linking lowlands among the mountains: the urartian ‘road stations’

1

Prof. Sergi Makalatia

Gori

Historical-Ethnographical Museum

Studies in

Caucasian Archaeolog y

III

Tbilisi

2017

2

EDITORIAL BOARD:

Dr. Giorgi Mindiashvili

(Editor in Chief)

Georgian National Museum,

Otar Lordkipanidze Centre of

Archaeological Research

Dr. Walter Kuntner

University of Innsbruck

Institut für Alte Geschichte und

Altorientalistik

Dr. Arsen Bobokhyan

Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography

Armenian Academy of Sciences

Yerevan State University,

Dr. Kourosh Roustaei

Iranian Center for Archaeological Research

Dr. Dimitri Narimanishvili

Kldekari Historical-Architechtural

Muzeum-Reserve

Dr. Sandra Heinsch

University of Innsbruck

Institut für Alte Geschichte und

Altorientalistik

Dr. Guram Kvirkvelia




MA. Thorsten Rabsilber

Deutsches Bergbau Museum,

Ruhr-Universitat Bochum

MA. Giorgi Karelidze

Tbilisi State University

MA. Zviad Sherazadishvili

(Responsible Editor)

Prof. Sergi Makalatia

Gori Historical-Ethngraphical Museum,

Tbilisi State University




misamarTi. gori, kirion II-is q. 12. Address. 12, Kirion II, Gori.

© prof. sergi makalaTias saxelobis goris istoriul-eTnografiuli muzeumi, 2017 © Prof. Sergi Makalatia Gori Historical-Ethnographical Museum, 2017

ISSN 2233-3517

UDC (უაკ) 902(479)(051.2)

S-90

http://www.google.ge/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=ruhr%20university%20bochum&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&sqi=2&ved=0CCYQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ruhr-uni-bochum.de%2Findex_en.htm&ei=P32yUJSwBMSG4gSH4YHwAg&usg=AFQjCNFJWsIgqIEztAYsy3bmXL5wDjT-HQ

3

Contents

MEHMET IŞIKLI

AYHAN YARDIMCIEL

Kura-Araxes Pottery from Kars Museum: A Corpus Study ……………………...………… 4

ALEKSANDRE ORJONIKIDZE

Few Aspects of Bedeni Culture Formation ……………………………………………….. 25

ALEKSANDRE ORJONIKIDZE

Eneolthic Signs on Orchosani (Samtskhe) Ceramic ………………………………….…… 37 RENE KUNZE

Living and Working in Late Bronze/Early Iron Age Georgia:

The Settlements of Udabno in Kakheti (Eastern Georgia) and a Contribution to

Metallurgy Based on a Field Survey in the Upper Alazani River Basin ………………….. 54

ROBERTO DAN (ISMEO)

Linking Lowlands Among the Mountains:

The Urartian “Road Stations” ……………………………………………………………... 84

NZHDEH YERANYAN

New Data on Anthropomorphic Stelae from the South-East Caucasus:

Preliminary Reflections ………………………………………………………………….. 113

84

Linking Lowlands among the Mountains:

The Urartian “Road Stations”

ROBERTO DAN (ISMEO)1

ABSTRACT

The main goal of this article is to evaluate the suggestion of Wolfram Kleiss through a detailed

analysis of some isolated Urartian buildings that he interpreted as components of the road

control system. Hitherto only the fortresses of which the main characteristics are known have

been taken into consideration; little is known of the many small fortresses present on the main

communication routes. In particular, Wolfram Kleiss drew attention to certain small-fortified

structures that he considered some kind of ancestors of Islamic caravanserai, which served to

control the roads of the kingdom. These fortified buildings generally share also similar

topographical positions, except for the fortresses that they owned more functions, which were

built on higher hills. These differences in location suggest us that their function, though similar,

might however have been slightly different. With regard to their general shape, these fortresses

can be divided into four main groups. We need to consider the possibility that this sort of road

control system was developed in these regions by the Urartians under the influence of Neo-

Assyrian examples. The existence of similar fortresses, probably built with the same function and

with similar characteristics in different parts of the Urartian kingdom, are a further indication

that Urartu was a centralized state with a complex organization certainly derived in large part

from the adaptation of Neo-Assyrian models, which most probably constituted also the

inspiration for the system of stations of the Achaemenid “Royal Road”.

“There is for this road the following

(information): There are everywhere

royal staging-posts and very fine

inns; the whole road (passes) through

inhabited country and is safe.”

Herodotus, Histories V 52.12

With regard to the success and longevity of a state or an empire a decisive role is

played by the systematic control and management of the road system. The political

system of the kingdom of Urartu was modelled on the adaptation to the complex

geography of the territory. The expansion policy foresaw the gradual annexation of

neighbouring geographic units possessing similar characteristics, both in territorial and

climate terms. Like all aspects of life in the kingdom of Urartu, road management too was

Roberto Dan - Linking Lowlands Among the Mountains: the Urartian ‘Road Stations’, pp. 84-112

deeply influenced by the climate. In fact much of the production system and road network

was seasonal in character because of the long, hard winters that caused the almost

complete cessation of all farming activity and the complete isolation of the cantonal

blocks [Zimansky, 1985].

The conduction of any agricultural activity or transhumance, or indeed the mere

transmission of information between the various regions was impossible for six or seven

months a year, depending on the harshness of winter. The presence of safe and organized

communication routes was therefore necessary for the transport of goods from the

periphery to the administrative core of the kingdom, the plain of Van, as well as to re-

establish political contacts with more distant areas after the long winters and thus ensure

the maintenance of the kingdom and allow progressive territorial expansion.

The main goal of this article is to evaluate the suggestion of Kleiss through a detailed

analysis of some isolated Urartian buildings that he interpreted as components of the road

control system. Hitherto only the fortresses of which the main characteristics are known

have been taken into consideration; little is known of the many small fortresses present

on the main communication routes.

This article is devoted to these little fortresses. Sometimes they are considered by

Kīānī and Kleiss, as in the case of Tepe Dosoq, to be something like prototypes of the

medieval caravanserais3, which were constructed on the level beside roads and were

widespread throughout the Orient starting from the 10th

century CE4. Their main function

was to provide accommodation for travellers, such as official delegations, pilgrims,

messengers and merchants. The general shape of these isolated buildings was square or

rectangular, and they were sometimes fortified with towers and buttresses, with one main

entrance only. The interiors were often set around a central courtyard. As some scholars

have stressed, the development of these peculiar structures can be traced back to

antiquity. In particular, Wolfram Kleiss drew attention to Urartu, and specifically to

certain small-fortified structures that he considered some kind of ancestors of Islamic

caravanserai, which served to control the roads of the kingdom [Kleiss, 1981: 203-205;

Kleiss, 1988b: 187]. We need to consider the association of the Urartian structures with

the Middle Age caravanserais only as a functional comparison. The Urartian structures,

taken into account in this text, need to be considered only as road stations.

Later, Veli Sevin investigated in detail the possible presence of an Urartian road

system controlled by chains of fortresses in Eastern Anatolia [Sevin, 1988b: 547-551;

Sevin, 1989b: 47-56 Sevin, 1991: 97-112]; this was subsequently taken up by other

scholars (Dan, 2012: 56-58). Sevin suggested the possible presence of paved roads and

bridges made during Urartian times [Sevin, 1991: 97-98, figs. 07.1.1, 07.1.2], a

hypothesis that we will discuss in another paper.


Oktay Belli has also stressed on several occasions the possible existence of an

Urartian road network in Eastern Anatolia [Belli, 2000b: 409-414; Belli, 2001b: 370-374;

Belli, 2008b: 342-353].

AN ANALYSIS OF THE ROAD STATIONS

The majority of buildings constructed by the Urartians had purely military purposes;

they were built for defence of their extensive territory and were located on the borders of

the kingdom, along all the main roads, in defence of the water reserves and around the

populated areas. The construction of road stations involved the annexation and control of

a territory in a stable manner. Their function was to control the roads and facilitate

connections between these areas and the core of the kingdom.

