-
7/27/2019 Total prestation in marhashi-ur relations (DT Potts,
2002, Iranica Antiqua, Vol.XXXVII)
1/15
TOTAL PRESTATION IN MARHASHI-UR RELATIONS
BY
D.T. POTTS(Sydney)
Introduction
In Gorgias (507e-508a) Plato wrote, The wise say that what
holds
together heaven and earth and gods and men is koinonia
(community),friendship, kosmiotes (orderliness), moderation and
justice (Schofield1998: 39). In the ancient and modern world and in
Western and non-Western societies alike, gift-giving has been used
since antiquity as onemeans of establishing and maintaining not
just personal friendship butwhat Aristotle called political
friendship (Eudemian Ethics 7.10.1). Nostudent of anthropology will
have gotten very far before reading MarcelMauss classic essay on
this subject (Mauss 1966) and generations ofeconomic
anthropologists have refined and reshaped the way we approachthis
topic sinceEssai sur le don was first published in 1925. Studies of
giftexchange in the ancient Near East have been concerned largely
with theLate Bronze Age (e.g. Zaccagnini 1973, 2000; Liverani 1979,
1990, 2000;Cochavi-Rainey 1999; Avruch 2000) and much less so with
earlier periods(Zaccagnini 1983), but it is my intention here to
examine briefly whatMauss called the system of total prestation in
the relationship betweenMarhashi and Ur during the late 3rd
millennium B.C.
Some definitions
As Mauss conceived the term, total prestation denoted a system,
ratherthan a simple exchange of goods, wealth and produce through
marketsestablished among individuals. For him, total prestation
described thesystem of relationships between groups, For it is
groups, and not indi-viduals, which carry on exchange, make
contracts, and are bound by oblig-ations; the persons represented
in the contracts are moral persons clans,tribes and families; the
groups, or the chiefs as intermediaries for thegroups, confront and
oppose each other. Further, what they exchange is
Iranica Antiqua, vol. XXXVII, 2002
-
7/27/2019 Total prestation in marhashi-ur relations (DT Potts,
2002, Iranica Antiqua, Vol.XXXVII)
2/15
not exclusively goods and wealth, real and personal property,
and things ofeconomic value. They exchange rather courtesies,
entertainments, ritual,military assistance, women, children,
dances, and feasts (Mauss 1966: 3).
The task here will be to demonstrate that such a system of total
presta-tion characterized the relationship between the Ur III state
and at least oneof the lands situated to its east, Marhashi. Over
the years Marhashi (orBarahshum; for a contrary view see Westenholz
1999: 91) has beenlocated by scholars in various parts of Iran
(Vallat 1993: 171-173 withextensive bibliography). Most recent
studies, however, have tended toplace it in the perimeter of Kerman
and eastern Fars (Steinkeller 1982:255) or in Iranian Baluchistan
(Vallat 1993: CXIII). The honorand of this
volume, Karl Lamberg-Karlovsky, suggested recently that the size
ofShahdad (over 100 ha.) in Kerman makes it a plausible candidate
forMarhashis capital, while a site like Tepe Yahya would have been
one ofits smaller towns (Lamberg-Karlovsky 2001: 278-279). The
preciselocation of Marhashi, however, is irrelevant in the present
context.Rather, it is the nature of Marhashis relations with Ur
which interest us,not Marhashis identification.
There can be no doubt that outright conquest was used as a means
ofexpanding the territory of the Ur III state (Steinkeller 1987:
30; Neumann1992: 267-268; Sallaberger 1999: 156-159), and the gn
ma-da pay-ments made by military personnel attest to the breadth of
Urs forciblecontrol over other cities and regions. But although
these have sometimesbeen interpreted as payments of tribute by
foreign entities (e.g.Michalowski 1978), Steinkeller has shown that
the taxpayers involvedwere all military ones serving in Urs
extended network of bases, and thatgn ma-da payments never came
from those areas which must have beenlocated in various parts of
the Iranian Plateau, such as Anshan (aroundTal-i Malyan in Fars),
Huhnuri, Marhashi, Shimashki and Zabshali(Steinkeller 1987: 37;
Susa, on the other hand, was a source of a gn ma-
da payment in Shulgis 46th year, see Michalowski 1978: 48). To
under-stand Urs relations with these more distant regions we must
considerother mechanisms, such as those enumerated above by Mauss.
