Abstract
The site of Karmir Blur, ancient Teishebaini, is located on the left bank of the Hrazdan river in the southwestern districts of the modern capital, Yerevan. Teishebaini was, together with Erebuni (Arin Berd) and Argishtihinili (Aramvir, Davti Blur), an administrative centre of the Urartian kingdom in the Ararat plain and is nowadays one of the most important sites for the reconstruction of the Urartian state economy, as well as the chronology of the Iron Age. Recent archaeological research in Urartian fortresses in Armenia has raised doubts about the conventional dating of the destruction of Karmir Blur that is associated with the end of the kingdom of Urartu. The article presents new archaeological results from the investigations that were conducted in Karmir Blur in 2019 as part of the Armenian-Austrian cooperation.
1 Introduction
The site of Karmir Blur (lit. âRed Moundâ), takes its name from the red-burnt mud brick walls that cover the citadel (Fig. 1). It is located at an altitude of 901â¯m above sea level on the left bank of the Hrazdan river, which exits its canyon here. The view extends over the entire Ararat plain and is dominated to the north by the snow-covered Ararat massif. The site was systematically excavated by Boris Piotrovskij and Korun Kafadarian from 1939 to 1971 with some intervals between 1941â1945 (Piotrovskij 1970; Badalyan 2020). The investigations have been resumed since 2013 in the course of the planning and subsequent construction of a new road between Argavand Highway and Shirak Street, resulting in the excavation of both of an extensive necropolis with several hundred Iron Age graves and in smaller rescue trenches near the late Urartian houses (Simonyan/Atoyantz 2018).
In 2019 the Armenian-Austrian research program started. The aim of the cooperation is the re-assessment of the settlement sequence of Karmir Blur both in the citadel and, in particular, through extensive excavations in the settlement area. Based on a possible confirmation of the re-dating of the destruction of Karmir Blur into the 5th century B.C., the focus is on the question of what significance and consequences an independent continuation of this archaeological key site has for the understanding and reconstruction of the Late Iron Age cultural development in Armenia. In this context, large parts of the settlement area and the courtyard of the citadel were surveyed by geomagnetic, and the entire area was documented by high resolution aerial photogrammetry (Fig. 2). These results serve as a starting point for future large-scale investigations. In the first year, two trenches termed trench A and B were opened. Trench A is located in the citadelâs courtyard. The results of this preliminary study are discussed in this paper. Trench B is located in the settlement area and is intended to gain first insights into the stratigraphy and also served as a further reference area for the interpretation of the geomagnetic measurement.
Figure 1
Karmir Blur
Citation: Iran and the Caucasus 29, 1 (2025) ; 10.1163/1573384X-02901001
photo by P. KositzFigure 2
Map of geomagnetic prospection
Citation: Iran and the Caucasus 29, 1 (2025) ; 10.1163/1573384X-02901001
2 Karmir Blur: Sources and Problems
The fortress of Karmir Blur was founded in the first quarter of the 7th century B.C. by king Rusa Argishti and added to a settlement that had developed since the Early Iron Age (Martirosyan 1961). The newly built complex in the land of Waza became one of the main administrative and religious centers of the Urartian kingdom, whose kings traditionally focused their legitimacy on the cult of Haldi (Badalyan 2015: 132â133). The citadel and settlement were thoroughly devastated by fire, which preserved the situation of the last days of life at Karmir Blur in great detail and within a closed find context.
This fact is particularly important for chronological questions, since the material included in the destruction debris can be viewed as being in use at the same time. The discovery of several typical Urartian artefacts both of metal and ceramic, partly still stored in their original position, as well as of inscribed and royally sealed cuneiform tablets understandably promoted the contextualization of the destruction with the end of the Urartian Kingdom. This view was further confirmed by the discovery of several trilobate, bronze-socketed arrowheads, whose appearance in archaeological complexes of Mesopotamia and the South Caucasus has traditionally been associated with Scythians. However, the uncertain reconstruction of the Urartian royal dynasty after the reign of Rusa Argishti led to a highly controversial debate about the date of this pivotal event both for the history of the Armenian Highland, East Anatolia and Northwestern Iran (Hellwag 2012).
