Masaryk University Faculty of Arts

Department of Archaeology and Museology

Master´s Diploma Thesis

2015 Martin Malata

Masaryk University Faculty of Arts

Department of Archaeology and Museology

Prehistoric Archaeology of the Near East

Martin Malata

Materiality of Urartian Stone Inscriptions and its Implications Master´s Diploma Thesis

Supervisor: doc. PhDr. Jarmila Bednaříková, CSc.

2015

DECLARATION

I declare that I have worked on this thesis independently, using only the primary and secondary sources listed in the bibliography. I agree with storing this work in the library of the Prehistoric Archaeology of the Near East at the Masaryk University in Brno and making it accessible for study purposes.

Brno, 9th July 2015

...... Signature

Abstract

Title: Materiality of Urartian Stone Inscriptions and its Implications Author: Martin Malata Department/Institute: Masaryk University, Faculty of Arts, Institute of Archaeology and Museology, Department of Prehistoric Archaeology of the Near East Supervisor of the diploma thesis: doc. PhDr. Jarmila Bednaříková, CSc.

Abstract: The thesis deals with Urartian cuneiform inscriptions in stone from the viewpoint of the theory of materiality, that is, as tools for proliferation of ideas and for social discourse, mainly from the ruler´s perspective. In the first part, an explanation is given on how the inscriptions were treated due to their nature as a literary source. Then, theory of materiality is summarized and the concept of acral kingship is introduced briefly. In the second part, the aspects of the inscriptions are assessed: patterns of repeating, presence of formulaic expressions (curse formula, „King of Biainili, ruler of Ṭušpa city“ formula), potential deliberate damage to the inscriptions, the size of the cuneiform signs, and spatial distribution as well as temporal development of particular observed trends.

Key words: , inscription, cuneiform, materiality, sacral kingship, copies, curse, formula, stelae, niches, susi, gates of Ḫaldi, granaries

Anotace

Názov: Materialita urartejských kamenných nápisov a jej implikácie Autor: Martin Malata Katedra/Ústav: Masarykova Univerzita, Filozofická fakulta, Ústav archaologie a muzeologie, Pravěká archeologie Předního Východu Vedoucí magisterské diplomové práce: doc. PhDr. Jarmila Bednaříková, CSc.

Abstrakt: Práca sa zaoberá urartejskými klinovými nápismi v kameni z pohľadu teórie materiality, teda ako prostriedkov šírenia ideí a spoločenského diskurzu, predovšetkým zo stránky panovníka. V prvej časti je vysvetlené, ako bolo s nápismi narábané vzhľadom k ich povahe písomného prameňa. Ďalej je zhrnutá teória materiality a stručne predstavený koncept sakrálneho kráľovstva. V druhej časti práce sú vyhodnotené jednotlivé aspekty nápisov: ich opakovanie, prítomnosť formulaických vyjadrení (formulka kliatby, formulka „kráľ Biainili, vládca Ṭušpy mesta“), možné úmyselné poškodenie nápisov, veľkosť klinov, a priestorové rozmiestnenie a časový vývoj jednotlivých sledovaných trendov.

Klíčová slova: Urartu, nápis, klinopis, materialita, sakrálne kráľovstvo, kópie, kliatba, formulka, stély, niky, susi, Chaldiho brány, sýpky

Acknowledgments

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisor, doc. PhDr. Jarmila Bednaříková, CSc., and my consultants, dr. Alessandra Gilibert-Hnila, Mgr. Miqayel Badalyan and dr. Roberto Dan, for their encouragement, guidance and help throughout the creation of this thesis. I would also like to thank Mgr. Inna Mateiciucová, PhD. and dr. Phil. Maximilian Wilding for their support and that they enabled me to pursue my interests. I would also like to thank to my family and friends for their unyielding support and patience.

Contents

Introduction...... 1 1 An Overview of Urartian History...... 5 1.1 Geography and economy of Urartu...... 5 1.2 Political history of Urartu...... 7 2 Discovery of Urartian inscriptions...... 14 3 Linguistic Aspects of the Inscriptions...... 18 3.1 Analysing the text and its internal structure...... 18 3.2 Access to the inscriptions...... 20 3.3 Language of the inscriptions...... 21 3.4 Corpora of the inscriptions...... 22 3.5 Current conditions of the inscriptions...... 23 4 Aims and methodology of the present work...... 24 4.1 General aim of the thesis...... 24 4.2 Texts as a tool of social discourse and materiality of the text...... 25 4.3 Nature of the inscriptions and research questions...... 28 4.4 Sacral kingship...... 31 5 Multiple iterations of the text of the stone inscriptions...... 33 5.1 Occurrence of the phenomenon...... 33 5.2 Use of text copies Sarduri I. to Minua...... 36 5.3 Use of text copies Argišti I. to Rusa son of Erimena...... 39 5.4 Column inscriptions...... 40 5.5 Employment of the copies in general...... 41 5.6 Conclusion...... 42 6 Use of a curse formula in the stone inscriptions...... 44 6.1 Occurrence of the formula...... 44 6.2 Implementation of curse formula during the reign of specific rulers...... 46 6.2.1 Išpuini and Minua...... 46 6.2.2 Minua...... 46 6.2.3 Argišti I...... 48 6.2.4 Sarduri II...... 48 6.2.5 Later rulers...... 48 6.3 Conclusion...... 49 7 The appearance of the names Ṭušpa and Biainili in a formula...... 50 7.1 Occurrence of the formula...... 50 7.2 Conclusion...... 51 8 Deliberate damage to the stone inscriptions...... 53 9 Unique inscriptions...... 56 10 Size of the cuneiform signs...... 57 11 Spatial distribution of the inscriptions...... 58 11.1 General remarks...... 58 11.2 Inscriptions on susi temples...... 58 11.3 Inscriptions on buildings of economical function...... 61 11.4 Dedicatory stelae...... 64 11.5 Niches of religious nature...... 65 11.6 Sacred gates……………………………………………………………………………..67 11.7 Urartian place names and military logistics according to inscriptions………………….69 12 Temporal distribution of the inscriptions…………………………………………………73 12.1 Changes in use of the inscriptions over time……………………………………………73 12.1.1 Sarduri I……………………………………………………………………………….73 12.1.2 Išpuini and his coregency with Minua………………………………………………...73 12.1.3 Minua………………………………………………………………………………….74 12.1.4 Argišti I………………………………………………………………………………..75 12.1.5 Sarduri II………………………………………………………………………………76 12.1.6 Later monarchs………………………………………………………………………..76 12.2 Temporal distribution within specific sites……………………………………………..77 12.2.1 Ṭušpa………………………………………………………………………………….77 12.2.2 Other sites……………………………………………………………………………..79 13 Urartu as a sacral kingdom………………………………………………………………..81 Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………...... 83 References and sources……………………………………………………………………….91 List of figures and tables……………………………………………………………………...98 List of figures…………………………………………………………………………………98 List of tables…………………………………………………………………………………100 Maps…………………………………………………………………………………………102 List of Urartian stone inscriptions…………………………………………………………...117 Inscriptions of Sarduri I……………………………………………………………………..117 Inscriptions of Išpuini……………………………………………………………………….118 Inscriptions of Išpuini and Minua...... 121 Inscription of Išpuini, Minua and Inušpua...... 124 Inscriptions of Minua...... 125 Inscriptions of Argišti I...... 155 Inscriptions of Sarduri II...... 168 Inscriptions of Rusa son of Sarduri...... 180 Inscriptions of Argišti II...... 182 Inscriptions of Rusa son of Argišti...... 185 Inscriptions of Rusa son of Erimena...... 188

Introduction

The Iron Age of the ancient Near East was a long period of time; even if we take into account only pre-hellenistic periods, it span nearly a millennium. During this time, the civilization previously present there was severely restructured, adapting to the new conditions after the so-called sea nations´ invasions and general disintegration of earlier system of regional empires (van de Mieroop 2010, 203-204). After consolidation, new empires emerged in the place of earlier ones. The most substantial pre-classical empire was the Assyrian empire, whose existence fundamentally shaped the entire area. In its greatest extent, it controlled lands from Egypt to Persia and from Taurus mountains to the water of the Persian Gulf. In order to hold such a vast empire together, strong military force was complemented by Assyrian monarchs stressing the importance of their military achievements by mentioning them both in written word and art. Most famous and epic examples come from the numerous of Assyrian rulers (Winter 1993, 36). Assyria, however, was not the only empire of its time. To the north-east of their heartland, surrounded by hardly-passable mountains, amidst deep valleys and mountain steppes, lied kingdom, which Assyrians called Urartu. This name is all that remained of it to the knowledge of classical and medieval world, as it was written in the Bible and read as Ararat, the name of the biblical mountain, upon which Noah has supposedly landed after the Deluge. This mountain, in return, became identified with mt. Masis/Ağrı Dağı, which, in fact, does not lie far from the heartland of Urartu (Kroll et al. 2012, 1). Because Assyrian as well as Urartian rulers employed writing, we are somewhat informed about the history of the latter kingdom. It lasted approximately two hundred years, and of this time mainly its ups are known; the rulers generally found little prestige and use in remembering their defeats of catastrophes. From the Assyrian sources, though, we are aware that Cimmerians and possibly later Scythians could have played significant role in the demise of Urartu. Though we are missing any direct evidence of involvement of any specific ethnical group in the events that led to the fall of Urartu, we know that many of its fortresses were terminated violently (cf. van de Mieroop 2010, 214 and Sagona, Zimansky 2009, 331) Urartu is very interesting when contrasted with Assyria because its rulers´ attitude towards using inscriptions and visualization differed significantly from that of Assyrian rulers. The writing was much more closely tied with the monarchic dynasty and employed

1

mainly by kings. The most prevalent form of their inscriptions are rock-incised inscriptions, written on the cliffs of mountains, building blocks found in their citadels, or free-standing stelae. Apart from these, the writing was also used on certain bronze artifacts, found usually in sacral context, on clay tablets, though these come so far only from the time of Rusa son of Argišti´s rule, and on storage vessels, indicating their capacity. As a sidenote, we can mention a yet undeciphered hieroglyphic script, also found in Urartian context (for more on this topic, cf. Sagona, Zimansky 2009, 339 or Zimansky 2006, 263-264). The Urartian stone inscriptions themselves differ significantly from Assyrian royal propaganda in obvious manner: while in Assyria, it was primarily visual art, that was directed towards public, and writing, though it could have been included, did not play decisive role for the understanding of the image (Winter 1993, 35), in Urartu inscriptions are not usually connected to any visual representation of their content. The inscriptions written into the mountainside cliffs as well as at least some stelae were situated in an open space, in which they could have been read by a larger audience. Reading a text is obviously very natural way of handling it; however, there were no earlier inscriptions nor any older tradition of writing present in the lands that were ruled by Urartian monarchs, suggesting very poor literacy rate (Sagona, Zimansky 2009, 340). One of the questions that arises from the state of our knowledge about Urartu is: how then were the inscriptions, particularly those set in stone, and thus immobile, used to further the goals of the royal dynasty? This is the core question I tried to analyse and answer as fully as possible in this thesis. I believe that, from theoretical standpoint, this question is embedded by its nature in the study of materiality, and that the inscriptions should be for the purpose of this question treated as a part of material culture more than a historical source. The concept of materiality is centered primarily on these artifacts as parts of society and suggests that the artifacts themselves could have contributed to the creation and functioning of the society that made and used them. Firstly, I present a short history of Urartu concentrated mainly on the doings of Urartian kings in relation to the inscriptions they issued. Then an overview of the research on the Urartian stone inscriptions is given, from their earlier findings in the 19th century up to their recent use in archaeological literature. Since the inscriptions inherently have elements belonging to the sphere of linguistic research, it is then vital to state how exactly was the current state of linguistic research and linguistic tools used in this thesis. It is also important to assess the importance and use of primary sources.

2

The theoretical part is then concluded with a chapter on methodology of dealing with inscriptions in archaeological way and I provide the reader with detailed explanation of the theory of materiality and its use in this particular case. Some concluding remarks note the potential usefulness of looking for the signs of the concept of Sacral Kingdom, as used in modern historiographical literature. In order to reach conclusions on these grounds, I compare the stone inscriptions based on their content as well as form and context both spatially and temporarily. For the temporal comparison, I preferred to see what changes ocurred from the time of earlier rulers to the time of their successors in an attempt to determine possible reasons for such changes. Before taking on the inscriptions in their full wide range though, particular concepts employed in their design are examined. Some of the Urartian stone inscriptions bear multiple iterations of the text assigned to them. In other cases, the identical text is used on different inscriptions, sometimes even in different sites. Substantial portion of the inscriptions contain a standardized curse formula. Another formula, mentioning the ruler in association with native name for Urartu and the name of its , is also widely used, but it´s not adopted in all cases. Also, a question whether the inscriptions sustained any deliberate damage aimed at their content rather than form, is addressed. The size of the script and its changes in time and in accordance with the form of these inscriptions is then explored. After these partial issues are examined, I take a more general approach towards the inscriptions. In regards to the spatial distribution of the inscriptions, the sets found at well- documented sites are compared and checked against the ground plans for information on their accessibility and range of possible onlookers in audience. Different types of inscriptions are also compared spatially, in order to inspect their supposed function in Urartian society. The inscriptions, their contents and forms are also examined from temporal perspective, as changes introduced to them over time may indicate or reflect social changes that triggerred the revision of the design of the inscriptions. Remarks on the general concept of writing during each monarch´s reign as evidenced by the texts and their use are also given. Finally, I examine how the modern concept of sacral kingdom is reflects the reality of the kingdom of Urartu and its ruling elite.

3

In conclusion, the examined points and the information extracted are summarised and a concise overview of them is offered, along with the comparison between the Urartian way of using the writing for royal propaganda and the Assyrian way.

4

1 An Overview of Urartian History

1.1 Geography and economy of Urartu Urartu is a name used by Assyrians in the 1st millenium BC for the state laying to the north of their lands, in the area of today's Eastern , , and Northwestern Iran; in the language of some of its inhabitants, as used in their own writing records, the name of this state was Biainili. Urartu/Biainili as a political unit existed for roughly 150 to 200 years, from the second half of the 9th century to the 7th, or potentially the beginning of 6th, century BC. The core area of Urartu was situated around lake Van, and the ruins of its capital, Ṭušpa, are still visible near the city of Van, on the eastern shore of the lake of same name. Geographically, this area “… is significantly higher, being between 1300m and more than 1900m above sea level. In this region, snow blankets the ground from four to six months of the year…”. Nevertheless, the region provides many natural resources: “forest, iron, copper, lead and obsidian, but it is also well endowed with extensive pastures”. The immediate surroundings of Lake Van can be best described as a “series of highland oases devoted to orchard crops and to irrigated and rain-fed grain fields.” (all Wilkinson 2003, 197). From this region, the kingdom expanded significantly; as far as we are aware, the areas under its control stretched as far west as Euprates, north to the region surrounding , east beyond the shores of Lake Urmia and south to the Taurus mountains (Fig. 1). The area it encompassed is mostly covered by mountain ranges, separating small valleys that connect the major focal points. The northeastern part, the Armenian Highland in Transcaucasia, is characterized by different set of conditions, that “can be characterized as more “extreme”, featuring today a landscape that can be described as a “treeless mountainous steppe” (all Wilkinson 2003, 198). The largest stretches of lower land are Araxes plain, Orumiyeh plain, basin of Lake Van and the area between modern Elâzığ and Malatya. The landscape provided people of Urartu with an abundance of mineral resources and building material. Though nowadays the area is mostly treeless, the pollen finds suggest that during the Iron Age, woodlands and thus timber were also abundant (Ibid., 201). The area of today´s province Erzincan offers „mineral beds pf high economic potential“ to be exploited. „The value of these minerals in the Iron Age can be udnerstood from Urartian inscriptions referring to this area“ (Ceylan 2005, 21-22). These natural resources were put tu an extensive use by Urartu´s inhabitants.

5

Fig. 1 Extent of Urartian territory marked by the stone inscriptions. By Kroll et al. (2012, 12)

While commonly used tools were made out of iron, most of the non-utilitarian objects were cast in bronze or even brass. The most common objects of this cathegory are bronze belts with mythological, animal or plant motifs, often uncovered illegally and then sold on black market. J. G. Kellner dvided these artifacts into twelve groups based on „rein formalen Gesichtspunkten, wie Breite, Zonenteilung, Dekorationssystemen etc.“ In order to provide easily searchable system for them (Kellner 1991, 2-7). Bronze finds in greater breadth were treated by U. Seidl in her comprehensive book Bronzekunst , featuring besides the bronze belts also wide range of objects from kitchen tools through militaria to plastics and votive objects. In her work, Seidl synthesised all Urartian bronze artifacts known at the time and investigated their traits, ranging from inscriptions to styles. One of the important outcomes of this work was the identification of styles and motifs and their chronological relationship. The study of stylistic composure of the bronzes also led her to believe that Rusa son of Erimena, usually thought to be the third of his name in royal line of succession, could have ruled earlier than Rusa son of Argišti (Seidl 2004, 207). Bronze militaria include heavy shields, which were more likely used as a decoration or ritual objects than actual fighting tools. As exemplified by those found in Ayanis,

6

and Karmir-Blur, these shields were inscribed and were probably hung on walls. Their connection to religion is supported further by the iconography of the Muṣasir temple as known from Assyrian sources (Piotrovskij Karmir Blur, 62-63). Many of the bronze finds bear cuneiform inscriptions designatign them as belongings of the monarchs. This might be due to the current state of field research, which is concentrated in Urartian fortresses. Not just bronze objects show particular material culture closely related to the state. Same can be seen in pottery repertoire, where particular red polished ware is found throughout the kingdom in uniform shapes, the main forms being „trefoil-shaped jugs and plates with slightly in-curving rims“ (Sagona, Zimansky 2009, 335), which were most likely used to serve food and wine. Though raw resources were abundant, the use of the land probably varied greatly depending on local conditions. Wilkinsons suggests that “The topographic diversity of the Anatolian and results in substantial differences in potential agricultural productivity. Around Lake Van a wide range of orchard and grain crops can be grown, whereas at higher elevations to the east and in Transcaucasia, much of the land was probably best devoted to pasture. In some areas, even apparently “cultivable” valley floors would have provided pasture rather than being given over to cultivation.” (Wilkinson 2003, 199) Its position also offered very good defense against any attacker; its closest powerful neighbor, Assyria, was separated from Urartu directly by Taurus mountain range. In this situation better access from one polity to the other was to take the route around these mountains, either to the east through mountain passes between Orumiyeh plain and the area of today´s Iraqi Kurdistan, or to the west through the Taurus mountain passes down to Northern Syria.

1.2 Political history of Urartu First mentions regarding the areas to later become the core of Urartu, came from 13th century BC. Assyrian king Shalmaneser I. had a recording made of his military expedition against the land called Uruatri; at this time though, the word Uruatri meant a geographical, not a political unit. As far as Assyrian contemporary sources inform us, the region encompassed eight different polities, not yet united behind a common cause. Some hundred years later, Tiglat-Pileser I., when referring to his campaign to , mentions ,a country called Nairi, which should be located around the „Upper sea“, which is today usually associated with lake Van. It should also be noted that the first known Urartian inscription uses the term Nairi for

7

Urartu in part probably because this inscription is written in Assyrian language. Though by the time the Urartian monarchs were commisioning their own inscriptions, in Assyria their state and the its people were commonly referred to as Urartu and Urartians respectively. We also know the name of the first Urartian ruler from Assyrian sources. He is mentioned as the enemy of Shalmaneser III. in his first, tenth and fifteenth year on the throne as mentioned in the latter´s annals written on the Balawat gates (Salvini 2008a, 231). This man called Ar(r)amu didn´t leave any inscription of his own however. Shalmaneser III. lived long enough to encounter another Urartian king, Séduri, in another campaign in the year 830 BC. Séduri is considered identifiable with Sarduri I., son of Lutipri, first Urartian king to leave inscriptions of his own. Sarduri I.´s inscriptions are found near the city Ṭušpa, his and his successors´ seat of power, which stood near the location of modern day city of Van, on the shore of a lake of the same name. Although on many occassions the similarity between the names Van and Biainili was pointed out in the past, there is no specific evidence supporting such etymology. Around 820 BC we encounter another Urartian ruler in Assyrian records, this time his name is Ušpina. From Urartian side, this man is identifiable with king Išpuini, son of Sarduri. He was the first ruler to leave behind inscriptions written in Urartian language, and also probably introduced the god Ḫaldi to Urartian pantheon: “The cult of Ḫaldi..., appears to have been implemented during the reign of Išpuini, the third king of Urartian dynasty (ca. 825-810 B.C.). Ḫaldi’s name does not appear in any Urartian inscriptions before Išpuini’s reign, and the cult disappears abruptly with the collapse of the Urartian Empire.“ (Tanyeri-Erdemir 2007, 208) As far as we are aware, beginning with the rule of Išpuini, Ḫaldi became the chief deity of Urartian pantheon for the entire duration of the empire. He is featured in nearly every royal stone inscription commissioned and two distinct types of places of reverence are connected with this deity, though not to him exclusively: the susi temples, commonly uncovered in Urartian fortresses, rather small buildings having a square plan with very thick walls and strongly pronounced buttresses. “These freestanding tall buildings were surrounded partially or on all sides by portices with wooden columns” (Leick 2011, 195). The comparison between the temple in Ayanis and the remains of the temple at Karmir-Blur suggest that at least in later periods columned structures existed in the temple area (Dan 2010a, 47) It is strongly suspected that the susi temples were tower-like structures (Forbes 1983, 95).

1 same goes for other synchronizations used here. As for the Balawat gates, reference to it is in Kroll et al. 2012, 6 8

The other type of place connected with the cult of Ḫaldi are so-called doors of Ḫaldi. These are mostly thought to be rock-cut niches, as exemplified by Meher Kapısı (Fig.2)

Fig. 2 Niche of the Meher Kapısı inscription. By Salvini (2008b, 68)

Meher Kapısı is very important place in its own right; in the niche itself is one of the longest Urartian inscriptions known, detailing the sacrifices which are supposed to be made on two occasions to multiple deities of Urartian pantheon. Because of this, the inscription is an invaluable source of knowledge on Urartian religion and mythology. Besides Ṭušpa, Išpuini's inscriptions have also been discovered in Patnos and Anzaf. The inscriptions of this ruler convey building and religious activities. Besides those, Išpuini also chronicled his military successes against the lands Uiteruhi, Luša and Katarza. Another important inscription from his reign is the Kelišin bilingual stela, situated in a mountain pass leading to the Lake Urmia basin. Išpuini was succeeded by his son Minua. Minua´s reign is much better attested from Urartian than Assyrian perspective. From his reign comes the largest amount of stone inscriptions. Also the broadest spectrum of themes is covered. Some tell about his conquests in the north, east and west. Thanks to the decline of Assyrian activities during the reign of Išpuini and Minua Urartu was able to extend as far as Militia and Mana. Other inscriptions tell us about the founding of a new city of Minuaḫinili. The bulk of Minua´s building activity is comprised of building susi temples as well as Ḫaldi´s gates and irrigation canals. Another type

9

of inscribed objects, which belongs to a cathegory of its own, is stelae dedicated to several Urartian gods. Two inscriptions are very different from the rest: one commemorates a jump of Minua´s horse and the other reminds the reader that certain vineyard is a property of Minua´s wife Tariria. In his inscriptions Minua cites Inušpua as his successor, however, no evidence gathered so far indicates that Inušpua ever made it to actually claiming the throne. Nevertheless, recently opinions have appeared that seek to explain the change of successor from Inušpua to Argišti as a result of interdynastic conflicts (Ayvazian 2005, 201). Anyhow, after Minua, his son Argišti became the new ruler. Most sources related to his reign also come from Urartu. Majority of them is concerned with military campaigns. Argišti was repeatedly forced to go to war with Diaueḫi and Mana. After incorporating Araxes plain into the kingdom, he was also able to campaign to the northeast against the land of Etiuni, suspected to lie somewhere around lake Sevan. One of his other campaigns brought him as far west as Militia and beyond the Euphrates. From Assyrian side, we are informed about a victory of Assyrian commander Šamší-Ilu over Urartian forces; however, Argišti states that he repeatedly campaigned in Assyria itself. During Argišti´s reign the trend of founding new cities continued. One of the cities he founded bears his own name, Argištiḫinili. The ruins of the city can be found not far from the modern day city Armavir. Another important new city-fortress was Erebuni, around which over time grew a city that became modern Erevan. The establishment of the fortress Erebuni is mentioned in multiple sources. In line with his predecessors, Argišti also catered to economical needs of his country by building irrigation canals, granaries and other infrastructure. Urartian fortresses were built with both defensive and economical aspect in mind. “The favored locations for construction were natural eminences that overlooked routes of communication and areas of fertile ground… These had to be high enough to be defensible, but not so high as to be isolated from the productive parts of the countryside; large enough to contain storage facilities, arsenals, and administrative buildings, but small enough to be surrounded by fortification wall”. The outlying walls of the fortresses are massive with the bottom part, several metres high, built out of massive boulders and cut right to the bedrock. The wall superstructure was made out of mudbrick and could have also been of substantial height as is suggested by the preserved iconography of the fortresses, found in Toprakkale and Adılcevaz (Sagona, Zimansky 2009, 332-333). Storage was an important part of the fortresses´ function. Multiple buildings per fortress

10

bear cuneiform inscriptions designating them as granaries. The inscription informs us about the capacity of the whole building. Within these buildings large, sometimes up to 2m high, storage jars can be found. The jars also usually bear inscriptions containing information about their own capacity. Argišti was succeeded by his son Sarduri II. Sarduri II. actively campaigned as well, extending the reach of Urartu as far as Militia to the west, Mana to the east and Qulha to the north. The land of Qulha is tentatively identified with earlier mentioned country/tribe of Diaueḫi (Melikišvili 1960, 17). Other aspects of rulership were also not shunned. Sarduri II. erected susi temples and built new cities or fortresses, Sarduriḫinili and the City of god Ḫaldi. During his reign the Assyrians became interested in their northern border once more. Assyrian king Tiglath-Pileser III. campaigned into Urartu twice, in his 3. and 11. year. During the second campaign, he reported that was able to reach and besiege Urartian capital, Ṭušpa2, but was unable to conquer it. Due to the geographical and climatic conditions, the claim about reaching Ṭušpa can be considered highly unrealistic (Dan, 2010b, 334). Outstanding feature of Argišti´s and Sarduri´s rule was the commissioning of a compilation of inscriptions dealing mainly with their military successes. These so-called annals were carved on the sides of rock of Van, the place of ancient Ṭušpa, and as pointed out by Salvini in his Corpus dei testi Urartei, some other inscriptions found relatively close to the rock-cut annals could have been copies of their parts or their constituents (cf. Salvini 2008a 325-332 and 413-419 for similarities in inscriptions A8-1-3 and A9-1-3). Another ruler in the line of succession was Rusa I., son of Sarduri. His royal upbringing is today considered uncertain. The main argument is the incompatibility of the way his name was pronounced and written (Zimansky 1995, 105). In one of his inscriptions, Rusa lists his father's name as Uedipri, which may suggest that he was not identical with Sarduri II., the former ruler. The reign of Rusa I. is the best-known period of Urartian history from outside perspective. This can mainly be attributed to the letter to god Aššur, written by or on behalf of Sargon II. of Assyria, after his famous VIII. Campaign of 714 BC. During this campaign Sargon pursued king Metatti of Zikirtu, Urartian ally, which led to “a confrontation on the slopes of Mount Uauš between Sargon and Rusa, who had come to the aid of Metatti“ (Zimansky 1990, 2-3). Assyrian force was able to rout Urartian army, subsequently marching through several Urartian provinces and in the end a task force with Sargon himself in the lead

2 Ṭurušpa in Assyrian 11

entered the city of Muṣasir, where the main temple of god Ḫaldi was situated, and sacked the temple. This event in some way affected the functioning of Urartian state, in which Ḫaldi´s cult was supported as state religion and closely tied with the ruling dynasty. As a result of the events of this campaign - or at least so we are told by Assyrian sources - Rusa took his own life. Another important source of information are the letters written by high ranking officials of Assyrian empire, such as was at one point Sennacherib, Sargon II.´s son and future successor, on their clandestine mission to gather information on Urartu´s internal affairs. These letters tell us about Urartian elite and everyday course of life in the empire (Radner 2011, 737, cf. Nováková, Pecha, Rahman 1998, 139-140). From Urartian perspective we do not have any information about the battle at mt. Uauš, where Sargon routed their forces. Urartian version of related events mentions mt. Andarutu, but the fight that took place there supposedly ended very differently. Although the conflict over Muṣasir, in local sources called Arḍini, is featured in detail, a different account of the events is presented, so it is not easy to correlate Assyrian and Urartian sources. Furthermore, there is no evidence supporting the claim of Rusa I.´s suicide. Assyrian sources also inform us about progressively stronger presence of Cimmerians to the south of Caucasus. Their sudden and destructive invasion into Urartu could also have contributed to Rusa´s untimely death. The success of the Cimmerians allowed them to “wreak havoc in Anatolia in succeeding decades” (Sagona, Zimansky 2009, 326). We learn that few years later, probably already in 709 BC, Urartu had a different ruler, Argišti II., son of Rusa. There was no direct confrontation with Assyria during his reign, however he was able to persuade an Assyrian ally, the kingdom of Mutallu, to change sides. As was the case of his namesake, the military aspect of Argišti´s rule seems to be dominant, judging from the inscriptions he left. Overall, the number of inscriptions is dwindling. Instead of founding full-fledged cities, as far as we can tell by their names, Argišti II. preferred building smaller, more directly military-oriented facilities. The succession of rulers after Argišti II. is unclear. Urartian sources tell us about two more rulers by the name of Rusa. Until recently, evidence suggested that Rusa son of Argišti followed and Rusa son of Erimena was a later ruler. However, the discovery of an inscription which proves that Rusa son of Erimena founded a city at the site of Toprakkale, where Rusa son of Argišti was also active, defies the traditional view (Salvini 2012, 132). Rusa son of Argišti was nevertheless an active builder and four new centres, at modern sites of Ayanis, Kef Kalesi, Karmir Blur and Bastam, were built during his reign. Thanks to the discovery of

12

an intact inscription on the walls of susi temple in Ayanis, it was possible to reconstruct analoguous inscriptions from other sites, and via these we are informed of Rusa´s military activities in Assyria, Etiuni, Tabal and Muški, known in the classical sources as Phrygia. The Zvartnots stela further informs us of his care for the land´s prosperity by planting orchards and fields and bringing animals to sacrifice. From the reign of Assyrian king Esarhaddon we know of two Urartian rulers, one of which is Rusa. Esarhaddon fostered a diplomatic relationship with Urartu and after the conquest of Šubria he sent the Urartian fugitives that were found there back to their homeland. After Aššurbanipal´s military victory over Elam in 653 BC Urartian nobles were sent to Assyria to witness the humiliation of defeated Elamites. This last instance shows Urartu in clearly subordinate position to Assyria (Radner 2011, 741-742). Between 646 and 642, another Urartian ruler is mentioned, this time his name is Sarduri and he is known in Assyrian sources as Ištar-dúrí. Judging by the fact that he willingly sent tribute to Esarhaddon, we can surmise that at this time Urartu was in an inferior position to Assyria. The last mentions of Urartu come from Achaemenid times; it is mentioned as a geographical name in Babylonian version of Behistun inscription of Darius I. as well as in one inscription of Xerxes I. Although not much of the written tradition or folk memory remained from Urartu, “the heritage of Urartian society can be seen, at least in opinion of some scholars, in attributes of royal power in “ (Seidl 1994, 129) Exact details of Urartu's demise as a political entity remain unclear. Stefan Kroll argues for its earlier downfall already in the second half of 7th century BC, practically after the rule of Rusa son of Argišti (Zimansky 1995b, 98-99). A. Çilingiroğlu suspects that internal struggle and instability could have played significant part in the process of disintegration of the state. Alternatively it is concievable that either the Scythians or the Medes are responsible for the empire´s termination (Kroll 2014, 204) . The fact that the memory of it faded so quickly from tradition and written sources makes searching for the causes of its end that much harder.

