We would like to express our deep appreciation, with particular thanks to Paul Zimansky for his contribution and comments.
1In Urartian, postpositions have a significant effect on the words they define. These situational elements are sometimes employed in the sentence both separately and as suffixes at the end of words. The most prominent Urartian postpositions are -ka/kai, -pei/pi, -ani, -ṣi, ištini, išani, edia/ni, be/idini, kuruni (?) (Wilhelm, 2008, p. 120; Salvini & Wegner, 2014, p. 32; CTU V, p. 506). Among these, -kai/ka has an essential function as a postposition. As a matter of fact, the postposition -kai/ka attributes the dative case to the proper names it qualifies or is appended to, and the ablative-instrumental case to the names of objects and places. -kai/ka is broadly translated as “before/front/in front of” in studies on the Urartian language (Friedrich, 1933, p. 17, 20, 49, 56; Benedict, 1958, p. 181, fn.11, p. 183; Diakonoff, 1971, p. 98, fn.104; Melikishvili, 1971, p. 70). While the -kai/ka appears in Urartian inscriptions in several forms, it is most often recognized as a suffix appended to names.
2As observed in examples such as msarduri/kai, Dḫaldi/kai, KUReiduru/kai, the -kai/ka is directly appended to the noun stem. Furthermore, the -kai suffix is observed to be used in names with the suffix -ni, such as pulusi=ni=kai, urbika=ni=kai, URUṭumiški=ni=kai. The root of this postposition must be ka. Because -i is a genitive suffix that is appended to names as -ka/i. For example, mSardurikai= Sarduri=name; ka=postposition i=genitive suffix (sing.). Thus, the meaning becomes “in front of Sarduri”.
3There is an example in Urartian inscriptions in which -ka/i is employed as an independent preposition.
…aribididadi kai KURQilašini KURbabani… (CTU I. An 8-3 III, 5, p. 336)= “I penetrated before to the mountainous country Qilašini” (Salvini & Wegner, 2014, p. 32).
4The postposition -ka/kai also appears as a suffix in nouns and in the relative pronoun aluki “which, who”, which is derived from the root ali/alu (CTU I. A 14, Vo, p. 624; 1; 14-2, Vo, p. 627). Thus, alukikai is translated into “in front of which” (CTU V, p. 373).
5It also appears in some forms that were produced with the kai- in Urartian inscriptions. Here, it is observed that the word kai/uki or ka/uki is formed by appending the 1st pers. sing. suffix -uki, which is a possessive suffix, to the root kai. Here, it is observed that the form ka/iuki is translated as “before me” (Melikishvili, 1971, p. 70; Salvini & Wegner, 2014, p. 15). The Assyrian expression ina IGI-ia is the equivalent of this form in the Assyrian-Urartian bilingual inscriptions belonging to Rusa I (735/30-714 BC) (CTU I.A10-3, Vo.41’, p. 501; A 10-4 Vo 14’, p. 504; A 10-5 Vo 11’, p. 507).
6The forms, such as -di=ka/(a)di also come up with the suffix of the gerund -uri= ka/uri and the 1st pers. sing. in addition to kai/uki (CTU V, p. 501).
7An analysis of the nouns with the postposition -ka/kai in Urartian inscriptions provides no evidence for the meaning of two opposing persons/objects or concepts of the same height standing opposite each other. Instead, it may be argued that there is a person, object, or action in front of the main figure to the name of which this suffix is appended, but below it.
8DḪaldini uštabi masini GIŠšúrie karuni mQuliani KUR-ni tequni mArgištikai (CTU I, A 8-9, 1-3, p. 349), “God Ḫaldi went out to a military campaign with his spear/weapon. He has defeated the Qulia Land. He knocked (him) down in front of Argišti”. Here, the postposition -ka/kai refers to an action/circumstance that took place in front of Argišti.
9The DUTU-ni/ka(i)=under the (God) sun form created with this suffix is the best example of the meaning of “below” or even “under” that the postposition -ka/kai ascribes to certain words (CTU II, p. 497). In fact, it is the postposition -pei/pi that ascribes the meaning “under” in Urartian inscriptions (Salvini & Wegner, 2014, p. 33). The expression DUTU-ni pi-e-i-ni, which Salvini translates as “from under (the light of) the sun” appears especially in curse excerpts (CTU II, p. 172; CTU V, p. 406). Similarly, DUTU-ni-kai expressions are translated as “from under (the light of) the sun” in at least three curse expressions (CTU I. A 3-4 Vo, p. 133; A 10-6, p. 508; A 12-7, p. 579). It can be observed here that the postpositions -ka(i) and -pi(e) coincide in the meaning “under”.
