Caucasus

Florian S. Knauss

In Russian terminology the region south of the Caucasus mountain range is called Transcaucasia.
It includes the former Soviet republics of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia. Whereas Transcaucasia
formed a kind of strategic unity from the Russian point of view, the geography as well as the political
history of these three countries have little in common.1
Textual sources are rather quiet concerning the above-mentioned Transcaucasian countries for
the time of the Achaemenid empire. Nevertheless, there is little reason to doubt that they became part
of the empire some time in the later 6th c. B.C. For instance, Herodotus (3, 97) states: « Gifts were
also required of the Colchians and their neighbours as far as the Caucasian mountains (which is as far
as the Persian rule reaches, the country north of the Caucasus paying no regard to the Persians);… »2
Although we can hardly determine where exactly those Caucasian tribes which Herodotus mentions
(3, 97; 7, 79) were living in the 5th c. B.C. the localization of the Caucasus is quite clear.3
In the following the reader will find short descriptions of those archaeological sites where monu-
ments have been found which either can be connected with the Achaemenids, made by foreigners or
local imitations. Already in the 19th c. spectacular finds attracted the interest of scholars from all over
the world, best known are the so-called Akhalgori and Kazbeg treasure, often including Achaemenid
metal vases and jewelry. Soon, local workshops copied such imports or they created new shapes and
motifs combining foreign and local elements. The great majority of these small finds reflecting some
kind of Achaemenid influence in this region have been found in burials of the local Colchian and
Iberian aristocracy.
The archaeological sites are presented below from West to East, from Georgia to Azerbaijan and
Armenia.

Mtisdziri
Near the village Mtisdziri remains of a wooden tower have been excavated. It must have been
part of a greater defensive system, which had been errected in the 5th/4th c. B.C. in order to protect
the nearby Colchian centre at Vani. Not far from the tower a necropolis was unearthed. A number of
graves contained local products as well as imports and objects which must have been made by
Colchian craftsmen who were strongly influenced by foreign models. A silver rhyton with a goat-
shaped protome was found in a burial which can be dated to the 4th c. B.C. Typologically it comes
close to Achaemenid prototypes, however, some ornaments are of Greek origin. This combination as
well as some local features make sure that this rhyton has been worked by a local craftsman.

1 The region which the Russians call Cis-Caucasia, i.e. Dagestan, Tshetshnia, Ingushetia, North Ossetia and the Kuban region,
all still belonging to Russia, have been beyond the Persian sphere of influence and will therefore be omitted in this paper.
2 In the light of Herodotus’ statement it is up to those who do not believe in the Persian presence in this region to prove
their point of view. The sheer number of Achaemenid and Achaemenizing artifacts found on the territory of modern Georgia
is striking. It goes well beyond trading contacts and diplomatic exchange of neighbouring countries, moreover, the art and
architecture listed below confirms a degree of acculturation which is exceptional for any country that had been part of the
Achaemenid empire; see already Knauss 2001: 125-126, 129-133.
3 The mountain range south of the river Kura, nowadays called “Small Caucasus”, in antiquity was never bearing this
name. In Hellenistic times some authors even called the Hindukush Caucasus.

F.S. Knauss - Caucasus 197

 Bibliography: Lordkipanidse 1991: 116, 125, 143, fig. 56,2; Gamkrelidse 1998: 211-216; Knauß 1999a:
218-222; Knauß 1999b: 170-171, fig. 8.

Vani
Vani is situated in Colchis (Western Georgia) on the Akhvledianebis hills on the left banks of the
river Rioni. Early excavations were conducted by N. Khoshtaria (1947-1963), since 1966
O. Lordkipanidse directed the archaeological investigations at this important site. Vani developed
from a modest settlement of the 8th-6th c. B.C. to become one of the major centres in Colchis in the
following centuries. N. Khoshtaria identified the site as “Surium”, which is mentioned by Pliny, natu-
ralis historia 6, 13; cf. Claudius Ptolemaeus, Geography 9, 6. The epigraphic evidence found during
the excavations seems to support this hypothesis. Quite a few rich burials of the local aristocracy of
Vani have been unearthed. Many of them contain Greek imports, mostly pottery. In the 5th-4th c.
B.C. Persian gold and silver objects play a major role, too. Local products, painted pottery as well as
gold and silver bowls and jewelry, show significant influence by oriental, i.e. Achaemenid models.
Vani flourished in Hellenistic times (3rd-1st c. B.C.). According to O. Lordkipanidse, Vani was a
“temple-city” at that time, closely linked to the sanctuary of Artemis Leukothea, while others raised
serious doubts concerning this theory. The citadel of Vani includes a number of religious complexes
surrounded by a fortified wall. On the foot of the hill along the banks of the river Sulori there once
was a settlement, now called Saqanchia. Housing areas as well as workshops and trading bases have
been excavated so far.

Bibliography: Vani I-VIII; Lordkipanidze 1974: 879-948, 1985, 1995a: 353-401, 1995b: 49-52, fig. 14,
2001: 173, fig. 17-18; Braund 1994: 122-151; Kipiani, Amashukely 1995.

Itkhvisi
The rich inventory of a number of burials in Itkhvisi/Eastern Colchis (5th-3rd c. B.C.) supports
the assumption that they belong to members of the local aristocracy. Products of local workshops as
well as Greek imports were among the grave goods. However, some objects apparently follow Iranian
prototypes, e.g. locally made small jugs imitating shape and decoration of the so-called Classical
Triangle-Ware.

Bibliography: Braund 1994: 101-102; Gagoßidze 2000: 57.

Kazbegi
In 1877 G. Filimonov had recovered a number of objects near the village Stepanzminda (now
called Kazbegi) under difficult circumstances. They are now called “Kazbeg treasure”. The site was
looted just after its discovery. The greater part of the finds was immediately moved to the Historical
State Museum in Moscow, the rest of it was spread across several museums and private collections.
Only those objects which have been found by F. Bayern during his later investigations (1878) are now
in the Djanashia State Museum in Tbilisi. Among the approximately 200 objects are an Achaemenid
silver phiala with almond-shaped embossing, lotus palmettes, stylized swan heads and an Aramaic
inscription on the rim. The archaeological context is still obscure. There was a cemetery nearby.
However, most objects of this complex have been found in bronze vessels tied with bronze chains, and
remains of skeletons were missing. These details as well as some animal bronze figurines rather point
to a ritual context. On the other hand, parts of harnesses, weapons, jewelry and costume have close
parallels in local burials. The majority of the finds can be dated to the 6th-5th c. B.C. They come
from local workshops, however, many of them show connections with products from Iberia and the
Colchian lowlands. Only few pieces are precious imports (see above).

198 Archéologie de l’empire achéménide

 Bibliography: Smirnov 1909: 7, pl. III; Miron, Orthmann 1995: 163-164; Boardman 2000: 191,
fig. 5.73a-b.

Qanshaeti (Kanshaeti)
In the upper Ksani valley near the village Qanshaeti (fiida Kartli) a rich tomb has been
unearthed. The inventory as well as the date of the burial can be linked with the so-called Akhalgori
hoard and the Kazbeg treasure, though it is less rich. Among the objects found is an Achaemenid
silver phiala. The finds point to a slightly later date than the Kazbeg treasure, but earlier than the
Akhalgori hoard, i.e. in the middle of the 5th c. B.C.

Bibliography: Gagoßije 1964; Lordkipanidze 2001: 180, fig. 22-23.

Akhalgori
The rich burial of a woman which has been excavated in 1908 near the village Sadseguri (fiida
Kartli) became well known as the so-called “Akhalgori treasure” or “Akhalgori hoard”. The deceased
must have belonged to the local aristocracy. She was buried together with six harnessed horses and
more than 100 small finds, lots of golden jewelry (horse-shaped pendants, earrings, bracelets, neck-
laces, gold appliqués for the decoration of the garment, a fingerring and a belt buckle). By far the
majority of these objects were made in local workshops, however, some pieces betray Greek and
oriental influence. Two silver phialai and a silver jar were made in Achaemenid workshops. The lady
was most probably buried in the late 4th c. B.C., but the inventory of the tomb—at least parts of it—
has been made earlier.

Bibliography: Smirnov 1934; M. Lort’k’ip’anije 1981: 26-30, pl. 1.1; 5.1; Gagoßidze 1985; Abka´i-
Khavari 1988: 126; Lordkipanidse 1991: 154, 156, pl. 53.2-11; 54.1-2, 2001: 143-171, 182-185, fig. 2-16;
Miron, Orthmann 1995: 161, 165-266, 305-306, nos 299-303, fig. 162, 166-167, 169; Gagoshidze 1997:
123-125, 135.

