Urartian and the Urartians

THE 0 X FOR D H A N D BOO K 0 F

ANCIENT ANATOLIA

10000-323 BCE

Edited by

SHARON R STEADMAN

AND GREGORY McMAHON

OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS

I

CHAPTER 24

~ ~ ~

URARTIAN AND THE URARTIANS

~

PAUL ZIMANSKY

WITH a few terminological qualifications it is easy enough to define the subject of Urartian as a language the Urartians as a people however are another matter To whom does this designation apply Urartian texts were produced by a few individshyuals in a restricted context and determining the extent of the terms inclusiveness beyond this temporally spatially and culturally takes one into the realm of speculashytion and controversy The core around which the meanings are layered is the polity of Biainili known to outsiders as Urartu or Ararat which dominated eastern Anashytolia and adjacent areas in the eighth and seventh centuries BCE This kingdom had a militaristic imperial government and left a distinctive archaeological record known to us largely from the ruins of fortresses and looted burials Its ruling dyshynasty was directly involved in the creation of hundreds of monumental inscriptions in a Simplified and quite intelligible cuneiform script which enable us to identify classify and to a certain extent understand the official language we call Urartian

We do not know the ancient name of this language no surviving source from antiquity mentions it in the abstract Nor is it likely that its native speakers called themselves Urartians although their enemies probably did In employing these terms we follow a convention going back to the Assyrians who originally had a geographical referent in mind when they used the variants Uruatri and Uratri l in the thirteenth century BCE to deSignate a politically disunified territory in highland eastern Anatolia stretching northwestward from Lake Van Later they applied the term Urartu to Biainili a polity that coalesced in eastern Anatolia in the mid-nin~ century BCE prospered as the Neo-Assyrian Empires most persistent rival an then disappeared violently and with remarkable thoroughness a little more tha two centuries later The Bible and Neo-Hittite documents followed the Assyrian lea the Biblical Ararat simply being a rendering of Urartu transposed by writers who

D

~S

to define the subject of are another matter To uced by a few individshyhe terms inclusiveness o the realm ofspeculashyUe layered is the polity )minated eastern AnashyCB This kingdom had archaeological record burials Its ruling dyshy

numental inscriptions I enable us to identify 1ge we call Urartian surviving source from native speakers called

1 In employing these who originally had a

latri and UratrP in the l territory in highland ~ater they applied the tolia in the mid-ninth It persistent rival and ess a little more than wed the Assyrian lead posed by writers who

URARTIAN AND THE URARTIANS 549

were no longer familiar with the original pronunciation Only once is the term Urartu written out phonetically in Biainilis own inscriptions and this is in the Akkashydian version of a late bilingual text (Andre-Salvini and Salvini 200221) In earlier Akkadian texts Urartians use the name Nairi for their land which in Middle Assyrshyian and early Neo-Assyrian documents appears to refer to a highland area to the south and east ofUruatri closer to Lake Urmia The kings ofBiainili do not provide an ethnic or linguistic deSignation for their subjects beyond the literal meaning of Biainili itself those of the land of Bia Because this was an empire put together by military force and importation of captive peoples the assumption that there was broad ethnic or linguistic uniformity among its subjects is hardly warranted

After the collapse of both Biainili and the Assyrian Empire there are scattered cuneiform references to the land of UraStu and individuals in some way associated with it In the absence ofan autonomous political entity in the area at this time the term is probably once again geographical The Behistun trilingual of the late sixth century BCE uses Urastu in the Akkadian version but replaces it with Armina and Arminiya in the Old Persian and Elamite versions respectively (King Thompson and Budge 19071)-the first historical appearance of the term Armenia (see Radner chapter 33in this volume) Ifthere ever had been a linguistic connotation to UrartuJ Urastu by this time it must have been a thing of the past

The most minimal definition of an Urartian would be someone who spoke the language of the royal inscriptions of Biainili I begin the discussion with linguistic considerations before returning to the question of who should be included among the Urartians

THE CORPUS OF URARTIAN TEXTS

The most substantial Urartian texts are carved into stone in cuneiform characters sometimes on exposed bedrock sometimes on worked stones once incorporated in buildings and sometimes on independent stelai specially erected to display text It is hard to give meaningful statistics on the number and content size of these because there are many duplicates near duplicates and fragmentary inscriptions A rough characterization is that there are several hundred texts most ofwhich consist ofa few stock phrases About sixty extant inscriptions run to twenty or more lines of a few words each and there are three much longer texts (I) the annals of Argisti I carved on the south face of the Van citadel outside a huge multiroomed rock-cut tomb (2) the annals ofSarduri II found on a stele and the walls ofa niche on the north side of the Van citadel and (3) a standard inscription of the seventh-century BCE king Rusa son ofArgiSti ofwhich a complete version was discovered in 1998 (ltilingiroglu and Salvini 2001253-70) although parts ofvariants had long been known from other sites There are also four bilingual texts with versions in Neo-Assyrian Akkadian and Urartian These were all composed by Urartian kings and associated with the buffer state of Mu~a~ir which lay in the Zagros Mountains west of Lake Urmia between

