ARAMAZD

ARMENIAN JOURNAL
OF NEAR EASTERN STUDIES

VOLUME VIII, ISSUES 1-2 – 2013-2014

ASSOCIATION FOR NEAR EASTERN AND CAUCASIAN STUDIES

YEREVAN 2014
 ²ð²Ø²¼¸
غðÒ²ìàð²ðºìºÈÚ²Ü
àôêàôØܲêÆðàôÂÚàôÜܺðÆ
вÚÎ²Î²Ü Ð²Ü¸ºê

вîàð VIII, вزð 1-2 – 2013-2014

²è²æ²ìàð²êÆ²Î²Ü ºì ÎàìβêÚ²Ü Ðºî²¼àîàôÂÚàôÜܺðÆ ²êàòƲòƲ

ºðºì²Ü 2014
Association for Near Eastern and Caucasian Studies
In collaboration with the Institute of Oriental Studies and the Institute of
Archaeology and Ethnography (National Academy of Sciences of Armenia)

ARAMAZD
ARMENIAN JOURNAL OF NEAR EASTERN STUDIES (AJNES)

Editor–in–Chief: Aram Kosyan

Vice–Editor: Armen Petrosyan

Associate Editors: Arsen Bobokhyan, Yervand Grekyan

Editorial Board: Levon Abrahamian, Gregory Areshian,

Pavel Avetisyan, Raffaele Biscione, Elizabeth Fagan,
Andrew George, John Greppin, Hrach Martirosyan,
Mirjo Salvini, Ursula Seidl, Adam Smith,
Aram Topchyan, Vardan Voskanyan, Ilya Yakubovich

Communications for the editors, manuscripts, and books for review

should be addressed to the Editor–in–Chief or Associate Editors.

Editorial Ofice:
Marshal Baghramyan Ave. 24/4, 375019, Yerevan, Armenia
Tel. (374 10) 58 33 82
Fax: (374 10) 52 50 91
E–mail: ancs@freenet.am, armenianjournal@yahoo.com
http://www.ancs.am

ISSN 1829–1376
© 2014 by Association for Near Eastern and Caucasian Studies, Yerevan. All rights reserved.
 The PublIcATIon of ThIs jouRnAl
Is sPonsoReD by The ReseARch PRogRAM In
ARMenIAn ARchAeology AnD eThnogRAPhy of
The coTsen InsTITuTe of ARchAeology AT The
unIVeRsITy of cAlIfoRnIA, los Angeles AnD
funDeD by The chITjIAn fAMIly founDATIon (usA)
 Առաջավորասիական և կովկասյան հետազոտւթյւնների ասոցիացիա
ՀՀ ԳԱԱ հնագիտւթյան և ազգագրւթյան ինստիտւտ, ՀՀ ԳԱԱ արևելագիտւթյան ինստիտւտ

ՍԵՎԸ ԵՎ ՍՊԻՏԱԿԸ

ՊԱՏՄԱԳԻՏԱԿԱՆ, ՀՆԱԳԻՏԱԿԱՆ,
ԱՌԱՍՊԵԼԱԲԱՆԱԿԱՆ ԵՎ ԲԱՆԱՍԻՐԱԿԱՆ
ՈՒՍՈՒՄՆԱՍԻՐՈՒԹՅՈՒՆՆԵՐ ՆՎԻՐՎԱԾ
ԱՐՄԵՆ ՊԵՏՐՈՍՅԱՆԻ ԾՆՆԴՅԱՆ 65-ԱՄՅԱԿԻՆ

Խմբագիրներ
Արամ Քոսյան, Երվանդ Գրեկյան, Արսեն Բոբոխյան

ԵՐԵՎԱՆ 2014
 Association for Near Eastern and Caucasian Studies
Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography NAS RA, Institute of Oriental Studies NAS RA

