TÜBA-AR Türkiye Bilimler Akademisi Arkeoloji Dergisi Turkish Academy of Sciences Journal of Archaeology Sayı: 21 Volume: 21 2017 TÜBA Arkeoloji (TÜBA-AR) Dergisi TÜBA-AR uluslararası hakemli bir dergi olup TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM (SBVT) ve Avrupa İnsani Bilimler Referans İndeksi (ERIH PLUS) veritabanlarında taranmaktadır. TÜBA Journal of Archaeology (TÜBA-AR) TÜBA-AR is an international refereed journal and indexed in the TUBİTAK ULAKBİM (SBVT) and The European Reference Index for the Humanities and the Social Sciences (ERIH PLUS) databases. Sahibi / Owner: Türkiye Bilimler Akademisi adına Prof. Dr. Ahmet Cevat ACAR (Başkan / President) Sorumlu Yazı İşleri Müdürü Managing Editor Prof. Dr. Kenan ÇAĞAN Basın ve Halkla İlişkiler Press & Public Relations Asiye KOMUT Graik Tasarım / Graphic Design Fatih Akın ÖZDEMİR TÜBA-AR İletişim Asistanı Communication Assistant Cansu TOPRAK Baskı: Ses Reklam Paz.Tur.San.Tic.Ltd.Şti. Tel: 0.312 215 62 00 Sayı: 21/2017 (750 adet) Basıldığı Tarih: 2017 ISSN: 1301-8566 TÜBA-AR Yazışma Adresi Correspondence Address TÜBA İstanbul Ofisi İTÜ Maçka Yerleşkesi Yabancı Diller Yüksek Okulu 34367, Maçka-İSTANBUL Tel: 0212 219 16 60 Faks: 0212 225 20 66 E-posta: cansu.toprak@tuba.gov.tr Türkiye Bilimler Akademisi Turkish Academy of Sciences Piyade Sokak, No: 27, 06690 Çankaya- ANKARA Tel: 0312 442 29 03 Faks: 0312 442 72 36 www.tuba.gov.tr E-posta: tuba-ar@tuba.gov.tr © Türkiye Bilimler Akademisi, 2017 © Turkish Academy of Sciences, 2017 (All rights reserved.) Bu derginin tüm yayın hakları saklıdır. Tanıtım için yapılacak kısa alıntılar dışında yayıncının yazılı izni olmaksızın hiçbir yolla çoğaltılamaz, CD ya da manyetik bant haline getirilemez. (Kaynağı belirtilmemiş görseller, makalelerin yazarlarına aittir.) TÜBA-AR YEREL VE SÜRELİ BİR YAYINDIR Kapak Fotoğrafı İnsan Yüzü Betimli Çömlek, Hipodrom, Geç Kalkolitik Çağ (MÖ 4500), Pişmiş Toprak Şevket DÖNMEZ TÜBA-AR TÜRKİYE BİLİMLER AKADEMİSİ ARKEOLOJİ DERGİSİ TÜBA-AR, Türkiye Bilimler Akademisi (TÜBA) tarafından yıllık olarak yayınlanan uluslararası hakemli bir dergidir. Derginin yayın politikası, kapsamı ve içeriği ile ilgili kararlar, Türkiye Bilimler Akademisi Konseyi tarafından belirlenen Yayın Kurulu tarafından alınır. DERGİNİN KAPSAMI VE YAYIN İLKELERİ TÜBA-AR dergisi ilke olarak, dönem ve coğrai bölge sınırlaması olmadan arkeoloji ve arkeoloji ile bağlantılı tüm alanlarda yapılan yeni araştırma, yorum, değerlendirme ve yöntemleri kapsamaktadır. Dergi arkeoloji alanında yeni yapılan çalışmalara yer vermenin yanı sıra, bir bilim akademisi yayın organı olarak, arkeoloji ile bağlantılı olmak koşuluyla, sosyal bilimlerin tüm uzmanlık alanlarına açıktır; bu alanlarda gelişen yeni yorum, yaklaşım, analizlere yer veren bir forum oluşturma işlevini de yüklenmiştir. Dergi, arkeoloji ile ilgili yeni açılımları kapsamlı olarak ele almak için belirli bir konuya odaklanmış yazıları “dosya” şeklinde kapsamına alabilir; bu amaçla çağrılı yazarların katkısının istenmesi ya da bu bağlamda gelen istekler Yayın Kurulu tarafından değerlendirir. Kazı ve yüzey araştırmaları da dahil olmak üzere, yeni yorum ve açılım getirmeyen, yalnızca malzeme tanıtımı içeren, ön rapor niteliğindeki yazılar dergi kapsamının dışındadır. Kültür tarihi açısından önemli bir yenilik getiren önemli buluntular “haber” olarak dergiye kabul edilebilir. Yazarlar dergiye makale gönderdiklerinde, söz konusu yazının daha önce, çeviri olarak bile başka bir yerde yayımlanmadığını ya da yayımlanmak üzere bir başka dergiye gönderilmemiş olduğunu kabul etmiş sayılırlar. TÜBA-AR TURKISH ACADEMY OF SCIENCES JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY TÜBA-AR is an internationally referenced journal, published annually by the Turkish Academy of Sciences (TÜBA). Decisions related to the publication policy, the coverage, and the contents of the journal are admitted by the Editorial Board, formed by the Council of the Turkish Academy of Sciences. COVERAGE AND PUBLICATION PRINCIPLES OF THE JOURNAL Principally, the TÜBA-AR journal covers all recent studies, comments, evaluations, and methods in archaeology, and in adjacent areas related to archaeology, without limitation to any periods or geographic regions. In addition to studies carried out in the ield of archaeology, as a publication organ of an academy of science, the journal is open to all professional ields of the social sciences, provided that they are related to archaeology; it has also undertaken the function to create a forum covering recent interpretations, approaches, and analyses developing in these ields. The journal may feature writings focused on a speciic subject as a “ile” in order to comprehensively cover new initiatives related to archaeology; and to this end, the Editorial Board decides whether contributions of invited writers are required, or evaluates any requests received in that context. Articles that do not introduce new interpretations and initiatives, but are rather in the form of a preliminary report containing only introductions to materials, including archaeological excavations and surface researches, are out of the scope of the journal. Important indings introducing signiicant innovations in terms of the cultural history can be accepted as pieces of “news”. When writers send articles to the journal, they are deemed to have agreed and undertaken that the article in question has not been published in any other journal, including its translations into any languages, and that it has not been submitted to any other journal for publication, including its translations. TÜBA-AR Türkiye Bilimler Akademisi Arkeoloji Dergisi Turkish Academy of Sciences Journal of Archaeology Kurucu (Founder) Prof. Dr. Ufuk ESİN Onursal Yayın Kurulu (Honorary Members of The Editorial Board) Prof. Dr. Reik DURU - Prof. Dr. Veli SEVİN Prof. Dr. Harald HAUPTMANN - Prof. Dr. Önder BİLGİ Yayın Kurulu Başkanı (Editor in Chief) Prof. Dr. Şevket DÖNMEZ Editörler (Editors) Prof. Dr. Musa KADIOĞLU Doç. Dr. Harun ÜRER Yrd. Doç. Dr. Haydar YALÇIN Prof. Dr. Gocha R. TSETSKHLADZE Yayın Kurulu (Editorial Board) Prof. Dr. Gülsün UMURTAK Prof. Dr. Mehmet IŞIKLI Prof. Dr. Aynur ÖZFIRAT Prof. Dr. Şule PFEIFFER-TAŞ Prof. Dr. Engin AKDENİZ Yrd. Doç. Dr. Fethi Ahmet YÜKSEL Prof. Dr. Yılmaz Selim ERDAL Yrd. Doç. Dr. Aslıhan YURTSEVER BEYAZIT Danışma Kurulu (Editorial Advisory Board) Tarihöncesi Arkeolojisi (Prehistory) Prof. Dr. Harun TAŞKIRAN Prof. Dr. Metin KARTAL Prof. Dr. Turan TAKAOĞLU Doç. Dr. Bahattin ÇELİK Protohistorya ve Önasya Arkeolojisi (Protohistory and Near Eastern Archaeology) Prof. Dr. Aliye ÖZTAN Prof. Dr. İbrahim Tunç SİPAHİ Prof. Dr. Gülsün UMURTAK Prof. Dr. Vasıf ŞAHOĞLU Prof. Dr. Fikri KULAKOĞLU Prof. Dr. Özlem ÇEVİK Prof. Dr. Tayfun YILDIRIM Prof. Dr. Mehmet IŞIKLI Prof. Dr. Aynur ÖZFIRAT Yrd. Doç. Dr. Aslıhan YURTSEVER BEYAZIT Prof. Dr. S. Yücel ŞENYURT Yrd. Doç. Dr. Çiğdem MANER Prof. Dr. Engin AKDENİZ Klasik Arkeoloji (Classical Archaeology) Prof. Dr. Serra DURUGÖNÜL Prof. Dr. Gürcan POLAT Prof. Dr. Musa KADIOĞLU Prof. Dr. Ralf von den HOFF Prof. Dr. Turgut HACI ZEYREK Prof. Dr. Zeynep KOÇEL ERDEM Prof. Dr. Kutalmış GÖRKAY Prof. Dr. Sümer ATASOY Prof. Dr. Gül IŞIN Doç. Dr. Veli KÖSE Prof. Dr. Zeynep ÇİZMELİ-ÖĞÜN Doç. Dr. Daniş BAYKAN Karadeniz Arkeolojisi (Black Sea Archaeology) Prof. Dr. Gocha R. TSETSKHLADZE Prof. Dr. Şevket DÖNMEZ İran – Orta Asya Arkeolojisi (Iran – Central Asia Archaeology) Prof. Dr. Aiman DOSSYMBAYEVA Doç. Dr. Anıl YILMAZ Doç. Dr. İbrahim ÇEŞMELİ Doç. Dr. Farshid İRAVANİ GHADİM Türk - İslam Arkeolojisi (Turkish - Islamic Archaeology) Prof. Dr. Bozkurt ERSOY Prof. Dr. Hüseyin YURTTAŞ Prof. Dr. Kenan BİLİCİ Dr. Olcay AYDEMİR Doç. Dr. Harun ÜRER Yrd. Doç. Dr. Rüstem BOZER Ortaçağ Arkeolojisi (Medieval Archaeology) Prof. Dr. Zeynep MERCANGÖZ Doç. Dr. Lale DOĞER Prof. Dr. Ayşe AYDIN Doç. Dr. V. Macit TEKİNALP Prof. Dr. Osman ERAVŞAR Doç. Dr. Emel Emine DÖNMEZ Doç. Dr. Ferudun ÖZGÜMÜŞ Yrd. Doç. Dr. Ahmet Vefa ÇOBANOĞLU Sualtı Arkeolojisi (Underwater Archaeology) Yrd. Doç. Dr. Hakan ÖNİZ Eskiçağ Tarihi (Ancient History) Prof. Dr. Mustafa Hamdi SAYAR Prof. Dr. Mustafa ADAK Prof. Dr. Turgut YİĞİT Yrd. Doç. Dr. Bülent ÖZTÜRK Prof. Dr. Turhan KAÇAR Yrd. Doç. Dr. Salih KAYMAKÇI Hititoloji (Hittitology) Prof. Dr. Aygül SÜEL Doç. Dr. Hasan PEKER Mısırbilim (Egyptology) Doç. Dr. Hasan PEKER Arkeojeoizik (Archaeogeophysics) Prof. Dr. Selma KADIOĞLU Yrd. Doç. Dr. Fethi Ahmet YÜKSEL Arkeojeoloji (Archaeogeology) Prof. Dr. Yusuf Kağan KADIOĞLU Arkeometalurji (Archaeometallurgy) Prof. Dr. Ünsal YALÇIN Arkeozooloji (Archaeozoology) Prof. Dr. Vedat ONAR Doç. Dr. Levent ATICI Arkeobotanik (Archaeobotanic) Doç. Dr. Evangelia PİŞKİN Antropoloji (Anthropology) Prof. Dr. Yılmaz Selim ERDAL Doç. Dr. Ömür Dilek ERDAL Prof. Dr. Ayla Sevim EROL Sosyoloji (Sociology) Prof. Dr. Kenan ÇAĞAN Kültürel Mirasın Korunması / Koruma Amaçlı Planlama (Protection of Cultural Heritage / Protection Planning Policies and Approaches) Doç. Dr. Kübra CİHANGİR ÇAMUR İÇİNDEKİLER / CONTENTS Şevket DÖNMEZ Sunu / Presentation ................................................................................................................................... 8 Abdullah HACAR Possible Links Between the Highland Regions North of the Central Taurus and West Cappadocia in the Middle Chalcolithic Period (6th and 5th Millennium Bc) ..........................11 Orta Kalkolitik Dönemde Orta Torosların Kuzeyi Dağlık Alan ile Batı Kapadokya Arasındaki Olası Bağlantılar (MÖ 6.-5. Binyıllar) Salih KAYMAKÇI Doğu Karadeniz Bölgesinde Karaz-Erken Transkafkasya Kültürü’ne Ait Yeni Bir Yerleşim: Alucra-Gavur Kalesi, Giresun ...................................................................................... 25 A New Settlement Belonging to Karaz- Early Transcaucasian Culture in Eastern Black Sea Region. Alucra-Gavur Kalesi, Giresun Bülent KIZILDUMAN Kral Tepesi: Karpaz Yarımadası’nda Bir Geç Tunç Çağı Yerleşimi .......................................................... 35 Kral Tepesi/ Vasili: A Cyprus Late Bronze Age Site at Karpas Penisula Aynur ÖZFIRAT Eriqua and Minuahinili An Early Iron Age-Nairi Kingdom and Urartian Province an the Northern Slope of Mt Ağrı (Settlement Complexes at Melekli and Karakoyunlu) ............................................................................... 