Foreign Stone Vessels of The Late Third Millennium B.C. From Southern Mesopotamia - Their Origins and Mechanisms of Exchange

Foreign Stone Vessels of the Late Third Millennium B.C.
from Southern Mesopotamia:

Their Origins and Mechanisms of Exchange
Author(s): T. F. Potts
Source: Iraq, Vol. 51 (1989), pp. 123-164
Published by: British Institute for the Study of Iraq
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4200300
Accessed: 23-12-2018 07:50 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
British Institute for the Study of Iraq is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve
and extend access to Iraq
This content downloaded from 128.205.114.91 on Sun, 23 Dec 2018 07:50:01 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
123
FOREIGN STONE VESSELS OF THE LATE THIRD MIL-

LENNIUM b.c. FROM SOUTHERN MESOPOTAMIA:
THEIR ORIGINS AND MECHANISMS OF EXCHANGE l
By t. f. potts
It has long been realized that much of the stonework recovered from sites in
southern Mesopotamia must have been imported, either as finished artefacts or as
raw lumps which were then fashioned locally. The rare outcrops of stone which
occur in the alluvium, principally around Uruk and Ur, are restricted to limestone
and its light-coloured derivatives (calcite, gypsum, etc.).2 These were exploited
extensively for sculpture, vessels and other relatively small objects throughout the
third millennium and beyond,3 forming the staple medium for the bulk of the
Mesopotamian stoneworking industry. Along with these materials, however, a not
insignificant proportion of the stonework found on early Babylonian sites consists of
dark igneous and metamorphic stones, of which the nearest sources are the
mountains and plateaux which border Mesopotamia to the north-west, north and
east, extending across the Gulf into Oman. Notable categories which illustrate this
phenomenon are the numerous vessels deposited in private graves of the Jemdet
Nasr to Early Dynastic II periods, the elaborately decorated "steatite" vessels of the
mid-third millennium, and the royal statuary of the Sargonids and their successors.
The origins of such pieces (or the stone from which they were fashioned) and the
means by which they changed hands are clearly issues of primary relevance to an
understanding of early Mesopotamian trade and exchange with neighbouring
regions. However, with the notable exception of certain semi-precious stones4 and
decorated "steatite" vessels, stonework has not received detailed attention in the
numerous recent discussions of these matters.5 The principal reason for this neglect is
the difficulty of pinning down sources; it is relatively easy to identify exotic stone
types but very difficult to specify their origins. Most of the "common" (non-
precious) stones used in Mesopotamia are widely available in the vast highland
zones of Anatolia, Iran and Oman. Source provenance analysis thus requires
regional geological or mineralogical "finger-printing". Such techniques have been
greatly refined in recent years, yielding particularly successful results in the case of
1 This study is based on research undertaken forbuilding, e.g. in the "Limestone Temple" at Uruk
Chapter 6 of my Oxford D.Phil, thesis, Aspects of the(Eanna V). Boehmer (1984) argues compellingly that
foreign relations between southern Mesopotamia and her eastern this material came from the nearby source at Samawwa
neighbours in the late fourth and third millennia b.c., Oxfordon the Euphrates River.
University, 1987. It has been revised on the basis of 4 Notably lapis lazuli (Herrmann 1968; Tosi 1974)
publications available up to June 1988. and carnelian (Tosi 1976-80).
2 Regarding these outcrops, often overlooked in 5 Numerous recent studies, many with further biblio-
reviews of Sumer's raw materials, see Woolley 1955: 31;graphy, include: Adams 1974; Alden 1982; Hawkins
Williams 1981: 311; Wright in Adams 1981: 300; (ed.) 1977; Kohl 1974; id. 1975a; id. 1978; id. 1979; id.
Boehmer 1984. Upstream from Baghdad there are more1982; Klengel 1979; van Loon 1977; Oppenheim 1976;
extensive deposits of these and other sedimentary stones Sabloff & Lamberg-Karlovsky (ed.) 1975; Yener 1982;
along the banks of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers Yoffee 1981. The Indus trade is reviewed in Ratnagar
(Ainsworth 1838: 49-92, esp. 89, end plate 3). 1981.
3 Stone was only very rarely used on any scale for
124 t. f. potts
copper and its alloys, whi

by distinctive patterns of
proved less susceptible t
problem that much of
explored, especially as r
village craftsmen. A start
of steatite/chlorite sour
outcrops near Uruk (Boeh
sources and artefacts is r
before definitive attribut
known geological option
and typological connecti
All have played a part in
found in southern Meso
where typological paral
calcite types (Woolley 1
the Indus Valley and Ira
Not all these links hav
connections between Egyp
a common origin, by show
in rim forms and other
hand, excavations durin
confirmed that those re
distinctive stone vessel t
are undecorated calcite ve
(Potts 1986a), and various
serpentine.
Typological evidence for the eastern origins of some of these Mesopotamian vessel
types is supplemented in the Akkadian period by the testimony of contemporary
inscriptions. A number of vessels of that period bear royal dedications in Old
Akkadian, many celebrating foreign conquests. Some of these indicate the vessels'
place of origin. Pieces from the "booty of Elam" and the "booty of Magan" have
been known for many years, and their importance as proof of foreign manufacture
has often been noted (e.g. Woolley 1955: 51, though he incorrectly equates Elam
with Susa). In the early publications, however, many vessels were not illustrated or
6 The chlorites of the Tepe Yahya region manifested for the tall calcite vases found in the Barbar Temple on
considerable variation when analysed by X-ray diffrac- Bahrain; these vessels belong rather to the
tion (Kohl et al. 1979: 146), which thus failed to define "Mesopotamian" type (Potts 1983: 129-31). The possi-
any set of characteristics typical of all and only the bility of some influence from Egypt on Mesopotamia
deposits of that small area. Only further testing will should perhaps be left open, as Woolley (1934: 380)
indicate whether enough deposits of these and other maintained. Such a view has recently been developed by
stone types are at once sufficiently homogeneous in V?rtesalji and Kolbus who claim to see typological
themselves and different from each other for effective parallels between vessels of Illrd Dynasty Egypt and
"fingerprinting" to be possible. E.D. I Sumer (1985: 95, n. 141), and attribute the more
sophisticated techniques of manufacture evident in the
7 E.g. in Boehmer's suggestion that the Uruk lime-
stone comes from Samawwa. E.D. II period to itinerant Egyptian craftsmen working
in Mesopotamia
8 The same applies to the Egyptian parallels cited by (ibid.: 99).
Glob (1958) and Mortensen (1970: 396; id. 1986: 184)
FOREIGN STONE VESSELS FROM SOUTHERN MESOPOTAMIA 125
adequately described, and their forms therefore remained unknown. Me

fresh evidence has continued to appear. Whereas ten years ago only one vess
the "booty of Magari" had been illustrated, and this only in an ina
photograph (Table 2, Bla), it and two other "Maganite" vessels can
described accurately. Furthermore, understanding of the historical geograph
regions east of Mesopotamia, including the two areas cited as sources of b
made significant advances in recent years. Elam, long identified with
(northern Khuzistan) and the neighbouring Zagros mountains, is now kn
have been centred rather on Fars, well onto the Iranian plateau (Vallat
1985); while regarding Magan, archaeological evidence has steadily
accumulating in support of its identification with the Oman peninsula.
The principal purpose of this study is to bring together the stone ves
fragments with Sargonic royal inscriptions and to reassess the arguments fo
centres of production in the light of this improved archaeological and h
geographical evidence. Conclusions regarding the inscribed vessels are used as
for suggesting the origins of the much larger corpus of typologically
uninscribed pieces from southern Mesopotamian sites. Finally, consideration
to the means by which these vessels arrived in Mesopotamia. Recent stu
tended to interpret their presence within the framework of a major h
lowland trade network which, it is argued, linked third-millennium S
Akkad with the surrounding highlands (e.g. Kohl 1979; id. 1982). Howe
royal inscriptions on the Sargonic vessels, together with other textual and a
gical clues, suggest that other factors besides trade may have been
important.
1. Sargonic Inscribed Stone Vessels

The practice of inscribing stone vessels with dedications was well estab
the Akkadian period. The earliest historically datable examples?which are
earliest attributable royal inscriptions?are two fragments inscribed by
[Enjmebaragesi, king of Kis, whose reign is usually assigned to the Early Dy
period (Jacobsen in Delougaz 1940: 146, fig. 126: 2; Nissen 1965: 1-5; Edza
Lapidary inscriptions, as indeed texts generally, are much more abundan
Early Dynastic III period. Finds from Nippur, Girsu, Adab and other Sumeria
attest the large numbers of vessels inscribed as offerings to the gods wh
increasingly deposited in temples at this time.9 Metal vessels are by cont
rarely attested, though this may be largely an effect of recycling.10 Sto
remain popular as inscribed dedications in the Akkadian and Ur III per
private dedications typically record that the vessel was offered to a deity "f
(long) life of a third party, usually a close relative but sometimes the k
Many fragments of such vessels dating to the late third and early second m
were recovered from Ur, especially below a Kassite floor in the Enunmah
1974: 51; Gadd & Legrain 1928passim; Hallo 1961; id. 1962; most vessels are
9 These inscriptions are conveniently collected10in

A Ste-
notable survival is the silver vase of Entemena
ible 1982, with full references; note also Meyer 1981:
(Steible 1982: vol. I, 250 f. Ent. 34).
397, Gr?goire 1981: no. 3.
126 t. f. potts
illustrated) and in templ

context of the vessels from
kept within the god's preci
Thanks to this practice, m
other periods for which f
The use of stone vessels as
among certain Sargonid
Dynastic and Ur III periods
large as the Sargonic cor
inscribed by Rimus (a tota
Naram-Sin is also well re
the other hand, there are
each of Manistusu (Hilpre
1981: 30).13 Particular im
Naram-Sin whose inscripti
foreign lands. It must b
guarantee that these vessels
the regions specified. They
traded. But where the "
typologically similar ves
reasonable working hypoth
their stated origin. The in
starting point for identify
Mesopotamia.
(a) Rimus (see Table 1, be

The inscriptions of Rimus
listed in Table 1.
More than twenty fragments carry Rimus's inscription A:14 "To Enlil (or Sin
Rimus, king of Kis, when he had conquered Elam and Parahsum, from the boo
of Elam, dedicated (this)". Other vessels carry abbreviated versions of this
text (inscriptions ? and C) which refer to the conquest of Elam and Parahsum b
do not explicitly state that the vessel concerned comes from the booty there taken
A large number of fragments carry just the king's name and title "king of Ki
(inscription D).
Figure 12 illustrates the shapes of the known Rimus vessels, with comments
stone types and manufacturing techniques. Some of these vessels, not previous
illustrated, are shown in Figures 1-9. The vases specified as coming from Rimu
"booty of Elam" (inscription A) are tall cylindrical vases (Figs. 2, 12: 1), a short
11 Among the contemporary royal inscriptions of 12 UrA vase dedicated to Sargon is Sollberger 1965:
no. 10; Nagel & Strommenger 1968: 172 n. 41.
III kings there are only about 21 on stone vessels (Hallo
1962: Ur-Nammu 30-33, Sulgi 30-35, Su-Sin 15; add 13 An ancient squeeze with an inscription of Sar-kali-
Sollberger 1965: 5f, nos. 20, 21 [Ur-nammu], sarri
22, may be from another stone vessel of this king
25-30, 105 [Sulgi]). For the early Old Babylonian
(Hilprecht 1903: 517).
14 See Table 1, note 2.
period Hallo lists a total of only 6 (Hallo 1961: Isme-
dagan, 9, Sumu-la-El 3, Rim-Sin 19-22).
(?), thinner-walled cylindrical bowl/vase (Figs. 3, 12:2), sub-conical

(Fig. 4, 12:3) and probably also flasks (Fig. 12: 5).15 The forms of many othe
fragments bearing this inscription cannot be identified in the present
publication. These are listed against Figure 12 as type 7. All the inscription A
that have been inspected or are reliably described are carved from calci
may vary in colour from white to yellow or pale brown, and is usually attra
banded. This is variously described in the literature as "alabaster",
"marble", "dolomite" or "gypsum".16
The one vessel with inscription ? is unhelpfully described as a "vase". It is
be made of "diorite", but this identification should be regarded with cau
neither this piece nor the one other inscribed Sargonic vessel supposedly car
that material (Table 1, Clb) is illustrated.
Two of the three vessels with inscription C are steatite/chlorite bowls wit
relief decoration in the style of the s?rie ancienne (Miroschedji 1973) or Inte
Style (Kohl 1974, 1975, 1982) (Fig. 12: 4). The third, an undecorated "bow
not further described), is the second supposedly "diorite" piece mention
Vessels with inscription D?"Rimus, king of Kis"?are the most widespre
existing sample. This simple signature was probably the most common form
by the king on vessels (see Table 1, note 2). Some are of the same shapes atte
inscription A: viz. tall cylindrical vases (Fig. 12: 1) and sub-conical b
(Fig. 12: 3). In addition, the flask is now definitely attested (Fig. 12: 5), alon
larger, squatter jar with everted rim (Fig. 12: 6).
Discussion of the origin of Rimus's inscribed stone vessels must start with in
A which specifies its bearers as coming from the "booty of Elam". Although
inscriptions relate, Parahsum too was conquered by the king, and,
Babylonian copy of an historical inscription informs us, booty was taken fr
also (see below, pp. 130 f.), that region is never cited as the source of booty
In all Rimus's extant vessel inscriptions in which an origin is explicitly nom
that origin is given as Elam.
In terms of modern geography, however, this provides only a very
indication of the source of the inscription A vessels. For the place name
used by third-millennium Mesopotamian scribes, was in a crucial respe
guous: it could serve to designate not only the highland kingdom of Elam
but also the lowland territory of Susiana, which was for much of t
millennium the western limit of Elami te culture and periodically also the b
of her political control. Indeed, lying closer to Sumer, Susiana enjoyed
stronger relations with the west than did highland Elam, a fact which
responsible for the long-current misperception of Susa as the "capital" of El
has only recently been corrected in Vallat's seminal study which demonstrat
the political focus of early Elam was Ansan (Vallat 1980; summarized in
Being a lowland city, Susa in fact lay outside the realm of Elam proper, as is
15 None of the fragments with a convex profile is

the Ashmolean Museum of the same shape and visually
similar stone type as Rimus's inscription A vessels were
sufficiently preserved for a definite shape identification.
This remains the most likely restoration. recently analysed by the Department of Earth Sciences,
16The "red marble" bowl (Table 1, Ali) may be an
Oxford University, as calcite.
exception to this pattern. Third-millennium vessels in
128 t. f. potts
already in Gudea's distin

Elam" (Cyl. A: 15 6 f.). Val
the second millennium alon
but a designation for "Susi
land of Elam (Vallat 1980:
was used to refer to Susi
Lagas brought goods fr
following the Karun Riv
175).
More details of a campaign by Rimus against Elam and Parahsum are provided
by an Old Babylonian copy of a royal inscription on a statue set up by the king in the
Ekur at Nippur (Rimus b7 [references to Sargonic royal inscriptions follow the
listing in Hirsch 1963]). Together with an abbreviated version of the same account
(Rimus bll), this is the only extended narrative in which Elam and Parahsum
feature as Rimus's chief antagonists,17 and it may therefore be presumed to describe
the campaign in which the king took the stone vessels inscribed as booty of Elam. A
passage near the end of the inscription confirms that booty from the conquered lands
was taken back to Agade.18
In the fuller version (b7) this account relates:
Rimus, king of Kis, conquered Abalgamas, 'lung1 of Parahsum, in battle. And

Zahara and Elam (and rG^pin (?) and [Mejluhha) 19 assembled for battle in
the midst of Parahsum; and he conquered (them); and he felled 16,212 men,
and captured 4,216 prisoners . . .
(lacuna of at least 5 lines)
. . . and he [Rimus] captured Sidgau, the Sakkanakku of Parahsum; and he
captured Sargapi, the Sakkanakku of Zahara, between Awan and Susa, at the
Upper River/Canal,20 and in the area of the city he heaped up a tumulus over them.21
And he vanquished the cities of Elam and destroyed their walls. And the roots
of Tarahsum1 [he tore out of the land of Elam. (Thus) Rimus, king of Kis],22
ruled over Elam. Enlil (to Rimus) showed (the way), in the third year, in which
Enlil gave him the kingship. In total: 9,624 men, including (those) felled and
17 Foster 1982: 48 demonstrates that Rimus b5 vii: 20 It is unclear whether the locative phrase in lines
38 should be read "Umma", not "Elam" (as Hirsch11-16?"between Awan and Susa at the Upper River"?
1963: 60). qualifies what precedes it (the capture of Sidgau and
18 This enumeration (see translation below) is clearly Sargapi), thus coming after the verb (as the translations
a summary reckoning of the most valuable commodities of Sollberger & K?pper 1971: 102 and Michalowski
only, and the absence of any reference to stone vessels is 1980: 238 imply), or begins a new sentence (as Hirsch
not significant. The text introduces the list with the same 1963: 62 f. translates). The latter reading seems to
form of words as on the vessels: "When he had con- deprive it of any event to describe, for the expected verb
quered Elam and Parahsum . ..". does not follow (cf. Kutscher ZA 76 (1986), 2 no. 1);
andOld
19 These latter two places are included in one this is unlikely here to be merely a copyist's
Babylonian (?) version of the text, HS 193: omission
4-10 since the same problem recurrs in the slightly
(Steinkeller 1982: 256f., ?. 77). Since there different
is no version of these events Rimus bl 1: 46-57.
evidence of military contact with these regions in 21 con-
Much of this sentence is restored and therefore
temporary inscriptions, nor in other Old Babylonianuncertain.
or
22 Restored
later copies of Rimus inscriptions, their inclusion here is from bl 1, xi: 63-xii: 3.
best regarded as interpolation.
prisoners. By Samas and Aba, I swear, (these are) no lies; it is true! . . .