Takhtidsiri
North of the village Takhtidsiri (fiida Kartli) on the left banks of the river Eastern Prone a ceme-
tery has been excavated. The burials of the 4th c. B.C. contained Greek as well as oriental (Iranian)
imports and local imitations of those. The same is true for the later graves of the 2nd-1st c. B.C. The
mostly unpublished finds are now in the Djanashia State Museum in Tbilisi (e.g. Parthian coins of
Artashan I, Orod II and Mithridates III).

Bibliography: Gagoßidze 2000: 51-58.

Cincqaro (Tsintsqaro)
Near Cincqaro in the Algeti valley in 1940 a rich burial of the 4th c. B.C. was discovered, which
contained an Achaemenid glass bowl as well as two silver phialai.
Not far from there, in Enageti, in 1990 another cemetery was excavated. Among the small finds
in tomb no.16 were a so-called Kohl-tube and a Greek glass amphoriskos. The burial may be dated to
the end of the 5th/beginning of the 4th c. B.C.

Bibliography: Saginaßvili, Gagoßije 1973: 81-98; Gagoßidze, Saginaßvili 2000: 67-68 fig. 1.2; 2.1; 3.2;
Lordkipanidze 2001: 180, 182, fig. 24.

F.S. Knauss - Caucasus 199

 While J. Smirnov already in the early 20th century claimed an Achaemenid origin for some of
the finds from Transcaucasia O. Lordkipanidze and some of his Georgian colleagues persistently deny
a significant Achaemenid impact on the material culture of Georgia. They insist that most of these
objects are of Hellenistic date—without a plausible explanation why Georgian craftsmen should have
copied Achaemenid models after the fall of the empire. Although numerous finds come from graves
and hoard finds which have been deposited in the late 4th c. B.C. or even later, there can be no doubt
that most of the well known gold and silver vessels have been worked in Achaemenid times. Some of
them are imports from Achaemenid workshops in Persia or Anatolia, others have been made in
Colchis and Iberia by local craftsman who often gained their inspirations from concurrent Persian
models, e.g. the famous horse-shaped pendants from Akhalgori were locally made. Such precious
objects give ample proof of close contacts with the Achaemenid empire. Nevertheless, they may have
found their way to Georgia through trade or as diplomatic gifts.
What is the contribution of Transcaucasia, its archaeological sites and finds (fig. 1), for the
archaeology of the Achaemenid empire? To my opinion, it is not just an increase of finds, a number of
new sites providing Achaemenid bowls, seals, etc. which we already know from other areas of the
empire! More important, the finds from Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia really do help to get new
insights concerning life under Persian rule.
The great number of sites and the amount of finds related to the Achaemenids enables us to
draw a lively picture of the development of the material culture in Achaemenid times. We may even
draw conclusions concerning the development of society. The density and quality of Achaemenid
monuments in this region, especially in Eastern Georgia, is striking. It isn’t less impressing than what
we know from Western Anatolia for example. Archaeology in the Caucasus will not change our entire
image of the Achaemenid empire, but it may provide some interesting additional details.
Among the vast archaeological and historical literature there are only a handful of publications
which take a more general view of the countries under discussion. For Georgia, D. Braund (1994)
presents a decent historical overview. However, only selected archaeological monuments are
mentioned and usually not treated in greater detail. For the interpretation of the written sources
publications by M. Schottky (1989) and B. Meissner (2000) are of major importance. O.
Lordkipanidze (1991) still gives the fullest account of the archaeological record in Georgia, but his
commentaries often reflect a rather biased view, especially concerning any foreign influences. So far
only J. Gagoshidze (1996) has treated the time of the Achaemenid empire as a distinct and important
period in the development of Georgian art and architecture in a brief article. G. Tsetskhladze
(1993/1994, 1994, 2001, 2003) has collected a great number of objects that can be connected with the
Achaemenids somehow, but he may be too generous concerning the attribution of items to
Achaemenid craftsmen. Some of these objects rather derive from local workshops who became
inspired by Achaemenid models.
A summary of the archaeology of Armenia by G. Tiratsjan (1988) unfortunately neglects the
Achaemenid era. Some of the major sites of the Achaemenid period have been presented in the
proceedings of two symposia in Tbilisi (2001) and Athens (2001).
For Azerbaijan a diachronical overview as well as detailed studies of single sites are still
completely lacking. An article by A. Schachner (2001) may serve as an introduction. The author has
gathered a significant number of sites from prehistoric times until late Iron Age. Some of the latter
provide evidence for occupation in Achaemenid times. A brief summary of Azerbaijan in the Iron Age
has been given by D. Chalilov (1985), however, only very few plans, drawings and photographs of
even the major monuments have been published so far.
The discovery of monumental architecture in Eastern Georgia and Western Azerbaijan for
example (fig. 2-3), is closely related to models from the centre of the empire and gives ample proof of
at least temporary Persian presence on the northwestern border of their empire.

200 Archéologie de l’empire achéménide

F.S. Knauss - Caucasus

Fig. 1—(Map 1) Transcaucasia in Achaemenid times.

201
 Until the 1970s excavations of Iron Age settlements were almost completely lacking in Georgia.
J. Gagoshidze was the first to emphasize the important role of the Achaemenids in this region when
he compared the tower temple in Samadlo, Central Georgia, with similar buildings in the Urartian
and Achaemenid empire. The excavation of another huge building in Gumbati, Eastern Georgia,
provided further evidence for his assumptions (Knauss 1999c, 2000, 2001). In the meantime we know
about monumental architecture closely related to Achaemenid prototypes from at least five sites in
Central and Eastern Georgia (Sairkhe, Samadlo, Zikhiagora, Uplistsikhe, and Gumbati), which prove
the presence of Persians in Iberia (Eastern Georgia) for a longer time. Similar plans and architectural
ornamentations are known exclusively from Achaemenid palaces, temples or similar official build-
ings, as G. Kipiani has shown in his detailed investigations (1987, 1993).

Sairkhe
The village Sairkhe is situated on the Eastern hillside of the river Kwirila in the easternmost part
of Colchis (Zemo Imereti). Since 1957 remains of settlements have been excavated on several hills. At
a place called Lominauri N. Gambaschidse found the remains of a temple (?) building. Until the
present day a plan of the architecture has not been published. Two limestone-capitals from this
building are now in the Museum of Fine Arts in Tbilisi. B. Shefton proposed that they have been
worked in late Achaemenid workshops.
The settlement at Sairkhe, which existed at least since the 8th/7th c. B.C., had become a regional
centre in the 5th c. B.C. On a hill named Sabaduris Gora there is a necropolis where burials of the
local aristocracy have been excavated in recent years. The small finds in these rich graves of the 5th-
4th c. B.C. (golden pendants with depictions of Ahuramazda, a glass phiala, etc.) give further support
to the theory that Sairkhe played a major role in the Colchian kingdom which most probably stood
under Persian supremacy at that time.
In Hellenistic times (3rd-1st c. B.C.) Sairkhe remained to be an important settlement. The exca-
vator D. Nadiradse identifies the site with “Sarake” mentioned by Claudius Ptolemaeus (Geography
9, 6). From the archaeological record it seems that the ties with Central and Eastern Georgia
(kingdom of Iberia) became closer now.

Bibliography: Nadiraje 1975: 80-145, 164-166, pl. 22, 25-26, 27.1-2, 28.2, 1990a; Nadiradse 1990b:
213-222; Braund 1994: 123, 126-127, 129-131, 145; Shefton 1993: 178-209; Boardman 1994:
221-222, fig. 6.52; Gagoshidze 1996: 133, fig. 5, pl. 13.2; G. Maxaraje 1997: 12-20, 1998:
24-29, 54.

Uplistsikhe (Upliszikhe)
Uplistsikhe is situated on the left banks of the river Kura, 10 km east of Gori. Since Hellenistic
times, monumental architecture was carved out of the limestone rocks. It is still uncertain whether
Uplistsikhe was only a necropolis or whether it sometimes served as an acropolis for the surrounding
settlements. In the Western and Southern part steep rocks made the site almost inaccessible. In
Hellenistic-Roman times additional moats, walls and towers built with ashlars and bricks gave further
protection in the North and East. Then, at least some of the rock shelters served for religious purposes.
In a crevice a chariot burial of the 4th c. B.C. was found. The remaining parts of the wheels
belong to a type of chariot well known from Assyria and Achaemenid Persia. Among the small finds
in this grave was a Greek terracotta figurine. Its type is well known from the necropolis of
Tanagra/Boeotia. Not far from this burial, G. Kipiani (1999) reconstructed a tower-like building close
to Achaemenid prototypes, but the archaeological evidence is scanty.