63 Eriqua ve Minuahinili Ağrı Dağı’nın Kuzey Eteğinde Bir Erken Demir Çağ-Nairi Krallığı ve Urartu Eyaleti (Melekli ve Karakoyunlu Yerleşim Kompleksleri) Şevket DÖNMEZ The Protohistoric Times of Istanbul in the Light of New Evidence .......................................................... 93 Yeni Bulgular Işığında İstanbul Öntarihi Suhal SAĞLAN - Fatma BAĞDATLI ÇAM Sinope’den Hellenistik Döneme Ait İki Mezar Steli ..................................................................................117 Two Hellenistic Grave Stelae from Sinope Özgür TURAK Eski Roma Uygarliği ve Heykel: Yağma – Koleksiyonculuk ................................................................... 135 Ancient Roman Civilization and Sculpture: Plunder and Collectorship Seda KARAÖZ ARIHAN - Ali Akın AKYOL - İsmail ÖZER - Okan ARIHAN Elemental Analysis of Beybağ-Muğla (Turkey) Byzantine Skeletons ..................................................... 147 Beybağ-Muğla (Türkiye) Bizans Dönemi İskeletlerinin Element Analizi Ayşe Tuba ÖKSE Salat Tepe IV Mevsimlik Barınakları: Yukarı Dicle Havzasında Orta Çağ ve Sonrasında Göçerler .......................................................................................................... 163 Seasonal Dwellings of Salat Tepe IV: Nomads in the Upper Tigris Region Since the Middle Age TÜBA-AR Genel Yazım Kuralları ........................................................................................................... 190 SUNU 1998 yılında ilk sayısıyla yayın hayatına başlayan Türkiye Bilimler Akademisi Arkeoloji Dergisi TÜBA-AR, 20. Yaşı ile birlikte yayın periyodunu değiştirerek yılda iki kez (Haziran - Aralık) yayınlanmaya başlandı. 20. Sayısı ile Haziran dönemini, incelemekte olduğunuz 21. Sayısı ile ise Aralık dönemini başarıyla tamamlayan TÜBAAR, yeni sistemi ile her geçen gün artan yayınlanma talebi baskısı sonucunda yayın kurulumuza gönderilen makalelerin zamanında basılabilmesi için önemli bir hamle yapmış bulunmaktadır. Bununla birlikte akademik süreli yayınların bilim dünyasındaki rolünü titizlikle takip eden editörler kurulumuz, yeni yayın politikamızın bu süreçle de uyumlu olduğunu gözlemlemiştir. Akademik süreli yayın dünyasındaki yenilik ve gelişmeleri izlemek ve TÜBA-AR’ın yakın gelecekteki yayın stratejilerini belirlemek amacıyla 2-3 Kasım 2017 tarihleri arasında ulusal ve uluslararası indeks kurumları ile ilişkilerimizden sorumlu editörümüz Yrd. Doç.Dr. Haydar Yalçın ile birlikte Ulusal Akademik Yayıncılık Sempozyumu’na katıldım. Ulusal Akademik Yayıncılık Sempozyumu’nda özellikle Dergi Park yapısı hakkında önemli bilgiler verildi. Ulusal atıf dizini hazırlık çalışmalarının tamamlanmakta olduğu ve Aralık ayı içerisinde lansmanının yapılacağı bildirildi. Dergilerin yayın sıklıklarına, İngilizce öz ve anahtar kelime uygulamalarına dikkat etmeleri gerektiği belirtildi. İntihal konusunun altı etralıca ve önemle çizildi. Hakemlik kurumunun doğru ve etik kurallar çerçevesinde yürütülmesi gerekliliğine vurgu yapılırken, hakem formlarında mümkün olduğu kadar açık uçlu sorularla kaliteyi ölçmeye dair soruların yer alması gerektiği belirtildi. Özellikle Web of Science indekslerine başvuru süreci hakkında kurumun İspanyol temsilcisi bilgi verdi. Onaylanmayan başvurulardan sonra üç yıl boyunca yeniden başvuru yapılamayacağı, kriterlerin sağlandığından emin olmadan başvuru yapılmaması gerektiği belirtildi. Makale geliş, kabul ve yayımlanma tarihlerinin makale son kullanıcı kopyasına eklenmesi genel prensip olarak kabul edildi. Makalelerin ham verilerinin paylaşılması konusunda dergi editörlerinin cesaretlendirici olması gerektiği belirtildi. Diğer yandan açık erişim politikasının benimsenmesi gerektiği ve bu bağlamda OpenAir ve Horizontal 2020 gibi çerçeve programların önerdiği veri paylaşım politikalarına uygun bir veri politikası belirlenmesi gerektiği aktarıldı. 21. Sayı sürecinde desteklerini her zaman hissettiğimiz TÜBA Başkanı Prof.Dr. Ahmet Cevat Acar’a, Başkan Danışmanı ve Danışma Kurulu üyemiz Prof. Dr. Kenan Çağan’a, Editör, Yayın ve Danışma kurullarındaki değerli hocalarım ile meslektaşlarıma teşekkürlerimi sunuyorum. 21. Sayının teknik ve bürokratik işlerini başarı ile tamamlayan Asiye Komut, Fatih Akın Özdemir, Cansu Toprak ve Filiz Mazlum’a çok teşekkür ederim. Arkeolojik kazıların sonsuza kadar devam etmesi dileği ile. Prof. Dr. Şevket Dönmez TÜBA-AR Yayın Kurulu Başkanı PRESENTATION With it’s 20th volume, Turkish Academy of Sciences Journal of Archaeology TÜBA-AR, which began it’s publication life in 1998, changed it’s publication period (June-December) and started to be published twice a year. TÜBA-AR, which successfully concluded it’s June period with 20th and December period with the 21st volume that you are currently reading, had made an important move to publish on time the ever groving number of articles sent to our editorial board for publishing in daily basis. Additionally our editorial board which meticulously observes the role of the periodicals in the scientiic world, has deduced that our new publication politics is in harmony with this process. In order to closely observe the innovations and news in the publication world and to decide the publication strategies of TÜBA-AR in near future I have attended the National Academic Publication Symposium in 2-3 November 2017 with our editor, Assoc. Prof. Haydar Yalçın who is responsible for our communication with the national and international index organizations. In National Academic Publication Symposium we have received important information especially on Dergi Park framework. It is announced that the national attribution index is about to be concluded and it is going to be launched in December. It was indicated that the journals should be careful on their periodic frequency and the implication of their English abstracts and keywords. The issue of plagiarisation has speciically and thoroughly underlined. While the importance of the correct and ethical peer review have been emphasized, it is indicated that in peer review forms should have openended questions in order to qualify the quality of the articles. Especially the application process of the Web of Science indexes have been detailed by the Spanish representative of the organization. It is indicated that there cannot be another application for three years after a failed application, so no application should be done without being sure that it satisies all the criteria. As a general principle, the inclusion of the arrival, acceptance and publication dates of the article to the inal copy of the article is accepted. It is also indicated that the Journal Editors should be encouraged to share the raw data of the articles. On the other hand, the necessity of an open access policy is underlined and in this context the need of deciding on a data policy matching the data sharing policies offered by framework programs such as OpenAir and Horizontal 2020. I would like to thank Prof. Dr. Ahmet Cevat Acar, Chairman of Turkish Academy of Sciences and Prof. Dr. Kenan Çağan, Chairman Advisor and the member of our Advisory Board whose support we constantly have felt, and the esteemed mentors and colleagues of the Editorial, Publication and Advisory boards for their support in the publication of the 21st Volume. I would also like to thank Asiye Komut, Fatih Akın Özdemir, Cansu Toprak and Filiz Mazlum for successfully concluding the technical and bureaucratic work on the 21st volume. With our sincere wishes that the archaeological excavations to continue forever. Prof. Dr. Şevket Dönmez TÜBA-AR Chairman of the Editorial Board TÜBA-AR 21/2017 ERIQUA AND MINUAHINILI: AN EARLY IRON AGE-NAIRI KINGDOM AND URARTIAN PROVINCE ON THE NORTHERN SLOPE OF MT AĞRI (SETTLEMENT COMPLEXES AT MELEKLI AND KARAKOYUNLU) ERİQUA VE MİNUAHİNİLİ: AĞRI DAĞI’NIN KUZEY ETEĞİNDE BİR ERKEN DEMİR ÇAĞ-NAİRİ KRALLIĞI VE URARTU EYALETİ (MELEKLİ VE KARAKOYUNLU YERLEŞİM KOMPLEKSLERİ) Makale Bilgisi Başvuru: 11 Ekim 2017 Hakem Değerlendirmesi: 23 Ekim 2017 Kabul: 4 Aralık 2017 DOI Numarası: 10.22520/tubaar.2017.21.004 Article Info Received: October 11, 2017 Peer Review: October 23, 2017 Accepted: December 4, 2017 DOI Number: 10.22520/tubaar.2017.21.004 Aynur ÖZFIRAT *1 Keywords: Mt Ağrı, Minuahinili, Eriqua, Nairi, Late Bronze Age, Early Iron Age, Urartu, Eastern Anatolia, Southern Transcaucasia, Northwestern Iran Anahtar Kelimeler: Ağrı Dağı, Minuahinili, Eriqua, Nairi, Son Tunç Çağ, Erken Demir Çağ, Urartu, Doğu Anadolu, Güney Kafkasya, Kuzeybatı İran ABSTRACT Highland of eastern Anatolia, southern Transcaucasia and northwestern Iran were divided among a great number of local polities in the Late Bronze-Early Iron Age (c. 1600-900 BC). By the change of political power, regional landscape previously consisted of small local polities largely transformed into a province of the kingdom of Urartu (Middle Iron Age, c. 900-600 BC). The Urartian conquest of the Araxes valley-Mt Ağrı region began the earlier stage of the kingdom. Some of the sites that we investigated in the region show a developed and complex system. These settlement complexes were located in central area of geographical units. Each of the them covers interrelated units in a vast * Prof. Dr., Mardin Artuklu Üniversitesi, Edebiyat Fakültesi, Arkeoloji Bölümü, Kampüs Yerleşkesi, Diyarbakır Yolu 5. Km, Artuklu-Mardin. E-mail: aynurozirat@gmail.com 64 Aynur ÖZFIRAT area within a long time period. The most remarkable settlement complexes of Mt Ağrı are Melekli, Karakoyunlu and Bozkurt can be consider as urban and administrative centres of Early Iron Age (pre-Urartian) and Urartian. South of the Araxes river was land of Erikua-Ireku-Irkuahi, inscriptions of king Minua refer to conquest of Luhiuni which was the capital of Eriqua. Luhiuni, the royal city of Early Iron Age kingdom Erikua; and Minuahinili, new fortress of Urartu and Haldi Temple which was built afterwards by king Minua, must be in the settlement complexes at Melekli and Karakoyunlu (Iğdır) on the northern slope of Mt Ağrı (Iğdır plain-south of the Araxes valley). Bozkurt settlement complex located in the southern part of mountain (Doğubayazıt plain) must also be considered in this frame. ÖZET Son Tunç-Erken Demir Çağı’nda (ykl. MÖ 1600-900) Doğu Anadolu yüksek yaylası, Güney Kafkasya ve Kuzeybatı İran çok sayıda yerel politik güç arasında bölünmüştü. Siyasi gücün değişmesiyle, öncesinin küçük yerel yönetim birimleri çoğunlukla Urartu Krallığı’nın (Orta Demir Çağ, ykl. MÖ 900-600) eyaletlerine dönüştü. Aras Vadisi-Ağrı Dağı bölgesine ilk fetihler Urartu Krallığı’nın erken döneminde başlamıştır. Bölgede yaptığımız araştırmalarda belirlediğimiz bazı yerleşimler gelişmiş ve kompleks bir yerleşim sistemi gösterirler. Bu yerleşim kompleksleri coğrai birimlerin merkezi noktalarında yer alır. Her biri, geniş alanlar içinde, birbirleriyle ilişkili ve uzun bir zaman dilimi içine yayılmış ayrı birimlerden oluşur. Ağrı Dağı’nın en dikkat çekici yerleşim kompleksleri olan Melekli, Karakoyunlu ve Bozkurt Erken Demir Çağ (pre-Urartu) ve Urartu Krallığı’nın büyük kentleri ve idari merkezleri olarak düşünülebilir. Erken Demir Çağı’nda Aras Nehri’nin güneyi Erikua-Ireku-Irkuahi ülkesiydi, Kral Minua’nın yazıtlarında Eriqua başkenti Luhiuni’nin fethi anlatılır. Erken Demir Çağ krallığı Eriqua’nın krali kenti Luhiuni ile sonrasında Kral Minua tarafından yeni kurulan ve bir Haldi Tağınağı’nın da inşa edildiği Urartu kalesi Minuahinili sırasıyla Ağrı Dağı’nın kuzey eteğindeki (Iğdır Ovası-Aras Nehri’nin güneyi) Melekli ve Karakoyunlu (Iğdır) yerleşim komplekslerindedir, dağın güney eteğindeki (Doğubayazıt Ovası) Bozkurt yerleşim kompleksi de bu çerçevede değerlendirilmelidir. 