Meluhhan Traders in Lagash

The Melua Village: Evidence of Acculturation of Harappan Traders in Late Third Millennium 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. 129-165 Published by: BRILL Stable 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 of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient.
http://www.jstor.org
and Journalof the Economic SocialHistoryof 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 Meluhhais to be identified with the Indus civilization and its adjacentareas on the basis of various geographical clues and the general nature of Meluhhan articles of commerce1).
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 protourban phase of the Harappan culture, forming a minor component in the recentlydocumentedtradenetwork of the earlythird millennium
*) For the bibliographicalabbreviationsused in this paper see R. Borger, Handbuchder KeilschriftliteraturII (Berlin i975) p. XI ft.; RipG -= Repertoire Giqographique (Bd. 2 = D. O. Edzard und G. Farber, Die Orts- und Gewissernamender Zeit der 3. Dynastie von Ur [Wiesbaden 1974]). The authors wish to record their gratitude
to Prof. D. O. Edzard (Miinchen),who readthe articlein its draftstage and (pointing out errors as well as supplementaryevidence) remarkablycontributed to its present form, to Dr. Fatma Y11dizof 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.
ff.; idem, JESHO 1xi (1968), I) See notably W. F. Leemans, Trade (1960), I59 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 f. 2) Cf. A. and S. Parpola, StOr 46 (I975), 20zo5
i8 (i975), 337 ff. 9
13o
S. PARPOLA, A. PARPOLA & R. H. BRUNSWIG JR.
IranianPlateauand Mesopotamia3). We do know that Indus artifacts
sites by Old Akkadiantimes, began appearingin Mesopotamian and that they are typicalof the mature(urban)phase of the Indus
civilization4). Mature Harappan seaports have been located in Gujarat and the Makran coast 5), and several Harappan representations of
shipsareknown. are The Meluhhans first mentionedin Mesopotamian texts in an of Sargon(2334-2279 B.C.) referring Meluhhan to inscription ships dockedat his capital,the city of Akkad6). Less well knownis a late
Sargonic tablet datable to ca. zaoo B.C.7), which mentions a man with an Akkadianname entitled "the holder (? li-dab,) of a Meluhha
ship"8). In addition,an Akkadian cylinderseal bearsthe inscription

idem and M. Tosi,
3) Cf. C. C. Lamberg-Karlovsky, JAOS East and West 23 (1973), 2zI-58.
92 (197z),
222-229;
4) Cf. Leemans (1960), 1.c.; M. Wheeler, The Indus Civilization (Cambridge 3 1968), I1o-12o; E. C. L. During Caspers, Mesopotamia7 (1972), 167-191. 5) Cf. G. F. Dales, Antiquity36 (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
15.
7) G. G. Hackman, BIN VIII 298. For the approximatedate 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-Sagebracht hat, hat Lugal-sage in K. in Empfang genommen. Liter 01: D~di, der... eines Meluhha-Bootes.I Liter 01: Inu-Sadi. Monat 2." [i+]i Forline 8 cf. Edzard, ZA 56 (1964), 278: "Kaum 16i-dab5-... "der ... genommen heissen miisste." Note, however, 16i-dab,-mi hat", da das *ld-...-dab,-ba "Schiffsaneigner"in the Tammuzliturgy VS II 35 ii 7 (cf. A. Salonen, StOr i I/i iv 3 f. and 4-5 iii 5f. [Sollberger,Corpus 48 ff.l) quoted by Salonen,1.c.Accordingly, p. 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 Nur diirfte es wohl nicht "Eigentiimer" bedeuten, da hierfiir schon das Wort
lugal (= bilum) festliegt." , kann natiirlich ein 'aktives' Partizip sein.
[1940] 4) and the two examples of mi...dab,
(1954),
"to take hold of a ship" (Ukg I
interpretation: "1 i-KU, falls = 16 i-dab
THE MELUIjHjAVILLAGE
13 I
"Su-ilisu, Meluhha interpreter" 9). I'u--li-Ju/eme-bal me-luh-haki 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 Mesopotamiain Akkadiantimes 10). Furtherevidence for continued contact after the fall of the Akkadian empire may be found in the inscriptions of Gudea of LagaS (21432124 B.C.). These state explicitlythat "the Melulhanscame (or up
to down) from theircountry" supply wood and other raw materialsfor the construction of the main temple of Gudea's capital1). 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 archaeologicalevidence of Indus artifactsin 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 Mesopotamiathat can be dated with any degree of certainty,eight have been attributed
9) Edzard, AfO
22
35524, 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. (Falkenstein, ZA 56, 44f.); Kramer, ISETI,
211: Ni 2126+
(1968), 15 no. 15.33. Oppenheim, Anc. Mes. [Chicago 1964]
i 7//
212:
Ni
130208
i 7,
Caspers, art. cit.; R. H. Brunswig and A. Parpola, "New Indus type and related seals from the Near East" (publicationpending).
See A. Falkenstein, AnOr 30 (1966), 48. Cf. C. J. Gadd, Proceedingsof the British Academy 18 (1932), 191-21o; W.W. 13) Hallo and B. Buchanan, Fs Landsberger (AS 16, Chicago 1965), 204ff.;During
I2)
etc. [Edzard]; cf. in general, Kramer,Sumerians, 278 fif. p. ii) Cyl. Aix 19;xv 5;xvizzf.; B xiv I3.
132
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-Mesopotamiancontact. 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 Gudeain manyways marksan attempt the if to preserve basiccharacter, not theactual of territory, theprevious Textualevidenceindicates tradewith Melubba that Akkadian dynasty. Indus artifactshave been recontinued,althoughno recognizable coveredfrom Gudeancontexts.However,this is not surprising given the normalarchaeological conditionswhich usuallyresult in direct or not normally foreigntradematerials, perishable alterable, surviving
the millennia16). 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,
Wheeler, TheIndus a [i968], 17, nos. 5 and 6; Lamberg-Karlovsky, art. cit. 224). FairlyCivilization certainly Sargonid is the seal found at Tepe Gawra in Stratum VI comprising the late Early Dynastic and early Sargonidperiod (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 palaeographicgrounds (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 ascribedbyL. Woolley (AJ 12 [1932], 364) and C. J. Gadd (L.c.,p. 201of.) 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:
OIC 16 [i933], 5I f.;id., CS and Stratified Cylinder Seals [95 5], n . 642; [i939], 305,
"Notice that Woolley apparently gave up his original idea that the Indus Valley piece might be on a floor of the tomb."). Both cases are ambiguous, however. Gadd's seal no. 6 was found "in a I1) vaulted tomb which is apparently that described by Woolley...as 'a Larsa tomb which had been hacked down into' a wall dividing two apartmentsin the 'N.W. annexe' added by Bur-Sin, king of Ur, to the funerarybuilding 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 1'6poquede Guddaou 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 confinesof merchantile enclaveswithina largersettlement the chances uncovering of 17); foreign culturalmaterial the relatively in limited excavations large urban of settlements with occupational strataspanninga millennium more or are extremely scanty.In the caseof citiesruledby Gudea,the limited area under his influenceand the very short time involved further reducethe chancesof findingIndus traderelatedobjects.And consideringthat only eight datablesealshave been thus far found in the much longer and more extensive reign of the Akkadiandynasty makesit understandable similar that artifacts have yet to be disclosed
from Gudean occupationalstrata. The end of LagaS and several other South Mesopotamian city states as independent political units came with the emergence of a multi-stateempireunder the Ur III dynasty,establishedlargelythrough 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 Meluhhanraw materials to and pieces of
art in contemporary texts 18), but, curiously enough, there is no con-
temporarytextual evidence showing that these imports were obtained Yet Meluhha by direct trade-contact with the Mielhbans themselves. (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 Mesopotamia in the late Sumeriantimes. 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 r61eof these people in the actual Indus-Mesopotamianinteraction. Though most of the texts concerned are in themselves of little interest, they will
17) Cf. N. Ozgiig, Old WorldArchaeology (ed. C. C. Lamberg-Karlovsky),1972, pp. 243-249. For "ports of trade" see K. Polanyi: Tradeand Market in theEarly Empires (1957), 38 fif.
I8) Cf. Leemans, Trade,p. I6i.
134
& R. H. BRUNSWIG JR. s. PARPOLA, A. PARPOLA

be presented in full in order to make the nature of the
nevertheless
Meluhhareferencesstand out as clearly as possible 19).