550 PHILOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL

Urartu and Assyria (see Radner chapter 33 in this volume) The best preserved most important ofthese is the stele that stood in the Kelishin Pass with Urania illld Assyrian versions offorty-one and forty-two lines respectively n illld

There is also some writing on clay used for bureaucratic purposes by the tJ tians but in comparison to what comes from Mesopotamian sites it su arshyin very modest quantity Fewer than thirtytablets and tablet fragments hVlves far been discovered2 although there are also short notations in the same sty So

clay bullae as further testimony to the importance ofhandwritten cuneiform in t~n administration of Urartian fortresses These rare pieces are in a practiced hand e generally well preserved so it may simply be bad luck that a palace archive con~d ing thousands of them has eluded discovery Cuneiform was often carved onto ~shyshoulders oflarge storage vessels to indicate capacity e

Less interesting philologically but accounting for the largest number of inscr tions are hundreds of short notations of possession and dedication inscribed ~~ bronze objects of art Cuneiform legends were carved on the royal seals and the seals of officials whose personal names are also those common to royalty but not significantly on the seals of other individuals

Cuneiform was not the only writing employed in BiainiJi A hieroglyphic sCript which employed characters similar to and in some cases identical with LUwian hieroshyglyphs was in general use as well Most of the examples of this consist ofa few sym_ bols scratched onto clay vessels often with accompanying notations ofquantity They also appear on seals and bronze plaques and one clay tablet with incised glyphs is known Although Urartus hieroglyphs were perhaps more widespread than its cuneshyiform they remain largely undeciphered they may not have constituted a full writing system and contribute nothing to our understanding of the underlying language

For many decades scholarly access to the corpus ofUrartian texts was provided by two basic collections one in German (Konig 1955-57) and one in Russian (MelikiSvili 1960) As more inscriptions were discovered and published in the last decades of the twentieth century these became obsolete A new single-volume work in Russian appearing several years ago (Arutjunjan 200l) updated Melikisvilis work but did not include the important new material fromAyanis As this chapter was being written the first three volumes of a long-awaited corpus with Italian translations appeared (Salvini 2008) and promises to be the standard resource for the next generation ofUrartian scholars

DISCOVERY AND EARLY ATTEMPTS

AT DECIPHERMENT ~

~ bullbullbullbullbullbullbull ~ bullbull ~ ~ ~ bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull ~ bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull bull

Perhaps the best way to introduce Urartian is to follow the footsteps that led to its discovery in the nineteenth century if only to underscore howlong it took scholars to recognize its fundamental difference from the major language families hitherto

551 aCAL AND HISTORICAL AND THE URARTIANS

olume) The best preserved and Kelishin Pass with Urartian and espectively eaucratic purposes by the Ura rshy[esopotamian sites it surVives s and tablet fragments have So notations in the same style on )fhandwritten cuneiform in the eces are in a practiced hand and ck that a palace archive contain_ form was often carved onto the ty )r the largest number ofinscrip_ m and dedication inscribed on rved on the royal seals and the )se common to royalty but not

in Biainili A hieroglyphic sCript lSes identical with Luwian hieroshypIes of this consist ofa few symshynying notations ofquantity They lay tablet with incised glyphs is s more widespread than its cuneshylot have constituted a full writing Ig of the underlying language IS ofUrartian texts was provided ~ 1955-57) and one in Russian )vered and published in the last olete A new single-volume work tjan 2001) updated Melikisvilis rial fromAyanis As this chapter mg-awaited corpus with Italian to be the standard resource for

f ATTEMPTS

lENT

)llow the footsteps that led to its erscore how long it took scholars major language families hithertO

defined Classical authors and the Bible had not prepared the world of that time for the rediscovery of a major empire in eastern Anatolia and before cuneiform was deciphered the Assyrian sources were ofcourse unavailable Neither Xenophon nor Jlerodotus had anything to say on the subject ofUrartu Early Armenian historians whO had the physical remains ofBiainilis royal tombs and inscriptions before them followed classical traditions in attributing these to Assyria Nevertheless a fair porshytion of the Urartian corpus was made available to western scholars quite early in the

history of Assyriology thanks to the epigraphic mission ofa young professor from the University of Giessen Friedrich Schulz Dispatchedmiddot tp Persia but prevented from entering that country he arrived at Van in July 1827 and copied more than forty Urartian cuneiform inscriptions including the lengthy annals of Argisti I

was killed before he could return to Europe but his memoire and text copies posted to France and published (Schulz 1840) just before the celebrated French British excavations at the Neo-Assyrian capitals of Nineveh Khorsabad and

got under way No analysis of the Urartian language could be undertaken until the cuneiform

system itself was reasonably well understood Schulzs copies explOited by pioneering genius of Edward Hincks made a significant contribution to this

to a quirk of Urartian orthography In the late 1840s it was clear to those lttempting to understand the cuneiform system that some signs represented whole

(logograms) whereas many were proriounced as syllables A few others were not part ofthe spoken language at all but were writing devices to

the class ofan associated word for example the name ofa land a personal a type ofvessel or an object made of wood The logograms and determinashy

could help someone grasp the general concerns of a text but only the syllabic would provide phonological information for understanding the underlying

