Anatolian archaeology because so much of it has indeed been discovered in mortuary
and other kinds of depositional contexts like the so-called “treasure deposits” of
Troy or the “royal tombs” of Alacahöyük, and because many of these objects share
comparanda with forms that were first identified in Mesopotamia, in particular from
the ED III royal cemetery of Ur. Forms like the spiral and basket earrings/pendants
identified in Anatolian contexts seemed to have obvious prototypes in Mesopotamian
examples (Bass 1966 ); nevertheless, these and other forms that clearly belong to a
metallurgical koineacross Western Asia and the eastern Mediterranean, and subsequent
excavations in Anatolia with fewer new finds from Syro Mesopotamia (Özgüç and
Temizer 1993 : 623 ), eroding the assumption that advances in (metallurgical) technology
must radiate from Mesopotamia. The consensus currently is that metallurgical
innovations occurred in the highlands of Anatolia and Iran and proceeded to define
metallurgical trends across the greater region (see for discussion and references
Bachhuber 2011 : 158 – 160 ).
Archaeologists can be reasonably confident that metal circulated over long distances
during the EBA; at least some of this circulation was related to the mineral-deficient
landscapes of Syro-Mesopotamia and resulting demands for metal mined in the
highland regions of Anatolia, Iran, and the Caucasus. Networks of metal exchange
across Anatolia might be traceable in the distribution of object types like Syrian Bottles
or depas cups (Figures 26. 3 and 26. 4 ), but these are indirect and imprecise indicators
of metal flow. Additionally, our grasp of regional metallurgical workshops is tenuous
during the third millennium; the applicability of lead isotope analysis for determining
the provenance of metal ores remains controversial,^2 and largely untested on the
Anatolian, Syrian, and Iraqi corpora from the third millennium. Neither the form nor
the content of metal objects from the third millennium are reliable indicators of the
distant origins of a metal object.
The most useful approach for assessing the exchange of metal over long distances
is with an analysis of objects that were used in the process of exchange: pan balance
weights and ingots. The former were used to weigh metal in order to determine/
measure value; the latter were used to transport metal over long distances. The
distribution of pan balance weights across western Asia during the mid- to late third
millennium is closely related to the earliest textual attestation of weight metrology in
the texts of ED III and Ur III Mesopotamia. Sumerian archives reveal that the weight
of metal (in particular silver) was chosen by temple administrations as the primary
standard to measure the value of materials, land, and labour, no later than the middle
third millennium BC. Sumerian temples established value equivalencies based on the
weight of metal, so, for example, in Ur III texts 1 shekel of silver = 1 gurof barley. Either
the weight of silver or volume of barley could have been used to measure the value of
any commodity, though prices in the weight of silver were the far more frequent
(Steinkeller 1989 : 134 – 135 ).
The standardization of value requires instruments to measure value; these
instruments are archaeologically visible in the third millennium and have been the
focus of considerable recent scholarship. The most archaeologically pervasive is a small
hard, polished stone (often hematite) often with one or more flat surfaces, and which
is sometimes notched, incised or inscribed. When weights, or more specifically pan
balance weights, began to be used to measure value is debated (Rahmstorf 2007 ).
Certainly the geographical range and quantity of objects convincingly interpreted as
–– Sumer, Akkad, Ebla and Anatolia ––