  http://www.india-today.com/itoday/20050912/heritage.htmlMap of major routes and sites (adapted from Potts T. 1994 fig.5)  Mohenjodaro. Silver seal. Mackay 1938: Vol. 1, p. 348, Vol. 2, Pl. XC,1; XCVI, 520.   Altyn-depe. Silver seal. Pictograph of ligatured animal with three heads.http://www.uaeinteract.com/history/e_walk/con_4/con4_27.asp A Dilmun seal found in a probable Wadi Suq burial at Mazyad (Cleuziou 1981: Fig. 8) is also a clear import, and one of the seals of period II at Ra’s al-Jinz-2 is obviously an Indus stamp seal (Cleuziou and Tosi 2000: Fig. 17) although it was made of a rare material (copper or silver).(Potts, DT, Hasan Al Naboodah, Peter Hellyer, 2003, Archaeology of the United Arab Emirates, p.146) See seals at Traces of Paradise, Archaeology of Bahrain  Fig.5 Power and conviviality in the northern compound
of houses at Ra’s al-Jinz RJ-2. 1. Sandstone incense burner from Building IX,
room 9 (length 12 cm., not to scale); 2-3. Inscribed stamp seals from Building
VII room 8 and Building IX, room 11; 4. Stamp seal with two human figures
holding hands alongside a palm branch, from Building VII room 1. (p.144) “…two inscribed stamp seals in a local form of writing at Ra’s al-Jinz (Cleuziou et al 1994) also indicate the possible presence of written documents, even if these did not  have the same function or frequency as
writing in the early states.” Fig.6. Possible representations of ‘alliance’ in
late 3rd millennium eastern Arabia. 1. Ra’s al-Jinz RJ-2 (drawing by
H. David); 2. Kalba (courtesy of C. Phillips); 3. Hamad Town, Bahrain (after
al-Sindi 1994: 49); 4. Hili 8, tomb 1059, southern door (not to scale) in:
Daniel T. Potts, Hasan Al Naboodah, Peter Hellyer, 2003, Archaeology of the United Arab Emirates, p.146.
Interactions: Meluhha-Dilmun; Saurashtra, Gujarat (Meluhha) and Saar, Bahrain (Dilmun) Theophrastus,
De Lapidibus 36 (Caley ER and Richards JFC, 1956, Theophrastus on stones, introduction, Greek text, English
translation and commentary, Columbus, Ohio, Ohio State University: 52-3) notes
that pearls were produced in India and ‘certain islands in the Red Sea’
(Persian Gulf), ca. 4th-3rd cent. BCE. Arrian, Indica 38
(2nd cent. CE) cites Nearchus (Arrian, 1926, Indica, Trans. Brunt PA, Cambridge, Mass, Harvard U. Press: 417)
about pearl fisheries found around an inhabited island off the Carmanian coast,
and in the India Sea. “The
Harappan civilization played a formative role in the emergence of Bahrain’s
mercantile tradition. The inhabitants of Bahrain adopted the Harappan weight
system. Seven weights conforming to the Harappan series are known from Qala’at
al-Bahrain, mainly in City IIa layers, with others found at Saar (Hejlund and
Andersen 1994: 395-396). The value of a Dilmun standard measure, calculated
according to ratio given in an Isin Larsa text from Ur, was found to correspond
exactly to a unit in the Harappan system (Possehl 1996: 174-175). Harappan
script and motifs are found on Persian Gulf seals (Edens 1993: 346; Cleuziou
1992:93; Tosi 1993:372) which are associated with the 3rd millennium.
