Читать книгу A Companion to the Achaemenid Persian Empire, 2 Volume Set - Группа авторов - Страница 161

Florian S. Knauss

While the written sources referring to the Caucasus in the Achaemenid period are widely quiet (Lordkipanidze 2000: pp. 4–7), the archeological evidence from the region south of the Great Caucasus is strikingly rich. The countries north of this mountain range, i.e. Dagestan, Chechnya, Ingushetia, north Ossetia, and the Kuban region, may be omitted here as we lack discernible Achaemenid remains from there, and the Persian domination of this area was certainly brief (Jacobs 2000, 2006).

According to Herodotus (3.97), in the fifth century BCE the Persian rule reached as far as the Caucasian mountains. While “Armina” is already mentioned as a Persian satrapy in the Bisotun inscription, the territories of the former soviet republics of Georgia and Azerbaijan, as well as the northern part of Armenia, became part of the empire at the latest when the Persian army marched through this region during Darius I's disastrous campaign against the Scythians in 513/12 BCE. The Caucasus formed the northern border until 330 BCE (Gagoshidze 1996: pp. 125–126; Jacobs 2006; Knauß 2009: pp. 299–300; contra Hewsen 1983: p. 128; Lordkipanidze 2000: pp. 9–11; Bill 2010: pp. 24–25).

Already in the nineteenth century spectacular finds attracted the interest of scholars, the best known being the Akhalgori and Kazbeg treasure (Smirnov 1909, 1934; Boardman 2000: p. 191 fig. 5.73; Lordkipanidze 2001; Summerer 2006), often including Achaemenid metal vases and jewelry. Gagoshidze was the first to emphasize the important role of the Achaemenids in Georgia (1979) and treated the time of the Achaemenid Empire as a distinct and important period in the development of Georgian art and architecture (1996). Tsetskhladze (1993/1994, 1994, 2001) has been very generous concerning the attribution of items to Achaemenid workshops. Armenian research mainly focused on Urartian monuments, whereas the Achaemenid era was fairly neglected. Even from major sites the evidence from the period of Persian domination has been published only briefly (Oganesjan 1961, 1980; Martirosjan 1974; Zardarian and Akopian 1994; Santrot 1996: pp. 178–179, 187–189, 196–203, 208, 212, 222–223; Ter‐Martirossov 2001; Kanetsyan 2001). Recent investigations (Badalyan et al. 2008; Heinsch et al. forthcoming) may help to improve the situation. For the western part of Trans‐Caucasia – belonging to Colchis and Armenia in antiquity, now Turkish territory – there is hardly any archeological evidence available. For Azerbaijan, diachronical overviews as well as detailed studies of single sites are still lacking. For the time of Achaemenid rule most of the country is terra incognita until the present day (Chalilov 1985; Schachner 2001: pp. 298–320). A few years ago (Knauss 2005a, 2006) I gave an account of relevant sites as well as important findings and results from the Caucasus. In the meantime, excavations have enlarged our knowledge significantly. Yet, the actual state of research still suffers from a considerable imbalance of archeological investigations. For a long time scholars emphasized the feebleness of Achaemenid traces in archeological records. The Achaemenid imprint was hardly visible in most of the provinces. All the more impressive are the archeological findings in the Caucasus (Figure 22.1), in particular in Georgia. Since the fifth century BCE precious luxury goods such as glass phialai, so‐called Kohl‐tubes, as well as stamp‐ and cylinder seals, can be found in rich Colchian and Iberian burials (Makharadze and Saginashvili 1999; Gagošije and Saginašvili 2000: figs. 1.1–6, 2.3, 3.1–2; Knauss 2006: p. 85 figs. 7–8; Dzhavakhishvili 2007; Kakhidze 2007). They had been produced in Achaemenid workshops in Iran, Asia Minor, or the Levant. Even metal fittings, remaining parts of wheels belonging to an Achaemenid type of chariot, have been found in a burial at Uplistsikhe in Iberia (Kipiani 2000; Knauss 2006: p. 92 fig. 15). From the late sixth century BCE indigenous potters adopted technological inventions as well as new shapes from Persia (Gagoshidze 1996: p. 125; Ludwig 2010: pp. 103, 109–112). In late Achaemenid times we find imports of “classical triangle ware” as well as locally made small jugs imitating the shape and decoration of Iranian prototypes. However, Persian gold and silver objects outnumber all other categories of eastern luxury. Possibly as diplomatic gifts, some of the characteristic Achaemenid bracelets and silver vessels reached the Caucasus (Treister 2007: pp. 83–92; Knauß 2009; Miller 2010). Several items may have found their way to ancient Georgia by trade. Especially in Colchis, rich burials often contained Greek imports, mostly pottery (Sens 2009), but sometimes we find Attic vases together with sumptuous Achaemenid tableware (Kakhidze 2004).

