The proposed research explores the long-term human utilization of the
Vorotan River corridor (Syunik marz, Republic of Armenia). Our interests,
encouraged by two exploratory visits in 2004 and a successful first season of
fieldwork in 2005, revolve around the diachronic record of settlement and
exploitation of this river course, and the strategic history of what has long been a
recognized passageway for movement, contact, and exchange within the
southern Caucasus (Hewsen 2001; Xnkikyan 2002). Multiple research questions
emerge and command interest in this remarkable, and hitherto little explored,
archaeological landscape along the Vorotan. In this proposal, we focus on our
specific goals for a field season in 2006: regional connectivity and control; ‘large
site’ exploration, via further test excavation, ceramic analysis, and architectural
mapping; mortuary landscape analysis; and obsidian studies.
Underpinning this research agenda are the results of the Vorotan Project’s
fieldwork in August-September 2005. Members of this Armenian-AmericanBritish collaborative enterprise undertook various modes of investigation —
extensive survey, intensive survey, analysis of aerial and satellite imagery, test
excavations at two sites, and mortuary landscapes study — in one upland basin
of the Vorotan watershed (known as the Angeghakot-Shaghat-Balak valley, after
its three modern villages) (Alcock and Cherry 2005; Alcock et al. 2006; Cherry et
al. 2006). Sixteen sites, of all periods and of a range of functions, as well as a
large number of burial complexes, were discovered and recorded through the
partial reconnaissance of this valley system. Intensive survey, rarely practiced in
the southern Caucasus (but cf. Smith et al. 2004; Smith and Badalyan n.d.), placed
these settlements against the backdrop of a low-level, but pervasive scatter of
‘off-site’ ceramic and lithic material. Gridded surface collection and limited test
excavation was carried out at two fortified hilltop sites, Shaghat 1 and Balak,
both dominated by artifactual materials from mid-first millennium BC
occupation (c. late 7th-4th century BC, the early Yervandid period), but also with
significant finds of the Early and Middle Bronze Ages at Shaghat 1 (cf. Avetisyan
et al. 2000; Xnkikyan 2002) and of the Medieval period at Balak. Meticulous
topographic and architectural mapping was undertaken at these strategically
located sites, as well as at two other comparable ‘citadel’ locations overlooking
the valley. The results of this initial season have shaped our plans for 2006, as
well as providing us with rich material for further study and analysis. The chief
goals of the Vorotan Project next season are here outlined under the four
headings indicated above.
(1) Regional connectivity and control. Given the significance of the
Vorotan corridor, the possible presence of archaeological correlates speaking to
its control (fortified sites, watchtowers, ancient routes, etc.) becomes a significant
research goal. This is especially true when considered over the long term, not
least the later first millennium BC/earlier first millennium AD, when this region
was either within, or on the fringes of, several expansive imperial regimes (e.g.,
the Achaemenid, Roman, and Parthian empires), as well as, later, powerful
medieval kingdoms for which the textual documentation is particularly rich in
the Syunik area (Hewsen 2001). Reconnaissance of the Vorotan drainage offers
one index of expansion, contraction, and contestation in this politically dynamic
zone. Work in 2005 included the extensive exploration (though both pedestrian
and vehicular survey, with careful GPS recording of observed features) of the
study valley’s various routes of ingress and egress. Large-scale modifications of
the landscape during the Soviet era have clearly damaged or erased ancient
traces along certain routes, but others (e.g., in the valley leading west to the
nearby Azeri enclave of Nachichevan: Belli and Sevin 1999: 49-50) producd
noteworthy pre-modern remains. In 2006, we intend to continue such extensive
work, pushing farther along the Vorotan corridor, particularly to the southwest
towards the archaeological site of Uits and the modern town of Sisian. Highresolution satellite imagery (Quickbird; IKONOS) newly acquired by the Project
will aid in identifying fruitful locales for investigation, and we also intend to
explore the predictive capabilities of our already-established GIS for better
understanding of communication routes throughout the whole middle Vorotan
drainage (cf. Bell et al. 2002)
(2) ‘Large site’ exploration: test excavation, ceramic study, and
architectural mapping. In 2006, we propose to refine our study of the ceramics
from the investigations at Shaghat 1 and Balak, analyzing both our stratified and
surface finds. We should by then have some absolute chronological control via a
series of 16 C-14 dates now being run at Oxford (AMS) and Heidelberg, under
the guidance of our radiocarbon Project Consultant, Prof. Sturt Manning. (With
his help, we plan in future seasons to generate a substantial database of C-14
dates for southern Armenia.) It should be noted that the Yervandid-period
ceramics, whose analysis is in the charge of project co-director Mkrtich
Zardaryan, are the first substantial collections of material for this period to come
from southern Armenia (cf. Akopian 2002a; 2002b; Karapetian 2003). They
require alignment with ceramic chronologies and typologies evolved elsewhere
in Armenia (e.g., especially, at the dynastic capitals of Armavir and Artashat on
the Ararat Plain) or in the southern Caucausus more generally (Zardaryan 1977;
Zardaryan and Akopian 1994; Tirats’yan 2003). Our ‘large site’ exploration will
also extend to Uits, a massive (200+ ha.), impressively fortified site with many
visible structures, tombs and walls in situ, stretching along both sides of the
Vorotan River near the modern town of Sisian. The chronology of Uits remains
in need of clarification, although the presence of both prehistoric and medieval
components is clear. Detailed architectural mapping (on large-scale topographic
base maps prepared for us by the Land Monitoring Unit, Yerevan) is being
undertaken by project co-director Armen Tonikian, who is seeking to trace the
long-term development of fortification systems in this much-defended,
mountainous terrain.
