trfade routes and commercial networks in the persian gulf during the 3rd millennium bce (piotr...

8/9/2019 Trfade routes and commercial networks in the Persian Gulf during the 3rd millennium BCE (Piotr Steinkeller, pp. 41…

1/20

Trade Routes and Commercial Networks in the PersianGulf during the Third Millennium BC

Piotr SteinkellerProfessor of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations, Harvard University

AbstractThroughout the third millennium BC, long-distance trade exchanges between Mesopotamia and the east —the Iranian Plateau, Afghanistan, Baluchistan, andIndus valley— were conducted predominantly via maritime routes in the PersianGulf. A central place in this inter-regional commercial network was occupied by theterritory of Kerman (ancient Marhashi), which, apart from being an exporter oflocally produced luxury items (such as the highly decorated chlorite vessels), served as atrans-shipment area for the lapis lazuli, gold, and tin incoming overland from Afghanistan. The Gulf trade reached its apogee in the Sargonic (= Old Akkadian) period, when, as a consequence of their conquests in Iran and throughout the Gulfregion, the Sargonic kings created the first great commercial highway of the Near East, through the linking of a number of subregional trading networks. Starting in Meluhha (Indus Valley), this highway ran along the coast of the Persian Gulf via Makkan (Oman) and Tilmun (Bahrain) to southern Babylonia, continuing thenalong the Euphrates all the way to the Mediterranean coast. Following the Sargoniccollapse (at ca. 2200 BC), for a century or so the Gulf trade came to a virtual

standstill. It was subsequently revived by the kings of the Third Dynasty of Ur(2100-2000 BC), though on a more limited scale. The paper will study the changinghistory of the Gulf trade during the third millennium BC, and identify the causes ofits decline in the beginning centuries of the second millennium BC.

Keywords: Persian Gulf, Kerman, Marhashi, Meluhha, Makkan, Tilmun


2/20

414 Collection of Papers Presented to the Third International Biennial Conference of the Persian Gulf

The first evidence of international trade in the region of the Persian Gulf datesto the late phase of the Pre-Sargonic period (2600-2350 BC). (1) A wide range ofproducts native to the Gulf area and the lands farther to the north and easthave been found in the excavations in Mesopotamia, most famously, in theRoyal tombs of Ur. A characteristic item appearing in those assemblages is thehighly decorated vessels made of chlorite, which are frequent not only inMesopotamia, but also in the Gulf area (for example, the Tarut island) andeven in Syria ( Kohl, 1974; 2001; Lamberg-Karlovsky, 1988; 1993; Madjidzadeh, 2002 ). It

can now be confidently established that these vessels were produced in theprovince of Kerman, in the region of the Halil-Rud valley, where close to 300third millennium sites are known to exist ( Madjidzadeh, 2008: 73-74 ). Of specialimportance among them is the site of Konar Sandal near Jiroft, where therecent excavations conducted by Youssef Madjidzadeh unearthedmonumental architecture and the extensive evidence of chlorite and lapis lazuliprocessing ( Madjidzadeh, 2008 ).

The Halil-Rud civilization, which extended as far as the city of Kerman tothe north, and likely included portions of Baluchistan (the Bampur valley) as

well, is almost certainly to be identified as the kingdom of Marhashi, which, asthe cuneiform sources make clear, was the main power in eastern Iran during

the second half of the Third Millennium BC ( Steinkeller 1982; 2012; forthcoming ). Apart from being a producer of chlorite vessels, Marhashi was also the maintransshipment point of goods originating in Afghanistan, among which goldand lapis lazuli were the most desirable items. Those goods were broughtoverland, probably by the Marhashi merchants, from their sources in

Afghanistan down to the Persian Gulf. From there they were transportedfarther west on ships, which were operated by the merchants native to theGulf region.

Among the trading centers active in the Gulf during the Pre-Sargonicperiod of particular importance was the land of Tilmun, which centered on theislands of Bahrain and Tarut. Pre-Sargonic sources from the city-state of Girsu

in southern Babylonia, dating to ca. 2400 BC, talk of Tilmun boats bringingtheir cargo to Babylonia ( Maekawa and Mori, 2011: 245-247; Marchesi, 2011 ). The samesources also make mentions of the Sumerian merchants traveling to Tilmun topurchase copper, which, as we shall see later, undoubtedly came from Oman.

Among the goods they brought as merchandise to Tilmun were textiles, barley,and various types of oils.

