the emergence of chariots and riding in the south caucasus

13
MARIA POGREBOVA THE EMERGENCE OF CHARIOTS AND RIDING IN THE SOUTH CAUCASUS Summary. The beginning of the Late Bronze Age, i.e. the late fifteenth–early fourteenth centuries BC, saw the emergence of chariots in Transcaucasia, where rich barrows of this period yielded bronze chariot models. The latter correspond to the type of chariots widespread in the western Near East in the late sixteenth–early thirteenth centuries BC. Hence it can be inferred that, regardless of the ultimate origin of Near Eastern chariots, Transcaucasian specimens belong to the Near Eastern tradition. However, in Transcaucasia, in contradistinction to the Near East, the chariot was merely a prestige marker. The growing role of the horse indicative of horseback riding is attested by some Transcaucasian funeral complexes of the late second millennium BC, which correspond to those of the steppes of south Russia. It seems likely that the builders of these barrows were related to the Iranian population of the Russian steppes. The genesis of horse exploitation among the ancient population of Eurasia and the Near East has long since attracted the attention of scholars. It is well known that the emergence of battle chariots and cavalry not only promoted the art of war but also brought about considerable changes in the social structure of early societies. A question as to whether a rapid dispersion of chariots and riding was due to migrations or to an independent development in various centres has been the subject of much controversy (Grantovsky 1970, 159; Kuzmina 1977, 54–5, 1993, 1994a, 1994b, 165–71 with ample bibliography; Anthony 1995; Moorey 1986; Littauer and Crouwel 1996, etc.). In this connection the spread of horse husbandry in Transcaucasia, i.e. in the regions south of the Greater Caucasus, between the Near East and the expanses of Eurasia, is of particular interest. The first traces of the use of chariots, i.e. light horse-drawn vehicles with two spoked wheels (Littauer and Crouwel 1979, 71; Nefedkin 2001, 61–2), in Transcaucasia (Fig. 1) can be dated to the beginning of the Late Bronze Age, i.e. to the late fifteenth–early fourteenth centuries BC, since rich barrows of this period yielded bronze chariot models. It is worth noting that at the same sites remains of genuine wooden vehicles with either four solid or two spoked wheels have been encountered. Bronze chariot models seem likely to have been fitted to the chariot pole, as has been suggested in the ancient Near East. As for Transcaucasia, such practice has been at least once recorded there in situ: a bronze model was found at the juncture of the pole OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY 22(4) 397–409 2003 © Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2003, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street Malden, MA 02148, USA. 397

Upload: maria-pogrebova

Post on 06-Jul-2016

218 views

Category:

Documents


3 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: The Emergence of Chariots and Riding in the South Caucasus

MARIA POGREBOVA

THE EMERGENCE OF CHARIOTS AND RIDING IN THE SOUTH CAUCASUS

Summary. The beginning of the Late Bronze Age, i.e. the late fifteenth–earlyfourteenth centuries BC, saw the emergence of chariots in Transcaucasia,where rich barrows of this period yielded bronze chariot models. The lattercorrespond to the type of chariots widespread in the western Near East in thelate sixteenth–early thirteenth centuries BC. Hence it can be inferred that,regardless of the ultimate origin of Near Eastern chariots, Transcaucasianspecimens belong to the Near Eastern tradition. However, in Transcaucasia,in contradistinction to the Near East, the chariot was merely a prestige marker.The growing role of the horse indicative of horseback riding is attested by someTranscaucasian funeral complexes of the late second millennium BC, whichcorrespond to those of the steppes of south Russia. It seems likely that thebuilders of these barrows were related to the Iranian population of the Russiansteppes.

The genesis of horse exploitation among the ancient population of Eurasia and the NearEast has long since attracted the attention of scholars. It is well known that the emergence ofbattle chariots and cavalry not only promoted the art of war but also brought about considerablechanges in the social structure of early societies. A question as to whether a rapid dispersion ofchariots and riding was due to migrations or to an independent development in various centreshas been the subject of much controversy (Grantovsky 1970, 159; Kuzmina 1977, 54–5, 1993,1994a, 1994b, 165–71 with ample bibliography; Anthony 1995; Moorey 1986; Littauer andCrouwel 1996, etc.). In this connection the spread of horse husbandry in Transcaucasia, i.e. inthe regions south of the Greater Caucasus, between the Near East and the expanses of Eurasia,is of particular interest.

The first traces of the use of chariots, i.e. light horse-drawn vehicles with two spokedwheels (Littauer and Crouwel 1979, 71; Nefedkin 2001, 61–2), in Transcaucasia (Fig. 1) can bedated to the beginning of the Late Bronze Age, i.e. to the late fifteenth–early fourteenth centuriesBC, since rich barrows of this period yielded bronze chariot models. It is worth noting that atthe same sites remains of genuine wooden vehicles with either four solid or two spoked wheelshave been encountered. Bronze chariot models seem likely to have been fitted to the chariotpole, as has been suggested in the ancient Near East. As for Transcaucasia, such practice hasbeen at least once recorded there in situ: a bronze model was found at the juncture of the pole

OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY 22(4) 397–409 2003© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2003, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UKand 350 Main Street Malden, MA 02148, USA. 397

Page 2: The Emergence of Chariots and Riding in the South Caucasus

and the yoke of a two-wheeled wooden vehicle (Mnatsakanian 1960, 139, barrow 9). Bronzemodels, however, are not exact replicas of wooden chariots, so we prefer to discuss themseparately.

