Giorgi L. Kavtaradze. An Attempt at Dating of The Starting Point of Kura-Araxes Culture On The Background of The "Uruk Cultural Phenomenon".

Subartu XXXVIII
At the Northern Frontier of Near Eastern Archaeology

Sub a r t u
Editorial Board
Marc Lebeau, M. Conceição Lopes, Lucio Milano,

Adelheid Otto, Walther Sallaberger, Véronique Van der Stede
With the support of the following institutions:

Università Ca’ Foscari di Venezia, Université Libre de Bruxelles,
Universidade de Coimbra, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München,
Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz
Subartu — a peer-reviewed series —

is edited by the European Centre for Upper Mesopotamian Studies
Manuscripts are to be submitted to:

Marc Lebeau, ECUMS-Brussels, 41 Boulevard A. Reyers, Bte 6, B-1030 Brussels, Belgium
Order forms to be mailed to:

Brepols Publishers, Begijnhof 67, B-2300 Turnhout, Belgium
© BREPOLS PUBLISHERS
THIS DOCUMENT MAY BE PRINTED FOR PRIVATE USE ONLY.
IT MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE PUBLISHER.
Elena ROVA & Monica TONUSSI
(editors)
AT THE NORTHERN FRONTIER OF NEAR EASTERN

ARCHAEOLOGY
RECENT RESEARCH ON CAUCASIA AND ANATOLIA IN THE BRONZE AGE
AN DER NORDGRENZE DER VORDERASIATISCHEN
ARCHÄOLOGIE
NEUE FORSCHUNG ÜBER KAUKASIEN UND ANATOLIEN IN DER
BRONZEZEIT
(Publications of the Georgian-Italian Shida Kartli

Archaeological Project, 2)
(Proceedings of the international Humboldt-Kolleg Venice,

January 9th -January 12th, 2013)
F
H
Elena Rova & Monica Tonussi (eds)
At the Northern Frontier of Near Eastern Archaeology
(=Subartu XXXVIII), Brepols, Turnhout, 2017
A4, sewn, 8 + 587
Contents: Archaeology, Bronze Age, Caucasus, Anatolia, Metallurgy
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a

retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means,
electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise,
without the prior permission of the publisher.
ISBN 978-2-503-54897-5
D/2017/0095/131
Printed on acid-free paper
Table of Contents
Elena Rova &

Monica Tonussi Editors’ Introduction 1
Section I
The Late Chalcolithic and the Early Bronze Age
Andrej Belinskij The Great Kurgan from Nalčik. A Preliminary Report 13
Svend Hansen &
Sabine Reinhold
Sergey N. Korenevskiy Military and Elite Symbolism in the Funeral Practices of the
Maikop-Novosvobodnaia Community 33
Alexey Rezepkin The Influence of the Near East in the Formation of the Early
Bronze Age in the Northern Caucasus 43
Barbara Helwing Networks of Craft Production and Material Distribution in

the Late Chalcolithic: Metallurgical Evidence from Iran and
the Southern Caucasus 51
Judith Thomalsky Large Blade Technologies in the Southern Caucasus and in

Northern Mesopotamia in the 6th-4th millennia BC 79
Georgi Leon Kavtaradze An Attempt at Dating the Starting Point of the Kura-Araxes
Culture on the Background of the ‘Uruk Cultural Phenomenon’ 91
Giulio Palumbi Push or Pull Factors? The Kura-Araxes ‘Expansion’ from

a Different Perspective: the Upper Euphrates Valley 113
Monica Tonussi Salt in the Economic System of Early Transcaucasian Culture

New Perspectives in the Interpretation of the Migration Theory
in the Southern Levant 133
Elena Rova, Zurab Makharadze Khashuri Natsargora: New Research on the Kura-Araxes
& Marina Puturidze and Bedeni Cultures in Central Georgia 153
Eleonora Carminati The Martqopi and Bedeni Components of the Early Kurgan Complex
in Shida Kartli (Georgia): A Reappraisal of the Available Data 173
Winfried Orthmann Burial Mounds of the Martqopi and Bedeni Cultures

in Eastern Georgia 189
Section II
The Middle and the Late Bronze Age
Stephan Kroll Early to Middle Bronze Age Transition in the Urmia Basin 203
Marina Puturidze On the Origins and Development of Gold Working in

the Middle Bronze Age Trialeti Culture 213
Gian-Maria Di Nocera Die Mittelbronzezeit am oberen Euphrat: Siedlungscharakter

und kulturelle Identität 229
v
Table of Contents
Armağan Erkanal-Öktü Panaztepe in der Spätbronzezeit: Eine Studie über die

materielle Kultur im mittleren West-Anatolien 247
Stefania Mazzoni Uşaklı Höyük and the Bronze Age of Central Anatolia 269
Elena Devecchi The Eastern Frontier of the Hittite Empire 283
Aynur Özfirat The Late Bronze – Early Iron Age – Urartu Complex at Bozkurt
on the Southern Slope of Mt. Ağrı299
Martina Babetto Late Bronze/Early Iron Age Pottery from Natsargora,

& Katia Gavagnin Khashuri Region (Georgia): A Preliminary Overview 311
Sabina Brodbeck-Jucker Die Keramik von Udabno I als Anhaltspunkt für die Datierung
der figürlich verzierten Bronzegürtel in Ostgeorgien 329
Sabine Reinhold Late Bronze Age Architecture in Caucasia and Beyond:

Building a New Lifestyle for a New Epoch 337
Section III
Iron Age developments
Ayşe Tuba Ökse Transition from Sedentary Farming to Nomadic and
Transhumant Pastoralism in the Iron Age: A View from
the Upper Tigris Region 369
Manuel Castelluccia The Talesh Region in the Iron Age and its Relations
with Transcaucasia 391
Arianna Zischow South Caucasian Bronze Belts in Context 411
Mirjo Salvini Aufstieg und Fall des Reiches Urartu 427
Claudia Antonetti Greek Colonisation in the Black Sea: Reflections on

Recent Research and Methodological Trends 449
Attilio Mastrocinque The Caucasus in the Geographic and Cosmological

Conceptions of the Greeks in the Archaic Period 459
Silvia Palazzo Kingship between East and West in Mithridates Eupator 467
Section IV
Metallurgy and Circulation of Metal Ore and Metal Objects
Evgenii N. Chernykh Caucasus as a Bridge and a Barrier between South and

North: The Early Metal Age 477
Mikheil Abramishvili Southern Caucasia in the Near Eastern Bronze Age

Economic System 493
Arsen Bobokhyan Society and Metal in Bronze Age Armenia 501

René Kunze, Khachatur
Meliksetian & Ernst Pernicka
Antoine Courcier, Maise Metallurgical Developments in Azerbaijan from the

Ragimova, Netjaf Museibli Neolithic to the Early Bronze Age: Recent Archaeometallurgical
& Bakhtiyar Jalilov Research in the Middle Kura River Valley 525
vi
Table of Contents
Zviad Sherazadishvili Technical and Typological Improvements and Innovations

in Bronze Weapons in the Southern Caucasus: (From the
3rd to the First Half of the 2nd Millennium BC) 543
David Kuparadze The Development of Mining, Metallurgy and the Production of Cold
Dimitri Pataridze Steel Arms in Georgia: A Geological and Archaeological Review 569
Elena Rova
Mamuka Kapianidze
Gotcha Lagidze &
Zaqro Nonikashvili
vii
An Attempt at Dating the Starting Point of the Kura-Araxes
Culture on the Background of the ‘Uruk Cultural Phenomenon’
Giorgi Leon Kavtaradze
(Ivane Javakhishvili Institute of History & Ethnology, Tbilisi – Georgia)
Abstract
Transcaucasia (including its Turkish part) is generally accepted as the core area of the initial
formation of the Kura-Araxes culture. As the Late Uruk period is contemporary with the
advanced stage of the Kura-Araxes culture, it is impossible to date the archaeological material
comparable with the Uruk culture found at the so-called Late Chalcolithic Transcaucasian sites
of the ‘pre-Kura-Araxes’ time by the Late (or even Middle) Uruk period. The pre-Kura-Araxes
period of Transcaucasia mainly relates to the ‘Northern Uruk’ material, and has nothing to do
with the well-known phenomenon of the ‘Late Uruk colonisation’ to the north in the second half
of the 4th millennium BC. An overview of the relevant chronological data allows us to put the
initial date of the Kura-Araxes culture of Transcaucasia sometime in the early part of the 4th
millennium BC; it thus seems that the very starting point of this culture was a contemporary of
the latest part of the Early Uruk period, or of a period immediately after this.
Introduction
One of the most important aims of the archaeologists working on problems of Near Eastern archaeology
and relying upon recent researches on the Late Chalcolithic-Early Bronze Age in Transcaucasia and Eastern
Anatolia is to elaborate a common periodisation and a chronological framework for establishing the links
between the cultural and social developments of different regions of the Near East (i.e. Southern and
Northern Mesopotamia, the Levant, Eastern Anatolia, and Western Iran) and Transcaucasia. The deter-
mination of the chronological position of the Caucasian Kura-Araxes culture is of major importance for
establishing a common chronological system not only for the Caucasian Early Bronze Age, but also for the
Ancient Near East and the neighbouring regions, since this culture spreads simultaneously over a large area1
where cultural remains are mainly dated by the use of geochronological methods on the one hand, and in
some regions in which they are traditionally dated using the historical chronology of the Near East, based
on the literary sources of Mesopotamia and Egypt, on the other one.
Chronological conclusions reached by correlating data derived from archaeological materials with those
gained through geochronological analyses represent a decisive factor for the formation of relative and
absolute chronologies for the Caucasus during the Early Metal Age, and for the determination of their place
in the Ancient World’s chronological system. The Transcaucasian groups, bearers of the Kura-Araxes cul-
tural traditions, extensively spread in the Near East. They mainly migrated to the south, west, south-west
and south-east, from the Transcaucasian-Northeastern Anatolian homeland of this culture, towards North
western and Central Iran, Central Anatolia and Southern Palestine.2 However, Transcaucasia (including the
Turkish part of it, to the north of Erzurum and east of Bayburt) is generally accepted to represent the core
area of the initial formation of the Kura-Araxes culture.
1
This culture covers a much larger area than the land between the two Transcaucasian rivers, the Kura and the Araxes,
from which it takes its name; it actually covers an important part of the Middle East (see below). Therefore it is obvious
that the term ‘Kura-Araxes culture’ is not a precise one: it has not a special territorial meaning and is rather symbolic,
pointing to the area where this culture was first discovered.
2
Much later than in Anatolia or Iran, pottery of the Kura-Araxes Eastern Anatolian-Transcaucasian tradition, known
as the so-called Red-Black Burnished Ware, is well represented in the Amuq (Phase H-I) region and in Palestine
(so-called Khirbet-Kerak culture). The lower limit of the Khirbet Kerak culture, prevalent in Palestine, is dated to the
end of period II of the Early Bronze Age of Palestine. It should be noted that in the Amuq area ‘Kura-Araxes’ pottery
begins to appear already in the period corresponding to Amuq G layers (Kavtaradze 2006).
91
The chronological implications of the Kura-Araxes culture