Hincks noted that in the repetitive Urartian texts which were often nearly ofeach other a small number ofsigns appeared to be optional they could

be present or absent He correctly guessed that these were pure vowels most of the other signs were vowel and consonant combinations (Hincks

Hincks then turned to the Behistuh trilingual ofwhich the Old Persian passhysages written with more or less alphabetic characters had previously been decishy

thanks to the work of Grotefend and Rawlinson This provided him with ~~ll1J for place-names that he could match in the Akkadian version He was able

discover the correct values of the signs he had identified as vowels in Schulzs ofUrartian texts and make considerable progress in the understanding ofthe

more common syllabic signs Although the cuneiform script ofUrartu was essentially the same as that used

for the Assyrian and Babylonian dialects ofAkkadian in the first millennium BCE

it was a good deal more streamlined Moreover Urartian monumental texts are very standardized and repetitive Their simplicity and clarity made Hinckss inSights POSSible but ultimately the chief value of his work was to provide a toehold for deciphering the full cuneiform script ofAkkadian which was brought close to comshypletion in the 1850S by Hincks Rawlinson Oppert and others

552 PHILOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL TOPICS

Understanding the Urartian language as opposed to its script was another matter On this Hincks could make little progress He did offer one suggestion which although incorrect is of some historical interest both for its misundershystanding of the most fundamental aspect ofUrartian grammar and its embrace of an idea whose time came seven decades later with Hittite he thought he might be dealing with an Indo-European language (tIincks 1848) In short inscriptions he noted that the name of the actor invariably the Urartian king had a case ending marked by the sign read -se and the thing acted on which he saw as a direct object usually ended in -ni To a person schooled in Latin and ancient Greek these look very much like nominative and accusative masculine forms respecshytively if one ignores the vowels which appear to be very weak in final position in any event With the materials available to him and the level of linguistic analYSis at the time one can hardly fault Hinckss logic in coming to this conclusion Howshyever Urartian is not Indo-European and has no accusative case or nominative case as such Another seventy years were to pass before these case endings were correctly interpreted

The -se did in fact mark the agent or actor in the sentence but not in the way a nominative case does Urartian has what is called an ergative structure which is a very different organizing principle from what one finds in Indo-European or Semitic languages Ergative languages of which there are many genetically unreshylated examples scattered around the world lack the formal category of a direct object and make use of a special marked oblique case to designate the agent in an action There is a clear distinction in the form and conjugations of transitive and intransitive verbs and a basic unmarked case is used for what we would consider the subject of an intransitive verb and the object of a transitive one One can replishycate the pattern approximately in English by using the passive voice-the city was conquered by the kingwhere the preposition by performs the function ofidentishyfying the agent given the case ending -se in Urartian The word for city is unmarked and would have exactly the same grammatical form in the intransitive sentence the city trembled One hastens to add that this English example is only offered as an analogy Urartian verbs are not actually passive and there is no active voice in the language with which to contrast a passive

Without an appreciation of its ergative character a basic organizing principle which permeates its grammar it is hard to see how anyone could claim to undershystand Urartian but deciphering the cuneiform writing system and work with NeoshyAssyrian texts offered scholars of the later nineteenth century a somewhat specious ability to interpret the texts The simplicity and repetitiveness of Urartian writing the use of logograms with meanings common to all cuneiform and the intelligishybility ofplace-names made a rough understanding ofwhat was going on in most of the monumental inscriptions reasonably clear Archibald Henry Sayce exploited this transparency when he initiated a series of articles in the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society in which all of the known Urartian texts were published and transshylated along with a grammar (Sayce 1882) At the time this was regarded as a breakshythrough with Sayce himself claiming that the passages and words which still resist

l

L AND HISTORICAL TOPICS

l to its script was another e did offer one suggestion est both for its misundershyrammar and its embrace of ite he thought he might be ) In short inscriptions he an king had a case ending which he saw as a direct

Latin and ancient Greek masculine forms respecshyry weak in final position in ~ level of linguistic analysis Ig to this conclusion HowshyIsative case or nominative re these case endings were

entence but not in the way ergative structure which is finds in Indo-European or are many genetically unreshyformal category of a direct to designate the agent in an njugations of transitive and Dr what we would consider ansitive one One can replishypassive voice-the city was orms the function ofidentishyle word for city is unmarked he intransitive sentence the aunple is only offered as an ere is no active voice in the

it basic organizing principle yone could clainl to undershysystem and work with Neoshymtury a somewhat specious iveness of Urartian writing uneiform and the intelligishyhat was going on in most of )ald Henry Sayce exploited in the Journal of the Royal s were published and transshyhis was regarded as a breakshy and words which still resist


translation are but few (Sayce 1882387) As late middotas 1915 a work relating the history of what was still called Vannic credited Sayce with solving the mystery of the inscriptions (Rogers 19151270-71) Today we know that Sayce misunderstood even some of the most basic words His translation of a sinlple building inscription To the children of Khaldis the gracious Menuas son of Ispuinis of Khaldis after this gate had been restored which was decayed (Sayce 1882508-9) would now be read By the power oflIaldi Minua son ofISpuini built these gates oflIaldi to perfection

