Magnetic Survey in the Investigation of Sociopolitical Change at a Late Bronze Age Fortress...

Magnetic Survey in the InvestigationofSociopolitical Changeat a Late Bronze AgeFortress Settlement in Northwestern Armenia

IANLINDSAY1*, ADAM T.SMITH2 ANDRUBENBADALYAN3

1 Department ofAnthropology, Purdue University, 700West State St.,West Lafayette, Indiana 47907, USA2 Department ofAnthropology, University of Chicago,1126 East 59th St., Chicago, Illinois 60637, USA3 Institute ofArchaeologyandEthnography, Academyof Sciences of theRepublic ofArmenia,15 CharentsSt.,Yerevan, Armenia 375025

ABSTRACT Theconstructionof largestone fortressesacrossmuchofnorthernArmeniaduring the LateBronzeAge (ca.1500 1150BC) represented a shift away from centuries of nomadic pastoralism, and also marked a profound transformation inthe constitution of political authorityandhow socialordersweremediated through thebuilt environment.To date, how-ever, little archaeological attention hasbeen given to Late Bronze Age (LBA) settlements located outside the fortresscitadels, partlyduetothedifficultyindetectingthemfromthesurface.Inthisreportwehighlightresultsandobservationsfrom a magnetic gradiometry survey in northwestern Armenia where we test the hypothesis that an extensive LBAdomestic complex existed at the base of the fortified hill at the site of Tsaghkahovit.The study surveyed four grids inthe settlement area at the base of fortress. Three test units were excavated in three of the four survey areas to testselected anomalies.Two of the test units confirmed the presence of subsurface LBA deposits, including basalt stonewalls, burned features, anda storagepit, appearing in the data as large dipoles.The spatial configurationsof buildingsrevealed by the gradiometry surveyselucidate the extent of theTsaghkahovit settlement and the formal differentiationof domestic andinstitutionalspacesasnewarchitectural traditionsemerge during theMiddle to Late Bronze Age tran-sition.However, targeted subsurface tests also hint at the ephemeralnature of the domestic constructions suggestingtheretentionofmobilityamongsubjectpopulationsunder theauthorityofsettled fortresselites.Copyright#2009 JohnWiley & Sons,Ltd.

Keywords: magneticgradiometry;basalt features;Caucasus;LateBronzeAge;settlementpatterns; residentialar-chaeology; Overhauser

Introduction

The mid-second millennium BC was a period of intensesociopolitical change across the South Caucasus –contemporary Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia – associally stratified, militaristic nomadic communitiesshifted to more stable agropastoral settlements. Thiscan be seen as newly fortified hilltops and political andeconomic transformations – e.g., changes in ceramicsand metal working, settlement and subsistence pat-terns, ritual architecture and burial traditions – thatmark the onset of the region’s Late BronzeAge (LBA, ca.

1500–1150 BC) (Badalyan et al., 2003, 2005). In the ruggeduplands of northern Armenia, the LBA is characterizedmost prominently by the construction of cyclopeanstone fortresses built on prominent hilltops overlookingagricultural plains. Most modern accounts of thesefortresses cast their appearance as a watershed in theregion’s prehistoric sociopolitical development; theirrather sudden appearance suggests nomadic pastoralgroups that dominated the Middle Bronze Age (MBA,ca. 2200–1500 BC) began to develop new politicalinstitutions and strategies of authority behind therobust citadel walls, heralding the earliest evidencefor sociopolitical complexity in the Caucasus.

Since 1998, Project ArAGATS (Archaeology andGeography of Ancient Transcaucasian Societies), aninternational collaboration of Armenian and American

Archaeological ProspectionArchaeol. Prospect. 17, 15–27 (2010)Published online in Wiley InterScience(www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/arp.369

* Correspondence to: I. Lindsay, Department of Anthropology, Pur-due University, 700 West State St., West Lafayette, Indiana 47907,USA. E-mail: [email protected]

Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Received 30 April 2009Accepted 4 September 2009

scholars, has focused its investigations on the originsand social ramifications of LBA fortress systems onthe Tsaghkahovit Plain in northwestern Armenia(Figure 1), where our settlement surveys in 1998 and2000 documented 12 stone fortresses and outpostsattributed to the mid-second millennium BC (Badalyanet al., 2003; Smith et al., 2009). Intensive excavations atthe fortress citadels of Tsaghkahovit and Gegharotin particular have yielded important evidence ofpolitical–economic practices associated with emergentinstitutions, including interfortress exchange, storageand redistribution, religious ritual, and metallurgicalproduction (Smith et al., 2004; Badalyan et al., 2005,2009; Lindsay et al., 2008).Our earlier settlement survey also recorded expan-

sive LBA cemeteries around several of the fortresses,which allude to the presence of a substantial subjectpopulation. Given the evidence for an extensiveinstitutional apparatus on the fortress citadels andample populations represented in the funerary data,there has been a surprising lack of information on LBAresidential complexes throughout the southern Cau-casus. The dearth of settlement data for the LBA hasleft us with little to reconstruct how political subjectslived their lives under the new fortress regimes.