(3) Mortuary landscape analysis. One of the most salient features of the
Armenian archaeological landscape is the presence of stone-built tombs of
variable size and design (‘cromlechs,’ kurgans, flat rectilinear, etc.) and date
(Early and Middle Bronze Age, Yervandid, and Medieval examples are already
known in our study region). Work in 2005 under the direction of Dr. Jane
Rempel (University of Sheffield), which located and recorded some 142 burials,
has made clear that while such structures appear frequently to cluster in possible
family or factional groupings, they are also to be found in isolated contexts.
Many have suffered robbing or other forms of destruction, and looting is
becoming an especially troubling problem in southern Armenia. Continued
mapping and careful recording of such sites, together with study of their spatial
distribution and the selective excavation of 2 or 3 examples we plan in 2006,
offers an important way to consider territoriality and social power in the
Armenian highlands.
(4) Obsidian. Armenia is a highly tectonic zone zone, with five main
volcanic districts recognized, and at least two dozen distinct obsidian flows
within them (Oddone et al. 1999). The southernmost sources in the Syunik region
lie north of the headwaters of the River Vorotan, on the slopes of the Mez and
Pokr Satanakar, Sevkar, and Basenk volcanoes near the border with Azerbaijan.
Most work on Armenian obsidians to date, unsurprisingly, has focused on
characterization and sourcing studies (e.g., Badalyan 2002; Barge and Chataigner
2003), while technological and typological discussions of obsidian artifact
assemblages from stratified contexts are still extremely rare. In our study-area, it
is already clear that virtually all the obsidian artifacts (which are abundant in
both survey and excavation) derive from river-rolled cobbles, presumably
brought downstream by the Vorotan, and the lithic technologies used to exploit
them are highly expedient. In 2006, under the direction of co-director John
Cherry, we plan to assess the Syunik obsidian sources themselves, conduct
detailed morphological and technological analysis of the obsidian assemblages
excavated from stratified Middle Bronze Age and Yervandid contexts at Shaghat
1 and Balak in the first two seasons, and evaluate the information to be gained
from the obsidian collected during survey (cf. Cherry and Parkinson 2003).
Partial funding from the National Geographic Society for the proposed
2006 season will allow the continuation of the Vorotan Project, which will again
involve the close collaboration, and mutual education, of professional
archaeologists and graduate students from a range of institutions in Armenia, the
United States, and the United Kingdom.
References
Akopian, A. 2002a. Popytka issledovaniia post-urartskoi keramiki (iuzhnyi
bassein ozera Sevan) [An attempt to research post-Urartian ceramics
(Southern basin of Lake Sevan)]. Tezisy Dokladov Sessii, Posviashchennoi
Pamiati A. Martirosiana ‘Drevneishaya Kul’tura Armenii 12: 58-60. [In
Armenian]
Akopian, A. 2002b. The surface pottery of the Early Armenian, Hellenistic and
Roman Period from the southern Sevan Basin. NEFU: 301-319.
Alcock, S.E., and J.F. Cherry. 2005. ‘New fieldwork in Armenia: The Vorotan
Project, 2005.’ Kelsey Museum Newsletter, Fall 2005: 6-7.
Alcock, S.E., J.F. Cherry, A. Tonikyan, and M. Zardaryan. 2006. ‘The Vorotan
Project, Armenia, 2005—‘. In L.E. Talalay and S.E. Alcock, eds., In the
Field: The Archaeological Expeditions of the Kelsey Museum, 88-89. Kelsey
Museum Publication 4. Ann Arbor: Kelsey Museum of Archaeology.