TEXTS I. Receipt of barley (2062 B.C.) L 7175. Unp., cf. Delaporte, pl. I (case only). Obv.
I 2 42.2.0
ITT IV (iiz2)
no. 7157.
Photograph
3 4 5 6 7 8 Rev. Seallegend:
Se gur lugal ki nin-a-na-ta 6-duru5 me-luhy-ta mu Sitim-e-ne- itim ur-sa6-ga[dubl-sar seal impression Su ba-ti iti Se-gurux0 mu a-r i 3-kam si-mu-ru-umki ba-hul seal impressions ur-sas-ga dub-sar litim dumu dug4-ga-dingir
Ur-saga, the scribe of the builders, has received in the name of the builders 42,2 royal gur of barleyfrom village. Nin-anafromthe MeluhbBa Month Seguru (XII), the year in which Simurumwas destroyed for the third time. Ur-saga, scribe of the builders, son of Duga-digir.
2.
Account of grain delivery (2057 B.C.)

7 sila Se gur lugal 3 e &-gud 4 gur 5 e 6-APIN-l i 6 gur 7 Se numun-ta gur-ra 8 1.2.3 gur 9 Se amar ba-til (one line blank) 0o Su+nigin 1929'.o.I 7 sila Se gur lugal ii I
1927.2.4
2
Previous edition: R. J. Lau, OBTR (1906) no. 242. Copy ibid. pl. 22.
Obv. I
1927,2,4 royal gur 7 sila of barley, bull-stable grain, ogur of "tiller-house"grain, ogur of grain returnedfrom sowing, 1,2,3 gur of calf-grain,all of it.
Altogether 1929,0,1 royal gur 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 transliteratedaccording to the system of E.

Sollberger, TCS
i
(1966), 12i.
THE MELUIIJA VILLAGE
13
I 12 sag nig-GA-ra-kam
lag4-bi-ta 14 851.2.5 5 sila gur 15 II x gurUDKA[ -ta] 2 7 sila gur I90.0.0 13
making up the deposit capital. Therefrom:

851,2,5 gur
5 sila (for)
..[..] of one gur [each], 190 gur 7 sila (for)
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
gur ge-ba-ta dub-bi 3-am dub ur-dam dumu ur-dnanre 265.1.5 5 gur dub-bi 3-am
grain-rationsof 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),
o10 dub ur-dlama dumu me-luh-1a ii

12
details on 3 tablets, (given against) a tablet of Ur-Lama sonof Melubhha; tablet of Gudea son of Ur-Babu; for Ba'alla(PN?),
tablet of Ur-dam 537.1.4 gur 84,3,5 gur,
13 14
I 17
16 mu ba-a-al-laI8 dub ur-dam

2
dub gii-d6-a dumu ur-dba-ir 537.1.4 gur a-
84.3.5 gurt
Rev. III I dumu ur-dnanae

a-gti-a 3 4
(3 lines blank)
u xnigin [1548.4.4] [2 slla gur] Altogether [1548,4,4 gur] [z sila of grain]: tablet of [Ur-dam]; altogether [265,1,5 gur] [s sila of grain]:
gi-g
son of Ur-Nante, put on account.
8! dub [ur-dlama] 9! dumu [me-luh-ha] Io! u x nigin [84.3.5 gur]

11! dub [gii-d6-a]
x nigin [265.1.5] 6'- u 7! [5 sila gur]
5! dub [ur-dam]
tabletof [Ur-Lama] sonof [MeluBha]; altogether [84,3,5 gur]:

tablet of [Gudea].
IV
I
2
(4 lines blank) (6 lines blank)

In all I928,0,1 royal gur 7 sila of barley expended. Accountant: Lu-Sulgi,
Su xnigin 1928.0.1 7 sila Se gur lugal 3 zi-ga
(2 lines blank)
4
6
7 8 9
nig-ID-aka 5 1'- a4ul-gi
sabra
6 anin-rmarkil ,e mu is-sa 6 Bf.SA-ildda-gan
manager.
Grain of the temple of Ninmar. The year following the one in which the temple of Puzril-Dagan (was built).
136
3. Inventory of barley deposits (2047 B.C.) BM 17751. Copy L. W. King, CT 5 (1898) pl. 36 f. x 6o lal 2 le gur lugal Obv. I 58 royal gur of barley (in)
2
a-lag,
a-ba-al-la
the field of Aballa.
3 343.3.3 gur 4 i-dub dul-ma-nu 7

8
Io
343,3,3 gur (in) the granaryof Du-Manu.

325,I gur (in) the granary of Sulgi-
5 325.1.0 gur 6 i-dub daul-gi19o0.0.0gur
zi-kalam-ma
zi-kalama.
190 gur (in)
9 i-dub igi-g dlugalURU X KARkilII Se sumun

12
the granary of Igigal-lugalUruba;
old barley.
9,1,3 gur (in)
9.1.3 gur
13 i-dub ur-nig kta-dim

14 148.4.0 gur
the granary of Ur-nig, the silversmith.

148,4 gur (in)
15 i-dub &-duru, ur16

17 I.o.5 e in-nuku6
An
the granaryof the village of Ur-en.

IO,5 gur of inninnu-barley
gur 18 19 i-dub &-duru5 dlugal-zi-da 20o

21
22
(in) the granaryof the village of Lugal-azida.

563,4,3 gur
563.4.3
gur
i-dub
(in)
the granary of the village of
II
I
2
luh-haki
&-duru5 me-
Meluha.
1866,1,2 gur (in)
4 i-dub Sir-gal
860.4.0 gur 5 6 i-dub TE SU TUR NE 7 8 680.0.0 gur
i866.I.2 gur
the granaryof Sargal.

860,4 gur (in) the granary of Temen-~udumune (?).
9 e gin-gin io Se gibil
II 12 13 14
680 gur of ordinary (and) new grain. within (the territoryof) Girsu. the granaryof Igigal1153,3
4.5 gu r lag4 gir-suki

130.1.0 gur
I guru7 1445.
I pile 1445,4,5 gur
I30,1I gur (in)
16
17
I5
i-dub igi-g l1153.3.0
18 i-dub 6 sipa-tur
260.2.1
dlugal-uRv X KARki gur
Lugal-Uruba. gur (in) gur sila (in)
the granaryof Esipatur.

5 the granaryof Ningirsuazida-Nanie.
260,2,1
19
20
5 sila gur
danne
i-dub dnin-gir-sua-zi-da-
21
JESHO XX, 2
L 7157
PLATE I
L7''?
1. case obverse
2. case lower edge
3. case reverse
4. case left edge
5.
case upper edge
IstanbulArkeoloji Photographs: courtesy Miizeleri.
PLATE II L 705
JESHO XX,
i.
obverse
2. right edge L 80oi
3. reverse
I. obverse L I426
2. reverse
I. obverse
2. reverse courtesy Photographs: IstanbulArkeolojiMiizeleri.
THE Rev. IlI

1347.1.0 gur
MELUI-JA
VILLAGE 1347,1 gur (in)
137
x
2 3
1-dub a-g dr gibil

Io052.4.0 gur
the granaryof Agar-gibil. the granaryof Apisal-mulbi-edena. pile 283,2,1 gur i 5sila (of barley) the granaryon the Tir-sikil canal.
179 gur (in)
4 1-dub a-pi4-sal,-mul5 bi-eden-na 6 I guru, 283. 7 2.1 5 sila gur

8 9 g i id nina g ki_ 1195.3.o gur du
io 2,4 gur (in)
io
II z12 180 lal I gur
i-dub g 6 id tirsikil
along the Ninale-du canal. 1195,3 gur (in)
13 i-dub sipa-tur
14
190.0.0 gur
the granaryof Sipa-tur.

190 gur (in)
15 i-dub igi- g il-d I6 lugal-URU X

17 19
20
the granaryof IgigalLugal-Uruba.

300,3 gur (in)
KARki
300.3.0 g ur
18 1-dub
69.0.0 21
a-pii-sal,lugal-nam-uru-na
the granaryof Apisallugal-nam-uruna.
gur i-dub &-duru5 gibil dnanle

1204.2.4
2.0.0
69 gur (in) the granary of the new village of Nanle. the granaryof Bara-siga.
2
IV
I
2
5 sila gur
i-dub barag-si-ga
gur
120zo4,2,4gur gur (in)
5 sila (in)
4 i-dub a-lag4 zi-dusku6

6.o.5 6 i-dub lag4 a-lag4 zi7 dugku6
the granaryof the Zidu-field. the granarywithin the Zidu-field; old grain.
1425,o,2 gur 5 sila
gur
56,o,5 gur (in)
8 le sumun
9 Io
ii 1425.0.2
i-dub 12z 16i-kug-nun

13 14
333.0.0 gur
sila 5 gur dnin-lhur-sag-
(in)
the granaryof Ninhursaglu-kunun;

333 gur of
i5
16
17
le gin-gin le gibil
i guru7 1473.
2.4 gur
ordinary(and) new grain.

