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

A comparative technological study of Kura-Araxes ceramics and their derivatives: Project design and first results

Raffi Greenberg, Mark Iserlis

Tel Aviv University, Israel

Kura-Araxes ceramics and their derivatives are a growth industry in archaeology. Hundreds of sites charac-terized by the burnished, decorated hand-made pottery of this group have been identifi ed in the territories of nine modern states (Iran, Azerbaijan, Russia, Georgia, Armenia, Turkey, Syria, Jordan and Israel), with new sites and regions being added annually to the corpus. In addition to new regional syntheses and site reports (e.g. Badalyan, Avetisyan 2007; Kohl 2007), several new analytical and interpretive studies have been produced in the last decade (Palumbi 2003; Batiuk 2005; Kibaroğlu 2007; Greenberg 2007).1 The new studies have resulted in a bewildering proliferation of detail: Regions previously not studied have been examined, new analytic techniques have been employed on limited assemblages, and new interpreta-tions have been offered that tend to isolate the various expressions of what had once been understood as a uniform phenomenon; thus, many central issues regarding the chronology and internal relations of the phenomenon remain unresolved. If in 1984 it was conceivable to encompass the entire phenomenon in a single - if monumental - study (Sagona 1984), a quarter of a century later this is clearly no longer a vi-able task. Instead, the phenomenon needs to be broken down into more digestible components, whether regional, chronological, or technological.

In 2006 the authors began a comprehensive comparative technological study of local and Khirbet Kerak Ware traditions at the site of Tel Bet Yerah/Khirbet Kerak itself. While typological and general technological differences between the two groups had long been recognized, the new study was designed to establish, through chaîne opératoire analysis, the precise points of divergence between KKW and local ceramic practice, and to confi rm that these divergences characterize KKW as a whole by examining a sig-nifi cant sample from other sites in and near the Jordan Valley. The main results of this study have recently been published by Iserlis (2009), and they may be summarized as follows: There is a consistent difference in the technological approach taken by all KKW potters to their craft, in comparison with potters working within the local traditions of the southern Levant. This difference begins with the raw materials selected for use, and extends to the treatment of the clay, to the formation techniques, to decoration and to fi ring. The differences undergo attrition over time, suggesting gradual deference of the KKW producers to long-standing local traditions.

Can this local set of differences provide a starting point for a signifi cant set of observations that would cast new light on the greater Kura-Araxes phenomenon? To this end, we began the second stage of the

1 Thus far, we have enjoyed open and fruitful collaborations with numerous researchers in the Caucasus, Israel and beyond. In Armenia, Ruben Badalyan, Pavel Avetisyan, Armine Hairapetyan, Hakop Simonyan, Knarik Navasardyan, Inessa Hov-sepyan; in Georgia, David Lordkipanidze, Giorgi Bedianashvili, Mikheil Tzereteli, Zurab Makharadze, Gogi Mindiashvili, Kakha Kakhiani, Ramin Ramishvili, Medea Glonti, Guram Mirtskhulava, Vazha Sadradze, Zebede Chadberashvili; in Azer-baijan, Tufan Akhundov, Maisa Rahimova, Safar Ashurov, Hagani Almamedov, Deyush Musayev; in Israel and elsewhere: Adi Ziv, Sharon Zuckerman, Anat Cohen-Weinberger, Amihai Mazar, Yuval Yekutieli, Stephen Batiuk, Mitchell Rothman, Giulio Palumbi, Antonio Sagona, Mehmet Işıklı, Mustafa Kibaroglu, Adam Smith, Gabrielle Novacek.Yuval Goren, head of the Laboratory of Comparative Microarchaeology at the Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University, has provided con-tinual advice and support. Funding for the research has been provided by the Israel Science Foundation (Grant Nos. 102/06 and 378/09 and a travel grant for Mr Iserlis by the Leah Goldberg Foundation (The Hebrew University of Jerusalem).