Bibliography: Gagoshidze 1996: 133, n. 41; K’ip’iani 1999: 7-18, 2000: 74-95; Licheli 2001: 253.

202 Archéologie de l’empire achéménide

Zikhiagora (Zikhia-Gora, Kawtiskhevi)
Since 1971 a hill called Zikhiagora (fiida Kartli) is the aim of extensive archaeological investiga-
tions. There once was an architectural complex encircled by a stone-wall with rectangular towers.
Most scholars are convinced that it once was a sanctuary, but only two buildings may be interpreted
as temples. They have been connected with Zoroastrian religious habits. The date of this complex is
still under debate. Most of the monumental buildings, which have been excavated so far, were prob-
ably errected in the 3rd-2nd c. B.C. However, some finds seem to be of an earlier date. There is
evidence for an occupation of the site already in the Achaemenid era. Among the finds without strat-
ified context are pottery of the so-called “Samadlo-type” as well as a fragment of a bell-shaped column
base. Similar bases have been found in Gumbati, Qaradshamirli, Sari Tepe and Benjamin. The
famous bull protome capital (fig. 7) was found in a 3rd/2nd c. B.C. level of the main (fire) temple,
but in secondary use. It is not unlikely that it belonged to an earlier building in Achaemenid times.

Bibliography: Lordkipanidse 1991: 152-154, fig. 72.1; Zkitischwili 1995: 86-96; Gagoshidze 1996: 132-
134, fig. 4; Knauß 1999b: 180-181; Z. Maxaraje 1999: 57-66; Gagoßidze, Kipiani 2000: 59-64, fig. 1.7-8,
2, 3; Licheli 2001: 251, 256.

Samadlo
Samadlo is situated on the banks of the river Kura. On three hills J. Gagoshidze excavated
remains of Iron Age settlements. In the earliest levels on Samadlo III simple structures of the late 8th
or early 7th c. B.C. have been interpreted as remains of a ceremonial site. In the 5th or early 4th c.
B.C. a tower (fig. 2) had been erected on top of the hill which recalls Achaemenid models such as the
Zendan-e Sulaiman in Pasargadae and the Kaabah-e Zardusht in Naqsh-e Rustam.
On Samadlo I and II—since the early 20th century divided by a deep ravine, but in antiquity
forming one hill—several buildings from the late 4th to the mid-2nd c. B.C. have been unearthed. A
limestone relief carved in a oriental style as well as painted pottery of the so-called “Samadlo-Style”
belong to an early Hellenistic phase (4th-3rd c. B.C.).

Fig. 2—Samadlo, temple tower, 5th/4th c. B.C.

F.S. Knauss - Caucasus 203

 Bibliography: Gagoßidze 1979, 1981; Kleiss 1992: 91-94; Lordkipanidse 1991: 148-153, fig. 69; 70.1-5; 71;
Gagoshidze 1996: 129-130, 133-134, fig. 3 pl. 13.3-4; Knauß 1999c: 94.

Kvemo-Kedi
In the easternmost part of Georgia, at a site called Kvemo-Kedi (fiiraki), a complex has been
uncovered which was a bronze foundry according to the Georgian excavator. Here, in a 6th c. B.C.
level a clay phiala was found strongly reminiscent of Achaemenid metal bowls. Similar clay vessels are
known from Gumbati.

Bibliography: Picchelauri 1979: 34-43.

Gumbati
In Kakheti in Eastern Georgia parts of a huge building of the Achaemenid era have been exca-
vated in the Alasani valley at a site called Gumbati. The ground plan as well as a number of architec-
tural details closely link this monument with a building at Sari Tepe in Azerbaijan. Similar bell-
shaped column bases have been found in Qaradshamirli/Azerbaijan and Benjamin/Armenia, too. The
prototypes of such monumental architecture are royal palaces in Persepolis and Susa. Since any fore-
runners in the local East Georgian architecture are missing the monumental building in Gumbati
must have been planned and built by foreign, namely Achaemenid craftsmen. Architectural plan and
small finds make it probable that it served as the residence of a Persian officer or a local chieftain—as
vassal of the Great King. Anyway, it gives ample proof of Persian presence in this region, at least for a
while. The pottery is of local provenance, but some bowls copy Achaemenid metal prototypes. The
ceramic material from the “palace” -level dates to the later 5th or early 4th c. B.C. However, the
historical background suggests that the Persians gained control over Eastern Georgia already in the
time of Dareios I (521-486). The “palace” in Gumbati as well as similar structures at Sari Tepe,
Qaradshamirli and Benjamin probably formed a kind of network of administrative headquarters from
where e.g. the delivery of tributes could be controlled.

Bibliography: Furtwängler 1995: 177-211; Furtwängler, Knauß 1996: 363-381; Gagoshidze 1996:
129-130, fig. 2, pl. 13.1; Furtwängler, Knauß 1997: 353-354; Kipiani 1998: 31-47, 113; Knauß 1999: 81-114,
2000: 119-130; Knauss 2001: 125-143, [forthcoming a].

Recent excavations have shown that the architecture of the early Iron Age in Central and Eastern
Georgia was rather modest. It must not be linked with the monumental buildings described above.
The local architecture not only lacks their monumental size but also a number of constructional
details: regular mud bricks, recesses, stepped walls and stone masonry. The quality of execution of the
buildings in Gumbati, Zikhiagora and Sairkhe makes us suspect that at least some of the craftsmen
were foreigners. The column-bases and capitals show that the builder-owners had close relationships
to the Achaemenid empire.
From the archaeological record we may conclude that before the arrival of the Persians there
were no large supraregional political institutions, which would have been able to create monumental
architectural complexes.4 In a region without any prototypes of monumental mud brick and stone
architecture buildings such as the palaces in Sari Tepe and Gumbati and the temple tower in Samadlo
must have been planned and built by architects and craftsmen trained in Iran, Mesopotamia or
Anatolia.

4 Now Knauß, [forthcoming b].

204 Archéologie de l’empire achéménide

 It is interesting to contrast the implementation of Achaemenid elements in Georgia with
Western Anatolia. Elspeth Dusinberre in her recent publication on “Aspects of empire in Achaemenid
Sardis” deals with the question how life was in Sardis under the Achaemenids, and in particular how
much the foreign rulers affected the local culture.5 While Sardis was the capital of an important
satrapy and the former capital of the Lydian kingdom, Eastern Georgia neither had reached a similar
state of civilization nor did any recognizable state exist before the arrival of the Persians. The art and
architecture of Georgia reflects a paradigmatic process of acculturation, that affected all levels of
society.6 When the Persians conquered Babylon, Egypt, or Lydia they rather adopted the local models
than trying to implement their own ecclectic art and architecture which hardly existed at that time.
But the local vassals or Persian officials who built their residences in Sari Tepe, Qaradshamirli,
Gumbati and Zikhiagora didn’t have the possibility to take over the palaces of the local leaders
because they simply didn’t exist. Excavations of pre-Achaemenid sites in this region provide at most
ring-shaped rampart complexes, which can be interpreted as regional sanctuaries and refuges, as well
as modest private houses with pisé-walls.
Since 1994 a Georgian-German team has made surveys and excavations in the easternmost part
of Georgia, in Kakheti. They started in Gumbati in the lower Alasani valley. One of the major goals is
the investigation of the Achaemenid influence upon the local material culture in this region. Two
symposia in Tbilisi in 1997 and 2000 were devoted to “Iberia (Kingdom of Kartli) and its Neighbours
in Achaemenid and Post-Achaemenid Times”. Since 1996 the investigations focus on settlements of
the early 1st millenium B.C. in the Shiraki plains. In the 8th-7th c. B.C. many of these settlements
were destroyed by mounted nomads (Cimmerians, Scythians?).

Shiraki
The Shiraki plain is situated between the rivers Alazani (north) and Iori (south) about 600 m
above sea level. Steep slopes in the east border on Lake Mingecevir/Azerbaijan, in the West it is
limited by the Gombori mountain range. The only access here is the so-called Uzun Dara-Gate.
Surveys and excavations have been carried out at Ciskaraant Gora, Nazarlebi, Noname Gora, Didi
Gora, Uzun Dara, etc. in order to explore the character and typology of early Iron Age settlements in
this region.

