May 2005. Istanbul: Turkish Institute of Archaeology, pp. 131–158.74 Summerer, L., von Kienlin, A. (2010). Achaemenid impact in Paphlagonia: Rupestral tombs in the Amnias Valley. In J. Nieling, E. Rehm (eds.), Achaemenid Impact in the Black Sea: Communications of Powers. Black Sea Studies 11. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, pp. 195–221.
75 Voigt, M.M., Young, T.C. (1999). From Phrygian capital to Achaemenid Entrepot: middle and late Phrygian Gordion. Iranica Antiqua, 34, pp. 191–241.
76 von Gall, H. (1966). Die paphlagonischen Felsgräber: Eine Studie zur kleinasiatischen Kunstgeschichte, Istanbuler Mitteilungen – Beiheft 1. Tübingen: Ernst Wasmuth.
77 von Kienlin, A. (2010). The tomb architecture. In L. Summerer, A. von Kienlin (eds.), Tatarlı: Renklerin Dönüşü. Istanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları, pp. 89–119.
FURTHER READING
1 Draycott, C. (2010). Convoy commanders and other military identities in tomb art of western Anatolia around the time of the Persian Wars. Bolletino di archeologia: XVII International Congress of Classical Archaeology Meetings Between Cultures in the Ancient Mediterranean, Being Graeco‐Persian. Rome, 22–26 September 2008, Volume Speciale, pp. 6–23. (A stimulating analysis of a long debated group of representations.)
2 Dusinberre, E.R.M. (2013). Empire, Authority, and Autonomy in Achaemenid Anatolia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (A significant work in empire studies exploring the balance between authority and autonomy based on archaeological and textual evidence.)
3 İren, K., Karagöz, Ç., Kasar, Ö. (eds.) (2017). Persler, Anadolu’da Kudret ve Görkem. The Persians, Power and Glory in Anatolia. Istanbul: Yapi Kredi Yayınları. (Contains a variety of contributions with color pictures.)
4 Jacobs, B. (2014). Bildkunst als Zeugnis fu¨r Orientierung und Konsens innerhalb der Eliten des westlichen Achämenidenreichs. In R. Rollinger, K. Schnegg (eds.), Kulturkontakte in antiken Welten: Vom Denkmodell zum Fallbeispiel, Colloquia Antiqua 10. Leuven/Paris/Walpole: Peeters, pp. 343–368. (Analytical discussion of the concept of adaptation in the art for Asia Minor’s elite during the Achaemenid period.)
5 Kaptan, D. (2013). Déjà vu? Visual culture in western Asia Minor. In E. Stravrianopoulou (ed.), Shifting Social Imaginaries in the Hellenistic Period, Narration, Practices, and Images. Leiden: Brill, pp. 25–49. (Explores artistic and social dynamics in Asia Minor under Achaemenid rule.)
6 Kuhrt, A. (2007). The Persian Empire: A Corpus of Sources from the Achaemenid Empire Period, 2 vols. London/New York: Routledge. (Excellent compilation of written sources concerning the Achaemenid empire.)
7 Marston, J. (2012), Agricultural Strategies and Political Economy in Ancient Anatolia. American Journal of Archaeology 116, pp. 377–403. (Discusses agriculture and landuse practices based on archaeobotanical and zooarchaeological data.)
8 Miller, M. (2011). Town and country in the satrapies of Western Anatolia: the archaeology of empire. In L. Summerer, A. Ivantchik, and A. von Kienlin (eds.), Kelainai‐Apameia Kibotos: Dévelopment urbain dans le context anatolien: Actes du colloque international Munich, 2–4 Avril 2009. Bordeaux: Ausonius, pp. 319–344. (Discusses patterns of receptivity to Persian culture.)
9 Miller, S.M. (2010). Two painted chamber tombs of Northern Lycia at Kızılbel and Karaburun, In L. Summerer, A. von Kienlin (eds.), Tatarlı: Renklerin Dönüşü. Istanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları, pp. 318–329. (The tombs are presented together with color pictures.)
