From the 21st Century B.C. to the 21st Century A.D.: Proceedings of the International Conference on Neo-Sumerian Studies Held in Madrid, 22–24 July 2010 9781575068718

Citation preview

From the 21st Century B.C. to the 21st Century A.D.

From the 21st Century B.C. to the 21st Century A.D. Proceedings of the International Conference on Sumerian Studies Held in Madrid 22–24 July 2010

edited by

STEVEN GARFINKLE and MANUEL MOLINA

Winona Lake, Indiana EISENBRAUNS 2013

© 2013 by Eisenbrauns Inc. All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America www.eisenbrauns.com

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data International Conference on Neo-Sumerian Studies (2010 : Madrid, Spain) From the 21st century B.C. to the 21st century A.D. : proceedings of the International Conference on Neo-Sumerian Studies held in Madrid 22–24 July 2010 / edited by Steven J. Garfinkle and Manuel Molina. pages cm Includes bibliographical references and indexes. ISBN 978-1-57506-296-9 (hardback : alkaline paper) 1. Ur (Extinct city)—Civilization—Congresses. 2. Sumerian language— Texts—Congresses. 3. Babylonia—History—Congresses. 4. Iraq—History— To 634—Congresses. 5. Iraq—Antiquities—Congresses. I. Garfinkle, Steven J. II. Molina, Manuel. III. Title. DS70.5.U7I56 2010 935′.501—dc23 2013040752

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48–1984. ♾ ™

We dedicate this volume to Hartmut Waetzoldt with great affection from his friends and colleagues. Hartmut’s skills and energy as an Assyriologist are matched by his devotion to the study of the Third Dynasty of Ur. The numerous authors in this volume have all benefited from his many contributions to our understanding of this period over the last four decades.

Contents Dedication ................................................................................................................... v Abbreviations ............................................................................................................ ix Foreword ................................................................................................................ xxiii

Language and Sources Ur III as a Linguistic Watershed .............................................................................. 3 MIGUEL CIVIL Sumerian Adjectival Passives Using the *im- Prefix: The Old Babylonian Evidence and Some Possible Third Millennium Precursors ............................ 19 J. CALE JOHNSON Hypotactic and Paratactic Complementation in Sumerian ditilla Texts ............. 49 FUMI KARAHASHI On the Location of Irisaĝrig .................................................................................... 59 MANUEL MOLINA The Archive of Iri-Saĝrig / Āl-Šarrākī .................................................................... 89 DAVID I. OWEN

Administration and Ideology Some Considerations on the Management of an Administrative Structure in Ur III Mesopotamia: The Case of m a r - s a ............................... 105 SERGIO ALIVERNINI The Tenure of Provincial Governors: Some Observations ................................... 115 LANCE ALLRED Symbols and Bureaucratic Performances in the Ur III Administrative Sphere: An Interpretation Through Data Mining .......................................... 125 ALESSANDRO DI LUDOVICO The Third Dynasty of Ur and the Limits of State Power in Early Mesopotamia ...................................................................................... 153 STEVEN GARFINKLE Networks of Authority and Power in Ur III Times .............................................. 169 PIOTR MICHALOWSKI Prince Etel-pū-Dagān, Son of Šulgi ...................................................................... 207 PALMIRO NOTIZIA The Ur III Administration: Workers, Messengers, and Sons .............................. 221 FRANCO POMPONIO vii

Contents

viii

Šulgi Meets Stalin: Comparative Propaganda as a Tool of Mining the Šulgi Hymns for Historical Data .............................................................. 233 LUDĚK VACÍN

Economy and Society The Control of Copper and Bronze Objects in Umma During the Ur III Period ................................................................................. 251 FRANCO D’AGOSTINO AND FRANCESCA GORELLO Le Système Après-Récolte dans l’Hydro-Agriculture Mésopotamienne à la Fin du IIIe Millénaire avant notre Ère ....................... 267 JEAN-PIERRE GRÉGOIRE The Barbers of Iri-Saĝrig ....................................................................................... 301 ALEXANDRA KLEINERMAN Absence from Work in Ur III Umma: Reasons and Terminology ........................ 313 NATALIA KOSLOVA The Manufacture of a Statue of Nanaja: Mesopotamian Jewellery-Making Techniques at the End of the Third Millennium B.C. ................................... 333 PAOLA PAOLETTI Corvée Labor in Ur III Times ................................................................................ 347 PIOTR STEINKELLER Ikalla, Scribe of (Wool) Textiles and Linen .......................................................... 425 LORENZO VERDERAME AND GABRIELLA SPADA The Regular Offerings of Lambs and Kids for Deities and the é - u z - g a During the Reign of Šulgi: A Study of the m u - TÚM and z i - g a / b a - z i Texts from the Animal Center ........................................................................ 445 WU YUHONG AND LI XUEYAN INDICES Personal Names ............................................................................................... Divine Names ................................................................................................... Toponyms ......................................................................................................... Sumerian Words and Phrases ......................................................................... Texts Quoted .................................................................................................... ED IIIa-b Texts ............................................................................................ Old Akkadian Texts ..................................................................................... Lagaš II and Ur III Texts ............................................................................ Old Babylonian Texts .................................................................................. Royal Inscriptions and Related Texts ......................................................... Law Collections ............................................................................................ Literary Texts .............................................................................................. Incantations and Medical Texts .................................................................. Lexical Texts ................................................................................................ Grammatical Texts ......................................................................................

459 463 464 467 470 470 470 470 489 490 490 490 491 492 492

PROGRAM OF THE CONFERENCE .............................................................................. 493

Abbreviations A

Tablets in the collections of the Oriental Institute. University of Chicago

AAICAB I/1-4

J.-P. Grégoire, Contribution à l’Histoire Sociale, Économique, Politique et Culturelle du Proche-Orient Ancien. Archives Administratives et Inscriptions Cunéiformes de l’Ashmolean Museum et de la Bodleian Collection d’Oxford (AAICAB). I. Les Sources 1-4. Paris 1996-2004.

AAS

J.-P. Grégoire, Archives administratives sumériennes. Paris 1970.

AbB 7

F. R. Kraus, Briefe aus dem British Museum (CT 52). Altbabylonische Briefe in Umschrift und Übersetzung 7. Leiden 1977.

AbB 12

W. H. van Soldt, Letters in the British Museum. Altbabylonische Briefe in Umschrift und Übersetzung 12. Leiden 1990.

AfO

Archiv für Orientforschung. Vienna.

Akkadica

Akkadica. Bruxelles.

Amherst

Th. G. Pinches, The Amherst Tablets I. London 1908.

Amorites

G. Buccellati, The Amorites of the Ur III Period. Naples 1966.

AnOr 1

N. Schneider, Die Drehem- und Djoha- Urkunden der Strassburger Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek. Analecta Orientalia 1. Rome 1931.

AnOr 7

N. Schneider, Die Drehem- und Djohatexte im Kloster Montserrat (Barcelona) in Autographie und mit systematischen Wörterverzeichnissen. Analecta Orientalia 7. Rome 1932.

AnOr 12

Miscellanea Orientalia dedicata Antonio Deimel annos LXX complenti. Analecta Orientalia 12. Rome 1935.

AnOr 45

G. Pettinato, Texte zur Verwaltung der Landwirtschaft in der Ur-III Zeit. Analecta Orientalia 45. Rome 1969.

AO

Tablets in the collections of the Louvre Museum (Antiquités orientales).

AOS 32

A. L. Oppenheim, Catalogue of the Cuneiform Tablets of the Wilberforce Eames Babylonian Collection in the New York Public Library. Tablets of the Time of the Third Dynasty of Ur. American Oriental Series 32. New Haven 1948.

ARET 5

D. O. Edzard, Hymnen, Beschwörungen und Verwandtes (aus dem Archiv L. 2769). Archivi Reali di Ebla. Testi 5. Rome 1984.

ARM 7

J. Bottéro, Textes économiques et administratifs. Archives Royales de Mari 7. Paris 1957.

ARM 26

J.-M. Durand, Archives épistolaires de Mari. Archives Royales de Mari 26. Paris 1988.

ASJ

Acta Sumerologica. Hiroshima.

’Atiqot 4

S. J. Levy and P. Artzi, Sumerian and Akkadian Documents from Public and Private Collections in Israel. ’Atiqot. English Series 4, Jerusalem 1965.

ix

Abbreviations

x AUCT 1

M. Sigrist, Neo-Sumerian Account Texts in the Horn Archaeological Museum. Andrews University Cuneiform Texts 1. Berrien Sprigs 1984.

AUCT 2

M. Sigrist, Neo-Sumerian Account Texts in the Horn Archaeological Museum. Andrews University Cuneiform Texts 2. Berrien Sprigs 1988.

AUCT 3

Sigrist, M., Gavin, C.E.S., Stein, D., and Menard, C., Neo-Sumerian Account Texts in the Horn Archaeological Museum. Andrews University Cuneiform Texts 3. Berrien Sprigs 1988.

AuOr

Aula Orientalis. Revista de Estudios del Próximo Oriente Antiguo. Sabadell (Barcelona).

Babyl.

Babyloniaca. Études de Philologie Assyro-Babylonienne. Paris.

BagM

Baghdader Mitteilungen. Berlin/Mainz.

BBVO 11

R. L. Zettler, The Ur III Temple of Inanna at Nippur. The Operation and Organization of Urban Religious Institutions in Mesopotamia in the Late Third Millennium B.C. Berliner Beiträge zum Vorderen Orient 11. Berlin 1992.

BCT 1

P. J. Watson, Catalogue of Cuneiform Tablets in Birmingham City Museum I: Neo-Sumerian Texts from Drehem. Warminster 1986.

BCT 2

P. J. Watson, Neo-Sumerian Texts from Umma and Other Sites. Catalogue of Cuneiform Tablets in Birmingham City Museum. II. Warminster 1993.

BDTNS

M. Molina, Database of Neo-Sumerian Texts. http://bdtns.filol.csic.es.

BE 1/2

H. V. Hilprecht, Old Babylonian Inscriptions chiefly from Nippur. Part 2. The Babylonian Expedition of the University of Pennsylvania 1/2. Philadelphia 1896.

BE 3/1

D. W. Myhrman, Sumerian Administrative Documents Dated in the Reigns of the Second Dynasty of Ur from the Temple Archives of Nippur. The Babylonian Expedition of the University of Pennsylvania 3/1. Philadelphia 1910.

Berens

Th. G. Pinches, The Babylonian Tablets of the Berens Collection. London 1915.

BIN 10

M. Van De Mieroop, Sumerian Administrative Documents from the Reigns of Išbi-Erra and Šu-ilišu. Babylonian Inscriptions in the Collection of B. J. Nies 10. New Haven/London 1987.

BIN 3

C. E. Keiser, Neo-Sumerian Account Texts from Drehem. Babylonian Inscriptions in the Collection of B. J. Nies 3. New Haven/London 1971.

BIN 5

G. G. Hackman, Temple Documents of the Third Dynasty of Ur from Umma. Babylonian Inscriptions in the Collection of B. J. Nies 5. New Haven 1937.

BIN 8

G. G. Hackman, Sumerian and Akkadian administrative texts from predynastic times to the end of the Akkad dynasty. Babylonian Inscriptions in the Collection of B. J. Nies 8. New Haven 1958.

BJRL

Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library. Manchester.

BLMJ

Tablets in the collections of the Bible Lands Museum. Jerusalem.

BM

Tablets in the collections of the British Museum. London.

BPOA 1

T. Ozaki and M. Sigrist, Ur III Administrative Tablets from the British Museum. Part One. Biblioteca del Próximo Oriente Antiguo 1. Madrid 2006.

Abbreviations

xi

BPOA 2

T. Ozaki and M. Sigrist, Ur III Administrative Tablets from the British Museum. Part Two. Biblioteca del Próximo Oriente Antiguo 2. Madrid 2006.

BPOA 6

M. Sigrist and T. Ozaki, Neo-Sumerian Administrative Tablets from the Yale Babylonian Collection. Part One. Biblioteca del Próximo Oriente Antiguo 6. Madrid 2009.

BPOA 7

M. Sigrist and T. Ozaki, Neo-Sumerian Administrative Tablets from the Yale Babylonian Collection. Part Two. Biblioteca del Próximo Oriente Antiguo 7. Madrid 2009.

BPOA 10

P. Paoletti, Der König und sein Kreis. Das staatliche Schatzarchiv der III. Dynastie von Ur. Biblioteca del Próximo Oriente Antiguo 10. Madrid 2012.

BRM 3

C. E. Keiser, Cuneiform Bullae of the Third Millennium B.C. Babylonian Records in the Library of J. Pierpont Morgan 3. New Haven 1914.

BWAth

Bulletin Wadsworth Atheneum. Hartford.

CBCY 3

M. Sigrist, Neo-Sumerian Archival Texts in the Nies Babylonian Collection. Catalogue of the Babylonian Collections at Yale 3. Bethesda 2001.

CDLB

Cuneiform Digital Library Bulletin. http://cdli.ucla.edu/pubs/cdlb.html.

CDLI

Cuneiform Digital Library Initiative. http://cdli.ucla.edu.

CDLJ

Cuneiform Digital Library Journal. http://cdli.ucla.edu/pubs/cdlj.html.

CHANE

Culture and History of the Ancient Near East. Leiden/Boston/Köln.

CHEU

G. Contenau, Contribution à l’histoire économique d’Umma. Paris 1915.

CM 26

T. M. Sharlach, Provincial Taxation and the Ur III State. Cuneiform Monographs 26. Leiden 2004.

CST

T. Fish, Catalogue of Sumerian Tablets in the John Rylands Library. Manchester 1932.

CT 1

L. W. King, Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets, &c., in the British Museum. Part I (CT 1). London 1896.

CT 3

L. W. King, Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets, &c., in the British Museum. Part III (CT 3). London 1898.

CT 5

L. W. King, Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets, &c., in the British Museum. Part V (CT 5). London 1898.

CT 7

L. W. King, Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets, &c., in the British Museum. Part VII (CT 7). London 1899.

CT 8

Th. G. Pinches, Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum. Part VIII (CT 8). London 1899.

CT 9

L. W. King, Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets, &c., in the British Museum. Part IX (CT 9). London 1900.

CT 10

L. W. King, Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets, &c., in the British Museum. Part X (CT 10). London 1900.

CT 32

L. W. King, Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets, &c., in the British Museum. Part XXXII (CT 32). London 1912.

CTNMC

Th. Jacobsen, Cuneiform Texts in the National Museum, Copenhagen. Leiden 1939.

CUSAS 3

D. I. Owen and R, Mayr, The Garšana Archives. Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology 3. Bethesda 2007.

xii

Abbreviations

CUSAS 12

M. Civil, The Lexical Texts in the Schøyen Collection. Manuscripts in the Schøyen Collection 5. Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology 12. Bethesda 2010.

CUSAS 16

S. Garfinkle, H. Sauren, and M. Van De Mieroop, Ur III Tablets from the Columbia University Library. Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology 16. Bethesda 2010.

CUSAS 17

A. George (ed.), Cuneiform Royal Inscriptions and related Texts in the Schøyen Collection. Manuscripts in the Schøyen Collection. Cuneiform texts VI. Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology 17. Bethesda 2011.

CUSAS 22

S. J. Garfinkle, Entrepreneurs and Enterprise in Early Mesopotamia. A Study of Three Archives from the Third Dynasty of Ur. Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology 22. Bethesda 2012.

DAS

B. Lafont, Documents administatifs sumériens provenant du site de Tello et conservés au Musée du Louvre. Paris 1985.

DoCu EPHE

J.-M. Durand, Documents cunéiformes de la IVe section de l’École pratique des Hautes Études. Tome I: Catalogue et copies cunéiformes. Genève/Paris 1982.

DP

F.-M. Allotte de la Fuÿe, Documents présargoniques. Paris 1908-1920.

Essays Gordon 1

H. A. Hoffner (ed.), Orient and Occident: Essays presented to Cyrus H. Gordon on the occasion of his sixty-fifth birthday. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 22. Kevelaer/Neukirchen-Vluyn 1973.

Farmer’s Instructions

M. Civil, The Farmer’s Instructions. A Sumerian Agricultural Manual. Aula Orientalis - Supplementa 5. Sabadell 1994.

Frühe Schrift

H. J. Nissen, P. Damerow, and R. K. Englund, Frühe Schrift und Techniken der Wirtschaftsverwaltung im alten Vorderen Orient. Berlin 1990.

Fs. Haas

T. Richter, D. Prechel, and J. Klinger (eds.), Kulturgeschichten. Altorientalische Studien für Volkert Haas zum 65. Geburstag. Saarbrücken 2001.

FT

H. de Genouillac, Fouilles de Tello. Paris 1934-36.

FTUPM

H. P. Martin, F. Pomponio, G. Visicato, and A. Westenholz, The Fara Tablets in the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology. Bethesda 2001.

GratianusStiftung

H.-G. Rösch and G. Straub (eds.), Gratianus-Stiftung Sammlungskatalog 1. Reutlingen 2004.

Hirose

T. Gomi, Y. Hirose, and K. Hirose, Neo-Sumerian Account Texts of the Hirose Collection. Potomac 1990.

HLC

G. A. Barton, Harverford Library Collection of Cuneiform Texts or Documents from the Temple Archives of Telloh, vols. 1-3. Philadelphia 190514.

HSM

Tablets in the collections of the Harvard Semitic Museum. Boston.

HSS 4

M. I. Hussey, Sumerian Tablets in the Harvard Semitic Museum (II) from the Time of the Dynasty of Ur. Harvard Semitic Series 4. Cambridge MA 1915.

HUCA

Hebrew Union College Annual. Cincinnati.

Iraq

Iraq. British School of Archaeology in Iraq. London.

ISET 1

M. Çıg and H. Kızılyay (with an Introduction by S. N. Kramer), Sume-

Abbreviations

xiii

rian Literary Tablets and Fragments in the Archaeological Museum of Istanbul I = Istanbul Arkeoloji Müzelerinde Bulunan Sumer Edebî Tablet ve Parçalari I. Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayinlarindan VI/13. Ankara 1969. ITT 2

H. de Genouillac, Textes de l’Époque d’Agadé et de l’Époque d’Ur. Inventaire des Tablettes de Tello conservées au Musée Impérial Ottoman 2. Paris 1910.

ITT 3

H. de Genouillac, Textes de l’Époque d’Ur. Inventaire des Tablettes de Tello conservées au Musée Impérial Ottoman 3. Paris 1912.

ITT 5

H. de Genouillac, Époque Présargonique, Époque d’Agadé, Époque d’Ur. Inventaire des Tablettes de Tello conservées au Musée Impérial Ottoman 5. Paris 1921.

JAC

Journal of Ancient Civilizations. Changchun.

JAOS

Journal of the American Oriental Society. Boston.

JCS

Journal of Cuneiform Studies. New Haven/Boston.

JEOL

Jaarbericht van het Vooraziatisch-Egyptisch Genootschap “Ex Oriente Lux”. Leiden.

JMEOS

Journal of the Manchester Egyptian and Oriental Society. Manchester.

JNES

Journal of Near Eastern Studies. Chicago.

JSOR

Journal of the Society of Oriental Research. Chicago/Toronto.

KM

Tablets in the collections of the Kelsey Museum of Archaeology. Ann Arbor.

Kramer AV

B. L. Eichler et al. (eds.), Kramer Anniversary Volume. Cuneiform Studies in Honor of Samuel Noah Kramer. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 25. Kevelaer/Neukirchen-Vluyn 1976.

Kyoto

Y. Nakahara, The Sumerian Tablets in the Imperial University of Kyoto. Kyoto 1928.

Ledgers

D. Snell, Ledgers and Prices. Early Mesopotamian Merchant Accounts. Yale Near Easter Researches 8. New Haven/London 1982.

MAD 4

I. J. Gelb, Sargonic Texts in the Louvre Museum. Materials for the Assyrian Dictionary 4. Chicago 1970.

MCS

Manchester Cuneiform Studies. Manchester.

MDP 10

V. Scheil, Textes élamites-sémitiques. Quatrième Série. Mémoires de la Délegation en Perse 10. Paris 1908.

MDP 22

V. Scheil, Actes juridiques susiens. Mémoires de la Délégation en Perse 22. Paris 1930.

Mél. Limet

Ö. Tunca and D. Deheselle (eds.), Tablettes et images aux Pays de Sumer et d’Akkad. Mélanges offerts à Monsieur H. Limet. A.P.H.A. Mémoires 1. Liège 1996.

Mem. Cagni

S. Graziani (ed.), Studi sul Vicino Oriente Antico dedicati alla memoria di Luigi Cagni. Istituto Orientali di Napoli DSA, Series Minor LXI, 4 vols. Naples 2000.

Mesopotamia

Mesopotamia. Rivista di Archeologia a cura del Centro Ricerche Archeologiche e Scavi di Torino per il Medio Oriente e d’Asia. Turin.

Métal

H. Limet, Le travail du métal au pays de Sumer au temps de la IIIe dynastie d’Ur. Paris 1960.

xiv

Abbreviations

MFM

Medelhavsmuseet. Focus on the Mediterranean. Stockholm.

MLC

Tablets in the collections of the J. Pierpont Morgan Library. Yale University.

MS

Tablets in the Schøyen Collection. Oslo.

MSL 4

B. Landsberger et al., Emesal-Vocabulary; Old Babylonian and NeoBabylonian Grammatical Texts; Nachträge zu MSL III. Materialien zum Sumerischen Lexikon 4. Rome 1956.

MSL 5

B. Landsberger, The Series HAR-ra = hubullu: Tablets I-IV. Materialien zum Sumerischen Lexikon 5. Rome 1957.

MSL 6

B. Landsberger, The Series HAR-ra = hubullu: Tablets V-VII. Materialien zum Sumerischen Lexikon 6. Rome 1958.

MSL 11

E. Reiner and M. Civil, The Series HAR-ra = hubullu: Tablets XX-XXIV. Materials for the Sumerian Lexicon 11. Rome 1974.

MSL 12

B. Landsberger (Ed. por E. Reiner and M. Civil), The Series lú = ša: A Reconstruction of Sumerian and Akkadian Lexical Lists. Materials for the Sumerian Lexicon 12. Rome 1969.

MSL 14

M. Civil, M. W. Green, and W. G. Lambert, Ea A = nâqu, Aa A = nâqu, with their Forerunners and Related Texts. Materials for the Sumerian Lexicon 14. Rome 1979.

MSL 16

I. L. Finkel and M. Civil, The Series SIG7.ALAN = Nabnītu. Materials for the Sumerian Lexicon 16. Rome 1982.

MSL 17

A. Cavigneaux et al., The Series Erim-huš = anantu and An-ta-gál = šaqû. Materials for the Sumerian Lexicon 17. Rome 1985.

MTBM

M. Sigrist, Messenger Texts from the British Museum. Ann Arbor 1990.

MVAG

Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatisch(-Ägyptisch)en Gesellschaft. Leipzig.

MVN 1

G. Pettinato and H. Waetzoldt. La collezione Schollmeyer. Materiali per il Vocabolario Neosumerico 1. Rome 1974.

MVN 2

H. Sauren, Wirtschaftsurkunden des Musée d’Art et d’Histoire in Genf. Materiali per il Vocabolario Neosumerico 2. Rome 1975.

MVN 3

D. Owen, The John Frederick Lewis Collection. Materiali per il Vocabolario Neosumerico 3. Rome 1975.

MVN 4

L. Cagni and G. Pettinato, La collezione del Pontificio Istituto Biblico La collezione della Collegiata dei SS. Pietro e Orso - Aosta. Materiali per il Vocabolario Neosumerico 4. Rome 1976.

MVN 5

E. Sollberger, The Pinches Manuscript. Materiali per il Vocabolario Neosumerico 5. Rome 1978.

MVN 6

G. Pettinato, Testi economici di Lagaš del Museo di Istanbul. Parte I: La. 7001-7600. Materiali per il Vocabolario Neosumerico 6. Rome 1977.

MVN 7

G. Pettinato and S. A. Picchioni, Testi economici di Lagaš del Museo di Istanbul. Parte II: La. 7601-8200. Materiali per il Vocabolario Neosumerico 7. Rome 1978.

MVN 8

D. Calvot, Textes économiques du Selluš-Dagan du Musée du Louvre et du College de France; G. Pettinato, S. A. Picchioni, and F. Reschid, Testi economici dell’Iraq Museum Baghdad. Materiali per il Vocabolario Neosumerico 8. Rome 1979.

MVN 9

D. Snell, The E. A. Hoffman Collection and Other American Collections.

Abbreviations

xv

Materiali per il Vocabolario Neosumerico 9. Rome 1979. MVN 10

J. P. Grégoire, Inscriptions et archives administratives cunéiformes. Ie Partie. Materiali per il Vocabolario Neosumerico 10. Rome 1981.

MVN 11

D. Owen, Selected Ur III Texts from the Harvard Semitic Museum. Materiali per il Vocabolario Neosumerico 11. Rome 1982.

MVN 12

T. Gomi, Wirtschaftstexte der Ur III - Zeit aus dem British Museum. Materiali per il Vocabolario Neosumerico 12. Rome 1982.

MVN 13

M. Sigrist, D. Owen and G. D. Young, The John Frederick Lewis Collection. Part II. Materiali per il Vocabolario Neosumerico 13. Rome 1984.

MVN 14

F. Yıldız, H. Waetzoldt, and H. Renner, Die Umma-Texte aus den Archäologischen Museen zu Istanbul. Nr. 1-600. Materiali per il Vocabolario Neosumerico 14. Rome 1988.

MVN 15

D. Owen, Neo-Sumerian Texts from American Collections. Materiali per il Vocabolario Neosumerico 15. Rome 1991.

MVN 16

H. Waetzoldt and F. Yıldız, Die Umma-Texte aus den Archäologischen Museen zu Istanbul. Band II (Nr. 601-1600). Materiali per il Vocabolario Neosumerico 16. Rome 1994.

MVN 17

G. Pettinato, Testi economici Neo-Sumerici del British Museum (BM 12230 - BM 12390). Materiali per il Vocabolario Neosumerico 17. Rome 1993.

MVN 18

M. Molina, Tablillas administrativas neosumerias de la Abadía de Montserrat (Barcelona). Copias Cuneiformes. Materiali per il Vocabolario Neosumerico 18. Rome 1993.

MVN 19

P. Mander, Testi economici Neo-Sumerici del British Museum (BM 12600-12750). Materiali per il Vocabolario Neosumerico 19. Rome 1995.

MVN 20

F. D’Agostino, Testi amministrativi della III Dinastia di Ur dal Museo Statale Ermitage. San Pietroburgo - Russia. Materiali per il Vocabolario Neosumerico 20. Rome 1997.

MVN 21

N. Koslova, Neusumerische Verwaltungstexte aus Umma aus der Sammlung der Ermitage zu St. Petersburg - Rußland. Materiali per il Vocabolario Neosumerico 21. Rome 2000.

MVN 22

M. Molina, Testi ammnistrativi neosumerici del British Museum. BM 13601 - 14300. Materiali per il Vocabolario Neosumerico 22. Rome 2003.

NABU

Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires. Paris.

Nasha, Diss.

S. B. Nelson, Nasha: A study of administrative texts of the Third Dynasty of Ur. Ph. D. Diss. University of Minnesota 1972.

NATN

D. I. Owen, Neo-Sumerian Archival Texts Primarily from Nippur in the University Museum, the Oriental Institute and the Iraq Museum. Winona Lake 1982.

NBC

Tablets in the Nies Babylonian Collection. Yale University.

Nebraska

N. W. Forde, Nebraska Cuneiform Texts of the Sumerian Ur Dynasty. Lawrence 1967.

NFT

G. Cros, Nouvelles fouilles de Tello, publiées avec le concours de Léon Heuzey, Fçois Thureau-Dangin. Paris 1910-1914.

Nik. 1

M. V. Nikolskij, Dokumenty chozjajstevnnoj otcetnosti drevnejšej epochi chaldei iz sobranija N. P. Lichaceva. Drevnosti Vostocnyja 3/II. St. Pe-

Abbreviations

xvi tersburg 1908. Nik. 2

M. V. Nikolskij, Dokumenty chozjajstvennoj otcetnosti drevnejšej epochi Chaldei iz sobranija N. P. Lichaceva, Č. II: Epoch dinastii Agade i epocha dinastii Ura. Drevnosti Vostocnya 5. Moscow 1915.

Nisaba 3/2

M. E. Milone, G. Spada and M. Capitani, Umma Messenger Texts in the British Museum, Part Two (UMTBM 2). Girsu Messenger Texts in the British Museum. Nisaba. Studi Assiriologici Messinesi 3. Messina 2003.

Nisaba 5

F. D’Agostino, F. Pomponio, and R. Laurito, Neo-Sumerian Texts from Ur in the British Museum. Epigraphical and Archaeological Catalogue of an Unpublished Corpus of Texts and Fragments. Nisaba. Studi Assiriologici Messinesi 5. Messina 2004.

Nisaba 6

F. N. H. al-Rawi and F. D’Agostino, Neo-Sumerian Administrative Texts from Umma kept in the British Museum. Part One (NATU I). Nisaba. Studi Assiriologici Messinesi 6. Messina 2005.

Nisaba 8

J. Politi and L. Verderame, The Drehem Texts in the British Museum (DTBM). Nisaba. Studi Assiriologici Messinesi 8. Messina 2005.

Nisaba 9

M. Molina and M. Such, Neo-Sumerian Administrative Texts in the British Museum. BM 107926-108315. Nisaba. Studi Assiriologici Messinesi 9. Messina 2005.

Nisaba 11

F. N. H. al-Rawi and L. Verderame, Documenti amministrativi neosumerici da Umma conservati al British Museum (NATU II). Nisaba. Studi Assiriologici Messinesi 11. Messina 2006.

Nisaba 15/2

D. I. Owen, Cuneiform Texts Primarily from Iri-Saĝrig/Āl-Šarrākī and the History of the Ur III Period. 2. Catalogue and Texts. Nisaba. Studi Assiriologici Messinesi 15/2. Messina 2013.

Nisaba 22

P. Notizia, I testi dei messaggeri da Girsu-Lagaš della Terza Dinastia di Ur. Nisaba. Studi Assiriologici Messinesi 22. Messina 2009.

Nisaba 23

F. N. H. al-Rawi and L. Verderame, Neo-Sumerian Administrative Texts from Umma kept in the British Museum. Part Three (NATU III). Nisaba. Studi Assiriologici Messinesi 23. Messina 2009.

Nisaba 24

F. N. H. al-Rawi, F. D’Agostino, and J. Taylor, Neo-Sumerian Administrative Texts from Umma kept in the British Museum. Part Four (NATU IV). Nisaba. Studi Assiriologici Messinesi 24. Messina 2009.

NRVN 1

M. Çıg and H. Kızılyay, Neusumerische Rechts- und Verwaltungsurkunden aus Nippur I. Yeni Sumer Cagina ait Nippur Hukukî ve Idarî Belgeleri I. Ankara 1965.

NSGU

A. Falkenstein, Die neusumerischen Gerichtsurkunden 1-3. Munich 1956-57.

NYPL

H. Sauren, Les tablettes cunéiformes de l’époque d’Ur des collections de la New York Public Library. Publications de l’Institut Orientaliste de Louvain 19. Leuven 1978.

OBTR

R. Lau, Old Babylonian Temple Records. Columbia University Oriental Studies 3. New York 1966.

OIP 115

M. Hilgert, Cuneiform Texts from the Ur III Period in the Oriental Institute. 1: Drehem Administrative Documents from the Reign of Šulgi. Oriental Institute Publications 115. Chicago 1998.

OIP 121

M. Hilgert, Cuneiform Texts from the Ur III Period in the Oriental Insti-

Abbreviations

xvii

tute. 2: Drehem Administrative Documents from the Reign of AmarSuena. Oriental Institute Publications 121. Chicago 2003. OLP

Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica. Leuven.

Ontario 1

M. Sigrist, Neo-Sumerian Texts from the Royal Ontario Museum. I. The Administration at Drehem. Bethesda 1995.

Ontario 2

M. Sigrist, Neo-Sumerian Texts from the Royal Ontario Museum. II. Administrative Texts Mainly from Umma. Bethesda 2004.

Orient

Orient. Report of the Society of Near Eastern Studies in Japan. Tokyo.

OrNS

Orientalia Nova Series. Rome.

OrSP

Orientalia Series Prior. Rome.

OrSP 47-49

N. Schneider, Die Geschäftsurkunden aus Drehem und Djoha in den Staatlichen Museen (VAT) zu Berlin. Orientalia Series Prior 47-49. Rome 1930.

PAS

B. Alster, Proverbs of Ancient Sumer. The World’s Earliest Proverb Collections, 2 vols. Bethesda 1997.

PBS I/1

D. Myhrmann, Babylonian Hymns and Prayers. Publications of the Babylonian Section I/1. Philadelphia 1911.

PBS 13

L. Legrain, Historical Fragments. Publications of the Babylonian Section 13. Philadelphia 1922.

PDT 1

M. Çıg, H. Kızılyay, and H. Salonen, Die Puzriš-Dagan-Texte der Istanbuler Archäologischen Museen. Teil I: Nrr. 1-725. Helsinki 1954.

PDT 2

F. Yıldız and T. Gomi, Die Puzriš-Dagan-Texte der Istanbuler Archäologischen Museen. Teil II: Nr. 726-1379. Freiburger Altorientalische Studien 16. Stuttgart 1988.

PPAC 4

T. Ozaki and M. Sigrist, Tablets in Jerusalem: Sainte-Anne and SaintÉtienne. Periodic Publications on Ancient Civilizations 4 = Supplement to Journal of Ancient Civilizations 2. Changchun 2010.

Priests and Officials

K. Watanabe (ed.), Priests and Officials in the Ancient Near East. Papers of the Second Colloquium on the Ancient Near East: The City and its Life, held at the Middle Eastern Culture Center in Japan (Mitaka, Tokyo. March 22-24, 1996). Heidelberg 1999.

Prima dell’alfabeto

M. Fales, Prima dell’alfabeto. La storia della scrittura attraverso testi cuneiformi inediti. Venezia 1989.

Princeton 1

M. Sigrist, Tablettes du Princeton Theological Seminary. Époque d’Ur III. Occasional Publications of the Samuel Noah Kramer Fund 10. Philadelphia 1990.

Princeton 2

M. Sigrist, Tablets from the Princeton Theological Seminary. Ur III Period. Part 2. Occasional Publications of the Samuel Noah Kramer Fund 18. Philadelphia 2008.

RA

Revue d’Assyriologie et d’Archéologie Orientale. Paris.

RB

Revue Biblique. Paris.

RBC

Tablets in the Rosen Babylonian Collection. Yale University.

RIAA

L. Speleers, Recueil des Inscriptions de l’Asie antérieure des Musées royaux d’art et d’histoire à Bruxelles. Bruxelles 1925.

RIME 1

D. R. Frayne, Presargonic Period (2700-2350 BC). The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia. Early Periods 1. Toronto/Buffalo/London 2008.

xviii

Abbreviations

RIME 2

D. R. Frayne, Sargonic and Gutian Periods (2334-2113 BC). The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia. Early Periods 2. Toronto/Buffalo/London 1993.

RIME 3/2

D. R. Frayne, Ur III Period (2112-2004 BC). The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia. Early Periods 3/2. Toronto/Buffalo/London 1997.

RO

Rocznik Orientalistyczny. Warsaw.

Rochester

M. Sigrist, Documents from Tablet Collections in Rochester - New York. Bethesda 1991.

RSO

Rivista degli Studi Orientali. Rome.

SA

Ch. F. Jean, Šumer et Akkad. Contribution à l’Histoire de la Civilisation dans la Basse-Mésopotamie. Paris 1923.

SACT 1

S. T. Kang, Sumerian Economic Texts from the Drehem Archive. Sumerian and Akkadian Cuneiform Texts in the Collection of the World Heritage Museum of the University of Illinois. I. Urbana/Chicago/London 1972.

SACT 2

S. T. Kang, Sumerian Economic Texts from the Umma Archive. Sumerian and Akkadian Cuneiform Texts in the Collection of the World Heritage Museum of the University of Illinois. II. Urbana/Chicago/London 1973.

Sale Documents

P. Steinkeller, Sale Documents of the Ur-III Period. Freiburger Altorientalische Studien 17. Stuttgart 1989.

Santag 6

N. Koslova, Ur III- Texte der St. Petersburger Ermitage. Santag 6. Wiesbaden 2000.

SAT 1

M. Sigrist, Texts from the British Museum. Sumerian Archival Texts 1. Bethesda 1993.

SAT 2

M. Sigrist, Texts from the Yale Babylonian Collections. I. Sumerian Archival Texts 2. Bethesda 2000.

SAT 3

M. Sigrist, Texts from the Yale Babylonian Collections. II. Sumerian Archival Texts 3. Bethesda 2000.

SET

T. B. Jones and J. W. Snyder, Sumerian Economic Texts from the Third Ur Dynasty. Minneapolis 1961.

SF

A. Deimel, Schultexte aus Fara. Die Inschriften von Fara 2. Leipzig 1923.

Sigrist and Ozaki, S/O

Tablets in the Green Collection, Oklahoma City (M. Sigrist and T. Ozaki, forthcoming).

SmithCS

C. Gordon, Smith College Tablets; 110 Cuneiform Texts Selected from the College Collection. Smith College Studies in History 38. Northampton MA 1952.

SNAT

T. Gomi and S. Sato, Selected Neo-Sumerian Administrative Texts from the British Museum. Chuo-Gakuin University 1990.

STA

E. Chiera, Selected Temple Accounts from Telloh, Yokha and Drehem. Cuneiform Tablets in the Library of Princeton University. Philadelphia 1922.

StOr 9/1

A. Holma and A Salonen, Some Cuneiform Tablets from the Time of the Third Ur Dynasty (Holma Collection Nos. 11-39). Studia Orientalia 9/1. Helsinki 1940.

Abbreviations

xix

STU

C. L. Bedale, Sumerian Tablets from Umma in the John Rylands Library - Manchester. Manchester 1915.

Studies Hilprecht

Hilprecht Anniversary Volume: Studies in Assyriology and Archaeology dedicated to Hermann V. Hilprecht upon the Twenty-Fifth Anniversary of his Doctorate and his Fiftieth Birthday (July 28) by his Colleagues, Friends and Admirers. Leipzig/London/Paris/Chicago 1909.

Studies Hruška

L. Vacín (ed.), U4 du11-ga-ni sá mu-ni-ib-du11. Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Memory of Blahoslav Hruška. Dresden 2011.

Studies Leichty

A. K. Guinan, et al. (eds.), If a Man Builds a Joyful House: Assyriological Studies in Honor of Erle Verdun Leichty. Cuneiform Monographs 31. Leiden 2006.

Studies Owen

A. Kleinerman and J. M. Sasson (eds.), ‘Why Should Someone Who Knows Something Conceal It?’ Cuneiform Studies in Honor of David I. Owen on His 70th Birthday. Bethesda 2010.

Studies Sigrist

P. Michalowski (ed.), On the Third Dynasty of Ur. Studies in Honor of Marcel Sigrist. Journal of Cuneiform Studies - Supplementary Series 1. Boston 2008.

SumRecDreh.

W. N. Nesbit, Sumerian Records from Drehem. New York 1914.

SumTemDocs.

E. Margolis, Sumerian Temple Documents. New York 1915.

Syracuse

M. Sigrist, Textes économiques néo-sumeriens de l’Université de Syracuse. Paris 1983.

TAD

S. H. Langdon, Tablets from the Archives of Drehem, with a Complete Account of the Origin of the Sumerian Calendar, translation, commentary and 23 plates. Paris 1911.

TCCBI 2-2

F. Pomponio, M. Stol, and A. Westenholz (eds.), Le tavolette cuneiformi delle collezioni della Banca d’Italia. II. Tavolette cuneiformi di varia provenienza delle collezioni della Banca d’Italia. Rome 2006.

TCL 1

F. Thureau-Dangin, Lettres et contrats de l’époque de la première dynastie babylonienne. Textes cunéiformes. Musée du Louvre 1. Paris 1910.

TCL 2

H. de Genouillac, Tablettes de Drehem, Textes cunéiformes. Musée du Louvre 2, Paris 1911.

TCL 5

H. de Genouillac, Textes économiques d’Oumma de l’époque d’Our. Textes cunéiformes. Musée du Louvre 5. Paris 1922.

TCS

G. Boson, Tavolette Cuneiformi Sumere degli Archivi di Drehem e di Djoha, dell’Ultima Dinastia di Ur. Milan 1936.

TCS 1

E. Sollberger, The Business and Administrative Correspondence under the Kings of Ur. Texts from Cuneiform Sources 1. Locust Valley 1966.

TCTI 1

B. Lafont and F. Yıldız, Tablettes cunéiformes de Tello au Musée d’Istanbul datant de l’époque de la IIIe Dynastie d’Ur. I (ITT II/1, 26171038). Uitgaven van het Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Institut te Istanbul 65. Leiden 1989.

TCTI 2

B. Lafont and F. Yıldız, Tablettes cunéiformes de Tello au Musée d’Istanbul. Datant de l’époque de la IIIe Dynastie d’Ur. II (ITT II/1, 2544-2819, 3158-4342, 4708-4713). Uitgaven van het Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Institut te Istanbul 77. Leiden 1996.

TÉL

M. Lambert, Tablettes économiques de Lagash (époque de la IIIe dynastie d’Ur) copiées en 1900 au Musée Impérial Ottoman par Charles

xx

Abbreviations Virolleaud. Cahiers de la Société Asiatique 19. Paris 1968.

TIM 6

F. Rashid, Administrative texts from the Ur III Dynasty. Texts in the Iraq Museum 6. Baghdad 1971.

TJAMC

E. Szlechter, Tablettes juridiques et administratives de la IIIe Dynastie d’Ur et de la Ier Dynastie de Babylone, conservées au Musée de l’Université de Manchester et à Cambridge, au Musée Fitzwilliam, à l’Institut d’Études Orientales et à l’Institut d’Egyptologie. Paris 1963.

TLB 3

W. W. Hallo, Sumerian Archival Texts. Tabulae Cuneiformes a F. M. Th. de Liagre Böhl Collectae, Leidae Conservatae 3. Leiden 1963.

TMH 6

J. J. A. van Dijk and M. J. Geller, Ur III Incantations from the Frau Professor Hilprecht-Collection, Jena. Texte und Materialien der Frau Professor Hilprecht-Sammlung vorderasiatischer Altertümer im Eigentum der Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena 6. Wiesbaden 2003.

TMH NF 1-2

A. Pohl, Rechts- und Verwaltungsurkunden der III. Dynastie von Ur. Texte und Materialien der Frau Professor Hilprecht Collection of Babylonian Antiquities im Eigentum der Universität Iena, Neue Folge 1-2. Leipzig 1937.

Torino 1

A. Archi and F. Pomponio, Testi cuneiformi neo-sumerici da Drehem. N. 0001-0412. Catalogo del Museo Egizio di Torino 7. Milan 1990.

Torino 2

A. Archi, F. Pomponio, and G. Bergamini, Testi Cuneiformi NeoSumerici da Umma. NN. 0413-0723. Catalogo del Museo Egizio di Torino 8. Turin 1995.

Trouvaille

H. de Genouillac, La Trouvaille de Dréhem. Paris 1911.

TRU

L. Legrain, Le Temps des Rois d’Ur. Paris 1912.

TSDU

H. Limet, Textes Sumeriens de la III Dynastie d’Ur. Gembloux 1973.

TUT

G. Reisner, Tempelurkunden aus Telloh. Berlin 1901.

UCP 9/2

H. F. Lutz, Sumerian Temple Records of the Late Ur Dynasty. University of California Publications in Semitic Philology 9/2, 1-2. Berkeley 1928.

UDT

J. B. Nies, Ur Dynasty Tablets. Texts Chiefly from Tello and Drehem Written during the Reigns of Dungi, Bur-Sin, Gimil-Sin and Ibi-Sin. Leipzig 1920.

UDU

G. Contenau, Umma sous la Dynastie d’Ur. Paris 1916.

UET 3

L. Legrain, Business Documents of the Third Dynasty of Ur. Ur Excavations Texts 3. London 1937.

UET 6/2

C. J. Gadd and S. N. Kramer, Literary and Religious Texts. Second Part. Ur Excavation Texts 6/2. Pennsylvania/London 1966.

Umma

G. Contenau, Umma sous la Dynastie d’Ur. Paris 1916.

UTI 3

F. Yıldız and T. Gomi, Die Umma-Texte aus den Archäologischen Museen zu Istanbul. Band III (Nr. 1601-2300). Bethesda 1993.

UTI 4

T. Gomi and F. Yıldız, Die Umma-Texte aus den Archäologischen Museen zu Istanbul. Band IV (Nr. 2301-3000). Bethesda 1997.

UTI 5

F. Yıldız and T. Ozaki, Die Umma-Texte aus den Archäologischen Museen zu Istanbul. Band V (Nr. 3001-3500). Bethesda 2000.

UTI 6

F. Yıldız and T. Ozaki, Die Umma-Texte aus den Archäologischen Museen zu Istanbul. Band VI (Nr. 3501-3834). Bethesda 2001.

Van Kampen

Tablets in the Van Kampen Collection, Scriptorium, Center for Biblical

Abbreviations

xxi

Antiquities. Orlando. VS 10

H. Zimmern, Sumerische Kultlieder aus altbabylonischer Zeit. II. Vorderasiatische Schriftdenkmäler der Königlichen Museen zu Berlin 10. Leipzig 1913.

VS 14

W. Förtsch, Altbabylonische Wirtschaftstexte aus der Zeit Lugalunda’s und Urukagina’s. Vorderasiatische Schriftdenkmäler der Königlichen Museen zu Berlin 14. Leipzig 1916.

WMAH

H. Sauren, Wirtschaftsurkunden aus der Zeit der III. Dynastie von Ur im Besitz des Musée d’Art et d’Histoire in Genf. I: Umschrift und Übersetzung, Indizes. Naples 1969.

WO

Die Welt des Orients. Göttingen.

YBC

Tablets in the Yale Babylonian Collection. Yale University.

YOS 4

C. E. Keiser, Selected Temple Documents of the Ur Dynasty. Yale Oriental Series 4. New Haven 1919.

YOS 15

A. Goetze (edited by B. R. Foster), Cuneiform Texts from Various Collections. Yale Oriental Series 15. New Haven/London 2009.

YOS 18

D. Snell and C. Lager, Economic Texts from Sumer. Yale Oriental Series 18. New Haven/London 1991.

ZA

Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und vorderasiatische Archäologie. Berlin.

Foreword Workshops devoted to the Ur III period have been a feature of the Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale roughly every other year beginning in London in 2003. In 2009 we asked the community of Neo-Sumerian scholars to convene the following year in Madrid before the Rencontre in Barcelona so that we could have a longer and more specialized meeting. The results exceeded our expectations. The meeting had more than 50 participants and included eight topical sessions and 27 papers. The program of the conference can be found at the end of this volume. This volume collects the proceedings of this three-day conference held in Madrid in July 2010, and it highlights the vitality of the study of late third millennium BC Mesopotamia. The 21 contributions included here cover a broad range of topics offering new texts, new interpretations, and new understandings of the language, culture, and history of the Ur III period (2112 – 2004 BC). The present and future of Neo-Sumerian studies are important not only to the field of Assyriology but also to wider inquiries into the ancient world. The extant archives offer insight into some of the earliest cities and one of the earliest kingdoms in the historical record. The era of the Third Dynasty of Ur is also probably the best-attested century in antiquity. This imposes a responsibility on our small community to make this material accessible to a broad and interdisciplinary audience in the humanities and related fields. We believe this volume is a solid step in this direction. The Ur III textual corpus has been the subject of intensive analysis for about a century. In this volume, once settled questions are reopened and new questions are framed concerning topics as broad as authority, geography, and labor. Many of the contributors not only sum up the results of their current research, but they also chart a course for future work for themselves and their colleagues. Though most of the contributions are offered in English, the authors represent an international gathering of specialists on the Neo-Sumerian period. As editors we encouraged presenters to bring their papers to press and to take into account the lively discussion that took place in Madrid. We gave authors a great deal of latitude in terms of the length of their published contributions. We sought to establish consistency in many areas while honoring the conventions adopted by each author. We respected author preferences in transliterations and onomastics. At the same time, we tried to establish some uniformity in the presentation of commonly known place names, such as Šuruppak (vs. Šurubag), as well as divine and royal names, such as Ur-Namma (vs. Ur-Nammu), but we have deferred to individual authors if they maintained a clear preference for a less common usage. ***

xxiii

xxiv

Foreword

As organizers of the conference and editors of this volume we thank the Spanish Ministerio de Ciencia y Innovación, Western Washington University, and the CSIC for their generous financial and technical support without which we could not have undertaken the meeting. The Centro de Ciencias Humanas y Sociales (CSIC) provided additional financial support, a warm welcome and a gracious venue for the conference. We thank Barbara Böck and Ignacio Márquez Rowe, members of the organizing committee, for their enthusiastic help. We also gratefully acknowledge the invaluable assistance of Ricardo Dorado, Enrique Jiménez, and David Pacual. The members of the scientific committee for the conference in Madrid deserve our special appreciation: Natalia Koslova, Bertrand Lafont, David I. Owen, and Walther Sallaberger. The kind cooperation of the organizers of the 56th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale allowed us to coordinate the dates of this meeting with those of the Rencontre in Barcelona. We are grateful to all of the participants and attendees for making it such a lively meeting. We thank the contributors to this volume for their insights, their research, and their patience. Finally, we thank Jim Eisenbraun and Eisenbrauns Inc. for producing such a handsome volume.

Steven Garfinkle Bellingham, WA

Manuel Molina Madrid September 5, 2013

Ur III as a Linguistic Watershed Miguel Civil ORIENTAL INSTITUTE, CHICAGO

Morphophonemics is an immensely complex matter, which has absorbed an enormous amount of scholarly energy.

R. Lass, Phonology 73

1. Written Languages Sumerian grammars do not always seem sufficiently precise about the subject of their study. It is not stressed enough, perhaps because it is taken as self-evident, that the Sumerian textual corpus available to us is exclusively a written one. All extinct languages of course are accessible only through written documentation. Sumerian, however, is a written language in a deeper sense because a large number of its preserved documents were created as written texts and intended to be used as such. The history of Sumerian is necessarily above all the history of its writing system. This brief study is therefore mainly an investigation of the evolution of a few features of written texts. Only at the end some remarks will explore possible phonological justifications for the historical changes. All writing systems show in varying degrees a lack of fit between the graphic symbols and the phonology of the language they are intended to represent. The Sumerian system is no exception. On the contrary, non-uniqueness of relationships is a constant feature of the system. To make things clear, a very brief and extremely simplified survey, unnecessary to most readers, of the various types of mismatch will be useful before tackling the main subject.

2. Types of Signs Leaving aside relatively secondary functions, such as classifiers and pronunciation glosses, the Sumerian cuneiform writing system uses three classes of symbols, according to the type of referent: (a) logograms representing words, i.e., free morphemes, lexicon entries with a semantic content, indirectly connected to phonological shapes. (b) morphograms representing bound morphemes or function words, including, directly or indirectly, their phonological shapes. Morphograms should not be considered to be primarily phonograms. 3

4

MIGUEL CIVIL

(c) phonograms, or syllabograms, representing phonological segments (there seem to be no cases of representation of suprasegmental features). In the ordinary texts, their use is restricted to the representation of proper names, loanwords, and a few native free morphemes. They play, however, a central role in the syllabaries and similar didactic texts.

3. Types of Mismatches What follows is a brief description of some of the more significant kinds of mismatches encountered in Sumerian texts.

3.1. Abbreviation Abbreviation, sometimes carried to the extreme of complete omission, is present, not surprisingly, in most writing systems. The reader is presumed to have a mastery of the language and therefore is considered capable of supplying more or less predictable elements. In the case of Sumerian, omissions can affect (a) the morphology, as when bound morphemes, such as /n/ and /š/ after m e , or preradical - n - /- b - , are left unrepresented, or (b) the phonology, for instance, in the suppression of the final consonant C2 of some -C1VC2- segments that function as phonograms with a /C1V/ shape. Early Sumerian omits mainly bound morphemes and function words, free morphemes are very rarely omitted and then only in formulaic contexts. Early Dynastic elliptic elements become progressively explicit, and by Ur III times only final consonants and certain bound morphemes are still omitted.

3.2. Arbitrary Sequence In early Sumerian, the elements of a phrase or sentence are often arbitrarily arranged within a case, rather than presented in a linear sequence. This arbitrariness is a most unexpected idiosyncracy, unattested elsewhere in writing systems.1 We can explain this through the early scribes’ strategy of downward analysis from clause to sounds, rather than the modern customary way from phonology to morphosyntax. Well before Ur III, the linear sequence became dominant, except in residual cases like the “abzu-compounds.”2

3.3. Multiple Representation3 For a variety of reasons, such as the avoidance of a proliferation of new symbols, or the preservation of traditional, obsolete readings, the same grapheme may represent multiple phonological segments, multiple grammatical forms, or multiple lexical items. For instance, Ea 6 (unpublished) offers no less than 17 readings for the sign DU, Ea 7 (CUSAS 12 1.1.2) offers 13 readings for the sign NE (in both

––––––––––––– 1. The occasional non-sequential grouping of graphemes in Egyptian hieroglyphics is limited to the word and obeys aesthetic considerations. 2. This label can be used for graphically compound words, such as ZU.AB = /abzu/ or GAL.UŠUM = /ušumgal/, in which the sequence of signs is inverted in relation to their reading. 3. A perhaps too theoretical discussion of the problem is found in Civil 1973.

Ur III as a Linguistic Watershed

5

cases not counting compounds and derivations). The opposite is also possible: more than one grapheme may represent the same grammatical entity.

3.4. Generic Representation This is a particular type of multiple representation (3.3). Given two or more grammatical elements that share a certain feature, a member of the resulting set can be represented not by the form that suits best a particular context, but by another member of the set. This happens (a) in the case of suppletive paradigms,4 as when a marû form is represented by the corresponding hamṭu, (GAR for ŋ á - ŋ á , or KA read /e/); (b) when a group of phonemes share common features that are disregarded in writing (the Early Dynastic Sumerian scribes could see the application of this criterion in the scribal habits of their contemporary Semitic colleagues);5 or (c) in the case of morphophonemic representation.6 This particular type of relationship between a graphic symbol and the language entity it represents will be the main subject of this paper, and is further discussed below. Generic representations are mostly motivated by economic considerations (to avoid the proliferation of signs), but their choice may also be motivated, at least in part, by purely social or psychological reasons, such as professional pride.7

3.5. Free Variation The relation between written and oral language is arbitrary in a stronger sense than the relation between a simple lexical unit and what it denotes. There is no limit to the arbitrariness of scribal rules, which may result in all kinds of convoluted conventions and simplifications. The reasons for the choice of replacements are often impossible to ascertain, they may even be extralinguistic, purely social or psychological. Scribal errors can be considered also (involuntary) free variations, sometimes with useful diagnostic value.

4. Morphophonemics The phonological shape of a given language element is not always constant: (a) it can be phonologically modified by contact with neighboring elements, or (b) the modification itself can be the expression of a morphological process. Classical examples of (a), that do not need to be elaborated here, include the plural suffixes in

––––––––––––– 4. Note that suppletive alternations are unpredictable and thus not amendable to general rules. 5. A prototypical example is the generic representation of consonants in the Semitic syllabic system, as used for instance in Ebla, where the voicing of stops was disregarded, and in the case of dental/alveolars Z-signs = {/s/ /z/ /ṣ/ /ḍ/ ẓ/}, Š-signs = {/d/ /t/}, Ś-signs = {/ś/ /š/}, and so on. It is obvious that the cuneiform syllabic system is a Semitic invention since it was not needed to write ordinary Sumerian, a point that will be elaborated elsewhere. 6. The result is that in cases of phonological representation, the graphemes in (b) and (c) do not represent points in the articulatory space, but rather regions or areas such as “dentalness,” or “high centralness.” 7. The author of an Arabic manual for the training of secretaries advises: “the scribe should be careful not to ... use diacritical points and signs, because in doing so he belittles the one who is addressed. Such usage gives the impression that the addressee is so deficient in knowledge as to need them in his correspondence.” Hilāl al-Ṣābi’ (969-1056) Rūsum dār al-Khilāfah.

6

MIGUEL CIVIL

English, and the final stops in German. An example of (b) can be the vowel alternation of an internal plural, as in foot : feet. The phonological variants, as in (a), of one morpheme, bound or free, are allomorphs that can be grouped in morphophonemic sets. Morphophonemics is above all a structural phonological phenomenon. Complications can arise in two main directions: first, in the choice of the basic form of the allomorphs in a linguistic analysis,8 and, secondly, in the choice of its generic, written representation. The first is of no immediate concern here. As for the second, for economical or historical reasons, a member of the set can be represented in writing not by the variant that best fits a particular situation, but by another member of the set, “basic” or not. A prototypical example is [s] representing /s/, /z/, or /es/ in the plural of English nouns. If no phonological alternation is suspected, alternative writings of the same morpheme should not be considered strictly morphophonemic, but rather cases of free variation (3.5), e.g., /-en/ written variously as - e n , - è n , or - e n 8 . Sumerologists long ago correctly analyzed morphophonemic sets. Poebel’s 1931 study of the verbal affixes in Pre-Sargonic Lagaš is a good example of morphophonemic analysis avant la lettre. The graphic angle, however, namely the possibility of the graphic representation of one member of the set by another was not yet raised.9 The first explicit mention of morphophonemic theory applied to Sumerian seems to be Biggs and Civil 1966; see also Civil 1973: 25 (“MP1 encoding”). It has not been used much, at least explicitly; see, however, for instance, Attinger 1993,10 Klein 2005, and Rubio 2005. There are, however, examples in the Sumerological literature of the opposite incorrect approach, namely the attribution of specific meanings to specific allomorphs. 11

5. Changes in Ur III Sumerian The present investigation will be centered on the corpus of administrative Ur III documents.12 This limitation creates a serious methodological problem: there is a dearth of strictly comparative material before, and, to a lesser extent, after the period. Not only there is a quantitative uneveness, but also one is forced occasionally to compare texts belonging to different genres. The study of a historical change implies, whenever possible, a complete knowledge of the synchronic situation be-

––––––––––––– 8. Does one choose the historically primary allomorph? A more or less abstract form from which the other allomorphs can de derived by explicit rules? The most frequent form? 9. This is not completely exact: Poebel 1923: §§542-44 is willing to consider the verbal a-prefixes as merely an Umlaut of e/i-; less clearly in Poebel 1931: 25 (appeals to historical change). Note the reaction in Jacobsen 1965: 75, note 5. Both authors do not consider solutions based on graphic, morphophonemic terms. For the distribution of a- prefixes in actual texts, see, among others, Steinkeller and Postgate 1992: 35, Civil 1994: 23-24 (Edubba R turns out now also to prefer a- forms). 10. Attinger 1993: 133-35 uses the more European term “Graphies morphophonologiques” that has the advantage of showing the representation factor, but includes things, for instance suppletive alternations, that are not considered strictly morphophonemic in the American linguistic tradition. 11. Jacobsen 1965 disregards the basic principle of communication, and consequently of language, that “what is predictable cannot carry information,” and attributes specific meanings to specific allomorphs. Thus, for instance, in the case of -da- vs. -di-, the first is labeled “comitative (illative),” the second “adcomitative (allative),” instead of simply adopting a phonological context rule: da > di/_Ci. These affixes are furthermore analyzed as consisting of d + a and d+ i, respectively. 12. Rubio forthcoming is an in depth study of the literary texts of the period and their linguistic peculiarities; see, for the moment, Rubio 2005.

Ur III as a Linguistic Watershed

7

fore and after the change, but this condition is only partially fulfilled in the case of Ur III Sumerian. The following is a simple enumeration of the various types of changes, exemplified mostly by the Ur III cylinder with the Laws of Ur-Namma (for details and references, see Civil 2011). 5.1. Signs: graphic variations apparently not affecting readings nor meanings: written LAGAB×GUD or LAGAB×PA; KU4 written KWU 147 (LIL) or KWU 636 (ŠE.ŠU); DAM ending in a Winkelhaken or in a vertical wedge.

DIB

5.2. Sign preferences: - è n , - e n 8 , for - e n ; - é š , - e š , - i š , in free or local variation. 5.3. New or rare readings: LAGAB×U = /bur/. 5.4. Syllabic spellings: a - g ù for u g u , h a - a š for h a š , t e - n a for d a - n a or d a n a , l a h 5 - t a n for l à h t a n . 5.5. Phonetic indicators: a - š à GÁN, TARa r ,

gá

GARa r

(with several variants).

5.6. Bound morphemes: spellings not found regularly elsewhere, like ì - i m - , or ba-a-. 5.7. Morphophonemic spellings: ì - b í - < ù - b í -; h a - m u -, replaced later by h u m u -; ù - u l - < ù - a l -,13 etc. 5.8. Morphology: omission of predictable elements within the word: (š u ) b a - t i = /banti/ or /babti/, or at its end: m e = /men/ and /meš/; archaic, graphically reduplicated forms, like è - è . 5.9. Lexical items: á - d a r for á - g a r ; é - g i 4 for a - g i 4 ; a n š e s í - s í ; PAD.( d ) MÙŠ. 5.10. Syntax: k i PN-t a , for simple ablative case; m u ...- š è for destination; new or at least extension of use of conditional t u k u m - b i . The preceding list includes innovations, retention of old forms, and items that cease to be used after the end of Ur III. What follows, rather than provide a necessarily very long, comprehensive catalogue of changes, focuses in detail on a few symptomatic, already known, innovations that seem to be particularly indicative of the evolution of Sumerian and of its causes, trying to avoid cases with insufficient source material, that are unclear, or controversial, like some verbal affixes.

––––––––––––– 13. Note the alternation of forms, one of them with a l - as a morphophonemic form (a l - = *ù - a l -): (k i š i b )

ú-gu ba-an-dé ú-gu ba-dé ú-gu ba-an-dé

ù - u l - p à d z i - r e - d a m ( OrSP 47-49 411: 7-9) a l - p à d z i - r e - d a m ( TMH NF 1-2 47: 10-13) a - b a - p à d z i - r e - d a m ( NRVN 1 244)

Other cases of ù - u l -: TCL 5 6048 = NSGU 2 215: i.3 ( g í d ), 2: 1 ( d í m ); TMH NF 1-2 359: 2 ( b í l ); TMH 6 20: 8 ( g a z ); etc.

8

MIGUEL CIVIL

6. Ur III Morphophonemic Sets 6.1. { / u / - : / a / - : / i / - } in the preverb of anteriority ù 6.1.1. /u/- > /a/- before b a Pre-Ur III: Already in the so-called “Barton” or Enlil cylinder (Alster and Westenholz 1994) xv.8-11: m u š e n a - b a - š u b - b é , k u š a - g á - l á - a - k e 4 z í d a - b a - t a - s i g e , k u š u m m u d - k e 4 a a - b a - t a - d é . In legal Sargonic texts: a - b a - š ú m (MAD 4 150: 7); less unambiguous: š u a - b a - g á l (BIN 8 169; Krecher 1973: 235). Gudea: no examples. Ur III legal: a - b a - p à d (NRVN 1 244); ú - g u a - b a - d é (Sale Documents 94**); m á š a - š à - g a a - b a - r a - z i (TCL 5 6170 = NSGU 2 144: 14); and in the PN a - b a t i - l a - d a (ITT 3 5279 = NSGU 2 99: i.6), a - b a - d a - t ì l - a (ITT 3 5276+6570 = NSGU 2 204: ii.5). Ur III incantations: a - b a - n i - a k (TMH 6 7: 53); k i - g u b a - b a - s u 8 - s u 8 (9: 8)14; a - b a - n i - p a d (9: 21); a - b a - d a - t a b (11: ii.3-4). Literary: No examples in UK.15 Šulgi D 294//298//303: g ì r a - b a - d a - a n g u b .16 OB literary: quite frequent alongside the ù - form: ù - b a - = 56,6%; a - b a - = 43.4%. 6.1.2 /u/- > /i/- before b í - 17 Pre-Ur III: Apparently there are no early examples. Gudea: g ì r - z u / m u k i ì - b í - ú s (Cyl A: vi.15; A: xi.21). Ur III: relatively frequent, but misinterpreted at times by the editors: n u - m e ì - b í - d u g 4 - g a (ITT 2 3810 = NSGU 2 34: 11; NSGU 2 33: 7)18; ì - b í - š i - s a 1 0 (Molina, Studies Owen, 205 3: 12); d i ì - b í - d u g 4 LUN 421; ì - b í - d i b LUN c25. There are a couple of examples of ù - b í - in letters (TCS 1 203: 7; Owen, OrNS 40, 389 3: 6), and a couple more in ambiguous passages (CT 7 20 BM 13132: 12; OrSP 47-49 261: 1). Ur III incantations and medical texts: ì - b í - s u r (TMH 6 11: iii.6'-7'; or ì b í - ?); a - r a - 1 - t a - à m z ú ì - b í - g u b (TMH 6 20: 1719). ì - g e š ì - b í - š e š 4 (Civil, RA 54, 5772, pass.). Literary texts: UK: ì - b í - ⸢ d u n 5 ⸣ (B 29); i m ì - b í - i n - d u 8 - é š (C 21); ì - b í - g u 7 (C 78); but note: ù - b í - í b -[…] (A 23). Šulgi D: ì - b í - ì - s ù (193); Šulgi X: a l ì - b í - i n d u g 4 - g a (111). Otherwise not used in OB.

––––––––––––– 14. Geller in van Dijk et al. 2003: k i - t ú m - a b a - . 15. Here and below, UK = The Debate Between Copper and Silver (uruda-kù), own ms. 16. Klein 1981: g ì r - a b a - d a - . 17. The change ù - > ì - is not triggered by a following -n i - (Civil, RA 54, 57-72: ì - g e š ù - n i - š e š 4 125; a ù - n i - t u 5 137), unless some ì - n i - are ambiguous. 18. Falkenstein 1956-57: n u - m e - ì b í - , cf. remark p. 56, with misinterpretation of n u - ù - g i - n é , pl. n u - ù - g i - n é - e š . 19. Geller in van Dijk et al. 2003: k a - n i b í - d e 6 .

Ur III as a Linguistic Watershed

9

6.2. { / g a / - : / g u / - : / g i / - } in the volitive preverb *gV 6.2.1. /ga/- > /gu/-, written g ú - , before m u Ur III legal texts: g ú - m u - d u 8 (ITT 5 6952 = NSGU 2 73: 8'); g ú - m u - r a - r a b a - a l (Fish, AnOr 12, 103 5 = NSGU 2 132: 5); g ú - m u - r a - b a - a l (MVN 18 412); g u 1 - BU- d a m b í - d u g 4 (YBC 9820: 5, not coll.); but g a - m u - DU (ITT 2 3547 = NSGU 2 169: 11); g a - m u - r a - DU (Molina, Studies Owen, 208 6: 10). Literary. Šulgi D: g ú - m u - n i - r i g 7 220; g ú - m u - r í - í b - t a r a r 384-87 (but note g a - m u - b ù - b ù 123). OB: not used after Ur III (UK uses g a - m u - D: 03, 07”). 6.2.2. /ga/- > /gi/-, written g i 4 - , before /Ci/ (b í - , n i - , r í - ) Ur III legal texts or letters: no instances of g i 4 - . Literary: g i 4 - i m - s i (FLP 2627: iii.3 = Sjöberg, JCS 40, 168). In OB copies: Šulgi D: g i 4 - r í - í b - t a r a r (384-85); g i 4 - n i - i n - u g 7 (156); g i 4 - n i - i n - š ú (169); g i 4 n i - í b - b a l - b a l (125); g i 4 - b í - í b - g u 7 (176); g i 4 - b í - ì - m ú (222). Lugale 32: g i 4 - b i i b - ú s - à m (Ni 4138: i.6' = ISET 2 23) // OB g a - b í - ú s - ( e ) . OB: the form g i 4 - is not used after Ur III. These alternative spellings survived in late lexical lists as definitions of G A = lû: g e 2 0 : g e - e GA = lû (EaR A: 74), [ g e ] - ⸢ e ⸣ GA = lû (Ea4: 26). g u 1 1 : [ g u ] - ⸢ ú ⸣ GA = lû (Ea4: 27); cf. u n GAg u - ù - b í - t a b (Thureau-Dangin, RA 11, 144: 11). It is not an isolated case, one has similarly DA = /da/, /di/, /du/ = itti: da:

da

DA

dix:

di

* DA20

d u 2 0 : d u DA ( Nabnitu 1: 242-44). Contrast the case of NA = /ne/ and /nu/, with different meanings in the syllabaries, but possibly reflecting allophones of the negative n u : n e 6 : n é - e NA = -šu (Ea4: 106, Aa4/2: 216'). n u 8 : n u - u , n u - ú NA = la (Ea4: 107, Aa4/2: 217'). 6.3. { / h a / - : / h u / - : / h e / - } in the subjunctive-optative preverb Both h é - and h a - are attested in Pre-Ur III texts, in one case next to each other: d e n - l í l n a m h a - t a r š i d i m s i g 4 n a m - t a r h é - š u b (SF 78: 3-4). The following statistics are drawn from Krebernik’s index to his corpus of incantations (1984: 361-62): h a - = 8 times, h e - = 2, h é - = 4, h u - = 0 There seems to be no discernible difference in the phonological environment to justify the choice between h a - and h é - .21

––––––––––––– 20. Source A (K 2034 [CT 12 33], coll.) has DU, not DA, against MSL 16 57: 243; it is possibly a scribal error by confusion with d e 6 , always = babālu. Erimhuš 5: 197 is corrupt.

10

MIGUEL CIVIL 6.3.1. /hV/ > /hu/-, before m u -

No h u - m u - until after Ur III.22 In Ur III, h a - m u - and h é - m u - coexist, apparently as free variants, but the first is five times more frequent than the second.23 The form h é - m u - is well documented in literary OB, but practically always in h é m u - e - (with alternative variant h é - m e - ).24 Gudea has only h a - m u - . Ur III administrative texts use only h a - m u - / h é - m u - , with a single exception: h u - m u n a - a b - š ú m - m u (NATN 506).25 Incantations commonly considered of Ur III date have only h a - m u - (Kramer and Eren 1978: 171-175: ii.6', 8'; VS 10 189: 12, 193: 14). Ni 4185 (ISET 1 155, Ur III paleography, genre uncertain) has h a - m u - k u 4 k u 4 . Only h a - appears in the original Ur III royal inscriptions, but OB copies of the Ur-Namma Law Code and RIME 3/2.1.1.29 (Ur-Namma 29) v'.13' have h u instead of h a - .26 Some literary tablets, presumed for “paleographic” reasons to be of Ur III date, have h u - m u - : Ni 2126+4178 (ISET 1 153 [Michalowski, JCS 40, 156]): h u - m u - r a - t ù m (ii.3, iii.6'), h u - m u - r a - a n - DU (i.5), h u - m u - r a - a n - DU+DU (i.12, iii.10); the parallel Ni 13208 (ISET 1 154) has u 4 h u - m u - d ì - n i - í b - z a l - e (ii.10); Ni 13230 (ISET 1 149 [Cavigneaux and al-Rawi 1993: 101-03]): h u - m u - r i í b - SUM (5-6). But Ni 9680 (ISET 1 126), without Ur III paleography, has h a - m u (5', 6', 10', r. 2', 8'), but apparently h u - m u - n i - i [ n - x - g ] e in line 8'. In OB tablets, out of a large corpus with 384 cases of h u - m u - there are only 12 cases of h a - m u -: 6 from Šulgi hymns, 5 from Išme-Dagan hymns,27 and one from Išbi-Erra. Exceptionally UK (from OB sources) has 8 cases of h a - m u - against 2 cases of h u m u -.28 There are some isolated occurrences elsewhere, e.g., the proverb YBC 7693 (Alster 1997: 332, Ur III?), and textual variants, e.g., Edubba A 83 h a - m u - r a - g á -

––––––––––––– 21. The phonological relationship between /he/ and /ga/ requires investigation; note that both have initial /d/ in Emesal. 22. But note a questionable l u g a l g ú HU m u - r a - d a - a b - s á - g e (ARET 5 20-21 A: iv.4); cf. Krebernik 2003: 173 E1: iv.4 (ED). 23. In Ur III the form h a - m a - is three times more frequent than h é - m a - . A literary example is h é - m a - t a - BU- e in 6N-T990: 2'. Note still: h é - n a - seven times more frequent than h a - n a - , but h é b a - only fifteen times against hundreds of h a - b a - . The frequent use of h a - b a - , and h a - m i - , in personal names may skew the statistics. 24. A form phonologically and morphologically interesting: the vowel of the preverb is not assimilated to the presumed /u/ that follows /m/ (that would give *h u - m u - e - ), but to the following /e/. In this case what is the phonological status of the /u/? A glide? 25. Schneider 1946 in a pioneer study of the hV-preverb in Ur III, lists a single exception that turns out to be a typo: “Keis. STD 132” (= BRM 4 132: 6) has h a - m u - n a - a b - š ú m - m u , not h u - m u - . In Wilcke 2010: 20, note 70, h u - m u - g a 2 - g a 2 from SNAT 373: 16 is a misprint too, the tablet has h a - . 26. CUSAS 17 22: iv.5a has h u - m u -. The text is an OB interpretation of a Gudea inscription. Given its general style, reminiscent of the fragments in NFT 202-12, it could be a (questionable) indication that the scribes assumed that h a - m u - in Gudea was read /hu-mu-/. Cf. below note 29, on h i - i n ta-a-a. 27. Išme-Dagan texts show at times archaic features, imitating Šulgi texts (Klein 1985), for instance: CBS “2140”: 1' 7'-12': ú r k ù d e n - l í l - k e 4 UŠ.DAM- n a - k a ù d ù g h a - m u - t u - t u ; also IšmeDagan B 52: h a - m u - r a - a b - í l (STVC 72 obv!), 9': h a - m [ u ? - ; PBS 10/2 14. 28. A presumed instance of h a - m u - coexisting with h u - m u - on the same line in Inanna and Bilulu 114, reads in Kramer’s edition: e d i n - n a h a - m u - n i - í b - d u z í d h u - m u - n i - í b - ŠID- e , but his copy shows h u - in both verbs (Jacobsen and Kramer, JNES 12, 176 and pl. 67).

Ur III as a Linguistic Watershed

11

g á - n e (h a - one ms., h u - two mss.). Note finally that the generalized use of /hV/ in royal inscriptions may very well be an Ur III innovation (Civil 2011: 236).29

7. Phonological Interpretation All the preceding cases are (a) instances of distant regressive vocalic assimilation,30 and (b) the implicated morphemes are, by choice, of the same morphological rank (modals and ù of anteriority). While the preceding data show a common goal of better adjusting the spellings to the corresponding phonological forms, the picture that emerges shows an evolution that is far from uniform. Notice the asymmetric evolution of ù -, written a - before /a/, and ì - before /i/. The first is a pre-Ur III form retained by the OB scribes, the second is an innovation, temporarily accepted, but finally rejected by the same scribes that kept a - b a - . Thus the innovations /u/- > /i/-, /ga/- > /gu/-, and /ga/- > /gi/- are disregarded by the post-Ur III scribes, while ù - b a - and a - b a - < ù - b a - are both retained. The case of h u - m u - < h a - m u - is unique in that it is an almost unconditional OB innovation. In most cases, while the changes were intended to dispel pronunciation ambiguities, in practice they created new problems for the scribes.31 The misinterpretations by modern editors, noted above, show that the uncertainties stemming from the newly created forms are very real. This is especially evident in the case of ì - b í - : it seems that there was initially some resistance to its adoption, and then it was quickly and unconditionally eliminated from the OB scribal norms. The main reason is probably that the initial ì - was in direct competition with the vocalic conjugation prefix, or with an immediately preceding possessive -n i , or even with the noun ì “oil.”32 Phonological, or even phonetic, factors may also have played a role: there is in general a hesitation between ù and ì in initial position, exemplified by ì - š u b : ù - š u b (the first is ten times more frequent than the second in Ur III records), and in final position: l á - a (ED) : l á - ì (Ur III) : /la-u/ (Post Ur III, lexical), or k ú š - ù : k ú š - ì (š à à m - d a - k ú š - ì 6N-T780: 9, literary). The most likely explanation is the presence of a hypothetical glide. Curiously, in the case of a - b a - the potential ambiguity caused by the possible presence of a preceding locative - a , or the less likely

––––––––––––– 29. The form h i - i n - t a - a - a in CUSAS 17 22: iii.12'b corresponds to i m - t a - e 1 1 in Gudea. The OB scribe may have added mechanically the hV- preverb required by the Ur III style, or could it be that in the pre-Ur III royal inscriptions the preverb was always present, but was graphically omitted? 30. It can be considered of course a case of “vowel harmony,” but the descriptive general term above is used here on purpose and for practical reasons so as to avoid terminological problems (Umlaut, anticipatory co-articulation, etc.), and to indicate that a general discussion of Sumerian vowel harmony has no place in this short study. For recent discussions, see Keetman 2005, 2009, Smith 2007. “Vowel harmony” is used traditionally in Sumerian grammar as a label for “partial/full vocalic regressive assimilation.” The more often quoted cross-linguistic parallels (Turkish and Hungarian), on the contrary, exhibit progressive assimilation governed by the first vowel of the word. In such languages, the assimilatory process extends up to the word’s end, while in Sumerian it is limited to the preceding vowel, even if it is in an affix. Sumerian harmony is thus more like the one present in many African languages (in the Niger-Congo groups, e.g.). The articulatory mechanisms anticipating a coming vocalic sound are likely to be different from the ones in which the vowel quality is carried over from a preceding vowel. 31. The instinctive rejection, so frequent in history, of innovations in the language, and even the rivalries of scribal schools, may also have been factors in the elimination of the changes. 32. Or a noun ending in /-i/ : in LUN 421, source X (Ur III) has d i ì - b í - d u g 4 , while U (OB) has di bí-dug4.

