Introduction
The fourth and third millennia BC in South-west Asia witnessed broad-scale transformations of human settlements toward increased urbanism and hierarchical organisation, from the expansive proto-urban Uruk system to the rise of the first city states (Algaze Reference Algaze2008). In the South Caucasus, this period was largely coterminous with the so-called Kura-Araxes phenomenon (c. 3500–2500 BC), characterised by egalitarian, village-based communities of stockbreeders and farmers that did not adhere to the urban, hierarchical model of neighbouring civilisations. Yet, beginning in the late fourth millennium BC, Kura-Araxes assemblages are found over a vast area of South-west Asia, including the South Caucasian ‘homeland’, eastern Anatolia, north-western Iran and the southern Levant (Palumbi & Chataigner Reference Palumbi and Chataigner2014). The scale of the Kura-Araxes expansion into these areas, coupled with its resistance to the centralised socioeconomic tendencies of this period, have raised questions about its origins, sociocultural nature and the conditions that facilitated its diffusion over such a vast territory.
While well-refined chronological frameworks exist for the Near East and eastern Mediterranean (e.g. Lebeau Reference Lebeau2011), chronologies in the South Caucasus have lacked the definition necessary to inform accurate interregional comparisons for this period. Previous attempts have favoured generalised top-down approaches founded on chrono-typology and adaptation of the European ‘Three Age’ system over bottom-up contextual investigations supported by robust radiocarbon datasets. It is now agreed that the Kura-Araxes defines the Early Bronze Age in the South Caucasus (Palumbi Reference Palumbi2016), but the internal periodisation of the Kura-Araxes continues to be debated due to the extreme regional diversity exhibited by this phenomenon (Palumbi & Chataigner Reference Palumbi and Chataigner2014).
Archaeologically, the Kura-Araxes ‘package’ comprises a distinctive repertoire of handmade, black and red-black polished ceramic forms, metallurgical items (e.g. double-spiral pins) and zoomorphic and anthropomorphic andirons (ceramic fireplace supports used to hold pots), while burial and architectural traditions vary considerably regionally (Sagona Reference Sagona2018). Periodisation proposals have primarily relied on ceramic typologies as the key diachronic marker, partly due to a research bias towards ceramics, which renders spatio-temporal variations in pottery productions more explicitly recognisable compared to other (understudied) elements of the ‘package’ (Palumbi Reference Palumbi2008). Yet even such proposals have resulted in competing explanations for the Kura-Araxes phenomenon. Two dominant ceramic-based periodisation systems currently exist for the Kura-Araxes horizon (Figure 1): a threefold model (KA I–III; Palumbi Reference Palumbi2008) and a twofold model (KA I–II; Badalyan Reference Badalyan2014). The systems overlap in terms of absolute calendar frame (3500–2500 BC) but identify different internal chronological boundaries. While the threefold system highlights a core phase marked by the Red-and-Black Burnished Ware or RBBW (3300–2800 BC, or KA II), the twofold system privileges a more holistic view that underlines a process of ceramic diversification at around 2900 BC, from the homogeneous horizon of the ‘Elar-Aragats’ ceramics (KA I) to the proliferation of regional variants (KA II).
Chronological chart comparing the threefold and twofold periodisation systems and associated ceramic assemblages (figure by A. Passerini).
Scholars, including Palumbi (Reference Palumbi2016), have progressively adopted the twofold system thanks to its adherence to more ‘objective’ radiocarbon datasets. An advantage of the twofold system is that it incorporates geographic and cultural variability, allowing—in principle—for the separation of absolute dates and material phases/types. However, in practice, this system reflects the shape of the radiocarbon calibration curve (and thus the history of atmospheric radiocarbon levels), and so mainly tracks the history of past solar activity, with the Grand Solar Minimum (a period of reduced solar activity that produced a major elevating slope in the radiocarbon calibration curve covering the mid-thirtieth to mid-twenty-ninth centuries BC; Inceoglu et al. Reference Inceoglu, Simoniello, Knudsen, Karoff, Olsen, Turck-Chiéze and Jacobsen2015) becoming the demarcation episode and the subsequent plateau in the radiocarbon curve corresponding with the ensuing period of ambiguity. This broad demarcation describes a separate (if likely somewhat related, via climate, and including the impact of major volcanic activity; Iversen et al. Reference Iversen2025) process. Conversely, the threefold system uses a material proxy (the RBBW) to track spatial interaction between the South Caucasus and the Upper Euphrates, generalising Kura-Araxes history based on a single material trait. Both proposals lack the spatiotemporal resolution to address questions of movement more contextually and promote simplifying and generalising viewpoints at the expense of human-scale history and variation.
