TRADE AND CULTURAL INTERACTION BETWEEN THE INDUS VALLEY AND ANCIENT NEAR EAST:A SURVEY, REVIEW, AND PERSONAL OUTLOOK

Jagpal Singh The Hebrew University of Jerusalem &Gurukula Kangri Vishwavidyalaya (University), India

Introduction

On September 20, 1924, archaeologists all over the world were taken by surprise by John Marshall’s identification of a civilization as old and great as that of Mesopotamia in the Indus Valley, at the time still part of the British Empire.1I am grateful to my teacher Professor Wayne Horowitz (The Hebrew University of Jerusalem) for his constant support, guidance, and inspiration.Published in theIllustrated London News, Marshall’s article was the result of preliminary excavations by Daya Ram Sahni at Harappa in 1921 and by Rakhal Das Banerjee at Mohenjo-daro in 1922.Since the time of Marshall’s groundbreaking work, the topic of trade and cultural interaction between the cultures throughout the ancient Indus Valley and ancient Near East has remained a matter of discussion and debate among archaeologists worldwide.This topic has again become a matter of discussion following recent findings at the archaeological site Tel Tsaf, located in the middle Jordan valley in Israel.The site includes many non-local artifacts suggesting that people at Tel Tsaf had connections with other civilizations or at least engaged in trade with surrounding regions situated within long-distance networks; indeed, the presence of cotton at the site points to possible connections with the Indus Valley as early as 7,200 years ago.2Liu et al.2022.

History of Research

Mesopotamia and the Persian Gulf: A Near-Eastern perspective

The study of trade between ancient Mesopotamia and the lands of the Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean began with excavations at key sites at both ends of the trade route.For Mesopotamia, the site of Ur in Iraq was first excavated 1853–1854, on the behalf of British Museum by John G.Taylor and after that,from 1922–1934, by Sir Charles Leonard Woolley.Here a total of about 1,850 burials were uncovered, including 16 of them that have come to be known as the Royal Tombs of Ur.

The site of Qal’at al-Bahrain, excavated by Danish archaeologist Geoffrey Bibby from 1954–1972, also provided good evidence for trade between both the Mesopotamia and the Indus Valley, and at the same time between the Indus Valley and Bahrain.The same can be said for the excavation at Tepe Yahya,Kirman Province, Iran, 1967–1975, under the direction of Carl C.Lamberg-Karlovsky of Harvard University and at the site of Shahr-e Sokhta, Sistan Province, Iran, which was excavated by Maurizio Tosi in 1967–1968.

Based on this preliminary research and archaeological work, Elisabeth C.L.During Caspers published the first comprehensive overview of the archaeological evidence for Indus-Valley/Mesopotamian trade relations in her doctoral thesis on maritime tradein 1969.Shecontinued this avenue of research in a seriesof articlesdatingfrom 1970 to1995.3During Caspers 1971; 1979; 1991.

In her article on maritime trade, she discussed the geography of the Persi an Gulf and demonstrated that the trade contacts via the Persian Gulf have been largely predetermined by geographical and maritime conditions.4Ead.1971, 21.

In this work, she examined the various possible sea routes and concluded that“from Early Dynastic times onwards north-west India (the Rajpipla mines near Cambay and the Deccan traps) has been the chief source of the various kinds of agate and cornelian which reached South Mesopotamia via the maritime trade routes.”5Ibid., 32.In another work, she explained the supporting evidence for a cultural linkage between the Near East and the Indus Valley and concluded that the various archaeological materials, artistic motifs, themes (Gilgamesh and whorl themes), and the use of the kidney and trefoil patterns provide evidence that solid cultural and commercial contacts between Mesopotamia and the Indus Valley were already established in Early Dynastic or pre-Akkadian times.6Ead.1979, 135.

In another important work, she drew attention to the possible existence of cultural similarities between the Indus Valley civilization and the ancient Near East.For example, she proposed that a row of bovines of Near Eastern provenance closely resemble the Indus “unicorn” and thus that the Mesopotamian elements borrowed by the Indus Civilization had been adapted and transformed to local Indian taste.7Ead.1991, 314 and 349.She further discussed the archaeological remains and concluded that the “archaeological material from Elam, South-East Iran and Pakistani Baluchistan and from the United Arab Emirates and Oman was collected as possible indicators of southern lines of communication between the ancient Near East and the Indus Civilization in the very early third millennium B.C.”8Ibid., 348.

