Regional Co-operation for Cultural Heritage Development
რეგიონალური თანამშრომლობა კულტურული მემკვიდრეობის განვითარებისათვის
Տարածաշրջանային համագործակցություն հանուն մշակութային ժառանգության զարգացման
Національна політика щодо культурної спадщини
Mədəni irsin inkişaf Etdimilməsi üçün regional əməkdaşlıq
Рэгіянальнае супрацоўніцтва ў мэтах развіцця культурнай спадчыны
 
E- Journal №1
Archaeological Heritage
Archaeological Investigations in Syunik Region Armenia, and the Problems of Preservation of Historical and Cultural Heritage

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

 

 1. Shaghat 

The south-eastern region of Armenia, known as Syunik, remains one of the least archaeologically investigated areas of the Republic—in spite of its significant role in the ancient history of Armenia and the surrounding region. Its importance was defined by the richness of its natural resources, its demographics, and its location in the communication network of the Ancient Near East.

Archaeological information began to accumulate only recently, in the first decade of the 21st century. Contributors include the Armenian-French Godedzor Project, focused on the investigations of a unique 5th-4th century (BCE) settlement, and the Armenian-American Vorotan Project (VP).[1]

The VP fieldwork from 2005 – 2008 was primarily concentrated within the Tsghuk province of historical Syunik (Urartian Tsuluku), which encompasses the central Vorotan River delta. This region had a key role in ancient communications running from Mesopotamia and the Iranian Plateau through the Ararat valley (including Nakhijevan) to the North Caucasus.

The project conducted excavations on three sites: Shaghat I-III, Balak, and Uits. Together with qualitative and quantitative surveys, the excavations present large collections of finds and analytical data for comparative and chronological analysis, and have created a reliable foundation for in-depth study of the material culture of Syunik. In addition to their scientific important, such large-scale projects also serve as archaeological salvage initiatives. Where heritage site registration and its associated protective mechanisms prove inadequate, such projects give precise information about the number of sites in the region, their location, area, chronology, and other features.

Investigations of the region began in the Angeghakot Valley– a relatively isolated high-altitude valley on the Eastern spur of the Zangezur mountain range, where the Vorotan River meets its tributaries, the Shaghat and Arag-jur. During previous field seasons, the investigation area was significantly enlarged and more than 30 sites (fortresses, settlements, necropoles) of the Middle Bronze Age (25-14 BCE), Early Iron (13-11 BCE), Classical (6 BCE-4 CE) and medieval periods were registered and mapped.[2]

The first site investigated by the project in 2005-2006 is located on the north-western outskirts of the modern village of Shaghat. According to Armenian medieval narrative sources, the town of this name is mentioned as an administrative and religious centre of Syunik during the 4th-8th centuries, and as a principal residence. There is no documentation on the pre-medieval history of the settlement, although archaeological data suggests that the area was continuously settled from the late 3rd millennium BCE.

 

SHAGHAT I–III

This site, with total area of 30 ha, occupies two fortified hills located 0.5 km from each other (Shaghat I - Shahgat III), and a lower settlement on a plateau between the hills, surrounded by an additional wall, which completes the defense system of the site assemblage (Pl. 1). On the lower plateau, a number of kurgan burials with cromlech circles were recorded in 2004. According to the finds (snakehead and curved bronze bracelets, earrings, etc.) the burials belong to the Artaxian-Arsaside phases of the Classical period (2 BCE - 4 CE). 

SHAGHAT I (elevation 1784 m/a.s.l), has a flattened summit of about 1500 sq. m, surrounded by a fortification wall of an angular construction (approx. 3 m. wide), made of rough basalt. Some of the large stone blocks feature special holes for transportation by trailing. On the southern side of the hill, the remains of the citadel gate were revealed.

The terraced southern slope of the hill terminates at the Arag-Jur tributary gorge, through which the ancient road leads (over the Sisyan pass) to Nakhijevan, and farther to the South (Iran, Mesopotamia).

