type of chariot, have been found in a burial at Uplistsikhe in Iberia (Kipiani 2000; Knauss 2006: p. 92 fig. 15). From the late sixth century BCE indigenous potters adopted technological inventions as well as new shapes from Persia (Gagoshidze 1996: p. 125; Ludwig 2010: pp. 103, 109–112). In late Achaemenid times we find imports of “classical triangle ware” as well as locally made small jugs imitating the shape and decoration of Iranian prototypes. However, Persian gold and silver objects outnumber all other categories of eastern luxury. Possibly as diplomatic gifts, some of the characteristic Achaemenid bracelets and silver vessels reached the Caucasus (Treister 2007: pp. 83–92; Knauß 2009; Miller 2010). Several items may have found their way to ancient Georgia by trade. Especially in Colchis, rich burials often contained Greek imports, mostly pottery (Sens 2009), but sometimes we find Attic vases together with sumptuous Achaemenid tableware (Kakhidze 2004).
Figure 22.1 Achaemenid and Achaemenizing monuments in the Caucasus.
By and by, local Colchian and Iberian products, painted pottery, gold and silver bowls as well as jewelry show significant influence from Achaemenid models. It is obvious that the local aristocracy was keen on prestigious luxury items fashionable among the Persian elite at that time in order to set themselves apart from the ordinary people. However, the demand for Persian (as well as for Greek) luxury goods soon overtook supply. No wonder that the highly developed Colchian gold‐ and silversmiths produced copies as well as local variants of the Persian vessels and jewelry (Gagoshidze 1997; Boardman 2000, 196 figs. 5.80, 5.83; Knauß 2009).
Already the famous horse‐shaped pendants from the “Akhalgori treasure,” a rich burial of a woman, are of local production – for instance, the abundant use of granulation, the net pattern as well as the triangles on the back of the horses find no match in Achaemenid jewelry – but the Colchian goldsmiths had Achaemenid models in mind as the horse breed, the battlement pattern on the rim of the base plate, and the lobes on the breast of the horses betray (Smirnov 1934: pp. 23–29 Pl. 3.26; Gagoshidze 1997: pp. 135–136 Pl. 23.1; Knauß 2009: pp. 292–293 Pl. 1.4).
Gold diadems comprised of a twisted rod terminating in two rhomboid plaques and fastened by a central hook are a Colchian innovation. The iconography, however, repoussé decoration with animal combat scenes, is very much indebted to eastern, namely Persian, models (Kacharava and Kvirkvelia 2008: pp. 82–83 figs. 2–3). A silver rhyton with a goat‐shaped protome was found in a burial in Mtisdziri which can be dated to the fourth century BCE. Typologically it comes close to Achaemenid prototypes, however, some ornaments – cable pattern, ivy tendril – are of Greek origin. This combination as well as some local features – an indigenous mythological creature, triangle pattern – make sure that the rhyton from Mtisdziri has been worked by a local craftsman (Knauß 1999a). In the case of the golden bracelets, Achaemenid panthers or ibexes for the endings are sometimes replaced by wild boars (Knauß 2009: p. 294 Pl. 1.7).
Most of the metal vessels in Colchian tombs probably have been manufactured in Achaemenid workshops in western Anatolia (Miller 2007, 2010; Treister 2007: pp. 83–92. 97–101; Knauß 2009: pp. 294–299). There are goblets, rhyta, and numerous phialai with almond‐shaped embossing, lotus palmettes, stylized swan heads. However, some pieces were made by local craftsmen, who copied such imports. After a while, they created new shapes and motifs combining foreign and local elements (Kacharava and Kvirkvelia 2008: Pl. 44b, 45b–c; p 209 no. 26; Treister 2007: figs 8, 9; Knauß 2009: pp. 295–296, 298, 299 Pls. 2.3; 3.5).
The Armenian delegation on the reliefs of the Apadana stairway is carrying metal amphorae with two griffon‐handles. Hence, we may suppose that such typical Achaemenid vessels have been made in Armenian workshops. In fact, there are a few Achaemenid metal bowls, rhyta, and bracelets in Armenia (Santrot 1996: nos. 180–185, 194; Boardman 2000: pp. 187–188 figs. 5,68. 69); however, at least the pottery does not display a similar external influence as in Colchis or Iberia.
From several sites in western and central Azerbaijan we know ceramic bowls of local manufacture which resemble Achaemenid prototypes (Narimanov 1960: fig. 3; Ismizade 1965: p. 215–217 fig. 19.1–3; Furtwängler 1995: fig. 15.6; Knauss 2006: pp. 98–99 fig. 19; Babaev and Knauß 2010: figs. 29.1–4). Therefore, we may assume that Persian luxury was prevalent here, too. Unfortunately, no extensive cemeteries of the Achaemenid period have been excavated in Azerbaijan so far.
The pottery as well as precious objects give ample proof of close contacts of the Albanian, Colchian, and Iberian population with the Achaemenid Empire. Nevertheless, these items may have found their way to the Caucasus through trade or as diplomatic gifts. They do not necessarily signify Persian presence in this region.
The value of monumental architecture is entirely different, especially since recent excavations have shown that the Iron Age architecture in central and eastern Georgia, i.e. Iberia, before the arrival of the Persians was rather modest (Knauss 2005b). The situation at least in western Azerbaijan seems to have been similar.
On the outskirts of Kazakh, Azerbaijan, in the Kura valley, the western part of an extensive structure was uncovered in the 1950s at a site named Sari Tepe. The outer walls with casemates, towers, and protrusions on its exterior lend this building a fortificational character; however, limestone column bases show that it was not a fortress. Several features remind us of oriental models. Bell‐shaped bases of a type well known from Susa and Persepolis as well as the pottery confirm that the builder‐owner in Sari Tepe had close ties with Achaemenid Persia (Narimanov 1960: p. 163 fig. 2; Kipiani 1993: Pl. 2–4).
Excavations at Karacamirli, a village near Shamkir in the Kura valley, approximately 80 km east of Sari Tepe, revealed a huge architectural complex of the fifth century BCE. An impressive mudbrick building (Figure 22.2) adorned with limestone column bases – bell‐shaped (Figure 22.3) and torus bases – has been uncovered on a small mound called Gurban Tepe in the center of a walled area measuring 450 m × 425 m (Knauß 2011: pp. 399–407). A propylaeum on Ideal Tepe formed the gorgeous entrance to this area. Here, again, we find fine bell‐shaped limestone bases (Knauss et al. 2010: figs. 3–4). A comparison with the Hadish, the private palace of Xerxes I at Persepolis, leaves no doubt that the great building on Gurban Tepe served as the palace of a Persian magistrate. The monumental gate house on Ideal Tepe likewise followed prototypes from Persepolis; it copied the ground plan of the so‐called Central Building (Knauss et al. 2010: p. 117 figs. 2, 8; Knauß 2011: pp. 404, 406; Knauß and Babaev 2016). After they had passed through the propylaeum, visitors crossed a garden (paradeisos) before they entered the palace from the east. Chance finds of architectural sculpture indicate that there were even more monumental buildings in the vicinity. Some of them have been partially excavated: a storehouse on Rizvan Tepe some 750 m southeast of the palace, a large rectangular structure with columns in the southern front 300 m north of Gurban Tepe, served as residential building, whereas the ground plan and the purpose of a mudbrick building 900 m northeast of the palace remain unclear. Finally, a geomagnetic survey has revealed a large rectangular building near the northwestern
