Get documents about "Meluhha village
Document Sample
The Meluḫḫa 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: 15/08/2011 11:54
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
Journalof the Economic SocialHistoryof the Orient,Vol. XX, Part II
and
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 proto-
urban 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, Hand-
buchder 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 publi-
cation 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.
f.
2) Cf. A. and S. Parpola, StOr 46 (I975), 20zo5
9
13o S. PARPOLA, A. PARPOLA & R. H. BRUNSWIG JR.
IranianPlateauand Mesopotamia3). We do know that Indus artifacts
began appearingin Mesopotamian sites by Old Akkadiantimes,
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
inscription to
of Sargon(2334-2279 B.C.) referring Meluhhan 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 Akkadiancylinderseal bearsthe 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 (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
(1954), 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
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 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
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 MELUIjHjAVILLAGE 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 Mesopotamiain Akkadiantimes 10).
Furtherevidence 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 explicitlythat "the Melulhanscame (or
up
down)from theircountry" supply wood and other raw materialsfor
to
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 (1968), 15 no. 15.33. Oppenheim, Anc. Mes. [Chicago 1964]
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. (Fal-
kenstein, ZA 56, 44f.); Kramer, ISETI, 211: Ni 2126+ i 7// 212: Ni 130208 i 7,
etc. [Edzard]; cf. in general, Kramer,Sumerians, 278 fif.
p.
ii) Cyl. Aix 19;xv 5;xvizzf.; B xiv I3.
I2) See A. Falkenstein, AnOr 30 (1966), 48.
13) Cf. C. J. Gadd, Proceedingsof 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" (publicationpending).
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-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
Akkadian dynasty. that
Textualevidenceindicates tradewith Melubba
continued,althoughno recognizable Indus artifactshave been re-
coveredfrom Gudeancontexts.However,this is not surprising given
the normalarchaeological conditionswhich usuallyresult in direct
foreigntradematerials, normally or not
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,
OIC 16 [i933], 5I f.;id., CS and Stratified Cylinder Seals [95 5], n . 642;
[i939], 305,
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, ex-
cursus, 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. 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:
"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 en-
claveswithina largersettlement the chances uncovering
17); of foreign
culturalmaterial the relatively
in limited excavations large urban
of
settlementswith occupational strataspanninga millennium more
or
are extremelyscanty.In the caseof citiesruledby Gudea,the limited
area under his influenceand the very short time involved further
reducethe chancesof findingIndus traderelatedobjects.And con-
sideringthat 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
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 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 s. PARPOLA, A. PARPOLA
& R. H. BRUNSWIG JR.
nevertheless be presented in full in order to make the nature of the
Meluhhareferencesstand 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 barleyfrom
5 ur-sa6-ga[dubl-sar itim Nin-anafromthe 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 Simurumwas 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 returnedfrom 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 transliteratedaccording to the system of E.
Sollberger, TCS i (1966), 12i.
THE MELUIIJA VILLAGE 13 J
I 12 sag nig-GA-ra-kam making up the deposit capital.
13
lag4-bi-ta Therefrom:
14 851.2.5 5 851,2,5 gur
15 sila gur 5 sila (for)
II x gurUDKA[ -ta] ..[..] of one gur [each],
2 I90.0.0 7 sila gur 190 gur 7 sila (for)
3 gur ge-ba-ta grain-rationsof one gur each,
4 dub-bi 3-am details on 3 tablets, (given against)
5 dub ur-dam a tablet of Ur-dam
6 dumu ur-dnanre son of Ur-Nanle;
7 265.1.5 5 265,1,5 gur 5
8 gur (sila of barley),
9 dub-bi 3-am details on 3 tablets, (given against)
o10 dub ur-dlama a tablet of Ur-Lama
ii dumu me-luh-1a sonof Melubhha;
12 84.3.5 gurt 84,3,5 gur,
13 dub gii-d6-a tablet of Gudea
14 dumu ur-dba-ir son of Ur-Babu;
I 537.1.4 gur 537.1.4 gur
16 mu ba-a-al-la- for Ba'alla(PN?),
17 a-•
I8 dub ur-dam tablet of Ur-dam
Rev. III I dumu son of Ur-Nante,
ur-dnanae
2 a-gti-a gi-g put on account.