The absence of settlement data can in part beattributed to research biases that have historicallyneglected inquiry into extramural residential spaces infavour of a ‘temple and tombs’ approach to BronzeAge archaeology (i.e. until recently nobody in theCaucasus has looked particularly hard for LBA fortresssettlements to determine if they ever existed; Lindsayand Smith, 2006). But the authors have also indepen-dently put forward hypotheses to explain the apparentlack of surface remains of LBA domestic architecture,alternate possibilities that we hoped to resolve usingmagnetic survey. The first hypothesis, proposed byLindsay (2006), is that subject populations did indeedconstruct large permanent settlements in the shadowsof the hilltop forts as the political and economicfoundation of emerging fortress elites. These LBAsettlements, portions of which were initially revealedby excavations in 2003 and 2005, are buried andshielded from view by alluvium and, in places, by lateroccupations during the first millennium BC (Iron 3period). Under this model, as social hierarchies ofmobile pastoralists began to crystallize during theMBA around themartial success of war chiefs, politicalleaders saw a need to generate a more dependablebasis of power and began to construct fortresses and

Figure 1. Mapof Late Bronze Age fortress sites in andaround theTsaghkahovit Plain, highlightingTsaghkahovit fortress studyarea.

Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Archaeol. Prospect. 17, 15–27 (2010)

DOI: 10.1002/arp

16 I. Lindsay et al.

settlements around the fertile agricultural plains andvalleys to create an extractive political economy(Lindsay, 2006). In support of this hypothesis,preliminary excavations in 2003 and 2005 uncoveredthe remains of three rooms in a residential complex onthe south side of the Tsaghkahovit fortress of this age.

An alternative hypothesis, forwarded by Smith et al.(2009) rests on the notion that the small exposures ofLBA settlement detected through subsurface testingcannot account for the scale of populations visible inthe vast LBA cemeteries recorded on the foothillsabove the Tsaghkahovit Plain during our settlementsurvey. They propose that lack of visible large-scaleLBA settlements represents the continuation ofpopulation mobility from the MBA to the LBAoverseen by a more sedentary political authority (i.e.segments of the population remained mobile for partsof the year and therefore did not invest in constructingand maintaining long-term settlements). According tothis model, sedentary fortress elites were able tomaintain their authority over these mobile commu-nities by ensuring they returned to the plain on aregular basis to attend to ritual funerary obligations.However, these models are not mutually exclusive asbecame clear during our analysis.

Here we report on findings from a 2008 magneto-metry survey at an LBA fortress in northwesternArmenia to test these models and determine whethera substantial settlement existed near the base of thefortress (Figure 2). Geophysical evidence for theseactivities were sought in the spatial patterning ofresidential and institutional sectors of the site in orderto develop a more complete picture of the physicalscale of the settlement plan and how different socio-political contexts at the fortress were spatially andfunctionally related.

Geophysical archaeology and theTsaghkahovit Lower Town

With the costs of archaeological excavation continuingto rise and the depletion of archaeological resourcesdue to development, looting, and archaeology itself,field researchers are increasingly turning to remotesensing techniques as effective non-destructive meansof targeting subsurface remains (Aitken, 1974; Aspinallet al., 2008; Clark, 1996; Gaffney and Gator, 2003).Magnetometry has become one of the more populargeophysical techniques (particularly in Europe) for itsability to provide relatively quick visual displays ofsubsurface archaeological features under a variety offield conditions. Magnetic surveys within diverse

archaeological contexts conducted using carefullycontrolled transects can record these anomalies inspace for display, analysis and relocation usingsoftware packages such as ArcGIS and Surfer (e.g.Kvamme, 2003, 2008; Drahor et al., 2008; Hinz et al.,2008; O’Rourke and Gibson, 2009). Ideally, data setsare also collected using other techniques commonlyapplied in geophysical archaeology, includingground- penetrating radar, electrical resistivity andelectromagnetic induction (Gaffney and Gator, 2003).

Mount Aragats (4090m), which forms the southernboundary of our study area on the Tsaghkahovit Plain,was formed by volcanic processes (Karakhanian et al.,2003) with slopes largely composed of basalt withsignificant tuff deposits, making it geologically suitedfor magnetic survey, and the uneven terrain in oursurvey area, punctuated by stone outcrops andscattered stones from architectural collapse, mademagnetometry the most practical tool under our fieldconditions.