A comparative technological study of Kura-Araxes ceramics and their derivatives 71

comparative project, in which the suite of technological preferences identifi ed in KKW would be com-pared with those characterizing other regional expressions of the Kura-Araxes tradition. Our expectation was, and is, to discover a strand of signifi cant dispositions of the potters that could be followed from the 3rd millennium southern Levant all the way back to the parent traditions of 4th millennium Transcaucasia. So far we have established that there is a patterned technological difference between Khirbet Kerak ware and traditional pottery of the southern Levant, and that the components responsible for this pattern can be observed in wares of other Kura-Araxes regions. The technological difference, exhibited at the macroscale and microscale at different points of the ceramic chaîne opératoire, affects a small number of variables in each pot, thus allowing a broad comparison comprising a great number of artifacts. This observation is the basis for our research.

A fundamental premise of this study has been that technology is not merely a set of mechanical activi-ties applied to produce an artifact or to solve a functional problem: Technology is knowledge, developed and employed to attain cultural and social ends (Iserlis 2009,182). Therefore, the way people go about the business of making pots resonates with important values in their society. Those preferences and disposi-tions that survive the physical and temporal distance from Kura-Araxes societies of the 4th millennium to their descendants in the Levant - or on the Iranian plateau, for that matter - might reveal some important trait or aspect that could be a key to the longevity and durability of the phenomenon.

Our focus on specifi c diagnostic features in the pottery repertoire allows a panoramic approach that takes in the broad expanse of Kura-Araxes ceramic practice. By grasping the underlying technological unity of Kura-Araxes ceramics and their derivatives, an important step is taken toward understanding the manner in which producers and consumers of this pottery maintained their identity over the vast range of habitats that they occupied in the 3rd millennium BC. By the same token, the differences exhibited over space and time will help understand strategies of assimilation and acculturation practiced by these same producers and consumers. Technological interpretation thus becomes an important part of the discussion concerning the nature and import of Kura-Araxes migration. This migration has been linked to important technological innovations on the edge of the Fertile Crescent (metallurgy, wheeled transport, viticulture and horse breeding: Kohl 2009), as well as to important ethnic and linguistic shifts (e.g., the origin of the Hurrians and the Hittites: Burney, Lang 1971).

In the following pages we present the specifi c aims and methods of the comparative project, as well as some preliminary results.

Aims of the project

The proposed study will look at the fi rst and second phases of the Kura-Araxes tradition, i.e., the mid fourth to the mid-third millennium BC. The earlier assemblages will be studied in order to establish the basic concepts underlying the core phenomenon in eastern Anatolia and the Kura-Araxes basin, and the later assemblages in order to understand the way in which these concepts are reworked into local variants in the core regions as well the areas of the tradition’s expansion.

The intended products of our work will include the following:ΠAn updated collation of forms, types and decorative techniques and patterns for the greater Kura-

Araxes ceramic tradition, based mainly on published material, in line with the most recent chrono-logical and regional attributions.

ΠA technological database, based on a total of approximately 1500 analyzed ceramic samples from all regions of the Kura-Araxes complex. This and the following item, which comprise the basis for the technological handbook (below), will serve as a reference group for further research.

ΠA photographic database, comprising standard digital photos as well as selected thin-sections. An important feature of this database will be the storage of full-color photos. Color is one of the

Raffi Greenberg, Mark Iserlis72

signature characteristics of Kura-Araxes pottery and its derivatives; the absence of color archives has been a constant stumbling-block in comparative studies of these ceramics.

Œ A handbook of technological procedures observed in Kura-Araxes ceramics. This is the heart of the proposal, comprising an attempt to identify technological attributes that are maintained through all studied regional and temporal variants, as well as those that typify only a part of the corpus. The handbook will be a step-by-step analysis of the ceramic chaîne opératoire. It will embody observa-tions made by the research team as well as contributions by collaborating researchers.

ΠA new synthesis of the ceramic tradition and of its regional variants, viewed through the lens of technological practice.

Methodology of the project

The study will be based on a broad qualitative sample of excavated sites representing different geographic regions of the Kura-Araxes complex in the two main stages of its existence. Thus, for example, in Armenia, sites will be studied from the low-lying Ararat plain, from the Kasakh valley, from the highland plains of Tsaghkahovit and Shirak, and from semiarid hill-sites in and around the Aragats massif. The sites repre-sent widely varying environments and resources, as well as variant modes of subsistence and architectural styles. In a similar fashion, sites in Georgia will include those of the central Kura basin (Mtskheta-Mtianeti, Shida Kartli), the Samstskhe-Javakheti region in the south, and hopefully further regions such as Kaheti in the south-east. Sites in Azerbaijan will include principally those from the Araxes basin (including Naxice-van province). In Turkey, we will study material from Arsalantepe, and look to complement work already conducted by Kibaroğlu (Sos), Batiuk (Amuq), Schwartz (Malatya-Elazığ) and others.

