"The Neolithic Settlement of Aknashen (Ararat valley, Armenia)"

The Neolithic settlement of Aknashen (Ararat valley, Armenia): excavation seasons 2004-2015 is the first monograph devoted to the Neolithic period in Armenia. The research is based on an Armenian-French project, in which specialists from Canada, Romania, Germany and Greece also participated. The volume concerns the natural environment, material culture and subsistence economy of the populations of the first half of the 6th millennium BC, who established the first sedentary settlements in the alluvial plain of the Araxes river. The thickness of the cultural layer of Aknashen (almost 5m), the extent of the excavated areas and the multidisciplinary nature of the research, confer great importance upon this site for the study of the Neolithic, both in Armenia and in the South Caucasus as a whole. The publication examines the similarities and differences that exist between the sites established in the 6th millennium in the basins of the rivers Araxes (Armenia) and Kura (Georgia and Azerbaijan), as well as parallels with contemporary cultures in Southwest Asia. It also examines questions concerning the characterisation and periodisation of the Neolithic in the central part of the South Caucasus, the emergence of a production economy (pottery, animal husbandry, etc.) and the Neolithisation of this region

"The Neolithic Settlement of Aknashen (Ararat valley, Armenia)"

The Neolithic settlement of Aknashen (Ararat valley, Armenia): excavation seasons 2004-2015 is the first monograph devoted to the Neolithic period in Armenia. The research is based on an Armenian-French project, in which specialists from Canada, Romania, Germany and Greece also participated. The volume concerns the natural environment, material culture and subsistence economy of the populations of the first half of the 6th millennium BC, who established the first sedentary settlements in the alluvial plain of the Araxes river. The thickness of the cultural layer of Aknashen (almost 5m), the extent of the excavated areas and the multidisciplinary nature of the research, confer great importance upon this site for the study of the Neolithic, both in Armenia and in the South Caucasus as a whole. The publication examines the similarities and differences that exist between the sites established in the 6th millennium in the basins of the rivers Araxes (Armenia) and Kura (Georgia and Azerbaijan), as well as parallels with contemporary cultures in Southwest Asia. It also examines questions concerning the characterisation and periodisation of the Neolithic in the central part of the South Caucasus, the emergence of a production economy (pottery, animal husbandry, etc.) and the Neolithisation of this region

The genetic history of the Southern Arc: a bridge between West Asia and Europe

By sequencing 727 ancient individuals from the Southern Arc (Anatolia and its neighbors in Southeastern Europe and West Asia) over 10,000 years, we contextualize its Chalcolithic period and Bronze Age (about 5000 to 1000 BCE), when extensive gene flow entangled it with the Eurasian steppe. Two streams of migration transmitted Caucasus and Anatolian/Levantine ancestry northward, and the Yamnaya pastoralists, formed on the steppe, then spread southward into the Balkans and across the Caucasus into Armenia, where they left numerous patrilineal descendants. Anatolia was transformed by intra–West Asian gene flow, with negligible impact of the later Yamnaya migrations. This contrasts with all other regions where Indo-European languages were spoken, suggesting that the homeland of the Indo-Anatolian language family was in West Asia, with only secondary dispersals of non-Anatolian Indo-Europeans from the steppe

New data on the periodization and chronology of the Kura-Araxes culture in Armenia

