ANCIENT NEAR EASTERN STUDIES

SUPPLEMENT 39

ANATOLIAN IRON AGES 7

The Proceedings of the Seventh Anatolian Iron Ages
Colloquium Held at Edirne, 19–24 April 2010
Edited by

Altan ÇİLİNGİROĞLU and Antonio SAGONA

PEETERS
LEUVEN – PARIS – WALPOLE, MA.
2012

94488_Anes_Supp39_Voorwerk.indd iii 29/02/12 09:28

 CONTENTS

Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
Altan ÇILINGIROGLU and Antonio SAGONA

The Eastern Sector at the Fortress of Ayanis: Architecture and Texture in the
Pillared Hall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Mahmut Bilge BA≤TÜRK

War and Identity in the Early History of Urartu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Atilla BATMAZ

Thrace Between East and West: The Early Iron Age Cultures in Thrace . . 51
Elena BOZHINOVA

A Blacksmith’s Workshop at Klazomenai . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

Hüseyin CEVIZOGLU and Ünsal YALÇIN

New Contributions to Urartian Archaeology from the Fortress at Ayanis . . 99

Altan ÇILINGIROGLU (with an appendix by Mirjo SALVINI)

Regional Variations in Iron Age Grooved Pottery in Eastern Anatolia . . . . 113

Aylin Ü. ERDEM

The Apadana of Altıntepe in the Light of the Second Season of Excavations 131
Mehmet KARAOSMANOGLU and Halim KORUCU

The Kingdom of Urartu and Native Cultures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149

Kemalettin KÖROGLU

Archaeometric Investigations of Basaltic ‘Grinding Stones’ from the Iron Age

Settlements of Udabno, Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
Rene KUNZE

94488_Anes_Supp39_Voorwerk.indd v 29/02/12 09:28

 vi CONTENTS

Ritual Pit Complexes in Iron Age Thrace: The Case Study of Svilengrad . . 177
Georgi NEKHRIZOV and Julia TZVETKOVA

Urartian Helmets in Reza Abbasi Museum, Iran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211

Reza Sabouri NOJEHDEHI

Phrygian Semi-Iconic Idols from Gordion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221

Lynn E. ROLLER

Remarks on the East Anatolian Iron Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253

Antonio SAGONA

Late Iron Age Pottery From Northwestern Iran: The Evidence from Yanik
Tepe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269
Geoffrey D. SUMMERS and Charles A. BURNEY

Bronze Animal Figurines from Gordion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317

Maya VASSILEVA

94488_Anes_Supp39_Voorwerk.indd vi 29/02/12 09:28

 WAR AND IDENTITY IN THE EARLY HISTORY OF URARTU *

Atilla BATMAZ
Ege Üniversitesi
Edebiyat Fakültesi
Protohistorya ve Önasya Arkeolojisi Anabilim Dalı
35100 Bornova, Izmir
TURKEY
E-mail: atilla.batmaz@ege.edu.tr

Before the Urartian Kingdom was established, the environs of Lake Van — the core
area of Urartian culture — had attracted the attention of Assyrian kings from time to
time (Figs 1–2). Therefore, political and military activities in the region are included
in the inscriptions of the Assyrian State. The identity as well as the cultural and ethnic
structure of the population that lived in the Lake Van basin, and who would later
constitute the Urartian society, has long engaged scholarly attention. The aim of this
paper is neither to review old discussions concerning the ethnic origins of Urartu, nor
to examine Urartian culture as seen through Assyrian eyes. Instead, the paper aims to
present the possible patterns and various stages in the formation of a definable Urar-
tian identity in Eastern Anatolia through the interpretation of written and visual data
and by scrutinising a number of problems related to the issue. The only source that
provides information is the Assyrian written records. These documents generally
include details of military campaigns; there is no written data concerning the socio-
cultural structure of the region. Therefore, unfortunately our knowledge remains
mostly limited to military structuring. In this article, I will try to show that the struc-
ture, organisation, and arrangement of the military around Lake Van between the
thirteenth and ninth centuries BC consisted of four stages and I will present the evi-
dence for these stages and their characteristics. I hope to be excused for possible mis-
takes in cases where the study tends to be more speculative due to limited data.
The annals of Shalmaneser III1 and the inscriptions on the Balawat Gates are
considered to provide the most reliable and accurate information concerning the

* I would like to express my gratitude to Altan Çilingiroglu, organiser of the VIIth Iron Ages Sym-
posium and my PhD supervisor, for his efforts in enabling me to study Urartian archaeology over the
last fifteen years. I would also like to extend my sincere thanks to Andreas Schachner, Michael Roaf and
Ömür Harman≥ah for their careful reading of various drafts of this article and sharing their kind opin-
ions and suggestions. Many thanks go to Özlem Çevik of Trakya University in Edirne and co-organiser
of the VIIth Iron Ages Symposium for her hospitality and kindness.
1
In recent years A. Schachner and his team have carried out a project aiming to examine the reliefs
and inscriptions of Shalmaneser III and Tiglath-pileser I found in Birklyn, which is one of the sources
of the Tigris. Its publication has provided remarkable information on the campaign of the kings against
the Urartu lands: see Schachner (2009) for further information.
24 A. BATMAZ

establishment of the Urartian Kingdom. Since the records of 858 BC and ensuing
years of the period of Shalmaneser III include details about Aramu of Urartu and his
royal city, it can be accepted that this was the time during which the Urartian King-
dom was established.
…son of Ashurnasirpal, king of Assyria, son of Tukulti-Ninurta, king of Assyria; con-
queror from the sea of the land Nairi to the great sea of west…the city Arzaskun (which
is) a royal city of Aramu, the Urartian…2