65 ERIQUA AND MINUAHINILI: AN EARLY IRON AGE - NAIRI KINGDOM AND URARTIAN PROVINCE ON THE NORTHERN SLOPE OF MT AĞRI Late Bronze-Early Iron Age (LBA-EIA, c. 1600-900 BC) of the highlands of eastern Anatolia, southern Transcaucasia and northwestern Iran are characterized by small independent polities named Nairi and Uruatri by Assyrian and Urartian texts. According to these epigraphic sources, pre-Urartian landscape appears to have been divided amongst numerous small local kingdoms or polities. By the change of political power, regional landscape previously consisted of small local polities largely transformed into a province of Urartian empire (Middle Iron Age, MIA, c. 900-600 BC). The Urartian conquest of the Araxes valley-Mt Ağrı region began the earlier stage of the kingdom. In the early ninth century BC, Ishpuni and Minua, kings of Urartu, extended the borders of the kingdom from the upper Euphrates to the western shore of Lake Urmia, their campaign reached to the shore of Lake Sevan in the north. In spite of existence in the north of the Araxes valley since the reign of King Ishpuini (830-810 BC), the Urartians did not occupy southern Transcaucasia until the reign of King Argishti I (785/80-756 BC). Military conquests of King Argishti I, encouraged by Argishtihinili fortress, construction in the north of the Araxes river (Ararat plain) and the region integration as a province of the kingdom. However, the Urartians occupied deinitively the region of Mt Ağrı (Iğdır plain-south of the Araxes valley) just after the earliest campaigns to southern Transcaucasia which carried out by Ishpuini and Minua. The new fortress-city at Minuahinili on the northern slope of Mt Ağrı was established as a primary administrative center when the land of Eriqua captured by King Minua. With the foundation of Minuaihinili, the kingdom of Urartu became the sole political authority on the south of the Araxes river and Mt Ağrı region, and was dominated the gateways to the southern Transcaucasia-northwestern Iran and rather fertile Igdır plain. In general, it appears that area of pre-Urartian landscape had a common culture and there were numerous polities which could be named fortress-state, city-state, small kingdom, chiefdom and regional confederacies in tribal structure. Written sources also give information about countries, cities, fortresses and people of these territorial highland polities of pre-Urartian landscape. Political intensiication of these LBA-EIA highland state formation was marked by the appearance of local states based in fortresses and fortress-settlements following a long period of pastoral life, a few settlement and numerous big and wealthy kurgans of mobile communities of Middle Bronze Age (MBA). Our knowledge on the territories of these local states or small kingdoms in eastern Anatolia is extremely limited; it is only possible to localize some of them under general terms. It looks that the areas they controlled were mostly limited with geographical units like a valley or a plain which was isolated with mountains. Settlement complexes and a large number of LBA-EIA well preserved fortresses and their cemeteries located in the highlands and foothills surrounding of Mt Ağrı, including the Lake Van basin have been recorded in our investigation which is also the case in southern Transcaucasia and northwestern Iran. Rocky hills on foothills or highlands have clearly played a special role in the construction of landscape at that time producing of territory planning and control. One of the most remarkable characteristics of this period is the fortresses-cemeteries in great numbers which situated on the defensible hilltops. The most striking features of these fortresses are inaccessibility, irregular architectural plan based on topographic contours, cyclopean walls1 and large cemeteries, located on skirts of the hills and directly connected with contemporary fortresses. The cemeteries which are located in the major fortresses or settlement complexes contain over one hundred graves. Kurgans and kromlechs are the most common grave type, taking the place of large kurgans of the MBA. One of the EIA kingdoms in the highland of eastern Anatolia which was mentioned in the inscriptions of King Minua was the land of Erikua-Ireku-Irkuahi located in the north of Mt. Ağrı (Iğdır plain-south of the Araxes valley)2 (Figs. 1-2). Igdır plain is the most fertile area of eastern Anatolia, and it is the entry point of southern Transcaucasia and northwestern Iran through the Araxes river southwards. In actual fact, Igdır plain is a lat area in the Araxes valley that is between two highest volcanoes in the Near East. This low plain is surrounded by Mt Aragats (Mt Alagöz, 4094 m) in the north, and Mt Ağrı (5123 m) in the south. The section of this plain located in Turkey where the Araxes river lows in the middle is called Igdır plain or SürmeliAras Çukuru, and the section located in Armenia is called Ararat or Erivan-Revan plain. The Igdır plain seems like an oasis in the eastern Anatolia with its 800 m average elevation on the northern slope of Mt Ağrı which is the lowest terrain in the region, its mild climate, and depending on this, with its agricultural production. It is ecologically diverse ranging from the Mediterranean climate to the 1 2 Term of ‘Cyclopic fortress’ generally means fortiications built with irregular and huge stone blocks, but the term is not quite right for the most of the LBA-EIA fortresses although it is used in this article because of the general use. Mostly, the stones of fortress walls are not very large, it seems that may be earlier fortresses (LBA) built with very large blocks, but it is dificult to deine because of the lack of excavations in the eastern Anatolia. The term of ‘Cyclopic fortress’ is here used to indicate forts, fortresses and fortiied settlements built on hilltops, irregular plans which is terrain dependent, dry masonry and uncut or roughly shaped stones. This type of masonry contrast with the ashlar or semi-ashlar masonry used in the construction of later fortresses in the Middle Iron Age-Urartu. Second, EIA fortresses have not projections on the walls, such as buttresses or towers except for some late examples which is irregular design. Özfırat 2005; Sevin 2005; Salvini 2002; Salvini 2006. 66 Aynur ÖZFIRAT Figure 1: Mt Ağrı Settlement Complexes / Ağrı Dağı Yerleşim Kompleksleri 67 ERIQUA AND MINUAHINILI: AN EARLY IRON AGE - NAIRI KINGDOM AND URARTIAN PROVINCE ON THE NORTHERN SLOPE OF MT AĞRI Figure 2: Melekli and Karakoyunlu Settlement Complexes / Melekli ve Karakoyunlu Yerleşim Kompleksleri 68 Aynur ÖZFIRAT highlands of mountains. Mt Ağrı is also virtually the most important point in eastern Anatolia in a strategic sense. It is on the gateways of Caucasia and Iran is surrounded by the Iğdır plain and primary road of southern Transcaucasia in the north; Doğubayazıt plain and one of the main roads to northwestern Iran and to the Upper Euphrates valley by the Murat river valley in the south. Some of the sites that we investigated show a developed and complex system3. Central fortresses or settlement complexes that cover long periods, along with citadels, lower cities, cemeteries and mounds, suggest that the region was divided into numerous small units ruled by a central city. These fortiied-cities or central fortresses of the small independent polities of pre-Urartian (LBA-EIA) and Urartian (MIA) were mostly located to be part of in the large settlement complexes in continuity. The most remarkable settlement complexes of Mt Ağrı, Melekli (Iğdır), Karakoyunlu (Iğdır) and Bozkurt (Doğubayazıt) can be considered as urban centers of pre-Urartian and Urartian in the region (Figs. 1-4). They were also formed with some permanent and seasonal settlements and smaller fortresses in various size and function around them. ERIKUA AND MINUAHINILI Urartian inscriptions mentioning the Araxes valley describe a number of local polities informing the names of countries and their cities, such as, northwest of the valley was Aza; west of Lake Sevan was Etiuni; northeast of valley was Ulua land and its city Dara (Elar); south of valley was the land of Erikua-Ireku-Irkuahi (Fig 1). The Urartian kings tried to take control of the Araxes valley and southern Transcaucasia from the beginning. It appears that King Ishpuini (830-810 BC) gave a start to its imperial expansion and reorganization of the country. Military expansions during co-regency of Ishpuini and Minua reached to the shores of Lake Sevan and Urmia. In a short time after these earliest campaigns, King Minua (8103 Settlement complexes were major sites in the region. Our survey and excavation in the Lake Van basin and Mt Ağrı region has revealed that settlement complexes were located in central geographical areas, which where favourably located for agriculture, pastures, highland routes, trade routes etc. Each of them covers separate units related to each other such as mounds, cemeteries, lower cities and fortresses, spreading over a wide area with a horizontal stratigraphy covering a long chronological sequence, from the Late Chalcolithic Period to the Middle Iron Age (Urartu) or the Late Iron Age (Achaemenid), except for an interruption in the Middle Bronze Age (MBA). Actually, this settlement pattern which was characteristic for the highland of eastern Anatolia, southern Transcaucasia and northwestern Iran demonstrate a quite different model in contradistinction to those of the central area of Near East. It seems that, settlement system of Caucasia needs to be discussed and redeined as shown by recent work in the region. 