454

GUABBA, THE MELU AN VILLAGE IN

MESOPOTAMIA
P.S. VERMAAK

ABSTRACT

Although a Melu an village (é-duru5 me-lu - a) integrated under the

jurisdiction of Girsu/Lagash in southern Mesopotamia has been known
since Sargonic times, it has never previously been identified with a
specific place name. In this article the Melu an village has now, for the
first time, been connected in a Ur III text with the well-known
village/town of Guabba (Gú-ab-baki) based on the (twice) published text
MVN 7 420 = ITT 4 8024 from Ur III Girsu.1

INTRODUCTION

Since the Sumerian and Akkadian documents became available to the scholarly
world, it was evident that the southern Mesopotamian region had direct contact
with various foreign places (or countries) during the second part of the third
millennium BC.2 From these far away places came a variety of goods, often
exotic items, which were exchanged for local commodities.3 However, three
places became well known through the cuneiform documents and in scholarly
publications, namely Dilmun, Magan and Melu a, of which the first seems to
be the closest and the latter the furthest from Mesopotamia.4 The obvious focus
of most of the scholarly discussions became the locations of these places and
the speculations in this regard have accumulated until today. The direct contact

1
For the abbreviations of Ur III textual references throughout the article see Sigrist
(1991).
2
For the pre-Sargonic and Sargonic place names mentioned in the texts see Edzard et
al. (1977) and during the Ur III period see Edzard and Farber (1984).
3
Cf. Crawford (1973:232-241), Edens (1992:118-139), Potts (1993a:379-402;
1993b:423-440) and Stieglitz (1984:134-142).
4
Cf. the discussions by Thapar (1975:1-42), Michalowski (1988:156-164), Hansman
(1973:553-554), Potts (1993b:423-440) and Oppenheim (1954:6-17)

ISSN 1013-8471 Journal for Semitics 17/2 (2008) pp. 454-471

Open Rubric
 Guabba, the Melu an village in Mesopotamia 455

with these three foreign places continued from the Sargonic period until the
time of Gudea of Lagash. Even trading colonies seemed to be the order of the
day where interpreters (eme-bal, lit: “the language turner”)5 had to translate the
foreign languages into the local languages of Mesopotamia (Sumerian and
Akkadian which were used simultaneously). It will eventually become clear that
the search for these distant foreign localities is not the focus of this article,
although the conclusions made in the article may contribute to form a more
comprehensive picture of one group of these foreign peoples.
However, since the Ur III period in southern Mesopotamia no direct contact
could be determined with either of the two far away places, namely Magan or
Melu a (Potts 1993a:379-402). Dilmun seemed to be acting as an appropriate
gateway for both regions and connecting indirectly via Dilmun to Magan and
Melu a.6 It seems that large numbers of foreigners remained in southern
Mesopotamia and integrated into the local (hybrid) Sumerian and Akkadian
populations (cf. Leemans 1960:139-142). They played a substantial role in the
economy of the country and even paid taxes (known as the gun-mada- taxes)7 to
the local government.
One of these foreign groups kept appearing in local Sumerian and Akkadian
texts from the Sargonic period to the Ur III periods in a variety of contexts,
namely the Melu ans.8 These people with a Melu an heritage apparently

5
The presence of the Melu ans in southern Mesopotamia has already been
confirmed by die Sargonic cylinder seal of Šu-ilišu, the ema-bal me-lu - a-ki which
indicate that a Melu an group or groups have been around there for some time. Cf.
Possehl (2006:42-43) and Oppenheim (1964:353, note 24). Unfortunately the seal does
not show any “foreign” features which might help us to identify the location of
Melu a.
6
Cf Crawford (1998), Potts (1993b:423-440), Stieglitz (1984:134-142), Edens
(1992:118-139), Crawford (1973:232-241) and Howard-Carter 1981:210-223).
7
For the foreign tributes paid to Neo-Sumerian authorities and gun-mada-texts see
Michalowski (1978:34-49), Steinkeller (1987:19-41) and Gelb (1973:70-98).
8
The locality of the Me-lu - aki has not been identified with certainty. The early
Sumerologists Kramer (1963:61) and Jacobsen (1960:184, note 18) have been quite
certain that Melu a refers to an African location. It was later also connected to the
456 P.S. Vermaak

grouped together in settlements and eventually formed a Melu an village(s)

