Dilmun, the ancient name for areas in eastern Arabia, is primarily known from cuneiform sources found in Mesopotamia which document Dilmun's pre-eminent role as trading and transit centre. Given the paucity of written evidence from Dilmun itself scholars have tended to view its history exclusively in terms of the Mesopotamian sources. This paper examines briefly one example where such sources may have been misinterpreted and suggests an alternative solution based on both the written Mesopotamian evidence and archaeological data from Dilmun.