ANATOLIAN PERSIAN ART

         

  With the disappearance of the Lydian State in 547 BC, Anatolia continued its life under Persian rule for two centuries. Persians kept the cities under their control with the Satrapy system they established. The number of Satrapies at the imperial level was 23. Satrapies-Provinces were divided into smaller satrapies-provinces. The number of these provinces reached 127.

According to this division, the following new satrapies were established in Anatolia:

Yauna (Ionian) Satrapy: It covered the entire western coastal region of Anatolia, from Aeolia to Caria, Lycia and Pamphylia; it was obliged to pay an annual tax of 400 talents of silver to the treasury. Later, the coasts between Caria and Cilicia were separated from this satrapy.

Sparda (Sardes) Satrapy: It included Mysia, Lydia, Lasonia, Kabalia and Hygennia; the annual tax was 500 talents of silver.

Daskyleion Satrapy: Phrygians, Anatolian Thracians, Paphlogonians, Mariandians and Cappadocians, i.e. the entire northern coast of Anatolia, the Greek cities on the southern shores of the Dardanelles and the Sea of Marmara, inland Phrygia and Cappadocia were also under this satrapy; the annual tax was 360 talents of silver. Later on, this very large satrapy was divided into three satrapies: Hellespontus Phrygia, Great Phrygia and Kapatuka (Kappadokia).

Cilicia Satrapy: It covered the part of Anatolia extending from the Taurus Mountains to the Mediterranean Sea; the annual tax it was obliged to pay was 360 white horses at the rate of one per day and 500 talents of silver. Of this, 140 talents went to the Persian Cavalry Garrison in Cilicia. It was initially ruled by local Cilician kings called Syennesis; later it became a province directly subordinate to the centre.

Eastern Black Sea Satrapy: It included the area between the present-day Ordu and Trabzon provinces, inhabited by the Moskhi and Tibarenes, formerly called Muski and Tabal, as well as the Makrons, Mossyniks and Marelis; the tax was 300 talents of silver.

Satrapy of Pactyica and Armenia: It extended from the northern part of present-day eastern Anatolia to the Black Sea; the annual tax was 400 talents of silver.

            Thanks to these satrapies, they collected regular taxes and tried to ensure control with permanent garrisons. One of the most important of these is the Satrapy of Dasklyleion. In 1952, German archaeologist Kurt Bittel discovered Hisartepe in Ergili Village as the Persian Satrapal Centre. The first excavations in Daskyleion were carried out by Ekrem Akurgal. In 1988, Tomris Bakır restarted the excavations.  During the Early Achaemenid Phase between 547-480 BC, Satraps known as Pharnakes, Mitrobates, Megabazos and Megabates served as governors in Daskyleion. Archaeological finds from this period include architectural blocks of palaces and a magnificent Terrace Wall and typical Persian palace architecture. The Middle Achaemenid Phase between 480-370 BC constitutes the Golden Age of Daskyleion and some architectural fragments found during this period comprise an Andron belonging to noble rulers and a section belonging to the palace. Satraps such as Artabazos I, Pharnabazos I, Pharnakes I and Pharnabazos II lived in this palace. This palace was burnt and destroyed by the Spartan commander Agesilaos in 395 BC. Tomb stelae in Anatolian-Persian style with royal inscriptions in Aramaic, ivory artefacts, loom weights, and more than 500 bullae (seal impressions), evidence of the correspondence of the Great Shah of Iran with his satraps in the west, should be mentioned. Some remains indicate that structures belonging to the Zoroastrian religion were also located in Daskyleion. After the Battle of Granicus (Biga) in 334 BC, the Persian rule both in Daskyleion and in Anatolia came to an end.

The term "Anatolian Persian Art" was coined by T. Bakır in consideration of the Persian Period grave stelae found in various regions, especially in the Propontis region, which differ in their continuity and composition. With the arrival of the Persians, workshops ceased in a significant part of Anatolia, and especially Western Anatolia was plunged into a darkness that lasted for about two centuries. The Persians' constant struggle with Athens played an important role in this. It is debatable to what extent the Persians dominated the cultural history of Anatolia during their two-century rule. In fact, while archaeological researches reveal a certain amount of Persian pattern in the satrapal centres, this situation is uncertain in other regions.

Architecture:

     The Pyramidal Tomb from Sardis and the Stone Tower Tomb Monument from Phokaia are the earliest examples of Persian architecture in Anatolia, dating to the late 6th and early 5th centuries BC. Architectural examples include orthostad blocks with reliefs of different periods, column capitals or bases, a marble window lintel with Persian-style profile and ornamental details, a Miletian-style corner acroter with volutes, fragments of kyma decorated with a lotus-palmette frieze, architectural terracottas similar to Anatolian and especially Lydian examples, decorated or plain architrave blocks, and other finds belonging to buildings built in Daskyleion from the late archaic period onwards. While these architectural fragments provide information about the buildings of the Persian period, they also show that the Persians employed Ionian craftsmen as architects and stonemasons, that these Anatolian craftsmen both applied the Ionian architectural style and made ornaments in the Persian tradition, and at the same time prove that a new "Anatolian - Persian" style was born with the architecture of Daskyleion.

Tomb Stelae:

            The Anatolian tomb stelae of the Persian period, with their heights up to 3 m., the body structure narrowing from bottom to top and the anthemion on the upper part, originate from Western Anatolia, since the closest examples in terms of form are found in Samos and Sardes. In terms of form, it is found in the Troad Region, Samos, Ionia, Attica and Thessalia from the Early Archaic period onwards. On the other hand, while there is no relief decoration on the Sardis and Samos examples, the Attica and Thessalia examples depict a single scene consisting of one or two figures covering the whole body, while the Perinthian stelae depict one or two small human figures on the upper part of the body. It is thought-provoking that the three-line inscription under the relief depictions on the stele called "Manes Stele" found during the excavations at Daskyleion is not in Aramaic as usual, but in Phrygian. The depictions on the stelae depict scenes from the lives of the Persian nobles, such as banquet scenes, hunting scenes, the dead being brought to the grave in a chariot, or the ceremonies required by the cult of the dead. Among the figures in these scenes, the deceased nobleman and his relatives are distinguished from the other figures (usually servants) by their proportions and their size. The style of the reliefs is also unique. The surfaces of the figures are left flat and the details (face, hair, clothing) are indicated by timely colouring. These depictions bear no resemblance to Greek art, and directly reflect the iconography of the Pre-Anatolian and Anatolian cultures.

