Work-and Lifescapes in 1st Millennium BC Udabno

Chapter 4 Work- and Lifescapes in 1st Millennium BC Udabno Sabina Brodbeck-Jucker1, René Kunze2 Abstract Udabno is situated in the east Georgian region of Kakheti. Magnetic prospection and excavation in three large settlements started in 2000. The investigations at the areas of Udabno I–III revealed single-phase settlements which date to the Late Bronze/Early Iron Age. Altogether, the remains of 25 houses were discovered. A special focus involved drawing conclusions about everyday life and organisation in the settlements and trading activities of its residents and their position in the chronological and chorological milieu of the Southern Caucasus and their neighbouring regions. Keywords KAKHETI (EAST GEORGIA); SOCIAL STRUCTURES. LATE BRONZE/EARLY IRON AGE SETTLEMENTS; POTTERY; SMALL FINDS; Introduction In the David Gareja steppe in the eastern Georgian province of Kakheti, surveys and excavations were carried out in 2000–2007 in a joint project of the Georgian National Academy of Science and the Troia Project of the Institute for Prehistory, Early History, and Medieval Archaeology of the University of Tübingen (Bertram and P’ic’xelauri 2005; Giese et al. 2007; Hübner et al. 2001; İlgezdi Bertram and Bertram 2012; Korfmann et al. 2003–2004; Uerpmann 2006). In the now almost treeless landscape, five settlements lie within sight of each other at about 900–1000 m a.s.l. (Figure 1), three of which have been partially excavated: Udabno I, II, and III. The group of settlements is bordered by the Iori River to the north and the Kura River (Mtkvari) to the south. It was named after a village to the south but is occasionally found in older literature under the name Naomari Gora (Dzhavakhashvili 2006; Kvavadze and Todria 1992; Pizchelauri 1996). In the area, relatively untouched until recently, the archaeological remains were very well preserved. House foundations and interior furnishings, and in some cases large quantities of pottery and small finds in burnt buildings, give us a glimpse of rural life in the Early Iron Age of eastern Georgia. Udabno in the David Gareja Steppe Apart from the five Udabno settlements, more than thirty other Late Bronze/Early Iron Age settlements were discovered during surveys in the David Gareja steppe, often in close proximity (Kvavadze 1999: 556). The landscape did not always look as it currently does; palynological studies revealed that both climate and vegetation changed several times over the last 2000 years. In the Late Bronze/Early Iron Age, i.e. at the time of settlement, there is evidence of predominantly pastoral agriculture, but there is also evidence of cereal cultivation. In lower layers deposits of pollen and spores chiefly from woodland plants predominated (Kvavadze 1998; 1999; Kvavadze and Todria 1991: 4–11; 1992). There must have been forests during the settlement period in the area as well because M. Uerpmann (2006) also identified red deer among the examined bones from Udabno I (Cervus etaphus). The evidence of onagers (Equus hemionu) on the other hand suggests a more open landscape. 1 2 independent scholar. Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg. On the Shoulders of Prometheus (Archaeopress 2023): 59–84 Sabina Brodbeck-Jucker, René Kunze Figure 1 – Location of the settlements of Udabno I-V in the Dawit Gareja steppe, province of Kakheti, eastern Georgia (base maps: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, NOAA, AeroGRID, IGN; compiled by A. Swieder, Halle/S.). Perhaps due to the great need for building and firewood, the inhabitants of the time massively reshaped the landscape. However, no evidence was found during the excavations at Udabno for the need for wood by iron smelting operations described by K. Pizchelauri (1996). The water sources of the prehistoric period have not yet been discovered. The examination of a horse tooth from House C at Udabno I suggests that it drank mostly rainwater (Knipper et al. 2006: 215). Although there are several lakes in the vicinity of Udabno, the saline water contains sodium chloride (‘common salt’) as well as large amounts of sodium sulphate (‘Glauber’s salt’), which makes it undrinkable for humans (Kunze 2009). For a few years now, parts of the settlements have been covered with almond plantations, which are irrigated artificially. For this purpose, water is pumped from the Iori River, about 10 km away, to the hill of Udabno I, where it then flows into the irrigation systems. With the completion of the survey work in the late 1990s, it was decided to devote attention to three of the five settlements: Udabno I, II, and III (Figure 2). After completion of the magnetic survey work by Ch. Hübner and colleagues (Giese et al. 2007; Hübner et al. 2001), all three settlements were investigated in more detail, although not with equal intensity. At the largest site, Udabno I, located on a northwest-southeast orientated ridge about 700 m long and up to 30 m wide, the ratio of excavated houses is disproportionately high, 18 out of about 125 (c. 14%). From Udabno II, located about 1000 m to the north, we know of only two of about 27 houses (c. 7%). A corresponding calculation of the settlement Udabno III, located to the east of it and somewhat larger, is not possible since it was only partially prospected; five buildings were surveyed here. 60 Work- and Lifescapes in 1st Millennium BC Udabno Figure 2 – Russian aerial photograph in a 3D-view (Modified after Korfmann et al. 2003/2004: 177, Figure 2 and modelled in ESRI ArcScene by using SRTM-data; compiled by A. Swieder, Halle/S.). At each site, at least one house had burnt down. However, these catastrophes – possibly triggered by seismic activity, as geological displacements of stone slabs in some investigated houses (e.g., Udabno I-J) show (Kunze 2012: 20–21) – did not occur simultaneously and were probably not the cause for the settlement’s abandonment. Also, in the best-documented case on the ridge of Udabno I, the fire did not spread to neighbouring houses: the well-equipped building Udabno I-K burnt down, while the houses to the west and east of it (Udabno I-J and L) were spared from the fire. However, it is not clear to what extent these had been used as hardly any pottery was found inside them. The analysis of the small finds also shows that the middle house K had numerous metal and carnelian objects, while the two adjacent houses were almost devoid of finds (House J) or mainly had stone tools such as stone hoes, hammering, grinding, and polishing stones, but also raw materials for (carnelian) bead production (House L) and must therefore be interpreted rather as a storage room for tools or as a workshop. The archaeological evidence shows no indications of subsequent removal of pottery or small finds, i.e. all materials were left behind by the inhabitants as they were at the time of abandonment (İlgezdi and Bertram 2012: 93). In connection with numerous charcoal remains and animal bones, which allow absolute dating of the use-life of houses, concrete statements can be made on the one hand about the living conditions of the inhabitants of Udabno and of the surrounding area at the beginning of the 1st millennium BC on the other. Settlement complex Parts of the settlements are surrounded by thick walls. Their construction is termed cyclopean due to the considerable size of the mostly unhewn stone blocks. The three investigated settlements differ in their layout by their respective adaptation to the landscape. Thus, at Udabno I, the rowhouse-like, uniformly oriented development of the elongated ridge is striking, extending over 600 m at an elevation of 910–970 m a.s.l. To the northwest rises an almost square citadel surrounded 61 Sabina Brodbeck-Jucker, René Kunze Figure 3 – Udabno I with houses under study. Magnetogram with deposited aerial photograph (modified after Hübner et al. 2002: 431, Figure 3 and Korfmann et al. 2003/2004: 