriors or animals are quite rare. They include the alabastra from Lydia (Fig. 6): from the illegal excavation of the Ikiztepe tumuli33 (Fig. 7, 1),

28 29 30 31 32 33

Copenhagen, Nat. Mus., Inv. No. 15095: Pfrommer 1987, 101, 261 KBk 102, pl. 51a. Oxford, Inv. No. 1976.70: Vickers 1981, 557 f., fig. 21; Pfrommer 1987, 101, 261 KBk 103. Athens, National Museum: Amandry 1953-1954, 15, No. 3, pl. III, 2. Teheran, Inv. No. 2199: Cat. London 2005, 130, No. 148. Teheran, Inv. No. 2335: Cat. London 2005, 131, No. 149. Uşak, Inv. No. 1.61.96: von Bothmer 1984, No. 45 = Özgen and Öztürk 1996, No. 78.

76

M. Y. Treister / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 67-107

Fig. 6. Distribution map. Silver vessels of the 6th-5th centuries BC with incised friezes showing animals or warriors. from the tumulus at Basmaci34 (Fig. 7, 2), as well as the skyphos from the former collection of Hagop Kevorkian, now in the Metropolitan Museum of Arts35 (Fig. 7, 3), the shape of the latter finding the closest parallel in the bronze vessel from the tomb No. 723 in Sardis, dated to the 7th-6th century BC.36 Finally, incised images of animals have been partly preserved on the outer walls of a late 5th century BC silver-gilt kylix from the central burial of the Solokha barrow.37 The origins of this technique of vessel decoration may be sought in the so-called Syro-Phoenician bowls of the Orientalizing style38 and the related vessels widely spread in the Mediterranean during the

34

See above note 15. New York, MMA, Inv. No. 1971.118: von Bothmer 1984, No. 49. 36 New York, MMA, Inv. No. 26.164.12: Waldbaum 1983, No. 973, pl. 57. See also the parallels in the Lydian pottery repertoire: Waldbaum 1983, 148. 37 St.Petersburg, Hermitage, Inv. No. h 1912 1/55: Mantsevich 1987, No. 7. 38 Markoe 1985; S. Moscati, in Cat. Venice 1988, 436 ff. 35

M. Y. Treister / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 67-107

77

Fig. 7. Silver vessels of the 6th-5th centuries BC with incised friezes showing animals or warriors: 1 – Ikiztepe. Uşak, Museum. Inv. No. 1.61.96 (after Özgen and Öztürk 1996); 2 – Basmaci. Uşak, Museum. Inv. No. 1.1.89 (after Akbiyikoğlu 1991; Özgen and Öztürk 1996); 3 – silver skyphos from the former collection of Hagop Kevorkian, at present New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art. Inv. No. 1971.118 (after von Bothmer 1984).

78

M. Y. Treister / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 67-107

7th century BC,39 as the example of the so-called situla with the inscription of Plikasnas found in Chiusi in Etruria40 shows. The aryballos from Vani is decorated in the middle part of the spherical body with a frieze showing a procession of sphinxes moving to the left (Fig. 1, 1, 4 ). On the neck of the Ulyap goblet there is a scene of a lion pursuing a hoofed animal (a doe?) (Fig. 2, 1-3). The structure of the decoration on the Ulyap goblet and the aryballos from Vani is similar. The upper and the lower part of the bodies are decorated with long-petals with flowers and palmettes between them (Figs. 1, 1, 4; 2, 2-3). Comparable decoration showing palmettes between long petals are found on a silver goblet from the 5th century burial in Sairkhe (Fig. 8, 2-3). The central part of the body of the Ulyap goblet is occupied by a frieze composed of alternating almond-shaped elements and large five-petaled lotus flowers, connected to each other with arcs in the lower part. At the conjunction of the arcs four-petaled flowers are punched (Fig. 2, 2-3). This ornamental frieze corresponds well to the rosette engraved at the bottom of the vessel (Fig. 2, 4). Somewhat different is a variant of engraved decoration on the stand-rings of silver situlae from the barrows No. 6/196141 of the first half of the 4th century BC42 and No. 11/196943 of the mid-5th century BC in Vani, which have the attachments of the handles in the form of animal figures, which, according to J. Boardman, are „of Anatolian Greek style“.44 Here the 39

Markoe 1985, 141-148; S. Moscati, in Cat. Venice 1988, 440 ff.; Markoe 1992. Florence, Inv. No. 2594: Ori e Argenti Firenze 1990, 16, No. 232, pls. 64-65. 41 Situla on a stand-ring decorated with engraving; the arch-shaped handle is fixed to the cast sculpted groups soldered to the body: each of them shows a winged lion and two rams. Preserved fragmentary, the body lost. – Silver, forged, casting, engraving, soldering. – Original height unknown. – Tbilisi, Georgian National Museum. Inv. No. 11-974: 45 (3-61/662, 52, 54). – Date: late 5th-early 4th century BC. – Literature: Khoshtaria et alii 1972, 116, No. 45, fig. 61; Lordkipanidze 1983, 90, No. 408, pl. 41; Gigolašvili 2002, 277-281, figs. 3-4; Bill 2003, 231, No. 37, pl. 167, 2-3. 42 Bill 2003, 128. 43 Situla on a stand-ring decorated with engraving; the arch-shaped handle is fixed to the cast sculpted groups soldered to the body: each of them show a winged lion and two rams. – Silver, forged, casting, engraving, soldering. – Ht. 13 cm. Dm. 11.5 cm. – Tbilisi, Georgian National Museum. Inv. No. 10-975:102 (3-69/436). – Date: first half – middle of the 5th century BC. – Literature: Lordkipanidze et alii 1972, 235, No. 49, fig. 211; Lordkipanidze 1976, 143; 148, fig. 8; Lordkipanidze 1979, 61, fig. 12; Lordkipanidze 1983, 90, No. 407, pl. 41; Matchabeli 1983, Nos. 7-8; Lordkipanidze 1989, 265; Lodkipanidze 1991, 130, pl. 26, 3; Boardman 1994, 219-220, fig. 6. 47; Kacharava 1995, 69, 71, fig. 14; Vani IX 1996, pl. 9, third row, to the right; Tsetskhladze 1998, 116, fig. 50; Gigolašvili 2002, 277-281, figs. 1-2; Bill 2003, 235, No. 54, pl. 175, 10 (Attic, second quarter of the 5th century BC). 44 Boardman 1994, 219 f. concerning the silver situlae from Vani. The decoration in form of the figures of reclining rams in heraldic pose was rather widespread for the Greek bronze hydriai 40

M. Y. Treister / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 67-107

79

Fig. 8. Silver goblet from Sairkhe. Tbilisi, Museum of Art (after Gagoshidze 2003). of the middle – second half of the 6th century BC (see in general: Diehl 1964, 214, No. B31, pl. 3, 6; 215, No. B 44, pl. 4, 2; Stibbe 1992, 15 f., fig. 23: No. E2; 21, fig. 28: No. F8; 22, fig. 31: F9; 34, fig. 44: No. H2; 38, fig. 49: No. I1; 40, fig. 51: No. I3; 41, figs. 52-53, Nos. I4, I6; 42, fig. 54: No.I9), in particular from South Italy (Paestum: Rolley 1982, pls. VII, 25-26; X, 41-43; XI, 44-48; Sala Conselina: Rolley 1982, pl. VII, 27-28; Gela: Rolley 1982, pl. XXXII, 151-152). Among the silver ware the handle attachments in the form of recling rams in a heraldic pose find

80

M. Y. Treister / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 67-107

three-petaled lotus flowers not only alternate with the almond-shaped elements, but also decorate the tops of the latter. The decoration of the neck of the Ulyap goblet with rows of feathers (Fig. 2, 2-3) finds parallels on the above-mentioned silver amphora of unknown provenance in Teheran,45 as well as on a silver phiale from the Treasure found in Vladinya in Thrace, dated to the early 4th century BC.46 The aryballos from Vani is decorated in the central part of the body with a frieze, showing a procession of sphinxes (Fig. 1, 1, 4). This motif was extremely widespread, in particular in the Attic black-figured vase painting, a fact mentioned by O. D. Lordkipanidze47 (for him, this was an argument in favour of the Attic origin of the aryballos). The figure of the sphinx, decorating the spoon from the burial No. 11/1969 in Vani,48 and with parallels among the figures on one of the ladles from Ikiztepe,49 shows that the images of sphinxes were popular in the toreutics of the 6th-5th centuries BC. The moving sphinxes in heraldic pose are seen on the skyphos from the former Kevorkian collection.50 Similar sphinxes, with raised front leg, as on the aryballos from Vani, are represented on the silver belt from burial No. 24, found in Vani in 2002.51 Stylistically the images of sphinxes on the aryballos and the belt vary; they are united, however, by the same decoration principle52 – the body of the sphinx the closest prototypes in a silver oinochoe from Ikiztepe in Lydia (von Bothmer 1984, No. 35; Özgen and Öztürk 1996, 35, fig. 54, No. 106). I would also mention, that the figures of recling rams is an extremely popular motif of the bronze formers found in Ikiztepe (Özgen and Öztürk 1996, Nos. 189-191; Treister 2001, 61 ff., fig. 4). Among the materials from Ikiztepe there are numerous separate figures of rams shown in similar poses and executed in gold, electrum and silver (Özgen and Öztürk 1996, Nos. 151-158; see also commentary p. 197). 45 A silver amphora of unknown provenance, kept in Teheran, Inv. No. 1387: Cat. Paris 1961, No. 683, pl. LVI; Cat. Vienna 2000, No. 115, ill. on p. 203; Cat. London 2005, No. 126. 46 Sofia, Inv. No. 8150: Cat. Cologne 1979, No. 258. 47 Lordkipanidze 1976, 143. 48 A silver spoon with a sculpted image of a sphinx. – Silver, forged, engraving, soldering. – L. 18.3 cm. – Tbilisi, Georgian National Museum. Inv. No. 07: 1-69/438 (3-69/438). – Date: first half – middle of the 5th century BC. – Literature: Lordkipanidze et alii 1972, 235, No. 51, fig. 212; Lordkipanidze 1976, 143; 148, fig. 7; 150, fig. 10; Lordkipanidze 1983, 90-91, No. 409, pl. 42; Matchabeli 1983, No. 10; Lordkipanidze 1989, 265; Vani IX, 1996, pl. 9, second row; Tsetskhladze 1998, 116, fig. 49; Bill 2003, 119 f., 235, No. 48, pl. 175, 1-2 (Attic, second quarter of the 5th century BC). 49 Uşak, Inv. No. 1.81.96: von Bothmer 1984, No. 59; Özgen and Öztürk 1996, 35, fig. 55; No. 107. 50 See above note 35. 51 Japaridze 2005, 16 (fig.). The author is grateful to G. Kvirkvelia for the possibility to study the piece. 52 The importance of the study of „toolmarks“ on the objects of toreutics is prooved, e.g. by the investigation of some items of Thraco-Getic toreutics conducted by P. Meyers (1981, 49-54), and my studies of the so-called Graeco-Scythian toreutics (Treister 2001, 127 ff.; Treister 2005b).

M. Y. Treister / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 67-107

81

(excluding its head and wings) is covered completely with vertical rows of horizontal notches, reminding of the decoration of the animals on the above mentioned skyphos from the former Kevorkian collection (Fig. 7, 3). Similarly arranged notches cover the bodies of the animals on the goblet from the 5th century BC burial in Sairkhe (Fig. 8, 1) and on the discussed goblet from the Ulyap barrow No. 1 (Fig. 2, 1), as well as on the numerous examples of silver and bronze vessels and gold jewellery from Vani, dated from the 5th and the 4th centuries BC53 (Fig. 9). The fact, that this coincidence in the technique of decoration of the surface of images is not by chance is demonstrated by the decoration of the animals on the silver alabastron from Ikiztepe: the bodies of the deer are decorated with pairs of notches, those of lionesses – with groups of three dots, whereas the images of bulls and lions lack such decoration54 (Fig. 7, 1). Thus, a group of items of toreutics from 5th-4th centuries BC complexes in Colchis and outside it is singled out: they are decorated with incised animal or mythological images, the bodies of which are covered with vertical rows of

53 A silver plate in the form of a wild boar, an attachment of a situla from the burial No. 24/2002 in Vani (Cat. Tbilisi 2005, back cover), and stylistically similarly decorated images of wild boars – the terminals of gold bracelets from the burial No. 11/1969 in Vani (Lordkipanidze 1971, 274-275, fig. 10-10a; Lordkipanidze et alii 1972, 224, No. 11, fig. 199; Chkonia 1981, No. 52, fig. 25; Dschwachischwili and Abramischwili 1986, fig. 22 above; Lordkipanidze 1991, 124, pl. 52, 3-4; Tsetskhladze 1993/94, 14, 43, fig. 3; Lordkipanidze 1995, 372, col. pl. V, 3; Bill 2003, 234, No. 17, pl. 173, 3-4). – The figures of a wild boar and a wolf on a silver phiale from the burial No. 2/1947 of the early 3rd century BC (Vani I, 1972, fig. 4; MAtiashvili 1977, 105, No. 2; 190-191, No. 6, figs. 100-101; Matchabeli 1983, No. 12; Dschwachischwili and Abramischwili 1986, fig. 32; Tsetskhladze 1993/94, 45, fig. 8; Tsetskhladze 1994, 207, 209, fig. 10; Bill 2003, 45, fig. 2) (Fig. 9, 1). A silver phiale with a similar structure of decoration – four animals in a lower relief grouped around a small omphalos (in the given case birds instead of animals) was found in the burial No. 24/2002 in Vani (Japaridze 2005, 15 [fig. below]). – Images of wild boars and lions on the rhombic terminals of one of the gold diadems from the burial No. 6/1961 in Vani (Khoshtaria et alii 1972, 114, No. 3, figs. 37-38; Andriashvili 1972, fig. 230; Lordkipanidze 1979, 62, figs. 25-27; Chkonia 1981, No. 2, pl. 2; Tsetskhladze 1993/94, 12, 43, fig. 1; Braund 1994, 128, fig. 5; Cat. Saarbrücken 1995, 146, fig. 145, No. 272; Lordkipanidze 1995, 370, col. pl. I, 3-4; Bill 2003, 77-78 (Gruppe I), 231, No. 1, pl. 163, 1; Cat. Tbilisi 2005, 90) (Fig. 9, 2). – Images of a wild boar, aurochs, cock and lion on the bronze lid of a miniature situle from the burial No. 11/1969 in Vani (Lordkipanidze et alii 1972, 238, No. 72, fig. 225; Lordkipanidze 1979, 61, fig. 24; Lordkipanidze 1989, 248, 250, fig. 127A; Lordkipanidze 1991, 122, fig. 60, 1-2, pl. 24, 4; Lordkipanidze 1995, 369, fig. 6: below right; Vani IX 1996, pl. 7 above right; Tsetskhladze 1998, 117; Bill 2003, 235, No. 56, pl. 175, 11) (Fig. 9, 3). The shape of this bronze vessel (Lordkipanidze et alii 1972, 238, No. 71, fig. 224; Lordkipanidze 1979, 61, fig. 23; Lordkipanidze 1989, 248, 250, fig. 127; Lordkipanidze 1991, 122, fig. 60, 1; Lordkipanidze 1995, 369, fig. 6: below left; Vani IX 1996, pl. 7 above left; Bill 2003, 235; No. 54, pl. 175, 10) corresponds to that of the silver situlae from the burials Nos. 6 (see above note 41) and 11 (see above note 43). 54 See above note 33.

82

M. Y. Treister / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 67-107

Fig. 9. Finds from Vani: 1 – silver phiale from the burial No. 2/1947 in Vani, details. Tbilisi, Georgian National Museum. Inv. No. 14-57: 11 (photo by M. Treister); 2 – gold diadem from the burial No. 6/1961 in Vani, details. Tbilisi, Georgian National Museum. Inv. No. 11-974: 1 (3-61/662,1) (photo by M. Treister); 3 – bronze lid of a miniature situle from the burial No. 11/1969 in Vani. Tbilisi, Georgian National Museum (after Lordkipanidze 1989).

M. Y. Treister / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 67-107

83

horizontal notches. One can not exclude that this scheme of decoration goes back to the images on the Colchian bronze axes55 and belts56 of the 8th-6th centuries BC. It is also worth noting a similar treatment of the bodies of animals on the local Colchian pithoi of the 4th-3rd centuries BC,57 as well as on one of the bronze flasks from the Kazbegi Treasure.58

2. Blattkelchmedallions The rosettes on the bottom of both discussed vessels, the so-called Blattkelchmedallions, composed of four almond-shaped petals with the lotus flowers between them, show a great extent of similarity. The almond-shaped elements are oriented with the pointed ends toward the edge of the rosettes (Fig. 10, 1-2). It is beyond doubt, that these engraved medaillions reproduce the type of decoration seen on the outer side of the bottom of the phiale from Akhalgori59 (Fig. 10, 3). M. Pfrommer has rightly remarked the similarity between the rosettes on the bottom of the aryballos from Vani and the phiale from Akhalgori, and followed M. Rostovtzeff,60 mistakenly ascribing to the same type of rosette on the bottom of the electrum vessel with the image of the Scythians from Kul-Oba,61 and designating the rosette proper as that of the “Kul-Oba variant”.62 Thus, we have the chance now to correct this historical injustice.

