Hubbry Logo
Trialetian MesolithicTrialetian MesolithicMain
Open search
Trialetian Mesolithic
Community hub
Trialetian Mesolithic
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Trialetian Mesolithic
Trialetian Mesolithic
Trialetian Mesolithic
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Trialetian culture
PeriodMesolithic
Datesc. 16/13000 – c. 8000 BP
Major sitesTrialeti, Shanidar Cave, Huto and Kamarband Caves, Kotias Klde, Chokh
Preceded byBaradostian culture
Followed byShulaveri-Shomu culture
The Mesolithic
↑ Upper Paleolithic
Europe
Epipalaeolithic Near East
Caucasus
Zagros
↓ Neolithic

Trialetian is the name for an Upper Paleolithic-Epipaleolithic stone tool industry from the South Caucasus.[1] It is tentatively dated to the period between 16,000 / 13,000 BP and 8,000 BP.[2]

Archaeology

[edit]

The name of the archaeological culture derives from sites in the district of Trialeti in south Georgian Khrami river basin. These sites include Barmaksyzkaya and Edzani-Zurtaketi.[3] In Edzani, an Upper Paleolithic site, a significant percentage of the artifacts are made of obsidian.[4]

The Caucasian-Anatolian area of Trialetian culture was adjacent to the Iraqi-Iranian Zarzian culture to the east and south as well as the Levantine Natufian to the southwest.[5] Alan H. Simmons describes the culture as "very poorly documented".[6] In contrast, recent excavations in the Valley of Qvirila river, to the north of the Trialetian region, display a Mesolithic culture.[citation needed] The subsistence of these groups were based on hunting Capra caucasica, wild boar and brown bear.[7]

Distribution of the Trialetian according to Kozłowski and Kaczanowska (2004) [8]

Trialetian sites

[edit]

Caucasus and Transcaucasia:

Eastern Anatolia:

Trialetian influences can also be found in:

Southeast of the Caspian Sea:

The belonging of these Caspian Mesolithic sites to the Trialetian has been questioned.[11]

Relation with the Caspian Mesolithic

[edit]

Differences have been found[11] between the Trialetian and the Caspian Mesolithic of the southeastern part of the Caspian Sea (represented by sites like Komishan, Hotu, Kamarband and Ali Tepe), even though the Caspian Mesolithic had previously been attributed to Trialetian by Kozłowski (1994, 1996 and 1999), Kozłowski and Aurenche 2005 and Peregrine and Ember 2002. These differences have been established through a detailed study of the site of Komishan and are driven by the underlying differences at the level of cultural ecology.

While Trialetian industry developed in steppe riparian and mountain ecozones, as for example in the Khrami river and the mountainous site of Chokh respectively, the Caspian Mesolithic took place in a transitional ecotone between the sea (Caspian Sea), plain and mountains (Alborz mountain range). The Caspian Mesolithic hunter-gatherers were adapted to the exploitation of marine resources and had access to high quality raw material, whereas in the Trialetian sites as Chokh and Trialeti there is imported raw material from distances of 100 km.

Relation with Kmlo-2

[edit]

Kmlo-2 is a rock shelter situated on the west slope of the Kasakh River valley,[12] on the Aragats massif, in Armenia. This site seems to present three different phases of occupation (11-10k cal BC, 9-8k cal BC and 6-5k cal BC).[12][13][14] The lithic industry of the three phases show similarities such as the predominance of microliths, small cores and obsidian as raw material.[12][14] The backed an scalene bladelets are the dominant type of microlith; these tools show similarities with those of the Late Upper Paleolithic of Kalavan-1 and the Mesolithic layer B of the Kotias Klde.[14] Cultural affinities of the Kmlo-2 lithic industry with the Epipaleolithic and Aceramic Neolithic sites in Taurus-Zagros mountains have also been noted.[15]

Let us quote a few words from Gasparyan[14] about the industry found in Apnagyugh-8 (Kmlo-2) cave that express these similarities:

Let us conclude that Apnagyugh-8 industry is closer to the production complexes with traditions of Mesolithic and/or Upper Paleolithic periods. But it’s difficult to show any culture or archaeological source in Armenia today, which belongs to these periods, preceding Apnagyugh-8 and could have been its origin or prototype. The only site that emerged before Apnagyugh-8 is Kalavan-1, an Upper Paleolithic site dating to 16th–14th millennia B.C., where microliths of geometrical forms are fully absent. Though Apnagyugh-8 industry shows some similarities with Zarzian and Trialeti cultures, analytic studies for proving this comparison are still in the process.