10In Urartian inscriptions, the expression DUTU-ni-kai is also featured on several inscriptions from Armavir belonging to King Sarduri II (756-735 BC). Salvini translates the expression “mDsar5-du-ri-še MAN-tú-ḫi-ni DUTU-ni-ka-i te-ru-ni DAN-NU KUR.KURMEŠ-di šú-ia-i-di” in these parallel texts as “Sarduri founded the kingdom before the Sun God against all powerful lands” (CTU I. A 9-12, p. 438; A 9-16, p. 441; A 9-38, p. 452). The Sun God is referred to as the sun itself in this context. Therefore, this kingdom is not in front of the sun, but rather under it. As a result, the form DUTU-ni-ka-i should be translated as “under the sun” here as well. Another reference to the meaning of “under” is provided by the postposition -ka/kai in the person/profession or personnel list on the Toprakkale tablet.
11In fact, the list on this tablet is a shortened list of personnel belonging to the Kingdom of Urartu, without getting into too much detail, and concentrates on the titles and numbers of the necessary persons/professions. The expression “119 LÚNÍG.ŠID.DA-kai” separated by lines on the obverse of the tablet, belongs in the third category and is included in a total number of “3784 LỨŠÁ.RĒŠI”=eunuch/officers. This expression is translated as “119 in front of the accountant” (CTU IV.CT Tk-1 Ro.12, p. 145). The expression “15 múbiabi-kai” in the seventh category is translated as “15 in front of Mr. Ubiabi” on the reverse of the same tablet (CT Tk-1 Vo.7). Individuals indicated by the numbers 119 and 15 in both expressions should represent the number of professionals or people who work with or under the command of the “accountant” and “Mr. Ubiabi”. Accordingly, both expressions used the -kai suffix to refer to the number of people who are “under” the command of such professionals/persons. Here, the postposition -ka/kai stresses the subordinate-superior relation, i.e., hierarchy. Accordingly, such short expressions should be construed as “119 (person) under the (command of) accountant” and “15 (person) under the (command of) Mr. Ubiabi”.
12These results indicate that the postposition -ka/kai is used to attribute the meaning of “under” as well as the more commonly known meanings of “in front of/before”.
13In some of the newly-founded fortress/city names found in Urartian inscriptions, the postposition -ka/kai is used to indicate the names of mountains rising in their immediate surroundings. Most of the newly founded Urartian cities were named after kings or gods such as Haldi or Teišeba. It can be assumed that the problem of confusion between cities bearing the same name as gods and kings (such as Ḫaldini URU, Rusaḫinili, Argištiḫinili, etc.) exists not only during the Urartian period but also today. To avoid confusion, associating cities with mountain names using the -kai suffix is as useful for us as it was for the Urartians. However, the assumption (Çilingiroğlu & Salvini, 1995, p. 120; Çilingiroğlu & Salvini, 2001, p. 16) that the Urartians applied this practice just for this reason is open to discussion. Since the name Arṣuniuni, the first city to be introduced with the mountain name Úra by using the Assyrian ina pan (IGI)= kai in Urartian inscriptions, is not a geographical name that would cause any confusion. In fact, there is no other centre named Arṣuniuni in Urartian inscriptions, at least as far as we know today. There were both religious and practical topographic reasons for the Urartians to name a centre with a mountain. First and foremost, we may deduce from the names of several mountain-gods featured in other inscriptions, particularly in the Urartian pantheon list of Meher Kapı rock inscription, that mountains were regarded as gods in Urartu, as a continuation of the former Hurrian religious tradition (CTU I. A 3-1, pp. 125-129). The fortresses/cities built on the slopes of these mountains or on the hills beside plains were named after such mountains. This, of course, brings to mind the idea of divine protection of the mountain over the newly established centre. In fact, the sacrifices offered to the mountain-gods who safeguard the cities are an indication of this. The best illustration of this is the sacrifice to the mountain-God Eiduru, on the slope of which the fortress was built and this is mentioned only in the inscriptions of the Ayanis Fortress among the Urartian inscriptions (CTU I. A 12-1 II,1, p. 566).
