Version classiqueVersion mobile

On salt, copper and gold

 | 
Catherine Marro
, 
Thomas Stöllner

Early mining in the Caucasus and beyond

The prehistoric mining implements from Georgia

Ketevan Tamazashvili

Résumé

Le Caucase est connu pour ses particularités géographiques et géologiques, lesquelles ont fourni un cadre favorable à l’exploitation du minerai métallifère et à la production métallurgique dès les époques anciennes. La richesse du Caucase en minerais métallifères a certainement contribué à l’exploitation précoce des minerais du sud du Caucase, dont la Géorgie. Les sites miniers protohistoriques de Géorgie sont localisés dans deux zones : l’Abkhazie, la Svaneti et Racha pour le Grand Caucase, les régions de Bolnisi-Dmanisi et d’Adchara-Guria pour le Petit Caucase. On a découvert des outils en pierre destinés à l’exploitation minière sur la plupart de ces sites.
La recherche sur l’histoire minière de la Géorgie est un domaine assez nouveau. Ce domaine avait suscité un certain intérêt au xixe siècle, mais aucune fouille n’avait été effectuée sur des sites miniers de Géorgie jusqu’aux travaux menés à Sakdrisi. Les recherches s’étaient limitées jusque là à des prospections archéologiques, qui s’étaient contentées de décrire les mines et d’enregistrer un peu de matériel minier. Dans la plupart des cas, il ne s’agissait que d’outils bien conservés et modifiés.
Cet article se propose d’étudier les outils miniers conservés dans les fonds archéologiques ou exposés au Musée national de Géorgie. Ces collections ne sont ni riches ni variées, mais elles offrent un bon panorama des outils miniers les plus répandus. Les outils en pierre et en os découverts dans le complexe minier aurifère de Sakdrisi seront également examinés, en particulier sous l’angle de leurs traces d’utilisation. La mine d’or de Sakdrisi est considérée comme le plus ancien complexe minier aurifère connu au monde actuellement. Ce complexe (à savoir la mine et son camp de mineurs, c’est-à-dire l’ensemble de la chaîne de production) a livré une très intéressante collection d’outils en pierre. Ces outils présentent des formes, des traces d’utilisation et des systèmes d’emmanchement très variés, dénotant un vaste répertoire de fonctions. Notons enfin que les études tracéologiques menées sur certains outils en obsidienne ou en os ont également donné des résultats très intéressants et fructueux.

Texte intégral

1The Caucasus is famous for its physical-geographic and geological characteristics, which ensured favourable conditions for exploiting metal ore and producing metal in ancient times. In the South Caucasus, including Georgia (Gambashidze et al. 2010; Gailhard et al. 2017), the systematic exploitation of metal ores probably started in the 5th millennium BC.

2More than 200 deposits and outcrops of gold, copper, arsenic, antimony, etc. have been listed in Georgia. Traces of prehistoric extraction and exploitation activity have been noted on most major mines. These mining sites concentrated in Georgia are in two main districts: Aphkhazia, Svaneti and Racha in the Greater Caucasus, and Bolnisi-Dmanisi and Adchara-Guria in the Lesser Caucasus (ჩართოლანი. 2010, გვ. 33/Chartolani 2010, p. 33; Stöllner et al. 2014, p. 74) mountain range.

3In the highlands of Aphkhazia, in the upper Kodori river basin, the copper-mineralization system spreads over 25 km, with a number of outcrops measuring several hundred square meters. Pyrhotite, pyrite, chalcopyrite and galenite are the main minerals attested. The average copper content is comprised between 0.5‑1.2%, appearing together with lead and cobalt. In the ore veins the content of copper can attain 1.0‑12.0% (ჩართოლანი. 2010, გვ. 256/Chartolani 2010, p. 256). During the 1950s, geological and petrographic field expeditions were carried out in Aphkhazia; ancient copper mines were found along the gorges of the river Bziphi and Kodori, near Shkhabzia, Adange, Bashkatsara, Ptishi and Tvibrashera. The surveys conducted between 1969 and 1988 evidenced the existence of prehistoric mines only at Shkhabzia, Bashkatsara and Tvibrashera (ჩართოლანი. 2010, გვ. 33/Chartolani 2010, p. 33). The ancient mines were located on the outcrops with the greatest concentration of copper – two distinct types of exploitation are attested: opencasts and underground mining works. The mines are partly covered with a thick layer of tailings (ინანიშვილი და სხვ. 2010, გვ. 63/Inanishvili, Maisuradze, Gobejishvili 2010, p. 63). Together with other finds such as wooden logs, ore slags and wood charcoal, stone mining tools were collected during the surveys conducted on these mines (ინანიშვილი და სხვ. 1998, გვ. 53/Inanishvili et al. 1998, p. 53). These mines date back to the 2nd and 1st millennium BC (ინანიშვილი და სხვ. 2010, გვ. 66/Inanishvili, Maisuradze, Gobejishvili 2010, p. 66).

