Village, fortress, and town in Bronze and Iron Age Southern Caucasia: A preliminary report on the 2003–2006 investigations of Project ArAGATS on the Tsaghkahovit Plain, Republic of Armenia By Ruben Badalyan, Adam T. Smith, Ian Lindsay, Lori Khatchadourian and Pavel Avetisyan With appendices by Belinda Monahan and Roman Hovsepyan Keywords: zzzzzzzzz ˇß æº: zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Between 2003 and 2006, the joint Armenian-Ameri- the Medieval Period (c. AD 300–1220).5 While the can project for the Archaeology and Geography of hiatuses between these occupational eras are quite Ancient Transcaucasian Societies (Project ArAGATS) intriguing and highly relevant to the archaeology of conducted three major field seasons (2003, 2005, southern Caucasia in general, in this article we fo- 2006) of archaeological investigations on the cus on the three phases of intensive settlement in Tsaghkahovit plain (Aragatsotn Marz) of central Ar- the region from the initial Early Bronze Age, through menia (Fig. 1).1 The Tsaghkahovit plain is a high the Late Bronze Age, to the end of the Iron III elevation intermontane plateau set between the phase. Our investigations have been principally northern slope of Mt. Aragats (4090 m), the south- guided by an overarching effort to describe the western slopes of the Pambak range, and Mt. Kol- emergence, and re-formulation, of social and politi- gat (a.k.a. Mets Sharailer, 2474 m) in central wes- cal institutions in the region. This concern with in- tern Armenia. It is the smallest and the highest stitutional formation initially arose from an abiding (2100 m a.s.l.) of the three major plains – along interest in the unique constellations of authority with the Ararat and Shirak – that nestle at the base that forwarded the emergence of early complex po- of Mt. Aragats.2 lities in southern Caucasia at the beginning of the Our investigations in the region began in Late Bronze Age. However, these concerns soon 1998 when we initiated a systematic intensive sur- broadened to envelope both the constitutive prac- vey that ultimately covered 98.31 km2 of the moun- tices of Early Bronze Age village life and the re- tain slopes surrounding the plain.3 With the survey markable political re-structurings attendant to the complete, in 2002 the ArAGATS research program virtually unknown world of post-Urartian towns. shifted to intensive excavations at the region’s ma- Even as we continue to develop a sense of the spe- jor sites.4 While our work to date has concentrated cific institutions that shaped social, economic, and primarily on intensive excavations at the multi-com- political life over three millennia in the Tsaghkaho- ponent sites of Tsaghkahovit and Gegharot, it has vit plain, it is clear that authority in the region was also included investigations at five mortuary sites produced within a shifting landscape dominated by and test soundings at several associated fortresses, the distinctive built environments of the village, the including Hnaberd, Aragatsiberd, Poloz-Sar, Ashot fortress, and the town. Yerkat, Tsilkar (Top Kar), and at the settlement of Tsilkar. These investigations have revealed the broad Excavations at Gegharot: from village to contours of regional occupation with four major fortress eras of settlement (Fig. 2) prior to the crystallization of the modern landscape: the Early Bronze Age Our attention was initially drawn to the site of Geg- 3500 2600 1500 (c. – BC), the Late Bronze Age (c. – harot by test excavations at the site that revealed 1200 600 200 BC), the Iron III period (c. – BC), and well-preserved occupation levels associated with the emergence of fortified settlements in southern 1 Several previous, more limited, reports have detailed aspects of Caucasia during the Late Bronze Age. Fortresses, ty- the findings gathered here for the first time, including `º' pically high rock outcrops reinforced by one or Łð. 2004; `º' Ł äð. 2005; Hayrapetyan 2005; Lindsay more cyclopean stone masonry walls encircling the 2004; ¸ŁæŁ 2005; Monahan 2004a. 2 There is considerable variability in transliterations for ‘Tsaghka- citadel, were fundamental to the initial emergence hovit’. In the last few years, we have come to use Tsaghkahovit as the most accurate transliteration of the Armenian. 3 5 Avetisyan et al. 2000; Badalyan et al. 2003; Smith/Badalyan in The dates assigned here for the medieval period extend from press.; Smith et al. 1999; Smith et al. 2005. the adoption of Christianity (AD 301) up to the Mongol invasi- 4 `º' Ł äð. 2005; Smith et al. 2004. ons of the Caucasus which commenced in 1220/21. 