Annali, Sezione orientale 77 (2017) 294–317

brill.com/aioo

The Survey Project. Preliminary Report on 2015 Fieldwork Activities

Roberto Dan International Association of Mediterranean and Oriental Studies (ISMEO) [email protected]

Artur Petrosyan Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography of the National Academy of Sciences of the Armenian Republic (IAE NAS RA) [email protected]

Abstract

The Kotayk Survey Project (KSP) started in the summer of 2013. This is a joint Armenian—Italian project involving the study of the upper river valley, located in the northern part of the Kotayk region in the Armenian Republic. This article presents the results of the third fieldwork season, which involved both excavation and survey. In particular, the text describes the excavation of the Solak 1 fortress and dis- cusses its role in the framework of Middle Iron Age/Urartian archaeology.

Keywords

Kotayk Survey Project – Solak 1 – Urartu – Middle Iron Age – Kotayk region – Hrazdan River

The Kotayk Survey Project (KSP) started in the summer of 2013. This is a joint Armenian–Italian project involving the study of the upper Hrazdan river valley,

* “Introduction”, “Archaeological excavations in Solak 1”, “Room 1”, “The corridor” and “The main gate” were written jointly by both authors; Roberto Dan wrote “Some remarks on the Solak 1 Fortress”, “The Solak 1 Fortress in the context of Urartian and post-Urartian archaeol- ogy”; Artur Petrosyan wrote “The survey”, “The rescue excavations in village” and “Investigations in Kaghsi village”.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���7 | doi 10.1163/24685631-12Downloaded340035 from Brill.com10/07/2021 06:55:48PM via free access The Kotayk Survey Project 295 located in the northern part of the Kotayk region in the Armenian Republic.1 The third season has seen the participation of both Armenian and Italian scholars in the project that is underpinned by a scientific cooperation agree- ment between the Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography of the Academy of Sciences of the Armenian Republic (IAE NAS RA) and the International Association of Mediterranean and Oriental Studies (ISMEO). The project has the patronage of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation of the Italian Republic (MAECI, code ARC-001096). Its main goals may be sum- marized in the following points:

1) The creation of an archaeological map of the area between the upper River Hrazdan and the western foothills of the Geghama Range, from the Palaeolithic until the Middle Ages. 2) The investigation of human presence in prehistoric times in this part of the Hrazdan gorge and the area of the extinct volcano Guthanasar. 3) The study of the complex-society sites in the region (Early Bronze Age). 4) The study of the formation and growth of the first pre-state community in the region (Late Bronze–Early Iron Age). 5) The analysis of the nature of Urartian presence, the first state in the region (Middle Iron Age). 6) Investigation of the composition and characteristics of the settlements relating to the formation period of the Armenian nation (Late Iron Age).

The third season, which took place between June 7 and July 7, involved:

1 The authors would like express their deepest thanks to Prof. Pavel Avetisyan, Director of the Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography of the National Academy of Sciences RA. The con- duction of the work from the Italian side has been possible thanks to the assistance of the Italian institutions that are supporting and financing the project. In this context, we would like to thank Prof. Adriano V. Rossi, President of ISMEO, and the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation (MAECI), the Italian Embassy and Ambassador Giovanni Ricciulli, and Prof. Laura Pacenti, the Italian cultural attaché in . We would also like to thank Marie-Claude Trémouille, Boris Gasparyan, Ruben Badalyan, Adam T. Smith, Lori Khatchadourian and Ian Lindsay of the ArAGATS Project for their help and assistance. Special thanks are due to Tommaso Saccone, Yervand Grekyan (Armenian State Pedagogical University after Khachatour ), Samvel Nahapetyan (Yerevan State University, Faculty of Geography and Geology) and those who have worked with us: Mattia Raccidi, Ara Petrosyan, Armine Apresyan, Andranik Grigoryan, Hrach Avetisyan, Karen Mesropyan, Suren Margaryan, Arman Hovhannisyan and Gevorg Margaryan.

Annali, Sezione orientale 77 (2017) 294–317 Downloaded from Brill.com10/07/2021 06:55:48PM via free access 296 Dan and PETROSYAN

1) The continued excavation of Solak 1, a newly discovered site covering 16 hectares. 2) The survey of the upper Kotayk region in order to produce an archaeo- logical map of the evidence of human activity from prehistoric times until the Middle Ages. 3) A number of trial excavations in important and endangered sites pro- posed for inclusion in the National Cultural Heritage List to evaluate their general nature and chronology.