and played a substantial role in the economy, mainly in the textile industry of
Girsu.
The existence of a Melu an village in the region of Girsu/Lagash during
the Pre-Sargonic and Ur III periods in southern Mesopotamia has been known
by scholars for quite some time, but has never been connected to a specific
place name. A discussion of some features and activities of this Neo-Sumerian
Melu an village has been done by Parpola and others (Parpola, Parpola &
Brunswig 1977:129-165) which they retrieved only from ten Ur III texts9 from
Girsu/Lagash.
Since the article by Parpola et al. (1977:129-165) several other texts from
Girsu, Drehem, Umma and Ur have become available which relate to a
Melu an village and a more comprehensive picture can now be formed about
this village. In fact, 44 texts (48 references to Melu a) are now accessible in
order to revisit the information on this foreign village or village with foreign
descendants.
However, the main purpose of this article is to show that one text (MVN 7
420 = ITT 4 8024) from the Istanbul Archaeological Museum in Turkey first
published by Delaporte in 1912 (ITT 4 8024) and later collated and republished
by Pettinato et al. in 1978 (MVN 7 420), has never been really noticed by
scholars and never received any scholarly translation or discussion regarding the
Melu ans in Sumer. It connects the Melu an village with the place name of
Guabba.

area around the Gulf such as Oman, but the majority of scholars lately agree per
convention that the Indus Valley is the most likely to be connected with the Melu a,
although it cannot be taken for granted at this stage. (Cf. Postgate 1992:217-218,
Chakrabarti 1975:337-342, Kulke 1993:154-180, Leemans 1960, Michalowski
1988:156-164, Potts 1993a:379-402, Thapar 1975:1-42, Heimpel 1977:53-55 and
Moorey 1994:xxii-xxii).
9
L7157, OBTR 242, BM 177751, STA 19 (= JESHO 20, 138 04), Amherst 54, HLC
III 368, BM 14594 (=CT 3 17), TUT 154, L 705, UCP 92 65, L 8015, L 1426.
 Guabba, the Melu an village in Mesopotamia 457

THE MELU AN VILLAGE IN GIRSU/LAGASH

The Melu an village (é-duru5 me-lu - a)10 in southern Mesopotamia has been
known for quite some time and although often referred to by scholars, it was
Parpola et al. (1977:129-165) who first made the layout of the features of this
village, but they utilized only about 20 percent of the texts now available for
discussion. Before discussing the name of the town, it is appropriate to outline
the basic features of this town or village with the additional available Ur III
texts since the article by Parpola et al. (1977:129-165).
In order to form a comprehensive view of the Melu an remnants a variety
of texts could be consulted, although they all display a picture of a people that
have been integrated into the Sumerian and Babylonian cultures much earlier
than the Ur III period.

The Melu an granaries

The Melu an village was known for its granaries (ì-dub é-duru5 e-lu - a)11
and the large amounts of royal barley that were delivered to the town of Girsu.
When one calculates the amounts delivered by the Melu an 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 Melu an 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 texts dating from the sixth year of Amar-Sin

10
Cf. CT 05 36 (BM 017751 = OrAnt 15, 142 = JESHO 20, 136 03) (SH 48 from
Girsu), ITT 4 4 08024 (= MVN 07 420)(SH 34 from Girsu), and SANTAG 7 167 (SH
48 from Girsu).
11
Cf. the texts Amherst 054 (=JESHO 20, 140 05) (SH48, Girsu), ASJ 03 152 107
(AS 6, Girsu), MVN 12 371 (AS 3 Girsu) , MVN 13 223 (SS 9, Umma), ITT 2 705 (SS
8, Girsu), TCTI 2 3666 (SS 8, Girsu), BPOA 2 1881 (SS 01, Girsu).
458 P.S. Vermaak

(AS 6-vii) and the eighth year of Shu-Sin (SS 8) respectively (from Girsu)12
where the Melu an 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 Melu an garden

Some references can be found to the Melu an garden (giškiri6 me-lu - a) 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 dNinmarki.
However, several types of Melu an artefacts have been identified which
probably made up the Melu an garden, especially the gišab-ba me-lu - a which
giš
is a sort of Melu an wood, or the ab-ba could refer to some kind of water
feature in a garden (see “The Melu an timber/woods” below: giškiri6 me-lu - a
d
Nin-marki 13).

The Melu an temples

Two temples have been connected to the Melu an village in Ur III Girsu,
namely those of the gods’ dNanshe and dNin-marki.
In a text where a number of scribes (dub-sar-me) are listed it has been
summarized in three interesting lines, namely šu-nígin 6 guruš, arád dNanše-me,
ugula` me-lu - a (“A total of 6 men, servants of the god dNanshe, while the
overseer is a Melu an”)14 which definitely seems to connect the Melu an
village with the temple of dNanše. This text relates to the temple of dNanshe and
the Melu an official, which is a good illustration of the Melu ans being
incorporated into the society of southern Mesopotamia. Another text suggests

