doi: 10.2143/AWE.16.0.3214945 AWE 16 (2017) 305-324
THE SITE OF ARZAN: A PRELIMINARY TOPOGRAPHICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECONNAISSANCE IN 2014*
MICHAŁ MARCIAK
Abstract This paper reports the results of a topographical and archaeological prospection of the site of Arzan and its vicinity, considered by many scholars to be the remains of ancient Tigranocerta, in 2014. The paper provides the first digital documentation of several archaeological objects. The aim of this docu- mentation is twofold. First, it is to document the site, which is subject to rapid degradation. Second, it is hoped that it can also cast additional light on Thomas Sinclair’s identification of Arzan as ancient Tigranocerta.
Introduction The city of Tigranocerta was the famous foundation of perhaps the greatest Armenian king ever, Tigranes II (ca. 95–55 BC), also known as Tigranes the Great.1 The city was founded as the new capital of his recently expanded kingdom. The Armenian kingdom had never before and would never again reach such a state of political significance and control (from ca. 87 to 69 BC2) such vast areas of territory, from the Pontic Mountains to Mesopotamia, and from the Caspian Sea to the Mediterranean (including Cilicia and Syria). The main problem with the identification of Tigranocerta is that the scattered references to its location in ancient sources are not precise, and taken all together, the literary evidence
* This paper is part of the author’s research project financed by the National Science Centre in Poland and devoted to three regna minora of Northern Mesopotamia: Sophene, Gordyene and Adia- bene (UMO-2011/03/N/HS3/01159). The project is being conducted at the University of Rzeszów under the supervision of Prof. M.J. Olbrycht. I wish to thank Prof. T. Sinclair (Cyprus University), Prof. E. Kettenhofen (Trier University), Dr A. Comfort (Exeter University), Prof. C. Lippolis (Turin University) and Dr R. Wójcikowski (Rzeszów University) for their feedback. An earlier draft of this paper was delivered at the colloquium ‘Baltica-Iranica’, held in Rzucewo, Poland (arranged by the Department of Mediterranean Archaeology of Gdańsk University) on 15–18 October 2014. I am grateful to Prof. N. Secunda for inviting me, and to Dr V. Sarkhosh Curtis (British Museum) and Dr J. Curtis (Iran Heritage Foundation) for their valuable comments. Finally, I would like to thank the journal’s anonymous reviewers for their helpful suggestions. Of course, the sole responsibility for the content of this paper, and its all possible deficiencies, lies with the author. 1 For the political context of the reign of Tigranes the Great, see Holmes 1923, 176–212; Sherwin- White 1984, 159–206; Sinclair 1994–95, 184–85; Garsoïan 1997; Olbrycht 2009; 2011; Geller and Traina 2013, 450–54. 2 See Sinclair 1994–95, 184–85; Geller and Traina 2013, 451. 306 M. MARCIAK is contradictory. Generally speaking, we can tentatively distinguish three main groups of sources which feature approximately the same location of Tigranocerta.3 The first group includes Strabo (ca. 64 or 63 BC–AD 24) and Tacitus (ca. AD 55–120) in particular, who envisage Tigranocerta as a city located south of the Tigris (Strabo 11. 12. 4, 11. 14. 15, 12. 2. 9, 16. 1. 23; Tacitus Annals 14. 24–25, 15. 4–5). To be more precise, Strabo makes a clear connection between Tigranocerta, Nisibis and Mt. Masion (Strabo 11. 12. 4, 16. 1. 23): Tigranocerta and Nisibis are said to lie at the foot of Mt. Masion, which can definitely be identified as part of the modern belt of limestone hills known as the Mazi and Ṭūr ῾Abdīn Mts.4 In turn, there can be no doubt that ancient Nisibis lay below the modern Turkish settlement, Nusaybin.5 What is more, Tacitus (Annals 15. 5) delivers a very precise detail – the distance between Nisibis and Tigranocerta was 37 Roman miles (approx- imately 55 km).6 Several locations have been proposed to be the site matching the data of Strabo and Tacitus, but by far the most frequently suggested was Tell Ermen (modern Kιzιltepe).7 The second group includes a number of ancient sources which locate Tigranocerta north of the Tigris: Roman itineraries (especially the Peutinger Table), Ptolemy, Eutropius and the Epic Histories. The first two sources do not provide us with precise clues for the location of Tigranocerta, but they leave no doubt that the city was located north of the Tigris. On the Peutinger Table (a medieval map-like representation whose source may go back to first centuries AD), Tigranocerta is visually placed north of the Tigris and at the crossroads of three routes – from ad Tygrem to Tigranocerta, from Tigranocerta to Singara and from Tigranocerta to Artaxata.8 In turn, Ptolemy (AD 90–168) places Tigranocerta in his list of cities located east of the sources of the Tigris and in the territory of Bagrauanende, Gordy- ene, Kotaia and the Mardians (Ptolemy Geography 5. 13. 20).9 By contrast, both Eutropius’ Breviarium 6. 9. 1 (fl. in the second half of the 4th century AD) and the Armenian source known as the Epic Histories 4. 24 (probably the 5th century AD10) are more precise – Tigranocerta was the main city of the land of Arzanene (Ałjnik῾), the borders of which were clearly demarked, at least in the 6th century AD (see Procopius De aedificiis 2. 25. 15), by the Batman and Bohtan rivers, two northern tributaries of the Tigris.11 Several sites have been suggested for this ‘northern’ location of Tigranocerta (especially Siirt, Silvan and
