Thomas R.

Gensheimer

The Role of shell in Mesopotamia : evidence for trade exchange with Oman and the Indus Valley
In: Palorient. 1984, Vol. 10 N1. pp. 65-73.

Abstract Shell artifacts from major Mesopotamian sites of the 4th and 3rd millennia B.C. are critically reexamined in terms of their role in Mesopotamian contexts and their value as indicators of external trade/exchange contacts. Different shell species used in the manufacture of specific objects are identified along with their possible source areas. The Gulf of Oman and the Indus coast can be identified as source areas on the basis of certain indicator species. The importance of shell as a trade commodity is discussed in terms of Mesopotamian maritime trade with Oman and the Indus Valley Civilization. Rsum Les objets en coquille provenant de grands sites msopotamiens des 4e et 3e millnaires font l'objet d'un rexamen critique en fonction de leur rle dans diffrents contextes msopotamiens et de leur signification comme indices d'change et/ou de commerce. Les diffrentes espces de coquillages utiliss dans la fabrication d'objets spcifiques sont identifis ainsi que l'est leur origine possible, le Golfe d'Oman et la cte prs de l'embouchure de l'indus. Enfin est discute l'importance des coquillages dans le commerce maritime entre la Msopotamie, Oman et la Valle de l'indus.

Citer ce document / Cite this document : Gensheimer Thomas R. The Role of shell in Mesopotamia : evidence for trade exchange with Oman and the Indus Valley. In: Palorient. 1984, Vol. 10 N1. pp. 65-73. doi : 10.3406/paleo.1984.4350 http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/paleo_0153-9345_1984_num_10_1_4350

PALORIENT. vol. 10/1-1984 THE ROLE OF SHELL IN MESOPOTAMIA EVIDENCE FOR TRADE EXCHANGE WITH OMAN AND THE INDUS VALLEY T.R. GENSHEIMER ABSTRACT. Shell artifacts from major Mesopotamian sites of the 4th and 3rd millennia B.C. are critically reexamined in terms of their role in Mesopotamian contexts and their value as indicators of external trade/exchange contacts. Different shell species used in the manufacture of specific objects are identified along with their possible source areas. The Gulf of Oman and the Indus coast can be identified as source areas on the basis of certain indicator species. The importance of shell as a trade commodity is discussed in terms of Mesopotamian maritime trade with Oman and the Indus Valley Civilization. RSUM. Les objets en coquille provenant de grands sites msopotamiens des 4" et 3e millnaires font l'objet d'un rexamen critique en fonction de leur rle dans diffrents contextes msopotamiens et de leur signification comme indices d'change et/ ou de commerce. Les diffrentes espces de coquillages utiliss dans la fabrication d'objets spcifiques sont identifis ainsi que l'est leur origine possible, le Golfe d'Oman et la cte prs de l'embouchure de l'indus. Enfin est discute l'importance des coquillages dans le commerce maritime entre la Msopotamie, Oman et la Valle de l'indus. often lack the diagnostic features necessary for identification. Once a shell species has been identi fied however, there is the problem of defining its present source area and then reconstructing the potential ancient source areas. Due to a lack of problem oriented surveys within the Persian/ Ara bian Gulf (hereafter referred to as the Gulf), it has been difficult to make conclusive statements about the presence or absence of certain important species during the fourth and third millennia B.C., but on the basis of negative evidence we can reconstruct some basic distribution patterns. It can be assumed that many of the smaller gastropods and bivalves that are now common in the silty-salty Gulf, were also available in this region in ancient times, e.g. Conidae, Neritidae, Olividae, Arcidae, Spondulidae, Cardiidae, etc. Other shell artifacts can be identified as having been made from species that have more limited distributions in the eastern Gulf, in the Gulf of Oman or even further east along the coasts of the Indian subcontinent. The most important of these species are described below. Engina mendicaria L. is a small, banded gastro pod is found scattered along both sides of the that Gulf, but primarily at its far eastern edge, being more prevalent in the Gulf of Oman and along the western Makran coast (1). This species grows to about 25 mm in length and they were usually perforated to be worn as beads or pendants (PI. I a). Fasciolaria trapezium L. is a fairly large gastropod (150 to 200 mm) with a series of short tubercules on the shoulder of the body whorl (fig. 2:1a), and the central columella has 2 or 3 distinctive ridges or folds. Although this species generally lives in rocky (1) DURANTE. 1975 2 65 :