History of Archaeological Investigations in the Upper Hrazdan River Basin

The Kotayk region includes the Hrazdan, Abovian and former Nairi administrative regions. The studied region includes the upper part of the river and the Hrazdan plateau (average altitude 1700–1800 m above sea level). The River Hrazdan (for- merly Zangu) is one of the left tributaries of the River Araxes (141 km in length). The river has 340 tributaries, 25 of which are more than 10 km long. The longest rivers are the , Tsakhadzor, Arai and Getar. The area also contains the Geghama mountains, the Tsaghuniats mountain chain, and Mount Guthanasar. The administrative area covers some parts of the historical region of , in which are the Kotayk, Mazaz, Nig, Varazhnunik and provinces. According to Urartian cuneiform inscriptions, this area was probably part of a country (or the territory of a tribe) called Etiuni. In the area under study by the Kotayk Survey Project excavations were conducted in a cemetery at in 1928 by E. Bayburtian (Khanzadyan 1967: 19). In the 1950s, H. Mnatsakanyan carried out excavations in a necropolis in Jrarat (Mnatsakanyan, Tiratsyan 1961: 69–70; Mnatsakanyan 1965: 95–96; Khanzadyan 1967: 18) and at a site dat- ing to the Early Bronze-Iron Age in Kaghsi (Mnatsakanyan 1954: 85, 86, 93; Khanzadyan 1967: 18). In the 1980s, S. Barkhudaryan investigated archaeo- logically the area of Meghradzor (Barkhudaryan 1935: 31). L. Biagov conducted excavations in Meghradzor and Aghavnadzor (Biagov 1986: 6–19; Gharibyan 2006: 126, 129), and E. Khanzadyan in Kaghsi (Khanzadyan 1967: 18). Since 2004, an expedition of Yerevan State University has been excavating a medi- eval settlement located in the gorge of the River Hrazdan, just in front of the village of Bjni (Gharibyan et al. 2008: 185–96; Gharibyan et al. 2010: 67–90). From 2004 onwards the archaeological site of Aramus, located on the southern border of the area under investigation by the Kotayk Survey Project, has been excavated under the direction of H. Avetisyan, W. Kuntner and S. Heinsch.

Annali, Sezione orientaleDownloaded from 77 Brill.com10/07/2021(2017) 294–317 06:55:48PM via free access The Kotayk Survey Project 297

The site, divided into six fortified sectors, has furnished interesting evidence of occupation dating to the Early, Middle and Late Iron Age, i.e. the pre-Urartian, Urartian and ‘Achaemenid’ periods2 (Kuntner, Heinsch 2010; Heinsch, Kuntner, Avetisyan 2012). The initial archaeological investigation in was carried out in 1966 (Karapetyan 1969: 278–83), and large-scale archaeological excavations were conducted in the 1980s, when more than 1000 Middle Bronze to Iron Age tombs were dug (Gevorgyan 1993: 50–60; Hovhannisyan 1993: 26–36; Melikyan 2015: 7). After a long break, controlled excavation began again in 2008 and has continued up to the present. In recent years 776 tombs have been recorded and 450 of these excavated (Melikyan 2015: 7–28). Since 2008 the Hrazdan Gorge Palaeolithic Project under the direction of B. Gasparyan, B. Yeritsyan and D. Adler has been active. The project is focused on the investigation of the Middle and Upper Pleistocene archaeology (750,000–11,500 years ago) of the Hrazdan Valley. Excavations have been conducted in the important sites of Lusakert 1 and Nor Gheri 1 (Adler et al. 2012). In 2012 the Marmarik Archaeology Project under the direction of A. Petrosyan, D. Peterson and J. Dudgeon started; the results are still unpublished. In 2015 the River Marmarik area was included in the Kotayk Survey Project.

The Survey

During the 2015 campaign, four archaeological sites were identified; these were added to the Kotayk Survey Project database site list (Fig. 1). Two unpublished caves with interesting archaeological potential (KSP 057 and KSP 058) were discovered. Cave KSP 057 is located on the western slopes of the Gegham mountain range, about 6 km east/south-east of the town of . Cave KSP 058 is situated in the middle of the Gegham mountain range, 9.5 km south-east of two extinct volcanoes, on the border between the Kotayk and Gegharkunik regions. A fortress with Early Bronze Age pot- tery (Meghradzor 1/KSP 059) was studied in Meghradzor village on the north bank of River Marmarik, in the Marmarik Valley. A dam (KSP 060) was dis- covered in the hills around the Solak 1 fortress; it was built between two hills

2 Achaemenid is put in inverted commas because the archaeological evidence indicates a generic Achaemenid period occupation, given that to date no clear evidence of so-called Persepolitan architecture or material culture has been found in the site.

Annali, Sezione orientale 77 (2017) 294–317 Downloaded from Brill.com10/07/2021 06:55:48PM via free access 298 Dan and PETROSYAN

Figure 1 Map showing sites recorded in 2013–2015 (by T. Saccone). to collect water from springs and from the melting of the winter snow.3 Due to the absence of surface finds or specific architectural features, the struc- ture is not currently datable. It seems likely—but this is only a hypothesis— that it was connected with the site of Solak 1 in a period not yet determined. Archaeological data show that already in the 5th–4th millennium BC agricul- ture in Armenia had developed through the use of artificial irrigation. Because of the territory’s particular characteristics—it consists mainly of mountain ranges—the development of irrigation systems took a different path to that attested in Mesopotamia during the same period. In foothill areas, water was conveyed from springs, and meltwater from thawing snow that ran down the mountain slopes in seasonal watercourses; the flow of these streams was then channelled artificially by means of the construction of dams and artifi- cial lakes. Thus, all places where water could be stored (small valleys, suitable areas on mountain slopes) were adapted to form water catchment systems, linked together by canals that became increasingly complex over the centuries. These hydraulic systems distinguished the territory of ancient Armenia until the Middle Ages. Important traces have been discovered in the Aragats and

3 We thank geomorphologist Samvel Nahapetyan for relevant information.

Annali, Sezione orientaleDownloaded from 77 Brill.com10/07/2021(2017) 294–317 06:55:48PM via free access The Kotayk Survey Project 299

Gegham mountains in particular (Kalantaryan et al. 2005: 21, scheme 1; Dan et al. 2015: 32–33).

