An Hypothesis of Reconstruction of the ‘susi-Temple’ at Karmir-Blur

7/30/2019 An Hypothesis of Reconstruction of the susi- Temple at Karmir- Blur

1/12

ARAMAZDA R M E N I A N J O U R N A L

OF NEAR EASTERN STUDIES

VOLUME V, ISSUE 2 - 2010

ASSOCIATION FOR NEAR EASTERN AND CAUCASIAN STUDIES

YEREVAN 2010


2/12

Association for Near Eastern and Caucasian StudiesInstitute of Archaeology and Ethnography NAS RA, Institute of Oriental Studies NAS RA,

German University of Armenia

URARTU AND ITS

NEIGHBORS

FESTSCHRIFT IN HONOR OF

NICOLAY HARUTYUNYAN

IN OCCASION OF HIS 90TH BIRTHDAY

(22-24 SEPTEMBER, 2009, YEREVAN)

Edited by

Aram Kosyan, Armen Petrosyan and Yervand Grekyan

PART II

YEREVAN 2010


3/12

8

TABLE OF CONTENTS_____________________

ARCHAEOLOGY

ARTICLES

SIMON HMAYAKYAN. The Study of Urartian Monuments

in the Republic of Armenia (1992-2007) 9

STEPHAN KROLL. Urartu and Hasanlu 21

INESSA KARAPETYAN. The susi-Temple of Argitiinili-Armavir 36

ROBERTO DAN.An Hypothesis of Reconstruction of the susi-Temple at Karmir-Blur 44

CHRISTIAN KONRAD PILLER.Northern Iran in the Iron Age II and III:

A Neighbour of Urartu? 53

SEDA DEVEDJYAN. Some Urartian Objects from the Tombs of Lori Berd 76

HUSIK MELKONYAN, INESSA KARAPETYAN, NORA YENGIBARYAN

The Excavations of the Newly Found Urartian Fortress in Getap 90

DAVID STRONACH, HENRIK THRANE, CLARE GOFF AND ALAN FARAHANI.Erebuni 2008-2010 99

NVARD TIRATSYAN.An Urartian Jar Burial from Nor Armavir 134

REZA HEIDARI.Hidden Aspects of the Mannean Rule in Northwestern Iran 147

REIHANE AFIFI. Urartian Engravings in Glazed Bricks Found during the

Excavations of Rabat-Tepe, Sardasht, Iran 152

GAREGIN TUMANYAN. The Cimmerian-Scythian Sepulchres of the

Armenian Highland 188

HAYK HAKOBYAN. Gregory the Illuminator in front of Pagan Temple 201

ARSEN BOBOKHYAN. Cultural Identity and Archaeology:

An Ethnoarchaeological Case Study of Vak Village, Musa Ler 237

SUMMARIES ................................................................................................................................ 256

ABBREVIATIONS ....................................................................................................................... 280


4/12

AJNES V/2, 2010, p. 44-52

AN HYPOTHESIS OF RECONSTRUCTION OF

THE SUSI-TEMPLE AT KARMIR-BLURRoberto Dan

The great Urartian1 fortress of Karmir-blur2, like the fortress of Arin-berd, hasbeen progressively absorbed by the unrestrained urban expansion of the Armeniancapital, Yerevan. Today the site is located in its western suburbs, in the Nerkin Charbakh

quarter of the engavit district. The fortress is known as the red hill due to the reddishcolour of the remains of the mud bricks, burnt during the re that marked the end of thesettlement.3 It was originally identied, thanks to its discovery in 1936 by the geologistA.P. Demechin,4 from the fragment of a stone slab bearing a cuneiform inscription5mentioning the name of Rusa, son of Argiti (Rusa II, rst half of the VII cent. B.C.).6Karmir-blur, the City of Teieba was presumably the rst great fortress founded byhim, followed probably by those of Bastam, Kef Kalesi, Ayanis and Toprakkale.7

The site was then abandoned to looters and exploited by local villagers as aquarry up until 1939, when excavations conducted by Boris B. Piotrovskij and K. L.