Previously in Armenia, geophysical surveymethodshad only been applied in a handful of archaeologicalsettings in the 1970s and 1980s and with unevenresults. In particular, the Russian and Armenianoperators who surveyed at the sites of Metsamorand Zvartnots in the Ararat Plain (Melnikov et al., 1984;Melnikov and Smekalova, 1987), the only publishedstudies to date, reported limited success due to a lackof sufficient magnetic contrast between the culturaldeposits and surrounding soils, as well as hetero-geneous magnetization due to the constructionmaterials at these sites – tuff, basalt and granite. Thearchitectural deposits uncovered at the Tsaghkahovitsettlement thus far are almost uniformly of nativebasalt, buried less than 1m deep in alluvial deposits,which, along with advances in the sensitivity of mag-netometers over the past three decades, made usoptimistic about the potential of applying the tech-nique with greater success; it seemed plausible thatthe volcanic nature of the site would provide amagnetically dynamic environment for, at the veryleast, uncovering basaltic architecture.

Project ArAGATS initiated its investigations in theTsaghkahovit Plain in 1998, starting with a systematicpedestrian survey of the foothills surroundingthe plain (Avetisyan et al., 2000; Smith et al., 2009).Since 2002, intensive excavations have centred on twoprimary sites, Tsaghkahovit and Gegharot (Figure 1),which have provided the most extensive view yet ofpolitics, society and economy in the earliest complexsocieties of the South Caucasus. While our ongoinginvestigations have been centred primarily on thecentral precincts of the fortresses, in 2003 investigations


DOI: 10.1002/arp

Magnetic Survey in Northwestern Armenia 17

Figu

re2.

Map

ofthefourgrad

iometrysurvey

area

sattheTsagh

kaho

vitfortres

s.NoteSou

thLowerTownexcavatio

nsinthecentreofthefigureisen

larged

inFigu

re3.Th

isfig

ureisavailablein

colour

onlineat

www.in

terscien

ce.wiley.co

m/jo

urna

l/arp


DOI: 10.1002/arp


were also initiated at the base of Tsaghkahovit’sfortified outcrop in order to identify potential remainsof a wider settlement beyond the fortress walls.

Preliminary excavations at the base of the Tsagh-kahovit fortress’ southern slope were undertaken in2003 and 2005 in order to learn more about thedomestic economy of the LBA settlement andelucidate the impact of regional sociopolitical devel-opments on grassroots populations (Lindsay, 2006).This sector of the site, referred to as the South LowerTown, is part of a large multicomponent settlementconstituted by architectural surface remains sur-rounding the Tsaghkahovit hill. These excavationsuncovered remains of three LBA residential con-structions with evidence for domestic activities andsubsequent reuse of the rooms during the Iron 3period. The three constructions excavated (Figure 3:structures 1, 2, and 3) incorporated natural basaltoutcrops into walls, foundations andgrinding features(Lindsay, 2006, 2007), a common building technique insouthern Caucasia during the LBA (Kafadarian, 1984;Smith, 1998). The artefact assemblage that has resultedfrom this early phase of lower town excavations –groundstone, spindlewhorls, fragments of cooking andstorage vessels and pits – suggest household-scaledomestic production and consumption activities.Because the nomadic pastoralists of the MBA left noknown settlements in the SouthernCaucasus, one of thechallenging practical consequences of the MBA–LBAtransition archaeologically is that we are left with nobasis for comparing domestic architectural traditionsbetween theperiods as ameans for evaluatingquestionsof change or continuity. However, these data offer theclearest evidence to date that LBA communitiesrelinquished their fully nomadic lifestyle anddedicatedthemselves (to a degree at least) to a settled agropastoraleconomy (Lindsay, 2005, 2006, 2007; Badalyan et al., inpress).

In addition, ongoing excavations by Lori Khatch-adourian (Khatchadourian, 2008; Badalyan et al., inpress) provide evidence for a subsequent occupationduring the mid-first millennium BC (Iron 3 phasein our chronological nomenclature for the region)when the region was incorporated as a province,or satrapy, of the Achaemenid Persian Empire.The well-ordered rectilinear architectural complexesfrom the Iron 3 period visible on the surface have inplaces shielded the prior LBA settlement from view;in other parts of the site, LBA deposits are simplyburied under alluvial soils. The discovery of LBAdomestic contexts, revealed for the first time duringthe course of the 2003–2005 excavations (Figure 3),indicated that a more extensive evaluation of

possible extramural occupation at the site wasneeded. A gradiometer survey was employed toinvestigate the extent of subsurface architecture andrelated archaeological features in several differentprecincts of the site around the prior Lower Townexcavations (Figure 2).

