It has been noted on many occasions that the pre-historic rock carvings of Armenian are genuine and treasurable sources of the history of the tribal society, they have handed down to our days quite reliable, detailed and multiple information on the activities, mode of life, production ways and means, animal husbandry and farming, ancient legends and myths, natural phenomena and general trends of past generations. This circumstance accounts for the mounting interest in research and a number of important publications in recent years. Among those very monuments the rock carvings of the Ghegham mountain renege, a good deal of which are treated in a separate volume ², deserve special attention. The present investigation is a continuation of the above volume and includes the results of the expedition³ from 1969 to 1972 carried out under the auspices of the Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography of the Academy of Sciences of the Armenian SSR, at the foot-hills of mountains Major and Minor Paytassar. The information provided by those rock carvings are of exceptional value and date back to the 5th-lst millennia B.C. (Fig.1).

In the present publication techniques of execution, chronology, stylistic - contextual peculiarities, sources, social-economic, ideological considerations as they pertain to new finds, are treated in the respective chapters in the order given⁴.

------------------------

1. Translated from Armenian by K. Hofman.

2. H. A. Martirossian, H. R. Israelian. The Rock Carvings of the Ghegham Monentain Range, Installment 1, Archaeological monuments of Armenia, Book 6, Yerevan, 1972.

3. The expedition consisted of H. A. Martirossian (Head of the tema), R. M. Torossian, H. R. Israelian, S. K. Mezhlumian (research fellows) and the late promising artist Avetik Assatrian.

4. The study was completed by H. A. Martirossian, with the cooperation of S. K. Mezhlumian (Chapter IV) and H. R. Israelian (The Sun God and the Twins).
 

The late Neolithic - Iron Age art of the rock carvings, as an outcome of Neolithic evolution, conveys the changed attitude of man toward nature in the chain of complex, versatile, interrelated manifestations of reality; with ancient man as the leading actor. The need of portraying the multifaceted aspects of man's activities find expression in the conventionality of the pictures, their strict stylization, compositional and narrative nature. The millennial evolution manifests itself not only in various technical and stylistic skills but in the private tastes and executional abilities of pre- historic artists as well. Amazingly enough, the pre-historic artist achieved perfection in execution, expression, and dynamism by what seems at first glance simple technical devices. Both single and group figures were carved out on comparatively smooth surfaces of basalt rock fragments by means of various hand-size stone swindles and obsidian cutters, substituted, later on, by metal ones. The figure was brought into relief against the dark shiny background of the rock by a process, which demanded hundreds and thousands of regular beats of the sharp edge of stone swindle. Thus the surface of the picture was covered with thousands of lines made up of point- like small hollows, the edges of which assumed the form of small teeth. The depth of the relief extended to several millimeters from the surface of the stone, and, in exceptional cases - 1-3 centimeters. This technique of execution we conventionally term "point-beat", as shown in illustrations 3-7. Over thousands of years the "point-beat" technique developed considerably and attained accomplishment requiring great deal of experience, training and skill but basically remaining the same. The present volume dwells on the main changes.

In the late declining phase of rock-carving art one notes the appearance of purely linear technique, which however does not find wide distribution and attains limited development. This technique seemingly comes into being under the impact of the graphic art of metal ornaments (Figs 13-15). The sole application of the point-beat technique, however, could not achieve the refined expressiveness, dynamism, compositional and artistic accomplishment which had been often witnessed in the wonderful rock carvings for many centuries.

Close examination of rock carvings revealed the basic technical-artistic skill of their execution. It was established that the drawing-sketch which lay at the foundation of t he compositional conception, structure and the expression of the stylistic peculiarities of the figures underlay the point-beat surface. This work discusses several such rock carvings done at various periods (Figs. 8-12), which clearly indicate the simultaneous application of both technical devices. Strangely, the application of both of those devices has enabled the pre-historic artist to conceive such diversity and richness of style the like of which can hardly be traced even in today's art. Stylization in Armenian rock art was characteristic of everything: the figures of thousands of animals, men, gods, objects and articles. Accordingly the stylistic changes are often reliably traceable on the chronological scale. For instance, the figure of the bezoar goat, most widespread in Armenian rock carvings, stands out in several basic, stylistic-chronological groups. Table I shows that this figure undergoes stylistic and chronological transformations during the late-Neolithic, early and middle Bronze, late Bronze - and early iron-Ages. It is only in the third millennium that the B and C Earth-symbol-triangle styles, with numerous variations supplement the basic A I sub-style; they lie at the root of the lightning-flash sing which had completely established itself by that time.