    

            These stelae are categorised into six groups according to their subjects.

I .   Ekphora Scene,

Banquet Scene II,

Hunting Scene III,

Act IV. Battle Scene,

V. The Induction Scene,

VI. Religious Ceremony

I. EKPHORA SCENE

         The fact that these procession scenes, which start around 500 BC and continue until the post-Achaemenid period, feature similar types of chariots carrying cargo and emphasise their importance leads to various interpretations. The common feature of the scenes is a chariot with a dome-shaped upper part, carrying a load. The transition from the flat body to the dome is characterised by a protrusion at the back and front. The carts are usually drawn by two horses, but in a single example they are drawn by four horses. The carts have a single axle and a high wheel. Some figures accompany these chariots in the processions.

        These scenes, which are common in the Propntis Region, are also found in Lycia in the burial chamber of the Karaburun II Tumulus (Fig.1) and in the Tomb of Weeping Women from Sidon (Fig.2). The extensive treatment of the subject matter in the procession scenes of Karaburun II and the Sarcophagus of Weeping Women is important in terms of understanding the figures neglected due to lack of space in the tomb stelae found in the Propontis Region and in terms of showing that the people participating in the procession on the stelae were not limited to depictions.

        The equestrian figures depicted on the upper frieze of the Istanbul 5764 Stele (Fig.3 ) are difficult to explain on their own. These equestrian figures, which move in the silence of a religious ceremony, gain meaning only when they are combined with the lower frieze. Considering Karaburun II, Sarcophagus of Weeping Women and Istanbul 5762 Stele (Fig.4), it is understood that the equestrian figures in the first frieze accompany the chariot and a procession scene is depicted. The procession scenes depicting carts also shed light on the processions in which carts were not found. The longest of these procession scenes, the cortege on the southern frieze of Xanthos G Heroon (Fig.5 ), does not include a chariot. However, the fact that the chariot is located at the end of the cortege in Karaburun II and Istanbul 5764 Stele strengthens the possibility that the chariot is located in the last part of the southern frieze of Heroon G, which has not been recovered. Except for the Sidon example, ekphora scenes in this style are not encountered outside Anatolia. This draws attention to Anatolia in this regard.

The discovery of beasts of burden such as horses and oxen, as well as related materials in Phrygian tumuli from the 8th century BC onwards, shows that in Phrygian funeral ceremonies, the cart and the animals pulling it were also buried together with the deceased. This Phrygian tradition continued in the tumuli of the Achaemenid period in the Lydian and Phrygian regions. Based on the findings, it can be said that this tradition continued in the Achaemenid period and was also adopted by the Persians living in Anatolia. 

 

II. BANQUET SCENE

          The most important figure in the banquet scenes is the male figure lying on the kline. In some scenes, this man shares the kline with a woman. In others, the woman sits not on the kline but on a stool next to it. In some scenes where the woman is not emphasised in this way, she participates in the scene as a servant.

        The meaning of the banquet scene in Anatolian Persian tomb iconography is one of the most debated topics. Three main views have gained weight in explaining this iconography.

1. That the banquet scene is a cross-section of the life of the deceased,

2. That it was a farewell dinner,

3. A feast attended by the deceased in the afterlife.

         Macridy, Akurgal and Kleeman agree that this is a slice of the life of the deceased. Dentzer, on the other hand, associates it with Persian court life and says that the status of the person is emphasised. Hanfman and Mellink see the banquet scene as a reflection of the high standard of living that the Persian king valued and to which his satraps had to conform.

        Borchhardt, on the other hand, goes beyond all these views and brings a different interpretation. He believes that in the early cults of Mycenae, Argos, Crete and Cyprus, human sacrifices were made in the tomb of the deceased, and that the participants of the feast should actually be buried in the tomb, but that ancient traditions gained humanitarian applications with modern thought, so that only their depictions were placed on the tombs. Dolunay, on the other hand, while agreeing with Dupont-Sommer's interpretation of the stelae as votive stelae, interprets the scene on Stele 5763 in Istanbul as a funeral feast (Fig.6), while the banquet scene on the Ödemiş Stele (Fig.7) from the İzmir Museum is interpreted as entertainment, the comfort and joy of finishing a job, rather than a meal for the dead, and therefore emphasises that this stele is a votive stele related to transport and caravans.   

        While women are present in the banquet scene on many Lycian reliefs, there are no women on Trysa (Fig.8) and Nereid (Fig.9). Jacobs argues that this was not only due to the social status of the deceased, but also to his political status. In other words, these were official banquets given by the ruler himself, and therefore women could not attend. In this context, the Karaburun II Tumulus is a summary of the banquet scene in the Nereid example.

         We can learn from Herodotus and other ancient writers that there were banquets in Persia in which women also participated. Herodotus, in particular, states that it was customary for women to attend banquets in Persia.

         Undoubtedly, banqueting meetings could not be organised by everyone and required a certain wealth and social status. Therefore, the reason why Persian or pro-Persian nobles, who were not rulers, also included banquet scenes in tomb iconography must be the understanding of transferring this wealth and status to the grave.

III. HUNTING SCENE

         The hunting scene is a favourite subject in Anatolian Persian funerary iconography. These scenes depict the hunting of five different animals. These are the male wild boar, deer, bear, bird and panther.

         Due to space constraints on the stelae, hunting scenes are usually represented by only one horseman. On the other hand, on monuments with long friezes, such as the Nereids, they are depicted quite long (Fig.10 ). The hunt is usually carried out with long spears and a dog always assists the hunter.

