Abstract
today, the non-destructive geophysical methods such as Magnetometry used to detect the archaeological discoveries without harmful environmental effects that only use natural properties of the subsurface material. The 80 hectares Urartian Bastam Castle is one of three large castles in Urartu in northwestern Iran. Therefore, determining the actual boundaries of the castle can determine its location in the east of the empire. This study aims to better understand Urartian sites using new knowledge and new methods of studying archeology without the slightest interference with the site. Using magnetic methods, the study identified the subsurface structures of the ancient site of Qala-e- Bastam. For this purpose, magnetic data in a rectangular square grid were regularly collected in the desired range and after the necessary corrections of the data, topography and map of magnetic anomalies were prepared. The results show that there are regular and high-density architectural structures in the residential area. Architectural spaces have expanded in a West-East direction and along each other, and large and medium stone pieces with mud mortar have been used in the construction of architectural spaces. On the south side of the lower part of the castle, the remains of ash layers as well as the sidewalk floor can be seen, which indicates the existence of settlement layers in this area of the castle. On the western side of the castle and along the Aghchai River, part of the remnants of the water canal can be seen. This indicates that the people who occupied the castle, used the Aghchai River to provide their water needs. The castle was built by constructing a water canal made of stone and mortar.
Keywords: Urartu, Bastam Castle, Magnetics Method, Residential Area.

Introduction
The kingdom Urartu were destroyed around the middle of the 7th century BC, during or shortly after the reign Rusa Argisti. Rusa Argisti the last king of Urartu of any importance, had started a building and cultivation program not experienced in Urartu since the days of king Menua. It is visible in places like Karmir Blur, Basam Casle, Kerfkalesi/ Adilcevaz or Ayanis. Rusa Argisti’s empire many have covered Eastern Anatolia, large parts of Armenia, all of Iranian Western Azarbijan and large parts of Eastern Azarbijan. 
Research and exploration of the remaining relics from the past has special importance in identifying the date, history and the identify of a country. Development and advancement of human knowledge have offered new methods for detection archaeological sites that by using them without the need for excavation and destruction of antiquities can be found useful information. Archaeologist need to investigate and explore the archaeological sites in order to find some evidence of human being living in ancient time, but we know the fact that exploring is destructive. On the other hand, exploration necessitates high expensive, and need many human sources. Now a day, a variety of sciences have helped archaeologist’s in discovering past cultures. These sciences that are formed by combining different sciences with archaeology are called inter disciplinary sciences. Archaeogeophysics is one of these sciences that is formed as a combination of geophysics and archaeology. Population growth and subsequently development of villages and cities, industrial life improvements and developments in agriculture has caused an increasing threat against cultured heritage. Anyhow doing swift investigations in order to obtain the pas cultures before industrial advances is an urgent need. One of the ways, that can help archaeologists in this way is archaeological prospecting. On the other hand, as archaeological prospecting methods are called drilling without drill, by using these methods archaeologists are able to obtain the needed data from below he earths surface without causing any destruction and mess in the site. Also these methods assist archaeologists in determining the priority of exploring location before a wide spread exploration. Using methods reduces he expense of archaeological actives and archaeologists can explore an archaeological spending a very short time and low expenses.
In this paper to investigate the subsurface structures of an architecture at the Urartian site of Bastam Castle in northwestern in Iran. The magnetic data were used. In order to this work, the magnetic data measured in a regular grid in the desired area and then after do corrections such as instrument drift correction, free air and slab Bougure, latitude and terrain corrections on gravity data and the daily correction, and reduction to pole (RTP) correction on the magnetic data, magnetic anomalies map were obtained.
Questions Research: 1.Using the magnetometer method can be identified the structure of architectural complexity in residential area of Bastam Castle? 2. what was architectural structure in the eastern part in of Bastam castle?
 Aim Research: This research was aimed to identify and investigate the subsurface structures of architecture in residential and eastern part of the Bastam Castle archaeological site in Azarbaiejan, the magnetic data were used.Using magnetic methods, the study identified the subsurface structures of the ancient site of Qala-e- Bastam. For this purpose, magnetic data in a rectangular square grid were regularly collected in the desired range and after the necessary corrections of the data, topography and map of magnetic anomalies were prepared.
Method Research: A magnetometer measures the fine divergences in the terrestrial magnetic field causes e.g. by subsurface walls or archaeological structures. These divergences are diagrammed in grayscale pictures.  For the present researches, in order to execute geomagnetic prospections, fields need to be defined, measured and staked off. Each of these fields are then walked off and measured with magnetometer in lines with as offset of.2.5 m to each other. After measuring, the data were exported, corrected, processed and converted in grayscale pictures with the software Magneto by Sensys. These grayscale pictures were hen exported as georeferenced geotif’s and were collected in QGIS, an open source GIS. In the same QGIS-project all data like the measurements were collected and put together to one project.

