Dangerous Trade Routes

Full text

DANGEROUS TRADE ROUTES: ON THE PLUNDERING
OF CARAVANS IN THE PRE-ISLAMIC NEAR EAST
MOHAMMED MARAQTEN
A caravan is defined as a company of travellers, such as merchants and pil-
grims, on a journey through a desert, unsettled regions or hostile land. Usually
they are banded together for mutual protection.
We know that caravans were used for trade from at least the beginning of
the 2nd millennium BC up to the 19th century, and it is interesting that the
organisation and the function of caravans hardly changed at all during the last
three thousand years of its history. This can be seen, for instance, in the fact
that caravans were composed of camels, donkeys, mules and horses through-
out their history.
There is no accurate data about caravans and caravan trade before the begin-
ning of the 2nd millennium BC. In general, however, information may be
gained primarily from cuneiform sources, and from other groups of Semitic
epigraphy such as South Arabian and Palmyrene inscriptions. Classical authors
and Arabic sources also provide some data on this subject.
The object of this paper is to present some problems which confronted car-
avans on their journeys, particularly attacks and plundering. After a brief dis-
cussion of the organisation of caravans, this paper will provide a few examples
of attacks and raids on caravans in the Near East from the 2nd millennium BC,
the 1st millennium BC, and also from pre-Islamic Arabia. It is not the purpose
of this paper to study the caravan routes in the ancient Near East, which has
been the subject of study by several scholars (Potts 1988; Dorsey 1991;
Beitzel 1992; Graf et al. 1992; Astour 1995).
I. THE ORGANISATION OF THE CARAVANS AND MEASURES TAKEN FOR THEIR
SECURITY
Written sources give us some information about the organisation of cara-
vans in the ancient Near East. In addition to some data from the Old Assyrian
period, we have information from other Akkadian sources. The clearest evi-
dence of long-distance trade in the early 2nd millennium, from approximately
1950 BC, comes from the Anatolian site Kanish, in modern times the city of
Kultepe. Assyrian merchants founded a colony in this city, and thousands of
clay tablets from its business archives record the trade between it and Assur.
ARAM, 8 (1996), 213-236 213

These documents deal not only with debts and the arrangement of various mat-
ters such as the fixing of prices and the means of financing the caravans, but
they also tell us about the way in which the trade caravans, which in this case
were composed of pack-asses, were organised in general (Larsen 1976: 85-
105). The caravans brought tin and textiles from Assur to Cappadocia and car-
ried metal supplies, especially copper, back to Assur. This trade-system was
well organised, and was dominated by a number of commercial families from
Assur who posted agents in their colonies in Asia Minor. These merchants
were also organised in a kind of association (wabartum). The documents also
mention something called the karu (CAD K: 231ff.), which is described by
A.L. Oppenheim as a “merchant organisation with a seat and a legal status of
its own, outside the city proper” (Oppenheim 1977: 91; cf. also Larsen 1976:
230-236).
No concrete information about the organisation of camel caravans in pre-
Islamic Arabia is given by the pre-Islamic Arabian inscriptions. Some data,
however, can be gleaned from the Classical sources and from the Arabic Clas-
sical sources (Groom 1981). Furthermore, we find quite a bit of good infor-
mation about the organisation of caravans in the Palmyrene inscriptions (1st
century BC until 3rd century AD). This study will take into account the impor-
tant data from Palmyra, because it is fundamental to the study of the continu-
ation of ancient oriental traditions in organising the caravans. Considerable
data about the Nabataean caravans is also available. For all that, the best
information about caravans comes from the Old Assyrian documents and the
Amarna Letters from the 2nd millennium BC.
In spite of the domestication of the camel in the second half of the 2nd mil-
lennium BC and the use of the camel as a draught animal in caravans as well
as in military actions, the caravans of the Late Bronze age were still primarily
composed of asses (Zarins 1992).
No accurate studies about the organisation of the oriental caravan are
avaible which focus upon its history and development (Weisse 1924; Edzard/-
Eph¨al 1980; Orhonlu 1978). Nevertheless, in addition to some other general
studies, there are specific works dealing with particular periods, such as stud-
ies examining the Old Assyrian caravans (Larsen 1976) or the Palmyrene car-
avans (Drexhage 1988). Research examining the Palmyrene caravans should
be conducted in the context and in light of the ancient Near East caravan trade
in general. At the same time, any study concerning pre-Islamic caravans
should take not only the Sabaean but also the Nabataean and Palmyrene cara-
van trade into account.
The organisation of a caravan demanded very detailed arrangements. Every
caravan needed a master or a leader. This person was usually one of the mer-
chants who had long years of experience with various trade routes. He had to
know them and their suitable way stations or caravanserai like the back of his
214 DANGEROUS TRADE ROUTES

hand, and he also had to know where water and wells were located. It was his
responsibility to make all the decisions concerning the caravan. He made all
the arrangements for its organisation, he decided when the march of the cara-
van should start, and he also determined the route the caravan was to follow.
Above all, the leader was responsible for the general security of the caravan,
which is the main aspect upon which this paper will focus later.
Every caravan also needed a guide. Unfortunately the sources do not give
accurate data about the role of guides, which was significant in the desert and
especially on the long-distance roads. Such guides surely accompanied travel-
ling caravans on the incense-route between Yemen and the Mediterranean.
Ancient Arabs (Aribi), the people of the Syro-Arabian desert of the 1st millen-
nium BC, played a major role in the caravan trade as guides, and later the
Nabataeans became guides on the routes of this region. The Arabic sources
mention some of these guides by name (¨Ali1978: vol. 7, 323). Guides were
also necessary for military campaigns. Arabs of the Sinai served as guides for
the Persian king Cambyses (529-522 BC) when he conquered Egypt
(Herodotus III, 4, 9), and the Nabataean military leader Syllaeus was the guide
of the Roman leader Aelius Gallus in his military campaign against Arabia
Felix (Strabo XVI, 4, 23).
How large was a caravan in the ancient Near East? Unfortunately we are
unable to say for certain, since there is no concrete information about sizes.
Nevertheless, we are able to make fairly accurate estimates. Sumerian donkey
caravans from the 3rd millennium BC were composed of about 200 donkeys
(Edzard/Eph¨al 1980: 416). It is worthy of note that one Egyptian prince,
Harkhuf, who made trips to the Sudan, mentioned that in one of his journeys
he had a caravan of 300 donkeys (Casson 1979: 28). Donkey caravans in the
Old Assyrian period were composed of about 200 donkeys (Saggs 1962: 278).
There is no information about the first camel caravans in the second half of the
2nd millennium BC, but in the first half of the 1st millennium BC camel cara-
vans were composed of at least 200 camels, as we know from a Sabaean cara-
van mentioned in the Assyrian sources. It may be assumed that the largest size
of a caravan ever mentioned in the sources of the 2nd millennium BC is that
which appears in a letter from Mari. It mentions a caravan of the Haneans, a
Bedouin tribe, composed of 3000 donkeys and loaded with wool and grain in
Upper Mesopotamia (Dalley 1984: 174; Edzard/Eph¨al 1980: 416). Donkeys
continued to be used in camel caravans as did mules, and horsemen served as
escorts of the caravans. The leader of the caravan usually rode a horse. Large
caravans in ancient Mesopotamia were apparently equipped with chariots,
which would seen to have been drawn by mules (Saggs 1962: 278).
How large Nabataean caravans were is likewise difficult to say. Strabo
described a Nabataean caravan as being as big as “an army” (Strabo XVI, 4,
23). At the advent of Islam, a camel caravan was composed of at least 1000
M. MARAQTEN 215