4In eastern Aphkhazia, mining activities are attested in the region of Svaneti, where a mining metallurgical complex has been found. The copper-ore exploitation area in Svaneti is located by the headwaters of the Tskhenistskhali and Rioni rivers; these deposits contain basic ore minerals such as pyrhotite, chalcopyrite and valenite. The average copper content is 0.45-2.4%, occurring together with nickel and cobalt (Gambashidze et al. 2010, p. 34). Traces of prehistoric mining activities were found in this area in the 1970s. Fifteen Bronze and Early Iron Age mines were listed during an archaeological survey, but the underground mining works of Zaargash were investigated in greater detail (Tschartolani 2001, p. 120). As the mining filling layers were removed to reach the floor, a number of tools for extraction and beneficiation came to light. These tools include complete and damaged hammers, mauls, and crushing tools. Moreover, a wooden kneading-trough, fragments of twisted levers, and wood charcoal were also found (Tschartolani 2001, p. 127). The mines discovered in the region of Svaneti date back to the beginning of the 2nd millennium and the middle of the 1st millennium BCE (ინანიშვილი და სხვ. 2010, გვ. 7/Inanishvili, Maisuradze, Gobejishvili 2010, p. 7).

5The mining sites of Racha are located in the upper basin of the river Rioni and its tributaries, the Chvesho and Zophkhitura rivers (ინანიშვილი და სხვ. 1998, გვ. 54/Inanishvili et al. 1998, p. 54). These mines have been operated for copper, arsenic and antimony, which are commonly found in Georgian-Caucasian bronze artefacts (Maisuradze, Gobedschischwili 2001, p. 130). The ancient copper-mine works are located near the village of Gona, in the gorge of the Chveshura river (ინანიშვილი და სხვ. 1998, გვ. 54/Inanishvili et al. 1998, p. 54). Beside prehistoric copper mines, about twenty ancient antimony mines are also attested (ინანიშვილი და სხვ. 2010, გვ. 54/Inanishvili, Maisuradze, Gobejishvili 2010, p. 54). Mining tools are found on most of these sites.

6The gold mine of Sakdrisi is located in southern Georgia, on the territory of historical Kartli, in a favorable strategic position in the Mashavera valley, which links Tbilisi and the Kura river valley directly with the Ciscaucasia and Armenian mountains in the southeast (Stöllner, Gambashidze, Hauptman 2008, p. 272). The exploitation of Sakdrisi is dated to the 4th millennium BC and early 3th millennium BC; it is the oldest gold mine so far known in human history and mainly exploited by miners of the Kura-Araxes culture (Stöllner et al. 2014, p. 71).

7The stone-mining implements that were found during the surveys and limited excavations carried out in Aphkhazia, Svaneti and Racha can only be discussed from the published material, since the funds cannot be accessed. The finds themselves have been superficially studied and discussed by different authors (Gobechishvili 1960, 1966; Chartolani 1969, 2001, 2010; Inanishvili 1998, 2010).

8The tools found in the prehistoric mines of Aphkhazia have different sizes, weights and shapes and they were mostly made of specially selected, dense rocks (granite, gabbro diabase, etc.). As concerns the shapes, one may distinguish oval, concise and elongated hammers. Most of the hammers are hafted. Hammers with one flat side display a single notch on each angle (ჩართოლანი. 2010, გვ. 30/Chartolani 2010, p. 30). Oval-shaped hammers bear a continuous groove in the middle (fig. 1‑2). According to S. Chartolani, stone hammers and mauls were used for extracting the rocks and concentrating the ore. The working end of these tools is worn out, which suggests intensive usage (ჩართოლანი. 1969, p. 55/Chartolani 1969, p. 55).

Fig. 1 – Stone implements from Shkhabzia mines, Aphkhazia (Chartolani 2010, p. 45).

Fig. 1 – Stone implements from Shkhabzia mines, Aphkhazia (Chartolani 2010, p. 45).

Fig. 2 – Stone implements from Bashkatsara mines, Aphkhazia (Chartolani 2010, p. 45).