(various curses, etc.)
. . . When he had conquered Elam and Parahsum, he brought back 30 mi
gold, 3,600 minas of copper, 6 (or 360?) male and female slaves, and ded
them to Enlil . . . (text broken) (b7 viii: 34-ix: 57, x: 49-62) 23
The two reckonings of casualties, citing different totals, indicate that R

conquest of Elam and Parahsum involved at least that many major ba
Otherwise, however, the structuring of the account as a series of incident
connected by "and" (?) leaves unclear where one event (or series of events) f
and another begins. The first battle is described early in the text (b7 viii:
where we are told that Rimus engaged the forces of Zahara and Elam "in the m
of Parahsum", the highland Iranian region which recent studies place as far eas
Kerman (Steinkeller 1982) or Makran (Vallat 1985: 52). Although acquir
Parahsum, booty from this engagement could also presumably have coun
Elamite or Zaharan, since those were the armies defeated.
After the first reckoning of casualties, an incident which also apparently relat
the conquest of Elam is described as having occurred "between Awan and S
the Upper River/Canal", i.e. in Susiana.24 Precisely what happened there is uncl
since the text as preserved presents philological difficulties at this point.25
case, the fact that Rimus's expedition involved military operations of som
both in Parahsum and in the neighbourhood of Susa means that his booty may
comprised objects, including stone vessels, from either or perhaps both regions
the basis of this inscription, therefore, it is possible only to confirm the testim
the vessels themselves that they are broadly "Elamite"; whether they came
highland Elam-Parahsum or from lowland Elam (Susiana) remains unclear
At this point it is appropriate to consider the evidence of typological compar
which may help in deciding between these alternatives. In recent years vessels
same forms and material (banded calcite) as those inscribed by Rimus as booty
come to light far to the east of Mesopotamia at sites in central Iran, the Indo-I
borderlands and Central Asia. Of these, the most distinctive are the tall cylind
vases (Fig. 12: 1), which have so far been found at Shahdad and Shahr-i Sok
Iran, and in Bactria and southern Turkmenia.26 A similar technique of manufac
is indicated by the "omphalos" on the bottom of the interior created by the dr
process. This feature appears on vessels as far afield as Ur and Bactria (e.g. P
23 Translation adapted from Hirsch 1963:Mortensen 61-65, 1970: fig. 7, left, middle. None have yet been
incorporating improvements in Michalowski 1980: from Tal-i Malyan or Tal-i Qarib in the Kur
reported
237 f. (bl 1); Sollberger & K?pper 1971: llA2d; River basin (Alden 1979: 116 f., figs. 56, 57 ["banded
Steinkeller 1982: 257 f. travertine"]; Sumner 1986: 200), perhaps because no
3rd-millennium temple or graveyard has yet been
24 Awan has not been positively located; perhaps near
modern Dezful: Edzard et al. 1977: 21. excavated, but it remains plausible to suppose that they
25 See above note 20. would have been in use there also. I have not been able
26Shahdad: Hakemi 1972: pis. XII-XIII. Shahr-i to consult the thesis of Mme M. Casanova, ?tude de la
Sokhta: Ciarla 1979: Table 6 (lower part of vessel only).vaiselle d'alb?tre d'Iran et d'Asie Centrale de la seconde moiti?
Bactria: Pottier 1984: no. 207. Southern Turkmenia: Mas- du IIIe mill?naire, Paris 1982 (cited by Amiet 1986: 126,
son & Sarianidi 1972: pl. 35. They also appear rarelyn. 5), which is evidently of central importance in these
across the Gulf in Arabia: Burkholder 1984: nos. 16a matters.
(miniature), 21a (limestone), 29a; and on Bahrain:
130 t. f. potts
1984: no. 204; cf. Fig. 6 here). The discovery of vessels at various stages of
completion at Shahr-i Sokhta shows that production was undertaken at that site,
exploiting the nearby calcite deposits (Ciarla 1979; id. 1981). Sub-conical bowls
(Fig. 12: 3) have a similar distribution from Iran and the Gulf to Bactria.27 Such
natural forms were probably very widespread, and it is not yet possible to attribute
the examples recovered in Mesopotamia to a particular sub-region. But the
orientation of these finds strongly favours a generally eastern origin, somewhere in
the calcite-rich highlands of south-central or eastern Iran.
The French excavations at Susa have also yielded vessels of banded calcite,
including tall cylindrical vases and sub-conical bowls identical to those inscribed by
Rimus,28 presumably originating in the same regions of inner Iran or Central Asia. It
is unlikely, however, that Rimus's booty of Elam was taken from Susa; for, while
Susian spoil might legitimately have been considered "Elamite", one would in that
case expect vessels of the limestones and gypsums which dominate production in
Susiana (Amiet 1986: 125, 127) to be represented among the booty which received
inscriptions. As it is, however, they are completely absent.29
Unlike inscription A, inscriptions ? and C do not explicitly designate the bearers as
"booty". However, their conspicuous references to the conquest of Elam and
Parahsum imply that these vessels also were brought back in the wake of that
campaign. Such an origin is also demonstrable on typological grounds in the case of
two cylindrical "steatite" 30 vessels with inscription C, which are decorated in low
relief in the style of the s?rie ancienne. The principal area of production of that style,
widely distributed in the mid- and late third millennium b.c. from Syria to Central
Asia and the Indus Valley,31 seems to have been highland Iran.32
It is noteworthy, moreover, that none of the four vessels bearing inscriptions ? and
C is made from the light-coloured calcites which completely dominate the much
larger inscription A corpus. Is this an accident of discovery, or does it reflect a
genuine difference of origin? In particular, might the dark-coloured inscription ?
and C vessels represent the booty of Parahsum? It is interesting in this connection
that the "postscript" to an unpublished Old Babylonian copy of Rimus's account of
the Elam-Parahsum campaign relates that "the diorite (esi), duh-Si-a-stone (duh.si)
and (other) stones (or: stone objects ?) which he (Rimus) . . . were ... as the booty of
27 Shahr-i Sokhta: Ciarla 1981: figs. 3a (cones), 4a, 4f, 487a, 494a, Sb 12049).
4i, 8, 12; Tosi (ed.) 1983: 179 f., figs. 16-17. Mundigak: 30 This conventional description is retained although
Jarrige & Tosi 1981: fig. 3a, 3rd from right. Bactria: many of these vessels are actually chlorite (Kohl et al.
Pottier 1984: no. 195. Tarut: Burkholder 1984: no. 16c. 1979).
28 Tall cylindrical vases: Mecquenem 1934: figs. 21:7, 31 See check-list in Kohl 1974: 676-95 with the follow-
76:47; cf. Amiet 1977: 96 f. Sub-conical bowls: ing additions: Hilprecht 1893: no. 27 (near Babylon?);
Mecquenem 1934: fig. 60: 26; id. 1943: fig. 71: 11;Miroschedji
Le 1973 (Susa); Kohl 1977: fig. 1 (Shahr-i
Sokhta); id. 1979: 72 (Tepe Yahya); Zarins 1978
Breton 1957: figs. 40: 4, 42: 1, 2, 5; Gautier & Lampre
1905: figs. 288, 290, 293 (Aliabad). (Tarut); Boehmer 1984a; 131, Taf. 5:31 (Uruk);
29 Moreover, the tall cylindrical vases which are the
Kjaerum, pers. comm. (Failaka: at least 18 fragments).
most common Rimus type (Fig. 12: 1) are relatively 32Debitage from a manufacturing centre has been
rare at Susa (Amiet 1977: 96 f). An unsystematic
excavated at Tepe Yahya (Kohl 1974; id. 1975; id.
examination of the Susa vessels in the Louvre collection
1978). Unfinished decorated vessels and raw chlorite
revealed only 6 examples of this type (Sb 483, Sb 9504,
lumps have also been found on Tarut Island in the Gulf
(Zarins 1978: 67, pis. 72b: 110, 75a: 505; Kohl et al.
Sb 12050, Sb 12052, Sb 12053, 2723(43) [from the Vase
? la Cachette]). There are also 3 squatter versions (Sb
1979: 140).
FOREIGN STONE VESSELS FROM SOUTHERN MESOPOTAMIA 13 1
Parahsum" (Steinkeller 1982: 254, ?. 62). As Steinkeller suggests, "there is

chance ... that these two bowls [i.e. the s?rie ancienne vessels bearing inscripti
were among the spoils brought back by Rimus from that campaign" 33?
particularly, if the present line of conjecture is correct, from Parahsum. Stei
also draws attention to the reference to vessels and other small objects of
called marhu/aSu, whose name indicates an origin (or supposed origin) in M
i.e. Parahsum. Steinkeller's suggestion that marhaSu be identified as chlorite/s
(1982: 251) would strengthen the connection between that land and the in
s?rie ancienne vessels.34 It remains unclear, however, why they would not hav
explicitly designated as "booty of Parahsum".
The typological similarity of the vessels bearing inscription D?"Rimus,
Kis"?to those with inscription A suggests that, like the latter, some of t
Elamite booty. The predominant types are again tall cylindrical vases (Fig
and sub-conical bowls (Fig. 12:3) of banded calcite, whose highland Ir
connections have been noted above. The flask (Fig. 12: 5)35 and the squat ja
everted rim (Fig. 12: 6) 36 are not closely matched beyond Susiana.
(b) Naram-Sin (see Table 2, below, p. 152, Figs. 10-11, 13

The inscriptions of Naram-Sin, fourth king of Agade, which occur on stone
are listed in Table 2.
Inscription A indicates that its bearers are bowls (bur) "(from) the booty of
Magan", paralleling Rimus's "booty of Elam". The beginning of inscription ? is the
same, and also goes on to state where its bearers came "f[rom]", but the name of the
source is lost. Comparison with other Old Akkadian royal dedication inscriptions,
where "from" (in) is almost invariably followed by "the booty of GN",36a suggests
that this text too specified a source of booty. Inscription A supplies the likely place-
name: Magan. Inscription C refers to Naram-Sin's much-celebrated conquest of
Armanum and Ebla.37 Inscription D gives just his name and title "king of the four
33 Steinkeller 1982: 254; cf. previously Kiengel and

& one vessel with no visible number. These are made
Klengel 1980: 51, arguing the same origin for the vase from
in light-coloured limestone, not from the calcite
Berlin (Table 1, C2a). typical of the Mesopotamian examples. In that material
may be noted two vessels which combine the same
34 Note, however that an inscription of Sar-kali-sarri
claims to be a copy of the text on a stela of this stone
general form with certain peculiarities: one has a ridged
{n**na-r?-a n^mar-huS-a) (Frayne 1984: 24, lines 72 f.). neck
No (Sb 12038), the other a different rim and a
stelae of chlorite/steatite are known from the 3rd millen-
hollowed out interior which follows the profile of the
nium; cf. CAD M, Parti: 281 sub marhuSu. A Neo- exterior (Sb 4088).
Babylonian text refers to "alabaster" of Marahsi (ibid.), 36a Particularly Rimus's inscription A (Table 1). for
which in that period should be calcite. other instances of the formula in nam.ra.ak xki see also
35 Mecquenem 1943: fig. 70:36; Le Breton 1957:Goetze 1968: 54 (NBC 10736) (Rimus) and Grayson
fig. 42: 6, 9. A total of eighteen vessels of this type from1972: 2 (Ass. 20377) (Ititi).
Susiana, fifteen of them made of mottled yellow and 37 This conquest is recorded also in the following
white calcite, ( Sb 612a, 4008,4088,11826,11884-11890, texts: (1) b5 i: 1-20 [note duplicate: Sollberger 1965: 3,
11892, 12029, 14655; and, from Aliabad, 6469 and no. 13 G, cf. 32, no. 34], improved edition by Foster
6526), the rest of grey-white gypsum, were inspected by1982a; (2) Calmeyer 1969: 28, Group 12B, 161 [copper
bowl]; and (3) Lambert 1968: 85 f. [stone maceheads].
the author in the Louvre. Less close parallels are found
Note also the inclusion of "\ma-d\a-gi-na, king of
at Shahr-i Sohkta (Ciarla 1981: fig. 3b, pear-shaped, bi-
conical; Tosi (ed.) 1983: pl.LXXVIII: fig. 95). Armanum" in the list of enemies conquered by Naram-
36 Eleven examples were inspected in the Louvre: Sb Sin in the literary texts Grayson and Sollberger 1976:
470a, 475a, 643a, 11975-77, 11979-80, 11982, 12022,115, L i: 20', and G?terbock 1938: 68, 1. 13' (Hittite).
132 t. f. potts
(world-)quarters". Inscrip
construction of the Templ
Inscriptions A and ? requ
suggestion (1987) that th
erroneous, the vessel con
inscription B, and that Ra
the other two instances of
Table 2, A2b here). If she i
attestations really being ei
sign?in ("from") instead
and Braun-Holzinger righ
might easily have mistaken
being superficially similar
the Tigris.
There is further evidence, however, which requires that the issue be left open. Part
of an in sign is preserved on one vessel?the fragment from Susa, Bla?in exactly the
place Braun-Holzinger postulates.37a Thus far her suggestion is strengthened. On the
other hand, however, the previously unpublished inscription Ala. where the
preserved traces are definitely not an in and look like the beginning of a bur (see
Fig. 10),37b seems to prove that inscriptions of type A also existed in antiquity. This
vessel cannot be a forgery (it was excavated by Woolley at Ur) and therefore
undermines Braun-Holzinger's principal ground for regarding Rawlinson's copy of
A2a as erroneous and A2b as a derivative forgery. The matter certainly is not settled
yet, and is likely to remain open as long as neither text is fully preserved in an extant
inscription of unquestionable genuineness. For the present, however, the evidence
suggests the existence in antquity of both inscriptions A and B.
The published recons true table vessels of Naram-Sin are illustrated in Fig. 13. Of
the two surviving "bowl(s) (from) the booty of Magan" (inscription A), one (Table 2,
A2b) is a banded calcite bowl of roughly cylindrical form with straight, slightly
inward-leaning sides and an everted lip (Fig. 13: 2). The other (Ala; Fig. 10, with
photograph), from Ur, comprises two fragments from the base and lower sides of a
roughly cylindrical, flat-based chlorite "goblet" of Miroschedji's s?rie r?cente, group
C (Miroschedji 1973: 37). It is decorated with rows of dotted double circles of which
only the lowermost row is preserved. Of the vessel lost in the Tigris (A2a) we know
only that it was a "vase" of "alabaster" (calcite?).
The inscription ? booty vessel, probably also from Magan, is "cylindrique, mais
l?g?rement cintr?" (P. Amiet, pers. comm.), almost certainly a tall cylindrical vase
(Bla; cf. Fig. 13: l)38. Like Rimus's vessels ofthat type, it was made from calcite
("alb?tre").
37a Inscription kindly collated by Dr. ?. Andr?, who off immediately before this sign (1987).
writes: "La portion restante du dernier signe 37b Inscription kindly collated by Dr. H. Behrens, who
existant... ne peut pas appartenir ? un bur. Par contre,writes that the sign "is certainly not a in" (pers. comm.
je crois qu'il peut tr?s bien s'agir d'un ?n" (pers. comm.10.4.89).
13.4.89). This removes the anomaly of a tall cylindrical 38 Sb 17825, ht 6-5 cm., varying in thickness from 20
vase calling itself a "bowl", as was implied in Hirsch's(bottom) to 1-3 cm. (Amiet pers. comm.); cf. the poor
reading of this sign as a bur (1963: 18, a5?). Braun- photograph in Scheil 1902: pl. 1: 1.
Holzinger incorrectly states that the inscription breaks
The one known vessel with inscription C is a "green marble" shell-sha