Layer III of Kmlo-2 contained the so-called “Kmlo tools”.[16] Kmlo tools are characterized by "continuous and parallel retouch by pressure flaking of one or both lateral edges".[12] Similar tools have been found, as the associated to the Paluri-Nagutny culture in Georgia),[12] the so-called "Çayönü tools” (Çayönü, Cafer Höyük, Shimshara),[12][13] found in Neolithic sites from the 8th to 7th millennia BC in eastern Anatolia and northern Mesopotamia, and some found in the layer A2 of the Kotias Klde cave.[16] It has been suggested that the Kmlo tools are distinctive features of a culture established circa 9-8k cal BC on the highlands of western Armenia and continued at least until the 6th-5th millennia calBC.[13] A local development of the Kmlo tools has also been hypothesized.[13]

Final phase

[edit]

Little is known about the end of the Trialetian. 6k BC has been proposed as the time on which the decline phase took place.[9] From this date are the first evidence of the Jeitunian, an industry that has probably evolved from the Trialetian. Also from this date are the first pieces of evidence of Neolithic materials in the Belt cave.

In the southwest corner of the Trialetian region it has been proposed[9] that this culture evolved towards a local version of the PPNB around 7k BC, in sites as Cafer Höyük.

Kozłowski suggests that the Trialetian does not seem to have continuation in the Neolithic of Georgia (as for example in Paluri and Kobuleti). Although in the 5k BC certain microliths similar to those of the Trialetian reappear in Shulaveris Gora (see Shulaveri-Shomu) and Irmis Gora.

Fertile Crescent circa 7500 BC, with main sites of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic period. In this map we can see some sites that have been associated with the Trialetian culture, such as Hallan Çemi and Nevali Çori.

Genetics

[edit]

The genome of a Mesolithic hunter-gatherer individual found at the layer A2 of the Kotias Klde rock shelter in Georgia (labeled KK1), dating from 9,700 BP, has been analysed. This individual forms a genetic cluster with another hunter-gatherer from the Satsurblia Cave, the so-called Caucasian Hunter-Gatherer (CHG) cluster.[17] KK1 belongs to the Y-chromosome haplogroup J2a and mitochondrial haplogroup H13c[17] (an independent analysis[18] has assigned him J2a1b-Y12379*).

Although the belonging of the Caspian Mesolithic to the Trialetian has been questioned,[11] genetic similarities have been found between an Mesolithic hunther-gatherer from the Hotu cave (labeled Iran_HotuIIIb) dating from 9,100-8,600 BCE and the CHG from Kotias Klde. The Iran_HotuIIIb individual belongs to the Y-chromosome haplogroup J (xJ2a1b3, J2b2a1a1)[19] (an independent analysis[20] yields J2a-CTS1085(xCTS11251,PF5073) -probably J2a2-). Then, both KK1 and Iran_HotuIIIb individuals share a paternal ancestor that lived approximately 18.7k years ago (according to the estimates of yfull [21]). At the autosomal level it falls in the cluster of the CHG's and the Iranian Neolithic Farmers.[22]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Literature

[edit]
  • Stefan Karol Kozłowski: The Trialetian “Mesolithic” industry of the Caucasus, Transcaspia, Eastern Anatolia, and the Iranian Plateau. In: Stefan Karol Kozłowski, Hans Georg Gebel (ed.): Neolithic chipped stone industries of the Fertile Crescent, and their contemporaries in adjacent regions., Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence and Environment 3, Berlin 1996, pg. 161–170.
  • Sagona, A. (2017). The Archaeology of the Caucasus: From Earliest Settlements to the Iron Age (Cambridge World Archaeology). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781139061254
  • Olivier Aurenche, Philippe Galet, Emmanuelle Régagnon-Caroline, Jacques Évin: Proto-Neolithic and Neolithic Cultures in the Middle East – the Birth of Agriculture, Livestock Raising, and Ceramics: A Calibrated 14C Chronology 12, 500-5500 cal BC, in: Near East Chronology: Archaeology and Environment. Radiocarbon 43,3 (2001) 1191–1202. (online Archived 2016-03-04 at the Wayback Machine, PDF)
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Trialetian Mesolithic

