Meluhhan traders in Lagash

The Meluḫḫa Village: Evidence of Acculturation of Harappan Traders in Late ThirdMillennium Mesopotamia?Author(s): Simo Parpola, Asko Parpola, Robert H. Brunswig, Jr.Source: Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, Vol. 20, No. 2 (May, 1977),pp. 129-165Published by: BRILLStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3631775 .Accessed: 13/08/2011 04:11

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of the Economic andSocial History of the Orient.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bap

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3631775?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, Vol. XX, Part II

THE MELUHHA VILLAGE EVIDENCE OF ACCULTURATION OF HARAPPAN TRADERS

IN LATE THIRD MILLENNIUM MESOPOTAMIA?*)

BY

SIMO PARPOLA, ASKO PARPOLA and ROBERT H. BRUNSWIG, Jr.

INTRODUCTION

Mesopotamian and Persian Gulf interrelations with the land of

Meluhha during the third and second millennia B.C. have occupied the attention of numerous scholars in recent decades. The location of Meluhha has been the subject of much controversy that has not yet ceased. As a working premise we accept the most widely held theory according to which Meluhha is to be identified with the Indus civilization and its adjacent areas on the basis of various geographical clues and the general nature of Meluhhan articles of commerce 1). The very name Meluhha itself seems to support this conclusion 2).

At present, little is known about the earliest Indus-Near Eastern trade contacts. Most probably they originated during the proto- urban phase of the Harappan culture, forming a minor component in the recently documented trade network of the early third millennium

*) For the bibliographical abbreviations used in this paper see R. Borger, Hand- buch der Keilschriftliteratur II (Berlin i975) p. XI ft.; RipG -= Repertoire Giqographique (Bd. 2 = D. O. Edzard und G. Farber, Die Orts- und Gewissernamen der Zeit der

3. Dynastie von Ur [Wiesbaden 1974]). The authors wish to record their gratitude to Prof. D. O. Edzard (Miinchen), who read the article in its draft stage and (pointing out errors as well as supplementary evidence) remarkably contributed to its present form, to Dr. Fatma Y11diz of the Istanbul Arkeoloji Miizeleri, who supplied the photographs of the new texts published in this article and conveyed their publication permission, and to Profs. G. Pettinato (Rome) and K. Deller (Heidelberg), who assisted in the collection of the Meluhha references.

I) See notably W. F. Leemans, Trade (1960), I59 ff.; idem, JESHO 1xi (1968), 171 ff.; M. E. L. Mallowan, Iran 3 (I965), I ff.; H. Schmakel, FF 40 (I966), 143 ff.; I. J. Gelb, RA 64 (1970), i ff.; G. Pettinato, Mesopotamia 7 (1972), 43 if.; Romila Thapar,JESHO x8 (I975), I-42; D. K. Chakrabarti,JESHO i8 (i975),

337 ff. 2) Cf. A. and S. Parpola, StOr 46 (I975), 20zo5 f.

9

13o S. PARPOLA, A. PARPOLA & R. H. BRUNSWIG JR.

Iranian Plateau and Mesopotamia 3). We do know that Indus artifacts began appearing in Mesopotamian sites by Old Akkadian times, and that they are typical of the mature (urban) phase of the Indus civilization 4). Mature Harappan seaports have been located in Gujarat and the Makran coast 5), and several Harappan representations of ships are known.

The Meluhhans are first mentioned in Mesopotamian texts in an inscription of Sargon (2334-2279 B.C.) referring to Meluhhan ships docked at his capital, the city of Akkad 6). Less well known is a late Sargonic tablet datable to ca. zaoo B.C.7), which mentions a man with an Akkadian name entitled "the holder (? li-dab,) of a Meluhha ship" 8). In addition, an Akkadian cylinder seal bears the inscription

3) Cf. C. C. Lamberg-Karlovsky, JAOS 92 (197z), 222-229; idem and M. Tosi, East and West 23 (1973), 2zI-58.

4) Cf. Leemans (1960), 1.c.; M. Wheeler, The Indus Civilization 3 (Cambridge 1968), I1o-12o; E. C. L. During Caspers, Mesopotamia 7 (1972), 167-191.

5) Cf. G. F. Dales, Antiquity 36 (I962), 86-92; S. R. Rao, Expedition7:3 (1965), 30-37; Schmikel 1.c. (1966) and During Caspers l.c. (1972).

6) See H. Hirsch, AfO 20 (1963), 37 f., 49; cf. also A. L. Oppenheim,JAOS 74

(1954), 15. 7) G. G. Hackman, BIN VIII 298. For the approximate date of the document

cf. I. J. Gelb, MAD 4 (I970), p. XV f. and W. Farber, WO 8 (i975), 1x8 ff.

8) The text reads in its entirety as follows (in a rendering kindly made available to us by Prof. Edzard): 6 i-dux0-g[a] sil eme-[gi7] 2 lugal-• i-de6-a 3 lugal-sag-e " kar-[s]IG4kia 5 Su ba-ti 6 [I+]i i silh 7 da-ti 8 ld-dab,(?)- m i-me-luh- a-ka 9 I 1 sila i-nu-sa-tu 10 2 iti "6 Liter gutes 01, sum[er. (Mass)], die Lugal-Sa gebracht hat, hat Lugal-sage in K. in Empfang genommen.

[i+]i Liter 01: D~di, der... eines Meluhha-Bootes. I Liter 01: Inu-Sadi. Monat 2."

Forline 8 cf. Edzard, ZA 56 (1964), 278: "Kaum 16i-dab5-... "der ... genommen hat", da das *ld-...-dab,-ba heissen miisste." Note, however, 16i-dab,-mi "Schiffsaneigner" in the Tammuzliturgy VS II 35 ii 7 (cf. A. Salonen, StOr i I/i [1940] 4) and the two examples of mi...dab, "to take hold of a ship" (Ukg I iv 3 f. and 4-5 iii 5 f. [Sollberger, Corpus p. 48 ff.l) quoted by Salonen, 1.c. Accordingly, we would take dab, in the present context as an 'active' participle and assign the compound 16-dab5 the meaning "appropriator", or the like; the word would accordingly be more or less the opposite of the social designation di,(DUMU)- dabs/dib-ba, lit. "taken child". In a letter of 9.9.1975, Edzard comments on this interpretation: "1 i-KU, falls = 16 i-dab , kann natiirlich ein 'aktives' Partizip sein. Nur diirfte es wohl nicht "Eigentiimer" bedeuten, da hierfiir schon das Wort lugal (= bilum) festliegt."

THE MELUIjHjA VILLAGE 13 I

I'u--li-Ju/ eme-bal me-luh-haki "Su-ilisu, Meluhha interpreter" 9).

Taken together, the presence of Meluhhan ships, a ship-"holder", and an interpreter help to establish the physical contact, over sea-routes, of Meluhha with Mesopotamia in Akkadian times 10).

Further evidence for continued contact after the fall of the Akkadian empire may be found in the inscriptions of Gudea of LagaS (2143- 2124 B.C.). These state explicitly that "the Melulhans came up (or down) from their country" to supply wood and other raw materials for the construction of the main temple of Gudea's capital 1). Other passages in these inscriptions refer to luxury items imported from Meluhha and make it evident that trade of a direct nature was still

taking place between Gudea's state and Meluhha on a fairly large scale 12).

The above textual evidence of direct Meluhhan-Mesopotamian interaction can be generally correlated with archaeological evidence of Indus artifacts in the Near East. More than thirty seals are known or believed to have come from Near Eastern contexts and related more or less closely to ones found in the Indus valley 13). Unfortunately, only a handful of these have come from datable contexts and even so largely from dubious ones. Of the ten seals from Mesopotamia that can be dated with any degree of certainty, eight have been attributed

9) Edzard, AfO 22 (1968), 15 no. 15.33. Oppenheim, Anc. Mes. [Chicago 1964] 355 24, argues that the title eme-bal designated its bearer as one who translated from his native into a foreign language.

io) Note also literary passages such as "The Curse of Akkade", 40 ff. ("In the days of Narim-Suen...ships kept bringing goods to Sumer...The Meluhhians, the men of the black country, brought to him all kinds of exotic wares"; see A. Falkenstein,ZA 57, 43 f.); "Enki and the World Order", 126 and 2x6 f. (Fal- kenstein, ZA 56, 44f.); Kramer, ISETI, 211: Ni 2126+ i 7// 212: Ni 130208 i 7, etc. [Edzard]; cf. in general, Kramer, Sumerians, p. 278 fif.

ii) Cyl. Aix 19;xv 5;xvizzf.; B xiv I3. I2) See A. Falkenstein, AnOr 30 (1966), 48. 13) Cf. C. J. Gadd, Proceedings of the British Academy 18 (1932), 191-21o; W.W.

Hallo and B. Buchanan, Fs Landsberger (AS 16, Chicago 1965), 204ff.;During Caspers, art. cit.; R. H. Brunswig and A. Parpola, "New Indus type and related seals from the Near East" (publication pending).

132 S. PARPOLA, A. PARPOLA & R. H. BRUNSWIG JR.

to the Sargonid period 14) and two to the later Isin-Larsa times 15). The Akkadian dynasty thus emerges as the most prolific in indicating Indus-Mesopotamian contact. That period, as noted above, also has textual references, though admittedly limited, attesting to direct sea trade with the foreign country of Melulhha. In the immediate post- Akkadian time, the reign of Gudea in many ways marks an attempt to preserve the basic character, if not the actual territory, of the previous Akkadian dynasty. Textual evidence indicates that trade with Melubba continued, although no recognizable Indus artifacts have been re- covered from Gudean contexts. However, this is not surprising given the normal archaeological conditions which usually result in direct foreign trade materials, normally perishable or alterable, not surviving the millennia 16). And when found such evidence generally occurs in

14) Most securely Sargonid seem to be the two seals found at Tell Asmar "in an Akkadian house" (in a stratum dating from the Early Dynastic period) and "private houses dating from the dynasty of Akkad" respectively (cf. H. Frankfort, OIC 16 [i933], 5I f.;id., CS

[i939], 305, and Stratified Cylinder Seals [95 5], n . 642; Wheeler, The Indus

Civilization a [i968], 17, nos. 5 and 6; Lamberg-Karlovsky, art. cit. 224). Fairly certainly Sargonid is the seal found at Tepe Gawra in Stratum VI comprising the late Early Dynastic and early Sargonid period (cf. E. A. Speiser, Excavations at Tepe Gawra I [Philadelphia 1935], I63 f.; Wheeler, op. cit., i 17 no. 7). Probably Sargonid are the two seals uncovered at Kish, whose archaeological contexts are described by S. Langdon (JRAS 193i, 593 ff.) and E. Mackay(JRAS 1925, 697; cf. Langdon, 1.c.) respectively as "clearly not earlier than Sargon of Agade" and "early Sumerian". Possibly Sargonid are three seals from Ur, Gadd's nos. i, iy and 16 (art. cit., p. 193 f.); the first of these was found unstratified, but was assigned by Gadd as pre-Sargonic on palaeographic grounds (cf. below, excursus, p. 156); the second was found in a grave very probably belonging "to the Sargonic series" (ib., p. 201); the third came from the filling of a tomb-shaft as- cribedbyL. Woolley (AJ 12 [1932], 364) and C. J. Gadd (L.c., p. 201o f.) to the second dynasty of Ur, by Frankfort (CS, p. 306; OIC i6, p. 5ox10) to the Akkadian period, and by B. Buchanan (JAOS 74 [I1954], 149) to early Ur III times (cf. ibid. n. 16: "Notice that Woolley apparently gave up his original idea that the Indus Valley piece might be on a floor of the tomb.").

I1) Both cases are ambiguous, however. Gadd's seal no. 6 was found "in a

vaulted tomb which is apparently that described by Woolley...as 'a Larsa tomb which had been hacked down into' a wall dividing two apartments in the 'N.W. annexe' added by Bur-Sin, king of Ur, to the funerary building of his father" (Gadd, 1.c., 195 f.). H. de Genouillac (RA 27 [1930], 177) reports that the Indus-looking seal found by him at Tello came from 175 cm below the surface, "au niveau des objects de 1'6poque de Gudda ou des restes de l'ige de Larsa".

16) Cf. H. E. W. Crawford, World Archaeology (I973), 232-241.

THE MELUUUA VILLAGE I 33

"port of trade" cities, often within the confines of merchantile enclaves within a larger settlement 17); the chances of uncovering foreign cultural material in the relatively limited excavations of large urban settlements with occupational strata spanning a millennium or more are extremely scanty. In the case of cities ruled by Gudea, the limited area under his influence and the very short time involved further reduce the chances of finding Indus trade related objects. And considering that only eight datable seals have been thus far found in the much longer and more extensive reign of the Akkadian dynasty makes it understandable that similar artifacts have yet to be disclosed from Gudean occupational strata.

The end of LagaS and several other South Mesopotamian city states as independent political units came with the emergence of a multi-state empire under the Ur III dynasty, established largely through the efforts of Ur-Nammu (2 112-2095 B.C.). Goods from Meluhha continued flowing to Mesopotamia through the Ur III period, as borne out by references to Meluhhan raw materials and pieces of art in contemporary texts 18), but, curiously enough, there is no contemporary textual evidence showing that these imports were obtained by direct trade-contact with the Mielhbans themselves. Yet Meluhha (as a geographical term and an ethnic appellation) is occasionally encountered in Ur III economic and administrative documents in contexts suggesting that natives of Meluhha, or their descendants, were still involved in economic and commercial activities in Meso- potamia in the late Sumerian times. It is the purpose of this article to collect and discuss the relevant documents, and thus to prepare ground for answering the question of what was the exact r61e of these people in the actual Indus-Mesopotamian interaction. Though most of the texts concerned are in themselves of little interest, they will

17) Cf. N. Ozgiig, Old World Archaeology (ed. C. C. Lamberg-Karlovsky), 1972, pp. 243-249. For "ports of trade" see K. Polanyi: Trade and Market in the Early Empires (1957), 38 fif.

I8) Cf. Leemans, Trade, p. I6i.

134 s. PARPOLA, A. PARPOLA & R. H. BRUNSWIG JR.

nevertheless be presented in full in order to make the nature of the

Meluhha references stand out as clearly as possible 19).

TEXTS

I. Receipt of barley (2062 B.C.)

L 7175. Unp., cf. Delaporte, ITT IV (iiz2) no. 7157. Photograph

pl. I (case only).

Obv. I 42.2.0 Se gur lugal Ur-saga, the scribe of the 2 ki nin-a-na-ta builders, has received in the 3 6-duru5 me-luhy-ta name of the builders 42,2 4 mu Sitim-e-ne-• royal gur of barley from 5 ur-sa6-ga[dubl-sar itim Nin-anafrom the MeluhbBa village.

seal impression 6 Su ba-ti iti Se-gurux0 Month Seguru (XII), the year 7 mu a-r i 3-kam in which Simurum was destroyed 8 si-mu-ru-umki ba-hul for the third time.

Rev. seal impressions Seallegend: ur-sas-ga Ur-saga,

dub-sar litim scribe of the builders, dumu dug4-ga-dingir son of Duga-digir.

2. Account of grain delivery (2057 B.C.)

Previous edition: R. J. Lau, OBTR (1906) no. 242. Copy ibid. pl. 22.

Obv. I I 1927.2.4 7 1927,2,4 royal gur 7 2 sila Se gur lugal sila of barley, 3 e &-gud bull-stable grain, 4 gur ogur

5 e 6-APIN-l i of "tiller-house" grain, 6 gur ogur 7 Se numun-ta gur-ra of grain returned from sowing, 8 1.2.3 gur 1,2,3 gur 9 Se amar ba-til of calf-grain, all of it.

(one line blank) 0o Su+nigin 1929'.o.I Altogether 1929,0,1 royal gur

ii 7 sila Se gur lugal 7 sila of barley

19) In regard to the system of transliteration, note that kiri, = SAR, not GI .SAR (SL). The measures of capacity are transliterated according to the system of E. Sollberger, TCS i (1966), 12i.

THE MELUIIJA VILLAGE 13 J

I 12 sag nig-GA-ra-kam 13 lag4-bi-ta 14 851.2.5 5 15 sila gur

II x gurUDKA[ -ta] 2 I90.0.0 7 sila gur 3 gur ge-ba-ta 4 dub-bi 3-am 5 dub ur-dam 6 dumu ur-dnanre 7 265.1.5 5 8 gur 9 dub-bi 3-am

o10 dub ur-dlama

ii dumu me-luh-1a 12 84.3.5 gurt 13 dub gii-d6-a 14 dumu ur-dba-ir I 5 37.1.4 gur 16 mu ba-a-al-la- 17 a-• I8 dub ur-dam

Rev. III I dumu ur-dnanae

2 a-gti-a gi-g (3 lines blank)

3 u xnigin [1548.4.4] 4 [2 slla gur] 5! dub [ur-dam]

6'- u x nigin [265.1.5] 7! [5 sila gur] 8! dub [ur-dlama] 9! dumu [me-luh-ha]

Io! u x nigin [84.3.5 gur] 11! dub [gii-d6-a]

(4 lines blank) IV (6 lines blank)

I Su xnigin 1928.0.1 2 7 sila Se gur lugal 3 zi-ga

(2 lines blank) 4 nig-ID-aka 5 1'- a4ul-gi 6 sabra 7

,e 6 anin-rmarkil

8 mu is-sa 6 Bf.SA-il-

9 dda-gan

making up the deposit capital. Therefrom:

851,2,5 gur 5 sila (for)

..[..] of one gur [each], 190 gur 7 sila (for) grain-rations of one gur each, details on 3 tablets, (given against) a tablet of Ur-dam son of Ur-Nanle; 265,1,5 gur 5

(sila of barley), details on 3 tablets, (given against) a tablet of Ur-Lama son of Melubhha; 84,3,5 gur, tablet of Gudea son of Ur-Babu; 5 37.1.4 gur for Ba'alla (PN?),

tablet of Ur-dam son of Ur-Nante, put on account.

Altogether [1548,4,4 gur] [z sila of grain]:

tablet of [Ur-dam]; altogether [265,1,5 gur]

[s sila of grain]: tablet of [Ur-Lama] son of [MeluBha]; altogether [84,3,5 gur]: tablet of [Gudea].

In all I928,0,1 royal gur 7 sila of barley

expended.

Accountant:

Lu-Sulgi, manager.

Grain of the temple of Ninmar. The year following the one in which the temple of Puzril-Dagan (was built).


3. Inventory of barley deposits (2047 B.C.)

BM 17751. Copy L. W. King, CT 5 (1898) pl. 36 f.

Obv. I x 6o lal 2 le gur lugal 58 royal gur of barley (in) 2 a-lag, a-ba-al-la the field of Aballa. 3 343.3.3 gur 343,3,3 gur (in) 4 i-dub dul-ma-nu the granary of Du-Manu. 5 325.1.0 gur 325,I gur (in) 6 i-dub daul-gi-

the granary of Sulgi- 7 zi-kalam-ma zi-kalama. 8 19o0.0.0 gur 190 gur (in) 9 i-dub igi-g •l- dlugal- the granary of Igigal-lugal-

Io URU X KARki Uruba;

II Se sumun old barley. 12 9.1.3 gur 9,1,3 gur (in) 13 i-dub ur-nig kta-dim

the granary of Ur-nig, the silversmith.

14 148.4.0 gur 148,4 gur (in) 15 i-dub &-duru, ur- the granary of the village of 16 An Ur-en. 17 I.o.5 e in-nuku6 IO,5 gur of inninnu-barley 18 gur (in) 19 i-dub &-duru5 dlugal- the granary of the village of 20o -zi-da Lugal-azida. 21 563.4.3 563,4,3 gur 22 gur (in)

II I i-dub &-dur u5 me- the granary of the village of 2 luh-haki Meluha. 3 i866.I.2 gur 1866,1,2 gur (in) 4 i-dub Sir-gal the granary of Sargal.

5 860.4.0 gur 860,4 gur (in) 6 i-dub TE SU TUR the granary of Temen-~udumune (?). 7 NE 8 680.0.0 gur 680 gur of 9 e gin-gin ordinary (and)

io Se gibil new grain. II I guru7 1445. I pile 1445,4,5 gur 12 4.5 gu r within (the territory of) 13 lag4 gir-suki Girsu. 14 130.1.0 gur I30,1I gur (in) I5 i-dub igi-g •l- the granary of Igigal- 16 dlugal-uRv X KARki Lugal-Uruba. 17 1153.3.0 gur 1153,3 gur (in) 18 i-dub 6 sipa-tur the granary of Esipatur. 19 260.2.1 5 sila gur 260,2,1 gur

5 sila (in)

20 i-dub dnin-gir-su- the granary of Ningirsu- 21 a-zi-da-

danne azida-Nanie.

JESHO XX, 2 PLATE I

L 7157

L7''?

1. case obverse 2. case lower edge

3. case reverse 4. case left edge

5. case upper edge Photographs: courtesy Istanbul Arkeoloji

Miizeleri.

PLATE II JESHO XX, 2

L 705

i. obverse 2. right edge 3. reverse

L 80oi

I. obverse 2. reverse

L I426

I. obverse 2. reverse

Photographs: courtesy Istanbul Arkeoloji Miizeleri.

THE MELUI-JA

VILLAGE 137

Rev. IlI x 1347.1.0 gur 1347,1 gur (in) 2 1-dub a-g dr gibil the granary of Agar-gibil. 3 Io052.4.0 gur io 2,4 gur (in) 4 1-dub a-pi4-sal,-mul- the granary of Apisal-mul-

5 bi-eden-na bi-edena. 6 I guru, 283. i pile 283,2,1 gur 7 2.1 5 sila gur 5sila (of barley) 8 g i id nina

ki_ g du along the Ninale-du canal.

9 1195.3.o gur 1195,3 gur (in) io i-dub g 6 id tir- the granary on the Tir-sikil canal. II sikil z12 180 lal I gur 179 gur (in)

13 i-dub sipa-tur the granary of Sipa-tur. 14 190.0.0 gur 190 gur (in)

15 i-dub igi- g •il- d the granary of Igigal-

I6 lugal-URU X KARki Lugal-Uruba. 17 300.3.0 g ur 300,3 gur (in) 18 1-dub

a-pii-sal,- the granary of Apisal-

19 lugal-nam-uru-na lugal-nam-uruna. 20 69.0.0 gur 69 gur (in) 21 i-dub &-duru5 gibil the granary of the new village of

dnanle Nanle. IV I 1204.2.4 5 sila gur 120zo4,2,4 gur 5 sila (in)

2 i-dub barag-si-ga the granary of Bara-siga. 3 2.0.0 gur 2 gur (in) 4 i-dub a-lag4 zi-dusku6 the granary of the Zidu-field.

5 6.o.5 gur 56,o,5 gur (in) 6 i-dub lag4 a-lag4 zi- the granary within the Zidu-field; 7 dugku6 8 le sumun old grain. 9 1425.0.2

5 sila 1425,o,2 gur

5 sila

Io gur (in) ii i-dub dnin-lhur-sag- the granary of Ninhursag- 12z 16i-kug-nun lu-kunun; 13 333.0.0 gur 333 gur of 14 le gin-gin ordinary (and) i5 le gibil new grain. 16 i guru7 1473. (In all) i pile 1473, 17 2.4 gur 2,4 gur 18 lag4 gi-ab-baki within (the city of) Gu'aba.

(one line blank) 19 I-dub ha-la-a The granaries for distribution. zo mu is-sa ki-malki The second year following 21 ba-hul the one in which Kimal 22 mu 6s-sa-bi was destroyed.


4. List of grain rations (2047 B.C.)

Copy: E. Chiera, STA (1922), no. 19. Catalogued ibid. p. 39. Obv. I I 2.2.0 5 sila ge gur lugal 2,2 royal gur 5

sila of barley 2 ki ur-dba-6-ta afforded by Ur-Babu, 3 giri ur- dul-pa-t in charge of Ur-Sulpa'e. 4 Sag4-bi-ta Therefrom:

5 AGA igib-mah The crown(?) of the grand ihippu: 6 0.0.5 zi-ur-g6-en-na o,o,5 (gur to) Zi-Ur-gu'ena (and) 7 ur- aba-6 SeS ur-nig Ur-Babu, brother of Ur-nig, 8 sig,-a (garden) decorators (?). 9 o.o.5 (In all) o,o,5.

Io giskiri, en-ne The garden of Enne: II o.I.o Id-aba- 6 0,1 (to) Lu-Babu, I2 0.0.5 ku- 6-r 0,o, 5 (to) Kububu, I3 [o.o.3] ab-ba-kal-la dumu o,o,3 (to) Abba-kala son of 14 kug- dnan e Ku-Nante, I5 o.o.r41 ur-anin-gir-su 0,0,4 (to) Ur-Ningirsu, I6 0.0.3 lugal-amar-kug o,o,3 (to) Lugal-amar-ku, 17 0.0.4 ur-dba-6 0,0,4 (to) Ur-Babu, i8 [o.0.z2] 16dnin- ubur 0,0,2 (to) Lu-Niniubur, 19 e kal-la the brother of Kala, 20 0.0.4 16-adnin-gir-su 0,0,4 (to) Lu-Ningirsu. 21 0.4.5 (In all) 0,4,5. 22 giSkirij ur-ma-ma The garden of Ur-Mama: 23 0.1.0 dingir-[?]-mu 0,I (to) Digirgu, 24 0.0.2 ur-DUB-hu-ru 0,0,2 (to) Ur-DUBtlurU. 25 0.1.3 (In all) 0,1,3. 26 giSkiri, gem&-dKA.DI The garden of Geme-IBtaran:

II i o.o.3 ur-dig-[alim] 0,0,3 (to) Ur-Igalima, 2 0.0.2 ab-ba-lum 0,0,2 (to) Abba-lum, 3 o.o.1 5 sila a-kal-[la] o,o,i gur5 sila (to) Akala, 4 dumu ur-diul-gi son of Ur-Sulgi, (and)

5 ur-- 5o Ur-Eninnu. 6 o.I.o 5 sila (In all) o,i gur 5 sila. 7 giSkiri, al-la-[mu] The garden of Allagu: 8 ur-ba-g ir Ur-Bagara. 9 o.i.o lIi-dnanle o,I (to) Lu-Nanie,

o10 0.1.0 lu-~d.igigir dumu o,1 (to) Lu-gigirson of Ur-Lama. ur- dlama

I I 0.1.0 (In all) o, i. 1i2 gi1kirir is -suh gaba-ri- The fir garden of Gabari-Enki.

den-ki 13 giskiri gu-la ~ag4 uru The great garden inside the city. 14 giskiri6 gig-kin The kikandugarden.

I5 giskirij me-luh-ha The Melubba garden d6 dnin-marki-ka of Ninmar.

THE MELU-JA

VILLAGE 13 9

II 17 glSkiri6 dnin-marki The garden of Ninmar. 18 giSkiri kur x [ ] The garden of the land [...] 19 gi~kiri, ur-d[ ] The garden of Ur-[ ]: 20 ur- d•ul-[gi] Ur-Sul[gi], 21

,ag4-ba-na-[gar] Sabana[gar],

22 dumu lugal-[ ] son of Lugal-[ ], Rev. III r dutu-bar-ra Utu-bara.

2 giSkiri, ma-ni The garden of Mani.

3 giSkiri, d nin-ubur The garden of the god Niniubur: 4 lugal-me-1im Lugal-melam;

5 ur-dub Ur-dub (and) 6 16- dnin-gir-su Lu-Ningirsu, 7 dumu lugal-me-lim-me son(s) of Lugal-melam; 8 0.0.4 ur-dig-alim 0,0,4 (to) Ur-Igalima. 9 0.0.4 (In all) 0,0,4.

10o ~Skiri, gi6 eden 4nin- The black steppe-garden of Nin- gir-su girsu:

II o.0.1.4 A ur-&-dub o,I,4 (to) Ur-Eduba. I2 gi kiri gi6 eden dba- r The black steppe-garden of Babu: 13 0.0.3 nin-mu-silim-mu o,o,3 (to) Ningu-silimgu. 14 0.0.3 (In all) o,o,3.

I, gis kiri gettin gi-dba-i- The vineyard of Gu-Babu-hegal. h6-gil

i6 giskirij erim-z6-z6 zi-na The ...-garden of Zina. 17 giSkiri lugal-igi+ [ ] The garden of Lugal-[ ]. 18 g* kiri6

--lu-a The garden of...

19 giSkirij URU X KARki The garden of the city of Urub: 20 0.1.0 1h-dnin-gir-su o,i (to) ILu-Ningirsu, 21 0.0.4 lugal-[ ] bi [ ] 0,0,4 (to) Lugal-[ ]. 22 0.I.4 (In all) 0,1,4. 23 giskirij dig-a[lim] The garden of the god Igalim. 24 gi kiri6 •

ir- g [al] The garden of Sargal. IV I giskirij dnanl e si-mu- The garden of Nan~e of Simurum:

2 ur4-umki 3 ur- dig-alim Ur-Igalima. 4 16 -LAGAR XZA-me The...-men.

(9 lines blank) 5 Au x nigin 2.1.o 5 sila ie gur Altogether 2,1 gur 5 sila of barley, 6 e-ba dh-a-kud grain rations to duaku-gardeners. 7 0.0.2 ab-ba-mu 0.0.4 lal-NI o,0,2 (to) Abbagu, balance 0,0,4. 8 dul-ma-nu-ta From (the granary of) Du-Manu. 9 iti g ina-bar Month Ganabar (II),

1o mu is-sa ki-ma ki the second year following xx ba-hul mu ds-sa-bi the one in which KimaS was de-

stroyed.



Previous edition: T. G. Pinches, Amherst (I908), no. 54, P. IO8 ff. (with copy; photograph ibid. pl. III).

Obv. I 6.4.5 Se gur lugal 6,4,5 royal gur of barley (to) 2 giskiri6 d4ul-gi-i-kalam-ma the garden of Sulgi-a-kalama. 3 1.0.2 giskirij geltin gar- I,o,z (to) the vineyard of Gar~um.

Mumki 4 0.2.2 gijkiri6 anin-gir-su-i- 0,2,2 (to) the garden of Ninglirsu-

5 dah- d iul- gi adah-Sulgi. 6 0.3.2 gijkirij ur-dnin-gir- 0,3,2 (to) the garden of Ur-Ningirsu-

su-gu-la gula. 7 0.2.0 giSkiri6 ga-KASKAL oz, (to) the merchant/leek garden. 8 0.4.0 gikirie dul-pa-6 0,4 (to) the garden of the god Sulpa'e. 9 0.3.0 giSkiri, 16i-diig-ga o,3 (to) the garden of Lu-duga.

o10 0.2.0 giskirij gu-la a-[ ] x 0,2 (to) the great garden [...]. II 0.3.1 gi~kiri, uru-sag o,3,I (to) the garden of Urusag. I2 0.3.0 giskiri6 gem-

d-ul-pa- 0,3 (to) the garden of Geme-Sulpa'e.

13 0.4.3 gikiri, danin-gir-su 0,4,3 to the garden of Ningirsu. [1 Xl AR NE FX 1

14 0.I.2 gijkirij ti-ra-iis 0,1,2 (to) the garden of Tiras. 15 0.1.2 1l-LAGAR X ZA O,I,2 (to) the . ..-men. 16 0.2.0 16i-na-kab-tum 0,2 (to) the nagabtum-men. 17 SuXnigin 14.3.1 Se gur lugal In all 14.3.I royal gur of barley. i8 ugula

gi-i--mu sandana Overseer: Gu'ugu, chief gardener.

19 0.o.5 gi kiri, en-ne o,o,5 (to) the garden of Enne.

Rev. I 2.0.0 gi kiri6 ur-ma-ma 2 (to) the garden of Ur-Mama. 2 0.4.0 gif kiri, gem- dKA.DI 0,4 to the garden of Geme-IBtaran. 3 0.3.5 g"ikiri6 al-la-mu o,3,5 to the garden of Allagu. 4 0.1.4 gi1 kiri6 i-SU 5 gaba- 0,1,4 to the fir garden of Gabari-Enki.

ri-en-ki 5 0.3.5 gi~kiri, gu-la Sag4 uru o,3,5 to the great garden inside the

city. 6 0.4.2 gi1Skiri ma-ni 0,4,2 to the garden of Mani. 7 o.3.o gi kiri, geitin gi- o,3 to the vineyard of Gu-Babu-

dba-i-hg-gil hegal. 8 0.3.2 gi1kiri6 dig-alim 0,3,z to the garden of the god Igalim. 9 1.1.0 16-na-kab'-tum-me I,I to the nagabtum-men.

'o Sux nigin 8.0.5 Se gur lugal In all 8,0,5 royal gur ofbarley. II ugula ab-ba-mu sandana Overseer: Abba~u, chief gardener. I2 u xnigin 22.4.0 Se gur lugal Altogether 22,4 royal gur of barley, 13 ge-ba dti-a-kud-e-ne grain rations to duaku-gardeners, 14 i-dub me-luh-ha-ta from the granary of Meluhha, I5 ki ur- dba- du mu ba-zi-ta provided by Ur-Babu son of BaZi. x6 dub ur-gisgigir i ka-tar- Tablet of Ur-gigir and Katar-Babu,

dba-

THE MELUHjA VILLAGE 141

Rev. 7 dub-bi x - m there being (only) one tablet. i8 iti ezen-dba-6-ta (Valid) from the month Ezen-Babu 19 iti mu-9u-du,-• (IX) to the month Mu-udu (X), 20 iti 2-kam i.e. two months. The 2nd year

LE z21 mu Gs-sa ki-ma ki ba-lul following the destruction ofKimaS. mu is-sa-a-bi

6. List of grain rations

Copy: G. A. Barton, HLC III (1914) no. 368 (pl. 139).

Obv. I I' [ ]-giS (break) 2' I2.0.3 gur I2,0,3 gur of 3' ge-ba a-bal grain rations to irrigators, 4' giri 1i-igi-lhul in charge of Lu-igibul. 5' 22.4.0 gur 22,4 gur (of grain) 6' me-luh- ha- ta from (the village of) Meluhba; 7' 34.2.0 gur 34,2 gur 8' i-dub Sir-gal-ta from the granary of Sargal; 9' 9.1.0 gur 9,1 gur

1o' &-duru5 lugal-ti-ta from the village of Lugal-ti; ii' 5.o.o0 da-da nu-kiri6-ta from the house of Dada the gar-

dener, Iz' I.z.x 6 Su-na nu-kiri6-ta 1,2,1 from the house of ~una the

gardener, I3' zI.3.0 gur 6 ba-har-[ta] 21,3 gur from the house of Balar

II (break) (break) x' r6.o.o01 x[ ] 2'

27.0.5 2 sila gur 27,0,5 gur 2 sila (of grain),

3' 3.0.0 &-duru5 duru'-dam' 3 <from> thevillage ofUrudam(?), 4' 312z.54 5 sila (in all) 312,5,4 gur 5 sila

5' ki ur-aba-P dumu ba-zi-ta provided by Ur-Babu son of Bazi. 6' 5.o.o a-r i i-kam 5 (gur) as the first delivery, 7' 2.0.0 a-r 2-kam 2 (gur) as the second delivery, 8' ki nig-li-rum kus-du8-ta provided by Ni'urum the skinner(?). 9' 9.2.0 i-dub nu-dus-ta 9,2 from the Nudu-granary,

io' 9.2.0 i-dub inim-dinanna-ta 9,2 from the granary of Inim-Inanna, iI' ki 16-dnin-gir-su dumu provided by Lu-Ningirsu son of

1-kal-la-ta Ikalla. Rev. III I 3.3.0 ki ur-dingir-ra 3,3, by Ur-digira

2 SeS igi-zu-bar-ra-ta the brother of Igizu-bara. 3 i.o.o ki PA-6n dumu i (gur), by PA-en son of 4 ki!- iga-ta Kiaga. 5 4.3.4 &-si-ta 4,3,4 (gur) from Esi, 6 3.0.0 6 ur-dingir-ra-ta 3 from the house of Ur-digira; 7 6.o.o gur lal-NI su-ga-nin 6 gur, deficit of Suganin(?), 8 a-na dumu 16-gu-la Ana son of Lu-gula. 9 6.0.0 -duru6 lugal-ta 6 (gur) from the village of the king,


Rev. III 1o 4.1.3 kalam-sa, -ga-ta 4,1,3 from Kalam-saga,

ii girl su6-dug4-dug, in charge of Su-dudu. 12 2.3.5 5 sila a-r i 2,3,5 gur 5 sila, as the Ist delivery, 13 8.0.0 sukkal l-dus ix Su 30 ta (8 gur) from.... 14 girl ur-dnin-giz-zi-da in charge of Ur-Ningizzida.

(remainder destroyed) IV (8 lines blank)

I Suxnigin 384.2.5 I slla Altogether 384,2,5 gur I sila 2 e gur of barley, 3 e-ba a-bal dxa-a-<kud>- grain rations to irrigators and

e-ne (blank space of 2 lines) duaku-gardeners. (remainder destroyed) (Date destroyed)

7. Debt-note (2046 B.C.)

BM 14594. Copy L. W. King, CT 3 (1898) pl. i7.

Obv. I 41i ma-na siki! (St) Ur-Lama son of Melutha has 2 si-i-tum 2 gli to recompense 41I pounds of 3 50 ma-na siki'!(f) wool, the balance of 2 talents 4 mu 6 KAX KAR-ii-da- o50 pounds of wool (loaned by him)

S gan ba-dii in the year in which the temple 6 ur- d1ama dumu me- of Puzrii-Dagan was built 7 luh-ha (= 2058 B.C.).

Rev. 8 su-su-dam 9 dub ur-&-5o dumu Tablet of Ur-Eninnu son of

10 d u-d u Dudu, acting for Ur-Lama son ii mu ur-dlama dumu of Meluhha. iz me-luh-ha-S6 13 mu amar- den: zu The year in which Amar-Suena 14 lugal became king.


Copy: G. A. Reisner, TUT (1901I) no. I54. Catalogued ibid. p. XIII.

[Because of the length of the text (246 lines in 8 columns) only an

excerpt of it is given here.]

Rev. VI 20zo D o.I.O ur- dal-la erin C o,I (gur to) Ur-Alla, serf of 21 sabra-e- i the household of the temple- 22 dumu lugal-m +gur8-re manager, son of Lugal-magure. 23 D o.i.o lugal-uru-da IM-e 0,I (gur to) Lugal-uruda, in/by IM, 24 dumu a-ku, erin 6 dnanie son of Aku, serf of the Nanie 25 nina ki-ta temple, from Nina. z6 D o.i.o mi+gur8-re IM-e o,I to Magure, left in/by IM,

tag4-a

THE MELUHJA VILLAGE 143

Rev. VI 27 dumu me-lulh-ha erin 6 son of Meluha, serf of the dnange

28 g6 id-a-ta Nanie temple, from the delta. 29 girn lugal-16-sa8-sa, In charge of Lugal-lu-sasa. 30 D o.i.o ur-dnin-giz-zi-da o,I (to) Ur-Ningizzida, serf of 31 erin 6 na-ba-sa, nu-dib- the house of Nabasa, from....

ba-ta 32 dumu adnin-marki-1-sa, son of Ninmar-isa: 33 m -la h4 (DU.DOu)-me (all these) are skippers.

The men listed in this section belonged to the "personnel of the new mill" (gir-si-ga &-urs-ur5 gibil, VII 24), the mill in question doubt- less being part of a temple in Girsu. The rest of the text lists the balance of the mill staff (scribes, gate-keepers, reed-weavers, carpenters, maltsters, grinding-slab cutters, "chair-bearers", boat towers, etc.) in similar sections. Dated "month of Ezen-Lisi (IV), the year following the one in which Amar-Suen became king".

9. Receipt of grain (2030 B.C.) L 705. Unp., cf. H. de Genouillac, ITT II (1910) 705. Photograph pl. II.

Obv. i I.I.o le gur Ur-ninsu has received 2 le nu-Ku from Ur-Itaran I,i gur 3 3.0.0 gur le ur5-ra of un...ed barley (and) 4 ki ur- dKA.DI- 3 gur of ground barley. 5 ta 6 ur-dnin-su

Rev. I lu ba-ti 2 1-dub me-luh-[h]a Granary of Meluhha, 3 iti le-il-la month Se-ila (I), 4 mu mi-gur8 mah the year in which the grand 5 ba-dim procession-ship was built.

Io. Account of grain delivery (2028 B.C.)

Previous edition: H. F. Lutz, UCP 9/2 (1928) no. 65 (transliteration and translation p. 129 f., copy p. 192).

I 2.0.0 le gur 2 gur of barley 2 a-lag, dinanna-ta from the field of the goddess Inanna, 3 giri dingir-sukkal in charge of Digir-sukkal, 4 2.0.0 se-numun NUN SAR nu-6 2 (gur) of nongerminant seed barley, 5 I.o.o 6-ta le-me-ha ki I (gur) from the house, Semeha, (?)


6 0.3.0 me-lu h-ha-ta 0,3 (gur)from (the) Meluha (village), 7 0.2.0 a-KA-sahar-ta 0,2 (gur) from Akasahar, 8 o.z.o pistir-gaba-gfd-da- o,z (gur) from Tirgabagidda, 9 ta 0o 24.3.0 6 nam-lah, (DU.DU)- 24,3 (gur) from Enamlaia,

xx ta 2,1,3 (gur) 6 sila in the hands i2 2.1.3 6 sila u palil of the principal, 13 Su+nigin 33.1.3 6 sila gur a total of 33,1,3 gur 6 sila (of grain). 14 ag4- bi- ta Therefrom: 15 25.I.0 Se kaS ninda gur 25,1 gur of barley (for) beer and

bread, 16 1.1.0 ge-ba gem6 x,1

for grain rations of maidservants 17 s -dug, e-ba (and) regular grain offerings, I8 0.3.0 nig-ezen-dab, 0,3 for festival expenditures; 19 Su+nigin 27.0.0 Se gur in all 27 gur of grain. 20 lal-NI 6.I.3 6 sila gur Balance: 6,1,3 gur 6 sila. 21 nig-ID-aka ur-aba-6r Accountant: Ur-Babu. 22 mudi-bi-den:zu Year: the one in which Ibbi-Suen 23 lugal became king.

I1. List of persons (undated)

L 8oi0 . Unp., cf. L. Delaporte, ITT IV (1912) 80I5. Photograph pl. II. Obv. I [x] ur- adKA.DI Ur-Igtaran (and)

2 [x] lugal-giSgigir Lugal-gigir, 3 dub-sar-me scribes. 4 I GAL-1-li ugula ug-[bar] Rabi-ili, overseer of weavers,

5 x gigir-ta t6ig-du8 Gigirta, tailor, 6 x ur- Ur-a,

Rev. 7 x ur-dralr Ur-da. (2 lines blank)

8 Su+nigin 6 guruS Altogether 6 men, 9 Ir- dnan e-me servants of the goddess Nanie.

Io ugula me-luh-ha overseer: Melubba.

12. List of persons (undated)

L 1426. Unp., cf. F. Thureau-Dangin, ITT I (1910) 1426. Photograph pl. II.

Obv. I x lugal-ab Lugal-ab 2 dumu da-da son of Dada; 3 ugula ur-6-dam overseer: Ur-Edam. 4 I ki-ku-li6 Kikkulu 5 dumu lugal-iti-da son of Lugal-itida;

THE MELUUUA VILLAGE 145

6 ugula ur-nig overseer: Ur-nig. 7 I me-luh-ha Meluhha 8 dumu ur-an-na-di-a son of Ur-ana-dua; 9 ugula nam-rmalh-ni overseer: Nammahani.

Io [x] ur-[ ] Ur-[ ] (last line of obverse [son of PN] and edge destroyed)

Rev. I [ ] [overseer: PN2] 2 rlI [u]rf-irgigirl[dumu Ur-gigir son of Ur-Ni[n..];

u]r-dni[n..] 3 rugulal ur-dKA.DI overseer: Ur-I~taran. 4 r11 ii-da dumu 8-kal-l[e] Uda son of Akalle; 5 ugula si-dii overseer: Sidu.

(2 lines blank) 6 nu-btn-[d]a 6 Inspector(s) of the house.

NOTES TO THE TEXTS

No. i

I "42,2 royal gur of barley": ca. 0o6 hectolitres = 454 bushels. The amounts of gur and its subdivisions represented by the number string can be con- verted into modern measures according to the following scheme: I gur =

2,5 hi = 5 bariga (thus according to Edzard rather than nigida [Soll- berger]); I bariga =

0ol = 6 bin; I bin = 8,5 1 = io sila; see F. Thureau-

Dangin, RA I8 (1921), I36 f. 3 -duru5 me-luh "the Meluhha village": cf. i-dub &-durus me-luh-

ha ki "granary of the Meluhha village" 3 ii I, i-dub me-luh-ha "granary of Meluhha" 5 rI4 and 9 rz, and me-luh-ha "(village of) Melutha" 6 i 6' and io:6 (referring to the same place as 3 ii i, cf. 6 i 8' with 3 ii 4'). The place in question was a small settlement ("village", in the sense of Hebr. k~fer and Arab. kafr; cf. [a]-du-ru i.DURU5 a-du-ru-u, ka-ap-ru, Diri V 307 f., and see CAD s.vv. edurd and kapru) within the province of Girsu (mod.Tell6; cf. 3 ii 13); as far as it is known, all its inhabitants had Meso- potamian names (cf. Nin-ana 1:2, Ur-Lama 2 ii o10 etc. [if associated with the village], Ur-Babu son of Bazi 5 ri5 etc., Ur-Itaran 9:4), and in all contexts the village appears to function as a unit of agricultural production, delivering grain as tax or selling it. Consequently, it does not differ from the numerous other villages mentioned in the present texts save for its name, which associates it with the country of Meluhha (sic; even though villages were often named after individuals, and Meluhha did function as a personal name [cf. 2 ii 11, II:10o, 12:7], the spelling me-luh-ihaki in 3 ii i indicates that the name had a geographical connotation in the present instance). This strongly points to a Sumerianized village originally founded by the Meluhhans as a trade colony. Cf. 6-duru8 ga-e 8 "village of travelling merchants", Chiera STA io iv 8 and Sauren WMAH 176 iv 6, and note also 6-duru5 lti- mi-ganki, UET 3 1364:4, and 6-duru5 NIM-e-ne, ITT 4 7309 and TUT i6o iii 20, interpreted by A. Falkenstein, AnOr 30 (1966), 26 f. re-


spectively as "Dorf der Magan-Leute" and "Elamiterdorf" (cf., however, Edzard's criticism of these renderings at the end of this article); Prof. Edzard refers us further to the GN Lulubuna (RipG 2 112; also TLB III 142:Io, 143:7 ~ a-L.ki [D. O. Edzard]), "wohl eine Lulubier-Kolonie" (Falken- stein, op. cit. 34); "dort ist ein PN ebenso ausgeschlossen wie das Land der Lulubier" (Edzard, in a letter dated 21.9.1975).

No. 2

I 3ff On &-gud "stable for bulls" cf. Oppenheim, Bames (1948), 230; on APIN-1a "ploughman", see ibid. 259, and cf. [APINu-r]u-li = la-gi-nu Lu IV 371 (MSL 12 39) and APIN-li = er-Ji "tilled field", li'i-APIN-li = e-re-iu "ploughman", h1 II 320 f (MSL 5 76). The suggested rendering of lines 4-7 as- sumes that grain from the said sources was normally included in the deposit capital and therefore also in the account formula, though in the present case the actual amounts available were zero. Alternatively, these lines could specify the amount given in line if, the word gur being conventionally repeated (cf. I.o.5 Me in-nuku6 gur, 3 i I7 f.).

II I UD KA [ ]: unclear. Hardly for UD. KA. [BAR] "bronze". ii dumu me-luh-ha "son of Meluhha": Meluhha is attested as a personal

name in nos. x xi: I•0 and I2:7, in the latter case together with a Sumerian

patronymic (me-luh-ha dumu ur-an-na-dii-a; cf. also mi+gur-e dumu me-luh-ha 8 vi 26 f.), and this is the likeliest interpretation here too. On the other hand, the pattern dumu GN was used in Sumerian (under Akkadian influence?) also to indicate political or ethnic origin (cf. PN dumu EN.LLki-kam "PN, (who) is a citizen of Nippur", Sollberger TCS I no. 6: 3 f.), so a rendering like "inhabitant of Meluhha" or simply "Meluhhan" appears also possible. In that case the designation would not, of course, refer to the country of Melulhha but to the village just discussed (cf. 6 i 6' and io:6 where this village is called simply Me-luih-ha). Which- ever the correct interpretation, the use of Meluhha as a personal name and/or as a civic identifier implies that the person thus designated was in some way (e.g. by skin color, lineage, tongue, or religion) associatable with the people or country of Meluhha; and the fact that a man with a Sumerian name could give his son the name Meluhha, and, conversely, that a man called Meluhha could have a son with a Sumerian name, is clear evidence of the Sumerianization of the namebearers.

i6 Thus according to Edzard; hardly an unusual spelling for mu ba(-a) 1- (1)a- "for digging (a canal)".

III 2 On a-gi(PN)-a gi/gar "to charge to (PN)" see most recently M. Civil, JNES 32 (x973), 58.

IV 7 6 dnin-marki "temple of Ninmar": here obviously referring to the temple of the goddess in Girsu; cf. Falkenstein, AnOr 30 (1966), 29 and lo7, but note that according to Gelb, StOr 46 (I975), 53, the goddess had only one temple, situated in Gu'aba.

No. 3 I 2 a-Sag4 a-ba-al-la: for this field, as well as for the other fields and granaries

mentioned in the text, see Pettinato, Untersuchungen I/I (1967) s.vv.

THE MELUHIHIA VILLAGE 147

4 i-dub dul-ma-nu: cf. a-li du6-giA ma-nu, ibid. p. 160. 13 i-dub ur-nig ki-dim: cf. -duru5 ur-nig kii-dim "village of the

silversmith Ur-nig", CT 9 I8 i 19. I7 le in-nuku6: an unidentified variety of barley; cf. CAD I/J I Ia s.v.

inninnu. II 7 TE lU TUR NE: unclear. Cf. Su-dumu (a profession), TUT i 4 viii 22z.

i i guru, "pile" was a unit of capacity, = 3600 gur. 13 1ag4 gir-suki: this rubric pertains to all the granaries enumerated in

I i-II io, as shown by the sum-total in II 11 f. Similarly g6 id ninaki-•i du (Rev. III 8) and lag, g6-ab-baki (IV 18).

IV 19 i-dub ha-la-a: cf. erin ha-la-a, NSGUI p. 98 and III ii9; for ha-la = Zittu "(part) payment or delivery" see CAD Z 139 ff.

No. 4 I 6 zi-ur-gli-en-na: H. Limet, Anthroponymie (1968) lists 6 attestations of the

PN Ur-gu'ena but none of Zi-Ur-gu'ena or similar names. 8 sig7-a: a profession, meaning uncertain. Rendered tentatively "(garden)

decorator" on the ground of the context and the equation sig, = banu/ buntn "be beautiful/beautify" (CAD B 83 ff. sub

bant A and B, lex. and bil.

sections). Cf. Oppenheim, Eames (1948), p. 46: "Sig, denotes an agricultural activity which is very difficult to determine. The worker termed gurul sig ,-a is often mentioned beside the di-a-kus-gardener as in Boson 364 rev4, Haverf. II 46: i-2; in Hussey 7 listing a large number of sig7-a- workmen stationed in various gardens we read in line IV 32 1e-ba a-bal dii-a-kus-d "barley-wages of water-carriers and dii-a-kus-gardeners", and a similar text even has le-ba nu-giri, referring to sig,7-a workers... However, no text mentions the kind of work the sig,-men actually were doing; the objects of their activity were: gi "reed"..., 6 "grass"..., (i-kula, a kind of grass..,. or

Uz-t ...

19 lel kal-la: for the PN Kal-la see Limet, op. cit. 97, z259 and 443; it is, of course, also possible to read I e - ka l- la (cf. ibid. pp. io6, 20zoz, 259 and 329) and translate Lu-Ninlubur (and) SeI-kala.

I 24 u r-D u B- hu- r u: reading uncertain. Cf. ur-dub (III 5) and ur-dub-len-na, ur-dub-lal, and ur-dub-lal-mah (Limet, op. cit., p. 539 f.).

II 2 ab-ba-lum: not listed by Limet, op. cit.; perhaps sandhi for abba-ilum, usually written ab-ba-dirgir (Falkenstein, NSGU 5:4, Limet p. 365).

14 gil-kin: an unidentified kind of (fruit?) tree; cf. A. Salonen, Mibel 22zzo ("Birke") and R. C. Thompson, AJSL 53 235101 ("chestnut?"). H h III 6 ff. (MISL 5 92) lists white, black, red, multi-coloured and green varieties of the tree.

ysf "The Meluhha garden of Ninmar": following Falkenstein, AnOr 30 (1966) 2613, possibly a garden planted with fruit trees imported from Melulhha; cf. g~ikiri6 i-suh5 gaba-ri-(d)en-ki (4 ii 12, 5 r4), gi4kiri6 geltin gir-Iumki (5:3), etc., where the word inserted after gijkirij likewise specifies the nature of the garden/orchard concerned. The present garden probably provided fruit for the offering-table of the goddess Ninmar of Girsu.


21 9ag4-ba-na-[gar] for the restoration cf. Limet, op. cit. 300 and 525. III x x The sign a preceding the personal name is unaccountable; a scribal error ?

16 erim-z2-z2: unclear, perhaps a tree or a plant. The PN zi-na also occurs in Oppenheim, Eames 209, KK 25:7.

IV 2 1 i-LAGAR X ZA: reading obscure; also in no. 5:15. We cannot suggest any translation (cf. Pinches, Amherst [1908] Iio0: "perhaps "granary-keeper" ". On the reverse (line 9) men of this class are probably included in the 1l i- na-da-tum").

6 di-a-kud: a kind of gardener, cf. Deimel, 3L 230/89 and Oppenheim, Eames 46 f.

No. 5 7 ga-KASKAL: uncertain whether to be read ga-e , "travelling merchant"

(cf. &-duru5 ga-eiS, note to 1:3) or ga-rag "leek" (cf. gi1kiri, gegtin, i -suh5 etc. in the same text).

i6 Nagabtum (written both na-ga-ab-tum and na-kab-tum, the latter often misread as na-da-tum) was a place often mentioned in Ur III texts, especially in ones dealing with cattle. See Oppenheim, Eames 23 and Gelb, MAD 3 201.

r. 5 "the city": probably referring to Girsu.

No. 6 S 3' a-bal: "irrigator", lit. "the one who pours out water", = Akk. ndq mi

(cf. AHw 744b). 6' me-luh-ha: here certainly for i-dub (&-durus) me-luh-ha "granary

of (the village of) Meluhha". Note the subsequent reference to the granary of Sargal, and cf. 3 i 21 f.: 563.4.3, gur, 1-dub &-duru5 me,-luh-hlaki, 1866.1.2 gur, i-dub ir-gal.

II 3' duru '-dam ': otherwise unknown. Copy probably not in order. 8' nig-6-rum: reading after Limet, op. cit. 522. The profession kug-du8 is

otherwise unknown to us. III 4 ki! (copy DI)- ga: emendation justified by the fact that there are no other

examples of a PN DI- iga, whereas ki-iga is well attested (cf. Limet, op. cit. 96, 265 and 443).

13 sukkal i-dus: uncertain whether to be interpreted as "Sukkal (= PN) the gate-keeper" or "the suk k al (= messenger, or the like) of the gate- keepers". Rest unclear.

IV 3 For the emendation cf. a-bal dii-a-kud, Fish Catalogue 28:2, and ge-ba a-bal di-a-kud-ne, Hussey, HSS 4 7 iv 32.

No. 8

VI26 IM-e tag4-a: this expression also occurs in lines II 27.29, III 14.25, VI 4.o10.16.34 f.39, VII 5.9 of the same text, and in abbreviated form ibid. II 8, VI 23 (IM-e) and III I6.40 (IM-e tag4); it is attached to persons of various professions (6 boat towers, 4 skippers, 2 maltsters, I gate-keeper and I reed-mat weaver) and of varying provenance (Girsu, Urim, Apisal,

THE MELUHHA VILLAGE 149

Nina, the village of shepherds, etc.); all of them have fathers and most are said to be in the custody of another person. The meaning of the expression is unclear

(tags-a = 'passive' participle of tag, = e~ibu "to leave,

abandon, divorce" [cf. NSGUIII s.v. and CAD E 416 ff.]; IM-e = ergative of ni "(one)-self" or locative of im/tu,5 "clay/wind").

31 nu-dib-ba-ta: lit. "from (among) the not-taken", meaning obscure. Cf. nu-dib-ba-ni "his not-taken", Sollberger TCS I 366: I2 (context obscure).

No. 9 2 Se nu-KU: cf. Se nu-KU-me, UET3 1056 rxn. Meaning unclear.

No. Io0

4 NUN SAR: obscure. 5 -ta Se-me-haki: one would expect 6 ge-me-hak-ta "from the house

of Semeha"; the GN S. seems to occur only here (cf. Re'pG 2 179): is it identical with later Samuha?

6 me-luh-ha-ta: cf. note to 6 i 6'. 7 a-KA-sahar: interpreted by Pettinato, Untersuchungen I/I p. 70 as "(Feld

am) Wasser KAsahar". For KAsahar see Re'pG 2 93 ("etwas ndrdlich von Nippur an der Abzweigstelle des Iturungal vom Euphrat."

8 gistir-gaba-gid-da: "Feld am Wald gegeniiber dem Gidda-Feld" (Pet- tinato, op. cit. 195 if.). For i-dub (a-Sag4) gist. cf. the other attestations of the toponym listed in RepG 2 195.

No. II

4 GAL-i-li: for the reading Rabi-ili cf. OAkk Ra-bi-DINGIR, Ra-bi-il and GAL-DINGIR (Gelb, MAD 3 234); hardly = Ga-li-li, MAD I 197.

Io If the scribe Ur-IJtaran mentioned in line I is identical with the person mentioned in Text 9:4, then the man called Meluhha was most likely also associated with the Melu4hha village. Is this a mere coincidence? Note that Meluhha and Ur-IBtaran also occur together in Text 12.

No. 12

3 ugula ur-&-dam: here, as in lines 6, 9, r3 and ry, it is impossible to decide whether one should render "overseer of PN" or "overseer: PN". Edzard, in a letter dated 9.9.1976, comments on the issue as follows: "Vielleicht - falls nu-bin-da in der Unterschrift iiberhaupt Plural ist - Liste von nubanda's mit je einem denen unterstellten ugula. Oder aber Liste von Personen, deren Charakteristikum wir nicht kennen unter Angabe des fiir sie jeweils zustinden ugula; der nubanda in der Unterschrift wire dann eine Person, die nicht namentlich genannt ist, weil sie bei dem fiir internen Gebrauch bestimmten Dokument (kein Datum, kein sonstiges offizielles Merkmal) als selbstverstandlich bekannt vorausgesetzt wurde."

150J S. PARPOLA, A. PARPOLA &C R. H. BRUNSWIG JR.

DIscussIoN

Textual references to Meluhha and Meluhhans prior to the Ur III dynasty were distinguished in relegating that country and its inhabitants to a non-Mesopotamian, foreign status. Goods and materials were exotic to Mesopotamia and came from a distant Meluhha. Ships and shipowners either came from or went to Meluhha. An interpreter was needed to translate the Melulhhan language. The above cited texts, however, give us an entirely different view of the Meluhhans. As illustrated in Table i, the relative status of Meluhhans and their activities differ from those referred to in earlier times. While recognized as a distinct ethnic group, their roles are intimately part of domestic Ur III society.

A Meluhha village, for example, is referred to several times over a period of 45 years (2062-2028 B.C.). That village, situated in the

territory of the old city-state of LagaS, appears to be functioning as both a producer and supplier of barley for taxation and revenue pur- poses. While there is reason to believe that the village may originally have been founded as a commercial settlement or a mercantile enclave (see note to text 1:i 2), all references to it unanimously imply that its role in Ur III society was little if any different from other Southern Mesopotamian villages of the day.

Personal references to "Meluhhans" indicate that most if not all of them had Sumerian names. Thus, three persons directly indentified as inhabitants of the Meluhha village and delivering barley to Sumerian officials and individuals had purely Sumerian names, Ur-l1taran, Ur-Babu and Nin-ana (texts i, 5, 9). Two men, likewise with Sumerian names, are referred to as "sons of Meluhha": Ur-'Lama dumu Me-luh-ha (text 2 ii iof. and iii 8f.; 7:4f. and xof.), appearing as recipient of large amounts of grain and wool, and Mi+ g u r -e dumu Me-luh-ha (8 vi 26 f.), functioning as a skipper in a temple mill. The designation "son of Meluhha" either refers to the man's father or is a direct ethnic identification. Whichever is the case, the use of the country name, Meluhha, directly or indirectly identifies the two men's foreign background with that country. A final personal

TABLE i

Summary of the texts bearing on the presence of Melubbans in Ur III period Mesopotamia

Text Date Provenance Text type AMeluhha reference Specifications

i. L 7157 zo62 Tell6 receipt of nin-a-na from the vil- delivers io6 hi of barley barley lage of me-lub-ta to Ur-saga

2. OBTR 242 o057 6-dnin-marki account of bar- ur-alama son of receives 663 hl of barley of Tell6 ley delivery me-lub-ha belonging to the temple of

Ninmar for unspecified purpose 3. BM 17751 2047 Tell6 *) inventory of granary of the village located in the province of

barley deposits of me-luh-ha" Girsu, contains 1410 hi of barley

4. STA 19 2047 Tella list of barley me-luh-ha garden of between kiri6-gi9-kin and rations to the goddess dnin-marki kiris- dnin-marki garden workers

5. Amherst 54 2047 Tell6 list of barley granary of delivering 57 hi of barley

rations to me-luh-hha (village) as rations for gardeners gardeners

6. HLC III 368 [2047] Tell6 list of barley <granary of> delivering 57 hl of barley rations to me-luh-ba (village) irrigators

7. BM 14594 2046 Tell6 *) debt-note ur-dlama son of me-luyh-ha acknowledges (through an agent) a debt of wool dating I2 years back in time

8. TUT 154 2045 Tell6 list of barley mai+gur8-re son of functions as skipper in a rations to mill me-lub-ha temple mill (transporting personnel grain?)

9. L 705 2030 Tell6 receipt of ur-dKA.DI (from) the gran- delivers io hi of barley to barley ary of me-lub-ba (village) Ur-ninsu for unknown purpose

Io. UCP 9/2 65 2028 Tell6 *) account of bar- me-lub-ha-ta abbreviation for 6-duru5 me- ley consumption luh-ha-ta; delivering

00oo 1 of barley I1. L 8o05 Tell6 list of persons me-lubh-ha, overseer in charge of two scribes,

a weaver and a tailor 12. L 1426 Tell6 list of persons me-lub-ha son of functioning as a temple

ur-an-na-d i-a "inspector"? *) Inferred.

I-i

t-1

tri C> o

I J 12 S. PARPOLA, A. PARPOLA & R. H. BRUNSWIG JR.

reference is to an individual called "Melulhha, son of Ur-ana-dua" (text 12:7 f., cf. also i i: o). In this case, Meluihha is unequivocally used as a personal name. The man in question may have in fact been named after his native country as many past immigrants have. Since the father, Ur-ana-dua, has a Sumerian name, it is probable that the man himself was two or more generations removed from immigration into Mesopotamia.

While evidence is undeniably extremely slim, the above texts do indicate that at least certain Meluhhans had undergone a process of acculturation into Mesopotamian society by Ur III times. Three hundred years after the earliest textually documented contact between Meluhha and Mesopotamia, the references to a distinctly foreign commercial people have been replaced by an ethnic component of Ur III society. It is relatively easy to picture that in the course of a more or less intensive but nevertheless prolonged trade contact, in which the Meluhhans were the active counterpart, they would have established commercial enclaves in the sea and river ports of southern Mesopotamia. Documentation for such enclaves prior to the Ur III dynasty is not available. The Ur III texts, on the other hand, do establish the presence of a distinctive village, ethnically classified by the name Meluhha, as having been an integral part of the economic structure of the province of Girsu (Tello). Six individuals, five with Su- merian names, and another with the name Meluhha, but with a Su- merian named father, indicate Meluhhan acculturation into Sumerian society on a personal as well as a politico-economic level. The presence of a Meluhhan garden dedicated to a Sumerian goddess (text 4), and the paying of religious taxes to that goddess' temple show a further degree of amalgamation into that society. Much of this amalgamation could be explained by the fact that foreign merchants, particularly far from home, have been known to pay homage to the deities and were subject to taxation in the countries where they operated. This was usually considered essential for good relations in the host country. In addition, such accultural participation was often facilitated by the intermarriage of foreigners with the host country's women.

THE MELUUIA VILLAGE 153

These factors could indeed explain most, if not all, of the textual evidence gathered above 20). However, the tone of the texts gives the impression that the Ur III Meluhhans had very little contact with their homeland.

There are no accounts of Meluhhan sea-traders engaging in long- distance commerce with their native country. The only reference to a "Meluhhan" skipper we do have from this period is irrelevant in this respect, since the man concerned evidently was only involved in carrying domestic cargo of grain over the Mesopotamian river network. Nevertheless, the man's occupation, ethnic background and name (mi-gur, = "Schiff mit hohen Steven, Seeschiff, Gdtter- schiff" 21)), in personal names mostly-but not necessarily-referring to the "Mondschiff" 22) strongly suggest that he was a descendant of a Meluhhan practicing overseas trade.

The role of the Indus civilization in Meluhhan-Mesopotamian interrelations, in light of recent research, appears to form an interesting pattern when integrated with the hypothesis of Meluhhan acculturation and relative isolation in Ur III times. If Meluhha can indeed be equated with the Indus, then there are a number of fascinating clues as to the form of historical processes which may have taken place between that civilization, the Persian Gulf and Mesopotamia. As noted above, archaeological evidence, largely in the form of seals, indicates that Indus-Mesopotamian contacts were most intense during the Akkadian period. Mesopotamian texts support this equation, but also show that the succeeding Gudean period continued sea-borne commerce with Meluhha. However, Ur III texts show that trade goods associated with Meluhha, earlier transported by ships from that country, lessened somewhat in quantity, and were brought, not by Meluhhan ships, but

20) For similar acculturation processes observed elsewhere cf. Milton M. Gordon, "Assimilation in America: Theory and Reality", in R. M. Abrams and L. W. Levine (ed.), The Shaping of Twentieth Century America (Boston 1965), 296-316; W. D. Borrie et al., The Cultural Integration of Immigrants (Paris 1959).

z21) A. Salonen, StOr 8:4 (4939), i2 fa 22) Cf. Salonen, op. cit., 4 f., I5 ft., and Limet, Anthroponymie, 468 and 491.


by Tilmun merchant intermediaries 23). At the same time, Indus- related artifacts from Mesopotamia become fewer and ever more

questionable in provenance. An interesting possible connection to the indications of Meluhhan

isolation in southern Mesopotamia appears in recent chronological research on the Indus civilization. That research, utilizing new radiocarbon calibrations, indicates that the Ur III dynasty in Mesopotamia probably coincides with the end of urban systems in the Indus valley 24).

If this was indeed the case, then it would be sensible to assume that Indus instigated trade would also cease with the end of the supporting Harappan urban society. The possibility that this happened is partially supported by the documented emergence of the Tilmun traders as a dominant commercial force in international sea-trade. While trade with Meluhha does not appear to have ceased entirely, the role of Meluhhan ships and merchants in the transferral of trade goods appears to have ceased. It is possible that, granting that Meluhha was the Indus, some limited trade may have been carried on, subsequent to the demise of Indus urban systems, with numerous late-urban settlements known to have existed in Kutch and Gujarat of present-day western India.

In another previous paper, two of the present authors have presented new data and a hypothesis concerning the history of Indus and Indus- related seals in the Near East 25). Briefly summarized, that hypothesis sees the initial appearance of "classic" or native origin Indus seals in the Near East by at least the Akkadian period. Continued contact with the Barbar culture of the Persian Gulf and that of Meso- potamia resulted, over time, in the development of Indus-related seals with both indigenous and foreign attributes. For instance, seals on Bahrain and Failaka in the Persian Gulf have a native Barbar culture form, round, varying mixes of Indus and Barbar motifs, and

23) Cf. Oppenheim,JAOS 74 (1954), 6 ff. and Leemans, Trade (960o), 33 ftf. 24) Brunswig, Man 8 (i973), 543-5 54; id., "Radiocarbon Dating and the Indus

Civilization", East and West 25 (I975), I 11-145. 25) Cf. introduction, note 13.

THE MELUUUA VILLAGE 1 5 5

Indus script. A similar process has been postulated for Mesopotamia where Indus motifs, and in one case, script, appear on cylinder seals, a form native to Mesopotamia. In short, the hypothesis advances that changes in time of Indus-related seals in the Near East took place in a similar acculturation process indicated by the Ur III texts studied in this article. If further documentation of this process can be found in future archaeological and textual data, then perhaps we will be able to more reliably reconstruct historical processes of cultural interaction between two of the world's oldest civilizations.

EXCURSUS ON THE INDUS SEAL-LEGENDS FROM MESOPOTAMIA

Given the possibility that Melulhha is to be equated with the Indus civilization, the discovery of foreign words expressly designated as Meluhhan in third millennium cuneiform documents would under- standably be of considerable significance to the decipherment of the Indus script, in that they might definitely settle the much disputed question of the linguistic affinity of the Harappans 26). Unfortunately no such words, excepting of course the name Meluhha itself 27), have yet turned up. The texts presented in this paper do, it is true, mention by name several persons identified as descendants of Meluhhans or otherwise associated with the country of Meluhha, but these names are exclusively Sumerian and therefore of no relevance to the study of the Harappan language as such 28).

Nevertheless, the evidence of these names can be utilized in the study of the inscriptions on Indus-related seals from Mesopotamia and may ultimately prove useful to the decipherment of the Indus script in general. A partial acculturation of Harappan merchants operating in the Near East has already previously been independently suggested with reference to their adaptation of such local conventions as the (Mesopotamian) cylinder and the (Persian Gulf) round seal

26) How open the question still is can be seen from T. Burrow's review of J. V. Kinnier Wilson's Indo-Sumerian (Oxford 1974) in Antiquity 49 (x975).

27) Cf. introduction, n. 2.

28) Cf. pp. I5o-Ix2

and 158-159 (with n. 46)

156 s. PARPOLA, A. PARPOLA & R. H. BRUNSWIG JR.

form •9). Besides their form, students of these seals have usually

paid attention only to their iconographic motifs and a single (obscure) cuneiform inscription 30), leaving aside the numerous legends in the

Indus script. The only exception is G. R. Hunter, who more than forty years ago made the following important observation:

"The four examples of round seals found in Mohenjo-daro show well-supported sequences, whereas the three from Mesopotamia show sequences of signs not paralleled elsewhere in the Indus script. But the ordinary square seals found in Mesopotamia show the normal Mohenjo-daro sequences. In other words, the square seals are in the Indus language, and were probably imported in the course of the trade; while the circular seals, though in the Indus scrzipt, are in a different language, and were probably manufactured in Mesopotamia for a Sumerian- or Semitic-speaking person of Indus descent." 31)

Since the days of Hunter, the number of known Indus inscriptions has considerably increased, but the new finds have in no way shattered his conclusions. On the contrary, a careful re-examination of the Near Eastern Indus seals by means of a concordance of all Indus inscriptions published to date 32) makes the difference between seals from India

29) Cf. C. J. Gadd, Proceedings of the British Academy 18 (1932), 203 f.; G. Bibby, Antiquity 32 (195 8), 243-246 (with comments of D. H. Gordon and M. Wheeler).

30) Gadd, art. cit., i93 f. (no. i). The seal is in good state of preservation, but its 3-sign inscription is sketchily carved and not legible with full certainty. Gadd's SAK-KU-~I is the likeliest alternative, but other readings (KA for SAG, MA for KU, BA for ~I) are not excluded. Yet even allowing the possibility of indistinct carving, the inscription remains obscure, and Gadd may well be right in stating that "it does not, at least, seem to be any Sumerian or Akkadian name". If so, it need hardly be pointed out that the uncertainties involved in the identification of the signs in question and their polyphony make it impossible to establish the correct reading of the name(?), unless more examples of it (in variant spelling) become available or the underlying language is reliably identified. Moreover, it is not excluded that an unusual or carelessly carved Sumerian name is in question, e.g. ka/inim-dab5-ba "(his) mouth/speech is 'seized' " (referring to one unable to speak [properly], cf. CAD S zia and such names as inim-gi-na "(his) speech is truthful", inim-sa6-gal sags-a "(his) speech is good", Limet, op. cit., 435 f.), inim-ma-ni! "his word" (ibid.) or perhaps even sag-ma-BA (cf. sag-ma ibid. 524).

31) JRAS 1932, 469. The italics are ours. 32) S. Koskenniemi, A. Parpola and S. Parpola, Materials for the Study of the Indus

Script I (ASSF B i85, Helsinki 1973).

THE MELUIJA VILLAGE 15 7

and Mesopotamia stand out even more markedly than before. Two examples serve to illustrate the point 33). One of the circular Mesopo- tamian seals has a five-sign Indus inscription reading U U' 0^ A 34).

The signs in question belong among the most common ones of the Indus script, their individual frequencies being as follows: U = 1344,

= 1o7, o^ = 125, A = 29. Yet none of the sign-combinations occurring in this inscription are attested elsewhere, a most striking fact considering that the occurrences of U alone constitute about o10 percent of the sign total of all Indus inscriptions. By contrast, a square seal found at Kish 35) can be matched with numerous seals from the Indus valley both in regard to its iconography and its 3-sign inscription. The picture in question (a "unicorn" standing in front of a "manger") is the most common motif on native Indian seals 36), and the inscription itself (U E 9) recurs in identical form on two seals found at Mohenjodaro and 20 times as a component of other (longer) inscriptions 37).

In view of the evidence presented in this paper, the most natural explanation for the strange sign-sequences of the Mesopotamian Indus seals would seem to be that these seals belonged to merchants of Harappan origin living in Mesopotamia and having, as a result of a process of cultural integration, or for other, subtler, reasons, adopted Mesopotamian names but still maintaining connections with their home country. Such people could have functioned as commercial agents monopolizing the Indus-Mesopotamian trade, e.g. by for- warding Harappan merchandise to its Mesopotamian destination and helping to export MesQpotamian articles (textiles, etc.) to Meluhha. In such a position, it is conceivable that they would have needed seals whose impressions (stating their names and professions/titles) could be read not only in the Indus Valley (the round seals) but also in Mesopotamia (the Indus-related seal with the cuneiform inscrip-

33) The complete analysis will be published elsewhere. 34) Gadd, art. cit. (1932), p. 202 (no. 17). 35) E. Mackay,JRAS 1925, 697 f. 36) See Koskenniemi et al., op. cit., p. xx (971 examples). 37) See ibid., p. 432 ff. The middlemost sign has several allographs.


tion). One would expect the appearance of such people especially at times when the Indus-Mesopotamian contact was being most intensive, and one could hypothesize that at first the agents were

purely Meluhhan, making use of interpreters and their native seals, and only later were replaced by ones with Mesopotamian names. Such a hypothesis actually tallies with the chronological distribution of the datable Indus-related seals, as far as this can be ascertained 38).

On the other hand, since non-Harappan sign sequences already occur in seals that can with a fair degree of certainty be dated to the Sargonic period 39), the process of cultural assimilation may have begun con-

siderably earlier than the Ur III texts treated by us directly imply 40). The above conclusions entail some important corollaries. One is

the total dissimilarity of the native Harappan and the Mesopotamian language used on the Near Eastern seals, which makes Sumerian an extremely unlikely candidate for the language of the Indus civilization 41). This is, to be sure, only what can be reasonably expected in view of the archaeological evidence, which clearly documents the independent development of the Mesopotamian-Elamite and Turkmenian-Indus Valley cultuial spheres until about the latter half of the fourth millennium B.C. when an interaction of a commercial nature develops between these two already fully differentiated regions 42). The Turkmenian derivation of the 'Early Indus' cultures from which the Indus civilization developed, as well as the relationship of the latter with the later Indian cultures rather strongly suggest a Dravidian

38) Cf. above p. 132, notes I4 and i5.

39) E.g. Gadd, art. cit., (1932), zoi f. (no. 16), reading 0 T. No sign combination of this inscription occurs elsewhere, in spite of the high frequencies of the individual signs.

40) Note, however, that the role of the Meluhha village, especially its complete integration into the economic structure of Ur III society, implies that many generations had passed since its (hypothetical) foundation as Meluhhan trade colony.

41) The old "Indo-Sumerian" theory has been revived in 1974 by J. V. Kinnier Wilson; cf. above, note 26. Cf. also A. Parpola, "Recent Developments in the Study of the Indus Script", to appear in Sind Through the Centuries (Karachi).

42) Cf. G. F. Dales in N. Hammond (ed.), South Asian Archaeology (London 1973), 157-169.

THE MELUHJHA VILLAGE I J 9

affinity of the Harappan language 43). The same result is reached through the study of the toponyms of the area covered by the Indus civilization 44), as well as by the interpretation of the Indus script itself 45).

In the second place, these hybrid inscriptions of the Near Eastern Indus seals constitute an important potential clue and test to the decipherment of the Indus script. After a sufficient amount of Indus signs has been confidently interpreted, it should become possible, by the application of the phonetic values thus established, to read Mesopotamian names on these seals 46).

43) Cf. A. Parpola in J. E. van Lohuizen-de Leeuw and J. M. M. Ubaghs (ed.), South Asian Archaeology -

y973 (Leiden 1974), 90-I00oo. 44) See A. Parpola in Felicitation Volume in Honour of Father X. S. Thani Nayagam

(in press). 45) Cf. now A. Parpola, JRAS 1975: 2, 178-209; in B. B. Lal and S. P. Gupta

(ed.), Fifty Years of Harappan Studies (= Fs M. Wheeler, New Delhi 1977?); and StOr 45 (1976), I25-x6o.

46) A tentative analysis of the circular seal referred to on p. 157 will illustrate the point. Only two of the four signs occurring in it can be read with reasonable certainty: ' or(u) "i" (Burrow - Emeneau, Dravidian Etymological Dictionary [ 96 i], no. 834a) and 0 =

ko. (cf. ibid. no. 1788). The interpretation of the sign 1Q is,

despite its high frequency, entirely open, but it is mostly believed to represent either the oblique (adnominal) case morpheme reconstructed as *(V)t(V) (cf. N. V. Gurov in Proto-Indica: 1972 (i972), I 131, 134 f.), or the genitive case morpheme *atu or

*. (cf. above, n. 45);

/4 remains unexplained. The sign' = or(u) has in seals

from the Near East a conspicuously high frequency in relation to the situation in the Indus Valley, and it could thus perhaps stand for Sumerian ur "man", the most frequently occurring initial component of Sumerian proper names. As the Indus script runs from right to left, U should then represent the final part of the name concerned, while ^

A6 could stand for a profession or title preceding the name, as usual in Dravidian. Of the 7 u r-names showing a final element consisting ofareduplicated syllable, listed by Limet, Anthroponymie 66 ff. (ur-ba-ba, ur-da-da, ur-du-du, ur-gi4-gi4, ur-KA-KA, ur-ma-ma and ur-me-me), only two (ur- da-da and ur-du-du) can be reconciled with the proposed interpretation of the sign J; this sign could accordingly be tentatively assigned the phonetic value ta or tu. At the beginning of the inscription, one would of course most naturally expect a Harappan title or profession. Since, however, the sign combination in question does not occur in seals found in the Indus Valley, it seems possible that the signs render a Sumerian title used as a professional identifier in want of a Harap- pan one (or equivalent). On these premises, the seal might have belonged to Ur- du-du sukkal mentioned in Lutz, UCP 9/2 no. 42, and we might have a clue to the reading of the undeciphered sign A. But let us repeat that all this is very hypothetical for the time being and meant only as an illustration of the possibilities at hand.

Ib6o S. PARPOLA, A. PARPOLA & R. H. BRUNSWIG JR.

APPENDIX: A SARGONIC MELUHHA-NAME

Having already submitted the manuscript to press, the authors noticed that they had overlooked a recently published text significantly bearing upon the matters discussed in this article. The text dates from the Sargonic period and hence does not belong to the corpus of Ur III texts edited above, but nevertheless definitely deserves to be included here as a separate appendix with appropriate comments"4).

BM 86314 = E. Sollberger, CT 5o (I972) no. 76. Edited here for the first time.

Obv. I Io gin kug Lu-Sungida, 2 kug z6 gul-la-kam a man of Meluha, 3 ur-ur ni-is-ku has remitted 4 dumu amar-1-KU to Urur son of 5 16-sin-zi-da Amar-luKu, a nisqu servant, 6 16 me-luh-ha-ke, Io shekels of silver 7 l-na-ab-ss-si as payment for a broken tooth.

Rev. 8 lugal-iti-da Lugal-itida 9 ma kim (was) the bailiff;

10 ugula EN--lu overseer: Beli-ilu. NOTES

2 The reading of the second sign as 2z6 "tooth", and the interpretation of the whole line, seems certain in view of Codex Hammurapi, ? 201: "If a person strikes out a tooth of a dependent, he will pay ? pounds of silver." The amount of silver prescribed in the code is twice the sum given in the present text, but it must be noted that the latter predates the former by several centuries, and only deals with a broken tooth. For gul = hepz "to break" see CAD HI v7I and 3L II: 3 no. 429, 5-

3 ni-is-ku: a kind of (marked) slave or servant, see MAD 3 206. 4 Sic with Sollberger (private communication) rather than amar 16- dab,5 (cf.

above, fn. 8). Both ways, the PN seems to be hapax.

5 16-s6in-zi-da: a hapax. The DN sdn-zi (lit. "just buffalo-cow") constituting the latter part of the name is likewise virtually unknown 48). Prof. Sollberger refers us to the Ur III en-name en-nin-s6n-zi, but this is hardly relevant as the name may well be rendered "Ninsun is just", with a well-known deity.

47) In the interpretation of this document, we have profited from the expertise of Professor E. Sollberger, who graciously commented upon the draft of this appendix. The responsibility for the views expressed is naturally entirely ours.

48) It is otherwise known only from Tablet III of the god list An = Anum, where it occurs among sons of the moon god, cf. RA 20zo, IoI iv 14 (ds6in-zi). A duplicate gives the name as dsin-si (CT 24, 30 iv 14).

THE MELUIHHA VILLAGE IGI

DISCUSSION

The text under study is interesting in several respects, but here we shall only deal with the "man of Melulhha" mentioned in it, specifi- cally with his name. As given in the text, it is indubitably Sumerian, meaning "man of the just buffalo-cow", and in this respect lines up smoothly with the Ur Ill names discussed above, p. i5o ff. However, there are two details which set the present name apart from the later material. First, it has to be noted that while the Ur III names are vaguely stated to belong to "sons" of Meluhha (which may refer to a father as well as to a place of origin), the man concerned here is expressly defined as a native (li = "man") of Meluhla. Secondly, and this seems to us particularly significant, while the Meluhla-names found in the Ur III texts are without an exception well-known, common Sumerian names, the present early name, borne by a man expressly designated as a Melullhan, is a hapax legomenon; and not enough with that, it is a theophoric name composed with a name of a deity which is otherwise unknown in Mesopotamia49). If one correlates these facts with the textual and archaeological evidence presented elsewhere in this paper, showing that the earliest documented direct contact between Meluhba/ Indus and Mesopotamia dates from the Sargonic period, the conclusion seems almost inevitable that we are here dealing with a first or second generation Meluhhan immigrant bearing a name directly translated from his native language into Sumerian in order to make him more adaptable to the norms of the foreign community he was living in (without at the same time forcing him to abandon the values of his native background). Such translated names are a commonplace in multilingual societies dominated by one "high" language; in the present instance, at the beginning of the acculturation process delineated above, such a name would seem not only natural but also socially obligatory.

