During the excavations carried out in 2013-2019, the remains of three houses from the Early and Middle Iron Age, two chambers belonged of a very large structure from the Late Iron Age and five subterranean structures were uncovered. In addition, on the remains of the best-preserved houses from the Middle Iron Age, was possible to record very rudimentary remains of the walls of buildings that probably functioned parallel to a partially exposed large structure from the Late Iron Age. The two best-preserved houses from the Middle Iron Age are referred as House I and House II in the site nomenclature. Although both buildings have not yet been fully explored, there is sufficient amount information that has been obtained from their area, which sheds light on the functioning of individual rooms.
House II consists of at least six rooms labelled as S8, S9, S12, S13, S14 and S15. It can be said ‘at least’ since most likely the building could have had two more rooms adjoining to S14 and S15 to the north. However, these rooms were completely destroyed due to the erosion of the slope, on which the building is located. Additionally, it is also unclear whether room S18, unearthed at the end of the 2019 season, could have been part of House II. From this point of view, there are still many open questions that will most likely be the subject of research in the upcoming excavation season. However, From collected information it appears that three habitation phases of the discovered part of the building could be distinguished with support of radiocarbon dating. In the first phase, generally at the beginning of the Urartian presence in the Ararat Plain, the building consisted of two rooms – S14 and S9. In the second phase, room S15 and S13 were added to the building, while room S9 was divided, thanks to which a small room S8 was created. In the third phase, room S9 was abandoned and its walls were partially dismantled. After that, area of room S9 served as a dump place, where ash, food remains and broken utensils were thrown away. In the third phase, room S15 was divided, creating a small room S12. In the result of this partition the building from could be reached from two sides, namely the first entrance was located in the northern wall of the S15 room, while the second – in the western wall of the S13 room.
The floor layers were best preserved in rooms S8, S9, S12 and S13. In each of these rooms floor levels were made of hardened clay without any traces of stone paving. It should be noted that the presence of clay floors is a characteristic feature of the local as well as Urartian architecture of the Iron I and Iron II. Due to the instability, clay floors were often repaired, causing an initial increase of the walking level. This process was well recorded especially in room S9 and room S13.
The archaeological material found on the floor layers from rooms of House II is quite modest. According to the prevailing opinion, this fact confirms the peaceful abandonment of the entire building at the beginning of the 7th century BC. Remains of stone or clay installations were found only in rooms S9 and S12. In room S9, directly under the waste dump, it was possible to discover the remains of an oval installation made of clay in which a small basalt quern was found. Next to this installation, there was a small hollow filled with ash and burnt fragments of vessels, which could be interpreted as the remains of a small clay oven (tannur), used for baking flatbreads. Interestingly, a clay stamp was also found in this place, which, according to the interpretation of Krzysztof Jakubiak could be used as a stamping of ritual bread. According to Krzysztof Jakubiak, the quern stone found in the clay installation was undoubtedly used for manual grinding of grain, while the clay installation was used to make dough.
In the southern part of the room, a small deposit consisting of several basalt grinders was also found, which additionally confirms the kitchen character of the S9 room. Another interesting find are fragments of clay stand which have also been found in large numbers on the floor of the room. These types of objects were most likely used analogously to Mesopotamian andirons, for cooking dishes in pots placed not directly in the hearth, but above it. A fairly recent example of the use of such an andiron found in situ is an object exposed in one of the houses of the capital of the Hittite empire – Hattuša.
While room S9 was used served for preparing a food, their consumption took place within room S13. According to the archaeologists this can be evidenced by the ceramic inventory found on the clay floor of the room. This assemblage mostly consisted of small red burnished bowls, black burnished goblets and beakers as well as thin walled decorated jugs. Most of vessel fragments were found along the walls of the room, which can indicated that this room was cleaned much more often by the inhabitants than the rest of House II. Therefore, most probably no agricultural or industrial activities were performed in the room, limiting its function only to accommodate feasts.
