Page 97 - DILMUN 12

transit trade was completely in the hands of Dilmun’s merchants. Of course contacts between
people of Mesopotamia and Makan and Mcluhha while in Dilmun were taken up; the Dilmun
traders however were sure to secure their part of transit profits. The wares themselves from the
South and (“invisible wares” of the) North remained the same; however more ivory and
tortoise-shell was exported to Sumer.

This period was the height of Dilmun’s prosperity; wares from various cultures were
traded on the island. Both the goods and the foreign merchants trading in Dilmun’s markets
influenced forms of trade. The cuneiform characters had been taken over from the Sumerians,
but the system of weights used in barter derived from the Indus Valley culture". Spreading out
from Dilmun, this system of weights became very popular and was used as far away as Ebla in
Syria. Merchants arc pragmatists and each exchange leads to profit.

Dilmun is mentioned for the last time in written records, during the reign of Samsu’liluma
in the year 1744 BC, with the entry ... “12 measures of purified copper from Alasia and
Dilmun”. With this notice, the new supplier of copper is also mentioned; Alasia (Cyprus)
would control the Mediterranean and Near Eastern market for copper for the next millenium.
Alasia’s rise did not occur in isolation; obviously a lengthy scries of crises led to the collapse of
the existing system in the East. Dilmun (not like Dahlak) ceased not to exist; Tukulti-Ninurta
refers to himself as “King of the Upper and Lower Seas” and ruler over Dilmun and Meluhha.
However, Mcluhha and Makan are no longer referred to in written records in the old sense.

Do the events in the Gulf reflect experience, such as those illustrated at the beginning of
this report for Dahalak and the Silk Road? The answer seems to be “Yes”; just as on the island
of Dahlak, the inhabitants of Dilmun seemed to have taken advantage of their favourable
geographic situation. At a time, when it was possible to make use of a political situation, the
Dilmun merchants developed a power base for their own profit within a network of intema-
ional trade relations. As in the case of Dahlak, such a position is very sensitive to changes in
• political and economic conditions, leading to the relapse of Dilmun into a subordinate role. In
Dilmun/Bahrain the natural living conditions were so propitious, that both before and after
the rise to power, larger settlements continued to exist.

Drawing conlusions from the history of trading silk over sea-routes, where cultural
remains of the peoples involved in trading can be found at the market settlements, the question
arises : Is this the case for Dilmun/Bahrain?

Text analysis showed that direct trade contacts between Makan and Meluhha and Sumer
existed from the middle of the 3rd millenium .These contacts were broken by the rapid rise of
Dilmun to a monopole trade center. As a consequence, there should be relatively few physical
remains of the Makan and Meluhha merchants in Mesopotamia. The physical geography of
Mesopotamia has also changed considerably since ancient times — the coast has continually
been built up into the Gulf and rivers have changed their courses. From the viewpoint of
Archaeology it can be stated, that often no cognizance was taken during earlier excavations of
the existence of a few “unusual” sherds. Therefore, it is not surprising, that few remains bear
witness to the presence of foreign merchants on Mesopotamian soil. The actual wares traded
have long since vanished, or been re-worked, or — as in the case of lapis lazuli — cannot be
directly ascribed to sea-trade. Only the written souces tell us about the existence of foreigners
in Mesopotamia: “translators from Meluhha”, “Meluhha village”.12

8