Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wzw2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-01T06:31:40.566Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Commerce and Trade: Gleanings from Sumerian Literature

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 August 2014

S. N. Kramer
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

That Sumerian literary compositions, despite the rarefied, etherial, unworldly nature of much of their content, could prove to be significant source material for such practical, mundane, workaday matters as trade and commerce, has been known a long time, ever since the text of the hymns inscribed on the Gudea Cylinders was edited and published some seventy years ago. When therefore the theme of this Rencontre was announced, it occurred to me that it might be useful to search through all, or at least most, of the available Sumerian literary documents with an eye for those passages that have some relevance for trade and commerce, for barter and exchange. This paper will present the rather meagre results of this search.

Beginning with the myths, I found that there were four which contained passages relating to commerce and trade: (1) the Ur version of the Dilmun myth “Enki and Ninhursag”; (2) the myth commonly known as “Enki and the World Order”; (3) the poem celebrating the journey of Nanna-Suen to Nippur; (4) the myth revolving about the transfer of the me from Eridu to Erech, in which the deities Inanna and Enki are the main protagonists.

Type
Research Article
Information
IRAQ , Volume 39 , Issue 1 , Spring 1977 , pp. 59 - 66
Copyright
Copyright © The British Institute for the Study of Iraq 1977

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Cf. now Falkenstein, A., An Or 30, pp. 46–54Google Scholar for a comprehensive treatment of the relevant passages, and for bibliographical references to earlier publications.

2 Sumer is not actually mentioned by name, but it may be assumed that Ur, which is mentioned by name, is intended to represent Sumer as a whole.

3 Cf. UET 6, no. 1; The Summons, 279; Leemans, W. F., JESHO 11 (1969), 220 ffGoogle Scholar.

4 The passage is quite fragmentary, and it is not clear just what these acts were, except that Magan and Dilmun were involved in some way.

5 Cf. lines 125–130 of the myth as edited by Benito, C. A. in “Enki and Ninmah” and “Enki and the World Order” (Dissertation in the Department of Oriental Studies of the University of Pennsylvania, 1969)Google Scholar.

6 Cf. ibid., lines 219–235.

7 Note, however, that the reading and rendering of the two lines, as Gertrud Farber-Flügge carefully points out in her edition of Der Mythos “Inanna and Enki” (Studia Pohl 10; Rome, 1973, 60–61, and 94)Google Scholar are quite uncertain.

8 Cf. Ferrara, A. J., “Nanna-Suen's Journey to Nippur” (Studia Orientalia: Series Major 2), 84–87Google Scholar.

9 Cf. ibid., 22–26.

10 Cf. Cohen's, Sol edition of “Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta” (Dissertation in the Department of Oriental Studies of the University of Pennsylvania, 1973), line 16–19Google Scholar. I assume that Aratta was mentioned in the missing beginnings of lines 16 or 17.

11 Cf. ibid., lines 124–127, 146–149, 278–284, 323–334.

12 This composition has been edited by Feigenbaum-Berlin, Adele under the title “Enmerkar and Ensuhkešdanna” as a Dissertation in the Oriental Department of the University of Pennsylvania, 1976Google Scholar; note that the reading of the name of the en of Aratta is still moot.

13 Cf. lines 128–132, and note that Jacobsen's rendering of the passage (cited ibid, in the comment to line 132) is preferable to that suggested by Feigenbaum-Berlin.

14 The section of the poem between lines 139–162 consists of two speeches, one by the mašmaš (lines 140–149; note that in line 139, the subject is the mašmaš, not Ansiggaria), and one by Ansiggaria to the assembly of his city (cf. the fragmentary lines 150–152) in which he repeats the speech of mašmaš verbatim (lines 153–162).

15 The nature of these activities is quite uncertain, since the real meaning of lines 143–147 (repeated in lines 156–160) is obscure.

16 Cf. lines 148–149 (repeated in lines 161–162). This claim may be no more than a fanciful boast of the mašmaš (as may also be true of his pretentious assertion that he would build an Eridu Canal), and the passage should therefore not necessarily lead to the conclusion that there actually was maritime or riverine traffic between Erech and Aratta.

17 Cf. lines 163–167.

18 Cf. lines 135–140 of the poem in Glaus Wilke's Das Lugalbanda-Epos.

19 Cf. the variant version of the poem cited in JCS 1 (1947), 36, note 217Google Scholar; cf. also Sol Cohen, loc. cit., 58, note 81.

20 Cf. lines 111–113 of the poem in Aaron Shaffer's manuscript, and note the rendering magur magilum, instead of “the boat ‘Might of Magilum’” in The Sumerians, 195. For the Magan-boat cf. especially Jacobsen, , Tammuz, 342Google Scholar.

21 Cf. JCS 21 (1962), 116, line 181Google Scholar.

22 Cf. ANET 3, 646–651.

23 For abzaza, cf. now Boehmer, R., ZA 64 (1975), 10–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

24 Cf. ANET 3, 617, lines 311–329.

25 Cf. ANET 3, 576, lines 10–11, but note the new rendering.

26 Cf. ANET 3, 574, line 31.

27 Cf. STVC no. 61, lines 136–154, and Cohen, Mark in WO 8 (1975), 22–36Google Scholar.

28 For bibliographical references cf. CRRAI XVIII (Munich, 1972), 117–118Google Scholar.

29 Cf. lines 233–248, and note that my rendering differs slightly from that of the editors, by combining the variant readings of A and E2.

30 Cf. ANET 3, 585, lines 29–35, and note several minor changes. There is one fragmentary line in a Šulgi hymn that actually mentions a damkar-gal but in an unintelligible context (cf. TRS, no. 14, col. iii, line 5).

31 Cf. especially Åke Sjöberg in his contribution to the Jacobsen Anniversary Volume (AS 20, 1975)Google Scholar.

32 Cf. “The Disputation Between Two School Graduates”, lines 71 and 85; “Enkita and Enkihegal”, line 172; “Enkimansi and Girnišag”, line 58; “Disputation Between Two Women”, lines 63 and 68 (all references are to M. Civil's preliminary manuscripts in the University Museum).

33 Cf. B. Alster, The Instructions of Šuruppak, lines 14, 158–162, 217, 220.

34 Cf. Gordon, E. I., Sumerian Proverbs, 293–295 for detailsGoogle Scholar; and note that the translations and interpretations of the pertinent proverbs proposed by Gordon and Jacobsen differ considerably.