In previous decades, the scarcity of high-resolution, stratified chronometric data largely justified the subordination of radiocarbon dates to such generalising descriptive frameworks (and hence an almost circular logic model; cf. Batiuk et al. Reference Batiuk, Rothman, Samei and Hovsepyan2022). The increase of well-documented excavations and radiocarbon datasets now allows for more context-based approaches to building a Kura-Araxes chronology through Bayesian chronological modelling (e.g. Bayliss Reference Bayliss2009). This technique combines radiocarbon dates with information about the archaeological context of samples to produce independent age estimates for the beginnings, ends and active occupations of archaeological sites. Such estimates help clarify how material changes articulate with human movements, site coexistence and presence on the landscape by exploring temporal dynamics within and across phases. Yet, site-based Bayesian chronological modelling in the South Caucasus remains underexploited or confined to specific areas (e.g. Passerini et al. Reference Passerini, Regev, Rova and Boaretto2016; Manning et al. Reference Manning, Smith, Khatchadourian, Badalyan, Lindsay, Greene and Marshall2018). Here, we demonstrate the vantage point of using contextual Bayesian chronologies to work across multiple periodisation systems and typological schemes. We present the results of a radiocarbon-dating programme undertaken on eight sites located in the Kura-Araxes ‘homeland’, contributing a major new set of radiocarbon dates in conjunction with a reassessment of legacy data on a contextual scale.
Analytical rationale
The spatial distribution of the Kura-Araxes culture covers at least ten modern countries, including both the ‘homeland’ and ‘diaspora’ territories. Our study focuses primarily on the ‘homeland’, where radiocarbon datasets have been less extensive compared to the neighbouring regions. This asymmetry has skewed understandings of Kura-Araxes emergence and movement, reflecting biases due to geopolitical constraints as well as research budgets and agendas. Contextualising the Kura-Araxes within appropriate geographical clusters, even within the assumed ‘homeland’, is, thus, equally important to understanding and interpreting Kura-Araxes dynamics. Scholars agree that the geography of the South Caucasus is strongly articulated by the systems of the Kura and the Araxes rivers and local topography, and that these features bear relevance to the cultural geography of the Kura-Araxes phenomenon (Smith et al. Reference Smith, Badalyan and Avetisyan2009: 5–7). A distinctive focus on highlands and lowlands in each riverine system, as we adopt here, thus seems appropriate.
We report results obtained from eight Early Bronze Age sites located in modern-day Georgia and Armenia (Figure 2). These sites expand and complement chronometric data associated with higher (Aparan III, Chobareti, Karnut, Tsaghkasar-1, above 1600m above sea level (masl)) and lower elevation zones (Aygavan, Gudabertka, Namgala, Dasht, around 500–1000masl) in both the Kura and Araxes regions. We relied on Bayesian chronological modelling to refine site chronologies (Bayliss Reference Bayliss2009; Bronk Ramsey Reference Bronk Ramsey2009a). Bayesian modelling was performed in OxCal v.4.4 using the IntCal20 calibration dataset (Reimer et al. Reference Reimer2020). We favoured local prior information by operating on a site-by-site and strictly stratigraphic basis. We recorded chrono-typological information for the comparison of material practices but did not use it as a grouping criterion in OxCal to avoid modelling biases derived from pre-existing periodisations.
Digital elevation model of the South Caucasus showing the main Early Bronze Age sites mentioned in the text (figure by A. Passerini).
