Ancient Cultures From Scythia To Siberia 2007

Achaemenid Culture and Local
Traditions in Anatolia,
Southern Caucasus and Iran
New Discoveries
Edited by
Askold Ivantchik and Vakhtang Licheli
LEIDEN • BOSTON
2007
This book is printed on acid-free paper.
A C.I.P. record for this book is available from the Library of Congress
ISBN 978 90 04 16328 7
Copyright 2007 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands

Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Hotei Publishers,
IDC Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated,

stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic,
mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission
from the publisher.
Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by

Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to
The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910,
Danvers, MA 01923, USA.
Fees are subject to change.
printed in the netherlands

CONTENTS*
Askold Ivantchik, Vakhtang Licheli, Introduction ........................ 1

Lâtife Summerer, Picturing Persian Victory: The Painted
Battle Scene on the Munich Wood .................................................. 3
Ilyas Babaev, Iulon Gagoshidze, Florian S. Knauß,
An Achaemenid « Palace » at Qarajamirli (Azerbaijan).
Preliminary Report on the Excavations in 2006 ............................... 31
Jens Nieling, Dongus Tapa – An Iron Age Settlement in the
Udabno-Steppe, Eastern Kakheti ..................................................... 47
Vakhtang Licheli, Oriental Innovations in Samtskhe
(Southern Georgia) in the 1st Millenium BC ................................... 55
Mikhail Treister, The Toreutics of Colchis in the
5th-4th Centuries BC. Local Traditions, Outside Influences,
Innovations ..................................................................................... 67
Amiran Kakhidze, Iranian Glass Perfume Vessel from the
Pichvnari Greek cemetery of the Fifth Century BC ......................... 109
Ketevan Dzhavakhishvili, Achaemenian Seals found in Georgia ...... 117
S. Mansur Seyyed Sajjadi, Wall painting from Dahaneh-ye
Gholaman (Sistan) ........................................................................... 129
In future issues .................................................................................... 155
* The color illustrations can be found at the back of this issue.

Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 1-2 www.brill.nl/acss
Introduction
Askold Ivantchik, Vakhtang Licheli
This special issue of the journal ACSS contains materials from a conference
held in Borjomi, Georgia in 2006 (October 7th-14th). This was the third in a
series of conferences entitled “Caucasian Iberia and its Neighbours in the Ach-
aemenid and Post-Achaemenid Period”. The first was held in 1998 in Tbilisi
in conjunction with Halle University on the initiative of the outstanding
Georgian scholar, Academician Otar Lordkipanidze, the founder of the Cen-
tre for Archaeological Research of the Georgian Academy of Sciences, of which
he was the director for many years. The second conference was held in 2000.
Sadly the sudden death of Otar Lordkipanidze on May 19, 2002 meant that
many important research projects in Georgia were interrupted, at least for a
time. Yet Otar Lordkipanidze’s pupils and colleagues are doing everything
they can to ensure that endeavours he had set in motion should be continued
after his death and that the traditions he had established should live on. The
excavations conducted by him at Vani and also the international conferences
on the ancient history and archaeology of the Black Sea region – the renowned
Vani Conferences – continue as before. The fact that the third conference on
Caucasian Iberia in the Achaemenid period went ahead as planned provides
further demonstration of how Lordkipanidze’s work is being carried forward.
It shows that the study of the Southern Caucasus as a part of the Achaemenid
cultural world – a focus of research of great interest to Otar Lordkipanidze, to
which he devoted considerable effort and energy – is being imaginatively and
actively developed further in Georgia. It was possible to hold this conference
thanks to the combined efforts of the National Museum of Georgia, the Lord-
kipanidze Institute of Archaeology and the district authorities in Borjomi, to
whom we should like to express our sincere gratitude. The conference was
dedicated to the memory of Otar Lordkipanidze.
The papers delivered at that conference, which form the basis of the articles
published here, represent the results of the latest research into the relationship
between the ‘imperial’ culture of the Achaemenids and local traditions. Numer-
ous articles are devoted to questions concerning the Southern Caucasus. Readers
© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2007 DOI: 110.1163/157005707X212616

2 A. Ivantchik, V. Licheli / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 1-2
can acquaint themselves with the preliminary results of the latest archaeologi-
cal research (J. Nieling, V. Licheli, I. Babaev, I Gagoshidze, F. Knauß) and also
with investigations into specific categories of archaeological finds making it
possible to place materials from the Southern Caucasus in the wider context
of antiquities from the Achaemenid era within a much larger area (M. Treister,
A. Kakhidze, K. Dzhavakhishvili). Other articles are devoted to similar ques-
tions which arise when such research is carried further into adjacent territo-
ries. The article by L. Summerer is devoted to the publication of a unique
work of art: the painting on one of the walls of a wooden tomb in Tatarlı in
Western Anatolia, depicting a battle between Persians and warriors of nomadic
(Scythian-Saka) appearance. This rare work makes it possible to draw impor-
tant conclusions about the relative significance of local elements on the one
hand and ‘imperial’ culture on the other, in the western margins of the Achae-
menid Empire. Finally, the article by S. Sajjadi presents readers with the results
of interesting research, which has been going on at the opposite, eastern edge
of that empire, in Sistan. All in all, we hope that the articles published here
will shed new light on the question of relations between the centre and the
outlying areas in the culture of the empire of the Achaemenids and the regions
adjoining it.
Picturing Persian Victory:

The Painted Battle Scene on the Munich Wood
Lâtife Summerer
Abstract
The present article analyses the battle scene on the painted beam in Munich, which originally
belonged to the ensemble of an extensively painted tomb chamber near Tatarlı, and reviews its
interpretation as an historical depiction that was proposed by the first editor Peter Calmeyer. The
author concludes that this battle scene bears no clear indications to connect it with a specific
historical event; rather, it seems to depict an exemplary Persian victory over enemies, who are
conveyed as a unified ethnic group by their uniform costumes and pointed caps.
The article analyses the evidence of the iconography in detail with particular regard to the
forms of narration and the context, and in the light of this review attempts to show alternative
ways how this painted Persian victory may be viewed and interpreted.
Keywords
Phrygia / Kelainai / Persians / Scythians / Battle / Wood painting / Iconography
Introduction1
In 1989 four pieces of wooden beams of unknown origin were handed over to
the “Archäologische Staatssammlung”2 as a gift and permanent loan. In 1993,
Peter Calmeyer published a first acquisition report in the „Münchner Jahr-
bücher”, unfortunately with inadequate and sometimes upside down illustra-
tions.3 Even though shortly thereafter two colour photographs of details of the
beams were published in the exhibition catalogue “Orient und Okzident”,
these pictures were reproduced the wrong way round,4 so that they were not
recognisable as a coherent scenic ensemble. Probably because of this inade-
quate photographic publication, scholars have hardly taken notice of these
important monuments of Achaemenid-era wood painting. Fourteen years
1
I owe thanks to Christopher H. Roosevelt for a critical reading of an early draft of this paper.
2
Formerly the “Prähistorische Staatssammlung”.
3
Calmeyer 1993, 7-18.
4
Zahlhaas 1995, pl. D.
4 L. Summerer / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 3-30
after first being published, the Munich beams are still widely unknown. In
literature one finds only a few casual references to them.5 The author of this
paper was able to prove elsewhere that their original context was an extensively
painted wooden tomb chamber in a tumulus near the village Tatarlı, en route
from the royal residence of Kelainai to Gordion.6 The Tumulus in Tatarlı was
raided by the villagers in 19697 and excavated by the Museum of Afyon in
1970. Some beams of the walls were cut off and taken away during the raid-
ing, while the museum staff dismantled the remaining beams and brought
them to the Afyon Museum.8 Detailed technical studies on the planks in the
Afyon Museum showed that the beam with the battle scene was sawed off
from the east wall by the looters in 1969.9
The dimensions of the timber-lined tomb chamber are reported to be
2.50 m × 2 m in length and width and 1.85 m in height. The northern – i.e.
back wall – was made up of 8 beams, while the sidewalls – that is the eastern
and western walls – consisted of 4 beams and the gabled roof of 7 beams.
From the southern wall a door led to a stone barrel-shaped dromos. Addition-
ally, the wooden chamber was enclosed within a stone chamber before being
covered by an earthen mantle.
The Tatarlı wooden tomb chamber is the latest known example of the old
Phrygian tradition of the timber tomb construction. Unlike the earlier tumuli
of the necropolis of Gordion it has a stone mantle and a dromos leading to the
chamber.
The beam with the battle frieze is 221 cm long and 32 cm high and was
sawn in two in recent times, probably to make transportation easier. The two
parts which belong together are easily recognisable due to continuity in the
imagery (Fig. I). Only 1 mm is missing between the parts belonging together,
5
Casual mentions by Jacobs 1994, 138; Özgen, Öztürk 1996, 45; Boardman 2000, 247,
note 150. Borchhardt (2002, 95-96) includes the Munich beams in the catalogue of the histori-
cal scenes referring to Calmeyer’s interpretation. In his book “Darius dans l’ombre d’Alexandre”,
Briant (2003, 247, fig. 40) republishes a detailed photograph and a drawing of one of the beams
with the combat scene. The drawings are unfortunately faulty regarding some details, since they
have been created from inadequate photographs.
6
Summerer 2007, 115-164. It seems that along this natural route there were other imposing
grave monuments: Athenaeus (XIII, 574 f ) describes the grave monument of Alcibiades, who
was killed in 404 BC by the Satrap Pharnabazos in Melisse on the way between Synnada (Suhut)
and Metropolis (Tatarlı).
7
The raiding of the Tatarlı Tumulus must be seen in the context of the extensive looting of
Lydian tumuli in the years between 1966-1969: Özgen, Öztürk 1996, 12-13; 28-30. See also:
Roosevelt, Luke 2006, 173-174.
8
Uçankuş 1979, 306-334; Uçankuş 2002, 23-51.
9
Detailed architectural studies of wood construction by Alexander von Kienlin are forth-
coming.
L. Summerer / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 3-30 5
destruction caused by the sawing process. On the smoothed surface of the

beam black outlines and red, black, white, brown, grey and blue paint spots
still remain. The preservation condition of the colours varies. The black col-
our, probably a carbonisation product, as well as the red colour, most likely
cinnabar, seems to be applied in thin layers.10 The fine particles of pigment
apparently penetrated the wooden surface so deeply that the colours are still
preserved today. On the other hand the compact fragments of brown, grey/
blue and white suggest that these colours were applied in thick layers, of which
only tiny traces remain.
Composition
A painted red band, which lines the top and the bottom of the frieze, frames
the composition (Figs. I, II). The figures fill the entire height of the frieze. Fol-
lowing the principle of isokephalie, the heads of all figures are rendered at the
same height, regardless whether they are mounted or on foot. The arrange-
ment of the figures is not balanced exactly: a concentration of figures can be
perceived on the left part of the beam. All figures are moving to a central point
in the middle of the frieze towards a triangular composition: two fighting war-
riors over the dead body of a third. The vertically drawn figures appear in full
profile.
Horizontal elements are accentuated mainly by the long bodies of the
horses, the outstretched arms of the archers and the dead bodies of two fallen
warriors. The composition gains an additional dynamic by the elongated shape
and the horizontal perspective of the frieze.
The curved draught pole, the extended forefeet of the cavalry horses raised
in the air and the rearing posture of the wounded horse form the diagonal
lines of the composition. Depth is visualized by the echelons of horse-riders
drawn in perspective.
Multifigured battle compositions with central duels are unknown in Achae-
menid art to date, but have parallels in Eastern Greek art, in particular on the
painted sarcophagi from Clazomenai.11 However, closer comparison shows
that in Eastern Greek art, battle compositions differ in terms of the setting of
the figures and in iconography. Unlike the Clazomenian friezes which are
10
Scientific pigment analyses are forthcoming by Stephan Demeter, Erwin Emmerling and
Heinrich Piening.
11
Cook 1981, 117-123. A silver alabastron from the Ikiztepe tumulus in Lydia also shows a
multifigured battle composition with central duel, which is closer to the East Greek tradition:
Özgen, Öztürk 1996, 124-125.
mainly based on Attic hoplite battles, the figures here are arranged strictly
symmetrically and in a static manner, general characteristics of Near Eastern
art.12 The design of the centrepiece, the riding groups and the infantrymen are
equally oriented towards the artistic traditions of Iran. Finally, some parts of
the composition are well known in Achaemenid art as isolated motifs, so it is
clear that the visual language of the wood painting is mainly based on the
Persian iconographic tradition.13
Style
The wood painting bears clear stylistic references to Achaemenid art. But the
image of the Persian leader (Fig. III), which is the best painted figure of the
whole frieze, displays facial details that are usually observed on Greek Vase
paintings (fig. 1).
Despite the carefully worked details of this figure, the proportions of his
body are not well balanced. The head is too big compared to the body. The
arms, in particular the right arm, are too long. In contrast to this, the limbs of
the warriors coming from the right are too short, in particular those of the
leader and of the first infantryman behind him, both of whom exhibit arms
that are more like stubs (Fig. IV).
Some figures have been executed in an elaborated way, in particular the
Persian riders, pointing at the contrast between light and dark parts perhaps to
suggest the effect of relief (Figs. V, VI); others have been drawn down sketchily
without care (Figs. VIII, XVIII).
The painter has been more successful in balancing the proportions and the
size of the horses and the riders (Fig. V). The horses all have beautiful dynamic
curvilinear bodies with exquisite modelling on the legs, in particular the soft
swelling of the knee joints. The rendition of the zigzag-pattern on the trousers
of the riders on the left, created by incising and alternating the colours pro-
vides a fully three dimensional feel (Fig. VI). The herring-bone patterns of the
bridle and collar are carefully painted as well (Fig. VII).
In contrast to the refined modelling observed on the figures coming from
left, the undifferentiated rendering of the warriors coming from the right is
conspicuous. The zigzag pattern of their trousers is neither incised nor multi-
coloured. However, their pointed tiaras, which slant backwards, are carefully
rendered with curved lines (Fig. VIII).
12
Particularly of Assyrian relief sculpture: Strommenger 1962, figs. 209-211; Ivantchik 2001,
figs. 131, 132.
13
For the discussion of the iconography see below.
Fig. 1. Detail of the cylix of the Penthesileia painter (Boardman et alii 1977,
fig. 140).
In style, composition and figure types, the painted battle frieze generally
corresponds to the seal images from Daskyleion and the Persepolis Fortification
tablets dated between 509 and 494 BC, i.e. during the reign of Darius I.14 But
despite its archaic elements, some details in the painting indicate a later date.
For example, the head of the Persian commander, the most elaborately painted
figure of the whole frieze, shows developed stylistic treatment (Fig. IX). The
eye with a long upper eye lash and an iris placed at the open end follows a
stylistic development which began in the Early Classical Period of Greek Art
(Fig. 1).15 On the other hand, in human representations of the late Archaic
period, eyes in profile faces are usually shown in frontal view, without any
foreshortening.16
14
Garrison, Root 2001, 1.
15
The kylix of the Penthesilea-painter of about 460 BC: Boardman et alii 1977, fig. 140.
16
See for example the faces on the wall paintings from Kızılbel (Mellink 1998, pl. 7, b),
Regarding the diverging proportions and stylistic features, it can be assumed

that two different figural schemes are combined in this one figure in order to
bring up to date a conventional image model. The complex stylistic features of
the frieze, however, cannot be discussed in detail in the present article: they
merit detailed study by themselves.17
Iconography
In the battle scene two groups of warriors proceed towards each other (Figs. I, II).
The party coming from the left consists of at least twelve warriors.18 The party
on the right side has eleven warriors in total. The unequal number of warriors
and the corpses on the ground show that the right party is inferior, while the
left side is winning the battle. All warriors wear oriental costumes and are
armed with bows and quivers. Evidently, this is a depiction of a battle between
the Persians and another oriental group.
The Victors
The party on the left consists of three archers on foot, seven riders, and a driver
and one or two archers on a chariot.19 The warriors are grouped in formations of
infantry, cavalry and are led by a warrior who is the central focus of the frieze.
The Central Duel
In the middle of the depiction, the respective leaders of the two parties are
standing in front of each other and fighting (Fig. III). The left leader is thrust-
ing his dagger into the stomach of his opponent with his right hand, while he
is pulling him towards himself by the beard. He is depicted as larger than his
opponent. The right leader holds a red painted bow, which looks like an
Gordion (Mellink 1980, figs. 4, 5) and from the Aktepe tomb in Güre (Özgen, Öztürk 1996,
68-69, 71-72, Cat. 2, 3, 4, 7-8) which has been dated stylistically to the last decade of the
6th century BC.
17
The style of the frieze will be explored in detail in a future publication including all painted
beams of the grave chamber.
18
The presence of a thirteenth figure on the chariot cannot be established yet. See the discus-
sion below.
19
Calmeyer (1993, 13) lists only six riders and two archers on foot. He seems to have missed
the head of the archer on the outer edge and a rider.
Fig. 2. Cylinder seal, British Museum (Curtis, Tallis 2005, 229, Cat. 415).
attribute rather than a weapon ready for use. His destitute posture contrasts
with the nonchalant attitude of the leader on the left. This is a very well known
scheme in Achaemenid art. On the palace reliefs and on other depictions, the
so-called royal hero kills the rampant creature in the same manner: the hero
grasps the monster either by its horn or the throat with one hand, while he
thrusts his dagger into the stomach with his other hand.20 A variation of this
image type shows the hero with the lunged right arm holding the sword.21 The
image of the so-called combatant Persian or royal hero occurs in several varia-
tions in Achaemenid minor art, as numerous seals show.22 However, this kill-
ing motif seems to be used rarely in fighting scenes with human enemies.23 On
two cylinder seals in the Bibliothèque Nationale and in the British Museum,
the warrior is fighting against an enemy with pointed cap (Figs. 2, 3), as does
the Persian leader on the painted beam.24 Contrary to the depiction on the
wood painting, here he does not pull his opponent by his beard, but instead
grips him by the foresection of his headgear as if it were the horn of a rampant
creature.
Compared to other representations of the “combatant Persian”, the lack of
the winged sun disk over the composition is remarkable. Obviously, this Per-
sian religious symbol was not considered as important by the painter and so it
was omitted.
20
For example, Kaptan 2003, 65, DS 18; Boardman 2000, fig. 5, 26; Curtis, Tallis 2005,
82, Cat. 42.
21
Boardman 2000, fig. 5, 15.
22
Boardman 2000, fig. 5, 15; Garrison, Root 2001, 217-308, pl. 218, i; Kaptan 2003, 57-58
and vol. II, 157-164.
23
On a seal from the Oxus-Treasure in the British Museum there is a “combatant Persian”
thrusting his spear into the back of an enemy dressed in nomad style, but without headgear:
Boardman 2000, 160, fig. 5, 5; Pracht und Prunk 2006, 29.
24
Ghirshman 1964, fig. 331; Curtis, Tallis 2005, 228, fig. 415; Lebedynsky 2006, 46.
Fig. 3. Cylinder seal, Bibliotheque National (Ghirshman 1964, fig. 331).
The Commander
Costume: The commander is wearing a fully sleeved and pleated red robe that
reaches down to the ankles. The appliqué edges sown onto the sleeves and the
pleats are indicated by short black lines (Fig. III). The drapery of this costume
is similar to the so called Achaemenid robe or court robe.25 The central fold of
its lower part runs down as a crosshatched line. The hemline is in the shape of
a sharp arch, leading to a pinched waist underneath.
However, the “Achaemenid robe” usually has wide pseudo-sleeves26 and not
long closely sewn sleeves as depicted on the wooden frieze. Peter Calmeyer
explains this peculiarity by claiming an inability of the painter to render
pseudo-sleeves,27 but it was obviously not the intention of the painter to depict
pseudo-sleeves here. Rather, he has indicated that he meant to show sown
25
Sekunda 1992, 4; Calmeyer 1988, 34-36. The origin of the “Achaemenid robe” is unknown.
Some regard it as being of Elamite origin (Calmeyer 1988, 27-51), while others think it was
native Persian. Some scholars identify the “court robe” with the Greek word kypassis: Bittner
1985, 100; E. Rehm in: Pracht und Prunk 2006, 205.
26
Bittner 1985, 106-110; Pracht und Prunk 2006, 119. For the style of this costume see:
Koch 1992, 206, fig. 151.
27
Calmeyer 1993, 13.
sleeves using fine black lines. This oddity may merely reflect the unfamiliarity
of the painter with this garment typical of the Early Achaemenid period.28 On
the seal images the wide sleeves of the “Achaemenid robe” sometimes appear
in pushed up position due to the movement of the arms (Figs. 2, 3).29 The
painter, who was apparently not aware of this costume, reinterpreted his model
as closely sewn sleeves instead of depicting naked arms with rolled-up sleeves.
Shoes: Although the painting in the lower part of the scene is largely faded,
the red triple strapped shoes of the Persian leader are still visible (Fig. III).
Such strapped boots were worn by the so called royal hero or victorious war-
rior as well as by infantry soldiers.30 Deniz Kaptan has observed that in the
combat scenes on the seals from Daskyleion the victorious Persian is always
shown wearing strapped boots, while his opponent’s shoes are omitted.31 She
suggests that this iconographic detail was used to demonstrate the superiority
of Persian power.
Weaponry: The commander is equipped with a bow, a quiver and a dagger
(Fig. III). He thrusts his dagger into the stomach of his opponent. The dagger
has a large blade and a pommel with a convex bowed contour at the top.
Similar daggers are depicted on the Persepolis reliefs in the hands of the sec-
ond delegation, and frequently on clay seal impressions.32
The quiver and the bow extend symmetrically on the shoulder behind the
neck. The bow has a round shape and duck’s beak ends. The square shaped
quiver has three tied-down tassels that are hanging down from its rear.33 Such
28
It is supposed that this “court or Achaemenid robe” was discarded during the reign of
Darius I by the king and army in favour of the Median trouser costume. This suggestion is
mainly based on a comment of Herodotus (I, 135: “No race is as ready to adopt foreign ways as
the Persians: for instance, they wear the Median costume as they think it handsomer than their
own”, Xenophon (Cyr. VIII, 1, 40) confirms the change to Median dress, though he attributes
the change to the reign of Cyrus the Great. According to Sekunda (1992, 13) the “Achaemenid
robe” was impractical for riding and therefore it was discarded, but it is possible that it continued
to be used by the King for certain traditional ceremonies. The “Achaemenid robe” never appears
in representations on the Greek vases that follow the Persian Wars. Therefore Sekunda (1992,
15) assumes that “the field army in the West ceased to use it some time during the first half of
the 5th century”.
29
Garrison, Root 2001, pl. 179.
30
Bittner 1985, pl. 9, 3; Calmeyer 1993, 14; Garrison, Root 2001, 129, PFS 301, Cat.
No. 54; Kaptan 2003, 60.
31
Kaptan 2003, 60.
32
Walser 1966, pls. 9, 36; Koch 1992, fig. 51; Head 1992, 18; Kaptan 2003, 60, pl. 9, A.
Such a dagger is also to be found on the statue of Darius from Susa: Boardman 2000, 114, fig. 3,
36a,b.
33
The function and meaning of the three tassels hanging down are not clear: Bittner 1985,
135 “Ein mit Glocken oder Metallstücken versehenes Schurgehänge“. They are supposedly used
to clean arrowheads: Pracht und Prunk 2006, 29.
square shaped quivers together with round shaped bows appear with the
guardsmen on the glazed bricks of Susa and on the great relief sculptures of
Persepolis, as well as with the so-called combatant Persian on seals.34 This
weaponry was part of the Achaemenid robe, the typical outfit of Persian
warriors.35
Hair dress, beard and facial features. The leader has long hair shaped to a
chignon at the nape and a long and square-tipped beard (Fig. IX). He wears a
cylindrical crown with a horizontal band and points on the top. A round ear-
ring painted red is still visible on his earlobe. His facial profile has a long,
faintly curved nose line; his lower lip sticks out slightly. A curved eyebrow line
surrounds his large eye, which is angled at one end but open towards the front.
He has a heavy chin and a thick black mustache. The long beard extends over
the left shoulder down to his armpit. The neck is indicated at the back under
the hair, which is bundled in a full round shape.
Calmeyer calls the headgear of the victor a kidaris.36 The term kidaris is used
by Greek authors for a royal hat, the identification of which is still much
debated.37 Contrary to widespread opinion, the wearing of a dentate or crenel-
lated cylindrical crown was not reserved to kings.38 Such crowns were worn by
other noble Persians, so called royal archers, women, servants, sphinxes and
also by Ahura Mazda.39
34
Glazed-brick tiles of Susa: Boardman 2000, 112, fig. 3, 33; Pracht und Prunk 2006, 119.
Seals: Garrison, Root 2001, pl. 179, g; Pracht und Prunk 2006, 29, 55 top. Persian type round
bows: Calmeyer 1988, 33-34; Sekunda 1992, 20. The delegation of Elamites on the Apadana
reliefs bears such round bows with duck’s beak ends: Koch 1992, 260, fig. 186; Sekunda 1992,
10, top figure.
35
E. Rehm in: Pracht und Prunk 2006, 206-208.
36
Calmeyer 1993, 13.
37
Referring to Calmeyer, Borchhardt goes even further and identifies this headgear as the
kidaris of the Great King: Borchhardt 2002, 95. For the latest discussion on the identification of
the royal hats, kidaris and tiara orthé, see: Ch. Tuplin, Treacherous Hearts and Upright Tiaras:
The Achaemenid King’s Head-Dress, which is to be published in: The Proceedings of The Celtic
Conference in Classis held at Rennes in 2004. I am grateful to the author for sending me his
unpublished manuscript.
38
Schlumberger 1971, 375-383. Latest discussion: Kaptan 2003, 58-60.
39
Dentate crowns on the heads of so-called royal heroes fighting against a monster animal:
Henig, Whiting 1994, Cat. 19-21. Dentate crowns on the heads of women: stele from Dasky-
leion (Nollé 1992, fig. 3 a, b); Pazyryk tapestry (Moorey 2002, 208, fig. 1); crowned beardless
palace attendants on the Persepolis reliefs (Roaf 1983, 132, fig. 132). Crenelated crowns on the
heads of the so-called royal archers: on coins (Stronach 1989, pls. 1-2); on silver vessels (Özgen,
Öztürk 1996, 87, Kat. 33); on seals (Vollenweider 1995, 38, Cat. 24). Sphinxes with dentate
crowns: Henig, Whiting 1994, Cat. 22; Boardman 2000, fig. 5, 85 a. Ahura Mazda wearing a
dentate crown: Boardman 2000, figs. 5, 9; 5, 18. Kaptan 2003, 58-60; vol. II, 157 ff.
But the crenellated crowns are usually taller than the headgear on the
wooden frieze. A low crown with horizontal bands and top points as on the
painted beam is depicted on a painted pottery sherd from Gordion (Fig. X).40
As much as one can see on this small fragment, the bearded Persian is visibly
fighting with a spear. Presumably, this was also a depiction of the combatant
Persian.
The articulated features of his face distinguish the leader from the other
figures of the frieze, all of which equally show undifferentiated bird like faces.
The curved outline of the forehead, the aquiline nose and the emphasised
lower lip give an expression of an individual face, so we may be dealing with
an ideal portrait of a Persian. These facial features once again have parallels on
the painted pottery sherd from Gordion (Fig. X).41
Chariotry
The two-wheeled chariot is pulled by a biga (Fig. XI). Red painted, eight spoke
wheel is studded with hobnails (Fig. XII). The spokes feature a decorative
carving about midway of their length. The axle end appears at the rear of the
box that is indicated as a red painted disc without decoration. The chariot
body is quite deep and its top edge is approximately at the hip of the occu-
pants. The side of the box is curved at the upper rim. The box is covered in
white, but its rim is carefully preserved in order to indicate nails with red and
black dots on the wooden surface. On the rear, two symmetrically incised
quivers are recognisable which are not further differentiated by the painting
(Fig. XIII). A short pipe-like object with a round shaped end extends from the
back floor frame (Figs. XII, XX). The function or the meaning of this object
remains obscure.
The draught pole seems to rise from the front siding of the box with a very
steep upward curve and ends at the necks of the horses. A small triangular
object is hanging at the draught end, which may represent a small bell.42 Two
black vertical lines connect the draught pole with the neck yoke (Fig. XI). The
40
Dimensions: 4,6 × 3,5 cm. Voigt, Young 1999, 197, fig. 1. I owe Mary Voigt thanks for the
permission to publish this pottery sherd in this article.
41
Gordian pottery fragment: Voigt, Young 1999, fig. 1. A grafitto incised on a relief in Perse-
polis (Nylander, Flemberg 1981/1983, 61-64; Boardman 2000, 157-158, fig. 4, 3) and on a red
figure bell crater in New York (Metzler 1971, 93, pl. 1, 6) is also comparable.
42
Bronze bells were found in the BT 89 tumulus in Bintepe (Lydia) together with parts of a
chariot. Kökten Ersoy (1998, 120, fig. 7, c, d ) suggests that they were attached to the harnessing
straps of the horses. Bronze bells in the graves of Eurasian nomads: Ivantchik 2001, 26.
horses are long-bodied and ram-headed, with short, thick necks and heavy
crests. Their long tails reach the ground.43 The manes are indicated by short
black strokes. The harnessing is elaborately rendered with herring bone deco-
ration to indicate a woven structure. It consists of a neck strap, to hold the
yoke in place, and a backing element in the form of a strap that passes under
the belly and joins up with the yoke. Two further straps decorated with strokes
lead along the bodies of the horses and intersect each other under the horses’
tails and finally disappear under the box of the chariot. The paintings of the
cheekstraps are not preserved. Four reins, two red and two black, appear first
at the cheek of the horses, then pass through the ring at the yoke and finally
go back to the driver’s hands.
Remarkably, the horses are shown in ambling posture, which contrast the
galloping horses behind them. Ambling chariot horses are in fact typical for
convoy scenes,44 but quite odd in a battle scene.45 This oddity may indicate
that the motif of the chariot was borrowed from a procession scene, such
as the one that has been depicted on the north wall of the same tomb
chamber.46
On the chariot, a two-man-crew is clearly recognisable: an archer and a
horse-controller are differentiated by their garments (Fig. XII). The man in
the background has his right hand on the reins while he holds a whip with his
left hand. He wears a red tiara on his head. The upper part of his body
is painted in red, probably indicating a tunic. The lower part of his body is
covered by the siding of the chariot, but a fringe cuirass goad or pteryges, is
still visible (Fig. XIII).47 In the foreground an archer is stretching his bow
with his right arm (Fig. XII). Judging by the wide sleeves, which are hang-
ing down, he seems to wear a red “court robe”. A red painted tiara is clearly
indicated on his head. The combination of this headgear with the “court robe”
43
Libyan chariot horses also have such long tails on the Apadana Reliefs: Walser 1966, pl. 29.
Long tailed led horses: Walser 1966, pls. 24 and 26. See also Gabrielli 2006, 74, fig. 15.
44
Littauer, Crouwel 1979, fig. 80; Nefëdkin 2001, 332; Gabrielli 2006, figs. 5-6.
45
On the Assyrian battle reliefs the chariot horses are always shown in elongated gallop:
Strommenger 1962, figs. 209, 214; Yadin 1965, figs. 386, 387, 399; Littauer, Crouwel 1979,
figs. 53, 57, 58. Ambling horses usually occur in chariot procession scenes: Strommenger 1962,
figs. 210, 212, 214; Czichon 1992, pl. 50, 3; 51, 2; Postgate 2000, fig. 1; Nefëdkin 2001, 318,
319. Ambling chariot horses in a battle scene occur on some late Hittite reliefs (Nefëdkin 2001,
108, 279) and rarely on the Assyrian reliefs (Littauer, Crouwel 1979, fig. 56).
46
Summerer 2007.
47
The use of pteryges by the Persian soldiers is well attested: Stele from Bozkır (Sekunda 1992,
25), stele from Konya (Sekunda 1992, 24, top left; Sekunda 1996, 13, fig. 6), the grave stele of
a Persian military man in the Salihli Museum (Dedeoğlu 2003, 62) and the Alexander Sar-
cophagus (Sekunda 1992, 49).
is odd, since it was usually worn with a crenellated crown. This divergence is
probably a reinterpretation by the local painter of an originally Iranian model.
Another oddity with this figure is that he holds his bow with his right hand,
while all other archers do this with their left hands. An additional right arm
appears at the nape of the archer and draws the string of the bow. This arm
together with the outline of the head which runs parallel to his tiara’s outline
could have belonged to a second archer on the chariot. However, considering
other oddities noted already, it is more likely that the painter mistakenly
drew both arms of the archer as right arms and misguidedly outlined his head
twice.48
The type of chariot box with curved siding and the studded wheel with
eight spokes corresponds to Achaemenid chariot depictions.49 The quivers
incised on the siding of the chariot box occur often on the Assyrian armoured
chariots.50
The arch-shaped draught pole of the chariot and the harnessing of the
horses, however, are quite unusual. This war chariot type seems to be a par-
ticular one since it also appears on the northern rear wall of the Tatarlı tomb
chamber, but it is attested nowhere else.51
The role of chariotry within the Persian army as a whole is a much discussed
topic. Modern views of chariot warfare are especially confusing and contradic-
tory. According to some scholars, war chariots were primarily a “mobile firing
platform”. Others consider the chariot as a prestige vehicle of social standing.52
According to Littauer and Crouwel, the charioty “was designed to terrify the
enemy and break up his battle formation, thus enabling the mounted troops
and infantry that followed to charge and decide the battle”.53
Ancient authors mention the use of scythes on chariots in the Persian
army.54 These were war chariots with blades attached both at the axle-housing
48
A figure with two left hands is drawn on the wall painting Karaburun II: Mellink 1971,
252, pl. 56, fig. 27.
49
Representations of chariots with eight spokes on Achaemenid seals: Boardman 2000, 5,
9-10; Garrison 2000, fig. 29. Chariot models in the so called Oxus Treasure: Curtis 2000, fig. 70.
50
Strommenger 1962, figs. 203, 204, 206; Yadin 1965, 386, 389.
51
Summerer 2007. The specialists in ancient vehicles have not yet analysed the chariot type
shown on the Munich wood so far. On Near Eastern chariot representations see: Littauer, Crou-
wel 1979; Nefëdkin 2001. Joost Crouwel (Amsterdam), after having studied the wood paintings
from photographs, kindly informed me that a chariot with such a curved draught pole is not
known elsewhere.
52
Head 1992, 44-45; Nefëdkin 2001, 427-448; Ch. Eder in: Pracht und Prunk 2006, 136.
On the use of war chariots in the Assyrian army: Postgate 2000, 89-107.
53
Littauer, Crouwell 1979, 152.
54
Xen. Hell. IV, 1, 17-19; Dio XVII, 53, 2; Arr. Tact. 19, 4.
and extending horizontally beneath the chariot box.55 Contrary to frequent

descriptions in ancient literature, no depiction, Greek or Persian, of scythed
chariots is known. Indeed, horizontally extending blades at the axles could be
rendered only in a three-quarter view of chariot, and, therefore, they might
have been omitted on chariots depicted in full profile.
At this point, it is possible to ask whether the painter of the wooden frieze
attempted to depict such a blade with the tube like object attached at the bot-
tom of the chariot box (Fig. XX), although there is no other evidence to sup-
port this interpretation.56
Cavalry
The chariot is followed by two formations of mounted archers, in two rows

behind each other. The first row consists of four riders (Figs. V, XIV), while
three riders form the second row (Fig. XV).57 All riders are wearing trousers
with multicolour zigzag patterns and black or red tunics. The heads of the
horsemen are covered by round comb tiaras which alternate between red and
brown. The equipment of the horsemen consists of double curved bows and
quivers. The quiver, only one-third of which is visible on the rider in fore-
ground, apparently represent a gorytos. Since the riders’ hands are engaged
with drawing the bows they are not holding the reins. Thus, they seem to drive
the horses with their thighs, even though they are riding without spurs.
The ram-like, heavy headed horses, probably Nisaeans, are alternately col-
oured black, white and red (Figs. V, XIV).58 All 16 legs of the galloping horses
are rendered correctly in number and perspective. The tails are tied up accord-
ing to an Iranian custom.59 The fringed edge of the saddle covers suggests an
55
Xenophon (Hell. IV, 1, 17) describing the scythed chariots at the battle of Cunaxa says:
“These had thin scythes extending at an angle from the axle and also under the driver’s seat,
turned to the ground”. On the scythed chariots: Rivet 1979, 130-132; Nefëdkin 2001,
268-349.
56
Indeed, the scythed chariots are said to have been drawn by a quadriga: Nefëdkin 2001,
271-281; Pracht und Prunk 2006, 134. The effectiveness of scythed chariots is not entirely clear.
It is believed that the scythed chariots could plow through infantry lines, cutting combatants in
half or at least opening gaps in the line which could be exploited. Nefiodkin (2004, 369-378)
proposes that the scythed chariots were first introduced at some point between 467-458 BC.
57
Mistakenly Calmeyer (1993, 13) only counts six riders. This error is also taken over by
Borchhardt (2002, 95).
58
Such horses are commonly suggested to be the Nisaean breed mentioned by Herodotus
(III, 106; VII, 40, 57-59): Gabrielli 2006, 29-30.
59
Gabrielli 2006, figs. 18-21, 28. In the burials at Pazyryk horses with tails both cropped and
tied up were found: Farkas 1967/1968, 67, note 37. Horses with tied up tails are depicted on
irregular zigzag pattern.60 The bridle and collar of every horse are painted in a
different colour. The neck strap is decorated, as with the chariot horses, with a
herringbone pattern, probably to suggest a woven structure.61 All the riders are
drawing their double-curved bows.
In the second formation there are three riders which have the same costume
and weaponry as the first row (Fig. XV). Only the colour of the horses varies.
The first horse is white, the second black and the third red. In contrast to the
riders in the first row, the bows of the riders are only rendered with simple black
lines and depicted with less accuracy, which may indicate their lower rank.
The trouser costume of the horsemen is usually called a Median or Iranian
riding outfit.62 The composite bows, which differ from the round bows of the
infantry, are considered to be of Scythian origin.63
The horsemen formed a vital part of the Persian army, which was comprised
of contingents of Persians as well as subject and allied peoples.64 Since the
mounted archers are distinguished from other Persian warriors by dress and
equipment they may represent mercenary cavalrymen. On the other hand,
this riding costume was also worn by Persians,65 hence, it does not allow us to
come to any conclusions as to the ethnic origin of the mounted archers.
While the presence of cavalry in the Persian army is certainly well docu-
mented in written sources, mounted archery seems to have been depicted
rarely, or at least not portrayed in monumental art. But the evidence of the
battle frieze from Tatarlı and isolated representations of riders with horses in
extended gallop in minor arts66 are suggestive of an iconographic tradition of
this motif within Achaemenid art.
seals and gems (Curtis, Tallis 2005, Cat. 416, 418; Kaptan 2003, 78, Cat. DS 68.71-
77.79.90).
60
Knauer 1986, 265-266.
61
Such bridle decoration is also to be found on a horse shaped rhyton: Gabrielli 2006, fig. 7.
62
Widengren 1956, 228-284; Bittner 1985, 180-198. Calmeyer (1993, 7) calls this costume
West Iranian-Cappadocian, because Medes, Armenians, and Cappadocians are wearing such
trousers on the Apadana reliefs.
63
Snodgrass 1999, 82; Brentjes 1995/1996, 180. The bows discovered in Xinjiang are as
important to the study of archery as the frozen tombs in Pazyryk were to the general studies of
the Scythians. Until these discoveries were made, only fragments of Scythian bows and represen-
tations could be studied. See for example: Wang 2001, 109.
64
According to written sources several Iranian tribes still living as nomads were used in the
army, for example Sagartians: Herodotus (VII, 85). The Battle of Marathon stiffened by some
Saka regiments (Hdt. VI, 113); Sekunda 1992, 20-21; Head 1992, 33.
65
Sekunda 1992, 12-13; Head 1992, 20-22. In Greek vase painting the Persians are usually
depicted with this trouser costume: W. Raeck in: Pracht und Prunk 2006, 151-154; Ivantchik
2006, 248-252.
66
According to Farkas (1967/1968, 66-79), a continuity between horse rider motifs in the
Achaemenid minor arts and the horsemen-motif of Assyrian art is unlikely. She suggests that the
Infantry
As previously noted, two further archers on foot follow the horsemen