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The Trialetian Mesolithic is a widespread Epipaleolithic to lithic industry in the , representing a key phase in the region's post-Paleolithic development and evolving through early, middle, and late chronological stages. Named after the Trialeti region in Georgia where initial discoveries were made, it encompasses a range of technologies associated with adaptations during a period of climatic warming at the end of the Pleistocene. Characteristic features of the Trialetian include the production of microliths, backed blades, end-scrapers, and geometric pieces, often utilizing pressure flaking and leveraging local sources for tool manufacture due to the abundance of volcanic materials in Transcaucasia. Sites such as Ali Tepe in northern (ca. 10,500–8,870 BC) and Hallan Çemi in southeastern (ca. 8600/8500 BC) provide early evidence of these technologies, with assemblages showing a shift toward more refined bladelet production and composite tools suited for and . The industry extends beyond the core area to include Transcaucasia, eastern , and parts of the , serving as an umbrella term for related cultural expressions that bridge the and the onset of innovations. Overall chronology places it between approximately 13,000 and 8,000 , though dating varies by sub-region and is refined through radiocarbon analysis at key locales. Recent research distinguishes Trialetian assemblages from contemporaneous Caspian Mesolithic industries, such as those at Komishan in northern , based on differences in use, retouch techniques, and AMS dates that highlight regional variability.

Overview and Chronology

Defining Characteristics

The Trialetian Mesolithic represents an Upper Paleolithic-Epipaleolithic industry in the , distinguished by its emphasis on microlithic technologies, including pressure-flaked blades and inserts such as elongated rhomboidal forms, crescents, segments, and lunates, often crafted from and other fine-grained materials. These tools, including the characteristic Kmlo type with continuous parallel retouch along one or both edges, reflect advanced pressure flaking techniques adapted for composite hunting implements like arrows and spears. sourcing from regional deposits, such as those in and Georgia, underscores the mobility and exchange networks of these groups, with assemblages also featuring backed bladelets, asymmetric triangles, burins, and tanged arrowheads more frequently than scrapers. This industry adapted to diverse mountainous and environments across the , where groups exploited varied ecozones. Geographically, the core of the Trialetian lies in the Trialeti Mountains of Georgia, particularly around the Khrami River basin, from which it extended into adjacent areas of eastern , the southeast Caspian region, and parts of the . However, the culture's overall documentation remains limited, leading archaeologists like Alan H. Simmons to describe it as "very poorly documented," which has fueled debates about its coherence as a unified industry rather than a loose collection of local variants. Despite these challenges, the consistent microlithic focus and use affirm its distinct role in the regional Epipaleolithic transition.

Temporal Framework

The Trialetian Mesolithic encompasses a broad temporal span from approximately 16,000 to 8,000 (roughly 14,000–6,000 BCE), bridging the transition from the Late to the Epipaleolithic period in the , Transcaucasia, and adjacent regions including eastern and the .[](Kozłowski 1996) It evolved through early, middle, and late chronological stages. This chronology positions it as a successor to the , which influenced the region from the during the , while it coexisted temporally with the in the Zagros and the in the .[](Kozłowski 1996) The culture's later phases give way to early developments, notably the Shulaveri-Shomu culture around 6,000 BCE, marking a shift toward sedentary farming communities in the southern .[](Kozłowski 1996; Nishiaki et al. 2015) Internally, the Trialetian exhibits distinct phases defined by technological shifts in lithic production. The initial phase, emerging around 13,000 , features bladelet-based tools indicative of continuity from traditions, with assemblages showing elongated blades and early geometric forms.[](Kozłowski 1996) By approximately 10,000 , microliths become dominant, reflecting adaptations to post-glacial environments and increased mobility, as seen in backed and trapeze forms that briefly reference defining tool types like microliths.[](Kozłowski 1996) The culture experiences a gradual decline after 8,000 , with assemblages persisting in isolated pockets before assimilation into patterns.[](Kozłowski 1996) Establishing a precise chronology remains challenging due to the scarcity of radiocarbon dates, many of which derive from disturbed contexts or limited organic remains in cave and open-air sites. Key calibrated dates, such as those from Kotias Klde cave in western Georgia (ca. 12,400–10,380 cal BP for the Mesolithic layer), provide anchors for the middle to late phases but highlight gaps in early and terminal sequences.[](Bar-Oz et al. 2007) These dates underscore the need for further excavation and dating to refine the framework, particularly in distinguishing regional variations across the Caucasus and adjacent highlands.[](Bar-Oz et al. 2007)