Moreover, there is the added fact that while the name li-s6n-zi-da, though formally Sumerian, does not really make sense in the Meso- potamian cultural sphere (whose mythology does not know a "just

49) Note that the name lacks the determinative d, as usual in the case of non- Sumerian (though occasionally also Sumerian) divine names.

I62 S. PARPOLA, A. PARPOLA & R. H. BRUNSWIG JR.

buffalo-cow"), it does make sense if one turns to the early Indian

pantheon. In Rgveda I, 164, 415?), gauri "she-buffalo" is the symbol of the dark, primeval waters of creation, the chaos (buffalo being a dark animal that loves water). Impersonating the goddess Vic "speech", the buffalo cow according to this verse lows and thereby creates the world: she gives birth to the first concrete manifestation, the eternal

(holy) syllable, Brahma, Agni, Prajipati, the "first-born of all". In

i, I64, 37, Agni is associated with Vic and called "the first-born of

rta"s). R.ta

is the "cosmic law", the early Vedic predecessor of dharma "righteousness", a concept intimately associated with 'King' Varuna, a chthonic god who is "the lord (husband) of the (primeval) waters", and the just punisher of the sinners. Rta/dharma and Varuna are partly of Aryan origin (being in this tradition associated with the oath) and partly continue earlier non-Aryan traditions of India: in the last mentioned capacity Varutna, like the classical Hindu god Yama, represents in all likelihood the early Dravidian god of death, Kdla "the Black one" or "Time" (the night aspect of the sun), riding (like Yama) the buffalo. In the Vedic new year ritual and related royal rites (mahi- vrata, purusamedha, advamedha, agnicayana), Varuna is the "dying god", being represented by the male partner (usually identical with the main victim of the sacrifice, a man, a horse, or a tortoise, each of these impersonating the sacrificer, who as a rule is a king) in the sexual union from which the new ruler of the universe is (re)born. The female partner in these fertility rituals is either a sacred prostitute symbolizing the fecundated earth goddess, or the king's first consort, called mahisi "buffalo cow". These concepts and rituals belong to the earliest stratum

o50) The first and tenth book of the Rgveda, the most ancient Indian text collection, can with linguistic and redactional criteria be proved to be considerably younger than the main bulk of the hymns (cf. e.g. Renou, Vedic India, 1957, 3 f.). The very different content of these later hymns (cf. ib., 6 f). can be best explained to be due to the substratum influence of the previous inhabitants of India, while the old core remains true to the Indo-Iranian heritage (with the cult of soma = Avestan haoma, etc.) brought into India by the Aryans from outside.

Si) For a more detailed discussion and exegesis of the verses mentioned and other references, see especially Agrawala, "Gauri", AOS 47 (1962), 1-7; cf. also van Buitenen, "Aksara",JAOS 79 (1959), 176 ff.

THE MELUIJJJA VILLAGE 163

that can be reached by an analysis of the Indian textual sources: they represent the religion of the Disas or Vrityas or Mlecchas, who occupied North India before the arrival of the

.Rgvedic Aryans. As can

be seen from RS 7, 21, 5, the latter originally abhorred the phallic cult they encountered in India52). Here we can limit ourselves to observing that in Satapatha Brahmana 3, 2, i, 18 ff., the very passage in which the Sanskrit word mleccha ("non-Vedic stranger speaking in- distinctly or corruptly") connected with Sumerian Meluhha is first attested, the goddess Vac is expressly said to have originally belonged to the mlecchas 53). The late Rgvedic hymn Io, 125 addressed to Vgc proves that she was in the earliest times conceived as the all-mighty Goddess par excellence, who also punished the impious. Since vritya rites with orgiastic cult were in Epic times practised in the upper Indus valley54), it seems obvious that the goddess Gauri "buffalo-cow", who in classical Hindu mythology is Siva's wife, is identical with the Goddess of the Tantric religion into which Buddhism was transformed in these very regions. Another centre of Tantrism is Bengal, where the traditions of ancient Magadha-the country of the mlecchas of the above quoted SB reference-are continued. The Goddess is here known primarily as Kali "the Black one", and the principal offering to her is the male buffalo (mahisa), according to the myth the demon whom the Goddess killed, and clearly representing her husband ($iva- Sava). Already in the iconography of the Indus civilization, we have scenes of buffalo being speared55), as well as of a female in a cultic headdress cohabiting with a bull56), a situation comparable to the union of the sacrificial horse and the queen in advamedha.

5 z) For Varuna, cf. notably J. J. Meyer, Trilogie altindischer Michte und Feste der Vegetation (i937), part III, and for a basic orientation about the rituals mentioned e.g. A. Hillebrandt, Rituallitteratur (1897). For methods of reconstructing the pre-Vedic religion and some of its chief characteristics, cf. A. Parpola's forth- coming papers in Temenos I2

(1977) and in Agni, ed. Frits Staal.

53) Cf. A. and S. Parpola, StOr46 (1975), 212. 54) Cf. J. W. Hauer, Der Vrdtya I (1927), 233 ff. 55) Cf. E. Mackay, Further excavations at Mohenjo-daro (1938) II, pl. LXXXVIII,

279 & XCII, 1 i. 56) Cf. E. Mackay, AOS 20zo (1943), pl. LI, 13.


It will undoubtedly still take time before the Harappan inheritance in the early strata of the Indian religions is unanimously recognized. The fact remains, however, that in very ancient Indian mythology and ritual, the buffalo cow does play a dominant role. The interpretation suggested here for the name 16i-sin-zi-da57) thus not only is fully consistent with the picture obtained in the earlier part of this paper, but also provides a satisfactory, if not the only satisfactory explanation for a text abounding in unusual details. The issue will, of course, have to wait for future discoveries before it can be definitely settled. Until then, the present text can be considered as lending an additional, previously unknown support to the identification of Meluhha with the Indus civilization.

CRITICISM

The following comments of D. O. Edzard (on the draft version of the present paper) serve to underline the tentative nature of the interpretations advanced by us:

Es scheint mir, dass Sie zu sicher und unbekiimmert davon ausgehen, dass alles "Meluhha" Benannte auch Zeichen fiir Akkulturation sei. Man kann m.E. weder das eine noch das andere beweisen. Vielleicht lohnt aber ein Hinweis auf parallele Erscheinungen. Ich denke etwa an die vielen "Tiirken": ein Ort Tiirkenfeld bei, eine Tiirkenstrasse in Miinchen, viele Familiennamen Tiirck, die Blume Tiirken- bund. Das geht zwar alles auf die Erinnerung an die Tiirken zuriick, hat aber nichts mit Niederlassungen von Tiirken zu tun. Hingegen sind "Germantown" in Phila- delphia oder die "Tyske Brygge" in Bergen Namen, die auf deutsche Siedler oder Hiindler zuriickgehen. Der "Englische Garten" in Miinchen heisst so wegen seiner parkartigen Anlage. Die von Ihnen zitierten Parallelen "Dorf des Lu-Magana" und

57) The first element of this name, 16 "man", could be compared to the Indus inscriptions where the picture of "man" follows what can be presumed to be a god's name in the genitive case; but in these cases a priestly title of office seems likelier (cf. JRAS I975:2, I87). Since the name in Sumerian represents the ordinary type of proper names, 16 could rather be compared with the Proto-Dravidian masculine gender marker *-aan/-an/-(k)kan (in complementary distribution) the use of which may be illustrated with the word mr~kku "nose": mtzkk-an "man with (long) nose" (cf. S.V. Shanmugam, Dravidian nouns (97-), 104 ff.) This suffix is most common in male personal names both ancient and modern in Tamil; whether or not it has a counterpart in the Indus script (or was left to be supplied) cannot yet be decided. Note the use of 16 in Sumerian relative sentences, corres- ponding to the Akkadian determinative pronoun !u, and the correspondence between Sumerian 16-DN and Akkadian J'u-DN in the 3rd millennium onomasticon.

THE MELUJlYA VILLAGE 16 5

das 6-durus-NIM-e-ne halte ich fiir noch unsichere Zeugen. Das erste ist wohl nach einer Person L. genannt, der seinerseits ein Mann aus Magan gewesen sein kann, aber nicht muss; im zweiten Fall liegt eine Verbindung mit einer Berufsbe- zeichnung vor (cf. AfO 19 2154), also eine Parallele zum "Hirtendorf" oder dem "Dorf der 'Bauern' (engar-e-ne)".

Ein sicherer Fall von Fremdenansiedlung (aber keiner freiwilligen!) wird bei Sf-Su'en beschrieben; s. AfO 19 28 f. und JCS 2i 24 ff.; leider erfahren wir dort nicht den Namen der Siedlung.

Wie intensiv waren die Kontakte tatsiichlich? Ich stelle mir die Situation so vor: Es beginnt mit Warenaustausch entweder auf halber Strecke, etwa auf Bahrain, oder aber die Leute von Meluhla kamen urspriinglich bis nach Mesopotamien. Ganz sicher hatten sie die seetiichtigeren Schiffe, well sie das bessere Bauholz hatten. Babylonische Schiffe haben sich mbglicherweise nie iiber die Hdhe von Bahrain hinausgewagt. Unterstellen wir einmal, dass alles, was von Babylonien aus steuerbord lag "Magan", alles backbord "Meluhla" war. Das muss nicht gegen unsere Iden- tifizierung von Meluhha sprechen; die Alten hatten ja nicht unser Landkartenbild im Kopf.

Kontakte in Babylonien waren (so Th. Jacobsen) wohl immer dann besonders ausfiihrlich, wenn es sich herumgesprochen hatte, dass irgendwo bedeutende Bauaktionen im Gange waren wie unter Sargon oder Gudea. Dass dabei mancher "hingen blieb", ist nattirlich. Waren es aber gerade immer solche Leute, die man als "Meluhha" bezeichnete? Jedenfalls sind unsere "Tiirck" und "Unger" ebenso wenig alles Nachfahren der Tiirken und Ungarn wie Scipio Africanus ein Afrikaner war. Eine andere Mbglichkeit haben Sie selber noch angedeutet: das Aussehen. Vielleicht war Meluhha hier und da "Herr Schwarz".

The following editorial note may be added to this discussion:

Indeed, D. O. Edzard rightly distinguishes two categories of geographic desig- nations, derived or borrowed from other ones: those originating in a proven direct relation with another geographic conception (country or place), and those not having any such proven direct or apparent relation. To the examples of Edzard can be added the names of the districts of New York "Harlem" and "Brooklyn", remem- bering of the settlement of Dutchmen from the town of Haarlem and the village of Breukelen, but, on the other hand, Memphis and Ithaca in the U.S.A. do'nt remember of settlers from Old Egyptian Memphis or Homeric Ithaca. Also in the French province of Provence the faniily-names Turc and Grec are found, but the name Al(1)aman, in the same region and in the Dauphind, may be a reminiscence of the Alaman, once invading these regions (probably also in the name of the village Allemont in Isere and in the name of the Lac L6man); the "Arvernes" left their name in the village of Vernagues (Bouches-du-Rh6ne). Another example: the name of a region "Preussisch Holland" in East Prussia remembers of Dutch settlers in the I6th century, just like "Holland" in East England does of Dutchmen making polders there in the i7th century.

The more common and more natural case seems to be that of a direct proven relation between the two geographic conceptions and this may support the suppo- sition of the authors. The best comparable example is perhaps that of the seafaring Normans giving their name to Normandy. W.F.L.

Documents

Meluhhan traders in Lagash