Bibliography: Furtwängler, Knauß 1997: 353-387; Furtwängler, Knauß, Motzenbäcker 1998: 309-364,
1999: 233-270; Ludwig, Tauscher 2003: 5-10;
http://www.altertum.uni-halle.de/archaeology/projects/georgien/grabungen.html

It is often said that tolerance towards indigenous cultures and habits was characteristic of the
Persian rule. This kind of “liberality” serves as a usual explanation for the extensive lack of discernible
Achaemenid art and architecture in many parts of the empire. In Georgia, however, one can touch
Achaemenid art almost undistorted.
As we learn from the graves and hoard finds since the late 6th c. B.C. the local aristocracy
received precious glass, gold and silver objects, most probably diplomatic gifts from the Great king or

5 Dusinberre 2003.
6 Here we can observe the acculturation not only of the local elite, but of the common people, too. The impact of
Achaemenid rule (and Greek colonization) on the cultural development in Georgia is the major goal of investigations by
U. Sens, N. Ludwig and the author himself forming part of a research program by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft;
cf. Knauß [forthcoming a]; Ludwig, Tauscher 2003: 5-10; Ludwig [forthcoming a, b]; Sens 2003: 237-240;
http://www.altorientalistik.uni-mainz.de/achaimeniden/

F.S. Knauss - Caucasus 205

 his satraps to ensure their loyalty (fig. 4). Local workshops, for instance the highly developed gold
smiths, immediately copied these precious objects. We have some indications that the adoption of
Achaemenid models didn’t remain superficial. The tower in Samadlo (fig. 2), which has been
mentioned before, suggests that some Georgians already in the 5th c. B.C. adopted religious beliefs of
the foreigners. In Hellenistic times there can be no doubt that the aristocracy and the mountaineers
who were traditionally loyal to the Georgian kings were Zoroastrians.7 And even ordinary people
didn’t remain untouched. The change from greyish, low fired wares to reddish hard-fired pottery in
the 6th or early 5th c. B.C. must be explained by the introduction of new technologies from Iran,
because at the same time we observe some new shapes closely following Achaemenid prototypes
(fig. 5). See also in Iran, below Boucharlat's paper p. 258.
In Azerbaijan the situation may have been similar, as the few published results from Sari Tepe
(fig. 3) and Qaradshamirli suggest, but until the present day there has been hardly any archaeological
investigation of late Iron Age sites worth mentioning east of Lake Mingecevir.8

Fig. 3—Sari Tepe, Achaemenid palace, 5th/4th c. B.C.

7 Gagoshidze 1996: 135-136.

8 We find Achaemenid shapes among the pottery from Kara Tepe in the Mil Steppe; Ismizade 1965: 215-217, fig. 19.

206 Archéologie de l’empire achéménide

Fig. 4—Glass phialai from Sairkhe (1) and Tsintskaro (2), 5th-4th c. B.C.

Fig. 5—Amphora-rhyton from Takhtidsiri, early 3rd c. B.C.

F.S. Knauss - Caucasus 207

 The archaeological remains at Qaradshamirli and Sari Tepe in Western Azerbaijan show signifi-
cant parallels to the “palace” in Gumbati concerning their location, building plan, architectural sculp-
ture and the ceramic material. It seems highly probable that the column bases from Gumbati and
Qaradshamirli even had been made in the same workshop. The lack of systematical archaeological
investigations does not allow us to draw a representative picture of Azerbaijan in Achaemenid times.
Many of the sites, especially those in Nahicevan, have not been visited by the author so far.

Sari Tepe
On the outskirts of the modern town Kazakh in the Kura valley I. Narimanov conducted archae-
ological excavations in the late 1950s. He uncovered the western part of an extensive structure (fig. 3)
which reminds one of Achaemenid palaces. Two bell-shaped column bases—today in the Historical
Museum of Baku—as well as the pottery support this impression. The column bases form a variation
of type B according to the classification of Wesenberg (1971: 144), which is well known from Susa, but
from Benjamin, Gumbati and Qaradshamirli, too.

Bibliography: Narimanov 1960: 162-164; Chalilov 1985: 44, Taf. I; Furtwängler 1995: 183-184;
Furtwängler, Knauß 1996: 374-376, fig. 10; Knauß 1999c: 94-96, 101-103, fig. 9, 10c, 11, 15; Kipiani
1998: 31-47, 113; Schachner 2001: 308-309, fig. 37.

Qaradshamirli (Karadschamirli Köyi)

Northeast of fiamkir in Western Azerbaijan near the village Qaradshamirli a local peasant had
found a column base of Persepolitan type. Cut into two pieces it now rests in the courtyard of his
farm. The material (limestone) as well as the execution of several details suggest that it had been
worked in the same workshop as the bell-shaped column bases from Gumbati 60 km to the north.
There have been no regular archaeological investigations at the site. However, ceramic chance finds
on a flat mound near the find spot of the base hint at a middle or late Iron Age settlement. The
dimensions of the mound as well as the location of the site in a broad valley near the river Kura can
be compared to Gumbati, too.

Bibliography: Furtwängler, Knauß 1996: 374-376, fig. 9-10.

Culfa
In Southern Azerbaijan griffon-shaped bronze legs of some kind of furniture have been found
near Culfa in Nahicevan. For stylistic reasons the excavators Aliyev and Agazade proposed an
Achaemenid origin. However, to judge from the figures in the publications it seems likely that they
rather belong to a Roman fulcrum. No archaeological context has been recorded.

Bibliography: Aliyev, Agazade 1986: 75-80, fig. p. 76; Schachner 2001: 308, n. 80.

Oglankala (Oglanqala)
There are quite a few Iron Age fortifications in Nahicevan, getting bigger and more sophisticated
from about the middle of the 1st millenium B.C. onwards. Oglankala is one of the largest fortified
sites that has been thoroughly investigated. It was not just a refuge. Dense buildings inside the walls
testify of a permanent occupation.
Stone walls with regular buttresses may be compared typologically to Qal´eh Gavur (Kleiss/Kroll
1976: 108-113 fig. 2-5). The preliminary analysis of the pottery, i.e. the total lack of either Urartian or
Hellenistic-Parthian wares, may suggest a date in the time of the Median or Achaemenid empire. The
column bases which have been found in situ in the levels of this phase stress the importance of the

208 Archéologie de l’empire achéménide

 site, but they do not show any Iranian (Achaemenid) influence. Huge round towers of the latest phase
may belong to the same period or to a Hellenistic restoration.
Simultaneously, with significant changes in the architecture of Nahicevan one can observe
similar changes of the local pottery as in Iberia (Central- and Eastern Georgia); cf. Gagoshidze 1996:
125. Reddish and black-polished hard-fired wares slowly replace the typical low-fired grey wares of
early Iron Age.

Bibliography: Bahcaliyev 1994: 106-120, fig. 1, 6; Schachner 2001: 310-311, 313, 318, fig. 42-44.

The Persian conquest of Armenia on the other hand didn’t have such far-reaching effects on the
material culture. Yet, an analysis of the transition from Urartian (via Median) to Achaemenid rule, which
has been studied in greater detail for example at Bastam 30 years ago, in Armenia still has to be done.
So far, it seems that the local tradition of Armenia has been much stronger than in Georgia and
Azerbaijan. This is true not only for the architecture—the new rulers often occupied former Urartian
residences—but also for the applied arts. Achaemenid bowls, rhyta and bracelets sometimes inspired
Armenian gold- and silver-smiths but the pottery, for example, does not display any external influence.
In Armenia, which had been part of the Urartian kingdom until the early 6th c. B.C., a number
of former Urartian residences in the southern part of the country are known that have been re-used
with minor modifications during Achaemenid rule, such as Erebouni, or Argi©tihenale. In Benjamin,
Northern Armenia, a huge building had been erected in Achaemenid times without discernable fore-
runners. However, here the indigenous element in the architecture as well as in the pottery is defi-
nitely stronger than in Eastern Georgia and Western Azerbaijan.

Benjamin (Draskhanakert)
About 10 km southwest of Kumairi (Gümri, former Leninakan) in Western Armenia F. Ter-
Martirossov uncovered several monumental architectural complexes since the late 1980s. Three
different phases of a huge building can be distinguished (5th-1st c. B.C.). The earliest levels must be
contemporary with the “palaces” in Sari Tepe and Gumbati. The shape of the column bases, worked
in local black tufa, is reminiscent of the finds at these sites. The excavator assumes that this building
had cultic functions in the first stance. This interpretation remains uncertain as no significant cultic
installations or small finds have been observed. Even a palatial use seems possible. Bell-shaped column
bases seem to belong to this earliest phase, however, simple bases with a torus profile as well as capitals
decorated with leaves can not be ascribed to any building phase with certainty.

Bibliography: Zardarian, Akopian 1994: 187, fig. 6; Furtwängler, Knauß 1996: 377, fig. 10; Ter-
Martirossov 1996a: 187-189, 2001: 158-161, fig. 4-5; Knauss 2001: 130, 133.