785/780 BC) focused his attention to the Araxes valley. Minua started to expand into southern Transcaucasia on the northern slope of Mt. Ağrı. He campaigned against the land of Erikua, and conquered Luhiuni which was the royal city of Eriqua, and afterwards, this conquest was consolidated by the construction of fortress of Minuahinili which was on the southern bank of the Araxes river. Thus, northern part of Mt Ağrı or south of the Araxes valley were included to Urartian territory4. Inscriptions of the Eriqua campaign of King Minua which also contains the capture of the royal city of Luhiuni and foundation of the new Urartian fortress of Minuahinili was found in the fortresses at Karakoyunlu and vicinity of Bulakbaşı. The study on the ind spots of these three inscriptions which was found in the area was done by A. A. Ivanovskij and M. V. Nikol’skij, irst researchers to make a systematic investigation here in 1893-18945. Because of the research area including Karakoyunlu and Bulakbaşı villages was within the boundaries of town of Taşburun (Iğdır province) in the mentioned date, fortresses and inscriptions were named as Taşburun (Figs. 2, 15)6. Confusion about these inscription apart from the name issue, is related with the ind spots. Actually, except from the rock-cut inscription found on the slope of the fortresses at Karakoyunlu, the location of other two which is known as Bulakbaşı is uncertain. Because of this uncertainty (see fn 7-8), we preferred to use name of Taşburun which is the numbers and locations given by Nikol’skij. The conquest of Eriqua is mentioned in the rock-cut inscription, found on the northern skirt of the fortresses at Karakoyunlu (Figs. 4, 10), Taşburun No. I7: 4 5 6 7 Özfırat (in press). The inscriptions were studied by Nikol’skij, during investigations of A. A. Ivanovskij and M. V. Nikol’skij in eastern Anatolia on behalf of the Moskva Archaeological Society, Nikol’skij 1896: 14-30; Lehmann-Haupt 1910: 169-171; Ivanovskij 1911: 36-59. Ivanovskj and Nikol’skij did not publish any indings from the Karakoyunlu and Bulakbaşı excavations and survey, and since the photographs and plans are extremely limited, we do not have enough information about the dating, architectural features, functions etc. of the structures that were investigated by Ivanovskj. All the settlements examined on the northern slope of Mt. Ağrı were described and named taking Taşburun town as the central point. Karakoyunlu name is used once, Bulakbaşı or Başbulak name is used because of the lake there. Two fortresses are mentioned in Karakoyunlu, and three on the shore of Lake Bulakbaşı (Fig. 15). Thereof, fortresses at Karakoyunlu and Bulakbaşı was frequently recorded as Taşburun, and as Tsolakert, Solagert, Zolakert and Çölegert in other versions. Taşburun is connected to Karakoyunlu district today, but before it was the opposite, Karakoyunlu was connected toTaşburun. Karakoyunlu fortress II is also named as Mağaralar Mevkii due to Urartian rock-cut tomb there, so we used this name in our irst reports. Nikol’skij 1896: No I, 16, 22-27, Tafel III-IV; Vorderasiatisches Museum, Berlin, the rock-cut inscription at the point where the Karakoyunlu fortresses connect with the plain. According to the 69 ERIQUA AND MINUAHINILI: AN EARLY IRON AGE - NAIRI KINGDOM AND URARTIAN PROVINCE ON THE NORTHERN SLOPE OF MT AĞRI Figure 3: Melekli Settlement Complex / Melekli Yerleşim Kompleksi 70 Aynur ÖZFIRAT Figure 4: Karakoyunlu Settlement Complex / Karakoyunlu Yerleşim Kompleksi 71 ERIQUA AND MINUAHINILI: AN EARLY IRON AGE - NAIRI KINGDOM AND URARTIAN PROVINCE ON THE NORTHERN SLOPE OF MT AĞRI “The god Haldi started excursion with his own spear. He conquered Erikuahi land, and took the city of Luhiuni. They made (them) obey in front of Minua. The god Haldi is strong, and the spear of the god Haldi is strong. With the strength of the god Haldi; Minua, son of Ishpuini, started his excursion. The god Haldi went in the front line. Minua said: (The god Haldi) came to Erikuahi land. The god Haldi gave royal city of Luhiuni, which was never conquered before, to Minua, son of Ishpuini. I conquered the city of Luhiuni. I granted the city of Luhiuni (in return for) payment of tribute. Minua said: Whoever destroys this inscription, whoever commits a crime, whoever makes any other person commit these crimes (or) whoever says something different, that is, “I conquered Luhiuni”, the god Haldi, the god Teisheba, the god Shivini (and all gods) deprive him from sunlight.” In Körzüt, which is a repetition of the previous inscription, the list of war spoils are given, and it is mentioned that the women from the royal city of Luhiuni were moved to the harem in Tushpa8. The foundation of Minuahinili is mentioned in the inscriptions of Taşburun No II-III. Taşburun No II9: “With the might of the god Haldi, Minua established this place, the land of Irkua of Minua ( ). He built a Haldi gate and a fortress in a perfect style. Minua said: I established … I built …” 8 9 Nikol’skij photographs, this inscription is on the northern slope of fortress what we call Karakoyunlu III and on the rocks overlooking the valley. The ind spot of this inscription is recorded as Solagert fortress in Payne 2006: 5.1.3; Tsolakert-Taşburun (Iğdır) in Salvini 2008 (CTU): A5-1. In the inscription of Susi Temple of the fortress at Körzüt (in Muradiye plain at the northeastern shore of Lake Van) in which the northern campaigns of King Minua were mentioned, Payne 2006: 5.1.4-5.1.6; Salvini 2008 (CTU): A52A-F. Nikol’skij 1896: No II, 17-18, 28-29, Tafel V; History Museum of Armenia, Yerevan, this inscription is on a stone block, found at the home of a hard ware store owner in Taşburun town. The exact ind spot is unknown, the villagers described that they found this inscription from the medieval city on the plain east of the lake near the Urartian fortresses (Bulakbaşı 1-4 ) on the slope of Mt Ağrı and shores of Lake Bulakbaşı. Although Ivanovskj made extensive excavations in the medieval city of Bulakbaşı in 1893-1894, he did not ind any evidence of earlier periods (Fig. 15 map, probably settlement of Taşburun), (Ivanovskij 1911: 38-52). The ind spot of this inscription is recorded as Solagert fortress (Eçmiazin) in Payne 2006: 5.3.12; Tsolakert-Taşburun and Mağaralar Mevkii (Iğdır) in Salvini 2008 (CTU): A5-27. Taşburun No III10: “Minua, son of Ishpuini, established this building in a perfect style, and built a fortress to the god Haldi in a perfect style. He named (this place) as ‘Minuahinili’. Minua, son of Ishpuini, the mighty king, is the hero of the City of Tushpa, and the king of the Biainili land, with the greatness of the god Haldi.” Luhiuni, the royal city of Kingdom of Erikua; and Minuahinili, the new fortress of Urartu which was built afterwards, must be situated in the settlement complexes at Melekli (Luhiuni) and Karakoyunlu (Minuahinili), (Figs 1-4). Actually, both were local LBA-EIA cities, one of them was at Melekli-Kasımtığı (Luhiuni) and the other was at Karakoyunlu fortress I, probably a smaller city of Eriqua. Melekli and Karakoyunlu settlement complexes are located on the northern slope of Mt Ağrı where lava low join the Iğdır plain-Araxes valley, covering a long time span from the Late Chalcolithic (LC) to the Late Iron Age (LIA-Achaemenid) except for an interruption in the MBA which is represented by very few sherds. Right in front of them, lie the fertile lands of the plain, and the main routes of southern Transcaucasia and northwestern Iran via the Araxes river valley. Luhiuni must be the large fortress-settlement at Kasımtığı-Gre Herşe fortresses which is located in Melekli settlement complex (Figs. 1-3, 5-6). Showing the characteristics of a large fortress-city, it spreads to an extremely wide area dimension of nearly 4 km; and was the largest settlement in the region with its central area surrounded by fortiication walls, fortresses on the very high hills overlooking the plain, lower city and a vast cemetery. There is an ancient lake at the western end of the city (Figs. 2, 5). The walls of the citadels which have irregular plans based on topography were made of uncut or roughly shaped stones; and the square-rectangular buildings were built on the slopes in the contour of terraces. Long ramps extending from citadels stretch to the southern sides of the fortresses (Figs 7-9). Two forts are situated in the southern and northwestern borders of the city, the forts at Hazine Tepe and KarakoyunluKasımtığı are located on extremely high and sharp hills overlooking all the valley and plain (Figs 2-3, 5-6, 9). The central area and the citadel of the city is located on Gre Herşe fortress (Figs 2-3, 5-7, 9). It is situated on the highest hill of the city with its buildings on terraces (Fig 7). Lower city fortiication walls which lies on the southern slope of the fortress is at the length of nearly 3 km (Fig 5, 7). This wall is 2.5 m in thickness, and 2 m 10 Nikol’skij 1896: 16-17, 29-30, No III, this inscription couldn’t be found. Nikol’skij studied this inscription from a photograph found in Archbishop Mesrop in Taşburun town. The ind spot of this inscription is recorded as Başbulak in Payne 2006: 5.3.13; Başbulak-Bulakbaşı (Taşburun, Iğdır) in Salvini 2008 (CTU): A5-26. 