Early Neolithic wine of Georgia in the South Caucasus

Abstract

Chemical analyses of ancient organic compounds absorbed into the pottery fabrics from sites in Georgia in the South Caucasus region, dating to the early Neolithic period (ca. 6,000-5,000 BC), provide the earliest biomolecular archaeological evidence for grape wine and viniculture from the Near East, at ca. 6,000-5,800 BC. The chemical findings are corroborated by climatic and environmental reconstruction, together with archaeobotanical evidence, including grape pollen, starch, and epidermal remains associated with a jar of similar type and date. The very large-capacity jars, some of the earliest pottery made in the Near East, probably served as combination fermentation, aging, and serving vessels. They are the most numerous pottery type at many sites comprising the so-called "Shulaveri-Shomutepe Culture" of the Neolithic period, which extends into western Azerbaijan and northern Armenia. The discovery of early sixth millennium BC grape wine in this region is crucial to the later history of wine in Europe and the rest of the world.

Keywords: Georgia; Near East; Neolithic; viticulture; wine.

Fig. 1.

Map of Shulaveri-Shomutepe Culture sites and other sites mentioned in the text (A) and the early Neolithic settlements of Shulaveris Gora (B) and Gadachrili Gora (C) showing the locations of the analyzed jar sherd samples that were positive for tartaric acid/tartrate. Site names: Arukhlo (1), Shulaveris Gora (2), Gadachrili Gora (3), Dangreuli Gora (4), Imeris Gora (5), Khramis Didi-Gora (6), Shomutepe (7), Haci Elamxali Tepe (8), Göytepe (9), Mentesh Tepe (10), Chokh (11), Aratashen (12), Aknashen (13), Masis Blur (14), Areni-1 (15), Kül Tepe (16), Hajji Firuz Tepe (17), Nevali Çori (18), Göbekli Tepe (19), Gudau River (20), Pichori (21), and Anaklia (22). GRAPE, Gadachrili Gora Regional Archaeological Project Expedition; NMG, National Museum of Georgia; R, river. Red lines indicate excavated areas and squares.

Fig. 2.

(A) Representative early Neolithic jar from Khramis Didi-Gora (field no. XXI-60, building no. 63; depth, −5.45 to −6.25 m). (B) Jar base SG-16a, interior and cross-section. (C) Jar base SG-782, exterior. Note the textile impression on the base. (D) Jar base GG-IV-50, interior. (Photographs by Mindia Jalabadze and courtesy of the National Museum of Georgia.)

Fig. 3.

Extracted ion chromatograms (±0.005-Da window) for 5 μM standard solutions (A), using the theoretical mass of deprotonated tartaric, malic, succinic, and citric acid, compared with jar sherd sample GG-IV-50 (B). All four organic acids were positively detected and quantified in this sample. Intens, intensity.

Fig. 4.

Organic acid distribution for the LC-MS-MS–analyzed ancient jar base samples that were positive for tartaric acid/tartrate at Gadachrili Gora, compared with their associated soil samples. Concentrations are reported as nanograms of organic acid per milligram of extracted residue from sherd/soil material, and errors as the SD of two measurements. Note that the GG-II-9 samples (Table 1) are omitted from this graphical representation, because their data were reported as nanograms of organic acid per gram of extracted sherd/soil material.

Fig. 5.

Organic acid distribution for the LC-MS-MS–analyzed ancient jar base samples that were positive for tartaric acid/tartrate at Shulaveris Gora, compared with their associated soil samples. Concentrations are reported as nanograms of organic acid per milligram of extracted residue from sherd/soil material, and errors as the SD of two measurements.