The Trade and Cities of Armenia
in Relation to Ancient World Trade*
* This material is presented solely for non-commercial educational/research purposes.
The Foreign Trade of Armenia
in the Period of the Ancient Persian Empire
In his Agrarian Conditions of the Ancient World during the period of Persian Achaemenid rule, Professor Max Weber considered this epoch as one of stagnation in the territories occupied by the Persians,
The economic development of the huge territory which had enjoyed almost uninterrupted calm for a century and a half evidently stood still (little trade in the Persian Gulf, a very slight development also in the Phoenician ports as well as in the Hellenic maritime cities under Persian domination since the Peloponnesian war) (1).This highly dubious appraisal of trade relations in the Achaemenid period does not correspond entirely to certain fairly well known facts reported by ancient sources. It is true that the rate of development of barter and trade in the ancient Persian Empire was comparatively slow and that it did not reach the volume achieved during the economic prosperity of the Hellenistic East in the VI-IIth centuries B. C., nevertheless, it was a development and in no sense a complete stagnation.
Some information relating to the period of the ancient Persian Empire can be found in historical sources. This information clearly indicates that eminently favourable conditions for the expansion and growth of trade relations existed in the period under consideration. The mere unification of the separate and hostile realms of Assyro-Babylonia, Lydia and Egypt under a single Persian Empire unquestionably served as a factor promoting the increase of trade relations; We also knbw that the Achaemenids assured the safety of the means of communication. The monetary reform [18] of Darius I and the improvement in the weight and quality of the currency must also have assisted the development of barter and trade.
The strengthening and growth of world trade during this period is likewise beyond question. It is not accidentally of course that the intense prosperity of the coast of Asia Minor and the development of the Greek trading cities of the southern and northern coasts of the Black Sea started precisely in the VIth and Vth centuries. To the strengthening and expansion of world trade was apparently tied the economic and political development of the Scythian tribes which had commercial relations with the Iranian East by way of the Greek colonies.
As is well known, commercial relations by land and by sea with India already existed under the Achaemenids. After his conquest of the north- western provinces of the valley of the Indus, Darius I, according to Herodotus, ordered Scylax of Caryanda to explore the way to the mouth of the Indus and to circumnavigate Arabia (2). This expedition was crowned with success. In order to connect the Nile with the Red Sea, Darius also rebuilt the canal already constructed by former pharaohs (3). Thus a waterway was created from the Mediterranean to the Red Sea and thence to the Persian Gulf and to India (4).
All of these extremely interesting facts, exclusively connected with the reign of Darius I, are apparently the result of systematic efforts to develop world-wide trade relations. The auspicious conditions for international exchanges resulting from these efforts coincided primarily with the interests of craft and trade centres as well as with those of ancient cultural areas. It is understandable that this direction taken by the policy of Darius could neither be understood nor appreciated by the military and agricultural aristocracy of Persia. In this connexion, the statement of Herodotus that the Persians called Darius the huckster, Cambyses the lord, and Cyrus, the father, is very interesting (5).
Although the development of trade relations in the ancient Persian empire was more important than Max Weber supposes, one cannot but acknowledge that it had only a slight influence on the domestic economy. First of all we must not forget that trade was mainly carried on in specific commercial centres and the adjacent areas. Vast regions of the empire which lay far from these centres led a comparatively isolated existence and it is doubtful that they participated in the existing trade. Both exterior and interior trade hardly affected the foundations of the domestic economy, and on the whole, the economic structure of Persia remained basically a natural one. The limited number of cities in ancient Persia may be taken as a proof of this, and is undoubtedly indicative of the slight social differentiation in the population as well as of the lack of a close organic bond between the city and the bases of economic life prevailing in the greater part of the Persian provinces.
[19] In this period state taxes were paid partly in currency and partly in kind. However, the monetary economy seems to have been accepted with great difficulty. In this connexion it is characteristic that the taxes paid in currency by the tax districts were not put into circulation but kept in the treasury of the king (6). Finally Herodotus' observation that the Greeks had markets for buying and selling whereas the Persians made no use of markets and had no market places, is highly significant (7). Even if we suppose that this information pertains not to the whole empire but only to the Persians, strictly speaking, we may still conclude from the above-mentioned data that natural economic relations continued to prevail in the greater part of the ancient Persian empire.
Now that we have become familiar with the economic conditions of the life of the people in Achaemenid Persia, we have established a solid foundation for solving the problem of the economy and trade of Armenia in this period.