Figure 22.1 Achaemenid and Achaemenizing monuments in the Caucasus.

By and by, local Colchian and Iberian products, painted pottery, gold and silver bowls as well as jewelry show significant influence from Achaemenid models. It is obvious that the local aristocracy was keen on prestigious luxury items fashionable among the Persian elite at that time in order to set themselves apart from the ordinary people. However, the demand for Persian (as well as for Greek) luxury goods soon overtook supply. No wonder that the highly developed Colchian gold‐ and silversmiths produced copies as well as local variants of the Persian vessels and jewelry (Gagoshidze 1997; Boardman 2000, 196 figs. 5.80, 5.83; Knauß 2009).

Already the famous horse‐shaped pendants from the “Akhalgori treasure,” a rich burial of a woman, are of local production – for instance, the abundant use of granulation, the net pattern as well as the triangles on the back of the horses find no match in Achaemenid jewelry – but the Colchian goldsmiths had Achaemenid models in mind as the horse breed, the battlement pattern on the rim of the base plate, and the lobes on the breast of the horses betray (Smirnov 1934: pp. 23–29 Pl. 3.26; Gagoshidze 1997: pp. 135–136 Pl. 23.1; Knauß 2009: pp. 292–293 Pl. 1.4).

Gold diadems comprised of a twisted rod terminating in two rhomboid plaques and fastened by a central hook are a Colchian innovation. The iconography, however, repoussé decoration with animal combat scenes, is very much indebted to eastern, namely Persian, models (Kacharava and Kvirkvelia 2008: pp. 82–83 figs. 2–3). A silver rhyton with a goat‐shaped protome was found in a burial in Mtisdziri which can be dated to the fourth century BCE. Typologically it comes close to Achaemenid prototypes, however, some ornaments – cable pattern, ivy tendril – are of Greek origin. This combination as well as some local features – an indigenous mythological creature, triangle pattern – make sure that the rhyton from Mtisdziri has been worked by a local craftsman (Knauß 1999a). In the case of the golden bracelets, Achaemenid panthers or ibexes for the endings are sometimes replaced by wild boars (Knauß 2009: p. 294 Pl. 1.7).

Most of the metal vessels in Colchian tombs probably have been manufactured in Achaemenid workshops in western Anatolia (Miller 2007, 2010; Treister 2007: pp. 83–92. 97–101; Knauß 2009: pp. 294–299). There are goblets, rhyta, and numerous phialai with almond‐shaped embossing, lotus palmettes, stylized swan heads. However, some pieces were made by local craftsmen, who copied such imports. After a while, they created new shapes and motifs combining foreign and local elements (Kacharava and Kvirkvelia 2008: Pl. 44b, 45b–c; p 209 no. 26; Treister 2007: figs 8, 9; Knauß 2009: pp. 295–296, 298, 299 Pls. 2.3; 3.5).

The Armenian delegation on the reliefs of the Apadana stairway is carrying metal amphorae with two griffon‐handles. Hence, we may suppose that such typical Achaemenid vessels have been made in Armenian workshops. In fact, there are a few Achaemenid metal bowls, rhyta, and bracelets in Armenia (Santrot 1996: nos. 180–185, 194; Boardman 2000: pp. 187–188 figs. 5,68. 69); however, at least the pottery does not display a similar external influence as in Colchis or Iberia.

