Metsamor in Armenia: the Sixth Season of Fieldwork in 2018
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Metsamor in Armenia: the sixth season of fieldwork in 2018 Abstract: Archaeological exploration of the eastern part of the settlement in Metsamor in 2018 uncovered several rectangular structures. Most of these structures were dated to the early Iron Ages I and II. Roman-period graves were recorded in the ruins of the Iron Age settlement. An anthropological assessment of human remains from three of the burials (sex, age, cranial and postcranial measurements as well as the selected paleopathologies) is presented in the appendix. Keywords: Armenia, Metsamor, settlement, Iron Age period, dwelling structures, metal production, jewellery, primary burials, craniometry, osteometry, trauma, CO, dental pathologies Krzysztof Jakubiak1 The Metsamor archaeological site, where a Polish– Armenian team has been excavating since 2013, is situ- ated about 35 km southwest of Yerevan, the capital city Appendix Ruzan Mkrtchyan2 of the Republic of Armenia. The name, Metsamor, refers 3 to the remains of an ancient settlement, about 1.5 km Hasmik Simonyan south of Taronik village, the archaeological site with 1 Institute of Archaeology, University a local museum, but also to a nearby modern nuclear of Warsaw power plant and a small town in its vicinity. The team 2 Yerevan State University conducted the sixth season of fieldwork in September 3 Service for the Protection of 2018. Historical Environment and Cultural Museum-Reservations NCSO Polish Archaeology in the Mediterranean 28/2 PAM 28/2 (2019) Jakubiak 2019: 287–308 DOI: 10.31338/uw.2083-537X.pam28.2.16 Team Dates of work: 28 August–3 October Co-Directors: Krzysztof Jakubiak, archaeologist (Institute of Archaeology, University of Warsaw); Ashot Piliposian (Service for the Protection of Historical Environment and Cultural Museum-Reservations NCSO) Archaeologists: Elisabeth Bastien (freelance); Kinga Bigoraj, archaezoologist (independent researcher); Astghik Simonyan (Service for the Protection of Historical Environment and Cultural Museum- Reservations NCSO); Dan Socaciu (University of Liverpool); Marek Truszkowski (Polish Centre of Mediterranean Archaeology University of Warsaw); Artavazd Zaqyan (Service for the Protection of Historical Environment and Cultural Museum-Reservations NCSO) Archaeology student trainees: Otto Bagi (Durham University); Joanna Dzik, Ewa Kwiatusińska, Zuzanna Lachowicz, Rachel McClenaghan, Jacek Mońka, Joanna Pawlik, Olga Puszkarewicz, Karolina Warecka (University of Warsaw) Topographer: Menua Gevorgyan (Service for the Protection of Historical Environment and Cultural Museum-Reservations NCSO) Documentalist: Deborah Gawlikowska (freelance) Anthropologists: Hasmik Simonyan (Service for the Protection of Historical Environment and Cultural Museum-Reservations NCSO) Restorers: Lusine Aleqsanyan, Nerses Mamikonyan, Tigran Zakyan (all Service for the Protection of Historical Environment and Cultural Museum-Reservations NCSO) Funding body: National Science Centre grant 2018/29/B/HS3/01843 Krzysztof Jakubiak ReseaRch & FieldwoRk Focusing on the settlement remains, part of the settlement with structure the project selected the northern part S1 (squares A16, B16) was thoroughly of the inhabited area for exploration. cleaned and examined. The results of the Extensions were made east and west of investigations have given a better idea the main trench [Fig. 1] and the northern of the town layout and its development. Fig. 1. Plan of the eastern part of the excavated area after the 2018 season; box indicates the area of the graves shown in close-up in Fig. 6 (University of Warsaw Metsamor Project | drawing M. Iskra) PAM 28/2 (2019) 289 ArmeniA Metsamor in Armenia: the sixth season of fieldwork in 2018 Structure S1 Much as it has been disputed, the S1 first pithos was still sealed with a stone structure seems to be crucial for the lid. The second one yielded two massive chronology of this part of the site. bronze bracelets. Initial exploration in 2017 unearthed Based on the stratigraphic sequence a large pithos inside the structure and recorded during the excavations inside another similar storage jar, partly sunk structure S1, both the pithoi and the into a clay floor, which came to light in storeroom appear to have been con- the 2018 season. The two thick-walled structed at the beginning of the Iron I containers, intended most probably period. The dwelling structure S1, which for liquid storage, fit the Iron I (about was built in the ruins of the storage unit, 1100–850 BC) chronology of a storeroom should be dated to the late phase of the [Fig. 2] that preceded structure S1. Iron I period; it was inhabited at the be- Its walls and floor levels were dis- ginning of the Iron II period as attested mantled and removed, making way for by the radiocarbon dating of samples the oval structure S1. The only surviving taken from the floor level (late 9th–first evidence is a small fragment of a parti- half of 8th century BC). The age of struc- tion wall (context 1073), separating the ture S1 can be additionally confirmed storeroom from a contemporaneous by stratigraphic and pottery dating: the structure (S17) recorded further east, ceramic sequence spans a period from under walls 1016 and 1025. Both jars the Middle Bronze Age III (18th–16th seem to be inclined in the same direc- century BC) to the Iron Age II (8th–6th tion and at almost the same angle, sug- century BC). gesting that the storeroom they were The two pithoi were dug through part of may have been devastated by an a thick cultural layer characterized by earthquake probably at the beginning the presence of sherds of painted ware of the Iron Age I period. Moreover, the representing the Karmirberd ceramic two jars are both cracked in the same horizon (Iskra and Zaqyan 2019, in this place on the body, making the pithoi volume). Judging by the pottery assem- useless for any further storage of liquids. blage, represented mostly by thick-walled However, they continued to be used for coarse kitchen forms, the MBA III mate- other purposes as long as structure S1 rial may be linked to a household or camp remained functional as attested by the rather than a tentative Middle Bronze finds. In this period, the rims of the jars Age cemetery. It should also be noted were barely visible in the floor of the that nothing resembling the later phases room, although one jar (2/18) was placed of the Late Bronze Age was observed be- a few dozen centimetres lower than the tween the MBA III and IA I accumula- other (1/18), making it a perfect place tions. A few of the Late Bronze Age I for the concealment of valuables, such as sherds were found in secondary context the bronze bracelets that were found at in the upper, Iron Age layers. The floor its bottom. At the time of discovery, the “refurbishment” and its reuse, studied in 290 Krzysztof Jakubiak ReseaRch & FieldwoRk the context of the overall stratigraphy Plain. Vessels that are a local imitation of this part of the site, show that local of Urartian pottery have been recorded pottery was still being used during the among the products of local pottery Iron II period, which is commonly associ- workshops with roots deep in the Iron ated with Urartian presence in the Ararat Age I period. StructureS weSt of S1 and S10 (SquareS u15, u16) Investigations west of building S1 uncov- area may be anticipated. Consequently, ered a relatively large, open space forming this part of the site can be mapped as the a kind of square, surely a marked urban potential site of the Iron Age settlement. element in this part of the settlement. In line with the above, it is also likely The “square” was divided by a single- that the dividing wall unearthed in the course stonewall (1061), running roughly “square” separated the potential dwelling north–south and evidently dividing the quarters from the outskirts of the settle- open space into two parts. ment (remains of outer walls are hoped The S1 building and the “square” next to be excavated further west and north) to it may be assumed to have been part of in a move both symbolic and practical: a dwelling quarter dated to the Iron Age I the households inside the stone wall are period. Should this prove to be correct, somehow protected and the area west of then further domestic structures in this the wall is easily accessible to inhabit- Fig. 2. Two pithoi in unit S1 (University of Warsaw Metsamor Project | photo M. Iskra) PAM 28/2 (2019) 291 ArmeniA Metsamor in Armenia: the sixth season of fieldwork in 2018 Fig. 3. The floor level inside structure S10 (University of Warsaw Metsamor Project | photo E. Kwiatusińska) Fig. 4. Circular clay kiln found near structure S10 (University of Warsaw Metsamor Project | photo J. Pawlik) 292 Krzysztof Jakubiak ReseaRch & FieldwoRk ants and visitors alike. In that case one arrangements. The northern sector of S10, should expect a gate or some other form only partly excavated, was most likely an of entrance to the settlement nearby, pos- internal courtyard. Several fragments of sibly in the area directly north and west stone grinding stones and other charac- of the trench. teristic heavy stone kitchen equipment The presumed settlement was aban- were scattered around inside. A round pit doned after the early Iron Age II period, was dug into the clay surface in the south- but only for a short period of time. The eastern corner of the courtyard. Several area was later levelled with a relatively fragments of grinding stones were found thick layer of compacted clay (Jakubiak near the edge of the pit. et al. 2017). The only feature remotely Some time after structure S10 was associated with the second phase of the abandoned, still in the Iron Age I, the settlement is a large round pit, discovered eastern part of the house was rebuilt and west of structure S1. It contained rubbish rearranged.