THE BLACK & THE WHITE

STUDIES ON HISTORY, ARCHAEOLOGY,

MYTHOLOGY AND PHILOLOGY IN HONOR
OF ARMEN PETROSYAN IN OCCASION OF
HIS 65TH BIRTHDAY

Edited by
Aram Kosyan, Yervand Grekyan, and Arsen Bobokhyan

YEREVAN 2014
 Armen Petrosyan has joined Armenian, Indo-European and
ancient Oriental Studies in his late 30’s, a phenomenon not quite usual in
our ield, coming from diametrically opposite direction. Perhaps, when
at some point a desire to deal with Armenian prehistory prevailed, his
excellent knowledge of natural sciences (physics, biology and related
ields), gained at the Yerevan State University played a signiicant role
in his humanitarian scholarship. Within several years he achieved so
much irst in linguistic matters then in mythology.
Armen Petrosyan ranks among the leading authorities in
the ield of comparative mythology. We hope that he will receive this
Festschrift as a token of our esteem. It is a distinct pleasure to present
this volume in honor of Armen Petrosyan’s substantial and wide-ranging
contribution to scholarship. The title of this volume comes from an Indo-
European myth reconstructed by him. The papers range several areas to
which Armen has contributed: philology, mythology, history.
The idea for this volume was conceived only two years ago,
joyfully accepted by all our colleagues, except one person – Armen
Petrosyan, but we insisted it to be fulilled.
The editorial board is happy to thank all our colleagues who
participated in the making of this Festschrift.

EDITORIAL BOARD
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
_____________________

PART I
HISTORY AND ARCHAEOLOGY

ARSEN BOBOKHYAN. Problems of Ethnicity in the Context of Archaeology

of Ancient Armenia ........................................................................................................14–35

MANUEL CASTELLUCCIA, ROBERTO DAN. Metal Horse Bits from Urartian Sites .............36–47

ARAM GEVORGYAN, ARSEN BOBOKHYAN. Bull Sacriices ...............................................48–56

YERVAND GREKYAN. When the Gods Leave People

(The Climatological Hypothesis of the Collapse of the Urartian State) ........................57–94

MICHAEL HERLES, HAYK AVETISYAN. An Old Site at Oshakan

in a Different Light: the Small Hill of Pokr Blur ..........................................................95–109

MEHMET IŞIKLI. Relections on Twenty Five Years of Excavations

at Ayanis Castle: Past, Present and Future ................................................................110–119

MEHMET KARAOSMANOĞLU, MEHMET ALI YILMAZ. Some Considerations

on Urartian Religious Activities in the Light of Recent Evidence from
Temple Complex of Altıntepe .....................................................................................120–127

ARAM KOSYAN. Rulers of Hayasa: Hukkana ........................................................................128–134

NINO SHANSHASHVILI, GODERDZI NARIMANISHVILI. Iconography of

Syria-Mesopotamian Goddess from Kakheti (Meli-Ghele Shrine) ............................135–142

NVARD TIRATSYAN. Two Pithos Burials from Argištiḫinili ..................................................143–158

PART II
MYTHOLOGY AND PHILOLOGY

LEVON ABRAHAMIAN. The Killing of Hero’s Adversary

in the Armenian Epic .................................................................................................160–177

YURI BEREZKIN. Serpent that Closes Sources of Water and Serpent that
Devours Nestlings of Giant Bird: Assessment of the Age of the Dragon-Fighting
Myths in Eurasia .......................................................................................................178–185

ROCÍO DA RIVA. The East India House Inscription. A New Duplicate

from the British Museum (BM 122119) ......................................................................186–190
10
HASMIK HMAYAKYAN. The Goddesses of Artamet .............................................................191–197

SIMON HMAYAKYAN, LILIT SIMONYAN. Traces of Folk Calendar

and Fests in the Urartian Texts ..................................................................................198–206

SERGEY JATSEMIRSKIJ. “Para-Lydian” Inscription from Sardis ........................................207–214