(In all) i pile 1473,
2,4 gur
18 lag4 gi-ab-baki (one line blank) 19 I-dub ha-la-a zo mu is-sa ki-malki 21 ba-hul
22
within (the city of) Gu'aba. The granariesfor distribution. The second year following the one in which Kimal
was destroyed.
mu 6s-sa-bi
138
4. List of grain rations (2047 B.C.) STA (1922), no. 19. Catalogued ibid. p. 39. Copy:E. Chiera, Obv. I 2,2 royal gur 5 sila of barley I 2.2.0 5 sila ge gur lugal
ki ur-dba-6-ta 3 giri ur- dul-pa-t 4 Sag4-bi-ta 5 AGA igib-mah 6 0.0.5 zi-ur-g6-en-na ur- aba-6 SeS ur-nig 7 8 sig,-a 9 o.o.5 en-ne Io giskiri, II o.I.o Id-aba- 6 I2 0.0.5 ku- 6-r I3 [o.o.3] ab-ba-kal-la dumu 14 kug- dnan e I5 o.o.r41ur-anin-gir-su I6 0.0.3 lugal-amar-kug 17 0.0.4 ur-dba-6 i8 [o.0.z2] 16dnin- ubur 19 e kal-la 20 0.0.4 16-adnin-gir-su
2
affordedby Ur-Babu, in charge of Ur-Sulpa'e. Therefrom: The crown(?) of the grand ihippu: o,o,5 (gur to) Zi-Ur-gu'ena (and) Ur-Babu, brother of Ur-nig, (garden) decorators(?). (In all) o,o,5. The garden of Enne:
0,1 (to) Lu-Babu, 0,o,5 (to) Kububu,
21
22
23 24
0.4.5 giSkirij ur-ma-ma 0.1.0 dingir-[?]-mu

0.0.2 ur-DUB-hu-ru
o,o,3 (to) Abba-kalason of Ku-Nante, 0,0,4 (to) Ur-Ningirsu, o,o,3 (to) Lugal-amar-ku, 0,0,4 (to) Ur-Babu, 0,0,2 (to) Lu-Niniubur, the brother of Kala, 0,0,4 (to) Lu-Ningirsu. (In all) 0,4,5. The garden of Ur-Mama:
0.1.3 26 giSkiri, gem&-dKA.DI II i o.o.3 ur-dig-[alim]

25
2 0.0.2
0,I (to) Digirgu, 0,0,2 (to) Ur-DUBtlurU. (In all) 0,1,3.

0,0,3
0,0,2
The garden of Geme-IBtaran: (to) Ur-Igalima,

(to) Abba-lum,
ab-ba-lum
3 o.o.1 5 sila a-kal-[la] 4 dumu ur-diul-gi 5 ur-- 5o 6 o.I.o 5 sila 7 giSkiri, al-la-[mu] 8 ur-ba-g ir 9 o.i.o lIi-dnanle o10 0.1.0 lu-~d.igigir dumu ur- dlama 0.1.0 II is 1i2 gi1kirir -suh gaba-riden-ki 13 giskiri gu-la ~ag4 uru 14 giskiri6 gig-kin I5 giskirij me-luh-ha d6 dnin-marki-ka
o,o,i gur5 sila (to) Akala, son of Ur-Sulgi, (and) Ur-Eninnu. (In all) o,i gur 5 sila. The garden of Allagu: Ur-Bagara. o,I (to) Lu-Nanie, o,1 (to) Lu-gigirson of Ur-Lama.
(In all) o, i.
The fir garden of Gabari-Enki. The great garden inside the city. The kikandugarden. TheMelubba garden of Ninmar.
THE II 17 19
20 21
22
MELU-JA
VILLAGE
13 9
18 giSkiri kur x [ ]
gi~kiri, ur-d[ ur- dul-[gi]
dutu-bar-ra
glSkiri6 dnin-marki ]
The garden of Ninmar.
Thegarden theland[...] of
The garden of Ur-[ ]: Ur-Sul[gi], Sabana[gar], son of Lugal-[ ], Utu-bara. The garden of Mani. The garden of the god Niniubur: Lugal-melam; Ur-dub (and) Lu-Ningirsu, son(s) of Lugal-melam; 0,0,4 (to) Ur-Igalima. (In all) 0,0,4. The black steppe-garden of Ningirsu: o,I,4 (to) Ur-Eduba. The black steppe-garden of Babu: o,o,3 (to) Ningu-silimgu. (In all) o,o,3. The vineyard of Gu-Babu-hegal. The ...-garden of Zina. The garden of Lugal-[ ]. The garden of... The garden of the city of Urub: o,i (to) ILu-Ningirsu, 0,0,4 (to) Lugal-[ ].
(In all) 0,1,4.
,ag4-ba-na-[gar]] dumu lugal-[ giSkiri, ma-ni giSkiri, dnin-ubur lugal-me-1im 5 ur-dub 16- dnin-gir-su dumu lugal-me-lim-me 0.0.4 ur-dig-alim
0.0.4
Rev. III
r
2
3 4 6 7 8 9
gi6 eden 4ningir-su II o.0.1.4 A ur-&-dub gi kiri gi6 eden dba- r I2 13 0.0.3 nin-mu-silim-mu 14 0.0.3 giskiri gettin gi-dba-iI, h6-gil zi-na i6 giskirij erim-z6-z6 [ ] lugal-igi+ giSkiri 17 18 g* kiri6 URUX 19 giSkirij --lu-a KARki 20 0.1.0 1h-dnin-gir-su 21 0.0.4 lugal-[ ] bi [ ]
10o ~Skiri,
22
0.I.4
23 24
IV
dig-a[lim] ir g [al] I dnanl e si-mu2 ur4-umki ur- dig-alim 3 XZA-me 4 16-LAGAR
giskirij gi kiri6 giskirij
The garden of the god Igalim. The garden of Sargal. The garden of Nan~e of Simurum: Ur-Igalima. The...-men.
5 Aux nigin 2.1.o 5 sila ie gur Altogether 2,1 gur 5 sila of barley,
e-ba dh-a-kud grain rations to duaku-gardeners. o,0,2 (to) Abbagu, balance0,0,4.
(9 lines blank)
7 0.0.2 ab-ba-mu 0.0.4 lal-NI 8 dul-ma-nu-ta

iti g ina-bar 1o mu is-sa ki-ma ki xx ba-hul mu ds-sa-bi 9
From (the granaryof) Du-Manu.
Month Ganabar (II), the second year following the one in which KimaS was destroyed.
140
5. List of grain rations (2047 B.C.) Previous edition: T. G. Pinches, Amherst (I908), no. 54, P. IO8 ff.
(with copy; photographibid. pl. III).

Obv.
2
I 6.4.5 Se gur lugal giskiri6 d4ul-gi-i-kalam-ma

1.0.2 giskirij
6,4,5 royal gur of barley (to) the garden of Sulgi-a-kalama.