177, Figure 2). by a massive double-layered wall. Further buildings are situated around it that are adapted to the surroundings, whose longitudinal wall follows the outer wall (Figure 3). Udabno II lies somewhat lower than Udabno I at an altitude of about 900 m a.s.l., and in less raised terrain (Figure 4). Here, the fortification in the south, consisting of ditches and upstanding elements, is particularly striking. It is possible that this part of the complex was a citadel. In any case, its dimensions and interior construction resemble those of the citadel of Udabno I (cf. Kvavadze and Todria 1991: 3). Both halves of the settlement are protected in the west by another rampart, which was not included in the prospection but is recognizable in the satellite image. Udabno III, on the other hand, which was only partially prospected, is located at an elevation of about 830–880 m a.s.l. and consists of an oval citadel around which the buildings are arranged radially to the southeast and ring-like to the west (Figure 5). An extension of the settlement to the southeast was protected by an additional enclosure. Similar elevated fortresses with monumental stone architecture are found at many sites in the South and North Caucasus, but the density of internal development of citadels and other settlement areas at Udabno is unique. Unlike settlements in the Kabardinka range in the North Caucasus (Reinhold 2009; 2017; Reinhold et al. 2017), there are no central open squares. Also, at Lchashen on Lake Sevan, where structures have been identified that correspond chronologically to Udabno, the buildings adjoin the inner side of the citadel wall, leaving a larger area open in the centre (Castelluccia 2021, fig. 4a). Whether the two phenomena north and south of the ridge are related is not yet clear. As far as the findings from graves and hoards of the two regions are concerned, such a connection cannot be established (Reinhold 2019: 102). Microbiological investigations revealed 62 Work- and Lifescapes in 1st Millennium BC Udabno Figure 4 – Udabno II with houses under study. Magnetogram with deposited aerial photograph (modified after Hübner et al. 2002: 431, Figure 7 and Korfmann et al. 2003/2004: 183, Figure 7). Figure 5 – Udabno III with houses under study. Magnetogram with deposited aerial photograph (modified after Bertram and P’ic’xelauri 2005: 337, Figure 24). 63 Sabina Brodbeck-Jucker, René Kunze that livestock had been stabled on the central sites in the North Caucasus for a long period of time (Reinhold 2009: 105). There was no space for this anywhere within the settlements in Udabno. While most fortified settlements in the South Caucasus are assumed to have had only a small portion of the population living within the walls (Castelluccia 2021: 20), the three sites at Udabno appear to have served a larger population as a place to live and work. Based on magnetic prospection, a total of about 400 buildings can be assumed in the three settlements (İlgezdi and Bertram 2012; Kunze 2012). The two smaller settlements, Udabno II and III, are relatively easy to access, while access to Udabno I is steeper. The entire landscape as far as the valley of the Iori River and the mountain ranges to the north can be surveyed. Suggestions that the settlements were part of an important trade route from the Aegean to the Caspian Sea or from the steppes of Russia to Mesopotamia (Pitskhelauri 2002) cannot be confirmed based on the results so far. Also, it is not evident that the mining of iron ore or other raw materials would have been the reason behind settlement construction. The strong fortifications of the settlement Udabno I speak for a warlike phase, but the finds – except for some arrowheads made of obsidian and sling stones – do not show any indications of conflict during the settlement’s lifetime. Weapons, if they are present, are mainly symbolic and encompass fewer objects suitable for fighting, since they consist either of a high-alloyed tin bronze without forging (lance tip from house Udabno I-K; cf. Kunze 2012: fig. 3.26) or of an almost ‘pure’ copper alloy (surface find of an arrowhead; cf. Kunze 2012: fig. 3.27). Chronology There are 34 14C dates from a total of 16 houses. 24 are from charcoal, 10 from animal bones (for an overview, see Brodbeck-Jucker 2019a: 28–32). The latter are often about 100–200 years younger than the wood samples from the corresponding houses and allow dating the three settlements to the Early Iron Age, between c. 1000 and 800 BC, although the results are not straightforward for all buildings. If we exclude the uncertainties caused by the only rudimentary exploration of Udabno II, this settlement is older than Udabno I and III (Figure 6). It can even be assumed that Udabno II was abandoned before the activities on Udabno III started. This assumption is supported by S. Reinhold’s thesis that the settlements of Udabno II and III, with their surrounding core zones for agriculture and grazing, were too close to each other to produce enough food for the people and livestock of two villages at the same time (Reinhold et al. 2017: 255, fig. 174). The dating of Udabno II is based on two charcoal samples and one much younger bone sample from the southern building Udabno II-A. Since the older samples are probably old wood, a date from around the middle of the 10th century BC seems plausible. However, it should also be pointed out that while bone samples indicate the time shortly before the abandonment of the settlements or the houses, charcoal samples can provide circumstantial evidence for the time of the construction of a house, despite the old wood effect. Udabno I is probably somewhat younger: for each of the buildings in the middle of the ridge, Udabno I-J, K, and L, one date is available, two of which are based on charcoal, the third on a bone sample. The latter suggests a date at the beginning or in the middle of the 9th century BC (Figure 7). A slightly different result was obtained by 14C dating of the buildings in the citadel of Udabno I and the houses surrounding it: here, several dates point to the end of the 9th century BC (cf. Figure 7). The somewhat younger chronology is also reflected in the pottery, which shows several innovations (or a recourse to a Middle Bronze Age tradition): round-bellied jars up to 40 cm high with rich decoration and a small handle, fine-toned vessels made of oxidized fired clay, and handmade vessels 64 Work- and Lifescapes in 1st Millennium BC Udabno Figure 6 – Sequence of calibrated 14C data from the houses of Udabno II for samples of animal bones (dark) and charcoal (grey). Calibration by OxCal 4.4 (compiled by R. Kunze). Figure 7 –Sequence of selected calibrated 14C data from the houses of Udabno I for samples of animal bones (dark) and charcoal (grey). Calibration by OxCal 4.4 (compiled by R. Kunze). 