12

MIGUEL CIVIL

coexistence with the interrogative a - b a , did not have a similar effect. Perhaps the change /u/- > /a/- was part of an older tradition (as shown by its presence in the Enlil cylinder) and was respected as such by the scribes. Phonetically, a pronunciation */wa/ of ù -,33 somehow related to the case of ì - : ù -, could also have played a role. In this hypothesis, a - would be just an indication of the loss of an initial glide /w/.34 The allomorphs /gu/ and /gi/ of the volitive g a - are both discarded with no hesitation; they may have not been part of an older tradition, they may have lacked pedigree. Furthermore, g ú is frequently the nominal part of a compound verb. The only really successful change is the practically unconditional replacement of h a - m u - by h u - m u - . Alongside ì - b í - , the presence of h a - m u - is the best orthographic diagnostic to assign a given text to Ur III times.

8. Historical Interpretation 8.1. The Ur III graphic innovations under discussion are not a unique episode in the history of Sumerian. The “vowel harmony” of Pre-Sargonic Lagaš offers some similarities with what happened a couple of centuries later. Ur III and PreSargonic Lagaš have in common (1) the purpose of making graphically explicit the membership of a morphophonological set, (2) they share, despite some differences,35 a process of regressive vowel assimilation, and (3) they did not result in lasting reforms. The central question is: do the Ur III graphic innovations, like the older ones, correspond to a need to make explicit a preexistent, but covert, phonological situation, or did the phonological and graphic changes occur simultaneously? One can call the first choice the diachronic interpretation, and the second the synchronic one. In the absence of direct evidence for sound changes, unavailable in the study of an extinct language, only more or less plausible interpretations can be suggested. Any explanation is susceptible to being formulated from the points of view of various linguistic persuasions none of which can eliminate apodictically competing interpretations (Sampson 1980). Furthermore, the psychological makeup of the investigator may play also a role. Some will have a natural dislike for fuzzy, probabilistic solutions and will favor clear-cut literal interpretations, a is /a/, i is /i/, and so on. Others, at the other end of the spectrum, will adopt more linguistically sophisticated approaches that will result in multiple, alternative, not immediately obvious explanations, each with its own degree of probability, perhaps providing an immediate solution less intellectually satisfying.36 The short life of the innovations suggests that the most probably correct interpretation is the diachronic one. Assimilations such as the ones involved here are most unlikely to re-

––––––––––––– 33. See Civil 2008. 34. The presence of glides in the phonological inventory of Sumerian is a real possibility deserving further investigation, witness Ebla spellings like n u - d u - g ú - w i - i n = */nu-tuku-w-en/ ARET 5 24-26: 3. 35. Pre-Sargonic Lagaš has “category harmony”: a vowel belongs to one of two vocalic groups or categories according to the vowel of the following syllable. Ur III exhibits “full harmony”: the vowel of one syllable is identical to the one of the following syllable. This assumes that the morphograms were not vocalically multivalued, something that the nature of the evidence does not allow always to decide. 36. I leave aside, as methodologically unsound, the approach, exemplified by Lieberman 1977, but not limited to it, that searches for a mythical atypical reference expected to provide the key to the solution. Thus the sign APIN is attributed a value (and sign name!) /*pin/, against all available evidence, on the strength of a questionable syllabic spelling.

Ur III as a Linguistic Watershed

13

verse themselves spontaneously, especially after a short period of time. A synchronic scenario would be more convoluted. It would imply the existence of a geographic or social dialect A subject to vocalic assimilation, while at the same time, a similar dialect B conserves the unassimilated forms. At a given moment, dialect A, the one that makes explicit the phonological innovations is the dominant one in the texts. A relatively short time later, dialect B becomes dominant and the older, unassimilated forms reappear in the texts. 8.2. In addition to reasons grounded in the nature of the process itself, one can only mention some other possible, contributing factors. In the first place, the status of the language at the time, was it vernacular or only techno-administrative? Nothing can be said about the linguistic situation in Pre-Sargonic Lagaš. Only direct statements could establish if Sumerian was “alive” in Ur III times, a question that has motivated uncountable discussions (Michalowski 2005). Incantations and mythical narratives (like the episode incorporated in “Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta”) and propaganda (Šulgi’s statements about his competence in Sumerian, and in several additional languages) are insufficient to provide an answer (Rubio 2006, Keetman 2010). Onomastics, in concrete the absolute predominance of Sumerian personal names in most Ur III archives, are also insufficient to ascertain if the Ur III subjects were Sumerian native speakers. History abounds in episodes of administrations imposing names of a given ethnic origin to its subjects, or to the members of its army. It will suffice to mention, for its sweeping nature, the case of the Philippine Islands. In 1849, the Spanish administration, in perhaps the biggest and most massive renaming operation in history, imposed Spanish names and surnames on all natives it could reach, selected from a “catálogo alfabético de apellidos,” a catalog that looks very much like a Mesopotamian school list of personal names. In such cases, and this applies to Ur III, onomastics offer no clue to linguistic and ethnic affiliation. The hypothesis that the society of Ur III consisted of a large population of unclear ethnic origins and linguistic affiliations, and of an administration, with Sumerian as official language, that imposed Sumerian names on anyone who fell under its control, is a somewhat extreme scenario, but a perfectly tenable one. An actual phonological change in an administrative language seems less likely than a graphic “reform.” On the other hand, could the need for more precise spellings be a symptom of decline in the use of Sumerian? Increasingly less competent users would have required more explicit orthographies. Another factor to be considered is the possibility of synchronic local variants (see above) that would have had a brief dominating influence over most Ur III scribes, and waned at the end of the period. Although, thanks to the BDTNS, the scribal habits of particular archives are becoming better known, there seems to be not enough evidence to evaluate this factor. Related to it would be the influence of a teaching school (or schools) that would have favored orthographies more explicit than the traditional ones. Nothing is known about the training of the hundreds of scribes of Ur III times, or of the existence of various schools. Surely, the scribes who wrote the records of the Inanna temple in Nippur had a quite different training than the scribes serving the lenders of the local financial circle. Complete lack of evidence prevents an evaluation of a possible schooling factor. The causes of the sudden rejection of the reforms, right after the crumbling of the Ur III empire are also unknown. Could the rejection be due to a political reaction against the Ur III

14

MIGUEL CIVIL

power and bureaucracy, or could it simply be a manifestation of the natural conservatism of the scribes? The sudden apparition and sudden demise of most of the changes discussed so far, speak for a passing scribal fad rather than for a genuine stage/phase of Sumerian historical phonology. The survival of the readings /gu/ and /gi/ of GA in Ea 4 (see 6.2.2) can be taken as a likely indication that, even if not given overtly in writing, the scribes of OB times and thereafter (as, for instance in NBGT) were aware of these morphophonemic alternations.

9. Conclusions 9.1. The graphic evidence discussed in this paper is but a small set of the changes that took place in Ur III times. One can safely assume that an examination of other verbal function elements, such as other verbal affixes, would result in a similar picture as far as phonology is concerned, but syntactic and lexical changes would reflect the influence of other additional causes. There is no uniformity in the adoption of changes. Even if general tendencies can be detected, each change has its own history, and, once introduced, it can be accepted or rejected, perhaps for being impractical, or because of a dislike for deviations from traditional forms. 9.2. The Ur III treatment of morphophonemic sets, agrees well with the general lines of the evolution of the cuneiform writing system as applied to Sumerian. Initially, bound morphemes and function words were not explicit, but were introduced progressively in a quasi-logographic manner: one of the allomorphs of a grammatical element represented it conceptually, but not in a phonologically precise manner. The Sumerian scribes, possibly under the influence of their Semitic colleagues, attempted at various times to remedy this situation. It is most likely that the changes affected only scribal habits, with hardly a change in the phonology. The available evidence suggests that a solution along the lines of what has been called above the diachronic solution (graphic changes in the representation of a pre-existent phonological situation) is the most probable one. One can speak of “orthographic reforms,” but not of contemporary phonological changes. Otherwise one would have to accept not only a most unlikely spontaneous reversal of an assimilation process, shortly after its appearance, but also that this took place, not once but at least twice, centuries apart, in the history of Sumerian. The new OB orthographies at the end of the Ur III period, and the rejection of some others introduced during this period, are the last historical change in the life of Sumerian texts. 9.3. And a final, sobering, and somewhat scary, conclusion: the phonological interpretation of bound morphemes is not a simple, direct matter, for where the tablet has a , it is possible that the grammarian has to see /i/ or /u/.37

––––––––––––– 37. This observation applies to vocalic mismatches of the writing system due uniquely to morphophonemic processes. An additional complication, so far not sufficiently explored in the case of Sumerian, is the possibility of a systematic under-differentiation of the vocalic symbols (to be compared to the lack of representation of voice in the stops) so that written u corresponds to /u/ and /o/, and written a corresponds to /a/ and /e/ (and occasionally to /i/). Something similar can be observed in the Baybayn writing system of Tagalog. See full discussion in Civil forthcoming.

Ur III as a Linguistic Watershed

15

Bibliography Alster, B. 1997 Proverbs of Ancient Sumer. Bethesda: CDL Press. Alster, B., and Westenholz, Aa. 1994 The Barton Cylinder. Acta Sumerologica 16: 15-46. Attinger, P. 1993 Eléments de linguistique sumérienne: La construction de du11/e/di «dire». Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis. Sonderband. Fribourg Suisse: Editions Universitaires. Biggs, R. D., and Civil, M. 1966 Notes sur les textes sumériens archaïques. Revue d’Assyriologie et d’Archéologie Orientale 60: 1-16. Cavigneaux, A., and al-Rawi, F. N. H. 1993 Gilgameš et Taureau de Ciel (ŠUL-MÈ-KAM): Textes de Tell Haddad IV. Revue d’Assyriologie et d’Archéologie Orientale 87: 97-129. Civil, M. 1973 The Sumerian Writing System: Some Problems. Orientalia. Nova Series 42: 21-34. 1994 The Farmer’s Instructions: A Sumerian Agricultural Manual. Aula Orientalis. Supplementa 5. Sabadell: AUSA. 2008 A Sumerian Connective Particle and Its Possible Semitic Counterparts. Aula Orientalis 26: 7-15. 2010 Sumerian Compound Verbs: Class II. Pp. 523-33 in Language in the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the 53e Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale 1/2, ed. L. Kogan et al. Babel und Bibel 4/2. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. 2011 The Law Collection of Ur-Namma. Pp. 221-286 + Pls. XCIII-CI in Cuneiform Royal Inscriptions and related Texts in the Schøyen Collection. Manuscripts in the Schøyen Collection. Cuneiform texts VI. Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology 17, ed. A. George. Bethesda: CDL Press. forthcoming Writing and Phonology. Clark, J., Yallop, C., and Fletcher, J. 2007 An Introduction to Phonetics and Phonology, 3rd ed. Malden: Blackwell. Falkenstein, A. 1956-57 Die neusumerischen Gerichtsurkunden. München: Verlag der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Jacobsen, Th. 1965 About the Sumerian Verb. Pp. 71-102 in Studies in Honor of Benno Landsberger on his Seventy-Fifth Birthday, ed. H. G. Güterbock and Th. Jacobsen. Assyriological Studies 16. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press. Keetman, J. 2004 Erneuerung des Syllabars im Ur-III-Akkadischen: Sprachreform oder Sprachwandel. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 94: 186-201. 2005 Die altsumerische Vokalharmonie und die Vokale des Sumerischen. Journal of Cuneiform Stuydies 57: 1-16. 2009 The limits for [-ATR] vowel harmony in Sumerian and some remarks about the need of transparent data. Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires 2009: 65. 2010 Enmerkar und Sulge als sumerische Muttersprachler nach literarischen Quellen. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 100: 15-31. Klein, J. 1981 Three Šulgi Hymns. Sumerian Royal Hymns Gloryfying King Šulgi of Ur. RamatGan: Bar Ilan University Press.

16

MIGUEL CIVIL

1985 Šulgi and Išme-Dagan: Runners in the Service of the Gods (SRT 13). Beer Sheva 2: 7*-38*. 2005 The Independent Pronouns in the Šulgi Hymns. Pp. 135-52 in Special Volume in Honor of Professor Mamoru Yoshikawa. The Study of Diachronic and Syncronic Variation in Sumerian: Papers Presented at the 6th Meeting of he Sumerian Grammar Discussion Group, Oxford, 17th and 18th September 1999, ed. J. Black and G. Zólyomi. Acta Sumerologica 22. Hiroshima: Middle Eastern Culture Center in Japan. Kramer, S. N., and Eren, M. 1978 A Tablet of Historical Significance from Nippur. Andolu Araştırmaları 6: 171-75. Krebernik, M. 1984 Die Beschwörungen aus Fara und Ebla. Texte und Studien zur Orientalistik 2. Hildesheim: Olms. 2003 Drachenmutter und Himmelsrebe? Zur Frühgeschichte Dumuzis und seiner Familie. Pp. 151-80 in Literatur, Politik und Recht in Mesopotamien: Festschrift für Claus Wilcke, ed. W. Sallaberger, K. Volk, and A Zgoll. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Krecher, J. 1973 Neue sumerische Rechtsurkunden des 3. Jahrtausends. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 63: 145-271. Lieberman, S. J. 1977 The Sumerian Loanwords in Old-Babylonian Akkadian. Harvard Semitic Studies 22. Missoula: Scholars Press. Michalowski, P. 2005 The Life and Death of the Sumerian Language in Comparative Perspective. Pp. 177-202 in Special Volume in Honor of Professor Mamoru Yoshikawa. The Study of Diachronic and Syncronic Variation in Sumerian: Papers Presented at the 6th Meeting of he Sumerian Grammar Discussion Group, Oxford, 17th and 18th September 1999, ed. J. Black and G. Zólyomi. Acta Sumerologica 22. Hiroshima: Middle Eastern Culture Center in Japan. Poebel, A. 1923 Grundzüge des sumerischen Grammatik. Rostock: Selbstverlag. 1931 The Sumerian Prefix Forms e- and i- in the Time of the Earlier Princes of Lagaš. Assyriological Studies 2. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Rubio, G. 2005 On the Orthography of the Sumerian Literary Texts from the Ur III Period. Pp. 203-25 in Special Volume in Honor of Professor Mamoru Yoshikawa. The Study of Diachronic and Syncronic Variation in Sumerian: Papers Presented at the 6th Meeting of he Sumerian Grammar Discussion Group, Oxford, 17th and 18th September 1999, ed. J. Black and G. Zólyomi. Acta Sumerologica 22. Hiroshima: Middle Eastern Culture Center in Japan. 2006 Šulgi and the Death of Sumerian. Pp. 167-80 in Approaches to Sumerian Literature: Studies in Honour of Stip (H. L. J. Vanstiphout). ed. P. Michalowski and N. Veldhuis. Cuneiform Monographs 35. Leiden: Brill. forthcoming Sumerian Literary Texts from the Time of the Third Dynasty of Ur. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. Sampson, G. 1980 Schools of Linguistics: Competition and Evolution. London: Hutchinson. Schneider, N. 1946 Die Wunschpartikel ha-, hé- und hu- in den Ur III-Texten. Orientalia. Nova Series 15: 89-94.

Ur III as a Linguistic Watershed

17

Smith, E. J. M. 2007 [-ATR] Harmony and the Vowel Inventory of Sumerian. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 59: 19-38. Steinkeller, P., and Postgate, J. 1992 Third-Millennium Legal and Adminstrative Texts in the Iraq Museum, Baghdad. Mesopotamian Civilizations 4. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. van Dijk, J. J., Geller, M., and Oelsner, J. 2003 Ur III incantations from the Frau Professor Hilprecht-Collection, Jena. Texte und Materialien der Frau Professor Hilprecht Collection of Babylonian antiquities im Eigentum der Universität Jena, Bd. 6. Wiesbaden : Harrassowitz Verlag. Wilcke, C. 2010 Sumerian, what we know and what we want to know. Pp. 5-76 in Language in the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the 53e Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale 1/1, ed. L. Kogan et al. Babel und Bibel 4/1. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.

Sumerian Adjectival Passives Using the *im- Prefix: The Old Babylonian Evidence and Some Possible Third Millennium Precursors*

J. Cale Johnson FREIE UNIVERSITÄT BERLIN

In contrast to traditional models of Sumerian grammar, in which phonological reconstruction and morphological analysis precede syntactic or pragmatic evaluations, I argue in my own work that syntactic and pragmatic analysis must precede or at least go hand in hand with morphological determinations and, more importantly, these syntactic and pragmatic analyses must be rooted in on-going discussions within disciplinary linguistics. The use of well-defined grammatical categories and the standard diagnostics for these categories that have been developed within disciplinary linguistics allows us to focus on the language specific evidence and philological argument that any real advance in our understanding of Sumerian demands. Moreover, once a standard grammatical category has been identified in Sumerian, we can leverage advances in comparative and theoretical syntax, hopefully leading to a fruitful dialogue between linguistic investigations within an Assyriological context and the theoretical work being carried out within disciplinary linguistics. In a recent monograph (Johnson 2010), I looked at syntactic and pragmatic contexts in Sumerian in which so-called applicative constructions have some traction and explanatory force: chiefly, contexts in which the usual syntax of locative constructions (primarily verbs formed with the * b í - prefix) is retasked to code a variety of non-locative phenomena such as unergative intransitives as well as causative and intensional predications. As part of that study, I also identified one particular use of the ventive prefix * i m - in conjunction with the * b a - n i - prefix, yielding a prefix with the form * i m - m a - n i - , that appears to function as a kind of evidential known as the mirative.1 The ubiquitous and occasionally rather meaningless use of the Sumerian ventive in */im-/ is further ameliorated with each specific use of the */im-/ that can be separated off from the undifferentiated mass of Sumerian “ventives” and provided with a specific morphosyntactic context

––––––––––––– * I would like to thank Mark Geller for a number of important comments on an early draft. I am responsible for any remaining errors. 1. Johnson 2010: 159-188. The mirative is an evidential category indicating that the speaker finds the situation described by the clause in question to be unusual, surprising or beyond expected norms.

19

20

J. CALE JOHNSON

and meaning.2 In this contribution I will draw attention to a second non-ventive use of an */im-/ prefix, namely the use of a bare * i m - prefix that immediately precedes a ḫamṭu (non-continuative) verbal root to code an “adjectival passive,” a grammatical category that was first identified in the 1970’s and has been an object of intensive study within disciplinary linguistics in recent years.3 In differentiating the “bare” * i m - prefixed verbal forms from other verbal forms that would normally be spoken of as “ventive,” I am necessarily appealing to a largely orthographic distinction in certain Old Babylonian literary texts, at least as a point of departure. The orthographic distinction between prefixes such as * i m - and * ì - i m - is among the most vexed questions in Sumerian grammar.4 If, however, we can identify syntactic or pragmatic contexts that can also be associated with a particular orthographic form (* i m - ROOTḫamṭu) as applied to a subset of the verbal lexicon (verbs other than intransitive verbs of directed motion), then we have a real possibility of breaking the morass of predicates that make use of the “ventive” down into a set of partially independent areas of research.5

1. Is There a Connection Between the *im- and *mu- Prefixes? The standard accounts of the Sumerian ventive are not simply descriptive, but in fact posit a theoretical model that links two, seemingly distinct, phenomena. The first of these two components of the standard theory is the use of the * m u verbal prefix to refer to oblique first person referents, as in the following example. (1) First person oblique in * m u - (PBS I/1 6: 42f; Foxvog 1974: 134) a-ba-a mu-da-an-nú Who will lie down with me?

––––––––––––– 2. Spaced characters are used for specific orthographic forms and forward slashes “/ /” for morphological entities that are represented by more than one orthography. The addition of an asterisk indicates that the form is incomplete, schematic or hypothetical, as for instance a verbal prefix without an accompanying verbal root. Thus some theories argue that * i m - and * ì - i m - both correspond to a single phonological string */im-/, while others do not. 3. The opposition between verbal and adjectival passives was first developed in early generative works such as Wasow 1977, but achieves a certain maturity in Levin and Rappaport 1986. Important recent studies include Kratzer 2000; Anagnostopolou 2003; Embick 2004. 4. Yoshikawa 1977; Wilcke 1988; Attinger 1993: 265-267; Balke 2006: 78-83; Wilcke 2010: 20-23. 5. Wilcke’s most recent discussion of Sumerian morphosyntax (Wilcke 2010) only became available to me as this paper was nearing completion, but one of Wilcke’s proposals does resonate with the proposal made here, namely Wilcke’s excursus on “an antipassive to the PRETERITE/ḫamṭu conjugation” (Wilcke 2010: 38, citing Wilcke’s still fundamental study of “Anmerkungen zum Konjugationspräfix /i/- und zur These vom silbischen Charakter der sumerischen Morpheme anhand neusumerischer Verbalformen beginnend mit ì - í b - , ì - i m - und ì - i n - ,” in particular Wilcke 1988: 15 (b3) and 42-43, with n. 141). Although I find Wilcke’s use of the term “antipassive” for these constructions untenable, his discussion of “transitive verbal forms in ì - i m - ... and parallel ones writing i m - only without an ERGATIVE marker in front of the base” does point to many of the same issues that are dealt with in this paper. For the most recent postulation of an antipassive in Sumerian, see Schulze and Sallaberger 2007, but it must be said that Schulze and Sallaberger do not seem to take into consideration the central role that questions of nominal specificity and intensional predication play in classic examples of the antipassive as in, for example, an Inuit language such as West Greenlandic (see Johnson 2010: 24-26 and literature therein).

Sumerian Adjectival Passives Using the *im- Prefix

21

Clearly in cases like this (as well as forms in which *mu- is correlated with first person direct objects in the marû),6 there are definite parallels to the Akkadian ventive and the homophonous first person dative. The second component of the standard theory consists of the use of the */im-/ verbal prefix with verbs of inherently directed motion such as ĝ e n ‘to go/come’ to indicate motion toward an origo of deixis. As long as we limit ourselves to verbs that were defined in the mental lexicon of native speakers of Sumerian as intransitive and inherently directional, the combination of the */im-/ prefix with this class of verbs is one of the most stable and consistent features of Sumerian grammar throughout its history. (2) Old Sumerian Ventive with ĝ e n (Nik. 1 313: i.6-ii.1; Jagersma 2010: 501) elamki-ta / e-ĝen-na-a When he came from Elam ... (3) Ur III Ventive with ĝ e n (Donald, MCS 9, 247: 29-30; Jagersma 2010: 500) lugal ki-en-gi-šè / ì-im-ĝen-na-a When the king came to Sumer. (4) Old Babylonian Ventive with ĝ e n (Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta 161; Mittermayer 2009: 172) ĝe6 ù-na-ka mul-àm im-ĝen He came through the starry night. These forms clearly exhibit the same grammatical phenomenon in spite of the fact that quite different orthographies are used to encode */im-/ in each historical phase of the language (* e - , * ì - i m - and * i m - respectively).7 The distinction between intransitive verbs of inherently directed motion like ĝ e n ‘to go/come’ and manner-of-motion predicates like k a s 4 – d u 1 1 ‘to run’ can also be brought into alignment with the well-known opposition between unaccusative and unergative predicates, as I have recently shown (Johnson 2010: 81-85). Thus verbs of inherently directed motion regularly employ the * b a - verbal prefix in their non-ventive rection (viz. motion away from speaker), and the * b a - prefix can be associated with unaccusative predicates. Manner-of-motion verbs like k a s 4

––––––––––––– 6. Attinger 1985. 7. For additional examples, see Yoshikawa 1978: 480; certain Old Babylonian grammatical paradigms ( i m - m a - ĝ e n ) as well as comparable third millennium forms é - e i m - m a - ĝ e n “He came to the temple” (Cyl A xviii.8; Jagersma 2010: 497) have sometimes been taken to suggest that the forms in (2) and (3) are reduced forms, deriving from i m - m a - ĝ e n through the loss of the vowel immediately before the root, when the nominalizer *-a is added to the finite verb (Jagersma 2010: 499, n. 1). If so, this would further differentiate true ventives involving verbs of directed motion from other “ventive” morphologies. The alternation between i - i m - ĝ e n (OBGT VII 74) and i m - m a - ĝ e n (OBGT VII 80) in the grammatical paradigms may also support such an interpretation; see Black 1996: 23-24 and Huber 2007: 4 for an overview.

22

J. CALE JOHNSON

– d u 1 1 , however, are not inherently directional and make use of the * b í - prefix in a compound verb structure that should be associated with unergative predicates. (5) Unaccusative in * b a - with verb of inherently directed motion (OBGT VII 90; Johnson 2010: 83) b a - ĝ e n = it-ta-lak He went away. (6) Unergative in * b í - with manner-of-motion verb (OBGT VIII 52 = Veldhuis 2005: 240, line 20'; Johnson 2010: 82) k a s 4 b í - i n - d u 1 1 = il-su-um He ran. As I have suggested (Johnson 2010: 83-85), however, manner-of-motion predicates can be converted into directed motion predicates through the use of a “double object construction” in * b a - n i - . Once converted into a directed motion predicate, originally manner-of-motion predicates like k a s 4 – d u 1 1 can also make use of * i m - to express motion toward the speaker or some other origo of deixis such as é ‘temple’ in the following example. (7) Ventive with converted manner-of-motion predicate (Enki and Ninḫursaĝa 245; Attinger 1984: 26-27; Johnson 2010: 84, ex. 75) d

n i n - ḫ u r - s a ĝ - ĝ á - k e 4 (first object é ) (second object k a s 4 ) i m - m a - a n - d u 1 1 (= * i m - m a - n i - Ø - d u 1 1 ( g ) ) Ninḫursaĝa ran to the temple. Therefore converted manner-of-motion predicates like k a s 4 i m - m a - a n - d u 1 1 should not be classified as miratives, but rather as precisely analogous to classic ventive forms such as i m - ĝ e n .8 The ventive hypothesis, as distinct from its two core descriptive components (* m u - with first person obliques/direct objects and */im-/ with verbs of inherently directed motion), links the semantics of movement toward an origo of deixis (prototypically associated with first person reference) to a morphological rule that explains why the * m u - prefix often surfaces in first person forms, while */im-/ tends to occur with non-first person forms (with a corresponding shift in the origo of

––––––––––––– 8. Certain apparent anomalies such as the use of the converted manner-of-motion paradigm with intransitive k u 4 ‘to enter’ in examples like Gilgamesh, Enkidu and the Netherworld 141b: a n z u m u š e n d è . . . ḫ u r - s a ĝ - š è b a - a n - k u 4 (= /ba-ni-Ø-ku4(r)/) “The Anzud-bird went into the mountains” (cf. durative intransitive forms like Gilgamesh, Enkidu and the Netherworld 263b: é - g a l s i s á - b i b a - a n k u 4 - k u 4 (= /ba-ni-Ø-ku4.ku4/) “he enters the palace easily”) simply result from the fact that k u 4 is lexically specified as a manner-of-motion predicate in Sumerian rather than a directed motion predicate (as it is in English), and must be converted into a directed motion predicate through the use of the double object construction in most circumstances; cf. Attinger 1993: 197.

Sumerian Adjectival Passives Using the *im- Prefix

23

deixis).9 Although the precise formulation of this morphological rule depends on the model of the verbal prefix (and Sumerian verbal morphology generally) that one adopts, nearly all proponents of the ventive hypothesis agree in positing an underlying morphological element *-M- that surfaces in different ways depending on its phonological environment. Defined in such narrow terms (morphological forms closely linked to clearly defined and demonstrable semantic fields under an hypothesis that generalizes over divergent forms), I am fully in agreement with the ventive hypothesis.10 In addition to these core examples of the Sumerian ventive, however, there are numerous other examples that make use of “ventive” morphology, but seem to have little or nothing to do with the semantics of movement toward an origo of deixis such as the speaker. It is precisely these “ventive” morphological forms, which lack any clear ventive meaning in context that we will focus on in this paper. (8) Nungal in the Ekur 43-46 (Sjöberg 1973: 30-31; Civil 1993: 73; Attinger 2003: 18)11 43. (hanging topic lú-ùlu-bi) am šu si-il-la-gen 7 šu gig-ge 4 (adjectival passive im-dab 5 ) 44. ĝ ì r i m u - u n - d a b 5 é a - n i r - r a - š è 45. t ú g i g i - n a m u - u n - s i š à s ù - g a m u - u n - ĝ e n 46a. (hanging topic ZERO [= lú-ùlu-bi]) kaskal ĝìri-na (marû *im- im-ḫa-al-ḫa-al-e) 46b. (hanging topic ZERO [= l ú - ù l u - b i ] ) s i l a d a ĝ a l - l a (adjectival passive i m - d a b 5 ) This man is held by a painful grip, like a wild ox with spread forelegs. She makes him go to the house of sorrow, She blindfolds him, she walks him in darkness, He forgets his way, He is caught in a wide street. (translation Civil) Anticipating my conclusions somewhat, I have bracketed a hanging topic in clauseinitial position in lines 43, 46a and 46b as well as the three bare *im- verbal forms in the passage. Largely for reasons of exposition, I will limit my discussion of ad-

––––––––––––– 9. For a good overview of the maximalist position (denying the existence of the * m u - conjugation prefix), see Jagersma 2010: 497-511, cf. the minimalism of Woods 2008: 111-160. 10. The classic discussion is Krecher 1985, but anticipated in a fundamental way by Foxvog’s unpublished dissertation (1974). Still, as Landsberger’s discussion in the essay in which he coined the term “ventive” makes clear (Landsberger 1923), the contrast between minimalists and maximalists visà-vis the ventive is already present, mutatis mutandis, in the early debate between Thureau-Dangin (1907) and Poebel (1908), the debate that undoubtedly suggested the category to Landsberger in the first place. 11. It is difficult to confirm Sjöberg’s variants without re-examining the original tablets; Sjöberg writes as follows: “L seems to have šu gig-gig in-dab5-bé; O: šu gig-ge4 im-dab5; Q: šu-gig-ge-dam; JJ: šu gig-ga [ ; T: ] x in-dab5” (Sjöberg 1973: 31). Attinger (2003) largely confirms the range of variation suggested by Sjöberg, but in line 46b Attinger has ( i ) - i m - r a (L and c), and in addition two further variants: i m - l u g (W), i m - TUŠ (P+). Attinger offers “il est poussé” and “il est parqué” respectively (Attinger 2003: 23).

24

J. CALE JOHNSON

jectival passives to ḫamṭu singular verbs with the form * i m - ROOTḫamṭu.12 If we simply have a look at Civil’s translation of the passage a number of features are noteworthy: ostensibly every one of the six finite verbs in the passage includes the “ventive” prefix, yet Civil’s translation uses something like an English adjectival passive to render the first and the last verbal forms in the passage, namely i m d a b 5 : “This man is held ...” (line 43) and “(This man) is caught” (line 46b). Whereas one can imagine ventive semantics operating in forms like ĝ i r ì m u - u n d a b 5 and m u - u n - ĝ e n , there seems to be no ventive connotation whatsoever in the * i m - prefix forms in the passage.

2. What Is an Adjectival Passive? The term adjectival passive itself arises in the context of early generative work in the 1970’s, primarily in distinguishing between two types of passivization: one type clearly verbal in form and meaning, hence the verbal passive, and the other exhibiting certain similarities to adjectival constructions, hence adjectival passive. For many English verbs, there is no clear morphological contrast between these two types of passivization, but the syntactic environment in which a given participial form occurs can be used to distinguish them. (9) English participial forms in context (Anagnostopoulou 2003: 2, ex. 1) a. b. c.

I have written three poems. Three poems were written by me. The poems are well written.

(perfect) (verbal passive) (adjectival passive)

Here in (9), for example, the English participial form written occurs in three different syntactic contexts: in (9a) it forms part of a perfect construction, in (9b) it is used in an ordinary verbal passive, while in (9c) we have a canonical example of the adjectival passive. In English at least, three tests have usually been applied in order to differentiate adjectival passives from their verbal counterparts: (i) only adjectival passives can also be used as an adjectival modifier within a nominal phrase (a poorly written text), (ii) the negative prefix un- can only be applied to the adjectival passive (an unwritten law), and (iii) only adjectival passives can act as the complement of verbs of appearance or seeming such as “act, become, look, remain, seem, sound” (Mary sounded uncertain).13 Much of the early debate surrounding the distinction between verbal and adjectival passives was centered on questions of how the lexicon relates to the grammar in a given language: adjectival passives were seen as lexically idiosyncratic and thus part of the mental lexicon, while the form and meaning of verbal passives was predictable on the basis of grammatical principle and therefore seen as deriving from the grammar rather

––––––––––––– 12. The grammatical categorization of marû forms that have the bare * i m - prefix remains unclear, but Grimshaw’s (1990) discussion of the opposition between event nominals and result nominals may be useful in elucidating the contrast; see Giannakidou and Rathert 2009: 6-7, for an overview. 13. See Anagnostopoulou 2003 for a more detailed description of these three tests. Also note that there is a second un- prefix that applies to English verbs and reverses a previously completed action, e.g. undo, but it is distinct from the un- that can be affixed to an adjectival passive.

Sumerian Adjectival Passives Using the *im- Prefix

25

than the lexicon. Many of the factors that led to this line of thought are assembled in Horn’s A Natural History of Negation. Citing work by Funk (1971), Horn points out that: adjectives based on iN- and (semiproductive) un-, even when they originate as evaluatively neutral and semantically contradictory sense, tend to develop a contrary, affective, and typically depreciatory meaning or connotation. Funk’s examples of this process include inadequate, inappropriate, inconvenient, incorrigible, infertile, irrelevant, uninteresting, and unsatisfactory. And only a failed comedy may be unfunny, not a successful tragedy.14

It is precisely these “affective, and typically depreciatory meaning[s]” that often make a clear and decisive interpretation of adjectival passives somewhat difficult.15 In order to properly define what an adjectival passive is, therefore, we need to distinguish it not only from verbal passives as in (9b) above, but we also have to carefully separate the adjectival passive from ordinary predicative adjectives such as open in a sentence like The door is open. Whereas English participial forms tend to be ambiguous, German allows us to draw a clear distinction between verbal passives (Vorgangspassiv) and adjectival passives (Zustandspassiv). Krazter in particular has used the German Zustandspassiv as a well defined morphosyntactic environment in which further subdivisions within the adjectival passive can be more easily identified. (10) Zustands- versus Vorgangspassive in German (Anagnostopoulou 2003: 4, ex. 8) a.

Das the

Kind child

war was

gekämmt combed

(adjectival/Zustandspassiv)

gekämmt combed

(verbal/Vorgangspassiv)

The child was combed. b.

Das the

Kind child

wurde became

The child was combed. The crucial difference between the two forms is the verb that serves as the auxiliary: in the adjectival/Zustandspassiv the auxiliary is sein ‘to be’, whereas the auxiliary in the verbal/Vorgangspassiv is werden ‘to become’. Although both ordinary adjectives and the adjectival passive make use of sein in their construction, adjectival passives allow various kinds of adverbial modification, which ordinary adjectival predicates generally do not.

––––––––––––– 14. Horn 2001: 282, citing Funk 1971. For a recent discussion of the lexically idiomatic character of adjectival passives, see Horvath and Siloni 2008. 15. The seemingly endless debates between lexicalists, who argue for a division of labor between the lexicon and the grammar in the production of meaning, and a movement like Distributed Morphology that argues against such a scenario, need not detain us here (see Embick 2004 for a nice discussion of how adjectival passives play out in a Distributed Morphology framework). It is worth noting, however, that even within Distributed Morphology approaches, the adjectival passive is seen as operating directly or almost directly on the lexical ROOT (in the sense of the term as used in Distributed Morphology).

26

J. CALE JOHNSON

(11) Adjectival passive vs. ordinary adjective in German (Anagnostopoulou 2003: 5, ex. 9) a.

Das the

Haar hair

war was

ziemlich rather

schlampig sloppily

gekämmt combed

schlampig sloppily

fettig greasy

The hair was rather sloppily combed. b.

Das the

Haar hair

war was

ziemlich rather

**The hair was rather sloppily greasy. Whereas the adjectival/Zustandspassiv in (11a) allows ziemlich schlampig, “rather sloppily,” as an adverbial modifier, the simple adjectival predicate in (11b) does not permit this kind of adverbial modification.16 Unfortunately adverbs in Sumerian are poorly understood, and although there are no clear manner adverbs among the examples of the Sumerian stative in */a(l)/- assembled by Yoshikawa or Edzard, there also seem to be no examples of the adjectival passive in */im-/ in conjunction with an adverbial expression.17 Kratzer also draws an important distinction between two types of adjectival passive in German: what she terms “target state” as opposed to “resultant state” adjectival passives. (12) Target state (adjectival) passive (Kratzer 2000: ex. 1a) Die Geisslein

sind

immer noch

versteckt.

The little goats

are

still

hidden.

(13) Resultant state (adjectival) passive (Kratzer 2000: ex. 2a) Der Briefkasten

ist

(*immer noch)

geleert.

The mailbox

is

(*still)

emptied.

Notice in particular that immer noch ‘still’ is only grammatical in connection to the target state adjectival passives, whereas it makes little sense to speak of a mailbox as being still emptied. Kratzer goes on emphasize that the target state passives are

––––––––––––– 16. Kratzer (2000) also notes several other important contrasts within the general environment of adjectival/Zustandspassiv constructions such as the fact that negated adjectival passives in German cannot be modified by adverbials and also that adjectival passives allow for a reflexive interpretation that verbal passives do not, but these distinctions are subtle and continue to be debated, see generally Rapp 1996; Anagnostopoulou 2003. 17. There is also a substantial tradition of associating the stative in */a(l)-/ with “variant” forms in either * i m - or * ì - , but these discussions have not, as a rule, postulated a distinct category for the forms in * i m - : Poebel 1923: 236; Yoshikawa 1982; Attinger 1993: 267-269; Edzard 2003: 91-92 and 97, among many others, see the overview in Yoshikawa 1995. Only Jagersma’s recent grammar (2010: 303307) draws the same distinction that I propose here, although in slightly different terms. Earlier discussions have largely focused on Ur III personal names such as d e n - l í l - l á - a l - s a 6 and d e n - l í l - l á - ì - s a 6 in which the opposition is between * a l - and * ì - . The same alternation between * a l - and * ì - also makes a rather striking appearance in OBGT VII 31-33 in opposition to OBGT VII 34-36; see Yoshikawa 1978: 467-468; Huber 2007: 7.

Sumerian Adjectival Passives Using the *im- Prefix

27

“in principle reversible,” hence their compatibility with immer noch, but the resultant state form “is irreversible and has to hold forever after.” In practice, the combination of ‘still’ with a resultant state adjectival passive is usually replaced by a simple adjectival construction: “Der Briefkasten ist immer noch leer” = “The mailbox is still empty.” Embick (2004) has extended some of Kratzer’s findings specifically with regard to the ambiguous participial forms in English, arriving at a threefold classification of predicates into simple adjective, verbal passive and (resultant state) adjectival passive.18 (14) Simple adjective, verbal and adjectival passive (Embick 2004, 356, exx. 1-2) a. b. c.

The door is open. The door was opened. = Someone opened the door. The door was opened.

(simple adjective) (eventive reading = verbal passive)

(resultant state reading = adjectival passive) = The door was in a state of having become open.

Given such a trichotomy, Embick points out that English participial forms are often two- and sometimes three-ways ambiguous. (15) ROOT Open Close Bless Age Rot Sink

Adjective

Eventive passive (verbal)

Resultant state (adjectival)

open clos-ed bless-èd ag-èd rott-en sunk-en

open-ed clos-ed bless-ed ag-ed rott-ed sunk

open-ed clos-ed bless-ed ag-ed rott-ed sunk

Unlike German, there is no easy morphosyntactic distinction between verbal and adjectival passives in English. Moreover, some adjectives such as closed function in all three environments without any morphological distinction. My point in presenting this somewhat bewildering array of participial forms is to emphasize that morphological form in itself is an extremely poor indicator of the correct classification for an English participial like closed. Instead, we can only make sense of these forms if syntactic contexts of occurrence are carefully defined. Likewise, only a detailed investigation of the syntactic context of what I will suggest are (resultant state) adjectival passives in Sumerian will tell us anything about this domain of Sumerian grammar.

––––––––––––– 18. I have altered Embick’s (2004) terminology somewhat simply to avoid confusion: Embick refers to predicative adjectives such as open as “pure statives,” for example, which is presumably necessary for his own argumentation, but would only result in confusion here, given all of the other stative terminology in use.

28

J. CALE JOHNSON

3. Old Babylonian Evidence for a (Resultant State) Adjectival Passive in Sumerian In syntactic terms, the simplest form of the adjectival passive in Sumerian seems to consist of a thematic noun phrase that occurs immediately before the predicate. Any other adverbial phrase (locative, instrumental or agentive in meaning) remains to the left of the thematic subject in this species of adjectival passive. (16) Gilgamesh, Enkidu and the Netherworld 202-203 (Shaffer 1963: 77; George 2003: 752; Gadotti 2005: 380)19 202. m u r k ù - g a - n a (theme t ú g ) (adjectival passive n u - u m - d u l ) 203. g a b a k ù - g a - n a (theme g a d a ) (adjectival passive n u - u m - b ú r ) There was no garment draped over her bare shoulder, There was no linen spread over her bare breast. Here in (16) the theme of each adjectival passive (t ú g and g a d a respectively) occurs immediately to the left of the verb itself in precisely the same syntactic position that plays a central role in a wide variety of compound verb and intensional predicates as well as certain types of informational focus. The use of a negative, existential sentence in the English translation is meant to capture the quantificational character of the construction.20 Although there are constructions like this in which the predicate is not negated (see [19] below), the vast majority of non-negative adjectival passives in * i m move the theme or affected nominal phrase into a clause-initial position through the use of an explicit topicalization construction. (17) Ninurta’s Return to Nippur 83 (= “An-gim dím-ma,” Cooper 1978: 70-71)21 (hanging topic m e - l á m - z u ) é d e n - l í l - l á - k a t ú g - g e n 7 (adjectival passive i m - d u l ) As for your radiance, it is draped over Enlil’s house like a garment.

––––––––––––– 19. Both the verbal form and the initial locative phrase are only preserved in two manuscripts for line 203: manuscript Z has the form I have used here with a locative phrase in combination with the verbal form n u - u m - b ú r , but manuscript AA has [...]- ⸢ k ù ⸣ - g a - n i g a d a n u - u n - b ú r , with /-n-/ before the root rather than /-m-/. Manuscript AA omits the preceding line 202 and only manuscript Z gives the form of the verb, as above. Gadotti 2005: 380, transliterates manuscript AA of line 203, mutatis mutandis, as follows: [ g a b a ] k ù - g a - n i g a d a n u - u m - b ú r , but Shaffer’s copy clearly has n u u n - b ú r and Gadotti offers no indication that Shaffer’s copy is mistaken. 20. To be more precise, the theme in constructions like this should be thought of as a weak quantifier, see Johnson 2005; 2008: 168-171 for a discussion of weak quantification in Sumerian and Akkadian; for the theoretical background, see Diesing 1992 and Hallman 2004. 21. The same construction also occurs in an ordinary stative in earlier ED IIIb materials: (hanging topic é m e - l á m - b i ) k u r - k u r - r a a - d u l 5 (Ent. 8 vi 2; Krecher 1987: 85, n. 10; Attinger 1993: 268).

Sumerian Adjectival Passives Using the *im- Prefix

29

(18) The Return of Lugalbanda 32-33 (Vanstiphout 2003: 136-137)22 32. (hanging topic k u r - r a ĝ i s s u - b i ) k i m a ḫ - b a 33. t ú g - g e n 7 (adjectival passive i m - d u l ) g a d a - g e n 7 (adjectival passive i m - b ú r ) As for the mountain’s shadow, it was draped over its (= the mountain’s) august places like a garment. It was spread over them like linen. In (17) and (18), the “subject” of the adjectival passive no longer occurs immediately before the verb; instead, the subject or affected theme has been moved into a “hanging topic” construction at the beginning of the clause. At the same time, however, the original idiomatic quality of the expression has been partially preserved through the use of the equative postposition in t ú g - g e n 7 and g a d a - g e n 7 respectively. Unlike the example in (16), the topicalized nominal phrases in (17) and (18), viz. m e - l á m - z u and k u r - r a ĝ i s s u - b i , are clearly specific in meaning and referential in function. In many cases, the correct determination of which nominal phrase is the subject of the adjectival passive requires us to pay careful attention to its context of occurrence and other literary factors. (19) Dumuzi’s Wedding i.21-26 (“Inana and Dumuzi C1,” Sefati 1998: 287 and 291; Tinney 1999: 37) 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26.

l i - b i - i r - s i - n é (theme n í ĝ d e 6 : a ) (adjectival passive i m - d e 6 ) m u š e n z à - g a m u š e n - d ù m u - u n - d e 6 ub-lam suḫurku₆ ⸢gur-gur⸣-ra šu-ku6-dè mu-un-de6 n i n - ⸢ ĝ u 1 0 ⸣ [ x ( x ) ] x b a - a n - d a - a b - d u 1 1 iš-ta-ka-an lú s i p a - d è ì š u - š è m u - u n - l á it-ta-na-ši d d u m u - z i - d è g a z à - š è m u - u n - l á i-na [bu]-⸢di⸣-šu

The gifts, lit. what has been brought, were presented by her bridesman: The fowler had brought choice birds, The fisherman had brought fat carp, and had put them ... my lady; The shepherd kept bringing in ghee in his hands, Dumuzi kept bringing in cheese on his shoulders. In (19), on purely formal grounds, one could argue that either l i - b i - i r - s i - n i “her bridesman” or n í ĝ d e 6 : a “the things that were brought” is the subject of the adjectival passive i m - d e 6 .23 But since the subject of an adjectival passive must always

––––––––––––– 22. The synthetic text made available in Vanstiphout 2003 and ETCSL, namely k u r - r a ĝ i s s u b i k i m a ḫ - b a / t ú g - g e n 7 i - i m - d u l g a d a - g e n 7 i - i m - b ú r , is somewhat fictive: it is fairly clear that two different versions of lines 32-33 exist. The majority tradition (manuscripts A and AA in Wilcke 1969: 86-87) has ĝ i s s u - b a rather than ĝ i s s u - b i in line 32 and the verbal forms i - i m - d u l and i i m - b ú r in line 33, while the minority tradition (manuscript D = Ni 4498 = ISET 2, 45) has ĝ i s s u - b i in line 32 and has the verbal form i m - d u l in line 33; the second bare * i m - form i m - b ú r reconstructed here is missing from manuscript D due to damage to the tablet. 23. Although d e 6 ‘bring’ is a verb of inherently directed motion, it is also transitive, so it can presumably occur with an affected theme in an adjectival passive construction. Any precise differentiation

30

J. CALE JOHNSON

be a nominal phrase whose referent is affected by the action of the verb (typically corresponding to the direct object of a transitive verb), we really have no choice in this example: the subject or theme of the adjectival passive must be n í ĝ d e 6 : a , “the things that were brought,” while l i - b i - i r - s i - n é acts as an agentive adjunct, presumably in an oblique case of some kind.24 (20) The Curse of Agade 172-174 (Cooper 1983: 173-174)25 172. a - g à r g a l - g a l - e (theme š e ) (adjectival passive n u - u m - d e 6 ) 173. a - g à r s ù - s ù - g e (theme k u 6 ) (adjectival passive n u - u m - d e 6 ) 174. p ú - ĝ i š k i r i 6 (theme l à l ĝ e š t i n ) (adjectival passive n u - u m - d e 6 ) There was no barley produced in the large agricultural estates, There were no fish produced in the inundated fields, There was no syrup or wine produced in the watered gardens. (21) Enki and the World Order 258-261 (Benito 1969: 99-100) 258. (hanging topic i ₇ i d i g n a ) a m g a l - g e n 7 (adjectival passive š à i m - ḫ ú l ) ù - t u - b a m u - ⸢ n i ⸣ - [...] 259. (theme a ) (adjectival passive n a m - d e 6 ) a z a l - l e n a - n a m k ú r u n - b i n a - d u 1 0 - g e 260. (theme š e ) (adjectival passive n a m - d e 6 ) š e g u - n u n a - n a m ù ĝ - e n a - g u 7 - e 2 6 1 . é - k u r - r e é d e n - l í l - l á - k e 4 (theme n í ĝ ĝ á l - l a ) (adjectival passive n a m - ⸢ s i ⸣ ) As for the Tigris, it rejoiced like a great wild bull, when it was born ... There was water – flowing water – its wine will be sweet. There was barley – dappled barley – the people will eat it. There was everything that exists piled up in the Ekur, the house of Enlil. Likewise in (20) and (21) careful attention to which noun is affected by the action behind the adjectival passive shows that š e , k u 6 and l à l ĝ e š t i n are each the subject in turn of the adjectival passive n u - u m - d e 6 in (20), while a , š e and n í ĝ ĝ á l - l a are each the subject of a corresponding positive adjectival passive n a m d e 6 in (21). The adjectival passive in line 258 of (21), viz. š à i m - ḫ ú l must be dif-

––––––––––––– of these two uses of d e 6 requires further work, but in the meantime, see Sallaberger 2005; MeyerLaurin 2010. 24. Agentive nominal phrases that bear the */-e/ postposition are regularly described as representing the “ergative” case, regardless of whether or not there is ergative verbal agreement operating in the clause. Thus in the well-known m e s - a n - n é - p à - d a construction, a n - n é is often described as being in the ergative case, even though the construction is non-finite. For a discussion of the origin of the ergative postposition in Sumerian, see Coghill and Deutscher 2002; Johnson 2004: 319-325; Jagersma 2010: 158 and 328-329. Here and in the balance of the paper I use “agentive adjunct” as a neutral description of agentive nominal phrases in */-e/ in conjunction with adjectival passive constructions. Needless to say, the discursive structure and syntax of an adjectival passive would be an ideal environment for the reinterpretation of an agentive adjunct as an ergative nominal phrase. 25. There is some uncertainty in the variants as to the case of g a l - g a l - e in line 172 and s ù - s ù g e in line 173: in line 172, manuscript P1 omits the case marker g a l - g a l , while manuscript U adds a possessive or demonstrative, presumably still in the locative-terminative case g a l - g a l - b é , while in line 173 there is a clear bifurcation between locative s ù - s ù - g a and locative-terminative s ù - s ù - g e without any clear correlation with the verbal form.

Sumerian Adjectival Passives Using the *im- Prefix

31

ferentiated from the other examples in (20) and (21), however. Although š à ‘heart, innards’ has the same basic syntactic and quantificational properties as the affected theme in lines 259-261, it differs from these other examples in that it has a clearly topicalized noun as its subject, namely i ₇ i d i g n a ‘the Tigris’. In the following I will simply include a secondarily affected theme like š à as part of the adjectival passive, whenever the theme (š à ) in conjunction with the adjectival passive itself acts as a unit to predicate a property of a clearly topicalized noun: hence (hanging topic i ₇ i d i g n a ) ... (adjectival passive š à i m - ḫ ú l ). We should also pay careful attention, however, to contexts of occurrence and narrative sequences. In (21), for example, parenthetical comments follow the adjectival passives in lines 259 and 260, and these parenthetical comments show that a ‘water’ and š e ‘barley’ are the subjects of each line in turn rather than a previously established topic such as i ₇ i d i g n a . As the following series of examples in (22) shows, we should also not let our presumptions about whether a compound verb is involved affect our evaluation.26 (22) The Uruk Lament, segment E, 78-81 (Green 1984: 273) 78. (vocative u n u g k i ) (hanging topic k a r - z u z à - z u ) b a - a b - ⸢ d a b 5 ⸣ - b é - e š [...] 79. u n u g k i - g e (theme g ù ) (adjectival passive i m - r a ) (theme š e ĝ x ( KA× LI) ) (adjectival passive i m - g i 4 ) l ú š u d a b 5 - b é [...] 80. sig-šè (theme za-pa-áĝ) (adjectival passive im-ĝar) sig ba-gul á nam-⸢ba ? ⸣ - [...] 81. n i m - š è (theme š u ) (adjectival passive i m - z i ) n i m b a - s è t a b - b a l a - b a - x [...] O Uruk! As for your harbor and your borders, they were seized ... There was shouting in Uruk, screams reverberated, its captured men ... There was noise to the south. The south was destroyed and ... There was violence in the highlands. The highlands were struck ... (translation after Green) In spite of the fact that there is a clear topic in line 78, viz. k a r - z u z à - z u , it makes little sense to suggest that k a r - z u z à - z u is the subject of the series of adjectival passives that follow in lines 79 through 81. In each of these four examples (g ù i m - r a , š e ĝ x i m - g i 4 , z a - p a - á ĝ i m - ĝ a r and š u i m - z i ), the presence of the theme immediately before the verbal root in conjunction with the absence of a clearly topicalized nominal phrase indicates that there is an amorphous mass of that type of behavior (viz. “shouting,” “screaming,” “noise” and “violence”) that is taking place in and around the city of Uruk.

4. The Hanging Topic Construction Unlike the foregoing examples in which the theme or affected noun that immediately precedes the adjectival passive is the subject, the vast majority of adjectival passive constructions in the literary Sumerian of the Old Babylonian period co-occur with a hanging topic that acts as the subject of the adjectival passive.

––––––––––––– 26. Kratzer emphasizes that adjectival passives can easily “be formed from impersonal, idiomatic, and resultative constructions” (Kratzer 2000: 4).

32

J. CALE JOHNSON

One of the most straightforward examples of a hanging topic as the subject of an adjectival passive is in (18), which I repeat below. (23) The Return of Lugalbanda 32-33 (Vanstiphout 2003: 136-137)27 32. (hanging topic k u r - r a ĝ i s s u - b i ) k i m a ḫ - b a 33. t ú g - g e n 7 (adjectival passive i m - d u l ) g a d a - g e n 7 (adjectival passive i m - b ú r ) As for the mountain’s shadow, it was draped over its (= the mountain’s) august places like a garment. It was spread over them like linen. As I have argued elsewhere (Johnson 2010: 125-135), the hanging topic consists prototypically of an anticipatory genitive that has moved to clause-initial position as a unit such as k u r - r a ĝ i s s u - b i , “as for the mountain’s shadow.” Zólyomi (1993; 1996; 2005) has also dealt with the formation of the anticipatory genitive and its role in topicalization structures in numerous publications as well as an unpublished dissertation that is particularly relevant to the issues under discussion here. And although I agree with his description of the anticipatory genitive in part, it must be emphasized that various current theoretical models would all independently require the genitive phrase (k u r - r a in [23]) to move through the syntactic position to the left of ĝ i s s u - b i within the nominal phrase, before any splitting of the anticipatory genitive can take place.28 (24) Formation of hanging topic construction (Johnson 2010: 129-132; cf. Zólyomi 1996) (a) (b) (c) (d)

(DP ĝissu kur-ra) (DP (Topic kur-ra) ĝissu-Ø) (DP (Topic kur-ra) ĝissu-bi) (DP (Topic kur-ra) ĝissu-bi)

< ordinary genitive > < topicalization of genitive within the DP > < addition of resumptive pronoun > í l - l a - g e n 7 , i m - s i > i - i m - s i .

36

J. CALE JOHNSON

gal’s hands as the hanging topic and describes them as “filled,” presumably with the prisoner. The prisoner him- or herself then appears as the hanging topic in line 43 and is described as “seized by the painful grip ... .” Before turning to the bilingual evidence as well as some possible third millennium precursors, I would like to reiterate that the two dozen preceding examples seem to conform quite well to the features of the adjectival passive sketched out above. Negative adjectival interpretations such as p a n u - u m - è “inconspicuous,” n u - u m - í l “unbearable” or n u - u m - g i 4 “unrequited” fit very nicely into their contexts of occurrence, and generally speaking the examples can all be seen as descriptions of resultant states (Anagnostopoulou’s second and third tests).36 The first of the three tests described by Anagnostopoulou, namely the possibility for an adjectival passive to occur as a pre-nominal modifier, cannot be applied to Sumerian materials of course, since pre-nominal modifiers are generally disallowed in Sumerian except for the odd epithet.

5. Bilingual Evidence for the Adjectival Passive in Sumerian Although the first of Anagnostopoulou’s diagnostics (morphological equivalence between the adjectival passive and pre-nominal, viz. attributive, adjectives) does not seem to exist in Sumerian, we do see something quite similar to this phenomenon in the predicative and attributive uses of the verbal adjective in Akkadian. The only difference is that Akkadian attributive adjectives follow the noun that they modify rather than preceding it: bītum ṣabtum “the seized house” as opposed to bītum ṣabit “the house was seized.” Nonetheless, the fact that these trailing adjectival forms fully agree with the noun that they modify makes it clear that they are attributive adjectives. In terms of identifying the adjectival passive, however, the problem with Akkadian is that both ordinary predicative adjectives and adjectival passives make use of precisely the same grammatical form: bītum ṣabit being formally identical to bītum damiq, “the house is nice.”37 For our purposes here, however, the most important feature of the predicative use of the Akkadian verbal adjective is that it predicates a property (including relevant adverbials and even the occasional direct object) of a subject. Therefore any clear usage of the predicative verbal adjective in Akkadian to translate the Sumerian adjectival passive must necessarily represent the same topic-comment discursive structure that I have outlined above.

––––––––––––– 36. In English the “description of resultant states” test is usually formulated in terms of the possibility of an adjectival passive acting as a complement to verbs such as “act, appear, be, become, feel, look, remain, seem, smell, sound, stay” (Anagnostopoulou 2003: 3), but in a head-marking language like Sumerian this type of semantic phenomenon is, as expected, indicated by a morphological formative on the verb itself rather than a complementation structure. 37. Contrasts between nominal and verbal predicate stems as well as a host of terminological debates have spawned a substantial literature (Rowton 1962; Buccellati 1968; Kraus 1984; Huehnergard 1986; 1987; Müller 1995; Kouwenberg 2000), but to my knowledge no attempt has been made to rigorously distinguish adjectival passives from simple predicative adjectives in Akkadian. Landsberger’s translation of aḫiz as “er ist (mit einer Frau) verheiratet” (Landsberger 1968: 85, apud Kraus 1984: 9) and similar uses of the German Zustandspassiv to translate predicative verbal adjectives in Akkadian, however, are already suggestive.

Sumerian Adjectival Passives Using the *im- Prefix

37

The best place to look for such things is undoubtedly the standard and widely attested bilingual texts such as The Exploits of Ninurta (“Lugal-e”) and Ninurta’s Journey to Nippur (“An-gim dím-ma”). Since the Akkadian translations in The Exploits of Ninurta are assembled and studied in Seminara’s recent book, we turn here to three examples of the Sumerian adjectival passive in * i m - that appear in The Exploits of Ninurta translated into Akkadian with the predicative verbal adjective. (35) The Exploits of Ninurta 60 (van Dijk 1983: vol. 2, 47; Seminara 2001: 62, 492494; for Late Babylonian [LB], see Geller 2010) (hanging topic á - s à g z i - g a - b i ) š u l a - b a - ĝ á l (hanging topic ZERO [= á - s à g ] d u g u d - d a - b i ) (adjectival passive i m - g u - u l ) OB: a-sak-ku ti-bu-us-su ul im-maḫ-ḫar kab-tu-us-su ma-aʾ-⸢da⸣-[at] LB: [a-sak-ku] ⸢ti-bu-su ul⸣ [im]-⸢maḫ-ḫar ka⸣-[ab]-⸢ta⸣-su ma-aʾ-[dat] As for the violence of the Asag, it cannot be faced. As for its weight, it is exceedingly heavy, lit. enlarged. (36) The Exploits of Ninurta 62 (van Dijk 1983: vol. 2, 47; Seminara 2001: 62, 492494) (hanging topic u r 5 - r a k a l - g a - b i ) (adjectival passive s a ĝ i m - g i 4 ) ab-kíĝ

ĝiš

tukul-e ĝiš la-ba-

[…] ⸢dan⸣-nu-us-su up-pu-qa-at-ma kak-ku […] As for the strength of this thing, it is overwhelming. No weapon has been able to overturn it. (37) The Exploits of Ninurta 75 (van Dijk 1983: vol. 2, 50; Seminara 2001: 68, 492494) (hanging topic e n z i - g a - n i ) a n - n é (adjectival passive i m - ú s ) šá be-li ti-bu-us-su AN-e e-mi-id As for the ascent of the lord, it is extended into the heavens. All three examples make use of the same hanging topic construction that we saw in earlier examples, although in each case the possessor in the relevant hanging topic is a nominalized verb (d u g u d - d a , k a l - g a and z i - g a respectively). This is presumably a late specialization of the more general use of the hanging topic construction in earlier materials,38 but nonetheless the Akkadian translations of the hanging topics correctly render the anticipatory genitive in each example, so we can be fairly sure of their interpretation: a-sak-ku ti-bu-us-su, “as for Asakku, its

––––––––––––– 38. In his talk at the conference in Madrid, Rubio mentioned a possible Ur III witness to The Exploits of Ninurta, so I should emphasize that in speaking of a “late specialization” I am referring to the Old Babylonian translation technique (and its underlying theory) rather than the linguistic form of the Sumerian.

38

J. CALE JOHNSON

attack,” kab-tu-us-su, “(as for Asakku), its weight,” [...] ⸢dan⸣-nu-us-su, “as for ..., its strength,” and šá be-li ti-bu-us-su, “of the lord, his ascent.” More importantly, in each example a bare * i m - ḫamṭu predicate in the Sumerian is translated with a predicative verbal adjective in the Akkadian: i m - g u - u l = ma-aʾ-⸢da⸣-[at], s a ĝ i m - g i 4 = up-pu-da-at-ma and i m - ú s = e-mi-id. In (35), for example, the adjectival passive i m - g u - u l is derived from the Sumerian verbal root g u - u l rather than its ordinary adjectival equivalent g a l , and this subtle difference in form and meaning is also captured in the Akkadian translation ma-aʾ-da-at, “it is numerous/extensive.”39 Likewise in (36) s a ĝ i m - g i 4 is translated with up-pu-qa-at-ma, a D-stem third person, feminine singular verbal adjective of epēqu ‘to embrace, to cover over’, while in (37), the well-known idiom a n - n é i m - ú s is also translated with a predicate verbal adjective of emēdu, ‘to lean on’.40 It is particularly noteworthy that, although Akkadian predicative verbal adjectives translate a number of different Sumerian verbal forms in The Exploits of Ninurta (* ì - , * m u - u n - , * m i n i - among others), all three occurrences of the Sumerian adjectival passive in * i m - ROOTḫamṭu, in which the hanging topic was recognized as such in the Akkadian translation, are translated with a predicative verbal adjective in Akkadian. The only clear exception to the translational equivalency between * i m ROOTḫamṭu and predicative verbal adjective in Akkadian occurs in line 97 of The Exploits of Ninurta and, crucially, the hanging topic construction was not recognized by the Akkadian translators in this line. (38) The Exploits of Ninurta 97 (van Dijk 1983: vol. 2, 58-59; Seminara 2001: 7677) (hanging topic l ú í m - m a - b i ) k u r - r e (adjectival passive i m - r a ) (hanging topic i r i - b i ) (adjectival passive b u - d u - u g i m - z a ) la-si-im-šu ina šá-di-i i-du-uk-ma IRI-šu ú-⸢ab⸣-[bit] He struck its runner in the mountains, he obliterated its city. (translation of Akkadian) The reduced form of the anticipatory genitive in the hanging topic construction – simply l ú í m - m a - b i rather than NOUN- a l ú í m - m a - b i – may have obscured the topic-comment structure of the line, leading to a reinterpretation of i m - r a and b u - d u - u g i m - z a as finite verbs rather than adjectival passives. Nonetheless we should still keep in mind that the two examples in (38) conform perfectly to the topic-comment structure of the adjectival passive as described above, even if its Akkadian-speaking translators did not recognize the telltale discursive structure.

––––––––––––– 39. Thus, generally speaking, purely adjectival or stative roots like g a l , ĝ á l or m e never occur with the bare * i m - prefix in Old Babylonian Sumerian; the frequently attested form i m - m e always represents the marû form of d u 1 1 , i.e. /e/ ‘to say’ rather than the root m e ‘to be’ in the adjectival passive. Whereas simple adjectives and inherently stative predicates do not normally occur in the Sumerian adjectival passive, they do regularly occur with the stative prefix * a l - . 40. The idiom already occurs in canonical form in the Gudea Cyl. A ix 16: (hanging topic m e - l á m ḫ u š - b i ) a n - n é (adjectival passive i m - ú s ).

Sumerian Adjectival Passives Using the *im- Prefix

39

One other example of a Sumerian adjectival passive with extensive Akkadian glosses occurs in a student’s lentil from Ur that includes a well-known Sumerian proverb. (39) UET 6/2 367: 1 (Alster 1997: vol. 1, 324 and vol. 2, 474-475; Ludwig 2009: 231) lú níĝ-tuku lú níĝ nu-tuku i m - ĝ a r ša-ki-in-šu-um

la-ap-nu-um a-na ša-⸢ri⸣-im

gig-šè

mim-ma mu-úr-ṣí-im

The wealthy man is plagued by the poor man. Here as well we find a nice example of an Akkadian predicative verbal adjective, namely ša-ki-in-šu-um, translating a Sumerian adjectival passive in i m - ĝ a r . The only problem here is the absence of an explicit topicalization structure. This example is also interesting, however, in that it gives us a glimpse into how the orthography of the adjectival passive is updated over time: contemporary variants of (39) have both ì - ĝ a r and i n - ĝ a r , variations that occur fairly often in the Old Babylonian material, but the line also corresponds to The Instructions of Shuruppak 184, which in the Early Dynastic version has the plain verbal root without any verbal prefix whatsoever.41 The semantic field covered by the Sumerian adjectival passives is largely homologous to the semantic range of the predicative verbal adjectival in Akkadian. Although there are several substantial problems with Rowton’s well-known survey of the predicative use of the verbal adjective in “Classical Babylonian,”42 still Rowton’s examples illustrate the fact that the primary function of the predicative verbal adjectives in Akkadian as well as the adjectival passive in Sumerian is to attach properties to the referent of the nominal phrase that is the topic of the predication, hence the frequent use of verbs of appearance (i m - d u l , i m - b ú r , g u r u n i m - l á ), verbs indicating possession, availability or control (i m - d a b 5 , i m - d e 6 , i m g i 4 ) as well as verbs involving the acquisition of knowledge or perception (p a i m è , i m - z u and the series of examples involving “noise” in [22]).43

6. Third Millennium Precursors There are undoubtedly a number of late third millennium examples among the foregoing materials (besides the examples from the Gudea Cylinders in [25] and n. 40, several other examples come from texts that were presumably composed in the Ur III royal court), but as we move further back in time into the third millennium the distinct orthography (* i m - ROOTḫamṭu) that we have used as an initial diagnostic for the category gradually disappears. In general terms, the syntactic configuration that I identified above (hanging topic followed by * i m - ROOTḫamṭu) can occa-

––––––––––––– 41. Alster 2005: 88. 42. Rowton 1962; the most important critique is Huehnergard’s (1986; 1987), although is must be said that Rowton’s introduction remains a particularly good pre-theoretical description of the adjectival passive (avant la lettre). 43. For an insightful overview of these issues, particularly the role of abstraction in the use of ‘have’, see Saebø 2009; we should also note, however, that Ungnad’s (1917) early discussion of “Haben” in Akkadian covers some of the same ground.

40

J. CALE JOHNSON

sionally be identified in the third millennium sources with a single important difference: the use of the verbal form ì - ROOTḫamṭu in place of i m - ROOTḫamṭu. Both Jagersma (2010: 303-307) and Wilcke (2010: passim) have on occasion suggested that forms such as ì - d a b 5 should be interpreted as a “stative passive” (Jagersma) or “the passive to the antipassive” (Wilcke). The idea behind both proposals closely resembles the category of adjectival passive as sketched out here, even if only a handful of the forms adduced by Jagersma and Wilcke precisely conform to the morphosyntactic characteristics outlined above. The following line from an Ur III legal text is one such example. (40) NSGU 2 30: 2 (Jagersma 2010: 374, ex. 69; see also NATN 920: 5) (hanging topic a b - b a - ĝ á m a - a r - g i 8 - n i ) (adjectival passive ì - ĝ á - a r ) As for the freedom of my father, it was established. The corresponding forms in the Ur-Namma law code are regularly in the marû rather than the ḫamṭu, so I have not otherwise included them in this paper, but they do clearly belong to the same grammatical system. (41) Ur-Namma Code A 227-229 = C 91-92 (Wilcke 2002: 313; Roth 1997: 17) t u k u m - b i ÁRAD- d è / g é m e á - á š - a - n i i n - t u k u ⸢ x x ⸣ / (hanging topic ÁRAD- b é a m a - a r - g i 4 - n i ) ì - ĝ á - ĝ á / é - t a n u - u b - t a - è If a male slave marries a female slave, his beloved, and that male slave is given his freedom, she/he will not leave the house. (translation Roth) The hanging topic in (41) is somewhat unusual and the ubiquitous marû forms in Codex Ur-Namma such as ì - ĝ á - ĝ á or ì - l á - e make any comparison with forms like the one in (40) quite difficult. Nonetheless it is noteworthy that in Codex UrNamma, clauses that include an ergative phrase regularly use *in- as their verbal prefix in the ḫamṭu, so the contrast between ergative ḫamṭu forms in *in- and adjectival passives like ì - ĝ á - a r in (40) may be rather significant. In my view, a more promising way of identifying the adjectival passive was initiated by Mamoru Yoshikawa in the late 1970’s. There are good reasons not to resurrect Yoshikawa’s general model of topicalization and it must take its place alongside other “special” theories of Sumerian grammar such as the ruminations of Thorkild Jacobsen on the conjugation prefixes. The part of Yoshikawa’s work, however, that I would like to incorporate into on-going investigations of Sumerian topic-comment structures is a group of three empirical observations that Yoshikawa made in several places, but primarily in two of his early English papers (Yoshikawa 1978; 1979). These three observations can be reformulated as follows. (42) Yoshikawa’s Three Observations (i) With verbs that normally occur with the * m u - prefix, when the agent is not explicitly mentioned, the verbal prefix is often * ì - or * e - (depending on Early Dynastic vowel harmony) rather than mu-.

Sumerian Adjectival Passives Using the *im- Prefix

41

(ii) With verbs that normally occur with the * b í - or * b e - prefix, when the agent is not mentioned explicitly, the verbal prefix is often * ì - or * e - rather than * b í - or * b e - . (iii) In those cases in which an explicit agent does co-occur with a verb bearing the * ì - or * e - prefix, the verb is generally in the marû aspect rather than the ḫamṭu. If we focus here on the first two of these three observations. The basic idea is that the * ì - or * e - conjugation prefix replaces other conjugation prefixes like */mu-/ or */bi-/ when there is no explicit agent in the ḫamṭu ergative/absolutive rection. In other words, Early Dynastic verbal forms that normally bear the */mu-/ or */bi-/ prefixes in the presence of an explicit agent regularly shift to the * ì - or * e - prefixes when an explicit agent is not present. In (43) and (44), I have reproduced some of the examples that Yoshikawa was taking into consideration. (43) Examples of * ì - replacing * m u - in the absence of an explicit agent44 (a) VS 14 40: rev.iv.7-11 (Yoshikawa 1979: 189, ex. 7) GÁN n í ĝ - e n - n a GÁN n í g i n - n a - k a m (ergative e n - i g - g a l n u - b à n d a ) mu-gíd En-iggal, the lieutenant, measured the domain lands, in their entirety. (b) VS 14 40: rev.iv.3-6 (Yoshikawa 1979: 189, ex. 7) (hanging topic GÁN - b i ) 2 ( i k u ) 1 / 4 ( i k u ) k i š ú m - m a - k a m (hanging topic k i - s u 7 k i - š ú m - m a - b i ) š à n í ĝ - e n - k a - k a (precursor to adjectival passive ì - g í d ) As for the fields, there are two and a quarter iku of onion fields. As for the threshing floors and the onion fields, the ones inside the domain lands, they were measured. In (43) we have a contrast between m u - g í d in (43a) with a nice ergative agent e n i g - g a l n u - b a n d à and ì - g í d in (43b) with a clear hanging topic, but without any explicitly marked agent. (44) Examples of * ì - (or * e - ) replacing * b í - (or * b e - ) in the absence of an explicit agent (a) DP 214 obv. i 1 and rev. i 3-5 (Krecher 1985, 140, n. 16a) 1 ( a š ) è m e m u 2 ( d i š t e n u ) … (ergative e n - i g - g a l n u - b à n d a ) z à b í - š u 4 En-iggal branded one two-year-old female equid ... (b) DP 98 i 1-3 (Krecher 1985: 140, n. 16a) 6 ( a š ) u 8 4 ( a š ) u d u n i t a (precursor to adjectival passive z à ì - š u 4 ) As for the six ewes and four rams, they were branded.

––––––––––––– 44. The idiom that is used here to measure a surface area is expressed with š à followed by the name of the field and then the genitive and locative cases, hence š à n í ĝ - e n - k a - k a = /ša niĝenak-aka/, cf. DP 595 obv. ii 4 - rev. i 1: 1 ( è š e ) 2 ( i k u ) GÁN k u d - r á š à - b a ì - g í d , i.e. /ša bi-a/ with possessive pronoun in place of the genitive.

42

J. CALE JOHNSON

Likewise, in (44), where we have the compound verb z à – š u 4 ‘to brand,’ the form in (44a), z à b í - š u 4 , has an explicit agent (the same e n - i g - g a l n u - b a n d à as before) and also makes use of the * b í - prefix that is often found with compound verbs, while the example in (44b), which does not have an explicit agent, uses the * ì - prefix. Even though the topicalization in (44b) is not explicit, I have translated it in line with the example in (43b). Overall, the general absence of explicit agentive phrases from a syntactic environment that combines * ì - or * e - with a ḫamṭu root may well suggest that something like an adjectival passive was operating within Early Dynastic administrative documentation.45 Roughly the same discursive structure that Yoshikawa identified in the Early Dynastic administrative materials also seems to be present, at least to some degree, in narrative materials such as the following well-known extract from the Umma-Lagash border war. (45) Ent. 28-29 i 13-21 (Yoshikawa 1979: 189; Balke 2006: 197, ex. 365; Frayne 2008: 195) (a) (ergative U Š é n s i u m m a k i - k e 4 ) n a m - i n i m - m a d i r i - d i r i - š è e - a k (b) (hanging topic n a - r ú - a - b i ) ì - b u x ( PAD ) (c) e d i n l a g a s k i - š è ì - k u x ( DU) UŠ, the ruler of Umma, acted arrogantly; he ripped out (or smashed) that monument and marched on the Eden district of Lagash. (translation after Frayne) In (45a) we have a clear ergative phrase UŠ e n s í u m m a k i - k e 4 , although no ostensible direct object, while in (45b) we have a nice hanging topic construction n a r ú - a - b i “as for the boundary marker,” but the agent must be carried over from the first clause in (45a). Then in (45c) we have neither explicit agent, nor explicit direct object with an intransitive verb like * k u x (DU) ‘to enter’. I have not yet been able to locate an example in which both an ergative agent and a hanging topic cooccur in the presence of the * i - conjugation prefix, and it may be that there was simply a scribal convention – an aesthetic rather than a grammatical norm – against placing both entities within a single clause. It is remarkable, however, that if we turn to a comparable example like (46) that uses the * m u - prefix instead of * ì - , the hanging topic construction seems to disappear.46 (46) Ean. 6 iii 7-10 (Krecher 1985: 168; Frayne 2008: 141) (ergative l ú u m m a k i - k e 4 ) b a - r i - r i (absolutive n a - r ú - a ) m u - b u x (PAD) The leader of Umma ... and ripped out (their) boundary marker. (translation Frayne)

––––––––––––– 45. The description of ì - or e - in the Early Dynastic period is further complicated by the existence of dialectical differences between northern and southern Mesopotamia, in particular the use of *a- to form passive constructions in materials from the north, see Jagersma 2010: 303-307. 46. On the opposition between */mu-/ and */i-/, see Woods 2008: 134-144 as well as Steiner 1994.