Archaeological Excavations in Solak 1

From June 9 until July 6 archaeological investigations were conducted at the Solak 1 site (KSP 016; Fig. 2); four trial trenches had been dug there during the first season of the Kotayk Survey Project (Castelluccia et al. 2012: 28–35; Petrosyan et al. 2015: 58–68). The site extends over two adjacent hills on which important traces of structures are still clearly visible; preliminary examination of the surface pottery suggests that the site was in use from the Early Bronze Age up to the medieval period. In 2013, what we have called Area A (the south- ern one) was investigated by means of four preliminary test excavations, that gave promising results. Trench 1 was dug inside what seems to be a square building, and revealed the exceptional degree of preservation of the structure, with walls preserved up to a height of almost 2 metres. A preliminary plan of the surface structures shows a square construction measuring 27 × 27 metres, characterised by the presence of regularly spaced buttresses and a series of

Figure 2 Solak 1. Digital Elevation Model of Building A on Area A, with contour lines drawn at 1 metre intervals (by T. Saccone).

Annali, Sezione orientale 77 (2017) 294–317 Downloaded from Brill.com10/07/2021 06:55:48PM via free access 300 Dan and PETROSYAN rooms articulated in two sectors divided by a corridor. In 2014 systematic exca- vation of what was named Building A, on top of Area A, was begun.

Room 1

Starting from Trench 1 dug in 2013, Room 1 (4.70×8.85 m) was almost com- pletely excavated (Figs. 3–4). It is believed that this room was used for the pro- cessing and storage of food. One of the main goals of the work was to complete the excavation of the floor of this room. At the same time another part of the square Building 1 was opened, that is the main corridor that divided the for- tress in two. The investigation of Room 1 in 2015 consisted of the removal of some archaeological layers left unexcavated from 2014. In the south-eastern side of the room, where the pottery was discovered in 2014, a large amount of ceramics was found on the main floor of the room (SU07), crushed under the burned wooden beams of the ceiling (SU06; Fig. 5). The 14C determinations conducted on these beams have confirmed the Iron Age date of the structure, which was used in the Middle and Late Iron Age, i.e. 8th to 5th centuries BC

Figure 3 Solak 1. Map of the excavated area of Building A at the end of the 2015 season (by T. Saccone).

Annali, Sezione orientaleDownloaded from 77 Brill.com10/07/2021(2017) 294–317 06:55:48PM via free access The Kotayk Survey Project 301

Figure 4 Solak 1. NE-SW section of Room 1 (drawn by S. Nahapetyan, R. Dan and P. Vitolo).

Figure 5 Solak 1. Burnt wooden beams from the floor of Room 1.

Annali, Sezione orientale 77 (2017) 294–317 Downloaded from Brill.com10/07/2021 06:55:48PM via free access 302 Dan and PETROSYAN

Figure 6 Solak 1. 14C date of Room 1, Solak 1.

(Fig. 6).4 The general features of this pottery (which is currently receiving conservation treatment) are very similar to that found the previous year; it appears to be Middle Iron Age pottery of local tradition. The discovery of grinding stones no longer in situ (due to the huge amount of building stones that fell on the floor from the collapsed walls) indicates the function of the room (Fig. 7). Some sporadic fragments of post-Urartian pottery—now under study, and distinguished by non-homogenous firing and a surface colour of pale red—were found in layers pertaining to possible squat- ter occupations (Fig. 8). This pottery from several layers should be considered as the result of a short occupation just before the complete abandonment of the structure. Further investigations in other sectors of the square fortress will probably provide ulterior evidence of this phenomenon. Two trenches (5 and 6) were dug inside Room 1 to explore the stratigraphy under the main floor layer (SU 07). Trench 5 was opened in the north corner of Room 1, next to the bench built on Wall 05 and Wall 01. The trench brought to light natural bedrock, worked to form a base for the room’s walls and the floor preparation. Trench 6 was dug next to Wall 04. This trench uncovered a pit full of ash and charcoal in which there were many pottery fragments that were parts of the vases discovered on the floor of the room. This pit was excavated after the abandonment of the main building during the period of squatter

4 The date has a high standard deviation and suffers from the Hallstatt plateau effect.

Annali, Sezione orientaleDownloaded from 77 Brill.com10/07/2021(2017) 294–317 06:55:48PM via free access The Kotayk Survey Project 303

Figure 7 Solak 1. Grinding stones discovered in Room 1.

Figure 8 Solak 1. Post-Urartian pottery from Room 1.

Annali, Sezione orientale 77 (2017) 294–317 Downloaded from Brill.com10/07/2021 06:55:48PM via free access 304 Dan and PETROSYAN occupation just before the definitive destruction of the complex. Study of the stratigraphy and ceramics led to the conclusion that Room 1 was used as a pro- cessing and storage room, and also revealed the presence of additional phases of use of the structure. The construction of the fort may probably be attrib- uted to the kingdom of Urartu, around the eighth century BC. It must have been abandoned and then reoccupied for a short time in the post-Urartian period before its final destruction, witnessed by a thick rubble layer in which the burnt roof beams were found buried under stone blocks from the walls that had collapsed over the centuries.