How should we evaluate the political structure in Eastern Anatolia before Shalma-
neser III? There is very little data available concerning the people of the Lake Van
basin in the periods of Shalmaneser I (1274–1244 BC) to Ashurnasirpal II (884–
859 BC),3 during which time the region was under Assyrian dominance. Based on the
definitions in Assyrian written sources, it is widely believed that there existed small
political units often referred to as “tribes” and “chiefdoms”, or a confederation of such
units. Although the communities in the region are labelled using sociological terms
such as “tribes”, “chiefdoms” or “principalities”, the exact dynamics of these groups
remain a mystery. In fact, the data provided by the Assyrian sources concerning this
issue has long been puzzling researchers and can only be understood if it is read in
combination with sociological and historical information.
The kings who first mention Eastern Anatolia, especially in the environs of Lake
Van, are Shalmaneser I (1274–1244 BC), Tukulti Ninurta I (1244–1208 BC) and
Tiglath-pileser I (1115–1077 BC). Each repeats several times that the region was ruled
by leaders whom they acknowledged as kings (Fig. 3). Forty-three kings (rulers) are
mentioned by Tukulti Ninurta,4 and the numbers 23,5 30,6 and 607 appear in relation
to kings (rulers) in the records of Tiglath-pileser I. There are various views concerning
the types of political and sociological units these numbers represent.8 The Prism
inscription of Tiglath-pileser I certainly refers to 60 kings (rulers) (“king”=LUGAL in

2
Grayson 1996, A.0.102.23/13b–19a; Radner 2009, pp.180, 193.
3
These periods are labelled as Middle and Neo-Assyrian in Assyrian chronology. There is no agree-
ment among the researchers over the date of the transition period from the “Middle Assyrian” to the
“Neo-Assyrian” period. While some scholars argue that the first “Early Neo-Assyrian” king is Tiglath-
pileser I (1114–1076 BC), some suggest that it is Asurnasirpal I (1049–1031 BC). There are scholars
who accept that the first king of the Neo-Assyrian Empire is Assur-dan (911–890 BC) or Tiglath-pileser
III (745–727 BC). M. Roaf gives a general date around 1000 BC for the transition date; for detailed
information, see Roaf (2001, p. 357).
4
Grayson 1987, A.0.78.5/23–47.
5
Grayson 1991, A.0.87.1.
6
Grayson 1991, A.0.87.2, A.0.87.3.
7
Grayson 1991, A.0.87.1.
8
A. Çilingiroglu (1994, p. 8) suggests that the number 23 refers to the important principalities that
formed the Nairi coalition and the number 60 refers to small settlements belonging to these principali-
ties. C. Burney (1966, pp. 60–61), however, thinks that 60 refers to small chiefdoms which may govern
some villages. T. Tarhan (1978) thinks that they were a confederation formed by ashirets or principali-
ties. V. Sevin (1979, p. 3) believes that they may have been ashirets or clans, though they had never
 WAR AND IDENTITY IN THE EARLY HISTORY OF URARTU 25

Assyrian inscriptions) in the region.9 In the same inscription, it is noted that during
the campaigns, there were other troops who joined the armies of the 60 kings as sup-
port. It is not clear whether the leaders were actually kings, chiefs or chieftains.
There are also some views which suggest that the sociological formation “ashiret”,
which existed in Southeastern and Eastern Anatolia during the Seljuk and Ottoman
periods, might also have existed during the Iron Age.10 “Ashiret” (Arabic A≥ira)
describes a mostly nomadic community11 with great linguistic and cultural homogene-
ity, constituted of many families, connected through ethnic, economical, religious,
blood or marriage relations.12 Ashirets can also be semi-nomadic or settled. If they are
settled, they live in a common area throughout the year and survive mainly by means
of husbandry and agriculture. In general, this organisational model developed in Eur-
asia, the Middle East and North Africa and it incorporates political content which
refers to common origin and “common interest unity.”13
The necessities of administering large groups of people and animals — managing
them to meet the needs of the community and organising the community’s economic
activities — forced the ashiret communities in Eurasia, Middle East and North Africa
into a more complex pattern of life than that of hunters and gatherers, or the groups
in Africa, America and Oceania. Therefore, the terms which are used by western social
sciences in order to generalise these organisations and that are based on the assump-
tion that the communities in all regions have a similar organisation type, such as tribe
in English, stamm in German and tribu in French, are far from meeting the sense of
Eurasian, Middle Eastern and North African ashiret communities. Classical anthropo-
logical studies arrive at a definition of “tribe” based on cognation following ancestral/
paternal descent, in which the oldest or the most respected man is often the “presi-
dent” (chief). This definition has gradually been brought into general use by western
writers and researchers, and in the end, it has found a place in the literature as a com-
mon social organisation form/type of all “traditional’’ and “primitive” societies outside
of the west, coming to symbolise an evolutionary phase.14

reached the level of a confederation in Eastern Anatolia. Similarly, A. Erdem (2009, p. 56 n. 161)
adopts Sevin’s idea by saying that they could not have formed a united confederation.
9
Grayson 1991, A.0.87.1.
10
Tarhan 1978; see also Sevin 1979; Yakar 2007, p. 381.
11
Cribb (1991, pp. 222–223) emphasises that Eastern Anatolia is quite suitable, in terms of its
geography, for nomadic and semi-nomadic ways of life which survive mostly by animal husbandry.
12
See Özer (2003, pp. 31–32) on the formation of the ashirets.
13
Emiroglu and Aydın 2003, p. 78.
14
Emiroglu and Aydın 2003, pp. 78–79. Emiroglu and Aydın (2003, p.79) summarised their
thoughts as follows: “Upon a deeper analysis, it is seen that the principle of cognation, which is domi-
nant in tribal organization, becomes ambiguous and unimportant in the organization of ashirets. In this
latter, the cognation (affinity) between subunits of ashiret is often ensured by marriages (kinship), and
it is a temporary situation, rather than a permanent characteristic. Hence, the tribal organization is based
on the conical clan model, whereas the prevalent affinity relation in ashiret model is the segmental
26 A. BATMAZ

Written data concerning the nomadic ashiret life, which continues in Eastern
Anatolia to this day, dates back to the Ottoman Period. At that time, the nomadic
ashirets were considered a great danger to the state and a burden on it, both eco-
nomically and in terms of safety. The primary reason for this attitude was the diffi-
culty in finding common ground between the nomadic lifestyle and the concerns of
the centralist state. The state aimed to get rid of the burden the ashirets placed on the
economy by forcing them into a settled lifestyle, where they would contribute to eco-
nomic production.15 The ashirets in the Ottoman Period were hard to control and
created economic difficulties for the central authority even when it was at its most
powerful. They were forced to choose between isolation and a transition from a
nomadic to a settled lifestyle, and an assimilation policy was applied.16
The ashiret system in Eastern Anatolia during the period of the Ottoman Empire
was undoubtedly different from that of the thirteenth century BC.17 Yet it is not
unreasonable to consider the political formations in the region at that time as ashirets
whose leader was called the “king”; or as tribes or clans which were subdivisions of
ashirets; or as “confederative” formations that were constituted by a combination of
groups,18 as in the Ottoman Period. In this context, it is illuminating briefly to recon-
sider the characteristics of ashirets:

1. Ashirets can be nomadic, semi-nomadic or settled.

2. They rely on extensive animal husbandry.19
3. Their members live in tents or primitive dwellings.20
4. There is a family relationship (blood relationship) among the members of the
ashiret.21

descent system. In this system, there is no hierarchical relation between the organized units. On the
horizontal plane, all units are equal and the chiefdom exerts less authority within this ashiret. His
authority is generally not imperious, but rather coordinative and regulatory; since within the nature of
ashiret organization, it is hard for an imperious authority to exist. Moreover, the reason for the unifica-
tion of its subunits is their need for common action. Sometimes, the necessity of common action can
exceed the extent of an ashiret, and a supra-unit of ashirets, namely, a confederation, is founded.”
15
Akpınar and Rogan 2001, p. 16.
16
Orhonlu 1987; see also Halaçoglu 1998; Akpınar and Rogan 2001, pp. 14–18. The most effec-
tive policy of the Ottoman Empire was that some of the young members of the ashirets were sent abroad
and established “Ashiret Schools” so that they would be beneficial for the state. See Akpınar and Rogan
(2001) for further information about “Ashiret Schools”. For the inhabitation policy applied to the
ashirets, see Orhonlu (1987).
17
We should bear in mind that the Assyrian Empire might not consider the polities in Eastern Ana-
tolia ashirets or confederations.
18
Akpınar and Rogan 2001, p. 17. Rogan says that Ruvala Ashiret was one of the largest ashirets
belonging to the Anaza Confederation, which migrated every year between South Syria and Iraq. The
Anaza Confederation had approximately 10,000 tents in the reign of Abdulhamit II.
19
Be≥ikçi 1969, p. 32.
20
Özer 2003, p. 30. According to Cribb (1991, p. 222) and Erdem (2009, p. 83), the weakness of
the archaeological data for Eastern Anatolia is the consequence of the nature of the nomadic lifestyle.
21
Özer 2003, p. 25.
 WAR AND IDENTITY IN THE EARLY HISTORY OF URARTU 27

5. The ashiret is not only a social but also a political union.22

6. Ashirets have primitive military defence units.

POLITICAL ORGANISATION IN URARTU

The characteristics of political formations in the region and how they developed
can easily be inferred from Assyrian written sources. The first stage (see Fig. 4) prob-
ably starts in the period of Shalmaneser I, or a little earlier, and prevails into the reign
of Ashurnasirpal II. The earliest written evidence concerning the process comes from
Shalmaneser I’s records of 1274 BC, where he mentions a campaign to the region
which is here called Nairi lands. In subsequent records, it is said that the region is
under Assyrian control; yet this seems to depend on appointing local governors to
collect tribute and taxes.23 In fact, inscriptions that narrate the battle between the
Assyrian kings and the local forces are not few in number. Assyrian sources record
different numbers of kings in Eastern Anatolia in order to clarify that these men were
acting independently and did not confront the Assyrian army all together in one place.
Such a defence pattern can be considered unsuccessful because it was not centralised
but disorganised, irregular, and lacking coordination.
This model continued through the period of Adad-nirari II (911–891 BC). In the
records of Adad-nirari II, it is not possible to say whether the words “Uratru” or
“Uruatru” describe a monarchic system like a kingdom.24 The same pertains to the
records of Tukulti Ninurta II (890–884 BC). Few differences can be observed in rela-
tion to the area around Lake Van until the period of Ashurnasirpal II. The inscrip-
tions of Ashurnasirpal II about his military activities in the environs of Lake Van
make up the fundamental data from which many geographic locations have been
determined. As shown on one of the bronze plates on the gates of Ashurnasirpal II in
Balawat Mound25 (Band MM ASH II L2) (Fig. 8), the Assyrian army fights the
enemy in mountainous terrain. The campaign to Urina Mountain is recorded in the
inscription on the same band, as follows:
ti-du-ku[……] KUR ú-[r]i?-na.26
Combat…..Mount Urina

22
Be≥ikçi 1969, p. 36.
23
In the Kurkh Monolith, Ashurnasirpal II mentions that he appointed governors over the land
Nairi. He also mentions that he imposed feudal duties, corveé and labourers. Finally he says that he
dominated the land Nairi by force (Grayson 1991, A.0.101.19/98–102a).
24
Diakonoff (1984, p. 77) thinks that the Kingdom of Urartu might have been established in the
reign of Ashurnasirpal II. Similarly, Russell (1984) implies that the Urartian Kingdom was established
when Ashurnasirpal II was the king.
25
Curtis and Tallis 2008.
26
Right wing, second line; Davies at al. 2008, p. 55.
28 A. BATMAZ

A relationship between Urina Mountain and Urartu country can be established in

other written records of Ashurnasirpal II. Within the narration of the campaigns to
Tumme lands, Urinu, Aruni (and) Etini mountains are mentioned as huge and mag-
nificent. It seems it can be assumed that Urinu and Urina are the same mountain. In
the inscriptions of Ashurnasirpal II’s reign on the stone blocks that constitute the
entrance to Ninurta Temple in Nimrud (Kalah), it is recorded that the king con-
quered the mountains east of the Tigris, and in the records of the first year, in which
he narrates the campaigns to the north and west (Nimrud inscription), he describes
Urinu Mountain and the region.27
…I mustered my chariotry (and) troops. I passed through difficult paths (and) rugged
mountains which were unsuitable for chariotry (and) troops and marched to the land
Tummu. I conquered Libê, their fortified city, the cities Surra, Abuqu, Arura, (and)
Arubê which lie between Mounts Urinu, Arunu, (and) Etinu, mighty mountains.28

