The Origins of the Urartians in the Light of the Van/Karagündüz Excavations

Author(s): Veli Sevin

Source: Anatolian Studies , 1999, Vol. 49, Anatolian Iron Ages 4. Proceedings of the
Fourth Anatolian Iron Ages Colloquium Held at Mersin, 19-23 May 1997 (1999), pp. 159-
164
Published by: British Institute at Ankara

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3643071

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3643071?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

British Institute at Ankara is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access
to Anatolian Studies

This content downloaded from

194.27.218.120 on Tue, 27 May 2025 10:14:22 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 The origins of the Urartians in the light of the

Van/Karagiindtiz excavations

Veli Sevin

Canakkale Onsekiz Mart University

The Urartian Kingdom, as is well known, played a major According to cuneiform records and especially to
power role on the stage of history in eastern Anatoliaphilological
in studies, the Urartians were based in the area
the second half of the ninth century BC and remained
well to the south of Lake Van, at present the border area
powerful until the second half of the seventh century BC.
of Turkey, Iran and Iraq, around the holy town of Musasir
With their highly advanced architectural traditions and
(Salvini 1982: 31; Haas 1986: 23, 26). In fact infor-
organised state structure, the Urartians take their place
mation about the location and culture of the Urartians is
among the most exciting civilisations of the first half inconsiderable
of before they appeared in history around
the first millennium BC in the Near East. 830 BC as a strong state with their capital city at Tushpa
Extensive detailed research and publication has been(Van Kale). There is no agreement, for instance, on the
carried out on Urartian civilisation for over a hundredlocation of cities such as Arzashkun and Sugunia
years, but the origin and dynamics of the developmentmentioned
of by the Assyrian king Shalmaneser III (Salvini
this civilisation are still obscure. The Assyrian annals,1982: 5; Burney 1966: 60). On the present evidence, like
which start from the 13th century BC, are at present the
a shooting star from the darkness of the past, the
only source for understanding the early periods. These
Urartians appear to us all of a sudden as a strong state
records were intended as propaganda and their accuracy
and an important civilisation.
is in many instances thus questionable. Is the actual situation like this? Did this civilisation
The Assyrian royal annals mention peoples named suddenly
as appear around Lake Van? Did they emigrate
Nairi and Ur(u)atri who lived in the north of their region,
from another region? Alternatively, did they undergo a
and they also mention the existence of a large number development
of stage in the same area, which may have
kings and kingdoms. The Assyrian king Shalmaneser taken
I hundreds of years? Archaeological information is
(1274-1245 BC), for example, recorded that Uruatri the most important evidence with which to attempt to
consisted of eight countries (tribes) (Grayson 1976: no
solve these problems, although this information is sparse.
527). Tukulti-Ninurta I (1244-1208 BC) and Tiglath-
Additionally, long-term systematic excavations at
pileser I (1115-1077 BC) mentioned that Nairi had Urartian fortresses have not provided evidence with
between 23 and 60 kings (Grayson 1976: nos 715, 721, which to solve the problem of Urartian origins. The
760, 773, 803). It was later understood, however, that archaeological evidence indicates that a pastoral lifestyle
these rulers who were called kings were in fact only took over from a settled lifestyle at the end of the third
chiefs of tribes which did not develop into centralised millennium in eastern Anatolia. According to this, the
states in eastern Anatolia. According to this inforination, transition back to settled life only occurred after the
it was believed that Nairi extended from the Tur-Abdin second half of the ninth century BC, an interval of about
mountains in the south to the mountainous area 1000 years. Certainly there is adequate evidence in
southwest of Lake Van in the north. Uruatri, however, is
eastern Anatolia to demonstrate a major hiatus during the
believed to have lain more in the area to the north and
period from the late third millennium to the mid ninth
east of Lake Van. The records also mention the existence
century BC. Some settlements were destroyed by fire
of many cities and fortresses belonging to these domains,
during the Early Bronze Age, and the majority were not
some of which were surrounded by strong defensive subsequently settled until the Iron Age, if at all. Places
walls. In addition, Urartian fortresses are depictedsuch
in as Dilkaya, Van Kalesi Hoytik, Karagtindtiz and
reliefs on the Balawat Gates from the period of even Erci?/?elebibag, all in the region of Van, and
Shalmaneser III (Gunther 1982: 104, pl Ia, d). In spite of several hoytiks now flooded by the waters of the Keban
these records, there is still minimal information about the reservoir, such as Elazig/Degirmentepe, Han Ibrahim
nature of pre-Urartian settlement in eastern Anatolia. ?ah, and Nor?un Tepe, and sites such as Malatya/Deg-