In the following pages a number of such structures are discussed, with a view to

understanding if they are compatible in shape, size and position with the road stations

referred to above. They will be examined in the broader context of the main roads

through the valleys of Urartu. Overall, we can consider as belonging to this category of

structures a series of small fortifications that have been identified in all parts of the

kingdom (fig. 1). The possible existence of specific Urartian structures which might have

served as road stations is a question which can be approached only from an

archaeological point of view, because to date Urartian texts do not give any kind of

information or contain specific terms that can be connected with such kind of building5.

As said, many small fortresses are known that could have had the function of road

stations. Unfortunately, none of them is sufficiently well documented to permit an

exhaustive investigation of the question. There are, however, twenty-eight archaeological

sites containing buildings whose shape and size share common characteristics expected of

a shelter, as we will see below. These sites are: Ağaçlık, Aliler, Aşağı Anzaf Kalesi,

Bahçecik, Cankurtarantepe, Çermik, Cevizderesi, Dedeli, Genefik, Kaleönü, Keçikiran 1,

Keçikiran 2, Norşuntepe (lower structure), Tıkızlı and Zulümtepe in Eastern Anatolia;

Agrab Tepe, Allah Verdikand (the higher fortress), Bastam (Hallenbau), Qal’eh Gauhar,

Qal’eh Tazaboulagh (inner fortress), Sheragaiyeh Amir (inner fortress), Tepe Dosoq,

Turki Tepe and Uzub Tepe in Iranian Azerbaijan; Getap 1, Oshakan (upper fortress),

Solak 1 and Yonjalekh in Armenia (Fig. 1)6. Unfortunately, many other sites are

inconclusive for this question due to the lack of relevant information; others possess

features not compatible with the structures that we consider as possible stations7.

These fortified buildings generally share also similar topographical positions, except

for the fortresses that they owned more functions, which were built on higher hills.

Sixteen of them were constructed on low roadside hills, or on the top or sides of such

hills. Four fortresses were built on a level with the road, while six were built on high

hills. These differences in location suggest us that their function, though similar, might


however have been slightly different.

With regard to their general shape, these fortresses can be divided into four main

groups, as will be seen in what follows.

SQUARE FORTRESSES

Five fortresses are almost square in shape: Aliler, Oshakan, Hallenbau (Bastam)8,

Norşuntepe and Solak 1 (Fig. 2); they all share similar features. Their dimensions range

from 54 x 50 metres (Aliler) to 26 x 27 metres (Solak 1). None has been completed

excavated, but partial archaeological investigations were conducted in Oshakan and

Hallenbau, where the topographical situation is different as discussed below, while in

Solak 1 the research is ongoing (Castelluccia et al. forthcoming). Despite the lack of data,

we can affirm that these fortresses show a complex organization of the interior space,

with a number of rooms between 6 and 10 (although the number cannot be definitively

determined in the absence of more detailed investigations). In Hallenbau and Norşuntepe

rooms were identified with rows of pithoi for the storage of foodstuffs, and in Solak 1 and

Oshakan fragmentary remains of pithoi were found, but it is not possible at present to

locate the storage areas inside the fortresses. The Hallenbau structure is the only one that

definitely had stables (west building), but it is very likely that stables were also present in

the others. All the fortresses, apart perhaps Aliler, had curtain walls reinforced with

regularly spaced buttresses and angular buttresses. In Norşuntepe and Solak 1 there was

only a main gate; in Oshakan and Aliler, too, we can hypothesize that there was originally

only one gate, but these have not yet been identified. In the Hallenbau, the original

building had a single entrance and the adjoining western structure containing the stable

had two more gates. Three of these structures were built on flat ground (Norşuntepe,

Aliler and Hallenbau), while two (Oshakan and Solak 1) were built on the top of high

hills, a circumstance that suggests that the latter two fulfilled the dual function of road-

station and road control centre, and probably housed also small garrisons.

RECTANGULAR FORTRESSES

Fourteen fortresses possess a rectangular shape. These are Ağaçlık, Cevizderesi,

Qal’eh Gauhar, Genefik, Qal’eh Tazaboulagh, Sheragaiyeh Amir, Tepe Dosoq,

Zulümtepe, Allah Verdikand, Aşağı Anzaf Kalesi, Keçikiran 1, Dedeli, Tıkızlı and

Çermik (Fig. 3)9. We can divide these fortresses into two subgroups on the basis of their

dimensions. The first comprises the five larger fortresses of Aşağı Anzaf Kalesi, Tepe

Dosoq, Zulümtepe, Keçikiran 1 (Fig. 3.A-D), Dedeli and Genefik, with dimensions

ranging from 68 x 92 m (Anzaf) to 63 x 42 m (Keçikiran 1). These fortresses have linear

walls without reinforcements (Anzaf and Keçikiran 1) or regularly-spaced towers and


buttresses. All were accessible by one gate only. The size of these fortresses, which are

the largest among those examined in this paper, suggests a more complex function than

the mere role of road stations, although this is generally accepted for some of them10

.

Unfortunately, these fortresses are either poorly preserved (Anzaf was disturbed by

medieval structures, Fig. 3.A) or completely unexcavated (all the others). It is therefore

not possible to establish their inner spatial organization. Only in Tepe Dosoq are two

large courtyards onto which open small quadrangular cells (Fig. 3.B).

The second group is made up of ten fortresses (Fig. 3.E-M), all small in size, ranging

from 40 x 26 metres (Allah Verdikand) to 23.5 x 15.4 metres (Qal’eh Gauhar). With the

only exception of Çermik, which has been investigated in part, these fortresses are known

only from surveys. Sheragaiyeh Amir and Allah Verdikand had central courtyards onto

which open small quadrangular cells; Çermik and Qal’eh Gauhar were more complex in

their inner spatial organization, but the data are very scarce. In Çermik and Allah

Verdikand fragments of Urartian pithoi were found. In general, these fortresses had

probably only one gate and walls reinforced in most cases by regular external buttresses.

Since they were generally located on low hills and of small size, the fortresses of this

second subgroup seem likely to have been road stations11

.

SU B-RECTANGULAR FORTRESSES

Four fortresses are sub-rectangular in shape: Kaleönü, Yonjalekh, Agrab Tepe and

Turki Tepe (Fig. 4). They appear to be similar in their general shape, which was however

modified according to the shape of the ground. With the exception of Kaleönü, that had

linear walls, the others were equipped with regularly-spaced buttresses. In all of them

fragments of Urartian pithoi were discovered. Unfortunately, the general lack of

information due to the absence of archaeological investigation means that little is known

regarding the internal organization of these fortresses. Turki Tepe, like Agrab Tepe, had

thirteen rooms and a complex organization, but was highly modified in a later period and

without excavation it is impossible to know if the inner walls were Urartian in age. In this

regard, Agrab Tepe is an exception, being the only site among those described here to

have been fully excavated.

ELONGATE RECTANGULAR FORTRESSES

Three fortresses are of markedly elongate rectangular shape: Bahçecik, Uzub Tepe

and Keçikiran 2 (Fig. 5). These are the only forts in which the short side is less than half

the length of the long side (apart from Çermik, whose proportions are more balanced). It

appears evident that the shape of these forts was conditioned by the need to adapt to the


local topography rather than by functional necessity. Unfortunately, due to the lack of

investigations we cannot give specific information about the inner organization of these

structures or the presence of one of more entrances. Internally, Bahçecik consists of a

linear series of rectangular rooms, flanked by an additional rectangular block apparently

divided into two rectangular rooms (Fig. 5A). Keçikiran 2 also contains a linear series of

rooms (Fig. 5B) and looks incomplete, as Sevin has suggested [Sevin, 2006: 667]. In

Uzub Tepe the traces of several structures may be noticed, and remains of Urartian pithoi

have been found. All the structures possess walls reinforced by buttresses, often spaced

regularly.