Fig. 2 – Stone implements from Bashkatsara mines, Aphkhazia (Chartolani 2010, p. 45).

9The stone implements discovered in the mines of Svaneti, are mainly made of granite and gabbro diorite (fig. 3‑4). The weight of the hammers ranges between 3.0 and 11.0 kg, while the mauls weigh between 1.5 and 7.0 kg. A distinction can be drawn between round and oval-shaped, elongated hammers. The handle hafting system differs from shape to shape. In most cases, oval-shaped hammers have one flat side (which was probably the part useful to fix the stone on the wooden handle) with pecked notches in the centre of the tool. Round shaped hammers and mauls display a very distinctive deep grove pecked in the middle of the tool, which suggests a different type of hafting. Heavy traces of use and blow marks are quite visible on most of the tools. A large hammer found in mine no. 2 at Zaargash is particularly noteworthy, because of its dimensions (37x30 cm) and its weight (44 kg). According to S. Chartolani, this tool must have been used as a sledge-hammer in a simple mechanical construction (Tschartolani 2001, p. 127).

Fig. 3 – Grooved hammers from the mine of Zaargash, Svaneti (Tschartolani 2001, p. 129).

Fig. 3 – Grooved hammers from the mine of Zaargash, Svaneti (Tschartolani 2001, p. 129).

Fig. 4 – Grooved hammers from the mine of Zaargash, Svaneti (Chartolani 2010, p. 49).

Fig. 4 – Grooved hammers from the mine of Zaargash, Svaneti (Chartolani 2010, p. 49).

10Very interesting material is kept in the Armazi archaeological fund of Mtskheta. This material is a small part of the prehistoric mining tools from the mines of Racha, but the archaeological context unfortunately remains unclear because of the lack of documentation. Sixty-eight stone artefacts are attested; they are basically made of andesite and granodiorite, but in some cases their composition could not be determined because of the rusty scurf over the surface. We tried to establish the general typology of the stone implements through their shape and functional use. From the use-ware analysis, five types of tool may be distinguished – hammers, pestles, multifunctional tools, pecking tools and specific tools (თამაზაშვილი. 2014, გვ. 15‑41/Tamazashvili 2014, pp. 15‑41).

11Two types of hammers may be distinguished by their shapes and weights. Hammers of the first type are an average size; they may or not be modified with either a groove or notches. In some cases, a tool may have both notches and a groove. The square section of these hammers is in most cases polygonal and oval (fig. 5) (თამაზაშვილი. 2014, გვ. 18/Tamazashvili 2014, p. 18, catalogue no. 7‑36, 40, 64‑66, 68). The second type comprises small-sized hammers without any notches or grooves. These are the tools that were probably used as handled implements for crushing the ore (თამაზაშვილი. 2014, გვ. 18/Tamazashvili 2014, p. 18, catalogue no. 37‑38, 41‑45).

Fig. 5 – Grooved hammers, Racha mines, Armazi archaeological store rooms (Georgian National Museum, photos by K. Tamazashvili).

Fig. 5 – Grooved hammers, Racha mines, Armazi archaeological store rooms (Georgian National Museum, photos by K. Tamazashvili).

12A group of stone tools forms a special case, since this kind of tool is absent from the other mining sites discovered in Georgia. These unusual tools have a distinctive, carefully-shaped, grooved “handle”. They are very flat on one side. It is possible that the tool was fixed with a wooden handle from that flat side (fig. 6) (თამაზაშვილი. 2014, გვ. 18‑19/Tamazashvili 2014, p. 18‑19, catalogue no. 1‑6).

Fig. 6 – Stone tools, Racha mines, Armazi archaeological store rooms (Georgian National Museum, photos by K. Tamazashvili).

Fig. 6 – Stone tools, Racha mines, Armazi archaeological store rooms (Georgian National Museum, photos by K. Tamazashvili).

13Two types of pestle may be distinguished from their shapes. The first type of pestle is long and oval, with two working ends (თამაზაშვილი. 2014, გვ. 19/Tamazashvili 2014, p. 19, catalogue no. 60‑63). The second type is represented by small roundish pestles (თამაზაშვილი. 2014, გვ. 19/Tamazashvili 2014, p. 19, catalogue no. 47‑48, 50). One of these pestles has two functions: it serves as a pestle on one side and as a grinder on the other side, as shown by its even surface (თამაზაშვილი. 2014, გვ. 19/Tamazashvili 2014, p. 19, catalogue no. 51).