Between the IXth and the VIth centuries B. C. the population of the kingdom of Urartu created the relatively advanced ancient civilization which determined the cultural future of historic Armenia. The height of this civilization is witnessed not only by the existence of a written language in Khaldian cuneiform but also by the development among the Khaldians of agriculture, cattle breeding, horticulture, and metallurgy as well as of a highly skilled technique for irrigation and the building of fortified cities.
Even before the victorious advance of the Armenioi, the kingdom of Urartu had seriously been weakened in the period of Cimmerian and Scythian invasions, VIIIth and VIIth centuries B. C. The migration of the Armenioi is also presumed to be related to these invasions.
The Armenioi first settled here, in the district of Acilisene (the region of the present Erzincan), according to the information of Strabo (7A) also in the district of Suspiritis—Supri lying near the sources of the Ziban—Tigris, and eastward from this region all the way to Calachene and Adiabene. It is from here, that is to say from the south, that they gradually [20] penetrated into the interior and the northern provinces of the Armenian plateau, as I have indicated in detail in my Critical Survey of the History of the Armenian People (8).
During the retreat of the Ten Thousand though Armenia (401-400 B. C.), its south-eastern frontier, according to Xenophon, was on the Centrites river, the present Bohtan-Su or eastern Tigris (9). The entire basin of the western Tigris apparently lay within the boundaries of Armenia as did that of the Euphrates-Arsanias (10). We know from Herodotus that the Euphrates separated Armenia in the south-west from Cilicia (11). From the information of Strabo concerning the later extension of Armenia, we may conclude that the upper course of this river as well as the provinces of Karin-Erzurum and Derjan and part of Acilisene were in this period in the possession of the Chalybians, Mosynoechi and Cataonians (12). Xenophon simply calls Armenia the region west of the Centrites and Western Armenia the district north of the Taurus (13). According to his information the ruler of the former was Orontes and of the latter (Western Armenia), Tiribazos (14).
I will now show what seems to me to be the most marvellous thing in the country (Assyria), next to the city itself; Their boats which ply on the river and go to Babylon are all of skins, and round. They (the Assyrians) make these in Armenia, higher up the stream than Assyria. First they cut frames of willow, then they stretch hides over these for a covering, making as it were a hold; they neither broaden the stern nor narrow the prow, but the boat is round like a shield. They then fill it with reeds and send it floating down the river with a cargo; and it is for the most part palm wood casks of wine that they carry down. Two men standing upright steer the boat; each with [21] a paddle, one drawing it to him, the other thrusting it from him. These boats are of all sizes, some small, some very great; the greatest of them are even of five thousand talents burden. There is a live ass in each boat, or more than one in the larger. So when they have floated down to Babylon and disposed of their cargo, they sell the framework of the boat and all the reeds; the hides are set on the backs of asses, which are then driven back to Armenia, for it is not bv any means possible to go up the stream by water, by reason of the swiftness of the current; it is for this reason that they make their boats of hides and not of wood. When they have driven their asses back into Armenia they make more boats in the same way.Explanations in parentheses have been inserted by me in the translation. The sense of the quotation is perfectly clear. The middlemen in the trade between Euphratine Armenia and Babylonia were unquestionably not Armenian merchants but Assyrians. This is quite natural since in the whole of the Persian empire the leading part in the economic and cultural life of the country was played by the ancient civilized peoples ot the East and primarily by the Semites. Armenia, with her very slightly defined social differentiation of the population, naturally could not play an important part in commerce, not only during. this very ancient epoch, but also, as we shall see, in the following period; The assertion of Professor Xalateants', that already under the Achaemenids,Such then are their boats. 16
Armenian merchants were the middlemen for the exchange of goods through the Caucasus with Scythia, through the Caspian Sea with eastern Asia and China, down the Euphrates with Babylon and India, and on the western side with Cappadocia (17),s not only devoid of any foundation, but altogether incorrect if only because no trade existed in this period between Western Asia and China.
[22] In general the exportation of horses from Armenia and their sale in commercial centres can hardly be disputed. As is well known, Armenia was famous from antiquity for its horses. Herodotus already mentions that the Armenians were rich in cattle (20). Strabo reports that
The country is so very good for 'horse pasturing', not even inferior to Media, that the Nesaean horses, which were used by the Persian kings, are also bred there. The satrap of Armenia used to send to the Persian king twenty thousand foals every year at the time of the Mithracina. (21)Xenophon in the Anabasis says that Armenian horses although smaller than Persian ones are considerably more vigorous (22). It is certainly possible and very probable that horses were exported for sale on foreign markets, but we must suppose that the middlemen in this important trade were not Armenian merchants but Semites.