13

2 Discovery of Urartian inscriptions

The discovering of Urartian stone inscriptions goes back to the first half of the 19. century. In 1826 Friedrich Schulz was sent by the French Société Asiatique to make copies of Old Persian epigraphic sources. On his way through Ottoman Empire to Persia, he spent some time in Van and visited Van Kalesi, a hill close to the city, and copied several inscriptions visible on the hill and in its immediate vicinity. Schulz was also able to reach Kelišin Pass and copy the stela standing there (Fig. 3). Obtaining transcription of this particular stela proved to be difficult for Schulz as well as later scholars due to natural conditions. Though Schulz died shortly after reaching Persia, he managed to send transcriptions of 42 inscriptions to Europe; most of these were not readable at that time. Only after Assyrian cuneiform script was deciphered around the 1850s was it possible to also read these inscriptions, which were written essentially in the same ductus (Kroll et al. 2012, 3).

Fig. 3 Kelišin bilingual stela. By Salvini (2008b, 90)

Major enlargement of known corpus of Urartian inscriptions happened in 1882, when Archibald Sayce began publishing a series of papers regarding the inscriptions he found around Lake Van. Sayce also tried to translate these inscriptions and supplemented the corpus with grammatical sketch as well as a list of used cuneiform signs and a vocabulary. Such work was quite progressive for its time (Sayce 1882, 387, Kroll et al. 2012, 3, Salvini, 2008a, 12). Another corpus from comparable time was created by M. V. Nikolskij and A. A. Ivanovskij. Their work enriched contemporary linguistic knowledge of Urartian, as well as

14

provided inscriptions that were not published before, stored in Georgian Museum in (Melikišvili 1960, 26). Also worth mentioning was the discovery of the Zvartnots inscription, published by V. S. Golenišev. Another step towards broadening the scholars´ perspective was undertaken by W. Belck, who in 1891 transcribed and then with assistance of C. F. F. Lehmann-Haupt published other Urartian inscriptions. His courtesy is also the rather unfortunate designation of these inscriptions as CḪaldian, based on the misinterpretation of the word Chaldaioi that appeared in Xenophon´s Anabasis and comparing it to the word CḪaldi appearing in the inscriptions and designating the chief deity of Urartian pantheon. Although it was soon thereafter demonstrated, that CḪaldi is in fact a name of the deity and has nothing to do (as far as we know) with self-denomination of the nation that left the inscriptions, the designation CḪaldian remained to be used well until the 1950s (Kroll et al. 2012, 3). Belck and Lehmann-Haupt continued their professional endeavours by excavating the site of Toprakkale, where they managed to identify a temple building of the type colloquially known today as susi-temple. Their publishing activity reached its peak by issuing Corpus Inscriptorum CḪaldicarum in 1928-1935. In the first half of the 20. Century more important inscriptions were discovered. In 1916 A. Orbeli and N. J. Marr working on behalf of the Hermitage uncovered the annals of Sarduri II. at Van Kalesi. This remains to be one of the longest Urartian inscriptions known. Kirsopp and Silva Lake first excavated Van Kalesi itself as an archaeological site in 1930s. Unfortunately, due to the sinking of the ship carrying them and most of their material and documentation in 1939, much information was lost (Kroll et al. 2012, 4). Of the Russian archaeologists and linguists I. I. Meščaninov contributed significantly to the contemporary scientific discourse regarding Urartu with his many publications. His main scientific work was the 1935 book Vanskoj Klinopisy. Meščaninov continued his scientific work until 1950s (Melikišvili 1960, 27-28). Grammar of the Urartian language was extensively studied by I. Friedrich and A. Götze (Melikišvili 1960, 27). With increasing number of excavations of Urartian sites, the number of known inscriptions also increased. B. Piotrovskij played a major role in excavating Urartian fortresses. He first conducted excavations at Karmir Blur since 1939 and his publications of it garnered the attention of a wide urartologist community, as for the first time contexts of excavated Urartian objects were recorded and documented. In 1950 , excavations at Arin- Berd in Erevan started. From this site, we have larger amount of epigraphic sources, most of

15

which are even today still in situ. From 1962 Piotrovskij conducted excavations in Armavir (Kroll et al. 2012, 4, Melikišvili 1960, 28). It was under the influence of Ch. Burney, who travelled across Eastern Turkey in 1965 and mapped many unexcavated Urartian fortresses located therein, that a surge of excavations of such fortresses started in Turkey. Noteworthy excavation sites include Aznavur Tepe at Patnos, Yukarı and Aşağı Anzaf, Toprakkale and Van Kalesi (Kroll et al. 2012, 4-5). Van Kalesi was excavated repeatedly, during 1980s by O. Belli and at the beginning of 1990s by T. Tarhan (Zimansky 1998, 279). Modern long-term excavations in Turkey are situated at Ayanis (Çilingiroğlu 2001, 11) and Anzaf. Starting in 1960s, excavations of Urartian sites were also conducted in Iran. Most important is the fieldwork of Ch. Burney at Haftavan Tepe, especially the mapping of the network of Urartian fortresses in Iranian and subsequent excavation of the largest of them, Bastam, by W. Kleiss and S. Kroll (Kroll et al. 2012, 5). Collection and research of epigraphic materials also advanced in accordance with the increasing number of available archaeological sources. During 1950s two main corpora of Urartian inscriptions were issued: Handbuch den CḪaldischen Inschriften (1955-1957) by F. Koenig and Urartskie Klinoobraznie nadpisy by G. Melikišvili, first published as a series of papers and later appearing as a hardcover in 1960. Melikišvili´s work was later supplemented by two papers in 1971 (Kroll et al. 2012, 5, Salvini 2008a, 11). Ever since that time, however, many more inscriptions were discovered and thus a new corpus was due. Some partial updates were published such as Payne´s addition of the inscriptions stored at Erzurum museum (Payne 1996, 415). The task of collecting all the known inscriptions and publishing them in a single book was undertaken by N. Arutjunjan, whose corpus written in Russian was published in 2001. It was eventually surpassed by Corpus dei Testi Urartei, a series published from 2008 on by M. Salvini. Each volume is thematically oriented and presents the most recent information available while also drawing from earlier compendiums. From the start of the 20th century there have also been significant advances made in the knowledge of Urartian language due to more texts being made known and better possibilities of investigating lexical and morphological occurences being offered. Apart from the very recently issued Salvini´s volume of Corpus dei Testi Urartei dealing with grammar, several papers are accessible, mainly a well-arranged paper by G. Wilhelm on Ancient Languages of Asia Minor.

16

To this day study of Urartian inscriptions remains an important part of Assyriology and its branch dealing more directly with Urartu itself. Even after such long time of collecting the inscriptions we still cannot be certain that the totality of them has been discovered. Towards the end of the 20th century, the main approach to investigation of Urartian language became comparative linguistic studies. Most important research in this direction was undertaken by Ďjakonov and Khačikan (Zimansky 1998, 105) as well as Ďjakonov and Starostin (Ďjakonov, Starostin 1988). Recently, the trend of using the inscriptions in scientific work is moving away from strict linguistic application towards a more social interpretation of them as shown by Campbell who found socially conditioned distinctions within the formulae employed in the inscriptions (Campbell 2012, 148), Smith´s insight into functioning and multifaceted nature of royal ideology (Smith 2000, 156-157) and Bernbeck also used certain aspects of the inscriptions for his argumentation that the nature and use of religious ideology in Urartu corresponds with segmentary, rather than fully centralised state. Although, as he notes, during Rusa son of Argišti´s reign the position of the ruler became relatively stronger as evidenced by his large-scale building projects (Bernbeck 2004, 292-299).

17

3 Linguistic Aspects of the Inscriptions

3.1 Analysing the text and its internal structure The inscriptions of Urartian rulers are written in cuneiform script and they utilize two languages: Assyrian dialect of Akkadian, which has been at that point used with the cuneiform script for nearly two millennia (Gelb 1961, 2-6), and the language that modern scientists call Urartian, although we do not know how people who spoke it call either themselves or their language (Zimansky 2012, 103). Urartian language was “the latest language to adopt the cuneiform script in its basic form before the whole system went out of use around the time of Christ” (Kroll et al. 2012, 6) The content and language of the inscriptions is very outstanding and important part of them and so it is necessary to elaborate, to what extent and in what manner this aspect of the inscriptions will be taken into account. Primarily it should be stated that the thesis is archaeological in its essence and not linguistic. Phonetics, morphology, lexical corpus and syntax of Urartian language will thus not be its subject; to this end it should be satisfactory to limit oneself to the degree that allows understanding the meaning of the texts. Because of this, work with the inscriptions was largely done through corpora containing necessary linguistic apparatus and so it is important to take into consideration pros and cons of sources employed. The reason why such approach was possible at all lies in the way in which the inscriptions of Urartian monarchs are written. Determinatives are used frequently and consistently to denote places, cities, countries, peoples and individuals, as well as various commodities (men, women, cows, sheep, horses) and even specific words like inscription. These determinative signs have fixed meaning without regard to what language was used in writing the text. Moreover, the determinatives that represent very broad-termed word can be used to, as their name suggest, determine the thematical category of the following word, which helps the reader not to become lost in the flow of the text. The meaning of each determinative sign used is well-established, since they were taken over from Assyrian ductus, which is very well understood. The inscriptions also share a great deal of similarities between each other. “They are formulaic and repetitive, which increases their comprehensibility but reduces the trustworthiness of historical information they contain” (Kroll et al. 2012, 8). Melikišvili went into great detail about what phrases are usually used and in what order. As he also found out,

18

certain phrases and topics are only used in certain type of inscriptions, and thus their context is easily identifiable (Melikišvili 1960, 93-96). The stone inscriptions are usually distinguished by the content into three groups: building inscriptions, campaign inscriptions and religious inscriptions. Building inscriptions state that some building was built by the king. The key verb šidištuni is featured on Kelišin bilingual stela (cf. Salvini 2008a, 141-143), which means that we have an exact translation of it from Assyrian. The other verb that appears in similar context, zaduni, is featured on some very short inscriptions after the determinative for a house or building (É), making its meaning very clear (cf. A2-2 and others like it, Salvini 2008a, 108). In context of building vineyards and orchards, verb teruni appears, the meaning of which is once again reinforced by bilingual inscriptions such as Kelišin stela. The inscriptions describing military campaigns can be reliably distinguished by use of specific formulae in their opening parts, stating involvement and support for the campaign from god Ḫaldi. „Ḫaldi went forward with his weapon and conquered X, threw X under the feet of R (ruler), Ḫaldi is mighty, Ḫaldi´s weapon is mighty. By the might of Ḫaldi R went forward and conquered X; Ḫaldi went in front of him.” This formula is not always necessarily present in its entirety (Melikišvili 1960, 95). The involvement of Ḫaldi in this type of inscriptions is, as we can see, much more intensive. Lastly, religious inscriptions usually come in two forms, either as dedicational stelae, which are easily distinguishable as they only refer to the specific stela being erected (ini NA4pulusi kugúni) on behalf of particular deity (Salvini 2008a, 251 f.), or the inscriptions stating rules for animal sacrifices to the deities on certain occasions. These can be distinguished by very repetitive statements consisting of the name of the deity, marked consistently by DINGIR determinative, and appropriate sacrifice, which is always rendered in determinatives. Very good example of this type of inscription is rock inscription in Meher Kapısı (Salvini 2008a, 125-129). As was already noted above, the inscriptions show a great deal of schematisation. This was largely addressed by Melikišvili and his observations were later built upon by Campbell´s examination of the formulae and their occurence. The inscriptions can be logically divided into the head, main part, and the ending. The head may contain several formulae, depending on the type. Generally in all types, the inscription starts with a formula connecting the activity described in the inscription to god Ḫaldi. These can be: “dḪaldi=i=ni=ni ušmaši=ni “Through the might of Ḫaldi”, dḪaldi=e euri=e “For Ḫaldi, for (his) lord”, dḪaldi=i=ni=ni ušmaši=ni dḪaldi=e euri=e “Through the

19

might of Ḫaldi; for Ḫaldi, for (his) lord” and „dḪaldi=i=ni=ni alsuisˇi=ni “Through the greatness of Ḫaldi” or „[no praise]“ (Campbell 2012, 133-134). This is followed by the name of the ruler that issued the inscription and his patronymic. The later rulers also employed „ali abadi“ formula in some specific inscriptions. In Wilhelm´s opinion, this formula can be translated as “what I requested“ (Wilhelm 2008, 121). Many inscriptions include a curse at their end, calling to the gods Ḫaldi, the sun god and the storm god to erase the seed of anyone who would try to destroy, damage or make the inscription his own (Melikišvili 1960, 101, 103). Besides the fact that certain words are still undeciphered or uncertain or translated rather broadly depending solely upon the context in which they were used, it is important to keep in mind that the inscriptions themselves are not objective sources of information. They were commissioned on behalf of state and thus reflected its ideology. This mainly concerns the military inscriptions, which feature claims of high amount of prisoners, animals etc. taken and these could have been overestimated. Because we don´t have any inscriptions referring to the same events described in the Urartian ones from their enemies, we cannot verify the extent to which Urartian inscriptions reflected reality. Most of the neigboring countries, at least as far as we know, did not employ writing. As for Assyria, it employed writng in a manner that reflected its own royal ideology (van de Mieroop 2010, 233-234, 253-254), so it would be illogical for them to create testimonies of their opponents´ success. Radner reiterates this point: “The accounts in royal inscriptions, be they Assyrian... or Urartian ... only mention the enemy in circumstances that present the commissioner of the inscription in a favorable light, that is, normally as the victor in a military encounter or the recipient of a diplomatic mission.“ (Radner 2011, 736)

3.2 Access to the inscriptions The author also has to state that he was not able to visit majority of the inscriptions in person. In the present day overwhelming majority of the inscriptions does not remain in their original places, which would be more useful for the focus of this thesis, as they would remain in their original context, which could then be verified. Instead, the inscriptions are generally placed in museums. It is possible to extract information regarding their position at the time they were excavated or found in corpora containing their transcriptions and transliterations, as well as in specific site-dedicated literature. However, I personally was able to see the inscriptions exhibited in History Museum of

20

Armenia, in and in situ inscriptions in and Zvartnots inscription retained in front of Zvartnots museum building. Quite recent information on the state of inscriptions in Van Kalesi and its surroundings, including Meher Kapısı inscription were communicated to the author by Miqayel Badalyan, to whom it is in place to express cordial thanks.

3.3 Language of the inscriptions The language of the majority of the inscriptions is called Urartian, although this is not its original name. It was assigned to the language by modern scientists, since no original name for the language or its speakers was preserved. Thanks to the linguistic analyses we know, that Urartian language was related to Hurrian language, a chronologically older language spread in Northern Mesopotamia and the foothills on its northern border. Despite earlier scientific discussion whether Urartian language was a direct descendant of the Hurrian (Benedict 1960, 100), their relation as separate but close languages is today unquestioned. Any broader linguistic relation remains dubious though, in spite of extensive comparison to both living and extinct languages of the vicinity of Urartian milieu. Already some time ago S. Starostin expressed arguments based on phonetic as well as lexical correspondences for closeness and relatedness of Hurro-urartian languages and North Caucasian languages (Starostin 1988, 200-204). Urartian is an agglutinative language, forming words by extension of the root or thematic vowels, alternatively supplementing those with derivational suffix. It is strictly ergative (Zimansky 1998, 111); variations of use of cases in distinguishing subject and object (unlike in Hurrian) were not proved so far (Wilhelm 2008, 112). Urartian language seems to feature nine nominal cases: absolutive, ergative, genitive, dative, directive, comitative, ablative-instrumental, ablative, and locative. “As in Hurrian, there are two numbers (singular and plural), but no grammatical genders.To a noun (derived or not) relational, possessive, number, case, and congruence suffixes in a strictly sequential order may be added“ (Ibid. 2008, 110). The verb is constructed from root by adding a root supplement followed by class marker, which distinguishes valency of the verb. Chain of suffixes then ends with personal suffix and suffix of number. Like Hurrian, Urartian also features larger number of moods beside indicative (Ibid. 2008, 114-118). “…the agent in ergatival clauses … usually takes the initial position, followed by the patient and the verb (SOV)” (Ibid. 2008, 119), that is, subject is followed by an object and

21

verb comes last. There are regular cases however, in which “the dative or instrumental of a god’s name regularly precedes the ergative in the first clause of a text or a paragraph” (Ibid. 2008, 119). “The verb may be placed in initial position when it is topicalized“. This is usual in military-themed inscriptions (Ibid. 2008, 120). Modifiers usually follow the head, with general exception of those that include names; which tend to precede the head of the phrase (Ibid. 2008, 120).

3.4 Corpora of the inscriptions Since the publishing of Salvini´s last-to-date volume of Corpus dei testi Urartei3 focusing on grammar, the current state of knowledge of the language´s grammar is probably soon to be surpassed. Regarding the current state of research, there are four main corpora of inscriptions at disposal; Salvini´s CTU, Arutjunjan´s Korpus Urartskich Klinoobraznych Nadpisej, abbreviated further as KUKN, Melikišvili´s Urartskie Klinoobraznye Nadpisi, abbreviated further as UKN, and Koenig´s Handbuch den CḪaldischen Inschriften, abbreviated further as HCI. These were at author´s disposition, as well as Sayce´s corpus, that can potentially provide vital remarks regarding the original position of some of the inscriptions. The most important of older corpora, the work of Lehmann-Haupt was heavily referenced and used by other authors and its main benefit lies in having included copies of now lost inscriptions. There are some differences between the above mentioned corpora that render them more or less useful for certain research purposes and these differences have been taken into consideration and the corpora used accordingly. Salvini´s CTU is the newest one and well-rounded as far as its apparatus is concerned. Thus, it was the primary source for linguistic information such as the exact translations of the inscriptions. It features decent descriptions of current and original locations of most inscriptions as well. In case of in situ inscriptions, their illumination throughout the day and year were also noted, accompanied by information on their exact position via map coordinates and their correlation to other significant landmarks in their vicinity. Melikišvili´s corpus is important as it provides extensive insight into the grammar of the language, possibility of it having dialects and also features insights into historical geography of Urartu and its neighboring regions. It features list of all cuneiform signs attested in Urartian inscriptions (not only phonetic signs, but logograms and determinatives as well). There is also

3 further abbreviated as CTU 22

a number of pictures of inscriptions or their casts. One of the major advantages is the aforementioned comprehensive guide to the formulae used in Urartian inscriptions and their variants. Koenig´s corpus features many drawings of the inscriptions, thus providing highest- quality reproductions of the inscriptions. This is very useful for assessing the damage sustained by the inscriptions and identifying most recent violations. There are also extensive notes to some of the important inscriptions with valuable information and opinions. Finally, Arutjunjan´s corpus is most useful for comparison with Salvini´s in case of uncertain meaning of the text of inscriptions or for any additional remarks regarding the original position of inscriptions.

3.5 Current conditions of the inscriptions Since the inscriptions have been around for several millenia, they have been subject to different and often unsuitable conditions over time. Large number of them, mainly stelae, were reused as building material or as a base for Khačkars (for examples of this practice, cf. Salvini 2008b). Substantial portion of the inscriptions is fragmented or partially eroded. In such cases it is very hard to determine whether this damage was done intentionally or was a work of nature and it cannot be precisely dated. The most common forms of natural damage are cracks and weathering. In more recent years, in situ inscriptions such as in Meher Kapısı were also subject to vandalism (slightly visible in Fig.2, better in Fig. 8). In other cases, some of the early found inscriptions went missing and only their copies or transcriptions were preserved. According to Salvini´s CTU, these are: A2-1, A2-3, A2-4, A3-4, A3-7, A5-2E, A5-6, A5-21, A5-22, A5-23, A5-34, A5-41A, A5-51, A5-53, A5-55D, A5-61, A5-85, A5-88, A5-95, A5-99, A8-27, A9-4, A9-25, A11-2 and A11-7. Such conditions certainly limit the ways in which information can be extracted from them. In some cases, content-wise, this could be countered by examining different copies of the same inscription. As it turned out, many Urartian inscriptions come in multiple copies, either as a shorter text written multiple times in a single inscription, or as multiple physical copies containing the same text.

23

4 Aims and methodology of the present work

4.1 General aim of the thesis The aim of this thesis is to widen the interpretative possibilities of Urartian stone inscriptions roughly the way already explored by Smith and Campbell. As Smith has extensively demonstrated, the inscriptions themselves are a source as well as a tool, and certainly not the only one, of royal ideology (Smith 2000). The connection between the royalty of Urartu and stone inscriptions is obvious, as the king was the only person known to commission such inscriptions. Other inscription forms were not restricted to the king. The cylinder seals with inscriptions were later used by LÚa- ZUM-li officers, who were probably members of broader royal family (Hellwag 2005, 94 and 96). Clay tablets were also used during Rusa II.´s reign for economic purposes and their economically oriented content suggests use by officers (Sagona, Zimansky 2009, 341) As a baseline we can take the assumption, supported by evidence or absence of counterevidence so far, that the knowledge of reading and writing in Urartu was not widespread (Zimansky 2006, 258 f.). The fact that other political entities around Urartu did not use writing at all supports this assumption. Immediately, the question arises, why then would Urartian ruler commision such inscriptions at all. Even though creation of stone inscriptions does not constitute a monumental achievement in a state which made stoneworking largely prolific, we must consider, that this process would still drained human resources from other building projects, which were plentiful during most of Urartu´s history, and would also need cooperation of specialists – scribes. And there certainly had to be some merit for their existence within the system. So in what manner was it achieved, that the sophisticated technology of writing took roots in Urartu? To answer this, it should be considered, what the epigraphics represented in this case – that is the possibility that royal power in Urartu was somehow qualitatively different from royal powers of its neighbors, who did not employ writing system – as well as how its efficiency was achieved. In order to attract the attention of the readers, the inscriptions would have to contain a message, which all inscriptions do by definition, that would be relevant and relateable on some level. In the course of the thesis we will focus on the second part of the central question, that is, employment and effectivity of writing in Urartu. This is so as not to reach beyond set

24

referential scope, and because exploring Urartian royal ideology in a comparative manner can only be done after the ideology itself has been studied thoroughly. Smith in his paper on constitution of royal agenda through iconography and writng offers a look at the narratives presented in Urartian schematic inscriptions: “The king, through his personal heroism, subdues the wilderness, establishing a built environment which is “civilized” by virtue of its inclusion within the constituted political whole. Construction is rendered in emotional tones which describe the transformation of unregulated space into political place as a personal triumph of the king.” (Smith 2000, 143). Analogical relationship between central power and epigraphics issued by it can also be witnessed in later periods of antiquity, even in contexts as unrelated as Hellenistic Greece and Imperial . As J. Ma elaborates in his paper on the subject, aside from other functions, the inscriptions also have that of a “stylized gesture, its close link with identity, the way in which inscriptions tell you what to do, but also tell you stories, and hence tell you what to think: inscriptions ascribe.” (Ma 2012, 137). In both cases, it is evident that the leaders are trying to impose their authority through the tools of epigraphic nature. J. Ma also notes that the embodiment of the state power by these inscriptions plays an important part (Ma 2012, 142). Although these inscriptions themselves are not a part of state power in any physical sense, their effect lies in distribution of state power and control. From the reader´s point of view, they are thus figuratively unified with it.

4.2 Texts as a tool of social discourse and materiality of the text In archaeological, and in broader sense also anthropological, discourse of past roughly twenty years new methods have appeared, enabling us to to approach sources from a different angle. In association with taking a different stance to the methods of processualist archaeology, the importance of context is being put forward in interpretation of archaeological situations. In the words of Ian Hodder, “The interpretation of meaning is constraint by interpretation of context” (Hodder 2003, 4). Accordingly, there has been a steady growth of interest among the anthropologists towards the interpretation of meaning, that is, the decipherment of bilateral relation of a person and society around him and acts of persons aimed towards influencing or reacting on society (cf. Hodder 2003, 8). Going back to Urartian inscriptions, it is thus feasible to assume that at least some of the people who would read these inscriptions would have reacted in some way to their message. From the perspective of the person – society relationship, this reaction could have been different from person to person and could also have had different form. Hodder strictly warns

25

against regarding such reaction purely as positive or negative: “Nevertheless, we fear that domination and resistance can be bad subjects…if they come at the expense of the balance and rigour of a more nuanced approach. Politics are often multidimensional; an approach that views them through the binary lens of domination and resistance unjustly simplifies and sanitises their coarse texture“ (Hodder 2003, 98). Once this reaction seeps into wider social discourse, it is quite probable, given the varied and all-encompassing nature of material culture, that in some way it is going to be reflected in some material form. In addition, if that weren't the case, any strong enough reaction targeted back at the authorities would prompt adjustments to the next generation of inscriptions. In this way, the inscriptions would be able to get more efficient over time in transferring their message. It is also notable how such an inscription can be viewed as a manifestation of one´s identity. Using the writing was, after all, what differentiated Urartian rulers from most of their political neighbors. “We cannot comprehend anything, including ourselves, except as a form, a body, a category, even a dream. As such forms develop in their sophistication we are able to see more complex possibilities for ourselves in them.” (Miller 2005, 8) To sum up, we have a discourse between the central state power and authority that issues inscriptions and is represented by these inscriptions on one hand, and on the other hand by addressees or bystanders and „lookers“ at the inscriptions, who offer feedback, and this feedback is then reflected in one way or the other in material culture. This dialogue takes place not only between people, but also between things and people and between things themselves. The obviousness of agency of the written word can be observed even today in our own society, in colloquial language, when we say that the text „says“, „states“ something, even though it is actually the person reading it that postulates the message. By incorporating a message into the inscription this object was given agency, the ability to interact with and influence people within the scope of social discourse. People engaging in this discourse would then pass their individual and colloquial reactions into the new generation of material culture, which is in this manner created by people and things in equal measure. The theory of materiality is concerned with evaluating material culture, its influence and influence upon it generated by social discourse. Originally embraced by anthropology and formed as a theoretical means of understanding the material culture (Miller 2005, 4-8), it emerged in archaeology from the debate of theory specialists within the forming post- processual archaeology, connected to the possibility of interpreting material culture in a way comparable or analogous to the interpretation of text (Tilley 1993, 11). This shift in thinking

26

helped change the focus of archaeological research towards the contextual level (Ibid. 5-6) and introduced the notion of the ability of things embodied with meaning to act upon their environment and thus spread their meaning (Meskell 2005, 5-6) By elaborating and realising the importance of an individual in the process of reasserting and remaking his own cultural realia the process was given a cyclical nature that can be expressed: man makes things – things make man – man makes things. That means that just as man makes himself through the things, that is, material culture as a physical representation of his grasp of society and its issues, the things reiterate themselves as well as their embodied messages through their interaction with man. The things are capable of doing so because they inherently possess agency. In case of public inscriptions, the concept of agency is actually broadened considerably, due to the fact that they were imbued with a message on purpose; this purpose being, getting the message through to other people. Among other recent developments in the field, the ones most devoted to explaining and capturing the essence of materiality are the publications of Miller and Meskell. Their stances do not diverge much, coming from the same philosophical standpoint of Hegel and Latour. While Miller concentrates on the issue of deconstructing the opposition between subjects and objects and transcending the materiality (Miller 205, 3 and further), Meskell is more concerned with the notion of things having the same type of agency as human beings, developing the concept of material habitus (Meskell 2005, 3) It is also important to note that the particular material culture emanating its agency can be target for reprisal from its audience. This can be illustrated on various examples, like the burning of books, medieval iconoclasm or a more recent destruction of two large Buddha statues in Bamiyan (Gosden 2012, 253-255). As for Urartian inscriptions, we have limited knowledge of the motives that might prompt someone from within Urartian society to alter them, so this issue is easier addressed from the perspective of what actually can be altered. As for those inscriptions carved into construction stones and rock-cut inscriptions, it would be very hard to destroy them apart from erasing the surface. The stelae can be toppled and smashed into pieces; although this could also be done much later than in Urartian times and without any supporting context it is not possible to ascertain the time when the damage was sustained. Also given the material used, it is not possible to ascertain whether the inscriptions were assembled on one occassion or over time; thus it is presumed that they were each commissioned by a single ruler on single occasion, unless the text specifically states otherwise. Changes to the surface will be the only criterion of change to the existing inscriptions that will be looked at.

27

4.3 Nature of the inscriptions and research questions The primary goal of the thesis is to inspect Urartian stone inscriptions in a way that would point to their social function and importance. Since the theory of materiality deals exactly with this relationship, its perspective will be well suited for such research. An inscription has several aspects. We can differentiate its physical properties, its stylistic properties and finally its content or narrative. The physical properties is what enables us to address the inscription as a part of the realm of material culture. Stylistic properties represent choices dependent on social context as well as the message that was embodied by the inscription. Finally, the narrative represents the message itself. Based on this, it is possible to categorize inscriptions in multiple ways. Formally, they can be categorized based on the shape and function of the material they were inscribed on. The inscriptions appeared either in niches on rock cliffs, on stelae or on building blocks. Though it is not obvious from archaeological context, due to the narrative or content of the inscriptions, we know that both building and stelae inscriptions could have been used on functionally different types of buildings or stelae, and thus, it is important to differentiate between these. There are many stylistic elements of the inscriptions. Campbell´s studies have successfully analysed in great depths the formulae on the beginning of the inscriptions. However, that still leaves the formula “king of Biainili, ruler of Ṭušpa city”, as well as the curse, unanalysed. Moreover, some texts also went through formal adjustments: having their content duplicated either within the inscription, or on other inscription. The inscriptions also offer us different narratives. They can inform us about the building that was built, or about the religious offering to the deities by the king, or about the monarch´s military actions. The inscriptions that can be labeled “religious” in their main theme constitue a somewhat diverse group. We can illustrate this by comparing for example Meher Kapısı inscription (A3-1 in Salvini 2008a) with stelae from Karahan (for example A5-19 ibid.). The religious notion of the inscriptions in this group is consistent however and apparent enough to allow them to be treated as parts of the same group. There are two inscriptions that have very specific themes, differing too profoundly from other inscriptions. These are: the inscription about the jump of Minua´s horse (A5-91), and the inscription about Argišti II.´s archery prowess (A11-7). One of obvious inherent properties of every stone inscription is its position. Since this

28

type of epigraphical source is immobile, it is reasonable to assume that it was for some reason decided that in its position it would serve its purpose well. Any diachronic changes to the choice of positioning of certain inscription type would suggest, so to speak, some form of user feedback and according adjustments. We are not familiar with the original position of every inscription, however. Nearly every stela and a large number of building inscriptions were reused during later periods as building material. Though it is likely that due to their weight and size such blocks would be most probably used within relatively short radius from their point of origin. Moreover, stelae with military inscriptions feature a plethora of local names of regions or countries and cities and by comparing them to each other and by minding the stelae´ physical position it could be possible to assess which of these names represent the region that the particular stela is in. It is noteworthy that the context in which the inscriptions are used can be open to the public and in some circumstances, the inscriptions can be imagined as being a part of social or, more specifically, ritual activity. In the likelihood of such scenario, Inomata's advice should be taken into consideration: “We need to analyze closely the physical acts of performance and its material and social settings. This analysis should consider how such formal processes and characteristics of theatrical events shape, and are shaped by, meaning and emotion… By confronting the social significance of these aspects of performance, we can begin to explore how people create and negotiate meaning through their actions.” (Inomata 2006, 14) As it is not possible to directly assume the reason for putting the inscriptions in their specific positions, instead we need to assess how they are implemented in their surroundings. This means not only immediate vicinity of every inscription in situ, but also a comparison of the surroundings of different inscriptions of the same type from different sites and also the distribution of various types of inscriptions in different sites. Finally yet importantly, the secludedness or openness of the space the inscription is facing or standing in can help us assess how large and diverse their target audience could have been. It is also possible to go beyond the embodied intention and investigate the influence that the inscriptions had on society. The most obvious case would be the degree of damage to the text, which, given the text´s meaning, would seem intentional and would alter the its meaning, rather than disrupt it. In addition, patterns of schematised parts of the inscriptions could relate to certain social feedback. Here we can ask, in which inscriptions do curses appear and also whether there is spatial correlation to the royal title employing „King of Biainili, king of Ṭušpa city“, which

29

would then suggest possible mental distinction of "core" Urartu versus "outlying regions". Also, changes to the inscriptions´ stylistic design over time can be a reliable clue of changes in understanding their meaning. The inscriptions are not dateable absolutely, because the material they are written on, stone, does not allow radiocarbon dating. Their primary context is usually unknown or disturbed, as is the case of majority of stelae and building blocks, or too open to offer any information, as is the case of rock-cut inscriptions. Because of this, the inscriptions can be only assigned date based on the ruler who commissioned them. That means that the change between discernibly older and newer inscriptions can be viewed as a generational change. The only ruler during whose rule it is possible to discern older and newer inscriptions is Išpuini, as some of his inscriptions feature the name of his son, Minua. It should also be noted how the size of cuneiform symbols changes over time and space and whether this coincides with the size of the inscription or its underlying material, or not. Urartian stone inscriptions also exhibit the peculiarity of being copied. In some cases inscriptions from several close sites or even from a single site exhibit very close or identical content. Such practice can be interpreted in many ways, including the preference of certain number of copies, or being a part of conspicuous consumption. Nevertheless, exact number of copies and the type of inscriptions that was being copied will be closely monitored. The above stated goals present us with multitude of questions that need to be answered. These mostly pertain to specific features of the inscriptions: How was copying of the inscriptions implemented, space-wise, time-wise and type- wise? Was the number of copies used significant? What inscriptions featured curse? Similarly, are there any spatial, temporal or typological patterns? What inscriptions featured “King of Biainili, ruler of Ṭušpa city” formula and are there any patterns to its use? If so, does it represent in any way the concept of Biainili itself? Are there any definite traces of intentional damage to the inscriptions with purpose of altering their message? Is there any pattern to the size of the cuneiform signs? How were different types of inscriptions implemented spatially, either in the scope of the kingdom, in the scope of a site or in their own particular cases? Can their positioning tell us something about their purpose and people that were supposed to read them? In case of the military inscriptions we can attempt to identify certain regions mentioned in the inscriptions with geographical units.