55

See, e.g., Lordkipanidze 1991, 99, fig. 52; Cat. Saarbrücken 1995, 108, fig. 93. On ColchisKoban axes with engraved decoration, see in general: Urushadze 1988, 74 ff. 56 See, e.g., Cat. Saarbrücken 1995, 118, fig. 109, No. 223. See in general on bronze belts with incised decoration: Urushadze 1984. 57 For instance, from the Dapnari necropolis: Lordkipanidze 1974, 938, fig. 26; Kiguradze 1976, 44, pl. XL; Cat. Saarbrücken 1995, No. 287. 58 Moscow, State Historical Museum, Inv. No. 1762: Uvarova 1900, 140-141, fig. 122; Tallgren 1930, 118, Nos. 2-4; 119, fig. 6. 59 Phiale omphalos with the edge turned outwards. Around the omphalos there are grouped four almond-shaped lobes; between them lotus flowers with 15-18 petals. Silver, forged, chiselled, hammered. – Dm. 19.0-19.25 cm. Ht. max. 3.4 cm. – Date: 5th century BC. – Tbilisi, Georgian National Museum. Inv. No. SM 62. – Literature: Smirnov 1934, 44 f., No. 61, pl. 8; Luschey 1939, 97 No. BK 18; S. 106; Matchabeli 1983, No. 3; Pfrommer 1987, 97, note 578; Abka’i-Khavari 1988, 106, 125-126, No. F3C14, fig. 6 (4th century BC); Cat. Saarbrücken 1995, No. 303, fig. 5; Bill 2003, 211, No. 81.95, pl. 125, 7; Gagoshidze 2003, PPT, slide 10 (mid-4th century BC, local production). 60 Rostovtzeff 1914, 86, pl. 4, 3. 61 Cf. this eight-petaled rosette with oval petals, which was published first in 2001: Cat. Milan 2001, 102 (below) No. 54. 62 Pfrommer 1987, 97, pl. 55.

84

M. Y. Treister / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 67-107

Fig. 10. Rosettes on bottoms of silver vessels from Georgia and the Kuban basin: 1 – silver aryballos from the burial No. 11/1969 in Vani. Tbilisi, Georgian National Museum. Inv. No. 10-975: 101 (photo by M. Treister); 2 – Silver goblet from Ulyap barrow No. 1/1982. Moscow, State Museum of Orient. Inv. No. 1-M-IV (after Leskov 1990); 3 – silver phiale from the Treasure of Akhalgori. Tbilisi, Georgian National Museum. Inv. No. 62 (after Smirnov 1934; Cat. Saarbrücken 1995).

M. Y. Treister / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 67-107

85

Fig. 11. Distribution map. Low silver phialai with the rim slightly bent inwards and a frieze around the omphalos with large almond-shaped lobes and large lotus flowers. The analysis, the brief results of which I am going to present, shows that the prototype of this type of rosette was the pattern (a frieze around the omphalos with large almond-shaped lobes and with large lotus flowers) decorating the low phialai with the rim slightly bent inwards, spread in Asia Minor, Iran and in the Balkans (Fig. 11), including the first half of the 6th century finds from the Lion Tomb in Miletos63 (Fig. 12, 1-2), the piece from the late 6th century BC burial No. 52 in Sindos, Macedonia64 (Fig. 12, 4) and the late 6th-early 5th century BC phiale from the Rogozen Treasure65 (Fig. 12, 3). Rather similar 63 Berlin, Antikensammlung, Inv. Nos. 33809-810: Luschey 1939, 95, No. BK 2, fig. 31; 98, 103, 163, No. 31: second half of the 6th century BC; Strong 1966, 56 f., pl. 9A: as supposedly originating from Asia Minor; Abka’i-Khavari 1988, 114-115, No. F3A5, fig. 4; Forbeck and Heres 1997, 26-31, figs. 24-27. 64 Thessaloniki, Inv.-No. 8575: Cat. Thessaloniki 1985, No. 374; Vokotopoulou 1996, 134, No. 8575. 65 Sofia, Nat. Museum of History, Inv. No. 22302: Silberschatz aus Rogozen, No. 2; Cat. Saint Louis 1998, No. 79; Archibald 1998, 179 (as manufactured probably in the Chalcidic peninsula in the early 5th century BC).

86

M. Y. Treister / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 67-107

Fig. 12. Low silver phialai with the rim slightly bent inwards and a frieze around the omphalos with large almond-shaped lobes and large lotus flowers: 1-2 – Lion Tomb, Miletos. Berlin, Antikensammlung, Inv. Nos. 33809-810 (after Forbeck and Heres 1997); 3 – Rogozen Treasure. Sofia, Nat. Museum of History, Inv. No. 22302 (after Cat. Saint Louis 1998); 4 – Sindos, tomb No. 52. Thessaloniki, Archaeological Museum. Inv. No. 8575 (after Cat. Thessaloniki 1985); 5-6 – silver goblets. Dalboki. Oxford, Ashmolean Museum. Inv. No. AN 1948.102-103 (after Vickers 2002).

M. Y. Treister / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 67-107

87

Fig. 13. Distribution map. Silver phialai with a rim bent slightly outwards. Decoration occupies the lower part of the vessels: the almond-shaped lobes and lotus flowers are of almost the same dimensions. engraved rosettes decorate flat bottoms of the goblets from the Thracian burial in a barrow near Dalboki66 (Fig. 12, 5-6), which is dated to ca. 430 BC.67 On the silver phialai of different shape with a rim bent slightly outwards (Fig. 13) from Susa,68 Agighiol69 (Fig. 14, 1), as well as the finds from the burial No. II, 6 of the first half of the 5th century BC in Kozani, Macedonia

66 Oxford, Inv. No. AN 1948.102-103: Archibald 1989, 18, pl. IIIA; Vickers 2002, 68 f. (with bibliography), pl. 26. 67 Vickers 2002, 59. 68 Luschey 1939, 96, No. BK 16; Abka’i-Khavari 1988, 121-122, No. F2C18, fig. 4. 69 Bucharest, MNIR, Inv. No. 11.178: Berciu 1969a, 224 f., fig. 7; pl. 117; Berciu 1969b, 52-53, No. 2, figs. 22-23; Berciu 1974, 59, No. 2, figs. 16-17, Luschey 1983, 328 f., No. A24,2, pl. 61, 2; Abka’i-Khavari 1988, 117-118, No. F1C12, fig. 2; Cat. Frankfurt 1994, No. 49.7; Archibald 1998, 179, fig. 7. 2 top right; 180. It is hardly possible, as it is done by H. Luschey, to attribute the phiale from Aghighol unconditionally as Achaemenid, based on the similarity of its decoration with that of a bronze phiale from Dumavizah in Iran (Luschey 1983, 329, A24 Taf. 61, 1). Z. Archibald (1998, 180) considers it as probably “a native north Aegean variant superiposed on the standard Achaemenid shape”.

88

M. Y. Treister / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 67-107

with votive inscription (dedication to the temple of Athena in Megara)70 (Fig. 14, 2) and from the burial No. 6/1967 of the Pichvnari necropolis71 (Fig. 14, 3), dated about the middle of the 5th century BC,72 the decoration occupies the lower parts of the vessel, the proportion of the elements is changing: the almond-shaped lobes and lotus flowers are of almost the same dimensions. Perhaps also a fragmented silver phiale from the burial No. 1 of the Enageti necropolis in Kvemo Kartli73 belongs to this group, dated by the publisher to the first half of the 4th century BC,74 or according to A. Kakhidze, to 430-420 BC.75 It is worth noting that a phiale of this decorative schema is shown on the Early Classical Ionian capital from the Parthenos Sanctury at Kavalla, Macedonia76 (Fig. 14, 4), as well as on a terracota pinax with the scene of sacrifice to Persephone from the sanctuary of Persephone in Manella (Lokroi Epizephyroi), dated to the first half of the 5th century BC. 76a Another type of similar decoration is observed on the phialai with two friezes of similar pattern (Fig. 15), represented by the find from the mid5th century barrow No. 24/1878 of the necropolis of Nymphaion77 (Fig. 16, 1), from the Rogozen Treasure78 (Fig. 16, 3), As well as from Aëtós on the island of Ithaca79 (Fig. 16, 4). To its variant belong three almost identical phialai from the Late Archaic tomb of the western necropolis of Archondiko in the area of Pella, Macedonia,80 from a complex unearthed in illegal excavations in

70 Kozani, Inv. No. 589: Cat. Thessaloniki 1978, No. 45, pl. 10; Gill 1990, 625; Vickers and Gill 1994, 57. 71 Phiale with omphalos, around which there are grouped 13 almond-shaped lobes, with pointed ends towards the edge, between them there are stylized four-petaled lotus flowers. – Dm. 12 cm. Ht. 3.5 cm. – Batumi.- Date: first half – middle of the 5th century BC. – Literature: Tsetskhladze 1994, 204, fig. 6; Tsetskhladze 1999, 47, 163, fig. 34; Bill 2003, 194, No. 3, pl. 102, 8; Kakhidze 2004, 96, 107, fig. 21, 2; 109, fig. 23. 72 Tsetskhladze 1999, 47; Kakhidze 2004, 100 ff. 73 Phiale with a small omphalos. Around the omphalos there are grouped almond-shaped lobes with the pointed ends towards the edge, between them there four-petaled lotus flowers. Silver, forged, hammered. Preserved fragmentary. – Literature: Marghishvili 1992, 5, 30, 31, 71-72, pl. XX; Bill 2003, 113, 164, No. 32.9; pl. 31, 6. 74 Marghishvili 1992, 5, 30, 31, 71-72, pl. XX. 75 Kakhidze 2004, 97. 76 Frazer 1990, 166 f., fig. 114, note 61. 76a Cat. Cologne 1998, 166, No. 96. 77 St. Petersburg, State Hermitage: Silant’eva 1959, 58, figs. 26; 62. 78 Sofia, Nat. Museum of History, Inv. No. 22381: Silberschatz aus Rogozen, No. 81; Archibald 1989, 18 (4th century BC). 79 London, British Museum, Inv. No. GR 1920.5-29.2: Luschey 1939, 96, No. 9; Richter 1959, 246, pl. 59, fig. 46 (not later than the end of the 5th century BC); Davidson and Oliver 1984, 81; Steinhart and Wirbelauer 2002, 230, No. 79, figs. 115-116: 2nd half of the 4th century BC. 80 Pella, Museum: Chryssostomou and Chryssostomou 2003, 512 f.; 516, figs. 16-17.

M. Y. Treister / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 67-107

89

Fig. 14. Silver phialai with rim bent slightly outwards. Decoration occupies the lower part of the vessels: the almond-shaped lobes and lotus flowers are of almost the same dimensions: 1 – Aghigiol. Bucharest, National Museum of History, Inv. No. 11.178 (after Cat. Frankfurt 1994); 2 – Kozani, burial No. II, 6. Kozani, Archaeological Museum, Inv. No. 569 (after Cat. Thessaloniki 1978); 3 – Pichvnari, burial No. 6/1967. Batumi, Archaeological Institute (after Kakhidze 2004); 4 – capital from the Parthenos Sanctury at Kavalla, Macedonia (after Frazer 1990).

90

M. Y. Treister / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 67-107

Fig. 15. Distribution map. Silver phialai with two decorative friezes. Chalkidiki, dated about 480 BC,81 and from the ritual complex of the Ulyap barrow No. 482 (Fig. 16, 2). On the gold phiale from burial No. 6/1961 in Vani dated to the late 5th-early 4th, or to the first half of the 4th century BC the frieze of the pattern discussed is put in the lower part around the omphalos, whereas the walls are decorated with vertical fluting83 (Fig. 16, 5). The combi81

Mainz, RGZM: Inv. No. O.37894: Hassel 1967, 201 ff.; 203, fig. 1, pl. 49; Egg and Pare 1995, 147, No. 307, col. pl. XIV, 1. 82 Phiale with an omphalos, decorated with alternating large and small almond-shaped projections with lotus flowers between them. The edge of omphalos is decorated with a relief rim with pearl pattern. – Silver, forged, hammered, engraving. – Ht. 6 cm. Dm. 20.2 cm.- Moscow, State Museum of Orient, Inv. No. 38 M-IV; 36 M-IV. – Date: first half of the 4th century BC. – Literature: Cat. Moscow 1985, No. 366, fig. 66; Cat. Moscow 1987, No. 102-103, fig. 41; Leskov 1990, No. 235, fig. 186 (phiale); Leskov 1990, No. 246 (omphalos). 83 Phiale with a large omphalos, framed with an ovae frieze. Around the omphalos there are 12 almond-shaped lobes alternating with stylized five-petaled lotus flowers. Along the edge a frieze of long petals. – Gold, forged, chiselled, hammered. – Dm. 13.4 cm. – Tbilisi, Georgian National Museum. Inv. No. 11-974:39 (3-61/662, 3). – Date: late 5th-early 4th century BC. – Literature: Khoshtaria et alii 1972, 116, No. 39, fig. 55; Lordkipanidze 1979, 63, fig. 16; Dschwachischwili and Abramischwili 1986, fig. 33; Tsetskhladze 1993/94, 17; Cat. Saarbrücken 1995, No. 280; 150, fig. 149; Lordkipanidze 1995, 373, col. pl. V, 4; Bill 2003, 113, 231, No. 34, pl. 166, 10.

M. Y. Treister / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 67-107

91

Fig. 16. Silver phialai with two decorative friezes: 1 – Nymphaion, barrow No. 24/1878. St. Petersburg, State Hermitage (after Silant’eva 1959); 2 – Ulyap, barrow No. 4. Moscow, State Museum of Orient, Inv. No. 38 M-IV (after Leskov 1990); 3 – Rogozen Treasure. Sofia, Nat. Museum of History, Inv. No. 22381 (after Silberschatz aus Rogozen); 4 – Aëtós, Ithaca. London, British Museum, Inv. No. GR 1920.5-29.2 (after Steinhart and Wirbelauer 2002); 5 – Vani, burial No. 6/1961. Tbilisi, Georgian National Museum. Inv. No. 11-974:39 (after Cat. Saarbrücken 1995); 6 – Sardis, No. 213/1911. Istanbul Archaeological Museum, Inv. No. 4539 (after Waldbaum 1983).

92

M. Y. Treister / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 67-107

nation of the two similar friezes, although located in different positions, is found on a silver phiale from the burial No. 213/1911 of the Sardis necropolis, which is dated to the late 6th-early 5th century BC84 (Fig. 16, 6). The further development of the rosette under discussion may be followed in the engraved rosettes on the bottoms of the vessels from the Scythian barrows of the 4th century BC (on the round-bottomed vessels with segment-shaped handles from Solokha85 (Fig. 17, 1) and Chmÿreva Mogila86 (Fig. 17, 2 ); round-bottomed vessel with a spherical body, with a short cylindrical neck and slightly turned-out rim – from Kul-Oba87 (Fig. 17, 3)) – the four large almond-shaped lobes were added with another four of smaller dimensions located between them, inbetween eight lotus flowers.

3. Lydian Imports and the Phiale from Zubov Farm A certain number of silver vessels and utensils from Colchis may be assigned to the Lydian production. A ladle from the burial No. 24 in Vani with a vertical handle, decorated with two figures of rams, standing on their hind legs, forming a ring, finds its closest parallel in a silver ladle from Ikiztepe.88 In contrast to the find from Vani, the handle of the ladle from Ikiztepe is decorated with two lion figures. A similar construction of the handle finial is present on a ladle from the barrow at Toptepe.89 A handle of a similar scheme, 84 Istanbul Archaeological Museum, Inv. No. 4539: Butler 1922, 83-84, fig. 82; Luschey 1939, No. 13; Waldbaum 1983, No. 963, pl. 56; Abka’i-Khavari 1988, 121-122, No. F2C14 Abb. 4; 20 almond-shaped projections, between them four-petalled palmettes; late 6th-early 5th century BC. 85 St. Petersburg, State Hermitage, Inv. No. h 1913 1/40: CR St. Petersburg 1913-1915, 115-117, fig. 187; Artamonow 1970, pls. 152-155; Onaiko 1970, 103, No. 435; 183, pl. XXIX; Il’inskaya and Terenozhkin 1983, 131 (fig. below); Cat. Leningrad 1985, No. 10 (4th century BC, bosporan?); Galanina and Grach 1986, figs. 157-160; Mantsevich 1987, 88-92, No. 61; Ryabova 1987, 148, fig. 3, 1; 149-150; Rolle 1989, 77, figs. 50-51; Cat. Milan 2001, No. 65; Cat. Moscow 2003, 47. 86 Once in the Hermitage, transferred in 1932 to Kharkov, lost during World War II: CR St. Petersburg 1909-1910, 132-133, fig. 199; Pharmakowsky 1910, 221-222, No. 5, figs. 20-21; Onaiko 1970, 103, No. 437; 183, pl. XXX; Rolle 1979a, pl. 22, 1; Il’inskaya and Terenozhkin 1983, 147 (fig. below); Ryabova 1987, 148, fig. 3, 6; 150. 87 St. Petersburg, State Hermitage, Inv. No. K-O 96: Artamonow 1970, pls. 239-240; Grach 1984, 102 ff., pl. 2a-d; Cat. Leningrad 1985, No. 11; Galanina and Grach 1986, figs. 188-189; Schiltz 1994, 161, fig. 119; Jacobson 1995, 206, VI.D.3. – See a rosette: Rostovtzeff 1914, 86, pl. IV, 3 (mistakenly published here as a rosette on the bottom of the electrum vessel); Grach 1984, 102 ff, pl. 2d. 88 Uşak, Inv. No. 1.28.96: Özgen and Öztürk 1996, No. 30. 89 Uşak, Inv. No. 1.81.96: Özgen and Öztürk 1996, No. 107.

M. Y. Treister / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 67-107

93

Fig. 17. Silver-gilt bowls with rosettes on the bottom from the 4th century BC Scythian barrows: 1 – Solokha. St. Petersburg, State Hermitage, Inv. No. h 1913 1/40 (after Mantsevich 1987; Cat. Milan 2001); 2 – Chmÿreva Mogila. Lost during World War II (after Onaiko 1970); 3 – Kul’-Oba. St. Petersburg, State Hermitage, Inv. No. K-O 96 (after Grach 1984; Galanina and Grach 1986).

