of Archaeology 116, pp. 377–403. (Discusses agriculture and landuse practices based on archaeobotanical and zooarchaeological data.)
8 Miller, M. (2011). Town and country in the satrapies of Western Anatolia: the archaeology of empire. In L. Summerer, A. Ivantchik, and A. von Kienlin (eds.), Kelainai‐Apameia Kibotos: Dévelopment urbain dans le context anatolien: Actes du colloque international Munich, 2–4 Avril 2009. Bordeaux: Ausonius, pp. 319–344. (Discusses patterns of receptivity to Persian culture.)
9 Miller, S.M. (2010). Two painted chamber tombs of Northern Lycia at Kızılbel and Karaburun, In L. Summerer, A. von Kienlin (eds.), Tatarlı: Renklerin Dönüşü. Istanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları, pp. 318–329. (The tombs are presented together with color pictures.)
10 Dusinberre, E.R.M., Garrison, M.B., Henkelman, W.F.M. (eds.) (2020) The Art of Empire in Achaemenid Persia, Studies in Honour of Margaret Cool Root. Achaemenid History 16. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten.
11 Tuplin, C.J. and J. Ma (eds.) (2020). Aršama and his world: The Bodleian Letters in Context, Vol. I‐III. Oxford: Oxford University Press (These are two recent publications on the wider Achaemenid world).
CHAPTER 22 Caucasus Region
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