Horom
Since 1994 an Armenian-American-German expedition explores the Shirak plain in
Northwestern Armenia. An Armenian-American team already worked there between 1990 and 1993.
The investigations focus on Horom, near the city of Artik. Horom is the major site in this area,
measuring 200m by 500m. It was inhabited since the early Bronze Age. In Urartian times (8th-7th c.
B.C.) a huge fortification was built. The walls are partly preserved up to a height of 4 m. The major
goal of the excavations is to investigate the transition from the Urartian to the Median-Persian period.
So far, a single Achaemenid seal is the only witness of Persian influence.

Bibliography: Badaljan, Kohl, Stronach 1994: 1-29; Badaljan, Kohl, Kroll 1997: 191-228; Kroll 1998:
33-34; Kohl, Kroll 1999: 243-259; http://www.vaa.fak12.uni-muenchen.de/Armenia/horom.html

F.S. Knauss - Caucasus 209

 Ochmik
Ochmik, on the banks of the river Niliget, a tributary of the Achurjan in Northwestern
Armenia, has been excavated since 1987. A number of houses of the 2nd c. B.C. and the 3rd c. A.D.
had been erected on a ledge. Three column-halls reminded the excavators of Urartian buildings at
Teißebai URU and Aragac. Triggered by certain installations (altars) as well as several small finds they
interpreted some buildings as temple complex of a sun god, extended by economic entities.
H. Akopjan takes the architecture at Ochmik as a proof of the reception of the Urartian legacy in
Achaemenid and Hellenistic times. However, so far there is no evidence for any occupation of this site
before the 2nd c. B.C.

Bibliography: Akopjan, Vardanjan, Zindschirdschjan 1992; Akopjan 2000: 21-35, fig. 1-2.

Argiştihenale (Armavir)
Regular archaeological excavations at Argi©tihenale (today called Armavir) started as early as
1964. Once an important Urartian centre, the ancient city lost its prominent role after the fall in 585
B.C. However, in Achaemenid times the top of the hill was still inhabited. It is difficult to define an
“Achaemenid” level, but several renovations, e.g. a hall in the western part of the citadel, have been
linked with the Achaemenid occupation by Armenian archaeologists. The ceramic assemblage some-
times shows close affinities to Achaemenid shapes. Nevertheless, it remains uncertain whether these
vessels have been made in Achaemenid or in Hellenistic times. Some of the cuneiform tablets with
Elamite texts date from the 6th or 5th c. B.C. The content of these documents, however, is a matter
of debate (see Diakonoff, Jankowska, Koch, Vallat).

Bibliography: Arakeljan 1969; Martirosjan 1974; Kafadarjan 1975; Tiratsjan 1988; Diakonoff, Jankowska
1990: 102-123; Koch 1993: 219-236; Karapetjan 1996; Mahé 1996: 1279-1312; Vallat 1997: 258-270;
Kanetsyan 2001: 145-153, fig. 3-6, 9.

Erebuni (Arin Berd)

The Urartian fortress Erebuni on a hill called Arin Berd is situated on the eastern outskirts of Erevan.
Archaeolgical investigations began in 1950. According to the archaeological evidence the fortress has
not been destroyed at the time of the fall of the Urartin empire, whereas Teißebai URU (Karmir Blur)
on the northwestern border of Erevan (excavated since 1939 by B. Piotrovskij), residence of the Urartian
governour of Transcaucasia was razed to the ground and completely abandoned in the second half of
the 6th c. B.C. In Achaemenid times Erebuni was an important administrative centre.
In the 1990s F. Ter-Martirossov started to dig at this site again. His investigations mainly focus
on the Achaemenid levels. From the preliminary reports one gets the impression that a number of
column-halls have been redesigned in a significant way.

Bibliography: Tiratsian 1960: 99-115; Oganesjan 1961: 75-79, 1980; Ter-Martirossov 1996b:
1279-1312, 2001: 157-158, 160, fig. 3, [forthcoming]; Kanetsyan 2001: 145-153, fig. 1-2;
http://www.erebouni.ontheweb.com

Oshakan
In the 1980s S. Esajan and A. Kalantarjan uncovered two architectural complexes on the banks
of the Kasakh. The so-called “palace complex” on the foot of the hill was occupied from the 7th
through the 4th c. B.C. In Achaemenid times a rectangular hall was built where the excavators found
cylindrical stone bases; wooden columns must have supported the ceiling. To judge from the small

210 Archéologie de l’empire achéménide

 finds, this room had a religious function. However, neither the architecture nor the small finds
published so far can proove direct Achaemenid influence at Oshakan.

Bibliography: Jesajan, Kalantarjan 1988; Ter-Martirossov 2001: 155-156, fig. 1.

While all these phenomena might be found in a similar way in some other parts of the empire
the aftermath of Achaemenid rule in Transcaucasia, especially in Georgia, is something special. The
archaeological evidence makes obvious that at least some of the local vassals of the Great King were
able to maintain their regional position of power which they had gained under the Persians. The
“palace” in Gumbati is abandoned some time in the later 4th c. B.C. But the excavation results at
Sairkhe, Zikhiagora (fig. 6-7) and Samadlo give evidence for continuity rather than a break.
Monumental architecture and the art of metal-working still follow Achaemenid models, and the
painted pottery in central and eastern Georgia is very much indebted to the late Achaemenid so-
called “triangle ware”.9 A number of fire temples show that some kind of Zoroastrianism is the reli-
gion of the ruling class, at least. In most parts of the former Achaemenid empire, only few
Achaemenid elements of the material culture survived in a distinct hellenized form. When the palaces
in Persepolis and Susa were razed to the ground, when Achaemenid elements in the arts were almost
imperceptible even in Persia, at this time the Achaemenid legacy was flourishing in the art and archi-
tecture of Georgia (fig. 8).10 The followers of the Persians in Georgia had every reason to adhere to
the Achaemenid symbols and traditions. They knew that they were owing their regional position of
power and perhaps even their legitimation to the Achaemenids. And there was hardly any alternative,
if they didn’t want to get back to their former huts.
The evolution of the kingdom of Kartli, or Iberia as it was called in Greek and Latin sources, the
first state that included wide parts of modern Georgia, occured almost two centuries later in the mid
2nd c. B.C.11 The name of the legendary first king, Pharnavas (Pharnabazos), signals his Iranian
descent. His mother was said to be Persian. The administration followed Persian prototypes. A
number of names for state officers as well as cultic terms in the earliest Georgian texts betray Persian
origin. Since the time of Alexander the Great the material culture in Iberia had developed, indigenous
and foreign (Persian and Greek) elements were amalgamated. Thus, in this final stage, an unmistake-
able new art and architecture was formed. Nevertheless, some Achaemenid roots are discernable: the
plan of the main temple at Dedoplis Mindori (fig. 9) recalls Achaemenid and Post-Achaemenid
temples and gateways; and the name of the Iberian capital Armazistsikh, i.e. “castle of
Armazi/Ahuramazda”, proves that Georgia further received decisive impulses from Iran. It is espe-
cially remarkable that in Iberia Achaemenid traditions do not end before the 1st c. B.C. For instance,
Iberian toreutics and glyptic art of the 1st c. B.C. still follow Achaemenid prototypes.
The long tradition of Zoroastrianism in Georgia (until the 19th century) may be explained by
steady contacts with Persia and Media Atropatene. However, the continued existance of Achaemenid
architectural elements and iconography, especially in glyptic art, in Post-Achaemenid times is
amazing, all the more no similar traces of Achaemenid art and architecture can be found in Persia
itself at that time. The following sites betray the Achaemenid legacy in Georgia after the fall of the
empire.

9 A small jug from Takhtidsiri is imported, whereas at Itkhvisi we find local imitations of “triangle ware”.
10 In Georgia the situation is apparently different, probably, because the Macedonian army never touched this region during
Alexanders campaigns. A part of Media, approximately the territory of modern Azerbaijan, was left to the satrap Atropates.
Unfortunately, not a single site from this period in Azerbaijan has been excavated.
11 Meissner 2000: 203; Knauss [forthcoming c].

F.S. Knauss - Caucasus 211

 Fig. 6—Zikhiagora, sanctuary, 3rd-2nd c. B.C.: I main temple; II granary; III wine cellar; IV mill; V bakery;
VI dining room (?); VII temple (?); VIII towers; IX room with an open hearth; 1 cella; 2 altars;
3 sacrificial altar (?); 4 wine press; 5 grain mortars; 6 ovens; 7 stove.

Fig. 7—Zikhiagora, limestone capital, 4th/3rd c. B.C.