94

M. Y. Treister / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 67-107

Fig. 18. Distribution map. Silver phialai with a frieze of chased tongues around the omphalos. however with lion figures with their heads downwards, decorates a ladle from the Miho Museum.90 Most probably silver phialai of the type F3a, according to Abka’i-Khavari’s classification91 (Fig. 18) from the burial No. 13 of the necropolis of Sairkhe, dated to the first half of the 5th century BC with a frieze of chased tongues around the omphalos92 also belong to the Lydian imports. Similar silver phialai of comparable dimensions originate from a Lydian tumulus near Uşak,93

90

Cat. Miho 2002, No. 35. Abka’i-Khavari 1988, 114. To the same group belongs also a smaller silver unprovenanced phiale with comparable decoration, kept in Bloomington and dated to the 5th century BC (Indiana University Art Museum, Inv. No. 69.102.2: Cat. Baltimore 1976, No. 59; Cat. Toledo 1977, No. 2; Lordkipanidze 1997, 21; Archibald 1998, 181, note 31). 92 Tbilisi, Museum of Arts: Bregvadzé and Makharadzé 2002, 283, 286, fig. 7; Bill 2003, 215, No. 23. 93 Uşak, Inv. No. 1.38.96: Cat.Toledo 1977, 25; von Bothmer 1984, No. 27: 6th century BC; Özgen and Öztürk 1996, No. 43; Lordkipanidze 1997, 21. 91

M. Y. Treister / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 67-107

95

Fig. 19. Silver phialai with a frieze of chased tongues around the omphalos: 1 – Zubov Farm, barrow No. 1. St. Petersburg, State Hermitage, Inv. No. 2234/18 (photo by M. Treister); 2 – Dardanos. Çanakkale, Archaeological Museum, Inv. No. 2086 (photo by M. Treister).

96

M. Y. Treister / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 67-107

from a Dardanos tumulus in the Troad94 (Fig. 19, 2), as well as from the burial No. 67 of the Sindos necropolis in Macedonia, the latter dated to ca. 510 BC.95 Another similar silver phiale, but of smaller dimensions, was found in the 5th century BC burial of necropolis of Olbia Pontica in 1912.96 Also worthy of mention here is a mid-5th century BC silver phiale omphalos dedicated in the temple of Apollo in Phasis, which was found in the late 1st century BC barrow No. 1 near Zubov Farm in the Kuban basin.97 Thirteen deer heads and a snake adorn the walls and omphalos, respectively, but the vessel’s shape, framing rosette, and dimensions are very similar to those of the above mentioned phialai. A beaded frieze between the omphalos and the petalled rosette constitutes the only difference in the framing of the omphalos (Fig. 19, 1). The known provenance of the vessels in Lydia and the Troad (Fig. 18) allows us to speculate about the origin of this type of phialai. As it was correctly stated by the publishers of the Lydian treasures, the shape and the large omphalos of the Uşak bowl find parallels in the bronze Phrygian bowls, for instance, from Gordion.98 It is also worth noting that an omphalos with 87 chased tongues, radiating around it, decorates another silver phiale of different shape found in the same Lydian tumulus with an incised monogram, probably representing the beginning of a Lydian name.99 G. Tsetskhladze’s opinion that the Zubov phiale (Fig. 19, 1) was manufactured by a Colchian craftsmen in Phasis100 lacks conviction. It is also not necessary to date the phiale to the same time as the inscription, as O. Lordkipanidze suggests.101 Not only the observations of the genesis of the phialai of this group, which I presented now testify against the attribution, which was put forward by G. Tsetskhladze. I would also stress that the peculiarity of the Zubov phiale, namely the additional decoration of the omphalos with the image of a snake, and the walls – with deer heads (Fig. 19, 1) are in any case

94

Çanakkale, Inv. No. 2086. Treister 2002, 354-356, figs. 1-2; Sevinç and Treister 2003, 229, No. 58; 239-240, pl. 8, fig. 59. 95 Thessaloniki, Inv. No. 8574: Cat. Thessaloniki 1985, No. 309. 96 St. Petersburg, State Hermitage. CR St. Petersburg 1912, 34, No. 5 (photo neg. II 18320, St. Petersburg, Institute of History of Material Culture, Photoarchive). 97 St. Petersburg, State Hermitage, Inv. No. 2234/18. Dumberg 1901, 98-100, figs. 18a-b; Minns 1913, 231, figs. 136-137; Strong 1966, 75-76, pl. 14B; Tsetskhladze 1994, 199-215 with bibliography, esp. pp. 201-203, figs. 2-4; 1998, 9-10, figs. 6-8; Lordkipanidze 1997, 15 ff., figs. 1-2 (last third of the 5th century BC); Treister 2002, 355, fig. 3; Treister 2005a, 239, note 156; 241, fig. 16, 5-8; see also: Archibald 1998, 181, note 31. 98 Özgen and Öztürk 1996, 95. 99 Uşak, Inv. No. 1.38.96: von Bothmer 1984, No. 24; Özgen and Öztürk 1996, No. 42. 100 Tsetskhladze 1994. 101 Lordkipanidze 1997, 23.

M. Y. Treister / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 67-107

97

arguments in favour of its manufacture by a Colchian toreut – as I have shown the characteristic for the Colchian metalworking were chasing and engraving – in the given case we have to do with the use of stamps, the technique characteristic for the Lydian metalworkers of the 6th-5th centuries BC,102 and also known to the craftsmen of the Greek cities of the Black Sea area.103 Another question is, whether the phiale was brought from Asia Minor, or commissioned for the dedication to the temple directly in Phasis (the latter seems more plausible to me), in any case the phiale reflects no features in favour of its manufacture by a Colchian craftsman.

4. Some Remarks Concerning “The International Achaemenid Style” The Lydian goblets (Fig. 3, 1-2) as well as the goblets from Vani (Fig. 3, 3) and Ulyap barrow No. 1/1982 (Fig. 2) have flat bottoms. Similarly shaped goblets, but with pointed or round bottoms, are represented in glass among the Achaemenid materials.104 I would discuss as derivative the shape of some silver vessels from the Thracian complexes of the first half of the 4th century BC, in particular, from the Treasure of Borovo105 and the barrow in Rosovets.106 The structure of these vessels (the egg-shaped body, the neck widening in the upper part; a raised ring at the junction of neck and body) is rather similar, though the neck is somewhat shorter. The bottom of the vessel from Rosovets is decorated with an engraved 18-petal rosette, the body is decorated with wide leaves of water lily in a low relief, whereas the ring is decorated with ovae pattern. H. Luschey has discussed the shape of the vessels from Borovo and Rosovets as Achaemenid, however, at the same time the Asia Minor parallels mentioned above are much closer to the shape of the Ulyap vessel (Fig. 2). The vessels of the Achaemenid forms with a similar shape of the body and the neck, in some cases also with a raised ring at the junction of neck and body, additionally have two handles,107 usually in the form of animals.108 I would mention that one of these vessels109 originates from a burial in the 102

Treister 2001, 59 ff. See, e.g. about the stamps from Berezan island: Solovyov and Treister 2004. 104 Grose 1989, 80, figs. 49-50. 105 Russe, Inv. No. II-361: Boardman 1994, 187, fig. 6. 4; Cat. Saint Louis 1998, No. 173; Cat. Bonn 2004, No. 226a: with a relief frieze. 106 Sofia, Inv. No. 39: Cat. Bonn 2004, No. 238A; cf. Luschey 1983, 328, B19 Taf. 62, 4 (Luschey condiders the shape of the vessel as Achaemenid). 107 See above note 45. 108 See, e.g. Cat. Paris 1961, No. 675, pl. LIII; No. 677, pl. LIV. 109 See in general on this class of vessels: Amandry 1959, 38-56; Pfrommer 1990, 191-209; 103

98

M. Y. Treister / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 67-107

Kukova Mogila in Duvanli in Thrace dated to the third quarter of the 5th century BC,110 another, once in a private collection in Paris, originates supposedly from the region between Sinope and Trapesund,111 one more, in the G. Ortiz collection in Geneva – comes from a Treasure, found in ca. 1970 in the area of Sinope.112 It is worth noting, that vessels of similar shape, shown in the hands of the members of the VIth Delegation, the Lydians,113 and the IIIrd delegation, the Armenians,114 on the reliefs of the east side of the Apadana in Persepolis, are decorated with raised rings at the junction of body and neck, and are also represented on a grave stele from Kastamonu in Paphlagonia115 and in a wall-painting of the tomb in Karaburun in Lycia.116 On the gold and silver goblets originating from the Oxus Treasure117 and from the barrow No. 1 near Filippovka village in Southern Ural,118 for the vessels of which Achaemenid origin can be hardly argued, there are no such rings. In contrast to the vessels shown in the hands of the participants of the Lydian delegation, the amphora-rhyton shown in the hand of the Armenian has an undecorated body and the ring (the corresponding vessels of the Lydians have a body with vertical fluting and a ring at the junction of body and neck is in the form of pearl-band). According to B. Filow,119 the depiction of similar Boardman 2000, 188-189, 246, note 129. Such a silver-gilt vessel of unknown provenance is kept in The J. Paul Getty Museum, Inv. No. 86. AM.751: Pfrommer 1990, 195 ff., pl. 44; Boardman 2000, 191, fig. 5. 72. Another piece with the body decorated with vertical fluting, allegedly found in Iraq, was kept in the Pomerance collection: Cat. Paris 1961, No. 685; Cat. Brooklyn 1966, No. 59; Pfrommer 1990, 195, pl. 41, 1. One more similar silver vase with vertical fluting on the body was acquired by the Museum für Vor- und Frühgeschichte der Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin in 1967: Cat. Speyer 2006, 132-133, figs. 8-9. 110 Sofia, Inv. No. 6137: Filow 1934, 46, No. 14, figs. 55-59; 199 ff.; pl. III; Marazov 1978, 14-18; Pfrommer 1990, 193, pl. 40, 2, note 13; Cat. Saint Louis 1998, No. 117; von Gall 1999, 154, 156 f., figs. 7-8; Boardman 2000, 190, fig. 5. 71 (the lower part of the body is decorated with vertical petals). About the dating of the burial see Pfrommer 1990, 193, note 15. 111 Amandry 1959, 48-50, 52-54, pl. 24; Cat. Paris 1961, No. 675, pl. LIII; Summerer 2003, 32, fig. 10. 112 Cat. St. Petersburg 1993, No. 205; Cat. London 1994, No. 205; Cat. Berlin 1996, No. 205; Summerer 2003, 30-31, fig. 9 (the lower part of the body is decorated with vertical petals). 113 Calmeyer 1993, 152 f., Taf. 44 (top); Cat. London 2005, 106, fig. 46; Cat. Speyer 2006, 132, fig. 7. 114 Calmeyer 1993, 153, Taf. 43 (botom left); von Gall 1999, 158, fig. 9; Boardman 2000, 188, fig. 5. 69; Summerer 2003, 33; Cat. Speyer 2006, 198, fig. 5. 115 Donceel-Voûte 1984, pl. 5, figs. 2, 3, 4; Summerer 2003, 33. 116 Pfrommer 1990, 194, fig. 2; Summerer 2003, 33 (a rim separating a body and a neck is decorated with a pearl-pattern; a frieze of ovae at the edge; body is undecorated). 117 London, British Museum, Inv. No. ANE 123918: Dalton 1964, No. 17, pl. VII; Cat. London 2005, No. 125. 118 Ufa, Inv. No. 831/384: Cat. Milan 2001, No. 204; Cat. Moscow 2003, 18 above (fig.). 119 Filow 1934, 201 f.; see also: von Gall 1999, 154.

M. Y. Treister / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 67-107

99

vessels in the hands of members of different delegations points to the fact that they were not of regional types, but rather belong to the type adopted by the Achaemenid court, and they could have been manufactured in the workshops situated along the coasts of Asia Minor.120 The analysis of the shape and the decoration of amphora-rhyta, conducted by M. Pfrommer, also gave him the ground for the suggestion, that both the vessel from Kukova Mogila and those in the J. Paul Getty Museum are the products of the Asia Minor workshop, probably located at the court of one of the satraps.121 In spite of the ideas of the existence of an ‘international Achaemenid style’,122 even the careful analysis of the variety of forms and details of decoration of the vessels shown in the reliefs of Apadana in Persepolis, representing the members of delegations from various parts of the Achaemenid Empire123 put the idea of strict standards and the unification of gold and silver plate manufacture under the question. The horizontal fluting is usually considered as one of the characteristic features of the Achaemenid metalware.124 Also, the silver beaker with horizontal fluting found in the burial No. 6/1961 in Vani,125 which was compared by M. Vickers with a silver beaker allegedly from Erzerum,126 should not necessarily be interpreted as an Achaemenid item of the standard type. Exactly such vessels are shown in the hands of the members of the XIIth Delegation, Ionians, on the relief of the east side of Apadana in Persepolis,127 and not only the XVth Delegation, allegedly the Arachosians, the latter mentioned by Vickers.128 It is worth noting, that the majority of vessels made from precious metals of various, not only ‘Achaemenid’ and ‘Achaemenid-inspired’ forms, with horizontal fluting occur from Asia Minor.129 From that point of view the 120

Filow 1934, 202. Pfrommer 1990, 205, 208 f. 122 See Melikian-Chirvani 1993, 111. 123 Calmeyer 1993, 160. 124 Vickers 2000, 262 with bibliography. 125 Tbilisi, Georgian national Museum, Inv. No: 11-974.44: Khoshtaria et alii 1972, 115, No. 44, fig. 60; Gigolashvili 1990a, 316 f.; Guigolachvili 1990b, 279 f., 313, fig. 32; Vickers 2000, 263, fig. 2. 126 Oxford, Inv. No. AN 1967.819: Archibald 1998, 181, fig. 7. 5 top right; Vickers 2000, 261 f., fig. 1. 127 Calmeyer 1993, 132 pl. 45 top. 128 Vickers 2000. See the fragment of the relief with the XVth Delegation: Calmeyer 1993, 136-137, pl. 47 below; Cat. London 2005, 106, fig. 47 (Parthians or Bactrians). 129 Even the above mentioned gold jug from the Oxus Treasure (see above note 118) finds the closest parallel in the silver oinochoe from Ikiztepe in Lydia, Uşak, Inv. No. 1.13.96 (Özgen and Öztürk 1996, No. 11). See horizontal fluting on other silver vessels from Ikiztepe: on a silver oinochoe, Uşak, Inv. No. 1.14.96 (Özgen and Öztürk 1996, No. 12), on a small spouted pitcher, 121

100 M. Y. Treister / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 67-107

horizontal fluting on a silver lydion from Ikiztepe is characteristic, the shape being well known from pottery finds in Sardis.130 We see the same decoration on a silver goblet of the derivative shape from the Treasure found in Panderma in Asia Minor.131 Its closest parallel is a silver-gilt rhyton from the cache No. 2 of the 4th century BC barrow No. 1 near the village of Filippovka in Southern Ural.132 As has been shown above, there are certain grounds to stress the important role of the Asia Minor toreutic centres of the Pre-Achaemenid and the Achaemenid periods. A. S. Melikian-Chirvani came to the conclusion of the existence of a regional ‘Lydian Achaemenid Style’ and local atelier producing vessels in the Imperial Achaemenid taste.133 This brief analysis seems to confirm the suggestion put forward by J. Boardman that “Anatolia is . . . an important source for metalwork of the Persian period . . . , . . . much was made there, and . . . the workshops, deriving from a rich Lydian tradition, were influential in introducing types and decoration that we would call Persian”.134

5. Conclusions There is all reason to suggest that in the first half to the middle of the 5th century BC in the territory of Colchis there emerged a peculiar local school of toreutics and jewellery, with the roots in the local traditions of metalworking of the Late Bronze – Early Iron Age,135 which experienced the influence of toreutics of the Lydian-Ionian school and Anatolia in a broad sense of this term. The analysis of some works of toreutics presented here corresponds well with the results of studies undertaken by I. Gagoshidze, who has demonstrated the parallels in shape of some silver vessels from Georgia with the finds from Asia Minor, such as Akhalgori phiale No. 63 (parallels from Ikiztepe, Sinope and Cyprus), No. 64 (Ikiztepe).136

now in Ankara (see above note 14), on silver phialai, Uşak, Inv. No. 1.41-42.96 (Özgen and Öztürk 1996, No. 47-48), on a silver lydion, Uşak, Inv. No. 1.4.70 (Özgen and Öztürk 1996, No. 63), and on an incense burner (see above note 27). 130 See above note 129. 131 Berlin, Antikensammlung, Inv. No. 30963: Miller 1993, 126, pl. 29; Platz-Horster 2005, 299, figs. 9-10; G. Platz-Horster, in Cat. Speyer 2006, 183: Lydian, ca. 400 BC. 132 Ufa, Inv. No. 831/388: Cat. Milan 2001, No. 206; Cat. Moscow 2003, 27 (fig.). 133 Melikian-Chirvani 1993, 120-125. 134 Boardman 2000, 186 f. 135 See: Lordkipanidze 1989, 251 f. 136 Gagoshidze 2003.