(Fig. XVI). They are equipped with Persian type bows and quivers. Of the
warrior on the extreme left, only the head and outstretched left arm remains,
while his body must have been sawed off by the tomb raiders. These two
archers have the same hair and beard styles and the same headgear as the leader
of the group. Also, they too are dressed in “court robes”. Since these figures are
painted with less detail, some fine points, such as the top of the headgear and
the pleats of the garments are not well indicated. The only real difference
between the commander and these infantrymen is the manner of carrying the
quiver. Instead of hanging over the back like the leader’s quiver, it hangs
around the waist. The uniform costume and weaponry of these two archers
indicate an infantry unit, to which the leader also belonged. Infantry regi-
ments of the Persian army were equipped with bows and spears, and thence
they were distinguished as “spear-bearers” (aršibara) and “bow-bearers”
(vaččačbara).67 The lack of the spear-bearers is remarkable in this battle-scene.
This is even more astonishing as they are depicted in a procession frieze that
accompanied the battle frieze in the same tomb chamber.68
The Defeated Enemy
The warriors coming from the right represent the defeated enemy: five archers
on foot and six riders are depicted (Figs. I, II). The leader of the group is about
to be killed by the Persian commander. One warrior on foot is already dead,
lying on the ground, while one of the riders has fallen off his injured horse
(Fig. XVII). The warrior on foot on the right hand outer edge has been hit in
the neck by an arrow (Fig. VII). Only the five horsemen in the middle seem to
be ready for battle (Fig. XVIII). But an arrow, which is flying in the air above
the injured horse (Fig. XVII), points out that these warriors too will be put out
of action in the next few moments. The first victim lying at the feet of the vic-
tor has been wounded or killed by two arrows which were presumably shot
from the chariot. Apparently, the Persian chariotry broke the ranks of the
enemies and inflicted a crushing defeat.
horse and rider motif could have originated in Eastern Greece rather than in Persia. Archers on
horseback on the bullae from Daskyleion: Kaptan 2003, II, 200, pls. 217-222.
67
On the Behistun relief infantrymen are shown either with spear or bow: Sekunda 1992, 10.
But on the relief sculpture the so-called guards bear both spears and bows: Curtis, Tallis 2005,
71, Cat. 28 (stone relief from Persepolis), 87-88. Cat. 51-52 (glazed bricks from Susa).
68
Summerer 2007.
Unlike their Persian opponents, the right hand party does not have a war
chariot. All the warriors wear Median trouser costumes with simple zigzag
patterns and red painted tunics that look similar to those of the mounted
archers of the Persian army. However, these are distinguished from the cavalry
of the opponent group by their tall pointed tiaras which slant backwards
(Fig. XIX). They are also armed with a double-curved composite bow and
gorytos. The warriors on foot additionally carry battle axes with pointed and
rounded ends which hang down from the waist.
The rendering of the enemies in uniform nomadic dress, headgear and
identical equipment surely qualifies them as a specific ethnic group. The
“otherness” of these enemies is expressed clearly by the pointed hat, since no
Persian warrior wears it.
Peaked hoods are usually associated with the Scythians and the Sacae,
because the Behistun inscription labels one of the rebel “kings” with the
exceedingly tall pointed tiara as “This is Skunkha, the Saca” in Old Persian.69
In addition, there is people in the list of the subject nations on the same
monument that is characterized as Sakâ tigraxaudâ, i.e. “Those who wear the
cap pointed”. Based on this evidence, delegation No. 11 in the so-called
tribute-procession of the Apadana, whose members equally wear the charac-
teristic tall hats, is also identified with the pointed-hat Sacae.70 But the pointed
type headgear was apparently worn by other Scythian tribes too. On the royal
tomb reliefs in Naqš-i Rustam there are different groups of throne bearers who
wear pointed headgear.71 Thus, it is not sure that the Persians associated this
headgear only with one specific ethnic group.
In fact, the Persians, as well as the Greeks, referred to different northern
nomadic peoples with the ethnic name Sacae / Scythians.72 The Sakâ tigraxaudâ,
69
Shahbazi 1982, fig. 1; Pracht und Prunk 2006, 42; Lebedynsky 2006, 48. Latest discussion
on the Behistun inscriptions: Bae 2002, 16-30.
70
Walser 1966, 84-86, pls. 18, 56-58, 83; Shahbazi 1982, 226.
71
At Darius’ tomb in Naqš-i Rustam, there is a relief depicting the king standing on a three
step pedestal in front of an altar. This scene is supported by throne bearers representing the
twenty-eight nations of the empire. The trilingual cuneiform inscriptions on three panels of the
rock wall either enumerate the twenty-eight nations upholding the throne or glorify the king and
his rule: Schmidt 1970, 80-90. The throne-bearer Sakâ haumavargâ is shown in the 14th posi-
tion in the upper row, followed by Sakâ tigraxaudâ in the 15th position in the lower row. Others
are labelled with Sakâ paradraya (Sacae beyond the sea): Walser 1966, Falttaf. 1, 15; Shahbazi
1982, 210; Pracht und Prunk 2006, 49, fig. The pointed part of the cap was therefore bent into
an arc in order to avoid the asymmetry that the tall pointed tip of the cap would otherwise
produce.
72
Walser 1966, 35. The Sakâ tigraxaudâ (‘Sacae with pointed hats’) were defeated in 520/519
BCE by the Persian king Darius the Great, who gave this tribe a new leader. One of the earlier
leaders was killed; the other, named Skunkha, was taken captive and is visible on the relief at
the Orthocorybantians of Herodotus (of the pointed hats); the Sakâ hauma-
vargâ, the Amyrgioi Scythians of Herodotus (drinkers of the sacred haoma) and
the Sakâ paradraya (Sacae beyond the sea), probably the Scythians who lived
in the Northern Black Sea region.
The double-curved bow, which was composed of several parts, was an inven-
tion of Eastern or Northern Asia.73 Although it is usually called the Scythian-
style bow, its use was not limited to one specific ethnic group.
The double-headed battle axes are named as a characteristic weapon of the
Amyrgian Scythians by Herodotus (VII, 64). The armed delegation No. 17 on
the Apadana reliefs, therefore, is identified with sakâ haumavargâ, because its
members bear such battle axes.74
With the uniform equipment and costume and in particular the pointed
hats, the painter tries to convey that the enemies of the Persians were of a
specific nomadic ethnicity.75 The assumption might be justified, that they
represent the sakâ tigraxaudâ, but the evidence is flexible enough that it could
be made to fit with other Iranian Sacae entities as well.
Narrative Form
The painted frieze illustrates the complete collapse of the army of “the pointed
hats” in a narrative mode. Their formations of infantry and cavalry are dis-
solved; some warriors have perished, others have been disabled by wounds or
Behistun: Shahbazi 1981, fig. 1. Herodotus (III, 92) calls the Sakâ tigraxaudâ the Orthocoryban-
tians (‘pointed hat men’), and states that they lived in the same tax district as the Medes. This
suggests that the Sakâ tigraxaudâ lived on the banks of the ancient lower reaches of the Amudar’ya,
which used to have a mouth in the Caspian Sea south of Krasnovodsk: Shahbazi 1982, 223-226;
Nagel 1983, 169-189. The Sakâ paradraya (‘Sacae across the sea’) were living on the Northern
Coast of the Black Sea. In 514 /513 BC King Darius launched a disastrous campaign against the
Sakâ paradraya. Herodotus gives a long description of the Scythian campaign of Darius. The
latest discussions on this topic: Georges 1987/1995, 97-146; Jacobs 2000, 93-102; Lebedynsky
2006, 48-49.
73
Brentjes 1995/1996, 187; Lebedynsky 2006, 194-195.
74
The double bladed axes are usually called Scythian type: Bittner 1985, 176, note 6, pl. 14,
3. Double headed battle axes are found from Anatolia to Siberia in different regions, thus, it does
not seem to be specific for a region or ethnic: Ivantchik 2001, fig. 22; Lebedynsky 2006, 116
above right.
75
Analysing the representations on the Archaic Attic vases, Ivantchik (2006, 197-271), con-
cludes that the images of the archers with pointed caps were not associated with Scythians or any
other ethnic entity, but rather with the second rank character of the warrior. After the Persian
Wars, on the Attic vases the pointed hat became a characteristic for the Persians.
left behind. The painter conveys the reasons for this disastrous defeat very
clearly: firstly the weakness of their leader; secondly the lesser standard of their
equipment and the inferior number of their army. Such an image of the enemy
might have been a reflection of the prejudices of the Persians. Thus through
the portrayal of the weaker enemy, the viewer recognises the fact of the Persian
self-definition as the superior nation.
The representation celebrates the Persian victory. The Persian army shows
excellent leadership. The commander, who is obviously a recurrent determin-
ing factor in bringing victory, exercises his role on the battlefield by exemplary
fortitude. His superior tactical skill in face-to-face battle is conveyed on the
one hand by his purposeful thrust and on the other hand by the gesture of his
opponent, who is unable to defend himself. Confidence in his equipment and
self-confidence in front of his army show his quality in military virtues and his
leadership. The bond between leader and led is shown by the uniform costume
and equipment. The Persians win because of their superior battle discipline,
which is visible in the closed formations of their regiments. The superior
weaponry provides the Persians with the ability to outreach the enemy. Addi-
tionally, the hostile troops seem to suffer casualties under pressure from the
superior numbers of the Persians, which is indicated by one extra warrior.
Such an image must have created aversions against the enemy, but solidarity
with the victorious Persian army in the viewer’s mind. Thus, from this narra-
tive the following “message” can be extracted: “We Persians are right and
destined to be victorious, while the enemy is in the wrong and destined to be
defeated”. It defines clearly oppositions between “the collective self and a
collective enemy”.76
Such a narrative mode of “speaking” battle scenes is unknown in Achaeme-
nid art to date, since illustrations of warfare are generally rare. The Persian
“superpower” is only conveyed in extremely abbreviated combat scenes mainly
on seal images (Figs. 2, 3), where the enemy can be depersonalized and dehu-
manized.77 The evidence of the Munich painting suggests that these abbrevi-
ated illustrations of “Persian victory” were possibly adopted from detailed
battle representations, which are not preserved for us.
76
For the Greek and Roman war representations Hölscher (2003, 4) singles out four basic
aspects: 1. War as reflection of psychological experience of threat, violence and death. 2. War as
creation of a distinction between a “collective self and a collective enemy”. 3. War as legitimised
killing. 4. War as a foundation of political power.
77
Garrison, Root 2001, 56-60; Kaptan 2003, 60-64.
The narrative form of this battle frieze has parallels in the painted tomb
chambers and city-reliefs of Lycia.78 This artistic tradition in Anatolia is
supposed to have originated in Assyrian art.79
Is the Persian Commander the King?
Peter Calmeyer assesses whether the commander of Persians could be the

Great King (Figs. III, IX). With reference to the strapped boots he comes to
the conclusion that this cannot be the case.80 The smooth royal shoes are usu-
ally not strapped.81 Regardless of this discussion, Jürgen Borchhardt interprets
the Persian leader as the Great King in the framework of his “Dependenz-
Theorie” and sees the archer on the chariot as the tomb owner, who, according
to Borchhardt, was a Phrygian aristocrat.82 Borchhardt only tries to justify his
identification with the headgear of the commander. The problem with the
identification of this headdress with the royal hat kidaris has been discussed
previously. As Bruno Jacobs and Wouter Henkelmann have shown independ-
ently of each other, the wearing of a crenellated crown was not a privilege of
the king, as such a crown can be found on the heads of numerous non-royal
figures, both so called Persian nobles and guards at Persepolis.83 Figures styled
similarly with court robes and crenellated crowns appear grouped or isolated
in different contexts.84 As has been discussed above, the battle scene provides
two more archers dressed in court robes, who also bear the same headgear, and
have the same hair and beard style as the leader.85 Thus, the headgear provides
78
Painted tomb chambers in Karaburun and Elmalı: Mellink 1971, pl. 52, fig. 22; Mellink
1972, pls. 59-60; Mellink 1998. The “city-reliefs” of Lycia are considered to be historical repre-
sentations: Childs 1978, 91-97; Borchhardt 2002, 101-110. Also, it is known from written
sources that there was a tradition of historical representations in Anatolia, such as the painting
of Mandrokles and Bularchos (Hölscher 1973, 4-35; Borchhardt 2002, 91, 93-94). We know of
an Oriental love story that was depicted on walls of temples and private houses of Persians in
Anatolia from a fragment of Chares of Myteline quoted by Athenaeus (XIII, 575f.).
79
Childs 1978, 49-54, 89-91; Mellink 1998, 63-64.
80
Calmeyer 1993, 14: „ . . . wir müssen also überprüfen, ob der Vorkämpfer, offensichtlich
auch der Anführer der siegenden Partei ein Großkönig gewesen sein kann – und ob es Dareios I.
sein kann. Das ist nicht der Fall“.
81
Calmeyer 1988, 47-48; Koch 1992, 211, fig. 143.
82
Borchhardt 2002, 95.
83
Henkelmann 1995/1996; Jacobs 1994, 138. See also: Kaptan 2003, 58-60. On the crenel-
lated crowns of the kings on the Persepolis reliefs: Roaf 1983, 131-133.
84
For example, on the gem in the Bibliothèque Nationale (Sekunda 1992, 3 bottom figure)
and the silver phiale from the so-called Lydian Treasure (Özgen, Öztürk 1996, 87).
85
On the discussion of kidaris Jacobs (1994, 138) refers to the Munich wood painting and
argues against the interpretation of the crenellated headgear as the King’s crown.
no good grounds for identifying the commander as the Great King. On the
other hand, Calmeyer’s argument, that the king never wears strapped boots,
can easily be rebutted since the royal smooth shoes appear in explicit sculp-
tural representation of the king in ceremonial guise and not in battle scenes.
The headgear is no evidence to support royalty, but neither are the shoes evi-
dence to the contrary.
As has been discussed above, the iconographic relation between the central
duel in the battle scene and the royal hero is evident; this is the most fre-
quently represented theme on the seals of the Persian court in the centre of the
empire. The antecedents of this very old theme originally lie in pre-dynastic
Mesopotamia.86 The iconography of the isolated motif of the combatant Per-
sian on Achaemenid seals has been discussed exhaustively. The recent scholar-
ship tends to see a royal hero rather than the king in such figures, an
ideological construct symbolizing the collective force of Persian power.87
On the painted frieze, however, the figure of the combatant Persian appears
as head of the Persian army for the first time. This particular context once
again raises the question whether the army could have been led by the king. A
close look at the contexts of images evidently representing the king may help
to clarify this question. In fact, Persian kings are rarely represented in direct
conflict with the enemy. The only example showing King Darius I triumphant
over rebels, is the Behistun relief.88 Based on this, comparanda images showing
the Persian warrior clad in the “Achaemenid robe” and crenellated crown
bringing captives, all tied by the same rope, on some seal images are suggested
to be representations of the king.89 On some seal representations, the trium-
phant Persian is shown thrusting his dagger or spear into an enemy while
standing on a corpse, as does the Persian commander on the wood painting.90
Some of them are labelled with the respective king’s name.91 But these names
have no iconographic significance for the interpretation of the crowned and
robed Persian in principle, since the inscribed name of the king does not nec-
essarily prove the presence of the king. Thus, evidence for the representation
of the king actively engaged in a battle is lacking in Achaemenid art.
86
Kaptan 2003, 55-56 with literature.
87
Curtis, Tallis 2005, 228. Garrison and Root (2001, 57) suggest “that there were cultural
taboos in the Iranian tradition of kingship that inhibited explicit depictions of the king in any
position of potential vulnerability”.
88
Koch 1992, 1-3.
89
Boardman 2000, fig. 5, 5. The victorious Persian with Greek captives: Stähler 1992, pl. 5, 1.
90
Boardman 2000, fig. 5, 5; Stähler 1992, pl. 5, 2.
91
Garrison, Root 2001, 57; Kaptan 2003, 87.
However, the most striking argument against the presence of the king on
the painted frieze is the presence of the two infantrymen on the far left, who
differ neither in outfit nor in equipment from the commander. As has been
discussed above, they apparently represent a military unit to which the com-
mander also belongs. For this reason, the interpretation of the leader as a tri-
umphal Persian or a brave warrior seems to be more likely than that of him
as king.
Is the Battle Scene an Historical Representation?
The important question at this point is whether this unique battle scene is
intended to be of historical significance in the sense that a specific historical
battle is represented, or whether an old iconographical tradition has been
altered to correspond with general Persian exploits without specific reference
to a particular event.
Past commentaries on the battle frieze voice no doubt that it depicts a
specific Persian campaign. This was first suggested by Peter Calmeyer who
linked the frieze with one of the Scythian campaigns of Darius I.92 Following
Calmeyer’s suggestion Jürgen Borchhardt adds the wood painting to the cata-
logue of illustrations of contemporary historical events (“zeitgenössische
Ereignisbilder”) and identifies the Persian commander as Darius the Great.93
Pierre Briant goes even further and compares the battle scene with the Alexander-
mosaic in Naples. Again referring to Calmeyer he puts his attribution in con-
crete terms and denotes the battle scene as an illustration of the second
campaign of Darius I against the Scythians in 513 BC in “the Ukraine”.94
92
Calmeyer 1993, 14-15. Indeed, Calmeyer titles his article „Zwei mit historischen Szenen
bemalte Balken der Achaemenidenzeit“, however, he considers only one of the beams, the one
with the battle scene, to be an historical representation.
93
Borchhardt 2002, 95: „Unter historischen Gesichtspunkten kommen die Feldzüge Dareios
gegen die Skythen in Frage. Mit anderen Worten, der Grabinhaber, in dem wir einen bedeuten-
den Aristokraten erkennen können, rühmt sich, einen der Feldzüge des Dareios mitgemacht zu
haben. Vor dem Streitwagen erscheint in Bedeutungsproportion eine persisch gekleidete Gestalt
mit Bart und zylinderförmiger, quergeriffelter Kopfbedeckung mit aufgesetzten Ornamenten in
der man die Kidaris des Großkönigs erkennen könnte“.
94
Briant 2003, 247: “Si l’on admet, avec le premier éditeur, qu’il s’agit d’une représentation
de la guerre menée par Darius Ier contre les Scythes d’Ukraine, la peinture pourrait dater des
alentours de 500 avant notre ère. Quoi qu’il en soit, sur l’image on distingue clairement, à
gauche, une première figure royale, qui, de son arc bandé, décoche des flèches contre des cavaliers
scythes. À l’avant, devant un char, on distingue plus clairement encore un Grand roi, qui porte
la longue robe perse (le kandys) et couronne crénelée, et qui, saisissant un Scythe par sa barbe,
lui plonge son épée courte dans le corps . . .”. However, these statements are incorrect in several
However, Pierre Briant makes no argument for the concreteness of his inter-
pretation. He seems to have misunderstood Calmeyer’s comment.
Advancing from the premise that the ethnic identity of the enemies is evi-
dent, Peter Calmeyer argues that the Perso-Scythian wars are only attested in
written sources for the last quarter of the 6th century and that in later times,
the Scythians played no role as enemies of the Persians. Consequently,
Calmeyer thinks, that the painted battle scene must have referred to one of
these events. But it is not clear whether Calmeyer primarily argues with the
dating of the painted frieze around 500 BC or whether he derives this date
from the supposed historical context. Equally, Jürgen Borchhardt is also not
precise about this point,95 but since he believes the wood to be firmly dated by
14
C to around 500 BC, he regards its painting as a depiction of a contempo-
rary historical battle between Persians and Scythians “with good reasons”.
However, this supposed historicity of the painting does not stand up to
criticism. As the previous discussion of the iconography has shown, the
fighting groups are systematically distinguished by their headgear. Addition-
ally, they are determined also by the direction in which they are fighting: the
victorious Persians come from the left hand the defeated nomads from the
right.96 They meet in the middle, where the respective leaders stand opposite
each other in close battle. No details of the natural setting of the event are
rendered; thus, the locality of the battlefield remains obscure. None of the
warriors is personalised sufficiently to be named. Even the ethnicity of the
enemies cannot be determined precisely. The only information which can be
extracted from the narrative form of the depiction is the victory of the Persians
over a certain group of nomad enemies with attributes specific only to a cer-
tain degree, such as dress, armour or way of fighting.
It is not intelligible whether the Persians defeated their pointed hatted ene-
mies in a specific battle with particular circumstances, or whether such battles
occurred more often, always with the Persians emerging victorious.
Contrary to the comments of Borchhardt, the wood of the frieze is far from
firmly dated by 14C.97 Consequently, the date of the painting does not neces-
sarily coincide with the Scythian campaigns of Darius. Generally speaking,
respects: Firstly, the first editor Calmeyer does not state that the battle scene renders the war of
the Darius I in the Ukraine. Secondly the “figure royale” does not shoot arrows against “Scythes”.
And thirdly the dress of the “rois” is not a kandys.
95
96
Victorious warriors coming from the left side are a convention of battle representations:
Lushey 2002, 17-18.
97
Calmeyer 1993, 7; Borchhardt 2002, 95. The samples of the Munich beams were carbon
dated by H. Willkomm, of the C-14 Laboratory of the Institute for Pure and Applied Physics at
any conflict between Persians and Scythians or Sacae, known or unknown to

us from the written sources could be applicable to the battle frieze on the
wood. As Calmeyer himself points out, Strabo (XV, 3, 15) relates a legendary
battle between the Persians and Scythians that happened in Zela in Northern
Anatolia. According to this account, the Scythians raided and destroyed the
domains of the Cappadocians. However, the Persian generals stationed in
Cappadocia attacked the Scythians at night and repulsed them successfully.
We do not know when this event occurred, but it must have been formative
for the Persians, because there was an annual celebration, a cultic festival, up
to the time of Strabo. Also, the Scythians may have been conceptualised as a
generic enemy for the Persians long after the historical wars.98
As noted above, the latest stylistic elements of the painting point to a date
in the middle of the 5th century BC.99 A possible later date does not, however,
exclude the possibility that the battle scene might refer to an historical combat
between Persians and Scythians.100 Indeed, it is hardly believable that the
sophisticated composition of the frieze was first created for this artistically
undemanding wood painting. Plausibly, a celebrated battle painting was used
the University of Kiel. In his letter of 8th January 1991 addressed to Dr. Gebhard, Prof. Willkomm
writes the following results obtained by the tests of two samples:
13C  14
C-Age B.P. ± 1 Calendar Years %95
–22,8 2420 ± 90 790-275 BC
23,2 2490 ± 65 795-415 BC
The first sample gives a date between 790 BC and 275 BC and the second one between 795 BC
and 415 BC. Willkomm explains the discrepancy of dating between the both samples due to
imprecision of the results. But he also stresses that a more precise dating could be reached only
through crossdating with tree rings. I am grateful to Dr. Gisela Zahlhaas for sending me a copy
of the letter of Prof. Willkomm. On the problem of dating of the Tatarlı wood see Kuniholm’s
appendix in Summerer 2007, 153-156.
98
The appearance of the battle scenes between Greeks and Persians on fourth century Greek
vases shows that the images of generic enemies could return regardless of actual conflicts:
W. Raeck in: Pracht und Prunk 2006, 157. See, for example, on the Athenian red-figured hydria
in the British Museum: Curtis, Tallis 2005, 213, Cat. 425.
99
The beams of the Tatarlı tomb chamber including the beams in Munich are scientifically
tested. According to the tests, carried out by Peter Kuniholm in cooperation with Bernd Kromer
in 1996, the timbers were cut in 451 BC±22. However, after the most recent radiocarbon results,
Kuniholm is now arguing strongly for an earlier date in the year 478 BC +4/±7. But he also
stresses that the precise dating of the Tatarlı tomb will remain open until more overlapping wood
material is found: see appendix in Summerer 2007.
100
The depiction of the battle of Marathon in the stoa poikile was commissioned thirty years
after the event of this war: Hölscher 1973, 50; Hannestad 2001, 112; Borchhardt 2002, 99.
as a model. Depictions of historical events on so called tabulae are mentioned