14The primary issue here concerns the toponyms with the postposition -ka/kai which is added as a suffix to mountain names. For example, the names of a site and mountain are known in the Erciş region north of Lake Van, but their precise location cannot be determined.
“mArgištiḫina KURArtarapšakai”= to Argištiḫinili (city) in front of Mt.Artarapša (CTU I A 11-2 Vo.4/5, p. 538; CTU V, p. 461).
- 1 For Salvini’s localization suggestions of Eiduru =Süphan Mountain see Çilingiroğlu & Salvini, 1995, (...)
- 2 For other -kai=gegenüber equations see Salvini & Wegner, 2014, p. 16, 32, 87.
15As we see in the example above, the postposition -ka/kai plays a crucial role in this description, in localizing both the city and the mountain correctly in terms of toponomy. At this point, Salvini’s localization suggestions for some Urartian toponyms ending with the postposition -kai are problematic. The localization of the mountain names used to indicate the location of the two fortresses named after King Rusa (Rusaḫinili) primarily is a case in point. The identifications of mRusaḫinili KUREidurukai as the Ayanis Fortress, and mRusaḫinili KURQilbanikai as Toprakkale are attested by inscriptions discovered in situ in both cases. Salvini localized Eiduru with Mount Süphan against Ayanis; and Qilbani with Mount Erek located opposite Toprakkale, based on the meaning of the postposition -ka/kai as “in front of”1. In fact, the meaning “in front of” ascribed to the postposition -ka/kai is derived from the Assyrian ina pān (IGI), an expression corresponding to the postposition -kai in two bilingual Assyrian-Urartian inscriptions. The Urartian -kai attested in the Kelishin stele, which is the earliest of the two inscriptions, is referred to as ina IGI or ina pān in the Assyrian version (CTU I. A 3-11, p. 143). In the Şuşanis (Kevenli) inscription, on the other hand, the expression ina pān is associated with the location of Arṣuniuni (Kevenli Fortress), an important Urartian site (CTU I. A 5-44, p. 233). It should be noted here that the Assyrian expression ina pān is translated as “before/front/front part” (CAD vol. 12, P, p. 84), “Vorderseite, vorderer (in German)” (ABZ, p. 449). Salvini, on the other hand, interpreted the postposition -ka/kai as “in front of/gegenüber” which indicates a direct opposition between two locations in place names. In fact, Salvini reported in his most recent study that -ka/kai should be regarded as “vor/before”, “gegenüber/opposite”, “across from” indicating the opposite, rather than the meaning “in front”, particularly in toponyms (Salvini-Wegner, 2014, p. 88)2. This viewpoint implies that two separate places (mountain-city) of identical or varying heights are facing one other. In the inscriptions, however, both the postposition -ka/kai and its Assyrian equivalent ina pān (IGI) point to centres established in front of/just below or in the foot/skirts of the mountains, rather than in front of/across/opposite of the mountains they indicate. Taking into consideration the meanings of “under” and “below” of the postposition -kai in Urartian inscriptions, the expressions with the postposition -kai in Urartian toponyms should be interpreted as “at the foot of the mountain/at the foot of”. Assyrian inscriptions further corroborate these implications. There are toponyms in Assyrian manuscripts that are defined by a mountain name, particularly in Urartu. In these definitions, it is seen that ina šēpu (GìR), which means “at the foot of” rather than ina pān, is used as “at the foot of x mountain” (CAD vol. 17, p. 302). One of these expressions is mentioned in an excerpt on the founding of the city of Ulhu in the inscriptions of the Neo-Assyrian King Sargon II (721-705 BC). Here, the expression is “...URU.ulhu ša GìR KUR.kišpal…=…city Ulhu, (located) at the foot of Mt.Kišpal…” (RINAP 2: no:1, p. 140; no.65, p. 200). Is it clear that the Urartian suffix -ka/kai also corresponds to the function of the Assyrian ina šēpu in terms of toponomy. It can be observed that the suffix -kai/ka, which we described before, ascribes the meaning “below” to the names rather than “in front of/gegenüber” and “at the foot of x mountain” in the definitions of city/fortress-mountain. In fact, the topographic locations of many Urartian fortresses, built on hills stretching along mountains or elevations dominating plains or valleys, verify the meaning of -ka/kai as “at the foot of/below”. The interpretation of “gegenüber” that Salvini eventually reached, led to an inaccurate toponymic matching of cities or fortresses in terms of location. The issue will become clearer when we examine the disputed centres where the postposition -kai/ka is referenced as a suffix individually.
- 3 Salvini proposed the translation “area with stele” for the form ṭiribišuzi, whose function remains (...)
16Arṣuniuni is the first city bearing a mountain name in Urartian inscriptions. The Meher Kapı rock inscription, which dates back to the co-regency of Išpuini and his son Minua, is the earliest known Urartian inscription in which the name of this city is recorded (820-810 BC) (CTU I. A 3-1, 15.57, p. 125, 127). In the list of the Meher Kapı inscription, in which the number of sacrifices offered to the gods/goddesses in the Urartian pantheon in the early stage of the kingdom is given, the expression “one bull, two sheep (slaughter) for the Gods of the Arṣuniuni City” appears (CTU I. A 3-1; 15.57, p. 125, 127). In addition to this inscription, the name of the city also appears in the inscriptions on several duplicate stelae of the Minua period unearthed in Muradiye/Karahan. In these inscriptions, it is reported that the Gates of God Ḫaldi (Dḫaldinili KÁ) were built in the city of Arṣuniuni, and ṭiribišuzi (?) was built for God Ura and God Nalaini3, and also, a fortress (É.GAL), a city (URU), a vineyard (GIŠuldi) and an orchard (GIŠzari) were constructed (CTU I. A 5-28; CTU I. A 5-29; CTU I.A 5-30, CTU I.A 5-31, pp. 219-224). The name of the city of Arṣuniuni also appears in the inscriptions of Şuşanis (CTU I. A 5-44, 3, p. 233; Fig.1) and Sıhke/Bostaniçi (CTU I. A 5-89.1, p. 263) extending to the west of Erek Mountain during the Minua period. The bilingual Assyrian-Urartian Şuşanis inscription is the most notable of them (Fig. 1). In this inscription, the city of Arṣuniuni is referred to as “...URUarṣuniúnu ina рān KURúra” in Assyrian, which can be translated as “the city of Arṣuniunu at the foot of Mount Úra”. Accordingly, Ura Mountain constitutes our primary reference point for the location of the city of Arṣuniuni.
Fig. 1 The bilingual Assyrian-Urartian Şuşanis inscription
- 4 For the Ermanis Stele, which describes the sacrifices offered to the god Ura, see CTU I. A 14-1, Vo (...)
- 5 Salvini apparently alludes to Kevenli Fortress, not Kevenli/Şuşanis village.
- 6 For URUArṣuniuni?=Kevenli see also CTU I, p. 70; CTU V, p. 431.
- 7 The name “Keven Mountain” does not refer to a particular mountain. This mountain name should refer (...)
- 8 For the survey we conducted in Karahan in 2017-2018 and for our study in which all of the Karahan s (...)
- 9 An example would be reading of Dú-a-ru-ba-ni=Warubani based on the interchangeable usage of the ú+V (...)
17Ura is both the name of a mountain and the name of a god to whom sacrifices are offered, according to Urartian inscriptions. In fact, the Urartian pantheon list in the Meher Kapı rock inscription states that “one bull and two sheep” were sacrificed for the god Ura (CTU I. 3-1, 11.12-50, pp. 125-129). On the other hand, as previously stated, ṭiribišuzi (an area with stele?) was built in the name of the god Ura in the city of Arṣuniuni according to the Karahan stele. After the Minua inscriptions, we do not come across the name of the god Ura until the reign of Rusai Erimenaḫi (one of the later kings of Urartu). The Ermanis (Gövelek) and Hevşisork (Savacık) stelae, which are duplicates of each other, record a series of agricultural activities of Rusai Erimenaḫi, and list the names of some gods/goddesses as well as animals to be sacrificed to the god Ura (CTU I. A 14-1, pp. 621-625; 14-2, pp. 625-628). These inscriptions indicate that a bull and a sheep shall be sacrificed to the god Ura if the water in the pond of Rusai ṣue (Keşiş Lake), which was named after Rusa himself, is nikiduli=to grow, to flow?, and a sheep shall be sacrificed to the god Ura when the water is ešiaṣiúli=to decrease?4. Mount Ura is referenced in both inscriptions, alongside the god Ura. According to the inscription, Rusai Erimenaḫi narrates that he had a watercourse - pili/PA5 - dug towards KURúradi (Mt. Ura), therefore filling the pond with the mighty Ura (mountain) waters=úratarbi AMEŠ (CTU I. A 14-1 Ro, pp. 34-35; A14-2 Ro, pp. 34-37). In fact, the places listed in these inscriptions can be clearly linked to the local topography based on the location where the inscriptions were unearthed. The pond built by Rusa corresponds to today’s Keşiş Lake, which draws its water from Erek Mountain. Consequently, both the Şuşanis bilingual inscription and the Ermanis-Hevşisork stele provide clear evidence that Mount Ura is Mount Erek, given their location and the wording in their inscriptions. In fact, the Şuşanis inscription was discovered in the village of Şuşanis on the western slope of the Erek Mountain, whilst the Rusa stele was discovered in Ermanis, just north of the Erek Mountain, and Hevşisork in the east. On the other hand, Salvini first defined the god Ura as a deified mountain located in the Muradiye region due to the discovery of the ṭiribišuzi stele in Karahan (Salvini, 1993, p. 547). Considering the Şuşanis bilingual inscription, Salvini suggested in a subsequent study that the city of Arṣuniuni might be Kevenli5, and the Ura mountain might be Keven Mountain (Salvini 2002, p. 133; Belli & Salvini 2004, p. 165)6. One can realize the confusion here as Salvini interpreted the postposition -ka/kai as “opposite, on the front” and identified Mount Erek as “Qilbani” in his previous works. In other words, if Ura Mountain is in fact Keven Mountain, the mountain or hill known as “Keven” must be a part of Erek Mountain in terms of location7. In this case, it can be asserted that Salvini indirectly acknowledged that Mount Erek was Mount Ura. Nevertheless, we could see that Salvini is unclear about the location of Ura Mountain. In fact, Salvini contradicted his own assertion in the next lines of his study in 2004, in which he equated the Ura Mountain with the Keven Mountain, by claiming that it is difficult to make such a match (Ura=Mt. Keven) since the stele associated with Arṣuniuni was unearthed in Karahan (Belli & Salvini, 2004, p. 173). Nevertheless, Salvini indicated in his most recent study that Ura Mountain might be near Şuşanis (CTU V, p. 437). To begin, it should be noted that Karahan, which provoked confusion in Salvini, was not an Urartian centre, but rather a place where the Armenians arbitrarily stored Urartian stelae brought from different sites to build khachkar (“gravestone” in Armenian) in the Middle Ages8. Thus, the information provided by the inscriptions listed above, as well as the location of these inscriptions, explain the Ura=Erek equation. The name Erek is derived from the Armenian noun Varag/k. Due to the Urartian ú+V [=wV] formulation, this noun must have been interpreted as úra=W/Vu/ara throughout the Urartian period9. W/Vu/ara most probably become Vara/k, and here, -ak is a diminutive suffix in Armenian toponymic names (Hewsen, 1992, p. 338).
Fig. 2 Erek/Varag Mountain = God.Mt.Ura and Şuşanis Fortress = Arṣuniuni
18Based on these data, it is possible to conclude that Úra=Erek/Varak Mountain and the city of Arṣuniuni are the Şuşanis Fortress at the foot of this mountain (Fig. 2). In fact, the Şuşanis Fortress, which has not yet been excavated and around where the Arṣuniuni inscriptions have been unearthed, is the most suitable location for this localization.