The investigations on the hill of Shaghat I and its southern and northern terraces (trenches CE-1, ES-1, ST-1, NS-1) produced parts of the citadel wall, an adjoining dwelling complex, and other specialized constructions.

Excavations on the hill’s summit (trench CE-1) were carried out in 2005-2006. The cultural deposits were covered by a thick (up to 1, 4 m) layer of stone rubble, mixed with pieces of charcoal and ashy soil. Under this layer, an almost-square dwelling construction of 32 sq. m, connected to the internal face of fortress wall, was unearthed (Room #1). The walls of this room are built of unworked pieces of local basalt and large cobbles, held together with weak clay mortar.

Taking into account the density of the stone layer, and absence of any remains of mud-brick here, it may be assumed that the dwellings on the hill of Shaghat I, as well as the fortress wall, were constructed entirely of stone—a typical feature for the mountainous regions of Armenia.

The floor of the room, built on the rough surface of the hill, is of two different constructions: the eastern part is comprised of large stone slabs, applied stone, and clay filling. The surface of these slabs is worn, indicating long usage. In the western part of room, the bedrock (loose basalt) is leveled for the floor and covered with rammed clay. Almost the entire area of the floor was covered by thick ashy soil, with pieces of charcoal.

On the east-west axis of the room, two large, flat stone foundations (40 x 40 x 30 cm) for wooden columns supporting the roof were installed on the floor. The roof itself, according to the pieces of burnt beams, planks and big iron nails found on the floor, was a wooden construction, covered by clay. On the same floor level, three storage pits of 1 – 1.8 m deep, dug in the bed-rock, were excavated. Beside one of the pits was a large storage jar, partly dug into a small conic pit in north-western corner of the room. This grey burnished jar has two looping handles on the shoulders, and a number of repairing apertures along the old cracks.

Additionally, the remains of an oven in the north-eastern corner of Room #1 were unearthed. This stone construction of 0, 70 x 0, 64 m, and of 0, 6 m high, added to the northern wall, features a fire-box, closed from above by a large tile-shaped ceramic cover. Two vertically installed oblong stones shape the “mouth” of the fire-box and simultaneously support the cover. Clay plaster and potsherds protected the place where the oven joined the wall, and were over-baked due to intense, prolonged heat. From the ashy deposit inside and around the oven, pieces of burnt pottery and animal bones were found. But no remains of a chimney were uncovered.

It may be concluded that Room #1 was a part of an ordinary dwelling complex. This is suggested by the nature of the room’s interior design, as well as by the numerous finds of simple tableware, cooking and storage pottery, oval grindstones and stone mortars of different sizes, baking forms, iron nails, beads, spindle whorls, etc. Also, archaeological finds from nearby pits (broken and repaired cooking pots and storage jars, animal bones, etc.), are generally consonant with the wares found in other parts of the room.

Examination of materials from trench CE-1, and the series of radio-carbon data, defined the chronological frames the citadel’s occupation as being between 2 BCE—2CE. Based on the distinct evidence of destruction and fire revealed during the excavations, the dwellings in CE-1 (and in all probability the citadel itself) were completely burned and destroyed towards the end of this period.

As previously mentioned, the collection of archaeological finds from the citadel is exclusively of household or utilitarian character. The only departure from this “peaceful” context is an iron spear-head, found beside the western wall of Room #1. It is quite possible that this find somehow relates to dramatic events during the final phase of the settlement’s life.

In addition to the chronology of the citadel, another problem must be addressed. The surface finds from the hill confirm the presence of the Middle Bronze and Early Yervandid (7-5 BCE) pottery here. Meanwhile, the materials from the CE-1 trench belong to a much later period and no intact deposit relating to an earlier phase of the settlement history was recorded there. At the same time, examples of earlier wares, particularly related to the Early Yervandid period, were found under the oven, and in Pit #1. In this context, it can be assumed that deposits related to earlier habitation on the hill were almost totally wiped out by later inhabitants. Such cases are typical enough for multi-layer sites situated in rocky localities. Investigations on the southern and northern slopes of the Shaghat I hill (trenches ST-1, NS-1) support this idea.

