VIA ARTERIA PRINCIPAL (VAP 1): en general se proyectaran las siguientes dimensiones: ancho de la vía 8 mts, ancho de andenes 1,5 mts, con

Silver and gold were used to make jewellery such as earrings (Karmir-Blur205, Yoncatepe206 and Altıntepe)207, pin heads (Karmir-Blur)208, spindle beads (Altıntepe)209 beads

204 _{Çilingiroğlu 2005: 33, Fig. 6.}

205 _{Piotrovsky 1967: 174, Pl.119; 1969 Pl. 119.}

206 _{Belli and Konyar 2001: 154 Fig. 8.}

207

Özgüç 1983: 35 Pl. XIIIa.

208 _{Piotrovsky 1969: 124.}

126 (Altıntepe)210

, bracelets (Karmir-Blur)211, votive plaques (Altıntepe)212 and in the decoration of various types of objects. The discovery of a silver lion figure at Karmir-Blur213 and the fragment of a gold plaque inlaid with turquoise representing a lion214, illustrates the technological and artistic competence reached by Urartian craftsmen. Gold and silver medallions and pectorals215 have also been found at Toprakkale and Karmir-Blur.216 We have also various artefacts made of silver, such as belts (Altıntepe)217, vessels (Karmir-Blur)218, bowls, and buckets.219

However, the best evidence for the use of silver and gold is illustrated by the quantity of booty taken by Sargon II from the palace and Haldi temple at Mušašir. Sargon II stated that 34 talents and18 minas of gold, 167 talents and 2.5 minas of silver were taken from the palace, which is the equivalent of over 1 ton of gold and 5 tons of silver. From the Haldi Temple of Mušašir Sargon II further mentioned over 1 ton of gold and 5 tons of raw silver as well as shields, daggers, basins, chariots, bows, quivers, maces, and cups made of both silver and gold (see Table 18).220 There is also mention of various objects decorated with gold and silver made of other materials in the booty list.

Table 18. Silver and Gold from Mušašir palace and temple taken by the Assyrian king Sargon II (ARAB II 172-173)

Mušašir Haldi Temple Urzana Palace

Name of Items Numbers of Bronze artefacts

Name of Items Numbers of Bronze artefacts Gold --- X + 4 talents, 3 minas of gold (1 ton) Gold 34 talents and18 minas

Silver 162 talents, 20 Silver 167 talents and

210 Özgüç 1983: 35, Pl. XIII c, e-f. 211 _{Piotrovsky 1969: Pl. 118.} 212 _{Özgüç 1983:36, Pl. XVIa-b.} 213 Piotrovsky 1969: Fig.120. 214 _{Piotrovsky 1969: Fig.121.} 215 _{Meyer 1995: Pl. 209, 120; Piotrovsky 1969: 122.}

216 _{It assumed that medallions and pectorals reflected the rank and position of their wearer in Urartu society}

(Kellner 1991c: 166). At Toprakkale a gold medallion depicting a goddess holding a branch (Meyer 1955:Pl. 210) and a silver pectoral with a female figure leading a goat approaching the enthroned god (Meyer 1995: Pl. 209) are known to have been recovered by Lehman-Haupt.

217 _{Özgüç 1983:37 Pl. XVIc-d.}

218

Piotrovsky 1969: 125.

219 _{Merhav 1991f: Figs.2.1, 20a, 22, 23, 24.}

127

minas, less 6/36, of silver (5 tons)