212 Archéologie de l’empire achéménide

F.S. Knauss - Caucasus

Fig. 8—(Map 2) Transcaucasia in Post-Achaemenid times

213
 Fig. 9—Dedoplis Mindori, sanctuary, 2nd c. B.C.-1st c. A.D.

Dedoplis Gora
On a natural hill called Dedoplis Gora, situated on the banks of the Western Prone, a tributary
of the Kura, a huge architectural complex had been erected at the end of the 2nd c. B.C. on the ruins
of chalcolithic, late Bronze Age and early Iron Age settlements. This “palace” was destroyed at the
same time as the nearby sanctuary of Dedoplis Mindori, probably in the second half of the 1st c.
A.D. During the 4th-7th c. A.D. the site was inhabited again.
Between 1985 and 1993 the so-called palace was partly excavated by J. Gagoshidze. The whole
complex was encircled by a strong wall, 3 m thick on the foot. All the differently sized rooms are
connected by a porticus. In the centre is an open courtyard. The sockle of the walls is made of “opus
gallicum”, above they are made of regular mud bricks. The outer walls have a stone facing in the
lower part.
Roof tiles as well as arrow head-shaped clamps which connected the ashlars betray Greek influ-
ence. On the other hand some altars and small finds might be linked with Zoroastrian rituals. The
extraordinary rich small finds give proof of the importance of the site, and they demonstrate close
contacts of the inhabitants with the western (Hellenistic-Roman) as well as with the eastern (Iranian)
world. These objects were imported or copied by local workshops. Dedoplis Gora must have been the

214 Archéologie de l’empire achéménide

 residence of a high official of the Iberian king who controlled the area around the royal sanctuary at
Dedoplis Mindori. Although quite a few weapons were found in the ruins of the palace, its military
function was modest, at most. It may have served as a royal residence when the Iberian king and his
entourage visited the sanctuary of Dedoplis Mindori.

Bibliography: Gagoßidze 2000: 51-58; Gagoshidze 2001: 259-279; Furtwängler, Gagoshidze [forth-
coming].

Dedoplis Mindori
In the plains between Eastern and Middle Prone (fiida Kartli), tributaries of the Kura, J.
Gagoshidze conducted archaeological excavations from 1972 until 1993 at a site called Dedoplis
Mindori (“queens meadows”). Though inhabited from Stone Age until the Middle Ages there can be
no doubt that Dedoplis Mindori reached its climax when a vast sanctuary (fig. 9) was built here in the
late 2nd c. B.C. The temple area alone takes up an area of 180 by 250 m. The excavator has closely
linked this complex with the Iberian royal family. The architectural plan as well as the small finds
suggest that the main building served as a Zoroastrian fire temple. In the northern part of the sanc-
tuary is another, small temple. The function of at least six more similar buildings is not clear yet.
However, they may have been used as temples, too. The temenos walls and all other buildings have a
stone sockle. The upper part of the walls had been built with mud bricks. Monumental gates in the
west and in the east had a tiled roof. A great number of fragments of stone capitals were found in the
ruins of these gates as well as in the other (temple) buildings. The shape of these capitals reminds one
of the column bases found in several Achaemenid “palaces” in Transcaucasia (Gumbati, Sari Tepe,
Qaradshamirli, Benjamin).
400 m northwest of the sanctuary, houses and workshops of the same period were uncovered.
Here, the roof tiles, mud bricks, stone capitals, glass vessels and iron nails were produced. Nearby a
contemporary settlement and a cemetery were located.

Bibliography: Lordkipanidse 1991: 160-161, fig. 70.6-8; Gagoshidze 1992: 27-48, 1996: 134, fig. 6-7,
2001: 260-261, fig. 3-5.

Grdseli Mindori
The fragment of a late Hellenistic bell-shaped base is now kept in a museum in Tbilisi. It was
found half a century ago by the Georgian archaeologist Gambaßidze in Grdseli Mindori, 13 km west
of Mtskheta on the left bank of the Kura. The capital was decorated with a lotus-leaf ornament
similar to those of the Achaemenid bases. Additionally it carries an interlace like many of the capitals
from Dedoplis Mindori.

Bibliography: Kipiani, Gagoßidze 2000: 64, fig. 1.9.

For more evidence concerning the Achaemenid legacy in Transcaucasia cf. the Post-Achamenid
levels at Vani, Itkhvisi, Takhtidsiri, Zikhiagora, Samadlo, Benjamin.
Finally a short outlook what kind of results future archaeological research in Transcaucasia may
provide shall be given.
In Armenia and Georgia the diachronical investigations with a special look at the transitional
periods around the rise and fall of the Persian empire should take priority over mere increase of
precious small finds.
But, actually probably the most urgent aim should be to preserve the knowledge of the local
scientists before they die. Many of them never properly published the results of their investigations

F.S. Knauss - Caucasus 215

 and often they have not even orally handed down this knowledge to younger colleagues. Mostly for
political and language reasons, archaeological evidence from the Achaemenid period remained almost
unknown to most western scholars until the collapse of the Soviet empire. The still very instable polit-
ical and economic situation in Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia is not only a serious problem for any
foreign scholar, but as well endangers ancient sites and national science. The additional evidence of
new sites and finds partly is the result of recent excavations. A great part has been investigated fairly
early, but only recent publications or translations have made them known to western archaeology.12
We may hope that the incorporation of that material into today’s scholarhip will not take as long a its
discovery.
Beyond this, Azerbaijan was—and for the greatest part still is—archaeological “terra incognita”
at least for the 1st millenium B.C. One of the major questions is, whether a similar continuity from
the Achaemenid into the Hellenistic period as in neighbouring Georgia can be observed.
Furthermore, here we might have the opportunity to find archaeological evidence of the state of
Media Atropatene for the first time. Thus, another large area for new discoveries still remains.

Florian S. Knauss
Dissertation on Cycladic pottery; assistant director of the excavations at Tell Sheikh Hassan/Syria
(1993-1994); assistant professor at Münster University (1994-2000); curator at the Staatliche
Antikensammlungen und Glyptothek München (since 2001).
Selected bibliography (besides the abovementioned articles): Der Lineare Inselstil. Eine kykladische
Keramikwerkstatt am Übergang von der spätgeometrischen zur archaischen Zeit, Diss., Saarbrücken
1997; numerous articles in R. Wünsche (ed.), Herakles-Herkules, Munich 2003; R. Wünsche, F. Knauß
(eds), Lockender Lorbeer. Sport und Spiel in der Antike, Munich 2004.

12 Recent publications on Achaemenids in Transcaucasia (in alphabetical order): Braund 1994; Chacatrijan 2000, 43-49; Chalilov
1985: 43-47; Dandamaev 1985; Furtwängler 1995: 177-211; Furtwängler, Knauß 1996: 363-381, 1997: 353-387; Furtwängler,
Lordkipanidse 2000: 1-279; Gagoshidze 1996: 125-136, 1997: 123-136; Kanetcjan 2000: 103-110; Karapetjan 2000: 111-117;
Kleiss 1994: 91-94; Knauß 1999a: 218-222, 1999c: 81-114, [forthcoming c]; Lordkipanidse 1991; Lordkipanidze 2001:
143-190; Ludwig, Tauscher 2003: 5-10; Meißner 2000: 177-206; Plontke-Lüning 1998: 878-879; Schachner 2001: 251-332;
Schottky 1989; Ter-Martirossov 2001: 155-163; Tiratsjan 1988; Tsetskhladse 1993/1994: 11-49, 1994: 78-102, 2001: 470-480,
2003: 229-269.

216 Archéologie de l’empire achéménide

Bibliography

Abka´i-Khavari M. 1988, Die achaimenidischen Metallschalen, AMI 21: 91-134.

