archaeology of armenia in regional context

National Academy of Sciences of Republic of ArmeniaInstitute of Archaeology and Ethnography

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

Edited byPavel Avetisyan and Arsen Bobokhyan

GITUTYUN YEREVAN 2012

CONTENTS

Archaeology of Armenia in regional context: Achievements and perspectivesPavel Avetisyan, Arsen Bobokhyan 7

The Hrazdan gorge Palaeolithic project, 2008-2009Daniel S. Adler, Benik Yeritsyan, Keith Wilkinson, Ron Pinhasi, Guy Bar-Oz, Samvel Nahapetyan, Carolina Mallol, Francesco Berna, Richard Bailey, Beverly A. Schmidt, Phil Glauberman, Nathan Wales, Boris Gasparyan 22

Middle Palaeolithic occupation at Hovk-1, ArmeniaRon Pinhasi, Boris Gasparyan, Samvel Nahapetyan, Guy Bar-Oz, Lior Weissobrod, Angela Bruch, Roman Hovsepyan, Keith Wilkinson 39

From the Late Upper Palaeolithic to the Neolithic in north-western Armenia: Preliminary resultsChristine Chataigner, Boris Gasparyan, Ciril Montoya, Makoto Arimura, Varduhi Melikyan, Jeremie Liagre, Arthur Petrosyan, Robert Ghukasyan, David Colonge, Christophe Fourloubey, Dmitri Arakelyan, Laurence Astruc, Samvel Nahapetyan, Roman Hovsepyan, Adrian Balasescu, Carine Tomé, Valentin Radu 52

Activities of the Armenian-Italian archaeological expedition in the Sevan Lake Basin, 1994-2009 Raffaele Biscione, Simon Hmayakyan, Hayk Hakobyan, Neda Parmegiani 64

A comparative technological study of Kura-Araxes ceramics and their derivatives: Project design and first resultsRaffi Greenberg, Mark Iserlis 70

Re-evaluation of the ceramics of Karaz Höyük, ErzurumMehmet Işıklı 76

Archaeological investigations in TrialetiGoderdzi Narimanishvili 88

A new indication for the specific dating of Trialeti cultureKonstantin Pitskhelauri, Rolan Kiladze 106

Recent methodological and technical advances in the archaeology of Late Bronze Age residential complexes, Tsaghkahovit Plain, ArmeniaIan Lindsay 110

Excavations of the cemetery of Aghavnatun: Preliminary resultsLevon Petrosyan, Firdus Muradyan 126

The Iron Age fortress of Aramus, Armenia: Archaeological evidence of the East and North FortsSandra Heinsch, Walter Kuntner, Hayk Avetisyan 133

The surroundings of the Khaldi temple: Preliminary results of a new program of research on the Urartian fortress of ErebuniStephane Deschamps, François Fichet de Clairefontaine, Justo Traina, Vincenzo Mutarelli, Gurgen Davtian 148

Rattling and clapping Urartian girls: Idiophones in UrartuUrsula Seidl 163

The silver rhyta from Erebuni revisitedDavid Stronach 170

Archaeological research at Yervandashat, 2005-2008 Felix Ter-Martirosov 185

Beniamin (5-4th centuries BC): A palace and its dependencies during the Achaemenid periodFelix Ter-Martirosov, Stephane Deschamps, François Fichet de Clairfontaine, Vincenzo Mutarelli 197

Armenians depicted on Achaemenid monumentsMichael Roaf 208

Ancient Armenian sites in Armenia and north-western Iran: Hellenistic periodStephan Kroll 219

The discovery and first results of archaeological investigation of Tigranakert in Artsakh, 2005-2009Hamlet Petrosyan, Lyuba Kirakosyan, Vardges Safaryan, Aghavni Zhamkochyan, Ruben Vardanyan, Inessa Karapetyan, Tatyana Vardanesova 223

Archaeology of Armenia in regional context:Achievements and perspectives

Pavel Avetisyan, Arsen Bobokhyan

Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography, Armenia

Modern Armenia, a volcanic mountainous landscape with continental climate, is situated in the northern part of the geographic unit known as Armenian Highland, and is characterized by its rich cultural heritage among which archaeological remains have a special signifi cance. Although the territory of Armenia has been investigating archaeologically for more than a century, we are only at the beginning of understanding of our heritage. During last fi fty years the main mission of development of archaeology in Armenia falls on the Armenian Academy of Sciences to be represented by the Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography. Below we shall try to discuss the development process of Armenian archaeology presenting its achieve-ments in the past and possible perspectives in the future - considering these questions in the frameworks of a unique international conference held in Yerevan, 2009 and dedicated to the 50th Anniversary of the Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography.

Regional context

Both geographically and culturally Armenia is a typical contact zone where during the whole history of the region various cultural infl uences were circulating, which, together with local traits, made up its common cultural image. Such conditions turned Armenia with its surroundings into a kind of cross-road of world developments in ancient times - evolving special characters for the local populations (cf. Kant 1899, 250; Hegel 1956, 239).

A widely discussed question is which cultural world Armenia belonged to in antiquity. Different authors used to speak about Armenia and surrounding Caucasian regions as belonging to “Anatolian-Transcaucasian province” (Frankfort 1932, 34), “Mediterranean cultural world” (Kuftin 1941), “Irani-an-Mesopotamian-Caucasian world” (Kushnareva, Chubinishvili 1970, 123), “Caspian-Aegean world” (Areshyan 2008), “Circumpontic cultural province” (Chernykh 1992) or “Eurasian world” (Kohl 2007). Today is clear that to seek for an absolute answer to this question is impossible. Different cultural traits are present here, perhaps with prevalence of the Near Eastern ones in early antiquity, among which the using of cuneiform script since the beginning of the 1st millennium BC and some other important peculiarities should be mentioned (cf. Grosby 1997). However in more precise terms, modern Armenia was a real part of the mountainous region between the Caucasus and Taurus, around the lakes Van, Sevan and Urmia (= southern Georgia, western Azerbaijan, eastern Turkey and north-western Iran). This landscape, to be often mythologized in the Near Eastern and later Greek sources (cf. Lipiński 1971), represented a particular cultural world which is defi ned fi rst of all as a community of bearers of similar value systems and interde-pendent developments.

Hence the archaeology of modern Armenia can be perceived only in the regional context and in collabo-ration with specialists dealing with the mentioned cultural region. During Soviet times there existed very close connections between Georgian, Azerbaijani and Armenian archaeologists, however the contacts with the Western and Turkish or Iranian specialists were almost absent. Today the situation has been changed. After the collapse of the Soviet Union and opening of borders the archaeologists of the region came into a direct

Pavel Avetisyan, Arsen Bobokhyan8

contact with European and American colleagues. Some recent publications on various international meetings (Marro, Hauptmann 2000; Smith, Rubinson 2003; Sagona 2005; 2010; Helwing, Özfırat 2005; Lyonnet 2007; Rubinson, Sagona 2008; Hansen et al. 2010; Kroll et al. 2012) as well as exhibitions (Heublein 1995; Santrot 1996; Gam ba schidze et al. 2001; Fichet de Clairfontaine 2007; Sintes, Grigorian 2007; Donabédian, Mutafi an 2010) contributed to the open dialogue between the specialists from the mentioned countries.