19Toprakkale Fortress was built on a limestone hilltop extending on the southeastern part of the Zımzım hill in the northeast of the Van Plain (Genç, 2018, pp. 113-137). The name of the fortress in the Urartian period appears as “mRusaḫinili KURQilbanikai= in Rusaḫinili (city) in front of Mt. Qilbani” on the tablet of the king Rusai Argištiḫi (Rusa son of Argišti) found here (CTU IV.CT Tk-1 Ro.5, p. 145). Here, Rusa=ḫi=n(a)=a is locative plural. The second written document that indicates mRusaḫinili KURQilbanikai is a bulla that was discovered during excavations at Bastam Fortress which also belonged to Rusai Argištiḫi (CTU IV.CB Ba-6, 2-3, p. 198). The Rusa’s expression “the year in which Rusaḫinili set up the throne in KURQilbanikai” is remarkable as a date in the inscription on the bulla. The last records that referenced the name of the city of Rusaḫinili and Mount Qilbani are mentioned are the Ermanis (CTU I. A 14-1, Ro:19, 38, 42, 46,55, 62, pp. 622-623) and Hevşisork (CTU I. A 14-2: 17, 38, 47, pp. 625-626) stelae, which are duplicates of each other, belonging to Rusa, son of the Urartian king Erimena. The inscriptions on these stelae describe a series of irrigation-agricultural activities undertaken in front of Rusaḫinili and Qilbani mountains. According to the inscription, a water canal was dug from the pond, known as Rusai ṣue (Keşiş Lake), which was formed by water captured from the Ura (Erek) Mountain to the city of Rusaḫinili. Besides, we also learn from the inscription that vineyards, orchards, groves, and grain fields were established in front of/under (Qilbanikai) the deserted Qilbani Mountain and Rusaḫinili/Toprakkale.
Fig. 3 Zımzım hill, to which Toprakkale is connected by a neck
20The name of Mount Qilbani first appeared in the Urartian pantheon list on the Meher Kapı rock inscription. It states that one bull and two sheep were sacrificed for the god Qilbani (CTU I. A 3-1, 18, p. 126). Having said that, although there is general agreement that the city of Rusaḫinili mentioned in the expression mRusaḫinili KURQilbanikai is Toprakkale, there are different opinions about the location of Qilbani Mountain. In his earlier works, Salvini equated Qilbani with Mount Zımzım, which stands north of Toprakkale (Salvini, 1988, p. 133; Salvini, 1994, p. 207). This first view of Salvini is more acceptable according to Zimansky (Zimansky, 2012, p. 106). In his subsequent studies, however, Salvini asserted that Qilbani was Mount Erek, which was situated opposite Rusaḫinili/Toprakkale (Çilingiroğlu & Salvini, 2001, p. 19, fn.27; CTU I, p. 70; CTU V, p. 380, 429). As we mentioned in the discussions above, since Ura=Erek is the name of the mountain, Qilbani Mountain in the expression “mRusaḫinili KURQilbanikai” literally corresponds to the Zımzım hill, to which Toprakkale is connected by a neck (Fig. 3).
- 10 Also see Işıklı & Işık, 2021, pp. 177-178, Inv. No.2016 456-A.
- 11 For the bulla discovered in recent years, see also Işıklı & Işık, 2021, Inv.2016 456-A.
21Ayanis Fortress was built on a hill of Mount Ireni that extends towards Lake Van, approximately 25 kilometers northeast of the city of Van. Based on the inscription of the Urartian susi temple (CTU I. A 12-1 I. 2, p. 565; CTU I. A 12-1 III. 4, p. 566; CTU I. A 12-1 IV.11, p. 567; CTU I. A 12-1 VI. 4, 9, pp. 567-568)10 and the fortress building inscription (CTU I. A 12-9; p. 11) discovered in situ inside the fortress, it was deduced that the Urartian name of the fortress was “mRusaḫinili KUREidurukai”. Apart from the stone inscriptions in the name of mRusaḫinili Eidurukai, it also appears in the brief inscriptions on two bronze shields (CTU IV. B 12-1, p. 1; CTU IV. B 12-4, p. 1) and six clay bullae (CTU IV. CB Ay-1, p. 1; CTU IV. CB Ay-13, p. 2; CTU IV. CB Ay-14, p. 1; CTU IV. CB Ay-16, p. 1)11 unearthed during excavations at Ayanis Fortress. Eiduru, which is used to describe the location of this fortress, is also the name of a god in Urartu, as are many mountain names. In fact, the inscription of the Ayanis susi temple contains the phrase “1 sheep shall be slaughtered to God Eiduru” (CTU I. A 12-1 II. 1, p. 566). Despite the fact that the location of Rusahinili is evident from these data, the mountain name Mount Eiduru, which is used to describe the aforementioned city, is controversial. Studying the inscriptions unearthed in the Ayanis Fortress, Salvini asserted that Eiduru was the Urartian name for Mount Süphan, which dominates the fortress in all its glory (Çilingiroğlu & Salvini, 1995, p. 120; Çilingiroğlu & Salvini, 2001, p. 19, fn. 27). Salvini based this assertion on the equating –kai=ina pan. Çilingiroğlu (Çilingiroğlu & Salvini, 1995, p. 120) and Çevik (2009, pp. 196-200), who both make the same assertion, attribute this localization to the “magnificent” landscape of Mount Süphan from Ayanis Fortress.
Fig. 4 Mount Ireni, which extends towards the east of Ayanis Fortress
22Arutyunyan, who was the first to act with suspicion towards the Eiduru=Süphan Mountain equating, claimed that the Eiduru Mountain should be sought near Ayanis (KUKN: p. 503). Zimansky (2012, p. 106) later claimed, based on the 46-kilometre distance between Ayanis Fortress and Süphan Mountain, that Eiduru may be Ireni Mountain, which is situated 4 kilometers northeast of Ayanis Fortress, opposite Süphan Mountain. The fact that the name of Mount Eiduru is not mentioned in the Meher Kapı rock inscription in these discussions has brought those who claim that this mountain is Süphan to a dead end. Regarding this problem, Çilingiroğlu (2011, p. 348) responds that Eiduru was first perceived as a god during the reign of Rusai Argištiḫi. Çevik (2009, p. 198), on the other hand, claimed that Ayanis Fortress was already seen as a god before its construction and it was built according to the position of the mountain god (Eiduru/Süphan). Finally, Zimansky (2012, p. 106) argues that Eiduru, as a god, was a divinity who drew attention to the building of the Ayanis Fortress. In Urartian religion, mountains are regarded as gods, which may be deduced from the adoption of unique names that include both mountain=KUR and god=DINGIR. In the mountainous terrain of Urartu, it should not be expected that the list of the Meher Kapı rock inscription contains the names of all the gods. Thus, as Zimansky (2012, p. 106) indicated, Eiduru, who is already a god, had the opportunity to engrave his name on Urartian inscriptions during the building of Ayanis Fortress just next to it. Thus, the fortress, which was built on a hill that extends toward the western slope of Mount Ireni, was named after “mRusaḫinili KUREidurukai,”, i.e., “Rusaḫinili at the foot of Mt. Eiduru,” by King Rusai Argištiḫi. This suggests that Eiduru is Mount Ireni, which extends towards the east of Ayanis Fortress (Fig. 4). Overmore, E/ireni, which is referred to by different names such as Irin/Ererin/Ireni in the records rather than Süphan/Sipan, associates Eiduru/i phonetically more than Süphan/Sipan. And, as we shall see below, there is a better candidate for the identification of Süphan.
23In addition to all of the above-described place names, it would be appropriate to address an Urartian centre where the postposition -ka/i is not indicated but is included in the above-mentioned localization discussions.
24An inscription belonging to the Urartian king Rusai Argištiḫi that was unearthed in the Adilcevaz (Arske/Elcewaz) district to the northwest of Lake Van mentions the foundation of the city of “DHaldiei URU KURZiuquni” (CTU I. A 12-4 II: 6). The genitive suffix -i is incorporated as a suffix in both Haldi and Ziuquni names in the nominative form “Haldi=ei URU KURZiuquni=i” construction. Thus, this expression can be translated as “God Haldi city of Mount Ziuquni”. The aforementioned inscriptions state that Rusai Argištiḫi engaged in many architectural and agricultural activities for the city of DHaldiei URU. These inscriptions belong to Kef Fortress, which is located on a hill 3 km north of the Adilcevaz district centre. So, the name of Kef Fortress was understood to be “DHaldiei URU KURZiuquni”, i.e., “God Haldi City of Mount Ziuquni”. Nonetheless, it has been debated whether Ziuquni is a mountain name or a country name, as well as its localization.
25In the Urartian inscriptions, the name Ziuquni appears for the first time on the Meher Kapı rock inscription, which dates to the co-regency of Išpuini and his son Minua. In this inscription, the Urartian pantheon list includes the expression “one bull and two sheep sacrificed for God Ziuquni (CTU I. A 3-1: 18). In studies on Urartian inscriptions, Ziuquni is interpreted as a “region or country” name (Hchl, p. 210; UKN, p. 342, fn. 2; KUKN, p. 530). Also, Diakonoff-Kashkai (1981, p. 105), Arutyunyan (1985, pp. 81-82), and Salvini (2006, p. 30) asserted that the name Ziuquni was the same as that of Zingun, one of the eight countries that the Middle Assyrian king Salmanassar I (1274-1245 BC) conquered during his expedition against the Uruatri Lands. Although Salvini (1993, p. 547) previously noted that Ziuquni was a “mountain” name venerated in the Muradiye region, he interpreted the word as a “country” name in his subsequent publications (Salvini, 2001, p. 262; CTU I, p. 575; CTU V, p. 430). It can be claimed that this suggestion is effective in its use of the KUR determinative to designate both “country” and “mountain” names (ABZ. 366, pp. 148-149). Nevertheless, Ziuquni should be a mountain name, not a country name. In fact, Ziuquni is referenced with the names of other venerated mountains, such as Ura and Qilbani in the Meher Kapı rock inscription. If Ziuquni was the name of a country, then why were sacrifices offered in her honour? In addition, the Urartian inscriptions lack the name of the country where sacrifices were offered. Also, one may pose the question: “Why is Ura not a country in Qilbani?” This might be due to the fact that the location of the city Ḫaldiei URU (Kef Fortress), which holds her name, is further evidence that Ziuquni is a mountain name. The location of Kef Fortress, situated on the northwestern coast of Lake Van, which represents the central geography of Urartu, does not pertain to the concept of a “country”. The fortress was built on a high extension of the giant Süphan Mountain towards Lake Van in the northwest of Adilcevaz, which has a very small plain.
Fig. 5 Sipan Mountain= God/Mt. Ziuquni and Kef Fortress= Haldiei Ziuquni
26Unlike some Urartian cities described with mountain names, the suffix “-kai” is not employed in the expression “DḪaldiei URU KURZiuquni” in the Adilcevaz inscription. Perhaps it was defined as a country name only due to this missing. The lack of the suffix -kai here must be due to the fact that DḪaldiei URU is already situated on an independent hill within the Süphan Mountain mass, which covers a large area (Fig. 5). In fact, a beeline of around 13 km exists between a such hill and the summit of Mount Süphan. In other words, the relationship between Kef Fortress and Süphan Mountain cannot be explained by the definition of “in front of/at the foot of”, as in other fortress-mountain examples described with the postposition -kai. It should be noted that the fortresses described with the postposition -kai are situated at the foot of the mountains. Thus, since Kef Fortress is perceived to be situated on a kind of mountain mass by the Urartians, such a definition must have been preferred. Another reason for the lack of the postposition -kai in this place name is most likely: The Urartians may have preferred the definition DHaldiei URU KURZiuquni as a name out of respect for the name of the almighty god Haldi. Because even if the name Haldi is a phrase of a place name, the definition of another god Ziuquni “below/at the foot/at the bottom” would be contradictory to the magnificence and hierarchy of the national god in the Urartian religion. Nonetheless, God Haldi could not be overshadowed by any god.
27Salvini’s identification of Eiduru (Mount Ireni) as Mount Süphan caused some problems. One of these questions is the assertion that the name of the magnificent Mount Süphan, supposedly named Eiduru, is not included in the list of gods of the Meher Kapı rock inscription (Çevik, 2009, p. 198; Zimansky, 2012, p. 106). Süphan, the most magnificent mountain in the Lake Van basin, was unquestionably included in the Meher Kapı rock inscription, and its name was Ziuquni. Another question may be posed as follows: If Mount Süphan’s name is Eiduru, why does it not appear in the inscriptions of Kef Fortress or Adilcevaz? Nevertheless, it proves once more that the name Ziuquni in the inscriptions refers to Mount Süphan during the Urartian period. Mount Süphan has been called Սիփան/Sipan or Ծիպան/Tzipan by Armenians living in the region since the Middle Ages, while the Kurds refer to it as “Sipan” or “Sipané Xelaté (Sipan of Xelat/Ahlat). During the early 20th century, the Turkish authorities most likely altered this name officially to “Süphan”. Here, the name Sipan may have derived from Ziuquni, to which it was presumably phonetically close. The name of the stratovolcano Sipan mountain, which is the greatest mountain in the Van basin with its height (4058 m) and surface area (52,329 hectares), must have endured through the ages in the form of Ziuquni= Z/Siq/pan=Sipan, with some sound variations.