14It should be noted that a number of stone tools do not seem to be related to mining activites. They are very small and exactly fit the palm of a hand. They have a triangle section and in rare cases two working ends (fig. 7). It seems that these tools were used as pecking implements for preparing the hammers’ haft (თამაზაშვილი. 2014, გვ. 19/Tamazashvili 2014, p. 19, catalogue no. 46, 49, 52‑55, 58‑59).

Fig. 7 – Pecking implements for hafting, Racha mines, Armazi archaeological store rooms (Georgian National Museum, photos by K. Tamazashvili).

Fig. 7 – Pecking implements for hafting, Racha mines, Armazi archaeological store rooms (Georgian National Museum, photos by K. Tamazashvili).

15As for the stone implements related to mining work, one may discuss the tools kept in Batumi Archaeological Museum and the Ozurgeti Historical Museum. These are typical grooved hammers, which were probably selected during the survey especially for the exhibition. They are mostly survey finds and come from the regions of Achara and Guria. For this reason, it is impossible to connect them directly to mining activities but considering the fact that the eastern Black Sea region is very rich in metallurgical centres and iron-smelting furnaces, it is quite possible that these tools were used in metallurgical activities. The stone pestles, hammers and anvils discovered near metallurgical workshops in the Adchara region may be given as an example. These implements are considered to have been used in the process of dressing the ore (fig. 8) (ხახუტაიშვილი და სხვ. 2002, გვ. 36/Khakhutaishvili, Tavamaishvili 2002, p. 36; ხახუტაიშვილი. 1980, გვ. 3‑38/Khakhutaishvili 1980, p. 3‑38).

Fig. 8 – Stone mortars and pestles from metallurgical centres, Achara (Khakhutaishvili, Tavamaishvili 2002, p. 40).

Fig. 8 – Stone mortars and pestles from metallurgical centres, Achara (Khakhutaishvili, Tavamaishvili 2002, p. 40).

16But the most important and varied stone tool collection comes from Sakdrisi, where almost 10,000 stone finds have been discovered. These tools were studied and a general typology was established in the framework of the Georgian-German expedition of Sakdrisi. The hammers display a variety of shapes, hafting systems, use-traces and functions. The working ends are heavily worn and flaked, with traces of red sediment from the hematite-quartz lodes of Sakdrisi visible (Stöllner et al. 2014, p. 93).

17Beside the hammer tools related to mining, tools used for ore-dressing were also brought to light at Sakdrisi. They were mostly found in one specific place, which is considered to be the working area for concentrating the ore (Stöllner et al. 2014, p. 90). These tools comprise mallets, anvils, grinders, millers and grinding plates, which are sometimes multifunctional. Traces of secondary use may be observed on some of these tools.

18Use-wear analysis was carried out on a small number of these stone tools in the laboratory of the Georgian National Museum. Functional analyses were conducted by Dr Ketevan Esakia (Georgian National Museum) on a small quantity of stone (22 artefacts, mostly hammers), bone, antler and obsidian tools discovered in Sakdrisi (თამაზაშვილი. 2014. გვ. 65‑72/Tamazashvili 2014, pp. 65‑72).

19Traceological investigation shows that the hammers were used on hard material – rock. Use-wear traces on the working ends are almost invisible because of the damage – the ends are either worn down or flaked off. The degree of wear depends on the density of the rock. Traces over the hammers show that these tools were used to break or crush rocks or ores. And the axe-hammers were used to break off and gather the sloughing rocks.

  • 1 The archeozoological studies were carried out by Dr Oleg Bendukidze †, Georgian National Museum.

20The bone and obsidian tools discovered at Sakdrisi are the first evidence of the use of such artefacts on mining sites in Georgia (თამაზაშვილი. 2014, გვ. 66‑68/Tamazashvili 2014, pp. 66‑68); and, as far as we know, in the Caucasus. These tools were also investigated through use-wear analyses. Bone and antler tools were discovered in the underground prehistoric mines 1/2 and 1/3 (fig. 9) (Stöllner et al. 2014, p. 81). They are not very numerous: only eight bones, mostly made of cattle ribs, were found, together with one drill made from the tibia of a young bovine and another one made from a deer antler.1

Fig. 9 – Bone and antler tools from underground mines 1/2 and 1/3, Sakdrisi (after Stöllner et al. 2014).

Fig. 9 – Bone and antler tools from underground mines 1/2 and 1/3, Sakdrisi (after Stöllner et al. 2014).