by some ancient authors. According to Pliny (N.H. XXXV, 55), an historical
illustration of the defeat of the Magnesians was painted on wood by the Greek
artist Bularchos about 700 BC.101 Herodotus mentions wooden pinakes with
the representation of Darius’ floating bridge and the Persian army crossing the
Bosporus.102 Accordingly, it is quite possible that a painting of the subsequent
Scythian wars was also commissioned by the Great King or by one of his
officers. But any attempt to determine a concrete relationship between this
supposed historical depiction of Darius’ wars in 513/512 BC and the wood
painting in Munich is trapped in a vicious circle. Accordingly, the claim that
the battle scene on the Munich beam is “eine zeitgenössische Ereignisdarstel-
lung” of Darius’ Scythian wars cannot really be entertained.103
Therefore, the depicted Persian victory should not be seen as an historical
documentation, but rather as a more generic battle “Persians versus enemy”,
perhaps an ideological construct which was determined by the warfare experi-
ence of Persians. The question whether the Munich wood depicts an historical
event or not is misleading. We should rather ask how it relates to Persian
military practice and how the experienced battle was perceived by the Persians
at the time of the Persian Wars.
To conclude, the Munich wood painting probably used a painting of the
Archaic period showing a battle scene between the Persians and their pointed
hatted nomad enemies as a model. But the question to what extent a specific
historical impulse played a role in this supposed prototype must remain open
since we have no means to exclude that it was completely a product of imagi-
native construction. At any rate, in the Classical period this Archaic model
was transformed and realised with details according to the ability and needs of
both painter and commissioner.
It is also worth of noting that the other known battle images from the Ana-
tolian funeral contexts such as the wall paintings in Karaburun tomb and the
grave-stele from Yalnızdam in Lycia as well as the relief on the sarcophagus
101
102
Hdt. IV, 88, 1: “Mandrokles [a Samian architect who made a floating bridge for the Per-
sians across the Bosporus] had a picture made with them, showing the whole bridge of the
Bosporus, and Darius [the Persian] sitting aloft on his throne and his army crossing; he set this
up in the temple of Hera, with this inscription: ‘After bridging the Bosporus that teems with fish,
Mandrokles dedicated a memorial of the floating bridge to Hera, having won a crown for him-
self, and fame for the Samians, doing the will of King Darius’”. The pinakes of Mandrokles are
considered as an historical depiction: Hölscher 1973, 36; Borchhardt 2002, 93-94.
103
According to Borchhardt (2002, 95-96) the archer on the chariot was the tomb owner or
commissioner of the wood paintings who participated on the Scythian campaigns of Darius
either in 519 or in 513 BC.
from Çan in the Troas,104 depict a spear-bearing Persian riding down the Greek
enemy and follow a Greek iconographic model.105 In contrast to this, the Ira-
nian nomads with pointed hats oppose the Persians on the Tatarlı wall paint-
ings and the image follows here traditional oriental models, including clearly
connected to Persia. This particularity can be explained by vicinity of Tatarlı
to the Achaemenid royal residence Kelainai.
Bibliography
Bae, C.-H. 2002: Comparative Studies of King Darius’s Bisitun Inscription. Cambrige Mass,
Harvard Univ. Diss. 2001 (Ann Arbor).
Bittner, S. 1985: Tracht und Bewaffnung des persischen Heeres (Munich).
Boardman, J. et alii 1977: Die griechische Kunst (Munich).
Boardman, J. 2000: Persia and the West (London).
Borchhardt, J. 2002: Narrative Ereignis- und Historienbilder im mediterranen Raum von de
Archaik bis in den Hellenismus. In M. Bietak & M. Schwarz (eds.), Krieg und Sieg. Narra-
tive Wanddarstellungen von Altägypten bis ins Mittelalter. Internationals Kolloquium. 29.-30.
Juli 1997 im Schloss Haindorf, Lanenlois (Vienna), 81-136.
Brentjes, B. 1995/1996: Waffen der Steppenvölker (II): Kompositbogen, Goryt und Pfeil. Ein
Waffenkomplex der Steppenvölker. Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran 28, 179-210.
Briant, P. 2003: Darius dans l’ombre d’Alexandre (Paris).
Calmeyer, P. 1988: Zur Genese altiranischer Motive. X. Die elamisch-persische Tracht. Archäolo-
gische Mitteilungen aus Iran 21, 27-51.
Bruns-Özgan, Ch. 1987: Lykische Grabreliefs des 5. und 4. Jh. v. Chr. (Tübingen).
Calmeyer, P. 1993: Zwei mit historischen Szenen bemalte Balken der Achaemenidenzeit. Münch-
ner Jahrbücher 43, 1993, 7-18.
Childs, W. A. P. 1978: The City-Reliefs of Lycia (Princeton).
Cohen, A. 1997: The Alexander Mosaic. Stories of Victory and Defeat (Cambridge).
Cook, R. M. 1981: Clazomenian Sarcophagi (Mainz).
Czichon, R. 1992: Die Gestaltungsprinzipien der neuassyrischen Flachbildkunst und ihre Entwick-
lung vom 9. zum 7. Jh.v.Chr. (Munich).
Dedeoğlu, H. 2003: The Lydians and Sardis (Istanbul).
Farkas, A. 1967/1968: The Horse and Rider in Achaemenid Art. Persica 3, 57-76.
Gabrielli, M. 2006: Le cheval dans l’Empire achéménide (Istanbul).
Garrison, M. B. 2000: Achaemenid Iconography as Evidenced by Glyptic Art: Subject Matter,
Social Function, Audience and Diffusion. In Chr. Uehlinger (ed.), Images as Media. Sources
for the Cultural History of the Near East and the Eastern Mediterranean (1st Millennium
BCE) (Göttingen), 115-164.
Garrison, M. & Cool Root, M. 2001: Seals on the Persepolis Fortification Tablets I. Images of
Heroic Encounter (Chicago).
Georges, P. 1987/1995: Darius in Scythia. The Formation of Herodotus’ Sources and the Nature
of Darius’ Campaign. American Journal of Ancient History 12, 97-146.
Ghirshman, P. 1964: Iran. Protoiraner, Meder, Achämeniden (Munich).
104
Mellink 1972, 23-24; Bruns-Özgan 1987, pl. 20, 2; Sevinç et al. 2001, fig. 11.
105
Cohen 1997, fig. 11-16.
Hannestad, L. 2001: War and Greek Art. In T. Bekker-Nielsen & L. Hannestad (eds.), War as
Cultural and Social Force. Essays on Warfare in Antiquity (Selskab), 110-117.
Head, D. 1992: The Achaemenid Persian Army (Stockport).
Henig, M. & Whiting, M. 1994: Classical Gems. Ancient and Modern Intaglios and Cameos in the
Fitzwilliam Museum (Cambridge).
Henkelmann, W. 1995/1996: The Royal Achaemenid Crown. Archäologische Mitteilungen aus
Iran 28, 275-293.
Hölscher, T. 1973: Griechische Historienbilder des 5. und 4. Jh. v. Chr. (Beiträge zur Archäologie 6)
(Würzburg).
Hölscher, T. 2003: Images of War in Greece and Rome: Between Military Practice, Public Mem-
ory, and Cultural Symbolism. Journal of Roman Studies 93, 1-17.
Ivantchik, A. 2001: Kimmerier und Skythen (Berlin, Moskau).
Ivantchik, A. 2006: „Scythian“ Archers on Archaic Attic Vases: problems of Interpretation.
Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 12, 196-271.
Jacobs, B. 1987: Griechische und persische Elemente in der Grabkunst Lykiens zur Zeit der Achä-
menidenherrschaft. (Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 78) ( Jonsered).
Jacobs, B. 1994: Drei Beiträge zu Fragen der Rüstung und Bekleidung in Iran zur Achämeniden-
zeit. Iranica Antiqua 29, 125-67.
Jacobs, B. 2000: Achaimenidenherrschaft in der Kaukausus-Region und in Cis-Kaukasien.
Archäologische Mittelungen aus Iran und Turan 32, 93-102.
Kaptan, D. 2003: The Daskyleion Bullae. Seal Images from the Western Achaemenid Empire (Ach-
aemenid History 12) (Leiden).
Knauer, E. R. 1986: The Persian Saddle Blanket. Gleanings. Studia Iranica 15, 265-266.
Koch, H. 1992: Es kündet Dareios der König . . . . Vom Leben im persischen Großreich (Mainz).
Kökten Ersoy, H. 1998: Two wheeled vehicles from Lydia and Mysia. Istanbuler Mitteilungen 48,
107-133.
Littauer, M. A. & Crouwel, J. H. 1979: Wheeled Vehicles and Ridden Animals in the Ancient Near
East (Leiden).
Lebedynsky, I. 2006: Les Saces. Les „Sycthes“ d’Asie, VIIIe siècle av. J.-C.- IVe siecle apr. J.-C.
(Paris).
Luschey, H. 2002: Rechts und Links. Untersuchungen über Bewegungsrichtung, Seitenordnung und
Höhenordnung als Elemente der antiken Bildsprache (Tübingen).
Mellink, M. 1971: Excavations at Karataş-Semayük and Elmalı 1970. American Jounal of Archae-
ology 75, 245-255.
Mellink, M. 1972: Excavations at Karata-Semayük and Elmalı 1971. American Jounal of Archae-
ology 76, 250-255.
Mellink, M. 1973: Excavations at Karataş-Semayük, Lycia 1972. American Jounal of Archaeology
77, 297-301.
Mellink, M. 1974: Excavations at Karataş-Semayük and Elmalı. American Jounal of Archaeology
78, 351-359.
Mellink, M. 1980: Archaic Wall Paintings from Gordion. In K. de Vries (ed.), From Athens to
Gordion. The Papers of a Memorial Symposium for Rodney S. Young (Philadelphia), 91-98.
Mellink, M. J. 1998: Kızılbel: An Archaic Painted Tomb Chamber in Northern Lycia (Philadel-
phia).
Metzler, D. 1971: Porträt und Gesellschaft. Über die Entstehung des griechischen Porträts in der
Klassik (Münster).
Moorey, R. M. S. 2002: Novelity and Tradition in Achaemenid Syria. The case of the clay
“Astarte” plaques. Iranica Antiqua 37, 203-218.
Nagel, W. 1983: Frada, Skuncha und der Saken-Feldzug des Darius I. In H. Koch & D. N.
Mackenzie (eds.), Kunst, Kultur und Geschichte der Achämenidenzeit und ihr Fortleben
(Berlin), 169-189.
Nefëdkin, A.K. 2001: Boevÿe kolesnitsÿ i kolesnichie drevnikh grekov (St Petersburg).
Nefiodkin, A. K. 2004: On the origin of the Scythed Chariots. Historia 53/3, 369-378.
Nollé, M. 1992: Denkmäler vom Satrapensitz Daskyleion: Studien zur graeco-persischen Kunst
(Berlin).
Nylander, C. & Flemberg, J. 1981/83: A Foot-Note from Persepolis. Anadolu 22, 57-68.
Özgen, E. & Öztürk, J. 1996: Lydian Treasure. Heritage Recovered (Istanbul).
Pracht und Prunk 2006: Pracht und Prunk der Großkönige. Das Persische Weltreich. Catalogue of
the Exposition in the Historisches Museum der Pflaz Speyer (Stuttgart).
Postgate, J. N. 2000: The Assyrian Army in Zamua. Iraq 52, 89-108.
Rivet, A. L. F. 1979: A note on scythed chariots. Antiquity 53, 130-132.
Roaf, M. 1983: Sculptures and Sculptors at Persepolis (London).
Roosevelt, Ch. H. & Luke, Ch. 2006: Looting Lydia: the Destruction of an Archaeological
Landscape in Western Turkey. In N. Brodie et alii (eds.), Archaeology, Cultural Heritage, and
the Antiquities Trade (Grainesville FL), 173-187.
Schmidt, E. F. 1970: Persepolis. III. The Royal Tombs and other Monuments (Chicago).
Schlumberger, D. 1971: La coiffure du Grand-Roi. Syria 48, 375-383.
Sekunda, N. 1992: The Persian Army. 560-330 BC (London).
Sevinç, N. et al. 2001: A New Painted Graeco-Persian Sarcophagus from Çan, Studia Troica 11,
383-420.
Shahbazi, A. Sh. 1982: Darius in Scythia and Scythians in Persepolis. Archäologische Mittelungen
aus Iran 15, 189-235.
Snodgrass, A. M. 1999: Arms and Armor of the Greeks (Baltimore, London).
Stähler, K. 1992: Griechische Geschichtsbilder klassischer Zeit (Münster).
Strommenger, E. 1962: Fünf Jahrtausende Mesopotamien (Munich).
Stronach, D. 1989: Early Achaemenid Coinage: Perspectives from the Homeland. Iranica Anti-
qua 24, 255-279.
Summerer, L. 2007: From Tatarlı to Munich. The Recovery of a Painted Wooden Tomb Cham-
ber in Phrygia. In I. Delemen & O. Casabonne (eds.), Proceedings of the International
Workshop in Istanbul. The Achaemenid Impact on Local Population and Cultures in Anatolia
(6th-4th B.C.), May 19-22 May, 2005 (Istanbul) 129-156.
Tallis, N. 2005: Transport and Warfare. In J. Curtis & N. Tallis (eds.), Forgotten Empire. The
Wold of Ancient Persia (London), 210-217.
Uçankuş, H. 1979: Afyon’nun Tatarlı kasabasında bulunan Phryg tümülüsü kazısı. Türk Tarih
Kurumu Kongresi (Ankara), 306-334.
Uçankuş, H. 2002: Afyon’nun Tatarlı kasabasında bulunan Phryg tümülüsü kazısı. Arkeoloji ve
Sanat 106, 23-51.
Voigt, M. & Young, T.C. [jr.] 1999: From Phrygian Capital to Achaemenid Entrepot: middle
and late Phrygian Gordion. Iranica Aniqua 34, 191-242.
Vollenweider, M.-L.1995: Camées et intailles. Catalogue raisonné. Les portraits grecs du Cabinet des
médailles I (Paris).
Walser, G. 1966: Die Völkerschaften auf den Reliefs von Persepolis (Berlin).
Wang, B. 2001: The Ancient Corpse of Xinjiang. The People of Ancient Xinjiang (Beijing).
Widengren, G. 1956: Some Remarks on Riding Costume and Articles of Dress among Iranian
Peoples in Antiquity. Arctica 11, 228-284.
Yadin, Y. 1963: The Art of Warfare in Biblical Lands in the Light of Archaeological Study (New
York).
Zahlhaas, G. 1995: Orient und Okzident. Kulturelle Wurzeln Alteuropas 7000 bis 15 v. Chr. Exhi-
bition Catalogue Prähistorische Staatssammlung München (Munich).
Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 31- 45 www.brill.nl/acss
An Achaemenid « Palace » at Qarajamirli (Azerbaijan)

Preliminary Report on the Excavations in 2006
Ilyas Babaev, Iulon Gagoshidze, Florian S. Knauß
Abstract
Excavations on a small mound near the village Qarajamirli in western Azerbaijan provided
remains of a monumental building, as well as quite a number of fragments of limestone column
bases. The symmetrical ground plan of the building, the architectural sculpture and the pottery
found on the floor closely follow Persian models from the Achaemenid era. Similar structures are
known from Sary Tepe (Azerbaijan) and Gumbati (Georgia). These, as well as the building in
Qarajamirli, can be interpreted as the residences of Persian officials, who left this area when the
Achaemenid Empire collapsed. The painted pottery from the following period, when some peas-
ants or herdsmen occasionally lived there, so far finds parallels only in Eastern Georgia.
Keywords
Achaemenid Empire / Azerbaijan / Architecture / Column bases / Pottery
Sponsored by the Gerda-Henkel-Foundation and with the support of the

Academy of Sciences at Baku (Dr. Maia Ragimova), of the Georgian National
Museum in Tbilisi (Prof. David Lordkipanidze) and of the local authorities in
Shamkir (Azerbaijan), archaeological excavations were carried out at the site of
Qarajamirli in western Azerbaijan between August 1st and August 28th 2006.
35 years ago a limestone column base with cyma-recta-profile was found near
the village Qarajamirli, Shamkir district. According to Prof. Ideal Narimanov
(Baku) a torus, originally belonging to this base, vanished shortly after the dis-
covery. Now the base, cut in two pieces by its finder Hamid Jussibov, a resident
of the village, rests in front of his house and in his courtyard (Fig. 1, 1a). So far,
only a sketchy drawing of the base has been published.1
On March 18th, 2001 the authors of this report, together with the late Prof.
Narimanov visited the site and decided afterwards that archaeological investi-
gations should be carried out here. The above mentioned base is a typically
Achaemenid piece of architectural decoration and its prototypes are known
1
Furtwängler & Knauß 1996, 374-376, fig. 9-10; Knauß 2005, 208; Knauß 2006, 97-98,
fig. 18.
32 I. Babaev et al. / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 31- 45
Fig. 1. Hamid Jussibov on a fragment of the bell-shaped base found acciden-

tally in Qarajamirli in the 1970s.
from Susa and Persepolis. The Qarajamirli variant belongs to the type of bell-
shaped bases which were in use at least from Dareios I until Artaxerxes II
(521-359 BC). Such column bases have exclusively been found in connection
with monumental buildings owned by high Achaemenid officials. It is espe-
cially significant that they are usually restricted to the core region of the Ach-
aemenid Empire (Susa, Persepolis, Babylon etc.), with the only exception of
South Caucasus, where quite a few such bases have been found in recent
years. We know “palaces”, i.e. residences of Persian officials or local authorities
I. Babaev et al. / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 31- 45 33
Fig. 1a. The same fragment.
subordinated to Persia, at Gumbati (Georgia),2 Sary Tepe (Azerbaijan)3 and

Benjamin (Armenia).4 In 1971, one more bell-shaped base of minor size was
discovered in Kavtiskhevi, which is also known as the discovery site of a dou-
ble protoma capital corresponding to this base; the base and the capital are
dated to the 4th century BC5 (Fig. 2).
The similarities between the bases from Qarajamirli and Gumbati are so
close that we are inclined to suggest their common origin, probably from a
masonry workshop near Qarajamirli where such limestone can easily be found.
The base lead to the assumption that there may have been a similar important
building at Qarajamirli.
During the first campaign on a small and flat mound, not far from the find
spot of the base, situated only a few kilometres northeast from the village
Qarajamirli, we uncovered not only significant remains of monumental archi-
tecture but we also found a great number of fragments of column bases. Walls
(1,0-1,6 m wide) are preserved of up to three layers of mud brick. The size of
2
Furtwängler 1995, 177-211, figs. 6-7, 10-11; Furtwängler & Knauß 1996, 363-381,
figs. 2-4, 6-8.
3
Narimanov 1960.
4
Ter-Martirosov 1996, 187-189; Ter-Martirosov 2001, 158-161, figs. 4-5.
5
Gagoshidze & Kipiani 2000, 59-64, figs. 1.7-8, 2-3.
Fig. 2. Distribution map of Achaemenid bell-shaped column bases

(after Furtwängler & Knauß 1996, 378).
the mud bricks is ca. 34 cm x 34 cm x 12 cm. The ground plan of the building
immediately calls Persian models to mind (Figs. 3, 4). The building measures
at least 25 x 22 m, but probably it was much larger. From the east a wide
entrance gave access to a columned hall – obviously in the central axis of the
building. In this hall the wooden beams of the roof were supported by four
columns resting on bell-shaped limestone bases (Figs. 5-8). One of those bases
has been found in situ (Fig. 9). These bases are decorated with vertical leaves
and have a torus above. The maximum diameter is 88 cm, the lower diameter
of the column shafts measuring 52 cm. Although none of the bases have been
completely preserved it is still certain that the height of the bases was origi-
nally around 60 cm, as has been asserted by the graphic reconstruction of the
base (Fig. 10). It is remarkable that the height of the base from Sary Tepe is
equal to its upper, smallest diameter, i.e. the diameter of the bottom of the
column (53 cm).6 Behind this columned hall one of the main rooms may have
been situated. However, the greatest part of it still remains to be excavated. On
both sides of this room and the columned hall there are long corridors. Fur-
ther walls prove that the building was even wider and the walls of these cor-
ridors cannot have been the outer walls of the complex.
Fig. 3. Qarajamirli-2006. Plan of the excavated area.
6
Narimanov 1960, 164.
Fig. 4. Qarajamirli-2006. General view of the excavation of the “palace”.
Fig. 5. Qarajamirli-2006. Fragment of a column base.

Fig. 6. Qarajamirli-2006. Fragment of a column base

(drawing by T. Turkiashvili).


Fig. 9. Qarajamirli-2006. Column base in situ.
Fig. 10. Qarajamirli-2006. Graphic reconstruction of the bell-shaped

column-base of the “palace” (drawing by F. Knauß).
Although great parts of this building remain to be uncovered, the symmetrical

plan and the elaborated architectural sculpture let us assume that this was the
residence of an important person in the time of Achaemenid rule in the Cau-
casus. All limestone fragments belonged to at least six columns. This means
that there must have been further columned rooms or porticoes. The mud
brick walls, as well as the column bases, each had a thin rubble stone founda-
tion; the walls and the floors were plastered with clay.
This “palace” was erected without any doubt during the Achaemenid period
(550-330 BC), according to the architectural sculpture and the small finds
discovered on the floor. The historical background, as well as the comparison
with similar structures in Gumbati and Sary Tepe, suggest that this took place
in the late 6th century BC, perhaps when Dareios I (521-486 BC) tried to
subject the Scythians north of the Black Sea to his rule in 513/12 BC.7 The
pottery from the “palace”-levels belongs to the mid 5th to early 4th centuries
BC (Figs. 11-12). Many shapes are influenced by Persian models. However,
similar pottery has been found in Kakheti, in Kwemo Kedi and in Gumbati.
The fragment of a blue glass bowl (Fig. 12 below) shows that even luxury
goods from the centre of the empire were imported. When the Achaemenid
Empire collapsed, the residents of the “palace” left Qarajamirli. There is no
indication for any violent destruction at that time. Before the invaders came
to this region, there had not been any settlement on this mound. When the
Persians left the Caucasus the monumental building was not regularly used
any more. However, fireplaces observed at several spots do show that the
building must have been occasionally in use. The pottery belonging to this
phase is painted. This includes ceramics painted red as well as such with paral-
lel lines of white paint characteristic of Georgia in the 4th century BC.8 This is
the first case in which this type of painted pottery has been found on the ter-
ritory of Azerbaijan. Here we also discovered tiles, which are apparently the
earliest on the territory of Azerbaijan.
Furthermore, there are more mounds in the vicinity of the “palace”.
Chance finds of limestone column bases of a slightly different type (torus and
undecorated cyma-recta-profile) indicate that there must have been at least
one more monumental building nearby (Fig. 13). Similar bases have been
found at several sites in Iran and Iraq.9 However, it seems probable that these
bases are approximately from the same period as the bell-shaped bases, i.e.
from the Achaemenid era. On another hill, about 500 m southeast of the
“palace”, a great number of small ceramic finds from the surface also belong
to the same period.
7
Jacobs 2000.
8
Gagoshidze 1979, 79-80, 90-95.
9
Kleiss 1972, 197-198, fig. 63; Huff 1989, 285-295, figs. 2-4, pls. 1 a, b, d, e.
Fig. 11. Qarajamirli-2006. Pottery of the Achaemenid period.
The results of this first campaign give ample proof that there was an important
administrative centre of the Achaemenids near the modern village of Qaraja-
mirli. The Caucasus region once was under strong Persian (Achaemenid)
influence. The architecture in Sary Tepe and Gumbati could only partly be
reconstructed by the excavated remains. In Qarajamirli we have the opportu-
nity to find additional evidence concerning the architecture of residences of
Persian officials or local authorities subordinated to Persia. Further excavations
may not only give us a more complete picture of the monumental structure in
Qarajamirli, but also of its surroundings, additional official buildings as well
as the settlement of the local population.
Whereas in Eastern Georgia a great number of imports from Achaemenid
workshops as well as local imitations have come to light,10 Iron Age Azerbaijan
almost completely remains terra incognita until the present day. Unfortunately,
10
Gagoshidze 1996; Knauß 2005, 197-207; Knauß 2006.
Fig. 12. Qarajamirli-2006. Pottery and a glass bowl of the Achaemenid period.
the results of the important excavations in Sary Tepe are only poorly pub-
lished. This makes Qarajamirli even more important, since it enables us to get
the first insights into the development of the local culture of this region. Iron
Age remains from Lake Mingechevir are mainly from later periods (so-called
Jaloilu-Tepe culture).11 A comparison of western Azerbaijan, its architecture as
well as its artes minores (especially pottery), with Eastern Georgia, which has
been intensively investigated in recent years, seems promising.
In the future surveys of the neighbouring sites shall enable us to put the
results from Qarajamirli into a wider cultural context. Such a procedure
was extremely successful in Eastern Georgia during the campaigns of the
German-Georgian Kakheti expedition (Furtwängler – Knauß – Gagoshidze).
The region around Qarajamirli has been extremely fertile since ancient times
(Strabo 11, 4, 2-3). Most probably, we owe the poor state of knowledge
about the situation in antiquity and the lack of identified archaeological
11
Aslanov et alii 1959; Kaziev 1960.
Fig. 13. Qarajamirli-2006. Fragment of a column base from Daraya Takh,

approximately 1 km north of the “palace” (drawing by T. Turkiashvili).
monuments from here to the fact that there has hardly been any archaeo-
logical investigation of this region. Qarajamirli could be the start to explore
it for the first time ever.
Bibliography
Aslanov, G., Vaidov, R., Ione, G.1959: Drevnii Mingechaur (Baku).

Furtwängler, A. 1995: Gumbati. Archäologische Expedition in Kachetien 1994. 1. Vorbericht.
Eurasia antiqua 1, 177-211.
Furtwängler, A. & Knauß, F.1996: Gumbati. Archäologische Expedition in Kachetien 1995. 2.
Vorbericht. Eurasia antiqua 2, 363-381.
Gagoshidze, Ju. 1979: Samadlo. Arkheologicheskie raskopki (Tbilisi).
Gagoshidze, I. 1996: The Achaemenid Influence in Iberia. Boreas 19, 125-136.
Gagoshidze, Ju. & Kipiani, G. 2000: Neue Beobachtungen zur achaimenidischen Baukunst in
Kartli. Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 32, 59-65.
Huff, D. 1989: Säulenbasen aus Deh-Bozan und Taq-i Bostan. Iranica Antiqua 24, 285-295.
Jacobs, B. 2000: Achaimenidenherrschaft in der Kaukasus-Region und in Cis-Kaukasien.
Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 32, 93-102.
Kaziev, S. 1960: Arkheologicheskie raskopki v Mingechaure. Al’bom kuvshinnykh pogrebenii (Baku).
Kleiss, W. 1972: Bericht über Erkundungsfahrten in Iran im Jahre 1971. Archäologische
Mitteilungen aus Iran 5, 132-242.
Knauß, F. 2001: Persian Rule in the North. Achaemenid Palaces on the Periphery of the Empire.
In I. Nielsen (ed.), The Royal Palace Institution in the First Millennium BC. Regional Devel-
opment and Cultural Interchange between East and West. Monographs of the Danish Institute
at Athens 4 (Aarhus), 125-143.
Knauß, F. 2005: Caucasus. In P. Briant & R. Boucharlat (eds.), L’Archéologie de l’Empire achémé-
nide: nouvelle recherches. Persika 6 (Paris), 197-220.
Knauß, F. 2006: Ancient Persia and the Caucasus. Iranica Antiqua 41, 79-118.
Narimanov, I. G. 1960: Nakhodki baz kolonn V-IV vv. do n. é. v Azerbaidzhane. Sovetskaya
arkheologiya, No. 4, 162-164.
Ter-Martirosov, F. 1996: Un ‘paradis’ de l’Antiqité Classique: Le Site du Drashkhanakert, à
Benjamin. In J. Santrot (ed.), Arménie. Trésors de l’Arménie ancienne, des origines au Ier siècle
(Paris), 187-189.
Ter-Martirosov, F. 2001: The Typology of the Columnar Structures of Armenia in the Achaeme-
nid Period. In I. Nielsen (ed.), The Royal Palace Institution in the First Millennium BC.
Regional Development and Cultural Interchange between East and West. Monographs of the
Danish Institute at Athens 4 (Aarhus), 155-163.
Dongus Tapa – An Iron Age Settlement in the

Udabno-Steppe, Eastern Kakheti
Jens Nieling
Abstract
The article is a preliminary report on an excavation carried out on the Iron Age settlement Don-
gus Tapa in Kakheti (Eastern Georgia). This fortified settlement existed from the Late Bronze
Age till the 7th century BC and lasted longer than the settlements in the Shiraki plain, which end
in the same century.
Keywords
Settlement system / Early Iron Age / Georgia / Nomadism
In the later Early Iron Age a dense settlement system existed in Kakheti, visible
in sites like Noname, Ciskaraant, Tqisbolo or Didi Gora.1 It seems that most
of the settlements suffered destruction by foreign invaders during the
7th century BC. This need not necessarily be the case at a settlement called
Dongus Tapa, which was visited in 2003 by the author and received its name
after a nearby hilltop. It is located very close to the Azerbaidjanian border in
Eastern Kakheti.
With the help of Prof. Kiasso Pizchelauri a first exploration-campaign was
undertaken in 2004. M. Böttcher and Dipl.-Ing. P. Maier, geodesists of the
Fachhochschule Karlsruhe, established a measuring-grid. A plan of the settle-
ment was drawn and two small test-trenches were excavated. The results of
this work are presented in the following.
The area of the settlement, which covers roughly 2 ha, is relatively small. It
rests high above the valley or wadi of the river Alandere, which runs into the
river Iori some 8 km further east. On three sides the settlement is protected by
steep slopes, which make the site difficult to access and easy to defend.
On the highest part of the ridge a rectangular fortification was built, of
which ramparts and houses are still visible on the surface. They are relatively
1
See Furtwängler & Knauß 1997; Furtwängler et alii 1998; Korfmann et alii 2002.
48 J. Nieling / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 47-54
well preserved, but slowly being destroyed by erosion cutting into the hill
from a south-western direction. On a terrace below the fortification walls of
rectangular houses are detectable, most probably the ruins of a village-like liv-
ing quarter. They are constructed above the modern and most probably ancient
entrance-way leading towards the settlement from the west.
The site overlooks a third bowl-shaped terrace, which is enclosed by geo-
logic structures, as if they were ramparts. The soil inside consists of very fertile
black-earth, which provided a small area of arable land for the settlement, with
the possibility for gardening crops or keeping large herds of animals safe. In
the western part of this plain-like zone the remains of totally ruined clay or
mud-brick structures are still visible, which did not yield any archaeological
material, when a sounding-trench was dug into one of the heaps of debris
(area I/J22). On the surface only a few sherds of modern ceramic vessels were
found, although some of them could be dated to the Iron Age as well.
The features of the citadel. Within the fortress the walls of large houses, up
to a length of 10 m, are visible on the surface. They all run parallel to the rec-
tangularly arranged ramparts, built of stone. On the southern flank of the
citadel, where erosion has already exposed a good part of such a wall, the
opportunity was taken to cut in a small test-trench (area R17).
It became obvious, that this wall is still preserved to a height of 1,5 m and
was constructed directly on virgin soil without any foundation. This might
have been the reason why it collapsed at a certain time. To the east of it a cul-
tural layer of 1,2 m thickness was excavated, in which no horizontal divisions
were visible. Nevertheless it was separated into three artificial strata.
In the lowest stratum (Beh. Nr. 16) mainly dark, wheal-made pottery with
incised grooves and nail-marks was found, together with some handmade
fragments as well. This type of pottery was in use throughout the Late Bronze
and Early Iron Age and is very hard to date precisely.
In the middle part (Beh. Nr. 13) a good amount of this ware, mainly in
light grey, but including some red or buff sherds appeared. One grey fragment
shows an interesting polished design: a grain or flower in a hanging triangle
above a frieze of diagonal lines (Fig. 5.1).
The uppermost stratum (Beh. Nr. 10) again contained black sherds and
grey-wares, among which some brick-red fragments occurred. One of them
bears a fine incised decoration (Fig. 4.9). This red-ware was considered by
Othar Lordkipanidze to be typical for the later 7th and 6th century BC.2 In
association with it a carinated bowl of the traditional Bronze Age form, painted
2
Lordkipanidze 1991, 73.
J. Nieling / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 47-54 49
with black colour on a grey surface and showing a radial pattern inside was
found (Fig. 4.1).
The closest parallels to the above mentioned pottery from Dongus Tapa are
to be found in Ciskaraant Gora, period E, where carinated bowls with radial
decoration and grooved ware with nail-marks were found in abundance. These
layers were radiocarbon-dated to the end of the 8th – beginning of the 7th cen-
tury BC.3 Very similar pottery was excavated at Noname Gora, where again
grooved ware and polished patterns, such as grids, grains or bushes, occur
together with fragments of red-ware.
On the other hand polished and painted decorations with hanging triangles
resemble those of the vessels from the settlement at Samadlo, 15 km to the
west of the town of Mtskheta.4 This leads to the suggestion that the settlement
of Dongus Tapa might have lasted longer than the settlements in the Shiraki
plain, which end in the 7th century BC. The thickness of 1,2 m of the cultural
layer within the fortress itself indicates a somewhat extended period of settle-
ment-activity in the citadel. So far it remains unclear which wares and types of
pottery were used in the 6th century BC.
The function of the settlement as relay station and watch tower. Even in
a mainly pastoral economic system, based on far reaching transhumance, there
is a need for certain settled places which act as “petrol-stations on a highway”,
where shelter can be found, repairs of equipment can be done and products
can be traded on occasional markets. Sites like this may have served for gather-
ings and administrative purposes as well.
A second function of Dongus Tapa may have been that of a guard-post
overlooking the Iori-valley and a side-passage along the river Alandere. Situ-
ated on the south-eastern edge of the Udabno-Steppe, the inhabitants of Don-
gus Tapa may have controlled people coming from the Kura-valley in the
south. The settlement may, in this sense, be an Iron Age equivalent to the
medieval David Garedji cloister some 20 km further west.
Bibliography
Furtwängler, A. & Knauß, F. 1997: Archäologische Expedition in Kachetien 1996. Ausgrabun-

gen in den Siedlungen Gumbati und Ciskaraant Gora. Mit Beiträgen von H. Loehr und
I. Motzenbäcker. Eurasia Antiqua 3, 353-388.
Furtwängler, A., Knauß, F. & Motzenbäcker, I. 1998: Archäologische Expedition in Kachetien
1997. Ausgrabungen in Širaki. 4. Vorbericht. Mit Beiträgen von J. Gagošidse und E. Kva-
vadse. Eurasia Antiqua 4, 309-365.
3
Furtwängler & Knauß 1997, 360; Furtwängler et alii 1998, 320.
4
Gagoshidze 1981, pls. 43, 44, 53 and 56.
Gagoshidze, Yu. M. 1981: Samadlo II. Katalog arkheologicheskogo materiala (Tbilisi).

Korfmann, M., Pizchelauri, K., Bertram, J.-K. & Kastl, G. mit Beiträgen von Ürpmann, H.-P.,
Ürpmann, M., Kvavadze E. 2002: Vorbericht zur 3. Grabungskampagne am Didi Gora im
Jahre 1999 mit einem Anhang zu den Auswertungsarbeiten im Jahre 2000 (Kachetien/Ost-
georgien). Studia Troica 12, 467-500.
Lordkipanidze, O. 1991: Archäologie in Georgien (Weinheim).
Fig. 1. The position of Dongus Tapa in relation to other EIA-settlements in

Eastern Georgia. 1. Shilda, 2. Sagaredzho, 3. Udabno I-III, 4. Kacreti,
5. Arashenda, 6. Melaani, 7. Melighele, 8. Nukriani, 9. Tachty, 10. Gochebi-
mountain, 11. Tqisbolo Gora, 12. Didi Gora, 13. Dongus Tapa, 14. Noname
Gora, 15. Ciskaraant Gora.
Fig. 2. Plan of the settlement. Grid: 20 m, Orientation N-E.

Fig. 3. Dongus Tapa 2004. Pottery collected on the surface.

Fig. 4. Dongus Tapa 2004. Area R17, Beh. Nr. 10.

Fig. 5. Dongus Tapa 2004. Area R17. 1: Beh. Nr.13; 2-8: Beh. Nr. 16.
Oriental Innovations in Samtskhe (Southern Georgia)

in the 1st Millenium BC
Vakhtang Licheli
Abstract
The only archaeological monument of the 1st Millennium BC in Southern Georgia (Samtskhe),
which is systematically explored, is a multi-layer settlement and necropolis in Atskuri. The
assemblages of the 6th-2nd centuries BC from Atskuri testify to the close relation with the Greek
world on one side and with the Achaemenian cultural area on the other. Rich burials excavated
in Atskuri in the last years contain numerous objects of Achaemenian type, which are mostly
local imitations of Achaemenian objects. This material also shows that Achaemenian traditions
continued to exist in Southern Georgia into the post-Achaemenian era.
Keywords
Southern Georgia / Atskuri / Iron Age / Achaemenian influence
Monuments in southern Georgia dated to the 1st Millennium BC have hardly

been studied at all. The only archaeological monument systematically explored
is a multi-layer settlement and necropolis in Atskuri1 (Figs. 1, 2).
The oldest archaeological traces discovered on the territory of Atskuri date
back to the 16th century BC. This is a burial with a stone embankment con-
taining pottery, bronze and gold artifacts. The stone embankment was cleaned
over the entire area of the trench; no regularity was observable in the arrange-
ment of the stones. It is made of split stones of roughly equal sizes, between
25-30 cm in diameter. The upper stones lay 1.2 below the reference point. The
circular form of the stone “carapace” which took shape after cleaning mea-
sured ca. 3.8 m in diameter. As a result of the damage to the central part of the
stone embankment, the best preserved bones were concentrated along the
southern and western walls of the trench. After the bones were removed, a
gold disc ornamented with concentric circles (D. 4.5 cm) was found together
with bronze discoid pins. Fragments of black pottery lay next to the disc. It
would thus appear that the deceased had been laid over the pottery. No trace
1
Licheli 1997, 129; Ličeli 2000a, 139-142; Licheli 2000b, 246-249; Licheli 2001,
249-257.
56 V. Licheli / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 55-66
Fig. 1. Map of Georgia.

