Navigation – Plan du site

AccueilNuméros45-1RecensionsSagona A. 2018. The Archaeology o...


Sagona A. 2018. The Archaeology of the Caucasus. From earliest settlements to the Iron Age. New York: Cambridge University Press (Cambridge World Archaeology). 541 p.

Bertille Lyonnet
p. 159-166

Texte intégral

1The book covers a considerable period, from the first apparition of man at Dmanisi (ca. 1.8 million years ago) to the beginning of the Iron Age (ca. 800 BC), and a vast area (both sides of the Great Caucasus and the Lesser Caucasus). It is thus an extremely brave undertaking, furthermore single-handed, and even more so since A. Sagona is mainly a renowned specialist of Bronze and Iron Ages. However, in 2008 he had edited two books—in the collection “Ancient Near Eastern Studies he directed with his wife, C. Sagona—, one together with M. Abramishvili (2008), the other with K. Rubinson (2008), where articles covering all this duration and even more, but concerning only Southern Caucasus, had been gathered. For this synthesis, the author relies on the relatively recent data published there, and also on a vast literature but that mainly stops around 2015. It is impossible not to mention here A. Sagona’s very sad and premature death in 2017 after a long disease, which makes this publication a posthumous one. That he could complete it in the midst of such difficulties is already an achievement. It is thus very reluctantly that, as a reviewer, I have to underline some of the problems this book raises beside misprints, like inaccuracies, errors or missing data.

2If this overview on the archaeology of the Caucasus is one of the first in a Western language, however, several other syntheses already existed, though usually on shorter periods. Even with all the chronological problems the earliest ones raise, most of the data was already presented there. One thus regrets that they are not mentioned as such but only for punctual references: Munchaev 1975 (from Neolithic to Bronze Age in the Caucasus); 1982 (Neolithic of the Caucasus); 1994a and 1994b (Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age of the Caucasus); Kushnareva 1993, translated and updated in English in 1997 (from Mesolithic to Bronze Age in Southern Caucasus); Kushnareva and Markovin 1994 (from Neolithic to Bronze Age in the Caucasus); Chataigner 1995 (Neolithic and Chalcolithic in Southern Caucasus); Lyonnet 2007a (from Neolithic to Bronze Age in the Caucasus on the basis of new radiocarbon dates); Kohl and Trifonov 2014 (from Palaeolithic to the Iron Age in the whole Caucasus); and Kohl 2007 (Chalcolithic and Bronze Age in Northern Caucasus).

3The author was confronted to two very different sets of data, one issued from the Soviet period, extremely abundant and fundamental but often imprecise and without radiometric absolute dates, and the other from recent excavations improving the previous ones but the publication of which was just starting.


4The author underlines the ambivalence of the Caucasus, seen either as a barrier with its high mountains and narrow passes, or as an isthmus bridging the Northern Steppe with the Mesopotamian lowlands. He briefly reviews the history of research since the 19th century but some names are unfortunately missing such as Veselovskij—who excavated the Majkop and Klady kurgans, Selimkhanov—the first to launch archaeo-metallurgical analyses in the 1960s, or Munchaev—the first to have attempted a synthesis of the Prehistory of the Caucasus. Moreover, this introduction clearly lacks a presentation of the book since its organisation is not always the same, some chapters concerning one period in all the areas of the Caucasus, others focusing on the same period but separated in several chapters each focusing on a specific area (chap. 5-6 and chap. 8-10), and finally chapter 10 concerning exclusively Colchis in the Bronze and Iron Ages.

Chap. 1. The Land and its languages

5This chapter is a general presentation of the area, on geographic, environmental and linguistic points of views. It underlines its tremendous diversity from subtropical lowlands in Western Georgia to steppe areas in Eastern Azerbaijan and its wealth in mineral resources. Recent environmental researches allow a better understanding of the climate and vegetation (coring in lakes), and of the variations of the Black and Caspian Seas with their impact on the landscape (geomorphological studies). Three main groups of languages are actually spoken in the Caucasus (Caucasian, Altaic and Indo-European). Studies on mitochondrial DNA show that the Caucasian population presents more differences with the Slavic one than with that of the Near East. The variety in languages came after the basic genetic structure was implanted. These studies, however, would not show the arrival of small groups mainly composed of men.

