Ruben Badalyan The Kura Araxes sites of Armenia a preliminary analysis of available data (original) (raw)
Related papers
Kura-Araxes Culture and Its Various Ends
2021
The outlines of the chronological framework of the Kura-Araxes period, based on radiocarbon dates, are now well defined with two main phases: KA I between 3600/3500-2900 BC and KA II between 2900-2600 BC. New radiocarbon dates from Armenian settlements (Karnut, Voskeblur, Haghartsin, Sotk II, Artanish, Aygavan), confirm this general framework, and the synchronicity of the main local variants of KA II in Armenia: Karnut-Shengavit, Shresh-Mokhrablur, the sites of the Lake Sevan basin and the Aghstev river basin. On the basis of this new series of 14C dates, a refined, more fractional version of the periodization and chronology of the late KA is proposed. Our research shows that regarding the material culture and relative chronology in the middle of the third millennium BC, an intermediate post-"classical" "Aygavan-Shengavit" stage is detectable, preceding Martkopi-type complexes. The paper also considers scenarios of simultaneous abandonment of settlements of different facies throughout KA II in geographically and climatically diverse subregions of Armenia and the dynamics behind their reoccupation.
ARAMAZD ARMENIAN JOURNAL OF NEAR EASTERN STUDIES (AJNES), 2017
Non-ferrous metal of the Horom necropolis ������������������������������������������������������������������� 145 Aram Gevorgyan The gate and temple of Ḫaldi in Ašotakert/Yeşılalıç and the evolution of Urartian cultic complexes ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 161 Roberto Dan Elaborate harness buckles from Lori Berd ����������������������������������������������������������������������� 186 Seda Devedjyan and Ruben Davtyan Some remarks on the Urartian blind windows of Çavuştepe ��������������������������������������� 206 Roberto Dan Urartian seals with an image of a stela ���������������������������������������������������������������������������� 213 Nora Yengibaryan The titles of King Artashes I according to the Aramaic inscriptions on boundary stones ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 221 Hasmik Margaryan Women warriors as personifications of Armenia in Classical Antiquity �������������������� 237 Viktorya Vasilyan
The Study of Neolithic in Armenia
During the second half of 19th c. according to the corresponding specialists the territory of the Neolithic period was missing in the Caucasus or it took very short period there. The findings of Neolithic type were attributed to the periods of metal (Jaques de Morgan). According to an opposite opinion there were so many Neolithic monuments that approximately all stone tools with worked up and flat surface, some of the cyclopean fortresses (T. Toramanyan), petroglyphs (Ashkharabek Kalantar) were ascribed as Neolithic. During his stay in Armenia in the beginning of 20th c. French archaeologist Jaques de Morgan collected tools of obsidian on the southern slopes of Aragats Mountain and its surroundings. Those findings were significant for the further research on the Stone Age of Armenia, as in deed they were the first exact evidences of the existence of Stone Age on the territory of Armenia. Morgan before his travel to Aragats was stable in his opinion about the absence of even early stages of Stone Age on the territory of Caucasus. According to his opinion, even if there was Neolithic Period in Caucasus, it should last in a very short period of time which was mixed up with the Metal period. He had to change this opinion based on the findings after his survey. Analyzing the stone tools, he understood that they didn’t represent a certain culture but they belonged to Mousterian, Upper Paleolithic and Neolithic periods by their typology. Leaning on the last thought Morgan ascribed those tools to Archeolithic (Upper Paleolithic) and Neolithic and dated them from late Quaternary to Metal Period. In the base of periodical division by Morgan there were the levels of patinisation of tools. The tools without patinisation he attributed to the Neolithic, and the objects with a surface not shinny patina he related to Archeolithic. After Morgan, M.Z. Panichkina analyzing the objects collected by Morgan, ascribes part of them to the early stage of Neolithic. During the later years conducted researches by different scientists enriched the knowledge about Neolithic stage, there were many publications, but the first systematic work on New Stone age was done by S.Sardaryan. Analyzing the history of research on New Stone Age of Armenia it may be divided into three stages. 1. First Stage is characterized as the period of collecting and definition of the material which comes from accepted European standards of phase division and from preliminary system of Stone periodication (J.Morgan, M.Panichkina, S.Sardaryan). 2. Second Phase is the research on certain monuments (Aknashen (R.Torosyan), Hatis-10 (H. Kasaryan), Masis Blur (G.Areshyan), separation of Neolithic material from the other materials and definition of their territorial uniqueness. 3. Third stage is significant for the targeted, systematic modern treatment during the research on Neolithic monuments by local and foreign specialists and it is important for definition of technical-morphological uniqueness of the production complexes, the place and the role of Armenian Stone Age in the World Stone Age: (Kmlo-2 (Apnaghyugh-8), Kuchak-1 (B. Gasparyan), Aratashen, Aknashen (R. Badalyan).
Kura-Araxes Pottery from Kars Museum: A Corpus Study
The mountainous belt lying between the Taurus Mountains and the Great Caucasus Mountain range creates the northern border of the ancient Near East, and it presents adverse aspects, both geographically and environmentally; however, from an archaeological viewpoint, the region is not well known. This article contends that the area around Kars plays an important role as part of this geography. The Early Bronze Age in this northern zone is characterised by the long-standing cultural phenomenon known as the Kura-Araxes culture, but unfortunately we have little information about the culture's development process, and few archaeological traces, in the Kars region. Lack of systematic excavation research across the region is the main reason for this, and in this article we will discuss the only archaeological evidence we have and which is protected in the Kars Museum: namely, twelve Kura-Araxes pottery items. Our purpose in promoting this pottery group to the scientific world, especially in the study of archaeology, is to shed light on the potential of the region, and also its problems.