Archaeological Evidence

Key Sites and Excavations

The Trialetian Mesolithic is best defined from core sites in the Republic of Georgia, particularly in the Trialeti mountains, which give the culture its name. Assemblages from the region were excavated during Soviet-era investigations in the Khrami River valley and surrounding highlands, revealing open-air and rockshelter occupations with multi-layered deposits. These early investigations, led by Georgian archaeologists under Soviet auspices, documented stratigraphic sequences showing continuity from late layers, often associated with Baradostian-like industries, to distinct Trialetian horizons capped by later strata. Further evidence of Trialetian technologies appears at sites like Ali Tepe in northern Iran (ca. 10,500–8,870 BC) and Hallan Çemi in southeastern Turkey (ca. 8600/8500 BC), with assemblages indicating refined bladelet production. A key Georgian site is the Kotias Klde rock shelter, located in the limestone plateau south of the Kvirila River in western Georgia. Excavations beginning in the early 2000s, with intensive work in the 2010s by a Georgian-British team, uncovered a Mesolithic layer (B) dated to approximately 12,400–10,380 cal BP, featuring intact hearths and stratified deposits beneath a Neolithic layer (A2). This layer also yielded human remains, highlighting repeated occupations in a karstic cave environment. Another significant site is Chokh, an open-air settlement in the central Daghestan highlands of the eastern Caucasus (Russian Federation), excavated during the 1960s–1970s by Soviet teams. The site's Mesolithic horizon, part of a multi-phase sequence, demonstrates mountain ecozone adaptations and overlies Paleolithic layers while underlying Neolithic ones. Extensions of Trialetian affiliations appear in , notably at the Kmlo-2 (also known as Apnagyugh-8) on the western slope of the Kasakh River valley in the Aragats massif. Franco-Armenian excavations since the early revealed five layers spanning 11,000–5,000 cal BC, with occupations in a terminal Pleistocene to early context, showing stratigraphic continuity from pre- deposits. These layers, part of a high-altitude plateau at 1,700 m, indicate prolonged use amid regional transitions. In , potential extensions occur at the Huto (Hotu) and Kamarband (Belt) Caves along the southeastern Caspian coast near Behshahr, excavated in the late 1940s–1950s by American archaeologist Carleton Coon. These adjacent sites yielded layers with multi-phase stratigraphy, including early horizons above (Baradostian-influenced) deposits and below later ones, though their precise Trialetian attribution remains debated due to regional lithic variations. Similarly, in the of features debated affiliations in its upper layers (Layer B, proto-Neolithic/), excavated in the 1950s–1960s, with sequences overlying classic Baradostian strata but showing stratigraphic discontinuities from earlier occupations. Across these sites, excavations have faced challenges such as , which has disturbed surface scatters in the Trialeti highlands, and poor organic preservation in arid or high-altitude contexts, limiting faunal and paleoenvironmental data recovery. Overall, the multi-layer deposits underscore Trialetian continuity from predecessors like the Baradostian, often positioned stratigraphically above them and below horizons marking cultural transitions.