21The study of these bone tools shows that those made of cattle ribs are similar in shape and likely in function. A single technique was used: their surfaces were scraped off with a stone tool, perhaps with obsidian scrapers, in order to even the surface of the bone; such tools are handheld. Use-wear studies showed that the rib scrapers had two functions. One use is related to scraping the rock with the edges of the rib tools. A secondary use is related to scraping or shaving rough leather.

22The antler pick, whose tip has been cut off with very sharp tool, has a very unsystematically sculled surface. There are no visible traces on this tool, which had hardly been used. Antler picks were very widely used not only in metal, but also in flint mines from the Neolithic period onwards. Between 2011 and 2014 several experiments were conducted at Sakdrisi to research the making of mining tools (Stöllner et al. 2014); some of these included the selection of stones to make stone hammers and crushing mallets, the hafting of the tools with handles; these experiments confirmed that picks from deer antler were used beside the hammer-stones and proved effective in removing the sloughing rock parts after fire-setting. Considering the fact that Sakdrisi hematite-quartz lodes are extremely hard, we may surmise that the antler tool discovered in the shaft was broken after its first use and then was dressed again for a second attempt. The cut tip of the antler confirms that too.

23Another interesting observation concerns the red traces that can be seen on the edges of some of the rib bone tools (fig. 10). These traces are probably the remains of hematite, which is contained in the ore mined in Sakdrisi (Stöllner et al. 2014). Similar remains were found on the experimental antler picks after they were used to remove the rocks from the wall after fire-setting. Besides, on some bone tools charcoal fragments are visible next to the red traces under a microscope (fig. 11).

Fig. 10 – Quarts-hematite sediments on the working edges of a rib scraper (K. Tamazashvili).

Fig. 10 – Quarts-hematite sediments on the working edges of a rib scraper (K. Tamazashvili).

Fig. 11 – Charcoal fragments at the tip of a bone scraper, find no. 5261, under microscope, enlarged 230 times (K. Tamazashvili).

Fig. 11 – Charcoal fragments at the tip of a bone scraper, find no. 5261, under microscope, enlarged 230 times (K. Tamazashvili).

24It seems that the bone tools were used for distinguishing simple rock from the gold-containing ore and also for delimiting the ore veins (fig. 12). Functional analyses have shown that rib bones served as scrapers and were handheld. The edges of the scrapers were used on rough material/rock, perhaps on the ore. Considering the fact that the hematite-quartz lodes of Sakdrisi are extremely hard, we may surmise that these rib scrapers were used to extract the remains of the ore from the exploited veins. Traces of hematite found along the edges of some of these tools confirm that too. One side of the tool was used on the leather and the other side is highly polished as a result of being held for a long time.

Fig. 12 – Working process with bone scrapers, reconstruction (I. Esvanjia).

Fig. 12 – Working process with bone scrapers, reconstruction (I. Esvanjia).

25If we compare these tools with the bone and antler tools discovered on prehistoric mining sites, it is clear that the ribs discovered at Sakdrisi were directly involved in the mining process. They can be therefore considered as typical mining tools. The typology of the bone and antler tools discovered in Sakdrisi is not varied, but their place in the common typology of mining bone tools is fairly well represented (თამაზაშვილი. 2014, გვ. 67/Tamazashvili 2014, p. 67).

26Obsidian tools were also found in the mine of Sakdrisi, with 30 samples represented. Two types of obsidian tools were determined by functional analyses: scrapers and drillers (fig. 13), but it also appears that some of the tools have both functions. Basically, these tools are made of flakes; they were used on wood and rough leather. One obsidian arrowhead is also noteworthy. A notch is located on one side of the arrowhead; this side of the tool was used as a scraper. Obsidian was very widely used in the Caucasus, so the discovery of obsidian tools in mining works is not so surprising. The tools discovered at Sakdrisi were maybe not directly used as mining tools, but they may have been used by the miners as adjuncts (თამაზაშვილი. 2014, გვ. 68/Tamazashvili 2014, p. 68).

Fig. 13 – Obsidian scrapers and drillers, Sakdrisi (T. Rabsibler).

Fig. 13 – Obsidian scrapers and drillers, Sakdrisi (T. Rabsibler).