Achievements

According to the modern archaeological evidence (cf. Fig.1,2), the territory of Armenia has been po-pulated since the Palaeolithic (among the important sites are Artin, Arzni, Lusakert, Erevan, etc.). As a northern part of Fertile Crescent, Armenia became one of the regions of establishment of productive way of life since the Neolithic (10000-5200 BC) and Chalcolithic (5200-3500 BC) (Aratashen, Aknashen, Teghut, Areni). Especially noteworthy is in Armenia the Early Bronze Age (3500-2500 BC) to be known by its Kura-Araxes culture which spread in the territories of the whole Fertile Crescent and represented a peculiar cultural system existing more than 1000 years (Shengavit, Mokhrablur, Harich, Karnut). The next Middle Bronze Age (2400-1500 BC) is characterized by existence of four different cultural groups - Tria-leti-Vanadsor, Sevan-Artsakh, Karmir-Berd, Karmir-Vank and by domination of semi-pastoralist economy (Karashamb, Karmir-Berd, Uzerlik-Tepe, Verin-Naver). The Late Bronze (1500-1200 BC) and Early Iron Age (1200-900 BC) societies with their Lchashen-Metsamor culture already demonstrate clear traits of complex societies and state formations (Lchashen, Metsamor, Lori-Berd, Gegharot), which during the Middle and Late Iron Ages (900-600 BC) result in crea tion of the Urartian state of Ancient Near Eastern nature using cuneiform script (Erebuni, Karmir-Blur, Oshakan, Aramus). During the Classical (600 BC-450 AD) as well as Medieval (450-1700 AD) periods the territory of Armenia is clearly known by the traits of Armenian culture (Armavir, Artashat, Dvin, Garni).

This summarizing picture is a result of hundred years archaeological work in Armenia, the main de-velopment stages of which we shall try to present briefl y below.1

Stage I: Archaeology as a discipline was formed during the 19th century. This was a time when Arme-nia was divided between Russian and Ottoman empires. First refl ections on ancient sites situated in both parts of Armenia are present in the works of Armenian (Y. Shahkhatuneants, S. Jalaleants, M. Smbateants, G. Alishan) and European (F. Schulz, E. Huntington, C. Lehmann-Haupt, H. Lynch) intellectuals and tra-ve lers of that century.

Developments of archaeological tradition on the state level are discernable since the mid 19th century mainly within the Russian part. So the Russian Imperial Archaeological Society and the Imperial Archaeo-logical Commission, founded during 1850s, undertook the fi rst works in the Caucasian region. In 1852, the Russian Imperial Geographic Society opened a Caucasian department in Tbilisi, which was closed in 1864 and its collections became the foundation for the Museum of the Caucasus (Tbilisi, 1867). A regional branch of the Commission was established in Tbilisi during the 1880s which published the fi rst archaeo-logical journal in Russia - Archaeological Commission Reports.

1 The problems of development and periodization of Armenian archaeology have been refl ected in some publications (Gha-fadaryan 1948; 1970; Arakelyan, Martirosyan 1967; Arakelyan 1984; Areshyan 1987; Bobokhyan 2001). For the context of Russian imperial and Soviet archaeology cf. Esayan 1977; Field, Price 1947; Miller 1956; Genning 1975; Bulkin et al. 1982; Trigger 1989, 207-243; Klein 1993. For Post-Soviet archaeological developments in Armenia cf. Kalantaryan, Mel-konyan 2005; Kalantaryan 2006; Sintes, Grigorian 2007, 15-22. Among noteworthy summarizing refl ections towards the question by the side of international scholars should be especially mentioned Smith 2005; Lindsay, Smith 2006 and Smith et al. 2009, 10-20. Cf. also Kohl, Tsetskhladze 1995 and Shnirellman 2001, who try to decipher “primordialistic” traits in Caucasian among which also Armenian archaeological thought! Towards the bibliography of Armenian archaeology of Post-Soviet period cf. Kalantaryan, Melkonyan 2005, 130-137; Kalantaryan I. 2006. For comparison with development stages of South Caucasian archaeology cf. Akhvlediani 2010; Sagona 2010, 143-149.

Archaeology of Armenia in regional context 9

First archaeological works in Armenia were cemetery excavations in northern part of the country - 1871 at Akner by E. Yeritsyan, 1879 at Redkin-Lager by F. Bayern, 1887 in the Debed river basin by J. de Morgan. The 5th Archaeological Congress taken place at Tbilisi was especially important for development of archaeology in the Caucasus and Armenia. R. Virchow’s 1882 report on this conference in Berlin intro-duced the archaeology of the Caucasus for European scientists.

Stage II: The next stage of development of Armenian archaeology is connected with the name of N. Marr. His investigations at the medieval Armenian capital Ani (1892-1893, 1904-1917) brought new and advanced methodologies (cf. Marr 1934). So, N. Marr introduced interdisciplinary approaches in ar-chaeological research, combined excavations with regional survey. He managed to develop at Ani also a school which included many young scholars who became later the leading specialists in different spheres (T.Toramanyan, H.Orbeli, A.Kalantar, G.Kapantsyan, N.Tokarsky).

Stage III: After the World War I, with establishment of statehood and peace in Armenia, precondi-tions were appeared for development of scientifi c institutions, museums and other cultural and research organizations, which should demonstrate offi cial approach towards the protection and investigation of spiritual and material values of the land.

With creation of the Armenian Republic in 1918, two new institutions were founded: Yerevan State University and Yerevan State Museum. In 1919 the archaeologist A. Kalantar became one of the founders of the new university in Yerevan and published in 1923 the fi rst handbook of archaeology (Kalantar 1923). With the coming of Soviet rule in Armenia the museum and the university were reshaped. Alongside these institutions, a new Commission for the Preservation of Antiquities was founded in Yerevan in 1923 as part of the Peoples Kommissariat of Education. In 1924 the Armenian Institute of Science and Art was estab-lished, which was renamed the Institute of the Material Culture of Armenia in 1926 and was reorganized in 1937 when the Armenian branch of the USSR Academy of Sciences was founded. In 1930, a department of archaeology was founded within the university and A. Kalantar became its fi rst head.

These were not easy times for the intellectuals in Armenia. Among many archaeologists to be sent to exile in Siberia were A.Kalantar, S.Barkhudaryan and E.Baiburtyan, the last well known by his high qua-lity excavations at Shengavit and Mukhanattapa in Yerevan by which he defi ned for the fi rst time the Shen-gavit or Kura-Araxes culture. E. Baiburtyan can be considered as the founder of prehistoric archaeology in Armenia, whose important work towards periodization of Armenian archaeology has been published only recently - after seventy years (Baiburtyan 2011).