V. Licheli / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 55-66 57
Fig. 2. Aerial photo of Atskuri region.
of a wooden bed, that might be expected in such cases, was found.2 The floor
of the chamber lay 2 m below the reference point. In this grave 62 persons
were buried accompanied by hundreds of artefacts.
The monuments of the following period are divided into several chrono-
logical groups:
The 7th-beginning of the 6th centuries BC (burials);

The 6th-4th centuries BC (architectural and burial monuments);
The 4th-3rd centuries BC (mostly burials);
The 3rd-2nd centuries BC (architectural remains and burials);
The 1st century BC-AD first centuries (architectural remains and burials);
2
Licheli 2004b, 218-225.
The materials dated to the 6th-2nd centuries BC are of special interest from
the point of view of the relations with the external world. They include pottery
imported from different Greek cities as well as items produced in Achaeme-
nian world, or their local imitations.
Relations with the Greek world are observed since an early period. In this
case, an important role was played by the trade route which appears to have
been used as early as the 7th century BC and kept functioning during the
1st millennium BC; it was also periodically used, during later periods.3 This
was the most active route connecting the southern part of the Transcaucasia
with Colchis and, correspondingly, with the Black Sea.
The first big redistribution centre, which supplied Southern Georgia with
Greek goods, was Vani, where not only Colchian wealth was accumulated but
also the greater part of the imported goods from Greece of the 6th and the
5th centuries BC. However, it appears that other routes were also used,
connecting Southern Georgia with the Southern Pontic Greek cities.
Due to these relations, Greek imports of different periods were discovered
in Southern Georgia, namely in Atskuri: Ionian bowls of the Archaic period,
a kylix decorated with palmette of the Late Archaic period, black glazed pot-
tery of the Early Hellenistic period and black glazed pottery of the Hellenistic
period produced in Asia Minor (Fig. 3).
Literary tradition, preserved in historical chronicles of the Middle Ages,
according to which temples of Artemis and Apollo existed in Atskuri in the
1st century AD,4 indicates close relations with the Greek world. “Charon’s
Obol” discovered in a burial dated to the 1st century also testify to a particu-
larly high level of Hellenization.
Another direction of contacts was obviously oriental. It emerges later than
the Greek one, apparently on the verge of the 5th-4th centuries BC, and is rep-
resented by straw-coloured jugs decorated with various red-tinted motives
(triangles, nets). It is likely that this pottery was imported to the Caucasus and
on to the territory of Georgia from Iran, possibly from Southern Azerbaijan.5
Achaemenian influence is obvious on the verge of the 4th-3rd centuries: the
burials of this period clearly show features influenced by the Achaemenian
world (Fig. 4). In this respect, the burial No. 2004-5 is of particular interest,
which was constructed on the foundation of a building dated to the 4th cen-
tury BC (Fig. 5). It consists of a pit-burial where two persons were buried,
both in crouched posture, placed on the right side. Together with the humans,
a bull was buried, the skeleton of which lays on its back in the southern part
3
Licheli 1999, 113-115; Licheli 2000b, 246-249.
4
Licheli 2004a, 87.
5
Narimanashvili 1991, 69.
Fig. 3. Greek pottery from Atskuri.
of the structure. A great amount of jewellery, mostly decorated with incised

ornaments, was deposited with both of the dead individuals. First of all, these
are a bronze ring showing horse images and bronze bracelets with typically
Achaemenian images of double-protomae horses that have no analogues in
Georgia (Fig. 4A, 5, 9). It is known that double-protomae capitals were dis-
covered in eastern (Tsikhia-Gora)6 and in western Georgia (Sairkhe).7
6
Tskitishvili 2003, 11.
7
Kipiani 1987.
Fig. 4. A. Achaemenid type material from Atskuri; B. Achaemenid cup from

« Akhalgori Hoard ».
Among other images (mountain goat, horses, crescent, stars, sun, scorpion,
etc.) particular attention should be given to an agate cylindrical pendant, with
incised images on both sides: one – anthropomorphic figure walking, with the
right hand crooked in front and the left one to the back, with open wings on
both of the hands (Fig. 4A, 1, 6 ). Above and around the head there are five
rays which may be considered as the image of a crown. The body lines are
indicated well, with strong breast, narrow waist broad and muscular thighs;
the figure entirely covers the round relief. The motive incised on the other side
cannot be distinguished clearly. Possibly, it represents a scorpion.
It is likely that the winged figure symbolizes a stylized image of the “Winged
Genius” (or “Winged Angel”) widely-spread in the Achaemenian world. The
image found in Atskuri reveals some (rather distant) analogy with that of
Pasargadae, gate H. This is a Winged Genius in motion, though, in contrast
with the Atskuri one it wears long clothes and the direction of the wings is
slightly different. The image in Pasargadae, as well as the one from Atskuri, has
a crown on the head. It is assumed that it may be an Egyptian crown8 insofar
8
Boardman 2000, 101.
Fig. 5. Grave No. 2004-5 from Atskuri.
as the lines that depict wings (rays?) have slightly circling ends. In my opinion
the figure from Atskuri has wings and not rays, as in the case of one of the
images of Anahita.9 From the point of view of stylization of the wings on the
image from Atskuri, a good parallel is presented by a golden plate discovered
in Sardis, where Ahuramazda’s wings are also modified.10
In the 3rd century Achaemenian influence is still obvious in Atskuri. It is
reflected both in ceramics and in metal objects. One of these is a bronze seal
from burial No. 2004-2, showing a quadrangular relief, with circling handle
at the back (Fig. 4A, 4 ). Lightly cut lines surround the edges of the square,
9
Briant 1996, 265, fig. 30.
10
Koch 1996, 41.
which is completely occupied by the figure of a horse. It is slightly stylized;

front and back legs are similarly bent, giving an unnatural impression. The
body is also somewhat schematic and the incised lines are not clear. The horse
has a long neck, with ears towards the front; the tail is depicted as one line.
Behind the horses back a crescent is depicted. The incision is well performed,
it is deep and even.
Triangular and quadrangular bronze seals with handles appear to be
widespread in the east of Georgia, dating to the 3rd-1st centuries BC and
were locally produced.11 Indeed, the majority of them seems to have been
discovered on the territory of Iberia: Kavtiskhevi “Necropolis of the wounded”,
Tsikhia-gora temple cluster, at the villages of Tsagvli (Khashuri region),
Samtavisi, Urbnisi, Monasteri (Tetri Tskaro region), etc. The object found in
Atskuri has several analogues. First of all, these are images of a horse and a
crescent preserved on a clay lump in Tsikhia-gora, as well as images of horses
among the materials discovered in the villages Tsagvli, Shroma and Kvemo
Meskheti.12
The horse and crescent depicted on the seal found in Atskuri, as well as other
similar objects discovered in Georgia, should be related to Achaemenian tradi-
tions. Thus, a local production of objects with Achaemenian motives existed in
Kartli in the 4th and 3rd centuries BC. It testifies, in its turn, to a demand for
goods with Zoroastrian motives in the post-Achaemenian era in Kartli. The
situation is similar in Samtskhe. This corresponds very well to the information
from written sources. It should be especially stressed that the distribution area
of this type of motives is broad and covers Kartli and Samtskhe entirely.
As far as the pottery is concerned, a bowl with omphalos decorated with
almond-shaped relief, which was discovered in Atskuri burial No. 2004-2 is
of special interest (Fig. 4A, 10). Its shape is close to that of a glass bowl
discovered in the rich burial at Tsintskaro, which, according to the latest
studies, dates to the 4th-3rd centuries BC.13
The bowl discovered in Atskuri has some morphological resemblance with
funerary material from Qanchaeti, which at present is dated to the early
Hellenistic period.14 But the bowl from Atskuri is totally different, not only in
material, but also in decoration: it is highly primitive and could be described
as a parallel to a metal bowl discovered in Akhalgori, which has four almond-
11
Matiashvili 2005, 6; Tolordava 1980, 38-40.
12
Tolordava 1980, 38-40.
13
Narimanashvili 1991, 41-46.
14
1 2
Fig. 7. 1. Pithos-like vessel from Atskuri; 2. Vessel from Sairkhe.
shape reliefs placed in lockets, though it is decorated with rather complex

ornaments (Fig. 4B).15
Similar ceramic bowls have been found among the materials from Kavtiskhevi,
Grmakhevistavi and Samadlo (Eastern Georgia), though they do not have
exact parallels.16 On the basis of these analogies, the bowl from Atskuri should
be dated to the 3rd-2nd centuries BC. Another vessel produced under the
influence of Achemenian forms was found in the same burial. This is the so
called pithos-like vessel (Fig. 7, 1); similar vessels were discovered in Algeti
gorge, Beshtasheni necropolis (5th century BC), in Nastakisi (2nd or 1st centu-
ries BC) and Tskhradzma necropolis (second half of the 4th century BC).17
The vessels discovered in the burials of the Late Bronze Age in Samtavro are
believed to be their earliest parallels. In my opinion however, such a distant
analogy is not very convincing insofar as there exist closer chronological and
typological parallels which could have been models for pithos-like vessels.
Namely silver and golden items (diadem, ear-rings, necklaces, bracelets) and
various vessels made of metal – silver bowls, cylix, spoons, oinochoe, etc.,
including long-necked, open-mouthed bowls of oval form,18 were discov-
ered in burial No. 13 at Sairkhe (Western Georgia), which is dated to the
15
16
Margishvili & Narimanishvili 2004, 24.
17
Margishvili & Narimanishvili 2004, 24.
18
Gigolashvili 2005, 57-62.
5th century BC (Fig. 7, 2). The body is decorated with flutes, the neck and the
side with zoomorphic motives. In the specialized literature we find that vessels
of similar shape were already known in the 7th century BC. They were discov-
ered on the territory of Lydia (Ikiz-tepe).19 A glass vessel of the same form with
similar ornaments is also known.20 A golden amphora dated to the 4th or the
early 3rd centuries BC from Bulgaria is considered to be the proof for a long
existence of this type of vessels.21 However, I believe that this point requires
some more evidence. In this context it is interesting that the Sairkhe example
is considered to be an example of Graeco-Persian art. Correspondingly, it can
not be excluded that the vessel discovered in Atskuri represents a simplified
analogue of the similar silver vessels and is genetically related to Graeco-
Persian production.
It must also be pointed out that in this burial, where Achaemenian type
objects dominate, a bull was also buried. The habit of depositing a bull is unique
for this period. However, the head of bull was laid down in burials during the
Late Bronze and Early Iron Age, especially in the 15th-14th centuries BC; the
burials of this period sometimes contain skulls of bulls, mostly, in the eastern
part of the burial.22 In general, the habit of burying the head of a bovid is well
known in the central Transcaucasia and Anatolia in the Middle Bronze Age.
I think, however, that burying an entire bull at the beginning of the
Hellenistic period, in the context of cultural ‘Achaemenisation’, reflects a
conceptually new attitude. It could be related to the strengthening of the cult
of Mithras, killing a bull and with this giving life. Moreover, according to local
traditions, the most honourable sacrifice was a bull and then a cow.23 Accord-
ing to such local traditions from the mountains of Georgia, often a bull and
smaller hoofed animals were buried with every dead person. This type of burial
rite is observed in the burial No. 2004-2, where together with a bull smaller
hoofed animals are buried (an entire bull was buried only in burial No. 2004-5).
Thus, a religious syncretism, which existed in Samtskhe, is, in my opinion,
attested by the archaeological finds from Atskuri.
A late example of the reminiscence of a very ancient idea is probably given
by an image depicted on one of the rings found in burial No. 2004-5. This is a
bronze ring made from a single plate. Only a small part of the ring is preserved.
It contains an image of prolonged pyramidal shape (more exactly, an equally-
angled triangle), a figure (?), the interior part of which is decorated with hori-
19
Gigolashvili 2005, 62.
20
21
22
Gambashidze 1996, 11.
23
Bardavelidze 1953, 66-119.
zontal lines. In the front part of the triangle (?) we see the image of a twig
preserved with a row of leaves on both sides (length: 1.5 cm, width: 1.2 cm).
The interpretation of this image is rather difficult, since it is not completely
preserved. It can only be presumed that a human being or a deity should have
been shown, the decorated triangle thus being a representation of clothes
covering the body. It is to be mentioned, that long clothing of sculptures is
known to have been made of different materials (gold, silver, bronze). In the
period to which the depiction from Atskuri dates, long clothes dominate; this
becomes clear from those preserved in Achaemenian, as well as in the Greek
world, although in this case it is difficult to find any precise analogy for the
image from Atskuri.
The existence of the cults of Apollo and Artemis attested by Georgian
Historical sources (cf. supra) on the territory of southern Georgia was probably
the result of a metamorphosis of the cult of Mithra and Anahita.24
Thus, the archaeological material from Atskuri shows that southern Georgia
was part of the cultural area strongly influenced by Achaemenian culture.
Like in Kartli (Iberia), Achaemenian traditions continued to exist in the
post-Achaemenian era. This was related to the presence of representatives of the
Achaemenian administration on the territory of Georgia.25 Atskuri was
probably a peripheral region at this time since no elite objects of the so called
“palace style” have yet been found here.
Bibliography
Bardavelidze, V. 1953: Qartuli (svanuri) saceso grafikuli xelovnebis nimushebi (Tbilisi).

Briant, P. 1996: Histoire de L’Empire Perse (Paris).
Gambashidze, I. 1996: Carchinebul pirta samarkhebi bornigeles samarovanze. In: Monument’s
Friend (Tbilisi ) 4 (95), 11-15.
Gigolashvili, E. 2005: Verckhlis churcheli sairkhedan. In G. Gamkrelidze (ed.), Iberia – Colchis
(Tbilisi), 57-62.
Kipiani, G. 1987: Kapitelebi (Tbilisi).
Koch, H. 1996: Es kundet Dareios der Konig Vom Leben im Persischen Grossreich. Kulturgeschichte
der Antiken Welt 55 (Mainz).
Licheli, V. 1997: Black-glazed pottery in Transcaucasia. Its diffusion route. In J. Fossey (ed.),
Proceedings of the first international Conference on the Archaeology and History of the Black
Sea (Amsterdam), 34-40.
24
Licheli 2004a, 87; Licheli 2005, 35-37.
25
Licheli, V. 1999: The Black Sea – Vani – Samtskhe: the spreading route of Black-glazed Pottery.
In O. Lordkipanidze, P. Lévêque (eds.), La Mer Noire zone de contacts. Actes du VII e
Symposium de Vani (Paris), 101-107.
Ličeli, V. 2000a: Achämenidische Fundorte in Samcche (Südgeorgien). Archäologische Mittei-
lungen aus Iran und Turan 32, 139-142.
Licheli, V. 2000b: Greeks (Hellenism) in Hinterland of Georgia (4th-1st cent. B.C.). In R. Gor-
deziani (ed.), Phasis. Greek and Roman Studies (Tbilisi) 2-3, 246-249.
Licheli, V. 2001: Caucasian Iberia in the Post-Achaemenid Period. The Chronology of the
principal monuments. In I. Nielsen (ed.), The Royal palace Institution in the First
Millennium BC. Monographs of the Danish Institute at Athens 4 (Kopenhagen), 249-257.
Licheli, V. 2004a: Carmartuli xanis Ackuri. In M. Chkhartishvili & L. Mirianashvili (eds.),
Archaeology Ethnology, Folkloristics of Caucasus (Tbilisi), 87-88.
Licheli, V. 2004b: A burial with a stone Embankment at Atskuri. Journal of Georgian Archaeology
1, 218-225.
Licheli, V. 2005: Kultis sakitkhi antikuri khanis samckheshi. In D. Muskhelishvili (ed.), Christ-
ianity in our Lives: past, present, future. 2nd international symposium (Tbilisi), 249-257.
Lordkipanidze, O. 2003: Akhalgoris “gandzi”. Dziebani 11, 28-71.
Margishvili, S. & Narimanishvili, G. 2004: Algetis kheobis antikuri xanis arqeologiuri dzeglebi
(Tbilisi).
Matiashvili, T. 2005: Kavtiskhevis (Cikhia-gora) gliptikuri dzeglebi. Synopsis of a PhD dissertation
(Tbilisi).
Narimanashvili, G. 1991: Keramika Kartli v V-I vekakh do n.é. (Tbilisi).
Tolordava, V. 1980: Dakrdzalvis cesebi elinisturi khanis saqartveloshi (Tbilisi).
Tskitishvili, G. 2003: Cikhia-goras satadzro kompleqsi (Tbilisi).
The Toreutics of Colchis in the 5th-4th Centuries BC

Local Traditions, Outside Influences, Innovations
Mikhail Yu. Treister
Abstract
Two silver vessels: a silver aryballos from the mid-5th century BC burial No. 11/1969 in Vani and
a silver goblet from the ritual complex No. 1 of the Ulyap barrow No. 1 in the Kuban basin,
dated to the late 5th-early 4th century BC, are discussed. The similarities in details of the vessels
and their decoration with those of the silver vessels found in Lydia and the vicinity of Sinope are
pointed out. A group of items of toreutics from the 5th-4th centuries BC complexes in Colchis
and outside it is singled out: they are decorated with incised animal or mythological images, the
bodies of which are covered with vertical rows of horizontal notches. One can not exclude, that
this kind of decoration goes back to the images on the Colchian bronze axes and belts of the
8th-6th centuries BC. The characteristic rosette decorating the bottoms of the vessels from Vani,
Ulyap and the phiale No. 61 from the Treasure of Akhalgori is analysed; its genesis is discussed
going back to the rosettes on the 6th century BC phialai from Iran, Asia Minor and the Balkans.
Further the examples of Lydian metalware found in Colchis are discussed, including the phiale
with the votive inscription to the temple of Apollo in Phasis found in the later Sarmatian burial in
the Kuban basin. Finally, the problem of the ‘international Achaemenid style’ and the regional
school of Achamenid-inspired toreutics is analysed. In general the author comes to the conclusion
of the strong influence of toreutics of the Lydian-Ionian school and Anatolia in a broad sense of
this term on the local school of toreutics, which emerged in Colchis in the 5th-4th centuries BC.
Keywords
Toreutics / Silver vessels / Metalware / ‘International Achaemenid style’ / ‘Lydian Achaemenid
style’ / Colchis / Asia Minor /Lydia
1. A Silver Aryballos from the Burial No. 11/1969 in Vani and A Silver
Goblet from the Ulyap Barrow No. 1/1982
I am going to discuss certain items of toreutics originating both from the

territory of Colchis, and outside it. In the centre of the discussion will be
a silver aryballos1 from the mid-5th century BC burial No. 11/1969 in
1
Aryballos with a rim of lekythos-shaped vessel, spherical body and handles in form of flat-
figures of ducks with the heads turned backwards, with feathers shown by engraved parallel lines.
On the necks of the ducks there are fixed chains, which were originally connected (?) to a lid or
68 M. Y. Treister / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 67-107
Vani2 (Fig. 1) and a silver goblet from the ritual complex No. 1 of the Ulyap bar-
row No. 1/1982 in the Kuban basin, dated to the late 5th-early 4th century BC3
(Fig. 2). The Ulyap goblet has not been discussed specially. The aryballos from
Vani was identified by O. Lordkipanidze as an item of Attic manufacture of the
first half of the 5th century BC. This view, expressed by Lordkipanidze as early
as in 1971,4 was later repeated in numerous publications, both written by him5
stopper. The figures of the ducks are soldered to the rectangular bases. Two rectangular plates
with rounded edges are attached by two rivets each to the neck of the vessel. The necks of the
ducks are soldered to these plates. The stopper is a circular plate with a concave upper surface
with a vertical plug, soldered in the middle of the lower surface, the diameter of which corre-
sponds exactly to that of the neck of the vessel. The upper and the lower parts of the body are
decorated with petals, the contours of which are showed by double lines. Between the oval-
shaped endings of the petals there are engraved five-petal palmettes. The middle part of the body
is decorated with a frieze showing a procession of sphinxes with the front right paws lifted
upwards to the left. Six figures of sphinxes remain of originally ten (?). – Silver, forged, engrav-
ing, soldering. – Ht. 8.5 cm. Dm. of the rim 3.3 cm, dm. of the body – 7.5-8.0 cm. Dm. of the
rosette 3.2 cm. Frieze: ht. 2.5 cm; ht. of the sphinxes ca. 2.2 cm. – Ht. of the handles 2.4 cm. –
Basements of the handles: l. 1.2 cm, w. 0.4 cm. – Stopper: dm. 2.7 cm, plug: dm. 1.0 cm,
h. 1.1 cm. – Tbilisi, Georgian National Museum. Inv.-No.10-975: 101 (07: 1-69/10) -783. –
Date: first half – middle of the 5th century BC. – Literature: Lordkipanidze 1971, 282-284,
fig. 19-19a; Lordkipanidze et alii 1972, 235, No. 48, fig. 210; Lordkipanidze 1973; Lordkipan-
idze 1976, 143; 149 f.; figs. 9, 11; Lordkipanidze 1979, 160, fig. 44; Boardman 1980, 254,
fig. 294 (about 500 BC); Lordkipanidze 1983, 90, No. 404, pl. 40; Matchabeli 1983, No. 11;
Lordkipanidze 1985, 37 (fig.); Pfrommer 1987, 97, Anm. 577; Lordkipanidze 1989, 265;
267-268, fig. 131-131A; Lordkipanidze 1991, 130, pl. 26, 4; Boardman 1994, 218, fig. 6. 45;
Kacharava 1995, 69, 71, fig. 12; Vani IX 1996, pl. 9, third row in the middle; Gigolashvili 1999,
605-613; Bill 2003, 235, No. 49, pl. 175, 3. The author is grateful to Guram Kvirkvelia and
Mindia Dzhalabadze for the possibility to study the aryballos in October 2006.
2
Bill 2003, 233-235.
3
A vessel with an egg-shaped body and a high neck with slightly thickened and out-turned
rim. On the neck a scene of a pursuit of a hoofed animal (a doe?) by a lion is engraved. The lower
part of the neck is decorated with six rows of feathers, which are divided from the figural frieze
with a band of ovae. A raised ring, decorated with pearled pattern, is observed at the junction of
neck and body. The upper and the lower parts of the body are decorated with petals drawn with
double lines. Between the oval endings of the petals there are flowers composed of four punched
circles. The middle part of the body is decorated with a frieze composed of stylized lotus flowers,
connected with arcs in the lower part. At the conjunction of the arcs similar flowers composed
of four punched circles were placed. The bottom of the vessel is decorated with a rosette. – Silver,
forged, engraving. – Ht. 17.7 cm. Dm. max. 8.7 cm. Wt. 79.3 g. – Moscow, State Museum of
Orient. Inv. No. 1 M-IV. – Date: middle – second half of the 5th century BC. – Literature: Cat.
Moscow 1985, No. 361, fig. 63; Cat. Moscow 1987, No. 104, pls. XIX-XX; Cat. Mannheim 1989,
No. 104, pl. 20, fig. 37; Leskov 1990, No. 59, figs. 183-185; Cat. Speyer 1991, No. 108; Cat.
Moscow 2002, No. 615; Bill 2003, 104.
4
5
See, e.g., Lordkipanidze 1973; Lordkipanidze 1976; Lordkipanidze 1985, 37.
M. Y. Treister / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 67-107 69
and by his colleagues.6 Not going into a detailed analysis of the vessel,
J. Boardman mentioned this aryballos, which reminded him of “silver products
of Lydo-Ionian Anatolia”.7 Later on E. Gigolashvili also suggested, that the ary-
ballos is not Attic, pointing to the Rhodian-Ionian and Achaemenid elements
of its decoration, but he did not come to a certain conclusion about its origin.8
The vessel from the Ulyap barrow (Fig. 2) has prototypes among the silver
goblets with egg-shaped body and high widening upwards neck, originating
from the illegal excavations of the tumuli in Ikiztepe in Lydia.9 The body and
the neck of the Lydian vessels, as on the Ulyap goblet, are separated with a
raised ring; on one of the vessels from Ikiztepe this rim is also decorated with
vertical notches10 (Fig. 3, 1-2). A similarly shaped silver goblet with a frieze of
incised vertical notches was also found in the burial No. 11/1969 in Vani11
(Fig. 3, 3). A silver goblet from the 5th century BC burial in Sairkhe has a
similar shape, its neck is decorated with incised images of the animals, the
body is fluted and there is also a raised ring with vertical notches at the junc-
tion of neck and body12 (Fig. 3, 4 ).
Similar raised rings with vertical notches at the junction of body and neck
are known on the vessels of other shapes (Fig. 4), both in silver and bronze and
originating from Lydia (Sardis,13 Ikiztepe14 (Fig. 4, 1), Basmaci),15 southern
coast of the Black Sea16 (Fig. 4, 2), as well as from Colchis and Iberia, the latter
6
Kacharava 1995, 69. A. Bill (2003, 235, No. 49) also considers the piece as Attic.
7
Boardman 1994, 218.
8
9
Uşak, Inv. Nos. 1.51.96; 1.52.96: Özgen and Öztürk 1996, Nos. 65-66.
10
Uşak, Inv. No. 1.52.96: Özgen and Öztürk 1996, No. 66.
11
A goblet with a flat bottom, egg-shaped body and high neck widening upwards. The body
and the neck are divided with a frieze of short vertical notches. – Silver, forged, engraving.
Deformed. – Ht. 8.5 cm. Dm. of the bottom 3.6 cm. – Tbilisi, Georgian National Museum. Inv.
No. 10-975:103 (3-69/437). – Date: first half – middle of the 5th century BC. – Literature:
Gigolashvili 1990a, 317-319, fig. 2; Guigolachvili 1990b, 280 f., 313, fig. 33; Tsetskhladze
1993/94, 19; Vani IX 1996, pl. 9, third row to the right; Bill 2003, 235, No. 50, pl. 175, 4.
12
Gagoshidze 2003, PPT slides 28-29.
13
Bronze jugs, New York, MMA, Inv. Nos. 14.30.28; 26.164.14: Waldbaum 1983,
Nos. 976, 978, pl. 57.
14
Silver jug, Ankara, Inv. No. 75-7-66: Toker 1992, No. 148; Özgen and Öztürk 1996, No. 22.
15
Bronze oinochoe, Uşak, Inv. No. 1.6.89: Akbiyikoğlu 1991, 4-5, 20, fig. 15; Akbiyikoğlu
1994, 6, fig. 5; Özgen and Öztürk 1996, No. 223; Silver alabastron, Uşak, Inv. No. 1.1.89:
Akbiyikoğlu 1991, 7, 21-22, fig. 11; Akbiyikoğlu 1994, 6-7, fig. 6; Özgen and Öztürk 1996,
No. 228 (Fig. 4, 3).
16
Silver oinochoe from Sinope, earlier in the Stathatos collection, now Athens, National
Museum: Amandry 1953, 13, fig. 17; Amandry 1953-54, 13-13, fig. 3, pl. 2; Summerer 2003,
24, fig. 3.
Fig. 1. Silver aryballos from the burial No. 11/1969 in Vani. Tbilisi, Georgian
National Museum. Inv. No. 10-975: 101 (1, 4 – after Boardman 1994;
2-3 – photo by M. Treister).
Fig. 2. Silver goblet from Ulyap barrow No. 1/1982. Moscow, State Museum
of Orient. Inv. No. 1-M-IV (after Cat. Mannheim 1989; Leskov 1990).
Fig. 3. Silver goblets from Lydia and Colchis: 1 – Ikiztepe. Uşak, Museum.
Inv. No. 1.52.96 (after Özgen and Öztürk 1996); 2 – Ikiztepe. Uşak, Museum.
Inv. No. 1.51.96 (after Özgen and Öztürk 1996); 3 – Vani, burial
No. 11/1969. Tbilisi, Georgian National Museum. Inv. No. 10-975: 103
(after Guigolachvili 1990b); 4 – Sairkhe (after Gagoshidze 2003).
including the silver goblets from the burial No. 24/2002 in Vani17 and from
the Treasure of Akhalgori18 (Figs. 4, 4; 5).
Silver aryballoi comparable in shape to the vessel found in the burial
No. 11/1969 in Vani (Fig. 1) are unknown to me. Given the characteristic
shape of the neck and the spherical shape of the body, the aryballos from Vani
finds the nearest parallels among the so-called Mediterranean core-formed
glass aryballoi of the type I:3A, according to the classification by D. Grose,19
including the piece from Rhodes, now in Toledo, dated to the second half of
the 5th-early 4th century BC.20 A comparable aryballos in the Hermitage is
dated to the 5th century BC by N. Kunina.21 I would also mention the similar
faience aryballoi, not only in the shape but also in the decoration (petals in the
lower and the upper part of the body), for instance the vessel of unknown
provenance, which is kept in the Antikensammlung Berlin and which dates to
the first half of the 6th century BC.22 Another analogous piece originates from
Camirus on Rhodes.23 The core-formed aryballoi discussed have loop-shaped
handles. The handles of the aryballos from Vani in the form of the duck figures
(Fig. 1, 1) may be to certain extent compared with the handles of the silver
alabastra in the form of duck heads from Ikiztepe24 (Fig. 7, 1), Basmaci25
(Fig. 7, 2) in Lydia and from Sinope,26 as well as with those of the silver incense-
burner found also in Ikiztepe and bearing a Lydian graffito.27 Such silver ala-
bastra with similar handles were in use in Asia Minor in the Early Hellenistic
17
Paper by D. Akhvlediani, D. Kacharava and G. Kvirkvelia at the 11th International sympo-
sium on the ancient history and archaeology of the Black Sea area in Vani, September 2005.
18
A goblet with a spherical body and high neck with the edge turned outwards, with a raised
ring at the junction of body and neck, decorated with vertical relief notches. – Silver, forged,
hammered, engraving. The body is partly lost. – Ht. ca. 12.5 cm. – Tbilisi, Georgian National
Museum. – Date: 4th century BC (?). – Literature: Smirnov 1934, 47 f., No. 66, pl. XII; Bill
2003, 211, No. 81.90, pl. 125, 3. Cf. a silver goblet from the burial No. 10 in Sairkhe, dated to
the 4th century BC: Nadiradze 1990a, 165, pl. XL, 4; Nadiradzé 1990b, 215, 220, fig. 5: first half
of the 4th century BC; Bill 2003, 104, 215, No. 21; pl. 136, 10.
19
Grose 1989, 127, 130.
20
Toledo, Inv. No. 23.81: Grose 1989, 112, 152, No. 121.
21
St. Petersburg, State Hermitage, Inv. No. E 2066: Kunina 1997, No. 26.
22
Berlin, Antikensammlung, Inv. No. V. I. 8844: CVA Berlin 4, pl. 170, 6-7; Webb 1978,
112, No. 746; Antikenmuseum Berlin 1988, 50-51, No. 8.
23
London, British Museum, Inv. No. 60.4-4.71: Webb 1978, 121, No. 819, pl. XVIII.
24
Uşak, Inv. Nos. 1.58.96; 1.59.96; 1.60.96; 1.61.96: Özgen and Öztürk 1996, Nos. 75, 76,
77, 78.
25
See above note 15.
26
Athens, National Museum (earlier: Stathatos Collection): Amandry 1953-1954, 15;
Summerer 2003, 23, 25, fig. 4.
27
Uşak, Inv. Nos. 1.55.96: Özgen and Öztürk 1996, No. 71.
Fig. 4. Silver vessels with raised rings at the junction of body and neck from
Asia Minor and the Caucasus: 1 – Ikiztepe. Ankara, Museum of Anatolian
Civilizations. Inv. No. 75-7-66 (after Toker 1992); 2 – vicinities of Sinope.
Athens, National Museum (after Amandry 1953-54); 3 – Basmaci. Uşak,
Museum. Inv. No. 1.1.89 (after Özgen and Öztürk 1996); 4 – Akhalgori.
Tbilisi, Georgian National Museum (after Smirnov 1934).
Fig. 5. Distribution map. Metal vessels with raised rings at the junction of
body and neck.
period as well, exemplified by the finds from Sinope28 and from Western Asia
Minor.29 It is also worth noting that the silver alabastron from Sinope, now in
Athens,30 as well as the alabastron mentioned above from Basmaci (Fig. 7, 2)
have stoppers, similar to that of the aryballos from Vani. In the Treasury in
Persepolis a tray was found of grey polished stone with four handles terminat-
ing in ducks’ heads.31 Another tray of marbled red stone found in the same
Treasury shows one handle in the shape of a duck’s head.32
Silver vessels dated to the 6th-5th centuries BC, and decorated with incised
friezes with warriors or animals are quite rare. They include the alabastra from
Lydia (Fig. 6): from the illegal excavation of the Ikiztepe tumuli33 (Fig. 7, 1),
28
Copenhagen, Nat. Mus., Inv. No. 15095: Pfrommer 1987, 101, 261 KBk 102, pl. 51a.
29
Oxford, Inv. No. 1976.70: Vickers 1981, 557 f., fig. 21; Pfrommer 1987, 101, 261 KBk 103.
30
Athens, National Museum: Amandry 1953-1954, 15, No. 3, pl. III, 2.
31
Teheran, Inv. No. 2199: Cat. London 2005, 130, No. 148.
32
Teheran, Inv. No. 2335: Cat. London 2005, 131, No. 149.
33
Uşak, Inv. No. 1.61.96: von Bothmer 1984, No. 45 = Özgen and Öztürk 1996, No. 78.
Fig. 6. Distribution map. Silver vessels of the 6th-5th centuries BC with incised
friezes showing animals or warriors.
from the tumulus at Basmaci34 (Fig. 7, 2), as well as the skyphos from the
former collection of Hagop Kevorkian, now in the Metropolitan Museum of
Arts35 (Fig. 7, 3), the shape of the latter finding the closest parallel in the
bronze vessel from the tomb No. 723 in Sardis, dated to the 7th-6th century
BC.36 Finally, incised images of animals have been partly preserved on the
outer walls of a late 5th century BC silver-gilt kylix from the central burial
of the Solokha barrow.37 The origins of this technique of vessel decoration
may be sought in the so-called Syro-Phoenician bowls of the Orientalizing
style38 and the related vessels widely spread in the Mediterranean during the
34
See above note 15.
35
New York, MMA, Inv. No. 1971.118: von Bothmer 1984, No. 49.
36
New York, MMA, Inv. No. 26.164.12: Waldbaum 1983, No. 973, pl. 57. See also the
parallels in the Lydian pottery repertoire: Waldbaum 1983, 148.
37
St.Petersburg, Hermitage, Inv. No. h 1912 1/55: Mantsevich 1987, No. 7.
38
Markoe 1985; S. Moscati, in Cat. Venice 1988, 436 ff.
Fig. 7. Silver vessels of the 6th-5th centuries BC with incised friezes showing
animals or warriors: 1 – Ikiztepe. Uşak, Museum. Inv. No. 1.61.96 (after
Özgen and Öztürk 1996); 2 – Basmaci. Uşak, Museum. Inv. No. 1.1.89 (after
Akbiyikoğlu 1991; Özgen and Öztürk 1996); 3 – silver skyphos from the
former collection of Hagop Kevorkian, at present New York, Metropolitan
Museum of Art. Inv. No. 1971.118 (after von Bothmer 1984).
7th century BC,39 as the example of the so-called situla with the inscription of
Plikasnas found in Chiusi in Etruria40 shows.
The aryballos from Vani is decorated in the middle part of the spherical
body with a frieze showing a procession of sphinxes moving to the left (Fig. 1,
1, 4 ). On the neck of the Ulyap goblet there is a scene of a lion pursuing a
hoofed animal (a doe?) (Fig. 2, 1-3). The structure of the decoration on the
Ulyap goblet and the aryballos from Vani is similar. The upper and the lower
part of the bodies are decorated with long-petals with flowers and palmettes
between them (Figs. 1, 1, 4; 2, 2-3). Comparable decoration showing pal-
mettes between long petals are found on a silver goblet from the 5th century
burial in Sairkhe (Fig. 8, 2-3).
The central part of the body of the Ulyap goblet is occupied by a frieze
composed of alternating almond-shaped elements and large five-petaled lotus
flowers, connected to each other with arcs in the lower part. At the conjunc-
tion of the arcs four-petaled flowers are punched (Fig. 2, 2-3). This ornamen-
tal frieze corresponds well to the rosette engraved at the bottom of the vessel
(Fig. 2, 4). Somewhat different is a variant of engraved decoration on the
stand-rings of silver situlae from the barrows No. 6/196141 of the first half of
the 4th century BC42 and No. 11/196943 of the mid-5th century BC in Vani,
which have the attachments of the handles in the form of animal figures,
which, according to J. Boardman, are „of Anatolian Greek style“.44 Here the
39
Markoe 1985, 141-148; S. Moscati, in Cat. Venice 1988, 440 ff.; Markoe 1992.
40
Florence, Inv. No. 2594: Ori e Argenti Firenze 1990, 16, No. 232, pls. 64-65.
41
Situla on a stand-ring decorated with engraving; the arch-shaped handle is fixed to the cast
sculpted groups soldered to the body: each of them shows a winged lion and two rams. Preserved
fragmentary, the body lost. – Silver, forged, casting, engraving, soldering. – Original height
unknown. – Tbilisi, Georgian National Museum. Inv. No. 11-974: 45 (3-61/662, 52, 54). –
Date: late 5th-early 4th century BC. – Literature: Khoshtaria et alii 1972, 116, No. 45, fig. 61;
Lordkipanidze 1983, 90, No. 408, pl. 41; Gigolašvili 2002, 277-281, figs. 3-4; Bill 2003, 231,
No. 37, pl. 167, 2-3.
42
Bill 2003, 128.
43
Situla on a stand-ring decorated with engraving; the arch-shaped handle is fixed to the cast
sculpted groups soldered to the body: each of them show a winged lion and two rams. – Silver,
forged, casting, engraving, soldering. – Ht. 13 cm. Dm. 11.5 cm. – Tbilisi, Georgian National
Museum. Inv. No. 10-975:102 (3-69/436). – Date: first half – middle of the 5th century BC. –
Literature: Lordkipanidze et alii 1972, 235, No. 49, fig. 211; Lordkipanidze 1976, 143; 148,
fig. 8; Lordkipanidze 1979, 61, fig. 12; Lordkipanidze 1983, 90, No. 407, pl. 41; Matchabeli
1983, Nos. 7-8; Lordkipanidze 1989, 265; Lodkipanidze 1991, 130, pl. 26, 3; Boardman 1994,
219-220, fig. 6. 47; Kacharava 1995, 69, 71, fig. 14; Vani IX 1996, pl. 9, third row, to the right;
Tsetskhladze 1998, 116, fig. 50; Gigolašvili 2002, 277-281, figs. 1-2; Bill 2003, 235, No. 54, pl.
175, 10 (Attic, second quarter of the 5th century BC).
44
Boardman 1994, 219 f. concerning the silver situlae from Vani. The decoration in form of
the figures of reclining rams in heraldic pose was rather widespread for the Greek bronze hydriai
Fig. 8. Silver goblet from Sairkhe. Tbilisi, Museum of Art

