Dr. Mkrtich H. Zardaryan
Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography
National Academy of Sciences, Armenia
ICOMOS-Armenia

2. UITS 

Archaeological excavations of the largest Syunik site were held in 2006-2007, and continued in 2012. The settlement is located to the east of the modern town of Sisyan, beside the southern bank of the Vorotan River, on steep heights dominating the adjacent area, and enclosing a territory of ca. 200 ha (elevations min.-max. 1575 - 1685 m/a.s.l.). The name of this town is mentioned in Armenian narrative sources beginning in the 5th century CE.

The site is divided into particular topographic and structural areas:

A. Central and Southern “districts” – a system of heights and artificial terraces protected by a main defense line that encloses the settlement’s entire territory. The “Main” (eastern) Gate of the settlement is situated in this area. Three other gates are also registered on this fortification line;

B. Northern “district”, enclosing two separately fortified rocky hills and a headland, edged by the canyon cliffs;

C. Lower settlement, situated in the northeast part of the site, on the topographically isolated plateau (natural depression) in the Vorotan canyon;

D. Necropolis, occupying eastern and southern territories of the site, outside the fortified settlement. Some isolated architectural structures were also registered in this area, particularly opposite the eastern face of the fortress wall.

On the entire territory of the site, several lines of complex fortifications, built of large blocks of rough basalt, and suites of structures of different periods were discovered (pl. 2). A large number of burials (kurgans and stone cists), were recorded in Uits, encompassing a wide chronological range. Some of those are situated on the settlement’s territory.

Archaeological materials recovered from the site surface locate the occupation of site in the Early and Middle Bronze Ages, Early Iron Age, Classical, and Medieval periods.

The excavations conducted in Uits revealed dwellings and tombs from the Early Iron (13-11 BCE), Early Yervandid (7-5 BCE) and Artaxian (2 BCE – 1 CE) periods. Specific “multilevel” burials were also excavated in the southwest necropolis in 2007 and 2012.

The first operation was held in Uits in 2007-2008 - trench AT-1 (1680 m/a. s. l.) is located in area “A”, about 100 m southwest of the settlement’s main gate, on a terrace covered in suites of large rectangle rooms. Under a dense layer of stone rubble (up to 0.4 – 0.6 m), covering the entire area of the trench, the interior of a large construction of about 65 sq. m was unearthed. The excavated part of the premises from the south and west is contoured by walls built of partially-worked local basalt, fixed by clay mortar. In the middle of the western wall, a doorway 1 m wide was constructed. The entire structure is situated on the bed-rock, its uneven surface was well flattened partly by stone paving, and also by rammed clay filling. The dimensions of some massive slabs of floor pavement, preserved in situ, are of 1.10 x 1.20 x 0.20 m in size.

In northern part of the room, a long trench (3.0 x 0.3 x 0.3 m) edged by vertically installed stone blocks, with a paved-stone bottom, was revealed. From the north, this trench is connected to a higher stone platform, 1.40 m wide, built of large stone slabs (up to 0.8 x 0.9 m), situated on the edge of and inclining towards the stone trench. From south, the trench is lined by stone slabs of the room floor. The surfaces of the floor pavement and of the platform stones are notably “grinded.” The stone platform excavated along the northern edge of AT-1 continues along part of the room’s eastern side.

The bottom of the stone trench, deepened into the bed-rock, is lower than the elevations of paved floor and stone platform. It was covered by a burnt deposit (also found on the floor and in other excavated areas as well) with pieces of charcoal, burnt bones and pottery shards.

The archaeological material found in the room, although not too rich, was informative enough. The pottery, mainly black, grey, and brown burnished, presents several types of storage vessels, jars, bowls, some with incised and grooved decorations. These materials, together with shards of cooking pots, ceramic churns, portable ovens, grindstones, and animal bones, testify to the domestic use of the construction. Among the other finds were two obsidian arrow-heads, fragments of iron knife blades, bronze details of a knife handle, and a bone fastener.