As far as possible, the study will be based on fi rst-hand observation of material and of sites. The mate-rial included in the database will be obtained from the excavators or from those charged with publication or curation of the material. Samples from well-stratifi ed contexts will be prioritized, with a preference for complete forms and for drawn and published artifacts. Sites that have been only surveyed will not be in-cluded. Material obtained by proxy will be studied only if no other option is available, the same applying to material studied by colleagues.

A ceramic sampling protocol will be established, covering the typological spread of samples, the manner of description of the vessels and of their technology, and the application of petrography. Each sampled artifact will be photographed and described verbally, and a chip will be removed for petrographic thin-section analysis in the Laboratory for Comparative Microarchaeology at Tel Aviv University. If nec-essary, thin-sections can be prepared in the country of origin, using a portable laboratory devised by Prof. Yuval Goren (Fig. 1). Thanks to the post-soviet declassifi cation of geographical materials, the geology of the regions in question can be studied in detail. Potential raw materials will be collected in and around the sites that provide sampled ceramics (Fig. 2). These will provide added control to the information that can be obtained from geological maps.

The database will be composed of site fi les and card-fi les for each artifact. The site fi les will include basic geographic information, a description of the principal excavation contexts, and geological references. The artifact card will include a verbal description of the appearance of the artifact and of its observable external technological characteristics, images, and the result of petrographic analysis. The technological handbook of Kura-Araxes and related traditions will be based on the main stages in the ceramic chaîne opératoire:

ΠChoice and procurement of raw materials: Identifying and sourcing the clay and the various inclu-sions added to it (sand, rock grains, minerals, grog, or organics).

ΠTreatment of clay (sorting, sifting) and matching of raw materials to the intended end-product.

A comparative technological study of Kura-Araxes ceramics and their derivatives 73

ΠConstruction of the vessel: Coil, slab or mold techniques.ΠSurface treatment: Techniques of slip, burnish, molded and applied decoration. The high invest-

ment in surface features of most Kura-Araxes wares might have necessitated bisque fi ring prior to this stage.

ΠFiring and post-fi ring decorative techniques.

Experimental work

A fortunate addition to our fi eld and laboratory work has been experimental reconstruction of Khirbet Kerak Ware techniques, carried out by our resident potter Andrew Chanania during the most recent fi eld season at Tel Bet Yerah (Fig. 3). The immediate fruits of this work have been a far more nuanced under-standing of the properties of soils as raw materials and the knowledge necessary in order to bring soils to a state where they can be reliably used for ceramic production. We have also been able to establish that the external features of Khirbet Kerak Ware can be attained in open fi ring, although it will take time and effort before the skills of the original potters can be emulated.

Preliminary results

In Israel, more than 150 Khirbet Kerak ware artifacts from fi ve sites in the Jordan Valley, as well as about one hundred non-KKW artifacts from Tel Bet Yerah have been examined. Scores of additional artifacts sampled by colleagues (Mazar et al. 2000; Zuckerman et al. 2009) have been studied as well. In the Trans-caucasus, nearly nine-hundred samples have been obtained from 23 sites in Azerbaijan, Armenia, and Georgia. Samples of potential raw materials have been obtained from 15 of these sites.