27The study of stone and bone implements from Sakdrisi shows that the miners were very well organized and had very specialized tools used in different steps of the mining process (Stöllner, Gambashidze 2011, p. 196). This material is very important for reconstructing the mining history of Georgia. Investigations on ancient mining in Georgia, together with experiments make it possible to reconstruct the function and utilization of the mining tools. Among the prehistoric mining sites discovered in Georgia, some are opencasts, others underground mining works. Both horizontal and vertical shafts are attested, some are simple, others more complex. Bronze Age miners paid attention to safety, as shown by the wooden logs and the propping systems found in Aphkhazia, Svaneti and Racha. Stone hammers, antler picks, fire setting and water were used for extracting the ore (ჩართოლანი. 2010/Chartolani 2010; ინანიშვილი და სხვ. 2010/Inanishvili, Maisuradze, Gobejishvili 2010; Stöllner, Gambashidze 2011). Prehistoric miners would use various and specialized implements for each stage of the mining process, which gives indications as to the technical knowledge achieved by Kura-Araxes people in that period. Every type of tool had a special function and use. Massive stone hammers were used to strike and weaken the surface of the rock. The sloughing rock was broken off with medium and small-sized hammers, and antler picks. The transportation of the ore was done by hand, wooden vessels and buckets (ჩართოლანი. 2010/Chartolani 2010). With the help of the bone scrapers the limits of the ore-veins were delineated, but the scrapers also helped to clean and sort the ore. The extracted ore was crushed, ground and milled with special tools such as pestles, mortars, anvils, grinding and milling tools.

28Here are the main technical steps that may be reconstructed from the study of the mining tools from Sakdrisi but this material nonetheless needs a more detailed investigation in the future, including the stone implements from the Sakdrisi mining complex (that is the mine together with the miners’ settlement of Dzedzvebi), which should give us the opportunity to set up a more specific typology and determine the functions of the mining tools in greater detail.

Bibliographie

Chartolani 1969: S. Chartolani, Ancient copper mines near the Bziphi and Kodori rivanes. XVIII scientific session – dedicated to the results of archaeological surveys conducted in 1968 in Georgia. Short reports, Tbilisi, Georgian Scientific Academia, 1969, pp. 49‑60, 168‑175./ჩართოლანი შ., სპილენძის ძველი სამთამადნო გამონამუშევრები მდ. ბზიფისა და კოდორის სათავეებში. XVIII სამეცნიერო სესია – მიძღვნილი საქართველოში 1968 წელს წარმოებული საველე-არქეოლოგიური კვლევა-ძიების შედეგებისადმი. მოკლე ანგარიშები, თბილისი, საქართველოს სსრ მეცნიერებათა აკადემია, 1969, გვ. 49‑60, 168‑175./S. Chartolani, Spilendzis dzveli samtamadno gaminamushevrebi md. bzifisa da kodoris sataveebshi. XVIII sametsniero sesia – midzgvnili sakartveloshi 1968 tsels tsarmoebuli savele-arkeologiuri kvleva-dziebis shedegebisadmi. mokle angarishebi, Tbilisi, sakartvelos ssr metsnierebata academia, 1969, gv. 49‑60, 168‑175.

Chartolani 2010: S. Chartolani, Mining metallurgical ancient sites on the southern part of the main Caucasus ridge, Tbilisi, Works, 2010, pp. 255‑276./ჩართოლანი შ., სამთამადნო მეტალურგიული წარმოების უძველესი ძეგლები კავკასიონის მთავარი ქედის სამხრეთ ფერდობზე, თბილისი, შრომები, 2010, გვ. 255‑276./S. Chartolani, Samtamadno metalurgiuli tsarmoebis udzvelesi dzeglebi kavkasioni mtavari kedis ferdobze, Tbilisi, shromebi, 2010, gv. 255‑276.

Gailhard et al. 2017: N. Gailhard, M. Bode, A. Hauptmann, V. Bakhshaliyev, C. Marro, “Archaeometallurgical investigations in Nakhchivan (Azerbaijan). What does the evidence from Late Chalcolithic Ovçular Tepesi tell us about the beginning of extractive metallurgy?”, Journal of Field Archaeology 42/6, 2017, pp. 530‑550.

Gambashidze et al. 2010: I. Gambashidze, G. Mindiashvili, G. Gogotschuri, K. Kakhiani, I. Dschaparidze, Alte Metallurgie und Bergbau in Georgien in 6.-3. Jt.v. Chr., Tbilisi, 2010.