Specifi-cally, we shall examine evidence pertaining to Marhashian
women, mili-tary personnel, festivals and exotic animals at Ur.
344 D.T. POTTS
-
7/27/2019 Total prestation in marhashi-ur relations (DT Potts,
2002, Iranica Antiqua, Vol.XXXVII)
3/15
Exchange of women
Whereas the royal inscriptions of Sargon, Rimush and Manishtusu
allboast of military campaigns against Marhashi (Old Akk.
Barahshum),either Sharkalisharri himself, as crown prince, or
perhaps his son, went toMarhashi and married a Marhashian
(Westenholz 1987: nos. 133 and154). At about this time, moreover, a
delegation of Marhashians waspresent at Nippur, perhaps in
preparation for this event (Westenholz1987: 97). From this point
on, diplomatic marriage replaced violence inMesopotamian-Marhashian
relations.
We have no sources which could shed light on the nature of those
rela-tions in the time of Ur-Namma, but evidence from the reign of
Shulgishows us that the exchange of women, via diplomatic marriage,
was againemployed in strengthening the bonds between Marhashi and
the leadingpower of the day in Mesopotamia. The year name of the 18
th year ofShulgis reign was as follows: Year: Liwwir-miasu the
kings daughterwas elevated to the ladyship of Marasi (Sigrist and
Gomi 1991: 321; cf.Frayne 1997: 100-101; Sallaberger 1999: 160).
This suggests thatShulgis daughter became queen of Marhashi,
implying her removal fromthe court at Ur to the as yet
undifentified capital of this eastern land.
Exotic animals
In an article published in the June 13th, 2001, edition ofIndian
Express,entitled India gifts away precious wildlife, gets nothing
in return, thefollowing statement was made: India seems to be
getting diplomaticallyshort-changed, at least on the wildlife
front. Every year, endangeredspecies of tigers, Asiatic lions or
elephants are sent off as diplomatic giftsto countries across the
world. In contrast, the only two major officialdiplomatic gifts
that India has got in the past three years are the two
babyelephants presented to President K.R. Narayanan in 1999 by
Zimbabwe
President Robert Mugabe and the two horses that Minister of
ExternalAffairs Jaswant Singh brought back with him from Saudi
Arabia.Ironically, nothing much seems to have changed since
antiquity.
Meluhha, conventionally identified with the Indus Valley
civilization, hasbeen a source of exotic animals for millennia. It
has been suggested, forexample, that, The water buffaloes so
beloved by the Sargonic seal cuttersmust have come to Babylonia as
diplomatic gifts from Meluhha (Westen-holz 1999: 102; Boehmer 1975:
4 and others think the animals came
TOTAL PRESTATION IN MARHASHI-UR RELATIONS 345
-
7/27/2019 Total prestation in marhashi-ur relations (DT Potts,
2002, Iranica Antiqua, Vol.XXXVII)
4/15
rather as tribute or booty). A well-known Old Babylonian copy of
a royalinscription of Ibbi-Sins from Ur (Sollberger 1965: 8, UET
8.37) recordsthe dedication to Nanna of a statue of an ur gn-a
Me-luh-haki which theking had originally received as a gift from
Marhashi and which he namedlet him catch or may he catch.
It is interesting to note that a text from Puzrish-Dagan
recording the dis-bursement of 1 ox and 20 sheep, designated royal
gifts, names Banana,the man of Marhashi, amongst the recipients.
Edmond Sollberger, theeditor of the text, supposed that this was
one of a number of texts, datingto Ibbi-Sins first year, which were
connected with Ibbi-Sins coronation(Sollberger 1956: 18-19). One
wonders whether it was Banana who
brought with him the original ur gn-a Me-luh-haki with him as a
coro-nation present for Ibbi-Sin?