(Fig. 13: 7), the only royally inscribed example ofthat form.
The four vessels which carry inscription D include another tall cylindrical
vase (D2a, Fig. 13: 1; cf. Fig. 12: 1) as well as three types which are new
inscribed Sargonic repertory: a flaring "granite" bowl (D3a, Fig. 13:4),
heavy marble bowl with everted rim (D4a, Fig. 13:3) and a tall, sho
gypsum/calcite jar (Dia, Fig. 13:5).
The vessel with inscription E is not illustrated and those of uncertain inscrip
likewise not assignable to specific types.
Of Naram-Sin's inscribed stone vessels, the vases from the "booty of
(inscriptions A and B) are most directly relevant to the question of origins.
fragment (Table 2, Bla) seems to be from a tall cylindrical vase, the sa
earlier inscribed by Rimus as booty of Elam. The best typological connection
have seen, are with eastern Iran and the adjacent regions. Likewise, th
preserved cylindrical bowl (A2b)?which is in effect a squatter version of
finds many close parallels at sites in south-central Iran, the Indo-Irania
lands, Bactria and southern Turkmenia,39 again with evidence of local manu
at Shahr-i Sokhta (Ciarla 1981: Fig. 3: b, cylinder-cone, top and 2nd ro
Oman, on the other hand, the region whose long-debated identification with
has recently received much support from the discovery of third-millennium
smelting installations in and around the Hajjar mountains (bibliography
Potts 1986a: 272 f., ?. 12), evidence of vessel production is restricted to
types.40 There is as yet no evidence of calcite working. Indeed, very few calci
have been recovered from the southern side of the Gulf. Those that occur are
presumably imports from the north.41
By contrast, the third reconstructable vessel from Naram-Sin's "boot
Magan", the s?rie r?cente chlorite goblet (Ala, Fig. 10, with photograph), m
derive from the southern side of the Gulf. It was probably made in Oman, wher
series was manufactured from local chlorite deposits (Miroschedji 1973: 38 [g
C]; Kroll in Weisgerber 1981: 212-14; Abb. 46, 47). Pieces similar to the Naram
vessel?though not yet any exact parallels?have been recovered there in buria
well as in the U.A.E. and on Bahrain and Tarut islands.42 Woolley evidently did n
39Shahdad: Hakemi 1972: pl. XIII:C, D. Shahr-i Sokhta

Cairns I, V, IX, X (Thorvildsen 1962: 210, 217; Vogt
II-III: Tosi 1969: fig. 40: h, i; Tosi (ed.) 1983: 179,
1985: 157). Bahrain: Barbar Temple Ila, some tall
fig. 16, 2nd row right, 4th row 3rd from left; cylindrical
Ciarla vases "and fragments of a number of others"
1981: fig. 3 (b, cylinder-cone, top row); Potts from 1986a:the "foundation deposits" (Glob 1958; Potts 1983:
pl. XXIX. Seistan (Gardan Reg. site 109): Fairservis 129-31) (this deposit was assigned to Temple III in the
1961: figs. 29: i-k, 37:45-6. Mundigak: Jar rige & original
Tosi stratigraphy; for the revised sequence see
1981: fig. 3a, 4th from left. Bampur: Stein 1937: pl. Andersen
VIII: 1986, Mortensen 1986); three tombs near Ali,
bott. left; de Cardi 1971: fig. 47: 12. Anau Tepe: Schmidt
"alabaster vessels" (one a "small conical bowl") (Frifelt
in Pumpelly 1908: pl. 45:12. Bactria: Amiet 1977: 1986: 129). Tarut: some similar pieces from disturbed
contexts (Burkholder 1984: nos. 16a [miniature], 21a
fig. 7: 1-3; Pottier 1984: nos. 203-6. Southern Turkmenia
(Namazga IV period): Masson & Sarianidi 1972: [limestone],
pl. 35, 29a). Note also the Iranian chlorite vessel at
lower. Hili North Tomb A (Vogt 1985a: 32, pl. 29: 11).
40 At the late 3rd- and early 2nd-millennium site of 42 Tarut: Zarins 1978: pis. 64 [undecorated goblets],
Maysar-1 (Kroll in Weisgerber 1981: 211-13.) 71:547. Bahrain: Mughal 1983: fig. 24: 7, pl. LI: 6
41 The principal finds are: Oman: Hili (Vogt 1985: [decorated], figs. 25: 1, 3 [plain]. ed-Dur: Boucharlat
157); Hili Grave A (ibid., Taf. 72: 1-4); Amlah site 1 et al. in press, fig. 2: 3. Maysar-1: Kroll in Weisgerber
(de Cardi ?tal. 1976: 139, fig. 23:2). Umm an-Nar: 1981: Abb. 46: 11 [with lid]. Shimal Tomb SH 99: H?ser
134 t. f. potts
realize that the two frag

typical s?rie r?cente decor
belonged to the same vess
edition of the inscription
Sollberger records only th
further lines which iden
fcW-ra-?zra-[d] '"en.1 [zu]

?"lugal1
ki-Hb^-[ra-tim]
[ar^-[ba-im]
?bur1
[nam. ra. ak]

[M?-G?Nkl]
Although the geographical name in the final line is entirely broken away, it may
confidently be restored as "Magan", since that is the only place name which occurs
in this context in other vessel inscriptions of Naram-Sin (see Table 2).
The restoration of the text has two important consequences: first, it confirms that
production of the s?rie r?cente had begun as early as the Akkadian period;45 and,
secondly, it shows that Naram-Sin's "booty of Magan" included vessels not only
from Iran but also from the southern side of the Gulf, very probably from Oman.
On the face of it, therefore, the evidence of Naram-Sin's booty vessels neatly
confirms other arguments that have been advanced in support of the view that third-
millennium Magan included territories on both sides of the Gulf (Eilers 1983; Potts
1986a: 272-5, 284 f.). But there is cause for caution. First, there is no proof in
documents concerning Naram-Sin's Magan campaign that Magan's dominion
extended over both shorelines. The only preserved contemporary account of the
expedition relates events as follows:
Naram-Sin, the mighty, king of the four quarters, victorious in nine battles in
1987: fig. 33: 7 [unpierced lugs]. This last is the closest in ment, but without a royal name (1974: 51), thus clearly
shape to the Ur vessel, though not enough of the latter is not realizing that it joins U.282, whose inscription of
preserved to tell whether it too had lugs. It is notable Naram-Sin he had noted (1955: 168).
that most of these parallels are Wadi Suq-period types, 44 Previously, in his corpus of early inscriptions from
which Omani archaeologists would now date to the Ur and al-Ubaid, Sollberger had listed only U.282
very end of the 3rd or early 2nd millennium, not as early (Sollberger 1960: 77, no. 103).
as the Akkadian period. Cf. also the same decoration on 45 This starting date was argued on the basis of
other vessel forms, especially rectangular compartmen- archaeological evidence from Ur by Miroschedji (1973:
ted boxes and concave-profile goblets: Zarins 1978 27 n. 115, 41) and Potts (in press [b]). The Akkadian
pl. 71:107, 197, 551; Cleuziou & Vogt 1983: fig. 10 dating of the vessel from PG 473 is confirmed by its
1-4; Vogt 1985a: pl. 27: 14, 16, 17, 19, 22; Miroschedji association with a pottery vessel of type RC 67 which
1973: figs. 8: 10, 9: 2-3; Mughal 1983: fig. 25: 4. Pollock assigns a floruit in her phase I (= E.D. Illb) of
43 Despite their consecutive registration numbers, the "Royal Cemetery" (Pollock 1985: 138). To the
which suggests that they were found together (along evidence for the continuing currency of the s?rie r?cente
with U.280 and U.281; Sollberger 1965: 35), Woolley during the Ur III period cited by Miroschedji and Potts
published them separately (Woolley 1955: 168 [U.282]; (loci cit.) add Sollberger 1965: 6, no. 26 (U.280), a bowl
id. 1974: 88 [U.283]), nowhere suggesting that they with concentric circles and an inscription of Sulgi.
join. Indeed, he once cites U.283 as an inscribed frag-
one year. After [he had w]on [th]ese battles he brought the [ir] three [k
fetters before Enlil . . .
(break of about 14 lines)
... he subjugated Magan and captured Mani[um], the lord of Magan. In their
mountains he quarried blocks of diorite, and transported (them) to Agade, his
city, and made a statue of himself and dedicated it to . . . (rest broken). (Naram-
Sin a2).46
It is now impossible to know what was described in the long break, but nothing in
the laconic conclusion provides any hint that Naram-Sin's conquest involved
campaigns on both sides of the Gulf. There is, for instance, no mention of "crossing
the sea", as Manistusu had earlier described. It is therefore at least as plausible to
suppose that Naram-Sin's booty was taken on one side of the Gulf only, to which
vessels from the other had previously been transported.47 Indeed, there is
independent evidence of such movement in both directions: Iranian calcite vessels
have been found in Oman and on Umm an-Nar, Tarut and Bahrain Islands;41 and
Omani chlorite vessels of the s?rie r?cente occur in Iran.48 Only on the questionable
assumption that such movement is only likely to occur within a single political
domain, and not between states, does the evidence require the conclusion that
Magan extended over parts of both Iran and Arabia.
But the question remains: on which side of the Gulf was Naram-Sin's booty of
Magan taken? Since the testimony of the stone vessels themselves is equivocal, any
decision must be based on other evidence. The king's account of his conquest
unfortunately gives no clear indication of Magan's location in relation to other
known regions. It is not even stated whether Magan was reached by sea or by land.
But there is one further detail which, in combination with other evidence, may
provide a clue. It is stated that, after his victory, Naram-Sin quarried diorite (na4ESi)
in the mountains of Magan and brought it back to Agade. This may be set against
Manistusu's earlier claim to have campaigned on "the other side" of the "Lower
Sea" (abarti tiamtim), i.e. the Persian/Arabian Gulf, where he gathered (ilqut) their
troops (?) (?) "as far as the ??-metal mines" and then, like Naram-Sin, quarried
"their dark stones (na4.na4-jt/-^ gi6)" and transported the blocks in boats to Agade
(Manistusu al, bl: xii: 29-68; Heimpel 1987: 74, no. 15). Diorites and gabbros?as
the hard dark stones used by the Akkadians for royal statuary have proved to be 49?
occur both in Oman and in southern Iran north-northeast of Bandar Abbas
pis.
46 Translation based on Heimpel 1987: 75, no. 16.VI:
Cf. f, g, i, VII: h), Bushire (P?zard 1914:
previous translations by Barton 1929: 142 f., pl.no.
VIII:
14;4, 5) and Tepe Yahya (Lamberg-Karlovsky
Amiet 1976: 128, no. 29; Westenholz apud Potts 1986a:
1973: fig. 5F (period IVA); Potts in press [a]: fig. Ilk.;
275 f. On the restoration and reading of theKohllord of 220 f; id. 1979: 72; id. 1982: 27; Miroschedji
1974:
1973: 28,
Magan's name see Potts 1986a: n. 23 and Glassner, in 30 n. 134).
press (reading Manitafn]). Later literary accounts
49 See ofthe analyses of Akkadian and Gudean statuary
these events add nothing pertinent (Grayson reported
1975: by Heimpel 1982, id. 1987: 69 f. and Amiet
Chron. 20, A:27; King 1907: no. 3, rev.: 16-18; 1987: 169-70. Unfortunately, the key test-case, a statue
Grayson
& Sollberger 1976: 112, line G 35). of Naram-Sin which is claimed by its inscription to be
47 Glassner (in press) suggests that calcitemade
vessels
from Maganite Esi-stone (Amiet 1976: no. 29), for
might have reached Oman as presents (ni-su-tag^.)
practical reasons has not been analysed (as was kindly
offered by merchants to the local king. confirmed by Dr. P. Amiet).
48 At Susa (Miroschedji 1973: figs. 8: 7-10, 9:2-3,
136 t. f. potts
(Hauptmann 1985: 17-23

48 f., 69 f.) 50 and so do n
to mines of ??-metal may
to designate "silver",51 t
indicated, since silver has
These considerations can
Sin's campaign nor, mo
Naram-Sin mined stones
occurred in southern
located somewhere in t
condition can be conside
Of Naram-Sin's other ve
the defeat of Armanum
? and C vessels, one mig
victory to be booty from
this must be considered
Akkadian form of a cut s
with a bearded bull, are
mid-third millennium (
from excavations in Syri
fashioned from stone bro
of only three extant vess
coloured "marble" (th
widely available in Syro
geological identifications
Inscriptions D and E prov
typological grounds one
be assigned an eastern or
and material to many of
those cases, typological
Indo-Iranian borderland
whose inscriptions are t
The remaining two vesse
be considered local prod
everted rim, a form som
(Table 2, D4a, Fig. 13:3
50 Cf. Amiet Lower Sea" which, in his view,

1987: 170always refers to the
who qu
diorite source Iranian
cited by
littoral in Old Akkadian Heimpel.
inscriptions; but others
51 Heimpel have taken it to67
1982: refer to the?.
Arabian 21
coastline (e.g.
suggest
stood here as a Gadd 1971: 438 ff.). Silver deposits
generic termoccur widely in for ba
Oman's extensive copper
Iran, including the supplie
Kerman region (Moorey 1985: 111),
however, suggests that
but are not reported in recent surveys of easternit
Arabia. mean
(Waetzoldt 1981: Caution is due,
367, however, since Kuen
n. de Hoogerwoerd
23) or, w
term, "precious(1889: 203) refers to a defunct silver
metal" mine near Samad
(Pettinato 1
press). (reference courtesy of D. T. Potts).
Ma Glassner (in press) takes an Iranian locale to be 52Edzard^?/. 1977: 18.
confirmed by the description "the other side of the
shouldered jar, a recurrent Mesopotamian form with local antecedents da

at least to Late Uruk times (Table 2, Dia, Fig. 13: 5). This example is carv
locally available white gypsum/calcite.
2. Uninscribed Vessels from the Eastern Highlands

Outside the reigns of Rimus and Naram-Sin there are virtually no inscript
third-millennium stone vessels which mark their bearers as foreign ob
However, the booty vessels provide some basis for identifying the mu
numbers of uninscribed examples of the same forms and materials as import
the east. Indeed, those inscribed vessels represent some of the most popular
Sumer-Akkad during the Early Dynastic III to Old Babylonian periods. A
origin for the inscribed and uninscribed examples is assured by the fact tha
the materials of vessels differs considerably between types, there is a re
degree of intra-type correlation between shape on the one hand, and ma
method of manufacture (especially the drilling of the interior) on the other
they are inscribed or not.
While not all the uninscribed examples of types identified by the Sarg
booty of Elam or Magan need have originated in those lands, these des
provide convenient labels under which provisional groupings of foreign type
attempted. They should be understood only as rough guides, to be rep
refined as fresh evidence becomes available. It is essential always to keep in m
this evidence, whether archaeological or inscriptional, usually bears directly
a vessel's final or penultimate provenance, which is not necessarily its
production. As we have seen, the best parallels for "Elamite" calcite type
beyond the limits of historical Elam in eastern Iran, Afghanistan and Centra
(a) "Elamite" Types

Among Rimus's booty vessels, the most common forms are the tall cy
vase and the sub-conical bowl, both of which were manufactured in banded c
They first occur in significant numbers in southern Mesopotamia in t
Dynastic III period, notably in the "Royal Cemetery" at Ur, and continue
to Old Babylonian times.54 Their appearance marks part of a broader phe
which saw the introduction into southern Mesopotamia and Khuzistan of
able numbers of banded and mottled calcite vessels in a limited range of dist
forms. Other recurrent types include: (1) Flasks of the form which was som
inscribed with the name and title of Rimus (Table 1, Dlb; Fig. 12: 5) and
also as Elamite booty (ibid., A Ih, A4a); these fall into the middle ra
Mallowan
53 An exception is the large cylindrical "calcite" vessel1976: pl. 100: type 9; Reisner 1931: fig. 2: 1-6
(Hilprecht 1896: nos. 115-17; Legrain 1926: (Ur).
pl.Genouillac
1) 1934: pl. 9*: TG.1441, pl.56:2f; id.
1936:(this)
inscribed by Entemena to Enlil: ". . . he brought pl. 85: 3 (Girsu). McGown ?tal. 1967: pl. 29:1;
massive stone bowl (bur) down from the mountains Gibson ?tal. 1978: fig. 9: 2 (Nippur). Walker & Coll?n
{kur)" (Steible 1982: Part I, Ent. 32, ii: 1-4'; cf. 1980:PSDpl. b:
27:33 (Sippar). Sub-conical bowls: Hall &
s.v. bur a). Woolley 1927: pl. LXI: type XVIII (Ubaid); Woolley
54 Tall cylindrical vases: Hall & Woolley 1927: pi. LXI: 1934: pl. 176: U.l 1818, U.12673, pis. 241-3: types 13,
types II, III (Ubaid). Woolley 1934: pis. 177a: U.8949, 14, 16, 24, 25 (all also in other materials); id. 1974:
178c: U.7645, 241: types 2-6; id. 1955: pl. 34: U. 19015, pl. 51: type V (Ur); Walker & Coll?n 1980: pl. 27:21
U.19108; id. 1974: pl. 51: types I, II; Woolley & (Sippar).
138 t. f. potts
typologically continuous
Only the squatter versio
bowls with a slightly ev
above the carination;56 al
the same contexts as the
eastern Iran, Bactria and
category (3) low cylindric
the tall cylindrical vases.
type from Sumer and S
southern Turkmenia.58 T
despite Naram-Sin's ide
(Table 2, A2b; also A2a
None of these types has
are reported from the we
Harrison 1968: 162, 166 f.
suggests that they were
arrived as finished prod
and in the Deh Luran Pla
eastern Iran (1986: 125).
U.A.E. and Oman60 raise
principally by boat along
production centres.
It is unclear whether the
at Ur and in Susiana, gi
dedications, reflects a gen
period to period.
The "steatite" vessels of
Rimus implying an orig
attention through studie
55 Hall & Woolley