30

What are the trends in different types of the inscriptions over time and how did the overall strategy of employing the writing system for the cause of royal propaganda change over time? How did specific types of inscriptions and sites containing whole series of inscriptions evolved over time, and can any progress or adjustment be observed? Some smaller remarks can also serve to better understand the inscriptions that are not fitting well into the pattern of inscriptions, as was already elaborated.

4.4 Sacral kingship Within the field of historiography, states of ancient Near East are usually labelled as belonging to the „ancient oriental“ type. As a term, this broad connotation, when characterizing the sphere of political control, means a type of state in which central power, represented by a monarch, is supported by religious ideology to the point where the two become inseparable. The efficiency of one depends on the other; cult provides ideological background that enables the monarchy to remain stable, whereas the monarch attempts to be successful within the ideological understanding of a successful monarch and thus supports the effectivity of the cult. Although it seems that in such state adherence to the state cult was compulsory, due to the nature of preserved inscriptions we cannot definitely say anything regarding this aspect of Urartu. Core aspect of states of antiquity was the concept of sacral kingdom or sacral kingship. The argument regarding unity of royal and divine power can be extended so that certain aspects of state control and its behavior can be expected: The monarch is considered deity incarnate, a ruler chosen by the gods, son of the god(s), has the mandate of heavens, or the heavens descended on the earth and transcended the structure of the state the monarch is representing. Symbolic animals can play significant role in his birth or upbringing; the monarch can be a miraculously saved child The monarch is the warrantor of world order and as such translates divine will onto the earthly society and strives to maintain the rituals that perpetuate the world order as well as justice within the society that emanates from this order. In the rituals that reenact divine acts the king usually represents one of the main characters or is directly involved. By his actions the monarch secures the yield of the earth, animals and production of people.

31

Because of this he can be associated with agricultural symbols. The monarch fights supernatural forces of evil and the people representing such forces. His victory is thus the sign of his good relations with gods. Thus, keeping good relations with the gods is the monarch´s most essential duty towards the society. This good relation is seen as the safest way of protecting society from harm or imbalance. As the monarch oversees functioning of the entire society, and all its members, he can be addressed as a “pastor” In case the monarch does not fulfill this role, society is endangered and the monarch can be dethroned or sacrificed. As long as the monarch is on good terms with the gods, obedience towards him is understood as obedience to the gods themselves. The monarch enjoys some – variable – degree of aura of sanctity surrounding him, ranging from a totally tabooised being to a man gifted with potent magical powers. There may be sacred objects connected to the concept of royal power and passed down from current to the next monarch (Bednaříková, Meško 2015). Understanding and verifying such concept is vital to the understanding of the function of royal power in Urartu and thus it will be considered and investigated accordingly.

32

5 Multiple iterations of the text of the stone inscriptions

5.1 Occurrence of the phenomenon

Fig. 4 Sardursburg in Van/Ṭušpa, remains of a building with inscriptions of Sarduri I. By Salvini (2008b, 48)

The phenomenon of copying the content of the inscriptions is not restricted to few cases far apart. Already the oldest inscription written by an Urartian ruler, the inscription from Sardursburg near Ṭušpa, issued by Sarduri I., contains six copies of the same text on the same

33

building (Fig. 4). The versions differ by number of rows (Salvini 2008a, Forbes 1983, 27). Three of them were situated on the eastern and the other three on the western side of the building of uncertain function, but presumed today most commonly to be a port structure (Salvini 2005 148). Furthermore, the text on the column bases from Anzaf (A2-7 A-B Ibid.) is also repeated, one additional time on both columns. Another column found here (A2-8) doesn´t show any sign of repetition, but the text on it is identical with the previous inscription. Išpuini´s inscription from Karahan (A2-9 A-B) also come in two separate versions of the same text. This particular inscription was written on a stela, and while one version of the text is in Urartian, the other is in Assyrian. Many of the inscriptions issued by Išpuini together with his son Minua were also copied. This include Meher Kapısı inscription (A3-1), which consists of two copies of the text, each differing slightly from the other, including stylistic and syntactic differences, different suffixes and having more deities mentioned in the second copy (Šielardi, Šiniri). Beside that, rock-cut inscription from Yeşılalıç (A3-2), and a stone found in secondary position in Surb Pogos in Van (A3-4) each exhibit two copies of inscribed text. The stela from Karagündüz (A3-9) as well as the rock-cut inscription issued by Išpuini, Minua and Inušpua, situated at Tabriz Kapısı, contain each three copies of their texts. From the period of Minua´s reign, more inscriptions come in copies. In most cases, there are two instances of the text. Such inscriptions are: the stelae from Bağın (A5-8) and supposedly from Patnos (A5-25), two building blocks from Aznavur Tepe – one from the susi temple (A5-37) and the other from unspecifiable building (A5-38) - , two building blocks from Kohbants (A5-47 and A5-48), the inscription on a building block situated in a corner of the susi temple in (A5-51), the inscription about building a barzudibiduni from Değirmenköy (A5-64), the dedicatory stone plaque from Koršun near Van (A5-71), two stelae from Karahan (A5-74 and A5-75), another dedicatory stela from Yalçınkaya (A5-77), the dedicatory stelae from Salmanağa (A5-82), Metsopayvank (A5-83) and Van (A5-85) and a column base from Aliler (A5-92). The cases of the text having three iterations within an inscription are also numerous. One such inscription is from Yukarı Anzaf, situated on the susi temple (A5-42 A-C)4. Another one comes from Kavuncu near Van and was written on a column base. More column bases inscribed with three copies of text come from Eskipağ, Yedikilise (two with different texts),

4 A and B each has three copies of the text, while the fragmentary C only has one copy; Due to the conditions of the C version of the text it is still possible that there were originally three copies in C as well 34

Patnos (twice), Van and Hurkum (A5-55 A-E and A5-65 A-C).

Fig. 5 Column bases found in Zivistan (A2-2). By Salvini (2008b, 56)

There are also series of identical inscriptions issued by Minua. These (A5-2 A-F) are found on the front sides of susi temples in Körzüt (A), Muradiye (B), Köşk (C,D), Dzorovank (E) and Van (F). Another series comes from Aznavur Tepe (A5-11 A and B) and contains two pair of inscriptions, symmetrically placed at the opposite corners of susi temple (A) and its cella (B). Further text series are concerned with building of Minua´s canal (A5-12 A-D, A5- 14 A-D and A5-15 A-E), found in Edremit, Katepants, Işhanıkom and their surrounding, as well as in Hayots Dzor (A5-15E). There are also two identical inscriptions on building blocks from Pırabat (A5-40A-B), Delibaba and Hasankale (A5-41 A-B) and two such pairs from Šušants (A5-45 A-B and A5-46 A-B). Another series of three inscriptions of the same content comes from Van Kalesi´s northern slope and inform us about the spring or fountain placed around those parts (A5-58 A-C). A unique case of an inscription issued with four copies of the text comes from a rock niche in Ezdhaha Bulaqi and informs us about a spring or fountain.

35

Several cases of identical text being used in multiple inscriptions are also to be found among inscriptions issued by Argišti I. The inscriptions about founding of the fortress Erebuni (A8-17 A-B) and building of susi temple there (A8-21 A-B) come in pairs, positioned on the sides of the entrance of the citadel and the susi temple in Erebuni, respectively. Then there are four basalt column bases featuring an identical inscription about building a house of unspecified function (A8-23 A-D) and five other inscriptions telling us about building of granaries (A8-28 A-E). All of these come from Arin-Berd. Another pair of identical inscriptions about building of granaries, this time from the reign of Sarduri II., also comes from Arin-Berd (A9-22 A-B). Also bilingual texts of Rusa son of Sarduri (A10-3 to A10-5) show many similarities, although they are incomplete. Similarly, the inscriptions of Rusa son of Argišti from the susi temples of Ayanis (A12- 1), Karmir Blur (A12-2) and Argištiḫinili (A12-3) are mostly identical as far as we can tell from their remaining parts. Although a massive building unearthed in Armavir can be considered a susi temple (Karapetyan 2010, 39), so far there is no indication that would point to the inscription being the part of this building. It is quite possible that the inscriptions from Adılcevaz (A12-4) and Bastam (A12-5) had the same text (Salvini 2008a, 577) Rusa son of Argišti issued a series of ten inscriptions, which were found at Kef Kalesi, placed on the column heads in ašihusi building (A12-10).

5.2 Use of text copies Sarduri I. to Minua The copying of text within an inscription occurs from the early stages of the written records. It is possible to argue that the idea was already present in the inscription of Sarduri I., although there clearly every iteration of inscription is put on a different stone. During the reign of Išpuini, using the same text repeatedly in the same inscription appeared, as well as the practice of using the exact text in multiple inscriptions. These cases were spatially restricted so each site has its own set of inscriptions. Each Išpuini´s inscription that was in some way copied is connected with construction of a building or a fortress. During the coregency of Išpuini and Minua more cases of text being repeated appeared. While before the copies were restricted to the buildings, now the practice was also present on the rock-cut inscriptions of religious character as well as campaign stelae. The single inscription issued by Išpuini, Minua and Inušpua is also copied and it is a building inscription; however, the buildings mentioned, susi temple and Ḫaldi´s gates, are of religious nature (Fig. 19).

36

Dating back to Minua´s reign, several inscriptions bearing identical text can be found at different sites, though these are generally always in the same region (Fig. 22). This pertains to celebratory inscriptions, parts of which were found at different susi temples5, and to the series of inscriptions concerned with the building of Minua´s canal. The latter case can be explained by assumption that the canal was built over longer period of time and in segments. Other cases of separate inscriptions sharing the same text always come from a single site. In Aznavur Tepe, these were placed symmetrically on the outer sides as well as on the cella walls of susi temple. Though there is no contextual evidence that the other identical inscriptions coming in pairs, from Pırabat (A5-40), Delibaba and Hasankale (A5-41), and Šušants (A5-45 and A5-46), were originally placed in similarly symmetrical manner, it is at least possible. Apart from the inscriptions on columns, every complete dedicatory stela issued by Minua has its text copied (once). The Koršun stela (A5-71) is the only known inscription which has only a part of the full text copied. Also the inscription from Bağın , which is thematically similar, has its text written twice. Other such inscriptions relate to the building of religious structures – susi temples or Ḫaldi´s gates – or, as is the case in Aznavur Tepe, actually are placed on a susi temple. Though not every inscription regarding susi temple or Ḫaldi´s gate has multiple iterations of its content, those who are copied, do mention such buildings. The only exception is an inscription from Aznavur tepe (A5-38), which is not complete. One other copied inscription, from Değirmenköy (A5-64), mentions barzudibiduni. Sadly, current state of research does not allow us to elaborate much on this type of building. For now, no building that could be without doubt recognized as barzudibiduni was found, prompting M. Salvini to simply generalize the meaning as an “edifice of undetermined nature” (Salvini 2009,500). Lastly, two inscriptions regarding water sources or fountains, from Van (A5-58) and Ezdhaha Bulaqi (A5-59), have multiple iterations of their text, 3 and 4 respectively. These copies, however, are not written as parts of a single inscription. The distinctness of these inscriptions is strengthened by unusual amount of copies that Ezdhaha Bulaqi inscription has6. This particular pattern of use suggests increased effort, bordering with conspicuous consumption, in branding these particular streams. The Ezdaha Bulaqi inscription is also the

5 Körzüt and Muradiye inscriptions probably came from the same temple according to Salvini 2008a; another one was at Köşk, yet another at Dzorovank and also in Van 6 the inscription on susi temple from Aznavur Tepe has technically four copies, however they are placed in pairs, both outside and inside the temple, thus being in two different positions 37

only one that has multiple copies, and has been found further to the east from the Lake Van. Whether the peculiarity in the number of copies was culturally conditioned is hard to say. It encourages a viewpoint that the springs had a special significance.

Fig. 6 Inscription from Ezdhaha Bulaqi (A5-59), also with a sketch of preserved text. By Salvini (2008b 166, 168)

Minua is also the last ruler who employed the practice of inscription being iterated in the same place multiple times. During his reign, this custom was most widely used, owing no doubt to to the widespread use of written record in general. Certain trends can be observed: apart from columns, which retain their significance from earlier generation and can have two or three iterations of the text, reiterated inscriptions on buildings seem to concentrate on religious structures. The dedicatory stelae were also regularly subjected to the practice of reiterating the text of the inscription. As with other types of inscriptions that exhibit this feature, their geographical location does not play any role. In very much the same manner, it seems that waterworks and water sources had

38

special significance, prompting them to be labeled by inscriptions multiple times. There are significant exceptions to each use of reiterated inscriptions. Not all dedicatory stelae have copies (A5-76, A5-79, A5-81, A5-84), and the same can be said about the column bases (A5-53) and susi temple inscriptions (A5-2). Despite this, each category of inscriptions has a clear preference for either being or not being reiterated. Those having three copies are connected with building, or rather, founding activity. This connection is reinforced by their appearance on the column bases, which can be possibly explained as a metaphorical representation of the whole building. The inscriptions that feature two copies of the text are connected with religion, either by their placement or by their content. Military inscriptions that also have their texts duplicated can be tentatively connected to this practice, because Ḫaldi, the chief deity, was associated primarily with war activities and was described time and again as leading Urartian forces in their campaigns. The odd example is the inscription from Karagündüz (A3-9), which, though having a military theme, has three iterations of its text. Finally, attention should be also given to the differences of two text variants in the Meher Kapısı inscription. These copies differ more from each other than any other duplicates within a single inscription. The differences are not only stylistic, but also factual; the second copy mentions two more deities :Šielardi in line 41 and Šiniri in line 47, and also has different amounts for offerings listed in lines 41 and 65. The inscription itself mentions two different occasions for serving the offering, having a separate list for each. The most likely interpretation of the differences is thus that each version of the religious proceedings was used on different occasion. These proceedings could have also been led by different groups of clergymen. As suggested by Melikišvili, the inflectional differences could be due to the different dialect, perhaps a Muṣasir/Arḍini dialect, being used in the other iteration (Melikišvili 1960, 83-84). It is thus imaginable, that at certain occasion, the rituals would be hosted by Urartian priests and on other occasion by Arḍini priests, performance of whose was supported by different textual outline of ceremoniary proceedings.

5.3 Use of text copies Argišti I. to Rusa son of Erimena Argišti I. still used the same version of a text on multiple inscriptions, but only in his newly founded fortress Erebuni. Some of these were identical because they were employed in a symmetrical manner, as was the case with the inscriptions regarding the founding of the fortress, which were originally paired on the sides of the main gate (Oganesjan 1980, 43), and with the inscriptions placed analogically on the sides of the entrance of the susi temple.

39

Beside pillar bases, which were already discussed, also several inscriptions mentioning granaries share the same text. The granary inscriptions were not placed within a single building but rather they represent each a single granary built at the same time as the others. Issuing a single text that could be easily copied thus could have saved time and not complicate things unnecessarily. This could also have been the case with Sarduri II.´s inscriptions about building of granaries in Arin-Berd, which are his only inscriptions that share the same text. Rusa son of Sarduri created three bilingual stelae with identical text – these were placed in Movana (A10-3), Mergeh Karvan (A10-4) and Topzawa (A10-5). Rusa son of Argišti issued several inscriptions placed on the susi temples in Ayanis (A12-1), Karmir Blur (A12-2) and Argištiḫinili (A12-3) and probably also Adılcevaz (A12-4), Bastam (A12-5) and Toprakkale (A12-5a). These inscriptions, in a manner similar to that of the nearly identical insriptions of Rusa son of Erimena from Keşiş Göl (A14-1) and Savacık (A14-2), share the same outline but differ very slightly in the details. The texts of these inscriptions were so similar that M. Salvini was able to recnstruct the position of each of them on their respective temples based on their similarity (Salvini 2008a 565-577, 583-592). Rusa son of Argišti, also issued ten copies of the same inscription put on the heads of the columns in ašihusi building in Kef Kalesi (A12-10). Argišti II.´s inscriptions from his military endeavor to the east of Lake Orumiyeh are also nearly identical in text. The texts differ only because different parts of the campaign are stressed. Although these later rulers employed the copying of the text multiple times, and because of that these inscriptions make up a substantial part of their repertoire of inscriptions, it is worth keeping in mind that in case of each of these rulers, these refer only to singular events and as such the copying shouldn´t be thought of as being in some way preferred in the later periods. It certainly had its place and was used consistently, but reserved for special occasions.

5.4 Column inscriptions It is worth noting that the columns with inscriptions do not often come in pairs. In Zivistan, seven inscribed column bases were found in total, but more frequently just single pillar is found per site, as on the sites Eskipağ and Hurkum, or a single pair, as in Patnos or Yedikilise; although in Yedikilise, these two columns have different text of inscription. The four pillar bases found in Erebuni were all part of the great pillared hall in front of supposed

40

temple of Ḫaldi (Oganesjan 1980, 44). Due to their higher number and given the unusual case of Erebuni, the Zivistan pillar bases could have been used in greater number in a single building as well as in multiple buildings at the same time. It is possible that usually only one inscribed pillar per building, but certainly only one per row of pillars was used. Either case supports the idea of the importance of frontality in Urartian symbolism (Tanyeri-Erdemir 2007, 211). Other inscribed columns, not containing copied texts or sharing the same iteration of text, are also found in Sardarapat, Nalbandyan, Guganis, Van and Kevenli close to Van and, interestingly, also come in odd numbers. The only possible pair can be made out of inscribed column bases found in Sardarapat and Nalbandyan, which, according t Martirosyan, come originally from the same position (Martirosyan 1974, 48). The inscribed pillar bases from Van, Hurkum and Yedikilise were referring to a building called ašihusi. As was already noted by A. Çilingiroğlu (Çilingiroğlu 2007, 44), this building was thus most probably a pillared hall. The inscriptions uncovered in Kef Kalesi, which are quite unusual from many standpoints, including the fact that they feature visual art as well as a simple inscription (Salvini 2008b 363-366), come in ten copies and probably were used on upper parts of columns (Forbes 1983, 52). This can suggest that ašihusi building was, at least at the time of Rusa II., a building with even number of column rows and potentially a second floor. The earlier distribution of the inscriptions regarding ašihusi buildings can be explained by either different writing practice or, which is at this point equally possible, by changes in building layout of ašihusis over time.

5.5 Employment of the copies in general One of simpler reasons for copying inscriptions in the same place could have been the attempt to fill the space prepared for the inscription. However, it´s easy to see that this is not true in the case of Urartian inscriptions. The largest rock-cut inscriptions, such as Meher Kapısı and Yeşılalıç (Salvini 2008a, 129), certainly do not cover entirety of the worked rock face. Similarly it is not the case on the smaller inscriptions on pillar bases. Whether they have three copies or no copy at all, the number of rows is not dictated by the height of the pillar base itself. It is worth noting, however, that the size of rock-cut inscriptions and the size of the niches in which these are correspond more to each other from the time of Minua´s reign on. This can be contributed to both better project management and an effort to save the workforce for more practical projects. Another idea for occurrence of this phenomenon is, that the copies were put in their

41

places later, after the original inscription had been finished. Although this cannot be definitively dismissed as impossible, based on the evidence it is quite likely that this was not the case. In few cases of copied inscriptions that also have a curse at their end, we can see that the curse is not always copied. Kelišin stela, for example, has only a single curse despite the fact that the texts are in two different languages. That suggests that the design of this particular stela and other inscriptions like it was probably conceived with the repeated text already in mind. Another point supporting the dismissal of this idea is the content of the shorter copied inscriptions. Those written on column bases, for example, are so trivial in their message, that repeating the text on the second and third row could not have any rational meaning unless the building was rebuilt.

5.6 Conclusion To conclude, we can see that the use of copying of the text of the inscriptions evolved over time and changed in social meaning (Tab. 1). During Išpuini´s solitary reign, the copies are used exclusively in context of the construction of a building or an entire fortress and are usually placed together. During Išpuini and Minua´s coregency, copying of the text was reserved for unique and particularly long inscriptions. From this time on, we can see connection between the copying practice and religious themes in inscriptions. The campaign- oriented inscriptions from Surb Pogos and Karagündüz can be vaguely connected with this religion-oriented practice, since the domain of Ḫaldi, the chief deity of the Urartian pantheon, was war. From the reign of Minua we have the first known case of inscription being placed symmetrically, possibly due to aesthetic reasons. This particular inscription comes from Aznavur Tepe (A5-11). The themes of founding important buildings, such as ašihusi or fortresses in general (A5-40, A5-41), as well as religious buildings, such as susi temples or Ḫaldi´s gates, as was the case with the Šušants inscriptions (A5-45 and A5-46), continue. Multiple reiterated inscriptions (A5-2, A5-11, A5-42, possibly A5-43, A5-51) come directly from susi temples. The other important theme seems to be the water. Inscriptions were used excessively, both in copies and singularly, along the length of Minua´s canal. Both inscriptions pertaining to water sources also exhibit multiple copies of their texts. It thus seems that the water distribution warranted the same amount of reverence and carefulness as religion did. Also, for the first time, inscriptions were actually copied between different sites.

42

Copies Building Building Military Religious Total secular relig Sarduri I. 1/100% 1 Išpuini 1/12,5% 1 1/12,5% 1 Išpuini+M 2/25% 2/100% 4 inua 1/50% 1 Minua 5/9,8% 5/62,5% 1/10% 7/53% 18 2/3,9% 1/12,5% 3 1/1,9% 1

Tab. 1 Occurrence of multiple copies of the same text within single context, separate for every type of inscription theme and for every ruler

During the reigns of Argišti I. and Sarduri II., the trend of copying the texts subsided, remaining present in economic and building context, although Argišti I.´s inscriptions on the gate and on the temple in Arin-Berd also exhibits aesthetic quality. The same aesthetic quality is also visible in the way the later inscription in Ayanis is put up. In its final iteration, copying of the inscriptions was used only occasionally and in multiple sites. The extent to which the inscriptions were the exact copies is nevertheless not clear due to the fragmentary state of Rusa son of Argišti´s inscriptions. During the earlier periods, there seemed to be more work for the literate on building the monuments that would serve the royal agenda. Later, in times of Argišti I. and Sarduri II. it is possible that enough scribes or other providers of literacy existed that there was very little need for copying texts and instead every single inscription could have been devised as an original work. Erebuni, as a site that was only recently brought into Urartu´s fold, lacked people with skill in creating inscription, thus being the only one in which copying was necessary. During later periods, however, it seems that the inscriptions were issued centrally, without need for multiple scribes. Such shift could represent initial increase and then decrease in literacy rate as well as shift in writing practices in Urartu. Until we learn more about other spheres of life in which reiterating an activity was usual, we are left to speculate about the precise meaning of the phenomenon of inscription copies.

43

6 Use of a curse formula in the stone inscriptions

6.1 Occurrence of the formula The curse formula usually comes at the end of an inscription and its text is structurally the same in every iteration. The differences between the versions lie in the text7 of the inscription the curse is connected to; sometimes, events or facts from the inscription above are mentioned, as for example, in inscription A5-1, where “Minua says: whoever would destroy this inscription, whoever would damage it, whoever else (than Minua?) would (claim to) do such things, whoever else would say: “I conquered the city Luhiuni”, let them be destroyed by god Ḫaldi, the Sun god, and all the other gods under the sun”. Obviously, in building-related inscription, for example, would be the sentence “I conquered the city of Luhiuni” replaced by the sentence about the building of a susi temple or some other structure. Sometimes (A5-4), the text of the curse can also warn against hiding the inscription. If no particular event in the text is referred, a neutral sentence “whoever would say: I did it” is used in its place. In one case, A5-60, alternative text of the curse formula is used: “(13) a-lu-še tú-ú-li-e (14) a-lu-še lu-ru-qu-du-li (15) a-lu-še e-si-i-ni-e (16) su-ú-i-du-li-e (17) a-lu-še še-ri-du-li-e (18) tú-ri-ni-ni Dhal-di-še (19) ma-a-ni DUTU pi-e-ni-ni”, which is translated by Arutyunyan as being synonymous with the original text, though he does not give any further evidence supporting such translation (Arutjunjan 2001, 120-121). There are altogether two inscriptions in which the curse formula comes in the opening sequence of the text. These two are A8-1 and A9-1, belonging to Argišti I. and Sarduri II., respectively. The two inscriptions share many similarities; texts of both of them are parts of the annals of the ruler who had them made and are written on stelae. In case of Argišti I.´s inscription, it contained probably just a segment of the annals, and at this point it is not possible to discern which came first, the annals (A8-3) or their parts written on stelae (A8-1- 2). Use of the curse formula has been attested in 50 out of 252 stone inscriptions or series of inscriptions which were included in CTU 1. The earliest ones were used during the coregency of Išpuini and Minua in Van (A3-4, an inscription from the church Surb Pogos) and on the stela with bilingual Urartian-Assyrian inscription mounted in the Kelišin pass (A3- 11). From the period of Minua´s reign, many more are attested: the campaign inscriptions

7 or context, as witnessed by the curse inscription written on one of the shields found in front of the susi temple in Ayanis (Çilingiroğlu, 2005, 35) 44

from Tsolakert (A5-1), Yazılıtaş (A5-3), Zivin (A5-4), Palu (A5-5), Muş (A5-7), Bağın (A5- 8) and Taštepe (A5-10); the inscriptions connected to the building of Minua´s canal from Katepants, Edremit, Aşağı Micingir, Işhanıkom (A5-12, A5-13), Berkri/Muradiye (A5-16) with possibly the same theme, and Marmos (A5-22); the inscriptions connected to other building activities of Minua: from Patnos (A5-25), Berkri and Karahan (A5-30), Körzüt (A5- 56), from Van (A5-6) and Kohbants (A5-62) mentioning barzudibiduni; dedicatory stelae from Van (A5-68) and Karahan (A5-76); commemorative inscription from Sihke (A5-91) and inscriptions without other parts remaining from Kamışvan by Patnos (A5-70) and from Karagündüz (A5-86). An inscription from Van regarding a spring also includes a curse in each of its copies (A5-58). Argišti I.´s inscriptions from Van (A8-1 and A8-3), Sarıkamış (A8-6), Morevdere (A8- 7) and Javankaleh (A8-13) employ curses. Sarduri II.´s inscriptions on a stela from Surb Pogos (A9-1), Habıbuşaği (A9-4), Karataş (A9-11) and Armavir (A9-13) have curses in them. During the reign of Rusa son of Sarduri, curses were used in nearly all of his inscriptions: in Tsovinar (A10-2), in the bilinguals from Movana (A10-3), Mergeh Karwan (A10-4) and Topzawa (A10-5) as well in Tepe Mahmud Abad (A10-6). Inscriptions containing a curse from Argišti II.´s reign have been found at Hagi near Erciş (A11-2), Thanahat (A11-3), Razliq (A11-4), Našteban (A11-5), Shisheh (A11-6) and Bulutpınarıı (A11-8). From Rusa son of Argišti´s reign, inscription found at Ayanis temple contained a curse (A12-1), so it is quite possible, that the inscriptions on the temples from Karmir-Blur and Argištiḫinili (A12-2 and A12-3), which should be more-less exact copies of that found in Ayanis, contained the curse also, although it was not preserved. Due to similarities, it is at least possible that the same can be said about inscriptions from Adılcevaz and Bastam (A12-4 and A12-5). The other inscriptions, from Bastam (A12-7), Zvartnots (A12-8), Ayanis from the gate area (A12-9) and Kef Kalesi A12-10) all contain the curse formula. Finally, there is a single inscription from the reign of Rusa son of Erimena, from Savacık (A14-2), that employs the curse formula. Due to it being nearly identical to stela from Keşiş Göl (A14-1), it is quite safe to presume that the latter also had the curse formula at its end. An important and very limiting issue in the interpretation of the distribution of curse formulae is the fact that the major portion of the inscriptions is damaged in one way or another, and thus many inscriptions that could have originally featured a curse formula ended

45

up with their bottom parts broken off or rendered unreadable. Given this state of things, it is better to elaborate on this phenomenon in the extent in which it is preserved, bearing in mind the state of the inscriptions, and not to delve into the question, why on certain inscriptions the curse was used, while on other inscriptions of the same type it is absent.

6.2 Implementation of curse formula during the reign of specific rulers

6.2.1 Išpuini and Minua The inscriptions with curses appear from the very start on every type of medium, be it a niche, a building block, or a stela (Fig. 19). During the coregency of Išpuini and Minua, their use is limited to the two longest military-themed inscriptions. Since they were both written on stelae, it is possible that due to such vulnerable form was used, it was deemed necessary to protect the inscriptions also with spiritual means. With Kelišin inscription being placed out in the open, such protection would have certainly made sense.

6.2.2 Minua The use of curse formula during Minua´s reign has more common denominators. The formula shows up multiple times in his inscriptions regarding military campaigns (Fig. 22, 23). It is not present in the inscriptions that survived incomplete, however due to their state it is certainly possible that each of them originally contained the formula. Some of the inscriptions pertaining to building of the Minua´s canal also have the curse formula. The inscription from Salmanğa (A5-17) and its possible copy from Ererin (A5-18) probably did not have it though. As for the other inscriptions of this group, they are too incomplete and short to allow for any decisive statement. Nevertheless, at least in some cases, the formula is present.