Another key element of the Gulf commercial network was the maritime


3/20

Trade Routes and Commercial Networks in the Persian Gulf during the Third Millennium BC 415

connection with the province of Gujarat in western India, where the so-calledIndus Valley or Harappan civilization was situated. This geographic region wasknown to the Mesopotamians as the land of Meluhha. Traveling from thecoast of Gujarat, the Meluhhan merchants transported to the Gulf region arich assortment of products, which included carnelian beads, gold, ivory, and

various exotic woods, plants, and spices.However extensive these exchanges may have been, it was only during the

time of the Sargonic kings (2350-2200 BC) that the Gulf trade acquired the

form of a unified network. As a result of their territorial conquests, Sargon andhis followers created a commercial empire, which extended from theMediterranean coast to the borders of Kerman. Beginning with Sargon, thesekings sent their ships to the Oman peninsula —which was known as the landof Makkan to the Mesopotamians— to mine there copper and diorite. Theyalso confronted militarily the land of Marhashi, clearly in an effort to wrestfrom it its control over the trade routes with Afghanistan ( Steinkeller, 1982; 2012;Maekawa and Mori, 2011: 248-253 ).

Rather than a real territorial empire, the creation of Sargon and hissuccessors was largely a commercial enterprise, whose primary objective was tocontrol —and thereby to exploit economically— the main trade routes of the

region. In this way, the Sargonic rulers created, through the linking of anumber of subregional trading networks, the first great commercial highway ofthe Near East. Starting in Meluhha (Indus Valley), this highway ran along thecoast of the Persian Gulf via Makkan (Oman) and Tilmun (Bahrain) tosouthern Babylonia, continuing then along the Euphrates all the way to theMediterranean coast.

That the reaping of profits from international commerce was the mainmotivation behind the Sargonic territorial expansion is corroborated by thetestimony of the Sargonic kings themselves, who, beginning with Sargon,identify as one of their greatest accomplishments the bringing of the ships ofMeluhha, Makkan, and Tilmun to Babylonia ( Maekawa and Mori, 2011: 248 ). As is

confirmed by the written sources, in that period the Meluhhan traders indeedtraveled all the way from Gujarat to the ports of Babylonia. (2)

As far as the archaeological and textual data permit us to ascertain,following the demise of the Sargonic Empire, for a century or so commercialexchanges between Babylonia and the Gulf region came to a virtual standstill.

Their revival came only with the advent of the Third Dynasty of Ur, whichassumed rule over Babylonia at ca. 2100 BC. The Ur III kings created another


4/20


empire, which, though much smaller than the Sargonic one, too was anessentially commercial venture, which aimed at the control and exploitation ofthe main trade routes of the region.

The trade with the Gulf was reopened by the dynasty’s founder Ur-Namma, who, in several of his inscriptions, boasts of having restored the trade

with Makkan ( Steinkeller, 2013: 302 ). This event marked the beginning ofexchanges that were to last one century. Without any question, this period —

which is known as the ‘Ur III period’ to the students of ancient

Mesopotamia— was the highest point in the history of contacts betweenBabylonia and the Gulf region. Although not as extensive geographically as theSargonic ones, these contacts undoubtedly were more intensive, resulting in amuch greater volume of goods traded than in Sargonic times.

The pattern of commercial exchanges one finds in the Ur III period wassignificantly different than that which existed under the Sargonic dynasty. Themain difference probably was the fact that Meluhha ceased to be directlyinvolved in exchanges with Babylonia. Although various merchandise ofMeluhhan origin is mentioned in Ur III sources, one no longer reads of theMeluhhan ships arriving in Babylonia, nor is there any evidence that theMeluhhan traders were actively involved in the Gulf trade. Equally

conspicuous is the rarity of the mentions of Tilmun in Ur III sources. Although Tilmun continued to be a part of the trade network, it did not play asignificant role in it.

As is indicated both by the written sources and the archaeological record, inthis period the Gulf trade was dominated by Makkan, which, together withBabylonia, practically monopolized commercial exchanges in this region( Lauersen, 2009 ). Following the Sargonic collapse —and possibly as a directconsequence of that event, Makkan had become a very important polity in theGulf region, which, apart from the Oman peninsula, seems to have controlledthe Strait of Khormuz, and perhaps even the coastal area of the modernHormozgan province. The importance of Makkan as a political and economic

entity is underscored by the fact that it had a king, who at one point sent a gift —an object made of gold— to the king Shulgi.(3) Twenty-four years later,during the reign of Shulgi’s son and successor Amar-Suen, we read of anotherruler of Makkan, named Nadub-‘el-i, whose ambassador visited the court ofUr.(4) The existence of these diplomatic contacts assures that Makkan enjoyed afriendly relationship with Babylonia. It is virtually certain that a system ofcommercial and military agreements exited between these two polities as well.


5/20


6/20


sixty-bushel (Sumerian gur) cargo capacity (1 bushel = 300 liters). Includedamong them were also eleven boats of 180 bushel capacity.(7) It is likely that it

was those eleven boats that were specifically used by Pu’udu’s organization intheir voyages in the Gulf.