(3 lines blank)
3 u xnigin Altogether [1548,4,4 gur]
[1548.4.4]
4 [2 slla gur] [z sila of grain]:
5! dub [ur-dam] tablet of [Ur-dam];
x nigin [265.1.5] altogether [265,1,5 gur]
6'- u
7! [5 sila gur] [s sila of grain]:
8! dub [ur-dlama] tabletof [Ur-Lama]
9! dumu [me-luh-ha] sonof [MeluBha];
Io! u x nigin [84.3.5 gur] altogether [84,3,5 gur]:
11! dub [gii-d6-a] tablet of [Gudea].
(4 lines blank)
IV (6 lines blank)
I Su xnigin 1928.0.1 In all I928,0,1 royal gur
2 7 sila Se gur lugal 7 sila of barley
3 zi-ga expended.
(2 lines blank)
4 nig-ID-aka Accountant:
5 1'- a4ul-gi Lu-Sulgi,
6 sabra manager.
7 6 anin-rmarkil Grain of the temple of Ninmar.
8 ,e
mu is-sa 6 Bf.SA-il- The year following the one in
9 dda-gan which the temple of Puzril-Dagan
(was built).
136 S. PARPOLA, A. PARPOLA & R. H. BRUNSWIG JR.
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 granaryof Du-Manu.
5 325.1.0 gur 325,I gur (in)
6 i-dub the granary of Sulgi-
daul-gi-
7 zi-kalam-ma zi-kalama.
8 19o0.0.0gur 190 gur (in)
9 i-dub igi-g dlugal- the granary of Igigal-lugal-
Io URU X KARki•l- Uruba;
II Se sumun old barley.
12 9.1.3 gur 9,1,3 gur (in)
13 i-dub ur-nig the granary of Ur-nig, the silver-
kta-dim smith.
14 148.4.0 gur 148,4 gur (in)
15 i-dub &-duru, ur- the granaryof 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 granaryof the village of
20o -zi-da Lugal-azida.
21 563.4.3 563,4,3 gur
22 gur (in)
II I i-dub &-duru5 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 granaryof Sargal.
860.4.0 gur 860,4 gur (in)
5
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 territoryof)
13 lag4 gir-suki Girsu.
14 130.1.0 gur I30,1I gur (in)
I5 i-dub igi-g •l- the granaryof Igigal-
16 dlugal-uRv X KARki Lugal-Uruba.
17 1153.3.0 gur 1153,3 gur (in)
18 i-dub 6 sipa-tur the granaryof Esipatur.
19 260.2.1 5 sila gur 260,2,1 gur
5
sila (in)
20 i-dub dnin-gir-su- the granaryof Ningirsu-
21 a-zi-da- azida-Nanie.
danne
JESHO XX, 2 PLATE I
L 7157
L7''?
1. case obverse 2. case lower edge
3. case reverse 4. case left edge
case upper edge Photographs: IstanbulArkeoloji
courtesy
5.
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
courtesy
Photographs: IstanbulArkeolojiMiizeleri.
THE VILLAGE 137
MELUI-JA
Rev. IlI x 1347.1.0 gur 1347,1 gur (in)
2 1-dub a-g dr gibil the granaryof Agar-gibil.
3 Io052.4.0 gur io 2,4 gur (in)
4 1-dub a-pi4-sal,-mul- the granaryof 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 g du along the Ninale-du canal.
ki_
9 1195.3.o gur 1195,3 gur (in)
io i-dub g 6 id tir- the granaryon the Tir-sikil canal.
II sikil
z12 180 lal I gur 179 gur (in)
13 i-dub sipa-tur the granaryof Sipa-tur.
14 190.0.0 gur 190 gur (in)
15 i-dub igi- g •il-d the granaryof Igigal-
I6 lugal-URU X KARki Lugal-Uruba.
17 300.3.0 g ur 300,3 gur (in)
18 1-dub the granaryof Apisal-
19 a-pii-sal,-
lugal-nam-uru-na lugal-nam-uruna.
20 69.0.0gur 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 120zo4,2,4gur 5 sila (in)
2 i-dub barag-si-ga the granaryof Bara-siga.
3 2.0.0 gur 2 gur (in)
4 i-dub a-lag4 zi-dusku6 the granaryof the Zidu-field.
5
6.o.5
gur 56,o,5 gur (in)
6 i-dub lag4 a-lag4 zi- the granarywithin the Zidu-field;
7 dugku6
8 le sumun old grain.