In cases where multiple stratigraphic interpretations were possible, alternative models were tested. Our sampling strategy aimed at increasing regional representation by including undated sites and by expanding existing series or replicating measurements for incoherent datasets. Sample selection privileged organic material that is well provenanced and taxonomically identifiable to the species level. When available, we preferred short-lived samples (i.e. seeds, or herbivore or human remains) to guarantee close sample-context association. However, in several cases sampling choice was restricted to wood charcoal, raising issues of potential in-built age. All the charcoals dated within this study were determined at the species level, assessed for wiggle-match potential and incorporated in the models as termini post quos (TPQ) as relevant. To account for in-built age in the legacy record, which is largely represented by undetermined charcoal, and temporal outliers from short-lived samples that were not directly processed within this study, we employed the Charcoal Outlier_Model() in combination with the OxCal General and SSimple outlier models (Bronk Ramsey Reference Bronk Ramsey2009b).
After compiling separate Bayesian models for each site, we extracted relevant Boundaries and Date estimates as prior files and compared them by employing the Order function in OxCal (Bronk Ramsey Reference Bronk Ramsey2009a). We then integrated the new results with legacy datasets from sites that offer relevant geographical or chrono-cultural comparanda, which were also reassessed through Bayesian chronological modelling and chronometric hygiene protocols. Results from the preferred models are summarised in Table 1 and Figures 3 and 4. Details of radiocarbon dates and modelling rationale are provided in the online supplementary material (OSM). Below we discuss the implications of these results by referencing the 95.4% highest posterior density (hpd) ranges (unless stated otherwise).
Results of the preferred Bayesian chronological models discussed in the text. All the estimates are reported as cal BC according to the 95.4% highest posterior density (hpd) range.
Comparison of modelled Date estimates (shown as 95.4% hpd) extracted from individual site models in the Kura region. The plot includes comparanda from Uzun Rama, Mentesh Tepe, Natsargora, Aradetis Orgora, Rabati and Kalavan-1 (figure by A. Passerini).
Comparison of modelled Date estimates (shown as 95.4% hpd) extracted from individual site models in the Araxes region. The plot includes comparanda from Kültepe 2, Kul Tepe Jolfa, Gegharot, Nadir Tepesi, Sos Höyük, Artanish-9 and Voskeblur (figure by A. Passerini).
Results
The Kura Region
The chronometric evidence from the Kura Region comprises radiocarbon dates associated with both the KA I and the KA II phases (Figure 3). The earliest known Kura-Araxes-related activity is associated with isolated funerary structures documented in the lower Kura Valley, including kurgan 4 at Mentesh Tepe and kurgan 8 at Uzun Rama (Passerini et al. Reference Passerini, Manning, Laneri, Jalilov and Pappalardoin press). The TPQs for the construction or early use of these structures are estimated within 3576–3208 BC and 3670–3409 BC, respectively. Both kurgans were used or visited until the early thirty-second century BC (the TPQ for the sealing of kurgan 8 at Uzun Rama by fire is firmly placed after 3204–3174 BC according to a high-resolution wiggle-match; Passerini et al. Reference Passerini, Manning, Laneri, Jalilov and Pappalardoin press). The new data from the collective kurgan excavated at Namgala describe a similar scenario, with the main burial group dated to 3415–3091 BC and a later revisitation at the margins (dromos inhumation) dated to 3031–2921 BC (86.0% of 95.4% hpd). Note that, here, we assume the Kura-Araxes affiliation of these dates (for details on the interpretation of the Namgala sequence, see OSM).
