A POSSIBLE IDENTIFICATION OF

MELUHHA, AND MAKAN*)

BY

ROMILA THAPAR (Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi)1)

The identifications of Dilmun, and Makan have been subject to considerable controversy. Recently however some consen- sus seems to have developed. Meluhha, it has been forcefully argued by Leemans in more than one place, was probably the western sea-board

*) [Up to now, the relations between and the countries beyond the Persian and Arabian Gulf in the last few millennia B.C. have been mainly studied from the point of view of the Assyriological discipline. On the other hand, beyond the Gulf especially in the western part of the Indian sub-continent, archaeological discoveries of great significance have been made which point to possible commercial relations between the civilisations of and southern Mesopotamia in the third and second millenia B.C. It must therefore be appreciated that Prof. Romila Thapar has now made a study of these relations using archaeological, historical and linguistic evidence and analyses these viewing the problem from the Indian perspective. In this study she has suggested some new hypotheses which can lead to rather striking conclusions and these suggestions deserve the attention and consideration of all who are interested in the problem, which is one of the most important and fascinating problems in the history of the third and second millenium B.C. It may be hoped that this study will place the quest for Dilmun, Makan and Meluhha on a broader base and that it will give rise to further comments. The editors of this Journal will be glad to receive these. W. F. L.] i) I would like to acknowledge assistance received on the linguistic analysis suggested here. For information on the linguistic structure of Sumerian I am grateful to Prof. S. N. Kramer and Dr. J. V. Kinnier Wilson. As regards the linguistic evidence from Indian sources I have discussed my views with Prof. Bh. Krishnamurti, Prof. P. B. Pandit and Mr. I. Mahadevan. The latter two, not always in agreement with my analysis, have offered useful critical comments. To Prof. Bh. Krishnamurti I am particularly grateful for discussing each entry included here and for finally giving clearance as regards the linguistic validity of the proposed reconstructions. I would further like to thank Professor Kramer, who, although not accepting some of my identifications, provided me with an opportunity to discuss them with some of the scholars particularly interested in this problem. 1 2

of the Indian sub-continent and more specifically the region which is known today as Gujerat 2). Makan has been identified either with or with Baluchistan and the Makran coast. Kramer on the other hand has argued for the identification of Makan and Meluhha with Egypt and Ethiopia 3). The Indus Civilisation was suggested for a possible identifi- cation of Dilmun, but recent views have tended to support its identifi- cation with one of the islands, either or Failaka 4), possibly the first. The arguments used so far have relied on archaeologi- cal data and cultural similarities but these have not provided any evidence which can be regarded as conclusive 5). An attempt is being made in this paper to add a further dimension to these arguments by using linguistic evidence as well. The result seems to confirm the identification of Meluhha with Gujerat and Makan with Sind and Baluchistan. Further- more Dilmun it seems was also a part of western India. That the western sea-board of the Indian sub-continent played a major role in the maritime commerce of Mesopotamia is apparent for a number of reasons both geographical and archaeological. The nature of the land along the west coast-the presence of havens, creeks and a narrow hinterland with frequent and well-defined routes into the plateau inland, a ready availability of a variety of raw materials and the fact of its facing the inter-continental nodes of south-west Asia-would all point to this area being active in maritime trade from very early periods 6).

2) W. F. Leemans 'The Trade Relations of Babylonia...' in JESHO, III I ?60 pp. 27-30, W. F. Leemans, 'Old Babylonian Letters and Economic History' in JESHO XI, 19 6 8,pp. 215-226; W. F. Leemans, Foreign Trade in the Old Babylonian Period, p. 15 9 ff.; Cf. also B. Landsberger, JIZe/fdes Orients, III (1966), p. 261-262, and 1. J. Gelb, Revue d'Assyriologie, 64 (1970), pp. 1-8, who agree in the main with the identification of Leemans; I. Gershevitch, 'Sissoo at ' in BSOAS, 19, 1957, p. 3 I 7. The most recent summary of these views is found in J. Hansom, 'A Periplus of and Meluhha', BSOAS XXXVI (1973), pp. 553-554. 3) S. N. Kramer, The Sumerians, pp. 276-280. 4) S. N. Kramer, 'Dilmun, Quest for Paradise', Antiquity, XXXVII, 1963 pp. I I I-I I 5; G. Bibby, Looking for Dilmun. 5) See for the archaeological evidence around the Persian Gulf also C. L. During Caspers, journal of Near Eastern Studies XXIV (196 5), pp. 5 3- 5 6;Origini IV pp. zO 5 -z76;East and LYlest,New series 2 I (1971), pp. z 1-44 and 2I7-223. 6) O. Spate, India and , p. 5 96.