This paper explores Bronze Age trade, its networks and its accompanying social practices, in what is today continental France. Bronze Age trade structures in Western Europe are often analysed and described through comparison with those of the Eastern Mediterranean. We argue that they should, on the contrary, be analysed on their own terms, within the specific social and political context of Western Europe. The Bronze Age in Western Europe was structured by exchange networks which allowed for the continental diffusion of commodities and raw materials on a unprecedented scale; networks in which contemporary communities in modern-day France actively participated in. This paper will first review and synthesise the archaeological evidence for trade networks, before analysing their nature and the different levels of human interactions taking place within them. It is important to emphasize that the Bronze Age archaeological record provides only a very fragmentary picture of trade activities: essentially, they can only be accessed through the study of metal artefacts, mainly those of copper alloy. Pottery does not help in the reconstruction of trade networks, since this material is not used at this time for trade containers; Mediterranean imports (Mycenaean ware, for instance) are not known in France, in contrast to what is observed in Spain or Italy. Moreover, favourable contexts (such as inhumation graves, long-lived settlements) for the preservation and accumulation of such evidence remain rare. Yet, even reconstructing the metal-focused trade networks –this only aspect of trade really accessible to us is no simple task. Firstly, circulation of raw materials seems to have been rather more complex than has been previously assumed. Widespread provenience studies are generally lacking for French material, though recent investigations in relation to other contexts have, for instance, shown that copper found in Bronze Age Scandinavia derived originally from the Iberian Peninsula or from Sardinia (Ling et al. 2014), thus suggesting caution against formulating simplistic, linear reconstructions for raw-material trade networks. Secondly, the properties of the metal artefacts themselves create biases in our perception of their distribution. The phenomenon of recycling, together with the high intrinsic value of the raw material, means that their presence in the archaeological record is necessarily selective, and associated predominantly with specific hoarding and funerary practices. Distribution maps are therefore much more a reflection of these depositional practices than that one of contemporary trade networks. Voids on such maps have often been interpreted as a consequence of the poor integration of certain regions in long-distance trace, but recent research has shown that the reality was likely far more complex. Moreover, recent studies have shown that some artefacts were, in fact, manufactured outside of their primary distribution areas. Last, but not least, recent work in the area around the English Channel indicate that large parts of these exchange networks likely remain hidden to us (Needham et al., 2013), since the artefacts involved were probably recycled once they had arrived at their respective destinations. With these caveats in mind, the creation of a Bronze Age “commercial geography” based on the study of metal artefacts is potentially problematic, especially if we consider what is currently known about the French archaeological record. Recent evidence suggests that trade and exchange in Bronze Age France involved a diverse range of products: investigations in Corent, for example, have emphasized the importance of fruit, seeds and perhaps even tree seedlings (Ledger et al. 2015), to which we should add myriad of perishable goods and commodities such as fabrics and animal skins, ephemeral but important products as salt, and even “self-transportable” commodities such as livestock. Individual mobility would surely have contributed to the development of exchange networks; though no study comparable to the one dedicated to the Egtved woman (Frei et al. 2015) exists in France, the study of personal ornaments and hoarding patterns support such a hypothesis. Artefacts made from rare raw materials such as amber (present throughout the French Bronze Age) or glass (occurring mainly from the end of the Middle Bronze Age onwards) are well known, not least in the form of thousands of beads, and point toward clear origins in the southern Baltic area, and the northern Italian peninsula respectively. The distribution of these artefacts seems however to have followed very indirect routes and the quantities involved are limited. As it was previously noted, the circulation of metal artefacts is the best understood. Since most Bronze Age metallurgy relied upon alloying copper with another metal (mostly tin), we should see exchange of raw materials between copper-rich and tin-rich areas, and also between these areas and those poor in any kind of metal source. Copper, and its alloys, can circulate in many different forms, mostly ingots and intact objects, but also as scrap or fragmented objects. According to data from the largest hoards, the largest mass of metal which could be accumulated appears to weigh-in at approximate 60kg-70kg. Gold appears to have been a very important metal, that could be accumulated in substantial quantities: the single hoard at Vieux-Bourg (Côtes-d’Armor), weighing around 8kg, contained more gold than the total known for the Early Iron Age of the central and western Hallstatt area. The import of objects, identifiable by their morphology and style, was an important phenomenon, especially during the Late Bronze Age. These items indicate the complexity of far-ranging networks, connecting France with areas as remote as Scotland, Scandinavia, Poland, Hungary, Southern Spain, Sicily, the Aegean and Cyprus. Concluding that Bronze Age trading practices were efficient in connecting people across large distances is almost an understatement; but how did Bronze Age trade actually work? Trade has to be understood as a social practice, or better, as practices which may have taken place in different social contexts. Each social context brought with it a specific temporal and spatial context, which was acknowledged by and acted upon the individuals involved. Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey, for example, provide numerous examples of exchange of goods, embedded in the wider context of hospitality relations. In this specific case, social and political gain, rather than trade, is the prime motive of the encounter, though the encounter provides an opportunity for trade. Thus, the temporal and spatial context of trade depends, in this case, on those structuring the hospitality networks. Common agreement the temporal and spatial context of trade, as well as regarding the conventions employed by the various partners, was a necessary prerequisite to exchange. These ‘rules’ may be considered as informal institutions; informal because they were not enforced by written law, but rather prevailed progressively through practice. Such institutions did not structure trade as a unique economic activity (as might be considered today), but embedded different ways of trading within other social practices, the context of which depended, among other factors, on the individual status of those involved. Two main patterns of trade can be observed: an intra-elite, wide-ranging network on the one hand, and, on the other, a shorter-range, intra-group trade focused predominantly on local access to staple goods. Elite trade, which was particularly active during the Late Bronze Age, was probably the material component of hospitality and alliance networks; the materiality of an international elite identity structured around common values, the cohesion of which was likely enforced through high levels of mobility, and therefore the possibility of frequent physical encounters between elite members. In this context, trade provided the marker of social status, but was also a means by which to transmit information and capitalize upon the prestige associated with the individual biographies of the artefacts exchanged. Such networks also likely structured the exchange of raw materials and semi-finished products. It seems however unnecessary to infer that the active role played by elites in the circulation of raw materials meant that they necessarily had exclusive control over the craft process, and that artisans were confined to a socially subordinated position. Trade in more ‘everyday’ items remains almost imperceptible in the archaeological record, but its existence is in little doubt. No domestic unit would have been entirely self-sufficient, and the fluid exchange of staple goods, at the very least, would have been necessary, as no power-centred redistribution system seems to have existed in this regard during the French Bronze Age. As the partners involved in these kinds of exchanges were geographically much closer, and since most of the commodities were deprived of the same symbolic charge afforded by the artefacts involved in the elite networks, one can expect that these transactions were fairly frequent and easy enough to perform. This type of trade was probably predominantly on the local scale, and limited to the community itself. The Bronze Age thus seems to have been poorly integrated from an economic perspective: most exchange (in volume and number of transactions) was probably short-range, while only the elite could participate in long-distance, non-mercantile trade rooted in their wide-ranging social networks. In this context, metals seem to have progressively acquired the dimension of being seen as a means of value hoarding and value transfer, particularly during the Late Bronze Age, though it does not appear to have been used as currency. More globally, the means for assessing quantity and value seems to have remained fairly informal: balances and weights, for instance, appear only in limited areas, and for short period of times. In Under such conditions, transactions must have relied on the mutual trust of the partners involved, and therefore probably on the fact that they previously knew each other, at least indirectly. This need for familiarity is a far cry from our own market economy, where people not known to one another can interact thanks to pre-existing institutional frameworks which provide a relative degree of sincerity in transactions. This dimension was particularly acute amongst the intra-elite networks. As noted previously, the exchange of goods was predominantly the material consequence of inter-personal relationships, but also a means for perpetuating any bonds created as a result. In such conditions, the emphasis was on the mobility of individuals, rather than goods. This likely explains why, in contrast to what is observed in the Eastern Mediterranean, the Western Bronze Age never developed a seafaring technology focused on the transport of large cargo. Rather, it developed, from a tradition of sewn-plank boats, into journeys focused on the mobility of groups of individuals, travelling with a limited amount of artefacts. In conclusion, it appears that Bronze Age trade was indeed dominated by non-market practices. This does not mean that the notion of value was absent from the minds of the people involved, but that this preoccupation never became the focus, and that the social dimension of exchange remained dominant. In this sense, healthy trade and exchange can be understood as the material expression of Bronze Age social networks. The highly symbolic hoarding practices which characterise this period, and which betray treatment of artefacts similar to that likely observed in trading contexts (Langdon Bay: Needham et al. 2013), may reflect attempts to involve supernatural forces (in the form of deities or ancestors) in these rich and long-standing human networks.