Sumerian Adjectival Passives Using the *im- Prefix

43

Here in (46), in conjunction with the * m u - verbal prefix, the direct object (n a - r ú a ) has lost the possessive pronoun that led us to identify it as a hanging topic in (45b), although in nearly every other respect (45b) and (46) are identical. I do not wish to suggest that verbal forms like ì - b u x (PAD) in (45b) are adjectival passives in the strict sense of the term. Their co-occurrence with the hanging topic construction in the Early Dynastic period is irregular at best, and the narrative examples look much more like a serial verb construction than a resultative adjectival passive. It may well be the case, however, that topic-comment discursive structures such as (45b) provided the syntactic and pragmatic environment in which a morphologically distinct adjectival passive comes into existence sometime in the later third millennium. Intransitive verbs of inherently directed motion, which are orthographically indistinguishable from forms like ì - b u x (PAD) in the Early Dynastic period, undoubtedly served as the analogical model for such a development.47 Whatever the historical origin of the */-m-/ immediately before the verbal root in actual ventive constructions that are based on intransitive verbs of directed motion, this */-m-/ occurs in the ergative agreement slot for a transitive ḫamṭu verb and in doing so seems to neutralize the usual ergative agreement system, a neutralization that would be particularly appropriate for an adjectival passive that is necessarily both intransitive and resultative.48

Bibliography Alster, B. 1997 Proverbs of Ancient Sumer. The World’s Earliest Proverb Collections, 2 vols. Bethesda: CDL Press. 2005 Wisdom of Ancient Sumer. Bethesda: CDL Press. Anagnostopoulou, E. 2003 Participles and voice. Pp. 1-36 in Perfect Explorations, ed. A. Alexiadou, M. Rathert, and A. von Stechow. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Attinger, P. 1984 Enki and Ninhursaga. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 74: 1-52. 1985 Les préfixes absolutifs de la première et de la deuxième personne singulier dans les formes marû ergatives. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 75: 161-178. 1993 Eléments de linguistique sumérienne: La construction de du11/e/di «dire». Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht. 1998 Inana et Ebiḫ. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 88: 164-195.

––––––––––––– 47. Wilcke notes that the distinctive orthographic forms in * ì - i m - (and the like) first appear in the Old Akkadian period (Wilcke 2010: 13-14), so the contrasts between * i m - and * ì - i m - may simply be an orthographic device that is meant to distinguish between ventives and emergent adjectival passives (cf. Attinger 1993: 266). It is noteworthy, for example, that transitive directed motion predicates such as the examples in i m - d e 6 in (19), (20) and (21) easily fall into both categories and also play a central role in bookkeeping, so an orthographic distinction may have been invented in order to differentiate them. As Yoshikawa has repeatedly noted, even when verbal orthographies are reorganized in the Old Babylonian period, an orthographic distinction is maintained between true ventives such as i - i m ĝ e n and other forms such as * i m - and * ì - i m - . 48. On the centrality of both pragmatic and morphosyntactic alignment in processes of analogical change, see Silverstein 1995.

44

J. CALE JOHNSON

2003 L’Hymne à Nungal. Pp. 15-34 in Literatur, Politik und Recht in Mesopotamien: Festschrift für Claus Wilcke, ed. W. Sallaberger, K. Volk, and A Zgoll. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Balke, Th. E. 2006 Das sumerische Dimensionalkasussystem. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 331. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. Benito, C. A. 1969 “Enki and Ninmah” and “Enki and the World Order.” Ph. D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. Black, J. 1996 Sumerian Grammar in Babylonian Theory, 2nd ed. Studia Pohl Series Maior 12. Rome: Biblical Institute Press. Boeckx, C., and Grohmann, K. K. 2005 Left dislocation in Germanic. Pp. 131-144 in Focus on Germanic Typology, ed. W. Abraham. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. Buccellati, G. 1968 An Interpretation of the Akkadian Stative as a Nominal Sentence. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 27: 1-12. Civil, M. 1993 On Mesopotamian Jails and their Lady Warden. Pp. 72-78 in The Tablet and the Scroll: Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William W. Hallo, ed. M. E. Cohen, D. C. Snell and D. B. Weisberg. Bethesda: CDL Press. Coghill, E., and Deutscher, G. 2002 The origin of ergativity in Sumerian and the “inversion” in pronominal agreement: a historical expanation based on Neo-Aramaic parallels. Orientalia Nova Series 71: 267-290. Cooper, J. S. 1978 The Return of Ninurta to Nippur: an-gim dim2-ma. Analecta Orientalia 52. Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum. 1983 The Curse of Agade. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Diesing, M. 1992 Indefinites. Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 20. Cambridge: MIT Press. Edzard, D. O. 2003 Zum sumerischen Verbalpräfix a(l)-. Pp. 87-98 in Literatur, Politik und Recht in Mesopotamien: Festschrift für Claus Wilcke, ed. W. Sallaberger, K. Volk, and A Zgoll. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Embick, D. 2004 On the Structure of Resultative Participles in English. Linguistic Inquiry 35: 355392. Foxvog, D. A. 1974 The Sumerian Ventive. Ph. D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley. Frayne, D. R. 2008 Presargonic Period (2700–2350 BC). RIME 1. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Funk, W.-P. 1971 Adjectives with Negative Prefixes in Modern English and the Problem of Synonymy. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 19: 364-386. Gadotti, A. 2005 “Gilgamesh, Enkidu and the Netherworld” and the Sumerian Gilgamesh Cycle. Ph. D. dissertation, Johns Hopkins University.

Sumerian Adjectival Passives Using the *im- Prefix

45

Geller, M. J. 2010 Late Babylonian Lugale. Pp. 93-100 in Your Praise is Sweet: Memorial Volume for Jeremy Black, ed. H. D. Baker, E. Robson, and G. Zólyomi. London: British School of Archaeology in Iraq. George, A. R. 2003 The Babylonian Gilgamesch Epic: Introduction, Critical Edition and Cuneiform Texts. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Giannakidou, A., and Rathert, M. 2009 Quantification, Definiteness and Nominalization. Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics 24. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Green, M. W. 1984 The Uruk Lament. Journal of the American Oriental Society 104: 253-279. Grimshaw, J. 1990 Argument Structure. Cambridge: MIT Press. Hallman, P. 2004 NP-interpretation and the structure of predicates. Language 80: 707-747. Horn, L. R. 2001 A Natural History of Negation. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information. Horvath, J. and Siloni, T. 2008 Active Lexicon: Adjectival and verbal passives. Pp. 105-134 in Current Issues in Generative Hebrew Linguistics, ed. S. Armon-Lotem, G. Danon, and S. Rothstein. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Huber, P. 2007 On the Old Babylonian Understanding of Grammar: A Reexamination of OBGT VIX. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 59: 1-18. Huehnergard, J. 1986 On Verbless Clauses in Akkadian. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 76: 218-249. 1987 “Stative,” Predicative Form, Pseudo-Verb. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 46: 215232. Jagersma, A. H. 2010 A Descriptive Grammar of Sumerian. Ph. D. dissertation, Universiteit Leiden. Jaques, M. 2004 Inanna and Ebiḫ: Nouveaux textes et remarques sur le vocabulaire du combat et de la victoire. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 94: 202-225. Johnson, J. C. 2004 In the Eye of the Beholder: Quantificational, pragmatic and aspectual features of the *bi- verbal prefix in Sumerian. Ph. D. dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles. 2005 Internally-Headed Relative Clauses in Akkadian: Identifying Weak Quantification in the Construct State. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 57: 85-98. 2008 Decomposing the DP in Sumerian: Definiteness, specificity and the BNBV diagnostic. Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 98: 151-188. 2010 Unaccusativity and the Double Object Construction in Sumerian. Beihefte zur Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 7. Vienna: LIT. Karahashi, F., and Santorini, B. 2010 Sumerian relative clauses with anticipated arguments: A null analysis. Forthcoming. Kouwenberg, N. J. C 2000 Nouns as Verbs: The Verbal Nature of the Akkadian Stative. Orientalia Nova Series 69: 121-171.

46

J. CALE JOHNSON

Kraus, F. R. 1984 Nominalsätze in Altbabylonischen Briefen und der Stativ. Mededelingen der Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, Afd. Letterkunde, Nieuwe Reeks 47/2. Amsterdam, New York: Noord-Hollandsche Uitg. Mij. Krazter, A. 2000 Building Statives. Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 26: 385-399. Krecher, J. 1985 Die /m/-Präfixe des sumerischen Verbums. Orientalia Nova Series 54: 133-181. 1987 Morphemless Syntax in Sumerian as Seen on the Background of Word-Composition in Chukchee. Acta Sumerologica 9: 67-88. Landsberger, B. 1923 Der “Ventiv” des Akkadischen. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 35: 113–123. 1968 Jungfraulichkeit: Ein Beitrag zum Thema Beilager und Eheschliessung. Pp. 41-105 in Symbolae iuridicae et historicae Martino David dedicatae, vol. 2, ed. J. A. Ankum. Leiden: Brill. Levin, B., and Rappaport, M. 1986 The Formation of Adjectival Passives. Linguistic Inquiry 17: 623-661. Ludwig, M.-Ch. 2009 Literarische Texte aus Ur: Kollationen und Kommentare zu UET 6/1-2. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Meyer-Laurin, V. 2010 Die marû-Basen der sumerischen Verben tùm und re6 / de6. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 100: 1-14. Mittermayer, C. 2009 Enmerkara und der Herr von Arata: Ein ungleicher Wettstreit. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 239. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht. Müller, H.-P. 1995 Ergative Constructions in Early Semitic Languages. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 54: 261-271. Poebel, A. 1908 Das Verbum im Sumerischen. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 21: 216-236. 1923 Grundzüge der sumerischen Grammatik. Rostock: Selbstverlag des Verfassers. Rapp, I. 1996 Zustand? Passiv? – Überlegungen zum sogenannten “Zustandspassiv”. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 15: 231-265. Rochberg, F. 2010 “If P, then Q”: Form and Reasoning in Babylonian Divination. Pp. 19-28 in Divination and Interpretation of Signs in the Ancient World, ed. A. Annus. Oriental Institute Seminars 6. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of The University of Chicago. Roth, M. 1997 Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor, 2nd ed. SBL Writings from the Ancient World 6. Atlanta: Scholars Press. Rowton, M. B. 1962 The Use of the Permansive in Classic Babylonian. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 21: 233-303. Saebø, K. J. 2009 Possession and pertinence: the meaning of have. Natural Language Semantics 17: 369-397. Sallaberger, W. 2005 “bringen” im Sumerischen: Lesung und Bedeutung von de6 (DU) und túm (DU). Pp. 557-576 in Von Sumer Bis Homer: Festschrift für Manfred Schretter zum 60. Geburtstag am 25. Februar 2004, ed. R. Rollinger. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag.

Sumerian Adjectival Passives Using the *im- Prefix

47

Schulze, W., and Sallaberger, W. 2007 Grammatische Relationen im Sumerischen. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 97: 163-214. Sefati, Y. 1998 Love Songs in Sumerian Literature: Critical Edition of the Dumuzi-Inanna Songs. Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press. Seminara, Stefano 2001 La versione accadica del Lugal-e: La tecnica babilonese della traduzione dal sumerico e le sue regole. Materiali per il Vocabolario Sumerico 8. Rome: Herder. Shaffer, A. 1963 Sumerian Sources of Tablet XII of the Epic of Gilgamesh. Ph. D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. Silverstein, M. 1995 Kiksht “impersonals” as anaphors and the predictiveness of grammatical-categorial universals. Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 21: 262-286. Sjöberg, Å. 1973 Nungal in the Ekur. Archiv für Orientforschung 24: 19-46 + taf. III-X. Steiner, G. 1994 Sumerischen Verbalpräfix mu= und e= im sprachtypologischen Vergleich. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Morgenlandischen Gesellschaft Supplement 10: 32-48. Thureau-Dangin, F. 1907 Sur les préfixes du verbe sumérien. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 20: 380-404. Tinney, S. 1999 Ur-Namma the Canal-Digger: Context, Continuity and Change in Sumerian Literature. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 51: 31-54. Ungnad, A. 1917 “Haben” im Babylonisch-Assyrischen. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 31: 277-281. van Dijk, J. J. A. 1983 lugal ud me-lám-bi nir-ĝál: Le récit épique et didactique des Travaux de Ninurta, du Déluge et de la Nouvelle Création. Leiden: Brill. Vanstiphout, H. L. J. 2003 Epics of the Sumerian Kings: The Matter of Aratta. SBL Writings from the Ancient World 20. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. Veldhuis, N. 2005 Grammatical texts in their intellectual contexts. Acta Sumerologica 22: 227-247. Wasow, Th. 1977 Transformations and the Lexicon. Pp. 327-360 in Formal Syntax, ed. P. Culicover, T. Wasow, and A. Akmajian. New York: Academic Press. Woods, Ch. 2008 The Grammar of Perspective: The Sumerian Conjugation Prefixes as a System of Voice. Cuneiform Monographs 32. Leiden: Brill. Wilcke, C. 1969 Das Lugalbandaepos. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 1988 Anmerkungen zum “Konjugationspräfix” /i/- und zur These vom “silbischen Charakter der sumerischen Morpheme” anhand neusumerischer Verbalformen beginnend mit ì-íb-, ì-ím- und ì-ín-. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 78: 1-49. 2002 Der Kodex Urnamma (CU): Versuch einer Rekonstruction. Pp. 291-333 in Riches Hidden in Secret Places: Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Memory of Thorkild Jacobsen, ed. T. Abusch. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. 2005 The Verb si–sá: A Diachronic List of Datable Occurrences Grouped according to the Number of Participants to the Action. Acta Sumerologica 22: 279-301.

48

J. CALE JOHNSON

2010 Sumerian: What We Know and What We Want to Know. Pp. 5-76 in Language in the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the 53e Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale 1/1, ed. L. Kogan et al. Babel und Bibel 4/1. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns Yoshikawa, M. 1977 On the Verbal Prefix Chains ì-in-, ì-ib-, and ì-im-. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 29: 223-236. 1978 Sumerian Ventive and Ientive. Orientalia Nova Series 47: 461-482. 1979 The Sumerian Verbal Prefixes mu-, ì- and Topicality. Orientalia Nova Series 48: 185-206. 1982 The Sumerian Verbal Prefix al-. Archiv für Orientforschung Beiheft 19: 66-71. 1995 The Sumerian Verbal Prefix a-. Acta Sumerologica 17: 299-307. Zólyomi, G. 1993 Voice and Topicalization in Sumerian. Ph. D. dissertation, Eötvös Loránd University. 1996 Genitive Constructions in Sumerian. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 48: 31-47. 1999 Directive infix and oblique object in Sumerian: An account of the history of their relationship. Orientalia Nova Series 68: 215-253. 2005 Left-dislocated possessors in Sumerian. Pp. 161-188 in Universal Grammar in the Reconstruction of Ancient Languages, ed. K. É. Kiss. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Hypotactic and Paratactic Complementation in Sumerian ditilla Texts* Fumi Karahashi CHUO UNIVERSITY, TOKYO

1. Introduction Bertrand Lafont and Raymond Westbrook (2003: 184) call the ditillas “trial reports” which “contain an extremely terse account of trial proceedings.”1 Among the verbs that occur most frequently in the texts are d u g 4 ‘say’ and g e - e n 6 / e n 8 ‘confirm, attest’, often appearing without the subject and object clearly expressed. D u g 4 certainly is a verb of communication, and g e - e n 6 / e n 8 may also be a member of this class.2 The examples given in (1) and (2), each consisting of two clauses, one of which contains g e - e n 6 / e n 8 or d u g 4 , illustrate the constructions this paper addresses.3 (1) Nik. 2 447: r.2-3 dam ur-ab-zu-ka-ke4 wife Urabzu-GEN-ERG

in-du8 PRF-open

ba-ge-en6 PRF-attest

(Daß) die Frau des Ur-Abzu geöffnet hat, ist bezeugt worden. (Englund 1990: 41) (2) NSGU 2 202: 10-12 sag-ki-sag 9 dam lugal-me-a-ke 4 ur- d dumu-zi-da-ke 4 lugal-me-a dam-gu 10 Sagkisag wife Lugalmea-GEN-ERG Urdumuzida-ERG Lugalmea husband-my

––––––––––––– * I gratefully acknowledge the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) for awarding a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C) (No. 215204540), which supported the research reported in this paper. I thank Beatrice Santorini and Frederick W. Knobloch for helpful discussion and their comments. 1. Laura E. Culbertson (2009), in the abstract of her Ph. D. dissertation, defines the ditilla texts as “limited administrative summaries of procedures.” It is probably important to clarify the texts’ function in order to understand the formulae and expressions utilized in the texts. 2. Otherwise, g e - e n 6 / e n 8 might be one of the “propositional attitude predicates” in Noonan’s classification. They “express an attitude regarding the truth of the proposition expressed as their complement. The propositional attitude may be positive as in the verbs believe, think, suppose, assume, etc., or negative as in not believe, doubt, deny, etc.” (Noonan 1985: 113). 3. I use the following abbreviations in the glosses: ABL = ablative, ABS = absolutive, AUX = auxiliary, C = complementizer, CP = complementizer phrase, DAT = dative, ERG = ergative, FUT = future, GEN = genitive, LOC = locative, LT = locative-terminative, NMN = nominalizer, NOM = nominative, NONP = non-past, NP = noun phrase, O/OBJ = object, PL = plural, PRF = prefix (including dimensional infixes and the pre-radical /n/ and /b/), S = sentence, SG = singular, SUBJ = subject, TER = terminative, TOP = topic.

49

50

FUMI KARAHASHI in-gaz PRF-kill

bi2-dug4 PRF-say

Sagkisag, die Ehefrau des Lugalmea, hat: “Urdumuzida hat Lugalmea, meinen Ehemann, getötet,” erklärt. (Falkenstein 1956: 332) Translating example (1) into German, Englund supplied the complementizer daß in parentheses. This translation reflects the understanding that the clause preceding the verb g e - e n 6 ‘confirm, attest’, d a m u r - a b - z u - k a - k e 4 i n - d u 8 “the wife of Ur-Abzu opened,” is not formally subordinate since there is no overt nominalizer, but instead is the verb’s semantic complement. This sounds natural and seems logical. Example (2) is understood as containing direct speech on the ground that the possessive pronoun “my” on d a m - g u 1 0 “my husband” is not replaced by “her” – a shift that would be expected in many languages if it were an indirect speech construction. The aim of this paper is two-fold. First, it will define d a m u r - a b - z u - k a - k e 4 i n - d u 8 “the wife of Ur-Abzu opened” in (1) as a paratactic complement of the verb g e - e n 6 and thus will give theoretical support to the analysis and translation hitherto done. Second, it will suggest that example (2) as a whole be considered reported discourse and that it employs so-called “mixed quotation.” The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 presents an overview of clausal complementation, and consists of three subsections: complement types with hypotactic construction (Section 2.1), paratactic complementation (Section 2.2), and reported speech (Section 2.3). Section 3 discusses complementation of the Sumerian verb g e - e n 6 / e n 8 and Section 4 treats that of d u g 4 . Section 5 offers conclusions.

2. Clausal Complementation: An Overview Clausal complementation may be categorized into hypotactic and paratactic depending on how complement clauses are linked to the matrix (main) clause. A complement clause is “a type of clause which fills an argument slot in the structure of another clause” (Dixon 2010b: 370). In a hypotactic construction, complements are rendered as subordinate clauses, while in its paratactic counterpart, semantic complement is rendered as what normally would be syntactically independent clauses (Noonan 1985: 106).

2.1. Hypotactic Complements: Complement Types Complement clauses can come in a variety of forms both across and within languages. English, for example, has four main complement types, as shown in (3), which repeats examples from Noonan and Dixon.4 Complement clauses are placed in square brackets. (3) (a) [That Cartier defeated Dugué] would be significant (a’) I heard [(that) Brazil beat Argentina] (that-clause)

––––––––––––– 4.

(3a) and (3b-d) are from Noonan 1985: 43; (3a’) from Dixon 2010b: 371.

Hypotactic and Paratactic Complementation

51

(b) [For Cartier to defeat Dugué] would be significant (infinitive clause) (c) [Cartier’s defeating Dugué] is significant (gerund or verbal noun clause) (d) Nelson saw [Cartier defeating Dugué] (participial clause) The that may be omitted when the complement clause is in O function in the main clause, as shown in (3a’).

2.2. Paratactic Complements In paratactic construction no marker of coordination or subordination links the two independent clauses. An example from Diegueño (a Native American language) is given in (4), which is repeated here from Noonan 1985: 56 (73). (4) ?enya· puy ?exap-x-vu I there go in-1SG-UNREALIZED SPECIFIC ewa·rp-x uma·w want-3PL SUBJ 3SG OBJ UNREALIZED not(3PL) I’ll go in there, they won’t want it. (They won’t want me to go there.) According to Hoeksema and Napoli (1993: 307-8), many studies have shown that juxtaposition of clauses without overt connectors at the junction can result in a single sentence. They particularly mention a detailed study done by Longacre (1985: 259-63) on Chicahuaxtla Trique (a language of Mexico) in which juxtaposition is utilized as a method of clause cohesion.

2.3. Reported Speech Verbs of communication, for example, say, ask or request, are complement-taking verbs.5 In the case of the verb say, the actual utterance may be expressed either as direct speech (X says, “Y”) or as indirect speech, as a clausal complement headed by the complementizer (X says that Y). While the latter (X says that Y) has clausal complementation in a hypotactic construction, the former (X says, “Y”), with or without a comma, may be considered a sort of paratactic construction. Examples of the two types of construction are given in (5).6

––––––––––––– 5. Smith’s (2002: 142) list of verbs of communication includes: say, ask, request, command, declare, confess, advise, insist, claim, shout, read, sing, remark, observe, note, yell, swear, promise, announce, and pray. For sentence constructions of these verbs, see also Noonan 1985: 110-113 and Dixon 1991: 140-155. 6 . These examples are repeated here from Maier 2008, Example (1) with a few changes. Maier’s paper can be found at http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/jMzY2NjY/em_ indirect_lenls08.html.

52

FUMI KARAHASHI

(5) (a) Hanako said, “I will go to Tokyo.” (b) Hanako said that she would go to Tokyo. The complement of (5a) reproduces Hanako’s utterance: it has the first person and future tense. In (5b) these forms are shifted: the pronoun is third person, and the tense is past (auxiliary verb would) in accord with the tense of the main clause verb. Shifts in deictic elements and in tense are required in English indirect speech (Dixon 1991: 32-33). But different languages employ different strategies to produce indirect speech. For example, Russian does not have sequence of tense, and Amharic does not have sequence of person (Smith 2002: 142). An Amharic example of indirect speech is given in (6).7 (6) ǰon ǰǝgna nǝ -ññ yil -all John hero be-1.sg say.3.sg-AUX.3.sg Johni says that “Ii am” a hero. The Amharic first person is not a word but an inflection on the verb. Japanese indirect speech has neither sequence of tense nor sequence of person, as shown in (7). (7) Hanako-wa watashi-ga Tookyoo-e iku to itta Hanako-TOP I-NOM Tokyo-TER go C said Hanakoi said that “Ii go” to Tokyo. In the complement clause the pronoun watashi ‘I’ is used and the tense is not shifted in accord with the tense of the main clause verb. In these Amharic and Japanese examples of reported speech, part or all of the speech is reported verbatim, and the line between direct and indirect speech is blurred. Maier (2008: 187) calls such speech “mixed quotation.”

3 . g e - e n 6 / e n 8 ‘confirm, attest’ The Sumerian verb g e - e n 6 / e n 8 ‘confirm, attest’ has several ways in which “what is confirmed” can be expressed. I propose to group them into hypotactic and paratactic constructions.

3.1. Hypotactic Complementation The examples given in (8) and (9) show the complement clauses of the verb g e e n 6 / e n 8 in hypotactic construction. These clauses are marked with - a (NMN) (8) or with - a - a š (< NMN a + TER š e 3 ) (9).8

––––––––––––– 7. 8.

This example is repeated here from Maier 2008, Example (18). On Sumerian morphology, see most recently Rubio 2007.

Hypotactic and Paratactic Complementation

53

(8) (a) SAT 3 2217: 1-7 PN1-3 i g i - n e - n e - š e 3 u d u PN4- k e 4 0.0.2 š e ib2-gu7-a PN1-3 eye-their-TER sheep PN4-GEN-ERG 20 (sila) grain PRF-eat-NMN PN5 i b 2 - g e - n e 2 PN5 PRF-confirm In front of PN1-3, PN5 confirmed that PN4’s sheep ate 20 (sila) of grain. (b) BPOA 1 374: 1-9 (wooden objects) u m m a k i - t a n i b r u k i - š e 3 Umma-ABL Nippur-TER

ma2 gar-ra boat place-NMN

PN- e ba-ge-en6 PN-ERG PRF-confirm PN confirmed that (wooden objects) were shipped from Umma to Nippur. (9) (a) NSGU 2 60: 1-3 // Molina, Studies Sigrist, 131 4 PN1 d u m u PN2- k e 4 PN3 a r a d 2 PN2- a ( k ) PN1 son PN2-GEN-ERG PN3 slave PN2-GEN

i3-me-a-aš PRF-be-NMN-TER

in-ge-en6 PRF-confirm PN1, son of PN2, confirmed that PN3 was the slave of PN2.9 (b) NSGU 2 62: 11 PN m a 2 š u m 2 - m a - a š PN boat give-NMN-TER

ba-ge-en6 PRF-confirm

PN’s having given the boat was confirmed.10 (Umma) (c) NSGU 2 212: pass. PN1 k u 3 - t a sa10-a PN2- a ( k ) - š e 3 PN1 silver-ABL buy-NMN PN2-GEN-TER

ba-ge-en6 PRF-confirm

PN1 was confirmed as being bought by PN2 with money.11 Falkenstein (1956: 69 ad 4'), in his studies of ditillas, already pointed out the verb g e - e n 6 / e n 8 ’ s clausal construction with the terminative. Hypotactic complement clauses of the verb g e - e n 6 / e n 8 permit both a finite (8a and 9a) and a nonfinite verb (8b and 9b-c). Compare this with the English complement types seen in Section 2.1.

––––––––––––– 9. Falkenstein’s (1956: 98) translation: “PN1, der Sohn des PN2, hat, daß PN3 der Sklave des PN2 gewesen ist, bewiesen.” 10. Falkenstein’s (1956: 100) translation: “Daß PN das Schiff gegeben hat, ist ‘festgestellt’ worden.” 11. Falkenstein’s (1956: 374) translation: “Es ist festgestellt worden, daß PN1 der für Geld gekaufte (Sklave) des PN2 ist.”

54

FUMI KARAHASHI

3.2. Paratactic Complementation In addition to the hypotactic complementation seen in Section 3.1, Sumerian apparently has another strategy for the verb g e - e n 6 / e n 8 : i.e., paratactic. Two examples of such are given in (10). The aforementioned example (1) is repeated here as (10a). (10) (a) Nik. 2 447: r.2-3 d a m PN- k e 4 in-du8 ba-ge-en6 wife PN-GEN-ERG PRF-open PRF-confirm The wife of PN opened (it). It was confirmed. (That the wife of PN opened (it) was confirmed.) (b) NSGU 2 189: 1-6 4.1.3 ku 6 šeg 6 gur ku 6 4 gur 90 (sila) fish smoked fish

muš-bi-an-na PN 1 ba-an-na-šum 2 Mušbianna PN 1 PRF-him-give

PN2 u 3 PN3- e ib2-ge-en6 PN2 and PN3-ERG PRF-confirm 4 gur 90 (sila) of smoked fish, fish from Mushbianna, was given to PN1, PN2 and PN3 confirmed it. (PN2 and PN3 confirmed that 4 gur 90 (sila) of smoked fish, fish from Mushbianna, was given to PN1.) In (10a) and (10b), as opposed to the hypotactic construction, two independent clauses are juxtaposed.12 However, the semantic relationship between the two clauses seems quite analogous to that of hypotactic construction of (8) and (9). That is why the complementizer daß is supplied in Englund’s (1990: 41) German translation of (10a): “(Daß) die Frau des PN geöffnet hat, ist bezeugt worden.” However, (10b) is translated differently from (10a) by both Falkenstein and Englund. Falkenstein’s (1956: 301) translation is: “4 Kur 90 (sila3) fr[ische] Fische, Fische von Mušbi’anna-Gebiet, sind dem PN2 übergeben worden. PN2 und PN3 haben dies bewiesen.” Englund’s (1990: 160) translation is: “4 Kor, 1 (barig) 3 (ban) geräucherter Fisch, Fisch (des Feldes) Muš-bi-ana, hat man PN1 gegeben. PN2 und PN3 haben es bestätigt.” Both scholars take (10b) as two separate sentences and do not supply the complementizer daß to connect them. I do not see why (10a) and (10b) should be understood differently. In these two examples, what is confirmed may be regarded as a complement in paratactic construction and translated with a complementizer. This will allow both (10a) and (10b) to be treated in a consistent way.

––––––––––––– 12. For a similar construction in Akkadian (with the verb ‘know’), see Deutscher 2010: 172.

Hypotactic and Paratactic Complementation

55

4. d u g 4 ‘say’ Example (11), previously cited as (2), represents one of the construction patterns involving the verb d u g 4 . (11) NSGU 2 202: 10-12 PN1 d a m PN2- k e 4 PN3- e PN2 d a m - g u 1 0 PN1 wife PN2-GEN-ERG PN3-ERG PN2 husband-my

in-gaz PRF-kill

bi2-dug4 PRF-said

PN1, wife of PN2, said, “PN3 killed my husband PN2.”13 (11) shows that the verb d u g 4 has as its semantic complement the direct discourse representation: PN3- e PN2 d a m - g u 1 0 i n - g a z “PN3 killed my husband PN2.” Note that this clause occupies the object slot, being placed between the subject and the predicate of the matrix clause. Example (12) is slightly different from (11). (12) van Dijk, ZA 55, 78 2 (IM 54370): 1-4 PN1 dumu PN2- ke 4 PN3 dumu PN4 arad-gu 10 in-sa 10 -a bi 2 -dug 4 PN1 son PN2-GEN-ERG PN3 son PN4 slave-my PRF-buy-NMN PRF-say PN1, son of PN2, said that “I bought PN3, son of PN4, my slave.” Assuming that the - a on i n - s a 1 0 - a is the nominalizer, the quoted speech becomes a complementized clause of the verb d u g 4 . In other words, the semantic complement is expressed as a true (= syntactic) complement. Here we have indirect speech in which the pronoun - g u 1 0 “my” is not shifted and the speech is quoted verbatim.14 This reminds us of the Amharic and Japanese “mixed quotation” (6 and 7). Now consider (13), where the verbs d u g 4 and g e - e n 6 occur one after the other. (13) NSGU 2 69: 8-10 egir-a PN- e i3-sa10 bi2-in-dug4 back-LOC PN-ERG PRF-buy PRF-say

i3-in-ge-en6 PRF-confirm

Später hat PN erklärt: “Ich habe sie gekauft,” (und) hat dies bewiesen. (Falkenstein 1956: 113) I would like to propose another translation of the sentences given in (13): “Later, that PN said that ‘I bought’ was confirmed.” The clause i 3 - s a 1 0 “I bought” is a paratactic complement of the verb d u g 4 and then the whole statement, in turn, is a paratactic complement of the verb g e - e n 6 .

––––––––––––– 13. For Falkenstein’s translation, see (2). 14. Cf. Jagersma (2010: 603, (88b)), who believes that a grammatical change (from “I” to “he”) took place upon converting direct speech to indirect speech. If this is the case, no indication is given as to how representative this type of construction was.

56

FUMI KARAHASHI

5. Concluding Remarks What is confirmed is expressed as a complement of the verb g e - e n 6 / e n 8 , and likewise what is said is expressed as a complement of the verb d u g 4 . The complement may be realized in two ways. One is a paratactic construction in which the clause preceding the one containing g e - e n 6 / e n 8 or d u g 4 is independent and the complementation is semantic. The other is a hypotactic construction in which the verb’s semantic complement is expressed as a true complement – that is to say, with syntactic complementation.

Bibliography Cristofaro, S. 2003 Subordination. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Culbertson, L. E. 2009 Dispute Resolution in the Provincial Courts of the Third Dynasty of Ur. Ph. D. dissertation, The University of Michigan. Deutscher, G. 2010 Complement Clause Types and Complementation Strategies in Akkadian. Pp. 159177 in Complementation: A Cross-Linguistic Typology, ed. R. M. W. Dixon and A. Y. Aikhenvald. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dixon, R. M. W. 1991 A New Approach to English Grammar, on Semantic Principles. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2006 Complement Clauses and Complement Strategies in Typological Perspective. Pp. 148 in Complementation: A Cross-Linguistic Typology, ed. R. M. W. Dixon and A. Y. Aikhenvald. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2010a Basic Linguistic Theory. 1. Methodology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2010b Basic Linguistic Theory. 2. Grammatical Topics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Englund, R. K. 1990 Organisation und Verwaltung der Ur III-Fischerei. Berliner Beiträge zum Vorderen Orient 10. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag. Falkenstein, A. 1956 Die neusumerischen Gerichtsurkunden, zweiter Teil. Abhandlungen der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-Historische Abteilung, Munich, Neue Folge 40. Munich: Verlag der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Haiman, J., and Thompson, S. A., (ed.) 1988 Clause Combining in Grammar and Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Hoeksema, J., and Napoli, D. J. 1993 Paratactic and Subordinative So. Journal of Linguistics 29: 291-314. Jagersma, A. H. 2010 A Descriptive Grammar of Sumerian. Ph. D. dissertation, Universiteit Leiden. Kuno, S. 1973 The Structure of the Japanese Language. Cambridge, MA: The IMT Press. Lafont, B., and Westbrook, R. 2003 Neo-Sumerian Period (Ur III). Pp. 183-226 in A History of Ancient Near Eastern Law, ed. R. Westbrook. Leiden: Brill.

Hypotactic and Paratactic Complementation

57

Longacre, R. E. 1985 Sentences as Combinations of Clauses. Pp. 235-286 in Language Typology and Syntactic Description, II: Complex Constructions, ed. T. Shopen. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Maier, E. 2008 Japanese Reported Speech: Against a Direct – Indirect Distinction. Pp. 187-199 in Proceedings of the Fifth International Workshop on Logic and Engineering of Natural Language Semantics LENLS (June 2008), ed. N. Ogata. Asahikawa (Japan): Japanese Society for Artificial Intelligence. Molina, M. 2008 New Ur III Court Records Concerning Slavery. Pp. 125-143 in On the Third Dynasty of Ur: Studies in Honor of Marcel Sigrist, ed. P. Michalowski. The Journal of Cuneiform Studies, Supplemental Series 1. Boston: American Schools of Oriental Research. Noonan, M. 1985 Complementation. Pp. 42-140 in Language Typology and Syntactic Description, II: Complex Constructions, ed. T. Shopen. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ozaki, T., and Sigrist, M. 2006 Ur III Administrative Tablets from the British Museum, Part One. Biblioteca del Próximo Oriente Antiguo 1. Madird: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas. Rubio, G. 2007 Sumerian Morphology. Pp. 1327-1379 in Morphologies of Asia and Africa, Vol. 2, ed. A. S. Kaye. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. Sallaberger, W. 2008 Der Eid im Gerichtsverfahren im neusumerischen Umma. Pp. 159-176 in On the Third Dynasty of Ur: Studies in Honor of Marcel Sigrist, ed. P. Michalowski. The Journal of Cuneiform Studies, Supplemental Series 1. Boston: American Schools of Oriental Research. Sigrist, M. 2000 Texts from the Yale Babylonian Collections, II. Sumerian Archival Texts 3. Bethesda: CDL Press. Smith, C. 2002 Accounting for Subjectivity (Point of View). Pp. 137-163 in The Legacy of Zellig Harris: Language and Information into the 21st Century. Vol. I: Philosophy of Science, Syntax and Semantics, ed. B. E. Nevin. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. van Dijk, J. J. A. 1962 Neusumerische Gerichtsurkunden in Bagdad. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 55: 70-90.

On the Location of Irisaĝrig* Manuel Molina CSIC, MADRID

1. Introduction The invasion of Iraq in 2003 and its aftermath left the archaeological sites of the country unprotected and extremely vulnerable to looting. Large scale illegal excavations of unprecedented proportions were carried out just before and after the war through vast areas of Iraqi soil, destroying sites and making some of them irrecoverable for archaeological research. One of the effects of this tragedy has been the appearance on the antiquities market of hundreds of unprovenanced cuneiform tablets purchased by private collectors and institutions. The dimensions and patterns of the looting, and its relationship to the archaeological periods affected by the attacks of the looters and the kind of objects unearthed, have been well studied by E. C. Stone, who wrote that “those sites apt to yield the best cylinder seals (Akkadian), cuneiform tablets (Ur III, Old Babylonian) and early coins (Achaemenid, Parthian) show much more evidence for looting than other periods” (Stone 2008: 135). In collaboration with D. I. Owen, I have tracked the tablets offered for sale on the web by art galleries, auction houses and antiquaries all over the world since the end of the nineties. Tablets offered in this way after 2003 are in fact, and in accordance with Stone’s conclusions, mainly dated to the Ur III period, and secondarily to the Sargonic and Old Babylonian periods. Some of them come from the usual sites known since the beginnings of the 20th century, such as Umma, Girsu and Puzriš-Dagān, but the vast majority of the tablets come from new and previously unknown sites. The provenance of these texts is usually difficult to ascertain unless we are faced with big groups of tablets, with prosopographical links among them and with

––––––––––––– * I wish to thank the following colleagues for their kind help in the preparation of this work: David I. Owen very generously shared with me his unpublished material from the archives of Irisaĝrig (Owen 2013a-b); Piotr Steinkeller sent me his unpublished works, which have been most useful in my research; Elizabeth Stone helped me with the greographical coordinates of some of the sites in which I was interested; Stephanie Rost kindly discussed with me some aspects of this paper and solved some of my doubts concerning watercourses; Bram Jagersma shared with me his thoughts on the orthographic variants of the Tabbi-Mama canal. The technicians of our Geographical Information Systems Laboratory (CCHS-CSIC), and particularly Carlos Fernández Freire and Ernesto Salas Tovar, were of much help in the treatment of the satellite images; they also prepared the figures at the end of the paper. This research has been made possible thanks to the financial support granted by the Spanish Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación through the project FFI2011-23981.

59

60

MANUEL MOLINA

internal data able to provide that kind of information. This has been the case for an enormous and important group of tablets identified as coming from Irisaĝrig, a Sumerian city never excavated before and whose location remains unknown. This phenomenon of unprovenanced tablets coming from a city known to us through other documents is not new, and has a recent and remarkable example in the archives of GARšana.1 The exact location of this site has been much debated,2 and regardless of which arguments we may find more convincing, the problem will only be definitively solved by means of surface surveys or regular archaeological excavations. This will also be the case with the location of Irisaĝrig.

2. Previous Research on the Location of Irisaĝrig Irisaĝrig is well documented in cuneiform sources from the third millennium beginning in Early Dynastic times.3 Its oldest attestation comes from a text from Fara (FTUPM 78), which records drinks for people from Irisaĝrig, Adab and Umma. Later testimonies from Nippur dated to the ED IIIb and the Sargonic periods, particularly year-names in which Irisaĝrig is mentioned, suggest a proximity between the two cities, a fact that was soon pointed out by scholars such as M. Lambert (1953: 13), A. Goetze (1963: 20), or H. Sauren (1966: 99). Some years later, C. Wilcke (1972: 55-59) and H. J. Nissen (1975: 27-28) discussed the toponyms recorded in TCL 5 5676: x.11-18, and considered their possible locations in relation to Umma and Adab. This text continues to be essential in the treatment of the location of Irisaĝrig. Among Early Dynastic cuneiform texts, the List of Geographical Names (LGN) has also been used as a source of information to ascertain the location of Irisaĝrig. Its entry 167, attested in both the Ebla and Abū-Ṣalābiḫ versions, corresponds to the toponym Sa(r)-ra-LUM, identified by Steinkeller with Šarrākum/Irisaĝrig (1986: 35; see n. 3 for the reservations of C. Lecompte). Assuming, with Th. Jacobsen (1960), that major watercourses in the alluvium were effluents of the Euphrates, and that the Iturungal was an eastern branch of it, D. Frayne (1992: 28-37)

––––––––––––– 1. For a reading Niĝšana of this toponym, see P. Steinkeller 2011: 377, and 2012: 42; the reading Garšana has been defended by E. Sollberger 1957/8: 107, and W. Heimpel 2009: 1. 2. See Heimpel 2009: 7-9, and 2011; Steinkeller 2011 and 2013. 3. A Sumerian reading of this toponym is here preferred on the basis of TCL 5 5676: r.iv.13, which reads ( ĝ u r u š ) u 4 1 - š è I r i - s a ĝ - r i g 8 k i - g a š e m á - a s i - g a ( see C. Wilcke 1972: 55); cf. possibly also MVN 18 635: 8. A final consonant /g/ of this toponym could also be supported by a tablet from Zabalam, which reads [URU.D]U.HÚBki- g a (CUNES 52-08-50: r.ii.3, courtesy P. Notizia), in case URU.DU.HÚBki is accepted as a writing for Irisaĝrig in ED IIIb texts from Zabalam, as proposed by S. F. Monaco (CUSAS 14 183, et passim). The alternative Akkadian reading is supported by the Old Babylonian letter W 20474 (a-al ša-ra-ki: see A. Falkenstein 1963: 21), and by later lexical texts (Nabnītu XVII 65 = MSL 16, p. 155). The identification of this toponym in the Early Dynastic List of Geographical Names is doubtful: this list records sa-ra-LUM / sar-ra-[LUM] (167), which according to Steinkeller (1986: 35) could correspond to Šarrākum; C. Lecompte (2009: 230) has nevertheless put a question mark on this identification arguing that a reading g ú m for LUM is very rarely attested in Ebla texts, and that this entry belongs to a section of LGN recording toponyms ending in - l u m . For a reading /iri/eri/ere/ of URU, see D. O. Edzard 1991: 77-78, and Attinger 2008: 72. For the attestations of Irisaĝrig in the Early Dynastic IIIb, Sargonic, Ur III, and Old Babylonian periods, see D. O. Edzard and G. Farber 1974: 232-234; Edzard, Farber and Sollberger 1977: 186-187; B. Groneberg 1980: 251; D. R. Frayne 2013.

On the Location of Irisaĝrig

61

suggested that the section of LGN in which Šarrākum appears corresponded to cities laying along the Iturungal located just upstream from Adab. Leaving aside the fact that Heimpel (1990) and Steinkeller (2001) later proposed that the watercourse where Frayne placed Irisaĝrig was the Tigris, the toponyms of the so-called “Iturungal Canal” section are very problematic. As Lecompte has shown (2009: 231-232), none of them can be placed with certainty in the region of Nippur, except perhaps for Šarrākum/Irisaĝrig (167) and PIRIG.TURki (170). Therefore, for the time being, it seems that the analysis of this section of LGN will hardly provide conclusive information about the relative position of Irisaĝrig. As a matter of fact, the arguments used by Frayne to localize Irisaĝrig mainly relied on other kind of documentation. Among the sites surveyed by R. McC. Adams and cataloged in his Heartland of cities (1981), Frayne (1992: 36-37) proposed site no. 1188, modern Umm al-Hafriyyat, as the plausible location of Irisaĝrig. His main arguments were the following: a) According to the above-mentioned TCL 5 5676 (Text 1 in Fig. 1), Irisaĝrig was upstream from Umma, at a distance that boat-towers could cover in four days. The water route followed would have been what Frayne identified as the Iturungal, passing through Jidr and Adab. b) Site no. 1188 is the largest mound laying north of Adab, in the vicinity of Nippur, with extensive Early Dynastic and Sargonic remains. c) The archaeological reports about the quality of the clay of Umm al-Hafriyyat. This fact would explain the more than 400 pottery kilns mapped in and around Umm al-Hafriyyat, which according to McG. Gibson (1977/78) made of this site one of the few Mesopotamian towns known to be devoted to the manufacture of pottery and bricks. Following Wilcke, who assumed that Keš was the sacred precint at Irisaĝrig, Frayne linked this feature of Umm al-Hafriyyat with Diĝirmah, the tutelary deity of Keš who, for example, was called d n i n - b á h a r “lady potter” in the A n : anum list. The reasons why I would discard the identification of Umm al-Hafriyyat with Irisaĝrig are mainly of an archaeological nature (see below §6), but Frayne’s arguments based on TCL 5 5676 (Text 1), who in this followed Wilcke and Nissen, remain a good starting point. This text is an annual account balancing the performances of Ur-Ninsu, a chief plot manager from Umma. Individual receipts, which concerned the section in which the boat towing towards and from Irisaĝrig was recorded, were entered into this annual account (see Fig. 1), and part of them could be found among UTI 4 2896 (Text 2), SNAT 459 (Text 3), UTI 5 3455 (Text 4), and BM 106562 (Text 5). The whole dossier (except for BM 106562, unpublished at that time) was discussed by Steinkeller (2001: 73-74, 84), who reached the following main conclusions concerning Irisaĝrig: a) The watercourse identified by Jacobsen and other scholars as the eastern branch of the Euphrates, at least its stretch between KAsahar and Apišal, was the Tigris.

62

MANUEL MOLINA

b) One of the cities laying on the Tigris was Irisaĝrig, as can be deduced from YOS 4 56,4 a text that had been previously discussed by Heimpel (1990: 207-210). According to this text, governors and chief temple administrators of cities laying on the banks of the Tigris and the Euphrates ( g ú i 7 I d i g n a g ú i 7 B u r a n u n - n a š è ) delivered different goods on the occasion of the installation of a statue of Šulgi. c) TCL 5 5676: x.11-21 (Text 1) and the above-mentioned related Texts 2-5 record four days of towing from Umma to Irisaĝrig. As the average towing time from Umma to KAsahar (possibly located at or near site no. 781) was five days, Irisaĝrig must have been located downstream of KAsahar. On the other hand, since Irisaĝrig was an independent province during the Ur III period, it would have been located to the north of the Adab province. d) Based on their dimensions and surface material, Steinkeller identified the best candidates for Irisaĝrig located to the north of Adab and downstream of KAsahar as sites nos. 1032, 1056 and 1071 of Adam’s catalog.

3. The Ur III Sources Concerning the Location of Irisaĝrig After the publication of these works, the corpus of Ur III texts at our disposal has kept growing, particularly with texts from Umma that provide some additional data. UTI 6 3700 records a trip of ten or more days needed to tow a boat upstream from Umma to Irisaĝrig, to float it downstream and to load barley onto it.5 The text is dated to the twelfth month of ŠS 2, and has the same seal impression and receiving official as Texts 1-5. It may have recorded the same trip as Texts 1-5, though in a much more simplified way. Whether it was the same trip or not, it is important to keep in mind that these receipts documented all the workdays completed under the responsibility of a given foreman, and not only the number of days towing upstream and floating the boats downstream. Thus, even if not explicitly stated, they could also account for the time needed to load, unload, and transfer the goods transported, the time to move the boats over weirs or bridges, the time needed to plait reeds into a raft, or even the time used to accomplish sidetrips to other close localities where additional goods were loaded or unloaded. Other texts recording trips from Irisaĝrig should be probably understood in the light of this remark. Thus, BPOA 2 2390 probably recorded the two-three days needed to float the boats downstream from Irisaĝrig to Umma, plus one-two days

––––––––––––– 4. [120]+140.0.0 k a š n i n d a g u r , é n s i U m m a k i , 208.0.0 é n s i A d a b k i , 1768.0.0 é n s i I r i s a ĝ - r i g 7 k i , 33.4.0 š a b r a d A l - l a - t u m , 52.0.0 I - m i - i d - DINGIR, 39.0.0 š a b r a d U t u L a r s a m k i , 169.0.0 é n s i Š u r u p p a g k i , 78.0.0 š a b r a d N a - n a - a , 1866.4.0 š a b r a ⸢ U r i 5 ⸣ k i - m a , 52.0.0 š a b r a R i - b a - a , 56.0.0 š a b r a d I n a n n a 13.0.0 U r - d B a - ú , 23.2.0 d Š u l - g i - ì - l í , š u - n í ĝ i n 1 g u r u 7 1127.0.0 k a š n i n d a g u r , m á š - d a - r i - a k ù - s i g 1 7 ⸢ k ù ⸣- b a b b a r g u 4 u d u , u 4 a l a m d Š u l - g i - e in-gub-ba-gen7-àm tùm-dam, ezem-mah-šè tùm-dam, gú i7 Idigna gú i7 Buranunna!-šè. 5. UTI 6 3700: 5 ĝ u r u š u 4 10 ([+13?)-š è ], k a r U m m a k i - t a , I r i - < s a ĝ > - r i g 7 k i - [ š è ] , m á g í d - d a m á d i r i ! (SI)-g a , š e m á - a s i - g a , u g u l a G ú - TAR, k i š i b A - r á - ĝ u 1 0 . ŠS 2/xii. Seal: U r d Suen, dub-sar, dumu Ur-ĝiš[gigir], šà-[tam].

On the Location of Irisaĝrig

63

needed to make a raft.6 Likewise, BPOA 1 1418 (Š 35/xii)7 and 1785 (Š 35)8 recorded the same two ( a - r á 2 - à m ) round trips between Irisaĝrig and Nippur undertaken for the transportation of reeds. The whole operation employed 12 workers during 35 days, a total that no doubt accounted for the two round trips. However, 17-18 days seem excesive for a round trip between Irisaĝrig and Nippur. As a reference, we may consider that round trips from Umma to Nippur took about 14-15 days (Steinkeller 2001: 78). Since Irisaĝrig lay at a distance of about four days upstream and two days downstream from Umma (see below), we would expect that round trips between Irisaĝrig and Nippur would have taken about eight-nine days; in fact, according to a text published by R. Kutscher (1970: 43 3 [Š40/xii]: 24-28), a round trip by boat from Irisaĝrig to Saĝdana/Puzriš-Dagān took ten days.9 What probably made the difference in BPOA 1 1418 and 1785 was the inclusion in the account of the time needed for the transportation of the reeds from a storehouse in Irisaĝrig (ca. one day), the making of the raft and the loading of the reeds on it (ca. one day), the unloading and counting of the reeds in Nippur (ca. one day), and eventually other side-trips in the area of Irisaĝrig or Nippur. An alternative answer to the problem of the long trips recorded in BPOA 1 1418 and 1785 could also be that Irisaĝrig did not lay on the ancient course of the Tigris, but somewhere else to the East, far away from Nippur, and upstream from Umma but on a different watercourse. Nevertheless, this possibility should be discarded, since the extant written sources point to a location of Irisaĝrig in the vicinity of Nippur. In addition, according to YOS 4 56, and as suggested by Heimpel (1990: 213), Irisaĝrig was on the Tigris or very close to it. The distance of four days upstream from Umma to Irisaĝrig is well fixed by Texts 1-5, in which a detailed description of a round trip from Umma to Irisaĝrig is provided. Every single operation has been recorded in these texts, so we can be confident that the four days accounted as the time needed to travel from Umma to Irisaĝrig were indeed the days needed to tow the boats upstream and nothing else.

––––––––––––– 6. BPOA 2 2390 (not collated): 20 l á 1 ĝ u r u š u 4 4 - š è , I r i - s a ĝ - r i g 7 k i - t a , U m m a k i - š è m á - l a l - a g i k é š -rá!? (“da”), k i U r - E 1 1 - e - t a , ĝ ì r i L u g a l - i t i - d a . Š 34/i. Seal: L u g a l - t i - d a , dumu Ĝìri-né, àga-ús énsi. 7. BPOA 1 1418 (collated): 6 ĝ u r u š u 4 35-š è , m á - l a l - a g i I r i - s a ĝ - r i g 7 k i - t a , a - r á 2-à m i m - d e 6 , u g u l a L ú - d Š á r a , ĝ ì r i U n k e n - n é . ŠS 2/xii. Seal: [ U n k e n ] - n é , [ d u b ] - s a r , [ d u m u ] Ur-ĝišgigir. 8 BPOA 1 1785 (collated): 1 2 ĝ u r u š u 4 3 5 - š è , m á - l a l - a I r i - s a ĝ - r i g 7 k i - t a , N i b r u k i - š è a - r á 2 - k a m í b - g í d , u g u l a L u g a l - d I š t a r a n , k i š i b L u g a l - i t i - d a . ŠS 2. Seal: Lu g a l - i t i - d a , dumu Ĝìri-né, àga-ús énsi. 9. This interesting text of uncertain provenance was published in translation, accompanied by two photos of the tablet. The transliteration that follows is based both on the translation and the pictures, on which the edges of the tablet cannot be seen: 73.2.0 z ì g u r l u g a l , š à - b i - t a , 6.0.0 g u r L u g a l -EZEM×X-k i - e , 30.0.0 g u r Ù l u - d i , m u d N a n n a - k i - á ĝ - ( š è ), 11.0.0 g u r I š - p u - g a - r u , 5.0.0 g u r Š u -UK?.NI, 5.0.0 g u r U r - m e s , 8.2.0 g u r é - d u b - b a - š è , L ú - d N a n n a d u b - s a r , 0.1.0 š e b a m á - g í d - e - n e , L u g a l - ì - t i , 0.3.4 k a r - t a , ĝ ì r i AN.GÀR U r - m e s š u b a - t i , 0.1.5 g u r k a r - t a , ĝ ì r i I m - m a - s i , U r - m e s š u b a - t i , é r e n š u k u m á b a l a , 0.4.0 á l ú h u ĝ - ĝ á , rev. (...) / (...)-b í M a - m a - š è ? (“for trips between E-... and the bank of the Tabbimama canal”), 3 m á 0.0.1-ta u 4 1 k a m , u 4 10-š è z ì - b i 1.0.0 g u r , 5 ĝ u r u š 5 s ì l a - t a , u 4 1 - k a m u 4 10-š è , z ì - b i 0.4.1, I r i - s a ĝ r i g 7 k i - t a , S a ĝ - d a - n a - š è , 0.0.3 AN?.GÀR, 0.0.3 U r - d N i n - g u b l a g a ?, 0.0.3 E n - u m - ì - l í , 0.0.3 NE.NIx-x, 3 s ì l a á l ú h u ĝ - ĝ á z ì (ÍL?), k a r - ( r a ?), š u - n í ĝ i n 71.0.4 3 s ì l a z ì g u r ( l u g a l ) , z i - g a - à m , l á - ì 2.1.1 7 s ì l a g u r , n í ĝ - k a s 7 AK K a b -DU-a ŠU.DU8?.(A?), z ì d N a n n a - k i - á ĝ . Š 40/i.

64

MANUEL MOLINA

The score of Texts 1-4 has been offered by R. K. Englund (2010: 96-98), who took Texts 2-4 as the individual receipts entered into Text 1 (TCL 5 5676: r.iv.1121), the balanced account of Ur-Ninsu. Englund thus restored the broken first lines of Texts 2 and 3 as “ [ 1 - 2 ] ĝ u r u š u 4 4 - š è , ” which added to 1 ĝ u r u š u 4 4 - š è in Text 4 would make the total of 4 ĝ u r u š u 4 4 - š è recorded in the balanced account of Text 1. The consideration of Text 5, which for that same trip records 8 ĝ u r u š u 4 4 - š è , and eventually also UTI 6 3700 (5 ĝ u r u š u 4 1 0 [ + 1 3 ? - š è ] ), suggests a slightly different scenario: a) Four or five work-gangs at least participated in the round trip from Umma to Irisaĝrig, each one under the responsibility of a different foreman ( u g u l a ) and consisting of one to eight workers: [x] workers supervised by Ur-mes (Text 2); [x] workers supervised by Lugal-emahe (Text 3); one worker supervised by Id-pa’e (Text 4); eight workers supervised by Išarru’a (Text 5); and eventually five workers supervised by Gu-TAR (UTI 6 3700). b) These foremen were not all under the control of a single overseer. Ur-Ninsu, the chief plot manager whose balanced account is recorded in Text 1, was not responsible for the activities of Gu-TAR and Išarru’a; although not necessarily, he could have been responsible for the activities of Ur-mes, Lugal-emahe, and Id-pa’e.

4. The Round Trip from Umma to Irisaĝrig The round trip from Umma to Irisaĝrig (or better to Eduru-urin-du’a) took 23 days, during which the following operations were undertaken (see Fig. 1): – Four days towing the boats upstream from Umma to Irisaĝrig. – One day transferring and loading barley into the boats at Irisaĝrig. – Two days towing the boats upstream from Irisaĝrig to the weir of Kiri-ĝeštin, and then floating the boats downstream from here to Eduru-urin-du’a. – One day transferring barley at Eduru-urin-du’a. – Seven days carrying barley from Eduru-urin-du’a to the weir of the AmarSuenītum canal. – Two days towing the boats upstream from the weir of the Amar-Suenītum canal to Irisaĝrig and moving the boats over. – Two days towing the boats upstream from Irisaĝrig to the inlet of Tabbi-Mama. – Two days floating the boats downstream to Umma. – One day unloading the boats (at Umma). – One day transferring barley (at Umma). These operations were mainly discussed by Wilcke (1972: 55-59),10 when Texts 2-5 had not been published. These and other new texts, some of them from Irisaĝrig, now permit a reconsideration of the trip in the following terms (cf. Fig. 2):

––––––––––––– 10. See also Nissen 1975: 17-28; F. Carroué 1993: 67; Frayne 1992: 36-37, 1997: 243; Steinkeller 2001: 73-74.

u4 1-še3 še ma2-a si-ga

u4 1-še3 Iri-saĝ-rig7ki-ga še ma2a si-ga

Fig. 1. The round trip from Umma to Irisaĝrig.

mu ma2 dEn-ki ba-ab-du8

niĝ2-kas7 AK Ur-dNin-su nubanda3 gu4

kišib A-ra2-ĝu10

mu ma2 dEn-ki ba-ab-du8 Seal: Ur-dSuen dub-sar dumu Ur-ĝišgigir ša3-tam

Seal: Ur-dSuen dub-sar dumu Ur-ĝišgigir ša3-tam gu4

ugula Lugal-e2-mah-e kišib A-ra2-ĝu10

ugula Ur-mes kišib A-ra2-ĝu10

mu ma2 dEn-ki ba-ab-du8

u4 1-še3 še bala-a

u4 1-še3 še bala-a

u4 1-še3 ma2 ba-al-la

u4 1-še3 ma2 ba-al-la

u4 2-še3 ma2 ba-al-la še bala-a

Seal: Ur-dSuen dub-sar dumu Ur-ĝišgigir ša3-tam

iti dDumu-zi mu ma2 dEn-ki ba-ab-du8

ugula I7-pa-e3 kišib A-ra2-ĝu10

u4 1-še3 še bala-a

u4 1-še3 ma2 ba-al-la

u4 2-še3 Ummaki-še3 ma2 diri-ga! u4 2-še3 Ummaki-še3 ma2 diri-ga

NI-Ma-ma-še3

u4 2-še3 Ummaki-še3 ma2 diri-ga

u4 2-še3 Iri-saĝ-rig7 -ta ka Dami-Ma-ma-še3 ma2 gid2-da

ki

kun-zi-da i7-dAmar-dSuen-nitum-ma-ta u4 2-še3 Iri-saĝrig7ki-še3 ma2 gid2-da u3 ma2 bala AK

u4 2-še3 ma2 diri-ga

ki

kun-zi-da i7-dAmar-dSuen-nitum-ta u4 2-še3 Iri-saĝ-rig7-še3 ma2 gid2-da u3 ma2 bala AK

u4 8-še3 E2-duru5-urin-du3-a-ta kun-zi-da i7-dAmar-dSuen-nitum-še3 še ga6-ĝa2

u4 2-še3 Iri-saĝ-rig7 -ta ka Dami-Ma-ma-še3 ma2 gid2-da

ki

kun-zi-da i7-d[Amar]-dSue[n]ni-tum-ta u4 2-še3 Iri-saĝri[g7ki-še3 m]a2 gid2-da u3 ma2 bala AK

u4 1-še3 E2-duru5-urin-du3-a-ka u4 4+[4]-še3 E2-duru5-urinše bala-a -a še bala-a k[un-z]i-da i7u4 7-še3 E2-duru5-urin-du3-a-ta d Amar-dSuen-ni-tum-še3 še ga6kun-zi-da i7-dAmar-dSuen-niĝa2 tum-še3 še ga6-ĝa2

Iri-saĝ-rig7ki-ta u4 2-še3 kun-zida ĝišKiri6-ĝeštin-še3 ma2 diri-ga

u4 1-še3 še ma2-a si-ga

1 ĝuruš u4 4-še3 kar Ummaki-ta Iri-saĝ-rig7ki-še3 ma2 gid2-da

4. UTI 5 3455 (ŠS2/xii)

[u4 2-še3] Iri-saĝ-ri[g7] -ta ka Da-mi-[Ma]-ma-še3 ma2 gid2-da

ki

[u4] 1-še3 še bala-a u3 še ma2-a si-ga

3. SNAT 459 (ŠS2) [x ĝuruš u4] 4-še3 [kar Umma]ki-ta I[ri-saĝ-ri]g7ki-še3 ma2 gid2-da

u4 2-še3 Iri-saĝ-rig7 -ta ka Tabma2 gid2-da

AK

u4 2-še3 kun-zi-da dAmard Suen-ni-tum-ma-ta Iri-saĝrig7ki-še3 ma2 gid2-da ma2 bala

u4 8-še3 še ga6-ĝa2

u4 1-še3 še bala-a

u4 1-še3 Iri-saĝ-rig7ki-ta Urindu3-a-aš ma2 diri-ga

[x] ĝuruš u4 4-še3 kar Ummakita Iri-saĝ-rig7ki-še3 ma2 gid2-da

4 ĝuruš u4 4-še3 kar Ummaki-ta Iri-saĝ-rig7ki-še3 ma2 gid2-da

Iri-saĝ-rig7ki-ta u4 2-še3 kun-zi- Iri-saĝ-rig7ki-ta u4 2-še3 kun-zida ĝišKiri6-ĝeštin-še3 ma2 gid2-da da Kiri6-ĝeštin-še3 ma2 gid2-da

2. UTI 4 2896 (ŠS2)

1. TCL 5 5676:r.iv.11-21 (ŠS2)

Seal: Ur-dSuen dub-sar dumu Ur-ĝišgigir ša3-tam

mu ma2 dEn-ki ba-ab-du8

ugula I-šar-ru-a kišib A-ra2-ĝu10

u4 1-še3 še bala-a

u4 1-še3 ma2 ba-al-la

u4 2-še3 Ummaki-še3 ma2 diri-ga

u4 2-še3 Iri-saĝ-rig7ki-ta ka Dami-Ma-ma-še3 ma2 gid2-da

AK

kun-zi-da i7-dAmar-dSuen-nitum-ma-ta u4 2-še3 Iri-saĝrig7ki-še3 ma2 gid2-da ma2 bala

u4 8-še3 E2-duru5-urin-du3-a-ta kun-zi-da i7-dAmar-dSuen-nitum-še3 še ga6-ĝa2 še bala-a

Iri-saĝ-rig7ki-ta u4 2-še3 kun-zida ĝišKiri6-ĝeštin-še3 ma2 gid2-da

u4 1-še3 še ma2-a si-ga

8 ĝuruš u4 4-še3 kar Ummaki-ta Iri-saĝ-rig7ki-še3 ma2 gid2-da

5. BM 106562 (ŠS2)

On the Location of Irisaĝrig 65

66

MANUEL MOLINA

4.1. The expedition departed from the quay of the city of Umma, which is located ca. 10 km southeast of Ka’ida and connected to the ancient course of the Tigris through the “Umma canal” (see Steinkeller 2001: 33, 51). 4.2. A trip from the quay of Umma to Irisaĝrig took four days towing the boats upstream. The towing rate has been estimated at between 15-20 km per day (Sauren 1966: 26). A good reference for the towing rate in this trip is provided by Nisaba 15/2 1036, which establishes the distance between Irisaĝrig and the inlet of the Tabbi-Mama canal as 31 km (see §4.7). According to our texts this distance was covered in two days; therefore, four days towing the boats upstream would correspond to 62 km. Nevertheless, the distance would likely have been higher, since the boats towed upstream towards Irisaĝrig recorded in Texts 1-5 were empty, while they had already been loaded with barley when towed from Irisaĝrig to the inlet of the Tabbi-Mama canal. 4.3. The boats were loaded with barley at Irisaĝrig and then towed upstream to the weir of Kiri-ĝeštin; from here they were floated downstream to Eduru-urindu’a. The account of workdays at this point was made in a slightly different way in the balanced account (Text 1) when compared to the individual receipts. In the balanced account nothing is said about towing the boats upstream from Irisaĝrig to the weir of Kiri-ĝeštin. Text 1 records instead a trip of one day floating the boats downstream from Irisaĝrig to Eduru-urin-du’a, and a total of nine workdays transferring the barley at Eduru-urin-du’a and carrying it from this village to the weir of the Amar-Suenītum canal. On their side, Texts 2-5 record two days from Irisaĝrig to Kiri-ĝeštin, plus eight workdays transferring the barley at Eduru-urindu’a and carrying it from here to the weir of the Amar-Suenītum canal. To explain these discrepancies, I assume that a two-day trip from Irisaĝrig to the weir of Kiriĝeštin, and then downstream to Eduru-urin-du’a was made. The possibility of a route Irisaĝrig→Kiri-ĝeštin→Irisaĝrig→Eduru-urin-du’a should be excluded, since that would have required a number of workdays not recorded in our texts. Those two days of the trip were thus simply recorded in a different way in Text 1, for whose accountant the important consideration was entering a total of 23 workdays. 4.4. The village of Kiri-ĝeštin was located at a distance of two days by boat from Irisaĝrig, which included a short trip downstream from Kiri-ĝeštin to Eduruurin-du’a. The distance would thus be about 20 km upstream from Irisaĝrig to KAsahar plus ca. 15-20 km downstream from KAsahar to Kiri-ĝeštin. The latter place should then have been located very close to Nippur, probably on the course of the Euphrates. It did not belong therefore to the province of Irisaĝrig. The same would have been true for Eduru-urin-du’a,11 which was located not far from Kiriĝeštin. Both places were connected through a canal that began at the weir of Kiriĝeštin. Given the proximity of Kiri-ĝeštin to Nippur, we can suggest that this locality had a close relationship with Kar-ĝeštin, the quay of Nippur attested in TJAMC

––––––––––––– 11. The two attestations of ĝ i š k i r i 6 - ĝ e š t i n known to me in texts from Irisaĝrig refer to grapevine gardens, and not to a locality: ĝ i š k i r i 6 - ĝ e š t i n SUM.NE.LUM( k i ) (Nisaba 15/2 602: 7, 963: 4), both under the responsibility of Ṭābum, the gardener. To my knowledge, Eduru-urin-du’a is not attested in texts from Irisaĝrig.

On the Location of Irisaĝrig

67

IOS 36 ( u 4 1 - š è K a r - ĝ e š t i n - n a - t a š à N i b r u k i - š è m á b a l a AK).12 Additional evidence is provided by a series of agricultural texts: a - š à ĝ i š K i r i 6 - ĝ e š t i n - n a and a - š à U r i n - d ù - a are attested in UET 3 1364,13 a tablet from Ur that also records a-šà Ma-al-kuki, a field that is found as well in one text from Irisaĝrig (Nisaba 15/2 269);14 the field Kiri-ĝestin and its village are also mentioned in UET 3 1371. All these texts suggest that the fields of Kiri-ĝeštin, Eduru-urin-du’a and Malkum were all in the same broad area between Irisaĝrig and Nippur, and therefore between the Tigris and the Euphrates. Similarly, these fields would have been important sources of barley, the reason why the trip from Irisaĝrig was made. 4.5. The barley collected at Eduru-urin-du’a was then carried by foot to the weir of the Amar-Suenītum canal. This arduous operation lasted for seven days, although such information does not help so much to calculate the distance between Eduru-urin-du’a and the weir of the Amar-Suenītum canal. The length of this land trip depended on several variables, such as the difficulty of natural or man-made obstacles, the cargo volume, the number and kind of boats moved, and the number of workers involved in the operation. In any case, seven days of transportation probably implied a big cargo and various boats involved in the operation. From the weir of the Amar-Suenītum canal, the boats were towed upstream to Irisaĝrig during two days. 4.6. The weir of the Amar-Suenītum canal15 was an obstacle that had to be surmounted in the trip from Umma to Nippur, as BPOA 1 1045 shows,16 so the weir could have been located either on the stretch between KAsahar and Nippur, or on the Tigris. On the other hand, SACT 1 154 suggests that the Amar-Suenītum canal flowed in the area of Nippur; in fact, this text records the offering of one sheep made at the bank of this canal in honor of the goddess Ninisina, when the statue arrived at Nippur from Umma.17 Therefore, if the weir of the Amar-

––––––––––––– 12. For this text and the quay of Nippur, see Steinkeller 2001: 62-63. 13. UET 3 1364 is a balanced account that concerns properties confiscated by the king Ibbi-Suen from Ennum-ilī and his two brothers Nūr-ilī and Bēlī-qarrād (K. Maekawa 1996: 136-137). 14. Nisaba 15/2 269 records a - š à a g a r 4 M a - a l - k u - u m , a field that also according to this text belonged to the city of Malkum ( i r i M a - a l - k u - u m k i , also attested in Nisaba 15/2 688). 15. The Amar-Suenītum canal should be distinguished from the Amar-Suenake-ĝara canal, which belongs to the Umma province (see Carroué 1993: 67, and Steinkeller 2001: 57 n. 142). It is poorly attested in Ur III sources: besides the texts discussed here (Texts 1-5, SACT 1 154, and BPOA 1 1045), a place called Amar-Suen(ī)tum is also recorded in AAICAB I/1 Ashm. 1924-665: r.iii.9. On the basis of the misidentification of the Amar-Suenake-ĝara canal with the Amar-Suenītum canal, the location of the latter was discussed by Sauren 1966: 97-104, Nissen 1972: 47, 1975: 27-28, Edzard and Farber 1974: 254-255, and Frayne 1997: 241-243. Wilcke (1972: 57-58) suggested that the Amar-Suenītum canal could be the same Amar-Suen canal attested in SEpM 4 (A. Kleinerman 2011: 121), which accordingly took off from the Iturungal and flowed through the border area between Isin and Larsa; nevertheless, this hypothesis does not fit well with SACT 1 154, which shows that the Amar-Suenītum canal flowed in the area of Nippur (see below). 16. BPOA 1 1045: 4 ĝ u r u š u 4 15-š è , A - p i 4 - s a l 4 k i - t a , N i b r u k i - š è m á z ì KAL g í d - d a , i 7 d A m a r - d S u e n - n i - t u m - a m á b a l a AK, ù A - p i 4 - s a l 4 k i - š è , m á s ù g u r - r a , b a l a é n s i A d a b k i š è , k i š i b G u - d u - d u , u g u l a L ú - d Š á r a . ŠS 3. Seal: I n i m - d Š á r a , d u b - s a r , d u m u D a - d a - g a . 17. SACT 1 154: 1-7: 1 u d u n i g a g ú i 7 d A m a r - d S u e n - < n i > - t u m - m a - š è g a b a r i - a , ĝ ì r i Hi-ir-ṣum sagi, 1 udu niga šà é-gal, ĝìri A-tu sagi, dNin-ísinsi Ummaki, u4 Ummakit a ì - i m - ĝ e n - n a - a , d N a n š e - á d - g a l m a š k i m (...). AS 4/xi/3. For this text, see W. Sallaberger

68

MANUEL MOLINA

Suenītum canal were on the Tigris, it would have been located somewhere close to Adab, from where the canal would branch off towards Nippur. Nevertheless, this possibility would imply that the Tigris and the Euphrates were connected at some other point between the Iturungal and the KAsahar canal, which Steinkeller demonstrated was not the case (2001: 57). As a consequence, the only other possibility is to locate the weir of the Amar-Suenītum canal ca. 10 km north from Nippur,18 which meant towing upstream 10-15 km to KAsahar, and then ca. 20 km downstream to Irisaĝrig, a distance that could be covered in two days by boat. This route, tentatively accepted here as the most plausible one, runs into the difficulty of the short distance between the presumed locations of the weir of the AmarSuenītum canal and Eduru-urin-du’a; such a short distance does not fit well with the seven days needed to transport the cargo and the boats from one place to the other, unless a very large cargo of cereals was involved. 4.7. The expedition travelled from Irisaĝrig to the inlet of the Tabbi-Mama canal.19 Other texts from Umma suggest that frequent trips were made to this place.20 Likewise, royal envoys came to Irisaĝrig, to the bank of the Tabbi-Mama canal, probably with the mission of visiting Tell al-Wilayah (see below §4.8).21 The inlet of this canal had a weir ( k u n - z i - d a k a i 7 T a - b i - M a - m a : Nisaba 15/2 500), a water-outlet ( a - è - a k a i 7 T a - b í - M a - m a : Nisaba 15/2 159, 248, 295a-b), and a chapel with blind workers attached to its garden ( s i 1 2 - a ĝ i š k i r i 6 b á r a k a i 7 T a - b í - M a - m a : Nisaba 15/2 78).

––––––––––––– 1993-I: 153, 1993-II: Tab. 50A, who also points out that the return journey was recorded in S. H. Langdon, Babyl. 7, 77 9 (= M. Van De Mieroop, RA 79, 26 13). 18. From this point, the Amar-Suenītum canal would have flowed towards Nippur, but I cannot say whether it ran parallel to the east or the west bank of the Euphrates. 19. The name of this canal is attested in Ur III texts as T a b - NI- M a - m a (Text 1), D a - m i - M a m a (Texts 2-5), T a b - b í - M a - m a (BCT 2 45), T a - b í - M a - m a (Nisaba 15/2 78, 159, 248, 261, 295a-b, 315, 346), and T a - b i - M a - m a (Nisaba 15/2 500, collated from a photo kindly provided by D. I. Owen); in lexical sources it appears as T a b - b i - d M a - m i ( Ḫḫ XXII Sec. 7 A iii.1 and Ḫg B VI 20 = MSL 11, p. 27 and 40) and T a b - b i - d M a - m a (OB Nippur For. Ḫḫ XX-XXII 358 = MSL 11, p. 107), always in the same section as the Mama-šarrat canal. Frayne (2013: 189) suggests Tell Hamayma (= Adams no. 1152) as a probable location for the town of Tabbi-Mama, but in my view this is not possible, since that site is ca. 16 km away from Irisaĝrig, which does not fit with the distance (31 km) established by Nisaba 15/2 1036 for the inlet of the Tabbi-Mama canal (see below). 20. The inspection text BCT 2 45 (Umma) shows that trips to the inlet of the Tabbi-Mama canal were frequent: 15 ĝ u r u š , u g u l a B a - s a 6 , 11 ĝ u r u š u g u l a U r - m e s , 13 ĝ u r u š u g u l a U š - ĝ u 1 0 , 16 ĝ u r u š u g u l a L u g a l - i t i - d a , 10 lá 1 ĝ u r u š u g u l a U r - a m a - n a , 4 ĝ u r u š u g u l a L ú - i g i s a 6 - s a 6 , 15 ĝ u r u š 1 t u , u g u l a G ú - TAR, 20 l á 1 ĝ u r u š , u g u l a U n k e n - n é , k u r u 7 AK m á g í d d a , m á b a l a AK, k a T a b - b í - M a - m a , p a 4 -⸢x-x-š è ⸣‚ u 4 1 - k a m . Another trip to the inlet of the Tabbi-Mama canal was recorded in Kutscher, BWAth 6, 43 3: r. 1-3 (Š 40/xii), although we cannot say where was the trip made from (see n. 9). See also n. 24. 21. Provisions (fish and soup) for PN, l ú - k i n - g i 4 - a l u g a l u 4 g ú i 7 T a - b í - M a - m a - š è i m ĝ e n - n a - a “PN, royal envoy, when he came to the bank of the Tabbi-Mama canal” were recorded in Nisaba 15/2 261, 315, and 346.

On the Location of Irisaĝrig

Fig. 2. Tentative reconstruction of the round trip from Umma to Irisaĝrig, based on Steinkeller 2001: 40, Map 1.

69

70

MANUEL MOLINA

According to Texts 1-5, the inlet of the Tabbi-Mama canal was located upstream from Irisaĝrig, at a distance of two days by boat. Such distance can now be ascertained as 31 km thanks to Nisaba 15/2 1036.22 This text recorded the length of watercourses probably in order to calculate the amount of work needed in their maintenance:23 [i]š-tu ⸢Iri⸣-saĝ-⸢rig7⸣ki, 2 da-na 1200+360 nindan ús, a-na ka i7 Ta-bí-Ma-ma, iš-tu ka i7 Tabí-Ma-ma, 5 da-na 600+240 nindan ús, a-na ⸢ka⸣ ⸢i7⸣ dEn-líl, iš-tu ka i7 dEn-líl, 2 da-na 1200+480 nindan, a-na ĝiškiri6 Lú-šu-ki-na, šu-níĝin 10+1 da-na 480 nindan ús, iš-tu Iri-saĝrig7ki, a-na ĝiškiri6 Lú-šu-ki-na. “From Irisaĝrig to the inlet of the Tabbi-Mama canal: 2 danna and 1560 nindan long (= 30.96 km). From the inlet of the Tabbi-Mama canal to the inlet of the Enlil canal: 5 danna and 840 nindan long (= 59.04 km). From the inlet of the Enlil canal to the orchard of Lušukina: 2 danna and 1680 nindan (= 31.68 km). Total: 11 danna and 480 nindan from Irisaĝrig to the orchard of Lušukina (= 121.68 km).”