I,o,z (to) the vineyard of Gar~um.
0,2,2 (to) the garden of Ninglirsu-
geltin garMumki 4 0.2.2 gijkiri6 anin-gir-su-idah- diul- gi 5 6 0.3.2 gijkirij ur-dnin-gir-
adah-Sulgi.
0,3,2 (to) the garden of Ur-Ningirsu-
su-gu-la
giSkiri6 ga-KASKAL 0.4.0 gikirie dul-pa-6 9 0.3.0 giSkiri, 16i-diig-ga o10 0.2.0 giskirij gu-la a-[ ] x II 0.3.1 gi~kiri, uru-sag 0.3.0 giskiri6 gemI2 d-ul-pa13 0.4.3 gikiri, danin-gir-su
0.2.0 [1 Xl
AR NE FX
gula.
oz, (to) the merchant/leek garden. 0,4 (to) the garden of the god Sulpa'e.
0,2
7 8
o,3 (to) the garden of Lu-duga. (to) the great garden [...]. o,3,I (to) the garden of Urusag.
0,3 (to) the garden of Geme-Sulpa'e. 0,4,3 to the garden of Ningirsu. 0,1,2 (to) the garden of Tiras. O,I,2 (to) the . ..-men. 0,2 (to) the nagabtum-men.
14
15
0.I.2 gijkirij ti-ra-iis 0.1.2 1l-LAGAR X ZA
16
Rev.
0.2.0 16i-na-kab-tum 17 SuXnigin 14.3.1 Se gur lugal sandana i8 ugula 19 0.o.5 gi gi-i--mu kiri, en-ne I 2.0.0 gi kiri6 ur-ma-ma
2
In all 14.3.I royal gur of barley.
Overseer: Gu'ugu, chief gardener.
0.4.0
al-la-mu i-SU 5 gaba0.1.4 gi1 kiri6

0.3.5
gif kiri, 0.3.5 g"ikiri6
gem-
dKA.DI
5
6 7 8 9
ri-en-ki gi~kiri, gu-la Sag4 uru o,3,5 to the great garden inside the city.
gi0,4,2 to the garden of Mani. o,3 to the vineyard of Gu-Babu-
o,o,5 (to) the garden of Enne. 2 (to) the garden of Ur-Mama. 0,4 to the garden of Geme-IBtaran. o,3,5 to the garden of Allagu. 0,1,4 to the firgardenof Gabari-Enki.
0.4.2 gi1Skiri ma-ni o.3.o gi kiri, geitin
dba-i-hg-gil
0.3.2 gi1kiri6 dig-alim 1.1.0 16-na-kab'-tum-me
hegal.
0,3,z to the garden of the god Igalim.
I,I to the nagabtum-men. 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, providedby Ur-Babu son of BaZi. I5 ki ur- dba- du mu ba-zi-ta Tablet of Ur-gigir and Katar-Babu, x6 dub ur-gisgigir i ka-tardba'o
THE MELUHjA VILLAGE Rev. 7 dub-bi x- m there being (only) one tablet.
141
LE
i8 iti ezen-dba-6-ta 19 iti mu-9u-du,- 20 iti 2-kam z21 mu Gs-sa ki-ma ki ba-lul mu is-sa-a-bi
(Valid) from the month Ezen-Babu (IX) to the month Mu-udu (X), i.e. two months. The 2nd year following the destructionofKimaS.
6. List of grain rations

Copy: G. A. Barton, HLC III (1914) no. 368 (pl. 139).
Obv. I
I' [
2'
I2.0.3
]-giS
gur
(break)
I2,0,3
gur of
3' ge-ba a-bal 4' giri 1i-igi-lhul 5' 22.4.0 gur 6' me-luh- ha- ta 7' 34.2.0 gur 8' i-dub Sir-gal-ta
9' 9.1.0 gur 1o' &-duru5 lugal-ti-ta ii' 5.o.o0 da-da nu-kiri6-ta
Iz' I3'
grain rations to irrigators, in charge of Lu-igibul. 22,4 gur (of grain) from (the village Meluhba; of)
34,2 gur
from the granaryof Sargal;

9,1 gur
from the village of Lugal-ti;

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

zI.3.0 gur 6 ba-har-[ta]
gardener,
21,3 gur from the house of Balar
II
2'
(break) x' r6.o.o01x[

27.0.5
2
(break)
sila gur
27,0,5
gur
sila (of grain),
3' 4'
3.0.0
6' 5.o.o a-r i i-kam 7' 2.0.0 a-r 2-kam 8' ki nig-li-rum kus-du8-ta
9' 9.2.0 i-dub io' 9.2.0 i-dub
iI'
5' ki ur-aba-P dumu ba-zi-ta
312z.54 5 sila
&-duru5 duru'-dam'
3 <from>
thevillage ofUrudam(?),
(in all) 312,5,4 gur
provided by Ur-Babu son of Bazi. 5 (gur) as the first delivery, 2 (gur) as the second delivery, provided by Ni'urum the skinner(?).
9,2 from the Nudu-granary, 9,2 from the granary of Inim-Inanna,
5 sila
nu-dus-ta inim-dinanna-ta
ki 16-dnin-gir-su 1-kal-la-ta
3.3.0 ki ur-dingir-ra
dumu
provided by Lu-Ningirsu son of Ikalla.

3,3, by Ur-digira
Rev. III
I
2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
SeS igi-zu-bar-ra-ta i.o.o ki PA-6n dumu ki!- iga-ta 4.3.4 &-si-ta 3.0.0 6 ur-dingir-ra-ta 6.o.o gur lal-NI su-ga-nin a-na dumu 16-gu-la 6.0.0 -duru6 lugal-ta
the brother of Igizu-bara.

i (gur), by PA-en son of
Kiaga. 4,3,4 (gur) from Esi, 3 from the house of Ur-digira; 6 gur, deficit of Suganin(?), Ana son of Lu-gula. 6 (gur) from the village of the king,
142 Rev. III 1o

12
S. PARPOLA, A. PARPOLA & R. H. BRUNSWIG JR. 4.1.3 kalam-sa, -ga-ta 4,1,3 from Kalam-saga,
ii
girl su6-dug4-dug, ix Su ur-dnin-giz-zi-da girl (remainderdestroyed) (8 lines blank)

Suxnigin
384.2.5 I slla 2.3.5 5 sila a-r i 8.0.0 sukkal l-dus
30
in charge of Su-dudu.
ta
2,3,5 gur 5 sila, as the Ist delivery, (8 gur) from....
13 14
in charge of Ur-Ningizzida.
Altogether 384,2,5 gur I sila
IV
I
2 3
e gur e-ba a-bal dxa-a-<kud>e-ne (blank space of 2 lines) (remainderdestroyed)
of barley, grain rations to irrigatorsand duaku-gardeners. (Date destroyed)
7. Debt-note (2046 B.C.) BM 14594. Copy L. W. King, CT 3 (1898) pl. i7.

Obv.
I
2
41i ma-na siki! (St)

si-i-tum
50
2
Ur-Lamasonof Meluthahas
to recompense 41I pounds of
gli
3
4
mu 6 KAX KAR-ii-da-
ma-na siki'!(f)
wool, the balance of
talents
Rev.
10
S gan ba-dii 6 ur- d1ama dumu meluh-ha 7 8 su-su-dam 9 dub ur-&-5o dumu
d u-d u
in the year in which the temple of Puzrii-Dagan was built (= 2058 B.C.). Tablet of Ur-Eninnu son of
Dudu, acting for Ur-Lama son
pounds of wool (loaned by him) o50
ii
iz
13
mu ur-dlama dumu me-luh-ha-S6

mu amar- den: lugal zu
of Meluhha.
The year in which Amar-Suena became king.
14
8. List of grain rations (2045 B.C.) 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
21
22 23
o,I (gur to) Ur-Alla, serf of
sabra-e- i dumu lugal-m +gur8-re

D o.i.o lugal-uru-da nina ki-ta
the household of the templemanager, son of Lugal-magure.

0,I (gur to) Lugal-uruda, in/by IM,
24
25
dumu a-ku, erin 6 dnanie IM-e
IM-e
son of Aku, serf of the Nanie

temple, from Nina.
z6 D o.i.o mi+gur8-re tag4-a
left o,I to Magure, in/by IM,
THE MELUHJA
VILLAGE
143
Rev. VI 27 dumu me-lulh-ha erin 6 dnange 28 g6 id-a-ta 29 girn lugal-16-sa8-sa, 30 D o.i.o ur-dnin-giz-zi-da 31 erin 6 na-ba-sa, nu-dibba-ta 32 dumu adnin-marki-1-sa, 33 m -la h4 (DU.DOu)-me
sonof Meluha, serf of the Nanie temple, from the delta. In charge of Lugal-lu-sasa. o,I (to) Ur-Ningizzida, serf of the house of Nabasa, from.... son of Ninmar-isa: (all these) are skippers.
The men listed in this section belonged to the "personnelof the new mill" (gir-si-ga &-urs-ur5 gibil, VII 24), the mill in question doubtless 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-Suenbecame king".
9. Receiptof grain(2030 B.C.)