In 1977, Asko Parpola, brother of the Assyriologist Simo Parpola, published his important article “The Meluhha village.”9Parpola et al.1977.In this article, Parpola studies evidence for the acculturation of Harappan traders in Mesopotamia.The Meluhhans are first mentioned in Mesopotamian texts in an inscription of Sargon referring to Meluhhan ships docked at his capital, the city of Akkad.10Ibid., 130.The Parpola brothers studied the textual evidence present in economic and administrative documents in Mesopotamia in late third millennium BC.They also give the details of the relevant texts, and translations with detailed discussion of the textual evidence for direct trade relations between the Indus valley and Mesopotamia in 3rd and 2nd millennium BC.

Another archaeologist who studied this topic is Carl C.Lamberg-Karlovsky.His article “Trade mechanism in Indus – Mesopotamia interrelation”11Lamberg-Karlovsky 1972.discusses trade patterns (direct trade, indirect trade, and central place trade), and he argues that “one of the important “intensifiers” motivating the parallel but essentially distinctive rise toward urban complexes in Mesopotamia and the Iranian highlands and the later Harappan culture was trade.”12Ibid., 229.

Moreover, Piotr Steinkeller, an eminent Sumerologist, has written a number of articles on various issues including trade routes, inter-regional exchange of metals, and the role of different ancient cultures in trade in 3rd and 2nd millennium BC.13Steinkeller 2012; 2013; 2016.

An Indian perspective

In India itself, the first detailed work by an Indian archaeologist focusing on trade relations between the Harappans and other ancient cultures, was written by Shereen Ratnagar.In her book, “Encounters: The Westerly Trade of the Harappan Civilization,”14Ratnager 1981.she describes the various cultures briefly, together with their geographic and historical contexts, and discusses in particular the identification of Dilmun, Meluhha, and Magan mentioned in the Sumerian texts.This is the first instance of an Indian scholar thoroughly familiarizing herself with the Indo-Sumerian material with a study of the Sumerian evidence.She also made a first-hand study of finds in the Iraq Museum.Her work includes a long chapter on “Individual items of trade” based on the available archaeological evidence from Mesopotamia and Harappan sites, however, written documents only from Mesopotamia.In her work, these two sets of sources do not always complement each other.She also discusses the Indus stone weights and Persian Gulf seals in this work.

Archaeologists working on the trade between Mesopotamia and the Indus Valley have noted the occurrence of Mesopotamian and Harappan weights abroad.In another article, Ratnagar discusses the weights found overseas and tries to dismiss the theory of pre-market economies, but acknowledges the coexistence of commerce and gift exchange.She suggests that the use of small weights points only to some amount of retailing or exchange of gifts, but is not by itself evidence of the market system or trade.15Ead.2003.

Another important Indian scholar, Nayanjot Lahiri, wrote an important book on “Archaeology of Indian trade routes.”16Lahiri 1992.In this book, she covers the entire country from pre-Harappan times to the Mauryan period.She discusses important materials, their major sources, and major industrial sites and crafts.The book also includes an important discussion of Harappan trade mechanisms and internal trade routes with a very useful map.She also wrote a number of other important articles including her “Harappa as a centre of trade and trade routes.”17Ead.1990.

Other archaeologists including Gregory L.Possehl and Jonathan M.Kenoyer also wrote on the topic of Indus Valley trade relations with other ancient cultures including Mesopotamia, for example, “From Sumer to Meluha”18Kenoyer 1994.edited by Kenoyer in 1994, “Seafaring Merchants of Meluhha” by Possehl in 1995,19Possehl 1997.and “Meluhha”20Kenoyer 1996.in 1996.In the latter article, Possehl offers a survey of trade relations of Indus Valley and the ancient Near East, and discusses the location of Dilmun, Magan, and Meluhha in the context of various artifacts including Persian Gulf seals, beads, figurines, weights, dice, metal objects, etc.In 2002, in another work entitled “Indus-Mesopotamian trade,” he focuses on the Mesopotamian type materials including Persian Gulf seals, barrel weights (Mohenjo-daro), metal objects, figurines, and sculpture found in the Indus Valley.Possehl also discusses mythological themes and other motifs, and concludes that there is a great imbalance between the archaeological finds at the two ends of the trade network between the Harappan civilization and Mesopotamia; there is much more Indus Valley material in Sumer and Akkad than Mesopotamian material at Indus Valley sites.