159
This content downloaded from
194.27.218.120 on Tue, 27 May 2025 10:14:22 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Anatolian Studies 1999

irmen Tepe, Imamoglu and Ko6kerbaba in the land of the

Karakaya reservoir are all witnesses to this proposal.
This gap can also be detected in Transcaucasia and
Iranian Azerbaijan, with a few exceptions (for example
at Ktiltepe II in Nakhicevan, and Haftavan Tepe in
Iranian Azerbaijan, see Bumey, Lang 1971: 86).
So, who were these Urartians with their strong
character of settled life? We will to try to address this
issue in the following discussion.
There is new information from the cemetery of
Karagtinduz about the Urartian Kingdom around Lake
Van. Karagtinduz is a village located 35km northeast of
the centre of Van at an elevation of 1890m, on the north-
eastern border of the mineral waters of Lake Erqek. An Fig 2. Karagiindiiz cemetery, dromos tomb Kl
important Iron Age cemetery was uncovered in 1991 and
rescue excavations started in 1992 (Karagtinduz rescue As the roofs have collapsed, the original height is not
excavations are supported by the Governate of Van clear but the existing heights vary between 1.50 to 2.50m.
Province and Istanbul University Research Fund, project The roofs are similar to the Emis (Unseli) graves, which
number 613/210494). The cemetery is 1.5km east of the were covered with the technique called false arch or
modem village, on an alluvial plain (fig 1). corbelling (Sevin 1987: 36). The walls are even, only one
sample (KI) having a large niche near the middle of the
south wall (fig 2). This kind of large niche is encountered
later as an early characteristic of classic Urartian grave
architecture (Sevin 1986: fig 3; 1987: fig 11).

Fig 1. Karagiindiiz cemetery

During the excavations from 1993 to 1996, nine

tombs (Kl-10) were excavated in Karagiinduz cemetery.
Six of these were chamber tombs with dromoi (fig 2).
Burial chambers were formed as pits dug into the ground
and surrounded with rough stones and mortar. All of
them are orientated northeast to southwest. All the

chambers, with one exception (K4), have a little front

entrance (dromos) at the narrow southwest side, which is
at a higher level than the chamber (fig 3). There is a low
door, reaching into the chamber. After the burial
placement the entrance was blocked with a vertically
positioned heavy stone slab, and the dromos was filled
with stones and earth until a new burial was to be made.
Some of the burial chambers with stair access are

rectangular in shape. The ground plans are approxi-

mately 2.10m by 4.20m, 1.75/1.85m by 3.30m,
1.30/1.50m by 3.20m and 1.25/1.64/1.45m by 4.30m. Fig 3. Karagiindiiz cemetery, tomb K5

160
This content downloaded from
194.27.218.120 on Tue, 27 May 2025 10:14:22 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Sevin

solution to the lack of space. One of the graves, K6-7

(fig 4), for example, has a secondary chamber at the
southeast comer, reached by a low passageway. An oval
hollow was dug into the base of this chamber and ten
skeletons and their grave goods placed therein (Sevin,
Kavakli 1994a: fig 2).
In another grave, K10 (fig 5), there were ten skulls
with grave goods in a simple earth hollow dug through a
niche-like little window in the lower rear wall near to the