Examination of aerial photographs of the site reveals the main contours of the Shaghat I citadel. In particular, it was possible to trace about nine rooms (of similar size to the excavated room in the CE-1 trench), situated on both sides of a corridor, longitudinally passing the summit on its north-south axis.

The settlement chronologically associated with the early deposits excavated on Shaghat I was recorded in the northern part of lower plateau, situated to the east of the hill (trench NBD-10). The surface of this part of the plateau was significantly damaged by the re-inhabitation and subsequent agricultural activities.

Excavations in the vicinity revealed a wall, resting on friable bedrock, partly flattened for the construction. Two wings of this large-scale wall were built of large (over 1 m) blocks of un-worked basalt. The largest stones have transportation holes, similar to the blocks found in the Shaghat I citadel. The rear of the wall is closely connected to the bed-rock, the elevation of which surpasses the wall’s course. Ashy deposits and pieces of burnt logs were found throughout the area of the trench. After the removal of burnt soil, a stone-lined channel, cut into leveled bedrock and made of rectilinear blocks of worked basalt, was revealed. On the top of the channel the pieces of stone paving, originally covering the construction, were found. Its bottom was also lined with rocks. Excavations on the northern side of the wall demonstrated that the channel did not continue on the rear of wall.

The pottery from trench NBD-10 was predominantly Early Yervandid. As a result, it may be assumed that all the constructions in this trench belong to the same period, consonant with the earlier deposits found in the Shaghat I citadel. This dating (7–5 BCE) was also corroborated by radio-carbon data.

The examination of NBD-10 revealed distinct signs of intense fire and partial destruction throughout the area. It is evident that the excavated wall was part of the defense line, protecting the lower settlement of Shaghat I. The stone channel, running from the bottom of the wall to the nearest gorge, served as drainage. Constructions of this type are recorded in a number of Armenia’s Urartian and Classical fortresses.

It can be concluded that archaeological materials found at the foot of the wall had fallen from dwellings situated inside the defense line after the destruction of this part of settlement. Evidence of fire and destruction revealed in NBD-10 correspond to those noted on the hill of Shaghat I. This suggests that destruction of the Early Yervandid settlement was all-encompassing, and had included both the citadel and the lower settlement.

A specific archaeological assemblage was revealed in the next trench of the lower settlement—NPG 16, situated in the plateau to southeast of Shaghat I citadel, where, during the preliminary survey, the remains of dwellings and a number of kurgan burials were revealed.[3] Investigations of the necropolis began as a salvage test. But the excavations of the first test-trench in 2005 revealed unexpected archeological materials and rich finds, which stimulated the enlargement of this operation during 2006-2007.

The upper deposits of this trench contained materials dating to the Early Yervandid period, similar to the collections from the hill, and indicating extensive occupation of the plateau in this period. Among the household constructions of this horizon, archaeologists discovered the ruins of cattle-shed with paved floor, and small manger for young animals. The manger was built of flat stones set on their edges (“orthostats”), one of which had a special hole for tying animals.

All these constructions yielded similar evidence of large-scale destructions and fire, similar to the situation revealed in other trenches of this period.

Excavations of the upper levels of the NPG-16 operation produced a restricted collection of pottery from the mid-first millennium BCE, dominated by portable ovens, large storage and production vessels. They are primarily gray-black-buff wares, with incised and burnished decorations on the shoulders. Several samples of black and red burnished goblets (phialae) were also found there.

Comparative study of the surface architectural remains, archaeological finds and aerial photographs of the lower plateau provide firm evidence of the settlement’s fortification system. Along the southern and south-eastern edges of plateau, remains of the lower defense wall were traced, similar in construction to the wall excavated in NBD-10. According to the preserved traces, as well as plots found on the bedrock (flattened for wall foundations), it enclosed the majority of the plateau and joined the citadel wall on the hill from the north and south. The archaeological data revealed in trenches NBD-10 and NPG-16 corroborates the association of the lower defense line to the Early Yervandid settlement. No evidence of its functioning was discovered in later periods.