The excavation in Bastam marked a turning point in this debate. The evidence from the so-called âbone roomâ shows that the dynastic succession in Urartu cannot be extended to match the date of the Median-Lydian confrontation at the Halys in 585â¯B.C. as suggested by Lehmann-Haupt (Kroll 1984; idem 2012). Rather, only one successor, namely Sarduri Rusa, can be added and identified with the last Urartian king, who had submitted to the Assyrian king Ashurbanipal in the 40s of the 7th century B.C. The other attested kings, Rusa Erimena and Sarduri Sarduri, are now instead included in the succession of kings at the end of the 8th century B.C. (Fuchs 2012), which seems likely to have been marked by domestic power struggles because of the defeat against Sargon II and the Cimmerians as well as the sack of Haldiâs main temple in Musasir/Ardini (Roaf 2012). Nevertheless, the evidence from Bastam also reveals that parts of the fortress complex were reinstalled shortly after the demise of the Urartian kingdom in what Kroll has tentatively termed the Median period (Kroll 2014; see recently Khatchadourian 2018).
Evidence for the maintenance or reuse of several sites, including formerly important Urartian centers, has increased significantly throughout Armenia in the last decade (Karapetyan 2003; Deschamps et al. 2011; Zardaryan/Hovsepyan 2017; Petrosyan et al. 2019; Jakubiak/Piliposyan 2021; Kuntner et al. 2021). In Armenia, this period is differently referred to as Early Yervandid period, post-Urartian, Late Iron Age or Iron IV. The deviation thus reflects a still unsatisfactory state of comparative research on ceramic typologies and chronologies, which, moreover, are often still based more on historical reconstructions than on stratigraphic evaluations.
A first attempt to approach this research desideratum has recently been discussed in relation to jugs with furrowed handles decorated with triangular impressions. At Aramus, this characteristic vessel was found exclusively in the settlement layers of period IIIa. This period is dated to the 5th century B.C. by three radiocarbon samples (Kuntner/Heinsch 2021). In this context it is noteworthy that Piotrovskij (1950: 36) considered this type of vessel as one of the most diagnostic forms found in the destruction horizon of both the citadel and settlement. Accordingly, Avetisyan lists this jug type among the most distinctive vessels of the final stage of the Lchashen-Metsamor horizon (Avetisyan 2009: 64â65).
The new date for this vessel type and its affiliation to the Lchashen-Metsamor pottery tradition, which Aramus attests in the Achaemenid occupation levels of period II, leaves doubts about the historically reconstructed date of the destruction of Karmir Blur in the middle of the 7th century B.C. Following Piotrovskij (apud Salvini 1966: 169â171), the date of the destruction of Karmir Blur should therefore be based on the Scythian finds from the destruction horizon. Among them, the horse harness of the so-called aggressor-raider found in the courtyard of the citadel is of pivotal importance, as the other Scythian finds were altogether found stored in the storerooms of the citadel. The aggressorâs horse harness markedly differs typologically from the other two stored horse harnesses. Whereas the stored Scythian finds have close parallels to exemplars dating to the first half of the 7th century B.C., the strip separators and silver discs of the aggressorâs horse harness find parallels to exemplars dating to the late 6th and the first half of the 5th century B.C. (Kuntner/Heinsch 2021). The upper date is further confirmed by the low-socketed, trilobate bronze arrowheads found in the destruction debris of Karmir Blur, which are believed to be a later variant within this type of arrowheads (Cleuziou 1979).
The new dating of the destruction of Karmir Blur into the 5th century B.C. does not mean that the Urartian Kingdom lasted longer than the middle of the 7th century B.C. This issue is resolved (Kroll 2012). Rather, the greatest importance lies in the relativization of the consequences of its decline on the society and political structures of the Ararat Plain. The site of Karmir Blur offers the possibility to investigate the cultural development during a âdark periodâ in South Caucasian history marked by the transition from the long-lasting Assyro-Babylonian influence, best represented by the Urartian Kingdom, to the upcoming Iranian-coined world, which laid the foundation for the political emergence of the Armenian kingdom and then of the satrapy of Armenia (Dan 2015).