12
Cf. ASJ 03 152 107 and ITT 2 705.
13
Cf. STA 19 = JESHO 20, 138 04 = CBCT-PUL Ex 191.
14
Cf. ITT 4, 8015 = JESHO 20, 145 11 = MVN 7 411.
 Guabba, the Melu an village in Mesopotamia 459

that the Melu ans worked in the temple of dNanše: dumu me-lu - a erín é
d
Nanše 15 (“the Melu an worker in the house of dNanše”).
In a balanced account (níg-kas7-ak) regarding the different types of barley
delivered to the temple of dNinmarki (níg-kas7 ak Lú-dŠul-gi šabra še é dNin-
´MAR.KI`)16 the seal of the well-known Melu an appears twice in the text
(Kišib Ur-dLamma dumu me-lu - a).17 The royal barley deliveries sent to the
different gardens (giškiri6 en-ne ) in the region of Girsu (year 48 of Šulgi) and
the Melu an garden was again connected to the temple of dNin-Marki (giškiri6
me-lu - a dNin-MAR.KI-ka), but in the following line there is another temple
of dNin-marki (giškiri6 dNin-MAR.KI) which was not connected to the Melu an
temple. This means there had to be two gardens in the same temple of
d
Ninmarki, one as a Melu an garden and another one not.18

The Melu an avifauna

The Melu an bird (dar me-lu - a) appears five times19 in the Ur III texts, only
once20 with the determinative of a bird (mušen). 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 fifteenth year of Ibbi-Sin. It has been speculated that
the dar might a “multi-coloured” Melu an bird, described by Leemans
(1960:166) as a “peacock” , but he (Leemans 1968:222) later corrected himself

15
TUT 154 = JESHO 20, 135 08 = OrAnt. 13, 206.
16
Cf )(OBTR 242 = JESHO 20, 135 02)(SH 40)(Girsu )
17
Cf (OBTR 242 = JESHO 20, 135 02)(SH 40)(Girsu)
18
Cf . STA 19 = JESHO 20, 138 04 = CBCT-PUL Ex 191.
19
Cf. UET 3 761)(IS15, Ur), UET 3 764)(IS15, Ur), UET 3 768)(IS15, Ur), UET 3
768)(IS15,Ur), UET 3 770)(IS15, Ur) and UET 3 757 = OBO 160/3, 277-
278)(IS15, Ur).
20
Cf. UET 3 757 = OBO 160/3, 277-278)(IS15, Ur).
460 P.S. Vermaak

and regarded it as a kind of a “hen” due to his understanding of it as a bird from

“India”.21

The Melu an fauna

Although in earlier and later texts references are made to the Melu an fauna
species from other periods such as the multicoloured Melu an dog22 which was
given as a gift to Ibbi-Sin and a Melu an cat (Akkadian šuranu) in a
Babylonian proverb (Lambert 1960: 272).23 The only Melu an fauna in the Ur
III texts is a reference to the goat: 1 máš ga mel-lu - a, “the Melu an milk
goat” (ITT 4 7089 = MVN 6 88).

The Melu an timber/woods

Special kinds of timber/woods came into southern Mesopotamia form various

places such as Magan and Melu a from the Early Dynastic III to the Gudea
period.24 Lexical texts confirm the import of Melu an timber which entered via
the ports in the Gulf.25 Various kinds of Melu an wood have been identified
during the Ur III and other periods and they were mostly used for different
kinds of furniture.
The mes me-lu - a-wood only occurs twice (UET 3 818; UET 3 1241) in
the Ur III texts, but also continued to be used for furniture and household
utensils26 during the Old Babylonian period (Leemans 1960:126). Its Akkadian
equivalent musukkannu (CAD M II 237 & Ahw II 678) was referred to as a

21
For a discussion on the birds see the latest book by Veldhuis (2004).
22
Cf. the discussion by Leemans (1968:222). This might also be a African wild dog or
even a hyena, both found throughout Africa.
23
Cf. also the discussions by Leemans (1960:161 and 1968:122).
24
Cf. the discussion by Moorey (1994:252-253); Leemans (1960:125-126); Cooper
(1986:22-23) and Salonen (1972-75:453-454).
25
Cf. the discussions by Powell (1987:75-104) and Pettinato (1972:86-87)
26
Cf. the discussions by Mieroop (1992:159-160) and Moorey (1994:352-3530).
 Guabba, the Melu an village in Mesopotamia 461

Magan and Melu an import and it was probably a hard and/or black wood.
However, it was locally available during the first millennium BC (Maxwell-
giš
Hyslop 1983: 70-71). The ab-ba me-lu - a-wood27 had a special purpose to
make inter alia special chairs or thrones with ivory inlays. Heimpel (1993:54)
describes it as “Meerholz” which indicates its usage as boat building material,
but its Akkadian equivalent is even more well known, kušabku (cf. CAD K 597;
AHw I 516).

The Melu an bronzes

Since the Uruk III period up to the Gudea period the acquiring of bronzes from
the three places Dilmun, Magan en Melu a was well documented, however
during the Ur III period only one reference was found which connects the
bronze (uruda) with the Melu an village: 6 ma-na uruda me-lu - a (UET 3
368)(SH 26 ii)(Ur).28

THE MELU AN VILLAGE OF GUABBA

According to the electronic UR III databases29 there are more than four hundred
references in texts mentioning the place name Gú-ab-baki and the texts mostly
originate from Girsu/Lagash. Several features immediately come forward when

27
Cf. mí-ús-bi gišab-ba me-lu - a 2-a (UET 3 430 (Ur); 1 gišdúr gišab-ba me-lu - a-bi
(UET 3 660 (Ur); […] gišab-ba me-lu - a (UET 3 828 = SaU 26)(n.d)(Ur); dagal-bi
giš
ab-ba me-lu - a-kam (CBT 3, BM 025086 = Nisaba 07 40)(SH 39-xi)(Girsu).
28
Cf. the discussion by Moorey (1994:245-246) and Leemans (1960:160; 1968:223).
29
I have to acknowledge the excellent Ur III databases developed by Manuel Molina
and others of which I have made extensive use. With the large numbers of UR III texts
which are spread across the globe in private and public possession, these texts, in
transliterated format and often with pictures of the tablets, provides a great advantage by
allowing every scholar to make various rapid electronic searches. The Database of Neo-
Sumerian Texts has been developed at the Instituto de Filología of the Consejo Superior
de Investigaciones Científicas (Madrid) (http://bdts.filol.csic.es/).
462 P.S. Vermaak

you retrieve these texts, but we will only outline some of these features in order
to find the common business of the area concerned.
The only reference in the Ur III texts referring to the place of Guabba as a
real Melu an village comes from MVN 7 420 = ITT 4 8024 at the Istanbul
Archaeological Museum in Turkey.

MVN 7 420 = ITT 4 8024

1. 490.0.0 še gur lugal 1 sìla-ta
2. še-ba gáb-ús udu gukkal
3. Gú-ab-baki-ka é-duru5 me-lu - a-ta
4. ki Ur-gišgigir ka-gur7-ta
5. mu Ur-dLamma dumu Ka5-a ka-gur7 Gú-ab-baki-ka-šè
6. Ur-dIg-alim dumu Ur-dBa-ba6 šu ba-ti
7. gìr Ur-dun šeš-na
8. iti mu-šu-du7
9. mu An-ša-anki ba-hul

The importance of this text is that the Melu an village often referred to is now
connected to the well-known place/village of Gú-ab-baki which is also
mentioned twice in this text. It is also linked with a person called Ur-dLamma
who has often been mentioned in several other Ur III texts (cf. Ur III databases)
and seals as a Melu an (dumu me-lu - a). If this text has been interpreted
correctly, in this instance, several other texts regarding the prosopography of
Ur-dLamma and the toponomy/onomastics and major activities of the place of
Guabba within the region of Girsu/Lagash can now be pursued in order to form
a more comprehensive insight of the foreigners living in Sumer and more
specifically the Melu an population/s living together with the Sumerians and
Akkadians in southern Mesopotamia. Currently, all 44 texts have been
published and are available electronically referring to Melu a as a place or as a
qualifier (a so-called “adjective”). On the other hand the place Gú-ab-baki is to
 Guabba, the Melu an village in Mesopotamia 463

be found several hundred times in the Sargonic and Ur III texts. The challenge
now would be to find as many as possible cuneiform tablets which could be
related (via prospography and onomastics) to this village which will enhance
our understanding of the hybrid population of the Sumerians. The question of
the exact distant location of Melu a is, however, not addressed in this article
(cf. Introduction above). Further discussions on this text may bring us closer to
this point in future.

Guabba continued with Melu an temples

In the above discussion it has been concluded that the two temples which have
often been associated with the Melu an village in Ur III Girsu, are namely
those of the gods dNanše and dNin-mari (cf. 2.3 above). However, these temples,
especially the one of Ninmar30, have also been associated with the place of
Guabba in earlier periods.
One royal inscription during the time of Ur-Bau in Lagash II dates the year
according to the building of temple of Ninmar in Guabba:

mu é-dnin-mar-ki-ka gú-ab-baki-ka ba-dù-a

“Year in which the temple of Ninmar in Guabba was built” (AO
3355)

In a Sumerian temple hymn (TH 23)31 Guabba is twice mentioned in connected

with the temple of Ninmar:

Line 291: [é-gú-ab-baki] kù-dnin-marki-ke4

“[O house of Guabba], the holy/pure Ninmar”

30
For temple of dNin-marki and the direct connection with the place Guabba see
(MVN 17, 002 = CT 05 17 BM 012231; MVN 02 284 = ASJ 18, 118 no. 21 = WMAH
284; TCTI 1 00720; TUT 117 = SVS I/1 117; CT 07 20 BM 013130 = OrAnt. 15, 143;
TUT 072 = SVS I/1 072 = OrAnt. 13, 202; TUT 117 = SVS I/1 117 = OrAnt. 13, 203).
31
Cf. Sjöberg and Bergman (1969:33-34, 108-109) for the publication, transliteration,
translation and comments of this Sumerian temple hymn in the Old-Akkadian period.
464 P.S. Vermaak

Line 293: é-dnin-mar-ki gú-ab-baki

“The house of Ninmar in Guabba”

In the Lamentation over Sumer and Ur the temple of Ninmar was again
mentioned in connection with Guabba (LSUr : 168-170):32

Line 168: dnin-mar-ki-ra èš gú-ab-ba-ka izi im-ma-da-an-tej3(?)

“Fire approached Ninmarki in the shrine Guabba” (and)
Line 169: kù na4 za-gìn-bi má-gal-gal-la bala-šè ì-ak-e
“Large boats were transported precious metals and gem stones”
Line 170: nin-níg gur11-ra-ni hul-lu tì-la-àm kù dnin-mar-ki-ke4
“The sacred lady Ninmar was desponded of her perished goods”

It is noteworthy that the Melu an garden (giškiri6 me-lu - a dNin-marki was

connected to the temple of dNinmarki while the temple at Guabba was also
linked with the dNin-marki.33 A large number of granaries were listed under the
jurisdiction of Guabba (šà Gú-ab-baki)34 and they had to deliver barley of which
the Melu an village was only one of the many villages, as well as two different
villages of dNanshe (ì-dub dNin-gír-su-à-zi-da-dNanše) and another new one (ì-
dub é-duru5 gibil dNanše),

Guabba as a Melu an textile hub

The above text under discussion (MVN 7 420 = ITT 4 8024) from the Ur III
period, may lead us to interconnect this Melu an village of Guabba with the

32
Cf the discussion by Michalowski (1989:lines 168-170 with notes) and Cooper
(2006:39-47).
33
Cf. STA 19 = JESHO 20, 138 04 = CBCT-PUL Ex 191. An annual balanced
account (níg-kas7 ak)(CT 05 17 BM 012231 = MVN 17, 002) at Sulgi 45 retrievals were
made from various places within the region of Girsu. In one long text a royal retrieval
(zi-ga lugal) was made from Girsu. Animal retrievals were made on different days
during the time of Shulgi 45 from Gír-suki ù ki-nu-nirki Ninaki
34
Cf. CT 05 36 BM 017751 = JESHO 20, 136 03 = OrAnt. 15,142.
 Guabba, the Melu an village in Mesopotamia 465

entire textile industry of Girsu. Ur III texts with the place name Gú-ab-baki often
list (in 36 texts)35 two other places Ni-naki and Ki-nu-nirki within the region of
Girsu/Lagash which led Falkenstein to identify the so-called triangle of Girsu.36
Although it is not certain what type of relationship these three places had, it has
to be pursued in future.
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
(HSS IV 3) 4272 women and 1800 children from Guabba are listed as being in
the weaving industry (cf. Waetzoldt 1972:94).37 It still has to be determined
why the largest group of weavers are to be found here, but if Guabba was
indeed a Melu an 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.
In a pre-Sargonic text a family of 55 people went up to Guabba, the temple
property of Bau and this led Gelb to the conclusion that the text “deals with
destitute or impoverished families which placed themselves as clients at the
disposal of the temple household of Bau in Girsu, whence they were sent to
Guabba” (Gelb 1979:61). The list of twelve families of which five are headed
by a widow is regarded by Gelb as “abnormal family structure”, but in his
analysis of these early Mesopotamian households, he did not make any
reference to the possibility of the economic factor as being an indication of a
foreign ethnic community living in southern Mesopotamia. However, if the
entire village of Guabba was Melu an all these earlier texts have to be

35
Cf. HLC 274 = ASJ 2 220; CT 05 17 BM 012231 = MVN 17, 002. Cf. the UR III
databases.
36
Cf. šà NINAki u3 Gú-ab-baki ((TUT 164-11 = SVS I/1 164-11 = OrAnt. 13, 208 );
37
There are currently over fifty Ur III texts associating Guabba with the weaving
industry of a large involvement of women. Cf. also é uš-bar dŠu-dSuen šà Gú-ab-baki-ka
(BPOA 1 0061); še-ba gemé uš-bar Gú-ab-baki-ka (BPOA 1 0308)(SS 9-iii); uš-bar Gú-
ab-baki-me (HLC 074,plate 26 = ASJ 2, 201); gemé uš-bar Gú-ab-baki-ka-ke4 (HSS 04
146 ).
466 P.S. Vermaak

reinterpreted with the possibility of an ethnic connotation.