The geographical location of Tumme is quite problematic; however, it is widely

believed that it is located not far from Lake Van in Eastern Anatolia.29 Most probably,
Urina Mountain is located around Lake Van as well.
In the records of Ashurnasirpal II, it is recorded that three significant campaigns to
Nairi lands were organised during his reign.30 The first campaign mentioned in the
records, in 882 BC, was to the Nibru lands. The king notes that he had attacked
Nairi lands on a previous date:31
…Moving on from the land Nibru I approached the city Tusan…I made an image of
myself in white limestone (and) wrote thereon praise of the extraordinary power and
heroic deeds which I had been accomplishing in the Lands Nairi. I erected (it) in the
city Tusan.32
“…from the kings of the lands Nairi chariots, horses,33 mules, silver, gold, bronze cas-
seroles, oxen, sheep, (and) wine. I imposed corvée upon the lands Nairi.34

27
There is a long inscription on plaques as well. In this inscription (Grayson 1991, A.0.101.51/11b–
26b), the king repeats a certain pattern of writing. A fragment of inscription reads as follows: “…With
the help of the gods Samas and Adad, the gods my supporters, I thundered like the god Adad, the devastator,
against the troops of the lands Nairi, ÎabÌu, the Subaru, and the land Nibru.”
28
Grayson 1991, A.0.101.1/col. i 1–9.
29
Salvini (1967, p. 25), however, locates Tumme in the Revanduz region south of Lake Urmiye. See
Çilingiroglu (1984, pp. 8–9) for other views on the historical geography of Tumme.
30
Some of the annals of Ashurnasirpal II (Grayson 1991, A.101.19/85b–97) say that Arameans
dominated the Nairi lands. Apparently, Assyria took back dominion over the region by fighting against
the Arameans.
31
Grayson 1991, A.0.101. 1/col. ii 2b–12a, A.0.101.17/col. ii 5b–36.
32
Grayson 1991, A.0.101.1/col. ii 2b–12a. Tushan has been identified with modern Ziyaret Tepe
in Diyarbakır.
33
The Assyrian written sources indicate that horse breeding was practised to a remarkable extent in
the Nairi land from the time of Tukulti Ninurta II up to Shalmaneser III. It is known that nomads are
the masters of horse riding. Therefore, Saggs (1969, p. 95) suggests that a light cavalry force was for the
first time introduced into the Assyrian Army by Urartians. Furthermore, the records of Shalmaneser III
tell that in the time of Aramu, the Urartian Army had 13,500 warriors, including cavalry, chariotry, and
most likely infantry (Grayson 1996, A.0.102.28/34b–42a).
34
Grayson 1991, A.0.101.1/col. ii 12b–15a, A.0.101.17/col. ii 5b–36.
 WAR AND IDENTITY IN THE EARLY HISTORY OF URARTU 29

The second campaign to Nairi was in 879 BC. The king notes that he came to
Nairi lands after crossing the Kasiiari Mountains (Mazı Mountains, Mardin), destroyed
250 cities and dominated the entire Nairi lands:
…I have gained dominion over the entire extensive lands Nairi.35
…After crossing Mount Kasiiari I went down for a second time to the lands Nairi.
I pitched camp (and) spent the night in the city Sigisu…36
…I razed, destroyed, (and) turned into ruin hills 250 well fortified cities of the lands
Nairi. I reaped the harvest of their land (and) stored the barley and straw in the city
Tusan.37

The third campaign took place in 866 BC. The king says that after crossing the Kasi-
iari Mountains, he slaughtered many (1400) warriors of Labturu,38 the son of Tupusu,
and captured many (3000) more as prisoners.39
…With the help of the gods Samas and Adad, the gods my supporters, I thundered like
the god Adad, the devastator, against the troops of the lands Nairi, ÎabÌu, the Subaru,
and the land Nibru.40
…He (the king) conquered from the source of the River Subnat to the land of Urar†u.41

Eastern Anatolian geography is tremendously well suited to defence, and the king’s
success in these campaigns must be considered due to the military and technological
superiority of the Assyrian army. It cannot be denied that another significant reason
is the negative conditions created by weak government in the region. The lack of
centralised and professional military troops was a prime consequence of this weak-
ness. It seems that independent troops raised by regional/local leaders performed the
territorial defence. The lack of a central commanding power (commander/ruler) led
to independent military enterprises that lacked an overall plan. Since there was no
co-ordination between the small political units, the defence of the chiefdoms in Lake
Van basin was inadequate and weak and stood no chance against the Assyrian army.
So, the primary feature of stage one is weakness in the defensive military structure.
It is not easy to determine the exact end of stage one, which started with Shalma-
neser I and prevailed into the last 10 years of the period of Ashurnasirpal II. Through-
out the end of Ashurnasirpal II’s reign, probably between 865 and 859 BC, the political
system around Lake Van must have started to change in terms of military organisation.

35
Grayson 1991, A.0.101.1/col. ii.125b–131a, A.0.101.17, A.0.101.31/1–11.
36
Grayson 1991, A.0.101.1/col. ii 97b–100a, A.0.101.17/col. iv 38b–50, A.0.101.19/63b–67a.
37
Grayson 1991, A.0.101.1/col. ii 112b–118a, A.0.101.19/79b–85a.
38
See Tarhan (1982, pp. 69–114) for arguments concerning the equivalence of Labturu and
Lutupri.
39
Grayson 1991, A.0.101.1/col. iii 92b–113a.
40
Grayson 1991, A.0.101.1/col. iii 118b–126a, A.0.101.2/7b–17a, A.0.101.3/29b–46,
A.0.101.26/14b–32a, A.0.101.28/col.iii 8b–iv13.
41
Grayson 1991, A.0.101.2/7b–17a, A.0.101.23/5b–12a, A.0.101.41/1–3a.
30 A. BATMAZ

The “Sultantepe Tablets”42 of Ashurnasirpal II’s successor, Shalmaneser III, signal this
development, which had started in the last period of Ashurnasirpal II, with these lines:
Now I am going to see how the Urarteans fight.43
The discipline of Assur-nasir-pal has slipped, Nairi is on the march.44

As can be seen from this inscription, during the time of Shalmaneser III’s father,
Ashurnasirpal II, it was possible to identify by name a more active opponent which
was attempting to build unity; that is, the Urartians. The first appearance of the term
“Urartu”, in the way we use it now (ú-ra-ar-Áu),45 occurs during the time of Ashurna-
sirpal II. It is problematic, however, to determine whether the term is used for a cul-
tural or ethnic group. Since there is no mention of a king or royal city in the region
in Shalmaneser III’s “Sultantepe Tablets”, it is thought that the political formation
“Urartu” did not reach the level of constituting a kingdom in Eastern Anatolia in the
period of Ashurnasirpal II.
When Shalmaneser III reported that his father had lost control of the Lake Van
basin, he indirectly mentioned that Urartu had increased its military power and won-
dered about the effectiveness of Urartian soldiers during the war. These developments
in the military domain marked a transformation taking place in the Lake Van basin
and they were central to the transition period which should be considered stage two
(Fig. 5). In my opinion, the military started to be directed from the centre at this
time, an organisational model apparently first established in the military sphere, and
this might be the reason for Ashurnasirpal II’s failure against the people of the Lake
Van basin. Unfortunately we don’t have data to further detail this stage; nevertheless,
the next stage can be considered an extension of it.