MARGARIT KHACHIKYAN. Relections on the Origin of the Hurrian

Ergative Case Marker -ž and the Correlative Particle -šše .......................................215–218

HRACH MARTIROSYAN. An Armenian Theonym of Indo-European Origin:

Ayg ‘Dawn Goddess’...................................................................................................219–224

JAAN PUHVEL. Perils of Postulates: A Hittite Example .........................................................225–228

VITALY SHEVOROSHKIN. Milyan trija ................................................................................229–261

YAROSLAV VASSILKOV. Some Observations on the Indian

and the Mesopotamian Flood Myths .........................................................................262–281

ILYA YAKUBOVICH. The Luwian Deity Kwanza ...................................................................282–297

SUMMARIES .........................................................................................................................299–318

ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................................................319–320

TABLES ...................................................................................................................................321-347

BIBLIOGRAPHY ...................................................................................................................349–355

11
 PART I

HISTORY AND ARCHAEOLOGY

 METAL HORSE BITS FROM URARTIAN SITES

Manuel Castelluccia, Roberto Dan1

The goal of the present study is to present all metal horse bits found in Urartian
sites of which the archaeological context of provenance is known. The horse bits are
grouped and discussed according to their typological features, with a view to recognizing
the existence of any typical Urartian productions, as well as the presence of imported
objects.
The beginning of the Iron Age in the Near East is marked by many innovations
that go well beyond the mere introduction of iron itself. Among these developments,
one of the most signiicant was surely the introduction of mounted cavalry in Near
Eastern warfare, which progressively replaced the use of war-chariots. The irst areas in
which it is possible to observe this change are the mountainous zones of the Iranian and
Armenian highlands, where horse burials are attested since the 13th-12th century BC. The
spread of mounted cavalry was associated with a technological innovation: the control
of horses by means of horse bits.
In the preceding centuries, during which horses were mainly used to pull chariots,
the archaeological evidence consists mainly of bits made of bone, while metal examples
are few in number and come especially from Egypt and the Levant.
With the beginning of the Iron Age the presence of metal bits greatly increases
and they are often found, especially in funerary contexts, in the Caucasus and Anatolian
and Iranian plateaus.
Metal horse bits from Western Asia were the subject of a detailed study by
Potratz,2 although this is now outdated, while other scholars have dealt especially with
the well known and much discussed corpus of “Luristan Bronzes”, which includes many
bronze horse bits.3 Unfortunately, such studies are generally based mostly on specimens
obtained from the antiquities market and cannot therefore be used for establishing a
reliable chronology. Despite the hundreds of metal bits generally attributed to Luristan
that are known in museum and private collections, only very few have been found
during regularly conducted archaeological digs, while a few more have been recovered
by local authorities or lack exact records of provenance.4
The rich and well documented funerary evidence of the Caucasian area includes

1
The contents of this paper are the work of both authors. Speciically, M. Castelluccia wrote pages
36-38 while R. Dan wrote pages 39-41.
2
Potratz 1966.
3
Moorey 1971: 101-128; Muscarella 1988: 155-166.
4
Haerinck, Overlaet 2004: 54.