The volume also deals with the stylistic peculiarities in portrayals of the bull and man (Table II and III), this time in association with their functional or mythological meaning.
 

The technical-stylistic analysis of data is of substantial value in the scientific classification of monuments, but does not offer a sound basis for their absolute or comparative dating. For the clarification of the latter problem of primary importance are those rock fragments (the old, at times totally or partially faded, barely visible) the pictures on which were covered, with new ones or augmented through the centuries often changing their original shape and meaning. This work discusses in detail such rock carvings in their distinct chronological succession. The figures of the 5th and 4th millennia B. C. lay under the various figures of the 3rd millennium, those of the 3rd under pictures of the 2nd, and those of the 2nd are covered with carvings of the first millennium (Figs. 16-20).

Monuments of this type allow the determination of the inner stratification and comparative succession of rock carvings according to millennia, and often to semi-millennia and centuries. In order to justify the general limits of the chronology, specifying and further differentiating the proposed scale the method of comparative dating was devised since the groups of rock-carving of the Ghegham mountain range do not occur in association with stratified monuments which would serve as chronological determinants. That is why the data of the rock carvings of the Ghegham mountain range are compared to those contemporaneous rock carvings or such monuments of pre-historic art that represent the general culture of the tribes creating that great pre-historic art in the Ararat valley or in such contiguous areas whose inhabitants, even if unrelated to the population of the Ghegham mountain range, at the time stood, nevertheless, on the same social and economic, cultural and intellectual level of development. In this way the groups of figures are divided chronologically into the Late Neolithic- aeneolithic, early Bronze Age, Middle Bronze Age, Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age groups.
 

The group is characterized by outsize ancient A style figures and primitive technique and by simplicity of hunting scenes. The areas where this group is represented have yielded stone implements of the Late neolithic-aeneolithic period (Table V) with parallels in the V-IV mil. settlements of the Ararat valley (Khatunarkh, Teghout) and in contemporaneous dwelling sites on the borderline between the Armenian and Georgian SSR (Imiris-gora, etc.) and other monuments of the Middle East and Asia Minor. The figures of the gods of hunt which first appeared on the rock images of this group (Tables 67-72) have their parallels in the same context in Imiris-gora which are radio-carbon dated 4350+(-) 120 and in the late aeneolithic phase of Yaniktepe settlement (Lake Kapoutan) which dates from the middle of the 4^th millennium B.C. There are numerous other similar finds which are discussed at length in the present work and are included in the time range Imiris-gora-Yanik.
 

The group is characterized by Al stile images, compositional complexity, a much more refined execution of figures and small dimensions. Numerous strictly stylized animal figures, the religious ornamentation of well-represented earthenware discovered in the Ararat valley (Shengavit, Jerahovit) and other settlements of Armenia of the 3rd millennium B.C. provide reliable criteria for dating this group of images. The former quite coincide with the carvings under consideration and are encountered only in the monuments of the III millennium B.C. (Table IV, Figs. 1, 2, 4, 7). The monuments of the first and second halves of the third millennium B.C. are traced by comparing the animal figures of the rock carvings of the group with the ornamental motifs of earthenware from the Pulur settlement in the plain of Kharaberd. The relevant layers of Pulur are dated by the radio-carbon method to the mid-third millennium B.C. (2420+/-/200 2470/)

This group is characterized by A2 style images, very refined technique of execution, multi-figure complex composition and is dated to the 19th-15th centuries B.C. by means of comparison with the bird and deer figures on the painted pottery of the Ararat valley and Lake Sevan Basin (Table VI), as well as with cult figures of bulls on vishap-stellae (dragon-stellae) (Table VII) from the same Ghegham mountain range. The figures of hunters of a certain style, locally typical of this time range, are likewise considered.
 