The distance of 31 km between Irisaĝrig and the inlet of the Tabbi-Mama canal virtually excludes the location of the latter to the west of Irisaĝrig, since the strip of land between the Tigris and the Euphrates in the area where Irisaĝrig was supposed to be (see §5) was only about 13-14 km; moreover, the expedition was just coming from the western area of Irisaĝrig, so it would not make much sense to head back there. A location of the inlet of the Tabbi-Mama canal toward the southeast, along a watercourse parallel to the Tigris, should also be excluded, since that would put the inlet only about 2-3 km north of Adab, while texts clearly point at its location within the Irisaĝrig province. Finally, if the inlet of the Tabbi-Mama canal were on the Tigris, it should be located upstream from Irisaĝrig, and therefore virtually at Maškan-šapir, a location that would have made this trip quite unreasonable. Toward the east of Irisaĝrig, a distance of 31 km fits perfectly with Tell alWilayah,24 a site whose archives and calendar show a clear relationship with Irisaĝrig. Therefore, we can tentatively suggest that Irisaĝrig and Tell al-Wilayah

––––––––––––– 22. I am very grateful to D. I. Owen, who kindly sent me excellent pictures of this tablet. The text had been previously published in CUSAS 3 1497, but the tablet had not been restored at that time, so the transliteration was incomplete. 23. As S. Rost pointed out to me, rather than dredging, the work on these long watercourses would be the maintenance of their banks. 24. Archaeological excavations at Tell al-Wilayah were undertaken in 1958 (T. Madhlum 1960: 6292; S. A. Rashid 1963: 82-106) and 1999-2000 (S. Y. Hussein, M. Altaweel, and Z. Rejeb 2009a: 3-42, 2009b: 113-166 [with a contribution by B. Studevent-Hickman]). The site was extensively looted after 2003 and is now virtually lost to archaeology. It has been tentatively identified with Keš (J. N. Postgate 1976; M. Powell 1980: 51-52) or with Dabrum (Steinkeller 2001: 40 Map 1, and forthcoming). Textual information on the relative position of Dabrum is mainly provided by the Utuḫeĝal inscription RIME 2.13.6.4, and by the Ur III text TCL 5 5675: r.v.35-38 (AS 4): 1 4 ĝ u r u š u 4 5 6 - š è , á - b i u 4 8 2 0 , Ummaki-ta Nibruki-šè má-lal-a de6-a Da-ab-ru-um-ta Nibruki-šè má-lal-a de6-a, ù b a l a - a g u b - b a . These are most probably the same trips as those recorded in CM 26, 205 39: 7 ĝuruš u4-25-šè, Dab6-ru-umki-ta, Nibruki-šè, gi lá-a a-rá 3-àm de6-a, gi kéš-rá, ù má b a - a l í b - ĝ a r , š à b a l a , u g u l a A - g u - g u , k i š i b n a m - š à - t a m , U r - d Š u l - p a - è . AS 4. Seal: U r d Š u l - p a - è , d u b - s a r , d u m u L u g a l - [ k ù - g a - n i ] . The Utuḫeĝal inscription and the Ur III texts better support the identification with Tell al-Wilayah proposed by Steinkeller, particularly in the light of the water connection discussed above. A route from Umma to Dabrum would have also been recorded in BCT 2 45 (see n. 20), which dealt with trips from Umma to the inlet of the Tabbi-Mama canal.

On the Location of Irisaĝrig

71

were connected by the Tabbi-Mama canal.25 Note in this regard that a canal in direction of Tell al-Wilayah probably ran from site no. 1056 (see Adams 1981: 163, Fig. 31), proposed below as the most likely location for Irisaĝrig (see §6). For the time being, we cannot ascertain the reason why this trip to the inlet of the TabbiMama canal / Tell al-Wilayah was made. 4.8. The last stage of the trip, from the inlet of the Tabbi-Mama canal to Umma, took two days floating the boats downstream. The expedition possibly towed the boats back to Irisaĝrig through the Tabbi-Mama canal, and then down to Umma through the Tigris. This is a plausible route, although a three-day trip would be expected. A different possibility would be a route that directly connected the inlet of the Tabbi-Mama canal with Umma, as had been already suggested by Wilcke (1972: 58). If so, the expedition could have followed the long watercourse of 59 km mentioned in Nisaba 15/2 1036, which connected the inlet of the Tabbi-Mama canal with the inlet of the Enlil canal.26 Those 59 km fit very well with the distance between Tell al-Wilayah and the confluence of the Iturungal with the Tigris (for the Iturungal, see Steinkeller 2001: 41-49), and with the distance that is supposed to be covered in two days floating the boats downstream as recorded in Texts 1-5. We could thus speculate that a Tigris branch passed through Tell al-Wilayah, connecting this city with the southern area of Karkar, and with Irisaĝrig through the Tabbi-Mama canal; the weir at the inlet of this canal, recorded in Nisaba 15/2 500 (see §4.7), would also be in this way much better explained. Nevertheless, we have not been able to document traces of an ancient watercourse running from Tell alWilayah to the stretch of the Tigris between Karkar and Ka’ida.

5. Looting in the Irisaĝrig Area In addition to textual data, archaeological surveys and satellite imagery are important sources of information in the search for Irisaĝrig. The survey conducted by Adams (1981) is still the most crucial archaeological evidence for the area in which the city was located. On the other hand, given the fact that the Irisaĝrig tablets come in all cases from illegal excavations, satellite imagery will help us to correlate looting with plausible locations of the city. The traces of illegal excavations undertaken in the area north of Adab, on the ancient course of the Tigris, fit the chronological pattern for the appearance of Ur III tablets from Irisaĝrig on the antiquities market. To my knowledge, the first

––––––––––––– 25. The existence of a Tigris branch that connected this river with Tell al-Wilayah was already suggested by Postgate (1976: 80) and accepted as plausible by Adams (1981: 158-159). Unfortunately, as Adams informed Postgate and wrote later (Adams 1981: 37, 159), Tell al-Wilayah is within a cultivated zone, a fact that conditioned the coverage of the survey and made it impossible to trace third millennium watercourses. More recent research on SPOT and Corona imagery seems to point in this direction as well, suggesting “that there may have been several Tigris channels in the area in the early second millennium, with Maškan-šapir and, further south, Wilaya, as the two large associated settlements” (E. C. Stone and P. Zimansky 2004: 16). The forthcoming publication of C. Hritz's book, Readings of Past Landscapes: Ancient Landscapes of Southern Mesopotamia, will no doubt help to clarify this point. 26. It is uncertain whether this canal can be identified with the Enlil canal attested in Umma sources: Aleppo 201, and possibly MVN 16 757 ( i 7 «AN» d E n - l í l - l á ).

72

MANUEL MOLINA

tablet from the archives of Irisaĝrig that appeared on-line was auctioned through Ebay in April 2004 (BDTNS 167825; Ebay code 3720919179); beginning early in 2005, many other tablets from Irisaĝrig were offered for sale by this and other auction houses and art galleries. Some months before, Jordanian customs officials had confiscated a large number of archaeological items, including several cuneiform tablets. According to the editors of the catalog of these objects (R. Menegazzi 2005: 79), the tablets were kept in five different containers, some of them marked with a label indicating the date of confiscation. One of these containers, dated to 7 July 2003, held 167 tablets that corresponded to the group denominated Amman IV. These texts were identified as coming from Irisaĝrig by G. Pettinato in the abovementioned catalog (Menegazzi 2005: 79-81). The edition of this group of tablets has been prepared by D. I. Owen (2013a-b). The illegal diggings on Irisaĝrig were therefore closely related to the invasion of Iraq, which lasted from 19 March to 1 May 2003.27 According to Stone (2008:

––––––––––––– 27. Tablets from Irisaĝrig excavated or purchased before 2003 and related to the dossiers and typology of texts that began to appear on the market in 2004 are not known. The only possible exceptions are the texts of the so-called Tūram-ilī archive, published by Van De Mieroop (1986) and S. Garfinkle (2002: nos. 1-6; 2012: nos. 78-138). In fact, this archive, which forms a homogeneous group of texts purchased for the Yale Babylonian Collection in a single lot (Goetze 1953: 32), used the same calendar as the texts from Irisaĝrig, showing as well strong proposopograhical relationships with six texts from this city published by Owen and by Garfinkle (Nisaba 15/2 349, 538, 540, 679, 680, and 899 = CUSAS 22 nos. 205-210). As a consequence, it has been proposed that the Tūram-ilī archive could also come from Irisaĝrig (Garfinkle 2012: 41; Owen 2013a: 64-65). Even if this is clearly possible, the problem of homonymy with Tūram-ilī, already pointed out by M. Widell (2003: §8.a.1), needs to be studied in detail in the light of the new texts from Irisaĝrig. Thus, for example, in addition to the calendar and the occurrence of T u - r a - a m - ì - l í ( u g u l a ) d a m - g à r in the texts from Irisaĝrig (CUSAS 22 nos. 205-210), the strongest link between these texts and the Tūram-ilī archive seems to be based on CUSAS 22 no. 115 ( k ù - b a b b a r k i E n - ú - t a T u - r a - a m - ì - l í d a m - g à r š u b a - t i ; Tūram-ilī arch.), 121 ( k ù - b a b b a r m u T u - r a - a m - ì - l í d a m - g à r - š è k i E n - ú - t a Ì - l í - r a - b í d a m - g à r š u b a - t i ; Tūram-ilī arch.), and Nisaba 15/2 540 (= CUSAS 22 no. 207: k ù - s i g 1 7 k i T u - r a - a m - ì - l í d a m - g à r t a E n - ú - a d u b - s a r k ù - g a š u b a - t i ; Irisaĝrig). Nevertheless, it should be noted that another text from Irisaĝrig (T. Ozaki, JAC 24, 57 3 = Nisaba 15/2 955: š e k i E n - ú - a T u - r a - a m - ì - l í š u b a - t i ; seal: T u - r a - a m - ì - l í , d u m u Š u - d N i n - š u b u r , d u b - s a r ) implies that at least one of the Tūramilī’s from this city is a son of Šu-Ninšubur, and not a son of Baza’a, as was the merchant of the Tūramilī archive (CUSAS 22 nos. 111 and 133; see R. H. Mayr 2002: 61 no. 27a-b). Also in this regard, CUSAS 22 nos. 110 and 134, previously published by S. M. T. Taher (2010), are texts that in my opinion should be counted among the tablets from Irisaĝrig apparently related to the Tūram-ilī archive, within the same group of CUSAS 22 nos. 205-210. The same possibility has been argued for the texts of the SI.A-a archive. In this case two texts are presented as coming from Irisaĝrig and belonging to the SI.A-a archive: CUSAS 22 nos. 203 and 204 (= Nisaba 15/2 11 and 1028a). The link of CUSAS 22 no. 203 (seal: S I. A- a , d u b - s a r , d u m u DIĜIR- b a n i ) with the SI.A-a archive seems in fact assured by MVN 8 152 (= Sale Documents 133* = CUSAS 22 no. 4), where SI.A- a d u m u DIĜIR- b a - n i is attested; the prosopopraphical relationships adduced by Garfinkle for CUSAS 22 no. 204 with the SI.A-a archive are, in my opinion, more questionable. Accepting anyway that both texts could belong to the SI.A-a archive, the main problem is nevertheless, in my view, that their provenance from Irisaĝrig is not certain. Moreover, the calendar used in the SI.A-a archive is only partly coincidental with the Tūram-ilī archive (Widell 2003) and, accordingly, with the Irisaĝrig calendar. As it will be seen below, several sites from the area where Irisaĝrig was located have been looted, and these two texts could come from any of them. In this respect, we also note that prosopographical coincidences and similar calendars do not always assure an identical provenance: thus, for example, looted texts from the Aradĝu archive, initially thought to be from Nippur (TCCBI 2-2, nos. 258), are now known to come from a nearby locality (Studevent-Hickman forthcoming).

On the Location of Irisaĝrig

73

135-137), small and medium sites were intensively looted immediately before the war, and looting was resumed at about one-third of them during the summer of 2003. The intensity of looting strongly decreased in 2004-6. One of the areas where sites dated to the Ur III period were more affected by looting was precisely, according to Stone’s research, the area north of Adab, along the ancient course of the Tigris (2008: 131, Fig. 4). To verify the degree of looting in the area where Irisaĝrig was supposed to be, we examined satellite imagery of a strip of land of c. 40 km2 (c. 20 km long and 2 km wide), located c. 17 km north of Adab along the ancient course of the Tigris (see Figs. 4-5). The set of images used in this study were the following: a) Quickbird panchromatic at a resolution of 0.61 m; images taken on June 10 and 15, 2003. b) Quickbird pan-sharpened at a resolution of 0.61 m; images taken on June 10 and 15, 2003. c) Worldview panchromatic at a resolution of 0.5 m; images taken on August 13, 2009. After a detailed search of the area, the following sites with traces of looting were detected (from south to north):28 Adams’ Survey

Dimensions (Adams’ Survey)

Occupation (Adams’ Survey)

Distance from Umma

Figs.

Longitude WGS84

Latitude WGS84

1,050 NW × 630 × 2.5

ED II–III. Mainly Sarg. Ur III and Isin-Larsa limited to the higher, NW part of the site.

62.0 km

6-7

45,4876

32,0778

1180

350 diam. × 3.2

Small Uruk site. Few Larsa sherds, may be strays from 1188. Mainly NB– Achaem.–Parth., limited Sas.

63.5 km

8

45,4719

32,0864

1179

240 diam. × 3

Traces of Uruk occupation. IsinLarsa–OB–Kassite.

64.8 km

9

45,4616

32,0932

180 NW × 110 × 2.8

Small Uruk settlement likely. Traces ED I. Primarily OB– Kassite, with a smaller Sas.–Early Islamic occup.

66.2 km

10

45,4487

32,1003

1188

1174

––––––––––––– 28. The traces of looting at site no. 1032 are unclear, but it is considered here because of its location, dimensions, and occupation.

74

MANUEL MOLINA

Adams’ Survey

Dimensions (Adams’ Survey)

Occupation (Adams’ Survey)

Distance from Umma

Figs.

Longitude WGS84

Latitude WGS84

1071

460 WNW × 300 × 1.5

Small Uruk occupation. Mainly Ur III– OB.

72.8 km

11-12

45,3906

32,1332

1069

270 E × 140 × 1.9

Small Uruk occupation. Mainly IsinLarsa–OB. Less Kassite.

73.1 km

13

45,3899

32,1362

1067

220 E × 150 × 2

Probably small Uruk occupation. Mainly NB– Achaem.–Parth.

73.5 km

14

45,3889

32,1404

1066

150 N × 130 × 1.8

Sassanian. Mainly Early Islamic.

73.7 km

15

45,3845

32,1388

900 N × 250-300 × 2.4

ED I and possible Jemdt N. (central part of site). Traces ED II-III. Dominant Sarg.–Ur III–IsinLarsa.

75.8 km

16-17

45,3694

32,1539

770 WNW × 380

Early/ Middle Uruk and ED I limited to SE. Jemdet N. occup. much more extensive. ED II-III. Dominant Sarg.–Ur III–Isin-Larsa.

80 km

18-19

45,3567

32,1826

1056

1032

Fig. 3. Looted sites at the Irisaĝrig area.

6. Conclusions Considering that towing a boat upstream from Umma to Irisaĝrig took four days, a distance that according to Nisaba 15/2 1036 could be calculated at at least 62 km (see §4.2 and §4.7), the first strong possibility for the location of Irisaĝrig is Umm al-Hafriyyat (Adams no. 1188), a site located precisely 62 km away from Umma. This large site (1,050 NW × 630 × 2.5) was excavated in 1977 by McG. Gibson within the Nippur Regional Project of the Oriental Institute. Archaeological work stopped after 1977, but Gibson’s team continued to visit the site regularly. The site had been extensively looted before 1977 (Gibson 1977/8: 1; Adams 1981: 164, 276). Later on, in the Chicago Annual Report of 2000-1, Gibson wrote that illegal excavations had taken place at Umm al-Hafriyyat (Gibson 2000/1: 4). In 2002-3 he reported that “the tell looked like a waffle, full of recently dug holes” (Gibson 2002/3: 6). Images from the QuickBird satellite taken on 3 June, 2003, show in fact an amazing density of pits in two zones of the site, which had essentially the same extension in 2009 (Figs. 6-7). Nevertheless, the following points

On the Location of Irisaĝrig

75

argue against the possibility of the identification of Umm al-Hafriyyat with Irisaĝrig: a) According to McG. Gibson and A. McMahon (1995: 3), there was no settlement on Umm al-Hafriyyat during the later part of the Early Dynastic nor the earlier half of the Sargonic period. This fact is not consistent with textual data, as Irisaĝrig is well documented in texts dating to the ED IIIb. b) The stratigraphic pit excavated at the highest point of the site, in Area A, showed “evidence of more than four meters depth of Isin-Larsa occupation, but resting on a thin Ur III level that in turn laid on sterile soil” (Gibson 1977/8: 2). c) Gibson also noted that “the site was not a very large one in any period, although the entire site was huge”; in his words, “the site was a small one that shifted its location through time” (Gibson 1995/6: 2). d) The unpublished Sargonic tablet MS 4267B, probably coming from Umm alHafriyyat, mentions Maškan-ili-Akkade ([ra-b]í-a-nu [g]u-ti-e a-na M a š - g á n k i -nid i ĝ i r - A-ga-dèki è-li-ku-[nim], “the Gutian chieftains who came to Maškan-iliAkkade”: A. Westenholz 2010: 458-460), which was perhaps the ancient name of the site (see also F. Pomponio, M. Stol, and A. Westenholz 2006: 16; Steinkeller forthcoming). As noted above (§4.2), the estimation of 62 km was based on a trip from Irisaĝrig to the inlet of the Tabbi-Mama canal when the boats had been already loaded, but the boats would have been empty when towed upstream from Umma to Irisaĝrig. Therefore, the location of Irisaĝrig a few kilometers upstream from Umm al-Hafriyyat is still a good possibility. On the basis of the material identified by Adams in the surface surveys and the evidence of looting, and in agreement with the proposals made by Steinkeller (2001: 74), the other three best possibilities for the location of Irisaĝrig are sites 1071, 1032 and 1056. Site no. 1071 is 73 km north of Umma. It is reported to mainly have an Ur III– Old Babylonian occupation (Adams 1981: 173, 271). The image of June 2003 shows some pits on its higher area (Fig. 11). The looting of this tell appears to have stopped at that time, since no remarkable differences can be appreciated on the picture taken in August 2009 (Fig. 12). This site would be a good candidate for Irisaĝrig, were it not for its small size (460 WNW × 300 × 1.5). Site no. 1032 is located 80 km north of Umma. In words of Adams, it consists of “large, low hummocks and much debris on intervening plain surface. Later canal branches cross the site at intervals, with debris also found on their low spoil banks.” It is a site difficult to distinguish using satellite imagery, and traces of looting are unclear (Figs. 18-19). Occupation is reported during Early/Middle Uruk, Jemdet Naṣr, Early Dynastic I, Early Dynastic II-III, and mainly during the Sargonic, Ur III, and Isin-Larsa periods (Adams 1981: 172, 270). Site 1056 is 76 km upstream from Umma. It is the largest of the three sites here considered (900 N × 250-300). Surveys have reported occupation during the Jemdet Naṣr (possible), Early Dynastic I, and Early Dynastic II-III (traces) periods, although the dominant components in surface collections belong to the Sargonic, Ur III and Isin-Larsa periods (Adams 1981: 173, 271). We should also note

76

MANUEL MOLINA

that a canal could have run from this site towards Tell al-Wilayah (see Adams 1981: 163, Fig. 31), which fits with the suggested course of the Tabbi-Mama canal (see §4.7). The image of June 2003 (Fig. 16) shows some pits on its central and higher area. Images of August 2009 (Fig. 17) show that looting had extended in the same area, which may perhaps be understood as a symptom of a previous “successful” looting. A definitive solution to the problem of the identification of Irisaĝrig will only be given by means of new surveys or archaeological excavations. For the time being, everything seems to point to sites no. 1032 and 1056, and preferably the latter, as the location of the ancient city of Irisaĝrig.

Bibliography Adams, R. McC. 1981 Heartland of Cities. Surveys of Ancient Settlement and Land use on the Central Floodplain of the Euphrates. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Attinger, P. 2008 À propos de quelques lectures. Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires 2008/72: 103-104. Carroué, F. 1993 Études de Géographie et de Topograraphie Sumériennes. III. L’Iturungal et le Sud Sumérien. Acta Sumerologica 15: 11-69. Edzard, D. O. 1991 Irikagina (Urukagina). Pp. 77-79 in Velles Paraules. Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honor of Miguel Civil on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday, ed. P. Michalowski, P. Steinkeller, E. C. Stone, and R. L. Zettler. Aula Orientalis 9. Sabadell: AUSA. Edzard, D. O., and Farber, W. 1974 Die Orts und Gewässernamen der Zeit der 3. Dynastie von Ur. Répertoire Géographique des Textes Cunéiformes 2. Wiesbaden: L. Reichert. Edzard, D. O., Farber, W., and Sollberger, E. 1977 Die Orts- und Gewässernamen der präsargonischen und sargonischen Zeit. Répertoire Géographique des Textes Cunéiformes 1. Wiesbaden: L. Reichert. Englund, R. K. 1992 BU!. Pp. 95-114 in Why Should Someone Who Knows Something Conceal It? Cuneiform Studies in Honor of David I. Owen on His 70th Birthday, ed. A. Kleinerman and J. M. Sasson. Bethesda: CDL Press. Falkenstein, A. 1963 Zu den Inschriftfunden der Grabung in Uruk-Warka 1960-1961. Baghdader Mitteilungen 2: 1-82. Frayne, D. R. 1992 The Early Dynastic List of Geographical Names. American Oriental Series 74. New Haven: American Oriental Society. 1997 Ur III Period (2112-2004 BC). The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia. Early Periods 3/2. Toronto/Buffalo/London: University of Toronto Press. 2013 Excursus A: Notes on the History and Location of Āl -Šarrākī and the Precinct of Keš. Pp. 183-194 in Cuneiform Texts Primarily from Iri-Saĝrig / Āl-Šarrākī and the History of the Ur III Period, Vol. 1: Commentary and Indexes, ed. D. I. Owen. Nisaba. Studi Assiriologici Messinesi 15/1. Bethesda: CDL Press.

On the Location of Irisaĝrig

77

Garfinkle, S. J. 2002 Turam-ili and the Community of Merchants in the Ur III Period. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 54: 29-48. 2012 Entrepreneurs and Enterprise in Early Mesopotamia. A Study of Three Archives from the Third Dynasty of Ur. Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology 22. Bethesda: CDL Press. Gibson, McG. 1977/8 Nippur Regional Project: Umm al-Hafriyat. In Oriental Institute 1977-1978 Annual Report. Chicago: Oriental Institute. http://oi.uchicago.edu/research/ projects/nip/umh.html. 1995/6 Nippur and Umm al-Hafriyat. In Oriental Institute 1995-196 Annual Report. Chicago: Oriental Institute. http://oi.uchicago.edu/research/pubs/ar/95-96/nippur. html. 2000/1 Nippur. In Oriental Institute 2000-2001 Annual Report. Chicago: Oriental Institute. http://oi.uchicago.edu/research/pubs/ar/00-01/nippur.html. 2002/3 Nippur and Iraq at Time of War. In Oriental Institute 2002-2003 Annual Report. Chicago: Oriental Institute. http://oi.uchicago.edu/pdf/02-03_Nippur.pdf. Gibson, McG., and McMahon, A. 1995 Investigation of the Early Dynastic-Akkadian Transition: Report of the 18th and 19th Seasons of Excavation in Area WF, Nippur. Iraq 57: 1-39. Goetze, A. 1953 Review of L. Legrain, Business Documents of the Third Dynasty of Ur, UET 3/1-2, Pennsylvania/London 1937-1947. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 7: 30-32. 1963 Šakkanakkus of the Ur III Empire. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 17: 1-31. Groneberg, B. 1980 Die Orts- und Gewässernamen der altbabylonischen Zeit. Répertoire Géographique des Textes Cunéiformes 3. Wiesbaden: L. Reichert. Heimpel, W. 1990 Ein zweiter Schritt zur Rehabilitierung der Rolle der Tigris in Sumer. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 80: 204-213. 2009 Workers and Construction Work at Garšana. Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology 5. Bethesda: CDL Press. Hussein, S. Y., Altaweel, M., and Rejeb, Z. 2009a Report on Excavations at Tell al-Wilaya, Iraq. Further Information on the 1999 and 2000 Seasons. Akkadica 130: 3-42. 2009b Report on Excavations at Tell al-Wilaya, Iraq. Further Information on the 1999 and 2000 Seasons (continued from Akkadica 130, fascicle 1). With a contribution by Benjamin Studevent-Hickman. Akkadica 130: 113-166. Jacobsen, Th. 1960 The Waters of Ur. Iraq 22: 174-185. Kleinerman, A. 2011 Education in Early 2nd Millennium BC Babylonian: The Sumerian Epistolary Miscellany. Cuneiform Monographs 42. Leiden/Boston: Brill. Kutscher, R. 1970 Neo-Sumerian Tablets from the Wadsworth Atheneum Collection. Bulletin Wadsworth Atheneum 6th series 6-2: 41-64. Lambert, M. 1953 La ville d’Urusagrig. Revue d’Assyriologie et d’Archéologie Orientale 47: 11-15. Lecompte, C. 2009 Listes lexicales et representations spatiales des époques archaïques à la période paléo-babylonienne. Ph. D. dissertation, Université de Versaille St-Quentin-enYvelines / Université de Genève.

78

MANUEL MOLINA

Maekawa, K. 1996 Confiscation of private properties in the Ur III period: a study of é-dul-la and nígGA. Acta Sumerologica 18: 103-168. Madhlum, T. 1960 The Excavations at Tell al-Wilayah. Sumer 16: 62-92 [in Arabic]. Mayr, R. H. 2002 The Seals of the Turam-ili Archive. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 54: 49-65. Menegazzi, R. (ed.) 2005 An Endangered Cultural Heritage: Iraqi Antiquities Recovered in Jordan. Monografie di Mesopotamia 7. Firenze: Le Lettere. Nissen, H. J. 1972 Historical and Topographical Notes: Ur III-Old Babylonian Periods. Pp. 35-54 in The Uruk Countryside: The Natural Setting of Urban Societies, ed. R. McC. Adams and H. J. Nissen. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press. 1975 Geographie. Pp. 9-40 in Sumerological Studies in Honor of Thorkild Jacobsen on his Seventieth Birthday, ed. S. J. Lieberman. Assyriological Studies 20. Chicago/ London: University of Chicago Press. Owen, D. I. 2013a Cuneiform Texts Primarily from Iri-Saĝrig / Al-Šarrākī and the History of the Ur III Period. 1: Commentary and Indexes. Nisaba. Studi Assiriologici Messinesi 15/1. Bethesda: CDL Press. 2013b Cuneiform Texts Primarily from Iri-Saĝrig / Al-Šarrākī and the History of the Ur III Period. 2: Catalogue and Texts. Nisaba. Studi Assiriologici Messinesi 15/2. Bethesda: CDL Press. Pomponio, F., Stol, M., and Westenholz, A. 2006 Le tavolette cuneiformi delle collezioni della Banca d’Italia. II. Tavolette cuneiformi di varia provenienza delle collezioni della Banca d’Italia. Rome: Banca d’Italia. Postgate, J. N. 1976 Inscriptions from Tell al-Wilayah. Sumer 32: 77-100. Powell, M. 1980 Karkar, Dabrum, and Tall Gidr. An Unresolved Geographical Problem. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 39: 47-52. Rashid, S. A. 1963 Ausgrabung von Tell el-Wilayah und die Bedeutung ihrer Rollsiegel. Sumer 19: 82106. Sauren, H. 1966 Topographie der Provinz Umma nach den Urkunden der Zeit der III. Dynastie von Ur. Teil I: Kanäle und Bewässerungsanlagen. Heidelberg. Sollberger, E. 1957/8 Garaš-ana(k). Archiv für Orientforschung 18: 104-108. Steinkeller, P. 1986 Seal of Išma-Ilum, son of the Governor of Matar. Vicino Oriente 6: 27-40 + Addenda et corrigenda. 2001 New Light on the Hydrology and Topography of Southern Babylonia in the Third Millennium. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 91: 22-84. 2011 On the Location of the Town of GARšana. Pp. 373-390 in Garšana Studies, ed. D. I. Owen. Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology 6. Bethesda: CDL Press. 2012 More on the Reading of the Toponym GARšana. Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires 2012/42 : 52-53.

On the Location of Irisaĝrig

79

2013 The Umma Field Ušgida and the Question of GARšana’s Location. Pp. 295-308 in Beyond Hatti. A Tribute to Gary Beckman, ed. B. C. Collins and P. Michalowski. Atlanta: Lockwood Press. forthcoming The Gutian Period in Chronological Perspective. In Associated Regional Chronologies for the Ancient Near East and the Eastern Mediterranean. History & Philology, ed. W. Sallaberger and I. Schrakamp. ARCANE 2. Turnhout: Brepols. Stone, E. C. 2008 Patterns of Looting in southern Iraq. Antiquity 82: 125-138. Stone, E. C., and Zimansky, P. 2004 The Anatomy of a Mesopotamian City. Survey and Soundings at Mashkan-shapir. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. Studevent-Hickman, B. forthcoming Ur III Texts from the Vicinity of Nippur Belonging to the Archive of Aradmu. Taher, S. M. T. 2010 Texts Relating to the Archive of Turam-ili in the Sulaimaniah Museum. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 62: 25-27. Van De Mieroop, M. 1986 Turam-ili: An Ur III Merchant. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 38: 1-80. Westenholz, A. 2010 What’s new in town?. Pp. 453-462 in Opening the Tablet Box. Near Eastern Studies in Honor of Benjamin R. Foster, ed. S.C. Melville and A.L. Slotsky. Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 42. Leiden/Boston: Brill. Widell, M. 2003 The Ur III calendar(s) of Tūram-ilī. Cuneiform Digital Library Journal 2003/2: 7 pp. Wilcke, C. 1972 Der Aktuelle Bezug der Sammlung der sumerischen Tempelhymnen und ein Fragment eines Klageliedes. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 62: 35-61.

80

MANUEL MOLINA

Fig. 4. General view of the study area.

Fig. 5. Sites illegaly excavated in the area of Irisaĝrig.

On the Location of Irisaĝrig

Fig. 6. Site Adams no. 1188 (Umm al-Hafriyyat). June 10, 2003.

Fig. 7. Site Adams no. 1188 (Umm al-Hafriyyat). August 13, 2009.

81

82

MANUEL MOLINA

Fig. 8. Site Adams no. 1180. June 10, 2003.

Fig. 9. Site Adams no. 1179. June 10, 2003.

On the Location of Irisaĝrig

Fig. 10. Site Adams no. 1174. June 10, 2003.

Fig. 11. Site Adams no. 1071. June 10, 2003.

83

84

MANUEL MOLINA

Fig. 12. Site Adams no. 1071. August 13, 2009.

Fig. 13. Site Adams no. 1069. June 10, 2003.

On the Location of Irisaĝrig

Fig. 14. Site Adams no. 1067. June 10, 2003.

Fig. 15. Site Adams no. 1066. June 10, 2003.

85

86

MANUEL MOLINA

Fig. 16. Site Adams no. 1056. June 15, 2003.

Fig. 17. Site Adams no. 1056. August 13, 2009.

On the Location of Irisaĝrig

Fig. 18. Site Adams no. 1032. June 15, 2003.

Fig. 19. Site Adams no. 1032. August 13, 2009.

87

The Archive of Iri-Saĝrig / Āl-Šarrākī: A Brief Survey

David I. Owen CORNELL UNIVERSITY, ITHACA, NEW YORK

1. Introduction1 Recently I had the fortunate opportunity to publish an archive from the hitherto, poorly documented town of Garšana (Owen and Mayr 2007) and now the newly published, unique archive from the city of Iri-Saĝrig/Āl-Šarrākī (Owen 2013a and 2013b). While it is regrettable that both archives are devoid of excavated contexts, circumstances have allowed me the chance to identify, rescue, preserve, record and publish these extraordinary records from late third millennium Mesopotamia. Each of these archives comprises a significant corpus of new data vital to the understanding of the history, culture, and even Sumerian grammar of the Third Dynasty of Ur, with wider implications for Mesopotamian civilization in general. In the confused and often hostile atmosphere that surrounds the controversy and debate over the publication of unprovenanced artifacts,2 I have felt from the outset that it was an obligation, indeed the obligation of all scholars, to publish these artifacts before they might disappear. While I recognize that publication of texts without excavated context remains controversial within a segment of the scholarly community, no matter what the outcome of the deliberations surrounding this issue might be, the data that I have published will remain vital components of current and future research in Mesopotamian, and particularly in Ur III studies,

––––––––––––– 1. This article is a brief, preliminary summary of sections of my Nisaba 15/1 (Owen 2013a) and was presented some three years ago. However, it does not fully represent the subsequent results now found in the published volume. Nevertheless, thanks to the editors, I have added references to the respective sections now published in Nisaba 15/1-2 (Owen 2013a and 2013b). I have also added the final text numbers in that volume that were not yet assigned when I presented the lecture in Madrid. 2. I use the term “unprovenanced” to mean any text or artifact that is devoid of excavated context. This includes numerous texts and artifacts seen on the Internet or in museums, antiquities shops, or in public and private collections that have been acquired through donation, purchase, or confiscation by the authorities. I do not differentiate dates of acquisition, most of which are unknown to me, nor am I qualified to assign any legal/illegal status to any artifact referenced in this paper. I find it entirely unacceptable, if not illogical, that scholars regularly utilize data from unprovenanced texts obtained prior to the UNESCO established date of 1970 (or some later designated date) but exclude from consideration texts obtained after that date, no matter how relevant such texts might be. This position impacts directly both the quality and the results obtained by scholars. My position on the publication of “unprovenanced” texts has been laid out in great detail in "Censoring Knowledge: The Case for the Publication of Unprovenanced Cuneiform Tablets," (Owen 2009), and more recently in “To Publish or Not to Publish – That Is the Question,” (Owen 2013b: 335-356).

89

90

DAVID I. OWEN

just as all previously published unprovenanced texts and artifacts have been since the rediscovery of Mesopotamia over a century ago. The Iri-Saĝrig archive that I have now recovered and restored consists of nearly 1200 texts to which I have had access in one form or another. They come from various sources on five continents. Furthermore, I am aware of the existence of many additional texts to which I have no access nor any specific knowledge either of their current whereabouts or their contents while texts continue to appear on the Internet and in other sources. In any case, the volume of data from the texts so far available is substantial and, for the most part, extraordinary in its variety and state of preservation. In this article I will provide a brief survey of some of the major features revealed in this new archive.

2. Chronology The archive begins in Amar-Suen’s first year, although years one to six are represented so far by only twenty-one tablets. A single questionable tablet (Nisaba 15/2 1) is dated to Šulgi’s 30th year, however no other texts from Iri-Saĝrig are known so far from his reign. The major archival representation begins with AmarSuen 7 and continues with increasing documentation throughout the reign of ŠuSuen and culminates at the end of Ibbi-Suen 3. Two texts from the last month of Ibbi-Suen 4 have appeared recently, suggesting that there may be a substantial part of the archive that has not yet been found or otherwise seen. Also, among the texts that were at my disposal, there are many whose year names are either illegible, covered with salt, or cannot be read on their photos. Nevertheless, the general profile of the archive reveals that the largest number of tablets are concentrated in the first three years of Ibbi-Suen. Ur-mes is the governor ( é n s i ) who appears throughout the archive and he is attested in just about every year. Two other governors , Ilallum and Dadani, are known to have been in office for only two months each in Amar-Suen 7 and 8,3 but they are never mentioned as governors in the Iri-Saĝrig archive itself. Two, apparently important, people with the same rare names occur in several texts dated to the same years (Owen 2013a: 480 and 493 s.v.). This is hardly a coincidence and the probability that they are the same individuals is high. Nevertheless, the explanation as to how and why these two individuals became governors for only a couple of months each during Amar-Suen 7 and 8 remains a mystery. Furthermore, the respective months during which they are recorded in office for these two years are not well represented in the archives. The internal history during the reign of Amar-Suen is complex and is only just beginning to be clarified.

––––––––––––– 3. Both Dadani and Ilallum are attested for the same month AS 7/xi, but no text has emerged from the Iri-Saĝrig archive for this month and year. Dadani is attested for AS 8/ix but not from any of the texts in the Iri-Saĝrig archive, a month for which there is only one text. Ilallum is attested for AS 8/xi, a month that is not attested so far from the Iri-Saĝrig archive.

The Archive of Iri-Saĝrig / Āl-Šarrākī

91

3. Calendar The first clue that the archives derived from this hitherto poorly known city was its calendar.4 The discovery of a unique calendar at Iri-Saĝrig came as an unexpected surprise. The new calendrical data found in the Iri-Saĝrig archives are substantial. The month names known now from the Iri-Saĝrig texts were attested previously in three other distinct archival groups – those of the archives of Turamili,5 SI.A-a, and Tell al-Wilayah. The Tell al-Wilayah archives are from the Sargonic period and are the only ones with an excavated provenance. M. Widell’s (2003) study of the calendar in the Turam-ili archive clarified some of the many problems inherent with the month names associated with these three sites. However, he provided no definitive conclusions other than a twelve-month calendar reconstructed from the Turam-ili archive, but whose exact order could not be established at the time. The Iri-Saĝrig texts, however, allow for the reconstruction of an identical calendar as well as an intercalary month ( d i r i g š e - k í ĝ - k u 5 ) . That the d i r i g month did not appear in the Turam-ili archive was perhaps because of its limited number of texts and relatively short, ten year, chronological span. Nevertheless, the resulting conclusion indicates that Iri-Saĝrig’s calendar was identical to the Turamili archive calendar. However, one particularly vexing problem is the frequency of intercalary months that occurs in Amar-Suen 9, Šu-Suen 1, 6, 9 and Ibbi-Suen 1. No explanation is obvious for the addition of five intercalary months, over an eleven-year period, although this corresponds with Umma where the same number of intercalery months occurs over a similar period of time.6 It is difficult to imagine that the calendar fell so far behind the seasonal associations to necessitate such frequent corrections. Nevertheless, the texts are unequivocal as to the number of intercalary months.7 Iri-Saĝrig would then represent a fourth archive whose menology contains some common month names but whose full calendar was identical to only one of them. However, the common month names may not have held identical positions in the respective calendars. In any case, since the archive discussed here is without excavated provenance, it is also possible that it contains tablets from different sources with similar calendars although an analysis of the contents and the respective prosopographies suggest otherwise. It is likely that all these archives, but par-

––––––––––––– 4. In lectures at the University of Heidelberg (“Texte aus einer neuen Provinz des Ur IIIReiches,” 12 July 2005) and at the 52ème Rencontre Assyriologique International in Münster (“Italienische archäologische Tätigkeit im Iraq 2004-2006,” 20 July 2006), G. Pettinato announced the identification of a group of 167(sic!) tablets from the city of URU-Saĝrig that had been confiscated and held in Amman by the Jordanian authorities. A catalogue of these tablets was published shortly thereafter (Menagazzi 2006). Unfortunately, the catalogue contains substantial inaccuracies and cannot be considered as a reliable guide to the contents of the tablets. An edition of these tablets is included in Owen 2013b, passim. All of the tablets from Amman have now been returned to the Iraq Museum but IM numbers are not available to me and no requested photos have been forthcoming. 5. Garfinkle 2012, passim has now determined that both the Turam-ili and SI.A-a archives likely derive from Iri-Saĝrig. 6. I thank M. Widell for pointing this out to me. 7. See now Owen 2013a: Chart 6, p. 68.

92

DAVID I. OWEN

ticularly those from the Ur III period, reflect a common menological heritage and thus should be localized in a relatively limited geographical area.8 Unfortunately, other than Tell al-Wilayah, neither Iri-Saĝrig nor the source of either the Turam-ili and SI.A-a archives was known. Since the publication of the Garšana archives it has become increasingly unlikely that the SI.A-a archive, with its many Akkadian month and personal names, derives from a site in the north, in an Akkadian milieu (possibly Tell al-Wilayah in the Diyala region). Garšana was populated mostly by Akkadians and is located securely in the Umma province, somewhere between Adab and Zabala(m).9 Iri-Saĝrig, with its predominantly Akkadian personal names, also remains unidentified but it is likely to be located between Nippur and Adab, possibly east of Nippur at Adams, HC 1056 somewhere on the Tigris and may be situated not too far from Garšana.10 The two sites, in fact, may be connected by the Mama-šarrat canal to which workmen from both towns were sent for dredging and excavation work in the first years of Ibbi-Suen’s reign.11 What is peculiar, however, is the fact that Iri-Saĝrig, a town with a governor and one that had very close ties with the royal house in Ur, did not use the Reichskalender as, e.g., did Garšana, especially in its royal messenger texts that, in the Iri-Saĝrig archives, nearly always include the month, year and usually the day. Yet, in spite of these associations, the large and varied archival sample does not reveal the Reichskalender’s use in any of the available documents that can be associated securely with Iri-Saĝrig, a fact that remains unexplained. In any case, nearly all thirteen months of the Iri-Saĝrig menology can be placed in a relatively secure sequence thanks to the scribal technique of providing the number of months between one another, assuring the relative positions of most of the months in the calendar, e.g.:12 e z e m - d š u l - g i - r a - t a i t i š e - k í ĝ - k u 5 - š è i t i - b i 6 - à m (Nisaba 15/2 221) i t i š u - ĝ a r - r a - t a i t i š e - k í ĝ - k u 5 - š è i t i - b i 1 2 - à m (Nisaba 15/2 291) i t i š u - ĝ a r - r a - t a i t i d i r i g š e - k í ĝ - k u 5 - š è i t i - b i i t i - 1 3 - à m (Nisaba 15/2 373) mu

d

i - b í - dsuen l u g a l - t a i t i d i r i g š e - k í ĝ - k u 5 m u m u - b i 2 - à m i t i - b i i t i 2 5 - à m (Nisaba 15/2 891)

d

inana-unugaki máš-e ì-pàd

The Iri-Saĝrig and Turam-ili Menologies Position i ii iii iv v vi

The Iri-Saĝrig Calendar šu-ĝar(-ra) = šu-ĝara-gal ĝeš apin kir11-si-aka ezem-dli9-si4 ezem-a-bi gi-si11-ga

Turam-ili Calendar šu-ĝara ĝeš apin kir11-si-aka ezem-dli9-si4 ezem-a-bi gi-si11-ga

––––––––––––– 8. Cf. Owen 2013a: 34-45. 9. For a contrary view, see Steinkeller 2011. 10. See Molina 2013a in this volume: 59-87 for possible identification with known sites. 11. See Owen 2013a: 38-42 for references to the excavation of the Mama-šarrat canal in both the Garšana and Iri-Saĝrig sources. 12. A detailed reconstruction of the calendar may be found in Owen 2013a: 64-76.

The Archive of Iri-Saĝrig / Āl-Šarrākī vii viii ix x xi xii xiii xiii

ezem-dšul-gi níĝ-den-líl-lá ezem-a-dara4 níĝ-e-ga ezem-an-na še-kíĝ-ku5 dirig še-kíĝ-ku5 dirig

93

ezem-dšul-gi níĝ-den-líl-lá ezem-a-dara4 níĝ-e-ga ezem-an-na še-kíĝ-ku5 not attested not attested

4. Geographical Scope In spite of the fact that we cannot locate Iri-Saĝrig definitively, its archives provide unusual evidence for interrelations between it and cities to the northnortheast along a route through Der and Diniktum up the Tigris and Diyala river valleys and on to the Elamite cities of Kimaš, Zidahrum, Sigrašum, Simaškum,13 and others mostly along the Great Khorasan route. Over 300 references to trips by royal messengers and various officials to and from these cities in this archive are, in total, probably a greater number than is known from the the entire previously published Ur III corpus. The implications for the geography and history have yet to be determined.14 Steinkeller has already begun to integrate these preliminary data in his recent publications on the relations between Sumer and Elam.15 The geographical range of this archive is limited to the area north and northeast of IriSaĝrig with only a few references to southern cities including the capital Ur. Cities such as Der (BÀD.ANki), over 200 times, and Diniktum, ca. 25 times, dominate the references. The political role of Iri-Saĝrig has yet to be written.

5. Messenger Texts (“Ration Distribution Accounts”)16 The messenger tablets from Iri-Saĝrig are more accurately described as “ration distribution accounts” but, for the moment, I have retained the earlier designation with reservations. These texts constitute the largest single group and represent an archive by themselves. I have integrated these texts within the larger archive because the smallest messenger tablets are sometimes in envelopes and are indistinguishable from the ordinary size accounts, although they are clearly related to the larger summary tablets. In one small text, Mazati, a royal messenger, called simply a servant of Ibbi-Suen on his seal impression, is responsible for the rations of two roasted/cooked sheep and 30 liters of soup for the rider, Nūr-Šamaš and gendarmes (Nisaba 15/2 883). In one of the larger messenger texts the same Mazati receives two liters of soup and two fish when he came for the provisions ( k a š - n i n d a ) for Nūr-Šamaš and his gendarmes (Nisaba 15/2 867) – both texts dated to the same year and month.17

––––––––––––– 13. Typical of this archive are the Semitized forms of Elamite place names except for Kimaš. Cf. Owen 2013a: 45 n. 95. 14. Cf. Owen 2013a: 130-153 and D. Frayne, apud Owen 2013a: 183-194. 15. Steinkeller 2012: 293-317 and 2013, in press (courtesy of the author). 16. For a discussion of these texts, see Owen 2013a: 128-164. 17. For additional comments on these texts, see A. Kleinerman in this volume: 301-311.

94

DAVID I. OWEN

Nisaba 15/2 883 1. 2 udu-še6-ĝá 2. 30 sìla tu7 3. nu-úr-dšamaš rá-gaba 4. ù àga-ús-lugal 5. u4 BÀD.ANki-šè ba-e/re-ša-a rev. 6. ĝìri ma-za-ti / lú-kíĝ-gi4-a-lugal 7. BLANK SPACE - SEAL 8. zi-ga 9. iti še-kíĝ-ku5 10. mu en-dinana/unugaki máš-e ì-pàd Seal I. d i-bí-/dsuen lugal-kala-ga lugal-uri5/ki-ma lugal-an-uba-/da-límmu-ba II. ma-za-ti IR11-zu

Nisaba 15/2 867 1. 1 sìla tu7 1 ku6 2. li-bur-ni-áš lú-kíĝ-gi4-a-lugal 3. 1 sìla tu7 1 ku6 4. a-gu-ṣum lú-kíĝ-gi4-a-lugal 5. u4 BÀD.ANki-šè ba-e-re-ša-a 6. 2 sìla tu7 2 ku6 7. ma-za-ti lú-kíĝ-gi4-a-lugal 8. u4 kaš-ninda nu-úr-dšamaš ù àga-ús/e-ne-šè im-ĝen-na-a 9. 2 sìla tu7 2 ku6 10. ĝìri-ni-ì-sa6 lú-kíĝ-gi4-a-lugal rev. 11. u4 níĝ-gú-na en-dinana-šè im-ĝen-/na-a 12. 2 sìla tu7 2 ku6 13. ig-mu-ul-èr-ra lú-kíĝ-gi4-a-lugal 14. u4 zú-lum-šè im-ĝen-na-a 15. 2 sìla tu7 2 ku6 16. ur-mes lú-kíĝ-gi4-a-lugal 17. u4 [zí]d-munu4-[x erased]-šè im-ĝen-na-a 18. 2 sìla tu7 2 ku6 19. ṣa-lu-um lú-kíĝ-gi4-a-lugal 20. u4 éren ur4 zi-zi-dè im-/ĝen-na-a 21. 1sìla tu7 1 ku6 pu-lu-lu kuš7 22. u4 anšekúnga-sí-ku-um-šè im-ĝen-/na-a 23. DOUBLE RULING 24. zi-ga iti še-kíĝ-ku5 25. mu en-dinana-unugaki / máš-e ì-pàd side 26. u4-12-kam

Until now I have collected about 300 tablets of this type. The texts come in four sizes and concern messengers and officials receiving mostly meat, soup/stew and fish rations and sometimes bread and beer. Aside from the new ration system, these texts record only royal messengers ( l ú - k í ĝ - g i 4 - a - l u g a l ) but never ordinary messengers ( l ú - k í ĝ - g i 4 - a ) , although there may not be any difference between them, along with many other officials. What is particularly unique about these texts is that each of these hundreds of named individuals is followed by an description of his assignment in the form of a relative or subordinate temporal clause (see above) that W. W. Hallo (2008) once labeled “day dates.” Thus we have over 200 different clauses,18 associated with ca. 500 royal messengers, providing a remarkably diverse source of information on the tasks of these messengers, along with many other officials and functionaries. They also provide much new data for prosopography and Sumerian grammar.19 As with Garšana, the personal names are overwhelmingly Akkadian.

––––––––––––– 18. For a comprehensive catalogue of these clauses, see Owen 2013a: 165-182. 19. Cf. the analyses by G. Rubio and C. Woods apud Owen 2013a: 195-200.

The Archive of Iri-Saĝrig / Āl-Šarrākī

95

6. Rations The unique rationing system utilized at Iri-Saĝrig is one of the many surprises found in the archive.20 The hundreds of royal messengers, officials and functionaries present in Iri-Saĝrig were supplied with a generous diet of meat (usually but not exclusively mutton), soup/stew and fish along with breads, sweets, and beer. Of interest is the fact that the standard rations known from messenger texts at other sites, such as onions ( s u m ) , alum ( n a ĝ a ) , oil ( ì ) , flour ( z í d ) , and ordinary beer ( k a š - g e n , d i d a ) are completely absent, a significant and, as yet, unexplained difference. Furthermore, those preparing the meat supplies are well documented, including the slaughterers ( l ú - g u 4 - g a z ) and the butchers ( l ú - u z u ) . In addition, the meat-house ( é - u z u ) , presumably where the meat was cooked/roasted ( š e ĝ 6 ) and the soup/stew cooked ( š e ĝ 6 ) , was where the cooks ( m u h a l d i m ) , including royal cooks ( m u h a l d i m - l u g a l ) , probably worked.21 The latter may have served the same function as the é - g u 4 - g a z (slaughterhouse) known from other sites. The roadhouse ( é - k a s k a l ) may have been where they all ate their rations either when they arrived for their assigned tasks or before or after their frequent trips. Given the fact that they were served cooked/roasted mutton as well as soup/stew, it is unlikely that these rations were taken on voyages, although not impossible.22 In any case, since most of the rations were provided to messengers and officials assigned to tasks in Iri-Saĝrig, they were likely eaten in some local facility. Meat rations were distributed in generous portions that included entire sheep or large portions designated malaku and malaLUM; soup/stew in liter ( s ì l a ) quantities, sometimes in 3 / 4 or 1 liter bowls ( b u r ) , along with one or more fish ( k u 6 ) . Bread ( n i n d a ) , oil-bread ( n i n d a - ì ) and sweets ( n í ĝ - ì - d é - a ) 23 along with beer ( k a š ) also were provided, mostly in standard portions according to rank or status. Of particular interest are the line by line, duplicate texts, dated to the same year, month and day – one of which records meat ( u d u ) , soup/stew ( t u 7 ) and fish ( k u 6 ) rations while the other beer ( k a š ) and bread ( n i n d a ) rations. Both appear to have been written by the same scribe given the fact that they are identical. Whether or not they were issued by one or two offices cannot be determined as yet. Unfortunately, not a single messenger text can be associated with a named scribe since none is sealed. However, twelve named royal scribes are listed as receiving rations and, given the high quality of the ductus on these texts, it may be that they were written by one or more of these royal scribes.24

––––––––––––– 20. See H. Brunke, apud Owen 2013a: 207-334, for an extended discussion of the ration system reflected in these texts. 21. Allred 2006: 216-217, suggested that the muhaldim was not a cook but an administrator responsible for the daily operation of the kitchen. However, being an administrator does not exclude his being a cook. If, in fact, he is not a cook, then we lack the Sumerian term for the person who does the cooking. 22. Cf. the remarks by Brunke apud Owen 2013a: 225. 23. For the reading n í ĝ - ì - d é - a and a discussion of its possible meaning, see Brunke 2011a: 202206 (§3.5.1.5.1.1 - §3.5.1.5.1.2); see also Brunke 2011b: 379-380, 390-391 and Brunke 2013. Brunke concludes that it may, in fact, not be a type of bread but a sweet, dessert-like paste. 24. For the royal ascribes, see Owen 2013a: 59-63. The rich and varied terminology found in these texts may be found in the comprehensive indexes and comments by Kleinerman and Owen apud Owen 2013a: 357-557.

96

DAVID I. OWEN

Aside from the numerous messengers and officials, various rations were provided in Iri-Saĝrig for weaver-women ( g é m e - u š - b a r ) , sesame presser-women ( g é m e - ì - s u r - s u r ) , blind ( s i 1 2 - a ) male and female workers, etc., who elsewhere usually receive meager rations, but are supplied in Iri-Saĝrig with seemingly generous amounts of beef, mutton, pork, lard, fowl, and fish. Even the palace lions ( u r m a h )25 and dogs ( u r - g i r 1 5 ) 26 were well fed with both loaves of bread and meat from a wide variety of dead animals and fowl. In addition, blind workers ( s i 1 2 - a ) digging canals (Nisaba 15/2 78) or in gardens (Nisaba 15/2 78) receive bowls of soup/stew. Male and female singers/musicians ( n a r - m u n u s / n í t a ) are recorded in different contexts.27 In one text female singers/musicians receive sesame oil (Nisaba 15/2 1004), while in another text 20 male singers/musicians receive 10 shekels each of sesame oil (Nisaba 15/2 309) . Šuruš-kin, an ordinary singer/ musician, is provided with roast mutton (Nisaba 15/2 211) and in a messenger text Naplis-Ea, a royal singer/musician, receives soup/stew and fish (Nisaba 15/2 868). Šu-Suen-naram-Eštar, a senior singer/musician ( n a r - g a l ) , receives 15 liters of beer and 15 liters of bread (Nisaba 15/2 887: 42), and elsewhere, he receives one malaku of mutton (Nisaba 15/2 738: 92'), and hundreds of sheep and goats (Nisaba 15/2 971: 31). Needless to say, the singers/musicians ( n a r ) ,28 weavers ( g é m e - u š b a r ) , oil pressers ( g é m e - ì - s u r - s u r ) , blind workers ( s i 1 2 - a ) , dogs ( u r - g i r 1 5 ) and lions ( u r - m a h ) , along with so many others living and working at Iri-Saĝrig, were unusually well fed with lots of protein. I know of no other contemporary archival source that provides such data.

7. Professions29 Iri-Saĝrig is also rather unique in the wide variety of professions represented in its archives. Some are known ocassionally from contemporary sources. Kleinerman discusses the evidence for the role of barbers at Iri-Saĝrig elsewhere in this volume, but they are but one of many professions that are richly documented. Among them are some lesser attested functionaries: The “judiciary official” ( l ú - d i - d a ) occurs only in the group of relative subordinate clauses in the messenger texts. He is never named. The title is not well known in other sources. The messenger texts provide interesting, albeit limited, insights into the activities of the “secretary/commissioner of the judiciary” ( m a š k i m l ú - d i - d a - k a ) who had occasional visitors at Iri-Saĝrig.30 No less than thirty-three individuals are named as coming to see him, five documented for a single year, including sons of both the king and the chancellor ( s u k a l - m a h ) . Of interest is the fact that twenty-three, the majority, of the messengers coming to see

––––––––––––– 25. Owen 2103a: 111-112. 26. Owen 2013a: 111. 27. Owen 2013a: 87-88. 28. Nearly forty named singers/musicians are found in the archives, see Owen 2013a: 87-88. 29. For the numerous professions found in the Iri-Saĝrig archives, see Owen 2013a: 81-126. 30. For m a š k i m ( l ú - ) d i - d a ( - k a ) , “commissaire des affaires judiciaires,” see Attinger 1993: 603, §637 with references to MVN 11, p. 29, A: 4, Lafont 1996: 43, OSP 2 125: 6 and Veenker and Johnson 2009: 351, note 6. The m a š k i m generally is associated with legal proceedings ( d i t i l - l a ) and participates in the various phases of each case. Molina 2013b: sec. 2., provides an in-depth discussion of the role of the secretary/commissioner. See also Owen 2013a: 93-95.

The Archive of Iri-Saĝrig / Āl-Šarrākī

97

the m a š k i m of the judiciary official have Akkadian names. All are designated royal messengers and are assumed to have had a special assignment to see this unnamed official. Some are known from other messenger texts in the archive as sometimes coming from Der or Diniktum. There is no uniform quantity for ration allotments provided to these messengers and the rations contain mutton, soup/ stew, fish, beer and bread in varying amounts. Unfortunately, the relative temporal clauses are always the same – “when PN (i.e. the messenger) came to see the secretary of the judiciary,” – and provide no clue as to what the purposes of the visits were. 5 s ì l a k a š 5 s ì l a n i n d a puzur4-dsuen l ú - k í ĝ - g i 4 - a - l u g a l 31 u 4 m a š k i m l ú - d i - d a ka-šè im-ĝen-na-a (Nisaba 15/2 106: 9-11) 2 s ì l a t u 7 2 k u 6 ilum-mu-da l ú - k í ĝ - g i 4 - a - l u g a l u 4 m a š k i m l ú - d i - d a - k a - š è i m ĝen-na-a (Nisaba 15/2 323: 8-10) 1 s ì l a t u 7 1 k u 6 i - d ì - d suen l ú - k í ĝ - g i 4 - a - l u g a l u 4 m a š k i m l ú - d i - d a - k a - š è i m ĝen-na-a (Nisaba 15/2 215: 10-12)

The confluence of the visits of the m a š k i m l ú - d i - d a - k a along with the presence of many royal or palace scribes may signify some special judicial event (perhaps a trial?) was taking place in Iri-Saĝrig during Ibbi-Suen’s second year. Grooms ( g i r i 1 7 - d a b 5 ) 32 are involved primarily with the care and movement of the sikum-equids ( a n š e k ú n g a - s i k u m ) .33 No less than twenty-seven are named in this archive and they occur frequently in the messenger texts coming to get the sikum-equids. In the archives of other cities they are recorded as receiving rations of barley and cloth along with bread and beer while at Iri-Saĝrig they receive soup/ stew, fish, and wool (Owen 2013a: 90-91). šà-gal anšekúnga ù še-ba giri17-dab5 tah-hu kaskal (Nisaba 15/2 927: 5)

BÀD.ANk i

10 ĝuruš 4 ma-na-ta siki-bi 40 ma-na siki-ba giri17-dab5 (Nisaba 15/2 543: 1-3) 2 s ì l a k a š 2 s ì l a n i n d a i-za-az-me-šar g i r i 1 7 - d a b 5 u 4 ĝen-na-a (Nisaba 15/2 562: 26)

anše

anše

k ú n g a -sí-ku-um

k ú n g a -sí-ku-um-š è i m -

0.0.1. kaš 0.0.1. ninda giri17-dab5-me u4 ki-maški-šè ba-e-re-ša-a (Nisaba 15/2 596: 5) 1 s ì l a t u 7 l ú - k ì r i - z a l k u š 7 1 s ì l a t u 7 ì-lí-an-dùl g i r i 1 7 - d a b 5 u 4 šè im-e-re-ša-a (Nisaba 15/2 651: 42-44)

anše

k ú n g a - sí-ku-um

––––––––––––– 31. Presumably this Puzur-Suen is the son of the sukal-mah who occurs frequently in the messenger texts (see Owen 2013a: 519 s.v.). It is another indication that high-ranking individuals are sent to the m a š k i m l ú - d i - d a - k a . Note that among those, Puzur-Suen is the only individual who appears twice in this capacity, in assignments separated by nearly twelve years. 32. CAD K 225 s.v. kartappu, "groom (for leading donkeys and horses and as title of a court official)" does not cite any Ur III references for the term although it does occur in a number of texts for which cf. ePSD s.v. 33. For these equids, see Heimpel 1994: 5-31.

98

DAVID I. OWEN

Of all the hundreds of named and nameless officials and functionaries one stands out – he is Ba’aga, the fattener ( k u r u š d a ) , whose career spans nearly 30 years of the Ur III period.34 His archive contains over one hundred texts that can be securely associated with his career. His name appears first at Puzriš-Dagān in Š 40/xi/- (STA 29: 20) and by Š 43/v/- he is qualified as a k u r u š d a (Princeton 2 1: 3 0 ) . He is recorded last as a k u r u š d a in IS 3/vii (Sigrist and Ozaki, S/O-059: 4).35 Although he is known to have been present at Puzriš-Dagān early in his career, Iri-Saĝrig appears to have been his home town and base of operations at least in the later years of the Ur III period. The texts from Iri-Saĝrig substantially increase the number of previously known sources for Ba’aga and they supply additional details on his career. He was the son of Lu-Nanše (Sollberger, Kramer AV, 435 14, Š 45/viii/-) and had at least four sons, Ur-Šulpae (Owen and Wasilewska, JCS 52, 7 3: 36, Š 44/-/-), Dan-alsu (who sells a slave girl, UET 3 15: seal, Š 47/-/-), Uššukinu (Vukosavović, JAC 23, 45 7: seal, IS 1/v/-), and Ur-niĝar, the scribe (Nisaba 15/2 136: seal, ŠS 5/iii/-). He had a house ( é - k u r u š d a ) in Iri-Saĝrig to which thirteen miller-women ( g é m e - k í k k e n ) were assigned for some unknown purpose and provided with beer rations of 3 liters each (Nisaba 15/2 44) and later fourteen miller-women ( g é m e - k í k k e n ) were assigned again with rations of soup/ stew and fish (Nisaba 15/2 101). In addition, he had a servant, Nanna-lula (HSS 4 1: iii.10, Š 45/-/-; MVN 20 119: ii.6', [Š 45]/iii/-), as did his son, an indication of the wealth his family had acquired during his career. Perhaps the most interesting of the texts relating to Ba’aga is the inspection ( n í ĝ - k a s 7 - a k a ) account tablet (Nisaba 15/2 514), which records nearly 1300 animal offerings to various deities and for festivals at Iri-Saĝrig. In other texts Ba’aga deals not only with the usual sheep and goats but also with oxen (Nisaba 15/2 307), pigs (Nisaba 15/2 430), fowl (Nisaba 15/2 284), and copper (Nisaba 15/2 936). This is an indication of his varied and presumably important role as a fattener that took him to different towns in the empire and involved transactions with the well-known supervisor of merchants, Turam-ili, who also appears in the Iri-Saĝrig archives.36

8. Royal Connections The archive can surely be classified as an official, government archive, probably the archive of governor Ur-mes whose office was in the local palace. He was governor for most of the entire period of the archive and he appears numerous times as the responsible official ( ĝ ì r i ) in a variety of transactions. Little is known about Ur-mes himself other than that he may have been the son of the governor of Gudua ( U r - m e s d u m u é n s i g ú - d u 8 - a k i in MVN 2 284: iii'.10' [AS 3]).37 The new data reveal that he had two sons, Ur-Tummal, a royal scribe, and Awiluma, in addition to one daughter, Nin-saga, known only from a single seal impression (Nisaba 15/2 1023) and a remarkable tablet summarizing her household staff (Nisaba 15/2 953). No other member(s) of Ur-mes’ family can be identified nor is

––––––––––––– 34. 35. 36. 37.

For a reconstruction of Ba'aga's archive, see Owen 2013a: 114-119. S/O = texts to be published by M. Sigrist and T. Ozaki and cited in Owen 2013a-b. Cf. Garfinkle 2012: 248 text 209, comment to line 4. Either Namzitare or Gudea.

The Archive of Iri-Saĝrig / Āl-Šarrākī

99

anything specific known about Ur-mes himself. The last securely dated text (from Ur?) for Ur-mes is dated to IS 3/x/- (Nisaba 15/2 1094). One of the many interesting aspects revealed by this archive is the role of the kings and their families in Iri-Saĝrig. For reasons yet unknown the king and other members of the royal family occasionally traveled to Iri-Saĝrig, perhaps on their way to or from Nippur or other towns. No town in Sumer was visited more often by the king than Iri-Saĝrig and it is the only documented town that Šulgi visited and the last recorded visit of a king outside of Ur during Ibbi-Suen’s reign. This may explain the presence of so many royal messengers and other royal functionaries associated with the town. Compilation of the available data shows that the recorded visits to Iri-Saĝrig do not coincide with the records of visits to other cities and towns, not even once, suggesting that at least the recorded royal visits to IriSaĝrig were specific and not part of any other itinerary. Furthermore, one or more members of the royal family may have resided in Iri-Saĝrig. That may have been the purpose of the kings’ visits where, like at Garšana, the king maintained a residence in Iri-Saĝrig frequently called “the place of the king” ( k i l u g a l ) and occasionally “the palace” ( é - g a l ) , perhaps in association with an estate of one of the members of the royal household mentioned in the texts. Finally, the presence of temples to three deceased and deified Ur III kings, and the celebration of funeral rites for four of them (Nisaba 15/2 734), are further indications of the special importance that the city held for the dynasty and the royal house of Ur. Until now nearly all sources for visits to Iri-Saĝrig were from Puzriš-Dagān.38 Nisaba 15/2 734 1. 2 sìla ì-nun 2. 1 sìla ga-gazi 3. 1 sìla geštin-hád 4. 8 sìla zú-lum 5. ki-a-naĝ-dur-dnamma / d šul-gi damar-dsuen / ù dšu-dsuen rev. 6. ĝìri nu-úr-dšamaš / rá-gaba 7. BLANK SPACE - SEAL 8. zi-ga iti ĝešapin 9. mu en-dinana-unuki-/ga máš-e ì-pàd

Seal I. [d] i-bi-/dsuen lugal-kala-ga lugal-uri5/ki-ma lugal-an-uba-/da límmu-ba II. nu-úr-dšamaš rá-[gaba] dumu [PN] árad-da-ni-ir in-na-ba39

The new data on the royal family include the mention of six princes ( d u m u l u g a l ) , three of whom are newly attested and nine princesses ( d u m u - m u n u s l u g a l ) , five of whom are new to the Ur III corpus. As expected, the entourage associated with any movement of the royal family is well represented. This includes a dozen royal scribes ( d u b - s a r - l u g a l , d u b - s a r - é - g a l ) , a number equal to or greater in number than at the capital Ur or any other city, male and female, senior, and royal singers/musicians ( n a r , n a r - n í t a h , n a r - m u n u s , n a r - g a l , n a r l u g a l ) , royal cooks ( m u h a l d i m - l u g a l ) and even a royal sculptor/copper-smith

––––––––––––– 38. For a comprehensive list of references to royal visits to Iri-Saĝrig, see Owen 2013a: 45-48. 39. This royal gift seal is new to the corpus and should be added to the list compiled in Mayr and Owen 2004: 157.

100

DAVID I. OWEN

( t i b i r a - l u g a l ) . In addition, there is a strong military presence represented by no less than twenty-seven generals ( š a g i n a ) , most of whom were previously unknown as generals and numerous ordinary gendarmes ( à g a - ú s ) , royal gendarmes ( à g a - ú s - l u g a l ) and their officers ( à g a - ú s - g a l ) . Three named sons, two of whom are newly attested, of the unnamed chancellor ( s u k a l - m a h ) , presumably AradNanna, attest to the highest level of military officials present in the city at various times. There may even have been a place where the generals gathered if the following passage is to be understood correctly: “when he, i.e. Anati, the royal messenger, came to distribute grain at the generals’ place” ( a - n a - t i l ú - k í ĝ - g i 4 - a l u g a l u 4 š e z i - z i - d è k i š a g i n a - k e 4 - n e - š è i m - ĝ e n - n a - a , Nisaba 15/2 143: 72, AS 9/i/4).40

9. Cultic Texts Throughout the archives there are texts dealing with various cultic activities.41 Soup offerings for the three monthly moon festivals are revealed for the first time. A surprising number of temples appear at Iri-Saĝrig, not only to the deceased kings of the dynasty but also for a host of deities for whom temples have not been documented until now. Of interest is the role that soup/stew plays both in the cultic activities and for rations, just as we know now from Garšana. The details concerning offerings for temples and festivals add a new dimension to the laconic lists we have seen from Puzriš-Dagn. Temples/Shrines in Iri-Saĝrig É-Alla(PAP.NAGAR) É-Amar-Suen É-Ašgi É-Baba É-Damkina É-Enki É-Il-Simtiša É-Nergal É-Nin-hursaĝ É-Šara É-Šulgi É-Šulpae É-Šu-Suen

10. Conclusion The publication of the archives of Iri-Saĝrig, like Garšana, opens up yet another window on the world of the Ur III period and perhaps will alter our perceptions of Ur III history and society. While its partial recovery is a boon to Assyriology, it is also another reminder of the tragedy that is represented by its discovery –

––––––––––––– 40. For a more detailed summary of the named individuals associated with these titles, see Owen 2013a: 31-33. 41. See Owen 2013c.

The Archive of Iri-Saĝrig / Āl-Šarrākī

101

the unprecedented looting of Iraq. Let us hope that the site of this amazing discovery will one day be located, excavated and published. In the meantime we must do everything possible to recover and publish as many of these texts as we can and reject those individuals and organizations that would rather ignore or otherwise suppress the study of unprovenanced texts.

Bibliography Allred, L. 2006 Cooks and Kitchens: Centralized Food Production in the Third Millennium Mesopotamia. Ph. D. dissertation, The Johns Hopkins University. Attinger, P. 1993 Eléments de linguistique sumérienne: La construction de du11/e/di «dire». Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht. Brunke, H. 2011a Essen in Sumer. Metrologie, Herstellung und Terminologie nach Zeugnis der Ur IIIzeitlichen Wirtschaftsurkunden. Munich: Herbert Utz Verlag. 2011b Zur Rekonstruktion von Speisen in Sumer anhand administrativer Urkunden. Pp. 375-399 in The Empirical Dimension of Ancient Near Eastern Studies / Die empirische Dimension altorientalischer Forschungen, ed. G. J. Selz and K. Wagensonner. Wiener Offene Orientalistik 6. Wien: Lit Verlag. 2013 On the Role of Fruit and Vegetables as Food in the Ur III Period. In Paleo-Nutrition and Food Practices in the Ancient Near East: Towards a Multidisciplinary Approach, ed. L. Milano. Padua: Sargon, in press. Garfinkle, S. J. 2012 Entrepreneurs and Enterprise in Early Mesopotamia. A Study of Three Archives from the Third Dynasty of Ur (2112-2004 BCE). Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology 22. Bethesda: CDL Press. Hallo, W. W. 2008 Day Dates in Texts from Drehem. Pp. 99-118 in The Growth of an Early State in Mesopotamia: Studies in Ur III Administration. Proceedings of the First and Second Ur III Workshops at the 49th and 51st Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, London July 10, 2003 and Chicago July 19, 2005, ed. J. C. Johnson and S. J. Garfinkle. Biblioteca del Próximo Oriente Antiguo 5. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas. Heimpel, W. 1994 Towards an Understanding of the Term sikkum. Revue d’Assyriologie et d’Archéologie Orientale 88: 5-31. Kleinerman, A. 2013 The Barbers of Iri-Saĝrig. Pp. 301-311 in the present volume. Lafont, B. 1996 Serments politiques et serments judiciares à l’époque sumérienne: quelques données nouvelles. Pp. 31-47 in Jurer et maudire: pratiques politiques et usages juridiques du serment dans le Proche-Orient ancien. Actes de la table ronde organisée par F. Joannès et S. Lafont le Samedi 5 octobre 1996 à l’Université de Paris X Nanterre, ed. S. Lafont. Mediterranées 10-11. Paris, Montreal: Harmattan. Mayr, R., and Owen, D. I. 2004 The Royal Gift Seal in the Ur III Period. Pp. 145-174 in Von Sumer nach Ebla und zurück. Festschrift für Giovanni Pettinato zum 27. September 1999 gewidmet von Freunden, Kollegen und Schülern, ed. H. Waetzoldt. Heidelberger Studien zum Alten Orient 9. Heidelberg: Heidelberger Orientverlag.

102

DAVID I. OWEN

Menegazzi, R. (ed.) 2005 An Endangered Cultural Heritage: Iraqi Antiquities Recovered in Jordan. Monografie di Mesopotamia 7. Firenze: Le Lettere. Molina, M. 2013a On the Location of Irisaĝrig. Pp. 59-87 in the present volume. 2013b Court Officials at Umma in Ur III Times. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 103: in press. Owen, D. I. 2009 Censoring Knowledge: The Case for the Publication of Unprovenanced Cuneiform Tablets. Pp. 125-143 in Whose Culture? The Promise of Museums and the Debate over Antiquities, ed. J. Cuno. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 2013a Cuneiform Texts Primarily from Iri-Saĝrig/Al-Šarrākī and the History of the Ur III Period. 1: Commentary and Indexes. Nisaba. Studi Assiriologici Messinesi 15/1. Bethesda: CDL Press. 2013b Cuneiform Texts Primarily from Iri-Saĝrig/Al-Šarrākī and the History of the Ur III Period. 2: Catalogue and Texts. Nisaba. Studi Assiriologici Messinesi 15/2. Bethesda: CDL Press. 2013c Treasures of the Sacristy. In Mélanges Paolo Matthiae. Revue d’Assyriologie et d’Archéologie Orientale 107. Paris: PUF, in press. Owen, D. I., and Mayr, R. H. 2007 The Garšana Archives. Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology 3. Bethesda: CDL Press. Steinkeller, P. 2011 On the Location of the Town of GARšana. Pp. 373-390 in Garšana Studies, ed. D. I. Owen. Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology 6. Bethesda: CDL Press. 2012 Puzur-Inšušinak at Susa: A Pivotal Episode of Early Elamite History Reconsidered. Pp. 293-317 in Susa and Elam. Archaeological, Philological, Historical and Geographical Perspectives: Proceedings of the International Congress Held at Ghent University, December 14-17, 2009, ed. K. De Graef and J. Tavernier. Mémoires de la Délégation en Perse 58. Leiden, Boston: Brill. 2013 On the Dynasty of Šimaški: Twenty (or so) Years After. In Extraction and Control: Studies in Honor of Matthew W. Stolper, ed. W. Henkelman, C. Jones, M. Kozuch, and C. Woods. Chicago: Oriental Institute Press, in press. Veenker, R., and Johnson, J. C. 2009 The appellate process in a legal record {di til-la} from Ur III Umma. Altorientalische Forschungen 36: 349-364. Widell, M. 2003 The Ur III calendar(s) of Tūram-ilī. Cuneiform Digital Library Journal 2003/2: 7 pp.

Some Considerations on the Management of an Administrative Structure in Ur III Mesopotamia: The Case of mar-sa *

Sergio Alivernini ROME

1. Documentation and Topography of m a r -s a The creation of large industrial complexes devoted to refining raw materials such as textiles, foodstuff and metals was among the many significant innovations of the rulers of the Third Dynasty of Ur. These organizations were obviously intended to best manage production and manufacturing activities. The m a r - s a was one of these organizations and in it, as we shall see, technically complex activities and administrative procedures took place. The first scholar to deal (but not specifically) with the m a r - s a was A. L. Oppenheim who first noted that Umma texts dating from the Third Dynasty of Ur described the m a r - s a as a place in which workers, materials and food supplies were assigned (1948: 122-123). According to Oppenheim “(...) the m a r - s a denotes a particular type of store-house, workshop or arsenal” (1948: 122). He also pointed out that the workers who provided services in this structure were carpenters or scribes and he noted that the expression m a r - s a could follow or precede personal names. Subsequently, other Assyriologists have tried to better define this term: M. Lambert translated “batellerie” (1961), while P. Steinkeller suggested “boat house” (1996). To the best of my knowledge there are no attestations of the term m a r - s a before or after the period of the Third Dynasty of Ur and there are no attestations in lexical the texts, so we have only the administrative documents of this period that can help us define the scope of this institution. The existence of this structure is documented as early as the 25th year of the reign of Šulgi1 in many cities controlled by the rulers of Ur. Specifically at least eight different m a r - s a are attested in the texts: the m a r - s a of Ĝirsu, Gu’abba and Nina in the province of Ĝirsu; the m a r - s a of Apišal and Guedena in the province of Umma and the m a r - s a of the cities of Ur and Drehem; to these we can add the m a r - s a of Nippur, documented by a unique text from Ur.2 Notwithstanding the many different places recorded as

––––––––––––– * 2013). 1. 2.

The author has recently published a book that studies this administrative structure (Alivernini TEL 7. UET 3 1061.

105

106

SERGIO ALIVERNINI

home to a m a r - s a , almost all the documentation on this administrative and technical structure, however, comes from the two cities of Ĝirsu and Umma: out of a total of 526 texts that refer to the m a r - s a , 53% (i.e. 276 texts) come from Ĝirsu, and 44% (i.e. 234 texts) come from Umma. The following considerations are therefore based primarily on information provided by the texts of these two provinces.3 From the beginning, we should highlight an aspect of the surviving documentation that is of great relevance to our considerations in this article: the structure of the m a r - s a seems to present the same characteristics in Ĝirsu and in Umma, both from the administrative and from the technical point of view. Actually, despite formal differences in the documentation from the two cities both the category of workers involved in this structure and the materials documented in the everyday works are the same. This means that for the historical and administrative reconstruction of the activities of the m a r - s a and in order to understand its function inside the framework of Ur III economic life we will use information from both cities.