FORTRESSES OF UNCERTAIN SHAPE

Two fortresses show resemblances to the fortresses under consideration but, due to

the absence or incomplete state of investigation their entire forms cannot be understood,

although they were probably rectangular (Fig. 6). Cankurtarantepe is a severely damaged

fortress, of which only a few parts of the external fortification are still visible today. On

the ground surface many fragments of typical Urartian pithoi were recovered [Sevin,

1988a: 5; Sevin, 1991: 98]. Getap 1 is a little fortress located on a high hill and was

probably a rectangular structure with walls reinforced with buttresses. The building had a

central compartment with buttresses, around which were small rooms. In one of these

remains of pithoi have been found [Melkonyan …, 2010: 95].

SOME REMARKS ON THE FORTRESSES

All these buildings are small, as recently made clear by a study of the distribution

pattern of Urartian fortresses classified according to the length of the fortification

perimeter [Biscione, 2012; Biscione …, 2011; Biscione …, 2014]. In fact these fortresses

are among the smallest of the Urartian kingdom. They were built in strategic positions at

the same level as the roads or on low hills immediately behind them. Only rarely were

these structures located on much higher ground; in such cases it seem likely that these

small fortresses also exercised some form of control over the territory. Their shape was

mainly rectangular, where the morphology of the land allowed it, becoming elongate or

sub-rectangular in cases of geographical necessity. It is possible to find features shared by

most of them and generally similar building plans. They were built in similar

topographical situations, with walls strengthened by buttresses, often regularly spaced,

and usually possessed a single entrance. They were all built, reasonably enough, near

water sources. Unfortunately, given the lack of data, it is not possible to draw definite

conclusions about their internal organization and circulation. It seems safe to assume the


presence of storerooms with a few rows of pithoi12

, rooms for preparing food equipped

with ovens13

, as well as stables (in many cases outside the fort but sometimes internal, as

in Hallenbau), cells and armouries for the permanently-stationed garrisons, and rooms for

visiting caravans. Given the limited size of these fortresses, they could not have had an

administrative role, and the presence of pithoi (recorded in most of these forts) would

have been exclusively related to the subsistence of the inhabitants and that of the

caravans.

We need also to consider that most of the differences between these fortresses may

be due to the Urartians’ use of local workers, a circumstance that led to them having the

appearance of typically Urartian fortifications14

mixed with elements of local tradition15

(especially marked in more peripheral examples). This mixture may be detected in many

of the most important border fortresses, like, for example, Lchashen16

.

One of the most interesting features of the fortress distribution, in areas with

sufficient data, is that they were built at regular distance from each other. For example,

one of the best-known Urartian road systems is that which joined the core of the kingdom

to its western border. There, in fact, thanks to a series of little fortresses starting in the

Muş area, spaced at between 20 and 30 km, it was possible to reach the Euphrates border

by following a route of 260 km in length. The estimated travel time is around eleven days

on foot17

.

It is clear that the presence of these fortresses indicates that they were constructed

when the surrounding territory had been pacified. Some, such as for example Yonjalekh,

are in positions that are logistically unfavourable from a military point of view, evidence

that the area was under stable control18

. Other fortresses that were strategically sited, like

Qal’eh Tazaboulagh, Allah Verdikand and Sheragaiyeh Amir, over the decades following

their construction and the stabilization of the conquered areas were enlarged to become

bigger fortresses surrounded by additional curtain walls (Fig. 7A-C), or were

accompanied by new, much larger fortresses with economic-administrative and religious

roles. An example is Yukarı Anzaf, one of the largest fortresses in the kingdom of Urartu,

built to complement the capital in the exploitation and management of the Van Plain.

With regard to the dating of these fortresses, we must acknowledge that the data are

uncertain and are based on a number of architectural and ceramic features that might be

reconsidered in the future. Only a few are dated with certainty thanks to inscriptions:

Aşağı Anzaf is dated to the rule of Išpuini, Aliler to Minua and Bahçecik perhaps to

Sarduri II; in the latter case the content of the text seems to imply that the stone may not

have been dug out in situ. The other forts date mainly to the eighth and seventh centuries;

only five appear to have been founded in the ninth century, at the beginning of the period

of Urartian power.


CONCLUSIONS

Road stations, as mentioned, were created to provide accommodation for travellers

and caravans. We have argued that these structures can be expected to be of modest size,

mainly rectangular in shape, and were situated near the road on level ground or on small

hills close by. The road stations’ facilities were small and simple, sometimes with an

inner court immediately after the entrance and a number of rooms of different sizes that

could have functioned as kitchens, storerooms, guestrooms and stables. They appear

generally to have been isolated buildings and do not appear to have been highly fortified.

These structures were sited at regular intervals of 25-30 km19

, in such a way as to

offer systematic protection for caravans and support for those on the march between one

place and another; these roadhouses could be reached in less than a day’s journey.

Some, especially those in higher positions and those of larger size, had additional

functions. They certainly would have housed military garrisons for control of the territory

and, in some cases, were extended through the construction of new walls or buildings

over time.

As said above, Kleiss has hypothesized that a group of small Urartian fortresses

could be the predecessors of the Islamic caravanserai20

. This suggestion calls for further

consideration. Urartu has often been proposed as a possible vehicle of transmission of

cultural elements, such as the many features that were channelled into Achaemenid

architecture21

. In truth, there is now reason to affirm that Urartians may have been the

first to create this kind of road system.

We need to consider the possibility that this sort of road control system was

developed in these regions by the Urartians under the influence of Neo-Assyrian

examples. In this regard, Morandi-Bonacossi suggests a direct relationship of the

Assyrian road system with that of the Urartians, hypothesizing that the system of

fortifications that connected the area of Van Lake with the area of the Euphrates may

have had a direct relation with the complex Assyrian road network [Morandi-Bonacossi,

1996: 134]. It is known that during the Neo-Assyrian expansion between the ninth and

seventh centuries BC a complex communication network was created for the control of

the newly annexed provincial territories [Kinnier-Wilson, 1972: 57-60; Ephcal, 1983:

101-104; Graf, 1994: 171; Kessler, 1997]. Supporting evidence is also found in the royal

palace archives of Nineveh and Nimrud, where official correspondence suggests the

presence of a vast territorial chain of kalliu, i.e. posting stations and bit mardiate, i.e. road

stations22

. These were located on the main routes that connecting together the Assyrian

capitals and provincial centres [Graf, 1994: 171]. Recently, regarding these stations,

Karen Radner has hypothesized that although none have yet been archaeologically

identified, we should also expect the existence of buildings on a far smaller scale. The

scholar has suggested this because – unlike the Islamic caravanserais which were made to


connect remote areas and provide short-term shelter and protection for travellers and their

animals – the Assyrian road stations served only the state and were not open to

commercial travellers [Radner, 2014: 73]. On the basis of their size and general

characteristics Urartian road stations most likely offering assistance to any type of

travellers.

Anyhow, the existence of similar fortresses, probably built with the same function

and with similar characteristics in different part of the Urartian kingdom, are a further

indication that Urartu was a centralized state with a complex organization certainly

derived in large part from the adaptation of Neo-Assyrian models, which most probably

constituted also the inspiration for the system of stations of the Achaemenid “Royal

Road” [Graf, 1994: 172; Briant, 2002: 928].


Total

wall

length

Dim

ensi

ons Gates Shape Rooms

Towers /

Buttresses Pithoi Inscriptions Date Location Bibliography

Ağaçlık 81 m

25 x

15.60 1 rectangular 3

angular

buttresses / / /

On a low

hill

Tarhan - Sevin 1976-

1977b: 350-352, fig. 4,

tav. 2.1-2

Agrab Tepe 110 m

ca.26x

16 1

sub-

rectangular 13

towers and

buttresses Yes /

VIII-

VII

sec.