3 The Ararat Plain in the Aftermath of the Decline of the Urartian Kingdom
In the 7th century B.C., the Kingdom of Urartu underwent a profound reform that mainly affected the administration (Zimansky 1995). The motives are still unclear. Previous attempts have argued that the defeat of Urartu against Sargon and the Cimmerians and the sacking of the main temple of Haldi in Musasir were significant factors. In this regard, however, doubts have been expressed, since Argisti II was able to resume the policy of his predecessors without major interruptions and even further expand the kingdom despite the interdynastic disputes (Salvini 2009). From this discussion it is becoming increasingly clear that further structural issues, particularly the political organization of the Urartian kingdom, need to be addressed (Bernbeck 2003/2004; Cifci 2017).
In this sense, archaeological research is called on to create the framework for an interdisciplinary approach by clarifying the chronology of the development through detailed and critical stratigraphic analysis and further intensifying settlement investigations. In fact, the 7th century B.C. was also marked by the development of settlements adjacent to capital cities (Martirosyan 1964; Kroll 1979: 109â112; Stone 2005; Stronach et al. 2009) that survived the fall of the Urartian kingdom or were not affected.
The site of Karmir Blur plays a key role in this regard. It traditionally takes a central position in the chronological debate and represents a special case insofar as the fortress was added to an already existing settlement and not vice versa. This fact further emphasizes the importance of changing previous Urartian policy strategies. While the Urartian kings of the 9th and 8th centuries B.C. relied on a remote control of resources through the establishment of a dense network of fortresses that was maintained through the revenues of the annual campaigns, the kings of the 7th century seem to have more direct control, based on the connection of fortresses with settlements.
It remains to be seen whether this change was intentionally initiated by the kings. Because even if the Urartian kings may have promoted this development by introducing a new administrative system, they soon lost control of it after being overthrown. The Lchashen-Metsamor tradition of pottery production, on the contrary, outlives the fall of Urartian kingdom. The persistence into the 5th century B.C. suggests a notable degree of independence among local potentates within the politico-administrative system of the Urartian kings. These chiefdoms eventually laid the foundation for the establishment of the independent Armenian kingdom, which was the core of the Achaemenid satrapy of Armenia.
Figure 3
Map of geomagnetic prospection in the citadel of Karmir Blur
Citation: Iran and the Caucasus 29, 1 (2025) ; 10.1163/1573384X-02901001
4 Excavation in the Courtyard of the Citadel
4.1 Building Features
The location of so-called trench A has been determined on the basis of the results of the geomagnetic prospection conducted in the courtyard of the citadel (Fig. 3). The geomagnetic image shows a regular anomaly that occupies most of the central part of the courtyard and is accordingly cut through the modern concrete pathway. The structure is covered in the imaging with blurred deposits, which indicate that this part has remained untouched by previous excavations. In fact, the old trenches are clearly discernible in the geomagnetic images by their uniform grey colour. In addition, the old trenches can still be seen as shallow depressions on the surface, especially along the inner façade of the perimeter wall. Here, Piotrovskij (1950: 22) recorded the presence of makeshift shelters that were destroyed during the assault.
Trench A measures 6â¯Ãâ¯6â¯m and is inserted in a corner defined to the north by a row of larger stones and the western border of the distinctive magnetic features that run perpendicular to the perimeter wall. A second, diverging feature, visible on geomagnetic imaging, is just cut off at its junction with the main dividing structure that delimits the trench to the south (Fig. 4).