This group has a much broader and more reliable range of comparison. The animal and human figures encountered in those compositions, as well as the very compositional structures of the scenery have exact parallels in the 14th-13th century bronze figurines (Tadles 54,55, 58-2) of Lechashen, the fortress of Lori, Artik, in the motifs and linear ornaments of quite reliably dated poltery of the Late Bronze Age, and the bronze belts of the early, middle and late Bronze Age, (Lechashen Noyemberian, Ghedabek, etc.). Another group of parallels is also available; it involves the types of armour represented on rock carvings (Tables 40-2; 47). They duplicate the armour and defensive weapons of definite dating, discovered in the necropolises and habitations of the same area.

They are of lesser consequence as to artistic composition, since rock carving was on the decline in that area of Armenian during the period in question. The dating of this group of figures was established by comparing the unique styles of human and animal figures, and the relieves of Shamiram as well as bronze belts, etc.
 

It was established in the preceding chapter that the prehistoric rock carving in Armenia continuously evolved over four thousand years. Through the ages at the hands of the succeeding generations rock-carving constantly changed and became more complex; the groups of figures were based on the productive, religious and ideological norms of early farming hunting-herding tribes. Most of the rock carving portrayed various hunting scenes, since as husbandry and herding flourished, hunting witnessed a new rise, practiced mostly in the summer mouths in the Alpiane and sub-Alpiane regions (just where the carvings were situated), areas abounding with birds and other wildlife. The hunting scenes had a magical significance and were intended to bring greater success in hunting. The present chapter briefly describes these types of scenes in chronological and topical order, and gives possible interpretations. In this way the subtlest and most refined forms and methods of hunting are recognized, along with the general rich depiction of the scenes and their aims. A scrutinous examination of hunting scenes results in the discovery of basic problems which lie at the very root of economy i. e. the development of the material life of late pre-historic period. Some of these essential problems are listed below. Hunting was not a goal in itself to our ancestors; it was subordinate to the general economy of animal husbandry and farming, and had quite a differentiated character. This circumstance accounts for the diverse forms and ways of hunting. Bare hands, the rope, clubs, traps, hollows, nets, etc., were most often used for catching wild animals. Such scenes predominate over the rest. Thus, the intention was to add these animals to or improve the communal herd. Hunting done by means of the bow and arrow, spears and hatchets was aimed at preserving the communal herd from beasts of prey and procuring meat. The rock pictures of the early period enable us to assert that the bezoar goat was the first animal to be domesticated in Armenia. The hunting scenes of those animals form a majority and their bone fossils predominate in the animal remnants of ancient settlements. Equally old is the domestication of wild aurochs and the Armenian mountain sheep. This domestication is likely to date back to the 7th and 6th millennia B.C., though the reflection in the rock carvings comes not earlier than from the 5th millennium B. C. Transcaucasian archaeology provides evidence to the effect that sheep predominated in the communal flocks of the 3rd millennium B.C., but this development was not altogether reflected in the art of the rock carvings. This fact may be accounted for by lingering artistic convention, the location of rock images and a number of other circumstances.

The rock carving of the 3rd-lst millennia B.C. indicate that both the second period of rise in hunting and the high standard of animal husbandry were possible only due to a high level of farming-surplus grain to supply winter feed for the animals. But animal husbandry developed even more rapidly than farming and the consistently growing flocks of animals were likely to be in need of summer and winter fodder.

As archaeological data point out, it was in this period that the use of winter pastures was initiated, the practice sustaining itself in the following thousands of years in the plain of Moughan-Gharabagh, the middle course of the river Araxes, the farming oasis of Van, etc. This explains the occurrence of groups of images in at least two of those areas. Following the herds our ancestors acquired new pasturelands which at the same time held good for farming. This rise in economy may explain the migrations en masse, in the 3rd millennium B.C., of the Armenian Highland tribes to Asia Minor and the Near East which had been local people with their own particular cultures.
 

Rock-carvings can be used as rich sources of paleobiological information provided one is certain of their reliability. Actually, in attempts to reproduce the animal as precisely as possible, at the same time preserving the generally stylized lines, the pre-historic artist often achieved such perfection that enabled him not only to convey the external features of the animal but also, to some degree, its frightened alertness, quiet state, characteristic movements and other details. These factors make it possible to discern not only the bird and animal as such, but also to distinguish their species (swan, goose, crane, goat, bull, deer, elk, etc.).

Listed in Table IX are all the species of animals encountered with their bone remnants along the shore of Lake Sevan and the cultural layers of neighboring neolithic-Bronze Age settlements.