The shepherds of Gu2-ab-baki are often mentioned, even in various types of
texts. In one text (HLC 274 = ASJ 2 220) 23 shepherds (lú-sipa 23) are involved
and delivered various commodities as a group (ki sipa-e-ne-ta).38 The phrase ki
sipa-dè-ne-ta occurs 5 times in this text and one has to believe that the sipa-dè-
ne must have been the sheep supervisors of the place.

Ur-dLamma the Melu an of Guabba

Although the name Ur-dLamma occurs several hundred times in the UR III
texts, it seems that several persons carried the name Ur-dLamma, because there
are often references to the names of their fathers or sons, thus several could be
distinguished . However, Ur-dLamma the Melu an occurs in a few texts and in
seals, but Melu a occurs only once as a personal name from Guabba.

Ur-dLamma dumu Ka5-a ka-gur7 Gú-ab-baki-ka (MVN 7 420 = ITT

4 8024)
Ur-dLamma dumu me-lu - a (CT 3 17 = BM 014594 – JESHO 20,
142 07)(AS 01)(Girsu)

According to the references in texts the personal name Ur-dLamma occurs at

least twice in seals from texts, namely Kišib Ur-dLamma dumu me-lu - a
(OBTR 242 = JESHO 20, 135 02)(SH 40)(Girsu)(2X in text) in a financial
“balanced account” (nig2-kas7-ak), and Kišib Ur-dLamma dumu me-lu - a
(UDT 64 = CBCY 3, NBC 64)

Guabba as a Melu an seaport

Guabba has been interpreted as a harbour town under the jurisdiction of

Girsu/Lagas due to the literal meaning of the reading gú-ab-ba which did not

38
Cf. also CT 05 36 BM 017751 = JESHO 20, 136 03 = OrAnt. 15,142.
 Guabba, the Melu an village in Mesopotamia 467

include the determinative KI for the place name in text SRT 49 II 4, thus gú-ab-
ba (“sea-shore”) in stead of the normal gú-ab-baki.39 It was supported by texts
such as UET III 292 (šu-ha gú-ab-ba “fishermen of the seashore”) and UET III
1294, 1297, 1302 and 1314 referring to saltwater fisherman and marine fish (cf.
Zarins 1992:66).
Since pre-Sargonic and Sargonic times, references to “large boats” hint at a
trading colony which initially had direct contact with their distant ancestors (cf.
“Introduction” above). The following literary document (Lamentation of Sumer
and Ur, Michalowski 1989) confirms its previous status:

Line 168-169: dnin-mar-ki-ra èš gú-ab-ba-ka izi im-ma-da-an-te kù

na4
za-gìn-bi má-gal-gal-la bala-šè ì-ak-e
“Fire approached Ninmarki in the shrine Guabba” (and) large boats
were transporting precious metals and gem stones”

In a Sumerian temple hymn (TH 23)40 Guabba is twice mentioned in connection

with the seas:

Line 283: é ab-šà-ga lá-a ki-kù-ga dù-a

“House which extends over the midst of the sea, built on a holy
place”
Line 284:
gú-ab-baki šà-zu nì-ù-tu erìn gar-gar-a
“Guabba, your interior brings forth everything, (a firmly) founded
storehouse”
During the Ur III period Guabba was nothing more than a village distant from
the seashore, and probably extended its textile assets, because its workers

39
Cf. Sjöberg and Bergman (1969:109, notes 64 and 65). This interpretation was then
followed by others, such as Wilcke (1969:32-33), Foster 1982:162, note 18), Zarins
(1992:66-67) and Heimpel (1976:527-528).
40
Cf. Sjöberg and Bergman (1969:33-34, 108-109) for the publication, transliteration,
translation and comments of this Sumerian temple hymn in the Old-Akkadian period.
468 P.S. Vermaak

became tremendously numerous (cf. Waetzoldt 1972:94). Guabba could now be

reached inland by river boats and several texts refer to saltwater as well as river
fishes. Several texts refer to the distance of the location to and from Guabba,
namely twelve days travel from Guabba to Drehem (ITT V 6946), five towing
days from Girsu to Guabba (ITT III 5084) which according to Zarins (1992: 67)
works out to about ten kilometres per day which amounts to fifty kilometres,
and according to Diakonov (1969:527) the distance measures fifty kilometres
from Guabba to Girsu in the south. But Heimpel (1976:528) identifies it with
Ishan Hoffa, fifty kilometres east of Girsu, and Zarins (1992:67) associates
Guabba with Ijdaiwah, southeast of Girsu. However, this scenario fits into the
description by Nissen (1988:194) that the sea waters decreased tremendously
before the Ur III period which implies that several coastal towns were now
situated much further from the seashore. This information would make perfectly
sense if these foreign Melu an people were integrated into the local
Mesopotamian civilization, because the various references to the Melu ans in
the Ur III texts do not implicate a foreign trade with Melu a anymore, but
rather that several exotic items were often coined as typical Melu an.

