Version classiqueVersion mobile
OpenEdition Books

The Iranian Plateau during the Bronze Age

 | 
Jan-Waalke Meyer
, 
Emmanuelle Vila
, 
Marjan Mashkour
, 
et al.

Production and trade

Exchanges and trade during the Bronze Age in Iran

Michèle Casanova

Résumé

Precious materials are good index fossils of long and medium-distance exchange. Typologies and iconographies attest to intercultural relations between Iran, Pakistan, India, Mesopotamia and Syria and the organization of exchange and trade is widely debated. Some scholars assume that long-distance trade was managed directly by intermediaries (high officials, merchants) dispatched by the “Core” civilizations (Egypt, Syria, Mesopotamia) into the territories of the “Periphery” (eastern Iran, Afghanistan, eastern Arabia) throughout the history of the Ancient Orient. Recent research on the Iranian Plateau flatly contradicts this hypothesis of relations between the so‑called “Core” and “Periphery”. The Iranian Plateau was at the crossroads of exchanges and was an incredibly active spot. The inhabitants of the Iranian Plateau participated in the first age of middle and long-distance trade.

Les matériaux précieux sont d’excellents fossiles-directeurs des échanges à moyenne et longue distance. Typologies et iconographies témoignent des relations interculturelles entre l’Iran, le Pakistan, l’Inde, la Mésopotamie et la Syrie. Il y a un débat fondamental sur l’organisation des échanges et du commerce. Certains chercheurs proposent une hypothèse selon laquelle le commerce à longue distance était géré directement par des intermédiaires (hauts fonctionnaires, marchands) envoyés par les civilisations dites du “Cœur” (Égypte, Syrie, Mésopotamie) dans les territoires dits de la “Périphérie” (Iran de l’est, Afghanistan, Arabie orientale), et que cela a continué de cette façon tout au long de l’histoire de l’Orient ancien. Les recherches récentes menées sur le plateau iranien contredisent complètement ce schéma des relations entre les zones appelées “Centre” et “Périphérie”. Le plateau iranien était au carrefour des échanges et était un pôle extrêmement actif. Les peuples du plateau iranien participèrent au premier âge du commerce à moyenne et à longue distance.

سنگهای قیمتی از مواد با ارزش در تجارت با مناطق پیرامونی و دوردست بودهاند. مطالعات گونهشناختی و تصویرنگاری نشان از ارتباطات میانفرهنگی میان ایران، پاکستان، هند، میانرودان و سوریه و سازمانهای مبادلاتی و تجارت میان آنها دارند. برخی از صاحبنظران بر این باورند که تجارت راه دور به صورت مستقیم توسط واسطهها (صاحبمنصبان بلندپایه و تاجران) اداره میشده است. این کالاها در طول تاریخ شرق باستان توسط تمدنهای مرکزی (مصر، سوریه و میانرودان) به مناطق پیرامونی (شرق ایران، افغانستان، شرق عربستان) توزیع میشده است. نتایج پژوهشهای اخیر در فلات ایران کاملاً مغایر با فرضیۀ ارتباط میان "مراکز هسته" و "پیرامونی" است. فلات ایران نقطۀ تلاقی مسیرهای تبادلاتی و یک نقطۀ بسیار فعال در تبادل کالاها بوده که ساکنان فلات آن از آغاز در تجارت با مناطق پیرامونی و دور دست فعالیت داشتهاند.

Texte intégral

Introduction

  • 1 Aruz 2003; Aruz, Benzel and Evans 2008; Casanova and Feldman 2014; Potts 1994.
  • 2 Aruz 2003; Aruz, Benzel and Evans 2008; Caubet 1994.

1Precious materials are good index-fossils of long and medium distance exchange. The circulation of the materials used to manufacture objects of prestige plays an essential role in the networks of medium and long distance trade in the societies of the Near East during the Bronze Age. We can see that these objects are made in precious materials of which all are foreign to Mesopotamia. Typologies and iconographies are testifying to intercultural relations between Iran, Pakistan, India, Mesopotamia and Syria1. We can cite the presence of the so‑called classic Harappan and etched carnelian beads characteristic from Harappan Civilization (Harappa, Mohenjo-daro, Chanhu-daro) on few necklaces associated with lapis lazuli beads carved in the typically Mesopotamian melon form which were discovered at sites like Susa (Iran), Ur (Iraq) and Mari (Syria)2. There was an old exchange network which linked precious materials: stones like agate, carnelian, chlorite, alabaster, minerals like copper, silver and tin.

 

2There is a crucial debate on the organization of the trade. The trade relations included the states such as kingdoms of Mesopotamia, Syria and Elam all of whom had mastered systems of writing and thus left archives. The difficulty is compounded by the lack of textual sources in the regions from which these goods were sent, or even in the lands they transited: eastern Iran, Central Asia, the Indus Valley, and the Persian Gulf. Susa has been closely intertwined with eastern Iran and Mesopotamia. The Iranian Plateau was at the crossroads of exchanges.