Fig. 7 Outlook at the inscription of Aşağı Micingir (marked by arrow) and Minua´s canal. By Salvini (2008b, 128)

The thematically similar inscriptions from the northern side of Van Kalesi, mentioning the spring there, do have a

46

curse in each of their copies. However, their most closely related inscription series from Ezdhaha Bulaqi does not have any, It should be mentioned though that it is badly damaged. In other inscriptions, related mostly to building activities, there is a strong preference for employment of the curse formula on stelae; in some cases, as with the inscriptions regarding the building of barzudibiduni, curses are also present on the inscriptions placed on building blocks. In the case of dedicatory stelae, only a single case of curse use is attested, and some complete stelae do not employ the formula, which lead us to believe that this was a special case, or indeed a mistake on designer´s part. The formula is however present in the commemorative inscription from Sihke (A5-91), which reminds of an amazing jump of Minua´s horse. To sum up, during Minua´s reign, curses were used either on campaign inscriptions, or on inscriptions connected with waterworks (though not always), as well as on the stelae regarding his building activities and in special cases also on building blocks. It seems that during this time, apart from the military and waterworking inscriptions, the prevalent reason for employing of the curse formula was the physical form of the inscription (Tab. 2). The absence of the formula on dedicatory stelae is explainable by the means by which the curse was thought to protect the object it was placed upon. Since it called upon the gods to punish the trespasser, it is likely that a dedicatory stela would be protected by the deity it was dedicated to without the need for any extra protection. From this perspective it can be seen as a clue towards the question whether the elite, and mainly royal family, believed the religion they were propagating.

Curses Building Military Religious Total Sarduri I. Išpuini Išpuini+M 2/8 2 inua Minua 13/22% 7/70% 1/7,6%+1 22 Argišti I. 5/38% 5 Sarduri II. 4/40% 4 Rusa S 4/80% 1/50% 5 Argišti II. 2/100% 4/100% 6 Rusa A 4/33% 4 Rusa E 1/20% 1

Tab. 2 Occurrence of curse formula in different types of inscriptions during rules of different monarchs.

47

6.2.3 Argišti I. During the reign of Argišti I. the curse formula continued to be employed only on the inscriptions about the military campaigns (Fig. 28). It was preserved only in four cases, as the rest of the campaign inscriptions of Argišti I. did not survive in good enough state to allow us to ascertain how regularly the curse was used.

6.2.4 Sarduri II. Sarduri II. used the formula in quite different manner though (Fig. 31). Apart from the beginning of his annals (A9-1), the formula is rarely employed in campaign inscriptions, only present in the case of his military affairs with Militia. Other two Sarduri II.´s inscriptions with curse formula are incomplete. The Karataş inscription (A9-11) presents an interesting deviation. In this particular case the formula, used in its most basic and restricted form, is employed in such a manner that it seems to ward not against the damage dealt to the inscription, but rather against stealing from the vineyard or stealing of the bull deemed for religious offering.

6.2.5 Later rulers Rusa son of Sarduri left behind only one inscription that certainly did not include a curse, this one comes from Gavar (A10-1; Fig. 34) and apart from mentioning Ḫaldi´s gate and being part of a building, there is no difference between it and the following inscription from Tsovinar (A10-2). The only explanation here, although not supported by any evidence, is that the text continued on another stone. Since it is the only verifiable exception as the only other Rusa´s inscription that does not have the curse is incomplete, the trend of much freer use of the formula is otherwise well-attested. The wide use of the curse formula is also a feature of Argišti II.´s inscriptions (Fig. 37). In this case, no exception to their use can be attested, either due to the opposition of certain modern interest groups (Salvini 2008a, 535), or due to the inscriptions being lost. A large portion of Rusa son of Argišti´s inscriptions are damaged. However, the inscription from Ayanis temple has the curse formula, and thus it is highly likely that at least its near exact copies (A12-2 and A12-3) also eployed the curse. Besides largely incomplete inscriptions, curse is employed regularly in all other better preserved inscriptions (A12-7 to 12-10; Fig. 40)). From Rusa son of Erimena´s reign, no inscription so far found remained intact, and curse is attested only in the case of Savacık (A14-2; Fig. 43) stela. This particular case, due to

48

its content mentioning an artificial lake and at least briefly dropping note of a military campaign, would be a very reasonable candidate for having the curse no matter what period of Urartian history it would come from. Because of that, the presence of the curse does not help support either opinion on Rusa son of Erimena´s position within the royal line of succession.

6.3 Conclusion We can see that the curse formulae were used uninhibited throughout the Urartu- controlled space. As one would expect, they were not around from the very start (Tab. 2), which suggests that the habit of implementing them in certain inscriptions could have developed after some earlier inscription was damaged or destroyed. Early on, the curse was implemented in the inscriptions dealing with the military successes of Urartian monarchs and this remained the most consistently marked type throughout the history of the kingdom. Apart from that, it seems, they were employed in the inscriptions that were either of significant importance, as was the case with those present at water sources and waterworks, or those that were vulnerable to damage, e.g. stelae. After some experimentation with the format during Sarduri II.´s rule, the use of curse formula became widespread, and they appear in majority of the inscriptions issued in later periods with no regards to the form or content. There are several explanations for such development. One explanation is that the formula became the staple of the stone inscriptions. Another explanation, more probable due to the sudden change, is that the times were such, any inscription issued by the ruler was inherently endangered or in need of protection.

49

7 The appearance of the names Ṭušpa and Biainili in a formula

7.1 Occurrence of the formula Approximately one third of all the inscriptions contain the formula: (MAN.DAN-NU MAN al-su-i-ni) MAN KURbi-ia-i-na-ú-e a-lu-si URUṬu-uš-pa-a URU, which can be translated as “(the strong king, the great king,) ruler of Biainili, king of Ṭušpa city”8. The spread, or rather, the absence of this formula could tell us about the potential reach of the personal power of Urartian monarchs, as well as about the situations in which it was important to stress their centre and source of power geographically, not only to claim it via lineage. This formula appeared during the coregency of Išpuini and Minua and was put in the texts of inscriptions at Yeşılalıç (A3-2), Qalatgah (A3-10) and Kelišin (A3-11) (Fig. 19). During Minua´s reign, the formula appears in inscriptions from Zivin (A5-4), Palu (A5-5), Bağın (A5-8), Taštepe (A5-10), in the quartet of inscriptions from Katepants, Edremit, Aşağı Micingir and Işhanıkom (A5-12), in inscriptions from Berkri/Muradiye (A5-16), Salmanağa (A5-17 and A5-82), Adalar (A5-20), Marmos (A5-22), Akhtamar (A5-23), Karahan (A5-24, A5-74 and A5-75), Patnos (A5-25 and A5-39), Bašbulak (A5-26), Yedikilise (A5-32 and A5- 81), Köşk (A5-33 and A5-36), Körzüt (A5-35 and A5-56), Pırabat (A5-40), Delibaba and Hasankale (A5-41), Malazgirt (A5-51), Başkale (A5-52), Van (A5-58 and A5-85), Ezdhaha Bulaqi (A5-59), Qalatgah (A5-61), Bostankaya (A5-67), Warrag (probably Yedikilise) (A5- 73), Yalçınkaya (A5-77), Düzceli near Patnos (A5-78), Metsopayvank (A5-83), Keçikiran (A5-84), Anzaf (A5-94), Malazgirt (A5-96) and Siyah Cheshmeh (A5-97) (Fig. 22, 23). Argišti I. also employed it in some of his inscriptions: in Van (A8-1), Sarıkamış (A8-6), Morevdere (A8-7), Elar (A8-8), Lchashen (A8-11), Javankaleh (A8-13), Karakala (A8-15), Sardarapat (A8-16), Arin-Berd (A8-17, A8-18, A8-20, A8-21, A8-22) and in Pırabat (A8-35 and A8-36) (Fig. 28). The formula appears also on inscriptions from Sarduri II.´s reign: in Van (A9-1), Habıbuşaği (A9-4), Tsovak (A9-7), Seqindel (A9-8), Ortadamla (A9-9), Karataş (A9-10), Janfida (A9-14), Armavir (A9-15 and A9-19), Çavuştepe (A9-17), Arin-Berd (A9-20 and A9- 21) and Avnik (A9-39) (Fig. 31). There is no attested use of the formula by Rusa son of Sarduri (Tab. 3; Fig. 34). Argišti II. uses the formula again in several inscriptions: in stela from Hagi near Erciş (A11-2), Thanahat (A11-3) and in rock-cut inscription from Razliq (A11-4) as well as in stela

8 The translation is taken from Salvini 2008a 50

from Bulutpınarıı (A11-8) (Fig. 37). Rusa son of Argišti employed the formula in his inscription on the temple at Ayanis (A12-1) and it is also visible on one of the blocks found at Adılcevaz (A12-4). Also a smaller inscription from Bastam (A12-7), a stela from Zvartnots (A12-8) and the other inscription from Ayanis (A12-9) bear the formula (Fig. 40). Only a single use from the rule of Rusa son of Erimena, on a stela from Keşiş Göl, is attested (Fig. 43). In this case, Ṭušpa is no longer mentioned.

Tuš/Biai Building Military Religious Total Sarduri I. Išpuini Išpuini+M 1/20% 2/25% 3 inua Minua 24/38% 2/22% 9/64% 35 Argišti I. 9/39% 6/46% 15 Sarduri II. 6/23% 6/54% 12 Rusa S Argišti II. 2/100% 2/50% 4 Rusa A 6/66% 6 Rusa E 1/20% 1

Tab. 3 Occurrence of Ṭušpa-Biainili formula in different types of inscriptions during the reigns of different monarchs.

7.2 Conclusion The use of the formula is not restricted to any particular inscription type. It shows up on stelae, building inscriptions as well as rock-cut inscriptions. It is also used when talking about campaigns, building activity or religious acts such as dedication of a stela. Its use over time is also not largely different. The only clear difference comes during the reign of Rusa son of Sarduri, when this formula is not employed at all. Geographically, there is also very little distinction in the formula´s use. It is used consistently on the campaign inscriptions at or beyond the fringes of the space controlled by Urartu. Within the kingdom, it occurs on most of the sites outside of immediate vicinity of Van. The inscriptions in the vicinity of Ṭušpa that do include the formula are the chronicle inscriptions of Argišti I. (in one of its versions on a stela, A8-1) and Sarduri II. (the beginning part, also on a stela, A9-1); also a dedicatory stela (A5-85) and the inscription at the spring (A5-58). The most regular use of this formula comes on the dedicatory stelae issued by Minua, being used on overwhelming majority of them. It also appears sporadically on susi

51

inscriptions as well as on the inscriptions related to the building of Minua´s canal. Because of this pattern, it is possible to suggest, that the formula was employed to make an inscription more formal, as the most regular use was in the relationship between the ruler and the deities. It appears on inscriptions connected with water usage, which, as we have already seen, were also sometimes copied and protected with curse, which leads us to believe they were of significant importance. The substantially lower number of cases in which this formula appears around Ṭušpa also suggests that in this region, due to the more direct contact between the populace and the ruler, it was not necessary to include the formula; the party that issued the inscriptions was well-known and recognized. The hiatus in use of the formula during the reign of Rusa son of Sarduri (Tab. 3) cannot be explained by lack of important inscriptions, and neither by stylistic change and the formula becoming obsolete, since it clearly shows up multiple times in the inscriptions of later rulers. The most probable reason thus lies in the royal power itself; it might suggest that Rusa son of Sarduri did not rule from Ṭušpa (though he left an inscription there, so it is reasonable to presume that he controlled the city) or that by his time, the kingdom became so centralized that the royal authority was widely recognized and thus the formula did not have to be employed. His defeat at the hands of Sargon II. of Assyria could have thwarted this development, prompting his successors to reemploy the formula. Leaving out the name of the city Ṭušpa in the formula used by Rusa son of Erimena might suggest, depending on his position in the line of succession, either that he was not controlling Ṭušpa at that time, or that during his reign the city became less significant and could be omitted.

52

8 Deliberate damage to the stone inscriptions

Current fragmentary state of many Urartian inscriptions leave little room to doubt that time itself can heavily alter their form. However, damage to the text itself can also alter its meaning significantly. Moreover, in the society where ruler enjoyed privileges of safety of his fortress and huge food and – as the preserved pottery suggests (Zimansky 1995, 107) – large wine provisions, it would not be surprising for others to covet the position of power held by the ruler and his kin. In such situation, altering the message of existing inscription could potentially swing public opinion in favor of the person commissioning the changes. Whether any coup d´état ever happened in Urartu is still an open question. However, assessing the damage that can be attributed to the deliberate attempts at altering the message of inscriptions can help us better understand the likelihood of such event occurring, as well the way the system functioned. Interestingly, despite recent theories that brought into the spotlight potential breaches of royal line of succession (Ayvazian 2005, Roaf 2012, 198) no inscription bears clear signs that can be attributed to an attempt to alter its meaning. The most common type of damage sustained is fragmentation. Weathering and cracks are also widely common. The reuse of the inscriptions during the later periods is not the subject of the thesis, so apart from the statement that such thing happened quite commonly, we will not delve deeper into the issue. The reason for such persistent avoidance of any deliberate damage to the inscriptions might become more obvious after we consider that stone was used as a medium for writing the inscriptions, the fact that every single ruler in nigh every single inscription mentions his father and the fact that magical means, e. g. curse formula, were used to consistently protect military inscriptions and other inscription types alike from damage and claiming of the inscriptions by another person. The consistency with which the latter issue is addressed by the curse formula suggests that claiming the inscriptions was very real threat. It thus seems that the authority of the ruler was reinforced by, if not directly drawn from, the renown of his ancestors, and thus, the ability to claim that one is a blood relative of the previous monarchs could have been an important supporting argument for exacting obedience on different strata of population. This interpretation is supported by the evidence of later monarchs keeping and potentially also displaying the memorabilia of their ancestors in susi temples: “We know that

53

inscribed weapons of Rusa II’s forefathers were brought to the site of Karmir-Blur. Furthermore, in Ayanis, a new foundation of Rusa II, a helmet inscribed with the name of the earlier king Argišti II and a shield possibly inscribed with the same king’s name were excavated“ (Tanyeri-Erdemir 2007, 217). As it appears, “the formula frequently employed in these inscriptions states the name of the king, his patronymic, and a dedication, which is always to the god Ḫaldi“ (Tanyeri-Erdemir 2007, 214).

Fig. 8 Rock-cut inscription at Palu (A5-5) with visible traces of modern damage. The inscription represents common rock-cut military inscription and bears both Ṭušpa-Biainili and curse formulae. By Salvini (2008b, 119)

It can be further elaborated that the potential reason for creating the inscriptions in the conquered territories, commemorating the king´s victory, was enacting of ritualized warfare, connected with the cult of the chief deity, Ḫaldi. Materiality-wise, the fact that the inscriptions also do not bear any signs of repair indicates that they were not supposed to be altered beyond their initial state by human contact. This, along with the fact that a permanent, immobile medium was used, indicates that from the viewpoint of their creators, they were subordinate and viewed more as tools than agents.

54

The placement of the inscriptions could have caused them to lose their innate agency, because they were confined to a single place and position, oftentimes as parts of a bigger structure. An inscription in open air or an enclosed shrine does not change the meaning of the shrine, because it cannot. Same thing goes for the inscriptions on buildings. The only inscriptions left to “fend for themselves” were the campaign, stelae and canal inscriptions. In those cases, the presence of a curse can be seen as a way of making sure that the inscription stays intact, because the people interacting with it were potentially able to damage it.

55

9 Unique inscriptions

We know of two inscriptions to which the previously delineated division applies neither through content nor form. They both are written on stelae and both commemorate an unusual feat, connected with the persona of a king. Both also come from the vicinity of Ṭušpa (Fig. 25; Fig. 38) While the inscription relating the story of a jump of Minua´s horse (A5-91, Fig. 9) does not offer much in terms of interpretation possibilities, the fragmented inscription regarding Argišti II.´s archery prowess (A11-7) can be interpreted in several ways, beside the most obvious statement, that such inscription raised the credibility of the leader by making him more powerful than normal human beings. It is also possible that the act of firing an arrow has symbolic meaning. No other individual in any stone inscription, beside the ruler or his successor, is ever mentioned with patronymic, not even foreign rulers. The exception is a person to whose forest Argišti II. shot the arrow. This suggests that this person was on equal stance, when it came to the world order, with the king himself.

Fig. 9 Insription from Sihke, commemorating a jump of Minua´s horse. By Salvini (2008b, 188)

Another interpretation, stemming from this observation, is that firing the arrow could have been a symbolic gesture similar in meaning to the ritual of declaring war in ancient Rome, on Field of Mars, where a javelin would be thrown to a piece of land declared enemy soil. The inscription might be telling a story of king´s metaphorical act directed toward powerful enemy (que use of militaria for the gesture).

56

10 Size of the cuneiform signs

For assessing the size of the characters, the primary data source was Salvini´s CTU where he stated the size of the first row of large portion of the inscriptions. The majority of rock-cut inscriptions, however, were not measured and this vital information thus remains unknown. Though this comes as a leap of faith, it is possible to state that if the inscriptions would change the size of their characters significantly, Salvini would have noted that. The height is relatively constant, in between 2,5 and 6 cm in the extreme cases and more commonly between 3,5 and 5 cm. The row size does not increase or decrease in a regular manner that would be connected to the size of the inscription, or its type or content. Thus it can be presumed that for the height of the rows, certain measurement unit was applied. Given the difference in the scope, it would look probable that body measures, especially thumb could have been used. It is important to stress that this explanation is purely theoretical, prompted by absence of any known measuring device.

57

11 Spatial distribution of the inscriptions

11.1 General remarks Multiple sites, predominantly from the times of earlier rulers, Minua, Argišti I. and Sarduri II., feature higher number of stone inscriptions. By comparing them, we can learn how the royal ideology adjusted to or subverted local conditions for its own purpose. Though many Urartian sites have been mapped, due to the fact that majority of Urartian stone inscriptions was not found in situ, our abilities to analyze them position-wise are severely limited. It is still possible though, to examine the relationship between the religion and other activities going on in the fortress, since two types of inscriptions, that are most commonly found in situ, are the inscriptions on susi temples and granaries. For such comparison, plans of fortresses Erebuni and Çavuştepe and partly Ayanis are available. The capital, Ṭušpa, is a different case however. The inscriptions here were mostly found either on the mountain sides, or in the surrounding areas, and not in the processs of excavations within the site´s citadel. In some other major sites, such as Argištiḫinili and Aznavur Tepe, the majority of the inscriptions were in secondary position, or the site plans are not very detailed. However, that still allows us to at least assess what types of inscriptions were locally prevalent. The same can be said for the sites or areas that lack any ground plan altogether.

11.2 Inscriptions on susi temples Inscriptions most consistently found in situ are located on susi temples. These temples share many similarities in the way they were built but also in the way the inscriptions were used on them. The inscriptions can cover larger area, as was the case in Ayanis (Fig. 11), and probably also other temples of Rusa son of Argišti, but also in the earlier temples built by Minua (A5-2). Other instances, such as in Aznavur Tepe and Erebuni (Fig. 10), show inscriptions of smaller format and having several copies. The susi-temples, as witnessed by their ground plans, usually have around them a pillared, more open, space. In Erebuni, a columned hall or yard was placed right in front of the temple (Oganesjan 1980, 42), while in Ayanis, the pillars were positioned around the temple, creating an arcade (Çilingiroğlu 2001, 44). Similarly built temple, also with pillars around it rather than in front of it, was excavated at Altıntepe (Özgüç 1966, 39). Other susi temples, such as in Çavuştepe and analogical

58

example from Kayalıdere (Forbes 1983, 23, 78-79) do not have any columned space immediately in front or around them.

Fig. 10 Susi temple in Erebuni. By Oganesjan (1980, 54)

From the ground plans we can also see that the position of the temples is in general not more secluded than the position of storage facilities. However, over time, temple areas became increasingly secluded: „Through time, we can also observe that the temples became more and more spatially secluded and self-contained ... The temples at Yukarı Anzaf and Kayalıdere built in the late ninth and early eighth centuries B.C. were abutting the fortification walls, and the temple courtyards could be reached directly by a ramp leading from the city gates ... The temples built by Argišti I (786-764 B.C.) and Sarduri II (764-734 B.C.) in the eighth century are located farther away from the city walls, towards the center of the citadels. The temples at Arin-Berd and Çavuštepe, built by Argišti I and Sarduri II respectively, have some indication that they might have had colonnaded courtyards. The Çavuštepe upper citadel temple was enclosed in a temenos wall, and three round column bases were excavated to its west ... The Altintepe temple, which is dated to the late eighth or early seventh century B.C., was located in a compound with high walls and a colonnaded courtyard ... The seventh-century temple of Ḫaldi built by Rusa II recently excavated at Ayanis, illustrates that the temple was enclosed in a wall and was surrounded by massive pillars, instead of columns ... The Ayanis temple courtyard had two entrances one of which was blocked sometime during the lifetime of the temple. Both of the entrances were fairly small and neither had direct access to the façade of the temple“ (Tanyeri-Erdemir 2007, 213).

59

Nevertheless, the fact that the space in front or around the temple was somewhat open and could accommodate audience suggests that at least during a ritual the temple and the inscriptions on it were reachable not only by priests.

Fig. 11 Susi temple at Ayanis. By Salvini (2008b, 338)

Another supporting argument for the presence of groups of people around susi temples are the inscriptions from Yukarı Anzaf (A5-42 A-C) and Aznavur Tepe (A5-11 A-B). The iterations of the texts are placed around these temples in such a way that they might be viewed clearly by multiple people looking at the temples from different angles. This also holds true for Erebuni susi temple which has two identical copies of the text flanking its entrance (Fig.

60

10). Though the temple in Yukarı Anzaf is not reconstructed, Salvini´s description of the positions of the inscriptions (Salvini 2008a, 230-231) supports this idea. In case of Aznavur Tepe´s inscriptions, the versions of the text were placed at the corners of the building (Salvini 2008a, 201-202, Balkan 1960, 114-123). As for the makeup of the audience, the spaces in the immediate vicinity of the temples are not large enough to accommodate bigger crowds. That being said, the most probable target audience was the local elite, or, more precisely, part of the inhabitants of the citadel. Whether the servants had access to the temple areas, remains an open question. While in Erebuni the temple area is clearly separated from the area in which the granaries were built, in While in Erebuni the temple area is clearly separated from the area in which the granaries were built (Oganesjan 1980, 56-59), in Çavuştepe the distinction is not so clear, even less so in Uç kale, the area of the citadel that aspires to being the third temple at the site (Tarhan 2007, 273-278). In all documented instances, the placement of the susi temple inscriptions suggests some sort of movement, most likely connected with the ceremonies The inscription on Ayanis temple can be taken as an emblematic example; in order to read it fully, a reader had to stay in the front of the temple, then get into the door space and again step away to the space in front of the temple (cf. Salvini 2001, 253-254). If certain ceremony including the inscription took place, we can suspect that a part of this ceremony would happen within the cella. As we do not know the full repertoire of ceremonial spectacles connected to the temple, the possibility of the rituals featuring inscriptions being carried out solely by the priestly class remains equally probable as these rituals encompassing secular audience as well.

11.3 Inscriptions on buildings of economical function Cuneiform inscriptions also tend to appear on certain structures of economical importance, e.g. granaries and stables. From Karmir-Blur, we know that the temple storage of ritual goods also probably had an inscription in bronze, communicating the purpose of the rooms (Piotrovskij 1952, 20). Unlike the temples, however, the storage parts do not always feature the inscriptions in the same measure. In Erebuni and Çavuştepe, the inscriptions on granaries are actually the most prevalent type of inscription. Other regional centres, such as Argištiḫinili and Aznavur Tepe, feature them in lesser extent. Due to the sheer size of Argištiḫinili´s possible settlement area, it is highly probable, that not all of the granaries were inscribed. In Van, there are as many stable buildings inscribed as granaries. This fact is tied very closely to the issue of the use of the granaries. The inscriptions on

61

the granaries only give two pieces of information: the name of the monarch, along with his patronymic, and a statement that the building that he built is a granary. Such inscription can be used as a marker, announcing the purpose of the building to those who can read, and by being visible and setting apart this structure from other visually and typologically similar structures, it also conveys the same message to non-readers. “Two separate types of storerooms, called Gie (Melikišvili 1960, 79) and (E)ari (Melikišvili 1960, 419), are mentioned in Urartian inscription, but the differences between them are not clearly understood” (Sağlamtimur 2005, 140). This illustrates the fact that the storing capacities of Urartu were diverse and specialized. However, this does not explain why all of the granaries are not inscribed. More probable explanation would be that the storage facilities bearing an inscription were set apart and possibly also protected by the inscription, their contents being used for different purpose that probably was not related to everyday activities. One such purpose would be ritual sacrifices. We do not know much about the proceedings of Urartian religious rituals, however, the inscriptions such as Meher Kapısı suggest that animals were the preferred type of sacrifice. Even though in the courtyard of Ayanis temple millet was found both in and around the offered militaria (Çilingiroğlu 2005, 35), it should be noted that we do not know as of yet any specially designed granary with inscription in Ayanis. The nature of the goods stored, and the fact that the storage vessels were firmly put in the ground, suggest that they were not moved around, and thus we can exclude trade as a reason for keeping them apart. The most probable explanation is that such a sudden increase in consumption of agricultural products happens when an army is assembled. The theory of using the royally marked granaries and stables for military purposes is also strongly supported by evidence by absence from Orumiyeh basin (Fig. 20, 24, 29, 32, 35, 38, 41, 44). In case of maintenance needs, it would be logical for the state to also construct granaries with inscriptions in there. However, in case of military use, such action would be redundant in a potentially politically unstable region, where a major portion of military activity took place already. There was no need for the troops stationed in Orumiyeh basin to come back to Araxes valley for provisions for marching back to Orumiyeh basin. Additionally, the only known stables adorned with inscriptions come from Ṭušpa. The two stables were inscribed in the same style as the granaries. The fact that stables with inscriptions are not known from other, more suited areas for herding and horse rearing, such as Orumiyeh Basin and Araks river basin (Burney 2005, 16-18), suggests special use of these buildings, also most likely for military activities, as we know from the letter to god Aššur that Urartian

62

rulers used chariots as a means of transport during the campaigns (Luckenbill 1927, 82).

Fig. 12 Inscription A9-22 from Arin-Berd. Common inscription denoting building of a granary. By Salvini (2008b, 282)

To this point, two major objections can be raised. First, there are two sites with highest number of such granaries, Erebuni and Çavuştepe. While Erebuni´s position served well as a gathering point for military endeavors towards the north, or lake Sevan or Orumiyeh basin, Çavuştepe is located not far from Van kalesi, in a cul-de-sac valley that does not possess logistically strategical position. It is however of interest, that the ruler who built Çavuştepe, Sarduri II., announces in his annals, that in one of his campaigns, against Uelikuhi, he did not needed the help of any of his generals or provincial administrators (A9-3, cf. Zimansky 2012, 104). That suggests that the king himself had the capacity to organize a military campaign, and for such purpose, if the rallying point was set in or near Ṭušpa, Çavuştepe would have been of great importance. The fact that Çavuştepe has so many granaries specifically marked by royal inscriptions can thus be seen as a sign of increasingly stronger position and larger military capabilities of Urartian monarch in comparison to his subordinates. Another objection can be raised, though, from examination of the Assyrian correspondence concerning internal matters of Urartian kingdom. The Urartian generals “commanded troops of their own and sometimes acted in concert with each other, independently of the Urartian king” (Zimansky 2005, 238). It seems that the local leaders supplied the monarch with already prepared armies, brought together in the generals´ own accord. These informations however do not enlighten us on the issue of recruitment system and its time-wise efficiency, and neither on its precise economical background. Without

63

additional information, this point is so far inconclusive. A possible explanation would be that the armies were supplied in stages, as they moved from the center of the empire to the peripheries. The lack of marked storage facilities in Argištiḫinili and by extent also Menuaḫinili might be partly explained by their position: “It is of note that the largest Urartian fortresses in the Ararat plain, Argishtiḫinili, Aramus, and Artashat, were located on the three primary routes into, and out of, the plain. This intensive occupation of transit routes by the largest Urartian fortresses suggests a redistribution of goods out of the plain to other regions of empire.“ (Smith 1999, 57) The fact that this type of building inscriptions appears most often during Argišti I.´s and Sarduri II.´s reign could signify that their military endeavors were much more organized and thought-out, leading to potentially longer periods of campaigning. The stored “agricultural products” (Sağlamtimur 2005, 140) in the storage vessels re generally thought to be of solid nature, that means most likely grain. The distinction between different types of storage structures, reflected in inscriptions by calling them once gie and other times (e)ari can reflect either different content stored in different types of granaries, or different purpose of the building, so that one could have served for the military purposes while the other for the needs of the clergy. In two separate instances (A8-30, A9-20), inscribed granaries are connected to ašihusi. Just as inscribed granaries, no ašihusi are known from Orumiyeh basin. Based on this observation, it is at least probable that these columned structures´ purpose was somehow related to the purpose of inscribed granaries. As Çilingiroğlu (Çilingiroğlu 2007, 44) pointed out, they are also likely candidates for the storehouses of the priestly class. Their absence from Orumiyeh basin however speaks against this possibility. As for barzudibiduni, they were found in all major areas of Urartu and their vague connection with granaries supported only in A9-19 from Armavir only suggests that they were more important than granaries, as barzudibiduni is mentioned first in this particular inscription. Whether the inscription was made in this way either because the buildings had common entryway, or because they shared purpose, is impossible to decide, although given that no precedence for the former option exists, the latter is more probable.

11.4 Dedicatory stelae In Karahan, the only type of inscriptions found so far are stelae, and most of them belong to unique group of dedicatory stelae issued by Minua. Also appearing are building

64

inscriptions boasting an extensive list of projects, including two fortresses, Ḫaldi´s city and Minuaḫinili, as well as two building inscriptions mentioning a canal. Due to the content of the building inscriptions it seems that the surrounding areas were densely populated, however the dedicatory inscriptions can be explained as a sign of the site´s religious function, which is unparalleled in Urartu in terms of its consistency of form. As most of these inscriptions are dedicated to Ḫaldi, it is also possible that the ceremonies held here were in some way connected to military campaigns. All the dedicatory inscriptions on stelae come from the area of Karahan or Ṭušpa (Fig. 24, 25). This shows that this particular form of religious worship was not incentivised to spread. Since the stelae might have originally been set up in a public place, their distribution could correlate with the extent of common knowledge of the royal ideology among lower strata of population.

11.5 Niches of religious nature In case of rock-cut inscriptions, particular point of interest lies in their immediate surrounding. As these were out in the open, in the case of such inscriptions as Meher Kapısı or Hazıne Kapısı (Fig. 13), large crowds could have assembled there. The material remains present there (Salvini 2005, 152) offer the possibility that the religious ceremonies featuring offerings, such as mentioned in the inscriptions themselves, took place directly there. Two other inscriptions share the physical or constructional features associated with ceremonial practice. Yeşılalıç , which has stairs cut into the bedrock leading up to the platform in front of the rock-cut niche, also has six slots for standing stone inscriptions (Tanyeri-Erdemir 2007, 209), and Hazınepiri Kapısı, which is the oldest of the four and also is placed inside a three- tiered niche. In the case of these rock-cut inscriptions, a question can be raised: were these inscriptions publicly read? The presence of ceremonies directly in front of them would certainly provide an opportunity for such behavior. As for the other rock-cut inscriptions, those do not feature any list of sacrifices, and overwhelming majority of them is connected to, and was probably issued because of, military campaigns. Argišti I.´s annals are placed on the stone cliff right along a staircase; reading such an inscription publicly would be quite a dangerous effort (Fig. 15). The inscription in Meher Kapısı provides more a gist, a schedule according to which a ceremony was run, although tidbits of information on the rulers´ building activity are also given. The other three inscriptions provide more material for narration. As Inomata (Inomata

65

12) pointed out, “Performance not only communicates concepts but creates identities for the participants and construct the world in which they live. Performance is not only a mode of communication but a mode of social action”. Social action is, however, largely absent from the texts of these inscriptions, and only refers to the relationship between the ruler and the gods. In order to make such narrative relateable, the performers – in all likelihood priests and maybe the ruler himself – had to construct an interpretation that allowed the audience to become a part of the relationship between the monarch and the deities. Technically, in all cases, it is possible that parts of the inscriptions were narrated to the audience. The next question then is, who was this audience?