AJNES VIII/1-2, 2013-2014, p. 36–47

 Metal Horse Bits from Urartian Sites

several metal bits, which have been the target of some speciic studies.1 Urartian horse
bits, on the other hand, have been not considered in detail. Some studies have been
made by Seidl,2 but deal with many unprovenanced items; Yıldırım also published a
comprehensive collection of bits,3 including several from neighbouring areas which,
however, cannot be consider Urartian.4 One of the few detailed studies was conducted
by Ivantchik, regarding a comparison between Altıntepe and early Scythian horse bits.5
The main goal of the present article is thus to describe all the horse bits from Urartian
sites, in order to better comprehend the types, function and chronology. A further aim is
to establish whether any typically Urartian bits exist and also to consider the evidence
regarding objects imported from other areas.
Before going into detail, we will give a brief technical description of a horse bit.
A bit is part of horse tack, placed in the mouth of a equine in order to give the rider
greater control over the animal using level action (Fig. 1). It rests on the lower jaw in
the interdental region between the incisors and molars. Horse bits were usually made of
bone, iron or bronze. They can have various components; the real bit, the mouthpiece,
is usually composed of two independent horizontal rods joined in the middle by rings.
Only the so-called Luristan bits are constructed differently: the mouthpiece is made of
a single metal bar, and thus the bit is not lexible in the centre.
At the outer ends of the rods there are other rings through which the reins passed.
Additionally, there were two sidebars, which rested on the horse’s cheeks (Fig. 2); these
might be fused with the mouthpiece or ixed to it through two holes. Each sidebar is
equipped with loops or holes for the attachment of bridle cheek straps. Decorations were
often present, especially on the sidebars or on the ends of the mouthpiece.
The horse bits discovered in Urartian sites are of various types and shapes; the
differences might depend on chronology and/or geographical provenance. Only one bit
from archaeological excavations bear two royal inscriptions of King Minua (CTU IV B
5-3);6 this was found in Karmir-blur in Room 36.7 The specimens discovered in Urartian
sites have been divided according to their typological features.

Simple Plain Bits

Simple plain bits are characterized by two undecorated mouthpiece rods joined
at their inner ends by intersecting loops. The external ends have two larger rings for
1
Dietz 1999; Castelluccia (forthcoming).
2
Seidl 1991; idem. 2004: 103ff.
3
Yıldırım 1987.
4
Many scholars have written speciic works on Urartian horse bits and, more in general, on horse
harnesses. In particular, the articles of Belli (1983: 373-384), Özgen (1983: 111-131; 1984: 91-
154), Özgüç (1989: 409-419) and Salvatori (1976: 77-97) should be noted.
5
Ivantchik 2001: 217ff.
6
The most complete list of inscribed Urartian horse bits from the antiquarian market is to be found
in Seidl 2004. They date to the time of Minua (C27-38) and Sarduri II (F115-F137).
7
Barnett 1959: 15, Fig. 12.
37
Manuel Castelluccia, Roberto Dan

the reins. Such bits do not necessarily require the use of cheek pieces for controlling
the horse but they provide a lesser degree of maneuverability; it is also possible that
cheekpieces were also present, but found elsewhere within the grave. This type of simple
horse bit has been common since the Late Bronze/Early Iron Age; many examples have
been found in Caucasia and the neighbouring regions.1
Urartian sites have yielded only ive bits of this shape, all made of iron. They
come from three sites, Karmir-blur/Teišebai URU, Davti-blur/Argištiḫinili and an
underground chamber-grave in Yerevan, now all located in the Republic of Armenia.
None of them present remarkable features.
In the fortress of Karmir-blur several metal bits were discovered, but the exact
number – and their types – cannot be established due to the lack of detailed information
in the voluminous literature concerning Karmir-blur.
It is however possible to establish the presence of at least four simple bits, found
in storerooms number 13, 18 and 25. Their length ranges from 13 to 20 cm and they
are made of iron (Figs. 3-5); nearby, along with other metal objects, typical Scythian
bone cheekstraps were also found. The bits thus seem more likely to have been products
of the Scythian culture rather than Urartian or other local ones.2 It is not possible to
propose a reliable cultural attribution due to the simplicity of this artefact type. They can
be dated, however, to the late seventh century.
The remaining example was found in the fortress of Davti-blur/Argištiḫinili, and
has external rings of the same size as the inner one (Fig. 6a). Another fragmentary object
shows similar features but is of larger size; it is not possible to establish whether it is
a bit or alternatively some sort of tool (Fig. 6b). A reliable date cannot be proposed for
these objects, but the bit is probably 7th century.
Another simple iron bit was also recovered from a grave found in the centre of
modern Yerevan (Fig. 7). The burial contained a remarkable number of different metal
objects. Pertinent to horse equipment is also a metal bell, an object often associated with
horses;3 the grave yielded no cheekpieces.

H-Shaped with Rigid Sidebars

The majority of the bits discovered in Urartian sites belong to this category.
The form is a typical H-shape, with the sidebars fused to the mouthpiece elements;
the sidebars are thus not lexible, but rigid. There is a variety of different types, all of
which share a twisted decoration of the rods and the presence of animal protomes at
the lateral extremities. Four bronze exemplars of this type are known and they were all
discovered in Grave III, Room 1 of Altıntepe. The room measures 4 x 2 metres and the
bits were found partly in the middle of the room, inside a bronze cauldron, and partly

1
Castelluccia (forthcoming).
2
This type of bit was also found in a Scythian grave on the acropolis of Norşuntepe. See Hauptmann
1971: 20.
3
Castelluccia, Dan 2014; Yesayan et al. 1995: 55-61, Tab. VII.17.
38
 Metal Horse Bits from Urartian Sites

in the western half of the room.1 In this room other equestrian equipment was also
discovered – bells, bridles, collars and frontlets – and chariot ixtures such as linchpins
and axle caps.2
One exemplar shows a twisted mouthpiece (Fig. 8) and four horse protomes; on
the latter the mane is indicated by a series of incised undulating lines and there are small
pointed ears. Two, highly decorated, are clearly horses; the other two are portrayed in
less detail, but probably represent horses as well. There are two semicircular rings at
the end of the mouthpiece and the holes for cheek-straps are cut into the rectangular
sidebars.
The second item is highly corroded, but shares the same shape and twisted
mouthpiece (Fig. 9). However, it lacks clear animal protomes, although Özgüç reports
the presence of an eagle protome.3 The rein-rings seem to be missing.
The third piece has two animal protomes in the shape of birds, probably eagles,
with strongly curved beaks and eyes rendered by concentric circles. The opposite sides
of the straight rods were rounded and grooved (Fig. 10). The rein-rings in the middle
of the cheekpieces are partly missing; there are two pairs of loops for the bridle. The
twisted mouthpiece is fused to the cheekpieces and joined in the centre by interlocking
loops.4
The fourth item has outward-curving sidebars, with two loops on each. Mouth
and cheekpieces are merged together (Fig. 11). The mouthpiece is twisted and joined
by two intersecting loops in the middle. The central rein-rings have broken off the
cheekpieces.5

H-Shaped with Flexible Sidebars

These bits have the same shape as the previous category, but they differ in
the junction between the mouthpieces and the cheekpieces; the former pass thought
perforations in the centre of each sidebar, making the joints lexible. The most
distinguished pieces come from Karmir-blur, where two bits (one of them badly
preserved)6 were found in Room 36. Both bear an inscription of King Minua that reads:
“(object) of (belonging to) Minua”.7
The two sidebars curve slightly outwards in proximity to the ends, which are
pointed. Each sidebar possesses a twin pair of attached loops for cheek-straps (Fig. 12).
They were found in a heap of iron and bronze objects at the centre of the room.
The only other similar piece was found during construction work in the village of
Makarašen, near Vanadzor, when an almost identical, but uninscribed, bit (Fig. 13) was

1
Özgüç 1969: 68.
2
Özgüç 1989: 409.
3
Özgüç 1989: 410f.
4
Özgüç 1989: 410f.
5
Özgüç 1989: 411.
6
From the archaeological report the specimen’s shape is not clear, nor whether it is inscribed.
7
Translation into English by the authors of CTU IV B 5-3.
39
Manuel Castelluccia, Roberto Dan