Material Culture and Artifacts

The Trialetian Mesolithic lithic technology is distinguished by its microlithic focus, emphasizing the production of small, geometrically shaped tools through precise retouch techniques. Key among these are backed bladelets, slender asymmetric triangles, lunates, crescents, and segments, often derived from narrow blades or bladelets. These microliths were typically shaped using pressure flaking, a method that allowed for fine, controlled removal of material to create sharp edges suitable for composite tools. Obsidian was a predominant raw material, comprising a significant portion of artifacts at sites like Edzani in Georgia, where it was procured from nearby sources such as the Edzani quarry and transported as nodules or preformed blanks. Tool kits in the Trialetian tradition included specialized hunting implements, such as tanged arrowheads and spear points, often hafted into projectiles, alongside domestic tools like end-scrapers for hide and burins for or grooving. Burins outnumbered scrapers in many assemblages from Georgian and Dagestani sites, reflecting an emphasis on perforating and incising activities. Local flint was also utilized for coarser tools, but obsidian's prevalence underscores long-distance procurement networks, with up to 60% of lithics at certain sites deriving from non-local volcanic sources. Evidence of production organization points to on-site knapping activities, as indicated by abundant scatters, including cores, flakes, and blade remnants, suggesting that core preparation and tool manufacture occurred directly at habitation areas rather than specialized workshops. and artifacts are rare, likely due to poor organic preservation in the region's acidic soils and environments, limiting insights into non-lithic tool use. Non-lithic remains include hearths with associated ash and , pointing to controlled use in tool maintenance or heating, while faunal bones often bear cut marks and fractures consistent with lithic processing. However, no definitive evidence of symbolic art, such as engravings or portable figurines, has been documented, possibly owing to incomplete excavations or preservation biases at known sites.

Subsistence Patterns

The Trialetian Mesolithic groups in the maintained a classic economy, primarily reliant on for subsistence. Faunal assemblages from key sites such as Kotias Klde reveal a focus on large ungulates and carnivores, including (Sus scrofa) comprising 51% of identifiable remains, (Cervus elaphus) at 10%, (Capreolus capreolus) at 10%, and (Ursus arctos) prominently represented with prime-age individuals indicating targeted of dangerous prey. , including the Caucasian tur (Capra caucasica), was also frequently exploited, as evidenced by remains in regional deposits, alongside supplementary of small mammals and birds. Evidence from cave and rockshelter occupations points to seasonal mobility patterns, with between highland and lowland zones to track prey migrations. At Kotias Klde, the predominance of summer and early fall kill profiles for boar and suggests temporary camps optimized for exploiting seasonal abundances in the forested foothills, reflecting adaptive strategies to the varied Caucasian terrain. Resource exploitation emphasized animal procurement over intensive plant gathering, with limited evidence for plant processing tools such as grindstones, which are rare in Trialetian assemblages and indicate minimal reliance on gathered . No domesticated species appear in these contexts, underscoring a purely wild-resource-based economy until the transition. This subsistence system unfolded against the backdrop of post-Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) warming, beginning around 13,000 , which fostered diverse ecosystems across the foothills through retreat and climatic amelioration. These environmental shifts, including expanded forests and grasslands from approximately 20,900–11,700 cal , enhanced prey availability and supported the mobility of Trialetian groups, though periodic fluctuations in influenced distributions.

Cultural Interactions

Relation to Caspian Mesolithic

The Trialetian Mesolithic, primarily adapted to mountain-steppe environments in the and adjacent regions, emphasized terrestrial with microlithic tools suited for big game, in contrast to the Caspian Mesolithic's reliance on coastal resources such as seals along the southeastern shores of the . Sites like Hotu Cave exemplify this coastal orientation, where faunal remains indicate exploitation of marine mammals, differing from the Trialetian's focus on inland fauna in riparian and upland zones. This ecological divergence underscores distinct subsistence strategies, with Trialetian assemblages featuring backed microliths for composite weapons targeted at animals, while Caspian industries show adaptations to littoral environments without equivalent evidence of such specialized terrestrial gear. Raw material preferences further highlight these differences: Trialetian toolkits predominantly utilized sourced from volcanic regions, enabling the production of fine bladelets and geometric microliths, whereas Caspian Mesolithic sites like Komishan relied on local flint and chert from outcrops. Tool form overlaps are limited; for instance, Caspian assemblages at Komishan (dated 11,771–10,628 cal. BC) include end scrapers, borers, and backed bladelets but lack the abundant segments and trapezes characteristic of Trialetian sites. These contrasts in reflect specialized responses to local environments rather than shared traditions. Recent research, including the 2016 study of Komishan Cave, argues for the separation of these as distinct industries despite their geographic proximity in the southeast Caspian region, attributing the divide to fundamental differences in subsistence and economies. Earlier attributions of Caspian sites to the Trialetian umbrella have been challenged on these grounds, emphasizing independent developments. Potential interactions remain speculative, with shared pressure bladelet techniques possibly tracing to broader migrations in the region, though no direct evidence of exchange—such as in Caspian contexts—has been identified.