The script was used to write non-Harappan words or names, suggesting its
adoption and adaptation by local traders in the Gulf (Edens 1993: 346). This is
further evidence for the emulation of Harappan practices, specifically those
relating to the administration of economic affairs (Edens 1993: 353). Following
he turn of the millennium, continuing contact with the Indus region is
demonstrated by the presence of Late Harappan pottery at Qala’at al-Bahrain and
Saar. There are good indications that mercantile exchange between Qala’at
al-Bahrain and the Indus sphere was more intense during he City II period than
the City I period, with significantly greater quantities of Indus-related
pottery, though the total amount is never high…Connections are also evident
between Failaka and the Late Harappan sphere. An Indus-related sherd from
Failaka Period I (Hojlund 1987: 100-101), and a series of seals have parallels
at Pirak and Chanhu-Daro (Edens 1993: 347). In Gujarat, a Dilmun seal was found
at Lothal in unstratified deposits (Rao 1998 fig. 38A:4) perhaps indicating the
presence of Dilmun merchants at that site; a Dilmun-related seal has been
reported from Dwarka (Crawford 1998: 90, Fig. 5.7). Otherwise, Dilmun artefacts
are not known from Harappa and Late Harappan sites…Copper was probably exported
from the settlement on Umm an-Nar island, where both Harappan and Mesopotamian
ceramics are plentiful (Frifelt 1995: 121)…Both Umm an-Nar and Tell Abraq are
well positioned as staging-posts along the East-West route between Mesopotamia
and the Indus rregion.” (Robert Carter, 2003, Restructuring bronze age trade:
Bahrain, southeast Arabia and the copper question, in: Harriet Crawford ed., The Archaeology of Bahrain, BAR
International Series 1189, 2003, p.34) "...Saar
has been the subject of ten years of excavation by the London-Bahrain
Archaeological Expedition (LBAE0, under the directorship of Dr. Robert Killic,
Dr. Jane Moon and Dr. Harriet Crawford (until 1995), in collaboration with the
Bahrain National Museum...The ceramics from the Early Dilmun site of Saar,
Bahrain, are examined for evidence of interregional exchange. The commonent
variety of imported material comprises Late Sorath Harappan pottery from
Saurashtra, Gujarat. Small quantities of Mesopotamia, Southeast Arabian (Wadi
Suq) and possible Indo-Iranian pottery are also present. The evidence is
correlated with that from Qala'at al-Bahrain, and data from other regions
within the Bronze Age trading network of the early second millennium BCE. On
the basis of the ceramic evidence and information from other artefact classes
and sites in Southeast Arabia and Gujarat, it is inferred that Bahrain and
Saurashtra partook in a close exchange partnership during the Qala'at
al-Bahrain City II period...(Carter, RA, Saar and its external relations:
new evidence for interaction between Bahrain and Gujarat during the early
second millennium BCE, Arabian
archaeology and epigraphy, 2001: 12: p.183) Foundation
of City II is dated prior to c. 2100 BCE. (Michael Rice, 1994, The archaeology
of the Arabian Gulf, c. 5000-323 BCE, p.328). Thus Meluhha-Dilmun interactions
can be stated to have been evidenced attested at Saar around 2100 BCE. "Other
than pottery, various goods may have been traded between Bahrain and Saurashtra
during the early second millennium. Items recorded in the texts, transhipped to
Ur via Dilmun during the Isin Larsa period, incude leather goods, sheepskin
containers, wooden artefacts, garments, asphalt, ivory, semi-precious stones,
gold and copper, inculding the famous 18-tonne shipment by the merchant
Ea-Nasir. (Potts DT, The Arabian Gulf in Antiquity, i. Oxford, Clarendon
Press, 1990, 219-226). Much of this material may have originated from the Late
Harappan sphere in Saurashtra...Possehl lists copper or copper ore, steatite,
carnelian, shell and ivory as possible resources, to which can be added wood
and the variety of finished goods manufactured in Lothal from the region's raw
materials, such as beads and copper artefacts. (Possehl, Lothal, a gateway
settlement of the Harappan civilization. In: Possehl GL, ed. Ancient Cities
of the Indus, New Delhi, Vikas, 1979: 216)(Carter, RA, Saar and its
external relations: new evidence for interaction between Bahrain and Gujarat
during the early second millennium BCE, Arabian archaeology and epigraphy,
2001: 12: p. 195) Edens, 1993, Indus-Arabian interaction duing the bronze age, in Possehl, GL, 1993, Harappan civilization: a recent perspective, New Delhi, American Inst. Of Indian Studies Cleuziou S., 1992, The Oman peninsula and the Indus civilization: a reassessment. In Man and Environment vol. XVII Tosi, M., 1993, Harappan civilization beyond the Indian subcontinent, in: Possehl 1993 Frifelt, K., 1995, The island of Umm an-Nar vol. 2: the third millennium settlement, Moesgaard, Aarhus