Understanding how a text says what it does rather than simple translation is the real issue with Urartian In analyzing a grammar so incompletely presented by its own documents with their nearly exclusive fixation on royal activities narrated in the third person or first person past tense identification ofrelated languages was of particular importance We have seen that Hincks erroneously suggested it might be Indo-European and alternative suggestions were put forward without much rigor throughout the nineteenth century Sayce for example considered a relationshyship with Georgian or with any ofthe Caucasian languages such as Ude or Abkhas but admitted he lacked the tools to explore this (Sayce 1882411) Hurrian the only close relative ofUrartian did not enter the discussion until the twentieth century3

The discovery and analysis of a substantial body of Hurrian texts at Bogazkoy opened the next phase of Urartian decipherment There were no eureka moshyments but rather a gradual progress was effeeted through incremental contribushytions by pioneers ofHittitology and Russian scholars familiar with the languages of the Caucasus A close relationship between Urartian and Hurrian was recognized initially in vocabulary and therewith a basis for hypotheSizing a broader concepshytion of Urartians grammatical structure was established The essentially ergative nature of the language was recognized by the 1930S Although the translations in the major text collections of the 1950S already noted differ from modern ones only in detail a comprehensive presentation of Urartian grammar in combination with Hurrian was long in coming (Diakonoff 1971) It has been common for philologists to concern themselves with Hurro-Urartian as a single field of academic endeavor adding to vocabulary and interpretation of grammatical nuance in Urartian as the understanding ofHurrian advances and new texts in both languages are recovered

RUDIMENTS OF MODERN URARTIAN

INTERPRETATION

Although no detailed grammar presents Urartian to the full extent that it is curshyrently understood Gernot Wilhelms overview (2004 2008)4 does a remarkably thorough job of covering the subject in a few pages A new dictionary and gramshymatical sketch not yet published is promised for the final volume of Salvinis new corpus


The phonetic values normally read in the cuneiform signs introduced by th Sumerians and transmitted to the Urartians 2000 years later through the Akkadia e language are only approximations of Urartian phonemes In the oldest known tex

n

ofan Urartian king repeated on six enormous building blocks at the western foot o~ the citadel rock at Van Sarduri I cribbed both the language and script of a Neo_ Assyrian royal inscription changing only the proper names to make it his OWn Before the end of the ninth century BCE the next ruler ofBiainili Bpuini used the same script to write the earliest texts in the Urartian language The starting point for the sounds of the signs was thus their Neo-Assyrian values and because there are neither identifiable dialects nor indications of temporal change in the Urartian texts one assumes that they remained close to those albeit with allowance for the different phonemes of the two languages

The inventory of pronounced signs included five for vowels (a e i and two homophonous signs for u) The 100 or so syllabic signs with consonantal values were most frequently vowel + consonant (VC) less frequently consonant + Vowel (CV) and occasionally consonant +vowel + consonant (CVC) The consonants in question are transliterated as b d g k 1 m n p t k q s ~ s t t and z What sounds did these actually transcribe in Urartian The values of the sibilants are parshyticularly difficult to pin down because they also shift among dialects of Akkadian For example signs containing the value transliterated as sand s have reversed proshynunciations in Babylonian and Assyrian dialects and the SofUrartian is more likely to have been pronounced as the s in sole than the sh in shoe In addition to the voiced and voiceless values familiar to English speakers there was apparently a phoshynemically distinct third set of values tr~sliterated by the Semitic emphatics for example Wilhelm suggests that they might represent voiceless glottalized or aspishyrated consonants (Wilhelm 2008108) Uncertainty on these and other points of phonology inhibits recognition of cognates between Unirtian and other languages

It is also apparent that the Urartians used the syllabary in their own way Final vowels ofwords represented by CV signs are apt to be weak or nonexistent In some cases the sign is seemingly used for a simple consonant (Wilhelm 2008106) Cases where the vowel is sometimes written as e and other times as i perhaps indicate reshyduction to a schwa (13) but elsewhere supplementary vowels are added to make the value of the vowel clear For example the Urartians did not use the quite common cuneiform sign for mi In writing the name of the king Minua they used me and followed it with an i mMe-i-nu-a In analyzing Hurro-Urartian texts therefore it is customary to distinguish between transliterations which are sign-by-sign rendershyings of the cuneiform into the Latin alphabet and transcriptions which analyze the phonology and grammar ofthe text on a more hypothetical basis and reflect the way the text is thought to have been pronounced and understood

Urartian nouns begin with a short root followed by a theme vowel to which various modifiers maybe appended and conclude with endings to indicate case and number Gender is not marked in Urartian in either nouns or verbs if there were separate feminine pronouns we would be none the wiser as only two women are mentioned in the whole Urartian corpus and in neither instance is a pronoun used

AND HISTORICAL TOPICS-n signs introduced by the ater through the Akkadian s In the oldest known text locks at the western foot of uage and script of a Neoshyames to make it his OWn )fBiainUi Ispuini used the Jage The starting point for ues and because there are al change in the Urartian )eit with allowance for the