Military assistance
Steinkeller has summarized the evidence pertaining to elite
soldiers fromMarhashi under the command of a Marhashian officer
named Simmu,between the years Shulgi 48 and Amar-Sin 5 (for full
refs. see Steinkeller1982: 262-262; cf. Neumann 1992: 271). The
sources record the receiptof travel provisions for a journey to
Marhashi and, on several occasions,
the receipt of sheep at Puzrish-Dagan. Judging by the numbers of
sheepgiven out as rations, the attachments numbered 30 or 36 men.
Elamitesand soldiers referred to as Elamites of Marhashi figure in
these texts, aswell (Steinkeller 1982: 262, n. 97).
Festivals
A festival of the Marhashians, probably held in the year
Amar-Sin 2, wascelebrated by the Marhashian troops under Simmu
(Steinkeller 1982: 262,n. 97). Strictly speaking we cannot say for
sure whether this was a cele-
bration purely put on by and for the Marhashian troops, or
whether itinvolved participants from the host country, i.e. Ur. As
Mauss stressed,however, to fail to invite, is like refusing to
accept the equivalentof war; it is a refusal of friendship and
intercourse (Mauss 1966: 11). Itis certainly plausible to suggest
that, as the sheep required for the festiv-ities were provided by
the royal office at Puzrish-Dagan, the Marhashiansmore likely than
not invited their local colleagues to the feast.
346 D.T. POTTS
-
7/27/2019 Total prestation in marhashi-ur relations (DT Potts,
2002, Iranica Antiqua, Vol.XXXVII)
5/15
Conclusion
It is in the nature of the documents available to us that the
examples ofMarhashian women, military personnel, festivals and
exotic animals citedabove are not synchronous, but I do not think
this invalidates the generalpicture which I have tried to build up
in this short essay. Mausss com-ments on his Samoan, Australian and
Fijian examples are just as relevantto the Marhashi-Ur situation.
In all these instances, he wrote, there is aseries of rights and
duties about consuming and repaying existing side byside with
rights and duties about giving and receiving (Mauss 1966: 11)and I
think the same can be said of the ties which bound Marhashi and
Ur.There is a real difference between Marhashi, which was never the
objectof Mesopotamian aggression after the reign of Naram-Sin, and,
forinstance, Anshan. Shulgi gave his daughter in marriage to the
ruler ofAnshan in his 30th year, and destroyed the highland center
a mere fouryears later (Potts 1999: Table 5.2). In other words,
when it came toAnshan and other highland Iranian regions, gifts
given by Ur with onehand were taken away with the other. Marhashi
and Ur, on the other hand,enjoyed a relationship based on a far
broader base of giving and receivingthan the often transparent and,
in isolation, ineffectual means of diplo-matic marriage.
Most American archaeologists working in departments of
anthropology,and a few like myself who have ended up working
outside the Americanarchaeological establishment, have a line from
Willey and Phillips classic
Method and Theory in American Archaeology lurking somewhere in
theirheads: American archaeology is anthropology or it is nothing
(Willeyand Phillips 1958: 2). The line of investigation pursued
here has shownthat the rich fund of cuneiform sources from
Mesopotamia offers all sortsof opportunities for applying insights
from social or cultural anthropologyto the interpretation of the
ancient societies of Iraq and Iran.