camels. The Islamic historian ™abari mentions that a Meccan caravan in the
time of the prophet MuÌammad was composed of 2500 camels. It is worth not-
ing that this caravan was escorted by one hundred men (™abariII, 407). In the
Islamic period such a number was considered a large caravan, while a caravan
of 1000 was considered to be small (Orhonlu 1978: 677). No accurate data
about the size of caravans is available in the Old Testament. Isaiah referred to
caravans of camels and donkeys (Isaiah 21: 7).
The organisation of a caravan followed a long list of arrangements, starting
with the preparation of the goods which had to be transported. The animals
then had to be collected and provisions had to be made for their feeding. Car-
avan personnel, usually with a great deal of experience, had to be organised
and a specific direction or itinerary for the caravan needed to be determined.
After all that, the most important requirements for the organisation of a cara-
van may be described as follows:
1. The organisers had to decide on water sources such as water wells, halt-
ing stations, and shelters where the caravan could rest and obtain provisions
and feed for the animals (Dorsey 1991: 43ff.). Caravanserais had already been
established by the 2nd millennium BC. Some data regarding the caravans,
such as their supplies on the way, is available (Veenhof 1972: 418f.). A letter
from Mari informs us about the way in which a caravan had to be supplied
with provisions to continue its journey (ARM I, 66; Klengel 1996: 160).
2. The appropriate season for the start of the journey had to be determined
according to regional weather conditions, and a fixed day for the start of the
journey had to be set. Assyrian merchants tried to avoid the summer heat and
the cold winter, and the Assur-Kanish journey had to take these seasonal con-
ditions into account (Edzard/Eph¨al 1980: 415). The crossing of long dis-
tances, and especially of desert roads, was impossible before camels came to
be used in caravans in the second half of the 2nd millennium BC. We have two
good examples of the seasonal departure of a caravan from pre-Islamic Mecca,
namely the two journeys mentioned in the Qur'an (Sura 106: 2; Crone 1987:
120), the winter caravan to Yemen and the summer caravan to Syria-Palestine
(Bilad as-Sam).
3. The organisation of a caravan also required a degree of security. It is
important to note that the caravan trade was regarded as a venture. Thus, the
most critical aspect connected with the organisation of a caravan was planning
for its safety and taking measures to secure the caravan route. The basic idea
of a caravan in itself as a group of travellers or traders joining together in a
journey, and not as individuals, is a reflection of their sense of insecurity.
Travelling as a unit allowed them to defend themselves in the event of an
attack.
Some scholars maintain that organising a caravan was not much different
from the organisation of a military campaign (Haldar 1971: 78). This can be
216 DANGEROUS TRADE ROUTES

seen in the fact that caravans in general were accompanied by armed guards.
Furthermore, the majority of terms referring to caravans in the Semitic lan-
guages derive primarily from a root which means “to go, to travel”. There are
some designations, however, which have the meaning “expedition”, which
can refer either to military or to trade expeditions. The Akkadian words
Ìarranu and girru are examples (Edzard/Eph¨al 1980: 414f.). Among the sev-
eral Arabic terms for caravan, the word qafila is of importance. It means “the
one which comes back safely”. Some of these terms give an indication of the
internal organisation of a caravan and an idea of its function.
Caravan routes were usually protected by the military and political powers
of the state in which they were located. The state made energetic efforts, both
diplomatic and military, to secure the control of its territory. Diplomatic mea-
sures included attempts to control the trade roads and caravan stations by sign-
ing political accords with the local kings or rulers. This was practised by sev-
eral states and kings in the ancient Near East, Assyria for instance (Larsen
1976: 229; Postgate 1992: 200f.). One good example of agreements which
regulated the safety of the trade is the ilaf-agreement of the Quraiswith other
tribes with whom they had contact. Its purpose was to secure the caravans of
Mecca (Crone 1987: 109f.; Simon 1989: 59ff.).
One of the most important functions of the state in the ancient world, how-
ever, was the building of roads, primarily for military reasons, which usually
also became the roads used by caravans and messengers. Indeed, caravan
routes did not change throughout their history.
Political stability was immensely important for the caravan trade. In times
of war or political instability, communication by way of overland roads was in
danger, and the risk of attacks by Bedouins as well as by political governors
and other rulers was correspondingly much greater. Yet, since the trade and
military routes seem to have coincided in the ancient Near East, which implies
that military stations were most certainly to be found along these routes, the
travelling caravans could be more-or-less assured of protection. There are
many examples of attempts by the state to control the caravan routes in the
pre-Islamic Near East, and this section will present a few of them in order to
shed light upon the kind of steps which were taken.
The Akkadian king Sargon (2334-2279 BC), for example, claimed that he
had conducted his military campaign in the Amanus mountains and in Syria in
order to protect the rights of the Akkadian merchants (Hallo 1971: 56). Assyr-
ian expansion in Syria-Palestine and into other parts of the ancient Near East
was at least in part a result of the Assyrian attempt to dominate the caravan
routes and to make them safe for travel (Saggs 1962: 98f., 110f.). The Assyr-
ian military campaigns against the Arabs (Aribi) are a good example of this
(Eph¨al 1982: 116-25). The Sabaeans were compelled to send unofficial pay-
ments to Assur in the form of gifts as a sign of their acceptance of the domi-
M. MARAQTEN 217

nation of the Assyrians who controlled the upper part of the incense-route. The
New Babylonian kings embarked upon military expeditions to secure trade
routes in Syria. A good example of such politics is to be seen in the actions of
the last king of the Neo-Babylonian period, Nabonidus (555-539 BC), who left
Babylon and resided in Taymaˆfor ten years. Most scholars see this sojourn of
Nabonidus as an attempt to control the Arabian caravan trade route, especially
since this king established trade stations between Taymaˆand Yathrib (later
Medina) (Beaulieu 1989: 178-85).
At the same time, there is no doubt that controlling the trade routes was
often a cause of war in the ancient Near East, since trade was fundamental to
the economy of the states in this area. One of the most important reasons for
war between the South Arabian states of Saba, Hadhramaut, Qataban and
Ma¨in was the monopoly of the caravan roads. However, South Arabia was
involved in the international trade of frankincense, myrrh and other aromata,
and it was able to monopolise trade routes to Egypt, Syria-Palestine and
Mesopotamia from the beginning of the 1st millennium BC. Arabian caravans
came back not only with goods from Mesopotamia and Syria-Palestine, but
also with cultural influence (Liverani 1992: 111ff.). The trans-Arabia caravan
route (Potts 1988: 127-162) continued to function for a long time, until the
political power of the South Arabian states declined. Along the spice road in
Central and North Arabia, several political units, whose function was to guar-
antee the security of the caravans, were established. This road was one of the
most important roads of the ancient world.
In order to guarantee its own security, it was necessary for the caravan to
pay taxes to countries through which it passed. It had to pay not only the local
kings and rulers, but also the Bedouin tribes. For the Bedouin sheikhs, it was
a privilege to achieve control over caravan routes. This was always a guaran-
tee against the attacks of Bedouin bandits. The sheikhs gave assurances that
they would pay compensation in the event that the caravans were raided. We
know that goods intended as payment to Bedouin tribes in the form of spices
and precious stones constituted at least part of the goods carried by the cara-
vans. This explains the tributes in the form of spices and precious stones which
Arab (Aribi) groups paid to the Assyrians (Eph¨al 1982: 90f.). Local kings of
Syria-Palestine, and even the Sabaean kings, sent gifts to the Assyrian king.
These gifts, which could also be understood as tributes, symbolised both
friendship and loyalty.
In general, the caravans avoided hostile regions. Sometimes they tried to
avoid settled areas and cities in order not to pay taxes to local authorities. This
was practised for the most part, however, when there were many sheikhs or
local kings on the road, which would mean that the caravan would have had to
pay taxes to each of these. It is important to note that such detours were only
possible after camels began to be used in caravans. We therefore assume that
218 DANGEROUS TRADE ROUTES