The details of Exchanges and Trade: Core and Periphery? Direct control or intermediary markets?

3There is no question that during the third and second millennia BCE, Mesopotamia imported gold, lapis lazuli, carnelian, silver, copper, and vessels of chlorite. Lapis lazuli came from Afghanistan, silver from Anatolia and the Aegean, carnelian from Indus Valley in Pakistan and from Gujarat in India, chlorite from eastern Iran (fig. 1).

Fig. 1 – Lapis lazuli in the ancient Near East, map: M. Casanova, DAO: H. David.

Fig. 1 – Lapis lazuli in the ancient Near East, map: M. Casanova, DAO: H. David.
  • 3 Warburton 2003b; Casanova 2006.

4These societies have bequeathed to us the absolute oldest and thus most important written sources relevant to the understanding of the emergence of historical human civilizations. The authorities in Mesopotamia were also conscious that such products reached their palaces and temples from Iran and the Persian Gulf. The trade relations included the states such as kingdoms of Mesopotamia, Syria and Elam all of whom had mastered systems of writing and thus left archives. The difficulty is compounded by the lack of textual sources in the regions from which these goods were sent, or even in the lands they transited: eastern Iran, Central Asia, the Indus Valley, and the Persian Gulf. Thus the debate is on the organization of the trade3.

5We would gladly learn more about the details of how trade linked ancient civilizations of the Near East, and particularly about long distance trade in the Bronze Age. Texts have been preserved in a number of languages (Sumerian, Akkadian, Elamite, Ugaritic, Hittite, Egyptian) and the surviving archives of the include references to items traded over long distances where they are related to the state institutions, the temples, large landowners, merchants and craftsmen. Although some of the texts from Ebla and southern Mesopotamia mention commerce or at least commercial transactions, or items which were acquired through trade, such texts are quite rare in the third millennium. Yet we are far better off in the second, when such texts have been found from Mari, Ugarit (Syria), Ur, Larsa, and Sippar (Iraq), Kanesh (Turkey). Obviously, the materials imported from other areas testify to their arrival but it is only the texts which can provide further details, and more specifically their origin and value.

 

  • 4 Warburton 2003a, p. 49, 64, 118‑120; Warburton 2014, p. 125‑127.
  • 5 Warburton 2005, p. 641.
  • 6 Lamberg-Karlovsky and Sabloff 1975; Rowlands, Mogens and Kristiansen 1987; Norel 2009, p. 87‑88; W (...)

6Scholars exploring means of grasping the details of the trade do not agree on the moment at which the market gained a more important role, nor on the origins. Many scholars have sought recourse to theoretical schemes in order to better understand these economies at the dawn of Antiquity. Most of these models are the result of contemporary studies, but they do not so much attempt to draw on the ancient materials which we have just discussed, so much as to apply these theoretical models to the ancient data4. Warburton is among those who attempt to write economic history from the sources of Egypt and the Ancient Near East, remarking that “theoretical interpretations do not exactly correspond to the image of the market known from our sources”5. Some scholars suggested that long distance trade was managed in the 3rd millennium BCE directly by intermediaries (high officials, merchants) dispatched by the civilizations of the “Core” (Egypt, Syria, Mesopotamia) into the territories of the “Periphery” (eastern Iran, Afghanistan, eastern Arabia), and that it continued in this fashion throughout the history of the Ancient Orient6.

 

  • 7 Kohl 1975; Kohl 1978; Crawford 2004, chapter 7; Gunder Frank 1993; Margueron and Pfirsch 1996, p.  (...)
  • 8 Jacobsen 1987, p. 275.
  • 9 Casanova 2013; Casanova 2014.

7Such scholars suggested that the high value goods (lapis lazuli, chlorite, calcite, metals) coming from eastern Iran and Central Asia were directly exchanged against the products of Mesopotamia and Syria (grain, meat, dried fish, textiles, wood, leather, etc.)7. That hypothesis was founded on some allusions in mythological texts like Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta8. The tombs found in the Royal Cemetery at Ur include artifacts made of gold, silver, copper, lapis, carnelian, and chlorite originating from as far away as the Indus9 (tab. 1).

Table 1 – Ur (Iraq), the Royal Cemetery, the most common materials of prestige objects (except jewelry).

Number
Calcite 392
Limestone 176
Steatite 174
Lapis lazuli 141
Shell 130
Copper 125
Silver 82
Gold 39
Marble 19
Diorite 12
Electrum 5

8However, the evidence suggests that although such a pattern may have prevailed in the fourth and third millennia, but that there were real changes. The value of these materials was also doubtless at least partially influenced by the labor involved in their long route from the geological deposits to the final use in the tombs. Thus, the various markets were integrated, as silver became a medium of exchange, which allowed transactions in northern Mesopotamia and Anatolia to finance acquisitions in southern Mesopotamia – of objects which ultimately came from Iran, India and Afghanistan.

 

  • 10 Joannès 1991; Michel 1996.
  • 11 Jacobsen 1987, p. 362.
  • 12 Durand 2000, p. 15.