10 Dusinberre, E.R.M., Garrison, M.B., Henkelman, W.F.M. (eds.) (2020) The Art of Empire in Achaemenid Persia, Studies in Honour of Margaret Cool Root. Achaemenid History 16. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten.
11 Tuplin, C.J. and J. Ma (eds.) (2020). Aršama and his world: The Bodleian Letters in Context, Vol. I‐III. Oxford: Oxford University Press (These are two recent publications on the wider Achaemenid world).
CHAPTER 22 Caucasus Region
Florian S. Knauss
While the written sources referring to the Caucasus in the Achaemenid period are widely quiet (Lordkipanidze 2000: pp. 4–7), the archeological evidence from the region south of the Great Caucasus is strikingly rich. The countries north of this mountain range, i.e. Dagestan, Chechnya, Ingushetia, north Ossetia, and the Kuban region, may be omitted here as we lack discernible Achaemenid remains from there, and the Persian domination of this area was certainly brief (Jacobs 2000, 2006).
According to Herodotus (3.97), in the fifth century BCE the Persian rule reached as far as the Caucasian mountains. While “Armina” is already mentioned as a Persian satrapy in the Bisotun inscription, the territories of the former soviet republics of Georgia and Azerbaijan, as well as the northern part of Armenia, became part of the empire at the latest when the Persian army marched through this region during Darius I's disastrous campaign against the Scythians in 513/12 BCE. The Caucasus formed the northern border until 330 BCE (Gagoshidze 1996: pp. 125–126; Jacobs 2006; Knauß 2009: pp. 299–300; contra Hewsen 1983: p. 128; Lordkipanidze 2000: pp. 9–11; Bill 2010: pp. 24–25).
Already in the nineteenth century spectacular finds attracted the interest of scholars, the best known being the Akhalgori and Kazbeg treasure (Smirnov 1909, 1934; Boardman 2000: p. 191 fig. 5.73; Lordkipanidze 2001; Summerer 2006), often including Achaemenid metal vases and jewelry. Gagoshidze was the first to emphasize the important role of the Achaemenids in Georgia (1979) and treated the time of the Achaemenid Empire as a distinct and important period in the development of Georgian art and architecture (1996). Tsetskhladze (1993/1994, 1994, 2001) has been very generous concerning the attribution of items to Achaemenid workshops. Armenian research mainly focused on Urartian monuments, whereas the Achaemenid era was fairly neglected. Even from major sites the evidence from the period of Persian domination has been published only briefly (Oganesjan 1961, 1980; Martirosjan 1974; Zardarian and Akopian 1994; Santrot 1996: pp. 178–179, 187–189, 196–203, 208, 212, 222–223; Ter‐Martirossov 2001; Kanetsyan 2001). Recent investigations (Badalyan et al. 2008; Heinsch et al. forthcoming) may help to improve the situation. For the western part of Trans‐Caucasia – belonging to Colchis and Armenia in antiquity, now Turkish territory – there is hardly any archeological evidence available. For Azerbaijan, diachronical overviews as well as detailed studies of single sites are still lacking. For the time of Achaemenid rule most of the country is terra incognita until the present day (Chalilov 1985; Schachner 2001: pp. 298–320). A few years ago (Knauss 2005a, 2006) I gave an account of relevant sites as well as important findings and results from the Caucasus. In the meantime, excavations have enlarged our knowledge significantly. Yet, the actual state of research still suffers from a considerable imbalance of archeological investigations. For a long time scholars emphasized the feebleness of Achaemenid traces in archeological records. The Achaemenid imprint was hardly visible in most of the provinces. All the more impressive are the archeological findings in the Caucasus (Figure 22.1), in particular in Georgia. Since the fifth century BCE precious luxury goods such as glass phialai, so‐called Kohl‐tubes, as well as stamp‐ and cylinder seals, can be found in rich Colchian and Iberian burials (Makharadze and Saginashvili 1999; Gagošije and Saginašvili 2000: figs. 1.1–6, 2.3, 3.1–2; Knauss 2006: p. 85 figs. 7–8; Dzhavakhishvili 2007; Kakhidze 2007). They had been produced in Achaemenid workshops in