INTRODUCTION In prehistory, much as in later times, molluscs were an important resource exploited throughout the world. Their shells, particularly those of marine species, have been used to make various utilitarian and ornamental objects, many of which may also have served specific socio-ritual functions. Technol ogies were developed to effectively process this raw material, with different techniques for processing the various species. Because of their morphology, some species are better suited for the manufacture of particular kinds of objects, while others appear to have been collected for their unique colors or shapes. The demand for particular shell species in areas away from the source, inevitably led to the development of distribution networks between the source areas and distant inland consumers. Tracing the movement of these species from their source areas to their occurrence at sites can help to reconst ructintercultural connections and clarify the me chanisms by which this exchange functioned and changed over time. By a more detailed examination of the role of shell in the arts and rituals of Mesopotamia and by the study of the specific source areas, it has been possible to present a new under standing of their importance to trade and exchange during the fourth and third millennia B.C. IMPORTANT SHELL SPECIES One of the first problems in identifying a shell species in the archaeological context is the fact that many shell artifacts are cut from larger shells and

CASPIAN SEA

MODERN CITY Ancient Site

FIG. 1 Fasciolaria trapezium la Turbine la pyrum I

Lambis truncata sebae

Chicoreus ramosus

FIG. 2 areas or along coral reefs, it can also be found on sandy ocean bottoms. F. trapezium has a widespread distribution in the Arabian Sea, being common in 66 the Gulf of Kutch and in the Gulf of Oman, but not so common along the Makran coast. Although it is possible that this species existed in the Gulf itself, it

was probably uncommon since it is now very rare or possibly extinct (2). Lambis truncata sebae (Kiener) is a slightly larger (up to 300 mm) and more massive gastropod with 6 or 7 characteristic digitations extending from its outer lip (fig. 2; PI. I a). Except for the thick accu mulations on the outer lip, the remainder of this shell is quite thin, with relatively weak sutures and a thin columella. This species lives on sandy or rubble bottoms from the intertidal zone up to 10 meters, and prefers the seaward side of reefs (3). The distribution of this species in our area of concern is restricted to the coast of Oman (4) where it is relatively common, and occasional specimens have been recovered from the Karachi coast and the Gulf of Kutch (5). No major populations have been reported from inside the Gulf itself though Smythe suggests that they may occur along the Iranian coast which has not been properly surveyed yet (6). Chicoreus ramosus (L.) is another large gastropod characterized by an inflated body whorl and covered with sets of curving spines and numerous small tubercules (fig. 2; 4 a). This species lives in rocky areas or coral reefs and is common on the southern shores of the Gulf of Kutch (India), becoming less common further west along the Sindh and Makran coasts (Pakistan). In the Gulf of Oman however, it is quite common near Muscat, but it is extinct or rare in the Gulf itself (fig. 1)(7). Turbinella pyrum (L.) is one of the most important gastropods in this discussion, and though it was commonly used as a raw material in the Indus Valley, it was quite rare in Mesopotamia. This species is about the same size as Fasciolaria trape zium but it has an ovate shape and an extremely thick body whorl that spirals around a massive columella (fig. 2; 2 a). This columella has distinctive columellar ridges that are very diferent from those of F. trapezium (fig. 2; 2 b). T. pyrum lives on sandy bottoms in the shallow littoral zone and its distribu tionlimited to the waters of the Indian subcontin is ent.is quite common in the Gulf of Kutch and It along the coast just west of Karachi, but on the Makran coast it is only found up to Pasni (8). Studies of geomorphological changes along the coastal areas of India and Pakistan have shown that the major habitat areas for these important species have not been significantly altered since the 4th and 3rd millennia B.C. Although there is a lack of similar studies within the Gulf, we can assume that the high salinity and silt content of the waters inside the Gulf would have been an important factor towards the exclusion of (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) KENOYER. 1983 a il. ABBOTT. 1959-1976 156. Ibid. 155. KENOYER. pers. comm. SMYTHE. pers. comm. KENOYER. 1983 a 8-9; SMYTHE. 1982 59. KENOYER. 1983 a 5-6. : : : 67