The third stage (Fig. 6) continues on from this period of military reorganisation.
The “King of Urartu Land and royal city”46 expressions in Shalmaneser III’s first year
campaign (858 BC) signal that the grouping together of small formations had begun,
with one leader planning joint movements. These formulations are considered the first
written evidence for the establishment of a monarchic system that started with Aramu
of Urartu, whom Shalmaneser III mentions as king along with the royal city. More
evidence for the new system derives from depictions of Shalmaneser III in different
bands on the Balawat Gates. The most solid proofs that stage three is a continuation

42
In this paper, Lambert (1961) and Livingstone (1989) have been used for the translations of the
“Sultantepe Tablets”.
43
Lambert 1961, p. 151, line 14; Livingstone 1989, p. 44, line 13. It is understood from the edition
of Livingstone 1989 that line 14 has been given by combining line 13.
44
Lambert 1961, p. 151, line 16. In the edition of Livingstone 1989, the translation of this line is
as follows “Ashurnasirpal harnessed and mobilized the land Nairi…”
45
Benedict 1960, p. 102.
46
See n. 2 in this article.
 WAR AND IDENTITY IN THE EARLY HISTORY OF URARTU 31

of processes that began in stage two are in the annals of Shalmaneser III’s campaigns
against Aramu of Urartu and his city on the famous reliefs on the gates. We have
already mentioned that Urina Mountain, visible in one of the reliefs of Ashurnasirpal
II at Balawat Mound, could be a mountain in the Lake Van basin. The war scenes
depicted in the same bronze gate band correspond exactly with depictions of Aramu’s
army, which was defeated by the Assyrians and is shown on bands I, II and VII of the
Balawat reliefs of Shalmaneser III (Figs 9, 10, 11).47
In the short inscription on the lower register of band I, Assyrian king Shalmaneser III
notes that he conquered Aramu of Urartu’s city Sugunia:
URU su-gu-ni-[a] sá-a-ra-me KUR ú-ra-ar- ta-a-a KUR-ud
I captured Suguni[a], the city of Aramu of Urar†u.48

In the upper line of band II it says:

ti-du-ku [(x x)] sá KUR ú-ra-ar-Áí [(…)]
War against Land Urar†u [(…)49

In the upper line of band VII it says:

URU sám-a-ra-me KUR ú-ra-ar- ta-a-a KUR-ud
“The city of Aramu, the Urartian, I captured.”50

While Assyrian inscriptions speak of a Urartian king named Aramu, the depictions
show Aramu’s warriors. In the bands where the above lines appear, the common char-
acteristics of Urartian warriors are that they have crested helmets, carry small, round
shields which are embossed at the centre, and sometimes climb down mountains
(Fig. 13). The shields of the enemy warriors shown in the war of Ashurnasirpal II on
Urina Mountain are not visible, but the men have crested helmets and are shown on
mountains (Fig. 12). The helmets that they wear and the helmets of the army of
Aramu against which Shalmaneser III fought are different variations on the same
crested helmets. Here, two questions must be raised: First, is the crested helmet only
a way for the artist who made this relief to differentiate the warriors of Nairi lands, or
do the helmets of these warriors constitute a concrete cultural element? And second,
can these helmets be intended to indicate a uniform warrior profile in an army that
has started to be commanded by one administrative centre?
When written sources are taken into consideration, the second proposition does
not conflict with the characteristics of the second stage as shown on the abovemen-
tioned relief of Ashurnasirpal II. One can accept the date of that relief as marking the

47
See Schachner (2007) for an overall examination of the Balawat Gates plaques of Shalmaneser III.
48
Grayson 1996, A.0.102.64.
49
Grayson 1996, A.0.102.65.
50
Grayson 1996, A.0.102.71.
32 A. BATMAZ

beginnings of the second stage. The third stage must be the continuation of the sec-
ond: Aramu’s warriors wear crested helmets as well. In spite of the fact that no crested
helmets were found in any Urartian fortresses, they can be seen with some Urartian
artefacts; for example, the warrior statue from Toprakkale51 and the warriors described
on some metal artefacts (Figs 14, 15)52 bear them. Since no fortress belonging to the
period of Aramu has so far been excavated, it is also within the bounds of possibility
that helmets of this type have simply not yet been found.
What is important here is that in all three stages the effectiveness of the local lead-
ers is known and they play a notable role within the structure of Urartu lands. When
Shalmaneser III describes Aramu of Urartu and his own campaign to capture the
fortified city Sugunia in the record of his first year, he also mentions a leader named
Kakia as the king of Nairi lands.
…At that time, in my accession year, in my first regnal year53…I moved (my) chariots
(and) troops over (these paths) (and) approached the city Îubuskia. I burned the city
Îubuskia together with 100 cities in its environs. Kakia, king of the land Nairi and the
remainder of his troops, became frightened in the face of the flash of my weapons and
took to the rugged mountains (for refuge) …54 Moving on from the city Îubuskia
I approached the city Sugunia, fortified city of Aramu, the Urartian. I besieged the city,
captured (it), massacred many of its (people), (and) carried off booty from them.
I erected two towers of heads in front of his city. I burned fourteen cities in its envi-
rons.55 Moving on from the city Sugunia, I went down to the sea Nairi.56

