Search

International audience; Abstract. The Tavush Archaeological Project (TAP) was carried out in 2018 and 2019 in the province of Tavush (Northeastern Armenia) by an interdisciplinary Armenian-French team. The goals are to draw the archaeological map of this largely unknown region, to trace the changes in settlement patterns, with special attention to the periods from the Neolithic to the Late Bronze Age and to acquire a better understanding of the landscape of Tavush. This landscape is dominated by dense forest and mountainous topography, which make it especially challenging to survey. We were compelled to develop an ad hoc field methodology, which was based on survey protocols from classic archaeology, which had to be adapted to the specific environmental conditions of the area. Therefore, our project used a hybrid survey method, combining an extensive systematic survey across the region – through examination and study of satellite imagery and topographic maps – with an intensive survey of selected areas in the field. During these first two seasons, we identified 34 “places”, among them 20 sites (places in which both architecture and surface material are found), mainly situated around the Aghstev river, but also in the south-west part of the province, next to the modern villages of Haghartsin and Teghut.

International audience

International audience; The aggregated cells were discovered during the fieldworks about desert kites conducted on the western slopes of Mount Aragats between 2011 and 2015, which is not surprising after all: the two categories of constructions share some logics of location in the landscape and it turns out that their respective extension areas, in Armenia, are very similar. Moreover, if the questions that remain about their functions find only partial explanations, it seems that they imply animals in both cases. Could we advance the hypothesis of a coexistence of these two types of constructions, or even of their functional complementarity? The chronology, tricky to establish in the case of kites and still preliminary in that of aggregated cells, could strengthen the idea of a possible contemporaneity. However, some rare cases of superposition make probable an earlier date for the aggregated cells.

International audience

International audience; The cave of Getahovit-2 is situated in north-eastern Armenia, in the foothills of the Lesser Caucasus which dominate the valley of the Kura. The excavations (2011–2017), carried out by the Armenian-French mission ‘Caucasus’, have revealed several phases of occupation – Upper Palaeolithic (ca 22,000 cal BC), Chalcolithic (ca. 4700-4050 cal BC), and early Middle Ages (ca. 900–1200 cal AD). Although the cave is near outcroppings of flint (lower valley of the Aghstev river), the artifacts found there are mainly in obsidian, whatever the period of occupation. During the Chalcolithic period (levels IV-III), the cave served as a shelter for herds, as seen in the succession of coprolite deposits, that were regularly burned to clean the floor of the cave. The origin of the populations that sheltered their herds in this cave is difficult to determine. LA-ICP-MS analyses have been carried out to study the provenance of the obsidian artifacts found in level III. Corroborated by the techno-typological study of the artifacts, they have enabled the differentiation of two assemblages: the first, coming from deposits situated on Armenian territory (Geghasar, Gutansar, Arteni, Tsaghkunyats) and consisting of blanks knapped by percussion (flakes above all), and the second coming from deposits situated in Georgia (Chikiani) or Turkey (region of Sarıkamış) and consisting of pressure-flaked blades. In the lower part of level III (ca 4700-4400 cal BC), the provenance of the obsidian (mainly Gutansar) suggests links with the south, the Ararat plain. For the upper part of level III (ca. 4400-4050 cal BC), it is the outcrops situated farther north (Tsaghkunyats) that were the origin of almost 60% of the pieces analysed. Based on environmental, cultural and ethnographic data, we discuss the role of the cave of Getahovit-2 and the mobility of the human groups who occupied it in the 5th millennium BC.

International audience; En Anatolie occidentale, le Bronze Ancien est caractérisé par l'apparition de nécropoles extra-muros, notamment à Demirci-Sarıket, Karataş-Elmalı, Kusura et Yortan. Ainsi, les quelques exemples référencés d'inhumation intra-muros sous le sol des habitations font figure d'exceptions (Beycesultan, Ovabayındır, Troie). Nous verrons que, au-delà de la distinction topographique, l'émergence des nécropoles extra-muros inaugure un changement majeur dans les relations entre le monde des vivants et le monde des morts et nous renseigne sur la structure et le fonctionnement de ces sociétés protohistoriques.

International audience; Until the nineteen-sixties, our limited knowledge of the distribution of prehistoric sites in inland northwestern Anatolia was mainly based on the surface surveys carried out by K. Kökten, C. Burney and K. Bittel. The surveys in İznik-İnegöl areas byD. French (1960-1961, 1965-1966) and J. Cullberg (1964-65) has provided the first preliminary site distribution and material evidence concerning the region. Much later, between the years 1988-1995, T. Efe conducted surface surveys in the Kütahya, Bilecik and Eskişehir provinces4 (Fig. 1) which not only better clarified the site distribution and improved the chronological framework of the region, but also better defined the borders of what he called “cultural regions” and “pottery zones”.