discovered.1 Along with this bit half of a similar item was also recovered, belonging to
the same category but of different shape, plus two round bronze plaques, probably also
pertinent to horse equipment.
Another very interesting item comes from the cemetery of Nor-Areš, located
near Arin-berd/Erebuni. It is marked out by a grooved decoration at the end of each
extremity, associated with a cylindrical termination (Fig. 14). Several bits of this type
were found in the necropolis of Mingečaur (north-western Azerbaijan), dated to the
late 7th century BC, and at Tak Kilise2 (Fig. 15). It is noteworthy that in the Nor-Areš
burial-ground another object of clear Caucasian origin was found: a bronze situla
with typical two-eared-shaped appliqués on the top of the handle. Such objects are
widespread throughout the Caucasian area, especially in the sphere of the Koban
Culture. The recurrence of these objects of clearly imported origin might well
represent another sign of the interaction between the Urartian kingdom and the native
cultures of Transcaucasia.
The most distinguished corpus of horse bits was found in a chamber grave in the
village of Geghovit, on the southern shore of Lake Sevan, near the important Selim pass.
Several individuals were placed in the rocky chamber, some of whom even seem to have
been slaughtered as a sacriice for the high-ranking person buried in the grave.3 The
richness of the burial is further increased by the presence of several bronze components
pertinent to a chariot. A total of four horse bits were recovered, one (decorated) in
bronze and three in iron.
The bronze item has the two extremities of the sidebars curved outwards with
inely-worked animal protomes in shape of birds. Three holes for passing the reins
perforate each sidebar (Fig. 16a). The three iron examples are only partially preserved
and each differs slightly from the others. One has two attachment loops for the reins and
the sidebars slightly curved inwards (Fig. 16b). The second item has two holes in each
sidebar (Fig. 16c). The sidebars of the third iron bit, large and rectangular, are without
perforations (Fig. 16d). The entire complex dates probably to the second half of the 7th
century, given the presence of a typical “Scythian”-type akinakes.4
The last bit we describe has quite an unusual shape. It was found by Mnacakanjan
in the Astchazor cemetery, near Martuni, on the southern shore of Lake Sevan.
Unfortunately the material from this excavation was not published, but Martirosjan in a
subsequent publication dated the complex to the 8th century BC.5
The bit has sidebars of trapezoidal shape, with rounded extremities. Two holes
for passing the rein are present in each and there is a suspension loop next to the joint
between the sidebars and the mouthpiece (Fig. 17). At that time the area was fully under
Urartian control, but this bit has no parallels with other Urartian or local items.

1
Martirosyan 1964: 212.
2
Kuftin 1941: 58, Fig. 56.
3
Piliposyan, Khachatryan 1995: 80-85, Tab. 2.
4
Piliposyan, Mkrtchyan 2001: Tab. 14.1.
5
Martirosjan 1964: 213.
40
 Metal Horse Bits from Urartian Sites

Cheekpieces
At least two cheekpieces from Altıntepe have the shape of horse’s head (Fig. 18).
Two others found in Karmir-blur were undecorated bars with loops for suspension (Fig.
19). More common are bone cheekpieces, found in Karmir blur in association with the
“Scythian-type” iron bits,1 as well as decorated examples from Çavuştepe.2

Conclusion
Urartian sites have not yielded a large number of horse bits, despite the numerous
sites that have been excavated. This lack might be explained by the fact that few burial-
grounds have been investigated, since metal bits are usually components of the grave
goods accompanying the deceased.
On the basis of the preserved items, the irst striking difference to note is that
the bronze bits are usually decorated with animal protomes in the shape of birds and
horses, whereas those in iron have simple standardized forms, mostly related to the
Scythian type. The bronze bits date mostly to the 7th century BC. It is interesting that the
decoration type with animal protomes shows clear similarity to the contemporaneous
“Scythian”-type bits, found in large quantity in southern Russia and the Ukraine.3
Another typical Urartian production is represented by the inscribed objects
found in Karmir-blur and the uninscribed piece from Makarašen, which are at least one
century older.