Fig. 13 Niches of Hazıne Kapısı in Van. By Salvini (2008b, 250)

66

There is a set of distinct differences between the contexts of susi temples within the fortresses on one hand and the contexts of these niche inscriptions on the other. Firstly, these rock-cut inscriptions are found in immediate vicinity of Ṭušpa (Fig. 18, 21, 26, 27, 33), whereas susi temples are found throughout the area controlled by Urartian monarchs. Secondly, these four inscriptions are surrounded by a much more open area than the temples in citadels, prompting bigger crowds to accumulate around them. Thirdly, there is a vertical distinction present in every case of niche inscription, which contrasts starkly with no verticality between susi temples and their immediate surrounding. Thus we can suggest that the audience was quite different in both cases. In citadels located in outlying regions of the kingdom, the elite was a more probable target for the state propaganda, whereas in the very center of Urartu, the common populace posed a more imminent threat to the ruler and thus needed to be enlightened, so to speak, by the state´s religious propaganda. Due to the fact that many inscriptions also boast a high number of captives, substantial amount of which were brought to Ṭušpa, it would make sense to have shrines that would offer these people an easy way towards acculturation. This is supported by the inscription in Assyrian and Urartian found in Kevenli/Šušants just 10 km from modern-day city of Van (Salvini 2008a, 233). Taken from the other prespective, it would aso show that the cult of Ḫaldi was domestic or rather domesticated around the area of Ṭušpa itself, however, further from the core of the state, the cult following was mostly restricted to the elite. One probable participant of the rituals at the open-air shrines was the monarch. As Tanyeri-Erdemir suggested, „The king’s performance in these rituals in front of these open-air shrines might have been particularly important especially if we consider that this indeed coincided with the first few decades that the Urartian religion was constructed and introduced.“ (Tanyeri-Erdemir 2007, 210). There is no direct evidence of monarch actually being a part of such ceremonies, or being able to read or write. The closeness of the niches´ geographical location to his seat of power would nevertheless allow him to visit each of them quickly if participation in rituals was necessary.

11.6 Sacred gates The open-air shrines are strongly connected to the issue of the sacred gates, and more specifically, to the gates of Ḫaldi. The most famous Urartian rock-cut niche, the Meher Kapısı niche, is the only one identified so far that explicitly states that it is the gate of Ḫaldi by referring to itself using the Urartian pronoun ini, meaning this (A3-1). The mentions of sacred

67

gates are more numerous however and they come from all parts of the kingdom, be it Karmir Blur in Araxes Valley (A12-2), Patnos (A3-12) or Qalatgah (A3-10). There are two instances in which the sacred gate is attributed to other deity than Ḫaldi. This is the case of inscription A3-12 from Patnos, mentioning a gate consecrated to the god Ua among the tributaries of ceremonial offerings along Ḫaldi and god Ua himself, and the inscription A10-6 from Tepe Mahmudabad, which mentions a gate consecrated to the god Šebitu. On this more general level, the gates mentioned can be univocally associated with the religion. And truly, in the inscriptions, they are commonly mentioned besides susi temples (A4-1, A5-47, A9-16, A9-17, A12-1, A12-2). Gates of Ḫaldi are prevalently mentioned in connection with founding of a fortress (A2-9, A5-11, A5-25, A5-27, A5-28 - A5-31, A5-33, A5-37, A5-47, A10-1). It is also noteworthy that the both times in which other deities are known to have their sacred gates assigned, there is no mention of actual manufacture of these gates. The simplest explanation is that the sacred gates belonged to an already established religious tradition in the areas which Urartian monarchs conquered, and were respected by the monarchy. The timespan between the inscriptions that mention these structures suggests that the royal stance towards these structures did not change over time. At the same time, however, the kingdom was vigorously pushing its own imperial cult, that of god Ḫaldi, and multiple sacred gates were built for him. What form did these gates take then? During their correation with fortresses and susi temples, two options are likely: the gates of the susi temples, and the citadel gates. . The susi gates seem more likely candidates, as in cases such as Karmir-Blur (Piotrovskij 1952, 24, 62) and mainly Ayanis, multiple militaria dedicated to Ḫaldi were found in the temple area (Çilingiroğlu 2005 34-35) Stronach, when discussing Ḫaldi´s gates, puts the emphasis on the shape of the niche, which is thought to give a structure the meaning of the door of Ḫaldi (Stronach 2010, 111). However, in Erebuni no indication is given by inscriptions that the gate of Ḫaldi was actually built there. The shape of the niche is nevertheless an important factor in the issue. Meher Kapısı has a squared top, which makes it very similar to the gates of the temple of Ḫaldi in Muṣasir (Sagona, Zimansky 2009, 328, Forbes 1983, 47). It is certainly possible that the niche in Meher Kapısı was modelled after the door of this particular temple. On the other hand, though, overwhelming number of Urartian depictions of buildings show us rounded upper part of the gate (Smith 1996, 356-357; also visible on narrower bronze belts as shown in Seidl 2004, 145, 146). Should we then look for a structure with a squared top of its gate to associate

68

it with a gate of Ḫaldi, or is it possible that these structures, in the same manner as the rock- cut niches, changed their form as the time went by? The association of the gates of Ḫaldi with the fortresses suggests that indeed, the structure thought of as Ḫaldi´s gate could have been reenvisioned in slightly different form. The citadel gates do have, on all the inscriptions, rounded tops (Ibid.). The shift toward rounded tops is also present in Hazıne Kapısı (Fig. 13) There is some evidence that the citadel gates were designed to pass on certain message, and thus can be thought of as having (a symbolic) meaning. The evidence comes from Erebuni, Ayanis and Bastam. In Erebuni, an inscription was found in the left side of the gate of the citadel and its twin inscription was probably originally put symmetrically in the right side (Oganesjan 1980, 42-43). It can be argued whether this gate served as a barrier between the outside world, influenced by the local deities, and the citadel that represented the state and the cult of Ḫaldi; the inscriptions and that much more its symmetrical nature makes the gate a significant transitional space. In Ayanis, a gate was uncovered “flanked by wide buttresses“ and towers. However, „...these towers were built more for visual effect than for protection“ (Çilingiroğlu 2001, 28), hinting again at the possibility of their non-utilitarian use. The same can be also said about Bastam´s northern gate: „Das Nordtor des Festung Bastam hat, obwohl es sich um ein zweiseitig abschliessbares Kammertor handelt..., kaum fortifikatorishen Sinn, sondern eine Rein repräsentative Funktion... Durch die Wuchtigkeit der Flankierungstürme stellt das Nordtor einen repräsentativen Aufgang auf die Festung dar“ (Kleiss 1975, 293). To sum up, the archaeological evidence from these three sites suggests that the gates were not only made as structures designed for regulating the flow of the people and goods in and out of the citadels, but also had significant symbolic potency and because of this, they should be considered as viable candidates for the gates of Ḫaldi, especially in the cases where the establishment of the sacred gate is clearly connected to the establishment of the fortress in conjunction with the absence of a susi temple.

11.7 Urartian place names and military logistics according to inscriptions Urartian rulers were avid campaigners and substantial amount of their inscriptions deals with this theme. From the comparison of Assyrian inscriptions regarding Assyrian expeditions to the lands surrounding Urartu, it was possible to assess the position of some cities and

69

countries known from these texts. Though some unsystematic research in this direction was done also with Urartian inscriptions, they present us with multitude of otherwise unknown geographical names, many of which appear only once. In some cases, however, information conveyed by position of the campaign inscriptions allow us to assess the likely location of a geographical unit, or at least directions leading to it. For this task, two sources of information were possible to be used. First, campaign inscriptions present in the field, so to speak, that means rock-cut inscriptions relating to a certain campaign and created most likely during that particular expedition. These can be compared with either annals or other inscriptions of the same type and from the differences at least a rough meaning of some geographical terms can be extrapolated. The fact that I personally was not able to visit these areas also greatly hinders the possibility of precise identification of some routes used for campaigning. The other source of information are inscriptions from the sites of Urartian fortressees, that are referring to some region or city as containing said inscription or a building mentioned in it. From Išpuini´s and Minua´s inscription from Surb Pogos in Van (A3-4) we know that a copy should be installed in the city of Anašia. There are three other inscriptions (A3-5, A3-6 and A3-7) that have similar content to the inscription from Surb Pogos. However, from these we learn that the inscriptions were all issued after the monarchs returned from Anašia, which means that this city lied somewhere beyond their positions. It is however possible that some explanatory nuance was lost in translation and one of these three inscriptions lies in Anašia after all.

Fig. 14 Annals of Argišti I. in Van. By Salvini (2008b, 199)

According to Minua´s inscription from Muš (A5-7), the country Urme should lie in that region (Dan, Neri 2014, 122). We learn about two other locations from Minua´s inscriptions: A5-37 repeatedly mentions city of Aludiri, where Minua built a fortress and Ḫaldi´s gate. The inscriptions on the building

70

blocks of fortresses usually mention buildings contained inside the fortress, which would mean that the fortress at Aznavur Tepe can be tentatively identified with the city Aludiri (Ibid., 2014, 117). In the same manner, the city Mušuni mentioned in Norkiuh inscription (A5-50) could be then tentatively proposed to lie in the area of Norkiuh.

Fig. 15 Reconstruction of Argišti I.´s Annals in Van. By Salvini (2008b, 200)

From Argišti I.´s annals and his inscription in Morevdere (A8-7) we learn about a campaign to the lands Tariu(ni), Ḫuša and Bia. However, two different accounts of the route are presented. These either refer to different events during the campaign, or two different campaigns in the region. The countries referred to as last in the inscription (Ašqalaši, Diaueḫi) are those mentioned also in other, sometimes shorter, campaigns, which means that they lied closer to Urartian territories than Tariu(ni), Ḫuša and Bia. We are thus able to present the following sequence: a campaign occurred leading to Tariuni, Ḫuša and Bia, but the king did not leave his inscription there, maybe because he learned that on his way back he will have to deal with the king of Diaueḫi. On the second campaign, though, he was able to leave the inscription, but we are not informed about this expedition beyond the references in Argišti´s annals. The inscription A8-2 mentions the country of Bia, and it is possible given the similarities in other names used there that this refers to the second campaign waged in this direction. An inscription left in the city of Zua in Diaueḫi is mentioned there. However the inscription A8-7 is a rock-cut one, and not left in a city. Because of this it remains doubtful whether Zua was located in proximity of Morevdere inscription. Also, from Argišti I.´s annals we learn that it was possible to go from Etiuni to Eriahi and from there to Qiehuni. The position of Qiehuni is associated with the shores of a lake, presumably Lake Sevan, and this country was located on the way to Siluani.

71

Fig. 16 Rock-cut inscription of Argišti II. in Našteban (A11-5). By Salvini (2008b, 333)

The three incriptions of Argišti II. mention his campaign eastwards (Fig. 38). Though the details they share are as numerous as the differences between their texts, these different details can be organized to a single timeline. In the inscription from Shisheh (A11-6), Ḫaldi´s watch is mentioned as being built. Shisheh is also understood from the text to be around the furthest point of the campaign. Našteban inscription (A11-5) then mentions the way back, but omits the building of Argišti´s watch, which is mentioned in Razliq inscription (A11-4). So it seems that Ḫaldi´s watch was built on the way to Shisheh and on the way back, Argišti commissioned the other two inscriptions and the building of Argišti´s watch. Razliq inscription picks up just after the finish of Našteban inscription, which suggests that the city Runitarni/Eunitarni might have been located somewhere in the area of Našteban, and the same applies for Argišti´s watch.

72

12 Temporal distribution of the inscriptions

12.1 Changes in use of the inscriptions over time Different types of inscriptions were preferred or used over time. Here we will examine how the inscriptions changed in form, context and content – the last part regards the major theme, curse and Ṭušpa-Biainili formula - and how the strategy of employing the inscriptions on particular sites developed over time.

12.1.1 Sarduri I. Sarduri I. employed only building inscriptions (Fig. 17) and during his reign Urartian language was not used for writing these state-issued texts. His dependence on Assyrian instead, as well as the swift change to Urartian in later generations, can be explained by the presence of scribes or priests from regions bordering Assyria and Urartu, most likely from Muṣasir/Arḍini (Melikišvili 1960, 82).

12.1.2 Išpuini and his coregency with Minua Išpuini introduced Urartian language to writing and also set out certain trends. Inscriptions signifying the founding of an important building were commissioned in two or three iterations of the text per inscription. He was also the first to commission an inscription in a niche and on a stela (Fig. 18). Though stelae were not previously used, they do have a history in Armenian highland; further in the past, Višap stones, a “monumental feature of high-altitude sacral landscapes” related to the middle bronze age or earlier contexts (Gilibert 2013, 195 and 201, in regards to Lchashen Višap as an example). They could have also been inspired by Assyrian tradition, which used límu-stelae (van de Mieroop 2010, 234) and rarely also obelisks (Pittmann 1996, 335). The Assyrian rulers also commissioned stelae as well as rock-cut inscriptions during their military campaigns and it is argued that this behavior was connected with ritual performance which enabled the rulers to reach beyond the sphere of only physical conquest, but also to engage “highly-charged symbolic field of space, tradition and legitimacy” (Shafer 2007, 133 and 134). In those cases when they were documented in situ or with their original pedestal, Urartian stelae are self-standing, so there is no link at this point that would connect them to Neo-Hittite tradition of orthostat usage as displayed Zincirli, Carchemiš or even Tell Halaf (Gilibert 2011, 27, Winter 1983, 180). In all these cases though, where inscriptions

73

were placed, their main role was to legitimize the royal power. The main visual difference though remains in the fact that in order to do that, the Neo-Hittite orthostats had to include visual representations. Later, when Minua became effective coregent, first inscriptions with military theme appeared (Fig. 20). These were written on stelae, rock cliffs and building blocks alike (Fig. 21). It is interesting to note, that the first military inscription to be placed on a building block was located on a cistern (Payne, Ceylan 2003, 191). This might strengthen the notion of water installations being of importance. Other important inscriptions were concerned with religious buildings and ceremonies and placed in rock-cut niches. During this time, first uses of curse formula and also the formula “king of Biainili, ruler of Ṭušpa city” are attested (Fig. 19), and only once in the same context, that being Kelišin stela. In its early iterations, the latter formula was found exclusively on the fringes of the polity. In Meher Kapısı we can see that the religious rituals were structured and that this structure is reflected in writing. That means that at least part of the priestly class knew how to read, and thus, probably also knew how to write. We don´t have any tangible evidence for existence of scribes in this period.

12.1.3 Minua During Minua´s solitary reign, building projects exploded in number and diversity. He left behind nearly hundred inscriptions. Using the curse formula became standard with campaign inscriptions and sporadically appeared in his other projects, including waterworks, barzudibiduni and various stelae regarding building or commemorative acts (Fig. 22, 23). As was already suggested, despite the current fragmentary state of many inscriptions, there are visible trends in use of both investigated formulae. Their inclusion granted the inscription both extra protection and significance. The sudden explosion of inscriptions might had been also caused by the increased awareness of the meanings or at least social connotation of the inscriptions among the broader populace, which was facilitated by the commission of the inscriptions like Meher Kapısı. This awareness was then harnessed by the rulers and used to mark with inscriptions the objects deemed necessary to protect or signify. The best examples are the inscriptions pertaining to waterworks and the inscriptions near the springs in Van and Ezdhaha Bulaqi. The curse formula was mostly associated with the stelae. Apart from the possibility that due to their fragile nature, the stelae needed more protection than other inscription types, this

74

could have also provided them with political significance Minua was also the first ruler to issue inscriptions on economical structures such as granaries and stables. I suggest that since previously only pristine class was sure to have access to the knowledge of writing and reading, this change reflects the spread of this knowledge to the secular part of the kingdom´s elite. If this were not the case, the priests would be able to gain control over substantial part of the economy at the expense of both the local elite and the king. If the suggested use of the inscribed granaries, that is, to supply military campaigns, is the correct one, leaving this vital part of the economy in the hands of clergy would necessitate some sort of control, otherwise the king would risk substantial frauds. The distinction between secular, administrative, elite and the priestly class is here understood as a premise, based on the fact that the religion in Urartu was closely tied to the ruling dynasty and not local traditions, wich is, after all, evident just from the existence of the inscriptions in temple spaces.

12.1.4 Argišti I. During Argišti I.´s rule, inscriptions conveying primarily religious content were absent (Fig. 29). Curse use was reserved exclusively for campaign inscriptions, as the takeover of enemy lands became important (Fig. 28). Having accessed parts of Araxes river valley, Argišti came upon large swathes of cultivable land, a valuable resource. Multiple, mostly rock-cut inscriptions of his campaigns usually at the fringes of the state were probably protected by the curse formula, because they were hard to reach on common basis (Fig. 30). However, once established, they provided the Urartian monarch with vast areas that he and his successors could claim. Ṭušpa-Biainili formula continued to be used in both military and building inscriptions, being omitted only in cases of short, repetitive inscriptions concerning the hall in Arin-Berd and the granaries from that same site. In Argišti I.´s time, iterations of the same text within one inscription were discontinued as a practice, though some building inscriptions were issued with identical texts. These, however, pertain to a single site, Erebuni, and might be influenced by the area´s recent acquisition and the lack of educated scribes. Sarduri II.´s only inscriptions that share their text also come from Erebuni. Alternatively, it is also possible that the writing process there was run in a different manner than in the rest of the kingdom. Or that the scribe/priest was smart and spared himself unnecessary work.

75

12.1.5 Sarduri II. During Sarduri II.´s reign, both the curse formula and Ṭušpa-Biainili formula appeared in the same contexts as during the reign of his father, barring occasional exceptions, such as the time the curse was used in an inscription concerned with the establishment of a vineyard. The recently founded fortress at Çavuştepe seemed to serve mostly as a collecting centre of the arable land in its vicinity. Though it is purely speculative, the amount of prisoners from campaigning might have overwhelmed the subsistence system in Ṭušpa and another distribution centre near the capital was necessary to meet the needs of the population. Other uses, in line with what has been suggested above, are also likely. Although during Argišti I.´s and Sarduri II.´ time, inscribing essential economical buildings became common, in later periods this practice disappeared. Only two more inscriptions of this type are known, both coming from the reign of Rusa son of Erimena. It seems that no more granaries inscribed for particular purpose were built for at least three generations. If the writing was used on these structures to mark them and improve the delivery and use system in this manner, the practice was not very successful. The discontinuation of the marking of economical buildings with inscriptions is in any case a very abrupt change.

12.1.6 Later monarchs Another visible change in customs beginning with Rusa I. (whichever Rusa he was) is the decrease in number of inscriptions. Though the inscriptions with dominantly religious themes made a small comeback (A10-6 and A10-7, A11-1; Fig. 35, 37), they were not very prevalent. The majority of the inscriptions were campaign-themed ones. Each ruler beginning with Rusa I. issued several versions of one main inscription, supposedly connected with his most resounding act. During Rusa son of Sarduri´s rule, the Ṭušpa-Biainili formula disappeared (Fig. 34), however, it appeared again just as abruptly in records of following rulers. As was suggested above, this sudden change might be indicative of a change in the way the kingdom and royal power were perceived. Chronology-wise, argument here can be constructed both ways: either Rusa son of Sarduri was defeated by Sargon II. and as a result, the centralizing tendencies dwindled, or he ruled after the defeat of Urartian forces, and the omission of the formula was due to the temporary low political status of Ṭušpa and Biainili as a polity. I personally prefer the former explanation, because in second scenario, inclusion of the formula would not hinder

76

the claims of Rusa´s successors, which was the primary goal of the royal campaign inscriptions, as I argued. Curse formula use became widespread during the reigns of all Rusas and during the rule of Argišti II. as well (Fig. 34, 37, 40, 43). As for the form of the inscriptions, they appeared both on building blocks and stelae throughout the rule of these kings. Argišti II. also issued rock-cut inscriptions. As was already suggested by Salvini, rock-cut inscription of Rusa son of Erimena (A14-4; Fig. 45) was probably either botched or a scribe´s exercise (Salvini 2008a, 629). It is the only case where a stated form (a stela) doesn´t match its actual form (a cliff). However, this particular inscription offers us a clue that the scribes in the later periods could have had the tools and skills to not only design, but physically produce stone inscriptions. Whether this also relates to the earlier inscriptions probably designed by priestly class remains to be investigated. If the rock-cut inscription of Rusa son of Erimena were a stoneworker´s exercise, it would be probable that the illiterate worker would train either individual wedge shapes, or the signs would not make sense as a whole9. With the exception of rule of Rusa son of Erimena (Fig. 43-45), inscriptions come from Araxes valley and Orumiyeh basin alike, suggesting that Urartu had some measure of control over these areas even after Sargon´s VIII. campaign.

12.2 Temporal distribution within specific sites There is a limited number of Urartian sites with royal stone inscriptions that would span multiple generations (Tab. 4). The most extensively excavated are Erebuni and Argištiḫinili. Apart from these two, however, large excavation projects were mostly concerned with the sites founded by Rusa son of Argišti and Rusa son of Erimena (Sagona, Zimansky 2009, 329- 330). Sites that span the longest periods of time and offer us inscriptions from the times of different monarchs are Ṭušpa and Aznavur Tepe. 12.2.1 Ṭušpa In Ṭušpa, the earliest inscriptions are from Sarduri I., and only one of the two available can be read, since the second one (A1-2) is badly damaged. The readable inscription (A1-1), made in six copies and coming from a structure near the citadel, known as Sardursburg, informs us about the building of a wall.

9 similar possible exercise that makes no sense as a whole was discovered in Southern Scotland on a Caledonian grave inscription (personal comment from prof. RNDr. Václav Blažek) 77

Išpuini himself did not leave any inscriptions in Ṭušpa, however, from the time of his coregency with Minua, there are two, one about establishing a susi-temple and Ḫaldi´s gate (A4-1), which can be a reference to the nearby inscription in Meher Kapısı, and the other one is the longest text of its generation concerned with military activity (A3-4). The former inscription was most likely written later, as it mentions Inušpua, Minua´s son, and is one of the few stone inscriptions mentioning this person. Minua himself as a ruler expanded the repertoire of inscriptions and included economically-themed ones, regarding a granary (A5-66) and two stables (A5-68, A5-69). His building activities also include an ašihusi, of which a single pillar base remained (A5-65). He also placed several dedicatory stelae (A5-71, A5-79 from nearby Koršun; A5-85) in Ṭušpa. One of these also mentions Inušpua and was probably issued early during Minua´s reign. His yet another stela (A5-90) gives orders regarding an offering of animals. Having such theme placed on a stela not only strengthens the notion of reaching towards broader audience with the intention of bringing them into the fold of state religion, but it also reinforces the idea of tying the religion and the sacred sphere to cuneiform script, which might have enabled it to serve as a protective tool. This practice then can be seen in use in Minua´s inscriptions around a spring in Van (A5-58 A-C). Minua also left behind a larger text concerned with his campaigning successes (A5-9). Though Argišti I. also commissioned an inscription for a new granary (A8-27), his main interest in Ṭušpa was developing an image of a successful military leader. Another five of his inscriptions (A8-1 to A8-5) were dedicated to his campaigns, and amogst them, his large annals (A8-3). Apart from the annals, sadly, we do not know what the original positions of these inscriptions were. Sarduri II. took a slightly different approach. His annals, which consist of two or possibly three inscriptions (A9-1 where the annals, as argued by Salvini in CTU, should start, A9-2 which is a fragment of an inscription with military theme, and A9-3, the main body of the annals in the niche), place more stress on the religious importance of the ruler, as evidenced by their surroundings and an altar-like structure found in front of them. The design of the inscription and its surroundings resemble other niche inscriptions with religious theme, however, Sarduri II.´s annals are in niches with rounded tops. This shape is common on figural representations of Urartian fortress masonry, and differs from the older three-tiered niches significantly (Tanyeri-Erdemir 2007, 207). This might suggest increasing distance between Sarduri II.´s court and the court at Muṣasir, or a change to the idea of a niche with a religious theme. It is also worth noting that the niche sacrificial place found recently in

78

Erebuni (Stronach 2010, 110) had the same rounded top as Sarduri II.´s annals, rather than a squared top. The setting of Sarduri II.´s annals is also substantially different from the setting of those of his father. In case of Sarduri II.´s annals, there is certainly a possibility that the inscription was created over the years, as in that way, the king himself, who glorifyingly and in length described his ascension to the throne, would be able to benefit from its use. Argišti I.´s annals were placed near rock-cut spaces considered today to be Urartian royal tombs. This suggests that the annals could have been assembled from other inscriptions present at the site and placed after Argišti I.´s demise. Rusa son of Sarduri is attested in Ṭušpa only by single inscription, a dedicatory stela to the storm god. Argišti II. is also attested there by a single inscription, the one commemorating his archery prowess. Since only one similar inscription is known, the one commemorating the jump of Minua´s horse, it is hard to come up with an idea why exactly these two events were picked as worth carving in stone. It is quite likely that this is related to our own skepticism towards the intentions of the monarchs.The stress on personal feats rather than divine favour nervertheless supports Zimansky´s opinion that “the idea that Urartian royal power was built on the foundation of a widely shared religion, however, seems dubious” (Zimansky 2012, 105).

12.2.2 Other sites In Aznavur Tepe and in nearby Patnos, all the inscriptions are connected to building. The earliest one comes from the reign of Išpuini and commemorates the building of two unspecified structures (A2-10). Another inscription, possibly from Patnos, comes from the period of Išpuini and Minua´s coregency, mentions another building and orders some offerings (A3-12). Minua´s inscriptions in both Patnos (A5-39, A5-70) and Aznavur Tepe (A5-11 A-B, A5- 37, A5-38) concentrate on the building of a fortress and Ḫaldi´s gate. Both Argišti I. (A8-29) and Sarduri II. (A9-25, A9-26) built granaries at the site. Unlike in Ṭušpa, where each ruler predominantly strived to show his own power in a unique way, in Aznavur Tepe and Patnos during the earlier stages the fortress was primarily oriented on the spread and reinforcement of state religion, later on its economical function was enhanced significantly. Erebuni, founded by Argišti I., retained its purpose during Sarduri II.´s rule, being

79

expanded mainly in its storage department. Sarduri II. also built an ašihusi there. Argištiḫinili was known to exist since the times of Argišti I., however, it contains records of much later rulers. The inscriptions demonstrate its development in all aspects connected to royal inscriptions, as is evident in Sarduri II.´s inscription regarding the military campaign and the building of a fortress (A9-13), building of Ḫaldi´s gate (A9-15), as well as granaries and barzudibiduni (A9-19). Rusa son of Argišti mentions having built a susi temple and a pahazuli (A12-3) and Rusa son of Erimena contributed by building a granary (A14-5). As we do not know the precise meaning of the terms barzudibiduni or pahazuli, they cannot be commented upon in more detail. Overall, the general trend in regional strongholds was the increase of storage capacities over time, mainly during Sarduri II.´s reign (Tab. 4). This might be a direct result of the success of irrigation projects. However, the question of land use in Urartu is still open.

Insc per Ṭušpa Aznavur Erebuni Argištiḫi Cavušte Karahan Total site Tepe nili pe Type B M R B M R B M R B M R B M R B M R B M R O Sarduri I. 1 1 1 Išpuini 8 2 Išpuini+M 1 1 1 1 3 8 2 inua Minua 8 2 2 5 4 4 5 1 1 1 9 0 3 7 Argišti I. 1 5 1 1 4 3 1 1 8 3 3 Sarduri II. 3 2 6 2 1 9 1 4 9 Rusa S 1 1 Argišti II. + 1 1 Rusa A 1 1 Rusa E 1 1

Tab. 4 Development of sites with higher numbers of inscriptions over time and types of inscriptions and their quantity used during the rules of different monarchs. Different physical instances of inscriptins are counted towards the total as separate inscriptions. In other tables, it is not the case, because the texts between the different iterations of the same inscriptions are copies of each other, meaning they all could have come from a single order, whereas in this case, every iteration on different building or generally in different context makes for a different inscriptions and so the copies have to be counted in.

80

13 Urartu as a sacral kingdom

After inspecting Urartian stone inscriptions and possible implications of the way they were used, we can proceed with final remarks towards the issue of sacral kingdom. Was Urartu a sacral kingdom by the standards of modern historiography? And if so, what can be deduced from that fact? One of the baselines for the concept of sacral kingdom is its relationship between the ruler and the gods. Urartu was neither ruled by the gods, neither did it represent a heaven descended. The mandate of the monarchs stemmed from their bloodline more than from the heavens. However, the king, as exemplified by Sarduri II.´s annals, was given his royal majesty by Ḫaldi. There are no mentions of symbolic animals connected with the monarch. The way he derived power was also not connected to him being special or miraculous in his nature. It is hard to assess what role Urartian monarchs thought they themselves played in the world order. The goal of their military campaigns was not to achieve peace, or even to satisfy the gods as much as the fulfillment of Ḫaldi´s will. In inscriptions, the kings went campaigning only after Ḫaldi had already subdued their countries. This order might be just figurative, or can as well reflect rituals taking place before the actual campaign, ensuring its sound execution. The kings nevertheless used their own will and actively stroved to develop the landscape that surrounded them as much as they could (Burney 2012, 59-60). We do not know how precisely the king was involved in religious rituals, or which ones he attended, and neither do we know about him being directly associated with agricultural symbolism. His interest in agricultural production was obvious however. There is currently no telling whether the enemies of Urartu represented some evil forces. The king´s victory, however, truly is a sign of divine favour and cooperation. Interestingly, royal obedience towards divine forces, as important as it might be, protected mainly the royal bloodline. In a spectacular twist, the inscriptions safeguarding the water sources and canals also suggest that divine favour was used to protect the society from itself. Urartian monarchs were not seen as pastors of their people, at least they did not address themselves as such commonly. However they understood the titulature to be untranslatable between languages and used Assyrian titulature when writing in Assyrian. There are also objects to be found connected to the royalty as well as cult. Such objects

81

were found at Karmir-Blur (Piotrovskii 1952, 60-62). Through the inscriptions on them we learned that they originally came from Erebuni, and were probably passed down along the royal line. To sum up, Urartu had its own interesting spin on the concept of sacral kingdom. It might not have fully utilized the concept to its complete potential, however, in the wild and harsh inland country of Armenian Highland, nature itself warranted for enough of a threat to be actively dealt with. To this end, Biainili´s monarchs did a good enough job keeping the state running for approximately two centuries.