Excursus: Identifying the ur gn-a Me-luh-haki
No consensus exists about the identification of the ur gn-a
Me-luh-haki
received by Ibbi-Sin from Marhashi. To begin with, however, two
pointsabout this gift require clarification. First, we must
consider the animalscolour. Although Sollberger read the signs in
line 9 of this inscription asur sa11-a rather than ur gn-a
(Sollberger 1965: 8; Sollberger and Kupper1971: 159) and
interpreted the colour as red (cf. Heimpel 1972-75: 494;
TOTAL PRESTATION IN MARHASHI-UR RELATIONS 347
-
7/27/2019 Total prestation in marhashi-ur relations (DT Potts,
2002, Iranica Antiqua, Vol.XXXVII)
6/15
Krki 1986: 149), Steinkeller has pointed to the prevalence of
animalsdescribed as gn-a in Ur III sources and suggests this
reading instead(Steinkeller 1982: 253, n. 60; argued more fully,
contra the objections ofSteible 1991: 294, in Steinkeller 1995: 69,
n. 103) which, moreover, hasnow appeared in an Emar version of the
lexical text HAR-ra = hubulluXIV (Arnaud 1985: 114). Sumerian gn-a,
Akkadian burrumu, denotesmulticoloured (Landsberger 1967: 140) and
Steinkeller interprets this asdenoting spotted, speckled or dappled
(Steinkeller 1995: 50; cf.Frayne 1997: 374).
The second consideration concerns the type of animal implied by
theelement ur. Although Salonen (Salonen 1976: 88ff) and others
(e.g.
Heimpel 1968: 360ff) considered it a generic marker for
canines,Steinkeller has shown that, in combination with other
verbal elements, urcan also denote felines (Steinkeller 1982: 253).
Heimpel agrees with thisposition as well (Heimpel 1972-75; cf. Butz
1977: 288-289). Thus, ratherthan a speckled dog, Steinkeller has
suggested that the animal given toIbbi-Sin was a spotted feline,
most likely a leopard (Panthera pardus)(Steinkeller 1982: 253 and
n. 61).
Let us consider this suggestion by asking, first, what other
evidencemight support such an identification? While representations
of felinesidentified as leopards are known from a number of late
prehistoric andBronze Age sites in Iraq and Iran (for refs. see Van
Buren 1939: 10-12 s.v.panther; Williams-Forte 1980-83: 602ff), many
of these are ambiguousand could just as well represent the Asiatic
cheetah (Acinonyx jubatusvenaticus) which is known to have
inhabited Iran (see below) and Iraq(e.g. Corkill 1929) until very
recently, and which was certainly well-known in the putative area
of ancient Meluhha modern Pakistan andparts of India (Roberts 1997:
226-227). This is not to suggest that theleopard did not originally
live in Mesopotamia, but it is more likely tohave been an
inhabitant of the foothills than the alluvium (Butz 1977: 289,
who identified Sumerian pirig-tur = Akkadian nimru/namru with
theleopard [Panthera pardus tulliana orsaxicolor]; cf. Heimpel,
1968: 330;Salonen, 1976: 246). As Roberts says, the normally
solitary leopard (Fig.1) gives evidence of being an extremely wary
and intelligent animal,hunting mainly at night and even entering
the precincts of villages withoutbeing detected by their human
occupants (Roberts 1997: 220). Moreover,in hisKitab al-Itibar, the
12th century Syrian hunter Usama b. Munkidhemphasized the
ineradicable brutality of the leopard (Vir 1963: 739).
348 D.T. POTTS
-
7/27/2019 Total prestation in marhashi-ur relations (DT Potts,
2002, Iranica Antiqua, Vol.XXXVII)
7/15
Nevertheless, the number of leopard depictions in Egyptian tombs
whichare anatomically distinguishable from those of cheetahs
(Osborn andOsbornov 1998: 119-121) suggests that it was certainly
possible to trapand tame leopards in antiquity. It is difficult to
tell whether a gold foilfeline from Tal-i Malyan (Sumner 1976: Pl.