L
705.
Unp., cf. H. de Genouillac, ITT II (1910)

i
2
705.
Photograph
pl. II.
Obv. 3 4 5 6 I
2
Rev.
3 4
I.I.o le gur le nu-Ku 3.0.0 gur le ur5-ra ki ur- dKA.DIta ur-dnin-su lu ba-ti 1-dub me-luh-[h]a iti le-il-la mu mi-gur8 mah ba-dim
Ur-ninsu has received from Ur-Itaran I,i gur of un...ed barley (and) 3 gur of ground barley.
Granary Meluhha, of month Se-ila (I), the year in which the grand procession-shipwas built.
Io. Account of grain delivery (2028 B.C.)
Previousedition: H. F. Lutz, UCP 9/2 (1928) no. 65 (transliteration

and translation p. 129 f., copy p. 192). I 2.0.0 le gur
a-lag, dinanna-ta 3 giri dingir-sukkal nu-6 4 2.0.0 se-numun NUNSAR 5 I.o.o 6-ta le-me-ha ki
2
2 gur of barley from the field of the goddess Inanna, in charge of Digir-sukkal, 2 (gur) of nongerminantseed barley, I (gur) from the house, Semeha, (?)
144
6
7
xx
i2
0o 24.3.0 6 nam-lah,
2.1.3
8 o.z.o pistir-gaba-gfd-data 9
(DU.DU)-
0.3.0 me-lu h-ha-ta 0.2.0 a-KA-sahar-ta
0,3 (gur)from (the) Meluha (village), 0,2 (gur) from Akasahar,
o,z (gur) from Tirgabagidda,
ta
6 sila u palil 13 Su+nigin 33.1.3 6 sila gur bita 14 ag4Se kaS ninda gur 15 25.I.0
24,3 (gur) from Enamlaia, 2,1,3 (gur) 6 sila in the hands of the principal, a total of 33,1,3 gur 6 sila (of grain).
Therefrom: bread, for grain rations of maidservants x,1 (and) regulargrain offerings, 0,3 for festival expenditures; Balance: 6,1,3 gur 6 sila. Accountant: Ur-Babu. Year: the one in which Ibbi-Suen became king.
in all 27 gur of grain. 25,1 gur of barley (for) beer and
16 1.1.0 ge-ba gem6 e-ba 17 s -dug, I8 0.3.0 nig-ezen-dab,

19 20
lal-NI 6.I.3 6 sila gur 21 nig-ID-aka ur-aba-6r 22 mudi-bi-den:zu 23 lugal
Su+nigin
27.0.0 Se gur
I1. List of persons (undated) L 8oi0 . Unp., cf. L. Delaporte, ITT IV pl. II.
Obv. I
2
(1912)
80I5. Photograph
Rev.
3 dub-sar-me 4 I GAL-1-liugula ug-[bar] 5 x gigir-ta t6ig-du8 6 x ur7 x ur-dralr (2 lines blank) 8 Su+nigin 6 guruS
9 Io Ir- dnan e-me ugula me-luh-ha
[x] ur- adKA.DI [x] lugal-giSgigir
Ur-Igtaran (and)
Lugal-gigir, scribes. Rabi-ili,overseerof weavers, Gigirta, tailor, Ur-a, Ur-da. Altogether 6 men,
servants of the goddess Nanie. overseer: Melubba.
12.
List of persons (undated)
L 1426. Unp., cf. F. Thureau-Dangin, ITT I (1910) 1426. Photograph
pl. II.
Obv. x lugal-ab dumu da-da 3 ugula ur-6-dam 4 I ki-ku-li6 5 dumu lugal-iti-da I
2
Lugal-ab son of Dada; overseer: Ur-Edam. Kikkulu son of Lugal-itida;
THE MELUUUA VILLAGE
145
6 7 8 9 Io Rev.
ugula ur-nig I me-luh-ha dumu ur-an-na-di-a ugula nam-rmalh-ni [x] ur-[ ] (last line of obverse and edge destroyed) I [ ] 2 rlI [u]rf-irgigirl[dumu
3
overseer: Ur-nig. Meluhha sonof Ur-ana-dua; overseer: Nammahani. Ur-[ ] [son of PN] [overseer: PN2] Ur-gigir son of Ur-Ni[n..];
overseer: Ur-I~taran.
rugulal ur-dKA.DI 4 r11ii-da dumu 8-kal-l[e]
u]r-dni[n..]
5 ugula si-dii (2 lines blank)

nu-btn-[d]a
Uda son of Akalle; overseer: Sidu.

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-
= 6 bin; I bin = 8,5 1 = io sila; see F. Thureauberger]); I bariga = 0ol Dangin, RA I8 (1921), I36 f. ha
verted into modern measuresaccording to the following scheme: I gur = 2,5 hi = 5 bariga (thus according to Edzard rather than nigida [Soll-
-duru5 me-luh "the Meluhha village": cf. i-dub &-durus me-luhki "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. ka-ap-ru,Diri V k~fer and Arab. kafr; cf. [a]-du-ru i.DURU5 a-du-ru-u, and kapru) within the province of Girsu 307 f., and see CAD s.vv. edurd (mod.Tell6; cf. 3 ii 13); as far as it is known, all its inhabitantshad Mesopotamian names (cf. Nin-ana 1:2, Ur-Lama 2 ii
o10 etc.
[if associated with
the village], Ur-Babuson of Bazi ri5 etc., Ur-Itaran 9:4), and in all contexts 5 the village appearsto function as a unit of agricultural production, delivering grain as tax or selling it. Consequently,it does not differfrom the numerous other villages mentioned in the present texts save its name, which associates for
it with the countryof 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
a trade colony. Cf. 6-duru8 ga-e 8 STA io iv 8 and Sauren WMAH UET 3 1364:4, and mi-ganki, TUT i6o iii 20, interpreted by A.
had a geographical connotation in the present instance). This strongly points to a Sumerianizedvillage originally founded by the Meluhhans as
"village of travelling merchants", Chiera 176 iv 6, and note also 6-duru5 lti6-duru5 NIM-e-ne, ITT 4 7309 and Falkenstein, AnOr 30 (1966), 26 f. re-
146
S. PARPOLA, A. PARPOLA
&
R. H. BRUNSWIG JR.
spectively as "Dorf der Magan-Leute" and "Elamiterdorf" (cf., however, Edzard'scriticismof these renderingsat 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" (Falkenstein, 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-nuLu 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 assumes that grain from the said sources was normallyincluded in the deposit capital and therefore also in the account formula, though in the present case the actual amounts availablewere zero. Alternatively,these lines could specify the amount given in line if, the word gur being conventionally repeated(cf. I.o.5 Mein-nuku6 gur, 3 i I7 f.). II I UD KA[ ]: unclear. Hardly for UD.KA. "bronze". [BAR] ii dumu me-luh-ha "son of Meluhha": Meluhha is attested as a personal name in nos. x xi: I0 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 interpretationhere 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"appearsalso 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). Whichever the correctinterpretation,the use of Meluhhaas a personalname 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) associatablewith 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 the namebearers. of 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,
IV 7 JNES 32 (x973), 58. 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, situatedin 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 (1967) s.vv. I/I
THE MELUHIHIA VILLAGE 4
147
i-dub dul-ma-nu: cf. a-li du6-giA ma-nu, ibid. p. 160. ki-dim: cf. -duru5 ur-nig kii-dim "village of the i-dub ur-nig silversmith Ur-nig", CT 9 I8 i 19. an unidentified variety of barley; cf. CAD I/J I Ia s.v. I7 le in-nuku6: inninnu. II 7 TE lU TURNE: unclear. Cf. Su-dumu (a profession), TUT i 4 viii 22z. i i guru, "pile" was a unit of capacity, = 3600 gur. this rubric pertains to all the granaries enumerated in 13 1ag4 gir-suki: 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.
13
No. 4
I 6 zi-ur-gli-en-na: H. Limet, Anthroponymie(1968) lists 6 attestations of the
A and B, lex. and bil. buntn "be beautiful/beautify" (CAD B 83 ff. sub bant sections). Cf. Oppenheim, Eames (1948), p. 46: "Sig, denotes an agricultural activity which is very difficult to determine. The worker termed gurul as in Boson sig ,-a is often mentioned beside the di-a-kus-gardener 364 rev4, Haverf. II 46: i-2; in Hussey 7 listing a large number of sig7-aworkmen stationed in various gardens we read in line IV 32 1e-ba a-bal "barley-wages of water-carriers and dii-a-kus-gardeners", dii-a-kus-d 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 6 "grass"..., doing; the objects of their activity were: gi "reed"..., (i-kula, a kind of grass..,. or ... see 19 lel kal-la: for the PN Kal-laUz-t 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- ru: 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). an unidentified kind of (fruit?) tree; cf. A. Salonen, Mibel 22zzo 14 gil-kin: ("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.
PN Ur-gu'ena but none of Zi-Ur-gu'enaor similarnames. 8 sig7-a: a profession, meaning uncertain. Rendered tentatively "(garden) decorator" on the ground of the context and the equation sig, = banu/
148
21 9ag4-ba-na-[gar] for the restorationcf. Limet, op. cit. 300 and 525. III xx The sign a preceding the personalname is unaccountable;a scribalerror? 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 1i-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 1lina-da-tum"). 6 di-a-kud: a kind of gardener, cf. Deimel, and Oppenheim, 3L 230/89 Eames46 f.
No. 5
uncertain whether to be read ga-e , "travelling merchant" 7 ga-KASKAL: (cf. &-duru5 ga-eiS, note to 1:3) or ga-rag "leek" (cf. gi1kiri, gegtin, i -suh5 etc. in the same text). i6 Nagabtum the and (written both na-ga-ab-tum na-kab-tum, latter often misread as na-da-tum) a place often mentioned in Ur III texts, especiallyin ones was dealing with cattle. See Oppenheim, Eames 23 and Gelb, MAD 3 201. r. 5 "thecity":probably referringto 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 gatekeepers". 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-keeperand 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 = 'passive' participleof tag, = e~ibu"to leave, abandon, divorce" (tags-a [cf. NSGUIII s.v. and CAD E 416 ff.]; IM-e= ergative of ni "(one)-self" or locative of im/tu,5 "clay/wind"). lit. "from (among) the not-taken", meaning obscure. 31 nu-dib-ba-ta: 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.
-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 p. 70 as "(Feld I/I 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" (Pettinato, 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
Io
for the reading Rabi-ili cf. OAkk Ra-bi-DINGIR, Ra-bi-il and MAD I 197. (Gelb, MAD 3 234); hardly = Ga-li-li, 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 Melu4hhavillage. Is this a mere coincidence? Note that Meluhha and Ur-IBtaran also occur together in Text 12.
GAL-i-li:
GAL-DINGIR
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 selbstverstandlichbekannt vorausgesetztwurde."
150J
S. PARPOLA, A. PARPOLA &CR. 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 Mesopotamiaand came from a distant Meluhha. Ships and shipowners either came from or went to Meluhha. An interpreterwas needed to translatethe Melulhhan language. The above cited texts, however, give us an entirelydifferentview of the Meluhhans. As illustrated in Table i, the relative status of Meluhhans and their activitiesdifferfrom those referredto in earliertimes. 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 purposes. 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:i2), all referencesto it unanimouslyimply that its role in Ur III society was little if any different from other SouthernMesopotamianvillages of the day. Personal references to "Meluhhans"indicate that most if not all of them had Sumeriannames. Thus, three persons directly indentified as inhabitantsof the Meluhhavillage and delivering barleyto Sumerian officials and individuals had purely Sumerian names, Ur-l1taran, 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 backgroundwith that country. A final personal
Ur-Babu and Nin-ana (texts i, Two men, likewise with Sumerian 5, 9).
TABLE i on in Summary the texts bearing thepresence Melubbans Ur III periodMesopotamia of of