The Corridor

In tandem with the excavation of Room 1 it was decided to start the investiga- tion of the long corridor that divided the fortress into two parts (Figs. 3, 9). The presence of this corridor was evident before the excavation because many portions of the walls were clearly visible on the surface. The total length of the corridor is about 23 m, of which we have decided to excavate 11.55 m, towards the south-west. As in Room 1, the area excavated was full of stones and debris that fell during the collapse of the walls. The width of the corridor was 2.18–2.26 m. The walls brought to light con- tained two doorways, one on the south-eastern side that connected the corri- dor with Room 1, and one on the north-western side that led to an unexcavated room. A narrow passage, with a stone step, connected the corridor to the room 1, the floor of which was lower down (an average level of 1877.80 m above sea level). This small gate is 1.08 m wide, with a length of 1.27–1.35 m. The pas- sage on the other side has a width of 0.94 m and is 1.16–1.20 m long. The walls of the corridor were not bonded with the external walls of the fortress. The excavation of the corridor, which was not completed during this season’s work, revealed the presence of a floor, higher than that of Room 1 (1878.57 metres AMSL, on the step of the main gate). The excavation of the corridor has shown that the first part of the fortress to be built were the external main walls. A little later, the corridor was constructed abutting the external walls without being tied into them. During the last stage of the construction, the walls delimiting the rooms were built; these were not tied into the outer or corridor walls.

The Main Gate

At the southwestern limit of excavation, in correspondence to the end of the corridor and the beginning of the external walls, the main gate of the fortress

Annali, Sezione orientaleDownloaded from 77 Brill.com10/07/2021(2017) 294–317 06:55:48PM via free access The Kotayk Survey Project 305

Figure 9 Solak 1. View of the corridor from the north-east; on the left Room 1 may be seen, and—in the background at the end of the corridor—the main gate.

Figure 10 Solak 1. View of the main gate from the south-west. was identified (Figs. 3, 10). Two irregularly placed buttresses framed this gate externally. The buttresses protruded from the walls for 46 and 47 cm and were spaced from the gate 2.50 m (the southern) and 0.83 m (the western). No door sockets were identified in the proximity of the gate, which has a width of 1.67 m externally and 1.52 m internally; its total length is about 2 m. A threshold made of large stones marked the door; it continues beyond the corridor for about 65 cm, so the total length of the threshold is ca. 2.65 m. Since the doorway is narrower than the corridor, in the internal part of the gate there are lateral recesses measuring 35 and 40 cm.

Annali, Sezione orientale 77 (2017) 294–317 Downloaded from Brill.com10/07/2021 06:55:48PM via free access 306 Dan and PETROSYAN

With respect to its size, general shape and architectural features, this gate resembles the north-western gate of Area B1 of the cyclopean fortress of Horom, on the north-western side of . This latter gate was built, according to the excavators “… at a time when the long established local Iron Age pottery was already complemented by pottery with definite Urartian con- nections. Such a finding points to a foundation date within the eight/seventh centuries BC …” (Badalyan et al. 1993: 14–15, fig. 11). The presence of this kind of pottery (local/Urartian) and the presence of local and Urartian features in the architecture of the gate—and indeed the whole complex—suggests a similar date for the construction of this gate. Another close resemblance exists with the main gate of the Norşuntepe road station (Hauptmann 1974: 83) that looks very similar to the Solak 1 gate with regard to its general features. The gate also resembles the main gate of the unfinished Urartian walls of Hasanlu, generally dated to the 7th century BC (Kroll 2010: 27). As mentioned, an interesting feature is the difference in floor level between the two areas excavated (Door/Corridor and Room 1). This situation may be interpreted as an adaptation to the natural shape of the hill, in line with an architectural prac- tice very common during Urartian times. The excavation of the corridor will be continued as part of the archaeological activities planned for 2016. Some conservation work on the walls of Room 1 has been carried out, using the origi- nal building stones found in the room and removed during the excavation; this is part of a more extensive project of conservation and consolidation of the whole structure.

Some Remarks on the Solak 1 Fortress5

The fort under excavation may be dated to the Middle Iron Age, the period in which the Armenian highlands were under Urartian control. This fortress was part of a system of fortifications that connected the Ararat valley, seat of the administrative centres of the Urartian dominion, with the Sevan basin. In this regard, it should be noted that Solak 1 is located exactly halfway between the Urartian fortresses of Aramus6 (under excavation by an Armenian-Austrian team) and the fort of Lchashen7 (Fig. 11). It was thus part of a chain of fortresses

5 This section is adapted from a study of the Urartian settlement pattern in Armenia proposed in Dan (2012), when the fortress of Solak 1 had not yet been discovered. 6 On this site, see Heinsch, Kuntner, Avetisyan (2012), with previous literature. 7 The Lchashen fortress shows interesting features: it is an Early Iron Age stronghold, but with obvious Urartian construction features, especially around the main gate, which was rebuilt. The architecture of these modifications is not however ‘classical’ Urartian; it is therefore

Annali, Sezione orientaleDownloaded from 77 Brill.com10/07/2021(2017) 294–317 06:55:48PM via free access The Kotayk Survey Project 307