At the same time, the existence of specific constructions, such as the stone-paved trench and platform in northern part of the room promote the concretization of the functions of this particular plot. It was evidently used as a cattle-shed: the platform as a proper space for animals (calves, or sheep and goats), and the trench served to divert manure. Similarly multi-functional structures (dwelling and stock-breeding) are well-known among the archaeological (pre-Urartian Karmir-Blur, Horom, Yeghegnadzor etc.), and ethnographic monuments of Armenia and the Near East. Also, the description of such combined premises in Armenia of the 5th century BCE is mentioned in Xenophon’s “Anabasis” (IV, V, 25-26). Finally, this construction closely correlates with a similar, though smaller one found in the lower plateau of the Shaghat I settlement.

So it may be concluded that in AT-1, one of traditional types of dwelling architecture of the Armenian Highland (Armenian “Glkhatun” house) was revealed. According to the archaeological situation and materials of the trench, the excavated structure functioned during a single cultural period, which, judging by C-14 data, relates to the initial phase of the Early Iron Age (13 – 11 BCE). At the end of this period the house situated in “A” area was destroyed by fire.

During the excavations of the eastern and western plots of AT-1, damages to floor paving were registered. Further investigations revealed three burials situated almost on the same level as the room floor.

Burial # 1 was partially opened in 2006 and finally excavated in 2007. It was covered by massive cap-stones in a corbelled design, sealed by a mixture of clay and detritus. Some of the cap-stones were missing, which proves its destruction still in the past. The oval-shaped chamber, sized 1.30 x 1.10 m, and up to 2.10 m deep, was built of medium size basalt blocks, reaching the bed-rock. The burial produced a limited collection of materials; burnt bones and pottery fragments, mixed with ashes and charcoal.

The chamber known as Burial # 2 was intact. On the cap-stones the remains of post-funeral sacrificial ritual - almost complete skeletons of a sheep and pig were found. The burial’s “crown” built of massive slabs attached to each other by clay mortar, was similar to the first one. An oval well-like chamber, measuring 1.60 x 1.30 m., and 2.30 m deep, was of a truncated-cone shape and carefully built of medium size pieces of basalt.

The upper part of the chamber was almost free of soil. Then, in a hard clayey deposit a complete human skeleton was found. No inventory was registered in this burial deposit, except a single ceramic bead and a small number of potsherds.

In Burial # 3 (1.85 x 1.30 m, and 2.45 m) no human remains were registered in situ, although plenty of animal bones and some pottery fragments were found. The burial by its construction, shape, as well as of building technique, was identical to the second one. Among the most important finds two almost complete skeletons of a sheep and lamb registered on the cap-stones – the remains of the same ritual.

The chronological determination of these burials, and their correlation with the dwelling structure, were difficult enough, because the overwhelming majority of the chamber finds were chronologically non-diagnostic. However, at the examination of the room it was noticed that the slabs of floor pavement around burials were removed. In addition, some of the cap-stones with rubbed surfaces were situated under the rough ones; in other cases, the “grinded” sides of some of those were turned upside-down. These details enabled researchers to conclude that the slabs of earlier floor pavement were subsequently used as cap-stones for the later burials.

Although the burial inventory was not informative enough, certain chronological conclusions could be made from their shapes and building technique. Similar well-like tombs with richer inventories were excavated in the Lake Sevan basin and in some other regions of Armenia, belong to the Early Yervandid period. This date is quite acceptable for Uits burials.

The finds of animal bones atop of burial cap-stones are also of great interest. Obviously, they relate to sacrifices made after inhumation.

So, it may be concluded that after the destruction of the Early Iron Age settlement its territory was used as necropolis of the settlement established here almost five centuries after.