         Although the subject matter is centred on the encounter between the hunt and the hunter, there are also scenes of the hunt and the return from the hunt. For example, on the Pergamon 4394 Stele, the lower frieze depicts going hunting and the upper frieze depicts hunting. The Dereköy Stele has a similar narrative.    

         Only Manisa Stele 3389 depicts a bird hunt (Fig.11). The hunter dressed in Persian costume uses a bow and arrow and aims at a bird perched on a branch. The hunting scene with arrows is also found on the Alexander Sarcophagus.

        The hunting scenes at Kızılbel and Isinda also show that this subject was depicted in Anatolia in the 6th century BC. The depiction of the hunting scene has been used in Assyrian palaces since the 9th century BC. Khorsabad in the 8th century BC and Til-Barsib in the 7th century BC are other early examples. In the Achaemenid hunting scenes, early examples of depictions of hunters struggling with the prey while standing on their hind legs are found in Assyria (Fig.12).

         As Jacobs also states, hunting scenes were depicted in Anatolian art, albeit to a lesser extent, before the Persian conquest of Anatolia. They were also an indispensable part of the tomb iconography of the Anatolian Persian period.

IV. BATTLE SCENE

        Almost all of the battle scenes depicted on friezes and stelae are between horse cavalry and foot soldiers.

        The Nereidler Monument (Fig.13) depicts a battle between Persians and Greeks. In these battles, the cavalry depicted on horseback are dressed in Persian clothes, while the soldiers on foot are fighting on the Greek side. The Persian cavalry is constantly superior to the foot soldiers. In the scenes with a long depiction area, the defeat of the enemy by the army, in which the grave owner is also included, also heroises the grave owner, while in the steles with a narrow area, only the grave owner and his opponent are depicted. In the Manisa 3389 Stele, this is narrowed even more and the grave owner is depicted alone (Fig.11).

        Although the siege of a city, as seen on the Nereidler Monument and Trysa Heroon, is not found in continental Hellas, the closest examples are found on Assyrian palace reliefs. Like the battle on the Nereids Monument, the battle on the Payava Sarcophagus (Fig.14) is thought to deal with a specific war. Because the rocky place where the battle was fought in the Payava Sarcophagus is similar to the landscape in the Autophradates relief and the mention of the name Autophradates in the Payava Sarcophagus carries this to a more serious dimension. This must be related to a battle won by Autophradates. The historical experience and the spatial reflection of the subject matter here give the work the characteristic of being a historical document in the real sense. 

         The war scenes in the Anatolian Persian iconography had previously been included in the iconography of Anatolia and Hellas. Starting from the Archaic period, the deceased is depicted as a warrior on tomb stelae. This subject is also encountered in the Klazomenai sarcophagi.

V. THE RECEPTION SCENE               

          The scene of the audience, which is depicted in many places in the Persepolis Palace, shows that this narrative has an important place in Persian palace iconography. Apart from Persepolis, the audience scene in this palace depiction is also found on the sarcophagus of Alexander and on the seals of Daskyleion.     

         The other scenes of the audience were found in Anatolia, especially in Lycia. These are found in Kızılbel Tumulus (Fig.15), Harpy Monument, Nereidler Monument (Fig.16), Payava Sarcophagus (Fig.17) and Trysa Heroon. It is seen that these ceremonies took place in an official atmosphere by following certain rules.

          The fact that the figures on the Nereids Monument and the Payava Sarcophagus are wearing tiaras suggests that they could not have been the Great King. Moreover, it is clear from the inscription on the Payava Sarcophagus that this person represents the Lydian Satrap Autophradates. The close resemblance of the first of the two men next to the satrap to the person depicted in the other sections suggests that he may be Payava.

         The frieze of Podium II of the Nereidler Monument depicts the reception of the dignitaries of the besieged city by a Persian dressed person, who is probably the Satrap, which must be a continuation of the reception scene at Persepolis.

         At this point, the reception scene on the wall painting of the Kizilbel Tumulus, which is dated to 525 BC, creates a problem. This is because it appears to be earlier than the depictions in the Treasury Buildings, which are the earliest of the Persepolis initiation scenes. However, the fact that this type of reception scene was found in Assyrian art before the Persians, and that the reception scenes in the wall paintings found in Til-Barsib (Tell Ahmar) are very similar to the Persepolis reception scenes, clearly shows that the reception scenes in Persian art were influenced by Assyrian art. In spite of this clear similarity, Persian reception scenes did not copy Assyrian reception scenes exactly, but developed a unique form, especially in terms of furniture components. According to Kyrieleis, the cover over the kline and stools is also a Persian feature.     

VI. RELIGIOUS CEREMONY

          Only three artefacts from the Persian period in Anatolia depict Persian religious ceremonies in the real sense. Two of them were found at Daskyleion and the other at Bünyan. The Median garments worn by magos such as tiara, kandys, sarapis and anaxyrides were also used by Persian nobles during the Achaemenid period. The classes and duties of the wearers of these garments, which do not differ in terms of shape, can be distinguished by the different colours they carried. For example, magos wear white clothes that give a simple appearance, while commanders are much more flamboyant and striking with their red or purple clothes. In this context, the figure in relief 5391 (Fig.17) is distinctive in that he holds the barsman in his right hand, while the red colour of the kandysun must emphasise that he is not a magos but a Persian nobleman.

         Although the colours of the figures in relief 2361 (Fig.18) have not been preserved, it is possible that they were father and son magos, as it is clear that they were performing the sacrifice with the stunted sticks they were holding in their hands and that they were in a divine supplication with their right hands raised upwards. The figures in reliefs 5391 and 2361 are probably performing the sacrifice in front of a building.

          In the cella frieze of the Nereidler Monument (Fig.19), the figures performing the sacrificial ceremony prefer himation instead of Persian clothes. In the frieze, the figure standing on the left side of the altar is libating with a bowl in his right hand. The figure bringing a bull and two goats from the right side must represent a priest with a garment exposing both shoulders. This scene is not similar to the relief no. 2361. However, we learn from the ancient sources that the Persians organised sacrifices to gods, fire, water and deceased persons, and that each of these ceremonies had its own rules. The Persian nobleman depicted on the Cappadocian Altar of Fire is also holding a barman in his right hand and a libation vessel in his left hand.