M. Y. Treister / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 67-107 101

The Anatolian influences reflected both in the adoption of the shapes of the vessels (aryballoi, phialai, goblets with egg-shaped bodies) and in the ornamental pattern and the subjects of decoration (sphinxes on the aryballos, a scene with a youth laying on a kline and a cup-bearer, standing nearby on the belt, both from Vani). The analysis shows that for the toreutics it is possible to suggest a strong influence of the Lydian-Ionian school and the ‘Lydian Achaemenid Style’, rather than the art of Assyria, Media and the Achaemenid world, in general, as it was considered traditionally (O. Lordkipanidze).137 From that viewpoint I agree with Boardman, who not only stressed the Anatolian-Greek style of some of the items of jewellery and toreutics from Vani, but also suggested the manufacture of some of them by the wandering Greek craftsmen from Asia Minor.138 There emerged the type of decoration characteristic for the articles of the Colchian school (a rosette composed of four almond-shaped elements with the lotus flowers between them), having prototypes and parallels primarily on the phialai from Western Asia Minor and Macedonia. The local tradition is traced in the depiction of the scenes with animals, in the treatment of their bodies with vertical rows of horizontal notches, in the decoration of tails with “ticks”. In the 5th-4th centuries BC the Colchian silver vessels and jewellery items (earrings, necklaces) found their way also outside Colchis, primarily to the Kuban basin, where the majority of finds is concentrated in the territory of modern Adygeya (Ulyap and Kurdzhips barrows)139 and even in the Sauromatian burials of the Lower Volga area.140

Bibliography Abka’i-Khavari, M. 1988: Die achämenidischen Metallschalen. AMI 21, 91-137. Akbiyikoğlu, K. 1991: Güre Basmaci Tümülüsü Kurtarma Kazisi. In I. Müze Kurtarma Kazilari Semineri, 19-20 Nisan 1990 (Ankara), 1-23. Akbiyikoğlu, K. 1994: Güre Basmaci Tümülüsü Kurtarma Kazisi. Arkeoloji ve Sanat 64/65, 2-8. Amandry, P. 1953: Collection Hélène Stathatos. Le bijoux antiques (Strassbourg). Amandy, P. 1959: Toreutique achéménide. Antike Kunst 2, 38-56. Amandry, P. 1953-1954: Vasseilles d’argent de l’époque achéménide. Collection Hélène Stathatos. ʙžƭƳƝƥƫƧƫƟƥƦʡ ʙƂƲƣƨơƭƛƮ, 11-19. 137

Lordkipanidze 1989, 252; Tsetskhladze 1993/94. Boardman 1994, 219 f. 139 Noteworthy from this point of view is the presence of a certain number of items of horse harness and arms of Kuban types of the middle-second half of the 4th century BC in Abkhasia, including the remains of a supposed Maeotic sanctury with the votive offerings in Hyaenos, see: Érlikh 2004. 140 I am going to publish a special article devoted to the finds of the Colchian jewellery outside Colchis. 138

102 M. Y. Treister / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 67-107 Andriashvili, I. A. 1972: Tekhnologicheskoe issledovanie vanskikh diadem. In O. D. Lordkipanidze (ed.), Vani I. Archaeological excavations 1947-1969 (Tbilisi), 258-265 (in Georgian with summary in Russian). Antikenmuseum Berlin 1988: W.-D. Heilmeyer (ed.), Antikenmuseum Berlin. Die ausgestellten Werken (Berlin). Archibald, Z. H. 1989: Thracian Interpretations of Greek and Oriental Elements in FourthCentury Metalwork. In B. F. Cook (ed.), The Rogozen Treasure. Papers of the Anglo-Bulgarian Conference, 12 March 1987 (London), 12-25. Archibald, Z. H. 1998: The Odryssian Kingdom of Thrace. Orpheus Unmasked (Oxford). Artamonow, M. I. 1970: Goldschatz der Skythen (Prague). Berciu, D. 1969a: Das thrako-getische Fürstengrab von Agighiol in Rumänien. Bericht der Römisch-Germanischen Komission 50, 209-265. Berciu, D. 1969b: Arta traco-getică (Bucharest). Berciu, D. 1974: Contribution à l’étude de l’art thraco-gète (Bucharest). Bill, A. 2003: Studien zu den Gräbern des 6. bis 1. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. in Georgien unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Beziehungen zu den Steppenvölkern (Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie 96) (Bonn). Boardman, J. 1980: The Greeks Overseas (London). Boardman, J. 1994: The Diffusion of Classical Art in Antiquity (London). Boardman, J. 2000: Persia and the West (London). Bothmer, D. von 1984: A Greek and Roman Treasury (Bulletin of the Metropolitan Museum of Art 42, 1). Braund, D. 1994: Georgia in Antiquity. A History of Colchis and Transcaucasian Iberia. 550 B.C.-A.D. 562 (Oxford). Bregvadzé, Z. & Makharadzé, G. 2002: L’importation grecque aux Ve-IVe siècles. In M. Faudot, A. Fraysse & É. Geny (eds.), Pont-Euxin et commerce. La genèse de la « route de la soie ». Actes du IXe Symposium de Vani (Colchide 1999) (Paris), 283-286. Butler, H. C. 1922: Sardis. The Excavations. Part I. 1910-1914 (Leyden). Calmeyer, P. 1993: Die Gefäße auf den Gabenbringer-Reliefs in Persepolis. AMI 26, 147-160. Cat. Baltimore 1976: D. Kent Hill, Greek and Roman Metalware. A Loan Exhibition (Baltimore). Cat. Berlin 1996: G. Oritz, Faszination der Antike. The George Ortiz Collection (Berlin). Cat. Bonn 2004: R. Echt (ed.), Die Thraker. Das goldene Reich des Orpheus (Bonn). Cat. Brooklyn 1966: The Pommerance Collection of Ancient Art. Catalogue of the Exhibition held at the Brooklyn Museum (New York). Cat. Cologne 1979: Gold der Thraker. Archäologische Schätze aus Bulgarien (Mainz). Cat. Cologne 1998: H. Hellenkemper (ed.), Die neue Welt der Griechen. Autike Kunst aus Unteritalien und Sizilien (Cologne). Cat. Florence 1990: B. Adembri & M. Cygielman (eds.), Ori e argenti nelle collezioni del Museo Archeologico di Firenze (Florence). Cat. Frankfurt 1994: B. Deppert-Lippitz & W. Meier-Arendt (eds.), Goldhelm. Schwert und Silberschätze. Reichtümer aus 6000 Jahren rumänischer Vergangenheit (Frankfurt). Cat. Leningrad 1985: N. Grach (ed.), Antichnoe khudozhestvennoe serebro. Exhibition Catalogue (Leningrad). Cat. London 1994: G. Ortiz, In Pursuit of the Absolute. Art of the Ancient World from the George Ortiz Collection. Royal Academy of Arts, London (Bern). Cat. London 2005: J. Curtis & N. Tallis (eds.), Forgotten Empire. The World of ancient Persia (London). Cat. Miho 2002: Treasures of Ancient Bactria. Miho Museum (Miho). Cat. Milan 2001: J. Aruz, A. Farkas, A. Alekseev & E. Korolkova (eds.), Oro. Il misterio dei Sarmati e de gli Sciti (Milan). Cat. Moscow 2003: R. G. Kuzeev, M. B. Piotrovskii & A. I. Shkurko (eds.), Zolotÿe oleni Evrazii (St. Petersburg).

M. Y. Treister / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 67-107 103 Cat. Paris 1961: Septe mille ans d’art en Iran. Petit Palais (Paris). Cat. Saarbrücken 1995: A. Miron & W. Orthmann (eds.), Unterwegs zum goldenen Vlies. Archäologische Funde aus Georgien (Saarbrücken). Cat. Saint Louis 1998: I. Marazov (ed.), Ancient Gold: The Wealth of the Thracians. Treasures from the Republic of Bulgaria (New York). Cat. Speyer 2006: Pracht und Prunk der Grosskönige. Das persische Weltreich. Historisches Museum der Pfalz, Speyer (Stuttgart). Cat. St. Petersburg 1993: G. Ortiz, Antiquities from Ur to Byzantium. The George Ortiz Collection (Berlin). Cat. Tbilisi 2005: Colchis – Land of Golden Fleece (Tbilisi). Cat. Thessaloniki 1985: ƏƥƩƠƫdž (Athens). Cat. Toledo 1977. A. Oliver, Jr, Silver for the Gods. 800 Years of Greek and Roman Silver (Toledo). Cat. Venice 1988: S. Moscati (ed.), The Phoenicians (Milan). Cat. Vienna 2000: W. Seipel (ed.), 7000 Jahre persische Kunst. Meisterwerke aus dem Iranischen Nationalmuseum in Teheran (Milan). Chkonia, A. M. 1981: Gold Ornaments from the Ancient City of Vani (Vani, VI) (Tbilisi) (in Georgian with summaries in Russian and English). Chryssostomou, A. & Chryssostomou, P. 2003. ƁƱưƥƦƚ ƩơƦƭƸƬƫƧƣ ưƫƱ žƭƳƫƩưƥƦƫƹ ƍƙƧƧƝƮ: ƯƱƯưƘƠƝ ưƘƲƵƩ ƝƭƥƯưƫƦƭƝưƥƦƚƮ ƫƥƦƫƟƙƩơƥƝƮ ưƵƩ ƝƭƳƝƶƦɜƩ ƳƭƸƩƵƩ. Ɛƫ žƭƳƝƥƫƧƫƟƥƦƸ ´ƂƭƟƫ Ưưƣ ƉƝƦơƠƫƩƛƝ ƦƝƥ ƅƭƘƦƣ 17, 2003, 505-516.

Dalton, O. M. 1964: The Treasures of the Oxus. 3rd ed. (London). Davidson, P. F. & Oliver, Jr. A. 1984: Ancient Greek and Roman Gold Jewelry in the Brooklyn Museum (Brooklyn). Donceel-Voûte, P. 1984: Un banquet funéraire perse en Paphlagonie. In R. Donceel and R. Lebrun (eds.), Archéologie et Religions de l’Anatolie ancienne. Mélanges en l’honneur du professeur Paul Naster (Louvain-la-Neuve), 101-118. Dschwachischwili, A. & Abramischwili, G. 1986: Goldschmiedekunst und Toreutik in den Museen Georgiens (Leningrad). Dumberg, K. 1901: Raskopka kurganov na Zubovskom khutore v Kubanskoi oblasti. Izvestiya arkheologicheskoi komissii 1, 94-103. Egg, M. & Pare, C. 1995: Die Metallzeiten in Europa und im Vorderen Orient. Die Abteilung Vorgeschichte im Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseum (Kataloge vor- und frühgeshchichtlicher Altertümer 26) (Mainz). Érlikh, V. R. 2004: Méotskoe svyatilishche v Abkhazii. VDI, No. 1, 158-172. Filow, B. 1934: Die Grabhügelnekropole bei Duvanlij in Südbulgarien (Sofia). Forbeck, E. & Heres, H. 1997: Das Löwengrab von Milet (136. Winckelmannsprogramm der archäologischen Gesselschaft zu Berlin) (Berlin). Frazer, A. 1990: The Propylon of Ptolemy II (Samothrace 10) (Princeton). Gagoshidze, Yu. 2003: Achaemenid and Achaeminidizing Silver Vessels found in Georgia. Paper delivered at the University of Aarhus 26 September 2003. Seminar in the occasion of the 60th birthday of Niels Hannestad (3 August) and Lise Hannestad (15 October), 2003, professors of Classical Archaeology. http://www.pontos.dk/Birthday_Lise_Niels/gagoschidze.htm. Galanina, L. & Grach, N. 1986: Scythian Art (Leningrad). Gigolashvili, E. G. 1990a: Serebryannÿe kubki iz Vani. In O. D. Lordkipanidze (ed.), Prichernomor’e VII-V vv. do n.é.: pis’mennÿe istochniki i arkheologiya. MAterialÿ V Mezhdunarodnogo simpoziuma po drevneï istorii Prichernomor’ya Vani-1987 (Tbilisi), 316-320. Guigolachvili [Gigolashvili], E. 1990b: Les coupes en argent de Vani. In O. Lordkipanidze and P. Lévêque (eds.), Le Pont-Euxin vu par les Grecs. Sources écrits et archéologique. Symposium de Vani (Colchide) Septembre-Octobre 1987 (Paris), 279-281. Gigolashvili, N. 1999: The silver aryballos from Vani. In G. R. Tsetskhladze (ed.), Ancient Greeks West and East (Leiden), 605-613.

104 M. Y. Treister / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 67-107 Gigolašvili [Gigolashvili], E. 2002: Silver situlae from Vani. In M. Faudot, A. Fraysse & É. Geny (eds.), Pont-Euxin et commerce. La genèse de la « route de la soie ». Actes du IXe Symposium de Vani (Colchide 1999) (Paris), 277-281. Gill, D. W. J. 1990: A One-Mina Phiale from Kozani. AJA 94, 625. Grach, N. L. 1984: Kruglodonnÿe serebryannÿe sosudÿ iz kurgana Kul’-Oba (k voprosu o masterskikh. Trudÿ Gosudartsvennogo Érmitazha 24, 100-109. Grose D. F. 1989: The Toledo Museum of Art. Early Ancient Glass. Core-formed, rod-formed, and cast vessels and objects from the Late Bronze Age to the Early Roman Empire, 1600 B.C. to A.D. 50 (New York). Hassel, F. J. 1967: Ein archaischer Grabfund von der Chalkidike. JbRGZM 14, 201-205. Il’inskaya, V. A. & Terenozhkin, A. I. 1983: Skifiya 7-4 vv. do n.é. (Kiev). Jacobson, E. 1995: The Art of the Scythians. The Interpretation of Cultures at the Edge of the Hellenic World (Handbuch der Orientalistik 8. 2) (Leiden, New York, Cologne). Japaridze, D. 2005: Rich in Gold – Vani. The World of Constant Connection 1(25), 14-21. Kacharava, D. 1995: Greek Imports of Archaic and Classical Times in Colchis. AA, 63-73. Kakhidze, A. 2004: Silver Phialai from the 5th Century BC Greek Cemetery at Pichvnari. In C. J. Tuplin (ed.), Pontus and the Outside World. Studies in Black Sea History, Historiography and Archaeology (Colloquia Pontica 9) (Leiden, Boston), 85-119. Khoshtaria, N. V., Puturidze, R. V. & Chkonia, A. M. 1972: Itogi arkheologicheskikh rabot, provedennÿkh v 1961-1963 gg. v severo-vostochnoi chasti Vanskogo gorodishcha. In O. D. Lordkipanidze (ed.), Vani I. Archaeological excavations 1947-1969 (Tbilisi), 111-134 (in Georgian with summary in Russian). Kiguradze, N. 1976: Dapnarskii mogil’nik (Tbilisi). Kunina, N. Z. 1997: Antichnoe steklo v sobranii Érmitazha (St. Petersburg). Lordkipanidze, O. D. 1971: La civilisation de l’ancienne Colchide aux Ve-IVe siècles. Revue archéologique, No. 2, 259-288. Lordkipanidze, O. D. 1972: Vanskoe gorodishche. In O. D. Lordkipanidze (ed.), Vani I. Archaeological excavations 1947-1969 (Tbilisi), 43-95. Lordkipanidze, O. D. 1973: Aryballe attique en argent provenant de Vani (Colchide). Archaeologia Polona 14, 89-93. Lordkipanidzé, O. D. 1974: La Géorgie et le monde Grec. Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 97, 897-948. Lordkipanidze, O. D. 1976: Novÿe materialÿ k istorii svyazei Afin s Kolkhidoi. In N. I. Sokol’skii (ed.), Khudozhestvennaya kul’tura i arkheologiya antichnogo mira (Moscow), 143-150. Lordkipanidze, O. D. 1979: Drevnyaya Kolkhida. Mif i arkheologiya (Tbilisi). Lordkipanidze, O. D. 1985: Das alte Kolchis und seine Beziehungen zur griechischen Welt vom 6. bis 4.Jh. v. Chr. (Konstanzer althistorische Vorträge und Forschungen 14) (Konstanz). Lordkipanidze, O. D. 1989: Nasledie drevnei Gruzii (Tbilisi). Lordkipanidze, O. D. 1991: Archäologie in Georgien. Von der Altsteinzeit zum Mittelalter (Quellen und Forschungen zur prähistorischen und provinzialrömischen Archäologie 5) (Weinheim). Lordkipanidze, O. D. 1995: Vani – ein antikes religiöses Zentrum im Lande des goldenen Vlieses (Kolchis). JbRGZM 42.2, 353-401. Lordkipanidze, O. D. 1997: Bogi Fasisa. VDI, No. 1, 15-34. Lordkipanidze, O. D., Puturidze, R. V., Tolordava, V. A. & Chkonia, A. M. 1972: Arkheologicheskie raskopki v Vani v 1969 g. In O. D. Lordkipanidze (ed.), Vani I. Archaeological excavations 1947-1969 (Tbilisi), 198-242 (in Georgian with summary in Russian). Luschey, H. 1939: Die Phiale (Bleicherode am Harz). Luschey, H. 1983: Thrakien als ein Ort der Begegnung der Kelten mit der iranischen Metallkunst. In R. M. Boehmer and H. Hauptmann (eds.), Beiträge zur Altertumskunde Kleinasiens. Festschrift K. Bittel (Mainz), 313-329.

M. Y. Treister / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 67-107 105 Mantsevich, A. P. 1987: Kurgan Solokha (Leningrad). Marazov, I. 1978: Ritonite v drevna Trakiya (Sofia). Marghishvili, S. G. 1992: Bogatÿe pogrebeniya antichnoi épokhi Algetskogo ushchel’ya (Tbilisi) (in Georgian with summary in Russian). Markoe, G. 1985: Phoenician Bronze and Silver Bowls from Cyprus and the Mediterranean (University of California Publications, Classical Studies 26) (Berkeley, Los Angeles, London). Markoe, G. 1992: In Pursuit of Metal: Phoenicians and Greeks in Italy. In G. Kopcke and I. Tokumaru (eds.), Greece between East and West: 10 th-8 th Centuries BC (Mainz), 61-84. Matchabeli, K. 1983. Argenterie de l’ancienne Géorgie (Tbilisi). Matiashvili, N. N. 1977: Metallicheskie sosudÿ. In O. D. Lordkipanidze (ed.), Vani III (Tbilisi), 101-114, 190-192 (in Georgian with summary in Russian). Melikian-Shirvani, A. S. 1993: The International Achaemenid Style. Bulletin of the Asia Institute N.S. 7, 1993, 111-130. Miller, M. C. 1993: Adoption and Adaptation of Achaemenid Metalware Forms in Attic-BlackGloss Ware of the Fifth Century. AMI 26, 109-146. Minns, E. H. 1913: Scythians and Greeks (Cambridge). Meyers, P. 1981: Three Silver Objects from Thrace: A Technical Examination. Metropolitan Museum Journal 16, 49-54. Nadiradze, D. Sh. 1990a: Sairkhé – drevneīshiī gorod Gruzii (k istorii vostochnoī provintsii Kolkhidÿ I tÿsyacheletiya do n.é.) (Tbilisi) (in Georgian with summary in Russian and English). Nadiradzé, D. 1990b: Le site archéologique de Saïrkhé. In O. Lordkipanidze and P. Lévêque (eds.), Le Pont-Euxin vu par les Grecs. Sources écrits et archéologique. Symposium de Vani (Colchide) Septembre-Octobre 1987 (Paris), 213-222. Özgen, I. & Öztürk, J. 1996: Heritage Recovered. The Lydian Treasure (Istanbul). Onaiko, N. A. 1970: Antichnÿī import v Pridneprov’e i Pobuzh’e v 4-2 vv. do n.é. (Moscow). Ori e Argenti Firenze 1990: B. Adembri & M. Cygielman (eds.), Ori e Argenti nelle collezioni del Museo archeologico di Firenze (Florence). Pfrommer, M. 1987: Studien zu alexandrinischer und grossgriechicher Toreutik frühhellenistischer Zeit (Archäologische Forschungen 16) (Berlin). Pfrommer, M. 1990: Ein achämenidisches Amphorenrhyton mit ägyptischem Dekor. AMI 23, 191-209. Pharmakowsky, B. 1910: Archäologische Funde im Jahre 1909. Rußland. AA, 195-244. Platz-Horster, G. 2005: Die Silberfunde von Panderma in der Antikensammlung Berlin. In T. Ganschow & M. Steinhart (eds.), Otium. Festschrift für Volker Michael Strocka (Remshalden), 295-303. Richter, G. M. A. 1959: Calenian Pottery and Classical Greek Metalware. AJA 63, 241-249. Rolle, R. 1979: Totenkult der Skythen.Teil I: Das Steppengebiet (Vorgeschichtliche Forschungen 18: I, 1) (Berlin and New York). Rolle, R. 1989: The World of the Scythians (Berkeley, Los Angeles). Rolley, C. 1982: Les vases de bronze de l’archaïsme récent en Grand Grèce (Naples). Rostovtzeff, M. I. 1914: Voronezhskii serebryannÿi sosud. Materialÿ po arkheologii Rossii 34, 79-93. Ryabova, V. A. 1987: Dvuruchnÿe chashi iz skifskikh kurganov. In E. V. Chernenko (ed.), Skifÿ Severnogo Prichernomor’ya (Kiev), 144-151. Schiltz, V. 1994: Die Skythen und andere Steppenvölker (Munich). Sevinç, N. & Treister, M. 2003: Metalwork from the Dardanos Tumulus. Studia Troica 13, 215-260. Silant’eva, L. F. 1959: Nekropol’ Nimfeya. Materialÿ i issledovaniya po arkheologii SSSR 69, 5-107. Silberschatz Rogozen n.d.: A. Fol (ed.), Der thrakische Silberschatz aus Rogozen Bulgarien (Sofia).

