weights of silver were used to determine the value of goods.
Th e corvée still operated, though labor obligations were eased
by the presence of slaves, who were either those captured in
war or those enslaved when they failed to meet their tax pay-
ments. Th e oikoi continued to be the managers of at least local
economies.
THE HITTITES
To the north of Mesopotamia were Anatolia and the Hittites,
who appeared around 1800 b.c.e. and lasted until around
1200 b.c.e. Beginning in about 1650 b.c.e. the Hittite king-
dom expanded from its central Anatolian homeland to con-
quer all of Anatolia, including Armenia in the west and part of
the Levant. Unlike the Mesopotamians, the Hittites had few
cities, and their domestic economy revolved around small,
self-suffi cient farming communities that provided most of
their own needs and owned all farmland in common. Hittite
agriculture, however, did not produce surpluses; indeed, the
Hittites oft en had food shortages, which they made up either
through tribute collected from those that they had conquered
or through trade.
If the Hittites did not have food to trade, they did have
metals. Mining of tin, silver, and iron were lucrative. Tin was
important in the manufacture of bronze, and thus there was
always a ready market for it. Enough silver was produced that
the Hittites used it as a medium of exchange. Iron was a nov-
elty item because it was almost as rare as gold, whose only
source at this time was Egypt. Iron was also more for show
than utility. Weapons and tools made from it at this period
were no stronger than those made from bronze, and thus it
was more oft en used to make jewelry and statutes, both of
which were prized trade goods.
Th e Hittites acquired copper for manufacturing bronze
in the same way that they acquired many of their resources:
Th ey conquered those who had it, in this case Isuwa in west-
ern Anatolia, Maintaining the army was a major expense for
the Hittites, but as with other military states, an army al-
lowed the Hittite kingdom to bring in loot from successful
campaigns and to ensure that those conquered paid regular
tribute, either in silver or as payment in kind. Additionally,
the army could protect essential Hittite trade routes from
others who might try to charge Hittite merchants a toll for
use of these routes. Instead, any tolls exacted were collected
by the Hittite kingdom.
URARTU
Th e waning of the Hittites around 1200 b.c.e. saw the emer-
gence in Armenia of the kingdom of Urartu, which reached
its height during the eighth century b.c.e. Like other ancient
Ne a r E a s t e r n s o c ie t ie s , Ur a r t u h a d a n e c onomy t h at d e p e nd e d
on agricultural production, with part of the harvest from its
rich farmlands going to trade. Additionally, the mining and
export of copper, silver, and iron was an essential part of the
Urartu economy. Besides unworked metal, Urartu traded
metal tools, weapons, and jewelry, which were esteemed for
their craft smanship as far away as northern Italy. Th e king-
dom’s economy also benefi ted from its geographic position,
which allowed it to control the trade routes that connected
northern Mesopotamia and Elam to the Mediterranean.
Urartu exacted a toll in payment of kind from the traders
who used these routes.
Urartu may have had a distributive economy, since its
administration centers, fortresses located in a mountainous
region of the kingdom, held large storage facilities for grain
and wine. Conversely, rather than being redistributed, these
stored goods may have been meant to feed the inhabitants of
a fortress during the occasional siege by Urartu enemies. Th e
kingdom also probably had a labor tax, since it undertook the
construction of aqueducts and other large works projects us-
ing workforces, most likely made up of corvée draft ees.THE ASSYRIANS
Th e most persistent attackers of the Urartu mountain for-
tresses were the Assyrians, for whom loot and tribute played
an extremely important role in the economy. From their
northern Mesopotamian home the Assyrians conquered the
remainder of Mesopotamia and much of the Near East in the
11th century b.c.e. For 400 years they would exact tribute
from their subject peoples. Like previous conquerors, the As-
syrians appear to have left much of the economic structure of
their conquests in place, demanding an annual tribute, which
was paid in silver or in kind and which was sent to the Assyr-
ian capital. In some cases the collection of the tribute was in
the hands of a native ruling family; the Assyrians then sent
expeditions to bring the tribute to Assyria. In other instances,
perhaps where the original ruling family proved resistant to
paying the tribute, the Assyrians placed one of their own in
charge. Th is governor then saw to the collection and delivery
of the tribute.
Trade also was important to Assyria and may have dic-
tated some of its expansion. More directly, through military
control of much of the Near East, Assyria controlled almost
all the trade routes and thus the fl ow of the majority of Near
Eastern trade. It thus had ready access to copper, silver, wood,
and other valuable resources as well as much of the luxury
trade enjoyed by the Phoenician cities, which paid Assyria a
handsome tribute. Proceeds from tribute and trade had to be
large in order to make up for the Assyrian policy of exempt-
ing from taxation their home cities, such as Nineveh. Th e
corvée also did not apply to the Assyrian homeland. Instead,
conquered cities had to supply laborers when required as well
as soldiers for the army.THE PHOENICIANS
Among the most lucrative tributes collected by the Assyr-
ians was that from the Phoenician city-states, such as Tyre,
Sidon, Byblos, and Arvad. Of all the ancient Near Eastern
economies, that of the Phoenicians was the most dominated
by trade. Th e stretch of the Levant coast on which the Phoeni-
cians lived was narrow, mountains rising not far inland. Th useconomy: The Middle East 353