Chobareti, formally associated with the KA I phase, constitutes the most extensively dated Kura-Araxes settlement in the Kura region. Domestic activity at the site is associated with three terraces, of which the Eastern Upper terrace has yielded the oldest and widest temporal range (3299–2991 BC). Modelled results from the Lower Eastern terrace and the Western terrace (Table 1) suggest that these areas were mainly occupied from c. 3200–3000 BC. Results from the Eastern cemetery show that the site was briefly used as a graveyard, most probably after its abandonment toward the end of the thirty-first or the beginning of the thirtieth century BC. The End Boundary also indicates that Kura-Araxes activity at Chobareti probably ceased after 3083–2912 BC. The final use of Chobareti coincided with the existence of a Kura-Araxes settlement at nearby Rabati, where (limited) radiocarbon data suggest a post-3100 to 2800 or 2600 BC range (Bedianashvili et al. Reference Bedianashvili, Jamieson and Sagona2021). Similar date estimates come from the middle Kura, as seen at Natsargora (3091–2836 BC), Aradetis Orgora (main occupation dated to 2917–2872 BC, probably abandoned c. 2650 BC: Passerini et al. Reference Passerini, Regev, Rova and Boaretto2016), and confirmed by the new data from Gudabertka (2966–2705 BC). These sites are typologically representative of the so-called Shida Kartli variant (Sagona Reference Sagona2018: 257) and are thus formally attributed to the KA II phase by virtue of their regional character (Badalyan Reference Badalyan2014: 79).
Thus far, current data indicate that the final stage of the Kura-Araxes in the Kura region may stretch to c. 2700–2600 BC, with the exception only of Kalavan-1 (Poulmarc’h et al. Reference Poulmarc’h, Christidou, Bălăşescu, Alarashi, Le Mort, Gasparyan and Chataigner2016). The date estimate from the Kalavan cemetery (2731–2346 BC) exceeds the commonly accepted threshold for the end of the Kura-Araxes phenomenon at c. 2500 BC (Badalyan & Perello Reference Badalyan and Perello2024) and broadly overlaps with the Martkopi-related activity of Phase 2 at Mentesh Tepe (Lyonnet Reference Lyonnet2014).
The Araxes Region
The chronometric evidence from the Araxes Region comprises radiocarbon dates associated with both the KA I and the KA II phases (Figure 4). The earliest known Kura-Araxes-related activity in this region is associated with burial 1 at Jrvezh/Avan, with two dates clustering within the 3550–3350 BC range (Badalyan Reference Badalyan2014: 79–80). Our date estimate for Dasht also falls within a rather earlier range (3583–3093 BC), though chronometric data at this stage are too limited to identify the earliest deposition within this collective burial (see OSM).
Our study provides new radiocarbon dates from settlement contexts at Aparan III and Tsaghkasar-1, both located in the highland zones around Mount Aragats in modern-day Armenia. The new dates from Aparan III shift its date estimate to 3176–2896 BC, suggesting an earlier occupation than the very limited previous data (Manning et al. Reference Manning, Smith, Khatchadourian, Badalyan, Lindsay, Greene and Marshall2018, fig. S1C), while the date estimate for the occupation of Tsaghkasar-1 is 3012–2906 BC. Both sites precede the KA I occupation of Gegharot 1a (Manning et al. Reference Manning, Smith, Khatchadourian, Badalyan, Lindsay, Greene and Marshall2018), with Aparan III being probably older than Tsaghkasar-1 (probability (P)=0.93) and Tsaghkasar-1 being slightly older than Gegharot 1a (P=0.93) according to the Order query (see OSM). At 68.3% hpd, the Aparan III estimate falls within c. 3100–3000 BC; combined with evidence from Tsaghkasar-1 and Gegharot 1a, this might suggest that the area around Mount Aragats witnessed brief occupations at the end of the fourth millennium BC, when activity at Gegharot 1a was followed by an apparent brief hiatus (Manning et al. Reference Manning, Smith, Khatchadourian, Badalyan, Lindsay, Greene and Marshall2018). Additional information from the KA I settlements in the upper and middle Araxes areas complements this scenario. New modelled results from Sos Höyük indicate a likely post-3200 BC range for the start of the sequence, defining the date estimate for level VA (associated with KA I) as 3130–2900 BC (see OSM). Two published radiocarbon dates from the earliest levels of Kültepe 2 fall within c. 3350–3000 BC and 3100–2900 BC, respectively (Ristvet et al. Reference Ristvet, Baxşeliyev and Aşurov2011). Similar date ranges have been reported for the earliest levels at Kul Tepe Jolfa (Abedi & Omrani Reference Abedi and Omrani2015) and Nadir Tepesi (Alizadeh et al. Reference Alizadeh, Maziar and Mohammadi2018).