Councusion
The results show that there are regular and high-density architectural structures in the residential area. Architectural spaces have expanded in a West-East direction and along each other, and large and medium stone pieces with mud mortar have been used in the construction of architectural spaces. On the south side of the lower part of the castle, the remains of ash layers as well as the sidewalk floor can be seen, which indicates the existence of settlement layers in this area of the castle. On the western side of the castle and along the Aghchai River, part of the remnants of the water canal can be seen. This indicates that the people who occupied the castle, used the Aghchai River to provide their water needs. The castle was built by constructing a water canal made of stone and mortar.
As expected, the grayscale piture of the geomagnetic prospection shows wall structures in almost every filed, except the fields in the far north of the research area. The geomantic prospection completes the visible structures and show not only single walls or pars of walls, but furthermore connects single walls to complete ground plots of different houses. In some cases, even doors and therefore the way the houses were used visible in the grayscale picture of the geomagnetic prospection.  Over the whole area, small but also bigger disturbances are visible.

Abstract
The Urartians lived about 9th to 7th centuries B.C around the shores of four Lake Urmia, Lake Sevan, Çildir Lake and Van Lake. The production of the sealed bullae started from Rusa II’s reign about 713 B.C. The stamp and cylinder seal impressions on these pieces of evidence could provide us with the wide range of data about the Urartians. There are some recognized cylinder seal impressions on some bullae and tablets belong to the Urartian official called aṣuli. This official is mentioned in the seal impressions from several Urartian sites including Bastam, Ayanis, Anzaf and Toprakkale. Some studies and contributions have been taken place on who these aṣulis could be the crowned princes or the officials. The question of who were aṣulis and from which sites their seal impressions are discovered aer significant issue as there are several pieces of evidence discovered. Also, there was the question of the possible difference between the seals and their inscriptions and motifs. Also, the difference between their seal impressions and the variety of their seals were significant questions. It is the aim of this paper to put the different seal impressions of aṣulis in different groups and subgroups according to the detail of the illustrated mythical scenes of the griffins or genies in two sides of a sacred tree and the position of the inscription above and below this scene and the difference in the inscriptions. Additionally, the author provides the readers with the reasons she thinks aṣuli is not the crowned prince but a trusted official who had the permission to deliver commands and massages. The research has been fulfilled by both library and field work.
Keywords: Urartu, Bulla, Tablet, Seal Impression, Aṣuli.