middle and close to the surface. This kind of enterprise

can be considered as a prototype of the multi-roomed
Urartian examples. In the same way as it is encountered
in Urartian rock tombs, and as it is easy to distinguish
Fig 4. Karagindiiz cemetery, tomb K6-7
these side rooms with their unfinished workmanship
from the main chamber, it may be thought that these side
One of the tombs in the cemetery, K2, has very rooms were used as stores for skeletons and grave goods
distinctive features (Sevin, Kavakli 1994: 335; 1996a: (Sevin, Kavakli 1996a: 19; 1996b: 5).
19, 1996b: 4, fig 3). This tomb is orientated northeast to
southwest like the others, and the entrance on the low
side faces west. Perpendicularly placed monoliths were
used, rather than stones placed on top of each other, to
build the walls, and on top of these heavy flat slabs were
used to facilitate the setting of the flat roof stones. The
characteristics of this tomb suggest a stone box in its
appearance, but the entrance at the southwest makes it
clear that it is a very interesting and primitive low type of
grave chamber. The entrance, 0.53m wide, was blocked
with a thin stone slab. The whole length of this grave
chamber is 2.50 to 2.70m and there is a corridor-like

passage 0.53 to 0.65m wide and 0.70m deep which leads

to the grave chamber. The narrow and shallow room
widens towards its eastern comer, reaching a width of
2.30m. There is a pit, dug into the hard clay soil, with a
diameter of 1.20m and a depth of 0.45m, in which were
found skulls, skeletons and grave goods, which help in
the interpretation of this structure. This situation
reminds us that bottle-shaped pits, of obscure purpose,
Fig 5. Karagiindiiz cemetery, tomb KO1
occur in some Urartian graves (Burney 1966: 107, fig 22;
Sevin 1994a: fig 5; Kleiss 1974: fig 18). This grave,
however, could not be understood in detail because of A general feature of the architectural structure of the
damage at the northeast end. Karagiinduz grave chambers is the fact that the grave
Grave K2 from Karagiinduz appears more archaic inchambers contained many skeletons. Mostly depending
its architecture and finds. There is a similar one to this
on the size of the grave, the number varies from 20 to 80.
but a little smaller in the Van/Dilkaya cemetery (no 1)
Burials were placed in the chamber in a flexed position,
(qilingiroglu 1985: 153, figs 4-5, plan 4; 1991: 30, on
figone side without any distinct orientation (figs 4, 6).
03.1). These examples of grave chambers with openingWhen a new burial was made the old ones were pushed
door systems also have features characteristic of stone
aside to open a space for the new one, thus creating a pile
boxes, such as being very shallow and having big stoneof older skeletons at the back through time. Only the last
plates on top of the graves. These examples can be inter-
burial thus kept its original position. This aspect is also
preted as being transitional from stone boxes to grave
known as a feature of classic Urartian chamber tombs
chambers. (Ogtin 1978a: 661; 1978b: 62, fig 2). The same tradition
One of the most interesting characteristics of the was applied to Assyrian grave chambers from the Middle
Karagtinduz graves is the enterprise shown in finding aAssyrian period (Haller 1954: 102, fig 136a).

161

This content downloaded from

194.27.218.120 on Tue, 27 May 2025 10:14:22 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Anatolian Studies 1999