9The texts include occasional references to the places from which these exotic products were acquired (such as Elam for the tin and lapis lazuli), but virtually none about the means by which these products made their way from their places of origin far to the east. From the third millennium BCE, the texts record these various precious materials (and objects made of them) in terms of their quality, their craftsmanship, their uses, and the symbols with which they are associated were linked to their color and their magical potency10. The archaeological material indicates that earlier the most important routes were overland across Iran, and thus the appearance of the sea‑borne route represents a radical change, one which can be linked to a vast increase in the quantities of materials traded. The texts from Mesopotamia reveal that means of supply were booty, tribute, gifts exchange, taxation and commercial transactions. The “Curse of Agade” describes the splendors of this city before its ruin, attributed to the god Enlil: Gold, silver, copper, tin, blocks of lapis lazuli, logs of cedar, etc. are among the items of plunder brought to Agade by Naram‑Sin, from the “stores of Sumer”11. Sovereigns used gift exchange in the context of their familial and diplomatic negotiations. At the time of Zimri‑Lim of Mari, the use of the treasury to make gifts to other kings are well documented12.

 

10The texts show that the rulers personally organized the supply of such goods for the palace. Thus, Zimri‑Lim, king of Mari (1775‑1760 BCE), sent his agent Yassi‑Dagan abroad with political and economic assignments, among which the sale of semi-precious stones such as rock crystal, and the purchase of lapis lazuli (or tin) in the region of Eshnunna played a primary role. He wrote back to the palace:

  • 13 Michel 1999, p. 416, n. 93, ARMT XXV 154 & ARMT XXV 118. English translation by David Warburton.

“Concerning the rock crystal which my lord had me to take: he fixed its value in silver saying, “The value of this rock crystal could be significantly higher than that I fix, but certainly not less.”…. Now, I will sell this rock crystal, as instructed in my lord’s letter, and purchase tin or lapis lazuli for my lord, depending upon what I see.”13.

Zimri‑Lim also orders a general, Zimri‑Addu campaigning in the region of Larsa, to acquire lapis lazuli:

  • 14 Michel 1999, p. 413‑414, 423. English translation by David Warburton.

“Look around, and buy lapis lazuli – whether a necklace of lapis lazuli, or even just raw pieces – using money from a money-lender, and I will have the money of its price sent from here.” (…) “The entire land of Larsa is deprived of sleep; fear has struck them all, and they neglect all their obligations… It is not just that there is no one who can be found to lend money to (purchase) lapis lazuli, (but) who would sell lapis lazuli? As my lord wrote that I should ask Išar‑Lim for lapis lazuli, I asked Išar‑Lim, but he answered, ‘No one is coming from Susa, and [there is no] lapis lazuli […]’ ”14.

11However, the general found none, because – the links with Susa being cut – lapis lazuli was not reaching Larsa, then occupied by the Babylonians.

12This demonstrates that Susa was a key place at the crossroads of the networks of exchanges. Does this mean that Mesopotamia had a direct control over Trade? We could assume that the institutions of the palaces and temples did not exercise control over long distance trade. Rather than assuming any kind of direct contacts between emissaries of Mesopotamian cities and the foreign lands of eastern Iran and Central Asia far to the east, the trade networks (and the markets with which they were linked) would thus appear to have formed a series of stations and thus intermediary markets between the different civilizations.

 

  • 15 Casanova 2013; Warburton 2014, p. 129‑130.
  • 16 Michel 1999, p. 416; Joannès 1991.

13In fact, third millennium sites such as Shahr‑i Sokhta, Shahdad (Iran), Sarazm (Tajikistan), Mundigak (Afghanistan) are themselves at once major centers where lapis lazuli was imported from the deposits in Afghanistan, but they were also stations where the blue stone was transformed into prestige objects and exported to Susa in western Iran. The preeminence of lapis lazuli makes it an ideal material to track the Middle and Long distance trade in the Ancient Near East (tab. 2‑3). Originating in northeast Afghanistan, it travelled in Iran before reaching Mesopotamia, the Levant and Egypt. Cities such as Ur, Uruk (both in Iraq), Mari, Ebla (both in Syria) were also centers playing a central role in the circulation of lapis lazuli in Mesopotamia and Syria, sending it on to the Levant and Egypt, where local craftsmen would transform the exotic stone into objects suited to local tastes15. The written sources found at Mari (Syria) reveal a commercial value with prices regulated by the rules of the markets. This value is reflected in an account dating to the reign of Zimri‑Lim (18th century) where 23 shekels of lapis lazuli were worth twice that in silver. Lapis lazuli and tin could be traded together, either directly in Elam (at Susa) or by intermediaries at Eshnunna, Larsa or Ur16.

Table 2 – Lapis lazuli in the Near East by category and by period.

Number of objects Neolithic Chalcolithic Bronze Age Total
Beads 4 903 31489 32396
Inlays   17 5007 5024
Glyptic   3 208 211
Objects 1 2 78 81
Fabrication   903 1483 2386
Total 5 1828 38309 40142

Table 3 – Lapis lazuli in the Near East by category and by area.