Pu’udu was a person of exceedingly high rank, as underscored by the factthat his son Kug-Nanna married into the royal family. Another son, namedLu-Enlila, was likewise involved in the Gulf trade. He eventually succeededPu’udu to his office. Lu-Enlila held the title of the “sea-faring merchant,”

which he apparently inherited from his father. He also officiated as a royaljudge at Ur. Lu-Enlila’s seal was of an extremely rare in-na-ba type, whichrepresented a personal gift from the king ( Steinkeller, 2004: 104; Maekawa and Mori,2011: 255-257 ).

Both Pu’udu and Lu-Enlila exported huge volumes of barley to Makkan( see below, pp. 17-18 ). Lu-Enlila’s involvement in the trade with Makkan is furtherindicated by the fact that, on two occasions, he received quantities of textiles asa merchandise to purchase copper in Makkan.(8)

Another interesting facet of this family’s commercial operations is the factthat Pu’udu also acted as a supplier of semi-precious stones to the court of Ur( Steinkeller, 2004: 104 ). The stones in question, called duh-ßi-a, which almost

certainly are to be identified as “chlorite,” were traditionally obtained from theland of Marhashi, whose location, as I noted earlier, is to be sought in Kerman( Steinkeller, 2012 ). There is little doubt that Pu’udu obtained those stones while

visiting Makkan as part of his trading ventures. Of equal interest is the fact thatthe same Pu’udu is documented as an importer of tin. (9)

The ships that were used in the Gulf trade were manufactured and servicedin the Girsu province, without any doubt in the seaport of Gu’abba. In fact, itis known that there was a large shipyard in Gu’abba ( see below p. 14 ). In Ur IIIsources, these ships are identified as either ‘big boats’ (má-gal-gal) or ‘Makkanboats’ (má Má-ganki) ( Zarins, 2011 ). The latter term probably designates aseaworthy ship that travelled in the Gulf as far as Makkan. Alternatively, it may

describe a ship whose design replicated that of the native Makkan boats. As welearn from a variety of sources, both the ‘big boats’ and the ‘Makkan boats’ were made of timber. The hull was appointed with reed matting, ox hides, andtwined grass and date-palm fronds. The ropes of the rigging were made of goathair. The ship’s exterior was extensively coated with bitumen.

Unfortunately, no visual representations of these ships have come down tous. There survive, however, numerous representations of the vessels that were


7/20


used at that time in Tilmun and Failaka. See fig. 1. It is a fair assumption thatthe Babylonian sea-going ships were closely similar, especially if the term‘Makkan boat’ is a generic designation of the vessel-type characteristic of theGulf region.

Importantly, the excavations in Bahrain have unearthed a number of Ur IIIcylinder seals belonging to the commanders of those ‘big ships.’(10) Theseobjects are a welcome confirmation that the Babylonian sea-going shipsfrequently visited Tilmun during their voyages in the Gulf. Fig. 2 shows one

such seals (unpublished, cited courtesy of S. T. Lauersen), which belonged to a‘man of big ships’ (lú má-gal-gal). The sea connection between Babylonia and Makkan commenced at the

town of Gu’abba (whose name means ‘Coast/Bank of the Sea’), which was themain (if not the only) seaport of Babylonia in Ur III times. See fig. 3 with amap of the southern portion of Babylonia and the tentative location ofGu’abba.

Here it needs to be realized that the ancient coastline of Mesopotamiaextended much more to the north than presently. The modern site of Gu’abbahas not yet been identified. Gu’abba belonged to the province of Girsu, which

was the largest and the richest province of the Ur III state. Slightly to the north

of Gu’abba there were situated the neighboring towns of Kinunir and Nina. These three townships formed one geographic and administrative unit, whichembraced the southern portion of the Girsu province.

Our texts demonstrate the existence of two principal sea-routes that beganat Gu’abba. The first of them, the Makkan route, almost certainly led to theislands of Failaka, Tarut, and Bahrain —and then, skirting the Persian coast,toward the Oman peninsula. The second sea-route, which was equallyimportant, led eastward along the Persian coast to the mouth of the Karunriver, and then over the Karun into Khuzestan, where the towns of Susa and

Adam DUN were situated ( Steinkeller, 2013: 296-297 ). See fig. 3. As our sourcesmake it clear, the latter route was in constant use, with ships being sent

regularly from Babylonia to provision the Babylonian military stationed inKhuzestan and to bring back timber and other materials that the agents of theempire acquired in that region and in the neighboring Zagros territories. Thesame ships also transported back and forth Babylonian troops and variousother personnel, as well the foreign mercenary soldiers, large numbers of

whom were supplied by the various Iranian polities situated in the southernsection of the Iranian plateau, among them lands of Shimashki, Anshan, and