The next architectural construction, associated with the latest period of habitation in the Shaghat I settlement, is the base of a solid circular turret revealed in the southwest corner of the trench NPG-16 (diameter 2.5 m, preserved height 0.8 m). The turret was built of crude basalt, with partial use of the sooty stones taken from the ruins of Yervandid buildings. Its upper part was damaged by recent agriculture in the region, but after examining its construction, its initial height is estimated to be greater than 1.5 m. Directly beneath the deep foundation of this construction, the complete skeletons of two large dogs were found. Evidently, the animals were buried here, in sterile soil, right before the turret was built, suggesting connection.

Architectural design of the turret, as well as its functions, are still uncertain. But it is clear that this post-Yervandid construction correlates with the necropolis that was occupying the territory of the lower plateau in the final phase of the settlement’s life, in 2 BCE – 2 CE. The dog burial seems to confirm this correlation: as it is known from the Early Medieval Armenian historiography (Movses Khorenatsi, Eznik Koghbatsi, Pavstos Busand, Sebeos), according the pre-Christian Armenian believes, the dog-like deities named “Aralez”-s were mean to escort human souls to the next world. Presence of dog bones in Armenian burials (including Syunik) from the mid 2nd millennium BCE up to the adoption of Christianity in 301 CE, serves as evidence of THE stability of these beliefs. In this context, the turret could be a memorial construction devoted to such deities, or as a “last-rest stone” related to the funerary rituals of local population.

The lower deposits of the same trench, NPG-16, are associated with the Middle Bronze Age. The archaeological discoveries in these earliest deposits (ca. 1.5 m in depth) indicate a settlement context, extremely rare for this period in the Southern Caucasus and Armenian Highlands in general. The discovery of MBA settlement remains provides a solid basis for the evaluation of synchronous surface finds from other areas of the site.

These layers of earliest occupation yielded abundant animal bones (cows, sheep), obsidian tools, and painted pottery that belong to the final phase of the Middle Bronze Age (18 – 16 BCE). They have no clear architectural context, while all the constructions are totally ruined, and demonstrate evidence of intense fire.

The excavations reveal the presence of two occupation horizons (floors) here. A remarkable concentration of stone tools, ground stones, pestles, fragments of obsidian blades, and stone flakes were found on the upper floor. Fragments of mud-brick, pebbles, and large fragments of burnt wood beams were also recorded. The lower floor is ca. 10 cm thick compact burnt layer, covered by irregular stone rubble.

According to the study of ceramic assemblages from the earliest deposits of NPG-16, these finds are distinctive of the Trekhk–Vanadzor, Sevan–Artsakh, and Nakhijevan (Karmirvanq) cultural groups of the Middle Bronze Age. The resulting archaeological context comes supports the existence of a permanent agro-pastoral settlement in Shaghat I, which was destroyed by fire.


SHAGHAT III (elevation 1797 m/a.s.l.).

The initial examination of the Shaghat III hill in 2005 produced a fortification wall resembling the Shaghat I fortress in construction and technique, but larger in size. The defense wall built on previously leveled bedrock, which in some parts featured stairs (up to 4 “stairs”), was used as a wall base. Such a technique has been recorded on the Urartian and Classical sites of Armenia (Van, Argishtikhinili, Artashat, Garni, etc.). On the well-defended southern part of the hill, a big architectural complex (about 600 sq. m.) was recorded, thought to be the inner citadel of the fortress.

In 2007, three test-trenches were held on the hilltop situated inside the inner citadel (S.3/TT-1, S.3/TT-2), and beside the internal face of the first defense wall of fortress (S.3/TT-3).

The excavations on Shaghat III conforms to the chronological and structural unity of these two hills in Early Yervandid period. It can also be concluded from archaeological evidence that the same dramatic events revealed in the citadel and lower settlement of Shaghat I took place in this part of the site.

Based on the architectural remains and planning characteristics of Shaghat III, it may be supposed that the centre of settlement was situated on this hill. However, this version still needs further archaeological confirmation.