2. The Functions of m a r -s a as Shipyard The most complex activity in the m a r - s a was the building and restoration of boats. Admittedly, this is demonstrated not by the quantity of the texts related to this activity, because in fact only three texts, two from Umma and one from Ĝirsu, directly link the m a r - s a with boat building.4 The indications for boat building and restoration are rather to be found in the kind of workers employed in the structure and in the quality of materials they used. The most interesting text mentioning the building of ships is a long text from Umma that lists materials for the building of several vessels of different load capacity (TCL 5 5673: Šulgi 45/-/- or Amar-Suen 2/-/-): the text records the number and capacity of boats (expressed, as the standard, in gur) and then lists the materials needed for its construction with their relative quantities. The boats are in order: one boat of 120 gur, eight boats of 60 gur, one boat of 30 gur and two boats of 10 gur. With few exceptions the materials are the same and they are listed in the same order for each boat. We present the data of this text in the following chart:

––––––––––––– 3. To complete the information I add that 1.6% (i.e. 8 texts) come from Ur, 0.6% (i.e. 3 texts) come from Drehem, while we do not know the provenience of the 0.8% of the documentation (i.e. 4 texts). 4. The texts are Pomponio, NABU 2006: 30 (Šulgi 46/iv/-), an envelope with tablet from Ĝirsu that records an assignment of bitumen to the m a r - s a for building an uzga-boat, and MVN 20 72 (Amar-Suen 7/-/-) a tablet from Umma that records wooden planks entering the m a r - s a for the construction of several boats. But the text that most clearly demonstrates that the m a r - s a was in fact a shipyard is TCL 5 5673 from Umma (see below).

The Case of m a r - s a

107

má-120 gur

8 má-60 gur

má-30 gur

2 má-10 gur

ésir-hád

204 gú

1048 gú (131 gú)

90 gú

31 gú (15,5 gú)

ésir-gul-gul

12 gú

70 gú (8,75 gú)

0

6 gú (3 gú)

unrecorded

0

4 gú

7 gú (3,5 gú)

ésir-é-a

2.2.0 gur

8 gur (1 gur)

0.2.3 gur

0.1.4 gur (0.0.5 gur)

ì-ku6

0.1.0 gur

0.4.0 gur (0.0.3 gur)

0.0.1 5 sìla

0.0.1 gur (5 sìla)

ésir-apin

ĝiš

a-ra

11

64 (8)

8

12 (6)

ĝiš

tu-gul

0

0

unrecorded

unrecorded

ĝiš

a-da

8

64 (8)

8

8 (4)

ĝiš

ù

46

208 (26)

21

30 (15)

ĝiš

múrgu

6

32 (4)

2

2 (1)

ĝiš

eme-sig

180

1100 (137,5)

100

90 (45)

ĝiš

mi-rí-za

195

1200 (150)

90

100 (50)

ĝiš

me-dím

2

16 (2)

2

4 (2)

ĝiš

má-gú

8

64 (8)

8

8 (4)

ĝiš

pèš

8

64 (8)

unrecorded

unrecorded

ĝiš

níĝ-KA

5

24

4

unrecorded

ĝiš

eme-sig

0

0

0

0

ĝiš

umbin

40

160 (20)

15

16 (8)

ĝiš

eme-sig

0

0

0

unrecorded

ĝiš

AD.KUL

2

0

2

unrecorded

ĝiš

zi-gin7

unrecorded

unrecorded

1

2 (1)

ĝiš

gi-muš

0

0

3

6 (3)

ĝiš

pisan-sal

unrecorded

unrecorded

unrecorded

10 (5)

ĝiš

HU-dub-ba

unrecorded

unrecorded

0

unrecorded

ĝiš

ù-šub-ba

unrecorded

unrecorded

0

unrecorded

gi-ma-da-la

unrecorded

unrecorded

30 sa

unrecorded

ú

unrecorded

unrecorded

20 sa

unrecorded

x-ŠÈ

ĝiš

kak

7200

28800 (3600)

1500

1200 (600)

ĝiš

ĝìr

605

1200 (150)

70

70 (35)

ĝiš

šu-sar

12 (gú)

48 gú (6 gú)

unrecorded

2 gú (1 gú)

1800

7200 (900)

450

300 (150)

á-bi u4-x

108

SERGIO ALIVERNINI

Many of the materials recorded in this text are documented as assigned to the m a r - s a in numerous other documents, without specifying explicitis verbis their use for the building of ships, so that we can confidently assume that these materials were also used for building or repairing boats. TCL 5 5673 has a final colophon, z i - g a m a r - s a , to which we will return below. In the consideration of the m a r - s a a s a structure intended for the shipbuilding we can also cite the workers attested in the structure itself. A category of texts from Umma (inspection’s texts of m a r - s a , k u r u ( m ) 7 a k m a r - s a ) lists daily the number and the type of workers allocated in the m a r - s a in months 11 and 12 of Amar-Suen 7. Some of these texts were studied by M. Sigrist (1981) and by F. D’Agostino and E. Santagati (2008). The records of the two months are differently organized: for the 11th month, in fact, the texts list people by their names and divides them into groups based on their profession or u g u l a ; every name is preceded by a cuneiform sign indicating if that worker was active for the entire day or for half a day; in the first case the name is preceded by the sign DIŠ, while in the second case is preceded by the sign MAŠ (Sigrist 1981: 391). In some cases the scribe did not write anything before the name of the worker in order to record that the worker did not conduct any activity on that particular day, thus hinting that the team of the m a r - s a workers was well established (at least in this brief period). For the following month only the qualifications and the number of workers are recorded, omitting the names of each worker. In the following charts the amount of workers recorded for each type of text is shown (I omitted the personal names because the purpose here is simply to indicate the quality of the worker):

Fs. Sigrist 2 AS7/xi/5

‘Atiqot 4 6 32 AS7/xi/14

Nisaba 23 33 AS7/xi/19

SNAT 393 AS7/xi/20

MVN 4 16 AS7/xi/21

SAT 2 1051 AS7/xi/23

YOS 4 264 AS7/xi/28

Nisaba 23 7 AS7/xi/26

Salmant. 28 396 AS7/xi/29

SAT 2 1053 AS7/xi/30

Month xi

má-lah5

10 1 / 2

3

11

11 1 / 2

15

6

17

16

16

16

má:gín

0

5 1/2

5 1/2

5 1/2

6 1/2

6

8 1/2

6 1/2

6

6 1/2

/2

9

7

8

7

9

9

9

9

8

0

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

dumu-ni

Absent

1

11 / 2

ugula Ur-sig5

Absent

11

11

11

11

11

11

13

13

13

ugula d Šara-a-mu

Absent

10

7 1/2

11

12

7

10

10

8

11

ugula Da-du-mu

Absent Absent

1

1

1

1

Absent

1

1

1

hé-dab5

Absent Absent Absent Absent Absent

4

16

13

13

12

ad-KID

Absent Absent Absent Absent Absent Absent

1 1/2

Absent Absent Absent

muhaldim

Absent Absent Absent Absent Absent Absent

2

Absent Absent Absent

šà mar-sa nagar

1

Absent Absent Absent Absent Absent Absent Absent Absent

The Case of m a r - s a

109

Month xii BPOA 1 955 AS7/xii/11

MVN 1 234 AS7/xii/13

MVN 4 141 AS7/xii/21

BPOA 1 1441 AS7/xii/25

má-gín

6

7 1/2

3

3

má-lah5

1

1

10 1 / 2

11 / 2

1

12 / 2

11 / 2

šà mar-sa

9

9

9

8

šà en-nun

15

16

0

21

nagar

2

1

3

Absent

ad-KID

Absent

1

1

Absent

ugula Ur-sig5

15 1 / 2

15 1 / 2

11 1 / 2

16 1 / 2

d

ugula Šara-a-mu

1

7 /2

9

16

Absent

ugula Da-du-mu

1

1

1

1

ugula Bí-du11-ga

Absent

Absent

Absent

3

Based on the list presented above the presence of three types of specialized workers is chiefly attested in the m a r - s a : m á - g í n , “shipwrights” m á - l a h 5 , “sailors” or better “haulers,” and n a g a r , “carpenters;” in three of these texts a d - KID, “reed workers,” are also listed. In the rest of the documentation these four types of workers are the best documented in relationship with the m a r - s a and so we can consider them typical of the kind of activity carried on in the institution of the m a r - s a . In fact, even though we do not have such a dossier for the city of Ĝirsu, m á - g í n , m á - l a h 5 , n a g a r , and a d - KID are the categories of workers more frequently documented in the m a r - s a of this city too.5 While the “reed workers” operate also in areas that were not directly connected with the building of boats, their involvement in the activities linked to the shipyard and to boat building is clearly known from the documentation. See, for example, ITT 3 6351 (Šu-Suen 3/vi/-), where many different kinds of mats for boats are attested: Obv. 1-6: 1 m á - 20-g u r / m á - z u m s u k k a l - m a h / 12 k i d m á - š à - g a / 8 k i d < a n > - d ù l má-šu4 gíd-bi 5 dagal!-bi 3 kùš / gi-má-da-lá úninni5 ésir su-ba / éš m á - g í d g i - m á - d a - < l á > - b i 12 Rev. 1-10: ú n i n n i 5 - b i 3 g ú / 2 g ú ú n i n n i 5 / é š g a l m á - g í d - š è / ĝ i š š u - d u 7 ! - t a š u d u 7 - a / k i N a m - m a h - t a / D u 1 1 - g a d u m u DI.NE / m á - l a h 5 é n s i / š u b a - t i / i t i ezem-dDumu-zi / mu ús-sa má darà abzu! ba-ab-du8

––––––––––––– 5. As for the other less frequently attested types of workers (such as, for example, e n g a r , s u s i - i g , t ú g - d u 8 , z a d i m , etc.) it is possible that they were employed on the basis of temporary work, that is, activities that were held in the m a r - s a exceptionally, or (more probably in my opinion) that they were used as “support labour” for the main activities that were performed in the m a r - s a (that is building, maintenance and repairing of vessels).

110

SERGIO ALIVERNINI

3. Functions of the m a r -s a : Depository of Material (Storehouse) and Administrative Office If the texts only rarely mention the main activity carried on in the m a r - s a , a huge amount of the documentation records allotments of materials to this structure. These materials were likely stored in a sector of the m a r - s a defined in the texts as é - k i š i b - ( b a ) , which represented also the administrative office of the m a r - s a , and in which transaction records related to this organization were probably compiled and stored. Admittedly, the existence of this office is documented in only two texts, OBTR 98 (Amar-Suen 7/ix/-) from Ĝirsu, and Owen and Wasilewska, JCS 52, 14 65 (Amar-Suen 3/-/-) from Umma, both mentioning specifically the é - k i š i b - b a m a r - s a : OBTR 98 Obv. 1-3: 510 ĝ i š e m e - s i g m á - 60 g u r / 90 ĝ i š e m e - s i g m á -30 g u r / 100 s a ĝ i š m a - n u Rev. 1-6: < … > ĝ i š k a k m á - š è / é - k i š i b - b a m a r - s a - t a / N a m - m a h š u b a - t i / double ruling / i t i m u - š u - d u 7 / m u H u - h u - n u - r i k i b a - h u l Owen and Wasilewska, JCS 52, 14 65 Obv. 1-4: 1013 g ú e s i r - g u l - g u l / é - k i š i b - b a m a r - s a - k a k u 4 - r a / M á - d a - g a - t a / k i Ur-dŠul-pa-è-ta Rev. 1-4: ĝ ì r A b - b a - g i - n a / k i š i b N í ĝ - l a g a r - e / m u k ù g u - z a d E n - l í l - l á b a - d í m Seal: N í ĝ - l a g a r - e / d u b - s a r / d u m u L u g a l - g a b a / š a b r a

The managers of this sector were d u b - s a r , “scribes,” who were the chiefs of the administration of the m a r - s a and who were responsible for all of its transactions (such as entering or expenditure of people and materials, distribution of rations to workers in the m a r - s a , etc.). For example, the two scribes mentioned in the texts discussed above, respectively N a m - m a h in Ĝirsu and N í ĝ - l a g a r - e in Umma, were responsible for this organization for a long period: N a m - m a h from AmarSuen 4 until Ibbi-Suen 1, and N í ĝ - l a g a r - e from Šulgi 35 until Amar-Suen 6. The existence of a central office that ran each m a r - s a can help us understand the meaning of the administrative expression z i - g a m a r - s a recorded at the end of the text TCL 5 5673 cited above. In other words, if the boats were built inside the m a r - s a , what does the formula z i - g a m a r - s a mean administratively when referring to this activity? We can imagine that this expenditure of materials for the different boats in TCL 5 5673 had to be accounted for administratively from the office in charge of its management, that is the é - k i š i b - b a m a r - s a ; but this does not mean that those materials, listed as expenditure, would have been used outside the m a r - s a itself. The administrative office, which most probably must be identified also as the warehouse, recorded the expenditure of materials even if they were used by the workers of the same organization. The idea is that there was a clear differentiation between a “technical m a r - s a , ” where the boats were physically built, and an “administrative m a r - s a ” which was used to store materials required for building boats. Scribes managed the complex administration of this structure, involving the movement of workers, rations and materials. Materials stored in this depot could be also taken from t h e m a r - s a to be used for other purposes and outside the structure itself, as documented in ITT 5 6764 ([-

The Case of m a r - s a

111

/-/-]) from Ĝirsu, where several wooden objects are taken from the m a r - s a to be used for the law court door.6

4. The relationship between the m a r -s a and the é -k ík k e n The m a r - s a had a direct relationship with the é - k í k k e n , “the grain-grinding household,” a large installation devoted to the transformation of barley into flour, and flour into various foodstuff (such as bread) and drink (such as beer). This relationship has already been investigated in part by J.-P. Grégoire (1999) who noted that the m a r - s a was one of the twelve departments into which the é - k í k k e n was divided.7 According to Grégoire the m a r - s a consisted mainly of a structure for building and repairing boats that were used to transport products. The é - k í k k e n supplied the m a r - s a with food for its workers: the most specific text on this topic is CT 3 9 (BM 18344, Šulgi 48/xii/-), a long text from Ĝirsu that records the total rations of barley of the é - k í k k e n (r.v.3-4: k ì l i b - b a š e - b a / š à é - k í k k e n ). A scribe of the m a r - s a ( d u b - s a r - m a r - s a ) , and a group of workers employed in the m a r - s a ( m a r - s a g u b - b a ) were among the many workers who appear as receiving rations. Some workers in the m a r - s a could occasionally be used for work in the é k í k k e n as we can infer from DAS 258 (Šu-Suen 2/vi/9), a text from Ĝirsu that records 40 workers, m á - l a h 5 and l ú - m a r - s a , bringing wood to the é - k í k k e n : Obv. 1-14: 25 u g u l a K a 5 - a - m u / 22 u g u l a L ú - d N a - r ú - a / š à Ĝ í r - ⸢ s u k i ⸣ / 10 u g u l a G u - ú - m u / š à NINAk i / 7 U r - d L a m m a ì - d a b 5 / 10 D u 1 1 - g e ì - d a b 5 / 67 / l ú - m a r - s a m e / 7 u g u l a A - k a l - l a / 3 u g u l a U š - s a 6 - g a / 3 u g u l a U r - d S i 4 - a n - n a / k i l ú - [x]-⸢xx⸣-t a / 3 u g u l a ⸢x-x⸣-b a Rev. 1-15: 5 u g u l a L ú - ĝ i š g i g i r / 2 u g u l a U r - d B a - ú / k i A b - b a - m u - t a / 3 u g u l a d N i n - MAR.KI / 2 u g u l a U r - d B a - ú / k i N i n - a - n a - t a / 5 u g u l a L ú - d N i n - š u b u r / 0 u g u l a A - k a l - l a / k i U r - d S a h a r - d B a - ú - t a / 33 m á - l a h 5 - m e / š u - n í ĝ i n 40 ĝ u r u š m á - l a h 5 l ú m a r - s a / ĝ i š é - k í k k e n k u 4 - r a / u 4 6-k a m / i t i e z e m - d D u m u - z i / m u ús-sa dŠu-dSuen lugal

There is also a text from Umma, BPOA 1 1537 (Amar-Suen 3/-/-), that appears to describe an allotment of date palm fibre from the é - k í k k e n to the m a r - s a (the receiver is the same dub-sar we met in Owen and Wasilewska, JCS 52, 14 65 above): Obv. 1-4: 9 g ú m a n g a g a / é - k i k k e n - t a / k i Á r a d - t a / m a r - s a - [ a š ] Rev. 1-2: N í ĝ - l a g a r - e [ š u b a - t i ] / m u ĝ i š g u - z a d E n - l í l - l á b a - d í m Seal: [...]

––––––––––––– 6. Obv. 1-5: [...] ĝ i š š u - d í m / g í d - b i 1 / 2 n i n d a n 3 k ù š - t a / ĝ i š - h u m m á s u k k a l - m a h šè / 3 ĝišù-suh5 gíd-bi 8 kùš-ta / ig é di-ku5-šè Rev. 1-6: mar-sa-ta / ki Nam-mah-ta / Lú- d Nin-ĝír-su / šu ba-ti / double ruling / m u [...] 7. The others are: 1) a granary or silo ( g u r u 7 ) , 2) installation allotted to the preparation of grain and its grinding, 3) structures for the storage of products, 4) bakeries ( é - m u h a l d i m ) for the production of bread and other flour-based products, 5) malt-house, for the preparation of grain in connection with beer brewing, 6) breweries ( é - b a p p i r ) , for the production of various sorts of wort and beer, 7) hand “oil-presses” for the production of vegetable oils, 8) weaving workshops ( é - u š - b a r ) , 9) workshops of craftsmen connected with this complex such as potters, basket weavers, curriers etc, 10) buildings for the breeding of hogs and poultry and 11) palm groves and gardens ( ĝ i š k i r i 6 ) .

112

SERGIO ALIVERNINI

On the basis of this documentation we should consider that the relationship between the m a r - s a and the é - k í k k e n involved four different aspects at least: the first one related to the main activity of the m a r - s a , the building and maintaining in good condition of the boats used to transport the products that were processed in the é - k í k k e n ; the second and most obvious aspect was that the é - k í k k e n furnished subsistence to workers of m a r - s a through allotments of rations; the third one was that m a r - s a workers could be used as labour force for activities in the é k í k k e n ; the fourth, finally, involved the é - k í k k e n as a supplier of materials for t h e m a r - s a and vice-versa.

5. Conclusion To sum up, the main activity of the m a r - s a was the building and restoration of boats (shipyard) that was made possible by the presence in the m a r - s a of highly skilled staff ( m á - g í n , m á - l a h 4 n a g a r and a d - KID) supplied by frequent assignments of material (especially bitumen and wood). The m a r - s a was a structure divided into two sectors at least: a technical sector in which the boats were built and restored and an administrative sector called é - k i š i b - ( b a ) that functioned also as a depot, that is, a place where the materials assigned to the m a r - s a were stored and where the scribes (who ran this structure) compiled and kept all the records related to the transactions of the m a r - s a itself (lists, income or expenditures of workers, materials or foodstuff). The materials stored in the é k i š i b - ( b a ) could also be used for activities that were not directly connected to the m a r - s a but with the necessities of other institutions. The m a r - s a had a close relationship with the é - k í k k e n involving the transport of food and the assignment of rations, workers and materials.8 As for the topographical aspect, it seems logical to assume that the m a r - s a was placed near a river or canal to make the operation of launching boats easier, and that it was geographically close to the é - k í k k e n in order to simplify the movement of workers, foodstuff and materials from one institution to another. But the sources, to the best of my knowledge, do not record anything about this last question.

Bibliography Alivernini, S. 2013 La struttura amministrativa del mar-sa nella documentazione della Terza Dinastia di Ur. Supplemento n. 1 alla Rivista degli Studi Orientali, Nuova Serie 86. Rome: Fabrizio Serra editore. D’Agostino, F., and Santagati, E. 2008 BM 106145: un nuovo testo da Umma che menziona personale del “mar-sa.” Pp. 1-9 in On the Third Dynasty of Ur: Studies in Honor of Marcel Sigrist, ed. P. Michalowski. The Journal of Cuneiform Studies, Supplemental Series 1. Boston: American Schools of Oriental Research.

––––––––––––– 8.

See paragraph 4 above.

The Case of m a r - s a

113

Grégoire, J.-P. 1999 The Grain-Grinding-Households (e2-HAR.HAR) of Southern Mesopotamia at the End of the 3rd Millennium Before the Common Era. Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society 17: 7-38. Lambert, M. 1961 La vie économique d’un quartier de Lagash. Revue d’Assyriologie et d’Archéologie Orientale 55: 135-146. Oppenheim, A. L. 1948 Catalogue of the Cuneiform Tablets of the Wilberforce Eames Babylonian Collection in the New York Public Library: Tablets of the Time of the Third Dynasty of Ur. American Oriental Series 32. New Haven: American Oriental Society. Sigrist, M. 1981 Effectifs d’une poste de navigation à Umma. Salmanticensis 28: 387-397. Steinkeller, P. 1996 The Organization of Crafts in the Third Millennium Babylonia: The Case of Potters. Altorientalische Forschungen 23: 232-253.

The Tenure of Provincial Governors: Some Observations*

Lance Allred UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES

Though many aspects of the early Ur III period remain unclear, it seems likely that by the end of the reign of its first king, Ur-Nammu,1 much, if not all, of southern Mesopotamia was under his control.2 The paucity of evidence from his reign limits our understanding of how he ruled this fledgling state, but we can infer from the so-called Ur-Nammu Cadastre (Kraus 1955) that the Ur III state was divided early on into a number of provinces each of which was administered locally by a governor ( é n s i ) . The most extensive treatment of the Ur III governors to date has been Hallo’s oft-cited but never published 1953 University of Chicago master’s thesis (Hallo 1953). This has been periodically expanded upon, most notably by Owen (1981, 1988), and Frayne (1997), but the recent explosion of newly published Ur III material – as well as the increased accessibility of such material via on-line databases like the CDLI (http://cdli.ucla.edu) and BDTNS (http://bdtns.filol.csic.es) – has, to some extent, dated such treatments, and further updating is necessary. Scholars have generally assumed that the office of provincial governor was hereditary in nature. Thus, for instance, in his study of the Nippur governors, Hallo observed that the office went from father to son for several generations (Hallo 1972). This patrilineal succession is also seen at Adab, where Ur-Ašgi was

––––––––––––– * I am grateful to the organizers of this conference for providing funding to aid its participation. Sara Brumfield, Alhena Gadotti, Alexandra Kleinerman, and Jared Wolf read drafts of this paper and offered helpful suggestions. Jennifer Dillon provided help with the accompanying tables. 1. It has become common to read the second half of this name, i.e. the sign ENGUR (LAGAB×HAL), as n a m m a when it appears as a divine name, following Civil 1985. However, there are problems with this reading. Specifically, while some variants of Proto-Ea offer /namma/ as a phonetic value for the ENGUR-sign, others offer /nammu/. And while some phonetic writings of the name of the Ur III king UrNammu suggest a final -a, these instances are rare and thus not particularly compelling. Also unconvincing are the attempts to explain the word as being derived from a reduplicated /nam/. As Civil notes (1985: 27 n. 1), the expected word resulting from such reduplication is * n a n n a m (C1VC2+C1VC2 > C1VC1C1VC2, e.g. /bar/+/bar/> b a b b a r for the U4-sign) not n a m m a . Indeed, it is not even clear that the name of the deity was originally Sumerian. Given that the Sumerian language favored vowel harmony (though cf. Thomsen 1984: 39), the survival of the pronunciation /nammu/ in Old Babylonian lexical lists suggests that this was the original pronunciation of the god’s name. 2. Regarding the extent of the Ur III state under Ur-Nammu, the most recent survey of the data by Frayne and Hallo (2008) supports the notion that what is traditionally considered to be the core of the Ur III state was, with perhaps the exception of some of the eastern provinces, already in place by the end of Ur-Nammu’s reign.

115

116

LANCE ALLRED

succeeded by his son Habaluge, who held office there from at least Šulgi 38 until Šū-Suen 5, though likely even later (Vanderroost 2005). The governorship at Ešnunna – at least in the latter part of the Ur III period – likewise saw patrilineal succession, a trend that continued there even into the Old Babylonian period (Reichel 2001). While patrilineal succession is attested in some provinces, fratrilineal succession, where the office passed among a single generation of brothers, was the preferred mode of transmission of power in others. As Dahl (2007) has shown, this was certainly the case at Umma. While our understanding of the relationships between that province’s earliest governors is rather nonexistent the situation beginning with Ur-Lisi is much more clear (table one). Ur-Lisi is attested as the governor of Umma from Šulgi 33 until the end of Amar-Suen 8, when the office was taken over by A’akala, his brother. A’akala held office for approximately nine years, when he was succeeded by Dadaga, brother of both Ur-Lisi and A’akala. Fratrilineal succession also seems to have been the norm at Babylon. As is clear in table two, the earliest attested governor of this province is Itūr-īlum, who held the office at least as far back as Šulgi 37. He was succeeded by Aršiah in Šulgi 42 or 43, who, in turn, was succeeded by Abba in early Šulgi 44. According to at least one text, Abba was the son of Itūr-īlum.3 A later governor of Babylon, PuzurTutu, who held the office during Ibbi-Sin’s reign, is also listed as a son of Itūr-īlum. In addition to this hereditary nature of succession, at least some of these offices appear to have been held by families that had local ties to the province and held considerable power there before the rise of the Ur III state (Hallo 1972: 87-90; Steinkeller 1991: 19). Indeed, there was a certain logic in having such families continue to rule individual provinces once they had been subsumed into the state under Ur-Nammu (or Šulgi). As locals, they would have had loyal followers and an established base from which to wield power (Zettler 1984). In return for supporting the king, these families no doubt received royal backing that helped to insulate them from potential internal threats within the province. Nevertheless, in some cases individuals appear to have held office for reasons other than their blood relation to the previous governor. One of the best examples of this comes from the province of Ĝirsu (table three). During the reign of Šulgi, the province was governed by Ur-Lama, who is documented as governor as early as Šulgi 32. He had several sons, including Ur-Ba’u, Lugal-suluhu, and Dudu, who are all well-attested in the cuneiform record. However, after Ur-Lama’s death in Amar-Suen 4, the office was not inherited by one of his sons, but rather by a scarcely known individual named Nanna-zi-šaĝal. Indeed, as Maekawa observed, Ur-Lama’s sons are not attested in the cuneiform record after Amar-Suen’s second year (Maekawa 1996). Moreover, there appears to have been some confusion regarding the transition between Ur-Lama and Nanna-zi-šaĝal; the latter was governor of Ĝirsu as early as the sixth month of Amar-Suen 3, but at least two texts dated after this still list Ur-Lama as office-holder. Be that as it may, the data allow us to make no connections between Nanna-zišaĝal and the Ur-Lama family, and it seems unlikely that this new governor was in any way related to the previous one. Regardless, his tenure was short and, just

––––––––––––– 3.

YBC 16573, the seal impression of which is treated in Frayne 1997: 200.

The Tenure of Provincial Governors

117

over a year after he took office, he was succeeded by a certain Šara-kam. As with Nanna-zi-šaĝal, it is unlikely that Šara-kam had any relation to the Ur-Lama family, and his name is obviously much more at home in the province of Umma than in Ĝirsu. Also like Nanna-zi-šaĝal, Šara-kam’s tenure as governor was short, lasting only about a year. Taking over for Šara-kam was Arad-mu. Arad-mu, of course, is well attested as the s u k k a l - m a h , the Ur III state’s highest non-royal office. It is unclear if Aradmu shared a blood relation to the Ur-Nammu line, but through marriage he nevertheless had close ties to the royal family (Dahl 2007: 22-27). However, it is not possible to connect him to any of the previous governors of Ĝirsu. Other provinces appear to show similar situations. For instance, in the northern province of Kazallu, we see a series of governors (table four), from Ititi to Izarriq4 to, a decade later, Kallamu. Kallamu was eventually succeeded by ŠūMama, who, in turn, was ultimately succeeded by Apillaša.5 There are no data to connect any one governor to any other in terms of blood relation, and in fact the Kallamu who held the office in Kazallu from ca. Šulgi 43 to Šulgi 46 is likely the same one who appeared again as governor of Ešnunna from Šulgi 47 to sometime late in the reign of Amar-Suen. If this Kallamu of Kazallu was the same as the Kallamu of Ešnunna, then he was likely not related to any family in either of the two provinces and was appointed by the king for other reasons (table five). A similar situation may be behind the appearance of Nanna-zi-šaĝal in Ĝirsu discussed above, and a person by the same name who, a year earlier, appeared as governor of Iri-saĝrig. If it is true that there was an advantage to keeping local families in charge of individual provinces, then the appearance of non-locals in the office of governor merits further attention. Indeed, what factors drove the king, who presumably made these appointments, to take what were presumably rather unorthodox actions in the administrative control of the state? A close examination of the changes in the tenures of some of these governors offers a suggestion. In particular, it is noteworthy that a number of these unusual appointments occur during the reign of Amar-Suen One clear example of this phenomenon is the case of the governorship of Nippur (table six). From the available data, it appears that early in the reign of AmarSuen, the governorship changed from Ur-Nanibgal, a member of the long-established house of Ur-Meme that had governed Nippur since early in the reign of UrNammu, first to Ahuma and then to Lugal-Melam, neither of whom can be connected in any way to the Ur-Meme family (Zettler 1984). Curiously, at the end of

––––––––––––– 4. This name, certainly a hypocoristic, is from the verb zarāqu, “to sprinkle (liquids)” but the form izarraq is expected here. As later Assyrian forms do feature a thematic /i/ vowel, perhaps the Kazallu province saw northern influence here. 5. Keiser (1919: 16) places one Ibni-īlum as governor of Kazallu in Amar-Suen 1 according to an “unpublished tablet in NBC.” If this is correct, then it only serves to complicate the situation at Kazallu. However, there are a number of errors in Keiser’s list (cf. listing Apillaša as appearing in AO 5508 when the text in question – TCL 2 5508 – makes no such reference), thus some confirmation of this listing is certainly needed.

118

LANCE ALLRED

Amar-Suen’s reign, Lugal-Melam is succeeded in Nippur by Nam-zi-tara, who, according to his seal, was a son of Ur-Nanibgal (Zettler 1984: 4-5).6 A similar situation may have occurred at Sippar. During the reign of AmarSuen, the province was governed by Nūr-Dagan. Under Šū-Suen, however, the office was held by Šamaš-bani. Unfortunately, the data are silent on any relationship between these two individuals, and it is entirely possible that this is simply an unexceptional example of patrilineal or fratrilineal succession. However, it may also be that case that this change in office reflected something more unusual. It is noteworthy that we see a number of changes in the tenure of governors towards the end of Amar-Suen’s reign (table seven). For instance, in the province of Kazallu, the governor Šū-Mama was replaced by Apillaša in the fourth month of Amar-Suen 7. Kiš saw a change in governors from Ugulla to Ahum-bani at some point between late Amar-Suen 4 and the ninth month of Amar-Suen 8. In Šuruppak, the é n s i Lu-bala-saga was replaced by Ur-Ninkura between Amar-Suen 7 and Amar-Suen 8. Similarly, the aforementioned province of Ĝirsu saw the s u k k a l - m a h Arad-mu assume the office of governor there at least by the end of Amar-Suen 7, after several years of apparent instability. A particularly curious example comes from the site of Iri-saĝrig (table eight).7 For most of its attested history in the Ur III period, the province was governed by Ur-Mes.8 However, in the eleventh month of Amar-Suen 7, Ur-Mes was replaced by Ilallum.9 Ilallum, in turn, was swiftly replaced by Dadani in the same month.10 Dadani ruled the province for approximately one year before he was replaced by Ilallum – almost certainly the same one who held this office a year earlier.11 Finally, just a few months later – in early Amar-Suen 9 – Ur-Mes again returned to the position of governor of the province.12 Before drawing any conclusions from these data, it is important to note some limitations in our evidence. First, while the Ur III period lasted nearly a century, the bulk of our sources come form a short span of approximately 40 years, from around Šulgi 30 to the first few years of Ibbi-Sin. Were we to have cuneiform tablets in great numbers dating back to the beginning or Ur-Nammu’s reign, we might very well find situations similar to the ones noted above throughout the dynasty. Indeed, even with the data we do have, there are a few examples of unusual tenures of provincial governors that appear outside of Amar-Suen’s reign. In the previously mentioned case of Babylon, for instance, Itūr-ilum was succeeded by

––––––––––––– 6. Nam-zi-tara’s tenure lasted only a few years before he was succeeded by a man named Dada, whose seal indicates that he, too, was a son of Ur-Nanibgal (Zettler 1984: 5). Thus, provincial conventions for succession were not necessarily static and could change over time – in this case from a system of patrilineal succession for the governors before the interlude during Amar-Suen’s reign, to a system of fratrileneal succession after the interlude. See also Dahl 2007: 131-32, and Widell 2009: §3.3.1. 7. Because several of the tablets that reference these governors are dated to the month but not the day, it is impossible to establish a precise order of succession here. I have used Occam’s Razor and chosen an order that reflects the fewest number of changes among these governors, but other variations are possible. 8. A full list has recently appeared in Owen 2013. 9. SumTemDocs. 7. 10. BIN 3 379. 11. OIP 121 108. 12. Nisaba 15/2 146.

The Tenure of Provincial Governors

119

Aršiah, who, a short time later, was succeeded by Abba (table nine). But Abba’s tenure was itself quite short, only from Šulgi 43 to Šulgi 46. He was then replaced by Aršiah – no doubt the same Aršiah seen a few years earlier. Moreover, we cannot at present connect Aršiah to the family of Itūr-ilum, as we can for most of the other Babylonian governors. And yet, Aršiah, too, was replaced in Amar-Suen 7, which returns us to our original question – namely what, if anything, is behind the numerous curious circumstances in the tenures of provincial governors during the reign of Amar-Suen? Several scholars have commented on these events. For instance, in the case of the Nippur governors, Hallo (1972), and later Zettler, suggested that the phenomenon of the local family being replaced by a non-local official during Amar-Suen’s reign likely “represent[ed] an attempt … to break the power of the line of governors of Nippur and exert some manner of control over the powerful family” of Ur-Meme (Zettler 1984: 4). In his discussion of the Umma governors, Dahl observed that the end of Ur-Lisi’s tenure coincided with the death of Amar-Suen and speculated that the two events may have been connected (Dahl 2007: 61). Similarly, Maekawa proposed that Ur-Lama was removed as governor of Ĝirsu and replaced by an outsider due to growing tensions between the two families (Maekawa 1996: 122). On their own, of course, the arguments of these scholars are, to some extent, just conjecture. Taken together, however, their narrative becomes more compelling. This is further augmented when considered alongside the above examination of the tenures of other governors. It is likely not by chance that so many governors changed during Amar-Suen’s reign – particularly during the final years of his rule. Indeed, indications of troubles in Amar-Suen’s era are not limited just to the tenures of provincial governors. For instance, already by the middle of AmarSuen’s reign, tablets appear bearing seal impressions with dedicatory inscriptions to the king Šū-Suen. While it is not uncommon to see such seals used after the death of a king or governor, the use of a seal dedicated to one king long before the current king has died is seen almost exclusively during the final few years of Amar-Suen’s reign.13 As I have noted elsewhere, the Drehem tablets concerning the é - m u h a l d i m , or kitchen, reveal their own peculiarities during this time. In particular, in the final days of Amar-Suen’s sixth year, allotments to the kitchen for the à g a - ú s , or guardsmen, ceased; instead, allotments were made for a new group of people, the g à r - d u – often specified as the g à r - d u of Amar-Suen.14 These g à r - d u continued to appear in the Drehem records until the middle of Amar-Suen 9, when the à g a ú s guardsmen reappeared, having completely replaced the g à r - d u . A fascinating text recently published by Piotr Steinkeller indicates that, in the tenth month of Amar-Suen 7, the king brought together in Ur a large number of his generals to partake in a particularly sumptuous feast. In addition to feasting, however, these generals were also summoned to swear a loyalty oath to the king (Steinkeller 2008). Such an event is otherwise unattested in the Ur III period.

––––––––––––– 13. See Allred 2010 with literature. The two examples of Ibbi-Sin seals used during the final months of Šū-Suen’s reign are likewise curious and difficult to explain. 14. Allred 2006. See also Sigrist 1995.

120

LANCE ALLRED

As with the case of the governors, any number of reasons can explain these events in the administrative record, such as the appearance of Šū-Suen seals during the reign of Amar-Suen, or the replacement of the à g a - ú s by the g à r - d u at Drehem, or this apparently singular occurrence of the king summoning his generals to swear loyalty. But when considered alongside the other observations noted above, the weight of this circumstantial evidence becomes difficult to ignore: AmarSuen encountered significant internal troubles – particularly towards the end of his reign. Moreover, all indicators point to Amar-Suen’s successor, Šū-Suen, as the likely source of these troubles. The odd circumstances seen in the tenures of the Ur III provincial governors are attested at the same time as both the change from à g a ú s to g à r - d u in the Drehem texts, and the unique feast at Ur, where generals were summoned to swear an oath to the king. It is likely not a coincidence that all of these events occurred at the same time as when we first see the use of the ŠūSuen seals. We can only speculate at the root of these troubles. Was Šū-Suen simply impatient, and worried that Amar-Suen would enjoy a lengthy reign as had his father Šulgi? Or, assuming the two were brothers, was Šū-Suen concerned that AmarSuen might opt to name one of his sons as heir? The answers to such questions may never be known. However, administrative records from the Ur III period no doubt contain more clues about this troubled time in Amar-Suen’s reign, and, no doubt, numerous other aspects of the state’s political history.

Bibliography Allred, L. 2006 Provisioning the aga3-us2 in the Ur III Period. Paper presented at the 216th annual meeting of the American Oriental Society, Seattle, WA., March 17-20, 2006. 2010 More Šu-Suen Seals During the Reign of Amar-Suen. Cuneiform Digital Library Notes 2010: 3. Dahl, J. 2007 The Ruling Family of Ur III Umma: A Prosopographical Analysis of an Elite Family in Southern Iraq 4000 Years Ago. PIHANS CVIII. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten. Frayne, D. R. 1997 Ur III Period (2112-2004 BC). The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia. Early Periods 3/2, Toronto, Buffalo: University of Toronto Press Frayne, D. R., and Hallo, W. W. 2008 New Texts from the Reign of Ur-Namma. Pp. 53-62 in On the Third Dynasty of Ur: Studies in Honor of Marcel Sigrist, ed. P. Michalowski. The Journal of Cuneiform Studies, Supplemental Series 1. Boston: American Schools of Oriental Research. Hallo, W. W. 1953 The Ensi’s of the Ur III Dynasty. Master’s thesis, University of Chicago. 1972 The House of Ur-Meme. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 31: 87-95. Keiser, C. E. 1919 Patesis of the Ur Dynasty. Yale Oriental Series. Researches 4: 2. New Haven: Yale University Press. Kraus, F. R. 1955 Provinzen des neusumerischen Reiches von Ur. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 51: 4571.

The Tenure of Provincial Governors

121

Maekawa, K. 1996 Confiscation of Private Properties in the Ur III Period: A Study of é-dul-la and nígGA. Acta Sumerologica 18: 103-168. Owen, D. I. 1981 Review of D.O. Edzard and G. Farber, Répertoire Géographique des Textes Cunéiformes, Band 2: Die Orts- und Gewassernamen der 3. Dynastie von Ur. Wiesbaden 1974. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 33: 244-269. 1988 Random Notes on a Recent Ur III Volume. Review of P. J. Watson, Catalogue of Cuneiform Tablets in the Birmingham City Museum I: Neo-Sumerian Texts from Drehem. Warminster 1986. Journal of the American Oriental Society 108: 111-122. 2013 Cuneiform Texts Primarily from Iri-Saĝrig/Al-Šarrākī and the History of the Ur III Period. 1: Commentary and Indexes. Nisaba. Studi Assiriologici Messinesi 15/1. Bethesda: CDL Press. Reichel, C. 2001 Political Changes and Cultural Continuity in the Palace of the Rulers of Eshnunna (Tell Asmar) from the Ur III Period to the Isin- Larsa Period. Ph. D. dissertation, University of Chicago. Sigrist, M. 1995 Neo-Sumerian Texts from the Royal Ontario Museum I: The Administration at Drehem. Bethesda: CDL Press. Steinkeller, P. 1991 The Administrative and Economic Organization of the Ur III State: The Core and the Periphery. Pp. 19-41 in The Organization of Power: Aspects of Bureaucracy in the Ancient Near East, ed. McG. Gibson and R. D. Biggs. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 46. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. 2008 Joys of Cooking in Ur III Babylonia. Pp. 185-192 in On the Third Dynasty of Ur: Studies in Honor of Marcel Sigrist, ed. P. Michalowski. The Journal of Cuneiform Studies, Supplemental Series 1. Boston: American Schools of Oriental Research. Thomsen, M.-L. 1984 The Sumerian Language. Mesopotamia 10. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag. Vanderroost, N. 2005 La famille d’Ur-Ašgi, gouverneu d’Adab. Pp. 145-51 in Si un homme... : Textes offerts en hommage à André Finet, ed. P. Talon and V. Van der Stede. Subartu 16. Turnhout: Brepols. Widell, M. 2009 Two Ur III Texts from Umma: Observations on Archival Practices and Household Management. Cuneiform Digital Library Journal 2009: 6. Zettler, R. L. 1984 The Geneaology of the House of Ur-Me-me: a Second Look. Archiv für Orientforschung 31: 1-9.

122

LANCE ALLRED

Tables Table One: Governors of Umma Name

From

To

Ur-Lisi A’akala Dadaga

Š 32 (YOS 4 151 [seal]) AS 8/xi (MVN 16 627) ŠS 7/ii (Nik. 2 528)

AS 8/x (MVN 4 74 [seal]) ŠS 7/ii (Nik. 2 528) IS 3/ii/27 (NABU 1996: 131)

Table Two: Governors of Babylon Name Itūr-īlum Aršiah Abba ... Puzur-Tutu

From Š 36/ix (RA 16, 19) Š 43/iii (TCL 2 4679) Š 44/iii/24 (AUCT 2 399)

To Š 42 (UTI 4 2461 [seal]) Š 43/iv (Rochester 12) Š 46/viii (OIP 115 257)

IS 2/vi/14 (MVN 8 139)

...

Table Three: Governors of Girsu Name

From

To

Ur-Lamma Nanna-zi-šaĝal Šara-kam Arad-mu

Š 32 (MVN 3 467) AS 3/vi/30 (PDT 1 537) AS 4/xii (PDT 1 557) AS 7/xii (PDT 2 1161)

AS 4 (ASJ 19, 288 13) AS 4/xii (PDT 1 557) AS 5/viii (BIN 3 108) ...

Table Four: Governors of Kazallu Name Ititi Izariq Kallamu Šu-Mama Apillaša ...

From Š 28/v (PDT 1 516) Š 33/iii (YOS 4 75) Š 43/ii (PDT 1 509) Š 47/x (TRU 116) AS 7/iv 30 (JCS 14, 109 9)

To Š 34/vi (AnOr 7 92) Š 46/vi (YOS 4 72) AS 7/iv 30 (JCS 14, 109 9) AS 8/iv 13 (TCL 2 5489)

Table Five: The Career of Kallamu, the Governor Kazallu Ititi Izariq Kallamu Šu-Mama ...

Š 28/v Š 33/iii - Š 34/vi Š 43/ii - Š 46/vi Š 47/x - AS 7/iv/30

→

Ešnunna Ur-gu’edina Bamu Kallamu Lugal-kuzu

Š 32 Š 45/x - Š 46/vii Š 48/x - AS 7/vi ŠS 2/vii/6

The Tenure of Provincial Governors

123

Table Six: Governors of Nippur Name ... Ur-Nanibgal Ahuma Lugal-Melam Nam-zi-tara ...

From

To

Š 34 (BBVO 11 292 6N-T606+) AS 1/viii/28 (Akkadica 13, 28) AS 1/xi/3 (YOS 4 68) ŠS 1? (Essays Gordon 1, 131 1 [Seal])

Š 44/vii/20 (OrSP 18, pl. 2 6) AS 9/xi/27 (CST 400)

Table Seven: Changes ca. Amar-Suen 7 Kazallu Šu-Mama Apillaša

AS 7/iv/30 AS 7/iv/30

Kiš Ugula Ahum-bani

Šuruppak Lu-bala-saga Ur-Ninkura

AS 7 AS 8/viii

Girsu AS 4/xi/29 AS 8/ix

Šara-kam Arad-mu

AS 5/viii AS 7/xii

Table Eight: Governors of Iri-saĝrig Name Ur-Mes Ilallum Dadani Illalum Ur-Mes

From AS 1/ix (AuOr 10, 87 1) AS 7/xi (SumTemDocs. 7) AS 7/xi (BIN 3 379) AS 8/xi/9 (OIP 121 108) AS 9/i/20+ (Nisaba 15/2 146)

To AS 7/v (YOS 4 76) AS 8/ix (AUCT 2 277) IS 2/x/25 (MVN 13 128)

Table Nine: Aršiah and the Governors of Babylon Name

From

To

Itūr-īlum Aršiah Abba Aršiah

Š 36/ix (RA 16, 19) Š 43/iii (TCL 2 4679) Š 44/iii/24 (AUCT 2 399) Š 46 (Trouvaille 78)

Š 42 (UTI 4 2461 [seal]) Š 43/iv (Rochester 12) Š 46/viii (OIP 115 257) AS 7/xi/9 (YOS 4 56)

Symbols and Bureaucratic Performances in the Ur III Administrative Sphere: An Interpretation Through Data Mining

Alessandro Di Ludovico UNIVERSITÀ LA SAPIENZA, ROME

1. General Assumptions Both tablets bearing cuneiform texts and stamp or cylinder seals are usually published, studied and referred to by scholars in mediated forms that can be used in some research perspectives, but restrict the opportunities and potentials for other investigations. Cylinder seals are mostly published through their present-day laboratory impressions, that often serve quite well the purpose of iconographic, iconologic and epigraphic studies, but are definitely not sufficient, and perhaps even misleading, for in depth studies dealing with perception and organization of space in ancient societies and with working techniques adopted by ancient craftsmen. In fact, the production process of cylinder seals and the most frequent ways in which seals were worn, handled and observed by ancient people were very likely closely related to their cylindrical three-dimensional shape.1 Actually, as far as they have been understood by scholars, the daily relationships between people living in ancient Western Asia and cylinder seals were, in almost all historical periods and geographical regions, closely bound to the physicalness of these objects. The craftsman or owner of a seal used to work, handle or wear it in direct contact with his – or her – body, very likely developing their own ideal of the seal itself, which had to do also with its weight, colour, and material. Furthermore, people coming into contact with a person who handled or wore a seal probably experienced a stratified perception of this object that was largely related to its material features. Finally, the many values a seal could be given, like the apotropaic or prestige-related ones,2 must have had a two-way relationship with its materiality and visual aspect (including colour and actual shape). New technologies, especially those related to Virtual Reality and the Web, can supply scholars with useful tools for the systematic recording and publication of data concerning aspects of seals that are usually neglected. Anyway, the problem is basically of a theoretical and methodological nature: even the publication of data

––––––––––––– 1. See also the overview in Moorey 1994: 74-77, 103-106; Collon 2001. 2. On the many different values of ancient seals, see the observations in Cassin 1960; Porada 1993: 563; Braun-Holzinger 1999: 151-152; Winter 2001.

125

126

ALESSANDRO DI LUDOVICO

that, like the absolute weight (i.e. the mass) of artefacts, do not require sophisticated or expensive means to be recorded is very rare, and seems to have never been considered essential. In fact, research that focuses on topics related to the physicalness of seals or other works of handicraft have remained isolated experiments.3 On the other hand, the laboratory impressions that are always used in catalogues of seals or in researches dealing with seals’ iconography can be misleading in themselves for at least two reasons. First, they do not actually reflect any original use of cylinder seals on tablets or other objects, and second, they do not represent in any way the diversity of original impressions that can be detected, depending on both the historical periods and the kind of material medium to be sealed. The publication of clay tablets is usually focused on a clear and detailed report of their epigraphic content. Any quantitative or qualitative information about sealings and their positions, density of cuneiform signs, clay and physical structure of the tablet is almost always lacking. Specific experimental studies dedicated to some of these topics have appeared only recently,4 but a systematic integration of such information with the epigraphic and other “traditionally” recorded features of tablets seems still far from being accomplished. This is partly due to an almost complete absence of archaeological approaches to tablets. The use of new technologies in the publication of tablets as well as cylinder seals could be a great help in order to develop such scope in our research. The results that will be presented in this contribution come from investigations that are part of a long-term research project on Ur III “presentation scenes” and administrative documents.5 The two corpora that have been used until now are not very large, but are sufficient for a first sound study. These corpora consist respectively of 354 published seals (observed and coded from printed publications) and 314 administrative documents from Umma stored

––––––––––––– 3. For example those carried out by Gorelick and Gwinnett (1977; 1979; 1990), which have not been followed by a systematic and consistent use of the proposed procedures of quantitative recordings, in part because of technical problems (incuding exposing to risk the physical integrity of artefacts) and the cost of some of the illustrated experiments. Sax, Collon and Leese 1993 and Di Ludovico 2008 are also studies largely based on the physical features of seals (primarily materials and dimensions, recorded on published specimens), though having different aims and perspectives. Recently, an interesting experiment in the digitization of cylinder seals which gives the observer an as much as possible readability of some of the cylinder’s physical characteristics and its pictorial features was carried out by P. J. Boon and M. de Vries-Melein (2013). My opinion is that pursuing new perspectives in publishing ancient artefacts and carrying out research on them is the best way to preserve them. Of course, this requires parallel work and cooperation between different researchers and institutions, and, above all, that free access of researchers to ancient artefacts be permitted as much as possible. 4. Some studies presented in the interesting workshops organized within the 55th RAI in Paris (July 2009) and the 7th ICAANE in London (April 2010) have focused in a quite original way on qualitative and quantitative aspects of clay tablets’ physicalness. They have been published in the second section of the Journal Scienze dell’Antichità 17 (2013): 269-338, 371-420. 5. This project has an inner logical coherence, but not a precise timetable, since it is not funded. Some of the results are in the course of publication (or just published): Di Ludovico 2010; Id. 2011; Id. 2012; Di Ludovico, Camiz and Pieri 2013; Di Ludovico and Pieri 2011.

Symbols and Bureaucratic Performances

127

in the Yale Babylonian Collection and directly handled by the author of this contribution.6 In general, the viewpoint adopted here for the coding of specimens and the interpretation of results were largely of a linguistic nature, in the case of “presentation scenes,” and of an archaeological nature, as far as possible, in the case of administrative documents. The corpora have thus been processed as two numeric matrixes, the cells of which were filled with values that are mostly binary, representing the presence or absence of specific features, or scaled, representing the recorded intensity of features.

2. The Coding Process Structuralist-like coding criteria have been adopted for “presentation scenes.” Each minimum feature that has been singled out in every scene has been considered like a phoneme: devoid of an own meaning and able to acquire sense or change the sense of the whole representation on the basis of its interaction with all other elements represented in the same scene and with the recording of the interaction of similar or dissimilar elements in all other records of the data set. To respect these criteria, I considered it necessary to pay due attention, while coding the scenes, to the relative spatial position of each feature. This required the identification of spatial reference points that could be unambiguously located in each specimen and allow reference of the coded features to the cylindrical surface of the seal. In this case, such reference points are the figure of the “receiver,” that is the character that can always be found in each scene and distinguished from the others, and the place of the “origin,” that is the spatial gap that separates the two opposite ends of the representation (Fig. 1). In each “presentation scene” the position, number and kind of characters and integrating motifs were recorded, together with the attributes, hairstyle, garments and physical pose of figures and the shape and content of the legend, if present (the content has been considered as a succession of typical formulas). The same basic coding logic has been followed to make the matrix referring to the corpus of administrative documents. The data set records a number of physical features of the documents, like their dimensions (in centimetres), including thickness, those of the relevant seal impressions, the ratios between the height and width of the document and between the height of the sealing and that of the tablet, the kind and distribution of sealings on each face of the document, the density and distribution of written signs on each side of the document, the presence of seal impressions on the smallest sides of the documents, and so on. Less “physical” recorded features include the dating of documents and some general elements of the sealings’ legend and iconography. The scene on seal FUB 60 (Freie Universität Berlin – Fig. 2a) provides an example of the coding adopted for “presentation scenes.” In this case, following a presence/absence criterion (expressed by numbers 1 and 0), the presence is recorded of: three characters, two integrating motifs (i.m.), and a legend; of the i.m.,

––––––––––––– 6. My warmest and most sincere thanks go to Benjamin Foster, Ulla Kasten and Marcel Sigrist for all the help and suggestions.

128

ALESSANDRO DI LUDOVICO

one is an animal, in the central part of the field, the other a weapon, in the lower part of the field; one is between character 1 (that is, the receiver, who is always detectable in presentation scenes: from him/her I begin the numbering of characters) and character 2, the other one between character 2 and character 3; one is specifically a scorpion (if I considered it important to distinguish more than one type of scorpion, the type is specified), the other an axe (idem). According to the same procedure, the dress, the headgear, the hairdo, the position of arms and legs of each of the characters (char. 1, char. 2, char. 3) is recorded, as well as their material attributes (in this scene they have none, but they could show necklaces, bracelets, weapons, vessels...), and the kind of seat and dais (if present) of character 1. In this case, the legend is distributed through three lines (this information is recorded in one variable), and its content is made of three of the typical formulas that have been provided for in the data set (PN, “son of PN,” professional title), so that three variables out of the 27 that have been fixed for the description of the content of the legend have been assigned the value “1” (0 to all others). In the case of seal Sb 1445 (Museum of Tehran – Fig. 2b) the same coding criterion has been followed, so that character 1 (the “receiver”) is a male deity and character 2 is not a female deity, but a man, and there is only one i.m., that is the sun with moon sickle in the upper part of the field, between character 1 and character 2, and so on. As for the administrative documents data set, a similar criterion has been adopted, but variables record not only presence/absence of features, but also scaled values, like height, thickness and width of the document. For each document the data set collects the shape, absolute measurements in centimetres, the ratio between height and width, the height of the impressed seal, the date (by year, from 1 to 44), the date within each reign, the kind of scene shown on the impressed seal, the kind of impression recorded on obverse and reverse (Fig. 3: a – impression of the scene with or without the legend; b – repeated impression of the legend; c – coexistence of a and b), the distribution of signs and the number of lines on each inscribed face of the document (Fig. 4a-c), the position of the date-formula, etc. The variable related to the chronological succession of sealing and drafting of a document has been recorded on the basis of the assumptions deriving from an experiment carried out by A. Hattori (2001: 98).

3. The Models: Auto-Contractive Maps An Artificial Neural Networks mathematical algorithm proves useful and suitable for the processing of the quite large matrixes related to both the seals and documents corpora. Actually, in the very early stages of this project the epistemological approach and the first interpretation that had been provided were oriented towards a deep exploration of the mental processes that underlay the production of such artefacts. The opportunity of using a specific kind of algorithm had not yet been considered: on the contrary, the explicit need was to keep together the observed data in a continuous frame, and some first attempts at analogue examination of data were car-

Symbols and Bureaucratic Performances

129

ried out.7 The ultimate goal of this research is to propose a new continuous methodology in classifying and interpreting these artefacts: a methodology that would result from a dialectic comparison of different discrete methods between each other and with the fundamental perspective that underlies this project.8 Ideally, we will achieve an enrichment in the basic perspective itself as the final step of the whole project. As stated above, the comprehension and classification of the artefacts included in the two corpora were based, for the study that is presented here, on largely linguistic-like assumptions. The use of Artificial Neural Networks seemed a good compromise in order to start to test discrete approaches to the corpora under study: it looked like a good means to approximate and simulate the logics of production and structural inner organization of both “presentation scenes” and administrative documents. The algorithm used in the experiments that will be presented here was developed by the Semeion Research Centre in Communication Science of Rome, and is called “Auto-Contractive Map” (Auto-CM).9 The Auto-CM input layer is made of as many nodes as there are variables or records in the data set, depending on the kind of investigation.10 In this case, the study is focused on the 405 variables in the “presentation scenes” data set and 95 variables in the documents data set. The hidden and output layers of the network maintain a number of nodes that corresponds to that of the input layer. The whole work of Auto-CM can be summarized as a large process of energy minimization, in which, based on the inner evidence of the data set, the algorithm looks for the least expensive set of edges that keeps together the whole corpus, finding the set of relationships between the different nodes (representing the variables) and the relevant logics. During the process, each node – that is, each variable – is examined both in its behaviour in the whole data set and in the relative values it can assume in comparison with those of all other nodes. In order to reach a minimized distribution of the nodes in a graph, the connections between the layers are progressively weighted, until a state of equilibrium is reached. This state of equilibrium is the least expensive minimum set of edges that keeps together all nodes, and is well represented in the form of a Minimum Spanning Tree (MST). Auto-Contractive Maps can also provide another type of visual representation of these results: the Maximally Regular Graph (MRG), that shows cycles that are particularly strong and rich in regularities.11 An advantage of using this model rather than others is thus the possibility to base the data processing mainly on the specific content of

––––––––––––– 7. The theoretical background and the guiding perspective of this research have been explained especially in Di Ludovico 2005 (on “presentation scenes”), and 2010 (on administrative tablets). 8. A first attempt of such kind has been carried out in Di Ludovico, Camiz and Pieri 2013, in which a Textual Correspondences Analysis and an ANN processing were comparatively used on the same data set of “presentation scenes,” with unexpected and surprising results. 9. I am grateful to M. Buscema, G. Massini, G. Pieri and S. Terzi of Semeion for all the help and friendship. 10. The processing can be, in fact, focused both on records as well as on variables, depending on the kind of investigation. Though both processing strategies have been carried out, I have chosen to privilege the one focusing on variables, the results of which will be shown here. 11. The mathematical details of Auto-CM are specifically discussed in Buscema, Petritoli, Pieri and Sacco 2008, and shortly summarized in Di Ludovico 2011. Various applications of Auto-CM have been illustrated in Buscema 1995 and Buscema and Grossi 2007.

130

ALESSANDRO DI LUDOVICO

the data set. This means that the central role in the whole processing is played by the choices made at the moment of punctuating and coding the artefacts.

4. Results of the Processing on “Presentation Scenes” The Minimum Spanning Tree that shows the results of the investigation on “presentation scenes” leads us to attribute quite a distinctive role to the gender of the represented anthropomorphic characters, and in general we note a deep logical difference between the roles played by male and female figures, whatever their position is in the scene (Fig. 5). Each of the two nodes that represent the male human and divine receivers is located at the connection between the central region of the tree and a large branch in which one can find a number of nodes related to elements of the scenes; not all these elements would seem typical of presentations “before a king” or “before a god.” On the other hand, nodes related to the female divine receiver are in a position that clearly reveals general structural differences between her roles in the semantics of the presentation and those of male receivers (Fig. 6). Two branches of the tree that appear close to each other respectively collect vertices related to symptoms of reworking and a wide variety of integrating motifs. This proximity is meaningful, since quite usually the reworking of “presentation scenes” implied the introduction of new integrating motifs in the representation. Additionally, it seems clear that some integrating motifs give a strong contribution to the general meaning of the scene: they are significantly represented by nodes that are very close to the central region of the tree (Fig. 7). The reworking of scenes seems thus to transform the overall meaning of the scene into a form that is relatively close to the common “presentation” structure. The effect of most reworkings should be a change in the structure of the scene toward a more conceptual rather than an actively legal or administrative dimension (involving also “prestige” aspects).12 From this viewpoint, it is significant that very often reworkings affect the legend, which, according to the picture given by the tree, is usually bound to the goal of connecting the “natural person” of the seal’s owner with the seal itself.13 Nodes that are distributed through the branch containing the “receiving goddess” node, the central region of the tree and the less peripheral part of the branch in which the integrating motifs nodes are concentrated are bound by strong edges to each other, which can mean that they mainly represent the basic features that underlay the concept of “presentation” in glyptic in Ur III times (Fig. 6). In fact, a number of nodes referring to some specific integrating motifs that, at first sight, would not have a direct connection with male figures are located in the branches containing the “male god receiver” nodes. In general, the arrangement of the nodes may suggest a conceptual autonomy of presentations in which the re-

––––––––––––– 12. The topic of reworking seals in Ur III period has been recently investigated by Waetzoldt 1995 and Mayr 2001. What is stated here is not in contrast with the idea that some seal reworkings could be due to new roles acquired by the relevant owners in the state administration, or to comparable phenomena. In fact, an ideal “updating” of the scene could well require a partial redefinition of its general semantic organization toward less constrainable or specific terms, which could also permit a quite “easy” adaptation of the representation to its new role. 13. This has been especially stressed by Winter 1991: 59-72.

Symbols and Bureaucratic Performances

131

ceiver is a male god. The so-called “royal presentations” would be, at least in part, logically derived from the presentations before male gods, and seem to be, from the purely formal viewpoint, more rigid and bare versions of them. In fact, the node representing the royal receiver is sorrounded by nodes that refer to a number of features that are firmly bound to the “royal presentation,” in a general frame that seems to express a very typical rigidity of these scenes (Fig. 6 and 8). This seems quite compatible with a possible explicitly palatial origin of this theme.14 Just as one would expect, the presentation scenes’ Maximally Regular Graph shows a region in which a large number of cycles concentrate: this region is usually called “diamond.” The diamond is made of the nodes that can be ascribed to the basic features of the concept of “presentation” (Fig. 9a). This clearly appears in the comparison between the MRG diamond and the position of the relevant nodes in the MST (Fig. 9b). A general characteristic of the MST is a certain degree of resistance to “perturbances,” like cuts. This resistance is proportional to the inner computational complexity of the graph, that is also a measure of its entropy.15 Out of the 405 variables of the data set, 109 give a negative contribution to the graph complexity, so that the presence of each of them implies a certain reduction in the MST entropy. Among them one can find some physical poses of the characters that are more frequent in the scenes dating back to the Akkadian age, while those poses that appear for the first time in Ur III period provide an evident, though not huge, contribution to the complexity of the tree. Also a number of animals, monsters and astral symbols that are largely attested in the Akkadian glyptic can be included among those features that reduce the complexity of the tree. The variables that are related to the seat of the receiver are interesting to examine: of them, two types that are not very frequent are recorded only in original impressions, and give to the graph a significant entropy contribution (Fig. 10). On the other hand, some other types of seats and daises, including the well-known “royal padded stool,” record an opposite influence on the tree. A similar opposition can be observed about legend formulas: the presence of an invocation or the mention of an officer that is different from the owner of the seal enhance the tree’s complexity, while other formulas, like the qualification of the seal owner, lower it.

5. Results of the Processing on Administrative Tablets The administrative documents data set consists of 314 records which come from Umma and fall within a time span of 44 years: from Šulgi 28 to Ibbi-Suen 5. I presented the results of a first investigation on these artefacts carried out with the Auto-CM at the 54th RAI in Würzburg.16 Some general clues clearly emerged from that study about the performative dynamics within this provincial administration in the Ur III period (Fig. 11).

––––––––––––– 14. Winter (1986; 1987) discussed various aspects of “royal presentations,” giving an outline of possible ideological and bureaucratic contexts in which they were conceived and spread. A specific kind of “royal presentation” is that depicted on those seals Mayr and Owen (2004) call “inaba-” or “royal gift seals.” I thank both authors for providing me a digital copy of their article. 15. Buscema, Petritoli, Pieri and Sacco 2008: 29. 16. Di Ludovico 2012.

132

ALESSANDRO DI LUDOVICO

First, a clear-cut break between the reign of Šulgi and those of his successors is evident; second, an increasing importance stands out in the use of the seal in the shaping of the administrative documents, especially since the end of Šulgi’s reign. The physical dimensions of the documents seem to change in order to be suitable to the administrative use of seals that was probably formalized during the reign of Šulgi. This means that, beginning with the second half of Šulgi’s reign, the mental structuring of the dimensions, shape and inner organization of the document as a physical object were increasingly related to the shape, dimensions and formalized administrative use of the seal. The tree also suggests that the distribution of written signs on the document’s faces could have been affected by such features (Fig. 12). In sum, the tree results show the structure of general standardizing processes that involved Umma administrative behavior in this phase of the Ur III period. In addition, the average basic elements of the Umma administrative documents are represented by the vertices of the MRG’s “diamond,” which obviously does not reveal by itself the genealogy of the bureaucratic performances that were developing in the middle of Ur III age, but rather gives the idea of what had become a standardized way of drafting documents (Fig. 13a-b). The global complexity of the documents’ tree (which has in general, as one would expect, lower absolute values if compared to that of cylinders) is strongly reduced if one removes from it the node corresponding to the presence of written lines in the central part of the obverse (Fig. 14).17 A number of other features also provide a strong contribution to the tree’s complexity. Among them, one can find the back-in-time variable, which is very meaningful, since it seems to represent and synthesize the very roots of the structure of a whole performative imaginary of Umma officials.18 In fact, back-in-time means here the second half of Šulgi’s reign. Significantly the variables representing the normal chronological order of the datings are all among those which provide the graph with a very low complexity contribution. We can even recognize the actual succession of reigns: the farther they are from Šulgi’s, the less they contribute to the general complexity of the graph. The complexity given to the graph by the iconography of the documents’ sealings seems to agree with the overall picture that emerged in the “presentation scenes” investigation: the presentations before a goddess can be, in general, clearly distinguished from those before male figures, that are based on different logic. The presence of a male receiver in the sealing strengthens the graph complexity much

––––––––––––– 17. Administrative documents have been oriented according to a vertical development of cuneiform writing. In fact, though the debate on the rotation of cuneiform signs goes on (see the recent overview and examination in Studevent-Hickman 2007), I think that an “early” (in date) rotation is very far from being demonstrated. Furthermore, the orientation of documents that has been chosen here permits a more comfortable observation of the seal impressions. In the data set, written lines in the central (or left/right) part of the obverse (or reverse) is a variable recording that lines do not cover the face completely, but concentrate in one or two parts of it. For instance, variables recording lines on the right part and the central part of the face can both be active in a record, but the variable that records a uniform distribution of signs on the face excludes the possibility that other variables of the same kind could be active. Thus, the variable that records written signs on the central part of the obverse means that the signs on the obverse are not (more or less) uniformly distributed on the face. 18. The use of this variable, together with that related to the normal chronological course, permits us to have an idea of the tendential “ancientness” or “novelty” of singled out variables within the time span covered by the data set.

Symbols and Bureaucratic Performances

133

less than that of a receiving goddess, which could suggest that, at a first general sight, the algorithm finds that the more typical and original elements of the palatial Ur III iconography are those which more than the others give the data set an inner compactness and stability (a confirmation to this impression will only be yielded by an investigation of a larger data set). On the other hand, the composition of the figures that face the receiver is also very important in enhancing the graph complexity, both if it shows the hand in hand pair of goddess and man and if it shows the standing man. In agreement with previous investigations that I carried out on “presentation scenes,” the infrequent presence of a small figure of a goddess between the receiver and the shaven man standing and facing him does not have a remarkable weight in the general semantics of the representation. In fact, it probably implies that the scene had been conceived of as a presentation in which the hand in hand pair of goddess and shaven man face the receiver.19 The astral symbol on the top of the field is another feature that increases the complexity of the graph, as well as the presence in the sealing’s legend of the “his servant” formulas or sequences of royal epithets. Both the MST and MRG also show that parallel to the standardization of the documents’ structure, there is an increasing tendency to superimpose the written signs of the document’s date formula on the figure of the receiver of the presentation scene’s impression.

6. Summing Up In spite of the fact that it was not carried out on very large data sets, the investigation presented here provides a series of important suggestions for the interpretation, on one hand, of the development of an official iconography, which is founded on needs and symbolisms belonging to political communication, and very likely also to the popular and official cultic spheres. On the other hand, the results shown above give some important suggestions for the reconstruction of a number of mental and behavioral formal processes that underlay the changes induced in some offices of Lower Mesopotamian administration in this period. Such changes were partly consciously planned and organized by the authorities, partly based on the perceptive and mental developments deriving from the adoption and feedback effects of some cultural and technological practices.20 According to the fundamental logic followed by the Auto-CM, the relationships between the different features and records that form the data set are understood and reconstructed only on the bases of the data set’s inner evidence. This obviously means that an essential part of the work in this kind of investigation is the definition and coding of the many segments of information that form the description of each recorded specimen. This definition and coding must therefore be very scrupulous and well thought out.21

––––––––––––– 19. These observations could be also inferred in the investigation of Di Ludovico 2011. 20. Interesting studies on the adoptions and use of communication technologies and their logical reasons and feedback effects have been carried out by Marshall McLuhan and his scientific heirs: see especially de Kerckhove 1991; 1995. Relevant themes were discussed in: Di Ludovico 2010, and in press. 21. As a fundamental issue, the coding step has been discussed in Di Ludovico 2005.

134

ALESSANDRO DI LUDOVICO

A comprehensive examination of the different types of results obtained by Auto-CM leads to a quite sound view of the relative values of the singled out variables. The subsequent stages that have been reached in this research project have involved an increasing enlargement of the variedness of outcomes which means a strong refinement of the relevant interpretation. Some of the next steps of this project have been partly prepared and formalized, while others depend on the availability of data and resources in the near future. In general, the goals are: to enlarge as much as possible both data sets with data coming from different archaeological contexts; to enlarge the investigation, so that “contest scenes” could be included and to try to find logical and semantic relationships between them and the “presentations;” to make a single large process that could simultaneously involve cylinder seals and administrative documents; to investigate in greater depth the structure and spatial distribution of cuneiform signs (hopefully in cooperation with Assyriologists); and to connect seals and documents to geographic areas of origins.22 The project could be methodologically enriched and strengthened by using at the same time models and simulation tools of different natures.

Bibliography Amiet, P. 1972 Glyptique Susienne. Mémoires de la Délégation Archéologique en Iran 43. Paris: Geuthner. Bleibtreu, E. (ed.) 1981 Rollsiegel aus dem vorderen Orient. Zur Steinschneidekunst zwischen etwa 3200 und 400 vor Christus nach Beständen in Wien und Graz. Wien: Vorderasiatisches Museum. Boon, P. J., and de Vries-Melein, M. 2013 Cylinder Seals Revealed. Pp. 511-517 in Fusion of Cultures. Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology: Proceedings of the 38th Annual Conference, Granada, April 6-9 2010, ed. F. Contreras, M. Farjas, F. J. Melero. BAR International Series 2494. Oxford: Archaeopress. Braun-Holzinger, E. A. 1999 Apotropaic Figures at Mesopotamian Temples in the Third and Second Millennia. Pp. 149-172 in Mesopotamian Magic. Textual, Historical, and Interpretative Perspectives, ed. T. Abusch and K. van der Toorn. Ancient Magic and Divination I. Groningen: Styx. Buchanan, B. 1966 Catalogue of the Ancient Near Eastern Seals in the Ashmolean Museum. I. Cylinder Seals. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1981 Early Near Eastern Seals in the Yale Babylonian Collection. New Haven/London: Yale University Press. Buscema, M. 1995 Self-Reflexive Networks. Theory, Topology, Applications. Quality & Quantity 29: 339-403.

––––––––––––– 22. This has partly been done in a recent investigation: Di Ludovico, Camiz and Pieri 2013 (see also n. 8).

Symbols and Bureaucratic Performances

135

Buscema, M., and Grossi, E. 2007 A novel adapting mapping method for emergent properties discovery in data bases: experience in medical field. Pp. 3457-3463 in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, October 7-10 2007, ed. Y. Nakamori, Z. Wang, J. Gu, and T. Ma. Montreal: IEEE Omnipress. Buscema, M., Petritoli, R., Pieri, G., and Sacco, P. 2008 Auto Contractive Maps. Technical Paper n. 32. Rome: Semeion-Aracne. Cassin, E. 1960 Le sceau: un fait de civilisation dans la Mésopotamie ancienne. Annales. Economies Sociétés Civilisations 4 : 742-751. Collon, D. 1982 Akkadian, Post Akkadian, Ur III Periods. Catalogue of Western Asiatic Seals in the British Museum II. London: British Museum. 2001 How Seals Were Worn and Carried: the Archaeological and Iconographical Evidence. Pp. 15-30 in Seals and Seal Impressions. Proceedings of the XLVe Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, ed. W. W. Hallo and I. Winter. Bethesda: CDL Press. Delaporte, L. 1920 Catalogue des cylindres orientaux, cachets et pierres gravées du Musée du Louvre. I. Fouilles et Missions. Paris: Hachette. 1923 Catalogue des cylindres orientaux, cachets et pierres gravées du Musée du Louvre. II. Acquisitions. Paris: Hachette. Di Ludovico, A. 2005 Scene-in-frammenti: una proposta di analisi delle “scene di presentazione” dei sigilli a cilindro mesopotamici orientata all’elaborazione statistica ed informatica dei dati. Pp. 57-95 in Studi in onore di Paolo Matthiae presentati in occasione del suo sessantacinquesimo compleanno, ed. A. Di Ludovico and D. Nadali. Contributi e Materiali di Archeologia Orientale X - Special Issue. Rome: Università La Sapienza. 2008 Between Akkad and Ur III: Observations on a “Short Century” from the Point of View of Glyptic. Pp. 321-341 in Proceedings of the 4th ICAANE 29 March - 3 April 2004, Freie Universität Berlin, ed. H. Kühne, R. M. Czichon, and F. J. Kreppner. Volume 1. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 2010 Exploiting Perceiving Frames in Late Third Millennium Mesopotamia. Remarks on Some Clues from Decomposed Communication Phenomena. Pp. 233-244 in Proceedings of the 6th ICAANE, 5-10 May 2009, Università “La Sapienza” di Roma, ed. P. Matthiae, F. Pinnock, L. Nigro, and N. Marchetti. Volume 1. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 2010 La glittica della fine del Terzo Millennio come strumento di controllo e di consolidamento del potere in Mesopotamia. Pp. 241-261 in Quale Oriente? Omaggio a un Maestro: Studi di Arte e di Archeologia del Vicino Oriente in memoria di Anton Moortgat a trenta anni dalla sua scomparsa, ed. R. Dolce. Palermo: Flaccovio. 2011 Experimental Approaches to Glyptic Art by the use of Artificial Neural Networks. Investigation on the Ur III Iconological Context. Pp. 135-146 in On the Road to Reconstructing the Past: Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology: Proceedings of the 36th Annual Conference, Budapest, April 2-6 2008, ed. E. Jerem, F. Redő, V. Szeverényi. Budapest: Archeolingua. 2012 The Uses of the Cylinder Seal as Clues of Mental Structuring Processes inside Ur III State Machinery. Pp. 275-289 in Organization, Representation, and Symbols of Power in the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the 54th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale at Würzburg, 20-25 July 2008, ed. G. Wilhelm. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.

136

ALESSANDRO DI LUDOVICO

in press The Reign of Šulgi. Investigation of a King above Suspicion. In Krieg und Frieden im Alten Vorderasien: Proceedings of the LIIe Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Münster, July 17-21, 2006, ed. H. Neumann. Di Ludovico, A., Camiz, S., and Pieri, G. 2013 Comparative Use of Mathematical Models in an Investigation on Mesopotamian Cylinder Seals. Pp. 495-498 in Fusion of Cultures. Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology: Proceedings of the 38th Annual Conference, Granada, April 6-9 2010, ed. F. Contreras, M. Farjas, F. J. Melero. BAR International Series 2494. Oxford: Archaeopress. Di Ludovico, A., and Pieri, G. 2011 Artificial Neural Networks and Ancient Artifacts: The Reasons and Usefulness of a Multiform Integrated Approach by the Means of PST and Auto-Cm Models. Archeologia e Calcolatori 22: 99-128. Frankfort, H. 1955 Stratified Cylinder Seals from the Diyala Region. Oriental Institute Publications 72. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. al-Gailani Werr, L. (ed.) 1992 Old Babylonian Cylinder Seals from the Hamrin. Edubba 2. London: Nabu. Glock, Alice 1988 Minuscule Monuments of Ancient Art. Catalogue of Near Eastern Stamp and Cylinder Seals Collected by Virginia E. Bailey. Madison: The New Jersey Museum of Archaeology / Drew University. Gorelick, L., and Gwinnett, A. J. 1977 Ancient Seals and Modern Science. Expedition 20/2: 20-25. 1979 Ancient Lapidary. A study Using Scanning Electron Microscopy and Functional Analysis. Expedition 22/1: 17-32. 1990 The Ancient Near Eastern Cylinder Seal as Social Emblem and Status Symbol. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 49: 45-56. Hattori, A. 2001 Sealing Practices in Ur III Nippur. Pp. 71-99 in Seals and Seal Impressions. Proceedings of the XLVe Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, ed. W. W. Hallo and I. Winter. Bethesda: CDL Press. Keel-Leu, H., and Teissier B. 2004 Die vorderasiatischen Rollsiegel der Sammlungen “Bibel+Orient” der Universität Freiburg Schweiz. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 200. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. de Kerckhove, D. 1991 Brainframes. Technology, Mind and Business. Utrecht: Bosch & Keuning. 1995 The Skin of Culture. Investigating the New Electronic Reality. Toronto: Somerville House. Kjaerum, P. 1983 Failaka/Dilmun. The Second Millennium Settlements. 1/1. The Stamp and Cylinder Seals. Jutland Archaeological Society Publications XVII/1. Aarhus: Jysk Arkæologisk Selskab. Legrain, L. 1925 The Culture of the Babylonians from their Seals in the Collections of the Museum. Publications of the Babylonian Section 14. Philadelphia: The University Museum. 1951 Seal Cylinders. Ur Excavations 10. Philadelphia: The University Museum.