Figure 4
Trench A. Situation i.00419
Citation: Iran and the Caucasus 29, 1 (2025) ; 10.1163/1573384X-02901001
The excavation soon revealed that the regular features visible in the geomagnetic imaging are mainly caused by the processing of the rock that crops out at the surface at several spots throughout the courtyard. Individual stone blocks, some of which are partly bricked, supplement the processed rock edges. According to the current state of knowledge, it is very unlikely that these features represent the substructures of once-standing mud brick walls. They are rather to be seen as remnants of simple gradations and rock straightening. Since they cover most of the courtyard, it is assumed that they were built at the same time as the citadelâs perimeter wall to level the courtyard. The regular features visible in the geomagnetic imaging therefore do not represent a free-standing building, but an extensive terrace system.
The terrace system seems to be divided into different sectors, most of which are arranged at right angles to each other. They are oriented in relation to the perimeter wall. Therefore, oblique angles result in the buttressed façade of the citadel wall. This architectural deviance stands in clear contrast to the otherwise uncompromising rectilinearity of the citadel floor plan. It seems to consciously underline their structural independence. This is also documented structurally through sliding joints at both connections of the perimeter and the main gate to the citadel wall (Piotrovksij 1970: inner lid). In the latter instance, both the eastern gate-tower as well as the lateral gate-chamber had to be shaped irregularly. The overall atypical situation for Urartian masonry suggests a longer time gap between their construction. While the citadel was founded by Rusa Argishti, the perimeter of the courtyard is a later addition.
The arrangement of the courtyard terrace system is also characterized by larger areas surrounded by smaller areas. These could have been partially roofed. Possibly they correspond to the shelters described by Piotrosvkij.
4.2 Stratigraphy
The detailed assessment of the stratification in the northern and western sections largely confirms the division into three occupation phases defined during excavation on the basis of the mud brick floors i.00219 (marked yellow) and i.00419 (marked red) and the surface of the original courtyard levelling s.00619 (marked green). However, there is also a much more complex stratification, inasmuch as, there is evidence for floors and layers merging into each other that were not detected while digging. At the same time, this situation reinforces the reconstruction of an uninterrupted sequence of settlements (Fig. 5).
Figure 5
Trench AâNorthern (A) and Western Section (B)
Citation: Iran and the Caucasus 29, 1 (2025) ; 10.1163/1573384X-02901001
Noteworthy is the finding of several larger stone chips both in the topsoil as well as laying directly on the upper floor i.00219, which presumably originate from the processing of the bedrock and stones for a later adaptation of the terrace system.
The upper floor i.00219 was partly covered with a compact, greyish deposit d.00219 mixed with white, mineral inclusions and charcoal. A large accumulation of sand and gravel was noticed along the rock edges. A consistent stratigraphic distinction between the cultural layer of the later occupation, defined by the upper mud brick floor i.00219, and the topsoil was not feasible. This was particularly unfavourable in those places where the upper mud brick floor i.00219 was no longer preserved. In these cases, too, the clear stratigraphic delimitation from the filling su.00319 between the mud brick floors was only possible to a limited extent.
This is especially true for the area east of the rock edge, where the excavation directly reached the older floor level i.00419 after the removal of the topsoil. This circumstance is ultimately also because the up to 8â¯cm thick sand fill su.00319, mixed with hand-sized stones and mud brick fragments, was preserved mainly in the western part, i.e. where it is surrounded by structures. These are in the north by the regularly aligned blocks mentioned above and in the west by a 10 to 15â¯cm high stone step.
The lower mud brick floor i.00419 was generally better preserved than i.00219. It was covered over the whole area of trench A by an up to 8â¯cm thick cultural layer d.00419, which was strongly mixed with charcoal fragments up to 5â¯cm in size. What is noteworthy, however, is the lack of ash or traces of burning in the deposit itself.
Instead, an ash accumulation [su.00519] was found below the mud brick floor i.00419 in a shallow depression in front of the stone step, which was sunken from the white sandy-gravelly filling su.00619 used to level the processed rock. The ash accumulation covered a carbonized round imprint on the soil and had a diameter of 15â¯cm. This find, which is very likely the remnant of a wooden pillar, and the stone step belong to the earliest evidence of occupation in trench A. Finds could not be recorded in this context.
