Definitions

“Dragon stones” (Arm. vishapakar) are stelae carved with animal imagery found in the high-altitude summer pastures of modern Armenia and neighboring regions (Javakheti/Trialeti, Nakhijevan, Erzurum/Kars). Evidently, the dragon stones are highly symbolic artifacts. Their name may be connected to local folk tales where dragons are monstrous giants living in the mountains or, perhaps, it may be due to a misunderstanding of the imagery carved on them. The habitat of dragon stones is between 2000-3000 m above the sea level. This is a Bronze Age phenomenon (very probably the main period of existence is the Middle Bronze Age – first half of the 2nd millennium BC). There are ca. 150 examples of such monuments on the whole, ca. 90 of which are situated in the Republic of Armenia.

Based on their shape and iconography, we identify three main classes of dragon stones, instances of which exist in varying heights (150–550 cm) and local materials (mainly basalt). The first class, which we propose to term piscis, comprises stones cut and polished into the shape of a fish. The second typological class, which we define as vellus, comprises stones carved as if the hide of a bovid had been draped or spread on them. The third typological class combines the iconographies of the first and the second one (Fig. 1).

The great majority of dragon stones still in situ lie collapsed or placed in a horizontal position on the ground. All three types of dragon stones, however, are carved and polished on every face but the “tail,” which is invariably left uncarved. This fact indicates clearly that dragon stones were originally standing stones.

The “Vishapakar” Project

Vishapakars have been discovered on the border of the 19th and 20th centuries and investigated by different authors (Atrpet, N. Marr, Y. Smirnov, A. Kalantar, B. Piotrovskiy, G. Kapantsyan), who believed vishapakars to mark nodal points of prehistoric irrigation systems [1]. The main stress was put by early authors on symbolism of vishapakars without taking into consideration their archaeological context. To investigate the problem with modern archaeological methods the authors of this article started collaboration under the aegis of the Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography in Yerevan and the Freie Universität in Berlin. The general aim of the collaboration is to investigate the dating, function, and socio-economic background of the dragon stones’ phenomenon with the toolbox of contemporary archaeological science, most importantly landscape survey and the stratigraphic excavation of selected contexts. In June 2012, a first reconnaissance mission took place. First, we assessed already existing, yet largely informal evidence and collected new information about the current location of dragon stones. Second, we tested the collected information in the field and recorded both known and previously unknown dragon stones in situ. Third, we started the systematic assessment of the key landscape features associated with dragon stones [2].  

By the end of the month, we were able to collect information on 90 dragon stones, 53 of which we located and documented, including 16 dragon stones previously unknown. Of the 53 dragon stones, we found 34 to be still in situ, or else we were able to determine precisely the in situ location. A further 13 dragon stones we found in loco, i.e. few meters away from their original set-up location, now lost or destroyed, or else we were able to track down the geographical site where the stones originally stood. These collected data allow us to begin understanding the function, distribution patterns, and the dating of dragon stones in a way that had not been possible so far.

Our most significant discovery is that dragon stones are always associated with the context of artificial barrows of medium-sized, unworked stones. Most barrows connected with dragon stones are packed in close groups in well-defined meadows, specifically at places where the landscape drops into slight depressions. These secluded meadows, typically ancient satellite volcanic craters, are rich in water, sometimes even marshy, and their concave form significantly reduces their overall visibility in the wider area. In sharp contrast to these dragon stones clustered together in well-defined necropoleis, we registered a small number (twelve) of dragon stones barrows in isolated positions. These stand-alone barrows may be found in relatively secluded meadows as well as in much more exposed spots.

Considering that the stones bear a permanent memory of sacrificial rituals inscribed in their material, we propose to see in the dragon stones barrows not just burials, but first and foremost a previously unknown typology of high-altitude sacred sites for ritual performances.

The most significant example of a high-altitude sacred site with dragon stones and barrows is Karmir Sar (Arm. “Red Mountain”) on the south slope of Mt. Aragats which extends over 40 hectares, at a mean altitude of 2850 m above sea level (Fig. 2/1). At the core of the meadow and next to the rivulets and pools, we recorded eight dragon stones in situ or immediately near their original position, plus a carved upper part of a dragon stone out of context. We also identified two, mostly buried, large basalt stones that we believe to be further vishaps. This is the highest concentration of dragon stones registered so far at a single site. Karmir Sar 1 is particularly remarkable since it is the only known vishapakar with petroglyphs cut into it – an exceptional case where rock art occurs “stratified” in a datable archaeological context. 

We believe that the study of these sacred sites and their surrounding landscape will significantly increase our understanding of what we may term the “domestication of the mountain,” i.e. the socio-economic exploitation of high-altitude resources and the modifications of the mountain landscape that ensued.

Problem of Protection of Vishapakars

Among many questions concerning dragon stones that our project challenges, one of the most important is the problem of their protection and conservation. The biggest difficulty in this regards is in inaccessible location of the most of monuments which, from the one hand, creates preconditions for their protection beyond the active human impact, however, from the other hand it causes difficulties due to the lack of infrastructures in such landscapes.