Good work was done by Robert A.Carter at the archaeological site “Saar,”excavated under the direction of Robert Killick, Jane Moon, and Harriet Crawford until 1995.Carter worked on “Saar and its external relations.”21Carter 2001, 183–201.He examined the ceramics from the early Dilmun site for evidence of interregional exchange.On the basis of the ceramics and other artifacts he concluded that sites in south-eastern Arabia, Bahrain, and Saurashtra in Gujarat took part in a close exchange partnership during the 2nd millennium BC.22Ibid., 195–196.

More recently, Dennys Frenez published an article “The Indus Civilization Trade with the Oman Peninsula”23Frenez 2018.in 2018.In this article, he studies the different types of Indus pottery found in Oman such as large storage jars and painted vessels imported from the Indus Valley, along with carnelian beads, ivory objects,and metal tools.He also discusses artifacts which facilitated exchange such as the cubical weights and Indus-type stamp seals.

Other prominent scholars of this topic are Daniel T.Potts, Steffen T.Laursen,and Piotr Steinkeller.In his article “Rethinking some aspects of trade in the Arabian Gulf,”24Potts 1993.Potts discusses the interaction between different cultures,Mesopotamia and Magan in the 3rd millennium BC to 2nd millennium BC,Magan and the Indus valley in the late 3rd millennium BC, Dilmun and Magan in the 2nd millennium BC, and Elam and Magan in the 2nd millennium BC.In this work, Potts concludes that “[a] unique Iron Age pendant from Tell Abraq, which shows what is almost certainly a sewn reed boat, may well represent the sort of seacraft which must have been used in forging those links between Magan,Babylonia, Elam, Dilmun and the Indus valley.”25Ibid., 437.

In 2010, in his important work “The westward transmission of Indus valley sealing technology,”26Laursen 2010.Laursen presented a theory in which Arabian Gulf seals are understood to be descendants of a particular innovation initiated by a group of Meluhhan merchants who were engaged in the maritime trade with the Gulf region, Mesopotamia, and Elam.27Olijdamand and David-Cuny 2018.Laursen also writes on the different archaeological sites of the Gulf region with reference to the Indus world.

A review of “Babylonia, the Gulf Region and the Indus”

The monograph “Babylonia, the Gulf Region and the Indus” is the latest work on this topic by Steffen Laursen and Piotr Steinkeller.28Laursen and Steinkeller 2017.This is a very important book by two principal scholars of Mesopotamian civilization and Persian Gulf culture, who have spent many years studying the archaeological and textual records of the ancient Near East.In the introductory part of the book, the authors begin with discussion of the geography of the lands known from the Babylonian archaeological records.This allows the reader to match ancient geography with present day place-names and archaeological sites.The writers identifyTilmun(Dilmun culture) as present-day Kuwait, the eastern province of Saudi Arabia,and Bahrain Island,Makkan(Hafit, Umm an-Nar, Wadi Suq cultures) with the present-day UAE and northern Oman,Marhasi(Jiroft civilization, Bampur culture) as the present day Iranian province of Kerman, and the nearby Halid Rud river basin and Konar Sandal, and Meluhha as the Indus valley civilization as far as Gujarat, India.

For the prehistoric foundational era (ca.6000–2650 BC), the authors claim that the Gulf waters were already being navigated in large reed boats caulked with bitumen, as is demonstrated by countless reed-impressed bitumen fragments, a clay boat, and part of a painted design of a boat with a two footed mast found in the Ubaid site H3 in Kuwait (p.9).Two more important pieces of evidence are “Jemdat Nasr style” vessels imported from Mesopotamia that were found in a burial on Bahrain Island (3000 BC) and at the Karzakkan Mound Cemetery.There are also Babylonian pottery vessels in the burials of the Hafit type in Oman at ca.3100 BC, which coincide with the appearance of the Hafit Culture on the Oman peninsula.