Six bronze chariot models that can be regarded as the earliest evidence of the spreadof chariots in Transcaucasia have now been found. Four of them belong to one and the sametype. Three of the latter specimens were encountered beneath three barrows of a cemetery inthe vicinity of the village of Lchashen (Fig. 2a–c) situated on the north-west shore of Lake Sevan(Mnatsakanian 1957, 1960), while the fourth one was recovered from barrow 7 of a cemeterynear the village of Lori Berd (Fig. 3) in north-western Armenia (Devejian 1981, 27–31). Bothsites, besides being practically contemporaneous, belong to a homogeneous culture area. Allfour models, although varying in details, fall into one and the same type. Since the models havebeen repeatedly described, I shall restrict myself to general observations. It is as well to bear inmind, however, that the state of preservation of the artefacts as well as the presumed artisticconventions have led to controversial interpretations of certain components of the wagons bydifferent scholars. The four models under consideration show a two-wheeled vehicle drawn bytwo somewhat conventionally rendered horses and mounted by two warriors. But for a fewcomponents, the design of all the vehicles, as far as could be determined, is alike. The body was

THE EMERGENCE OF CHARIOTS AND RIDING IN THE SOUTH CAUCASUS

OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY398 © Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2003

Figure 1Map showing location of sites discussed in the text.

Page 3: The Emergence of Chariots and Riding in the South Caucasus

open at the rear and fenced in on three sides with light rails. Big wheels with six, eight, or nine(according to some scholars – even 11) spokes are fitted to the rear part of the body. The LoriBerd item is equipped with a vertical rod with a ring-shaped finial, placed at the centre of therear and connected to the front by two parallel horizontal bars dividing the body in two. Oneof the Lchashen models shows a loop attached to the rear, probably intended for holding whileclimbing on to the platform (barrow 1). Poles are attached to the front and, seemingly, to thecentre of the axle. They are either bow-shaped, as in the Lchashen model from barrow 1, orhorizontal along the body and then bent towards the yoke, and reach either the horses’ heads orwithers. The pole of the Lori Berd model has a vertical ending with a terret for harnessing, whileat the ends of the yoke there are terrets with horn-shaped upturned tips, through which the reinswere probably passed. According to S. Devejian, these horn-shaped rings resemble horn-shapedartefacts encountered in a number of burials in the Lchashen cemetery. All four chariots aremounted by two standing warriors with daggers stuck in their belts. One of each pair – in threecases the right and in the fourth the left warrior – is invariably wearing a crest-shaped helmet.Figurines of hoofed animals, namely deer and roe deer, are shown before the horses, whichimplies the use of the chariots for hunting. All the models are set up on slotted platforms withballs inside, fixed to anchor-shaped stands (the model from barrow 1 of the Lchashen cemeteryhas lost its stand). The ends of the latter, according to the excavator, are shaped into birds’ heads(neither photographs nor drawings enable one to detect this feature).

It is well known that the chariots whose models were found in south Caucasiancemeteries belong to the type widespread in the Near East, to be precise, to its Syro-Palestinianor Hittite variety (Piotrovsky 1963, 12; Iesaian 1966, 137–9; Martirosian 1964, 98; Devejian

MARIA POGREBOVA

OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2003 399

a b

c

Figure 2Bronze models of chariots found beneath barrows near Lchashen: a) from barrow 1; b) from barrow 10; c) from

barrow 9 (after Mnatsakanian 1957, fig. 8, 1960 fig. 7, 5).

Page 4: The Emergence of Chariots and Riding in the South Caucasus

1981, 28 et al.). M. Gorelik believes that since the sixteenth century BC such chariots with asquare body and uniform panels on three sides had spread from Syrian centres all over the NearEast (Gorelik 1985, 192). It was suggested that the chariots whose models had been found inTranscaucasia were either of Hurrian (Piotrovsky 1963) or Mitannian (Ivanov 1968) origin. Thewell-known wooden chariot discovered in Egypt was also cited as an exact parallel toTranscaucasian wagon models, although the former had probably been designed for a singlecharioteer (Littauer and Crouwel 1979, 76). The Near Eastern and, in particular, the Hittite andEgyptian origin of the Transcaucasian type of chariots is defined primarily by the design of thelight body open at the rear (Littauer and Crouwel 1979, 78). True, the Hittite chariot crew,judging from the pictorial materials, consisted of three men, but a crew of two warriors didsometimes appear, and vehicles bearing three men could have been used merely fortransportation (Littauer and Crouwel 1979, 76, 98). However, it has also been suggested that ithad been the crew of three that had given Hittite chariots an advantage over the others(Zamarovsky 1968, 276).

The bow-shaped pole of the barrow 1 model from Lchashen is a fairly archaic trait (Fig. 2a). It was recorded for oxen-drawn wagons as early as the third millennium BC in the Near Eastern figurative monuments (Potratz 1941, pl. XXVII, fig. 5c; Littauer and Crouwel1979, pls. 22, 39, 49; Nefedkin 2001, drawing on p. 43). The sixteenth century BC saw theemergence of the pole running horizontally along the body and then bent at an angle towardsthe yoke, i.e. similar to those of the Lori Berd chariot model and, seemingly, of the two otherLchashen models (Littauer and Crouwel 1979, pl. 80). In this connection it has been suggestedthat the barrow 1 chariot with the bow-shaped pole had been used in a ritual procession(Devejian 1981, 28).