106 M. Y. Treister / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 67-107 Smirnov, J. I. 1934: Der Schatz von Achalgori (Tiflis). Solovyov, S. & Treister, M. 2004: Bronze Punches from Berezan. Ancient West and East 3.2, 365-375. Stibbe, C. M. 1992: Archaic Bronze Hydriai. Bulletin antieke beschaving 67, 1-62. Strong, D. E. 1966: Greek and Roman Gold and Silver Plate (London). Summerer, L. 2003: Achämenidische Silberfunde aus der Umgebung von Sinope. ACSS 9, 17-42. Tallgren, A. M. 1930: Caucasian Monuments. The Kazbek Treasure. Eurasia Septentrionalis Antiqua 5, 109-182. Toker, A. 1992: Metal Vessels. Museum of Anatolian Civilizations (Ankara). Treister, M. Yu. 2001: Hammering Techniques in Greek and Roman Jewellery and Toreutics (Colloquia Pontica 8) (Leiden, Cologne, Boston). Treister, M. Ju. 2002: Metal vessels from Dardanos. In A. Giumlia-Mair (ed.), I Bronzi antichi: Produzioni e tecnologia. Atti del XV Congresso Internazionale sui Bronzi Antichi (Instrumentum Monographies 21) (Montagnac), 354-362. Treister, M. Yu. 2005a: On a Vessel with Figured Friezes from a Private Collection, on Burials in Kosika and once more on the “Ampsalakos School”. ACSS 11, 199-255. Treister, M. Yu. 2005b: Masters and Workshops of the Jewellery and Toreutics from FourthCentury Scythian Burial-Mounds. In D. Braund (ed.), Scythians and Greeks. Cultural Interactions in Scythia, Athens and the Early Roman Empire (sixth century BC-first century AD) (Exeter), 56-63. Tsetskhladze, G. R. 1993/94: Colchis and the Persian Empire: The Problems of their Relationship. Silk Road Art and Archaeology 3, 11-49. Tsetskhladze, G. R. 1994: The Silver Phiale Mesomphalos from the Kuban (Northern Caucasus). Oxford Journal of Archaeology 13, 199-216. Tsetskhladze, G. R. 1998: Die Griechen in der Kolchis (historisch-archäologischer Abriß) (Amsterdam). Tsetskhladze, G. R. 1999: Pichvnari and Its Environs, 6th c. BC-4th c. AD (Paris). Urushadze, N. 1984: Bronzovaya letopis’ drevnei Gruzii (Tbilisi). Urushadze, N. 1988: Drevnegruzinskoe plasticheskoe iskusstvo (Tbilisi). Uvarova, P. S. 1900: Mogil’niki Severnogo Kavkaza (Materialÿ po arkheologii Kavkaza 8) (Moscow). Vani IX 1996: O. Lordkipanidze, D. Kacharava, & A. Chanturia (eds.), Vani IX Archaeological Excavations (Analytical bibliography: 1850-1995) (Tbilisi). Vickers, M. 1981: Recent Acquisitions of Greek Antiquities by the Ashmolean Museum. AA, 541-561. Vickers, M. 2000: Lapidary shock: meditations on an Achaemenid silver beaker “from Erzerum” in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford. AMIT 32, 261-273. Vickers, M. 2002: Scythian and Thracian Antiquities in Oxford (Ashmolean Handbooks) (Oxford). Vickers, M. & Gill, D. 1994: Artful Crafts. Ancient Greek Silverware and Pottery (Oxford). Vokotopoulou, J. 1996: Führer durch das Archäologische Museum Thessaloniki (Athens). von Gall, H. 1999: Der achämenidische Löwengreif in Kleinasien. AMI 31, 149-160. Waldbaum, J. C. 1983: Metalwork from Sardis: the Finds through 1974 (Archaeological Exploration of Sardis, Monograph 8) (Cambridge, Mass., London). Webb, V. 1978: Archaic Greek Faience – miniature scent bottles and related objects from East Greece, 650-500 BC (Warminster).

M. Y. Treister / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 67-107 107

Abbreviations AA ACSS AJA AMI AMIT CR St. Petersburg CVA JbRGZM VDI

Archäologischer Anzeiger. Beiblatt zum Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts (Berlin). Ancient Civilzations from Scythia to Siberia. An International Journal of Comparative Studies in History and Archaeology (Leiden, Boston, Cologne). American Journal of Archaeology (Princeton). Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran (Berlin). Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan (Berlin). Comptes Rendus de la Commission Impériale Archéologique (St. Petersburg). Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum. Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz (Mainz). Vestnik drevnei istorii (Moscow).

Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 109-115

www.brill.nl/acss

Iranian Glass Perfume Vessel from the Pichvnari Greek Cemetery of the Fifth Century BC Amiran Kakhidze

Abstract Publication of an Iranian Kohl-Tube found during the excavations of the 5th century BC Pichvnari necropolis. It was probably imported into Colchis by land through eastern Georgia. Keywords Pichvnari / Iranian Glass / Eastern Georgia

Polychrome glass perfume vessels occupy a significant place among the grave goods discovered at the 5th century BC Greek cemetery at Pichvnari. The goods of this kind are especially important, because they allow a precise dating of burial complexes, which can serve as a base for the chronology of the Ancient Georgia as a whole. All the basic forms (aryballoi, oinochoai, amphoriskoi and alabastra) of glassware manufactured in the eastern Mediterranean, Rhodes and Athens have been discovered here. Of the polychrome glass perfume vessels special attention should be attached to the so-called Kohl-Tubes. It is assumed that they were used to keep cosmetic for eyelids (“Kohl” in Arabic denotes paint for eyelids). So far, in the early burials of the Greek necropolis at Pichvnari (second quarter of the 5th century BC) one intact and one fragmentary glass vessel of this kind have been brought to light. Their description is given in the following. Kohl-tube type glass perfume vessel (Burial 136, K-P-86/149). Dark brown matrix; the rounded rim is grooved with yellowish, slanting threads. Narrow, low, cylindrical neck; massive, straight shoulders, with four brownish coneshaped knobs (attached on the continuation of the ribs). Tetrahedral body, tapering evenly to the rounded bottom. Straight band near the shoulder, the body is mostly covered with a band of zigzags. All the four ribs of the body are edged with a yellowish band. Height – 8.5 cm, mouth diameter – 1.5 cm, body near shoulder – 1.7 cm, near bottom – 1.0 cm (Fig. 1). © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2007

DOI: 10.1163/157005707X212698

110 A. Kakhidze / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 109-115

Fig. 1. Glass perfume vessel from Pichvnari. Fragment of Kohl-Tube type glass vessel (K-P-87/251) discovered in the layer of burials damaged by a tractor of the Collective Fish Farm. Part of the body has survived; it is tetrahedral. Dark blue matrix. The sides seem to have been decorated with straight and wavy bands of white and brown threads, and ribs – with white spiral threads. The chronological and typological classification of perfume glassware of this type was published by Dan Barag, who also established the centre and technique of their manufacture.1 The researcher arrived at the following conclusion: the excessively narrow and long body must indicate that they were made not on a stone core, as had been thought before, but each of them must have been cast on a metal rod.2 The author regards the four cone-shaped knobs as an imitation of the altar. The area of distribution leads Barag to suppose that the manufacturing centre was northwestern Iran.3 Of the 47 perfume vessels studied by the researcher, only three were found in context. One of these is the burial from Nimrud dated generally to the 6th-5th centuries BC and another one is the 1 2 3

Barag 1975, 23-36. Barag 1975, 25-26. Barag 1975, 25.

A. Kakhidze / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 109-115 111

burial of Galekut containing grave goods of the 5th century BC.4 There is also a rich burial complex at Vani, which will be discussed below. Other finds from Pichvnari and other Georgian sites are interesting in this relation as well. Similar to the Vani finds they occur in closed complexes. Barag includes the glassware analogous to this found in Pichvnari in Group I A, dating them generally to the 5th century BC. According to the burial complexes we offer a more precise date – the second quarter of the 5th century BC. – for our specimens. The cemetery of Greek settlers of this period is a separate area at Pichvnari (northwest section of the necropolis), where the following objects occur in different numbers in various contemporary burials and on ritual platforms: Chian, Lesbian, Proto-Thasian, Thasian-circle and Thasian amphoras with swollen necks, a black-figure oinochoe and a lekythos; Beldam-style white lekythoi, decorated with palmettes, with chimney-shaped mouth, a red-figure owl skyphos, black-gloss cups with high and low feet, cups, a bolsal, a squat lekythos, a saltcellar, Ionian and local pottery, a silver coin, gold, silver, bronze and iron earrings, a necklace, beads, bracelets, a fragmentary chain, a bronze arrowhead, etc. Naturally, burials of this period often yield polychrome glassware too: an aryballos, an oinochoe, an amphoriskos and alabastra, the manufacturing centre of which, as was noted above, is linked with the eastern Mediterranean. A few words about other finds from Georgia may not come amiss, on the basis of which some conclusions can be drawn. So far tetrahedral vessels of the Kohl-Tube type have been found in western Georgia, except Pichvnari, only at Vani. They were discovered in 1961 in Burial 6 containing rich grave goods. These are: magnificent gold diadems showing animal fight, plain and figure earrings, a neck hoop, necklaces with filigree pendants, an inlaid pendant, bracelets with bent backs, adorned with representations of lions’ and calves’ heads, stamps, plates with representation of an eagle, a fibula, pendants, amuletic beads, numerous tubes and clasps, a phiale with omphalos, fragments of a silver diadem, a silver phiale, a cup, fragments of flask-like vessels, three polychrome glass amphoriskoi, a glass oinochoe, a stone stamp, small paste beads, etc. The burial was dated to the 5th century BC.5 Barag specially discusses the grave goods from Burial 6 at Vani and dates the complex to the 5th or early 4th century BC, regarding the 5th century as more acceptable.6 The glassware proper falls within Group I of Barag’s classification, the kind of plain-ribbed vessels, not decorated with thread.

4 5 6

Barag 1975, 25. Khoshtaria 1962, 65-80; Khoshtaria, Puturidze, Chqonia 1972, 117. Barag 1975, 24-25.

112 A. Kakhidze / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 109-115

Along with polychrome glassware of other kinds, the Vani Kohl-Tube was studied by Marina Pirtskhalava. Similar to Barag, she thinks that vessels of this variety were used to contain black powder; they were cast on a rod. As the author notes, in addition to their origin from a well-defined centre, the Vani vessels are also interesting due to their appearance in such a remote periphery, which widens the distribution area of this type of glassware. The researcher stresses that they were discovered along with well-known and widespread types of perfume vessels – amphoriskoi and oinochoe, which was regarded as a single instance.7 The researcher thinks that the Vani find was made in one of the manufacturing centres of the west Iranian world of the 5th-4th centuries BC.8 The bracelets with bent backs led to the tendency to date Burial 6 at Vani to the early stage of the 4th century BC, which will not be discussed in detail here. On the basis of the available material, the dating of this complex to the final third of the 5th century BC seems more probable. Splendid specimens of bracelets with bent backs are found in many burials of the 5th century BC Greek cemetery at Pichvnari, belonging exactly to this period. The situation is similar in the rich and ordinary burials at Qhanchaeti and Algeti.9 All other objects from Vani Burial 6 must have been made exactly in the 5th century BC. These are: three polychrome glass amphoriskoi and two alabastra, an eye bead, a silver bezelled ring, silver spiral ornaments, a bronze mirror, an Ionian pyxislike vessel, a Samian lekythos and an Attic lekythos. Pendants of other types were also discovered. Even an analogue of a small gold pyramidal pendant10 occurred together with other objects. All of them find numerous parallels in objects of exactly the 5th century BC. Tetrahedral glass perfume vessels preserved at the Georgian National Museum have been studied specially by Mariam Saginashvili.11 The joint paper of Iulon Gagoshidze and Mariam Saginashvili on the Iranian glass vessels has been published in German language.12 Naturally, in both papers due attention is paid to the above-mentioned Kohl-Tube from Burial 6 at Vani,13 but the Pichvnari find was not known in the literature at that time. Special attention is claimed by the specimens discovered in eastern Georgia. In the first place, the glass vessel from the village of Enageti, Tsintsqaro district, is noteworthy (Burial 16). The Enageti glass vessel, along with four knobs 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

A polychrome glass amphoriskos occurred together with Kohl-Tube at Enageti. Pirtskhalava 1983, 79-86, pl. 37.396. Gagoshidze 1964, 22. Chqonia 1981, 39, fig. 23.31. Saginashvili 2000, 72-76. Gagošidze, Saginašvili 2000, 76-73. Saginashvili 2000, 72-73, fig. 2; Gagošidze, Saginašvili 2000, 67-73, fig. 1.3.

A. Kakhidze / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 109-115 113

attached to the shoulders, bears four knobs on the bottom too. With this feature the Enageti perfume vessel is close to the specimen kept at the Kroning Glass Museum, regarded as unique by Barag and, together with the Vani KohlTube, was united in Subgroup I A. As Saginashvili thinks more correctly, according to the knobs on the bottom, the vessels from the Kroning Museum and Enageti should be singled out as a separate subgroup.14 The researcher dates Burial 16 at Enageti to the 5th century BC. or at latest the beginning of the 4th century. Noteworthy enough, similar to Vani, a glass amphoriskos made on a sand core occurred here too.15 The excavations at the village of Takhtidziri, Kareli district, also brought to light some specimens of Kohl-Tubes – two specimens occurred in Burial 8. One of these is made of opaque black glass. Most of the body is adorned with white zigzags, two yellow and white threads are found at the ends.16 The other specimen has a white-yellowish surface. The greater part of the body is covered with yellowish angular zigzags.17 The first perfume vessel from Takhtidziri is thought to belong to Subgroup I A of Barag’s classification, and the second to Subgroup I B. In both vessels a solid black mass has survived. The rich Burial 8 at Takhtidziri is dated to the beginning of the Early Hellenistic period.18 Kohl-Tubes of different form and decoration are known from eastern Georgia. Specimens found at the village of Kuchi, Tsalka district19 and Shavsaqhdara II cemetery, Tetritsqharo district.20 They have a cogged mouth, cylindrical body covered with spirals of polychrome threads and a flat bottom. These specimens are dated to the 4th-3rd centuries BC. The analysis of the published finds leads to the conclusion that Kohl-Tube perfume vessels are indeed very rare. Their number has not increased considerably after the study by Barag.21 The Kohl-Tube is alien to the Greek world, which is evident from the limits in their area of distribution. As noted above, northwestern Iran is supposed to be the centre of their manufacture.22 Against this background, recent finds from Georgia naturally attract attention (8 intact and 2 fragmentary vessels 14

Saginashvili 2000, 73. Saginashvili 2000, 74; Gagošidze, Saginašvili 2000, 67-73, figs. 1-2. 16 Saginashvili 2000, 74, fig. 5; Barag 1975, 68, fig. 1.4. 17 Referred to as wing-shaped ornament by Mariam Saginashvili. 18 Gagoshidze 1997, 16-17; Saginashvili 2000, 74. 19 Kuftin 1948, 8-9, pl. 18.2; Gagoshidze 1982, 50-53, No. 111.3; Saginashvili 2000, 72, fig. 1; Gagošidze, Saginašvili 2000, 68, fig. 1.6. 20 Margishvili 1992, 24, pls. 17.5, 24.2; Saginashvili 2000, 73, fig. 3; Gagošidze, Saginašvili 2000, 70, figs. 1,7. 21 Grose 1989, 86, No. 31. 22 Saldern, Nolte, La Baume, Haevernick 1974, 50-51; Barag 1975, 28; Grose 1989, 86-87. 15

114 A. Kakhidze / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 109-115

have been discovered). Previously Barag thought that glass vessels must have found their way from Iran into Vani through chance contacts. However, this version cannot be regarded as reliable nowadays. As Saginashvili thinks, in the Achaemenid period they were imported by land to eastern Georgia, finding their way into Colchis from there. Polychrome glass vessels from the Mediterranean basin were distributed by sea, reaching eastern Georgia, namely, lower Kartli.23 As we see, new discoveries have widened the area of distribution of perfume vessels of this kind. The finds from Pichvnari and Vani show that in western Georgia early specimens are found, and in eastern Georgia those of the Classical and Hellenistic periods. It comes as no surprise – due to territorial proximity, that eastern Georgia, especially its southern part, retained contacts with the Achaemenid world for a long time. Colchis had closer trade, economic and cultural contacts with the Classical, namely the Greek world. Achaemenid Iran failed to conquer and unite Colchis in its satrapies.24 At that time Colchis was a powerful state covering a vast territory. Herodotus names the Colchians among the most powerful nations of that period: “The Persians inhabit Asia extending to the Southern Sea, which is called the Erythraian; and above these towards the North Wind dwell the Medes, and above the Medes the Saspeirians, and above the Saspeirians the Colchians, extending to the Northern Sea, into which the river Phasis runs. These four nations inhabit from sea to sea” (Hdt. 4.37).25 However, there existed certain subordination. According to Herodotus “The Colchians also had set themselves among those who brought gifts, and with them those who border upon them extending as far as the range of the Caucasus (for the Persian rule extends as far as these mountains, but those who dwell in the parts beyond Caucasus toward the North Wind regard the Persians no longer), – these, I say, continued to bring the gifts which they had fixed for themselves every four years even down to my own time, that is to say, a hundred boys and a hundred maidens” (Hdt. 3.97). It should be assumed that after the defeat of the Persian monarchy in the Greco-Persian wars and the formation of the Delian League, this nominal subordination must have been reduced further. Iranian Kohl-Tubes apparently found their way into Pichvnari from eastern Georgia. In the Classical as well as Hellenistic periods close direct trade, economic and cultural contacts existed between the regions of eastern Georgia and the Iranian world. This is obvious

23

Saginashvili 2000, 75. Melikishvili 1959, 237. 25 The text of Herodotus here and below translated into English by G.C. Macaulay: Macaulay 1890. 24

A. Kakhidze / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 109-115 115

not only according to glassware, but from other data of material culture as well, especially, specimens of glyptics and architecture.