Avetisyan, P., R. Badalyan, A. Gevorkyan, and O. Khnkikyan. 2000. ‘The 1998
excavation campaign at the Middle Bronze Age necropolis of Sisian,
Armenia.’ Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici 42.2: 161-73.
Badalyan, R. 2002. Obsidian Kavkaza: Istochniki I Rasprostranenie Siria v Epokhu
Neolita-Rannevo Zheleza (po Resultatam Analizov Neutronnoy Aktivatzii).
Unpublished PhD dissertation, Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography,
Yerevan. [In Russian]
Barge, O., and C. Chataigner. 2003. The procurement of obsidian: factors
influencing the choice of deposits. Journal of Non-crystalline Solids 323: 17279.
Bell, T., A. Wilson, and A. Wickham. 2002. Tracking the Samnites: landscape
and communication routes in the Sangro Valley, Italy. American Journal of
Archaeology 106.2: 169-86.
Belli, O., and V. Sevin. 1999. Nahçivan’da Arkeolojik Arastirmalar
1998/Archaeological Survey in Nakhichevan, 1998. Istanbul: Arkeoloji ve
Sanat Yayinlari.
Cherry, J.F., and W. Parkinson. 2003. ‘Lithic artifacts from surveys: a
comparative evaluation of recent evidence from the southern Aegean.’ In
P.N. Kardulias and R.W. Yerkes (eds.), Written in Stone: The Multiple
Dimensions of Lithic Analysis, 35-57. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
Cherry, J.F., S.E. Alcock, L. Khatchadourian, J.E. Gates, J. Rempel, A. Tonikyan,
and M. Zardaryan. 2006. ‘The Vorotan Project, southern Armenia: 2005
season.’ Paper delivered at the 107th Annual Meeting of the
Archaeological Institute of America, Montréal, Canada, January 5-8, 2006.
Hewsen, R.H. 2001. Armenia: A Historical Atlas. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Karapetian, I. 2003. Material’naia kul’tura Armenii VI-IV vv do n. e. (po materialam
raskopok na territorii Respubliki Armenii). Arkheologicheskie Pamiatniki
Armenii [Archaeological Sites of Armenia] 19. Yerevan. [In Armenian]
Kushnareva, K.Kh. 1997. The Southern Caucasus in Prehistory: Stages of Cultural
and Socioeconomic Development from the Eighth to the Second Millennium B.C.
Trans. H.N. Michael. Univesity Museum Monograph 99. Philadelphia:
University Museum, University of Pennsylvania.
Oddone, M., G. Bigazzi, Y. Keheyan, and S. Meloni. 2000. Characterisation of
Armenian obsidians: implications for raw material supply for prehistoric
artifacts. Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry 243.3: 673-82.
Smith, A.T., and R.S. Badalyan. n.d. The Archaeology and Geography of Ancient
Transcaucasian Societies, I: Regional Investigations on the Tsaghkahovit Plain,
Armenia. Monograph in preparation for submission to the Oriental
Institute Press, Chicago.
Smith, A.T., R. Badalyan, P. Avetisyan, and M. Zardaryan. 2004. Early complex
societies in southern Caucasia: a preliminary report on the 2002
investigations by Project ArAGATS on the Tsakahovit Plain, Republic of
Armenia. American Journal of Archaeology 108.1: 1-41.
Tirats’yan, G.A. 2003. From Urartu to Armenia: Florilegium Gevork A. Tirats’yan.
Edited by R. Vardanyan. Neuchâtel: Recherches et Publications.
Xnkikyan, O.S. 2002. Syunik during the Bronze and Iron Ages. Trans. V. Ghazarian.
Mayreni Publishing, Barrington RI.
Zardaryan, M.H. 1977. Hellenistakan avantuidneruh ev hayasdani deghagan
khetsegheni artadrudiunuh [Hellenistic traditions and local Armenian
pottery production]. In Haigagan SSH-um 1975-1976 tt. Dashtain hnakitakan
ashkhadankneri ertiunknerin nvirvadz zegutsumneri tezisneruh, 27-28.
Yerevan.
Zardaryan, M.H., and H.P. Akopian. 1994. Archaeological excavations of
ancient monuments in Armenia, 1985-1990. Ancient Civilizations from
Scythia to Siberia: An International Journal of Comparative Studies in History
and Archaeology 1: 169-95.