On a low

hill

Muscarella 1973: 47-

76.

Aliler 208 m 5 x50 1 square 7 buttresses /

CTU A 5-

92

VIII

sec.

On flat

ground

Belli 2004h: 5-14, fig.

8.

Allah

Verdikand

135 m

(650

m) 40x26 1 rectangular 13

angular and

normal

buttresses Yes /

IX-VII

sec.

On a low

hill

Kleiss - Kroll 1977:

57-61, 90-93, fig. 6-

10.

Asağı Anzaf

Kalesi 327 m 62x98 1 rectangular / linear walls /

CTU A 2-

6A-C; A 2-

7A-B; A 2-

8

IX-VII

sec.

On a low

hill

Belli 1999d: 9-15, fig.

3.

Bahçecik 170 m 63x10 1?

elongate

rectangular 9

angular and

normal

buttresses /

CTU A 9-

18

VII

sec.

On a low

hill

Sevin 1989a : 454,

459-460, 469, fig. 33-

38.

Bastam

Hallenbau 130 m 33x35 3 square 8

angular and

normal

buttresses Yes /

VII

sec.

On flat

ground

Kleiss 1988c: 19-23,

abb. 16.

Cankurtarant

epe 244 m 50x70? 1? uncertain / linear walls? Yes /

VIII-

VII

sec.

On a low

hill

Sevin 1988a: 5-9, fig.

8-13.

Çermik 105 m 35x16 1? rectangular 4 + ?

angular and

normal

buttresses Yes /

VIII-

VII

sec.

On flat

ground

Erzen 1988a: 29, fig.

13.

Cevizderesi 107 m

18.30x

30 1? rectangular / buttresses / / /

On a low

hill

Özfirat 2002: 21-23,

fig. 1-4, dis. 1-2.

Dedeli 230 m

85 x

30 1? rectangular / buttresses / / /

On a high

hill

Özfirat 2009a: 458,

463, fig. 8-10.

Genefik 220 m 70x40 ? rectangular ?

angular and

normal

buttresses? / /

VII

sec.

On a high

hill

Sevin 1991: 97-111,

fig. 07.3

Getap 1 130 m 23x30 1? uncertain 9

angular and

normal

buttresses Yes /

VIII

sec.

On a high

hill

Melkonyan et al.

2010: 90-98.

Kaleönü 162 m 29x39 1?

sub-

rectangular

11 +

? linear walls Yes / VIII?

On a low

hill

Sevin 1989a: 454, 459,

fig. 26.

Keçikiran 1 210 m 63x42 1? rectangular 6 + ?

angular and

normal

buttresses? / /

VIII-

VII

sec.

On a high

hill Sevin 2006: 667-674.

Keçikiran 2 188 m 78x16 1?

elongate

rectangular 5 + ?

angular and

normal

buttresses / /

VII

sec. On a slope Sevin 2006: 667-674.

Norşuntepe 160 m 42x38 1 square

10 +

?

angular and

normal

buttresses Yes /

VIII-

VII

sec.

On flat

ground

Hauptmann 2001:

506-604.


Oshakan 170 m 43x38 1? square 6 + ?

angular and

normal

buttresses Yes /

VII

sec.

On a high

hill

Kalantaryan et al.

2003: 112-121.

Qal’eh

Gauhar 100 m

23.50x

15.40 1? rectangular 8

angular and

normal

buttresses / /

VIII-

VII

sec.

On a low

hill

Kleiss 1972b: 148-

149, fig. 21, tav. 37.1-

2.

Qal’eh

Tazaboulagh

82 m

(380

m) 24x16 1? rectangular /

angular and

normal

buttresses / /

VIII-

VII

sec.

On a low

hill


68-70, fig. 19-21, 109.

Sheragaiyeh

Amir

107 m

(420

m) 31x18 1 rectangular

13 +

?

angular and

normal

buttresses? / /

VIII-

VII

sec.

On a low

hill

Kleiss 1975b: 58-60,

fig. 1, 8-10, tav. 9.1-2.

Solak 1 109 m

26.71x

27.65 1 square 8 + ?

angular and

normal

buttresses Yes /

VIII-

VII

sec.

On a high

hill

Castelluccia et al.

forthcoming.

Tepe Dosoq 300 m 71x52 1 rectangular 40

towers and

buttresses / /

IX-VII

sec.

On a low

hill

Kleiss - Kroll 1979a:

195-198, 230-233, fig.

17-20.

Tıkızlı 130 m 35x30 1 rectangular /

linear wall

and tower / /

IX-

VIII

sec.

On a high

hill

Koçhan 1990: 87-108,

fig. 1-2.

Turki Tepe 170 m 50x32 1

sub-

rectangular 13

tower and

buttresses Yes /

IX-VII

sec.

On a low

hill


62-64, 93-98, fig. 11-

13, 93-98, fig. 3.

Uzub Tepe 210 m

72.50x

31.50 1

elongate

rectangular /

angular and

normal

buttresses Yes /

VIII-

VII

sec.

On a low

hill

Kleiss 1972a: 64, 67,

fig. 59, tav. 16.2.

Yonjalekh 200 m 36x46 1?

sub-

rectangular /

angular and

normal

buttresses Yes /

VIII

sec.

On a low

hill

Mikayelyan 1968: 29-

30, fig. 55a.

Zulümtepe 220 m 72x38 1? rectangular /

angular and

normal

buttresses / /

VIII -

VII

sec.

On a low

hill

Sevin, 1991: 97-111,

fig. 07.2, 07.3, 07.4.1,

07.4.2, 07.9 n° 1-3, 5-

8.


NOTES:

1. The author would like to thank Prof. Adriano V. Rossi, Dr. Miqayel Badalyan, Dr.

Tiffany Early-Spadoni and Giorgia Neri for their suggestions and interesting

conversations about the topic of this article.

2. Translation from Greek taken from French 1998: 27.

3. The Persian term kārvān-sarā is a compound word combining kārvān (caravan)

with sarā (palace, building with enclosed courts) (Kīānī – Kleiss 1990: 798).

4. Generally, Kleiss interprets Tepe Dosoq or other small forts as “Station” or

“Wegkastell”. However, always in a military context (Kleiss - Kroll 1979: 195, 198).

We need to consider that the scholar did not intend the caravanserais in the medieval

meaning and that, as architect, his view is more architectural than archaeological.

5. Inscriptions have been found at only three of these sites. None of them are helpful for

understanding the role of these fortresses. The inscriptions of Išpuini discovered in

Aşağı Anzaf CTU are a single foundation inscription of the fortress (CTU A 2-6A-C)

and further texts referring to the construction of generic buildings (CTU A 2-7A-B;

A 2-8). In Aliler a fragmentary column base was discovered on which only the name

of Minua is still legible (CTU A 5-92). The inscription discovered in Bahçecik that

refers to the construction by Sarduri II of a fortress bearing his name, Sarduriḫinili

(CTU A 9-18), clearly came from another site, since the Bahçecik fortress is too

small to be a centre with the administrative and economic characteristics and the susi

temple mentioned in the text.

6. For the general characteristics of these fortresses, please refer to the table at the end

of the article.

7. E.g. the older fortress of Bastam (Kleiss 1988c: 30-31), that is too big to be

considered merely a post station, or Girik Tepe, which shows features more typical

of a little palace than a post station, like the gates and niches with multiple frames

(Balkan 1964: 239-243, fig 2-4). The case of the so-called ‘Nord Gebäude’ of

Bastam is interesting. This building measures 44 x 26 metres and is considered a

residential building with walls reinforced by buttresses, nine interior rooms, two

courtyards and one entrance (Kleiss 1977: 42-43, abb. 31-32; Kleiss 1979b: 26).