3 For a recent detailed overview of literary references and archaeological identifications, see Marciak forthcoming. Other recent overviews offering a wide range of scholarly opinions include Chaumont 1982 and Plontke-Lüning 2001. See also Avdoyan 2006 and Hakobyan 2010. 4 Dillemann 1962, 39, fig. 3; Sinclair 1994–95, 189. 5 Dillemann 1962, 80–81; Pigulevskaja 1963, 49–59; Comfort 2009, 303–06. 6 Chaumont 1982, 92. 7 Sachau 1880; 1883, 403; Mommsen 1909, 68; Henderson 1901; Dillemann 1962, 247–72; Lasserre 1975, 176–77. 8 See Miller 1916, 745–47; Hewsen 2001, map 58. 9 Stückelberger and Graßhoff 2006, 554–55. 10 See Garsoïan 1989, 1–22; Traina 2010a, 417–19. 11 For Arzanene, see Baumgartner 1896a–b; Hübschmann 1904, 248–51, 305–06, 310–12; Markwart 1930, 82; Honigmann 1935, 5; Dillemann 1962, 48–49, 121–23, 253–54; Whitby 1983; Blockley 1984, 31–32; Wheeler 1991, 506; Syme 1995, 56. THE SITE OF ARZAN 307
Arzan), but in fact, until recently, Silvan (Martyropolis) was the prevailing choice of scholars opting for the ‘northern’ location.12 Furthermore, Armenian sources (except for the Epic Histories) could perhaps be tenta- tively classified as another group of sources, as their references to the city of Tigran (Tigranakert) differ strikingly from the two ‘classic’ positions mentioned above. Namely, Tigranocerta is identified with Roman Amida (modern Diyarbakır) by three Armenian sources: the History of the Armenians (dated variously from the 6th to the 9th century AD13) by Moses of Khoren (only an implicit identification – MX 3. 26–28); the History of Vardan and the Armenian War, attributed to Elisaeus (Ełišē, probably from the 6th century AD); and the Chronicle of Matthew of Edessa (12th century AD).14 Furthermore, two other Arme- nian sources, Sebēos (7th century AD) and Stephen of Tarōn (11th century AD), also speak of Tigranocerta in the context of the military campaigns of the Byzantine emperor Heraclius against the Sasanians in AD 622–628 in the Caucasus region.15 Especially intriguing is the phrase ‘the other Tigranocerta’ used by Sebēos (38. 125).16 While the identification of Amida as the site of ancient Tigranocerta has either been widely ignored or seen as the product of late local Armenian tradition,17 it has been a different matter with site(s) in the Caucasian region. In 2005, Armenian archaeologists began excavations near Shahbulagh in the Armenian historical region of Artsakh (currently the Martakert region/Tartar district; the site is located approximately at 40° 03’ 55.0” N, 46° 54’ 21.0” E), which have brought to light a massive Hellenistic foundation occupied from the 1st century BC to the 14th century AD.18 Given the 19th century local tradition, which preserved names such as Tngrnakert, Tarnakert, Taraniurt or Tarnagiurt for this vicinity, Hamlet Petrosyan, the main excavator, suggested that the newly unearthed struc- ture was founded by Tigranes II (Tigranes the Great). This discovery has in turn led Giusto Traina to attempt another historical reinterpretation of all other evidence concern- ing Tigranocerta.19 In short, in Traina’s view, more than one city was called Tigranocerta in ancient Armenia,20 and this fact may also have contributed to the confusion present in
12 von Moltke 1893, 302; Belck 1899, 263–75; Lehmann-Haupt 1908; 1910, 410–19, 498–515; 1936, 1002–05; Christensen 1944, 239; Carcopino 1950, 581, n. 3; Manandyan 1965, 62; Adontz- Garsoïan 1970, 376, nn. 5, 10; Magie 1950, 1214, n. 36; Hewsen 1984, 360; Biffi 2002, 165. 13 See Traina 2010a, 417–19. 14 Chaumont 1988–89, 237. 15 Thomson and Howard-Johnston 1999, xi–xxx; van Esbroech 1987; Chaumont 1982, 108–09; 1988–89, 237–38. 16 Thomson and Howard-Johnston 1999, 82. Sebēos 26 according to the sigla given by Macler 1904, 82. 17 See Chaumont 1982, 100: ‘Cette tradition fallacieuse, dont il est malaisé de déceler l’origine...’ 18 See Petrosyan 2010a; 2010b. 19 Traina 2001 (writing before the excavations in Artsakh); 2007; 2010c in particular. 20 Traina 2010c. However, this idea is not completely new. For instance, see Holmes 1923, 424: ‘May I tentatively suggest that just as one Nicopolis is represented by Niboli and another by Purkh, just as Tash Keupsi arose out of one Pompeiopolis and Mezetli out of another, so the Tigranocerta ...’ 308 M. MARCIAK ancient sources – ancient writers may occasionally have attributed some features of one Tigranocerta to another city bearing this name.21 Although the recently unearthed structure near Shahbulagh in Artsakh may have been founded by the king named Tigran(es),22 and G. Traina’s theory may appear to be enticing,23 there can be no doubt that there was only one site founded by the Tigranes the Great as the new capital of his recently expanded kingdom which became the scene of the famous battle between the Romans and the Armenians in 69 BC (see below). The history of research on this site has witnessed a very clear shift in recent decades.24 This change is due to Thomas Sinclair’s ground-breaking studies, which identified the ruins of Arzan as the site of Tigranes the Great’s new capital and found widespread acceptance.25 Sinclair’s identification of Arzan as Tigranocerta has, undoubtedly, some basis in ancient sources. The site of Arzan is particularly favoured by the evidence of Eutropius’ Breviarium 6. 