Akopjan H.P. 2000, Die Tempelanlagen von Ochmik in Armenien, AMIT 32: 21-35.
Akopjan A.P., Vardanjan R.E., Zindschirdschjan V.K. 1992, Predvaritelnye archeologiceskich raskopok v verchnem
tecenii reki Achurjan (territorii sel Dschradzor i Ochmik), in: Archeologiceskie raboty v novostrojkach Armenii,
Erevan.
Aliyev V.G., Agazade T.D. 1986, Zagali kendinden tapilmis tunc grifon hagginda, Azerbaycan Elimler Akademjasinin
Haberleri, Tarih, Felsefe ve Hukuk Serijasi 3: 75-80 [Azeri with Russian summary].
Arakeljan B. 1969, Osnovnie rezultaty raskopok drevnego Armavira, Istoriko-filologiceskii Jurnal 4.
Badaljan R., Kohl P., Stronach D. 1994, Preliminary Report on the 1993 Excavations at Horom, Armenia, Iran
32: 1-29.
Badaljan R., Kohl P., Kroll S. 1997, Horom 1995. Bericht über die amerikanisch-armenisch-deutsche archäologische
Expedition in Armenien, AMIT 29: 191-228.
Bahcaliyev V.B. 1994, Archeologiceskie raskopki na poselenii Oglankala, Rossijskaja Archeologija X. 3: 106-120.
Boardman J. 1994, The Diffusion of Classical Art in Antiquity, London.
Boardman J. 2000, Persia and the West, London.
Braund D. 1994, Georgia in Antiquity. A History of Colchis and Transcaucasian Iberia 550 B.C.-A.D. 562, Oxford.
Chacatrijan Z. 2000, Achaimenidische Traditionen im postachaimenidischen Armenien, AMIT 32: 43-49.
Chalilov D.A. 1985, Plemena na territorii Azerbaidcana, in G.A. Koßelenko (ed.), Drevnejßie gosudarstva Kavkaza
i Srednej Azii. Archeologija SSSR, Moskva: 43-47.
Dandamaev M. 1985, Politiceskaja istorija Achemenidskoj derschavy, Moskva.
Diakonoff I., Jankowska N. 1990, An Elamite Gilgameß text from Argißtihenale, Urartu (Armavir-blur), 8th century
B.C., ZfA 80, 1: 102-123.
Dusinberre E. 2003, Aspects of Empire in Achaemenid Sardis, Cambridge.
Furtwängler A.E. 1995, Gumbati. Archäologische Expedition in Kachetien 1994. 1. Vorbericht, EurAnt 1: 177-211.
Furtwängler A.E., Knauß, F. 1996, Gumbati. Archäologische Expedition in Kachetien 1995. 2. Vorbericht, EurAnt
2: 363-381.
Furtwängler A.E., Knauß F. 1997, Archäologische Expedition in Kachetien 1996. Ausgrabungen in den Siedlungen
Gumbati und Ciskaraant-Gora. 3. Vorbericht, EurAnt 3: 353-387.
Furtwängler A.E., Knauß F., Motzenbäcker I. 1998, Archäologische Expedition in Kachetien 1997. Ausgrabungen
in fiiraki. 4. Vorbericht, EurAnt 4: 309-364.
Furtwängler A.E., Knauß F., Motzenbäcker I. 1999, Archäologische Expedition in Kachetien 1998. Ausgrabungen
in fiiraki. 5. Vorbericht, EurAnt 5: 233-270.
Furtwängler A.E., Gagoshidze J. (eds) [forthcoming], Dedoplis Gora. The Kingdom of Kartli (Iberia) in the
1st c. B.C.-1st c. A.D. according to the archaeological evidence.
Gagoßije J. 1964, Adreantikuri xanis jeglebi k’snis xeobidan, Tbilisi [Georgian with Russian summary].
Gagoßidze Y. 1979, Samadlo I. Archeologiceskie raskopki, Tbilisi.
Gagoßidze Y. 1981, Samadlo II. Katalog, Tbilisi.
Gagoßidze Y. 1985, Iz istorii juvelirnogo dela v Gruszii. Chudoschestvennye pamjatniki i problemy kul’ tury Vostoka,
Leningrad.
Gagoshidze I.M. 1992, The temples at Dedoplis Mindori, East and West 42, 1992: 27-48.
Gagoshidze J. 1996, The Achaemenid Influence in Iberia, Boreas 19: 125-136.
Gagoshidze J. 1997, Materialien zur Geschichte der Goldschmiedekunst im alten Georgien, Boreas 20: 123-136.
Gagoßidze J. 2000, Neuer archäologischer Befund im Bezirk Kareli, fiida Kartli, AMIT 32: 51-58.
Gagoshidze I. 2001, A royal palace in first-century Iberia according to the archaeological material from Dedoplis Gora,
Georgia, in I. Nielsen (ed.), The Royal Palace Institution in the First Millennium BC. Regional Development

F.S. Knauss - Caucasus 217

 and Cultural Interchange between East and West, Monographs of the Danish Institute at Athens, vol. 4,
Aarhus: 259-279.
Gagoßidze J., Kipiani G. 2000, Neue Beobachtungen zur achaimenidischen Baukunst in Kartli, AMIT
32: 59-64.
Gagoßidze J., Saginaßvili M. 2000, Die achaimenidischen Glasgefäße in Georgien, AMIT 32: 67-73.
Gamkrelidse G. 1998, Ein Rhyton mit Götterdarstellung aus der Kolchis, AMIT 30: 211-216.
Ismizade O. 1965, Raskopki cholma Kara-Tepe Milskoj stepi (1954-1958 gg.), in A.A. Jessen, K.C. Kußnareva (eds),
Trudy Azerbajdshanskoj Archaeologi£eskoj Ekspedizii II, Akademija Nauk SSSR, Materialy Issledovanija po
Archeologii SSSR, 125, Moskva, Leningrad: 195-228.
Jesajan S., Kalantarjan A. 1988, Oschakan 1. Osnovnie rezultaty raskopok 1971-1983, Erevan.
Kafadarjan K. 1975, Architektura goroda Argischtichinili, Erevan.
Kanetcjan A.G. 2000, Beziehungen zwischen urartäischer und achaimenidischer Baukunst in Armenien, AMIT 32:
103-110.
Kanetsyan A.G. 2001, Urartian and Early Achaemenid Palaces in Armenia, in I. Nielsen (ed.), The Royal Palace
Institution in the First Millennium B.C. Regional Development and Cultural Interchange between East and
West, Monographs of the Danish Institute at Athens, vol. 4, Aarhus: 145-153.
Karapetjan I.N. 1996, Rezultaty raskopok Armavira v 1991-1992, Tezisui dokladov konferentsii instituta archeologii,
Erevan.
Karapetjan I.N. 2000, Zur Typologie armenischer Siedlungen in achaimenidischer Zeit, AMIT 32: 111-117.
Kipiani G. 1987, Kapiteli, Tbilisi [Georgian with Russian summary].
Kipiani G. 1993, Architektura gruzii antichnogo perioda. Architekturnje detali, Tbilisi [Georgian with Russian
summary].
Kipiani G. 1998, K’umbat’i da sari-t’ep’e, Narkvevebi 4 : 31-47, 113 [Georgian with German summary].
K’ip’iani G. 1999, Up’lisc’ixis ganadgurebuli k’vablebi, Narkvevebi 5 : 7-18 [Georgian with German summary].
K’ip’iani G. 2000, Up’lisc’ixis kldovani samarxis inventari (katalogi da ßenißvnebi), Ark’eologiuri Jurnali 1 : 74-95
[Georgian].
Kipiani G., Amashukely N. 1995, The Ancient City Site of Vani, Tbilisi.
Kleiss W. 1992, Zur Ausbreitung Urartus nach Norden, AMI 25: 91-94.
Kleiss W., Kroll S. 1976, Zwei Plätze des 6. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. in Iranisch-Azerbajdcan, AMI 9: 108-113.
Knauß F. 1999a, Ein silbernes Trinkhorn aus Mtisdziri. Die Kolchis zwischen Achämeniden und Griechen, in
R.F. Docter, E.M. Moormann (eds), Proceedings of the XVth International Congress of Classical Archaeology,
Amsterdam 12.-17. July 1998: 218-222.
Knauß F. 1999b, Bocksdämon und Perserin. Untersuchungen zur Ikonographie und Chronologie der späten graeco-
persischen Glyptik, AMIT 31: 161-189.
Knauß F. 1999c, Die Achämeniden im Transkaukasus, in C. Oekentorp, S. Lausberg (Hrsg.), Fenster zur Forschung-
Museumsvorträge der WWU, Münster: 81-114.
Knauß F. 2000, Der „Palast“ von Gumbati und die Rolle der Achaimeniden im transkaukasischen Iberien, AMIT
32: 119-130.
Knauss F. 2001, Persian rule in the north, in I. Nielsen (ed.), The Royal Palace Institution in the First Millenium
B.C. Monographs of the Danish Institute at Athens 4: 125-143.
Knauß F. [forthcoming a], Formen und Wege der Akkulturation im Perserreich am Beispiel von Kolchis und Iberien,
in J. Morin, G. Tsetskhladze (eds), 2nd International Congress on Black Sea Antiquities – Local Populations
of the Black Sea Littoral and their Relations with the Greek, Roman and Byzantine Worlds and Near East
Civilisations (8th century B.C.-1000 A.D.), Ankara, 2nd-9th September 2001.
Knauß F. [forthcoming b], Zur eisenzeitlichen Hausarchitektur Ostgeorgiens, ANES 42, 2005.
Knauss F.S. [forthcoming c], The “palace” at Dedoplis Gora. A survey of Transcaucasian monumental architecture
in Hellenistic and early Roman times, in A. Furtwängler, J. Gagoshidze (eds) Kartli and Rome. The Kingdom
of Kartli (Iberia) in the 1st century B.C.-1st century A.D. according to the archaeological evidence.