8/20


Marhashi, to mention only the most important ones. Among the products that were exported from Babylonia to the Gulf region

during the Ur III period of special importance were textiles. Although only afew explicit mentions of the shipments of textiles to the Gulf survive in ourrecords(11) —all of them involving Makkan— it can be surmised that the real

volume of the textiles so traded was staggering. This conclusion rests primarilyon the data bearing on the town of Gu’abba, which, as I mentioned earlier,

was Babylonia’s principal seaport. We need, therefore, to examine this

evidence is greater detail.Gu’abba was a major settlement, which included several temple-households, a palace, a ship-building facility (12), as well as a caravanserai wherethe traveling royal officials, the military, and the merchants could rest and besupplied with food, drink, and other provisions for their journeys ( Veldhuis,2001 ). Very interestingly, Gu’abba was also the locus of a huge textile-makingoperation, which, in the sources extant, is identified as the ‘weaving house ofGu’abba’ (é-uš-bar). Similar weaving establishments existed in the neighboringtowns of Kinunir and Nina.

Thanks to a variety of sources that have recently become available, it cannow be demonstrated that Gu’abba actually was the main producer of textiles

in Babylonia during the Ur III period. In this connection, it should be notedthat this new finding contradicts the traditional view of Ur III textileproduction, which has it that the main center of weaving during that period

was located in the city of Ur, Babylonia’s capital. As it turns out, however, this view is without any substance. A careful re-examination of the relevant datashows that the overwhelming majority of the weavers appearing in theaccounts from Ur, who were thought to have lived and worked there, in factresided in various other towns, especially in Gu’abba.(13)

The conclusion that Gu’abba was the main center of textile industry in UrIII times(14) rests on a group of Girsu sources, which show that the number offemale weavers living there was four times larger than that documented for the

city of Girsu, the province’s capital. In addition, a very substantial populationof female weavers —likewise exceeding in number those attested at Girsu— isknown to have resided in Gu’abba’s satellites Kinunir and Nina. All in all,

when the children of the weavers and the various other personnel are includedin the tally, one may estimate that the total number of people involved intextile manufacture in the Gu’abba region (female weavers, their children, andrelated personnel) must have been in the range of 10,000 individuals. See figs.


9/20


1,051 Girsu (capital)1,143 Kinunir and Nina4,272 Gu’abbaTotal of weavers in Gu’abba, Kinunir, and Nina: 5,415

Fig. 4. Female weavers employed in the province of Girsu in year Amar-Suen 1(according to SAT 1 279 and HSS 4 3)

4,052+[x] female weavers123 old female weavers1,901 children48 male fullers317+[x] other male personnel

------------------------------------------- 6, 441+ total number Fig. 5. Gu’abba’s weaving personnel in year Shulgi 48 (according to ASJ 20 108 7)

4 and 5, which list respectively the numbers of the female weavers employed inthe province of Girsu in year Amar-Suen 1, and the numbers of weavingpersonnel at Gu’abba in the preceding year ( i.e., year Shulgi, 48 ).

At first sight, it might seem strange that the main center of the Ur III textilemanufacture should be situated on Babylonia’s fringe —and not, as one wouldexpect, in a more central location, which would be favored by the logistics of

wool procurement and finished-product distribution. But this seeminglyanomalous situation is immediately explained once we consider Gu’abba’sunique status as a seaport and Babylonia’s door to the Persian Gulf. Obviously,the concentration of so much weaving activity in Gu’abba and its satellitesKununir and Nina must have been due to the fact that the textiles producedthere were meant predominantly for the markets of the Gulf region. As onecan judge from the great number of workers involved in this operation, the


10/20


total volume of textiles so exported during the period in question must havebeen truly enormous.

Another item that Babylonia exported to the Gulf region, possibly on thesame scale as textiles, was barley. As in the case of textiles, textual evidence forthe exports of barley is scarce. Although only two such records survive, theirtestimony is very revealing. The sources in question record two shipments ofbarley, in the amounts of 600 bushels and 1,800 bushels respectively, which

were sent from the city of Girsu to Makkan.(15) The persons in charge of these

operations were the aforementioned Pu’udu and his son Lu-Enlila. As Iindicated earlier, Pu’udu was the head of the state organization in charge of thetrade with the Gulf region.

These volumes are very substantial. Assuming that the barley wastransported on ships of the cargo capacity of 180 bushels —the largest vesselsknown in Ur III times ( see above, p. 9 )— it would have taken ten such ships totransport the barley listed in the second text.

It cannot be excluded, of course, that these were exceptional transactions. I would tend to think, however, that barley and other cereal products wereexported to the Gulf region as a matter of course. Given the relatively low costof water transport, it is inconceivable that the Babylonians would not have

taken advantage of such an obvious —and undoubtedly highly profitable—commercial opportunity. Because of this, we can be fully confident that, duringthe period in question, cereals figured very prominently in the commercialexchanges with the Gulf.