9. 1 (second half of the 4th century AD) and the Armenian Epic Histories 4. 24 (5th cen- tury AD), which both locate Tigranocerta in the land of Arzanene (Ałjnik‘). Arzan, the main city of the province of Arzanene, is the most natural candidate for the site of Tigranocerta in Arzanene. Above all, the strongest point in Sinclair’s identification is that it is based on his fieldwork across much of south-eastern Turkey; he was the first European scholar ever to conduct a thorough investigation of the site of Arzan and its surroundings in the 20th century. It is necessary to mention that Sinclair was preceded by the British consul in
21 To give one more concrete example, it is tempting to think that the existence of Tigranocerta in the Caucasian region is echoed in a curious passage in Strabo 11. 14. 15 which puts Tigranocerta near Iberia (plesion tes Iberias). Likewise, tentatively, Chaumont 1982, 109, before Traina 2007, 225–26. 22 It should however be noted that no clear-cut evidence (inscriptions or coins) has been uncovered which would unambiguously point to Tigranes II as the city-founder. The only tangible connection with the royal name Tigran is the local Armenian nomenclature (Tngrnakert, Tarnakert, Taraniurt or Tarnagiurt), but this is attested to only in the 19th century AD. It is possible that it arose much later than in the 1st century BC, as was the case with Roman Amida. Alternatively, if one still holds on to the continuity of the Armenian local nomenclature, it is possible that the city was named after another Armenian king named Tigran (for example: Tigranes I [before 95 BC]; Tigranes II [95–55 BC]; Tigranes III [20–8/6 BC]; Tigranes IV [8–5 BC and 2 BC–AD 1]; Tigranes V [AD 6–14]). If the earliest unearthed coins (Parthian Mithradates III [58/57–54 BC] and Orodes II [58/57–38/37 BC]) are to be taken as the terminus ante quem of the city’s foundation and its naming, then the Armenian king Tigranes I also comes into play as the city’s founder. 23 The main problem of this hypothesis is chronology. It is only Sebēos, as late as in the 7th century AD, who probably had the knowledge of two cities bearing the name Tigranakert, and every source before him knew of only one Tigranocerta. A good example is Ptolemy, who offers a long list of cities in the Near East, and although he knew several cities with similar names (Tigranocerta in Great Armenia [Ptolemy 5. 13. 20], Tigranoama in Great Armenia [Ptolemy 5. 12. 10] and Tigrana in Media Atropatene [Ptolemy 6. 2. 9]), this knowledge did not lead Ptolemy to the confusion which is assumed by some scholars for other ancient writers. To the contrary, Ptolemy knew only one Tigranocerta and could distinguish between other sites with similar names. 24 For more recent overviews (giving a wide range of hypotheses), see Chaumont 1982; Plontke- Lüning 2001; Avdoyan 2006; Hakobyan 2010; Marciak 2014. Furthermore, Holmes 1917 and 1923 are still worthy of recommendation despite the passage of time. 25 Sinclair 1989; 1994–95; 1996–97. THE SITE OF ARZAN 309
Diyarbakır, J.G. Taylor, who visited the site in 1861.26 His investigation was not of such depth and expertise as that of Sinclair, but after his visit Taylor published a sketched plan of the site of Arzan which is still useful to us today, as a great deal of devastation has occurred to the site since the 19th century. The true novelty of Sinclair’s identification is that not only did he single out the ruins of Arzan and argue that these ruins may have been the remains of Tigranes II’s capital (as many others before him had argued in regards to similar sites), but he also tried to identify two other structures which are prominent in two of the most detailed ancient descriptions of Tigranocerta. The first of these is Plutarch’s report on the battle near Tigranocerta and his reference to a flat-topped hill from which Lucullus’ troops unexpectedly rushed down on the Armenian cavalry (Plutarch Lucullus 24–27); the second is Appian’s description of Tigranocerta’s suburbs, especially the mention of Tigranes’s limnai there (Appian Mithra- dates 84). Thus, Sinclair’s hypothesis in fact refers to three nearby sites which, taken together, provide a backdrop for his identification of Arzan as the site of Tigranocerta. They are as follows: the ruins of the city of Arzan, remains in the village known locally as Golamasya, and the nearby hill called Zercel Kale. It appears that most scholars who have agreed with Sinclair’s identification have not had the opportunity to follow in his footsteps by conducting a basic survey in Arzan and its vicinity. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to offer relevant data based on fieldwork in Arzan’s surroundings in the summer of 2014, as well as on satellite data. This task is all the more important considering the fact that agricultural activity in Arzan leads to further deg- radation of the site with every passing year. It is hoped that this new data will enable scholars to critically evaluate Sinclair’s identification.