The next two trenches excavated in Uits were situated on the western slope of the first fortified hill of area “B”, to the north of this fortress doorway seen on surface. For the initial examination, the terraced plot beside internal face of the defense wall was selected. In 2006 and 2007, two test-trenches (DT-2, 3) were held for determination of the chronological characteristics of the terrace. Two constructive horizons under dense stone rubble mixed with burnt deposits were detected here, that according C-14 data relate to the 7-5th centuries BCE.

Excavations on the summit of the same hill were initiated in 2012 (trench DT-4), where a large construction connected to interior face of the wall defending the hill-top was unearthed. The rammed clay floor of the building was covered by pieces of burnt beams and ashy soil, witnessing the destruction chronologically correlated with one noted in the trenches DT-2, 3. In the middle of this room, two large storage pits deepen into the loose bedrock (average width 1.5 m, depth 2 m) and thoroughly covered by stone slabs were revealed. The walls of these pits had well-built stone facing and were additionally coated by clay mortar. The pits were initially deemed empty, but on the very bottom traces of decayed grain were registered. Assuming all the circumstances brought out in the trench, it may be supposed that destruction of this building – evidently storehouse, took place in a period when the grain stored in pits was already consumed but the new harvest wasn’t stored yet. Taking into account the elevation and climate of the site area and this part of Syunik in general, the appropriate time frame would be August-September.

During the investigations of the south-western necropolis of Uits, burials of different archaeological periods were excavated in 2007 and 2012. One of the remarkable units - an oval stone cist (BT-1) presents clear evidence of multiple burials. According the recovered inventory (pottery, iron spear head, bracelets, cornelian beads etc.), the earliest one took place in the 7-5th centuries BCE and contained remains of a man and child, as well as bones of a cow, sheep and two dogs. At the secondary operation, bones of the “owners” were moved and the remains of a woman and two children were buried in the same cist. The last internment was implemented much later – in the beginning of the 1st century CE, a date correlating to the inventory found (Roman tin mirror, bronze bracelets, rings, engraved gems, glass unguentarium and beads etc.) which corresponds to finds from synchronous sites in Classical Armenia, the Near East, and the Mediterranean. But despite the chronological gap between these two burials, the palaeozoological repertoire registered in second burial was similar, including dog bones, to that in initial one. This similarity that correlates also with finds of dog skeletons in Shaghat I and in some other Classical burials of Armenia, illustrating the stability of certain funerary rituals and beliefs in Syunik as well as all over the country.

Next, a “multi-period” burial (although of different type) was excavated in 2012 (BT-3abc). In this stone cist, the later interment was done directly above the earliest one, but leaving that intact. The chronological difference between these two levels was comparable with the BT-1 burial, i.e. 7-5th and 1st centuries BCE In its turn, the upper burial was partly damaged by the tomb-hill of the Late Classical period.

The noted density of burials in the examined area of the northwest does nto seem purely coincidental: it could indicate the density of population in the settlement of Uits during the Classical period.

In parallel with excavations, the architectural investigation of fortification constructions and dwelling suits of Uits, preserved on the surface were held in 2006-07. In this framework the correlated analysis of architectural plan-drawings, and also kite and satellite photographs was employed. Particularly, the complete plan of main defense line of the settlement (area “A”) was drawn. The comparison of this monumental construction with the defense walls of two fortified hills of “B” area, revealed a notable difference in masonry and general building technique of these two fortification “units”. The present fact, together with the mentioned chronological difference between the AT-1 (area “A”), and DT-2/3 (area “B”) trenches, makes possible the further examination of the dynamics of architectural innovations in this settlement.

In frames of general investigations of the site area, the northern bank of Vorotan canyon was also examined. Here a large medieval fortress of 9-13th centuries (supposedly the Syuni-Berd, of Armenian narrative sources), situated on the edge of canyon, directly in front of Uits, was mapped. Taking into account the presence of medieval settlement also in Uits (the northern headland of area “B”), it may be supposed that these two settlements were achieving the control over the trade road leading along the Vorotan River.