Symbols and Bureaucratic Performances

137

Mayr, R. H. 2001 Intermittent Recarving of Seals in the Neo-Sumerian Period. Pp. 49-58 in Seals and Seal Impressions. Proceedings of the XLVe Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, ed. W. W. Hallo and I. Winter. Bethesda: CDL Press. Mayr, R. H., and Owen, D. I. 2004 The Royal Gift Seal in the Ur III Period. Pp. 145-174 in Von Sumer nach Ebla und zurück. Festschrift für Giovanni Pettinato zum 27. September 1999 gewidmet von Freunden, Kollegen und Schülern, ed. H. Waetzoldt. Heidelberger Studien zum Alten Orient 9. Heidelberg: Heidelberger Orientverlag. Moorey, P. R. S. 1994 Ancient Mesopotamian Materials and Industries. The Archaeological Evidence. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Moorey, P. R. S., and Gurney, O. R. 1978 Ancient Near Eastern Cylinder Seals Acquired by Ashmolean Museum. Iraq 40: 4160. Moortgat, A. 1940 Vorderasiatische Rollsiegel: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Steinschneidekunst. Berlin: Gebrüder Mann. Moortgat-Correns, U. 1968 Die ehemalige Rollsiegel-Sammlung Erwin Oppenländer. Baghdader Mitteilungen 4: 233-297. von der Osten, H. H. 1934 Ancient Oriental Seals in the Collection of Mr. Edward T. Newell. Oriental Institute Publications 22. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. 1936 Ancient Oriental Seals in the Collection of Mrs. Agnes Baldwin Brett. Oriental Institute Publications 37. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Parrot, A. 1954 Glyptique Mésopotamienne. Fouilles de Lagash (Tello) et de Larsa (Senkereh) (19311933). Paris: Paul Geuthner. Porada, E. 1948 The Collection of the Pierpont Morgan Library. Committee of Ancient Near East. Corpus of Ancient Near Eastern Seals in North American Collections 1. Washington: Pantheon Books. 1993 Why Cylinder Seals? Engraved Cylindrical Seal Stones of the Ancient Near East, Fourth to First Millennium B. C. Art Bulletin 75: 563-582. Ravn, O. E. 1960 A Catalogue of Oriental Cylinder Seals and Impressions in the Danish National Museum. Copenhagen: Nationalmuseet. Sax M., Collon D., and Leese, M. N. 1993 The Availability of Raw Materials for Near Eastern Cylinder Seals during the Akkadian, Post Akkadian and Ur III Periods. Iraq 55: 77-90. Studevent-Hickman, B. 2007 The Ninety-Degree Rotation of the Cuneiform Script. Pp. 485-513 in Ancient Near Eastern Art in Context. Studies in Honor of Irene J. Winter by Her Students, ed. J. Cheng and M. H. Feldman. Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 26. Leiden: Brill. van Buren, E. D. 1940 The Cylinder Seals of the Pontifical Biblical Institute. Analecta Orientalia 21. Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum. 1942 A Collection of Cylinder Seals in the Biblioteca Vaticana. American Journal of Archaeology 46: 360-365.

138

ALESSANDRO DI LUDOVICO

Vollenweider, M.-L. 1967 Catalogue raisonné des sceaux cylindres et intailles. Genève: Musée d’Art et d’Histoire de Genève. Waetzoldt, H. 1995 Änderung von Siegellegenden als Reflex der “großen Politik.” Pp. 659-663 in Beiträge zur Kulturgeschichte Vorderasiens. Festschrift für Rainer Michael Boehmer, ed. U. Finkbeiner, R. Dittmann, and H. Hauptmann. Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern. Winter, I. J. 1986 The King and the Cup: Iconography of the Royal Presentation Scene on Ur III Seals. Pp. 253-268 in Insight through Images. Studies in Honor of Edith Porada, ed. M. Kelly-Buccellati, P. Matthiae, and M. N. van Loon. Bibliotheca Mesopotamica 21. Malibu: Undena Publications. 1991 Legitimation of Authority through Image and Legend: Seals Belonging to Officials in the Administrative Bureaucracy of the Ur III State. Pp. 59-99 in The Organization of Power: Aspects of Bureaucracy in the Ancient Near East, ed. McG. Gibson and R. D. Biggs. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilizations 46, 2nd ed. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 2001 Introduction: Glyptic, History, and Historiography. Pp. 1-14 in Seals and Seal Impressions. Proceedings of the XLVe Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, ed. W. W. Hallo and I. Winter. Bethesda: CDL Press.

Software Massimo Buscema, Contractive Maps, Ver 1.0, Semeion Software #15, Rome, 2000-2002. Massimo Buscema, Constraints Satisfaction Networks, Ver 10.0, Semeion Software #14, Rome, 2001-2007. Massimo Buscema, MST, Ver 5.0, Semeion Software #38, Rome, 2006-2008. Giulia Massini, Trees Visualizer , Ver 3.0, Semeion Software #40, Rome, 2007.

Catalogue of seals and administrative documents used for this research Glyptic’s Presentation Scenes (catalogue numbers) Amiet 1972: 1646, 1648, 1650, 1652, 1657, 1658, 1662, 1663, 1664, 1665, 1666, 1667, 1669, 1673, 1676, 1679, 1684, 1685, 1686, 1687, 1688, 1689, 1692, 1693, 1696, 1699, 1703. Bleibtreu (ed.) 1981: 42. Buchanan 1966: 389, 421, 422, 424, 425, 441, 442, 446. Buchanan 1981: 562, 567, 571, 572, 582, 584, 585, 589, 595, 599, 600, 604, 608, 614, 615, 618, 620, 626, 628, 629, 631, 636, 638, 639, 640, 643, 644, 645, 646, 647, 648, 649, 650, 651, 652, 653, 655, 660, 673. Collon 1982: 331, 332, 334, 368, 369, 370, 371, 372, 373, 374, 377, 378, 382, 384, 385, 386, 387, 389, 390, 391, 394, 396, 397, 403, 406, 415, 429, 432, 433, 437, 438, 439, 440, 446, 447, 448, 450, 451, 452, 453, 454, 459, 463, 467, 469, 470, 471, 472. Delaporte 1920: pl. 5, n. 7, 8, 9, 11, 14; pl. 6, n. 20. Delaporte 1923: pl. 74, n. 19; pl. 75, n. 1, 4, 7, 9, 10, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 23, 26; pl. 76, n. 1, 2, 5. Frankfort 1955: 709, 712, 768. al-Gailani Werr 1992: 86.

Symbols and Bureaucratic Performances

139

Glock 1988: 53. Legrain 1925: 231, 233, 234, 237, 242, 245, 246, 247, 249, 250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 261, 262, 263, 269, 277, 284, 287, 291, 313, 315, 316. Legrain 1951: 321, 322, 323, 325, 327, 329, 330, 331, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 340, 341, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349, 352, 353, 355, 356, 360, 361, 362, 366, 367, 370, 376, 388, 399, 400, 428, 432. Keel-Leu and Teissier 2004: 96, 97, 98, 99, 101, 105. Kjaerum 1983: 368, 369. Moorey and Gurney 1978: 27. Moortgat 1940: 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 259, 260, 261, 262, 265, 268, 269, 270, 271, 272, 273, 279, 280. Moortgat-Correns 1968: 56, 57. von der Osten 1934: 117, 122, 124, 126, 135, 136, 141, 143. von der Osten 1936: 45, 46, 48. Parrot 1954: 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 112, 113, 114, 115, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 139, 140, 144, 145, 146, 147, 164, 179, 186, 187, 188, 189, 212. Porada 1948: 274, 275, 276, 277e, 282, 292e. Ravn 1960: 28, 29, 30, 31. Van Buren 1940: 20. Van Buren 1942: 5. Vollenweider 1967: 34. Umma Tablets stored in the Yale Babylonian Collection bearing impressions enough readable to be examined (not including the ones analysed from Buchanan 1981) NBC 5123, MLC 89, NBC 2067, YBC 13292, NBC 1430, NBC 5779, YBC 952, YBC 16720, NBC 3600, YBC 950, NBC 3505, YBC 1636, NBC 3240, NBC 1838, NBC 3097, YBC 15880, MLC 1829, YBC 12967, YBC 1178, MLC 91, MLC 2420, YBC 1705, NBC 1330, NBC 2977, YBC 11243, YBC 1212, NBC 5200, NBC 1842, NBC 1874, YBC 9765, YBC 13793, NBC 3552, NBC 3073, MLC 2317, YBC 1671, YBC 1180, MLC 2354, YBC 1571, YBC 11244, NBC 11683, YBC 400, YBC 9771, NCBT 1341, NBC 2717, NBC 4108, YBC 1630, YBC 15835. Administrative Tablets (by series) MLC 39, 46, 54, 89, 91, 92, 96, 166, 1829, 1985, 2307, 2311, 2314, 2317, 2346, 2354, 2414, 2420. NBC 70A, 264, 270, 304, 320, 390, 465, 557, 577, 599, 636, 654, 670, 676, 705, 719, 877, 878, 882, 1007, 1327, 1330, 1381, 1410, 1423, 1428, 1429, 1430, 1438, 1450, 1467, 1468, 1479, 1494, 1502, 1513, 1534, 1645, 1838, 1842, 1874, 1876, 1921, 1964, 1983, 1988, 2017, 2023, 2027, 2035, 2061, 2062, 2067, 2078, 2310, 2318, 2319, 2333, 2355, 2413, 2670, 2673, 2701, 2710, 2717, 2723, 2779, 2787, 2814, 2846, 2901, 2924, 2932, 2946, 2953, 2977, 3020, 3021, 3024, 3047, 3072, 3073, 3096, 3097, 3178, 3207, 3225, 3240, 3241, 3246, 3247, 3249, 3252, 3253, 3262, 3271, 3298, 3299, 3324, 3326, 3333, 3362, 3401, 3419, 3429, 3434, 3505, 3530, 3539, 3550, 3552, 3553, 3600, 3641, 3644, 4095, 4108, 4131, 4176, 4205, 4260, 4274, 4286, 4335, 4378, 4383, 4970, 5001, 5123, 5135, 5138, 5200, 5210, 5216, 5225, 5231, 5257, 5279, 5749, 5779, 8116, 9163, 9867, 10793, 10929, 10949, 11616, 11627, 11633, 11638, 11683.

140

ALESSANDRO DI LUDOVICO

NCBT 1341, 1619, 1631, 1652, 2247. RBC 126, 135, 138, 178, 225, 306, 492, 503, 2551. YBC 70, 255, 313, 334, 356, 379, 400, 405, 479, 520, 527, 583, 683, 742, 771, 807, 950, 952, 973, 977, 1003, 1012, 1048, 1054, 1060, 1071, 1096, 1136, 1178, 1180, 1207, 1212, 1222, 1226, 1233, 1238, 1282, 1291, 1341, 1402, 1404, 1452, 1482, 1571, 1597, 1630, 1636, 1643, 1671, 1705, 1743, 8427, 9737, 9749, 9765, 9766, 9767, 9771, 9773, 9776, 9779, 9805, 9806, 9807, 9810, 9812, 11232, 11243, 11244, 11613, 11704, 12522, 12526, 12528, 12530, 12844, 12850, 12853, 12878, 12882, 12883, 12889, 12905, 12958, 12962, 12967, 13011, 13292, 13293, 13297, 13305, 13313, 13409, 13648, 13789, 13793, 13795, 13842, 13847, 13977, 14076, 14084, 14139, 14174, 14175, 14212, 14329, 14563, 14644, 14693, 14860, 14865, 14929, 15040, 15094, 15203, 15252, 15289, 15711, 15732, 15835, 15860, 15880, 15978, 16081, 16337, 16347, 16500, 16541, 16675, 16720.

Figures Fig. 1. Basic reference points adopted for the coding of the “presentation scenes:” “origin” of the scene, numbering of the characters (character 1 is always the “receiver”), integrating motifs. Example: VA 2057 (Moortgat 1940: n. 271). Fig. 2a. For a scene like that of FUB 60 (Moortgat-Correns 1968: n. 57) the data set records the presence of: three characters, two integrating motifs, legend, seat and dais. For each character the data set records the position of each arm and leg and the kind of dress, hairstyle, headgear. Their position in the scene is given by their numbering (based on their spatial relation to the “receiver”). For integrating motifs the data set records the position (vertical: upper, middle or lower part of the field; horizontal: in the “origin,” between char. 1 and char. 2, between char. 2 and char. 3 etc.), the genre (animal, weapon, astral symbol...) and the specific nature. Here, a scorpion (in the middle part of the field, between char. 1 and char. 2) and an axe (in the lower part of the field, between char. 2 and char. 3). As for the legend, a three line “framed” legend is recorded, the content of which consists of three formulas: Personal Name – “son of PN” – Professional Title. Fig. 2b. Sb 1445 (Amiet 1972: n. 1684). Three characters, one integrating motif (astral symbol of the kind of sun and moon sickle) in the upper part of the field, a three lines “framed” legend (Personal Name – Professional Title – “servant of PN”). The first and the second character have attributes: bracelets and an animal gift or offering. Fig. 3. Types of impression that have been singled out in the administrative documents data set: a) impression of the scene with or without the legend (example traced on NBC 3552); b) repeated impression of the legend (example traced on NBC 3207); c) coexistence of a and b (example traced on NBC 264). Fig. 4a. MLC 92, showing impressions of type c (repeated legend above, the scene below) on the obverse and a on the reverse. The date formula on reverse is placed on character 1. Written signs are quite uniformly distributed on the obverse surface (in four lines), but concentrate in the middle of reverse (two lines).

Symbols and Bureaucratic Performances

141

Fig. 4b. NBC 304, with impressions of type a on both obverse and reverse. The date formula on reverse is placed partly on character 1, partly on the legend. Written signs are quite uniformly distributed on the obverse surface (in four lines), but concentrate in the right part of reverse (two lines). Fig. 4c. MLC 2414, with impressions of type b on both obverse and reverse. Written signs are quite uniformly distributed on the obverse (in four lines) and reverse surface (in five lines). Fig. 5. Presentation scenes’ Minimum Spanning Tree (MST). Fig. 6. Presentation scenes’ MST – distribution of characters: compositional role and gender. Fig. 7. Presentation scenes: distribution of integrating motifs and traces of reworking. Fig. 8. Presentation scenes: position in the tree of variables related to some of the typical features of “royal presentations.” Fig. 9a. Presentation scenes’ Maximally Regular Graph (MRG): nodes of the diamond are white. Fig. 9b. Presentation scenes’ MST: nodes corresponding to MRG’s diamond nodes are white. Fig. 10. Variables that provide a relatively strong contribution to the complexity of the presentation scenes’ MST (values pertain to the global complexity of the graph if the node relating to the indicated variable is removed from the graph). Fig. 11. Administrative documents’ data set – MST. Fig. 12. Administrative documents’ MST – datings of the documents (Sh: Šulgi etc.), impressions (of types a/b/c, and kind of presentation). Fig. 13a. Administrative documents MRG: nodes of the diamond are white. Fig. 13b. Administrative documents’ MST: nodes corresponding to MRG’s diamond nodes are white. Fig. 14. Variables that provide a relatively strong contribution to the complexity of the administrative documents’ MST (values pertain to the global complexity of the graph if the node relating to the indicated variable is removed from the graph).

142

ALESSANDRO DI LUDOVICO

Fig. 1

Fig. 2a

Fig. 2b

Symbols and Bureaucratic Performances

Fig. 3

143

144

ALESSANDRO DI LUDOVICO

Fig. 4a

Fig. 4b

Symbols and Bureaucratic Performances

Fig. 4c

Fig. 5

145

146

ALESSANDRO DI LUDOVICO

Fig. 6

Fig. 7

Symbols and Bureaucratic Performances

Fig. 8

Fig. 9a

147

148

ALESSANDRO DI LUDOVICO

Fig. 9b

Fig. 10

Symbols and Bureaucratic Performances

Fig. 11

Fig. 12

149

150

ALESSANDRO DI LUDOVICO

Fig. 13a

Fig. 13b

Symbols and Bureaucratic Performances

Fig. 14

151

The Third Dynasty of Ur and the Limits of State Power in Early Mesopotamia Steven Garfinkle WESTERN WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY

1. Introduction The tens of thousands of clay tablets that survive from the vast administrative archives of the Third Dynasty of Ur have made the study of this era central to examinations of the society and economy of early Mesopotamia. Increasingly, scholars have focused on the Ur III period not only because of its extensive documentary record, but also because that record bears witness to one of the earliest efforts at state formation in the ancient world. The kings of Ur ruled over a territorial state that extended from the Persian Gulf up through most of southern Mesopotamia. These kings also extended their influence over neighboring regions to the east. The scribes of the late third millennium BC recorded these endeavors in great detail, and we imagine that the new kingdom created a central administration to facilitate this record keeping. The volume of the archives created by these administrators continues to astound modern observers. We customarily see these archives as a result of the state’s growing authority, and yet the texts often highlight the boundaries placed on the expansion of that authority. For the past few years I have been working on the relationship between merchants, state formation, and military activity in the Ur III period. In this article I offer some provisional statements about the limits of state power as seen primarily in the economic and administrative records. Much of this contribution can be summarized in the following statements: the state building activities of the Ur III kings are not best attested in our largest archives, which document the institutional economies of large provinces like Umma and Girsu-Lagaš; state building activities were centered in southern Mesopotamia and relied on the patronage of the royal household and the charisma of the kings themselves and therefore these activities are most visible in places like Puzriš-Dagān, Iri-Saĝrig and Garšana;1

––––––––––––– 1. These sites show the efforts of the kings of Ur to appropriate space within southern Mesopotamia for their own activities. Puzriš-Dagān was established near Nippur to aid in the central collection of livestock and other goods, and for the distribution of booty from military campaigns. Iri-Saĝrig was an older city that was likely appropriated by the crown as a staging ground for its military adventures in the east (on this site, see Owen 2013a, 2013b, and 2013c in this volume). Garšana was a large royal estate created within the province of Umma for a royal princess and her husband, a general (on this estate, see Owen 2011; Heimpel 2009). Steinkeller forthcoming discusses the visibility of state building activities in the records of labor assigned to large construction projects, and this highlights the extension of the new statewide identity beyond the households on which I am focusing in this article.

153

154

STEVEN GARFINKLE

ultimately, the one statewide institution successfully created by the kings of Ur was the army; and finally, as a result of that fact, the state building activities of the Ur III kings were inherently unstable. Moreover, the success of the state was achieved through cooperation with local elites whose longstanding authority within their communities was co-opted by the crown. The sheer volume of extant texts from this era has convinced us not only that this was a highly organized state, but also that the central power of the state was absolute.2 This view of the Third Dynasty of Ur greatly overestimates the nature of state control and its permanence. A first step towards understanding the limits of state power is to recognize the character of the surviving archives and their limitations. As is clearly seen in the data prepared by Manuel Molina (Fig. 1), what we have is a documentary record that spans approximately two generations. This period also coincided with the years during which the military power of the dynasty and its ability to extract tribute were at their height. 3500 3000 2500

394

437 (1) SH40

SH39

380 (9)

300

369 (36) SH38

SH37

SH36

486

467 SH35

SH34

SH33

593 (344)

75

31

7

7

5

10

4

7

IS16

IS17

IS18

IS19

IS20

IS21

IS22

IS23

8

IS14

IS15

IS13

448

SH32

202

170 (2) SH31

10

6

IS12

IS08

SH30

59 (8)

SH29 6

IS11

27

37 (7)

SH28

SH27 195(2)

SH26 311 (3)

IS07

IS03

IS02

SS07

SS04

SS01

AS09

AS06

AS05

AS04

AS03

SH48

SH47

SH46

SH45

SH44

SH43

SH42

0

SH41

3

SH25 311 (1)

IS06

33 SH24 274

IS05

9

5

1

10 SH23 243 (19)

IS04

SH22 878 (403)

SH21

SH19

1508 (3)

SH18 1384

1320 (1)

IS01

1

SH17 1176 (9)

SS09

SH16

SS08

8

6

2

SH12 1706 5)

1393 (1)

SH11

SS06

13

9

SH10 2052 (14)

SH09 2372 (5)

SS03

1750 (35)

17

14

SH08

SS05

15 SH07 2661 (11)

2434 (5)

1975 (37)

SS02

6

2 SH06

3

SH05 2871 (8)

AS08

SH04 2827 (18)

AS07

5

1 SH03 1949 (349)

2 SH01

SH02 2533 (17)

1951 (30)

4

2 UN17 1764 (206)

4

UN16

UN15

2029 (265)

3 UN14

AS02

1 UN12

2031 (5)

500

AS01

1000

499 (3)

1500

719 (17)

2000

1052 (316)

2500

1280 (264)

1765 (382)

3000

2159 (2)

2567 (197)

3500

1783 (16)

5

2 UN10

1

UN09

2 UN05

UN06

4

1 UN04

0

UN02

500

IS09

426 (346)

1000

25 (7)

1500

393 (10)

2000

Fig. 1. An overview of the chronological distribution of extant Ur III texts.3

––––––––––––– 2. This image of the Ur III state continues to dominate more general treatments of Mesopotamia specifically and of world history more broadly, but it is increasingly being questioned by specialists, see Yoffee 2005, and 2013; Michalowski 2004, and 2013b in this volume. This view results not only from the appearance of power demonstrated by the tens of thousands of surviving administrative documents, but also, as Michalowski notes, from the representations, or better self-representations, of power in the surviving royal inscriptions and hymns. Yoffee (2005: 147) summed this up as follows, “The quantity and quality of these sources from the royal house of Ur motivate scholarship today in roughly inverse proportion to the stability and normative character of the Ur III state.” 3. The chart is adapted from Molina 2008: 47.

The Third Dynasty of Ur and the Limits of State Power

155

The texts are certainly evidence for the authority of the royal household and its ability to appropriate resources for the crown and its clients, at least for a period of roughly fifty years. The officials charged with tracking these resources did so through the production of texts. As I have discussed elsewhere, the literate administrators could simultaneously exert control over material as well as people from various places and at various times on behalf of the crown (Garfinkle in press-b). Different parts of the kingdom were brought together on tablets for the benefit of the royal elite. And yet, our largest archives document the continued operation of local means of control within the provinces of the core of the kingdom. I will discuss this point below with reference to merchants and to the army, but let me pause to highlight a critical point regarding the provenance of the texts from the Third Dynasty of Ur. Scholars of the Ur III period regularly comment on the fact that the texts for which we have a geographic provenance come exclusively from only a few sites, and likely from only a few contexts within those sites. Figure 2 below shows just how limited our view of the kingdom really is. Nearly seven out of every ten tablets with a provenance comes from the archives of the provincial institutions in Umma or Girsu-Lagaš. Provenance Umma Girsu-Lagaš Puzriš-Dagān Ur Nippur Garšana Iri-Saĝrig5

Number of Extant Texts4 28,557 26,671 14,630 4,272 3,545 1,496 1,200

Figure 2. The largest corpora of Ur III texts by provenance.6

These records, chiefly from two of the more prosperous provinces, attest to the ability of the state to extract wealth from the old urban centers and their hinterlands, but they very rarely speak directly to the state establishments that supervised this activity. The institutions of the newly forming territorial state can best be seen at the sites of state directed activity, such as Puzriš-Dagān and Iri-Saĝrig; and in the archives of the wealthy estates created by court functionaries, such as Garšana. The agents of state power were those individuals, like soldiers and merchants, who operated throughout southern Mesopotamia and whose activities were not confined to the borders of one of the provinces. The smaller archives from the royal cities and estates attest to the development of new groups within the state whose fortunes were tied directly to the royal household. This relatively small

––––––––––––– 4. With the exception of Iri-Saĝrig, these numbers are gleaned from the current records of the Database of Neo-Sumerian Texts (BDTNS): http://bdtns.filol.csic.es. 5. This figure is courtesy of Owen 2013c in this volume. 6. A similar table in Molina 2008: 52 includes some of the smaller archives not shown here. Molina also shows the percentage of extant texts represented by each corpus. The figures above are updated according to the current database in the BDTNS; however, the percentages as calculated by Molina have remained relatively constant. The texts from Umma and Girsu-Lagaš continue to constitute almost 70% of the Ur III texts for which we can establish a provenance.

156

STEVEN GARFINKLE

number of functionaries owed their positions of privilege to the crown. This meant that they shared in the wealth created by the state’s successes, but also that they had to constantly pay tribute to the kings. Many of these functionaries were already individuals of substance in their local communities, but their connections to the royal family gave their activities a wider orbit and scale.7 The texts at PuzrišDagān in particular arose as a consequence of the need to monitor this flow of tribute to the kings from the state’s new clients and the traditional urban elites within southern Mesopotamia, along with the state’s new clients from the foreign lands adjacent to Mesopotamia. This new statewide community was inherently fragile.

2. The Royal Household and Its Clients The clients of the royal household were drawn from several sources. The kings relied first and foremost on the traditional local elites in the cities at the heartland of their kingdom. This is well documented in places like Nippur and Girsu-Lagaš where the crown leveraged the existing social networks and left prominent local families in charge of the temple and city hierarchies. Michalowski (2013b in this volume) notes that important kin groups in Girsu-Lagaš related to the last independent rulers of that city continued to be celebrated under the Ur III kings. Indeed, the prologue to the Laws of Ur-Namma claimed that that king made Namhani the governor (Roth 1997: 15; Frayne 1997: 47). This was the same Namhani who was likely related to the famous Gudea. Second, the kings of Ur forged alliances with elite families in peripheral areas to the north (for example, Mari) and to the east (for example, Simanum).8 These “foreign” elites were frequent visitors to southern Mesopotamia and regular contributors of resources to the court of the Ur III kings (see Sharlach 2005). Finally, the crown actively created new networks of elites whose activities crossed older political boundaries and who helped to bring into existence a statewide community tied directly to the royal household. We find these notables most prominently in the military and in economically significant professions, especially those related to trade or to animal husbandry and management.9 These were not “new men” in the classical sense. These individuals already had positions and wealth, but the scale of their activities greatly increased under the patronage of the royal family of Ur. In some cases, this patronage actually meant inclusion in the court nobility. Šu-Kabta, the general in charge of the Garšana estate came from a family of doctors, and his father also had an administrative title as secretary of the doorkeepers (see Kleinerman 2011); but it was his marriage into the royal family that likely brought with it tremendous new wealth and

––––––––––––– 7. Status within the communities of early Mesopotamia was hereditary. I am describing a situation in which professionals and members of the local elite, who owed their positions to their birth, were able to leverage their associations with the royal household into more prominent roles in the new kingdom. 8. Michalowski 2006: 60 highlighted the intimate nature of some of these alliances, “Some were literally married into the royal family of Ur, others were symbolically incorporated into the extended patrimonial clan that ruled the two most important states of the area, Mari and Ur.” 9. Ba’aga, the fattener whose career is discussed in Owen 2013a: 114-119 is a good example of this type of professional.

The Third Dynasty of Ur and the Limits of State Power

157

high military position. A more striking example may be that of the chief minister (s u k k a l - m a h ), Arad-Nanna. He came from a very prominent family in GirsuLagaš and Michalowski (2013b in this volume) suggests that the kings of Ur adopted the position of chief minister from the previously independent rulers of that province. Again, he cemented his position through marriage into the royal family and this further secured his status and that of his family. The most instructive aspect of these careers for our discussion is not so much the manner in which they leveraged their positions through royal marriage, but rather the way in which the royal family reached down into the local networks of notables and elevated these elites to positions of statewide leadership. We see the same thing among more mundane professions that were also keys to state success. Prominent merchants, such as Lu-Nanna of Umma and Turam-ili of Iri-Saĝrig, appear in texts from various parts of the kingdom, and they were often handling the king’s business (see Garfinkle 2008). The flourishing of so many families at all points on the spectrum of elite activity from the family of the chief minister Arad-Nanna to that of the Nippur notable Ur-Meme to those of merchants, craftsmen and other professionals shows the dependence of the crown on existing social networks. A critical point for our analysis is the extent to which kinship groups controlled key professions in southern Mesopotamia (see Garfinkle in press-c). The hierarchies among these professional groups were not only closed to outsiders, but they were governed by mechanisms with which the state could rarely interfere. For the most part, we do not have large archives that document the individual activities of these statewide elites. We find evidence for them when they encountered the provincial institutions and when they connected with the tributary system that was likely headquartered at Puzriš-Dagān (see section 3 below). At the same time, we know that the institutional hierarchies attested in our larger archives were often mirrored in other areas of the economy and society of late third millennium BC Mesopotamia. Many of the titles and functions that we associate with institutional administration in the Ur III period were commonly used among professional groups as well as non-institutional households. The best example of this is probably the Sumerian term u g u l a , meaning overseer. In most cases, this term was not a fixed title but rather an indication of responsibility for a certain transaction (similar to the term ĝ ì r ).10 The overseer was usually someone in a position of local authority, often as a result of the individual’s seniority in a professional association. Indeed, this was likely a privilege, and a responsibility, accorded to older members of the families that dominated crafts and professions.11 Another particularly good example of this phenomenon is the term š a b r a . This word was once routinely translated as “head of a temple household” or even

––––––––––––– 10. Indeed, the use of these terms (u g u l a and ĝ ì r ) may be related directly to understandings of seniority within professional and administrative hierarchies. The term u g u l a usually denoted senior members who were directly responsible for a transaction, either for the collection and management of a transaction (often the case among merchants and craftsman) or as the receiving official in an institution. The term ĝ ì r was often used by their colleagues or subordinates when they were placed in charge of ensuring that the tasks were completed for which the u g u l a were responsible. 11. See Garfinkle in press-c. For the organization of professions and crafts, see Steinkeller 1987 and 1996; Dahl 2010.

158

STEVEN GARFINKLE

“priest”, but is now more commonly understood to mean “chief household administrator” or “majordomo”. Therefore, we not only encounter numerous š a b r a in our texts associated with divine households, but also š a b r a associated with non-institutional households. The household that Adad-illat administered provides evidence for both the extent and limits of new state power in Ur III Mesopotamia. He was the š a b r a of the royal estate of Šu-Kabta and Simat-Ištaran at Garšana.12 Adad-illat’s assistant in his management of the household was the scribe Puzur-Ninkarak. Together they were responsible for organizing and keeping track of the work done on the estate and the resources that it generated. Adad-illat was also identified in other texts as a messenger and as a royal messenger. He is attested in texts from Nippur, Garšana, and Iri-Saĝrig. Two things are immediately apparent from examining the household of Šu-Kabta. First, the administration of his estate paralleled that of the great institutions in terms of both its hierarchy and record keeping. Second, high level functionaries, like the š a b r a , were also key figures in the new statewide community of elites. Adad-illat was not only a household administrator, but he was also a royal messenger traveling across the kingdom. We see many of these new, and larger, social networks brought together in texts like NATN 166.13 In this text, the merchants from several cities (Adab, Umma, and Uruk) pool their resources to deliver tribute in the form of agricultural labor. My reading of the text suggests that this labor was delivered to Šu-Kabta’s estate at Garšana under the direction of Adad-illat. First, we should note that the merchants were categorized in groups associated with particular cities. The collectives of merchants from three cities were fulfilling an obligation to the crown. We can see in this the ways in which regional socio-economic groups continued to predominate even in the face of the rise of the territorial kingdom. Second, we can immediately see the operation of patronage at several levels. The merchants clearly owed labor to the crown, presumably in return for some aspect of their business with the state. The recipient of that labor was a royal estate. Thus we see an additional way in which the royal family extracted resources from local communities; and they did so by co-opting local professional groups who were left on their own to handle the actual delivery of the labor. Our sources also illustrate the tension that this patronage created between provincial and royal authorities. Molina (2010: 210) published a legal text from Umma in which the governor’s office tried to recover trees that it believed had been stolen from a provincial forest by a man acting under the authority of ŠuKabta’s second in command (see also Heimpel 2009: 4-5). We can imagine that these trees (along with the thief) were being sheltered at Garšana for the use of the estate. We do not know how this case was resolved, but it appears that the governor lacked the authority to remove the accused from the house of the general’s adjutant. And here we see the ways in which local networks of authority were being circumvented for the benefit of the state community.

––––––––––––– 12. For the estate at Garšana and the activities of Adad-illat (also read as Adad-tillati), see Owen and Mayr 2007; Kleinerman and Owen 2009; and Heimpel 2009. 13. See Garfinkle 2010a for a full treatment of this text.

The Third Dynasty of Ur and the Limits of State Power

159

The strands that made up the fabric of this new and larger community were social networks that operated over greater distances than individual city-states. In many ways, this privileged groups that were not directly associated with, or subordinate to, the large institutions of the ancient urban centers of southern Mesopotamia. As I will detail below, the military, and the many opportunities associated with military service, was a prime example of this process. The operations of the army required that it include activities throughout the state and beyond its apparent borders. There were other groups in a position to seek out these privileged positions. Primarily these were groups whose professions already required them to travel between the urban centers or whose knowledge and skills made them particularly valuable.14 Merchants, like those collectively listed on NATN 166, are an important category of people for this discussion because of their role as intermediaries on behalf of the growing power of the state. For the purposes of this discussion we can go beyond the old question of whether the merchants were state functionaries or independent operators. Let us focus instead on the basics of what the merchants did. There is no doubt that the largest merchant transactions were made on behalf of the state. For example, the sale of grain on behalf of the governor dwarfs the other transactions undertaken by the merchants of Girsu-Lagaš. As I have noted elsewhere (Garfinkle 2010b), these same merchants were deeply engaged in transactions on behalf of the b a l a , which was the chief instrument for the collection of taxes from the provinces by the crown. Indeed, the individual most commonly attested receiving silver from the merchants in Girsu-Lagaš was Lu-Utu, a scribe for the governor who may also have been a merchant. Another frequently attested role for the merchants of Girsu-Lagaš was the purchase of oxen and cows for their institutional clients. Only rarely do we find the merchants purchasing other livestock, such as sheep and goats. The reason for this is simple, the state had ample access to enormous herds of sheep and goats, but not oxen and cows.15 The most critical point to observe here is that ultimately the institutional clients of the merchants had to negotiate for the cattle. The activity of the merchants is usually an indication of the limits of state authority and the need for the crown to accommodate regional socio-economic elites. The merchants operated throughout the state, though, and this made them, along with soldiers, some of the most prominently attested statewide actors.

––––––––––––– 14. Some new statewide institutions also required the participation of functionaries who could act outside of the limited boundaries of the old city-states. Judicial officials are a prime example of this. The information provided by the Iri-Saĝrig archives on the movements of m a š k i m supports this point (see Owen 2013c in this volume). 15. There were also significant differences in the ways in which these animals were used. Oxen were used most often, along with donkeys, as draft animals, while the sheep and goats were critical to the textile industry. Thus, fewer cattle were necessary. At the same time, as Sigrist 1992: 34 noted, the number of ovines passing through Drehem dwarfs the number of bovines. The ratio is on the order of 12.5 to 1. On domestic animals in Ur III Mesopotamia, see the relevant articles in the Bulletin on Sumerian Agriculture VII and VIII.

160

STEVEN GARFINKLE

3. Warfare, Tribute, and the Military State activity in the Ur III period is most obvious in “foreign” policy and in the military sector. The royal inscriptions and year names attest to the importance that the dynasty assigned to its wars. It is remarkable then, as Bertrand Lafont (2009: 1) noted, how few of our texts directly document the activity of the army. In my view, the Ur III kingdom as we know it was a consequence of the social and economic effects of a state of near constant warfare.16 The militarism of the kings led to the creation of great wealth and great responsibilities, and to an increased role for the army both abroad and at court. Significantly, warfare offered the crown opportunities to create social pathways that bound individuals more closely to the state. The year names of the Ur III period clearly illustrate the prominence of military activity in this era. Between Šulgi 20 and the beginning of the reign of IbbiSuen, a majority of the year names referred to the destruction of foreign cities and lands.17 The pace of armed conflicts picked up in the aftermath of Šulgi’s destruction of Karhar, recorded as his 24th year name. As we can see in Figure 1 above, this was roughly the moment when text production appears to have increased substantially.18 The really well documented years, from Šulgi 44 to Ibbi-Suen 2, show us that the famous abundance of records from the Ur III period was directly correlated with the military adventurism of its kings. It is not an accident that these were the best-documented years of the dynasty. Ur III administrators devoted significant attention to the results of the military endeavors of the state. As I will detail below, the delivery of tribute and booty was not only of economic significance, but also served as a measure of the prestige and loyalty of royal functionaries. The constant warfare of the Ur III kings, particularly in the reigns of Šulgi and Amar-Suen, was directed at several goals. First, the success of these endeavors was the foundation of much of royal self-representation (see section 4 below). Second, the destruction of forces to the east guaranteed control of key trade routes and pasturage while also preventing incursions into Mesopotamia by outsiders. Finally, the military provided both wealth and social opportunity for the new statewide elite. The Ur III state quickly became dominated by tribute and the prestige that accompanied it at all levels of elite activity. The military arena was the primary area for royal activity and advancement. The traditional elites in the southern Mesopotamian heartland, despite their political subordination, remained entrenched players in the local economies, but foreign campaigns offered opportunities for the new royal elite both at home and

––––––––––––– 16. For a discussion of constant warfare in the Ur III state, see Garfinkle in press-a; and see Michalowski 2011. 17. Between Šulgi 20 and Ibbi-Suen 8, 24 years were named directly for military activity. During this same era, a further 20 years were named for previous conquests (the m u - u s 2 - s a “year after the year” formulae). For a list of the year names, see Sigrist and Gomi 1991: 319-29; an online version of this list can be found at the Cuneiform Digital Library Initiative: www.cdli.ucla.edu. 18. Some of this pattern may of course result from the accident of discovery, but Adams (2009: 2) suggested that this picture is not likely to be radically altered by new discoveries. The chronological distribution of texts in newly discovered archives, like those of Iri-Saĝrig, also accords well with the pattern observed in Figure 1.

The Third Dynasty of Ur and the Limits of State Power

161

abroad. The best evidence for the economic and social significance of warfare can be found in the texts from Puzriš-Dagān. Several categories of texts from this site relate to warfare and military activities: booty texts,19 the delivery of tribute from dependent areas,20 and the frequent offerings of often single animals by groups of men associated with the royal and military sector. The latter category is particularly well attested, with over 1000 examples in the available corpus. In these texts, a group of men, from a handful to several dozen, each delivered an animal, most often one lamb. The administrators at Puzriš-Dagān received the animals on behalf of the crown. During the most prominent war years, Šulgi 45-48 and Amar-Suen 4-7, we find the greatest concentration of this type of delivery. For example, among the texts of this type that I have identified, approximately 32% (or 450 texts) date to Šulgi 4648, and approximately 21% (or 305 texts) date to Amar-Suen 4-8. Though the men on the delivery lists came from very different parts of the kingdom, they were connected through their service directly to the crown. This is consistent with the evidence from the various settlements closely associated with royal authority. Places like Garšana, Iri-Saĝrig, and Puzriš-Dagān were filled with soldiers, captains, royal messengers, and other personnel whose careers afforded them opportunities outside of the traditional socio-economic hierarchies of the established cities in southern Mesopotamia. We often find these men associated with merchants. The social status of merchants rose during the Ur III period as the royal sector came to depend upon their services. We can see this in the Puzriš-Dagān texts in which merchants occasionally appear as the only other professionals alongside generals and priests delivering lambs to fulfill royal obligations. If we look at some examples of these texts, we can bring both their content and their purpose into focus. MVN 1 133 recorded the delivery of 27 small cattle in Amar-Suen 8. The first five donors were identified as merchants, and they were followed by larger donations from a priest and from the governor of Nippur. In contrast to many of the texts in this group, MVN 1 133 noted that fourteen of the animals came from the b a l a of the governor of Nippur and were received by Ursaga.21 In most cases the origins of the animals are not listed and they are only identified with their donor and sometimes their destination, usually the royal household or a temple. In Ontario 1 135, fifteen small cattle were donated in ŠuSuen 2. The first five donors were again identified as merchants, and they were followed by the governor of Nippur, a š a b r a , a captain, and two men who were likely generals (one of whom was the king’s uncle Babati). One of the merchants in both of these examples was a certain Lu-Nanna. He was probably the same individual as the overseer of merchants from Umma who was quite active at PuzrišDagān (see Garfinkle 2008). Lu-Nanna was a frequent donor of small cattle, both in large groups including his fellow merchants, as well as in small groups in which he appeared in select company. In Amar-Suen 5 (TRU 123), he donated a lamb alongside a š a b r a , the governor of Umma, and two men not identified by their

––––––––––––– 19. See Lafont 2009; Garfinkle in press-a. 20. See Michalowski 1978; Steinkeller 1991; Maeda 1992. 21. It is tempting to identify this individual with Ur-saga, the merchant who often collected silver on behalf of the b a l a in Girsu-Lagaš (see Garfinkle 2010b).

162

STEVEN GARFINKLE

profession. Earlier that same year, Lu-Nanna appeared on a list of donors that included not only a governor and several š a b r a , but also three men identified as Amorites, including Naplanum (BIN 3 538). These lists show the way in which the three core constituencies of the new state were brought together on tablets, and perhaps in person, to demonstrate their continued allegiance to the crown. In BIN 3 538 we find foreign dignitaries, the traditional urban elite, and the burgeoning economic and military elite joining together to participate in the rituals of the state. When foreigners, generals, and captains appear on these lists, we presume that the source of the animals was the booty they received during foreign campaigns. This may be the origin of all of the donated livestock or it may have come out of the estates of these individuals. In any case the frequency of the individual donations and the sum total of the group donations indicates an enormous extraction of tribute by the kings from the Mesopotamian elite. This was clearly a reciprocal arrangement, however, as these members of the royal elite expected to continue to profit from this arrangement. The delivery of the offerings was a sign of both their continued service to the crown and the privilege afforded to them by the king’s patronage. This was also a precarious system that depended not only on the continued participation of the elite, but also more significantly on the continued military success of the kings. This scheme relied upon the ability of the kings to prime this system with continuous booty from the periphery. The system was in decline by the later years of Šu-Suen and ceased to function early in the reign of IbbiSuen.

4. State Formation in Early Mesopotamia: The Question of Empire The kingdom of Ur at the end of the third millennium BC is routinely described as an empire, and this usually implies a grand strategy to conquer and administer neighboring territory outside of the heartland of southern Mesopotamia. Just as scholars have begun to question the absolute power of the state under the Ur III kings, we now need to question as well their grip on the surrounding area.22 There is little direct evidence for the kings of Ur ruling over the territories that they claimed to subjugate, though Susa was an exception in this regard.23 In my view, the frequent campaigns of this period were raids undertaken with the goals of making safe the kingdom and making wealthy the royal family and its clients. Most of my discussion up to this point has focused on making the best use that we can of our administrative archives to determine the extent of state power in the Ur III period; however, given the fact that these texts tell us very little about royal administration and even less about the army, we need to look at a broader range of sources to determine the level of state control of the periphery. Of course, the administrative texts tell us about the extraction of resources from the periphery,

––––––––––––– 22. Michalowski’s recent epistolary history of the period is a leader in this sense as well; see, for example, 2011: 12. 23. Susa was exceptional, in my opinion, because conceptually it was not part of the Mesopotamian periphery. The culture and environment of Susa were quite familiar to the southern Mesopotamians and presented a contrast with the highland areas that were the targets of so many of the Ur III campaigns.

The Third Dynasty of Ur and the Limits of State Power

163

especially in terms of livestock, but the ability to obtain wealth and tribute from neighboring areas does not equate to active control of those regions. Indeed, we should start by asking ourselves if there is compelling evidence that the kings of Ur had such territorial ambitions outside of the Tigris and Euphrates valleys. Such ambitions fit neatly into our assumptions about kingdoms in the ancient Near East. They also appear to match the surviving evidence from some of the royal inscriptions of the second half of the third millennium BC. After all, the claim to rule “totality” originated with the kingdom of Sargon in the 24th century; and the most common epithet for the kings of Ur was as “rulers of the four quarters of the universe”.24 Certainly, these claims imply that the kings of southern Mesopotamia in this era recognized no peers on a formal level. They viewed their kingship as having no equal, and this must have been reinforced in their eyes and those of their court when they achieved divine status and were worshipped alongside the traditional gods of the Mesopotamian pantheon. This does not mean that they meant to actually rule over anyone other than the familiar black-headed people of Sumer and Akkad. Let me turn briefly to the year names to support this point. Above I highlighted that the year names are among our best evidence for the frequency of military activity in the Ur III period. This is especially the case for the last decade of Šulgi’s reign. We often assume that the campaigns referred to in the year names denote conquest and not just victory, and we need to question this assumption. Do the year names really reflect empire or do they simply reflect successful military activity? And how did they define such success? Šulgi’s 44th year was named: “Year: Simurrum and Lullubum were destroyed for the ninth time.”25 Indeed, if outright conquest and administration was the goal, then why would Šulgi acknowledge his repeated failure to subdue Simurrum? If, instead, the goal was to highlight the king’s ability to, once again, defeat and plunder a neighboring kingdom, then he was laying claim to near constant success.26 As Michalowski (2011: 12-13) noted, The well-known case of the highland city of Simurrum serves as the best illustration of the futility of some of the martial successes proclaimed in the year names: Šulgi claimed victory or, more literally, the destruction of Simurrum, nine times, and yet it still caused problems for his successors.

But what if we go a step further and take Šulgi at his word. What does it mean to destroy Simurrum (and Lullubum) nine times? Is this a record of futility or overwhelming success? Our understanding of royal statements and propaganda in ancient Mesopotamia suggests that the kings of Ur would not have so loudly proclaimed their failures. Granted, most inhabitants of the Ur III state were not in a

––––––––––––– 24. On these titles, see Michalowski 2010, and 2013b in this volume. 25. This year name is good evidence that the frequency of warfare is not adequately reflected in our administrative sources, and this is part of the argument for viewing the Third Dynasty of Ur as a period of constant military activity. Šulgi destroyed Simurrum for the ninth time as noted in his 44th year name, but only three of the previous campaigns were recorded in his year names. And the name of his 45th year had him destroying Simurrum yet again, along with Urbilum, Lullubum, and Karhar. 26. Michalowski 2013a made the case that we ought to understand the use of the verb h u l in the year names as meaning “to defeat” rather than “to destroy”. His analysis supports the broader semantic range that I would like to assign to the type of military action signified by h u l . On h u l , see also Marchesi 2013: 287.

164

STEVEN GARFINKLE

position to read the year names themselves, but even if the audience was as narrow as the literate members of the various administrative units of the kingdom, we are on safe ground believing that the year names were intended to convey stability and royal achievement. The kings of Ur acknowledged no limit to their talents, to their martial ferocity, and to their relationship with the gods, but none of this implies that they understood their authority to be limitless on the ground. Indeed the royal hymns bear this out. Certainly the kings were mighty warriors, and Šulgi claimed to have “placed a yoke on the neck of Elam” (Šulgi B), but for the most part the kings meted out destruction and came home with lapis lazuli, a particularly good metaphor for loot. If Šulgi was indeed the shadow “that lies over the mountain lands” (Šulgi B), then that referred as much to the light he cast over the valley as to the rule he projected over foreign lands. The kings of Ur, and their armies of clients, went to war to protect their kingdom and to expand its coffers. The policies of the kings in maintaining dynastic alliances with powerful families in the periphery fit in nicely with the idea that they recognized the limits of their political reach. The ephemeral nature of Ur’s military presence in the periphery matched the temporary conditions of the tributary economy in the heartland. In spite of the claims made by our texts, both in their content and in their numbers, the kingdom of Ur was a short lived state. Once the ability and charisma of the kings began to fade, they could no longer raid the periphery with impunity and feed the system of patronage they had established at home.

5. Conclusion In a recent treatment of early Mesopotamia, Robert McC. Adams (2009: 3) stated, “Ur III was aggressively successful as an empire for a half-century or so.” While I obviously would prefer a different label for this success than empire, I agree with his diagnosis that the failures of the state arose from this brief period of accomplishment. Both Adams and Norman Yoffee (1995: 295-6) noted that the Third Dynasty of Ur was successful in spite of the absence of real centralized institutions of government rather than because of them. The crown in this era was good at extracting resources, at home and abroad, and at diverting those resources to the growing royal family and its clients. In all of these endeavors, the kings relied on local and regional elites who could be co-opted by this system of patronage. A large scribal administration came into existence more to document these activities than to manage them. These administrators had to ensure that the resources were being registered and properly distributed. The vast extant archives are proof of the temporary success of the court and its clients, but the texts show us the limits of this power rather than exemplifying the creation of new instruments of government administration. Kings like Šulgi encouraged the development of statewide structures but they did not create a firm institutional foundation to provide stability for those structures. Establishing more statewide institutions ran into both ideological and practical problems. It was one thing to assume greater control over the temple estates in the various cities, but it would have been impossible to dissociate them from the regional social networks in which they were embedded. There was also little room in the traditional hierarchies of the provinces to reward crown dependents. This

The Third Dynasty of Ur and the Limits of State Power

165

encouraged the kings to look towards centralizing structures, but the prevailing incentives to retain hereditary privileges undermined the effectiveness of these efforts. The army was the only statewide institution to break entirely free of local control, but it was nonetheless characterized by the persistence of familial control of offices, and it was also dependent upon the continuation of past military successes. Adams (2009: 4) envisioned the situation as follows: Here we see not the densely occupied landscape under overall royal management such as has sometimes been proposed (Adams 2008: §§3.2-3.8), but the outward scattering of the royal progeny into model townships with royal largess (and hapless provincial support as well) but little evidence of the intended transfer of accompanying, more serious responsibilities. The suspicion thus lurks that Sumerian šagina may sometimes have signified a hereditary rank, like lord or marquess, and only secondarily (or not at all) as general.

We need only include the clients of the state alongside these royal progeny and we now have a clear view of the kingdom of the Third Dynasty of Ur, and of the limits of its power and success.

Bibliography Adams, R McC., 2008 An Interdisciplinary Overview of the Mesopotamian City and its Hinterland. CDLJ 2008: 1. 2009 Old Babylonian Networks of Urban Notables. CDLJ 2009: 7. Dahl, J. 2010 A Babylonian Gang of Potters. Reconstructing the Social Organization of Crafts Production in Late Third Millennium BC Southern Mesopotamia. Pp. 275-306 in City Administration in the Ancient Near East, Proceedings of the 53e Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale Vol. 2, ed. L. Kogan et al. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. Frayne, D. 1997 Ur III Period (2112-2004 BC). The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia. Early Periods 3/2, Toronto, Buffalo, and London: University of Toronto Press. Garfinkle, S. J. 2008 Silver and Gold: Merchants and the Economy of the Ur III State. Pp. 63-70 in On the Third Dynasty of Ur: Studies in Honor of Marcel Sigrist, ed. P. Michaloswki. Journal of Cuneiform Studies, Supplemental Series Volume 1. Boston: American Schools of Oriental Research. 2010a The Organization of Knowledge in Early Mesopotamia: Information, Wealth, and Archives in the Ur III Period. Pp. 131-141 in Why Should Someone Who Knows Something Conceal It? Cuneiform Studies in Honor of David I. Owen on His 70th Birthday, ed. A. Kleinerman and J. M. Sasson. Bethesda: CDL Press. 2010b Merchants and State Formation in Early Mesopotamia. Pp. 185-202 in Opening the Tablet Box: Near Eastern Studies in Honor of Benjamin R. Foster, ed. A. Slotsky and S. Melville. Leiden: Brill. in press-a The Economy of Warfare in Southern Iraq at the End of the Third Millennium BC. In Krieg und Frieden im Alten Vorderasien. 52e Recontre Assyriologique Internationale/International Congress of Assyriologiy and Near Eastern Archaeology, Münster, 17.-21. Juli 2006, ed. H. Neumann et al. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 401. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag.

166

STEVEN GARFINKLE

in press-b State Administration and Local Authority Under the Third Dynasty of Ur (2112 – 2004 BC). In Administration, Law, and Administrative Law, ed. H. Baker, M. Jursa, and H. Taeuber. Vienna: Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. in press-c Family Firms in the Ur III Period. In Tradition and Innovation in the Ancient Near East. Proceedings of the 57e Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale. ed. A. Archi et al. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. Heimpel, W. 2009 Workers and Construction Work at Garšana. Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology 5. Bethesda: CDL Press. Kleinerman, A. 2011 Doctor Šu-Kabta’s Family Practice. Pp. 177-182 in Garšana Studies, ed. D. I. Owen. Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology 6. Bethesda, MD: CDL Press. Kleinerman, A. & D. I. Owen 2009 Analytical Concordance to the Garšana Archives, Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology 4. Bethesda: CDL Press. Lafont, B. 2009 The Army of the Kings of Ur: The Textual Evidence. CDLJ 2009: 5. Maeda, T. 1992 The Defense Zone During the Rule of the Ur III Dynasty. Acta Sumerologica 14: 156-8. Marchesi, G. 2013 Ur-Nammâ(k)’s Conquest of Susa. Pp. 285-291 in Susa and Elam. Archaeological, Philological, Historical and Geographical Perspectives: Proceedings of the International Congress Held at Ghent University, December 14–17, 2009, ed. K. De Graef and J. Tavernier. Mémoires de la Délégation en Perse 58. Leiden, Boston: Brill. Michalowski, P. 1978 Foreign Tribute to Sumer in the Ur III Period. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 68: 34-49. 2004 The Ideological Foundations of the Ur III State. Pp. 219-235 in 2000 v. Chr. Politische, wirtschaftliche und kuturelle Entwicklung im Zeichen einer Jahrtausendwende. 3 Internationales Colloquium de Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 4.-7. April 2000 in Frankfurt/ Main und Marburg/ Lahn, ed. W. Meyer and W. Sommerfeld. Saarbrücken: SDV. 2006 Love or Death? Observations on the Role of the Gala in Ur III Ceremonial Life. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 58: 49-61. 2010 Masters of the Four Corners of the Heavens: Views of the Universe in Early Mesopotamian Writings. PP. 147-68 in Geography and Ethnography, ed. K. A. Raaflaub and J. A. Talbert. The Ancient World: Comparative Histories. Boston: Wiley-Blackwell. 2011 The Correspondence of the Kings of Ur, An Epistolary History of an Ancient Mesopotamian Kingdom. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. 2013a News of a Mari Defeat from the time of King Šulgi. Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires 2013/23: 36-41. 2013b Networks of Authority and Power in Ur III Times. Pp. 169-205 in the present volume. Molina, M. 2008 The Corpus of Neo-Sumerian tablets: an overview. Pp. 19-54 in The Growth of an Early State in Mesopotamia: Studies in Ur III Administration. Proceedings of the First and Second Ur III Workshops at the 49th and 51st Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, London July 10, 2003 and Chicago July 19, 2005, ed. J. C. Johnson and S. J. Garfinkle. Biblioteca del Próximo Oriente Antiguo 5. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas.

The Third Dynasty of Ur and the Limits of State Power

167

2010 Court Records from Umma. Pp. 201-217 in Why Should Someone Who Knows Something Conceal It? Cuneiform Studies in Honor of David I. Owen on His 70th Birthday, ed. A. Kleinerman and J. M. Sasson. Bethesda: CDL Press. Owen, D. I. (ed.) 2011 Garšana Studies. Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology 6. Bethesda: CDL Press. Owen, D. I. 2013a Cuneiform Texts Primarily from Iri-Saĝrig/Al-Šarrākī and the History of the Ur III Period. 1: Commentary and Indexes. Nisaba. Studi Assiriologici Messinesi 15/1. Bethesda: CDL Press. 2013b Cuneiform Texts Primarily from Iri-Saĝrig/Al-Šarrākī and the History of the Ur III Period. 2: Catalogue and Texts. Nisaba. Studi Assiriologici Messinesi 15/2. Bethesda: CDL Press. 2013c The Archive of Iri-Saĝrig / Āl-Šarrākī: A Brief Survey. Pp. 89-102 in the present volume. Owen, D. I., and Mayr, R. H. 2007 The Garšana Archives. Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology 3. Bethesda: CDL Press. Roth, M. T. 1997 Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor. Second Edition. Atlanta: Scholars Press. Sharlach, T. 2005 Diplomacy and the Rituals of Politics at the Ur III Court. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 57: 17-29. Sigrist, M. 1992 Drehem. Bethesda: CDL Press. Sigrist, M. and Gomi, T. 1991 The Comprehensive Catalogue of Published Ur III Tablets. Bethesda: CDL Press. Steinkeller, P. 1987 The Foresters of Umma: Towards a Definition of Ur III Labor. Pp. 73-115 in Labor in the Ancient Near East, ed. M. A. Powell. American Oriental Series 68. New Haven: American Oriental Society. 1991 The Administrative and Economic Organization of the Ur III State: The Core and the Periphery. Pp. 19-41 in The Organization of Power: Aspects of Bureaucracy in the Ancient Near East, ed. McG. Gibson and R. D. Biggs. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 46, Second Edition. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. 1996 The Organization of Crafts in Third Millennium Babylonia: The Case of Potters. Altorientalische Forschungen 25: 232–53. forthcoming The Employment of Labor on National Building Projects in the Ur III Period. In Labor in the Pre-Classical Old World, ed. P. Steinkeller. Yoffee, N. 1995 Political Economy in Early Mesopotamian States. Annual Review of Anthropology 24: 281-311. 2005 Myths of the Archaic State, Evolution of the Earliest Cities, States, and Civilizations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2013 The Limits of Power. Pp. 253-260 in It’s Good to be King: The Archaeology of Power and Authority. Proceedings of the 41st (2008) Annual Chacmool Archaeological Conference, University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada, ed. S. Morton and D. Butler. Calgary: University of Calgary, Chacmool Archaeological Association.

Networks of Authority and Power in Ur III Times* Piotr Michalowski UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

1. Introduction Historians often describe the century during which Sumer and Babylonia were united under the control of the Third Dynasty of Ur as a time of rigid state domination and unerring centralized control. But many who study the period more closely have come to realize just how difficult it is to determine the effective functioning of government officers and their local representatives, as well as the range, penetration, limits and limitations of the reach of the Crown in Ur III times. The official literature, as known to us through the medium of contemporary inscriptions and later versions of royal poetry, touts the divinely touched omnipotence of the rulers, and modern scholars have often been seduced by the tenor of such poetic propaganda. But this spell has been broken of late and the mystique no longer holds for everyone. Administrative records from the time should, by definition, be more transparent and easier to interpret. But although this type of documentation is numerically more than abundant, scholars are well aware of the constricted archival contexts of the surviving cuneiform documentation and of distortions of fact dictated by sampling problems. The Ur III administrative archives cover only the restricted activities of a few large organizations and private records are few. Moreover, as Robert McC. Adams (2006) has warned us, much of this written material represents the limited knowledge and interests of urban scribes and officials, whose narrow perspectives permeate the documents. This essay attempts to focus, in limited fashion, on some of the issues involved in the analysis of the dynamics of power at the time of the hegemony of the Ur III dynasty. This is an important matter not only for the intrinsic study of ancient Mesopotamia but also because such issues continue to be actively debated in other disciplines. Just recently, the archaeologist Roderick Campbell (2009: 823), who works on Shang China, wrote: ... the study of political forms through time ought to abandon the reified state and instead distinguish between systems or networks of power/governance and the polity idea(s) or imagined communit(ies) of poetical identity.

––––––––––––– * I am grateful to Steven Garfinkle and Manuel Molina for inviting me to the Madrid conference and for their remarks on an early version of this article. I am also indebted to Gonzalo Rubio, Walther Sallaberger, Gary Beckman, and Gina Konstantopoulos for further comments and corrections.

169

170

PIOTR MICHALOWSKI

But subjects such as power and its avatars – authority, charisma, domination, and prestige – have been largely absent from Assyriological debates.1 Indeed, much too often we acquiesce uncritically to the hypnotic attraction of ancient political selfrepresentation and admire the power of ancient states and their leaders, reproducing, describing, or paraphrasing ancient imagery – written or pictorial – with approbation. Looking at ancient politics with a more jaundiced eye, one must assert that while characters such as Sargon, Naram-Sin, Šulgi, Šamši-Adad or Hammurabi may look good to some, like most despots in history, they were rather terrible men; tyrants whose supposedly glorious military, organizational and even architectural endeavors were ephemeral at best, accomplished at the cost of much suffering and misery.2 The roots of such tyranny are multifold. To be sure, some blame must be ascribed to specific historical circumstances and the particular psychology of the individuals involved, but much of the oppression they wielded was purely institutional. As observed by the Russian anarchist Mikhail Bakunin in 1866 (2002: 83): “despotism has its source much more in the centralized organization of the State than in the despotic nature of kings.” But what do we mean when we speak of “political power,” or simply “power” in society? It is a central concept in political sociology and therefore it has been debated for centuries in a manner that could hardly be summarized here. Most surveys of the matter take us back to the seventeenth century, to the work of Thomas Hobbes. As Saul Newman (2004: 139-140) puts it: For Hobbes, power was centered in the political body of the sovereign…The Hobbsian legacy has persisted for centuries – political theory has continued to see power as being centralized in a state apparatus or in a series of political institutions. However, Foucault’s microanalysis of power (in which it was seen as decentralized, diffuse, and organized methodologically around antagonistic force relations) has led to the abandonment of “place” as a way of conceptualizing power.

Concurrent with this displacement of its locus, power has been viewed by certain latter-day Weberian thinkers as an autonomous force that the state controls in relation to the dominant classes or corporate groups of society. Rather than as a unitary force, power is seen as a fabric of different overlapping forms, that flow “principally from the state’s unique ability to provide territorially-centralized forms of organization,” as Michael Mann (1984: 185) put it. Mann’s work has been particularly influential in these matters: he has proposed that states are structured through four overlapping and interlaced socio-spatial networks of power: ideological, economic, military, and political. Furthermore, as Sinisa Malesevic (2006: 52), observed, many social theorists of the twentieth century have come under the direct or indirect influence of Heinrich von Treitschke, who argued, “without war there would be no state at all.” She further contended (2006: 58) that “… it is the emphasis on the military origins of the

––––––––––––– 1. See, however, Yoffee 2005 and now Yoffee 2013, which appeared when this essay was in proofs. 2. It may be instructive to take a glance at the fluctuating history of the native Russian evaluation of the reign of Ivan the Terrible (Bolsover 1957). Gonzalo Rubio has directed me to Maureen Perrie’s (2001) rich account of the latter phases of this reception, including the appropriation of the memory of the first tsar during Stalin’s rule.

Networks of Authority and Power

171

state, the view of state power as autonomous and omnipotent, the decisive role of warfare in historical transformations, and the conflictual nature of human sociability that lie at the heart of the contemporary sociology of power.” Hence, some have maintained that it is best to conflate the categories of political and military power, reducing the set of networks to three: the military, the economic, and the ideological. Such classifications may have their uses, but I would prefer to look at these matters in less categorical terms, concentrating on the elusive nature of multi-stranded overlapping loci of power within society, following in the footsteps of Eric Wolf (2001). Such an approach is admittedly difficult to take up when faced with an ancient culture that is documented in a fragmented and uneven manner. Therefore, I cannot take up all the documents and archives that evidence power at work, from top to bottom, as well as from the bottom up, nor is this the place to discuss Michel Foucault’s notion of diffuse decentralized power, which could well be illustrated by reference to such literary texts as The Poor Man of Nippur (J. S. Cooper 1975). In my limited capacity I concentrate here on certain aspects of the representation of power, rather than on the various theoretical debates about its very nature, as well as on some examples of the negotiation of power in the Ur III polity.

2. Representations of Power Large-scale details of publicly performed rituals of power and interaction between elites and subordinates are for the most part absent from the preserved documentation, but there are glimpses of the hierarchy-affirming dramas of public life in the literary record. The revolutionary reformulation of literature and school texts to serve the power of the Crown that was instigated by the kings of Lagaš and of the Third Dynasty of Ur and continued by the rulers of Isin and Larsa, provided one such medium for the symbolization of domination and prestige in elite circles. The royal and divine hymns portray power in a variety of ways, from strict aggressive domination to hyperbolic claims of prestige, as in the hymns of Šulgi that depict him as the accomplished master of various professional tasks, including the scribal arts and divination (Vacín 2011). One is reminded here of James C. Scott’s (1989: 146) trenchant observation that “prestige can be thought of as the public face of domination.”3 But prestige, as a manifestation of power, can be performed but can also be something bestowed upon someone else, hence the Crown often confers symbolic luxury items on members of the elite, affirming the drama of hierarchy and obligation, but also as a public demonstration of political and economic power. Ur III archives preserve laconic information on royal gift-giving, although it can be argued that much of the animal and prestige metal object disbursal documented abundantly in the Ur III Puzriš-Dagan archives is nothing more than an elaborate system of royal gift-giving to elites (Sallaberger 2003/4). The kings and their entourages were constantly moving from one seat of power to another, holding court in various palaces in the land and participating in local and

––––––––––––– 3. There is some ambiguity in the manner that social scientists use the word “prestige.” One way of looking at it is to view prestige as status that is willingly conferred, as opposed to domination, which involves fear and/or force; see Henricha and Gil-Whiteb 2001.

172

PIOTR MICHALOWSKI

state festivals and temple rites, sustaining by participation their connections to local elites and playing out status-affirming performances.4 Ur may have been the state capital, but there were official royal residences in Nippur, Umma and Girsu, as well as in other places, notably Uruk and Tumal.5 Another form of this kind of drama is the royal progress or visits of the king, his family and court to elite estates, accompanied by mutual status-affirming pomp and ceremony. Such royal travels are registered in documents from the preceding Sargonic period (Foster 1980). In Ur III times, the king and his entourage traveled constantly to various cities and shrines of the land. A few documents from the “treasure archive” at Drehem document the disbursal of precious objects, many of them for the royal table, “on the occasion when His Majesty drank beer in the house of so-and-so.”6 The preserved texts of this type refer to banquets at the estates of the generals Šarrum-bani, Niridagal and Lugal-kuzu, of Lu-Nanna, prince of the eastern land of Hamazi who was betrothed to an Ur princess, of Dada, chief “lamenter” and organizer of royal entertainment, and of the prime minister Arad-Nanna, but there can be little doubt that such events were much more commonplace.7 The most explicit expression of the underlying motivations of such acts, from early sources, comes from the well-known letter of the prospective tribal chief Ušašum, who writes to king Bilalama of Ešnunna, only a generation or so after the fall of the centralized Ur III state, asking him for prestige items to “make me important/give me prestige in the eyes of the Amorites” (Whiting 1987: 49). The Crown also exercised the imposition of power by structuring the state into administrative units, generally referred to as provinces in the modern literature and imposing upon them obligations in the form of goods and labor, the latter including both workforce and military duties. This labor, generally referred to as corvée, often included complex combinations of deliveries of laborers/soldiers from various provinces for large, centrally operated projects such as major temple constructions as well as local requirements such as harvest work (Steinkeller 2013b). While such obligations can be analyzed in a strictly economic and organizational manner, they also reflected and institutionalized the exercise and representation of hierarchical power relationships. What is at stake here is how early Mesopotamian states articulated their claims of social control by asserting their command of different power networks. But before proceeding, it is important to go back and reiterate one of the most important elements of Mann’s proposals – one that he took over from the work of Owen Lattimore – that societies and states are not fully bounded, as the various overlapping power networks have different parameters. Thus the military accom-

––––––––––––– 4. Compare, for example, the similar strategies of Achaemenid kings at the other end of Mesopotamian history; see Briant 1988 and Potts 2010. 5. Examples of é - g a l l u g a l in Ur (UET 3 1420: 3), Nippur (MVN 13 98: r.25), Girsu (DAS 35: 3), Umma (BPOA 1 1394: 2). 6. Sumerian u 4 l u g a l - ĝ u 1 0 é PN- k a k a š ì / ( - ) i n - n a ĝ - ĝ á - a . A full analysis of the archive dealing with luxury objects of precious jewels and metals is available in Paoletti 2012. 7. Volk 2004, Paoletti 2012: 316-324, 479-488 (date incomplete, probably Š26, Šarrum-ili?); AUCT 1 176 (AS 1/xi/-, é - b á p p i r d š u l - g i - r a ) ; Sollberger, JCS 10, 31 12 (AS 2/i/-, Nammahani); AUCT 1 918 (AS 2/i/-, Dada); AUCT 1 942 (AS 2/ii/-, Niridagal); AUCT 1 793 (date broken, probably early AS, Lugal-kuzu); Ozaki and Yıldız, JCS 54, 7 52 (date broken, Arad-Nanna [r.iv.4'-6']).

Networks of Authority and Power

173

plishments of ancient states far outreached their economic and political spheres of control, meaning that in terms of the geography of power, it is essentially impossible to set their boundaries.8 And so it is with the case of the rulers of Akkad or the members of the House of Ur-Namma, whose frontiers fluctuated and were never truly fixed within identifiable borders, and whose mechanisms of social and economic control may have been less all encompassing than we, or even they, might come to believe.9 And yet the geography of power is expressed, in the Sumerian language of Ur III times, by means of a complex lexicon of control. Putting the distractions of etymology and social-evolutionary speculations on origins aside, in synchronic terms this lexicon comprises terms such as k i - e n - g i , “Sumer,” k i u r i , “Akkad,” both subsumed under k a l a m , “homeland.” These are contrasted with k u r , that is the foreign, or uncontrolled land – by definition enemy – in between there is m a - d a , which in a narrow sense can mean “territory,” but in certain contexts breaches the opposition, denoting the concept of “frontier” (Michalowski 2011: 125-127). This labeling reflects the ambiguous nature of various forms of power: the primary contrast between k a l a m and k u r , that is, between “us and them,” recognizes the limits of political and military power, but the mediating notion of the frontier acknowledges the fuzzy borders and indeterminate political and economic reach of the state. On a more strident ideological level, however, Akkad and Ur aspired to universal dominion by attempting to overlay a different claim to power over that semiotic set, utilizing such titles as l u g a l k i š , “master of the everything/the world,” or even more precisely, l u g a l a n u b - d a l í m m u - b a , “master of the four corners of the universe,” overpowering the subtle spatial distinctions encoded in the lexicon. But this geo-political discourse belongs to the realm of the high register version of the official Sumerian written language. We have no way of ascertaining the nebulous boundaries that it described, or how much of it permeated from the narrow range of fully literate elites who could read official Sumerian into the consciousness of groups and individuals within society, many of whom would have only been conversant with Semitic tongues. If there were any native Sumerian speakers around, the rhetoric of the standard elite version of the language may have been unsuited for their vernaculars. Today we often isolate the textual material for analysis, but in its own day it was embedded within a fabric of visual language of power that encompassed a whole network of elements: city walls, monumental building complexes, as well as statues, stele, and other ornamented and inscribed surfaces. I stress the word network here, because for the purposes we are pursuing here these media cannot be thought of as independent of one another. The royally commissioned architectural features that dominated the panoramas of cities and the horizon of the countryside proclaimed control of economic as well as ideological power. Royal monuments of various sizes occupied many spaces, although today it is difficult to reconstruct the full impact of these monuments because so few have survived (Suter 2010). The sheer semiotic weight of these accomplishments may explain why other royal selfrepresentational media concentrate so much on political or military power, in complementary fashion. This certainly seems the case in Old Akkadian times when

––––––––––––– 8. 9.

A succinct summary of these theses can be conveniently found in Jones 1999. See, for example, Adams’ (2008) discussion of the Ur III province of Umma.

174

PIOTR MICHALOWSKI

inscribed monuments and year names, the most prominent of such forms, concentrate almost entirely on martial claims. The situation seems to alter somewhat in Ur III times and later, when ideological matters such as large-scale constructions, votive donations and appointment of high priests and priestesses, as well as economic achievements become prominent as well, in the year-names at least. This overall scheme of complimentary representational claims on various networks of power is attractive in its simplicity, but may turn out to be illusory. The early monuments consist of statues, illustrated inscribed stone and metal objects, but few of them have survived intact, and some of them are known to us only in later renditions of the written component of the elaborately illustrated artifacts (Buccellati 1993). Portraits aside, they provide testimony of the development of a complex symbolic pictorial and textual language, much of which glorifies violent state power centered on the person of the sovereign. But as much as we may be mesmerized by the textual and pictorial data, there is disjunction between our perceptions of the ancient representational language and its semiotic functioning during its own time. I need not dwell on the chance nature of elements of preservation and discovery that have produced our modern corpus, which, as we all recognize, is fragmentary, unrepresentative and misleading in the extreme. Additionally, our interpretations must take into account semantic disjunctions between the early Mesopotamian use of textual and pictorial representative modes (J. S. Cooper 2008). More important is the full communicative context of this political language that, like any communicative system or act, requires a recipient or social subject to be complete. Simply put, we cannot plausibly establish the target audience for any of this: was it the gods and goddesses in the heavens, a small circle of elites, society at large, all, or even none of the above? Any attempt to answer such questions is complicated, or even made impossible by the fact that we cannot determine the original placement of most of the early Mesopotamian monuments that have survived to our time. The Stele of the Vultures, the Victory Stele of Naram-Sin, and the Code of Hammurabi, to mention only the most obvious paradigmatic objects that have attained classic masterpiece status in our research merely by force of survival, are all from secondary or tertiary contexts, and there are few clues to their original location. The latter two were plundered in antiquity but we would not even be discussing them today if the administration of the Elamite king purportedly responsible for this act – Šutruknahhunte I – had been more politically correct.10 But if we ask who would have been counted in the intended audience for Naram-Sin’s monument in his own time, it must be admitted that we simply do not know the answer. The same holds true for the one complete example of Hammurabi’s great diorite stela that has been recovered in modern times, and even though its epilogue invites litigants to draw near and read the co-called “code,” it is highly unlikely that many would have been able to do so. The text that we have claims as follows (Roth 1997: 133-134): “…I have inscribed my precious pronouncements upon my stele and set it up before me, the king of justice, in the city of Babylon…within the temple Esagila,” but we know that there was more than one exemplar of the stele, and it has been assumed that

––––––––––––– 10. On Elamite invasions of Babylonia that led to the plundering of these objects see, most recently, Rubio 2009: 160-161.

Networks of Authority and Power

175

the singular intact version that stands in the Louvre today was actually carried away by the Elamites from Sippar, not from Babylon. Did it come from the temple of Šamaš, or was it placed somewhere else in the city? Moreover, there is no assurance that the stela still stood in its original location hundreds of years later; it may have been moved more than once, and therefore been seen by different sets of eyes, by Middle Babylonian times, when the Elamites laid their hands on the object. At least two Old Babylonian copies of Old Akkadian inscriptions, including those of Naram-Sin, specify that the originals from which they were copied stood in the courtyard of the temple Ekur in Nippur and we know that other early kings placed their monuments in Enlil’s great shrine (Michalowski 1980: 239), or in temples in their own land. The Ur-Namma Stela is one of the few larger monuments from the end of the third millennium that was found somewhere in the vicinity of its original location. The fragments of the stela, or stele since the fragments may come from more than one, were discovered in the courtyard of the temple of Nanna in the ceremonial center of Ur (Reade 2001b, Canby 2006, Suter 2010: 217). The best examples of early royal monuments created specifically for temples are, of course, the statues of the Lagaš ruler Gudea, but most of them were actually found in secondary context, in a palace constructed by an Aramean prince Adad-nadin-ahhe, who lived more than two millennia later (Huh 2008: 23-31). The Gudea Cylinders were likely on display in a monumental construction in the ceremonial center of the city of Girsu, possibly set up at eye level on poles or suspended from the ceiling.11 It is difficult to determine just how much of the general population would have been able to experience first-hand such monuments within the walls of temple compounds, but it is most probable that except for “priests,” craftsmen and servants, only elites would regularly visit there. The latter may have participated in some temple festivals, and members of entrepreneurial families who profited from prebendal temple income certainly visited on a regular basis. This custom is reflected in the short Old Babylonian Tale of Enlil and Namzitara (J. S. Cooper 2011). The story takes place in the street as the mortal protagonist is coming home from prebendal service in Enlil’s temple and encounters the god. There is more to be said about this, especially about the over-interpretation of aleatorically preserved items (Michalowski 2010). Here I would only suggest that while for many of us the texts and stele constitute the main focus of analysis, in the ancient world they may have had limited social circulation, and, as far as the representation of power is concerned, they may have had less impact than the messages encoded in other media such as in architecture and performance arts. Be that as it may, the language of power is only effective if it plays out in a broad array of forms, from enormous ziggurats to tiny cylinder seals. Consider the famous elaborately inlaid object that we call the Standard of Ur (Hansen 2003). No one has plausibly explained the original function of this piece, which is hardly a monument – it measures only 20 × 47 cm – and yet seems to have acquired important ideological status for its symbolic representation, in our time at least. Almost all descriptions of the object describe it as representing war and peace, although most recently it has been said that it “encompasses the two aspects of

––––––––––––– 11. On the findspot of the two cylinders see Huh 2008: 77-78.