Three archaeological schools played essential role for formation of a new generation of archaeolo-gists in Armenia: Excavations at medieval fortress Anberd by H. Orbeli in 1930s (with participation of K. Ghafadaryan, B.Piotrovskii, E.Baiburtyan), excavations at Urartian site Karmir-Blur by B. Piotrovskii in 1930-1940s (with participation of H.Martirosyan, S.Esayan) and excavations at Garni by B.Arakelyan in 1940-1950s (with participation of G.Tiratsyan, Z.Khachatryan, E.Khanzadyan).

Stage IV: In 1959 the Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography was established, having been sepa-rated from the Institute of History (founded in 1943) and B. Arakelyan became its fi rst director (later direc-tors are G. Tiratsyan, A. Kalantaryan and P. Avetisyan). This was an important event signifying the birth of an organized Armenian archaeological school. Beginning with the fi rst days of its establishment the Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography became the main institution investigating the cultural heritage of Armenia.

By the efforts of the Departments of Ancient, Old and Medieval Archaeology of the institute and also collaborating organizations many settlements and cemeteries were studied. Targets of such investiga-tions were the Ararat valley (H.Martirosyan, E.Khanzadyan, G.Tiratsyan, R.Torosyan, A.Kalantaryan, Z.Khachatryan, G.Areshyan, H.Israelyan), Tavush (S.Esayan), Lori (I.Gharibyan, S.Devejyan), Shirak


(T.Khachatryan, R.Badalyan), Sevan basin (H.Mnatsakanyan, A.Piliposyan, L.Petrosyan, S.Hmayakyan, N.Engibaryan), Eghegnadsor (H.Melkonyan), Syunik (O.Khnkikyan), Aragatsotn (P.Avetisyan, H.Ave-tisyan, G.Tumanyan, F.Muradyan, H.Simonyan), Hrazdan river valley (V.Hovhannisyan, L.Biyagov), etc. In particular sites were excavated such as Dvin (S.Ter-Avetisyan, K.Ghafadaryan, A.Kalantaryan), Artashat (B.Arakelyan, Z.Khachatryan), Argishtihinili-Armavir (B.Arakelyan, G.Tira tsyan, H.Mar ti-rosyan, I.Karapetyan), Shengavit (S.Sardaryan, H.Simonyan), Erebuni (K.Hovhannisyan, F.Ter-Mar-tirosov, A.Piliposyan), Teghut (R.Torosyan), Aygevan (S.Esayan), Metsamor (E.Khanzadyan), Harich (T.Khachatryan), Mokhrablur (G.Areshyan), Lori-Berd (S.Devejyan), Oshakan (S.Esayan, A.Kalanta-ryan), Lchashen (H.Mnatsakanyan, L.Petrosyan), Nerkin Getashen (A.Piliposyan), Aparan (F.Muradyan), Karnut (R.Badalyan), Talin (P.Avetisyan), Agarak (P.Avetisyan), Karashamb (E.Khanzadyan, A.Ge-vor gyan, V.Hovhannisyan, F.Muradyan), Jrvezh (G.Tumanyan), Aramus (H.Avetisyan), Verin Naver (H.Simonyan), Hoghmik (H.Hakobyan), Erevan cave (B.Eritsyan), etc.

In the common context of site investigations also separate problems have been explored dur-ing this stage, among which especially worth mentioning are works towards rock-carvings of Arme-nia (H.Martirosyan, G.Karakhanyan). Since the 1970s increased the scientifi c contribution towards ar-chaeology of Armenia: Among such investigations should be mentioned metallurgical spectral analyses (A.Gevorgyan, S.Mandrikyan), physical anthropological (R.Mkrtchyan, N.Kochar), palaeozoological (S.Mezhlumyan, N.Manaserova) and palaeobotanical (M.Tumanyan, R. Hovsepyan) studies.

The 1980s were a border in approaches. If before 1980s the main excavations were concentrated on central sites, then after the 1980s a new generation of students chose smaller sites in peripheries for their investigations. If before 1980s the scholars were concentrated on reconstruction of provincial archaeolo-gies e.g. that of Shirak (T.Khachatryan 1975), Ararat (E.Khanzadyan 1985), Tavush (S.Esayan 1976) and Syunik (O.Khnkikyan 2002), then after 1980s the revision of chrono logies and periodization systems be-came the most central fi eld of discussions (G.Areshyan, P.Avetisyan, R.Badalyan: cf. Areshyan et al. 1990).

Stage V: With the establishment of the independent Armenian state in 1991 a new stage began in the history of Armenian archaeology, in the outcome of which working methods were wholly changed, inter-disciplinary investigations began to be used more widely. In the context of new radiocarbon data, former imaginations towards chronology, periodization and sequence of archaeological cultures were reconsi-dered (cf. Avetisyan 2003; Smith et al. 2009).

During the last twenty years the possibilities of collaboration with advanced European and Ameri-can centres increased which brought new perspectives for development of archaeology in Armenia. The fi rst of them was the International Program for Anthropological Research in the Caucasus founded by P. Kohl, R.Badalyan and Z.Kikodze, which initiated excavations at Horom in the early 1990s. The pro-ject was joined by other well known archaeologists such as D.Stronach and S. Kroll. Afterwards new international research programs were developed, among which especially worth mentioning are works of Armenian-American Project ArAGATS (directed by R.Badalyan and A.Smith), Armenian-Italian Project investigating Sevan Lake basin (directed by S.Hmayakyan and R.Biscione), Armenian-French collabora-tion in Syunik (directed by P.Avetisyan and C.Chataigner), Armenian-French and Armenian-American collaboration at Erebuni (directed by F.Ter-Martirosov, D.Stronach and S.Deschamps), Armenian-French collaboration in Beniamin (directed by F.Ter-Martirosov and S.Deschamps), Armenian-American Project “Vorotan” in Syunik (directed by M.Zardaryan and J.Cherry), Armenian-Austrian collaboration in Kotayk (directed by H.Avetisyan and W.Allinger-Csollich). Worth mentioning are different Stone Age projects directed by B. Gasparyan and international collaborators (D.S.Adler, G.Bar-Oz, R.Pinhasi), which re-sulted also in discovery of such unique archaeological sites as the cave of Areni with extraordinary good preservation state of organic materials.


Besides international projects, the Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography organizes its own exca-vations in many sites of Armenia and Artsakh. Among such undertakings is the recent discovery of the city Tigranakert, to be founded by the Armenian king Tigran II in Artsakh during the 1st century BC.

