Proceedingsof the 6th International Congress

on the Archaeologyof the Ancient Near East

May, 5th-10th 2008, “Sapienza” - Università di Roma

Volume 2Excavations, Surveys and Restorations:

Reports on Recent Field Archaeology in the Near East

Edited byPaolo Matthiae, Frances Pinnock, Lorenzo Nigro

and Nicolò Marchettiwith the collaboration of Licia Romano

2010Harrassowitz Verlag · Wiesbaden

THE OSTBURG OF ARAMUS, AN URARTIAN AND ACHAEMENID FORTRESS.

THE STRATIGRAPHICAL EVIDENCE

WALTER KUNTNER, SANDRA HEINSCH

ABSTRACT

Since 2004 the University of Yerevan and the University of Innsbruck are conducting archaeological researches at the Iron Age Fortress of Aramus 15 km Northeast of Erebuni. The results attained so far enable to distinguish two main fortifi cation periods - period I (Achaemenid) and period II (Late Urartu) - lasting from 7th to 4th century BC, thus performing a valuable parallel to the excavation results from Erebuni attained by Felix I. Ter-Martirosov since 1998. One of the most remarkable results at Aramus is the evidence that the period interface between period I and period II is marked by a transitional unfortifi ed phase datable to the 6th century BC. This phase may reasonable be seen in the context of decline and re-emergence of a centralized power in the Ararat plain region signalising a strong continuity albeit political changes.

INTRODUCTION

Since 2004 the Armenian-Austrian joint-expedition between the Universities of Yerevan and Innsbruck has undertaken archaeological excavations at the Iron Age fortress of Aramus. Four campaigns have been accomplished so far each lasting one month. The excavation work as well as documentation were processed by trained students and volunteers from all around the world, about 14 persons, enabling an accurate stratitigrafi cal digging and the sampling of a well-stratifi ed assemblage of over 15,000 artefacts.

The fortress of Aramus lies 15 km northeast of Erebuni/Yerevan in the county of Kothayk nearly 1,500 m above sea level southwest of the homonymous town. It was built on a 60 m high, elongated basalt ridge, extending east-west, in the midst of a wide, fertile plain, reminiscence of a paleolake basin.1 The ground plan of the fortress resembles the outlines of the hill and consists of a upper fort built on top and of two lower forts, respectively on the northern and southern slope, which are marked by several artifi cial terraces. The fortress itself is 400 m long and 240 m broad and encloses a fortitifi ed area of approximately 9,6 ha. The ground plan of the upper fort is further divided into three closed sections, named from west to east Westburg,

1 Schäfer, Weishäupl, Gasparyan forthc.

Walter Kuntner, Sandra Heinsch340

Zentralburg and Ostburg (Fig. 1).The fortress of Aramus was explored for the fi rst time by E. Khanzadian, who

opened several trenches.2 The most relevant trenches are situated in the centre of the Zentralburg and at its eastern end adjacent to the Ostburg. The latter trench was re-examinated in 2007 revealing that the Zentralburg and the Ostburg are separated by a 2,50 m thick, buttressed stone wall; we have failed so far to ascertain from where the Ostburg was once accessible. The Zentralburg, on the other hand, was entered to the west through a monumental gate fl anked by two huge towers, which were re-inforced in a later phase. In 1988, in this area, H. Avetisyan conducted the fi rst extensive archaeological investigations uncovering, beside the aforementioned gate, several rooms aligned alongside the inner face of the northern fortress wall of the Zentralburg.3 At least two main phases were discerned, both dated to the ‘armenian’ Urartian Period. The supplement ‘armenian’ is here used to designate the about 150 years of urartian hegemony in the Ararat plain from the reign of king Argišti I. (785/80-756 BC), the founder of Erebuni and Argištihinili, in the second quarter of the 8th century BC till the decline of the urartian presence on site anytime between the second half of the 7th century and the mid of the 6th BC.4 Since the only written document so far known referring to the area of Aramus in the Iron Age is a royal inscription5 of king Argišti I, in which he commemorates the conquest of the city of Darani (to localise near today Abovian 4 km west of Aramus) the foundation of the fortress of Aramus was assigned to this king. In 1996 the fortress of Aramus was again discussed by A.T. Smith and K. Kafadarian who confi rm this attribution, and who relate the fortress of Aramus, due to the comparison of the ground plan and the building technique, to the ‘frontier style’ fortress, which, according to the authors, developed from the local Early Iron Age building traditions.6