9 1425.0.2 sila 1425,o,2 gur 5 sila
5
Io gur (in)
ii i-dub dnin-lhur-sag- the granaryof 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 granariesfor 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.
138 S. PARPOLA, A. PARPOLA & R. H. BRUNSWIG JR.
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 affordedby 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.
en-ne The garden of Enne:
Io giskiri,
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-kalason of
14 kug- dnan e Ku-Nante,
I5 o.o.r41ur-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
II 0.1.0 (In all) o, i.
is
1i2 gi1kirir -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.
TheMelubba garden
I5 giskirij me-luh-ha
d6 dnin-marki-ka of Ninmar.
THE VILLAGE 13 9
MELU-JA
II 17 glSkiri6 dnin-marki The garden of Ninmar.
18 giSkiri kur x [ ] Thegarden theland[...]
of
19 gi~kiri, ur-d[ ] The garden of Ur-[ ]:
20 ur- d•ul-[gi] Ur-Sul[gi],
21 Sabana[gar],
22 ,ag4-ba-na-[gar]]
dumu lugal-[ son of Lugal-[ ],
Rev. III r dutu-bar-ra Utu-bara.
2 giSkiri, ma-ni The garden of Mani.
3 giSkiri, dnin-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.
giskiri gettin gi-dba-i- The vineyard of Gu-Babu-hegal.
I,
h6-gil
i6 giskirij erim-z6-z6 zi-na The ...-garden of Zina.
17 giSkiri lugal-igi+ [ ] The garden of Lugal-[ ].
18 g* kiri6 The garden of...
URUX
19 giSkirij --lu-a 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.
gi kiri6ir- The garden of Sargal.
• g [al]
24
IV I dnanl e si-mu-
giskirij 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 Aux 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, balance0,0,4.
8 dul-ma-nu-ta From (the granaryof) 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.
140 S. PARPOLA, A. PARPOLA & R. H. BRUNSWIG JR.
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. 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- diul- 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 0.2.0giSkiri6 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- 0,3 (to) the garden of Geme-Sulpa'e.
13 0.4.3 gikiri, d-ul-pa-
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 sandana Overseer: Gu'ugu, chief gardener.
19 0.o.5 gi gi-i--mu
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 gi1kiri6 i-SU 5 gaba- 0,1,4 to the firgardenof 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 providedby 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 destructionofKimaS.
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 Meluhba;
of)
7' 34.2.0 gur 34,2 gur
8' i-dub Sir-gal-ta from the granaryof 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.o01x[ ]
2' 2 sila gur 27,0,5 gur 2 sila (of grain),
27.0.5
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,
142 S. PARPOLA, A. PARPOLA & R. H. BRUNSWIG JR.
Rev. III 1o 4.1.3 kalam-sa, -ga-ta 4,1,3 from Kalam-saga,
girl su6-dug4-dug, in charge of Su-dudu.
ii
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.
(remainderdestroyed)
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 irrigatorsand
e-ne (blank space of 2 lines) duaku-gardeners.
(remainderdestroyed) (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-Lamasonof Meluthahas
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- pounds of wool (loaned by him)
o50
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.
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 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, in/by IM,
left
tag4-a
THE MELUHJA VILLAGE 143
Rev. VI 27 dumu me-lulh-ha erin 6 sonof 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 "personnelof 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 fol-
lowing the one in which Amar-Suenbecame king".
9. Receiptof 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 Meluhha,
of
3 iti le-il-la month Se-ila (I),
4 mu mi-gur8 mah the year in which the grand
5 ba-dim 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 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 NUNSAR nu-6 2 (gur) of nongerminantseed barley,
5 I.o.o 6-ta le-me-ha ki I (gur) from the house, Semeha, (?)
144 S. PARPOLA, A. PARPOLA & R. H. BRUNSWIG JR.
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 2.1.36 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 for grain rations of maidservants
x,1
17 s -dug, e-ba (and) regulargrain 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-liugula ug-[bar] Rabi-ili,overseerof 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. Ix 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 sonof 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 r11ii-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 measuresaccording to the following scheme: I gur =
2,5 hi = 5 bariga (thus according to Edzard rather than nigida [Soll-
berger]); I bariga = = 6 bin; I bin = 8,5 1 = io sila; see F. Thureau-
0ol
Dangin, RA I8 (1921), I36 f.