The spread of the bearers of the ‘Kura-Araxes culture’ is a typical case when archaeological data can bring
closer both sides of the fault line3, or something similar to a chronological gap, which divides the two regi-
ons. It goes without saying that the dating of the Transcaucasian archaeological material is in most cases
possible by the consideration of the dates of similar materials from well-dated Near Eastern strata. The
dates obtained for archaeological materials of the early Kura-Araxes period detected in the context of Near
Eastern cultural layers represent an important argument per se to demonstrate the necessity of considerably
shifting back the traditionally accepted datings of Caucasian cultures, and enabled us to suggest the urgent
need for shifting back the chronological scale of the Transcaucasian Kura-Araxes culture, since the latter
is earlier than the Near Eastern sites with ‘Kura-Araxes’ materials; therefore, this could be done even inde-
pendently from calibrated 14C dates.
Since the end of the 1970s I have been trying to propose higher absolute dates for the Early Metal Age
cultures of Georgia and generally of Transcaucasia not only on the basis of calibrated radiocarbon dates
but as well, and perhaps mainly, by the data concerning the relative chronology of the Kura-Araxes culture
distribution throughout the Near East, an extremely favorable circumstance, as noted above, from the point
of view of chronological studies. At that time my conclusions were mainly obtained from Western Iranian
archaeological sites (Geoy Tepe, Godin Tepe etc.) (e.g. Kavtaradze 1981, 1983).
In the western part of Central Iran, the Late Uruk colony (or an implanted Uruk-related fort within a
purely local community) at Godin Tepe V ceased its existence as a result of the invasion of the ‘Kura-Araxes’
population east of the site, in the Hamadan valley, which cut trade routes to the east. It was observed that
‘significant percentages’ of recognisable Kura-Araxes wares first appear in the final Godin V levels (Bad-
ler 2002: 83, 107, fig. 16; cf. Kohl 2009: 253). After a short interval of time, the Godin IV assemblage
emerged, which is characterised by material of the Kura-Araxes culture of Yanik Tepe I type. We can thus
say that a Late Uruk date for the intrusion of the bearers of the Kura-Araxes culture in the Near East is,
quite independently from sites in other parts of the Near East, obtainable from the Western Iranian ‘Kura-
Araxes’ layers.
This phenomenon has a parallel in Eastern Anatolia and Northern Syria. Sherds of the Red-Black ware
typical of the Kura-Araxes culture were found at Arslantepe, Kurban Höyük, Samsat, Hassek Höyük and
Jebel Aruda (Kavtaradze 1999: 78 f.). The intrusive character of the Kura-Araxes culture in this area became
quite clear after the exposure of the stratigraphical sequence documented at Arslantepe, where level VIB1
containing the material of this culture interrupted the preceding (level VIA) and following development
(level VIB2) of local horizons characterised by Reserved-Slip pottery. Besides Red-Black ware, the ‘Kura-
Araxian’ character of this level can also be proved by architectural data from the Arslantepe VIB layers,
subsequent to Arslantepe VIA: there a double line of post-holes was found, indicating a building technique
typical of the Kura-Araxes culture. It is difficult not to agree that the appearance of the VIB1 period hut
village upon the razed ruins of Arslantepe VIA epitomises the recession of the Late Uruk world almost
contemporary with the expansion of the Transcaucasian groups (Conti, Persiani 1993: 406). Along with
Red-Black, hand-made burnished pottery and ‘wattle and daub’ houses, high-arsenic copper metallurgy,
certain types of metal artifacts, typical graves and another strong indicator of this culture – a particular type
of hearths – came into sight.
It seems that Caucasian metallic ores and metallurgical traditions were particularly prevalent in the
Near East at that time. It was also emphasised that at the same time copper artefacts with a high arsenical
content, cast in open and bivalve moulds, appeared in the Elaziğ region (Yakar 1985: 276). It is quite prob
able that the economic importance of Late Uruk enclaves, trade diasporas or local centres connected with
the Urtuk networks such as Arslantepe VIA, Hassek Höyük 5, Habuba Kabira-Tell Qannas, Jebel Aruda,
and Tepecik 3 was the reason for their violent destruction by the intruders from the north – the bearers of
the Kura-Araxes culture4. It is clear that the activity of the bearers of this culture can be traced on both –
western and eastern – sides of the northern periphery of the Near East. According to M. S. Rothman, the
expansion of Transcaucasian peoples, linked to migration waves and changing economic strategies, was
well timed to coincide with the activation of trade routes, i.e. earlier at Arslantepe, and later at Godin in the
Zagros (Rothman 2003, 2011: 829).
3
This term has been borrowed from the geological fault line, when a part of the terrain falls from another and geolo-
gical layers are moved to form a gap between them.
4
B. Helwing’s observations showed that after the final collapse of the Northern Uruk sites (Syro-Anatolian/Uruk
network), which affected most of the sites of the Middle Uruk period along the Upper and Middle Euphrates, the Late
Uruk urban centres of Mesopotamia began to flourish and expand, due to a reverse flow of information, population and
manpower from Syro-Anatolia back to Mesopotamia (Helwing 2000: 92, 99).
92
An Attempt at Dating the Starting Point of the Kura-Araxes Culture
During the last decade, new data have accumulated concerning the absolute and relative chronology of
Near Eastern and Transaucasian cultures and the chronological relationship of archaeological materials of
both these regions, too. First of all, we now have a much wider set of 14C dates; secondly, there are new
indications of the overlapping in time of the Kura-Araxes and Uruk cultures, which have been revealed in
the course of the last years with greater intensity than earlier, and which not only poses the problem of the
relation between these cultures on a new basis, but provides the possibility of reconsidering the character
of cultural and social developments between the highly civilised societies of the core area of the Near East
and its Northern Frontier, and the regions located beyond the latter.
At first glance, all these facts give us a very good opportunity to date contacts of the Transcaucasian
population in the Malatya-Elaziğ area of Eastern Anatolia to the Late Uruk period. But the fact is that
sherds of the Red-Black, hand-made but of high technological level burnished pottery of ‘Kura-Araxes’
type were found in the older layers of Arslantepe VII, which belong to the Middle Uruk period. They
appear gradually at Arslantepe in the period VII assemblage, which is otherwise composed of typical
Amuq F Chaff-Faced buff or red-slipped wares, that are generally linked to the Northern Syrian-Upper
Mesopotamian environment. In the opinion of M. Frangipane, this discovery clearly points to the fact
that already at the end of period VII at Arslantepe the local population was in contact with communities
belonging to the Kura-Araxes cultural traditions (Frangipane 2000: 443 f.), a circumstance which permits
us to propose the existence of the bearers of the latter traditions already at that time, i.e. during the Middle
Uruk period5. At the same time, we should keep in mind the chronological significance of the fact that the
Red-Black type pottery of the Kura-Araxes culture is a sign not of the earliest, but of the developed stage
of this culture (Kavtaradze 2006: 114-117).
The dating of the first obvious signs of the Kura-Araxes culture found in situ in the layers of local
cultures of the Near East represents the terminus ante quem for similar and earlier archaeological artifacts
of the Transcaucasian Kura-Araxes culture. Since the date of late Arslantepe VII should be considered as
the terminus ante quem date for those layers of the Kura-Araxes culture which were characterised by the
high quality Red-Black Burnished Ware, and which existed outside of the Malatya-Elaziğ area (suppo-
sedly somewhere to the north-east from it), there is a rather high probability to shift the initial date of the
Kura-Araxes culture of Transcaucasia to the latest part of Early Uruk period, i.e. in the early part of the 4th
millennium. Thus, the reconsideration of the Near Eastern varieties of the Kura-Araxes culture, combined
with the new chronological data of Transcaucasian archaeological material, could offer us an opportunity
to revise the starting date of the Transcaucasian Kura-Araxes culture, and put it even earlier than I had it in
my previous publications (Kavtaradze 1999, 2004).
Although in the Malatya-Elazig region of Anatolia, in Syria and Palestine, Red-Black Burnished Ware
was locally manufactured, some of the earliest sherds of this ware from Arslantepe VII are distinct from
local pots in terms of their production techniques, and appear to have been either imported from another
area, or made in a non-specialist context. As pottery samples from specific sites do share mineralogical
similarity, these vessels could have Transcaucasian origin (Schwartz et al. 2009: 148 f.).
If we take into account the date of the Middle Uruk period, which is placed in the first half of and in
the mid-4th millennium BC, the necessity of pushing back the traditional low date of the Transcaucasian
Kura-Araxes culture becomes even more urgent. As we already know, the Transcaucasian origin of the
Kura-Araxes culture and its later spread to the Middle East, where archaeological strata are more accurately
dated than in Transcaucasia, gives us a favorable opportunity to determine the starting date of this culture
in Transcaucasia. Although, in the opinion of T. Kiguradze and A. Sagona, the idea of producing vessels
with lustrous red and black surface may, in fact, have been of the east-Anatolian origin (Kiguradze, Sagona
2003: 93), it seems to us, the question is, what do we mean by the term ‘Eastern Anatolia’? In our opinion,
it is more preferable to consider the region allegedly involved in the origins of the above mentioned pottery,
not as Eastern Anatolia, but as the northeastern part of it; that is, the so-called ‘Turkish Transcaucasus’, or
actually the southwestern part of Transcaucasia.
According to Ph. Kohl, Red-Black Burnished Ware may actually have originated at some sites beyond
the Kura-Araxes river basin in northeasternmost Anatolia, and subsequently spread eastwards into Trans-
caucasia; there seems to have been fairly rapid intra- and inter-cultural communication among these con-
tiguous regions, which relatively quickly led to the emergence of a Kura-Araxes koiné (Kohl 2009: 249).
G. Palumbi also stresses that the absence in the northernmost regions of Eastern Anatolia of the Chaff-Faced
Ware horizon, so common in the southernmost areas, indicates a basic difference between the Chalcolithic
5
In C. Marro’s view, the Red-Black type pottery from Period VII and VIA may have been produced by semi-nomadic
Kura-Araxes groups living in the vicinity of Arslantepe, only occasionally interacting with the Late Chalcolithic vil-
lagers, just as at Ovçular Tepesi, where the presence of such pottery constitutes an odd find within an otherwise Late
Chalcolithic settlement (Marro 2011: 295).
93
ceramic traditions of the northern and southern areas, and perhaps points to the existence of different cul
tural developments and separated networks of interaction. Palumbi supposes that the Northeastern Anato-
lian Chalcolithic pottery traditions – such as the grit-tempered Black or Dark Burnished wares – contributed
to the formation of the Kura-Araxes cultural phenomenon, and that the Red-Black Burnished Ware of this
culture may have first developed in these areas (Palumbi 2011: 214-216). S. Batiuk and M. S. Rothman also
share the opinion that the Red-Black pottery may have originated in Northeastern Turkey and then extended
first into Transcaucasia, and later in southern direction (Batiuk, Rothman 2007: 10).
From the point of view of the historiography of the problem, perhaps it should also be mentioned
that already G. Arsebük tried to connect the mica-wash Dark-Faced Burnished ware found at Tepecik
and Tülintepe in the Altınova region with the origin of the Karaz (= Kura-Araxes) pottery. He took into
account the fact that the mica-wash ware was an integral part of both the Dark-Faced Burnished and the
Karaz wares (Arsebük 1979). On the other hand, as recently Marro concluded, Dark-Faced Burnished
ware from Tülintepe, which is considered as burnished and grit-tempered, is in reality chaff-tempered and
chaff-faced and, in fact, some of the Dark-Faced Burnished ware potsherds from Tülintepe, being fairly
light-colored and little burnished, would be perfectly at home within a Transcaucasian Chaff-Faced Ware
context (Marro 2010: 50).
On the other hand, an extremely high date for the expansion of the Kura-Araxes culture from Trans-
caucasia to the south was obtained on the basis of recent excavations at Ovçular Tepesi (Nakhchivan,
Azerbaijan), where a typical Red-Black Burnished Ware assemblage was found dating back to the end of
the 5th millennium BC (Marro 2010: 52). This pottery was scattered over the floor of a house dated to the
Late Chalcolithic, in an otherwise Chaff-Faced Ware context. According to C. Marro, most of the evidence
points to a Transcaucasian origin for the Eastern Anatolian Early Bronze Age since, besides Red Black
Burnished Wares, other cultural traits, such as metal artifacts or portable hearths, do have a strong link
with Transcaucasia. In Marro’s view, the Kura-Araxes culture, which marks a sharp break in almost every
field in the material sequence with the previous Late Chalcolithic culture, most probably followed an east
to west trajectory, from the Caucasus to Eastern Anatolia, and further into the Northern Levant and also
to the southeast, toward Iran (Marro 2011: 291-293, 295). Most recent discoveries at the Areni-1 cave in
the Vayots Dzor region of Southern Armenia push the bar even higher, demonstrating that the origin of
the distinctive Kura-Araxes cultural artifact assemblage lies within the time-limit of the late 5th to early 4th
millennia (Wilkinson et al. 2012: 20). In the opinion of the members of the excavating team, Areni-1 can
be placed in the putative hiatus between the Sioni complex and the fully developed Kura-Araxes culture
(Wilkinson et al. 2012: 30; cf. Kohl 2007: 69 f.). The Late Chalcolithic Horizon III of Areni-1 (4300-4000
cal. BC) represents two types of pottery with all the characteristics of the Kura-Araxes culture ware, but
different in technological features: one – which is of a high quality and thin-walled, and the other one –
which is thick-walled and with a silvery gloss black surface. Both these Kura-Araxes-like ceramics are
made of local clay (Zardaryan 2014: 34). D. Zardaryan suggests that this situation is similar to the situation
which is observeable at the synchronous site of Ovçular Tepesi, where vessels with characteristics of the
Kura-Araxes culture ceramics are present in the horizon dated to 4300-4000 cal. BC (Zardaryan 2014: 35).
Due to the fact that the Chalcolithic layers of Nerkin Godedzor (Vorotan river canyon in Syunik, Armenia)
and Areni-1 along with the local and imported Chalcolithic painted pottery contain examples close to the
Kura-Araxes cultural tradition by morphology and typological attribution, and examples of classical Kura-
Araxes pottery, Zardaryan comes to conclusion that such manifestations may confirm the ideas pointing to
the local origins of the Kura-Araxes culture coming from the Chalcolithic, even up to placing its early pha-
ses within the limits of the Late Chalcolithic (Zardaryan 2014: 32). In her opinion the high-quality samples
of Kura-Araxes-like ceramics from the III Horizon of Areni-1 are a product of imitation of the imported
high-quality polished and burnished ware also found in the same horizon (Zardaryan 2014: 35).
Some authors have observed that in Eastern Anatolia and Transcaucasia the Kura-Araxes cultural phe-
nomenon exhibits both local aspects, and a widespread presence of uniformly distributed elements that were
broadly shared in geographically distant areas with different cultural backgrounds (Palumbi 2011: 217).
In the opinion of others, the Kura-Araxes culture emerged in different locations, showing various regional
features at approximately the same time, and was characterised by a fairly rapid intra- and intercultural
communication among different contiguous regions and leading relatively quickly to the emergence of a
recognisable koine, or broadly defined ‘cultural-historical community’ (Kohl, Trifonov 2014: 1580). Once
again it ought to be stressed that the northeasternmost part of Anatolia (same Erzurum region or Turkish
Transcaucasia), represents the westernmost part of the Kura-Araxes basin and, of course, always had inten-
sive relations with the middle reaches of both these rivers.
If at Ovçular Tepesi typical Red-Black Burnished Ware was found side by side with Chaff-Faced Ware,
at Tsopi (in the southernmost part of Central Georgia) a ware similar to the latter, considered as Urukian,
coexisted with local pottery genetically related to the previous Sioni culture (Nebieridze, Tskvitinidze 2011).
94
The so-called ‘Sioni culture’, or Central Transcaucasian Middle Chalcolithic, mainly belongs to a time later
than the Shulaveri-Shomutepe culture, and is more or less contemporary with Southern Transcaucasian
sites, such as Kültepe I, Tekhut etc., though its material is quite unknown in Kültepe. In Tetritsqaro (in the
southern part of Central Georgia), the lower (A) horizon was characterised only by so-called ‘Urukian’ (cf.
Pitskhelauri 2012: 156; 2012b: 450) chaff-tempered orange and greyish-pink pottery with scratched orna-
mentation, while in the upper (B) horizon the typical dark burnished Kura-Araxes ware appears, decorated
with relief spirals (Gobejishvili 1978: 55-82, 111 f.). In the lowest level (Level V) of Berikldeebi in Central
Georgia a minor amount of ‘proto-Kura-Araxes’ pottery was detected together with Chaff-Faced Ware and
the mineral-tempered ware of so-called Sioni-derived tradition, although Red-Black Burnished Ware, a
hallmark of the Kura-Araxes culture, is not yet represented in this phase, and is still rare even in the follow
ing level of Berikldeebi (Palumbi 2008: 34; Rova 2014: 48)6.
Apart from that, evidence from some multilayered sites of the Ararat valley (Dzhraovit, Mokhra-
Blur, Arevik, Elar etc.), which provide the basis for the chronological sequence of the Kura-Araxes
culture in Armenia, indicates a presence, among excavated data, of the ceramic assemblage of the early
stage of this culture, which is typologically close to the pottery of the Didube-Kiketi group of Central
Georgia (cf. Kushnareva 1997: 53).
Moreover, it is possible to assume that in Northwestern Iran there were two main streams of Kura-
Araxes culture: an earlier type connected with the emergence of Geoy Tepe K culture, and a relatively late
one, which obviously relates to the genesis of the Early Bronze Age culture of Yanik Tepe, and reveals
the characteristics of the developed stage of the Kura-Araxes culture (cf. Kavtaradze 1983: 78). However,
pottery resembling that from Uruk (i.e. Leylatepe types) coexisted with pottery of the Kura-Araxes culture,
but of the early stage of the latter, at a number of sites of the Caspian sea littoral of Northeastern Azerbai-
jan and in the Derbent area of Daghestan (Munchaev et al. 2010: 320; Japaridze 2012: 186)7. Therefore, it
would be premature to develop far-reaching chronological conclusions on the basis of the above-mentioned
stratigraphic data from some individual, isolated settlements.
In spite of all these difficulties, in general, an urgent need to backdate the chronological framework of
the Transcaucasian cultures of the Neolithic and Early Metal Age has been quite clear for at least the last
thirty years (see Edens 1995: 56; Kohl 2002: 160 f.; 2006: 17), and leaves no doubt presently.8 As already
stressed above, even independently from the results of geochronological studies, relative chronological data
have for a long time indicated the need to revise the traditional chronological position of the Transcaucasian
Kura-Araxes culture. By this, I mean not only the dates obtained for those Near Eastern layers containing
materials belonging to the Kura-Araxes culture, which were pointing at the late Middle/Late Uruk period
as the time of the initial appearance of the Kura-Araxes culture, or of the penetration of its bearers into
the Near East, but also the proximity between the stages of development of the Georgian Kura-Araxes and
Early Kurgan metalworking (and even of some of their specific artifacts) and those belonging to the Late
Uruk-Early Dynastic periods in the Near East (cf. Kavtaradze 1983: 85-104, 109-115).
At the same time, I cannot agree with the point of view that it is premature to consider the reliability
of the calibrated 14C dates for the Kura-Araxes culture, before receiving a large series of radiocarbon dates
from the Georgian and adjacent sites belonging to it (Munchaev 1994: 17; Akhundov 2013: 52).9 First of
all, the ‘widely accepted’ absolute chronology of the Kura-Araxes culture in the 3rd millennium, as well
as that of the preceding, so-called Eneolithic culture in the 5th-4th millennia, and of the subsequent Trialeti
culture in the first part of the 2nd millennium BC are mainly based on ‘traditional’ uncalibrated radiocarbon
dates (Munchaev 1994: 16; cf. Kushnareva, Chubinishvili 1963: 16 f.). This fact brings up the necessity to
reconsider the ‘widely accepted’ chronological framework. Also the proposal to recalculate the 14C dates
by the new period of half-life, which would make dates 200 years older (Munchaev 1994: 16), makes
no sense from the chronological point of view because of the variation with time in the concentration of
radiocarbon on the earth (cf. Kavtaradze 1983: 18 f.). The statement that the calibration curves and tables
based on the dendrochronological scales of Californian pine have not received full acknowledgement, and
that it is therefore better to refrain from their use (Munchaev 1994: 17), must be considered as completely
obsolete after the publication of the calibration curves based on the joint American and European data
6
According to E. Rova, the ‘proto-Kura-Araxes’ phase can be probably dated to the ﬁrst-second quarter of the 4th
millennium BC (Rova 2014: 55).
7
It should also be borne in mind that Velikent, the site of Kura-Araxes culture on the Caspian Plain of Southern
Daghestan which does not belong to the initial area of this culture, had been inhabited since rather early times –
c. 3600–3500 BC (Kohl 2009: 246, 255).
8
Cf., e.g., Trifonov 2001: 71-82; Potts 2012: 676; Sagona 2014: 26 f.; and Palumbi 2008: 13 f. for discussions about
this subject.
9
See also M. Andreeva’s review on my book, published in 1983 (Andreeva 1987) and my reply (Kavtaradze 2000b).
95
(which witness the simultaneous fluctuation of the content of carbon-14 in the Northern Hemisphere).
During the last fourty/fourty-five years, the different calibration curves were officially recommended
for the correction of 14C dates. It is sufficient to say that already in 1981 at the symposium in Groningen
(Netherlands), the use of the available calibration curves for the preliminary correction of the 14C dates
was officially suggested (Burleigh 1982: 139).
The particularly wide diffusion of the Kura-Araxes culture in the Near East, mainly dated to the first half
and the mid-3rd millennium, appears to be contemporary with the following period of cultural development
of the Caucasus – the era of the local ‘early’ kurgan tradition (kurgans of the Martqopi and Bedeni groups).
Such an early date for the Early Bronze Age kurgans of Central Transcaucasia is substantiated by the typo-
logical parallels between metalwork finds of this phase (e.g. Kavtaradze 1999: 80-85).
However, recently excavated kurgans at Soyuq Bulaq in Western Azerbaijan and at Kavtiskhevi in
Central Georgia are dated to the pre-Kura-Araxes period and this is a real puzzle. These kurgans belong
to the so-called Transcaucasian Chalcolithic culture of Leylatepe (Agdam district of the republic of Azer-
baijan), which is considered to be connected with the Uruk tradition. It therefore seems that this type
of burial construction in Transcaucasia started nearly 1000-1500 years earlier than it was traditionally
thought.10 As stated by Sh. Amirov, the Early Kurgan culture in Transcaucasia occupied an ecological
niche of the Leylatepe culture, though, despite the chronological proximity, undoubted traces of their
co-existence have not yet been found. In this author’s opinion, the bearers of kurgan-type burial rite were
settled intensively in Transcaucasia at the later stage of existence of the Leylatepe culture, or after it had
ceased to exist (Amirov 2014: 14)11.
The chronological implications of the Leylatepe culture