EXCAVATION SEASON 2007

The following paper gives a summary of the excavation results achieved by the Armenian-Austrian joint-expedition in Area A, focusing on the results of the 2007 campaign (Fig. 2). Area A was laid out in 2004 in order to bind the settlement sequences within the Ostburg and the northern lower fort, and to examine the interjacent terraces on the northern slope. During the following seasons 2005-2007 Area A was gradually deepened and extended mainly eastwards, in order to include in the stratigraphy the massive defensive bulwark on the north-eastern slope, which marks the junction point of the fortifi cation of the Ostburg and the northern lower fort.

In sum two main fortifi cation periods - period I and period II - could be differentiated, lasting from 7th to 4th century BC (Fig. 3). Ceramic fi ndings collected

2 Khanzadian 1979: 11.3 Avetisyan 2001: 37-50.4 Rollinger 2008.5 König 1955-57: 16 n. 85, 107 n. 85.6 Smith, Kafadarian 1996: 35-36. See further Badalyan, Avetisyan 2007: 266.

The Ostburg of Aramus 341

on the surface and in the two uppermost levels indicate a Nachleben of the settlement activity within the Ostburg spanning the Hellenistic, Roman-Parthian and Medieval time. Further ceramic and lithic fi ndings, though collected from disturbed contexts, suggest, moreover, that the hill of Aramus had been settled time and again since the Early Bronze Age.

The most remarkable result is the evidence that the period interface between period I and period II is distinguished by a ‘transitional unfortifi ed settlement phase’, datable to the 6th century BC; hence refl ecting the gradual shift of decline and re-emergence of a centralized power in the Ararat region, namely the Urartian and Achaemenid Empire.7 This evidence is all the more relevant in light of the newest excavation results from Erebuni, where a comparable fortifi cation sequence could be identifi ed.8

SECTOR OSTBURG

Research in the Ostburg of Aramus focused on stratigraphical tasks, most notably, layers SE 020, SE 049 and SE 071 constituting the main stratigraphical indicators of the periodisation described above. In the south-western part of trench AW bedrock could be reached. The bedrock outline runs, compared to the hill outline, in a more southerly direction, thus resembling the lining-up of an older fortifi cation wall III, cleaned in 2006, the dating of whose poor remains, however, is uncertain. The most important result gained in trench AW was the understanding both of the sedimentation agents that affected the accumulation of layer SE 071, and of the building technique applied to the construction of fortress wall II.

Layer SE 071 was characterised by a markedly succession of several, differently sized bands of sandy-chalk layers mixed with small basalt chips and more loam layers mixed with charcoal and debris. The former layers derived from the mining of bedrock and the dismantling of fortress wall III both mantled with a thick calcareous coating. This structures served as rough material source for the granit blocks needed for the construction of fortress wall II. The latter layers were instead used for levelling, thus facilitating the stacking of the heavy stone blocks during the building of fortress wall II. From this follows that the sedimentation process of layer SE 071 was interrelated with the building act of fortress wall II (Fig. 4).

This fi nding explained both the remodelling of the hill outline, which resulted in a general rise of up to 1m and of a north-eastern enlargement of the hill plateau, as showed by the differing lining-up of fortress wall II and bedrock. The fact, moreover, that layer SE 071 could not be verifi ed in the eastern part of Area A albeit depth certifi ed the different hill inclination during period III. In this regard it is also important to stress the different foundation level of fortress wall II, which in trench Bastion lies more than 1m lower than in the western part of Area A.

The sedimentation process of layer SE 049 could best be examined in trench R1.

7 For a detailed analysis of the development of the cultural material see Avetysian, Avetisyan 2006.8 Ter-Martirosov 2008.

Walter Kuntner, Sandra Heinsch342

Here, on the north profi le beneath fortress wall I, layer SE 049 showed a well-preserved stratifi cation, whose interpretation was facilitated by its close relation with stone wall M22, which showed, at least, two different building phases. In sum, three main phases were defi ned within the sedimentation process of layer SE 049 (Fig. 5). The two oldest sedimentation phases - SE 049b-c - were assignable to period II, both by evidence of stone wall M22 in trench R1 and due to their stratigraphical superposition on layer SE 071 in trench AW. The interface between phase SE 049b and SE 049c was marked by the rebuilding of fortress wall II and its attached rooms (stone wall M22).