Oganesjan8 started, making the site of Karmir-blur the most extensive and longevousarchaeological excavation of the whole Transcaucasia.9

The fortress is articulated in two nucleuses: the main part to the east consistsof a large trapezoidal terrace reinforced by the presence of square corner towers and

buttresses set at regular intervals along the bastions, while to the west there is a paradeor drill ground surrounded by walls. West of this an inhabited area stretching for 40hectares has been partially investigated.10

1 For an historical outline of the kingdom of Urartu see in general Salvini 1995, and Salvini 2006:

459-503.2 Coordinates: 40 912.68N 44279.17E, altitude 920 m.3 Many theories exist regarding who destroyed the fortress: according to Piotrovskij and Martirosyan

it was the invasion of the Cimmerians and the Scythes, according to Diakonoff they were theMedes, while Wiseman maintains that the Chaldean kings of Babylon were responsible. SeePiotrovskij 1959; Martirosyan 1974; Diakonoff 1956; Wiseman 1956.

4 See Piotrovskij, introduction to Harutyunyan 1966: 5.5 Piotrovskij 1950: 15 with drawing. It is a fragment belonging to section VIII of Rusas big temple

inscription (CTU 12-2); see CTU Vol. III p. 350-351.6 All chronological references are taken from Salvini 2006: 502 and Salvini 2008: 23.7 ilingirolu, Salvini 2001a: 23.

8 Hovhannisyan (Oganesjan) 1955.9 Smith et al. 2009: 17.10 Piotrovskij 1950: 13.


5/12

45

The Susi-Temple at Karmir-blur

The terrace covered a considerable number of rooms or vaults - approximately130 intended to offer ample storage space,1 whereas the use of some other roomsremains uncertain. These substructures of the fortress were accessible only from the

building above trough of three ights of stairs (rooms A, B, C: Fig. 1). These rooms,whose walls were in some cases preserved up to a height of 8 metres, were made upof a base of large basalt blocks surmounted by mud bricks. They mostly have a ratherelongated rectangular form in order to offer improved statics. In fact they bear the large

beams which constitute the oor of the upper rooms. The thickness of the walls variedbetween 2.1 m (6 rows of bricks) and 3.5 m (10 rows of bricks). Among the numerousnds in these rooms many fragments of construction blocks present a great interest;eight of these bear cuneiform inscriptions2 which according form and content wereimmediately identied with the faade inscription of a characteristicsusi3temple and to

which the fragment mentioned above also referred (Fig. 2).This type of tower temple consists of a mud brick construction of quadrangular design

with square edge buttresses, resting on a two-faced basalt wall lled with earth and stonefragments which serve as foundation.4 The door, which presumably had a double frame,led to a square cella whose limited dimensions are caused by the thickness of the perimeterwalls. The stone base and the substantial thickness of the walls were necessary to guaranteethe stability of the considerable vertical development that such a structure required.

The inscribed blocks, which constitute an exact duplicate of the inscription in thetemple at Ayanis5 and which bear the ancient name of the fortress,City of the Storm god

of the country of Aza, were found in a pit excavated during the Middle Ages6 locatedin correspondence with the southern area of the fortress, between rooms 97, 104-105,113-116 (Fig. 1): they formed most certainly the platform which supported the temple7

and measured approximately 10 x 12 m.The most recent reconstruction stemming from the disposition of the inscription8

allows a constructive hypothesis as to the overall dimensions of the temple (Fig. 3, 5).