If we intend to date the starting point of the Kura-Araxes culture and to establish the chronological place
of the earliest Chalcolithic kurgan burials in the Caucasus at the same time, one of the first tasks should
be the determination of the end of the preceding Chalcolithic Caucasian culture with Chaff-Faced Ware
assemblage, since the earliest kurgans are more or less contemporary with the latest part of this. The
decline of the Chaff-Faced Ware culture, which started in each region at a different time throughout the 4th
millennium BC, was connected, in the opinion of some experts, with the development of the Kura-Araxes
phenomenon (Marro 2010: 52).
Already in the mid-1970s Russian archaeologists (R. Munchaev, M. Andreeva) had noticed similari-
ties between Mesopotamian artifacts of the 4th millennium, and those, especially ceramics, of the early
Maikop period, and had suggested that the formation of the Maikop culture in the Northwestern Caucasus
was a consequence of the infiltration of Near Eastern/Mesopotamian groups of population relating to
the Amuq F – Gawra cultural complex into the Northern Caucasus (Munchaev 1975: 328-334, 375-377;
Andreeva 1977: 56).
Still others tend to connect to the migration of Mesopotamian populations not only the emergence of
the Maikop culture, but also the Transcaucasian Late Chalcolithic culture, which would have subsequently
spread from there into the Northern Caucasus. In their opinion, the tribes of the Leylatepe culture in the
mid-4th millennium BC penetrated the Northern Caucasus in large masses and rather intensively, and played
an important part in the rise of the Maikop culture of the Northern Caucasus, thus covering the entire terri-
tory of the Caucasus (e.g. Museyibli 2008: 22; cf. Munchaev, Amirov 2012). Some archaeologists believe
that Uruk migrants had learnt in the north how to build this type of burial mound and brought the acquired
tradition back to the Southern Caucasus (e.g. Akhundov 2010). Currently, some archaeologists share the
opinion that the early Maikop pottery finds quite close parallels in Transcaucasian, Anatolian, Syrian and
North Mesopotamian sites (Leylatepe, Berikldeebi, Hacinebi, Amuq F, Tepe Gawra XII-IX) (Kohl, Trifo-
nov 2014: 1578). On the other hand, in the opinion of Marro, the Maikop repertoire as a whole could barely
be compared with any of the Upper Mesopotamian assemblages: except for a series of large pithoi, most
of the Maikop pottery retrieved from archaeological excavations in the Northwestern Caucasus is neither
chaff-tempered nor chaff-faced (Marro 2010: 40). According to M. Ivanova, the attempts to correlate Mai-
kop with the Uruk culture generally proved inconclusive. Genuine Uruk pottery, comparable to finds from
Lower Mesopotamia, Syria and Eastern Anatolia (or even its imitations) – mass-produced bevelled rim
bowls, conical cups with string-cut bases, tall water bottles with bent spout, grey ware, red-slipped pottery,
10
Archaeologists came to the conclusion that the practice of kurgan burial was already well established in Transcauca-
sia during the Late Chalcolithic, since the pottery from these burials shows affiliation with Late Chalcolithic 2-3 pottery
from Northern Mesopotamia (Lyonnet et al. 2008; Museyibli 2008: 22).
11
A later date for the Maikop Culture (approximately during the time-span of the Middle and Late Uruk period in
Mesopotamia and Eastern Anatolia 3500 BC or the second half of the 4th millennium) was proposed by S. Hansen
(Hansen 2010: 301).
96
reserved-slip ware – are absent (Ivanova 2007: 17). However, there are certain similarities between the
Chaff-Faced Ware and the pottery of the later, Novosvobodnaya stage of the Maikop culture.
The very complex and controversial issue of the origin and spread of the tradition of burial mounds or
kurgans requires a full and comprehensive study of the archaeological data from the vast areas of the Eura-
sian steppes. The kurgans as burial markers are so inherent, and even dictated by local topography, that it is
rather difficult to imagine how they could have originated in any other type of environment. This issue needs
a much broader scope of research than what we have at our disposal today. Undoubtedly, future research
will take a substantial step beyond previous studies together with the accumulation of new archaeological
data not only in the Near East and the Caucasus, but in the common Circumpontic area as well.
To the pre-Kura-Araxes period belongs the still unsolved problem of the interrelations between Mesopo-
tamian and Transcaucasian Chalcolithic cultures. Basing themselves on G. Algaze’s theory about the under-
development of the northern societies and their dominance by southern city-states that obtained the desired
goods from the periphery through a kind of economic colonial system (Algaze 1993), various archaeological
publications have appeared which hypothesised an expansion of South Mesopotamian merchants looking for
the raw materials of the northern regions (timber, metal ores, and semi-precious stones). These merchants
would have established a whole range of trading outposts along the routes leading to the Zagros and Taurus
mountains and, beyond the latter, into the Caucasus. As it could be expected, the fact that the founders of the
Leylatepe culture were migrants from Mesopotamia is considered beyond doubts by some scholars, and the
problem lies only in managing to define more precisely the time of this migration (Almamedov 2008: 21 f.).
Thirty years ago it was believed that the Leylatepe culture emerged as a result of the migration into
Transcaucasia of new ethno-cultural elements – the tribes of the Ubaid culture from Mesopotamia, and this
view was generally accepted (e.g. Narimanov 1991: 32; Aliev, Narimanov 2001: 75). Unlike their predeces-
sors, the new generation of archaeologists does not consider anymore the founders of the Leylatepe culture
of Transcaucasia as the bearers of the Ubaid culture, but those of the Uruk tradition. In other words, waves
of Mesopotamian migrants which were earlier attributed to the representatives of the Ubaid culture are now
mainly identified as belonging to a later (i.e. the Uruk) period, when Mesopotamian culture showed a wide
expansion in northwestern and northeastern direction. Scholars already began to speak about a penetration
of large masses of people – the bearers of the Mesopotamian, Uruk tradition – who around the mid-4th mill-
ennium would have settled down in every region of the Caucasus, both in the mountains and in the plains,
thereby fundamentally changing the character of the area and directing the economic and social develop-
ment of the host society along a radically new and progressive path. As we already mentioned, in Transcau-
casia they would have allegedly developed the Late Chalcolithic Leylatepe culture (Munchaev 2005, 2007:
8; Munchaev, Amirov 2009: 41; Japaridze 2012: 184-186; Pitskhelauri 2012: 154-156; 2012a, 2012b). The
fact that the Trancaucasian Late Chalcolithic belongs to the Uruk world is considered doubtless so much so
that, e.g., K. Pitskhelauri, while offering a model of the development of the Kura-Araxes culture in its final,
‘explosive’ phase, suggests the simultaneous participation of Uruk migrants of the Southern Caucasus even
in this chronologically later process (Pitskhelauri 2012: 153, 157 f.; 2012b: 443, 451, 454 f.).
However, scholars representing similar viewpoints base their concepts on the results of recent archaeo-
logical research in Transcaucasia, where, especially in the Araxes and Kura basins, the existence of several
Late Chalcolithic sites of the Leylatepe culture, characterised by Chaff-Faced Ware of Amuq E-F type
(Tekhut, Berikldeebi, Leylatepe, Böyük Kesik, Soyuq Bulaq, Poylu etc.) has been discovered. This type
of pottery follows the same process of development (or impoverishment) of morphological repertoires and
decoration characteristic of pottery production of the final phases of the Ubaid period12 throughout the vast
area of Northern Mesopotamia, Syria, and Southeastern Anatolia.13 At a number of sites of Eastern Anatolia
(Tepecik, Samsat, Kurban Höyük, Hacinebi etc.), the presence of this ware is usually associated with the
Uruk culture, and occurs in a context of incipient urbanisation and administrative development; hence, it is
assumed that this type of pottery played a role in the rise of early complex societies (cf. Marro 2010: 36).
According to the prevailing opinion, after the formation of the Uruk cultural community (‘the Uruk civili-
sation’), i.e. within the context of the Uruk cultural phenomenon, which in addition to Upper Mesopotamia,
Northern Syria, Eastern Anatolia, and Western Iran, included Southern Transcaucasia as well14, intensive
12
According to Palumbi’s opinion, this process appears to be related to the transformation of the role, function, and
meaning of ceramics, reflected in the extreme simplification of decorative motifs and the increasing standardisation of
the formal repertoires, which tend toward a greater specialisation (Palumbi 2011: 212).
13
It stretches from the Mediterranean coast to the west to Transcaucasia to the north and into the northern Zagros
Mountain range to the east, and includes, in southern direction, the North Mesopotamian urban centers of the Jazirah
(the river plain of Upper Mesopotamia) and the eastern Tigris region (Helwing 2012: 204).
14
In the opinion of Rova, the origins of the Chaff-Faced Ware ceramic tradition most probably lie in the late 5th mill-
ennium developments of the ﬁnal Ubaid period, and it appears to represent an intrusive element which, in Georgia at
least, co-exists with the local Sioni mineral-tempered ceramic tradition, during its latest part (Rova: 2014: 48 f.).
97
cultural impulses coming from the more advanced South reached the latter. However, the date of the above-
mentioned Caucasian parallels of the Chaff-Faced Ware of Amuq E-F type is determined by experts around
the final quarter of the 5th and the first quarter of the 4th millennium BC (cf. Palumbi 2011: 211).15 Thus,
there is an obvious discrepancy of chronological character.
Still other scholars speak about the Ubaid-Uruk period, which of course means the time of the Ubaid/
Uruk transition, the cultural period during which S. Lloyd has seen the crucial indicator of a new era in
Northern Mesopotamia: the unprecedented increase of metal objects (Lloyd 1978: 75). If until recently it
was thought that Uruk levels at Arslantepe VII directly followed the Ubaid period, nowadays the existence
of a new, intermediate cultural period is without any doubt. The research carried out at Arslantepe over
the last two decades has shown that the Amuq F horizon probably developed at an earlier date than it was
thought before, at least from the beginning of the 4th millennium onwards, thus embracing part of the Late
Chalcolithic 2 period as well (Frangipane 2002: 123; Marro 2010: 36). Excavations at Oylum Höyük (South-
eastern Anatolia, to the west of the Euphrates) and Arslantepe VIII revealed this yet unknown horizon
(Özgen et al. 1999; Balossi-Restelli 2012).
The belief that the Ubaid period was the immediate predecessor of the Uruk horizon was recently p roved
wrong by the new 14C dates as well (Marro 2012: 31). In recent years, a growing body of archaeological data
of this type shows that between the Ubaid and the Uruk periods there was a time-span, the so-called ‘post-
Ubaid’, covering the Late Chalcolithic 1 and 2 (or ‘Terminal Ubaid’ and early ‘Northern Uruk’ periods, for
which see below), during which significant social shifts and cultural changes took place. In both periods,
Chaff-Faced Ware represents a major component of the ceramic assemblage (Marro 2010: 48). However,
there does exist a certain continuity between these two periods. The Arslantepe VIII-VII sequence provides
evidence for a continuous development of the Chaff-Faced Ware tradition out of an earlier, final Ubaid-
related tradition of mass-produced chaff-tempered bowls (Trufelli 1997; cf. Helwing 2012: 204). This wide
highland zone within the boundaries of the Chaff-Faced Ware horizon, in the opinion of some researchers,
should be called ‘Northern Uruk’ (Oates 2002; Helwing 2012: 204).
It is interesting that the earliest ceramic assemblages of Oylum Höyük and Arslantepe VIII (together
with other similar east Anatolian assemblages including Chaff-Faced Ware) find technological, morpholo-
gical and decorative parallels in the material from Ovçular Tepesi (Marro 2010: 52), pointing to the fact that
the emergence of this culture takes place simultaneously within a vast area of the northern Highlands. In
Marro’s opinion, an ancestor to the later Amuq F/Leylatepe repertoire could be the Chaff-Faced Ware from
Ovçular Tepesi of Nakhichevan and thus the overall Chaff-Faced Ware assemblage should be divided into
an early (Ovçular) and late (Amuq F/Leylatepe) components (Marro 2010: 46).
Such a division of the Chaff-Faced Ware assemblage into two types – an early and a late one – gives us
however a favorable possibility to suppose a spread of the Chaff-Faced Ware during the earliest stages of its
evolution (in the late part of the 5th millennium BC) from the regions located north of the Oriental Taurus
range in a southern direction, i.e. towards an area that at that time was still under the strong influence of the
Ubaid world (cf. Marro 2010: 51).
The problem of Mesopotamian-Caucasian interrelations

