Page 96 - DILMUN 12

I

The period in Eastern Arabia, in which Makan rose to a position of main trading area for a
large sortiment of wares, is belter documented. The people from the East-Mcluhha-and from
the North-Sumcr-droppcd anchor in Makan. Sumerian remains arc few in number, due to the
“invisible goods” (which leave no material archaeological traces). Additionally the Sumerian
sailors did not have to wait for the monsoon winds in order to return to home ports, so that
their stay in Makan would not be as long as for merchants and seamen of Mcluhha. Newer
archaeological researches in East Arabia have brought many finds to light, which arc related to
the presence of Indus valley people. In the settlements Hili 813 and Maysar-114, both of which
have been investigated, Indus Valley pottery is frequently found. Seals with Indus Valley
script and typical iconography15 indicate influences in Makan down to the level of business
organization. Marks identifying pottery in Makan were taken from those used in the Indus
Valley, right down to using the signs on pottery used in the Indus Valley.16 The discovery of a
sea-port —which may be ascribed to the Harappans — at Ra’s al-Junayz on Oman’s East
Coast by an Italian Expedition17 would seem to indicate, that trade routes should be viewed in
a more differentiated fashion than has been done up to now.

It should be presumed that several routes existed: in addition to the route through the Straits
of Hormuz, with landings at the (politically acceptable) ports; it can also be postulated that
landings were made on the East Coast of Oman and further transport of goods carried out
overland to the Northern Coast. This route would explain the large number of Harappan
remains in the Oman Interior Basin area. Whether it is better, in the sense of marine
navigation, to first land on the Arabian East Coast and later to sail through the Straits of
Hormuz, is a question which can be answered by those having a knowledge of prehistoric
seafaring.

Although Meluhha and Makan disappear from Mesopotamian written records from the
beginning of the 2nd millenium, the archaeological records testify to the existence of both
peoples and their connectionsas far as Dilmun. The finds have not yet been exactly correlated
with specific trade periods. However it is clear that such finds do document these connections
at the beginning of the 2nd millcnium, as proved by the find at Ras al-Junayz and the seals
discovered at Maysar-1 (Oman) and Al-Hajir (Bahrain). With the end of Harappan culture,
the Western countries are no longer ports of call18. Makan lost contact with the East and the
islands of the North. The period of cultural and economic climax, which was supported by
people of the Indus Valley, decayed in Makan and Bahrain. The simultaneous redirecting
toward the West, for example copper provided by Alasia in Cyprus, led to Makan being shut
off from Mesopotamia’s development for almost the next 1,500 years. Contacts and influences
prevailed however in Bahrain, as this island lies in the sphere of influence of Mesopotamia.
Bahrain would, nevertheless, never again control the Gulf in later periods.

Note : This article was translated from German into English by Ms.Annc-Marie Martin.

REFERENCES

1. For general informations see Geoffrey Bibby, Looking for Dilmun. London, 1970; James D. Muhly,
Copper and Tin, Transactions ofthe ConnecticutAcademy ofArts and Sciences, New Haven, Connecticut,
vol. 43.1973, p. 155-535 and 46, 1976, p. 77-136.

2. Carl C.Lamberg-Karlovsky, Trade Mechanisms in Indus-Mesopotamian interrelations,
Journ. American Oriental Soc., Vol 92, 1972, p.222-229; M.E.L. Mallowan, The mechanics of ancient
trade in western Asia, Reflections on the location of Magan and Meluhha, Iran, 3, 1965, p. 1-8.

3. Gerd G. Koenig, Fruhbyzantinische und sassanidische Munzen in China. Geld aus China Fuhrer des
Rheinischen Landesmuseums Bonn Nr.. 108, Koln 1982; A.L. Oppenheim, The Seafaring Merchants of
Ur. Journ. American Oriental Soc., vol.74, pp.6-17.

9