Chap. 2. Trailblazers: the Palaeolithic and Mesolithic foundations

6This chapter is relatively detailed for a non-specialist of the period. It combines old data with new excavations and results. Several large phases correspond to major changes in the climate, vegetation and fauna. It starts with Dmanisi with its 5 Homo erectus ergaster georgicus skulls 1.8 million years ago, followed by Kudaro I and III in Southern Ossetia or Azikh in Nagornij Karabakh (Lower Palaeolithic) with their acheulean industries. Interestingly, we learn that level V at Azikh produced a circular construction made of lime slabs crowned with deer antlers that could be the most ancient proof of a circular dwelling in the area. Unfortunately, the imprecisions of this old excavation do not allow its dating. The author then proceeds with the Middle Palaeolithic including the Mezmaiskaja cave in Northwestern Caucasus where a child skeleton has allowed a DNA analysis. The first microliths appear already during the Upper Palaeolithic period and the author also mentions the presence of linen fibers possibly already voluntarily dyed found during recent work at the Dzudzuana Cave in Western Georgia. During the Mesolithic period four different lithic assemblages are known (Northeastern Black Sea, Imereti, Trialeti and Dagestan) but the author skips the last one forgetting to mention Amirkhanov 1987. Recent work at Kotias Klde (Western Georgia) as well as at Chygaj and Dvoinaja (Northwestern Caucasus) starts bringing well-dated data. The last paragraph is devoted to petroglyphs which are numerous all over the area, from the most famous ones at Gobustan near the Caspian Sea (Azerbaijan) to those in Dagestan, Nakhichevan, Georgia and Armenia. The author underlines the difficulties for dating them, their long duration and the absence of serious studies on this subject.

Chap. 3. Transition to settled life: the Neolithic (6000-5000 BC)

7The author juggles here with old data and wrong dates on the one hand, and, on the other hand, with new information only starting to be published and that he obviously did not read. This chapter is thus unsatisfying and obsolete in many cases even if one can praise the author’s efforts to cover all the Caucasus and the different questions that this period raises. One of them concerns the Pre-Pottery Neolithic for which we have as yet only very few reliable data, most of it coming from old excavations in Western Georgia without radiocarbon dates. Recent work at one of these sites (Dzudzuana Cave) show that it dates rather to the Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic periods, followed after a hiatus by a Late Neolithic and/or Early Chalcolithic level. Other recently excavated sites, like Kmlo 2 or Paravani I in Southeastern Georgia give very interesting data though not enough to really characterize this period only. This lack of sufficient data for the period immediately preceding the Pottery (Late) Neolithic prevents our understanding of the Neolithisation process and of its origins. In Southern Caucasus, the period of development of the Neolithic is mainly known in the central zone with the Shomu-Shulaveri culture and in the South-East with that of the Mil/Mughan and Nakhichevan horizon. The discoveries made in the Ararat plain are considered by the author as yet another culture but this is debatable. All this part is unfortunately not up to date. Most of the publications were just coming out when the author was writing his book. So we can only advise the readers to refer rather to Badalyan and Harutyunyan 2014, Chataigner et al. 2014, Nishiaki et al. 2015, Hamon et al. 2016, Kadowaki et al. 2016, Lyonnet et al. 2016, Batiuk et al. 2017, Helwing et al. 2017, Vila et al. 2017, where is given all the most recent data concerning architecture, material culture, funerary rituals, fauna and flora. While it is highly probable that local groups and the wealth in various fauna and flora species of the area contributed to the formation of this Neolithic around 6000 BC, there are also undeniable proofs for a foreign input from Northern Mesopotamia. In the actual state of knowledge, the Shomu-Shulaveri culture is also not as uniform as previously thought. In Northern Caucasus, this period is still rather obscure but the author does not develop it very much, relying exclusively upon the site of Cmi/Tsmi recently excavated with well-dated Neolithic levels (first quarter of the 6th millenium BC) above a Mesolithic horizon. We regret that he only quotes Chokh in Dagestan, without details or even reference to Amirkhanov 1987.

Chap. 4. Far-flung networks: the Chalcolithic (5000/4800-3500 BC)

