Tsaghkahovit Fortress

Tsaghkahovit Fortress is located on the leading edge of a spur of Mt. Aragats directly overlooking the southern edge of the plain. The site (map 32, 44) extends across 39.6 ha, including the fortress outcrop, secondary ridge to the southeast, and two flanking basins. The fortress hill (7.59 ha), identified on some early 20th century maps as Kalachi Tepe, rises 80m above the plain in a conical outcrop capped by a flat citadel (0.59 ha). The small Tsaghkahovit riverbed passes below the western and northern flank of the cone and flows continuously throughout the year. A petrographic analysis (by A. Karakhanyan and Georisk) of geologic samples taken from summit of Kalachi-Tepe indicates that the rocks at the site are represented by clinopyroxene-plagioclase basaltic andesite. The site overlooks the road from the Aparan valley to the Shirak plain which runs along the northern foot of Mt. Aragats and overlooks at a greater distance the road from the Ararat plain to the Lori-Pambak region that runs along the course of the upper Kasakh River.

Surrounding the citadel is a stone fortification wall in generally good condition. The fortification wall appears to have been constructed atop a stone foundation or revetment which itself rested on bedrock (fig. VI.19). The wall seems to have been constructed of variable medium and small-sized facing stones flanking a rubble core. The facing stones were moderately worked to give a flat surface on both the interior and exterior faces. Several irregular buttresses punctuate the exterior wall face, one on the northwestern side and three on the eastern facade.

The slopes of the fortress hill are sculpted on all sides by a series of terrace walls (fig. VI.18). These walls were not enclosures with two masonry faces, but rather were constructions with a single exterior face, that served as braces for leveling portions of the hillside. Erosion has significantly impacted the terrace walls (terrace collapse is likely responsible for the fields of large stones strewn at the base of the hill), however, a number of well-preserved terrace wall segments are still visible, particularly on the northwestern and eastern slopes.

Below the western, southern, and eastern slopes of the fortress hill are extensive architectural remains of room and building complexes (Tsaghkahovit lower town; plate Va). The tops of the stone walls are clearly visible from the surface, although the masonry is not. Based on the local topography, we divided the settlement architecture into three primary units: the west and east settlements at the base of the fortress hill and the southeast settlement located beyond the secondary ridge. Building in the west settlement is marked by the presence of several aggregated room complexes, the largest of which, located on the southern border of the site, encompasses at least 22 rooms. Smaller complexes of 3-5 rooms are also visible, as are a number of smaller freestanding constructions. The architecture in the east settlement is less intelligible from the surface, perhaps due to site formation processes, but does appear to be less aggregated, with larger, free-standing rooms. In general, the walls in both the west and east settlements appear to employ double facings surrounding a rubble core. The southeast settlement complex appears from the surface to be a single aggregated block of variably sized rooms. Most of the walls appear to be much less substantial than those of the west and east settlement complexes, with thin, double-faced walls yielding in places to what seem to be simply single rows of large stones.

Surface materials from Tsaghkahovit (n=1137) suggest the earliest occupation of the site was in the Early Bronze Age (figs. VI.13-17, 35). Examination of the surface ceramics from the site indicated that 6.8% of the materials were classifiable as Early Bronze. Furthermore, Early Bronze materials comprised 28% of the ceramics recovered from collection loci on the lower west slope of the fortress hill. The dense concentration of Early Bronze materials at the base of the Tsaghkahovit outcrop is topographically quite characteristic of the known corpus of contemporary sites in neighboring regions, such as Karnut, Anushavan, and Keti in the Shirak plain. Preliminary examination of the ceramics indicated that 80% were attributable to the LBA (with 1.7% of the collection more specifically diagnostic of the LB II and III phases) and 5% typical of I3 period wares.

Reported by Marr in the late 19th century, the site of Tsaghkahovit was first described in 1914 by Toramanyan (1942: 14-17). In 1930, Adzhan, Gyuzalyan, Piotrovskii, and Baiburtyan worked briefly at the site, recording some of its surface features (Adzhan et al. 1932: 61-64). In 1963-64, Kafadaryan made the first topographic and architectural plan of the site (Kafadaryan 1996: 82; Smith and Kafadarian 1996: 33, 36). The only artifactual remains from the site to have been published are a Late Bronze Age bowl found on the surface in 1932 (Khachatryan 1974: 109) and a small collection of surface sherds reported by Smith and Kafadarian (1996: 32). See: Avetisyan et al. 2000, Badalyan et al. 2003, Smith et al. 2004, and Badalyan et al. forthcoming.

Reported by Marr in the late 19th century, the site of Tsaghkahovit was first described in 1914 by Toramanyan (1942: 14-17). In 1930, Adzhan, Gyuzalyan, Piotrovskii, and Baiburtyan worked briefly at the site, recording some of its surface features (Adzhan et al. 1932: 61-64). In 1963-64, Kafadaryan made the first topographic and architectural plan of the site (Kafadaryan 1996: 82; Smith and Kafadarian 1996: 33, 36). The only artifactual remains from the site to have been published are a Late Bronze Age bowl found on the surface in 1932 (Khachatryan 1974: 109) and a small collection of surface sherds reported by Smith and Kafadarian (1996: 32). See also Avetisyan et al. 2000, Badalyan et al. 2003, Smith et al. 2004, and Badalyan et al. n.d.