Manuel Castelluccia
University of Naples “l’Orientale’
Strada di Madriolo 42
33043, Cividale del Friuli
Italia

vandit81@hotmail.it

Roberto Dan
ISMEO
Via Santa Maria in Gradi
01100, Viterbo
Italia

roberto_dan@hotmail.it

1
Piotrovskij 1950: 94-95, Figs. 61-62.
2
Erzen 1988: Pl. 47.
3
Ivantchik 2001.
41
Manuel Castelluccia, Roberto Dan

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aslanov G.M., Vaidov R.M., Ione G.I. 1959, Drevnij Mingečaur (epoxa ēneolita i bronzy), Baku (in Russ.).
Azarpay G. 1968, Urartian Arts and Artifacts. A Chronological Study, Berkeley, Los Angeles.
Belli O. 1983, Oynar Yanaklıklı Urartu At Gemleri, AnAr 9, 373-384.
Biscione R. 1995, Recent Urartian Discoveries in Armenia: The Colombarium of Erevan, SMEA 34, 115-137.
Boehmer R.M., Maran J. 2001, Lux Orientis. Archäologie zwischen Asien und Europa, Festschrift für
Harald Hauptmann zum 65. Geburtstag, Rahden/Westfalen.
Castelluccia M., Iron Age Transcaucasian Metal Horse Bits (forthcoming).
De Meyer L., Haerinck E. 1989, Archaeologia Iranica et Orientalis. Miscellanea in Honorem Louis Van
Den Berghe, Gent.
Erzen A. 1988, Çavuştepe I, Urartian Architectural Monuments of the 7th and 6th Centuries B.C. and a
Necropolis of the Middle Age, Ankara.
Ghirshman R. 1963, Perse. Proto-Iraniens, Médes, Achéménides, Paris.
Hauptmann H. 1971, Recent Archaeological Research in Turkey, Norşun-Tepe, 1970, AnSt 21, 19-21.
Ivantchik A. 2001, Das Zaumzeugaus Altıntepe (Osttürkei) und die Chronologie der frühskythischen
Kultur, in: Boehmer, Maran 2001, 217-220.
Kozenkova V.I. 1992, Seržen’-Jurt. Ein Friedhof der späten Bronze- und frühen Eisenzeit im
Nordostkaukasus, Mainz am Rhein.
Kuftin B.A. 1941, Arxeologičeskie raskopki v Trialeti. Tbilisi (in Russ.).
Merhav R. 1991 (ed.), A Metalworking Center in the First Millennium, Jerusalem.
Özgen E. 1983, The Urartian Chariot Reconsidered: I. Representational Evidence, 9th-7th centuries B.C.,
Anatolica 10, 111-131.
Özgen E. 1984, The Urartian Chariot Reconsidered: II. Archaeological Evidence, 9th-7th centuries B.C.,
Anatolica 11, 91-154.
Özgüç T. 1969, Altıntepe II, Tombs, Storehouse and Ivories, Ankara.
Özgüç T. 1989, Horsebits from Altıntepe, in: De Meyer, Haerinck 1989, 409-419.
Piliposyan A., Khatchatrian L.E. 1995, The Van-Tospian Rock-Cut Tomb of Geghovit, Arxeologičeskie
pamjatniki Armenii 16/III, Yerevan, 80-97 (in Arm. with English and Russian Summaries).
Piliposyan A., Mkrtchyan R.A. 2001, The Vantospian (Urartian) Cave Tomb of Geghovit, Arxeologičeskie
pamjatniki Armenii 18, Yerevan (in Arm.).
Piotrovskij B.B 2011, Istorija i Kul’tura Urartu, Saint-Petersburg (in Russ.).
Piotrovskij B.B. 1950, Karmir-blur I: Resul’taty Raskopok 1939-1949 gg., Yerevan (in Russ.).
Piotrovskij B.B. 1966, Il regno di Van (Urartu), (translation made by M. Salvini of Vanskoe Tsartsvo
(Urartu), Moscow, 1959), InGr XII, Roma.
Portraz A.H. 1966, Die Pferdetrensendes Alten Orient, AnOr 41, Roma
Salvatori S. 1976, Notes on the Chronology of Some Urartian Artifacts, East & West 26, 1-2, 77-96.
Salvini M. 2012, Corpus dei Testi Urartei, Vol. IV, DocAs VIII, Roma.
Seidl U. 1991, Horse Trappings, in: Merhav 1991, 78-95.
Seidl U. 2004, Bronzekunst Urartus, Mainz am Rhein.
Taşyürek A. 1975, Some Inscribed Urartian Bronze Armour, Iraq 37, 151-155.
van Loon M.N. 1966, Urartian Art. Its Distinctive Traits in the Light of New Excavation, Istanbul.
Yesayan S.A., Bijagov L.N., Amajakjan S.G., Kanecjan A.G. 1995, Bianjnskaja grobnica v Erevane (2),
Arxeologičeskie pamjatniki Armenii 16, Urartskie pamjatniki III, Yerevan.
Yıldırım R. 1987, Urartu at Gemleri / Urartäische Trensen, Belleten 51/200, 441-496.