Figure 11 Map showing the position of the Solak 1 fortress with respect to the Urartian/Middle Iron Age fortresses of Aramus and Lchashen.

that connected Arin-/Erebuni with the fortress of Tsovak on the southern shore of Lake Sevan, a total distance of 137 km. This 8th–7th century Urartian road system was flanked by the following fortresses, almost all of which are characterized by the presence of one or more Urartian cuneiform inscriptions:8

Arin-berd9 – Aramus 16 km Aramus – Solak 1 21 km Solak 1 – Lchashen 21 km Lchashen10 – 24 km Gavar11 – Vardadzor 19 km Vardadzor12 – Tsovinar 24 km Tsovinar13 – Tsovak14 12 km

possible that these interventions are to be attributed to a local governor who wanted to imi- tate contemporary Urartian structures using local workers (Personal communication of R. Biscione to R. Dan 2011; Dan forth.). 8 This list is partly adapted from Dan (2012); the measurements given are linear distances. 9 CTU A 8-17–A 8-21; A 8-23–A 8-24; A 8-28; A 9-20–A 9-24; A 14-3; CP Ab-1–CP Ab-6. 10 CTU A 8-11. 11 CTU A 10-1. 12 CTU A 9-6. 13 CTU A 10-2. 14 CTU A 9-7.

Annali, Sezione orientale 77 (2017) 294–317 Downloaded from Brill.com10/07/2021 06:55:48PM via free access 308 Dan and PETROSYAN

The Solak 1 fortress possesses some extremely interesting features, although it is broadly in line with other contemporary fortifications in Armenia. It looks rather like the result of the merging of architectural elements brought beyond the Araxes by the Urartians—such as its regular plan and curtain walls, with regularly spaced buttresses—with local traditions, most strikingly the use of rather coarsely-worked masonry. And the pottery discovered during the excavations, especially in Room 1, also shows the coexistence of local styles with clear-cut features (e.g. black burnished coarse-ware pottery) exhibiting a remarkable formal continuity with previous periods attested in Armenia, with items, such as the fragments of typical pithoi characteristic of the Urartian Kingdom that were discovered on the site in 2013 (Castelluccia et al. 2012: 30, 32, tab. XV.1). Sherds of this classical Urartian ware15 were discovered scattered on the surface of the site, just outside the complex under excavation. However, despite their secondary context, these ceramics confirm Urartian presence on the site and the 8th–7th century date of the fortress complex. The structure under archaeological investigation is only a small part of the Urartian struc- tures present on the site. Traces of walls with similar masonry can be seen in many areas on Area A and will be investigated in future campaigns.

The Solak 1 Fortress in the Context of Urartian and post-Urartian Archaeology16

The fortress of Solak 1 shares features in common with other such buildings of the Kingdom of Urartu, especially in Eastern Anatolia, and probably had the dual function of ‘road station’ (along the road connecting the Ararat plain with the Lake Sevan basin, as mentioned above) and base for the agricultural exploitation of the fertile surrounding countryside. The construction of the square fortress under excavation most likely occurred during the 8th century, after the conquest of the Sevan area by Argišti I and Sarduri II, as a part of the establishment of the Urartian road system. We also hypothesize the structure’s progressive enlargement, with the addition of new lines of fortification—and presumably a settlement—during the 8th–7th century, given the strategical and logistical importance of the site. According to a recent attempt to understand the Urartian fortress sys- tem, many small fortresses may have had the function of ‘road stations’. There are, in fact, twenty-eight archaeological sites containing buildings

15 On Urartian pithoi, see Dan (2016). 16 This paragraph is based on a passage in Dan (forth.).

Annali, Sezione orientaleDownloaded from 77 Brill.com10/07/2021(2017) 294–317 06:55:48PM via free access The Kotayk Survey Project 309 whose shape and size share common characteristics expected of such shel- ters, as we will see below. These sites are: Ağaçlık, Aliler, Aşağı Anzaf Kalesi, Bahçecik, Cankurtarantepe, Çermik, Cevizderesi, Dedeli, Genefik, Kaleönü, Keçikiran 1, Keçikiran 2, Norşuntepe (lower structure), Tıkızlı and Zulümtepe in Eastern Anatolia; Agrab Tepe, Allah Verdikand (the higher fortress), Bastam (Hallenbau), Qal’eh Gauhar, Qal’eh Tazaboulagh (inner fortress), Sheragaiyeh Amir (inner fortress), Tepe Dosoq, Turki Tepe and Uzub Tepe in Iranian Azerbaijan; Getap 1, Oshakan (upper fortress) and Yonjalekh in Armenia. These sites have been divided into five categories on the basis of fortress shape: square, rectangular, sub-rectangular, elongate rectangular and of uncertain shape. Solak 1 belongs to the square fortification category, together with other four sites: Oshakan in Armenia, Aliler and Norşuntepe in Eastern Turkey and Hallenbau in Bastam, Iranian Azerbaijan (Fig. 12). They all share similar fea- tures, with dimensions ranging from 54×50 m (Aliler) to 27×27 m (Solak 1). None of them have been completely excavated, but partial archaeological investiga- tions have been conducted in Oshakan, Hallenbau and Solak 1. Despite the paucity of data, we can affirm that these fortresses show a complex organiza- tion of the interior space, with about 6 to 10 rooms, although the number can- not be definitively determined in the absence of more detailed investigations. In Hallenbau and Norşuntepe, rooms were identified with rows of pithoi for the storage of foodstuffs, while in Solak 1 (as described above) and Oshakan frag- mentary remains of pithoi were found, but it is not possible at present to locate the storage areas inside the fortresses. The Hallenbau structure is the only one that definitely had stables (west building), but it is very likely that stables were also present in the others. All the fortresses, apart perhaps from Aliler, had curtain walls reinforced with regularly spaced buttresses and corner but- tresses. In Norşuntepe and Solak 1 there was only a main gate; in Oshakan and Aliler too we may hypothesize that there was originally only one gate, but these have not yet been identified. In Hallenbau, the original building had a single entrance and the adjoining western structure containing the stable had two more gates. Three of these constructions were built on flat ground (Norşuntepe, Aliler and Hallenbau), while two (Oshakan and Solak 1) were built on the top of high hills, a circumstance that suggests that the latter two fulfilled the dual function of road-station and road control centre, and prob- ably also housed small garrisons. On the basis of the data presented, we can therefore insert Solak 1 in a spe- cific category of Urartian fortresses, the ‘road stations’ group, given especially its similarities with the fortresses of Oshakan and Norşuntepe. As said, Solak 1 was probably subsequently enlarged. This situation may be compared to those documented at Qal’eh Tazaboulagh, Allah Verdikand and

