Exploring mudbrick architecture and its re-use in Artaxata, Armenia, during the 1st millennium BC. A multidisciplinary study of earthen architecture in the Armenian Highlands
Mudbrick constructions are extremely common in ancient western Asia, including the 1st millennium structures of the southern Caucasus and Armenian highlands. However, in the Caucasus the geoarchaeological study of these materials to provide insight into building practices and social structure is a topic little researched, especially when focusing on the longue durée. Artashat/Artaxata (Ararat region, Armenia) was the capital of the Armenian Kingdom of the Artaxiads, founded in the eighties of the 2nd century BC, but even before this the site was occupied in the Chalcolithic period, (ca. 5200–3500 BC), Early Iron Age (ca. 1200–900 BC) and in the Urartian period (ca. 800–600 BC) as well. All the previous occupation phases showed communities that made extensive use of earthen constructions as determined during past and recent archaeological excavations. This multidisciplinary study seeks to examine mudbrick architecture as a proxy for environmental and social interactions during the 1st millennium BC combining geoarchaeology, archaeobotany and building archaeology. We analyzed changes and continuities in architectural form and practices, alongside reconstruction of technological and social processes, to identify issues of raw material procurement, attestation of re-use, and consistency of building practices. The results of the geoarchaeological analysis of the earthen building materials used in different parts of the ancient city point to a re-use of materials over time.
Dear Friends. We are very happy to present the latest article from TIMBER. Combining dendroprovenance and Strontium isotopic analysis we demonstrate and confirm southern Scandinavian timber origins. This is hugely important for precise interpretation of the provenance of historic timber. Van Ham-Meert & Daly 2023. Just out! open access:
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278513 #TIMBER #plosoneauthor #dendrochronology
Provenancing 16th and 17th century CE building timbers in Denmark–combining dendroprovenance and Sr isotopic analysis
Dendrochronology (tree-ring analysis) allows us to precisely date and identify the origin of timber from historic contexts. However, reference datasets to determine the origin can include timber of non-local origin. Therefore, we have applied Sr isotopic on timbers from three buildings in Jutland, Denmark, mostly dating from the late 16th and early 17th centuries CE to improve and refine the provenance identification. The dendrochronology suggested that some timbers analysed were imported from the Swedish side of Øresund/Kattegat while others were local, and others again might be from south Norway. By adding the Sr isotopic analysis, a far more detailed interpretation of the origin of these timbers can be presented for non-Danish timbers. In this paper we suggest that Danish ports in the provinces of Halland and Skåne played a major role in the timber trade between the Danish and Swedish parts of the Danish kingdom. For Danish timbers dendroprovenancing proved better than Sr isotopic analysis. Furthermore, a small number of Sr isotopic analyses were performed to contribute to the base-line along the Göta-river in Southern-Sweden.
Potential interactions between Mesolithic hunter-gatherers and Neolithic farmers in the Western Mediterranean: The geochronological data revisited
In the Western Mediterranean, the Neolithic mainly developed and expanded during the sixth millennium BCE. In these early phases, it generally spread through the displacement of human groups, sometimes over long distances, as shown, for example, by the Impressa sites documented on the northern shores. These groups then settled new territories which they gradually appropriated and exploited. The question of their potential interaction with groups of Late Mesolithic hunter-gatherers living in the area prior to their arrival is therefore crucial. Were their encounters based on conflict and resistance or, on the contrary, on exchange and reciprocity? Many hypotheses have been put forward on this matter and many papers written. Before we can consider these potential interactions however, we must first ascertain that these different human groups really did meet—an implicit assumption in all these studies, which is, in reality, much less certain than one might think. The population density of the Late Mesolithic groups varied greatly throughout the Mediterranean, and it is possible that some areas were relatively devoid of human presence. Before any Neolithization scenarios can be considered, we must therefore first determine exactly which human groups were present in a given territory at a given time. The precise mapping of sites and the chronological modeling of their occupation enriches our understanding of the Neolithization process by allowing high-resolution regional models to be developed, which alone can determine the timing of potential interactions between Mesolithic and Neolithic groups. Various international research programs have recently produced several hundred new radiocarbon dates, based on selected samples from controlled contexts. The geochronological modelling of these data at the scale of the Western Mediterranean shows contrasting situations, probably related to different social and environmental processes. These results suggest that we should consider a varied range of Neolithization mechanisms, rather than uniform or even binary models.
Marta Lorenzon
Aoife Daly
Thomas Perrin