Unfortunately, because the building was only partially investigated we cannot be

certain of its function, or its final form. It apparently resembles the structures

discussed in this article.

8. This building is composed of two adjacent structures. The original, eastern part of

Hallenbau was subsequently expanded. The original Hallenbau building measures 23

x 18.2 m, with stepped stone-built foundations and standing walls made of mud brick

which stood on an insulating layer of white lime that overlay a levelling layer of

smaller stones. In this structure pithoi were found (Kroll 1979: 112; Kleiss 1988b:

19-23).


9. For Tıkızlı no plans in scale are available, for Genefik only a sketch plan exists

(Köroğlu 1996: 20, fig. 2), while for Dedeli the only known plan is very small

(Özfirat 2009: fig. 10).

10. Tepe Dosoq is considered to be an Urartian station (Kleiss - Kroll 1979: 195),

probably a kind of predecessor of the Islamic caravanserai (Kleiss - Kroll 1979: 198);

it controls the pass between Urmia and Oshnaviyeh (Belgiorno et al. 1984: 172).

Zulümtepe has been described as a way station that would have housed a garrison to

control the caravan route to the west (Sevin 1987: 285).

11. In any case, we cannot exclude that these cells can be younger structures re-using old

fortifications. Unfortunately, most of our information comes from surface surveys

and we cannot exclude post-Urartian occupations.

12. The presence of few pithoi, given also the small dimensions of these structures,

testify the need to store a small amounts of food to satisfy the needs of relatively few

individuals, i.e. who garrisoned permanently the structure and occasional users of the

road stations. It seems evident that these structures depended entirely on other bigger

fortresses and were more likely to the lowest level of hierarchical systems of

fortresses (Biscione 2012; Biscione - Dan 2011; Biscione – Dan 2014).

13. In Çermik, an oven was discovered (Mellink 1972: 176), as also in Getap 1

(Melkonyan et al. 2010: 92).

14. E.g. with walls meeting at right angles, regularly spaced buttresses, stone sockets and

mud-brick upper portions.

15. The use of roughly worked blocks, standing wall made entirely of stone masonry and

structural asymmetries. On this, see Biscione - Parmegiani 2006: 297.

16. The Lchashen fortress shows some points of interest. It is a stronghold of early Iron

Age, but with obvious Urartian construction features, especially around the main

gate, which was rebuilt. The architecture of these modifications is not however

“classical” Urartian; it is therefore possible that these interventions are to be

attributed to a local governor who wanted to imitate contemporary Urartian

structures using local workers. What is certain is that the fortress was in use during

the middle Iron Age, perhaps providing a form of indirect control, with a garrison

stationed there to guarantee the possibility of an intermediate stop between the

recently discovered fortress Solak 1 and that of Berdi Glukh on the shore of Lake

Sevan.

17. On this, see Dan 2012: 56-58 with previous bibliography.

18. The fortress, built in the ancient territory of Uelihuḫi, is located in an area dominated

by a series of hills in a non-strategic position. It has therefore been suggested that the

fort was probably built in the years after 730 BC, i.e. after the campaign of Rusa I

that marked the final pacification of the region (Biscione 2005; Biscione -

Parmegiani 2003: 316).


19. This distance between the fortresses is in agreement with Mario Liverani’ s

assumptions used for the reconstruction of the military campaigns of Ashurnasirpal

II, i.e. the possibility of travelling 13.5 km per day on mountain roads, 15 km on hills

and 30 km in lowlands (Liverani 1992: 145).

20. Kemalettin Köroğlu has recently suggested that the Norşuntepe building was a sort

of palace, like the sites of Yoncatepe and Girik Tepe (Köroğlu 2009: 387-389).

However, I see no specific reasons in support of this hypothesis, since the

chronology of the Yoncatepe building has not been established with certainty, while

Girik Tepe, which might for example have been a governor’s residence, has

completely different characteristics from Norşuntepe.

21. On this topic, see Dan 2014.

22. Morandi-Bonacossi expressed doubts about possibility of making a clear functional

differentiation between the two terms on the basis of known data, in particular the

letter ABL 414 (Morandi-Bonacossi 1996: 133).

mTaTa Sorisi dablobTa kavSirebi:

urartuli “gzis sadgurebi”

roberto dan

reziume

ìüïüòòì èTïâïîò èòçïíòï, æåüïäóîò ïíïäòçòì èåSâåëþòT

Såïôïìëì âëäôîïí êäïòìòì èëìïçîåþï îïèæåíòèå òçëäòîåþóäò

óîïîüóäò íïãåþëþòì Såìïõåþ, îëèäåþìïú òãò ãçòì ìïêëíüîëäë

ìòìüåèòì êëèðëíåíüåþïæ èòòCíåâæï. ïáïèæå, ïíïäòçòì ìïãïíì

èõëäëæ òì úòõåìòèïãîååþò ùïîèëïæãåíænen, îëèåäTï èTïâïîò

èïõïìòïTåþäåþòú úíëþòäòï. Tóèúï, ïîú òìå þåâîòï òíôëîèïúòï òè

ðïüïîï úòõåìòèïãîååþòì Såìïõåþ, îëèäåþòú èTïâïî ìïêëèóíòêïúòë

ãçåþçå èæåþïîåëþåí. âëäôîïè êäïòìò ñóîïæRåþïì ãïíìïêóTîåþòT

ïèïõâòäåþæï ãïîêâåóä ìïôëîüòôòêïúòë íïãåþëþåþçå, îëèäåþòú

ìïèåôë ãçåþòì ìïêëíüîëäëæ ãïèëòñåíåþëæï æï romlebsac òì

òìäïèóîò áïîâïìäòì ùòíïèëîþåæåþïæ èòòCíåâæï. îëãëîú ùåìò, ïè

ãïèïãîåþóä íïãåþëþåþì, ìïåîTë üëðëãîïôòóäò ðëçòúòåþò ekavaT,

Tó ïî CïâTâäòT òè úòõåìòèïãîååþì, îëèäåþìïú ìõâï ôóíáúòåþòú

hqondaT æï óôîë SåèïRäåþóä ðëçòúòåþçå Såíæåþëæíåí. èïT

mdebareobebs Sëîòì ãïíìõâïâåþï ãâïôòáîåþòíåþì, îëè

ìïôëîüòôòêïúòë íïãåþëþåþòì ôóíáúòï SåìïZäëï ëæíïâ

ãïíìõâïâåþóäòú êò ñëôòäòñë. èïTò ZòîòTïæò ôëîèòì

ãïTâïäòìùòíåþòT, åì úòõåìòèïãîååþò SåìïZäåþåäòï æïâñëT ëTõ

èTïâïî öãóôïæ. óíæï ãïâòTâïäòìùiíëT òì SåìïZäåþäëþï, îëè ãçòì

ïèæïãâïîò ìïêëíüîëäë ìòìüåèï óîïîüóåäåþèï axal-ïìóîóäò

èïãïäòTåþòì ãïâäåíòì Såæåãïæ ãïíïâòTïîåì. òì ôïáüò, îëè

óîïîüóäò ìïèåôëì ìõâïæïìõâï îåãòëíSò èìãïâìò úòõåìòèïãîååþò

ïîìåþëþì, èòóTòTåþì, îëè óîïîüó ùïîèëïæãåíæï úåíüîïäòçåþóä

ìïõåäèùòôëì îTóäò ëîãïíòçïúòòT, îëèäòì æòæò íïùòäòú axal-

ïìóîóäò èëæåäåþòì ïæïðüïúòòì Såæåãïæ òáíï èòRåþóäò. ïèïâå

èëæåäåþòì ãïâäåíòT óíæï ãïCåíòäòñë ïáåèåíòæóîò “ìïèåôë

ãçåþòì” ìïæãóîTï ìòìüåèïú.