57 Carinated bowls appear 1927:
at: Susa: Mecquenem pl. L
(Ubaid); Woolley 1934:
1934: fig. 71: 10; Le Breton 1957: fig. 42: pis.
3-4. Tepe Yahya 176: U
179a:U.7654, U.7649, 179b:U.8030; 246-49: types VA (correctly stratified?): Lamberg-Karlovsky & Tosi
60b, 85-7, 89 (some vessels catalogued as other types, 1973: fig. 93 lower rt. Shahdad: Hakemi 1972: pi. XIID.
e.g. RC 92, are also actually of these types); Reisner Seistan: Fairservis 1961: fig. 29: O-P. Tepe Hissar III:
1931: figs. 1, 3:15 (Ur). Mackay 1929: pi. LVI: 3 Schmidt 1937: pl. LIX: H.3615, fig. 125. Bactria: Pottier
(Kish). Squatter versions are: Woolley 1934: pl. 246: 1984: nos. 193, 196-8. Tarut Island: Burkholder 1984:
types 61, 62, pl. 249: type 88, pl. 177: U.8980, U.8948no. 18c.
(some vessels catalogued as other types, e.g. RC 72, are 58 At Ur vessels of this type occur in only 4 graves in
also of these types). Genouillac 1934: pl. 9*:TG.1442 the "Royal Cemetery" (Woolley 1934: 518, pl. 241: 7, 9)
(Girsu). Similar vessels appear at Atiabad: Gautier & and as an Ur III dedication in the Enunmah (Woolley
Lampre 1905: fig. 291; Tepe Hissar: Schmidt 1937: 1974: 93, pl. 51: U.882). At Nippur one comes from an
pl. LIX: H. 1847; and in Bactria: Pottier 1984: nos. Isin-Larsa context in the Scribal Quarter (McCown
209-11. See above note 35 for parallels for the taller etal. 1967: pl. 107:11). They are similarly rare at Susa
flasks. (above note 29, Amiet 1977: 97). For parallels in
56 Woolley 1934: pl. 179: U.8216, pl. 246: 59, 64-6; highland Iran and Central Asia see above note 39.
Woolley 1955: pl. 69: RC 109; Reisner 1931: fig. 3: 59 Above note 29. The earliest closely datable context
21-22 (Ur). McCown etal. 1967: pl. 107: 10; Hilprecht is the Vase ? la Cachette, assigned on glyptic evidence to
1896: pl. XVIII: 41-3 (this type?) (Nippur). PostgateE.D. Ill (Amiet 1986: 125).
(ed.) 1985: fig. 141; Gr. 1:48, pl. XXVIIIa (Abu 60 See above note 41.
Salabikh).
known artefacts of this style from the Near East,61 approximately one-third
vessels from sites in Sumer and Akkad. The greatest concentration of finds falls i
Early Dynastic III, but examples continue to appear in contexts dating to the U
and Old Babylonian periods.
Although some scholars originally considered Mesopotamia the principal p
duction centre of the s?rie ancienne (e.g. Hall & Woolley 1927: 68 f.; Durrani 1964:
Frankfort 1954: 19), its essentially non-Sumerian style and wide distribution led m
scholars to favour an eastern origin, as the Rimus inscription suggested (Woo
1928: 186; id. 1955: 51; Mackay 1932; Piggott 1950: 117; Mallowan 1971: 254). T
was confirmed in the late 1960s by the discovery of a chlorite production centre
Tepe Yahya in Kerman, where many of the most common types and motifs w
represented at various stages of manufacture (Lamberg-Karlovsky 1970: 39-61
1973: 311-15; Kohl 1974; id. 1975; id. 1978; id. 1982).
However, the attribution of the vessels found in Mesopotamia to specific source
remains problematical. X-ray diffraction analyses of the stone types of rough
third of the known corpus suggest that various centres, drawing on different sour
of stone, were producing almost identical vessels (Kohl et al. 1979). The ston
exploited at Yahya, themselves quite varied (ibid.: 146), are not closely matc
among finds from Mesopotamia. Sumer evidently relied principally on anot
source, which is to some extent analytically distinguishable in the tested sam
(ibid.: 143 ff.). Kohl conjectures that this source may have been in Persian Mak
(1978: 464), but this is highly speculative; while Yahya remains the only confirme
production centre 62 it is not even possible to estimate reliably the approximate a
within which the style was manufactured. As noted above, the booty inscriptions
Rimus on two of the vessels from Sumer raise the possibility that those pieces we
brought back from Elam or Parahsum; but the great stylistic variety that cha
terizes the figured scenes in the corpus as a whole precludes any assignment of th
uninscribed figured vessels to those or any other particular region (s) of Greater Ir
The Rimus vessels are themselves very different and may represent widely separa
"schools". The unprovenanced bowl carries a standard feline-serpent combat sc
the Ur vessel, on the other hand, bears a number of unique motifs (horned demon
ibex, dog) represented in a highly distinctive style. So even if they were take
booty from Elam or Parahsum it remains possible that either or both vesse
originated elsewhere. The discovery of large quantities of s?rie ancienne vessel
Tarut and Failaka Islands (Zarins 1978; Kjaerum pers. comm.) again highlights
importance of the Gulf as a principal channel of supply into southern Mesopotam
rather than the overland routes envisaged by Kohl.63
(b) "Maganite" Types

The inscriptions on chlorite/steatite vessels of the s?rie r?cente identifying one
"booty of Magan" and another as a dedication by Ur-baba, perhaps the G
merchant ofthat name (Miroschedji 1973: 28 n. 116; Amiet 1986: fig. 88; cf. Potts,
61 See above note 31. that some vessels travelled along the Gulf, but gives
priority to "direct movement of goods between the
62 Also possibly Tarut Island; see above note 32.
63 Kohl (1974: 325; 1978: 464, 467) acknowledgeshighland and lowland zones" (1978: 467, fig. 4).
140 t. f. potts
press [b] ), conveniently co

such vessels in the Oman p
uninscribed examples from
As we have seen, the pre
doubts regarding any att
types labelled as "booty of
the Gulf. Nor is there pres
Magan in particular, alth
discussed next may prov
Magan.
(c) Other Eastern Types

Under this heading may be considered some earlier undecorated stone vessels for
which typological evidence suggests origins in the Gulf littoral or Iran, though they
had fallen out of currency before the Sargonic period when booty inscriptions, which
might have confirmed such sources, began to be applied. Most of these are best
represented in Sumer in the "Jemdet Nasr Cemetery" at Ur, of which the true end-
date fell in Early Dynastic I (Gockel 1982) or, in the chronology followed here,
Early Dynastic II (Kolbus 1983). A few appear first in the Early Dynastic III
"Royal Cemetery"; none remained popular in Mesopotamia much beyond the end
ofthat period.65
The types concerned are bowls and goblets of various distinctive forms carved
from dark green-grey stones, principally steatite/chlorite. All find close parallels
among the hundreds of plain stone vessels recovered in non-archaeological excava-
tions at al-Rufayah on Tarut Island (Zarins 1978; Potts 1986: 149). Close analogues
for some types are also known from Umm an-Nar Island and Hili, and, in Iran, from
Susa, Tepe Yahya, Shahdad and Shahr-i Sokhta.66 The Gulf examples are described
64 Ur: Woolley 1934: pl. 245:52, 53; id. 1974: Burkholder 1984: no. 28a; Potts 1986: pl. 2b (right).
pl. 49: 1; Woolley & Mallowan 1976: pl. 100: 1; Miros- Bell-shaped bowls?Ur. Woolley 1934: pl. 245:49-51;
chedji 1973: 30 n. 132. Girsu: Heuzey & Sarzec 1884- Tarut: Zarins 1978: pis. 64: 33, 65:587, 74a: 593, cat.
1912: pl.44bis:3, 5; Genouillac 1936: 115 [TG2437, nos. 334, 417, 497, 585; Burkholder 1984: nos. 15a, 18b,
3676], 117 [TG 514]; Amiet 1986: fig. 88. Ubaid: Hall & 28c; Hili North, Tomb A: Vogt 1985a: pl. 27: 12; Wadi
Woolley 1927: pl. LXII: XXXV [intrusive in E.D. con- Suq: Frifelt 1975: fig. 18e; Tepe Yahya: Lamberg-
text??]. Uruk: Ratnagar 1981: 119 [W. 19817G]. Larsa: Karlovsky 1970: fig. 23, pl. 24: B; id. 1973: fig. 5:J;
Huot et al. 1983: fig. 36b (late?). Abu Hatab (Kisurra): Lamberg-Karlovski & Tosi 1973: fig. 96; Kohl 1974:
Heinrich & Andrae 1931: pl. 173: 1. pl. LXa; Shahdad: Hakemi 1972: pis. IXB, IXE. Sub-
65 Heavy sub-hemispherical bowls (see next note) conical, slightly concave profile bowls?Ur: Woolley 1955:
occur at Ur in graves assigned to the Akkadian and pi. 65JN.28; Tarut: Zarins 1978: pl. 64: 86. Concave pro-
Larsa periods (Woolley 1934: 518 [type RC36]; Wool- file, quasi-cylindrical goblets?Ur: U. 19536, U. 19213a
ley & Mallowan 1976: 243, U. 16723). (inspected in the I.M.; these vessels are misleadingly
66 Published parallels are as follows: Bag-shaped catalogued as types JN 28 and RC 8 respectively [Wool-
goblets?Ur. Woolley 1955: pl. 66:JN.31; id. 1934: ley 1955: 209; id. 1955: 202]); Abu Salabikh: AbS2157
pl. 243:32 (2 exx.: U.8763, U.10503); Tarut: Zarins (Gr. 213, unpubl.); Tarut: Zarins 1978: pis. 64: 72,
1978: pl. 64: 73, 75, 78, 81-3, 92, pi. 72B: 76, pi. 74A: 23 65:325; Bahrain, Sar al-Jisr: Mughal 1983: fig. 50: 6;
(= Golding 1974: fig. 4: 3); Potts 1986: pl. 2b (left & Umm an-Nar, Gr. 1: Thorvildsen 1962: fig-21 (lower
centre). Sub-hemispherical bowls?Ur: Woolley 1934: rt.); Hili, Gr. 1059: Frifelt 1970: 358, fig. 3: B; Shimal:
pl. 244:36; Woolley & Mallowan 1976: pl. 100:5; H?ser 1987: 106, Fig. 47: 6; Shahdad: Hakemi 1972
U. 16723 (inspected I.M.); Girsu: Genouillac 1936: pl. IXA, XB; Tepe Yahya: Lamberg-Karlovsky 1970
pl. 85: 2; Tarut: Burkholder 1984: no. 20b; Susa: Miros- fig. 23: U; Kohl 1974: pl. LXIa. Bag-shaped bowls?Ur:
chedji 1973: fig. 7; Shahr-i Sokhta: Tosi (ed.) 1983: 179, Woolley 1955: pl. 69:RC.l 14; Tarut: Zarins 1978
figs. 16-17. Square-based cylindrical goblets?Ur: Woolley pl. 64: 75, 82, 92.
1955: pl.66:JN.32; Tarut: Zarins 1978: pl. 64:21;
in recent publications as "chlorite" or "steatite". Woolley, however, listed Ur

of these types as occurring also in "diorite" and "basic diorite" (Woolley 1
If this is confirmed, the material of the Gulf vessels also should be re-exam
grey-green (altered) igneous rocks which take a high polish can superf
resemble steatite.67 Whatever their true geological identification (s), it seem
ible to suppose that the very similar vessels from Sumer, the Gulf and Ir
from the same source(s); and, in particular, that the Mesopotamian exam
through the Gulf.
To adopt Kolbus5 chronology for the "Jemdet Nasr Cemetery" at Ur, the e
examples of these types appear there in the Early Dynastic la period, continu
Early Dynastic II.68 This makes them roughly contemporary with the
"Jamdet Nasr" pottery found in Oman; for, as D. T. Potts has recently show
are sound reasons for believing that that corpus also continues down into th
Dynastic period (Potts 1986: 129-34). The possibility thus presents itself
dark-stone vessels in Sumer and the Sumerian pottery vessels in O
complementary aspects of one and the same process of exchange.69
Of the dark soft-stone types found in Sumer the most common are be
bowls, which also seem to be the latest in the sequence. Among twenty-six e
excavated by Woolley at Ur, twenty fall in the range Early Dynastic IIIa
more appearing in the Akkadian and post-Akkadian periods (Kohl 1974
Woolley noted that these vessels, some of which are very large, are
exclusively from "steatite" (Woolley 1934: 379). Exactly similar bowls represe
standard plain bowl type at Tepe Yahya in periods IVB and IVA (Kohl 197
264), dated by the excavator to the mid- and late third millennium
discovery in the Gulf supports Kohl's suggestion that the examples found in
especially the larger vessels, arrived by sea (Kohl 1974: 220).
The soft steatite/chlorite vessels with Gulf affiliations are far outnumber
cemeteries of the Jemdet Nasr to Early Dynastic II period 71 by vessels
simple sub-conical bowls) of much harder, dark igneous and altered igneo
(e.g. Woolley 1955: pis. 32-34 passim; Watelin 1934: pl. XXII; cf. g
analyses of some Kish vessels in Moorey 1978: 112). Many of these vessels
arrived in Sumer and Akkad as finished products from the highlands of inner
Anatolia, where the nearest supplies of such stones are found (Sch?ller 1
67Woolley's descriptions should not be accepted

Taf. 10). Kolbus places one example of type JN 32 in
eachJN
without confirmation. U. 19408, a vessel of type of 32,
E.D. la (U.19848; JNG 298), E.D. Ib (U.19653;
catalogued by Woolley as "steatite" (1955: 206), JNG248)pro-and E.D. II (U.19408; JNG 221), though she
ved on inspection in the Iraq Museum to be cites
a this
hard latest period as its "main occurrence"
igneous rock, what he elsewhere calls "(basic) (V?rtisalji
diorite". & Kolbus 1985: 107). The more numerous
On the other hand, two s?rie r?cente vessels examples (Woolleyof type JN 28 fall in E.D. Ib-II (JNGs 174,
1934: pl. 245:52, 53), almost certainly of 221, steatite/
224, 301; ibid.).
chlorite, are twice described by him as "basic diorite" 69 Potts (1986: 134) plausibly regards both as stem-
(1934: 380, 541 [U.9020]), though one of them is Mesopotamian interest in Omani copper.
ming from
elsewhere correctly called "steatite" (ibid.: 559 70 But note Potts' lower chronology which starts
[U.10547]). period IVB^, (= old IVB,) after 2200, ending around
68 Ur type JN 31 comes exclusively from graves 2000 b.c., with IVA in the early 2nd millennium (Potts
assigned by Kolbus to E.D. II (JNGs 220, 221, 234, 246in press [a]).
[Kolbus 1983: Abb. 2; V?rtesalji & Kolbus 1985: 107]). 71 Besides Ur, note particularly the "Y" Cemetery at
The very similar type RC 32 occurs in only two graves Kish and the intramural burials at Khafajeh.
which Nissen dates to RT (i.e. E.D. Ill) (Nissen 1966:
142 t. f. potts
note that his comments on

supplies cited above). Trans
much of the stone would be
aside from a single bowl f
H.391), identical in form a
1955: pl. 35: U. 19241; Wate
regions are so far lacking,
postulated.
3. Mechanisms of exchange: trade versus booty

