UNIVERSITY OF LIVERPOOL SCHOOL OF HISTORIES, LANGUAGES AND CULTURES (ARCHAEOLOGY, CLASSICS AND EGYPTOLOGY) INTERPRETATIONS OF THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC STRUCTURE OF THE URARTIAN KINGDOM By ALİ ÇİFÇİ Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy April 2014 Liverpool i To my parents Cennet ÇİFÇİ and Ali ÇİFÇİ ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Many people have helped me to complete this research and in particular I would like to thank to my supervisors, Alan M. Greaves and Christopher Tuplin, both of whom have provided me with ideas and advice on numerous occasions. Also I would like to thank to my examiners Bruce Routledge and Claudia Glatz for their comments and suggestions. I would also like to thank Paul Zimansky for reading the first drafts of my thesis and for his subsequent suggestions and advice as to how it could be improved. I must also express my gratitude to Kemalettin Köroğlu, who has been generous with his help and advice and Altan Çilingiroğlu for allowing me to participate in the Ayanis excavation and for scholarly conversations. Further thanks are due to Erkan Konyar, who generously provided unpublished information and to the Van Kalesi Höyüğü excavation team for their support. Mirjo Salvini, Mehmet Karaosmanoğlu and Stephan Kroll have also offered help and advice on various aspects of Urartian archaeology and I am also grateful to Magnus Widell for his help with cuneiform inscriptions. In addition, I would like to thank Emel Oybak Dönmez, Atilla Batmaz, Yervand Greakyan and Mehmet Ali Yılmaz for sending me literature that was helpful to my research. I am also grateful to Bülent Genç and Bilcan Gökçe who were consistently supported me throughout this project and who occasionally supplied me with research material from Turkey and Davut Yigitpaşa also helped with the illustrations. I would not have been able to finish this thesis without the constant support of my fellow graduate students both in Liverpool and in Turkey, as well as my colleagues at the Harold Cohen Library. Finally, I would like to thank Phil Freeman, Julian Heath, Erica Hughes, and Jason P. Wickham for kindly reading parts of this research; and Judith Corbelli who helped me with the translation of Urartian texts from Italian into English. Lastly, but not least, I would like to express my gratitude to my sister Gönül [Hatun], brother Ercan and most importantly to my parents for their encouragement and support throughout my study in Liverpool. Ali Çifçi Liverpool April 2014 iii INTERPRETATIONS OF THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC STRUCTURE OF THE URARTIAN KINGDOM ALİ ÇİFÇİ University of Liverpool, 2014 ABSTRACT The aims of this research are to provide a comprehensive review of the available evidence for the socio-economic structure of the Urartian kingdom (of the 9th-6th centuries BC) and by doing so, to analyse and critique previous interpretations of the subject. Although there has been intensive research on different aspects of the Urartian kingdom, mainly chronological studies or excavations and surveys that cover different parts of what was once the lands of the kingdom, unlike previous studies this research presents a systematic review of the geographical, archaeological and textual evidence of the Urartian (and Assyrian where relevant textual evidence is available) as well as original ethnographic observations in order to analyse the socio-economic and administrative organisation of the Urartian kingdom. After reviewing and evaluating the history of research of Soviet, Turkish and Western scholars on various aspects of the Urartian kingdom, I move on to investigating the available economic resources in the region and the movement of commodities such as the produce of arable agriculture, animal husbandry, metallurgy, and craft activities undertaken by Urartian society. The next step, in order to understand the management of these economic resources, is to examine the administrative organisation of the state including the Urartian concept of kingship and the king’s role in administration, construction activities, the administrative division of the kingdom, and the income generated by warfare. It is concluded that the Urartian state economy was heavily dependent on agriculture and animal husbandry. Military expeditions generated substantial income in the form of livestock and prisoners of war. Further wealth was accumulated by tribute, taxation and metallurgical activities. However, how these factors combined into a single economic system has been variously interpreted by individual scholars in response to their contemporary theoretical and political context. iv Table of