(after Gagoshidze 2003).
of the middle – second half of the 6th century BC (see in general: Diehl 1964, 214, No. B31, pl.
3, 6; 215, No. B 44, pl. 4, 2; Stibbe 1992, 15 f., fig. 23: No. E2; 21, fig. 28: No. F8; 22, fig. 31:
F9; 34, fig. 44: No. H2; 38, fig. 49: No. I1; 40, fig. 51: No. I3; 41, figs. 52-53, Nos. I4, I6; 42,
fig. 54: No.I9), in particular from South Italy (Paestum: Rolley 1982, pls. VII, 25-26; X, 41-43;
XI, 44-48; Sala Conselina: Rolley 1982, pl. VII, 27-28; Gela: Rolley 1982, pl. XXXII, 151-152).
Among the silver ware the handle attachments in the form of recling rams in a heraldic pose find
three-petaled lotus flowers not only alternate with the almond-shaped ele-
ments, but also decorate the tops of the latter.
The decoration of the neck of the Ulyap goblet with rows of feathers
(Fig. 2, 2-3) finds parallels on the above-mentioned silver amphora of unknown
provenance in Teheran,45 as well as on a silver phiale from the Treasure found
in Vladinya in Thrace, dated to the early 4th century BC.46
The aryballos from Vani is decorated in the central part of the body with a
frieze, showing a procession of sphinxes (Fig. 1, 1, 4). This motif was extremely
widespread, in particular in the Attic black-figured vase painting, a fact men-
tioned by O. D. Lordkipanidze47 (for him, this was an argument in favour of
the Attic origin of the aryballos). The figure of the sphinx, decorating the
spoon from the burial No. 11/1969 in Vani,48 and with parallels among the
figures on one of the ladles from Ikiztepe,49 shows that the images of sphinxes
were popular in the toreutics of the 6th-5th centuries BC. The moving sphinxes
in heraldic pose are seen on the skyphos from the former Kevorkian collec-
tion.50 Similar sphinxes, with raised front leg, as on the aryballos from Vani,
are represented on the silver belt from burial No. 24, found in Vani in 2002.51
Stylistically the images of sphinxes on the aryballos and the belt vary; they are
united, however, by the same decoration principle52 – the body of the sphinx
the closest prototypes in a silver oinochoe from Ikiztepe in Lydia (von Bothmer 1984, No. 35;
Özgen and Öztürk 1996, 35, fig. 54, No. 106). I would also mention, that the figures of recling
rams is an extremely popular motif of the bronze formers found in Ikiztepe (Özgen and Öztürk
1996, Nos. 189-191; Treister 2001, 61 ff., fig. 4). Among the materials from Ikiztepe there are
numerous separate figures of rams shown in similar poses and executed in gold, electrum and
silver (Özgen and Öztürk 1996, Nos. 151-158; see also commentary p. 197).
45
A silver amphora of unknown provenance, kept in Teheran, Inv. No. 1387: Cat. Paris 1961,
No. 683, pl. LVI; Cat. Vienna 2000, No. 115, ill. on p. 203; Cat. London 2005, No. 126.
46
Sofia, Inv. No. 8150: Cat. Cologne 1979, No. 258.
47
48
A silver spoon with a sculpted image of a sphinx. – Silver, forged, engraving, soldering. –
L. 18.3 cm. – Tbilisi, Georgian National Museum. Inv. No. 07: 1-69/438 (3-69/438). – Date:
first half – middle of the 5th century BC. – Literature: Lordkipanidze et alii 1972, 235, No. 51,
fig. 212; Lordkipanidze 1976, 143; 148, fig. 7; 150, fig. 10; Lordkipanidze 1983, 90-91,
No. 409, pl. 42; Matchabeli 1983, No. 10; Lordkipanidze 1989, 265; Vani IX, 1996, pl. 9,
second row; Tsetskhladze 1998, 116, fig. 49; Bill 2003, 119 f., 235, No. 48, pl. 175, 1-2 (Attic,
second quarter of the 5th century BC).
49
Uşak, Inv. No. 1.81.96: von Bothmer 1984, No. 59; Özgen and Öztürk 1996, 35, fig. 55;
No. 107.
50
See above note 35.
51
Japaridze 2005, 16 (fig.). The author is grateful to G. Kvirkvelia for the possibility to study
the piece.
52
The importance of the study of „toolmarks“ on the objects of toreutics is prooved, e.g. by
the investigation of some items of Thraco-Getic toreutics conducted by P. Meyers (1981, 49-54),
and my studies of the so-called Graeco-Scythian toreutics (Treister 2001, 127 ff.; Treister
2005b).
(excluding its head and wings) is covered completely with vertical rows of
horizontal notches, reminding of the decoration of the animals on the above
mentioned skyphos from the former Kevorkian collection (Fig. 7, 3). Simi-
larly arranged notches cover the bodies of the animals on the goblet from the
5th century BC burial in Sairkhe (Fig. 8, 1) and on the discussed goblet from
the Ulyap barrow No. 1 (Fig. 2, 1), as well as on the numerous examples of
silver and bronze vessels and gold jewellery from Vani, dated from the 5th and
the 4th centuries BC53 (Fig. 9). The fact, that this coincidence in the technique
of decoration of the surface of images is not by chance is demonstrated by the
decoration of the animals on the silver alabastron from Ikiztepe: the bodies of
the deer are decorated with pairs of notches, those of lionesses – with groups
of three dots, whereas the images of bulls and lions lack such decoration54
(Fig. 7, 1).
Thus, a group of items of toreutics from 5th-4th centuries BC complexes in
Colchis and outside it is singled out: they are decorated with incised animal or
mythological images, the bodies of which are covered with vertical rows of
53
A silver plate in the form of a wild boar, an attachment of a situla from the burial
No. 24/2002 in Vani (Cat. Tbilisi 2005, back cover), and stylistically similarly decorated images
of wild boars – the terminals of gold bracelets from the burial No. 11/1969 in Vani (Lordkipan-
idze 1971, 274-275, fig. 10-10a; Lordkipanidze et alii 1972, 224, No. 11, fig. 199; Chkonia
1981, No. 52, fig. 25; Dschwachischwili and Abramischwili 1986, fig. 22 above; Lordkipanidze
1991, 124, pl. 52, 3-4; Tsetskhladze 1993/94, 14, 43, fig. 3; Lordkipanidze 1995, 372, col. pl.
V, 3; Bill 2003, 234, No. 17, pl. 173, 3-4). – The figures of a wild boar and a wolf on a silver
phiale from the burial No. 2/1947 of the early 3rd century BC (Vani I, 1972, fig. 4; MAtiashvili
1977, 105, No. 2; 190-191, No. 6, figs. 100-101; Matchabeli 1983, No. 12; Dschwachischwili
and Abramischwili 1986, fig. 32; Tsetskhladze 1993/94, 45, fig. 8; Tsetskhladze 1994, 207, 209,
fig. 10; Bill 2003, 45, fig. 2) (Fig. 9, 1). A silver phiale with a similar structure of decoration –
four animals in a lower relief grouped around a small omphalos (in the given case birds instead
of animals) was found in the burial No. 24/2002 in Vani (Japaridze 2005, 15 [fig. below]). –
Images of wild boars and lions on the rhombic terminals of one of the gold diadems from the
burial No. 6/1961 in Vani (Khoshtaria et alii 1972, 114, No. 3, figs. 37-38; Andriashvili 1972,
fig. 230; Lordkipanidze 1979, 62, figs. 25-27; Chkonia 1981, No. 2, pl. 2; Tsetskhladze 1993/94,
12, 43, fig. 1; Braund 1994, 128, fig. 5; Cat. Saarbrücken 1995, 146, fig. 145, No. 272; Lordki-
panidze 1995, 370, col. pl. I, 3-4; Bill 2003, 77-78 (Gruppe I), 231, No. 1, pl. 163, 1; Cat.
Tbilisi 2005, 90) (Fig. 9, 2). – Images of a wild boar, aurochs, cock and lion on the bronze lid of
a miniature situle from the burial No. 11/1969 in Vani (Lordkipanidze et alii 1972, 238, No. 72,
fig. 225; Lordkipanidze 1979, 61, fig. 24; Lordkipanidze 1989, 248, 250, fig. 127A; Lordkipan-
idze 1991, 122, fig. 60, 1-2, pl. 24, 4; Lordkipanidze 1995, 369, fig. 6: below right; Vani IX
1996, pl. 7 above right; Tsetskhladze 1998, 117; Bill 2003, 235, No. 56, pl. 175, 11) (Fig. 9, 3).
The shape of this bronze vessel (Lordkipanidze et alii 1972, 238, No. 71, fig. 224; Lordkipanidze
1979, 61, fig. 23; Lordkipanidze 1989, 248, 250, fig. 127; Lordkipanidze 1991, 122, fig. 60, 1;
Lordkipanidze 1995, 369, fig. 6: below left; Vani IX 1996, pl. 7 above left; Bill 2003, 235; No. 54,
pl. 175, 10) corresponds to that of the silver situlae from the burials Nos. 6 (see above note 41)
and 11 (see above note 43).
54
See above note 33.
Fig. 9. Finds from Vani: 1 – silver phiale from the burial No. 2/1947 in Vani,
details. Tbilisi, Georgian National Museum. Inv. No. 14-57: 11 (photo by
M. Treister); 2 – gold diadem from the burial No. 6/1961 in Vani, details.
Tbilisi, Georgian National Museum. Inv. No. 11-974: 1 (3-61/662,1) (photo
by M. Treister); 3 – bronze lid of a miniature situle from the burial
No. 11/1969 in Vani. Tbilisi, Georgian National Museum (after
Lordkipanidze 1989).
horizontal notches. One can not exclude that this scheme of decoration
goes back to the images on the Colchian bronze axes55 and belts56 of the
8th-6th centuries BC. It is also worth noting a similar treatment of the bodies
of animals on the local Colchian pithoi of the 4th-3rd centuries BC,57 as well as
on one of the bronze flasks from the Kazbegi Treasure.58
2. Blattkelchmedallions
The rosettes on the bottom of both discussed vessels, the so-called Blattkelch-
medallions, composed of four almond-shaped petals with the lotus flowers
between them, show a great extent of similarity. The almond-shaped elements
are oriented with the pointed ends toward the edge of the rosettes (Fig. 10,
1-2). It is beyond doubt, that these engraved medaillions reproduce the type
of decoration seen on the outer side of the bottom of the phiale from Akhal-
gori59 (Fig. 10, 3). M. Pfrommer has rightly remarked the similarity between
the rosettes on the bottom of the aryballos from Vani and the phiale from
Akhalgori, and followed M. Rostovtzeff,60 mistakenly ascribing to the same
type of rosette on the bottom of the electrum vessel with the image of the
Scythians from Kul-Oba,61 and designating the rosette proper as that of the
“Kul-Oba variant”.62 Thus, we have the chance now to correct this historical
injustice.
55
See, e.g., Lordkipanidze 1991, 99, fig. 52; Cat. Saarbrücken 1995, 108, fig. 93. On Colchis-
Koban axes with engraved decoration, see in general: Urushadze 1988, 74 ff.
56
See, e.g., Cat. Saarbrücken 1995, 118, fig. 109, No. 223. See in general on bronze belts with
incised decoration: Urushadze 1984.
57
For instance, from the Dapnari necropolis: Lordkipanidze 1974, 938, fig. 26; Kiguradze
1976, 44, pl. XL; Cat. Saarbrücken 1995, No. 287.
58
Moscow, State Historical Museum, Inv. No. 1762: Uvarova 1900, 140-141, fig. 122; Tall-
gren 1930, 118, Nos. 2-4; 119, fig. 6.
59
Phiale omphalos with the edge turned outwards. Around the omphalos there are grouped
four almond-shaped lobes; between them lotus flowers with 15-18 petals. Silver, forged, chis-
elled, hammered. – Dm. 19.0-19.25 cm. Ht. max. 3.4 cm. – Date: 5th century BC. – Tbilisi,
Georgian National Museum. Inv. No. SM 62. – Literature: Smirnov 1934, 44 f., No. 61, pl. 8;
Luschey 1939, 97 No. BK 18; S. 106; Matchabeli 1983, No. 3; Pfrommer 1987, 97, note 578;
Abka’i-Khavari 1988, 106, 125-126, No. F3C14, fig. 6 (4th century BC); Cat. Saarbrücken 1995,
No. 303, fig. 5; Bill 2003, 211, No. 81.95, pl. 125, 7; Gagoshidze 2003, PPT, slide 10
(mid-4th century BC, local production).
60
Rostovtzeff 1914, 86, pl. 4, 3.
61
Cf. this eight-petaled rosette with oval petals, which was published first in 2001: Cat. Milan
2001, 102 (below) No. 54.
62
Pfrommer 1987, 97, pl. 55.
Fig. 10. Rosettes on bottoms of silver vessels from Georgia and the Kuban
basin: 1 – silver aryballos from the burial No. 11/1969 in Vani. Tbilisi,
Georgian National Museum. Inv. No. 10-975: 101 (photo by M. Treister);
2 – Silver goblet from Ulyap barrow No. 1/1982. Moscow, State Museum of
Orient. Inv. No. 1-M-IV (after Leskov 1990); 3 – silver phiale from the
Treasure of Akhalgori. Tbilisi, Georgian National Museum. Inv. No. 62 (after
Smirnov 1934; Cat. Saarbrücken 1995).
Fig. 11. Distribution map. Low silver phialai with the rim slightly bent
inwards and a frieze around the omphalos with large almond-shaped lobes
and large lotus flowers.
The analysis, the brief results of which I am going to present, shows that the
prototype of this type of rosette was the pattern (a frieze around the omphalos
with large almond-shaped lobes and with large lotus flowers) decorating the
low phialai with the rim slightly bent inwards, spread in Asia Minor, Iran and
in the Balkans (Fig. 11), including the first half of the 6th century finds from
the Lion Tomb in Miletos63 (Fig. 12, 1-2), the piece from the late 6th century
BC burial No. 52 in Sindos, Macedonia64 (Fig. 12, 4) and the late 6th-early
5th century BC phiale from the Rogozen Treasure65 (Fig. 12, 3). Rather similar
63
Berlin, Antikensammlung, Inv. Nos. 33809-810: Luschey 1939, 95, No. BK 2, fig. 31; 98,
103, 163, No. 31: second half of the 6th century BC; Strong 1966, 56 f., pl. 9A: as supposedly
originating from Asia Minor; Abka’i-Khavari 1988, 114-115, No. F3A5, fig. 4; Forbeck and
Heres 1997, 26-31, figs. 24-27.
64
Thessaloniki, Inv.-No. 8575: Cat. Thessaloniki 1985, No. 374; Vokotopoulou 1996, 134,
No. 8575.
65
Sofia, Nat. Museum of History, Inv. No. 22302: Silberschatz aus Rogozen, No. 2; Cat. Saint
Louis 1998, No. 79; Archibald 1998, 179 (as manufactured probably in the Chalcidic peninsula
in the early 5th century BC).
Fig. 12. Low silver phialai with the rim slightly bent inwards and a frieze
around the omphalos with large almond-shaped lobes and large lotus flowers:
1-2 – Lion Tomb, Miletos. Berlin, Antikensammlung, Inv. Nos. 33809-810
(after Forbeck and Heres 1997); 3 – Rogozen Treasure. Sofia, Nat. Museum
of History, Inv. No. 22302 (after Cat. Saint Louis 1998); 4 – Sindos, tomb
No. 52. Thessaloniki, Archaeological Museum. Inv. No. 8575 (after Cat.
Thessaloniki 1985); 5-6 – silver goblets. Dalboki. Oxford, Ashmolean Museum.
Inv. No. AN 1948.102-103 (after Vickers 2002).
Fig. 13. Distribution map. Silver phialai with a rim bent slightly outwards.
Decoration occupies the lower part of the vessels: the almond-shaped lobes
and lotus flowers are of almost the same dimensions.
engraved rosettes decorate flat bottoms of the goblets from the Thracian burial
in a barrow near Dalboki66 (Fig. 12, 5-6), which is dated to ca. 430 BC.67
On the silver phialai of different shape with a rim bent slightly outwards
(Fig. 13) from Susa,68 Agighiol69 (Fig. 14, 1), as well as the finds from the
burial No. II, 6 of the first half of the 5th century BC in Kozani, Macedonia
66
Oxford, Inv. No. AN 1948.102-103: Archibald 1989, 18, pl. IIIA; Vickers 2002, 68 f.
(with bibliography), pl. 26.
67
Vickers 2002, 59.
68
Luschey 1939, 96, No. BK 16; Abka’i-Khavari 1988, 121-122, No. F2C18, fig. 4.
69
Bucharest, MNIR, Inv. No. 11.178: Berciu 1969a, 224 f., fig. 7; pl. 117; Berciu 1969b,
52-53, No. 2, figs. 22-23; Berciu 1974, 59, No. 2, figs. 16-17, Luschey 1983, 328 f., No. A24,2,
pl. 61, 2; Abka’i-Khavari 1988, 117-118, No. F1C12, fig. 2; Cat. Frankfurt 1994, No. 49.7;
Archibald 1998, 179, fig. 7. 2 top right; 180. It is hardly possible, as it is done by H. Luschey, to
attribute the phiale from Aghighol unconditionally as Achaemenid, based on the similarity of its
decoration with that of a bronze phiale from Dumavizah in Iran (Luschey 1983, 329, A24 Taf.
61, 1). Z. Archibald (1998, 180) considers it as probably “a native north Aegean variant superi-
posed on the standard Achaemenid shape”.
with votive inscription (dedication to the temple of Athena in Megara)70

(Fig. 14, 2) and from the burial No. 6/1967 of the Pichvnari necropolis71
(Fig. 14, 3), dated about the middle of the 5th century BC,72 the decoration
occupies the lower parts of the vessel, the proportion of the elements is chang-
ing: the almond-shaped lobes and lotus flowers are of almost the same dimen-
sions. Perhaps also a fragmented silver phiale from the burial No. 1 of the
Enageti necropolis in Kvemo Kartli73 belongs to this group, dated by the
publisher to the first half of the 4th century BC,74 or according to A. Kakhidze,
to 430-420 BC.75 It is worth noting that a phiale of this decorative schema is
shown on the Early Classical Ionian capital from the Parthenos Sanctury at
Kavalla, Macedonia76 (Fig. 14, 4), as well as on a terracota pinax with the
scene of sacrifice to Persephone from the sanctuary of Persephone in Manella
(Lokroi Epizephyroi), dated to the first half of the 5th century BC. 76a
Another type of similar decoration is observed on the phialai with two
friezes of similar pattern (Fig. 15), represented by the find from the mid-
5th century barrow No. 24/1878 of the necropolis of Nymphaion77 (Fig. 16, 1),
from the Rogozen Treasure78 (Fig. 16, 3), As well as from Aëtós on the island
of Ithaca79 (Fig. 16, 4). To its variant belong three almost identical phialai
from the Late Archaic tomb of the western necropolis of Archondiko in the
area of Pella, Macedonia,80 from a complex unearthed in illegal excavations in
70
Kozani, Inv. No. 589: Cat. Thessaloniki 1978, No. 45, pl. 10; Gill 1990, 625; Vickers and
Gill 1994, 57.
71
Phiale with omphalos, around which there are grouped 13 almond-shaped lobes, with
pointed ends towards the edge, between them there are stylized four-petaled lotus flowers. – Dm.
12 cm. Ht. 3.5 cm. – Batumi.- Date: first half – middle of the 5th century BC. – Literature:
Tsetskhladze 1994, 204, fig. 6; Tsetskhladze 1999, 47, 163, fig. 34; Bill 2003, 194, No. 3, pl.
102, 8; Kakhidze 2004, 96, 107, fig. 21, 2; 109, fig. 23.
72
Tsetskhladze 1999, 47; Kakhidze 2004, 100 ff.
73
Phiale with a small omphalos. Around the omphalos there are grouped almond-shaped
lobes with the pointed ends towards the edge, between them there four-petaled lotus flowers.
Silver, forged, hammered. Preserved fragmentary. – Literature: Marghishvili 1992, 5, 30, 31,
71-72, pl. XX; Bill 2003, 113, 164, No. 32.9; pl. 31, 6.
74
Marghishvili 1992, 5, 30, 31, 71-72, pl. XX.
75
Kakhidze 2004, 97.
76
Frazer 1990, 166 f., fig. 114, note 61.
76a
Cat. Cologne 1998, 166, No. 96.
77
St. Petersburg, State Hermitage: Silant’eva 1959, 58, figs. 26; 62.
78
Sofia, Nat. Museum of History, Inv. No. 22381: Silberschatz aus Rogozen, No. 81;
Archibald 1989, 18 (4th century BC).
79
London, British Museum, Inv. No. GR 1920.5-29.2: Luschey 1939, 96, No. 9; Richter
1959, 246, pl. 59, fig. 46 (not later than the end of the 5th century BC); Davidson and Oliver 1984,
81; Steinhart and Wirbelauer 2002, 230, No. 79, figs. 115-116: 2nd half of the 4th century BC.
80
Pella, Museum: Chryssostomou and Chryssostomou 2003, 512 f.; 516, figs. 16-17.
Fig. 14. Silver phialai with rim bent slightly outwards. Decoration occupies
the lower part of the vessels: the almond-shaped lobes and lotus flowers are of
almost the same dimensions: 1 – Aghigiol. Bucharest, National Museum of
History, Inv. No. 11.178 (after Cat. Frankfurt 1994); 2 – Kozani, burial No.
II, 6. Kozani, Archaeological Museum, Inv. No. 569 (after Cat. Thessaloniki
1978); 3 – Pichvnari, burial No. 6/1967. Batumi, Archaeological Institute
(after Kakhidze 2004); 4 – capital from the Parthenos Sanctury at Kavalla,
Macedonia (after Frazer 1990).
Fig. 15. Distribution map. Silver phialai with two decorative friezes.
Chalkidiki, dated about 480 BC,81 and from the ritual complex of the Ulyap
barrow No. 482 (Fig. 16, 2). On the gold phiale from burial No. 6/1961 in
Vani dated to the late 5th-early 4th, or to the first half of the 4th century BC the
frieze of the pattern discussed is put in the lower part around the omphalos,
whereas the walls are decorated with vertical fluting83 (Fig. 16, 5). The combi-
81
Mainz, RGZM: Inv. No. O.37894: Hassel 1967, 201 ff.; 203, fig. 1, pl. 49; Egg and Pare
1995, 147, No. 307, col. pl. XIV, 1.
82
Phiale with an omphalos, decorated with alternating large and small almond-shaped pro-
jections with lotus flowers between them. The edge of omphalos is decorated with a relief rim
with pearl pattern. – Silver, forged, hammered, engraving. – Ht. 6 cm. Dm. 20.2 cm.- Moscow,
State Museum of Orient, Inv. No. 38 M-IV; 36 M-IV. – Date: first half of the 4th century BC. –
Literature: Cat. Moscow 1985, No. 366, fig. 66; Cat. Moscow 1987, No. 102-103, fig. 41; Les-
kov 1990, No. 235, fig. 186 (phiale); Leskov 1990, No. 246 (omphalos).
83
Phiale with a large omphalos, framed with an ovae frieze. Around the omphalos there are
12 almond-shaped lobes alternating with stylized five-petaled lotus flowers. Along the edge a
frieze of long petals. – Gold, forged, chiselled, hammered. – Dm. 13.4 cm. – Tbilisi, Georgian
National Museum. Inv. No. 11-974:39 (3-61/662, 3). – Date: late 5th-early 4th century BC. –
Literature: Khoshtaria et alii 1972, 116, No. 39, fig. 55; Lordkipanidze 1979, 63, fig. 16;
Dschwachischwili and Abramischwili 1986, fig. 33; Tsetskhladze 1993/94, 17; Cat. Saarbrücken
1995, No. 280; 150, fig. 149; Lordkipanidze 1995, 373, col. pl. V, 4; Bill 2003, 113, 231, No. 34,
pl. 166, 10.
Fig. 16. Silver phialai with two decorative friezes: 1 – Nymphaion, barrow
No. 24/1878. St. Petersburg, State Hermitage (after Silant’eva 1959); 2 –
Ulyap, barrow No. 4. Moscow, State Museum of Orient, Inv. No. 38 M-IV
(after Leskov 1990); 3 – Rogozen Treasure. Sofia, Nat. Museum of History,
Inv. No. 22381 (after Silberschatz aus Rogozen); 4 – Aëtós, Ithaca. London,
British Museum, Inv. No. GR 1920.5-29.2 (after Steinhart and Wirbelauer
2002); 5 – Vani, burial No. 6/1961. Tbilisi, Georgian National Museum. Inv.
No. 11-974:39 (after Cat. Saarbrücken 1995); 6 – Sardis, No. 213/1911.
Istanbul Archaeological Museum, Inv. No. 4539 (after Waldbaum 1983).
nation of the two similar friezes, although located in different positions, is

found on a silver phiale from the burial No. 213/1911 of the Sardis necro-
polis, which is dated to the late 6th-early 5th century BC84 (Fig. 16, 6).
The further development of the rosette under discussion may be followed in
the engraved rosettes on the bottoms of the vessels from the Scythian barrows
of the 4th century BC (on the round-bottomed vessels with segment-shaped
handles from Solokha85 (Fig. 17, 1) and Chmÿreva Mogila86 (Fig. 17, 2 );
round-bottomed vessel with a spherical body, with a short cylindrical neck
and slightly turned-out rim – from Kul-Oba87 (Fig. 17, 3)) – the four large
almond-shaped lobes were added with another four of smaller dimensions
located between them, inbetween eight lotus flowers.
3. Lydian Imports and the Phiale from Zubov Farm
A certain number of silver vessels and utensils from Colchis may be assigned
to the Lydian production. A ladle from the burial No. 24 in Vani with a verti-
cal handle, decorated with two figures of rams, standing on their hind legs,
forming a ring, finds its closest parallel in a silver ladle from Ikiztepe.88 In
contrast to the find from Vani, the handle of the ladle from Ikiztepe is deco-
rated with two lion figures. A similar construction of the handle finial is
present on a ladle from the barrow at Toptepe.89 A handle of a similar scheme,
84
Istanbul Archaeological Museum, Inv. No. 4539: Butler 1922, 83-84, fig. 82; Luschey
1939, No. 13; Waldbaum 1983, No. 963, pl. 56; Abka’i-Khavari 1988, 121-122, No. F2C14
Abb. 4; 20 almond-shaped projections, between them four-petalled palmettes; late 6th-early
5th century BC.
85
St. Petersburg, State Hermitage, Inv. No. h 1913 1/40: CR St. Petersburg 1913-1915,
115-117, fig. 187; Artamonow 1970, pls. 152-155; Onaiko 1970, 103, No. 435; 183, pl. XXIX;
Il’inskaya and Terenozhkin 1983, 131 (fig. below); Cat. Leningrad 1985, No. 10 (4th century
BC, bosporan?); Galanina and Grach 1986, figs. 157-160; Mantsevich 1987, 88-92, No. 61;
Ryabova 1987, 148, fig. 3, 1; 149-150; Rolle 1989, 77, figs. 50-51; Cat. Milan 2001, No. 65;
Cat. Moscow 2003, 47.
86
Once in the Hermitage, transferred in 1932 to Kharkov, lost during World War II: CR St.
Petersburg 1909-1910, 132-133, fig. 199; Pharmakowsky 1910, 221-222, No. 5, figs. 20-21;
Onaiko 1970, 103, No. 437; 183, pl. XXX; Rolle 1979a, pl. 22, 1; Il’inskaya and Terenozhkin
1983, 147 (fig. below); Ryabova 1987, 148, fig. 3, 6; 150.
87
St. Petersburg, State Hermitage, Inv. No. K-O 96: Artamonow 1970, pls. 239-240; Grach
1984, 102 ff., pl. 2a-d; Cat. Leningrad 1985, No. 11; Galanina and Grach 1986, figs. 188-189;
Schiltz 1994, 161, fig. 119; Jacobson 1995, 206, VI.D.3. – See a rosette: Rostovtzeff 1914, 86,
pl. IV, 3 (mistakenly published here as a rosette on the bottom of the electrum vessel); Grach
1984, 102 ff, pl. 2d.
88
89
Fig. 17. Silver-gilt bowls with rosettes on the bottom from the 4th century BC
Scythian barrows: 1 – Solokha. St. Petersburg, State Hermitage, Inv. No. h
1913 1/40 (after Mantsevich 1987; Cat. Milan 2001); 2 – Chmÿreva Mogila.
Lost during World War II (after Onaiko 1970); 3 – Kul’-Oba. St. Petersburg,
State Hermitage, Inv. No. K-O 96 (after Grach 1984; Galanina and
Grach 1986).
Fig. 18. Distribution map. Silver phialai with a frieze of chased tongues
around the omphalos.
however with lion figures with their heads downwards, decorates a ladle from
the Miho Museum.90
Most probably silver phialai of the type F3a, according to Abka’i-Khavari’s
classification91 (Fig. 18) from the burial No. 13 of the necropolis of Sairkhe,
dated to the first half of the 5th century BC with a frieze of chased tongues
around the omphalos92 also belong to the Lydian imports. Similar silver phi-
alai of comparable dimensions originate from a Lydian tumulus near Uşak,93
90
Cat. Miho 2002, No. 35.
91
Abka’i-Khavari 1988, 114. To the same group belongs also a smaller silver unprovenanced
phiale with comparable decoration, kept in Bloomington and dated to the 5th century BC (Indi-
ana University Art Museum, Inv. No. 69.102.2: Cat. Baltimore 1976, No. 59; Cat. Toledo 1977,
No. 2; Lordkipanidze 1997, 21; Archibald 1998, 181, note 31).
92
Tbilisi, Museum of Arts: Bregvadzé and Makharadzé 2002, 283, 286, fig. 7; Bill 2003, 215,
No. 23.
93
Uşak, Inv. No. 1.38.96: Cat.Toledo 1977, 25; von Bothmer 1984, No. 27: 6th century BC;
Özgen and Öztürk 1996, No. 43; Lordkipanidze 1997, 21.
Fig. 19. Silver phialai with a frieze of chased tongues around the omphalos:
1 – Zubov Farm, barrow No. 1. St. Petersburg, State Hermitage, Inv.
No. 2234/18 (photo by M. Treister); 2 – Dardanos. Çanakkale, Archaeological
Museum, Inv. No. 2086 (photo by M. Treister).
from a Dardanos tumulus in the Troad94 (Fig. 19, 2), as well as from the burial
No. 67 of the Sindos necropolis in Macedonia, the latter dated to ca. 510 BC.95
Another similar silver phiale, but of smaller dimensions, was found in the
5th century BC burial of necropolis of Olbia Pontica in 1912.96
Also worthy of mention here is a mid-5th century BC silver phiale omphalos
dedicated in the temple of Apollo in Phasis, which was found in the late
1st century BC barrow No. 1 near Zubov Farm in the Kuban basin.97 Thirteen
deer heads and a snake adorn the walls and omphalos, respectively, but the
vessel’s shape, framing rosette, and dimensions are very similar to those of the
above mentioned phialai. A beaded frieze between the omphalos and the pet-
alled rosette constitutes the only difference in the framing of the omphalos
(Fig. 19, 1). The known provenance of the vessels in Lydia and the Troad
(Fig. 18) allows us to speculate about the origin of this type of phialai. As it
was correctly stated by the publishers of the Lydian treasures, the shape and
the large omphalos of the Uşak bowl find parallels in the bronze Phrygian
bowls, for instance, from Gordion.98 It is also worth noting that an omphalos
with 87 chased tongues, radiating around it, decorates another silver phiale of
different shape found in the same Lydian tumulus with an incised monogram,
probably representing the beginning of a Lydian name.99
G. Tsetskhladze’s opinion that the Zubov phiale (Fig. 19, 1) was manufac-
tured by a Colchian craftsmen in Phasis100 lacks conviction. It is also not
necessary to date the phiale to the same time as the inscription, as O. Lordki-
panidze suggests.101 Not only the observations of the genesis of the phialai of
this group, which I presented now testify against the attribution, which was
put forward by G. Tsetskhladze. I would also stress that the peculiarity of the
Zubov phiale, namely the additional decoration of the omphalos with the
image of a snake, and the walls – with deer heads (Fig. 19, 1) are in any case
94
Çanakkale, Inv. No. 2086. Treister 2002, 354-356, figs. 1-2; Sevinç and Treister 2003,
229, No. 58; 239-240, pl. 8, fig. 59.
95
Thessaloniki, Inv. No. 8574: Cat. Thessaloniki 1985, No. 309.
96
St. Petersburg, State Hermitage. CR St. Petersburg 1912, 34, No. 5 (photo neg. II 18320,
St. Petersburg, Institute of History of Material Culture, Photoarchive).
97
St. Petersburg, State Hermitage, Inv. No. 2234/18. Dumberg 1901, 98-100, figs. 18a-b;
Minns 1913, 231, figs. 136-137; Strong 1966, 75-76, pl. 14B; Tsetskhladze 1994, 199-215 with
bibliography, esp. pp. 201-203, figs. 2-4; 1998, 9-10, figs. 6-8; Lordkipanidze 1997, 15 ff., figs.
1-2 (last third of the 5th century BC); Treister 2002, 355, fig. 3; Treister 2005a, 239, note 156;
241, fig. 16, 5-8; see also: Archibald 1998, 181, note 31.
98
Özgen and Öztürk 1996, 95.
99
Uşak, Inv. No. 1.38.96: von Bothmer 1984, No. 24; Özgen and Öztürk 1996, No. 42.
100
Tsetskhladze 1994.
101
arguments in favour of its manufacture by a Colchian toreut – as I have shown

the characteristic for the Colchian metalworking were chasing and engraving –
in the given case we have to do with the use of stamps, the technique char-
acteristic for the Lydian metalworkers of the 6th-5th centuries BC,102 and also
known to the craftsmen of the Greek cities of the Black Sea area.103 Another
question is, whether the phiale was brought from Asia Minor, or commis-
sioned for the dedication to the temple directly in Phasis (the latter seems
more plausible to me), in any case the phiale reflects no features in favour of
its manufacture by a Colchian craftsman.
4. Some Remarks Concerning “The International Achaemenid Style”
The Lydian goblets (Fig. 3, 1-2) as well as the goblets from Vani (Fig. 3, 3) and
Ulyap barrow No. 1/1982 (Fig. 2) have flat bottoms. Similarly shaped goblets,
but with pointed or round bottoms, are represented in glass among the
Achaemenid materials.104 I would discuss as derivative the shape of some silver
vessels from the Thracian complexes of the first half of the 4th century BC, in
particular, from the Treasure of Borovo105 and the barrow in Rosovets.106 The
structure of these vessels (the egg-shaped body, the neck widening in the upper
part; a raised ring at the junction of neck and body) is rather similar, though
the neck is somewhat shorter. The bottom of the vessel from Rosovets is deco-
rated with an engraved 18-petal rosette, the body is decorated with wide leaves
of water lily in a low relief, whereas the ring is decorated with ovae pattern.
H. Luschey has discussed the shape of the vessels from Borovo and Rosovets
as Achaemenid, however, at the same time the Asia Minor parallels mentioned
above are much closer to the shape of the Ulyap vessel (Fig. 2).
The vessels of the Achaemenid forms with a similar shape of the body and
the neck, in some cases also with a raised ring at the junction of neck and
body, additionally have two handles,107 usually in the form of animals.108 I
would mention that one of these vessels109 originates from a burial in the
102
Treister 2001, 59 ff.
103
See, e.g. about the stamps from Berezan island: Solovyov and Treister 2004.
104
Grose 1989, 80, figs. 49-50.
105
Russe, Inv. No. II-361: Boardman 1994, 187, fig. 6. 4; Cat. Saint Louis 1998, No. 173;
Cat. Bonn 2004, No. 226a: with a relief frieze.
106
Sofia, Inv. No. 39: Cat. Bonn 2004, No. 238A; cf. Luschey 1983, 328, B19 Taf. 62, 4
(Luschey condiders the shape of the vessel as Achaemenid).
107
See above note 45.
108
See, e.g. Cat. Paris 1961, No. 675, pl. LIII; No. 677, pl. LIV.
109
See in general on this class of vessels: Amandry 1959, 38-56; Pfrommer 1990, 191-209;
Kukova Mogila in Duvanli in Thrace dated to the third quarter of the

