The relation of doors and windows to the wall is a fundamental architectural problem. Size, number, and placing of the openings are determined to an essential degree by environment and climate, but shape and proportion are a decisive factor in the artistic effect of a building. Even a moderately initiated layman can distinguish a Romanesque, Gothic, or Renaissance structure by the form of its doors and windows rather than by its total effect.
As a result of the many excavations and considerable research done in Urartian centers during recent years, important conclusions have been drawn concerning the architecture of Urartian temples. It has become clear that the structures with a square shaped single “cella” discovered in the excavations at Toprakkale, Patnos-Aznavurtepe, Altıntepe, Çavuştepe, Varto-Kayalıdere and Bastam occupy an important place in the architecture of temples. Many original and interesting ideas have been advanced on this subject[1]. However, in spite of the fact that attempts at reconstruction have been made with these different ideas in mind, sufficient attention has not been given to the problem related to the gates of these temples.
Refer to the table above for the measurements of the gates of the square shaped temples that have been unearthed to date[2];
It can be seen from (fig. 1) and the preceeding table that Urartian temple gates were made in accordance with a standart plan and are formed of two major parts which we might refer to as the “monolithic door threshold” and the “space behind the threshold”.
The first of these two major parts, the monolithic door threshold, constitutes the principal part of the entrance to the temple in that in all temples it can be observed that in this particular part the material used is very finely worked basalt. Generally one ascends by way of stone steps from the level of the front courtyard of the temples to this elevated point. As for the side walls rising on either side of monolithic basalt threshold, underneath are blocks of basalt and on top of these rises a section of mud-brick. From an architectural point of view, the part of these blocks facing the front of the edifice is in the from of a three echelon tooth which frames the façade of the door, steep on the sides and horizontal on top[3]. On this basalt section rest “läufer” bricks and mud-bricks rise following these. Here we are confronted with the problem of where “the wings of the door” and “the frame beds” are to be placed. As is known, T. Özgüç examined the holes, 4-5 cm. in diameter, on top of the basalt blocks shaped in rectangular prism which are found on either side of the door and designated them as the frames[4]. According to this explanation the door of the temple is closed from outside with double wings. However, if this were the case, it can be seen from (fig. 2) that certain difficulties would be encountered. It can be seen here that if the two blocks indicated by T. Özgüç had constituted the door frames;
a) When the door was closed the door frame which was considered so important as is evidenced by the elaborate workmanship, would be completely covered.
b) More than half of each door wing would be suspended in empty space.
c) In these two blocks containing the frame beds signs of wear and tear would certainly appear because of the opening and closing of the door.
d) Since the frames protuberate at least 25-30 centimeters from the walls of the temple, an empty space which could not be filled would remain between the wings of the door and the wall (See fig. 2).
As is known, Urartian temples generally have one façade and all the weight is put on this front part. If the situation were as T. Özgüç described, when the door was opened or closed all the magnificence of the façade would be overshadowed by the wings of the door and this would be entirely opposed by the Urartian concept of façade architecture. If we take into consideration the relief of Musasir and even more so the relief of Adilcevaz[5] we can put forth the following suggestion in opposition to the ideas of T. Özgüç : The alveoli that T. Özgüç characterized as the frame holes arc most probably the alveoli of the “sacred spear” pedestals which are accepted as the symbol of Haldi and which were put into the façade of the temple[6]. In fact, the excavator himself showed in an attempt of reconstruction of the temple façade that two spears were located there and described the temple as the “Temple of Haldi”, taking the point of the spears as a basis for this appelation[7]. Nevertheless no idea was advanced as to the exact location of these two spears in the façade of the temple. As can be seen from (fig. 6-7) the architecture of the façade would certainly gain a new beauty if the sacred spears should be placed on pedestals on both sides of the entrance. The best example that supports our opinion is the relief of Adilcevaz (see fig. 9). Here, objects which are called “big spears” (?) are placed
on stone pedestals (cf. the pectoral of Toprakkale : see fig. 10)[8]. However, it has been acknowledged, that metal spears of sizes greather than normal have been found at Toprakkale and Çavuştepe excavations[9].