IIIj) which dates to the late 4th
or early 3rd millennium B.C. (Fig. 2) is a leopard or a cheetah,
but thestriding feline on a silver gilt and niello plate (Fig. 3),
of 4th or 5th centuryA.D. date, has the heavier build of a leopard
(Harper 1997: 104-105)
A second candidate for ur gn-a Me-luh-haki
is the Asiatic cheetah(Acinonyx jubatus venaticus). The habitat
of the cheetah, whose Englishname comes from the Hindi chita
meaning spotted (Yule and Burnell1886:187), once extended from
southern Africa to India. Cheetahs havebeen recorded on many
occasions in the vicinity of the area thought bysome scholars (see
above) to have been identical with Marhashi. The StreetExpedition
of 1962-1963 obtained a cheetah specimen at Damin in Kermanprovince
(Lay 1967); the Field Museum in Chicago has a specimen from
TOTAL PRESTATION IN MARHASHI-UR RELATIONS 349
1.Panthera pardus, drawing of an adult male leopard in the
Lahore Zoo(after Roberts 1997: 218).
-
7/27/2019 Total prestation in marhashi-ur relations (DT Potts,
2002, Iranica Antiqua, Vol.XXXVII)
8/15
Bampur; and some years ago a relict population of approximately
100 ani-mals was discovered in southeastern Iran (Hatt 1995: 62).
Within the areaof greater Meluhha, if an identification of this
toponym with the IndusValley civilization is admitted, cheetahs
were abundant west of the IndusRiver in Sindh; throughout central
India and the Deccan plateau; inBaluchistan; in the Makran region;
and in Afghanistan (Roberts 1997:226-227).
As numerous accounts attest, cheetah cubs caught in the wild are
easilytamed and reared as pets (Corkill, 1929: 700-702). They
appear as giftsand/or tribute (Fig. 4) in Egyptian tomb scenes
(Osborn and Osbornov1998: 122; cf. Strk 1977, Hatt 1995: 62-63)
though they have sometimesbeen confused with or misidentified as
leopards (e.g. Davies 1942). Similarconfusion is rife in the Arabic
sources (Vir 1965: 738-739).
In a number of articles published in Japanese, Sumio Fujii has
re-exam-ined images of felines on a large painted jar (Fig. 5) of 4
th millennium typein Tehran (Fujii 1990; cf. Amiet 1979: Figs.
15-17), along with a series of
350 D.T. POTTS
2. Gold foil feline from Tal-i Malyan, Banesh period (courtesy
of W.M. Sumner).
-
7/27/2019 Total prestation in marhashi-ur relations (DT Potts,
2002, Iranica Antiqua, Vol.XXXVII)
9/15
depictions on pottery (Fig. 6) from Tepe Sialk, Tepe Hissar,
Tepe Giyan,Tal-i Bakun A, Seh Gabi [= Godin VI] and several other
sites. Rather thanrepresenting a leopard in skid position, as
Iranian archaeologists have
long called them (e.g. Dyson 1965: 238), these are, in Fujiis
view,depictions of cheetahs (Fujii 1993). If Fujii is correct then
the very earlyevidence of cheetah use on the Iranian Plateau
strengthens the likelihoodthat the ur gn-a Me-luh-haki presented to
Ibbi-Sin was a cheetah, not aleopard. The name of Ibbi-Sins feline,
moreover, let him catch or mayhe catch, seems eminently suited to a
hunting cheetah which, as thePersian, Arabic and Chinese sources
surveyed by Fujii (Fujii 1990, 1993)and others (Vir 1963) clearly
show, is well-attested in from late antiquityonward.
TOTAL PRESTATION IN MARHASHI-UR RELATIONS 351
3. Silver gilt and niello plate in the Miho Museum, 4th-5th
century A.D.(courtesy H. Inagaki, Miho Museum).
-
7/27/2019 Total prestation in marhashi-ur relations (DT Potts,
2002, Iranica Antiqua, Vol.XXXVII)
10/15
Acknowledgements
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Dr. Sumio Fujii
for off-prints of his articles in Japanese which first got me
thinking about chee-tahs and the spotted feline of Marhashi. Prof.
Hugh Clarke and Dr. YiyanWang kindly romanized a number of Chinese
and Japanese terms for me,for which I am very grateful. I would
like to thank Prof. W.M. Sumner,director of the Tal-i Malyan
project, for providing me with the photographwhich appears here as
Fig. 2, and Hajime Inagaki of the Miho Museum forproviding me with
the photograph which appears here as Fig. 3. Finally, I
352 D.T. POTTS
4. Nubians escorting a cheetah from Tomb No. 84 (Amunedjeh) at
Thebes,Dynasty XVIII (after Davies 1942: Pl. V).