5th century BC,110 another, once in a private collection in Paris, originates sup-
posedly from the region between Sinope and Trapesund,111 one more, in the
G. Ortiz collection in Geneva – comes from a Treasure, found in ca. 1970 in
the area of Sinope.112 It is worth noting, that vessels of similar shape, shown in
the hands of the members of the VIth Delegation, the Lydians,113 and the IIIrd
delegation, the Armenians,114 on the reliefs of the east side of the Apadana in
Persepolis, are decorated with raised rings at the junction of body and neck,
and are also represented on a grave stele from Kastamonu in Paphlagonia115
and in a wall-painting of the tomb in Karaburun in Lycia.116 On the gold and
silver goblets originating from the Oxus Treasure117 and from the barrow
No. 1 near Filippovka village in Southern Ural,118 for the vessels of which
Achaemenid origin can be hardly argued, there are no such rings.
In contrast to the vessels shown in the hands of the participants of the
Lydian delegation, the amphora-rhyton shown in the hand of the Armenian
has an undecorated body and the ring (the corresponding vessels of the Lydians
have a body with vertical fluting and a ring at the junction of body and neck
is in the form of pearl-band). According to B. Filow,119 the depiction of similar
Boardman 2000, 188-189, 246, note 129. Such a silver-gilt vessel of unknown provenance is
kept in The J. Paul Getty Museum, Inv. No. 86. AM.751: Pfrommer 1990, 195 ff., pl. 44; Board-
man 2000, 191, fig. 5. 72. Another piece with the body decorated with vertical fluting, allegedly
found in Iraq, was kept in the Pomerance collection: Cat. Paris 1961, No. 685; Cat. Brooklyn
1966, No. 59; Pfrommer 1990, 195, pl. 41, 1. One more similar silver vase with vertical fluting
on the body was acquired by the Museum für Vor- und Frühgeschichte der Staatlichen Museen
zu Berlin in 1967: Cat. Speyer 2006, 132-133, figs. 8-9.
110
Sofia, Inv. No. 6137: Filow 1934, 46, No. 14, figs. 55-59; 199 ff.; pl. III; Marazov 1978,
14-18; Pfrommer 1990, 193, pl. 40, 2, note 13; Cat. Saint Louis 1998, No. 117; von Gall 1999,
154, 156 f., figs. 7-8; Boardman 2000, 190, fig. 5. 71 (the lower part of the body is decorated
with vertical petals). About the dating of the burial see Pfrommer 1990, 193, note 15.
111
Amandry 1959, 48-50, 52-54, pl. 24; Cat. Paris 1961, No. 675, pl. LIII; Summerer 2003,
32, fig. 10.
112
Cat. St. Petersburg 1993, No. 205; Cat. London 1994, No. 205; Cat. Berlin 1996, No. 205;
Summerer 2003, 30-31, fig. 9 (the lower part of the body is decorated with vertical petals).
113
Calmeyer 1993, 152 f., Taf. 44 (top); Cat. London 2005, 106, fig. 46; Cat. Speyer 2006,
132, fig. 7.
114
Calmeyer 1993, 153, Taf. 43 (botom left); von Gall 1999, 158, fig. 9; Boardman 2000,
188, fig. 5. 69; Summerer 2003, 33; Cat. Speyer 2006, 198, fig. 5.
115
Donceel-Voûte 1984, pl. 5, figs. 2, 3, 4; Summerer 2003, 33.
116
Pfrommer 1990, 194, fig. 2; Summerer 2003, 33 (a rim separating a body and a neck is
decorated with a pearl-pattern; a frieze of ovae at the edge; body is undecorated).
117
London, British Museum, Inv. No. ANE 123918: Dalton 1964, No. 17, pl. VII; Cat.
London 2005, No. 125.
118
Ufa, Inv. No. 831/384: Cat. Milan 2001, No. 204; Cat. Moscow 2003, 18 above (fig.).
119
Filow 1934, 201 f.; see also: von Gall 1999, 154.
vessels in the hands of members of different delegations points to the fact that
they were not of regional types, but rather belong to the type adopted by the
Achaemenid court, and they could have been manufactured in the workshops
situated along the coasts of Asia Minor.120 The analysis of the shape and the
decoration of amphora-rhyta, conducted by M. Pfrommer, also gave him the
ground for the suggestion, that both the vessel from Kukova Mogila and those
in the J. Paul Getty Museum are the products of the Asia Minor workshop,
probably located at the court of one of the satraps.121
In spite of the ideas of the existence of an ‘international Achaemenid
style’,122 even the careful analysis of the variety of forms and details of decora-
tion of the vessels shown in the reliefs of Apadana in Persepolis, representing
the members of delegations from various parts of the Achaemenid Empire123
put the idea of strict standards and the unification of gold and silver plate
manufacture under the question.
The horizontal fluting is usually considered as one of the characteristic fea-
tures of the Achaemenid metalware.124 Also, the silver beaker with horizontal
fluting found in the burial No. 6/1961 in Vani,125 which was compared by M.
Vickers with a silver beaker allegedly from Erzerum,126 should not necessarily
be interpreted as an Achaemenid item of the standard type. Exactly such ves-
sels are shown in the hands of the members of the XIIth Delegation, Ionians,
on the relief of the east side of Apadana in Persepolis,127 and not only the XVth
Delegation, allegedly the Arachosians, the latter mentioned by Vickers.128
It is worth noting, that the majority of vessels made from precious metals
of various, not only ‘Achaemenid’ and ‘Achaemenid-inspired’ forms, with
horizontal fluting occur from Asia Minor.129 From that point of view the
120
Filow 1934, 202.
121
Pfrommer 1990, 205, 208 f.
122
See Melikian-Chirvani 1993, 111.
123
Calmeyer 1993, 160.
124
Vickers 2000, 262 with bibliography.
125
Tbilisi, Georgian national Museum, Inv. No: 11-974.44: Khoshtaria et alii 1972, 115,
No. 44, fig. 60; Gigolashvili 1990a, 316 f.; Guigolachvili 1990b, 279 f., 313, fig. 32; Vickers
2000, 263, fig. 2.
126
Oxford, Inv. No. AN 1967.819: Archibald 1998, 181, fig. 7. 5 top right; Vickers 2000,
261 f., fig. 1.
127
Calmeyer 1993, 132 pl. 45 top.
128
Vickers 2000. See the fragment of the relief with the XVth Delegation: Calmeyer 1993,
136-137, pl. 47 below; Cat. London 2005, 106, fig. 47 (Parthians or Bactrians).
129
Even the above mentioned gold jug from the Oxus Treasure (see above note 118) finds the
closest parallel in the silver oinochoe from Ikiztepe in Lydia, Uşak, Inv. No. 1.13.96 (Özgen and
Öztürk 1996, No. 11). See horizontal fluting on other silver vessels from Ikiztepe: on a silver
oinochoe, Uşak, Inv. No. 1.14.96 (Özgen and Öztürk 1996, No. 12), on a small spouted pitcher,
horizontal fluting on a silver lydion from Ikiztepe is characteristic, the shape

being well known from pottery finds in Sardis.130 We see the same decoration
on a silver goblet of the derivative shape from the Treasure found in Panderma
in Asia Minor.131 Its closest parallel is a silver-gilt rhyton from the cache No. 2
of the 4th century BC barrow No. 1 near the village of Filippovka in Southern
Ural.132
As has been shown above, there are certain grounds to stress the important
role of the Asia Minor toreutic centres of the Pre-Achaemenid and the Achae-
menid periods. A. S. Melikian-Chirvani came to the conclusion of the exist-
ence of a regional ‘Lydian Achaemenid Style’ and local atelier producing vessels
in the Imperial Achaemenid taste.133 This brief analysis seems to confirm the
suggestion put forward by J. Boardman that “Anatolia is . . . an important
source for metalwork of the Persian period . . . , . . . much was made there,
and . . . the workshops, deriving from a rich Lydian tradition, were influential
in introducing types and decoration that we would call Persian”.134
5. Conclusions
There is all reason to suggest that in the first half to the middle of the
5th century BC in the territory of Colchis there emerged a peculiar local school
of toreutics and jewellery, with the roots in the local traditions of metalwork-
ing of the Late Bronze – Early Iron Age,135 which experienced the influence of
toreutics of the Lydian-Ionian school and Anatolia in a broad sense of this
term. The analysis of some works of toreutics presented here corresponds well
with the results of studies undertaken by I. Gagoshidze, who has demon-
strated the parallels in shape of some silver vessels from Georgia with the finds
from Asia Minor, such as Akhalgori phiale No. 63 (parallels from Ikiztepe,
Sinope and Cyprus), No. 64 (Ikiztepe).136
now in Ankara (see above note 14), on silver phialai, Uşak, Inv. No. 1.41-42.96 (Özgen and
Öztürk 1996, No. 47-48), on a silver lydion, Uşak, Inv. No. 1.4.70 (Özgen and Öztürk 1996,
No. 63), and on an incense burner (see above note 27).
130
See above note 129.
131
Berlin, Antikensammlung, Inv. No. 30963: Miller 1993, 126, pl. 29; Platz-Horster 2005,
299, figs. 9-10; G. Platz-Horster, in Cat. Speyer 2006, 183: Lydian, ca. 400 BC.
132
Ufa, Inv. No. 831/388: Cat. Milan 2001, No. 206; Cat. Moscow 2003, 27 (fig.).
133
Melikian-Chirvani 1993, 120-125.
134
Boardman 2000, 186 f.
135
See: Lordkipanidze 1989, 251 f.
136
Gagoshidze 2003.
The Anatolian influences reflected both in the adoption of the shapes of the
vessels (aryballoi, phialai, goblets with egg-shaped bodies) and in the orna-
mental pattern and the subjects of decoration (sphinxes on the aryballos, a
scene with a youth laying on a kline and a cup-bearer, standing nearby on the
belt, both from Vani). The analysis shows that for the toreutics it is possible to
suggest a strong influence of the Lydian-Ionian school and the ‘Lydian Achae-
menid Style’, rather than the art of Assyria, Media and the Achaemenid world,
in general, as it was considered traditionally (O. Lordkipanidze).137 From that
viewpoint I agree with Boardman, who not only stressed the Anatolian-Greek
style of some of the items of jewellery and toreutics from Vani, but also sug-
gested the manufacture of some of them by the wandering Greek craftsmen
from Asia Minor.138 There emerged the type of decoration characteristic for
the articles of the Colchian school (a rosette composed of four almond-shaped
elements with the lotus flowers between them), having prototypes and paral-
lels primarily on the phialai from Western Asia Minor and Macedonia. The
local tradition is traced in the depiction of the scenes with animals, in the
treatment of their bodies with vertical rows of horizontal notches, in the deco-
ration of tails with “ticks”. In the 5th-4th centuries BC the Colchian silver ves-
sels and jewellery items (earrings, necklaces) found their way also outside
Colchis, primarily to the Kuban basin, where the majority of finds is concen-
trated in the territory of modern Adygeya (Ulyap and Kurdzhips barrows)139
and even in the Sauromatian burials of the Lower Volga area.140
Bibliography
Abka’i-Khavari, M. 1988: Die achämenidischen Metallschalen. AMI 21, 91-137.

Akbiyikoğlu, K. 1991: Güre Basmaci Tümülüsü Kurtarma Kazisi. In I. Müze Kurtarma Kazilari
Semineri, 19-20 Nisan 1990 (Ankara), 1-23.
Akbiyikoğlu, K. 1994: Güre Basmaci Tümülüsü Kurtarma Kazisi. Arkeoloji ve Sanat 64/65, 2-8.
Amandry, P. 1953: Collection Hélène Stathatos. Le bijoux antiques (Strassbourg).
Amandy, P. 1959: Toreutique achéménide. Antike Kunst 2, 38-56.
Amandry, P. 1953-1954: Vasseilles d’argent de l’époque achéménide. Collection Hélène Statha-
tos. ʙžƭƳƝƥƫƧƫƟƥƦʡ ʙƂƲƣƨơƭƛƮ, 11-19.
137
Lordkipanidze 1989, 252; Tsetskhladze 1993/94.
138
Boardman 1994, 219 f.
139
Noteworthy from this point of view is the presence of a certain number of items of horse
harness and arms of Kuban types of the middle-second half of the 4th century BC in Abkhasia,
including the remains of a supposed Maeotic sanctury with the votive offerings in Hyaenos,
see: Érlikh 2004.
140
I am going to publish a special article devoted to the finds of the Colchian jewellery out-
side Colchis.
Andriashvili, I. A. 1972: Tekhnologicheskoe issledovanie vanskikh diadem. In O. D. Lordkipan-

idze (ed.), Vani I. Archaeological excavations 1947-1969 (Tbilisi), 258-265 (in Georgian
with summary in Russian).
Antikenmuseum Berlin 1988: W.-D. Heilmeyer (ed.), Antikenmuseum Berlin. Die ausgestellten
Werken (Berlin).
Archibald, Z. H. 1989: Thracian Interpretations of Greek and Oriental Elements in Fourth-
Century Metalwork. In B. F. Cook (ed.), The Rogozen Treasure. Papers of the Anglo-Bulgarian
Conference, 12 March 1987 (London), 12-25.
Archibald, Z. H. 1998: The Odryssian Kingdom of Thrace. Orpheus Unmasked (Oxford).
Artamonow, M. I. 1970: Goldschatz der Skythen (Prague).
Berciu, D. 1969a: Das thrako-getische Fürstengrab von Agighiol in Rumänien. Bericht der
Römisch-Germanischen Komission 50, 209-265.
Berciu, D. 1969b: Arta traco-getică (Bucharest).
Berciu, D. 1974: Contribution à l’étude de l’art thraco-gète (Bucharest).
Bill, A. 2003: Studien zu den Gräbern des 6. bis 1. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. in Georgien unter besonderer
Berücksichtigung der Beziehungen zu den Steppenvölkern (Universitätsforschungen zur prähis-
torischen Archäologie 96) (Bonn).
Boardman, J. 1980: The Greeks Overseas (London).
Boardman, J. 1994: The Diffusion of Classical Art in Antiquity (London).
Bothmer, D. von 1984: A Greek and Roman Treasury (Bulletin of the Metropolitan Museum of
Art 42, 1).
Braund, D. 1994: Georgia in Antiquity. A History of Colchis and Transcaucasian Iberia. 550
B.C.-A.D. 562 (Oxford).
Bregvadzé, Z. & Makharadzé, G. 2002: L’importation grecque aux Ve-IVe siècles. In M. Faudot,
A. Fraysse & É. Geny (eds.), Pont-Euxin et commerce. La genèse de la « route de la soie ». Actes
du IXe Symposium de Vani (Colchide 1999) (Paris), 283-286.
Butler, H. C. 1922: Sardis. The Excavations. Part I. 1910-1914 (Leyden).
Calmeyer, P. 1993: Die Gefäße auf den Gabenbringer-Reliefs in Persepolis. AMI 26, 147-160.
Cat. Baltimore 1976: D. Kent Hill, Greek and Roman Metalware. A Loan Exhibition (Baltimore).
Cat. Berlin 1996: G. Oritz, Faszination der Antike. The George Ortiz Collection (Berlin).
Cat. Bonn 2004: R. Echt (ed.), Die Thraker. Das goldene Reich des Orpheus (Bonn).
Cat. Brooklyn 1966: The Pommerance Collection of Ancient Art. Catalogue of the Exhibition held at
the Brooklyn Museum (New York).
Cat. Cologne 1979: Gold der Thraker. Archäologische Schätze aus Bulgarien (Mainz).
Cat. Cologne 1998: H. Hellenkemper (ed.), Die neue Welt der Griechen. Autike Kunst aus Unter-
italien und Sizilien (Cologne).
Cat. Florence 1990: B. Adembri & M. Cygielman (eds.), Ori e argenti nelle collezioni del Museo
Archeologico di Firenze (Florence).
Cat. Frankfurt 1994: B. Deppert-Lippitz & W. Meier-Arendt (eds.), Goldhelm. Schwert und Sil-
berschätze. Reichtümer aus 6000 Jahren rumänischer Vergangenheit (Frankfurt).
Cat. Leningrad 1985: N. Grach (ed.), Antichnoe khudozhestvennoe serebro. Exhibition Catalogue
(Leningrad).
Cat. London 1994: G. Ortiz, In Pursuit of the Absolute. Art of the Ancient World from the George
Ortiz Collection. Royal Academy of Arts, London (Bern).
Cat. London 2005: J. Curtis & N. Tallis (eds.), Forgotten Empire. The World of ancient Persia (London).
Cat. Miho 2002: Treasures of Ancient Bactria. Miho Museum (Miho).
Cat. Milan 2001: J. Aruz, A. Farkas, A. Alekseev & E. Korolkova (eds.), Oro. Il misterio dei Sar-
mati e de gli Sciti (Milan).
Cat. Moscow 2003: R. G. Kuzeev, M. B. Piotrovskii & A. I. Shkurko (eds.), Zolotÿe oleni Evrazii
(St. Petersburg).
Cat. Paris 1961: Septe mille ans d’art en Iran. Petit Palais (Paris).
Cat. Saarbrücken 1995: A. Miron & W. Orthmann (eds.), Unterwegs zum goldenen Vlies. Archäol-
ogische Funde aus Georgien (Saarbrücken).
Cat. Saint Louis 1998: I. Marazov (ed.), Ancient Gold: The Wealth of the Thracians. Treasures from
the Republic of Bulgaria (New York).
Cat. Speyer 2006: Pracht und Prunk der Grosskönige. Das persische Weltreich. Historisches Museum
der Pfalz, Speyer (Stuttgart).
Cat. St. Petersburg 1993: G. Ortiz, Antiquities from Ur to Byzantium. The George Ortiz Collection
(Berlin).
Cat. Tbilisi 2005: Colchis – Land of Golden Fleece (Tbilisi).
Cat. Thessaloniki 1985: ƏƥƩƠƫǆ (Athens).
Cat. Toledo 1977. A. Oliver, Jr, Silver for the Gods. 800 Years of Greek and Roman Silver (Toledo).
Cat. Venice 1988: S. Moscati (ed.), The Phoenicians (Milan).
Cat. Vienna 2000: W. Seipel (ed.), 7000 Jahre persische Kunst. Meisterwerke aus dem Iranischen
Nationalmuseum in Teheran (Milan).
Chkonia, A. M. 1981: Gold Ornaments from the Ancient City of Vani (Vani, VI) (Tbilisi) (in
Georgian with summaries in Russian and English).
Chryssostomou, A. & Chryssostomou, P. 2003. ƁƱưƥƦƚ ƩơƦƭƸƬƫƧƣ ưƫƱ žƭƳƫƩưƥƦƫƹ ƍƙƧƧƝƮ:
ƯƱƯưƘƠƝ ưƘƲƵƩ ƝƭƥƯưƫƦƭƝưƥƦƚƮ ƫƥƦƫƟƙƩơƥƝƮ ưƵƩ ƝƭƳƝƶƦɜƩ ƳƭƸƩƵƩ. Ɛƫ žƭƳƝƥƫƧƫƟƥƦƸ
´ƂƭƟƫ Ưưƣ ƉƝƦơƠƫƩƛƝ ƦƝƥ ƅƭƘƦƣ 17, 2003, 505-516.
Dalton, O. M. 1964: The Treasures of the Oxus. 3rd ed. (London).
Davidson, P. F. & Oliver, Jr. A. 1984: Ancient Greek and Roman Gold Jewelry in the Brooklyn
Museum (Brooklyn).
Donceel-Voûte, P. 1984: Un banquet funéraire perse en Paphlagonie. In R. Donceel and
R. Lebrun (eds.), Archéologie et Religions de l’Anatolie ancienne. Mélanges en l’honneur du
professeur Paul Naster (Louvain-la-Neuve), 101-118.
Dschwachischwili, A. & Abramischwili, G. 1986: Goldschmiedekunst und Toreutik in den Museen
Georgiens (Leningrad).
Dumberg, K. 1901: Raskopka kurganov na Zubovskom khutore v Kubanskoi oblasti. Izvestiya
arkheologicheskoi komissii 1, 94-103.
Egg, M. & Pare, C. 1995: Die Metallzeiten in Europa und im Vorderen Orient. Die Abteilung
Vorgeschichte im Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseum (Kataloge vor- und frühgeshchichtli-
cher Altertümer 26) (Mainz).
Érlikh, V. R. 2004: Méotskoe svyatilishche v Abkhazii. VDI, No. 1, 158-172.
Filow, B. 1934: Die Grabhügelnekropole bei Duvanlij in Südbulgarien (Sofia).
Forbeck, E. & Heres, H. 1997: Das Löwengrab von Milet (136. Winckelmannsprogramm der
archäologischen Gesselschaft zu Berlin) (Berlin).
Frazer, A. 1990: The Propylon of Ptolemy II (Samothrace 10) (Princeton).
Gagoshidze, Yu. 2003: Achaemenid and Achaeminidizing Silver Vessels found in Georgia. Paper
delivered at the University of Aarhus 26 September 2003. Seminar in the occasion of the
60th birthday of Niels Hannestad (3 August) and Lise Hannestad (15 October), 2003, professors
of Classical Archaeology. http://www.pontos.dk/Birthday_Lise_Niels/gagoschidze.htm.
Galanina, L. & Grach, N. 1986: Scythian Art (Leningrad).
Gigolashvili, E. G. 1990a: Serebryannÿe kubki iz Vani. In O. D. Lordkipanidze (ed.),
Prichernomor’e VII-V vv. do n.é.: pis’mennÿe istochniki i arkheologiya. MAterialÿ V Mezhdun-
arodnogo simpoziuma po drevneï istorii Prichernomor’ya Vani-1987 (Tbilisi), 316-320.
Guigolachvili [Gigolashvili], E. 1990b: Les coupes en argent de Vani. In O. Lordkipanidze and
P. Lévêque (eds.), Le Pont-Euxin vu par les Grecs. Sources écrits et archéologique. Symposium
de Vani (Colchide) Septembre-Octobre 1987 (Paris), 279-281.
Gigolashvili, N. 1999: The silver aryballos from Vani. In G. R. Tsetskhladze (ed.), Ancient Greeks
West and East (Leiden), 605-613.
Gigolašvili [Gigolashvili], E. 2002: Silver situlae from Vani. In M. Faudot, A. Fraysse & É. Geny
(eds.), Pont-Euxin et commerce. La genèse de la « route de la soie ». Actes du IXe Symposium
de Vani (Colchide 1999) (Paris), 277-281.
Gill, D. W. J. 1990: A One-Mina Phiale from Kozani. AJA 94, 625.
Grach, N. L. 1984: Kruglodonnÿe serebryannÿe sosudÿ iz kurgana Kul’-Oba (k voprosu o mas-
terskikh. Trudÿ Gosudartsvennogo Érmitazha 24, 100-109.
Grose D. F. 1989: The Toledo Museum of Art. Early Ancient Glass. Core-formed, rod-formed, and
cast vessels and objects from the Late Bronze Age to the Early Roman Empire, 1600 B.C. to A.D.
50 (New York).
Hassel, F. J. 1967: Ein archaischer Grabfund von der Chalkidike. JbRGZM 14, 201-205.
Il’inskaya, V. A. & Terenozhkin, A. I. 1983: Skifiya 7-4 vv. do n.é. (Kiev).
Jacobson, E. 1995: The Art of the Scythians. The Interpretation of Cultures at the Edge of the Hel-
lenic World (Handbuch der Orientalistik 8. 2) (Leiden, New York, Cologne).
Japaridze, D. 2005: Rich in Gold – Vani. The World of Constant Connection 1(25), 14-21.
Kacharava, D. 1995: Greek Imports of Archaic and Classical Times in Colchis. AA, 63-73.
Kakhidze, A. 2004: Silver Phialai from the 5th Century BC Greek Cemetery at Pichvnari. In
C. J. Tuplin (ed.), Pontus and the Outside World. Studies in Black Sea History, Historiography
and Archaeology (Colloquia Pontica 9) (Leiden, Boston), 85-119.
Khoshtaria, N. V., Puturidze, R. V. & Chkonia, A. M. 1972: Itogi arkheologicheskikh rabot,
provedennÿkh v 1961-1963 gg. v severo-vostochnoi chasti Vanskogo gorodishcha. In
O. D. Lordkipanidze (ed.), Vani I. Archaeological excavations 1947-1969 (Tbilisi), 111-134
(in Georgian with summary in Russian).
Kiguradze, N. 1976: Dapnarskii mogil’nik (Tbilisi).
Kunina, N. Z. 1997: Antichnoe steklo v sobranii Érmitazha (St. Petersburg).
Lordkipanidze, O. D. 1971: La civilisation de l’ancienne Colchide aux Ve-IVe siècles. Revue
archéologique, No. 2, 259-288.
Lordkipanidze, O. D. 1972: Vanskoe gorodishche. In O. D. Lordkipanidze (ed.), Vani I. Archae-
ological excavations 1947-1969 (Tbilisi), 43-95.
Lordkipanidze, O. D. 1973: Aryballe attique en argent provenant de Vani (Colchide). Archaeo-
logia Polona 14, 89-93.
Lordkipanidzé, O. D. 1974: La Géorgie et le monde Grec. Bulletin de correspondance hellénique
97, 897-948.
Lordkipanidze, O. D. 1976: Novÿe materialÿ k istorii svyazei Afin s Kolkhidoi. In N. I. Sokol’skii
(ed.), Khudozhestvennaya kul’tura i arkheologiya antichnogo mira (Moscow), 143-150.
Lordkipanidze, O. D. 1979: Drevnyaya Kolkhida. Mif i arkheologiya (Tbilisi).
Lordkipanidze, O. D. 1985: Das alte Kolchis und seine Beziehungen zur griechischen Welt vom 6.
bis 4.Jh. v. Chr. (Konstanzer althistorische Vorträge und Forschungen 14) (Konstanz).
Lordkipanidze, O. D. 1989: Nasledie drevnei Gruzii (Tbilisi).
Lordkipanidze, O. D. 1991: Archäologie in Georgien. Von der Altsteinzeit zum Mittelalter (Quellen
und Forschungen zur prähistorischen und provinzialrömischen Archäologie 5) (Weinheim).
Lordkipanidze, O. D. 1995: Vani – ein antikes religiöses Zentrum im Lande des goldenen
Vlieses (Kolchis). JbRGZM 42.2, 353-401.
Lordkipanidze, O. D. 1997: Bogi Fasisa. VDI, No. 1, 15-34.
Lordkipanidze, O. D., Puturidze, R. V., Tolordava, V. A. & Chkonia, A. M. 1972: Arkheo-
logicheskie raskopki v Vani v 1969 g. In O. D. Lordkipanidze (ed.), Vani I. Archaeological
excavations 1947-1969 (Tbilisi), 198-242 (in Georgian with summary in Russian).
Luschey, H. 1939: Die Phiale (Bleicherode am Harz).
Luschey, H. 1983: Thrakien als ein Ort der Begegnung der Kelten mit der iranischen Metallkunst.
In R. M. Boehmer and H. Hauptmann (eds.), Beiträge zur Altertumskunde Kleinasiens.
Festschrift K. Bittel (Mainz), 313-329.
Mantsevich, A. P. 1987: Kurgan Solokha (Leningrad).

Marazov, I. 1978: Ritonite v drevna Trakiya (Sofia).
Marghishvili, S. G. 1992: Bogatÿe pogrebeniya antichnoi épokhi Algetskogo ushchel’ya (Tbilisi) (in
Georgian with summary in Russian).
Markoe, G. 1985: Phoenician Bronze and Silver Bowls from Cyprus and the Mediterranean (Uni-
versity of California Publications, Classical Studies 26) (Berkeley, Los Angeles, London).
Markoe, G. 1992: In Pursuit of Metal: Phoenicians and Greeks in Italy. In G. Kopcke and
I. Tokumaru (eds.), Greece between East and West: 10 th-8 th Centuries BC (Mainz), 61-84.
Matchabeli, K. 1983. Argenterie de l’ancienne Géorgie (Tbilisi).
Matiashvili, N. N. 1977: Metallicheskie sosudÿ. In O. D. Lordkipanidze (ed.), Vani III (Tbilisi),
101-114, 190-192 (in Georgian with summary in Russian).
Melikian-Shirvani, A. S. 1993: The International Achaemenid Style. Bulletin of the Asia Institute
N.S. 7, 1993, 111-130.
Miller, M. C. 1993: Adoption and Adaptation of Achaemenid Metalware Forms in Attic-Black-
Gloss Ware of the Fifth Century. AMI 26, 109-146.
Minns, E. H. 1913: Scythians and Greeks (Cambridge).
Meyers, P. 1981: Three Silver Objects from Thrace: A Technical Examination. Metropolitan
Museum Journal 16, 49-54.
Nadiradze, D. Sh. 1990a: Sairkhé – drevneīshiī gorod Gruzii (k istorii vostochnoī provintsii Kolkhidÿ
I tÿsyacheletiya do n.é.) (Tbilisi) (in Georgian with summary in Russian and English).
Nadiradzé, D. 1990b: Le site archéologique de Saïrkhé. In O. Lordkipanidze and P. Lévêque
(eds.), Le Pont-Euxin vu par les Grecs. Sources écrits et archéologique. Symposium de Vani
(Colchide) Septembre-Octobre 1987 (Paris), 213-222.
Özgen, I. & Öztürk, J. 1996: Heritage Recovered. The Lydian Treasure (Istanbul).
Onaiko, N. A. 1970: Antichnÿī import v Pridneprov’e i Pobuzh’e v 4-2 vv. do n.é. (Moscow).
Ori e Argenti Firenze 1990: B. Adembri & M. Cygielman (eds.), Ori e Argenti nelle collezioni del
Museo archeologico di Firenze (Florence).
Pfrommer, M. 1987: Studien zu alexandrinischer und grossgriechicher Toreutik frühhellenistischer
Zeit (Archäologische Forschungen 16) (Berlin).
Pfrommer, M. 1990: Ein achämenidisches Amphorenrhyton mit ägyptischem Dekor. AMI 23,
191-209.
Pharmakowsky, B. 1910: Archäologische Funde im Jahre 1909. Rußland. AA, 195-244.
Platz-Horster, G. 2005: Die Silberfunde von Panderma in der Antikensammlung Berlin. In T.
Ganschow & M. Steinhart (eds.), Otium. Festschrift für Volker Michael Strocka (Remshal-
den), 295-303.
Richter, G. M. A. 1959: Calenian Pottery and Classical Greek Metalware. AJA 63, 241-249.
Rolle, R. 1979: Totenkult der Skythen.Teil I: Das Steppengebiet (Vorgeschichtliche Forschungen 18:
I, 1) (Berlin and New York).
Rolle, R. 1989: The World of the Scythians (Berkeley, Los Angeles).
Rolley, C. 1982: Les vases de bronze de l’archaïsme récent en Grand Grèce (Naples).
Rostovtzeff, M. I. 1914: Voronezhskii serebryannÿi sosud. Materialÿ po arkheologii Rossii 34,
79-93.
Ryabova, V. A. 1987: Dvuruchnÿe chashi iz skifskikh kurganov. In E. V. Chernenko (ed.), Skifÿ
Severnogo Prichernomor’ya (Kiev), 144-151.
Schiltz, V. 1994: Die Skythen und andere Steppenvölker (Munich).
Sevinç, N. & Treister, M. 2003: Metalwork from the Dardanos Tumulus. Studia Troica 13,
215-260.
Silant’eva, L. F. 1959: Nekropol’ Nimfeya. Materialÿ i issledovaniya po arkheologii SSSR 69,
5-107.
Silberschatz Rogozen n.d.: A. Fol (ed.), Der thrakische Silberschatz aus Rogozen Bulgarien (Sofia).
Smirnov, J. I. 1934: Der Schatz von Achalgori (Tiflis).