In certain works on the history of ancient Armenia indications are found that already at the time of the foundation of the Persian empire by Cyrus, the Armenians and the Khaldians had regular trade relations with India and exported goods from there (23). In support of this assertion reference is given to a vague testimony of Xenophon in the Cyropaedia (23A). In reality not a word, not even a hint of trade relations between Khaldians or Armenians and India can be found in the passage of Xenophon cited above. Xenophon says in his account that the "Chaldai" and their neighbours the Armenians who live in the mountains often served the Indian king as mercenaries and that Cyrus, having heard that they often went to India, asked the Armenians and "Chaldai" to provide an escort for the Persian Ambassador journeying to India.
In the first edition of the present work I supposed that both the assumption that the Armenians and Khaldians had trade relations with India and the information given by Xenophon as to the frequent presence of Khaldians in India were erroneous. I indicated at that time that Xenophon had probably confused the Khaldians of ancient Armenia, who had founded the powerful kingdom of Van in the IXth century B. C., and the Chaldeans living on the north-western shore of the Persian gulf. He may have known something of these Chaldeans and their relations with India and it is quite possible that he attributed to the Khaldians, whom he incorrectly called "Chaldai", all that he had heard concerning the Chaldeans.
In my recently published work, On Certain Problems in the History of Ancient Armenia and Transcaucasia, however, I considered more likely another interpretation of Xenophon's statement which gives it an entirely different meaning (24). We may suppose, as I believe, that the word Indos [23] which designates "India" or the "Indian king" in the text of Xenophon, is an erratum. This word should apparently be read Sindos in the corresponding text of Xenophon and mean "Sindus" or the "king of Sind". We know from the account of Pliny that the river Indus in India was commonly called Sindus by the natives (25). For this reason it is not difticult to guess that these names were easily confused and the word Sindos could be distorted in the transcriptions of the text of the Cyropaedia and replaced by the familiar and generally understood Indos "Indian". The proposed hypothesis gives, as we see, an entirely new and plausible meaning to the text of Xenophon under consideration. It is not the "Indians" but the "Sindians" which are meant in the given passage of Xenophon; the latter, as is well known, were considered a great and wealthy people living in the region of the present Anapa in the sixth century B. C. at the very time of king Cyrus (550-539 B. C.). A Greek legend mentions the port of Sindus as the main center for the export of their products. Not far from this port stood the important city of Gorgoppia refered to in the legend as "(the royal residence" of the Sindians (26).
The Sindian territory near the Sea of Azov was undoubtedly known to the Khaldians and the ancient Persians as a powerful and wealthy country. And it is quite possible that these people had commercial relations both with Khaldian Urartu and the other countries of the Near East. In my opinion, we must presume that this intercourse between the Sindians and the civilized world of the Orient took place by way of the Maeotid-Colchidian road which, as we shall see, played the part of transit highway for international trade in the post-Khaldian period.
Evidently, the testimonies of ancient authors in no way confirm the existence of either a brisk trade between Armenia and India or of the intermediary role in general played by the Armenians in the commerce with Babylonia and Phoenicia. International trade, which in this period had not reached the wide expansion and extensive scale it was to attain after the conquest of Alexander, was, as indicated above, in the hands of the civilized peoples of the ancient world and primarily of the Semitic peoples.
The boundary of Cilicia and Armenia is a navigable river whereof the name is Euphrates. In Armenia there are fifteen resting-stages, and fifty-six parasangs and a half (ca. 300 kilometers), and there is a fortress there. From Armenia the road enters the Matienian land, wherein are thirty-four stages, and a hundred and thirty-seven parasangs. (28)The section of the road crossing Armenia probably lay near Melitene, the present Malatya, in the direction of Sapfe or Bezabde, the present Jeziret-ibn-Omar (29). The direction of this road is indicated by Speck as being westward from Jeziret by way of the slopes of the Massian plateau, [25] then north-west to Amida and from there through Sewarak to the ford over the Euphrates near Xoresh about half way between Samosata and Gerger (30). In my opinion, it is more likely that the branch crossing through Armenia ran not in this direction but to the north, across the Taurus, in the plain of Xarberd and thence to the Euphrates near Malatya.
In spite of the lack of importance of the foreign trade, we may suppose that the "Royal Highway" in this period had already an influence on the economic development of south-western Armenia. It is through this very road that the Armenians were in the closest contact with the Iranian civilized world and the important commercial centres of Asia Minor and, Mesopotamia. Near this very highway rose the most ancient cities of Armenia, in the province of Sophene, during the Seleucid period. Their appearance was conditioned by the same cultural and economic advantages as were present in this early period in the south-western provinces of Armenia.