8As for the previous chapter, and though the author undoubtedly made a real effort to document the period, many new excavations and research have been done recently that he only quickly browsed even if he refers to them. This chapter is thus often already outdated, contains mistakes due to inexact translations from Russian, or takes into account only part of the data. He distinguishes three traditions, one in Northern Caucasus (Maikop followed by Novosvobodnaia) and two in Southern Caucasus (Chaff-Faced/Leilatepe and Sioni, the last one, he says, being problematic) and he describes them successively. It should be remembered here that, even if our Russian colleagues had underlined parallels between the Early Maikop phase and Northern Mesopotamia long ago, they kept dating it to the end of the 4th millennium BC at best, or rather to the beginning of the 3rd millennium BC until about 20 years ago, and considered it as contemporary with the Kuro-Araxes culture. In Southern Caucasus, Neolithic and Chalcolithic were tied up together under the term “Eneolithic” and no connections were thus made with Maikop since it was dated later. For their defence, it should also be reminded that it is only from the middle of the 1990s that, along the Middle Euphrates, was recognised an occupation dated to the Middle and Early “Uruk”, at Sheikh Hassan or Hacinebi for instance (later called Late Chalcolithic I-III). In the Northern Caucasus, new chronological positions appeared at the end of the 1990s and early 2000s, with publications of 14C dates (Trifonov 1996; Lyonnet 2007b: n. 10, 101, 103) and of more precise pottery comparisons between Maikop, Novosvobodnaia, Mesopotamia and Eastern Anatolia (Lyonnet 2000; 2007b, e.g., table 1). The early phase of Maikop was thus dated to the first half of the 4th millennium BC, and Novosvobodnaia to its second half and the beginning of the third one. At the same time, new excavations in Azerbaijan (Boyuk Kesik and Soyuq Bulaq) were enlarging the data about the Leilatepe culture, highlighting its relations with mobile groups in connection both with the Urmia area and the Maikop groups, and dating it within the first half of the 4th millennium BC. Other excavations brought to light settlements like Ovçulartepesi and Mentesh Tepe preceding Leilatepe by half a millennium (add now for Mentesh: Lyonnet et al. 2017). At Mentesh Tepe, finally, the study of the pottery has shown that the supposed difference between the two horizons “Chaff-Faced” and “Sioni” is artificial, one being related to common ware (showing influences from Mesopotamia) and the other to kitchen ware (typically local; Lyonnet 2012, 2017, 2018—that last article I had offered to the author in a Festschrift volume). Interestingly, the Maikop and Leilatepe horizons both end up around the middle of the 4th millennium BC or slightly later, at about the time when starts the Southern (Late) Uruk expansion. In Southern Caucasus we are still at pain filling the void with the next Kuro-Araxes horizon that develops mainly from 3300 BC onwards. In Northern Caucasus, there is no interruption and even overlap between Maikop and Novosvobodnaia, the origins of which are still unclear, but possibly related to a population movement coming from Northern or Central Europe: this culture integrates many of the Maikop features but presents new ones and certainly continues well into the 3rd millennium BC. It is contemporary with the Kuro-Araxe culture, and, to my opinion, is most probably kin-related to it.

Chap. 5. Encounters beyond the Caucasus: The Kura-Araxes culture and the Early Bronze Age (3500-2400 BC)

  • 1 See in Paléorient 40.2 (2014) and partly in 41.1 (2015).

9This is the author’s long favourite theme and he offers here a good synthesis, with a large overview of the different regions where it is known, of its architecture and material culture and their transformation in the course of time, or of its way of life. We may just regret again that he does not refer as such to the special volume and a half of Paléorient concerning the last discoveries and hypotheses, and coordinated by C. Chataigner and G. Palumbi,1 even if he mentions some of the articles in them. Though he still dates its beginnings to 3500 BC, the 14C dates he gives point rather at a later time around 3300 BC. His position on its genesis remains ambiguous since he underlines the numerous discontinuities with the previous Chalcolithic occupation but, at the same time, he considers it as local. We have, actually, only little secure information on this very early period, and Berikldeebi level IV is not a very good example because of the number of pits from above that have destroyed this layer and because we all know that superposed levels do not necessarily immediately succeed one another. He dates to ca. 3100 BC the transition from dark mottled monochrome pottery to the red and black one. He underlines the great variety in architecture, pottery decoration or inhumations, considering that it may be due to a multi-ethnic population. Most of the settlements are small villages without fortifications. Among this variety, however, the same “cultural package” always occurs, with a focus on the central hearth, the absence of hierarchy and of public building, and the same rather monotonous set of pottery shapes with a black polished exterior. According to the author, the cult was practiced at a domestic level. He points out the relative scarcity in tombs or settlements of metal artefacts including those in precious metals, which is in contradiction with recent discoveries at the gold and copper mine of Sakdrisi in Georgia where numerous evidences of its exploitation at that time have appeared. He develops the question on the way of life, sedentary and partly mobile where pastoralism certainly played an important role. We may regret that he does not develop much the question of the Kuro-Araxes migration process, one of the very rare cases in archaeology when we do have proofs of a vast movement extending into the Levant and the Zagros (but yet without solid explanations for the reasons behind). The recent 14C dates tend to reduce much the time between the first occupation in the “core area” and the migrations. Finally, Dagestan is totally missing in this chapter (only a brief mention) and there is, unfortunately, no attempt at all to connect the KA phenomenon either with the events in Northern Caucasus (Novosvobodnaia) mentioned in the previous chapter (though fig. 5.1 largely shows an overlap with it), or with the Dolmen culture which is the matter of the next chapter.

Chap. 6. Dolmens for the dead: the Western Caucasus in the Bronze Age (3250-1250 BC)

  • 2 See Trifonov V.A., Shishlina N.I., Plikht I. van der, Fernandes R. and Khommel’ P. (2017), Radioug (...)