BIBLIOGRAPHY:

ABRAMYAN L., BADALYAN R., VARDANYAN L., KALANTARYAN A.A.,

KHARATYAN G. (EDS.)

2003 Pervoprestol’nyj Svyatoj Echmiadzin.

Holy Echmiadzin.

In: Arkheologiya, Etnologiya, i Fol’kloristika Kavkaza, Yerevan. pp. ???

Archaeology, Ethnology and Folklore of Caucasus.

BALKAN K.

1964 Patnos’ta Keşfedilen Urartu Tapınağı ve Urartı Sarayı.

In: Atatürk Konferansları 1, pp. 235-243.

BELGIORNO M. R., BISCIONE R., PECORELLA P. E.

1984 Catalogo degli insediamenti.

In: Pecorella, P. E., Salvini, M., (eds.) Tra lo Zagros e l’Urmia, pp. 141-178.

BELLI O.

1999 The Anzaf Fortresses and the Gods of Urartu, Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları,

İstanbul.

BELLI O.

2000a Türkiye Arkeolojisi ve İstanbul Üniversitesi (1932-1999), İstanbul.

BELLI O.

2000b Doğu Anadolu’da Urartu Yol Şebekesinin Araştırılması.

In: Belli, O. (ed.), Türkiye Arkeolojisi ve İstanbul Üniversitesi (1932-1999), pp.

409-414.

BELLI O.

2001a Istanbul University’s Contributions to Archaeology in Turkey (1932-2000),

Istanbul.

BELLI O.

2001b Survey of the Urartian Road Network in East Anatolia.

In: Belli, O. (ed.), Istanbul University’s Contributions to Archaeology in Turkey

(1932-2000), pp. 370-374.

BELLI O.

2004 An Early Iron Age and Urartian Fortress in the Van Region: Aliler,

In: Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici 46/1, pp. 5-14.

BELLI O.

2008a Tarih Boyunca Van, İstanbul.

BELLI O.

2008b Van Bölgesi’nin en Eski ve Düzenli Kara Yolları,

In: Belli, O. (ed.), Tarih Boyunca Van, İstanbul, pp. 342-353.


BISCIONE R.

2005 La missione archeologica italo-armena nel bacino del Lago Sevan: 1994 - 2003,

In: Macchiarella, G., (ed.), Alpaghian. pp. ???

BISCIONE R.

2012 Urartian Fortification in Iran: An Attempt at a Hierarchical Classification.

In: Kroll, S., Gruber, C., Hellwag, U., Roaf, M., Zimansky, P. (eds.), Biainili-

Urartu, pp. 77-88.

BISCIONE R., DAN R.

2011 Dimensional and geographical distribution of the Urartian fortifications in the

Republic of Armenia.

In: Armenian Journal of Near Eastern Studies/Aramazd VI/2, pp. 104-120.

BISCIONE R., DAN R.

2014 Ranking and Distribution of the Urartian Fortifications in Turkey.

In: Özfırat, A. (ed.), Veli Sevin’e Armağan, pp. 121-136.

BISCIONE R., HMAYAKYAN S., PARMEGIANI N.

Forthcoming, The North-Eastern Frontier. Urartians and non-Urartians in the Sevan

Lake Basin. II, The Western Shores, Documenta Asiana, Rome.

BISCIONE R., PARMEGIANI N.

2003 Armenian-Italian Archaeological Expedition Field Season 2003. 1 - The

Archaeological Survey.

In: Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici 45/2, pp. 315-318.

BISCIONE R., PARMEGIANI N.

2006 Spedizione archeologica armeno-italiana nel bacino del lago Sevan, campagna

2006.

In: Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici XLVIII, pp. 295-302.

BRIANT P.

2002 From Cyrus to Alexander. A History of the Persian Empire, Winona Lake, Indiana.

ÇILINGIROĞLU A., FRENCH D.H.

1991 Anatolian Iron Ages. The Proceedings of the Second Anatolian Iron Ages

Colloquium held at İzmir, 4-8 May 1987, British Institute of Archaeology at

Ankara 13, Oxford.

CTU = Salvini 2008.

DAN R.

2012 From Tushpa to Militia. Further considerations on the Westward expansion of the

Kingdom of Urartu.

In: Armenian Journal of Near Eastern Studies/Aramazd VII/2, pp. 54-83.

DAN R.

2014 From Armenian Highland to Iran. A Study on the Relations between the Kingdom

of Urartu and the Achaemenid Empire, Serie Orientale Roma N. S. 4, Roma.


DAN R., PETROSYAN A.

forthcoming The Kotayk Survey Project: Preliminary report on 2015 Fieldwork

Activities. In: Annali dell’Università degli Studi di Napoli e l’Orientale.

EPHCAL I.

1983 On Warfare and Military Control in the Ancient Near Eastern Empires: A Research

Outline.

In: Tadmor, H., Weinfeld, M., (eds.), History, Historiography, and Interpretation,

pp. 88-106.

ERKANAL-ÖKTÜ A., ÖZGEN E.

2006 Hayat Erkanal’a Armağan, Kültürlerin Yansıması, İstanbul.

ERZEN, A.

1988 Çavuştepe I, Urartian Architectural Monuments of the 7th

and 6th

Centuries B.C.

and a Necropolis of the Middle Age, Türk Tarih Kurumu, Ankara.

FRENCH D.

1998 Pre-and Early Roman Roads of Asia Minor,

In: Iran, vol. 36, pp. 15-43.

GRAF D.F.

1994 The Persian Royal Road System,

In: Sancisi-Weerdenburg, H., Kurht, A., Cool Root, M. (eds.). Achaemenid History

VIII. Continuity and Change. Proceedings of the last Achaemenid History

Workshop, April 6-8, 1990, Ann Arbor, Michigan, pp. 167-189.

HAUPTMANN H.

1974 Norşun-Tepe Kazısı, 1971

Die Grabungen auf dem Norşuntepe, 1971.

In: ODTU/METU, Keban Projesi 1971, Çalişmaları - Keban Project 1971

Activities (Keban Project Publications I, 4), Ankara, pp. 71-102.

HAUPTMANN H.

2001 Norşuntepe,

In: Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 9, pp. 596-

604.

HEJEBRI-NOBARI A.

1997 L’Architecture Militaire Urartéenne, Thèse de Doctorat, Paris.

KALANTARYAN, A.A., MELKONYAN, U.A., ZHAMKOCHYAN, A.S.,

BABAYAN, F.S., PILIPOSYAN, A.S., KANETSYAN, A.G.

2003 Rezul’taty Raskopok 2002 g. v Oshakane. (In Russian).

Results of Excavations in Oshakan 2002.

In: Abramyan, L., Badalyan, R., Vardanyan, L., Kalantaryan, A.A., Kharatyan, G.

(eds.). Arkheologiya, Etnologiya, i Fol’kloristika Kavkaza, pp. 112-121.

Archaeology, Ethnology and Folklore of Caucasus.


KIANI M.Y., KLEISS W.

1990 Caravansary.

In: Encyclopaedia Iranica vol. IV.7, pp. 798-802.

KESSLER K.

1997 “Royal roads” and other questions of the Neo-Assyrian communication system.

In: Parpola, S., Whiting, R.M. (eds), Assyria 1995, pp. 129-136.

KINNIER-WILSON J.V.

1972 The Nimrud Wine Lists, London.

KLEISS W.

1970 Ausgrabungen in der Urartäische Festung Bastam (Rusahinili) 1969.

In: Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran, band 3, pp. 7-65.

KLEISS W.

1972a Ausgrabungen in der Urartäische Festung Bastam (Rusahinili) 1970.


KLEISS W.

1972b Bericht über Erkundungsfarhen in Iran im Jahre 1971.


KLEISS W.

1975 Planaufnahmen urartäischer Burgen und urartäische Neufunde in Iranisch-

Azerbaidjan im Jahre 1974,


KLEISS W.