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3273/2540252859_272d55d5e9.jpg    Copper frieze From the Temple of Ninhursag, Tell al-'Ubaid, southern Iraq, around 2600 BC Decoration for the temple façadeThis frieze was discovered at the small site of Tell al-'Ubaid, close to the remains of the city of Ur. It was found among a group of objects at the foot of a mud brick platform. The platform had originally supported a temple building dedicated to the goddess Ninhursag. The objects were found beside the platform-stairs, among debris which may have fallen from the temple on top. Ninhursag was a mother goddess and her name means 'lady of the steppe land' where cows were put out to pasture. It is appropriate that her temple should have been decorated with bulls and cows. The panel was found in good condition, with the borders preserved. It is formed from a wooden board, which had decayed, covered with strips of copper secured with copper nails. The area between the borders was covered with bitumen and the figures were pressed into it. The bulls are made in one piece of Tridacna shell with the legs and head carved separately. The background was filled with black shale cut to shape. All the pieces of inlay were in place when it was found, except the body of the last bull which had been forced away from its backing and lay in three pieces. Several more or less complete sections of panel were found, along with numerous scattered figures and fragments from a second frieze which had ornamented the façade of the temple. H.R. Hall and C.L. Woolley, Ur Excavations, vol. I: Al-Uba(London, Oxford University Press, 1927) T.C. Mitchell, Sumerian art: illustrated by o (London, The British Museum Press, 1969) http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/highlight_objects/me/c/copper_frieze_from_temple.aspxVessel stand with ibex supportTemple rituals during the Early Dynastic period included making offerings of food, drink, and probably incense to the gods. This Mesopotamian stand, with four rings supported by a magnificent ibex, would have supported lamps or bowls holding offerings or incense and may have been used in temple or in banquet rituals. It is made of arsenical copper, inlaid with shell, lapis lazuli and was manufactured by a sophisticated method of metalwork known as the lost-wax technique. The desired image was sculpted in wax and surrounded with clay that hardened into a mould when baked. When the mould was fired, the wax was melted and "lost," leaving a negative space that corresponded to the wax image. Molten metal was then poured into the cavity to form a reproduction of the original wax model. http://heritage-key.com/category/tags/copper Carnelian, lapis lazuli from Meluhha?Headdress with leaf-shaped ornaments, 2600–2500 B.C.; Early Dynastic period IIIa; Sumerian style Excavated at "King's Grave," Ur, Mesopotamia Gold, lapis lazuli, carnelian Dodge Fund, 1933 (33.35.3) Kings and nobles became increasingly powerful and independent of temple authority during the course of the Early Dynastic period (ca. 2900–2350 B.C.), although the success of a king's reign was considered to depend on support from the gods. A striking measure of royal wealth was the cemetery in the city of Ur, in which sixteen royal tombs were excavated in the 1920s and 1930s by Sir Leonard Woolley. These tombs consisted of a vaulted burial chamber for the king or queen, an adjoining pit in which as many as seventy-four attendants were buried, and a ramp leading into the grave from the ground.This delicate chaplet of gold leaves separated by lapis lazuli and carnelian beads adorned the forehead of one of the female attendants in the so-called King's Grave. In addition, the entombed attendants wore two necklaces of gold and lapis lazuli, gold hair ribbons, and two silver hair rings. Since gold, silver, lapis, and carnelian are not found in Mesopotamia, the presence of these rich adornments in the royal tomb attests to the wealth of the Early Dynastic kings as well as to the existence of a complex system of trade that extended far beyond the Mesopotamian plain.   Ancient India by Ernest Mackay (1936 Illustrated News of London) Copper vehicle model fragment found at a depth of 10 feet 6 inches in Statum IV of Mound F at Harappa (Vats 1940, I, 99, 452; II, Pl. CXXV, 35). A counterpart is found at Chanhu-daro (Mackay 1943, Pl. LVIII,2).  Ishkoman valley Gilgit. Rhyton. ca. 3rd - 1st cent. BCE. Ht. 26.9 cm. Ashmolean Museum. Leaded bronze. solid cast.  Cylinder seal described as Akkadian circa 2334-2154
BC, cf. figure 428, p. 30. "The Surena Collection of Ancient Near Eastern
Cylinder Seals." Christies
Auction Catalogue.
New York City. Sale of 11 June 2001). A person carrying an antelope may be a Meluhhan (as in the Shu-ilishu Meluhhan interpreter cylinder seal). See also another image.  Sumerian words with a pre-Sumerian origin are:
These words must have been loan words from a substrate language. The words show how far the division in labor had progressed even before the Sumerians arrived. Sea-faring Meluhhan business in Mesopotamia It is commonly understood that Meluhhan were sea-faring merchants from the Sarasvati-Sindhu civilization. What was the business of the Meluhhan Ur-Lamma and others in Meluhhan villages in Mesopotamia, in a seaport of Guabba with a temple for Ninmar? Meluhhan bronze is hinted in a text: bronze (uruda) with the Meluhhan village: 6 ma-na uruda me-luh-ha. Here is a remarkable account by Prof. PS Vermaak on the business of Meluhhan villages in Mesopotamia: “The Meluhhan granaries. The Meluhhan village was known for its granaries (i-dub e-duru me-luh-ha) and the large amounts of royal barley that were delivered to the town of Girsu. When one calculates the amounts delivered by the Meluhhan granaries in comparison to other regions, towns or villages it was surprisingly high. It cannot exactly be determined why they delivered more barley (up to three times more) than most of the other granaries. It might be that the Meluhhan granaries had a larger region under their premises or perhaps they had to deliver more to the Girsu authorities due to their foreign origin, but this is pure speculation at this stage. There are, however, two t0065ts dating from the sixth year of Amar-Sin (AS 6-vii) and the eighth year of Shu-Sin (SS 8) respectively (from Girsu) where the Meluhhan granary was the only deliverer of the royal barley and it seems that the various granaries had separate monthly instalments to pay (text ASJ 03 152 107). The Meluhhan garden. Some references can be found to the Meluhhan garden (kiri me-luh-ha) in the Neo-Sumerian period, but no more specific details can be derived from these texts except to note that they were connected to the temple of Ninmar. However, several types of Meluhhan artefacts have been identified which probably made up the Meluhhan garden, especially the ab-ba me-luh-ha which is a sort o Meluhhan wood, or the ab-ba could refer to some kind of water feature in a garden…The Meluhhan temples. Two temples have been connected to the Meluhhan village in Ur III Girsu, namely those of the gods’ Nanshe and Nin-mar. In a text where a number of scribes (dub-sar-me) are listed it has been summarized in three interesting lines, namely shu-nigin 6 gurush, arad Nanshe-me, ugula me-luhha (A total of 6 men, servants of the god, Nanshe, while the overseer is a Meluhhan) which definitely seems to connect the Meluhhan village with the temple of Nanshe. This text relates to the temple of Nanshe and the Meluhhan official, which is a good illustration of the Meluhhan s being incorporated into the society of southern Mesopotamia. Another text suggests that the Meluhhans worked in the temple of Nanshe: dumu me-luh-ha erin e Nanshe (‘The Meluhhan worker in the house of Nanshe’). In a balanced account (nig-kas-ak) regarding the different types of barley delivered to the temple of Ninmar (nig-kas ak Lu-Shul-gi shabra she e Nin-MAR.KI) the seal of the well-known Meluhhan appears twice in the text (Kishib Ur-Lamma dumu me-luh-ha). The royal barley deliveries sent to the different gardens (kiri en-ne) in the region of Girsu (year 48 of Shulgi) and the Meluhhan garden was again connected to the temple of Nin-Mar (kiri me-luh-ha Nin-MAR.KI) which was not connected