Annali, Sezione orientale 77 (2017) 294–317 Downloaded from Brill.com10/07/2021 06:55:48PM via free access 310 Dan and PETROSYAN

Figure 12 Square fortresses: A) Aliler (after Belli 2004: fig. 8); B) Oshakan (after Kalantaryan et al. 2003: 117); C) Norşuntepe (after Hauptmann 1974: 83); D) Hallenbau (after Kleiss 1988: abb. 16); E) Solak 1.

Sheragaiyeh Amir in Iranian Azerbaijan, strategically sited fortresses that over the decades following their construction and the stabilization of the conquered areas, were made into bigger fortresses surrounded by additional curtain walls. Interestingly, the square plan with buttresses of the Solak 1 fortress may also be compared to post-Urartian period buildings. In the site of Yervandašat (Armenia), the residence of the king during the Orontid rule over Armenia, was built in the 3rd century BC. Recently in Yervandašat a square structure measuring 24.20 m×24.40 m, reinforced by regularly-spaced buttresses that protrude 50 cm from the walls has been found (Ter-Martirosov 2015: 49, fig. 2; Figs. 13–14).17 The structure has two gates. In the lower layers in one of the room of this building, fragments of post-Urartian pottery with a surface treatment similar to the classical Urartian red-slipped ware have been found

17 According to the architect Hayk Kyureghyan, Felix Ter-Martirosov, the head of Yervandašat expedition, was the first person who have hypothesized the possible comparison between the standard Urartian susi temples and this post-Urartian building.

Annali, Sezione orientaleDownloaded from 77 Brill.com10/07/2021(2017) 294–317 06:55:48PM via free access The Kotayk Survey Project 311

(Ter-Martirosov 2012: 186, figs. 13–14). We suggest that this structure demon- strates that certain Urartian cultural traits regarding architectural and pottery traditions were maintained during the centuries that followed the collapse of the Urartian kingdom, especially in the 6th–4th centuries BC. Recent archaeo- logical investigations have brought to light in the same site another architec- tural structure that shows continuity and transformation with respect to the Urartian architectural tradition. A little square structure, discovered attached to the southern side of the main building, which is reinforced by four corner buttresses, calls to mind the classical shape of the typical Urartian susi temple (Fig. 15 A–B), but reduced in size (Ter-Martirosov 2015: 49, fig. 2; Fig. 10). In the Achaemenid period the typical shape of the Urartian susi temple was reused for the so-called fire temple (Dan 2015: 37–43), with dimensions very similar to the Yervandašat building (Fig. 15 A, C).18 We hope that in future further investigations will bring to light more features of this continuity. It is interesting to note, despite the brevity of the Urartian

Figure 13 Yervandashat. The complex with the square building reinforced with buttresses and the small square building with four corner buttresses just south of it (after Ter-Martirosov 2015: fig. 2).

18 Miqayel Badalyan is developing a similar idea, which will be published on a forthcoming article.

Annali, Sezione orientale 77 (2017) 294–317 Downloaded from Brill.com10/07/2021 06:55:48PM via free access 312 Dan and PETROSYAN

Figure 14 Yervandashat. The central part of the building complex (adapted from Ter-Martirosov 2015: fig. 2).

Figure 15 Comparison between plans of: A) the Yervandashat building (adapted from Ter-Martirosov 2015: fig. 2); B) the susi temple located in Kayalıdere (adapted from Stronach 1978: fig. 68c); C) Zendan-e Suleyman (adapted from ibid.: fig. 68c).