larger gastropod populations. Furthermore, the possible existence of any isolated populations would have been relatively insignificant for commercial exploitation, in view of the accessibility to other resource areas in the Gulf of Oman. It can be assumed that Engina mendicaria, Fasciolaria trape zium, Lambis truncata sebae and Chicoreus ramosus were being collected from the Gulf of Oman and possibly in the eastern end of the Gulf (fig. 1). Turbinella pyrum on the other hand could only have been acquired from the coastal areas of the Indus Civilization. SHELL USE IN MESOPOTAMIA In Mesopotamia, the use of distinctive shells as ornaments can be traced back to the Neolithic and Early Chalcolithic periods. Of particular note are ground shell disc beads that are a common feature in shell assemblages at many grave sites in southern Mesopotamia (9) and they are also found at sites throughout the Iranian Plateau and even as far east as Mehrgarh, Pakistan. This widespread distribution suggests the presence of numerous overlapping trade/exchange networks that connected the Gulf coast with the distant inland sites, beginning as early as the seventh millennium B.C. (12). By the end of the fourth and the beginning of the third millennia we find extensive use of shell in Mesopotamia in both natural and highly worked forms. There are indications that shell may have held certain religious and ritual significance since they have been found in the foundations of temples and are mentioned in magical texts as having prophylact ic and protective powers (13). In the priest's quart ers at Mari the occurrence of shell pendants, unworked shell bracelets or rings and pottery with shell inlay may be taken as further evidence for the ritual value attached to shell objects. Marine shells were also commonly used as grave goods, either to indicate wealth or as amulets. Pendants and beads made from Engina mendicaria, Conus ebraeus, various cowries and other small gastropods were quite common in the graves at Tello(14), at Khafajah(15) and at most sites throughout Mesopotamia during this period. In the graves of the Royal Cemetery at Ur the women attendants wore belts of shell rings on their ceremon ial dresses (16) and this tradition was also seen in the Early Dynastic graves at Khafajah (17). Most of these shell rings appear to have been made from the (9) e.g. Eridu in SAFAR, 1981 125, fig. 68. (10) Tepe Yahya, LAMBERG-KARLOVSKY, 1970. (11) Fig. 3 a and JARR1GE and MEADOW, 1980. (12) KENOYER, 1983 b: 141-142. (13) AYNARD, 1966 32-33. (14) GENOUILLAC, 1934: 123. (15) McCOWN, 1967 98. (16) WOOLLEY, 1955 a 71. (17) McCOWN, 1967 98. : : : : :

FIGURE 3.

16

17

18

19

Plate I 68

spire of Conus shells (18) Cockle shells (Arcidae, Cardiidae sp., etc.) were often filled with various cosmetic paints and placed in many of the women's graves (19). The imitation of shell objects in precious metals and stone further attest to the socio-ritual impor tance that shell may have held. The grave of Queen Pu-abi contained two pairs of imitation cockle shells, one in gold and the other in silver (20), and the grave of Meskalamdug contained a gold lamp (21) which closely resembles the shell lamps made from Lambis truncata sebae. The Royal Cemetery at Ur provides many fine examples of the extent to which Mesopotamian craftsmen developed and refined the art of shell working during the Pre and Early Dynastic periods. The intricate shell inlays on the statuary and in the royal scenes of the Standard of Ur, the carved shell plaques used in decorating musical instruments and numerous carved pendants all bear this out. It should be pointed out however, that all of these objects are confined to elite contexts in temples or among other luxury items in grave offerings. SHELL ARTIFACTS AS INDICATORS OF TRADE In view of the fact that shell working and shell objects played an important role in the arts and rituals of Mesopotamia, it is important to note the specific species used for making different objects. One species that is easily identified is Engina mendicaria since it is generally perforated and used in necklaces as a bead or pendant. The importance of this species is the fact that its source appears to have been restricted to the eastern Gulf, the Makran coast and the Gulf of Oman. From these distant source areas it was traded as far inland as the site of Mari, in the Syrian desert, where it was used in necklaces (22). Similar small gastropods are seen on necklaces from burials at other sites, such as Tepe Gawra (23) and although some of them are definitely Conus sp. others appear to be Engina mendicaria. Although the reexamination of these previously excavated necklaces is hardly feasible, it is import ant note the importance of this species as an to important indicator of trade and exchange. Fasciolaria trapezium is another significant species used as a raw material at Mesopotamian sites. The outer portions of this shell were probably used for