        In relief 2361, the heads of sacrificed animals rest on a quadrangular object. This quadrilateral, elaborated with thin sticks, must symbolise the pile of myrtle and laurel branches that kept the sacred fire burning and on which the meat was then placed. A similar scene was found at Ravansar. In the light of these two scenes, Calmeyer believes that a religious ceremony was performed in front of the tomb.

        In the Ravansar rock-cut tomb, the ceremony was performed at the actual door of the tomb, whereas in reliefs 5391 and 2361 the scene is depicted in front of a door. The façade of the Aktepe Tumulus of the Achaemenid period, which was opened in Uşak-Güre, shows an interesting similarity with the structure in these reliefs. This similarity suggests that this structure, in front of which ceremonies were performed, was a tomb. Indeed, as reported by Arrian (Anabasis VI. 29.7), it is known that sacrificial ceremonies were performed in front of the tombs during the Achaemenid period. At the tomb of Cyrus, a sheep was sacrificed every day and a horse every month.

          In the light of these data, while the reliefs 5391 and 2361 depict a religious ceremony in front of a tomb, a summarised version of a religious ceremony is also found on the Cappadocian Fire Altar. The cella frieze of the Neridler Monument, on the other hand, depicts a prolonged sacrifice scene. In the ceremony performed in front of a fire altar, animal sacrifices are performed as well as libations.  These religious scenes reflect Persian traditions in accordance with the information obtained from ancient sources.

        In particular, when the grave stelae of the Achaemenid period are analysed, it is seen that these works, which are under the influence of Anatolian local cultures in terms of form and style, also incorporate Persian style to a certain extent and thus deserve the definition of Anatolian Persian Art. However, the issue to be emphasised here is whether these artefacts adequately reflect the traces of a culture that dominated Anatolia for two hundred years. Stelae, relief blocks and architectural artefacts were mostly found in satrapal centres such as Daskyleion and Sardes, and in Xanthos, the local administrative centre. These artefacts are a blend of Anatolian and Persian art. However, the emphasis here shifts towards Anatolia. The situation that we encounter on many depictions is simply that the owner of the grave presents himself as a Persian. Whether the tomb owner is Persian or local, this is intended to emphasise a purely political situation, i.e. loyalty to the administration.On the other hand, hunting, war and banqueting scenes, which were seen in Anatolian iconography before the Persian invasion of Anatolia, continued to increase as they were related to the Persian understanding of life. Ekphora scenes, on the other hand, are not found in Persian grave iconography, and this indicates a Phrygian influence when horse and chariot burials are taken into consideration. The preferred form of grave stelae is also from Propontis. Monumental tomb architecture such as tumuli, heroons and pillars are also of Phrygian and Lycian origin.

The Urartians

  

     According to historical sources and archaeological findings, the Urartians, who formed a part of the history of ancient Anatolia, appeared on the stage of history between the VIII century BC and the VI century BC. It was defined as "Uruatri" in Assyrian sources. It meant high country, mountainous country.

    Following this, Uratri, and then Urartu. In the same century, the Nairi principality emerged. They are mentioned in contemporary Assyrian sources. From the IXth century BC onwards, they adopt the Assyrian cuneiform tradition and inscriptions and tablets in their own language are on the agenda. In their own written sources, they identify themselves with the name "Bidini" (li). On the other hand, the names Urartu and Nairi given to them by Assyria are also seen in their own inscriptions.

    The Urartu Civilisation was forgotten in a short time and remained in the memory as a nation mentioned only in a few places until research on this subject began. The name Urartu is known from the Torah. (r.r.r_ Ararat) In connection with the Noahic legend, it is mentioned that Noah's ark was seated on Mount Ararat. In another passage there is a little bit of information. In the famous work of Herodotus, they are referred to as "Alarots". Later Late Antique Sources and Medieval historians accepted that all Urartian works of art were made by the Assyrians. For example, Moses of Khoroneli (of Armenian descent), one of the historians of the V century A.D., writes that the city of Van, which rises on the shores of Lake Van, was built by the Assyrian Queen Samiram (Samiramis) and explains the name of the city as the city of Samiramis. According to this author, Samiramis brought 12,000 labourers and 6,000 builders from Assyria and the countries that paid tribute (tribute, tax) to the Assyrians and built this magnificent city in a short time. According to Moses, the great water canal irrigating the plain of Van was also built by the Assyrian Queen Samiramis. (Samiram is Armenian) Moses' work attracted the attention of orientalists in the modern world in the XIXth century.

