MISSIONAL HISTORY OF ARMENIANS – THE DATING OF SYUNIK PETROGLYPHS – Hamlet Martirosyan
Hamlet Martirosyan – PREVIOUS ARTICLE.
The fact of similarities of Syunik’s rock engraved symbols to the symbols of world’s ancient
writing systems, already shows that they too were hieroglyphs. We will reflect on this problem in the
next section, however, already with certainty, we may utilize the name “Itsagirs of Syunik” instead of
“Petroglyphs of Syunik” name. In the popular tongue, uninterrupted for centuries, these petroglyphs
were called itsagirs (goat-writings), of which the majority of the symbols are goat figures. In other
words, national memory has preserved the event which occurred in ancient times, attesting that the
symbols engraved on the rock fragments are scripts.
The archaeological information that was presented in part 1, concerning the descent of new
knowledge from the cradle of civilization, Armenia, testify that among the other values of civilization, writing was also exported from Armenia. That is to say, the Itsagirs of Syunik is the more ancient
writing system, from which the rest of the ancient writing systems (Sumerian, Egyptian, Vinča,
Harappan, etc.) descended. However, this is the comparative estimate of the age of itsagirs, while in
the following, we will attempt to determine their explicit age.
One of the primary problems in the exploration of petroglyphs is the determination of their
age. However, there are no clear and precise methods yet for the determination of the age of petroglyphs that spread throughout the world. We will apply a method developed by us, which, by means
of the information that is present in the itsagirs, it becomes possible to decide their age.
The time period brought by various authors for the engraving of Syunik’s itsagirs, include
VIII-I millennia B.C. However, all their dating are provided without even hypothetical founding and
bear subjective character. Perhaps outstanding among them is, the approach of the acclaimed author
in the field of petroglyph exploration, Harutyun Martirosyan. Who classified the petroglyphs based
on their creation style and technic (André Leroi-Gourhan method), and for each of these style
groups, specific creation time period (Հարություն Մարտիրոսյան, Գեղամա լեռների
ժայռապատկերները, Երևան, 1981). For 6 identified styles, the author set their dating to V-I millennia B.C.
In fact, in the author’s separation, the figures, in many cases, are not different drawing styles
of the same pictogram in various time periods, but simply, different symbols created with different
drawings of the same animal figure. Often, the figure referred by the author to the V millennium B.C.
exhibits itself on the same petroglyph with figures attributed to I millennium B.C., or sometimes we
also see representatives of all the 6 styles on the same petroglyph, while no evident traces exist of the
application of figures’ carving at different time periods. Harutyun Martirosyan has the great merit,
specially, in revealing the essence of worship in petroglyphs. It is surprising that the author did not
use his findings for the petroglyph’s dating problem, which would have led to more objective and
reliable results.
The dating method applied by Harutyun Martirosyan on Syunik’s petroglyphs were developed in 60-s by E. Anati and A. Leroi-Gourhan. E. Anati was exploring petroglyphs of Sinai Peninsula
and Negev desert (Israel). Before him, H. Rotert’s exploration in these areas, singled out three groups
of petroglyphs, the first of which was attributed to the stone age, the second to the beginning of the
Bronze Age, and the third to Nabataean era. Later on, E. Anati singled out seven engraving styles of
the petroglyphs, to which he attributed the following ages:
I – end of Late Paleolithic (14-10 thousand years ago),
II – time of animal breeding establishment in Palestine (~B.C. VIII mill.),
III – end of B.C. IV mill. – beginning of III mill.,
IV – B.C. II mill. – A.D. 200,
V – A.D. 200 – 600,
VI – Middle Ages,
VII – modern times.
(E. Anati, Palestine before the Hebrews, London: Jonathan Cape, 1963; E. Anati, The Rock engravings
of Dahthami wells in Central Arabia, Bolletino del Centro Camuno di Studi Preistorici, v. 5, 1970, pp.
99-158)
In the following, we will reflect further on Negev and Sinai petroglyphs and their dating.
Subjecting to comparative examination the small sized artifact samples (mainly various figurines) that have correct dating to belong to the Late Paleolithic and a series of archaeologically dated
monumental artifacts (cave rock paintings, petroglyphs), A. Leroi-Gourhan found therein a variety of
artistic styles and accounted these style differences the result of belonging to different time periods.