65 Sabina Brodbeck-Jucker, René Kunze Figure 8 – Sequence of calibrated 14C data from the houses of Udabno III for samples of animal bones (dark) and charcoal (grey). Calibration by OxCal 4.4 (compiled by R. Kunze). Figure 9 – LBA black polished sherd with impressed concentric circles an incised tangents from a ditch in Udabno I (Udabno-Archive). made of coarse clay with obsidian temper not distinguishable from Middle Bronze Age pottery, e.g. from Didi Gora (Brodbeck-Jucker 2019a; 2019b: 304–307). It appears that this area was the last to be abandoned. A clearly older bone sample from building E has no recognizable connection to the sherds found there. As mentioned, Udabno III is younger than Udabno II. The data situation is uncertain here since the measurement results are far apart (Figure 8). The pottery from the burnt buildings Udabno III-C and D partly corresponds to that of Udabno I-K, partly younger elements were observed. Since the latest date extends to the end of the 9th century BC, we can assume that the western areas of Udabno I and Udabno III were abandoned at about the same time. 66 Work- and Lifescapes in 1st Millennium BC Udabno In a small area in the citadel of Udabno I, as well as to the east of it, traces of more recent activity have been detected: pottery sherds that can be dated to the second half of the first millennium BC. Already in 1989, five burials from the Hellenistic period had been discovered east of the citadel wall of Udabno I, containing pottery, jewellery, and cowrie shells as well as bronze bells and signet rings (Dzhavakhashvili 2006). During the Georgian-German campaigns, also east of the citadel, two graves of adolescents without any grave goods were recovered, as well as that of an infant. On the floors of the buildings in and around the citadel of Udabno I, sherds older than the rest of the pottery repeatedly came to light. These are black polished sherds, often decorated with wedge-shaped or circular stamp impressions and can be described as Late Bronze Age (Figure 9). No architectural remains were found that could be associated with such early activity, but the above-mentioned bone sample from Building E in the Udabno I citadel indicates a much older age (Figure 7). If the sherds and bone are not from material brought in from another settlement to level the floors, it can be assumed that people who had not erected permanent structures and did not use the site continuously had already resided at this site in the Late Bronze Age. A second, clearly older bone sample from Building C in Udabno III has no recognizable connection to the sherds found there. General description of the houses All the buildings in Udabno have a rectangular floor plan. With floor areas ranging from about 30 to about 100 sq m they vary in size, but no significant differences can be observed in the subdivision Figure 10 – Udabno I. Redrawing of the Houses J (left) and K (right) (Udabno-Archive). 67 Sabina Brodbeck-Jucker, René Kunze Figure 11 – Udabno I. House K with orthostats (Udabno-Archive). and interior layout (Figure 10). The orientation of the buildings largely follows the natural features of the area. Since they are generally located on the slope, the rear part is recessed into the elevated terrain, while access was at ground level. The back walls of the buildings are clad with quarried stones of different sizes, and the interstices filled with smaller stones. In some cases (Udabno I-J, K, and L) the interior facing consists of large stone blocks, so-called orthostats (Figure 11; cf. İlgezdi and Bertram 2012: 90, fig. 11.1). There is still no clarity about the construction of the overlying walls. The thick layers of mud within the houses suggest mud bricks, as known from Samtavro (Giunashvili 2010), or a construction of rammed earth as in Ciskaraant-Gora (Ludwig and Tauscher 2003: 7). Traces of a construction made of wattle and daub, as found in Noname Gora (Ludwig and Tauscher 2003: 8), should have been visible in the burnt houses. Still unanswered is the question of the shape of the roofs. Apart from a few postholes on the inner house wall, e.g., House Udabno III-D (Yarma 2009), there is no evidence for the type of roofing. Centre supports could not be documented. Climatic conditions speak against flat roofs, as they would probably not withstand the weight of snow in winter. To investigate this, a reconstruction of 68 Work- and Lifescapes in 1st Millennium BC Udabno the Middle Bronze Age houses in Jinisi could help (Shanshashvili and Narimanishvili 2020: pl. 6.1, 2), where the authors suggest barrel roofs. This form can still be seen on pit houses today, as shown by examples at Lake Paravani in southeast Georgia. Within the houses, rows of stones or stone-and-clay constructions indicate that the rooms were subdivided through the use of structural partitions. We can no longer determine the height of these partitions, but in Udabno III-C the sherds of two storage vessels, each found on one side of a stone row, were found completely unmixed. Thus, it can be assumed that the partition was originally at least as high as the larger of the two vessels (46.5 cm). Low clay benches are noted along the back wall, which must have served as storage for supplies and as a work surface during their preparation. In the rear left corner, there is an oven constructed out of clay and stones. This is usually poorly preserved, but we can imagine it corresponding to the ovens uncovered in Samtavro or Noname Gora (Furtwängler et al. 1999: fig. 9–11; Giunashvili 2010: fig. 3.4). In some buildings, a tub made of mud and stones was found on the western longitudinal wall, projecting a good distance into the room (Udabno I-I and K; Udabno III-D; see Figure 16). There is an analogue to this in the so-called ‘Hanghaus’ of Noname Gora (Ludwig and Tauscher 2003: fig. 7; Ludwig 2010: pl. 38.1). Along the eastern longitudinal wall there is often a paved area up to about 7.5 m long and about 2 m wide. The purpose of these areas is not yet clear. Some authors assume a stable area (e.g., Giunashvili 2010: 124), which is why the house type is called ‘khvastagiani sakhli’, – dwelling house with places for (large) livestock – in Georgian (Giunashvili 2010: 124). M. Uerpmann (2006: 205) Figure 12 – Udabno I. Group of cooking pots in a pit (Udabno-Archive). 69 Sabina Brodbeck-Jucker, René Kunze considers an interpretation as a stable area unlikely in view of the cramped spatial conditions and the other activity zones. In any case, the almost complete absence of pottery, tools, or other small finds in these areas is striking. The pits uncovered at Udabno were not very deep and usually offered space for only a few vessels (Figure 12). Deep pits of 130 cm and 150 cm were found in Udabno I-I and Udabno III-D, respectively (Figure 16). In addition, a rectangular pit with a side length of 1.5 m, made of quarry stones, was found in Udabno I-F. Its depth is not documented. The different construction raises the question of its date, but the sherds found in it fit into the spectrum of the other pottery (Brodbeck-Jucker 2019a: 152–153). Surprisingly, despite the considerable number of houses explored, no building decoration was found. That such elements – made of unfired clay – had some significance, presumably associated with a house cult, is shown by the various clay fragments with zoomorphic forms from CiskaraantGora (Furtwängler et al. 1998: 348–352) and especially the altar from Samtavro decorated with anthropomorphic figures in the museum of Mtskheta which, according to G. Giunashvili, is supposed to be one of several in Samtavro (cf. Apakidze et al. 1978: fig. 596–597, 602; Giunashvili 2010: 124). Agriculture The so-called tokhis (Kunze 2012: pl. 4–16) are among the stone implements that are very conspicuous due to their shape and are present in particularly high numbers. Their size varies between 10 cm and 20 cm with a width of about 10 cm. The broad side and notches on each respective long side are sharply retouched. The resulting hourglass-shaped form allows for good handling so that the force Figure 13 – Udabno II. House A. Stones of a threshing sledge in situ (Udabno-Archive). 