Connections to Kmlo-2 and Regional Cultures

The Kmlo-2 rock shelter, located on the western slope of the Kasakh River valley in northwest at an elevation of approximately 1,700 meters, represents a key Early site spanning from around 11,000 to 5,000 cal BC, with layers divided into Epipaleolithic (12th–10th millennia BC), / (10th–8th millennia BC), and later phases. Excavations reveal a bladelet-oriented lithic industry dominated by microliths, including backed bladelets, lunates, trapeze-rectangles, and scalene triangles produced via microburin techniques, alongside distinctive "Kmlo tools" characterized by continuous parallel retouch on blanks. These assemblages exhibit continuity with Trialetian bladelet technologies through shared emphasis on geometric microliths and pressure flaking, but incorporate local variations in backing styles and retouch, suggesting adaptation within the South Caucasian framework. Early phases of the Trialetian Mesolithic show influences from the of the , evident in similar geometric forms and production methods that indicate technological diffusion eastward into the around the . Parallels with the Levantine appear in the widespread use of lunate microliths and backed elements, pointing to potential exchanges via Anatolian routes during the late Epipaleolithic transition to the . Such ties highlight the Trialetian's position at the intersection of Southwest Asian traditions, with Kmlo-2 exemplifying localized expressions of these broader patterns. Evidence of interactions across the South Caucasus includes shared obsidian procurement from sources like those in Armenia's Gutanshan and Georgia's Chikiani, where chemical analyses of artifacts from Trialetian and Kmlo-2 contexts reveal distribution networks extending over 200 kilometers, facilitating mobility among hunter-gatherer groups from the 10th millennium BC onward. Faunal remains at Kmlo-2, primarily from hunted bovids and equids, align with Trialetian site patterns of seasonal exploitation of montane herbivores, underscoring interconnected subsistence strategies and seasonal movements through highland corridors. Debates persist on whether Kmlo-2 constitutes a regional variant of the Trialetian or a distinct entity, fueled by stratigraphic overlaps at sites like Chokh in the eastern , where late Trialetian layers (ca. 9th–8th millennia BC) intermix with similar microlithic inventories and tools, suggesting either cultural continuity or parallel developments in the post-Epipaleolithic landscape.