Gobejishvili 1960: G. Gobejishvili, Ancient remains of copper mining-processing near the village of Ghebi (according to 1959 survey results), Tbilisi, Materials of the scientific session of the History Institute, 1960, pp. 19‑22./გობეჯიშვილი გ., სპილენძის მადნის მოპოვება – დამუშავების ძველი ნაშთები სოფ. ღებთან (1959 წლის საველე-ძიების შედეგების მიხედვით), თბილისი, ისტორიის ინსტიტუტის სამეცნიერო სესიის მასალები, 1960, გვ. 19‑22./G. Gobejishvili, Spilendzis madnis mopoveba – damushavebis dzveli nashtebi sofel ghebtan (1959 tslis savele-ziebis shedegebis mikhedvit), Tbilisi, Istoriis institutis samecniero sesiis masalebi, 1960, gv. 19‑22.

Gobejishvili 1966: G. Gobejishvili, Ancient mining sites in Racha, published in Dzeglis Megobari 6, 1966, pp. 14‑20./გობეჯიშვილი გ., ძველის სამთამადნო წარმოების ძეგლები რაჭაში, თბილისი, ძეგლის მეგობარი 6, 1966, გვ. 14‑20./G. Gobejishvili, Dzveli samtamadno tsarmoebis dzeglebi rachashi, Dzeglis megobari 6, 1966, gv. 14‑20.

Inanishvili et al. 1998: G. Inanishvili, S. Chartolani, B. Maisuradze, G. Gobejishvili, T. Mudjiri, Mining sites of Georgia, published in Dziebani 2, 1998, pp. 52‑62./ინანიშვილი გ., ჩართოლანი შ., მაისურაძე ბ., გობეჯიშვილი გ., მუჯირი თ., საქართველოს სამთამადნო წარმოების ძეგლები, თბილისი, ძიებანი №2, 1998, გვ. 52‑62./G. Inanishvili, S. Chartolani, B. Maisuradze, G. Gobejishvili, T. Mudjiri, Sakartvelos samtamadno warmeobis dzeglebi, Dziebani 2, 1998, gv. 52‑62.

Inanishvili, Maisuradze, Gobejishvili 2010: G. Inanishvili, B. Maisuradze, G. Gobejishvili, Ancient mining and metallurgy in Georgia 3rd‑2nd millennia BC, Tbilisi, 2010./ინანიშვილი გ., მაისურაძე ბ., გობეჯიშვილი გ., საქართველოს უძველესი სამთამადნო და მეტალურგიული წარმოება (ძვ.წ. III‑I ათასწლეულები), თბილისი, 2010./G. Inanishvili, B. Maisuradze, G. Gobejishvili, Sakartvelos udzvelesi samtamadno da metalurgiuli tsarmoeba (dz. ts. III-I atastsleulebshi), Tbilisi, 2010.

Khakhutaishvili 1980: D. Khakhutaishvili, Iron producing sites in Khobi-Ochkomuri Ravine, published in sdsdz IX, 1980, pp. 3‑38./ხახუტაიშვილი დ., რკინის წარმოების ძველკოლხური კერა ხობ-ოჩხომურის ხეობაში, სდსძ IX, 1980, გვ. 3‑38./D. Khakhutaishvili, Rkinis tsarmoebis dzvelkolkhuri kera khob-ochkhomuris kheobashi, sdsdz IX, 1980, pp. 3‑38.

Khakhutaishvili, Tavamaishvili 2002: N. Kakhutaishvili, G. Tavamaishvili, Ancient metallurgic center in Tskheniskhali ravine, published in Dziebani 9, 2002, pp. 34‑40./ხახუტაიშვილი ნ., თავამაიშვილი გ., უძველესი მეტალურგიის კერა ცხენისწყლის ხეობაში, თბილისი, ძიებანი #9, 2002, გვ. 34‑40./N. Kakhutaishvili, G. Tavamaishvili, Udzvelesi metalurgiis kera tskhenistskhlis kheobashi, Dziebani 9, 2002, gv. 34‑40.

Maisuradze, Gobedschischwili 2001: B. Maisuradze, G. Gobedschischwili, Alter Bergbau in Swanetien. Georgien, Bochum, Deutsches Bergbau-Museum, 2001, pp. 130‑135.

O’Brien 2005: W. O’Brien, Ross Island. Mining, metal and society in Early Ireland, Galway, National University of Ireland, 2005.

Stöllner, Gambashidze, Hauptman 2008: T. Stöllner, I. Gambashidze, A. Hauptman, “The earliest gold mine of the ancient world? Research on an early Bronze Age gold mine in Georgia”, International conference AMITEM, Ankara, 2008, pp. 271‑288.

Stöllner, Gambashidze 2011: T. Stöllner, I. Gambashidze, “Gold in Georgia II: The oldest gold mine in the world”, Anatolian Metal V, 2011, pp. 187‑199.