Dominant among rock-carved animals was the bezoar goat, widespread in the high Alpine zones of pre-historic Armenia. It was also adapted to the lower Alpine lands. By the horns one can distinguish the old and young males and females and their young and observe the peculiar features of their life and environment. The he-goats are often pictured alone or stooped in the moment of struggle, while the she-goats appear only in compositions accompanied by their male counterparts and their kids. The scenes where man handles the animals by "peaceful" means driving them to the hollows and the dens are very expressive. Armenia offered favorable conditions for early goat and sheep domestication and improvement through crossbreeding with wild stock. All of this information available from rock carvings, the vest amounts of well preserved goat remnants collected around the lake Sevan basin and the bone remains of other archaeological monuments, make it possible to recognize the ancient area of distribution of bezoar goats. In the past they had roamed all the mountainous regions of Transcaucasia and spread throughout the Caucasus. This was followed by a reduction of the confines of their locus. The last bezoar goat was shot in the Ghegham mountains in 1947.

High in artistic quality (if not in number) among all the images in the Ghegham mountain range are the multiform carving of deer, which impress with their realistic form,. Interestingly, in series of compositions the deer are pictured grazing, in peaceful surroundings in the company of men. They deer are likely to belong to the synathropic species. To this testify the bone remnants of deer recovered in settlements and in the litoral layers of the Sevan basin. They inhabited, until recently, the biotypes of forests in Northern Armenia, presently they are altogether extinct. In line with the development of stockfarming and hunting three types of dogs stand out in the pictures - the wolfhound, the husky and the greyhound. The bone remains of the mentioned dogs are represented in the lenses and the necropolises of the Sevan basin (Table X).

The rock carving make also a prominent display of Armenian wild sheep, domesticated and wild types, albeit few in number (Mufflons) (Table X). The latter are shapely, thin bodied and strong, while the former are more stout and fleshy. In the past they lived in the lower parts of the Ghegham and Pambak mountain ranges. Rarely, they are encountered in the higher zones, too. The work analyses in the same manner the species of wild bulls two species of aurochs and domestic oxen (Table X). Their exact counterparts are indicted in litoral layers, in the remains of ancient settlements and necropolises, their locus is established, and the thesis of the autochthonous origin of domestic cattle is advanced.

Along with Northern India, the Armenian Highland was one of the centers of animal domestication.

The study of rock carvings has brought to light another member of the extinct Pleistocene fauna - the elk (Table X). The fact of its existence in Armenia remained in the dark until recently. Subsequently, the recovery of bones in the Paleolithic cave of Yerevan and Noyemberian made it possible to mark its area of distribution. In the same way the existence of the wild camel - the dromedary, has been determined (Table X).

Observations are made also on figures of cats - leopards, lions and hepards; their bone remnants are examined, areas of distribution are established, noted is the correspondence between the characteristic formal aspects and the actual nature, habits and peculiarities of the species. Detailed examinations are made on the recurrent figures of hepards, that were known as swift runners and "bold hunters" of horned goats, young hoofed animals, rabbits, or big fowl. They were easily domesticated by man and were used like dogs as skillful aids to hunters. This practice survived until the late Middle Ages.

Interesting data is derived also from the study of bird figures (Table X). Most of them are conspicuous for their delicate appearance and high artistic execution, proportions, postures and the genuine reproduction of their features. This circumstance allows us to discriminate the various species of birds - cormorant, goose, duck, bustard, pelican and crane. Only one picture of noddy is available in the Ghegham mountain range (Table X, Figs. 14-20). It was of rare occurrence in the past and is no more available at present. It hibernated in the Ararat valley and its bone remnants were recovered in the excavation of the Urartaean city of Argistihinili. Those birds were not only of economic importance. They are encountered in ritual scenes, legends, myths and epos as satellites of luminaries, as bearers of good tidings.

The figures of animals discovered in rock carvings, their bones in natural deposits and cultural layers allow to establish the Paleoclimatic conditions. The occurrence of animals adopted to dry weather (bezoar goat, slimlegged deer, hepard) makes it possible to adjust the extent of the arid landscape, whereas the occurence of deer, chamois, wild boar, aurochs, etc. suggest more humid biotypes. These types of climatic conditions, no doubt, characterized the high Alpine zone and the foothill areas and river valleys respectively.
 