Introduction
Bastam or mrusa=i URU.TUR is close to Ghareziaeddin, close to Khoy and Maku, in Western Azerbaijan in Iran and is recognized the most developed Urartian fortification. W. Kleiss and the German archaeologists have excavated Bastam fortification and city from 1968 to 1979, except 1971 and 1976. Then H. Khatib Shahidi continued the studies in the sites. Bastam was founded by Rusa II, son of Argišti, and is the most developed Urartian city of all.
The tablets and bullae discovered in Bastam could bring significant data with their inscriptions and cylinder and stamp seal impressions. The Urartian cylinder seal impressions bore mostly the inscription of king Rusa II, son of Argišti, and other officials. Among the persond whose inscriptions on the seal impressions are recognized are aṣuli officials who seem to be trusted persons of the king.
Urartian sealed tablets and bullae of Bastam have previously been reported by Seidl (1976; 1979; 1988), Zimansky (1979; 1988), Salvini (1979a, 1988; 2012) and the author (2017; 2019).
The question of who aṣulis were and from which sites their seal impressions are discovered is a significant issue as they are couple of pieces of evidence remained from them. Also, the difference between their seal impressions and the variety of the seals was challenging for the scholars.
Accordingly, it was the aim of this paper to study the seal impression by this official in different Urartian sites to find out the difference and variety and groups of seal impressions remained from aṣulis and also to propose who this official could be in regard of their seal impressions. The author suggested they were trusted persons. Some of the seal impressions mentioned in this paper are published for the first time after the excavations. Additionally, the iconography of their seal impressions scenes was to be studied. The research has been fulfilled by both library and field work.

Paper
There are at least seven groups of the cylinder seal impressions mentioned in this paper according to their inscriptions and motifs discovered in several Urartian sites including Bastam, Ayanis, Anzaf and Toprakkale. The slightly different details of the sacred trees, genies and griffins were observed as well. Also, the exact position of each sign of the two-line inscription on the above and below the scene were studied in comparison with the other impressions. 
KIŠIB LÚa- ṣu-li is always the key expression to this sort of seal impressions and sometimes the name of the aṣuli rarely along the name of his father was also mentioned in the inscription. 
It is possible that a group of aṣuli seal impressions is discovered in different sites and some are only observed in one site. Bastam, Upper anzaf, Ayanis and Karmir-blur are the sites that the seal impressions of aṣulis have been previously discovered in. 
As the seal impression of the aṣuli have been observed on the order tablets and with respect to their fathers’ names it is possible that they were the Seal Holders appointed by the king himself and not the crowned princes, princes or ordinary officials.
The scene of the sacred trees with two genies or griffins holding buckets facing the trees was repeated on the seal impressions of the aṣuli therefore it is possible that they were regarded as the guardians of the Urartian king and his kingship. This scene is very much similar to the Assyrian scenes on the reliefs and seal impressions. The scene is nor recognized on the Urartian reliefs. 
Additionally, the iconography of the sacred tree, genies and griffins are studied to provide a better perception of the elements illustrated on the seals of the aṣulis.
The author proposed that the trees could be regarded as the eternal kingdom of Urartu to be guarded by the aṣulis. It is also possible that the genies and griffins are symbols of the aṣulis on their cylinder seal impressions.

Conclusion
Seven groups and the sub-groups of the slightly different cylinder seal impressions of aṣulis have been proposed and analyzed in this paper according to the impression inscriptions, details of the motifs and the position of the cuneiform signs in the two-line inscriptions above and below the scenes that are observed on the bullas and tablets discovered from Bastam and other Urartian sites. The suggested categories of the aṣulis’ impressions are presented according to Bastam bullae and tablet impressions in comparison with the impressions of other Urartian sites as Ayanis, Upper anzaf and Karmir-blur that aṣulis’ impressions are discovered over the bullae or tablets.
It is possible that at least seven seals were used in the Urartian states by the aṣulis but of course there could be more that are not discovered or are destroyed. The identical seal impressions discovered in different sites in Urartian reign is challenging. It is possible that the bullae or tablets with exactly the same seal impressions were sent or brought from one site to another in the Urartian era or exactly the same seal was copied in another site which seems less possible.
The name and sometimes the fathers’ names of the aṣulis are observed on some of the bullae or tablet impressions. Accordingly, aṣuli was an official in the Urartian reign who possibly bore the seal of the king or had the power to convey his orders and messages to the Urartian cities, fortifications or garrisons. Perhaps some of them were from the royal family but according to the inscription by the aṣulis there is lack of the piece of evidence they were crowned princes or sons of the Urartian kings. It is possible that the seals of the aṣulis were used in order to officially be sent as the orders by the highest ranks.
It is possible that griffins or genies facing the sacred tree on the aṣulis’ seal impressions were symbols of aṣulis themselves safeguarding the Urartian king and his kingship and the sacred trees were the symbols of the Urartian eternal kingdom to be protected and served by the aṣulis.
Additionally, discovering the same seal impressions of the bullae or tablets from different sites could bring the idea of sending or receiving these objects from other sites in the antiquity.

