attractive or superior product by local craftsmen is also well attested in pottery manu-
facture. These factors make the attribution of a place of origin to a manufactured item
on stylistic grounds alone unreliable.
Between the two poles of foraging and gift-giving is what might be called standard
trade – trade that is the commercial exchange of goods which takes place on a regular
basis and where each party sees themselves as satisfied with the outcome. It is on that
mechanism that this chapter will concentrate.
Mesopotamia provides an excellent example to illustrate Finlay’s dictum that “Imports
alone motivated trade, never exports” (Finlay 1954 : 65 ). In south Mesopotamia, true trade
was focused on the importation of the raw materials which the region lacked, notably
metals, high-quality timber and both building and semi-precious stones. Metals were
probably carried in semi-processed form, partly to reduce weight, and partly no doubt
because of the lack of high-quality fuel necessary for smelting in Mesopotamia; semi-
precious stones also travelled in the same way. A few finished luxury goods such as etched
carnelian beads or chlorite and calcite vessels were also traded, though many other high-
value items were made of imported exotic materials in workshops in Sumer itself to suit
local tastes.
Such materials were acquired in exchange for manufactured goods, mainly textiles,
foodstuffs and oils. Cereals do not seem to have played a major role, probably because
of the difficulty of transporting such bulky items by land over long distances (Potts
1997 : chapter V for the carrying capacity of early boats in Mesopotamia). Where
possible, transport by boat was preferred as land transport was slow and cumbersome.
The waterways of Mesopotamia are well known and, in addition, the head of the Gulf
was considerably further inland during the Sumerian period. The Karun River, which
today runs into the Shatt al-Arab, may have been navigable making transport to and
from Elam possible by boat, while in north Mesopotamia the Balikh, the Habur and
the Jaghjagh were probably navigable for much of the year (Quenet 2008 : 17 ). The
Euphrates was the major north–south artery of communication as the current powered
downstream movement while, at least by the Ur III period, conscripts could be used
to haul boats upstream (Lafont 2008 : 32 – 33 ). The domestication of the donkey by the
later Uruk period at latest made bulk transport by land somewhat easier (Payne 1988 :
100 ), but much of the terrain was difficult and sleds and carts with solid wheels made
progress slow. Valuable goods were no doubt still carried by men in packs on their
backs.
As well as material goods, technologies and ideas also crossed borders. The most
significant of these was arguably the cuneiform script and the associated scribal
methods of record keeping. Together they paved the way for the easier storage and
transmission of knowledge, as well as goods, across time and space thus linking people
regardless of distance. By the middle of the third millennium, the cuneiform script was
to be found over a swathe of territory which included Turkey and Iran.
Sometimes it is only from the presence of textual evidence that we can identify with
certainty the methods used to acquire goods, though the texts are not infallible either.
Rulers may record trade goods as tribute, or disguise them as royal gifts from neigh-
bouring kings, when trade would be a more accurate description. The nature and
quantity of goods may also provide an insight. A sprinkling of exotic stones in high-
status graves may not have arrived by the same mechanism as large quantities of lead
or copper for utilitarian tools. It is also recognised that several mechanisms were
–– Harriet Crawford ––