Nowadays more and more scholars believe that lowland Mesopotamians did not dominate the people
of distant peripheries. If Algaze’s theory, based on the supposed unbalanced relations between a centre
(Southern Mesopotamia with its city-states) and a less developed periphery (Upper Mesopotamia, Iran,
Anatolia and the regions beyond the latter), had led to the creation of the popular viewpoint about the
Late Uruk economic colonial system and its simultaneous expansion (see above), already B. Peasnall and
M. S. Rothman, after carefully studying the Tepe Gawra excavation reports and the finds in the University
of Pennsylvania Museum, found reasons to challenge Algaze’s theory, and proved that economic and po
litical complexity in the North was developing there before intensified interaction with the South (Peasnall,
Rothman 2003: 38). It is hard to disagree with the viewpoint that time has finally come for the formation
of a new and more balanced view on the problem of the relationship between the South and the North.16 In
fact, Algaze now admits that recent archaeological work in the Upper Khabur basin (at Tell Brak and Khir-
bat al-Fakhar), leaves no doubt that parallel and quite comparable trajectories toward urban-scale societies
15
Though the Late Chalcolithic Chaff-Faced Ware in both Transcaucasia and Upper Mesopotamia developed from
a local cultural genesis, most parallels between the Trancaucasian and Syro-Mesopotamian ceramic assemblages are
related to the Amuq F repertoire (cf. Marro 2010: 39, 42).
16
Even the most Mesopotamian among all artefacts, cylinder seals, may have appeared earlier in Northern Mesopota-
mia and only later in the South (Matthews, Fazel 2004: 61).
98
existed in both Southern and Northern Mesopotamia for much of the first half of the 4th millennium BC
(Algaze 2012: 69).
The recent discoveries made in Upper Mesopotamia at Brak and Hamoukar, together with those made
long ago at Tepe Gawra, showed that the region was far more developed than expected already at the begin-
ning of the 4th millennium. The local Middle Chalcolithic saw a pace of development comparable with that
of the South (Stein 1994: 35-46; Lyonnet 2010: 358 f.). The comparisons of local and ‘Southern Uruk’ con-
texts show that the interaction between them, which lasted for 300-400 years, seems to have mainly been
in the form of peaceful symmetric economic and political relations rather than of colonialist dominance
(Stein 2002: 903-916).
The ‘distance-parity’ interaction model characteristic of the Uruk colonies proposed by G. Stein (Stein
1998: 220-255) better explains the organisation and long-term effects of cultural contact between complex
societies and less developed neighbouring polities than the hegemonic control by the core area as postu-
lated in the alternative ‘world system’ theory by Algaze.17 According to Stein, the levelling effects of distance
give rise to a highly variable social landscape in which the smaller, less complex polities at the ‘periphery’
of the Uruk world could, and did play an active role in structuring networks of inter-regional interaction
(Stein 1998: 220, 246 f.). If with increasing distance it becomes difficult for Mesopotamians to dominate
local communities, e.g. in Southeastern Anatolia etc., and retaining economic autonomy in the Uruk en
claves there (Stein 1998), it would be even more difficult, of course, to maintain such dominance in the Late
Chalcolithic Caucasus.
The appropriate remark was made by Ph. Kohl, that the well-known Uruk expansion has its predecessor,
although this left far less footprints of its presence in the Caucasus, and therefore ‘no Habuba Kabira has
been uncovered in the Caucasus region, and its discovery would be most unlikely’ (Kohl 2007: 168). But
who was this predecessor? We ought to take into account here the facts concerning the discovery of Kura-
Araxes pottery of the advanced stage in the layers of the late Middle Uruk and Late Uruk colonies along
the Upper Euphrates (see above). It is now clear that the later stage of the Middle Uruk and the Late Uruk
period are contemporary with the Kura-Araxes culture of the advanced stage, and that it is therefore impos-
sible to date to the Late Uruk period the archaeological materials comparable with the Uruk culture which
were found found at the so-called Caucasian Chalcolithic sites of the pre-Kura-Araxes time. These facts are
clear indications of a discrepancy of chronological character. Therefore, it is quite impossible to imagine
that the ‘resettlement’ of Uruk colonists in the Caucasus, reliably assigned to pre-Kura-Araxes times, took
place in the Late (or even Middle) Uruk period. There can be only one conclusion: the aforementioned
parallels of the pre-Kura-Araxes period relate mainly to the Early Uruk or, better said, to the pre-Uruk/
Ubaid period. It is not very difficult to guess that the evidence of some Transcaucasian sites with imports or
imitations of Ubaid pottery are quite impossible to fit, from the chronological point of view, with the era of
the Uruk culture expansion outside its Mesopotamian homeland.
According to Kohl and V. A. Trifonov, there were two intrusions of South Mesopotamian immigrants
in northern direction: later, the so-called ‘Uruk expansion’ along the upper Euphrates, the end of which
roughly corresponds to the initial dispersal of Kura-Araxes people in the south and the south-west, and an
earlier intrusion, the so-called ‘North Mesopotamian Leyla-depe-related intrusion’ into the Southern Cau-
casus, the earliest appearance of which dates from the second quarter to the mid-4th millennium, or during
the transitional period between Late Ubaid and Early Uruk times, and is more or less simultaneous with the
emergence in the Northern Caucasus of the Majkop culture (Kohl, Trifonov 2014: 1577, 1579).
Although terms such as ‘post-Ubaid’ or ‘pre-Uruk’ make the perception of the cultural transition from
one period to another smoother and softer, in general, there is a gradual replacement of one important
cultural era – the Ubaid – with another one – the Uruk. There is, however, one more important point: the
term ‘pre-Uruk’ distinguishes this transition period from the period of the Late Uruk expansion towards the
Upper Euphrates area, which, as so often pointed out above, could not be used to explain, even for purely
chronological reasons, the Mesopotamian-Caucasian connections. This is actually quite obvious: the Late
Uruk expansion is in fact a much later phenomenon than the Caucasian connections of Mesopotamian
archaeological materials.
Therefore, it is quite logical that most recently more and more archaeologists are rejecting the idea of the
expansion of the Uruk colonists to Transcaucasia. In their opinion, it would be wrong to attribute the emergence
of the Chaff-Faced Ware horizon in the Caucasus to the ‘Uruk expansion’. They are considering this horizon
as a vast Keramik-Provinz, which was encompassing Upper Mesopotamia and the Highlands to the north and
In Algaze’s opinion, a synthesis of Uruk-related work in core and peripheral areas is still not easily accomplished
17
(Algaze 2008: 163).
99
north-east of it, and they are sure that there is no substantive evidence that the Caucasus in the second quarter of
the 4th millennium was involved in the network of the ‘Uruk expansion’ (e.g. Ivanova 2012: 22 f.).
Marro comes to the conclusion that the discovery of ceramic assemblages related to the ‘Mesopotamian’
Chaff-Faced Ware of Amuq F type in the so-called Leylatepe culture of Transcaucasia does not result, con-
trary to a recently widespread opinion, from the migration of Mesopotamian groups into Transcaucasia,
and should not be considered as foreign within its Caucasian environment. Rather, this ware is certainly
rooted in the local substratum and developed there from a local evolution dating back at least to 4500 BC;
thus the cultural influence and technological innovations actually came from the opposite direction, i.e.
from the north (Marro 2010: 35, 46; 2012: 30). This of course reduces the plausibility of the hypothesis of
a south-northwards migration. This scholar locates the centre of gravity of this type of pottery somewhere
in the northern Highlands between the Upper Euphrates and the Kura basins, but not in the Fertile Crescent
(Marro 2010: 52).18 According to Marro, there are increasing hints suggesting that, at that time, major
changes were taking place in the Highlands and that this newly formed entity was creating some kind of
new, polymorphous cultural oikoumene, developed as a mixture of Ubaid-related features (e.g. occasional
tripartite buildings) with cultural elements that are more at home in the northern Highlands. Such new cul-
tural elements were, e.g. the so-called Canaanean blades and the Chaff-Faced Ware, since the presence of
the latter was confirmed at Aknashen-Khatunarkh (in the plain of Ararat, Armenia) already by the end of
the 6th millennium BC (Horizon III) (Marro 2010: 35 f., 51 f.; 2012: 28 ff.).
In connection with the problem of Mesopotamian-Caucasian interrelations, B. Lyonnet’s observations
are also stimulating. Lyonnet places the Caucasus within the ‘pre-Uruk’ expansion phenomenon, the nature
of which, in her words, is still to be understood and which now needs to be placed earlier (beginning of
the Uruk period) and farther north (the Caucasus). She emphasises the importance of the Caucasus in the
formation of the Uruk culture of Mesopotamia. The ‘centre and periphery’ explanation is regarded by her
as a far too simple solution: these influences were actually reciprocal and more suggestive of relations of
‘equal’ type between both areas, with each of them borrowing something from the other one (Lyonnet 2007,
2010: 358 f., 363). In her opinion, it is difficult to consider Transcaucasia only as a periphery which provi-
ded raw materials, and such an opinion does not fit well with the level of development reached by this area
during the Neolithic, with the complexity of burials and their wealth during the Chalcolithic period, and
with what is known about metal production there. Even more, several innovations that appear at that time in
Mesopotamia seem to have been borrowed from the Caucasus area because of their long tradition there, for
instance the use of firing in a reducing atmosphere, polishing on ceramics, combed decoration, the so-called
‘Canaanean’ blades, or the introduction of sheep-breeding for wool production (Lyonnet 2007, 2010: 362 f.).
As we can see, more and more facts contradict the assumption of the existence of Urukian colonists
in Transcaucasia. If Uruk colonies, as a rule, are distinguishable from the indigenous settlements around
them by a complex of material culture – pottery and other artifacts, architecture and graves –, the situa-
tion we have in the Caucasus is quite different. It was already stressed above that an increasing amount of
sites belonging to the culture of Leylatepe are detected every year in Southern Transcaucasia and there-
fore to speak about some mere outposts of Uruk colonists became quite inappropriate. It should be noted
that Transcaucasian Chaff-Faced Ware of the Amuq F type, widely distributed at Northern Syrian and
Upper Mesopotamian sites, is not characteristic at all for the ‘genuine’ Uruk pottery assemblages. More
over, Chaff-Faced Ware is considered as typical of the ‘indigenous’ Late Chalcolithic facies in contrast to
‘foreign’ Uruk pottery assemblages (cf. Marro 2010: 36). The fact that very few remains clearly identifiable
with the Uruk culture are found north of the Upper Euphrates basin (Marro 2010: 52) actually makes the
assumption about an Uruk colonisation of the Caucasus completely unfounded. Although, after the emer-
gence of the cultural community of the Uruk type, cultural impulses coming from the more advanced South
reached the North with intensity, there was no more such uniformity as before. According to Sagona, the
reason that large-scale economic transactions generated in the Late Uruk period by the ‘Uruk civilisation’
did not penetrate into the Caucasus to the same extent as before was the existence of an extensive Kura-
Araxes ‘cultural province’ there (Sagona 2011: 693).
The dynamics of social and technological change in the highland zone were as much a stimulus towards
the evolution of early social complexity as were developments in the, far better known, lowland societies.
18
Marro offers two possible scenarios of explanation in relation to the problem under discussion: either the Chaff-
Faced Ware originated somewhere in the highlands and afterwards spread into Upper Mesopotamia; or the Chaff-Faced
Ware cultural province developed simultaneously over both the highlands and the lowlands, considered by her as a
single, large territory (Marro 2010: 47). She gives her preference to the second scenario, which is implemented in her
theory of the Standardized ware oikoumene, or of the cultural horizon characterised by the ‘Mesopotamian’ Chaff-
Faced Ware of Amuq F type, which developed from a local evolution during the second part of the 5th millennium BC
and spread on the vast area including Upper Mesopotamia, Eastern Anatolia, Transcaucasia and probably the northern
Urmiah area as well.
100
According to some experts, for instance, the relations between Iran and Mesopotamia in the 4th millennium
rather than being characterised by the core-periphery model, were also those between two sophisticated and
highly unstable political units, which had something to offer and to gain from mutual interactions.19
The interaction of the South- and Southeastern Transcaucasian areas with the Northern Ubaid world
is of special importance, and the impact of the Ubaid culture in the development of local Transcaucasian
Chalcolithic societies is hard to overestimate. A whole range of Southern Transcaucasian sites reveal signs
of the Ubaid culture. Sherds of the Dalma painted ware of the Solduz valley of Northwestern Iran, which
is contemporary with Ubaid 3, were found in the lower levels of Kültepe I together with Halafian imports
(Munchaev 1975: 128 f.; Voigt 1992: 158, 175).20 Thus, the lower levels of Kültepe I must be dated to the
period when the end of the Halaf culture slightly overlapped with the earliest Northern Ubaid, that means to
the second half of the 6th and the early 5th millennium. Recently Munchaev and Amirov proposed the idea
that the Halaf culture of Mesopotamia was shaped by cultural influences coming from Transcaucasia (Mun-
chaev, Amirov 2009: 45). On the other hand, according to the more plausible viewpoint of O. Japaridze, the
fact that at the time of the Shulaveri-Shomutepe early farming culture mudbrick architecture dominated in
Transcaucasia, which is very rich in stone and wood, should testify in favour of this tradition coming from
the Near East (Japaridze 2012: 179). It has to be considered, however, that in Transcaucasia (except for Kül-
tepe I, Artashen and Verin Khatunarkh in the Ararat plain) only isolated findings of Halaf ceramics are atte-
sted, which are more likely to be the result of occasional and mediated interactions with the Halaf world.21
Drastic changes in the ceramic assemblage and architecture of the Central Transcaucasian sites, e.g., at
Menteshtepe (Tovuz region, Northwestern Azerbaijan) are observable during the transitional phase from the
Middle to the Late Chalcolithic period, sometime in the second half of the 5th millennium. Even though local
features are still visible, these changes clearly point to influences, especially in pottery production, from
Upper Mesopotamia during the Terminal Ubaid and the transitional phase to the Late Chalcolithic (Lyonnet
et al. 2012: 177 f.; Lyonnet, Guliyev 2012). Some designs of the painted pottery of Areni-1 cave reveal