CONCLUSIONS

The implication of the connection of the place name Guabba with the Melu an
village in the Ur III texts means that extended information can now be utilized
with more related texts for the discussion of the location of Melu a in the
ancient world. All the possibilities of this connection cannot be explored at
once, but still needs to be analysed. The following preliminary conclusions open
further possibilities for additional research.
The text MVN 7 420 = ITT 4 8024 from Ur III Girsu does, however, link
the Melu an village with Guabba (Gú-ab-baki-ka é-duru5 me-lu - a).
 Guabba, the Melu an village in Mesopotamia 469

The related evidence to the village or town is that Ur-dLamma (Ur-dLamma

dumu me-lu - a) (CT 3 17 = BM 014594) who has often been mentioned in
other Ur III texts and two seals (Kišib Ur-dLamma dumu me-lu - a) (OBTR
242 + UDT 64) is a Melu ian (dumu me-lu - a).
The temple of Guabba has been described as the temple of dNinmarki while
it is noteworthy that the Melu an garden (giškiri6 me-lu - a dNin-marki (STA
19) was also connected to the temple of dNinmarki which means that the
Melu an temple must have been dNinmarki.
When the above-mentioned evidence is taken into account one might be
able to say that Guabba is a Melu an village in southern Mesopotamia, but it is
still to be determined how the other two villages, namely the places Ni-naki and
Ki-nu-nirki, are associated with Guabba (Gú-ab-baki). Kunir and Nina might also
be foreign related villages such as Guabba, but the matter needs further
investigation.41

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Chakrabarti, D K 1975. Gujarat Harappan connection with West Asia: reconsideration
of the evidence, JESHO 18/3:337-342.
Cooper, J S 2006. Genre, gender and the Sumerian lamentation, Journal of Cuneiform
Studies 58:39-47.
Crawford, H E W 1973. Mesopotamia’s invisible exports in the third millennium BC,
World Archaeology 5/2:232-241.
Crawford, H E W 1998. Dilmun and its Gulf neighbours. Cambridge: CUP.
Delaporte, L 1912. Textes de l’époque d’Ur. ITT 4. Paris: Ernest Leroux.
Edens, C 1992. Dynamics in trade in the Ancient Mesopotamian ‘world system’,
American Anthropologist 94/1:118-139.
Edzard, D O & Farber, G 1984. Répertoire géographique des texts cunéiformes. Band
2: Die Orts- und Gewässernamen der Zeit der 3. Dynastie von Ur. Wiesbaden:
Dr Ludwig Reichert Verlag.
Edzard, D O, et al. 1977. Répertoire géographique des textes cunéiformes. Wiesbaden:
Reichert.
Foster, B R 1982. Umma in the Sargonic period. Hamden: Archon Books.

41
Cf. šà NINAki ù Gú-ab-baki (TUT 164-11 = SVS I/1 164-11 = OrAnt. 13, 208).
470 P.S. Vermaak

Gelb, I J 1973. Prisoners of war in early Mesopotamia, Journal of Near Eastern Studies
32:70-98.
_______ 1979. Household and family in early Mesopotamia, Orientalia Lovaniensia
Analecta 5:1-97.
Gibson, M & Biggs, R D 1987. The organization of power: aspects of bureaucracy in
the Ancient Near East. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of
Chicago.
Hansman, J 1973. A periplus of Magan and Meluhha, Bulletin of the School of Oriental
and African Studies 36/3:553-587.
Harmatta, J & Komoróczy, G (eds.) 1976. Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft im alten
Vorderasien. Budapest: Akademiai Kiadó.
Heimpel, W 1976. Assyriologische Feldforshung, in Harmata et al. 1976:527-529.
_______ 1987. Das Untereder Meer, ZfA 77:22-91.
_______ 1993. Meluhha, RlA 8.1/2:53-55.
Howard-Carter, T 1981. The tangible evidence for the earliest Dilmun, Journal of
Cuneiform Studies 33/3:210-223.
Jacobsen, Th 1960. The waters of Ur, Iraq 2:174-185.
Kramer, S N 1963. The Sumerians: their history, culture, and character. Chicago:
Chicago University Press.
Kulke, H 1993. ’A passage to India’: temples merchants and the ocean, JESHO
36/2:154-180.
Lambert, W G 1960. Babylonian Wisdom literature. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Leemans, W F 1960. Foreign trade in the old Babylonian period. Leiden: E J Brill.
_______ 1968. Old Babylonian letters and economic history: a review article with a
digression on foreign trade, JESHO 11/2:171-226.
Maxwell-Hyslop, R 1983. Dalbergia sissoo Roxburgh, Anatolian Studies 33:67-72.
Michalowski, P 1977a. Ur III topographical names, Oriens Antiquus 16:287-296.
_______ 1977b. Durum and Uruk during the Ur III Period, Mesopotamia 12:83-96.
_______ 1978. Foreign tribute to Sumer during the Ur III Period, ZA 68:34-49.
_______1988. Magan and Meluhha once again, Journal of Cuneiform Studies 40:156-
164.
_______ 1989. The lamentation over the destruction of Sumer and Ur. Winona Lake:
Eisenbrauns.
Mieroop, M van de 1992. Wood in the Old Babylonian texts from southern
Mesopotamia, Bulletin on Sumerian Agriculture 6:155-161.
Moorey, P R S 1994. Ancient Mesopotamian materials and industries. Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
Oppenheim, A L 1954. Sea-faring merchants of Ur, JAOS 74/1:6-17.
Parpola, S., Parpola, A., Brunswig, R 1977. The Meluhha Village: evidence of
acculturation of Harappan traders in late millennium Mesopotamia, JESHO
20:129-165.
Pettinato, G 1972. Il commercio con l’estero della Mesopotamia, Mesopotamia 7:43-
166.
Pettinato, G, Picchioni, S A & Waetzoldt, H 1978. Testi economici di Lagash del Museo
di Istanbul – Parte II: La 7601-8200. MVN 7. Roma: Multigrafica Editrice.
 Guabba, the Melu an village in Mesopotamia 471

Possehl, G L 1990. Revolution in the urban revolution: the emergence of Indus

urbanization, Annual Review of Anthropology 19:262-282.
_______ 2006. ‘What in the world’: Shu-ilishu’s cylinder seal, Expedition 48/1:42-43.
Postgate, J N 1992. Early Mesopotamia: society and economy at the dawn of history.
London: Routledge.
Potts, T F 1993a. Patterns of trade in third millennium BC Mesopotamian and Iran,
World Archaeology 24/3:379-402.
_______ 1993b. Rethinking some aspects of trade in the Arabian Gulf, World
Archaeology 24/3:423-440.
Powell, M A 1987. The tree section of ur5 (= HAR)-ra = hubullu, Bulletin on Sumerian
Agriculture 5:75-104.
Reade, J (ed) 1996. The Indian Ocean in antiquity. London: Kegan.
Reisner, G A 1901. Tempelurkunden aus Telloh. TUT. Berlin: W Spemann.
Salonen, A 1972-1975. Holz: A. Philologisch, Reallexikon der Assyriologie IV:453-
454.
Sigrist, M 1991. The comprehensive catalogue of the published Ur III tablets. Bethesda,
Md : CDL Press.
Sjöberg, Å and Bergman E 1969. The collection of the Sumerian temple hymns. Locust
Valley: J J Augistin.
Steinkeller, P 1980. The Old Akkadian term of ‘Easterner’, RA 74:1-9.
_______ 1982. The question of Marhaši: a contribution to the historical geography of
Iran in the third millennium BC, ZA 72:237-265.
_______ 1987. The administrative and economic organization of the Ur III state: the
core and periphery, in Gibson & Biggs 1987:19-41.
Stieglitz, R R 1984. Long distance seafaring in the ancient Near East, The Biblical
Archaeologist 47/3:134-142.
Thapar, R 1975. A possible identification of Meluhha, Dilmun and Makan JESHO 18:1-
42.
Veldhuis, Niek 2004. Religion, literature and scholarship: The Sumerian composition
Nanše and the birds: with a catalogue of Sumerian bird names. Leiden: Brill.
Waetzoldt, H 1972. Untersuchungen zur Neusumerischen Textilindustrie. Roma: Centro
per le Antichità e la stoia dell’arte del vicino oriente.
Zarins, J 1992. The early settlement of southern Mesopotamia: review of recent
historical, geological and archaeological research, JAOS 112/1:55-77.

Prof P S (Fanie) Vermaak

Department of Old Testament and Ancient Near Eastern Studies
University of South Africa
P O Box 392, Unisa, 0003 South Africa
Email: [email protected]