caravans travelling from Arabia to Syria and Mesopotamia often used the
route of Wadi SirÌan rather than the King Highway which ran through Tran-
sjordan. Although the latter was certainly more secure, its use would have
meant the payment of more taxes. In any case, the Wadi SirÌan was an impor-
tant trade route in the 1st millennium BC, especially in the Neo-Assyrian
period. This Wadi formed the centre of the Arab area (Aribi). The region's
metropolis was Dumat al-Gandal (Adummatu in the cuneiform sources and the
Biblical Duma), which was not only an important caravan station, but also a
gate to Syria and Upper Mesopotamia, and especially to Assur. It seems that
the Assyrians wanted to establish direct contacts with Arabia by controlling
Dumat al-Gandal. This was the most probable reason for the military cam-
paign of Assurbanipal (668-627 BC) against this city (Eph¨al 1982: 116-125).
Another reason seems to have been the attempt to control the trade route from
Dumat al-Gandal which ran east towards Babylon. The trade route of Wadi
SirÌan was strictly organised in the Nabataean and Roman periods (al-Muaikel
1994: 49-66). Caravan stations were established alongside this Wadi, water
wells were dug, and the security of caravans was guaranteed. There is another
place which was used by caravans to avoid paying taxes: Wadi Tharthar,
which is in Upper Mesopotamia (Dalley 1984: 25).
Once the caravan system in the ancient Near East had been developed to
some extent, many nomadic tribes became involved in the trade. Many of
them abandoned their way of life as robbers in the desert, as well as their
razzia activities against caravans, and became good merchants. Caravan
trade was thus vital not just for the development of the state economies in
the ancient Near East, but also for the transformation of societies there, espe-
cially those along the incense road. In addition, some tribes specialised in
raising donkeys in the Old Assyrian period because donkeys were required
for caravans at that time (Postgate 1992: 166). There were also Arab tribes
(Aribi) which specialised in camel raising as well. The Assyrian king Assur-
banipal (668-627 BC) maintained that, after his military campaign against
the Arabs (Aribi), the price of a camel fell to less than 1 shekel (ANET,
299). In actual fact the price of a camel in the Sargonid dynasty was half a
shekel (Contenau 1954: 64). The breeding of camels and donkeys continued
later around the caravan cities in the Hellenistic and the Roman periods,
being found at places such a Bosra and Wadi Hauran near Hit on the
Euphrates. Wadi Hauran loomed large in the breeding camels of for Palmyra
(Gawlikowski 1994: 31). Nevertheless, nomadic tribes continued to be the
most dangerous group, and they posed a permanent threat not only to the
urban areas but also to the caravans. Caravans were in constant danger of
Bedouin raids when they passed through the desert area. A good example of
this in modern times is payment made by the Ottoman Sultan to Bedouins in
Transjordan in the 19th century. The Sultan was obliged to pay a tax called
M. MARAQTEN 219

the Òurra to these tribes to secure the pilgrimage caravan from Damascus to
the Îigaz.
In spite of the measures taken to ensure the security of the caravans, attacks
and the plundering of caravans, as well as the killings of merchants, occurred
frequently. We have good examples of such acts recorded in cuneiform
sources, in South Arabian inscriptions, and in the Arabic sources. Some exam-
ples will be presented here.
II. THE ANXIETY FOR THE SAFETY OF CARAVANS AS REFLECTED IN LITERATURE
AND RELIGION
The fact that the security of the caravans was an everyday worry for the
people of the ancient Near East is reflected in the literature of the ancient Near
East, including hymns and prayers (Edzard/Eph¨al 1980: 421). The following
Akkadian example is interesting: “O Samas, the caravan (alaktu) which
passed along a road of terror addresses you” (CAD A: 299).
There is an incantation found in the Old Assyrian trade colony Kultepe
(Kanish) which gives some insight into the troubles which faced the caravans.
It states: “A black dog crouches on the hill, waiting for the scattered caravan.
His eyes watch for a good man” (Larsen 1976: 93).
Anxiety is also reflected in the religion of the people of this region, and sev-
eral deities appear to have had the function of protecting the caravans in addi-
tion to their other well-known functions. The god Samasin Mesopotamia is a
good example of this. In addition to his main function as a god of justice, he
was also responsible for the safety of the caravans. There were also deities
who were primarily associated with the caravans, such the Minaean god
Wadd. ∆u Samuwiwas the main god of the North Arabian tribe Amir, which
was involved in trade and is known from South Arabian inscriptions (Höfner
1965: 527f., 549f.). The symbol of this deity was the camel. Moreover, the
Nabataean god Sai¨al-Qaum was the caravan god of this people (Knauf 1990:
176-181). It seems that this god was originally a North Arabian tribal god.
This is suggested primarily by his name, Sai¨al-Qaum, which means “protec-
tor of the tribe”. Likewise, ArÒuand ¨Azizuwere the caravan deities of
Palmyra (Rostovtzeff 1932a; Teixidor 1979: 68-71). The Palmyrene people
believed that their travelling caravans in the desert were protected by the jinn
(gnyˆ). The latter were, however, a lowly class of deities in Palmyra (Teixidor
1979: 78). The Lihyanite god AbuIlaf was apparently also a caravan deity
(Caskel 1954: 46).
It is interesting to note that the caravan trade of Mecca developed in associ-
ation with the Ka¨ba (Crone 1987: 168ff.). It was the custom of the carava-
neers of Mecca to visit the Ka¨ba and receive the blessing of their deities
220 DANGEROUS TRADE ROUTES

before starting out on the journey. They used to do the same when they
returned, first visiting the Ka¨ba and thanking the deities for their safe return.
Job spoke of waylaying caravans passing through hostile country. He men-
tioned caravans of Taymaˆand Saba (Job 6: 19).
Another indication of the importance of the security of caravans is revealed in
private Akkadian letters and correspondence, which also give us some informa-
tion about how worried people were as to whether a caravan or the merchant
arrived safely in their place of destination or not. The letters which take the form
of a message, or which give brief information about caravans such as “The jour-
ney is dangerous”, “The servants of PN arrived from GN, their caravan is safe”
(CAD G: 91), “My caravan (Ìarranu) is late” (CAD Î: 111), and several other
such notes, are of particular interest. In a Neo-Babylonian letter, this is stated as
follows: “The caravan of Bit-Dakkuri now has come. Whatever you [desire],
write to me, and I will buy and send (it) to you“(Cole 1996: no. 51, 4-9). Bit
Dakkuri is an Aramaean/Chaldean tribe which settled in south Mesopotamia. In
Mesopotamia it was customary, as part of the set of measures taken to ensure
security, to check for omens before beginning a journey or an expedition.
III. THE PLUNDERING OF CARAVANS IN THE 2ND MILLENNIUM
Caravan trade between Assur and its colonies in Asia Minor was established
at the beginning of the 2nd millennium BC and was highly organised. The
measures taken for the safety of the caravans included the establishment of
outposts where provisions could be obtained. Colonies were founded, and
trade institutions such as karu were governed and protected by agreements
with the local kings of the area. Such actions show that the caravans were
sometimes confronted by danger, and that it was necessary to prevent raids
(Larsen 1976: 93ff.; Postgate 1992: 211ff.). Occasionally, the Assyrians
arranged for the protection of caravans by means of gifts and custom duties.
Several scholars maintain, however, that the measures which were taken were
more substantial and that this route was secure in general (Haldar 1971: 78).
Very little is recorded about attacks on caravans on this road, and this is taken
as an indication of its security. There is information, however, about a caravan
lost in the mountains (Larsen 1976: 93). It is to be noted that the caravan
routes of Asia Minor were well known to Assyrian traders, and that the traders
were also aware of smuggler roads (Veenhof 1972: 305ff.; Klengel 1979:
123-128; Dalley 1984: 171). The presence of smugglers on the Assyrian bor-
der is recorded, for instance, in the Neo-Assyrian period (Lanfranchi/Parpola
1990: no. 100).
Apart from being personally involved in the caravan trade, kings were usu-
ally also responsible for the security of the caravans. Their standing armies
M. MARAQTEN 221

were always ready to move or to make the trade routes secure. We also have
evidence that caravans needed a king’s permission to enter his country or his
territory. One document records a king allowing a caravan to enter his land
(Dalley 1984: 174; Postgate 1992: 215). The leaders of caravans were always
received by kings in their palaces (Dalley 1984: 172). The kings also complied
with the merchants' requests and looked after the interests, which suggests that
merchants had high social standing in the societies of the ancient Near East.
We find some information about the dangers facing a caravan in a letter
from Mari. Yasmakh-Adad, the governor of Mari and the son of the Assyrian
king Shamshi-Adad I (1813-1781 BC), wrote to Hammurabi, king of Babylon,
describing the conditions as follows:
“A little while ago your ‘brother’ (Ishme-Dagan) sent a caravan to Tilmun
(Bahrain). Then that caravan set out homewards, but was detained by Ili-epuch
in a dispute over a well. Now, I have sent X and Imgurrum: they are to escort
that caravan to Babylon to you. Let that caravan be detained with you until
your ‘brother’ writes to you to say that it may depart. Your ‘brother’ is well,
and the city Ekallatum is well; I am well and the city of Mari is well” (ARM
V, 14; after Dalley 1984: 173).
In addition to the Old Assyrian texts from Kanish (Kultepe), the Mari texts
give us substantial information about caravan trade and international trade
relations (Klengel 1979: 75-82). The state of Mari apparently had solid control
of the caravan routes of its area. This is evidenced by the outposts (bazaÌatu,
CAD B: 184) which were established along these roads (Dalley 1984: 175).
Envoys were usually accompanied by escorts when they travelled within this
kingdom. When any of the caravans encountered problems, military escorts
were immediately sent to save them (Dalley 1984: 171, 175). Moreover, mer-
chants were given royal protection and traders enjoyed a diplomatic status of
sorts (Oppenheim 1977: 92f.). There were contracts between kings and states
arranging for the security of caravans and merchants. There are also some
legal texts concerning the security of merchants in the ancient Near East in
Hittite and Hebrew (Saggs 1962: 279). One letter from Mari records an attack
on a caravan as follows:
“Ili-iddinam, my lord's envoy, whom my lord sent to Elahut, and Tulish his
escort from Elahut, the 10 donkeys who were carrying white cedar wood and
the one horse that they were bringing – between the towns of A and B those
men were raided. They killed Ili-iddinam, his 4 men servants, and the 2
Haneans who were with him, and Tulish the man from Elahut together with his
5 men servants and his servant girl. They carried off the 10 donkeys and the
one horse that they were bringing. Out of those men only 2 men of my lord
and 8 men of Elahut escaped” (ARM II 123; after Dalley 1984: 174).
There are several documents which provide some information about the
plundering of caravans in this period. Some information may be gleaned from
222 DANGEROUS TRADE ROUTES

the Old Babylonian letters, of which the following is an example: “When they
established the camp in GN, the people crossed over and no caravan (alaktu)
was able to pass by without their armed men coming out and plundering the
caravans” (CAD A: 299f.).
The Amarna letters from the 14th century BC give us not only good infor-
mation about the organisation of caravans but also about raids on them. These
letters were sent to the Egyptian kings Amenophis III (1386-1349 BC) and
Amenophis IV (1350-1334 BC) by kings of Western Asia such as of Babylo-
nia, Assur and the Hittites, as well as by the local kings of Syria-Palestine
(Moran 1992). The protection of travelling caravans between Egypt and West-
ern Asia was guaranteed by local Canaanite kings who are named in the
Amarna letters. Of course, these caravans had to pay taxes to these kings in
return. It is noteworthy in this connection that the Egyptians built a road
between the Delta and Gaza. This road is known as Horus-Road in the Egypt-
ian sources. In the time of the New Kingdom, the Egyptians established
dozens of outposts centred upon wells and pools of fresh water along this road
(Redford 1992: 204). Thus we find some information about fears for the safety
of caravans, especially in consequence of Bedouin attacks in Egyptian sources.
In ancient Egypt it was dangerous to send caravans even to the oasis without
military escorts (Kessler 1980: 328, 331).
One of the Amarna letters (EA 255, quotations from the Amarna letters in
this paper are cited following Moran 1992) tells us how a local ruler (king)
who was responsible for the security of the caravans responded in one case.
The ruler of PiÌilu (modern ™abaqat FaÌl in the Jordan valley), Mut-BaÌlu, the
son of Laba’ayu the ruler of Shechem, sent a letter to the Egyptian Pharaoh. In
it he wrote: “Let the king, my lord, send a caravan even to Karadaniyas
(Babylon). I will personally conduct it under very heavy guard”.
The king of Jerusalem in the Amarna Period, ¨Abdi-Îepa, sent a letter to the
Egyptian king describing a serious criminal situation and asking him for help.
He adds: “May the king, my lord, know (that) I am unable to send a caravan
to the king, my lord” (EA 287: 53-59).
The Babylonian Kassite king Burnaburiash sent a letter to the Egyptian
Pharaoh Amenophis IV complaining about the fact that his caravan, which was
under the leadership of a person called ∑almu, had been robbed. He described
the act as follows: “{tw}ice has a caravan of ∑almu, my messenger whom I
sent to you, been robb{ed}. The first one Biriyawaza robb[ed, and] his second
caravan PamaÌu, [a gov]ernor of yours in a vassalage, robbed” (EA 7: 73-82).
Biriywaza was the local king of Damascus, and PamaÌu might have been the
Egyptian governor of Canaan. Biriywaza is the same ruler who appears as a
protector of cities and caravans in another letter (EA 264). Here it is interest-
ing that the plundering of the caravan had been undertaken by governors and
not by Bedouin groups.
M. MARAQTEN 223

In another letter written by the Babylonian king Burnaburiash and sent to
the Egyptian King Amenophis IV (EA 8), it is stated that his merchants were
in Canaan with his messenger AÌu-†abu. They left this messenger in order to
engage in some business activities, and were then attacked in Îinnatuna in
Canaan. Burnaburiash requested that the Egyptian king (his brother) investi-
gate the matter, and that he put the murderers to death to avenge the blood of
his servants. He also offered compensation. Burnaburiash described the situa-
tion as follows: “In Îinnatuna of Canaan, Sum-Adda, the son of Balumme,
and Sutatna, the son of Saratum of Akka, having sent their men, killed my
merchants and took away their money” (EA 8: 8-21). He adds: “Canaan is
your country, and [its] kings are your servants… And if you do not put these
men to death, they are going to kill again, be it a caravan of mine or your own
messengers, and so messengers between us will thereby be cut off” (EA 8: 22-
33). We see that the attackers in this case are citizens of the Canaanite city of
Akko who were organised by their ruler, and not Bedouin bandits. The site
Îinnatuna was located in Upper Galilee, near Akko.
One local king, Tagi, wrote: “I tried to assemble a caravan, with my brother
in charge, but he barely escaped being killed. He is unable to send my caravan
to the king, my lord… So now I try herewith to send my caravan to the king,
my lord” (EA 264: 5-10, 20-25). In another message Pu-Ba¨lu, mayor of
YurÒa (the location of which is unknown to us), wrote that he had not sent a
caravan to the Egyptian king. He states: “I am now preparing a fine caravan
for you” (EA 316: 16-25).
The killing of merchants and attacks on caravans seem to have taken place
very often in North Syria in this period (Leemans 1975: 86f.). This is evident
in the documents and agreements discovered in Ugarit, which were intended to
systematise the punishments for attacks and to organise the protection of
traders (Klengel 1979: 159). Such documents have been also discovered in
Boghazkui (Hattusa), the Hittite capital (Oppenheim 1977: 93). Some of these
documents speak about murders and the plundering of goods. The ruler of Car-
camish had an agreement with the king of Ugarit concerning such killings in
each other’s territories. It regulated the punishments for murders, and set terms
of compensation. In spite of such agreements, it appears that these acts contin-
ued. Ini-Tesub, the ruler of Carcamish, complained about his contracting party,
the king of Ugarit, saying that “the king of Ugarit constantly robbed the cara-
van’s merchants” (Edzard/Eph¨al 1980: 419). It is to be noted that the sources
give some information about the killing of royal merchants from Ugarit in the
region of Carcamish (Klengel 1979: 159f.). Moreover, we know that the Hit-
tite laws contain paragraphs about punishments for anyone who attacked mer-
chants (Edzard/Eph¨al 1980: 419).
The end of the 2nd millennium is marked by the rise of several nomadic
groups such as the Aramaeans and the Aramaeans-AÌlamu. Some of them,
224 DANGEROUS TRADE ROUTES

such as the Suteans, were already known in the first half of this millennium,
and continued to be active later (Heltzer 1981). These groups were an actual
plague, not only for the settled areas but also for overland communications and
travel. For example, a letter from Mari records how the Suteans organised a
group of two thousand persons in order to attack Palmyra and Qatna (ARM V,
23: Klengel 1996: 161). One of the Amarna letters (EA 16: 37-42) sent by the
Assyrian king Assur-uballi†to the Egyptian king deals with the delaying of
messengers between them. Assur-uballi†said that the Suteans were responsible
for the delay, and he would take care of the matter and prosecute these nomads
for their actions.
In the second half of the 2nd millennium BC, the Aramaeans settled in the
middle of the Euphrates (Zadok 1991). It is worth noting that this region, and
the area of Îabur, seem to have been the most dangerous areas for caravans.
Several attacks on caravans in these places are recorded.
The Hittite king Hattusili III sent a letter to the Babylonian Kassite king,
Kadasman-Enlil II (1263-1255 BC), complaining about the unstable situation
and about the danger which had been caused by the rapacious attacks of the
Aramaean tribes along the route between their two lands (Klengel 1979: 162).
A good example of the troubles caused by the Aramaeans is recorded in the
annals of Tiglath-Pileser I (1114-1076 BC). He claims: “I have crossed the
Euphrates twenty-eight times, twice in one year, in pursuit of the AÌlamû-Ara-
maeans” (Grayson 1991: 43).
IV. THE PLUNDERING OF CARAVANS IN THE 1ST MILLENNIUM BC
The 1st millennium BC is characterised by the use of camel caravans and by
the stability and development of the caravan trade system. This trade was asso-
ciated with the use of the dromedary, “ship of the desert”, for transport. Thus,
after the domestication of the camel in the second half of the 2nd millennium
BC, the people of the Syrian desert, Arabs and Aramaeans, started to use the
camel in caravans (Zarins 1992). Camels allowed caravan travellers to cross
Arabia from the south to the north, and made trade relations between South
Arabia and the Fertile Crescent possible. Using the camel in caravans brought
international trade to a high level of development. Oases and water places
determined the direction of the trade road. Some of the halting places became
major stations and developed into so-called caravan cities (Rostovtzeff 1932).
The fact that the camel could carry much greater loads than the donkey had a
major impact on the caravan trade. In addition, the use of camel caravans
sometimes made it possible to circumvent settled areas and thus not to pay
customs.
It is not the task of this paper to study the life of nomads in the ancient Near
East (Klengel 1971; Knauf 1992). It should be stressed, however, that
M. MARAQTEN 225

nomadic groups constituted the most dangerous threat to the urban centres of
the region. This continued to be the case in the Near East until the 1920s.
Bedouin raids were a constant threat to the caravans and a constant source of
anxiety, especially in the unsettled areas and along the steppes. Bedouins, who
were very numerous and mobile, were always on the move along paths in the
desert and steppes. Nomads and camel riders were able to cover great dis-
tances in the desert. Some units of the armed forces were permanently on alert
to prevent nomadic raids upon the cultivated areas.
Nomadic pastoralists threatened the settled populations of Mesopotamia
from both the west and the south, and walls had been built to stop these
nomads (Klengel 1971:45-49). Even as early as the end of the 3rd millennium
BC, the Amurru Bedouins were a danger to settled areas. The fourth year of
the reign of the king Shu-Sin (2036-2028 BC) was called “The Year when the
wall of Amurru was built” (Haldar 1971: 56, 61; Klengel 1971: 45f.). It is a
wall which was built to protect the settled Sumerian and Akkadian areas from
the attacks of nomads. This was done in the last years of the third dynasty of
Ur.
The 1st millennium BC was characterised by the threat of Bedouin groups,
especially in the Syro-Arabian desert. The most well known of these groups
were the Arabs (Aribi), the Aramaeans and the Suteans.
The Suteans (Sutu) are one of the best examples of these raiding groups.
They appeared as firmly established bandits who attacked caravans, invaded
towns and destroyed whole districts (Heltzer 1981: 25; Roux 1966: 176, 218).
Assyrian kings noted that they always had to repair damage caused by Ara-
maeans and Suteans. In the 1st millennium, however, it was the Aramaeans
and Arabs who made up the nomadic groups which posed the greatest threat to
the urban centres in the Near East (Klengel 1971: 195-202).
The written sources give us some information about their raids on the set-
tled areas and on the caravans. The Assyrians used the term Arabs (Aribi/
Arubu) not only to designate the Arabs of the Syrian desert, but also for the
nomads in the Zagrus regions (Fuchs 1994: 424). The term nomads was some-
times used at that time as a designation for robbers. The Assyrian king Sargon
II (721-705 BC) described the Bedouin tribe of the Îamranu as follows:
“(They) constantly plundered the Babylonian caravans” (Edzard/Eph¨al 1980:
422; CAD G: 91). He also said that he had to fight against Aramaean tribes-
men who continuously attacked the caravans of Babylon (Saggs 1989: 178).
Moreover, Assyrian texts document the killing of merchants (Lanfranchi/Par-
pola 1990: no. 143).
During the reign of the Assyrian king Assurbanipal (668-627 BC), an attack
on a caravan was recorded. The Aykabaru son of ¨Ammyata¨of Massa'
attacked a caravan (alaktu) on the western border of Babylon. This took place
after the caravan had left the land of the Nabayataeans. All the members of the
226 DANGEROUS TRADE ROUTES

caravan were murdered, with the exception of one person who escaped and
found shelter in a royal city (Eph¨al 1982: 56, 219). It is to be noted that the
North Arabian people designated as Nabayataeans (Biblical Nebaioth and nbyt
of the Taymanite inscriptions, cf. Winnett/Reed 1970: 99f.) were not the same
people as the later Nabataeans.
There is also another example of caravan raids carried out by Arabs (Aribi).
It is recorded in a Neo-Assyrian letter as follows: “(Ammiliˆti) the son of
Amiri readied himself with 300 she-camels, intending to attack the booty
being [tran]sferred from Damascus to Assyria” (Parpola 1987: no. 175: 4-9).
Attacks on caravans in the Neo-Babylonian period are also recorded. In a
Neo-Babylonian letter we have an example of such raids undertaken by the
Aramaean tribe Bit-Yakin. It is described as follows: “When the Bit-Yakin
patrol came, they stole four men, five donkeys” (Cole 1996: 64, 4-7).
V. RAIDED CARAVANS FROM SOUTH ARABIA
Our knowledge about caravan trade in ancient Yemen is obtained from clas-
sical authors, Arabic authors and the Old Testament. The Mesopotamian
sources are of importance since they might well be the oldest ones (Liverani
1992; Eph¨al 1982). Even so, the South Arabian inscriptions are the prime
source for this subject. Apparently, camel caravans transporting frankincense,
spices, and precious stones from South Arabia to the world of the Mediter-
ranean were already active at the beginning of the 1st millennium BC.
The longest caravan trade route in the 1st millennium BC seems to have
been the trans-Arabia road (Potts 1988) which started in Hadhramaut, went
through Arabia and ended at the Mediterranean or in Upper Mesopotamia.
This route ran through the South Arabian metropolises of Qanaˆ(Biˆr ¨Ali) and
Mayfa¨a Timma¨ (Naqb al-Hagar), the Hadhramitic capital Shabwa, the Qata-
banian capital Timna{ and the Sabaean capital Maˆrib. It then continued
through the Yemeni Jauf, and via the Minaean metropolises of Yathul (Bara-
qish) and Qarnaw (Ma¨in) to Nagran. From Nagran there is a branch of this
route which went eastwards through Qaryat al-Fau to East Arabia. The main
route continued northwards through Mecca, via Yathrib (Madina), Khaibar,
Didan (al-¨Ula), Îegra(Madaˆin ∑aliÌ) and Taymaˆ. From Taymaˆthere was a
branch which ran eastwards to Mesopotamia. Again, however, the main road
continued northwards to Tabuk, then from Ayla (al-¨Aqaba) to Petra, and from
there to Damascus or to Gaza. There is also another branch which started in
Taymaˆ, ran toward Dumat al-Gandal, and then through Wadi SirÌan to Syria
and Upper Mesopotamia. This route was apparently in use in the second half
of the 2nd millennium BC. Without camel caravans, it would have been
impossible to cross this great distance. No available data exists about the use
of ass caravans on this road, but this is to be expected.
M. MARAQTEN 227

There is a substantial amount of information about this route, which was
known in the Hellenistic and Roman periods as the incense route. The jour-
neys on this route seem to have been well-organised in these periods. This can
be seen from the data given by the Classical authors. According to Pliny (XII,
32) this road, which started in Timna¨and ended in Gaza, was divided into 65
stages. At the end of every stage there was a caravan station. The route was
about 14871⁄2Roman miles long, and the distance between each station was 23
Roman miles (= c. 34 km.) (Groom 1981: 173).
There is no doubt that a caravan journey across Arabia from the south to
Mesopotamia, or to Syria-Palestine, was exceptionally dangerous. In spite of
security measures it could be taken for granted that attacks on the caravans
would always occur along this route. The following is a good example from
the Neo-Assyrian texts. It has been discovered just recently, and it describes
the plundering of a Sabaean caravan travelling from South Arabia via Taymaˆ
to Mesopotamia. The governor of the SuÌu attacked and plundered the caravan
in Îindanu, which was located in the area of modern Abu Kamal, and this
governor described the act as follows:
“People from Taymaˆand Sheba, whose abode is far-away, whose messen-
ger did not come to my presence, and who did not advance up to my presence:
a caravan of theirs approached to the Martu-Well and the Îalatum-well, and
went (even) beyond, and entered the city of Îindanu. I received the news at
noon in Kar-Apladad, I harnessed my yoke, in the night I crossed over the
river, and on the next day before noon I reached Azlanu. Three days I
remained in Azlanu, and on the third day they arrived. 100 of them I took
alive, and 200 of their dromedaries with their loads: purple-wool, ‘road’-wool,
iron, and alabaster, all of their consignments I took away. A great booty I
plundered, I brought it inside SuÌu” (Cavigneaux/Ismail 1990: Text 2, iv 27-
38; Liverani 1992: 111f.).
As we can see, this area was extremely dangerous for caravans. Bedouin
raids by Arabs (Aribi) in the reign of the Assyrian king Sargon II were
recorded in the vicinity of the city of Îindanu (Îinzanu) and of Sippar
(Edzard/Eph¨al 1980: 422).
Taymaˆwas one of the most important trade stations in north Arabia. It is
mentioned in the cuneiform texts and the Old Testament as a trade centre, and
it served as a terminal for several trade routes, also serving as a gateway to
Mesopotamia (Edens/Bawden 1989).
We also have some information in South Arabian inscriptions about the
plundering of caravans (RES 3022; Müller 1985: 663-65). A Minaean inscrip-
tion found in the Minaean metropolis Yathul, modern Baraqish, talks about a
dedication to the deities ¨A†tar ∆u-Qabi∂um, Waddum and NakraÌum. The
inscription was written by Minaean merchants who were involved in interna-
tional trade with North Arabia, Syria and Egypt, and was set up in gratitude for
228 DANGEROUS TRADE ROUTES

the protection of their goods and for the safety of their camel caravans. The
attacks, which took place between Ma¨in and Ragmat (Nagran), were carried
out by the Sabaeans and the Îaulan during a war between the North and
South. According to our inscription, this was apparently a war between Ma¨in
and Saba. The inscription also reports that the dedication was written because
the divinities ¨A†tar ∆u-Qabi∂um, Waddum and NakraÌum protected their
goods in Egypt during the war between the Mady (Medes) and Egypt. This
war resulted in the occupation of Egypt by the Persian king Artaxerxes III
Ochus in the year 343 BC (Müller 1985: 665).
VI. CARAVAN CITIES AND THEIR ROLE IN SECURING CARAVANS
A.L. Oppenheim draws attention to the importance of Nabataean and
Palmyrene inscriptions in studying the caravan trade (Oppenheim 1977: 92).
At this time, in the Hellenistic and Roman periods, overland trade routes as
well as communications and travel were well-organised and their safety was
guaranteed (Graf et al.1993).
Since it is not possible to study the functions of all caravan cities in this
paper, the following section will provide a brief outline of the roles which
Petra and Palmyra played in securing caravans, purely as an example.
The Nabataeans controlled the upper part of the incense trade route and
acted as middlemen between Yemen and the Mediterranean. No accurate data
can be gleaned from the Nabataean inscriptions, but good information may be
found in the writings of Classical authors. Strabo described the Nabataean car-
avan travelling between the Nabataean port Leuke Kome on the east coast of
the Red Sea and Petra as follows: “Camel-traders travel back and forth from
Petra to this place in safety and ease, and in such numbers of men and camels
that they differ in no respect from an army” (Strabo XVI, 4, 23). The
Nabataean caravans travelling between Petra and Gaza are mentioned by Pliny
(XII, 32, 63ff.).
The Nabataean state apparently exercised solid control over the caravan
routes by virtue of strenuous labour. It actually employed forces to patrol its
territory, and in addition to the Nabataeans' wide knowledge of the desert
routes, they were also able to supply the passing caravans with provisions.
This was made possible through the establishment of sedentary outposts, cara-
van stations and large trade centres such as Petra and Îegra(Mada'in ∑aliÌ).
The standing Nabataean army, and these caravan stations established alongside
the caravan route, guaranteed the security of the caravans (al-Muaikel 1994;
Graf et al.1992). The attested military term strategos (ˆstrtg “commander, high
official”) in Nabataean inscriptions (DNWSI, 92), which is also known from
Palmyra, seems to have been associated with caravan escorts.
M. MARAQTEN 229

The naming of Palmyra (Tadmur) in the cuneiform sources of the first half
of the 2nd millenium BC in association with caravan trade is interesting (Klen-
gel 1996). It marks Palmyra already as a caravan station at that time, a role
which it continued to play throughout its history.
The Palmyrene inscriptions represent the most important contribution to the
study of caravans and caravan trade in the Near East in the Hellenistic and
Roman periods (Hillers/Cussini 1996). It should be noted that both the
Palmyrene caravan trade and the organisation of their caravans have been
studied by several scholars (Rostovtzeff 1932; Will 1992; Drexhage 1982,
1988; Gawlikowski 1994, 1996). More than 35 Palmyrene inscriptions refer-
ring to caravans have been discovered. All of these inscriptions are bilingual
(Palmyrene Aramaic and Greek). R. Drexhage gathered 41 caravan inscrip-
tions and studied them, but she concentrated only on the Greek version of the
inscriptions (Drexhage 1988: 22-60). M. Gawlikowski lists 34 caravan
inscriptions and gives some information about their contents (Gawlikowski
1994: 32-f., 1996: 142f.). There is also more information about caravans from
other categories of Palmyrene inscriptions such as the Tariff inscription (CIS
II 3913; Matthews 1984).
Palmyrene foreign trade was well organised. Commercial agents, agencies,
commercial offices or “funduqs”, and caravanserais for Palmyrene merchants
were established in several places such as Koptos in Upper Egypt and Charax
(Drexhage 1988: 61-86). The guarding of caravan traffic and the protection of
caravans travelling between Mesopotamia and the Mediterranean seems to
have been the main function of Palmyra. At that time, as always, ensuring the
security of caravans caused the caravan trade the most anxiety. Thus, the most
important contribution of Palmyra to the stability of the caravan traffic was the
escorting of caravans through the desert.
Several Palmyrene inscriptions mention not only the members of a caravan
(bny syrtˆ), but also its leader (rb syrtˆ, rs/rˆssyrtˆ). These inscriptions also
provide good data about the support of the Palmyrene people for merchants
and caravans. Some scholars maintain that Palmyra was a more developed
“caravan” city than all the others (Gawlikowski 1994), and it is described by
M. Rostovtzeff in his Caravan Cities as the most typical caravan city in antiq-
uity. It had all the typical characteristics of a caravan station, and it provided
all the services such as rest, water and the like, which were needed.
We do not have concrete information about the size of a Palmyrene caravan.
We do know, however, that these caravans were sometimes organised by one rich
merchant (Drexhage 1988: 42), by more than one person at other times, and that
a big caravan was occasionally supported and organised by the city of Palmyra
itself. Sometimes specific individuals were honoured as leaders of caravans
(Drexhage 1988: 95). These leaders most certainly belonged to the Palmyrene
rich or had been the sheikhs of tribes involved in caravan trade (Drexhage 1988:
230 DANGEROUS TRADE ROUTES

90-100). However, there are some leaders who were chosen to head or lead a car-
avan solely on the basis of their ability (Drexhage 1988: 96). These people or
leaders do not bear titles in the inscriptions, and are mentioned simply as being
leaders without further data about their social backgrounds.
Two persons played an important role in the organisation of the Palmyrene
caravans. These are the archemporos, that is, the leader of the merchants, and
the synodiarch, the leader of the caravan, who is sometimes described in the
Palmyrene inscriptions as qm brshwn, “he stood at their head” (DNWSI,
1043). There is no accurate data in the Palmyrene Aramaic about the Greek
terms archemporos and synodiarch, since an Aramaic equivalent is rarely
mentioned. Sometimes these terms appear in Palmyrene Aramaic as rb syrtˆ,
“leader of the caravan”. Apparently these two terms were used to designate a
caravan leader (Gawlikowski 1988: 31; Drexhage 1988: 94). It also seems
that the individuals who were regularly thanked in the inscriptions “for every-
thing that they have done for the merchants” were leaders of these caravans in
spite of the fact that this explicit title is absent from the inscriptions. At any
rate, it is clear that caravan leaders in Palmyra were responsible for everything
regarding the caravans, including their security.
The Palmyrene caravans travelling between Charax and Palmyra were pro-
tected both by outposts and by a number of members of the armed forces.
Security measures for the safety of caravans were taken into account in the
context of the general organisation of the caravan. There was a Palmyrene
army which was responsible for protecting the caravans. It was made up pri-
marily of cavalry soldiers, that is, riders of horses and camels. Armed private
escorts were also organised (Drexhage 1988: 105-119). The fact that the
Roman army occasionally participated in taking care of the security of the car-
avans is evidenced by Palmyrene inscriptions which honoured legions of the
Roman army (Drexhage 1988: 26).
Only a small number of Palmyrene inscriptions directly mention attacks on
caravans. We do have some information about the organisation of caravans in
Palmyra, however, from honorific inscriptions which suggest that the protec-
tion of caravans was taken very seriously. Some of these inscriptions refer to
military measures designed to fend of Bedouin attacks on caravans (Drexhage
1988: 34, 52f.). These actions seem to have been organised by people with the
military title of strategos.
The return of caravans to Palmyra, or their arrival at an outpost, was a huge
and joyous event, and was always used as an opportunity to honour the cara-
van leaders and their protectors in gratitude for their safe arrival (Drexhage
1988: 88). Several honorary inscriptions from Palmyra document how mer-
chants (tgryˆ) and members of a caravan (bny syrtˆ) were thankful for their
safety and for the protection of their caravans. In general, those honoured were
the leaders of the caravans (rb syrtˆ, rˆssyrtˆ).
M. MARAQTEN 231

The inscriptions constantly mention people who accompanied the caravans
and brought them back safely. These were the protectors of caravans, who
included the leaders. One of these protectors was Su¨adu son of Bolyad¨son of
Su¨adu. More than 17 statues dated between 132 and 147 AD were erected in
his honour in Palmyra, Vologesias, Charax and even in the desert, among
other places. They were erected in honour of his contribution to the caravans,
and especially to their safety, as the inscriptions which are engraved on these
declare (Drexhage 1988: 101; Gawlikowski 1994: 29).
In another inscription found in the Ba¨al Shamin temple at Palmyra, Su¨adu
son of Bolyad¨was honoured by the members of the caravan because “He
helped the caravan which recently arrived from Vologesias with everything
and rescued it from great danger that surrounded it” (Teixidor 1979: 36-39).
In additions to seeing to the security of caravans by means of its armed
escorts, Palmyra also signed friendly treaties with nomadic tribes. Nomadic
tribes constituted the greatest threat to caravans, and Palmyra had to take suit-
able measures against them. This is documented, for instance, in a bilingual
(Greek-Aramaic) Palmyrene inscription. In this unpublished inscription, which
was discovered in the Allat temple in Palmyra and dates back to the year 144
AD, an attack on “a caravan of all Palmyrenes” is recorded. A band of robbers
led by ¨Abdallat (from the tribe of) AÌitaya raided this caravan, which was on
the way back from Vologesias. No specific place is mentioned. Su¨adu son of
Bolyada¨, who defeated the robbers using military power and saved the cara-
van, was honoured with four statues in four sanctuaries in Palmyra (Gaw-
likowski 1994: no. 15; Drexhage 1988: 111).
Other nomadic attacks are recorded as having been defeated by ¨Ugailu son
of Maqqai son of ¨Ugailu. Under his leadership as strategos, he saved traders
and caravans several times. In recognition of all of his heroic acts, the counsel
of Palmyra ordered the four tribes to honour him with four statues (Gaw-
likowski 1994: no. 29).
Several inscriptions mention individuals and traders, as well as leaders of
caravans, who were honoured not only because they brought the caravans back
safely, sometimes gratis, but also because they financed them from their own
pockets. The following are some examples of this:
“This statue is that of Taim-RaÒu, son of Taima, son of Muqimu, son of
Garba, leader of the caravan, which has been set up to him by the members of
the caravan who moved up with him from Karak (Charax), because he rescued
(their) expenses for them, three hundred denarii of gold, ancient currency, and
he was favourable to them” (CIS II, 3948). Another example shows how the
chief of the caravan was honoured because “he brought the caravan up gratis,
at his own expense” (CIS II, 3936).
Marcus Ulpius YarÌai was honoured several times by the members of a car-
avan because he financed it (Drexhage 1988: 42-49). This man seems to have
232 DANGEROUS TRADE ROUTES

been an important figure in the organisation, finance and protection of
Palmyrene caravans travelling between Palmyra and Spasinu Charax on the
Arabian Gulf. As an agent, he also played an important role in Palmyrene mar-
itime trade.
The Arabian military frontiers, which had been established by the Roman
emperor Trajan (98-117 AD) in the form of military camps and castellos, pri-
marily defended and protected the Provincia Arabia, but they also functioned to
make the caravan routes secure (Rostovtzeff 1932: 33; Bowersock 1994: 93ff.).
VII. THE PLUNDERING OF CARAVANS IN PRE-ISLAMIC ARABIA ACCORDING TO
ARABIC SOURCES
We also have data from the Arabic sources which shows that Arabs attacked
and plundered Persian caravans. Arabs of al-Îira used to monopolise the escort
of the Persian caravans to Arabia. However, caravans of an-Nu¨man, the king of
al-Îira, were also plundered by some Arab tribes (Crone 1987: 147). There is
another example from the early Islamic period. According to Arabic sources, on
several occasions the Prophet MuÌammed attacked the caravans of Mecca which
travelled between Syria and Mecca (Crone 1987: 117, 165). Although these
were actually military actions of Moslems in their struggle with Mecca, it shows
how a caravan could become a target of attacks in a time of war.
VIII. PLUNDERED ARTICLES FROM THE CARAVANS
It may also be of interest to ascertain which objects were plundered from
caravans. Unfortunately, the goods themselves are not always mentioned. It is
sometimes possible to guess, and some documents do report objects or mer-
chandise which were stolen. For example, the merchants' money was seized
from a Babylonian caravan attacked near Akko. The goods plundered from the
Sabaean caravan which was mentioned earlier, namely “purple-wool”,
“road”-wool, iron, and alabaster, are important references in the context of the
history of the trade of South Arabia with Mesopotamia. In the ancient Near
East, South Arabia was famous for its frankincense, myrrh and precious
stones.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the evidence presented here shows that the attacks and raids
on caravans in the pre-Islamic Near East in general, and in the ancient Near
M. MARAQTEN 233

East in particular, were not carried out only by Bedouin bandits. They were
also organised and undertaken by governors of cities and districts. The most
dangerous routes ran through unsettled areas and the desert.
BIBLIOGRAPHY AND ABBREVIATIONS
G. ¨ALI, 1978, al-MufaÒÒal fitariÌal-¨arab qabla al-islam, 10 vols., 2nd ed., Beirut.
ABD: The Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. by D.N. Freedman, 6 vols., New York.
M.C. ASTOUR, 1995, “Overland Trade Routes in Ancient Western Asia”, in: Civiliza-
tions of the Ancient Near East, ed. by J.M. Sasson, 4 vols., London, vol. 3, 1401-
1420.
ANET: J. PRITCHARD, ed., Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament,
2nd ed., Princeton.
ARM: Archives royales de Mari, Paris.
P. BEAULIEU, 1989, The Reign of Nabonidus, King of Babylon 556-539 B.C., New
Haven/London.
B.J. BEITZEL, 1992, Travel and Communication. The Old Testament Wold, in: ABD
VI, 644-648, “Roads and Highways (pre-Roman), in: ABD 5, 776-782.
G.W. BOWERSOCK, 1994, Studies on the Eastern Roman Empire, Goldbach.
CAD: The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago
W. CASKEL, 1954, Lihyan und Lihyanisch, Köln.
L. CASSON, 1979, Travel in the Ancient World, London.
A. CAVIGNEAUX, and B.K. ISMAIL, 1990, “Die Statthalter von SuÌu und Mari im 8. Jh.
v. Chr.”, Baghdader Metteilungen 21, 321-456.
CIS: Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum.
S.W. COLE, 1996, Nippur 4: The Early Neo-Babylonian Governor's Archive from Nip-
pur, Chicago.
G. CONTENAU, 1954, Everyday Life in Babylon and Assyria, London.
P. CRONE, 1987, Meccan Trade and the Rise of Islam, Oxford.
S. DALLEY, 1984, Mari and Karana. Two Old Babylonian Cities, London.
DNWSI: HOFTIJZER, J./JONGELING, K., Dictionary of the North-West Semitic Inscrip-
tions, 2 vols, Leiden 1995.
D.A. DORSEY, 1991, The Roads and Highways of Ancient Israel, Baltimore.
R, DREXHAGE, 1982, “Der Handel Palmyras in Römischer Zeit”, Münsterische
Beiträge zur Antiken Handelsgeschichte I, 1982, 17-34.
–, 1988, Untersuchungen zum römischen Osthandel, Bonn.
EA: ELAMARNA, Refering to numbering of the Amarna letters, cf. Moran 1992.
C. EDENS and G. BAWDEN, 1989, “History of Taymaˆand Hejazi Trade During the
First Millennium B.C.”, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Ori-
ent 32, 48-103.
D.O. EDZARD, and I. EPH¨AL, 1980, “Karawane”, in: Reallexikon der Assyriologie,
vol. 5, 414-422.
I. EPH¨AL, 1982, The Ancient Arabs, Jerusalem.
A. FUCHS, 1994, Die Inschriften Sargons II. aus Khorsabad, Göttingen.
M. GAWLIKOWSKI, 1994, “Palmyra as a Trading Centre”, Iraq, 27-33.
–, 1996: “Palmyra and its Caravan Trade”, in: Palmyra and the Silk Road, 139-145.
D.F. GRAF, B. ISAAC and I. ROLL, 1992, “Roads and Highways (Roman)”, in: ABD 5,
782-787.
234 DANGEROUS TRADE ROUTES

A.K. GRAYSON, 1991, Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium BC I (1114-859
BC, Toronto.
N. GROOM, 1981, Frankincense and Myrrh. A Study of the Arabian Incense Trade,
London.
HALDAR 1971: Who were the Amorites, Leiden.
W.W. HALLO, 1971, “Mesopotamia and the Asiatic Near East”, in: W.W. HALLO,
W.K. SIMPSON, The Ancient Near East, New York, 1-183.
M. HELTZER, 1981, The Suteans, with a contribution by Sh. Arbeli, Naples.
HERODOTUS: Histories, translated by A.D. Godley, Loeb Classical Library, London
1921.
D.R. HILLERS and E. CUSSINI, 1996, Palmyrene Aramaic Texts, London.
M. HÖFNER, 1965, “Südarabien”, in: Wörterbuch der Mythologie 1, ed. by H.W.
HAUSSIG, 485-567.
KLENGEL 1971: Zwischen Zelt und Palast, Leipzig.
–, 1979, Handel und Händler im alten Orient, Leipzig.
–, 1996, “Palmyra and International Trade in the Bronze Age. The Historical Back-
ground”, in: Palmyra and the Silk Road, 159-163.
D. KESSLER, 1980, “Karawanen(wege)”, in: Lexikon der Ägyptologie, ed. by W. HELCK
and W. WESTENDORF, Wiesbaden, vol. III, 328-333.
E.A. KNAUF, 1990, “Dushara and Shai¨Al-Qaum”, ARAM 2, 175-183.
–, 1992, “Bedouin and Bedouin States”, in: ABD I, 634-638.
M.T. LARSEN, 1976, The Old Assyrian City-State and its Colonies, Mesopotamia 4,
Copenhagen.
G.B. LANFRANCHI and S. PARPOLA, The Correspondence of Sargon II., Part II, Letters
from the Northern and Northeastern Provinces, State Archives of Assyria V,
Helsinki.
W.F. LEEMANS, 1975, “Handel”, Reallexikon der Assyriologie IV, 76-90.
M. LIVERANI, 1992, “Early Caravan Trade between South-Arabia and Mesopotamia”,
in: Yemen vol. 1. Studi archeologici, storici e filologici sull'Arabia meridionale,
Rome (published 1993), 111-115.
J.F. MATTHEWS, 1984, “The Tax Law of Palmyra”, The Journal of Roman Studies 74,
157-180.
W.L. MORAN, 1992, The Amarna Letters, Baltimore/London.
Kh.I. AL-MUAIKEL, 1994, Study of the Archaeology of the Jawf Region, Riyadh.
W.W. MÜLLER, 1985, “Altsüdarabische und frühnordarabische Inschriften”, in: Texte
aus der Umwelt des Alten Testaments, vol. I/6, Historisch-chronologische Texte
III, ed. by O. Kaiser, Gütersloh, 651-668.
AL. OPPENHEIM, 1977, Ancient Mesopotamia, Chicago.
C. ORHONLU, 1978, “Karwan”, The Encyclopaedia of Islam, new. ed., Leiden, IV, 676-
679.
Palmyra and the Silk Road, International colloquium, Les annales archeologiques
arabes syriennes 42, 1996.
S. PARPOLA, 1987, The Correspondence of Sargon II, Part I. Letters from Assyria and
the West, State Archives of Assyria I, Helsinki.
G. PETTINATO, 1991, Ebla. A New Look at History, Baltimore/London.
PLINY, Naturalis historia, translated by H. RACKHAM, Loeb Classical Library, London,
1938-1963.
D. POTTS, 1988, “Trans-arabian Routes of the pre-Islamic Period”, in: L'Arabie et ses
mers bordieres, ed. by J.-F. Salles, Paris, 127-162.
J.N. POSTGATE, 1992, Early Mesopotamia, New York.
M. MARAQTEN 235

D.B. REDFORD, 1992, Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times, Princeton.
RES: Répertoire d’épigraphie sémitque
M. ROSTOVTZEFF, 1932, Caravan Cities, Oxford.
–, 1932a, The Caravan-gods of Palmyra, The Journal of Roman Studies 22, 107-116.
G. ROUX, 1966, Ancient Iraq, Suffolk.
H.W.F. SAGGS, 1962, The Greatness that was Babylon, London.
H.W.F. SAGGS, 1989, The Might that was Assyria, London.
R. SIMON, 1989, Meccan Trade and Islam, Budapest.
STRABO, The Georaphy of Strabo, translated by H.L. JONES, Loeb Classical Library,
London 1924 (reprint 1983).
™ABARI, MUÌAMMAD B. GARIR, TariÌa†-™abari, ed. by M.A. IBRAHIM, Cairo 1960-
1969.
K.R. VEENHOF, 1972, Aspects of Old Assyrian Trade and its Terminology, Leiden.
H. WEISSE, 1924, Die Organisation des Karawanenhandels und -verkehrs zwischen
Euphrat und Nil vom Altertum zur Neuzeit, Diss., Leipzig.
E. WILL, 1992, Les Palmyréniens, Paris.
F.V. WINNETT and W.L. REED, 1970: Ancient Records from North Arabia, Toronto.
J. ZARINS, 1992, “Camel”, in: ABD I , 824-826.
R. ZADOK, 1991, Elements of Aramean Pre-History, in: Ah, Assyria… Studies in Assyr-
ian History and Ancient Near Eastern Historiography presented to Hayim Tad-
mor, ed. by M. COGAN and I. EPH¨AL, Jerusalem, 104-117.
236 DANGEROUS TRADE ROUTES