70 Work- and Lifescapes in 1st Millennium BC Udabno can be optimally transmitted. Locally occurring river stones, presumably from the Iori River, were used for the manufacture of the tokhis. Until now, comparable tools are barely known. Besides some similar finds from the Early Iron Age Colchian ‘workshop settlement’ of Ochkhomuri (Apakidze 2000: 204; Apakidze 2009: 48), they are found mainly in the East Caucasian region: in Kakheti (e.g., Ciskaraant-Gora, Furtwängler and Knauss 1997: 383) and in northeast Azerbaijan (e.g., Khanlar/ Helenendorf, Gummel 1948: 71, fig. 35; Bertram 2005: 75–76). The exact function of the tokhis is not yet clear. Pitskhelauri refers to them as ‘stone hoes’ (Pitskhelauri 1973: fig. 22.1). Furtwängler and Knauss (1997: 383) suggest an agricultural use for digging up arable land, an interpretation that also seems most plausible for Udabno. Tokhis are found only very rarely in Udabno I, but predominantly in the settlements of Udabno II (House Udabno II-A) and Udabno III (Udabno III-B, C, and D). Mostly they were present as groups of several specimens outside the houses, directly on the outer walls, probably to store them there. In the front part of the Building Udabno II-A the stones of a threshing sledge were found in situ (Figure 13). This, together with the palynological findings, presents clear evidence for agriculture. The fact that grain remains are not documented from any of the three settlements may be due to the limited investigations conducted so far. E. Kvavadze (1998) found evidence of wheat, barley, and oats in her investigations in the vicinity of the settlements. A cattle phalange with pathological changes indicates that cattle were harnessed as work animals (Uerpmann 2006: 203). There is also evidence of the presence of donkeys, probably used as beasts of burden. Sickles are likely to have been used as tools for grain harvesting. A total of 53 artefacts made of local flint or regional obsidian (Chikiani in southeast Georgia) were documented, which can be considered blades or sickle inserts due to their shape. They are 2–8 cm long, usually slightly trapezoidal in cross-section, more rarely triangular in shape. Some edges show clearly recognizable sickle shine, which means that contact with plants must have been present. It is also possible that several blades were combined to form composite sickles. This not only made it easier to harvest crops, but also to work leather, for example. However, the absence of grouped finds suggests that composite sickles were not utilised: the majority of the blades were recovered individually from the fill layers of the houses. Besides their use in agriculture, such blades were also used in textile production (see below). Livestock breeding According to Kvavadze (1999), the dense growth of goosefoot plants in the vicinity of Udabno in the early 1st millennium BC indicates cattle breeding. A detailed report by M. Uerpmann on the analysis of more than 2500 animal bone remains from the 2002 and 2005 excavation campaigns provides us with information on livestock husbandry at that time (Uerpmann 2006). According to J.-K. Bertram, the bone remains were provisionally divided into two groups, the younger of which was dated to the second half of the 1st millennium BC (Uerpmann 2006: 197). This is not considered here because it does not belong to a clearly identifiable settlement stratum. The bones from the older contexts come from three groups of houses: 1) the areas 710/050 and 720/050, in which the Buildings Udabno I-B and C are located on both sides of the western citadel wall; 2) the area 950/940 on the ridge of Udabno I, in which parts of the houses J and K are located and 3) the area 850/910 with parts of the Buildings Q and R (Uerpmann 2006: 205). According to Uerpmann, domestic animals were kept primarily as meat suppliers. On the menu of the inhabitants of Udabno were predominantly domestic sheep and goats, followed by cattle, domestic pigs, and horses. Considering the weight of the animals, cattle and horses provided the most meat. 71 Sabina Brodbeck-Jucker, René Kunze Bones were found in one jug and in four cooking pots, the remains of meat preserved presumably by curing, in one case certainly, in a second probably from sheep. The bones from one of the vessels came from animals of different ages. Probably they were slaughtered in late summer and preserved as winter stock. The slaughtering time, as well as the keeping of pigs, suggests a year-round presence of the inhabitants of Udabno. The strontium isotope analyses on the above-mentioned horse tooth point in the same direction (Knipper et al. 2006: 215; 2008: 161). Hunting played only a minor role. Some bones can be assigned to red deer (Uerpmann 2006). Fox and badger remains could also date from the time after the settlements were abandoned. Also, reptiles (turtles) and birds seem to have been hunted at most on a very small scale. According to Uerpmann (2006: 197–198), this statement applies to all of eastern Georgia and also to eastern Anatolia, but not to western Georgia. Household Pithoi with a height of about 100 cm and also high, round-bellied jars with two vertical handles on the broadest part of the vessel were used for storage (Figure 14a, b). Of these, some are so large – the largest measures 57 cm – that they were not used as transport vessels. Moreover, the handles are not moulded into the clay, but only glued to the surface, which is not even roughened, making it hardly possible to use them to lift the filled vessel. The two deep pits mentioned above may also have been used as food storage facilities. Given the generally rather small storage capacities, it can be assumed that the buildings were inhabited by smaller groups of people and that each group accumulated supplies for itself. An exceptional situation was shown in Building Udabno III-D, where a pithos was located in a separate room in the southwest corner, i.e., near the entrance (Figure 15). Otherwise, the entire rear area of the houses was used for storage and food preparation. Along the wall there was usually an earthen bench, at whose left end was the hearth (Figure 16). On it and in the area in front of it most of the vessels were found. The storage pits were shallow except for the two mentioned above. In these, among other things, the cooking pots or jugs filled with bones had been stored. If we consider the pottery inventories in the households preserved by fire, we gain an overview of the types of vessels used. Houses Udabno I-B and K, Udabno II-A, and Udabno III-D have the largest preserved pottery inventories; between 27 and 39 vessels were counted there. It should be noted that, so far, only the pottery from the layers close to the ground has been recorded in this analysis. In the upper layers, a lot of pottery was also found, which possibly belonged to vessels used until the end, because from the time after the abandonment of the settlements there are no indications of renewed use, except at one place in Udabno I. By far the most common were widely formed pots with a height of over 15 cm (seven to eleven examples per house). In the vast majority of cases, they are wheel-made and decorated with grooves and rows of notches spanning the circumference. Since many specimens have traces of powder, they are generally referred to as cooking pots. In Udabno I-B, as well as in some other buildings in the citadel and in its immediate vicinity, there were quite a few handmade, obsidian-tempered pots (Figure 17). The two largest come from Udabno I-B with a 20-litre capacity. Their own weight of more than 8 kg was so high that they were difficult to move even when empty. They were not found near the hearth, but next to the remains of butter churns, which suggests that they were used in connection with butter production. Butter churns, which can be recognized by a horizontal handle on the shoulder and an air hole next to it, were found in almost all buildings (Figure 18). Accordingly, the inhabitants of most of the houses kept dairy cattle, at least goats and sheep. In view of the animal bone analysis results, 72 Work- and Lifescapes in 1st Millennium BC Udabno 73 Figure 14 – a) Pithos from Building F in the citadel of Udabno I; b and c) jars with a wide profile, a short neck and two handles on the broadest part of the body from Udabno I-F and Udabno I-D respectively (Udabno-Archive). Sabina Brodbeck-Jucker, René Kunze Figure 15 – Pithos from House Udabno III-D in situ, found in the southern part of the building (Udabno-Archive). Figure 16 – Udabno III, House D. Detailed view of the northern area of work (Udabno-Archive). 