Another inscription that narrates the same campaign mentions a Îubuskia king
named Kaki:
I moved my chariots (and) troops over (those paths and) approached the city Îubuskia.
I burned the city Îubuskia (and) all the cities in its environs. Kakia (Kaki) the king
of the city Îubuskia (and) the remainder of his troops became frightened in the face of
my weapons and they ascended mountains (where) they fortified themselves. I climbed
up the mountains after them. I waged mighty war in the mountains (and) defeated
them…57

Kakia and Kaki should be understood to be the same person. He must have been the
leader of the Îubuskia region, which is located south of Lake Van, and that means
in the period when Aramu of Urartu and his city are mentioned, local rulers had
significant military power as well. In addition, it is known through the king’s inscrip-
tions that there were leaders such as Lalla of Melid,58 AnÌitti of Subria,59 and Asia of

51
Barnett 1954, pl. II/2 A, B, C.
52
Merhav 1991, p. 137, fig. 12.
53
Grayson 1996, A.0.102.2/col.i 14b.
54
Grayson 1996, A.0.102.2/col. i 18b–23a.
55
Grayson 1996, A.0.102.1/29b–33a.
56
Grayson 1996, A.0.102.1/33b–40a.
57
Grayson 1996, A.0.102.1/19b–29a.
58
Grayson 1996, A.0.102.16/181b–194.
59
Grayson 1996, A.0.102.6/col.ii 16–18, A.0.102.16/26b–27.
 WAR AND IDENTITY IN THE EARLY HISTORY OF URARTU 33

Daienu60 operating in the period of Shalmaneser III. It is clear from inscriptions that
these lands and Urartu lands were different and independent of each other; however,
in times of danger they came together as allied forces. Therefore, it can be stated that
there were regional polities in Eastern Anatolia besides Urartu lands and that these
polities shared both friendly and hostile relations.
In fact, it can also be said that ashirets continued after the Urartian kingdom was
established and were effective in regional defence and government. For instance, in
the period of Sarduri I, the king of Urartu, it is said that Assyrian king Shalma-
neser III received a tribute from “king” Datana of Îubuskia in the campaigns dated
829 and 828 BC.61 Furthermore, the annals of Urartian king Argisti I indicate that he
had gathered warriors from some ashirets:
…I assembled warriors…Through the greatness of god Îaldi before Dadi (tribe), the
lands of Kulahini, mountainous land…I assembled warriors, took them from my own
land… a military leader, from Dada tribe of mine…I have despatched into the field
military leaders.62

It is possible to learn from Assyrian written sources that the significance of ashirets
prevailed until the late periods of the kingdom. Sargon II, in his eighth campaign
records, speaks about Yanzu, a local leader:
…I set forth from the city U’ayis, I arrived at the territory of Yanzu, king of the Nairi-
lands. Yanzu, king of the Nairi-lands, came to my presence a distance of four double
leagues from his royal capital, Îubuskia, and did homage to me….63

With the emergence of a new king’s name, “Seduru, the Urartian”, in the Assyrian
written sources,64 the fourth and last stage starts (Fig. 7). This stage is marked by a
change of monarchy and consequent changes in certain aspects of the culture. Here,
we must return again to the written sources. A king on the Urartian throne, whose
father’s name is not Aramu, leaves an inscription of his own at Sardur Burç (Madır
Burç) on the outskirts of Tushpa. Where he declares his monarchy in the inscription
in the Assyrian language, he calls himself king of Nairi lands. (It has been suggested
that this king’s father, Lutipri, is the Lapturi who is mentioned in Assyrian sources.65)
Although there is no written evidence directly about the cultural element, it can be
seen that the failure of Aramu’s power has brought with it cultural destruction as well;
the replacement of crested helmets with cone-shaped ones comes first. Although the
cause of the shift in the monarchy and the associated cultural changes are not entirely
explained, it is noted in the records of Shalmaneser III’s campaign of 856 BC that the

60
Grayson 1996, A.0.102.6/col. iii 34–45, A.0.102.29/27–34a.
61
Grayson 1996, A.0.102.16/ 291–320.
62
Meliki≥vili 1960, vol. 1, p. 127, col II; Payne 2006, pp. 159, 164. (8.1.1).
63
Foster 2005, p. 806.
64
Grayson 1996, A.0.102.14/141b–146a.
65
Tarhan 1982, p. 69.
34 A. BATMAZ

Urartian king abandoned the royal city Arzaskun. In the same inscription, it is said
that Aramu fled to Adduri (perhaps Eiduru) Mountain.
The Assyrian king also destroyed many cities that were located in Urartu lands. In
the seventh and fifteenth years of Shalmaneser III, there were campaigns against
Aramu, and Shalmaneser III announced himself as the conqueror of Nairi lands.66 It
is quite possible that military activities such as these brought about the end of Aramu’s
power.67 Such a setting must have resulted in administrative deficiencies and a mon-
archy gap in the region. Two possibilities can be considered for stage four: 1) Aramu
left the Urartian throne voluntarily; or 2) he lost power as a result of a struggle with
the Sarduri dynasty which would succeed him.68 In either case, it is evident that the
existing culture would be damaged.
No cone-shaped helmet from the time of Sarduri I has been found; however, there
are cone-shaped helmets belonging to the period of Ispuini, who was Sarduri’s succes-
sor. The gods depicted on the Anzaf Shield, which was found at the Yukarı Anzaf
fortress and dated to the Ispuini-Menua period, wear cone-shaped helmets (Fig. 16).69
In addition, in some museums abroad there are cone-shaped helmets on which it is
written that they are dedicated to Ispuini.70
Another cultural indicator is shields. On Assyrian reliefs, Aramu warriors carry
round shields which are embossed at the centre, but very small. On the basis of the
body to shield ratio that was calculated from the depictions, the shields could not
measure more than half a metre; however, no shields of less than 60 cm in diameter
have been found at archaeological excavations. The length of the shields recovered up
until now varies between 60 and 120 cm (Fig. 18). It should also be taken into con-
sideration, however, that ratios given in the depictions were not always realistic; as a
matter of fact, in some of them it can be observed that Assyrian warriors are portrayed
as taller than the fortification walls.
Finally in the fourth stage, the monarchy began to be associated with the policy of
constructing fortresses; this occurred around the middle of the ninth century and is
impossible to ignore when we consider fortresses, temples, irrigation systems, records of
achievements, and plans of integrated cities.71 Nonetheless, the ashiret system was not