In Chapter 3, the authors analyze the role of Makkan (Oman) in the pre-Sargonic period, especially the archaeological evidence recovered from the“Umm an-Nar warehouse.” Babylonian, Iranian, and Indus type pottery vessels and imported artifacts recovered from the tomb were dated to the early Sargonic period.The Indus black slipped jars, beaded-rim jars, and pedestalled bowls of the mid-third millennium BC document that Meluhhan traders frequented Umm an-Nar Island.In the pre Sargonic period (ca.2650–2350 BC), “the archaeological record from the Oman peninsula incontestably demonstrates that the external orientation of Makkan radically shifted towards or consolidated on the lands in the north (Marhasi) and east (Meluhha)” (p.17).The authors conclude that Umm an-Nar Island was one of the receiving points for goods moving along the trade routes leading from Marhasi and the Indus Valley(Meluhha) to the west in pre-Sargonic times.

After studying the ancient texts, the authors conclude in Chapter 4 that the Akkadians established a modicum of control over the trade routes in the Gulf during Sargon’s reign and so can be identified as the first fully fledged empire in the area.The authors further explain that foreign trade became the main target of Old Akkadian political strategy, but that there is no evidence that any of the foreign lands conquered by the Saragonic kings were annexed to the Akkad state.Yet, the Akkadians did establish military and commercial outposts.Such outposts existed at Nagar, Mari, Tuttul, Susa, Assur, Nineveh, Tilmun, etc.The main function of these outposts was to ensure that the entire commercial network worked smoothly and most remarkably, “they created the first international commercial highway, which commenced at the coast of Gujarat and ran, via the Persian Gulf and the Euphrates valley, all the way to the shores of the Mediterranean” (p.31).In this period “there are mentions of Meluhhan boats actually traveling to Babylonia, a phenomenon documented textually only in the Sargonic period” (p.37).

In Chapter 5, the authors discuss the place of Makkan and Tilmun between ca.2200–2100 BC at the time of, and after the fall of, the Sargonic Empire.

In Chapter 6, the authors summarize the excellent work done by Steffen Laursen in previous years on the seals and seal technology of the Persian Gulf.As the authors explain, “the first Indus-inspired circular stamp seals of ‘Gulf-type’appear in the layers at Qala’at al-Bahrain” and “the distribution of this class of inscribed ‘Gulf Type’ seals ranges as far as Babylonia in the west to Sindh, and Gujarat (Dholavira) in the east.” (p.50).They further note that “the introduction of sealing technology was accompanied by the introduction of a formal weight system, as evidenced in the cubical and spherical stone weights that corresponded perfectly to the standard weight units of the Harappans.In Babylonia, Tilmun’s newly adopted Meluhan weight system became known as theTilmun normor na4Tilmun) (UET 5 796)” (ibid.).

In Chapter 8, the authors discuss the Lagaš town of Guabba as Babylonia’s main seaport and a major textile production center.

In Chapter 9, “Contacts between Babylonia and Meluhha in the late 3rd Millennium BC,” the authors build on the pioneering work done by Asko Parpola and Elisabeth C.L.During Caspers in providing an overall picture of Indus Valley – Mesopotamian contacts.Here the authors summarize and integrate previously known archaeological and textual evidence including ancient Mesopotamian texts related to Meluhha and the Harappan culture, and rigorously analyze the cultural interaction and trade relations between Mesopotamia and the Indus valley civilization.

Throughout book, the authors emphasize the role of Babylonia in the Persian Gulf trade during the reigns of individual kings from the early Sargonic period(2350–2200 BC) to the post Ur III period (Isin-Larsa, 2000–1800 BC) with emphasis on and interactions with Tilmun, Makkan, and the “Mesopotamian Far East” including Meluhha.This allows scholars of the history of the ancient Near East to better understand the influence of the Persian Gulf trade countries of Dilmun, Magan, and Meluhha, on the history of the ancient Near East.This survey of the archaeology and history of the ancient Near East enables scholars of the Indian subcontinent in ancient times to fully comprehend the influence that ancient Mesopotamia has had on India.