Annali, Sezione orientaleDownloaded from 77 Brill.com10/07/2021(2017) 294–317 06:55:48PM via free access The Kotayk Survey Project 313 presence beyond the Araxes (lasting at least one century), the importance of Urartian culture in the future development of Armenian culture. The importance of the Solak 1 excavations is due especially to its long chron- ological sequence. Furthermore, it is the only fortress in the northern part of the Kotayk region where Urartian period layers have been found. The founda- tion date seems similar to that of Aramus, i.e. the mid-8th century BC or a little later, in any case at a time when the area was already under stable Urartian control. This site allows us to investigate the dynamics between state power and local communities, dynamics that may be studied with regard to both architecture and pottery. The site fills a gap in our knowledge of the pattern of Urartian fortifications, in an area where, up to just a few years ago, no Urartian archaeological sites were known.

The Rescue Excavations in Meghradzor Village

Two Early Bronze Age sites were studied in Meghradzor village on the north bank of the River Marmarik, in the Marmarik Valley, an area that has been added to Kotayk Survey Project. Due to its convenient location the village was used by mobile telecommunications operators for a tower that was erected directly on the fortress. The Armenian-American expedition (A. Petrosyan, D. Peterson) exploring the River Marmarik valley discovered Early Bronze Age 2900–2600/2500 BC (KA II; Badalyan 2014: 70–92) pottery in the cut off road which was built as a result of the above-mentioned construction work in 2012. The site was subsequently investigated in detail by the Kotayk Survey Project in 2015 (KSP 059). L. Biagov conducted excavations there in the 1980s, but according to the published material Early Bronze Age layers were not recorded (Biagov 1986: 8). Another site was discovered on the territory of what is known as the Berdi Glukh (Fortress Head), which is included in the National Cultural Heritage List, during road-building work (KSP 060). Construction work was stopped and pieces of Early and Late Bronze Age pottery were collected from the disturbed layers; they are currently undergoing conservation treatment (Fig. 16).

Investigations in Kaghsi Village

Two Early Bronze Age sites have been investigated in the territory of the village Kaghsi (Kaghsi 1, 2). A piece of a bowl made of obsidian was found in the test pit in Kaghsi 2 (KSP 046) together with Early Bronze Age pottery (Fig. 17). Bowls

Annali, Sezione orientale 77 (2017) 294–317 Downloaded from Brill.com10/07/2021 06:55:48PM via free access 314 Dan and PETROSYAN

Figure 16 Meghradzor – 1 fortress. Early Bronze Age Ceramics (A, B), Andiron (C) – 2900–2600/2500 BC (KA II).

Figure 17 Kaghsi 2. Early Bronze Age – 2900–2600/2500 BC (KA II): pottery (1–5), beads (6), obsidian arrowhead (7) and obsidian bowl (8).

Annali, Sezione orientaleDownloaded from 77 Brill.com10/07/2021(2017) 294–317 06:55:48PM via free access The Kotayk Survey Project 315 made of obsidian are known from a number of Middle Eastern sites dating to the 6th–3rd millennia (Domuztepe, Zakros, Ur etc.). This find is currently the only one of its kind from the region. The expedition discovered a fortress which is not in the National Cultural Heritage List during the survey near Kaghsi village (KSP 046). The fortress is located south-west of the village, 250 m north-east of the Kaghsi 2 fortress listed in the Heritage List with index no. 6.63.2. Large blocks of basalt form walls that are 3.7 m thick; the entrance to the castle is located in the north-western wall, and the wall faces of the structure are flat, without buttresses or towers.

References

Adler, D.S. et al. (2012) The Hrazdan Gorge Palaeolithic Project, 2008–2009, in Avetisyan, Bobokhyan (2012), 21–37. Avetisyan, P., A. Bobokhyan eds. (2012) Archaeology of Armenia in Regional Context. Proceedings of the International Conference dedicated to the 50th Anniversary of the Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography Held on September 15–17, 2009 in Yerevan. Yerevan. Badalyan, R.S. (2014) New data on the Periodization and Chronology of the Kura- Araxes Culture in Armenia, Palèorient 40/2, 70–92. Badalyan, R.S. et al. (1993) Preliminary Report on the 1992 Excavations at Horom, Armenia. 31, 1–24. Barkhudaryan, S. (1935) Khorhrdayin Hayastani nyutakan kulturayi hushardzannere. Yerevan [in Armenian]. Belli, O. (2004) An Early Iron Age and Urartian Fortress in the Van Region: Aliler. Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici 46/1, 5–14. Biagov, L. (1986) Materialnaya kultura dolini reki Marmarik (epoxy pozdney bronzi— rannogo jeleza). Avtoreferat dissertatsi na soiskanie uchenoy stepini kandidata istoricheskix nauk, st. 8. Yerevan [in Russian]. Castelluccia, M. et al. (2012) The First Season of the Kotayk Survey Project: Preliminary Report. Aramazd. Armenian Journal of Near Eastern Studies 7/2, 28–35. CTU = Salvini (2008). Dan, R. (2012) Tra l’Eufrate e l’Arasse. Ricostruzione del paesaggio insediativo del regno di Biainili/Urartu. Unpublished PhD dissertation. Roma. Dan, R. (2015) From the Armenian Highland to Iran. A Study on the Relations between the Kingdom of Urartu and the Achaemenid Empire (Serie Orientale N.S. 4). Roma. Dan, R. (2016) Vorratsgefäße (pithos)—In Urartu. II. Archäologisch, in Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 14, 597–98. Berlin–New York. Dan, R. (forth.) Linking lowlands among the mountains: the Urartian ‘road stations’. Studies in Caucasian Archaeology III.