THE EMERGENCE OF CHARIOTS AND RIDING IN THE SOUTH CAUCASUS

OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY400 © Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2003

Figure 3Bronze model of a chariot recovered from barrow 7 near Lori-Berd (after Devejian 1981, fig. 6).

Page 5: The Emergence of Chariots and Riding in the South Caucasus

Yet another characteristic feature is the vertical tip of the Lori Berd pole with a terret,through which the headstall thongs were passed. The sharply bent-up pole tips had been typicalof Syrian chariots since the early second millennium BC, yet there they were almost invariablyshaped into animals’ heads (Gorelik 1985, 192).

The terrets at the yoke tips of the Lori Berd model also have Near Eastern parallels. In the late sixteenth century BC terrets on the yoke, designed for passing harnessing thongsthrough, appeared (Nefedkin 2001, 73).

The rear position of the chariot axle had prevailed in the Near East since the mid-secondmillennium BC. All the surviving Egyptian chariots of the late fifteenth–fourteenth centuriesBC have the axle moved from the centre of the body to the rear edge (Littauer and Crouwel1979, pl. 75). This positioning of the axle placed the load on the pole and through it directlyonto the horse’s shoulders, thus reducing the strangling effect on the throat, and improved thechariot’s manoeuvrability (Gonen 1975, 88; Nefedkin 2001, 74). The number of spokes in the wheels of the Transcaucasian models is not so typical of the Near Eastern chariot design. Inthe Near East four-spoked wheels are replaced with six-spoked ones as early as the late fifteenthcentury BC. However, one can see eight- or nine-spoked wheels on certain Syrian seals of thepreceding period (Littauer and Crouwel 1979, pl. 72; Nefedkin 2001, 74), and eight-spokedwheels appear in Egyptian depictions of chariots of the late fifteenth century BC (Littauer andCrouwel 1979; Nefedkin 2001, 74). Thus, the specificity of Transcaucasian models in thisrespect is in line with the Near Eastern tradition. The biga, i.e. the two-horsed chariot, is alsoperfectly typical of the period under consideration. The fact that the warriors mounting theTranscaucasian chariot models are not equipped with bows, the most characteristic weapon ofthe chariot crew, is probably due to technological limitations.

The foregoing shows that Transcaucasian bronze models correspond to the type ofchariots widespread in the Near East, especially in its western areas, in the late sixteenth–earlythirteenth centuries BC. As mentioned above, the Transcaucasian sites in question most probablydate to the late fifteenth–fourteenth centuries BC. Hence it can be inferred that, regardless ofthe ultimate origin of Near Eastern chariots, Transcaucasian specimens belong to the NearEastern tradition. Moreover, there are some other arguments, besides the design of the chariots,in favour of this conclusion. Thus, it has been repeatedly pointed out that the helmets of thewarriors mounting the Transcaucasian chariots have Near Eastern parallels. B. Piotrovskybelieved them to be of the Syro-Hittite crest-shaped type (Piotrovsky 1963, 12), although Hittite crest-shaped helmets go back to a later date, while M. Gorelik relates them to the Aegeanregion and Anatolia (Gorelik 1985, 162). (However, one should bear in mind that the shape ofthe helmets depicted in the Transcaucasian models is somewhat conventional.) It is also worth noting that the manufacture of models of both four-wheeled wagons and battle chariotshad a long tradition in the Near East (Littauer and Crouwel 1979, figs. 4, 7, 14, 15, 20, 26, 59,etc.; Littauer and Crouwel 1977, figs. 1, 2). Hunting scenes showing chariots, first recorded in Syrian monuments, were also typical of Near Eastern art, although they became widespreadin the period after the emergence of the Transcaucasian chariot models (Gurney 1987, 183, fig. 12b et al.).

The culture to which the sites that produced bronze chariot models belong is also of no small importance. Although the first stage of the Late Bronze Age in Transcaucasia,represented by the sites of the Lchashen type, emerged on the basis of the autochthonousmetallurgical tradition, it was marked by a strong cultural impetus from the south. Certainelements of Transcaucasian weaponry, horse harness, and decorations of that period are

MARIA POGREBOVA

OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2003 401

Page 6: The Emergence of Chariots and Riding in the South Caucasus

undoubtedly of southern origin. In this context the borrowing of the practice of manufacturingmodels for the decoration of wagon poles as well as chariots themselves seems likely (Iesaian1966, 137–9).

Two bronze models encountered in the Gora Gokhebi sanctuary (Fig. 4a–b) in theKakheti region of east Georgia could be replicas of the above-described models (Pitskhelauri1979, 58, pl. XIII; Pizchelauri 1984, S. 89–91). K. Pitskhelauri first dated the sanctuary to the late second–early first millennium BC (Pitskhelauri 1979, 58, 155), and then to theeighth–seventh centuries BC (Pizchelauri 1984, S. 90). Kakhetian models are not placed onstands and apparently did not serve as finials, yet the design of the body, with similar panels onthree sides and a vertical rod at the centre of the open rear, supporting the horizontal one thatdivides the body in two, as in the Lori Berd model, is similar to that of the Transcaucasianmodels discussed above. A massive yoke is lying on the horses’ manes. An almost straight anddisproportionately long pole would have rendered driving practically impossible. Probably themanufacturer of the model was unaware of the actual chariot structure. The axle located at the centre of the body and not at the rear edge, with ten-spoked wheels, is a distinctive trait ofthe Kakhetian models. The central position of the axle can be encountered in the chariots of theearlier period, and in this isolated case cannot be taken as a chronological marker (Gorelik 1985).All the above evidence enables one to ascribe the Transcaucasian chariot models in question toone and the same type (see also Gorelik 1985, table 2). Other chariot models discovered inTranscaucasia belong to another type and, probably, to another period.