Historical and Geographical Context The site of Arzan is located in the historical land of Arzanene, to which it gave its name.27 The borders of Arzanene are clearly marked by four natural features: the Batman river to the west, the Bohtan river to the east, the Tigris to the south and the Taurus Mountains to the north and east. However, the history of Arzanene is very elusive. We have never heard of any king of Arzanene in ancient sources; only Armenian chronicles speak of a local ruler (bdeašχ) of Arzanene (Ałjnik‘) in the 4th century AD, who, together with other local princes, was subjected to the authority of the Armenian king but revolted against him (probably under Persian inspiration) ca. AD 335.28 Generally speaking, it appears that in the Hel- lenistic and Parthian periods Arzanene had mostly been subsumed by its neighbours, espe- cially Armenia, Sophene and Gordyene, and from the 3rd century on it became a contested border area between Rome and the Sasanians (Fig. 1).29
26 Taylor 1865, 26–28. 27 See Hübschmann 1904, 248–51, 305–06, 310–12; Hewsen 1985, 75–78; Garsoïan 1989, 437–38. 28 Garsoïan 1989, 365–66, 437–38; Lightfoot 2005, 496. 29 Baumgartner 1896a, 1498; 1896b, 1498; Dillemann 1962, 121–23. For Arzanene in the late 6th century, see Whitby 1983. 310 M. MARCIAK
Geographically speaking, the area under examination is located north of the Tigris and at the foot of the Taurus Mountains. The site of Arzan and the village of Golamasya stretch along the eastern bank of the Garzan river, one of Tigris’s northern tributaries, which arises in the Taurus. Zercel Kale is in turn a strikingly flat-topped hill on the western side of the Garzan and opposite Golamasya (Fig. 2). When it comes to land relief in this area, both banks of the Garzan differ considerably.30 The eastern bank of the Garzan is a flat shelf three or more kilometres in width and is backed by low hills. As a result, the site of Arzan is founded on an almost flat terrace over- looking the river. The western bank is in turn dominated by a hill massif. Between the massif and the river is a flat strip extending along the river, but it is much narrower than the shelf on the eastern side as the massif projects almost to the riverside. Opposite Arzan, the distance between the river edge and the slopes is usually a few hundred metres, or in some cases even as little as 300 m (as the crow flies); the distance between the first slopes marking the Zercel Kale hill and the river’s edge is less than 500 m (as the crow flies) (Fig. 3)
The Site of Arzan The site of the city is located approximately at 37º 58’ 26” N, 41º 23’ 05” E. On my visit to the site on 12 July 2014, it was largely covered by agriculture fields growing mainly corn as well as some grain.31 The satellite image shows a roughly triangular shape which conforms well to Taylor’s sketch from 1861 (Figs. 4–5). The circuit of the city walls can largely be made out on the satellite image. It is traceable as overgrown banks partly dotted with stone remains. The site is aligned north-east to south-west. The southern corner of the site is traversed by the railway, while the modern road cuts the site into two uneven parts: the right one matching the form of a rectangle, and the left one forming a roughly triangular promontory facing the river. Concerning the measurements of the rectangular form, the length of the eastern side is approximately 1.42 km, the western one 0.74 km and the northern one 0.71 km. In turn, the left and right legs of the promontory measure approximately 0.99 km and 1.37 km respectively, while the length of its base is approximately 1.48 km. The Google Earth satellite image shows three more recognisable features of the structure. The first (see Fig. 4, ‘Taylor’s bastion’) is located in the south-western part of the wall where the road now meets the line of the walls. This feature was identified by Taylor as ‘a large fortified bastion’,32 or a structure consisting entirely of masonry, but Sinclair considers it only as ‘a tall, impressive mound…fortified with masonry’.33 The second feature (see Fig. 4, ‘remains of an internal layout’) is located in the middle of the fortress and apparently accounts for one of the features which once formed an internal layout which could still be seen in Taylor’s time, but ceased to be apparent before the time of Sinclair’s inspection (due
30 Likewise Sinclair 1989, 199–200. 31 The season was at its peak, which partly disabled me from walking freely through the fields. 32 Taylor 1865, 27. 33 Sinclair 1994–95, 201. THE SITE OF ARZAN 311 to ploughing and agricultural activity). The third and by far most the visible feature (see Fig. 4, ‘semi-circular structure’) of the site of Arzan today is a semi-circular line of block remains located in the north-western part of the site overlooking the river. On its two ends are still noticeable parts of the wall. They consist of large blocks assembled without mortar. The distance between the two ends measures 85.4 m (as the crow flies). This structure has rightly been identified as the remains of an ancient theatre (Figs. 6–8).34
Golamasya Another important place in Sinclair’s reconstruction is the village known locally as Golamasya,35 but officially as Yeşilyurt, which falls under the administration of the Oyuktaş village.36 This site is located about 15 km north-east of Arzan at approximately 38° 04’ 10” N, 41° 29’ 51” E. This site features several objects of archaeological interest including a pool and the ruins of a mosque, a mill, a church and an old building (Fig. 9).37 The pool is lined with flagstones and small fish are kept inside. According to the locals, it has therapeutic properties, especially against rheumatism. In 1981, Sinclair reported that its water came from a sulphurous spring in the nearby hill. Remarkably, the local residents date the pool either to the immemorial past or even the 1st century BC. In the latter case, such precise dating is surprising and suspicious. It appears to be the result of interaction between the locals and scholars who visit the village on rare occasions.38 In other words, the date comes from the scholars passing their knowledge to the residents rather than from genuine local tradition. It is impossible to precisely determine the pool’s date of origin without an archaeological survey (Figs. 10–11). Opposite the pool, on the other side of the road, is a pile of rubble described by the locals as mosque remains. Preserved architectural details are elaborate and indicative of a public building. Therefore, the local identification can be seen as most likely correct (Fig. 12). Another, better preserved, building is described by the locals as an old mill. Although the building does not appear to be a modern foundation, the locals do not ascribe any historical significance to it (Fig. 13). In the centre of the village are the remains of an old building which were partly used as the foundation for a modern construction (Fig. 14).