similarities with this material of Mesopotamian type from Menteshtepe (Zardaryan, Gasparian 2012: 48).
At Nerkin Godedzor (Vorotan river canyon in Syunik, Armenia) a large quantity of painted pottery of the
Ubaid culture has been recovered together with Chaff-Faced Ware. Godedzor probably represents one of
the northernmost settlements discovered so far, which indicate a clear Northern Ubaid-related ceramic
horizon. This site helps more precisely defining the northern borders of the Ubaid-related communities of
Iranian Azerbaijan. The origins of the communities that settled at Godedzor should be sought in the region
of Lake Urmia22; they seem to belong to one of the Ubaid-related communities that developed during the
5th millennium at the periphery of the Syro-Mesopotamian world (e.g. Chataigner et al. 2010: 379, 391).
Pottery of the Northern Ubaid type was found at Tekhut (on the Ararat plain) as well (Munchaev 1975: 120).
From the viewpoint of stratigraphy, Alikemektepesi in the steppe of Mughan (Azerbaijan) is an espe-
cially interesting settlement, since pottery of the Northern Ubaid type was discovered in its upper levels,
and material comparable to Kültepe I in Nakhchevan (in the Araxes valley) in its lower levels. This fact has
a certain value for defining a common Transcaucasian chronology, because in the upper levels of Alike-
mektepesi, aside from pottery of Northern Ubaid type, sherds with combed surface and burnished interior
similar to the Sioni complex of the southern part of Central Georgia, which belongs to the post-Shulaveri-
Shomu Tepe period, were found. The Sioni complex was developing at a totally different and autonomous
pace and its material is quite unknown in Kültepe I (see above). Pottery from the second horizon of the
Areni-1 cave displays the co-existence of sites of the Areni cultural tradition with the sites of Leylatepe –
Tekhut – Berikldeebi group, on the one hand, and with Tilkitepe I, which is synchronous with the final
phases of the Northern Ubaid and with the Sioni complex of Georgia, on the other one (Palumbi 2011:
212). Therefore, the Sioni group could be considered as synchronous with the Northern Ubaid period (cf.
Kavtaradze 1983: 58). Since painted designs on the pottery of sites of the Mughan steppe of Azerbaijan
19
It seems that the communities of the Iranian plateau were in control of a large-scale copper production industry long
before 3500 BC, and that the probable products of that industry were integrated within the social structure of the so
phisticated neighbouring lowland communities, such as Susa in the Late Ubaid period (Matthews, Fazel 2004: 61-63, 73).
20
Just as the typical painted pottery of the lower levels of Dalma Tepe provides a chronological link to the Mil-
Karabagh sites and Kültepe I, the characteristic Impressed Wares of Late Dalma, found at Ilanlytepe and at the sites of
Misharchai and Guru Dere I in the steppe of Mughan, Azerbaijan, do the same for a later stage (Munchaev 1975: 128-
130; cf. Schachner 2001: 274-277). The layers of Dalma Tepe and contemporary Transcaucasian sites containing Early
and Late Dalma ware can be dated to the first half and mid-5th millennium.
21
Tilkitepe Level III (in Eastern Anatolia, near the Van Lake) is actually, perhaps, the northernmost site providing
evidence of the proper Halaf culture, which certainly differs from the above-mentioned occasional findings (Palumbi
2011: 209).
22
Based on data from Godedzor, located at an altitude of 1800 m, some experts suggest the existence of small single-
period sites in the highlands interacting with sedentary settlements in the low plains (Marro 2010: 51 f.).
101
(Alikemektepe etc.) are more roughly made, technologically inferior and look like an imitation of the Nort-
hern Ubaid painted pottery tradition, some experts suppose that there is no need to explain the appearance
of this pottery in Southeastern Transcaucasia by the migration of a population bearing an Ubaid cultural
tradition (Almamedov 2008: 19 f.). At Abdalaziztepe (in the Agdam district of the republic of Azerbaijan),
the layers with material of Ilanlitepe-Alikemektepe type overlapped with those with material characteristic
for the sites of the Leylatepe group (Aliev, Narimanov 2001).
It can be noticed that while the Uruk expansion was a case of real colonisation, the spread of the Ubaid
culture outside of its core area into the neighboring regions reflects the gradual, peaceful spread of an ideo-
logical system that was selectively appropriated by the communities located there and transformed into a
variety of different local cultural schemes, thus forming in these outlying areas what are, in fact, new, hybrid
social identities. Even though the external forms of Ubaid cultural features (architecture, ceramic material)
were more or less identical in both the heartland and the highlands, the ways they were used in the local
practice reveal profound cultural differences within this oikoumene. The distinctive elements of this culture
were transformed and used in ways that were fundamentally different from those found on the more or less
similar sites of the Ubaid culture in Southern Mesopotamia. These local, or regional identities persisted
in parallel with the 5th millennium Ubaid identity, but seem to have been expressed in different social and
cultural contexts (Stein, Ozbal 2007: 342; Stein 2010).
Apparently, the simplification of the Ubaid cultural heritage and its local transformation in the relatively
backward northern Highlands gave rise to cultural innovations, which revealed a tendency towards change
in the direction of increasing standardisation and concern for efficiency. This became the decisive factor
in the emergence of the cultural identity of the ‘Northern Uruk’ type, referred to by some scholars as the
Chaff-Faced Ware cultural entity or oikoumene, which was one of the main components of creating the
Uruk civilisation.
Although the Uruk culture (or Uruk civilisation) was distributed over a wide area from the Levant to
Central Iran by local traders and colonists, and caused the emergence of new colonies within the local
economies, the problem of its origin is still controversial. We should also take into account that initially
H. Frankfort connected it to migratory movements from the westernmost part of Anatolia, since he had
noticed certain peculiarities in the culture of Uruk for which he could not find prototypes in the preceding
Ubaid culture. These supposedly Anatolian characteristics were the use of clays of purposedly different
compositions to obtain a red colour, muffled firing to obtain a grey colour, the use of a slip, the vertical
piercing of the lugs, and the occurrence of stone vases (Frankfort 1932; cf. Hutchinson 1935). Later on,
this became a popular concept, expressed e.g. by A. J. Tobler, the Braidwoods etc., according to which the
Tepe Gawra XIA cultural complex belonged to newcomers in Upper Mesopotamia (Tobler 1950: 24-26;
Braidwood, Braidwood 1960: 513).
From a historiographical point of view, perhaps, it should also be mentioned that in my books published
already at the beginning of the 1980s, I tried to determine the date of Tekhut on the basis of the date of
the Amuq F/Tepe Gawra XIA cultural complex, paying some attention to the problem of the origins of the
latter. This cultural complex had shown some hereditary ties, though perhaps not direct, with typical Tekhut
traits. Though, at that time, nearly all important cultural innovations in the Caucasus were attributed to the
impulses coming from the Near East, in spite of that, I therefore considered this cultural complex as intru-
sive at Tepe Gawra and in the Amuq valley from the north (Kavtaradze 1981: 46 f., pl. III, IV; 1983: 56 f.).
It was observed long ago that a study of ceramic changes in the Ubaid and Uruk periods of Mesopo-
tamia illustrated how the alleged ‘degeneration’ of pottery styles could be correlated with the develop-
ment of complex societies in the region. An obvious and sudden change in pottery is visible between the
Ubaid and Uruk layers: fabric becomes ‘decidedly inferior’, shapes – crude, profiles – irregular; almost
all distinctive Late Ubaid forms disappear; painting ceases and no other ornamentation takes its place
until painted pottery regains popularity in the latest Uruk/early Jemdet Nasr levels. In spite of the fact that
in stratum XIA at Tepe Gawra the tournette is less often used than in stratum XII, the emergence of the
‘Uruk civilisation’ is seen as the result of a gradual transition from painted pottery domestically produced
on the slow wheel to unpainted pottery, mass-produced by craftsmen on a fast wheel (cf. Falconer 1981:
54, 59 f.). Suffice it to say that now even the wide distribution of the Ubaid-like pottery is connected, in
the experts’ opinion, with the introduction of the tournette or ‘slow-wheel’ used in pottery manufacture
(Nissen 1988: 46). But is the development of complex societies only responsible for such changes and are
these changes always the result of natural, local developments, without an intervention, or stimulus, from
the outside world?
As we saw above, the data concerning archaeological material from Transcaucasia and the northern
Highlands in general contradict the viewpoint of a purely technological explanation for the derivation of
Uruk pottery and its subsequent distribution from Mesopotamia to the Caucasus. At the time, I believed that
the admixture of a new population could be the main reason for the change in culture revealed by material
102
of Tepe Gawra XIA type (Kavtaradze 1983: 56).23 Some similarities can be observed between pottery
and figurines of Tepe Gawra XIA and Tekhut. At the same time, it should be noted that a sharp contrast
is noticeable between the pottery of levels XII and XIA at Tepe Gawra (Perkins 1949: 165-167; Porada
1965: 146). In these levels the transformation, or change, from the Ubaid more ‘sophisticated’ ceramic
assemblage to the externally ‘primitive’ Uruk pottery is relatively well visible. With regard to architecture,
if rectangular houses were typical of Tepe Gawra XII, round houses, which were characteristic of the early
farming communities of Transcaucasia, appeared in the next level, Tepe Gawra XIA (cf. Tobler 1950:
pl. VI, VIII). It is also interesting that the population of Tepe Gawra XII and XIA used different types of
copper ores: copper of the later level differs from that of the earlier one in its high content of arsenic (Tobler
1950: 212; Kavtaradze 1983: 56, n.144).
The choice of Tepe Gawra for these observations has a certain value, since the site is located in Upper
Mesopotamia, on the outskirts of the civilised South and immediately south of the eastern part of the moun-
tain range of the Taurus, where Chaff-Faced Ware of the relatively underdeveloped northern Highlands
extended. Hence, the signs of a mixture of these two worlds are most easily detectable there.
If on the basis of what was discussed above we assume that the cultural component of Upper Mesopota-
mia and of the northern Highlands in general had a role in shaping the Mesopotamian Uruk culture, then an
influx of Caucasian origin should not be excluded. At that time, the population of Transcaucasia certainly
stood at a lower level of cultural and social development compared to the population of Upper Mesopota-
mia, but they already had enough human and economic potential to participate in the processes that took
place in the northern Highlands.
What was the cause of the spread of the northern type of culture in the more advanced South? I think
that, as always in history, backward but more warlike people were trying to overcome more advanced com-
munities. It is the fate of every civilisation, after being in existence for centuries, to eventually get into the
hands of ‘barbarians’. Yet, in this case, there is another side of the coin: the newcomers gave to the natives
new energy and impetus for further development; new generations, the mix of newcomers and natives,
coming out of the ruins of the destroyed civilisation and charged with a renewed entrepreneurial spirit,
created a new civilisation on the ruins of the old one.24
Conclusions
It seems that the earliest archaeological materials from Tekhut and other Late Chalcolithic sites of the Ley-
latepe culture of the pre-Kura-Araxes period of Southern Transcaucasia are an integral part of the ‘Northern
Uruk’ cultural complex of Upper Mesopotamia. This fact makes it impossible to date this Transcaucasian
materials to the Late (or even Middle) Uruk period. Suffice it to say, that the later stage of Middle Uruk and
the Late Uruk period are contemporary with the Kura-Araxes culture of the advanced stage. Hence, archaeo-
logical material comparable with the Uruk culture found at the pre-Kura-Araxes Transcaucasian sites of
the Leylatepe culture has nothing to do with the well-known phenomenon of the ‘Late Uruk colonisation’
to the north in the middle and second half of the 4th millennium BC. On the grounds of the aforementioned
parallels of this culture, its dating within the late 5th and the early 4th millennia should be entirely fitting.
The higher date of the Leylatepe culture already raises the possibility of a high dating for the begin-
ning of the subsequent Kura-Araxes culture. An overview of the relevant chronological data, the above-
mentioned facts of the Transcaucasian (including its Turkish part) origin of the Kura-Araxes culture, and
its spreading from the core area of its initial formation to the Near East, where archaeological strata were
more accurately dated than in Transcaucasia, are giving us a favorable opportunity to determine the starting
date of this culture in Transcaucasia sometime in the early 4th millennium BC; to sum up, most likely the
initial time of this culture was more or less contemporary with the latest part of the Early Uruk period or to
a period immediately after it.
23
If nowadays the existence of a new cultural period between the Ubaid and the Uruk eras is without any doubt (see
above), the dating of the Gawra XI-IX periods still remain problematic (Balossi-Restelli 2008: 21).
24
The main cause of the conflict was not so much the rivalry between nomads and sedentary farmers, as that between
the ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’. Conflicts were thus economically motivated: one group trying to improve its living condi-
tions at the expense of the other one (cf. Kavtaradze 2000a: 179, 225).
103
Bibliography
AKHUNDOV, T. I.
2010 Dinamika rasseleniya na Yuzhnom Kavkaze v epokhu neolit-rannyaya bronza (central’nyj i
vostochnyij regionyij) (Dynamics of resettlement in the South Caucasus in the Neolithic and
Early Bronze Age (Central and Eastern Regions)), in G. Gambashidze (ed.), International Scien-
tific Conference ‘Archaeology, Ethnology, Folklore Studies of the Caucasus’ (Collection of Brief
Contents of the Reports, Tbilisi, 25-27 June 2009), Tbilisi: 61-65 (in Russian).
AKHUNDOV, T. I.
2013 Pamyatniki Yuzhnogo Kavkaza v svete problem Majkopskoj traditsii i svyazej Kavkaza s Anatoliej
(Monuments of the South Caucasus in the light of Maikopian traditions and relations of the Cau-
casus with Anatolia), in Proceedings of the International Archaeological Symposium ‘Problems of
Maykop Culture in the Context of Caucasian-Anatolian Relations’, Tbilisi: 47-52 (in Russian).
ALGAZE, G.
1993 The Uruk World System, Chicago.
ALGAZE, G.
2008
Ancient Mesopotamia at the Dawn of Civilization: The Evolution of an Urban Landscape,
Chicago, London.
ALGAZE, G.
2012 The End of Prehistory and the Uruk Period, in H. Crawford (ed.), The Sumerian World, London,
New York: 68-94.
ALIEV, N., NARIMANOV, I.

