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