3 -duru5 me-luh "the Meluhha village": cf. i-dub &-durus me-luh-
ki
ha "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 inhabitantshad Meso-
potamian 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 agriculturalproduction, delivering
grain as tax or selling it. Consequently,it does not differfrom the numerous
other villages mentioned in the present texts save its name,
for which associates
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
had a geographical connotation in the present instance). This strongly
points to a Sumerianizedvillage 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-
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" (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-nuLu IV 371
(MSL 12 39) and APIN-li= er-Ji"tilled field", li'i-APIN-li = e-re-iu"plough-
man", h1 II 320 f (MSL 5 76). The suggested rendering of lines 4-7 as-
sumes 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. [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 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). Which-
ever 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,
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, 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 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 TURNE: 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'enaor similarnames.
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 A and B, lex. and bil.
bant
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 ...
19 lel kal-la: for the PN Kal-laUz-t Limet, op. cit. 97, z259 and 443; it is,
see
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).
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.
148 S. PARPOLA, A. PARPOLA & R. H. BRUNSWIG JR.
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 1li-
na-da-tum").
6 di-a-kud: a kind of gardener, cf. Deimel, and Oppenheim,
3L 230/89
Eames46 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 and the
(written both na-ga-ab-tum na-kab-tum, latter often misread
was
as na-da-tum) a place often mentioned in Ur III texts, especiallyin ones
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 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-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 ex-
pression 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").
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, 1056 rxn. Meaning unclear.
UET3
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 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" (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 Melu4hhavillage. 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 nuban-
da'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 ma-
terials were exotic to Mesopotamiaand came from a distant Meluhha.
Ships and shipowners either came from or went to Meluhha. An in-
terpreterwas 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 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: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,
Ur-Babu and Nin-ana (texts i, Two men, likewise with Sumerian
5, 9).
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
TABLE i
on
Summary the texts bearing thepresence Melubbans Ur III periodMesopotamia
of of in
Text Date Provenance Text type reference
AMeluhha Specifications
i. L 7157 zo62 Tell6 receipt of nin-a-na from the vil- delivers io6 hi of b
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 b
of Tell6 ley delivery me-lub-ha belonging to the te
Ninmar for unspeci
3. BM 17751 2047 Tell6 *) inventory of granary of the village located in the provi
barley deposits of me-luh-ha" Girsu, contains 1410
barley
4. STA 19 2047 Tella list of barley me-luh-ha garden of between kiri6-gi9-ki
rations to the goddess dnin-marki kiris- dnin-marki
garden workers
Amherst 54 2047 Tell6 list of barley granary of delivering 57 hi of b
5.
rations to me-luh-hha(village) as rations for garden
gardeners
6. HLC III 368 [2047] Tell6 list of barley <granary of> delivering 57 hl of b
rations to (village)
me-luh-ba
irrigators
7. BM 14594 2046 Tell6 *) debt-note ur-dlama son of me-luyh-ha acknowledges (throu
agent) a debt of wo
I2 years back in tim
8. TUT 154 2045 Tell6 list of barley mai+gur8-re son of functions as skipper
rations to mill me-lub-ha temple mill (transpo
personnel grain?)
9. L 705 2030 Tell6 receipt of ur-dKA.DI (from) the gran- delivers io hi of bar
barley ary of me-lub-ba (village) Ur-ninsu for unknow
Io. UCP 9/2 65 2028 Tell6 *) account of bar- me-lub-ha-ta abbreviation for 6-
ley consumption luh-ha-ta; deliver
00oo of barley
1
I1. L 8o05 Tell6 list of persons overseer
me-lubh-ha, in charge of two scr
a weaver and a tailo
12. L 1426 Tell6 list of persons son
me-lub-ha of functioning as a tem
ur-an-na-d i-a "inspector"?
*) Inferred.
I12
J 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 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 estab-
lish the presence of a distinctive village, ethnically classified by the
name Meluhha,as having been an integral part of the economic struc-
ture 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 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 amalga-
mation could be explained by the fact that foreign merchants,partic-
ularly 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 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 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 S. PARPOLA, A. PARPOLA & R. H. BRUNSWIG JR.
by Tilmun merchant intermediaries23). 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
researchon the Indus civilization. That research,utilizing new radio-
carbon calibrations,indicates that the Ur III dynasty in Mesopotamia
probably coincideswiththe endof urban in
systems theIndusvalley24).