Having described the basalt blocks which were found in-situ at Altıntepe as pedestals for spears, we are now confronted with the problem of where the “wings of the temple door” were mounted. Experts who have been concerned with Urartian temples with a square “cella” have shown virtually no interest in this problem. Only R. Naumann touched upon the possibility that the doors, their tops being covered, could have been placed on the outside of that part we have referred to as the monolithic door threshold[10]. However, these ideas are far from shedding any light on the problem of temple gates. We have not yet touched upon the function of the section that constitutes the second part of the entrance and which we have previously referred to as the space behind the threshold. As can be seen from (fig. 1) the depth of this part is in proportion to the thickness of the walls of the square shaped cella. For example, this depth is 2.00 m. at Altıntepe, 1.85 m. at Kayalıdere, 1.70 m. at Aznavurtepe, 0.90 m. at Çavuştepe, and 1.70 m. at Toprakkale. In our opinion the door of the temple must have been placed in this part (fig. 3). It is fairly certain, or at least probable, that these doors had two wings, for, the average width of this part varies from 1.50 to 2.00 m. and in the temples where the space behind the threshold is not too deep, doors with only one wing would protrude out of this area and spoil the interior of the already small cella. It is very possible that in order to avoid this and to hide the wing from sight completely double door wings were used. The fact that the “width of the frames” is equal on both sides is the strongest evidence in support of this contention (see fig. 1). The wooden door wings[11] must have been mounted in the manner described below; the stone frame beds were mounted on the floor and the upper frame beds probably made of hard wood were mounted on the wall of mud-brick (fig. 4). We have various examples of this type of frame being used in Near East[12]. Furthermore, we can say that the two ends of the shaftbed which comprises the upper frame were buried completely in the wall of mud-brick in the form of a concrete beam. This situation would not only solve the problem of hiding the frame beds but also sheds light to the opening and closing positions of the door wings, because, when the double winged door was closed the wings would completely conform to the monolithic threshold and the side walls. Another important point is that when the door was open, the wings would be hidden behind the indentations that we have referred to as the “width of the frame section"[13], and it would become possible to see the statue of the god in opposite and also the frescoed wall which forms a background for this statue (fig. 3-5-6).
In some reconstructions no attempt was made to depict the door wings; only the door ways were indicated[14]. It is possible to explain the reasons for showing these structures without any doors :
a) Because the frame beds were not found in-situ,
b) Because when the length of “the threshold” + “space behind the threshold” are added together the fact that a narrow deep corridor[15] was indicated led one to think that this was a measure taken as protection against the elements of nature,
c) Because the temple façades were generally constructed to face south[16].
The assumptions above can be challenged in the following way; in the excavations the frame beds belonging to the structure as well as such finishing touches as hinges and door wings usually are not found because they have either been destroyed by nature or have been removed and used in the construction of other edifices. On the other hand, we cannot accept the idea that the depth of the corridor which forms the door way, even though the façade of the temple faces south, was a protective measure when we consider the rugged climatic conditions of the Eastern Anatolian high plateau, the sudden temperature changes and the violent winds. On the other hand, the fact that frescoes which comprise one of the main elements of the interior decoration have been found completely unspoiled during excavations is also strong evidence in support of our contention[17]. Frescoes which are subjected to sunlight quickly lose their color and begin to spoil.
For this reason it would have been necessary to keep the cella of the temple completely in darkness[18]. With the exception of the bright and wide windowed Hittite cellas, the dark and gloomy cella reflects the sense of mystery of the Ancient World. At any rate, when necessary, sufficient light could be obtained through the door, the height of which varied from 4.00 m. to 5.00 m.. For all of reasons above, the square single cella temples must have had double winged doors.
In the meanwhile the architectural form of the “monumental rock niches” which are named as “Kör Kapı” (Blind door) or “Taş Kapı” (Stone door) among the rural population and only as “KÁ = door"[19] in the Urartian language have drawn our attention and caused us to establish a relationship with temple gates (see fig. 11-12). This relation should be examined in two parts :
a) Architectural
b) Religious
As can be clearly understood from (fig. 8), the plans of ‘monumental rock niches' and temple gates a great similarity to each other as far as forms dimensions are concerned (Cf. the following table).
As can be understood from the above table, the width and depth of the monolithic basalt threshold of the temple doors are almost same with the dimensions of monumental rock nisches.