A survey targeting three 1-ha areas of theTsaghkahovit settlement and subsequent testtrenches with the goals of (i) establishing the viabilityof magnetic survey in the geological and pedologicalcontext of the site and (ii) testing the hypothesis thatfurther LBA constructions were present below thesurface that housed subject populations associatedwith the fortress (Figure 2). Our preliminary in-terpretations from survey and excavation data arethat LBA residential units in the South Lower Townand South Settlement survey areas (Figures 4 and 5)consist of complexes of articulated circular or semi-circular rooms with prepared clay floors. Thesecomplexes form a residential precinct spatiallydiscrete from institutional constructions on the upperterraces of the fortress and the LBA cemetery to thesoutheast.

Prior to the magnetic survey in the TsaghkahovitLower Town, surface architecture wasmapped using atotal station and the data imported to ArcGIS, thusproviding a basis for a spatial comparison withsubsurface deposits recorded during the gradiometrysurvey (Figure 2). The instrument used for the surveywas an Overhauser GSM-19WG gradiometer (GEMSystems, Ontario, Canada). Sensors were spaced 50 cmapart. Themagnetic survey targeted three 1-ha areas inthe southern and eastern sectors surrounding theTsaghkahovit fortress hill (South Settlement SurveyArea (Figure 5), and Eastern Terrace survey area(Figure 6)). In addition, one smaller 40� 40m plot,termed the South Lower Town survey area, was laidout immediately south of the 2003–2005 South LowerTown excavations (Figure 4). A larger survey of theSouth Lower Town was impractical due to the largenumber of collapsed stones concentrated in this part ofthe settlement that would impede reliable datacollection.

In each survey area, 20� 20m data grids werestaked out with the total station to better facilitate datacollection. Readings were collected by the gradiometerevery 0.5 s and collected along 0.5m spaced transects.A mosaic of the data blocks was generated in Surfer 8using bilinear interpolation and average overlap andvisualized as shaded relief, contour and image maps.The resulting images were georeferenced in ArcGIS 9.2and superimposed with data layers of surfacearchitecture for spatial comparison and to examine


DOI: 10.1002/arp


Figure 3. Planviewof theTsaghkahovit South LowerTownoperationsexcavated in 2003 and 2005, illustratingarticulationof structuresandroomswithin the residential complex.This figure is available in colouronline at www.interscience.wiley.com/journal/arp


DOI: 10.1002/arp


Figure 4. 40� 40m South LowerTown survey area (contour) and SLT8 test trench.This figure is available in colour online at www.interscience.wiley.com/journal/arp


DOI: 10.1002/arp


Figure 5. 1-ha South Settlement surveyarea (contour) and SS1test trench.This figure is available in colouronlineat www.interscience.wiley.com/journal/arp


DOI: 10.1002/arp


anomalies and geometric patterning suggestive ofarchitectural features (see e.g. Figures 4–6).

An exploration of the magnetic plots in Surfer at avariety of clip-points and colour schemes made itclear early on that the survey area is a dynamicmagnetic environment; the high magnetic signals ofthe basalt architecture were high enough that theywere rendered clearest at �500 nT (Figure 4) and�1000 nT (Figures 5 and 6). We recognize that anysubtle soil anomalies are undetectable at these clip-points, but at lower levels they would probablyremain obscured by the strong signals from the basaltstones. In this, we satisfied our goal of confirming theviability of magnetic survey in the study area, withthe caveat that the strong architectural signals aredetected at the expense of finer grained domesticfeatures, ditches and other more subtle magneticsignatures.

Subsurface anomalies in three of the survey areas(the South Lower Town survey area, the SouthSettlement survey area, and the East Lower Townsurvey area) were chosen for testing throughexcavation trenches to confirm the presence ofbelow-surface features and collect enough datablematerial to see where the features and associatedarchitecture fit in the site’s occupational sequence(Figures 4 and 5). Many of the visible anomaliesaligned with each other in geometric patterns, thoughthe axes of these dipoles were oriented more or lessrandomly suggesting that they were generated frommobile materials such as construction stones. Ourresults bear a striking resemblance to those found byHesse et al. (1997) ascribed to volcanic material usedin construction and insights to the theoretical back-ground to the patterning can be found in Bevan(1994). What follows is a brief summary of our

Figure 6. East LowerTown surveyarea and EasternTerrace surveyarea.


DOI: 10.1002/arp


interpretations from each survey area and results ofthe three test trenches.