If this was indeedthe case, then it would be sensibleto assumethat
Indusinstigated tradewouldalso ceasewith the end of the supporting
Harappan that is
urbansociety.The possibility this happened 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
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 Indus-
related 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 PersianGulf and thatof Meso-
potamia resulted, over time, in the developmentof Indus-related
seals with both indigenousand foreignattributes. instance,seals
For
on Bahrain Failaka the PersianGulf have a nativeBarbar
and in cul-
ture 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 inter-
action 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 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
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 Antiquity49 (x975).
27) Cf. introduction, n. 2.
28) Cf. pp. and 158-159 (with n. 46)
I5o-Ix2
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 iconographicmotifs 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 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
seals, in are
scrzipt, in a different
language,
and were probablymanufactured Mesopotamia a Sumerian-
in for or
Semitic-speaking of Indus
person descent."
31)
Since the days of Hunter, the number of known Indus inscriptions
has considerablyincreased, the new findshavein no way shattered
but
his conclusions. the contrary, careful
On a re-examination the Near
of
EasternIndus seals by means of a concordanceof all Indus inscriptions
publishedto date32) makesthe difference
betweenseals from India
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
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. Parpolaand S. Parpola, Materials theStudyof theIndus
for
ScriptI (ASSF B i85, Helsinki 1973).
THE MELUIJA VILLAGE 15 7
and Mesopotamia stand out even more markedly than before. Two
examples serve to illustratethe point 33). One of the circularMesopo-
tamianseals hasa five-sign reading UU' 0^A
Indusinscription 34).
The signs in question belong among the most common ones of the
Indus script, their individualfrequenciesbeing 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 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),
and the inscriptionitself (U E 9) recurs in identical on two
form
seals found at Mohenjodaro and 20 times as a component of other
(longer)inscriptions 37).
In view of the evidencepresented this paper,the most natural
in
explanationfor the strange sign-sequences the Mesopotamian
of
Indus seals would seem to be that these sealsbelongedto merchants
of Harappan origin living in Mesopotamia having,as a resultof
and
a processof cultural or for other,subtler,
integration, reasons,adopted
Mesopotamian names but still maintaining connectionswith their
home country. Such people could have functioned as commercial
agents monopolizing the Indus-Mesopotamiantrade, 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 conceivablethat they would have needed
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 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.
158 S. PARPOLA, A. PARPOLA & 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 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 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 civili-
zation 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 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 structureof Ur III society, implies that many genera-
tions 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).
42) Cf. G. F. Dales in N. Hammond (ed.), South Asian Archaeology (London
1973), 157-169.
THE MELUHJHAVILLAGE 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.
44) See A. Parpolain Felicitation in
Volume Honour FatherX. S. ThaniNayagam
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 reasonablecer-
tainty: ' or(u) "i" (Burrow - Emeneau, Dravidian Etymological Dictionary 96i],
[
no. 834a) and 0 = (cf. ibid. no. 1788). The interpretationof the sign 1Q 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 (cf. above, n. 45); remains unexplained.The sign' = or(u) has in seals
/4
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 ^ 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 (ur-
da-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 Harap-
pan one (or equivalent). On these premises, the seal mighthave belonged to Ur-
du-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 hypo-
thetical 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 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 in-
cluded 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 manof 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 nisquservant,
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 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 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 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 ex-
pressly 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
generation Meluhhan immigrant a
bearing namedirectly translatedfrom his
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 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). is the "cosmic law", the early Vedic predecessor of dharma
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, re-
Varutna,
presents 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 relatedroyal rites (mahi-
vrata, 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 col-
lection, 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 in-
distinctly 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 ($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 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 forth-
coming 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 S. PARPOLA, A. PARPOLA & R. H. BRUNSWIG JR.
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 Tiirken-
bund. Das geht zwar alles auf die Erinnerungan 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
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
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 counterpartin 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
in
between Sumerian16-DN and Akkadian J'u-DN the 3rd millenniumonomasticon.
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 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 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 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", remem-
bering 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 suppo-
sition of the authors. The best comparableexample is perhaps that of the seafaring
Normans giving their name to Normandy. W.F.L.
Related docs
Other docs by SriniKalyanaraman
Pentagon 2011 Annual Report to Congress on Military in China (August 24, 2011)
Views: 102 | Downloads: 0
Use of EVMs ultra vires. Jayaraman Rajah Iyer's letter to CEC (March 4, 2012)
Views: 134 | Downloads: 0