The remains of true wooden chariots encountered in the Lchashen cemetery show aspecific design. A square body platform is open at the front and equipped with low rails of thesame height on three sides. The fixed axle, judging from the reconstruction, was positionednearer to the rear of the body, and had 28 spokes per wheel. The latter were more than one metrein diameter. The components of the vehicle were joined by wooden tenons or nails. The straightpole was made of a tree trunk. One of its tips was fixed to the body base-board and to the axle.Different parts are made of different kinds of wood, as was the case in all the surviving chariots(Mnatsakanian 1960; Iesaian 1966, 137–9; Palanjian 1959; Iesaian 1960; Devejian 1981, 29).This fact is indicative of the high skill of the vehicles’ manufacturers. However, as it has beenrepeatedly pointed out, the light two-wheeled Lchashen wagons could hardly have served as

THE EMERGENCE OF CHARIOTS AND RIDING IN THE SOUTH CAUCASUS

OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY402 © Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2003

a b

Figure 4a–bTwo bronze models from the Gora Gokhebi sanctuary (after Pizchelauri 1984, abb. 62, 12, 13).

Page 7: The Emergence of Chariots and Riding in the South Caucasus

battle chariots. Serious handicaps were both the straight pole, impeding manoeuvrability, and a rather shallow body, open in front, whose design enabled the riders to sit, but not to stand. S. Iesaian suggested that the Lchashen chariots were used as light passenger carts (Iesaian 1966, 137). According to M. Littauer and J. Crouwel, these vehicles occupy an intermediateposition between chariots and carts. Riders must have been seated there with their legs danglingfrom the front rim, as was the case with light Elamite wagons of a later date (Littauer andCrouwel 1979, pl. 95). The presence in barrow burials of horse skulls, harnessed with cast bitshaving jointed mouthpieces and disc-shaped cheekpieces, testifies that these vehicles werehorse-drawn.

It is hard to share the view that the battle chariot was first developed in this very area(Drews in Nefedkin 2001, 55). However, there is a trait that does not enable one to regardTranscaucasia as a mere periphery of the Near Eastern chariot area, namely the number of spokesin the wheels of Transcaucasian chariots. As stated above, the large number of spokes attestedin Transcaucasian chariot models, although recorded in contemporaneous Near Eastern sites,remains a relatively rare phenomenon there. As to the 28 spokes per wheel of the Lchashenwooden vehicles, they are simply unique for that period. It was from the Lchashen barrows thatthe earliest wheels with many spokes and a wooden rim ever encountered in the Near East havebeen recovered (Kossack 1971, pl. 159). S. Piggott, having compared the Lchashen woodenvehicles and the Chinese chariots of the Shang dynasty, arrived at the conclusion that the lattercould have originated from the Caucasus (Piggott 1974). It must be taken into account that theimprovement of the wheel design could have taken place in Transcaucasia independently of thedevelopment of the battle chariot. Wheeled vehicles had been known in this area at least sincethe Aeneolithic (Piotrovsky 1955). The distinctive feature of the wagons for carrying loadsrecovered from the Lchashen barrows is their Y-shaped pole. This construction can be mostclearly seen in a two-wheeled wagon whose sides transform into a double pole, coming togetherat the juncture with the yoke. Such a design, providing the cross-country ability necessary fordriving on winding highland roads (Iesaian 1966, 136–7), has been used in Transcaucasia formillennia (Pogrebova and Raevsky 1997, 105). A chariot depicted on a belt from Stepanavan isequipped with such a pole. It has been suggested that this form of the pole appeared in the ninthcentury BC in Assyria as a result of Transcaucasian borrowing (Littauer and Crouwel 1977, pl.6). On the other hand, there is no evidence of a direct linkage between Transcaucasian chariotsand the ever-growing number of their Eurasian counterparts of the early second millennium BC.Irrespective of whether the Sintashta vehicles were battle chariots (Kuzmina 2000; Nefedkin2001, 60) or not (Littauer and Crouwel 1996), judging from the reconstruction, such traits asan especially high front panel, planks joining naves and sides of the front panel, etc. (Heninget al. 1992, figs. 80, 108, 116) differentiate them from both bronze models and wooden chariotsfrom Lchashen. An almost total lack of details that could have been indicative of the relationsbetween Transcaucasian sites of the Lchashen type and the Eurasian steppes is also worth noting.In this connection certain depictions of chariots in later monuments are of interest. Thus, a well-known vessel (Fig. 5), a casual find discovered in the vicinity of the town of Dilizhan in north-west Armenia and dated probably to the early first millennium BC, deserves attention. The vesselbears a depiction of a two-horsed chariot mounted by a single rider (Martirosian 1964, fig. 46;Iesaian 1976, table 97, 1). The body is rounded in front, spokes are not represented, and thewhole drawing is rather conventional. Curiously, the depiction is shown in plan, as if spreadout, i.e. in a manner believed to be characteristic of Eurasian art (Kuzmina 1994b, 166–7;Francfort 2002). Bronze Transcaucasian belts bearing depictions of chariots or wagons are also

MARIA POGREBOVA

OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2003 403

Page 8: The Emergence of Chariots and Riding in the South Caucasus

well known. There, chariots are shown in a mixed manner, both in plan and in profile. The onlyexception is the famous belt from Stepanavan where both chariots and wagons are depicted inplan (Pogrebova and Raevsky 1997, pl. XXV). It is, however, unclear if such a treatment appearsas a result of northern influence or autochthonous development.