34 Traina 2010b, 103. 35 The village owes its local name to the existence of a fish pool. Masi means ‘fish’ in Turkish, gol appears to be related to Turkish göl, meaning ‘lake’ (see Sinclair 1994–95, 205, n. 33). 36 Comfort 2009, 375, n. 592. 37 It is unclear if Sinclair himself visited Golamasya (he certainly did not see the pool, as he admit- ted), and his sketch of Golamasya, as well as his pictures, may have been made from a distance, likely from Zercel Kale. Sinclair (1989, 299–300) reports the existence of ‘traces of old settlement’s walls’, probably ‘retaining walls’. Moreover, according to Sinclair (1989, 299–300), to the right of the village were ‘the remains of (probably) medieval buildings’. By contrast, Sinclair later wrote about ‘some scattered and uninterpretable ruins’ at Golamasya (see Sinclair 1994–95, 205). 38 The last international visit to the village before mine is said by the locals to have taken place in 2010. 312 M. MARCIAK
Two other small mounds of earth and stone were described by the locals as church remains.39 The whole area between the village and the church remains is rich in surface shards of pottery. Some pieces may represent Hellenistic red ware and Sasanian green-glazed ceramic (Figs. 15–17)
Zercel Kale Zercel Kale is located approximately at 38° 04’ 40.1” N, 41° 29’ 06.0” E. The hill is smooth-sided and flat-topped, and on its edge are the remains of the walls of a fortress. According to Sinclair, the surviving remains are of a Kurdish castle and can be dated approx- imately to the 16th century AD.40 In turn, Comfort believed that the hill may have first been fortified by the Romans around AD 335 after the suppression of the pro-Persian revolt of Bakur, a local ruler.41 There are, however, no material remains on the ground to support this suggestion. It is likely that the ford on the Garzan was indeed located between Zercel Kale and Golamasya. In Sinclair’s time it was possible to ford the river, as the water came to one’s knees and the current was not strong.42 The existence of a ford in this place may also explain the foundation of Zercel Kale with the aim to guard movements across the river. In addi- tion, Comfort reports the existence of trace remains of a possibly late Roman bridge on the Garzan in the vicinity of Zercel Kale and Golamasya (Fig. 18).43
Historical Interpretation One of most crucial elements of Sinclair’s hypothesis is his interpretation of Plutarch’s report on the battle at Tigranocerta between the Roman legions under Lucullus and the Armenian forces of Tigranes the Great in 69 BC. Plutarch’s text gives several topographical details concerning the location of the siege and the battlefield in reference to the city:44 when Tigranes crossed the Taurus, he could easily see the Roman army besieging Tigranocerta (Lucullus 27. 1); the Roman camp stood on a great plain along the river (Lucullus 27. 3); the Armenian army took its position to the east of the river (Lucullus 27. 4); contact between the two armies began at the point where the river bent westwards and was easily fordable, and Lucullus led his troops in this direction which, to Tigranes, looked like a retreat — however, it was just the beginning of Lucullus’ manoeuvres, with the aim of crossing the river (Lucullus 27. 4); the Armenian army was divided into three groups forming the middle, the left and the right wing, and the Armenian cataphracts were stationed in front of the right wing and at the foot of a hill which ‘was crowned with a broad and level space’ (Lucullus 27. 6); Lucullus sent the Roman cavalry against the Armenian
39 The location of the church remains is approximate, as I was shown this structure only from a distance. 40 Sinclair 1989, 300. 41 Comfort 2009, 315. 42 Sinclair 1994–95, 199–200. 43 Comfort 2009, 124. 44 The 1914 edition of B. Perrin is used here (Cambridge, MA/London). THE SITE OF ARZAN 313 cataphracts, and when his infantry rushed up the hill the approach was only about four stadia, neither rough nor steep (Lucullus 28. 2–3); Lucullus’ attack from the hill led to complete chaos among the Armenian ranks and consequently to their defeat (Lucullus 28. 4). Sinclair’s identification, as he himself has admitted, encounters a few difficulties in attempting to match Plutarch’s account to the local topography. The main problem is that the positions of the Romans and the Armenians are reversed: in Plutarch’s account, the Armenian forces and the hill were located on the eastern side of the river; in Sinclair’s hypothesis they were on the western side, with the city and the Romans on the eastern side. Furthermore, the position of the Armenian cataphracts was in front of the right flank in Plutarch’s account, but in front of the left flank according to Sinclair. Our task here is to check if, and to what extent, Sinclair’s corrected version indeed fits the local topography and military strategy. In this regard, at least two questions arise (Fig. 19). First, we do not know exactly where Tigranes came from to face Lucullus at Tigranocerta. We are only told that he crossed the Taurus. This implies that he approached Arzan from the north, either from the north-west or north-east (see Fig. 3). However, nothing is known of a major mountain pass suitable for a large army north-west of the Arzan area. In fact, the Sasun Mountains to the north-west are considered to be particularly difficult terrain. There- fore, the main candidate for a mountain pass which could have been used by Tigranes’s forces to cross the Taurus is the famous Bitlis Pass. This option would also be of a strategic advantage to Tigranes as the Bitlis Pass directly connected the Upper Tigris area with the heartland of Armenia. The route from Bitlis to Golamasya and Arzan