Discussion of survey results

South Lower Town survey area

The South Lower Town survey area is a 40� 40m gridlocated just south of the 2003 and 2005 South LowerTown excavations. This small areawas selected becauseof its close proximity to the previously excavated LBAsubsurface remains (detailed above and in Figures 2and 3) and it offered the best context for testing theviability ofmagnetic surveymethods at the site; in otherwords, if magnetometry was going to detect archae-ological remains in the geological and pedologicalconditionsatTsaghkahovit, thiswas the likeliest place todetermine its efficacy. The magnetic survey revealedanomalies in spatial patterns indicative of subsurfacearchitectural remains, including what appears to be alarge room about 18m wide visible near the centre ofthe survey area along with several smaller ovoid orrectangular rooms to the north, west and south(Figure 4).To confirm the presence of buried structures

suggested by the linear alignment of dipoles in thissurvey area, a 2� 2m test trench was placed over asizeable positive anomaly (or perhaps two distinctanomalies) at what appeared to be the junction of twoof the curvilinear features (Figure 4). The test unitrevealed two parallel walls of roughly shaped basaltstone that correspond to the adjacent constructionsvisible in the magnetic data; each wall was resting onprepared clay floors at the same depth (1.1m belowsurface) probably representing contemporary occu-pations. The strength of the magnetic signal may beattributed in part to a 50-cm-wide hearth on the flooragainst the south side of the northern stone wall, aswell as a clay-lined pit (40 cm in diameter by 20 cmdeep) found in one of the floors. Two radiocarbonsamples of charcoal from the hearth and the pitreturned dates of 1224� 166 cal. yr BC (2 sigma) and1096� 195 cal. yr BC (2 sigma), and the vast majority ofdiagnostic pottery from this trench dates to the LBA.This strongly suggests that the architecture revealed bymagnetometry in this grid represents the continuationof the LBA domestic complex uncovered during the2003–2005 excavations illustrated in Figure 3. Perhapssignificantly, the single prepared clay floor atopbedrock is similar to what was found in the horizontalexcavations of the Lower Town in 2005, both of whichleave the impression that the architecture was not used

for recurrent or intensive occupation of the spaces butwas used seasonally by segments of the populationspending significant portions of the year in a moremobile lifestyle.Within this 40m2 survey area, magnetic gradiome-

try and limited subsurface testing therefore seem tolend support to both models put forward in theintroduction of this paper; we confirmed the presenceof architectural remains of a LBA residential complexbelow the surface, while the single thin occupationallayer suggests that LBA residential architecture wasbuilt for short-term, perhaps seasonal occupation.If we compare the layout of rooms exposed in the2003–2005 excavations illustrated in Figure 3, we caninterpret the spatial organization of architecture visiblein Figure 4 as a series of interdigitated domestic spacesreflecting household scale production activities. Thelarge central area likely served as a communal spacewith household storage facilities while satellite roomsserved as residential quarters. Unfortunately, thearrangement of the magnetic signatures is not a highenough resolution to determine confidently the pre-sence of hearths and pits without targeted excavations.Nevertheless, the ability to quickly and efficientlyvisualize the spatial organization of this portion of thecomplex, including central open area and surroundingrooms, can be used to establish a comparative typologyof residential architecture at contemporary LBAfortresses in the region.

South Settlement survey area

The South Settlement survey area is a 1-ha grid located60m south and over a low rise from the South LowerTown survey. This portion of the site also includesextensive surface architectural remains as well asnatural outcrops, but very little is known about thefunction and period of the constructions. Several large,rounded surface constructions are visible in thewestern half of the survey area (Figure 5), while aseries of rectilinear rooms less visible on the surfacewere detected by the gradiometer. The room wallsvisible in the data are less distinct than those in theSouth Lower Town survey area (Figure 4), perhapsindicating a poor state of preservation; but theynevertheless loosely conform to the spatial patterningof a large rounded central area with smaller roomsaround its perimeter that we uncovered in the SouthLower Town survey area.A 2� 2m test trench was opened over a large

positive anomaly associatedwith one of the subsurfaceconstructions identified in the survey (Figure 5).The excavation revealed a single-course basalt stone


DOI: 10.1002/arp


wall resting on a clay floor 89 cm below surface. Heretoo, a burned feature was documented on the flooradjacent to the wall stones, and radiocarbon dated at1519� 89 cal. yr BC (2 sigma), a somewhat earlier phaseof the LBA than uncovered at the South Lower Town.As in the South Lower Town survey area detailedabove, there is not a build-up of cultural deposits onthe floor that would suggest long-term occupation ofthese spaces, leading us to the preliminary conclusionthat this construction was used on a seasonal or short-term basis.

Further testing in these rooms is necessary to resolvethe function of these rooms, but the magnetic datafurther support our hypothesis of an extensive (if notintensive) occupation of Tsaghkahovit during the LBA,which in turn supports the idea that portions of thepopulation were convening at the fortress duringcertain times of the year perhaps to fulfill ritual andeconomic obligations to political authorities (althoughexactly what their obligations were andwhat tied themto the regime remains a matter under investigation).

