doi: 10.2143/AWE.19.0.3288557 AWE 19 (2020) 1-42 URARTIAN STUDIES DURING THE FOUNDATION OF MODERN NATION STATES: ARCHAEOLOGICAL TRADITIONS, IDEOLOGIES AND PERCEPTIONS * ALI ÇIFÇI Abstract This research evaluates the work on the archaeology and socio-economic aspects of the Urartian kingdom by Soviet, Turkish and Western scholars during the foundation-period of modern states. Because the former territories of the Urartian kingdom were divided between the present-day states of Turkey, Armenia and Iran, Urartian scholarship developed separately in all these areas until the last decade of the 20th century. Therefore, the different national cultures of these states influenced how these countries perceived Urartian archaeol- ogy. This paper, first of all, investigates the archaeological research on Urartian studies in Soviet Armenia, the Lake Van basin of Turkey and finally the Lake Urmia basin of Iran. It then moves on to present a new model for the administrative and socio-economic organi- sation of the kingdom, which places more emphasis on how diachronic changes and regional variations affected the development and organisation of the Urartian kingdom. Introduction Archaeological research and interpretation can be influenced by many different factors such as culture, political events, nationalism and, most importantly, the social context in which archaeologists live and work. 1 The Iron Age kingdom of Urartu (9th–6th century BC) is such a unique case where different ‘archaeological traditions’ operate. These present us with an opportunity to study how the modern countries that exist on what once was the land of Urartu perceive and interpret its archaeology. The former Urartian territory is currently divided between the modern states of Turkey, Armenia, Iran, parts of northern Iraq, and the Nakhichevan exclave of Azerbaijan (Fig. 1). Thus Urartian scholarship, until the last decade of * I would like to thank Kemalettin Köroğlu, Alan Greaves and Atilla Batmaz for commenting on earlier drafts of this paper. I am also in debt to Harun Danışmaz for his help in the preparation of maps. I also would like to thank Erkan Konyar, Mehmet Işıklı, Mehmet Karaosmanoğlu, Kenan Işık and Rıfat Kuvanç for kindly allowing me to use some of the illustrations from their excavations/ research. Further thanks are also due to the Editor-in-Chief and anonymous referees for their com- ments and suggestions. Any opinions, errors or shortcomings are my own. 1 Trigger 1984; 2008; Kohl 1993; 1998; Kohl and Fawcett 1995; Kohl and Tsetskhladze 1995.