manufacturing various types of inlay. Although it is often difficult to differentiate this species from others on the basis of published illustrations, this would be possible through a closer examination of the shell structure of particular inlay pieces. The solid, spiraling columella of this species was often ground and perforated to make long cylindrical beads and the distinctive columellar ridges are often visible even after working (fig. 2; 1 c). Numerous examples of these beads have been found at Warka (24), Kish (25) and one has been found in a pre-Sargonid grave from Tello (26). Another examp le reported from a Jamdet Nasr grave at Ur (27), is where two cylindrical shell beads were found on a necklace. One of the beads clearly shows the colu mellar ridges, but the other one has been ground and worn so that they are not distinguishable in the published illustration. It can be suggested that most of the long tubular or cylindrical shell beads report ed graves of this period (28) were probably from made from the columella of Fasciolaria trapezium. In addition to beads, the columella was used to make cylinder seals (29). Due to the relatively small diameter of the columella, the cylinder seals made from this species are characteristically long and thin, generally less than 25 mm in diameter. Another important shell species was the massive Lambis truncata sebae, which was used in the form of containers (fig. 2; 3 a, b) as well as for manufact uring pieces. From Pre-dynastic graves at Ur inlay we find many examples of this shell that have been hollowed out and incised or decorated with in lay (30). One of the more elaborate examples had a modeled and inlayed head of a duck attached to the apex and the hollow shell formed the duck's body (31). It should be pointed out that although these objects are commonly referred to as lamps, there is no indication of their having been used in this capacity. The absence of burning at the ed ges (32) and the rounded bottoms (33) have been cited in the past, but unfortunately the inappropriate label has been perpetuated. Looking closely at these shells it is quite evident that the downturned tip is better suited for pouring rather than holding a wick, since the oil would tend to leak out of the lamp as it was drawn up by the wick. Woolley's original suggestion was that they may have been used for libations or for pouring unguents (34) and Mackay suggests a similar use for almost identical shell containers found in the Indus Civilization (35). (24) (25) (26) (27) (28) (29) (30) (31) (32) (33) (34) (35) 69 HEINRICH, 1936 PI. 31. WATELIN. 1934 PI. XIX. fig. 4. GENOUILLAC. 1934 PI. 34. fig. 3 WOOLLEY. 1955 b JNG 159 b. obj. n 19247. Ibid., JNG 158. Fig. 2:1a after WOOLLEY, 1934 b PI. 221. U 71. Ibid. PI. 101 a. Ibid. 531. Ibid. 283. WATELIN. 1934 26. WOOLLEY. 1934 b 283. MARSHALL. 1931 569. : : : : : : : : : : :

(18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23)

KENOYER. pers. comm. MOOREY. 1982 69. WOOLLEY. 1955 a 67. MOOREY. 1982 57. PARROT. 1956 168: fig. 503 a. TOBLER. 1950. vol. 11 :~P1. LV b. 3: PI. LV1I b. : : : :

All of these containers have had the digitations removed, but Woolley reports a carved alabaster "lamp" or container that still retains the distinctive digitations (36). He mistakenly described this piece as being an imitation of the "tridacna" shell, when in fact, the seven characteristic digitations along with the basic shape indicate that it was an imitation of a Lambis shell. As was the case with the "lamp" label, the term "tridacna" has been repeated in the literature when there is actually no evidence for the use of any of the tridacna bivalves for manufacturing such containers. Most of the containers do not have the thick digitations (finger-like projections) and the reason for this may be that these were sawn off to make small figurines or inlay plaques. Two examples of small carved faces were found in the chamber of priests at Mari (37) and close examination of the shell growth structures indicate that they were carved from the thick digitations of the Lambis shell. The wavey structure of the outer lip is so distinctive that it is also possible to identify this species from even small inlay pieces. Although most illustrations lack the necessary detail, an engraved shell plaque from Tel Al Ubaid clearly displays the wavey growth lines (38). It is not unreasonable to suggest that most of the larger plaques of shell inlay used in Mesopotamia were probably made from this species. Although Chicoreus ramosus was not a common shell in Mesopotamian assemblages two examples have been reported. One large shell was inscribed with the inscription "Rimu Lugal Kisi" and from Tello there is a large ladle that was fashioned from this species (39). As was pointed out earlier, these major species are either rare or completely absent in the Gulf itself and the nearest major source areas would have been in the Gulf of Oman. The occurrence of these species in Mesopotamian sites during the Proto and Early Dynastic periods coincides with the expansion of trade networks in the Gulf region and these shells were undoubtedly an important trade commodity. The raw shells may have been traded to Mesopota mian centers in their natural form or they urban could have been processed at coastal manufacturing sites, but until further research is done with these questions in mind it is difficult to come to any conclusions. Nevertheless, a brief look at the use of shell in the Indus Civilization and its contacts with the Gulf region may help sort out some of the important questions.