Annali, Sezione orientale 77 (2017) 294–317 Downloaded from Brill.com10/07/2021 06:55:48PM via free access 316 Dan and PETROSYAN

Dan, R. et al. (2015) Testimonianze archeologiche della produzione del vino nell’antica Armenia. Res Antiquae 12, 1–22. Gevorgyan, A. (1993) Raskopki Karashambskogo nekropolja. Hnagitakan ashxatank’nere Hayastani norakaruyc’nerum, 50–60. Yerevan [in Russian]. Gharibyan, I. (2006) Artsap—Meghradzor. Yerevan. Gharibyan, I. et al. (2008) Hnaguyn Bjnin: Naxnakan dirarkumner. Patma-banasirakan handes 3, 185–96 [in Armenian]. Gharibyan, I. (2010) Bjnii hushardzannnere: Peghumneri ardyunqnere. Hushardzan 6, 67–90. Hauptmann, H. (1974) Norşun-Tepe Kazısı, 1971 / Die Grabungen auf dem Norşuntepe, 1971, in ODTU/METU, Keban Projesi 1971, Çalişmaları—Keban Project 1971 Activities (Keban Project Publications I, 4), 71–102. Ankara. Heinsch S., W. Kuntner, H. Avetisyan (2012) The Iron Age fortress of Aramus, Armenia: Archaeological evidence of the East and North Forts, in Avetisyan, Bobokhyan (2012), 133–47. Hovhannisyan, V. (1993) Raskopki Karashambskogo mogil’nika v 1987g. Hnagitakan ashxatank’nere Hayastani norakaruyc’nerum, 26–36. Yerevan [in Russian]. Kalantaryan, A.A. et al. (2003) Rezul’taty Raskopok 2002 g. v Oshakane, in L. Abramyan et al. (eds.), Arkheologiya, Etnologiya, i Fol’kloristika Kavkaza, 112–21. Tbilisi. Kalantaryan, A.A. (2005) Ginin hay avandakan mshakuytum. Yerevan. Karapetyan, L. (1969) Bronzi dari ev vax erkati nor hushardzan Hrazdan geti avaza- num. Patma-banasirakan hands, 278–83 [in Armenian]. Khanzadyan, E.V. (1967) Haykakan Leṛnashkharhi mshakuytʻě mtʻa III hazaramyakum. Yerevan [in Armenian]. Kleiss, W. ed. (1988) Die Architectur, in W. Kleiss (ed.), Bastam II. Ausgrabungen in den Urartäischen Anlagen 1977–1978 (Teheraner Forschungen V), 13–74. Berlin. Kroll, S. (2010) Urartu and Hasanlu. Aramazd. Armenian Journal of Near Eastern Studies 5/2, 21–35. Kuntner, W., S. Heinsch (2010) The Ostburg of Aramus, an Urartian and Achaemenid Fortress. The Stratigraphical Evidence, in P. Matthiae et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the 6th International Congress of the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, 5 May-10 May 2009, «Sapienza», Università di Roma, Volume 2 Excavations, Surveys and Restorations: Reports on Recent Field Archaeology in the Near East, 1051–60. Wiesbaden. Melikyan, V. (2015) Newly Found Middle Bronze Age Tombs of Karashamb Cemetery: Preliminary Report. Aramazd. Armenian Journal of Near Eastern Studies 9, 7–28. Mnatsakanyan, A. (1954) Hnaguyn dambaranadasht Tsamakaberd gyughi mot. Haykakan SSR Gitutyunneri akademiayi trghekagir 5, 85–94 [in Armenian]. Mnatsakanyan, A. (1965) Lchasheni mshakuyt’i zargats’man himnakan etapnery. Patma-banasirakan handes 2, 95–114 [in Armenian].

Annali, Sezione orientaleDownloaded from 77 Brill.com10/07/2021(2017) 294–317 06:55:48PM via free access The Kotayk Survey Project 317

Mnatsakanyan, A., G. Tiratsyan (1961) Novye dannye o material’noj kul’ture drevnej Armenii. Haykakan SSR Gitutyunneri akademiayi trghekagir 8, 69–83 [in Russian]. Petrosyan, A. et al. (2015) The Kotayk Survey Project (KSP): Preliminary Report on 2014 Fieldwork Activity. Aramazd. Armenian Journal of Near Eastern Studies 9/1, 58–68. Salvini, M. (2008) Corpus dei Testi Urartei, I–III, Le iscrizioni su pietra e roccia (Documenta Asiana VIII). Roma. Stronach, D. (1978) Pasargadae. A Report on the Excavations Conducted by the British Institute of Persian Studies from 1961 to 1963. Oxford. Ter-Martirosov, F. (2012) Archaeological research at Yervandashat, 2005–2008, in Avetisyan, Bobokhyan (2012), 185–96. Ter-Martirosov, F. (2015) Yervandashat, in E. Minasyan, H. Petrosyan, H., Melkonyan (eds.), Genesis Forest, Collected Articles in memory of Felix Ter-Martirosov, 33–54 Yerevan [in Russian].

Annali, Sezione orientale 77 (2017) 294–317 Downloaded from Brill.com10/07/2021 06:55:48PM via free access