THE BEGINNING OF URARTU RESEARCH

    In 1828, the French Society for the Study of Asia sent the archaeologist Friedrich Eduard Schulz to Turkey. He also travelled in Iran. Schulz visited the Van Castle described in detail by Moses, visited the tombs carved into the rocks, identified them as caves, drew their plans and copied the cuneiform inscriptions. In addition, while exploring the Van Plain, he came across a large water canal mentioned by Moses and claimed to have been built by Samiramis, and copied the inscriptions of this canal, called "Samiram Water" by the local people. Schulz's report caused great repercussions in Europe. It took more than a century to analyse these inscriptions, and only then was the historical truth revealed. Namely, Van Castle, the capital of Urartu, was built by Sardur I. The canal in question was built by Mehud, the grandson of Sardur I. King Mehud defeated Assyrian Queen Sammuramat and had this canal built to meet the water needs of Tuspa and irrigate the Van Plain. The murder of Schulz by bandits while conducting research in the mountainous region prevented the continuation of these scientific studies for a while. The material he sent to Paris in 1828 could only be published in 1840. In the same years, archaeological studies started in Mesopotamia in the Old Assyrian Country. Especially the discovery of the palace of Sargon II in Khorsabat in Assyria and the deciphering of the Assyrian cuneiform script shortly afterwards attracted the attention of the scientific world. Only after this, Urartian cuneiform documents also began to be deciphered. Following these first researches, artefacts from Van and its surroundings began to be brought to museums and private collections through illicit excavations. With the proliferation of these artefacts and the decipherment of the inscriptions, the idea that they belonged to the Urartian kings of Van gained strength. Nevertheless, for a long time, numerous Urartian artefacts were accepted as Assyrian artefacts and presented under this name. Towards the end of the 19th century, illicit excavations in and around Van increased and Toprakkale (Rusahilini) was looted. These illicit excavations fed the British Museum in Europe and the Louvre and Berlin museums in Paris. The proliferation of artefacts necessitated scientific excavations in this region. In 1845, the famous archaeologist and diplomat Henri Layard visited Van and in 1880 he sent his assistant Hormudz Rassam to Van. Both scholars conducted excavations of Assyrian palaces in Mesopotamia and introduced them to the scientific world. In 1879-1880, the British Museum sent a scientific delegation to Van. This delegation was headed by Captain Clayton (Vice Consul), the British Consul in Van. Rassam and an American missionary named Dr Reynolds also participated in the excavations mentioned above. However, the architectural remains and small finds left behind from the excavations carried out by antiquities smugglers did not satisfy this scientific committee investigating Toprakkale. This material was published only 80 years later by the famous British scientist Dr R. D. Barnett.  In 1898 and 1899, a scientific team headed by C.F. Lehmann - Haupt and W. Belck excavated Toprakkale again. In 1911-1912, this time Russian scientists were on the scene. An excavation team under the direction of I. A. Orbeli resumed excavations at Toprakkale. Following these years, Van was under Russian occupation between 1915 and 1918. During this war, the Tsarist Russian Archaeological Society appointed Prof. N.J. Marr to Van in 1916. The delegation led by Prof. Marr and Orbeli uncovered the sanctuary and cuneiform inscriptions of the Urartian King Sarduri II on the northern slopes of Van Castle. After the Russian delegation, in 1938, husband and wife Americans conducted research (Kirsopp and Silva Lake). However, the outbreak of World War II affected these studies. These are the first studies in Turkey.

    In Soviet Armenia, excavations in South Transcaucasia in the north-eastern regions of the Urartu Kingdom go back to ancient times. Urartian artefacts were first unearthed in 1862, and especially the inscriptions attracted attention. In 1893, M. Nikolskij travelled around Transcaucasia as a traveller and examined the Urartian fortresses near the places where the inscriptions were found. The real archaeological excavations started at the site called Taşburun and the Urartian city was investigated. According to the inscriptions, the fortress bears the name "Menuahinili". Following these excavations, in 1930, these ruins and inscriptions attracted the attention of the scientific world again and in 1939, systematic excavations were started at the mound named Karmir-Blur near the city of Yerevan. These excavations were carried out by Prof. B.B. Protrovski until recently. This great city was founded by Rusa I, the son of Argisti, and was named Teishebaini (Karmir-Blur). Especially the stadel part of this city provided detailed information about Urartian culture and architecture. (Urartian cities were named after their gods or kings. Terşe- God, Tushpa- Goddess).  Another excavated centre is located on the hill named Arinberd near Yerevan. Its name is Irpuni (Erebuni) and it is divine. Excavations started here in 1950 and continued by K. Ogehesian. Many construction inscriptions belonging to Menua's son Argishti I and Argishti's son Sarduri I were found here (city, foundation, warehouse inscriptions etc.). Nairi are communities of Huri origin and Uruatri are communities of Urartu origin. Their languages are Asiatic and similar.In 1964; excavations were resumed at Armavir-Blur and Davida mounds near Armavir.

NEW RESEARCH IN TURKEY

    The beginning of research in Turkey is as follows. In 1938, the Ankara Archaeological Museum acquired a collection of finds unearthed during the construction of a railway at Altin-tepe, near Erzincan. Among them, a three-legged bronze cauldron, shield and pieces of furniture attracted attention. However, twice in 1956-1957, the British scientist and archaeologist C.A. Burney revisited the castles in the Van region and published their plans. These were published in Anatolien Studies.

    The first scientific excavations started in 1956-1963 and continued intermittently. Altintepe excavations were directed by Prof. Dr Tahsin Özgüç. The tombs, temples and small finds unearthed in this excavation are remarkable. The excavations at Toparkkale were carried out in 1950-60-61 by a committee headed by Prof. Dr. Afif Erzen. The foundations of the temple, which had previously been unearthed during the excavations of the British Museum, were analysed in detail. A bronze shield decorated with lion and bull figures attracts attention. (A ceremonial shield is a religious shield hung on the temple wall).

    In the same years (1960-61), the Çavuştepe excavation in the Gürpınar Plain was also carried out by A. Erzen.  Çavuştepe excavation continued until recent times. This city bears the name of Sarduruhinili.  With its architecture, small finds and inscriptions, it yielded the most detailed and abundant material of the Urartian excavations in Turkey (Urartian fortresses were built on the tops of very high mountains).

    Since 1964, excavations have been carried out under the direction of Prof. Emin Bilgiç and Prof. Baki Öğün at the Kef Castle near Adilcevaz on the northern shore of Lake Van. Particularly noteworthy are the basalt pillars with bas-reliefs uncovered in the palace section. Prof. Kemal Balkan also conducted research in the Patnos region near Lake Van. He discovered a temple belonging to King Menua and his son Argisti I at Aznavurtepe. A palace was also unearthed at Giriktepe. In 1965, British scientists Seton Lloyd and C.A. Burney conducted excavations at Kayalıdere near Varto, north of Lake Van. Especially the temple and tombs are remarkable. In 1967, Prof. Dr. Afif Erzen established the Van Region History and Archaeology Research Centre under the I.Ü.E.F..  The scientific board of this research centre began to investigate the Van Region in detail. Between 1971 and 1975, Van Castle and Toprakkale were researched again by Prof. Erzen, and rescue excavations were carried out on the hill where the treasure of Giyimli Village was looted and smuggled. Hundreds of bronze plates found here were smuggled to various museums and collections of the world. This assemblage of finds provides rich information especially shedding light on the last phase of Urartian art. In addition, rescue excavations carried out in the mounds in the Upper and Lower Euphrates basin under the name of dam excavations in Eastern Anatolia have provided new material and information on Urartian history, especially on the western border.