66
Grayson 1996, A.0.102.20/3b–7a.
67
Çilingiroglu (1994, p. 40) reminds us that the change of dynasty might have been occasioned by
an agreement.
68
Tarhan 1978, p. 61; Barnett 1982, p. 314. Tarhan and Barnett support the idea that the power
of Aramu was seized. They point to evidence for this in the fact that the capital moved from Arzaskun
to Tushpa and the father of Sarduri was not Aramu.
69
Belli 1998, fig. 17.
70
Dezsö 2001, pp. 79–96.
71
There are some ideas contrary to this view; Bernbeck (2003–2004, p. 267) thinks that the king-
dom before the seventh century BC was a segmented state without a solid monarch. According to
Bernbeck, it consisted of political groups combined under one ideological administration (king) but not
a direct imperium.
 WAR AND IDENTITY IN THE EARLY HISTORY OF URARTU 35

totally dissolved. As is confirmed in the inscriptions of both the Assyrian and Urartian
kingdoms, local ashirets and their warriors or troops could be found across the kingdom.
Commanders must have been borrowed from among the ashiret leaders, who were sub-
ordinate to the central power, and commissioned by the army.72 The central Urartian
authority’s success in directing the ashirets must have been accomplished by acknowl-
edging their political existence and giving them specific sovereignties.73 The administra-
tion was guaranteed by dividing the ashiret lands into provinces and appointing their
leaders as governors. I think that building a political framework which depended on
ashiret principles and traditions, and included religious tolerance, played an important
role in constituting such a system. This tolerance, which prevailed through the subse-
quent history of the region, laid the ground for the ashirets in Eastern Anatolia today.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
AKPINAR, A. and ROGAN, E. L.
2001 A≥iret, Mektep, Devlet: Osmanlı Devleti’nde A≥iret Mektebi. Istanbul:
Aram.
BARNETT, R. D.
1954 “The Excavations of the British Museum at Toprakkale, Near Van-
Addenda,” Iraq 16/1: 3–22.
1982 “Urartian Art and Archaeology,” in The Prehistory of the Balkans; and
the Middle East and the Aegean world, tenth to eighth centuries B.C.
(Cambridge Ancient History, Vol. 3, Part I), pp. 314–371. Cambridge;
New York: Cambridge University Press.
BELLI, O.
1998 Anzaf Kaleleri ve Urartu Tanrıları. Istanbul: Arkeoloji ve Sanat.
BELLI, O. and SALVINI, M.
2004 “The Urartian Fortress of Kevenli and the Cuneiform Inscriptions by
King Menua Found There,” in Studi Micenei Ed Egeo-Anatolici, Vol. 46,
pt. 2, pp. 155–174. Rome.
BENEDICT, W. C.
1960 “Urartians and Hurrians,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 80/2:
100–104.
BERNBECK, R.
2003–2004 “Politische Struktur und Ideologie in Urartu,” Archäologische Mitteilungen
aus Iran und Turan 35/36: 267–312.
BE≤IKÇI, I.
1969 Dogu Anadolu’nun Düzeni: Sosyo-Ekonomik ve Etnik Temeller. Istanbul:
E Yayınları.
BURNEY, C. H.
1966 “A First Season of Excavations at the Urartian Citadel of Kayalıdere,” Anatolian
Studies 16: 55–111.
CRIBB, R.
1991 Nomads in Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

72
See Konakçı and Ba≥türk (2009, pp.169–201) for the military structure of the Urartian Kingdom.
73
Yakar 2007, p. 382.
36 A. BATMAZ

CURTIS, J. E. and TALLIS, N., eds

2008 The Balawat Gates of Ashurnasirpal II. London.
ÇILINGIROGLU, A. A.
1984 Urartu ve Kuzey Suriye: Siyasal ve Kültürel Ili≥kiler. Izmir: Ege Üniversitesi
Yayınları.
1994 Urartu Tarihi. Izmir: Ege Üniversitesi Yayınları.
DAVIES, L. G., WALKER, C. B. F., CURTIS, J. E. and TALLIS, N.
2008 “Description of the Mamu Temple Gates,” in The Balawat Gates of Ashurnasir-
pal II, edited by J. E. Curtis and N. Tallis, pp. 54–69. London.
DEZSÖ, T.
2001 Near Eastern Helmets of the Iron Age (BAR International Series 992). Oxford.
DIAKONOFF, I.
1984 Pre-history of the Armenian People (Anatolian and Caucasian Studies). Trans-
lated by L. Jennings. New York, Delmar: Caravan.
EMIROGLU, K. and AYDIN, S.
2003 Antropoloji Sözlügü. Ankara: Bilim ve Sanat.
ERDEM, A. Ü.
2009 Dogu Anadolu’da Demir Çag Yivli Keramik Gelenegi. Unpublished PhD diss.
Ege University.
FOSTER, B. R.
2005 Before the Muses: An Anthology of Akkadian Literature. Bethesda, Maryland:
CDL Press.
GRAYSON, A. K.
1987 Assyrian Rulers of the Third and Second Millennia BC (to 1115 BC) (The Royal
Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Assyrian Periods, Vol. 1). Toronto: University of
Toronto Press.
1991 Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium BC. I (1114-859 BC) (The Royal
Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Assyrian Periods, Vol. 2). Toronto: University of
Toronto Press.
1996 Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium BC. II (858-745 BC) (The Royal
Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Assyrian Periods, Vol. 3). Toronto: University of
Toronto Press.
HALAÇOGLU, Y.
1988 XVIII. Yüzyılda Osmanlı Imparatorlugu’nun Iskân Siyaseti ve A≥iretlerin
Yerle≥tirilmesi. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları.
KELLNER, H. J.
1991 Gürtelbleche aus Urartu (Prähistorische Bronzefunde, Abteilung XII, Band 3).
München.
KONAKÇI, E. and BA≤TÜRK, M. B.
2009 “Military and Militia in the Urartian State,” Ancient West and East 8: 169–201.
LAMBERT, W. G.
1961 “The Sultantepe Tablets: VIII. Shalmaneser in Ararat (continued),” Anatolian
Studies 11: 143–158.
LIVINGSTONE, A., ed.
1989 Court Poetry and Literary Miscellanea (State Archives of Assyira, vol. 3). Hel-
sinki: Helsinki University Press.
MELIKI≥VILI, G.A.
1960 Urartskie Klinoobraznye Nadpisi I. Moscow.
MERHAV, R.
1991 “Shields,” in Urartu: A Metalworking Center in the First Millennum BCE, edited
by R. Merhav, pp. 134–139. Jerusalem: The Israel Museum.
 WAR AND IDENTITY IN THE EARLY HISTORY OF URARTU 37