As a result of the mentioned works thousands of investigations have been published in Armenia and abroad - mainly in the special series of the Institute (Archaeological Excavations in Armenia, Archaeolo-gical Sites of Armenia, Corpus of Armenian Epigraphics, Culture of Ancient Armenia) but also as separate monographs. The main journals where archaeological articles have been published are Historical-Philolo-gical Journal and Herald of Social Sciences of the Academy of Sciences of Armenia as well as Soviet Archaeology and Herald of Ancient History of the Soviet Academy of Sciences centered at Moscow. In recent times a new journal, published also by the Institute, came into existence - Aramazd: Armenian Jour-nal of Near Eastern Studies, which presents archaeological articles in European langua ges. Also many European and American peer-reviewed journals have accepted contributions of Armenian archaeologists and their collaborators (among which especially worth mentioning are Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici, Anatolian Studies, American Journal of Archaeology, Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan, etc.). Some of the joint projects have been already published as monographs (cf. Biscione et al. 2002; Smith et al. 2009).

As a result of long lasted archaeological studies appeared investigations, which summarize achieve-ments of Armenian archaeology - defi ning culture-historical groups, their chronology and periodization, the role of archaeological material in historical context (cf. Piotrovskii 1949; Arakelyan 1959-1964; Mar-tirosyan 1964; Aghayan et al. 1971-1976; Tiratsyan 1988; Kushnareva, Markovin 1994; Kushnareva 1997; Badalyan, Avetisyan 2007).

Perspectives

Despite great works conducted during the 20th century, Armenian archaeology is far from being perfect. We would like to mention here only some questions and problems which the Armenian archaeology should deal with in the near future.

During the last hundred years a great quantity of archaeological material has been accumulated. One of the most important tasks of Armenian archaeology is to quantify the present materials, according to modern computer based criteria.

An essential part of those materials in the museums remain to be published. Their publication should be one of the most important strategies of our archaeology.

These materials need to be summarized for drawing essential conclusions. Hence summarizing inves-tigations could be actual in the future. They will result in the creation of handbooks, bibliographies, etc.

Developing multidisciplinary scientifi c works (using Geographic Information Systems, radiocarbon dating and palaeoenvironmental investigations, etc.) should be particularly stressed for modernizing Ar-menian archaeology.

Integrating academic activity in education system and creating a new generation of archaeologists who are ready to work in the most modern methods is another task. In this respect, continuation of suc-cessful collaboration with the Yerevan State University’s Department of Archaeology as well as with other archaeological departments abroad seems to be very essential.

An important task for the archaeologists of Armenia should be publication of popular works to make the academic archaeology as an important part of social life. Also active preservation and conservation of archaeological sites could help in making them open for the wider masses.

During Soviet period Armenian archaeology was practically isolated from the main developments of world archaeology. It was evolving in itself as a part of dogmatic Marxistic archaeology - far from theoretical discourse between functional, structuralistic, processual, post-processual, cognitive and other


“archaeo logies” during Post-World War II times (cf. Trigger 1989, 289-369; Hodder 1991; Bernbeck 1997, 271-319). Western ideas beyond culture-historical thought began penetrating into the Soviet archaeologi-cal reality from the end of 1970s and especially in 1980s in the form of short refl ections (cf. Klein 1978) or partial translations (cf. Gardin 1983). After the fall of the Soviet Union and opening of mental borders, together with the colleagues from European countries and United States of America also ideas came, which are still in the process of gradual implementation. However we need time to fi ll the gap. In this respect deepening the contacts with international archaeologists and managing exchange of experiences in me-thods and materials, organizing joint expeditions and workshop/conferences is one of the most essential tasks for Armenian archaeology today. Hence we are very open for collaboration with international col-leagues who are interested in constructive dialogue.

With its rich heritage and human resources the archaeology in Armenia has a great potential of deve-lopment. Discoveries of such prominent sites as Lchashen, Karashamb, Lori-Berd, Areni, etc. defi ne once more the role of Armenia in the broader context of world archaeology and justify the importance of con-tinuation of explorations of the region in the future on the background of modern methods and approaches.

First international meeting on Armenian archaeology

As mentioned above, organizing of conferences and workshops could be especially important for deve-lopment of archaeology in Armenia, which would summarize the work done and raise new questions and ideas for future perspective. During its existence the Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography has orga-nized many local and some international conferences, among which especially worth mentioning is the 1982 conference at Yerevan named “Cultural progress during the Bronze and Iron Ages” with participants from different Soviet Republics. This was the last big archaeological conference in Armenia. In this res-pect, it became necessary to organize a new international conference which would summarize the achieve-ments of Armenian archaeology in the Post-Soviet period. As a background for such a conference turned out to be the 50th anniversary of the Institute.

During September 15-17, 2009 an international meeting took place in Yerevan under the name “Archaeology of Armenia in regional context: Achievements and perspectives”, which was unpre cedented in its scale (Fig. 3-12). More than 50 archaeologists from Armenia and abroad took part in the conference. Among international participants were 20 specialists from 11 countries (Georgia, Turkey, Italy, France, Austria, Germany, Spain, Ireland, England, United States of America and Israel). Problems concerning various periods from the Stone Age to Medieval times were discussed within three working days.

The fi rst day of the conference began with the offi cial opening by the President of Armenian Acad-emy of Sciences R. Martirosyan and the director of the Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography P. Ave-tisyan, who underlined the importance of archaeology in modern Armenian developments. Armenian and international colleagues considered common problems of Armenian archaeology, as well as main results of joint projects. Also the achievements of Stone Age archaeology were discussed. The following reports were presented: Armenia and the global transformation of archaeology in the 21st century (A. Kalantaryan, G. Areshyan, Ch. Stanish, R. Boytner), Main results of Stone Age studies in Armenia, 2001-2009 (B. Gasparyan), Achievements of Armenian medieval archaeology (A. Kalantaryan, H. Melkonyan), Activi-ties of the Armenian-Italian archaeological expedition in the Sevan Lake basin, 1994-2009 (R. Biscione, S. Hmayakyan, H. Hakobyan, N. Parmegiani), Main results of investigations of the project “Vorotan” in Syunik, 2005-2007 (M. Zardaryan, S. Melkonyan), Azokh cave: Results of excavations in 2002-2008 (Y. Fernandez-Jalvo, T. King, P. Andrews, L. Yepiskoposyan, N. Moloney, J. Murray, P. Dominguez-Alonso, L. Asryan, P. Ditchfi eld, J. van der Made, T. Torres, P. Sevilla, M. Nieto, I. Caceres, E. Allue, D. Marin, T. Sanz), The Hrazdan river gorge Palaeolithic project, 2008-2009 (D.S.Adler, B. Yeritsyan, K. Wilkinson, R. Pinhasi, G. Bar-Oz, S. Nahapetyan, C. Mallol, F. Berna, R. Bailey, B. Schmidt, P. Glauberman, N.