1977 Bastam/Rusa-i-URU.TUR. Beschreibung der urartäischen und mittelalterlichen

Ruinen, Deutsches Archäologisches Institute Abteilung Teheran, Führer zu

archäologischen Plätzen in Iran Band 1, Berlin.

KLEISS W.

1979a Bastam I. Ausgrabungen in den Urartäischen Anlagen 1972-1975, Teheraner

Forschungen Band IV, Berlin.

KLEISS W.

1979b Architektur,

In: Kleiss, W. (ed.), Bastam I, pp. 11-98.

KLEISS W.

1981 Zum Stand der Karavanserail-Forschung in Iran 1979.


KLEISS W.

1988a Bastam II. Ausgrabungen in den Urartäischen Anlagen 1977-1978, Teheraner

Forschungen Band V, Berlin.


KLEISS W.

1988b Aspekte der Urartäische Architektur

In: Iranica Antiqua, 23, pp. 181-215.

KLEISS W.

1988c Die Architectur,

In: Kleiss, W. (ed.), Bastam II, pp. 13-74.

KLEISS W., KROLL S.

1977 A. Urartäische Plätze in Iran (Kleiss), B. Die Oberflächenfunde des Urartu-Surveys

1976 (Kroll).


KLEISS W., KROLL S.

1979 Vermessene urartäische Plätze in Iran (West-Azerbaidjan) und Neufunde (Stand der

Forschung 1978), A. Architektur, B. Die Oberflächenfunde.


KOÇHAN N.

1990 Malazgirt-Tıkızlı Kalesi.

In: Ege Üniversitesi, Arkeoloji-Sanat Tarihi Dergisi 5, pp. 87-108.

KÖROĞLU K.

1996 Urartu Krallığı Döneminde Elaziğ (Alzi) ve Çevresi, İstanbul. (In Turkish).

KÖROĞLU K.

2009 Urartu dönemi bey konakları. (In Turkish).

In: Sağlamtimur, H., et al. (eds.), Altan Çilingiroğlu’na Armağan, pp. 383-394.

KROLL S.

1979 Grabungsbericht.

In: Kleiss, W., (ed.), Bastam I, pp. 99-113.

KROLL S., GRUBER C., HELLWAG U., ROAF M., ZIMANSKY P.

2012 Biainili-Urartu. The Proceedings of the Symposium Held in Munich 12-14 October

2007, Acta Iranica 51, Leuven.

LIVERANI M.

1992 Studies on the Annals of Asshurnasirpal II. 2: Topographical Analysis, Quaderni di

Geografia Storica, Roma.

MACCHIARELLA, G.

2005 Alpaghian. Raccolta di scritti in onore di Adriano Alpago Novello in occasione del

suo 70mo

compleanno.

MELKONYAN H., KARAPETYAN I., YENGHIBARYAN N.

2010 The Excavations of the Newly Found Urartian Fortress in Getap.

In: Armenian Journal of Near Eastern Studies/Aramazd, vol. 5/2, pp. 90-98.


MELLINK M.J.

1972 Archaeology in Asia Minor.

In: American Journal of Archaeology, 76, pp. 165-188.

MIKAYELYAN G. H.

1968 Sevani Avazani Kiklopyan Amrotsnerë (Tsiklopicheskie Kreposti Sevanskogo

Besseyna), Yerevan. (In Armenian, transliteration)

1973 Excavations at Agrab Tepe, Iran.

In: The Metropolitan Museum Journal, 8, pp. 47-76.

MORANDI-BONACOSSI D.

1996 Tra il fiume e la steppa. Insediamento e uso del territorio nella bassa valle del fiume

Ḫābūr in epoca neo-assira, History of the Ancient Near East/Monographs – I,

Padova.

ÖZFIRAT A.

2009 Van Gölü Havzası Yüzey Araştırması: Patnos ovası Demir Çag yerleşimleri. (In

Turkish)

In: Sağlamtimur, H., et al. (eds.), Altan Çilingiroğlu’na Armağan, pp. 455-477.

ÖZFIRAT A.

2014 Veli Sevin’e Armağan. Arkeolojiyle Geçen Bir Yaşam İçin Yazılar - SCRIPTA –

Essays in Honour of Veli Sevin a Life Immersed in Archaeology, İstanbul. (In

Turkish)

PARPOLA, S., WHITING, R.M.

1997 Assyria 1995, Helsinki.

PECORELLA P.E., SALVINI M.

1984 Tra lo Zagros e l’Urmia. Ricerche storiche ed archeologiche nell’Azerbaigian

Iraniano, Incunabula Graeca 78, Roma.

RADNER K.

2014a State Correspondence in the Ancient World. From New Kingdom Egypt to Roman

Empire, NewYork.

2014b An Imperial Communication Network. The State Correspondence of the Neo-

Assyrian Empire.

In: Radner, K. (ed.), State Correspondence in the Ancient World, pp. 64-93.

SAĞLAMTIMUR H., ABAY E., DERIN Z., ERDEM A.Ü., BATMAZ A.,

DEDEOĞLU F.,

ERDALKIRAN M., BAŞTÜRK M.B., KONAKÇI E.

2009 Altan Çilingiroğlu’na Armağan. Yukarı Denizin Kıyısında Urartu Krallığı’na

Adanmış Bir Hayat, Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları, İstanbul. (In Turkish)

SAGONA A.

2004 A View from the Highlands. Archaeological Studies in Honor of Charles Burney,

Ancient Near Eastern Studies 12, Leuven.


SALVINI M.

2008 Corpus dei Testi Urartei. Iscrizioni su pietra e roccia, Vol. I-III, Documenta Asiana

VIII, Roma.

SANCISI-WEERDENBURG H., KURHT A., COOL ROOT M., SALVINI M.

1994 Achaemenid History VIII. Continuity and Change. Proceedings of the last

Achaemenid History Workshop, April 6-8, 1990, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

SEVIN V.

1987 Malatya-Elazığ-Bingöl Yüzey Araştırması 1985. (In Turkish)

In: Araştirma Sonuçları Toplantısı 4, 1986, pp. 279-300.

SEVIN V.

1988a Elazığ-Bingöl Yüzey Araştırması, 1986. (In Turkish)

In: Araştirma Sonuçları Toplantısı 5/2, pp. 1-45.

SEVIN V.

1988b The Oldest Highway: between the regions of Van and Elazığ in Eastern Anatolia.

In: Antiquity, 62, pp. 547-551.

SEVIN V.

1989a Elazığ-Bingöl Yüzey Araştırması, 1987. (In Turkish)

In: Araştirma Sonuçları Toplantısı, 6, pp. 451-500.

SEVIN V.

1989b Urartular’a Ait Dünyanın En Eski Karayolu. (In Turkish)

In: Anadolu Araştırmaları, 11, pp. 47-56.

SEVIN V.

1991 The Southwestward Expansion of Urartu: New Observations.

In: Çilingiroğlu, A., French, D.H., (eds.), Anatolian Iron Ages, pp. 97-112.

SEVIN V.

2004 Pastoral Tribes and Early Settlements of the Van Region, Eastern Anatolia.

In: Sagona, A., (ed.), A View from the Highlands, pp. 179-203.

SEVIN V.

2006 Keçıkiran: Van bölgesi’nde yarım kalmış bir Urartu projesi. (In Turkish)

In: Erkanal-Öktü, A., Özgen, E. (eds.), Hayat Erkanal’a Armağan, pp. 667-674.

TADMOR H., WEINFELD M.

1983 History, Historiography, and Interpretation. Studies in Biblical and Cuneiform

Languages, Jerusalem.

TARHAN M.T., SEVIN V.

1976-1977 Van Bölgesinde Urartu Araştırmaları (II). Konut Mimarlığı. (In Turkish)

In: Anadolu Araştırmaları, 4-5, pp. 347-361.

ZIMANSKY P.E.