176

PIOTR MICHALOWSKI

Sumerian kingship, the military leader and bountiful mediator between humans and gods” (Hansen 2003: 100). The piece was found in the second largest tomb of the Royal Cemetery, lying at the shoulder of a man who may have been a soldier. According to Julian Reade (2001a: 20), this chamber was the resting place of King Ur-Pabilsaĝ, son of A’anzu, which would make this one of the oldest tombs in the Royal Cemetery, although this ascription is highly speculative. A’anzu’s seal (Reade 2001a: 19), likewise found in the royal cemetery, bears a two-tiered design that parallels the scenes on the standard: the upper has a master of animals motif, and the lower a martial procession, which is otherwise rare on early cylinder seals but brings to mind the war side of the Standard. Reading the Standard from the bottom up, as is customary in early Mesopotamian multi tiered representations, we see the delivery of goods to the Crown, leading up to a banquet scene in which the participants all face the monarch, who is turned towards them and is symbolically larger in stature than all the others. In complementary fashion, the bottom register of the war side shows a scene of battle: reading up we see the aftermath, and finally, on top, the presentation of prisoners to the sovereign, who once again towers over other humans. If we view this piece – whatever its practical function – as but one instance of the realization of the language of power, we can lay aside the bucolic understanding of the non-military side and dismiss anachronistic interpretations involving war and peace. Rather, consistent with the path we have been pursuing here, both sides of the standard have to be read as a manifestation of claims of command over coercive power networks: military, ideological, as well as economic. Having said that, it is impossible to avoid asking once again who this was all intended for: we propose complex ways of reading the box, but it was, after all, a rather small object of unknown purpose that was found buried in a grave, devoid of its living audience. Famous as this piece may be, its imagery is not unique. Impressions of Early Dynastic royal seal designs from Nabada (Tell Beydar) and Mari show a similar division of representations in different registers, distinguishing between generic scenes of war and ceremonial tasks (Beyer 2006). Like so much of northern Mesopotamian and Syrian third millennium royal imagery, much of this symbolic set was borrowed from southern Mesopotamia and belongs to the same general representational language as the scenes depicted on the Standard of Ur. To be sure, the history of emblems of power in the Near East was quite complicated in earlier times, as demonstrated by newly discovered materials from Tell Brak in Syria (McMahon 2009), but their full articulation took place in the south. Recently a group of scholars has attempted to analyze this imagery in a more specific and less generic manner, identifying specific military campaigns in the seal representations (Bretschneider, Van Vyve and Jans 2009). I find this unconvincing; the whole history of purported Early Dynastic wars, especially those in Syria, needs to be reexamined from the philological point of view, and there is no evidence whatsoever to link any alleged historical military campaigns with the stylized representation of aspects of symbolic royal power that are depicted in seal designs. The representational strategies in early Mesopotamian states can be interpreted as attempts to demonstrate control over diffuse networks of power that in practice have varying levels of penetration and reach within society, and outwardly in the territorial expanse of the state. It is even more difficult to discern

Networks of Authority and Power

177

how they operated in the richest source of our information: the textual record. For Ur III times, this means primarily the abundant, if narrowly focused archival documentation from Umma, Lagaš, Drehem, Nippur, Garšana, Al-Šarraki and miscellaneous smaller collections (Sallaberger 1999). But even though we have mined these archives for various types of information for decades, their very cultural purpose is difficult to pin down. Most of us have simply ignored this problem. Recently Piotr Steinkeller (2004) has proposed provocatively that much of this recording was done not so much to document past actions as to provide information for planning future economic activity. This is an interesting perspective, but in the current context I would like to concentrate on a different aspect of this documentation: the narrow and relatively incomplete embrace of economic activity of those who were responsible for these texts. Here I would defer to Adams (2006), who observed that there is a marked contrast between the detailed recording of many of the crucial steps in the production of textiles and the general indifference to the elementary processes of animal husbandry in Ur III record keeping. This reflects, once again, the limited purview of elite officials, as well as the social, intellectual, and technological divide between many of the residents of centrally located villages, towns and cities and the outlying, often uncontrolled pastoral areas in which many of the flocks grazed full-time or part of the year. As Adams (2006: 165) sees this, in Ur III times: The pattern presented for sheep husbandry reflects, in short, a prevailing concern on the part of the bureaucracy only for delivering the requisite outputs of wool and meat to further industrial processing or to elite consumers and shrines, and a reciprocal detachment and indifference with regard to even the most basic hazards, needs and personnel requirements of herd management.

This indifference may also reflect variable levels of control over life in the hinterlands, and thus once again highlights the variability in the way power radiated throughout the Ur III polity. To illustrate my points more precisely, I turn to a discussion of certain aspects of the relationship of the Crown with the local powers in the largest Ur III province, namely Lagaš. Before I do so, some preliminary remarks are in order. The chronological detour may seem out of place here, but it is necessary to set up the section that follows.

3. Before Ur III Times The historical record of the last years of the hegemony of the Akkad Dynasty and of subsequent developments in Mesopotamia is sparse and difficult to order in sequence (Sallaberger and Schrakamp, in press, Steinkeller, in press). The most abundant information comes from the latter part of the post-Akkad period, primarily from the southern polity of Lagaš. But the chronological placement and even the very order of the rulers of the “Second Dynasty of Lagaš” that thrived in the decades preceding the rise of a new central power at Ur are matters that have been debated by many without final consensus. The currently available evidence is limited to archaeological and textual information from the city of Telloh/Girsu. According to Manuel Molina (2010: 45), inscribed statues and clay cylinders aside, the written documentation of the Second Dynasty of Lagaš consists of 389 cuneiform tablets, of which 106 contain date formulae of rulers and governors. As of this writing, the first number has now grown to 474, as Molina kindly informs me. The

178

PIOTR MICHALOWSKI

critical question is the relative placement of the reigns of Gudea of Lagaš and UrNamma of Ur. Scholars such as Kramer (1954: 45 n. 3), Sauren (1969), and most penetratingly Steinkeller (1988), have mustered archival evidence to argue that the two rulers were contemporaries, while others, among them Carroué (1994, 1995), Maeda (1988), Sallaberger (2004: 35-36), and now Sallaberger and Schrakamp (in press) have argued that Gudea must be placed before the rise of the Ur III dynasty.12 This discussion, as well as the contributions of others, have been summarized many times, most recently, by Flückiger-Hawker (1999: 2-4), Suter (2000: 15-17), Di Ludovico (2008: 326), Huh (2008: 293-304), and Vacín (2011: 2527), and will not be fully repeated here.13 The matter is complicated by uncertainties over the order of succession of independent rulers as well as Ur III governors in Lagaš immediately before and after the reign of Ur-Ba’u.14 Let us assume, following Maeda (1988), Lafont (1993) and others that the sequence was: Ur-Ninĝirsu I Piriĝme Ur-Ba’u Gudea Ur-Ninĝirsu II Ur-GAR Ur-aba Ur-Mama Nam(ma)h(a)ni15 The only known synchronisms are between Ur-Namma and Ur-aba as well as Nammahani. There are two tablets with Ur-Namma year names that also mention Ur-aba with the Sumerian designation ensi ( é n s i ) , that is the word for “governor” in the language of Ur III administration, but “king” in the political vocabulary of Lagaš. Nammahani is mentioned in the prologue to the Code of Ur-Namma, although the root of the verb is broken and therefore what exactly transpired between the two is a matter of endless conjecture.16 The placement of Ur-Mama is

––––––––––––– 12. When much of this section was finished, Walter Sallaberger and Ingo Schrakamp kindly provided me with a pre-publication copy of their article. Some of our arguments overlapped and I have cut down my analysis to avoid repetition as much as possible and refer the reader to their comprehensive study. 13. Most recently Wilcke (2011) has published a partially damaged Old Babylonian copy of what purports to be a Gudea inscription. The text is bilingual and although unprovenanced, clearly comes from southern Babylonia. The editor reconstructs the text as dedicated by Gudea to Šulgi, which further complicates the matter. In view of the arguments presented above, I find this synchronism unlikely, at best. This text needs to be discussed separately in conjunction with other Old Babylonian revivals of Lagaš traditions that appear to date from the time of the last two rulers of Larsa. 14. I use the traditional modern rendering of his name; on the reading of the name of the theophoric element as Baba see Rubio 2010: 35-39. 15. For the writings of the name see Edzard 1997: 194. 16. As I have indicated before, many years ago I attempted to collate the passage, but the tablet is covered with lacquer and therefore difficult to read, and the broken final sign of the line, which contains the root of the verb, was absolutely illegible to me. For a discussion of possible restorations see Sallaberger and Schrakamp (in press).

Networks of Authority and Power

179

uncertain, because the Lagaš King List, an Old Babylonian literary composition that is undoubtedly quite fanciful in parts, places him five tenures before Ur-Ba’u (Sollberger 1967: 282). This much is certain: all discussions of the chronology of the period are dependent on the archival materials from Girsu, not only for the Lagaš rulers, but for Ur-Namma and the early part of Šulgi’s reign as well. Setting aside all other arguments, I would like to take a brief look at the relative chronological placement of Gudea and his followers in relation to the beginning of the supremacy of Ur-Namma, and the nature of the relationship between Ur and Lagaš in the period following the reign of Gudea. It is difficult to determine what constitutes a reign or royal tenure in such transitional periods. Traditionally, we assume that “kings” were supreme and had strong control over their subjects and lands, but this implication is one more example of our acquiescence to ancient self-representative strategies. In practice, as has been the case throughout history, the concept of royal rule was relative and covered the spectrum from absolute dominion to various forms of dependence, subservience and vassalage. There is evidence that beginning with Ur-aba, if not earlier, Lagaš rulers acknowledged, to some undetermined extent, the supremacy of Ur. They were celebrated by year names that announced their appointment, but after that their scribes dated texts with formulae of Ur-Namma. But the dating system also uniquely acknowledged the figure of the local head man. In a number of Girsu texts the Ur-Namma year names are preceded by the formula PN é n s i , “so-and-so was the governor/ruler.” Nothing similar is known from anywhere else in Ur III times, but discoveries of Ur-Namma and early Šulgi documents from other cities may force us to rethink the matter. Indeed, at Lagaš this tradition was not confined to the formative period of the state, but continued, again uniquely, all the way through Ur III times and is last documented in the second year of IbbiSin, the final king of the dynasty (AnOr 45, 404 70: r.2'-4'). This Lagaš dating convention first appears under Piriĝme (RTC 182, RTC 183) and is continued during the reign of Ur-Ba’u (RTC 185) and Gudea. Seven texts from the reign of the latter contain the name of the ruler ( g ù - d é - a é n s i ) , followed by a preserved or broken year name.17 His son, Ur-Ninĝirsu, is documented by one contemporary administrative text, which follows this pattern as well (RTC 209). The last three lines of this document read (r.17'-19'): ur-dnin-[ĝír-su], ⸢énsi⸣, mu lú-⸢mah⸣ [dinin] maš-e ⸢pà?⸣-[da] The ascription of the year-name is uncertain; following Maeda (1988: 30-31), I have restored it on the basis of a similar year-name that has been ascribed to Gudea, but more properly belongs to his son.18 In addition, three other year names can be tentatively attributed to Ur-Ninĝirsu (Maeda 1988: 27-28). Hypothetically, we assume that his unattested accession year must be added to the list. He therefore reigned at least five years (Molina, in press-b).

––––––––––––– 17. DAS 46; MVN 3 115; MVN 6 497; MVN 6 534; MVN 6 542; MVN 7 393; RTC 195. 18. m u l ú - m a h d i n i n m a š - e b a - p à - d a , “The year the l. priest of Inana was chosen by omen,” MVN 6 533, RTC 234. That this is a local year name and not that of some other potentate is assured by the fact that the only Ur III references to such a priest are associated with Girsu: TCTI 1 850: ii.4; TUT 155: r.i.14; Maekawa, ASJ 20, 101 3: r.i.1; see also the mention of the l ú - m a h d i n i n ĝ í r - s u k i in MVN 1 124: 6, from Drehem.

180

PIOTR MICHALOWSKI

The situation is more complex in the case of Ur-aba. The year names associated with this individual, either celebrating the man himself (a) or naming him as ensi followed by an Ur-Namma date are: a. BPOA 2 1902; MVN 6 543: m u u r - a b - b a é n s i b. RTC 261: ⸢ m u ⸣ u r - d nam m a lugal-⸢e⸣ sig-ta igi-nim -šè ⸢ĝìri⸣ si bí-sá-a c. RTC 263: m u u r - d n a m m a l u g a l - e s i g - t a i g i - n i m - š è ĝ ì r i s i b í - s á - a d. RTC 264 5'-6': m u u r - a b - b a é n s i - t a , m u e n d i n i n u n u g k i - a d u m u u r d namma lugal-a maš-e ba-pà-da-⸢šè⸣ e. RTC 265: [ m u é ] ⸢ d ⸣ n i n - s ú n [ u r i 5 k i ] - ⸢ m a ⸣ b a - d ù - a f.

MVN 6 540: year name broken

As Waetzoldt (1990) has observed, RTC 264 (c) is an account for three years. Therefore, depending on how one reconstructs the missing year name, Ur-aba was in office for at least three or four years: either the missing formula was the “s i g t a ” year, or there was a still different Ur-Namma year name in the broken part of the tablet. Aside from Ur-Ninĝirsu II, Ur-aba and possibly Nammahani, the other postGudea ensi’s of Girsu seem to be named only in single year names all patterned as “PN ensi.” This is the case for Ur-GAR (RTC 186) and Ur-Mama (RTC 184). There are also three other ensi’s of Lagaš that most probably belong to the post-Gudea period and each one of them has only one year name (Sallaberger and Schrakamp, in press):19 KA-kù: RTC 188; MVN 10 94 Lu-Ba’u: MVN 6 80; MVN 6 275; MVN 6 310; RTC 189 Lu-gula: BPOA 1 62; MVN 6 102; NFT 184 (AO 4309); RTC 190 In Old Babylonian times year names that appear as accession celebrations could apparently stand for any year of a ruler in certain cases (Charpin 2011: 63), but it is unlikely that this could apply here. Either there was so much turmoil in Girsu that every one of these ruler/governors was quickly overturned, or, as is much more likely, a convention of short tenures, perhaps rotating between different elite (kin) groups, was instituted at the time. It is indeed probable that these were all families that were allied with the lineages of Ur-Ba’u and Gudea by marriage. Whatever the social alliances may have been, we would have the following minimalist scenario after Gudea in terms of years in office, listing the last three, who cannot currently be placed, after Nammahani for convenience: Ur-Ninĝirsu (II) Ur-GAR Ur-aba Ur-Mama

5 1 4 1

––––––––––––– 19. Others, e.g. Maeda 1988: 24, would place them before Ur-Ba’u.

Networks of Authority and Power Nammahani KA-kù Lu-Ba’u Lu-gula (total:

181

320 1 1 1 17)

It is commonly accepted that Ur-Namma reigned eighteen years, and indeed this is the figure in the Ur III manuscript of the Sumerian King List (SKL) that was written down at the time of his son Šulgi (Steinkeller 1993: 274 vi.33'). Of course, he may have actually ruled Ur in some form or another longer, but this is the number of Ur-Namma’s regnal years that were officially counted for political purposes. If we subtract from this the thirteen years that are named after local tenures, that is the seventeen years listed above, but taking into account the three or four UrNamma dates included in the Ur-aba number, that leaves only five at most. But there are at least five separate year names of Ur-Namma documented in the Girsu archives, two or three of which have already been accounted for, and this would leave only four for any overlap between the king of Ur and Gudea, or seven at most if the last three rulers are to be attributed to earlier times.21 To be sure, as Carroué (2000) and Sallaberger and Schrakamp (in press) stress, there are examples of local date formulas being used side by side with those of Ur, but in the case of the early “governors” it is only their year of appointment that is attested. Some of the year names ascribed to both Gudea and Ur-Namma may have to be reassigned, but that is a complex matter that would require a full separate treatment.22 But even so, it is impossible to assume that we have examples of every year name from this period. Therefore, setting all other arguments aside, there are good reasons to side with those who are of the opinion that Gudea must have reigned some time before Ur-Namma, prior to the formative years of the Ur III state. It is impossible to provide more precise chronological parameters of relationship between Gudea and Ur-Namma. As far as I am able to ascertain, there is, at present, only one temporal guide that provides a rough estimate of the chronological frame we are seeking. We know that Gudea’s predecessor Ur-Ba’u appointed his daughter as the high priestess of Ur, naming her Enanepada. Her predecessor, Enmenana, was appointed by Naram-Sin of Akkad, and her successor Ennirgalana was chosen by Ur-Namma at some unspecified moment of his 18 year reign. In turn, her successor Ennirziana was chosen by omens by Šulgi of Ur in the fourteenth year of his rule (Sollberger 1954/6: 24-8). Let us assume that Naram-Sin reigned 54.5 years (Steinkeller 2003: 279) and that Enmenana became priestess sometime before the last years of his reign because the one example of the year name that announces this selection does not include the divine classifier before the

––––––––––––– 20. The years would be m u n a m - m a h - n i l u g a l (unattested), m u n a m - m a h - n i ú s - s a (RTC 187), and BM 26269 (unpubl.): n a m - m a h - n i , é n s i , m u e r e š - d i ĝ i r d ⸢ l a m a ? ⸣ , m a š - e p à d - d a (see perhaps MVN 7 448), courtesy Manuel Molina. 21. This is the minimal number, following Sallaberger 2004: 35; others would ascribe more Girsu year names to Ur-Namma; e.g. Frayne 1997: 14-19 ascribes at least nine year names attested there to Ur-Namma. 22. Lorenzo Verderame is preparing a study of the early Ur III year-names that will present some new evidence; see D’Agostino 2010: 59 n. 1.

182

PIOTR MICHALOWSKI

king’s name. This means that the time from some moment late in the reign of Naram-Sin to some moment in first 18 years of the Ur III state fit into the adult lives of two women, barring the existence of some unknown high priestess of the moon god or a hiatus in this post. This is not the most revealing evidence for the chronology of a badly documented period, but it does give us a probable maximum figure to play with, since it is unlikely that both of them would have held office for more than, let us say, sixty years altogether, and this, among other things, would serve as one argument against a long “Gutian Period,” in concert with the views of Hallo (1971) and Sallaberger (2004). But in the present context this implies that we can also assume, roughly, once again, that the maximum span of time from some point in the reign of Ur-Ba’u to the beginning of the Ur III dynasty was about thirty years at most. This third of a century would span the rest of his time on the throne as well as the reign of Gudea and perhaps that of Ur-Ninĝirsu. Such a chronological position clears up certain historical problems and creates new ones, but chief among them are the issues concerning relationships between Lagaš and other contemporary polities in Uruk, Elam and Ur.

4. Southern Mesopotamia Before the Advent of the Ur III Polity The only extant Ur III manuscript of the SKL telescopes the time after the fall of Agade into a neat succession of hegemonies: Uruk, military hordes ( u m - m a n ú m , the Guti of the later versions), Adab (partly under the Guti), Uruk under Utu-heĝal, and then Ur-Namma. As in the Old Babylonian SKL, the kings of Lagaš, as well as post-Sargonic but pre-Ur III rulers of Ur are erased from written memory. Steinkeller (1993), in his edition of the tablet, discussed the complex issues of the possible redactional histories of this manuscript, concluding, with all due carefulness, that it may have been discovered by looters in Adab. He also suggested, again with caution, that the inclusion of the Gutian Adab “dynasty” that is absent in later versions may be due to local partisanship. Whatever the case may be, modern investigators should not necessarily take this simple succession of centers of hegemony as an accurate description of historical reality. The sparse documentary record suggests that in the years leading up to the creation of UrNamma’s polity, the political landscape of southern Mesopotamian was a patchwork with strong power centers in Lagaš, Uruk, and to a lesser extent in Ur. The SKL and contemporary as well as later copies of royal inscriptions provide us with minimal information about the reign of the Uruk ruler Utu-heĝal. He probably held office for seven years, and according to his own inscriptions fought against Gutians in Sumer and adjudicated a boundary dispute between Ur and Lagaš in the latter’s favor (Frayne 1993: 280-283). This last act suggests that he held enough prestige, if not power, to decide such matters between other polities and to erect monuments describing the event on the new borders. All three cone inscriptions that mention this affair are dedicated to Lagaš divinities and their format suggests some kind of building activity. Not one exemplar, however, was officially found in Girsu and it is impossible to ascertain their origin. The wording of the inscriptions is somewhat ambiguous, but may imply that Utu-heĝal’s regime was interested in appealing to elements in the Lagaš polity, perhaps even claiming some form of hegemony or influence. It is therefore tempting to assume, following Carroué (1994) and others that the “king,” “queen” and “prince” ( l u g a l , n i n / e r e š

Networks of Authority and Power

183

and d u m u - l u g a l ) who appear in Lagaš II administrative texts cannot refer to Ur III kings and may, just possibly, refer to a king of Uruk, most likely Utu-heĝal, whose main title, after all, was lugal. Several of the texts from the time of UrNinĝirsu, son of Gudea, also mention an ensi of Ur (Carroué 1994: 48-52), which would be unlikely at a time when Ur-Namma was on the throne, since he claimed the title of lugal, the traditional word for “sovereign” at Ur.23 At least one pre-Ur III ruler of Ur claimed the title ensi, however, as is evident in the case of one Lusaga (Frayne 1993: 300-301). As a result, it is possible, but not by any means certain, that Gudea’s time on the throne overlapped, partially or fully, with the reign of Utu-heĝal at Uruk, but much of this depends on the dating of the Lagaš documents that mention the “king” and his family. Historians have generally accepted the scheme of the SKL, according to which hegemony in Sumer passed directly from Utu-heĝal, the only member of the “Fourth Dynasty of Uruk,” to the Ur III dynasty. Such reasoning has been bolstered by the evidence of a broken dedicatory text from Ur that was restored in a manner that made Ur-Namma a general under Utu-heĝal (Gadd 1928: 7); this was further elaborated by Claus Wilcke (1974) who argued that the two were in fact brothers.24 Both lines of evidence remain hypothetical at best. First, the SKL is a history-creating text that simplifies political and chronological relationships, mixing fact and fiction, to create a very specific discourse of rotating hegemony in the land. And second, the matter of Ur-Namma’s origins rests on clever, but highly uncertain restorations of a fragmentary inscription. I am inclined to follow Wilcke’s lead on this, but remain cautious. Another matter that requires discussion here is the temporal relationship between Gudea and the Awan ruler Puzur-Inšušinak, who created a powerful and extensive polity in the Iranian highlands and in Susiana, spreading his reach into the Diyala region and even into Babylonia, to the area south of Kiš.25 His occupation forces were expelled from there by Ur-Namma early in his reign. Steinkeller (1988: 52-53, and 2013a: 298-302) has speculated that Ur-Namma waged war against Puzur-Inšušinak in tandem with Gudea, but if the scheme adopted here has any validity, this would not be possible. There is only one likely synchronism between the family of Puzur-Inšušinak and Lagaš: the mention of men designated as d u m u š i m - b i - i š - ( h u ) - ( m e ) in two administrative texts, most probably from the time of Gudea.26 As Steinkeller (1988: 53 n. 21, 2013a: 299) felicitously observed, this must be the name of Puzur-Inšušinak’s father, Šimbišhuk.27 Because

––––––––––––– 23. See also Sallaberger and Schrakamp, in press, who observe that it is also possible that Lagaš scribes may have used the local royal designation ensi for lugal. 24. The fragmentary inscription, which is in Baghdad and cannot be collated at the present time, is dedicated the goddess Ningal in honor of Utu-heĝal by a general (KIŠ.NITA) named u r - […], who may have been his brother (l. 14 restored as š [ e š ] , “brother,” by Wilcke 1974: 192-194 n. 67). See, most recently, Frayne 1993: 295-296. It is significant that the two(!) stele fragments in question were found at Ur (Reade 1996). 25. While I was completing this section Piotr Steinkeller was kind enough to send me a manuscript of an important detailed analysis of Puzur-Inšušinak’s reign that paints a very different political and chronological portrait (now Steinkeller 2013a). 26. MVN 10 92: ii.1'-4' and RTC 249: ii.2'-5'. 27. The father is attested in Puzur-Inšušinak’s own inscriptions (e.g. André and Salvini 1989: 65 l. 6) but is absent from the Awan and Šimaški king list.

184

PIOTR MICHALOWSKI

he was working with the idea that Ur-Namma and Gudea were responsible for the defeat of the Awan king, Steinkeller hypothesized that they were prisoners of war, brought to Girsu after the victory over Puzur-Inšušinak. Other explanations are possible, however. The forces of Lagaš were active in the highlands during the reign of Gudea and their presence there lasted long enough for them to build and dedicate a chapel to the goddess Nanše in Adamdun (Steve 2001). The nature of this presence is unknown; it could be military but that is only a supposition based on the presence of a dedicatory tablet that was not found in situ by archaeologists. Whatever the case may be, if all of this took place before Ur-Namma’s wars, it is equally possible to postulate that Gudea’s reign has to be placed during the time of the father of the Awan ruler, before, or only partially overlapping with the rise and fall of the large polity to the east. As a corollary of this, Puzur-Inšušinak’s hegemony in Susa and the highlands was relatively short-lived, as were so many of the more extensive one-ruler states of the early Near East. And then there is the matter of Ur. Five pieces of information, four of them already mentioned above, shed some dim light on the matter. First, during the reign of Ur-Ba’u, Lagaš was allowed to appoint the high priestess of the moon god at Ur. This could not have happened if the two polities were of equal rank. Second, as already mentioned above, an ensi of Ur is mentioned in two Lagaš texts possibly dating to the time of Gudea’s son Ur-Ninĝirsu, suggesting that Ur was subservient in some manner to someone else. Third, Utu-heĝal adjudicated a border dispute between Lagaš and Ur in favor of the former. Fourth, someone dedicated a monument to the goddess Ningal in Ur for the sake of Utu-heĝal of Uruk. Finally, during the first forty-eight years of Ur III hegemony, Ur, the capital city of the state, used the Lagaš calendar to date documents, suggesting that at some time before Ur-Namma, or perhaps early on in his reign, there was some important influence from Lagaš (Widell 2004). Once again, none of this would be probable if Gudea, Utu-heĝal and Ur-Namma were contemporaries. Looking back at all this, the contemporary documentation, fragmentary and random though it may be, suggests that the two or three generations between the fall of Akkad and the first consolidation of the Ur III polity witnessed a constantly shifting arena of changing political and military realities. Certain cities, such as Adab and Umma recognized some form of Gutian domination, although this too seems to have been different from place to place and time to time. Umma may have been briefly subordinated to Lagaš, only to fall prey to the Gutian Jarlagan, although the fact that such a person ruled the city does not tell us much about the full nature of this presumably “foreign” domination. Further north, the armies of Anshan controlled the area of the Diyala and around Kazallu for some undetermined time until they were driven out by Ur-Namma. It should be noted, however, that it is only speculation that Puzur-Inšušinak was still on the throne at the time that the armies of Ur repulsed the highlanders from that part of Babylonia, since the only text that testifies to this action – the Ur-Namma “Code” – does not mention any foreign ruler by name. The text only states that:

Networks of Authority and Power

185

At that time, by the power of my master Nanna, I liberated Akšak, Marad, Girkal, Kazallu, and their settlements, as well as Uṣarum, which had been enslaved by Anšan.28 In light of all this, we can only sketch the general outlines of events: Uruk and Lagaš had some kind of power beyond their own borders, the former under Utuheĝal, the latter under Ur-Ba’u and Gudea, while the rule of Ur seems to have experienced fluid levels of local control and various forms of domination. At times independent, at times somehow subservient to Uruk and Lagaš, Ur seems, from the information available to us at present, to have been the least likely candidate for the center of a new territorial polity that would encompass all of southern Babylonia. How was it that a city that was not completely independent and was under some form of influence or domination by Lagaš and other polities managed to turn the political situation around and ascend to preeminent status in Sumer and make its eastern neighbor merely a province in the new state?

5. Ur III Times The Ur III kings ruled the world by divine authorization. The founder of the dynasty justified his rule by a complex double sanction: the supreme gods An and Enlil bestowed kingship of the land to the divine moon, Nanna, and to his city Ur; in turn Nanna selected Ur-Namma to be king of his city. According to the words of the Code of Ur-Namma, (Wilcke 2002: 304, ll. 31-46): At some time after An and Enlil had given the kingship of Ur to Nanna, then to Ur-Namma, son of divine Ninsun, his beloved house-born slave, … did (Nanna) give the kingship of Ur. Similar language can be found in the prolog to the Cadastre of Ur-Namma (Steinkeller 2011a: 26, ll. 1-4): When An and Enlil looked selected (lit. looked with favor upon) Nanna and gave him the kingship of Ur, then did Ur-Namma … 29 The moon god was a heavenly bull creature, who ruled over enormous celestial herds of cows (Hall 1986), possibly mirroring in the transcendent sphere the herds of the kingdom of Ur. From the middle of Šulgi’s reign the earthly monarch participated in the divine world directly, when the king was proclaimed a god. Taking a cue from such claims in literary and inscriptional royal self-portrayals and from the large numbers of documents created by scribes and officials, scholars often assert that the power of the Ur III Crown was absolute, and that its strict and well organized political and administrative apparatus held a monopoly of power in the land. But such views have been repeatedly challenged of late. For example, Stephanie Rost (2011: 235-236) in a study of the organization of irrigation management in the Girsu province states:

––––––––––––– 28. Roth 1997: 16, passage in sources A iii.125-–134, C i.1-10. 29. Reading l. 1 as [ u ] d a n - n é d e n - l í l - l e d n a n n a - a š (rather than - r u m ) ; for a different interpretation see the original edition.

186

PIOTR MICHALOWSKI A number of different social groups participated in the maintenance of the primary canal which adopted various forms of labor organization in order to accomplish the assigned tasks. Only part of this particular irrigation works was organized directly by the state as stipulated by the prevailing models. Thus, it is reasonable to argue for a less articulated and unified irrigation management system of the Ur III period with a great degree of variation in the way the different tasks related to the performance of irrigation were organized and accomplished.

On a broader level, Steven Garfinkle (2008: 60), in a programmatic essay, questioned prevailing models of an oikos or patrimonial household economy to characterize the kingdom of Ur, as well as current opinions concerning the scope of organizational centralization effected under state control. He concluded: The Ur III state was centralized only in the sense that the crown was the locus for the direction of resources from throughout the state. In order to manage and direct these resources the kings of Ur relied extensively on local networks of power and authority that lay beyond their immediate control.

In citing these statements I by no means dismiss the sheer bulk of the resources, in labor and in kind, that were extracted from the provinces of the Ur III polity, nor the weight of the control that emanated from the center, directly and indirectly, over local elite systems of authority and interaction. Nevertheless, the structure of power and control was less monolithic than is often assumed, and the various overlapping networks, in order to function properly, were often fluid, with uneven concentrations and distribution of authority. This is hardly surprising; the complexities of internal power shifts and levels of fragility of empires are often commented on these days (Sinopoli 2001). Perhaps more important has been the shift from viewing power as emanating unidirectionally from the center of such state formations.30 As Lori Khatchadourian (2008: 161-17) observes, in a study of certain aspects of Achaemenid provincial control: Provincial autonomy cannot be explained solely as a skillful manipulation of local institutions by a “thinking, goal-directed center” …, but must also be understood as a solution to limitations on power, which imperial agents recognize as insurmountable. … Imperial incorporation is “actively constructed” in the “margins” (now hardly marginal) and through the actions of subalterns, who participate in the making of history.

One rarely reads of “limitations of power” in the context of the analysis of the Ur III polity. After all, the period appears to us, on the surface at least, as a time of unbroken acquiescence to the supremacy of the House of Ur-Namma and its administration. The first-known longer-term unification of Mesopotamia, under the dynasty of Agade, was met with repeated instances of strong local resistance, resulting in dangerous revolts against the Crown. It is important to stress that we know about this only because elements of the central government chose to announce their victories over rebels in their monumental public inscriptions. If those who made decisions about this kind of propaganda had preferred to suppress this

––––––––––––– 30. There are also indirect forms of “hegemony without sovereignty” as posited for third millennium Syria by L. Cooper (2010). Yoffee (2013) has also recently written about the limitations on power, in an essay that appeared when this article was in press.

Networks of Authority and Power

187

information in the media that has survived to our time, we would never know that these revolts had ever occurred. By contrast, Ur III royal writings offer not a single allusion to any dissent. But just as it is possible that some of the revolts against Agade described in the inscriptions may have been fabricated or exaggerated in the textual record for political advantage, it is equally conceivable that the Ur III period was not as bereft of internal strife as contemporary writings would have us believe. The modern historian faces such interpretive difficulties time and again. Consider, for example, the case of the badly documented but nevertheless extremely important case of one of the conspiracies against King Esarhaddon of Assyria in 670 BCE, an unsuccessful plot that apparently led to widespread executions among elites of the realm. Karen Radner (2003: 175), in an analysis of this event, was quick to comment on the fact that its sheer existence could not even be hinted at in royal inscriptions that celebrated the monarch’s achievements: not one of these texts contains any allusion to the plot against Esarhaddon, and hence, in the reconstruction of this episode, we are solely dependent on the references in chronicle texts and in letters as well as indirect hints such as found in the dating of archival documents. Thus, the case of the conspiracy of the year 670 is symptomatic for the problems that arise from a historical reconstruction that depends too heavily and uncritically on the testament of royal inscriptions.

Of course, the reigns of the Sargonid kings, including that of Esarhaddon, are much better documented, in narrative terms at least, than those of Ur-Namma and his descendants. With much less to go on, we must still look at the Ur III sources with some distrust. Indeed, others before me have suggested that things were not as peaceful in the kingdom as would appear at first glance. There are four episodes in the short century of Ur’s hegemony that may indicate some political disharmony, all linked together in one manner or another. The first, and perhaps the most elusive, concerns the nature of the death of King Šulgi, who may have been done away with in his old age, together with at least two wives, by one of the factions of the royal family (Michalowski 1977, 2013b, Vacín 2011: 100-105). In Girsu, it has been claimed, the governor Ur-Lama and his sons lost property status, and perhaps even their lives in Amar-Sin’s third year; and in Umma there is some evidence that the governor Ur-Lisi may have been deposed and even executed towards the end of Amar-Sin’s penultimate regnal year (Maekawa 1996a, 1997). But Heimpel (1997) has proposed a different interpretation of these events: the documents that Maekawa claimed were confiscation texts only refer to the return of holdings that came with the governorship and do not, in any way, testify to any unnatural end of the lives of Ur-Lama and Ur-Lisi.31 Finally, in Nippur the well-known family of Ur-Meme temporarily lost its grip on the control of the Inanna temple during the reign of that same king (Hallo 1972, Zettler 1994, van Driel 1995: 393-394). The surviving texts provide no information on the political background of these hypothetical events, but one may speculate that they were part of a complex of social disruptions associated with the uncertainties

––––––––––––– 31. Stępień (2012) presents more evidence against Maekawa’s thesis, concentrating on the case of Ur-Lisi.

188

PIOTR MICHALOWSKI

of Amar-Sin’s tenure as a consequence of the complications in royal succession after Šulgi’s demise. Without new information there is very little more that can be said about these hypothetical fissures in the fabric of the Ur III royal family and associated elites. Nevertheless, these stories provide the opportunity to question once again the narrative of omnipotence and absolute administrative control exercised by the House of Ur.

6. Some Characteristics of the Status of Lagaš in Ur III Provincial Administration In a study focused on year-names used in Girsu, Carroué (2000: 190) suggested that the Lagaš province enjoyed a special status, perhaps even a degree of autonomy in the Ur III polity: Dès lors, il est difficile de dire si Lagaš jouissait d’un statut spécial encore au début du regne de Šulgi, ou si une certaine autonomie de fait était laissée aux cités qui avaient fait allégeance au roi d’Ur.

Such issues are, of course, quite relative. There are a number of matters to be considered here, hinging on what we know of Ur III provincial organization. Almost all of our pertinent information is derived from the archives of the two largest such entities, Umma and Lagaš, but there is limited information on the other provinces of the state.32 As a rule, any city that had an appointed governor (ensi) is considered to be a “province,” but because of lack of data it is impossible to compare the organizational, geographical, economic, and military scope of governorships of Nippur, Ur, or Sippar with the two large southern provinces. Some of these organizational units encompassed only the city and its immediate rural environment, while others were undoubtedly more expansive with larger agricultural and pastoral hinterlands as well as rural centers of specialized craft production. But because the Crown had to rely so much on indigenous elites one can easily assume that the impression of uniformity that emanates from the standardized administrative textual material hides various degrees of autonomy and preservation of distinctive local traditions. Among the unique characteristics of the Lagaš province, the following stand out and at first glance appear to confirm Carroué’s assumption about its “special status” or relative autonomy within the kingdom: 1. As already noted above, during the time of Ur-Namma the persons ruling at Girsu owed some form of allegiance to Ur; they dated the first year of their tenure by their own year name and then proceeded to use the year-dates of Ur-Namma. 2. As also described above, in certain types of large accounts the name of the current ruler/governor of Girsu precedes the Ur year name in the date of the text. This tradition antecedes Ur-Namma but continues throughout the Ur III period.

––––––––––––– 32. On the Umma province and on provincial administration in general, see Sharlach 2004 and Vanderroost 2013; on Lagaš see de Maaijer 1998.

Networks of Authority and Power

189

3. Ur III protocol required that governors bear titles associated with the central city of a given province, and so in accounts from the central redistribution center at Puzriš-Dagan and elsewhere, including official documents from their own territory, the governors of Girsu/Lagaš were called ensi Girsu, just as governors of Umma were described as ensi Umma etc. However, on their own territory in dedicatory inscriptions and in the seal inscriptions of their underlings the Girsu governors uniquely designated themselves not as ensi Girsu but as ensi Lagaša (Michalowski 2011: 70). This was the standard old title used by the self-governing kings of Lagaš; exploiting the ambiguity in the semantic range of the term ensi, which in local political parlance was the standard word for “king,” but in Ur III official terminology designated an appointed governor, the heads of the province invoked in earlier times, when Lagaš was independent. In this context one must note Claudia Fischer’s (1997: 140) important observation that unlike in other provinces, the Girsu governors never used the title ensi in their own seals, in contrast to those of their subordinates who were eager to express their allegiance to their ensi. The reasons for this are difficult to discern, but they may be related to the ambiguity of the term in the political language of their domain, so that the suppression of the word may carry symbolic meaning, negotiating between the requirements of the Crown and those of local elite power. 4. In Ur III Girsu there was an active commemoration of rulers/governors, most prominently the family of Ur-Ba’u, that is of the rulers and governors who followed him and joined his kin group by marriage. In addition, two rulers who came before Ur-Ba’u, namely Ur-Ninĝirsu I and Piriĝme, were likewise celebrated by offerings. One of the best examples of this veneration is an account of goods for the mortuary rites ( k i - a - n a ĝ ) of Gudea and for Piriĝme, Ur-Ba’u, Ur-Ninĝirsu, and Nammahani (Perlov 1980). Although the nature of the offerings for all of these persons is not specified, it most probably is associated with mortuary rites, as is specified for Gudea earlier in the document. This hypothesis is further supported by the information contained in another Girsu account that lists offerings of a single sheep for various deities on the occasion of a festival for the goddess Lisina and for Ur-Ninĝirsu I, Piriĝme, Ur-Ba’u, Gudea, Ur-Ninĝirsu II, Ur-GAR, Ur-aba, UrMama, Nammahani, and others. All of this is summarized with the word k i - a n a ĝ (Maeda, ASJ 10 19, BM 18474: r. 5). This tablet is undated, but was probably redacted some time during the early or middle part of Šulgi’s reign, because Gudea’s name lacks the divine determinative. The term k i - a - n a ĝ refers to an offering place where a variety of foodstuffs were provided for the dead, “it is a kind of cultic institution, as it can have its own staff, among them priests” (Jagersma 2007: 296). Other texts sporadically refer to the commemoration of Girsu rulers/governors, and it is apparent that this veneration included not only the independent kings such as Ur-Ba’u and Gudea, the early heads of Lagaš from the time of Ur-Namma, but also later governors of the province. A fine example of this is MVN 9 87, dated to the seventh year of Šu-Sin’s reign. This long account lists offerings of fruit for Ur-Ninĝirsu I, Ur-Ba’u, Gudea, Ur-GAR, as well as the first two attested governors

190

PIOTR MICHALOWSKI

of Girsu under Šulgi: Lu-kirizal and Ur-Lama.33 Among the other persons listed some cannot be identified, but they are most probably wives and children of the governors. One person named is Hala-Lama (r.vii.7). While a number of people by that name appear in Ur III documents, this is undoubtedly the daughter of the governor Lu-kirizal, who commissioned a votive inscription in honor of King Šulgi.34 Earlier in the document offerings are made for one Namerešanidu (r.i.47), who was probably Lu-kirizal’s wife.35 This shows that the whole range of rulers and governors of Lagaš, together with close family members, were commemorated by rites and offerings throughout the Ur III period. In general, offerings of this type were described as taking place at the “funerary offering places of kings/governors,”36 but in this case the activities are described as “offerings to the gods.”37 A full study of this phenomenon is clearly required, but this lies outside the parameters of the present essay. Against this background it is particularly trenchant that the name of Nammahani was partially erased in four dedicatory texts on votive vessels and on a ceremonial mace-head. This has led to the notion that his memory was erased as well,38 but it is impossible to establish when these erasures took place. In Ur III times Nammahani was not forgotten. A constant reminder of his existence was inscribed in the landscape in the form of the name of an important watercourse, the “Nammahani (Namhani) canal.”39 It is attested seven times in texts from Umma and Girsu.40 It was clearly an important watercourse and unless it was named after the pre-Ur III Umma ruler or governor from the time of Jarlagan, it must have commemorated the Nammahani who was the son-in-law of Ur-Ba’u (Steinkeller 2011b: 380). A prominent economic entity in Ur III Girsu, with large agricultural holdings, was designated as é n a m - h a - n i , “institutional estate of Nammahani,”41 and his mortuary cult is also attested in the city (Neumann 1998). While there were a number of people by that name in Ur III Girsu, there can be

––––––––––––– 33. Ur-Lama was celebrated, alongside divine Gudea, with ritual twice a month; see p. 23 below. Other texts that document his funerary commemoration include ITT 5 6823: 7-8 (alongside Gudea, ŠS 8/vi/16) and NYPL 391: r.i.13-14 (alongside Šulgi, IS 2/-/-). 34. Frayne 1997: 203, Maekawa 1996b: 177 n. 8. See also MTBM 197: 1-3 (Š 47/v/-), where HalaBa’u and one Nammah-Ba’u are designated as d u m u é n s i - k e 4 - n e , “children of governor(s).” 35. See TCTI 1 731: iii.10: n a m - e r e š - [ a - n i - d u 1 0 ] d a m l ú - [ k ì r i - z a l ] , if the restoration is correct. 36. k i - a - n a ĝ é n s i - k e 4 - n e : MTBM 226: 3; HSS 4 52: 14; ITT 5 10010: r.i.3'-4'; TÉL 278: 2-3 ( n í ĝ - d a b 5 k . ) ; MVN 22 178: r.i.6' ( s á - d u g 4 n í ĝ - e z e m - m a k i - a - n a ĝ é n s i - k e 4 - n e ) and possibly MVN 22 182: r.ii'.3' ( [ s ] á - d u g 4 n í ĝ - e z e m - m a d i ĝ i r - r e - n e ù e n - e n é n s i - k e 4 - n e ) . 37. s á - d u g 4 d i ĝ i r - r e - n e (r.ix.44'). 38. For example, Šileiko 1921: 138; Perlov 1980: 79; Edzard 1997: 194, who notes that it was probably “enacted by a conquering army.” 39. The landscape also preserved the memory of Ur-Ninĝirsu I in the name of an orchard ( ĝ i š k i r i 6 u r - d n i n - ĝ í r - s u g u - l a : HSS 4 10: r. i 20; Amherst 54: 5; HLC 1 100 pl. 17: 13). Other orchards may have been named after rulers, but the existence of individuals with the same names makes it impossible to determine if this is indeed the case. 40. Girsu: MVN 6 465: 3; MVN 7 307: 2; Umma: BPOA 1 1558, OrSP 47-49 382: r.ii.5, SNAT 435: 4, UTI 4 2393: 2, BPOA 6 909: r.7, BPOA 2 2685: r.10'. 41. Perhaps all of the deceased kings had institutional estates (or “temples”); see, for example é p i r i ĝ - m è (TCTI 3186: 4), é ur-dba-ú (Fish, Iraq 5, 73 21: 14; also mentions the institutional estate of Gudea]); é u r - d n i n - ĝ í r - s u d u m u g ù - d é - a (MVN 22 196: 23).

Networks of Authority and Power

191

little doubt that this estate was named for the ruler in question. The numerous references – over one hundred – to the Nammahani estate range from Šulgi 33 (Maekawa, ASJ 17, 208 102: r.ii.14) to Ibbi-Sin 2 (TCTI 2 3521: r.21), covering the best documented half of the Ur III period.42 The two biggest institutional estates in Girsu were those of the deities Ninĝirsu and Ninkimar, followed in size rank by those of Šulgi and Nanše (Maekawa 1996b: 176). The estate of Nammahani occurs in documents alongside all of these, most prominently in association with the one of Šulgi, signaling its economic and social status in the city of Girsu.43 The most prominent commemorative cult was centered on Gudea. There were important differences, however, between the cult and remembrance of other local leaders and that of Gudea, who alone was treated as a god alongside Šulgi, with the divine determinative before his name.44 His funerary cult is mentioned more often than that of any other ruler; there is evidence for at least one important sanctuary in his honor, with mention of his statues, chariot, and possibly a sacred musical instrument.45 There was a “mouth-opening” ceremony for his statue each year during the third month; moreover, Gudea and the later Ur III governor UrLama both received regular offerings twice a month at their mortuary chapels.46 Gudea was also commemorated elsewhere in the Lagaš province in Ur III times. An undated tablet lists offerings in the temple of Nanše in Nina, including to Gudea and his statue, followed by the Nanše’s instrument Abhinun.47 This instrument, possibly a tigi drum, was associated with Gudea in the poem The Nanše Hymn. This is all the more extraordinary in light of Maekawa’s (1996a: 121-123) contention that the end of Ur-Lama’s eighteen or so years as governor of the Girsu province was not a peaceful one and ended with confiscations of property, including real estate, belonging to him and to members of his family. If Ur-Lama and his sons met their death at the order of King Amar-Sin, then his posthumous commemoration, alongside Gudea, can only be explained as a continuing deliberate oppositional activity. As must be taken into account, but there can be no doubt that Ur-Lama, his seven sons and a daughter all lost power at some moment dur-

––––––––––––– 42. For an overview see Maekawa 1986. There are also two occurrences of an é - g a l n a m - h a - n i (MVN 9 99: 6 [Š 42/-/-]; STA 24: ii.5 [Š 43/v/-], possibly a reference to the same institutional estate. 43. E.g. TCTI 2 3521 (institutional estates of Nanše, Ningišzida, Šulgi, Nammahani, Ninĝirsu). 44. The earliest example is in the personal name l ú - d g ù - d é - a , MVN 7 184: 3, dated Š 34/-/-. I reserve a full discussion of the ideological aspects of this posthumous divinization for a different context (Michalowski 2012). 45. Temple: ITT 3 6369: 9; statues: MVN 9 116: r.iv.5', including mouth opening ceremonies ( k a d u 8 - h a ) : STA 8: 3, MVN 13 138: 5, etc.; chariot TCTI 2 3569 (note also ĝ i š g u - z a ĝ i š g i g i r k i - a - n a ĝ é n s i - k e 4 - n e š u d u 7 - a , HSS 4 52: 14); instrument (?): a Girsu account mentions ox hides for the chariots of Ninĝirsu and Ba’u, for the sacred drums ( u b 5 k ù ) of various deities, and then s a z a b a r of divine Gudea and Šulgi (HSS 4 52: 1, ŠS 2/-/-). It is not clear what a bronze s a is, but in view of the context, it may be another type of musical instrument (it could refer to jewelry, but the lexical equivalents s a = šukuttu [CAD Š/3, p. 237 s.v. šukuttu A] are probably based on the second element of g i l sa). 46. See Sallaberger 1993: 94 with Tab. 28 and 101. On Ur-Lama see now Molina in press-a. 47. MVN 17 59: i.15, 17, 19 ( d a b - h i - n u n ) . On the text as a record from the Nanše estate see Waetzoldt 1998: 64. The Ur III writing, which contrasts with OB á b - h i - n u n , shows that this has nothing to do with cows. On the instrument in the Nanše and Hendursanga hymns, see Heimpel 1981: 103-104.

192

PIOTR MICHALOWSKI

ing the third year of Amar-Sin’s reign (Maekawa 1996b: 177). Perhaps it is not coincidence that at that very same time the institutional estate of Nammahani was renamed as the “institutional estate of Amar-Sin,” but the original name was reinstated soon after his successor Šu-Sin took over the throne (Maekawa 1986: 9798).48 These events are only part of a series of institutional changes that shook up certain parts of the administration of the Ur III polity during the reign of AmarSin, only to be reversed or further elaborated after his death. Seal inscriptions document the history of a “cupbearer/steward of divine Gudea” by the name of Mani, son of Ur-Lama, although whether the latter was the governor of the province by the same name it is difficult to say.49 At least two of his sons held positions of responsibility and listed their father’s title in the cylinder seal inscriptions. The “cupbearer,” or “steward,” ( s a g i ) was a prominent cultic official in Ur III times (Sallaberger 1999: 186); Gudea aside, in Girsu such functionaries were associated with the living king and queen, with posthumous commemoration of divine Šulgi, and with divinities such as Ninĝirsu, Meslamtaea, and Nindara. Personal names such as Lu-Gudea or Lugal-Gudea likewise celebrated the memory of the great king, and there are priests who tended to his mortuary cult.50 It is difficult to gauge the import of this posthumous “divinization” that mimicked the elevation of King Šulgi to the ranks of the gods. No other earlier ruler of Lagaš was awarded this honor, just as Ur-Namma, although he was Šulgi’s father, was also never ranked with the divine ones. Nevertheless, as noted above, there is one text that lists offerings to a good number of deceased Lagaš rulers, including Gudea, together with a broad range of gods and goddesses, and all of this is summarized as “offerings to the gods” (MVN 9 87). The veneration of all the dead Lagaš rulers appears, in the language of administrative records, to have sometimes been classified in the same manner as the cult of the hegemons of Ur. Thus one text, ITT 2 955, includes offerings to Gudea and Šulgi, while another one, TCTI 2 3819, lists Šulgi, Šu-Sin and Gudea. The clearest indication of local veneration of Gudea’s memory is the cylinder seal of one Ur-Šarura, which invokes the last king of Lagaš. The first attestation of Ur-Šarura’s career is in Amar-Sin’s seventh year, but his title at the time is un-

––––––––––––– 48. References to the Nammahani estate begin in Š 33 (Maekawa, ASJ 17, 208 102: r. ii 48) and run through AS 2/iii/- (HSS 4 4: r.ii.11) and restart in ŠS 2/-/- (MVN 9 161: 4). Mentions of the estate of Amar-Sin range from AS 3/i/- (BPOA 1 57: 2) to ŠS 3/xi/- (ITT 2 881: 8). 49. Mani is attested from Š 46/vii/- [MVN 12 32 and other texts] to AS 1/ii/- [MVN 12 325 and other texts]. Mani’s sons, while touting their father’s title in their own seals, did not follow him in the position as far as we know. Lugaldurdug was a “scribe” (MVN 2 261, ŠS 9/-/-, and other texts from the same year) and his brother Lu-Dumuzi does not list his profession (from IS 2/-/- [SNAT 169], which also mentions Lugaldurdug, to IS 5/vii/- [BRM 3 147]). On their seals, see Fischer 1996: 224. On this family see now Michalowski 2013a. 50. E.g. a g u d u 4 priest (RTC 401: i.14). There are also two references to an e r e š - d i ĝ i r celebrant of Gudea; in both cases the name of the deceased king is written without the divine classifier, even though in one case it follows that of divine Šulgi. MVN 17 59: r.i.4' and UNT 16: iii.19, both have dates broken. d š u l - g i appears in the latter in iii.15; the latter in 3'-4': [ . . . ] k i - a - n a ĝ g ù - d é - a , ù e r e š - d i ĝ i r g ù - d é - a , associating the e r e š - d i ĝ i r with the mortuary cult, although it is unclear if the offerings are for the celebrant or for her afterlife as well.

Networks of Authority and Power

193

known, nor is there any trace of his seal.51 Four impressions of a seal of his are known from the time of Šu-Sin, ranging from the third to the eighth year of the king, that is, more than two generations after the time of Gudea.52 The seal design is a classic Ur III presentation scene, complete with a seated figure holding out a cup – otherwise this is always the king of Ur – and it even includes the lunar crescent of the god of that city. But the figure with the cup wears the brimmed hat that is so characteristic of all known Gudea statues for which the head is preserved and also occurs on some other depictions of the king. It is noteworthy that the classifier before his name marks him as a god, but just like the deified monarchs of Ur, he is not represented with the horned cap of divinity. The structure of the inscription is also normal for elite seals of the time, but the surprise is the fact that Ur-Šarura identifies himself as a servant of King Gudea of Lagaš, and not of Šu-Sin of Ur: d

gù-dé-a, énsi, lagašaki, ur-dšár-ùr-ra, dumu ur-dsin, árad-zu

O divine Gudea, king of Lagaš, Ur-Šarura, son of Ur-Sin is your servant! There are numerous examples of the use of old seals in Girsu, but there can be little doubt that this is an Ur III seal in everything but the identity of the ruler. In a city that included a temple dedicated to the divine Šu-Sin, this seal cannot be dismissed as an aberration or the chance idiosyncrasy of one official. Indeed, Gudea’s ideal likeness is also carved on the Ur III seal of Lu-Dumuzi, the son of Mani, cupbearer to the deceased king (Fischer 1996: 228, Abb. 12). This seal is roughly contemporary with Ur-Šarura’s, since it is first documented in ŠuSin’s third year (TCTI 2 2569, ŠS 3/vi/-). The full design is not yet reconstructed, but what is available shows a presentation scene with a protective deity behind the as yet not visible likness of Lu-Dumuzi, who faces a seated Gudea, wearing his characteristic cap and flounced garment, who holds a rod. Behind him is the winged animal of his personal god Ningišzida, and high above in front of him is Anzu, the avian symbol of Girsu’s titular god Ninĝirsu.53 The rulers of Lagaš whose memories seem to be preserved in Ur III times came from a small number of kin groupings. Ur-Ninĝirsu I and his son Piriĝme were followed by Ur-Ba’u, whose origins are unknown. In his inscriptions he is described only as “born of the goddess Nin-agala” (Cavigneaux and Krebernik 2001). The Lagaš King List claims that he was a scribe in the employ of Ur-Ninĝirsu, but that is hardly reliable information. His son-in-law Gudea, who likewise offers only divine parentage but no earthly descent line, succeeded Ur-Ba’u. In turn Gudea’s son and son-in-law Nammahani claimed the title of ensi, but nothing is known about the family relationships of any of the other rulers and governors of Lagaš in early Ur III times. Nevertheless, the information that we have, limited as it may be, indicates that commemoration of earlier rulers involved the celebration of a whole

––––––––––––– 51. Maekawa, ASJ 19, 144 128: r.ii.17 (AS 7/-/-). 52. ITT 5 9827 (only seal drawn; according to Fisher 1997: 99 n. 7 it is ŠS 3; this requires collation), ITT 3 6636 (no copy; photo of reverse; YN clearly ŠS 6), ITT 2 4216 (ŠS 6/xi/-), LB 360 (unpublished, photo at http://www.cdli.ucla.edu/dl/photo/P388883.jpg). Fisher 1997 claims that the latter has a second seal that is different, but from what I can see from the photograph, it is just another impression of the one known from earlier tablets. 53. The significance of the rod in this scene will be discussed in a future work by Claudia Suter.

194

PIOTR MICHALOWSKI

set of elite kin groups linked genealogically and agnatically. The lineages of Piriĝme and Ur-Ba’u, which may or may not have been related, were augmented by the kin groups of Gudea, Ur-aba and Nammahani, as well as possibly others, who married into the family of the latter. The power invested in these elite kin groups clearly did not die out with the coming of the outside dominance of Ur-Namma and his descendants, but was recognized and celebrated in Girsu. Here kingship and kinship come into alliance: many, if not most of the rulers of Lagaš after Ur-Ba’u were affines – they had married his daughters. This is certainly the case with Gudea, Ur-aba and Nammahani, even if his son Ur-Ninĝirsu briefly followed Gudea on the throne. Rather than perpetuate one direct, closed descent group, these “stranger-kings” brought into the orbit of power other lineages and other extended elite kin groupings. This process of local diffusion of power was not limited to the independent rule of Ur-Ba’u and Gudea, but continued in times when the local ensi in some form or another recognized the hegemony of Ur. The Lagaš tradition of revering pre-Ur III rulers does appear to be unique, but this may be a function of source distribution. Indeed, texts mentioning the mortuary cult places of (former) ensi’s are more common at Umma than at Girsu.54 There is one text that provides some more detail on such practices in Umma: “a list of quantities of fish oil used for (the preservation) of images and other sacred objects in various localities” (Heimpel 1994: 72).55 The long catalog of deities includes d l u m - m a , a l - l a é n s i , (i.24 and ii.16, both in the temple of Damgalnuna) and l u g a l - a n - n a - a b - t ú m é n s i (ii.23, in the temple of Šara), as well as statues of Ur-Namma and Šulgi. Sallaberger and Schrakamp (in press) suggest that these may be deceased rulers of Umma. But there is one significant difference between the commemorative practices in the two provinces: there is no evidence in Umma of any memorial for rulers from times immediately preceding the hegemony of the house of Ur-Namma, or of governors who answered to the kings of Ur. Parenthetically, I should mention that it has been suggested that recollections of some form of tension between the Ur III crown and Girsu focused on the remembrance of Gudea may be detected in at least one Old Babylonian literary text. Jeremiah Peterson (2007: 277), in a discussion of the possible mention of the Lagaš ruler in the Sumerian language poem known today as The Heron and the Turtle, considers the possibility that this may “constitute a thinly veiled insult by the Ur III court regarding the prestige of Gudea’s preceding “dynasty.” He does go on to point out, nevertheless, that no such “insult” is detectable in any of the other second millennum literary texts that may come from the time of Gudea. Peterson (2007: 280-281) also proposes, again with caution, that the name of the second Ur III king, Šulgi, may also occur in the poem, albeit in fragmentary context, but I find the restoration of the royal name not fully persuasive.56 There is no doubt

––––––––––––– 54. See, in general Sallaberger 1993: 89-90. At the present time there are 16 occurrences, ranging from AS 4/-/- (MVN 1 231: iii.25) to IS 2/xii/- (Santag 6 340: r.i.36). 55. Förtsch, MVAG 21, 22 FH 5 (= G. Farber and W. Farber, ZA 91, 224) dated AS 1, partly discussed by Heimpel 1994: 72 and Marchesi 2006: 30-33. On Lugalanabtum in this text see Sallaberger 1993: 250 n. 1183. 56. With equal caution I would suggest reading d n i n ? - u r t a ! ? u r - s a ĝ d e n - l i l 2 - l a 2 - k e 4 rather than d š u l ? - g i ? etc. in the very worn part of UM 55-21-375 rev. v 5' (photo CDLI P257266), although I admit that the sign u r t a ! ? / g i ? is problematic and upon repeated viewing of the photo I am ambivalent

Networks of Authority and Power

195

that certain literary compositions such as the Nanše Hymn, which mentions Gudea and an official from his time, originated in Girsu and were used in Old Babylonian schooling in Nippur (Peterson 2007: 280 n. 1224), but it is impossible to estimate when this material was adapted for such instruction. It may very well be that the rediscovery of some of the Gudea period literary activity in Lagaš took place centuries after the dissolution of the Ur III polity. As W. W. Hallo (1973: 171) has observed, the Old Babylonian rulers of Larsa “imitated the ancient traditions of Lagaš, whose heirs they considered themselves to be” and this may be the context in which the Gudea poetic traditions were recovered by later generations. 5. The Lagaš province stands out in the power structure of the Ur III state because this was the seat of the office of the s u k k a l - m a h , the prime minister or grand vizier.57 The grand vizier was second in power to the king and had direct control over many matters, chief among them military and diplomatic affairs, including oversight over the eastern and north-eastern borders. Although such an office existed in a number of pre-Ur III polities, the tradition that was taken over by UrNamma and his followers apparently derived from Lagaš. There was a grand vizier under Gudea, but his name is not recorded; a certain Bazi held that function during the following reign of Ur-Ninĝirsu. Under Nammahani the function was in the hands of Ur-aba, son of one Utu-kam.58 During the middle of Šulgi’s reign Lani held this office, followed by his son Ur-Šulpae, and some time after Šulgi 36, by his grandson Arad-Nanna (Aradĝu). The latter was the s u k k a l - m a h right down to the beginning of Ibbi-Sin’s reign, guiding the hands of Šulgi, Amar-Sin, Šu-Sin, and Ibbi-Sin. Although he came from a powerful Lagaš lineage, he was allied to the royal house by marriage: his wife was a princess and one of his daughters married a prince of the house of Ur. During the seventh year of Amar-Sin he also took over the governorship of the Lagaš province. The reasons for this appointment are unknown, but the position of the province as the gateway to many of the routes into the highlands made it the perfect place to situate the leadership of the military apparatus of the state. As Lafont (2009: 21) put it: If we are not misled by the random distribution of our sources and in particular by the fact that we do not have any central archive, it appears that this province of Girsu played a military role in the kingdom greater than that of its neighbors.

From this time on, Arad-Nanna’s power appears to grow substantially, as evidenced by his well-known inscriptions from the temple of Šu-Sin in Girsu, which was built under his leadership. According to this text, he is now not only the “governor” ( é n s i ) of Lagaš and grand vizier, but also military governor of a wide swash of border principalities in the highlands. The only other non-royal to hold comparable power in the polity was the king’s uncle Babati. Is it possible to relate

––––––––––––– and Peterson may have the better solution. The epithet u r - s a ĝ d e n - l i l 2 - l a 2 is documented as a designation of Ninurta (Šulgi R 51; Angim 8, Lipit-Eštar D 33, Ninurta B c: 29; Ninurta D 61-62 etc., but only once for the king [Šulgi O 25]). 57. For a more detailed exposition of matters described in this paragraph, see Michalowski 2011: 67-70; on the position of s u k k a l - ( m a h ) in Early Dynastic Umma and Zabalam, see now Monaco 2011: 6-9. 58. Frayne 1997: 203. The suggestion in Michalowski 2011: 67 that this may be the same person as the ensi by that name should be disregarded.

196

PIOTR MICHALOWSKI

the rise of Arad-Nanna in Lagaš with the various other matters discussed here that also took place in the time of Šu-Sin: the restitution of the estate of Nammahani, the commemoration of Ur-Lama, and the resurgence in the celebration of the memory of Gudea? 6. As has been repeatedly noted, Lagaš is the only province of the Ur III polity that pays more than one month of taxes (b a l a ) to the central authorities; indeed, its contribution ranged from two to four months a year.59 This is usually explained in purely pragmatic exploitative terms: the biggest and richest region pays a larger share. But, pursuant to the threads we are following here, one may also speculate that this too may be more voluntary than coerced, or even result from a mixture of the two, and may reflect the strategies of the Lagaš elites to participate willingly, and play a significant role in the functioning of the new polity and its territoriallycentralized forms of organization, in Mann’s terminology.

7. Conclusions Does any or all of this have any bearing on the subject of power networks? Consider, for example, the following comments of Claudia Fisher (2008: 73) on the seal of Ur-Šarura: The seal owner took the bold political step of having the king and the cup depicted on his seal, in association with the dead Gudea, while simultaneously calling himself Gudea’s servant. This must have been considered blasphemy by Šu-Suen and his officials. The seal is a remarkable example of strong tradition-oriented, regional propaganda against king and administration at a time when the Ur III Empire was showing the first signs of political decline. It commemorates the “good old days” of Lagašite independence.

This is certainly one way of interpreting the data, recognizing oppositional forces at work, in symbolic terms, at least. But it is equally possible to view these elusive strands of evidence as symptoms of constantly shifting strands of autonomous power vested in the elites of the Lagaš province, strands that may go back to concessions that accompanied the birth of the Ur III polity. The characteristics listed above may not have represented symbols of resistance against central authority, but fluctuating rights to power that were negotiated at the time that Lagaš acquiesced to the hegemony of Ur and became the largest province of the realm. Seen in this light, the role of the grand vizier lineage and of its most potent member, AradNanna, growing from strength to strength, presiding over the richest province of the state, requires more research, forcing us to reexamine the way in which we conceptualize the power networks of the Ur polity. To return to the concept of overlapping networks of power, we can see how the Lagaš elites, including the governors, played distinctive roles within these power grids. Moreover, we must see the signs of autonomy in Lagaš, perhaps vested in a related set of kin groups – even if they are expressed only locally – as a counter dance to the shifting levels of authority of the Crown. On the other hand, the signs of concentration of military power in Girsu may indicate that local authorities were

––––––––––––– 59. Sharlach 2004: 67, 77 with earlier literature.

Networks of Authority and Power

197

heavily invested in the success of the central government, so that what looks like symbolic gestures of autonomy may be more properly viewed as adjustments to shifting levels of radiation of central authority and control. The difficulties of proper succession after the death of Šulgi, and the attendant complications that may have been played out throughout the relatively short reigns of his two immediate successors may also have played a role in all of this, but I do admit that I am on shaky ground here. Returning to Khatchadourian’s observations, cited above, one can interpret many of these moves as the actions of imperial agents who, recognizing the limitations of the power of the Crown, negotiate and construct their role in the state, skillfully navigating between the local and imperial power networks. One must stress, however, that in the final evaluation it is not any special status that is involved, and it may very well turn out that similar strategies were utilized in other administrative units of the Ur III polity, and indeed some of them do appear in the other large province, namely in Umma. Each one of them negotiated their own way through the power networks of the state. In this context it may be useful to invoke Mary Helms’ (1998: 4) acute observation that in pre-industrial societies hierarchy should not be confused with power and submission. That is to say, in the early Mesopotamian context, provinces of the Ur III state may have manipulated power networks and at various times may have resisted the Crown in various ways, but this should not be taken as oppositional local fervor, but simply as strategies of adjustment within a recognized social and political hierarchy. This should hardly come as much of a surprise. After all, as Philip Abrams observed (1988: 77), in a classic essay on the difficulty of defining the state: The state is, then, in every sense of the term a triumph of concealment. It conceals the real history and relations of subjection behind an a-historical mask of legitimating illusion: contrives to deny the existence of connections and conflicts that if recognized would be incompatible with the claimed autonomy and integration of the state.

If this is true, and if it applies well to our ancient polities, then traces are all we can expect to find. The official public texts will only serve to mislead us, as many before me have well seen. Their representational language is performative as well as descriptive, and seeks to both bolster and transform perceptions of contemporary subjects, but is directed towards future generations as well, creating rather than depicting history. It is a testimony to the talents of ancient media producers that so much of what we write as ancient history paraphrases their productions, and takes at face value their claims for control of the complex fabric of power networks that operates within and across the arenas of their states. But we, as readers, have an obligation to resist these claims, to unravel the rhetoric of power, and to avoid the seduction of well-tempered messages.

198

PIOTR MICHALOWSKI

Bibliography Abrams, Ph. 1988 Notes on the Difficulty of Defining the State. Journal of Historical Sociology 1: 5889. Adams, R. McC. 2006 Shepherds at Umma in the Third Dynasty of Ur: Interlocutors with a World beyond the Scribal Field of Ordered Vision. Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 49: 133-169. 2008 An Interdisciplinary Overview of a Mesopotamian City and its Hinterlands. Cuneiform Digital Library Journal 2008/1: 1-23. André, B., and Salvini, M. 1989 Réflexions sur Puzur-Inšušinak. Iranica Antiqua 24: 53-72. Bakunin, M. A. 2002 Bakunin on Anarchy, ed. Sam Dolgoff. Montreal: Black Rose Books. Beyer, D. 2006 Les sceaux de Mari au IIIe millénaire: observations sur la documentation ancienne et les données nouvelles des Villes I et II. Akh Purattim 1: 175-204. Bolsover, G. H. 1957 Ivan the Terrible in Russian Historiography. Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, Fifth Series, 7: 71-89. Bretschneider, J., Van Vyve, A.-S., and Jans, G. 2009 War of the Lords. The Battle of Chronology: Trying to Recognize Historical Iconography in the 3rd Millennium Glyptic Art in Seals of Ishqi-Mari and from Beydar. Ugarit Forschungen 41: 5-28. Briant, P. 1988 Le nomadisme du Grand Roi. Iranica Antiqua 23: 253-273. Buccellati, G. 1993 Through a Tablet Darkly: A Reconstruction of Old Akkadian Monuments Described in Old Babylonian Copies. Pp. 58-71 in The Tablet and the Scroll. Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William W. Hallo, ed. M. E Cohen, D. C. Snell, and D. B. Weisberg. Bethesda: CDL Press. Campbell, R. B. 2009 Toward a Networks and Boundaries Approach to Early Complex Polities: The Late Shang Case. Current Anthropology 50: 821-848. Canby, J. V. 2006 The “Ur-Nammu” Stela. University Museum Monograph 110. Philadelphia: The University Museum. Carroué, F. 1994 La situation chronologique de Lagaš II: Un element du dossier. Acta Sumerologica 16: 48-75. 1995 La chronologie interne du règne de Gudea, partie I. Acta Sumerologica 19: 19-51. 2000 Šulgi et le temple Bagara. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 90: 161-193. Cavigneaux, A. and Krebernik, M. 2001 Nin-agala. Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 9: 325326. Charpin, D. 2011 La scolarité de Qišti-Ea en l’an 11 de Samsu-iluna. Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires 2011/59: 62-63.

Networks of Authority and Power

199

Cooper, J. S. 1975 Structure, Humor, and Satire in the Poor Man from Nippur. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 27: 163-74 2008 Incongruent Corpora: Writing and Art in Ancient Iraq. Pp. 69-94 in Iconography Without Texts, ed. P. Taylor. Warburg Institute Colloquia 13. London: The Warburg Institute. 2011 Puns and Prebends: The Tale of Enlil and Namzitara. Pp. 39-44 in Strings and Threads: A Celebration of the Work of Anne Drafkorn Kilmer, ed. W. Heimpel and G. Franz-Szabó. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. Cooper, L. 2010 States of Hegemony: Early Forms of Political Control in Syria during the Third Millennium BC. Pp. 87-94 in The Development of Pre-State Communities in the Ancient Near East: Studies in Honour of Edgar Peltenburg, ed. D. Bolger and L. C. Maguire. Oxford: Oxbow Books. D’Agostino, F. 2010 Due nuovi testi dal British Museum datati all’epoca più antica di Ur III. Pp. 59-74 in Ana turri gimilli: studi dedicati al Padre Werner R. Mayer, S.J. da amici e allievi, ed. M. G. Biga and M. Liverani. Rome: Università degli Studi di Roma “La Sapienza.” Di Ludovico, A. 2008 Between Akkad and Ur III: Observations On a “Short Century” from the Point of View of Glyptic. Pp. 321-342 in Proceedings of the 4th International Congress of the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, 29 March - 3 April 2004, Freie Universität Berlin. Vol. 1: The Reconstruction of Environment: Natural Resources and Human Interrelations Through Time, ed. H. Kühne, R. M. Czichon and F. J. Kreppner. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Edzard, D. O. 1997 Gudea and His Dynasty. The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia. Early Periods 3/1. Toronto, Buffalo, and London: University of Toronto Press. Fischer, C. 1992 Siegelabrollungen im British Museum auf neusumerischen Tontafeln aus der Provinz Lagaš. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 82: 60-91. 1996 Gudea zwischen Tradition und Moderne. Baghdader Mitteilungen 27: 215-228. 1997 Siegelabrollungen im British Museum auf Ur-III-zeitlichen Texten aus der Provinz Lagaš. Baghdader Mitteilungen 28: 97-183. 2008 Of Seals and Cups. Pp. in 63-78 in The Growth of an Early State in Mesopotamia: Studies in Ur III Administration. Proceedings of the First and Second Ur III Workshops at the 49th and 51st Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, London July 10, 2003 and Chicago July 19, 2005, ed. J. C. Johnson and S. J. Garfinkle. Biblioteca del Próximo Oriente Antiguo 5. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas. Flückiger-Hawker, E. 1999 Urnamma of Ur in Sumerian Literary Tradition. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 166. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Foster, B. R. 1980 Notes on Sargonic Progress, Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia University 12: 29-42. Frayne, D. R. 1993 Sargonic and Gutian Periods (2334-2113 BC). The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia. Early Periods 2, Toronto, Buffalo, and London: University of Toronto Press. 1997 Ur III Period (2112-2004 BC). The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia. Early Periods 3/2, Toronto, Buffalo, and London: University of Toronto Press.

200

PIOTR MICHALOWSKI

Gadd, C. J. 1928 Royal Inscriptions. Ur Excavations, Texts 1. London and Philadelphia: The Trustees of the Two Museums. Garfinkle, S. J. 2008 Was the Ur III State Bureaucratic? Patrimonialism and Bureaucracy in the Ur III Period. Pp. 55-61 in The Growth of an Early State in Mesopotamia: Studies in Ur III Administration. Proceedings of the First and Second Ur III Workshops at the 49th and 51st Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, London July 10, 2003 and Chicago July 19, 2005, ed. J. C. Johnson and S. J. Garfinkle. Biblioteca del Próximo Oriente Antiguo 5. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas. Hall, M. G. 1986 A Hymn to the Moon-God, Nanna. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 38: 152-166. Hallo, W. W. 1971 Gutium. Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 3: 708721. 1972 The House of Ur-Meme. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 31: 87-95. 1973 Choice in Sumerian. Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society 5: 165-172. Hansen, D. P. 2003 Standard of Ur. Pp. 97-100 in Art of the First Cities: The Third Millennium B.C. from the Mediterranean to the Indus, ed. J. Aruz and R. Wallenfels. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art. Heimpel, W. 1981 The Nanshe Hymn. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 33: 65-139. 1994 ne-sag. Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires 1994/83: 72-73. 1997 Disposition of Households of Officials in Ur III and Mari. Acta Sumerologica 19: 6382. Helms, M. 1998 Access to Origins: Affines, Ancestors and Aristocrats. Austin: University of Texas Press. Henricha, J., and Gil-Whiteb, F. J. 2001 The Evolution of Prestige: Freely Conferred Deference as a Mechanism for Enhancing the Benefits of Cultural Transmission. Evolution and Human Behavior 22: 165196. Huh, S. K. 2008 Studien zur Region Lagaš. Von der Ubaid- bis zur altbabylonischen Zeit. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 345. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. Jagersma, B. 2007 The Calendar of the Funerary Cult in Ancient Lagash. Bibliotheca Orientalis 64: 289-307. Jones, R. 1999 Mann and Men in a Medieval State: The Geographies of Power in the Middle Ages. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 24: 65-78. Khatchadourian, L. 2008 Social Logics Under Empire: The Armenian ‘Highland Satrapy’ and Achaemenid Rule, ca. 600-300 BC. Ph. D. dissertation, University of Michigan. Kramer, S. N. 1954 Ur-Nammu Law Code (with Appendix by Adam Falkenstein). Orientalia Nova Series 23: 40-51. Lafont, B. 1993 Review of H. Steible, Die neusumerischen Bau- und Weihinschriften. Freiburger Altorientalische Studien 9/1-2. Stuttgart 1991. Bibliotheca Orientalis 50: 675-681. 2009 The Army of the Kings of Ur: The Textual Evidence. CDLJ 2009: 5.