82

14 Conclusion

The aim of this thesis was to investigate the use of Urartian stone inscriptions in relation to the society they were a part of. To this end, the function of the various types of inscriptions was explained through the theory of materiality. As a basic presumption, it was postulated that the inscriptions are embodied with a meaning or message that is addressed towards certain audience. Besides this as their primary function, the second part of the basic presumption is that the audience can pick this message up, discuss it, reshape or distort it, and forward it via other people or material culture. This response can then be used by the author of the original message, in this case Urartian state represented by the monarch, to to reshape a material product into a whole new iteration utilising this user feedback. The inscriptions were categorized depending on their content, stylistic and physical form. The content of the inscriptions can be recognized in their main themes. These are: building, military campaigns, and religion. Some inscriptions include more than just one of these themes. Stylistic form of the inscription refers to the repeating of the text, size of cuneiform signs, employment and composure of formulaic parts of the inscription and aesthetic as well as practical concerns with the application of the inscription on a material. From the formulae employed, the attention was concentrated on the curse formula and the formula : “King of Biainili, ruler of Ṭušpa city”. The physical form of the inscriptions describes the material on which they were used, as well as their context. In this perspective, we can distinguish rock-cut inscriptions, inscriptions written on stelae and inscriptions written on building blocks. The corpus of the inscriptions is already extensively explored when it comes to both their physical form and content, as well as royal title, which is why the thesis was mainly concerned with other, mainly stylistic, aspects. Why were the inscribed texts repeated? The repetitions occured mostly once or twice per inscription. The trinities were bound mostly to contexts related to the construction of buildings and structures, be it fortress walls, ašihusi or susi temples. Dual texts appear most consistently and prevalently in contexts that dealt either with religion, or water distribution. Due to climatic conditions of the land, it cannot be excluded that these two phenomena were connected in some way in Urartian culture. As Urartian rulers went to great lengths to alter and cultivate the landscape of the areas under their control (Smith 2012, 40), such a marked

83

change as the building of a water supply system was not beneficial only for the economy, but by making a positive change for the general population, they could have strengthened the ruler's political position. The repeated texts appear from the very beginning of Urartian literacy and persisted for three generations, after which they were no longer used, though the contexts identical to those in which they were applied were still used. Since the practice was formalized, that means, the number of copies does not vary, and forethought, it seems that the best explanation would be that certain ritual or superstition, originally deemed vital, was later abandoned. To a certain degree, the types of the inscriptions issued over the following generations could have also influenced this change. Argišti I., who first abandoned the technique of repeating the texts, issued mainly inscriptions for granaries, which were tailored for informative rather than performative role, and campaign inscriptions, which usually did not have copies. The other inscription types were restricted to his newly founded cities of Argištiḫinili and Erebuni, the areas around which might have had a different culture. Creating multiple copies of a single inscription, on the other hand, was a practice that remained to be employed even in later stages of Urartu´s development. The earliest case in Zivistan (A2-2 A-G) pertains to a series of column bases. During Minua´s reign, the practice was used on the inscriptions regarding the building of Minua´s canal, as well as on some susi temple inscriptions, which, however, were only preserved in fragmentary state and thus we cannot be absolutely sure how exact these copies are. Apart from the susi inscriptions (A5-2) though, copying was restricted to simpler, shorter text, and continued in the same vein during the reign of Argišti I. and Sarduri II. Later rulers used this technique to set up copies of the one inscription regarding their most appealing or powerful act without regards to geographical proximity of these copies. Before, the copies of an inscription could be found only in one site or one region, now they could be set up in different regions. This shows that during later stages of the kingdom´s development the number of literate persons needed for sufficiently running state propaganda was decreasing. Although such claim can be used to support Bernbeck´s theory about the changes within the structure of Urartian state, whether the changes he envisions truly occurred, remains an open question. Concerning the implementation of the curse formula, it was used throughout the majority of Urartian history in connection with inscriptions dealing with military campaigns. The only major exception to this rule comes with Sarduri II., during whose reign the curse formula was used very sporadically, being limited to the most important military inscriptions. The other two inscriptions with curse formula from Sarduri II.´s time present different

84

concept of use of this formula. Due to the limited number of instances, it seems unlikely that during Sarduri II.´s reign, the use of the curse formula was experimented with. It rather shows that there were only very limited cases in which divine protection was deemed necessary. During Minua´s reign, the curse formula was used mostly on stelae, though exceptions certainly exist, as well as many stelae without this feature. Some inscriptions connected with water distribution, as well as two inscriptions related to barzudibiduni, also bear the formula. This inconsistency in use is likely to be a result of experimentation with the formula. Because no geographical limits or patterns apply, it seems that the use was mostly dependent on particular local circumstances. Argišti I. uses the curse formula consistently only on his military inscriptions. The successors of Sarduri II. applied the curse formula quite benevolently, until Rusa son of Erimena, who only used it a single time, on a stela regarding among other things also the building of an artificial lake. This stela was also one of his longest inscriptions. The pattern of the curse use suggests that while originally they were employed for safeguarding the most important inscriptions, later on, during the reign of Rusa son of Sarduri, Argišti II. and Rusa son of Argišti, all the inscriptions were treated as either very important or endangered. It shows that during this later period, the monarchs had harder time enforcing their propaganda, and divine safeguarding was necessary. In a manner similar to the curses, the formula “king of Biainili, ruler of Ṭušpa city” was also employed on important inscriptions, such as those connected to waterworks, or dedicatory inscriptions. During the reigns of Argišti I. and Sarduri II., the use spread to basically any inscription more important than designatory inscriptions on granaries and hall column bases. The absence of the formula from Rusa son of Sarduri´s inscriptions could be explained by the change in perception of the monarchy. As it was no longer deemed necessary to distinguish between local polities and Urartu – Biainili, it seems likely that the polities themselves became fully integrated into state structure. However, the reappearance of the formula during the reign of later rulers suggests that this state was only temporary, and the defeats of Urartians by Assyrians and Cimmerians could have been at the core of this reversal. Is there any clear pattern in which cuneiform signs changed in size? Cuneiform signs used tend to have a stable size across all categories, no matter the type, content or actual size of the inscription, ranging from approximately 2,5 to 6 cm in height of a row. It is probable that, due to both wide range and at the same time consistency, human body measurement units, most likely thumb, were used.

85

Were the inscriptions purposefully damaged in Urartian period? No clear signs of deliberate damaging of the inscriptions for the purpose of altering the message were found. This leads me to believe that the integrity of the inscriptions was quintessential for the success of royal dynasty. It would explain why campaign inscriptions were the ones most consistently marked by the curse formula. Such inscriptions provided the monarchs with claim to the areas their ancestors conquered and the adherence to the bloodline strengthened their political position by giving them renown. Were there specific inscription types designed for bigger audience? The design of columned areas around susi temples and inscriptions placed on those temples, as well as the texts of rock-cut inscriptions at Hazıne Kapısı, Hazınepiri Kapısı, Yeşılalıç and Meher Kapısı, as well as several stelae, support the idea. However, temple courtyards, which were quite restricted both spatially and due to increasingly reduced accessibility in comparison to niches placed out in the open, were probably attended by smaller audience and the lack of vertical spacing in the area suggest that this audience was of social ranking comparable to that of priestly class. The niches, on the other hand, offered plenty of space in their vicinity and featured significant spatial verticality, so that the priestly class performing in front of the inscriptions would be separated from the audience. The dedicatory stelae from Karahan and Ṭušpa reinforce the idea of connecting cuneiform script with religious practices that were open to larger segments of population. This way, people living in the heartland of Urartu, natives as well as war captives, could over time be able to recognize the inscriptions even without the ability to read and associate them equally with supernatural powers and royal institution. The inscriptions themselves then could be used as protective tools for structures important for running the state. However, it is worth noting that such inscriptions were not placed outside of Urartian heartland at the eastern shore of Lake Van. The further from the centre we go, the more restricted the position of the inscriptions becomes, centered in the citadels or on rock cliffs, where those rock-cut inscriptions were solely of military nature. Even though the positioning of the stelae in Iran, such as the Kelišin stela, seems to challenge or defy the above-stated trend, in this case direct parallels in inscription placing behavior can be found on Assyrian side. It should be noted that while with Assyrians, we know fairly surely that their inscriptions in the outskirts delineated their empire´s border, in Urartu we cannot be sure whether the military-themed inscriptions were within or outside of the area controllable by Urartian monarchs at the moment of the inscription´s making.

86

The increased interest in communication between royalty and the people of lower social strata along the eastern shore of Lake Van, together with the obvious plummet in the occurrence of the “king of Biainili, ruler of Ṭušpa city” formula in Ṭušpa area, allow for the deduction that the immediate area of Ṭušpa, between Karahan on one hand and Çavuştepe on the other, was governed directly by the Urartian monarch, even on regional level. Interestingly, only a portion of the granaries in Urartian cities and citadels bear inscriptions. The division is most apparent in Orumiyeh basin, from which no granary inscriptions are known. If the granaries marked by royal inscriptions were set apart from the granaries focused on everyday use, the most likely purpose they could have served was to house the provisions for the time when an army was assembling and marching. The position of the two citadels with highest number of these inscriptions does reflect military aspirations of the monarchs who built them. Moreover, the complete absence of this type of inscriptions from Orumieh basin is easier explained by strategic military importance of the inscribed granaries than if their value was purely economical. The earliest cases of inscribed granaries come from the time of Minua, and this spread of writing from purely sacral to economical sphere of life can signify an increase in literacy among Urartian elite. The argument for this is based on the presumption that without the ability to read, the secular part of the elite would be subordinated to the sacral part, as they would be dominated by the priestly class even in economical sphere. The change in literacy rate among lower strata of population is harder to predict or ascertain, because for the delivery and handling of material within a storage room, it is enough to have the ability to discern a storage facility that has an inscription from one which lacks it. The appearance of the granary inscriptions during Minua´s reign also coincides with the increase in Urartian military activity. While Argišti I.´s conquests were concentrated on the area of modern Armenia and the main storage facility, Erebuni, lies in a prime position for concentrated military presence during the campaigns towards Lake Sevan or other parts of Armenia, Sarduri II.´s choice of Çavuştepe as the new storage facility could reflect his decision to further his military competence without relying on his generals enlisted from the ranks of provincial administrative elite. The amount of granaries with inscriptions did not increase after the end of Sarduri II.´s reign, the only two exceptions appearing during Rusa son of Erimena´s rulership. For three generations, granaries were no longer built, suggesting that either Urartu's maximum agricultural output was reached, or that the kingdom's area did not increase substantially so

87

that no influx of new recruits would warrant setting aside of additional provisions. As a result, the military campaigns of Argišti II. far to the east from Lake Urmia can be seen more as raids than campaigns aimed at conquering additional areas. From multiple inscriptions, we are informed about structures called Ḫaldi´s gates. These are mentioned on the inscriptions mostly connected to susi temples in fortresses. Such remarks are found on inscriptions throughout the kingdom from earlier and later kings alike. Only one case of a structure identifiable as Ḫaldi´s gate is known, that in Meher Kapısı. In two instances, the inscriptions mention other god beside Ḫaldi as the deity to whom the gate was consecrated. This suggests that in general, the concept of sacred gates was tied to the religious structures, quite likely susi temples, while the inscriptions in the area of gates in Erebuni and Ayanis suggests that this space also had some inherent meaning. Whether the citadel gates could have in some cases been used as Ḫaldi´s gates is unclear; the identification of the susi temple gates with the sacred gates in general is probable. By comparing different accounts of Urartian monarchs´ campaigns and by assuming that the inscriptions tend to comment on building activities that happened in their area, it was possible to tentatively connect certain modern place names with Urartian names. The country of Urme should lie around the area of modern Muš, Aludiri could have been the ancient name for Patnos or Aznavur Tepe, and Mušuni probably lied in the area of modern Norkiuh. From the reign of Argišti I., it was not possible to convincingly identify any ancient place name with a modern one, however, due to the way certain campaigns are presented, it should be noted that there were probably two campaigns conducted in the direction of the land of Bia and Morevdere inscription (A8-7) was made during the second one. Also, modern-day Razliq area was probably called Arhu in Urartian times, and Urartian fort Ḫaldi´s Watch was with the same degree of probability situated around the area of modern Našteban, also equitable with the area around the ancient city of Runitarni. The physical types of inscriptions, that were developed during Išpuini´s and Minua´s reigns, remained largely in use until the dusk of Urartu´s literacy, though they were not used by all the rulers in equal measure and certain type-content relations were preferred. The earliest type of inscriptions to appear were building inscriptions. Only later, during the coregency of Išpuini and Minua, did military and religious inscriptions appear. Between the time when god Ḫaldi was first mentioned and the time his worship routine was established in Van via Meher Kapısı and local susi, some time had passed, which might be due to the fact that Ḫaldi was originally foreign or not well-recognized in the area of Ṭušpa. At this point, a question is due: if the people responsible for writing inscriptions, which in the early stages of

88

Urartu were priests, came from Muṣasir/Arḍini, where Ḫaldi's main temple was located, could the installation of Ḫaldi as the chief of the pantheon be a sign of ancient lobbying practices? In this sense, the ruling dynasty of Urartu might not have originated from Arḍini, but the option that they either were persuaded or converted to their version of pantheon also appears realistic. Through this optic, Argišti I.´s lack of religious inscriptions, as well as the change of the shape of niches in Sarduri II.´s annals to the type that is more frequently associated with the representation of fortresses than temples, can be attributed to their struggle for greater autonomy on the priestly class. Minua´s inscriptions have such wide range of forms, that basically any practice that came after him can be thought of as having originated or reflecting some aspect of inscription use during his reign. The policies of creating military inscriptions describing offensive successes, referencing such successes in his capital and numerous building projects using repeated inscriptions, as well as simple inscriptions, continued during his reign. The bulk of religious inscriptions were now written either on susi temples, or stelae. Apart from the intensive care for irrigation the inscriptions on Minua´s canal and by the springs in Van and Ezdhaha Bulaqi demonstrate the influence of writing over illiterate audience. Argišti´s take on royal agenda concentrated mainly on military campaigns and economic and urban development, religious inscriptions were absent. During Sarduri II.´s rule, mainly via his annals, religious part of the royal agenda came back, but otherwise his and his father´s way of distributing and issuing inscriptions were very similar. Later rulers issued smaller amount of inscriptions, concentrating either on military campaigns (Rusa son of Sarduri, Argišti II.) or building activities (Rusa son of Argišti, Rusa son of Erimena). The trends appearing in broader scale throughout the kingdom are mirrored by the inscriptions that the monarchs left at the capital city, Ṭušpa. Since this area was directly under their governance, the involvement of broader masses in state religion was important for maintaining civil obedience. The rulers after Sarduri II. did not show large interest in leaving inscriptions in Ṭušpa, which may signal a relocation of the capital to some other place or a different approach to local administration. Outside of Ṭušpa, the development pattern of fortresses is nearly identical. After the founding, the elite is introduced to state religion and temples are built. Over time, mainly economic buildings are being added. For the later periods, we lack any evidence of further growth in complexity of these sites from the viewpoint of royal inscriptions, however, new sites were introduced, mainly during the reign of Rusa son of Argišti.

89

How did different strata of society respond to Urartian stone inscriptions? As it appears, from the standpoint of the issuers, there was not something inherently magical about the inscriptions, and thus we see them being used in different contexts, some of which were set up so that the inscriptions can be revered, while others served primarily informative purpose. This means that the form was a decisive factor for the desired type of interaction between the inscriptions and their audience. The inscriptions used for public ritual purposes were used in several successive generations starting with Išpuini at the latest and continuing until at least Sarduri II. Argišti I.´s and Sarduri II.´s annals show us that in their time military victories became an increasingly preferred method of addressing the issue of royal legitimacy not only abroad, but also in the centre of Urartu. The change in format employed by the succeeding rulers is not at all directed towards any larger public, which leaves us at a guess whether the already created inscriptions for this purpose were sufficient, or whether this communication was discontinued or perhaps maintained by different means. The elite seems to had likewise embraced the state ritual, as susi temples were built continuously from the time of Minua until the time of Rusa son of Argišti. In general sense, the inscriptions placed on susi temples did not change very much over the course of Urartian history, although a trend is visible where over time the temples became increasingly secluded and the inscriptions, as witnessed on the Ayanis susi temple, were moving out of the direct line of sight of the audience to the door space (cf. Salvini 2001, 253-254, 264). There are more specifics to the use of the inscriptions in relation to the audience. Some inscriptions were clearly directed towards Assyrian-speaking population, such as those in Iran and Šušants. The idea of general admission to at least some of the inscriptions is further reinforced by the fact that these people speaking Assyrian were brought to Ṭušpa and its surrounding areas most likely as prisoners of war. From the campaign inscriptions, we know that the prisoners of war were undifferentiated based on their social status, so no group of these captives was supposed to be privileged. Was Urartu a sacral kingdom? It does match with the concept proposed by historiographers in some criteria; mainly how the success of the state and the survival of given social order depended on the coordination between the king and the state deity, Ḫaldi. However, beyond the point of boasting about his own prowess, the monarch was not idolized or brought to a higher level of existence. In the same vein, the problems that the state was facing were not mystified, but rather challenged head-on with a more common sense approach. From the point of view of Urartian stone inscriptions, the story of the kingdom is indeed

90

a rich and complicated one; its rulers were adapting their communicative tools to the occasions and opportunities that were present at the time, making most possible use of the writing system even in a land where the ability to read was a rare gift. The key to the success of Urartu was the adaptation, rather than direct translation, of writing practices from Assyrian milieu. Inscriptions were mostly bereft of pictures because they served special purposes and did not require additional visual exposition. Urartian monarchs were not keen on keeping every person within their realm affected with royal propaganda. The ideology was predominantly aimed towards the strata of population that were relevant to the dynasty´s fate. The inscriptions were also used as visual aids for behavior connected to the waterworks, water sources and granaries, their meaning being established through the religious spectacles. The most distilled forms of ideology, present in the bronze militaria and plaques, were directed to the elite. In Assyria, “as a rule, kings only report their own achievements, never those of their predecessors“ (Radner 2011, 736) The employment of writing in their specific way, however, enabled Urartian kings to build a lasting legacy, from which they could derive their renown, as well as to build a safety net of powerful yet controllable state religion that protected both their legacy and their endeavours.

References and sources

Arutyunyan, N. V. (2001) Korpus Urartskich Klinoobraznych Nadpisej. , Gitutyun Erevan Ayvazian, A. (2005) Observations on Dynastic Continuity in the Kingdom of Urartu. Iranica Antiqua vol. XL, 197-205 Balkan, K. (1960) Ein urartäischer Tempel auf Anzavurtepe bei Patnos und hier entdeckte Inschriften. Anatolia V, 99-131 Bednaříková J., Mešeko M. (2015) Introduction. In Bednaříková J., Mešeko M. (eds) On Research Methodology in Ancient and Byzantine History 2-28. Brno, Masarykova univerzita Benedict, W. C. (1960) Urartians and Hurrians. In: Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 80, No. 2. 100-104 Benedict, W. C.(1961) The Urartian-Assyrian Inscription of Kelishin. Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 81, No. 4 359-385 Bernbeck, R. (2003-2004) Politische Struktur und Ideologie in Urartu. Archäologische

91

Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan, Band 35-36, 267-312 Burney, Ch. (2005) Urartu and the East and North. In Çilingiroğlu, A, Darbyshire, G. (eds) Anatolian Iron Ages 5 15-18, Ankara, British Institute of Archaeology in Ankara Burney, Ch. (2012) The Economy of Urartu – Probabilities and Problems. In Kroll, S., Gruber, C., Hellwag, U., Roaf, M., Zimansky, P (eds) Biainili-Urartu: The Proceedings of the Symposium held in Munich 12-14 October 2007 Leuven, Peeters Campbell, D. R. M. (2012) A Diachronic Evaluation of Urartian Building Inscription Formulae. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 102.1, 130-150 Ceylan, A. (2005) The Erzincan, Erzurum and Kars province in the Iron Age. In Çilingiroğlu, A, Darbyshire, G. (eds) Anatolian Iron Ages 5 145-156, Ankara, British Institute of Archaeology in Ankara Coben, L. S., Inomata, T. (2006) Overture: An Invitation to the Archaeological Theater. In Coben, L. S., Inomata, T. (eds) Archaeology of Performance: Theaters of Power, Community, and Politics 3-10 Lanham, Altamira Press Çilingiroğlu, A. (2001a) Military Architecture. In Çilingiroğlu, A., Salvini, M. (eds) Ayanis I. Ten Years´ Excavations at Rusaḫinili Eiduru-kai 1989-1999 25-36 Roma, Instituto per gli studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici Çilingiroğlu, A. (2001b) Temple Area. In Çilingiroğlu, A., Salvini, M. (eds) Ayanis I. Ten Years´ Excavations at Rusaḫinili Eiduru-kai 1989-1999 37-66 Roma, Instituto per gli studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici Çilingiroğlu, A (2005) Ritual Ceremonies in the Temple Area in Ayanis. In Çilingiroğlu, A, Darbyshire, G. (eds) Anatolian Iron Ages 5 31-38, Ankara, British Institute of Archaeology in Ankara Çilingiroğlu, A. (2007) Properties of the Urartian Temple at Ayanis. In Çilingiroğlu, A, Sagona, A. Anatolian Iron Ages 6: The Proceedings of the Sixth Anatolian Iron Ages Colloquium Held at Eskişehir, 16-20 August 2004 41-45, Leuven, Peeters Dan, R. (2010a) An Hypothesis of Reconstruction of the Susi-Temple at Karmir-Blur. In Kosyan A., Petrosyan A., Grekyan Y. (eds) Urartu and its Neighbors: Festschrift in Honor of Nicolay Harutyunyan in Occasion of his 90th Birthday 44-52. Yerevan, Association for Near Eastern and Caucasian Studies Dan, R. (2010b) The Archaeological and Geographical Landscape of Urartu. In Matthiae P., Pinnock F, Nigro L., Marchetti N. Proceedings of the 6th International Congress of the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East 5 May – 10 May 2009, »Sapienza«, Università di Roma 331-340. Wiesbaden, Harrasowitz Verlag

92

Dan, R. Neri, G. (2014) In War against Urme: Some Considerations Regarding the Westward Expansion of the Kingdom of Urartu. In Mindiashvili et al. (eds) Studies in Caucasian Archaeology vol. 2 115-137 Tbilisi, Prof. Sergi Makalatia Gori historical-ethnographical museum Ďjakonov, I. M., Starostin, S. A. (1988) Xurrito-urartskie i vostochnokavkazskie jazyki. In Bongard-Levin, G. M., Ardzinba, V. G. (eds.) Drevnij Vostok: Etno-kul'turnye svjazi 164-207 Moscow Forbes, Th. B. (1983) Urartian Architecture. Oxford, British Archaeological Reports Gilibert, A. (2011) Syro-Hittite Monumental Art and the Archaeology of Performance. Berlin/New York, Gruyter Gilibert, A., Bobokhyan, A. Hnila, P. (2013) Die armenischen Višap. In Avetisyan, P. Archäologie in Armenien 195-205. Halle, Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologie Sachsen-Anhalt Gosden, Ch. (2012) Post-Colonial Archaeology. In Hodder, I. (ed) Archaeological Theory Today 251-265, Cambridge/Maiden, Polity Press Hellwag, U. (2005) LÚA.ZUM-li versus LÚA.NIN-li: some thoughts on the owner of the so- called Prinzensiegel at Rusa II´s court. In Çilingiroğlu, A, Darbyshire, G. (eds) Anatolian Iron Ages 5 91-98, Ankara, British Institute of Archaeology in Ankara Hodder, I., Hutson, S. (2003) Reading the Past: Current Approaches to Interpretation in Archaeology. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press Karapetyan, I. (2010) The ‘susi-Temple’ of Argištiḫinili-Armavir. In Kosyan A., Petrosyan A., Grekyan Y. (eds) Urartu and its Neighbors: Festschrift in Honor of Nicolay Harutyunyan in Occasion of his 90th Birthday 36-43. Yerevan, Association for Near Eastern and Caucasian Studies Kellner, H.J. (1991) Gürtelbleche aus Urartu. Prähistorische Bronzefunde XII/3. Stuttgart, Franz Steiner Verlag König, F. W. (1955) Handbuch der cḪaldishen Inschriften. Graz, self-printed Kroll, S., Gruber, C., Hellwag, U., Roaf, M., Zimansky, P. (2012) Introduction. In Kroll, S., Gruber, C., Hellwag, U., Roaf, M., Zimansky, P (eds) Biainili-Urartu: The Proceedings of the Symposium held in Munich 12-14 October 2007 Leuven, Peeters Leick, G. (2011) A Dictionary of Ancient Near Eastern Architecture. Routledge Luckenbill, D. D. (1927) Ancient Records of Assyri and Babylonia, Vol. II: Historical Records of Assyria from Sargon to the End. Chicago, Universit of Chicago Press Ma, J. (2012) Epigraphy and the Display of Authority. In Davies, J., Wilkes, J. (eds)

93

Epigraphy and the Historical Sciences 133-158, Oxford, Oxford University Press Martirosyan, A. A. (1974) Argištixinili. Yerevan, Akademija nauk Armjanskoj SSR Melikišvili, G. A. (1960) Urartskie Klinoobraznye Nadpisi. Moscow, Izdateľstvo Akademii Nauk SSSR Meskell, L. (2005) Introduction: Object Orientations. In Meskell, L (ed) Archaeologies of Materiality 1-18 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. van de Mieroop, M. (2010) Dějiny starověkého Blízkého Východu, okolo 3000-323 př. Kr. Praha, Academia Miller, D. (2005) Materiality: An Introduction. In Miller, D. (ed) Materiality 1-51 Durham, Duke University Press Nováková, N. Pecha, L. Rahman, F. (1998) Dějiny Mezopotámie. 1998. Prague, Karolinum Oganesjan, K. (1980) Kreposť Erebuni. Yerevan, Ayastan Özgüç, T. (1996) Altıntepe.Architectural Monuments and Wall Paintings. Ankara, Türk tarih kurumu basımevi Payne, M. (1996) Urartian Inscriptions in Erzurum Museum. In Anadolu Araştırmaları 14, 415-423 Payne, M. R., Ceylan A. (2003) A New Urartian Inscription from Ağrı-Pırabat . SMEA 45/2 191-201 Piotrovskij, B. B. (1952) Kamir Blur II. Rezuľtaty rabot arxeologičeskoj ekspedicii instituta akademii nauk arm. SSR I gosudarstvennovo Ermitaža 1949-1950. Yerevan, Akademija nauk Armjanskoj SSR Radner, K. (2011) Assyrians and Urartians. In McMahon, G., Steadman, S. The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia: (10 000 – 323 BCE) 734-751 Oxford, Oxford University Press Roaf, M. (2012) Could Rusa Son of Erimena have been King of Urartu During Sargon´s Eighth Campaign? In Kroll, S., Gruber, C., Hellwag, U., Roaf, M., Zimansky, P (eds) Biainili-Urartu: The Proceedings of the Symposium held in Munich 12-14 October 2007 Leuven, Peeters Sagona, A. Zimansky, P. (2009) Ancient Turkey. Abingdon/New York, Routledge Sağlamtimur, H. (2005) The Volumes of Some Urartian Pithoi. In Çilingiroğlu, A, Darbyshire, G. (eds) Anatolian Iron Ages 5 139-145, Ankara, British Institute of Archaeology in Ankara Salvini, M. (2001) The Inscriptions of Ayanis (Rusaḫinili Eiduru=kai). Cuneifrm and Hieroglyphic. In Çilingiroğlu, A., Salvini, M. (eds) Ayanis I. Ten Years´ Excavations at

94

Rusaḫinili Eiduru-kai 1989-1999 251-320 Roma, Instituto per gli studi Micenei ed Egeo- Anatolici Salvini, M. (2005) Some Considerations on Van Kalesi. In Çilingiroğlu, A, Darbyshire, G. (eds) Anatolian Iron Ages 5 145-156, Ankara, British Institute of Archaeology in Ankara Salvini, M. (2008a) Corpus dei testi Urartei. Volume I. Le iscrizioni su pietra e roccia. Rome, Istituto di studi sulle civilta del´Egeo e del Vicino Oriente Salvini, M. (2008b) Corpus dei testi Urartei. Volume III. Le iscrizioni su pietra e roccia. Tavole. Rome, Istituto di studi sulle civilta del´Egeo e del Vicino Oriente Salvini, M., Çilingiroğlu, A (2009) Eastern Provinces of Urartu and the Beginning of History in Iranian Azerbaijan. Retrieved on 8.7.2015, Salvini, M. (2012) Das Corpus der Urartäischer Inschriften. In Kroll, S., Gruber, C., Hellwag, U., Roaf, M., Zimansky, P (eds) Biainili-Urartu: The Proceedings of the Symposium held in Munich 12-14 October 2007 Leuven, Peeters Seidl, U. (1994) Achaimenidische Entlehnungen aus der Urartäischen Kultur. In Sancisi- Weerdenburg E., Kuhrt A., Cool Root M. (eds) Achaemenid History VIII: Continuity and Change. Proceedings of the Last Achaemenid History Workshop, April 6-8, 1990 Ann Harbor, Michigan 107-129 Leiden, Nederlands Instituut Voor Het Nabije Oosten Seidl, U. (2004) Bronzekunst Urartus. Mainz am Rhein, Verlag Philipp von Zabern Shafer, A. (2007) Assyrian Royal Monuments on the Periphery: Ritual and the Making of Imperial Space. In Cheng, J., Feldman, M. H. (eds) Ancient Near Eastern Art in Context: Studies in Honor of Irene J. Winter, 205-225. Leiden, Koninklijke Brill NV Smith, A. T. (1996) Imperial Archipelago: The Making of the Urartian Landscape in Southern Transcaucasia. Unpublished dissertation thesis Smith, A. T. (1999) The Making of an Urartian Landscape in Southern Transcaucasia: A Study of Political Architectonics. American Journal of Archaeology, vol. 103, No. 1, 45-71 Smith, A. T. (2000) Rendering the Political Aesthetic: Political Legitimacy in Urartian Representations of the Built Environment. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 19, 131- 163 Stronach, D. Thrane, H., Goff, C., Farahani, A. (2010) Erebuni 2008-2010. In Kosyan A., Petrosyan A., Grekyan Y. (eds) Urartu and its Neighbors: Festschrift in Honor of Nicolay Harutyunyan in Occasion of his 90th Birthday 44-52. Yerevan, Association for Near Eastern and Caucasian Studies

95

Tanyeri-Erdemir, T. (2007) The Temple and the King: Urartian Ritual Spaces and Royal Ideology. In Cheng, J., Feldman, M. H. (eds) Ancient Near Eastern Art in Context: Studies in Honor of Irene J. Winter, 205-225. Leiden, Koninklijke Brill NV Tarhan, T. (2007) A Third Temple at Çavuştepe-Sarduriḫinili? Uç kale. In In Çilingiroğlu, A, Sagona, A. Anatolian Iron Ages 6: The Proceedings of the Sixth Anatolian Iron Ages Colloquium Held at Eskişehir, 16-20 August 2004 41-45, Leuven, Peeters Tilley, Ch. (1993) Interpretation and a Poetics of the Past In: Tilley, Ch. (ed) Interpretative Archaeology 1-31, Providence/Oxford, Berg Van Loon, M. (1975) The Inscription of Ishpuini and Meinua at Qalatgah, Iran. Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 34, No. 3 201-207 Wilhelm, G. (2008) Urartian. In Woodard, R. D. (ed) The Ancient Languages of Asia Minor 105-123. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press Wilkinson, T. J. (2003) Archaeological Landscapes of the Near East. Tucson, The University of Arizona Press Winter, I. J. (1983) Carchemish ša kišad puratti. Anatolian Studies, Vol. 33, Special Number in Honour of the Seventy-Fifth Birthday of Dr. Richard Barnett 177-197 Winter, I. (1993) “Seat of Kingship”/”A Wonder to Behold”: the as Construct in the Ancient Near East. Ars Orientalis, Vol. 23 Pre-Modern Islamic Palaces 27-55 Zimansky, P. (1990) Urartian Geography and Sargon´s Eighth Campaign. Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 49, No. 1. 1-21 Zimansky, P. (1995a) Urartian Material Culture as State Assemblage: An Anomaly in the Archaeology of Empire. Bulletin of the American School of Oriental Research No. 299/300, The Archaeology of Empire in Ancient Anatolia 103-115 Zimansky, P. (1995b) An Urartian Ozymandias. Biblical Archaeologist vol 58 No. 2, 94-100 Zimansky, P. (1998) Ancient Ararat: A Handbook of Urartian Studies. New York, Caravan Books Zimansky, P. (2005) The Cities of Rusa II and the End of Urartu. In Çilingiroğlu, A, Darbyshire, G. (eds) Anatolian Iron Ages 5 235-240, Ankara, British Institute of Archaeology in Ankara Zimansky, P. (2006) Writing, Writers, and Reading in the Kingdom of Van. Margins of Writing, Origins of Cultures. The University of Chicago Oriental Institute Seminars No. 2. 257-276

96

Zimansky, P. (2012) Urartu as Empire. Cultural Integration in the Kingdom of Van. In Kroll, S., Gruber, C., Hellwag, U., Roaf, M., Zimansky, P (eds) Biainili-Urartu: The Proceedings of the Symposium held in Munich 12-14 October 2007 Leuven, Peeters