2.5 minas

Gold shields 6 Golden daggers 6

Gold ashtarti door ---- Silver cups with

covers

11

Gold bolt 1 Cups from the land of

Tabalu with ears of gold

---

Gold keys 2 Silver gurpisi and

javelin incrusted with gold

---

Gold shrine Ornaments --- Silver cups 34

Gold dagger 1 Lutti and susani of

gold

---- Lances, gurpisi, bows,

spear of silver with inlay of gold

96 Cups incrusted with

silver

54

Silver shields 12 Siprate, crescents and

rings of silver

-- Silver basins, vases,

ovens, vegetable baskets with inlay of gold

67 Azanat of silver 5

Silver Musarirte, lukilte

with inlay of gold

62 Kabuate, Mukarrisi

Nabli, censers of the land of Tabal

--

Silver chariots, bows, quivers, maces(?),

manziâte(?), shields,

siprat, purdi and standards

33 - -

Silver pans in various size from Assyrian, Urartian and Kirhian

393 - -

Gold seal ring 1 - -

Silver whip with inlay gold

1 - -

Silver bed covered with jewels and gold

128 II.3.5. Conclusion

Despite the lack of written evidence about the sources of ore deposits, the methods of smelting, and forging, or the central government’s role in the organisation and manufacturing, there is archaeological evidence for mines and metal workshops in various parts of Urartian territory - especially in the Lake Van basin and the Ararat Plain. It is evident from the construction of citadels with temple, storage facilities, administrative and public building on large scale as well as water facilities, the clearance of new land from agricultural activities and the remains of various metal artefacts of iron and bronze from the Urartian period show that metallurgical activities played a crucial role in the socio-economic development of Urartian society. In particular, the amount of iron needed for the Urartian military and for construction and for agricultural tools, suggests that vast quantities of iron were forged in the workshops that operated under the control of central government in various centres as well as in rural metal workshops. However, in the archaeological record bronze artefacts far outnumber iron one. Furthermore, judging by the tributes that Assyrian kings received from the Lake Van basin, it seems that Urartian metal production was highly developed when it came to both utilitarian objects and ornaments.

The discovery of numerous bronze artefacts from temple complexes and the Assyrian king Sargon II’s account of the Mušašir temple inventory also clearly show the importance of bronze, silver and gold in the religious life of Urartian society. Overall, discoveries from Urartian sites indicate that bronze was mainly used in the ornamentation of furniture and vessels, as well as in the production of weapons, whereas iron was used predominantly for utilitarian ends; tools and weapons. Silver and gold was used for jewellery and also for decorating precious objects. Studies on these artefacts show that forging, casting and hammering techniques were the principal techniques used in the production of metal objects.

129 II.4. TRADE

II.4.1. Introduction

In this chapter I will present a brief historical review of general scholarly opinion regarding the changing character of the economy in Urartu. I will then present the available evidence for trade within the kingdom, from both written and archaeological sources. Finally I will examine the overall impact of trade activities on the Urartian economy.

While it has been widely accepted that Urartian metal artefacts were traded across the Near East and the Aegean throughout 8th and 7th centuries BC, little is known about the relationship between this long-distance trade and the Urartian state itself and there is no concrete evidence to prove that any Urartian merchants participated in this trade as a commercial activity. Therefore, an evaluation of the relevant arguments, trade routes and the material culture of Urartu is necessary, in order to understand whether this presumed long- distance trade really existed and, if so, how important a role it played in the overall economy of the Urartian state.

Urartian military campaigns generated a handsome income for the state as well as for its aristocracy. Urartian territory was also well provided with rich natural resources, but discoveries of ivory (Figure 69)1, Egyptian blue (synthetic pigment)2 and the high percentage use of tin in bronze production (see metallurgy) at Urartian sites suggests that they acquired at least some of their exotic goods by means of trade. In contrast to second millennium BC palace-centred economies, in which palaces held a dominant position in the trade in various specialised items and aspects of production, the first millennium BC economies of Near Eastern states appears to have been much less centralised.3 During the Bronze Age, kings and lesser rulers had their own merchants, who traded by royal approval.4 A similar situation is observed during the Neo-Assyrian period of the first millennium BC, where

tamkāru=DAM.GÀR acted with the approval of the king as a royal agent.5 It is evident that luxury goods and precious items were commodities that were in demand by the palace and

1 _{Altıntepe (Özgüç 1969: 78-93), Toprakkale (Barnett 1950: Pl. XIV 1, 3, Pl. XIV 2, Pl. XII 4, 5, 6-12) and}

Karmir-Blur (Piotrovsky 1967: 58, Figs. 39, 40, 42, 43).