72 Aynur ÖZFIRAT Figure 5: Melekli-Luhiuni / Melekli-Luhiuni 73 ERIQUA AND MINUAHINILI: AN EARLY IRON AGE - NAIRI KINGDOM AND URARTIAN PROVINCE ON THE NORTHERN SLOPE OF MT AĞRI Figure 6: Melekli-Luhiuni / Melekli-Luhiuni 74 Aynur ÖZFIRAT height of it has been preserved. It surrounds the lower hills and lat areas in the southern and eastern part of the fortress. Kasımtığı fortress situated on the high hill which is northern part of central area, it might be a separate point in the northern border of the city (Fig 2-3, 5-6, 8-9). There are some parts of a long and thick wall that might belong to the city wall on a lower hill in the western slope of Kasımtığı fortress. Cemetery of site contains hundreds of kurgans and kromlekhs spread over all the lat places and lower lava hills around Melekli settlement complex (Figs 2-3, 5-6) which has pottery from the MBA to the LBA-EIA. It spreads extending to Hanago-Gölüstü mound to the south, and Deliktaş mound-Kurtbucağı to the north, these are large kurgans, differing from the ones in between fortresses (Figs. 2-3, 5), no pottery have been found in these large kurgans. Among the kurgans in the city, the largest one located between the Kasımtığı and Gre Herşe fortresss on a high hill (Örgülü Tepe) overlooking the whole Araxes valley differs from the rest because of its size and location (Figs. 2-3, 5-6, 8). There is a large kurgan in the middle of a platform (60 x 60 m) with terraces on the hill. Luhiuni, the capital of Erikua was the political center of the region of Mt Ağrı-southern bank of the Araxes river in pre-Urartu. The localization of LBA-EIA settlement at Melekli-Kasımtığı with Luihuni evidenced by the remains of largest fortiied-city in the region, and by its architecture which has irregular plan based on topography were made of uncut or roughly shaped stones and by the remains of extensive cemetery and its pottery both fortresses and cemetery belongs to LBA-EIA aside from a few MBA from graves and its geographical location and its closeness to Minuahinili. plan is not clear, spans c. 3 km with a citadel, lower city and a large cemetery (Figs. 2, 4, 10). Citadel consists of new Urartian Fortress (Fortress II) and a LBA-EIA fortress (Fortress I). Both fortresses situated over three separate hills overlooking the plain were surrounded by about 1 km long wall with its fragments can be seen. The lower city must have been existed in the plain, starting from right on the slope of the citadel where the inscription of King Minua to the Koruktepe mound. Since this area is within the borders of the modern city and the farmland we couldn’t determine the remains and boundaries of the city, but Koruktepe mound in within modern Karakoyunlu evidences that the city expands to this point. The LBA-EIA fortress at Karakoyunlu (fortress I), which is situated on the high hill overlooking the plain, shows an irregular plan that was created by the topography (Figs 10-11), its pottery is also typical for the period. The Urartian fortress (Karakoyunlu fortress II) located on the opposite lower hill stretching the plain12. On a third hill adjacent to these, Karakoyunlu fortress III has thick Middle Age layer and an Urartian rock-cut tomb on the eastern side (Fig. 10)13. Except for some sherds, it is dificult to obtain information about the levels because of the intense layer of Middle Age on it, but, some of the wall pieces related to the Urartian architecture are apparent. Karakoyunlu fortress II (Minuahinili) shows the characteristics of Urartu by its architecture and pottery. Semi-ashlar masonry was used in the construction of the walls with buttresses (Figs 10, 12). Fortress is 450 meters long and consists of two separate sections with differing elevations14. The Upper part has 250 m Minuahinili is located in Karakoyunlu settlement complex nearly 4 km away from Melekli to the east, closer to the Araxes river (Figs. 1-2, 4). The fortress-city at Minuahinili which was named after King Minua, was established on a lower hill stretching on the plain11. The city, although its 11 Contrary to the settlement system of pre-Urartian on the highlands and inaccessible hills, Urartian sites were built at much lower elevations, on the lower hills stretching the plains and valleys. In fact, settlement pattern of Urartu were based on controlling primarily roads, valleys-plains and other fertile lands for agriculture. It seems that, pre-Urartian settlement pattern and socio-economic structure one way or another survived, except for eastern and northern sides of the Lake Van basin which is central area of the kingdom and in the Urmia plain, along with the fortresses-cemeteries of the highlands. A great number of pre-Urartian fortresses continued into the Urartian period, in some cases minor changes are visible. The Urartian administrative centers which were founded on the borders of the kingdom combined local and Urartian architectural features.These fortress-cities or capitals of LBA-EIA were transformed into provincial or major 12 13 14 cities of Urartu, such as, Gavar-Khaldi, Tsovinar-Teishebaini, Tsovak, Lchashen, Arghuyti Dash, Horom, Aramus, Shisheh and Seqindel-Libliuni. Badalyan/Avetisyan 2007; Badalyan, R. S./Kohl, L. P./Kroll, S.1997; Badalyan/Kzlyan/Iskra/Mikalyelyan/Kyureghan 2016; Badalyan/Mikalyelyan/Kyureghan/Iskra/ Hovsepyan/Nahapetyan/Yeghiazaryan 2017; Baxşeliyev 2002; Bakhshaliyev/Marro 2009; Biscione 2002; Biscione 2003; Biscione 2009; Biscione 2012; Biscione/Dan 2011; Biscione/Dan 2012; Biscione 2012; Hammer 2014; Heinsch, S./Kuntner, W./ Avetisyan, H. 2012; Hmayakyan 2010; Kerimov 2003; Khanzaq, B. R./Biscione, R./Hejebri-Nobari, A. R./Salvini, M. 2001; Kleiss/Kroll 1980; Kohl/Kroll 1999; Kroll 2005; Kroll 2011; Kroll 2012; Narimanishvili 2012; Narimanishvili 2016; Özfırat 2009; Özfırat 2013; Özfırat 2014b; Özfırat 2015; Özfırat 2016; Özfırat 2017a; Özfırat 2017b; Rasuloglu 1993; Reinhold 2016; Ristvet, L./Bakhshaliyev, V./Gopnik, H./Ashurov, S. H. 2013; Sanamyan 2002; Sevin 2005; Sevin 2006; Sevin 2014; Shanshashvili/Narimanishvili 2013; Smith 1999; Smith 2003; Smith 2012; Smith/Badalyan/Avetisyan 2009. Ivanovskj and Nikol’skij mention two fortresses in Karakoyunlu, according to their descriptions, they must have made a small excavation in 1893 at the place we call Karakoyunlu II (Ivanovskj 1911: 37-38). Çevik 2000: No 18. This must be the hill where A. A. İvanovkiy and M. V. Nikol’skij excavated, yet there weren’t enough information from this shortterm excavation, since it includes only one structure, Ivanovskij 1911: 37-38; Nikol’skij 1896: 16, 22-27. 75 ERIQUA AND MINUAHINILI: AN EARLY IRON AGE - NAIRI KINGDOM AND URARTIAN PROVINCE ON THE NORTHERN SLOPE OF MT AĞRI Figure 7: Melekli-Luhiuni: Gre Herşe Fortress, Lower City Walls / Melekli-Luhiuni: Gre Herşe Kalesi, Aşağı Kent Surları 76 Aynur ÖZFIRAT Figure 8: Melekli-Luhiuni: Kasımtığı Fortress, Örgülütepe Kurgan / Melekli-Luhiuni: Kasımtığı Kalesi, Örgülütepe Kurganı 77 ERIQUA AND MINUAHINILI: AN EARLY IRON AGE - NAIRI KINGDOM AND URARTIAN PROVINCE ON THE NORTHERN SLOPE OF MT AĞRI Figure 9: Melekli-Luhiuni Forts / Melekli-Luhiuni Kuleler 78 Aynur ÖZFIRAT Figure 10: Karakoyunlu-Minuahinili / Karakoyunlu-Minuahinili 79 ERIQUA AND MINUAHINILI: AN EARLY IRON AGE - NAIRI KINGDOM AND URARTIAN PROVINCE ON THE NORTHERN SLOPE OF MT AĞRI Figure 11: Karakoyunlu-Minuahinili: Fortress I, Citadel South Gate and Wall / Karakoyunlu-Minuahinili: Kale I, Sitadel Güney Kapısı ve Duvarı 80 Aynur ÖZFIRAT Figure 12: Karakoyunlu-Minuahinili: Fortress II / Karakoyunlu-Minuahinili: Kale II 81 ERIQUA AND MINUAHINILI: AN EARLY IRON AGE - NAIRI KINGDOM AND URARTIAN PROVINCE ON THE NORTHERN SLOPE OF MT AĞRI Figure 13: Bulakbaşı Fortress 2 and General View of Fortress 4 / Bulakbaşı Kale 2 ve Kale 4 Genel Görünüm 82 Aynur ÖZFIRAT length and 70 m width with rectangular plan, the second part adjacent to the plain below has an irregular plan matching the topography with 200 meters of length. At the highest point, there is the Haldi temple with a square plan (4.00 x 3.5 m) as mentioned in the inscriptions of Minua: ‘… and built a fortress to the god Haldi in a perfect style ...’, ‘… He built a Haldi gate and a fortress in a perfect style …’. The fragments of wall surrounding the citadel can be traced to south and east. The gate to the cemetery in the south of the fortresses and the wall going to the east and wall pieces between the two fortresses in the north, level of the plain should belong to the wall of the citadel. The early fortress (I) in the west appears to have been reconstructed by the Urartians, and should have required this arrangement, since it is already at the western end of Minuahinili (fortress II). In this case, the citadel of the city appears to have been surrounded by a wall in much lower other directions, except for the western side which is a steep hill where the fortress I is located. In the south, the gate towards the cemetery indicates that it is a strong wall. We could not ind any information on whether the walls surrounding the citadel continued north to the lower city, since dense farming took place today at Iğdır plain. Karakoyunlu settlement complex has a large cemetery consisting of great numbers of graves, some Urartian chamber graves, mostly low kurgans and kromlekhs on the lower lava hills and the lat areas south of the fortresss in which the pottery of a few MBA, a great number of LBA-EIA and a number of MIA-Urartu have been found. Localization of the Karakoyunlu Fortress II with the fortress-city of Minuahinili, besides the discovery of rock-cut inscription of King Minua there and its geographical location, was by far the largest fortiied site and principal Urartian fortress on the northern side of Mt Ağrı. Karakoyunlu Fortress II is distinguished from the others in the region by its attentive architecture and Haldi temple, its graves and its classical Urartian pottery15. The Urartian settlement at the Karakoyunlu complex demonstrate city characteristic; a citadel surrounded by a wall which seems to enclose all three fortress, a large cemetery spread over a wide area between the lava hills in the south, together with a lower city located on the plain in the north constitute the units of the