Treasure deposit C from late Troy II–III (Schliemann 1880 : no. 821 ). Several silver
“Zungenbarren” forms were also recovered from Treasure A (Schliemann 1880 :
nos. 787 – 792 ). The regular notching on five electrum bar ingots from Treasure F has
been convincingly interpreted as a kind of mensuration based on units of 5 – 5. 5 g
(Bobokhyan 2007 : 87 – 90 , table 5 ). From Polioichni, similar forms of ingots were
identified in contexts contemporary with late Troy II–III (Poliochni Giallo; Bernabò-
Brea 1976 : pl. CCLIIIj–l; see Figure 26. 2 ). Silver plano-convex forms were deposited in
a roughly contemporary hoard at Mahmatlar (Kos ̧ay and Akok 1950 ) in north-central
Anatolia, and a lead “ingot” was reported in another roughly contemporary context
at Göltepe (Phase II) in the Central Taurus mountains north of Cilicia (Yener 1994 : 34 ;
no photograph or description). Molds for all these forms have been identified in several
contemporary EBA contexts across Anatolia (Müller-Karpe 1994 : 141 ).
Evidence for weight metrology and ingots in EBA Anatolia clearly reveals the
commodification of metal in this region and time period. The commodification of
metal achieved the singular, overarching end of facilitating the flow of metal; not a little
of the metal that was mined in EBA Anatolia flowed through networks traceable in
the archaeological evidence for the use of metrology towards the coffers of palaces
and temples in Syro-Mesopotamia. There nevertheless remains a crucial, if nagging,
problem related to these abstract networks that joined the regions of Anatolia and Syro-
Mesopotamia during the EBA. Metrology can inform how metal was valued, and the
identification of ingots can inform how it was transported, but these objects do not
inform how metal was exchanged.
A SOCIAL CONTEXT FOR THE CIRCULATION
OF METAL AND OTHER COMMODITIES
The majority of the literature on exchange in EBA Anatolia draws explicit or implicit
analogies with MBA networks documented in the Kültepe-Kanisˇ Assyrian archives. I
have already questioned here whether this is appropriate. I have emphasized that there
is no textual or archaeological evidence that conclusively demonstrates the presence of
Eblaite, Akkadian or otherwise Syro-Mesopotamian merchants in EBA Anatolia. For
similar reasons archaeologists should be cautious when confidently reconstructing
direct associations with the manufacturers of imported objects and materials. The
appeal and potency of exotic objects like the Akkadian cylinder seals from an EBA
context at Seyitömer probably derived from what Helms ( 1988 : 15 ) has called a
“symbolically charged geographical distance.” However, these interpretations risk
imposing archaeological knowledge of the origins of exotic objects and materials onto
the knowledge of the ancient consumers of exotic objects and materials. Associations
with distant urban elites may have been diluted by a more complex network ostensibly
resembling Renfrew’s well-known formulation of a “down the line” prestige chain
( 1972 : 465 – 468 ; see also Bachhuber 2011 : 166 ).
This prestige chain was likely mediated by relationships and interactions based on
gift exchange. The royal archives from Ebla are very clear that desirable materials and
commodities were delivered in politically motivated contexts over long distances (see
Viganò 1996 : 57 – 60 ). The archives are most detailed in connection with two kinds of
long distance commodity transfer: tribute demanded from vassals and consigned to the
treasuries and storehouses of palaces and temples (Sumerian mu-DU); and gifts–– Sumer, Akkad, Ebla and Anatolia ––