10This short chapter is devoted to a “culture” known only through its megalithic funerary constructions in a limited area close to the Black Sea in Northwestern Caucasus. Serious and well 14C dated excavations on these monuments are only starting to come out and point at their use during a long period, from the last quarter of the 4th millennium BC to the end of the Bronze Age. They contain from 5 to 70 people, introduced through a hole in the chamber in a semi-mummified or defleshed state and disarticulated. Some mistakes (Dubois de Montpéreux and not Montpierre for instance) and lack of precisions make this chapter unsatisfying. There is no mention, for instance, of the most ancient known monuments like the “grobnitsi”—albeit made of thin slabs and containing only one individual and therefore sometimes excluded from the “real” dolmens—excavated by Veselovskij at Tsarskaja/Klady but recently dated to 3250-2900 cal. BC,2 or of the Shepsi dolmen which contained typical Novosvobodnaia pottery (Trifonov et al. 2013) confirming a coexistence between this last culture and these constructions. The attempt to show material coming from some of them on fig. 6.7 is hampered by the absence of its provenance. These dolmens have raised many questions still unsolved as to their origin, viewed as foreign from Europe or as a local creation. Like others before him, the author tends to isolate this “culture” from the rest of the Caucasus. However, it certainly would have been interesting to try to underline relations: for instance, with the new practices of collective inhumations that appear with the KA phenomenon, or through comparisons in the material found in them (at Verkhnaja Eshera for instance) with that of Novosvobodnaia (at Klady), or Late KA (at Tsartis and Koreti).

Chap. 7. The emergence of elites and a new social order (2500-1500 BC)

11This chapter concerns a long period covering 1000 years essentially in Southern Caucasus except for its western part (only five pages are devoted to Northern Caucasus at the end). Its beginnings, around the middle of the 3rd millennium BC, are labelled either Middle Bronze I (MB I) or Early Bronze IV (EB IV) /  MB I which is sometimes confusing. It starts when the KA culture disappears, a fact that the author considers as almost sudden with the abandonment of settlements due to the arrival of a new population. But, if this is attested in some cases in Armenia, other facts rather point at a progressive extinction and replacement of the first by the second, as the author also mentions with the transitional phase observed at Sachkhere, Georgia. Very few settlements are known for the whole period which is mainly known through its kurgans some of which are imposing constructions, very famous due to the wealth of material found in them (Martkopi, Bedeni, Trialeti). Contrary to the KA period where the society seemed to be isolated from the surrounding world (even the migrants), here many artefacts testify of relations with far away areas. In general, the whole period is seen as that of a bellicose society. Once again, the rarity of 14C dates leads to debates, and even more so in case of long duration collective inhumations like the Stepanakert kurgan mentioned several times by the author. The period is subdivided into three phases of unequal duration: EB IV/BM I (2500-2000 BC), BM II (2000/1900-1700 BC) and BM III (1700-1500 BC). They are well detailed but again in the first one obviously misses Dagestan and its impressive catacombs (Kohl 2003, 2007; Kohl and Magomedov 2014). For this early phase the author also mentions a very favourable climate, hot and humid, which is in wide contrast to what is known in the rest of the northern hemisphere but is by-passed here. Nothing in his description of the material from this first phase really corroborates a period of violence. One of its specific features is the construction of funerary chambers made of timber containing four wheels chariot(s) and several individuals, i.e., a wealthy man and women with teenagers less well provided who are usually considered as accompanying him in death (to the Georgian barrows add also Pecqueur et al. 2017), a supposition that the author does not follow. Since chariots are also present in phase 2, it is there that he goes back to the question of their origin and one is surprised to still read that it is as yet unsolved when multiple examples of such vehicles are known in the steppe north of the Great Caucasus at the beginning of the 3rd millennium BC (Novotitor culture, Gej 2000) as was mentioned by P. Kohl (2007), and that one grave also contained Novosvobodnaia pottery (Kondrashov and Rezepkin 1988). The author does not extend much on the exterior relations these early kurgans point out (on that theme, see Lyonnet 2016). He mentions the first appearance of tin-bronze but does not develop it here and unfortunately does not refer to chapters 9 and 10 where he goes back to this subject. Phase 2 immediately succeeds but shows deep transformations even if the pastoral way of life and the kurgan constructions continue. From now on the funerary chambers are made of stone, and a dromos and a long ritual paved pathway on the outside are present. Cremation is frequent among the elite tombs. For the first time, complete animals, or only their skulls and forelegs are deposited in them. Some of the kurgans are extremely rich in gold, silver and semi-precious stones clearly showing relations with outside areas. The author rightly supports K. Rubinson’s proposal of those with Kültepe/Kanesh rather than R. Boehmer’s one with Earlier Mesopotamia. The relations also extend up to the Mediterranean. Certainly, weapons are more frequent, and one silver goblet from Karashamb (Armenia) does represent a scene of war. The author includes in this phase the cemetery of Brili, in Racha (Georgia), but the very isolated position of this burial place, the absence of any secure date and its very long duration are not convincing. Phase 3 is a period when appear multiple small communities together with strong regionalism. This part is less developed than the others, due to the rarity of reliable data and 14C dates (for other dates, see Badalyan et al. 2003; Avetisyan and Bobokhyan 2008; Bakhshaliyev and Marro 2009). Large and rich kurgans become much less frequent, a few settlements now appear, like Uzerlik in Azerbaijan, which at least provides a relative chronology. Painted pottery develops mainly in the southern part and is related to Eastern Anatolia and Western Iran, but the earlier traditional black polished pottery still goes on, usually with stamped designs often filled with white paste. Different styles have led to the division of this phase into ceramic provinces which nevertheless overlap. A short paragraph on the Absheron peninsula (near Baku) complements this phase, but it should be added that the discoveries made there (unfortunately not well published) largely by-pass this phase alone. Concerning Northern Caucasus, many questions can be raised on the cultures (many more than just one as Markovin 1994 had rightly observed) found there. A close cohabitation of steppe and Northern Caucasian groups and combinations in their material culture, their relation with previous Novosvobodnaia, and the lack of radiocarbon dates should have been better explained. Again, Dagestan is too quickly mentioned.