Jr vowels (a e i and two s with consonantal values luently consonant + vowel (CVe) The consonants in q s ~ s t t and z What ues of the sibilants are parshy

long dialects of Akkadian sand s have reversed proshysofUrartian is more likely

1 shoe In addition to the here was apparently a phoshyhe Semitic emphatics for )iceless glottalized or aspishythese and other points of rtian and other languages rry in their own way Final ak or nonexistent In some Wilhelm 2008106) Cases es as i perhaps indicate reshywels are added to make the not use the quite common Minua they used me and

artian texts therefore it is h are sign-by-sign rendershyriptions which analyze the al basis and reflect the way toad y a theme vowel to which ndings to indicate case and uns or verbs if there were er as only two women are instance is a pronoun used

lJRARTIAN AND THE URARTIANS 555

for them Singular and plural are indicated no dual has been identified All modern authorities agree on case endings for the absolute ergative genitive dative direcshytive and locative but more obscure cases are variously defined For example Wilhelm lists a comitative directive archaic and ablative-instrumental contrasting with the simple ablative (Wilhelm 2008113) Adjectives follow the nouns they modify and agree with them in number and case When two nouns are linked an anaphoric parshyticle is used to separate the case endings of the second noun from endings that reitshyerate the case endings of the first For example when Minua son of ISpuini is the actor in a transitive sentence the name ofIspuini also takes an agentive case ending Minua=se ISpuini=hi=ni=se (Minua + agentive ISpuini + patronymic + anaphoric particle + agentive)

Like the noun the verb also begins with a short root to which modifiers may be suffixed In a fixed order short elements are then added to indicate such things as aspect transitivity (or valence) and mood The transitive verb concludes with polyshysynthetic endings reflective of the number and person of the actor and the thing acted upon For example if a king built a temple the preterite verb would be sid=iSt=u=bltJ (root [built] verbal suffix [maybe some nuance like ~up] indishycator of transitivity or two valences indicator of third Singular subject plus third singular object [he x-ed it]) Ifhe built gates the form would be sid=iSt=u=alltJ the final form indicating third Singular agent and third plural object Intransitive verbs on the other hand have simple personnumber-indicating endings nun=a=dltJ (root [came] =indicator of single valence =first singular) 1came He came would be nun=a=bltJ and they came would be nun-a-lltJ A few roots may be used both transitively and intransitively for example ust=a=ba he set out [on campaign] with uSt=u=na he sent it

Imperatives jussives (third-person requests) optatives conditionals and a few additional nonindicative moods are attested in limited numbers largely in the curse formulae that sometimes conclude texts Our understanding ofverbal morphology is greatly hampered by the fact that almost all of the documents we have with the exception of these curse formulae and the relatively rare letters are framed in the past tense with actors and objects in the first or third person Singular indicative Hurrian suggests various forms but the Urartian material is neither abundant nor varied enough to hypothesize complete paradigms

URARTIANS AS PEOPLE AND POLITY

How does this language the official idiom ofthe state in BiainUi relate to Urartians as a people At one end of the spectrum is the presumption that Urartian was widely spoken in eastern Anatolia in the late second millennium BCE and that its speakers were the dominant population element within the frontiers of the kingdom of Biainili In this case the distribution ofUrartjan speakers embraces the full range of

PHILOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL

the term Urartu as used by the Assyrians and others in all its variants At the oppo_ site extreme is the idea that the kingdom of Biainili was a relatively short-lived poshylitical and cultural phenomenon created and maintained by military force in which the tastes and prejudices of a small ruling elite predominated over an otherWise diverse population The Urartian language in this case might have very little to do with the broader geographical and chronological connotations of the term Uranu Historical reality probably lies somewhere between these two extremes

Affiliations of the Urartian language with other languages in and around eastshyern Anatolia have been used to argue for the first position In particular the dose connection with Hurrian dialects of wh~ch were widely spoken in northern Syria and northern Iraq in the second millennium BCE puts it in this region The two languages share numerous cognates for example ewri (Hur) euri (Ur) lord hurati (Hur) huradi (Ur) soldier pab- (Hur) bab- (Ur) mountain and ar- (Hur) ar- (Ur) give (Gragg 19952170 Salvini 1979) Similarities in the phonology and grammatical structure of the two languages are even more signifishycant in establishing a genetic connection than common vocabulary which can of course be borrowed

There is now consensus that Hurrian and Urartian are sister languages although the position that Urartians might be first millennium BCE Hurrian survivors was occasionally put forward in the past The earliest dialect ofHurrian seen in the TiSshyatal royal inscription and reconstructed from various early second millennium BCE sources shows features that disappeared in later Hunjan but are present in Urartian (Wilhelm 198863) In short the more we discover or deduce about the earliest stages of Hurrian the more it looks like Urartian (Gragg 19952170) The Hurrians are often assumed to have intruded into Greater Mesopotamia from the highlands from the third millennium BCE on although their presence is only documented south of the Taurus Whereas attempts to link their movements with specific pottery styles like Kura-Araxes Ware in the third millennium or Khabur Ware in the second millennium BCE are problematic on archaeological grounds divergence between the two languages is thought to begin in the late third millennium BCE (Gragg 19952170) or not much later than 2000 BCE (Wilhelm 2008105)