Bibliography Barag, D.P. 1975: Rod-formed Kohl-Tubes of the Mid-First Millennium B.C. Journal of Glass Studies 17, 23-36. Chqonia, A. 1981: Okros samkaulebi vanis nakalakaridan. In O. Lordkipanidze (ed.), Vani VI (Tbilisi), 7-160. Gagoshidze, I. 1964: Adreantikuri khanis dzeglebi ksnis kheobidan (Tbilisi). Gagoshidze, I. 1982: Trialetis samarovnebi, katalogi III (Tbilisi). Gagoshidze, I. 1997: Arkeologiuri gatkhrebi takhtisdzirshi (karelis raioni). In O.D. Lordkipanidze, B.A. Jorbenadze & A.A. Tchanturia (eds.), Archaeology of the Caucasus: New Discoveries and Perspectives. Abstracts of Papers of International Scientific Session (Tbilisi), 16-17. Gagošidze, J., Saginašvili, M. 2000: Die achaimenidishen Glasgefäße in Georgien. Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 32, 67-73. Grose, D.F. 1989: The Toledo Museum of Art: Early Ancient Glass (New York). Khoshtaria, N.V. 1962: Arkheologicheskie raskopki v Vani. In N. Berdzenishvili, G. Giorgadze, R. Kiknadze, G. Melikishvili & E. Menabde (eds.), Kavkasiur-akhloaghmosavluri krebuli II (Tbilisi), 65-79. Khoshtaria, N., Puturidze, R., Chqonia, A. 1972: Vanis nakalakaris chrdilo-aghmosavlet natsilshi 1961-1963 tslebshi chatarebuli arkeologiuri tkhris shedegebi. In O. Lordkipanidze (ed.), Vani I (Tbilisi), 111-134. Kuftin, B.A. 1948: Arkheologicheskie raskopki 1947 goda v Tsalkinskom raione (Tbilisi). Macaulay, G.C. 1890: The History of Herodotus (London), 2 vols. Margishvili, S. 1992: Antikuri khanis mdidruli samarkhebi algetis kheobidan (Tbilisi). Melikishvili, G.A. 1959: K istorii drevnei Gruzii (Tbilisi). Pirtskhalava, M. 1983: Minis churcheli. In O. Lordkipanidze (ed.), Vani VII (Tbilisi), 79-86. Saginashvili, M. 2000: Minis sanelsatskhebleebis – Kohl-Tube-bis gavrtseleba sakartveloshi. Dziebani 5, 72-76. Saldern, A., von Nolte, B., La Baume, P., Haevernick, T.E. 1974: Gläser der Antike. Sammlung Erwin Oppenländer (Hamburg).

Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 117-128

www.brill.nl/acss

Achaemenian Seals Found in Georgia Ketevan Dzhavakhishvili

Abstract In the article six Achaemenian seals are published, which were found in Georgia. Two of them belong to the seals of the “Oriental Royal Style” according to J. Boardman, the third is an “Occidental Royal Style” seal, one belongs to the “Greco-Oriental” group and two others to the “Bern group”. Three of them were found in burials of the Roman period, two in burials of the 4th century BC, while the origin of the last one is unknown. Keywords Seals / Achaemenian Art / Georgia

Uniformity of glyptics and art in general was not a characteristic feature of the Achaemenid Empire. Its huge territory was settled by various nations, all of them differed culturally from one another. The Achaemenian seals reflect this diversity – people of the eastern and western parts of the empire made them according to their traditions and artistic tastes. That is why they contrast not only by their forms and the images engraved on them, but also by their themes and styles. Mesopotamian – Assyrian and Babylonian – influence dominated in the eastern part of the empire. As to the western areas, such as Asia Minor and the Aegean world, these were under the influence of the Greeks. J. Boardman has also stressed a strong influence of Greek artistic schools in the creation and further development of the Achaemenian glyptics in general. Research on epigraphic and archaeological data have already provided the grounds for a generally accepted opinion that Greek craftsmen were the people who made engraved pieces for Persian consumers according to Persians’ tastes and demands.1 But the eclectic Achaemenian art, with a number of details borrowed from different countries (Assyria, Babylon, Elam, Urartu, Greece, etc.), still remained an Iranian art.2 The same is true for the Achaemenian glyptics. 1 2

Boardman 1970, 303. Lukonin 1977, 72.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2007

DOI: 10.1163/157005707X212706

118 K. Dzhavakhishvili / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 117-128

Boardman has offered a new interpretation for a number of problems connected with the interactions and mutual influence of Greek and Persian artistic schools. The scholar considers that it is a hardly possible to draw a clear line between Greek and Persian styles in the Achaemenian seals.3 Boardman has defined three main styles in Achaemenian glyptics: the Royal Style, including two subgroups – eastern and western, the Greek style, and the mixed style.4 The Achaemenian seals are of various forms: cylindrical, conical, pyramidal, scaraboid and many-sided (multi-facet). As for the material, the seals were normally made of chalcedony of different colours. The most popular among them was a pale-white and sky-blue sapphirin; agate and carnelian were rarely used. Today we know six Achaemenian seals found in Georgia. In spite of their small quantity they clearly demonstrate the diverse character of the Achaemenian glyptic objects. 1. G. Gobeiishvili found a cylindrical seal5 of striped agate at Dzhoisubani village (Ratcha, Oni district) in 1962 (Fig. 1). The Tree of Life is depicted on the surface of the seal. The tree has a form of a tall, slim column resting upon a doubled base and crowned with a palm-like branch. A pair of winged, openmouthed prancing lions are at both sides of the tree. One foreleg of each lion is uplifted and their tails are directed upward. Though the engraving is not deep, the representation is quite clear, plastic and accurate. The realistically portrayed strong, slender figures of the lions are similar to monumental sculptures. The cylindrical form of the seal echoes the Mesopotamian objects. This form was created in northern Mesopotamia in the 4th millennium BC. Mesopotamian artisans found a special technique for long and narrow surfaces which included the whole scene they had intended to engrave. Each animal was depicted vertically, likewise an upright standing person.6 A cylindrical form was adopted by the Persians in the Achaemenian period and the craftsmen, who normally had followed Assyrian and Babylonian subject matters, borrowed this ancient method in arranging the figures, but at the same time changed the tradition of many-figured scenes characteristic to Mesopotamian cylindrical seals. As a result, their design obtained a kind of monumental impression.7 Cylinder seals were common in the eastern part of the Persian Empire. In the western part pyramidal, conical, scarab-shaped and many-sided seals were 3

Boardman 1970, 303. Boardman 1970, 305-322. 5 GF No. 1241, dimensions: 26 × 11 mm (here and in other cases GF means “Glyptics Fund” of the Archaeological Department of the State Museum of Georgia). 6 Mat’e, Afanas’eva et alii 1968, 51. 7 Mat’e, Afanas’eva et alii 1968, 90. 4

K. Dzhavakhishvili / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 117-128 119

more popular, which were also much easier to use.8 Boardman supposes that cylindrical seals were considered as official ones used by the imperial officials. Besides this, he believes that a group of Greek artists kept making them until the end of the empire, in spite of the fact that such seals had lost their popularity.9 The subject matter represented on the Dzhoisubani cylinder seal (the Tree of Life and the animals standing at both sides) is of an ancient, eastern Mesopotamian origin. This motive is often represented in the Achaemenian art, including cylinder seals.10 There are many dozens of versions of the Tree of Life. Similar trees, in a form of a column crowned with different plants and the branches of palmtrees, had been quite common on Assyrian cylinders.11 As to the Dzhoisubani example, it belongs to the style defined by Boardman as the “Oriental Royal Style” (i.e. his group 1); this group includes cylinder and conical seals on which Assyrian and Babylonian elements predominate. From an artistic point of view the style of the seal representations reminds of the Achaemenian palace monuments.12 It should be dated to the 5th century BC or even a little earlier. 2. One of the burials (No. 8) excavated by I. Gagoshidze in 1996 in Takhtisdziri village (Kartli, Kareli district) yielded a conical dark sky-blue, even violet, chalcedony seal (Fig. 2).13 It has a slightly outward swelling surface and represents a stylized Tree of Life and a pair of wild goats standing on their hind legs to both sides of the tree. The Tree of Life consists of branches arranged in three tiers. The rods of the branches are directed downwards, then turned upwards and are crowned with a fir-cone or some other fruit. A four-petalled flower at the bottom of each branch is visible. The upper part of the rod has the form of a palm-tree branch with a crescent crown. The engraving is not deep but at the same time it is fairly clear, plastic and neat. The wild goats’ bodies are oblong and anatomically exact. Their muscles are neat; their long horns are beautifully bent, as are their joints and hooves. All the parts of the Tree of Life – its branches, flowers, fir-cone, are engraved perfectly. On the whole the seal is a real masterpiece.

8 9 10 11 12 13

Boardman 1970, 323. Boardman 1970, 309, 324. Lukonin 1977, 72. Parpola 1993, 162, fig. 1,2; 201, fig. 163, 164. Boardman 1970, 305. GF No. 1450, dimensions: edge – 23 × 20 mm; height – 32 mm.

120 K. Dzhavakhishvili / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 117-128

As I have already noted, the subject consisting of the Tree of Life and animals at both of its sides is widely spread in Oriental art.14 Trees similar to the Takhtisdziri example are quite common on Assyrian seals as well.15 The conical seals appeared in the 7th-6th centuries BC in Mesopotamia, in the Neo-Babylonian Kingdom.16 Later this form of seals was adopted by the Achaemenians. Motives and styles of Mesopotamian glyptics were used on both Achaemenian cylinder and conical seals.17 This is the reason why Boardman included both the Achaemenian cylinder and conical seals in his group of “Oriental Royal Style”. The style of the Takhtisdziri seal, like the stile of Dzhoisubani cylinder seal allows us to interpret it as belonging to this group. There is a conical chalcedony seal displayed at the Munich State Museum of Numismatics which also represents caprids stylistically very close to the Takhtisdziri example.18 The former is dating from the earlier half of the 5th century BC which allows us to date the Takhtisdziri conical seal to the same period. 3. A pyramidal dull-white chalcedony seal19 was found in a rich tomb (No. 905) at Mtskheta (Kartli) in 1985 (Fig. 3).20 It has a slightly swollen surface representing a winged divinity with a cogged crown on the head and grasping the tails of a pair of winged, open-mouthed lions with their heads turned backwards. The image is strictly symmetric as if reflected in a mirror. Though the creatures are not engraved deeply, the outline of each of them is fairly clear. The wings of the divinity and the lions, and also the manes of the latter, are similar, drawn by fine, parallel lines. The figures are somewhat flat and roughly modeled. Pyramidal seals were created in the Neo-Babylonian Kingdom in the 7th-6th centuries BC. In the Achaemenian period seals of this type were widespread mostly in Asia Minor.21 They mainly come from Sardis, from other towns of Anatolia and the Greek islands.22 Boardman has included some of the pyramidal seals in the group of the “Occidental Royal Style”.23 Some scholars believe that the Occidental Royal Style is a simplified, somewhat artificial version of the “Oriental Royal Style”.

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Porada 1952, 182, pl. 29, 4; Lukonin 1977, 72. Parpola 1993, 201, fig. 452, 490, 498, 502. Mat’e, Afanas’eva et alii 1968, 84. Boardman 1970, 304. AGDS, 54, No. 247, pl. 27. GF No. 1579, dimensions: edge – 20 × 15 mm, height – 26 mm. Apakidze & Nikolaishvili, 1994, 36-37, pl. 40, 2,3,4; pl. 56, 1,2. Lukonin 1977, 72. Boardman 1970, 323. Boardman 1970, 305.

K. Dzhavakhishvili / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 117-128 121

The images of the former are rougher and less modeled. Their themes are purely Iranian (differing from the Mesopotamian themes of cylinder and conical seals). They mostly represent Persian kings or heroes, often with cogged crowns or tiaras on their heads, usually fighting with lions or other beasts or dragons.24 A number of exact parallels for the Mtskheta seal are made of the same material, having the same form, theme and style. In most cases these are pyramidal seals, for example a pair of chalcedony ones from the Munich State Museum of Numismatics.25 Their images and subjects are almost the same as on the Mtskheta example. One of them (No. 236) is even stylistically identical. Both seals date from the earlier half of the 5th century BC.26 A carnelian pyramidal seal kept in the Geneva Museum of Fine Arts and History bears the same representation and M. L. Vollenweider considers it to originate from Syria or from Asia Minor. It is dated to the end of the 6th and the beginning of the 5th centuries BC.27 The same scene is depicted on a pyramidal chalcedony seal from the Vorderasiatisches Museum in Berlin.28 It has to be noted that the lions represented on the seals are very similar to those portrayed on the Archaic Greek scarabs. Their style and the way of treatment are identical as well. While discussing the Archaic Greek scarabs found in Cyprus, Boardman pointed out that the stylization characteristic for such seals had developed further in the 5th century BC and it appeared on the Achaemenian seals.29 I suppose that the Mtskheta pyramidal seal may easily be dated to the end of the 6th and the earlier half of the 5th centuries BC. 4. A tabloid chalcedony seal30 was found by V. Nikolaishvili in burial No. 21 of the Baiatkhevi site in 1982 (Mtskheta, East Georgia, the area in the north of the Samtavro valley).31 Different images are engraved on each of four sides of the seal. Its lower wide side presents a Persian warrior thrusting a javelin into a prancing lion (Figs. 4, 5). The warrior wears a Persian hood, a jacket tightly fitted at his waist and shoes with long sharp toes. His horse is rearing and its long tail is not tied in the Persian manner. The upper, smaller side of the seal shows a Maltese dog terrier. One of the side facets bears a

24

Boardman 1970, 305. AGDS, Nos. 236, 237, pl. 26. 26 AGDS, 52-53. 27 Vollenweider 1967, 79, pl. 40, No. 89. 28 Jakob-Rost 1997, pl. 102, fig. 475; pl. 7. 29 Boardman 1968, 133, pl. 31, 442, 443; pl. 32, 461, 462. 30 The seal is preserved at the Mtskheta State Museum, No. 101-35-108; dimensions: edge – 23 × 18 mm; height – 12 mm. 31 Nikolaishvili & Giunashvili 1995, 120, fig. 977-981, 1218. 25

122 K. Dzhavakhishvili / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 117-128

Fig. 5. Tabloid seal from Baiatkhevi (Mtskheta). Lower side. Impression.

Fig. 7. Tabloid seal from Baiatkhevi (Mtskheta). Upper side

K. Dzhavakhishvili / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 117-128 123

galloping stag with antlers and the other an antelope (Figs. 6, 7). The central picture i.e. the warrior fighting with the lion is carved deep. Both figures are clear, quite plastic and realistic, though the movements seem somehow static. The same can be said about the other engraved figures on the other sides of the seal. The animals are realistic and each of their parts is clearly worked out but the movement of galloping seems rather constrained. Tabloid seals had originated in Anatolia.32 They belong to the so called “Greco-Persian” or “Greco-Oriental” group.33 This group of seals mainly consists of scarabs and the number of tabloid ones is low. “Greco-Persian” seals have attracted the scholars’ special interest since a long time. A. Furtwängler was the first who singled out a group of seals and called them “Greco-Persian”. He described them and dated them to the later half of the 5th and the first half of the 4th century BC.34 He believed that the “Greco-Persian” seals were created by Ionian Greek artisans who worked at the Persian Royal palace and produced them for local consumers, taking into consideration the tastes and demands of their clients. Some scholars, like H. Walters35 or G. Richter,36 have agreed with Furtwängler’s opinion, but others, like T. Knipovich,37 M. Maximova,38 H. Seyrig39 and M. Lordkipanidze40 have offered another interpretation – they believed that “Greco-Persian” seals were made by Persian craftsmen influenced by Greek art. N. Nikulina supposes that the “Greco-Persian” seals originated on the base of local art from Asia Minor and were greatly influenced by both Greeks and Persians.41 Later Boardman has changed the term “Greco-Persian” into “GrecoOriental”42 and included the seals into his so called “group of Mixed Style”. The scholar believes that both Greek and Persian craftsmen took equal part in the creation of these seals and, going further, he thinks that the majority of the seals do not seem to have been made by Greeks.43 It is of course true that the Greek influence upon the representations of “Greco-Persian” seals is clearly 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43

Boardman 1970, 324. Boardman 1990, 401. Furtwängler 1900, 116. Walters 1926, XXXII. Richter 1946, 15-80. Knipovich 1926, 57-58. Maximova 1928, 663, 676-677. Seyrig 1952, 199-201. Lordkipanidze 1963, 135-137. Nikulina 1968, 20. Boardman 1990, 401. Boardman 1970, 324.