The social structure of the country is mentioned only indirectly by ancient writers. From these indications it may be seen that the basic social institution among the Armenioi of this period was the clan. The economy of the period was essentially a purely natural one. According to Xenophon's description, the Armenioi lived in close-packed settlements consisting of a number of fortified villages surrounded by walls and ditches. At the head of these settlements stood the comarchs, village or tribal elders, who were instruments of the administration together with the satraps.
[26] The dwellings of the Armenioi living near the upper Euphrates lay under ground, as we are told by Xenophon, narrow at the top like the opening of a well but wider at the bottom (31). Together with the men lived the domestic animals and birds. The retreating Greeks found ample supplies in these villages and entertained each other everywhere with feasts. Having captured one of the elders, who accompanied them, they allowed him to take whatever he wished, but he refused eveything. However, "whenever he caught sight of one of his kinsmen, he would always take thc man to his side" (31A). Scholars are of the opinion that in this protection given by the elder to his kinsmen may be seen one of the characteristic traits of clan organization. In one of the villages, the Greeks seized seventeen foals which, in the words of the elder, were designated as tribute for the king of Persia (31B). This collective character of the tribute is undoubtedly also of interest and seems to indicate a communal-clan organization of the villages.
Xenophon also speaks of persistent wars between the Armenioi settled in the plain of the Arsanias and the upper course of the Tigris and the Carduchians and Khaldians living in the mountains. The natural growth of the population and the need for new pastures urged the Armenioi to further migrations which are the explanation of the constant wars mentioned by Xenophon. The confirmation of the correctness of this interpretation may be found in a curious account of Xenophon in which he speaks of the mutual economic dependence between the settlements in the Armenian lowlands and the mountain pasture districts. According to Xenophon's tale, the Armenioi wished to be admitted by the Khaldians to the use of summer mountain pastures, while the Khaldians, who lived in the mountains, were poor, and lacked arable land, sought the unimpeded use of the fallow fertile lands found in the lowlands occupied by the Armenioi (31C). It is evident from the account of Xenophon that the Medes and the Persians made skilful use of the dissensions in the country, subjected these districts to their power without particular difficulty, and ensured the subsequent peaceful cohabitation of the Armenioi and the Khaldians.
The result of this peaceful cohabitation was the gradual amalgamation of the various local tribes with the Armenioi and, during the subsequent centuries, the creation of the Armenian nation whose ancestors were therefore, not only the Armenioi but also the Uiartians, Alarodians, and other peoples and tribes of ancient Urartu. The double name of the Armenians is related to the mixed ethnic origin of the Armenian people. Whereas the Armenians are known to the majority of peoples as "Armenioi", they call themselves not "Armenioi" but "Hay". This second name, "Hay", is presumed to be that of the Asia Minor ancestors of the Armenians, of the ancient inhabitants of the country of Hayasa, which lay to [27] the north-west and north of Lake Van, with whom the Armenioi became mixed and fused.
The clan organization of the population and the absence of commercial towns in the provinces settled by the Armenioi are indications of the low level of social differentiation. The Ten Thousand Greeks, who retreated through this country in 401-400 B. C., saw on their way nothing but villages, castles, and fortified settlements, that is to say fortresses, but not a single city having the character of a commercial centre. The absence of such cities in these regions during this period is also evident from the reference in Xenophon to the fact that the residence of the satrap was in one of the villages in a special royal castle {basileion).
It is, however, curious that the only "large and prosperous inhabited city which was called Gymnias", mentioned by Xenophon, was located in the northern part of historical Armenia which in this period was occupied by Cimmerian and Scythian tribes, as I have shown in detail in my work, On Certain Problems in the History of Ancient Armenia and Transcaucasia (32). Through a careful analysis of the evidence of Xenophon as to the itinerary of the retreating Greeks in the country of the Scythians (33), it has been possible to determine that the city of Gymnias may be identified with the ancient Armenian city of Kumayri and the modern Giwmri-Leninakan. Gumnias instead of Gumrias. The name of the city which was the centre of the federation of Cimmerian and Scythian tribes who had settled in the ancient Armenian provinces of Vanand, Sirak, and Ayrarat, was apparently a denomination with an ethnic origin derived from the name of the Cimmerians-Gimirrai.
All of the evidence cited above as to the primitive social and economic conditions of the Armenioi in no way coincides with the general point of view which supposes for this period an extensive development of trade in the districts settled by them and the active participation in this commerce of Armenian merchants. On the basis of what has already been said, we may, in my opinion, assert that this point of view is the result of an incorrect interpretation of the testimonies of Herodotus, Xenophon, and Ezekiel and that it should definitely be rejected.
Page opens in a separate window.