It is certain that, apart from textiles and cereals, the Babylonians exportedto the Gulf a variety of other products. One of those products was perfumedoil, which appears among the goods shipped to Makkan in Ur III times. It islikely that these exports also included a large assortment of manufacturedproducts, such as pottery and various items made of leather.

As for the imports, the main item here was copper, which the Babyloniansobtained directly from its sources in Makkan. Among the other goods

imported from the Gulf one finds diorite, an assortment of semi-preciousstones, such as lapis lazuli, carnelian, agate, and chlorite, as well as gold, ivory,and various types of exotic woods, plants, and spices. In addition, theBabylonians brought to Babylonia, mainly as curiosities, various animalscharacteristic of that region. The latter included the Arabian oryx ( máß Má-ganki;Steinkeller, 1995: 50 ), the zebu cattle (áb-za-za), the leopard (ur-gùn-a, ur-mah-gùn-a), and possibly the chicken (dar Me-luh-ha, ‘the dar bird of Meluhha’(16) ).


11/20


Conceivably, this region also supplied some tin —although, as I will discuss itshortly, the bulk of the tin that the Babylonians imported in Ur III timesappears to have come over the overland routes.

Although the Gulf trade occupied a very important place in the economyof the Ur III empire, already during that time there was a marked shift towardthe use of overland connections in the commercial exchanges with Iran and

Afghanistan. Of particular importance here was the Great Khurasan Road,over which tin, copper, and gold, as well as lapis lazuli, were imported to

Babylonia from Afghanistan. In this connection, it is especially revealing thatthe paramount objective of the Ur III territorial expansion was to provideBabylonia with a direct access to the Great Khurasan Road, and to secure amodicum of control over much of its course ( Steinkeller, 2013: 294-295 ). Bycontrast, the Ur III kings made no effort to subjugate any of the polities of theGulf region, choosing instead to achieve their economic objectives in that areaby relying on a system of international trade agreements.

Following the collapse of the Ur III empire, which took place at around2000 BC, the political map of the Iranian Plateau and the neighboring regionsunderwent a profound transformation. This led to dramatic changes in tradepatterns as well. The two primary political developments here were the rise of

the kingdom of Shimashki, which became the main political, military, andeconomic power on the Iranian Plateau, and the concurrent decline ofMarhashi ( Steinkeller, in press ). Although the latter development is poorlyunderstood, it appears that Marhashi had ceased to be the main middleman intrade with Afghanistan, due mainly to the growing importance in this period ofthe northern overland routes, which bypassed the territory of Marhashi, and

which were controlled by the Shimashkians. Another cause of Marhashi’sdecline may have been the loss of some its territories to Shimashki.

Another part of this transformation was the decline of Makkan as adominant power in the Gulf region. If, as I argued earlier, Makkan was acommercial —and perhaps also political— partner of Marhashi, the reversal of

Marhashi’s fortunes would also have profoundly affected Makkan. Be that as itmay, Makkan’s name disappears forever from the written record, suggestingthat it ceased to exist as a political entity of any significance. This conclusion iscorroborated by the archaeological data, which show the suddendisappearance of large, centralized settlements on the Oman peninsula, as wellas of the other traits characteristic of the Makkanite culture (the so-calledUmm an-Nar assemblage) ( Lauersen, 2009 ).


12/20


The void left by Makkan’s demise was immediately filled by Tilmun, which,until the very end of the Ur III Period, had served as but a transit point in theGulf. During the first few centuries of the second millennium —historicallythe time of the dynasties of Isin and Larsa— Tilmun came to dominate theGulf trade ( Lauersen, 2009 ). Most important, Tilmun became the supplier ofOmani copper to Babylonia, a role that had earlier been played by Makkan.

The Tilmuni merchants also re-established commercial contacts with the Indus Valley (Meluhha).

The pattern of the Gulf trade in Isin-Larsa times differed from that of theUr III period yet in another significant way. Since neither Isin nor Larsapossessed a centralized political apparatus on par with that of the Ur IIIempire, the Babylonian trade in the Gulf no longer was a state-run operation.Instead, the commercial exchanges with Tilmun became a purely privateenterprise. As the state ceased to be directly involved in foreign trade, theBabylonian merchants active in the Tilmun trade operated without the benefitof official support —in other words, the political and military muscle of stateinstitutions— that was characteristic of the Ur III period. Therefore, they nolonger enjoyed advantage over the native traders of the Gulf region. As aconsequence, the Tilmun merchants came to frequent Babylonian ports as

well. Given the fact that, in the archaeological record of the Gulf region,artifacts characteristic of the Indus valley civilization are particularly commonin the contexts dating to the beginning of the second millennium BC, it is likelythat the Meluhhan merchants regularly ventured into the Gulf during thattime, perhaps even reaching the coast of Babylonia.