Radiocarbon dates from KA II sites are more numerous, offering better contextualised comparisons. Our preferred model estimates the main settlement horizon at Karnut within 2902–2753 BC and its later horizon within 2812–2693 BC. KA I burial activity at the site, however, dates from at least 3100 BC, represented by Tomb 2 and the earliest inhumation of Tomb 8, dated by a single measurement. Poor definition for the start of the Sequence at Karnut does not allow us to discern whether a hiatus occurred between the KA I and the KA II activity, as attested at Gegharot. Our results indicate that Karnut was settled before Gegharot 1b and that activity at the site might have continued into the earlier twenty-seventh century BC, probably as Kura-Araxes communities tended to the burials established as parts of the settlement were being abandoned (see OSM). This scenario matches the model proposed for Gegharot 1b, with the End Boundary suggesting an abandonment of the site in the late twenty-eighth to early twenty-seventh century BC (Manning et al. Reference Manning, Smith, Khatchadourian, Badalyan, Lindsay, Greene and Marshall2018). Preliminary information from Voskeblur and Artanish-9 similarly indicates a cessation of Kura-Araxes activity in the mid- or late twenty-seventh century BC (Badalyan et al. Reference Badalyan, Avetisyan, Perello, Passerini, Harutyunyan, Bobokhyan, Aghikyan, Badalyan and Perello2024). The few available dates from level VB at Sos Höyük (2958–2656 BC) and the third level at Kültepe 2 (2965–2675 BC) broadly overlap with these ranges, though life at these settlements seems to have continued well into the twenty-sixth century BC with no interruptions (i.e. Sos VC and the fourth to fifth KA levels at Kültepe 2, see OSM). This continuity is also attested further east along the Araxes at Nadir Tepesi (Alizadeh et al. Reference Alizadeh, Maziar and Mohammadi2018).
The date estimate from the final Kura-Araxes levels at Aygavan (2579–2478 BC) in the Ararat Valley postdates most of the KA II occupations known and dated in the Araxes region, except for level VD at Sos Höyük and the final levels of Kültepe 2. Results of the Order query suggest that Aygavan pre-dated level VD at Sos (P=0.72), but also a series of Martkopi-related inhumations at Aknashen (P=0.91) in the Ararat Valley (Badalyan et al. Reference Badalyan, Avetisyan, Perello, Passerini, Harutyunyan, Bobokhyan, Aghikyan, Badalyan and Perello2024). This evidence, while limited, raises issues about any assumptions of coexistence of the final stages of the Kura-Araxes and Martkopi in the region.
Discussion: spatio-temporal dynamics in the ‘homeland’
Our study reveals diachronic changes in settlement patterns and funerary landscapes within the Kura-Araxes traditional ‘homeland’. Until recently, the early stage of the Kura-Araxes culture (c. 3600–3350 BC) was postulated based on scattered, isolated and scarcely characterised radiocarbon dates. Our results show that the few sites securely dated to this time frame (Dasht, Jrvezh, Mentesh Tepe, Namgala, Uzun Rama) consist of funerary structures concentrated at lower elevations (500–1000masl) (Figure 5). In the lower Kura, the absence of permanent settlements associated with Kura-Araxes kurgans has been interpreted as evidence for the nomadic character of these communities (Lyonnet Reference Lyonnet2014), and similar early trends of mobility have been suggested for the Araxes region (Avetisyan Reference Avetisyan2022). Possible evidence of habitation around this time, such as that identified at Dzedzvebi (Stöllner et al. Reference Stöllner2023), appears to be linked with use of transhumant routes rather than the establishment of permanent villages. According to our results, stable settlements were only established from c. 3300/3200 BC onwards at higher elevations (>1600masl) in the Araxes (Sos Höyük, Aparan III) and Kura regions (Chobareti), and possibly at lower elevations (900–1000masl) in the middle Araxes region (Kültepe 2, Kul Tepe Jolfa) (Figure 6). This timeframe coincides with the final use or deliberate closure of collective burial mounds in the lowlands (Mentesh Tepe, Uzun Rama, Namgala), suggesting a broader shift in the cultural landscape of the Kura-Araxes phenomenon around this time (Passerini et al. Reference Passerini, Manning, Laneri, Jalilov and Pappalardoin press).