Solovyov, S. & Treister, M. 2004: Bronze Punches from Berezan. Ancient West and East 3.2,
365-375.
Stibbe, C. M. 1992: Archaic Bronze Hydriai. Bulletin antieke beschaving 67, 1-62.
Strong, D. E. 1966: Greek and Roman Gold and Silver Plate (London).
Summerer, L. 2003: Achämenidische Silberfunde aus der Umgebung von Sinope. ACSS 9,
17-42.
Tallgren, A. M. 1930: Caucasian Monuments. The Kazbek Treasure. Eurasia Septentrionalis Anti-
qua 5, 109-182.
Toker, A. 1992: Metal Vessels. Museum of Anatolian Civilizations (Ankara).
Treister, M. Yu. 2001: Hammering Techniques in Greek and Roman Jewellery and Toreutics (Col-
loquia Pontica 8) (Leiden, Cologne, Boston).
Treister, M. Ju. 2002: Metal vessels from Dardanos. In A. Giumlia-Mair (ed.), I Bronzi antichi:
Produzioni e tecnologia. Atti del XV Congresso Internazionale sui Bronzi Antichi (Instrumen-
tum Monographies 21) (Montagnac), 354-362.
Treister, M. Yu. 2005a: On a Vessel with Figured Friezes from a Private Collection, on Burials in
Kosika and once more on the “Ampsalakos School”. ACSS 11, 199-255.
Treister, M. Yu. 2005b: Masters and Workshops of the Jewellery and Toreutics from Fourth-
Century Scythian Burial-Mounds. In D. Braund (ed.), Scythians and Greeks. Cultural Inter-
actions in Scythia, Athens and the Early Roman Empire (sixth century BC-first century AD)
(Exeter), 56-63.
Tsetskhladze, G. R. 1993/94: Colchis and the Persian Empire: The Problems of their Relation-
ship. Silk Road Art and Archaeology 3, 11-49.
Tsetskhladze, G. R. 1994: The Silver Phiale Mesomphalos from the Kuban (Northern Cauca-
sus). Oxford Journal of Archaeology 13, 199-216.
Tsetskhladze, G. R. 1998: Die Griechen in der Kolchis (historisch-archäologischer Abriß) (Amster-
dam).
Tsetskhladze, G. R. 1999: Pichvnari and Its Environs, 6th c. BC-4th c. AD (Paris).
Urushadze, N. 1984: Bronzovaya letopis’ drevnei Gruzii (Tbilisi).
Urushadze, N. 1988: Drevnegruzinskoe plasticheskoe iskusstvo (Tbilisi).
Uvarova, P. S. 1900: Mogil’niki Severnogo Kavkaza (Materialÿ po arkheologii Kavkaza 8)
(Moscow).
Vani IX 1996: O. Lordkipanidze, D. Kacharava, & A. Chanturia (eds.), Vani IX Archaeological
Excavations (Analytical bibliography: 1850-1995) (Tbilisi).
Vickers, M. 1981: Recent Acquisitions of Greek Antiquities by the Ashmolean Museum. AA,
541-561.
Vickers, M. 2000: Lapidary shock: meditations on an Achaemenid silver beaker “from Erzerum”
in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford. AMIT 32, 261-273.
Vickers, M. 2002: Scythian and Thracian Antiquities in Oxford (Ashmolean Handbooks)
(Oxford).
Vickers, M. & Gill, D. 1994: Artful Crafts. Ancient Greek Silverware and Pottery (Oxford).
Vokotopoulou, J. 1996: Führer durch das Archäologische Museum Thessaloniki (Athens).
von Gall, H. 1999: Der achämenidische Löwengreif in Kleinasien. AMI 31, 149-160.
Waldbaum, J. C. 1983: Metalwork from Sardis: the Finds through 1974 (Archaeological Explora-
tion of Sardis, Monograph 8) (Cambridge, Mass., London).
Webb, V. 1978: Archaic Greek Faience – miniature scent bottles and related objects from East Greece,
650-500 BC (Warminster).
Abbreviations
AA Archäologischer Anzeiger. Beiblatt zum Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen

Instituts (Berlin).
ACSS Ancient Civilzations from Scythia to Siberia. An International Journal of Com-
parative Studies in History and Archaeology (Leiden, Boston, Cologne).
AJA American Journal of Archaeology (Princeton).
AMI Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran (Berlin).
AMIT Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan (Berlin).
CR St. Petersburg Comptes Rendus de la Commission Impériale Archéologique (St. Petersburg).
CVA Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum.
JbRGZM Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz (Mainz).
VDI Vestnik drevnei istorii (Moscow).
Iranian Glass Perfume Vessel from the Pichvnari Greek

Cemetery of the Fifth Century BC
Amiran Kakhidze
Abstract
Publication of an Iranian Kohl-Tube found during the excavations of the 5th century BC
Pichvnari necropolis. It was probably imported into Colchis by land through eastern Georgia.
Keywords
Pichvnari / Iranian Glass / Eastern Georgia
Polychrome glass perfume vessels occupy a significant place among the grave
goods discovered at the 5th century BC Greek cemetery at Pichvnari. The
goods of this kind are especially important, because they allow a precise dating
of burial complexes, which can serve as a base for the chronology of the
Ancient Georgia as a whole. All the basic forms (aryballoi, oinochoai, ampho-
riskoi and alabastra) of glassware manufactured in the eastern Mediterranean,
Rhodes and Athens have been discovered here.
Of the polychrome glass perfume vessels special attention should be attached
to the so-called Kohl-Tubes. It is assumed that they were used to keep cos-
metic for eyelids (“Kohl” in Arabic denotes paint for eyelids). So far, in the
early burials of the Greek necropolis at Pichvnari (second quarter of the
5th century BC) one intact and one fragmentary glass vessel of this kind have
been brought to light. Their description is given in the following.
Kohl-tube type glass perfume vessel (Burial 136, K-P-86/149). Dark brown
matrix; the rounded rim is grooved with yellowish, slanting threads. Narrow,
low, cylindrical neck; massive, straight shoulders, with four brownish cone-
shaped knobs (attached on the continuation of the ribs). Tetrahedral body,
tapering evenly to the rounded bottom. Straight band near the shoulder, the
body is mostly covered with a band of zigzags. All the four ribs of the body are
edged with a yellowish band. Height – 8.5 cm, mouth diameter – 1.5 cm,
body near shoulder – 1.7 cm, near bottom – 1.0 cm (Fig. 1).

110 A. Kakhidze / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 109-115
Fig. 1. Glass perfume vessel from Pichvnari.
Fragment of Kohl-Tube type glass vessel (K-P-87/251) discovered in the layer

of burials damaged by a tractor of the Collective Fish Farm. Part of the body
has survived; it is tetrahedral. Dark blue matrix. The sides seem to have been
decorated with straight and wavy bands of white and brown threads, and
ribs – with white spiral threads.
The chronological and typological classification of perfume glassware of
this type was published by Dan Barag, who also established the centre and
technique of their manufacture.1 The researcher arrived at the following
conclusion: the excessively narrow and long body must indicate that they
were made not on a stone core, as had been thought before, but each of them
must have been cast on a metal rod.2 The author regards the four cone-shaped
knobs as an imitation of the altar.
The area of distribution leads Barag to suppose that the manufacturing
centre was northwestern Iran.3 Of the 47 perfume vessels studied by the
researcher, only three were found in context. One of these is the burial from
Nimrud dated generally to the 6th-5th centuries BC and another one is the
1
Barag 1975, 23-36.
2
Barag 1975, 25-26.
3
Barag 1975, 25.
A. Kakhidze / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 109-115 111
burial of Galekut containing grave goods of the 5th century BC.4 There is also
a rich burial complex at Vani, which will be discussed below. Other finds from
Pichvnari and other Georgian sites are interesting in this relation as well.
Similar to the Vani finds they occur in closed complexes.
Barag includes the glassware analogous to this found in Pichvnari in Group I
A, dating them generally to the 5th century BC. According to the burial
complexes we offer a more precise date – the second quarter of the 5th century
BC. – for our specimens. The cemetery of Greek settlers of this period is a
separate area at Pichvnari (northwest section of the necropolis), where the
following objects occur in different numbers in various contemporary burials
and on ritual platforms: Chian, Lesbian, Proto-Thasian, Thasian-circle and
Thasian amphoras with swollen necks, a black-figure oinochoe and a lekythos;
Beldam-style white lekythoi, decorated with palmettes, with chimney-shaped
mouth, a red-figure owl skyphos, black-gloss cups with high and low feet, cups,
a bolsal, a squat lekythos, a saltcellar, Ionian and local pottery, a silver coin,
gold, silver, bronze and iron earrings, a necklace, beads, bracelets, a fragment-
ary chain, a bronze arrowhead, etc. Naturally, burials of this period often yield
polychrome glassware too: an aryballos, an oinochoe, an amphoriskos and
alabastra, the manufacturing centre of which, as was noted above, is linked
with the eastern Mediterranean.
A few words about other finds from Georgia may not come amiss, on the
basis of which some conclusions can be drawn. So far tetrahedral vessels of the
Kohl-Tube type have been found in western Georgia, except Pichvnari, only
at Vani. They were discovered in 1961 in Burial 6 containing rich grave goods.
These are: magnificent gold diadems showing animal fight, plain and figure
earrings, a neck hoop, necklaces with filigree pendants, an inlaid pendant,
bracelets with bent backs, adorned with representations of lions’ and calves’
heads, stamps, plates with representation of an eagle, a fibula, pendants,
amuletic beads, numerous tubes and clasps, a phiale with omphalos, fragments
of a silver diadem, a silver phiale, a cup, fragments of flask-like vessels, three
polychrome glass amphoriskoi, a glass oinochoe, a stone stamp, small paste
beads, etc. The burial was dated to the 5th century BC.5
Barag specially discusses the grave goods from Burial 6 at Vani and dates the
complex to the 5th or early 4th century BC, regarding the 5th century as more
acceptable.6 The glassware proper falls within Group I of Barag’s classification,
the kind of plain-ribbed vessels, not decorated with thread.
4
Barag 1975, 25.
5
Khoshtaria 1962, 65-80; Khoshtaria, Puturidze, Chqonia 1972, 117.
6
Barag 1975, 24-25.
Along with polychrome glassware of other kinds, the Vani Kohl-Tube was
studied by Marina Pirtskhalava. Similar to Barag, she thinks that vessels of this
variety were used to contain black powder; they were cast on a rod. As the
author notes, in addition to their origin from a well-defined centre, the Vani
vessels are also interesting due to their appearance in such a remote periphery,
which widens the distribution area of this type of glassware. The researcher
stresses that they were discovered along with well-known and widespread types
of perfume vessels – amphoriskoi and oinochoe, which was regarded as a single
instance.7 The researcher thinks that the Vani find was made in one of the
manufacturing centres of the west Iranian world of the 5th-4th centuries BC.8
The bracelets with bent backs led to the tendency to date Burial 6 at Vani
to the early stage of the 4th century BC, which will not be discussed in detail
here. On the basis of the available material, the dating of this complex to the
final third of the 5th century BC seems more probable. Splendid specimens of
bracelets with bent backs are found in many burials of the 5th century BC
Greek cemetery at Pichvnari, belonging exactly to this period. The situation is
similar in the rich and ordinary burials at Qhanchaeti and Algeti.9 All other
objects from Vani Burial 6 must have been made exactly in the 5th century BC.
These are: three polychrome glass amphoriskoi and two alabastra, an eye bead,
a silver bezelled ring, silver spiral ornaments, a bronze mirror, an Ionian pyxis-
like vessel, a Samian lekythos and an Attic lekythos. Pendants of other types
were also discovered. Even an analogue of a small gold pyramidal pendant10
occurred together with other objects. All of them find numerous parallels in
objects of exactly the 5th century BC.
Tetrahedral glass perfume vessels preserved at the Georgian National
Museum have been studied specially by Mariam Saginashvili.11 The joint paper
of Iulon Gagoshidze and Mariam Saginashvili on the Iranian glass vessels has
been published in German language.12 Naturally, in both papers due attention
is paid to the above-mentioned Kohl-Tube from Burial 6 at Vani,13 but the
Pichvnari find was not known in the literature at that time.
Special attention is claimed by the specimens discovered in eastern Georgia.
In the first place, the glass vessel from the village of Enageti, Tsintsqaro dis-
trict, is noteworthy (Burial 16). The Enageti glass vessel, along with four knobs
7
A polychrome glass amphoriskos occurred together with Kohl-Tube at Enageti.
8
Pirtskhalava 1983, 79-86, pl. 37.396.
9
Gagoshidze 1964, 22.
10
Chqonia 1981, 39, fig. 23.31.
11
Saginashvili 2000, 72-76.
12
Gagošidze, Saginašvili 2000, 76-73.
13
Saginashvili 2000, 72-73, fig. 2; Gagošidze, Saginašvili 2000, 67-73, fig. 1.3.
attached to the shoulders, bears four knobs on the bottom too. With this
feature the Enageti perfume vessel is close to the specimen kept at the Kroning
Glass Museum, regarded as unique by Barag and, together with the Vani Kohl-
Tube, was united in Subgroup I A. As Saginashvili thinks more correctly,
according to the knobs on the bottom, the vessels from the Kroning Museum
and Enageti should be singled out as a separate subgroup.14 The researcher
dates Burial 16 at Enageti to the 5th century BC. or at latest the beginning of
the 4th century. Noteworthy enough, similar to Vani, a glass amphoriskos made
on a sand core occurred here too.15
The excavations at the village of Takhtidziri, Kareli district, also brought to
light some specimens of Kohl-Tubes – two specimens occurred in Burial 8.
One of these is made of opaque black glass. Most of the body is adorned with
white zigzags, two yellow and white threads are found at the ends.16 The other
specimen has a white-yellowish surface. The greater part of the body is covered
with yellowish angular zigzags.17 The first perfume vessel from Takhtidziri is
thought to belong to Subgroup I A of Barag’s classification, and the second to
Subgroup I B. In both vessels a solid black mass has survived. The rich Burial
8 at Takhtidziri is dated to the beginning of the Early Hellenistic period.18
Kohl-Tubes of different form and decoration are known from eastern
Georgia. Specimens found at the village of Kuchi, Tsalka district19 and
Shavsaqhdara II cemetery, Tetritsqharo district.20 They have a cogged mouth,
cylindrical body covered with spirals of polychrome threads and a flat bottom.
These specimens are dated to the 4th-3rd centuries BC.
The analysis of the published finds leads to the conclusion that Kohl-Tube
perfume vessels are indeed very rare. Their number has not increased consider-
ably after the study by Barag.21
The Kohl-Tube is alien to the Greek world, which is evident from the limits
in their area of distribution. As noted above, northwestern Iran is supposed to
be the centre of their manufacture.22 Against this background, recent finds
from Georgia naturally attract attention (8 intact and 2 fragmentary vessels
14
Saginashvili 2000, 73.
15
Saginashvili 2000, 74; Gagošidze, Saginašvili 2000, 67-73, figs. 1-2.
16
Saginashvili 2000, 74, fig. 5; Barag 1975, 68, fig. 1.4.
17
Referred to as wing-shaped ornament by Mariam Saginashvili.
18
Gagoshidze 1997, 16-17; Saginashvili 2000, 74.
19
Kuftin 1948, 8-9, pl. 18.2; Gagoshidze 1982, 50-53, No. 111.3; Saginashvili 2000, 72, fig. 1;
Gagošidze, Saginašvili 2000, 68, fig. 1.6.
20
Margishvili 1992, 24, pls. 17.5, 24.2; Saginashvili 2000, 73, fig. 3; Gagošidze, Saginašvili
2000, 70, figs. 1,7.
21
Grose 1989, 86, No. 31.
22
Saldern, Nolte, La Baume, Haevernick 1974, 50-51; Barag 1975, 28; Grose 1989, 86-87.
have been discovered). Previously Barag thought that glass vessels must have
found their way from Iran into Vani through chance contacts. However, this
version cannot be regarded as reliable nowadays. As Saginashvili thinks, in the
Achaemenid period they were imported by land to eastern Georgia, finding
their way into Colchis from there. Polychrome glass vessels from the Mediter-
ranean basin were distributed by sea, reaching eastern Georgia, namely, lower
Kartli.23 As we see, new discoveries have widened the area of distribution of
perfume vessels of this kind. The finds from Pichvnari and Vani show that in
western Georgia early specimens are found, and in eastern Georgia those
of the Classical and Hellenistic periods. It comes as no surprise – due to
territorial proximity, that eastern Georgia, especially its southern part, retained
contacts with the Achaemenid world for a long time. Colchis had closer trade,
economic and cultural contacts with the Classical, namely the Greek world.
Achaemenid Iran failed to conquer and unite Colchis in its satrapies.24 At that
time Colchis was a powerful state covering a vast territory. Herodotus names
the Colchians among the most powerful nations of that period: “The Persians
inhabit Asia extending to the Southern Sea, which is called the Erythraian;
and above these towards the North Wind dwell the Medes, and above the
Medes the Saspeirians, and above the Saspeirians the Colchians, extending to
the Northern Sea, into which the river Phasis runs. These four nations inhabit
from sea to sea” (Hdt. 4.37).25 However, there existed certain subordination.
According to Herodotus “The Colchians also had set themselves among those
who brought gifts, and with them those who border upon them extending as
far as the range of the Caucasus (for the Persian rule extends as far as these
mountains, but those who dwell in the parts beyond Caucasus toward the
North Wind regard the Persians no longer), – these, I say, continued to bring
the gifts which they had fixed for themselves every four years even down to
my own time, that is to say, a hundred boys and a hundred maidens”
(Hdt. 3.97).
It should be assumed that after the defeat of the Persian monarchy in the
Greco-Persian wars and the formation of the Delian League, this nominal
subordination must have been reduced further. Iranian Kohl-Tubes apparent-
ly found their way into Pichvnari from eastern Georgia. In the Classical as well
as Hellenistic periods close direct trade, economic and cultural contacts existed
between the regions of eastern Georgia and the Iranian world. This is obvious
23
Saginashvili 2000, 75.
24
Melikishvili 1959, 237.
25
The text of Herodotus here and below translated into English by G.C. Macaulay: Macaulay
1890.
not only according to glassware, but from other data of material culture as
well, especially, specimens of glyptics and architecture.
Bibliography
Barag, D.P. 1975: Rod-formed Kohl-Tubes of the Mid-First Millennium B.C. Journal of Glass
Studies 17, 23-36.
Chqonia, A. 1981: Okros samkaulebi vanis nakalakaridan. In O. Lordkipanidze (ed.), Vani VI
(Tbilisi), 7-160.
Gagoshidze, I. 1964: Adreantikuri khanis dzeglebi ksnis kheobidan (Tbilisi).
Gagoshidze, I. 1982: Trialetis samarovnebi, katalogi III (Tbilisi).
Gagoshidze, I. 1997: Arkeologiuri gatkhrebi takhtisdzirshi (karelis raioni). In O.D. Lordkipanidze,
B.A. Jorbenadze & A.A. Tchanturia (eds.), Archaeology of the Caucasus: New Discoveries and
Perspectives. Abstracts of Papers of International Scientific Session (Tbilisi), 16-17.
Gagošidze, J., Saginašvili, M. 2000: Die achaimenidishen Glasgefäße in Georgien. Archäologische
Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 32, 67-73.
Grose, D.F. 1989: The Toledo Museum of Art: Early Ancient Glass (New York).
Khoshtaria, N.V. 1962: Arkheologicheskie raskopki v Vani. In N. Berdzenishvili, G. Giorgadze,
R. Kiknadze, G. Melikishvili & E. Menabde (eds.), Kavkasiur-akhloaghmosavluri krebuli II
(Tbilisi), 65-79.
Khoshtaria, N., Puturidze, R., Chqonia, A. 1972: Vanis nakalakaris chrdilo-aghmosavlet natsilshi
1961-1963 tslebshi chatarebuli arkeologiuri tkhris shedegebi. In O. Lordkipanidze (ed.),
Vani I (Tbilisi), 111-134.
Kuftin, B.A. 1948: Arkheologicheskie raskopki 1947 goda v Tsalkinskom raione (Tbilisi).
Macaulay, G.C. 1890: The History of Herodotus (London), 2 vols.
Margishvili, S. 1992: Antikuri khanis mdidruli samarkhebi algetis kheobidan (Tbilisi).
Melikishvili, G.A. 1959: K istorii drevnei Gruzii (Tbilisi).
Pirtskhalava, M. 1983: Minis churcheli. In O. Lordkipanidze (ed.), Vani VII (Tbilisi), 79-86.
Saginashvili, M. 2000: Minis sanelsatskhebleebis – Kohl-Tube-bis gavrtseleba sakartveloshi.
Dziebani 5, 72-76.
Saldern, A., von Nolte, B., La Baume, P., Haevernick, T.E. 1974: Gläser der Antike. Sammlung
Erwin Oppenländer (Hamburg).
Achaemenian Seals Found in Georgia
Ketevan Dzhavakhishvili
Abstract
In the article six Achaemenian seals are published, which were found in Georgia. Two of
them belong to the seals of the “Oriental Royal Style” according to J. Boardman, the third is an
“Occidental Royal Style” seal, one belongs to the “Greco-Oriental” group and two others to the
“Bern group”. Three of them were found in burials of the Roman period, two in burials of the
4th century BC, while the origin of the last one is unknown.
Keywords
Seals / Achaemenian Art / Georgia
Uniformity of glyptics and art in general was not a characteristic feature of the
Achaemenid Empire. Its huge territory was settled by various nations, all of
them differed culturally from one another. The Achaemenian seals reflect this
diversity – people of the eastern and western parts of the empire made them
according to their traditions and artistic tastes. That is why they contrast not
only by their forms and the images engraved on them, but also by their themes
and styles.
Mesopotamian – Assyrian and Babylonian – influence dominated in the
eastern part of the empire. As to the western areas, such as Asia Minor and the
Aegean world, these were under the influence of the Greeks. J. Boardman has
also stressed a strong influence of Greek artistic schools in the creation and
further development of the Achaemenian glyptics in general. Research on epi-
graphic and archaeological data have already provided the grounds for a gene-
rally accepted opinion that Greek craftsmen were the people who made
engraved pieces for Persian consumers according to Persians’ tastes and
demands.1 But the eclectic Achaemenian art, with a number of details bor-
rowed from different countries (Assyria, Babylon, Elam, Urartu, Greece, etc.),
still remained an Iranian art.2 The same is true for the Achaemenian glyptics.
1
Boardman 1970, 303.
2
Lukonin 1977, 72.
118 K. Dzhavakhishvili / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 117-128
Boardman has offered a new interpretation for a number of problems

connected with the interactions and mutual influence of Greek and Persian
artistic schools. The scholar considers that it is a hardly possible to draw a clear
line between Greek and Persian styles in the Achaemenian seals.3 Boardman has
defined three main styles in Achaemenian glyptics: the Royal Style, including
two subgroups – eastern and western, the Greek style, and the mixed style.4
The Achaemenian seals are of various forms: cylindrical, conical, pyramidal,
scaraboid and many-sided (multi-facet). As for the material, the seals were
normally made of chalcedony of different colours. The most popular among
them was a pale-white and sky-blue sapphirin; agate and carnelian were rarely
used.
Today we know six Achaemenian seals found in Georgia. In spite of their
small quantity they clearly demonstrate the diverse character of the Achaeme-
nian glyptic objects.
1. G. Gobeiishvili found a cylindrical seal5 of striped agate at Dzhoisubani
village (Ratcha, Oni district) in 1962 (Fig. 1). The Tree of Life is depicted on
the surface of the seal. The tree has a form of a tall, slim column resting upon a
doubled base and crowned with a palm-like branch. A pair of winged, open-
mouthed prancing lions are at both sides of the tree. One foreleg of each lion is
uplifted and their tails are directed upward. Though the engraving is not deep,
the representation is quite clear, plastic and accurate. The realistically portrayed
strong, slender figures of the lions are similar to monumental sculptures.
The cylindrical form of the seal echoes the Mesopotamian objects. This form
was created in northern Mesopotamia in the 4th millennium BC. Mesopota-
mian artisans found a special technique for long and narrow surfaces which
included the whole scene they had intended to engrave. Each animal was
depicted vertically, likewise an upright standing person.6 A cylindrical form was
adopted by the Persians in the Achaemenian period and the craftsmen, who
normally had followed Assyrian and Babylonian subject matters, borrowed this
ancient method in arranging the figures, but at the same time changed the
tradition of many-figured scenes characteristic to Mesopotamian cylindrical
seals. As a result, their design obtained a kind of monumental impression.7
Cylinder seals were common in the eastern part of the Persian Empire. In
the western part pyramidal, conical, scarab-shaped and many-sided seals were
3
Boardman 1970, 303.
4
Boardman 1970, 305-322.
5
GF No. 1241, dimensions: 26 × 11 mm (here and in other cases GF means “Glyptics Fund”
of the Archaeological Department of the State Museum of Georgia).
6
Mat’e, Afanas’eva et alii 1968, 51.
7
K. Dzhavakhishvili / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 117-128 119
more popular, which were also much easier to use.8 Boardman supposes that
cylindrical seals were considered as official ones used by the imperial officials.
Besides this, he believes that a group of Greek artists kept making them until
the end of the empire, in spite of the fact that such seals had lost their
popularity.9
The subject matter represented on the Dzhoisubani cylinder seal (the Tree
of Life and the animals standing at both sides) is of an ancient, eastern Meso-
potamian origin. This motive is often represented in the Achaemenian art,
including cylinder seals.10
There are many dozens of versions of the Tree of Life. Similar trees, in a
form of a column crowned with different plants and the branches of palm-
trees, had been quite common on Assyrian cylinders.11
As to the Dzhoisubani example, it belongs to the style defined by Board-
man as the “Oriental Royal Style” (i.e. his group 1); this group includes
cylinder and conical seals on which Assyrian and Babylonian elements pre-
dominate. From an artistic point of view the style of the seal representations
reminds of the Achaemenian palace monuments.12 It should be dated to the
5th century BC or even a little earlier.
2. One of the burials (No. 8) excavated by I. Gagoshidze in 1996 in Takhtis-
dziri village (Kartli, Kareli district) yielded a conical dark sky-blue, even violet,
chalcedony seal (Fig. 2).13 It has a slightly outward swelling surface and repre-
sents a stylized Tree of Life and a pair of wild goats standing on their hind legs
to both sides of the tree. The Tree of Life consists of branches arranged in three
tiers. The rods of the branches are directed downwards, then turned upwards
and are crowned with a fir-cone or some other fruit. A four-petalled flower at
the bottom of each branch is visible. The upper part of the rod has the form of
a palm-tree branch with a crescent crown. The engraving is not deep but at
the same time it is fairly clear, plastic and neat. The wild goats’ bodies are
oblong and anatomically exact. Their muscles are neat; their long horns are
beautifully bent, as are their joints and hooves. All the parts of the Tree of
Life – its branches, flowers, fir-cone, are engraved perfectly. On the whole the
seal is a real masterpiece.
8
Boardman 1970, 323.
9
Boardman 1970, 309, 324.
10
Lukonin 1977, 72.
11
Parpola 1993, 162, fig. 1,2; 201, fig. 163, 164.
12
Boardman 1970, 305.
13
GF No. 1450, dimensions: edge – 23 × 20 mm; height – 32 mm.
As I have already noted, the subject consisting of the Tree of Life and
animals at both of its sides is widely spread in Oriental art.14 Trees similar to
the Takhtisdziri example are quite common on Assyrian seals as well.15
The conical seals appeared in the 7th-6th centuries BC in Mesopotamia, in
the Neo-Babylonian Kingdom.16 Later this form of seals was adopted by the
Achaemenians.
Motives and styles of Mesopotamian glyptics were used on both Achaeme-
nian cylinder and conical seals.17 This is the reason why Boardman included
both the Achaemenian cylinder and conical seals in his group of “Oriental
Royal Style”. The style of the Takhtisdziri seal, like the stile of Dzhoisubani
cylinder seal allows us to interpret it as belonging to this group.
There is a conical chalcedony seal displayed at the Munich State Museum of
Numismatics which also represents caprids stylistically very close to the Takhtis-
dziri example.18 The former is dating from the earlier half of the 5th century BC
which allows us to date the Takhtisdziri conical seal to the same period.
3. A pyramidal dull-white chalcedony seal19 was found in a rich tomb
(No. 905) at Mtskheta (Kartli) in 1985 (Fig. 3).20 It has a slightly swollen
surface representing a winged divinity with a cogged crown on the head and
grasping the tails of a pair of winged, open-mouthed lions with their heads
turned backwards. The image is strictly symmetric as if reflected in a mirror.
Though the creatures are not engraved deeply, the outline of each of them is
fairly clear. The wings of the divinity and the lions, and also the manes of the
latter, are similar, drawn by fine, parallel lines. The figures are somewhat flat
and roughly modeled. Pyramidal seals were created in the Neo-Babylonian
Kingdom in the 7th-6th centuries BC. In the Achaemenian period seals of this
type were widespread mostly in Asia Minor.21 They mainly come from Sardis,
from other towns of Anatolia and the Greek islands.22
Boardman has included some of the pyramidal seals in the group of the
“Occidental Royal Style”.23 Some scholars believe that the Occidental Royal
Style is a simplified, somewhat artificial version of the “Oriental Royal Style”.
14
Porada 1952, 182, pl. 29, 4; Lukonin 1977, 72.
15
Parpola 1993, 201, fig. 452, 490, 498, 502.
16
17
Boardman 1970, 304.
18
AGDS, 54, No. 247, pl. 27.
19
GF No. 1579, dimensions: edge – 20 × 15 mm, height – 26 mm.
20
Apakidze & Nikolaishvili, 1994, 36-37, pl. 40, 2,3,4; pl. 56, 1,2.
21
Lukonin 1977, 72.
22
Boardman 1970, 323.
23
Boardman 1970, 305.
The images of the former are rougher and less modeled. Their themes are
purely Iranian (differing from the Mesopotamian themes of cylinder and con-
ical seals). They mostly represent Persian kings or heroes, often with cogged
crowns or tiaras on their heads, usually fighting with lions or other beasts or
dragons.24
A number of exact parallels for the Mtskheta seal are made of the same
material, having the same form, theme and style. In most cases these are
pyramidal seals, for example a pair of chalcedony ones from the Munich State
Museum of Numismatics.25 Their images and subjects are almost the same
as on the Mtskheta example. One of them (No. 236) is even stylistically
identical. Both seals date from the earlier half of the 5th century BC.26
A carnelian pyramidal seal kept in the Geneva Museum of Fine Arts
and History bears the same representation and M. L. Vollenweider considers
it to originate from Syria or from Asia Minor. It is dated to the end of the
6th and the beginning of the 5th centuries BC.27 The same scene is depicted on
a pyramidal chalcedony seal from the Vorderasiatisches Museum in Berlin.28
It has to be noted that the lions represented on the seals are very similar to
those portrayed on the Archaic Greek scarabs. Their style and the way of treat-
ment are identical as well. While discussing the Archaic Greek scarabs found
in Cyprus, Boardman pointed out that the stylization characteristic for such
seals had developed further in the 5th century BC and it appeared on the
Achaemenian seals.29 I suppose that the Mtskheta pyramidal seal may easily be
dated to the end of the 6th and the earlier half of the 5th centuries BC.
4. A tabloid chalcedony seal30 was found by V. Nikolaishvili in burial
No. 21 of the Baiatkhevi site in 1982 (Mtskheta, East Georgia, the area in the
north of the Samtavro valley).31 Different images are engraved on each of four
sides of the seal. Its lower wide side presents a Persian warrior thrusting a
javelin into a prancing lion (Figs. 4, 5). The warrior wears a Persian hood, a
jacket tightly fitted at his waist and shoes with long sharp toes. His horse is
rearing and its long tail is not tied in the Persian manner. The upper, smaller
side of the seal shows a Maltese dog terrier. One of the side facets bears a
24
Boardman 1970, 305.
25
AGDS, Nos. 236, 237, pl. 26.
26
AGDS, 52-53.
27
Vollenweider 1967, 79, pl. 40, No. 89.
28
Jakob-Rost 1997, pl. 102, fig. 475; pl. 7.
29
Boardman 1968, 133, pl. 31, 442, 443; pl. 32, 461, 462.
30
The seal is preserved at the Mtskheta State Museum, No. 101-35-108; dimensions:
edge – 23 × 18 mm; height – 12 mm.
31
Nikolaishvili & Giunashvili 1995, 120, fig. 977-981, 1218.
Fig. 5. Tabloid seal from Baiatkhevi (Mtskheta). Lower side. Impression.
Fig. 7. Tabloid seal from Baiatkhevi (Mtskheta). Upper side

galloping stag with antlers and the other an antelope (Figs. 6, 7). The central
picture i.e. the warrior fighting with the lion is carved deep. Both figures are
clear, quite plastic and realistic, though the movements seem somehow static.
The same can be said about the other engraved figures on the other sides of the
seal. The animals are realistic and each of their parts is clearly worked out but
the movement of galloping seems rather constrained.
Tabloid seals had originated in Anatolia.32 They belong to the so called
“Greco-Persian” or “Greco-Oriental” group.33 This group of seals mainly
consists of scarabs and the number of tabloid ones is low. “Greco-Persian” seals
have attracted the scholars’ special interest since a long time. A. Furtwängler was
the first who singled out a group of seals and called them “Greco-Persian”. He
described them and dated them to the later half of the 5th and the first half of
the 4th century BC.34 He believed that the “Greco-Persian” seals were created
by Ionian Greek artisans who worked at the Persian Royal palace and produced
them for local consumers, taking into consideration the tastes and demands of
their clients.
Some scholars, like H. Walters35 or G. Richter,36 have agreed with Furtwän-
gler’s opinion, but others, like T. Knipovich,37 M. Maximova,38 H. Seyrig39
and M. Lordkipanidze40 have offered another interpretation – they believed
that “Greco-Persian” seals were made by Persian craftsmen influenced by
Greek art. N. Nikulina supposes that the “Greco-Persian” seals originated on
the base of local art from Asia Minor and were greatly influenced by both
Greeks and Persians.41
Later Boardman has changed the term “Greco-Persian” into “Greco-
Oriental”42 and included the seals into his so called “group of Mixed Style”.
The scholar believes that both Greek and Persian craftsmen took equal part in
the creation of these seals and, going further, he thinks that the majority of the
seals do not seem to have been made by Greeks.43 It is of course true that the
Greek influence upon the representations of “Greco-Persian” seals is clearly
32
Boardman 1970, 324.
33
Boardman 1990, 401.
34
Furtwängler 1900, 116.
35
Walters 1926, XXXII.
36
Richter 1946, 15-80.
37
Knipovich 1926, 57-58.
38
Maximova 1928, 663, 676-677.
39
Seyrig 1952, 199-201.
40
Lordkipanidze 1963, 135-137.
41
Nikulina 1968, 20.
42
Boardman 1990, 401.
43
Boardman 1970, 324.
seen, but at the same time it is quite possible that there were a number
of skilled Persian craftsmen who were able to imitate a Greek theme or style
quite masterly. As to Greek craftsmen, they, in their turn, had to take into
account Persian consumers’ demands and especially the taste of the satraps of
the western provinces.44 The principal thing that Greek masters contributed as
their own aspect in the making of “Greco-Persian” seals was an easy and
accurate manner of distributing the figures within a space and a realistic,
anatomically correct rendition of each image.45 The scholar believes that the
western part of Asia Minor and Cyprus were the main areas where the Greeks’
and the Persians’ interests met and from where, during the period between the
later half of the 5th and the 4th centuries BC, the “Greco-Persian” seals spread
over the territory from the Aegean world up to India and from the Black Sea
region up to the Nile river.46
The Mtskheta many-sided seal is not the only example of this type. Similar
forms, design and even the style were quite common (the majority are repre-
sented on scarabs, since tabloid seals are considerably rarer). The theme
of such seals was not diversified. There are a number of them representing
Persian riders or infantrymen (and not the kings represented on “Occidental
Royal Style” pyramidal seals) dressed exactly like the warrior represented
on the Baiatkhevi example, fighting against a beast with a javelin or with a
bow and arrow, or against a Greek warrior.47 There are numerous seals with
animal images on them; often the animals are galloping (a deer,48 Maltese dog
terrier,49 etc.). All these images, like the Baiatkhevi one, are realistic but even
dynamic figures are lifeless and this feature is normally characteristic for the
“Greco-Persian” seal impressions.50
A generally accepted date of “Greco-Persian” seals is the later half of the 5th
and the first half of the 4th centuries BC.
5. Georgian National Museum purchased grave goods found by chance
at Dzhimiti village (Kakheti, Gurjaani district) in 2000. The assemblage
included a scaraboid51 of a light yellowish-white, half-transparent chalcedony
(Fig. 8). It represents a horseman wearing a pointed hat and grasping a javelin.
44
Boardman 1970, 304, 312-313, 323.
45
Boardman 1970, 334.
46
Boardman 1970, 303.
47
Maximova 1928, fig. 9, 15, 16; Richter 1968, fig. 496; Boardman 1970, fig. 886, 888, 889,
925, 927, 929, etc.
48
Boardman 1970, fig. 896, 940.
49
Boardman 1970, fig. 874, 966; AGDS, pl. 28, 449 k; pl. 32, 271 A.
50
Maximova 1928, 655, 658.
51
GF, No. 1438; dimensions: rim – 22 × 18 mm; height – 7 mm.
He is fighting with a long horned bull. The picture is schematic, its details are
not clear, the figures are flat, not solid. The seal has oriental features.
The form and the theme of the Dzhimiti seal is quite common among the
so called “Greco-Persian” seals but because of its small size and especially its
schematic depiction it completely differs from the so called Classical “Greco-
Persian” large scaraboids which are greatly influenced by Greek art.
The Dzhimiti example belongs to the so called seals of the “Bern Group”52
which has been singled out by Boardman as a separate group inside the “Greco-
Persian” ones. The scholar says that the characteristic features of such small
scaraboids and tabloid seals are the following: they are less detailed, their style
is much more Persian than Greek, and they belong to the further stage of the
Achaemenian period continuing the traditions of the “Greco-Persian” series of
seals. Their images have many points of similarity with the ones represented
on Seleucid clay bulae and consequently they have to be dated to the end of
the 4th century BC or even the following period.53
One fact should be stressed here: Boardman has re-dated “Bern Group”
seals and placed them to a later period than the 4th century BC, while there
had already been a generally accepted date for the “Greco-Persian” seals in the
later half of the 5th and the earlier half of the 4th centuries BC. Boardman
believes that the seals of such type have remained more persistent in the prov-
inces of the Achaemenian Empire. Such would be the “Bern Group” seals
which have been connected by him with blue glass tabloids found in Georgia
by the author.
6. A small scaraboid54 of dull-white transparent-striped chalcedony, suppos-
edly found on the territory of the Bolnisi district (Fig. 9).
A flat surface of the seal represents an open-mouthed lion attacking an
animal (a doe?). The image is rough and flat. The figures are schematic, only
the lion’s mane is rendered with a pair of small triangles. Its claws are
represented with three oblong triangles. According to the theme and style the
seal probably belongs to the “Bern Group” (compare the lion’s figure with the
one represented on a jasper scaraboid belonging to the same “Bern Group”).55
The seal may be dated to the 4th century BC or even to a later period.
Examination of the seals found in Georgia is of particular interest
but not only from the point of view of studying Achaemenian glyptics. It is
52
Cf. Boardman 1970, fig. 973, 974; the seal No. 973 is dating from the 5th century BC or
even later period: Boardman & Vollenweider 1978, 45-46, fig. 200, pl. 35, 200.
53
Boardman 1970, 320-322.
54
GF, No. 1588, dimensions: 15 × 13 mm; height – 6 mm.
55
Boardman 1970, fig. 975.
Fig. 9. Scaraboid from Bolnisi. Impression.
also interesting concerning the interrelations between Georgia and the Achae-
menian world. It seems worth pointing out that among the Achaemenian seals
found in Georgia there are three pieces (Mtskheta’s pyramidal seal, Baiatkhevi
tabloid and Dzhimiti scaraboid) which come from Roman period burials. The
Dzhoisubani cylinder seal was found in a burial dating from the 4th century
BC and the Takhtisdziri conical one was found in one of the burials that had
been unearthed at the cemetery dating from the 4th-3rd centuries BC. All of
these contexts belong to the later period and this very fact should be taken
into consideration by the scholars studying contacts between Georgia and the
Achaemenian world. It should be mentioned here that not only imported
Achaemenian seals were found in the Eastern Georgia, but also numerous
finds of locally manufactured seals of the Achaemenian cultural circle are
known in this region (for example, finger-rings with metal bezels of the 4th or
3rd centuries BC from Akhalgori, Kanchaeti, Takhtisdziri; blue glass tabloids