Turning back to early Transcaucasian chariots, let us consider the role of chariots in thesocial and battle practice of the Transcaucasian population in the mid-second millennium BC.It seems that the above-discussed materials are not indicative of the presence of large chariotunits in the armies of Transcaucasian chiefdoms. Leaving aside the fact that there were no battlechariots among the wooden carts of Lchashen, and a chariot model was fitted to the pole of asimple cart, it is nevertheless evident that the chariot there was no more than a marker of prestige.Bronze models show chariots used either for ritual processions or hunting. The latter use, if itwas in fact practised, would imply the growing authority of local chiefs in comparison with thepreceding period. Chariot hunting is impossible without a large number of beaters, i.e. those inone way or another subordinate to a ruler. Although chariot models were encountered not onlyin the large barrows of the Lchashen cemetery, but also beneath some of the smaller ones, thereis no reason to suggest that the cemetery was a burial ground for the members of the socialstratum of military aristocracy, the charioteers. Curiously enough, later Transcaucasiandepictions of chariots do not seem to show battle crews either. Bronze belts feature a singleunarmed charioteer, while an archer is shown behind the chariot. A presumed battle representedon the well-known Stepanavan belt seems likely to be of folklore origin (Pogrebova and Raevsky1997). Moreover, the featuring of chariots on this belt does not imply their participation in actualfighting.

All this evidence enables one to suggest that the population of southern Transcaucasiabecame familiar with chariots under the direct influence of the Near East, whence it had beenborrowed primarily as a marker of a high social position. The mastery of chariots seems to beindicative of the growing power of the local rulers.

A different situation arises with the mastery of riding in the same area.Characteristically, its earliest traces are to be found not in the area of sites of the Lchashen type,but north-east of Lake Sevan, on the southern bank of the Kura, in the region that was onlysparsely populated in the period when the chariot-yielding sites were inhabited. Burial sites withhorse skeletons accompanying human burials appeared in the previously uninhabited steppeareas in the vicinity of the lower Giandzhachai river about the thirteenth century BC. There were

THE EMERGENCE OF CHARIOTS AND RIDING IN THE SOUTH CAUCASUS

OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY404 © Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2003

Figure 5Clay vessel found near Dilizhan (after Martirosian 1964, fig. 46).

Page 9: The Emergence of Chariots and Riding in the South Caucasus

no traces of chariots at these sites, and the odd number of horse skeletons led scholars to theconclusion that horsemen had been buried there (Kovalevskaia 1977, 66). In one of the graves,according to its excavator, E. Roessler, the dead man was interred on horseback (IAK 12, 55).However, this unlikely suggestion cannot be verified. In spite of the fact that the grave goodsof the burials proved to be, with small exceptions, purely autochtonous, the hypothesis has beensuggested that the recorded burial rites had been brought there by Iranian-speaking tribes fromthe Lower Volga and the south Urals regions (Pogrebova 1977, 114–40; Aliev and Pogrebova1981). The relevant arguments can be outlined as follows: burial rites of the Giandzhachaibarrows are characterised by a combination of such elements as wooden burial structures (eithercomplex chambers or simple ceilings) intended to be partially burnt, and one or several horseskeletons accompanying human burials. Carcasses of horses were often laid on the woodenceiling of the grave. The use of wooden structures and fire in burial practice was not unknownin the previous Transcaucasian tradition, and theoretically the ritual described above could havedeveloped locally with the growing importance of horses in the life of the area. However, thereis a body of compelling evidence against this supposition. The steppes of south Russia wherehorse husbandry is recorded as early as the fourth millennium BC and where the horse cult,reflected in particular in ritual horse burials, emerged (Kuzmina 1977, 1994b, etc.) lay not faraway from the southern bank of the Kura. The steppe belt stretching from the Dnieper to theUrals is regarded as a territory where horse husbandry and then riding were mastered at an earlydate (Smirnov 1961, etc.). These territories had maintained relations with the north-eastCaucasus since the third millennium BC, and the ritual of horse burial could well have penetratedto Transcaucasia along the Caspian shore. These general observations can be substantiated bymore concrete evidence. Thus, certain parallels to the ritual recorded at Transcaucasian sites canbe seen in the regions of the Lower Volga and the south Urals, geographically close toTranscaucasia. Wooden structures inside ground burial pits and horse skeletons (one, two, four,or six), often encountered on the wooden ceiling of the burial chambers, were found in themajority of the graves of the Sintashta cemeteries in the south Urals, dated on the basis of C14