74 Work- and Lifescapes in 1st Millennium BC Udabno Figure 17 – Obsidian tempered pot with circular stamp impressions from Udabno I, Building I (Udabno-Archive). Figure 18 – Fragment of a butter churn frum Udabno I, House F (Udabno-Archive). the considerable number of butter churns is surprising, because according to Uerpmann (2006: 200; 203) the animals were primarily kept as meat suppliers. Even though butter was probably not made from cream but from filtered yogurt (Schoop 1998: 30, fig. 3), a surplus of milk was needed. Comparing the volumes of the vessels, butter production seems to have been higher in the youngest houses (Udabno I-B and I) than in the older ones (Udabno II-A and Udabno I-K). The round-bellied, bottle-like jars with handles on the broadest part of the vessel, already mentioned in the case of storage vessels, were also produced in smaller sizes. They could serve as 75 Sabina Brodbeck-Jucker, René Kunze liquid or solid storage (Figure 14c). The neck and mouth even of the smaller versions were wide enough to reach in with a hand. In each of these buildings were found medium-sized jugs with a height between 15 and 30 cm. One of them contained bones, indicating canned meat. Among others in the buildings Udabno I-B and Udabno III-D, a jar with a height of almost 40 cm was found. These large jugs seem to have appeared towards the end of the 9th century BC (Brodbeck-Jucker 2019a: 80–82). Their heavy body and small handle make them difficult to handle when pouring. Alongside jugs, one would expect a correspondingly large number of drinking vessels, but these are not very numerous: in Udabno I-B and K one cup each was found, from Udabno II-A three relatively large cup-shaped vessels were found and from Udabno III-D a cup and a fragment of a handmade cup, which, however, is poorly suited for drinking because of its rim shape. In each building there was a single small, bottle-like vessel, in Udabno I-K sherds of a second one were found, and in Udabno III-D another one, which was equipped with a handle. Such small vessels were found by the hundreds in the Kakhetian sanctuaries of Meli Ghele I and Shilda or also in the Armenian Dvin. It could therefore be that they also had a cultic function in households. As drinking vessels, as they are called in the publications on the sanctuaries (Kushnareva 1977: 76; Maisuradze and Inanishvili 2006; Pizchelauri 1984), they are poorly suited, because the mouth is often so narrow that the liquid only comes out drop by drop, which is more reminiscent of libation vessels. Bowls are almost only in the form of single sherds or smaller fragments. From all excavated buildings, only two complete vessels could be recovered (Udabno I-K and R). Even rarer are deep bowls, i.e., open vessels whose rim diameter is at most twice the height. Thus, there is a clear predominance of closed vessel forms suitable for storing food and liquids, while types that served more for serving and eating food are rare; these were possibly made of a perishable material. The quantitatively largest group of finds includes 294 documented grinding stones, which mostly include concave rubbing plates (underliers) and convex, free rubbing stones (runners) as well as pestles and mortars. About half of the rubbing stones were found on the floor, mostly in the kiln area. The rest were used secondarily, e.g., as wall stones or for relining the kilns. Mortars and pestles made of coarse-pored basalt (Figure 19) were not used exclusively for food preparation. Several objects were used to produce lime (for plastering the walls of the houses) and red chalk powder (pigments). The raw materials for this purpose were found in all three settlements. The use of nearby lime and hematite deposits was identified through geochemical analyses (Kunze 2012: 38; 181–183). Regarding the relative frequency, the form and the material used, no differences are shown when comparing the three settlements with each other. Another characteristic find group at Udabno is represented by clay stamps. Most of the documented 19 objects were in the vicinity of kilns. The typological spectrum shows itself to be quite extensive: geometric patterns with parallel ribs, swastikas, meander, and crescent moons represent the most frequent motifs (Kunze 2012: pl. 31–35). Clear references to individual areas of the settlements are evident. Thus, in the citadel area of Udabno I, motifs with parallel ribs are predominant, while in Udabno II, crescent-shaped motifs are more common. Stamps of this type are widespread in Anatolia and the Near East. There is hardly a studied settlement from the Late Bronze/Early Iron Age in which clay stamps have not been found. They are often interpreted as bread stamps, which is the most likely interpretation for Udabno, especially because of their location in the hearth area of the houses. However, clay stamps were also discovered in sanctuaries (Bukhrashvili et al. 2019: 281, fig. 19–20; Pizchelauri 1984: fig. 59.1–3) and in the pottery workshop of Khirsa (Pitskhelauri 1965: pl. 7.5). 76 Work- and Lifescapes in 1st Millennium BC Udabno Figure 19 – Udabno III, House E. Mortar and pestle (Udabno-Archive). Handicrafts Numerous spindle whorls, weaving combs and weaving weights found mainly in the floor layers of the houses in Udabno I evince the production of textiles in all three settlements. Combs 8–14 cm in length form the most common implements related to this craft, found mainly in the vicinity of the citadel, but also in all other areas of Udabno I. Split pig, sheep or goat ribs served as basic material, at one end of which three to 26 prongs were worked out for guiding the yarn. Another group of finds referring to weaving are the spindle whorls and loom weights. The loom weights were used for tensioning the warp threads and are mainly found in the fill layers of Udabno I as round pottery sherds, pebbles or heavier sandstones or limestones. Varying masses indicate the production of a wide variety of textiles. Isolated decorations on sherds indicate secondary usage of old vessel sherds. These were ground nearly round and provided with a horizontal perforation for a possibly knotted, drawn-in thread. Spindle whorls were also found predominantly on the floors of the houses in the citadel (Udabno I), but partially also in the southern part of the settlement (House Udabno I-Q). Joint bones were the main source material, pottery also on occasion. Perforations refer to past wooden staves. The above-discussed blades made of regional flint and non-local obsidian could also have been used in connection with textile production. For example, the distances between the individual teeth of the blades are often nearly identical. These exact distances would not be necessary if used as a composite sickle in agriculture (see above). In addition, the sharp-edged inner areas were rounded. Thus, the use of the blades as auxiliary tools for textile production also seems very plausible. For example, they are especially suitable for beating the weft in so-called board weaving. Interesting in this context is a stone made of diorite from House C in Udabno I, which shows geometric incised decorations. The arrangement of patterns as well as recessed and intersecting points of the incisions probably refer to a weaving pattern (Kunze 2012: 47, fig 3.20). Obsidian – presumably debitage from blade manufacture – was used to temper handmade vessels (cf. Figure 17). The sharp-edged splinters were further processed beforehand so that their use could not cause injuries when shaping vessels. The tradition, known in the South Caucasus since the Chalcolithic (Palumbi et al. 2014), was continued after the end of the Middle Bronze Age only in Trialeti (Kuftin 1941: 58; Menabde and Davlianidze 1968: 28). From Kakheti, Early Iron Age vessels with obsidian deposits are currently known to us only from the younger buildings at Udabno and 77 Sabina Brodbeck-Jucker, René Kunze from two contemporaneous graves at Sagarejo (Mamaiashvili 1988: 80, no. 39; 88, no. 81; BrodbeckJucker 2019a: 41–42). Since the obsidian used for utensil making and the