Text Date Provenance Text type reference AMeluhha Specifications
i. L 7157
2. OBTR 242
zo62
o057
Tell6
6-dnin-marki
receipt of
nin-a-na from the vil-
barley
account of bar-
lage of me-lub-ta
son of
to Ur-saga
delivers io6 hi of b
of Tell6
ur-alama
ley delivery inventory of

barley deposits
me-lub-ha granary of the village

of me-luh-ha" me-luh-ha garden of the goddess dnin-marki granary of (village) me-luh-hha <granary of>
belonging to the te
receives 663 hl of b
Ninmar for unspeci
3. BM 17751
2047
Tell6 *)
located in the provi barley
Girsu, contains 1410
4. STA
19
2047
Tella
5.
Amherst 54
2047
Tell6
6. HLC III 368 [2047]
Tell6
list of barley rations to garden workers list of barley rations to gardeners list of barley
between kiri6-gi9-ki kiris- dnin-marki
delivering 57 hi of b as rations for garden
rations to
delivering 57 hl of b
(village) me-luh-ba
ur-dlama
7. BM 14594
2046
Tell6 *)
irrigators debt-note
8. TUT 154
2045
Tell6
9. L 705 Io. UCP 9/2 65 I1. L 8o05

12.
2030
Tell6 Tell6 *)
2028
list of barley rations to mill personnel receipt of barley account of bar-
son of me-luyh-ha acknowledges (throu agent) a debt of wo I2 years back in tim son of functions as skipper mai+gur8-re me-lub-ha temple mill (transpo grain?) ur-dKA.DI (from) the gran- delivers io hi of bar Ur-ninsu for unknow ary of me-lub-ba (village) abbreviation for 6me-lub-ha-ta
ley consumption
Tell6 list of persons overseer me-lubh-ha,
luh-ha-ta;
1 00oo of barley
deliver
in charge of two scr
1426
Tell6
list of persons
son me-lub-ha of ur-an-na-d i-a
a weaver and a tailo functioning as a tem "inspector"?
*) Inferred.
I12 J
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 immigrantshave. Since the father, Ur-ana-dua,has a Sumerianname, 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 Meluhhanswere the active counterpart,they would have establishedcommercialenclaves 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 Sumerian names, and another with the name Meluhha, but with a Sumerian named father, indicate Meluhhan acculturationinto Sumerian society on a personalas well as a politico-economiclevel. The presence of a Meluhhan garden dedicated to a Sumeriangoddess (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 acculturalparticipationwas often facilitated by the intermarriageof 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-tradersengaging in longdistance 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 = "Schiff mit hohen Steven, Seeschiff, Gdtterand name (mi-gur, schiff" 21)), in personal names mostly-but not necessarily-referring
to the "Mondschiff"22) strongly suggest that he was a descendant of a Meluhhanpracticingoverseas trade. The role of the Indus civilization in Meluhhan-Mesopotamian interrelations,in light of recent research,appearsto form an interesting patternwhen integratedwith the hypothesisof Meluhhanacculturation and relativeisolation in Ur III times. If Meluhhacan indeed be equated with the Indus, then there are a number of fascinatingclues 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-Mesopotamiancontacts 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, earliertransportedby ships from that country, lessened somewhat in quantity, and were brought, not by Meluhhanships, 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 TwentiethCentury America (Boston 1965), 296-316; W. D. Borrie et al., The Cultural Integrationof 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.
154
by Tilmun merchant intermediaries23). At the same time, Indusrelated 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 researchon the Indus civilization. That research,utilizing new radiocarbon calibrations,indicates that the Ur III dynasty in Mesopotamia
in withthe endof urban coincides systems theIndusvalley24). probably If this was indeedthe case, then it would be sensibleto assumethat Indusinstigated tradewouldalso ceasewith the end of the supporting that is urbansociety.The possibility this happened partially Harappan
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 of Meluhhanships and merchantsin the transferral tradegoods 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 demiseof Indusurbansystems,with numerouslate-urban settlements known to have existed in Kutch and Gujaratof present-daywestern India. In anotherprevious paper,two of the presentauthorshave presented new data and a hypothesis concerning the history of Indus and Indusrelated seals in the Near East 25). Briefly summarized,that hypothe-
sis sees the initial appearance "classic"or native origin Indus of seals in the Near East by at least the Akkadianperiod. Continued contactwith the Barbar cultureof the Persian Gulf and thatof Mesopotamia resulted, over time, in the developmentof Indus-related seals with both indigenousand foreignattributes. instance,seals For on Bahrain Failaka the PersianGulf have a nativeBarbar in and culture form, round, varying mixes of Indus and Barbarmotifs, and
23) Cf. Oppenheim,JAOS 74 (1954), 6 ff. and Leemans, Trade(960o), 33 ftf. 24) Brunswig, Man 8 (i973), 543-554; id., "Radiocarbon Dating and the Indus Civilization",East and West25 (I975), I 11-145.
25) Cf. introduction, note 13.
THE MELUUUA VILLAGE
15 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 understandably be of considerablesignificanceto the deciphermentof the Indus script, in that they might definitely settle the much disputed question of the linguistic affinityof 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 alreadypreviously been independently suggested with referenceto their adaptationof such local conventions as the (Mesopotamian) cylinder and the (Persian Gulf) round seal J. V. Kinnier Wilson's Indo-Sumerian (Oxford 1974) in Antiquity49 (x975).
27)
26) How open the question still is can be seen from T. Burrow's review of
Cf. introduction, n. 2. and 158-159 (with n. 46) 28) Cf. pp.
I5o-Ix2
156
& R. H. BRUNSWIG JR. s. PARPOLA, A. PARPOLA