Number of objects Mesopotamia, Syria Iran Central Asia, Pakistan Eastern Arabia Total
Beads 30002 1382 1004 8 32396
Inlays 4840 183   1 5024
Glyptic 197 10 4   211
Objects 72 5 2 2 81
Fabrication 76 1582 728   2386
Total 35187 3206 1738 11 40142

 

14The building blocks for ordinary markets were gradually put in place in the course of the third millennium in cities such as Susa (Iran), Dilmun (Bahrain), Mari and Ebla (Syria), Ur (Iraq).

The Iranian Plateau was at the crossroads of exchanges

  • 17 Sajjadi 2003; Majidzadeh 2003; Pittman 2013; Pittman 2014.
  • 18 Aruz 2003; Aruz, Benzel and Evans 2008.

15Recent researches in the Iranian Plateau flatly contradict that picture of the relations between so‑called “Core” and “Periphery”17. We would gladly learn more about the details of how trade linked these ancient civilizations, and particularly about long distance trade in the Bronze Age. Archaeological findings indicate that materials and objects originally coming from eastern Iran or Central and southern Asia reached southern Mesopotamia via land routes crossing Iran or by the maritime route passing via the Persian Gulf and thus Bahrain. Both precious materials remain quite scarce before end of the Neolithic, only becoming more common in the mid‑3rd millennium. Their appearance on archaeological sites does not really begin until the end of the Neolithic and remains limited even as late as the fifth millennium. Their distribution cannot in fact be separated from the appearance and development of states and hierarchically stratified societies at the end of the fourth millennium. They become far more abundant in the course of the Bronze Age, beginning a gradual increase in the early 3rd millennium and continue through the Iron Age18.

 

  • 19 Amiet 1986; Pittman 2013; Pittman 2014.
  • 20 Lamberg-Karlovsky 1976; Lamberg-Karlovsky and Tosi 1973.
  • 21 Tosi 1974a; Tosi 1974b; Tosi and Piperno 1973; Hakemi 1997; Majidzadeh 1982; Majidzadeh 2003; Casa (...)
  • 22 Helwing 2014.
  • 23 Cleuziou 2003, p. 114‑125; Ligabue and Salvatori 1989; Casanova 2008b; Pittman 1984.

16The Iranian Plateau was an incredible active spot in particular during the 3rd millennium19. Archaeologists discovered in south Iran, Tepe Yahya and Konar Sandal, and far in southeastern the important centers of Shahr‑i Sokhta and Shahdad located on the desert margins20. Recent surveys, soundings and excavations give the evidence that all of eastern Iran, from the neighboring of the Persian Gulf to the northern edge of the Iranian Plateau was dotted with few hundreds of small to large settlements. Almost ninety hundred Bronze Age sites have been identified during surveys in the Sistan Plain. Though located in inhospitable land, these eastern Iranian cities were close to tin, copper, chlorite and turquoise mines, and lay on the road bringing lapis lazuli to Mesopotamia and Egypt. Tappeh Hissar, Shahr‑i Sokhta and Shahdad had stone and metal workshops21. Craftsmen created also such remarkable artifacts as metal axes. Metalworking was also very developed in the Fars and sites such Arisman supplied other areas of the Iranian Plateau22. The stone vessels in calcite, alabaster and chlorite manufactured at sites like Konar Sandal and Tappeh Yahya have been exported in the rich graves at Ur and Bahrain and in treasures in Mesopotamian temples and palaces. The exchanges of goods were not only oriented from east to west. There is also the evidence of intercultural relations and influences in the iconographies between the west and the east. The Oman during the Bronze Age was connected to the shore economy of Iran and, in turn, to Jiroft and the Iranian Plateau. The scatter of prestige goods (stone vessel, seals, pottery) has given the evidence of exchange networks linking southeastern Iranian and eastern Arabian settlements with those from the Indus civilization and with Mesopotamian urban centers23. Susa was deeply involved in this process in peculiar for lapis lazuli, carnelian, alabaster, calcite and chlorite vessels and tin.

  • 24 Bisson de la Roque 1937; Bisson de la Roque, Contenau and Chapouthier 1953.
  • 25 Pierrat‑Bonnefois 1999; Porada 1982.
  • 26 Casanova 2008a; Casanova 2013.
  • 27 Casanova 2008a; Casanova et al. 2015.