ORHONLU, C.
1987 Osmanlı Imparatorlugu’nda A≥iretlerin Iskânı. Istanbul: Eren.
ÖZER, A.
2003 Dogu’da A≥iret Düzeni ve Burukanlar. Ankara: Elips.
PAYNE, M.
2006 Urartu Çiviyazılı Belgeler Katalogu. Istanbul: Arkeoloji ve Sanat.
RADNER, K.
2009 “Die Assyrischen Königsinschriften An Der Tigrisgrotte,” in Assyriens Könige an
Einer der Quellen des Tigris: Archäologische Forschungen im Höhlensystem von
Bırkleyn und am sogenannten Tigris-Tunnel (Istanbuler Forschungen Band 51),
edited by A. Schachner, pp.172–202. Tübingen: Ernst Wasmuth Verlag.
ROAF, M.
1996 Mezopotamya ve Eski Yakındogu (Atlaslı Büyük Uygarlıklar Ansiklopedisi 9).
Istanbul: Ileti≥im.
2001 “Continuity and Change from the Middle to the Late Assyrian Period,” in
Migration und Kulturtransfer: Der Wandel vorder- und zentralasiatischer
Kulturen im Umbruch vom 2. zum 1. vorchristlischen Jhartausend. Akten des
internationalen Kolloquiums Berlin, 23. Bis 26. November 1999, edited by
R. Eichmann and H. Parzinger, pp. 357–369. Bonn.
RUSSELL, H. F.
1984 “Shalmaneser’s Campaign to Urartu in 856 BC and the Historical Geography
of Eastern Anatolia According to the Assyrian Sources,” Anatolian Studies 34:
171–201.
SAGGS, H. W. F.
1969 The Greatness that was Babylon: A Survey of the Ancient Civilization of the
Tigris-Euphrates Valley. London: Sidgwick and Jackson.
SALVINI, M.
1967 Nairi e Ur (u) atri. Roma.
SCHACHNER, A.
2007 Bilder eines Weltreichs Kunst- und kulturgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu den
Verzierungen eines Tores aus Balawat (Imgur-Enlil) aus der Zeit von Salmanassar
III, König von Assyrien (Subartu 20). Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols.
2009 Assyriens Könige an Einer der Quellen des Tigris: Archäologische Forschungen im
Höhlensystem von Bırkleyn und am sogenannten Tigris-Tunnel (Istanbuler
Forschungen, Band 51). Tübingen: Ernst Wasmuth Verlag.
SEVIN, V.
1979 Urartu Krallıgı’nın Tarihsel ve Kültürel Geli≥imi. Unpublished PhD diss. Istan-
bul University.
TARHAN, M. T.
1978 M.Ö. 13. Yüzyılda Uruadri ve Nairi Konfederasyonları. Unpublished Associate
Professorship Thesis. Istanbul.
1982 “Urartu Devleti’nin ‘Kurulu≥’ Evresi ve Kurucu Krallardan ‘Lutipri-Lapturi’
Hakkında Yeni Görü≥ler,” Anadolu Ara≥tırmaları 8: 69–114.
YAKAR, J.
2007 Anadolu’nun Etnoarkeolojisi, translated by S. H. Riegel. Istanbul: Homer.
 38
A. BATMAZ

Fig. 1 Territory of the Assyrian Empire in 13th and 12th century BC (Redrawn from Roaf 1996, 140.)
 WAR AND IDENTITY IN THE EARLY HISTORY OF URARTU
39

Fig. 2 The widest expansion of Shalmaneser III’s campaigns. (Redrawn from Roaf 1996, 164.)
 40
A. BATMAZ

Fig. 3 The land of Urartu and neighbouring regions.

Fig. 4 Stage I (Specific features of the stage.)
WAR AND IDENTITY IN THE EARLY HISTORY OF URARTU
41

Fig. 5 Stage II (Specific features of the stage.)

 42

Fig. 6 Stage III (Specific features of the stage.)

A. BATMAZ

Fig. 7 Stage IV (Specific features of the stage.)

 WAR AND IDENTITY IN THE EARLY HISTORY OF URARTU

Fig. 8 A band fragment of Balawat Gate of Ashurnasirpal II-Door B/Band MM ASH II L2. (Curtis and Tallis 2008: 161, fig.60.)
43
 44
A. BATMAZ

Fig. 9 Band I of Balawat Gate of Shalmaneser III-Door C. (after Schachner 2007: Taf.1)
 WAR AND IDENTITY IN THE EARLY HISTORY OF URARTU

Fig. 10 Band II of Balawat Gate of Shalmaneser III-Door C. (after Schachner 2007: Taf.2)
45
 46
A. BATMAZ

Fig. 11 Band VII of Balawat Gate of Shalmaneser III-Door C. (after Schachner 2007: Taf.7)
 WAR AND IDENTITY IN THE EARLY HISTORY OF URARTU

Fig. 12 Detail from Balawat Gate’s band of Ashurnassirpal II-Door B/Band MM ASH II L2. (Curtis and Tallis 2008: 161, fig.60.)
47
 48
A. BATMAZ

Fig. 13 Some details Balawat Gate of Shalmaneser III-Door C. (adapted from Schachner 2007.)
 WAR AND IDENTITY IN THE EARLY HISTORY OF URARTU 49

Fig. 14 Depiction of an Urartian cavalier with crested helmet on a bronze belt fragment.
(Kellner 1991, Tafel 88/447.)

Fig. 15 God with crested helmet. Detail of bronze belt. (Merhav 1991, 136, fig. 12)

Fig. 16 A bronze shield from Anzaf Fortress showing Urartian deties with conical helmet.
(Belli 1998, Fig. 17.)
50 A. BATMAZ

b
Fig. 17 Shields from Ayanis.
(Ayanis excavation achive, by permission of A. Çilingiroglu)