4.2.1 Section Stratigraphy
The detailed assessment of the stratification in the northern and western sections largely confirms the division into three occupation phases defined during excavation on the basis of the mud brick floors i.00219 and i.00419 and the surface of the original courtyard levelling s.00619. However, there is also a much more complex stratification, inasmuch as there is evidence for floors and layers merging into each other, which were not detected during excavation. At the same time, this situation reinforces the reconstruction of an uninterrupted sequence of settlements (Fig. 5).
4.3 Radiocarbon Samples and Dating
The stratigraphy shows a continuous settlement in this part of the courtyard. The reign of Rusa Argishti, conventionally dated to 680â650â¯B.C., conclusively defines the terminus a quo for the beginning of this settlement sequence. Due to the well-known problem of the so-called Hallstatt Plateau in the calibration curve, which largely prevents a precise dating within the period of the existence of the Kingdom of Urartu, the main focus of the radiocarbon sampling was on the end of the settlement. The comparison of the ceramic inventories of Karmir Blur and Aramus shows common characteristic features in particular with handled jugs of Aramus period IIIa. This has led to the question of whether the destruction of Karmir Blur could also be dated at the transition from the 6th to the 5th century B.C. (Kuntner/Heinsch 2021; see recently for the end of Metsamor Jakubiak/Bigoraj 2020). This is a date, which lies again outside the Hallstatt Plateau problematic.
However, the lack of traces of extensive destruction in trench A, as well as of exemplars of jugs with furrowed handles and triangular impressions, suggests that no layers of the last occupation of Karmir Blur were found or preserved in trench A. This view is confirmed by the results of the radiocarbon dating, which unfortunately all fall within the Hallstatt Plateau. A date from the 2nd quarter of the 7th and 6th century B.C. has therefore to be considered valid.
A total of five charcoal samples from trench A were submitted for radiocarbon analysis. In order to largely exclude mixing, the samples were altogether collected from spots clearly related to the mud brick floors. Three samples belong to the upper mud brick floor i.00219. KB-19-C14-3 (2460;27) was taken directly from the mud brick, while samples KB-19-C14-1 (2487;27) and KB-19-C14-2 (2570;33) were collected from the cultural layer laying immediately above the floor. Sample KB-19-C14-4 (2443;26) stem from the fill su.00319 between the mud brick floors. Sample KB-19-C14-5 (2467;26) was finally taken from the surface of the lower mud brick floor i.00419 (Fig. 6).
Figure 6
Radiocarbon sequence from trench A in the citadel of Karmir Blur
Citation: Iran and the Caucasus 29, 1 (2025) ; 10.1163/1573384X-02901001
4.4 Pottery and Small Findings
The finds from Karmir Blur include ceramics and small finds. A total of 439 ceramic fragments were found, including 91 diagnostic sherds. The diagnostic pottery consists of rims, bottoms and wall fragments with decorations. The ceramic fragments are mostly single fragments with no joints. Fully preserved vessels were not found in the excavation area.
The number of small finds is very limited. Next to a game stone, in the form of a worked pottery fragment (plate 6, 12), a bronze fragment was found. Additionally, a three-winged arrowhead with a long shaft was found among the topsoil layers found near the surface.
The classification of the pottery assemblage according to ware and shape agrees with the stratigraphic subdivision. The pottery of the older level su.00419 (plate 5 and plate 6) is produced on the potterâs wheel and is characterized by the red burnished sherds (plate 5, 4 and 8; plate 6, 2â4, 11â12), which has a black core, and sherds with a brown, red-brown or brownish-black burnished surface. Most of the sherds belong to small vessels or large pithoi. Decorated fragments include wavy patterns and incised decors, mostly notches arranged on horizontal bands. Some fragments show burnished patterns comparable to exemplars of the so-called Lchachen Metsamor VI horizon (Avetisyan et al. 2021).