-
7/27/2019 Total prestation in marhashi-ur relations (DT Potts,
2002, Iranica Antiqua, Vol.XXXVII)
11/15
have benefitted from the comments of Profs. Piotr Steinkeller
(Harvard)and R.K. Englund (UCLA). Needless to say I alone am
responsible for the
interpretations advocated here.Bibliography
AMIET, P. 1979. Liconographie archaque de lIran: Quelques
documents nou-veaux. Syria 56: 333-352.
ARNAUD, D. 1985.Recherches au Pays dAstata, Emar VI.2: Textes
sumriens etaccadiens. Paris: ditions Recherche sur les
Civilisations.
BOEHMER, R.M. 1975. Das Auftreten des Wasserbffels in
Mesopotamien in his-torischer Zeit und seine sumerische
Bezeichnung.ZA 64: 1-19.
BUTZ, K. 1977. Bemerkungen zu Jagdtieren in Mesopotamien.
BiOr34: 282-90.COCHAVI-RAINEY, Z. 1999.Royal gifts in the Late
Bronze Age, fourteenth to thir-
teenth centuries B.C.E.: Selected texts recording gifts to royal
personages.Beer-Sheva: Beer-Sheva 13.
CORKILL, N.L. 1929. On the occurrence of the cheetah (Acononyx
jubatus) in Iraq.Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 33:
700-702.
DAVIES, N.M. 1942. Nubians in the tomb of Amunedjeh. Journal of
EgyptianArchaeology 28: 50-52.
DYSON, R.H., Jr. 1965. Problems in the relative chronology of
Iran, 6000-2000B.C. In: Ehrich, R.W., ed. Chronologies in Old World
Archaeology, 2nd ed.Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, pp.
215-256.
TOTAL PRESTATION IN MARHASHI-UR RELATIONS 353
5. Black-on-buff painted jar in the Ab Gineh (Glass)
Museum,Tehran (after Amiet 1979: Figs. 15-16).
-
7/27/2019 Total prestation in marhashi-ur relations (DT Potts,
2002, Iranica Antiqua, Vol.XXXVII)
12/15
354 D.T. POTTS
6. Selection of pottery showing skidding leopards, or more
likely, skidding cheetahsfrom Tepe Hissar (1 = Schmidt 1937: Pl.
XXI; 2 = Schmidt 1937: Pl. VII; 3 = Schmidt1937: Pl. XIII), Seh
Gabi (Young and Levine 1974: Fig. 14.14) and Tepe Yahya (afterPotts
2001: Fig. 3.13.F).
-
7/27/2019 Total prestation in marhashi-ur relations (DT Potts,
2002, Iranica Antiqua, Vol.XXXVII)
13/15
FRAYNE, D. 1997. Ur III period (2112-2004 BC). Toronto: Royal
Inscriptions ofMesopotamia, Early Periods 3/2.
FUJII, S. 1990. Driving net-hunting and the use of
hunting-cheetah in the IranianPlateau in the latter half of the 4th
millennium B.C. Seinan-Asia Kenkyu [Bul-letin of the Society for
Western and Southern Asiatic Studies] 32: 1-20 (inJapanese).
FUJII, S. 1993. A reassessment of the meaning ofbao described in
cefu yuanguiwaichengbu chaogongpian. Bulletin of the Ancient Orient
Museum 14: 143-167 (in Japanese).
HARPER, P.O. 1997. Plate decorated with a feline. In: Catalogue
of the MihoMuseum (The South Wing). Shiga: Miho Museum, pp.
104-105.
HATT, J.-M. 1995. Falke und Gepard Jagdgenossen des Menschen.
Viertel-jahrsschrift der naturforschenden Gesellschaft in Zrich
140/2: 61-68.