The question of how the foreign vessels discussed above arrived in Mesopotamia is
unlikely to be answerable in terms of any single exchange mechanism. Each group
and period must be assessed separately and conclusions regarding one corpus should
not be applied uncritically to another. The data are very uneven. For most types and
periods there is no documentary evidence and speculation must proceed largely on
the basis of distributions and contexts. The booty inscriptions that do exist provide a
uniquely explicit guide to how those vessels were acquired, but it should be noted
that the reliance on inscriptional evidence introduces another dimension of bias, for
not all mechanisms of exchange are as likely to be recorded in helpful labels. The
non-existence of "trade inscriptions" in the manner of the booty inscriptions, for
instance, is not itself an argument against the existence of such trade.
From the Early Dynastic III period on, the contexts in which plain and decorated
stone vessels are found indicate that they were objects of considerable prestige and
"value". This applies particularly to the elaborately decorated s?rie ancienne, which is
concentrated heavily in temples,73 where it was dedicated by kings of Sumer
(Mesilim [Delougaz 1960: pl. IXa; Steible 1982: Pt. II, 217, Mes. 3]) and Agade
(Rimus), and in richer graves.74 The s?rie r?cente likewise was dedicated in temples by
72 Porada's suggestion that the cylinders of stone (from shrine of Amar-sin?). Khafajeh?Sin Temple IX (2
created by using tubular drills for hollowing out the vessels, plus 1 from an unspecified level; Frankfort 1935:
interiors of stone vessels were used for cylinder seals figs. 53-6; cf. Delougaz 1960: 94; note also Ratnagar
(Porada 1977: 7) reinforces this suggestion, since the 1981: 119, Table 2.4, which cites pieces from "oval
cylinders of the Late Uruk to E.D. periods are over- temple ED III (ED) [= Temple Oval I-II?] (KH. IV.
whelmingly light-coloured, calcium-based stones, not 60) unpublished" and "Oval I (ED) (KH. IV. 37
the hard dark stones of many contemporary bowls. The Unpublished"). Ur?Enunmah, destruction debris
stone borers found on Sumerian sites of this period below the Kudur-mabuk and Kurigalzu floors in rooms
(Woolley 1955: 14, fig. 5, pl. 13:U. 16405; Wartke 1979; 11 and 12 (Woolley 1955: 51; id. 1974: 51). Susa?
Moller 1984: 94-6; Eichmann 1987) were probably not Temple of Insusinak (Amiet 1986: fig. 70; Mecquenem
used for making these vessels (as Woolley 1934: 379), 1911 for context).
but only for the vessels of softer, local calcium-based 74 The s?rie ancienne has been found in Mesopotamian
stones.
burials only at Ur. Two of the three are "Royal
Tombs". (1) PG337, containing U.8950 and U.8951
73 Well stratified at the following sites: Mari?Temple
of Istar (M.131 + 190, 144, 165, 171, 184,(Woolley
185, 267,
1934: 539). These were part of a group of
268 + 333, 323) and associated Priests' stone
Quarters
vessels found immediately above the grave, not in
(M.150, 282 + 284, 402) (Parrot 1956); Temple of but Woolley was confident that they
it (ibid.: 45),
Ninnizaza (M.2349, 2625, 2627, 2628, 2979) (Parrot
belonged with the material from the grave, having been
1967); Temple of Samas (M.2226, 2151-3, 2182, 2879);
dropped by robbers or left as offerings during the filling
Temple of Istarat (M.2961) (Parrot 1967).ofNippur-
the shaft. The whole group of vessels was given a
Temple of Inanna VIII, Vllb and IV (one vessel from
separate grave number (PG497) (ibid.: 427, 431). This
each; Kohl 1979: fig. 5; id. 1974: 162, 245, 690, grave does not exist apart from this group, and Wool-
pl. XLIIIa). Note also Peters 1897: pl. opp. p. 140 ley's catalogue entry (ibid.: 539) is thus not, contra Kohl
kings (Naram-Sin, Sulgi) and a local ruler (as well as a merchant (?) and priv
citizens), though it also occurs in humble burials at Ur.75 Plain vessels, often
attractively banded foreign calcites, became standard offerings to deities by priva
citizens and royalty alike from the Early Dynastic III to Ur III periods. In E
Dynastic III, plain calcite and "steatite" vessels are also prominent among the g
furniture of the richer burials in the "Royal Cemetery" at Ur. Thereafter, th
occur primarily in sacral contexts, though this may also reflect changes in the na
of the excavated contexts.
Stone vessels were not imported into Mesopotamia to fill a gap in loca
production; both plain and decorated forms were made in Sumer throughout t
third millennium exploiting the local supplies of calcium-based stones. The attra
tion of foreign vessels depended rather on the aesthetic appeal of their harder, darke
stones 76 and especially on what might be called generally their exoticism. It seems
that they were desired precisely because they were manifestly foreign?a facto
which, in the context of temple dedications and booty vases, could carry important
religious and political connotations. A vessel brought back as spoil was tangib
proof of a ruler's conquests and therefore constituted a particularly appropriat
offering to the gods who had ensured his victory. Likewise, the Sargonids5 preferenc
for royal statuary in hard, dark igneous stones,77 and the popularity of steatit
chlorite/serpentine for small statuary and decorated vessels of local manufactu
during the Ur III period,78 reflect not only an aesthetic preference but also th
prestige which attached to the conspicuous consumption of these exotic materia
The "value" of such objects was clearly very closely tied to the context of thei
"use", in which cultural and religious considerations were paramount, and ofte
depended crucially on the means of acquisition. This has little or nothing to do with
period
(1974: 246), a mistake, but only a reflection of his (Miroschedji 1973: 30, ?. 131). Uninscribed
bowls appear in two Middle Akkadian graves at Ur:
original caution. (2) PG800 (Tomb of Pu-abi), contain-
ing U. 10522, U. 10523 (Woolley 1934: 558, pl. 178).U.9020
(3) in PG/473, misleadingly listed as "basic diorite"
PG1633, containing U.14058 (Woolley 1934: 589); (Woolley
this 1934: 541); U.10547 in PG/899, incorrectly
was a simple trench grave. All burials date to E.D.listed
Ilia. as type RC 54 (ibid.: 499; cf. 559) and wrongly
A few vessels from domestic contexts at Ur (U.7145, drawn with single rather than double circles (ibid.:
from above Larsa-period houses in area EM; Woolley pl. 245: 52; cf. photograph in Basmachi 1950: pl. 5: 12).
1955: 173), Mari (M.543, 660, 661, 665, 666, from 76 The use of these materials may be attributed to
houses north and east of Priests' Quarters; Parrot practical
1956) considerations only in the rare instances where
and Khafajeh (unpublished fragment from "ED houses hardness and porosity were important.
(KH. V. 83)"; Ratnagar 1981: 119, Table 2.4) may 77 Of the 26 Akkadian monuments in the Louvre,
mainly
represent secondary uses or contexts, as do those from a from Susa (whence they were removed in the
dump at Adab (Delougaz 1960: 94). 12th century by Sutruk-nahhunte), 19 (= 73%),
75 (1) Table 2, Ala (Naram-Sin). (2) U.280 (Soll-
including all but one of the 7 with royal inscriptions, are
of the dark stone usually identified as "diorite" (Amiet
berger 1965: 6, no. 26): bowl with concentric circle
decoration and inscription of Sulgi. (3) AO 32851976: nos. 1-6, 11-14, 16, 17, 20-2, 28-30; Scheil 1902:
pl. 1:2). Only 7 are light stones (Amiet 1976: nos. 15, 18,
(Heuzey & Sarzec 1884-1912: pl. 44bis: 5; Miroschedji
19, 23, 25-7). Four of the dark pieces have recently been
1973: 27 f. n. 116): bowl with concentric circle decora-
analysed and proved to be olivine-gabbro (Heimpel
tion from Girsu, with dedication inscription mentioning
an otherwise unknown [en]si [. . .]-ra-ni. (4) Amiet 1982:
1986: 65). Two more of Manistusu in the British
Museum are the same material (Heimpel 1987: 69).
fig. 88; Miroschedji 1973: 28, n. 116; cf. Potts in press
78 E.g. the Url?i recumbent bull figurines, Gudea's
[b]: bowl with concentric circle decoration and dedicat-
ion inscription of Ur-baba, perhaps a merchant. (5) "libation
Bi- cup" and the lamp cover with intertwined
compartmented box with dedication inscription serpents
in from Girsu (Amiet 1980: figs. 399-403).
script attributable to the second half of the Url?i
144 t. f. potts
commercial value; there i

might have been, or, in
It has been generally assu
principally by trade. This
the "steatite" s?rie ancien
1979; id. 1982). Kohl arg
materials and prestige fas
in return for lowland a
plemented their modest
desirable exotic commodit
political and social relati
aged yet greater economi
Tepe Yahya, which incre
consumption to product
caravans of lowland agr
ments (Kohl 1978:470-
"... isolated mountain c
trade. Initially benefit
trade when their own ec
commodities for exchan
internal crises; when th
deemed fair by the ur
Kohl's view has been desc
reconstruction of Mesopo
one which places greatest
with all the details of hi
foreign stone vessels f
essentially unchallenged.
There can be no doubt
trade with the surroundin
raw materials. However
constituted part ofthat ex
noted that they are not c
either in the economic d
artefacts along the Gulf,
trade with Iran. This is n
as Foster remarks concern
grounds for caution, es
inscriptions on vessels C
evidence which bears dir
imply, on the contrary,
Parahsum. Unless this ev
arises how many other v
}See the comments publis
plain types found on Mesopotamian sites?may have arrived as trophies

Circumstantial evidence suggests that the proportion may have been mu
than is presently appreciated. Temples, where far the greatest concentration
s?rie ancienne occur, were the traditional repositories of foreign spoil; and tw
three burials in which they were recovered at Ur are "Royal Tombs", which
also be expected to have contained the fruits of foreign expeditions.
The importance of booty-taking as against trade may also accoun
increasing rarity of the s?rie ancienne after the Akkadian period, a fact whic
particularly puzzling if D. T. Potts' lowering of the end date of producti
Yahya to c. 2000 b.c. is accepted. Under the Third Dynasty of Ur the mai
military activity shifted from Elam and south-central Iran, where the Akk
probably also the Sumerians before them had campaigned extensively, to
Human and Amorite frontiers along the central Zagros and in the nort
With this reorientation the opportunity for acquiring vessels of the s?rie a
booty in or near the main centres of production greatly diminished. The
fall-off is therefore to be expected.
The large quantities of s?rie ancienne vessels which have been recovered fr
Gulf, notably on Tarut and Failaka Islands, suggest that some genuine trade
place between the highland production centres and these entrep?ts. More
variety of stone types represented at the island ports (including much genuin
at Tarut; Kohl et al. 1979: 140, 147) indicates that they received vessels from
different sources in Iran. It was probably at entrep?ts such as thes
merchants came to acquire copper and other important raw materials,
incidental trade in s?rie ancienne vessels with Mesopotamia was transa
absence of any reference to such acquisitions in textual records of the G
might be taken as an indication of its relatively small scale and minor
importance, though the silence of Sargonic texts regarding other imported
(see above) urges caution. In any case, there can be little doubt that whateve
in s?rie ancienne vessels took place in the Gulf was dependent on the existen
regularized structure serving the economically primary trade in raw materi
would not otherwise have survived.
Within Iran the situation may have been very different. The evidence recovered
from Tepe Yahya IVB^j suggests a scale of production beyond the demands of
local consumption. Yahya and similar centres may well have traded a significant
proportion of their produce with other Iranian settlements in return for goods or
material to which they did not have ready access. The diffusion of these vessels
80 Only Sulgi claims the conquest of Ansan (year

Ansan (var. Elam)" (Sollberger 1976: 5 f.), perhaps in
formula 35), whence he brought back booty including south-east
8 Khuzistan (Edzard & F?rber 1974: 77 f.).
stone vessels (see below, note 86). The he-goat received
Su-Sin fought against six lands of Simaski ( ? Burujird
Valley of Luristan [Stolper 1982: 46; id. 1984: 20] or
by Su-Sin as the "tribute (gun) of Ansan" does not imply
any real sovereignty (Michalowski 1978: 35, 46; Kerman [Vallat 1985: 50 f] ?) and the ?'?-people (Soll-
berger & K?pper 1971: 152-5, IIIA4e-g), perhaps now
Steinkeller 1982: 253, ?. 60). Campaigns against other
also to be identified as Simaskians (Steinkeller 1988).
regions in or around Greater Elam are rare, the year
names being devoted overwhelmingly to campaignsOn onthe other hand, there is considerable evidence of
the "Hurrian frontier" (Hallo 1978: Appendix II):
diplomatic relations with these and other eastern
Amar-Sin and Su-Sin claim the conquest of Huhnuri,
regions.
which the latter describes as the "bolt of the land of
146 t. f. potts
throughout Greater Iran

"?changes inter-iraniens"
Amiet (1986). Here too th
of goods may have been
envisaged by Amiet. With
judge. Whatever the trut
Iranian network is the ex
Many of the distinctive st
in a far-flung circuit link
way to Susa?but they rar
seems, at the western lim
Less of the s?rie r?cente h
however it arrived, it seem
no textual evidence that
Naram-Sin on a goblet fro
this time very probably f
dedicated at temples in
origin, forcibly or by purc
possible that some of the
incidentally, as the conta
1986: 164).81 These are no
But while the s?rie r?cent
incidentally, their presenc
the floruit of Gulf trade
Gulf for copper and other
as "by-products" of their v
mementoes or curiosities,
Ur-baba who dedicated a
that name (Miroschedji 1
plausibly be interpreted
expedition. The small quan
be accommodated by unr
lines (in addition to the lim
not implausible to see in the
of the increasing emphasis
detected also in the patter
may be possible to account
s?rie r?cente (the so-called s?
millennium,83 as an effect
81 Remains of from
lead spouted bowls, possibly belonging reported
oxide to the s?rie
at Shahdad
have
tardive, at Ur been taken
and Ubaid noted by Potts, no examples of to
(Miroschedji 1973:
these series from33).
Mesopotamia are known to the
82 This will be author.
discussed in
Possible candidates are the fragments fromgreater
study. Uruk cited by Ratnagar (1981: 119): "3 examples [of
83 On the definition of these series see Potts in press (c) convex sided vessels with or without lids, and with
chapters IV and VII, especially eh. VII ?. 67. Apart incised circle or line motifs in registers], one with lug;
(Magan) after the Ur III period (Oppenheim 1954: 14 f.; Muhly 1973: 14
1978: 45 f.).
Undecorated vessels present a more complex picture which seems to
significantly during the course of the millennium. The large quantities of pla
deposited in the graves of Sumer (Ur, Girsu) and Akkad (Kish, the Diyala
the Jemdet Nasr to Early Dynastic II periods, many of them relativel
interments, suggests a situation of general availability in which trade may p
be considered a factor. From the Early Dynastic III period on, however, text
archaeological evidence point increasingly to the importance of booty-ta
bowls of dark igneous stones common in the cemeteries of the early third mi
tend to disappear, suggesting that any trade in these vessels was drying
place was taken, in smaller quantities, by the vessels of banded and mottled
The appearance of these types in Sumer in the Early Dynastic III period i
contemporaneous with the earliest historical testimony of campaigns int
Sumerian rulers.84 Certainly by the Sargonic period, as the booty insc
indicate, such vessels featured among the vast spoils taken by the kings of A
their numerous eastern campaigns, though the royal narratives never
objects of such insignificant economic value.85 As has been noted above
activity in south-central Iran diminished under the empire of Ur, thereby r
the opportunities for seizing vessels near the primary production centres. An
list of booty taken by Sulgi in a campaign against Ansan and deposited in te
Sumer shows, however, that stone vessels continued to feature among the sp
the few expeditions that were undertaken.86 None of the known vessels of th
has been inscribed as booty, but the predominance of sacral contexts i
suggestive.
Trade and booty certainly do not exhaust the options which should be considered
in an investigation of this kind. Gift-giving and other unregulated means of non-
commercial exchange, which are more difficult to trace in the archaeological
record, almost certainly played some role in the movement of stone vessels into
Mesopotamia in the third millennium. Another potentially more tangible mechan-
ism which ought not to be ignored is tribute. Unfortunately, however, there is no
significant textual evidence for the nature of tribute payments until the Ur III
period. At that time, the g?n (mada) or "provincial tax/tribute" levied on the
highland regions under Sumerian control (mostly temperate areas of the Zagros
mountains) was paid principally in livestock (Michalowski 1978; Steinkeller 1987:
W.16755, W.19817G; ? Date Larsa and OB. All 85 In addition to the evidence of the stone vessels, note
unpublished". The piece with a lug is probably from the records of booty-taking by Rimus in Elam and
one of the "suspension vessels" which typify theseParahsum
late (gold, copper and slaves [b7, quoted above
series (e.g. Cleuziou 1981: 287, fig. 9: 1, fig. 10). p. 129]), by Manistusu across the Lower Sea (mining
stones,
84 Note, e.g., the Sumerian King List's description of metals [Man. al, bl]), and by Naram-Sin in
(En)mebaragesi as "he who carried away as spoilMagan the (mining stones [N.-S. a2]).
'weapon' of the land of Elam" (Jacobsen 1939: 82-4). 86 Pettinato 1982: 56, 59 line iii: 4: "8 stone vessels (na4
bur)". Note also the many metal vessels and objects (no
Some of Eannatum's inscriptions also refer to conquests
of Elam and other eastern locations (Steible 1982:
vessels) of stone in the lists published by Davidovic
1984,
Ean. 1, 2/68, 3/4, 5, 11, 22). Unfortunately, nothing is which probably record booty from the same
known of the exploits of the Meskalamdug dynasty campaign
at (texts ? & C) and from a war of Amar-Sin
(textD).
Ur, in whose burials many of these pieces were
recovered.
148 t. f. potts
30 f., 40), rather than in