That Hurro-Urartian as a whole shared a yet earlier common ancestor with some of the numerous and comparatively obscure languages of the Caucasus is not improbable Modern Caucasian languages are conventionally divided into southshyern (north)western and (north)eastern families (Smeets 1989260) Georgian for example belongs to the southern family Diakonoff and Starostin in the most thorshyough attempt at finding a linkage yet published have argued that Hurro-Urartian is a branch of the eastern Caucasian family This would make it a distant relative of such modern languages as Chechen Avar Lak and Udi (Diakonoff and Starostin 1986) The etymologies sound correspondences and comparative morphologies these authors present are quite tentative and viewed with skepticism by many (eg Smeets 1989) In any case a reconstructed parent language dating to the early third

~ millennium BCE at the earliest would do nothing to define the Urartian homeland more precisely

L AND HISTORICAL TOPICS URARTIAN AND THE URARTIANS 557

Jl its variants At the opposhya relatively short-lived poshyL by military force in which ninated over an otherwise might have very little to do tations of the term Umrtu

e two extremes guages in and around eastshyion In particular the close y spoken in northern Syria s it in this region The two (Hur) euri (Ur) laquolord ab- (Ur) mountain and i 1979) Similarities in the ages are even more signifishy1 vocabulary which can of

e sister languages although CE Hurrian survivors was ofHurrian seen in the TiSshy early second millennium Hurrian but are present in cover or deduce about the an (Gragg 19952170) The reater Mesopotamia from ough their presence is only link their movements with drd millennium or Khabur on archaeological grounds in the late third millennium E (Wilhelm 2008105) ier common ancestor with lages of the Caucasus is not ionally divided into southshy~ts 1989260) Georgian for Starostin in the most thorshy~ed that Hurro-Urartian is nake it a distant relative of Ii (Diakonoff and Starostin comparative morphologies h skepticism by many (eg 1ge dating to the early third fine the Urartian homeland

Alternatively archaeological and historical evidence for an abrupt emergence of Biainili together with the speed and totality of its disappearance argue for minishymizing the number of Urartian speakers The ki~gdom of Biainili to which native inscriptions only indirectly applied the name Urartu toward the end ofits history is associated with cultural characteristics that were imposed from the top down at the end of the ninth century BCE Some like the writing system and decorative arts were clearly inspired by Assyria and Greater Mesopotamia generally The distinctive style of fortress architecture on the other hand seems to have been a local invenshytion Few settlements dating to the centuries prior to the rise of Biainili have been identified in the relevant parts of eastern Anatolia and almost all Urartian sites are new foundations The Urartian state religion placed the god IJaldi imported from Mu~a~ir at the head of a pantheon that included both well-known Hurrian deities like the storm god TeiSeba and a plethora oflocal characters like the mountain god QUbani The ruling family itself may have come to Van from the MUja~ir area given the latters importance in the maintenance ofkingship Urartiim literacy was strongly tied to the central government of Biainili and was probably otherwise quite supershyficial (Zirnansky 2006) In this context the branch of the Hurro-Urartian family that we know as Urartian may well have arrived in the Van area with the new rulers and have nothing to do with the area that the Assyrians called Uruatri in the second millennium BCE

This would help explain why there are so few traces of the language after the collapse of the state All but a few Urartian sites were abandoned and only rarely do place-names in Urartian texts carryover into later eras Erevan from Erebuni being one notable exception A handful of HU~10-Urartian words appear to have been borrowed by Armenian but fewer than one would expect if the languages were in close proximity for a long time and one cannot say whether they came directly through Urartian (Greppin 1991) Fashionable as it once was to see survivors of the great empire in the names of peoples known to the Greeks like the Alarodians and Khaldians (thought to be named for the god Ijaldi) nothing in what little the classhysical descriptions tell us of these people shows any continuity with Biainili

In short Urartians are not a self-identified people and language is just one modern alternative used to define them It may not be the best option when the subject of the discussion is in fact the kingdom of Biainili its origins or its fate Although the official language ofBiainili imperfect though our knowledge ofit may be is certainly at home in eastern Anatolia a good deal of historical confusion would be obviated if more care were given to the different nuances of geography polity and chronology in considering who the Urartians were

NOTES

1 The t in Urartu Uruatri Uratri and Urastuis consistently rendered in cuneiform with the emphatic tet transcribed as a t with a dot under it Although this sound is


phonemically distinct in both Semitic languages and Urartian a simple t is almost universally used in modern scholarship on Urartu unless specifically addressing phonological issues I follow that practice here

2 In the summer of 2009 Altan A GilingirogIu discovered five tablet fragments in the citadel at Ayanis in a room that promises to yield more in future excavations No substantial text was preserved on any of these but they are further evidence that cuneiform was widely used for nondisplay purposes in Urartu

3 Robert W Rogers stated that the discoveries of Belck and Lehmann-Haupts Armenian expedition of1898 may be regarded as the concluding event in the history of the decipherment of the Vannie [ie Urartianl inscriptions (19151272-73) and notes elsewhere in the same work that the language of Mitanni that is Hurrian has thus far not yielded to the numerous efforts made to decipher it (19152112) He makes no reference to Hurrian in his lengthy discussion of Urartian decipherment which was regarded as the definitive statement on the eve ofWorld War I and prior to Hroznys breakthrough on Hittite