SHELL USE AND TRADE IN THE INDUS CIVILIZATION By the third millennium B.C. an important trade network had developed in the lower Indus Valley whereby whole shells were being distributed to distant inland sites. Although most of the trade was limited to sites of the Early Indus Period (40) some shells were being distributed to the adjacent regions, even as far as Shahr-i-Sokhta in Seistan (41). By about 2500 B.C. or slightly later the Harappan trade networks expanded to include the upper Indus Valley and shell manufacturing was done at northern sites such as Harappa and even Kalibangan (42). During the Mature Harappan period shell working became highly specialized, both in terms of techno logy in the types of artifacts being manufacture and d. Distinctive personal ornaments such as bangles, rings, pendants and beads were produced, along with a wide range of inlay, gaming pieces, animal figurines and even toy carts. Special types of ladles were made from Chicoreus ramosus and exquisitely carved and incised libation vessels were produced from Turbinella pyrum (43). The widespread use of shell at all Indus sites is indicative of the local abundance of shell resources and the effective trade networks, both internal and external, that supplied urban manufacturing centers with raw materials. The technology that was used in the different manufactur ing is quite uniform and a study of the centers unfinished shell artifacts and manufacturing waste indicate an optimal exploitation of specific shell species (44). Although the major raw materials were Turbinella pyrum and Chicoreus ramosus, the Harappans also used Fasciolaria trapezium and Lambis truncata sebae, particularly for the manufacture of inlay (45). The sawn fragments of Lambis from Mohenjo Daro (PI. I d) are probably quite similar to what would be found at shell working sites in Mesopotamia, a lthough none have been reported yet. Kenoyer sug gests that these last two shell species were being supplied to the Indus workshops from the distant source areas in the Gulf of Oman, and that they were only used in major urban centers. This interpretation is based on the fact that these species are not common along the local coasts of Kutch and Sindh and that none of the Harappan coastal sites used these species in their workshops (46). The exclusive use of these shells at large urban centers such as Mohenjo Daro and Harappa would indicate that they had direct trade contacts with distant resource areas (47). The presence of Mature Harappan sites (40) (41) (42) (43) (44) (45) (46) (47) 70 KENOYER. 1983 DURANTE, 1975 KENOYER, 1983 KENOYER. 1983 Ibid. 253. ibid. 22. KENOYER, 1983 Ibid. 253-254. : : : a: 162-163. 30. b 254. a: 19-23. b 170. : : :

(36) (37) (38) (39)

WOOLLEY, 1934 a 43, 369. PARROT, 1956 PI. LVIII, fig. 366. 1228. WOOLLEY, 1924 PI. XLV b. AYNARD, 1966 22-31. : : : :