HEIMPEL, W. 1968. Tierbilder in der sumerischen Literatur. Rome:
Studia Pohl 2.HEIMPEL, W. 1972-75. Hund.RlA 4: 494-497.HEIMPEL, W.
1980-83. Leopard (und Gepard*).RlA 6: 599-601.KRKI, I. 1986. Die
Knigsinschriften der dritten Dynastie von Ur. Helsinki:
StOr 58.LAMBERG-KARLOVSKY, C.C. 2001. Excavations at Tepe Yahya:
Reconstructing
the past. In: Potts, D.T. Excavations at Tepe Yahya, Iran,
1967-1975: Thethird millennium. Cambridge: Peabody Museum Bulletin
45, pp. 269-280.
LANDSBERGER, B. 1967. ber Farben im Sumerisch-Akkadischen. JCS
21: 139-173.
LIVERANI, M. 1979. Dono, tributo, commercio: Ideologia dello
scambio nella
tarda et del bronzo.Annali dellIstituto Italiano di Numismatica
26: 9-28.LIVERANI, M. 1990. Prestige and interest: International
relations in the NearEast ca. 1600-1100 B.C. Padua: History of the
Ancient Near East/Studies 1.
LIVERANI, M. 2000. The great powers club. In: Cohen, R. and
Westbrook, R.,eds.Amarna diplomacy: The beginnings of international
relations. Baltimoreand London: Johns Hopkins University Press, pp.
15-27.
MAUSS, M. 1966. The gift: Forms and functions of exchange in
archaic societies.London: Cohen & West.
MEISSNER, B. 1911. Assyrische jagden auf Grund alter Berichte
und Darstellun-gen. Leipzig: Hinrichs.
MICHALOWSKI, P. 1975. The bride of Simanum. JAOS 95:
716-719.MICHALOWSKI, P. 1978. Foreign tribute to Sumer during the
Ur III period. ZA 68:
34-49.NEUMANN, H. 1992. Bemerkungen zum Problem der Fremdarbeit
in Meso-
potamien (3. Jahrtausend v.u.Z.). Altorientalische Forschungen
19: 266-275.OSBORN, D.J. and Osbornov, J. 1998. The mammals of
ancient Egypt. Warmin-
ster: Aris & Phillips.POTTS, D.T. 2001. Excavations at Tepe
Yahya, Iran, 1967-1975, The Third Mil-
lennium. Cambridge: Bulletin of the American School of
Prehistoric Research45.
TOTAL PRESTATION IN MARHASHI-UR RELATIONS 355
-
7/27/2019 Total prestation in marhashi-ur relations (DT Potts,
2002, Iranica Antiqua, Vol.XXXVII)
14/15
ROBERTS, T.J. 1997. The mammals of Pakistan. Karachi: Oxford
UniversityPress.
RLLIG, W. 1972-75. Heirat, politische.RlA 4:
282-287.SALLABERGER, W. 1999. Ur-III Zeit. In: Attinger, P. and
Wfler, M, eds.
Mesopotamien: Akkade-Zeit und Ur III-Zeit. Freiburg: Annherungen
3 [=Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 160/3], pp. 121-414.
SALONEN, A. 1976.Jagd und Jagdtiere im alten Mesopotamien.
Helsinki: AASFB 196.
SCHMIDT, E.F. 1937. Excavations at Tepe Hissar, Damghan.
Philadelphia: Uni-versity Museum.
SCHOFIELD, M. 1998. Political friendship and the ideology of
reciprocity. In:Cartledge, P., Millett, P. and von Reden, S., eds.
Kosmos: Essays in order,conflict and community in classical Athens.
Cambridge: Cambridge Univ.
Press, pp. 37-51.SIGRIST, M. and GOMI, T. 1991. The
comprehensive catalogue of published Ur IIItablets. Bethesda: CDL
Press.
SOLLBERGER, E. 1956. Selected texts from American collections.