Chap. 8. From fortresses to fragmentation: the Southern Caucasus in the Late Bronze Age through the Iron Age I (1500-800 BC)

12The author’s presentation of this chapter indicates that it has to be read with the two following ones since they concern each a specific geographical area. Here is considered only the center and eastern part of Southern Caucasus (Lschashen-Tsitelgori, Khodzali-Kedabek and Talysh). A map with the position of the sites mentioned in the three chapters would have been expected. Fortresses are now numerous and imply the emergence of political entities. A few cylinder-seals with Mitannian motifs seem to show connections outside but there is no development on the subject. The main feature of the period is the extraordinary abundance of high-quality tin-bronze artefacts and several producing workshops have been found. Iron makes its first appearance but develops only really in the 8th-7th century BC. Weapons and horse equipment are numerous, as well as jewelry among which remarkable belts with animal motifs. Pottery is also of high quality and well ornamented, and analyses show that it widely circulated. Stone dolmen-like constructions in Talysh and around are said to have no relations at all with those of Northwestern Caucasus (but there is no development), while menhirs/vishaps are mainly known in Armenia but are difficult to date.

Chap. 9. Smiths, warriors, and womenfolk: the Koban culture of the Northern Caucasus (1400-600 BC)

13Here only Northern Caucasus (mainly its central part) is concerned, where developed the Koban culture, mainly known through its cemeteries (Koban, Tli) and buried treasures containing countless very high-quality bronze objects close to those of the previous area, but even more so with Colchis. A few settlements are known, but, if they are in a natural defensive position, they do not present built fortifications and, curiously, though this is not underlined by the author, none has shown evidence of metallurgical workshops. The bronze artefacts are described at length, and a short development on the tin question is made. In its western part, this area is contiguous with Colchis (which will be the matter of the next chapter) with which it shares most of the metallurgical items, but the author underlines their differences in dwelling, funerary traditions or pottery and considers that the two cultures are different.

Chap. 10. A world apart: the Colchian culture

14This chapter ends the part on the Late Bronze Age / beginning of the Iron Age and concerns an area always considered apart, Colchis, in the west of Southern Caucasus. The author underlines its climatic (sub-tropical) and environmental (marshes) specifici-ties. Since little has been said about it except briefly in chapters 2, 3 and 6, he goes back here to the Early Bronze Age. This should have been said in the introduction of the book. The environment explains the architecture and the way of life of its inhabitants, very different from what is known elsewhere in the Caucasus. Particularly interesting is the early creation of canals for circulation of men and goods and for drainage. The author mainly insists here on the importance of metallurgy, already present at the ca. 3000 BC settlement of Pichori with many artefacts attesting of a production metallurgical workshop, and continuing until the Iron Age. A mistake makes the author writes that the copper mines are 250 km away when some are known close-by in Abkhazia (Inanishvili et al. 2001). At the end of Late Bronze Age and beginning of the Iron Age, many treasures with bronze items were buried, possibly in rituals comparable to the Indian potlach. The metal artefacts are very close to those of the Koban culture, but the author again insists here more on the other cultural differences between the two areas. A long development concerns the metallurgical production since there are many evidences of copper mines, and an enormous amount of bronze artefacts. The question of the origin of tin is considered again and the author defends a local origin for at least part of it. The appearance of iron is debated, some considering that it may go back to the beginning of the 2nd millennium BC, while others relate it to the Greeks. The pottery of the area is described rather in details from the EBA onwards. Around the 8th-7th centuries BC, the appearance of drinking goblets points at connections with the western coast of the Black Sea. In sum, as many authors have done before him, the author underlines here the isolation of the area (except for its links with Koban). This question, however, would need to be reconsidered as we already mentioned previously for the Dolmen culture.