Source for creating maps: Google Earth 7.1.5.1557

97

List of figures and tables

List of figures Fig. 1 Extent of Urartian territory marked by the stone inscriptions Fig. 2 Niche of the Meher Kapısı inscription Fig. 3 Kelišin bilingual stela Fig. 4 Sardursburg in Van/Ṭušpa, remains of a building with inscriptions of Sarduri I Fig. 5 Column bases found in Zivistan (A2-2) Fig. 6 Inscription from Ezdhaha Bulaqi (A5-59), also with a sketch of preserved text Fig. 7 Outlook at the inscription of Aşağı Micingir (marked by arrow) and Minua´s canal Fig. 8 Rock-cut inscription at Palu (A5-5) with visible traces of modern damage Fig. 9 Insription from Sihke, commemorating a jump of Minua´s horse Fig. 10 Susi temple in Erebuni Fig. 11 Susi temple at Ayanis Fig. 12 Inscription A9-22 from Arin-Berd. Common inscription denoting building of a granary Fig. 13 Niches of Hazıne Kapısı in Van Fig. 14 Annals of Argišti I. in Van Fig. 15 Reconstruction of Argišti I.´s Annals in Van Fig. 16 Rock-cut inscription of Argišti II. in Našteban (A11-5) Fig. 17 Distribution of physical types of inscriptions from Sarduri I.´s reign Fig. 18 Distribution of physical types of inscriptions from Išpuini´s reign before the coregency with Minua Fig. 19 Distribution of repeated texts, curse formula and Ṭušpa-Biainili formula during the coregency of Išpuini and Minua Fig. 20 Distribution of inscription types content wise, pertaining to the time of coregency of Išpuini and Minua Fig. 21 Distribution of physical types of inscriptions from Išpuini and Minua´s coregency Fig. 22 Distribution of repeated texts, curse formula and Ṭušpa-Biainili formula during Minua´s reign Fig. 23 Distribution of repeated texts, curse formula and Ṭušpa-Biainili formula around Lake Van during Minua´s reign Fig. 24 Distribution of inscription types from the reign of Minua Fig. 25 Distribution of inscription types around Lake Van from the reign of Minua Fig. 26 Distribution of physical types of inscriptions from Minua´s reign Fig. 27 Distribution of physical types of inscriptions from Minua´s reign Fig. 28 Distribution of repeated texts, curse formula and Ṭušpa-Biainili formula during Argišti I.´s reign Fig. 29 Distribution of inscription types from the reign of Argišti I Fig. 30 Distribution of physical types of inscriptions from Argišti I.´s reign Fig. 31 Distribution of repeated texts, curse formula and Ṭušpa-Biainili formula during Sarduri II.´s reign Fig. 32 Distribution of inscription types from the reign of Sarduri II Fig. 33 Distribution of physical types of inscriptions from Sarduri II.´s reign Fig. 34 Distribution of repeated texts, curse formula and Ṭušpa-Biainili formula during Rusa son of Sarduri´s reign Fig. 35 Distribution of inscription types from the reign of Rusa son of Sarduri Fig. 36 Distribution of physical types of inscriptions from Rusa son of Sarduri´s reign. Fig. 37 Distribution of repeated texts, curse formula and Ṭušpa-Biainili formula during Argišti II.´s reign

98

Fig. 38 Distribution of inscription types from the reign of Argišti II Fig. 39 Distribution of physical types of inscriptions from Argišti II.´s reign Fig. 40 Distribution of repeated texts, curse formula and Ṭušpa-Biainili formula during Rusa son of Argišti´s reign Fig. 41 Distribution of inscription types from the reign of Rusa son of Argišti Fig. 42 Distribution of physical types of inscriptions from Rusa son of Argišti´s reign Fig. 43 Distribution of repeated texts, curse formula and Ṭušpa-Biainili formula during Rusa son of Erimena´s reign Fig. 44 Distribution of inscription types from the reign of Rusa son of Erimena Fig. 45 Distribution of physical types of inscriptions from Rusa son of Erimena´s reign

99

List of tables Tab. 1 Occurrence of multiple copies of the same text within single context, separate for every type of inscription theme and for every ruler Tab. 2 Occurrence of curse formula in different types of inscriptions during rules of different monarchs Tab. 3 Occurrence of Ṭušpa-Biainili formula in different types of inscriptions during the reigns of different monarchs Tab. 4 Development of sites with higher numbers of inscriptions over time and types of inscriptions and their quantity used during the rules of different monarchs

100

Addenda

101

Maps

Fig. 17 Distribution of physical types of inscriptions from Sarduri I.´s reign. Building blocks – red, stelae – green, rock-cut inscriptions – yellow, three-tiered niches – white

Fig. 18 Distribution of physical types of inscriptions from Išpuini´s reign before the coregency with Minua. Building blocks – red, stelae – green, rock-cut inscriptions – yellow, three-tiered niches – white

102

Fig. 19 Distribution of repeated texts, curse formula and Ṭušpa-Biainili formula during the coregency of Išpuini and Minua. No curse – red, curse – green, Ṭušpa-Biainili formula – yellow. The numbers in brackets tell the number of iterations within the texts found at the site

Fig. 20 Distribution of inscription types content wise, pertaining to the time of coregency of Išpuini and Minua. Building inscriptions – red, military inscriptions – yellow, religious inscriptions – green, unknown – purple, unique - white

103

Fig. 21 Distribution of physical types of inscriptions from Išpuini and Minua´s coregency. Building blocks – red, stelae – green, rock-cut inscriptions – yellow, three-tiered niches – white

Fig. 22 Distribution of repeated texts, curse formula and Ṭušpa-Biainili formula during Minua´s reign. No curse – red, curse – green, Ṭušpa-Biainili formula – yellow. The numbers in brackets tell the number of iterations within the texts found at the site

104

Fig. 23 Distribution of repeated texts, curse formula and Ṭušpa-Biainili formula around Lake Van during Minua´s reign. No curse – red, curse – green, Ṭušpa-Biainili formula – yellow. The numbers in brackets tell the number of iterations within the texts found at the site

Fig. 24 Distribution of inscription types from the reign of Minua. Building inscriptions – red, military inscriptions – yellow, religious inscriptions – green, unknown – purple, unique – white

105

Fig. 25 Distribution of inscription types around Lake Van from the reign of Minua. Building inscriptions – red, military inscriptions – yellow, religious inscriptions – green, unknown – purple, unique - white

Fig. 26 Distribution of physical types of inscriptions from Minua´s reign. Building blocks – red, stelae – green, rock-cut inscriptions – yellow, three-tiered niches – white

106

Fig. 27 Distribution of physical types of inscriptions from Minua´s reign. Building blocks – red, stelae – green, rock-cut inscriptions – yellow, three-tiered niches – white

Fig. 28 Distribution of repeated texts, curse formula and Ṭušpa-Biainili formula during Argišti I.´s reign. No curse – red, curse – green, Ṭušpa-Biainili formula – yellow. The numbers in brackets tell the number of iterations within the texts found at the site

107

Fig. 29 Distribution of inscription types from the reign of Argišti I. Building inscriptions – red, military inscriptions – yellow, religious inscriptions – green, unknown – purple, unique – wite

Fig. 30 Distribution of physical types of inscriptions from Argišti I.´s reign. Building blocks – red, stelae – green, rock-cut inscriptions – yellow, three-tiered niches – white

108

Fig. 31 Distribution of repeated texts, curse formula and Ṭušpa-Biainili formula during Sarduri II.´s reign. No curse – red, curse – green, Ṭušpa-Biainili formula – yellow. The numbers in brackets tell the number of iterations within the texts found at the site

Fig. 32 Distribution of inscription types from the reign of Sarduri II. Building inscriptions – red, military inscriptions – yellow, religious inscriptions – green, unknown – purple, unique - white

109

Fig. 33 Distribution of physical types of inscriptions from Sarduri II.´s reign. Building blocks – red, stelae – green, rock-cut inscriptions – yellow, three-tiered niches – white

Fig. 34 Distribution of repeated texts, curse formula and Ṭušpa-Biainili formula during Rusa son of Sarduri´s reign. No curse – red, curse – green, Ṭušpa-Biainili formula – yellow. The numbers in brackets tell the number of iterations within the texts found at the site

110

Fig. 35 Distribution of inscription types from the reign of Rusa son of Sarduri. Building inscriptions – red, military inscriptions – yellow, religious inscriptions – green unknown – purple, unique - white

Fig. 36 Distribution of physical types of inscriptions from Rusa son of Sarduri´s reign. Building blocks – red, stelae – green, rock-cut inscriptions – yellow, three-tiered niches – white

111

Fig. 37 Distribution of repeated texts, curse formula and Ṭušpa-Biainili formula during Argišti II.´s reign. No curse – red, curse – green, Ṭušpa-Biainili formula – yellow. The numbers in brackets tell the number of iterations within the texts found at the site

Fig. 38 Distribution of inscription types from the reign of Argišti II. Building inscriptions – red, military inscriptions – yellow, religious inscriptions – green, unknown – purple, unique - white

112

Fig. 39 Distribution of physical types of inscriptions from Argišti II.´s reign. Building blocks – red, stelae – green, rock-cut inscriptions – yellow, three-tiered niches – white

Fig. 40 Distribution of repeated texts, curse formula and Ṭušpa-Biainili formula during Rusa son of Argišti´s reign. No curse – red, curse – green, Ṭušpa-Biainili formula – yellow. The numbers in brackets tell the number of iterations within the texts found at the site

113

Fig. 41 Distribution of inscription types from the reign of Rusa son of Argišti. Building inscriptions – red, military inscriptions – yellow, religious inscriptions – green, unknown – purple, unique - white

Fig. 42 Distribution of physical types of inscriptions from Rusa son of Argišti´s reign. Building blocks – red, stelae – green, rock-cut inscriptions – yellow, three-tiered niches – white

114

Fig. 43 Distribution of repeated texts, curse formula and Ṭušpa-Biainili formula during Rusa son of Erimena´s reign. No curse – red, curse – green, Ṭušpa-Biainili formula – yellow. The numbers in brackets tell the number of iterations within the texts found at the site

Fig. 44 Distribution of inscription types from the reign of Rusa son of Erimena. Building inscriptions – red, military inscriptions – yellow, religious inscriptions – green unknown – purple, unique - white

115

Fig. 45 Distribution of physical types of inscriptions from Rusa son of Erimena´s reign. Building blocks – red, stelae – green, rock-cut inscriptions – yellow, three-tiered niches – white

116

List of Urartian stone inscriptions

The list was primarily drafted based upon Salvini´s Corpus dei Testi Urartei (CTU) vol. 1. The reason for that is, that since it is the newest corpus, it contains most recent information as well as the highest number of inscriptions. The fragmentary inscriptions unassignable to any ruler do not offer any information regarding the goals set out for the thesis, so they are omitted in this list. Their list can be found in Salvini´s CTU (Salvini, 2008a, 644-649)

Inscriptions of Sarduri I. A1-1 A-F Original position: wall of structure known as Sardursburg, near Van Kalesi Physical properties: written on several building blocks Sign size: A-C have smaller rows, 3,5-4 cm, D has 4,2-4,8cm, E similarly 4,3-4,8cm and F 4,2-4,6cm Theme: building No. of copies: 6, each on separate building block but within one structure Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: no Narrative: Sarduri took tributes from other kings and built the wall using the stones brought from Alniunu.

A1-2 Original position: niche in Van Kalesi Physical properties unclear, heavily damaged Sign size: unclear Theme: unclear. Multiple numerical signs and uses of sumerograms representing commodities (NINDA, see Salvini, 2008a, 99) suggest possible religious theme. That would be also in accord with its position in a niche. No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: no Narrative: unclear

117

Inscriptions of Išpuini A2-1 Original position: unknown, found in Aralesk church, in modern Kalecik Physical properties: cylindrical stone, probably column base Sign size: unclear, the inscription is missing Theme: building No. of copies: 2, one in each row of the inscription Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: no Narrative: Išpuini built a burganani

A2-2 A-G Original position: Zivistan fortress Physical properties: column bases Sign size: unclear Theme: building No. of copies: 3 times on each columns; 7 columns total Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: no Narrative: Išpuini built a building

A2-3a-d Original position: probably Zivistan fortress; found in a wall of church in Zivistan Physical properties: unknown, the inscription is fragmentary (4 pieces) Sign size: 3,5-3,9cm Theme: unknown No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: no Narrative: unknown

A2-4 Original position: probably Zivistan fortress; found in a wall of church in Zivistan Physical properties: unknown, the inscription is fragmentary

118

Sign size: 3,8-4,3cm Theme: unknown No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: no Narrative: unknown

A2-5 Original position: Hazine Piri Kapisi niche, near Edremit Physical properties: 3-tiered niche Sign size: unknown Theme: building No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: no Narrative: Išpuini built a vineyard

A2-6A-C Original position: Asagi Anzaf fortress Physical properties: fortress wall Sign size: 3,5cm Theme: building No. of copies: 3 on separate stones Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: no Narrative: Išpuini built the wall

A2-7A-B Original position: Asagi Anzaf Physical properties: column bases Sign size: 3,5cm Theme: building No. of copies: 2 on each column base Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no

119

Curse formula: no Narrative: Išpuini built a building

A2-8 Original position: Asagi Anzaf Physical properties: column base Sign size: 3,4 cm Theme: building No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: no Narrative: Išpuini built a building

A2-9A-B Original position: Karahan Physical properties: stelae, reconstructed as inscribed recto-verso (Salvini 2008a, 114-115) Sign size: 3,5-3,8cm Theme: building No. of copies: 2, each on one stela Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: no Narrative: Išpuini built Ḫaldi´s gate, teribišuzi of god Ua, fortress, vineyard, burganani, orchard,

A2-10 Original position: Patnos Physical properties: column base Sign size: 3,5cm Theme: building No. of copies: 2, but they continue instead of being in separate rows Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: no Narrative: Išpuini built a structure (uncertain translation)

120

Inscriptions of Išpuini and Minua A3-1 Original position: Meher Kapisi niche Physical properties: three-tiered niche Sign size: unknown Theme: religious, building No. of copies: 2, with slight differences (see the text) Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: no Narrative: Išpuini and Minua built gate for Ḫaldi, and ordered that a ritual takes place in aṣuše manuše month and stated what the offerings should b efor every god. They also bulit a vineyard and an orchard and ordered ritual offering for the deities connected to the cycle of here grown plants.

A3-2 Original position: Yeşilaliҫ niche Physical properties: three-tiered niche Sign size: unknown Theme: religious, building No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: yes Curse formula: no Narrative: Išpuini and Minua built susi temple for Ḫaldi and in that event ordered a ritual to take place and offer animals for Ḫaldi, Uarubani, Ḫaldi´s gate and Ḫaldi´s weapons.

A3-3 Original position: Muchrapert niche Physical properties: one-tiered niche Sign size: unknown Theme: building No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: no Narrative: Išpuini and Minua built Ḫaldi´s gate

121

A3-4 Original position: unknown, found in Surb Pogos church in Van Physical properties: stela, two sides are covered with text Sign size: unknown Theme: military No. of copies: 2, one in each side of the stone Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: yes Narrative: Išpuini and Minua campaigned to Uiṭeruḫi, Luša and Katarza up till the Anašia city, where they left an inscription. They also fought against kings of Etiuḫi.

A3-5 Original position: surb Hovhannes church in Gjusnents Physical properties: stela, inscribed recto-verso Sign size: 2,5cm Theme: military No. of copies: 2, one on each side Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: no Narrative: Išpuini and Minua campaigned to Uiṭeruḫi, Luša and Katarza up till the Anašia city

A3-6 Original position: on top of a cistern in W Pirabat Physical properties: building block Sign size: unknown Theme: military No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: no Narrative: Išpuini and Minua campaigned to Uiṭeruḫi, Luša and Katarza up till the Anašia city. After the return, they built this cistern

122

A3-7 Original position: Toprakkale Physical properties: building block Sign size: unknown Theme: military No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: no Narrative: Išpuini and Minua campaigned to Uiṭeruḫi, Luša and Katarza up till the Anašia city

A3-8 Original position: Ojasar-Ilandagh niche Physical properties: unknown (non vista) Sign size: unknown Theme: military No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: no Narrative: Išpuini and Minua conquered Arṣini, both city and country, and also Aniani. They bulit a stele in Puluadi and ordered offerings there.

A3-9 Original position: Karagündüz Physical properties: stela, inscribed recto-verso Sign size: 3,7cm Theme: military No. of copies: 3, 2 on Ro and one on Vo Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: no Narrative: Išpuini and Minua conquered cities Mešta, Qua, Šaritu, Nigibi, and Paršua country.

A3-10 Original position: Qalatgah Physical properties: building block, secondarily built into a dam wall (van Loon 1975, 201)

123

Sign size: unknown Theme: military, building No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: yes Curse formula: no Narrative: Išpuini and Minua conquered Zašgau and built Ḫaldi´s gate

A3-11 Original position: Kelišin stele Physical properties: stele, inscribed recto-verso Sign size: 3-3,9cm (Benedict 1961, 360) Theme: religious No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: yes Curse formula: yes Narrative: visit of Išpuini and Minua to Arḍini/Muṣasir and their offerings to Ḫaldi´s main temple

A3-12 Original position: probably Patnos Physical properties: building block, probably from temple, and probably the text continued on another block Sign size: unknown Theme:building, religious No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: no Narrative: Išpuini and Minua built a temple to god Ua and ordered offerings to Ḫaldi, Ua, Ua´s gate and Ḫaldi´s weapons

Inscription of Išpuini, Minua and Inušpua

A4-1 Original position: Tabriz Kapisi niche in Van

124

Physical properties: one-tiered niche Sign size: unknown Theme: building, religious No. of copies: 3 Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: no Narrative: Išpuini, Minua and Inušpua

Inscriptions of Minua A5-1 Original position: Taȿburun Physical properties: rock inscription Sign size: 4cm Theme: military No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: yes Narrative: Minua conquered Erikuahi, Luhiuni and subjected Etiuni to taxes

A5-2A-F Original position: Körzüt (A), Berkri/Muradiye (B), Güsak/Köȿk (C, D), Berkri (E), Van Kalesi (F) Physical properties: inscriptions on multiple building blocks, on left side of susi temples Sign size:3,6cm (B) Theme: building, military No. of copies: 6 Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: Narrative: Minua built Ḫaldi´s gate and thereafter campaigned against Erikuahi, he conquered city Luhiuni and devastated Etiuni. He divided the war prisoners between several destinations.

A5-3 Original position: Yazilitaȿ Physical properties: rock inscription

125

Sign size: unknown Theme: military No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: yes Narrative: Minua conquered several cities in Diaueḫi (Šašiluni, Šešituna, Zuaina, Utuha) and forced their ruler into submission.

A5-4 Original position: Zivin Physical properties: stela Sign size: 3,5-4cm Theme: military No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: yes Curse formula: yes Narrative: after conuering Šašiluna, Minua built this stela for Ḫaldi

A5-5 Original position: Palu Physical properties: rock inscription Sign size: unknown Theme: military No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: yes Curse formula: yes Narrative: Minua conquered cities Šebeteria, Huzana, and country Supa. He built a stela then and forced king of Militia into paying tribute.

A5-6 Original position: Alazli/Trmerd Physical properties: stela, fragmented Sign size: 3,9-4,1cm Theme: military

126

No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: yes Narrative: Minua cnquered Urmeuhi country and multiple cities in it (Alaue, Ursani, Tarparakani, Erimani, Qulmeri)

A5-7 Original position: Muȿ Physical properties: stela, inscribed on all four sides Sign size: 4,5cm Theme: military No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: yes Narrative: Minua conquered city Atauni, country Urme and left an inscription in Urme.

A5-8 Original position: Bağın Physical properties: stela, incomplete Sign size: unknown Theme: building No. of copies: 2, one on each side Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: yes Narrative: Minua built this stela and nominated Titia as governor.

A5-9 Original position: Surb Pogos church in Van Physical properties: stone block, originally probably used for ritual purposes. The inscription was also on other stones which were not preserved Sign size: 3,9cm Theme: military No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no

127

Curse formula: no Narrative: Minua´s conquests in Mana, Ususuani, Qulmeru, Assur, Hatti and Alzi. Probably records of several campaigns.

A5-10 Original position: Taštepe Physical properties: rock inscription Sign size: ca 4cm Theme: military No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: yes Curse formula: yes Narrative: Minua conquered Mana and founded an outpost

A5-11A-B Original position: Aznavur Tepe Physical properties: building blocks, in susi temple Sign size: 3,5-4 cm Theme: building, military No. of copies: 2 and 2, placed in different parts of cella and nave, respectively Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: Curse formula: Narrative: Minua built Ḫaldi´s gate in Aludiri. He then recalls campaign against country Satini, which revolted when Minua ascended the throne, and also Alzi. In Qutume, he built a fortress to Ḫaldi.

A5-12A-D Original position: Kadembas (A), Edremit (B), Asagi Micingir (C), Işhanikom (D) Physical properties: rock isncriptions Sign size: 4-4,5cm (B) Theme: building No. of copies: 4, one in each place Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: yes Curse formula: yes

128

Narrative: Minua built a canal

A5-13 Original position: Kadembas Physical properties: rock inscription Sign size: 5cm Theme: building No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: yes Narrative: Minua built a canal

A5-14A-D Original position: Edremit (A), Işhanıkom (B, C), Kadembas (D) Physical properties: on blocks supporting the canal (A-C), rock-cut (D) Sign size: 4,5cm (A,C) Theme: building No. of copies: 4, one on each place Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: no Narrative: Minua built a canal

A5-15A-E Original position: Edremit (A), Katepants (B, C, D), Angl (E) Physical properties: A, D are rock-cut, B, C are probably rock-cut (non-vista by Salvini, see Salvini 2008a, 207), E is on a stone supporting the canal Sign size: 4,5cm (A), Theme: building No. of copies: 5, one on each place Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: no Narrative: Minua built a canal

129

A5-16 Original position: Berkri/Muradiye Physical properties: stela, incomplete Sign size: unknown Theme: building No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: yes Curse formula: yes Narrative: Minua built a canal

A5-17 Original position: Salmanaga Physical properties: stela, inscribed recto-verso Sign size: 5,2cm Theme: building No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: yes Curse formula: no Narrative: Minua built a canal and a city

A5-18 Original position: Ererin Physical properties: stela, incomplete Sign size: 5,6cm Theme: building No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: yes Curse formula: no Narrative: Minua built a canal and a city

A5-19 Original position: Karahan Physical properties: stela, incomplete Sign size: unknown

130

Theme: building No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: yes Curse formula: no Narrative: Minua built a canal (and a city?)

A5-20 Original position: Adalar Physical properties: rock-cut inscription, currently probably under water Sign size: unknown Theme: building No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: yes Curse formula: no Narrative: Minua built a canal

A5-21 Original position: Chotanlu, near Malazgirt Physical properties: stela, lost Sign size: unknown Theme: building, military No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: no Narrative: Minua built a canal and conquered cities Zuguhi, Inuni and Abasini

A5-22 Original position: Marmos Physical properties: stela, fragmentary Sign size: unknown Theme: unknown No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: yes Curse formula: no

131

Narrative: unknown. Only a formulaic expression is preserved.

A5-23 Original position: Akhtamar Physical properties: stela, inscribed recto-verso Sign size: 5cm Theme: building No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: no Narrative: Minua erected this stela for Ḫaldi and commissioned building of several canals

A5-24 Original position: Karahan Physical properties: stela Sign size: 5-5,6cm Theme: building No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: yes Curse formula: yes Narrative: Minua built a canal and founded and populated Minuaḫinili.

A5-25 Original position: probably Patnos Physical properties: stela, inscribed recto-verso Sign size: 4,4-4,5cm Theme: building No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: yes Curse formula: yes Narrative: Minua erected this stela for Ḫaldi, and also built Ḫaldi´s gate and Minuaḫinili.

A5-26 Original position: Bašbulak

132

Physical properties: inscribed building block Sign size: unknown Theme: building No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: yes Curse formula: no Narrative: Minua built Minuaḫinili

A5-27 Original position: Tsolakert/Tašburun Physical properties: inscribed building block Sign size: 3,5cm Theme: building No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: Curse formula: Narrative: after campaign in Erikuahi and conquering of city Luhiuni, Minua built Ḫaldi´s gate, a fortress and taralzani

A5-28 Original position: Karahan Physical properties: stela Sign size: 3-3,5cm Theme: building No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: no Narrative: Minua built Ḫaldi´s gate in Arsuniuni, tiribišuzi of god Ura, a fortress, a city, a burganani, a vineyard and an orchard

A5-29 Original position: Karahan Physical properties: stela, fragment Sign size: 3cm

133

Theme: building No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: no Narrative: Minua built Ḫaldi´s gate in Arsuniuni, tiribišuzi of god Ura, a fortress, a city, a burganani, a vineyard and an orchard

A5-30 Original position: Karahan, Berkri Physical properties: broken stela, inscribed recto-verso Sign size: unknown Theme: building No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: yes Narrative: Minua built Ḫaldi´s gate in Arsuniuni, tiribišuzi of god Ua, a fortress, a city, a burganani, a vineyard and an orchard

A5-31 Original position: unknown (due to the text, probably Karahan or its vicinity) Physical properties: stela, inscribed recto-verso Sign size: unknown Theme: building No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: yes Narrative: Minua built Ḫaldi´s gate in Arsuniuni, tiribišuzi of god Naia, a fortress, a city, a burganani, a vineyard and an orchard

A5-32 Original position: Yedikilise Physical properties: stela Sign size: unknown Theme: building

134

No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: yes Curse formula: no Narrative: Minua erected this stela and built a city

A5-33 Original position: church in Köȿk Physical properties: stela Sign size: unknown Theme: building, religious No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: yes Curse formula: no Narrative: When Minua erected this stela, he built a city and called it Ḫaldi´s city. He also built a vineyard and an orchard. When the vine is ripe, an offering and a libation for Ḫaldi should be done in front of this stela, and also when the grapes are harvested.

A5-34 Original position: Kevenli/Šušants Physical properties: column base Sign size: unknown Theme: building No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: no Narrative: Minua built a fortress and a city

A5-35 Original position: Körzüt Physical properties: building block Sign size: unknown Theme: building No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: yes

135

Curse formula: no Narrative: Minua built a fortress

A5-36 Original position: church in Köȿk Physical properties: building block Sign size: unknown Theme: building No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: yes Curse formula: no Narrative: Minua built a fortress and named it Ḫaldi´s city

A5-37 Original position: Aznavur Tepe Physical properties: building block of susi temple Sign size: 3,5cm Theme: building No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: no Narrative: Minua built a fortress and Ḫaldi´s gate in Aludiri

A5-38 Original position: Aznavur Tepe Physical properties: building block Sign size: 5,5cm Theme: building No. of copies: 2, the text repeats itself Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: no Narrative: Minua built a fortress

136

A5-39 Original position: Patnos Physical properties: building block Sign size: 5-5,5cm Theme: building No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: yes Curse formula: no Narrative: Minua built a fortress

A5-40A-B Original position: Pirabat Physical properties: building blocks Sign size: unknown Theme: building No. of copies: 2, one on each stone Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: yes Curse formula: no Narrative: Minua built a fortress

A5-41A-B Original position: Delibaba Physical properties: building blocks Sign size: unknown Theme: building No. of copies: 2, one on each stone Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: yes Curse formula: Narrative: Minua built a fortress

A5-42A-C Original position: Yukari Anzaf Physical properties: building blocks of susi temple Sign size: 3-3,5cm (A), 4,8cm (B), 4cm (C)

137

Theme: building No. of copies: 3 copies, A and B have 3 iterations of the text, third one is fragmentary Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: no Narrative: Minua built susi temple

A5-43 Original position: Yukari Anzaf Physical properties: building block of susi temple Sign size: 4cm Theme: building No. of copies: is identical to A5-42 texts Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: no Narrative: Minua built susi temple

A5-44 Original position: Kevenli Physical properties: building block of susi temple Sign size: 3cm Theme: building No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: no Narrative: text is in Assyrian. Minua built towering temple and Ḫaldi´s gate under the mountain of Ura

A5-45A-B Original position: Kevenli Physical properties: building blocks of susi temple or Ḫaldi´s gate Sign size: 4-4,2cm (B) Theme: building No. of copies: 2, one on each stone Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no

138

Curse formula: no Narrative: Minua built Ḫaldi´s gate

A5-46A-B Original position: Kevenli Physical properties: building blocks of susi temple or Ḫaldi´s gate Sign size: 4cm Theme: building No. of copies: 2, one on each stone Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: no Narrative: Minua built Ḫaldi´s gate

A5-47 Original position: monastery under Erek Dağ Physical properties: inscribed building block Sign size: 4cm Theme: building No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: no Narrative: Minua built Ḫaldi´s gate and a fortress

A5-48 Original position: Kohbants Physical properties: building block, two adjacent sides inscribed Sign size: 5-6cm on one side, 4cm on the other Theme: building No. of copies: 2, one on each side. Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: no Narrative: Minua built Ḫaldi´s gate

139

A5-49 was removed by Salvini upon realization that it was not a duplicate of A5-50, but the very same inscription.