(A. Leroi-Gourhan, Les religions de la préhistoire; Paléolithique, Paris, 1964; A. Leroi-Gourhan,
Préhistoire de l’art occidental, Paris, 1965)
A. Leroi-Gourhan had examined the data of 63 out of 110 rock painted caves known at his
time (1964) and singled out four styles belonging to four different time periods. The obtained results
had allowed A. Leroi-Gourhan, to also conclude, that the sole ideological basis for the pictography
that was widespread during the whole Late Paleolithic has been mythology. That is the same factor,
which forced Syunik natives to invent their writing system, about which we discussed above. Later
on N. Klyagin, using A. Leroi-Gourhan’s method, analyzed the data of 222 monumental sites in
France, Spain, Italy and Russia (Н. Клягин, Происхождение цивилизации, Москва, 1996).
According to the author, the result of the analysis confirmed all theses of A. Leroi-Gourhan,
of which, for the dating of the four styles, he brings the following corrected data:
I – 34,000-31,000 years
II – 25,000-20,100 years
III – 20,100-15,500 years
IV – 15,500-10,200 years.
We will reflect on these dating in a while, as for now, we only note that, based on comparison of anthropological and archaeological data, it follows that A. Leroi-Gourhan’s singled out first
oldest style’s age corresponds to the time period of the appearance of modern man (Cro-Magnon) in
Europe. Afterwards, genetic research results were added to these evidences and scientists collectively
confirmed that the culture of the Late Paleolithic brought the modern man with it into Europe.
The archaeological monuments of certain locations in Asia, Africa and Europe, which have
ages belong to the 45 – 35 thousands year time range, are observed to have new features of appearing
suddenly and all at once, which sharply distinguish their culture from previous cultures of the same
location. Of these distinctive features of the new culture, the following are notable and archaeologically accurately distinguished and determined:
* In the stone tools area, mass production of blades are revealed. Stone tools collection
is dominated by tools made from blades of different geometric shapes, which previously were not encountered.
* Bone and horn tools that demonstrate new preparation technology (cutting, drilling,
polishing), which were not used during the stone processing era.
* A completely new field of human creation is discovered, the invention and utilization
of symbols and figures. First symbols are depicted on artifacts.
(Л. Вишняцкий, Верхнепалеолитическая революция; география, хронология, причины, STARTUM plus, Петербургский археологический вестник, №1, 2000) These innovations mark the passing from the Middle Paleolithic to Upper Paleolithic, and are often characterized by the “Upper Paleolithic Revolution” expression. The traces of this cultural revolution that took place 45-35 thousand years ago, are observed in north Africa, Europe, south Siberia and Southwest Asia. That is to say, they duplicate the spreading paths of domestic goats and petroglyphs (see previous section). On other locations, this transition is either not detected or detected at a
much later time.
From the point of view of our problem, the important thing in the new findings born out of the Upper Paleolithic revolution, is the evidence regarding the ability of drawing symbols and pictures by humans. Part of these abilities of the modern man are the rock art (cave painting, petroglyph), sign marked statuettes and tools, etc. The perspective of our examination also gives great importance to the following scientifically widespread two viewpoints:
a. The Upper Paleolithic transition was conditioned by the appearance of the modern man
type.
b. The Upper Paleolithic culture emerged in the original dwelling place of the modern man,
and then spread with it throughout the world (monocentric emergence of the civilization).
Having these two basic theses in front of us, along with the fact, that we see the Syunik symbols on the 30-40 thousands year old handcrafted artifacts of European culture, necessity arises to examine, what the Armenian territory has to do with the Upper Paleolithic cultural revolution.
The petroglyphs of Gobustan (Azerbaijan), which in terms of style, creation technique and content symbols are duplicates of that of Syunik petroglyphs, and by their volume incomparably much less than Syunik’s petroglyphs, are attributed to 30 thousand years old (E. Anati, Gobustan, Azerbaijan, Capo di Ponte (Edizioni del Centro), 96 pp., 69 ill., in reference to E. Anati’s previous article). Also in correlation to Syunik petroglyphs are the Karkom (Israel, south Negev) petroglyphs, which are also regards as Upper Paleolithic creations. These facts make us ponder, that the age of Syunik petroglyphs must at least be comparable to the age of Gobustan and Karkom petroglyphs.
However, since petroglyphs are the creation of the modern man type, to make an objective comparison of the age of the rock art samples found on various locations of the world, it is necessary to determine the modern man’s development location and period, in parallel with the time period of the appearance of the rock art of the given location center.
