There is no doubt that Urartian kings were actively engaged in the development of irrigation facilities in their newly conquered lands. By analysing the written sources from the Urartian state, it seems that in parallel with the expansion of their state boundaries, Urartian rulers engaged in rebuilding activities in specific areas. Building inscriptions that relate to the construction of water facilities are confined to the reigns of Minua, Argišti I, Sarduri II, Argišti II and Rusa II and are mostly located in the Lake Van basin and Ararat Plain (see Table 1). There is only one inscription that mentions the construction of a reservoir and canal by Rusa II,51 whereas Minua evidently constructed the majority of water facilities. Interestingly, with the exception of a fountain at Ain-e Rum near Lake Urmia, the water facilities constructed by Minua appear confined to the Lake Van basin, which might reflect the boundaries of the Urartian kingdom at that time. By contrast, the water facilities constructed by Argišti I, Sarduri II and Argišti II extended across the Ararat Plain and the Lake Van basin. It is, however, interesting to note the absence so far of either archaeological52 or textual evidence for Urartian water facilities on the Elazığ Plain and its environs, which stands in contrast to other archaeological remains and texts that suggest that the number of settlements increased in the Elazığ region and its vicinity under Urartian rule.53
Charles Burney54 has discussed the possible motives behind Urartian rulers’ engagement with artificial water facilities, such as growth of population, decline in rainfall and political reasons. With political stability in particular around the Lake Van basin, there is an increase in the number of settlements, dated to the Urartian period as opposed to the second millennium BC, which features fewer settlement. Is it possible that this was because there was much less rainfall in the Van region? This is in contrast to the preceding second millennium BC, when there were evidently fewer settlements here.55
51 A14-1 Ro.
52 Sevin 1986; 1987; 1988.
53 Palu (A 5-5 / UKN 39), Bağın (A 5-8 / UKN 42), İzoli/Habibuşağı (A 9-4/ UKN 158), Bahçecik (A 9-18) and
Mazgirt-Kaleköy (A 12-6 /UKN 279) inscriptions from Elazığ and its environment as well as Patnos Aznavurtepe (A 5-11A), Argišti Annal (A 8-3 II / UKN II 127 II), Surb Sahak (A 8-1 Vo / UKN 128 A2) and Surb Pogos (A 9-1 Vo / UKN 156 C) inscriptions mention the activities of Urartian in the region. Archaeological (Sevin 1986; 1987; 1988) remains from the region also indicate that under Urartian occupation, the number of settlements increased in the Elazığ region and its vicinity.
54 Burney 1972a: 180-83.
37
One of the first issues to be encountered by researchers is the origin of the so-called
qanat system. For example, in 1951 it was argued by Jørgen Laessøe56 that Sargon’s description of his destruction of the Ulhu water system should be identified with present day water systems known as qanat.57 It has been suggested that such systems may have originated in Iran as far back as the first millennium BC.58Qanat systems collect ground water using a network of horizontal underground tunnels, which is then accessed at key points via vertical shafts.59 They are still widely used across the Near East today.60 Since Laessøe61 suggested that the Urartians may have used similar qanat systems at Ulhu, the possibility of Urartian
qanat systems has been discussed by scholars of the ancient Near East.62 Recently, Mirjo Salvini has argued that the canal and irrigation systems of the Urartian period were a uniquely local development that differed from the qanat systems known elsewhere in the Near East.63 Stephanie Dalley64 has also pointed out that the meaning of the words silittu
(now taken to mean a branch of a canal) and išqillatu (meaning pebble) were not known when Laessøe proposed his qanat theory, to which the interpretation of the word išqillatu as a shaft is central.65 Salvini and Dalley have therefore concluded that the Ulhu passage of Sargon II’s account in fact refers to a network of open canals and not a qanat-style underground system.66 The precise reconstruction of these systems remains a matter of debate, although the evidence for royal involvement in the construction of large-scale open canal systems and reservoirs is clear.
One of the difficulties in identifying Urartian canals and reservoirs is that, apart from isolated examples (i.e. Rusa Lake, Minua Canal) it is hard to assign conclusively many of them to the Urartian period.67 Some of them may have been built during the Byzantine and
56
Laessøe 1951: 21-32.
57 Laessøe works on the assumption that in line 203 of Sargon’s letter a noun of femine gender, possibly the
word ḫirītu, is hidden, and should be restored in this section of the text with the word ḫirītu which is found in
lines 221-223. This restoration led him to interpret ḫirītu as meaning a qanat. He also gave the same meaning to
the phrase mūṣê māmi (water outlets).
58
Mays 2010: 3-4.
59 Hovhannissian (1973a: 12) mentions a canal called Dalma in Armenia to be a qanat and states that the
Urartians built similar underground water systems.
60
Öğün (1970: 14-15) mentions eight qanat-style undergrounds (Turkish: kerhiz) in the Van Plain and states
that there is no evidence to associate their construction with Urartu.
61 Laessøe 1951: 21-32.
62 Dalley 2005: 40, 2002: 446-448; Muscarella 1986: 468-469; Zimansky 1985: 119, no 128; Salvini 2001a:
143-155; Burney 1972a: 181.
63 Salvini 2001a: 143-144.
64 Dalley 2002: 446-448.
65 Dalley 2002: 447.
66
Salvini 2001a: 145; Dalley 2002: 448.
67 For instance Faruk Bendi, which was constructed between Keşiş Göl and Toprakkale (Rusaḫinili), is dated to
38
Ottoman periods (for example Faruk Bendi)68, or re-built on pre-existing Urartian foundations (such as the Doni reservoir).69 Therefore, cuneiform inscriptions relating to such features are a more reliable source of evidence than archaeological remains lacking contextual inscription evidence.
Belli’s survey of water facilities in the area around Lake Van remains the single most important study of these structures.70 In his survey Belli identified 115 dams, water reservoirs and canals in eastern Anatolia, including two of them in Nakhichevan71, all of which he claimed to be of Urartian date.72 The Urartian period was clearly an important one within the diachronic history of eastern Anatolia, but it is not the only one. Without firm dating evidence, in the form of inscriptions or absolute methods of archaeological dating, they cannot be firmly tied to the reigns of specific Urartian kings, or even to the Urartian period at all. There is no doubt that the Urartians did play an important role in the construction of many of these water installations and others like them but there is lack of secure dating evidence for most of the identified facilities.
There is evidence of datable pre-Urartian systems that should give us further cause to question the default assumption that all major water management facilities and irrigation works must date to the Urartian period. This includes the stepped check dams and mudbrick sluices, intended to reduce the effects of water rushing down from the mountains, and a series of simple canals for irrigation dating to the third millennium BC at the site of Moghrablur in Armenia.73 There is also evidence of small and large artificial water reservoirs around Mount Aragat dated to the 15th and 14th centuries BC and other water facilities around the Ararat Valley.74
The reliability of our key dating evidence, written Urartian sources relating to the development of canals and reservoirs, should also be cautiously examined. These inscriptions often claim that ‘the land was uncultivated’, ‘nothing was built there before’, or the ‘the land was deserted’ prior to the provision of any new water facility or settlement. The language of the inscriptions often appears formulaic therefore the true state of the land prior to their construction cannot be proven. It is also possible that during military campaigns water management facilities could be destroyed, as they evidently were when the Urartian city of
68
Garbrecht 1988: 195.
69 Belck 1904: 192.
70 Belli 2008.
71 The Autonomous Republic of Nakhichevan is a constituency of the Republic of Azerbaijan.
72
Belli 2008: 307.
73 Issar and Zohar 2007: 198.
39
Ulhu was sacked by Sargon II, especially in the areas of north-eastern Anatolia (Diauehi) and Transcaucasia (Qulha, Taruini and Etiuni) where resistance to Urartian expansion had been encountered. Therefore these inscriptions may simply denote the restoration of damaged irrigations system rather than the construction of new ones.