    The excavations in the Van Region are currently being carried out again by I.Ü.E.F. In 1983, in connection with the historical national park project of the Fortress of Van and the Old Fortress of Van, headed by Taner Tahran, excavations were started at the Fortress of Van in 1987. These excavations revealed a large palace (Yenisaray) belonging to Argisti I. Excavations were also started on the mound (Van Kalesi Höyük) just north of the castle (dating from the EBA to the Ottoman period). In addition, the excavations at Dilkaya Höyük, carried out jointly with Ege University in 1984 under the direction of Prof. Atlan Çilingiroğlu, have continued until today, and excavations at the Urartian Castle-Ayanis were also started by A. Çilingiroğlu.

URARTU RESEARCH IN NORTH-WESTERN IRAN

In the last two decades, German and British scientific delegations have carried out excavations and researches in the settlement centres and fortresses in Northwestern Iran, which show the eastern expansion of the Urartian State. C.H. Burney conducted excavations and research at Hafvalan Tepe. W. Kleiss, one of the German scientists, conducted excavations in Bastam. The Urartu city here bears the name "Rusai Urutur" (small city of Russia). Nearly a hundred fortresses and settlement centres were found in Northwestern Iran, especially during the surveys conducted by the German Archaeological Institute. These cities constitute the settlements of the eastern expansion of Urartu in the VII century BC. Meanwhile, there are also small scale excavations and researches in Northern Iraq.

MAIN PERIODS OF URARTU HISTORY

In the light of contemporary historical sources and archaeological finds, the Urartians appeared on the stage of history from the first quarter of the 13th century BC to the beginning of the 6th century BC. In terms of geographical area, they were dominant in Transcaucasia in the Karasu Basin, with Lake Van as the centre, and in the lands extending from the Malatya Region to Lake Urmia. The history of Urartu is divided into two main periods according to the structural character of the political administration.

I. Main Period: It is the period between the first quarter of the 13th century BC and the first half of the 9th century BC. (Confederations period-Urartu's Archaic period).

II. Main Period: It is the period of the Urartu Kingdom between the second half of the 9th century BC and the beginning of the 6th century BC.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE I. MAIN PERIOD

    This period is characterised as the Proto-History of Urartu. Due to its characteristics, this period is defined by us as the Archaic Age of Urartu. The sources of this period are based entirely on the Annals of Assyrian Kings as written documents. In other words, the sources are unidirectional. When these royal annals are analysed, the Uruatri and Nairi Confederations - a union of feudal principalities that dominated the lands around Lake Van in Eastern Anatolia - are seen. The ethnic origins of these societies are based on the migrations of the "Huri-Urartu" tribes and related tribes coming from Transcaucasia in the third millennium BC. At the beginning of the 13th century BC, the main factor that led to the emergence of two major political unions, Uruatri and Nairi, which would form the foundations of the future Urartu State, on the stage of history in the form of a confederation of feudal principalities was a great and powerful danger emerging on the southern borders of Eastern Anatolia. As a result of the destruction and disintegration by the Hittites of the Hurri-Mitanni State, which dominated Northern Mesopotamia once in the vicinity of Kirkuk in the second millennium BC, this political power withdrew from the stage of history. The Assyrian King Salmanasar I (1274-1245 B.C.) dealt the last blow to the remnants of this state, which was struggling to survive. The chain development of historical events starts after this. With the disappearance of this state, this buffer state between Assyria and Eastern Anatolia disappeared. These events disrupted the political balance in Northern Mesopotamia.

    This policy of Assyria, which has been trying to own the Eastern Mediterranean region and its trade throughout its history, and which has adopted the principle of exploiting the riches of Anatolian lands as a principle, begins to gain functionality with this event. The strengthening of Assyria necessitates a strong economy. The rich resources required for this were also available in Eastern Anatolia. For example, raw material resources such as iron and copper, soil products and animal herds as well as people. Heavy taxes and tributes levied on societies were a necessary and continuous source of income and exploitation for the Assyrian economy. When we analyse all the relevant Assyrian sources, it is understood that the real purpose of the military campaigns was for this purpose. In other words, economic reasons lie at the root of the campaigns against eastern Anatolia. There was no continuous and permanent Assyrian sovereignty for occupation. Thus, the independent feudal principalities in eastern Anatolia, which had no political unity until this date, were confronted with this strong danger coming from the south. As a result of this pressure, Uruatri in the first quarter of the 13th century BC and Nairi Confederations shortly afterwards took their places on the stage of history as a conscious counter reaction to Assyrian oppression.

HURRIAN-URARTU CONNECTION

    It is certain that both societies are descended from common ancestors of the same origin. The migration waves of these related societies from Transcaucasia in the early 3rd millennium BC spread to two different geographical areas. a) Eastern Anatolia. b) Northern Mesopotamia, Northern Syria, Palestine, i.e. the Hirbet-Kerak Culture, which is the equivalent of the Karas Culture in Eastern Anatolia. These finding centres in Northern Mesopotamia, Syria and Palestine are also parallel to the distribution area of the Hurri language. This culture melted and assimilated into local cultures at the end of the 2nd millennium BC. It is a fact that the Hurrians who settled in the south had an advantage over the related societies settled in the high plateaus and mountainous regions of Eastern Anatolia. This is because the geographical environment, the level of civilisation of local and neighbouring cultures and mutual interaction should be taken into consideration. The Hurri culture in the south developed in the region where the super civilisations of the Asia Minor world were born. In connection with this, there are at least two major stages.

Writing

    The Hurrians of the south, under the influence of well-established and high-level indigenous neighbouring civilisations, had a tradition of writing 1500 years earlier than their relatives in eastern Anatolia, the Urartians, as evidenced by the Hurri written documents from approximately 2300 BC and the following 2nd millennium.