demanded of these and ot
have been different; bu
available evidence to sugg
If a more general conclu
is that much recent disc
tended to invoke "trade
materials and artefacts
giving adequate consider
ments of goods. Trade d
portray Mesopotamia's e
economic terms (whether
because it is ignored) can
which both archaeologi
emerges in which poli
intimately linked both
employed to satisfy th
through military enter
acquisition of the foreig
depended. As the Neo-Ass
special position to comm
passage which alone made
stones and timber require
likelihood that the Akkadian crown exercised direct control over the movement of
goods?transactions which would be celebrated in official inscriptions rather t
accounted in temple or palace archives?may be an important element in explai
the conspicuous absence from Sargonic archives of account documents concer
the acquisition of foreign materials (Foster 1977: 37 f.). This realization raises
question of whether, and to what extent, similar practices may have been prevale
in other periods of the third millennium and beyond.
Acknowledgements
I am grateful to Dr. P. R. S. Moorey, Dr. D. T. Potts and Dr. N. Yoffee
helpful comments on this paper. Errors and short-comings that remain are entir
my own responsibility. Dr. P. Amiet, Dr. B. Andr? and Dr. D. Hom?s-Frede
kindly provided information on vessels in the Mus?e du Louvre and the Mu
Cinquantenaire, Brussels, respectively. Dr. S. Dalley and Dr. J. A. Black advise
aspects of the Akkadian translations; Dr. D. T. Potts, Dr. J.-J. Glassner and
P. Steinkeller supplied draft copies of publications in press; and Dr. A. Green
Dr. H. Behrens collated the booty inscription in Fig. 10. I am grateful to th
authorities of the Iraq Museum, Baghdad, the British Museum, London, and
University Museum, Philadelphia for permission to publish inscribed vessels in th
collections.
Table 1
Inscriptions of Rimus on Stone Vessels l
Inscription A: "To Enlil/Sin, Rimus, King of Kis, when he had conquered Elam and Para
booty of Elam, dedicated (this)".
1. Nippur2
(a) sub-con. bowl/cyl. vase dolomite (H) Hilprecht 1893: no. 5, pl. 111:4, 5
(b) sub-con. bowl/cyl. vase white marble (H) ibid.: pl. 111:6
(c) cyl. vase ? white marble (H) ibid.: pl. 111:8
(d) sub-con. bowl/cyl. vase white marble (H)pl. 111:9
ibid.:
(e) cyl. vase ? white marble (H) ibid.: pl. 111:10
(f) sub-con. bowl (3) red marble (H) ibid.: pl. 111:7
(g) cyl. vase ? white marble (H) ibid.: pl. 111:11
(h) convex profile (5?) white marble (H) ibid.: pl. 111:12
(i) cyl. vase (1) white marble (H) id. 1896: no. 62, pl. xx
(j) "vase" ? Gelb 1961: 195 (Orig. inscr. le);
Goetze 1968: 54 (2N-445)
(k) bowl "white stone" Biggs & Buccellati 1969: no. 43
(1) bowl limestone (M) ibid.: no. 44
(m) cyl. vase (1) banded calcite CBS 14548 3
2. Urr
(a) sub-con. bowl (3) banded calcite Gadd & Legrain 1928: no. 10
(U.7807)4 Fig. 1
(b) "vase" "calcite" ibid.: no. 22 (U.6333)
(c) cyl. vase (1) yellow calcite, white veins Sollberger 1965: 25 no. 7
(U.263)5 Fig. 2
3. Tutub
(a) bowl "alabaster" Jacobsen in Delougaz 1940: 149
no. 8
4. Tell Brak
(a) convex profile (5?) banded calcite Mallowan 1947: 27, 66,6 197,
pl. L:4
5. Sippar
(a) cyl. vase/bowl (2) banded calcite King 1899: pl. 4 (BM 91020) 5?7 Fig. 3
(b) sub-con. bowl (3) banded calcite Walker & Coll?n 1980: 98,
no. 23 (BM 42367) 5?8 Fig. 4
Inscription B: "[To Enlil, Rimus, King of Kis, when Elam and Parahsjum he had conquered, dedicated
(this)"9
1. Nippur
(a) vase "diorite" Hilprecht 1893: pl. 5:10
Inscription C: "Rimus, King of Kis, conqueror of Elam and Parahs
1. Ur
(a) bowl, s?r. one. (4) "steatite" Woolley 1955: pl. 36 (U.231);
Gadd & Legrain 1928: no. 9 10
(b) "bowl" "diorite" Sollberger 1965: 25 (U.3291);
Woolley 1955: 171
2. Provenance unknown
(a) bowl, s?r. anc. (4) "steatite" Klengel & Klengel 1980:
Abb. 1, 3
Inscription D: "Rimus, King of Kis"

1. Girsu
(a) sub-con. bowl (3) banded calcite? Heuzey & Sarzec 1884-1912:
LVI, pl. 5, fig. 4
(b) small jar (5) banded calcite? ' ibid.: pl. 44bis, fig. 2
150 T. F. POTTS
2. Nippur
(a) cyl. vase (1) "white marble" Hilprecht 1893: pis. 5:7, V
(b) bowl? "white marble" ibid.: pl. 5:8
(c) bowl ? "white marble" ibid.: 20 ?. 3, 48, pl. 5:9
(d) "vase" calcite (M) Goetze 1968: 54, 57 (5N-T567)
(e) "vase" calcite (M) ibid.: (6N-T1033a)
(f) cyl. vase (1) banded calcite CBS (?) 199163
(g) cyl. vase (1) banded calcite CBS 10.1103
3. Ur
(a) cyl. vase (1) banded calcite Gadd & Legrain 1928: no. 8,
pl. II5 Fig. 5
(b) cyl. vase (1) banded calcite Sollberger 1965: 25 n
(U.264)4 Fig. 6
(c) bowl "white calcite" ibid.: (U. 18308)
(d) squat jar (6) banded calcite Sollberger 1960: 75, no.
(U.207)3?12
4. Uruk
(a) bowl ? banded calcite? N?ldeke et al. 1936: 20, Taf. 25c
5. Sippar
(a) sub-con. bowl (3) banded calcite King 1899: pl. 4 (BM 91019)5?13 Fig. 7
6. Kish?14
(a) sub-con. bowl (3) banded calcite Gr?goire in Moorey 1978: Fiche
3, DI 1, fig. 3 (Ash. 1937. 652) 15
7. Tutub
(a) "vase" "calcite" Jacobsen in Delougaz 1940: 150,
no. 10
8. Tell Brak
(a) cyl. vase (1) banded calcite Loretz 1969: no. 83 5?16 Fig. 8
9. Provenance unknown
(a) cyl. vase (1) 17 "grey limestone" Stephens 1937: no. 97
(b) jar (6) "grey limestone" ibid.: no. 98, pl. XLIII
(c) sub-con. bowl (3) banded calcite? Shileico 1915: 9f.
E: Inscription Uncertain:
1. Nippur 19
(a) vase (Inscr. C ?) Goetze 1968: 54, 57 (6N-T1033)
(b) bowl (Inscr. C or D)"white stone" Biggs & Buccellati 1969: no. 45
2. Tutub
(a) bowl (Inscr. A or B) "alabaster" Jacobsen in Delougaz 1940: 150,
no. 9
3. Ur
(a) sub-con. bowl (3) banded calcite Sollberger 1965: 35 no. 41
(U.1167)5 Fig. 9
4. Susa
(a) cyl. vase20 (1) banded calcite? Amiet pers. comm.
Notes to Table 1
1 The inscriptions in this table correspond to the listing in Hirsch 1963 as follows:
Inscription A = Rimus al and a2
Inscription ? = Rimus a4
Inscription C = Rimus a3
Inscription D = Rimus a6
The following abbreviations are used in this and Table 2:
sub-con. sub-conical
cyl. cylindrical
s?r. anc. s?rie ancienne
s?r. r?c. s?rie r?cente
Numbers in brackets in the shape column refer to the types illustrated in Figure 12. A reference is given only
the shape is certain. (H), (M) and (Ma) in the stone-type column refer to the authority followed: viz. Hirsc
Meyer 1981 and Matthiae 1985 respectively. Stone identifications in quotes are those of the respective autho
in the reference. The remainder, without quotes, are my own judgements from photographs (usually foll
"?") or first-hand inspection.
2 In addition to those listed here, another 9 vessel fragments from Nippur definitely carry sections of inscri
(Hilprecht 1893: 20), giving a total of 20. The real figure is greater still, since many fragments with
inscriptions were not published. At least 61 fragments were recovered from the "Temple of Bel" alone (H
1893: 20). Since the first five lines of inscription A are shared with inscription ? and a macehead inscription (G
Legrain 1928: no. 10, pl. D), the identification of the many incomplete texts is uncertain.
3 Vessel inspected in the University Museum, Philadelphia, December 1985.
4 Vessel inspected in the Archaeological Museum, Baghdad, May-June 1983.
5 Vessel inspected in the British Museum, London.
6 Note that the text as there quoted is incorrect.
7 Also listed in Walker and Coll?n 1980: 99, no. 29.
8 Walker and Coll?n note that the attribution of this vessel to Sippar is uncertain.
9 The beginning of this inscription is reconstructed after inscription A.
10 Hallo 1957: 22 n. 6 notes that the title preserved on this fragment (the name itself is lost) was claimed by
also. However, the lack of any other known vessels of that king makes such an attribution unlikely.
11 Vessel inspected in the Louvre, Paris, December 1986.
12 Erroneously listed by Sollberger as a macehead.
13 Also listed by Walker and Coll?n 1980: 98, no. 28.
14 Purchased by the Kish expedition.
15 Vessel inspected in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford.
16 Loretz's reference (p. 13) to Mallowan 1947: pl. L:4 is incorrect. That is another sherd listed here as A4
Finkel (1985: 20), these cannot belong to the same vessel since inscription A does not begin "Rimus, king of
is preserved on fragment D8a.
17 Stephens reports that this vessel has the same form as D2a above.
18 The banding in the stone, especially near the base, evident in the photograph suggests rather a calcite, like
other vessels of this form (e.g. D3d).
19 See also note 2 above.
20 Sb 17824, h. 8-5, diam. c. 8-5 cm. According to information kindly supplied by Dr. P. Amiet, this fragment is
from a vase "de m?me type [as Naram-Sin Bla, a tall cylindrical vase], avec seulement 2 signes de la fin de
l'inscription a.mu ... la graphie est agad?enne et la module assez semblable". Among known Sargonic inscriptions
the formula a.mu(.ru), "dedicated (this)", occurs only on Rimus's inscriptions A and B, and never on those of
Naram-Sin.
Notes to Table 2
1 The inscriptions in this table correspond to the listing in Hirsch 1963 as follows:
Inscription A = Naram-Sin a5cc
Inscription ? = Naram-Sin a5(3
Inscription C = Naram-Sin a6
Inscription D = Naram-Sin a8a-5
Inscription E = Naram-Sin a9
Inscription F = Naram-Sin al2 and a56
See Table 1, note 1 for abbreviations. Numbers in brackets in the shape column refer to the types illustrated in
Figure 13. A reference is given only when the shape is clear.
2 The inscription of this type on the vase published in Stephens 1937: no. 95 is a modern forgery (Nagel 1966: 16;
Potts 1986b: 280-2). Braun-Holzinger (1987) argues that inscription A2b is also a fake and that vase A2a in fact bore
inscription B; but see above, p. 132.
3 Vessel inspected in the University Museum, Philadelphia, December 1985. Two joining fragments
(CBS 14951 +2) survive from the lower side and base of a goblet/cylindrical bowl. Base diam. 10 cm. There is a row
of concentric double dotted circles (probably one of many) near the base; parts of seven sets of circles are preserved,
some filled with (modern?) white paste. The interior of the vessel is chiselled and not smoothed.
4 Sweet suggests that A2a and A2b may be the same vessel.
152 T. F. POTTS
Table 2
Inscriptions of Naram-Sin on Stone Vessels l
Inscription A: "Naram-Sin, king of the four quarters, bowl (from) the booty of Magan"
1. Ur
(a) goblet, s?r. r?e.3 (6) chlorite Woolley 1955: 168; id. 1974: 88
(U.282 + 283); Sollberger 1965:
35, no. 42 Fig. 10
2. Provenance unknown:
(a) "vase" "alabaster" Rawlinson 1861: pl. 3 no. VII
(lost in Tigris)
(b) cyl. bowl4 (3) banded calcite Sweet in Muscarella ed. 1981:
80 f., no. 33
Inscription B: "Naram-Sin, king of the four quarters, f[rom the booty of Magan(?)]"
1. Susa:
(a) cyl. vase (1) "alb?tre" banded calcite ? Scheil 1902: 1, pl. 1:1
(Sb 17825); Amiet, Andr?, pers.
comm.
Inscription C: "Naram-Sin, the mighty, king of the four quarters, co

1. Girsu:
(a) lamp (7) green marble (Ma) Genouillac 1913: 101; Christian
1940: Taf. 350:2; Matthiae 1985:
fig. 82
Inscription D: "Naram-Sin, king of the four quarters"

1. Girsu:
(a) shouldered jar (5) calcite/gypsum Heuzey & Sarzec 1884-1912:
LVII, pl. 44:1
2. Puzris-dagan:
(a) cyl. vase (1) banded calcite Nassouhi 1925: 91
3. Ur:
(a) bowl (4) "black and white granite" Gadd & Legrain 1928: no. 24A,
pis. E:24, IV: 24(A) Fig. 11
(a) bowl (3) "red marble" Stephens 1937: no. 96, pl. XLIV
Inscription E: "[Naram-Sin], king of the four quarters, [builder of the temple of] Enlil in Ni[ppur
1. Nippur:
(a) "vase" "alabaster" Legrain 1926: no. 18
F: Inscription uncertain:
1. Ur:
(a) "vase" "alabaster" Gadd & Legrain 1928: no. 277
2. Tutub:
(a) bowl "alabaster" Jacobsen in Delougaz 1940: 149,
no. 7
(a) "vase" "alabaster" King 1912: pl. 8 (BM 104418)
(Notes to Table 2: see preceding page).
Fig. 1. U.7807 = IM 3578 (Table 1, A2a)
Fig. 2. U.263 = BM 116436 (Table 1, A2c)
Fig. 3. BM 91020 (Table 1, A5a) For inscription see King 1899: Pl. 4.
Calcite vessels with inscriptions of Rimus (Scale 2: 3)
154 T. F. POTTS
Fig. 4. BM 42367 (Table 1, A5b).
Fig. 5. U.253 = BM 116435 (Table 1, D3a).
Fig. 6. U.264 = IM 113 (Table 1, D3b).
Fig. 7. BM 91019 (Table 1, D5a).