As for the materials traded, the pattern continued to be essentially the sameas earlier, with copper being the main Babylonian import. A group of textsfrom Isin, dating to the very beginning of the Isin-Larsa period, throws animportant light on the types of goods exported to Tilmun from Babylonia atthat time.(17) The sources in question refer to the garments and perfumed oilthat were sent as gifts to Tilmun by the kings of Isin. Those gifts, which were

transported to Tilmun by Babylonian merchants, apparently were meant forthe Tilmun royalty. A similar range of commercial activities is documented in a group of tablets

from Ur, which date roughly one hundred years later ( Oppenheim, 1954 ). Thesedocuments describe the operations of a group of Ur merchants, who regularly

ventured to Tilmun. As in the case described earlier, the goods sold by thesetraders in Tilmun were predominantly textiles and perfumed oil. Among their


13/20


purchases, item number one was, not unexpectedly, copper. Other goodsimported from Tilmun to Ur included gold, lapis lazuli, ivory, and spices. Newitems appearing in such lists are pearls, which the Sumerians called ‘fish eyes’(igi-ku6 ).

Although the contacts between Babylonia and the Gulf continued to bemaintained down to the end of the second millennium, it is clear that the Gulftrade no longer enjoyed its former importance at that time. Among the reasonsresponsible for this situation was the fact that, sometime around 1700 BC, the

main supplier of copper in the Near East had become the island of Cyprus, which, thanks to the technological innovations introduced there, was able toproduce copper much less expensively. This led to the collapse of the coppermining and production in Oman. Another contributory factor was the shift tonorthern overland routes in commercial exchanges with Afghanistan andCentral Asia, a process that had began already in Ur III times. The dramatichistorical changes that had taken place on the Iranian plateau during thesecond half of the second millennium BC, among which the most momentousone was the migration of the Indo-Iranian tribes into that region, undoubtedlyplayed a part in this development as well.

Notes1. The earliest such evidence are squat, polychrome jars of Jemdet Nasr type found in Omanand other sites (see Pittman and Potts, 2009: 119).

2. This is demonstrated by the mentions of Meluhhan boats in Babylonian texts (see BIN 8 298:8; Yang Adab A712: 10; Banca d’Italia 1 102: 6).

3. [1?] T x U-IM kug-sig 17 lugal Má-ganki mu-DU, “[1?] T x U-IM made of gold, the delivery of theking of Makkan” (UET 3 299:1-3; year Shulgi 28).

4. 1 gud niga 3 udu 2 máš gal We-du-um lú-kin-gi4-a Na-du-be-lí énsi Má-ganki, “1 grain-fed ox,3 sheep, and 2 mature goats (for) Wedum, the envoy of Nadub-’el-i, the ruler of Makkan”(CTMMA 1 17 iii 20-22; year Amar-Suen 4; Puzrish-Dagan). Cf. Steinkeller 1995: 62 n. 13.

5. However, since the inscriptions of Ur-Namma talk explicitly of the boats of Makkan beingbrought back to Babylonia (Steinkeller 2013: 302 n. 58), it is possible that at least in the initialphase of the Babylonian exchanges with Makkan the native Makkan boats actually traveledto Babylonia.

6. BPOA 6 37 (undated). Here it may be noted that the boats of comparable sizes aredocumented already in Sargonic sources. See Banca d’Italia 1 no. 90:1-4, which lists severalboats of 120 bushel capacity each. Vosmer 2008 calculated that a boat of 120 bushel cargocapacity was of ca. 16-meter waterline length. He also concluded that already a boat of 60bushel capacity (= ca. 13 meter waterline length) was fully capable of sea voyages.

7. Included in this group is also one boat (probably a barge) of 360 bushel capacity (BPOA 637:3). A barge (má-gur8 ) of the capacity of 300 bushels is mentioned in an Ur III tabletfrom Ur (UET 3 272 rev. vi 18). It is possible that the same vessel (probably a huge


14/20


ceremonial barge belonging to the king) is meant in both instances.8. UET 3 1511, 1689.9. AUCT 2 289 (year not preserved). Cf. Maekawa and Mori 2011: 257.10. These seals will be discussed in a joint study by Steffen T. Lauersen and this author,

provisionally entitled “Trade between Babylonia and the Gulf Region during the Thirdand Early Second Millennia: A Combined Archaeological and Philological Perspective.”