to the Meluhhan temple. This means there had to be two gardens in the same temple of Ninmarki, one as a Meluhhan garden and another one not. The Meluhhan avifauna. The Meluhhan bird (dar me-luh-ha) appears five times in the Ur III texts, only once with the determinative of a bid (mushen). In most of the cases the dar has been listed together with images (alan) which indicates that in these instances the dar probably does not refer to a real bird, but to an image of a bird, maybe as a carved bird (as curio) from wood or ivory. In all instances these texts came from Ur and date from the thirteenth year of Ibbi-Sin. It has been speculated that the dar might be a ‘multi-coloured’ Meluhhan bird, described by Leemans (1960: 166) as a ‘peacock’, but he (Leemans 1968: 222) later corrected himself and regarded it as a kind of a ‘hen’ due to his understanding of it as a bird from ‘India’. The Meluhhan fauna. Although in earlier and later texts references are made to the Meluhhan fauna species from other periods such as the multicoloured Meluhhan dog which was given as a gift to Ibbi-Sin and a Meluhhan cat (Akkadian shuranu) in a Babylonian proverb (Lambert 1960: 272). The only Meluhhan fauna in the Ur III texts is a reference to the goat: mash ga me-luh-ha, ‘the Meluhhan milk goat’. The Meluhhan timber/woods. Special kinds of timber/woods came into southern Mesopotamia from various places such as Magan and Meluhha from the Early Dynastic III to the Gudea period. Lexical texts confirm the import of Meluhhan timber which entered via the ports in the Gulf. Various kinds of Meluhhan wood have been identified during the Ur III and other periods and they were mostly used for different kinds of furniture. The mes-me-luh-ha wood only occurs twice in the Ur III texts, but also continued to be used for furniture and household utensils during the Old Babylonian period (Leemans 160: 126). Its Akkadian equivalent musukkannu was referred to as a Magan and Meluhhan import and it was probably a hard and/or black wood. However, it was locally available during the first millennium BCE (Maxwell-Hyslop 1983: 70-71). The ab-ba me-luh-ha wood had a special purpose to make inter alia special chairs or thrones with ivory inlays. Heimpel (1993: 54) describes it as ‘Meerholz’ which indicates the usage as boat building material, but its Akkadian equivalent is even more well known kushabku.” The Meluhhan bronzes. Since the Uruk III period upto the Gudea period the acquiring of bronzes from the three places Dilmun, Magan en Meluhha was well documented, however during the Ur III period only one reference was found which connects the bronze (uruda) with the Meluhhan village: 6 ma-na uruda me-luh-ha. The Meluhhan village of Guabba. According to the electronic UR III databases there are more than four hundred references in texts mentioning the place name Gu-ab-ba and the texts mostly originate from Girsu/Lagash. Several features immediately come forward when you retrieve these texts, but we will only outline some of these features in order to find the common business of the area concerned…MVN 7 420 = ITT 4 8024…the Meluhhan village often referred to is now connected to the well-known place/village of Gu-ab-ba which is also mentioned twice in this text. It is also linked with a person called Ur-Lamma who has often been mentioned in several other Ur III texts and seals as a Meluhhan (dumu me-luh-ha)...Currently, all 44 texts have been published and are available electronically referring to Meluhha as a place or as a qualifier (a so-called ‘adjective’). On the other hand the place Gu-ab-ba is to be found