Chap. 11. The grand challenges for the Archaeology of the Caucasus

15These two pages are the conclusion of the book. The period to come is announced (with the Urartu Kingdom, and the Achaemenid and Greek presence), the main cultural features that have been described along the preceding chapters are underlined, and the author expresses his wishes for the development of a more scientific archaeology and for a serious archival of all the data collected.

16To conclude, the book is rich of many data and, in general, well-illustrated. Some chapters, however, would need a serious revision, and all along the book some mistakes should have been corrected. Considering the presence of chapter 10 on Colchis, it is possible that the author had originally thought of another chapter concerning exclusively Dagestan, the absence of which is not otherwise understandable. I regret that there is no foreword from the collection editors to explain the very difficult conditions in which the book was tied up together in order to clear A. Sagona for all the problems and missing parts I have raised.

Haut de page


Amirkhanov K.A.
1987 Chokhskoe poselenie. Chelovek i ego kul’tura v mezolite i neolite gornogo Dagestana. Moscow: Nauka.

Avetisyan P. and Bobokhyan A.
2008 The pottery traditions of the Armenian Middle to Late Bronze Age ‘transition’ in the context of Bronze and Iron Age periodization. In: Rubinson K.S. and Sagona A. (eds.) Ceramics in transitions. Chalcolithic through Iron Age in the highlands of the Southern Caucasus and Anatolia: 123-183. Leuven: Peeters.

Badalyan R.S. and Harutyunyan A.
2014 Aknashen – the Late Neolithic settlement of the Ararat Valley: Main results and prospects for the research. In: Gasparyan B. and Arimura M. (eds.), Stone Age of Armenia. A guide-book to the Stone Age archaeology in the Republic of Armenia: 161-176. Kanazawa: Kanazawa University.

Badalyan R.S., Smith A.T. and Avetisyan P.S.
2003 The emergence of sociopolitical complexity in Southern Caucasia: An interim report on the research of project ArAGATS. In: Smith A.T. and Rubinson K.S. (eds.), Archaeology in the borderlands. Investigations in Caucasia and beyond: 144-166. Los Angeles: The Cotsen Institute of Archaeology (Monograph 47).

Bakhshaliyev V. and Marro C.
2009 The Archaeology of Nakhichevan: Ten years of new discoveries. Istanbul: Ege Yayınları.

Batiuk S.D., Jalabadze M., Graham A., Koridze I., Jayyab K.A., collab. Savulov C.
2017 The Gadachrili Gora regional archaeological project: 2016 preliminary report. Anatolica 43: 173-202.

Chataigner C.
1995 La Transcaucasie au Néolithique et au Chalcolithique. Oxford: Archaeopress (BAR Int. Ser. 624).

Chataigner C., Badalyan R. and Arimura M.
2014 The Neolithic of the Caucasus. Oxford Handbooks online [DOI : 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199935413.013.13].

Gej A.N.
2000 Nivotitorovskaja kul’tura. Moskow: Starij Sad.

Hamon C., Jalabadze M., Agapishvili T., Baudouin E., Koridze I. and Messager E.
2016 Gadachrili Gora: Architecture and organisation of a Neolithic settlement in the Middle Kura Valley (6th millennium BC, Georgia). Quaternary International 395: 154-169.

Helwing B., Aliyev T., Lyonnet B., Guliyev F., Hansen S. and Mirtskhulava G. (eds.)
2017 The Kura projects. New research on the Later Prehistory of the Southern Caucasus. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag (Archäologie aus Iran und Turan 16).

Inanishvili G.V., Majsuradze V.G., Gobedishvili G.G. and Mudzhiri T.P.
2001 K istorii gorno-metallurgicheskogo proizvodstva Kolkhidy. Rossiskaja Arkheologija 3: 18-24.

Kadowaki S., Guliyev F. and Nishiaki Y.
2016 Chipped stone technology of the earliest agriculture village in the Southern Caucasus: Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe (the beginning of the 6th millennium BC). In: Stucky R.A., Kaelin O. and Mathys H.-P. (eds.), Proceedings of the 9th ICAANE, Basel, 9th-13th June 2014, vol. III: 709-722. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.

Kohl P.L.
2003 Integrated interaction at the beginning of the Bronze Age: New evidence from the Northeastern Caucasus and the advent of tin bronzes in the third millennium BC. In: Smith A.T. and Rubinson K.S. (eds.), Archaeology in the borderlands. Investigations in Caucasia and beyond: 9-21. Los Angeles: The Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, (Monograph 47).

Kohl P.L.
2007 The making of Bronze Age Eurasia. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Kohl P.L. and Magomedov R.G.
2014 Early Bronze developments on the West Caspian Coastal Plain. Paléorient 40,2: 93-114.