Transition to Neolithic

Final Phase Developments

The final phase of the Trialetian , spanning approximately 8,000–6,000 , is marked by subtle shifts in , reflecting adaptations to changing environmental conditions. At Belt Cave in northern , Mesolithic layers (levels 11–17) reveal a continuation of blade-based industries with flint tools, including potential ic elements typical of the broader Trialetian tradition, though specific increases in microlith diversity or coarser flake production are not well-documented in these strata. These layers, dated to around 8,545 ± 510 in upper levels, show a mix of refined tools alongside occasional older styles, possibly indicating resource constraints or cultural continuity amid declining raw material quality. Environmental pressures, particularly linked to the 8.2 ka BP cooling event (ca. 6,200 BC), exacerbated these trends by reducing resource availability and altering mobility patterns around the Caspian region. This abrupt dry phase, lasting 160–600 years, prompted migrations to more stable areas and increased reliance on , contributing to cultural stress as prey populations declined in semi-arid zones of north central . The terminal Mesolithic remains incompletely documented, with few excavated late-phase sites highlighting significant research gaps in understanding the Trialetian's decline. Recent studies (as of 2025) on northeastern Iranian sites, such as Hotu Cave, provide new evidence of Pottery Neolithic sequences around 7000–6000 BC, suggesting local pathways for the adoption of domestication bridging foraging traditions. Limited evidence from key locales like Belt Cave's upper layers (ca. 6,000 BC) underscores the need for further stratigraphic and paleoenvironmental studies to clarify internal dynamics before influences emerged. The Shulaveri-Shomu culture, emerging around 6000 BC in southeastern Georgia and adjacent areas, marks a key precursor in the , featuring the introduction of , mud-brick architecture, and early economies that built upon the seasonal mobility and strategies of preceding groups. Archaeological evidence suggests a transitional phase involving indigenous communities, potentially bridging the Trialetian with these settled developments through shared low-level resource intensification. Regional transitional sites highlight gradual shifts toward , with the Jeitunian culture in southern (c. 6200–5200 BC) demonstrating early cereal cultivation and herding along the Kopet Dag piedmont, likely influenced by interactions via routes that connected Central Asian and Caucasian networks. Similarly, Neolithic elements, including rectangular buildings and domesticated , appear in southwestern sites around 6000 BC, primarily diffused from northern and the Zagros via eastern Anatolian corridors, with admixture of local groups. Limited evidence suggests possible continuity in aspects of into early toolkits, though microlithic elements similar to Trialetian assemblages are minimal at sites like Shulaveris Gora. This persistence may reflect the role of Trialetian-descended groups in disseminating (CHG) ancestry, which forms a substantial component (up to 50–60%) in subsequent populations across the region and beyond. However, gaps in the evidence underscore abrupt transitions, as seen at Belt and Hotu Caves on the southern Caspian coast, where Mesolithic layers (c. 9000–7000 BC) yield wild game-dominated faunas, giving way to Neolithic levels (c. 7000 BC) with managed caprines and unclear pathways for agriculture's introduction, possibly involving external migrations or rapid local adoption.

Genetic Insights

Ancient DNA Findings

Ancient DNA analysis of Trialetian Mesolithic human remains has provided key insights into the genetic profiles of Caucasus Hunter-Gatherers (CHG). The individual KK1, recovered from Kotias Klde cave in western Georgia and radiocarbon dated to approximately 9,700 , yielded a full sequence revealing Y-chromosome haplogroup J2a and mitochondrial DNA haplogroup H13c. This sequencing demonstrated the distinct genetic makeup of CHG, with KK1 exhibiting high levels of heterozygosity indicative of substantial ancestral diversity within the population. Additional genetic data comes from Hotu Cave in northern , where a male individual dated to 9,100–8,600 BCE was analyzed, showing membership in Y-chromosome haplogroup J. Phylogenetic analysis indicated that this Hotu individual and KK1 shared a common paternal ancestor approximately 18,700 years ago, underscoring deep continuity in J-lineage presence across the region during the late to transition. Genetic sampling from Trialetian contexts remains limited, with only a handful of individuals—primarily from the 2015 study in —analyzed to date, establishing the foundational CHG genetic baseline. These analyses relied on of associated bones and teeth for chronological placement, and the resulting genomes showed no close relatedness to contemporaneous European hunter-gatherers, highlighting regional genetic differentiation.

Population and Ancestry Affiliations

The Trialetian Mesolithic populations of the form the core of the Caucasian Hunter-Gatherer (CHG) genetic cluster, as evidenced by from individuals at (dated ~13,300 years ago) and Kotias Kide Cave (dated ~9,700 years ago), which represent a distinct ancient lineage that diverged from Western Hunter-Gatherers (WHG) around 45,000 years ago and from ancestors of farmers around 25,000 years ago. This CHG ancestry is genetically differentiated from Eastern Hunter-Gatherers (EHG), showing no excess sharing with (ANE) sources like the Mal'ta boy, and instead reflects a unique combination of deep West Eurasian roots with limited admixture from other groups. CHG-related ancestry contributed substantially to later populations, including approximately 43% to the Yamnaya steppe herders of the early Bronze Age, facilitating migrations into Europe and Central Asia around 5,000 years ago via intermediaries like the Maikop culture. In modern South Caucasian groups, such as Georgians, CHG forms a major ancestry component, with genetic models indicating continuity and proportions ranging from 30% in subgroups like Mingrelians to higher levels in broader Kartvelian-speaking populations, underscoring long-term persistence in the region. Trialetian populations appear to have remained largely isolated genetically until the Neolithic transition, as indicated by elevated runs of homozygosity suggesting small, endogamous groups in the post-Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) period. The Y-chromosome haplogroup J, prevalent in Trialetian samples (J in Satsurblia and J2a in Kotias), links these populations to broader Near Eastern expansions while positioning the as a post-LGM genetic refugium, where CHG lineages persisted amid climatic disruptions that affected northern . This refugial role highlights Trialetian groups as a stable source for subsequent dispersals, contrasting with more dynamic in western and eastern . Current understanding is limited by small sample sizes, with only a handful of Trialetian-associated genomes sequenced to date, leading to outdated specifics on their affinities despite broader 2023 analyses revealing isolation-by-distance patterns extending from to Siberian groups. These recent studies emphasize regional clines but underscore the need for additional South Caucasian data to refine CHG interpretations.

