THE EUPHRATES ROUTEThe ‘Uruk’ route up the Euphrates is reopened in ED I/II and the newly founded city
of Mari has provided many examples of the ties between this region and the Sumerian
plain, especially in the stylistic characteristics of statuary and seals and, above all, in
its use of the cuneiform script. We may guess that by ED III relations between the
states were generally friendly, Mes-anne-padda of Ur even dedicated a fine lapis bead
inscribed with his name which was found in the courtyard of the Mari palace temple
(Frayne 2008 : E 1. 13. 5 , 391 ). Mari’s geographical situation allowed it to play a major role
as a forwarding agent for goods and materials originating in Anatolia and the Levant.
These included copper and high-quality building timber and enabled Mari to establish
a close relationship with the Sumerian plain. It was not alone in this as other sites in
north Mesopotamia such as Ebla and Chuera also demonstrate similar influences,
although the links do not seem to have been so close (Quenet 2008 : 214 ).THE SOUTHEAST AND IRAN
At about the same time, in ED I/II, direct contact seems to have been re-established
with Susa, although contacts with highland Iran were much more tenuous, in spite of
the famous literary composition (the story of Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta) which
tells of the Sumerian ruler’s search for lapis and carnelian to decorate his temple for
Inanna (Potts T. 1994 : 281 ). Susa shows a similar range of Sumerian influences as those
seen at Mari, but sadly the evidence for this period of time is poor owing to later
building activity on the site (Potts D.T. 1999 : 93 ). Susa may have been the transit point
for material from further north and east such as the lapis lazuli, which is found in large
quantities in the royal graves at Ur, precious metals, the ‘chlorite’^3 containers referred
to above, and finished calcite vessels.
The trade in one type of chlorite vessels, decorated in what is known as the
Intercultural style, illustrates, clearly the complexity of the trading networks in the
third millennium and the variety of ways in which the same prestige materials could
arrive in Sumer. It is possible to group the material broadly known as chlorite by
geophysical analysis, at least in general terms, and it is clear that vessels from at least
three different sources were brought in. Two of these sources were in southwest Iran
and at least one in the Arabian peninsula (Kohl 1975 ). There are also several known
manufacturing centres in Iran: one at Tepe Yahya, one recently discovered at Jiroft, and
one at Tarut in the Eastern province of Arabia. These centres are not necessarily exactly
contemporary. It is remarkable that the iconography is similar on products of all the
known centres and that its roots seem to lie in Iran rather than Mesopotamia. (There
are other groups of chlorite vessels which apparently originate in Eastern Iran and
central Asia. These include square boxes, other compartmented vessels and flasks.) The
highly decorated Intercultural style vessels show magnificent scenes of writhing snakes,
mythical animals, kilted humans and architectural decoration. Some figures are
enhanced with inlays of brightly coloured semi-precious stones. They were apparently
specially prized in Sumer as dedicatory offerings and are frequently found in temples
(Potts T. 1994 : 250 ff.).
How they were acquired is not precisely known, they seem to have arrived by at least
two different routes: up the Gulf and from Susa. The recent findings of Early Dynastic
–– Trade in the Sumerian world ––