The correlative examination of the sites of Shaghat I-III and Uits, as well as the other settlements and fortresses investigated in the region (Balak, Shakeh etc.), reveals some obvious commonalities, particularly in frames of topography, town-planning and building technique.

All of those are situated close to the river, on the steep hills, dominating over adjoining area, with at least one slope artificially terraced for building.

The flattened summits of the hills are surrounded by the angular defense walls, generally without buttresses, or towers (except some simple constructions flanking the gates). The angles of fortress walls have chiefly constructive purpose – for strengthening the wall line built on the steep slope. They are too small for being used for defense reasons, as the “saw teeth” of fortification lines of Classical fortresses.

The lower settlements, situated on the terraces and adjoining areas, are surrounded by the additional defense lines of same design, connected to the citadel walls.

The dwellings and other constructions inside the citadels are directly connected to the fortress walls. No passages between the defense lines and dwellings, typical for more developed fortification systems of Classical age were revealed.

The constructions of all the sites of Early Iron and Classical periods being investigated in the region are built of stone. The only exception could be made for some of the Middle Bronze Age constructions, where partial use of mud-brick was recorded.

Reviewing the excavated sites of Syunik another remarkable commonality could be also mentioned: at the end of each period of inhabitance the archaeological deposits present there clear evidences of fire and destructions. These circumstances that need more detailed investigation may be the result of geographic location of the region on one of the important junctions of the communicative network of the Ancient World. In parallel with economic and cultural preferences, location on the crossing between cultural unities of the Near East in the South and Nomadic World in the North could transform the region into a “target” of permanent invasions and migration flows. This kind of political, demographic, and economic processes enclosing the region had been recorded in ancient written sources and traced by archaeological data at least from the beginning of the 1st millennium BCE[1]

In addition to archaeological research in 2010-2011 two wide-scale field surveys aimed to trace the ancient roots tying examined area of Syunik with adjacent regions were initiated. This activities being correlated with the examination of written sources, aero- and space imagery as well as topographic data, allows to reveal some certain roads leading to the South (Nakhijevan-Iran), North (Sevan basin-Artsakh) and North-East (Artsakh - Mil-Mughan steppe) and a number of sites located along these communication lines.

Archaeological investigation in Syunik presents exclusively high density of sites: often the synchronous settlements and fortresses are situated on visual distance from each other. Moreover, this phenomenon is traced not only in the framework of Classical or Medieval periods (that correspond to the data of ancient Armenian historiography on demographic characteristic of Syunik in these historical periods), but also for Middle Bronze Age – for the period settlements of what are purely known on the Armenian Highlands and South Caucasus in general. This phenomenon also needs a comprehensive research in the all-regional scale of coverage.

The results of large-scale archaeological explorations in Syunik make the role of the investigated sites highly important once again in aspects of lightening of history and culture of Armenia and adjacent regions. From this point of view, the issues of preservation of historical and cultural values, together with typically Armenian dimension, gain at least an inter-regional importance. Meanwhile, we may observe significant gaps in this sphere, which endanger even the existence of these values.

The gaps mentioned in framework of the State functions are conditioned by incompleteness of judiciary basis aimed at the preservation of sites and appear especially in sphere of the application of law that sometimes reaching the level of judiciary sabotage. Enough to stress that none of the cases of obvious site damaging in Syunik have been brought to the final judiciary resolution by now.

Besides, only a few of all-republican and regional economic projects implemented in Syunik (pipeline and road construction, mining, hydro-energetic and agricultural initiatives) have been taking into account the issues of investigation and preservation of historical and cultural values. These projects are mainly fulfilled without any archaeological expertise and professional supervision.

Sizable obstacles in frames of protection create also incompleteness of mapping and registration of archaeological sites, which sometimes bring to the disparity between true limits of sites and officially ratified zones of their protection. Also periodic cases of looting create additional complications in this sphere.

All the abovementioned problems (although only a small part of an “iceberg” was lighted up here) need rapid and complete solutions otherwise we may loose many of the priceless values of Cultural Heritage.