East Settlement survey area

The East Settlement survey area is a 1-ha grid to theeast-southeast of the fortress hill and abutting theSouth Lower Town survey area (Figure 2). The goal ofsurveying this area was to test the hypothesis thatlarge oval constructions visible on the surface housedproduction facilities (kilns, furnaces, etc.) or evencorrals, possibilities suggested by the size and openplan of the rooms and their location on the fringes ofthe settlement area. Craft production areas involvinghigh temperature fires are particularly susceptible tomagnetic detection, and their presence would providevaluable information about the scale and organizationof production during the LBA. Unfortunately, a1� 5m test trench within a large oval constructiononly revealed a protrusion of decomposing friablebedrock with an orange tint, possibly the result ofnatural burning; no charcoal or other visible signs ofconflagration were noted. No radiocarbon sampleswere recovered from this area to date this structure,and diagnostic ceramics were scant with an ambig-uous mix of LBA and Iron 3 ceramic shards. Given thethin deposits and small quantities of artefacts, it maybe that this and neighbouring large rounded construc-tions in the southeastern end of the site were built in amore recent historical period as livestock corrals.Nevertheless, a lack of evidence for use of this areaduring the LBA at least helped us rule out this portionof the site for further intensive study.

Eastern Terrace survey area

The final 1-ha survey area was located to the north ofthe East Settlement survey area, beyond the surfaceconstructions that delimit the known boundary of thesettlement. This area is characterized by cyclopeanstone walls along the eastern lower flank of the fortresshill that serve to define three broad terraces descendingto the east and emptying into a large open area in theeastern 30mof the survey grid (Figure 6). Twoopeningsin thewesternmost terracewall closest to the fortresshillsuggest the presence of a gateway with a connection tothe expansive terraces, although this remains speculat-ive. Magnetic survey in this precinct of the site wastherefore explicitly exploratory, allowing us to examinethis large area for activity areas associated with thebroad terraces that might indicate what this side ofthe fortress was used for.

The terrace walls are clearly visible from the groundsurface, but the magnetic survey data revealedintriguing new details, including a row of smallerterraces measuring 8–10m wide bending to the westalong the base of the second terrace, resembling acurving stairway to the larger upper terrace (Figure 6).A rectangular construction is also visible on the easternedge of the first terrace abutting the lower terrace wall.Time constraints in 2008 precluded conducting testtrenches in this survey area. But if the pattern of shortwalls revealed in the survey data is indeed a staircase(a hypothesis we will test with subsurface exposures),the geophysical data would allow us to propose anapproach to the fortress at the eastern side of the hill,which perhaps incorporated the wide foundationterraces into a large processional space inscribed withthe power and privilege of the fortress elite.

Conclusions

The construction of large stone fortresses in theTsaghkahovit Plain (and across much of northernArmenia) represents a profound shift in the consti-tution of political authority over the previous MBAperiod, including how social orders were mediatedthrough the built environment and mapped onto thearrangement of fortress settlements. Within the earliernomadic traditions of the MBA, authority washeralded through the construction of monumentalfunerary tumuli (kurgans) marking the singularity ofindividual leaders, perhaps tied to their success incombat. In the LBA, by contrast, new strategies ofpolitics appear to have shifted away from thecommemoration of individual personalities (as seen


DOI: 10.1002/arp


in MBA funerary monuments) toward a greaterinvestment in building enduring political institutions(visible in fortress construction). With this commit-ment to fixed locales, societies relinquished a 700-yeartradition of nomadic pastoralism from the MBA (atleast to a degree), and reconfigured their relationshipto the landscape through monumental fortress con-struction and a mixed farming and herding economy.What has been lacking to this point is a clearer view

of where and how the majority of the population livedwho built the forts and gave their allegiance to fortresselites. Our gradiometry data in three of the four surveyareas helped us define the spatial configurations ofbelow-ground buildings as consisting of small roomsclustered around larger common spaces, while sim-ultaneously expanding the known boundaries of thelower town. In addition, an exploratory magneticsurvey on the east side of the fortified hill (East Terracesurvey area) alerted us to what may be a processionalstairway leading up to a series of terraced spaces at thebase of the fortress allowing us to tentatively identifyhow the lower entrance to the fortress was accessed. Ifour interpretation is confirmed by future magneticsurvey and testing, it provides a prominent example ofhow fortress authorities utilized architectural mediafor regularizing social distinctions between domesticand institutional precincts at the fortress.In the South Lower Town survey area, the gradio-

metry data revealed the layout of several roundarticulated structures that we interpret as a residentialcomplex, probably denoting the continuation of subsur-face constructions initially revealed in the South LowerTown in the 2005 excavations. This, in combinationwithLBA constructions discovered in the South Settlementsurvey area, supports the hypothesis that a largepopulation had settled at the base of Tsaghkahovitfortress; however, the relatively thin, single-flooroccupation layers also lend credence to our alternativehypothesis that the settlement may not have been asenduring as the fortresses that oversaw them, perhapsoccupied seasonally by transhumant pastoralists. TheLBA sedentary political institutions therefore facedthe prospect of legitimizing their right to rule overcommunities seeking to maintain their long legacy ofmobility – a supreme challenge faced more recently byRussian imperial administrators in Siberia, and RezaShah’s effort to settle Iran’s nomadic tribes with mixedresults (Barth, 1961; Beck, 1986).These interpretations of the dynamics of politics and

