Our knowledge of the last period of the Urartian kingdom and the period immediately preceding the incorporation of Armenia into the Achaemenid Empire is very limited

 Our knowledge of the last period of the Urartian kingdom and the period immediately preceding the incorporation of Armenia into the Achaemenid Empire is very limited. After the destruction of the Assyrian Empire and the downfall of the Biainean dynasty, there are only a few mentions of Urartu in Babylonian sources (around 610 BC) and one mention in the Bible (Jeremiah's prophecy around 590 BC).

It is possible that there is another mention in Babylonian sources that provides valuable information about the political status of Urartu lands in 547 BC.

For more than a century, scholars have debated the name of the country mentioned in Babylonian texts dated to 547 BC. Initially, many assumed that the text referred to the conquest of Lydia by Cyrus the Great. However, in recent years, Rollinger and others have provided additional arguments for reading it as Urashtu (Urartu) instead of Lydia. The text is damaged, and the name of the country is practically unreadable—only the first syllable is barely visible. But Rollinger argues for the reading Urashtu based on multiple other arguments unrelated to the cuneiform text itself.

The text states that Cyrus crossed the Tigris near the city of Arbil (modern Erbil) and then conquered and defeated the king of a certain land with an unreadable name. In my opinion, his arguments are quite strong. You can read them in his papers (links are in the comments).

Assuming that this Babylonian text refers to Urartu, it would mean that Urartu still had a king in 547 BC. However, this king was almost certainly not from the Biainean dynasty, which must have lost control of the country around 600 BC. This unnamed king could have been from the Orontid (Yervanduni/Aruand) dynasty. Rollinger does not discuss Xenophon's *Cyropaedia*, as scholars generally consider it a fictitious story. Despite this, I believe that even a fictional narrative could be based on real historical events. In the *Cyropaedia*, when Cyrus conquers Armenia, it is indeed ruled by a king (whose name is not mentioned), but the two princes are named Tigran and Shavarsh. This suggests that the rulers of Armenia around 550 BC were not from the Biainean dynasty but from a new one known as the Orontid.

In the *Cyropaedia*, Armenia is portrayed as a semi-independent kingdom paying tribute to the Medes. In the real world, Cyrus conquered Media around 550 BC, so it makes sense that he would then turn his attention to Armenia afterward.

In sum, it is quite likely that after the end of the Biainean dynasty, the new rulers of Armenia retained control over most of the lands that had been part of Urartu. It is possible that these new rulers continued to use Tushpa (Van) as their residence before it was conquered by the Persians. It is remarkable that Darius planned to inscribe a victorious inscription near Tosp/Van, which for some reason was only completed by his son Xerxes. The presence of this inscription near Van underscores the importance of the conquest of Urartu / Armenia—an event that was most likely also recorded by the Babylonians.

PS the possible road of Cyrus the Great while moving deeper in Urartu