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: Urartu, 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