From several sites in western and central Azerbaijan we know ceramic bowls of local manufacture which resemble Achaemenid prototypes (Narimanov 1960: fig. 3; Ismizade 1965: p. 215–217 fig. 19.1–3; Furtwängler 1995: fig. 15.6; Knauss 2006: pp. 98–99 fig. 19; Babaev and Knauß 2010: figs. 29.1–4). Therefore, we may assume that Persian luxury was prevalent here, too. Unfortunately, no extensive cemeteries of the Achaemenid period have been excavated in Azerbaijan so far.

The pottery as well as precious objects give ample proof of close contacts of the Albanian, Colchian, and Iberian population with the Achaemenid Empire. Nevertheless, these items may have found their way to the Caucasus through trade or as diplomatic gifts. They do not necessarily signify Persian presence in this region.

The value of monumental architecture is entirely different, especially since recent excavations have shown that the Iron Age architecture in central and eastern Georgia, i.e. Iberia, before the arrival of the Persians was rather modest (Knauss 2005b). The situation at least in western Azerbaijan seems to have been similar.

On the outskirts of Kazakh, Azerbaijan, in the Kura valley, the western part of an extensive structure was uncovered in the 1950s at a site named Sari Tepe. The outer walls with casemates, towers, and protrusions on its exterior lend this building a fortificational character; however, limestone column bases show that it was not a fortress. Several features remind us of oriental models. Bell‐shaped bases of a type well known from Susa and Persepolis as well as the pottery confirm that the builder‐owner in Sari Tepe had close ties with Achaemenid Persia (Narimanov 1960: p. 163 fig. 2; Kipiani 1993: Pl. 2–4).

Excavations at Karacamirli, a village near Shamkir in the Kura valley, approximately 80 km east of Sari Tepe, revealed a huge architectural complex of the fifth century BCE. An impressive mudbrick building (Figure 22.2) adorned with limestone column bases – bell‐shaped (Figure 22.3) and torus bases – has been uncovered on a small mound called Gurban Tepe in the center of a walled area measuring 450 m × 425 m (Knauß 2011: pp. 399–407). A propylaeum on Ideal Tepe formed the gorgeous entrance to this area. Here, again, we find fine bell‐shaped limestone bases (Knauss et al. 2010: figs. 3–4). A comparison with the Hadish, the private palace of Xerxes I at Persepolis, leaves no doubt that the great building on Gurban Tepe served as the palace of a Persian magistrate. The monumental gate house on Ideal Tepe likewise followed prototypes from Persepolis; it copied the ground plan of the so‐called Central Building (Knauss et al. 2010: p. 117 figs. 2, 8; Knauß 2011: pp. 404, 406; Knauß and Babaev 2016). After they had passed through the propylaeum, visitors crossed a garden (paradeisos) before they entered the palace from the east. Chance finds of architectural sculpture indicate that there were even more monumental buildings in the vicinity. Some of them have been partially excavated: a storehouse on Rizvan Tepe some 750 m southeast of the palace, a large rectangular structure with columns in the southern front 300 m north of Gurban Tepe, served as residential building, whereas the ground plan and the purpose of a mudbrick building 900 m northeast of the palace remain unclear. Finally, a geomagnetic survey has revealed a large rectangular building near the northwestern corner of the enclosing wall (Babaev et al. 2009: pp. 316–317 fig. 4; Knauß 2011: p. 406 fig. 15). Despite the impressive analogies to buildings in Persepolis, the spacious architectural ensemble at Karacamirli rather reminds us of Cyrus' residence in Pasargadae. While in the vicinity, some older settlements of the local population apparently were abandoned in the late sixth or early fifth century BCE, contemporaneously with the palace pit houses were built on virgin soil just 950 m north of Gurban Tepe at a place called Dara Yatax. It is obvious that the Persian conquerors enforced a kind of synoikismos in order to have enough labor force available nearby.

Figure 22.2 Karacamirli: palace on Gurban Tepe.

Figure 22.3 Gurban Tepe: bell‐shaped column bases.