obsidian observed in a vessel sherd have the same provenance, it is quite possible that waste/debitage was used. However, obsidian from Chikiani on Lake Paravani in southeast Georgia was common throughout the region (Kunze 2012), so the inference that obsidian pottery and, indeed, pottery more generally, was made in Udabno is not compelling. So far, no corresponding workshops are known. Among the 417 documented pieces of jewellery, pearls and ornamental plates are most frequently represented. This is not surprising, since both forms are rarely used individually, but predominantly as groups in the form of chains (beads) or for traditional costume decoration (ornamental plates). Other finds include pendants (mainly made of clay-slate), and (garment) pins and rings. The Udabno material includes a total of 117 beads and 98 pendants. Beads were documented exclusively in the settlement Udabno I, pendants, however, were documented in all three settlements (but predominantly in Udabno III). The majority of the jewellery was stored in safe places in the houses. Beads made of carnelian are most frequently represented (Figure 20a). Additionally, some beads made of bone or ivory, glass (frit), pottery, antimony, and bronze were found. Bead ensembles were found inside houses. Of particular importance is a deposit consisting of 68 carnelian beads as well as some metal, bone, and antimony beads from House Udabno I-K. A chisel made of arsenic bronze documented in this context could have served preparatory work (creation of a mould in which to place the drill?) to pierce the beads. A deposit of 65 slate pendants was recovered from the northern wall of the Udabno III-B House (Figure 20b). There were two pendants with a perforation, three drilled artefacts and 60 blanks. The low weight and the aesthetic impression of the smooth and shiny stones refer to jewellery and not utilitarian objects such as weights. All the stone pendants were probably stored in a since-decomposed container. Similar to House Udabno I-K with its bead depositions, this building is probably also a combined living and workshop house, probably of a jeweller. Typologically comparable pendants are known from the sanctuary of Meli Ghele (Pizchelauri 1984: fig. 16). Another deposit of ornamental objects is composed of 156 thin, horseshoe-shaped and undecorated plates of copper, about 3–4 cm in size (Figure 20c). The ornamental plates lay as a closed find in a small niche in the outer wall of the eastern citadel fortification of Udabno I, near Houses H and I; they may have originally been in an organic and thus since-decomposed container. About onethird of the objects have amorphous perforations; six ornamental plates were perforated; the rest were only fragmentarily preserved or do not show any traces of processing. The edges show neither casting nor forging, but cut edges, which means that they were cut out of a large sheet. As in the case of the finds already discussed, this is probably also the jeweller’s stockpile. Corresponding individual pieces were also found in the immediate vicinity of the citadel (especially in House Udabno I-B). Typologically identical objects have survived from the sanctuaries of Meli Ghele II and Melaani (Pizchelauri 1984: fig. 17; 60). Presumably, they were used as clothing trimmings, as has already been demonstrated for similar objects from Tomb 85 of Tli in central Georgia (cf. Kossack 1983: 97). From horizontal to vertical social structure The question arises as to why such an effort was made for fortifications. Were attacking enemies expected, and if so, who were they? Obviously, settlements were abandoned before raids such as the ones at Ciskaraant-Gora (further east and somewhat younger – Furtwängler and Knauss 1997: 360; 374–378; Furtwängler et al. 1998: 319; Ludwig 2010: 181) made the region unsafe. Were cyclopean fortresses consequently prestige buildings as much as they were defensive structures? Could the highly visible settlements at high altitudes have to some extent replaced the equally 78 Work- and Lifescapes in 1st Millennium BC Udabno Figure 20 – Selection of some jewelry objects found in depot-like manner. a) carnelian beads from house U I-K; b) slate pendants from U III-B; c) copper plates in the outer wall of the eastern citadel fortification of Udabno I (Udabno-Archive). 79 Sabina Brodbeck-Jucker, René Kunze prominent kurgans of the Middle Bronze Age and early Late Bronze Age? After all, without some kind of leadership to plan and coordinate, these installations are unthinkable (cf. Reinhold 2012). On the other hand, the various structures reveal a completely different concept: in contrast to the kurgans, which emphasize an individual, the enormous amount of work mandatory in both cases here primarily applies to the community and the living. Considering the amount of labour and time spent on these facilities, which consequently were not available for the procurement of food, it can be assumed that the people not involved in the construction also had to take care of the others. Castelluccia (2021: 14) speaks of a militarisation of society visible on all levels. In Udabno, this is limited to defensive architecture. From the necropolises of the Late Bronze/Early Iron Age we know of so-called warrior graves buried with weapons, often featuring a richly decorated bronze belt (e.g. Sagarejo; Narekvavi). Castelluccia, like other authors, emphasises the role of élites (e.g., Smith et al. 2009). He sees a continuous evolution from the social structures identified in the MBA Kurgans to the Urartian Empire, manifested in many small centres, but no supra-regional political power. Since the graves belonging to the settlements of Udabno have not yet been found, we lack important information about the social structures of the inhabitants. Differences can at most be found in the size of the buildings, but not in the equipment of the households. It is possible that the building Udabno II-A had a particular importance, but especially in this settlement, the evidence is rather poor. The owner (individual, family, community) had a threshing sledge, the only one excavated in Udabno. Possessing such an item possibly brought with it a certain social status. The house is one of the largest, measuring 90 sq m (about 17 by 5–6 m). In the front (southern) area of the house, apart from the threshing sledge, neither tools nor pottery were found. In the rear area, generally intended for food storage and processing, quite a few storage and cooking vessels were found (Brodbeck-Jucker 2019a: 184–185) – as well as all small finds – which also suggests a use as a residential building. In addition to the usual pottery, four unusual vessels stand out that are atypical for everyday use: they are tall, narrow goblets that do not match in terms of shape and design, but all have an extremely small foot so that they could not stand securely (Figure 21; cf. Brodbeck-Jucker 2019a: nos 206–207; 210–211). Their interpretation as briquetage (Bertram 2008: 241; 248; İlgezdi and Bertram 2012: 95; Korfmann et al. 2003–2004: 189–190) seems unlikely because of the good quality of the pieces and the very good state of preservation of most of them. Rather, they could be drinking vessels that belonged to a drinking ritual analogous to the conical cups shown in the hands of bronze or clay statuettes (e.g., Avetisyan et al. 2019: fig. 3; 25–26; Brinkmann 2018: 148, nos 47–48). Here, we could entertain the idea of communal use of implements as well as communal drinking, but these are still largely speculations. It should also be considered that the threshing sledge was no longer available after the house burnt down and that it was likely not used for the population of several settlements. Summary The excavations on the settlements of Udabno I–III revealed a single-phase occupation, which could be dated to the Late Bronze/Early Iron Age, or to the period of transition from the 2nd to the 1st millennium BC, by numerous radiocarbon analyses of charcoal and bones. The inventories of the abandoned houses were available in situ, providing immediate insight into life at the time. The uniform design and solid construction of the houses (architecture, orientation, and inventories) speak for a planned and permanent layout of the settlements and show the cultural affiliation with contemporaneous sites, such as the significantly smaller sites of Khanlar (northwestern Azerbaijan) and Samtavro (near Mtskheta). 