Noteworthy is a handle fragment found in d.00419 decorated with a simple deep furrow. This kind of decoration is characteristic for handles of the 7th/6th century B.C., to which in Aramus triangular impressions were added at the turn to the 5th century B.C. (Kuntner/Heinsch 2021). A date of level su.00419 in the 7th to 6th century is further confirmed by comparisons from Argistihinili and Aramus. The fragments shown instead on plate 5, 7â8 clearly differ from the main group and surely belong to a younger period. They are preliminary dated to the 5th/4th century B.C. and are accordingly considered to be mixed.
The pottery fragments from the younger level su.00219 consist instead mainly of brown, brown-gray and gray well-burned wares varying from light to dark (plate 3 and plate 4). The sherds generally show slight traces of scorching on their surfaces, which result from the firing. Occasionally, when the pottery fragments were found, slight traces of smoke could still be seen on the vessels. Small pot shapes predominate in the later level. In addition, medium-sized to large bowl shapes and pithoi vessels are often found. Carinated bowls found on i.00219 (plate 4, fig. 9) belong to the most common form in the Achaemenid time (Khatchadourian 2018: 199â200). Decorations of this period repeat previous ornament techniques (plate 3, 6â12); these are wavy lines, nail shaped incisions and horizontal grooves. Patterns with small notches arranged in horizontal lines appear (plate 3, 10). Finally, the almost absence of red burnished pottery is most remarkable. The only red burnished sherd (Plate 3, fig. 1) found in d.00219 is probably mixed from the topsoil su.00119 (plate 1 and plate 2), which encompass the entire spectrum described above together with medieval sherds and is strongly mixed with modern glass fragments.
5 Conclusion
Despite possible uncertainties regarding the stratification of some finds and the accuracy of the radiocarbon dates, the ceramic fragments nevertheless provide a basis to date the settlement sequence in the courtyard of the citadel of Karmir Blur beyond the period of the Urartian kingdom. Most remarkable is the absence of a destruction horizon in this part of the courtyard. Needless to say, the importance of Karmir Blur for a comprehensive understanding of the Urartian phenomenon in Armenia and its cultural relation to both Early Iron Age and Achaemenid Armenia cannot be overestimated. While the investigation of the citadel can be regarded more or less as fulfilled, thanks to the exemplary investigations of Boris Piotrovskij, only small parts of the settlement area have been actually investigated. The identification of new sections of the fortification wall, which according to the geomagnetic prospection can now be regarded to have been completed, adds new aspects concerning the city planning of Karmir Blur, which will be addressed in a near future.
The suggested date for the destruction of Karmir Blur in the 5th century B.C. poses a variety of new scientific questions. Not only regarding the longevity of Urartian traditions, but also their historical and cultural development context. Too often has progress and innovation been associated with the emergence and influence of the kingdom of Urartu, leaving aside its own legacy to the many local traditions, which characterised and shaped the culture and history of the Armenian uplands from the Early Bronze Ages. The geomagnetic results will help in planning further target-related archaeological investigations in the settlement area of Karmir Blur.
Plates
Plate 1
Ceramic fragments from layer d.00119
Citation: Iran and the Caucasus 29, 1 (2025) ; 10.1163/1573384X-02901001
Plate 2
Ceramic fragments from interface i.00119
Citation: Iran and the Caucasus 29, 1 (2025) ; 10.1163/1573384X-02901001
Plate 3
Ceramic fragments from layer d.00219
Citation: Iran and the Caucasus 29, 1 (2025) ; 10.1163/1573384X-02901001
Plate 4
Ceramic fragments from layer d.00219 (no. 1â7) and interface i.00219 (no. 8â10)
Citation: Iran and the Caucasus 29, 1 (2025) ; 10.1163/1573384X-02901001
Plate 5
Ceramic fragments from layer d.00419
Citation: Iran and the Caucasus 29, 1 (2025) ; 10.1163/1573384X-02901001
Plate 6
Ceramic fragments from layer d.00419 (no. 1â8) and interface i.00419 (no. 9â12)
Citation: Iran and the Caucasus 29, 1 (2025) ; 10.1163/1573384X-02901001
Bibliography
Avetisyan, H./Avetisyan, P./Navarsadyan, K./Bobokhyan, A. (2021), âLchashen-Metsamor VâVI: The Impact of Local and Urartian Ceramics in Iron Age Armeniaâ, S. Heinsch/W. Kuntner/R. Rollinger (eds.), Befund und Historisierung. Dokumentation und ihre Interpretationsspielräume, Brepols: 157â180.