analysis to the twenty-first–eighteenth centuries BC. Often a fire burning for several days andsometimes enveloping the wooden ceiling was lit over the grave. In the graves beneath theLower Volga barrows of the late second millennium BC horse skeletons were encountered inwooden chambers characteristic of the Timber-Grave culture. A burial very similar to that of aTranscaucasian steppe barrow with a complex burial structure was encountered beneath one ofthe barrows in the same territory (Pogrebova 1977, 132–3); it yielded traces of cremation, amortuary practice brought from the east, according to Smirnov (Smirnov 1957). It is worthnoting that K. Smirnov held that grave goods of the Lower Volga burial sites showed affinitieswith those of the Caucasus. To this one can add that a number of interesting artefacts connectedwith horse harnessing were found among the grave goods of the Transcaucasian steppe barrowsdescribed above. Thus, there was encountered a bone belt plaque with a semicircular upper part,decorated with a carved ornament in the shape of a ring formed by semi-ovals. This plaqueshows no analogies with artefacts from contemporaneous Transcaucasian sites, yet is verysimilar both in shape and decoration to a plaque from a Lower Volga barrow containing a horseburial. K. Smirnov believed such plaques to be the prototypes of Scythian horse-harness clips.He believed that the carved border of the Lower Volga plaque was similar to the decoration ofbone cheek-pieces, found at other sites on the Eurasian steppes (Smirnov 1957, 216). A reinterret from a Transcaucasian steppe barrow bears decoration akin to that of the belt plaque fromthe same cemetery. These facts imply that the builders of steppe barrows in eastern Transcaucasia

MARIA POGREBOVA

OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2003 405

Page 10: The Emergence of Chariots and Riding in the South Caucasus

were not only aware of the mortuary practice of European horsemen, but were also wellacquainted with their bridle. The relationship between this ornamentation and horse harness hasbeen recorded in more distant regions as well. Thus, a terret similar to that from Transcaucasiaand bearing the same ornament, only made of bronze, was found in Luristan, where it was datedto the eighth century BC (Drevnosti . . . 1992, no. 236).

The above facts enable one to suggest that mortuary practice represented by the steppebarrows on the southern bank of the Kura did not develop locally but instead had been borrowedfrom the Lower Volga–the south Urals region by at least the early thirteenth century BC.Intensive cultural relations can hardly account for an overall borrowing of a ritual. The latter ismore likely to be a result of penetration by a group who brought this practice from its homelandto Transcaucasia. The ethnic origin of these migrants can be tentatively determined on the basisof both linguistic and cultural data. The bearers of the relevant culture of the south Urals areusually identified with Indo-Iranian speakers, and the population of the Lower Volga region ata later date is believed to be Iranian-speaking. E. Grantovsky had shown that the territorieswhence riding originated coincided with the homeland of early Iranian tribes. He also formulatedthe thesis that the spread of riding, the horse harness, and the military use of horses was due tothe migrations of Iranian tribes, and showed that a large number of Iranian speakers had probablypenetrated into present-day Iran from the steppes of south Russia via the Caucasus (Grantovsky1970, 277–9; see also Aliev 1973). In the light of these theses it seems likely that the buildersof the steppe barrows in east Transcaucasia were related to the Iranian population of the Russiansteppes. Iranian speakers had probably penetrated Transcaucasia on their way to the Iranianplateau, yet the future builders of the steppe barrows broke away from the others and stoppedhalfway. The area on the southern bank of the Kura and in the steppes of the Lower Gianjachaiwas ideally suited for settlement by migrants. The Transcaucasian population had just begun toreclaim the land, and the steppes were practically uninhabited. It should be noted that threeclusters of the steppe barrows show a uniform mortuary practice, which distinguishes them fromthe burial sites in the foothill areas near the same Gianjachai river that were fairly diverse withregard to funerary rites. This uniformity or at least similarity of the main traits of the ritualenables one to suggest that those who practised it were aware of the distinction between themand their neighbours. True, it is perfectly possible that it was not so much an ethnic as a socialgroup, especially if it consisted of the migrants’ descendants. However, there appears to be littledoubt about the ethnic component of this new social stratum. Migrants could have participatedin the formation of the local élite that cannot be traced to the previous period. They were likelyto hand down to this élite the experience of the use of the mounted horse in battle as well asthe funeral rites reflecting the special place of the horse in the warrior’s life. Later, when thepractice of accompanying élite burials with carcasses or heads of horses spread all over eastTranscaucasia, the ritual somewhat eroded and acquired a large number of local traits. Curiouslyenough, however, the latest burials with horse carcasses situated near the Gianjachai steppes,on the south bank of the Kura, in the vicinity of the town of Mingechaur, at the confluence ofthe Iori, the Alazani, and the Kura (Aslanov et al. 1959, 90–121), represent a mortuary practicethat is closer to that of the steppe barrows than the funerary rites recorded at the sites that arenearly contemporary with the steppe barrows yet geographically remote. There are also certainaffinities between the grave goods of the steppe and Mingechaur barrows. True, certain culturalcontinuity implies not the ethnic unity but the survival of a stable tradition in a given area. Thesurvival of tradition can also account for the striving to penetrate the Iranian plateau, inheritedby the builders of the Mingechaur barrows, and implied by a tomb with horse burials from the

THE EMERGENCE OF CHARIOTS AND RIDING IN THE SOUTH CAUCASUS

OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY406 © Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2003

Page 11: The Emergence of Chariots and Riding in the South Caucasus

Hasanlu necropolis (Ghirshman 1964, fig. 131). Mortuary practice represented by this burial isakin to that recorded by heterochronous monuments situated on the south bank of the Kura. Inthis connection it was suggested that an isolated burial of this type, dated to the eighth centuryBC, could have been due to direct contacts or even to the migration of a group related to thebuilders of the Mingechaur barrows to the southern shores of Lake Urmia (Pogrebova 1977,134–5; Pogrebova 1984, 46).