80 Work- and Lifescapes in 1st Millennium BC Udabno Figure 21 – Goblets from Udabno II, Building A. Height of the largest goblet: 37 cm (Udabno-Archive). The furnishings of the excavated buildings suggest that they were primarily used for residential purposes and that some small-scale commercial work was carried out in the dwellings (for example, jewellery and textile production). It testifies to simple, relatively plain living with little social differentiation, likely a peasant population. Although the settlements are partly enclosed by one or more fortifications, the low number and quality of the weapons found indicate a rather quiet and peaceful period in the eastern Central Caucasus. Findings and features reveal neither religious, nor public functions of the houses. Also, the absence of any evidence of administrative structures in all three complexes leads to numerous unanswered questions regarding the architectural planning of the settlements and their structural execution. The life of the inhabitants was characterised by a peasant economy. Numerous animal bones examined from the domestic areas of the houses show the importance of livestock breeding. Each household presumably had sufficient livestock to provide for its needs. A surplus of milk can be proved by finds of numerous butter churns. The high find density of grinding stones and sickle fragments as well as the remains of a threshing sledge indicate – despite the lack of grain residues – agricultural activities. Thus, a complete self-production of basic foodstuffs can be assumed. Whether the size of the Udabno complex and the favourable strategic location of the settlements indicate a significant function, such as that of an important centre on the trade route from the Kura to the Iori and Alasani valleys, cannot be clearly answered by the analysis of the finds. Trade connections are only visible through the use of obsidian, carnelian and volcanic rocks (e.g., basalt) from other regions of the South Caucasus. 81 Sabina Brodbeck-Jucker, René Kunze For the first time, a settlement in eastern Georgia was able to be systematically investigated archaeologically and scientifically. Agricultural and small-scale trade activities give a detailed picture of the daily life of a Late Bronze/Early Iron Age rural population, which maintained individual trade connections to the southwest, but was by and large self-sufficient. Acknowledgements The work in Udabno has shaped the authors for a long time and still shapes them today. Ernst Pernicka and Jan-K. Bertram, who took over the excavation management after the sudden death of Manfred Korfmann in 2005, are sincerely thanked for the possibility of processing the finds. Heartfelt thanks are due to Prof. Dr. David Lordkipanidze, Prof. Dr. Kiazo Pitskhelauri and Dr. Zurab Makharadze on the Georgian side for their permission to publish the finds of Udabno in our dissertations. During all our stays in Georgia we could always rely on Inna and Gela Gzirishvili (Sagarejo), who were of all possible help on site. We thank Hannah Gilb (Berlin) for the translation of the text and Anna Swieder (Halle/S.) for making the maps. Bibliography Apakidze, A., F. Kalandadze, V. Nik’olaishvili, G. Manjgaladze, F. Sikharulidze, V. Sadradze, L. Khetsuriani, T. Jgharkava, M. Dzneladze, R. Davlianidze, and G. Giunashvili 1978. The archaeological expedition in Mtskheta of the year 1976, in A. Apakidze (ed.) Mtskheta. Results of the archaeological investigations 2: 81–156. Tbilisi: Metsniereba (in Georgian). Apakidze, J. 2000. Ein umfangreicher Bronzehort aus der Werkstattsiedlung der Kolchis-Kultur in Očchomuri in Westgeorgien. Praehistorische Zeitung 75: 184–211. Apakidze, J. 2009. Die Spätbronze- und Früheisenzeit in West- und Zentralkaukasien – Chronologische Studien zur Kolchis-Kultur 1600-700 v. Chr. (Prähistorische Archäologie in Südosteuropa 24). Rahden/Westfalen: Verlag Marie Leidorf. Avetisyan, H., A. Gnuni, G. Sargsyan, and A. Bobokhyan 2019. Human images from the eastern Urartian periphery: anthropomorphic sculpture of Syunik on the cusp of the 2nd and 1st Millennium, in P.S. Avetisyan, R. Dan, and Y.H. Grekyan (eds) Over the Mountains and Far Away: Studies in Near Eastern history and archaeology presented to Mirjo Salvini on the occasion of his 80th birthday: 9–18. Summertown: Archaeopress. Bertram J.-K. 2005. Befestigte Großanlagen in der Südkaukasusregion – Ein Beitrag zum Siedlungswesen des 2. und frühen 1. Jts v. Chr., in Georgien – Schätze aus dem Land des Goldenen Vlies. Tagungsband zum Kolloquium Wiesbaden, 2./3. Dezember 2002. Metalla 12/1–2: 69–79. Bertram, J.-K. 2008. Udabno (Eastern Georgia) – Three Radiocarbon Dated Settlements from ca. 1000 BCE: A Report on the Ceramic Analysis, in K. Rubinson and A. Sagona (eds) Ceramics in Transitions. Chalcolithic Through Iron Age in the Highlands of the Southern Caucasus and Anatolia (Ancient Near Eastern Studies, Suppl. 27): 235–266. Leuven: Peeters. Bertram, J.-K. and K. P’ic’xelauri 2005. Vorbericht zu den Ausgrabungsarbeiten in Udabno (Ostgeorgien) im Jahre 2005. Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 37: 323–364. Brinkmann V. (ed.) 2018. Medeas Liebe und die Jagd nach dem Goldenen Vlies. München: Hirmer. Brodbeck-Jucker, S. 2019a. Die Keramik von Udabno und ihre Stellung innerhalb des früheisenzeitlichen Südkaukasus (Universitätsschriften zur Prähistorischen Archäologie, 332). Bonn: Habelt. Brodbeck-Jucker, S. 2019b. Die Keramik aus den früheisenzeitlichen Siedlungen von Udabno in Kachetien (Ostgeorgien). Das Altertum 64/4: 291–314. Bukhrashvili, P., F. Blocher, Z. Tskvitinidze, and S. Davitashvili 2019. Ausgrabungen in Nazarlebi, Kachetien (Georgien) 2017 und 2018. Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft zu Berlin 151: 271–294. Castelluccia, M. 2021. Dal Chiefdom allo Stato: Evoluzione delle élite militari nel Caucaso meridionale nel II e I millennio a.C., in D. Artoni, C. Frappi, and P. Sorbello (eds) Armenia, Caucaso e Asia Centrale. Ricerche 2021 (Eurasiatica 18): 13–32. Venice: Edizioni Ca’ Foscari. Dzhavakhashvili, K. 2006. Udabno, ‘Naomari Gora’ 1. The hellenistic necropolis. Archaeology of the Caucasus 1: 183–201 (in Russian). 82 Work- and Lifescapes in 1st Millennium BC Udabno Furtwängler, A. and F. Knauss 1997. Archäologische Expedition in Kachetien 1996. Ausgrabungen in den Siedlungen Gumbati und Ciskaraant-Gora. 3. Vorbericht. Mit Beiträgen von H. Löhr und I. Motzenbäcker. Eurasia Antiqua 3: 353–387. Furtwängler, A., F. Knauss, and I. Motzenbäcker 1998. Archäologische Expedition in Kachetien 1997. Ausgrabungen in Širaki. 4. Vorbericht. Eurasia Antiqua 4: 309–363. Furtwängler, A., F. Knauss, and I. Motzenbäcker 1999. Archäologische Expedition in Kachetien 1998. Ausgrabungen in Širaki. 5. Vorbericht. Eurasia Antiqua 5: 233–270. Giese, S., A. Grubert, and C. Hübner 2007. Geoinformatics as a tool for archaeological prospection: geomagnetic mapping in the prehistoric settlement ‘Udabno 1’ (Kachetia, Georgia). Zeitschrift der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Geowissenschaften 158: 177–182. Giunashvili, G. 2010. The settlement of Samtavro I, in G. Gambaschidse, O. Dzhaparidze, D. Lortkipanidze, B. Maisuradze, R. Metreveli, G. Mirtskhulava, and W. Shamiladze (eds) International academic conference ‘Archaeology, ethnology, folklore studies of the Caucasus’. Collection of summaries. Tbilisi, 25–27 June 2009: 124–127. Tbilisi: Meridian (in Russian). Gummel, Ja.I. 1948. Excavation of Settlement No. 1 west of Khanlar (1939-1941). Brief reports communications and field studies of the Institute for the History of Material Culture. USSR Academy of Sciences, Marr Institute for the History of Material Culture 23: 67–79 (in Russian). Hübner, C., S. Giese, and A. Grubert 2001. Geomagnetische Prospektionskampagne 2000 in Udabno, Kachetien, Georgien. Studia Troica 11: 427–436. İlgezdi Bertram, G. and J.