Kohl P.L. and Trifonov V.
2014 The Prehistory of the Caucasus: Internal developments and external interactions. In: Renfrew C. and Bahn P. (eds.), West and Central Asia and Europe: 1571-1595. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (Cambridge World Prehistory 3).

Kondrashov A.V. and Rezepkin A.D.
1988 Novosvobodnenskoe pogrebenie s povozkoj. Kratkie Soobshchenija Instituta Arkheologii 193: 91-97.

Kushnareva K.K.
1993 Juzhnij Kavkaz v IX-II tys. do n. e. Saint Petersburg: Institut Istorii Material’noj Kul’tury.

Kushnareva K.K.
1997 The Southern Caucasus in Prehistory: Stages of cultural and socioeconomic development from the eighth to second millennium BC. Philadelphia: The University Museum, University of Philadelphia.

Kushnareva K.K. and Markovin V.I. (eds.)
1994 Epokha bronzy Kavkaza i Srednej Azii. Rannaja i srednjaja bronza Kavkaza. Moscow: Nauka.

Lyonnet B.
2000 La Mésopotamie et le Caucase du Nord au cours du IVe et au début du IIIe millénaire av. n.è. : leurs rapports et les problèmes chronologiques de la culture de Maikop. État de la question et nouvelles propositions. In: Marro C. and Hauptmann H. (éds.), Chronologies des pays de l’Euphrate et du Caucase aux IVe-IIIe millénaires: 299-320. Paris: De Boccard (Varia Anatolica XI).

Lyonnet B. (ed.)
2007a Les cultures du Caucase (VIe-IIIe millénaires av. n.è.). Leurs relations avec le Proche-Orient. Paris: CNRS Éditions (Éditions Recherche sur les civilisations).

Lyonnet B.
2007b La culture de Maïkop, la Transcaucasie, l’Anatolie orientale et le Proche-Orient : relations et chronologie. In: Lyonnet B. (ed.) Les cultures du Caucase (VIe-IIIe millénaires av. n.è.). Leurs relations avec le Proche-Orient: 132-161. Paris: CNRS Éditions (Éditions Recherche sur les civilisations).

Lyonnet B.
2012 Mentesh Tepe Pottery. AMIT 44: 97-108.

Lyonnet B.
2016 A grave with a wooden wagon in Transcaucasia (Azerbaijan). Its relations with Central Asia. In: Dubova N.A. (ed.), Transaction of Margiana arcaheological expedition, vol. VI: 191-198. Moscow: Staryj Sad.

Lyonnet B.
2017 Mentesh Tepe 2012-2014. The Pottery. In: Helwing B., Aliyev T., Lyonnet B., Guliyev F., Hansen S. and Mirtkhulava G. (eds.), The Kura projects. New research on the Later Prehistory of the Southern Caucasus: 141-151. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag (Archäologie aus Iran und Turan 16).

Lyonnet B.
2018 Rethinking the ‘Sioni cultural complex’ in the South Caucasus (Chalcolithic period): New data from Mentesh Tepe (Azerbaijan). In: Batmaz A., Bedianashvili G., Michalewicz A. and Robinson A. (eds.) Context and Connection: Studies on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East in honour of A. Sagona: 547-567. Leuven: Peeters (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 268).

Lyonnet B., Guliyev F., Baudouin E., Bouquet L., Bruley-Chabot G., Samzun A., Fontugne M., Degorre E., Husson X. and Raymond R.
2017 Mentesh Tepe (Azerbaijan). Preliminary report on the 2012-2014 excavations. In: Helwing B., Aliyev T., Lyonnet B., Guliyev F., Hansen S. and Mirtskhulava G. (eds.), The Kura projects. New research on the Later Prehistory of the Southern Caucasus: 125-140. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag (Archäologie aus Iran und Turan 16).

Lyonnet B., Guliyev F., Bouquet L., Bruley-Chabot G., Samzun A., Pecqueur L., Jovenet E., Baudouin E., Fontugne M., Raymond P., Degorre E., Astruc L., Guilbeau D., Le Dosseur G., Benecke N., Hamon C., Poulmarc’h M. and Courcier A.
2016 Mentesh Tepe, an early settlement of the Shomu-Shulaveri culture in Azerbaijan. Quaternary International 395: 170-183.

Markovin V.I.
1994 Severokavkazskaja kul’turno-istoricheskaja obshchnost’. In: Kushnareva K.K. and Markovin V.I. (eds.), Epokha bronzy Kavkaza i Srednej Azii. Rannaja i srednjaja bronza Kavkaza: 254-286. Moscow: Nauka.

Munchaev R.M.
1975 Kavkaz na zare bronzovogo veke, Neolit, Eneolit, Rannaja Bronza. Moscow: Nauka.