Wales, B. Gasparyan), Middle Palaeolithic occupation at Hovk-1, Armenia (R. Pinhasi, B. Gasparian, K. Wilkinson, S. Nahapetyan, R. Hovsepyan, G. Bar-Oz, R. Bailey, A. Bruch, D. Hoffmann, D.S.Adler, A. Pike, M. Stephens), From the Epi-Palaeolithic to the Chalcolithic in north-western Armenia: Preliminary results (C. Chataigner, B.Gasparyan, C.Montoya, M.Arimura, V. Melikyan, J.Liagre, A.Petrosyan, R.Ghukasyan, D.Colonge, C.Fourloubey, D.Arakelyan, L.Astruc, S.Nahapetyan, R.Hovsepyan, A.Balasescu, C.Tomé, V.Radu), Looking for the Neolithic in the Ararat valley: French-Armenian excavations at Aratashen (P. Lombard, R. Badalyan), Areni-1: New light on the earliest civilizations of the Armenian Highland (G. Areshyan, B. Gasparyan, P. Avetisyan, R. Pinhasi), Excavation results of Godedsor, 2005-2008 (J. Palumbi, C. Chataigner, P. Avetisyan).

The second day of the conference was dedicated to the problems of Bronze and Iron Age archaeo-logy. In particular questions dealing with distribution, periodization, dating, ceramic techno logy of Ku-ra-Araxes culture were considered. The Georgian colleagues presented latest discoveries of Georgian archaeology and especially on the basis of excavations in Trialeti. Also achievements of Urartian and Achaemenid period archaeology of Armenia were touched upon. The following topics were discussed: Periodization and absolute chronology of Kura-Araxes materials of Armenia in the light of new data (R. Badalyan), Re-evaluating pottery from Karaz Höyük, Erzurum (M. Işıklı), Early Bronze Age tombs in Joghaz (G. Areshyan, H. Simonyan), Preliminary results of the 2009 excavations at Shengavit (H. Si-monyan, M. Rothman, D. Rahimi), Towards a comparative technology of Kura-Araxes pottery and its de-rivatives (R. Greenberg, M. Iserlis), Early Bronze Age sanctuary of Mets Sepasar (L. Eganyan), A dwell-ing complex of Kura-Araxes culture in Agarak (G. Tumanyan), New data for absolute dating of Trialeti culture (K. Pizkhelauri, R. Kiladze), New archaeological investigations in Trialeti (G. Narimanishvili), Excavations of the cemetery of Aghavnatun: Preliminary results (L. Petrosyan, F. Muradyan), Recent methodological and technical advances in the archaeology of Late Bronze Age residential complexes, Tsaghkahovit plain (I. Lindsay), Excavations of the Kanagegh cemetery, 1999-2004 (A. Piliposyan, R. Mkrtchyan), Three silver rhyta from Erebuni: New light on Armenian metallwork of Achaemenid period (D. Stronach), The Iron Age fortress of Aramus: Archaeological evidence of the East and North Forts (W. Kuntner, S. Heinsch, H. Avetisyan), Erebuni - The edge of the Temple of Khaldi: Preliminary results (S. Deschamps, F. Fichet de Clairfontaine, G. Traina, V. Mutarelli, G. Davtian), Dance and music in Urartu (U. Seidl), Refl ections of Urartian and Achaemenid cultural elements in the materials of Lori-Berd tombs (S. Devejyan).

During the last day the problems of Classical and Medieval archaeo logy were stressed. There were presented results of recent excavations of such sites as Tigranakert, Artashat, Hoghmik, Beniamin, Yer-vandashat, Ani. The Hellenistic settlements of Armenia were considered in the context of similar sites in north-western Iran. Reports towards depictions of Armenians in Achaemenid art, the new found Mongo-lian grave and eparchies of Armenian Church were also noteworthy. The following reports were presented: Armenians depicted on Achaemenid monuments (M. Roaf), Beniamin: New data on the palaces and the Achaemenid habitat (F. Ter-Martirosov, S. Deschamps, F. Fichet de Clairfontaine, E. Mutarelli), The ex-cavations of Yervandashat, 2005-2008 (F. Ter-Martirosov), Ancient Armenian sites in Armenia and north-western Iran: Hellenistic period (S. Kroll), The discovery and fi rst results of archaeological investigation of Tigranakert in Artsakh, 2005-2009 (H. Petrosyan, L. Kirakosyan, V. Safaryan, A. Zhamkochyan, R. Vardanyan, I. Karapetyan, T. Vardanesova), The results of excavations at Artashat, 2003-2009 (Z. Kha-chatryan), The problems and results of investigations of the pagan temple at Hoghmik, 2006-2008 (H. Hakobyan), Epigraphic attestations of eparchies of the Armenian Church (G. Sargsyan), A newly found Mongolian tomb in Armenia (H. Melkonyan, D. Mirijanyan), Excavations of caves in the suburbs of Ani (H. Khachatryan).


A great deal of information towards the material culture of ancient Armenia and surrounding regions were considered during the conference. For the fi rst time in Armenia the archaeologists of different tradi-tions came together to create a constructive dialogue towards common scientifi c problems. We hope that similar meetings will be more often both in Armenia and surrounding countries which will contribute to more profound understanding of our cultural heritage and to creating of universal scientifi c terminology. The present publication of selected materials of the conference should be a modest contribution to this common purpose.

BibliographyAghayan T.P., Arakelyan B.N., Galoyan G.A. (ed.) 1971-1976, History of Armenian People, 1-3, Academic Edition, Ye-

revan (in Armenian).Akhvlediani D. 2010, Georgian Archaeology: Results and Perspectives, in: Georgian Archaeology at the Turn of the 21st

Century: Results and Perspectives, International Conference held at Tbilisi dedicated to the 80th Anniversary of Otar Lordkipanidze, 28-31 October 2010, Tbilisi, 9-10.

Arakelyan B.N. 1959-1964, Cities and Crafts in Armenia, 9-13th Centuries, 1-2, Yerevan (in Armenian). Arakelyan B.N. 1984, Archaeology, in: Hambardsumyan V.A. (ed.), Achievements of Science in Soviet Armenia, Yere-

van, 263-273 (in Armenian).Arakelyan B.N., Martirosyan A.A. 1967, Archaeological Investigation of Armenia during the Soviet Times, Soviet Ar-

chaeology 4, 26-47 (in Russian).Areshyan G.E. 1987, Development of Archaeology in Soviet Armenia, Herald of Yerevan University 3, 108-120 (in Ar-

menian).Areshyan G.E. 2008, Die Beziehungen der Kulturen des Armenischen Hochlands und der Zentralgebiete Südkaukasiens

zu Vorderasien und der Ägäis in der Trialeti-Epoche, Aramazd: Armenian Journal of Near Eastern Studies III/2, 51-90.

Areshyan G.E., Oganesyan V.E., Muradyan F.M., Avetisyan P.S., Petrosyan A.A. 1990, The End of the Middle Bronze Age between the Rivers Kura and Araxes, Historical-Philological Journal 1, 53-74 (in Russian).