passes through the modern villages of Karınca, Narıldere, Baykan, Ziyaret and Yanarsu, and never crosses the Bitlis or Garzan rivers. This option raises another difficulty for Sinclair’s reconstruction: why did Tigranes find himself on the western bank of the river and not on the eastern? After all, the eastern side of the river must have been his destination, as the city and the besiegers were there. In addition, it offered an open plain, which was a great deal more suitable for Armenian tactics, which heavily depended on the use of cavalry. If we assume that Tigranes approached Arzan from the direction of the Bitlis Pass (see Fig. 2), he would not have had to cross the Garzan at all, but could have directly proceeded to the walls of Arzan to face the Romans on much more suitable terrain. These circumstances cast doubt on Sinclair’s interpretation, but, after all, this argument is based on speculation regarding the unknown point of departure for Tigranes’s troops to assist Tigranocerta’s defenders. Furthermore, history provides a few examples of battles in which troops outnumbering their enemies and highly dependent on the use of cavalry were forced into battle in an environment which was not suitable for them (see Alexander’s battle of the Granicus and at Issus). If this happened as such, then it was Lucullus’ tactical stroke of genius (and Tigranes’s tactical mistake) to attack the Armenians before Tigranes could unfold his numerous troops on a wide plain. Thus, Lucullus forced Tigranes into battle in an environment which became a trap for the numerous Armenian cavalry. But if this was the case, Tigranes’s inability to foresee simple military developments is stunning. The second question examines how a march up the Garzan river could have been per- ceived as a retreat. Had any retreat westwards from the walls of Tigranocerta not led down- stream the Garzan? In this particular case, Lehmann-Haupt’s reconstruction of the move- ments of forces at Martyropolis (Lehmann-Haupt’s Tigranocerta) can be quoted as a good example (Fig. 20). 314 M. MARCIAK
If the ford at Zercel Kale was blocked by the Armenians, the most natural way out for Lucullus would have been to reach the ford (bridge) near modern İkıköprü.45 Therefore, he would have retreated downstream. Yet, perhaps the literary context of Plutarch’s description of Tigranes’s reactions is to be taken into account. If the purpose was just to show Tigranes’s superficiality of judgment and emotional liability (the latter was also stressed in Plutarch’s other descriptions of Tigranes), one does not need to be very concerned as to whether there was a real tactical reason for Tigranes’s surprise, especially as his companions did not have the same false impression. Another capstone of Sinclair’s identification is the existence of a stone-paved pool at Golamasya. According to Sinclair, the term limnai, used by Appian, may denote not only lakes, but also pools, and one such pool can be found at Golamasya. This would in turn match Appian’s narrative, unlike any other location suggested so far by other scholars. The existence of a pool in today’s rural context is indeed intriguing. The fact that a mosque was built in its vicinity speaks against its strictly agricultural function, which would have been for the purposes of the mill, or to water cattle. According to Sinclair, it may have once been a Zoroastrian holy place, and the fish from the pool may have been used in a religious context, as in the Zoroastrian New Year when fish are eaten.46 Indeed, water had a sacred status in Indo-Iranian traditions. Its nature was conceived as diverse (from raindrops to the great ocean, from wells to streams); so were the waters which were invoked as goddesses – the Āpas – and could be identified with a number of female deities,47 but were increasingly identified with the river goddess Anahita in the Parthian and Sasanian periods.48 As a result, many royal sites were equipped with sacred ‘water spaces’, for instance, the palace complex of Cyrus the Great in Pasargadae included gardens with pools and streams,49 and Ardashir’s palace at Firuzabad also featured a sacred pool with fish.50 There is no need to look too far for a close parallel – the nearby city of Edessa was famous for its sacred pools with fish, some of which can still be seen today.51 Moreover, the existence of extensive ruins at Golamasya clearly indicates that this place used to be a significant settlement in the past. This is also suggested by Taylor’s short reference in 1861, where he reported about the ‘remains of another large town’ at Golamasya.52 All in all, the site of Arzan and its vicinity has several unique features (a flat-topped hill, theatre remains, a pool and the remains of what were probably cultic spaces), which cannot be said of other identifications (especially Silvan or Tell Ermen). Therefore, in the current state of the research, the site of Arzan is the most likely candidate for the site of Tigranes II’s new capital. At the same time, several challenges remain for the future fieldwork even before the actual excavations. Suggesting a more suitable candidate for Appian’s fortress (for exam- ple, the nearby sites of Yanarsu or Hazo could be inspected) and examining a network of
45 For the possibility that there was once a late Roman bridge there, see Comfort 2009, 71. 46 Likewise, Sinclair 1994–95, 205. 47 Boyce 1975, 71–76, 147–91; 1982, 27. 48 Boyce 1975, 71; Boyce, Chaumont and Bier 2011. 49 Boyce 1982, 50–51. 50 Huff 1999, 633–36. 51 Ross 2001, 14, 89–90, 102, 109. 52 Taylor 1865, 27–28. THE SITE OF ARZAN 315 river crossings and routes in Golamasya’s vicinity (following A. Comfort’s preliminary research in the area) will be particularly challenging.