17In 1936, Fernand Bisson de la Roque, who was excavating the temple of the god Montu in Tôd, about thirty kilometers south of Louxor, discovered four copper caskets inscribed with the name of Amenemhet II24. These had been buried in a sand foundation layer, under the paved ground of his father’s temple, Sesostris I (1934‑1898 BCE). The two smaller chests included silver ingots, in the form of small plates and chains, plus 153 silver cups, most of them flattened and folded, obviously not Egyptian. Some golden items complement the inventory. The two bigger chests contained fragments of raw lapis lazuli and thousands of carved pieces of the same material, namely beads, inlays, and cylinder seals, mainly coming from the Near East25. Since the thirties, not a great deal of scholars has been investigating this fabulous gathering of artifacts since the original publications by its discoverer. The raw and unfinished pieces from the Tôd Treasure in the Louvre resembles those from the workshops in the Near East, in particular the major one from Shahr‑i Sokhta, Iran26. The striking fact about the Tod Treasure is that its lapis lazuli assemblage (including manufacture remains, beads and inlays) displays typical features of objects from the Royal Cemetery at Ur and from Susa. For example, there is a way of shaping faceted date beads which is particular to Ur. Other beads such as faceted bicones and melon‑shaped beads were also found in the Ur Treasure at Mari. Zoomorphic amulets and pendants (frogs, eagles, flies, seated bulls) were unearthed at Mari, Tell Brak, Ur and Susa. These beads date to the second half of the third millennium BCE. The cylinder seals approximately amount to 130 pieces. There are few seals of Iranian style now in the Cairo Museum (6). They all find their typological or stylistic counterparts in southeast Iran or museum collections reputed to originate from that region, in particular with those coming from Jiroft graves. Indeed, may now assume a maximum time range of 700 years for the lapis lazuli collection, comprised between the ED III and the Isin‑Larsa Periods in Mesopotamian terms (from Dynasty IV to early Dynasty XII in Egypt, the reign of Amemhemet II being posed as a terminus ad quem)27. This diagnosis inevitably raises the question as to when the objects reached Egypt. Were they acquired over time or were they part of a single shipping to be placed not long before they were buried?

 

18There are not many texts dealing with the commerce of the third millennium. But the archives of the palace at Ebla testify to the importance of fairs and markets in the 24th century BCE. During the Ur III period (at the end of the third millennium), in the absence of evidence from private archives, the Mesopotamian end of international trade would appear to have been administered by the palaces and temples. However, the roles of the Mesopotamian agents and merchants were restricted to trade in the Persian Gulf and the immediately adjacent parts of Iran until the late ED III or very early Old Akkadian period. They did not as a rule reach the more distant parts of the trading network in eastern Iran and Central Asia. The archaeological evidence confirms that some of their counterparts from the Indus Civilization were likewise also active in the Persian Gulf, and the texts confirm that some were actually also active in Mesopotamia itself. Given the lack of written sources decipherable from the Indus, we cannot, however, establish the affiliations of these Indian merchants.

 

  • 28 Jacobsen 1987, p. 205; Speiser 1969, p. 106.
  • 29 Michel 1999, p. 416, n. 93, ARMT XXV 154 & ARMT XXV 118.
  • 30 Kramer 1969, p. 53.
  • 31 Speiser 1969, p. 106.
  • 32 André-Salvini 1999.
  • 33 Michel 1999, p. 407, 413‑414, 421, 423; Birot 1960, p. 209, 310‑311; Warburton 2014, p. 128‑129.
  • 34 Michel 1996; Michel 1999; Joannès 1991; Casanova 2006.

19From the latter part of the 3rd millennium onwards precious materials appear in texts like “The Descent of Inanna to the Netherworld28. The materials and the colours they represent are thus not mere illustrations or symbols, but themselves part of the foundations of social power and intellectual expression. Lapis lazuli was not only the attribute of the essential vital supernatural forces, but also the actual source of the power of the gods. The Mari texts describe the preciosities destined for the gods. Zimri‑Lim honours the gods and his hosts when he travels. The god Addu of Aleppo thus receives a dagger from Marhashi, its hilt inlaid with lapis lazuli29. In the Near East, lapis lazuli was really the key which lay at the center of the system of ideological values, with carnelian a close second. In texts like “Descent of Inanna30 and “Descent of Ishtar into the Nether World31, lapis lazuli was incontrovertibly linked to divinity, life, royalty, power, beauty and perfection32. It is since the second half of the third millennium and the first centuries of the second millennium, that materials such as lapis lazuli, gold, carnelian and turquoise have values specified in silver. With clearly set prices, lapis lazuli, carnelian, and gold had a value which also corresponded to their distinctive ideological and aesthetic values. What emerged was the ideological value as the instrument affirming the power of the legitimacy of the royal power. One thus sees another value appear: a commercial value with prices regulated by the rules of the markets. This type of value thus forms the kernel of the other meaning: a “precious” stone that is a rare and desired material whose value is fixed in terms of silver33. This value is reflected in an account dating to the reign of Zimri‑Lim where 23 shekels of lapis lazuli were worth twice that in silver, or half the price of gold. Lapis lazuli and tin could be traded together, either directly in Elam (at Susa) or by intermediaries at Eshnunna, Larsa or Ur34. Lapis lazuli is thus a remarkable testimony of a historic reality: that of the mutually reinforcing coexistence of a symbolic value which was becoming a “precious” stone in the sense of a material with a high market value.