along the Makran coast (48) and the discovery of a possible Harappan site at Ras Al Janayz in Oman (49) all provide important evidence for the existence of sea-trade with the Gulf region during the third millennium B.C. POSSIBLE INDUS SHELL ARTIFACTS IN MESOPOTAMIA Having briefly discussed the evidence for shell trade between Oman and the two major urban civilizations to the west and east, let us see if there is any indication of direct trade between Mesopota miathe Indus. and In the past, the presence of Turbinella pyrum in Mesopotamia has been used as evidence for contact and/or trade with the Indus Civilization, but the data is sometimes confusing and often misleading. Hornell was one of the first to point out such connections when he mentioned the occurrence of the "Indian Chank" (Turbinella pyrum) at the sites of Ur, Lagash and Kish (50). In reviewing the respect ive reports it has not been possible to identify site this species from any of the published illustrations and one can only wonder if he confused other, more easily available gastropods with this important Indus shell. Hornell also mentions the presence of pen dants made from T. pyrum at the site of Tello (51), but again without illustrations or references, and his identification is not supported by the published site reports. In other cases, however, it has been possible to check the identification of specific artifacts and many are clearly not made from Turbinella pyrum. An examination of the two "shell lamps" from Tello, which were originally identified as T. pyrum (52), shows them to be Lambis truncata sebae. Ratnagar also refers to similar "shell lamps" made from T. pyrum in graves at Ur (PG 143, PG 127) and claims that they were "clearly imports from In dia" (53). Other shell artifacts found in the graves of Cemetery Y at Kish have also been identified as T. pyrum (54), but all of the referenced examples have been misidentified and are clearly made from the Lambis shell. There are, however, several examples of shell objects that can be identified as Turbinella pyrum or appear to have been manufactured in Indus work shops. A large wide shell bangle has been recovered from Susa that Durante as identified as Fasciolaria trapezium (55). Although the provenience for this (48) (49) (50) (51) (52) (53) (54) (55) DALES, 1962. TOSI. 1982. HORNELL. 1941 23. HORNELL. 1942 132. AYNARD. 1966 27. RATNAGAR. 1981 148. WATELIN. 1934 PI. XIX. figs. 7. S. 9. TOSI et ai, 1981 51. fis. 13. : : : : : : 71

artifact is not known, it is incised with a "V" or chevron decoration that is characteristic of Mature Indus bangles, and contrary to Durante's identifica tion it appears to have been made from the Indus species Turbinella pyrum (56). A collection of five perforated discs has also been reported from Susa (57) and their similarity to shell discs made from Turbinella pyrum at Indus sites such as Harappa is quite striking (see PI. I c). The absence of these types of artifacts at intermediate sites in Oman or the Persian Gulf suggests that there may have been some form of direct trade between Susa and the Indus Valley during the late third millennium. Evidence for the use of Turbinella pyrum can also be found in the later Dynastic levels at Ur, where we find numerous examples of large shell cylinder seals. In the grave of Meskalamdug was a seal that measured 49 mm in length and 30 mm in diameter, and the ends were inlayed with lapis lazuli (58). Several other examples of these large shell cylinder seals come from the group of "military graves" excavated in Pit X at Ur (59). These latter seals are all carved with a scene showing a hunter and a lion overcoming an ibex or a bull, and have been inter preted by Woolley as being some form of war medal or insignia of these soldiers (60). As was pointed out above, the columella of Fasciolaria trapezium is long and thin, and even the largest specimen could not produce a solid cylinder measuring 30 mm in diamet er. T. pyrum, however, has a much more massive columella (fig. 2; 2 c) and medium to large shells can easily produce a cylinder that is 30 mm in diameter and up to 50 mm in length. A preliminary study of the large cylinder seals from the graves at Ur suggests that they could only have been made from T. pyrum. Other isolated examples of such large shell cylinder seals are reported from Tepe Gawra and Susa (61) and together they indicate that Mesopotamian workshops were obtaining T. pyrum columella or rough cylinders through trade contacts with the Indus Valley. Prior to this availability, large shell cylinders were apparently made by joining sections of shell together as is seen in cylinder seal # U-9907 from the Royal Cemetery (62). Other evidence for shell trade between the Indus Valley and Mesopotamia can be seen in the occur rence of a ladle made from Chicoreus ramosus at Tello (63). The production of this type of ladle has only been documented at sites of the Indus Civiliza tion, where a specialized technique was developed to remove the exterior spires and saw one or two ladles (56) (57) (58) (59) (60) (61) (62) (63) KENOYER, pers. comm. TOSI et ai, 1981 54, fig. 18. WOOLLEY, 1934 b PI. 196, fig. 55. Ibid. PI. 196-197, figs. 54, 57, 58, 59, 60. Ibid. 39. KENOYER, 1983 b 363. WOOLLEY, 1934 b PI. 99 a. AYNARD, 1966 31. : : : : : : :