techniques, toggle-pins, daggers, spear points, knives in

different sizes, a mace, a chain (?), and long iron pieces
which are interpreted as swords (Sevin, Kavakli 1996a:
pls 12-25). The use of iron for ceremonial purposes and
ornaments might be an indication that these early graves
in the cemetery are contemporary with Hasanlu IV,
Kordlar Tepe IIA and the beginning of Dinkha Tepe II.
Bronze works of art are very few compared to iron.
The most significant are a small disk, a shuttle-shaped
bead wrapped with wire, barrel-shaped beads, one pair of
ear-rings with frit beads and assorted types of rings and
pins. It is very common to encounter similar pins in the
period of the Urartian Kingdom, often with a head
adorned with a pair of cocks back to back, a poppy, a bud
or an eagle (Sevin, Kavakli 1996a: pls 26-7).
Many pots were encountered in the Karagtinduz
cemetery. These pots can be divided into two major
groups according to their technology, shape and
decoration. In the first, larger, group the colour of the
fabric is usually pink, less often brown or reddish. These
pots are usually wheel-made, but there are some hand-
made examples as well. The most common technical
characteristic of these pots is the differentiation in colour
on burnished surfaces, caused by varying temperature in
Fig 6. Karagiindiiz cemetery, tomb K5 the kiln. This characteristic can be seen in Karagtinduz,
the contemporary Emis cemetery and Hasanlu IV (Sevin
In addition to this, a smaller number of the grave 1996: 441, note 6; Dyson 1989: 108, fig 7). The
chambers contain burnt bones, mostly belonging to commonest forms are inverted-rimmed earthenware pots
youngsters (Sevin, Kavakli 1996: 23; 1996b: 6). As with with horizontal fluted decoration under the rim, pots with
Urartian examples, there is no trace of these cremated angular profiles and vertically perforated handles (fig 7),
bones and ashes having been kept in urns. It is another and vessels with a flaring rim usually with a groove
characteristic of Urartian graves that one may encounter inside, short body, S-shaped profile and flat base. In
inhumation and cremation next to each other in the same addition to these, pots with a simple rim, carination with
grave (Ogun 1978a: 660; 1978b: 6). or without handle and flat base, and jars with narrow and
Various grave goods were deposited with the burials,high necks are significant. Small blobs often occur on
the shoulders of pots as decorative motifs. Some of the
which were either wrapped around with a cloth or buried
in garments. Amongst these grave goods some are cups are decorated by incision, and a few of them bear
motifs made by stamping.
universal for all burials, such as a pottery bowl with open
rim and a high or shallow-necked and narrow-rimmed
cup (fig 7). Generally some vertebrae of lamb or young
goat were placed in the first type of cup and a liquid was
contained in the second type. The cups were usually
placed near the head of the individual. In one of the
graves, K6-7, the cups contained some food as well as
pieces of mandible belonging to a sheep-goat type of
animal. In addition, there are hearths next to every grave.
It is probable that the sacrificed animal was cooked in
these hearths. The occurrence of so many pots in the
graves may indicate that the feast included all the people
who attended the funeral ceremony.
Iron ornaments and ceremonial weapons are some of
the most interesting of the grave finds. They comprise
bracelets, anklets and rings made by hammering Fig 7. Cups for foodstuffs and liquids

162
This content downloaded from
194.27.218.120 on Tue, 27 May 2025 10:14:22 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Sevin

Overall, the pots with diagonal incision or horizontal

grooves under the rims, made while the paste was moist,
are similar to those of the Iron Age in their techniques \ / )
and form. These are found scattered from Elazig-Bingol 2

region in the west, to the western part of Lake Urmia in

the east (Sevin 1991; 1994b: 222, fig 21.5; 1996b;
Pecorella, Salvini 1984: figs 24, 26, 30, 33, 62). The
closest relatives, however, can be seen at Emis in the
region of Lake Van (Sevin 1996a), Ahlat (Ozfirat 1993: 0
362, fig 7, pl 3), Van Kalesi Hoyuk (Sevin 1994b: 222,
fig 21:5) and, admittedly a little later, at Dilkaya
(gilingiroglu 1992: 475, figs 12-7).
The second group of pots is less numerous than the
first, and all of the examples are wheel-made. The most
interesting characteristic is that the surface of the pots is
coated with a thick, highly polished red-brown slip. The
commonest forms are carinated cups with simple flaring 4

rims (fig 8:1-2), and horizontally ribbed pots with ring or

flat bases. Included in this group are trefoil jugs with
, 1,0O cm.
ribbed shoulders (fig 8:3-4). The examples with a short
thick neck, squat body and handles that are the exact
copy of metallic vessels, are the earliest representatives 3

of this group. An example with a globular body and Fig 8. Red polished ware
elegant neck is the closest to classic Urartian ones in its
shape (fig 8:3). It is clear that this group and the metallic
vessel imitation types compare well with the character- to the Middle Iron Age, which starts with the estab-
istics of classic Urartian pottery in their techniques and lishment of the Urartian state. We can, moreover, assert
shapes. In contrast to the first group, which occurs over that the culture attested at the cemeteries of Emis and
a large area, the shiny red-slipped ware, also known from Karagiinduz is the progenitor of Urartian culture, and
the cemetery of Emis (Onseli), belongs to the Early Iron that the roots of classic Urartian civilisation should be
Age, that is to say before the Urartian Kingdom, and is searched for in the Van region.
found only in the Van region (Sevin 1996a). It is reasonable to surmise that the people who are
The existence of a cultural unity predating the buried in Karagiinduz cemetery may have lived in the
Urartian Kingdom is clear in the area to the north of Lake
hoyiik located 1.5km away. However, the excavated part
Ercek and Lake Van, even on its east and west shores. of this mound gives very little evidence about settled life
From the aspect of material culture, this area comprised in the Early Iron Age. It is therefore feasible to suggest
a distinctive zone in its own terms. Contrary to this, it is that the people buried in the middle of the valley of the
clear that rather different cultural processes were taking Memedik _ay were members of a tribe with a pastoral
place in the region of west and south Urmia at the same lifestyle.
period. For instance, in contrast to multiple burials in the Just as there is some evidence of pastoral life in the
Van region, there are simple inhumations in northwest Lake Van region until the Middle Iron Age, the excava-
Iran (Musceralla 1968: 189, 194; 1974; Burney 1972: tions in Dilkaya, Van Kalesi Hoytik and Karagiinduz
134, fig 8, pl Ila; Dyson 1989: fig 3), apart from burials Hoyuk revealed very little evidence of architectural
in Geoy Tepe K (Burton-Brown 1951: 142; Dyson 1965: levels from the Early Iron Age, indicating that the
196) and Dinkha Tepe IV (Rubinson 1991). The settlement mounds were not occupied immediately
common grey ware and especially its repertoire of shapes before the Urartian Kingdom. These three mounds,
in the Early Iron Age of western Iran does not occur in however, played a strong settlement role during the
the region of Lake Van. period of the Urartian Kingdom.
The Early Iron Age culture which we are starting to After all this, it is possible to say that some, at least,
recognise from grave architecture, burial practices, metal of the eight nations or tribes mentioned in the Assyrian
technology and pottery from Ernis and Karagtindiuz royal annals followed a pastoral lifestyle. The
shows that it is closely related to the Urartian culture. cemeteries of Karagiinduz, Emis and Dilkaya may very
Therefore it is understandable not to acknowledge a well belong to such tribes.
cultural gap during the transition from the Early Iron Age

163
This content downloaded from
194.27.218.120 on Tue, 27 May 2025 10:14:22 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Anatolian Studies 1999

Bibliography 1978b: 'Die urartaischen Graber in der gegend von

Burney, C A 1966: 'A first season of excavations at the Adilcevaz und Patnos' in E Akurgal (ed),
Urartian citadel of Kayalidere' Anatolian Studies Proceedings of the Tenth Congress of Classical
16: 55-111 Archaeology. Ankara: 61-7
1972: 'Excavations at Haftavan Tepe 1969' Iran 10: Ozfirat, A 1993: 'M. 0. II. Binyil Dogu Anadolu Boyali
127-42 Seramik Kulturleri Uzerine Ara?tirmalar'
Burney, C A, Lang, D M 1971: The Peoples of the Hills Arastirma Sonu?larl Toplantisi 11: 359-77
- Ancient Ararat and Caucasus. London Pecorella, P E, Salvini, M 1984: Tra Lo Zagros e
Burton-Brown, T B 1951: Excavations in Azerbaijan, l'Urmia. Roma
1948. London Rubinson, K S 1991: 'A mid-second millennium tomb at
(ilingiroglu, A 1985: 'Van Dilkaya Hbyigti 1984 Dinkha Tepe' American Journal of Archaeology
Kazilan' Kazi Sonu?larl Toplantisi 7: 151-62 95: 373-94
Salvini, M 1982: 'Researches in the region between the
- 1991: 'The Early Iron Age at Dilkaya' in A (ilingiro-
glu and D H French (eds), Anatolian Iron Ages 2 Zagros Mountains and Urmia Lake' Persica 10: 1-
(British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara 35