156 T. F. POTTS
/
Fig. 9. U.1167 = BM 117148
Fig. 8. BM 127340 (Table 1, D8a). (Table 1, E3a).
Fig. 10. U.282 + 283 = CBS 14951 + 14952 and inscription (Table 2, Ala).
Fig. 11. BM 118553 (Table 2, D3a) For inscription see Gadd & Legrain 1928: no. 24A.
Calcite vessels with inscriptions of Rimus (Figs. 8, 9); stone vessels with inscriptions of
Naram-Sin (Figs. 10, 11) (Scale 2: 3).
Figure 12. Vessel Types Inscribed by Rimus (Not to scale)
Type 1. Tall cylindrical vases with straight or slightly convex profile and everted rim. Almost
exclusively in white-yellow-pale brown banded calcite; the bands usually run vertically,
accentuating the tall form. Interior drilled.
At least 10 examples: Table 1, Ali, Aim, A2c, D2a, D2f, D2g, D3a-b, D8a, E4a
(and probably D9a).
Type 2. Shallow (?) cylindrical bowl-vase with broad everted rim; smaller and thinner-walled than
type 1 and probably not as tall. Vertically banded greyish-white-yellow calcite. Interior
drilled.
1 example: Table 1, A5a.
Type 3. Sub-conical bowls, usually with slightly concave profile. Almost exclusively in the same
calcite as type 1, but usually cut with the bands running horizontally. Drilled interior.
At least 8 examples: Table 1, Alf, A2a, A5b, Dia, D5a, D6a, D9c, E3a (and
possibly Ala-e, Alg, Alk-1, A3a, D2b-c, D3c, D4a).
Type 4. Cylindrical "steatite" bowls of the s?rie ancienne. Interior chiselled (?) and smoothed.
2 examples: Table 1, Cla, C2a.
Type 5. Flask or small jar. White and yellow-pale brown banded or mottled calcite. Interior
drilled.
At least 1 example: Table 1, Dlb (and possibly Alh, A4a).
Type 6. Squat jar with everted rim. Banded calcite (?). Interior drilled.
2 examples: Table 1, D3d, D9b.
Type 7. Shape unspecified or only vaguely described. Some have been tentatively assigned to types
above.
18 examples: Table 1, Alh, Alj-1, A2b, A3a, A4a, Bla, Clb, D2d-e, D3c, D4a,
D7a, D8a, Eia, Elb, E2a.
158 T. F. POTTS
S
_? /
\^^?^|
5 6
Figure 13
Type 1. Tal
2 exampl
Type 2. Cy
calcite. Interior drilled.
1 example: Table 2, A2b.
Type 3. Shallow bowl with convex profile and everted rim. "Red marble".
1 example: Table 2, D4a.
Type 4. Sub-conical bowl, slightly convex upper and concave lower profile. "Black and white granite".
Interior drilled.
1 example: Table 2, D3a.
Type 5. Tall shouldered jar with everted rim. Gypsum/calcite, not banded.
1 example: Table 2, Dia.
Type 6. Chlorite ?steatite goblet of the s?rie r?cente. Interior gouged.

1 example: Table 2, Ala.
Type 7. Shell-shaped lamp. "Green marble".

1 example: Table 2, Cla.
Type 8. Shape unspecified or uncertain.

5 examples: Table 2, A2a, Eia, Fla, F2a, F3a.
References Cited
Adams, R.McC, 1974. Anthropological Perspectives on Ancient Trade. Current Anthrop

239-58.
Adams, R.McC, 1981. Heartland of Cities: Surveys of Ancient Settlement and Land Use on the Central Floodplain
of the Euphrates. Chicago.
Ainsworth, W., 1838. Researches in Assyria, Babylonia and Chaldaea, forming part of the labours of the Euphrates
Expedition. London.
Amiet, P., 1976. L'art a"Agad? au Mus?e du Louvre. Paris.
Amiet, P., 1977. Bactriane proto-historique. Syria 54, 89-121.
Amiet, P., 1980. Art of the Ancient Near East. New York. (Translated by J. Shepley & C. Choquet).
Amiet, P., 1986. L'?ge des ?changes inter-iraniens 3500-1700 avant J.-C. (Editions de la R?union des mus?es
nationaux). Paris.
Amiet, P., 1987. Une statue de Gudea. La revue du Louvre et des Mus?es de France 1987/3, 169-71.
Alden, J. R., 1979. Regional Economie Organization in Baneshperiod Iran (Ph.D. dissertation). Ann Arbor
Andersen, H. H., 1986. The Barbar Temple: Stratigraphy, architecture and interpretation. In S. ?. ?
Khalifa & M. Rice (ed.), Bahrain through the Ages: The Archaeology. London.
Barton, G. ?., 1929. The Royal Inscriptions of Sumer and Akkad. New Haven.
Basmachi, F., 1950. Sculptured Stone Vases in the Iraq Museum. Sumer 6, 165-76.
Berthoud, Th., et al., 1982. Cuivres et alliages en Iran, Afghanistan, Oman au cours des IVe et IIIe
mill?naires. Pal?orient 8/2, 39-54.
Biggs, R. D., Buccellati, G, 1969. Cuneiform Texts from Nippur, The Eighth and Ninth Seasons (Assyriologi-
cal Studies 17). Chicago.
Boehmer, R. M., 1984. Kalkstein f?r das urukzeitliche Uruk. Baghdader Mitteilungen 15, 141-7.
Boehmer, R. M., 1984a. Uruk-Warka XXXVI: Survey des Stadtgebeites von Uruk. Baghdader
Mitteilungen 15, 113-40.
Boucharlat, R., Haerinck, E., Phillips, C. S., Potts, D. T., in press. Archaeological Reconnaissance at
ed-Dur, Umm al-Qaiwain, U.A.E. Akkadica.
Braun-Holzinger, ?. ?., 1987. Nochmals zu Naramsins "Beute von Magan". Or. Ant. 26, 285-90.
Burkholder, G, 1984. An Arabian Collection, Artifacts from the Eastern Province. Boulder City, Nevada.
Calmeyer, P., 1969. Datierbare Bronzen aus Luristan und Kirmanshah. Berlin.
de Cardi, ?., 1971. Archaeological Survey in the Northern Trucial States. East and West 21, 225-89.
de Cardi, B. ?tal., 1976. Excavations and Survey in Oman, 1974-5. Journal of Oman Studies 2, 101-87.
Christian, V., 1940. Altertumskunde des ?weistr?mlandes I, Leipzig.
Ciarla, R., 1979. The Manufacture of Alabaster Vessels at Shahr-i Sokhta and Mundigak in the 3rd
Millennium b.c.: A Problem of Cultural Identity. In G Gnoli & A. V. Rossi (ed.), Iranica
(Napoli, Istituto Universario Orientale, Seminario di Studi Asiatici, Series Minor X),
Naples.
Ciarla, R., 1981. A Preliminary Analysis of the Manufacture of Alabaster Vessels at Shahr-i Sokhta and
Mundigak in the 3rd Millennium b.c. In H. H?rtel (ed.), South Asian Archaeology 1979. Berlin.
Cleuziou, S., 1978-9. The Second and Third Seasons of Excavation at Hili 8. Archaeology in the United
Arab Emirates 2-3, 30-69.
Cleuziou, S., 1981. Oman in the Early 2nd Millennium b.c. H. H?rtel (ed.), South Asian Archaeology 1979,
Berlin, 279-93.
Cleuziou, S., Vogt, ?., 1983. Umm an-Nar Burial Customs: New Evidence from Tomb A at Hili
North. Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 13, 37-52.
Davidovic, V., 1984. Testi di Ur III concernenti bottino di guerra? Annali (Napoli, Istituto Universario
Orientale) 44, 177-205.
Delougaz, P. P., 1940. The Temple Oval at Khafajah (OIP LUI). Chicago.
Delougaz, P. P., 1960. Architectural Representations on Steatite Vases. Iraq 22, 90-5.
Durrani, F. ?., 1964. Stone Vases as Evidence of Connection between Mesopotamia and the Indus
Valley. Ancient Pakistan 1, 51-96.
Edzard, D. O., 1959. Enmebaragesi von Kish. ZA 53, 9-26.
Edzard, D. O., F?rber, W., 1974. Die Orts- und Gew?ssernamen der ?eit der 3. Dynastie von Ur (R?pertoire
g?ographique des textes cun?iformes 2). Wiesbaden.
160 t. f. potts
Edzard, D. O., F?rber, W., Sollbe

Sargonischen J?eit (R?pertoir
Eichmann, R., 1987. Uruk-Wa
Mitteilungen 18, 107-15.
Eilers, Wh., 1983. Das Volk der
101-19.
Fairservis, W. ?., 1961. Archeological Studies in the Seistan Basin of Southwestern Afghanistan and Eastern Ir
New York.
Foster, B. R., 1977. Commercial Activity in Sargonic Mesopotamia. Iraq 39, 31-43.
Foster, B. R., 1982. Umma in the Sargonic Period. Hamden.
Foster, B. R., 1982a. The Seige of Armanum. JANES 14, 27-36.
Frankfort, H., 1935. Oriental Institute Discoveries in Iraq, 1933/4 (OIC 19). Chicago.
Frankfort, H., 1954. The Art and Architecture of the Ancient Orient, Harmondsworth.
Frayne, D. R., 1984. Notes on a New Inscription of Sar-kali-sarr?. Annual Review of the Royal Inscriptions o
Mesopotamia Project 2, 23-7.
Frifelt, K., 1970. Jamdat Nasr Graves in the Oman. KUML 1970, 374-83.
Frifelt, K., 1975. On Prehistoric Settlement and Chronology of the Oman Peninsula. East and West 25,
359-424.
Frifelt, K., 1986. Burial Mounds near Ali excavated by the Danish Expedition. In S. H. A. al Khalifah
& M. Rice (ed.), Bahrain Through the Ages: The Archaeology. London.
Gadd, C. J., 1971. The Dynasty of Agade and the Gutian Invasion. The Cambridge Ancient History I\2
Cambridge, 417-63.
Gadd, C. J., Legrain, L., 1928. Ur Excavations, Texts I: Royal Inscriptions. London.
Gautier, J. E., Lampre, G., 1905. Fouilles de Moussian. MDP VIII, 59-148.
Gelb, I. J., 1961. Old Akkadian Writing and Grammar (Materials for the Assyrian Dictionary 2). 2nd edn.
Chicago.
Genouillac, H. de, 1913. Inscriptions diverses. RA 10, 101 f.
Genouillac, H. de, 1934. Fouilles de Telloh I: Epoques presargoniques. Paris.
Genouillac, H. de, 1936. Fouilles de Tello II: Epoques d'Ur HI Dynastie et de Larsa. Paris.
Gibson, McG, et al., 1978. Excavations at Nippur, Twelfth Season (OIC 23). Chicago.
Glassner, J.-J., in press. Mesopotamian Textual Evidence on Magan/Makkan in the Late 3rd
Millennium b.c. P. Costa, M. Tosi (ed.), Oman Studies (Orientalia Romana 7). Rome.
Glob, P. V., 1958. Alabaster Vases from the Bahrain Temple. KUML 1958, 138-45.
Gockel, W., 1982. Die Stratigraphie und Chronologie der Ausgrabungen des Diyala-Gebietes und der Stadt Ur in der
^eit von UrukjEanna IV bis zur Dynastie von Akkad. Rome.
Goetze, A. 1968. Akkad Dynasty Inscriptions from Nippur. JAOS 88, 54-9.
Goetze, ?., 1970. Early Dynastic Dedication Inscriptions from Nippur. JCS 23, 39-56.
Golding, M., 1974. Evidence for pre-Seleucid Occupation of Eastern Arabia. Proceedings of the Seminar
for Arabian Studies 4, 19-31.
Grayson, A. K., 1972. Assyrian Royal Inscriptions I: From the Beginning to Ashur-resha-ishi I. Wiesbaden.
Grayson, A. K., 1975. Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles. (Texts from Cuneiform Sources 5). New York.
Grayson, A. K., Sollberger, E., 1976. L'insurrection g?n?rale contre Naram-Suen. RA 70, 103-28.
Gr?goire, J.-P., 1981. Inscriptions et archives administratives cun?iformes (Ie partie). Rome.
G?terbock, H. G, 1938. Die historische Tradition und ihre literarische Gestaltung bei Babyloniern und
Hethitern bis 1200. (2nd Part) ?A (nf) 10, 45-149.
Hakemi, ?., 1972. Catalogue de l'exposition: Lut, Xabis {Shahdad). Tehran.
Hall, H. R., Woolley, C. L., 1927. Ur Excavations I: AWUbaid. London.
Hallo, W. W., 1957. Early Mesopotamian Royal Titles (American Oriental Series 43). New Haven.
Hallo, W. W., 1961. Royal Inscriptions of the Early Old Babylonian Period: a Bibliography. Bi. Or. 18,
4-14.
Hallo, W. W., 1962. The Royal Inscriptions of Ur: A Typology. Harvard Union College Annual 33, 1-43
Harrison, J. V., 1968. Geology. The Cambridge History of Iran I, Cambridge, 111-85.
H?ser, J., 1987. The Soft-stone inventory of Shimal. In B. Vogt, U. Franke-Vogt (ed.), Shimal 1985/
1986. Excavations of the German Archaeological Mission in Ras al-Khaimah, U.A.E., A Preliminary
Report (Berliner Beitr?ge zum Vorderen Orient, Bd. 8). Berlin.
Hauptmann, ?., 1985. 5000 Jahre Kupfer in Oman. Bd. 1: Die Entwicklung der Kupfermetall
Jahrtausend bis zur Neuzeit (Der Anschnitt Suppl. vol. 4). Bochum.
Hawkins, J. D. (ed.), 1977. Trade in the Ancient Near East, Papers of the XXIIIrd Rencontre As
Internationale, Birmingham (= Iraq 39). London.
Heimpel, W., 1982. A First Step in the Diorite Question. RA 76, 65-7.
Heimpel, W., 1987. Das Unterer Meer. ZA 77, 22-91.
Heinrich, E., Andrae, W., 1931. Fara. Ergebnisse des Ausgrabungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesells
und Abu Hatab 1902/3. Berlin.
Herrmann, G, 1968. Lapis Lazuli: The Early Phases of its Trade. Iraq 30, 21?57.
Heuzey, L., Sarzec, E. de, 1884?1912. D?couvertes en Chald?e, 2 vols. Paris.
Hilprecht, H. V., 1893/96. Old Babylonian Inscriptions, chiefly from Nippur (Babylonian Exped
University of Pennsylvania, Series A: Cuneiform Texts, vol. I, 2 parts). Philadelphi
Hilprecht, H. V., 1903. Explorations in Bible Lands. Edinburgh.
Hirsch, H., 1963. Die Inschriften der K?nige von Agade. AJO 20, 1-81.
Huot, J.-L. et al., 1983. Larsa et 'Oueili, travaux de 1978-81 (Editions Recherche sur les Civ
M?moire 26). Paris.
Jacobsen, Th., 1939. The Sumerian King List (Assyriological Studies 11). Chicago.
Jarrige, C, Tosi, M., 1981. The Natural Resources of Mundigak. In H. H?rtel (ed.), So
Archaeology 1979. Berlin.
Keun de Hoogerwierd, Baron R. C, 1889. Die H?fen und Handelsverhaltnisse des Persischen
des Golfs von Oman. Annalen der Hydrographie und maritimen Meteorologie 17, 189-20
King, L. W., 1899. Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum, Part VII.
King, L. W., 1907. Chronicles Concerning Early Babylonian Kings. 2 vols. London.
King, L. W., 1912. Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum, Part XXX
Klengel, H., 1979. Handel und H?ndler im alten Orient. Wien, K?ln, Graz.
Klengel, H., Klengel, E., 1980. Zum Fragment eines Steatitgef??es mit einer Inschrift der
Akkad. Rocznik Orientalistyczny 41/2, 45-51.
Kohl, P. C, 1974. Seeds of Upheaval: The Production of Chlorite at Tepe Yahya and an Analysis of
Production and Trade in Southwest Asia in the Third Millennium (Harvard Ph.D. disserta
Arbor.
Kohl, P. C, 1975. Carved Chlorite Vessels: A Trade in Finished Commodities in the mid-third
Millennium. Expedition 18/1, 18-31.
Kohl, P. C. 1975a. The Archaeology of Trade. Dialectical Anthropology 1, 43-50.
Kohl, P. C, 1977. A Note on Chlorite Artifacts from Shahr-i Sokhta. East and West 27, 111-28.
Kohl, P. C, 1978. The Balance of Trade in Southwestern Asia in the Mid-Third Millennium b.c.
Current Anthropology 19, 463-92.
Kohl, P. C, 1979. The "World Economy" of West Asia in the Third Millennium b.c. In M. Taddei
(ed.), South Asian Archaeology 1977. Naples.
Kohl, P. C, 1982. The First World Economy: External Relations and Trade in West and Central Asia
in the Third Millennium b.c. In H.-J. Nissen & J. Renger (ed.), Mesopotamien und seine
Nachbarn. Berlin.
Kohl, P. C, Harbottle, G., Sayre, E. V., 1979. Physical and Chemical Analyses of Soft Stone Vessels
from Southwest Asia. Archaeometry 21, 131-59.
Kolbus, S., 1983. Zur Chronologie des sog. Gamdat Nasr-Friedhofs in Ur. Iraq 45, 7-17.
Lamberg-Karlovsky, C. C, 1970. Excavations at Tepe Yahya, Iran 1967-9, Progress Report 1 (American
Schools of Prehistoric Research, Bulletin 27). Cambridge, Mass.
Lamberg-Karlovsky, C. C, 1973. Urban Interaction on the Iranian Plateau: Excavations at Tepe
Yahya 1967-73. Proceedings of the British Academy 54, 282-319.
Lamberg-Karlovsky, C. C, Tosi, M., 1973. Shahr-i Sokhta and Tepe Yahya: Tracks on the Earliest
History of the Iranian Plateau. East and West 23, 21-58.
Lambert, M., 1953. Textes commerciaux de Lagash. RA 47, 57-69, 105-20.
Lambert, M., 1968. Masses d'armes de pierre au nom de Narams?n. Orientalia 37, 85 f.
Le Breton, L., 1957. The Early Periods at Susa, Mesopotamian Relations. Iraq 19, 79-124.
Leemans, W. F., 1960. Foreign Trade in the Old Babylonian Period. Leiden.
Legrain, L., 1926. Royal Inscriptions and Fragments from Nippur and Babylon (PBS XV). Philadelphia.
162 t. f. potts
van Loon, ?. ?., 1977. Archaeo