Avetisyan, P. (2009), âOn Periodization and Chronology of the Iron Age in Armeniaâ, Aramazd, Armenian Journal of Near Eastern Studies IV.2: 55â76.
Badalyan, M. (2015), âThe Urartian Weather God TeiÅ¡eba (Based on Archaeological and Philological Data)â, Aramazd, Armenian Journal of Near Eastern Studies IX.1: 125â142.
Badalyan, M. (2020), âKarmir Blur Historical and Archaeological Museum-Reserve and the Community: A Successful Practice in Revitalization of the Historical Siteâ, A. Avagyan (ed.), Cultural Heritage. Experience and Perspectives in International Context: Proceedings of the Rochemp Centre, International Conference 23rdâ24th of January 2020: 98â106.
Bernbeck, R. (2003/2004), âPolitische Struktur und Ideologie in Urartuâ, Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 35â36: 267â312.
Ãifçi, A. (2017), The Socio-Economic Organisation of the Urartian Kingdom, Leiden.
Cleuziou, S. (1979), âLes pointes de flèches âScythiquesâ au proche et moyen Orientâ, Le Plateau Iranien et lâAsie Centrale des Origines à la Conquête Islamique: Leur relations à la lumiére des documents archéologique, Paris: 187â199.
Dan, R. (2015), From the Armenian Highland to Iran: A Study on the Relation between the Kingdom of Urartu and the Achaemenid Empire, Rome.
Deschamps, S./Fichet de Clairfontaine, F./Stronach, D. (2011), âErebuni: the Environs of the Temple of Haldi During the 7th and 6th Centuries B.Câ, Aramazd, Armenian Journal of Near Eastern Studies VI: 121â140.
Fuchs, A. (2012), âUrartu in der Zeitâ, St. Kroll/C. Gruber/U. Hellwag/M. Roaf/P. Zimansky (eds.), Biainili-Urartu: Proceedings of the Symposium held in Munich, 12â14 of October 2007: 135â161.
Hellwag, U. (2012), âDer Niedergang Urartusâ, St. Kroll/C. Gruber/U. Hellwag/M. Roaf/P. Zimansky (eds.), Biainili-Urartu: Proceedings of the Symposium held in Munich, 12â14 of October 2007: 227â241.
Jakubiak, K./Bigoraj, K. (2020), âMetsamor: The Early Iron Age/Urartian Settlement in the Aras Valley, Armeniaâ, Antiquity 94: 1â8.
Jakubiak, K./Piliposyan, A. (2021), âThe Metsamor Project: Results Following Six Seasons of Field Excavationâ, P. Avetisyan/A. Bobokhyan (eds.), Archaeology of Armenia in Regional Context: Proceedings of the International Conference dedicated to the 60th Anniversary of the Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography Held on July 9â11, 2019 in Yerevan: 169â179.
Karapetyan, I. (2003), Hayastani nyutâakan mÅ¡akuytâÇ m.tâ.a. VIâIV dd., Erevan.
Khatchadourian, L. (2018), âPottery Typology and Craft Learning in the Near Eastern Highlandsâ, Iranica Antiqua 53: 179â265.
Kroll, S. (1979), âII. Grabungsberichtâ, W. Kleiss, Bastam I. Ausgrabungen in den urartäischen Anlagen 1972â1975, Berlin: 99â114.
Kroll, S. (1984), âUrartus Untergang in anderer Sichtâ, Istanbuler Mitteilungen 34: 151â170.