References

  1. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/archaeology-of-the-caucasus/trailblazers-the-palaeolithic-and-mesolithic-foundations/98A276B7D6AA594A6F4EA6729CF491EE
  2. https://www.historyfiles.co.uk/KingListsEurope/CulturesTrialetian.htm
  3. https://journals.openedition.org/paleorient/589
  4. https://prehistorypodcast.com/2022/08/01/episode-25-transcaucasia-goes-neolithic/
  5. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/archaeology-of-the-caucasus/references/F05F0F82FB8C9674EC2EDB69AD1492BA
  6. https://www.persee.fr/doc/paleo_0153-9345_2016_num_42_1_5694
  7. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44649537
  8. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.3764/aja.119.3.0279
  9. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309770522_A_separation_Caspian_Mesolithic_vs_Trialetian_lithic_industry_A_research_on_the_excavated_site_of_Komishan_southeast_of_the_Caspian_Sea_Iran
  10. http://old.archaeology.nsc.ru/en/publish/journal/doc/2022/501.pdf
  11. https://www.persee.fr/doc/paleo_0153-9345_2007_num_33_2_5220
  12. https://www.academia.edu/30484696/Mesolithic_Hunters_at_Kotias_Klde_Western_Georgia_Preliminary_Results
  13. https://resolve.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/615D94622D22F0F65144F5D0CD17F7CD/9781009520232c4_33-50.pdf/modern_human_entry_into_the_caucasus.pdf
  14. https://missioncaucase.hypotheses.org/files/2016/03/Arimura2012_Kmlo_7ICAANE.pdf
  15. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335066219_The_Mesolithic-Neolithic_interface_in_the_Southern_Caucasus_2016-2017_excavations_at_Damjili_Cave_West_Azerbaijan
  16. https://www.sid.ir/fileserver/jf/859-355532-x-1536670.pdf
  17. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41496811
  18. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379124005638
  19. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/antiquity/article/epipalaeolithicneolithic-transition-in-northeastern-iran-zooarchaeological-evidence-from-the-southern-shores-of-the-caspian-sea/02E3FE3357BAD763E4A91835CC8738B8
  20. https://www.academia.edu/2071584/Abstract_Trialetian_Lithic_Indusrty_To_Be_or_Not_To_Be
  21. https://www.academia.edu/1374487/Kmlo_2_early_Holocene_site_in_Armenia
  22. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/288832986_Archaeology_of_Armenia_in_Regional_Context_Achievements_and_Perspectives
  23. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284382981_A_preliminary_description_of_the_lithic_industry_from_Demirkoy_Hoyuk
  24. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/arcm.12007
  25. http://jnas.nbuv.gov.ua/j-pdf/arhl_2022_2_4.pdf
  26. https://hal.science/hal-03001757/file/iran.pdf
  27. https://repository.upenn.edu/bitstreams/2a2b740f-c4c8-4626-a83d-b9cfa5514102/download
  28. https://ijas.usb.ac.ir/article_6792_784ead16e21b4f73d2c2146ac75dc4e9.pdf
  29. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0033589406000949
  30. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12151361/
  31. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269835541_Jeitun_and_the_transition_to_agriculture_in_Central_Asia
  32. https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms9912
  33. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5003663/
  34. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10665041/
  35. https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-023-05131-3
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.