Conclusion

20This set of data will be of importance to explore the trade routes and the exchange modes of goods like the lapis lazuli across the Iranian Plateau and Susa down to the Nile Valley during the Bronze Age. The people of the Iranian Plateau participated in the first age of middle and long distance trade. The sites were at the crossroads between the Indus Valley, Central Asia and Elam. Sites such as Shahr‑i Sokhta, Shahdad, Tappeh Hisar (Iran) would appear to have been at once importers of lapis lazuli (where they adapted their work to match the local demand) and the exporters of the blue stone to Elam. Sites such as Susa (Iran) would appear to have been among those market places where one went to buy goods, along with Dilmun (Bahrain), Ur, Eshnunna and Assur (Iraq), Mari, and Emar (Syria). These sites would must have formed a series of intermediary markets between the different centers of civilization. These goods travelled along routes, and their arrival in the centers is to be accounted for in this fashion rather than assuming that their arrival will have been a result of direct contacts between emissaries from Syria or Mesopotamia and those places from eastern Iran and Central Asia which were the masters of the zones whence originated the highly prized treasures. The Iranian Plateau was a major trade zone.

Bibliographie

Amiet P. 1986, L’âge des échanges inter-iraniens 3500‑1700 avant J.‑C., Notes et Documents des Musées de France 11, Paris.

André-Salvini B. 1999, “L’idéologie des pierres en Mésopotamie”, in A. Caubet (ed.), Cornaline et pierres précieuses. La Méditerranée, de l’Antiquité à l’Islam, Paris, p. 373‑400.

Aruz J. (ed.) 2003, Art of the First Cities. The Third Millennium B.C. from the Mediterranean to the Indus, New York.

Aruz J., Benzel K. and Evans J.M. (ed.) 2008, Beyond Babylon: Art, Trade and Diplomacy in The Second Millennium B.C., New York.

Birot M. 1960, Textes administratifs de la salle 5 du palais, Archives Royales de Mari IX, Paris.

Bisson de la Roque F. 1937, Tôd, Fouilles de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale 17, Cairo.

Bisson de la Roque F., Contenau G. and Chapouthier F. 1953, Le Trésor de Tôd, Documents de Fouilles de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale du Caire XI, Cairo.

Casanova M. 1991, La vaisselle d’albâtre de Mésopotamie, d’Iran et d’Asie centrale aux IIIe et IIe millénaires av. J.‑C., Paris.

Casanova M. 2006, “L’émergence du marché au Proche Orient ancien (IVe‑IIe millénaires av. J.‑C.)”, La Pensée 347, p. 19‑31.

Casanova M. 2008a, “Lapis lazuli from Tod Treasure, Egypt”, in J. Aruz, K. Benzel and J.M. Evans (ed.), Beyond Babylon: Art, Trade and Diplomacy in The Second Millenium B.C., New York, p. 102‑103.

Casanova M. 2008b, “Prestige objects in soft and fine stone in the Ancient Near East: manufacture, function, distribution, value”, in Y. Madjidzadeh (ed.), First International Conference of Archaeological Research in Jiroft: The Halil Basin Civilization, Jiroft, Kerman (in Persian).

Casanova M. 2013, Le lapis‑lazuli dans l’Orient ancien. Production et circulation, du Néolithique au IIe millénaire av. J.‑C., CTHS, Documents Préhistoriques 27, Paris.

Casanova M. 2014, “Luxuries of Precious Materials, The Royal Cemetery of Ur (Iraq) and the Lapis Lazuli, Witnesses of Intercultural Relations in the Near East”, in M. Casanova and M. Feldman (ed.), Les produits de luxe au Proche‑Orient ancien aux âges du Bronze et du Fer, Collection Travaux de l’Archéologie et de l’Ethnologie, René-Ginouvès 19, Paris, p. 31‑44.

Casanova M. and Feldman M. (ed.) 2014, Les produits de luxe au Proche‑Orient ancien, aux âges du Bronze et du Fer, Travaux de la Maison de l’Archéologie et de l’Ethnologie, René-Ginouvès 19, Paris.

Casanova M., Pierrat-Bonnefois G., Quenet P., Danrey V. and Lacambre D. 2015, “Lapis lazuli in the Tod Treasure: a new investigation”, in P. Kousoulis and N. Lazaridis (ed.), Proceedings of the Tenth International Congress of Egyptologists, University of the Aegean, Rhodes, 22‑29 May 2008, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 241/II, Leuven-Paris-Bristol, p. 1620‑1640.

Casanova M. and Piran S. 2012, “Stone Vessels from Tepe Hissar: Manufacture, Typology, Distribution, 4th‑2nd Millennia B.C.”, in H. Fahimi and M. Mashkour (ed.), Volume dedicated to Dr Massoud Azarnoush, Tehran, p. 95‑106.

Caubet A. (ed.) 1994, La cité royale de Suse. Trésors du Proche‑Orient ancien au Louvre, Paris.

Cleuziou S. 2003, “Jiroft et Tarut sur la côte orientale de la péninsule arabique”, Les dossiers d’Archéologie 287 (décembre), p. 114‑125.