Today’s theory of the origins of the modern man affirms that around 80-70 thousand years ago, the ancestors of the modern man came out of Africa. However, the man that arrived to the Mediterranean shores (i.e. Palestine, Syria) from Africa, by behavioral characteristics was yet far different than the modern man type. Also anatomically, the ancestors of the modern man, 80-50 thou4 sand years ago were considerably different from the modern man type, as is evident from the skeletons found in the Africa-Palestine-Syria area (R. G. Klein, The Human Career: Human Biological and Cultural Origins, Chicago University Press, 1989, New edition 1999, pp. 358-360). Whereas, the man
that entered Europe already possessed the anatomically and behaviorally unique characteristics of the modern man.
Therefore, during 80-50 thousands year time segment, the modern man type must have finally formed at another location (between Palestine and Europe).
Today, known facts of various science disciplines show that the probable location, where the modern man got developed and produced into Europe the Upper Paleolithic culture, is Armenia. Let us briefly reflect on the data that constitutes the foundation of this viewpoint, extracting it from the “Out of Eden – The peopling of the world” work of the famous American anthropologist Stephen Oppenheimer (S. Oppenheimer, Out of Eden – The peopling of the world, Constable and Robinson, 2004, Russian translation: С. Оппенгеймер, Изгнание из Едема, Москва, Эксмо, 2004), where it is brought together facts from various science disciplines (archaeology, anthropology, genetics, etc.)
The archaeological and genetic information show that the population of Europe by the modern man has proceeded in several phases. Of these, the first phase began approximately 50-46 thousand years ago. Based on the archaeological data, during this first phase the Upper Paleolithic culture entered into Europe in two waves. During the first of these waves (46 thousand years ago), the so called, Aurignacian culture appeared in Europe (based on the name of Aurignac village, located in south France, where the first artifacts belonging to this culture were found).
The Aurignacian culture first appeared in Europe in the area of nowadays Bulgaria. Archaeological data also attest that the bearers of that culture came out of Armenia, and passed to Bulgaria via Asia Minor. Some authors, including S. Oppenheimer, use the “Turkey” geographical name, but in actuality western Turkey (i.e. Asia Minor) is the intermediate passage, through which that culture should have passed to Bulgaria from eastern Turkey (i.e. Western Armenia).
These are attested by the archaeological data regarding the stone tools that belong to the Aurignacian culture. According to the archaeologists, a possible homeland of the Aurignacian culture can be considered a location that must be outside the European boundary, where Aurignacian type stone tools are discovered that have ages
exceeding 46 thousand years.
Based on current established archaeological information, today’s only region over the world, which can assume such conditions, is the location next to Urmia lake of Zagros. This is where the well-known Shanidar cave resides, which is known by so called Baradostian culture center. In writing about this, S. Oppenheimer refers to the results of the exploration carried out by the Belgian archaeologist, Marcel Otte.
The Baradostian culture pertaining to the Early Upper Paleolithic, which was first discovered by Ralph Solecki in Shanidar cave (R. Solecki, Shanidar cave, a Paleolithic site in northern Iraq, Smithsonian Institute Annual Reports, 1955, pp. 389), later on was also revealed in five other caves of the region. The Baradostian culture has so much in common with the European Aurignacian culture, that some authors named it “Zagrosian Aurignac” (D. I. Olszewski, H. L. Dibble, The Zagros Aurignacian, Current Anthropology, 1994, v. 35, №1, p. 68). The Baradostian culture exhibits two phases of development, the earlier phase of which, according to radio-carbon dating of 60’s (F. Hole,
K. Flannery, The Prehistory of Southwestern Iran; A Preliminary Report, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 1967, v. 33, p. 147), is attributed to approximately 38 thousand years old and is considered older than the Palestinian Aurignac. Based on the fact that in the carbon dating of 60’s incomplete methods have been applied, it is assumed today, that the age of Shanidar has been misrepresented to be younger, and in actuality it is much older. On the other hand, the age of the European Aurignac is also being reviewed, but in this case, towards younger age, and the Baradostian culture is observed as the world’s oldest Aurignac (J. Zilhro, F. d’Errico, The Chronology and Tafonomy of the earliest Aurignacian and its implications for the understanding of Neandertal extinction, Journal of World Prehistory, v. 13, №1, p. 1; D. I. Olszewski, H. L. Dibble, The Zagros Aurignacian, Current Anthropology, 1994, v. 35, №1, p. 68).
–THE_DATING_OF_SYUNIK_PETROGLYPHS (1)
–Hamlet Mardirosyan