their form,
30),
form 9). Besides cuneiform
students
of these
seals have usually legends in the
paid attention only to their iconographicmotifs and a single (obscure)

inscription leaving aside the numerous
Indus script. The only exception is G. R. Hunter, who more than forty years ago made the following importantobservation: "The four examples of round seals found in Mohenjo-daroshow well-supportedsequences, whereas the three from Mesopotamiashow sequences of signs not paralleledelsewhere in the Indus script. But the ordinary square seals found in Mesopotamia show the normal Mohenjo-darosequences. In other words, the square seals are in the Indus language,and were probablyimportedin the course of the trade;
while the circular though theIndus in are seals, language, scrzipt, in a different and were probablymanufactured Mesopotamia a Sumerianin for or descent." Semitic-speaking of Indus person 31)
Since the days of Hunter, the number of known Indus inscriptions
has considerably but increased, the new findshavein no way shattered his conclusions. the contrary, careful a On re-examination the Near of
EasternIndus seals by means of a concordanceof all Indus inscriptions
betweenseals from India publishedto date32) makesthe difference

29) Cf. C. J. Gadd, Proceedings theBritish Academy18 (1932), 203 f.; G. Bibby, of Antiquity32 (1958), 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 Sumerianor Akkadianname". 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 unusualor carelesslycarved Sumeriannameis in question, e.g. ka/inim-dab5-ba "(his) mouth/speech is 'seized' " (referring to one unable to speak [properly], cf. CAD S and such namesas inim-gi-na "(his) speech is truthful",inim-sa6-gal zia "(his) speech is good", Limet, op. cit., 435 f.), inim-ma-ni! "his word" sags-a (ibid.) or perhaps even sag-ma-BA (cf. sag-ma ibid. 524). 31) JRAS 1932, 469. The italics are ours. 32) S. Koskenniemi, A. Parpolaand S. Parpola, Materials theStudyof theIndus for ScriptI (ASSF B i85, Helsinki 1973).
THE MELUIJA VILLAGE
15 7
The signs in question belong among the most common ones of the Indus script, their individualfrequenciesbeing as follows: U = 1344,
= 1o7,
tamianseals hasa five-sign Indusinscription reading UU' 0^A

o^ =
and Mesopotamia stand out even more markedly than before. Two examples serve to illustratethe point 33). One of the circularMesopo34).
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 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 regardto its iconographyand 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),
form 9) recurs in identical on two seals found at Mohenjodaro and 20 times as a component of other
and the inscriptionitself (U E
(longer)inscriptions 37). In view of the evidencepresented this paper,the most natural in of explanationfor the strange sign-sequences the Mesopotamian Indus seals would seem to be that these sealsbelongedto merchants of Harappan and origin living in Mesopotamia having,as a resultof a processof cultural or for other,subtler, reasons,adopted integration, names but still maintaining connectionswith their Mesopotamian
home country. Such people could have functioned as commercial agents monopolizing the Indus-Mesopotamiantrade, e.g. by forwarding Harappan merchandise to its Mesopotamian destination and helping to export MesQpotamian articles (textiles, etc.) to Meluhha.
that they would have needed In such a position, it is conceivable

seals whose impressions (stating their names and professions/titles)
could be readnot only in the IndusValley(the roundseals)but also

in Mesopotamia (the Indus-related seal with the cuneiform inscrip33) 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.
158
&
R. H. BRUNSWIG JR.
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 considerably earlier than the Ur III texts treated by us directly imply 40).
The above conclusions entail some important corollaries. One is the total dissimilarityof the native Harappanand the Mesopotamian language used on the Near Eastern seals, which makes Sumerianan extremely unlikely candidate for the language of the Indus civilization 41). This is, to be sure, only what can be reasonablyexpected in view of the archaeological evidence, which clearly documents the independent development of the Mesopotamian-Elamite and Turkmenian-IndusValley 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
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 structureof 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 Throughthe Centuries(Karachi). Cf. G. F. Dales in N. Hammond (ed.), South Asian Archaeology (London 42) 1973), 157-169.
THE MELUHJHA VILLAGE
I J9
affinity of the Harappan language43). 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 interpretationof 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 sufficientamount 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.), SouthAsian Archaeology y973(Leiden 1974), 90-I00oo. Volume Honour FatherX. S. ThaniNayagam in 44) See A. Parpolain Felicitation of (in press). 45) Cf. now A. Parpola,JRAS 1975: 2, 178-209; in B. B. Lal and S. P. Gupta (ed.), Fifty Yearsof HarappanStudies(= Fs M. Wheeler, New Delhi 1977?); and StOr 45 (1976), I25-x6o. 46) A tentative analysis of the circularseal referredto on p. 157 will illustrate the point. Only two of the four signs occurring in it can be read with reasonablecertainty: ' or(u) "i" (Burrow - Emeneau, Dravidian Dictionary 96i], Etymological [ no. 834a) and 0 = (cf. ibid. no. 1788). The interpretationof the sign is, despite its high frequency, entirely open, but it is mostly believed to representeither ko. the oblique (adnominal)case morphemereconstructedas *(V)t(V) (cf. N. V. Gurov in Proto-Indica:1972 (i972), I 131, 134 f.), or the genitive case morpheme *atu or remains unexplained.The sign' = or(u) has in seals (cf. above, n. 45); from the Near East a conspicuously high frequency in relation to the situation /4 *. 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, should then represent the final part of the name concerned, while ^ A6could stand for a profession or title preceding the name, as usual in Dravidian. Of the 7 u r-namesshowing a finalelement consisting ofareduplicated syllable,listed by Limet, Anthroponymie ff. (ur-ba-ba, ur-da-da, 66 ur-du-du, ur-gi4-gi4, ur-KA-KA, ur-ma-ma and ur-me-me), only two (urda-da and ur-du-du) can be reconciled with the proposed interpretationof 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 Sumeriantitle used as a professionalidentifierin want of a Harappan one (or equivalent). On these premises, the seal mighthave belonged to Urdu-du sukkal mentioned in Lutz, UCP 9/2 no. 42, and we mighthave a clue to the reading of the undecipheredsign 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.
1Q
Ib6o
APPENDIX: A SARGONIC MELUHHA-NAME
Having already submitted the manuscript to press, the authors
noticed that they had overlooked a recentlypublished text significantly bearing upon the mattersdiscussed 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
2
Io gin kug
Lu-Sungida,
3 4 6 7 8 9
10
Rev.
kug z6 gul-la-kam ur-ur ni-is-ku dumu amar-1-KU 16-sin-zi-da 16 me-luh-ha-ke, l-na-ab-ss-si lugal-iti-da ma kim
ugula EN--lu
a manof Meluha, has remitted to Urur son of Amar-luKu,a nisquservant, Io shekels of silver as payment for a broken tooth. Lugal-itida (was) the bailiff; overseer: Beli-ilu. NOTES
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 prescribedin 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. a The DN sdn-zi (lit. "just buffalo-cow") constituting 5 16-s6in-zi-da: of hapax. the latter part 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 interpretationof 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, iv 14 (ds6in-zi). A IoI duplicate gives the name as dsin-si (CT 24, 30 iv 14).
THE MELUIHHAVILLAGE DISCUSSION
IGI
The text under study is interesting in several respects, but here we shall only deal with the "man of Melulhha" mentioned in it, specifically with his name. As given in the text, it is indubitablySumerian, 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 exceptionwell-known, common Sumerian names, the present early name, borne by a man expressly and designated as a Melullhan,is a hapax legomenon; not enough with that, it is a theophoric name composed with a nameof a deitywhichis otherwise unknown Mesopotamia49).one correlatesthese facts with the in If textual and archaeologicalevidence presented elsewhere in this paper, showing that the earliestdocumenteddirect contact between Meluhba/ Indus and Mesopotamiadatesfrom the Sargonicperiod, the conclusion seems almost inevitable that we are here dealing with a first or second a translated generation bearing namedirectly immigrant from his Meluhhan native into in language Sumerian order to make him more adaptableto 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 acculturationprocess delineatedabove, such a name would seem not only naturalbut also socially obligatory. Moreover, there is the addedfact that while the name li-s6n-zi-da, though formally Sumerian, does not really make sense in the Mesopotamian cultural sphere (whose mythology does not know a "just
49) Note that the name lacks the determinative d, as usual in the case of nonSumerian (though occasionally also Sumerian) divine names.
I62
&
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 is the "cosmic law", the early Vedic predecessor of dharma rta"s). R.ta "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 Varunaare partly and of Aryan origin (being in this tradition associatedwith the oath) and partly continue earlier non-Aryan traditions of India: in the last mentioned capacity like the classical Hindu god Yama, reVarutna, in all likelihood the early Dravidian god of death, Kdla "the presents Black one" or "Time" (the night aspect of the sun), riding (like Yama) the buffalo.In the Vedic new year ritual and relatedroyal rites (mahivrata, purusamedha,advamedha,agnicayana), Varuna is the "dying god", being representedby the male partner (usually identical with the main victim of the sacrifice,a man, a horse, or a tortoise, each of these impersonatingthe sacrificer,who as a rule is a king) in the sexual union from which the new ruler of the universeis (re)born.The female partnerin these fertility ritualsis either a sacredprostitute symbolizing the fecundatedearth goddess, or the king's first consort, called mahisi "buffalocow". These concepts and ritualsbelong to the earlieststratum
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 analysisof the Indian textual sources: they