settlement patterns counter traditional Near Easternand Anatolian models that posit the rise of earlycomplex societies in these regions as highly dependenton a sedentary agricultural economy. Located squarely

between thenomadic pastoral traditions of the EurasianSteppe and the agrarian urban states of Mesopotamia,complex societies in the Southern Caucasus followed atrajectoryofpolitical development combiningaspects ofboth the steppe and the sown. The results of our long-term investigations on the Tsaghkahovit Plain aided bymagnetic gradiometry have demonstrated the need foran alternative model of political change that accountsfor the range of subsistence activities pursued by LBApopulations, and the need for flexible strategies ofauthority by elites aiming to rule them. Our new evi-dence for a large but ephemeral settlement belowthe Tsaghkahovit fortress, juxtaposed with the import-ance of ritual institutions tied to the fortress andextensive LBA cemeteries throughout the plain, forcesus to merge the salient elements of our alternativehypotheses to accountboth for continuedmobility andanewly forged commitment to place. While the impetusfor settling the plain may well have been predicated onthe material needs of a sustainable political economy assuggested by Lindsay (2006), the important role ofritual obligation in legitimizing the power of fortresselites and ensuring the coherence of the regime, notionscentral to Smith et al.’s (2009) thesis, cannot beoverlooked. With a clearer picture of the issues facedby political leaders and the subject communities duringthe MBA–LBA transition, the answer to how fortressauthorities of the LBA succeeded at maintaining theirhold on mobile communities for several centuries, willcontinue to be a focus of our research in the SouthernCaucasus in the coming years.

Acknowledgements

Financial support for the research reported here wasprovided in part by a Purdue University College ofLiberal Arts Research Incentive Grant and by theAdolph and Marion Lichtstern Fund of the Universityof ChicagoDepartment of Anthropology.We alsowishto thank Tatyana Smekalova for providing informationabout prior geophysical studies in Armenia, as well asLori Khatchadourian and two anonymous reviewerswho offered valuable comments on a previous draft ofthis paper.

References

Aitken MJ. 1974. Physics and Archaeology, 2nd edn. Clar-endon Press: Oxford.

Aspinall A, Gaffney C, Schmidt A. 2008.Magnetometry forArchaeologists. AltaMira Press: Lanham, MD.

Avetisyan PS, Badalyan RS, Smith AT. 2000. Preliminaryreport on the 1998 archaeological investigations of


DOI: 10.1002/arp


Project ArAGATS in the Tsakahovit Plain, Armenia.Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici XLII: 19–59.

Badalyan RS, Smith AT, Avetisyan PS. 2003. The emer-gence of socio-political complexity in Southern Cauca-sia: An interim report on the research of ProjectArAGATS. In Archaeology in the Borderlands: Investi-gations in Caucasia and Beyond, Smith AT, RubinsonKS (eds). The Cotsen Institute of Archaeology at UCLA:Los Angeles; 144–166.

Badalyan RS, Avetisyan PS, Smith AT. 2005. Svyatilishchepozdnego bronzovogo veka gekharota. Kul’tura Drev-ney Armenii XIII: 109–115.

Badalyan R, Smith AT, Lindsay I, Khatchadourian L,Avetisyan P. In press. Village, fortress, and town inbronze and Iron Age Southern Caucasia: a preliminaryreport on the 2003–2006 investigations of Project ArA-GATS on the Tsaghkahovit Plain, Republic of Armenia.Archaologische Mitteillungen aus Iran und Turan.

Barth F. 1961.Nomads of South Persia: the Basseri Tribe of theKhamseh Confederacy. Little: Boston.

Beck L. 1986. The Qashqa’i of Iran. Yale University Press:New Haven.

Bevan B. 1994. Themagnetic anomaly of brick foundation.Archaeological Prospection 1: 93–104.

Clark AJ. 1996. Seeing Beneath the Soil: Prospection Methodsin Archaeology. BT Batsford: London.

Drahor MG, Berge MA, Kurtulmus TO, Hartmann M,Speidel MA. 2008. Magnetic and electrical resistivitytomography investigations in a Roman legionary campsite (Legio IV Scythica) in Zeugma, southeastern Ana-tolia, Turkey. Archaeological Prospection 15: 159–186.

Gaffney C, Gator J. 2003. Revealing the Buried Past: Geo-physics for Archaeologists. Tempus: Stroud.