The youngest sedimentation phase SE 049a runs between the ruined stone wall M22 of period II and the foundation of fortress wall I, as far as trench AW where it fi nally thinned out. The outstanding characteristic of layer SE 049a was the succession of several beaten mud fl oors and thin ash deposits. The affi nity of phase SE 049a in trench R1 with the result of stone wall M19, found in 2005 above the ruined surface of fortress wall II, evidenced the continuity of occupation - termed ‘transitional unfortifi ed settlement phase’ - extending both in the depression of the ruined rooms attached to fortress wall II as well as over the latter.

On the surface of layer SE 049a room R1 and fortress wall I were built, which mark the beginning of period I. Indicative for that period was a distinct sequence of at least four rebuilding phases of fortress wall I, of which the fi rst two, of Achaemenid date, interrelate with room R1. The original ground plan of the Ostburg of period I resembled the ground plan of the preceding period II. The western room wall M21 was built upon the ruined stone wall M22, whereas the former inner chasing wall of fortress wall II was re-used as fundament for stone wall M2, actually the outer chasing of the new fortress wall I.

The last two rebuildings of fortress wall I were distinguished by a different lining-up, whose part abuts diagonally to the older and deeper founded remains of the Achaemenid fortress wall I. The last rebuilding of fortress wall I (period Ia) came along with an overall levelling of the plateau area within the Ostburg, defi ned as layer SE 020, which sealed the remains of period Ib. On the surface of layer SE 020 stone walls M26 and M41 were built, which abuts at right angles to the new fortress line and crosses diagonally the former room lay-out.9

SECTOR BASTION

The research of the fortifi cation on the north-eastern slope of the Ostburg focused

9 Because of the scanty information obtained far about the youngest phase of fortress wall I, this phase is temporarily defi ned as period Ia, even though the evidences of a) the levelling of the Ostburg by layer SE 020 and b) the alteration of the ground plan argue against such an attribution. For the present, however, we hold it advisable not to change the twofold division of the periodization - based on the fortifi cation sequence of the Ostburg only - in order to avoid confusion with the other preliminary reports (Avetisyan, Allinger-Csollich 2006). A reassessment of the periodization will be discussed in the fi nal publication, where, moreover, an exhaustive presentation of all stratigrafi cal and material fi ndings will be included.

The Ostburg of Aramus 343

on the area around the junction point of the fortress wall II, the fortress wall of the northern lower fort and the bastion. Here, two more sondages were delimited in order to complement the sondage set outside the fortress in 2006, where the foundation level of the fortress wall of the northern lower fort and of the bastion were ascertained. The fi rst sondage was arranged inside the fortress at the junction point of fortress wall II and the fortress wall of the northernlower fort. The second sondage was set within the stone-fi ll of the bastion along the eastern façade of fortress wall II. Especially the former spot revealed a totally unexpected result concerning the stratigraphical relation of these structures.

According to the stratigraphical results, fortress wall II was built only after the destruction by a fi re of an older fortifi cation wall of the northern lower fort, hence suggesting the existence of a fort enclosure antedating period II. During period II, whose beginning is marked by the construction of fortress wall II, the fortress wall of the northern lower fort was then rebuilt, but this time attached to fortress wall II (Fig. 6). In this regard it is remarkable to note that also in trench Stadt two different building levels could be identifi ed for the fortress wall of the northern lower fort (see below).

The bastion formed the youngest structure of the ‘eastern defence bulwark’ and was attached to the younger fortress wall of the northern lower fort during period II. Shortly thereafter (but still within period II) the bastion fell in disuse, as showed by the outline of the newly rebuilt fortress wall II at the end of period II, which run partly over the stone fi ll of the ruined bastion. But it cannot be excluded that the scanty remains of the so-called younger rebuilding of fortress wall II belong already to the ‘transitional unfortifi ed settlement phase’ as in 2006 there was evidence of a partial re-use of the east corner of the fortress wall II during this phase. On the other hand, it is assured that the bastion ceased to be used as defence structure during period I.