JCS 10: 11-25.SOLLBERGER, E. 1965. Ur Excavations Texts VIII. Royal
Inscriptions, Pt. II.
London: British Museum.SOLLBERGER, E. and KUPPER, J.-R. 1971.
Inscriptions royales sumriennes et
akkadiennes. Paris: Littratures anciennes du Proche-Orient
3.STEIBLE, H. 1991. Die neusumerischen Bau- und Weihinschriften,
Teil 2. Kom-
mentar zur den Gudea-Statuen, Inschriften der III. Dynastie von
Ur,Inschriften der IV. und V. Dynastie von Uruk, Varia. Wiesbaden:
Freiburger
Altorientalische Studien 9/2.STEINKELLER, P. 1982. The question
of Marasi: A contribution to the historicalgeography of Iran in the
third millennium B.C.ZA 72: 237-65.
STEINKELLER, P. 1987. The administrative and economic
organization of the UrIII state: The core and the periphery. In:
Gibson, McG. and Biggs, R.D., eds.The organization of power:
Aspects of bureaucracy in the ancient Near East.Chicago: SAOC 46,
pp. 19-41.
STEINKELLER, P. 1995. Sheep and goat terminology in Ur III
sources fromDrehem.Bulletin on Sumerian Agriculture 8: 49-70.
STRK, L. 1977. Gepard.Lexikon der gyptologie 2: 530-531.SUMNER,
W. 1976. Excavations at Tall-i Malyan (Anshan) 1974. Iran 14:
103-
115.VALLAT, F. 1993. Les noms gographiques des sources
suso-lamites. Wies-
baden: RGTC 11.VAN BUREN, E.D. 1939. The fauna of ancient
Mesopotamia as represented in art.
Rome: Analecta Orientalia 18.VIR, F. 1963. Fahd.Encyclopaedia of
Islam2 2: 738-43.WESTENHOLZ, A. 1987. Old Sumerian and Old Akkadian
texts in Philadelphia,
Part Two: The Akkadian texts, the Enlilemaba texts, and the
Onion Archive.Copenhagen: CNIP 3.
356 D.T. POTTS
-
7/27/2019 Total prestation in marhashi-ur relations (DT Potts,
2002, Iranica Antiqua, Vol.XXXVII)
15/15
WESTENHOLZ, A. 1999. The Old Akkadian period: History and
culture. In:Attinger, P. and Wfler, M, eds. Mesopotamien:
Akkade-Zeit und Ur III-Zeit.
Freiburg: Annherungen 3 [= Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 160/3],
pp. 17-117.WILLEY, G.R. and Phillips, P. 1958.Method and theory in
American archaeology.
Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.WILLIAMS-FORTE, E. 1980-83.
Leopard. B. Archologisch.RlA 6: 601-604.YOUNG, T.C., Jr. and
Levine, L.D. 1974. Excavations of the Godin project: Sec-
ond progress report. Toronto: Royal Ontario Museum Art and
ArchaeologyOccasional Paper 26.
YULE, Col. H. and BURNELL, A.C. 1886.Hobson-Jobson: A glossary
of colloquialAnglo-Indian words and phrases, and of kindred terms,
etymological, histori-cal, geographical and discursive. London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul.
ZACCAGNINI, C. 1973. Lo scambio dei doni nel Vicino Oriente
durante i secoli
XV-XIII. Rome: Centro per le antichita e la storia dellarte del
Vicino Oriente.ZACCAGNINI, C. 1983. On gift-exchange in the Old
Babylonian period. In:Carruba, O., Liverani, M. and Zaccagnini, C.,
eds. Studi orientalistici inricordo di Franco Pintore. Pavia: GJES,
pp. 189-253.
ZACCAGNINI, C. 2000. The interdependence of the great powers.
In: Cohen, R.and Westbrook, R., eds. Amarna diplomacy: The
beginnings of internationalrelations. Baltimore and London: Johns
Hopkins University Press, pp. 141-153.
TOTAL PRESTATION IN MARHASHI-UR RELATIONS 357