Conclusions The current state of preservation of the site of Arzan is alarming. With every decade, a great deal of its structure vanishes due to ploughing and other agricultural activities. Proper archaeological excavations are an urgent desideratum. Likewise, the settlement at Golamasya is definitely ripe for an archaeological excavation.53 The presence of extensive ruins at Gola- masya indicates that this place was a significant settlement in the past. However, its date and character can only be affirmed through proper archaeological excavation.
Bibliography
Adontz, N. and Garsoïan, N.G. 1970: Armenia in the Period of Justinian: The Political Conditions Based on the ‘Naxarar’ System (Lisbon). Avdoyan, L. 2006: ‘Tigranocerta: The City “Built by Tigranes”’. In Hovannisian, R.G. (ed.), Arme- nian Tigranakert/Diarbekir and Edessa/Urfa (Costa Mesa), 81–95. Baumgartner, A. 1896a: ‘Arzanene’. RE 2.2, 1498. —. 1896b: ‘Arzen’. RE 2.2, 1498. Belck, W. 1899: ‘Aus den Berichten über die armenische Expedition’. Zeitschrift für Ethnologie 31, 236–80. Biffi, N. 2002: Il Medio Oriente di Strabone. Libro XVI della Geografia. Introduzione, traduzione e comment (Bari). Blockley, B.C. 1984: ‘The Romano-Persian Peace Treaties of AD 299 and 363’. Florilegium 6, 28–49. Boyce, M. 1975: A History of Zoroastrianism, 1: The Early Period (Leiden). —. 1982: A History of Zoroastrianism, 2: Under the Achaemenians (Leiden). Boyce, M., Chaumont, M.L. and Bier, C. 2011: ‘Anāhīd’. EncIran 1, 1003–11. Carcopino, J. 1950: La république romaine de 133 à 44 avant J.-C., p. 2: César (Paris). Chaumont, M.-L. 1982: ‘Tigranocerte: données du problème et état des recherches’. Revue des Études Arméniennes 16, 89–110. —. 1988–89: ‘Quelques notes concernant Tigranocerte’. Revue des Études Arméniennes 21, 233–49. Christensen, A. 1944: L’Iran sous les Sassanides (Copenhagen). Comfort, A.M. 2009: Roads on the frontier between Rome and Persia: Euphratesia, Osrhoene and Meso- potamia from AD 363 to 602 (Exeter). —. 2014: ‘Roman Bridges of south-east Anatolia’. In Bru, H. and Labarre, G. (eds.), L’Anatolie des peuples, des cités et des cultures (IIe millénaire av. J.-C.–Ve siècle ap. J.-C.), vol. 2 (Besançon), 315–42. Dillemann, L. 1962: Haute Mésopotamie orientale et pays adjacents. Contribution à la géographie histo- rique de la région du Ve siècle avant l’ère chrétienne au VIe siècle de cette ère (Paris). Eckhardt, K. 1909: ‘Die armenischen Feldzüge des Lukullus’. Klio 9, 400–12. —. 1910: ‘Die armenischen Feldzüge des Lukullus. II. Abschnitt. Das Kriegsjahr 69’. Klio 10, 72–115. Garsoïan, N.G. 1989: The Epic Histories Attributed to P‛awstos Buzand ‘Buzandaran Patmut‛iwnk‛’ (Cambridge, MA).
53 As I was told, this would also be welcomed by the local population as a source of employment. 316 M. MARCIAK
—. 1997: ‘The Emergence of Armenia’. In Hovannisian, R. (ed.), The Armenian People From Ancient to Modern Times, vol. 1: The Dynastic Periods. From Antiquity to the Fourteenth Century (London/ New York), 37–62. Geller, M. and Traina, G. 2013: ‘„Tigranu, the Crown Prince of Armenia“: Evidence from the Baby- lonian Astronomical Diaries’. Klio 95, 447–54. Hakobyan, H. 2010: ‘L’Arménie d’une mer à l’autre’. In Donabédian, P. and Mutafian, C. (eds.), Les douze capitales d’Arménie (Exhibition Catalogue) (Paris), 97–104. Henderson, B.W. 1901: ‘Controversies in Armenian Topography. I: The Site of Tigranocerta’. Journal of Philology 28, 99–121. Hewsen, R.H. 1984: ‘Introduction to Armenian Historical Geography III: The Boundaries of Oron- tid Armenia’. Revue des Études Arméniennes 18, 347–66. —. 1985: ‘Introduction to Armenian Historical Geography IV: The Boundaries of Artaxiad Armenia’. Revue des Études Arméniennes 19, 55–84. —. 2001: Armenia: A Historical Atlas (London/Chicago). Holmes, T.R. 1917: ‘Tigranocerta’. JRS 7, 120–38. —. 1923: The Roman Republic and the Founder of the Empire (Oxford). Honigmann, E. 1935: Die Ostgrenze des byzantinischen Reiches: von 363 bis 1071 nach griechischen, arabischen, syrischen und armenischen Quellen (Brussels). Hübschmann, H. 1904: Die altarmenischen Ortsnamen (Strassburg). Huff, D. 1999: ‘Fīrūzābād’. EncIran 9, 633–36. Lehmann-Haupt, C.F. 1908: ‘Eine griechische Inschrift aus der Spätzeit Tigranokerta’s’. Klio 8, 497–520. —. 