218 Archéologie de l’empire achéménide

Koch H. 1993, Elamisches Gilgameß-Epos oder doch Verwaltungstäfelchen?, ZfA 83, 2: 219-236.
Kohl P., Kroll S. 1999, Notes on the Fall of Horom, in Neo-Assyrian, Median, Achaemenian and other studies in
honour of David Stronach, IA 34: 243-259.
Kroll S. 1998, Urartäische Ausgrabungen in Armenien, ADK 99: 33-34.
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 Millenium B.C. Regional Development and Cultural
Interchange between East and West, Monographs of the Danish Institute at Athens, vol. 4, Aarhus: 249-257.
Lordkipanidze O. 1974, La Géorgie et le monde grec, BCH 98: 879-948.
Lordkipanidze O. 1985, Das alte Kolchis und seine Beziehungen zur griechischen Welt vom 6. zum 4. Jh. v. Chr.
Xenia, Konstanzer Althistorische Vorträge und Forschungen 14, Konstanz.
Lordkipanidse O. 1991, Archäologie in Georgien. Von der Altsteinzeit zum Mittelalter, Weinheim.
Lordkipanidze O. 1995a, Vani-Ein antikes religiöses Zentrum im Lande des goldenen Vlieses (Kolchis), JbRGZM
42: 353-401.
Lordkipanidze O. 1995b, Über zwei Funde aus Vani, AA: 41-52.
Lordkipanidze O. 2001, The “Akhalgori Hoard”: An Attempt at Dating and Historical Interpretation, AMIT
33: 143-190.
Lort’k’ip’anije M.N. 1981, Ujvelesi sabetschdavi-betschdebi iberiidan da kolxet´idan, Tbilisi [Georgian with Russian
summary].
Ludwig N. [forthcoming a], Chovle-Gora und Kwemo Kedi-Betrachtungen zu möglichen Fremdeinflüssen in der
ostgeorgischen Keramik des 6. Jhs. v. Chr., in J. Morin, G. Tsetskhladze (eds), 2nd International Congress on
Black Sea Antiquities-Local Populations of the Black Sea Littoral and their Relations with the Greek, Roman
and Byzantine Worlds and Near East Civilisations (8th century B.C.-1000 A.D.), Ankara, 2nd-9th September
2001.
Ludwig N. [forthcoming b], Die kachetische Keramik des 1. Jhs. v. Chr.-Eine Einführung, ANES 42, 2005.
Ludwig N., Tauscher G. 2003, Die Deutsch-Georgische Expedition in Kachetien, in: Archaeologia Circumpontica
1: 5-10.
Mahé J.-P. 1996, Le site armenien d’Armawir : d’Ourartou à l’époque hellénistique, Comptes Rendus des Séances
de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres : 1279-1312.
Martirosjan A.A. 1974, Argischtihinili, Erevan.
Maxaraje G. 1997, Sairxis kapitelebis t’arigisat’vis, Narkvevebi 3: 12-20 [Georgian with German summary].
Maxaraje G. 1998, Sairxis kapitelebis dat’arigebisat’vis, Jeglis Megobari 101 (2): 24-29, 54 [Georgian with English
summary].
Maxaraje Z. 1999, Axali agmo£’enebi c’ixiagoraze, Jiebani 4: 57-66 [Georgian with Russian and English summary].
Meissner B. 2000, A Belated Nation: Sources on Ancient Iberia and Iberian Kingship, AMIT 32: 177-206.
Miron A., Orthmann W. (eds) 1995, Unterwegs zum Goldenen Vlies. Exhibition catalogue Saarbrücken, Saarbrücken.
Nadiraje D. 1975, Qvirilis xeobis ark’eologiuri jeglebi, Tbilisi [Georgian with Russian summary].
Nadiraje D. 1990a, Sairxe—sak’art’velos udsvelesi k’alak’i, Tbilisi [Georgian with Russian summary].
Nadiradse D. 1990b, Le site archéologique de Sairche, in O. Lordkipanidse, P. Lévêque (éds), Le Pont-Euxin vu par
les Grecs, Paris: 213-222.
Narimanov I. 1960, Nachodki baz koloni V-IV vv. do n. e. v Azerbaidcanie, Sovietskaja Archaeologija, X.
4, 162-164.
Oganesjan K. 1961, Arinberd. Architektura Erebuni, Erevan.
Oganesjan K. 1980, Krepust Erebuni, Erevan.
Picchelauri K. 1979, Vostocnaja Gruzija v konze bronzovogo veka, Tbilisi.
Plontke-Lüning A. 1998, s.v. Iberia, in H. Cancik, H. Schneider (eds), Der Neue Pauly, Vol. 5, Stuttgart—Weimar:
878-879.
Saginaßvili M., Gagoßije J. 1973, Alget’is p’iala, Mac’ne-istoriis, ark’eologiis seria 4: 81-98 [Georgian].
Schachner A. 2001, Azerbaycan: Eine terra incognita der Vorderasiatischen Archäologie, MDOG 133: 251-332.

F.S. Knauss - Caucasus 219

 Schottky M. 1989, Media-Atropatene und Groß-Armenien in hellenistischer Zeit, Bonn.
Sens U. 2003, Griechische Keramik und lokale Imitationen im Hinterland der östlichen Schwarzmeerküste (Kolchis
und Iberien), in B. Schmaltz, M. Söldner (eds), Griechische Keramik im kulturellen Kontext. Akten des
Internationalen Vasensymposions in Kiel vom 24.-28.10.2001, Münster: 237-240.
Shefton B.B. 1993, The White Lotus, Rogozen and Colchis: The Fate of a Motif, in J. Chapman, P. Dolukhanov
(eds), Cultural Transformations and Interactions in Eastern Europe, Aldershot: 178-209.
Smirnov J.I. 1909, Vostocnoe serebro, St. Petersburg.
Smirnov J.I. 1934, Der Schatz von Achalgori, Tbilisi.
Ter-Martirossov F. 1996a, Un « paradis » de l’Antiquité Classique : Le Site du Drashkhanakert, à Benjamin, in J. Santrot
(éd.), Arménie. Trésors de l’Arménie ancienne des origines au Ier siècle, Paris : 187-189.
Ter-Martirossov F. 1996b, Le site arménien d’Armawir : d’Ourartou à l’époque hellénistique, Comptes Rendus des
Séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres : 1279-1312.
Ter-Martirossov 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 B.C. Regional Development and Cultural
Interchange between East and West, Monographs of the Danish Institute at Athens, vol. 4, Aarhus: 155-163.
Ter-Martirossov F. [forthcoming], Rezultaty raskopok Erebuni v 1998-2000.
Tiratsian G. 1960, Kolonij zal na Arin-berde I vopros o satrapskich tsentrach na Armanjaskom nagorie, Izvestija Akademii
Nauk Armjanskoij SSR 7-8 : 99-115 [Armenian with Russian summary].
Tiratsjan G. 1988, Materialnaja kultura drevneij Armenii 6 v. do n.e.-4 v. n.e., Erevan.
Tsetskhladse G.R. 1993/94, Colchians and the Persian Empire: The Problems of their Relationship, Silk Road Art
and Archeology 3: 11-49.
Tsetskhladse G.R. 1994, Colchians, Greeks and Achaemenids in the 7th-5th Centuries B.C.: A Critical Look, Klio
76: 78-102.
Tsetskhladse G.R. 2001, s.v. Georgia III, in E. Yarshater (ed.), Encyclopaedia Iranica, vol. X, 5, New York: 470-480.
Tsetskhladze G.R. 2003, The Culture of Ancient Georgia in the First Millenium BC and Greater Anatolia: Diffusion
or Migration? in A.T. Smith, K.S. Rubinson (eds), Archaeology in the Borderlands. Investigations in Caucasia
and Beyond, Los Angeles: 229-269.
Vallat F. 1997, La lettre élamite d’Arménie, ZA 87 : 258-270.
Vani. Ark’eologiuri gat’xrebi I-VIII, Tbilisi, 1972-1986 [Georgian with Russian summaries].
Wesenberg B. 1971, Kapitelle und Basen, Düsseldorf.
Zardarian M.H., Akopian H.P. 1994, Archaeological Excavations of Ancient Monuments in Armenia 1985-1990, Ancient
Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 1, fasc. 2: 163-193.
Zkitischwili G. 1995, Der frühhellenistische Feuertempel von Kawtiskhewi, AA: 86-96.

220 Archéologie de l’empire achéménide