Two kinds of dangers are discernible towards vishapakars – destruction in their original places and transportation to the lowland. The process of transportation and reuse of vishapakars began in early antiquity (cf. the reuse of the vishapakar Garni 1 as a ground for a cuneiform inscription by the Urartian king Argishti the I. in the 8th century BC), was intensified during the Middle Ages (cf. the vishapakars of Aghavnatun 1, 2, Karmrashen 1, Pokr Gilanlar 1, reused as khachkars/cross-stones [3]) and especially in the second half of the 20th century. During last fifty years, from high altitude pastures 18 vishapakars were transported to Yerevan and other small locations: among them those from Aragats (Dashtadem 1, Davtashen 1, Verin Sasnashen 1, Prospect 1-5, Ghurt Tapa 1, 2), Geghama (Azhdaha Yurt 2, 5, Goght 1, Tokhmaghan Gyol 2, 3, 5, Lchashen 1) and Vardenis (Selim 1) mountains (cf. Fig. 3).

Besides a very unproffessional approach was applied by certain individuals/groups towards vishapakars during their relocation. So vishapakars of Dashtadem 1, Davtashen 1, Hayseri Oba 1, Prospect 2, 3 were put upside down (the head in concrete) in the concrete pedestals.

In other locations like Karmir Sar some vishapakars were broken and reused by local pastoralists (Karmir Sar 3, 5, 7, 9) or broken during the trial to transport them (Karmir Sar 4) (Fig. 2). Tokhmaghan Gyol 1, reset not far from its original location for touristic purposes, was broken during the resetting process and later glued.

Those vishapakars which are listed in the Heritage List of Armenia and are present today in different locations (mainly museums and parks, among which six in Yerevan) are without signboards (besides Tokhmaghan Gyol 2 and 5 in Norki II Massiv park, Yerevan, which are, however, indefinitely described as from “Sevan Lake basin”).

The people who transported vishapakars recently from their original places had in their mind both subjective (to reset them for their own “aesthetic” needs, like Prospect 4 and 5, to commemorate a friend killed in the war, as Davtashen 1) or objective (to protect them giving the second life or to present them to public, like Prospect 1-3, Azhdaha Yurt 2, 5, 6, Goght 1, Tokhmaghan Gyol 2, 3, 5, Lchashen 1, Selim 1) reasons. But in both cases, independent of the purpose in background, the original contexts were destroyed, in some cases without being even documented.

In 2012 we tried successfully to relocate some of the vishapakars (Davtashen 1, Prospect 1-5, Azhdaha Yurt 2, 5, Goght 1, Tokhmaghan Gyol 2, 3) using original photos, comparing them with modern landscapes and visiting the original places with the people who were among the transporters (Fig. 3).

We should underline here also another kind of danger connected with tomb looting. During our fieldwork in 2012 we registered seven instances of pits that were the result of recent or less recent uncontrolled diggings at barrows with dragon stones. Five of them had been dug with the help of heavy machinery, destroying the archaeological context in its entirety. Two of them in the Geghama Mountains, however, have been opened by pick and shovel. This “softer” method of uncontrolled excavation exposed in both cases parts of a shaft tomb lined with stones.

Taking into consideration the special value of vishapakars/dragon stones in their regional and interregional context, we ask both local and world heritage organizations to increase their interest and secure vishapakars for coming generations. Particularly we suggest:

• To establish protective zones around important clusters of vishapakars and organize continuous monitoring in corresponding landscapes;
• To take up measures for their scientific excavation, reconstruction (many of them are broken) and conservation;
• To relocate appropriately the vishapakars that have already been removed from their original context, and/or to set them up again according to rules of restoration;
• To work on public awareness of local communities (Armenians and Ezidis) towards historical significance of high altitude sites and monuments to prevent their destruction and looting of barrows;
• To help archaeologists in scientific investigation of the phenomenon connected with extraordinary difficulties on high mountains beyond or with very limited human impact;
• To consult with archaeologists towards the questions of relocation or reestablishment of vishapakars in order to achieve better results;
• To make it possible for tourists to visit vishapakars (open and mark roads, set up signboards, etc.). In the highland where vishapakars are situated it is possible to develop both landscape and cultural tourism.
• To take measures for vishapakars to be recognized as world heritage monuments, stressing the cultural and scientific value of this unique phenomenon for the international community.

References

 [1] Atrpet, Chorokhi avazany [The basin of the Çoruh], Vienna 1929; Marr N.J., Smirnov Y.I., Les vichaps, Leningrad 1931; Kalantar A., Aragatsy patmutyan mej [Mount Aragats in history], Yerevan 1933; Piotrovskiy B.B., Vishapy: Kamennye statui v gorakh Armenii [The vishaps: stone statues in the Armenian mountains], Leningrad 1939; Kapantsyan G., O kamennykh stelakh na gorakh Armenii [On stone stelae in the mountains of Armenia], Yerevan 1952.

[2] For more details and for catalogization system used cf. Gilibert A., Bobokhyan A., Hnila P. 2012, Dragon stones in context: The discovery of high-altitude burial grounds with sculpted stelae in the Armenian mountains, Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient Gesellschaft 144, 93-132.

[3] An Armenian inscription from 990 AD on the Karmrashen 1 vishapakar tells how it was found “by divine providence” and brought down with great difficulties to the church place: Shahinyan A., Vayots Dsori vishap-kotoghnery [Vishap-stelae of Vayots Dsor], Patma-banasirakan handes [Historical-philological journal] 1, 286-289, 1976.

Arsen Bobokhyan,
Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography, 
National Academy of Sciences, Armenia

Alessandra Gilibert,
Freie Universität Berlin,
Institut für Altorientalistik, Germany

Pavol Hnila
Freie Universität Berlin,
Institut für Altorientalistik, Germany