of the 2nd century BC up to the 1st century AD from Mtskheta-Samtavro,
Neron-Deresi, Lochini, Urbnisi, Arkneti).
Bibliography
Apakidze, A. & Nikolaishvili, V. 1994: An Aristocratic Tombs of the Roman Period from
Mtskheta – Georgia. AJ 74, 16-54.
Boardman, J. 1968: Archaic Greek Gems (London).
Boardman, J. 1970: Greek Gems and Finger Rings (London).
Boardman, J. 1990: Greco-Oriental Gems of the Hellenistic Period. In Akten des 13. Internation-
allen Kongresses für Klassische Archäologie (Mainz am Rhein), 401.
Boardman, J. & Vollenweider, M. L. 1978: Catalogue of the Engraved Gems and Finger Rings (Oxford).
Furtwängler, A. 1900: Die Antiken Gemmen 3 (Leipzig, Berlin).
Jacob-Rost, L. 1997: Die Stempelsiegel in Vorderasiatischen Museum (Berlin).
Knipovich, T. 1926: Greko-persidskie reznÿe kamni Érmitazha. Sbornik GE 3, 41-58.
Lordkipanidze, M. 1963: Gvianakemeniduri khanis mtsireaziuli sabechdavebis iberiuli pirebi –
lurji minis mravaltsakhnaga sabetchdavebi. SMGM 6, 134-154.
Lukonin, V. G. 1977: Iskusstvo Drevnego Irana (Moscow).
Mat’e, M. E., Afanas’eva, V. K., D’yakonov, I. M. & Lukonin, V. G. 1968: Iskusstvo Drevnego
Vostoka. In E. I. Rotenberg (ed.), Pamiatniki Mirovogo Iskusstva 2 (Moscow), 5-96.
Maximova, M. 1928: Griechisch-persische Kleinkunst in Kleinasien nach den Perserkriegen.
AA, 648-677.
Nikolaishvili, V. & Giunashvili, G. 1995: Arkeologiuri kvleva-dziebis shedegebi. In A. Apakidze
(ed.), Mtskheta 10 (Tbilisi), 97-134.
Nikulina, N. 1968: Maloaziatskaya gliptika vtoroi polovinÿ 5-4 vekov do n.é. Problema vostochno-
grecheskogo “greko-persidskog”o iskusstva. PhD thesis (Moscow).
Parpola, S. 1993: The Assyrian Tree of Life. JNES 52, 161-208.
Porada, E. 1952: On the Problem of Kassite Art. In G. C. Miles (ed.), Archaeologia Orientalia.
In memoriam Ernst Herzfeld (New York), 179-187.
Richter, G. 1946: Greeks in Persia. AJA 50, 15-80.
Richter, G. 1968: Engraved Gems of the Greeks and Etruscans (London).
Seyrig, H. 1952: Cachets Achemenides. In G. C. Miles (ed.), Archaeologia Orientalia. In memo-
riam Ernst Herzfeld (New York), 195-202.
Vollenweider, M. L. 1967: Catalogue raisonné des sceaux, cylindres et intailles I (Geneva).
Walters, H. 1926: Catalogue of the Engraved Gems and Cameos Greek, Etruscan and Roman in the
British Museum (London).
Abbreviations:
AA Archäologischer Anzeiger (Berlin).

AGDS Antike Gemmen in Deutschen Sammlungen. Bd. 1, Teil 1 (Munich 1968).
AJ The Antiquaries Journal (London).
AJA American Journal of Archaeology (New York).

GE Gosudarstvennÿi Érmitazh (Leningrad, St.-Petersburg).
GF Gliptics Fund of the Georgian National Muzeum (Tbilisi).
JNES Journal of the Near Eastern Studies (Chicago).
SMGM Sazogadoebriv Metsnierebata Gankopilebis Moambe (Tbilisi).
Wall Painting from Dahaneh-ye Gholaman (Sistan)
S. Mansur Seyyed Sajjadi
Abstract
The site of Dahaneh-ye Gholaman (Sistan, in the southeastern part of the Iranian Plateau) was
discovered in the early 1960s by Umberto Scerrato of IsMEO (now IsIAO). It was a major urban
center of the 6th to the 5th centuries BC. New excavations at Dahaneh-ye Gholaman started in
October 2000. During the third campaign of excavations, traces of wall paintings and incised
images have been identified in room 25. The most important scene shows a standing man,
chariot rider, with a bow in his hand, shooting an animal, most probably a wild boar. In the same
room and among a great variety of painted designs, which are only partly distinguishable, there
are also remains of an image of a Bactrian camel.
Keywords
Dahaneh-ye Gholaman / Achaemenids / Wall Painting / Sistan / Chariot
Dahaneh-ye Gholaman is located some 45 km from Zabol and nearly two km

from Qaleh Now village in the Sistan and Baluchistan Region (Fig. 1) in the
southeastern part of the Iranian Plateau. The region of Dahaneh-ye Gholaman
in Sistan can be roughly identified with the Achaemenid Satrapy of Drangiana
and Zarin, which was a political and administrative center of Achaemenian
Drangiana referred to by Ctesias, as suggested by Scerrato1 and Gnoli.2
Remains of the town are scattered over a natural elevation a few meters
above the surrounding fields. It is about 1.5 km long and ca. 800 m wide, and
lies next to the abandoned delta of the Sanarud River. The site was discovered
and excavated by Umberto Scerrato of IsMEO (now IsIAO) in the early
1960s.3 The Italian expedition studied two major architectural complexes
with 27 differently sized structures. The western complex is built along the
ancient canal, which was later filled with shifting sands and dunes. The east-
ern complex can be divided into two sections. This complex continues as far
as the natural feature known as Qabr-e Zardosht (Fig. 2). A new surface
1
Scerrato 1966c.
2
Gnoli 1967, 41-51, 106-107.
3
Scerrato 1962; 1966a; 1966b; 1966c; 1970; 1979.
130 S. M. S. Sajjadi / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 129-154
Fig. 1. Sistan and the position of Dahaneh-ye Gholaman

(modified after Fairservice 1961).
S. M. S. Sajjadi / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 129-154 131
Fig. 2. Dahaneh-ye Gholaman. Building no. 15 is marked by*

(modified after Scerrato 1966b).
prospection has also shown that on the southwestern side of the site, which
had not been surveyed by the Italian Expedition, some ruins were to be found
which may indicate that the town was originally much larger than what has
been preserved.
Among a total of the 27 buildings identified at Dahaneh-ye Gholaman,
eight seem to have had a particular use. Their size, their ground plan, the inter-
nal structure and architectural elements distinguish these buildings from the
rest of the structures of the site. They include buildings Nos. 1/2 and 3 in the
eastern complex and Nos. 15, 16, 17, 21 and 22 in the western complex.4
The lack of any stratified layers and the absence of any archaeological mate-
rial that could be attributed to other periods than the 6th or 5th century BC,
suggest that the town had a short life.5 These data indicate that inhabitants of
Dahaneh-ye Gholaman abandoned the site peacefully, but rapidly; not as a
result of any conflict or conflagration, but after a conscious decision. Very few
personal belongings and other kinds of objects were discovered, thus suggest-
ing that its habitants had sufficient time to remove their possessions prior to
their departure. Sandstorms massive enough to force the inhabitants to aban-
don their settlement, would naturally cause some damage and causalities of
which, however, we see no evidence. There is no indication that the inhabit-
ants had the necessary knowledge or techniques to predict sandstorms and
thus may have abandoned their town before its arrival. Having considered
other alternatives, it appears that the most probable reason leading to the
abandonment of Dahaneh-ye Gholaman was a hydrological problem. As we
4
Genito 1986, 293.
5
Scerrato1979, 709.
mentioned earlier, the magnitude and the layout of Dahaneh-ye Gholaman, as

well as its size, and the architectural techniques documented in the structures,
indicate that this was a major urban center of the 6th to the 5th centuries BC.
New Excavations
In October 2000, new excavations began at Dahaneh-ye Gholaman. Digging

concentrated on building No. 15, which had already been discovered by the
Italian expedition6 (Fig. 2), a square structure of ca. 2500 sqm (Figs. 3, 3a).
This building is located in the northwestern part of the town on a natural ter-
race of 4-5 m height. Traces of 36 long and narrow rooms located on four
sides around a central square courtyard form building No. 15. The courtyard
had been filled with sand over the years. On the southeastern side of the
courtyard traces of four narrow corridors were found. Their function has not
been understood fully yet, although there is a great probability, due to the
interior ventilation and the possibility of a continuous circulation of air, that
they could have served as some kind of a cool storage room to preserve mate-
rials produced in this sacred manufacturing structure (Figs. 4; 5; 5a). The
northern side of the building is the only part disturbed by water and wind
erosion. The general aspect of this building and the layout of the rooms bring
to mind a sacred structure, a sort of temple or mausoleum, with uniformly
shaped rooms built around a central court. It is more or less like building
No. 3 of the same complex,7 which is also similar in plan to building No. 2 of
Altin depe 10.8 Further investigations and excavations of this building par-
tially confirmed this assumption, but not completely. In fact, according to the
material and the architectural elements, there is a high probability that this is
a sacred structure, which served for the production of some unknown ritual
items and materials. Up to now a total of ca. 1500 sqm of the building have
been uncovered, revealing 30 spaces consisting of 16 rooms, 4 vestibules and
10 smaller units. Both rooms and vestibules are long and narrow in plan
(Fig. 6). The average length of the rooms is 10 m by 2.5-3.5 m width. Low
platforms (Figs. 7-8), small and large basins, benches, bins and larger storage
structures are the principal architectural elements found in these rooms,
together with a great number of millstones, grinding stones (Fig. 9), small
terracotta columns (Fig. 10), and beakers (Figs. 11-12), as well as some metal
and stone fragments of different items. Among other objects, a number of seal
6
Scerrato 1979.
7
Scerrato 1979, fig. 9.
8
Genito 1986, pl. XXV, fig. 8.
impressions (Fig. 13), one typical tri-lobate bronze arrowhead, and some clay
female figurines are items worth special mentioning. One should especially
take account of one clay female figurine (Fig. 14) found together with an iron
blade near a niche, or a probable fireplace (Figs. 15, 16) made from mud-
bricks, similar to the small sanctuary found in room No. 6 of building No. 2.9
The small altar in room No. 25 served for the consecration of ritual items
produced in this building; the same room also contains wall paintings. The
attribution of this cultic niche to Anahita appears very probable, particularly
if we accept Scerrato’s hypothesis regarding the attribution of one of the cultic
niches of building No. 3 to this deity.10
Fig. 3. Building No. 15 before excavations.

9
Scerrato 1966a, fig. 40.
10
Scerrato 1966b, 17.
Fig. 3a. Building No. 15 after excavations.

Fig. 4. Narrow corridors situated southeast of the courtyard.
Fig. 5. Terracotta columns in walls.

Fig. 5a. Terracotta columns in walls and corridors. Reconstruction.
Fig. 6. Northwestern side of building No. 15 after the first excavation campaign.
Fig. 7. Platform in room No. 24.
Fig. 8. Detail of the platform in room No. 24.

Fig. 9. Grinding stone and hand stone.

Fig. 10. Terracotta columns.

Fig. 11. Standard buff ware beakers.
Fig. 12. Standard buff ware beakers with “Potter’s Marks”.

Fig. 13. Seal Impression.
Fig. 14. Clay female figurine.

Fig. 15. Niche in room No. 25.
Fig. 16. Reconstruction of the niche in room No. 25.

The collection of pottery vessels found in these excavations is not very rich and
shows little variation; the majority of fragments belong to typical Achaeme-
nian beakers with “Potter’s Marks” (Fig. 12).
Almost all excavated rooms have direct access to the central courtyard.
Room No. 1 is located in the southwest of the building. The thickness of the
walls of this room varies between 1 and 1.75 m and its roof was crescent
shaped. At the northern side of this room a round cauldron-shaped pit was
dug into the ground. This cauldron was filled with ash and its walls were heav-
ily burnt. Near the pit a number of buff-orange pottery beakers, with potter’s
marks, were found.
At the southeastern corner of the room two small and narrow walls had
separated off a smaller part measuring 1.75 × 1.75 m. Inside this small space,
No. 12, small tubular pottery columns (Fig. 10) were placed inside the ground
at a regular distance of 20-25 cm from each other.
Room No. 2 was probably one of the most interesting rooms of this build-
ing. It contained a low platform, 60 cm high, 6.70 m long and 1.70 m wide,
with a grinder. On the northern and southern part of the platform a series of
small canals with low parallel walls were excavated. The length and width of
these canals are equal to an arms length (Figs. 17-18). To date, six such plat-
forms were found, suggesting the manufactory function of this building. On
Fig. 17. Platform (mill) in room No. 2.

Fig. 18. Plan and section of the platform in room No. 2.
Fig. 19. Bricks used for construction of platform in rooms Nos. 23 and 26.
Fig. 20. Decorative stucco.
the platform’s surface, fragments of terracotta columns were scattered. The

presence of variously shaped fragments of grinding stones on the surface of the
mill, inside this and other rooms, suggest a grinding platform. Platforms
found in five other rooms of the structure have almost the same shape and
plan. In one room the remains of a kiln consisting of two sections was found:
a firing chamber and a cooking part.
At the southeastern corner of the central courtyard four narrow and long
roofed corridors, 18 m long and 80 cm wide, have been unearthed. The walls of
these corridors are 110 cm thick and were built in three different sections. Sec-
tion one starts from the floor and is about 50-60 cm high, after that, there are
ranges of small terracotta columns, placed at a distance of ca. 20 cm from each
other and the third section was constructed from mud-bricks on top of these
columns (Figs. 4-5). The terracotta columns have a uniform shape of 23 to
30 cm height, and a cavity length inside ranging from 7 to 27 cm. (Fig. 10).
Fig. 22. Wall painting of Room No. 25.
Images
Although the sacred/manufactory building is not completely decorated, an

ornamental fragment of stucco (Fig. 20) with a drop-shaped motive, similar to
the decorations on the base of the Achaemenid period vessels,11 was found
during the first campaign of excavations, suggesting the presence of some
other ornaments in this structure.
During the third campaign of excavations at Dahaneh-ye Gholaman, quite
unexpectedly, traces of wall paintings and incised images have been identified
in room 25 (Figs. 21, 22) and around the threshold between rooms Nos. 23
and 24. Room No. 25 is located in the southeastern part of the building.
Architectural characteristics of this room are similar to other rooms of the
structure: long in length, narrow in width, thick walls of 120-150 cm. Rect-
angular in shape, it is 10.20 m long, 2.60 m wide with a height of 2.55 m. The
room was filled with sand. Although this room is apparently like the other
rooms of the structure, it had a different function, which we can presume
because of the presence of mural paintings, and particular architectonical ele-
ments, such as a niche (Figs. 15-16). It seems that the wall paintings are not
an integral part of the room and most probably were painted in the second
stage of utilization. The surface of the walls was originally white, but having
been covered for a long time by sand, they gradually lost their brightness and
became darker; in some cases the color almost turned to black. At the begin-
ning of the excavations, at a depth of about one meter below the surface, traces
of colors, mainly brown and dark red, in the form of scattered dots appeared
on the walls. Due to the presence of mud-bricks and kahgel plaster, the surface
of the walls, and the colors were damaged by different species of worms and in
particular by termites (Figs. 23-24). An accurate examination of the walls
shows that in fact almost all their surface had been painted and decorated. In
11
Ghirshman 1982, fig. 310, 313.
Fig. 23. Termite and worm damage of the wall painting.

Horse neck and boar.
Fig. 24. Termite and worm damage of the wall painting. Wild boar.
various parts and sections of the walls, traces of designs in the form of straight
and oblique lines are visible and with some difficulty remains of drawings of a
wild animal, two persons riding an unknown quadruped and a high boot are
distinguishable, but generally, only two images are clear and visible due to
their relatively good state of preservations.
Hunting scene. The most important scene of this room is a painting in black
on a cream/white background (ca 200 × 80 cm) (Fig. 22). It shows a standing
man, chariot rider, with a bow in his hand, shooting an animal, most probably
a wild boar. The chariot rider, who is 22.5 cm tall, apparently first threw a lance
(Fig. 25) at the wild boar hitting its vertebral column, and following that, had
shot an arrow hitting very near to the lance. He is preparing to shoot a second
arrow at the animal (Fig. 26). The hunting scene is 128 cm long and 37 cm
high. In some parts of the painting, and on the outer margins of the frame,
traces of red lines are visible. The red color is more perceptible around the head
of the archer rather than on any other parts of wall painting. The main wide
bands and lines of the design are painted in black. A chain of small white dots
decorated the inner surface of black bands creating some sort of small circular
rings on the neck and mane of the horse, chariot and chariot wheels. The
chariot has a square box measuring 17.2 × 14.6 cm. Wide black bands outline
the shape of the chariot and are supplementary decorated with the same white
rings, together with red lines bordering the outer lines of the black bands. The
chariot runs on a wheel of 16 cm diameter with eight spokes (Fig. 27). It seems
as though the hunter tied up the reins to the coping of the chariot and, in
standing position, is busy aiming at the boar with his bow and arrow (Fig. 28).
Although the outer lines of the hunter’s body are faded, it is clear that the body
was drawn in black, with simple lines and bands. The face of the man is obliter-
ated, but seems to have had a simple red hat or head – band. The horse has a
corpulent body and muscles with a very big and disproportionate neck, deco-
rated with a diadem or ornamental headband. The neck of the horse is also
decorated with two vertical and horizontal hatched lines, and the horse’s tail is
woven. The halter of the horse, decorated with zigzag lines, is fixed to its mouth
with a strap. The horse measures 36 × 65 cm (Fig. 29).
The animal running ahead at a short distance from chariot appears to be a
wild boar (Fig. 24). This wild animal has existed in the Sistan area at least since
the 4th Millennium BC and hundreds of clay and terracotta figurines of pigs
and wild pigs were found during excavations of protohistorical sites of the
region.12 According to the reports of different travelers large herds of this ani-
mal were indeed living around the Hamun swamp up to the last century.
12
Santini 1990.
Fig. 25. Wild boar wounded by lance and arrow-head.
Fig. 26. Details of bow and arrow.

Fig. 27. Details of chariot and wheel.

Fig. 28. Bridle and horse tail.
Fig. 29. Details of horse, head and neck.

Considering the general aspect of the wall painting, the hunter seems to be
an important person or authority of the Drangiana area. The great similarity
of this scene to the seal impression of Darius the Great hunting a lion,13
confirms this assumption to some degree. On the other hand, the possession
of a decorated chariot and bow is another reason to believe that the hunter
belonged to the ruling class of society, who may have had such privileges. The
hunter’s bow is simple and has no similarity to the known shapes of other
bows, for example of the Scythians or others. The chariot, although decorated,
does not seem to be a very elaborate one however, it bears some similarity to
the royal chariots shown in the Eastern Staircase of the Apadana at Persepolis.14
The representations of chariot riders are also known in the periods before the
Achaemenids. On the famous golden cup from Hasanlu of the 9th century BC,
a scene represents a person in a chariot with six-spoked wheels, pulled by an
unidentified bearded quadruped.15 Both the wheel and the harness of this
chariot are similar to that of Dahaneh-ye Gholaman with only slight differences:
the chariot of Hasanlu has a six-spoked wheel, while that of Dahaneh-ye
Gholaman is of eight spokes. The chariot of Dahaneh-ye Gholaman can also
be compared to the golden chariot from the Oxus Treasure, which is pulled by
four horses and has ten-spoked wheels.
Camel image (Fig. 30). In the same room and among a great variety of
painted designs, which are only partly distinguishable, there are also remains
of an image of a Bactrian camel. This is similar to the image found in Hamadan
and now preserved in a private collection in New York.16 The camel of
Dahaneh-ye Gholaman is painted in black and measures some 50 × 40 cm. It
also corresponds to the camel shown in the first line of the Eastern Staircase of
the Apadana.17
Incised image (Fig. 31). On the wall of the threshold connecting rooms 23
and 24 an incised or scraped design of 55 × 35 cm was preserved. This is
located almost under the roof, and was incised by a sharp instrument, possibly
a bone scraper. The use of this tool is different in various parts of the design,
an indication for the inexperience of the artist. The depth of lines is different
from place to place; very deep in some places and rather superficial in others,
showing the lack of any real artistic value of the drawing. The incision carved
on the plaster of the threshold represents a very corpulent horse with a saddle
13
Ghrishman 1982, fig. 329.
14
Shahbazi 1982, fig. 12.
15
Iran Bastan 2000, figs 50-51.
16
Ghirshman 1982, fig. 317.
17
Shahbazi 1985, fig. 14.
Fig. 30. Camel.
Fig. 31. Incised designs.

and some unknown ornamental item, possibly a carpet or kilim on its back,
carrying a sedan. The neck of the horse is also decorated and one of its eyes is
shown in profile. The horse is standing near a staircase consisting of five steps
and seems to be about to climb up these steps. The staircase ascends to the roof
of a building, where there is another small incision representing a shelter or
parasol. The staircase in some ways reminds of the staircase from the Atashgah
of Pasargadae.18
Considering the main function of building No. 15, a sacred manufactory,
and considering the fact that none of the other excavated rooms bear any trace
of wall painting or other type of ornamental decoration, one can conclude
that the paintings and designs were applied to these rooms at a second stage of
usage by non professional and unskilled artists. One might assume, with very
great caution, that these designs were drawn by a person who was familiar
with the Persepolis and Pasargadae structures, and who desired to imitated
and reproduce what he had seen in that part of the country.
Bibliography
Fairservice, W. 1961: Archaeological Studies in the Seistan Basin of Southwestern Afghanistan

and Eastern Iran. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History 48/1,
1-128.
Genito, B. 1986: Dahan-i Ghulaman: Una citta Achemenide tra Centro e Periferia dell’Impero.
Oriens Antiquus 25, 287-317.
Ghirshman, R. 1982: L’Art de l’Iran. Mèdes et Achémenides (Persian edition) (Tehran).
Gnoli, Gh.1967: Richerche storiche sul Sistan antico. IsmeoRepMem 10 (Roma).
Iran Bastan 2000: Iran Bastan. Negahi-e be Ganjineh Muze-ye Melli Iran (Tehran).
Santini, G. 1990: A Preliminary Note on Animal Figurines from Shahr-i Sokhta. In M. Taddei
(ed.), South-Asian Archaeology 1987 (Rome), 427-450.
Scerrato, U. 1962: A Probable Achaemenid Zone in Persian Sistan. East and West 13/2-3,
186-197.
Scerrato, U. 1966a: L’edificio sacro di Dahani Ghulaman (Sistan). Atti del Convegno sul tema la
Persia e il Mondo Greco-Romano (Roma 11-14 aprile 1965) (Roma), 457-470.
Scerrato, U. 1966b: Excavations at Dahan-i Ghulaman (Seistan-Iran). First Preliminary Report
(1962-1963). East and West 16/1-2, 9-30.
Scerrato, U. 1966c: A Lost City of Seistan. The Illustrated London News. October 29, 20-21.
Scerrato, U. 1970: La Missione Archaeologica Italiana nel Sistan Persiano. Il Veltro. Rivista della
Civilta’ Italiana 11/1-2, 123-140.
Scerrato, U. 1979: Evidence of Religious Life at Dahan-i Ghulaman, Seistan. In M. Taddei (ed.),
South Asian Archaeology 1977 (Naples), 709-735.
Shahbazi, A. Sh. 1985: Sharh-e Mossavar-e Takht-e Jamshid. (Tehran).
18
Ghrishman 1982, 183.
Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 155 www.brill.nl/acss
In the Next Issues
A. S. Balakhvantsev, L. T. Yablonskii, Once more about the Date of the

Inscriptions from Prokhorovka
I. V. Bruyako, Sea-Shells and Nomads of the Steppes
A. Buiskikh, On the Question of the Stylistic Influences reflected in the Archi-
tecture and Art of Chersonesos: ‘Snake-legged Goddess’ or Rankenfrau
P. Dupont, « Ionie du Sud 3 ». Un centre producteur des confins de la Grèce de
l’Est et du Pont-Euxin
M. Kornacka, Ivory Plaque from Mele Hairam, Turkmenistan
N. F. Shevchenko, Sarmatian Priestesses
L. M. Sverchkov, Fortress Kurganzol. From the History of Central Asia in
Hellenistic Period
M. Yu. Treister, Gepaypyris II? Once more about the Silver Plate from Neapo-
lis Scythica
I. V. Tunkina, Academician G. F. Miller and the Treasures of the Litoi Tumulus
S. R. Tokhtasiev, A New defixio from the Black Sea Region
Yu. P. Zaitsev, A Box for Papyrus from Ust-Alma Necropolis in South-Western
Crimea
D. Zhuravlev, Western Sigillata in the North Pontic Region

;3UMMERER=
ILLUSTRATIONS
%1.14+..7564#6+105
;3UMMERER=
(KI+ 9QQFGPHTKG\GKP/WPKEJ
RJQVQD[-CK7YG0KGNUGP
ILLUSTRATIONS
(KI++ 9QQFGPHTKG\GKP/WPKEJ
FTCYKPID[+PITKF&KPMGN
ILLUSTRATIONS
(KI+++ &GVCKNQHVJGYQQFGPHTKG\G (KI+8 &GVCKNQHVJGYQQFGPHTKG\G

;3UMMERER=

;3UMMERER=
ILLUSTRATIONS
(KI8 &GVCKNQHVJGYQQFGPHTKG\G
RJQVQD[-CK7YG0KGNUGP (KI8+ &GVCKNQHVJGYQQFGPHTKG\G

ILLUSTRATIONS
(KI8++ &GVCKNQHVJGYQQFGPHTKG\G (KI8+++ &GVCKNQHVJGYQQFGPHTKG\G

;3UMMERER=

;3UMMERER=
ILLUSTRATIONS
(KI+: &GVCKNQHVJGYQQFGPHTKG\G
(KI: 2QVVGT[UJGTFGZECXCVGFKP)QTFKQP

RJQVQD[.CWTC(QQU
;3UMMERER=
ILLUSTRATIONS
(KI:+ &GVCKNQHVJGYQQFGPHTKG\G
(KI:++ &GVCKNQHVJGYQQFGPHTKG\G
;3UMMERER=
ILLUSTRATIONS
(KI:+++ &GVCKNQHVJGYQQFGPHTKG\G
(KI:+8 &GVCKNQHVJGYQQFGPHTKG\G
ILLUSTRATIONS
(KI:8 &GVCKNQHVJGYQQFGPHTKG\G
;3UMMERER=
;3UMMERER=
ILLUSTRATIONS
(KI:8+ &GVCKNQHVJGYQQFGPHTKG\G (KI:8++ &GVCKNQHVJGYQQFGPHTKG\G

(KI:8+++ &GVCKNQHVJGYQQFGPHTKG\G
;3UMMERER=
ILLUSTRATIONS
(KI:+: &GVCKNQHVJGYQQFGPHTKG\G
(KI:: &GVCKNQHVJGYQQFGPHTKG\G
CWVJQT URJQVQ
;3UMMERER=
;,ICHELLI=
ILLUSTRATIONS
(KI 4GRTGUGPVCVKQPQHVJG9KPIGF#PIGNHTQO#VUMWTK
ITCXG0Q
;$ZHAVAKHISHVILI=
;3UMMERER=
ILLUSTRATIONS
(KI %[NKPFTKECNUGCNHTQO&\JQKUWDCPKCPFKVUKORTGUUKQP
(KI %QPKECNUGCNHTQO6CMJVKUF\KTKCPFKVU
KORTGUUKQP
(KI 2[TCOKFCNUGCNHTQO/VUMJGVCCPFKVU
KORTGUUKQP
;3UMMERER=
;$ZHAVAKHISHVILI=
ILLUSTRATIONS
(KI 6CDNQKFHTQO$CKCVMJGXK

/VUMJGVC.QYGTUKFG
(KI 6CDNQKFHTQO$CKCVMJGXK

/VUMJGVC7RRGTUKFG
(KI 5ECTCDQKFUGCNHTQO&\JKOKVKCPF
KVUKORTGUUKQP
ILLUSTRATIONS
(KI 9CNNRCKPVKPIQHTQQO0QCVVJGVKOGQHWPGCTVJKPI
;3UMMERER=
;3AJJADI=
;3UMMERER=
;3AJJADI=
ILLUSTRATIONS
(KI &GVCKNUQHDQYCPFCTTQY

Ancient Cultures From Scythia To Siberia 2007

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Ancient Cultures From Scythia To Siberia 2007

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Achaemenid Culture and Local

ISBN 978 90 04 16328 7

Copyright 2007 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated,

Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by

printed in the netherlands

Askold Ivantchik, Vakhtang Licheli, Introduction ........................ 1

In future issues .................................................................................... 155

* The color illustrations can be found at the back of this issue.

Askold Ivantchik, Vakhtang Licheli

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2007 DOI: 110.1163/157005707X212616

Picturing Persian Victory:

destruction caused by the sawing process. On the smoothed surface of the

Regarding the diverging proportions and stylistic features, it can be assumed

The Central Duel

Fig. 3. Cylinder seal, Bibliotheque National (Ghirshman 1964, ﬁg. 331).

and extending horizontally beneath the chariot box.55 Contrary to frequent

The chariot is followed by two formations of mounted archers, in two rows

As previously noted, two further archers on foot follow the horsemen

The Defeated Enemy

Is the Persian Commander the King?

Peter Calmeyer assesses whether the commander of Persians could be the

Is the Battle Scene an Historical Representation?

any conﬂict between Persians and Scythians or Sacae, known or unknown to

as a model. Depictions of historical events on so called tabulae are mentioned

An Achaemenid « Palace » at Qarajamirli (Azerbaijan)

Ilyas Babaev, Iulon Gagoshidze, Florian S. Knauß

Sponsored by the Gerda-Henkel-Foundation and with the support of the

Fig. 1. Hamid Jussibov on a fragment of the bell-shaped base found acciden-

Fig. 1a. The same fragment.

subordinated to Persia, at Gumbati (Georgia),2 Sary Tepe (Azerbaijan)3 and

Fig. 2. Distribution map of Achaemenid bell-shaped column bases

Fig. 3. Qarajamirli-2006. Plan of the excavated area.

Fig. 4. Qarajamirli-2006. General view of the excavation of the “palace”.

Fig. 5. Qarajamirli-2006. Fragment of a column base.

Fig. 6. Qarajamirli-2006. Fragment of a column base

Fig. 7. Qarajamirli-2006. Fragment of a column base

Fig. 8. Qarajamirli-2006. Fragment of a column base

Fig. 9. Qarajamirli-2006. Column base in situ.

Fig. 10. Qarajamirli-2006. Graphic reconstruction of the bell-shaped

Although great parts of this building remain to be uncovered, the symmetrical

Fig. 11. Qarajamirli-2006. Pottery of the Achaemenid period.

Fig. 13. Qarajamirli-2006. Fragment of a column base from Daraya Takh,

Aslanov, G., Vaidov, R., Ione, G.1959: Drevnii Mingechaur (Baku).

Dongus Tapa – An Iron Age Settlement in the

Furtwängler, A. & Knauß, F. 1997: Archäologische Expedition in Kachetien 1996. Ausgrabun-

Gagoshidze, Yu. M. 1981: Samadlo II. Katalog arkheologicheskogo materiala (Tbilisi).

Fig. 1. The position of Dongus Tapa in relation to other EIA-settlements in

Fig. 2. Plan of the settlement. Grid: 20 m, Orientation N-E.

Fig. 3. Dongus Tapa 2004. Pottery collected on the surface.

Fig. 4. Dongus Tapa 2004. Area R17, Beh. Nr. 10.

Oriental Innovations in Samtskhe (Southern Georgia)

Monuments in southern Georgia dated to the 1st Millennium BC have hardly

Fig. 1. Map of Georgia.

Fig. 2. Aerial photo of Atskuri region.

The 7th-beginning of the 6th centuries BC (burials);

Fig. 3. Greek pottery from Atskuri.

of the structure. A great amount of jewellery, mostly decorated with incised

Fig. 4. A. Achaemenid type material from Atskuri; B. Achaemenid cup from

Fig. 5. Grave No. 2004-5 from Atskuri.

which is completely occupied by the ﬁgure of a horse. It is slightly stylized;

Fig. 7. 1. Pithos-like vessel from Atskuri; 2. Vessel from Sairkhe.

shape reliefs placed in lockets, though it is decorated with rather complex

(KI+++ &GVCKNQHVJGYQQFGPHTKG\G (KI+8 &GVCKNQHVJGYQQFGPHTKG\G