Political Organisation

    The Huris in the south, especially from the middle of the 16th century BC onwards, adopted a centralised state-kingdom administration. The existence of the administrative centre "Wassugani" and king names mentioned in the sources and the effective role of the Hurri-Mitanni State in Asia Minor prove this. On the other hand, in Eastern Anatolia, in the same period, local administration, i.e. tribal and feudal principalities were still in place. In conclusion, we can say the following.

    Both societies continued their historical and cultural development in different geographical regions. For these reasons, differences have occurred in some cultural elements, especially in language. Urartu and Hur languages were close to each other, descended from common ancestors. Some Hurri texts dating back to the third millennium BC found in the southern regions show some features that continued in the Urartu language in the first millennium BC, but disappeared in the Hurri language in the second millennium BC. For this reason, the Urartian language is said to come from the prehistoric age of the Hurrians. Both languages are Asiatic. Urartu language is similar to the Ingush and Chechen languages, which are among the Caucasian languages of today. (Their ceramics are handmade. They started to use the wheel after they crossed to Anatolia).

URUATRI IN THE SOURCES OF SALMANASSAR I. (1274-1245 BC)

In his annals, the king of Assyria mentions a military expedition against the eight Uruatri countries surrounding Lake Van. (Uruatri=High Country, Mountainous Country= Assyrian texts). Following this, we encounter the name Nairi during the reign of his son Tukutti-Ninurta I (1244-1208 B.C. Tukitti-Ninurta Period). The aforementioned Nairi Principalities Union was formed in the lands west of Lake Van. Tukutti-Ninurta gives the following information in summary; 43 kings of the Nairi countries rebelled against Assyria, but they were bloodily defeated, subjugated and taken to Assyria in chains. The Nairi communities were subjected to tribute and taxation.

There is no information about Uruatri and Nairi in Assyrian sources until Tiglat-Pileser I, that is, until 1115 BC. In other words, the sources are silent on this subject. Because during this period, the migrations of the sea tribes in the west, followed by the Aegean migrations took place and the Mediterranean world was revitalised by these events. These migrations directly affected Assyria. However, its close neighbours, especially the western region, were greatly affected by these migrations. In this period of confusion, Assyrian kings undoubtedly did not want to leave their country by making an expedition to Eastern Anatolia. The migration of sea tribes is mentioned in the inscription of Egyptian Pharaoh Merneptah. Aegean Migrations took place at the beginning of the XIIth century BC. These are described in detail in the inscription of the Egyptian Pharaoh Ramses II in Medinet-Habu.  Buckel (Memecikli) pottery from layer VII a of Troy also provides us with information. It is understood that the Uruatri and Nairi Confederations grew stronger and strengthened their sovereignty in this complex period.

URUATRI AND NAAIRI PRINCIPALITIES IN THE ANNALS OF TIGLAT-PILESER

(1115-1077 BC)

     The campaigns of this king were especially directed against Nairi, that is, to the west and southwest of Eastern Anatolia. The account in his annal is as follows.

"Assyria, my God and Master, sent me to the distant countries on the shores of the Upper Sea, which did not have a master. I led their armies through narrow roads and steep gorges that no king before me had travelled through. When we advanced slowly, I rode in my chariot, and when the going became difficult, I advanced with the help of bronze axes. The 23 kings of the Nairi countries gathered their chariots and warriors in their countries. They came before me to fight. I attacked them with all the fury of my weapons, which caused fear and terror, and I destroyed great armies like the rushing floods of Assyria. 60 kings of the Nairi and those who came to their aid I drove by the power of my spear to the edge of the Upper Sea. I took their great cities, carried off their treasures and other booty, and burned their houses to the ground. I captured all the ktal of the Nairi countries alive, but I showed them mercy, spared their lives in the presence of Samas, my god and lord, and released them from the bosom of captivity. Then I made them swear before the great gods that they would serve and obey me in the future. I took their sons, the heirs of their dynasties, as hostages to keep their promise. Then I asked them to give them 1200 horses and 2000 cattle Tribut and gave them permission to return to their country again..."

    It is clear that Tiglat-pileser I only wanted to exert pressure by plundering lands and riches, and to strengthen his authority in the Nairi Country by treating the captured lords well. In the following Assur- bel- kala period, the Uruatri and Nairi countries and the expeditions made against these countries are mentioned. Following this king, Assyrian sources are silent about Uruatri and Nairi for the second time. Because Aramaean migrations started. We have seen above that Assyria was able to stay away from the destructive effects of the sea tribes and the Aegean Migrations due to its geographical location. However, the desert tribes to the south of Assyria benefited from the confusion caused by these migrations, and Aramaean migrations of Semitic origin continued for years as a continuous leakage from the deserts to the cultural regions. Following these migrations, during the reigns of Adad Ninari II (911-891 B.C.) and Tukutti Ninurta II (890-884 B.C.), the Assyrian State once again turned towards Eastern Anatolia and made expeditions against the Uratri and Nairi Confederations and the societies there were again subjected to tribute and taxation. These confederations were freed from the pressure of Assyria due to Aramaean Migrations and became stronger.

THE FOUNDATION PHASE OF URARTU STATE

Since the Assyrian King Assur-Nasirpal II (883-859 BC), the terms Urartu and Nairi started to be used in the same sense in Assyrian sources. Especially in the History of Ancient Asia Minor, with this king, the middle of the century B.C. ). The mid-century is generally accepted as a period of intensified Assyrian military campaigns. In this period, it is noteworthy that Assyria regained its former military power as one of the superpowers providing political balance in the Asia Minor world. Assyria had gained control over the conquered territories through bloodshed, fire and force of arms. Their destruction and looting undermined the vital points of economic and cultural development. However, in response to these pressures, the resistance of the societies in Eastern Anatolia increased day by day and as a result, this time the Urartu and Nairi Confederations were united and the foundations of the Urartu State were laid. We call this period the foundation phase of the Urartu State. In other words, the Urartu-Nairi United State is in question. Detailed information about this is found in the annals of Assyrian King Assur Nashirpal II (833-859 B.C.) The first king of this united kingdom was Lapturi and is referred to as Lutipri (880-860 B.C.) in Urartian sources.