Munchaev R.M.
1982 Pamjatniki kul’tury enolita Kavkaza. In: Masson V.M. and Merpert N.J. (eds.), Eneolit SSSR: 100-164. Moscow: Nauka (Arkheologija SSSR).

Munchaev R.M.
1994a Majkopskaja kul’tura. In: Kushnareva K.K. and Markovin V.I. (eds.), Epokha bronzy Kavkaza i Srednej Azii. Rannaja i srednaja bronza Kavkaza, chast’ II, glava 1: 158-225. Moscow: Nauka.

Munchaev R.M.
1994b Kuro-Arakskaja ku’ltura. In: Kushnareva K.K. and Markovin V.I. (eds.), Epokha bronzy Kavkaza i Srednej Azii. Rannaja i srednaja bronza Kavkaza, chast’ II, glava 1: 8-57. Moscow: Nauka.

Nishiaki Y., Guliyev F., Kadowaki S., Alakbarov V., Miki T., Salimbayov S., Akashi C. and Arai S.
2015 Investigating cultural and socioeconomic change at the beginning of the Pottery Neolithic in the Southern Caucasus. The 2013 excavations at Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe, Azerbaijan. BASOR 374: 1-28.

Pecqueur L., Decaix A. and Lyonnet B.
2017 Un kourgane de la phase Martkopi à Mentesh Tepe (période des Premiers Kourganes, Bronze ancien). In: Helwing B., Aliyev T., Lyonnet B., Guliyev F., Hansen S. and Mirtskhulava G. (eds.), The Kura projects. New research on the Later Prehistory of the Southern Caucasus: 179-192. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag (Archäologie aus Iran und Turan 16).

Rubinson K.S. and Sagona A. (eds.)
2008 Ceramics in transitions. Chalcolithic through Iron Age in the highlands of the Southern Caucasus and Anatolia. Leuven: Peeters (Ancient Near Easten Studies Suppl. 27).

Sagona A. and Abramishvili M. (eds.)
2008 Archaeology in Southern Caucasus: Perspectives from Georgia. Leuven: Peeters (Ancient Near Easten Studies Suppl. 19).

Trifonov V.A.
1996 Popravki k absoljutnoj khronologii kul’tur epokhi eneolita – bronzy severnogo Kavkaza. In: Piotrovskij J.J. (ed.), Mezhdu Aziej i Evropoj, Kavkaz v IV-I tys. do n.e.: 43-49. Saint Petersburg: Gosudarstvennyj Ermitazh.

Trifonov V.A., Krajneva A.A., Zajtseva G.I., Plikht K., Bogomolov A.A., Burova N.D., Sementsov A.A. and Rishko S.A.
2013 Dol’men ‘Shepsi’ i rannie formy kollektivnykh megaliticheskikh grobnits na severo-zapadnom Kavkaze v epokhu bronzy. In: Gej A.N. (ed.), Tsivilizatsionnye tsentry i pervobytnaja periferija v epoku rannego metalla: modeli vzaimodejstvija: 37-38. Moscow: Institut Arkheologii Rossijskaja, Akademija Nauk.

Vila E., Bălăşescu A., Radu V., Badalyan R. and Chataigner C.
2017 Neolithic subsistence economy in the plain of Ararat: preliminary comparative analysis of the faunal remains from Aratashen and Khaturnarkh-Aknashen (Armenia). In: Mashkour M. and Beech M. (eds.) Archaeozoology of the Near East 9: 98-111. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Haut de page


1 See in Paléorient 40.2 (2014) and partly in 41.1 (2015).

2 See Trifonov V.A., Shishlina N.I., Plikht I. van der, Fernandes R. and Khommel’ P. (2017), Radiouglorodnaja khronologija dol’menov epokhi rannej bronzy u st. Tsarskaja, severo-zapadnyj Kavkaz, 1898 g (Abstract). V(XXI) All-Russian Archaeological Congress. Barnaul, 2nd-7th October 2017.

Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence papier

Bertille Lyonnet, « Sagona A. 2018. The Archaeology of the Caucasus. From earliest settlements to the Iron Age. New York: Cambridge University Press (Cambridge World Archaeology). 541 p. »Paléorient, 45-1 | 2019, 159-166.

Référence électronique

Bertille Lyonnet, « Sagona A. 2018. The Archaeology of the Caucasus. From earliest settlements to the Iron Age. New York: Cambridge University Press (Cambridge World Archaeology). 541 p. »Paléorient [En ligne], 45-1 | 2019, mis en ligne le 08 septembre 2021, consulté le 20 juillet 2024. URL : ; DOI :

Haut de page


Bertille Lyonnet

Directrice de recherche émérite CNRS, UMR 7192, Paris – France

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur


Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence CC BY 4.0. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.

Haut de page
Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search