The data discussed above show that the Late Bronze Age saw the emergence of aTranscaucasian culture that not only continued the rich local traditions, but also adopted anddeveloped the achievements of its northern and southern neighbours. The adoption of suchimportant cultural markers as the chariot and the use of the mounted horse in battle followeddifferent paths and affected different Transcaucasian territories, yet both phenomena implieddeep social changes.

229-2-32 Menzhinsky StreetMoscow

Russia 129281

abbreviations

GIMA Gosudarstvennyi Istoricheskii Musei ArmeniiIAK Isvestiia Imperatorskoi Arheologicheskoi Kommissii (St.-Petersburg)IFZ Istoriko-Filologicheskii Zhurnal (Erevan)SA Sovetskaia Arheologiia (Moscow)VDI Vestnik Drevnei Istorii (Moscow)

references

aliev, i. 1973: Review of E.A. Grantovsky, Ranniaia istoriia iranskikh plemen Perednei Azii (Moscow1970). VDI no. 3.

aliev, i. and pogrebova, m.n. 1981: Ob etnicheskikh protsessakh v oblastyakh Vostochnogo Zakavkasyai Zapadnogo Irana v kontse II–nachale I tysiacheletia do n.e. (On Ethnic Processes in EasternTranscaucasia and Western Iran in the late 2nd–early 1st millennia B.C.). Ethnic problems of the Historyof Central Asia in Early period (Second Millennium B.C.) (Moscow).

anthony, d.w. 1995: Horse, Wagon and Chariot: Indo-European Languages and Archaeology. Antiquityvol. 69, no. 264, 554–65.

aslanov, g.m., vaidov, r.m. and ione, g.i. 1959: Drevnii Mingechaur (Ancient Mingechaur) (Baku).

devejian, s.g. 1981: Lori Berd I. Resultaty raskopok 1969–1973 gg (Lori Berd I. The Results ofExcavations of 1969–1973) (Erevan).

drevnosti . . . 1992: Drevnosti strany lurov. Katalog vystavki. avtor statii i sostavitel kataloga L. VandenBerghe (Antiquities of the Land of the Lurs. Catalogue of an Exhibition. Compiled by L. Vanden Berghe)(St.-Petersburg).

francfort, h-p. 2002: Images du char en Eurasie Orientale des origines à la fin du Ier millenaire av. J-C. Pervobytnaia arkheologiia. Chelovek i iskusstvo (k 70 letiu Ya A. Sher) (Novosibirsk).

ghirschman, r. 1964: Persia from the origins to Alexander the Great (London).

gonen, r. 1975: Weapons of the Ancient World (London, Cassell’s Introducing Archaeology Series, Book 8).

MARIA POGREBOVA

OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2003 407

Page 12: The Emergence of Chariots and Riding in the South Caucasus

gorelik, m.v. 1985: Boevye kolesnitsy Perednego Vostoka III–II tysiacheletii do n.e. (Battle Chariots ofthe Near East of the 3rd–2nd millennia B.C.). Drevniaia Anatolia (Moscow).

gorelik, m.v. 1993: Oruzhie drevnego Vostoka. IV tys–IV v do n.e. (The weapons of the Ancient East inthe 4th millennium–4th century B.C.) (Moscow).

grantovsky, e.a. 1970: Ranniaia istoriya iranskikh plemen Perednei Azii (Early History of Iranian Tribesof the Middle East) (Moscow).

gurney, o.r. 1987: Khetty (The Hittites) (Moscow).

hening, v.f., zdanovich, g.b. and hening, v.v. 1992: Sintashta I. Arkheologicheskie pamiatnikiariiskikh plemen Uralo-Kazakhstanskikh stepei (Archaeological Sites of the Aryan Tribes Of the Ural-Kazakhstan Steppes) (Chelyabinsk).

iesaian, s.a. 1960: Iz istorii kolesnogo transporta drevnei Armenii (On the History of Wheeled Vehiclesof early Armenia). IFZ no. 3.

iesaian, s.a. 1966: Oruzhie i voennoe delo drevnei Armenii (The Weapons and Warcraft of early Armenia)(Erevan).

iesaian, s.a. 1976: Drevniaia kultura plemen Severo-Vostochnoi Armenii (III–I tysiacheletie do n.e.)(Ancient Culture of the Tribes of North-Eastern Armenia (3rd–1st millennia B.C.)) (Erevan).

ivanov, v. 1968: Preface to V. Zamarovsky, Tainy khettov (The Mystery of the Hittites) (Moscow).

kossack, g. 1971: The construction of the felloe in Iron Age spoked wheels. In Boardman, J., Brown,M.A. and Powell, T.G.E. (eds.), The European Community in Later Prehistory. Studies in honour of C.F.C.Hawkes (London).

kovalevskaia, v.b. 1977: Kon i vsadnik. Puti i sudby (Horse and Horseman. Routes and Destinies)(Moscow).

kuzmina, e.e. 1977: Rasprostranenie konevodstva i kulta konya u iranoyasychnykh plemen Srednei Aziii drugikh narodov Starogo Sveta (The Spread of Horse Husbandry and Horse Cult among Iranian-speakingTribes of Central Asia and Other Peoples of the Old World). Sredniaia Azia v drevnosti i srednevekovie(istoria i kultura) (Moscow).

kuzmina, e.e. 1993: Les steppes de l’Asie Centrale à l’époque du bronze: la culture d’Andronovo (Paris,Les dossiers d’archéologie no. 185).