The ancients conceived the universe to be divided into three horizons (upper, middle and lower) which formed one indissoluble unity and did not differ essentially from each other. They believed that the upper horizon-the sky, was also inhabited by various animals and their ancestors. Their heavenly life was pictured amid the stars and suns, frequently the remote images of celestial bodies were likened to the shapes of animals and were named after them. That is why we often come across luminary birds and animals in our rock carvings. Birds in association with the sun disc or fighting against the dragon-snake are likewise pictured in the newly-found rock carving of the Ghegham range (Tables 61-63). In other compositions the same birds figure among goats, deer and men, accompanied by pictures or signs of celestial bodies. If the bird symbolizes the sun or the moon in those pictures (as in our folk tales), the remaining species of animals symbolize other heavenly bodies or phenomena. Sometimes the same celestial body or phenomenon is symbolized by different images of animals, or a single picture of an animal stands for an entire constellation. One of the pictures (Table 62, 3), for instance, depicts a highly stylized bezoar goat with a disc crossed in center; and facing it is the prey beast with a six-cornered star. Another magnificent composition (Table 62, 4) displays two strong he-goats fighting with their horns, both of which are of celestial nature. They bear cross symbols of the sun in their semi-circular horns. Finally, apart from bird-animal there exist anthropomorphic figures, accompanied by circles symbolizing the luminaries (Table 63, 4). In each particular case their number comes to 3, 5 and 7. The images of the luminaries such as the sun, the moon, the stars and the geometrical symbols of planets are quite frequent in the Ghegham mountain range; they are portrayed either single or in compositions. These symbols consist of the cross, the swastika, the circle, interlaced circles, star-like figures, crescents, circles with bowl-like concavities and so on (table 64, 1-6). A thorough investigation of the identical elements in different compositions indicates that they express the various positions of the luminaries on the firmament, the different phases of their motion visible from the Earth. This is particularly clear with respect to the pictures of the sun and the moon. Another factor is also involved: the luminaries are represented by a definite set of numbers (5; 7, etc.) or on multiples of their constituents. Those observations leave no doubt that the ancients were well aware of the basic regular features of the motion of heavenly bodies, visible with the naked eye, and represented them in a numerical association.

The mountains of Ghegham and Vartenis contain groups of images made up exclusively of the pictures of luminaries. They give the impression of open-air astronomical observatories by the singularity of the images and the exceptionally high and convenient position for the observation of the night sky.

One of the above groups of pictures in the Ghegham range, located near the summit called "Sheikhi Chinguil", among many other images contains double-circled full moon symbols done in broad carving (Table 65, Fig.1). The external circles of those figures have 28 large and deep rays, the number corresponding to the number of days in the lunar month. One gathers the impression that they really convey the estimate of the lunar month.

The fragments from Sev mount of Vartenis Range confirm that belief. The celestial bodies on one of them (Table 66, Fig. 1) are represented in 56 concave circles, in which the numbers, 7, 14 and 28 are of regular occurrence. In this case the tendency to add and multiply definite numbers is manifest; it conveys the recurrent revolution of heavenly bodies, in this case - the monotonous repetition of moon's phases. By multiplying the number 28 in Sheikhi Chinguil by 13 one can derive the approximate number of days in a year. If we multiply number 56 of Sev mount by 6 the sum (336) will be the total of twelve lunar months, and by adding one more lunar month we shell get the number of days in a solar year. A similar second monument from Sev mount contains the number of days in two solar months, while the third one which is a magnificent prehistoric monument of calculation and a calendar, is merely a combined calculation table with the help of which an estimate of the lunar and solar year can be made (Table 65, Fig.3). The pictures are divided into four groups. One of them contains a symbol of the constellation "Ram" that corresponds to the month of March; it initiates the farming year in Armenia, the New Year.