Crawford H. 2004, Sumer and the Sumerians (2e ed.), Cambridge.

Durand J.‑M. 2000, Les documents épistolaires du Palais de Mari, vol. III, LAPO, Paris.

Gunder Frank A. 1993, “Bronze Age World System Cycles”, Current Anthropology 34/4, p. 383‑405.

Hakemi A. 1997, Shahdad: Archaeological Excavations of a Bronze Age Center in Iran, Istituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente, Centro Scavi i Ricerche archeologiche, Reports and Memoirs XXVII, IsMEO, Rome‑Oxford (translated and edited by S.M.S. Sajjadi).

Helwing B. 2014, “Trade in Metals in Iran and the neighboring areas, A reflection based on results of the excavations at Arisman (Iran)”, in M. Casanova and M. Feldman (ed.), Les produits de luxe au Proche‑Orient ancien, aux âges du Bronze et du Fer, Travaux de la Maison de l’Archéologie et de l’Ethnologie, René-Ginouvès 19, p. 73‑84.

Jacobsen T. 1987, THE HARPS THAT ONCE…Sumerian Poetry in Translation, New Haven-London.

Joannès F. 1991, “L’étain, de l’Élam à Mari”, Compte-Rendu de la 36e Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Gand, p. 67‑76.

Kohl P.‑L. 1975, “Carved Chlorite Vessels, a Trade in Finished Commodities in the mid‑Third Millenium”, Expedition 18/1, p. 18‑31.

Kohl P.‑L. 1978, “The Balance Trade in Southwestern Asia in the Third Millenium”, Current Anthropology 19/3, p. 463‑492.

Kramer S.N. 1969, “Inanna’s Descent into the Nether World”, in J.B. Pritchard (ed.), Ancient Near East Texts Relating to the Old Testament, Princeton, p. 53‑54.

Lamberg-Karlovsky C.C. 1976, “Foreign relations in the third millennium at Tepe Yahya”, in J. Deshaye (ed.), Le plateau iranien des origines à la conquête islamique, Paris, p. 33‑43.

Lamberg-Karlovsky C.C. and Sabloff J.A. (ed.) 1975, Ancient Civilization and Trade, Albuquerque.

Lamberg-Karlovsky C.C. and Tosi M. 1973, “Shahr‑i Sokhta and Tepe Yahya: Tracks on the Earliest History of the Iranian Plateau”, East and West 23/1‑2, p. 21‑57.

Ligabue G. and Salvatori S. (ed.) 1989, Bactria. An ancient oasis civilization from the sands of Afghanistan, Studies and documents III, Venezia.

Majidzadeh Y. 1982, “Lapis lazuli and the Great Khorasan Road”, Paléorient 8/1, p. 59‑69.

Majidzadeh Y. 2003, Jiroft. The Earliest Oriental Civilization, ICHTO, Tehran.

Margueron J. and Pfirsch L. 1996, Le Proche‑Orient et l’Égypte antiques, Paris.

Michel C. 1996, “Le commerce dans les textes de Mari”, in J.‑M. Durand (ed.), Amurru 1, Mari, Ebla et les Hourrites, dix ans de travaux, Paris, p. 385‑426.

Michel C. 1999, “Les joyaux des rois de Mari”, in A. Caubet (ed.), Cornaline et pierres précieuses. La Méditerranée, de l’Antiquité à l’Islam, Paris, p. 401‑432.

Norel P. 2009, L’histoire économique globale, Paris.

Pierrat-Bonnefois G. 1999, “La part du lapis‑lazuli dans l’étude du trésor de Tôd”, Actes du colloque Cornaline et pierres précieuses. La Méditerranée, de l’Antiquité à l’Islam, Paris.

Pittman H. 1984, Art of the Bronze Age: Southeastern Iran, Western Central Asia, and the Indus Valley, New York.

Pittman H. 2013, “Eastern Iran in the Early Bronze Age”, in D. Potts (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Iran, Oxford, p. 304‑324.

Pittman H. 2014, “Hybrid Imagery and Cultural Identity in the Bronze Age of Exchange: Halil River Basin and Sumer meet”, in C.C. Lamberg Karlovsky, B. Genito and B. Cerasetti (ed.), Margiana, My Life is like the Summer Rose. Papers in honor for Maurizio Tosi for his 70th Birthday, BAR International Series 2690, Oxford, p. 625‑636.

Porada E. 1982, “Remarks on the Tôd Treasure in Egypt”, Societies and Languages of the Ancient Near East. Studies in Honour of I.M. Diakonoff, Warminster.

Potts T.F. 1994, Mesopotamia and the East. An Archeological and Historical Study of Foreign Relations 3400‑2000 B.C., Oxford University Committee for Archaeology, Monograph 37, Oxford.

Rowlands M., Mogens L. and Kristiansen K. 1987, Centre and Periphery in the Ancient World, Cambridge.

Sajjadi S.M.S. 2003, “Excavations at Shahr i Sokhta”, Iran 41, p. 21‑97.