“Stepped frames", seen on temple gates and on monumental rock nisches were also used in Urartian civil architecture, and in the construction of tombs. For example, doors and nisches carrying this type of stepped frames were found at Giriktepe (Değirmentepe) near Patnos which is dated to the end of 9 th century B. C. and beginning of 8 th century B. C.[20]. Thanks to the Kayalıdere tomb, it was found out that stepped frames were used on the doors of the rock tombs[21]. Apart from this, the door of a multi-storey building represented on a bronze plate dated to the 7 th century B. C. and found at Toprakkale was shown as possessing a stepped frame[22]. Furthermore, this type of stepped frames were brought to light at the entrance of a square planned room which is accepted as a “sacred room” by the excavators and also at the two side entrances of this room in a building called “Burned Building II” dated to 1000-800 B. C.[23] at Hasanlu (IV. level) in North-west Persia[24]. It has been observed that, stepped frames had an old tradition in religious and profane buildings and it can be understood that this decorative element later on had passed to stone architecture and was in use for a long time.
As to the religious connection between temple gates and “monumental rock niches”; when the door wings arc open, the door frame is framing entirely in a three dimensional look, the statue which is on a stone base and standing[25] in front of the rear wall of the cclla. According to our belief, the door frame by framing the god statue has obtained “sacredness”[26], because the epiphany can be only seen in the field limited by “Sacred Frame”.
The generally supported proposal regarding the functions of monumental rock niches which we know that had an important place in Urartian religion, is the opinion that gods were believed to emerge from these nisches which looked like doors[27]. If we consider the “sacred frames” which we have already discussed İn temple architecture, then we know that this opinion is rather correct. Because, when the door wings are closed, a monumental niche cell occurs in front of the temple (see fig. 8 a) which has the same effect of the one at rock niches (see fig. 8 b). Behind this door the statue of the god which is the basic element of the epiphany is hidden. The only difference between them is that the epiphany in the temple can be seen at any time desired, but in rock niches, believing that it will emerge some day, it is symbolized in a legendary way.
There are some archeological evidence which support the proposal of some scholars that it was believed that gods would emerge from inside of these niches. For example, monumental rock niches each having a relief of the god were found at Herir Batas[28] near Rawandiz and Malazgirt[29], and also we see in Phrygia similar niches having representations of Cybele[30]. The relieves of gods inside these symbolic doors in form of rock niches but this time not surrounded by stepped frames might also be regarded as further evidence.
After demonstrating the relation between monumental rock niches and temple gates, we, basing on these niches, can now ascertain the heights of the temple gates. According to this relationship, we can accept that the height of the gates in proportion to the height of the temples must vary between 4.00 m. to 5.00 m. (fig. 6-7). Although R. Naumann argues that the gates of Urartian temples cannot be higher than 4.00 meters[31], he İs in confusion on this point as he considers the gates on the threshold. As the frames are fixed to the “spaces behind the threshold” where the width can be as much as 1.75 m., with Naumann’s proportion, Urartian temple gates can even reach a height upto 5.40 m. Furthermore, if we consider the fact that the statue in cella is established on a foundation of 0.50 m., we can realize that through a moderately high door, the statue which is inside cannot be entirely seen. In the same time, such a high door easily fits to the idea of “Tower Temple” which started to become popular lately.
As pointed out by V. Sevin and O. Belli, it is also possible that upper parts of the temple doors are either straight or arched as at tomb niches or also at monumental rock niches (fig, 6-7)[32]. It has been argued that although Urartian fortress doors with arches on top can be observed on Balawat relieves, arched niches might be in use in the second half of 8 th century B. C. in Sarduri II period[33]. However, we should also point out that the doors and windows with arched tops were constructed during much earlier times in Near East. For example, in one of the house-models at archaic Istar temple (2800 B. C.) in Assur the small upper window has an arched frame[34]. On a relief of Assurnasirpal (883-859 B. C.), at the entrance of the fortress two arched windows are to be seen[35]. Likewise, in a similar relief at Beisan there are three arched windows at the rear plan[36]. Arched or rounded gates were certainly known in the second millennium B. C. throughout the Near East, and survived in the first millennium B. C. in the Phrygian tombs[37].
As can be seen from all these evidences mentioned above, doors with arched tops and nisches in form of doors in Urartu could not come into being during the age of Sarduri II as proposed by Lehmann- Haupt. It is well known, that Urartian-Assyrian relations had developed much earlier than this date. Apart from this, the big niche with an arch discovered at “Üşniye” near Rawandiz and which belonged to the age of Menua according to the inscriptions on it, show that such arched niche and door constructions had a wide usage in the Urartian architecture at the end of 9 th century B. C. or at beginning of 8 th century B. C.[38]. Urartian fortress doors represented on the Balawat reliefs might also drew our attention[39].
To summarize we can undoubtedly put forward that, the doors of Urartian temples sometimes had a rectangular form and sometimes had an arch on top and that both types had been in use together since early ages.