The second group of images of mythological content depicts "The Twins", the last constellation in the apical cycle of the sun. The other two groups are made up of pictures of a definite number of heavenly bodies; they are calendrical in nature. The "celestial bodies" in the main group of pictures representing the solar system are arranged in number 7, 13 and 14. If we multiply 13 by 7 we shell get the average number of days in a year's quarter (91) i. e. the period from Ram to the Twins. If we multiply 13 by 14 we shell derive half the number of days in a year (182), and if we double this number we shell get nearly the total of 13 lunar months or a solar year (364). There are two tables in this large group of images of the solar system. One of them is the one meter long solar disc, made up of four circles and 94 stocky-rays. It represents a quarter of the sun's revolution in a year that takes place between, say, the vernal equinox (March 21) and the summer solstice (June 22). If we divide that number 94 by three we shell get 31,3 days, which is completely in harmony with the number of days in the spring and the summer months. According to this table the number 188 for half a year is almost unmistaken and exceeds the modern calendar by two days. But the number of the days of the year is considerably larger. That is why another table is engraved under the above large disc. It enables us to regulate the difference between the lunar and solar years.

The thesis advanced in respect to the prehistoric calendar is still in need of additional corroboration; however, all the material at hand supports the fact that our remote ancestors were in practice quite well aware of some fundamental laws of motion of the heavenly bodies and knew their reflection on the changes of purely earthly natural phenomena. The recognition and use of those regularities was a sinequa-non of progress, especially in advancing farming, animal husbandry and hunting.
 

A substantial number of rock carvings from the Ghegham mountain range display, in various relations, gods of the neolithic and Early Iron Age. Broadly speaking, though they are anthropomorphic, their large dimensions with exaggerated iconographic details and functions differ sharply from the pictures of ordinary men or hunters. Another differentiating feature is their appearance in association with celestial symbols, which indicate the extraordinary heavenly origin of those supernatural creatures. As we have seen above, the rock carvings dealt overwhelmingly with animal and hunting scenes. Accordingly the figures of gods of prey and hunt predominate (Table 67-73). It is not an easy task to distinguish those two gods by their morphological characteristics. They can be recognized only by their different functions. These gods appear very clearly during the 5th and 4th millennia, and they survive up to the beginning of the 1st millennium B. C., undergoing certain morphological changes. They dominate in the compositions. The gods of prey appear in "peaceful" conditions, in free herds of grazing, drinking or copulating animals. They are often seen driving away with spears or magical movements the wild beasts attacking the herds. More conspicuous are the gods of hunt that are portrayed invariably with hunters. The gods of hunt themselves are seldom involved in hunting. Their posture is usually static, the arms raised upward at the elbows or stretched out, again with the arms directed upward. Even in cases when those gods appear with bows and arrows, the weapon is not leveled at the animals while at the same time the hunters are successful. It is noteworthy that in some large compositions the gods in static squatting, or lying positions, are surrounded by numerous different animals and an equally large number of hunters, each one chasing or catching with bare hands or with ropes an animal. Here an ordinary unarmed hunter fights alone against a powerful animal as a bull, which implies that he is patronized by a god of hunt.

In common hunting scenes the bulls are charged only in groups. The hunting ritual dances and rites, exquisitely depicted in several magnificent rock carvings, are unmistakenly associated with hunting scenes and the cult of gods of prey and hunt (Table 73). Of on lesser interest are the farming rituals (Tables 74-76).

The gods considered above are of purely animal husbandry and hunting nature. However, if the rock carvings had portrayed only these gods in the midst of large number of hunting scenes, one could infer that the art of rock carving was a reflection of the simplest primitive culture of hunting-stock breeding tribes. Fortunately, the images of other gods are likewise represented in the monuments of the Ghegham mountain range; those gods are pre-eminently or completely connected with the farming cult or ideology. This group includes first of all quite generalized and stylized female figures, which in the Ghegham and Vartenis mountains are depicted in the form of big and small rectangles presenting the body and the head, while those of Mount Aragats have other attributes: waists, naves, sex indicators, etc. (Tables 66 and 71) These features suggest that the figures are goddesses. The female figures are characteristic of Armenia: they are met in pre-historic shrines in the form of clay statuettes created on the altars in the 3rd millennium in Metsamor. In the shrines burnt the holy fire, sacrifices were offered, wine and holy water were poured and ceremonies associated with the cult of farming were conducted. Exactly the same female figures (this time made of stone) were recovered in the temple of the Sumerian town of Eredu which, from recorded evidence, are ascribed to the great mother goddess Nammu. She used to live before the creation in the heavenly ocean where she gave birth to the gods of the Earth, the sky, the lightning, the sun and others; and the organic world look its origin, The present work analyses the Sumerian and Hurrian myths related to the Mother goddess in the light of comparative data of Armenian mythology and epos. Such analysis shows that the same ansient oriental concepts were current in the pre-historic Urartaean and early Armenian spheres. These concepts were undoubtedly also related to the female figures of rock carvings.

The thunder-lightning and sun gods are conceived as descendants of the mother deity in oriental and Urartaean-Armenian materials. They figure also in our rock carvings. They are discriminated with difficulty like the god Vahagn or the semi-god heroes of the epos. They display nearly the same external features; radial extremities, earth symbols, fire-flame elements (Table 77-80). The gods of thunderstorm are often accompanied by large images of goats, which are their companion animals and in Armenian folklore, in epos and general ethnography they are connected with the phenomenon of lightning, rain and the cult of farming. The pictures of lightning-sun gods are portrayed singly or in groups-"families" (Table 78-79). They are usually trigods. Accordingly, the relation of the sun deities to the earth and husbandry is more direct and influential. They simply descend to the ground or the plant and the tree and with their supernatural phalloses fecundate the soil (Table 81, 2). We have observed this phenomenon in the epic narratives and in general ethnography in the such genuine forms that our rock carvings seem like pictorial illustration of these pompous ceremonial rites. The sun god had yet another important function. He ever struggled with the evil snake, vishap-dragon, was captured by it and liberated bringing light, warmth, rain, prosperity and abundance to the world. In the battle the god often figures as a bird while the vishap-dragon personifying the black cloud as a huge snake. We come across numerous linages depicting this antagonism in the Ghegham mountain range, in Syunik and Aragats which outline particular episodes of the cosmic legend which completely crystallized in the 3rd millennium B. C. (Figs. 21-26). Originating in the aeneolithic-early Bronze Age, this legend persists throughout the entire pre-historic epoch, survives in Urartu and finally enters the Armenian tradition of the early and mediaeval periods.

The research highlights all the ancient oriental Urartaean and Armenian written records pertaining to the legend that have survived and shows for the first time that the pre-historic myths and legends, lost long ago, can be fully reconstructed relying on the rock carvings.
 

As we sew above, the rock carvings are sources of positive information and in some sense can be treated as written monuments. One of the most important features of the rock carvings, however, is that lay at the origin of all subsequent writing and scripture, which are based on the pictures of objects, luminaries, animals, birds, men, etc. A study of rock carvings of the Ghegham range and those of other areas proves that pictographic, hieroglyphic and ideographic characters originate in early Bronze Age Armenia in the 3rd millennium B.C. and in the later stages of development enter into the Urartaean culture. Here pictographs presumably change into syllabic script which involves many ideograms borrowed from neighbouring countries. But hieroglyphic writing here does not achieve perfection. This from of writing is inherited by the Armenian priesthood - "a heathen script"; cult-religious, astronomical-astrological writing - it is then preserved in late mediaeval manuscripts. Those lists of manuscripts and a companion of Urartaean hierogltphs and pre-historic characters make clear that the symbols duplicate each other with the same semantic content. A special volume is dedicated to the investigation of rock carved characters. In the present work we print only the joint table XI of the pre-historic signs and their Urartaean- Armenian parallels. Selecting two ideograms from this table, we translate their semantics by means of a complex study of the material. First of these is the character "Ram", which results from the gradual dlssolution of the elements in the figure of the constellation Ram. This is a circle open from below with an axis descending from above. This celestial ram figures as a complete representation in a composition of religious, cultic nature in the sequence - bird, sun, moon, bull, snake and ram (Table XII, Fig.1). The iconographic details of the carved animals together with the images of the sun-the moon and the bird, indicate that those animals are truly celestial, i.e. extraordinary creatures of worship.