2001
Kul’tura Severnogo Azerbajddzana v epokhu pozdnego eneolita (The Culture of Northern Azer-
baijan in the Eneolithic Age), Baku (in Russian).
ALMAMEDOV, KH. I.
2008
Krashenaya I raspisnaya keramika Azerbajdzhana epokhi eneolita: Avtoreferat dissertatsii na
soiskanie uchenoj stepeni kandidata istoricheskikh nauk (Dyed and Painted Pottery of Azerbaijan
of the Age of Eneolithic: Author’s dissertation abstract on a scientific degree of the Candidate of
Historical Sciences), Baku (in Russian).
AMIROV, SH. N.
2014 Mesopotamsko-Kavkazskie svyazi IV-III tyis.do n.e. v svete klimaticheskikh fluktuatsij (Meso-
potamian-Caucasian connections in the IV-III mill. BC in the light of climate fluctuations), in
N. A. Makarov (ed.), Kratkie soobshcheniya institute arkheologii (Brief communications of the
Institute of Archaeology) 233, Moscow: 3-17 (in Russian).
ANDREEVA, M. V.
1977 K voprosu o yuzhnyikh svyazyakh Majkopskoj kul’turyi (On the southern links of the Maikop
Culture), Sovetskaya arkheologiya (Soviet Archaeology) 1: 39-56 (in Russian).
ANDREEVA, M. V.
1987 Review of G. Kavtaradze, K khronologii epokhi eneolita i bronzyi Gruzii (To the Chronology of
the Aeneolithic-Bronze Age of Georgia), Sovetskaya arkheologiya (Soviet Archaeology) 4: 273-
283 (in Russian).
ARSEBÜK, G.
1979 Altınova’da (Elaziğ) Koyu Yüzlü Açkılı ve Karaz Türü Çanak Çömlek Arasındaki İlişkiler, VIII.
Türk Tarih Kongresi 1: 81-92, pl. 1-8 (in Turkish with English summary).
104
BADLER, V. R.
2002 A Chronology of Uruk Artifacts from Godin Tepe in Central Western Iran and Implications for
the Interrelationships between the Local and Foreign Cultures, in J. N. Postgate (ed.), Artefacts
of Complexity: Tracking the Uruk in the Near East (Iraq Archaeological Reports 5), Wiltshire
(England): 79-109.
BALOSSI-RESTELLI, F.
2008 Post-Ubaid Occupation on the Upper Euphrates: Late Chalcolithic 1-2 at Arslantepe (Malatya,
Turkey), in H. Kühne, R. M. Czichon, F. J. Kreppner (eds), Proceedings of the 4th International
Congress of the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East 2: Social and Cultura1 Transformation:
The Archaeology of Transitional Periods and Dark Ages (Freie Universitat Berlin, 29 March-3
April 2004, Excavation Reports), Wiesbaden: 21-31.
BALOSSI-RESTELLI, F.
2012 The Beginning of the Late Chalcolithic Occupation at Arslantepe, Malatya, in C. Marro (ed.),
After the Ubaid, Interpreting Change from the Caucasus to Mesopotamia at the Dawn of Urban
Civilization (4500-3500 BC): The Post-Ubaid Horizon in the Fertile Crescent and Beyond (Varia
Anatolica 27), Paris: 235-260.
BATIUK, S., ROTHMAN, M. S.