Contents ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iii ABSTRACT iv ABBREVIATIONS ix LIST OF TABLES x LIST OF MAPS xii LIST OF FIGURES xiii INTRODUCTION 1 I. A CRITICAL REVIEW OF THE MATERIAL I.1. Topography, Hydrology, Climate and Ecology 5 I.2. The Source Material 7 I.2.1. Archaeological Data 7 I.2.2. Urartian Texts 8 I.2.3. Assyrian Texts 9 I.2.4. Ethnographic Observations 10 I.3. The Rediscovery of Urartu 11 I.4. Urartu between East and West: Ideologies and Interpretations 13 I.4.1. Karmir-Blur: The Marxist School of Urartian Archaeology 14 I.4.2. Çavuştepe: The Turkish School of Urartian Archaeology 18 I.4.3. Bastam: The Western School of Urartian Archaeology 20 I.4.4. Summary and Research Questions 24 II. CONTROL OF CAPITAL IN URARTU: ECONOMIC RESOURCES AND MOVEMENT OF COMMODITIES II.1. ARABLE AGRICULTURE 28 II.1.1. Introduction 28 II.1.2. Irrigation 28 II.1.2.1. Geography and Hydrology of the Urartian Territory 28 II.1.2.2. Archaeological Evidence 30 II.1.2.3. Textual Evidence 31 II.1.2.4. Assessment of Archaeological and Textual Evidence on Irrigation 36 II.1.3. Ethnographic Observations and Contemporary Arable Agriculture 41 II.1.4. Arable Agricultural Areas 44 v II.1.5. Arable Crops 51 II.1.6. Textual Evidence of Urartian and Assyrian on Arable Agriculture 56 II.1.7. Storage Facilities 61 II.1.7. 1. É ʼari (Granaries) and Measurement Units of Kapi and BANEŠ 62 II.1.7. 2. Storage Facilities with pithoi and the measurement units of Aqarqi, Terusi and LIŠ 66 II.1.8. Conclusion 73 II.2. ANIMAL HUSBANDRY 75 II.2.1. Introduction 75 II.2.2. Contemporary Animal Husbandry 77 II.2.3. Written Sources of Urartian and Assyrian 79 II.2.4. The Role of Animals in Urartian Religion 85 II.2.5. Archaeological Evidence 89 II.2.6. Conclusion 94 II.3. METALLURGY 96 II.3.1. Introduction 96 II.3.2. Written Sources for Ore Deposits of the Urartian Territory 97 II.3.3. Metal workshops 103 II.3.4.The Role of Metallurgy in Urartu 106 II.3.4.1. Iron 107 II.3.4.2. Bronze 114 II.3.4.3. Silver and Gold 125 II.3.5. Conclusion 128 II.4. TRADE 129 II.4.1. Introduction 129 II.4.2. North-South Trade Routes 131 II.4.3. Archaeological and Textual Evidence 135 II.4.4. Conclusion 140 II.5. CRAFTS 141 II.5.1. Introduction 141 II.5.2.Textiles 141 vi II.5.2.1. Archaeological Remains 142 II.5.2.2. Written Evidence for Textiles 144 II.5.2.3. Representational Evidence 145 II.5.3. Carpentry 149 II.5.4. Pottery 153 II.5.5. Conclusion 156 III. ECONOMIC AND ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURE OF THE URARTIAN KINGDOM III.1. ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISIONS 159 III.1.1. Introduction 159 III.1.2. The Capital Tušpa 159 III.1.3. Provincial Administration 163 III.1.3.1. LÚEN.NAM (Provincial Governor) 163 III.1.3.2. Provinces or Major Citadels 168 III.1.4. Conclusion 173 III.2. BUILDING ACTIVITIES OF THE MONARCH 174 III.2.1. Introduction 174 III.2.2. URU (City?) 175 III.2.3. É.GAL (Fortress) 179 III.2.4. Cultic Structures (KÁ / Šeištili, Susi and É.BÁRA) 183 III.2.5. Other Buildings 188 III.2.6. Conclusion 191 III.3. THE ARMY 193 III.3.1. Introduction 193 III.3.2. Urartian Gods and Their Role in the Army 193 III.3.3. The Division of the Army Units 195 III.3.3.1. GIŠGIRGIRMEŠ (Chariotry) 195 III.3.3.2. PIT-HAL-LUMEŠ (Cavalry) 196 III.3.3.3. LÚÉRINMEŠ (Infantry) 197 III.3.4. The Size and Structure of the Army 197 III.3.5. LÚturtānu (Commander-in-Chief) 203 vii III.3.6. The King as a Commander-in-Chief 205 III.3.7. Conclusion 206 III.4. THE SPOILS OF WAR 208 III.4.1. Introduction 208 III.4.2. Booty 208 III.4.3. Distribution of Booty 212 III.4.4. Aims and Objectives of Deportation 213 III.4.5. Tribute 214 III.4.6. Conclusion 217 II.5. THE MONARCHY 222 III.5.1. Introduction 222 III.5.2. The Monarch and Haldi 222 III.5.3. The Monarch and the Royal Succession 224 III.5.4. Royal Titles 226 III.5.4.1. The Standard Titles 227 III.5.4.2. The Exceptional Titles 229 III.5.5. The King’s Officials 230 III.5.5.1. LÚa-ṣu-li (LÚA.ZUM-li) 231 III.5.5.2. The Personnel of Rusaḫinili KURQilbani=kai 232 III.5.5.3. Other Officials 234 III.5.6. The King as an Administrator 235 III.5.7. Conclusion 238 GENERAL CONCLUSIONS 243 APPENDIX 248 BIBLIOGRAPHY 254 MAPS 296 FIGURES 301 viii ABBREVIATIONS AJA American Journal of Archaeology. AnAr Anadolu Araştırmaları. ANES Ancient Near Eastern Studies. AnSt Anatolian Studies. ARAB I-II D. D. Luckenbill, 1989. Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia I-II. London, Histories & Mysteries of Man. AMI Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran. AMIT Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan. AST Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı. CAD A. L. Oppenheim and E.