11. MVN 7 407; ITT 5 6806; MVN 6 437; UET 3 1511, 1689. UET 3 1511 mentions also ashipment of wool.

12. See SAT 1 422, MVN 6 280 i 4, and JCS 24 158 no. 47:2, mentioning lú-mar-sa Gú-ab-ba ki,“boat-builders of Gu’abba” (59 men in SAT 1 422); and TUT 130:23, mentioning a dub-

sar mar-sa Gú-ab-baki, “scribe of the shipyard of Gu’abba.” Note also that, according to TLB 3 144 and AAICAB 1/1 Ashm. 1924-0693, large numbers of fir trees ( gišù-suh5 ) weregrown in Gu’abba, which were used to produce ship parts. The most important amongthem was gišgirah(ÍU.DÍM), which possibly denotes the hull’s ribs or frames. It ischaracteristic that the gišgirah is always qualified by the boat’s capacity (20, 30, 40, 60, or 120bushels), which indicates that its size was directly related to the boat’s overall dimensions.

13. A detailed, fully documented discussion of this problem will be offered by me elsewhere.14. A qualification here is necessary. It is possible that there existed similar concentrations of

textile manufacturing in other border areas of Babylonia, which were geared toward thesupply of other foreign markets. But we do not have any information about them atpresent. The existence of such centers could find support in the fact that, in theimmediately following period, the Assyrians obtained huge volumes of textiles fromBabylonia, possibly from some hypothetical center located on the fringes of northern

Babylonia (the Diyala Region?). It is highly likely that the Old Assyrian trade was acontinuation of patterns existing already in Ur III times.15. 600.0.0 še gur gú Má-ganki-šè ki énsi Gír-suki-ta Pù-ú-du šu ba-ti kišib Ur-gi6giparx(KISAL)

dumu Íu-na-ka ì-dub A-šag 4-NI-zi-na, “Pu’udu received from the governor of Girsu 600bushels of barley, the delivery for Makkan. Under the seal of Ur-gipar, son of Shuna. (Thebarley came) from the silo of the field Izina” (ITT 2 776; year Shu-Suen 8); 1,800.0.0 še gurnumun gub-ba Má-gan-na ki énsi Gír-suki-ta Lú-dEn-líl-la šu ba-ti, “Lu-Enlila receivedfrom the governor of Girsu 1,800 bushels of barley, the seed designated for Makkan”(TCTI 2 2768; year Ibbi-Suen 3).

16. The Ur III texts from Ur mention figurines of the dar Me-luh-ha(mušen) bird (UET 3 757:5,761:3, 764:4, 768:7, 770:5). It would seem, therefore, that this bird was known in Babyloniaduring that time. There are reasons to think that this dar Me-luh-ha is identical with thelater dar-lugalmušen, Akk. tarlugallu , “the royal dar bird” (documented since Old Babylonian

times, see ZA 77 123 IM 90646:1), which almost certainly means “chicken, rooster.”

17. To be discussed in detail by Lauersen and Steinkeller in their forthcoming study “Tradebetween Babylonia and the Gulf Region during the Third and Early Second Millennia: ACombined Archaeological and Philological Perspective.” Cf. above n. 10.


15/20


List of figuresFig. 1. Boat depictions on Tilmunite seals. After Carter 2012: 369 fig. 19.9.Fig. 2. A cylinder seal belonging to a “man of big boats,” found in Bahrain (courtesy of S. T.

Lauersen).Fig. 3. A reconstruction of the coast region of Babylonia in Ur III times. The map was kindly

prepared by Dr. Jason Ur, to whom I offer my warmest thanks.Fig. 4. Female weavers employed in the province of Girsu in year Amar-Suen 1 (according to

SAT 1 279 and HSS 4 3).Fig. 5. Gu’abba’s weaving personnel in year Shulgi 48 (according to ASJ 20 108 7.

BibliographyCarter, R. A. (2012) “ Watercraft,” in D. T. Potts (ed.) A Companion to the Archaeology of the Ancient

Near East (Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell), 347-372.Kohl, Philip L. (1974) Seeds of Upheaval: The Production of Chlorite at Tepe Yahya and an

Analysis of Commodity Production and Trade in Southwestern Asia in the Mid-ThirdMillennium (unpublished PhD dissertation, Harvard University).

Kohl, Philip L. (2001) “Reflections on the Production of Chlorite at tepe Yahya: 25 YearsLater,” in D. T. Potts, Excavations at Tepe Yahya, Iran, 1967-1975: The Third Millennium (Cambridge MA: Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University),209-230.

Lamberg-Karlovsky, C. C. (1993) “ The Biography of an Object: The Intercultural Vessels ofthe Third Millennium B.C.,” in Steven Lubar and W. David Kingery (eds.) History from

Things: Essays on Material Culture (Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press), 270-292.Lamberg-Karlovsky, C. C. (1998) “ The ‘Intercultural Style’ Carved Vessels,” Iranica Antiqua , 23:45-95.

