Thoughts on Tin and Taxes in Bronze Age Anatolia
Steven K.MITTWEDE and Uğur YANAR
Ankara University, Department of Ancient Languages and Cultures(Hittitology),Yenişehir-Sıhhiye, Ankara,Turkey (yanarugur974@hotmail.com)
One of the enduring mysteries of the Bronze Age is the question of the source of tin for bronze production (see papers in Franklin et. Al.,1978*).While many bronze artifacts have been found during archeological excavations in Anatolia, there have been no discoveries of ancient tin mines that are convincing from the standpoints of geology and mining. The Göltepe complex near Çamardı(Niğde) was undoubtedly an important processing center (Yener and Vandiver, 1993) but, from a geological perspective, thenearby Kestel ( Celaller) mine is far from representing a significant tin source, in that the highest grades encountered in hard-rock samples are only on the order of 0.5-0.6%; most reported grades are much lower (Çağatay and Pehlivan, 1988; Yener et al., 1989; Willies, 1990); how would the ancients have discovered such a low-grade tin source (Muhly et., 1990; Hall and Streambed beolw the Kestel mine may have yielded cassiterite that could have contributed to bronze production, that is speculation.
As has been discussed by Muhly (1985), a certain amount of confusion has surrounded the Assyrian term AN.NA Nevertheless, Assyriologists usually and most accurately translate this term as “tin”. Large Assyrian trading centers, known as “Karum”s, were established around the city-states of Anatolia, and a major one of these was at Kültepe (or Kaneš, 20 km NE of Kayseri). Tablets found at Kültepe and other trading centers shed light on the types of goods that were brought into (textiles, ornamental objects and Sn[AN.NA]) and taken out of ( Ag And Au )these trading centers and more significantly, indicate rates of taxation on imported goods. In return for goods they brought into the trading centers, merchants were required to pay taxes, which varied according to the types pf goods, to the ruler of the trading centers. Interestingly, the lowest tax rates were exacted on Sn. (2.5-3% on Sn, and 5-6% on ornamental objects and woven goods),presumably 1) as an incentive to bring Sn for trading and, ultimately, for bronze production, and 2) because little Sn was known from Anatolia. According to Kültepe tablets, the “nishatum” tax was paid at a rate of 5% on textiles and wool,5/120 on Ag, and 2/65 on Sn; furthermore, the “isratum” (tithe) tax was collected on cloth and other goods at a rate of 10%, but was not collected on Sn (Bayram, 1993).
Thus, the geologically unconvincingevidence reported by Yener and colleagues from the Kestel mine, combined with the evidence from Kültepe tablets, suggest that an important Anatolian source of Sn for bronze production remains an open question. While Anatolia may indeed host/have hosted Sn ores that were important for bronze production, the source of those ores is yet unknown.
[Full references of Works cited herein are available upon request from SKM]
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder