Feeding the Travellers. On Early Dynastic travel, travel networks, and travel provisions in the frame of Third Millennium Mesopotamia. HANE / M XVI 2014

HANE / M – Vol. XIV ——————————————————————

History of the Ancient Near East / Monographs Editor-in-Chief: Frederick Mario Fales Editor: Giovanni-Battista Lanfranchi

——————————————————————

ISBN 978-88-95672-11-3

A publication grant from the Italian Ministry for University and Research (M.I.U.R.)

is acknowledged for this volume

© S.A.R.G.O.N. Editrice e Libreria Via Induno 18B, I-35134 Padova

[email protected] Prima edizione: Padova, marzo 2014

Proprietà letteraria riservata

Distribuzione / Distributed by: CASALINI Libri S.p.a., Via B. da Maiano 3, I-50014,

Fiesole – Firenze http://www.casalini.it

Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake, Indiana 46590-0275 USA http://www.eisenbrauns.com

Stampa a cura di / Printed by:

Centro Copia Stecchini – Via S. Sofia 58 – I-35121, Padova

http://www.casalini.it/

History of the Ancient Near East / Monographs – XIV ——————————————————————

PALEONUTRITION AND FOOD PRACTICES

IN THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST

TOWARDS A MULTIDISCIPLINARY APPROACH

Edited by LUCIO MILANO

in cooperation with Francesca Bertoldi

—————————————————————— S.A.R.G.O.N. Editrice e Libreria

Padova 2014

TABLE OF CONTENTS

vii LUCIO MILANO, Introduction

Approaching Food from a Bio-archaeological Perspective

1 GEORGE WILLCOX, Food in the Early Neolithic of the Near East 11 THEYA MOLLESON, Food Processing at Abu Hureyra 25 MICHAEL SCHULTZ, THIEDE H. SCHMIDT-SCHULTZ, The Role of Anaemia, Scurvy and Rickets in

Bronze Age Populations 43 HOLGER SCHUTKOWSKI, MICHAEL P. RICHARDS, Middle Bronze Age Subsistence at Sidon,

Lebanon 53 ARKADIUSZ SOŁTYSIAK, Temporal Changes in the Frequency of Dental Caries in the Khabour

Basin (North-eastern Syria)

Case Studies

Mersin-Yumuktepe 71 ISABELLA CANEVA, The Context of the Origins of Domestication at Mersin (Turkey) 85 GIROLAMO FIORENTINO, MILENA PRIMAVERA, VALENTINA CARACUTA, Archaeological

Investigations at Mersin-Yumuktepe: Food Habits from Neolithic to Medieval Ages 95 CLAUDIA MINNITI, The Role of Animals in the Economy of South-Eastern Anatolia: Food and

Commensalism at Mersin-Yumuktepe 109 GIANNI SIRACUSANO Subsistence Economy in Southern Anatolia and in the Upper Euphrates

Area

Tell Beydar / Nabada 121 ELENA ROVA, Centralized Bread Production at Tell Beydar and Other Sites: Some Preliminary

Remarks 171 LUCA MARIGLIANO, Plastered Basins for Food Processing? Some Examples from Upper

Mesopotamia 187 BEA DE CUPERE, Animals at Tell Beydar 215 FRANCESCA BERTOLDI, EMILIANO CARNIERI, FULVIO BARTOLI, LUCIO MILANO, Paleonutritio-

nal Evidence from Tell Beydar: the Human Sample and the Historical Sources

Tell Mishrife / Qatna 237 DANIELE MORANDI BONACOSSI, Early Bronze Age Storage Techniques at Mishrifeh, Central-

Western Syria 253 ALESSANDRO CANCI, FULVIO BARTOLI, Reconstruction of Health Status and Dietary Habits of

Human Remains from Tell Mishrife/Qatna, Syria

Food for Travelling: Investigating Travel Provisions in the Ancient Near East

261 GEBHARD SELZ, Travel, Travel Provisions and Food Transportation in the Early Dynastic Period

281 LUCIO MILANO, Eating on the Road: Travel Provisions in the Ebla Archives 297 FRANCESCO POMPONIO, Were Messengers Eating Better Food at Urusagrig? 309 CÉCILE MICHEL, Eating on the Way in Upper Mesopotamia and Anatolia at the Beginning of the

Second Millennium BC 327 PAOLA CORÒ, Travel Provisions in Neo- and Late Babylonian Period: ṣidit ilānī and ṣidit ṣābim

Food Economy, Technology and Symbolism

339 HAGAN BRUNKE, On the Role of Fruit and Vegetables as Food in the Ur III Period 353 BIANCA MARIA ZONTA, Food and Death at the Ur Royal Cemetery 375 NICOLETTA BELLOTTO, Names Indicating Bread in the Ritual Texts from Emar 385 SIMONETTA PONCHIA, Institutional Roles and Professions in the Management of Food

Resources in the Neo-Assyrian Empire 413 FREDERICK MARIO FALES, MONICA RIGO, Food Practices in the Assyrian Military Camps

FEEDING THE TRAVELLERS ON EARLY DYNASTIC TRAVEL, TRAVEL NETWORKS AND TRAVEL PROVISIONS

IN THE FRAME OF THIRD MILLENNIUM MESOPOTAMIA 1

Gebhard J. Selz

1. When dealing with the topic of “Early Dynastic travel in Mesopotamia” one has to concentrate on “official travelling”, which is rather well documented. The evaluation of these sources is, however, hampered by the fact that they are fragmentary and scattered. Substantial “joins” which provide infor-mation on travelling, as in the case of the Early Dynastic (ED) Votive Plaque from the Sîn temple in @afaΠi (used for this conference’s poster) are exceptional (Fig. 1). Concerning the textual evidence of the ED period we have nothing, either in formula or in volume, that can be compared to the large and famous body of Ur III messenger texts.2 Therefore it is nearly impossible to picture this sort of travel-ling without resorting to conjecture.

1.1. All sorts of travelling under review here involved the movement of goods and had to be provi-sioned. As expected, the individual or lone traveller has hardly left any traces in the historical record (Fig. 2). On the other side, we can safely include the primarily “religious” journeys, such as were un-dertaken on the occasion of various festivals, often on a supra-regional scale. Depictions on artefacts, such as on the ED Votive Plaques, show that there the movement of large amounts of goods was in-volved, a phenomenon which can be traced back to the thanksgiving procession shown on the Uruk Vase.3 Over shorter distances goods were certainly moved by porters and pack animals, for longer dis-tances and with bigger consignments carts, boats and ships were in use, much in accordance with the geomorphologic requirements of the southern Mesopotamian alluvial plain. All this is well attested on artefacts and in written sources (Figs. 3, 4). The fact that the depictions at first glance are seemingly not concerned with the more mundane commercial aspects of travelling does little to diminish their value for the realistic reconstruction of travel procedures.

1.2. Travels always served several purposes, be they religious, political or primarily economical; a clear distinction is not always easy to make and is often not possible. We may differentiate between lo-

1 Revised paper delivered on the occasion of the workshop “Metodi e prospettive nello studio dell’alimen-tazione nel Vicino Oriente antico / Methods and perspectives applied to the study of food practices in the Ancient Near East”, Venezia, 15-17 June 2006. Corrections of the English were kindly made by Dr. Heather Baker.

2 Cf. Sallaberger’s 1999, 295-315 concise treatment of the “Botentexte” (messenger texts): he states that in the Κirsu archives the messenger texts probably form the most extensive group! Systematic, in-depth research into these texts, however, remains to be done (cf. Sallaberger ibid.); the study of McNeil 1970 is outdated.

3 Cf. Selz 1996.

262 Gebhard J. Selz

cal, regional, and supra-regional or “international” travels, but again, such distinctions are not without problems. One reason for this is our still limited understanding and often questionable reconstruction of the political situation in ED times. Thus, for instance, we usually subsume the younger ED periods under the heading of a “time of feuding city states”. We observe, however, a number of more or less stable coalitions between different cities; they show clear supra-regional characteristics, though the discussion over the role or shape of these polities has not yet ended. Sometimes even the mere exis-tence of such supra-regional political structures in early Mesopotamia, especially in the so-called “Sumerian” south, is disputed. Until now, little attention has been paid to the fact that — as far as we can deduce from our documentation — these “city states” generally encompassed several cities and sometimes had a size comparable to the principalities or duchies, the Fürsten- or Herzogtümer, the principati or ducati, which for long a time played such a prominent role in European history. An im-portant source for these supra-regional structures are, apart from the earlier (chiefly archaeological) sources for the alleged Uruk-colonisation, the so-called “cities’ sealings”, which we will briefly review in the following paragraph.4

2. The following is an attempt to put the much discussed cities’ sealings in the context of travelling, starting from the suggestions of R.J. Matthews in his exhaustive and seminal study of these sealings from 1993. Based on his observations and the ensuing discussions of several scholars 5 I will, in the first part, briefly elaborate on the following hypotheses: the cities’ sealings as the early attestation of groups of cities prove the existence of corporations of foreigners in major cities of the south. Texts with these sealings — whatever their precise significance may be — compare with Fāra-texts mention-ing “working” personnel from various cities. The uru-kas4 or eri-kas4, “trading quarter”, of some of these Fāra-texts relate to well-known earlier and later situations; in the light of the younger terms for trading or travelling posts, é-kas4 and kārum, some of these late ED texts should be interpreted as fore-runners of the later “messenger texts”. The “trading quarters” always encompassed not only seamen and travelling merchants or craftsmen, but also large groups of militiamen. There a possible connec-tion between such trading posts and the ED foundation of a locality called UNKEN/UKKINki; this UΚKIΚ(UNKEN)ki, in turn, may have served as a functional model for the Old Akkadian POW’s camp for forced workers at Sabum.

2.1. The cities’ sealings and the early attestation of groups of cities attest to the existence of corpo-rations of foreigners in major cities of the south. In his discussion of these sealings in 1993 R. Matthews observed that neither in Uruk nor in Ğamdat Na#r does the style or the motifs of the attested seal impressions correspond to the actual seals found at these sites.6 This is concordant with the well-known formal variation of a more naturalistic versus a more schematic and formalistic design. Such dichotomies were observed not only for Southern Mesopotamia but also for most of the contemporary Iranian findings, changing only in the proto-Elamite period to a uniformity of seals and seal impres-sion.7 The hypothetical explanations for this remarkable fact proposed so far (Nissen, Collon, Pollock) are not very convincing.8 For the situation in ĞN Matthews, following Le Breton, discussed an as-

4 As far as I can see it is only Michalowski 1993 who questions the reconstruction of socio-political institu-tions related to theses cities’ sealings.

5 Selz 1998a, 306, 309; Yoffee 2002; Steinkeller 2002. I do not review here the article of Michalowski 1993 who denies that these sealings had any political significance.

6 Matthews 1993, 17. 7 What is clear, however, is the fact that the dichotomies widespread in the Late Uruk Period continued

during the ĞN-period only in southern Mesopotamia, leading some scholars to assume an exclusion of southern Mesopotamia “from widespread contacts during the Jemdat Nasr and early ED periods [which] must surely re-late to shifting control over trade routes” (Matthews 1993, 19; see also Dittmann 1986).

8 See the brief overview of Matthews 1993, 17-18.

Feeding the Travellers 263

sumption that the actual seals found were rather used as amulets, whereas those used for sealings were made of perishable materials, an idea which, however, he was not able to support by a closer examina-tion of the extant seal impressions.9 However, another hypothesis may be worth discussing: seal and sealings could have originated from different localities. The sealings then would actually have been found in such places to which the sealed vessels or containers were brought.10 Such a hypothesis of course does cannot apply to door sealings and not necessarily to sealed tablets. However, we should note that, following Matthews, the sealing on a tablet was made prior to the writing, whenever the se-quence could be determined.11 This certainly needs an explanation as well: if these sealings have, with Matthews, a function as a kind of “letter heading”, then these documents should be connected with the issuing and/or dispatching office, rather than with the addressee.12 The tablets then might have indeed accompanied the distributed goods, a function which is comparable to some of the later “labels” or “tags”. Another possibility is that the sealing was made by the recipient of the goods and the sealed tablet then remained for documentation with the issuing party, as Englund and Steinkeller have re-cently argued. Steinkeller explicitly states that it is “highly likely the documents considered here are receipts”.13 Indeed this reconstruction leads to the assumption that the bearer of the seal lived some-where outside of the city proper. This would tie in nicely with the observation mentioned above that excavations in these cities have not so far yielded any of these original seals. However, the difficulty remains that some of the city sealings actually were used for securing containers and especially doors (Fig. 4). In this case another explanation is needed.14

2.1.1. Further, it not possible to differentiate formally between the sealings found on door pegs15 and the container or vessel sealings. The evidence does not support any stylistic or iconological distin-ction between these groups.16 Here we add a composite reconstruction of the Ğamdat Na#r (ĞN) city seal impression (Fig. 5, as established by Matthews 1993, 37) which is found on some door pegs and was also used for the sealing of containers [For a corrected reading of the cities’ names see Fig. 6].

2.1.2. Most interesting in our context are the cities’ sealing impressions on the reverse of some of these ĞN-tablets; as an example we may look at the transcription of tablet MSVO 1, 163 (from En-glund 1991,70):17

9 Matthews 1993, 18. 10 However, concerning the Ur city sealings, predominantly door sealings, Matthews 1993, 44 stated: “The

conclusion must be that the great majority of the Ur city sealing were impressed by seals at the site of Ur itself, rather than arriving at the site in the form of clay sealings attached to portable containers”.

11 Matthews 1993, 25. 12 As opposed to Englund 1991, 9 (“receiving agent”). 13 Steinkeller 2002, 255. 14 Matthews 1993, 26-27 hypothesized on a possible shift in the use of sealing, its function being reduced to

guaranteeing and witnessing “as written language developed to satisfy the needs of an increasingly complex ad-ministration”. As there is no easy solution for the problem outlined above, I would like to refer the reader to an-other strange example of seal usage. AT 1 is an Old Sumerian tablet with an envelope and it is sealed; there is nothing comparable from that period. The tablet lists fish deliveries (mu-DU) for the “malt-eating festival of (the goddess) Nanše”. Did the fishermen send the tablet along with their deliveries for an eventual control of the goods by the institution, or did the institution issue this tablet to them as proof that the fishermen had “paid” their duties?

15 Note, however, Matthews' statement: “Around the turn of the fourth to third millennia B.C., there appears to be a clear evolution in sealing practice from sealing tablets to sealing store-rooms and commodities” (Matthews 1993, 26); this may point to a substantial change in the function of sealing, much similar to the re-appearance of sealed tablets in Ur III, when sealings were used for guaranteeing and witnessing.

16 Matthews 1993. 17 In ĞN the highest percentage of sealings appeared on tablets “concerning distribution of specific types of

264 Gebhard J. Selz

O0101 1N1 ; MA O0201 NIa+RU O0102 4N1 ; {@A&@UR} O0202 3N57+ MU&3a O0103 {2N1} ; [ ] ; [MA] {ZATU735b} O0203 UNUGa O0104 1N1 ; {GA2a1+GE&TUc5} O0105 1N1 ; UKKINb+DIN

The text lists various amounts of figs, apples or apricots, strings of figs,18 a fish product (addaku"a?),19 and a vessel with grape products. Other texts seem to add garments(?)20 etc. From the content of these texts Matthews drew the following conclusion: “Given the generally small quantities of commodities attested in these texts it is likely that they, and their seal impressions, concern transactions that tran-scend the purely economic sphere”.21 However, this is not necessarily true. We note that in the sub-script of these text we have (a few) attestations for two transactions: two tablets are labelled ba, “distribution, gift”, and another two as gu7, “consumption”. A possible interpretation of the subscript of MSVO 1, 163 and related texts (MSVO 1, 161, 166-170, 174, 176, 178, 180 and MSVO 4, 15 from Tell Uqair)22 is that these commodities come from NIa.RU (most certainly a writing of the ancient name of Ğamdat Na#r) for the “three Inana-k (-sanctuaries) (of) Uruk”.23 Given the find-spot of these texts, the assumption that they were actually intended to accompany the sending of these items be-comes extremely improbable. They seem rather to be receipts for the internal register of the dispatch-ing institution. Concerning the use of the same seal for sealing doors,24 that can only be explained by the assumption that those people who acknowledge their reception of goods in these tablets also had the use of storage rooms within the city of Ğamdat Na#r itself. It is clear that a “cities’ office” in ĞN was involved in the transactions. Therefore it seems not too far-fetched to compare our texts to the later “messenger texts”.

2.1.3. The previous discussion leads to the following results: 1) the bearer of door peg seal of the cities’ sealings either belonged to the local administration of the excavated city or had access to certain storages facilities therein; 2) container and vessel sealings indicate that the seal and its bearer lived in another area, perhaps at the fringe of the city or even outside; 3) the observation that the sealed tablets were sealed prior to the writing raises doubts on the otherwise rather convincing Englund _ Steinkeller hypothesis: why one would sign (seal) a receipt before the document was written out? It cannot be ex-cluded therefore that the sealed tablets actually accompanied the commodities mentioned in the text.

2.2. Similar cities’ sealings are also attested in Uruk and Ur and the texts bearing such sealings — whatever their precise function may be — could be compared with some Fāra-texts mentioning di-verse personnel from various cities (see below). In this case there can be little doubt that the evidence points to an interpretation of these cities’ names as forming a cooperation, if not an institutionalised

goods, including dried fruit” (86%; of MSVO 1, 161_181, 18 tablets are sealed; cf. Matthews 1993, 29). 13 of these tablets bear the same seal inscription, the city seal nr. 64, others a differing type of the city seal; for these tablets see also Englund 1991, 32.

18 Cf. Steinkeller 2002, 253 fn. 16. 19 For GÁ+“GEŠTUG” designating perhaps a fish product with the possible reading addaku"a see Stein-

keller 2002, 253 fn. 16. 20 See Matthews1993, 36 for fruit and textile distributions; note MSVO 1, 160 which in writing connects

MA and @AŠHUR on the one hand and [MA] ZATU735b and GA2a1+GEŠTUc5 on the other. 21 Matthews 1993, 29. 22 These are the sealed tablets to which MSVO 1, 162, 164, 165, and 171 should be added; see Steinkeller

2002, 253. 23 Steinkeller 2002, 253: “triple Inanna/deity of Uruk”; see further the discussion of Matthews 1993, 37-38. 24 Note, that from roughly 124 Ur cities’ sealings, 69% are door sealings; cf. Matthews 1999, 44.


body, which encompassed several cities. This offers a possible explanation for the attestation of the names of various cities in the cities’ sealings: they may refer to a similar institution. It seems reason-able to assume that such institutions were somehow localized and having “offices” in major cities, such as ĞN and Uruk, and Ur, and probably others as well. They certainly were occupied with all sorts of travel and perhaps trade; one of their tasks was, one might suggest, also the feeding of the resident travellers.

2.2.1. Leaving aside for now the much discussed relation of these groups of cities with the earlier geographical list from Uruk, we may consider next the few “messenger texts” from Fāra. By using this term, proposed by Visicato and Pomponio 1994, 206, we imply of course that a comparison with the amply documented “messenger texts” from later periods is indeed possible. For the two texts NTSŠ 140 and TSŠ 135 the authors favour an interpretation according to which the listed foodstuffs were distributed to messengers arriving in Šuruppak (e.g. from Elam(?), Kiš, and Umma); they further com-pare this small group of texts to the so-called si-NU×U 25-texts.26 These texts do indeed mention sailors and seamen and other people who come and go to the various cities. However, the precise meaning of this corpus of si-NU×U-texts is not yet established.

2.2.2. Much better known and often discussed is another class of texts first dealt with by T. Jacob-sen in his ground breaking article on “Early Political development in Mesopotamia” of 1957. He al-ready interpreted these so-called “conscription lists from Fāra” as a clue for supra-regional political bodies, termed by him as “The Ki’engi League”. A summary treatment of the relevant texts, including the observations of Pomponio and Visicato 1994, 10-20; Visicato 1995, 63-88; and Steible 1993 was attempted by Selz in 1998a, 307-311. We add here the observation that four of the relevant texts come from the Fāra excavation spots in plan XVII c, d;27 these are apparently located not far from the an-cient river-bed. The textual evidence attests to groups of working / military personnel, usually in groups of sixty persons with one overseer, from the cities of Uruk, Nippur, Adab. Lagaš, and also Umma.28 These cities, together with Šuruppak, formed the so-called “Hexapolis” summarized under the heading ki-en-gi which later became the name for the region (“Sumer”). Originally it designated perhaps some kind of central locality 29 managing various tasks of this league. Thus it can be compared to the similar locality named UNKEN/UKKINki; see below.

2.3. A number of the Fāra “personnel-texts” mention in the subscript either uru-DU or uru-kas4.30 I suggest that the uru-DU/kas4, which I would render as “trading quarter”, was actually the (temporary) home of these personnel. In the light of the younger terms for trading or travelling posts, kārum or é-kas4, “trading/travelling post”, the first groups of the above mentioned Fāra-texts can be understood as forerunners to the later messenger texts. In the text Š 935 a number of highly specialised workers from Fāra itself also occurs, such as carpenters, blacksmiths, or leather-workers.31 Of special significance to our topic are some texts which, in their subscript, contain the rubric lú-má uru-kas4 or lú má uru-DU,

25 It is not yet certain what this term designates; perhaps a “fibre plant” or a “plant fibre” (Bauer 1998, 544. 548) specifically used for fishing purposes (Krebernik 1998, 307 fn. 716), rather than a “fishery product” (En-glund 1998, 140 fn. 312).

26 For these texts see Pomponio _ Visicato 1994, 22-23; Krebernik 1999, 307, 311. 27 Martin 1988, 88; Visicato 1995, 65. 28 Note that Š 243, which also mentions foreign workers, seems to include someone from Kiš, and eventu-

ally Eden. 29 Cf. Krebernik 1999, 242, 312. 30 See the list of the personnel summed up as uru-DU/kas4 (and opposed to the nu-su personnel) in Pom-

ponio _ Visicato 1994, 54-55; see also Steible 1993. The uru-DU/kas4-personnel belong to the cities Adab, Ku-laba, Lagaš, Nippur, Umma, and Uruk, and are often attested in conjunction with sailors.

31 See Steible and Yıldız 1993; Visicato 1995, 64-65, 68-69.

266 Gebhard J. Selz

“the seamen /sailor (of) uru-kas4/DU”.32 In 1993 Steible proposed for the term uru-KAS4/DU the in-terpretation “city of the runners”, “Stadt (der) Laufenden (Läufer, Unterwegsbefindlichen)”, a term that refers to a city quarter with a population of “foreign” origin.33 He did not observe, however, the similarity to the Neo-Sumerian é-kas4,34 which, at least from a philological point of view, is a very close parallel. It is noteworthy that the uru-KAS4, “trading quarters”, encompassed not only seamen and travelling merchants or craftsmen, but also large groups of militiamen: a situation reminiscent of the evidence of the Old Akkadian Sabum which I will discuss below. As for its function and size, it is nevertheless very likely that the uru-kas4 was remarkably bigger and larger than the later é-KAS4 which Sallaberger translated as “Travelling Post” (“Reisestation”).

2.4. Therefore the purpose of the uru-KAS4 tablets, as well as the Fāra messenger-texts, could, I propose, be somehow similar to that of the much smaller Ur III messenger texts, which are “daily re-ceipts for the expenditures of an institution providing for the needs of people by-passing on their journeys”.35 The huge size of the uru-KAS4 tablets, however, suggests that we are dealing with bigger settlements, perhaps a whole city quarter, situated apparently in the harbour area.36 I have not the place here to discuss this further, therefore I can only suggest that this interpretation may also shed light on the discussion of the alleged “city” UNKEN/UKKINki. Texts referring to this toponym mention huge parcels of land which are connected with the names of the cities Lagaš, Umma, and Adab. These texts were understood by G. Pettinato as documenting “la fondazione della città UNKEN.KI”.37 Already Pomponio and Visicato 1994, 13, modified his assumption, stating that “it is not possible that the dis-trict of Unken was constituted by the territories of three distinct states (e.g. Lagaš, Umma, and Adab)”. We should also note the possibility that UNKEN/UKKINki was not a single autonym; that UNKEN/ UKKINki in the “Atlante Geografico” does really refer to this “Fāra” locality is rather doubtful.38 I suggest that the “Fāra” term refers to a locality situated perhaps on the north-eastern fringe of Sumer proper, and that the names of the cities Lagaš, Umma, and Adab are more or less a shorthand for the people from these cities living there and to whom — in the case of TSŠ 242 — the respective areas were assigned to as a kind of prebend, compensating thus for the tasks they had to fulfil in the militia’s service. If this assumption proves to be correct, then in a general way all the discussed cities’ “corpora-tions” can be understood as a late example of the much earlier Uruk “colonies”,39 or, to a certain de-gree, as forerunners to the workers’ camp of Sabum in Old Akkadian times.

3. A few generations younger than the just discussed Fāra texts, is an inscription of En-me-te-na documenting the “release” of draft workers from Lagaš, Uruk, Larsam, and Badtibira who were previ-ously engaged in a temple building in Badtibira, situated on the boundary of the Lagaš territory. In this inscription the ruler En-metena claims to have established their “freedom”, their manumission from

32 See Pomponio _ Visicato 1994, 125-131 with WF 67-69. 33 Steible 1993, 20; this seems altogether more convincing than Jacobsen’s 1957 or Pomponio’s _ Visicato’s

1994, 53 interpretation as “having come into the city” or the like. 34 So far I found just one attestation of an ED é-kas4 in OIP 104, 32 11, a field sale document from Adab. 35 Sallaberger 1999, 297. The smaller messenger texts are daily receipts for food expenditures of an institu-

tion for various transient persons. 36 Cf. above 2.2.2. with fn. 26; cf. also Starzmann 2006, Karte 3 (new excavation map). 37 See Pettinato 1977; Pomponio _ Visicato 1994, 13; and Selz 1998a, 307-308 with fn. 127. 38 See Selz 1998a, 308 with fn. 129. 39 It is tempting to compare this situation with the evidence of the Uruk period, many centuries earlier. The

Uruk implanted settlements, usually called “Uruk colonies”, “seem to have been placed on the major trade and communications routes leading across Syria and Northern Mesopotamia up towards the main source of copper, lumber, and semi-precious stones in the Taurus mountains of Eastern Anatolia and the Zagros highlands of Iran (Stein 1999, 93). At least in some of the attestations, such colonies appeared to have “the form of trade quarters in a larger local settlement” (Stein 1993, 113).


forced labour.40 Similar names of cities also occur in the texts BIN 8, 67 and 68 of uncertain prove-nance. Already G. Hackman in 1957 41 understood these texts as early examples of “messenger texts”. The texts pre-date the reigns of Uru-inim-gina (IRI-KA-gina) and Lugalzagesi, although they are certainly not from Lagaš itself. The texts list various amounts of foodstuff for different recipients, pre-dominantly city-names: in BIN 8, 67 the sequence of the recipient cities of varying amounts beer and one or two types of bread is the following: Mar(a)da _ Arawa (URU×A) _ Isin _ Nippur _ (…) Umma _ (…) _ Isin _ Ereš _ (…) – Kulaba _ (…), followed by an addition and the subscript u4-20 + 2c. From BIN 8, 68 we can add SA@AR(?).KU.MEki, Ešnuna-k, Šuruppak, and Elam. Here the date given at the end of the list is u4-10 + 5c.

3.1. In considering all the hitherto discussed textual evidence for provisions connected with travel-ling people or travelling posts, we have repeatedly noted allusions to the naval sphere. As it is gener-ally assumed that canals linked (most of) the cities mentioned so far, it comes as no surprise that sea-farers, sailors, and merchants are often mentioned in these texts. It might be useful to summarize the groups of city names discussed so far, which all seem connected to supra-regional travel of some sort.

1. Cities in the cities’ sealings from Ğamdat Nasr Urúm BU+BU+NÁ (=Arinax) ?? Erešx (??) Zabalam5 Kèš Unugx(???) Nibru(???) Larsam Uri5 // Kutha(?)/Kiš (?)

2. Cities’ in city sealings from Uruk Nippur (?) Larsam Uruk Kiš

3. Cities in cities’ sealings from Ur Ur Nippur Larsam Uruk Keš _ Adab Eridu UB (=Umma(?) (Úr) Edin

4. Cities in a school tablet from AbS-T 188 [Uruk(?)] Adab Nippur Lagaš _ Šuruppak _ Umma

5. Cities in Fara ration-lists from Fara Nippur Adab Kulaba Uruk Lagaš

6. Conscription list from Fara Uruk-Adab Nippur Lagaš Šuruppak Umma

7. Ration List BIN 8, 67 Mar(a)da URU×A Isin Nippur Umma Ereš _ Kulaba

8. Release of drafted personnel in En-metena inscription Lagaš _ Uruk Larsam Badtibira

Table 1. List of groups of cities in ED documents and proposed identifications. 3.2. Travelling is often connected with trade. Indeed some of those cities 42 were included in the exten-sive trading network attested in the Old Sumerian documents from Lagaš (see chart). Of special inter-est here is the case of Elam, documenting apparently peaceful trade relations only a few years after the hostile intrusion of some 600 Elamites plundering in the region of Lagaš.43 Lagaš imported spices and essences, huge amounts of soda (plants), wooden objects, as well as wool(!) and breeding animals(!) and even slaves.44 Evidently a situation of bitter hostilities could switch to rather peaceful trading con-ditions in a very short time. Warfare and trade alike must have motivated “travelling”. A brief over-view of the Old Sumerian trading network from Lagaš demonstrates the scale such trading journeys must have involved.

40 See Ent. 79; cf. also Ukg. 1, 7:1¥-5¥. 41 Cf. BIN 8, p. 59. 42 For the rather unlikely occurrence of Nippur see the discussion in Steinkeller 2002, 254-255 fn. 29. 43 Cf. Selz 1991, 36-37; Bauer 1998, 473-475. 44 Selz 1991, 37-39.

268 Gebhard J. Selz

Region Goods Remarks Date Text

Adab wooden objects from the wife of the prince of A. to Ba-ranamtara [Lug. x] Nik 282

Adab animals, wooden objects “bought” 45 for copper and tin

from Ninizkimti wife of the prince of A. to Baranamtara Lug. 3 RTC 19

Der Silver to 2 merchants for the pur-chase of a she-ass balanced account Lug 1 DP 516

Der purchase of donkeys from D. payment unknown Lug. 2 DP 239 Der purchase of donkeys from D. payment unknown (Lug.) 6 AWAB 155

Der sale of essences and slaves for silver balanced account nam-ga"eš-šim / nam-ga"eš-saΛ-Λá Ukg. 1 DP 513

Dilmun import of copper for grain and per-fume —— En. 1 RTC 26

Dilmun import of copper payment unknown Lug 1 Fö 30 Dilmun import of copper payment unknown Lug. 1 Fö 194

Dilmun export of grain and essences trade goods and “gifts” purchase unknown Lug. 5 Fö 38

Dilmun export of wool for silver ga"eš Lug. 6 DP 518 Elam import of wooden objects etc. —— _ 1 DP 423 Elam import of wool for barley —— Lug. 1 Nik 85 Elam purchase of animals —— Lug. 4 Nik 214

Elam purchase of items [not preserved] for silver —— Lug. 4 Nik 292

Elam import of essences, linen cloth and a vessel nam-ga-eš8-aka-má-elam-ka-kam _ 5 RTC 21

Elam import of wooden objects etc. —— Lug. 7 DP 486

Elam import of essences and a vessel as gift —— Ukg. L (?) RTC 20

Elam unclear exchange of several items port of trade: Gu"aba _ Nik 313 Elam metal trade and others —— _ Nik 310

Nippur export of fish purchase unknown dam-gàra (?) 1 AWAB 48

Nippur export of fish purchase unknown dam-gàra (?) 5 DP 332

Nippur export of fish offerings for deities Ukg. L 2 AWAS 66 Umma export of copper for silver —— Lug. 6 RTC 25 Uru"aza purchase of slaves for silver related to Fö 141 and 144? Lug. 6 Nik 293 Uru"aza distribution of slaves from Uru"aza implicit evidence; cf. Nik 293 Ukg. L 4 DP 339 Uruk purchase of a bull payment unknown Lug. 6 Fö 145 Uruk purchase of cows payment unknown Lug. 6 Fö 55

Table 2. The inter-regional trade connections of Κirsu.46

3.2.1. Thus, there is no doubt that the state of Lagaš was, in the Old Sumerian period, incorporated into a rather large trading network.47 This trade was undertaken by various “merchants”48 or better the “agents of commerce” on behalf of the “state”. We have so far no indication of privately motivated ex-

45 Ninizkimti “paid” to the Lagaš merchant a “perfect” dress; the Adab merchant likewise received clothes from Baranamtara, RTC 19.

46 These texts were originally studied by Lambert in his two 1953 articles. 47 Most certainly there is a correlation between the breakdown of this network towards the end of Uru-inim-

gina's (Iri-KA-gina’s) reign and this ruler’s ultimate defeat by Lugalzagesi. 48 Cf. the study of Lambert 1981.


change during this period. Exchange was not only made by barter: the evidence shows that copper and silver had begun to play the role of a general “medium of exchange”. Especially in long distance trade this had of course great economic advantages. In the state of Lagaš the city Gu"aba in the southern re-gion certainly played the role of a “port of trade” for this exchange. For the transportation of goods waterways played a prominent role, especially over greater distances. So far we have not been able to identify for Lagaš a locality comparable to the uru-kas4 of Fāra. However, there are a few texts 49 which attest to provisions for a sea-faring merchant (lú-u5)50 from the Elamite city Uruaza, either as provisions during his stay in Lagaš or for his travel back to Elam. According to these texts he received flour, various breads (porridge(?)), bee and, interestingly, a kind of carp(?).51

Sea-travel to Elam (Uru"aza): Nik I, 140 Text: Hermitage, St. Petersburg 14140 (Lichačev 296) Edition: Y. Rosengarten CSC 198; G. Selz FAOS 15/1 Date: Lug. 2/10 R.1 1. 2 ninda-bar-si 2 breads of fine emmer flour, 10 SUR 10 half-loads of bread, 5 ninda-silà 5 liter “mash” 1 zà a-dar-túnku6 1 platter (?) of …-carps 5. lú-im-dub-ba-kam is for the … R.2 1. 5 ninda-bar-si 5 breads of fine emmer flour, 2. 20 ninda-dúr-durú-na 20 baked breads, 3, 10 SUR 10 half-loafs of bread, 4. 5 ninda-silà 5 liter “mash”, 5. 1 dug kas 1 jar of beer, 6. 3 za a-dar-túnku6 3 platters (?) of …-carps R.3 1. lú-u5- (is) for the captain (?) 2. uru-azki from Uru"az(a); 3. 2 ninda-bar-si 2 breads of fine emmer flour, 4. 5 ninda-dúr-durú-na 5 baked breads, 5. 5 didli-bi ku6-dar-ra 5 single split fishes 6. ur-an-ta-sur-ra (for) Urantasura. R.4 1. bara-nam-tar-ra Baranamtara 2. itu-ezem-munu4-gu7- has this in the month “Malt Eating” 3. ©lugal-URU×GANÁtenû ki- Festival of Lugal-URU×GANÁtenû ki 4. ka-ka 5. níg-gu7-se assigned to him (!) 6. e-na dug4 2. for meals; 2nd year. 4. The ED travel network and the Sabum project. The map in Fig. 7 provides an overview of the loca-tion of some of the aforementioned cities which, at a given time, belonged to the institutional and trav-elling network of the ED period. Of course I do not suggest that relations were at the same level at all

49 Nik I 140, 141, 143; cf. AWEL 357-359, 361. 50 For this term see Selz 1988b, 259 with fns. 22 and 23. 51 Note that RTC 20 and 21 are somehow related to these texts.

270 Gebhard J. Selz

times and between the different localities. The motivations for these contacts might have been mani-fold. In those cases, however, when larger working forces or militiamen are involved, the conclusion that these travelling contacts reflect a kind of institutionalised political body cannot be avoided. In this respect we might consider the possibility that the Sargonic camp at Sabum stood in a longer tradition, although the general political situation in the Old Akkadian empire had dramatically changed.

4.1. The interpretation of the uru-KAS4 / eri-KAS4 as “trading quarter” and UNKEN/UKKINki as a “settlement for workers and soldiers”, as proposed above, reminds us of an important group of Old Akkadian documents from Umma, labelled by Benjamin Foster as “The Early mu-iti archive”.52 This archive apparently dates to the reign of Rīmuš and the texts are written in the so-called “classical Su-merian” script, palaeographically very similar to the texts of Lugal-zagesi. They therefore continue the late ED evidence, but they attest to an event seemingly entirely new. The interpretation of these texts is that Rīmuš, after his victory over the southern coalition,53 moved several thousands of people to forced labour in a camp at Sabum,54 on the foothills of the Zagros mountains, on the road connecting the southern Mesopotamian plain with the Susiana.55 Ironically, Šuruppak-Fāra also was one of his vic-tims.56 Several of these texts explicitly make reference to journeys and also list the expenditures, some of which are clearly connected to travels.57 In his treatment of the texts Foster labelled these documents as “Group A”.58 He further concludes that the number of POWs at this site is probably in accordance with Rīmuš’s figure of 3600 people, and of them “at least 1500 were supported by Umma alone”.59 Important in our context are the texts USP 2 and Nik II 43. The former lists various sorts of flour to be taken to the kar-na4, the Stone Quay for consumption by the Dilmun boat (má dilmun-e ì-gu7); simi-larly the second mentions flour to be taken to the quay (kar-šè ba-DU). Other texts mention specific place-names as points of departure or arrival, all listing expenditures of various sorts of beer and bread:

Zi-zi lú-tukul lugal-KA Su-simki-ta A-ga-dèki DU-ni šu ba-ti

PN1, gendarme of PN2, received (it), travel-ling from Susa to Agade USP 3

Lú MAŠ.KAK Λír-suki-ta anše KA-a ì-šè-Λen-na-a šu ba-ti

The muškenum received (it) when he arrived from Κirsu … Nik II 26

52 Foster 1982, 8-51. 53 It seems a reasonable assumption that this coalition followed the tradition of the ED coalitions or the

Sumerian “league” as discussed above. 54 RGTC 1, 140 differentiates between śa-buki (or sa-buki, which has to be corrected into śa/sa-bumki) (Sar-

gonic, in the Elamite area), ZA.BALAG (p. 192, not attested with a place classifier!), and the alleged river in ša za-bi-im, referring to the “Little Zab” (p. 232). RGTC 2, 159-161 has for the Ur III-period several attestations for a city sa-bu-umki, its ensí, and the NIM-sa-bu-umki; following Foster 1982, 77, and Sallaberger 1999, 157, this place (province) is situated on the northeastern border of the Mesopotamian heartland, on the road to Susa. Foster 1982, 45-46 discusses the reading of Sargonic ZA.BALAG as “Z/Sa-búm” and, despite the different writing of the sibilants, equates the place with sa/‹a-bu(-um)ki. According to the Old Akkadian syllabary ZA. BALAG could be read as za/#a-búm or as sà-búm (cf. Sommerfeld 1999, 213); if all the different writings do indeed refer to just one name, the rendering Sabum is the best and the attractive transcription of ZA.BALAG as Śabum would be excluded.

55 See the maps in Sallaberger 1999, 157 or Foster 1982, 77. 56 According to a new inscription published by Frahm _ Payne 2002-03. 57 Structurally, they may even be compared with the later messenger texts; see the Old Akkadian text

Lambert 1971, 167-168. 58 Foster 1982, 8-51. 59 Foster 1982, 50.


2 lú-tukul lugal-KA gú-ab-ba-ta GIŠ.MU ugula-a-ne šu ba-ti

For two gendarmes of PN from Gu"aba … the overseers received (it) Nik II 27

6 N[IM …] Su-simki-ta Λen -ne-ne šu ba-ti [...] 6 highlanders when they arrived from Susa received (it) Nik II 28

Be6-lí-lí lú-tukul lugal-KA EDINki-ta DU-ni šu ba-ti

PN1, gendarme of PN2 received (it) tra-velling from EDIN Nik II 39

[PN1] lú [PN2] Λír-suki-[ta¨] DU-ni šu ba-ti PN1, man of PN2, received (it) travelling from (?) Κirsu Nik II 29

Èš-me-lum lú-tukul lugal-KA Su-simki-ta DU-ni šu ba-ti

PN1, gendarme of PN2, arriving from Susa received (it) Hermitage 14377

5 NIM Λiš gú-ba Λál-la šu ba-ti Su-simki-ta Λen-ne-ne šu ba-ti

5 highlanders with their necks in stock; he (the responsible person) received (it); when they arrived from Susa, he received (it)

Nik II 31

@A.TI lú-tukul lugal-KA pa5-[ti-b]i-raki .... PN1, gendarme of PN2, [received (it) travelling from] Bad[tibira] Nik II 32

Table 3. Beer and bread expenditures connected with travelling in the Old Akkadian Texts from Umma.60

The expenditures of these texts probably all come from the administration of the governor of Umma: indeed he played the most important role in the Sabum military camp project. The activities mentioned in these and the other texts of this group are clearly connected with the mass deportation of POWs un-der Rīmuš and his establishment of a “prisoners’ camp” at Sabum on the road to Elam.

5. The general context of all the documents discussed so far reminds us to a surprising degree of the famous Ur III messenger texts. As these texts were recently reviewed by Sallaberger,61 I restrict the following remarks to some observations relevant here.

5.1. We know of several road stations or travelling posts of the Ur III period. At this time two travel stations (é-kas4) are attested for Umma alone (in the city itself and in an-za-gàr at the Κirsu canal). In Κirsu, besides the major station in the city, there existed others in Gu"aba and Kinunir and also in sev-eral minor localities. They all formed part of a veritable road network.62 The closer archival context of these messenger texts is still largely unknown and difficult to reconstruct: the texts from the “Κirsu” archives, for instance, never have a year date. Extant tags, attached to leather bags containing the indi-vidual texts in which they were transported to a central archive, may be compared to those aforemen-tioned earlier city sealings which were likewise attached to vessels or containers.63 As Sallaberger has shown for the Ur III texts, most of the products issued from the é-kas4, “travelling post”, were given for use on the spot (šà-uru). These disbursements comprised usually foodstuff for eating and drinking and oil for body care, rarely some mutton.64 For the journeys themselves, as travel provisions, espe-cially dida, a kind of beer essence to be diluted with water and flour (zíd) was very common. This re-stricted menu of the Κirsu texts is somewhat enlarged by the items mentioned in the Umma archives, which add beer, bread, broth and oil, onions, soda, and occasionally other items. Not all recipients

60 Compiled using the data provided by Foster 1982, 15-16. 61 Sallaberger 1999, 295-315; for an earlier overview see, besides numerous articles, the somewhat outdated

work of R.W. McNeil (1970). 62 Heimpel 1994, 26-28. 63 Note however the widespread use of city sealings as sealing of doors, certainly of storage facilities. It

might be assumed that, from the buildings or storage rooms sealed in this manner, provisions for travellers of various sorts were issued.

64 Sallaberger 1999, 297-298.

272 Gebhard J. Selz

were messengers (sukkal) or couriers (kas4). Highly important in our context is Sallaberger’s observa-tion that some of the people who received such provisions from the travelling posts did reside there for a longer period, apparently in fulfilment of various but not yet clarified tasks.65 Other persons provided for in the é-kas4 were lú-Λištukul-(gu-la), “the (chief) gendarme”, and groups of soldiers, designated as “highlander”, NIM.66 In fact these people from the north and north-east were militia-men assigned to various public duties, including warfare. The different tasks of the various people provisioned by the é-kas4 include journeys of higher functionaries, troops, carriers accompanying different transports, sup-pliers of reed and wood, agricultural workers, and gendarmes who looked after thieves, murderers, and deserters.67 I suggest that this Ur III evidence provides a considerable insight in the probable, albeit mostly hypothetical, functions of the comparable earlier documents.68

6. In the foregoing remarks I was only able to touch on some of the issues relevant to our topic and even this outline remained fragmentary and sketchy. I dealt only with very limited aspects of the evi-dence for travelling, trade and commerce in the ED and the following periods. I ignored two very im-portant sectors: the rather rich evidence for the journeys of the rulers on the one side, and the cultic-motivated journeys or processions on the other. As they indeed fall within the wider orbit of the pre-sent discussion I would therefore like to conclude by adding some brief remarks on the nature of Old Sumerian processions.

6.1. Ur-Nanše-k, the first ruler of the Lagaš I dynasty known from his own inscriptions, was in all likelihood the founder of this state which afterwards comprised the major cities Lagaš, Κirsu, and NINA with Gu"aba _ E-Nin-MAR.KI as harbour. Interestingly, this political move was apparently supported by a cultic reform. Ur-Nanše-k tried to fuse the formerly independent panthea of these cities into a “state pantheon”.69 In order to promote the unity and the coherence of the different regions, per-haps Ur-Nanše-k himself introduced a new (or revived, or exploited) procession which linked all these formerly independent cities. Since a canal linked all these cities the procession was made by boat, with stop-overs at the major sanctuaries on the way. At the different stops further transportation to the sanc-tuaries was made by chariot. As the documents demonstrate, this semi-annual festival procession be-came the most important cultic event in the ensuing time. In fact, even centuries later, the inscriptions of Gudea reflect this important event.

A number of offering lists list the expenditure for the offerings to various deities and temples made during the procession. Additionally, the actual offerings are supplemented by annotations alluding to the movement of the procession from one point to the other. The following is a chart of these annota-tions. The head of the procession was always the wife of the ruler, mentioned here under the religious title PAPA.PAP or munus; she was also in charge of the various offering proceedings. The procession starts in the residential city of Κirsu, proceeding via Lagaš to NINA/Nimin. Occasionally some provi-sions for the chariot are attested. They may actually represent the “payments” or the nourishment for the chariot-pulling persons and consist of bread, beer, barley and emmer, curd, oil, dates and an ani-mal; in fact no difference from the usual offering materials can be observed. Rarely some fodder for the chariot-pulling oxen (gud) is also mentioned. The precise use made of the enormous amounts of foodstuff for the offerings 70 — bread, beer, fruits, sometimes mixed with grain and curd, grains, milk

65 Sallaberger 1999, 306. 66 In the translation of Sallaberger “Hochlandleute”, which I adopted here as “highlanders”. 67 According to the compilation of Sallaberger 1999, 306-307. 68 By making these comparions we are able to specify Sallabeger’s general statment: this road and path net-

work is “keine Eigenheit dieses Reiches …, denn Ausgaben an Reisnede, Gesandte und Boten spielen schon zu früheren Zeiten eine wichtige Rolle in den großen öffentlichen Haushalten” (Sallberger 1999, 307).

69 This was demonstrated in my 1985/1995 PhD dissertation; see especially 191-304. 70 A list of the various foodstuff attested in these list is provided in Selz 1985/95, 318-319.


as well as animals including fish 71 attested in the Old Sumerian offerings lists — is not yet very well understood. There can be little doubt, however, that most of it was consumed by the temple personnel and the festival participants, much in the same way as it is depicted on pictorial evidence for the ban-quet scenes.

TSA 1 RTC 47 DP 53 Nik 23 DP 43 DP 197 STH1,41

ég-ki-ERIM-ra-ka ba-ša6

é-PA-ka ba-ša6

PAP:PAP Λír-suki-ta lagaški-šè DU-ni ba-gu7

munus Λír-suki-ta DU-ni ì-DU

i7-ambar-ra-tur-ra Λišgigir-ré ba-ša6

i7-ambar-šè Λišgigír-ré ba-DU

i7-ambar-šè Λišgigír-ré ba-DU

Λišgigír Λišgigir-ré i7-ambar-šè [ba]-DU

lagaški-a Λiš-e-tag ki-a-naΛ lagaški-ka [Λiš e-tag]

[lagaški]-a Λiš e-tag

PAP.PAP lagaški-ta DU-ni ka-é-PA-ka-ta ì-DU [Λiš b]í tag!

munus lagaški-ta DU-ni ka-ka-é-PA-ka-ta

ka-é-PA-ka-ta Λiš e-tag-ge

ka-é-PA-ka-ta ì-DU

gud e-Λar

Table 4. The Festival Processions of Nanše-1.72

TSA 1 RTC 47 DP 53 Nik 23 DP 43 Fö 93 STH 1,41

ki-a-naΛ-NINAki-na [[ki-a-naΛ-lagaški]]

ki-a-naΛ-NINAki ki-a-naΛ-NINAki-na ki-a-n[aΛ]-NIN[Aki] ki-a-naΛ ki-a-naΛ ki-a-naΛ

PAP.PAP NINAki-ta DU-ni ì-DU

munus Λišgigír NINAki-ta lagaški-šè erx-ra Λiš e-tag

Λišgigír-re ba-DU munus lagaški-šè DU-ni Λiš bi-tag

k[a]-ba ba-Λar

<munus> lagaški-ta DU-ni NINAki-na e-na-ni-DU

munus Λišgi[gír]-la[gašk]i-[ta] D[U-ni] Λi[š] [e]-[tag]

i7!-ambar-ka Λišgigír-ré Λír-suki-ta su8-ba-bi ba-DU ki-Λišgigír-ra dPA.KAL-dù-a-[š]è! ba-tùm

Table 5. The Festival Processions of Nanše - 2.

7. Finally, I would like to summarize the observations of this paper. There is ample evidence to suggest that an extensive travel network existed in Mesopotamia during the entire 3rd millennium, although some interruption certainly did occur due to changing political and military situations. There is no reason to postulate a greater difference between journeys motivated for mere cultic reasons from those

71 We note, however, that some texts only list animals while others are restricted to vegetarian items. 72 This is extracted from Selz 1985-95, 336-356, Tabelle VII.

274 Gebhard J. Selz

primarily involving with commercial or military tasks. The road network was always linked to insti-tutionalised settlements, although of varying size. These travel stations also served religious and/or diplomatic as well as military purposes. In a historical perspective this travel, trade and military net-work can be considered as a latecomer of the earlier Uruk “Colonies,” probably attesting to a greater degree of continuity than hitherto assumed. The general framework for this sort of official travelling dates back to the late Uruk period and reaches down to the Ur III empire. In accordance with the 3rd millennium economy, the provisions for the travels of these people, including militia men, came from the big households or the state, even in the Old Akkadian period. This supplements the observation that in the documents from the Mesopotamian South we have so far no traces of privately motivated commercial activities. Even the question of whether, and if so, to what extent, the “merchants” shared in trading profits, remains so far largely unknown. Most important is that fact that such travel stations were a precondition for any political stability and are a sign of (a certain degree of) political unity.

ADDENDA (FEBRUARY 2ND, 2014)

1. Meanwhile a related paper of mine has appeared: “Trade posts and encampments as corner stones of exchange”, in Th. Kämmerer - S. Rogge (eds.), Patterns of Urban Societies (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 390/2), Münster 2013, pp. 215-231. The article was an outcome of a contribution to an in-ternational workshop in Münster on “Cultural Contacts in the Ancient Eastern Mediterranean and the Impact on the Development of Urban Structures (3rd–1st millennium B.C.)”, Münster, November 19th–20th, 2010. There I further elaborated on some of the topics of the present article: I am convinced that most of the travelling attested in Ancient Near Eastern sources combine commercial as well as military motifs. Therefore the “Travelling Posts” and “Military Encampments” may have had much closer con-nections than hitherto assumed.

2. Recently E. Cripps published an article on the “Messengers from Šuruppak” (Cuneiform Digital Library Journal 2013, 3). The focus of this article is on a commented edition and analysis of the text TSŠ 881. The author further attempts to reconstruct the specific and general framework of the related trade. Most important in the present context is the evidence Cripps has assembled for a comparison of the Ur III messenger texts and their Fāra “Vorläufer”. He grounds his reconstruction of the ED poli-tical landscape and its institutions on the seminal work of Jacobsen which, in last years, was discussed or referred to by numerous scholars (Cripps refers to Foster 2005, Potts 1999, Sharlach 2003, and es-pecially Visicato 1995, 2001).

In this paper I hope that I was able to demonstrate that the relevant “messenger” texts from Fāra find their better interpretation when put into a longer historical tradition, extending from the Uruk per-iods to Ur III times (and even later). As I do agree with many of Cripps arguments; I however doubt his interpretation of uru/eri-kas4 as a title of a person (see p. 17: “As their title appears to suggest, they travelled between the cities of the Hexapolis providing a medium of communications”). I still contend that the uru/eri-kas4 is related to the é-kas4, even when the latter may have been of a much smaller size. The designation uru/eri-kas4 then simply designates a person belonging to / residing in the “Trading quarter” (the well-known later kar/kārum) of a city. For the sake of Vollständigkeit we note further the place KAS4

ki attested in the Old Babylonian Nippur Forerunner of Ura XX-XXII (MSL 11, 104: 270), connected by Frayne 1992, 47, with both the deity dKAS4

ki = Lāsimu and with the early dynastic to-ponym DU in l. 96 of the “Early Dynastic List of Geographical Names”. [Its location at a canal connecting Tutub with the Tigris (Frayne 1992, 43) remains, of course, hypothetical.]

3. It is remains questionable whether NIM always carries the connotation “Elamite,” as Cripps and others suppose. The term may rather designate a type of soldier, whose ultimate Elamite origins re-


mains doubtful; this is also strongly corroborated by the Sumerian word for “troops, army” uğnim < */uğ-nim/, corresponding to Akk. ummānu. [Whether NIM here has originally anything to do with Elam is another question.] Note further that the author supposes a similar semantic extension for dilmun witnessed as “a geographic name as well as an occupation/professional title” (p. 13).

4. Unnecessary to say, that the outline of long term developments of trade posts and encampments — as sketched out in the aforementioned article — remained necessarily rather general. Detailed stud-ies differentiated according to periods and places — as Cripps’ study — remain necessary. The inter-connection of trade, warfare and even “colonization”, however, may provide the necessary frame for an improved understanding.

BIBLIOGRAPHY AND ABBREVIATIONS

AbS-T = Excavation number; see R.D. Biggs, with a Chapter by D.P. Hansen, Inscriptions from Tell Abu Salabikh (Oriental Institute Publications 99), Chicago 1974.

Aruz J. 2003, The Art of the First Cities, New York _ New Haven _ London. AT = T.G. Pinches, The Amherst Tablets Being An Account Of The Babylonian Inscriptions In The Collection Of

The Right Hon. Lord Amherst Of Hackney, F.s.a. At Didlington Hall, Norfolk 1908. AWAB = G. J. Selz, Die altsumerischen Wirtschaftsurkunden aus Berlin (rev. version in preparation). AWAS = G. J. Selz Die altsumerischen Wirtschaftsurkunden aus amerikanischen Sammlungen (Freiburger Alto-

rientalische Studien 15/2,1 and 15/2,2), Stuttgart 1993. AWEL = G. J. Selz Die altsumerischen Wirtschaftsurkunden der Eremitage zu Leningrad (Freiburger Altorien-

talische Studien Bd. 15/1), Stuttgart 1989. Bauer J. Englund R.K. Krebernik M. 1998, Mesopotamien. Späturuk- und Frühdynastische Zeit (Orbis Bibli-

cus et Orientalis 160/1), Freiburg/Schweiz _ Göttingen. Bauer J. 1998, “Der vorsargonische Abschnitt der mesopotamischen Geschichte”, in Bauer et al. 1998, 431-584. BIN 8 = G. G. Hackmann, Sumerian and Akkadian Administrative Texts from Predynastic Times to the End of the

Akkad Dynasty (Babylonian Inscriptions in the Collection of James B. Nies, 8), New Haven 1958. Boese J. 1971, Altmesopotamische Weihplatten. Eine sumerische Denkmalgattung des 3. Jahrtausends v. Chr.,

Berlin _ New York. CSC = Y. Rosengarten, Le concept sumérien de consommation dans la vie économique et religieuse, Paris 1960. Dittmann R. 1986, “Seals, Sealings and Tablets: Thoughts on the Changing Pattern of Administrative Control

from the Late Uruk to the Proto-Elamite Period at Susa”, in U. Finkbeiner W. Röllig (eds.), Οamdat Na#r: Period or Regional Style?, Wiesbaden, 171-198.

DP = C. Allotte de la Fuye 1908-1920, Documents Présargoniques, Paris. Englund R.K. 1998, “Texts from the Late Uruk Period”, in Bauer et al. 1998, 15-233. —— 1991, The Proto-Cuneiform Texts From Jemdet Nasr (Materialien zu den frühen Schriftzeugnissen des Vor-

deren Orients 1), Berlin. En. = Enentarzi, presargonic ruler in Lagash. Ent. = Entemena or Enmetena, presargonic ruler in Lagash. FAOS = Freiburger Altorientalische Studien, Wiesbaden ‒ Stuttgart. Fö = W. Förtsch, Altbabylonische Wirtschaftstexte aus der Zeit Lugalanda's und Urukagina's (Vorderasiatische

Schriftdenkmäler 14/I), Leipzig 1916. Foster B. R. 1982, Umma in the Sargonic Period, Hamden, Connecticut. Frahm E. Payne E.E. 2003-04, “Šuruppak under Rīmuš: A Rediscovered Inscription”, Archiv für Orientfor-

schung 50, 50-55. Glassner I.J. 2000, “Les petits états mésopotamiens à la fin du 4e et au cours du 3e millénaire”, in M.H. Hansen

(ed.), A Comparative Study of Thirty City-State Cultures, Copenhagen, 35-53. Heimpel W. 1994, “Towards an Understanding of the Term siKKum”, Revue d'Assyriologie et d'Archéologie

Orientale 88, 5-31. Jacobsen Th. 1957, “Early Political Development in Mesopotamia”, Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 52, 159-172. Krebernik M. 1998, “Die Texte aus Fāra und Tell Abū &ālabī~”, in Bauer et al. 1998, 235-427.

276 Gebhard J. Selz

Lambert M. 1953, “Textes commerciaux de Lagash”, Revue d´Assyriologie 47, 57-69, 105-120. —— 1971, “Deux textes de l’epoque d’Agadé”, Revue d'Assyriologie et d'Archéologie Orientale 65, 167-169. —— 1981, “Ur-Emush `Grand Marchand de Lagash' ”, Oriens Antiquus 20, 175, 185. Lich. = Lichačev; internal Hermitage reference number (former collection Lichačev). Lug. = Lugalanda, presargonic ruler in Lagash. Martin H. 1988, Fara: A Reconstruction of the Ancient Mesopotamian City of Shuruppak, Birmingham. Matthews R.J. 1993, Cities, Seals and Writing. Impression from Jemdet Nasr and Ur (Materialien zu den frühen

Schriftzeugnissen des Vorderen Orients 2), Berlin. McNeil R.C. 1970, The“Messenger Texts” of the Third Ur Dynasty (PhD Dissertation, Philadelphia). Michalowski P. 1993, “On the Early Toponymy of Sumer: A Contribution to the Study of Early Mesopotamian

Writing”, in A.F. Rainey (ed.), kinatûtu ša dârāti. R. Kutscher Memorial Volume, Tel Aviv, 125-128. MSVO 1 = R. K. Englund, J.-P. Gregoire, The Proto-Cuneiform Texts from Jemdet Nasr (Materialien zu den

frühen Schriftzeugnissen des Vorderen Orient 1), Berlin 1991. MSVO 4 = R. K. Englund, Proto-Cuneiform Texts from Diverse Collections (Materialien zu den frühen Schrift-

zeugnissen des Vorderen Orient 4), Berlin 1996. Nik = M. V. Nikol’skij, Dokumenty chozjajstvennoj otčetnosti drevnejšej epochi Chaldei iz sobranija N. P. Li-

chačeva [präsargonische Urkunden] (Drevnosti Vostočnyja, 3/2), St. Petersburg 1908. Nik II = M. V. Nikol’skij, Dokumenty chozjajstvennoj otčetnosti drevnej Chaldei iz sobranija N. P. Lichačeva, 2:

Epocha dinastii Agade i epocha dinastii Ura [Urkunden aus der Zeit der Akkade und Ur III-Dynastie] (Drev-nosti Vostočnyja 5), Moskau 1915.

NTSŠ = R. R. Jestin, Nouvelles Tablettes Sumériennes de Šuruppak au Musée d’Istanbul, Paris 1957. OIP 104 = I. J. Gelb, P. Steinkeller, and R. M. Whiting, Jr., Earliest Land Tenure Systems in the Near East: An-

cient Kudurrus (Oriental Institute Publications 104), Chicago 1991. Pettinato G. 1976, “La fondazione della città UNKENki”, Oriens Antiquus 16, 173-176. Pomponio F. Visicato G. 1994, Early Dynastic Administrative Texts from Šuruppak, Napoli. RA 65 see Lambert 1971. RGTC 1 = D.O. Edzard, G. Farber, E. Sollberger, Repertoire Géographique des Textes Cunéiformes. Bd.1: Die

Orts- und Gewässernamen der präsargonischen und sargonischen Zeit (Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients Beihefte Nr.7/1), Wiesbaden 1977.

RGTC 2 = D.O. Edzard, G. Farber, Répertoire Géographique des Textes Cunéiformes Bd. 2: Die Orts- und Ge-wässernamen der Zeit der 3. Dynastie von Ur (Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients, Beihefte Nr.7/2), Wies-baden 1974.

Š = Šuruppak; Museum number of the Fara Collection, Archaeological Museum Istanbul. Sallaberger W. 1996, “Zur frühen mesopotamischen Briefliteratur”, Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 91, 389-

407. —— 1999, “Ur III-Zeit”, in Sallaberger Westenholz 1999, 200-390. Sallaberger W. Westenholz A. 1999, Mesopotamien. Akkade-Zeit und Ur III-Zeit (Annäherungen. Orbis Bibli-

cus et Orientalis 160/3), Freiburg ‒ Göttingen. Selz G.J. 1985/95, Untersuchungen zur Götterwelt des altsumerischen Stadtstaates von Lagaš (Samuel Noah

Kramer Fund), Philadelphia 1995. —— 1991, “ ‘Elam’ und ‘Sumer’ _ Skizze einer Nachbarschaft nach den inschriftlichen Quellen der vorsargoni-

schen Zeit”, Comptes Rendus de la 36me Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, 27-46. —— 1996, “ne-saΛ, bur-saΛ und gú-ne(-saΛ-(Λá)): Zu zwei Gefäßbezeichnungen, ihren Bedeutungsentwicklun-

gen und einem sumerischen Wort for (Gefäß-)Schrank”, Studi Epigrafici e Linguistici 13, 3-8. —— 1998a, “Über mesopotamische Herrschaftskonzepte”, in Dubsar Anta-Men, Fs. W. H. Ph. Römer (Alter

Orient und Altes Testament 253), Münster, 281-344. —— 1998b, “Von Treidlern, Schiff(bau)ern und Werftarbeitern”, Archiv orientální 66, 255-264. —— in press, “Trade posts and encampments as corner stones of exchange”. Sommerfeld W. 1999, IMGULA 1, Die Texte der Akkade-Zeit, 1. Das Dijala-Gebiet: Tutub. (IMGULA 3/1),

Münster. Starzmann M. 2006, Archäologie des Raumes (Wiener Offene Orientalistik 5), Wien. Steible H. Yıldız F. 1993, “Ki’engi aus der Sicht von Šuruppak”, Istanbuler Mitteilungen 43, 17-26. Steinkeller P. 2002, “Archaic City Seals and the Question of Babylonian Unity”, in Ancient Near Eastern studies

in memory of Thorkild Jacobsen, Winona Lake = FS Jacobsen II, 249-259.


TSŠ = R. R. Jestin, 1937, Tablettes sumériennes de Šuruppak conserves au Musée de Stamboul, Paris. Ukg. = UruKA-gina, or Eri-inimgina, presargonic ruler in Lagash. USP = B. R. Foster, Umma in the Sargonic Period (Memoirs of the Connecticut Academy of Arts ό Sciences,

XV.20), Hamden, Conn. 1982. Visicato G. 1995, The Bureaucracy of Šuruppak. Administrative Centres, Central Offices, Intermediate Struc-

tures and Hierarchies in the Economic Documentation of Fara (Abhandlungen zur Literatur Alt-Syrien-Palä-stinas und Mesopotamiens 10), Münster.

Westenholz A. 1999, “The Old Akkadian Period. History and Culture”, in Sallaberger Westenholz 1999, 17-117.

WF = A. Deimel, Wirtschaftstexte aus Fara (Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen der Deutschen Orientgesell-schaft 45), Berlin 1924.

Yoffee N. 1993, “The late Great Traditions in Mesopotamia”, in M.E. Cohen et al. (eds.), The Tablet and the Scroll (FS Hallo), Bethesda, 303-205.

—— 1997, “The Obvious and the Chimerical: City-States in Archaeological Perspective”, in D. Nichols Th. Charlton (eds.), The Archaeology of City-States: Cross-cultural Approaches, Washington, D. C., 255-263.

278 Gebhard J. Selz

Fig. 1. Votive plaque from the Sîn temple in @afaµi; reconstruction of Boese 1971, Tafel IX.

Fig. 2. Man with a walking stick from Mari: Aruz 2003, 161, no. 103b.

Fig. 3. Banquet, food transportation, and travel on a chariot. Boese 1971, Tafel I.

Fig. 4. Banquet, (offering) animals, and procession on a boat. Photo K. Wagensonner.

Fig. 5. Cities’ sealing from Ur; from Aruz 2003, 54 no. 21.


Fig. 6. Reconstruction of the Ğamdat Na#r cities’ seal impression, from Matthews 1993, 37.

Fig. 7. The geographical core of (supposed) Early Dynastic travel.

280 Gebhard J. Selz