Speiser E.A. 1969, “Descent of Ishtar to the Nether World”, in J.B. Pritchard (ed.), Ancient Near East Texts Relating to the Old Testament, Princeton, p. 106‑109.

Tosi M. 1974a, “The lapis‑lazuli trade accross the Iranian Plateau in the 3rd Millenium BC”, in Gururajamanjarika. Studi in onore di Giuseppe Tucci, vol. 1, Naples, p. 3‑22.

Tosi M. 1974b, “The problem of Turquoise in Protohistoric Trade on the Iranian Plateau”, Memoire dell’Institute di Paleontologia Umana II, p. 147‑162.

Tosi M. and Piperno M. 1973, “Lithic Technology behind the Ancient Lapis Lazuli Trade”, Expedition 16/1, p. 1523.

Warburton D.A. 2003a, Macroeconomics from the Beginning: The General Theory, Ancient Markets, and the Rate of Interest, Civilisations du Proche‑Orient, Série IV, Histoire – Essais 2, Neuchâtel-Paris.

Warburton D.A. 2003b, “Les valeurs commerciales et idéologiques au Proche‑Orient ancien”, La Pensée 336 (décembre), p. 101‑112.

Warburton D.A. 2005, “Le marché en Égypte ancienne à l’âge du Bronze (2500‑1200 av. J.‑C.)”, in G. Bensimon (ed.), Histoire des représentations du marché, Paris, p. 631‑651.

Warburton D.A. 2014, “Theoretical Aspects of Bronze Age Exchange: Values and Prices”, in M. Casanova and M. Feldman (ed.), Les produits de luxe au Proche-Orient, aux âges du Bronze et du Fer, Paris, p. 125‑134.

Notes

1 Aruz 2003; Aruz, Benzel and Evans 2008; Casanova and Feldman 2014; Potts 1994.

2 Aruz 2003; Aruz, Benzel and Evans 2008; Caubet 1994.

3 Warburton 2003b; Casanova 2006.

4 Warburton 2003a, p. 49, 64, 118‑120; Warburton 2014, p. 125‑127.

5 Warburton 2005, p. 641.

6 Lamberg-Karlovsky and Sabloff 1975; Rowlands, Mogens and Kristiansen 1987; Norel 2009, p. 87‑88; Warburton 2003a, p. 118‑120.

7 Kohl 1975; Kohl 1978; Crawford 2004, chapter 7; Gunder Frank 1993; Margueron and Pfirsch 1996, p. 95‑96.

8 Jacobsen 1987, p. 275.

9 Casanova 2013; Casanova 2014.

10 Joannès 1991; Michel 1996.

11 Jacobsen 1987, p. 362.

12 Durand 2000, p. 15.

13 Michel 1999, p. 416, n. 93, ARMT XXV 154 & ARMT XXV 118. English translation by David Warburton.

14 Michel 1999, p. 413‑414, 423. English translation by David Warburton.

15 Casanova 2013; Warburton 2014, p. 129‑130.

16 Michel 1999, p. 416; Joannès 1991.

17 Sajjadi 2003; Majidzadeh 2003; Pittman 2013; Pittman 2014.

18 Aruz 2003; Aruz, Benzel and Evans 2008.

19 Amiet 1986; Pittman 2013; Pittman 2014.

20 Lamberg-Karlovsky 1976; Lamberg-Karlovsky and Tosi 1973.

21 Tosi 1974a; Tosi 1974b; Tosi and Piperno 1973; Hakemi 1997; Majidzadeh 1982; Majidzadeh 2003; Casanova 1991; Casanova 2013; Casanova and Piran 2012.

22 Helwing 2014.

23 Cleuziou 2003, p. 114‑125; Ligabue and Salvatori 1989; Casanova 2008b; Pittman 1984.

24 Bisson de la Roque 1937; Bisson de la Roque, Contenau and Chapouthier 1953.

25 Pierrat‑Bonnefois 1999; Porada 1982.

26 Casanova 2008a; Casanova 2013.

27 Casanova 2008a; Casanova et al. 2015.

28 Jacobsen 1987, p. 205; Speiser 1969, p. 106.

29 Michel 1999, p. 416, n. 93, ARMT XXV 154 & ARMT XXV 118.

30 Kramer 1969, p. 53.

31 Speiser 1969, p. 106.

32 André-Salvini 1999.

33 Michel 1999, p. 407, 413‑414, 421, 423; Birot 1960, p. 209, 310‑311; Warburton 2014, p. 128‑129.

34 Michel 1996; Michel 1999; Joannès 1991; Casanova 2006.

Table des illustrations

Titre Fig. 1 – Lapis lazuli in the ancient Near East, map: M. Casanova, DAO: H. David.
URL http://books.openedition.org/momeditions/docannexe/image/8176/img-1.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 1,0M

Auteur

Université Lumière Lyon 2, UMR 5133-Archéorient, Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée, 7 rue Raulin, 69007 Lyon