Sayadyan, H., Gevorgyan, A. The Hartashen Megaliths: Spatial Organization and Possible Defensive Functions of a Megalithic Complex in Northwestern Armenia

Ukr. geogr. z. 2026 (2), 78-87
Date of submission: 

10.11.2025

Date of acceptance: 

20.01.2026

Date of approval for printing: 

23.07.2026

Ukrainian Geographical Journal 2026 (2) | Український географічний журнал 2026 (2)
Language of publication: 
Ukrainian
Full text: 
PDF icon UGJ_2026_2_1561-4980_7.pdf
Authors: 
Sayadyan, H.1 
Gevorgyan, A.2, 3 
1 Ministry of Defense of the Republic of Armenia, Yerevan
2 Yerevan State University, Yerevan
3 National University of Architecture and Construction of Armenia, Yerevan
 
 
Стаття опублікована на умовах відкритого доступу за ліцензією CC BY-NC-ND
Abstract: 

The article is devoted to the structural and functional analysis of the Stone Row (Sharan Karer), a megalithic complex near the village of Hartashen in Armenia’s Shirak region. The aim of the study is to identify the monument’s structural features and possible functions, and to compare them with similar megalithic structures in Europe and Scandinavia. Field research and measurements revealed that the complex consists of approximately 700 basalt menhirs arranged in three symmetrical rows, extending for approximately 400 meters. The rows of stones have a clear geometric organization, with an average distance of 120–160 cm between the menhirs, and in some cases, a noticeable slope toward the foot of the hill. This structure is unique not only in Armenia but also in the global megalithic heritage, as virtually no similar structures with a three-row arrangement have been recorded. A comparative analysis with Carnac (France) and the Ales stones (Sweden) reveals that the Hartashen complex has a unique organization that is not limited to ritual or cultic significance. The arrangement of the stones, their topographic position, and structural logic suggest that it may also have served a defensive or territorial function, serving as a natural barrier or boundary. This perspective echoes the structure of modern military engineering systems, particularly artificial barriers such as the “Dragon’s Teeth.” The article concludes that the Hartashen stone path likely represents a multi-layered monument combining both ritual and defensive functions. It also notes that this structure may represent a prototype of early engineering thinking and spatial organization, a finding that requires confirmation through further excavations, radiocarbon dating, geophysical scanning, and 3D modeling. The Hartashen megalithic complex, thanks to its unique structure and possible multifunctionality, is of exceptional importance not only in the context of the development of Armenian but also global megalithology.

Key words: 
megalithic structures, Hartashen, Stone Row, defensive system, Dragon’s Teeth, Neolithic, Bronze Age
Pages: 
078-087
References: 
1. Scarre, C. (2002). Monuments and Landscape in Atlantic Europe: Perception and Society during the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age. Routledge. 292 p.
2. Parkinson, W. A., & Duffy, P. R. (2007). Fortifications and Enclosures in European Prehistory: A Cross-Cultural Perspective. Journal of Archaeological Research, 15, 97–141. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10814-007-9010-2
3. Renfrew, C. (2008). Prehistory: The Making of the Human Mind. Modern Library. 288 p.
4. Patton, M. (1993). Statements in Stone: Monuments and Society in Neolithic Brittany. Routledge. 232 p.
5. Bradley, R. (2007). The Prehistory of Britain and Ireland. Cambridge University Press. 336 p.
6. Blanchard, A., Guyodo, J-N., Paulsson, B. S., & Montassier, F. (2025). Le Plasker in Plouharnel (fifth millennium cal BC): a newly discovered section of the megalithic complex of Carnac. Antiquity, 99(406), 915–934. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2025.10123
7. Cassen, S., Boujot, C., Grimaud, V., Chaigneau, C., Obeltz, C., et al. (2021). Carnac. Récit pour un imagier (Lithogénies 2). Nantes: Laboratoire de Recherche Archéologie et Architectures.
8. Brittany Tourism. (n. d.). Carnac alignments. URL: https://shorturl.at/c4Na0 (Accessed: October 10, 2025).
9. Mörner, N.-A. (2015). Ales Stones in SE Sweden: A solar calendar from the Late Bronze Age. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 2, 437–448. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2015.04.002 
10. Sayadyan, H. Ya. (2023). Military geography and geographical factor in the Russian war in Ukraine. Ukrainian Geographical Journal, 2023(3), 63–69.  [In Ukrainian]. [Саядян А. Я. Військова географія та географічний фактор у російсько-українській війні. Укр. геогр. журн. 2023. № 3. С. 63–69.] DOI: https://doi.org/10.15407/ugz2023.03.063
11. Sayadyan, H., & Gevorgyan, A. (2020). Military geography in the context of geographic determinism. Wisdom, 16(3), 136–141. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24234/wisdom.v16i3.384
12. Sayadyan, H., & Gevorgyan, A. (2023). A geographic and urban planning view of military administrative divisions. Multidisciplinary Reviews, 6(3), e2023022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31893/multirev.2023022
13. Avetisyan, H., Gnuni, A., Bobokhyan, A., Sargsyan, G., & Mkrtchyan, L. (2023). The Development of Defensive Systems in Armenia in the Bronze and Iron Ages. History and Culture, 19(1), 176–191. DOI: https://doi.org/10.46991/hc.2023.19.1.176
14. Turskyy, O., & Semenov, M. (2024). Engineering Support for Combat Operations. Kyiv: Kyiv Institute of the National Guard of Ukraine.  [In Ukrainian]. [Турський О. Ю., Семенов М. В., Інженерне забезпечення бою : навч. посіб., Київ: КІ НГУ, 2024. 256 с.] URL: https://kingu.edu.ua/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Інженерне-забезпечення-бою.pdf
15. Ambrose, S. E. (1998). The Victors: Eisenhower and his Boys — The Men of World War II. New York: Simon & Schuster. 384 p.
DOI: 
https://doi.org/10.15407/ugz2026.02.078