Despite the significant advances offered by Laursen and Steinkeller in their fantastic work, there are still some points regarding Indus Valley-Mesopotamian contacts that remain to be studied.The book does not adequately explain the findings related to the Near East in the Indus Valley, as the authors focus on the archaeological and textual evidence found outside the Indus in the Near East and Persian Gulf regions.Furthermore, the cultural interaction and trade relations between two civilizations benefitted both the civilizations and have left some cultural influence on each other.In this regard they explain what Babylonia and Dilmun culture adopted through trade and cultural interaction from Harappan culture (such as Harappan weights and Gulf types seal etc.), but they do not touch on other Near Eastern influence present in the Harappan culture, for instance,“Unicorn seals,” or possible linguistic influences that may still be present in local dialects in today’s India and Pakistan.

In 2018, I completed my presently unpublished PhD-thesis entitled “Cultural Interaction and Trade Mobility of Harappans with Reference to Mesopotamia”under the supervision of Professor Rakesh Kumar Sharma at Gurukula Kangri Vishwavidyalaya (University), Haridwar, India.In the course of my research,Professor Wayne Horowitz served as my informal supervisor.The thesis examines the relationship between Indus Valley and Mesopotamian civilizations from the perspective of Ancient India, which, as I noted above, is often missing in standard works written by scholars more familiar with the Ancient Near East.

The last two sections of my thesis center around the trade exchange and cultural collaborations between these two civilizations.In the fourth chapter of my research, I study the various archaeological materials and artistic motifs found in the cultural continuum stretching in a northwesterly direction from the Indus Valley to the ancient Near East.These materials and motifs offer proof of foreign alignments and therefore of foreign origin, thus demonstrating a range of contacts, direct or indirect, by means of trade, which makes clear the historical and cultural overlap of early Indian and Near Eastern cultures.29Jagpal 2018, 141.

These trade contacts could be verified beyond doubt from the evidence of archaeological material in modern India and Pakistan, even without knowledge of the existence of artifacts from the Indus Valley in Mesopotamia.However,there is non-physical evidence as well.For example, the survival of what we believe to be the Sumerian word “bad” in northern India today.Sumerian “bad,”which the Pennsylvania Sumerian Dictionary translates as “wall,” “fortification,”“enclosure of a house,” is still used in northern India with the same meaning and with the same pronunciation.30Ibid., 174.Further study of survivals of Sumerian loan words in Indian languages is needed, but a better understanding of linguistic borrowing and overlap along the trade routes leading to the ancient Indus Valley cities from the outside world of Ancient Mesopotamia and the lands of the Persian Gulf is dependent upon the decipherment of the Indus Valley script.31This is the topic of post-doctoral research conducted by myself and Wayne Horowitz of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem in the academic year 2019–2020, which has continued since my return to India.

Much more is yet to be discovered and understood about the Harappans.Therefore, it is important that archaeological exploration continues to identify more sites, particularly on the Gujarat coast, Makran coast, Baluchistan, and coastal Iran.Excavations at these sites will further help us to discover new relationships between these diverse but interconnected civilizations.From an Indian perspective, Laursen and Steinkeller have provided a very useful work for scholars who are looking for archaeological evidence from Babylonian accounts related to Indus Valley-Mesopotamian contacts.

Hence, the book “Babylonia, the Gulf Region and the Indus” is an excellent work by two eminent scholars, and provides a pathway to future study for new scholars interested in the cultural and trade relations between the different civilizations from Mesopotamia to the Indus Valley region in 3rd and 2nd millennia BC.This work is a milestone in the history of research relating to the topic of the Indus Valley and the ancient Near East.

Bibliography

Carter, R.A.2001.

“Saar and its External Relations: New Evidence for Interaction between Bahrain and Gujarat during the Early Second Millennium BC.”Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy12: 183–201.

During Caspers, E.C.L.1971.

“New Archaeological Evidence for Maritime Trade in the Persian Gulf during the Late Protoliterate Period.”East and West21/1–2: 21–44.

— — 1979.

“Coastal Arabia and the Indus Valley in Protoliterate and Early Dynastic Eras:Supporting Evidences for a Cultural Linkage.”Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient22/2: 121–135.

— — 1991.

“The Indus Valley ‘Unicorn’: A Near Eastern Connection?”Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient34/4: 312–350.

Frenez, D.2018.

“The Indus Civilization Trade with the Oman Peninsula.” In: S.Cleuziou and M.Tosi (auths.) and D.Frenez and R.Garba (eds.),In the Shadow of the Ancestors:The Prehistoric Foundations of the Early Arabian Civilization in Oman.2nd ed.Muscat: Ministry of Heritage and Culture Sultanate of Oman,385–396.