Stöllner et al. 2014: T. Stöllner, B. Craddock, I. Gambaschidze, G. Gogotchuri, A. Hauptmann, A. Hornschuch, F. Klein, I. Löffler, G. Mindiashwili, B. Murwanidze, S. Senczek, M. Schaich, G. Steffens, K. Tamasashvili, S. Timberlake (with an appendix of M. Jansen, T. Stöllner, A. Courcier), “Gold in the Caucasus: new research on gold extraction in the Kura-Araxes Culture of the 4th millennium BC and early 3rd millennium BC”, in H. Meller, E. Pernicka, R. Risch (dir.), Metalle der Macht. Frühes Gold und Silber, published in Tagungen des Landesmuseums für Vorgeschichte Halle 11, 2014, pp. 71‑110.

Tamazashvili 2014: K. Tamazashvili, Prehistoric mining implements from Georgia, Tbilisi, Mtsignobari, 2014./თამაზაშვილი ქ., პრეისტორიული ხანის სამთო წარმოების იარაღების საქართველოში 2014./K. Tamazashvili, Preistoriuli khanis samto tsarmoebis iaraghebi sakartveloshi, Tbilisi, Mtsignobari, 2014.

Tschartolani 2001: S. Tschartolani, Alter Bergbau in Swanetien, Georgien, Bochum, Deutsches Bergbau-Museum, pp. 120‑129.

Notes

1 The archeozoological studies were carried out by Dr Oleg Bendukidze †, Georgian National Museum.

Table des illustrations

Titre Fig. 1 – Stone implements from Shkhabzia mines, Aphkhazia (Chartolani 2010, p. 45).
URL http://books.openedition.org/momeditions/docannexe/image/12497/img-1.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 177k
Titre Fig. 2 – Stone implements from Bashkatsara mines, Aphkhazia (Chartolani 2010, p. 45).
URL http://books.openedition.org/momeditions/docannexe/image/12497/img-2.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 307k
Titre Fig. 3 – Grooved hammers from the mine of Zaargash, Svaneti (Tschartolani 2001, p. 129).
URL http://books.openedition.org/momeditions/docannexe/image/12497/img-3.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 598k
Titre Fig. 4 – Grooved hammers from the mine of Zaargash, Svaneti (Chartolani 2010, p. 49).
URL http://books.openedition.org/momeditions/docannexe/image/12497/img-4.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 275k
Titre Fig. 5 – Grooved hammers, Racha mines, Armazi archaeological store rooms (Georgian National Museum, photos by K. Tamazashvili).
URL http://books.openedition.org/momeditions/docannexe/image/12497/img-5.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 241k
Titre Fig. 6 – Stone tools, Racha mines, Armazi archaeological store rooms (Georgian National Museum, photos by K. Tamazashvili).
URL http://books.openedition.org/momeditions/docannexe/image/12497/img-6.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 224k
Titre Fig. 7 – Pecking implements for hafting, Racha mines, Armazi archaeological store rooms (Georgian National Museum, photos by K. Tamazashvili).
URL http://books.openedition.org/momeditions/docannexe/image/12497/img-7.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 189k
Titre Fig. 8 – Stone mortars and pestles from metallurgical centres, Achara (Khakhutaishvili, Tavamaishvili 2002, p. 40).
URL http://books.openedition.org/momeditions/docannexe/image/12497/img-8.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 367k
Titre Fig. 9 – Bone and antler tools from underground mines 1/2 and 1/3, Sakdrisi (after Stöllner et al. 2014).
URL http://books.openedition.org/momeditions/docannexe/image/12497/img-9.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 686k
Titre Fig. 10 – Quarts-hematite sediments on the working edges of a rib scraper (K. Tamazashvili).
URL http://books.openedition.org/momeditions/docannexe/image/12497/img-10.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 530k
Titre Fig. 11 – Charcoal fragments at the tip of a bone scraper, find no. 5261, under microscope, enlarged 230 times (K. Tamazashvili).
URL http://books.openedition.org/momeditions/docannexe/image/12497/img-11.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 567k
Titre Fig. 12 – Working process with bone scrapers, reconstruction (I. Esvanjia).
URL http://books.openedition.org/momeditions/docannexe/image/12497/img-12.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 286k
Titre Fig. 13 – Obsidian scrapers and drillers, Sakdrisi (T. Rabsibler).
URL http://books.openedition.org/momeditions/docannexe/image/12497/img-13.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 250k

Auteur

Georgian National Museum, MA, PhD Candidate, Tbilisi

Acheter

Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search