The morphology and logical succession of figures of these conspicuous rock carvings of the 3rd millennium B.C. is of mythological nature and resembles that part of the Babylonian creation myth in which Marduk overpowering the sea monster Tiamat, fills the sky with luminaries and constellations. Next he appoints the Twins-Taurus and Ram, guards of the celestial gate; exactly in the sequence of our rock carving. At the same time he define the successive revolutions of the sun, the moon, created vegetation, birds and animals. The sign of the Ram on a number of rock carvings of the Ghegham mountain range (Table XII, Figs. 12, 13) seems to continue or illustrate the Babylonian myth, amidst birds, celestial bodies, animals, trees; particularly in such pictures in which the sun gods descending to earth fertilize the soil, while the animals are cross-breeding. All these demonstrate that the Ram was associated with the cult of spring fertility. The sign of the Ram is central to and appears in the same compositional and semantic contexts on decorations of the 3rd millennium B.C. earthenware. But, more interestingly, in some parts of the Shengavit settlement (3rd millennium B.C.) supports styled as powerful rams which were made for performing rites connected with the cult of the Ram were recovered. The latter cult was long lived in the area. In the recent finds from the shrines in the pre-Urartean level of Dvin huge clay boards decorated with stylized ram heads and other celestial symbols were set leaning against the wall high on the edge of altars. These shrines were completely dedicated to the performance of ceremonies of spring farming festivity, associated with the cult of the Ram constellation. The religious concepts connected with the cult of the Ram, the Taurus and the hull enter the Urartaean and Armenian traditions and are represented in the monuments of Urartaean art, Armenian manuscripts and miniatures. Furthermore, the symbol "Ram" survives until the 16th century.

The second is the writing sing "Twins" formed by a dissolution in the pre-history period of the elements of twin human figures and their stylization; it has passed from Uratu to Armenians and has been included in the lists of "signs and symbols" with the interpretation "Twins". Of frequent occurrence in the rock carvings of Syunik and Ghegham mountains are also stylized human twin figures (not in the from of signs), short-legged, with long, dexterous hands, one of which is stretched upward and the other remains hanging (Figs.27-31. Table 65, Fig.3). Those twin images are almost invariably accompanied by the symbols of celestial bodies and geometrical figures that bet ray their supernatural celestial origin (Figs.32-36).

The appearance of twin figures everywhere in the same stance deserves attention and indicates their unique function. One of the human figures in a picture of Syunik portrays the "Twin" sign which interprets the functional essence of the above figures. In an outstanding group of pictures relating to the calendar tables of Vardenis mountains those twin human figures are portrayed as holding coiled snake-lightnings in their hands which reveal their function as rain makers. Thus the twins of the rock carvings are celestial creatures with quite nimble, powerful arms, short legs and are charged with rain-giving and weather-regulating powers. They are reminiscent of the twins of our epos-Sanassar and Bagdassar, who also symbolized the thunder-lightning and were associated wholly with the water element and the cults of husbandry.

The occurrence of the cult of twins among ancient peoples or modern tribes contributes to our understanding of the nature of Bronze- Age twin gods. Everywhere the twins are connected with rain and weather; everywhere a miraculous birth is ascribed to twin children and their graves are located near lakes and rivers. In our epos too, the Goddess of the sea became impregnated by water and gave birth to Sanassar and Bagdassar. Dark infants were also related to rain bearing clouds, water springs, lakes and rivers, water-born lightning-like horses and so on. The twins are well represented in beautiful compositions on belts of the late Bronze Age period. One of them, recovered during the excavations in Samtavro, shows the archer and the twins which are invariably accompanied by one or two stars. In two cases the twins are on horseback, in another - on foot and the third they are pictured seated at a feast. Their jug and cup are possibly filled with a sacred liquid. Judging by the pictures they are bare infants, short legged, long armed and large headed. The same belt displays the fish, the deer, the horse, the lion, the otter, the pig, the bird and the bear. Most of them bear the sings of celestial bodies or phenomena and all of them are linked with the firmament and the constellations and accurately coincide with the order of constellations quoted by the 7th century astronomer Shirakatsi. The horses figure here as companions of the twins as in the case of the Dark infants or Kurkik Jalali in Sassna Tsrer. All the images on the belt symbolize rain and the concept of fertility. Another belt comes from the same necropolis; it differs very little from the one described above. Since the twins were considered rain-provoking creatures, in Zodiac sings of the firmament they identified the spring month of May, the month that fed the soil with copious rainfall. It should be added that the twins figuring in the rock carvings, on bronze belts and in Armenian ethnography are in many ways related to similar Greek and Indian dioskouroi and ashivs. There's no doubt that thousands of years ago the twins were the object of profound worship of our ancestors.

The above discussion completes the review of the groups of images, so far available, from the Ghegham mountain range. The present installment does not deal with the group of images discovered near the summit Minor Paytassar, the pictures of which have been published separately by S. Sardarian.