• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

doi: 10.2143/AWE.17.0.3284888 AWE 17 (2018) 27-63 AXES, LABYRINTHS AND ASTRAL SYMBOLS: BRONZE PENDANTS AND PINS FROM THE ARMENIAN HIGHLANDS* PAVEL AVETISYAN, ROBERTO DAN AND ARTUR PETROSYAN1 Abstract The aim of this paper is to give a detailed analysis of a group of pendants and pins distin- guished by the presence of peculiar decorations. We have proposed for these objects a new date to the Iron Age. The majority of them were found in a number of excavations, in rich burials of persons of high rank. In most cases, the objects were found in poor condition, while the best-preserved specimen, discovered in Gavar almost complete, was found in for- tuitous circumstances. In the present article, a new interpretation of this object is provided. Introduction In Armenia, a group of bronze objects distinguished by the presence of peculiar decorations has been discovered over the years, mostly in fragmentary conditions of preservation. In this paper we have tried to bring together, for the first time, all the known examples of these objects, which have not been studied in detail up to now, for the purpose of providing typological descriptions and discussing the main func- tional and iconographic interpretations that have been proposed for them, as well as suggesting new possible interpretations of the most famous of these specimens. These objects mostly date to the Iron Age and were probably used as pendants and pins. The majority of them were found in a number of excavations, in rich burials * The authors wish to thank Svetlana Poghosyan, deputy scientific director of the Sardarapat Battle Memorial Complex, National Museum of Armenian Ethnography and History of the Liberation Struggle, for having given us the opportunity to photograph and study unpublished material from Shirakavan and Spandaryan stored in the Museum. We would like to thanks also Seda Devedjian for the precious information on Lori-berd necropolis, Ruben Badalyan for the information on Horom, Miqayel Badalyan for telling us of the presence of the pendant stored in the Middle East Art Museum and Arsen Bobokhyan for valuable suggestions. 1 The contents of this paper are the work of all authors. Specifically, Avetisyan wrote ‘The Model from Nor Bayazet (Gavar)’, ‘The Other Specimens’ and ‘Group A. Pendants’; Dan wrote ‘Group B. Pins’, ‘Iconographic Interpretations of the Nor Bayazet (Gavar) Model: A Solar System Model?’, ‘Iconographic Analysis of the Nor Bayazet (Gavar) Model’, ‘Nor Bayazet (Gavar) Model Element A’ and ‘Nor Bayazet (Gavar) Model Element B’; Petrosyan wrote ‘Nor Bayazet (Gavar) Model Elements C, D and E’, ‘Nor Bayazet (Gavar) Model Elements F–I’, ‘Functional Analysis of the Object’ and ‘Further Consideration of the Context of the Shirakavan Necropolis Specimens’. The Introduction, ‘A new proposal for inter- pretation of the Nor Bayazet (Gavar) model’, Conclusions and Addendum, were written jointly. 28 P. AVETISYAN, R. DAN AND A. PETROSYAN of persons of high rank. In most cases, the objects were found in poor condition, while the best-preserved specimen, almost complete, was discovered in fortuitous circumstances. In particular, this object, very unusual in its general characteristics, is nowadays the symbol of the National Museum of Armenia and the Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography of the Academy of Sciences. The poor preservation state of most of these objects makes their iconographic and functional interpretation difficult. An Addendum, containing some unpublished specimens from Shirakavan,2 Armavir, Spandaryan3 and the History Museum of Armenia, is located at the end of this article. The Model from Nor Bayazet (Gavar) As mentioned above, among all the specimens found only one is almost complete in all its parts. E. Lalayan gave the object to the museum in 1906;4 it comes from the area of Lake Sevan, from the surrounding of Nor Bayazet (Gavar).5 The object (Fig. 1), entirely made of bronze, has overall dimensions of 24.8 cm high, 10.8 cm wide and 0.3 cm thick.6 It has a rhomboid centre (Fig. 1A) with a central hole, also rhombus-shaped; the rhombus features eight slits roughly rectangular in shape, four larger and four smaller, placed in pairs parallel to the four sides of the rhombus and placed between these and the central hole. To this central element are attached eight further components, four fixed to the corners of the rhombus (Fig. 1B–E) and the other four (Fig. 1F–I) mid-way along its sides. The largest of these is circular in shape (Fig. 1B), with a complete outer circle that contains an inner circle with an opening diametrically opposite its point of attachment to the central rhombus A, and a central semi-circular termination flanked by two L-shaped lateral projections (with terminations pointing toward the object’s centre). 