Abstract
Urmia lake basin is one of the most important cultural basins known in the archeology of Iran and has had a significant contribution in the historical and cultural evolution of northwestern Iran. Urmia plain and its surrounding heights have a special place among them. Due to the favorable environmental conditions in the Iron Age, important settlements were formed in the Urmia Plain. So far, forty-seven sites related to the Iron Age III (850 to 550 BC) have been identified in this plain that classified in the two parts of the settlement sites of the plain (39 settlement sites) and the defensive castles around it (8 castles). Among the forty-seven sites of Iron Age III (850 to 550 BC), thirty-two sites were formed on previous settlements and fifteen sites were formed for the first time. Among the thirty-nine settlement sites belonging to the Iron Age III of Urmia Plain, thirty-one sites with an area between half and five hectares are small villages and settlements. Three Sites are between five and ten hectares and three Sites are between ten and fifteen hectares. The two site of Goy tepe and Dizaj-Takieh, with an area between fifteen and twenty-four hectares, are considered among the large sites of Iron Age III of Urmia Plain. The distribution of ancient sites in the studied area is not the same, and among the thirty-nine settlement sites that have Iron Age III layers, a limited number are located in the higher areas of the western, southern and northern belt, and the absolute majority of the settlements are located in the flat plain of Urmia. Most of the settlement sites (about 76%) are less than a thousand meters away from water sources and rivers, and this shows that the water factor is the most important factor in the location selection of settlements in this era. During most of this period, Urmia region was considered one of the Urartian states. The results obtained from the analysis of GIS maps show that despite the pattern of Urartian settlements, which tends to settle and administrative management in mountainous and higher areas, the main and residential settlements of this era were formed in the lowland and their management was only in Military forts were located in higher peripheral areas.
Keywords: Urmia Plain, Iron Age III, Settlement Patterns, Urartu, Mana.

Introduction
Urmia plain is one of the fertile areas in the northwest of Iran, and therefore it has been the focus of human societies from the past until now, and the evidence left behind, such as numerous historical hills, testify to the establishment and exploitation of this plain in different prehistoric times. And it is historical. Even though the archeology teams have investigated the Urmia plain in the past and identified important sites, but most of them only identified and registered the sites And they have not provided chronological and analytical information related to the trajectory of the formation and expansion of Iron Age III sites And this issue has caused the failure to present a detailed map of the pattern of settlements and the state of the sites in this period. Therefore, studying the state of settlements, their formation and expansion can be effective in understanding the cultures and settlement patterns of this period in this great plain. The archeological survey of Urmia Plain was conducted with the aim of identifying and investigating the ancient sites of the Iron Age III and also studying settlement patterns in two seasons in the fall of 2019 and the spring and summer of 2020. The present article, by examining the sites of Iron Age III in the Urmia plain, studied the formation and expansion of the sites according to variables such as height above sea level, water sources, distance and proximity to rivers and vegetation And based on their size, they are ranked and finally, it analyzes and reconstructs the regional landscape of Urmia plain in the Iron Age3 and the environmental patterns of the settlements of this period.