Kroll, S. (2012), âRusa Erimena in archäologischem Kontextâ, St. Kroll/C. Gruber/U. Hellwag/M. Roaf/P. Zimansky (eds.), Biainili-Urartu: Proceedings of the Symposium held in Munich, 12â14 of October 2007: 183â186.
Kroll, S. (2014), âNotes on the Post-Urartian (Median) Horizon in NW-Iran and Armeniaâ, A. Ãzfirat (ed.), SCRIPTA. Essays in Honour of Velo Sevin. Ege Yayınları: 203â210.
Kuntner, W./Heinsch, S. (2021), âDer Untergang Urartus aus Sicht der Festung von Aramusâ, S. Heinsch/W. Kuntner/R. Rollinger (eds.), Befund und Historisierung. Dokumentation und ihre Interpretationsspielräume, Brepols: 181â196.
Kuntner, W./Heinsch, S./Avetisyan, H. (2021), âThe Fortress of Aramus in its Historical Contextâ, P. Avetisyan/A. Bobokhyan (eds.), Archaeology of Armenia in Regional Context: Proceedings of the International Conference Dedicated to the 60th Anniversary of the Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography Held on July 9â11, 2019 in Yerevan: 232â245.
Martirosyan, A.A. (1961), Gorod Tejšebaini, Erevan.
Martirosyan, A.A. (1964), Argištixinili, Erevan.
Petrosyan, A./Dan, R./Vitolo, P. (2019), âSolak 1. Una fortezza urartea nella valle del Hrazdan, Armeniaâ, P.S. Avetisyan/R. Dan/Y.H. Grekyan (eds.), Over the Mountains and Far Away. Studies in Near Eastern History and Archaeology Presented to Mirjo Salvini on the Occasion of His 80th Birthday: 391â400.
Piotrovskij, B.B. (1950), Karmir-Blur 1, Erevan.
Piotrovskij, B.B. (1970), Karmir Blur, Leningrad.
Roaf, M. (2012), âCould Rusa Son of Erimena have been King of Urartu during Sargonâs Eighth Campaign?â, St. Kroll/C. Gruber/U. Hellwag/M. Roaf/P. Zimansky (eds.), Biainili-Urartu: Proceedings of the Symposium held in Munich, 12â14 of October 2007: 187â216.
Salvini, M. (1966), Il regno di Van (Urartu), Rome.
Salvini, M. (2009), âDie Ausdehnung des Reiches Urartu unter ArgiÅ¡ti II. (713âca. 685 v. Chr.)â, I. TatiÅ¡vili/M. Hvedelidze/L. Gordeziani, L. (eds.), Caucasian and Near Eastern Studies XIII. Giergi Melikishvili Memorial Volume: 203â227.
Simonyan, H.E./E.L. Atoyantz (2018), âNecropolis Teyshebainiâ, E.N. Nosov/N.A. Kilunovskaya/S.A. Lazarevskaya/S.A. Yatsenko (eds.), Ancient NecropolisesâFuneral and Memorial Ritualism, Architecture and Planning of Necropolises: 216â223.
Stone, E.C. (2005), âThe Outer Town at Ayanis, 1997â2001â, A. Ãilingiroglu/G. Darbyshire (eds.), Anatolian Iron Ages 5, Proceedings of the Fifth Anatolian Iron Ages Colloquium held at Van, 6â10 August 2001: 187â193.
Stronach, D.B./Ter-Martirosov, F.I./Ayvazian, A./Collins, W.F./Demos, C./Ghanimati, S. (2009), âErebuni 2007â, Iranica Antiqua 44: 181â206
Zardaryan, M.H./Hovsepyan, R. (2017), âThe Agriculture of Western Syunik, Armenia in the Light of Archaeological and Archaeobotanical Data (Preliminary Study on the Economy of Early Yervandid Settlements)â, P.S. Avetisyan/Y.H. Grekyan (eds.), Bridging Times and Spaces. Festschrift in Honour of Gregory E. Areshian on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday: 411â424.
Zimansky, P. (1995), âAn Urartian Ozymandiasâ, The Biblical Archaeologist 58: 94â100.