Jagpal, S.2018.

Cultural Interaction and Trade Mobility of Harappans with Reference to Mesopotamia.Phd-thesis: Gurukula Kangri University, Uttarakhand, India.

Kenoyer, J.M.(ed.).1994.

From Sumer to Meluhha.Contributions to the Archaeology of South and West Asia in Memory of G.F.Dales.Wisconsin Archaeological Reports 3.Madison:Prehistory Press.

— — 1996.

“Meluhha.” In: J.Reade (ed.),The Indian Ocean in Antiquity.London: Kegan Paul International, 133–208.

Lahiri, N.1990.

“Harappa as a Centre of Trade and Trade Routes: A Case Study of the Resource Use, Resource-Access and Lines of Communication in the Indus Civilization.”The Indian Economic and Social History Review27/4: 405–444.

— — 1992.

The Archaeology of Indian Trade Routes(up to c.200 BC).Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Lamberg-Karlovsky, C.C.1972.

“Trade Mechanisms in Indus – Mesopotamian Interrelation.”Journal of The American Oriental Society92/2: 222–229.

Laursen, S.T.2010.

“The Westward Transmission of Indus Valley Sealing Technology: Origin and Development of the ‘Gulf Type’ Seal and Other Administrative Technologies in Early Dilmun, c.2100–2000 BC.”Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy21:96–134.

— — and Steinkeller, P.2017.

Babylonia,the Gulf Region and the Indus:Archaeological and Textual Evidence for Contact in the Third and Early Second Millennia B.C.Winnona Lake:Eisenbrauns.

Liu, Li et al.2022.

“The Earliest Cotton Fibers and Pan-regional Contacts in the Near East.”Frontiers in Plant Science13: 1045554, doi: 10.3389/fpls.2022.1045554.

Olijdam, E.and David-Cuny, H.2018.

“Dilmun-Meluhhan Relations Revisited in Light of Observations on Early Dilmun Seal Production during the City IIa–c Period (c.2050–1800 BC).”Accessed under: https://www.academia.edu/37240580/Dilmun-Meluhhan_Relations_Revisited_in_Light_of_Observations_on_Early_Dilmun_Seal_Production_during_the_City_IIa-c_Period_c._2050-1800_BC (16.05.2023).

Parpola, S., Parpola, A.and Brunswing, R.H.Jr.1977.

“The Meluhha Village: Evidence of Acculturation of Harappan Traders in Late Third Millennium Mesopotamia.”Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient20/2: 129–165.

Possehl, G.L.1997.

“Seafaring Merchants of Meluhha.” In: R.Allchin and B.Allachin (eds.),South Asian Archaeology,1995.Oxford & New Delhi: IBH Publishing Co., 87–100.

Potts, D.T.1993.

“Rethinking Some Aspects of Trade in the Arabian Gulf.”World Archaeology24/3 (Ancient Trade:New Perspectives): 423–440.

Ratnagar, S.2003.

“Theorizing Bronze-Age Intercultural Trade: The Evidence of Weights.”Paleorient29/1: 79–92.

— — 1981.

Encounters:The Westerly Trade of the Harappan Civilization.Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Steinkeller, P.2013.

“Trade Routes and Commercial Networks in the Persian Gulf during the Third Millennium BC.” In: C.Faizee (ed.),Collection of Papers Presented to the Third International Biennial Conference of the Persian Gulf(History,Culture and Civilization).Tehran: University of Tehran Press, 413–431.

— — 2016.

“The Role of Iran in the Inter-Regional Exchange of Metals: Tin, Copper, Silver and Gold in the Second Half of the Third Millennium BC.” In: K.Maekawa(ed.),Ancient Iran:New Perspectives from Archaeology and Cuneiform Studies.Proceedings of the International Colloquium Held at the Center for Eurasian Cultural Studies,Kyoto University,December 6–7,2014.Ancient Text Studies in the National Museum 2.Kyoto: The Iran-Japan Project of Ancient Texts, 127–150.

— — 2012.

“New Light on Marhasi and its Contacts with Makkan and Babylonia.” In:J.Giraud and G.Gernez (eds.),Aux Marges de l’archeologie:Hommage á S.Cleuziou.Travaux de la Maison Reninouvés 16.Paris: De Boccard, 261–274.