Preliminary Report on the 1993 Excavations at Horom, Armenia

Badaljan, Ruben S.; Kohl, Philip L.; Stronach, David; Tonikjan, Armen V.

doi:10.2307/4299903

Cited by 15 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…One set of practices centred on obliterating the built environments of prior political communities by demolishing Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age fortresses. The Urartian tendency to raze pre-existing fortresses is well attested in southern Caucasia, at sites such as Metsamor and Horom North (Badaljan et al 1992;Badaljan et al 1993;Badaljan, Kohl and Kroll 1997;Khanzadian, Mkrtchian and Parsamian 1973). In the case of the latter, a preceding Early Iron Age settlement was partially destroyed and the ground scraped so that the succeeding Urartian walls were built atop levels deposited in the 3rd millennium B.C.…”

Section: Urartu and Subjectivitymentioning

confidence: 96%

Archaeology and identity politics. A cross-disciplinary perspective

Vermeersch¹

2004

Arch. Dial.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Archaeological investigations of identity have successfully challenged traditional accounts of archaeological subjects by splintering social worlds along axes of gender, ethnicity and class. However, in so doing, they have quietly reinscribed an essential archaeological subject as a locus of analysis and as a foundation for contemporary political action. In analytical terms, the crystallization of a limited configuration of social difference constructs archaeological analyses of identity as a tautology in which contemporary configurations are read as universal and enduring rather than as immediate constructions within specific social worlds. In political terms, the tension between a cosmopolitan drive to combat the appropriation of a global human heritage by nationalist interests and an advocative archaeology dedicated to providing subaltern groups with a privileged claim to a sectional past leaves the discipline in an untenable position. The end of the essential archaeological subject requires a closer analytical focus upon the sociopolitical constitution of subjectivity and a stronger resolve to resist all claims to privilege in the present founded upon archaeological pasts. The implications of this move are sketched in relation to the kingdom of Urartu, which ruled the highlands of eastern Anatolia and southern Caucasia during the early 1st millennium B.C.

show abstract

Section: Urartu and Subjectivitymentioning

confidence: 96%

Archaeology and identity politics. A cross-disciplinary perspective

Vermeersch¹

2004

Arch. Dial.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Along and just beyond Urartu's frontiers, surveys and excavations near the Turkish Euphrates (Özgüç 1969;Zimansky 2016), the Shirak Valley (Badaljan et al 1992;1993;1997), in Iranian western Azerbaijan (Kroll 1984a), near Lake Sevan (Biscione et al 2002a;Biscione 2003), and in Naxçɪvan (Parker et al 2011;Ristvet, Baxşǝliyev, and Aşurov 2011;Hammer 2014a) have revealed a political landscape that contrasts with areas in the Urartian heartland. These areas exemplify Kroll's second and third categories, places where Urartu cam paigned and established administrative control or simply campaigned.…”

Section: Urartu's Frontiersmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Archaeology of Imperial Landscapes

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aeschylus famously described the Caucasus as the prison where Prometheus was shackled for rebelling against an autocratic Zeus and stealing fire, and hence the arts of civilization, from the gods to give to humankind (Aeschylus, Prometheus Bound). But Prometheus was only the first prisoner of the Caucasus. Beginning in the early nineteenth century, alongside Russian intervention into this area, poets, novelists, and composers, including Mikhail Lermontov, Alexander Pushkin, and Lev Tolstoy, transformed this trope into a commen tary on the Russian Empire (Hokanson 1994; Layton 1994;Hokanson 2008;Grant 2009). In Tolstoy's story, the prisoner is a Russian soldier named Zhilin, captured by the Circassian resistance, who makes friends with a local girl, Dina, who ultimately frees him (Tolstoy 2009(Tolstoy [1872). Ignorant of the language of his captors, the soldier communicates through objects, making clay dolls for Dina. The same is true of Dina, who cements their relationship through gifts of food.This story highlights the materiality of empires: the way that complex imperial relations are often enacted through things, something which has been recognized ethnographically (Thomas 1991). In Tolstoy's story, and in nine teenth century Russian empire building, negotiation, violence, and resistance were the main vectors of imperial interaction. We can see the same general processes at work in the Caucasus in the Middle Iron Age (MIA, ca. 800-600 BCE), when Urartu (860-640 BCE) was consolidating its empire. I will

show abstract

“…The wild goats are an exception at Tsaghkunk (Armavir), possibly related to sample size (only 112 NISP; Mezhlumyan, 1972). The assemblages from Horom (Shirak) and Areni (Vayots Dzor) are also limited in number of specimens (Badalyan et al, 1994;Wilkinson et al, 2012, Table 3). …”

Section: Chalcolithic (5000-3500 Cal Bc)mentioning

confidence: 99%