kuzmina, e.e. 1994a: Horses, Chariots and Indo-Iranian: Archaeological Spark in the Historical Dark. InParpola, A. and Koskikallio, P. (eds.), South Asian Archaeology 1993 Vol. 1 (Helsinki).

kuzmina, e.e. 1994b: Otkuda prishli indoarii? Materialnaia kultura plemen andronovskoi obshchnosti iproishozhdenie indoirantsev (Where did the Indo-Aryans come from? The Material Culture of theAndronovo Entity and the Origin of the Indo-Iranians) (Moscow).

kuzmina, e.e. 2000: Novye dannye o rasprostranenii kolesnits v Evrazii i rasselenii indoirantsev (NewEvidence on the Spread of Chariots in Eurasia and the Migrations of the Indo-Iranians). Drevnost:istoricheskoe znanie i spetsifika istochnika (Moscow).

kuzmina, e.e. and smirnov, k.f. 1977: Proiskhozhdenie indoirantsev v svete noveishikharkheologicheskikh otkrytii (The Origin of the Indo-Iranians in the Light of Recent ArchaeologicalDiscoveries) (Moscow).

littauer, m.a. and crouwel, j.h. 1977: Chariots with Y-poles in the Ancient Near East. ArchäologischerAnzeiger 1977 (Berlin, Deutsches Archäologisches Institut).

littauer, m.a. and crouwel, j.h. 1979: Wheeled Vehicles and Ridden Animals in the Ancient Near East(Leiden and Köln, Handbuch der Orientalistik, Abt. 7, bd. 1, Lief 1).

littauer, m.a. and crouwel, j.h. 1996: The Origin of the True Chariot. Antiquity vol. 70, no. 270, 934–9.

martirosian, a.a. 1964: Armeniia v epokhu pozdnei bronzy i rannego zheleza (Armenia in the LateBronze–Early Iron Epoch) (Erevan).

THE EMERGENCE OF CHARIOTS AND RIDING IN THE SOUTH CAUCASUS

OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY408 © Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2003

Page 13: The Emergence of Chariots and Riding in the South Caucasus

mnatsakanian, a.o. 1957: Raskopki kurganov na poberezhie ozera Sevan v 1956 godu (predvaritelnoesoobshchenie) (Excavations of Barrows on the Banks of the Sevan Lake (A Preliminary Report)). SA 2.

mnatsakanian, a.o. 1960: Drevnie povozki iz kurganov bronzovogo veka na poberezhie ozera Sevan(Ancient Vehicles from the Bronze Age Barrows on the Banks of the Sevan Lake). SA 2.

moorey, p.r.s. 1986: The Emergence of the Light Horse-drawn chariot in the Near East c.2000–1500 BC.World Archaeology vol. 18, 196–215.

nefedkin, a.k. 2001: Boevye kolesnitsy i kolesnichie drevnikh grekov (XVI–I vv do n. e.) (Battle Chariotsand Charioteers of Ancient Greeks (16th–1st centuries B.C.)) (St.-Petersburg).

palanjian, v. 1959: Derevyannye povozki iz raskopok u seleniia Lchashen Sevanskogo raiona Arm. SSR(Wooden vehicles excavated near the Lchashen village of the Sevan district, Armenian Soviet SocialistRepublic). Trudy GIMA 5.

piggott, s. 1974: Chariots in the Caucasus and China. Antiquity vol. 48, 16–24.

piotrovsky, b.b. 1955: Razvitie skotovodstava v drevneishem Zakavkazie. SA 23.

piotrovsky, b.b. 1963: Urartskie nadpisi iz raskopok Karmir-blura (Urartian Inscriptions from theExcavations of Karmir-Blur). Preface to Diakonov, I.M., Urartskie pisma i dokumenty (Urartian Lettersand Documents) (Moscow–Leningrad).

pitskhelauri, k.n. 1979: Vostochnaya Gruziia v kontse bronzovogo veka (East Georgia in the LateBronze Age). Trudy Kakhetskoi arkheologicheskoi ekspeditsii III (Tbilisi).

pizchelauri, k. 1984: Jungbronzezeitliche bis ältereisenzeitliche Heiligtümer in Ost-Georgien(München).

pogrebova, m.n. 1977: Iran i Zakavkazie v rannem zheleznom veke (Iran and Transcaucasia in the EarlyIron Age) (Moscow).

pogrebova, m.n. 1984: Zakavkazie i ego sviazi s Perednei Aziei v skifskoe vremia (Transcaucasia and itsConnections with the Near East in the Scythian Epoch) (Moscow).

pogrebova, m.n. and raevsky, d.s. 1997: Zakavkazskie bronzovye poiasa s gravirovannymiizobrazheniiami (Transcaucasian Bronze Belts with Engraved Designs) (Moscow).

potratz, a. 1941: Die Pferdegebisse des Zwischenstromländischen Raumes. Archiv für Orientforschung14 H, 1–2.

smirnov, k.f. 1957: Pogrebeniuia epokhi bronzy v Nizhnem Povolzhie (Bronze Age Burials in the LowerVolga Area). SA 27.

smirnov, k.f. 1961: Arkheologicheskie dannye o drevnikh vsadnikakh Povolzhsko-Uralskikh stepei (The Archaeological Data on the Early Horsemen of the Volga and the Ural Steppes). SA 1.

zamarovsky, v. 1968: Tainy Khettov (The Mystery of the Hittites) (Moscow).

MARIA POGREBOVA

OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2003 409