2 _{Reindell 2009: 533-535.}

3

Liverani 2003: 121; Sheratt and Sheratt 1991: 376.

4 _{Liverani 2003: 121.}

130

members of its élite and for whom merchants acted as agents, or in some cases, where the king himself was an agent.6

Karl Polanyi,7 using data from the Assyrian Colony period archive of Kaniš Karum (Kültepe level II and Ib) from the first quarter of second millennium BC,8 argued that trade was administrated by the palace and supply and demand did not play a major part in the system. Rather, Polanyi argued that prices were set by official agreements which were not effected on the basis of availability of product and therefore there was no fluctuation in product prices.9 However, the most controversial part of the argument put forward by Polanyi was the absence of markets or a marketplace in the ancient Near East.10 The idea of market- less trade was challenged by Morris Silver.11 A. Leo Oppenheim12, who was also critical of Polanyi’s view of a single redistributive systems - where goods and labour flowed to a central authority and from there back out again - of Mesopotamian society and market-less trade, pointed out the importance of the city for the development of Mesopotamian societies, with ‘goods and services channelled into a circulation system’13 either by temple or palace.

As the Mesopotamian cities grew, their residents began ‘...relying primarily on their out of town farms for food and supplies, so that the market place as a means of economic integration was very slow to gain what little importance it eventually assumed in Mesopotamia’.14 The city gates functioned as a market place where the exchange of goods or food took place. Gates were therefore functioned as a link between the city dwellers and those who lived outside it.15

After the collapse of the great kingdoms (of the Hittite, Mitanni, Babylon etc.) during the 12th century BC, city-states and ethnic states came to replace the former palace centred states.16 Subsequently the palace lost its importance as a location for specialised crafts and

6 _{Liverani 2003: 122; Sheratt and Sheratt 1991: 376.}

7 _{Polanyi 1957a: 12-26.}

8 _{See Larsen (1967) and Veenhof (1972) on the Kültepe archive of Assyrian Colony period in particular for an}

assessment of the economic organisation and business transactions of traders who operated between city of

Assur and Kaniš (Kültepe) in central Anatolia.

9 _{Polanyi 1957a: 20.}

10 _{Polanyi, emphasised that in order to understand non-market societies, the movement of materials or the modes}

of circulation within a given society should be analysed and focused on redistribution – ‘movements towards a

centre and out of it again’; reciprocity – ‘movements between correlative points of symmetrical groupings’; and

exchange ‘vice-versa movements taking place as between hands under a market system’ (Polanyi 1957b: 250).

11 _{Silver dissented with Polanyi approaches in 14 assertions and argued against their validity Silver (1983,}

1985). See also Renger (1994: 157-208) for Polanyi (1957a; 1957b) and Silver (1983; 1985) views on Polanyi approaches to the problem of market in the ancient Near East.

12 _{Oppenheim 1964.}

13 _{Oppenheim 1964: 95.}

14

Oppenheim 1964: 114.

15 _{Oppenheim 1964: 129.}

131

exchange activities. During the first millennium BC local community organisations such as the elders and assemblies were gaining importance from the Royal Palace, which was simply becoming the king’s residence.17

Merchants gained more importance in this new era which lacked state control of trade and exchange. However, the Urartian state would appear to be an exception to this, in which the palace maintained its status as a specialist craft centre (see II.5). Urartian citadels consisted of large complexes that included temple, storage rooms, workshops, administrative and public buildings and employed a certain number of people (CT Tk-1 Ro / UPD 12, CT Çav-1 and 2). In this new era trade was organised and conducted by specialist groups of merchants and there were new cities and communities that were entirely dependent on trade for their existence.18 One of the most interesting aspects of this period is the fact that there were no state archives relating to trading activities in the ancient Near East. However, one would not expect there to be any such records, given the nature of Urartian record keeping, because there was no Urartian state archive and the records that do exist are very different from that of the Neo-Assyrian state. Therefore the status of merchants and their effect on Urartian society is hard to determine.