The following preliminary results have begun to emerge from the analysis:An absolute rule in the Levant, which seems to be indicated for several Transcaucasian sites, is the

preference for soils, either available immediately on-site or a short distance away. This contrasts with the specialized clays preferred by expert potters of the local tradition in the Levant. A corollary of this prefer-ence is the absence of regularity in raw materials and the lack of any kind of fi t between vessel types and specifi c raw material combinations. External observation has long noted the absence of standardization in size, and a noticeable variability in the quality of burnish, decoration, and fi ring, although this occurs within a tradition that prioritized surface treatment over other aspects of vessel manufacture. All of these features strongly indicate that Khirbet Kerak ware and, by extension, all wares of the Kura-Araxes com-plex, would have been manufactured by part-time specialists, probably in household settings. This said, there does seem to be a trend toward increasing expertise in the transition from the fi rst to the second phase of the culture in the Transcaucasian region, expressed principally in formation techniques (the earlier pe-riod being characterized by an extremely conservative and slow construction technique that is abandoned in the second phase). This increase may yet be associated with changes in the social setting of ceramic production.

Conclusions

It should be clear from the preceding description that the task we have undertaken is selective and qualita-tive, rather than comprehensive. It is nonetheless very ambitious in scope. We therefore view it as a collab-orative effort, not only at the technical level - the sharing of ceramic resources - but at the ideational level - the sharing of insights on the pace and direction of development in each area. Hopefully, its completion will offer a new starting point for a productive discussion of the nature of the Kura-Araxes “expansion”. So far, considerations of the phenomenon have focused on identifying its sources, its extent, and the dynamics of its arrival in new areas. What have remained almost entirely unconsidered are the qualities shared by the

Raffi Greenberg, Mark Iserlis74

communities of practice that expressed themselves within this cultural tradition: What did they preserve in common? What was the cause of their longevity as a distinct phenomenon? What was their role at the edges of Near Eastern civilization? These great issues need to be tackled ambitiously, combining a consid-eration of details with a broad interpretive approach, as indeed we hope to achieve.

BibliographyBadalyan R., Avetisyan P. 2007, Bronze and Early Iron Age Archaeological Sites in Armenia, British Archaeological Re-

ports, International Series 1697, Oxford.Batiuk S. 2005, Migration Theory and the Distribution of the Early Transcaucasian Culture, PhD Dissertation, Toronto,

University of Toronto.Burney C., Lang D.M. 1971, Peoples of the Hills: Ancient Ararat and Caucasus, London.Greenberg R. 2007, Transcaucasian Colors: Khirbet Kerak Ware at Khirbet Kerak (Tel Bet Yerah), in: Lyonnet B. (ed.),

Les cultures des Caucase (VIe-IIIe millénaires avant notre ère), Paris, 257-268. Iserlis M. 2009, Khirbet Kerak Ware at Bet Yerah: Segregation and Integration through Technology, Tel Aviv 36/2, 181-

195. Kibaroğlu M. 2007, Petrographische und geochemische Untersuchungen an archäologischer Keramik aus Nordost-

Syrien, Südost-Anatolien, Ost-Anatolien und Ost-Georgien, PhD Dissertation, Eberhard-Karls-Universität, Tübingen.Kohl P. 2007, The Making of Bronze Age Eurasia, Cambridge.Kohl P. 2009, Origins, Homelands and Migrations: Situating the Kura-Araxes Early Transcaucasian “Culture” within the

History of Bronze Age Eurasia, Tel Aviv 36/2, 241-265.Mazar A., Ziv-Ezudri A., Cohen-Weinberger A. 2000, The Early Bronze Age II-III at Tel Beth Shean: Preliminary Obser-

vations, in: Philip G., Baird D. (ed.), Ceramics and Change in the Early Bronze Age of the Southern Levant, Levantine Archaeology 2.

Palumbi G. 2003, Red-Black Pottery: Eastern Anatolian and Transcaucasian Relationships during the Mid-Fourth Millen-nium BC, Ancient Near Eastern Studies 40, 80-134.

Sagona A.G. 1984, The Caucasian Region in the Early Bronze Age, British Archaeological Reports, International Series 214, Oxford.

Zuckerman S., Ziv-Esudri A., Cohen-Weinberger A. 2009, Production Centres and Distribution Patterns of Khirbet Kerak Ware in the Southern Levant: A Typological and Petrographic Perspective, Tel Aviv 36/2, 135-180.

A comparative technological study of Kura-Araxes ceramics and their derivatives 75

Fig.3. Experimental re-creation of Khirbet Kerak Ware by Andrew Chanania: Tel Bet Yerah, 2009.

Fig.1. The portable petrographic lab in action.

Fig.2. Sampling at Shengavit.