from the mountains made its way northwards to Umm an-Nar island, along the oasis
chain inland of the mountains (e.g. via Hili 8 ). Mesopotamian boats also made their
way over to the east coast. ED III Mesopotamian pottery found as far away as Bilad
Bani Bu Hasan in the Sharqiyah region (Edens 2008 : 176 , 180 and fig. 2 : 1 ), while at
RJ- 2 (Ras al-Jinz) fragments of impressed bitumen from around 2300 BC are
identifiable as Mesopotamian boat remains (Connan et al. 2005 ). The bitumen is of
Mesopotamian origin, as is the boat-building technology (bitumen amalgam spread
over a reed-bundle hull), which corresponds to the construction of the ‘Magan-boats’
known from later (Ur III) shipyards in southern Mesopotamia (Zarins 2008 ; Cleuziou
and Tosi 2000 ). These Mesopotamian boats were already engaged in trade with the
Indus Valley Civilization as well as the Oman Peninsula, as demonstrated by numerous
Indus-related finds in the region dating to the last three centuries of the millennium.
Akkadian to Isin-Larsa periodSargon of Akkad boasted that he made the Dilmun-boats, Magan-boats and Meluhha-
boats dock at his quay. The economic texts of the Akkadian period reveal continuing
trade with Dilmun, with one text recording flour being loaded onto a Dilmun-boat,
and another showing flour disbursed to an official for a Dilmun-boat. Documents
mention caulking a Dilmun-boat and workers assigned to a Dilmun-boat depot (Potts
1990 : 184 ). There are also Akkadian period references to Magan, concerning copper.
These include copper being brought to the palace at Tello from Magan, a reference to
Magan-copper being removed from a house, a mention of a bronze object from Magan,
and reference to a courier from Magan (D.T. Potts 1990 : 137 ). Mesopotamian ceramics
comprise at least 10 per cent of the assemblage in the first phase at Qala’at al-Bahrain
(period 1 a), thought to be of Akkadian date (Laursen 2011 : 32 ). In the Lower Gulf, the
warehouse site on Umm an-Nar island was still active, while 55 per cent of the
Akkadian metal artefacts analysed by Begemann at al. contained Omani copper
(Begemann et al. 2010 : tab. 5 ).
The Ur III period saw the heyday of the Mayan trade, which Ur-Nammu claimed
to have restored. Dilmun disappears from the texts, but evidence from the burial
mounds of Bahrain and Qala’at al-Bahrain shows that it remained in contact with both
Mesopotamia and the Oman Peninsula (Laursen 2009 , Laursen 2011 ). It is likely that
the majority of goods passed through Bahrain and/or the Eastern Province, even
though Mesopotamian merchants now traded directly with the Oman Peninsula.
A distinctive type of Mesopotamian vessel, Laursen’s Type 1 , is a strong correlate of the
Magan trade of the Ur III state, and is widely distributed in Bahrain, the Oman
Peninsula, Tarut and Failaka (Laursen 2011 : 45 , and fig. 9 ). The lack of mention of
Dilmun as a trading partner may be due to its likely incorporation into the Ur III
empire (see below).
There is no space to go into the activities of the Ur III merchant Lu-Enlilla in the
Magan trade, which have been well summarised by Oppenheim, Potts and others
(Oppenheim 1954 ; D.T. Potts 1990 : 145 – 148 ), save to note that he received large
amounts of garments, wool, oil and leather from the temple of Nanna in order to trade
for copper in Magan (Weeks 2003 : 16 ; Heimpel 1987 : 80 – 81 , texts 43 , 46 , 47 ). Another
text shows that he gave a tithe of the goods obtained on a trip to Magan to the same
temple, including copper, semi-precious stones, ivory and ‘Magan-onions’.
–– Robert Carter ––