Lauersen, Steffen Terp (2009) “ The Decline of Magan and the Rise of Dilmun: Umm an-NarCeramics from the Burial Mounds of Bahrain, c. 2250-2000 BC,” Arabian Archaeology and

Epigraphy , 20: 134-155.Madjidzadeh, Youssef (2002 ) Jiroft: The Earliest Oriental Civilization . Tehran.Madjidzadeh, Youssef (2008) “Excavations at Konar Sandal in the Region of Jiroft in the Halil

Basin: First Preliminary Report (2002-2008),” Iran , 46: 69-103.Maekawa, Kazuya, and Wakaha Mori (2011) “Dilmun, Magan, and Meluhha in Early

Mesopotamian History: 2500-1600 BC,” in Toshiki Osada and Michael Witzel, CulturalRelations between the Indus and the Iranian Plateau during the Third Millennium BCE, HarvardOriental Series, Opera Minora, Vol. 7 (Cambridge MA: Department of South Asian

Studies, Harvard University), 245-269.Marchesi, Gianni (2011) “Goods from the Queen of Tilmun,” in G. Barjamovic et al. (eds.)

Akkade Is King: A Collection of Papers by Friends and Colleagues Presented to Aage Westenholz on theOccasion of His 70th Birthday 15th of May 2009 (Leiden: Nederlands Instituut het NabijeOosten).

Oppenheim, A. L. (1954) “ The Seafaring Merchants of Ur,” Journal of the American OrientalSociety , 74: 6-17.

Pittman, Holly, and D. T. Potts (2009) “The Earliest Cylinder in the Arabian Peninsula,”


16/20


Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy , 20: 109-121 . Steinkeller, Piotr (1982) “The Question of Marhaši: A Contribution to the Historical Geography

of Iran in the Third Millennium B.C.,” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie , 72: 237-65.Steinkeller, Piotr (1995) “Sheep and Goat Terminology in Ur III Sources from Drehem,”

Bulletin on Sumerian Agriculture , 8: 49-70.Steinkeller, Piotr (2004) “Toward a Definition of Private Economic Activity in Third

Millennium Babylonia,” in Robert Rollinger and Christoph Ulf (eds.) Monetary Systems in the Ancient World: Means of Transmission and Cultural Interaction, Oriens et Occidens: Studien zu antiken

Kulturkontakten und ihrem Nachleben 6 (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner): 91-111.Steinkeller, Piotr (2012) “New Light on Marhaßi and Its Contacts with Makkan and Babylonia,”

in Jessica Giraud and Guillaume Gernez (eds.) Aux marges de l’archéologie. Hommage à SergeCleuziou, Travaux de la Maison René-Ginouvès 16 (Paris: De Boccard), 261-274.

Steinkeller, Piotr (2013) “Puzur-Inßußinak at Susa: A Pivotal Episode of Early Elamite HistoryReconsidered,” in Katrien De Graef and Jan Tavernier (eds.) Susa and Elam. Archaeological,Historical and Geographical Perspectives. Proceedings of the International Congress Held at Ghent

University, December 14-17, 2009, Mémoires de la Délégation en Perse 58 (Leiden: Brill), 293-317.Steinkeller, Piotr (in press) “Marhaßi and Beyond: The Jiroft Civilization in a Historical

Perspective,” to appear in a Festschrift for Maurizio Tosi (Ravenna). Veldhuis, Niek (2001) “A Multiple Month Account from the Gu’abba Rest House,”Zeitschrift für

Assyriologie , 91: 85-109. Vosmer, Tom (2008) “Shipping in the Bronze Age: How Large was a 60-gur Ship?,” in E.

Olijdam and R. H. Spoor (eds.) Intercultural Relations between South and Southwest Asia. Studiesin Commemoration of E. C. L. During Casper (1934-1996), BAR International Series, 1826 (Oxford: Archeaopress), 230-235.

Zarins, Juris (2008) “Magan Shipbuilders at The Lagash State Dockyards (2062-2025 B.C.,” inE. Olijdam and R. H. Spoor (eds.) Intercultural Relations between South and Southwest Asia.Studies in Commemoration of E. C. L. During Casper (1934-1996), BAR International Series, 1826 (Oxford: Archeaopress), 209-229.


17/20


Fig. 2. A cylinder seal belonging to a “man of big boats,” found in Bahrain (courtesy of S. T.Lauersen).

Fig. 2. A cylinder seal belonging to a “man of big boats,” found in Bahrain (courtesy of S. T.Lauersen).


18/20


Fig.1. Boat depictions on Tilmunite seals. After Carter 2012:369 fig. 19.9.


19/20


Fig. 3. A reconstruction of the coast region of Babylonia in Ur III times. The map waskindly prepared by Dr. Jason Ur, to whom I offer my warmest thanks.


20/20

trfade routes and commercial networks in the persian gulf during the 3rd millennium bce (piotr...

Documents