Zoomorphic Ornamental Tradition and the Dynamics of its Transformation in Bronze Age Cultures: the Case of Eastern Georgia

The article isdedicated to the special study of origin and continuation of zoomorphic decoration throughout the Bronze Age in the territory of eastern Georgia. At the present state of research, it is possible to note that zoomorphic ornamentation wasrepresented well enough elsewhere in eastern Georgia and lasted from the Early Bronze era including the very end of Late Bronze-Early Iron Age. Exclusively one short time-interval, when an interruption of the mentioned type of decoration was recorded, was the period of so-called Early Kurgan Culture. Currently, this survey considersa wide range of data of animal decorations, represented on the pottery from various assemblages. It allows to judge about the continuity and development of these ornamental motifs and the methods of their representation in eastern Georgia throughout the entire Bronze period (Early-, Middle- and Late Bronze-Early Iron Ages). This is exactlythelong time interval, deliberately chosen for this purpose, that allows to considerthe zoomorphic ornamental tradition from the point of view of its continuity or disappearance during the above mentioned stages of Bronze Era. From this point of view,the presented article particularly analyses dozens of ceramic assemblages from the Early Bronze Age Kura-Araxes culture, Middle Bronze Age phase I,the so-called Early Kurgan culture, Middle Bronze Age phase II Trialeti culture of Brilliant Kurgans and the cultures of Late Bronze-Early Iron Age (Samtavro and Lchashen-Tsitelgorebi cultures). This rather long period allows us to examine interesting ceramic assemblages, firstly, from the perspective of their continuation and, secondly, from the point of transformation or total change of zoomorphic design throughout hundreds of centuries. Ceramic artifacts on the surface of which were represented animals and birds are characteristic of the Kura-Araxes culture of the Early Bronze Age. Usually they are designed by using different technical implements, like relief, incised and engraved techniques. Clay masters of this period were attempting to create different faunistic varieties: horned animals, cranes, wild goats, dogs, snakes or others. It is important to note that animal imagesare presented not only asceramic decorations but also as clay and stone figurines and as metal personal ornaments (like diadems of the elite representatives). During the excavations carried out in the last years in Shida Kartli region were revealed especially interesting and unique clay samples, which were modelled as animal-shaped vessels. This form (fashion) of vessel does not have continuation in the succeeding Middle Bronze era, and only after a long time interval again appears in the Late Bronze-Early Iron Age and, what is remarkable, in the same area of eastern Georgia (Treli cemetery, I layer of the Berikldeebi settlement). From the point of view of continuation of the zoomorphic decoration, special attention was devoted to the clay artifacts of the so-called Early Kurgan culture (earliest, i.e. I phase of the Middle Bronze Age), where no case of an animal design was recorded. Throughout this relatively short time-interval, clay or stone figurines were not produced either. It seems greatly surprising why the best South Caucasian masters of clay vessels were not interested at all inpresenting faunistic ornamentations, whereas, they are the ones, i.e. the jewellers of the Bedeni Culture, who created such a unique and fascinating figurine as the golden lion. This fact of an absence of any zoomorphic ornamentation on the ceramics of this cultural unit arouses interest and questions. The mentioned motif again appeared as the ornamentation of pottery inthe developed, i.e. II phase of the Middle Bronze Age, which coincides with the period of existence of Trialeti Culture of Brilliant Kurgans. Among the assemblages of this period was discovered clay production with different zoomorphic motifs, mainly of complicated design. Representations of various horned animals, among them: pasang (Capra aegagrus), Caucasian goat (Capra), goat (Capra hircus), water birds, etc., represent specific ornaments for Trialetian ceramics. It is symptomatic that they modelled animals/birds by using different techniques: like painting (the case of water bird ornament, which appears to be a detail of the so-called “water-scheme motif” decoration), incised, engraved, relief (cases of snake design) and the so-called “combed” ornamentation. It seems an essential matter that faunistic design is more characteristic of the toreutic assemblages than the pottery of the Trialeti Culture, which might be explained by the heyday of the high artistic craft. At the same time, it should be noted that clay or stone figurines, which were so actual for the Early Bronze Age Kura-Araxes culture, absolutely disappeared during the Middle Bronze period. From the point of view of zoomorphic decorations, special attention should be given to the clay production of the final stage of Bronze era, i.e. Late Bronze-Early Iron Age. Zoomorphic ornamentation appears rather more actual at the time of its final phase, rather than during the early phase of Late Bronze Age. Different types of animals (ram, bird, snake, undefined horned animal, lion, Caucasian goat) were designed on clay pottery of that period. The considered ornamental images were represented by sculptural details, which were incised, engraved or attached to the lug or shoulder of the vessel. Summarizing numerous currently known clay assemblages of the long-lasting Bronze era, from the point of continuation of zoomorphic decorations, it might be concluded that the mentioned design was a characteristic feature for all the stages of this period, except the relatively short time-interval of so-called Early Kurganculture pottery. At the same time, it seems essential that for each stage of Bronze era, i.e. Early-, Middle- and Late Bronze-early Iron Age, more or less distinct technical methods of modelling were symptomatic, as well the representation of the faunistic world. It would bepreferable if scholars investigated the issue discussed above from the point ofview of evaluation of materials from different regions of the Caucasus and their comparative study. The overall study of this issue requires further detailed research of faunistic ornamental design represented on clay patterns from other regions of the Caucasus as well. Only such wider consideration of clayware from the point of its distribution will give a chance to judge with more certainty about the continuity of zoomorphic ornamental tradition