2007 Early Transcaucasian Cultures and their Neighbors: Unraveling Migration, Trade, and Assimila-
tion, Expedition 49 (1): 7-17.
ВRAIDWOOD, R. J., BRAIDWOOD, L. S.

1960
Excavations in the Plain of Antioch: The Earlier Assemblages A-J (Oriental Institute Publica-
tion 61), Chicago.
BURLEIGH, R.
1982 Symposium at Groningen, Netherlands, Antiquity 56: 138-139.
CHATAIGNER, CH., AVETISYAN, P., PALUMBI, G., UERPMANN, H.

2010 Godedzor, a Late-Ubaid-Related Settlement in the Southern Caucasus, in R. A. Carter, G. Philip
(eds), Beyond the Ubaid: Transformation and Integration in the Late Prehistoric Societies of the
Middle East (Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 63), Chicago: 377-394.
CONTI, A. M., PERSIANI, C.

1993 When Worlds Collide, Cultural Developments in Eastern Anatolia in the Early Bronze Age, in
M. Frangipane, H. Hauptmann, M. Liverani, P. Matthiae, M. Mellink (eds), Between the Rivers
and Over the Mountains: Archaeologica Anatolica et Mesopotamica Alba Palmieri Dedicata,
Rome: 361-413.
EDENS, C.
1995 Transcaucasia at the End of the Early Bronze Age, Bulletin of the American School of Oriental
Research 299/300: 53-64.
FALCONER, S. E.
1981 Rethinking Ceramic Degeneration: An Ancient Mesopotamian Case Study, Atlatl/Arizona
Anthropologist 2: 54-71.
FRANGIPANE, M.
2000 The Late Chalcolithic/EB I Sequence at Arslantepe: Chronological and Cultural Remarks from
a Frontier Site, in C. Marro, H. Hauptmann (eds), Chronologies des Pays du Caucase et de
l’Euphrate aux IVe-IIIe Millénaires: Actes du Colloque d’Istanbul, 16-19 décembre 1998 (Varia
Anatolica 11), Istanbul/Paris: 439-447.
105
FRANGIPANE, M.
2002 ‘Non-Uruk’ Developments and Uruk-Linked Features on the Northern Borders of Greater Meso-
potamia, in J. N. Postgate (ed.), Artefacts of Complexity: Tracking the Uruk in the Near East,
Warminster: 123-148.
FRANKFORT, H.
1932 Archeology and the Sumerian Problem (Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization, 4), Chicago.
GOBEJISHVILI, G.
1978
Tetritskaros nasoplari (The Settlement of Tetritskaro), Tbilisi (in Georgian with Russian summary).
HANSEN, S.
2010 Communication and Exchange between the Northern Caucasus and Central Europe in the Fourth
Millennium BC, in S. Hansen, A. Hauptmann, I. Motzenbäcker, E. Pernicka (Hrsgg.), Von Maj-
kop bis Trialeti. Gewinnung und Verbreitung von Metallen und Obsidian in Kaukasien im 4.-2.
Jt. v. Chr., Bonn: 297-316.
HELWING, B.
2000 Cultural Interaction at Hassek Höyük, Turkey. New Evidence from Pottery Analysis, Paléorient
25 (1): 91-99.
HELWING, B.
2012 Late Chalcolithic Craft Traditions at the North-Eastern ‘Periphery’ of Mesopotamia: Potters vs.
Smiths in the Southern Caucausus, Origini 34: 201-220.
HUTCHINSON, R. W.
1935 Uruk and Yortan, Iraq II (2): 211-222.
IVANOVA, M.
2007 The Chronology of the ‘Maikop Culture’ in the North Caucasus: Changing Perspectives,
Aramazd, Armenian Journal of Near Eastern Studies 2: 7-39.
IVANOVA, M.
2012 Kaukasus und Orient: Die Entstehung des „Maikop-Phänomens’ im 4. Jahrtausend v. Chr.,
Prähistorische Zeitschrift 87 (1): 1-28.
JAPARIDZE, O.
2012 Kavkasiis Tsina Aziis samqarostan urtiertobis sakitkhisatvis (On the Interrelation of the Cauca-
sus with the Near Eastern World), Dziebani 20: 178-196 (in Georgian with English summary).
KAVTARADZE, G. L.
1981
Sakartvelos eneolit-brinjaos xanis arkeologiuri kulturebis kronologia axali monacemebis shukze
(The Chronology of the Aeneolithic - Bronze Age Cultures of Georgia in the Light of New Data),
Tbilisi (in Georgian with Russian and English summaries).
KAVTARADZE, G. L.
1983
K khronologii epokhi eneolita i bronzyi Gruzii (To the Chronology of the Aeneolithic-Bronze Age
of Georgia), Tbilisi (in Russian).
106
KAVTARADZE, G. L.
1999 The Importance of Metallurgical Data for the Formation of Central Transcaucasian Chrono-
logy, in A. Hauptmann, E. Pernicka, Th. Rehren, U. Yalçin (eds), The Beginnings of Metallurgy:
Proceedings of the International Conference ‘The Beginnings of Metallurgy’, Bochum 1995 (Der
Anschnitt, Zeitschrift für Kunst und Kultur im Bergbau 9; Veröffentlichungen aus dem Deut-
schen Bergbau-Museum 84), Bochum: 67-101.
KAVTARADZE, G. L.
2000a Georgian Chronicles and the raison d’être of the Iberian Kingdom (Caucasica II), Orbis Ter-
rarum: Journal of Historical Geography of the Ancient World 6: 177-237.
KAVTARADZE, G. L.
2000b Po povodu retsenzii M. V. Andreevoj (About the Review by M. V. Andreeva), Amirani, Journal
of the International Caucasological Research Institute 3: 5-33 (in Russian).
KAVTARADZE, G. L.
2004 The Chronology of the Caucasus during the Early Metal Age: Observations from Central Trans-
Caucasus, in A. Sagona (ed.), A View from the Highlands: Archaeological Studies in Honour of
Charles Burney (Ancient Near Eastern Studies, Supplement 12), Leuven: 539-556.
KAVTARADZE, G. L.
2006 Palestinis, Anatoliis da Amierkavkasiis adreuli brinjaos khanis kulturata kronologiuri urtiertmi-
martebis sakitxisatvis (The Chronological Interrelations of Early Bronze Age Cultures of Pale-
stine, Anatolia and Transcaucasia), Works of the D. Baazov Museum of History and Ethnography
of Jews of Georgia (Dedicated to the Memory of Andria Apakidze) 4: 107-126 (in Georgian with
English summary).
KIGURADZE, T., SAGONA, A.

2003 On the Origins of the Kura-Araxes Cultural Complex, in A. T. Smith and K. S. Robinson (eds),
Archaeology in the Borderlands: Investigations in Caucasia and Beyond (Cotsen Institute of
Archaeology at UCLA: Monograph series 47), Los Angeles: 38-94.
KOHL, Ph. L.
2002 Archaeological Transformations: Crossing the Pastoral/Agricultural Bridge, Iranica Antiqua 37:
151-190.
KOHL, Ph. L.
2006 The Early Integration of the Eurasian Steppes with the Ancient Near East: Movements and
Transformations in the Caucasus and Central Asia, in D. L. Peterson, L. M. Popova, A. T. Smith
(eds), Beyond the Steppe and the Sown (Proceedings of the 2002 University of Chicago Confe-
rence on Eurasian Archaeology), Leiden and Boston: 3-39.
KOHL, Ph. L.
2007
The Making of Bronze Age Eurasia: An Archaeological Narrative of Cultivators, Herders,
Traders and Smiths (World Archaeology Series), Cambridge.
KOHL, Ph. L.
2009 Origins, Homelands and Migrations: Situating the Kura-Araxes Early Transcaucasian ‘Culture’
within the History of Bronze Age Eurasia, Tel Aviv 36: 241-265.
107
KOHL, Ph. L., TRIFONOV, V. A.

2014 The Prehistory of the Caucasus: Internal Developments and External Interactions, in C. Renfrew,
P. Bahn (eds), The Cambridge World Prehistory 3: West and Central Asia and Europe, New York:
1571-1595.
KUSHNAREVA, K. KH.
1997
The Southern Caucasus in Prehistory: Stages of Cultural and Socioeconomic Development from
the Eighth to the Second Millennium BC, Philadelphia.
KUSHNAREVA K. KH., CHUBINISHVILI, T. N.

1963 Istoricheskoe znachenie Yuzhnogo Kavkaza v III tyisyacheletii do n. e. (The historical impor-
tance of the South Caucasus in the 3rd Millennium BC), Sovetskaya arkheologiya (Soviet
Archaeology) 3: 10-24 (in Russian).
LLOYD, S.
1978 The Archaeology of Mesopotamia, London.
LYONNET, B.
2007 Introduction, in B. Lyonnet (éd.), Les Cultures du Caucase (VIe-IIIe millénaires avant notre ère):
Leurs relations avec le Proche-Orient, Paris: 11-20.
LYONNET, B.
2010 Late Chalcolithic Cultures in Western Azerbaijan: Recent Excavations and Surveys, in
P. Matthiae, F. Pinnock, L. Nigro, N. Marchetti (eds), Proceedings of the 6th International
Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East 2, Wiesbaden: 357-368.
LYONNET, B., AKHUNDOV, T., ALMAMEDOV, K., BOUQUET, L., COURCIER, A., JELLILOV, B.,
HUSEYNOV, F., LOUTE, S., MAKHARADZE, Z., REYNARD, S.
2008
Late Chalcolithic Kurgans in Transcaucasia: The Cemetery of Soyuq Bulaq (Azerbaijan),
Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 40: 27-44.
LYONNET, B., GULIEV, F.

2012 Recent Research on the Chalcolithic Period in Western Azerbaijan, in R. Matthews, J. Curtis
(eds), Proceedings of the 7th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near
East 3, Wiesbaden: 85-98.
LYONNET, B., GULIYEV, F., HELWING, B., ALIYEV, T., HANSEN, S., MIRTSKHULAVA, G.
2012 Ancient Kura 2010-2011: The First Two Seasons of Joint Field Work in the Southern Caucasus,
Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 44: 1-190.
MARRO, C.
2010 Where Did Late Chalcolithic Chaff-Faced Ware Originate? Cultural Dynamics in Anatolia and
Transcaucasia at the Dawn of Urban Civilization (c. 4500-3500 BC), Paléorient 36 (2): 35-55.
MARRO, C.
2011 Eastern Anatolia in the Early Bronze Age, in S. R. Steadman, G. McMahon (eds), The Oxford
Handbook of Ancient Anatolia, 10,000-323 B.C.E, Oxford, New York: 290-309.
MARRO, C.
2012 Is There a Post-Ubaid Culture? Reflections on the Transition from the Ubaid to the Uruk Periods
along the Fertile Crescent and Beyond, in C. Marro (ed.), After the Ubaid, Interpreting Change
from the Caucasus to Mesopotamia at the Dawn of Urban Civilization (4500-3500 BC): The
Post-Ubaid Horizon in the Fertile Crescent and Beyond (Varia Anatolica 27), Paris: 13-31.
108
MATTHEWS, R., FAZEL, H.

2004 Copper and Complexity: Iran and Mesopotamia in the Fourth Millennium B.C., Iran 42: 61-75.
MUNCHAEV, P. M.
1975
Kavkaz na zare bronzovogo veka: neolit, eneolit, rannyaya bronza (The Caucasus at the Dawn of
the Bronze Age: Neolithic, Chalcolithic, Early Bronze Age), Moscow (in Russian).
MUNCHAEV, P. M.
1994 Kuro-Araksskaya kultura (Kura-Araxes Culture), in K. Kh. Kushnareva, V. I. Markovin (eds),
Caucasian Early and Middle Bronze Age, Archaeology, Moscow: 8-57 (in Russian).
MUNCHAEV, P. M.
2005 Mesopotamiya, Kavkaz i cirkumpontijskaya metallurgicheskaya oblast’ (Mesopotamia, the Cau-
casus and Circumpontic Metallurgical Region), Rossijskaya arkheologiya (Russian Archaeology)
4: 13-24 (in Russian).
MUNCHAEV, P. M.
2007 Urukskaya kul’tura (Mesopotamiya) i Kavkaz (The Culture of Uruk (Mesopotamia) and the
Caucasus), Arkheologiya, etnologiya, fol’kloristika Kavkaza (Caucasian Archaeology, Ethnology
and Folklore Studies), Makhachkala: 8-9 (in Russian).
MUNCHAEV, R. M., AMIROV, S. N.

2009 Vzaimosvyazi Kavkaza i Mesopotamii v VI-IV tyis. do n.e. (The Relationship of the Caucasus
and Mesopotamia in the 6th-4th Millennia BC), in M. N. Ragimova (ed.), The Caucasus: Archeo-
logy and Ethnology: Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference (September 11-12,
2008, Azerbaijan, Shamkir), Baku: 41-52 (in Russian).
MUNCHAEV, R. M., AMIROV, S. N., MAGOMETOV, R. G.

2010 Vostochnyij Kavkaz I problemyi kavkazsko-mesopotamskikh svyazej v tys. do n.e. (The Eastern
Caucasus and Problems of the Caucasian-Mesopotamian Relations in the 4th-3rd Millennia B.C.), in
Issledovanya pervobyitnoj arkheologii Evrazii (Studies in the Prehistoric Archeology of E
urasia),
Moscow: 316-334 (in Russian).
MUNCHAEV, R. M., AMIROV, S. N.

2012 Eshche raz o mesopotamsko-kavkazskix svyazyakh v IV–III tyis. do n.e. (Once Again About the
Mesopotamian-Caucasian Connections in 4th-3rd Millennia BC), Sovetskaya arkheologiya (Soviet
Archaeology) 4: 37-46 (in Russian).
MUSEYIBLI, N.
2008
Soyugbulaq Report on Excavations of Soyugbulaq Kurgans at Kilometre Point 432 of Baku-Tbi-
lisi-Ceyhan and South Caucasus Pipelines Right Of Way, Baku.
NARIMANOV, I. G.
1991 Ob eneolite Azerbajdzhana (About the Eneolithic of Azerbaijan), in K. Pitskhelauri (ed.), The Cau-
casus in the System of the Palaeometallic Cultures of Eurasia, Tbilisi: 21-33, pl. II-VI (in Russian).
NEBIERIDZE, L., TSKVITINIDZE, N.

2011 Pervyie sledyi Urukskoj kul’turyi na Yuzhnom Kavkaze (First Evidence of Uruk Culture in the
South Caucasus), Arkheologiya, etnologiya, fol’kloristika Kavkaza (Caucasian Archeology, Eth-
nology and Folklore studies), Tbilisi: 178-180 (in Russian).
NISSEN, H. J.
1988 The Early History of the Ancient Near East 9000-2000 BC, Chicago.
109
OATES, J.
2002 Tell Brak: The Fourth Millennium Sequence and Its Implications, in J. N. Postgate (ed.), Arte
facts of Complexity: Tracking the Uruk in the Near East, Warminster: 111-148.
ÖZGEN, E., HELWING, B., ENGIN, A., NIEWENHUYSE, O., SPOOR, R.

1999 Oylum Höyük 1997-1998: Die Spätchalkolitische Siedlung auf der Westterrasse, Anatolia
Antiqua 7: 19-67.
PALUMBI, G.
2008
The Red and Black: Social and Cultural Interaction between the Upper Euphrates and the
Southern Caucasus Communities in the Fourth and Third Millennium BC (Studi di Preistoria
Orientale 2), Roma.
PALUMBI, G.
2011 The Chalcolithic of Eastern Anatolia, in S. R. Steadman, G. McMahon (eds), The Oxford Hand-
book of Ancient Anatolia, 10,000-323 B.C.E., Oxford, New Tork: 205-226.
PEASNALL, B., ROTHMAN, M. S.