Monograph 13). London: 29-38 Sevin, V 1986: 'Urartu Mezar Mimarisine Yeni Katkilar'
- 1992: 'Van-Dilkaya Hoyiigui Kazilarl Kapani' Kazi Anadolu Ara;tirmalarl 10: 329-40
Sonu?larl Toplantisi 14.1: 469-91 - 1987: 'Urartu Oda-Mezar Mimarisinin Kokeni
Dyson, R H Jr 1965: 'Problems of protohistoric Iran as Uzerine Bazi Gozlemler' in A 1ilingiroglu (ed),
seen from Hasanlu' Journal of Near Eastern Anadolu Demir (aglari. Izmir: 35-55
Studies 24: 193-217 - 1991: 'The Early Iron Age in the Elazig region and
1989: 'The Iron Age architecture at Hasanlu' the problem of Mushkians' Anatolian Studies 41:
Expedition 31.1-2: 107-27 87-97

Grayson, A K 1976: Assyrian Royal Inscriptions -I-II.

1994a: 'Three Urartian rock-cut tombs from Palu' Tel
Wiesbaden Aviv 21: 58-67

Gunther, A 1982: 'Representations of Urartian and- 1994b: 'The excavations at Van castle mound' in A
western Iranian fortress architecture in the Assyrian (ilingiroglu and D H French (eds), Anatolian Iron
reliefs' Iran 20: 103-12 Ages 3 (British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara
Haas, V 1986: 'Die altesten Nachrichten zur Geschichte Monograph 16) London: 221-8
des armenischen Hochlands' in Das Reich Urartu. - 1996a: 'Van/Emis (Unseli) Nekropolii Erken Demir
Xenia. Konstanz: 21-30 _ag C(anak ?(omlekleri' Anadolu Ara;tirmalari 14:
Haller, A 1954: Die Grdber und Griifte von Assur 439-67

(WVDOG 65). Berlin - 1996b: 'La ceramique de l'age du fer ancien dans le
Kleiss, W 1974: 'Planaufnahmen urartaischer Burgen region de Van (Turquie de 1'est)' Orient Express 3:
und Neufunde urartaischer Anlagen in Iranisch- 89-90

Azerbaidjan im Jahre 1973' Archdologische Sevin, V, Kavakli, E 1994: 'Van-Karaguindiiz Erken

Mitteilungen aus Iran 7: 79-106 Demir _agi Nekropolii Kurtarma Kazilarn 1992-
Muscarella, 0 W 1968: 'Excavations at Dinkha Tepe, 1993' Kazi Sonu?larl Toplantisi 16.1: 331-50
1966' Bulletin of the Metropolitan Museum of Art- 1996a: Van-Karagiindiiz. An Early Iron Age
27: 187-96 Cemetery. Istanbul
- 1996b: 'Van-Karagtindiiz Erken Demir (agi
1974: 'The Iron Age at Dinkha Tepe, Iran' Metro-
politan Museum Journal 9: 35-90 Nekropolii' Belleten 227: 1-20
Ogtin, B 1978a: 'Urartaische Bestattungsbrauche' in S
?ahin, E Schwerteim and J Wagner (eds), Studien
Religion und Kultur Kleinasiens. Festschrift fir F
KDo5rner. Leiden: 639-78

164
This content downloaded from
194.27.218.120 on Tue, 27 May 2025 10:14:22 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms