The nomenclature of the Persian Gulf

THE EARLIEST HISTORICAL REFERENCES TO THE PERSIAN GULF APPEAR TO STEM from the time of the Sumerian rulers of Mesopotamia in the third millennium B.C., when, for instance, the trade with Dilmun (on the western shores of the upper part of the Gulf) of Ur Nan'se, King of Lagash (2494-2465 B.C.), is mentioned. The Gulf itself is specifically named in a historical text of Lugal Zagesi, King of Uruk (2340-2316 B.C.), where it is said that "then from the Lower Sea, by the Tigris and Euphrates, as far as the Upper Sea, [the god Enlil] provided him with clear routes"; and, in an inscription of Sargon of Akkad, it is said that Enlil gave him the Upper Sea and the Lower Sea. This contrasting in Sumerian of the Upper and the Lower Seas is caried over into Semitic Mesopotamia, for in Akkadian we have the term for the Lower Sea, tamtu s:apltu, frequently juxtaposed with the Upper Sea, tamtu ehinitu, referring respectively to the Gulf and the Mediterranean; the combination of the two terms indicates in contemporary usage the breadth of the intervening lands, all under Mesopotamian control. In later times, i.e., in the first millennium B.C., the Gulf is referred to not only as a source of tribute brought to the rulers of Mesopotamia but also as a route for naval expeditions by the kings. Thus, Sennacherib (705481 B.C.) mentions his campaigns across the Gulf to the land of Elam (i.e., southwestern Persia), referring to it as "the Great Sea of the East" (tamtu rabtu s'a sit samsi, literally, "of the rising-place of the sun"), and he describes his impressions of it in detail.' We know that maritime trade through the Gulf probably declined somewhat in the period of the Achaemenid empire in Persia, compared with its flourishing state during the Babylonian period. Achaemenid expansionism was essentially directed across the southwest Asian land mass, and the emperors lacked the wide vision of an Alexander the Great, who was to discem the complementary value of both land power and sea power and the importance of a brisk maritime tade with the further eastern parts of Asia. It may not, therefore, be entirely coincidence, or a reflection of our ignorance until the present time, that no special term