In B. L. van Beck et al. (ed.)
Loretz, O., 1969. Texte aus Cha
Mackay, E., 1929. A Sumerian P
Natural History, Anthropo
Mackay, E., 1932. An Importan
McCown, D. E., et al., 1967. N
Chicago.
Mallowan, M. E. L., 1947. Excavations at Brak and Chagar Bazar. Iraq 9, 1-266.
Mallowan, M. E. L., 1970. The Development of Cities from al-'Ubaid to the end of Uruk 5. In The
Cambridge Ancient History, 3rd edn., vol. 1/1. Cambridge.
Mallowan, M. E. L., 1971. The Early Dynastic Period in Mesopotamia. In The Cambridge Ancient
History, 3rd edn., vol. 1/2. Cambridge.
Masson, V. M., Sarianidi, V. I., 1972. Central Asia: Turkmenia before the Achaemenids. London.
Matthiae, P., 1985. / tesori di Ebla. Milan.
Mecquenem, R. de, 1911. Constructions ?lamites du tell de l'Acropole de Suse. MDP XII, 65-78.
Mecquenem, R. de, 1934. Fouilles de Suse (1929-33). MDPXXV, 177-237.
Mecquenem, R. de, 1943. Fouilles de Suse (1933-9). MDPXX1X, 3-161.
Meyer, CA., 1981. Stone Artifacts from Tutub, Eshnunna and Nippur. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Chicago.
Michalowski, P., 1975. The Bride of Simanum. JAOS95, 716-19.
Michalowski, P., 1978. Foreign Tribute to Sumer During the Url?i Period. ?? 68, 34-49.
Michalowski, P., 1980. New Sources Concerning the Reign of Nar?m-Sin. JCS 32, 233-46.
Miroschedji, P. de, 1973. Vases et objets en steatite susiens du Mus?e du Louvre. DAFI3, 9-42.
Moller, E., 1984. Reliefstenkar fra Mesopotamien. In P. J. Frandsen & J. Laessoe (ed.), Meilern Nilen og
Tigris. Copenhagen.
Moorey, P. R. S., 1978. Kish Excavations 1923-33. Oxford.
Moorey, P. R. S., 1985. Materials and Manufacture in Ancient Mesopotamia: The Evidence of Archaeology and
Art. Metals and Metalwork, Glazed Materials and Glass (BAR International Series 237). Oxford.
Morgan, J. de, 1900. Mati?res min?rales employ?es ? Suse dans l'antiquit?. MDPl, 33-49.
Mortensen, P., 1970. On the Date of the Temple at Barbar in Bahrain. KUML 1970, 385-98.
Mortensen, P., 1986. The Barbar Temple: its Chronology and Foreign Relations Reconsidered. In
S. H. A. al Khalifah & M. Rice (ed.), Bahrain Through the Ages: The Archaeology. London.
Mughal, M. R., 1983. The Dilmun Burial Complex at Sar, The 1980-82 Excavations in Bahrain. Bahrain.
Muhly, J. D., 1973. Copper and Tin: The Distribution of Mineral Resources and the Nature of the Metals Trade
in the Bronze Age. Hamden.
Muscarella, O. W., (ed.), 1981. Ladders to Heaven, Art Treasures from Bible Lands. Toronto.
Nagel, W., 1966. Fr?he Gro?plastik und die Hochkulturkunst am Erythra?schen Meer. Berliner
Jahrbuch f?r Vor- und Fr?hgeschichte 6, 1-54.
Nagel, W., Strommenger, E., 1968. Reichsakkadische Glyptik und Plastik im Rahmen der
mesopotamisch-elamischen Geschichte. Berliner Jahrbuch f?r Vor- und Fr?hgeschichte 8, 137-206.
Nassouhi, E., 1925. Un vase en alb?tre de Naram-Sin. RA 22, 91.
Nissen, H.-J., 1965. Eine neue Version der Sumerischen K?nigsliste. ZA 57, 1-5.
Nissen, H.-J., 1966. Zur Datierung des K?nigsfriedhofes von Ur (Beitr?ge zur Ur- und Fr?hgeschichtlichen
Arch?ologie des Mittelmeer-Kulturraumes Bd. 3). Bonn.
N?ldeke, ?., et al., 1936. Siebenter vorl?ufiger Bericht . . . Uruk-Warka. Berlin.
Oppenheim, A. L., 1954. The Seafaring Merchants of Ur. JAOSl^, 6-17.
Oppenheim, A. L., 1976. Trade in the Ancient Near East. In Fifth International Congress of Economic
History, Moscow, 1970, vol. 5. Moscow.
Parrot, ?., 1956. Le temple a"Ishtar (Mission arch?ologique de Mari I). Paris.
Parrot, ?., 1967. Les temples d'Ishtarat et de Ninni-zaza (Mission arch?ologique de Mari III). Paris.
Peters, J. P., 1897. Nippur II, Second Season. New York & London.
Pettinato, G., 1972. Il commercio con l'estero della Mesopotamia meridionale nel 3. millennio av. Cr.
alla luce delle fonti letterarie e lessicali sumeriche. Mesopotamia 1, 43-166.
Pettinato, G., 1982. Il tesoro del nemico elamita ovvero il bottino della guerra contro Ansan di Sulgi.
Or. Ant. 21, 49-72.
Piggott, S., 1950. Prehistoric India. Harmondsworth.

P?zard, M., 1914. Mission ? Bender-Bouchir, documents arch?ologiques et ?pigraphiques (MDP X
Pollock, S., 1985. Chronology of the Royal Cemetery of Ur. Iraq 47, 129-58.
Porada, E., 1977. Of Professional Seal Cutters and Nonprofessionally Made Seals. In Mc
R. D. Biggs (ed.), Seals and Sealing in the Ancient Near East (Bibliotheca Mesopo
Malibu.
Postgate, J. N. (ed.), 1985. Abu Salabikh Excavations vol. 2: Graves 1 to 99. Hertford.
Pottier, M.-H., 1984. Mat?riel fun?raire de la Bactriane m?ridionale de l'?ge de bronze (Editions reche
les civilizations, m?moire 36). Paris.
Potts, D. T., 1978. Towards an Integrated History of Culture Change in the Arabian Gulf Area
on Dilmun, Makkan and the Economy of Sumer. Journal of Oman Studies 4, 29-51.
Potts, D. T., 1983. Barbar Miscellanies. In D. T. Potts (ed.), Dilmun: New Studies in the History of
(Berlin Beitr?ge zum Vorderen Orient, Bd. 2). Berlin.
Potts, D. T., 1986. Eastern Arabia and the Oman Peninsula during the Late Fourth and Earl
Millennia b.c. In U. Finkbeiner & W. R?llig (ed.), Gamdat Nasr: Period or Regional
(Beiheft zum T?binger Atlas des Vorderen Orients, Reihe B, Nr. 62). Wiesbaden.
Potts, D. T., 1986a. The Booty of Magan. Or. Ant. 25, 271-85.
Potts, D. T., in press (a). A Chronological and Culture Historical Summary. Chapter 8 in D. T. P
al., Excavations at Tepe Yahya, Iran: Periods IVC and IVB (3000-2000 b.c.).
Potts, D. T., in press (b). The Chronology of the Archaeological Assemblages from the Head
Arabian Gulf to the Arabian Sea (8000-1750 b.c.). In R. W. Ehrich (ed.), Chronologies in
World Archaeology. 3rd edn. Chicago.
Potts, D. T., in press (c). The Arabian Gulf in Antiquity, vol. I, From Prehistory to the Fall of the Achae
Empire, Oxford.
Pumpelly, R., 1908. Explorations in Turkestan, Expedition of 1904. Washington.
Rawlinson, H. C, 1861. The Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia, vol. I. London.
Ratnagar, S., 1981. Encounters: The Westerly Trade of the Harappa Civilization. Delhi.
Reisner, G ?., 1931. Stone Vessels found in Crete and Babylonia. Antiquity 5, 200-12.
R?llig, W., 1975. Heirat, politische. RIA IV, 282-7.
Sabloff, J. ?., Lamberg-Karlovsky, C. C. (ed.), 1975. Ancient Civilization and Trade. Albuquerqu
Scheil, V., 1902. Textes ?lamites-s?mitiques, deuxi?me s?rie (MDP IV). Paris.
Schmidt, E. F., 1933. Tepe Hissar Excavations 1931. The Museum Journal 23, 323-483.
Schmidt, E. F., 1937. Excavations at Tepe Hissar, Damghan. Philadelphia.
Sch?ller, ?., 1963. Die Rohstoffe der Steingef??e der Sumerer aus der archaischen Siedling bei
Warka. In H. J. Lenzen et al., XIX. vorl?ufiger Bericht . . . Uruk-Warka. Berlin.
Shileiko, V. K., 1915. Votivnye nadpisi Shumeriiskikh pravitelei. Petrograd.
Sollberger, E., 1960. Notes on the Early Inscriptions from Ur and el-Obed. Iraq 23, 69-89.
Sollberger, E., 1965. Ur Excavations, Texts VIII: Royal Inscriptions, Part II. London.
Sollberger, E., 1976. Ibbi-suen. RIA V, 1-8.
Sollberger, E., K?pper, J.-R., 1971. Inscriptions royales sum?riennes et akkadiennes. Paris.
Steible, H., 1982. Die altsumerische Bau- und Weihinschriften, 2 vols. Wiesbaden.
Stein, ?., 1937. Archaeological Reconnaissances in North-Western India and South-Eastern Iran. Londo
Steinkeller, P., 1982. The Question of Marnasi: A Contribution to the Historical Geography of
the Third Millennium b.c. Za 72, 237-65.
Steinkeller, P., 1987. The Administrative and Economic Organization of the Url?i State: T
and the Periphery. In McG. Gibson and R. D. Biggs (ed.), The Organization of Power: Asp
Bureaucracy in the Ancient Near East (SOAC 46). Chicago.
Steinkeller, P., 1988. On the Identity of the Toponmy l?.su(.a). JAOS 108, 197-202.
Stephens, F.J., 1937. Votive and Historical Texts from Babylonia and Assyria (YOSIX). New
London & Oxford.
Stolper, M. W., 1982. On the Dynasty of Simaski and the early Sukkalmahs. ZA 72, 42-67.
Stolper, M. W., 1984. Political History. In M. W. Stolper & E. Carter, Elam: Surveys of Political His
and Archaeology. Los Angeles.
Sumner, W. M., 1986. Proto-Elamite Civilization in Fars. In U. Finkbeiner & W. R?llig (ed.) Ga
Nasr: Period or Regional Style?. Wiesbaden.
Thorvildsen, K., 1962. Burial Cairns on Umm an-Nar. KUML 1962, 208-19.
164 t. f. potts
Tosi, M., 1969. Excavations at

1968. East and West 19, 283
Tosi, M., 1974. The Lapis Laz
Gurur?jamahjarik?. Studi in o
Tosi, M., 1975. Notes on the D
Journal of Oman Studies 1, 1
Tosi, M., 1976-80. Karneol. R
Tosi, M. (ed.), 1983. Prehistor
and Memoirs XIX, 1). Nap
Vallat, F., 1980. Suse et l'Elam
Vallat, F., 1985. Elements de
V?rtesalji, P. P., Kolbus, S., 19
20, 53-109.
Vogt, ?., 1985. Zur Chronologie
Oman: Zusammenfassung, Analy
ergebnisse. Unpublished Ph.
Vogt, B., 1985a. The Umm an
excavation, 1982-1984. Archae
Waetzoldt, H., 1981. Zur Ter
Lingua di Ebla. Naples.
Walker, C. B. F., Coll?n, D., 1
in 1881-2. In L. de Meyer (
Wartke, R. B., 1979. Steinbohr
Watelin, L. Ch., 1934. Excavati
Weisgerber, G, 1981. Mehr al
174-263.
Williams, G R., 1981. Geological Notes on Rocks, Fossils and Objects of Antiquarian Interest
Excavated from the Ruins of Eridu. In F. Safar et al. (ed.), Eridu. Baghdad.
Woolley, C. L., 1928. The Sumerians. London.
Woolley, C. L., 1934. Ur Excavations II: The Royal Cemetery. London.
Woolley, C. L., 1955. Ur Excavations IV: The Early Periods. London.
Woolley, C. L., 1974. Ur Excavations VI: The Ur III Period. London.
Woolley, C. L., Mallowan, M. E. L., 1976. Ur Excavations VII: The Old Babylonian Period. London.
Yener, ?. ?., 1982. A Review of Interregional Exchange in Southwest Asia. Anatolica 9, 33-75.
Yoffee, N., 1981. Explaining Trade in Ancient Western Asia (Monographs on the Ancient Near East,
vol. 2/2). Malibu.
Zarins, J., 1978. Steatite Vessels in the Riyadh Museum. Atlal 2, 65-93.

Foreign Stone Vessels of The Late Third Millennium B.C. From Southern Mesopotamia - Their Origins and Mechanisms of Exchange

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Foreign Stone Vessels of The Late Third Millennium B.C. From Southern Mesopotamia - Their Origins and Mechanisms of Exchange

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Foreign Stone Vessels of the Late Third Millennium B.C.

from Southern Mesopotamia:

FOREIGN STONE VESSELS OF THE LATE THIRD MIL-

copper and its alloys, whi

adequately described, and their forms therefore remained unknown. Me

1. Sargonic Inscribed Stone Vessels

9 These inscriptions are conveniently collected10in

illustrated) and in templ

(a) Rimus (see Table 1, be

(?), thinner-walled cylindrical bowl/vase (Figs. 3, 12:2), sub-conical

15 None of the fragments with a convex profile is

already in Gudea's distin

Rimus, king of Kis, conquered Abalgamas, 'lung1 of Parahsum, in battle. And

prisoners. By Samas and Aba, I swear, (these are) no lies; it is true! . . .

The two reckonings of casualties, citing different totals, indicate that R

(miniature), 21a (limestone), 29a; and on Bahrain:

Parahsum" (Steinkeller 1982: 254, ?. 62). As Steinkeller suggests, "there is

(b) Naram-Sin (see Table 2, below, p. 152, Figs. 10-11, 13

33 Steinkeller 1982: 254; cf. previously Kiengel and

The one known vessel with inscription C is a "green marble" shell-sha

39Shahdad: Hakemi 1972: pl. XIII:C, D. Shahr-i Sokhta

realize that the two frag

fcW-ra-?zra-[d] '"en.1 [zu]

[nam. ra. ak]

(Hauptmann 1985: 17-23

50 Cf. Amiet Lower Sea" which, in his view,

shouldered jar, a recurrent Mesopotamian form with local antecedents da

2. Uninscribed Vessels from the Eastern Highlands

(a) "Elamite" Types

55 Hall & Woolley

(b) "Maganite" Types

press [b] ), conveniently co

(c) Other Eastern Types

in recent publications as "chlorite" or "steatite". Woolley, however, listed Ur

67Woolley's descriptions should not be accepted

note that his comments on

3. Mechanisms of exchange: trade versus booty

commercial value; there i

}See the comments publis

plain types found on Mesopotamian sites?may have arrived as trophies

80 Only Sulgi claims the conquest of Ansan (year

throughout Greater Iran

30 f., 40), rather than in

Inscriptions of Rimus on Stone Vessels l

(m) cyl. vase (1) banded calcite CBS 14548 3

Inscription D: "Rimus, King of Kis"

Inscriptions of Naram-Sin on Stone Vessels l

Inscription C: "Naram-Sin, the mighty, king of the four quarters, co

Inscription D: "Naram-Sin, king of the four quarters"

(Notes to Table 2: see preceding page).

Fig. 1. U.7807 = IM 3578 (Table 1, A2a)

Fig. 2. U.263 = BM 116436 (Table 1, A2c)

Fig. 4. BM 42367 (Table 1, A5b).

Fig. 5. U.253 = BM 116435 (Table 1, D3a).

Calcite vessels with inscriptions of Rimus (Scale 2: 3)

Fig. 6. U.264 = IM 113 (Table 1, D3b).

Fig. 7. BM 91019 (Table 1, D5a).

Figure 12. Vessel Types Inscribed by Rimus (Not to scale)

Type 6. Chlorite ?steatite goblet of the s?rie r?cente. Interior gouged.

Type 7. Shell-shaped lamp. "Green marble".

Type 8. Shape unspecified or uncertain.

Adams, R.McC, 1974. Anthropological Perspectives on Ancient Trade. Current Anthrop

Edzard, D. O., F?rber, W., Sollbe