SECTOR STADT

The last sector, Stadt, was set along the inner face of the fortress wall of the northern lower fort extending Area A to the west. In the western part, directly under the surface, and abutting at right angles to the town fortifi cation, runs stone wall M36. On its western side and lying just a few centimetres higher than its foundation level, which on the other hand corresponded to the rebuilding level of the younger phase of the fortress wall of the northern lower fort, a well-preserved stone pavement was found. On the eastern side of stone wall M36 no further structure could be excavated. But it was possible to gain a well defi ned stratifi cation. Over a debris layer representing the destruction of an older fortifi cation a beaten mud fl oor could be recognized thinly covered by ash and charcoal fragments. On its surface lies, sealed by the fallen debris of the youngest phase of the fortress wall of the northern lower fort, a rich assemblage of several iron and bronze weapons and of a small bronze ox fi gurine (Fig. 7).

The former group fi nd parallels in the material of Ayanis dated to the reign of king

Walter Kuntner, Sandra Heinsch344

Rusa II. (fi rst half of the 7th century BC).10 The ox fi gurine and the pottery fragments associated to it confi rm this date, which fi ts well with the dating within the fi nal stage of period II suggested by the comparison of the results of the fortress wall of the northern lower fort with the fortifi cation sequence attained on the north-eastern slope.

Bibliography

Avetisyan, H.2001 Aragats (Excavations of the Urartian Fortress), Yerevan.Avetisyan, H., Allinger-Csollich, W.2006 The Fortress of Aramus: Preliminary Report of Excavations in 2004 and

2005: in Aramazd - Armenian Journal of Near Eastern Studies I, pp. 105-134.

Avetisyan, H., Avetisyan, P.2006 The Culture of the Ararat Valley in the 11th-6th Centuries BC, Yerevan.

Badalyan, R.S., Avetisyan, P.S.2007 Bronze and Early Iron Age. Archaeological Sites in Armenia, Vol. I. Mt.

Aragats and its Surrounding Region (= BAR S 1697), Oxford.Derin, Z., Çilingiroğlu, A.2001 Armor and Weapons: in A. Çilingiroğlu, M. Salvini (eds), Ayanis I. Ten

Years’ Excavations at Rusahinili-kai 1989-1998 (= Documenta Asiana VI), Roma.

Derin, Z., Muscarella, O.W.2001 Iron and Bronze Arrows: in A. Çilingiroğlu, M. Salvini (eds), Ayanis I. Ten

Years’ Excavations at Rusahinili-kai 1989-1998 (= Documenta Asiana VI), Roma.

Khanzadian, E.1979 Ēlar-Darani, Yerevan.König, F.W.1955-57 Handbuch der chaldischen Inschriften, Graz.Rollinger, R.2008 The Median “Empire”, the End of Urartu and Cyrus’ the Great Campaign

in 547 BC. (Nabonidus Chronicle II 16): in Ancient West & East 7, pp. 51-65.

Schäfer, D.,Weishäupl, B., Gasparyan, B.forthc. Geoarchäologische Surveys im Gebiet des Mt. Hatis, Kotayk Plateau

(Armenien) in den Jahren 2005/2006 - ein Arbeitsbericht: in W. Allinger-Csollich et al. (eds), Die armenisch-österreichischen Ausgrabungen in der eisenzeitlichen Befestigungsanlage von Aramus.

10 Derin, Çilingiroğlu 2001; Derin, Muscarella 2001.

The Ostburg of Aramus 345

Smith, A.T., Kafadarian, K.1996 New Plans of Early Iron Age and Urartian Fortresses in Armenia: a

Preliminary Report on the Ancient Landscapes Project: in Journal of Persian Studies 39, pp. 23-37.

Ter-Martirosov, F.I.2008 The Excavation in Erebuni in 2006 (www.projectdiscovery.net/Grants/

Grants_Final%20Report_Ter-Martirosov%202005-RC-001.pdf).

Walter Kuntner, Sandra Heinsch346

Fig. 1: The Fortress of Aramus (Area A – 2007 in grey).

Fig. 2: Ostburg of Aramus.

The Ostburg of Aramus 347

Fig. 3: Periodisation: Aramus - Ost-burg.

Fig. 4: North Profi le beneath fortress wall I in Area A – West (Section 1: A, geology; B, fortress wall III; C, fortress wall Ia).

Walter Kuntner, Sandra Heinsch348

Fig. 5: North Profi le beneath for-tress wall I in Area A – R1 (Section 2: A, fortress wall Ie-c; B, stone wall M22-IIab).

Fig. 6: East Profi le beneath the fortress wall of the northern town in Area A – Bastion (Section 3).

Fig. 7: Metal artefacts from Area A – Stadt (sam-ple).