Avetisyan P.S. 2003, The Chronology and Periodization of the Middle Bronze Age of Armenia, PhD Dissertation, Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography, Armenian Academy of Sciences, Yerevan (in Armenian).

Badalyan R.S., Avetisyan P.S. 2007, Bronze and Early Iron Age Archaeological Sites in Armenia, I. Mt. Aragats and Its Surrounding Region, British Archaeological Reports, International Series 1697, Oxford.

Baiburtyan E. 2011, Sequence of Ancient Cultures of Armenia on the Ground of Archaeological Material, Yerevan (in Russian).

Bernbeck R. 1997, Theorien in der Archäologie, Tübingen-Basel.Biscione R., Hmayakyan S., Parmegiani N. (ed.) 2002, The North-Eastern Frontier: Urartians and Non-Urartians in the

Sevan Lake Basin, I. The Southern Shores, Documenta Asiana VII, Roma.Bobokhyan A. 2001, Harutyun Artashes Martirosyan: Biography and Bibliography, Yerevan (in Armenian).Bulkin V.A., Klejn L.S., Lebedev G.S. 1982, Attainments and Problems of Soviet Archaeology, World Archaeology 13/3,

272-295. Burney Ch., Lang D. 1971, The Peoples of the Hills: Ancient Ararat and Caucasus, London. Chernykh E.N. 1992, Ancient Metallurgy in the USSR, Cambridge.Djindjian F. (éd.) 2007, Arménie des origins à la christianisation, Les Dossiers d’Archéologie 321, Paris.Donabédian P., Mutafi an Cl. (éd.) 2010, Les douze capitales d’Arménie, Paris.Esayan S.A. 1976, The Old Culture of the Tribes of North-Eastern Armenia, Yerevan (in Russian).Esayan S.A. 1977, Armenia and the Russian Archaeologists, Yerevan (in Russian).Fichet de Clairfontaine F. (ed.) 2007, Dans les montagnes d’Arménie: 500 000 ans d’histoire avant notre ère, Saint-

Raphaël-Rouen. Field H., Price K. 1947, Review of Soviet Archaeology, 1919-1945, in Historic Perspective, Southwestern Journal of

Anthropology 3/3 , 212-229.


Frankfort H. 1932, Archaeology and the Sumerian Problem, Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilisations, 4, Chicago.Gambaschidze I., Hauptmann A., Slotta R., Yalçın Ü. (ed.) 2001, Georgien: Schätze aus dem Land des Goldenen Vlies,

Katalog der Ausstellung in Bochum, Bochum.Gardin J.-C. 1983, Theoretical Archaeology, Moscow (in Russian).Genning V.F. 1975, Gleanings from the History of Soviet Archaeology, Kiev (in Russian).Ghafadaryan K. 1948, Archaeological Works in Armenia after the Establishment of Soviet Rule (Brief Refl ection), Pro-

ceedings of the State History Museum 1, 9-65 (in Armenian).Ghafadaryan K. 1970, Archaeological Works in Armenia during the Soviet Period, Historical-Philological Journal 3,

3-18 (in Armenian). Grosby S. 1997, Borders, Territory and Nationality in the Near East and Armenia, Journal of the Economic and Social

History of the Orient 40, 1-29.Hansen S., Hauptmann A., Motzenbäcker I., Pernicka E. (ed.) 2010, Von Maikop bis Trialeti: Gewinnung und Verbreitung

von Metallen und Obsidian in Kaukasien im 4.-2. Jt. v. Chr., Bonn.Hegel G.W.F. 1956, Die Vernunft in der Geschichte, Hamburg.Helwing B., Özfırat A. (ed.) 2005, Mountains and Valleys: Highland-Lowland Interaction in the Bronze Age Settle-

ment Systems of Eastern Anatolia, Transcaucasia and Northwestern Iran, Van-Symposium 2004, Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 37, 1-187.

Heublein B. (ed.) 1995, Armenien: 5000 Jahre Kunst und Kultur, Ausstellung im Museum-Bochum, Tübingen.Hodder I. (ed.) 1991, Archaeological Theory in Europe: The Last Three Decades, London-New York.Kalantar A. 1923, Archaeology, 1, Yerevan (in Armenian).Kalantaryan A.A. 1996, Dvin: histoire et archeologie de la ville medievale, Civilisations du Proche-Orient, hors serie 2,

Neuchâtel, Paris.Kalantaryan A.A. 2006, Archaeological Works in Armenia in 1990-2003, Archaeology of Caucasia 1, Tbilisi, 4-22 (in

Russian).Kalantaryan A.A., Melkonyan H.A. 2005, Archaeological Works in Armenia in 1990-2003, Yerevan (in Armenian).Kalantaryan I.A. 2006, Archaeological Bibliography of the South Caucasus: Armenia, Archaeology of Caucasia 1, Tbilisi,

263-305 (in Russian). Kant I. 1899, Anthropologie in pragmatischer Hinsicht, Leipzig.Khachatryan T.S. 1975, The Old Culture of Shirak, Yerevan (in Russian).Khanzadyan E.V. 1985, Ararat-Valley at the End of the 4th-Beginning of the 1st Millennium BC, Habilitation Dissertation,

Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography, Armenian Academy of Sciences, Yerevan (in Armenian).Khanzadian E. 1995, Metsamor 2: La Necropole 1, Civilisations du Proche-Orient, hors serie 1, Neuchâtel, Paris.Khnkikyan O.S. 2002, Syunik during the Bronze and Iron Ages, Barrington.Klein L.S. 1978, Archaeological Sources, Leningrad (in Russian).Klein L.S. 1993, Phenomenon of Soviet Archaeology, St. Petersburg (in Russian).Kohl P.L. 2007, The Making of Bronze Age Eurasia, Cambridge.Kohl P.L., Tsetskhladze G.R. 1995, Nationalism Politics and the Practice of Archaeology in the Caucasus, in: Kohl P.L.,

Fawcett C. (ed.), Nationalism, Politics and the Practice of Archaeology, Cambridge, 149-174.Kroll S., Gruber C., Hellwag U., Roaf M., Zimansky P. (ed.) 2012, Biainili-Urartu, The Proceedings of the Symposium

Held in Munich 12-14 October 2007, Acta Iranica 51, Gent. Kuftin B.A. 1941, Archaeological Excavations in Trialeti, I, Tbilisi (in Russian).Kushnareva K.K. 1997, The Southern Caucasus in Prehistory, Pennsylvania.Kushnareva K.K., Chubinishvili T.N. 1970, Ancient Cultures of Southern Caucasia, Leningrad (in Russian).Kushnareva K.K., Markovin V.I. (ed.) 1994, The Bronze Age of Caucasia and Central Asia, Archaeology in USSR, Mos-

cow (in Russian).Lindsay I., Smith A.T. 2006, A History of Archaeology in the Republic of Armenia, Journal of Field Archaeology 31/2,

165-184.Lipiński E. 1971, El’s Abode: Mythological Traditions Related to Mount Hermon and to the Mountains of Armenia,

Orien talia Lovaniensia Periodica 2, 13-69.