This article discusses the following issues : The Kura-Araxes sequence was of discrete character ; its periodization can be dated in-between 3600/ 3500-2900 (KA I) and 2900-2600/ 2500 (KA II) BC. The discreteness of the Kura-Araxes phenomenon is refl ected in the largely single-layered character of both early (KA I) and late (KA II) settlements : a destructive layer demonstrates the discontinuity of certain multi-layered (KA I-II) settlements. The KA I phase represented throughout Armenia is marked by ‘ Elar-Aragats’ type ceramics, which belong to a rather homogeneous complex, widespread almost all over the Armenian Highland. The homogeneity of the complex disintegrates around 2900 BC, and the relative unity is followed by a mosaic of local ceramic styles. The KA II phase contains a series of ceramic complexes similar in basic characteristics but stylistically rather specific. Today, at least three synchronous complexes can be identified on the territory of Armenia, whose areas correspond to physical-geographical regions of the country : the ‘Shresh-Mokhrablur’ complex in the central part of Ararat valley, ‘Karnut-Shengavit’ to the north and east (Aragatsotn, Shirak, Kotayk, Lori-Pambak regions), and ‘Ayrum-Teghut’ in the basins of Aghstev and Debed rivers.L’article discute les questions suivantes : la séquence Kura-Araxe est discontinue ; sa périodisation peut être résumée en deux phases principales, datées de 3200-2900 (KA I) et 2900-2600/ 2500 (KA II) av. J.-C. La discontinuité du phénomène Kura-Araxe est reflétée par le fait que la plupart des sites n’appartiennent qu’à une phase, soit KA I, soit KA II et que dans certains établissements fréquentés dans les deux phases la transition est marquée par un niveau de destruction. La phase KA I, qui est présente dans toute l’Arménie, est caractérisée par une céramique de type «Elar-Aragats», qui appartient à un complexe relativement homogène, largement répandu sur presque tout le plateau Arménien. L’homogénéité de ce complexe se désintègre autour de 2900 av. J.-C. et l’unité relative qui prévalait auparavant fait place à une mosaïque de styles céramiques locaux. La phase KA II recouvre une série de complexes céramiques ayant les mêmes caractéristiques de base, mais qui présentent des traits spécifiques en ce qui concerne les styles. Actuellement, trois complexes synchrones, au moins, peuvent être identifiés sur le territoire de l’Arménie et leurs aires d’expansion semblent plus ou moins correspondre à des zones physico-géographiques : le complexe ‘ Shresh-Mokhrablur’ dans la partie centrale de la plaine de l’Ararat, celui de ‘ Karnut-Shengavit’ au nord et à l’est (régions d’Aragotstn, Shirak, Kotayk, Lori-Pambak) et le ‘ Ayrum-Teghut’ dans les bassins de l’Aghstev et du De bed.Badalyan Ruben S. New data on the periodization and chronology of the Kura-Araxes culture in Armenia. In: Paléorient, 2014, vol. 40, n°2. The Kura-Araxes culture from the Caucasus to Iran, Anatolia and the Levant: Between unity and diversity. pp. 71-92

Axes and grooved polishers

International audienc

Editorial: Ancient Armenia at the crossroads: Natural hazards and Adaptation Strategies in Armenia from 10 000 BCE onwards

International audienc

Aratashen, a Neolithic settlement in the Ararat plain (Armenia) - Where does the Aratashen culture come from ?

International audienc

Ancient Armenia at the crossroads: Natural hazards and Adaptation Strategies in Armenia from 10 000 BCE onwards

International audienc

Aratashen, a Neolithic settlement in the Ararat plain (Armenia) - Where does the Aratashen culture come from ?

International audienc

The provenance of the obsidian used at Aknashen

International audienceObsidian is an essential raw material for Neolithic sites of the Ararat valley: 99% of Aknashen’s lithic industry (Chabot et al. in this volume) is made of this volcanic glass, 99% of Aratashen’s (Badalyan et al. 2007: 43), and 97% of Masis Blur’s (Martirosyan-Olshansky 2018a: 21).In order to determine the provenances of obsidians found at Aknashen, a series of analyses was carried out; they showed the multi-source character of supply, pinpointed the geographical area of the volcanoes whose obsidian was exploited, and distinguished the main sources from the secondary ones.The data from similar studies on the sites of Aratashen (Badalyan et al. 2007; Badalyan 2010; Chataigner and Gratuze 2014b) and Masis Blur (Badalyan 2010; Martirosyan-Olshansky 2018a) have shown similarities and differences in the models of obsidian procurement, but have also highlighted the dominant tendencies and the main directions of the supply network.A first group of obsidian Neolithic artefacts from Aknashen – 10 non-stratified samples – was analysed by J. Blackman via the neutron activation method (INAA) at the National Institute of Standards andTechnology (in Maryland, USA) (Badalyan et al. 2010). A second group, comprising 40 artefacts originating from horizons V-III, was analysed by Kh. Meliksetian and E. Pernicka at the Curt-Englehorn-ZentrumArchëometrie (Manheim, Germany), also by using INAA (Meliksetian et al. forthcoming). Finally, A. Juharyan (Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography, Armenia) studied, through portable XRF (pXRF), 118 samples from undisturbed contexts of horizon III (Azatyan and Juharyan forthcoming).In the present study, 109 samples were analysed, originating from horizons IV (40 artefacts), V (26 artefacts), VI (13 artefacts) and VII (30 artefacts). In each horizon, some contexts (UFs/Features) have been selected and, among all the obsidian artefacts of these contexts, a selection has been made in proportion to the visual characteristics (texture, colour)