124 K. Dzhavakhishvili / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 117-128

seen, but at the same time it is quite possible that there were a number of skilled Persian craftsmen who were able to imitate a Greek theme or style quite masterly. As to Greek craftsmen, they, in their turn, had to take into account Persian consumers’ demands and especially the taste of the satraps of the western provinces.44 The principal thing that Greek masters contributed as their own aspect in the making of “Greco-Persian” seals was an easy and accurate manner of distributing the figures within a space and a realistic, anatomically correct rendition of each image.45 The scholar believes that the western part of Asia Minor and Cyprus were the main areas where the Greeks’ and the Persians’ interests met and from where, during the period between the later half of the 5th and the 4th centuries BC, the “Greco-Persian” seals spread over the territory from the Aegean world up to India and from the Black Sea region up to the Nile river.46 The Mtskheta many-sided seal is not the only example of this type. Similar forms, design and even the style were quite common (the majority are represented on scarabs, since tabloid seals are considerably rarer). The theme of such seals was not diversified. There are a number of them representing Persian riders or infantrymen (and not the kings represented on “Occidental Royal Style” pyramidal seals) dressed exactly like the warrior represented on the Baiatkhevi example, fighting against a beast with a javelin or with a bow and arrow, or against a Greek warrior.47 There are numerous seals with animal images on them; often the animals are galloping (a deer,48 Maltese dog terrier,49 etc.). All these images, like the Baiatkhevi one, are realistic but even dynamic figures are lifeless and this feature is normally characteristic for the “Greco-Persian” seal impressions.50 A generally accepted date of “Greco-Persian” seals is the later half of the 5th and the first half of the 4th centuries BC. 5. Georgian National Museum purchased grave goods found by chance at Dzhimiti village (Kakheti, Gurjaani district) in 2000. The assemblage included a scaraboid51 of a light yellowish-white, half-transparent chalcedony (Fig. 8). It represents a horseman wearing a pointed hat and grasping a javelin.

44

Boardman 1970, 304, 312-313, 323. Boardman 1970, 334. 46 Boardman 1970, 303. 47 Maximova 1928, fig. 9, 15, 16; Richter 1968, fig. 496; Boardman 1970, fig. 886, 888, 889, 925, 927, 929, etc. 48 Boardman 1970, fig. 896, 940. 49 Boardman 1970, fig. 874, 966; AGDS, pl. 28, 449 k; pl. 32, 271 A. 50 Maximova 1928, 655, 658. 51 GF, No. 1438; dimensions: rim – 22 × 18 mm; height – 7 mm. 45

K. Dzhavakhishvili / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 117-128 125

He is fighting with a long horned bull. The picture is schematic, its details are not clear, the figures are flat, not solid. The seal has oriental features. The form and the theme of the Dzhimiti seal is quite common among the so called “Greco-Persian” seals but because of its small size and especially its schematic depiction it completely differs from the so called Classical “GrecoPersian” large scaraboids which are greatly influenced by Greek art. The Dzhimiti example belongs to the so called seals of the “Bern Group”52 which has been singled out by Boardman as a separate group inside the “GrecoPersian” ones. The scholar says that the characteristic features of such small scaraboids and tabloid seals are the following: they are less detailed, their style is much more Persian than Greek, and they belong to the further stage of the Achaemenian period continuing the traditions of the “Greco-Persian” series of seals. Their images have many points of similarity with the ones represented on Seleucid clay bulae and consequently they have to be dated to the end of the 4th century BC or even the following period.53 One fact should be stressed here: Boardman has re-dated “Bern Group” seals and placed them to a later period than the 4th century BC, while there had already been a generally accepted date for the “Greco-Persian” seals in the later half of the 5th and the earlier half of the 4th centuries BC. Boardman believes that the seals of such type have remained more persistent in the provinces of the Achaemenian Empire. Such would be the “Bern Group” seals which have been connected by him with blue glass tabloids found in Georgia by the author. 6. A small scaraboid54 of dull-white transparent-striped chalcedony, supposedly found on the territory of the Bolnisi district (Fig. 9). A flat surface of the seal represents an open-mouthed lion attacking an animal (a doe?). The image is rough and flat. The figures are schematic, only the lion’s mane is rendered with a pair of small triangles. Its claws are represented with three oblong triangles. According to the theme and style the seal probably belongs to the “Bern Group” (compare the lion’s figure with the one represented on a jasper scaraboid belonging to the same “Bern Group”).55 The seal may be dated to the 4th century BC or even to a later period. Examination of the seals found in Georgia is of particular interest but not only from the point of view of studying Achaemenian glyptics. It is

52 Cf. Boardman 1970, fig. 973, 974; the seal No. 973 is dating from the 5th century BC or even later period: Boardman & Vollenweider 1978, 45-46, fig. 200, pl. 35, 200. 53 Boardman 1970, 320-322. 54 GF, No. 1588, dimensions: 15 × 13 mm; height – 6 mm. 55 Boardman 1970, fig. 975.

126 K. Dzhavakhishvili / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 117-128

Fig. 9. Scaraboid from Bolnisi. Impression. also interesting concerning the interrelations between Georgia and the Achaemenian world. It seems worth pointing out that among the Achaemenian seals found in Georgia there are three pieces (Mtskheta’s pyramidal seal, Baiatkhevi tabloid and Dzhimiti scaraboid) which come from Roman period burials. The Dzhoisubani cylinder seal was found in a burial dating from the 4th century BC and the Takhtisdziri conical one was found in one of the burials that had been unearthed at the cemetery dating from the 4th-3rd centuries BC. All of these contexts belong to the later period and this very fact should be taken into consideration by the scholars studying contacts between Georgia and the Achaemenian world. It should be mentioned here that not only imported Achaemenian seals were found in the Eastern Georgia, but also numerous finds of locally manufactured seals of the Achaemenian cultural circle are known in this region (for example, finger-rings with metal bezels of the 4th or

K. Dzhavakhishvili / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 117-128 127

3rd centuries BC from Akhalgori, Kanchaeti, Takhtisdziri; blue glass tabloids of the 2nd century BC up to the 1st century AD from Mtskheta-Samtavro, Neron-Deresi, Lochini, Urbnisi, Arkneti).

Bibliography Apakidze, A. & Nikolaishvili, V. 1994: An Aristocratic Tombs of the Roman Period from Mtskheta – Georgia. AJ 74, 16-54. Boardman, J. 1968: Archaic Greek Gems (London). Boardman, J. 1970: Greek Gems and Finger Rings (London). Boardman, J. 1990: Greco-Oriental Gems of the Hellenistic Period. In Akten des 13. Internationallen Kongresses für Klassische Archäologie (Mainz am Rhein), 401. Boardman, J. & Vollenweider, M. L. 1978: Catalogue of the Engraved Gems and Finger Rings (Oxford). Furtwängler, A. 1900: Die Antiken Gemmen 3 (Leipzig, Berlin). Jacob-Rost, L. 1997: Die Stempelsiegel in Vorderasiatischen Museum (Berlin). Knipovich, T. 1926: Greko-persidskie reznÿe kamni Érmitazha. Sbornik GE 3, 41-58. Lordkipanidze, M. 1963: Gvianakemeniduri khanis mtsireaziuli sabechdavebis iberiuli pirebi – lurji minis mravaltsakhnaga sabetchdavebi. SMGM 6, 134-154. Lukonin, V. G. 1977: Iskusstvo Drevnego Irana (Moscow). Mat’e, M. E., Afanas’eva, V. K., D’yakonov, I. M. & Lukonin, V. G. 1968: Iskusstvo Drevnego Vostoka. In E. I. Rotenberg (ed.), Pamiatniki Mirovogo Iskusstva 2 (Moscow), 5-96. Maximova, M. 1928: Griechisch-persische Kleinkunst in Kleinasien nach den Perserkriegen. AA, 648-677. Nikolaishvili, V. & Giunashvili, G. 1995: Arkeologiuri kvleva-dziebis shedegebi. In A. Apakidze (ed.), Mtskheta 10 (Tbilisi), 97-134. Nikulina, N. 1968: Maloaziatskaya gliptika vtoroi polovinÿ 5-4 vekov do n.é. Problema vostochnogrecheskogo “greko-persidskog”o iskusstva. PhD thesis (Moscow). Parpola, S. 1993: The Assyrian Tree of Life. JNES 52, 161-208. Porada, E. 1952: On the Problem of Kassite Art. In G. C. Miles (ed.), Archaeologia Orientalia. In memoriam Ernst Herzfeld (New York), 179-187. Richter, G. 1946: Greeks in Persia. AJA 50, 15-80. Richter, G. 1968: Engraved Gems of the Greeks and Etruscans (London). Seyrig, H. 1952: Cachets Achemenides. In G. C. Miles (ed.), Archaeologia Orientalia. In memoriam Ernst Herzfeld (New York), 195-202. Vollenweider, M. L. 1967: Catalogue raisonné des sceaux, cylindres et intailles I (Geneva). Walters, H. 1926: Catalogue of the Engraved Gems and Cameos Greek, Etruscan and Roman in the British Museum (London).

Abbreviations: AA AGDS AJ

Archäologischer Anzeiger (Berlin). Antike Gemmen in Deutschen Sammlungen. Bd. 1, Teil 1 (Munich 1968). The Antiquaries Journal (London).

128 K. Dzhavakhishvili / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 117-128 AJA GE GF JNES SMGM

American Journal of Archaeology (New York). Gosudarstvennÿi Érmitazh (Leningrad, St.-Petersburg). Gliptics Fund of the Georgian National Muzeum (Tbilisi). Journal of the Near Eastern Studies (Chicago). Sazogadoebriv Metsnierebata Gankopilebis Moambe (Tbilisi).

Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 129-154

www.brill.nl/acss

Wall Painting from Dahaneh-ye Gholaman (Sistan) S. Mansur Seyyed Sajjadi

Abstract The site of Dahaneh-ye Gholaman (Sistan, in the southeastern part of the Iranian Plateau) was discovered in the early 1960s by Umberto Scerrato of IsMEO (now IsIAO). It was a major urban center of the 6th to the 5th centuries BC. New excavations at Dahaneh-ye Gholaman started in October 2000. During the third campaign of excavations, traces of wall paintings and incised images have been identified in room 25. The most important scene shows a standing man, chariot rider, with a bow in his hand, shooting an animal, most probably a wild boar. In the same room and among a great variety of painted designs, which are only partly distinguishable, there are also remains of an image of a Bactrian camel. Keywords Dahaneh-ye Gholaman / Achaemenids / Wall Painting / Sistan / Chariot

Dahaneh-ye Gholaman is located some 45 km from Zabol and nearly two km from Qaleh Now village in the Sistan and Baluchistan Region (Fig. 1) in the southeastern part of the Iranian Plateau. The region of Dahaneh-ye Gholaman in Sistan can be roughly identified with the Achaemenid Satrapy of Drangiana and Zarin, which was a political and administrative center of Achaemenian Drangiana referred to by Ctesias, as suggested by Scerrato1 and Gnoli.2 Remains of the town are scattered over a natural elevation a few meters above the surrounding fields. It is about 1.5 km long and ca. 800 m wide, and lies next to the abandoned delta of the Sanarud River. The site was discovered and excavated by Umberto Scerrato of IsMEO (now IsIAO) in the early 1960s.3 The Italian expedition studied two major architectural complexes with 27 differently sized structures. The western complex is built along the ancient canal, which was later filled with shifting sands and dunes. The eastern complex can be divided into two sections. This complex continues as far as the natural feature known as Qabr-e Zardosht (Fig. 2). A new surface 1 2 3

Scerrato 1966c. Gnoli 1967, 41-51, 106-107. Scerrato 1962; 1966a; 1966b; 1966c; 1970; 1979.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2007

DOI: 10.1163/157005707X212715

130 S. M. S. Sajjadi / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 129-154

Fig. 1. Sistan and the position of Dahaneh-ye Gholaman (modified after Fairservice 1961).

S. M. S. Sajjadi / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 129-154 131

Fig. 2. Dahaneh-ye Gholaman. Building no. 15 is marked by* (modified after Scerrato 1966b). prospection has also shown that on the southwestern side of the site, which had not been surveyed by the Italian Expedition, some ruins were to be found which may indicate that the town was originally much larger than what has been preserved. Among a total of the 27 buildings identified at Dahaneh-ye Gholaman, eight seem to have had a particular use. Their size, their ground plan, the internal structure and architectural elements distinguish these buildings from the rest of the structures of the site. They include buildings Nos. 1/2 and 3 in the eastern complex and Nos. 15, 16, 17, 21 and 22 in the western complex.4 The lack of any stratified layers and the absence of any archaeological material that could be attributed to other periods than the 6th or 5th century BC, suggest that the town had a short life.5 These data indicate that inhabitants of Dahaneh-ye Gholaman abandoned the site peacefully, but rapidly; not as a result of any conflict or conflagration, but after a conscious decision. Very few personal belongings and other kinds of objects were discovered, thus suggesting that its habitants had sufficient time to remove their possessions prior to their departure. Sandstorms massive enough to force the inhabitants to abandon their settlement, would naturally cause some damage and causalities of which, however, we see no evidence. There is no indication that the inhabitants had the necessary knowledge or techniques to predict sandstorms and thus may have abandoned their town before its arrival. Having considered other alternatives, it appears that the most probable reason leading to the abandonment of Dahaneh-ye Gholaman was a hydrological problem. As we 4 5

Genito 1986, 293. Scerrato1979, 709.

132 S. M. S. Sajjadi / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 129-154

mentioned earlier, the magnitude and the layout of Dahaneh-ye Gholaman, as well as its size, and the architectural techniques documented in the structures, indicate that this was a major urban center of the 6th to the 5th centuries BC.

New Excavations In October 2000, new excavations began at Dahaneh-ye Gholaman. Digging concentrated on building No. 15, which had already been discovered by the Italian expedition6 (Fig. 2), a square structure of ca. 2500 sqm (Figs. 3, 3a). This building is located in the northwestern part of the town on a natural terrace of 4-5 m height. Traces of 36 long and narrow rooms located on four sides around a central square courtyard form building No. 15. The courtyard had been filled with sand over the years. On the southeastern side of the courtyard traces of four narrow corridors were found. Their function has not been understood fully yet, although there is a great probability, due to the interior ventilation and the possibility of a continuous circulation of air, that they could have served as some kind of a cool storage room to preserve materials produced in this sacred manufacturing structure (Figs. 4; 5; 5a). The northern side of the building is the only part disturbed by water and wind erosion. The general aspect of this building and the layout of the rooms bring to mind a sacred structure, a sort of temple or mausoleum, with uniformly shaped rooms built around a central court. It is more or less like building No. 3 of the same complex,7 which is also similar in plan to building No. 2 of Altin depe 10.8 Further investigations and excavations of this building partially confirmed this assumption, but not completely. In fact, according to the material and the architectural elements, there is a high probability that this is a sacred structure, which served for the production of some unknown ritual items and materials. Up to now a total of ca. 1500 sqm of the building have been uncovered, revealing 30 spaces consisting of 16 rooms, 4 vestibules and 10 smaller units. Both rooms and vestibules are long and narrow in plan (Fig. 6). The average length of the rooms is 10 m by 2.5-3.5 m width. Low platforms (Figs. 7-8), small and large basins, benches, bins and larger storage structures are the principal architectural elements found in these rooms, together with a great number of millstones, grinding stones (Fig. 9), small terracotta columns (Fig. 10), and beakers (Figs. 11-12), as well as some metal and stone fragments of different items. Among other objects, a number of seal 6 7 8

Scerrato 1979. Scerrato 1979, fig. 9. Genito 1986, pl. XXV, fig. 8.

S. M. S. Sajjadi / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 129-154 133

impressions (Fig. 13), one typical tri-lobate bronze arrowhead, and some clay female figurines are items worth special mentioning. One should especially take account of one clay female figurine (Fig. 14) found together with an iron blade near a niche, or a probable fireplace (Figs. 15, 16) made from mudbricks, similar to the small sanctuary found in room No. 6 of building No. 2.9 The small altar in room No. 25 served for the consecration of ritual items produced in this building; the same room also contains wall paintings. The attribution of this cultic niche to Anahita appears very probable, particularly if we accept Scerrato’s hypothesis regarding the attribution of one of the cultic niches of building No. 3 to this deity.10

Fig. 3. Building No. 15 before excavations. 9 10

Scerrato 1966a, fig. 40. Scerrato 1966b, 17.

134 S. M. S. Sajjadi / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 129-154

Fig. 3a. Building No. 15 after excavations.

S. M. S. Sajjadi / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 129-154 135

Fig. 4. Narrow corridors situated southeast of the courtyard.

Fig. 5. Terracotta columns in walls.

136 S. M. S. Sajjadi / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 129-154

Fig. 5a. Terracotta columns in walls and corridors. Reconstruction.

Fig. 6. Northwestern side of building No. 15 after the first excavation campaign.

S. M. S. Sajjadi / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 129-154 137

Fig. 7. Platform in room No. 24.

Fig. 8. Detail of the platform in room No. 24.

138 S. M. S. Sajjadi / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 129-154

Fig. 9. Grinding stone and hand stone.

S. M. S. Sajjadi / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 129-154 139

Fig. 10. Terracotta columns.

140 S. M. S. Sajjadi / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 129-154

Fig. 11. Standard buff ware beakers.

Fig. 12. Standard buff ware beakers with “Potter’s Marks”.

S. M. S. Sajjadi / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 129-154 141

Fig. 13. Seal Impression.

Fig. 14. Clay female figurine.

142 S. M. S. Sajjadi / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 129-154

Fig. 15. Niche in room No. 25.

Fig. 16. Reconstruction of the niche in room No. 25.