Lyonnet B. (ed.) 2007, Les cultures du Caucase (VI e-III e millénaires avant notre ère): Leurs relations avec le Proche-Orient, Paris.

Marr N.Y. 1934, Ani, Moscow-Leningrad (in Russian). Marro C., Hauptmann H. (ed.) 2000, Chronologies des pays du Caucase et de l’Euphrate aux IVe-III e millenaires avant

notre ère, Paris.Martirosyan H.A. 1964, Armenia in the Bronze and Early Iron Ages, Yerevan (in Russian).Miller M. 1956, Archaeology in the USSR, New York. Piotrovskii B.B. 1949, Archaeology of Transcaucasia, Leningrad (in Russian).Rubinson K., Sagona T. (ed.) 2008, Ceramics in Transitions: Chalcolithic through Iron Age in the Highlands of the South-

ern Caucasus and Anatolia, Ancient Near Eastern Studies, Supplement 27, Leuven-Paris-Dudley.Sagona A. (ed.) 2005, A View from the Highlands: Archaeological Studies in Honour of Charles Burney, Ancient Near

Eastern Studies, Supplement 12, Leuven-Paris-Dudley.Sagona A. (ed.) 2010, Archaeology of Transcaucasus, TÜBA-AR 13, Istanbul.Santrot J. (ed.) 1996, Arménie: Trésors de l’Arménie ancienne des origines au IVe siècle, Catalogue Nantes, Paris.Shnirellman V.A. 2001, The Value of the Past: Myths, Identity and Politics in Transcaucasia, Osaka.Sintes C., Grigorian A. (éd.) 2007, Au pied du mont Ararat: Splendeurs de l’Arménie antique, Éditions du Musée de

l’Arles et de la Provence Antiques. Smith A. 2005, Prometheus Unbound: Southern Caucasia in Prehistory, Journal of World Prehistory 19, 229-279.Smith A.T., Badalyan R.S., Avetisyan P. 2009, The Archaeology and Geography of Ancient Transcaucasian Socie ties, 1.

The Foundations of Research and Regional Survey in the Tsaghkahovit Plain, Armenia, Oriental Institute Publications 134, Chicago.

Smith A.T., Rubinson K.S. (ed.) 2003, Archaeology in the Borderlands: Investigations in Caucasia and Beyond, Los Angeles.

Tiratsyan G.A. 1988, Culture of Ancient Armenia (6 th Century BC-3 rd Century AD), Yerevan (in Russian).Trigger B.G. 1989, A History of Archaeological Thought, Cambridge.


Fig.

1. T

he m

ain

arch

aeol

ogic

al si

tes i

nves

tigat

ed in

the

Rep

ublic

of A

rmen

ia, 1

991-

2009

.

Pavel Avetisyan, Arsen Bobokhyan18A

ges/

Peri

ods

Inne

r di

visi

ons

Chr

onol

ogie

s, ca

.C

ultu

re-h

isto

rica

l di

stri

butio

nsK

ey si

tes

Impo

rtan

t eve

nts

Pala

eolit

hic

Low

er

2000

000-

300/

2500

00 B

PO

ldow

an, A

cheu

lean

Hag

htan

ak-3

, Agh

avna

-tu

n-1,

Nor

Geg

hi-1

Firs

t inh

abita

nts -

Hom

o Er

ectu

s

Mid

dle

300/

2500

00-4

0/35

000

BP

Mou

ster

ian

Bag

rata

shen

-1, H

ovk-

1,

Yere

van-

1, L

usak

ert-1

,2Ea

rly h

unte

rs a

nd g

athe

rers

-Hom

o sa

pien

s nea

nder

thal

ensi

s and

Arc

haic

Mod

ern

Hum

ans

Upp

er40

/350

00 B

P-12

000

BC

Aur

igna

cien

, Epi

grav

etia

nA

ghitu

-3,

Kal

avan

-1Ex

pans

ion

of M

oder

n H

uman

s (H

omo

sapi

ens s

apie

nces

), ap

pear

ance

of a

rtEp

ipal

aeol

ithic

1200

0-10

000

BC

Tria

letia

n, Z

arzi

anA

pnag

yugh

-8/K

mlo

-2Es

tabl

ishm

ent o

f mod

ern

clim

atic

con

ditio

ns (H

oloc

ene)

, int

ensi

ve h

unte

r-gat

here

rs

Neo

lithi

cPr

epot

tery

1000

0-60

00 B

CA

pnag

yugh

(ear

lier s

tage

s)

and

Ara

tash

en (l

ater

stag

es)

tradi

tions

Apn

agyu

gh-8

/Km

lo-2

, K

ucha

k-1,

Ara

tash

en II

Pass

ing

to p

rodu

ctiv

e lif

e st

yle,

with

out p

otte

ry

Potte

ry60

00-5

500/

5200

BC

Ara

tash

en-S

hula

veri-

Sho-

mut

epe

tradi

tion

Ara

tash

en I,

A

knas

hen

II-V

Esta

blis

hing

pro

duct

ive

life

styl

e,

begi

nnin

g of

pot

tery

pro

duct

ion,

fi rs

t use

of n

ativ

e co

pper

Cha

lcol

ithic

Early

/Mid

dle

5200

-430

0 B

CA

dabl

ur-S

ioni

trad

ition

Ara

tash

en 0

, Akn

ashe

n I

Arta

shat

, Ada

blur

Early

agr

icul

turis

ts w

ith re

latio

ns to

Syr

o-M

esop

otam

ian

wor

ld (H

alaf

and

Uba

id),

begi

nnin

g of

long

dis

tanc

e tra

de (A

rmen

ia a

s obs

idia

n su

pplie

r)

Late

4300

-350

0 B

CA

reni

, God

edzo

r tra

ditio

nA

reni

, Teg

hut,

God

edzo

rEa

rly a

gric

ultu

rists

with

rela

tions

to S

yro-

Mes

opot

amia

n (L

ate

Uba

id, U

ruk)

and

no

rther

n C

uaca

sian

(Ear

ly M

aiko

p) w

orld

s, ea

rly e

xtra

ctiv

e co

pper

met

allu

rgy

Bro

nze

Early

3500

-240

0 B

CK

ura-

Ara

xes c

ultu

reEl

ar, M

okhr

ablu

r, Sh

enga

vit,

Geg

haro

tFo

rmat

ion

of b

ig cu

ltura

l wor

ld o

f red

-bla

ck b

urni

shed

pot

tery

ove

rlapp

ing

the r

egio

n of

Fer

tile

Cre

scen

t, ea

rly c

ompl

ex so

ciet

ies,

mas

s pro

duct

ion

of a

rsen

ical

bro

nze

Mid

dle

2400

-150

0 B

CK

urga

n, T

riale

ti-Va

nads

or,

Seva

n-A

rtsak

h, K

arm

ir-B

erd

and

Kam

ir-Va

nk c

ultu

res

Kar

asha

mb,

Van

adso

r, Lo

ri-B

erd,

Uze

rlik-

Tepe

Cul

tura

l div

ersi

ty, v

ario

us se

quen

tial g

roup

s of b

lack

(ear

ly st

age)