1910: Armenien einst und jetzt: Reisen und Forschungen, 1: Kaukasus zum Tigris und nach Tigra- nokerta (Berlin). —. 1936: ‘Tigranokerta’. RE 6.1, 981–1007. Lightfoot, C.S. 2005: ‘Armenia and the Eastern Marches’. CAH 122, 481–97. Macler, F. 1904: Histoire d’Héraclius par l’évèque Sebêos (Paris). Magie, D. 1950: Roman Rule in Asia Minor to the End of the Third Century after Christ (Princeton). Manandian, H.A. 1965: The Trade and Cities of Armenia in Relation to Ancient World Trade (Lisbon). —. 2007: Tigranes II and Rome: A New Interpretation based on Primary Sources (Costa Mesa). Marciak, M. 2014: ‘The Site of Kızıltepe (Tell Ermen) and Arzan: Preliminary Remarks on the Identification of Ancient Tigranokerta’. Rivista di Topografia Antica 24, 7–23. —. forthcoming: ‘The Site of Tigranokerta: Status Quaestionis’. Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae. Markwart, J. 1930: Südarmenien und die Tigrisquellen nach griechischen und arabischen Geographen, Studien zur armenischen Geschichte (Vienna). Miller, K. 1916: Itineraria Romana: römische Reisewege an der Hand der Tabula Peutingeriana (Stuttgart). Moltke, H. von, 1893: Briefe über Zustände und Begebenheiten in der Türkei aus den Jahren 1835 bis 1839 (Berlin). Mommsen, T. 1909: Römische Geschichte (Berlin). Olbrycht, M.J. 2009: ‘Mithridates VI Eupator and Iran’. In Højte, J.M. (ed.), Mithridates VI and the Pontic Kingdom (Aarhus), 163–90. —. 2011: ‘Subjects and Allies: the Black Sea Empire of Mithradates VI Eupator (120–63 BC) Recon- sidered’. In Papuci-Władyka, E., Vickers, M., Bodzek, J. and Braund, D. (eds.), Pontika 2008: Recent Research on the Northern and Eastern Black Sea in Ancient Times (Oxford), 271–81. —. 2013: Imperium Parthicum. Kryzys i odbudowa państwa Arsakidów w pierwszej połowie pierwszego wieku po Chrystusie (Cracow). Petrosyan, H. 2010a: ‘La Tigranakert d’Artsakh’. In Donabédian, P. and Mutafian, C. (eds.), Les douze capitales d’Arménie (Exhibition Catalogue) (Paris), 105–09. THE SITE OF ARZAN 317
—. 2010b: ‘Tigranakert in Artsakh. Archeological Expedition of Artsakh’. In Petrosyan, H. (ed.) Tigranes the Great. Image of Tigranes the Great in Armenian and World Literature and Art (Yerevan), 380–87. Pigulevskaja, N. 1963: Les villes de l’Etat Iranien aux époques Parthe et Sassanide (Paris) Plontke-Lüning, A. 2001: ‘Tigranokerta’. Der Neue Pauly 11
Uniwersytet Rzeszowski Instytut Historii Al. Rejtana 16c 35-959 Rzeszów Poland [email protected] 318 M. MARCIAK
Fig. 1: The ancient Near East in the Roman-Parthian period (after Olbrycht 2013).
Fig. 2: The Upper Tigris Basin (after Comfort 2009, 218, with minor changes; see also Comfort 2014, 322). THE SITE OF ARZAN 319
Fig. 3: Land relief in Arzanene (Google terrain map; retrieved 11 September, 2015).
Fig. 4: Google Earth Pro satellite image of the site of Arzan (retrieved 11 September, 2015).
Fig. 5: Taylor’s sketch (after Taylor 1865, 26) 320 M. MARCIAK
Fig. 6: Google Earth Pro satellite image of a semi-circular structure (retrieved 11 September, 2015).
Fig. 7: Masonry of the eastern corner of a semi-circular structure.
Fig. 8: Masonry of the western corner of a semi-circular structure. THE SITE OF ARZAN 321
Fig. 9: Google Earth Pro satellite image of Golamasya (retrieved 11 September, 2015).
Fig. 10: Pool in Golamasya.
Fig. 11: Stone Pavement in the pool. 322 M. MARCIAK
Fig. 12: Architectural details of the mosque remains in Golamasya.
Fig. 13: Mill in Golamasya.
Fig. 14: Remains of an older structure THE SITE OF ARZAN 323
Fig. 15: Church remains in Golamasya.
Fig. 16: Pottery sherds from Golamasya.
Fig. 17: Pottery sherds from Golamasya. 324 M. MARCIAK
Fig. 18: Zercel Kale as seen from Golamasya.
Fig. 19: Sinclair’s reconstruction of the battle near Tigranocerta (after Sinclair 1994-95, 210, fig. 2, with minor changes).
Fig. 20: Lehmann-Haupt’s reconstruction of the battle near Tigranocerta (after Eckhardt 1910, 102).