1 These are mostly storerooms containing large interred pithoi for wine, sesame oil and beer(Piotrovskij 1970, Figs. 8-14), as well as granaries, storerooms for meat and dairy products,

depositories for weapons and other iron tools, and ceramic vessels.2 CTU A 12-2.3 This type of structure is archaeologically certied in the sites of Toprakkale, Ayanis, Kayaldere,

Yukar Anzaf, Arin-berd, Altntepe, Bastam, Aznavurtepe at Patnos, avutepe, Krzt, Aa,Kevenli, Kef Kalesi at Adlcevaz, Davti-blur and perhaps at Yeilal, Verahram and Danalu.Although the city was dedicated to the storm god Teieba, the temple was dedicated to the cult ofthe god aldi, the highest divinity of the Urartian pantheon.

4 For the relationship between inscription and architectural structure see Salvini 1980: 249-269(superseded by CTU A 12-2) and Salvini 2004: 245-275.

5 Ayanis: CTU A 12-1; Karmir-blur: CTU A 12-2.6 It was approximately in this area of the hill that a few medieval farmhouses were found. Barnett,

Watson 1952: 132.7 Piotrovskij 1970: 16, Fig. 18-19.8 Salvini 2008: 570-571.


6/12

46

Roberto Dan

In particular, the four blocks of section II which refer to the left side of the faade, in thespace between the corner buttress and the extreme edge of the threshold, measure 1.64m. Comparing this measurement to the equivalent area in the temple of Ayanis, which

measures 2.22 m1

and which is the best preserved Urartian temple, equally built by Rusa II,it can be deduced that the temple of Karmir-blur was slightly smaller. Simply comparingthe proportions with the temple of Ayanis, a probable size of 2.66 x 2.66 m can be calculatedfor the corner buttress, while the doorway must have been approximately 1m large or littlemore. The left side of the temple therefore measured 4.30 m all-together: adding another4.30m for the right hand side and a probable width of 1m for the doorway, it must beconcluded that the temple had a faade measuring between 9.60 m and 10 m. At this point,remaining within the well known monuments of the Urartian architecture, a comparisoncan be also made with the dimensions of the oldersusi temple at avutepe, dedicated by

Sarduri II to the god Irmuini, which measures 10 x 10 m.Further conrmation that the temple at Karmir-blur was indeed a classic example of

the architectural concepts introduced by Rusa II lies also in the fact that several characteristicstone pillars2 were discovered, mistakenly interpreted by the excavators as decorativeturrets3 (Fig. 4). These elements are typical of the modular architecture4 introduced in Urartuduring the reign of Sarduri II (756-ca. 730 B.C.) and certied for the rst time in the fortressat avutepe.5 Furthermore, they are present in the palace of Kef Kalesi/Adlcevaz6 as wellas in the temenos and in a rear room of the temple at Ayanis.7 The reference module of thisarchitecture was precisely the characteristic form of the temple-tower with edge buttresses

which was repeated on a smaller scale in the pillars used to sustain palatine and templeporticos. At Karmir-blur these elements were uncovered at the southern end of room 28 (No.57 in Fig. 1);8 the nd consisted of ve rectangular pillars made up of three rows in dry-stone

1 Salvini 2001: 255, Fig. 4.2 The pillars from the site of avutepe are of similar dimensions. One of these, which the author measuredon 9 August 2009, is a rectangle of 274.5 x 204 cm. As far as the site at Ayanis is concerned, there isevident inconsistency between the data expressed in the text (ilingirolu 2001: 38, g. 26.), whichreports a square pillar measuring 2.50 x 2.50 m, and the evidence shown on the plan of the temple areawhere the pillars appear to be rectangular. The pillars in the temple of Kef Kalesi, also rectangular,

measure 3 x 3.60 m. See Piotrovskij 1952: Pl. 10; Piotrovskij 1970: Fig. 7-8; Hovhannisyan (Oganesjan)1955: 98, Fig. 58-59 on Karmir-blur; Bilgi, n 1967: 15, Pl. XV-XIIIb, on Kef Kalesi.3 The misunderstanding concerning the ornamental turrets was solved already in 1964 thanks to the

excavations at Kef Kalesi: Bilgi, n 1964: 111.4 The highest expression of Urartian modular architecture is to be found in the fortress structure

known as Ukale, at avutepe.5 A room or hall with these pillars could be the work of Sarduri II, or possibly even that of RusaII himself, since building works are also attributed to him at avutepe. See Erzen 1988: 5, 12.