several hundred times in the Sargonic and Ur III texts…Guabba continued with Meluhha temples…these temples, especially the one of Ninmar, have also been associated with the place of Guabba in earlier periods. One oyal inscription during the time of Ur-Bau in Lagash II dates the year according to the building of temple of Ninmar in Guabba: mu e-nin-mar –ka gu-ab-ba –ka ba-du-a ‘year in which the temple of Ninmar in Guabba was built’ (AO 3355)…In a Sumerian temple hymn (TH 23) Guabba is twice mentioned in connection with the temple of Ninmar…Guabba as a Meluhhan textile hub. .. During the UR III period Guabba provides the largest group of people from Girsu working in the weaving sector, mainly women and children. In one text 4272 women and 1800 children from Guabba are listed as being in the weaving industry (cf. Waetzoldt 1972-94)…if Guabba was indeed a Meluhhan village then one could speculate that this group could have been ancestors of a distant group which diffused into this area, bringing their skills of textiles into the region or being used as cheap labour…Ur-Lamma the Meluhhan of Guabba. Although the name Ur-Lamma occurs several hundred times in the UR III texts, it seems that several persons carried the name Ur-Lamma, because there are often references to the names of their fathers or sons, thus several could be distinguished. However, Ur-Lamma the Meluhhan occurs in a few texts and in seals, but Meluhha occurs only once as a personal name from Guabba…According to the references in texts the personal name Ur-Lamma occurs at least twice in seals from texts, namely Kishib Ur-Lamma dumu me-luh-ha (OBTR 242 = JESHO 20, 135 02)(SH 40)(2x in text) in a financial ‘balanced account’ (nig-kas-ak) and Kishib Ur-Lamma dumu me-luh-ha (UDT 64=CBCY 3, NBC 64). Guabba as a Meluhhan seaport. Guabba has been interpreted as a harbor town under the jurisdiction of Girsu/Lagas due to the literal meaning of the reading gu-ab-ba which did not include the determinative KI for the place name in text SRT 49 II 4, thus gu-ab-ba (‘sea-shore’) instead of the normal gu-ab-ba…Since pre-Sargonic and Sargonic times, references to ‘large boats’ hint at a trading colony which initially had direct contact with their distant ancestors. The following literary document (Lamentation of Sumer and Ur. Michalowski 1989) confirms the previous status: Line 168-169: nin-mar –ra esh gu-ab-ba-ka izi im-ma-da-an-te ku za-gin-bi ma-gal-gal-la bala-she i-ak-e (‘Fire approached Ninmarki in the shrine Guabba (and) large boats were transporting precious metals and gem stones’…one might be able to say that Guabba is a Meluhhan village in southern Mesopotamia…(pp. 556-568) Excerpts from: http://www.scribd.com/doc/21340164/Guabbasemit-v17-n2-a12 Meluhhan (mleccha) speakers were all over India, and also established villages close to Guabba, seaport (not far from Tigris-Euphrates): “In order to form a comprehensive view of the Meluhhan remnants (in Mesopotamia) a variety of texts could be consulted, although they display a picture of a people that have been integrated into the Sumerian and Babylonian cultures much earlier than the Ur III period. ” [i.e., earlier than (2112-2004 BC)] (cf. PS Vermaak, 2008, Guabba, the Meluhhan village in Mesopotamia, Journal of Semitics, 17/2, pp. 553-570). It should be possible to identify mleccha (meluhha) substratum words in Sumerian/Akkadian. One substrate word is sanga 'priest' (Akkadian); cognate with sanghvi 'priest accompanying pilgrims' (Gujarati). Kalyanaraman 21 Oct. 2009 kalyan97@gmail.com http://sites.google.com/site/kalyan97/mlecchitavikalpa
|
Seafaring Meluhhan |