and

pai

nted

(d

evel

oped

and

late

stag

es) p

otte

ry tr

aditi

ons,

dom

inat

ion

of n

omad

ic li

fe st

yle,

rela

-tio

ns to

Ana

tolia

and

the A

egea

n, u

se o

f tin

bro

nze

Late

1500

-120

0 B

CLc

hash

en-M

etsa

mor

cul

ture

Lcha

shen

, Met

sam

or,

Geg

haro

t, A

rtik

Age

of “

Inte

rnat

iona

lism

”, lo

cal k

ingd

oms (

Hai

asa)

with

act

ive

rela

tions

to H

urria

n,

Hitt

ite a

nd M

esop

otam

ian

cent

res,

use

of u

nallo

yed

tin, l

ead

and

antim

ony

Iron

Early

1200

-900

BC

Lcha

shen

-Met

sam

or c

ultu

reM

etsa

mor

, Lch

ashe

n,

Dvi

n, N

azrv

anM

ilita

rizat

ion

of so

ciet

y, “c

yclo

pean

fortr

esse

s”, c

ultu

ral (

“gro

oved

war

e” tr

aditi

ons)

an

d po

litic

al (

Nai

ri, E

tiuni

) unifi c

atio

n of

trib

es o

f the

Arm

enia

n H

ighl

and,

use

of i

ron

Mid

dle

900-

700

BC

Lcha

shen

-Met

sam

or a

nd

Bia

nili/

Van

cultu

res

Met

sam

or, E

rebu

ni,

Arg

isht

ikhi

nili

Birt

h of

Anc

ient

Nea

r Eas

tern

adm

inis

tratio

n ar

ound

Lak

e Va

n (=

Bia

inili

-Ura

rtu)

and

its sp

read

ing

to th

e te

rrito

ry o

f mod

ern

Arm

enia

(= E

tiuni

), us

ing

of c

unei

form

an

d hi

erog

lyph

ic sc

ript,

wid

e us

e of

iron

Late

700-

600

BC

Ura

rtian

Kar

mir-

Blu

r, O

shak

an, A

ram

usFo

rmat

ion

of a

koi

né th

roug

h in

tegr

atio

n of

the

loca

l (Lc

hash

en-M

etsa

mor

/Etiu

ni)

and

Bia

nili/

Van

cultu

res

Cla

ssic

al

Early

600-

200

BC

Yerv

andi

dA

rmav

ir, B

enia

min

, K

arch

aghb

yur

Arm

enia

n st

ate

unde

r the

rule

of Y

erva

ndid

dyn

asty

with

infl u

ence

s fro

m

Ach

ae m

enid

Iran

Mid

dle

200-

1 B

CA

rtash

esid

Arta

shat

, Arm

avir,

Ti

gran

aker

tA

rmen

ian

cent

raliz

ed st

ate

unde

r the

rule

of A

rtash

esid

dyn

asty

with

infl u

ence

s fro

m

Hel

leni

stic

wor

ld, fl

our

ishi

ng o

f urb

an li

fe

Late

1-45

0 A

DA

rsac

idA

rtash

at, G

arni

, Dvi

nA

rmen

ian

stat

e un

der t

he ru

le o

f Ars

acid

dyn

asty

with

infl u

ence

s fro

m R

ome

and

Parth

ia, c

onve

rsio

n to

Chr

istia

nity

, cre

atio

n of

Arm

enia

n al

phab

et

Med

ieva

l

Early

450-

900

AD

Mar

zpan

and

Ara

bian

Dvi

n, A

ruch

, Tal

inA

rmen

ian

auto

nom

y (m

arzp

anut

iun)

in S

assa

nid

Iran

, Ara

bian

rule

Dev

elop

ed90

0-14

00 A

DB

agra

tid, Z

acha

rid,

Rub

enid

/Het

umid

/Lu

sini

anA

ni, L

ore,

Egh

egis

Arm

enia

n st

ates

with

dom

inan

ce o

f Bag

ratid

dyn

asty

, Arm

enia

n pr

inci

palit

ies u

nder

Za

khar

id d

ynas

ty, A

rmen

ian

stat

e in

Cili

cia,

act

ive

cultu

ral r

elat

ions

to B

yzan

tium

, G

eorg

ia a

nd C

entra

l Eur

ope,

fi rs

t infi

ltra

tions

of n

omad

ic tr

ibes

(Sel

juks

, Mon

gols

)

Late

1400

-170

0 A

DO

ttom

an a

nd P

ersi

anYe

reva

n, L

ore,

Ush

iTu

rkm

en, O

ttom

an a

nd P

ersi

an r

ule

in A

rmen

ia, A

rmen

ian

prin

cipa

litie

s in

mou

n-ta

inou

s reg

ions

, dec

reas

e of

urb

an li

fe, m

igra

tions

Fig.

2. S

chem

atic

per

iodi

zatio

n of

arc

haeo

logy

of A

rmen

ia b

ased

on

radi

ocar

bon

(Pal

aeol

ithic

-Ear

ly Ir

on) a

nd c

ompa

rativ

e-hi

stor

ical

(Mid

dle

Iron

-Med

ieva

l) ch

rono

logy

. Fo

r con

sulti

ng w

e th

ank

Bor

is G

aspa

ryan

(Pal

aeol

ithic

-Cha

lcol

ithic

), R

uben

Bad

alya

n (N

eolit

hic-

Early

Bro

nze)

, Mkr

tich

Zard

arya

n (C

lass

ical

), H

usik

Mel

kony

an (M

edie

val)


Fig.3. During the conference: First row - J. Palumbi, C. Chataigner, S. Melkonyan, P. Lombard, U. Seidl.

Fig. 4. During the conference: Discussion between H. Khachatryan and F. Ter-Martirosov.

Fig. 5. During the conference: R. Badalyan, H. Avetisyan, S. Devejyan, U. Seidl.

Fig. 6. M. Işıklı reporting on Erzurum archaeology.

Fig. 7. Conference participants visiting Noravank church.


Fig. 12. Conference participants at Karashamb together with archaeology students of the Yerevan University.

Fig. 8. Within the church of Noravank: U. Seidl, M. Roaf, D. Stronach, G. Areshyan.

Fig. 11. At Karashamb: V. Melikyan presenting the results of her excavations.

Fig. 9. Conference participants in the cave of Areni.

Fig. 10. In the cave of Areni: P. Avetisyan discussing the stratigraphy with G. Narimanishvili and M. Zardaryan.

archaeology of armenia in regional context

Documents