2091448 AMIT Band 40/2008 Trennprogr.: DeutschNeu u:/p_1/ai/18ai_v2/003/18ai003u.3d Stand vom: 22.5.2009 Satzprogramm: 3B2, in Universal CS3 bearbeitet insgesamt 62 Seiten Bearb.: Lier Verwendete Schrift: Meta (TrueType) 46 R. Badalyan et al. Fig. 1 Regional Map of the of socio-political complexity in the region and Geg- was to continue the operations initiated during the Tsaghkahovit Plain harot appeared to be a promising site for examin- previous season.7 Thus we resumed excavations in ing the conditions of their production. However, our operation T02E on the western terrace and investigations since 2003 have also revealed re- expanded work in T02D on the southern edge of markably well-preserved remains of a previous Early the summit to the south to include a new quadrant, Bronze Age village on the site including multi-room T-2D/e (90 m2). On the lower western slope of the domestic spaces and mortuary complexes. Thus our hill, we excavated a series of exploratory trenches: investigations have expanded to explore the socio- operations T11 (44 m2), T12 (54 m2) and its satellite cultural constitution of these early settlements. trenches Ò12À,T12´, and T12Ñ (a total of Excavations at the site of Gegharot between 47.5 m2), T13 (30 m2), and T14 (18 m2). In 2005, 2003 and 2006 opened a total area of 929.5m2 we initiated operations T15 (75 m2) and T17 (Fig. 3).6 Our first priority during the 2003 season (50 m2) on the western edge of the summit. On the western terrace, work continued in T02E and a new operation, T16 (75 m2), was set just to the north. In 6 For a discussion of our initial excavation strategy at Gegharot, 2006, work continued yet again in T02E (reaching a see Badalyan et al. 2003. Due to limitations of space, we have chosen in this report to focus primarily on excavation units that reached completion as of the 2006 season to the exclusion of those that will be continued during subsequent work at the site 7 planned for 2008–2009. Smith et al. 2004. 2091448 AMIT Band 40/2008 Trennprogr.: DeutschNeu u:/p_1/ai/18ai_v2/003/18ai003u.3d Stand vom: 22.5.2009 Satzprogramm: 3B2, in Universal CS3 bearbeitet insgesamt 62 Seiten Bearb.: Lier Verwendete Schrift: Meta (TrueType) Village, fortress, and town in Bronze and Iron Age Southern Caucasia 47 Fig. 2 Chronology and Period- ization of Southern Caucasia final extent of 194 m2), as well as in T16 and T17. ducted our first exploration of the eastern side of New excavations were inaugurated in T18 (50 m2), the summit, opening T20 (80 m2) near a particularly 1 m north of T17, and in T19 (75 m2) on the wes- well-preserved segment of the northeastern fortress tern terrace. During the 2006 season, we also con- wall. 2091448 AMIT Band 40/2008 Trennprogr.: DeutschNeu u:/p_1/ai/18ai_v2/003/18ai003u.3d Stand vom: 22.5.2009 Satzprogramm: 3B2, in Universal CS3 bearbeitet insgesamt 62 Seiten Bearb.: Lier Verwendete Schrift: Meta (TrueType) 48 R. Badalyan et al. Fig. 3 Map of Gegharot The investigations conducted at the base of preceding Early Bronze Age levels. As a result, Late the western slope identified occupation levels dating Bronze Age floors are often found set into, and solely to the Karnut-Shengavit phase of the Early even below, layers deposited by their predecessors Bronze Age.8 While these investigations did recover over one millennium earlier. The repeated cycles of Late Bronze Age (Lchashen-Metsamor horizon) mate- construction and destruction that appear to have rials, they revealed no evidence of a second millen- continually re-shaped the site during both its Early nium BC occupation. On Gegharot’s summit, all of and Late Bronze Age occupations created consider- the operations uncovered clear evidence of both able complexities in the micro-stratigraphy of each Early and Late Bronze Age occupation levels (in some phase. Furthermore, opportunistic development of places beginning directly under the topsoil). The the site during the Late Bronze Age left intact some thickness of the subsurface deposits on both the ter- areas of the preceding occupations while clearing race and summit ranged from just 0.15 m to as much away others, resulting in a rather inconsistent hori- as 2.75 m depending on three primary factors: the zontal stratigraphy. slope of the underlying bedrock substrate, the engi- As a result of the excavations conducted be- neering used to prepare the bedrock prior to con- tween 2003 and 2006, we now have assembled a struction, and the preservation of architecture that complete stratigraphic picture of the site. In particu- encouraged the build-up of soil deposits. lar, the 2006 investigations succeeded in finally ex- The stratigraphy of the summit is complicated posing the initial Early Bronze I occupation levels by the building activities of the Late Bronze Age oc- that previously had only been hinted at by occa- cupants of the site who repeatedly dug into the sional ceramic sherds from disturbed layers. This discovery has not only stimulated a reconsideration of our previously held understandings of the re- 8 gion’s Early Bronze Age settlement history but also Adjacent to these occupation levels, along a scarp at the bottom of the slope, were several contemporary extramural tombs that has forced us to revise our understanding of the have been destroyed by the expansion of the modern village.