The text of the article and the main discussion
The beginning of the Iron Age III in the important settlement areas of northwestern Iran, including Hasanlu, has been determined following the massive fires that occurred at the end of the Iron Age 2 and led to the destruction of the settlements of this period. Chronologically, this era coincides with the emergence of a new pottery phenomenon, which Young (Young 1965:70) called the new Buff Ware horizon, that appeared in many sites in western Iran. Based on this, in the northwest of Iran, especially in the Urmia lake basin, the Iron 3 period has been introduced at the same time as Hasanlu layer 3. Urmia Plain, as the largest plain on the western shore of Lake Urmia, witnessed extensive changes in the first millennium BC. The importance of the Urmia plain, and its location at an important crossing in the first half of the first millennium BC, has caused the attention of the governments of Urartu, Assyria and even Manna. Urmia Plain in the Iron Age III due to these favorable environmental conditions, especially the flow of permanent and abundant rivers, numerous springs, suitable and fertile land, rich pastures and abundant hunting, has received more and more attention and received a significant population. A population that relies on agricultural livelihood more than anything else, and the location of settlements has been done near stable water sources and main rivers And these places have been chosen according to the topography, slope and type of soil so that water supply to the land can be done easily and also have fertile soil. Among the forty-seven sites of Iron Age III (850 to 550 BC), thirty-two sites were formed on previous settlements and fifteen sites were formed for the first time in this settlement period. Among the thirty-nine settlement sites, thirty-one sites have an average area between half and five hectares, six areas have an area of between five and fifteen hectares, and two areas have an area between fifteen and twenty-four hectares. Among the four major settlement and non-settlement sites of this region, namely Goy tepe, Bari, Ismail-Agha Castle and Dizaj-takiyeh, two sites of Ismail-Agha Castle and Bari Castle are located in the mountainous areas overlooking the Urmia Plain And as fortresses and defensive fortifications, and two settlement sites, Goy tepe and Dizaj-takiyeh, have served as the central places of the plain. By looking at the distribution map of the settlements of this era and paying attention to geographical variables such as distance and proximity to water sources, agricultural lands and the size of the areas, the pattern of settlements in the region can be determined. Most of the sites are formed in the plain. Considering that water has always played an important role in the formation of these establishments and is considered an important indicator for their analysis, It is obvious that the flat areas and near permanent springs and rivers have been given more attention by these tribes. The higher areas of Urmia region have fewer settlements. These settlements can be considered as seasonal settlements, because they were forced to leave the place immediately when the amount of water decreased. Therefore, it seems that the permanent settlements are mainly formed along the permanent rivers. Other geographical variables such as distance and proximity to fertile and suitable agricultural lands and altitude above sea level are effective in this increase in population and settlements.

Conclusion
Among the 187 hills and historical sites identified in Urmia Plain, forty-seven sites from the Iron Age have been identified. Two pottery traditions have been identified, including the Urartian pottery tradition and the local pottery tradition with simple Buff Ware with the influence of late Manna pottery. In addition, suitable environmental conditions have made the Urmia plain one of the main agricultural areas of Azerbaijan, so that this area is considered one of the key areas in the development and population increase in the northwestern plateau of Iran (Biscone 2003:167). Settlement patterns in the Urmia Plain, including residential settlements in the bottom of valleys and low plains and close to fertile lands and water sources, especially permanent and abundant rivers in the region and the creation of fortresses and defense fortifications in the higher parts and on top of the rocks. The establishment of residential centers in the Urmia plain was done during the dominance of the Urartu in the alluvial lands of the plain And the main military centers have been built in the form of strong fortresses in the surrounding heights of this plain and The small sites in Urmia plain, which are less than nineteen sites and their size is less than three hectares, are residential units and small villages that were engaged in agriculture And other settlements of this era in the Urmia plain, which number up to eighteen settlements, are between three and fifteen hectares in size. And they are managed by two large and central sites, Goy tepe and Dizaj- Takiye. Therefore, according to Chrystaller’s model, Goy tepe, as the largest settlement site in the Urmia plain, controlled the central and northern sites of the plain, and Dizaj- Takiye, in the second place in size, controlled the southern sites of the Urmia plain.