Another interesting room in the context of the functioning of the entire household is room S14. Although the original floor layer of this room was mostly destroyed during post-abandonment period, the artifacts found in the southern, preserved part of the room indicate that it was intended as a place for homemade craftsmanship. Among small finds found in the floor layer are, whetstones, obsidian tools, a clay spindle whorls or a clay crucibles, which were used for many household activities, including weaving or casting of small metal tools. Interestingly, the functioning of this room was most likely related to a small clay furnace, which remains were found west of room S14, and outside of House II.
No traces of storage vessels have been found in any of the rooms belonging to House II. In this context, valuable information is provided by the finds in the subterranean building (or pit house) S1 adjacent to House II. In chronological terms, S1 was most likely inhabited at the end of the settlement of House II, i.e. in the second half of the 8th century BCE. It was erected on the ruins of an older building, dating back to the Iron I, which remains lie partly underneath House II.
In the pit house S1, the remains of a stationary stone installation for grinding grain were found, as well as two broken storage jars and a few cooking pots with sooty surfaces. In fact, a abandonment of S1 was not as systematic as in the case of House II. Above the earthen floor, fragments of burnt wooden beams were found, which most probably constitute the entablature of the roof of this half-sunken structure. The falling roof broke vessels , that were placing in upside down position. They were also emptied of contents, which may indicate that the residents, leaving House II and the adjacent structures, took all the necessary items and supplies to the new location.
Below the floor level of the S1, in turn, there were found in situ two dug in and sealed pithos, which were part of the equipment of an older building, the age of which was determined by radiocarbon dating at the end of the 10th – first half of the 9th century BC. Despite the fact that the interior of both pithos was filled with a layer of earth before they were sealed, it was possible to find the remains of their original contents at their bottom. As a result of the study of plant macroremains, it was possible to establish that only grain was stored in both pithos, and the content could vary seasonally, as millet, barley and wheat grains were found in both pithos. After a certain period of use, the larger pithos was damaged, and therefore was no longer suitable for storing grain. Therefore, the inhabitants of the S17 used the vessel as a hiding place for valuable items. This is evidenced by the two large brown bracelets that were found at the bottom of the pithos.
Coming back to the pith-house S1, it is necessary to mention the second construction of this type, namely the structure S7. This structure, at some point of its existence, was connected to the S1 However, unlike the structures described earlier, no remnants of any economic activity or traces of long existence of people in S7 have been found. This does not mean, however, that the subterranean building was used for a short time, because in the cross-section of the room, traces of continuous repairs of the clay floors were recording. Due to observation of the stratigraphic profile, it was possible to determine at least twelve thin layers of clay floors. The floor level in S7 was successively increased by thin backfill layers containing reused pottery sherds and animal bones. According to the prevalent opinion, this may be one of the signs of intensive use of the room, which would serve for example as a small enclosure for small ruminants. There is several small indentations in the threshing floor, occurring on the entire surface of the room, and a very characteristic entrance to the half-pit located on the southern shorter side. Namely, unlike the S1, which could be accessed via a ladder through a hole in the roof, the structure S7 was entered via stone steps straight from the surface. This type of entrance, however, is mentioned by Xenophon in Anabazis in relation to the subterranean building built by the villagers of ancient Armenia. According to Xenophon, the subterranean structures with entrances on shorter side served these people as small enclosures for livestock, while the structures that could be accessed via a ladder were residential ones.
The functioning of the subterranean buildings in which livestock was most probably kept shows how multi-functional was a typical household from Metsamor settlement. According to the preliminary hypothesis of Krzysztof Jakubiak, a central residential building such as House II, could be surrounded by several underground structures with auxiliary economic functions. It is also an interesting example of a spatial arrangement resembling rural rather than urban buildings. In this case, the presence of such buildings in Metsamor is consistent with the model of development of cyclopean fortresses in which the basis of the economy of comfortable settlements was animal husbandry and agriculture. Comparing this to a distant analogy from the Middle Ages, they could have been small villages developing in symbiosis with the castles of magnates.
Back to news
Comments