-K. Bertram 2012. Udabno – Eine erste Zusammenfassung der Ausgrabungsund Prospektionsergebnisse nach Abschluss der Feldarbeiten, in A. Mehnert, G. Mehnert and S. Reinhold (eds) Austausch und Kulturkontakt im Südkaukasus und seinen angrenzenden Regionen in der Spätbronze-/Früheisenzeit. Schriften des Zentrums für Archäologie und Kulturgeschichte des Schwarzmeerraumes 22: 87–121. Langenweißbach: Beier & Beran. Knipper, C., S. Paulus, and H.-P. Uerpmann 2006. Sauerstoff-und Strontiumisotopenanalysen an Tierknochenfunden aus Udabno. Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 38: 213–217. Knipper, C., S. Paulus, M. Uerpmann, and H.-P. Uerpmann 2008. Seasonality and land use in Bronze and Iron Age Kakhetia (Georgia). Oxygen and strontium isotope analyses on horse and cattle teeth. Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 40: 149–168. Korfmann, M.O., K. P’ic’xelauri, J.-K. Bertram, and G. Kastl 2003–2004. Erster Vorbericht zu den Vermessungs- und Ausgrabungsarbeiten in Udabno (Ostgeorgien) Mit Beiträgen von Ch. Hübner, S. Giese, A. Grubert und B. Maus. Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 35/36 (2005): 175–224. Kossack. G. 1983. Tli Grab 85. Bemerkungen zum Beginn des skythischen Formenkreises im Kaukasus. Beiträge zur Allgemeinen und Vergleichenden Archäologie 5 (1984): 89–187. Kuftin, B.A. 1941. Archaeological excavations in Trialeti. Tbilisi: Publishing house of the Academy of Sciences of the Georgian SSR (in Russian). Kunze, R. 2009. Natürliche Salzvorkommen als möglicher Standortfaktor der Besiedlung des früheisenzeitlichen Siedlungshorizontes von Udabno (Ostgeorgien)?, in A. Hauptmannn and H. Stege (eds) Archäometrie und Denkmalpflege – Kurzberichte 2009, Jahrestagung in München: 28–29. Kunze, R. 2012. Interdisziplinäre Studien zu den Kleinfunden der Siedlungen Udabno I-III (Ostgeorgien). Unpublished PhD dissertation. Tübingen University [available at http://hdl. handle.net/10900/49922; viewed: 22 April 2022]. Kushnareva, K. 1977. The oldest monuments of Dvin. Yerevan: Publishing house of the Academy of Sciences of the Armenian SSR (in Russian). Kvavadze, E. 1998. Vorläufige Ergebnisse der palynologischen Untersuchungen, in A. Furtwängler, F. Knauss and I. Motzenbäcker 1998. Archäologische Expedition in Kachetien 1997. Ausgrabungen in Širaki. 4. Vorbericht. Eurasia Antiqua 4: 354–357. Kvavadze, E. 1999. The Result of Palynological Studies of Sediments from the Cultivated Layers of the Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages in the Steppe Regions of Georgia, in L. Stuchlik (ed.) Proceedings of the fifth European Palaeobotanical and Palynological Conference, June 26-30 199. Kraków (Acta Palaeobotanica, Suppl. 2): 555–559. Kraków: Polska Akademia Nauk, Instytut Botaniki im W. Szafera. Kvavadze, E. and Z. Todria 1991. Preliminary results of a palynological study of the cultural layers of the Naomari I and Naomari II settlements (eastern Georgia) Preprint. Tbilisi (in Russian). 83 Sabina Brodbeck-Jucker, René Kunze Kvavadze, E. and Z. Todria 1992. Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age human environmental conditions in Udabno Gareji according to palynological data (eastern Georgia). Tbilisi: Academy of Georgian Sciences (in Russian). Ludwig, N. and G. Tauscher 2003. Die Deutsch-Georgische Expedition in Kachetien. Archaeologia Circumpontica 1: 5–12. Ludwig, N. 2010. Ostgeorgische Fundplätze des 1. Jahrtausends v. Chr. – Die Keramik. Schriften des Zentrums für Archäologie und Kulturgeschichte des Schwarzmeeraumes. Langenweissbach: Beyer & Beran. Maisuradze V. and G.V. Inanishvili 2006. The Shilda Sanctuary, a Cult Monument in Kakhetia, Republic of Georgia. Anthropology & Archeology of Eurasia 45/1: 29–48. Mamaiashvili, N. 1988. Graves of Sagarejo of the 1st millennium before our era. Gareji. Works of the Archaeological expedition 8: 72–112 (in Georgian). Menabde, M. and C. Davlianidze 1968. The graves of Trialeti. Catalogue. Tbilisi: Metsniereba (in Georgian and Russian). Palumbi, B. Gratuze, A. Harutyunyan, and Ch. Chataigner 2014. Obsidian-tempered pottery in the Southern Caucasus: a new approach to obsidian as a ceramic-temper. Journal of Archaeological Science 44: 43–54. Pitskhelauri, K. 1965. The oldest culture of the tribes that lived in the Iori-Alazani bassin. Tbilisi: Metsniereba (in Georgian). Pitskhelauri, K.N. 1973. The main problems of the history of the tribes in Eastern Georgia in the 15th-7th century before our era. Tbilisi: Metsniereba (in Georgian). Pitskhelauri, K.N. 2002. South Caucasian Ancient Civilisation in Gareji Desert (Udabno), in R. Aslan, S. Blum, G. Kastl, F. Schweizer, and D. Thumm (eds) Mauerschau: Festschrift für Manfred Korfmann 2: 747–758. Remshalden-Grunbach: Bernhard Albert Greiner. Pizchelauri, K.N. 1984. Jungbronzezeitliche bis ältereisenzeitliche Heiligtümer in Ost-Georgien (Materialien zur Allgemeinen und Vergleichenden Archäologie 12). München: C.H. Beck. Pizchelauri, K. 1996. Eine neue altorientalische Kultur der Eisenzeit im Innern des Kaukasus. Anadolu araştırmaları 14: 425–431. Reinhold, S. 2009. Zyklopische Festungen und Siedlungen mit symmetrischem Grundriss. Überlegungen zu einem überregionalen Phänomen der kaukasischen Spätbronzezeit, in J. Apakidze, B. Govedarica, and B. Hänsel (eds) Der Schwarzmeerraum vom Äneolithikum bis in die Früheisenzeit (5000/500 v. Chr.) (Prähistorische Archäologie in Südosteuropa 25): 97–130. Rahden/ Westf.: Verlag Marie Leidorf. Reinhold, S. 2012. Zur Konstruktion von Identität in der Bronzezeit Kaukasiens, in I. Heske and B. Horejs (eds) Bronzezeitliche Identitäten und Objekte. Beiträge aus den Sitzungen der AG Bronzezeit auf der 80. Tagung des West- und Süddeutschen Verbandes für Altertumsforschung in Nürnberg 2010 und dem 7. Deutschen Archäologiekongress in Bremen 2011 (Universitätsschriften zur Prähistorischen Archäologie 221): 83–106. Bonn: Habelt. Reinhold, S. 2017. Late Bronze Age Architecture in Caucasia and Beyond. Building a New Lifestyle for a New Epoch, in E. Rova, and M. Tonussi (eds) At the Northern Frontier of Near Eastern Archaeology. Recent Research on Caucasia and Anatolia in the Bronze Age. Proceedings of the international HumboldtKolleg Venice, January 9th–January 12th, 2013 (Subartu 38): 337–366. Reinhold, S., D.S. Korobov, and A.B. Belinskij 2017. Landschaftsarchäologie im Nordkaukasus. Studien zu einer neu entdeckten bronzezeitlichen Kulturlandschaft im Hochgebirge des Nordkaukasus (Archäologie in Eurasien 38). Bonn: Habelt. Schoop, U.-D. 1998. Anadolu’da kalkolitik çağda süt ürünleri üretimi. Bir deneme. Arkeoloji ve Sanat 87: 26–32. Shanshashvili, N. and G. Narimanishvili 2020. Everyday Life in Trialeti (South Caucasus) in the Middle and the Second Half of the 2nd Millennium B. C. Chronos. Journal of the Ivane Javakhishvili Institute of History and Ethnology 1: 235–257. Smith, A.T., R.S. Badalyan, and P. Avetisyan 2009. The Archaeology and Geography of Ancient Transcaucasian Societies, 1. The Foundations of Research and Regional Survey in the Tsaghkahovit Plain, Armenia (Oriental Institute Publications 134). Chicago: The University of Chicago. Uerpmann, M. 2006. Tierknochenfunde aus Udabno I (Georgien). Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 38: 197–211. Yarma, Ö. 2009. Studies in Architecture and Reconstruction at Udabno III-House D. Unpublished MA dissertation. Middle East Technical University [available at: https://open.metu.edu.tr/ handle/11511/19303; viewed: 9 April 2022]. 84