6 Two different types of pillars coexist on this site; along with those described there are ten or somonolithic cubic blocks with a single line inscription (CTU A 12-10) and noteworthy gurativedecorations on all four faces.

7 ilingirolu, Erdem 2007: 123-125.8 These collapsed into storeroom 28, together with the dividing wall to rooms 30-31-32 (stairwell

B and rooms 59, 60 in g. 1).


7/12

47


of perfectly squared basalt blocks one upon the other with a stone core, measuring 155.4 cmhigh and with 2.60 x 2.10 m large sides.1 A sixth pillar was found in situ, and restored, onthe top of a wall. Although all these pillars cannot be directly associated with the remains

of the temple structure itself, but are probably pertaining to palatine rooms, it is legitimateto hypothesize that in the southern area, too, there may have been a structure with pillarsin front of the temple. Such a hypothesis is reinforced by the particular disposition of therooms adjacent to the quadrangular platform described previously (with specic referenceto dividing and bearing walls between rooms 102-107 and 113-116) and which seem wellsuited to support such a structure as that visible in Fig. 6. Seemingly, this would have beencharacterised by the presence of a courtyard of 36 x 26 m in front of the temple, and wherein all likelihood ten pillars would have guaranteed the possibility to construct permanentcovering between them and the perimeter wall of the temenos. Only part of the underlying

storage rooms could be accessed directly from the temple itself (rooms 113-116), while theothers could only be reached via staircase C.

In conclusion, the structure in question could well be a temple completely similarto the structure in Ayanis, erected according to an inventive criterion which involvedthe entire fortress. After all, due to stability reasons, the now lost structure of the upperoor had to correspond perfectly with the walls of the storage rooms below on whichit rested. This particularity makes the tower temple of Karmir-blur the only Urartiantemple structure to be built on an articial podium2 rather than directly on the rocks asone would expect on the basis of a two hundred year architectural tradition.

The general problem as to the height of the so-called tower temples remains open,and in particular so does that of stability. It is possible that the entire temple elevationwas built with mud-bricks, for better lighten the structural weight of the building. Maybeonly the inscriptions are made on the basalt stones. Moreover according to a practice notunusual in the Urartian architecture3, the external perimeter of the temple walls wereplastered. Only the inscribed blocks were prepared to stay in sight, making impossibleto know which type of material was used.

Rbert Dn

Istituto di Studi sulle Civilt dell Egeo e del Vicino Oriente (CNR)Via Giano della Bella 18 00162

Roma, Italia

[email protected]

1 Piotrovskij 1952: 28-30.2 This element surely inuenced the dimensions of the building which presumably anticipated less

vertical expansion compared to the others.3 The inscription of Yukar Anzaf fortress (CTU A 5-42A), preserved in the Museum of Van, shows

a backward frame compared to the surface of the inscription, in order to be coated and partiallyincorporated by the plaster.


8/12

48

Roberto Dan

BiBliogRaphy

Barnett R. D., W. Watson 1952, Russian Excavations in Armenia, Iraq 14, 132-147.Bilgi E., B. n 1964, Excavation at Kef Kalesi of Adilcevaz (1964), Anadolu 8, 93-122.Bilgi E., B. n 1967, Second Season of Excavation at Kef Kalesi of Adilcevaz (1965),

Anadolu 9, 11-19.ilingirolu A. 2001, Temple Area, in: ilingirolu, Salvini 2001, 37-65.ilingirolu A., A.. Erdem 2007, Ayanis Kalesi Kazlar, 2005, KST 28/1, 123-136.ilingirolu A., M. Salvini 2001a, The Historical Background of Ayanis, in: ilingirolu,