    LAPTURI-LUTIPRI (880-860 BC)

    The name of this king is mentioned in the inscriptions of the Urartian King Sarduri I in the capital city of Tuspa. In the Assyrian cuneiform inscription with the same text on the block stones of the monumental structure known as Sardur Burcu, located on the north-western end of the giant rock on which the castle of Van rises, Sarduri I refers to himself as "the son of King Lutipri the Great". King Lutipri is referred to as Lapturi in the inscriptions of his contemporary Nashirpal II of Assyria. Nashirpal II of Assyria, in his annal of the events of 882 BC, states the following.

"... during my stay in the city of Tushan ...... I received tribute from Lapturi, the son of Tubusi, and from the country of Urume in the same country, and I accepted chariots, horses, mules, silver, gold, bronze vessels, cattle, sheep and wine as tribute from the kings of the Nairi countries in the same country. I obliged the Nairi countries to carry it. ...."

    Tusha is the city of Lapturi. It was captured by the Assyrian King Assur Nasirpal II and made a centre for the northern regions of Assyria and some of the Assyrian people who were impoverished by the Aramaean Migrations were settled in this rebuilt city. (Tuhsa = Üçtepe is a large mound.) A Kurkh stele was found here and taken to the Birtish Museum. Again, according to philologists, Lapturi is a typical Hurrian name.

ARAME - ARAMU (860-840 BC)

    In the written sources of Assyrian King Salmanassar III (858-824 B.C.), another Urartian King, whose name is not mentioned in the Urartian inscriptions, is mentioned. In Salmanassar III's annal describing the events of 858 B.C., he says the following.

"At the beginning of my reign, in the first years of my reign.........I moved from Hubuskia (an important region south of Lake Van). I approached Sugunia, the city of the king of Arame of Urartu. I attacked and captured the city. I slaughtered most of his warriors. I collected the spoils. I made a column of severed heads in front of his city. I moved from Sugunia. I reached the sea of the Nairi country......."

In the events of the year of the reign of Salmanassar III (856 BC), it is stated as follows.

".....I travelled from the country of Daei ehi (around Erzurum) and reached Arzaskun, the royal city of Aramu of Urartu. When Aramu of Urartu was confronted with my powerful and terrifying weapons, he was frightened and left his city and went to Mount Ad. I slaughtered 3400 of his warriors and dyed the mountains and valleys with their blood like dyeing wool...."

In the fiftenth year of his reign, he organised his third expedition against Urartu (844 B.C.).

"....In the 15th year of my reign, I marched against the country of Nairi. I had a royal image of me placed at the source of the Tigris. I passed through the passage of the Tunibuni country and I pursued the cities of Aramu of Urartu to the banks of the Euphrates River...."

According to these concrete data, Aramu was definitely the king of the united Urartu state between 858-844 BC. However, Arame was not the father of Sarduri I, as the Sardur Burcu, the first known written document of the Urartu Kingdom, clearly shows. According to some scholars, there was a dynastic change when the kingdom passed from Arame to Sarduri I. The tribes loyal to Sarduri I probably took Aramu's tribes under their sovereignty and ensured that Sarduri I came to power. King Aramu succeeded in establishing a new organisation which was governed by a kingdom instead of a confederation. He strengthened first Sugunia and then Arzaskun and made these cities the administrative centres of the Urartu-Nairi Unified State, bringing the territory of the core country surrounding Lake Van under his control with these powerful royal cities. The destruction and looting of both capitals by Salmanassar III and the expeditions of this king against Urartu, the overcoming of mountains, the taking of booty and artefacts are vividly depicted in the bronze reliefs of the famous Balabat Gate, which is now exhibited in the British Museum. (This is the first pictorial document representing Urartu). However, despite taking such a measure, that is, despite the establishment of Arzaskun in a more remote region, it could not save itself from the destruction of Assyria.

SARDURI I (840-825 BC)

    The powerful king Sarduri I, whose name appears as Seduri in the annals of Salmanassar III, is considered to be the true founder of the Urartu State, that is, the kingdom. In the 27th year of the reign of Salmanassar III, that is, in the events of 832 BC, he says exactly the following about it.

"......I gathered my chariots and riders together. I sent Turtan (Commander-in-Chief) against Daian-Assyrian Urartu. Seduri of Urartu learnt about it. Relying on the strength of his troops, he turned against me and was defeated in battle...."

    However, it is understood that this was not a large-scale defeat. In the Assyrian cuneiform inscriptions, which are repeated six times on the block stones of a monumental structure called Sardur Burcu or Mother Burç, which is now called Sardur Burcu or Mother Burç, at the northwest end of the cliff on which the capital city Tushpa, that is, the magnificent Van Castle, which is understood to have been founded by Sarduri I, he identifies himself as the king of Urartu and says exactly the following.

".....The inscription of Sarduri, the son of the great King Lutupri, the mighty king, the king of the universe, the king of the land of Nairi, the king without equal, the terrifying shepherd who is not afraid of war, the king who destroys those who do not submit to him; I am Sarduri, the son of Lutupri, the king of kings, the king of kings, who accepts taxes from all kings. Sarduri, son of Lutupri, says: "I brought these stone blocks from the city of Alniunu, I built this rampart (wall)...."

G.A. MELİKİSHVİLİ, Urartskie Klinoobrazyne Nadpisi,  Moskova, 1960.

M.N. VAN LOON, Urartian Art: Its Distinctive Traits in the Light of new Ezcavations.Lerden,                 1966, İstanbul

B.B. PİOTROVSKİİ, Urartu : The Kingdom Of Van and Its Art. London, 1967

C.A. BURNEY, The Peoples of the Hills, Ancient Ararat and Caucasus London, 1971.