{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01122334455667789, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.41726618705036, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Urartian Material Culture As State Assemblage: An Anomaly in the Archaeology of Empire

The distinctive artifacts associated with the kingdom of Urartu are normally assumed to constitute the material assemblage of a homogeneous culture. This article reviews the characteristics of these artifacts class by class, and argues that for the most part they are deliberate creations of an imperial government, not a broad spectrum of the east Anatolian population. Archaeological research on Urartu has focused on excavating fortresses, which are essentially state enclaves, rather than settlement sites. The model of Inca imperialism is invoked as an alternative to the presumption of cultural uniformity. The extent to which it applies and the issue of provincialism within the Urartian state can only be addressed by shifting the emphasis of Urartian archaeological studies toward the governed.