Digital elevation model of the South Caucasus with indication of the main active sites between c. 3500 and 3350 BC and associated Date estimates (figure by A. Passerini).
Digital elevation model of the South Caucasus with indication of the main active sites between c. 3300/3200 and 3000 BC and associated Date estimates (figure by A. Passerini).
The end of the fourth millennium BC saw a wave of short-lived occupations after c. 3100/3000 BC in highland regions up to 2000masl (Tsaghkasar-1, Gegharot 1a, Rabati), and the emergence of settlements in the Kura (Natsargora, Gudabertka, Aradetis Orgora) and Araxes (Nadir Tepesi) lowlands (below 700masl) (Figure 7). While a brief hiatus has been confirmed at Gegharot (c. 2900–2860 BC) and recognised stratigraphically at other sites in the Araxes basin (Badalyan Reference Badalyan2014), our data do not indicate that this was a widespread and systematic occurrence. Given the challenges of high-elevation settlement in the region, the approximate temporal associations with a Grand Solar Minimum, and indications of generally cooler conditions in this interval (c. 5000 cal BP; Hodell et al. Reference Hodell, Kanfoush, Shemesh, Crosta, Charles and Guilderson2001; Grachev et al. Reference Grachev2021), suggest that climatic fluctuations may have been a relevant factor in the shift of settlement location.
Digital elevation model of the South Caucasus with indication of the main active sites between c. 3100 and 2900 BC and associated Date estimates (figure by A. Passerini).
The end of the Kura-Araxes phenomenon remains uncertain, with diverse trends emerging throughout the South Caucasus (Figures 8 & 9). While most of the KA II sites were abandoned before 2600 BC, evidence from Aygavan, Sos Höyük VC/VD, Kültepe 2 and Nadir Tepesi shows that life at these settlements continued with no interruptions, and possibly even overlapped with Martkopi activity at the same site or within the wider Araxes region. Evidence from Kalavan-1 also suggests continuity post-2600 BC.
Digital elevation model of the South Caucasus with indication of the main active sites between c. 2900 and 2700 BC and associated Date estimates (figure by A. Passerini).
Digital elevation model of the South Caucasus with indication of the main active sites between c. 2700 and 2500 BC and associated Date estimates (figure by A. Passerini).
These temporal trends relate to aspects that have been discussed separately in the threefold and twofold periodisation systems (Figure 10). The absence of permanent Kura-Araxes villages dated to the earliest centuries of the KA I phase aligns well with Palumbi’s (Reference Palumbi2008) model of interaction. Palumbi suggested that during the ‘contact phase’ (c. 3500–3300 BC), seasonal transhumant rounds facilitated exchange and the forging of relationships between mobile groups from the South Caucasus and the Upper Euphrates. The adoption of the RBBW was the tangible result of this process. RBBW ceramics are attested in post-3200 BC occupations of the first settlement wave identified by our models (Chobareti, Aparan III, Sos VA). While in the South Caucasus this threshold overlapped with a reconfiguration of the funerary landscape, in eastern Anatolia it corresponded with the destruction of the royal palace at Arslantepe (Vignola et al. Reference Vignola2019). The second settlement wave (c. 3100–2900 BC) was characterised by either the termination of occupations (Chobareti) or establishment of short-lived villages (Gegharot 1a, Tsaghkasar-1), and the beginning of regionalisation (with Shida Kartli being the earliest variant).
Summary of modelled results and existing datasets against the threefold and twofold periodisation systems. Early Bronze Age sites that have yielded evidence of continuing occupation across different chronological groups are indicated in blue (figure by A. Passerini).
The highlighted trends parallel widespread upheavals in the Upper Euphrates already noted by Palumbi (Reference Palumbi2008: 321–22) and the establishment of a short-lived agricultural village at Arslantepe (Vignola et al. Reference Vignola2019). The settlement patterns identified independently by our models broadly correlate with what Badalyan (Reference Badalyan2014) has tentatively identified as the KA Ia, Ib and Ic phases within the ‘Elar-Aragats’ group based on typological considerations. As for post-2900 BC occupations, our results show that most of the Kura-Araxes sites in the ‘homeland’ were abandoned from the late twenty-eighth to the early twenty-seventh century at the latest, with few sites showing Kura-Araxes continuity until c. 2500 BC. Designation of Kura-Araxes attestations after c. 2600 BC as a KA IIb phase has been proposed (Badalyan et al. Reference Badalyan, Avetisyan, Perello, Passerini, Harutyunyan, Bobokhyan, Aghikyan, Badalyan and Perello2024) based on a limited radiocarbon series from Aygavan that demarcates a late ‘Aygavan-Shengavit’ variant, which probably overlapped with Martkopi presence in the Araxes region. More broadly, our models show that not all Kura-Araxes settlements experienced hiatuses after 2900 BC, raising further questions about their wider significance, and bringing into focus the need to differentiate between short-lived and long-lived settlements and lower versus higher elevation sites (and so likely climate-related patterns) in our interpretations.
Our results show that the establishment of Kura-Araxes settlements in distinct elevation zones was time specific. The establishment of settled villages above 1600masl is consistent with Kura-Araxes agricultural practices; the highland character of Kura-Araxes choices in crops and management has already been noted (Hovsepyan Reference Hovsepyan2015). Sagona (Reference Sagona2018: 227) suggests that the expansion into the highlands after c. 3300 BC was a positive response to a climatic optimum (Connor & Kvavadze Reference Connor and Kvavadze2014). Conversely, Hovsepyan (Reference Hovsepyan2015: 79–80) stresses that Kura-Araxes communities maintained low-risk agricultural strategies to account for unpredictable changes, as seen in the deliberate preference of bio-climatically resistant cereals (i.e. wheat and barley) over non-cereal crops otherwise commonly cultivated in South-west Asia (i.e. pulses). This view considers aridification as a plausible driver of Kura-Araxes settlement choices, suggesting that the search for water availability might have motivated movement toward higher elevations. However, direct climate data from the South Caucasus itself are limited (Cromartie et al. Reference Cromartie2020); the closest currently available data come from eastern Anatolia. Stable isotope analyses on Quercus and Juniperus charcoal from Arslantepe suggest a period of instability between 3400 and 2900 BC that saw peaks and dips in water availability (Vignola et al. Reference Vignola2018). Trends toward increasing aridity have also been recorded elsewhere in South-west Asia (Roberts et al. Reference Roberts, Eastwood, Kuzucuoğlu, Fiorentino and Caracuta2011). Climatic information from the later Kura-Araxes period is virtually non-existent. If and to what extent these climatic trends impacted Kura-Araxes communities remains to be ascertained.
Although the available data are still too limited to discern the role and weight of cultural, political and climatic factors, it is worth noting that our chronological patterns align well with the model of cultural resilience recently proposed by Maziar (Reference Maziar, Bernbeck, Eberhardt and Pollock2023). Her model suggests that the Kura-Araxes underwent a major phase of reorganisation at the end of the fourth millennium BC (3100–3000 BC) and that the migration of ‘diaspora’ communities in the third millennium BC represented an attempt to restore resilience. Maziar even underlines the compatibility of her socioeconomic periodisation with the subdivision of the KA I phase proposed by Badalyan (Reference Badalyan2014). Our results may thus confirm that this process of adaptation and reorganisation had already begun before 3000 BC, and that it unfolded through multiple settlement waves even within the ‘homeland’.