Urartian monarchs may have been active in building such facilities (i.e. Rusa Lake, Minua canal), but it is also possible that some facilities were built by local aristocracies or powerful tribal leaders, without any state involvement. If one considers that the Urartian kingdom was composed of many different tribes,75 then it is reasonable to assume that some of the canals and reservoirs may have been constructed by local authorities independent of the monarch. Separate building by local authorities has been identified by Kemalettin Köroğlu,76
who re-examined the sites of Yoncatepe (Figure 12) and Patnos/Giriktepe (Değirmendere) and suggested that the citadels were built by local rulers rather than the central state and has named the citadels ‘Bey Konağı’ ‘Lordly Houses’. Following Köroğlu’s interpretation of the Bey Konağ, the Harabe and Bakraçlı dams, which were investigated by Belli77 and located close to the Yoncatepe citadel, may also have been built by a local ruler or rulers.
In addition some reservoirs might also have been constructed through local communal effort, particularly in rural areas, such as the Gelincik dam situated on 140 km south-east of Van close to the border with Iran.78 The nearest known Urartian period settlement is located approximately 60 km south east of Gelincik, at Yeşilalıç, where a sanctuary in the form of a door-shaped niche and a fortress dating to reign of Išpuini (see III.5.3 for the discussion of co-regency of Išpuini and his son Minua) is located.79
When the geographical locations of some of these water facilities and ethnographic observations are taking into consideration, the nature of the structures themselves can also be questioned. For example, Belli observed farmers using the beds of some of these water facilities to grow grass by blocking off the sluice from early spring until July or early August in order to collect water in the Lake Van basin.80 Such ‘water meadows’ retain water into the summer months and could therefore be harvested in the dry season to provide grass and fodder for livestock that needed be fed during the long and cold winter months, when animals 75 Diakonoff 1984. 76 Köroğlu 2009: 383-394. 77 Belli 1999b: 11-13. 78 Belli 1994b: 103.
79 Sevin and Belli 1977: 381-394.
40
are commonly kept in stables.81 An example of one such site is Argıt, which is located at an altitude of 2,350 m. above sea level and has little land suitable for arable usage nearby. Even if the land around it was cultivated, the high elevation would have made it economically unproductive for intensive arable production.
Lastly, when one considers the relatively small size of some of these water installations and their proximity to pastures, it is plausible that some of these structures may have been used for watering large herds in upland areas. These structures may have retained water in the dry summer months so that they could function as watering holes or ‘dew ponds’ for herds that grazed the uplands at this time of year. The stone foundations of large structures, Belli’s so-called ‘giant houses’ have been identified close to the Arç and Kırmızı Düzlük dams.82 These are too large to be domestic dwellings but may be better interpreted as stables or open animal pens for seasonal use. Pens or stables such as these may have been used for gathering large numbers of animals together at certain times of the year for the purposes of breeding, shearing, marking or many other reasons.
Table 1. Irrigation Works of Urartian Kings and their Locations
King Texts (CTU) Location
Minua A 5-12 12A-D, A 5-13, A 5-14A-D, A 5-15A-E Van A 5-16 Bekri/Muradiye A 5-17 Ro Erciş A 5-18 Van A 5-20 Adalak/Malazgirt A 5-21 Hotanlı/Malazgirt A 5-22 Vo Malazgirt A 5-23 Vo Akdamar/Van A 5-24 Vo Karahan/Muradiye A 5-25 Vo Patnos A 5-67 Bostankaya/Malazgirt
A 5-58 A-C Van Kalesi
A 5-59 A-D Ain-e Rum/Ushnaviyeh
Argišti I A 8-2 Ro, A 8-3 IV Armavir A 8-3 V Erciş A 8-15 Armavir 81 Yakar 2000: 186-196. 82 Belli 1994b: 88-101, Figs. 19, 20, 22.
41 A 8-16 Armavir Sarduri II A 9-9 Erciş-Patnos A 9-17 Çavuştepe Argišti II A 11-1 Ro; A 11-2 Vo Erciş A12-8 Ečmiadzin/Erevan Rusa II A14-1 Ro Van