Hesse A, Barba L, Link K, Ortiz A. 1997. A magnetic andelectrical study of archaeological structures at LomaAlta, Michoacan, Mexico. Archaeological Prospection 4:53–67.

Hinz EA, Ferguson JF, Pellerin L, Ramenofsky AF. 2008.A geophysical investigation of subsurface structuresand quaternary geology at San Marcos Pueblo, NewMexico. Archaeological Prospection 15: 247–265.

Kafadarian K. 1984.Argishtikhinili kaghaki jartarapetutyune,1962–1976 t.t. Peghumneri nyuterov. Izdatelstvo ANArmyanskoy SSR: Yerevan.

Karakhanian A, Jrbashyan R, Trifonov V, Philip H, Ara-kelian S, Avagian A, Baghdassaryan H, Davtian V,Ghoukassyan Yu. 2003. Volcanic hazards in the regionof the Armenian nuclear power plant. Journal of Volca-nology and Geothermal Research 126: 31–62.

Khatchadourian L. 2008. Social logics under Empire: theArmenian ‘Highland Satrapy’ and Achaemenid Rule, ca.600–300 BC, PhD Dissertation. University of Michigan:Ann Arbor.

Kvamme KL. 2003. Geophysical surveys as landscapearchaeology. American Antiquity 68: 435–457.

Kvamme KL. 2008. Archaeological prospecting at theDouble Ditch State Historic Site, North Dakota, USA.Archaeological Prospection 15: 62–79.

Lindsay I. 2005. Yuzhnaya chast nizhnevo kvartala tsakh-kahovitskovo posoleniya v pozdnem bronzovom veke(predvaritelnie resultati raskopok 2003 g.). KulturaDrevney Armenii XIII: 116–124.

Lindsay I. 2006. Late Bronze Age power dynamics in SouthernCaucasia: a community perspective on political landscapes,PhD Dissertation, University of California: Santa Bar-bara.

Lindsay I. 2007. The Tsaghkahovit south lower town,Armenia: Recent excavations at a Late Bronze Agefortress settlement. In: Social Orders and Social Land-scapes: Proceedings of the 2005 University Of ChicagoConference on Eurasian Archaeology, Popova L,Hartley C, Smith AT (eds). Cambridge Scholars Pub-lishing: Newcastle-upon-Tyne; 253–275.

Lindsay I, Smith AT. 2006. A history of archaeology in theRepublic of Armenia. Journal of Field Archaeology 31:165–184.

Lindsay I, Minc L, Descantes C, Speakman RJ, GlascockMD. 2008. Exchange patterns, boundary formation, andsociopolitical change in Late Bronze Age SouthernCaucasia: Preliminary results from a pottery prove-nance study in northwestern Armenia. Journal ofArchaeological Science 35: 1673–1682.

Melnikov AV, Smekalova TN. 1987. Archeologo-geofizi-cheskoe issledovanie pamyatnikov prichernomorya,podvinya i armenii. In Metody estestvennych nauk varcheologii, Stanjukovic A (ed.) Nauka: Moscow; 107–114.

Melnikov AV, Arytyunyan VB, Smekalova TN, BocharovMM. 1984. Opyt ispolzovaniya magnitorazvedki vuslovayakh vysokomagnitnogo fona na archeologi-cheskikh pamyatnikakh armenii. In Kompleksnye metodyv izuchenii istorii s drevneishikh vremen do nahikh dnei,Poletaev VE (ed.) Nauka: Moscow; 97–99.

O’Rourke T, Gibson PJ. 2009. Geophysical investigation ofthe environs of Rattin Castle tower house, CountyWest-meath, Ireland. Archaeological Prospection 16: 65–75.

Smith AT. 1998. Late Bronze/Early Iron Age fortresses ofthe Ararat and Shirak Plains, Armenia: Typologicalconsiderations. Ancient Civilizations from Scythia toSiberia 5: 73–97.

Smith AT, Badalyan R, Avetisyan P, Zardaryan M, Hayr-apetyan A, Minc L, Monahan B. 2004. Early complexsocieties in southern Caucasia: A preliminary report onthe 2002 investigations of Project ArAGATS on theTsakahovit Plain, Republic of Armenia. American Jour-nal of Archaeology 108: 1–41.

Smith AT, Badalyan R, Avetisyan P (eds) 2009. Thearchaeologyandgeographyof ancientTranscaucasian societiesI: Regional survey in the Tsaghkahovit Plain. Armenia.Oriental Institute Publications: Chicago.


DOI: 10.1002/arp


Magnetic Survey in the Investigation of Sociopolitical Change at a Late Bronze Age Fortress...

Documents

Transcript of Magnetic Survey in the Investigation of Sociopolitical Change at a Late Bronze Age Fortress...