Conclusion
The South Caucasus was deeply enmeshed in the sociocultural transformations that shaped South-west Asia, with the Kura-Araxes phenomenon playing a major transformational role between the fourth and third millennia BC. Thus far, sparse and generalised chronometric data have impeded its inclusion in precise and robust interregional comparisons. Our study not only contributes a substantial new corpus of radiocarbon dates but also provides a geographically and temporally nuanced synthesis of the Kura-Araxes phenomenon through contextual Bayesian chronological modelling. The results allow for better chronological correlation among site occupations, and for linking the South Caucasus with broader changes attested in eastern Anatolia and the wider Near East. The resulting chronology offers insights into Kura-Araxes developmental dynamics that would be otherwise buried within the uncertainty of radiocarbon calibration and material homogeneity. It also raises new lines of inquiry that consider climate, environment and social resilience beyond the Kura-Araxes phenomenon, contributing toward a much deeper historical understanding of the Early Bronze Age in this region.
Chronological studies on the Kura-Araxes culture have traditionally assumed that it constituted a 1000-year-long cohesive entity, projecting continuity biases derived from ceramic typologies. Our results, in contrast, suggest a more fragmented process of emergence and cultural aggregation. This observation extends beyond the recognised trend of heterogeneity at around 2900 BC, highlighting finer groupings that correspond with defined radiocarbon-bracketed settlement waves during the KA I phase. Even without considering materials, these temporal divides force us to rethink the concept of ‘homogeneity’ from a purely chronological point of view. Our study also highlights diversity in site durations during the KA II phase. This picture compels us to rethink the concepts of unity and diversity as they apply to the Kura-Araxes phenomenon, and may even lead us to question whether the Kura-Araxes constituted a cohesive sociocultural unit from its inception. Rather than focusing on one-dimensional explanations, our study exploits chrono-typological plurality as an opportunity to explore Kura-Araxes diversity and its meanings. As research progresses in the South Caucasus, achieving precision through independent radiocarbon analysis should continue to be a priority in any chronological endeavour. Radiocarbon dating now offers tools to enhance periodisations as multifaceted perspectives, repurposing inherited taxonomies towards more complex and human-relevant models of the past.
Supplementary material
To view supplementary material for this article, please visit https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2025.10258
Acknowledgements
This study is the result of the first author’s doctoral dissertation project, conceived and completed at Cornell University. AP completed the manuscript while holding a fellowship at the Einstein Center Chronoi in Berlin. We wish to thank Brita Lorenzen (University of Georgia) and Inga Martkoplishvili (Georgian National Museum) for the identification of wood charcoal. We thank Marine Chkadua (Georgian National Museum) for assisting in the selection and identification of human remains from Namgala and Chobareti. Many thanks go to John Southon (University of California, Irvine) for mentoring AP in the preparation and dating of radiocarbon samples at the W.M. Keck Carbon Cycle AMS Facility.
Funding statement
This research was supported by a National Science Foundation Archaeology Program Doctoral Dissertation Research Improvement Award (#BCS-2106251) held by AP. Open Access Funding was provided by Freie Universität Berlin.
Author contributions: CRediT Taxonomy
Annapaola Passerini: Conceptualization-Lead, Data curation-Lead, Formal analysis-Lead, Funding acquisition-Lead, Investigation-Lead, Methodology-Lead, Visualization-Lead, Writing - original draft-Lead, Writing - review & editing-Lead. Sturt Manning: Conceptualization-Supporting, Formal analysis-Supporting, Methodology-Supporting, Writing - review & editing-Supporting. Mikheil Abramishvili: Resources-Equal. Levon Aghikyan: Resources-Equal. Pavel Avetisyan: Resources-Equal. Ruben Badalyan: Resources-Equal, Writing - review & editing-Supporting. Roman Hovsepyan: Resources-Equal. Sona Hovsepyan: Resources-Equal. Kakha Kakhiani: Resources-Equal. Giorgi Mindiashvili: Resources-Equal.
Open access