4 Wilhelms chapter was first published as part ofWoodards full encyclopedia of ancient languages in 2004 and then reprinted with different pagination in a smaller volume on the languages of Asia Minor in 2008 In my citations I use the 2008 publication

REFERENCES

Andre-Salvini Beatrice and Mirjo Salvini 2002 The Bilingual Stele of Rusa I from Movana (West-Azerbaijan Iran) Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici 441 5-66

Arutjunjan Nikolaj V 2001 Korpus urartskich kinoobraznych nadpisej Erevan Izdatelstvo gitujun Nacionalnaja Akademija Nauk Respubliki Armenija

Gilingiroglu Altan A and Mirjo Salvini eds 2001 Ayanis I Ten Years Excavations at Rusahinili Eiduru-kai 1989-1998 Rome CNR Istituto per gli Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici

Diakonoff I M 1971 Hurrisch und Urartiiisch Trans Karl Sdrembek Miinchner Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft Beilieft 6 Neue Folge ed Bernhard Forsmann Karl Hoffman and Johanna Narten Munich R Kitzinger

Diakonoff I M and S A Starostin 1986 Hurro-Urartian as an Eastern Caucasian Language Miinchner Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft Beilieft 12 Neue Folge ed Bernhard Forsmann Karl Hoffman and Johanna Narten Munich R Kitzinger

Gragg Gene 1995 Less-Understood Languages of Ancient Western Asia In Civilizations of the Ancient Near East ed Jack M Sasson 2161-79 New York Scribners

Greppin John A C 1991 Some Effects of the Hurro-Urartian People and Their Languages upon the Earliest Armenians Journal of the American Oriental Society lll 720-30

Hincks Edward 1848 On the Inscriptions at Van Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 9 387-449middot

King L w R C Thompson and E A W Budge 1907 The Sculptures and Inscription of Darius the Great on the Rock ofBehistun London British Museum

KOnig Friedrich Wilhelm 1955-57 Handbuch der chaldischen Inschriften Archiv Fili Orientforschung Beiheft 8 Graz Selbstverlag Ernst Weidners

Melikisvili Georgij A 1960 Urartskie klinoobraznye nadpisi Moscow Izdatelstvo Akademii Nauk SSSR

URARTIAN

Rogers Rob 1

Abingd Salvini Mir

Melang )

middot--2008

sulle ch Sayee Archi

SOcietymiddot Schulz Frie(

39 257 Smeets Riek

Orienta Wilhelm Ge

hurritis(

43-67 x Universi

--2004middot ed Roge

--2008 105-2 3 (

Zimansky Pa Writing no 2 ct

ND HISTORICAL TOPICS URARTIAN AND THE URARTIANS 559

simple t is almost ally addressing

l five tablet fragments in ture excavations No er evidence that cuneiform

1Lehmann-Haupts g everit in the history of L51272-73) and notes Hurrian has thus far 112) He makes no herment which was nd prior to Hroznys

fs full encyclopedia of pnation in a smaller I use the 2008 publication

aele of Rusa I from Movana P5-66 ldpisej Erevan Izdatelstvo tija 1 Years Excavations at li Studi Micenei ed

mbek Munchner Studien d Forsmann Karl

1 Eastern Caucasian left 12 Neue Folge ed Munich R Kitzinger tern Asia In Civilizations York Scribners eople and Their Languages ~nta1 Society 111 720-30 e Royal Asiatic Society

Ilptures and Inscription of Museum nschriften Archiv Fur ners [oscow Izdatelstvo

Rogers Robert William 1915 A History ofBabylonia qnd Assyria 6th ed 2 vols New York Abingdon Press

Salvini Mirjo 1979 Confronti lessicali fra Hurro e Urarteo In Florilegium Anatolicum Melanges offerts aEmmanuel Laroche 305-14 Paris Editions E de Boccard

-- 2008 Corpus de testi urartei Documenta Asiana 8 Rome CNR-Istituto di studi sulle civilta dellEgeo e del Vicino Oriente

Sayce Archibald H 1882 The Cuneiform Inscriptions of Van Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 14 377-732

Schulz Friedrich E 1840 Memoire sur Ie lac Van et ses environs Journal Asiatique Ser 39 257-323middot

Smeets Rieks 1989 On Hurro-Urartian as an Eastern Caucasian Language Bibliotheca Orientalis 46 259-79middot

Willielm Gernot 1988 Gedanken zur Friihgeschichte der Hurriter und zum hurritisch-urartiiischen Sprachvergleichln Hurriter und Hurritisch ed Volkert Haas 43-67 Xenia Konstanzer Althistorische Vortrage und Forschungen vol 21 Konstanz Universitatsverlag Konstanz

-- 2004 Urartian In The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the Worlds Ancient Languages ed Roger D Woodard 119-37 Cambridge Cambridge University Press

-- 2008 Urartian In The Ancient Languages ofAsia Minor ed Roger D Woodard 105-23 Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Zimansky Paul 2006 Writing Writers and Reading in the Kingdom ofVan In Margins of Writing Origins ofCultures ed Seth 1 Sanders 257-76 Oriental Institute Seminars no 2 Chicago Oriental Institute Press