The older indigenous architecture lacks not only the monumental size and complex ground plan but also a number of constructional details of the buildings in Sari Tepe and Karacamirli: regular mudbricks (33 × 33 × 12 cm), recesses, stepped walls, and stone masonry. The quality of execution leaves no doubt that at least some of the stone masons were foreigners. Before the arrival of the Persians there were no large supraregional political institutions, no recognizable states in this region, which would have been able to erect such magnificent buildings. Ground plans as well as column bases and capitals show that the builder‐owners had close relationships to Achaemenid Persia; architects and craftsmen must have been trained in Achaemenid workshops at least.

In eastern Georgia we find similar structures as in western Azerbaijan. The remains of a monumental mudbrick building in the Alasani valley at a site called Gumbati bear resemblance to the palace on Gurban Tepe at Karacamirli situated just 70 km to the south (Furtwängler 1995; Furtwängler and Knauß 1996; Knauß 2000). The bell‐shaped column bases from Gumbati show marked similarities with bases from the site in Azerbaijan. Petrological examinations have proven that both of them come from the same quarry.

In Sabatlo, situated midway between Gumbati and Karacamirli in the Alasani valley, at an important junction chance finds of fine column bases hint at another important Achaemenid center.

Further west, in Zikhia Gora, central Georgia, a fragment of a column base of the same type came to light (Kipiani 1987: pp. 6–11 Pl. 2–5; Zkitišvili 1995: pp. 88–89 figs. 5–6; Gagošidze and Kipiani 2000). More interesting is a bull‐protome capital from this site. It is a provincial adaption of prototypes well known from Persepolis and Susa. The dating of this capital still is a matter of debate (Knauß 1999c: pp. 180–181).

In the late fifth or early fourth century BCE a tower was erected in Samadlo, central Georgia (Gagoshidze 1979, 1996: p. 130 fig. 3). The building recalls Achaemenid models such as the Zendan‐e Sulaiman in Pasargadae and the Kaabah‐e Zardusht in Naqsh‐e Rustam. The archeological context supports a religious function of the tower in Samadlo.

Unlike in Georgia or Azerbaijan there already existed a local tradition of monumental architecture at least in the southern part of Armenia. The Urartian fortress Erebuni is situated on the eastern outskirts of Erevan. According to the archeological evidence, the fortress had not been destroyed at the time of the fall of the Urartian Empire, whereas Karmir Blur (Teišebai URU) on the northwestern border of Erevan, residence of the Urartian governor of Transcaucasia, was razed to the ground and abandoned in the second half of the sixth century BCE. It may be that in the southern part of Armenia a number of former Urartian residences has been reused with minor modifications during Achaemenid rule. This has been claimed for Erebuni and Argishtikhinily (Ter‐Martirossov 2001; Kanetsyan 2001). However, recent investigations have raised serious doubts whether Erebuni was an important administrative center in Achaemenid times (Stronach et al. 2010: p. 126).

The situation was different in the northern part of Armenia beyond the boundaries of the former Urartian Empire. There must have been an important Achaemenid administrative center at Benjamin, about 10 km southwest of Kumairi (Zardarian and Akopian 1994: p. 187 fig. 6; Santrot 1996: pp. 187–189; Ter‐Martirossov 2001: pp. 158–161). The shape of the column bases, worked in local black tufa, is reminiscent of the finds at Sari Tepe, Karacamirli, and Gumbati.

Bell‐shaped column bases are exclusively known from the Achaemenid era and only within the Persian Empire. Outside the major centers in Iran and Babylonia the only findspot so far is the Caucasus (Knauß 1999b: p. 104 fig. 15), nowhere else within or beyond the borders of the vast empire.