from each shell (64). The artifact from Tello is identical to those from Indus sites and exhibits the use of a similar manufacturing technique. Although this species is also common in the Gulf of Oman, there is no evidence for its manufacture in the Gulf region, so we must assume that the example from Tello was brought from the Indus Valley. CONCLUSION There is no question about the presence of trade contacts between the Indus Valley and Mesopotamia during the second half of the third millennium B.C., but we are still at a loss to define the nature of this exchange. Textual evidence from Mesopotamia re fers to the sea-faring traders who brought goods from Dilmun, Maggan and Meluhha, the last being identified with the Indus region (65). Other archaeol ogicalevidence for Harappan artifacts at Mesopotamian sites has been summarized by numerous scholars (66) and there are even a few suggested occurrences of Mesopotamian artifacts at Harappan sites. On the basis of shell artifacts it is possible to provide some additional information as to the structure of this trade. It appears that the major source of shell used in Mesopotamia was the Gulf of Oman. The presence of Jamdet Nasr type pottery at numerous sites in Oman and the textual evidence for the development of strong trade contacts between these two regions from the beginning of the third millennium B.C. Nevertheless, the definite occur rence of Turbinella pyrum and finished ladles of Chicoreus ramosus indicates that by mid-millennium or slightly later, some unfinished and finished shell was being imported from the Indus coasts. Similarly, the major urban sites in the Indus Valley were importing certain shells from the Gulf of Oman, possibly in conjunction with copper ingots. The movement of Indus shell and other objects to Mesopotamia could have been through the overlap ping these two major networks in Oman. The of impact of this trade would have been greater in the Gulf communities than in either the Indus Valley or Mesopotamia, and it may even have been responsi blethe ultimate florescence of the Umm-an-Nar for culture (2500-2000 B.C.) (68). The fact that Omani merchants were already exporting their own shell would have put them in a good position to redistri bute transship shell from the Indus Valley. The or lack of any evidence for the use of Turbinella pyrum at sites in the Gulf would suggest the latter. (64) (65) (66) (67) (68) KENOYER, 1983 a 21. POTTS, 1978 36... GADD, 1932; DALES, 1968; DURING CASPERS, 1972. MARSHALL 1931; DURING CASPERS, 1982. POTTS, 1978 39 : : : 72

Many questions about the role of shell in Mesopotamia remain unanswered and we know little or nothing about the presence of actual shell workshops at the large urban centers. Were the shell artifacts used in Mesopotamia being made at these urban sites or were they possibly being manufactur ed in the Gulf, much in the same way that chlorite vessels were made in southeastern Iran (69). To adequately answer this question we need more studies of sites in Oman, to locate shell collection and possibly manufacturing centers. Also we need a better understanding of shell working in Mesopota mia and this can only be attained by broadeni itself, ngemphasis of study to include artisan quarters the and manufacturing areas of the larger sites. ACKNOWLED GEMENTS The topic of this paper was suggested to me by Professor Jonathan M. Kenoyer, and I would like to thank him for his guidance and the illustrations in figures 2 and Plate I. The artifacts in figure 3 a are from Mehrgarh (Courtesy of J.-F. Jarrige, French Archaeological Mission in Pakistan). 3b and 3d are from Mohenjo Daro and 3c from Harappa (courtesy of the Department of Archaeology, Government of Pakistan). Thomas R. GENSHEIMER Department of South and Southeast Asian Studies University of California Berkeley, California 94720, U.S.A. BIBLIOGRAPHY ABBOTT R.T. 1959-76 Indo-Pacific Mollusca I-III. Greenville Delaware Museum of Natural History. AYNARD J.M. 1966 Coquillages Msopotamiens. Syria XLIII 21-37. DALES G.F. 1962 Harappan Outposts on the Makran Coast. Antiquity XXXVI 86-92. 1968 Of Mice and Men. Journal of the American Oriental Society 83, 1 14-23. DURANTE S. 1975 The Utilization of Xancus pyrum (L.) at Shahr-iSokhta. In VON LOHUIZEN - DE LEEUW J.E. (ed.) South Asian Archaeology 1975, Paris 27-42. Leiden E.J. Brill. DURING CASPERS E.C.L. 1972 Harappan Trade in the Arabian Gulf in the Third Millennium B.C. Mesopotamia 1 : 167-191. 1982 Sumerian Traders and Businessmen in the Indus Valley, Annali dell' 1st. Orientale di Napoli, 42 337-379. : : : : : : : (69) KOHL, 1975.