2003 One of Iraq’s Earliest Towns: Excavating Tepe Gawra in the Museum Archives, Expedition
45 (3): 34-39.
PERKINS, A. L.
1949
The Comparative Archaeology of Early Mesopotamia (Studies in Ancient Oriental Civiliza-
tion 25), Chicago.
PITSKHELAURI, K.
2012 Uruk Migrants in the Caucasus, Bulletin of the Georgian National Academy of Sciences
6 (2): 153-161.
PITSKHELAURI, K.
2012a Towards the Ethnocultural Genesis of the Population of the 4th-1st Millennia in the Central Part
of the South Caucasus, The Kartvelologist: Journal of Georgian Studies 3, Tbilisi: 32-54 (in
English and Georgian).
PITSKHELAURI, K.
2012b
Kavkasiis da Tsina Aziis kulturebis urtiertobis problema dz. Ts. IV atastsleulshi (The Problem of
Interrelation of the Caucasian and Near Eastern Cultures in the 4th Millennium B.C.), Analebi 8:
443-462 (in Georgian).
PORADA, E.
1965 The Relative Chronology of Mesopotamia 1: Seals and Trade (6000-1600 B.C.), in
R. W. Ehrich (ed.), Chronologies in Old World Archaeology, Chicago: 133-200.
POTTS, D. T.
2012
A Companion to the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, Chichester (West Sussex) and Mal-
den (MA).
ROTHMAN, M. S.
2003 Ripples in the Stream: Transcaucasia-Anatolian Interaction in the Murat/Euphrates Basin at the
Beginning of the Third Millennium B.C., in A. Smith, K. Rubinson (eds), Archaeology in the
Borderlands: Investigations in Caucasia and Beyond, Los Angeles: 94-109.
110
ROTHMAN, M. S.
2011 Interaction of Uruk and Northern Late Chalcolithic Societies in Anatolia, in S. R. Steadman, G.
McMahon (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia, 10,000-323 B.C.E., Oxford, New
York: 813-835.
ROVA, E.
2014 The Kura-Araxes Culture in the Shida Kartli Region of Georgia: An Overview, Paleorient 40 (2):
47-69.
SAGONA, A.
2011 Anatolia and the Transcaucasus: Themes and Variations c. 6499-1500 B.C.E., in S. R. Steadman,
G. McMahon (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia, 10,000-323 B.C.E., Oxford, New
York: 683-703.
SAGONA, A.
2014 The Kura-Araxes Culture Complex: A History of Early Research, in A. Özfırat (ed.), Scripta,
Essays in Honour of Veli Sevin – A Life Immersed in Archaeology, Istanbul: 21-32.
SCHACHNER, A.
2001 Azerbaycan: Eine terra incognita der Vorderasiatische Archäologie, Mitteilungen der Deutschen
Orient-Gesellschaft zu Berlin 133: 251-332.
SCHWARTZ, M, ERDMAN, K., MORISON, M.

2009 Migration, Diffusion and Emulation: Petrographic Comparisons of Early Transcaucasian and
Anatolian Pottery from Malatya-Elazig, Turkey, Ancient Near Eastern Studies 46: 138-159.
STEIN, G. J.
1994 Economy, Ritual, and Power in Ubaid Mesopotamia, in G. Stein, M. Rothman (eds), Chiefdoms
and Early States in the Near East: The Organizational Dynamics of Complexity (Monographs in
World Prehistory 18), Madison (WI): 35-46.
STEIN, G. J.
1998 World Systems Theory and Alternative Modes of Interaction in the Archaeology of Culture
Contact, in J. Cusick (ed.), Studies in Culture Contact: Interaction, Culture Change, and
Archaeology, Carbondale: 220-255.
STEIN, G. J.
2002 From Passive Periphery to Active Agents: Emerging Perspectives in the Archaeology of Inter-
Regional Interaction, American Anthropologist 104 (3): 903-916.
STEIN, G. J.
2010 Local Identities and Interaction Spheres: Modeling Regional Variation in the ‘Ubaid Horizon,
in R. A. Carter, G. Philip (eds), Beyond the Ubaid: Transformation and Integration in the
Late Prehistoric Societies of the Middle East (Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 63),
Chicago: 23-44.
STEIN, G. J.
2014 Economic Dominance, Conquest, or Interaction among Equals? Theoretical Models for Under-
standing Culture Contact in Early Near Eastern Complex Societies, in M. H. A. Kharanaghi,
M. Khanipour, R. Naseri (eds), Proceedings of the International Congress of Young
Archaeologists, University of Tehran, 27-29 October 2014, Tehran: 55-67.
111
STEIN, G. J., OZBAL, R.

2007 A Tale of Two Oikumenai: Variation in the Expansionary Dynamics of ‘Ubaid and Uruk Meso-
potamia, in E. C. Stone (ed.), Settlement and Society: Ecology, Urbanism, Trade and Technology
in Mesopotamia and Beyond (Essays Dedicated to Robert McC. Adams Festschrift), Los Ange-
les, Chicago: 329-342.
TOBLER, A. J.
1950 Excavations at Tepe Gawra, Philadelphia.
TRIFONOV, V. A.
2001 Popravki k absolyutnoj khronologii kul’tur epokhi eneolita-srednej bronzyi Havkaza, stepnoj
i lesostepnoj zon Vostochnoj Evropyi (po dannyim radiouglerodnogo datirovaniya) (Improve-
ments to the absolute chronology of the Eneolithic-Middle Bronze cultures of the Caucasus and
of the steppe and forest steppe zones of Eastern Europe), in: Bronzovyij vek Vostochnoj Evropyi:
Kharakteristika kul’tur, khronologiya I periodizatsiya (Materialyi mezhdunarodnoj nauchnoj
konferentsii “K stoletiyu periodizatsii V. A. Gorodtsova bronzovogo veka yuzhnoj polovinyi
Vostochnoj Evropyi’, 23-28 aprelya 2001 g.) (The Bronze Age in Eastern Europe: cultural fea-
tures, chronology and periodisation), Samara: 71-82 (in Russian).
TRUFELLI, F.
1997 Ceramic Correlations and Cultural Relations in IVth Millennium Eastern Anatolia and Syro-
Mesopotamia, Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici 39 (1): 5-33.
VOIGT, M. M.
1992 The Chronology of Iran, c. 8000-2000 BC, in R. W. Ehrich (ed.), Chronologies in Old World
Archaeology (3rd ed.), Chicago, London: vol. 1: 122-178; vol. 2: 125-153.
WILKINSON, K. N., GASPARIAN, B., PINHASI, R., AVETISYAN, P., HOVSEPYAN,

R., ZARDARYAN, D., ARESHIAN, G. E., BAR-OZ, G., SMITH, A.
2012 Areni-1 Cave, Armenia: A Chalcolithic-Early Bronze Age Settlement and Ritual Site in the
Southern Caucasus, Journal of Field Archaeology 37 (1): 20-33.
YAKAR, J.
1985
The Later Prehistory of Anatolia: The Late Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age
(British Archaeological Reports, Inter. Series 268), Oxford.
ZARDARYAN, D.
2014 On the Origins of the Pottery Traditions of the Kura-Araxes Culture, Studies in Caucasian
Archaeology 2, Tbilisi: 31-35.
ZARDARYAN, D., GASPARIAN, B.

2012 Kul’turnyie vzaimosvyazi pozdneeneoliticheskikh obitatelej peshcheryi Areni-1 (na osnove kerami-
cheskikh materialov) (The Cultural Relationships of Areni-1 Cave Dwellers of the Late Eneolithic
Age (based on ceramic materials)), in M. S. Gadzhiev (ed.), The Latest Discoveries in the Archaeo-
logy of the Northern Caucasus (XXVII Krupnovskie Readings: Proceedings of the International
Scientific Conference, Makhachkala, 23-28 April 2012), Makhachkala: 46-49 (in Russian).
112

Giorgi L. Kavtaradze. An Attempt at Dating of The Starting Point of Kura-Araxes Culture On The Background of The "Uruk Cultural Phenomenon".

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Giorgi L. Kavtaradze. An Attempt at Dating of The Starting Point of Kura-Araxes Culture On The Background of The "Uruk Cultural Phenomenon".

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Giorgi L. Kavtaradze. An Attempt at Dating of The Starting Point of Kura-Araxes Culture On The Background of The "Uruk Cultural Phenomenon".

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Subartu XXXVIII

At the Northern Frontier of Near Eastern Archaeology

Marc Lebeau, M. Conceição Lopes, Lucio Milano,

With the support of the following institutions:

Subartu — a peer-reviewed series —

Manuscripts are to be submitted to:

Order forms to be mailed to:

AT THE NORTHERN FRONTIER OF NEAR EASTERN

(Publications of the Georgian-Italian Shida Kartli ­

(Proceedings of the international Humboldt-Kolleg Venice,

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a

Printed on acid-free paper

Elena Rova &

Barbara Helwing Networks of Craft Production and Material Distribution in

Judith Thomalsky Large Blade Technologies in the Southern Caucasus and in

Giulio Palumbi Push or Pull Factors? The Kura-Araxes ‘Expansion’ from

Monica Tonussi Salt in the Economic System of Early Transcaucasian Culture

Winfried Orthmann Burial Mounds of the Martqopi and Bedeni Cultures

Marina Puturidze On the Origins and Development of Gold Working in

Gian-Maria Di Nocera Die Mittelbronzezeit am oberen Euphrat: Siedlungscharakter

Armağan Erkanal-Öktü Panaztepe in der Spätbronzezeit: Eine Studie über die

Elena Devecchi The Eastern Frontier of the Hittite Empire 283

Martina Babetto Late Bronze/Early Iron Age Pottery from Natsargora,

Sabine Reinhold Late Bronze Age Architecture in Caucasia and Beyond:

Arianna Zischow South Caucasian Bronze Belts in Context 411

Mirjo Salvini Aufstieg und Fall des Reiches Urartu  427

Claudia Antonetti Greek Colonisation in the Black Sea: Reflections on

Attilio Mastrocinque The Caucasus in the Geographic and Cosmological

Evgenii N. Chernykh Caucasus as a Bridge and a Barrier between South and

Mikheil Abramishvili Southern Caucasia in the Near Eastern Bronze Age

Arsen Bobokhyan Society and Metal in Bronze Age Armenia 501

Antoine Courcier, Maise Metallurgical Developments in Azerbaijan from the

Zviad Sherazadishvili Technical and Typological Improvements and Innovations

The chronological implications of the Kura-Araxes culture

The chronological implications of the Leylatepe culture

The problem of Mesopotamian-Caucasian interrelations

(Algaze 2008: 163).

ALIEV, N., NARIMANOV, I.

BATIUK, S., ROTHMAN, M. S.

ВRAIDWOOD, R. J., BRAIDWOOD, L. S.

CHATAIGNER, CH., AVETISYAN, P., PALUMBI, G., UERPMANN, H.

CONTI, A. M., PERSIANI, C.

KIGURADZE, T., SAGONA, A.

KOHL, Ph. L., TRIFONOV, V. A.

KUSHNAREVA K. KH., CHUBINISHVILI, T. N.

LYONNET, B., GULIEV, F.

MATTHEWS, R., FAZEL, H.

MUNCHAEV, R. M., AMIROV, S. N.

MUNCHAEV, R. M., AMIROV, S. N., MAGOMETOV, R. G.

MUNCHAEV, R. M., AMIROV, S. N.

NEBIERIDZE, L., TSKVITINIDZE, N.

ÖZGEN, E., HELWING, B., ENGIN, A., NIEWENHUYSE, O., SPOOR, R.

PEASNALL, B., ROTHMAN, M. S.

SCHWARTZ, M, ERDMAN, K., MORISON, M.

STEIN, G. J., OZBAL, R.

WILKINSON, K. N., GASPARIAN, B., PINHASI, R., AVETISYAN, P., HOVSEPYAN,

ZARDARYAN, D., GASPARIAN, B.

You might also like

(Publications of the Georgian-Italian Shida Kartli

Barbara Helwing Networks of Craft Production and Material Distribution in

Judith Thomalsky Large Blade Technologies in the Southern Caucasus and in

Giulio Palumbi Push or Pull Factors? The Kura-Araxes ‘Expansion’ from

Monica Tonussi Salt in the Economic System of Early Transcaucasian Culture

Winfried Orthmann Burial Mounds of the Martqopi and Bedeni Cultures

Marina Puturidze On the Origins and Development of Gold Working in

Gian-Maria Di Nocera Die Mittelbronzezeit am oberen Euphrat: Siedlungscharakter

Armağan Erkanal-Öktü Panaztepe in der Spätbronzezeit: Eine Studie über die

Elena Devecchi The Eastern Frontier of the Hittite Empire 283

Sabine Reinhold Late Bronze Age Architecture in Caucasia and Beyond:

Arianna Zischow South Caucasian Bronze Belts in Context 411

Mirjo Salvini Aufstieg und Fall des Reiches Urartu 427

Claudia Antonetti Greek Colonisation in the Black Sea: Reflections on

Attilio Mastrocinque The Caucasus in the Geographic and Cosmological

Evgenii N. Chernykh Caucasus as a Bridge and a Barrier between South and

Mikheil Abramishvili Southern Caucasia in the Near Eastern Bronze Age

Arsen Bobokhyan Society and Metal in Bronze Age Armenia 501

Zviad Sherazadishvili Technical and Typological Improvements and Innovations