The discovery of monumental architecture (Kipiani 1987, 1993), closely related to models from the center of the empire, proves at least temporary Persian presence on the northwestern border of the empire. The distribution of sites with Achaemenid architecture (Figure 22.1) suggests that there existed a kind of network of administrative centers. As the capital of the satrapy (Armina?) must have been somewhere else (at Van Kale?), the resident of the palace in Karacamirli certainly was a Persian magistrate below the satrapal level (Khatchadourian 2016: pp. 146–150). But how can we explain the enormous size and grandeur of the building on Gurban Tepe? Xenophon (Anabasis 4.4.2) reports that the satrap Orontes had a palace (βασίλειον) in a village in Armenia. Maybe the palace served as the satrap's residence when he stayed in Karacamirli during a journey through the land under his control.

The Persian residence in Karacamirli is a clear instance of imitatio regis which Xenophon mentions in his Kyrou paideia (8.6.10–14). The edifice on Gurban Tepe is the largest ancient building in the whole Caucasus. Moreover, genuine Achaemenid architecture on the periphery of the empire is most remarkable, since there was hardly any similar building outside of Persia until recently. To this day we are completely lacking excavated satrapal palaces all over the Achaemenid Empire. Karacamirli may help us imagine their appearance. However, in other parts of the empire where the Persians met with developed cultures (e.g. in Babylonia, Egypt, Anatolia, Syria), the conquerors refrained from implementing their architectural models; instead, local traditions dominated (Knauß 2011: pp. 406–407).

The sheer number of Achaemenid and Achaemenizing artifacts found in Georgia is striking and it reflects a paradigmatic process of acculturation of the Colchians and Iberians. The local elite tried to copy the luxurious lifestyle of the Persian noblemen. Probably, it was not necessary to introduce the habit of the symposion in this region. However, the Colchian aristocracy appreciated the Persian (and Greek) paraphernalia. Furthermore, the iconographic evidence shows a spread of the oriental practice of balancing wine bowls on the fingertips (cf. Xenophon, Kyroupaideia 1.3.8–9). Such an attestation of Persian drinking manner can be found on a recently discovered silver belt as well as on the famous fourth‐century gold finger‐ring with the inscription “Dedatos,” both from Vani (Kacharava and Kvirkvelia 2008: pp. 41–42 fig. 17 [reversed image]; Sens 2009: p. 199 Pl. 53.4; Knauß 2009: p. 299 Pl. 3.6).

Future research in Georgia might concentrate on possible trade routes. In the light of silver phialai from workshops in Lydia especially, the archeological exploration of southern Georgia, e.g. in the Mtkvari River valley (Licheli 2007), and in southwestern Adjara seems to be promising. Of course, investigations in northeastern Anatolia would help significantly to complement our knowledge of the Caucasus in antiquity.

The lack of a similarly impressive archeological record in northern Armenia and Azerbaijan may be explained by a lesser degree of archeological fieldwork. An interesting site is Oglankala in Nahicevan. It is one of the largest late Iron Age fortified sites in Azerbaijan. The preliminary analysis of the pottery suggests a date in the time of the “Median” or Achaemenid Empire. There has been a monumental edifice with a hypostyle hall (Schachner 2001: pp. 310–311, 313, 318 fig. 42–44; Ristvet et al. 2009, 2012), yet, its dating remains doubtful.

The Persian impact on the material culture of ancient Georgia is impressive. We may suppose that the situation in Azerbaijan was similar; however, the sparse archeological evidence makes any judgment unwise. A close investigation of the local settlement at Dara Yatax in the vicinity of the Achaemenid palace in Karacamirli might help for a better understanding of the relationship between the local population and their foreign rulers.

The Persian conquest of Armenia did not have such far‐reaching effects on the material culture as in Azerbaijan and Georgia. Yet, a thorough analysis of the transition from Urartian (via Median) to Achaemenid rule still has to be done. So far, it seems that the local tradition of Armenia was much stronger than in the neighboring countries. This is true not only for the architecture but also for the applied arts.

The aftermath of Achaemenid rule in the Caucasus is unique insofar as at several sites in Georgia there is strong evidence for continuity rather than a harsh break (Knauss 2006: pp. 107–114, 2008: pp. 52–62, 2014: pp. 141, 144). Obviously local vassals of the Great King stuck to Achaemenid traditions even after the fall of the empire because they owed their regional position of power and their legitimation to the foreign rulers.