GADD C.J. 1932 Seals of Ancient Indian Style found at Ur. Prnc. of the British Academy 18 3-22. GENOUILLAC H. de 1934 Fouilles de Telloh. 2 vol. Paris Geuthner. HEINRICH E. 1936 Kleinfunde ans den Archaischen Tempelschichten in Uruk. Berlin Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. HORNELL J. 1941 Sea Trade in Early Times. Antiquity 15 233-256. 1942 The Chank Shell Cult of India. Antiquity 15 113-133. JARRIGE J.F. and MEADOW R. 1980 The Antecedents of Civilization in the Indus Valley. Scientific American 243. 2 122-133. KENOYER J.M. 1983 a Shell Working at Moenjo Daro, Pakistan. South Asian Archaeology 1983 Naples (in press). 1983 b Shell Working Industries of the Indus Civilisation : An Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspective. Ph. D. Thesis. U.C.. Berkeley. KOHL P. 1975 Carved Chlorite Vessels A Trade in Finished Commodities in the Mid Third Millennium. Ex pedition 18. 1 18-31. LAMBERG-KARLOVSKY C.C. 1970 Urban Interaction on the Iranian Plateau. vations at Tepe Yahya, 1967-1973. Pro of the British Academy LIX 6-43. MACKAY E.J.H. 1929 A Sumerian Palace and the "A" Cemetery at Kish, Mesopotamia. Anthropology Memoirs 1. 2. Chicago Field Museum of National History. MARSHALL J. 1931 Mohenjo Daro and the Indus Civilization. 3 vol. London A. Probsthain. McCOWN D.E.. HAINES R.C. and HANSEN DP. 1967 Nippur I Temple of Enlil. Scribal Quarters and Surroundings. University of Chicago Oriental Pu blications LXXVIII. Chicago Univ. of Chicago Press. MOOREY P.R.S. 1981 Ur of the Chaldees. Ithaca Cornell U. Press. : : : : : : : : : : : : :

PARROT A. 1956 Mission Archologique de Mari, le Temple d'lshtar. Paris Paul Geuthner. POTTS D. 1978 Tovvards an Integrated History of Culture Change in the Arabian Gulf Area Notes on Dilmun. Makkan and the Economy of Ancient Sumer. Journal of Oman Studies 4 29-5 RATNAGAR S. 1981 Encounters : The Westerly Trade of the Harappa Civilization. New Delhi Oxford University Press. SAFAR F., MUSTAFA A. and LLOYD S. 1981 Eridu. Baghdad. State Organization of Antiquities and Heritage. SMYTH E K. 1982 Seashells of the Arabian Gulf. London Allen and Unwin. TOBLER A.J. 1950 Excavations at Tepe Gawra II. Philadelphia versity of Pennsylvania Press. TOSI M. 1976 The Dating of the Umm an Nar Culture and a proposed Sequence for Oman in the third Millen niumB.C. Journal of Oman Studies 2 81-92. 1982 A Possible Harappan Seaport in Eastern Arabia : Ra's Al-Junayz in the Sultanate of Oman. (Unpub lished). Presented at 1st Inter. Conf. on Pakistan Archaeology, Peshawar. TOSI M., BISCIONE R. and DURANTE S. 1981 Conchiglie : II Commercio e la Lavorazione delle Conchiglie Marine nel Media Oriente dal IV al II Millenio AC, Roma IsMEO. WATELIN L.C. 1934 Excavations at Kish. In LANGDON (ed.) OxfordField Museum Expedition. Paris Geuthner. WOOLLEY Sir L. 1924 Excavations at Tell el Obeid. Antiquaries Journal 14, 4 329-346. 1934 a Excavations at Ur 1933-34. Antiquaries Journal 14. 4 369. 1934 b Ur Excavations II. The Royal Cemetery. phia British Museum and Univ. Museum. Penns ylvania. 1955 a Excavations at Ur. London Ernest Benn Ltd. 1955 b Ur Excavations VI. The Early Periods. Philadelphia British Museum and Univ. Museum Pennsylvania. : : : 1. : : : : : : : : : :

73