1985 Ecology and Empire: The Structure of the Urartian State, Chicago.


Fig. I.

Map showing the general distribution of the Urartian structures mentioned in the text.


Fig. II.

Square fortresses: A) Aliler (after Belli 2004: fig. 8); B) Oshakan (after Kalantaryan et al. 2003: 117); C)

Norşuntepe (after Hauptmann 1974: 83); D) Hallenbau (after Kleiss 1988c: abb. 16); E) Solak 1 (after

Castelluccia et al. forthcoming).


Fig. III.

Rectangular fortresses: A) Aşağı Anzaf Kalesi (after Belli 1999, fig. 3); B) Tepe Dosoq (after Kleiss - Kroll

1979: fig. 17); C) Zulümtepe (after Sevin 1991: fig. 07.3); D) Keçikiran 1 (after Sevin 2006: fig. 4); E)

Allah Verdikand (after Kleiss – Kroll 1977: fig. 7); F) Cevizderesi (after Özfirat 2002: pl. 2); G) Çermik

(after Erzen 1988: fig. 13); H) Sheragaiyeh Amir (after Kleiss 1975: fig. 9); I) Ağaçlık (after Kleiss 1988:

fig. 8); J) Qal’eh Tazaboulagh (after Kleiss – Kroll 1977: fig. 19); L) Qal’eh Gauhar (after Kleiss 1972: fig.

21).


Fig. IV.

Sub-rectangular fortresses: A) Yonjalekh (after Biscione et al. forthcoming); B) Turki Tepe (after Kleiss -

Kroll 1977: fig. 11); C) Kaleönü (after Sevin 1989a: fig. 26); Agrab Tepe (after Muscarella 1973: fig. 3).


Fig. V.

Elongate rectangular fortresses: A) Bahçecik 2 (after Sevin 1991: fig. 07.5); B) Keçikiran 2 (after Sevin

2006: fig. 19); C) Uzub Tepe (after Kleiss 1972a: fig. 59).


Fig. VI.

Fortresses of uncertain shape: A) Cankurtarantepe (after Sevin 1988a: fig. 8); B) Getap 1 (after Melkonyan

et al. 2010: fig. 2).


Fig. VII.

Enlarged fortresses: A) Allah Verdikand (after Kleiss - Kroll 1977: fig. 7); B) Sheragaiyeh Amir (after Kleiss

1975: fig. 9); C) Qal’eh Tazaboulagh (after Kleiss - Kroll 1977: fig. 19).

Guide for Authors:

The Journal accepts researches, field reports, critiques, reviews, discussions about

metallurgy, funeral rituals, architecture, weapon and armory, experimental, landscape,

social archaeology, trade relations and etc. of the Caucasus and its neighboring countries.

The papers should concern from Paleolithic to Medieval period.

The authors are obliged to respect the style of citation in the journal.

Submitted papers will be sent to the experts for peer review.

In accordance with international standards of ethics, the names of experts are

confidential.

The paper will be published only if it receives a positive assessment of experts.

The author is authorized to request to see the reviews.

The Editorial Board is authorized, if it is considered necessary, to return paper to the

subsequent processing without revising by reviewers.

The Editorial Board is authorized, if it considered necessary, to cancel the paper

publishing without revising by reviewers.

After the consideration of Editorial Board's remarks, the article will be given to

reviewers.

The author is obliged to revise the article according to the request of the Editorial

Board or experts, otherwise the paper will not be published or will not be sent to the

experts.

Sending the paper to the author to revise doesn't mean that the article is accepted to

be published.

The already revised paper will be again discused by Edditorial Board.

The Editorial Board reserves the right to remove already published article from the

electronic version of the journal if it turns out that by the publication of this material

copyrights and/or other generally accepted norms of scientific ethics have been violated.

The Editorial Board will notify about this fact the author and the organization where this

work has been performed.

If the author will not revise remarks made by the Editorial Board and the reviewers in

proposed period, the Editorial Board is authorized not to publish the article.

Position of the author of the article may not necessarily reflect the views of the

Editorial Board.

Authors and reviewers have a moral and ethical responsibility for the scientific

quality and content of publications.

The Editorial Board of the journal Studies in Caucasian Archaeology thanks the

authors for cooperation.

Article Requirements:

1. Article should be given in electronic version.

2. Article should have:

a) Cover, on which will be written: Name and surname of the author (it should be written

on the right upper corner, font 10, line spacing 1)

b) Working place, position/post, university, academic degree/education level (for Ph. D.

candidates) (it should be written on the right upper corner, font 10, line spacing 1)

c) Author contact coordinates (e-mail, it should be written on the right upper corner, font

10, line spacing 1)

3. Article size: Microsoft Word Document A4 format paper 50 (maximum) pages (text,

summary, bibliography, description of the figures and plates, figures, plates)

4. Article on Microsoft Word Document A4 format paper should be signed:

a) Title in the center (print bold, font 12)

b) Text print Times New Roman, font size 11, line spacing 1. 2 cm. borders on each side

c) Summary, Print Times New Roman, font size 10, line spacing 1. Microsoft Word

Document A4 format 1 paper, which will be translated in Georgian.

d) Bibliography, print Times New Roman, font size 11, line spacing 1.

5. References in the text:

a) In square brackets should be given surname of the author, comma, publishing year,

colon and page number: e.g. Picchelauri Konstantin „Waffen der Bronzezeit aus Ost-

Georgien“. Berlin, 1995. p. 121, pl. 70/2 will be as [Picchelauri, 1995: 121, pl. 70/2].

b) If the book has two or more authors, in square brackets should be written the name of

the first author, than et. al., publishing year, colon and page number. e.g. Nikolaishvili

V., Sikharulidze A., Inanishvili G., Iremashvli Sh. „A Fighting Parade Bronze Axe

from Natakhtari“. In Archaeology, Ethnology and Folkloristic of Caucasus. Tbilisi 2010

should be [Nikolaishvili et al. 2010: 230].

c) If the author has two or more books and papers in the same year, after surname of the

author should be written A, B and etc. e.g. [Picchelauri A, 1995: 121, pl. 70/2].

d) Notes: After the sentence, if it is necessary to write some additional ideas, which

usually are placed in the footnotes, the author has to make numbered list of notes after the

main text.

6. Figures in the text:

Figure frame: 210 mm x 297 mm.

Images should be provided at 600 DPI resolutions.

a) For the Figures: the number of the figure should be given in the rounded brackets (Fig.

XV).

If it has several numbered images, the sub number should be given also. e.g. (Fig. XV/2)

b) The description of the figures should be given separately.

7. List of the bibliography at the end of the article:

a) List of used literature should be sorted in alphabetical order.

b) For books/monographs: authors' surname and initials date of publication, title of the

book/monograph, place of publication.

e.g. Reference to a book or monograph:

PICCHELAURI K.

1995 Waffen der Bronzezeit aus Ost-Georgien. Berlin.

d) For Journal articles: authors' surname and initials, date of publication, title of article,

full title of the journal (italic), volume number (italic), issue (italic), page numbers

(italic).

e) Examples:

e.g. Reference to a journal article:

SANDARS N. K.

1961 The First Aegean Swords and Their Ancestry.

American Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 65, No. 1, pp. 17-29.

f) For English, German, French or Italian literature the titles will be left in original

language. For Georgian, Armenian, Azerbaijani, Turkish and Russian or other languages

the titles will be transliterated and translated in English.

e.g. GOGADZE E.

1972 Periodization and Genesis of Trialeti Kurgan Culture. Tbilisi. (In Georgian).

Trialetis korghanuli kulturis periodizatsia da genezisi.

e.g. KUFTIN B. A.

1941 Archaeological Excavations in Trialeti. (In Russian).

Arkheologicheskie raskopki v Trialeti.

8. Please, send electronic versions of papers to

[email protected].

linking lowlands among the mountains: the urartian ‘road stations’

Documents