Abbreviations
CTU IV – see Salvini 2012.

42
 Metal Horse Bits from Urartian Sites

Captions to Figures

Fig. 1. Scheme of a metal bit (after Moorey 1971: 105, Fig. d.).
Fig. 2. Bit ixed on horse (after Kozenkova 1992: 45, Fig. 13).
Fig. 3. Iron bit from Karmir-blur, Room 18 (after Piotrovskij 1950: 94, Fig. 61).
Fig. 4. Iron bit from Karmir-blur (after Piotrovskij 1950: 95, Fig. 62).
Fig. 5. Iron bit from Karmir-blur, Room 13 (after Piotrovskij 1950: 55, Fig. 32).
Fig. 6. Iron bit from Davti-blur/Argištiḫinili (after Martirosjan 1974: 140, Fig. 87a).
Fig. 7. Iron bit from the Yerevan columbarium (after Yesajan et al. 1995: Tab. VII.17).
Fig. 8. Bronze bit with twisted mouthpiece rods from Altıntepe (after Özgüç 1989: Pl. 1).
Fig. 9. Bit from Altıntepe (after Özgüç 1989: Pl. 2.d).
Fig. 10. Bronze bit from Altıntepe (after Özgüç 1989: Pl. 3).
Fig. 11. Bronze bit from Altıntepe (after Özgüç 1989: Pl. 4).
Fig. 12. Inscribed bronze bit from Karmir-blur (after Barnett 1959: 14, Fig. 12).
Fig. 13. Bronze bits from Makarašen (after Martirosjan 1964: 212, Fig. 84).
Fig. 14. Bronze bit from Nor-Areš (after Barnett 1963: 196, Fig. 45).
Fig. 15. Bronze bit from Mingečaur (after Aslanov et al. 1959: Pl. 34).
Fig. 16. Bronze and iron bits from Geghovit (Piliposyan, Mkrtchyan 2001: Pl. 15).
Fig. 17. Bronze bit from Astchadzor (after Martirosjan 1964: 228, Fig. 87).
Fig. 18. Bronze cheekstraps from Altıntepe (after Özgüç 1989: Pls. 5-6).
Fig. 19. Bronze cheekstraps from Karmir-blur (after Piotrovskij 2011: 642).

43
Manuel Castelluccia, Roberto Dan

Fig. 1.

Fig. 3.

Fig. 2.
Fig. 4.

44
 Metal Horse Bits from Urartian Sites

Fig. 6.

Fig. 7.

Fig. 5. Fig. 9.

Fig. 8.

45
 Manuel Castelluccia, Roberto Dan

Fig. 10. Fig. 11.

Fig. 12. Fig. 13.

Fig. 14. Fig. 15.

46
 Metal Horse Bits from Urartian Sites

Fig. 16.

Fig. 17. Fig. 19.

Fig. 18.

47