CHAPTER 24

~ ~ ~

URARTIAN AND THE URARTIANS

~

PAUL ZIMANSKY

WITH a few terminological qualifications it is easy enough to define the subject of Urartian as a language the Urartians as a people however are another matter To whom does this designation apply Urartian texts were produced by a few individshyuals in a restricted context and determining the extent of the terms inclusiveness beyond this temporally spatially and culturally takes one into the realm of speculashytion and controversy The core around which the meanings are layered is the polity of Biainili known to outsiders as Urartu or Ararat which dominated eastern Anashytolia and adjacent areas in the eighth and seventh centuries BCE This kingdom had a militaristic imperial government and left a distinctive archaeological record known to us largely from the ruins of fortresses and looted burials Its ruling dyshynasty was directly involved in the creation of hundreds of monumental inscriptions in a Simplified and quite intelligible cuneiform script which enable us to identify classify and to a certain extent understand the official language we call Urartian

We do not know the ancient name of this language no surviving source from antiquity mentions it in the abstract Nor is it likely that its native speakers called themselves Urartians although their enemies probably did In employing these terms we follow a convention going back to the Assyrians who originally had a geographical referent in mind when they used the variants Uruatri and Uratri l in the thirteenth century BCE to deSignate a politically disunified territory in highland eastern Anatolia stretching northwestward from Lake Van Later they applied the term Urartu to Biainili a polity that coalesced in eastern Anatolia in the mid-nin~ century BCE prospered as the Neo-Assyrian Empires most persistent rival an then disappeared violently and with remarkable thoroughness a little more tha two centuries later The Bible and Neo-Hittite documents followed the Assyrian lea the Biblical Ararat simply being a rendering of Urartu transposed by writers who

D

~S



















AT DECIPHERMENT ~






f ATTEMPTS

lENT























l











INTERPRETATION




n





























NOTES







REFERENCES












URARTIAN

Rogers Rob 1

Abingd Salvini Mir

Melang )

middot--2008



39 257 Smeets Riek

Orienta Wilhelm Ge

hurritis(

43-67 x Universi


--2008 105-2 3 (





















D

~S



















AT DECIPHERMENT ~






f ATTEMPTS

lENT























l











INTERPRETATION




n





























NOTES







REFERENCES












URARTIAN

Rogers Rob 1

Abingd Salvini Mir

Melang )

middot--2008



39 257 Smeets Riek

Orienta Wilhelm Ge

hurritis(

43-67 x Universi


--2008 105-2 3 (





























AT DECIPHERMENT ~






f ATTEMPTS

lENT























l











INTERPRETATION




n





























NOTES







REFERENCES












URARTIAN

Rogers Rob 1

Abingd Salvini Mir

Melang )

middot--2008



39 257 Smeets Riek

Orienta Wilhelm Ge

hurritis(

43-67 x Universi


--2008 105-2 3 (
























f ATTEMPTS

lENT























l











INTERPRETATION




n





























NOTES







REFERENCES












URARTIAN

Rogers Rob 1

Abingd Salvini Mir

Melang )

middot--2008



39 257 Smeets Riek

Orienta Wilhelm Ge

hurritis(

43-67 x Universi


--2008 105-2 3 (

























l











INTERPRETATION




n





























NOTES







REFERENCES












URARTIAN

Rogers Rob 1

Abingd Salvini Mir

Melang )

middot--2008



39 257 Smeets Riek

Orienta Wilhelm Ge

hurritis(

43-67 x Universi


--2008 105-2 3 (





















l











INTERPRETATION




n





























NOTES







REFERENCES












URARTIAN

Rogers Rob 1

Abingd Salvini Mir

Melang )

middot--2008



39 257 Smeets Riek

Orienta Wilhelm Ge

hurritis(

43-67 x Universi


--2008 105-2 3 (























n





























NOTES







REFERENCES












URARTIAN

Rogers Rob 1

Abingd Salvini Mir

Melang )

middot--2008



39 257 Smeets Riek

Orienta Wilhelm Ge

hurritis(

43-67 x Universi


--2008 105-2 3 (













































NOTES







REFERENCES












URARTIAN

Rogers Rob 1

Abingd Salvini Mir

Melang )

middot--2008



39 257 Smeets Riek

Orienta Wilhelm Ge

hurritis(

43-67 x Universi


--2008 105-2 3 (


































NOTES







REFERENCES












URARTIAN

Rogers Rob 1

Abingd Salvini Mir

Melang )

middot--2008



39 257 Smeets Riek

Orienta Wilhelm Ge

hurritis(

43-67 x Universi


--2008 105-2 3 (




























NOTES







REFERENCES












URARTIAN

Rogers Rob 1

Abingd Salvini Mir

Melang )

middot--2008



39 257 Smeets Riek

Orienta Wilhelm Ge

hurritis(

43-67 x Universi


--2008 105-2 3 (


























REFERENCES












URARTIAN

Rogers Rob 1

Abingd Salvini Mir

Melang )

middot--2008



39 257 Smeets Riek

Orienta Wilhelm Ge

hurritis(

43-67 x Universi


--2008 105-2 3 (








































Documents

Urartian and the Urartians