S. M. S. Sajjadi / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 129-154 143

The collection of pottery vessels found in these excavations is not very rich and shows little variation; the majority of fragments belong to typical Achaemenian beakers with “Potter’s Marks” (Fig. 12). Almost all excavated rooms have direct access to the central courtyard. Room No. 1 is located in the southwest of the building. The thickness of the walls of this room varies between 1 and 1.75 m and its roof was crescent shaped. At the northern side of this room a round cauldron-shaped pit was dug into the ground. This cauldron was filled with ash and its walls were heavily burnt. Near the pit a number of buff-orange pottery beakers, with potter’s marks, were found. At the southeastern corner of the room two small and narrow walls had separated off a smaller part measuring 1.75 × 1.75 m. Inside this small space, No. 12, small tubular pottery columns (Fig. 10) were placed inside the ground at a regular distance of 20-25 cm from each other. Room No. 2 was probably one of the most interesting rooms of this building. It contained a low platform, 60 cm high, 6.70 m long and 1.70 m wide, with a grinder. On the northern and southern part of the platform a series of small canals with low parallel walls were excavated. The length and width of these canals are equal to an arms length (Figs. 17-18). To date, six such platforms were found, suggesting the manufactory function of this building. On

Fig. 17. Platform (mill) in room No. 2.

144 S. M. S. Sajjadi / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 129-154

Fig. 18. Plan and section of the platform in room No. 2.

Fig. 19. Bricks used for construction of platform in rooms Nos. 23 and 26.

S. M. S. Sajjadi / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 129-154 145

Fig. 20. Decorative stucco. the platform’s surface, fragments of terracotta columns were scattered. The presence of variously shaped fragments of grinding stones on the surface of the mill, inside this and other rooms, suggest a grinding platform. Platforms found in five other rooms of the structure have almost the same shape and plan. In one room the remains of a kiln consisting of two sections was found: a firing chamber and a cooking part. At the southeastern corner of the central courtyard four narrow and long roofed corridors, 18 m long and 80 cm wide, have been unearthed. The walls of these corridors are 110 cm thick and were built in three different sections. Section one starts from the floor and is about 50-60 cm high, after that, there are ranges of small terracotta columns, placed at a distance of ca. 20 cm from each other and the third section was constructed from mud-bricks on top of these columns (Figs. 4-5). The terracotta columns have a uniform shape of 23 to 30 cm height, and a cavity length inside ranging from 7 to 27 cm. (Fig. 10).

146 S. M. S. Sajjadi / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 129-154

Fig. 22. Wall painting of Room No. 25. Images Although the sacred/manufactory building is not completely decorated, an ornamental fragment of stucco (Fig. 20) with a drop-shaped motive, similar to the decorations on the base of the Achaemenid period vessels,11 was found during the first campaign of excavations, suggesting the presence of some other ornaments in this structure. During the third campaign of excavations at Dahaneh-ye Gholaman, quite unexpectedly, traces of wall paintings and incised images have been identified in room 25 (Figs. 21, 22) and around the threshold between rooms Nos. 23 and 24. Room No. 25 is located in the southeastern part of the building. Architectural characteristics of this room are similar to other rooms of the structure: long in length, narrow in width, thick walls of 120-150 cm. Rectangular in shape, it is 10.20 m long, 2.60 m wide with a height of 2.55 m. The room was filled with sand. Although this room is apparently like the other rooms of the structure, it had a different function, which we can presume because of the presence of mural paintings, and particular architectonical elements, such as a niche (Figs. 15-16). It seems that the wall paintings are not an integral part of the room and most probably were painted in the second stage of utilization. The surface of the walls was originally white, but having been covered for a long time by sand, they gradually lost their brightness and became darker; in some cases the color almost turned to black. At the beginning of the excavations, at a depth of about one meter below the surface, traces of colors, mainly brown and dark red, in the form of scattered dots appeared on the walls. Due to the presence of mud-bricks and kahgel plaster, the surface of the walls, and the colors were damaged by different species of worms and in particular by termites (Figs. 23-24). An accurate examination of the walls shows that in fact almost all their surface had been painted and decorated. In 11

Ghirshman 1982, fig. 310, 313.

S. M. S. Sajjadi / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 129-154 147

Fig. 23. Termite and worm damage of the wall painting. Horse neck and boar.

Fig. 24. Termite and worm damage of the wall painting. Wild boar.

148 S. M. S. Sajjadi / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 129-154

various parts and sections of the walls, traces of designs in the form of straight and oblique lines are visible and with some difficulty remains of drawings of a wild animal, two persons riding an unknown quadruped and a high boot are distinguishable, but generally, only two images are clear and visible due to their relatively good state of preservations. Hunting scene. The most important scene of this room is a painting in black on a cream/white background (ca 200 × 80 cm) (Fig. 22). It shows a standing man, chariot rider, with a bow in his hand, shooting an animal, most probably a wild boar. The chariot rider, who is 22.5 cm tall, apparently first threw a lance (Fig. 25) at the wild boar hitting its vertebral column, and following that, had shot an arrow hitting very near to the lance. He is preparing to shoot a second arrow at the animal (Fig. 26). The hunting scene is 128 cm long and 37 cm high. In some parts of the painting, and on the outer margins of the frame, traces of red lines are visible. The red color is more perceptible around the head of the archer rather than on any other parts of wall painting. The main wide bands and lines of the design are painted in black. A chain of small white dots decorated the inner surface of black bands creating some sort of small circular rings on the neck and mane of the horse, chariot and chariot wheels. The chariot has a square box measuring 17.2 × 14.6 cm. Wide black bands outline the shape of the chariot and are supplementary decorated with the same white rings, together with red lines bordering the outer lines of the black bands. The chariot runs on a wheel of 16 cm diameter with eight spokes (Fig. 27). It seems as though the hunter tied up the reins to the coping of the chariot and, in standing position, is busy aiming at the boar with his bow and arrow (Fig. 28). Although the outer lines of the hunter’s body are faded, it is clear that the body was drawn in black, with simple lines and bands. The face of the man is obliterated, but seems to have had a simple red hat or head – band. The horse has a corpulent body and muscles with a very big and disproportionate neck, decorated with a diadem or ornamental headband. The neck of the horse is also decorated with two vertical and horizontal hatched lines, and the horse’s tail is woven. The halter of the horse, decorated with zigzag lines, is fixed to its mouth with a strap. The horse measures 36 × 65 cm (Fig. 29). The animal running ahead at a short distance from chariot appears to be a wild boar (Fig. 24). This wild animal has existed in the Sistan area at least since the 4th Millennium BC and hundreds of clay and terracotta figurines of pigs and wild pigs were found during excavations of protohistorical sites of the region.12 According to the reports of different travelers large herds of this animal were indeed living around the Hamun swamp up to the last century. 12

Santini 1990.

S. M. S. Sajjadi / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 129-154 149

Fig. 25. Wild boar wounded by lance and arrow-head.

Fig. 26. Details of bow and arrow.

150 S. M. S. Sajjadi / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 129-154

Fig. 27. Details of chariot and wheel.

S. M. S. Sajjadi / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 129-154 151

Fig. 28. Bridle and horse tail.

Fig. 29. Details of horse, head and neck.

152 S. M. S. Sajjadi / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 129-154

Considering the general aspect of the wall painting, the hunter seems to be an important person or authority of the Drangiana area. The great similarity of this scene to the seal impression of Darius the Great hunting a lion,13 confirms this assumption to some degree. On the other hand, the possession of a decorated chariot and bow is another reason to believe that the hunter belonged to the ruling class of society, who may have had such privileges. The hunter’s bow is simple and has no similarity to the known shapes of other bows, for example of the Scythians or others. The chariot, although decorated, does not seem to be a very elaborate one however, it bears some similarity to the royal chariots shown in the Eastern Staircase of the Apadana at Persepolis.14 The representations of chariot riders are also known in the periods before the Achaemenids. On the famous golden cup from Hasanlu of the 9th century BC, a scene represents a person in a chariot with six-spoked wheels, pulled by an unidentified bearded quadruped.15 Both the wheel and the harness of this chariot are similar to that of Dahaneh-ye Gholaman with only slight differences: the chariot of Hasanlu has a six-spoked wheel, while that of Dahaneh-ye Gholaman is of eight spokes. The chariot of Dahaneh-ye Gholaman can also be compared to the golden chariot from the Oxus Treasure, which is pulled by four horses and has ten-spoked wheels. Camel image (Fig. 30). In the same room and among a great variety of painted designs, which are only partly distinguishable, there are also remains of an image of a Bactrian camel. This is similar to the image found in Hamadan and now preserved in a private collection in New York.16 The camel of Dahaneh-ye Gholaman is painted in black and measures some 50 × 40 cm. It also corresponds to the camel shown in the first line of the Eastern Staircase of the Apadana.17 Incised image (Fig. 31). On the wall of the threshold connecting rooms 23 and 24 an incised or scraped design of 55 × 35 cm was preserved. This is located almost under the roof, and was incised by a sharp instrument, possibly a bone scraper. The use of this tool is different in various parts of the design, an indication for the inexperience of the artist. The depth of lines is different from place to place; very deep in some places and rather superficial in others, showing the lack of any real artistic value of the drawing. The incision carved on the plaster of the threshold represents a very corpulent horse with a saddle

13 14 15 16 17

Ghrishman 1982, fig. 329. Shahbazi 1982, fig. 12. Iran Bastan 2000, figs 50-51. Ghirshman 1982, fig. 317. Shahbazi 1985, fig. 14.

S. M. S. Sajjadi / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 129-154 153

Fig. 30. Camel.

Fig. 31. Incised designs.

154 S. M. S. Sajjadi / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 129-154

and some unknown ornamental item, possibly a carpet or kilim on its back, carrying a sedan. The neck of the horse is also decorated and one of its eyes is shown in profile. The horse is standing near a staircase consisting of five steps and seems to be about to climb up these steps. The staircase ascends to the roof of a building, where there is another small incision representing a shelter or parasol. The staircase in some ways reminds of the staircase from the Atashgah of Pasargadae.18 Considering the main function of building No. 15, a sacred manufactory, and considering the fact that none of the other excavated rooms bear any trace of wall painting or other type of ornamental decoration, one can conclude that the paintings and designs were applied to these rooms at a second stage of usage by non professional and unskilled artists. One might assume, with very great caution, that these designs were drawn by a person who was familiar with the Persepolis and Pasargadae structures, and who desired to imitated and reproduce what he had seen in that part of the country.

Bibliography Fairservice, W. 1961: Archaeological Studies in the Seistan Basin of Southwestern Afghanistan and Eastern Iran. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History 48/1, 1-128. Genito, B. 1986: Dahan-i Ghulaman: Una citta Achemenide tra Centro e Periferia dell’Impero. Oriens Antiquus 25, 287-317. Ghirshman, R. 1982: L’Art de l’Iran. Mèdes et Achémenides (Persian edition) (Tehran). Gnoli, Gh.1967: Richerche storiche sul Sistan antico. IsmeoRepMem 10 (Roma). Iran Bastan 2000: Iran Bastan. Negahi-e be Ganjineh Muze-ye Melli Iran (Tehran). Santini, G. 1990: A Preliminary Note on Animal Figurines from Shahr-i Sokhta. In M. Taddei (ed.), South-Asian Archaeology 1987 (Rome), 427-450. Scerrato, U. 1962: A Probable Achaemenid Zone in Persian Sistan. East and West 13/2-3, 186-197. Scerrato, U. 1966a: L’edificio sacro di Dahani Ghulaman (Sistan). Atti del Convegno sul tema la Persia e il Mondo Greco-Romano (Roma 11-14 aprile 1965) (Roma), 457-470. Scerrato, U. 1966b: Excavations at Dahan-i Ghulaman (Seistan-Iran). First Preliminary Report (1962-1963). East and West 16/1-2, 9-30. Scerrato, U. 1966c: A Lost City of Seistan. The Illustrated London News. October 29, 20-21. Scerrato, U. 1970: La Missione Archaeologica Italiana nel Sistan Persiano. Il Veltro. Rivista della Civilta’ Italiana 11/1-2, 123-140. Scerrato, U. 1979: Evidence of Religious Life at Dahan-i Ghulaman, Seistan. In M. Taddei (ed.), South Asian Archaeology 1977 (Naples), 709-735. Shahbazi, A. Sh. 1985: Sharh-e Mossavar-e Takht-e Jamshid. (Tehran).

18

Ghrishman 1982, 183.

Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 155

www.brill.nl/acss

In the Next Issues A. S. Balakhvantsev, L. T. Yablonskii, Once more about the Date of the Inscriptions from Prokhorovka I. V. Bruyako, Sea-Shells and Nomads of the Steppes A. Buiskikh, On the Question of the Stylistic Influences reflected in the Architecture and Art of Chersonesos: ‘Snake-legged Goddess’ or Rankenfrau P. Dupont, « Ionie du Sud 3 ». Un centre producteur des confins de la Grèce de l’Est et du Pont-Euxin M. Kornacka, Ivory Plaque from Mele Hairam, Turkmenistan N. F. Shevchenko, Sarmatian Priestesses L. M. Sverchkov, Fortress Kurganzol. From the History of Central Asia in Hellenistic Period M. Yu. Treister, Gepaypyris II? Once more about the Silver Plate from Neapolis Scythica I. V. Tunkina, Academician G. F. Miller and the Treasures of the Litoi Tumulus S. R. Tokhtasiev, A New defixio from the Black Sea Region Yu. P. Zaitsev, A Box for Papyrus from Ust-Alma Necropolis in South-Western Crimea D. Zhuravlev, Western Sigillata in the North Pontic Region

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2007

DOI: 10.1163/157005707X255150

;3UMMERER=

ILLUSTRATIONS

%1.14
+..7564#6+105

(KI
++
9QQFGP
HTKG\G
KP
/WPKEJ
FTCYKPI
D[
+PITKF
&KPMGN

(KI
+
9QQFGP
HTKG\G
KP
/WPKEJ
RJQVQ
D[
-CK7YG
0KGNUGP


;3UMMERER=

ILLUSTRATIONS

(KI
+++
&GVCKN
QH
VJG
YQQFGP
HTKG\G

RJQVQ
D[
-CK7YG
0KGNUGP


(KI
+8
&GVCKN
QH
VJG
YQQFGP
HTKG\G

RJQVQ
D[
-CK7YG
0KGNUGP

;3UMMERER=

ILLUSTRATIONS

(KI
8
&GVCKN
QH
VJG
YQQFGP
HTKG\G
RJQVQ
D[
-CK7YG
0KGNUGP

(KI
8+
&GVCKN
QH
VJG
YQQFGP
HTKG\G


RJQVQ
D[
-CK7YG
0KGNUGP

;3UMMERER=

ILLUSTRATIONS

(KI
8+++
&GVCKN
QH
VJG
YQQFGP
HTKG\G
RJQVQ
D[
-CK7YG
0KGNUGP

ILLUSTRATIONS

(KI
8++
&GVCKN
QH
VJG
YQQFGP
HTKG\G


RJQVQ
D[
-CK7YG
0KGNUGP

;3UMMERER=

;3UMMERER=

ILLUSTRATIONS

(KI
+:
&GVCKN
QH
VJG
YQQFGP
HTKG\G
RJQVQ
D[
-CK7YG
0KGNUGP

(KI
:
2QVVGT[
UJGTF
GZECXCVGF
KP
)QTFKQP


RJQVQ
D[
.CWTC
(QQU

;3UMMERER=

ILLUSTRATIONS

(KI
:+
&GVCKN
QH
VJG
YQQFGP
HTKG\G
RJQVQ
D[
-CK7YG
0KGNUGP

(KI
:++
&GVCKN
QH
VJG
YQQFGP
HTKG\G
RJQVQ
D[
-CK7YG
0KGNUGP

;3UMMERER=

ILLUSTRATIONS

(KI
:+++
&GVCKN
QH
VJG
YQQFGP
HTKG\G
RJQVQ
D[
-CK7YG
0KGNUGP

(KI
:+8
&GVCKN
QH
VJG
YQQFGP
HTKG\G
RJQVQ
D[
-CK7YG
0KGNUGP

(KI
:8
&GVCKN
QH
VJG
YQQFGP
HTKG\G
RJQVQ
D[
-CK7YG
0KGNUGP

;3UMMERER=

ILLUSTRATIONS

;3UMMERER=

ILLUSTRATIONS

(KI
:8+
&GVCKN
QH
VJG
YQQFGP
HTKG\G


RJQVQ
D[
-CK7YG
0KGNUGP

(KI
:8++
&GVCKN
QH
VJG
YQQFGP
HTKG\G


RJQVQ
D[
-CK7YG
0KGNUGP

(KI
:8+++
&GVCKN
QH
VJG
YQQFGP
HTKG\G
RJQVQ
D[
-CK7YG
0KGNUGP

;3UMMERER=

ILLUSTRATIONS

(KI
:+:
&GVCKN
QH
VJG
YQQFGP
HTKG\G
RJQVQ
D[
-CK7YG
0KGNUGP

(KI
::
&GVCKN
QH
VJG
YQQFGP
HTKG\G
CWVJQT U
RJQVQ

;3UMMERER= ;,ICHELLI=

ILLUSTRATIONS

(KI

4GRTGUGPVCVKQP
QH
VJG
9KPIGF
#PIGN‰
HTQO
#VUMWTK
ITCXG
0Q


;$ZHAVAKHISHVILI= ;3UMMERER=

ILLUSTRATIONS

(KI

%[NKPFTKECN
UGCN
HTQO
&\JQKUWDCPK
CPF
KVU
KORTGUUKQP

(KI

%QPKECN
UGCN
HTQO
6CMJVKUF\KTK
CPF
KVU
KORTGUUKQP

(KI

2[TCOKFCN
UGCN
HTQO
/VUMJGVC
CPF
KVU
KORTGUUKQP

;3UMMERER= ;$ZHAVAKHISHVILI=

ILLUSTRATIONS

(KI

6CDNQKF
HTQO
$CKCVMJGXK


/VUMJGVC
.QYGT
UKFG

(KI

6CDNQKF
HTQO
$CKCVMJGXK


/VUMJGVC
7RRGT
UKFG

(KI

5ECTCDQKF
UGCN
HTQO
&\JKOKVK
CPF
KVU
KORTGUUKQP

(KI

9CNN
RCKPVKPI
QH
TQQO
0Q

CV
VJG
VKOG
QH
WPGCTVJKPI

;3UMMERER= ;3AJJADI=

ILLUSTRATIONS

;3UMMERER= ;3AJJADI=

ILLUSTRATIONS

(KI

&GVCKNU
QH
DQY
CPF
CTTQY