1. Systematisation of the existing data (catalogue of the archaeological sites and findings) Comprehensive data from Georgia is available and includes published, as well as unpublished, sites. For findings from Azerbaijan, Armenia and Turkey existing publications have been used.
2. Classification of the archaeological sites Trialeti Culture is represented by two kinds of archaeological sites: graves and settlements. Graves are divided in two groups: burial mound graves and flat graves. Burial mound graves are divided into five types according to their characteristics. The following questions have been raised: “Which burial type is related to which topographical environment?”, and “Is there any link between burial type and grave goods?” Study has shown that there is a connection between topography and burial type. Burial mounds with below ground burial chambers are observed only on the high mountain plateau’s of Trialeti and Zurtaketi. Burial mounds with above ground burial chambers are found in similar locations. It is presumed that both burial types are associated with the privileged society of Trialeti culture. Significant archaeological findings are related with these grave types; amongst them various precious metal artifacts. On the contrary, burial mounds with pits can be found in all regions; in river valleys, at low level elevations, as well as on high mountain plateau‘s. Catacomb burials and flat graves are usually present at lower elevations - typically below 1050 m. However, there are exceptions in Armenia. Burial mounds with stone constructed burial chambers are mainly observed on high mountain plateaus.
3. Classification of archaeological findings Archaeological findings are classified according to the material they are made of. They are then divided by kinds, types and versions. Kinds of clay vessels differ from each other by proportion index (height correlation to rim diameter). The following question has been raised: “Which archaeological findings are related to which grave type?” Data obtained from burial mounds with below ground burial chambers is incomplete, as grave goods have frequently been robbed out during past times. To a lesser extent, the same situation exists for burial mounds with above ground burial chambers. But, for the latter more data is available as famous artifacts of Trialeti culture have been found in these graves. Comparatively speaking, more information is available for burial mounds with burial pits. Most recovered ceramics are large in size (pitchers, jars). Smaller size pottery, such as plates and cups, are relatively less in quantity. The majority of metal weapons originate from these burials. In contrast, catacomb burials contain mostly small size pottery, rather than pitchers and large jars. These graves also contain a small number of metal and stone artefacts. In burial mounds with below ground stone burial chambers, pitchers are found in large numbers, followed by bowls and plates and small numbers of jars and cups. In flat graves, the majority of recovered artifacts comprise of pitchers, followed by almost similar quantities of bowls, plates, jars and cups. According to the above observations, it can be deduced that each specific grave type has its own distinct range of grave goods.
4. Regional division Observations have been made on all burial types as well as on the territorial distribution of recovered archaeological findings. Some regional differences have been observed but, according to available data, there is insufficient evidence to clearly distinguish them as a local version of the Trialeti Culture. On the fringes of the Trialeti Culture (East, North-East and South) foreign influence is noticeable due to contact with neighboring cultures.
5. Chronology a) Seriation. Computer seriation was used to study data from fourteen burial mounds in the Trialeti region. Two different chronological groups were determined. Other monuments of Trialeti culture can be compared and reviewed simultaneously with these two groups. b) Comparative chronology. Based on the results of seriation, information from other regions and new C14 dates, it can be concluded that: in Trialeti Culture two different chronological groups are determined. In addition, there are fifteen burial mounds (according to E. Gogadze - I Group) with a very small quantity of grave goods. In the scientific literature, this group of burials is thought to be older, but according to the available evidence it is difficult to conclusively prove this. C14 dates are not available for these burials and archaeological findings are small in quantity. Seriation shows that this group of burials is placed at the end of the seriation table, thus demonstrating that they are older. However, there is insufficient evidence to separate this group. Fourth stage of the Middle Bronze Age is also discussed. The majority of burials from this group should be the same age as the late burial mounds of Trialeti. In our work we have tried to determine characteristic features for both chronological groups and based on these divide the monuments of Trialeti culture into two groups;- Burial mounds of Trialeti number IX, VIII, V, VI, XVII, XVIII, XVI, XXIX and Tetri Kvebi 1, 3, Mravaltskali 12, Gokhebi, Lilo 1, Artashavan 5, Karashamb belong to an early group. Burial mounds of Trialeti XV, I, VII, Akhchia 1, 3, Dalis Mta 12, Kirovakan, Lori Berd 77 and flat graves of Samtavro and Kvasatala cemeteries belong to a later group.
c) Absolute Chronology C14 analysis was performed on six animal bones originating from sites of Trialeti Culture. Four bones correspond to an early group of seriation and its absolute ate is 2134 – 1910 BC. Two bones correspond with youth group of seriation 1878 – 1695 BC.
6. Inter-regional connection Aegean. In Trialetti Culture there are several artefacts which have analogous in the Bronze Age Aegean region. But the same analogies are also present in other regions. Despite this, Trialeti and Aegean artefacts are different from a chronological point of view. Based on this, it is unlikely that a direct link between these two regions at the end of 3rd millennium and beginning of 2nd millennium BC can be established. Most probably, contact between these two regions could have been instigated through a third region. a) Mesopotamia. There is an argument to suggest contact between Trialeti culture and Southern Mesopotamia, but here too, it is difficult to confirm the exact origin of the imported artefacts. Presumably, there were cultural influences. Beginning of Trialeti culture chronologically corresponds with the 3rd Dynasty of Ur (2112 – 2004 BC). During this period, Mesopotamia was involved in intense trade contact with the near east. It is reasonable to assume that contact had also been established with the south Caucasus. b) Other regions. Questions regarding whether the south Caucasus was connected to Karum Kanesh trade system at the beginning of 2nd millennium BC, cannot be answered at this stage, due to insufficient evidence