2 Collection of Sardarapat Battle Memorial Complex, National Museum of Armenian Ethnogra- phy and History of the Liberation Struggle. 3 Collection of the History Museum of Armenia. 4 Israelyan 1973, 84–87. 5 In the museum accession register it is mentioned that the object was bought by Yervand Lalayan in Nor Bayazet (Gavar) and registered in the museum collection list in 1906. Some scholars have suggested that it was probably found during the excavation in which the two famous wooden chariots were brought to light (Shahnazaryan and Mkrtchyan 1980, 23, fig. 27; Grigoryan 2010, 86, fig. 77), in part of the cemetery that emerged due to the lowering of the water level of the lake during the Soviet period (Ayvazyan 1986). However, this is impossible since these tombs were excavated in the 1950s by Mnatsakanayan (Mnatsakanyan 1965). After Lalayan found chariots in tomb 10 in Nerkin Adiaman (Nerkin Getashen), the finds described did not include this object (Lalayan 1931, 100, 194–200). It should be noted that in his publications Lalayan described objects acquired from farmers and discovered during excavations, but there is no reference to the artefact under consideration. The object is currently kept in the Historical Museum of Armenia in Yerevan (HMA N° 20-237a-b). 6 Sintes and Grigoryan 2007, 82. AXES, LABYRINTHS AND ASTRAL SYMBOLS 29 Fig. 1. Left, bronze object from the Lake Sevan area (after Sintes and Grigoryan 2007, 82); right, schematic representation of the object (drawing by authors). Opposite part B, on the other acute angle of the rhombus, there is another char- acteristic feature (Fig. 1C), a circular element with ten small triangles placed around the outer side of the circumference. The circle contains an element formed by the juxtaposition of two sub-triangular components, creating in effect an approxima- tion to the central feature of part B. Of the remaining six portions, one is almost entirely preserved, three are partial, and two are missing. The almost complete one is a slightly smaller replica of part C, from which one of the two sub-triangular central components is missing (Fig. 1D). Parts F and G appear to be considerably damaged, with little more than triangular arrowhead-like elements; F in particular is clearly incomplete (Fig. 1F–G). Of the last two parts, H and I, there remain only the attachments that connected them to the main body (Fig. 1H–I). This specimen, devoid as it is of any precise archaeological context, is generally dated to between the 12th and 11th centuries BC.7 7 Sintes and Grigoryan 2007, 82. 30 P. AVETISYAN, R. DAN AND A. PETROSYAN Fig. 2. Map showing positions of archaeological sites referred to in the text (drawing by R. Dan). AXES, LABYRINTHS AND ASTRAL SYMBOLS 31 The Other Specimens Over the years, numerous objects similar to that from Lake Sevan have been dis- covered, although they show some variation that is analysed in the following pages. These specimens, about 50 in number and sometimes fragmentary, are considered as almost complete replicas (with some variations) of the model just described or isolated elements, complete or partial, of its component elements, especially B. They come from sites which are mostly located in modern Armenia, with a few exceptions discovered in Georgia, Azerbaijan (Fig. 2) and Iran. Actually, waiting for the publi- cation of the Lori-berd specimens, the most important group of such objects comes from the site of Shirakavan, where 24 objects were found during the excavations of the cemetery, and as chance finds during the 1970s and 1980s.8 Group A. Pendants Group A items are pendants characterised by replication of the bigger circular element present on the Nor Bayazet (Gavar) specimen (Fig. 1B). The largest number was discovered in the necropolis of Lori-berd where 90 specimens were found that are still unpublished.9 The second largest number was discovered in Shirakavan,10 in a group of Iron Age graves (11–12, 27, 29, 31–32, 50, 100) from Necropolis 1.11 In these burials were discovered one specimen with an open circle (Fig. 3M), two with two open circles (Fig. 3N–O), six with three open circles (Fig. 3B–C, E–F, H, K), one with three closed circles (Fig. 3D) and four with three circles whose imperfect state of preservation does not allow a full understanding of the shape (Fig. 3G, I–J, L). Only two have two open circles (Fig. 3N–O). Nine specimens have, at the centre, a characteristic ‘axe-shaped’ element, dif- fering slightly in size and shape (Fig. 3B–G, I–L, N), and one has a trapezoidal element (Fig. 3O). The presence in most of them of a suspension hole clearly indi- cates their use as pendants. In this, they differ from another specimen discovered at Horom attached to a pin, used to affix or decorate clothing; this object differs in the presence of three circles, the outer two closed and the inner, next to the classical axe 8 Torosyan et al.

Load more

  37

Copy Link