city. 1-2). They appear as various units supporting the administrative center: The fortresses at Bulakbaşı 2 and 4 near the southern bank of the Araxes river that appears to have been constructed at the same time with Minuahinili and a fortress-garrison town (Bulakbaşı 3-Aktaş fortress) next to them which established later were in southeast; an outpost-route station (Melekli-Lanetlitepe fortress), settlement and columbarium were in the west; an outpostroute station (Bozkurt fortress II) and a central fortress (Ömerağa-Gölyüzü fortress) in the Doğubayazıt plain were on the southern slope of Mt. Ağrı. Bulakbaşı fortresses located c. 4 km southeast of Minuahinili (Karakoyunlu) at a closer point further east to the Araxes river, on the shore of Lake Bulakbaşı (Figs 1-2, 13-16)16. This area, which is recessed southward along the skirts of Mt. Ağrı, is the richest wetlands of the region. Lake Bulakbaşı is also the exit point of Karasu River which is a branch of the Araxes river. Urartian fortresses at Bulakbaşı (2-4) and a big kurgan (Bulakbaşı 1) located on the surrounding hills on the western shore of lake. They are all on adjacent hills: Kurgan (Bulakbaşı 1), Fortress 4, Fortress 2 and Fortress 3-Aktaş lies from north to south. Bulakbaşı fortress 2 situated on a low hill adjacent to the fortress of Bulakbaşı 3-Aktaş and next to the lake (Fig. 13, 15-16)17. The plan of the fortress is partly clear due to a Middle Age level on top. A rough plan of the fortress is rectangular, with 200 m length with. The walls were built with semi-ashler stones, had a thickness of 3.00 m. Remains of two adjacent interior rooms in the plan of rectangular are visible on the northern corner. Bulakbaşı fortress 4 is on a high hill adjacent to the kurgan (Bulakbaşı fortress 1), (Fig. 14)18. The lay out of the fortress is rectangular, with 130 m length (the existing part) and 50 m width. Although the plan of the southern part of the fortress remains undeined, the main gate (3.60 m wide) into the citadel appears to have been on the northern side, overlooking the kurgan (Bulakbaşı fortress 1). 16 Minuahinili, the Urartian political center of the region was strengthened with new constructions in time (Figs 15 We found a large number of Late Iron Age pottery both Karakoyunlu Fortress II and Koruktepe mound and also from Melekli-Kültepe mound showing of the presence of an large Achaemenid settlement. 17 18 Ivanovskj and Nikol’skij recorded three fortress, on the western shore of Lake Bulakbaşı (Fig. 15). Enumerating the fortresses of Bulakbaşı No. 1 and 2 (we used the same), from here to the south, they inally did research on Bulakbaşı 3-Aktaş, which they called the Great Fortress. Ivanovskij 1911: 38-56; Nikol’skij 1896: 17-18, 28-29. We have found a new Urartian fortress (Bulakbaşı 4) on a high hill between Bulakbaşı 1 and 2. I would like to offer my sincere thanks to Dr. Ayhan Yardımcıel for his help in Bulakbaşı studies. Ivanovskij 1911: 55-56. The site has not been investigated by İvanovsky. 83 ERIQUA AND MINUAHINILI: AN EARLY IRON AGE - NAIRI KINGDOM AND URARTIAN PROVINCE ON THE NORTHERN SLOPE OF MT AĞRI Figure 14: Bulakbaşı Kurgan (Fortress 1) and Fortress 4 / Bulakbaşı Kurgan (Kale 1) ve Kale 4 84 Aynur ÖZFIRAT Bulakbaşı 3-Aktaş fortress-garrison town is located dominating entire plain-valley on a very high hill adjacent to Bulakbaşı fortress 2 (see fn 14), (Figs. 13, 1516)19. The plan of the fortress is roughly triangle-shaped, it has strong walls which has dimensions of 500 x 280 m and 3 m thickness built semi ashlar masonry. Three gates reached by ramps are on the walls which were regularly buttressed, main gate is situated on the east with towers and a long-wide ramp. The traces of architecture inside are very weak and a few pottery was found in the fortress20, for this reason, it is possible to claim that this was not established as a settlement. Given its situation on an extremely high hill and its plan which is not typical of Urartu and the closeness to Minuahinili; it must have been used as a garrison-town. Its localization on the shore of Lake Bulakbaşı and the Karasu river which lows to the Araxes river must have been an important reason to build such a big fortress. Bulakbaşı 3-Aktaş fortress shows the architectural features of the 7th century BC. It is possible to admit that it was established on the northern bank of the Araxes river by Rusa, son of Argishti II, during the foundation of the new political center Teishebaini (Karmir Blur), and the reorganization in Aza. Bulakbaşı fortress 1 is a kurgan although Ivanovskj recorded as a fortress and numerated Bulakbaşı 1 (Fig. 14-15)21. Unfortunately, no suficient information reported from his excavation. It is situated on a small and low hill northwestern end of lake. The kurgan is 8 m in diameter in the middle of a square platform (10 x 10 m) with terraces which built semi-ashlar masonry. It is dificult to date it, no pottery has been found. The plan of İvanovsky is not very different, the kurgan lies on the eastern corner, platform is much more visible and a small passage on the west wall which we couldn’t have seen. The fortresses at Bulakbaşı usually known as Minuahinili from inscription reported from Başbulak-Bulakbaşı in the literature. No distinction was made for the three fortresses of Bulakbaşı investigated by İvanovsky, the site recorded as a single fortress. As we mentioned above, the ind spot of the Bulakbaşı inscription are unclear and fortress II at Karakoyunlu much more convenient for the localization of Minuahinili, in fact, it can be considered as a single settlement because of both sites are very close to each other. The architecture of fortresses at Bulakbaşı 2 and 4 were semi-ashlar masonry which is typical for Urartu. Unfortunately, it is very dificult to distinguish which one was built by Minua, no pottery has been found in the fortresses and the plans of Bulakbaşı fortresses 19 20 21 Ivanovskij 1911: 56-59; Nikol’skij 1896: 19-20, Great Fortress; Özfırat 2014a. These sherds shows EIA features, probably they belong to an earlier building. Ivanovskij 1911: 54-55. are not typical. The fortress at Bulakbaşı 3-Aktaş is separated from others by its architecture, which shows late Urartian characteristics. The fact that the ind spot of the Bulakbaşı inscriptions are not fully known create a problem, nevertheless, the presence of inscriptions related to the foundation of Minuahinili near the fortresses thoughts that one of the fortresses of Bulakbaşı 2 and 4 was built by Minua. It seems that, the Lake Bulakbaşı densely fortiied by the Urartians due to its geographical location, most likely for military activities. King Minua, probably Argishti I and afterwards Rusa, son of Argishti II should have preferred this fertile area of Lake Bulakbaşı which is also very close to the Araxes river. Its location on the crossroads of southern Transcaucasia and northwestern Iran in the valley, and its closeness to the primary administrative centers like Erebuni (Arin Berd), Argishtihinili (Armavir) and Teishebaini (Karmir Blur) are situated in across the Araxes river, and absence of pottery in the fortresses strengthening the assumption of their military base. Melekli Urartian settlement is situated c. 4 km west of Minuahinili, at the northwestern end of Mt Ağrı22. It is located in Melekli settlement complex and just below the LBA-EIA city of Luhiuni-Kasımtığı, on the interconnected low lava hills that extend into plains. (Figs. 1-3, 6). Melekli Urartian settlement consist of interrelated units: Outpost-route station (Lanetlitepe fortress), fort ? (Deliktaş mound), columbarium (Kültepe) and settlement (Kültepe mound)23. It seems that the Urartian settlement at Melekli was established in 8th century BC. The Melekli-Lanetlitepe fortress has an image belonging the early 8th century BC, an outpost-route station with its location, planning and size. Columbarium is dated to the second half of the 7th century BC and is considered a cemetery belonging to the military garrison of Urartu. It must have been established by King Minua during the irst time the region was incorporated into the Urartian borders or during the conquest of the northern part of the Araxes river by King Argishti I (785/80-756 BC). Melekli, with its location at the west end of the plain and 22 23 Özfırat 2017b In general, Kültepe mound and Columbarium named as a single site as Kültepe, Melekli or Iğdır. The reason of this confusion is because they are next to each other over a single hill and the Urartian level in the mound is not deined yet (Fig. 3, 6). First excavation at Melekli-Kültepe (Iğdır) mound and Urartian Columbarium were carried out by P.F. Petrov in 1913. Second excavation at Urartian Columbarium was carried out by K. Balkan in 1966. The material of excavation of P. F. Petrov in Tbilisi was published later by B. A. Kuftin, see Kuftin 1944. The summary and additional information related to the Columbarium part of this publication was published in English by R. D. Barnett, see Barnett 1963. The material of excavation of K. Balkan was not published, for a short informations see Mellink 1967 and Alkım 1968. The material of Balkan excavation in Kars Museum was studied by us, see Özfırat 2017b. 85 ERIQUA AND MINUAHINILI: AN EARLY IRON AGE - NAIRI KINGDOM AND URARTIAN PROVINCE ON THE NORTHERN SLOPE OF MT AĞRI Figure 15: Map of Taşburun (Bulakbaşı-Karakoyunlu) and Bulakbaşı 3-Aktaş Fortress, Investigations of A. A. Ivanovskij and M. V. Nikol’skij / Taşburun (Bulakbaşı-Karakoyunlu) Haritası ve Bulakbaşı 3-Aktaş Kalesi, A. A. Ivanovskij ve M. V. Nikol’skij Araştırması 86 Aynur ÖZFIRAT Figure 16: Bulakbaşı 3-Aktaş Fortress and General View of Bulakbaşı Fortress 2 / Bulakbaşı 3-Aktaş Kalesi ve Bulakbaşı 2 Kalesi Genel Görünüm 87 ERIQUA AND MINUAHINILI: AN EARLY IRON AGE - NAIRI KINGDOM AND URARTIAN PROVINCE ON THE NORTHERN SLOPE OF MT AĞRI on the Mt Ağrı gateway, was the most important point between the city of Minuahinili and eastern Anatolia. The Urartian fortress at Ömerağa-Gölyüzü and outpostroute station at Bozkurt Fortress 2 are located in Bozkurt settlement complex on the southern slope of Mt Ağrı (Doğubayazıt plain) and on the shore of Lake Saz-Şeyhli (Figs. 1)24. The Urartian pottery of Ömerağa-Gölyüzü, and its architecture and location relative to the other sites in the plain suggests that it was the primary center in the southern slope of Mt Ağrı connected with Minuahinili. The area was also controlled an outpost-route station at Bozkurt (Fortress 2) which is located on a very high hill dominating the plain and on the western pass of Mt Ağrı (Figs. 1)25. The fortress at Ömerağa-Gölyüzü was also important with its location on the main road of northwestern Iran where the early provinces of the kingdom are located. Both fortresses must have been built during the foundation of Minuahinili because of the earlier pottery of the fortress at ÖmerağaGölyüzü. CONCLUSION Northern part of Mt Ağrı was densily populated covering a long chronological sequence, from the Late Chalcolithic to the Late Iron Age (Achaemenid) in contrast to the rest of the highland of eastern Anatolia by its land use which is the most agricultural area in the region and its location on the crossroads of southern Transcaucasia and northwestern Iran via the Araxes river valley. Thereof, the most remarkable sites of pre-Urartian and Urartian in the region are in the Iğdır plain and on the surrounding hills. Basically, to deine the exact location of pre-Urartian local polities are dificult in the highland of eastern Anatolia, as a result of insuficient epigraphic data and lack of stratigraphic excavations. The most remarkable information comes from the area of Mt Ağrı when considered the epigraphic sources and archaeological data. The central fortresses or fortresscities of LBA-EIA which are mainly parts of settlement complexes are suggested to be political centers or capital of small kingdoms of Nairi, with the foundation of the kingdom of Biainili, these sites were transformed into provincial cities, primary administrative centers or major fortresses of Urartu. Inscriptions of King Minua inform to conquest of Erikua which is a local pre-Urartian polity, situated on the southern bank of the Araxes river and foundation of the city of Minuahinili. Luhiuni, the royal city of Erikua; and Minuahinili, the new fortress-city of Urartu located in 24 25 Özfırat 2016. It is dificult to date since we didn’t make any excavation, and a few pottery have the characteristics of 8th-7th century BC. Yet, its situation on the western gateway on Mt. Ağrı between the plains of Doğubayazıt and Iğdır strengthen the possibility of its foundation dating back the irst campaigns of Minua. settlement complexes at Melekli and Karakoyunlu (Iğdır) on the northern slope of Mt Ağrı (Iğdır plain-south of the Araxes valley) according to the result of our survey. Kasımtığı-Gre Herşe at Melekli settlement complex is the largest of the LBA-EIA fortresses in the region showing city characteristic. Luhiuni, the capital of Erikua and the political center of the region in pre-Urartu must be the large fortress-city at Kasımtığı-Gre Herşe which surrounded by fortiication walls (Figs. 1-3, 5-6). The new fortress-city at Karakoyunlu II-Minuahinili was established as a political center of the region when the Luhiuni captured by King Minua. In this manner, territorial control and the military organization of the north-eastern frontier of the kingdom were substantially completed. The construction of Minuahinili supported in time by fortresses, garrison-towns, outposts, road stations and settlements surrounding the city. It seems that, King Minua established the Bulakbaşı fortresses 2 and 4 for military activities on the northern slope which was located at a closer point further east to Araxes valley for defense of the city of Minuahinili and campaigns of southern Transcaucasia. The area densely fortiied by the Urartians due to its geographical location. King Minua, probably Argishti I afterwards Rusa, son of Argishti II must have preferred the area of Lake Bulakbaşı because of its fertile land and its setting up a forward point on the crossroad of southern Transcaucasia and northwestern Iran as shown by the fortress at Bulakbaşı 3-Aktaş. Mt Ağrı western pass was controlled from both sides by the Melekli and Bozkurt outposts-route stations and the central fortress at Ömerağa-Gölyüzü on the southern slope which was located at a closer point further east to northwestern Iran such as Bulakbaşı on the north (Figs. 1-2, 11). The plain of Doğubayazıt on the southern slope of mountain also was important for the kingdom of Urartu because of its location on the main routes leading to Tushpa in the south, to Caucasia in the north, to Euphrates valley in the west via the Murat river valley and to northwesten Iran in the east. Thus, the infrastructure for southern Transcaucasia campaigns and consolidation with new cities and provinces was established in northwestern Iran-Lake Urmia. Probably, the strengthening of Minuahinili continued during the foundation of Argishtihinili (Armavir) and construction of the northern bank of the Araxes river as a province of Urartu by Argishti I seems to have been completed by Rusa, the son of Argishti II (c. 675‘s BC). Rusa has increased its power in the eastern and northern regions of the kingdom with its large-scale construction activities such as the new cities Teishebaini (Karmir Blur) and Rusaihinili (Bastam). Bulakbaşı 3-Aktaş Fortress, located in the east of Minuahinili and very close to the river, must have been built as a garrison-town during the reorganization of King Rusa. 88 Aynur ÖZFIRAT ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We would like here to thank warmly the Turkish Ministry of Culture and Tourism, General Directorate for Monuments and Museums for giving permission and support to work Mt Ağrı Survey (2002-2011) and Excavation of Bozkurt Kurgan Cemetery (2007-2013). Project is also supported by Governor of Ağrı, TÜBITAK (The Scientiic and Technical Research Council of Turkey (SBB-105K063), Van Yüzüncü Yıl University (2002FED-093), Mustafa Kemal University (1003M0113/45, 1101M0115/158, 1201M0102/258, 10240) and the Turkish Historical Society. Our special thanks goes to Prof. Dr. Veli Sevin with his kind help. I would like warmly thanks also to Dr. Yervand Grekyan, Dr. Ayhan Yardımcıel and Dr. Behlul İbrahimli for their kind help. BIBLIOGRAPHY ALKIM, H. 1968. “Explorations and Excavations in Turkey, 1965-1966”, Anatolica 2: 1–74. BADALYAN, R. S./KOHL, L. P./KROLL, S. 1997. “Horom 1995”, Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 29: 191-228. BADALYAN, R. S./AVETISYAN, P. S. 2007. Bronze and Early Iron Age Archaeological Sites in Armenia I: Mt Aragats and its Surrounding Region, Archaeopress (BAR International Series 1697). Oxford. BADALYAN, M./KZLYAN, V./ISKRA, M./MIKALYELYAN, A./KYUREGHAN, H. 2016. “Odzaberd (Tsovinar): A Brief Preliminary report on the 2014-2015 Excavations”, Agean World and South Caucasus: Cultural Relations in the Bronze Age, Proceedings of International Workshop Held on September 23-25, 2016 in Tbilisi, (Eds. M. Kvachadze/G. Narimanishvili). Mtsignobari, Tbilisi: 163-177. BADALYAN, M./MIKALYELYAN, A./KYUREGHAN, H./ISKRA, M./HOVSEPYAN, R./NAHAPETYAN, S./YEGHIAZARYAN, A. 2017. “Prelimenary Results of the 2014-2016 Archaeological Excavations in Odzaberd”, Metsamorian Readings 1 (Selected scientic articles) Yerevan: 205-246. BARNETT, R. D. 1963. “The Urartian Cemetery at Igdyr”, Anatolian Studies XIII: 153–198. BAXŞELIYEV, V. 2002. Naxçivanın Erken Demir Dövrü Medeniyyeti, Azerbaycan Milli Elmler Akademiyası, Naxcıvan Regional Elmi Merkezi. Bakü BAKHSHALIYEV, V./MARRO, C. 2009. The Archaeology of Nakhichevan: Ten Years of New Discoveries. Istanbul. BISCIONE, R. 2002. “The Iron Age Settlement Pattern: Pre-Urartian and Urartian Periods”, The North-Eastern Frontier: Urartians and Non-Urartians in the Sevan Lake Basin: I. The Southern Shores (Eds. R. Biscione/S. Hmayakyan/N. Parmegiani). CNR Istituto di Studi sulle civiltà dell’Egeo e del Vicino Oriente, Documante Asiana VII. Rome: 351–370. BISCIONE, R. 2003. “Pre-Urartian and Urartian settlement patterns in the Caucasus, Two Case Studies: The Urmia Plain, Iran, and the Sevan Basin, Armenia”, Archaeology in the Borderlands: Investigations in Caucasia and Beyond, (Eds. A. T. Smith/K. S. Rubinson). University of California, Cotsen Institute of Archaeology 47. Los Angeles: 167–184. BISCIONE, R. 2009. “The Distribution of Pre- and Protohistoric Hillforts in Iran”, Studi Micenei ed Egeo Anatolici 51: 123–143. BISCIONE, R. 2012. “Urartian Fortiications in Iran: An Attempt A Hierarchical Classiication”, Biainili-Urartu: The Proceedings of the Symposium held in Munich (Munich, 12-14 October 2007), (Eds. S. Kroll/C. Gruber/U. Helwag/M. Roaf/P. Zimansky). Acta Iranica 51. Leuven: 77–88. BISCIONE, R./DAN, R. 2011. “Dimensional and Geographical Distribution of the Urartian Fortiications in the Republic of Armenia”, Aramazd (Armenian Journal of Near Eastern Studies) 6/2: 104–120. BISCIONE, R./DAN, R. 2014. “Ranking and Distribution of the Urartian Fortiications in Turkey”, SCRIPTA: Veli Sevin’e Armağan, Arkeolojiyle Geçen Bir Yaşam İçin Yazılar/Essays in Honour of Veli Sevin. A Life Immersed in Archaeology (Ed. A. Özfırat), İstanbul: 121–136. 89 ERIQUA AND MINUAHINILI: AN EARLY IRON AGE - NAIRI KINGDOM AND URARTIAN PROVINCE ON THE NORTHERN SLOPE OF MT AĞRI BISCIONE, R./HMAYAKYAN S./HAKOBYAN, H./ PARMEGIANI, N. 2012. “Activities of the Armenian-Italian Archaeological Expedition in the Sevan Lake Basin 1994-2009”, Archaeology of Armenia in Regional Context: Proceedings of the International Conference dedicated to the 50th Anniversary of the Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography Held on September 1-17, 2009 in Yerevan (Eds. P. Avetisyan/A. Bobokhyan). Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography, NAS RA, Yerevan: 64–69. ÇEVİK, N. 2000. Urartu Kaya Mezarları ve Ölü Gömme Gelenekleri. Ankara. HAMMER, E. 2014. “Highland Fortress-Polities and Their Settlement systems in the South Caucasus”, Antiquity 88/341: 757774. HEINSCH, S./KUNTNER, W./AVETISYAN, H. 2012. “The Iron Age Fortress of Aramus, Armenia: Archaeological Evidence of the East and Norths Forts”, Archaeology of Armenia in Regional Context: Proceedings of the International Congference dedicated to the 50th Anniversary of the Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography Held on September 1-17, 2009 in Yerevan (Eds. P. Avetisyan/A. Bobokhyan). Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography. NAS RA. Yerevan: 133-147. HMAYAKYAN, S. 2010. “The Study of Urartian Monuments in The Republic of Armenia (1992-2007)”, Urartu and Its Neighbors, Festschrift in Honor of Nicolay Harutyunyan in Occasion of His 90th Birthday (22-24 September, 2009, Yerevan). (Eds. A. Kosyan/A. Petrosyan/Y. Grekyan), Association for Near Eastern and Caucasian Studies, Aramazd 5/2: 9-20. IVANOVSKIJ, A. A. 1911. Po Zakavkaz’ju: Arxeologičeskija nabljudenija i izsledovanija 1893, 1894 i 1896 gg., Materialy po arxeologii Kavkaza VI, Sobrannye ēkspedicijami Imperatorskago Moskovskago Arxeologičeskago Obščestva, snarjažennymi na Vysočajše darovannyja sredstva, Tipograija i Slovolitnja Ottona Osipoviča Gerbeka, Moskva. KERIMOV, V. 2003. Oboronitel’nye sooruženiya Azerbaidžana drevnego perioda (III-I tys. do n.ē). Akademija Nauk Azerbaidžanskoj SSR. Baku. KHANZAQ, B. R./BISCIONE, R./HEJEBRI-NOBARI, A. R./SALVINI, M. 2001. “Haldi’s Garrison-Haldi’s Protection. The Newly Found Rock Inscription of Argisti II, in Shisheh, Near Ahar (East Azerbaijan, Iran)”, Studi Micenei ed Egeo Anatolici XLIII/1: 25-37. KLEISS, W./KROLL, S. 1980. “Die Burgen von Libliuni (Seqindel)”, Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran 13: 21–61. KOHL, P. L./S. KROLL 1999. “Notes on the Fall of Horom”, Iranica Antiqua 34: 243259 KROLL, S. 2005. “The Southern Urmia Basin in the Early Iron Age”, Iranica Antiqua 40: 65–85. KROLL, S. 2011. “Urartian Cities in İran/İran’daki Urartu Şehirleri”, Urartu: Doğu’da Değişim/Urartu: Transformation in the East, (Eds. K. Köroğlu/E. Konyar). İstanbul: 150-169. KROLL, S. 2012. “Ermenistan ve İran’daki Urartu”, Aktüel Arkeoloji 30: 140–147. KUFTIN, B. A. 1944. “Urartskij ‘kolymbarij’ u podošvy Ararata i KuroArakskij Ēneolit”, Vestnik Gosudarstvennogo Muzeja Gruzii XIII-B, Izdatel’stvo Academii nauk Gruz SSR, Tbilisi: 1–171. LEHMANN-HAUPT, F. C. 1910. Armenien Eins und Jetzt I: vom Kaukasus zum Tigris und nach Tigranokerta, B. Behr’s Verlag. Berlin. MELLINK, M. J. 1967. “Archaeology in Asia Minor”, American Journal of Archaeology 71: 155-174. 90 Aynur ÖZFIRAT NARIMANISHVILI, G. 2012. “Archaeological Investigations in Trialeti”, Archaeology of Armenia in Regional Context: Proceedings of the International Congference dedicated to the 50th Anniversary of the Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography Held on September 1-17, 2009 in Yerevan (Eds. P. Avetisyan/A. Bobokhyan), Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography. NAS RA. Yerevan: 88105. NARIMANISHVILI, G. 2016. “The Cyclopean Settlements of South Georgia ant the Prospects for its Study (Abstract)”, Agean World and South Caucasus: Cultural Relations in the Bronze Age, Proceedings of International Workshop Held on September 23-25, 2016 in Tbilisi (Eds. M. Kvachadze/G. Narimanishvili). Mtsignobari. Tbilisi: 210-215. NIKOL’SKIJ, M. V. 1896. Klinoobraznye nadpisi Zakavkaz’ja, Materialy po Arxeologii Kavkaza V, Sobrannye ēkspedicijami Imperatorskago Moskovskago Arxeologičeskago Obščestva, snarjažennymi na Vysočajše darovannyja sredstva, Tipograija i Slovolitnja Ottona Osipoviča Gerbeka. Moscow. ÖZFIRAT, A. 2005. “Doğu Anadolu’da Yerel Bir Krallık: Erikua”, Arkeoatlas 4: Kralların Coğrafyası, Doğu’nun Demir Çağı (Ed. N. Karul). İstanbul: 79. ÖZFIRAT, A. 2009. “Van Gölü Havzası Yüzey Araştırması: Patnos Ovası Demir Çağ Yerleşimleri”, Altan Çilingiroğlu’na Armağan: Yukarı Deniz’in Kıyısında Urartu Krallığı’na Adanmış Bir Hayat - Studies in Honour of Altan Çilingiroğlu: A Life Dedicated to Urartu on the Shores of the Upper Sea (Eds. H. Sağlamtimur/E. Abay). İstanbul: 455–478. ÖZFIRAT, A. 2013. “Survey on the settlements of Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age in the north shore of Lake Van Basin”, Austausch und Kulturkontakt im Südkaukasus und Seinen Angrenzenden Regionen SpätbronzeFrüheisenzeit (Eds. A. Mehnert/G. Mehnert/S. Reinhold). Martin-Luther Universtät Halle-Wittenberg, Zentrums für Archäologie und Kulturgeschichte des Schwarzmeerraumes 22. Beier & Beran Verlag. Langenweißbach: 237–249. ÖZFIRAT, A. 2014a. “Aktaş: Ağrı Dağı’nın Kuzey Eteğinde-Aras Vadisi’nde bir Urartu Kalesi”, SCRIPTA: Veli Sevin’e Armağan, Arkeolojiyle Geçen Bir Yaşam İçin Yazılar/Essays in Honour of Veli Sevin. A Life Immersed in Archaeology (Ed. A. Özfırat). İstanbul: 111–120. ÖZFIRAT, A. 2014b. “Ağrı Dağı ve Van Gölü Havzası Yüzey Araştırması (Muş-Bitlis-Van-Ağrı-Iğdır İlleri ve İlçeleri)”, Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi, Fen-Edebiyat Fakültesi, Arkeoloji Bölümü Kazı ve Araştırma Projeleri (Eds. A. Özfırat/N. Coşkun). Antakya: 17-43. ÖZFIRAT, A. 2015. “Investigations in the Çaldıran Plain-Van Lake Basin: During the Middle Iron Age”, Proceedings of 15th Symposium on Mediterranean Archaeology (SOMA) I, held at the University of Catania 3-5 March 2011 (Eds. P. M. Militello/H. Öniz). BAR International Series 2695 (I). Oxford: 71-79. ÖZFIRAT, A. 2016. “The Late Bronze-Early Iron Age-Urartu Complex at Bozkurt on the Southern Slope of Mt. Ağrı”, At the Northern Frontier of Near Eastern Archaeology: Recent Research on Caucasia and Anatolia in the Bronze AgeProceedings of the international Humboldt-Kolleg (Venice 9th- January 12th, 2013). (Eds. E. Rova/M. Tonussi). Subartu XXXVIII. Turnhout: 299-310, ÖZFIRAT, A. 2017a. “Highland Fortresses-Cemeteries and Settlement Complexes of Muş Plains-Mt Süphan in the Lake Van Basin from the Middle Bronze to the Middle Iron Age (Urartu)”, TÜBA-AR 20: 53-80. ÖZFIRAT, A. 2017b. “Melekli-Kültepe (Iğdır) Höyüğü, Urartu Kalesi ve Columbarium: Ağrı Dağı’nın Kuzey Eteğindeki Minuahinili (Karakoyunlu) Kenti-Melekli-Kültepe (Iğdır) Mound, Urartian Fortress and Columbarium in Minuahinili (Karakoyunlu) on the Northern Slope of Mt Ağrı”, OLBA XXV: 161-182. ÖZFIRAT, A. In Press. “The Urartian Kingdom in the Mt Ağrı”, Proceedings of 20th Symposium on Mediterranean Archaeology (SOMA). (Saint Petersburg, 12-14 May 2016). 91 ERIQUA AND MINUAHINILI: AN EARLY IRON AGE - NAIRI KINGDOM AND URARTIAN PROVINCE ON THE NORTHERN SLOPE OF MT AĞRI PAYNE, M. 2006. Urartu Çivi Yazılı Belgeler Kataloğu. İstanbul. CNR Istituto di Studi sulle civiltà dell’Egeo e del Vicino Oriente. Documanta Asiana VII. Rome: 319–325. RASULOGLU, T. 1993. Ciklopičeskie sooruženija na territorii Azerbadžana, Akademija nauk Azerbaidžanskoi SSR. Baku. SEVİN, V. 2005. “Urartu Krallığı”, Arkeoatlas 4: Kralların Coğrafyası, Doğu’nun Demir Çağı (Ed. N. Karul), İstanbul: 62–123. REINHOLD, S. 2016. “Late Bronze Age Architecture in Caucasia and Beyond”, At the Northern Frontier of Near Eastern Archaeology: Recent Research on Caucasia and Anatolia in the Bronze Age/Proceedings of the International Humboldt-Kolleg (Venice 9th- January 12th, 2013). (Eds. In E. Rova/M. Tonussi, Subartu XXXVIII. Turnhout: 337-368. SEVİN, V. 2006. “Keçikıran: Van Bölgesinden Yarım Kalmış Bir Urartu Projesi”, Hayat Erkanal’a Armağan: Kültürlerin Yansıması-Studies in Honor of Hayat Erkanal: Cultural Relections (Eds. A. Erkanal-Öktü/E. Özgen/S. Günel), İstanbul: 585-588. RISTVET, L./BAKHSHALIYEV, V./GOPNIK, H./ ASHUROV, S. H. 2013. “The Origins of Political Complexity in Naxçıvan: Excavations and Survey at Oglankala 2008-2010”, Austausch und Kulturkontakt im Südkaukasus und Seinen Angrenzenden Regionen SpätbronzeFrüheisenzeit, (Eds. A. Mehnert/G. Mehnert/S. Reinhold), Martin-Luther Universtät Halle-Wittenberg, Zentrums für Archäologie und Kulturgeschichte des Schwarzmeerraumes 22, Beier & Beran Verlag, Langenweißbach: 281-290. SALVINI, M. 2002. “The Historical Geography of the Sevan Region in the Urartian Period”, The North-Eastern Frontier: Urartians and Non-Urartians in the Sevan Lake Basin: I. The Southern Shores (Eds. R. Biscione/S. Hmayakyan/ N. Parmegiani), CNR Istituto di Studi sulle civiltà dell’Egeo e del Vicino Oriente, Documanta Asiana VII, Rome: 37–60. SALVINI, M. 2006. Urartu Tarihi ve Kültürü (Geschichte und Kultur der Urartäer Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1995 Darmstadt). (Translated by B. Aksoy). İstanbul. SALVINI, M. 2008. CTU-Corpus dei Testi Urartei, I-III, CNR-Istituto di Studi Sulle Civilta dell’Egeo e del Vicino Oriente. Documenta Asiana VIII.1-3. Rome. SANAMYAN H. 2002. “The Fortress of Tsovinar (Odzaberd). The City of God Teisheba”, The North-Eastern Frontier: Urartians and Non-Urartians in the Sevan Lake Basin: I. The Southern Shores (Eds. R. Biscione/S. Hmayakyan/N. Parmegiani) SEVİN, V. 2014. “Van/Ernis-Evditepe ve Alacahan Mezarlık ve Yerleşmeleri Hakkında Kimi Düşünceler. Demir Çağları Sorunu”, Armağan Erkanal’a Armağan: Anadolu Kültürlerine Bir Bakış/Compiled in Honor of Armağan Erkanal: Some Observations on Anatolia Cultures (Ed. N. Çınardalı-Karaarslan). Ankara: 355– 368. SHANSHASHVILI, N./NARIMANISHVILI, G. 2013. “Late Bronze/Early Iron Age Sites in Trialeti-External relations and Cultural Contacts”, Proceedings of the Symposium on Austausch und Kulturkontakt im Südkaukasus und Seinen Angrenzenden Regionen Spätbronze-Früheisenzeit (Wittenberg 21-24 October 2010), (Eds. A. Mehnert/G. Mehnert/S. Reinhold). Martin-Luther Universtät Halle-Wittenberg, Zentrums für Archäologie und Kulturgeschichte des Schwarzmeerraumes 22. Beier&Beran Verlag. Langenweißbach: 175–194. SMITH, A. T. 1999. “Making of an Urartian Landscape in Southern Transcaucasia: A Study of Political Architectonics”, American Journal of Archaeology 103: 45–71. SMITH, A. T. 2003. The Political Landscape. Constellations of Authority in Early Complex Polities. Berkeley-Los Angeles-London. SMITH, A. T. 2012. “The Prehistory of An Urartian Landscape, BiainiliUrartu: The Proceedings of the Symposium held in Munich, 12-14 October 2007 (Eds. S. Kroll/C. Gruber/U. Helwag/M. Roaf/P. Zimansky). Acta Iranica 51. Leuven: 39–52. 92 Aynur ÖZFIRAT SMITH, A. T./BADALYAN, R./AVETISYAN, P. 2009. The Archaeology and Geography of Ancient Transcaucasian Societies 1: The Foundations of Research and Regional Survey in the Tsaghkahovit Plain, Armenia. Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Chicago.