represent the religion of the Disas or Vrityas or Mlecchas, who oc-
cupied North India before the arrivalof the Aryans. As can .Rgvedic 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 SatapathaBrahmana3, 2, i, 18 ff., the very passage
in which the Sanskritword mleccha ("non-Vedic strangerspeaking indistinctly or corruptly") connected with Sumerian Meluhhais first attested, the goddess Vac is expresslysaid to have originallybelonged to the mlecchas53). The late Rgvedic hymn Io, 125 addressedto 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 Tantricreligion into which Buddhismwas 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 clearlyrepresentingher husband ($ivaSava). 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 sacrificialhorse and the queen in advamedha.

5z) For Varuna, cf. notably J. J.Meyer, Trilogie Michte undFeste der altindischer Vegetation(i937), part III, and for a basic orientationabout 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 forthcoming papers in Temenos I2 and in Agni, ed. Frits Staal. (1977) 53) Cf. A. and S. Parpola, StOr46 (1975), 212. 54) Cf. J. W. Hauer, Der Vrdtya I (1927), 233 ff. 55) Cf. E. Mackay, Furtherexcavations Mohenjo-daro at (1938) II, pl. LXXXVIII, 279 & XCII, 1 i. 56) Cf. E. Mackay, AOS 20zo (1943), pl. LI, 13.
164
It will undoubtedly still take time before the Harappaninheritance in the early strata of the Indian religions is unanimouslyrecognized. 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 earlierpart of this paper, but also provides a satisfactory,if not the only satisfactoryexplanation 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 identificationof Meluhhawith the
Induscivilization.
CRITICISM
The following comments of D. O. Edzard (on the draft version of the present paper) serve to underlinethe tentative nature of the interpretationsadvanced by us: Es scheint mir, dass Sie zu sicher und unbekiimmertdavon 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 Tiirkenstrassein Miinchen, viele FamiliennamenTiirck, die Blume Tiirkenbund. Das geht zwar alles auf die Erinnerungan die Tiirken zuriick, hat aber nichts mit Niederlassungen von Tiirken zu tun. Hingegen sind "Germantown" in Philadelphia oder die "Tyske Brygge" in Bergen Namen, die auf deutsche Siedler oder Hiindlerzuriickgehen. Der "Englische Garten" in Miinchen heisst so wegen seiner parkartigenAnlage. 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 Sumerianrepresentsthe ordinary type of proper names, 16 could rather be compared with the Proto-Dravidian masculine gender marker *-aan/-an/-(k)kan complementary distribution) the (in "man use of which may be illustrated with the word mr~kku "nose": mtzkk-an 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 counterpartin the Indus script (or was left to be supplied) cannot yet be decided. Note the use of 16 in Sumerian relative sentences, corresponding to the Akkadian determinative pronoun !u, and the correspondence between Sumerian16-DN and Akkadian J'u-DN the 3rd millenniumonomasticon. in
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 Berufsbezeichnung 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 erfahrenwir dort nicht den Namen der Siedlung. Wie intensiv waren die Kontakte tatsiichlich?Ich stelle mir die Situation so vor: Es beginnt mit Warenaustauschentweder auf halber Strecke, etwa auf Bahrain, oder aber die Leute von Meluhla kamen urspriinglich bis nach Mesopotamien. Ganz sicher hatten sie die seetiichtigerenSchiffe,well sie das bessere Bauholz hatten. Babylonische Schiffe haben sich mbglicherweise nie iiber die Hdhe von Bahrain hinausgewagt. Unterstellenwir einmal,dass alles, was von Babylonienaus steuerbord lag "Magan", alles backbord "Meluhla" war. Das muss nicht gegen unsere Identifizierung 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 designations, derived or borrowed from other ones: those originating in a proven direct relation with anothergeographic conception (countryor 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", remembering of the settlement of Dutchmen from the town of Haarlemand the village of Breukelen, but, on the other hand, Memphisand Ithacain 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 reminiscenceof 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 supposition of the authors. The best comparableexample is perhaps that of the seafaring Normans giving their name to Normandy. W.F.L.

Meluhhan Traders in Lagash

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Meluhhan Traders in Lagash

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

The Melua Village: Evidence of Acculturation of Harappan Traders in Late Third Millennium Mesopotamia?

and Journalof the Economic SocialHistoryof the Orient,Vol. XX, Part II

THE MELUHHA VILLAGE

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

i8 (i975), 337 ff. 9

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

IranianPlateauand Mesopotamia3). We do know that Indus artifacts

ship"8). In addition,an Akkadian cylinderseal bearsthe inscription

3) Cf. C. C. Lamberg-Karlovsky, JAOS East and West 23 (1973), 2zI-58.

"to take hold of a ship" (Ukg I

interpretation: "1 i-KU, falls = 16 i-dab

(1968), 15 no. 15.33. Oppenheim, Anc. Mes. [Chicago 1964]

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

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

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

Meluhhareferencesstand out as clearly as possible 19).

Account of grain delivery (2057 B.C.)

Altogether 1929,0,1 royal gur 7 sila of barley

19) In regard to the system of transliteration, note that kiri,

(SL). The measures of capacity are transliteratedaccording to the system of E.

THE MELUIIJA VILLAGE

making up the deposit capital. Therefrom:

..[..] of one gur [each], 190 gur 7 sila (for)

o10 dub ur-dlama dumu me-luh-1a ii

16 mu ba-a-al-laI8 dub ur-dam

dub gii-d6-a dumu ur-dba-ir 537.1.4 gur a-

Rev. III I dumu ur-dnanae

son of Ur-Nante, put on account.

8! dub [ur-dlama] 9! dumu [me-luh-ha] Io! u x nigin [84.3.5 gur]

x nigin [265.1.5] 6'- u 7! [5 sila gur]

tabletof [Ur-Lama] sonof [MeluBha]; altogether [84,3,5 gur]:

(4 lines blank) (6 lines blank)

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

nig-ID-aka 5 1'- a4ul-gi

6 anin-rmarkil ,e mu is-sa 6 Bf.SA-ildda-gan

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

the field of Aballa.

3 343.3.3 gur 4 i-dub dul-ma-nu 7

343,3,3 gur (in) the granaryof Du-Manu.

5 325.1.0 gur 6 i-dub daul-gi19o0.0.0gur

9 i-dub igi-g dlugalURU X KARkilII Se sumun

the granary of Igigal-lugalUruba;

13 i-dub ur-nig kta-dim

the granary of Ur-nig, the silversmith.

15 i-dub &-duru, ur16

the granaryof the village of Ur-en.

gur 18 19 i-dub &-duru5 dlugal-zi-da 20o

(in) the granaryof the village of Lugal-azida.

the granaryof Sargal.

4.5 gu r lag4 gir-suki

I pile 1445,4,5 gur

I30,1I gur (in)

i-dub igi-g l1153.3.0

dlugal-uRv X KARki gur

Lugal-Uruba. gur (in) gur sila (in)

the granaryof Esipatur.

2. case lower edge

4. case left edge

case upper edge

IstanbulArkeoloji Photographs: courtesy Miizeleri.

2. right edge L 80oi

2. reverse courtesy Photographs: IstanbulArkeolojiMiizeleri.