A5-50 Original position: Norkiuch Physical properties: building block, continuous inscription on front and right side Sign size: unknown Theme: building No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: no Narrative: Minua built Ḫaldi´s gate in the city Mušuni

A5-51 Original position: Malazgirt Physical properties: building block of susi temple Sign size: 4,5cm Theme: building No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: yes Curse formula: no Narrative: Minua built this susi temple and a fortress

A5-52 Original position: Baȿkale or surrounding area Physical properties: building block of susi temple Sign size: 3,7-4cm Theme: building No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: yes Curse formula: no Narrative: Minua built this susi temple and a fortress and named the fortress Ḫaldi´s city

140

A5-53 Original position: Van Physical properties: column base Sign size: unknown Theme: building No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: no Narrative: Minua built a building

A5-54 Original position: unknown, probably Kavuncu Physical properties: column base Sign size: 2,4-3cm Theme: building No. of copies: 3, one on each line Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: no Narrative: Minua built a building

A5-55A-E Original position: Eskipağ (E), Yedikilise (B), Patnos (C,D), E is erroneous copy (Salvini, 2008a, 239-240) Physical properties: column bases Sign size: 3,5cm (A, C), 4 cm (D) Theme: building No. of copies: 4(5), each has three versions of the same text on three lines Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: no Narrative: Minua built a building

A5-56 Original position: Körzüt Physical properties: a stela? It´s unclear based on description

141

Sign size: unknown Theme: building No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: yes Curse formula: yes Narrative: Minua built a fortress

A5-57 Original position: unknown Physical properties: a stone tablet or a building block with inscription within clearly distinct area Sign size: unknown Theme: building No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: no Narrative: Minua built a building

A5-58 Original position: Van Kalesi Physical properties: in three niches, one-tiered Sign size: unknown Theme: building No. of copies: 3, one in each niche Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: yes Curse formula: yes Narrative: Minua built this fountain/spring

A5-59 Original position: Ezdhaha Bulaqi Physical properties: in a niche, one-tiered; damaged Sign size: unknown Theme: building No. of copies: 4; separate text within the niche

142

Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: yes Curse formula: Narrative: Minua built this fountain/spring

A5-60 Original position: Kohbants Physical properties: building block, inscribed on three adjacent sides and on top Sign size: 4,5cm Theme: building No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: yes, alternative version Narrative: Minua built barzudibiduni and called it Minua´s barzudibiduni. The rest is inconclusive

A5-61 Original position: Qalatgah Physical properties: building block Sign size: unknown Theme: building No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: yes Curse formula: no Narrative: Minua built barzudibiduni and called it Minua´s barzudibiduni

A5-62 Original position: probably Yukari Anzaf Physical properties: building block with clearly bordered inscription Sign size: 5,5cm Theme: building No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: yes

143

Narrative: Minua built barzudibiduni and called it Minua´s barzudibiduni. The rest is inconclusive

A5-63 Original position: Yedikilise Physical properties: building block Sign size: 4,3cm Theme: building No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: no Narrative: Minua built bazrudibiduni and called it Minua´s barzudibiduni

A5-64 Original position: Değirmenköy Physical properties: column base Sign size: unknown Theme: unknown No. of copies: 2, one on each line Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: no Narrative: unknown

A5-65A-C Original position: Van (A), Yedikilise (B), Hurkum (C) Physical properties: column bases Sign size: 3,5 (A), 3,6 (B) Theme: building No. of copies: 3 with two iterations of text on each, one per line Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: no Narrative: Minua built ašihusi

144

A5-66 Original position: niche in Van Kalesi, near Madir Burcu/Sardursburg Physical properties: one-tiered niche Sign size: unknown Theme: building No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: no Narrative: Minua built a storehouse

A5-67 Original position: Bostankaya Physical properties: inscribed building block, part of a cistern Sign size: unknown Theme: building No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: yes Curse formula: no Narrative: Minua built a cistern

A5-68 Original position: Van Kalesi Physical properties: rock-cut inscription Sign size: unknown Theme: building No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: yes Narrative: Minua built a stable

A5-69 Original position: Van Kalesi Physical properties: inscribed building block with wll defined borders of the inscription Sign size: 8cm

145

Theme: building No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: no Narrative: Minua built a stable

A5-70 Original position: Kamıȿvan Physical properties: stela Sign size: unknown Theme: unknown No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: yes Narrative: unknown, only curse formula is preserved

A5-71 Original position: old Van, used in building a mosque Physical properties: stela Sign size: unknown Theme: dedicatory No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: no Narrative: Minua erected this stela for Ḫaldi

A5-72 Original position: Surb Vartan church in Van Physical properties: stela Sign size: unknown Theme: dedicatory No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: no

146

Narrative: Minua ereted this stela for Ḫaldi

A5-73 Original position: Yedikilise/Warrag Vank Physical properties: stela Sign size: 4cm Theme: dedicatory No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: yes Curse formula: no Narrative: Minua erected a stela

A5-74 Original position: Karahan Physical properties: stela Sign size: 4,2-4,5cm Theme: dedicatory No. of copies: 2 identical iterations of text Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: yes Curse formula: Narrative: Minua erected a stela for Ḫaldi

A5-75 Original position: Karahan Physical properties: stela Sign size: 4cm Theme: dedicatory No. of copies: 2 Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: yes Curse formula: no Narrative: Minu erected a stela for Ḫaldi

A5-76 Original position: Karahan

147

Physical properties: stela Sign size: 4,5cm Theme: unknown No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: yes Narrative: unknown, only cure formula survived

A5-77 Original position: Yalçınkaya Physical properties: stela Sign size: 4,2-4,7cm Theme: dedicatory No. of copies: 2 Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: yes Curse formula: no Narrative: Minua erected a stela for Ḫaldi

A5-78 Original position: Düzceli Physical properties: building block of iriduduni Sign size: unknown Theme: building No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: yes Curse formula: no Narrative: Minua built iriduduni

A5-79 Original position: mosque in Korȿun in Old Van Physical properties: stela Sign size: unknown Theme: dedicatory No. of copies:

148

Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: no Narrative: Minua erected this stela for Hutuini

A5-80 Original position: Karahan Physical properties: stela Sign size: unknown Theme: dedicatory No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: no Narrative: Minua erected this stela for Šiuini

A5-81 Original position: Yedikilise Physical properties: stela Sign size: unknown Theme: dedicatory No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: yes Curse formula: no Narrative: Minua erected this stela for the storm god

A5-82 Original position: Salmanağa Physical properties: stela Sign size: unknown Theme: dedicatory No. of copies: 2 Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: yes Curse formula: no Narrative: Miua erected this stela for god Elipuri

149

A5-83 Original position: Metsopay-Vank´ Physical properties: stela Sign size: unknown Theme: dedicatory No. of copies: 2 Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: yes Curse formula: no Narrative: Minua erected this stela for Ḫaldi and Quera

A5-84 Original position: Keçikiran Physical properties: stela Sign size: unknown Theme: dedicatory No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: yes Curse formula: no Narrative: Minua erected this stela for god Šebitu

A5-85 Original position: Van Physical properties: stela Sign size: unknown Theme: dedicatory No. of copies: 2 Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: yes Curse formula: no Narrative: Minua erected this stela for Ḫaldi

A5-86 Original position: Karagündüz Physical properties: stela Sign size: 5,5-6cm

150

Theme: unknown No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: yes Narrative: unknown, only curse formula is preserved

A5-87 Original position: Kevenli (one stone) and Sihke (two stones) Physical properties: inscribed building blocks Sign size: unknown Theme: building? Uncertain No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: no Narrative: The text is not preserved fully and is not currently understood. However, based on the sumerograms, it is possible that it mentions Ḫaldi´s gate.

A5-88 Original position: Kevenli Physical properties: building block Sign size: Theme: uncertain No. of copies: identical o A5-87 Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: no Narrative: same as A5-87

A5-89 Original position: Sihke Physical properties: building block Sign size: 2,6cm Theme: building No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no

151

Curse formula: no Narrative: similarly to previous inscriptions, its content is uncertain but probably mentions Ḫaldi´s gate

A5-90 Original position: unknown Physical properties: building block Sign size: 2,6cm Theme: religisous No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: no Narrative: Minua orders some offerings for Ḫaldi and the sun god

A5-91 Original position: Sihke Physical properties: stela Sign size: unknown Theme: special No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: yes Narrative: commemorates the jump of Minua´s horse

A5-92 Original position: Aliler Physical properties: column base Sign size: unknown Theme: unknown, based on the shape, probably building No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: no Narrative: unknown

152

A5-93 Original position: unknown Physical properties: building block Sign size: 4cm Theme: unknown No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: no Narrative: unknown

A5-94 Original position: Anzaf Physical properties: mising stela, fragmentary Sign size: unknown Theme: unknown No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: yes Curse formula: no Narrative: unknown, only formula was preserved

A5-95 Original position: Karahan Physical properties: stela, lost, fragmentary Sign size: unknown Theme: unknown No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: no Narrative: unknown

A5-96 Original position: Malazgirt Physical properties: stela, lost, fragmentary Sign size: unknown

153

Theme: unknown No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: probably yes Curse formula: no Narrative: unknown, only part of formula remained

A5-97 Original position: Siyah Cheshmeh Physical properties: stela, bottom part; bordered inscription Sign size: 3,9-4,2cm Theme: unknown No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: yes Curse formula: no Narrative: unknown, only formula preserved

A5-98a-o Original position: Van Kalesi Physical properties: unsure Sign size: Theme: potentially military No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: no Narrative: potentially part of some version of Minua´s annals

A5-99 Original position: Old Van Physical properties: fragment, lost Sign size: unknown Theme: unknown No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: no

154

Narrative: unknown

A5A-1 Original position: near Katepants Physical properties: rock-cut inscription Sign size: 4-4,5cm Theme: building/ownership No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: no Narrative: a vineyard is named and ascribed to Minua´s wife, Tariria

Inscriptions of Argišti I. A8-1 Original position: Surb Sahak church in Old Van Physical properties: stela, inscribed on all four sides Sign size: unknown Theme: military (annals) No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: yes Curse formula: yes, at the beginning Narrative: Argišti erected this stela for Ḫaldi. Thanks to Ḫaldi, he rose from his father´s throne and waged war. Argišti conquered Diauhi, Qihu, Siluni, built fortress Erebuni, and then he conquered Uburda and Urme

A8-2 Original positin: Surb Sahak church in Old Van Physical properties: stela, inscribed recto-verso Sign size: unknown Theme: military (annals) No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: no

155

Narrative: several campaigns of Argišti I. are mentioned: one to Mana and Assur, another one to Alati, and another to Mana, which resulted in subjugation of Mana. Argišti also built a new canal near Argištiḫinili. In another campaign, Argišti conquered several regions of or lying in Diaueḫi and made king of Diaueḫi his subject. Another campaign led to conquest of Etiuni. Another after that led to conquest of Luša, Katarza and Uiteruhi.

A8-3 Original position: Khorkhor rock in Van Kalesi Physical properties: rock-cut inscription Sign size: unknown Theme: military (annals) No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: yes Narrative: Extensive list of Argišti I.´s campaigns: first mentioned (and readable) campaign is from Diaueḫi via Šeriazi to Bia and Ḫuša and from there through Tariu, Zabahae, Sirimutara, Igani, Eriahi and Apuni to Uiteruhi. Other campaigns were waged to Ultuzai, Etiuni, Artarmu, Qa?a, to the lake area (supposedly Lake Sevan), to Aššur, Parsua and Mana and its wider surroundings. Etiuni, Katarza and Urme are also targets of military campaigns. Beside that, founding of Erebuni is also mentioned.

A8-4 Original position: Old Van Physical properties: building block or stela, damaged Sign size: 2,5-2,8cm Theme: military No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: no Narrative: Argišti campaigned in Etiuni

A8-5 Original position: Old Van Physical properties: building block or stela, damaged

156

Sign size: 2,5-2,8cm Theme: military No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: no Narrative: Argišti campaigned in Gulutahi and Aništirga

A8-6 Original position: Sarıkamiȿ Physical properties: stela Sign size: 3,8cm Theme: military No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: yes Curse formula: yes Narrative: Argišti campaigned against cities Ahuria, Aštuhini and Qalbia

A8-7 Original position: Morevdere canyon near Ortakent Physical properties: rock-cut inscription Sign size: unknown Theme: military No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: yes Curse formula: yes Narrative: Argišti campaigned from Tariuni through Ḫuša, Bia and Ašqalaši to cieties Ahuria and Qa?ni, possibly in Diaueḫi

A8-8 Original position: Elar Physical properties: rock-cut Sign size: 3,4-3,5cm Theme: military No. of copies:

157

Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: yes Curse formula: no Narrative: Argišti campaigned in Etiuni and Uluani

A8-9 Original position: Spandaryan Physical properties: rock-cut Sign size: 3,5cm Theme: military No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: no Narrative: Argišti campaigned against Qulia

A8-10 Original position: Marmašen Physical properties: rock-cut Sign size: 3,5-3,8cm Theme: military No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: no Narrative: Argišti campaigned in Eriahi and Išqigulu

A8-11 Original position: Lchashen Physical properties: rock-cut Sign size: unknown Theme: military No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: yes Curse formula: no Narrative: Argišti campaigned in Qiehuni till city Ištikuniu

158

A8-12 Original position: Physical properties: reused višap stone Sign size: unknown Theme: military No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: no Narrative: Argišti campaigned to city Hi?rinia

A8-13 Original position: Javankaleh Physical properties: rock-cut Sign size: unknown Theme: military No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: yes Curse formula: yes Narrative: Argišti campaigned to Mana and Arsitana´s country till city Šimerhadirni

A8-14 Original position: Armavir Physical properties: inscribed building block Sign size: 3,5-4cm Theme: unknown No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: no Narrative: unknown

A8-15 Original position: Karakala Physical properties: rock-cut Sign size: unknown

159

Theme: building No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: yes Curse formula: no Narrative: Argišti built a canal

A8-16 Original position: Sardarapat, but supposedly transported here from E mound of Armavir (Martirosyan, 1974, 48) Physical properties: inscribed building block Sign size: unknown Theme: building No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: yes Curse formula: no Narrative: Argišti founded a fortress, Argištiḫinili. He also built canals, vineyards and orchards and fought many battles around here

A8-17A-B Original position: gate of Erebuni Physical properties: inscribed building blocks Sign size: 2,8cm Theme: building No. of copies:2, each on one stone; supposedly flanking the gate Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: yes Curse formula: no Narrative: Erebuni

A8-18 Original position: Erebuni Physical properties: basalt building block Sign size: 2,8cm Theme: building

160

No. of copies: identical to A8-19 Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: yes Curse formula: no Narrative: Argišti built Erebuni and many buildings there

A8-19 Original position: Erebuni Physical properties: basalt building block Sign size: unknown Theme: building No. of copies: identical to A8-18 Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: yes Curse formula: no Narrative: Argišti built Erebuni and many buildings there

A8-20 Original position: Erebuni Physical properties: building block, in situ to the left from the main columned hall Sign size: 3cm Theme: building No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: yes Curse formula: no Narrative: Argišti built a fortress

A8-21A-B Original position: Erebuni Physical properties: two basalt building blocks at the entrance of susi temple Sign size: 2,8cm (A), 2,7-3cm (B) Theme: building No. of copies: 2, one on each side of the entrance of the temple Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: yes Curse formula: no Narrative: Argišti built the susi temple for god Lubša

161

A8-22 Original position: Soğucak Physical properties: building block Sign size: 4,5cm Theme: building No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: yes Curse formula: no Narrative: Argišti built a susi temple and a fortress and named it Argištiḫinili

A8-23 Original position: Erebuni Physical properties: column bases, originally supposedly within the main columned hall Sign size: 3,5cm Theme: building No. of copies: 4, one inscription on each column base Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: no Narrative: Argišti built a building

A8-24 Original position: Erebuni, to the left of Ḫaldi´s temple Physical properties: building block Sign size: 3cm Theme: building No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: no Narrative: Argišti built a building

A8-25 Original position: Gazanci Physical properties: column base

162

Sign size: 3,5cm Theme: building No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: no Narrative: Argišti built a building

A8-26 Original position: Nalbandyan Physical properties: column base Sign size: 4cm Theme: building No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: no Narrative: Argišti built a building

A8-27 Original position: Van? Physical properties: inscribed building block Sign size: unknown Theme: building No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: no Narrative: Argišti built a granary

A8-28A-E Original position: Erebuni Physical properties: inscribed building blocks of granaries Sign size: 3,5cm (B, C) Theme: building No. of copies:5, one on each block Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no

163

Curse formula: no Narrative: Argišti built a granary

A8-29 Original position: Aznavur Tepe Physical properties: building block coming from susi temple area; granary inscription Sign size: 3,5-4cm Theme: building No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: no Narrative: Argišti built a granary

A8-30 Original position: Argištiḫinili Physical properties: building block of a granary Sign size: unknown Theme: building No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: no Narrative: Argišti built a granary near ašihusi

A8-31 Original position: unknown Physical properties: basalt building block Sign size: unknown Theme: building No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: no Narrative: Argišti built a granary

164

A8-32 Original position: Erzurum Physical properties: building block of a granary Sign size: unknown Theme: building No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: no Narrative: Argišti built a granary

A8-32a Original position: unknown Physical properties: building block of a granary Sign size: unknown Theme: building No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: no Narrative: Argišti built a granary

A8-33 Original position: Pirabat Physical properties: building block of a storehouse Sign size: 4cm Theme: building No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: no Narrative: Argišti built a storehouse (e)ari)

A8-34 Original position: unknown Physical properties: building block of a granary Sign size: unknown

165

Theme: building No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: no Narrative: Argišti built a granary

A8-35 Original position: Pirabat Physical properties: building block Sign size: unknown Theme: building No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: yes Curse formula: no Narrative: unknown

A8-36 Original position: Pirabat Physical properties: building block Sign size: unknown Theme: unknown No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: yes Curse formula: no Narrative: unknown

A8-37 Original position: Pirabat Physical properties: building block, fragmentary Sign size: unknown Theme: unknown No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no

166

Curse formula: no Narrative: unknown

A8-38 Original position: Guganis Physical properties: column base Sign size: 3,1cm Theme: unknown No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: yes Curse formula: no Narrative: unknown

A8-39 Original position: Davti-Blur Physical properties: column base Sign size: unknown Theme: building No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: no Narrative: Argišti built a building

A8-40 Original position: Anzaf Physical properties: building block Sign size: unknown Theme: uncertain No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: Narrative: uncertain

167

A8-41 Original position: Kalecik Physical properties: building block Sign size: unknown Theme: uncertain No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: no Narrative: uncertain

Inscriptions of Sarduri II. A9-1 Original position: Surb Pogos, church in Old Van Physical properties: stela, inscribed on all four sides Sign size: 2,9cm Theme: military (annals), religious No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: yes Curse formula: yes, at the beginning Narrative: Sarduri II. orders offering to Ḫaldi. Then he tells that after his ascension, he went to conquer Uelikuhi and also defeated Assyrians. He also tells about his expedition to Militia and recalls several other campaigns (text there is damaged)

A9-2 Original position: Surb Pogos, church in Old Van Physical properties: fragmentary stela, inscribed on all four sides Sign size: 2,9cm Theme: military (annals) No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: no Narrative: Sarduri recall several of his campaigns

168

A9-3 Original position: Hazine Kapisi Physical properties: a series of niches with rounded tops and a stela. A9-1 and A9-2 were probably also part of this (Salvini 2008a, 413, 417) Sign size: 3,8cm (on the stela) Theme: military (annals) No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: no Narrative: Sarduri recalls many of his campaigns: to Mana and Baruata, to Etiuni and from there to Liqiu and several cities in there, to Urme, Qulha and Ḫuša, to Eriahi and Abilianihi. All these countries had to be defeated on several occasions. The longest campaigns were from Etiuni to Eriahi through several regions, and conquest of several tribal areas such as Arquqi and Adahu with conquest of countries Teria, Uškia and Hamni at the end

A9-4 Original position: Habibuȿaği Physical properties: rock-cut, on left bank of Euphrates, currently flooded Sign size: unknown Theme: military No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: yes Curse formula: yes Narrative: Sarduri II. marched to Euphrates and camped at the spring near Militia. He conquered the capital of Hilaruada´s kingdom and forced him to surrender. In the end, Sarduri recounts the areas he annexed

A9-5 Original position: Taȿköprü Physical properties: rock-cut Sign size: unknown Theme: military No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no

169

Curse formula: no Narrative: Sarduri II. conquered cities Uhimeali and Maqaltuni and forcibly moved their inhabitants into Biainili

A9-6 Original position: Vardadzor/Adamhan Physical properties: rock-cut Sign size: unknown Theme: military No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: no Narrative: Sarduri II. conquered city Tulihu, and deported its king and his subjects

A9-7 Original position: Tsovak Physical properties: rock-cut Sign size: unknown Theme: military No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: yes Curse formula: no Narrative: Sarduri II. conquered area of tribe Arquqi and advanced till country Urtihi

A9-8 Original position: Seqendel Physical properties: rock-cut Sign size: unknown Theme: military No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: yes Curse formula: no Narrative: Sarduri II. campaigned in country Puluadi and conquered its capital, Libliuni

170

A9-9 Original position: Ortadamla Physical properties: rock-cut Sign size: unknown Theme: building No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: yes Curse formula: no Narrative: Sarduri II. built a canal

A9-10 Original position: Karataş Physical properties: rock-cut Sign size: unknown Theme: unknown, not preserved enough No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: yes Curse formula: no Narrative: Sarduri II. ascended the throne

A9-11 Original position: Karataş Physical properties: rock-cut Sign size: unknown Theme: building No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: yes Narrative: Sarduri II. built a vineyard

A9-12A-B Original position: Molla-Bayazid, Talisch Physical properties: probably building block Sign size: 3,5-4cm

171

Theme: building No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: no Narrative: Sarduri II., built a city, a vineyard, an orchard there and fought in multiple campaigns

A9-13 Original position: Armavir Physical properties: building block Sign size: 3,5-4cm Theme: building No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: yes Narrative: Sarduri II. built a fortress

A9-14 Original position: Janfida Physical properties: building block Sign size: unknown Theme: building, military No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: yes Curse formula: no Narrative: unclear

A9-15 Original position: Armavir Physical properties: building block Sign size: 4-4,6cm Theme: building No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: yes

172

Curse formula: no Narrative: Sarduri II. built this building and Ḫaldi´s gate

A9-16 Original position: Davti-Blur Physical properties: building block Sign size: 3,5-3,7cm Theme: building No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: yes Curse formula: no Narrative: after ascending the throne, Sarduri II. built Ḫaldi´s gate and a vineyard

A9-17 Original position: Ҫavuȿtepe Physical properties: building blocks Sign size: unknown Theme: building No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: yes Curse formula: no Narrative: Sarduri II. built susi temple for god Irmušini, and also vineyards, orchards and fields. He dug a new canal, founded a new city and fought in many campaigns

A9-18 Original position: Bahçecik Physical properties: stela, incomplete Sign size: unknown Theme: building, military No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: yes Curse formula: no Narrative: Sarduri II. built a susi temple and a fortress, named Sarduriḫinili, and he recalls his military campaign toward Militia

173

A9-19 Original position: Armavir Physical properties: building block Sign size: 3cm Theme: building No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: yes Curse formula: no Narrative: Sarduri II. built barzudibiduni and two silos

A9-20 Original position: Erebuni Physical properties: building block Sign size: 3,5cm Theme: building No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: yes Curse formula: no Narrative: Sarduri II. built ašihusi and a granary

A9-21 Original position: Erebuni Physical properties: building block Sign size: 3,5-3,7cm Theme: building No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: no Narrative: Sarduri II. built a granary

A9-22A-B Original position: Erebuni Physical properties: building block

174

Sign size: 4cm Theme: building No. of copies:2, one on each block Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: no Narrative: Sarduri II. built a granary

A9-23 Original position: Erebuni Physical properties: building block Sign size: 3,5cm Theme: building No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: no Narrative: Sarduri II. built a granary

A9-24 Original position: Erebuni Physical properties: building block Sign size: 3,4cm Theme: building No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: no Narrative: Sarduri II. built a granary

A9-25 Original position: Patnos Physical properties: building block Sign size: unknown Theme: building No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no

175

Curse formula: no Narrative: Sarduri II. built a granary

A9-26 Original position: Aznavur Tepe Physical properties: building block Sign size: 3cm Theme: building No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: no Narrative: Sarduri II. built a granary

A9-27 Original position: Ҫavuȿtepe Physical properties: building block Sign size: 3,2-3,5cm Theme: building No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: no Narrative: Sarduri II. built a granary

A9-28 Original position: Ҫavuȿtepe Physical properties: building block Sign size: 4-4,5cm Theme: building No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: no Narrative: Sarduri II. built a granary

176

A9-29 Original position: Ҫavuȿtepe Physical properties: building block Sign size: 3,5-3,7cm Theme: building No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: no Narrative: Sarduri II. built a granary

A9-30 Original position: Ҫavuȿtepe Physical properties: building block Sign size: 4cm Theme: building No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: no Narrative: Sarduri II. built a granary

A9-31 Original position: Ҫavuȿtepe Physical properties: building block Sign size: 4,2cm Theme: building No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: no Narrative: Sarduri II. built a granary

A9-32 Original position: Ҫavuȿtepe Physical properties: buildig block Sign size: 4,5cm

177

Theme: building No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: no Narrative: Sarduri II. built a granary

A9-33 Original position: Ҫavuȿtepe Physical properties: building block Sign size: 3,5cm Theme: building No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: no Narrative: Sarduri II. built a granary

A9-34 Original position: Ҫavuȿtepe Physical properties: building block Sign size: 4-4,2cm Theme: building No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: no Narrative: Sarduri II. built a granary

A9-35 Original position: Ҫavuȿtepe Physical properties: building Sign size: unknown Theme: building No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: no

178

Narrative: Sarduri II. built a granary

A9-36 Original position: Bingöl Dağ Physical properties: stela Sign size: unknown Theme: uncertain No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: no Narrative: uncertain; it is mentioned that Sarduri II. reached country Alsuši

A9-37 Original position: Mollabayazet/Bambakashat Physical properties: stela, in bad condition Sign size: unknown Theme: building No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: no Narrative: Sarduri II. built a fortress and possibly some other structures (the text doesn´t allow exact reading)

A9-38 Original position: Armavir, on the top of the mound Physical properties: building block Sign size: 3,5-4,5cm Theme: unknown No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: no Narrative: the inscription mentions god Quera and the preserved part is a formula for strength and good fortune for the monarch

179

A9-39 Original position: Avnik Physical properties: probably a stela Sign size: 3,8cm Theme: building No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: yes Curse formula: no Narrative: Sarduri II. erected something, presumably this stela

Inscriptions of Rusa son of Sarduri A10-1 Original position: Gavar Physical properties: building block, inscribed on two adjacent sides Sign size: uknown Theme: military, building No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: no Narrative: Rusa son of Sarduri defeated king of Uelikuhi and annexed his land and appointed a governor there. He also built Ḫaldi´s gate and a fortress called Ḫaldi´s city

A10-2 Original position: Tsovinar Physical properties: rock-cut Sign size: 4,5cm Theme: military, building No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: yes Narrative: Rusa lists number of lands he was able to conquer in a single campaign around Lake Sevan. He also built fortresses and appointed a governor. One of his fortresses is named City of the storm god

180

A10-3 Original position: Movana/Mavana Physical properties: stela, inscribed recto-verso; Assyrian part ends on the left side Sign size: unknown Theme: military No. of copies: identical text is in A10-4 and A10-5 Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: yes, on Assyrian side of the text Narrative: Urzana, king of Arḍini/Muṣasir, revolted and fled to Aššur to get support of Assyrian king. He then faced off with Rusa son of Sarduri in a battle at mt. Andarutu, and lost. Subsequently, Rusa reappointed Urzana as his vassal

A10-4 Original position: Mergeh Karvan Physical properties: stela, inscribed on three adjacent sides Sign size: 3,5cm Theme: military No. of copies: identical text is in A10-3 and A10-5 Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: yes Narrative: Urzana, king of Arḍini/Muṣasir, revolted and fled to Aššur to get support of Assyrian king. He then faced off with Rusa son of Sarduri in a battle at mt. Andarutu, and lost. Subsequently, Rusa reappointed Urzana as his vassal

A10-5 Original position: Topzawa Physical properties: stela, inscribed recto-verso Sign size: unknown Theme: military No. of copies: identical text is in A10-3 and A10-4 Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: yes

181

Narrative: Urzana, king of Arḍini/Muṣasir, revolted and fled to Aššur to get support of Assyrian king. He then faced off with Rusa son of Sarduri in a battle at mt. Andarutu, and lost. Subsequently, Rusa reappointed Urzana as his vassal

A10-6 Original position: Tepe Mahmud Abad Physical properties: building block or a stela Sign size: unknown Theme: religious No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: yes Narrative: Rusa son of Sarduri estabished a ritual offering to god Šebitu, god Artaruasu, and Šebitu´s gate.

A10-7 Original position: Van-Aygistan Physical properties: stela, damaged by reuse Sign size: unknown Theme: dedicatory No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: no Narrative: Rusa son of Sarduri erected this stela for thunder god

Inscriptions of Argišti II., son of Rusa A11-1 Original position: ruins near Erciş Physical properties: stela, inscribed recto-verso Sign size: unknown Theme: building/religious No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: no

182

Narrative: Argišti son of Rusa erected this stela for Ḫaldi. On his order he built the city and a lake

A11-2 Original position: ruins near Erciş Physical properties: stela, inscribed recto-verso Sign size: unknown Theme: building No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: yes Narrative: Argišti son of Rusa built villages and a canalA11-3 Original position: Thanahat Physical properties: stela, damaged Sign size: 4cm Theme: religious/military No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: yes Curse formula: yes Narrative: Argišti son of Rusa erected this stela for Ḫaldi. The text continues with his campaign against Suluqu and mentions another campaign against Amuša

A11-4 Original position: Razliq Physical properties: rock-cut Sign size: 4,5cm Theme: military/building No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: yes Curse formula: yes Narrative: Argišti son of Rusa campaigned against countries Ulušuni and Buque. He came to a river and then turned back. On his way back through Girdu, Gituhani and Tuišdu he also conquered city Runitarni and established a new fortress called Ḫaldi´s watch

183

A11-5 Original position: Našteban Physical properties: rock-cut Sign size: 5-6cm Theme: military No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: yes Narrative: Same as previous inscription, but doesn´t mention building Ḫaldi´s watch

A11-6 Original position: Shisheh Physical properties: rock-cut, weathered Sign size: unknown Theme: military/building No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: yes Narrative: The text mentions campaign against Arhu, Ušuluni and Buque and building Ḫaldi´s watch

A11-7 Original position: Van – Haykavankh Physical properties: stela Sign size: unknown Theme: unique No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: no Narrative: Argišti son of Rusa shot an arrow over Gilurani forest into the garden of Batu, son of Išpilini

A11-8 Original position: Bulutpınarı

184

Physical properties: basalt stela, inscribed recto-verso Sign size: 5cm Theme: building No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: yes Curse formula: yes Narrative: Argišti son of Rusa built a bridge and called it Argišti´s bridge

Inscriptions of Rusa son of Argišti A12-1 Original position: Ayanis Physical properties: building blocks, at the front sideand in the entrance of susi temple Sign size: unknown Theme: buiding, religious No. of copies: A12-1-3 all share the same text structure with minor differences and A12-4-5 seem to also adhere the same structure Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: yes Curse formula: yes Narrative: Rusa son of Argišti built this susi temple and Ḫaldi´s gate and ordered offerings to many deities: Ḫaldi, the sun god, the storm god, Arubaini, Hutini, Eiduru, Baba, Adi, Inuani, Aia, Tušpuni and unnamed goddesses. The gist of the inscription lies in untranslatable formulaic expressions supposedly connected to religious ceremonies (Salvini 2008a, 569)

A12-2 Original position: Karmir-Blur Physical properties: building blocks of a susi temple, originally placed analogically to Ayanis example Sign size: unknown Theme: building/religious No. of copies: A12-1-3 all share the same text structure with minor differences and A12-4-5 seem to also adhere the same structure Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: probably yes Curse formula: yes

185

Narrative: The text is analogical to A12-1, only the names of gods are different (for example, this one includes Iubša)

A12-3 Original position: Armavir Physical properties: building block of a susi temple, originally placed analogically to Ayanis example Sign size: unknown Theme: building/religious No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: probably yes Curse formula: probably yes Narrative: The text is analogical to A12-1, variants in names of deities can be expected

A12-4 Original position: Adilcevaz Physical properties: building blocks of a susi temple Sign size: 4,1cm Theme: building No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: yes Curse formula: yes Narrative: The text is analogical to A12-1 and its variants. The buildings mentioned are a fortress and É.BÁRA

A12-5 Original position: Bastam Physical properties: building block of a susi temple Sign size: unknown Theme: uncertain No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: uncertain Curse formula: uncertain Narrative: based on its disposition, the content should be analogical to previous inscriptions

186

A12-5a Original position: Toprakkale Physical properties: building block Sign size: unknown Theme: uncertain No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: uncertain Curse formula: uncertain Narrative: based on its disposition, the content should be analogical to A12-1-4 inscriptions

A12-6 Original position: Kaleköy Physical properties: rock-cut on two surfaces in right angle; heavily damaged Sign size: 3,3-3,8cm Theme: unknown No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: no Narrative: unknown

A12-7 Original position: Bastam Physical properties: building block Sign size: unknown Theme: building No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: yes Curse formula: yes Narrative: Rusa son of Argišti built É.BÁRA

A12-8 Original position: Zvartnots, originally found under the ruins of church Physical properties: stela

187

Sign size: 4-4,5cm Theme: building, religious No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: yes Curse formula: yes Narrative: Rusa son of Argišti built a vineyard, a field and an orchard, and a canal named Ušmešini. He also ordered offerings based on the amount of water in the canal

A12-9 Original position: Ayanis Physical properties: building block, in front of the gate Sign size: unknown Theme: building No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: yes Curse formula: yes Narrative: Rusa son of Argišti founded Rusaḫinili Eidurukai, and built a vineyard, an orchard, a new city and É.BÁRA. He also claims to have campaigned in the region

A12-10 Original position: Kef Kalesi Physical properties: heads of columns of ašihusi Sign size: unknown Theme: building No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: yes Narrative: Rusa son of Argišti built ašihusi

Inscriptions of Rusa son of Erimena A14-1 Original position: Keşiş Göl Physical properties: stela, inscribed recto-verso

188

Sign size: 5,5cm (upper part), 4,7-5cm (lower part) Theme: building No. of copies: very similar to A14-2 Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: yes Curse formula: no Narrative: After Rusa son of Erimena ascended the throne, he created the artificial lake and built vineyards and fields around it and brought water from there to Rusaḫinili. He also established offerings to multiple deities

A14-2 Original position: Savacık Physical properties: stela, inscribed on three adjacent sides Sign size: 4,5cm Theme: building No. of copies: very similar to A14-1 Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: yes Narrative: The text is nearly identical to A14-1

A14-3 Original position: Erek Dağ Physical properties: rock-cut, weathered Sign size: unknown Theme: unknown No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: no Narrative: unknown

A14-4 Original position: mountain over village Kaisaran Physical properties: rock-cut Sign size: unknown Theme: unknown

189

No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: no Narrative: unknown

A14-5 Original position: Armavir Physical properties: building block of a granary Sign size: 3,5cm Theme: building No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: no Narrative: Rusa son of Erimena built a granary

A14-6 Original position: Erebuni Physical properties: building block of a granary Sign size: 3,5cm Theme: building No. of copies: Ṭušpa+Biainili formula: no Curse formula: no Narrative: Rusa son of Erimena built a granary

190