Salvini 2001b, 15-24.ilingirolu A., M. Salvini 2001b (eds.), Ayanis I. Ten Years of Excavations at Rusainili

Eiduru-kai 1989-1998, DocAs VI, Roma.

de Martino S. 2006 (ed.), Storia dEuropa e del Mediterraneo, vol. II. Le civilt dellOrientemediterraneo, Roma.Diakonoff I.M. 1956, Istorija Midii, Leningrad.Erzen A. 1988, avutepe I, Urartian Architectural Monuments of the 7th and 6th centuries B.C.

and a Necropolis of the Middle Age, Ankara.Harutyunyan (Arutjunjan) N.V. 1966, Novye urartskie nadpisi Karmir-blura, Yerevan.Hovhannisyan (Oganesjan) K.L. 1955, Karmir-Blur IV. Arxitektura Tejebaini, Yerevan (in

Russ.).Martirosyan H. 1974, Argitixinili, Yerevan.Piotrovskij B.B. 1950, Karmir-blur I: Rezultaty raskopok. Arxeologieskie raskopki v

Armenii, Yerevan.Piotrovskij B.B. 1952, Karmir-blur II, Rezultaty raskopok 1949-50 gg., Yerevan.Piotrovskij B.B. 1959, Vanskoe carstvo (Urartu), Moscow-Leningrad (Italian translation by

M. Salvini. Il regno di Van (Urartu), InGr 12, Rome. 1966).Piotrovskij B.B. 1970, Karmir-blur, Albom, Leningrad.Sagona A. 2004 (ed.), A View from the Highlands: Trans-Caucasus, Eastern Anatolia and

Northwestern Iran, Studies in Honour of C.A.Burney, Herent.Salvini M. 1980, Das susi-Heiligtum von Karmir-blur und der urartische Turmtempel, AMI

12, 249-269.Salvini M. 1995, Geschichte und Kultur der Urarter, Darmstadt.Salvini M. 2001, The Inscriptions of Ayanis (Rusainili Eiduru=kai). Cuneiform and

Hieroglyphic, in: ilingirolu, Salvini 2001b, 251-319.Salvini M. 2004, Reconstruction of the susi Temple at Adilcevaz, on Lake Van, in: Sagona

2004, 245-275.Salvini M. 2006, Il regno di Urartu (Biainili), in: de Martino 2006 (ed.), 459-503.Salvini M. 2008, Corpus dei Testi Urartei (CTU), Vol. I-II-III, DocAs VIII, Rome.Smith A.T., R.S. Badalyan, P. Avetisyan 2009, The Archaeology and Geography of Ancient

Trascaucasian Societies, vol. I: The Foundations of Research and Regional Survey inthe Tsaghkahovit Plain, Armenia, OIP 134, Chicago.

Wiseman D.J. 1956, Chronicles of Chaldean Kings (626-556 B.C.) in the British Museum,London.


9/12

49


Fig. 1.

Plan of the fortress at Karmir-blur highlighting the area of reconstruction.

From http://acc.spc.uchicago.edu/atsmith/CADI/html/karmfort/index.html


10/12

50

Roberto Dan

Fig. 2. Inscribed stones from the platform of the temple. From Piotrovskij 1970: Fig. 18.

Fig. 3.

Reconstruction

of the left side of the temple

inscription (Sections I, II, III,

[IV]). From Salvini 2008:

vol. III, p. 349.


11/12

51


Fig. 5

Reconstruction

of the right side of

the temple inscription

(Sections [V, VI, VII]

and VIII). From Salvini2008: vol. III, p. 351.

Fig. 4. The stone pillar. From Piotrovskij 1970, Fig. 7.


12/12

52

Roberto Dan

Fig. 6. Reconstruction of the temple of Karmir-blur. Plan and cross-section.

Documents

An Hypothesis of Reconstruction of the ‘susi-Temple’ at Karmir-Blur