In further archeological investigations of the Shaghat I and III sites, the next stages of their occupation were revealed:

1. Final phase of the Middle Bronze Age (18-16 BCE); the settlement was occupying the Shaghat I hill and adjacent plateau,

2. Early Yervandid period (7-5 BCE); the period of maximal expansion of the settlement, encompassing the hills of Shaghat I and III and the plateau in between,

3. Artaxian – Arsasid period (2BCE — 2CE); limitation of the settlement at Shaghat I and the emergence of the necropolis on the territory of lower plateau.

It is remarkable that all these stages of settlement life were interrupted by fire and destructions – a fact that requires further investigation of local, as well as sub-regional and regional scales.

The absence of Early Medieval finds in excavated areas also testifies that the site of Shaghat I-III is not the same as the one mentioned in Armenian narrative sources as an administrative centre of the province. The localization of this town remains as a target for further investigations.

 

 



[1] In 2005 the investigations of Vorotan Project were held in frames of collaboration of the IAE NAS of Armenia and the Michigan University (USA). Since 2006 the American side of the Project was presented by the Brown University. The Project was co-directed by Dr-s. M. Zardaryan, A. Tonikyan (Armenia), and Prof-s S. Alcock, J. Cherry (USA). Since 2010 the explorations are carrying out by the IAE and heading by Dr. M. Zardaryan.

[2] The results of investigations in Syunik are presented in next publications: Alcock S. E., Cherry J. F., Tonikyan A. V., Zardaryan M. H. The Vorotan Project, Armenia. In: “In the Field”. The Archaeological Expeditions of the Kelsey Museum. Kelsey Museum Publications # 4. Ann Arbor. Michigan. 2006; Zardaryan M. H., Tonikyan A. V., Alcock S. E., Cerry J. F. Les Investigations du Project “Vorotan” dans la Region de Syunik. In: Les Dossiers d’Archeologie. Mai-Juin 2007. # 321. Dijon; Зардарян М. О., Мелконян С. А., Тоникян А. В., Элкок С. Е., Черри Д. Ф. Исследования проекта «Воротан» в Сюникском регионе Армении. В: Международная научная конференция «Археология, этнология, фольклористика Кавказа». Батуми. 2006; J. F Cherry, S. W. Manning, S. E. Alcock, A. V. Tonikyan, M. H. Zardaryan. Radiocarbon Dates for the Second and First Millennia B. C. from the Southern Armenia. Preliminary Results from the Vorotan Project, 2005-2006. “Aramazd”. Armenian Journal of Near-Eastern Studies. 2007, Vol. II; Melkonyan S. On the investigations of the Middle Bronze Age settlement of Shaghat I and III in 2005-2006. In: The Culture of Ancient Armenia. Vol. XIV. Yerevan. 2008 (in Armenian); Hovsepyan R., Melkonyan S. The palaeo-botanical data from the Middle Bronze Age settlement of Shaghat I. In: The Culture of Ancient Armenia. Vol. XIV. Yerevan. 2008 (in Armenian); M. Zardaryan, A. Tonikyan, S. Alcock, J. Cherry, A. Akopian. The investigations of Classical Syunik in frames of Vorotan Project, 2005-2006. In: “Through Haldi’s Power…”. Studies in honour of the 100-th anniversary of birth of Boris Piotrovsky. Yerevan. 2010 (in Armenian); Zardaryan M., Mkrtchyan R., Akopian A. Burial as a biographic “dossier” (Multi-disciplinary investigation of Uits, Syunik Armenia). In: International Conference “The Historical and Cultural Heritage of the Armenian Highland”. Yerevan - Stepanakert. June 24 - July 01, 2012, etc.

[3] Unfortunately, the main part of Shaghat I necropolis in this area was destroyed before the excavations, during the illicit melioration held by administration of the community of Shaghat.

RCCHD Project:
Office 16b, Betlemi ascent, 0105 Tbilisi, Georgia
Tel.: +995 32 2-98-45-27
E-mail: rcchd@icomos.org.ge
© 2012 - Eastern Partnership Culture Programme