Networks of Authority and Power

201

McMahon, A. 2009 The Lion, the King and the Cage: Late Chalcolithic Iconography and Ideology in Northern Mesopotamia. Iraq 71: 115-124. Marchesi, G. 2006 LUMMA in the Onomasticon and Literature of Ancient Mesopotamia. History of the Ancient Near East / Studies 10. Padua: S.a.r.g.o.n. Maaijer, R. de 1998 Land Tenure in Ur III Lagaš. Pp. 50-73 in Landless and Hungry: Access to Land in Early and Traditional Societies. Proceedings of a Seminar held in Leiden, 20 and 21 June, 1996, ed. B. Haring and R. de Maaijer. CNWS Publications 67. Leiden: Research School CNWS, Leiden University. Maeda, T. 1988 Two Rulers by the Name Ur-Ningirsu in Pre-Ur III Lagash. Acta Sumerologica 10: 19-35. Maekawa, K. 1986 The Agricultural Texts of Ur III Lagash of the British Museum (IV). Zinbun 21: 91157. 1996a Confiscation of Private Properties in the Ur III Period: A Study of é-dul-la and nígGA. Acta Sumerologica 18: 103-168. 1996b The Governor’s Family and the ‘Temple Households’ in Ur III Girsu. Pp. 171-179 in House and Households in Ancient Mesopotamia: Papers Read at the 40e, Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale Leiden, July 5-8, 1993, ed. K. R. Veenhof. PIHANS 78. Leiden and Istanbul: NINO. 1997 Confiscation of Private Properties in the Ur III Period: A Study of é-dul-la and nígGA (2). Supplement 1. Acta Sumerologica 19: 273-291. Malesevic, S. 2006 Violence, Power and Nation-States: A Sociological Assessment. Tensões Mundiais 2: 48-77. Mann, M. 1984 The Autonomous Power of the State: Its Origins, Mechanisms, and Results. Archives of European Sociology 25: 185-213. Michalowski, P. 1977 The Death of Shulgi. Orientalia Nova Series 46: 220-225. 1980 New Sources Concerning the Reign of Naram-Sin. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 32: 233-246. 2010 Interpretation and its Discontents: Reading Ancient Mesopotamian Images and Texts. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Schools of Oriental Research, Nov. 19, 2010, Atlanta, GA. 2011 The Correspondence of the Kings of Ur: An Epistolary History of an Ancient Mesopotamian Kingdom. Mesopotamian Civilizations 15. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. 2012 Gilgamesh: The Early Years. Paper presented at the 222nd annual meeting of the American Oriental Society, Boston, March 17, 2012. Expanded version in preparation. 2013a The Steward of Divine Gudea in Ur III Girsu. Pp. 173-194 in Beyond Hatti. A Tribute to Gary Beckman, ed. B. J. Collins and P. Michalowski. Atlanta: Lockwood Press. 2013b Of Bears and Men: Thoughts on Šulgi’s End and the Ensuing Succession. Pp. 289325 in Literature as Politics, Politics as Literature: Essays on the Ancient Near East in Honor of Peter Machinist, ed. D. Vanderhooft and A. Winitzer. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.

202

PIOTR MICHALOWSKI

Molina, Manuel 2010 The Corpus of Neo-Sumerian Tablets: An Overview. Pp. 19-54 in The Growth of an Early State in Mesopotamia: Studies in Ur III Administration. Proceedings of the First and Second Ur III Workshops at the 49th and 51st Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, London July 10, 2003 and Chicago July 19, 2005, ed. J. C. Johnson and S. J. Garfinkle. Biblioteca del Próximo Oriente Antiguo 5. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas. in press-a Ur-Lamma. Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie. in press-b Ur-Ningirsu. Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie. Monaco, S. F. 2011 Early Dynastic mu-iti Cereal Texts in the Cornell University Cuneiform Collections. Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology 14. Bethesda: CDL Press. Newman, S. 2004 The Place of Power in Political Discourse. International Political Science Review 25: 139-157. Neumann, H. 1998 Nammaḫani. Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 9: 135. Paoletti, P. 2012 Der König und sein Kreis: das staatliche Schatzarchiv der III. Dynastie von Ur. Biblioteca del Próximo Oriente Antiguo 10. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas. Perlov, B. 1980 The Families of the Ensí’s Urbau and Gudea and their Funerary Cult. Pp. 77-81 in Death in Mesopotamia, XXVIe Rencontre assyriologique internationale, ed. B. Alster. Mesopotamia. Copenhagen Studies in Assyriology 8. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag. Perrie, M. 2001 The Cult of Ivan the Terrible in Stalin’s Russia. Houndmills: Palgrave Peterson, J. 2007 A Study of Sumerian Faunal Conception with w Focus on the Terms Pertaining to The Order Testudines. Ph. D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. Potts, D. T. 2010 Monarchy, Factionalism and Warlordism: Reflections on Neo-Elamite Courts. Pp. 107-137 in Der Achämenidenhof/The Achaemenid Court. Akten des 2. Internationalen Kolloquiums zum Thema “Vorderasien im Spannungsfeld klassischer und altorientalischer Überlieferungen,” Landgut Castelen bei Basel, 23.–25. Mai 2007, ed. B. Jacobs and R. Rollinger. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Radner, K. 2003 The Trials of Esarhaddon: The Conspiracy of 670 BC. Isimu 6: 165-184. Reade, J. 1996 The Utu-hegal Stele from Ur. Baghdader Mitteilungen 96: 229-234. 2001a Assyrian King-Lists, the Royal Tombs of Ur, and Indus Origins. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 60: 1-29. 2001b “Stela of Urnammu” Fragments in London. Revue d’Assyriologie et d’Archéologie Orientale 95: 175-176. Rost, S. 2011 Irrigation Management in the Ur III Period: A Reconsideration Based on a Case Study of the Maintenance of the íd-NINA-šè-DU Canal of the Province Lagaš. Pp. 211-269 in The Empirical Dimension of Ancient Near Eastern Studies/Die empir-

Networks of Authority and Power

203

ische Dimension altorientalischer Forschungen, ed. G. J. Selz and K. Wagensonner. Wiener Offene Orientalistik 6. Vienna: Lit. Roth, M. T. 1997 Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor, 2nd ed. SBL Writings from the Ancient World, 6. Atlanta: Scholars Press. Rubio, G. 2009 Scribal Secrets and Antiquarian Nostalgia: Tradition and Scholarship in Ancient Mesopotamia. Pp. 155-182 in Reconstructing a Distant Past: Ancient Near Eastern Essays in Tribute to Jorge R. Silva Castillo, ed. D. A. Barreyra Fracaroli and G. del Olmo Lete. Aula Orientalis - Supplementa 25. Sabadell: AUSA. 2010 Reading Sumerian Names, I: Ensuhkešdanna and Baba. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 62: 29-42. Sallaberger, W. 1993 Der kultische Kalender der Ur III-Zeit. Untersuchungen zur Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 7/1-2. Berlin: de Gruyter. 1999 Ur III-Zeit. Pp. 121-390 in Mesopotamien: Akkade-Zeit und Ur III-Zeit, ed. P. Attinger and M. Wäfler. Annäherungen 3. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 160/3. Freiburg Schweiz: Universitätsverlag. 2003/4 Schlachtvieh aus Puzriš-Dagān. Zur Bedeutung dieses königlichen Archivs. Jaarbericht van het Vooraziatisch-egyptisch Genootschap Ex Oriente Lux 38: 45-62. 2004 Relative Chronologie von der späten frühdynastischen bis zur altbabylonischen Zeit. Pp. 15-43 in 2000 v. Chr.: politische, wirtschaftliche und kulturelle Entwicklung im Zeichen einer Jahrtausendwende. 3. Internationales Colloquium der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft, 4.-7. April 2000 in Frankfurt/Main und Marburg/Lahn, ed. J.-W. Meyer and W. Sommerfeld. Colloquien der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 3. Saarbrücken: Saarbrücker Druckerei und Verlag. Sallaberger, W., and Schrakamp, I. in press Philological Data for a Historical Chronology of Mesopotamia in the Third Millennium B.C. In Associated Regional Chronologies for the Ancient Near East and the Eastern Mediterranean: History and Philology, ed. W. Sallaberger & I. Schrakamp. ARCANE 3. Turnhout: Brepols. Sauren, H. 1968-72 Une caravane sumérienne, Annuaire de l’Institut de Philologie et d’Histoire Orientales 20: 389-394. 1969 Zur Datierung Gudeas von Lagaš. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Morgenlandischen Gesellschaft. Supplementa 1/1: 115-129. Scott, J. C. 1989 Prestige as the Public Discourse of Domination. Cultural Critique 12: 145-166. Sharlach, T. M. 2004 Provincial Taxation and the Ur III State. Cuneiform Monographs 26. Leiden: Brill/Styx. Sinopoli, C. M. 2001 Imperial Integration and Imperial Subjects. Pp. 195-200 in Empires: Perspectives from Archaeology and History, ed. S. E. Alcock, T. N. D’Altroy, K. D. Morrison, and C. M. Sinopoli. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sollberger, E. 1954/6 Sur la chronologie des rois d’Ur et quelques problèmes connexes. Archiv für Orientforschung 17: 10-48. 1967 The Rulers of Lagaš. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 21: 279-291. Steve, M.-J. 2001 La tablette sumérienne de Šūštar (T. MK 203). Akkadica 121: 5-21.

204

PIOTR MICHALOWSKI

Steinkeller, P. 1988 The Date of Gudea. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 40: 47-53. 2003 An Ur III Manuscript of the Sumerian King List. Pp. 267-292 in Literatur, Politik und Recht in Mesopotamien: Festschrift fur Claus Wilcke, ed. W. Sallaberger, K. Volk, and A. Zgoll. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 2004 The Function of Written Documentation in the Administrative Praxis of Early Babylonia. Pp. 65-88 in Creating Economic Order: Record-keeping, Standardization, and the Development of Accounting in the Ancient Near East, ed. M. Hudson and C. Wunsch. Bethesda: CDL Press. 2011a The Cadastre of Ur-Namma. Pp. 25-28 in Cuneiform Royal Inscriptions and related Texts in the Schøyen Collection. Manuscripts in the Schøyen Collection, Cuneiform texts VI, ed. A. George. Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology 17. Bethesda: CDL Press. 2011b On the Location of the Town of GARšana and Related Matters. Pp. 373-389 in Garšana Studies, ed. D. I. Owen. Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology 6. Bethesda: CDL Press. 2013a Puzur-Inšušinak at Susa: A Pivotal Episode of Early Elamite History Reconsidered. Pp. 293-317 in Susa and Elam: Archaeological, Philological, Historical and Geographical Perspectives: Proceedings of the International Congress Held at Ghent University, December 14–17, 2009, ed. K. De Graef and J. Tavernier. Mémoires de la Délégation en Perse 58. Leiden: Brill. 2013b Corvée Labor in Ur III Times. Pp. 347-424 in the present volume. in press The Gutian Period in Chronological Perspective, in: Associated Regional Chronologies for the Ancient Near East and the Eastern Mediterranean: History and Philology, ed. W. Sallaberger & I. Schrakamp. ARCANE 3, Turnhout: Brepols. Stępień, M. 2012 The Economic Status of Governors in Ur III Times: The Example of the Governor of Umma. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 64: 17-30. Suter, C. E. 2000 Gudea’s Temple Building: The Representation of an Early Mesopotamian Ruler in Text and Image. Cuneiform Monographs 17. Groningen: Styx. 2010 Ur III Kings in Images: A Reappraisal. Pp. 319-349 in Your Praise is Sweet: A Memorial Volume For Jeremy Black from Students, Colleagues and Friends, ed. H. D. Baker, E. Robson, and G. Zólyomi. London: British Institute for the Study of Iraq. in press Gudea’s Kingship and Divinity. In Marbeh Hokma: Studies in the Bible and the Ancient Near East in Memory of Victor Avigdor Hurowitz, ed. E. L. Greenstein, M. I. Gruber, P. Machinist, and S. Yona. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. Šileiko, W. 1921 Assyriological Notes. Zapiski Vostocnogo Otdelenija Russkogo Arheologiceskigo Obszestva 25: 133-144 (Ассириологические заметки. I. Титулы SAL, NIN и SAL.MES LUGAL в документах XXVIII - XXIV веков; II. Надписи государей из дома Ур-Бау в русских собраниях: 1) Статуи Гудеи. 2) Надпись Наммахни. 3) Надпись Гудеа. 4) Цилиндр Ка-азага. 5) Надпись Ур-Гара.; III. Неизданная надпись Дунги; IV. Об одной ханаанской поговорке. Записки Восточного отделения Русского Археологического общества). Vacín, L. 2011 Šulgi of Ur: Life, Deeds, Ideology and Legacy of a Mesopotamian Ruler as Reflected Primarily in Literary Texts. Doctoral Thesis, Department of the Languages and Cultures of Near and Middle East School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London.

Networks of Authority and Power

205

Vanderroost, N. 2013 Organisation administrative du bureau de l’agriculture d’Umma à l’époque de la Troisième Dynastie d’Ur. Ph. D. dissertation, Université Libre du Bruxelles. van Driel, G. 1995 Nippur and the Inanna Temple during the Ur III Period. Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 38: 393-406. Volk, K. 2004 Altorientalische Tontafel, Keilschrift, ca. 2048 v. Chr. Pp. 29-31 in GratianusStiftung: Sammlungskatalog 1, ed. H.-G. Rösch and G. Straub. Reutlingen: G. Lachnemaier. Waetzoldt, H. 1990 Zu einigen Jahresdaten Urnammus. Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires 1990/1: 4. 1998 Die Göttin Nanše und die Traumdeutung. NABU 1998/60: 63-65. Whiting, R. M. Jr. 1987 Old Babylonian Letters from Tell Asmar. Assyriological Studies 22. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Widell, M. 2004 The Calendar of Neo-Sumerian Ur and Its Political Significance. Cuneiform Digital Library Journal 2004/2: 1-7. Wilke, C. 1974 Zum Königtum in der Ur III-Zeit. Pp. 177-232 in Le palais et la royauté (archéologie et civilization), ed. P. Garelli. XIXe Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale (Paris 29 juin - 2 juillet 1971). Paris: Paul Geuthner. 1989 Genealogical and Geographical Thought in the Sumerian King List. Pp. 557-571 in Dumu-e2-dub-ba-a: Studies in Honor of Åke W. Sjöberg, ed. H. Behrens, D. Loding, and M. T. Roth. Occasional Publications of the Samuel Noah Kramer Fund 11. Philadelphia: The Samuel Noah Kramer Fund, University Museum. 2002 Der Kodex Ur-Namma (CU): Versuch einer Rekonstruktion. Pp. 291-333 in Riches Hidden in Secret Places: Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Memory of Thorkild Jacobsen, ed. T. Abusch. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. 2011 Eine Weihinschrift Gudeas von Lagaš mit altbabylonischer Übersetzung. Pp. 29-47 in Cuneiform Royal Inscriptions and Related Texts in the Schøyen Collection, Manuscripts in the Schøyen Collection, Cuneiform texts VI, ed. A. George. Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology 17. Bethesda: CDL Press. Wolf, E. R. 2001 Facing Power-Old Insights, New Questions. Pp. 383-397 in E. R. Wolf, Pathways of Power: Building an Anthropology of the Modern World. Berkeley: University of California Press. Yoffee, N. 2005 Myths of the Archaic State: Evolution of the Earliest Cities, States, and Civilizations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2013 The Limits of Power. Pp. 253-260 in It’s Good to be King: The Archaeology of Power and Authority. Proceedings of the 41st (2008) Annual Chacmool Archaeological Conference, University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada, ed. S. Morton and D. Butler. Calgary: University of Calgary, Chacmool Archaeological Association. Zettler, R. L. 1994 The Genealogy of the House of Ur-Me-me: A Second Look. Archiv für Orientforschung 31: 1-9.

Prince Etel-pū-Dagān, Son of Šulgi* Palmiro Notizia CSIC, MADRID

The genealogy of the royal family of Ur, which has been tentatively established by Frayne (1997) and Dahl (2007: 31), assigns more than twenty sons to Šulgi. In the sources they usually appear under the impersonal title d u m u l u g a l “son of the king.” Many of Šulgi’s sons served as generals, especially at Uruk, but most of the princes never held important military positions or civil offices and are only attested a few times in tablets from Puzriš-Dagān and Girsu-Lagaš. The aim of the present paper is to draw up a biographical note on one of the best documented of them, namely Etel-pū-Dagān, by using the available data from the Puzriš-Dagān texts and the so-called messenger texts from Girsu-Lagaš.

1. The Anthroponym Etel-pū-Dagān In a messenger text recently published by Sigrist and Ozaki (2006), BPOA 1 244, one of the personal names (rev. 5) is transliterated as e - HU- p ù - d a - g i d u m u l u g a l . The two authors correctly underline the relationship of this name to the quasi-homonymous e - HU- p ù - d a - g e n 7 d u m u l u g a l (MVN 17 4: r.i.11). If it is correct, as it seems to be, to assign a reading t a l x to HU, 1 it follows that the prince in these two texts is non other than Etel-pū-Dagān (“Lordly is the word of Dagān”), son of Šulgi (Dahl 2007: 31), who appears in another messenger text from GirsuLagaš (MVN 11 110: r.10) as e-te-AL-pù-dda-gan d u m u l u g a l . Thus, we are dealing with a non-orthographic syllabic spelling of the divine name Dagān, lacking the divine determinative.2 Another text, MTBM 115, seems to confirm this hypothesis. Here again the sequence of the syllabograms DA-GIM indicates the divine name element in the anthroponym Etel-pū-Dagān (obv. 2: ì-TI-pù-da-gen7 d u m u l u g a l ) .

––––––––––––– * I am grateful to M. Molina, E. Salgues and W. Sallaberger who kindly read an early draft of this paper and offered helpful comments and suggestions. Needless to say, I alone am responsible for any and all errors. BM 21670 is published here by the kind permission of the Trustee of the British Museum. 1. Borger 2004: no. 132. For examples of the shift between RI and HU during the third millennium see Sallaberger in Ismail et al. 1996: 39 note 38 with previous bibliography. 2. The attested spellings of the god Dagān in third millennium are: ( d ) d a - g a n / d a - g a - a n (Ebla, only in personal names, see Pomponio and Xella 1997: 376-377); ( d ) d a - g a n / d a - g a n a n / d a - g a - a n (Sargonic and Ur III periods, see Waetzoldt 1985: 245; and Hilgert 2002a: 336). For an exhaustive treatment of the documentation relative to Dagān in third millennium see Feliu 2003: 7-61.

207

208

PALMIRO NOTIZIA Text

Date

Anthroponym

1.

MTBM 115: 2

-/vi/-

ì-tèl(TI)-pù-da-gen7 dumu lugal

2.

MVN 11 110: r.103

-/vii/-

e-te-elx(AL)-pù-dda-gan dumu lugal

3.

BPOA 1 244: r.5

-/vii/-

e-talx(HU)-pù-da-ge dumu lugal

4.

MVN 17 4: r.i 114

Š 47/i-viii/-

e-talx(HU)-pù-da-gen7 dumu lugal

Table 1. Etel-pū-Dagān in the Girsu-Lagaš texts

Particularly noteworthy is the spelling of this name (lacking the indication d u m u l u g a l ) in seventeen tablets from Puzriš-Dagān, dated between Šulgi 29 and Amar-Suena 3 (see Table 2). Considering that the prince was a well known figure and that there was no need to specify his patronym, it is therefore likely that he is the same Etel-pū-Dagān d u m u l u g a l from the Girsu-Lagaš texts.5 Text 6

Date

Anthroponym

1.

BPOA 7 2752: 7

-/x/-

e-te-elx(AL)-pù-dda-gan

2.

OIP 115 16: r.17

Š 29/xi/-

e-te-⸢él⸣(IL)-pù(KWU 418)-dda-⸢gan⸣

3.

PDT 1 459: r.3

Š 34/x/-

e-te-pù!(puzur4)-dda-gan

4.

BIN 3 347: 48

Š 36/i/-

e-te-pù-dda-gan

5.

Obermark, JCS 40, 237 8: 5

Š 37/i/-

e-te-pù-dda-gan

6.

Torino 1 50: 4

Š 38/ii/-

⸢e-te⸣-él(IL)-pù-dda-gan

7.

Torino 1 32: 3

Š 39/i/-

e-te-elx(AL)-pù-dda-gan

8.

Torino 1 182: 2

Š 40/v/9

e-te-elx(AL)-pù-dda-gan

9.

Newark Public Library 6: 7 (unpubl.)9

Š 44/i/20

e-te-él(IL)-KA-dda-gan

10.

MVN 3 200: 510

Š 44/i/30

d

da-gan-pù-dda-gan

––––––––––––– 3. Text collated by me in June 2008 and kindly collated again by P. Steinkeller in February 2011. Gelb 1957: 109 and Bauer 2009: 253 suggest a reading i l x / e l x for the sign AL. For other examples of the use of the sign AL in a context in which the sound /il/ is expected, see the spellings of the personal name Eštar-ilšu in Ur III texts: -il-šu (OIP 115 194: 1); -il6[AL׊E = KWU 774])-šu (Ontario 1 34: r.12); AL-šu (OIP 115 89: r.5); -DIĜIR-šu (OIP 121 100: r.4). Note that the sign in the copy of Ontario 1 34 is far from being a clear i l 6 ( AL׊E). For previous remarks on this sign in the Akkadian onomastics of the Ur III period see Hilgert 2002a: 255, 626, and Heimpel 2004: 253. Note also that in MVN 13 794 Eštar-ilšu d u m u l u g a l (see note 5 below) is written eš18-tár-ilx(AL)-šu while Etel-pū-Dagān appears as ⸢e-te! (⸢TA?⸣)-él(IL)⸣-pù-dda-gan. 4. Text collated in February 2006. 5. In MVN 13 794: 10 Eštar-ilšu d u m u l u g a l appears together with Etel-pū-Dagān lacking the indication d u m u l u g a l . 6. Text kindly collated in February 2011 by E. Jiménez. 7. Note the graphic variants used to render PÙ (KWU 428 = KA×KÁR; KWU 418 = KA׊U) pointed out by Hilgert 1998: 7. See also Krecher 1973: 204-206. KWU 418 is attested only in this text and in OIP 115 279 (texts nos. 1 and 3 in Table 1, nos. 3 and 13 in Table 2, and 2 in Table 3 are published only in transliteration.). Beside the spelling with PÙ the sign KA is also attested (see texts no. 9, Table 2, and nos. 4-9, Table 3). Hilgert 2002a: 334 note 75 suggests a reading p u 5 for KA (in the personal name KAum-wa-qar). I prefer to take KA as a logogram for Akkadian pû(m). 8. Text kindly collated in February 2011 by E. Jiménez. 9. Courtesy M. Sigrist.

Prince Etel-pū-Dagān, Son of Šulgi

209

11.

DoCu EPHE 290: r.2

Š 44/xiimin/- e-te-elx(AL)-pù-dda-gan

12.

Genouillac, Babyl. 8, Pupil 17: r.1

Š 45/i/7-10 e-te-elx(AL)-pù-dda-gan

13.

PDT 2 1035: 211

Š 46/iii/3+x

[x x (x)]-pù-dda-gan KAL (?)

14.

MVN 13 794: r.4

Š 46/xii/22

⸢e-te!(⸢TA?⸣)-él(IL)⸣-pù-dda-gan

15.

OIP 115 279: r.3

Š 47/v/29

e-te-él(IL)-pù(KWU 418)-dda-gan

16.

AUCT 1 327: 10

12

AS 3/i/5

e-te-él(IL)-pù-dda-gan

17.

AAICAB I/1 Ashm. 1910-737: ii.2

AS 3/i/-

e-te-él(IL)-pi?//pu?-dda-gan

Table 2. Etel-pū-Dagān in the Puzriš-Dagān texts13

Apart from the anthroponym discussed above, a name of the type “etel-pū + divine name,” or the like, is never attested in Ur III texts before Šu-Suen’s reign, when we find the examples listed in Table 3. Text

1. A 5031 (unpubl.): r.1514 15

2. KM 85.10.6 (unpubl.): 4-5

Date

Anthroponym

?

e-te-él(IL)-pù-dšul-gi

-/-

?

?

Provenance ? ?

d

e-te-él (IL )-[pù]- šul-gi diri

3. TLB 3 95: r.3

ŠS 1/xii

4. Syracuse 352: 4

ŠS 6/xii/23 e-te-el(KWU 792)-KA-dšul-gi

/- e-ti-il-pù- šul-gi

Puzriš-Dagān

5. Owen, ASJ 19, 209 27: 2

ŠS 4/ix/10

Puzriš-Dagān

?

Puzriš-Dagān

d

d

šu-dsuen-e-te-él(IL)-KA-den-líl

šu- [suen]-e-te-él(IL)-KA- en-líl Garšana

5. CUSAS 3 505: 6

ŠS 9/iii /15

d

6. CUSAS 3 507: 6 7. CUSAS 3 508: 6

ŠS 9/iv/4

d

šu-dsuen-e-te-él(IL)-KA-den-líl

Garšana

ŠS 9/iv/-

d

šu-dsuen-e-te-él(IL)-KA-den-líl

Garšana

8. CUSAS 3 509: r.13'

ŠS 9/iv/-

d

šu- E[N.ZU]-[e]-te-él(IL)-KA- en- Garšana lí[l]

9. CUSAS 3 1183: 6

ŠS 9/viii/-

d

d

d

d

d

šu-dsuen-e-te-él(IL)-KA-den-líl

Garšana

Table 3. Etel-pū-Šulgi, Šu-Suen-etel-pū-Enlil

With the exception of the evidence from Garšana there was not a standard spelling for that name type.16 From a merely statistical point of view, we can see an overwhelming prevalence in the spelling of etellu(m) with the variant TE-IL with fourteen occurrences, followed by the variant TE-AL with six occurrences.17

––––––––––––– 10. As noted by Waetzoldt (1985: 250 note 33), this is probably a scribal mistake. 11. Cf. OIP 115 86 (Š 46/ii/1): 7: [...] [ d d ] a - g a n KAL. Hilgert understands the name as Dagāndān (see Hilgert 2002a: 280). 12. Collated from photographs (CDLI P103172). 13. The data given in these tables supplement those found in Waetzoldt 1985: 250. 14. Cited by Hilgert 2002b: 46 note 54 together with TLB 3 95 as an example of the spelling e-teél. Note however that TLB 3 95 shows a clear TI (e-ti-il-pù-dšul-gi). 15. CDLI P235287. 16. D. I. Owen and A. Kleinerman (personal communication) kindly made me aware of the correct readings that differ from those in Owen and Mayr 2007 and Kleinerman and Owen 2009. 17. Needless to say, the proposed readings are based on the original copies and transliterations that I accept as “reliable,” not having had the opportunity to collate all the texts myself.

210

PALMIRO NOTIZIA Variants

Reading

Occurrences

1

E-TE-IL

e-te-él

14 (7 Puzriš-Dagān; 5 Garšana; 2 unknown provenance) 6 (5 Puzriš-Dagān; 1 Girsu-Lagaš)

2

E-TE-AL

e-te-elx

3

E-TE

e-te

3 (Puzriš-Dagān)

4

E-HU

e-talx

2 (Girsu-Lagaš)

5

NI-TI

ì-tèl

1 (Girsu-Lagaš)

6

E-TE-EL

e-te-el

7

E-TI-IL

e-ti-il (e-te9-él)

1 (Puzriš-Dagān) 18

1 (Puzriš-Dagān)

Table 4. Variants of etellu(m)

In all instances, this personal name typology is related to gods (Dagān, Enlil) or kings (Šulgi). This is not surprising given that the use of the noun etellu(m), is limited to divinities, sovereigns and to their divine attributes.19 The name dšud suen-e-te-él-KA-d e n - l í l , however, is somehow contradictory. Assuming that “etelpū + divine name/king name (DN/KN)” correctly means “lordly is the word of DN/KN,” should we then understand e-te-él-KA- d e n - l í l as a “celebrative” element attached to king Šu-Suen’s name (“Šu-Suen, lordly is the word of Enlil”), or should we tentatively translate the name as “Šu-Suen, lord of the word of Enlil,” accepting etellu(m) as a substantive? Both options are grammatically correct, thus we may theoretically suppose that they are equally likely here. Hilgert (2002b) recently collected the various Akkadian personal name types related to the deified kings of Ur III (kyriophoren Eigennamen in Hilgert’s terminology) and recognized three patterns in name building: 1. non-verbal name type; 2. stative name type; 3. verbal name type. Furthermore, he has established a relationship between thirteen of these Akkadian name types and the development of Ur III royal ideology, especially in connection with the figure of the king Šu-Suen. Being original and chronologically defined creations, they are not comparable with the well-known personal names in which the king’s name simply replaces the theophoric element (e.g. DN/KN-ilī, Nūr-, Puzur-, Šu-, Šāt-DN/KN). Kyriophoren Eigennamen Šu-Suen-nūr-mātīšu

Type (according to Hilgert 2002b) 4

Šu-Suen-inib-Ištar

5

Šu-Suen-lipit-Ea

5

Šu-Suen-migir-Enlil

5

Šu-Suen-migir-Ištar

5

Amar-Suena-narām-Enlil

5

Šu-Suen-narām-Enlil

5

––––––––––––– 18. For TI = t e 9 see Borger 2004: no. 118. 19. See CAD E, pp. 381-383 and AHw A-L, p. 260. Marchesi 2004: 194 notes that the Pre-sargonic name pù-AD is likely the abbreviation of a PN such as Etel-pū-DN, and accordingly reads it Pū-Abum “the word of the Father (is preeminent).”

Prince Etel-pū-Dagān, Son of Šulgi

211

Šu-Suen-nūr-mātišsu

11

Šu-Suen-takil-ana-Suen

11

Šu-Suen-wussum-iš-šarrī

11

Šu-Suen-ipallah-Enlil

15

Šu-Suen-iṭīb-šināt

18 a

Šu-Suen-lilabbir-haṭṭam

19 a

Table 5. Kyriophoren Eigennamen

As a matter of fact, none of the three-part name types “KN + X + DN”20 actually fits a “celebrative” pattern similar to the one proposed above. However, considering that the translation “Šu-Suen, lord of the word of Enlil” would imply some theological speculation that has no foundation in the present knowledge of Mesopotamian religion, as well as no parallel in the contemporary royal titulary, I am inclined to accept the standard translation “Šu-Suen, lordly is the word of Enlil.” By following this interpretation we are forced to assume that the element “Šu-Suen” is actually the attached one. It seems to have been common practise among the Ur III high officials to bear the name of the king in charge and to avoid that of the former king (Hallo 2003: 393). We can imagine it as a voluntary measure by which an official expressed loyalty to the new king. Sallaberger demonstrated that the cupbearer Lā-mahār (“Without equal”) changed his own name in Šu-Suen-lā-mahār starting in Šu-Suen’s fourth year of reign.21 According to Waetzoldt (2008: 247) another high official, Nūr-Šu-Suen, appointed by king Šu-Suen as general ( š a g a n a ) in Umma, possibly acted the same way. His name before his installation as general, as well as that of his servant Šu-Suen-kiaĝ-Šara, are unknown. The case of Šu-Suen-etel-pū-Enlil, who was not a high official of the Ur III administration, seems to stand in the middle. My assumption is that the addition of an invocation to the new deified ruler to the personal name may be evidence of a devotional practice that was adopted by the lower level of the society. In analogy to high ranking officials’ name changes after the accession of king Šu-Suen, lower status officials such as Etel-pū-Enlil, a name that is so far not attested, expressed their loyalty to the new king. In all probability in the case of Šu-Suen-etel-pū-Enlil we can speak of a Modename (Edzard 1998: 110b § 6.1.; Hilgert 2002b: 70). Indeed the name change may be valued as a consequence of Šu-Suen’s “extensive program of unprecedented self-representation throughout his entire realm” and may be related to the “changes in the way Šu-Suen presented his divinity to his people” (Brisch 2006: 164). And, I suggest, in the way his people manifested and responded to these innovations.

––––––––––––– 20. Šu-Suen-inib-Ištar, Šu-Suen-ipallah-Enlil, Šu-Suen-lipit-Ea, Šu-Suen-migir-Enlil, Šu-Suenmigir-Ištar, Amar-Suena-narām-Enlil, Šu-Suen-narām-Enlil, Šu-Suen-takil-ana-Suen. 21. Sallaberger 1993: 222 and note 1057; Sallaberger 1999: 154. Radner 2007: 31 note 174 recently argued that the official possibly abandoned his old name Amar-Suena-lā-mahār for the Kurzname Lā-maḫār and considered it opportune to change it to Šu-Suen-lā-mahār only after ŠuSuen’s consolidation of power.

212

PALMIRO NOTIZIA

2. Prince Etel-pū-Dagān 2.a. Girsu-Lagaš. Let us consider again BPOA 1 244, in which the prince receives a conspicuous allotment of wheat ( z í d - g u ) for personal consumption, as well as barley as fodder for his donkey ( š e a n š e g u 7 ) . The occasion is a round trip to the city of Urua, where he is directed in order to accomplish (as supervisor) the shearing of small cattle (úURU×Aa k i - t a u d u u r 4 - d è ĝ e n - n a ).22 As a matter of fact BPOA 1 244 is a MT1 messenger text that summarizes prince Etel-pūDagān’s activities over several days (Notizia 2006). A first expenditure of food is for two days ( u 4 2 - k a m ) , when the prince went to Urua (ú URU× Aa k i - š è d u - n i ) , while the second conisists of two sub-expenditures for multiple days: the first ( a r á 1 - k a m ) for eight days ( u 4 8 - k a m ) ; the second ( a - r á 2 - k a m ) for six days ( u 4 6 - k a m ) . The formulas a - r á 1 - k a m / a - r á 2 - k a m are not unusual in the messenger texts from Girsu-Lagaš and seem to be mostly related to round trips, when a rest station was probably in charge of providing the ration needed for the whole journey.23 Here the scenario is quite different because food rations for the first part of the trip are already recorded. Thus I suspect that a possible translation could be “for the first stop/for the second stop,” which implies that Etel-pū-Dagān stopped twice somewhere along the road. The last figure in the text is 60 silas of good quality wheat ( 0 . 1 . 0 z í d - g u s a g a 1 0 ) , but the food for the donkey is no longer mentioned and no further indication is provided, except the name of the prince and his mission ( ú URU× Aa k i - t a u d u u r 4 - d è ĝ e n - n a ). The amount of ration per day “for the first stop/for the second stop” is 40 silas of wheat/barley, slightly lower than that for the first part of the trip, i.e. 60 silas per day “when the prince went to Urua,” that is however the same figure – but not quality – of the last expense in the text. MVN 17 4, an account of food expenses for messengers in the Gu’abba rest station over a period of several months, provides us with a date, the 48th regnal year of Šulgi, for a chronological setting for the events described in BPOA 1 244. The text reads: r.i.10-12: 2 . 0 . 2 z í d g u r 1 . 4 . 2 š e g u r , e-talx-pù-dagen7 d u m u l u g a l , ú URU× Ak i - t a d u - n i . The total amount of ration recorded in the second part of BPOA 1 244 exactly matches that in MVN 17 4: 620 silas of

––––––––––––– 22. There are several Girsu-Lagaš texts that mention the same “mission”: BPOA 1 283 (ŠS 7/-/-): 1-2: 1 4 u d u s á - d u 1 1 l ú m a r - z a , u d u g u k k a l u r 4 - d è ĝ e n - n a - m e ; MVN 7 170 (-/x/-): 5: 1 0 d u g 1 0 s ì l a k a š s a g a 1 0 , r.1-9: s á - d u 1 1 u 4 2 1 - k a m , KA.KA.MU s u g a l 7 , 1 d u g 7 s ì l a DU, s á d u 1 1 u 4 1 0 l á - 1 - k a m , ù r - r e - b a - d u 7 m a r - d ú , 1 2 s ì l a k a š DU, s á - d u 1 1 u 4 4 - k a m , k u 5 - g u d a - a m a r - d ú , u d u u r 4 - d è ĝ e n - n a - m e ; HLC 3 162 pl. 103 (-/x/-): 1-7: 0 . 0 . 2 z í d - g u l u g a l , u 4 4-kam, árad-ĝu10 àga-ús gal, 0.0.2 zíd u4 4-kam, an-né-ba-du7 dumu! nu-bànda, p a l i l u d u u r 4 - d a - m e , 0 . 3 . 0 n i n d a m a r l u g a l u 4 4 - k a m , r.8-9: puzur4-eš-tár š a g a n a , u d u u r 4 - d è t u š - a ; RTC 340 (-/x/-): 1-4: 1 2 d u g k a š s a g a 1 0 , s á - d u 1 1 u 4 2 4 - k a m , šu-d n i n - š u b u r s u g a l 7 , u d u g u k k a l u r 4 - d è ĝ e n - n a ; Jean, RA 19, 40 21 (-/[x]/19): 3-5: 2 s ì l a k a š 2 s ì l a ⸢x⸣, 2 g í n ì , ma-ti-lí u d u u r 4 - d è ĝ e n - n a . 23. RTC 357 (AS 8/ii/-): 4-5, r.1-5: 1 0 s ì l a k a š s a g a 1 0 , a - r á 1 - k a m , g ú - a b - b a k i - š è ĝ e n n a , 1 0 s ì l a k a š s a g a 1 0 , a - r á 2 - k a m , g ú - a b - b a k i - t a ĝ e n - n a , a d - d a - ĝ u 1 0 s a g i ; DAS 162 (AS 8/xii/-): 1-8, r.1-5: 2 s ì l a k a š 2 s ì l a n i n d a , 0 . 0 . 1 š e a n š e k ú n g a g u 7 , 2 g í n ì - ĝ e š , a - r á 1-kam, 2 sìla kaš 2 sìla ninda, 2 gín ì-ĝeš a-rá 2-kam, 0.0.1 še anšekúnga gu7, da-a lú-ĝeštukul gu-la, 2 sìla kaš 2 sìla ninda, 2 gín ì-ĝeš, al-la-ĝu10 lú-ĝeštukul, gú-abbaki-šè ĝen-na.

Prince Etel-pū-Dagān, Son of Šulgi

213

wheat and 560 silas of barley (see Table 6). Therefore, I understand the text as follows: A. The first section of BPOA 1 244 records the expense for two days when Etelpū-Dagān stayed in a rest house or siKKum, different from that of Gu’abba, where he probably was assigned a donkey (Heimpel 1994). Here ú URU× Ak i - š è d u - n i simply means that the mission of the prince was to go to Urua, but this does not exclude that he could have moved to another rest station in order to start his journey. B. The second section refers to goods expended by the Gu’abba rest station for the whole trip to Urua, with the addition of 60 silas of good quality wheat assigned to the prince on the day he rested after his journey back from Urua. The fact that this is the only amount of ration computed in the seventh month section of MVN 17 4 seems to confirm my tentative reconstruction. The prince is attested with the same mission in MTBM 115, dated to the sixth month. Here the destination of Etel-pū-Dagān is the poorly attested city of Uqar ( u d u u r 4 - d è ĝ e n - n a ú - g à r - š è ĝ e n - n a ) .24 Moreover, MVN 18 391 should be considered. It is dated to the seventh month, the prince’s name is not preserved, but the connection to the same dossier seems clear: obv. 1-4: 0 . 0 . 4 š e a n š e g u 7 l u g a l , 3 d u g d i d a 0 . 0 . 3 z í d 1 s ì [ l a ...], d u m u l u g a l u d u u r 4 [ d è ] , ú URU× Aa k i - š e DU- [ x ] . In MVN 11 110 Etel-pū-Dagān does not seem to be in charge of a mission. However, this is because the copy actually lacks the line on the upper edge of the tablet: s i k i ú URU× Ak i à g a - ú s š ú m - m u - d è ĝ e n - n a “who has gone in order to give the wool of Urua to the soldiers.” This clearly depicts the ultimate scope of Etel-pūDagān’s round trip to Urua. The city of Urua, probably located north-east of Puzriš-Dagān, at a short distance from Susa,25 seems to have been held by Ninkala, one of Šulgi’s concubines, as her private estate (Dahl 2007: 18 note 63). An unpublished messenger text in the British Museum (BM 21670, see Appendix), kindly brought to my attention by Manuel Molina, records the same mission and provides new info: a) the prince is accompained by a certain Šu-Nisaba, the courier; b) the soldiers are described as à g a - ú s l u g a l “elite soldiers of the king.” The donkey is not mentioned because of the nature of the registration, which only records oil rations. Although the date is missing, BM 21670 may be dated with some confidence to the same month as MVN 11 110, i.e. to the seventh month.

––––––––––––– 24. Cf. SAT 3 1796: r.3: ĝ ì r i puzur4-dha-ià l ú ú - g à r k i . 25. Steinkeller 1982: 244-246. See also Michalowski and Wright 2010, and Molina forthcoming.

214

PALMIRO NOTIZIA

Fig. 1. MVN 11 110 (upper edge detail) MTBM 115 (-/vi/-)

MVN 18 391 (-/vii/-)

MVN 11 110 (-/vii/-)

BM 21670 (-/[vii]/-)

BPOA 1 244 (-/vii/-)

0.0.3 kaš saga10 0.0.3 ninda du8-a lugal 1 sìla ì-ĝeš 0.0.5 še anše kúnga gu7-a

0.0.4 še anše gu7 lugal 3 dugdida 0.0.3 zíd 1 sì[la ...]

0.0.3 kaš 0.0.3 zíd 0.0.4 še anše gu7

1 sìla ì-ĝeš

0.2.0 zíd-gu lugal 0.2.0 še anše gu7 u4 2-kam

MVN 17 4 (Š 47/i-viii/-)

ú

URU×Aa ki-šè du-ni

1.0.2 zíd-gu lugal 1.0.2 še anše gu7 u4 8-kam a-rá 1-kam

(r.i.10-12) 2.0.2 zíd gur 1.4.2 še gur

0.4.0 zíd-gu 0.4.0 še anše gu7 u4 6-kam a-rá 2-kam 0.1.0 zíd-gu saga10 ì-tèl-pù-dagen7 dumu lugal

dumu lugal

e-te-él-pù-ddagan dumu lugal

e-te-elx-pù-ddagan dumu lugal 1 / 2 sìla ì šud nisaba sugal7

e-talx-pù-da-ge dumu lugal

e-talx-pù-dagen7 dumu lugal

udu ur4-dè ĝen-na ú-gàr-šè ĝenna

ú

siki úURU×Aki àga-ús šúmmu-dè ĝen-na

siki [ú]⸢URU×Aa ki ⸣ àga-ús lugal šúm-m[u-dè] ⸢ĝen-na⸣-ne-ne

ú

ú URU×Aki-ta du-ni (r.i.23: iti ezem-dšul-gi)

URU×Aa ki-šè

DU-[x]

URU×Aa ki-ta udu ur4-dè ĝen-na iti ezem-dšulgi

Table 6. Etel-pū-Dagān in the messenger texts from Girsu-Lagaš

The connection between the city of Urua, the province of Girsu-Lagaš and the management of small cattle seems to be confirmed by the messenger text Owen, Mesopotamia 8-9, 19 (-/vi/-) in which the courier’s task is “to bring out the debt of the shepherds of Urua”: (r.9) l á - NI s i p a ú URU× Aa k i - k e 4 - n e è - è - d è ĝ e n -

Prince Etel-pū-Dagān, Son of Šulgi

215

n a . The personal involvement of a prince in the activities of wool processing and transport is documented in several messenger texts from Girsu-Lagaš (see Table 7). Text

Messenger

Mission

Note

TCTI 2 4112 (-/viii/16)

šu-den-líl-lá dumu lugal

mu siki-šè du-ni

URU×KÁR-a-taki-ta

Nisaba 3/2 7 (-/xii/-)

ur-dnanna dumu lugal ur-dlamma sugal7

diri siki-da ĝen-na

OBTR 87 (-/xii/-)26

i-din-dsuen dumu-lugal zú-si-šè ĝen-na

Nisaba 22 57 (AS 7/xii/-)

na-bí-den-líl dumu lugal ur-ĝu10 di-ku5 ša-ru-um-ba-ni rágaba 6 rá-gaba

a-hu-a sugal7 maškim!

lu2-mar-za zu2-si udu gukkal-šè ĝenna

Table 7. dumu lugal, wool processing and transport in the messenger texts from Girsu-Lagaš

In TCTI 2 4112 the prince Šu-Enlila returns from URU×KÁR “for the wool” ( m u s i k i - š è d u - n i ) ;27 in Nisaba 3/2 7 the prince Ur-Nanna and the courier UrLamma are on a mission “with the surplus of wool” ( d i r i s i k i - d a ĝ e n - n a ) .28 In OBTR 87 the prince Iddin-Suen, attested only in this text, receives abundant rations of assorted cereals “for the plucking” ( z ú - s i - š è ĝ e n - n a ) . Likewise, in Nisaba 22 57 the prince Nabi-Enlil together with Urĝu, the judge, Šarrum-bāni, the mounted courier, and six anonymous mounted couriers, are the “officers” on a mission for “the plucking of the fat-tailed sheep”.29 Finally, in the account DAS 51, dated to Amar-Suena 8, several herdsmen ( n a - g a d a ) provide a huge quantity of wool for textiles labelled as wool of the sheep of Taddin-Eštar and Ur-Ištarān ( s i k i u d u tá-din-eš4-tár d u m u l u g a l , s i k i u d u u r - d i š t a r a n d u m u l u g a l ) , respectively the daughter and the son of Amar-Suena, as well as “wool of the sheep of Abī-simtī” ( s i k i u d u a-bí-sí-im-ti), queen and wife of Amar-Suena, “in Girsu” ( š à ĝ í r - s u k i ) .30 Weiershäuser (2008) recently illustrated the interests of the female members of the royal court in animal breeding and the textile industry. As for Ninkala, one of Šulgi’s concubines, we know that she also held extensive flocks in the province of Girsu-Lagaš (Weiershäuser 2008: 222-223). Thus one cannot exclude the presence of royal flocks in the city of Urua partially controlled or administered by members of the royal court. As for the à g a - ú s ( l u g a l ) soldiers, the corpus of the messenger texts documents several missions that were entrusted to them aimed at animal and wool transport.31 This could imply that the à g a - ú s ( l u g a l ) soldiers of our texts were somehow responsible for the protection of the

––––––––––––– 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31.

The text has recently been re-edited as CUSAS 16 114. For Šu-Enlila son of Šulgi and probably general of Uruk and BÀD.ANki, see Dahl 2007: 19. Ur-Nanna is attested only in one dated text, HSS 4 85 (AS 5/viii/-). For the term l u 2 - m a r - z a see Molina 2013. Cf. DAS 53 (AS 8/-/-), an account of sheep belonging to Taddin-Eštar and Ur-Ištarān. See Notizia 2009: 162 s.v. g u 4 , s i k i , z ú - s i , u d u .

216

PALMIRO NOTIZIA

transport of the wool of Urua.32 Another option is to consider the wool as a ration distribution to the soldiers stationed at Urua. A garrison of professional soldiers may have been installed in the vicinity of the city, in accordance with the rise of military presence in the Susiana and in the border areas during the last years of Šulgi’s reign. This seems to be confirmed by the undated text BPOA 7 2350 from Puzriš-Dagān.33 2.b. Puzriš-Dagān. Etel-pū-Dagān, unlike some other sons of Šulgi, does not seem to hold any relevant position in the Ur III military and civil administration (Dahl 2007: 19). Some years before Šulgi 48, in the text DoCu EPHE 290 (Š 44/xiimin/-), the prince appears as the provider of small cattle from booty (n a m - r a a š a k a ), probably related to the campaign against Simurrum and Lullubum which took place in that very year.34 However, his role in the military operations remains obscure. Etel-pū-Dagān is attested at Puzriš-Dagān almost exclusively in the well-known Šulgi-simtī archive. The archive in question, which covers the span of time between Šulgi 29 and Šulgi 47, records deliveries of animals made by the most prominent dignitaries of the country and foreign personalities, as well as withdrawals for religious offerings and on behalf of various individuals (Sigrist 1992: 222-246). Within the administrative documents of the archive, Etel-pūDagān occurs both in texts recording deliveries35 and as recipient.36 The prince starts to appear in the archive in Šulgi 29 (OIP 115 16). OIP 115 279 (Š 47/v/29), the latest relevant text dated to the reign of Šulgi, comes from the Central Bureau of Puzriš-Dagān, when the Šulgi-simtī institution was still operational. In the first month of Šulgi 39 an unnamed “nursemaid” ( é m e - d a ) of Etel-pū-Dagān’s daughter donates a piglet ( z a h d a x z a h ) to the institution (Torino 1 32);37 the following year the unnamed wife of the prince receives three fattened sheep (Torino 1 182). Finally the household of Etel-pū-Dagān is attested in the first month of the third regnal year of Amar-Suena (AAICAB I/1 Ashm. 1910-737). AUCT 1 327, dated to the same year and month, informs us of a “bridewealth gift” ( n í ĝ - m u s s a ) to be delivered to the “Household of Etel-pū-Dagān.”38 The epigraphic data available concerning Etel-pū-Dagān are limited to what has been discussed so far. However, some considerations and hypotheses can be

––––––––––––– 32. It is worth noting that in BM 21670: 4-6 a certain Šu-ilī, the courier, has “to bring the wool of Sabum across the river” (s i k i s a - b u - u m k i i 7 - d è b a l a - e - d è ĝ e n - n a ). Thus the center of Sabum, possibly to be located in the area of the Pušt-i Kūh, seems to have been one of the peripheral sources of wool of the Ur III state, like the city of Urua. 33. BPOA 7 2350 (-/-): r.8-11: 1 g u 4 - ú 8 u d u - ú , 2 m á š - g a l ú , à g a - ú s URU× Ak i - m e - é š , ugula šeš-kal-la. 34. The forty-fourth regnal year of Šulgi reads: m u s i - m u - r u - u m k i ù l u - l u - b u - u m k i a - r á 1 0 l á - 1 - k a m - a š b a - h u l “the year Simurrum and Lullubum were destroyed for the ninth time.” 35. OIP 115 16; BIN 3 347; Obermark, JCS 40, 237 8; Torino 1 50; Newark Public Library 6; MVN 3 200; Genouillac, Babyl. 8, Pupil 17; PDT 2 1035; MVN 13 794. 36. PDT 1 459. According to its content, BPOA 7 2752 (-/x/-) is possibly affiliated with the Šulgisimtī institution. Although issued anonymously and omitting the year name, one can speculate that the text has to be dated to the years before Šulgi 39, since the first feature and the absence of the day date formula seems to be common among the early texts of the “archive” (Sallaberger 1993: 22). 37. For é m e - d a , see Steinkeller 1981: 88-91, and Michalowski 2005: 72 note 17; and for z a h d a x z a h , see Steinkeller 2007. 38. For n í ĝ - m u s s a , see Greengus 1990, and Sigrist 1992: 198-199.

Prince Etel-pū-Dagān, Son of Šulgi

217

formulated. One can certainly speculate about a connection between Etel-pūDagān and the first wife of Šulgi, Tarām-Uram, daughter of Apil-kīn, king of Mari, and “daughter-in-law” of Ur-Namma, as well as mother of the future sovereign Amar-Suena (Sallaberger and Boese 1996). The prince bears a name that exalts the god Dagān,39 the foremost deity of the Middle Euphrates area, which possibly reached a new position and relevance in Ur III pantheon as a consequence of the dynastic marriage.40 According to Michalowski (2005) a cadet branch of the royal family existed that was closely linked to the city of Mari (see also Sharlach 2001). Tarām-Uram, Abī-simtī (the mother of Šu-Suen), together with Babati and Bizu’a (respectively the brother and, probably, the sister of Abī-simtī), as well as IddinDagān (whose identity is still not clear) were part of this cadet branch. “This branch of the royal family was only able to come back to prominence after the death of Šulgi and of his main wives, Šulgi-simtī and Geme-Ninlila” (Michalowski 2005: 70). If the connection with Mari stands, it must be noted that Etel-pū-Dagān, unlike the other members of his clan, is attested at Puzriš-Dagān, together with his wife and his daughter, during the last twenty years of reign of Šulgi. More relevant is the fact that we can follow the prince’s activities until the forty-seventh and penultimate year of the reign of Šulgi, when he finally disappears from administrative documentation. One wonders if he was not kept away at the time of the throne succession, perhaps for security reasons. After more than a four year documentary hiatus, only the “Household of Etel-pū-Dagān” appears in the PuzrišDagān documentation. However, since the prince’s name is not attested in any other text, it cannot be proven that he was still alive at that time.

Appendix BM 21670 Date: -/[vii]/Provenance: Girsu-Lagaš A picture of this tablet is available at http://bdtns.filol.csic.es/042228 o.

1

1 sìla ì-ĝeš

2

u4 30-kam

3 4

lú-dnin-šubur sugal7 1 / 2 sìla ì u4 10+5-kam

5

ur-kù-nun sukkal

6 7

á-ĝeš-ĝar-ra šu-ku6 è-è- / ĝen-na 1 / 2 sìla ì-ĝeš

––––––––––––– 39. Another son of Šulgi with a theophoric name dedicated to the god Dagān is Dagān-DUni, attested only in BIN 3 491 (Waetzoldt 1985: 20. Feliu 2003: 56 understands the name as Dagān-dunī “Dagān is my strenght”). For the god Dagān as a theophoric element in Ur III onomastics see also Sharlach 2002: 108. 40. However, one should note that the oldest attested offerings to the god Dagān in the temple of Išhara date back to the eighth regnal year of king Amar-Suena (Hilgert 1994: 32). For some relevant remarks about the introduction of the cult of Dagān during Ur III period, see Sharlach 2002.

218

PALMIRO NOTIZIA 8

r.

ri!-ba-ga-da dumu é-gal (=HU)

9

ki énsi-ka-šè ĝen-na

10 11

1 sìla ì-ĝeš AN.ID.NI.IG mar-dú

1

10 gín ì-ĝeš

2 3

èš-èš u4-sakar u4-10+5 d šul-gi-ra

4

10+6 á-GAM ì u4 10+6-kam

5 6

šu-ì-lí sugal7 siki sa-bu-umki i7-dè bala-/e-dè ĝen-na

7

1 sìla ì-ĝeš

8 9

e-te-elx-pù-dda-gan / dumu lugal (=AL) 1 /2 sìla ì šu-dnisaba sugal7

10

siki [ú]⸢URU×Aa ki⸣ àga-ús lugal

11 12

šúm-m[u-dè] ⸢ĝen-na⸣-ne-ne iti [...]

Bibliography Bauer, J. 2009 Review of C. Mittermayer, in collaboration with with P. Attinger, Altbabylonische Zeichenliste der sumerisch-literarischen Texte. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis. Sonderband. Fribourg and Göttingen: Academic Press and Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht Göttingen 2006. Die Welt des Orients 39: 247-256. Brisch, N. 2006 The Priestess and the King: The Divine Kingship of Šū-Sîn of Ur. Journal of the American Oriental Society 126: 161-176. Boese, J., and Sallaberger, W. 1996 Apil-kīn von Mari und die Könige der III. Dynastie von Ur. Altorientalische Forschungen 23: 24-39. Borger, R. 2004 Mesopotamisches Zeichenlexikon. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 305. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. Dahl, J. 2007 The Ruling Family of Ur III Umma: A Prosopographical Analysis of an Elite Family in Southern Iraq 4000 Years Ago. PIHANS CVIII. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten. Edzard, D. O. 1998 Name, Namengebung, (Onomastik). A. Sumerisch, B. Akkadisch. Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 9: 94-116. Feliu, L. 2003 The God Dagan in Bronze Age Syria. Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 9. Leiden and Boston: Brill.

Prince Etel-pū-Dagān, Son of Šulgi

219

Frayne, D. R. 1997 Ur III Period (2112-2004 BC). The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia. Early Periods 3/2, Toronto, Buffalo, and London: University of Toronto Press. Gelb, I. J. 1957 Glossary of Old Akkadian. Materials for the Assyrian Dictionary 3. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Greengus, S. 1990 Bridewealth in Sumerian Sources. Hebrew Union College Annual 61: 25-64. Hallo, W. W. 2003 Review of Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie, Band 8, Lieferung 7-8, S. 481-589; Band 9, Lieferung 1–2, S. I-160, ed. D. O. Edzard, Berlin and New York: De Gruyter. Bibliotheca Orientalis 60: 391-399. Heimpel, W. 1994 Towards an Understanding of the Term sikkum. Revue d’Assyriologie et d’Archéologie Orientale 88: 5-31. 2004 Ur-III-Babylonisch. Orientalia Nova Series 73: 245-254. Hilgert, M. 1994 erubbatum im Tempel Dagān - Eine Ur III-Zeitliche Urkunde aus Drēḥim. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 46: 29-40. 1998 Cuneiform Texts from the Ur III Period in the Oriental Institute, Volume 1: Drehem Administrative Documents from the Reign of Shulgi. Oriental Institute Publications 115. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. 2002a Akkadisch in der Ur III-Zeit. IMGULA 5. Münster: Rhema-Verlag. 2002b Herrscherideal und Namengebung. Zum akkadischen Wortschatz kyriophorer Eigennamen in der Ur III-Zeit. Pp. 39-76 in Neue Beiträge zur Semitistik: Erstes Arbeitstreffen der Arbeitsgemeinschaft Semitistik in der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft vom 11. bis 13 September 2000 an der Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena, ed. N. Nebes. Jenaer Beiträge zum Vorderen Orient 5. Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz. Ismail, F., Sallaberger, W., Talon, P., and van Lerberghe, K. 1996 Administrative Documents from Tell Beydar (Seasons 1993-1995). Subartu II. Turnhout: Brepols. Kleinerman, A., and Owen, D. I. 2009 Analytical Concordance to the Garšana Archives. University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology 4. Bethesda: CDL Press. Krecher, J. 1973 Neue sumerische Rechtsurkunden des 3. Jahrtausends. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 63: 145-271. Marchesi, G. 2004 Who Was Buried in the Royal Tombs of Ur? The Epigraphic and Textual Data. Orientalia Nova Series 73: 153-197. Michalowski, P. 2005 Iddin-Dagan and his Family. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 95: 65-76. Michalowski, P., and Wright, H. T. 2010 The Mid-Late Third Millennium on the Deh Luran Plain. Pp. 106-109 in Elamite and Achaemenid Settlement on the Deh Luran Plain: Towns and Villages of the Early Empires in Southwestern Iran, ed. H. T. Wright and J. A. Neely. Memoirs, no. 47. Ann Arbor: Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan. Molina, M. 2013 Court Officials at Umma in Ur III Times. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 103: in press. forthcoming Urua. Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie.

220

PALMIRO NOTIZIA

Notizia, P. 2006 Messenger Texts from Girsu: for a new classification. Orientalia Nova Series 75: 317-333. 2009 I testi dei messaggeri da Girsu-Lagaš della Terza Dinastia di Ur. Nisaba. Studi Assiriologici Messinesi 22. Messina: Di. Sc. A. M. Owen, D. I., and Mayr, R. H. 2007 The Garšana Archives. Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology 3. Bethesda: CDL Press. Pomponio, F., and Xella, P. 1997 Les dieux d’Ebla. Étude analytique des divinités éblaïtes à l’époque des archives royales du IIIe millénaire. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 245. Münster: UgaritVerlag. Radner, K. 2007 Die Macht des Namens. Altorientalische Strategien zur Selbsterhaltung. Santag 8. Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz. Sallaberger, W. 1993 Der kultische Kalender der Ur III-Zeit. Untersuchungen zur Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 7/1-2. Berlin: de Gruyter. Sharlach, T. 2001 Beyond Chronology: The Šakkanakkus of Mari and the Kings of Ur. Pp. 59-70 in Seals and Seal Impressions. Proceedings of the XLVe Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, ed. W. W. Hallo and I. Winter. Bethesda: CDL Press. 2002 Foreign Influences on the Religion of the Ur III Court. Pp. 91-114 in Studies on the Civilization and Culture of Nuzi and the Hurrians 12, eds. D. O. Owen and G. Wilhelm. Bethesda: CDL Press. Sigrist, M. 1992 Drehem. Bethesda: CDL Press. Sigrist, M., and Ozaki, T. 2006 Ur III Administrative Tablets from the British Museum, Part One. Biblioteca del Próximo Oriente Antiguo 1. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas. Steinkeller, P. 1981 More on the Ur III Royal Wives. Acta Sumerologica 3: 77-92. 1982 The Question of Marhaši: a Contribution to the Historical Geography of Iran in the Third Millenium B.C. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 72: 237-265. 2007 The Sumerian Pig Term ŠÁH.ZÉ.DA. Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires 2007/18: 17-19. Waetzoldt, H. 1985 Dagān in Mesopotamien. Pp. 245-256 in G. Pettinato and H. Waetzoldt, Dagān in Ebla und Mesopotamien nach den Texten aus dem 3. Jahrtausend. Orientalia Nova Series 54: 234-256. 2008 Die Haltung die Schreiber von Umma zu König Šusuen. Pp. 245-249 in On the Third Dynasty of Ur: Studies in Honor of Marcel Sigrist, ed. P. Michalowski. The Journal of Cuneiform Studies, Supplemental Series 1. Boston: American Schools of Oriental Research. Weiershäuser, F. 2008 Die königlichen Frauen der III. Dynastie von Ur. Göttinger Beiträge zum Alten Orient 1. Göttingen: Universitätsverlag Göttingen.

The Ur III Administration: Workers, Messengers, and Sons

Francesco Pomponio UNIVERSITÀ DEGLI STUDI DI MESSINA

1. A Poetic Preamble It is hard work to count the stars in the clear sky of an Italian summer night. But it is harder and longer work to fix the distinctive features and the characterizing elements of the categories of labourers who formed the Neo-Sumerian workforce. Whoever has tried to do it has been tempted to conclude that the only rule on this matter is that there is no rule. Before I take up this question myself, I will highlight the more comprehensive efforts made by some brave colleagues; for example, M. Sigrist in his articles on “Erín – UN-íl” (Sigrist 1979 and 1980), and R. K. Englund in his study on fishermen (Englund 1990: 159-179). Because each labourer must get his salary, H. Waetzoldt, in an often cited article, examined the compensation of artisans and officials (Waetzoldt 1987). A previous Ur III workshop produced the articles by B. Studevent-Hickman full of questions on this topic (Studevent-Hickman 2008) and by N. Koslova, which presented the most important rosters of workers from Umma (Koslova 2008). P. Steinkeller has been especially interested in this question.1 Two of his articles, dealing with the foresters (Steinkeller 1987) and the potters (Steinkeller 1996) of Umma, form the basis for the identification of the principal categories or classes of the population of the NeoSumerian period.

2. A Few Considerations About UN- í l and é r e n In a more recent article, Steinkeller (2003: 44-45) reasserted with some adjustments the distinctive elements differentiating the groups of UN- í l and é r e n . Here the working male population is divided into three principal groups: the first two belong to the category of é r e n and their distinction is based on the enjoyment of an allotment field, which is reserved for the é r e n of the upper level. The distinction between the two categories of the é r e n and that of UN- í l lies in the fact that the the former is only employed part time, and more precisely for fifteen days each month, while the latter is employed full time. And what did they do for the other fifteen days each month? The answer seems to depend on their specialization: the unskilled labourers continued to be employed for the same work, but this time in

––––––––––––– 1.

See also Steinkeller 2013 in this volume on corvée labor.

221

222

FRANCESCO POMPONIO

return for wages, which were usually much higher than the salary they received when fulfilling their work-duty; the workers with their own means of production had the freedom to engage in an independent economic activity; so, in the case of the potters, having delivered the required number of ceramics to the state, they were free to work entirely for themselves and to sell or barter their ware on the free market. And the foresters? According to Steinkeller (1987), they kept on harvesting timber and grasses of various kind, but in those six months exclusively to their own advantage. In connection to the last detail, I have doubts about this proposed liberality which the Central Office of Umma would have allowed to its numerous groups of hungry and expert foresters to pillage valuable resources in the province for six months of the year. Apart from this, Steinkeller’s reconstruction is clear as well as all-inclusive in posing the distinctions between the various groups of the workforce; however, as can only to be expected for such a huge documentary record as that produced in the Neo-Sumerian archives, there are several exceptions. Therefore, with regard to the most distinctive element between UN- í l and é r e n , that is the employment of the former group all the year around, Steinkeller (1987) pointed out that numerous groups of personnel of middle to high rank (administrators, military officials, priests) were employed full time. But, it is fairly difficult not to acknowledge that other categories of labourers/officials worked all year in the service of the central or provincial administration: e.g., the professional soldiers, the à g a - ú s . What kind of work might a professional soldier carry out if not in the service of the state or province? And the messengers? In short, because of their specialization, many categories of workers could not get any job outside of the activities controlled by the state. And, for that matter, what was available for the groups of unskilled workers if the state did not need their activity? Six months without either a job or salary are difficult to endure. In other cases (e.g. the personnel assigned to the livestock), the very nature of their labour makes it difficult to propose a work schedule of only fifteen days of work for each month. So, we are left considering two possibilities: either many groups of the category of é r e n could not submit to a precise part-time schedule, or the groups in question did not belong to the category of é r e n . But the latter possibility is in contrast with the theory that all employees of the state enjoyed the status of é r e n . We should also note, in connection with the article cited above by Koslova (2008) that the debits section ( s a g - n í g - g u r 1 1 - r a - k a m ) of the balanced accounts of personnel at Umma registered the work-days both of the UN- í l and of the d u m u - g i 7 , a term which as rule is considered a variant of é r e n in the Umma tablets. In five texts the work of the d u m u - g i 7 is calculated as full time for a year and in six texts they work for only half of the time. Now, the sum of the workdays of the UN- í l may be higher, lower, or equal with regard to that of the é r e n , but all the texts in question are labelled as n í g - k a s 7 - a k á é r e n - n a - k a . So, if the personnel belonging to the categories of the UN- í l and of the d u m u - g i 7 must be kept distinct, then the term é r e n includes the UN- í l . Likewise, in the ambit of the military service, as pointed out by B. Lafont (2008: 31-32), é r e n describes the conscripts, in contrast with the professional soldiers, indicated as à g a - ú s , but in all probability the à g a - ú s also belonged to the category of é r e n . The other element that should be strictly distinctive between the UN- í l and, at least, the “more privileged” é r e n , that is the enjoyment of an allotment field, also

Workers, Messengers, and Sons

223

presents us with a few exceptions. These have already been pointed out by Steinkeller (1987: 80) for a group of foresters (four out of a total of seven), but see also a group of shepherds (five out of a total of 24: Koslova 2008: 192, Text 19) and a group of agricultural workers with five UN- í l who get a lot of land (MVN 12 138). Nevertheless, these exceptions suffice to demonstrate that in the category of UN- í l there was no element that prevented the assignment of an allotment field. Probably the only discriminating element between UN- í l and é r e n , with the narrower meaning of “collective workers,” is that the former was of lower status than the latter. However, in a text (YOS 18 115) in which a dozen UN- í l without name are listed (along with all the personnel cited in this text) receiving the allotment of a field and one with a salary of a good 75 s ì l a , the UN- í l belong to the following categories (in every case together with é r e n ) : d u b - s a r , à g a - ú s , e n g a r - š à - g u 4 , nagar, ì-du8, ašgab, agar4-nígin, sagi, šu-i, má-lah4, lúázlag, gu-zalá, gašam, muhaldim, bahar4. A conclusion may be that there were two distinct meanings for é r e n . The first indicated all the state dependents, including the high officers, such as s a n g a , š a b r a and š a g i n a at the top of the hierarchy and the UN- í l at its bottom; the second referred to a specific category of workers, to be subdivided into two or even more different sub-groups, according to either their rank or their time of employment or their specialized skills, or the lack of specialization, or their fee (e.g. the concession of allotment field). As I indicated at the outset, this remains a very complicated question.

3. Groups and Megagroups in the Umma “Messenger Texts” Having muddled the data that our colleagues have tried to put in order, I turn now to a category of texts concerning a very important group of provincial dependents, those who are indentified with the broad term “messengers.” About 1600 different names are mentioned in them, and from this total please note that we have excluded abbreviations, variants, and incomplete names. Of course, I limit myself here to the texts coming from Umma, since the texts from Girsu fall under the competence of P. Notizia and the tablets of Irisagrig will be treated, of course, by D. I. Owen.2 Now, the long-awaited moment of tackling the problem of the division into groups of the Umma messenger texts has arrived. Who, among Ur III specialists, has not published at least one tablet belonging to this category? And, of course, everyone of us has made reference to the dissertation of R. McNeil (1974), reverting in the commentary to his division of the texts, based on the type and quantity of goods allotted, into twelve groups, labeled alphabetically A through L (the thirteenth is reserved for the tablets that cannot be inserted in anyone of the preceding groups). Groups A (205 published tablets + 125 in the Yale collections) and B (135 tablets + 56 in the Yale collections) are similar in writing: all five goods allotted are registered in only one line, so that the scribe is often compelled to invade the right space of the underlying line with the last item, the herb n a g a . The form of these

––––––––––––– 2.

See both Notizia and Owen in this volume.

224

FRANCESCO POMPONIO

tablets is squarer than that of all the other messenger texts. The tablets in groups A and B are also alike in the content; they record two different types of allotments: A B

5 3 5 3

sìla sìla sìla sìla

kaš kaš kaš kaš

3 2 3 2

sìla sìla sìla sìla

ninda ninda ninda ninda

3 3 5 5

gín gín gín gín

sum sum sum sum

3 3 3 3

gín gín gín gín

ì ì ì ì

2 2 2 2

gín gín gín gín

naga naga naga naga

Therefore, the only difference between the groups is in the quantity of onions assigned: 5 g í n for group B and 3 g í n for group A. Now, since the tablets of two groups occur in chronological sequence (the texts of group B are dated from ŠS 2/i until ŠS 4/v and the texts of group A from ŠS 4/vi until ŠS 6/ix), we may ascribe them to a single group. During the period in question, precisely in month v of ŠuSuen 4, the administration decided to reduce the amount of onions assigned to these messengers from 5 to 3 g í n . So groups A and B constitute our first megagroup. Groups D (332 tablets + 36 in the Yale collections) and E (216 tablets + 57 in the Yale collections) present the following allotments: D 5 3 E 5 5 3

sìla sìla sìla sìla sìla

kaš 5 sìla kaš 2 sìla kaš-sig5 5 kaš 5 sìla kaš 2 sìla

ninda 5 gín sum ninda 5 gín sum sìla ninda 5 gín ninda 5 gín sum ninda 5 gín sum

3 gín ì 2 gín naga 3 gín ì 2 gín naga sum 3 gín ì 2 gín naga 3 gín ì 2 gín naga 3 gín ì 2 gín naga

Since the tablets in group D are dated from AS 6/i until ŠS 4/ii and those in group E from AS 7/i until ŠS 4/i, they also must form a megagroup. The only difference is that in the tablets of group E a certain number of privileged “messengers” get “beer of good quality” instead of “beer of ordinary quality.” These allotments are similar to those of group C. Group C (28 texts + 37 in the Yale collections) is less well attested than the previous two groups, and dates to the following period (ŠS 4/v - ŠS 7/i): C

5 sìla kaš-sig5 3 sìla ninda 5 gín sum 3 gín ì 2 gín naga 5 sìla kaš 3 sìla ninda 5 gín sum 3 gín ì 2 gín naga 3 sìla kaš 2 sìla ninda 5 gín sum 3 gín ì 2 gín naga

The only difference for group C as compared with D and E is that the Mischbrei drops from 5 to 3 litres for the recipients of 5 litres of beer, bringing it near to the 2 litres of n i n d a received by the recipients of 3 litres of beer. This cutback clearly occurred in the period from month ii to month v of Šu-Suen 4. So, groups C, D, and E, in which, as a rule, the items are written in two lines, have to be assigned to a single archive, our second megagroup. The texts in group F (82 tablets + 29 in the Yale collections) are dated from Š 48/iii until AS 7/xii, but in the majority of cases they are only dated to the month and day, similar to most of the messenger texts from Girsu. This feature may be the result of their antiquity, since they are the earliest messenger texts of Umma. Two kinds of assignments are recorded in them: F

5 sìla kaš 5 sìla ninda 2 sa sum 3 gín ì 2 gín naga 3 sìla kaš 2 sìla ninda 2 sa sum 3 gín ì 2 gín naga

Workers, Messengers, and Sons

225

We assume that group F, with its items written in two lines and exactly the same as those of groups D-E (with the exceptions of the onions measured in 2 s a that are equivalent to 5 g í n ) , is a forerunner of our second megagroup. The tablets in groups D-E also frequently lack year names. Groups G and H, likewise, are connected and they form our third megagroup. The tablets of groups G and H differ significantly from the other messenger texts: the signs are of greater dimensions; the allotments are written in three lines; the containers- dida and fish (only for the texts in group G) occur among the assigned goods. The following terms are also mentioned only in groups G and H: s u k k a l g a b a - a š and s u k k a l - g a b a - t a , with the shortened forms g a b a - a š and g a b a t a , which refer respectively to travels to Elam and travels, or perhaps rest from travels from Elam; and k a - ú s - s a , a variant for à g a - ú s (this is a brilliant hypothesis of Lafont 2008: 31), with the specific meaning of “escort”. The texts of group G, by far the most numerous (408 tablets + 73 in the Yale collections) present five different kinds of allotment, while those of group H (261 tablets + 53 of the Yale collections) offer the same allotments with the exception of fish: G 1 1 5 5 3

dida 5 sìla kaš 10 sìla dida 3 sìla kaš 10 sìla sìla kaš 5 sìla ninda 2 sìla kaš 3 sìla ninda 2 sìla kaš 2 sìla ninda 2

ninda 2 gín ì 2 gín naga 3 ku6 3 sa sum ninda 2 gín ì 2 gín naga 3 ku6 3 sa sum gín ì 2 gín naga 1 ku6 1 sa sum gín ì 2 gín naga 1 ku6 1 sa sum gín ì 2 gín naga 1 ku6 1 sa sum,

H 1 1 5 5 3

dida 5 sìla kaš 10 sìla dida 3 sìla kaš 10 sìla sìla kaš 5 sìla ninda 2 sìla kaš 3 sìla ninda 2 sìla kaš 2 sìla ninda 2

ninda 2 gín ì 2 gín naga 3 sa sum ninda 2 gín ì 2 gín naga 3 sa sum gín ì 2 gín naga 1 sa sum gín ì 2 gín naga 1 sa sum gín ì 2 gín naga 1 sa sum

The removal of fish from the diet of the messengers can be dated with precision since the tablets of group G date from AS 5 until ŠS 3/iii and those in group H date from ŠS 3/iv until IS 2/xii. Chronologically, the first megagroup (groups A-B) and the second (groups C, DE, and F) end during the last part of Šu-Suen 6 (with group A) and at the beginning of Šu-Suen 7 (with group C), respectively. In our opinion, the first megagroup lasted only five years (from Šu-Suen 2 to Šu-Suen 6), while the second megagroup, similarly to the third (groups G-H), most probably lasted from the beginning to the end (i.e. the second year of Ibbi-Suen) of the documentation of the messenger texts. So, since the third megagroup continued until the last month of Ibbi-Suen 2 (group H), we assume that the following groups (I, J, K, and L, dated from ŠS 9 - IS 2) must all belong to the same archive that produced the tablets of groups F, D-E, and C, that is our second megagroup. All of the texts in group I (13 tablets + 3 in the Yale collections) date to ŠuSuen 9, and present an innovation in the drawing up of the tablets: the amounts of k a š and n i n d a and the name of their recipient are written in a single line; after this, the amounts of oil, onions and n a g a (respectively 3, 5 and 2 litres), are added in a single line. Separately from these goods, which are provided similarly for all the recipients, for beer and Mischbrei a distinction is made between the 5 litres of k a š - s i g 5 (or k a š ) and the 3 litres of n i n d a allotted to the s u k k a l and the 3 li-

226

FRANCESCO POMPONIO

tres of k a š and the 2 litres of n i n d a for the l ú - k a š 4 . This scribal innovation, which shows progress in terms of saving time and space, does not seem to have satisfied the scribes. The texts of group J (18 tablets + 15 of the Yale collections) date from ŠS 6/viii until ŠS 9/xi, and they present another system for composing the messenger texts that met with greater success: a list of the names of the recipients, each preceded by a Personenkeil, is compiled and divided into two sections, that of the s u k k a l and that of the l ú - k a š 4 . Both sections are followed by the amounts of beer, respectively 5 and 3 litres, and of n i n d a , 3 and 2 litres. Lastly, the amounts of oil, onions and n a g a a r e n o t e d , and, as in group I, both groups of recipients were given the same amounts. The texts of groups K (50 tablets + 15 of the Yale collections) and L (25 tablets + 3 of the Yale collections) date from ŠS 9/xiii until the end of IS 2, and share the same structure as group J. But in both of these groups the difference between s u k k a l and l ú - k a š 4 is not established in the quantity of beer or Mischbrei provided (now equalized at the lowest level: 3 and 2 litres, respectively), but only by their quality. In group K the difference is between k a š - s i g 5 and k a š , a n d i n g r o u p L t h e d i f f e r e n c e i s b e t w e e n n i n d a ( - z ì ) - š i k 1 5 and n i n d a ( - g i n ) . Consequently, both the groups still register a small privilege for the sukkals in comparison to the l ú - k a š 4 s. In the contemporary texts of group H the difference between the various categories of messengers is again substantial: see SACT 2 305 (IS 2/x/4) with 1 d i d a 5 s ì l a k a š 1 0 s ì l a n i n d a for the former category and 3 s ì l a k a š 2 s ì l a n i n d a for the latter (the amounts of onion, oil and n a g a , as a rule, are exactly the same). So, both our second and third megagroups lasted until to the end of the documentation of the messenger texts. We note that even though the last tablet from Umma dates to IS 5/viii (see Lafont 1995: 6), the last messenger texts from the same site date to IS 2/xii: this seems to indicate better than any of other elements, given the significance of the messenger text communications, that the crisis of the Neo-Sumerian empire had already begun, at least in the province of Umma, with the beginning of the third year of Ibbi-Suen. In summary, the groups of the Umma messenger texts may be assigned to three archives. Moreover, the 42 pyramidal tags that record the monthly expenditures of food and other items for the messengers of Umma ( s á - d u 1 1 k a š 4 ) , which date from Amar-Suen 3 (an unpublished tag transliterated by N. Borrelli) until Ibbi-Suen 1 (with a not unexpected gap in the years Amar-Suen 9 - Šu-Suen 1) can also be assigned to three groups. The tags of the first group are sealed by Ur-e’e; the tablets of the other two groups, sealed by Lukalla and/or Ur-Nungal or by the governor (Ur-Lisi), are distinguished by the formulae “the messengers in Umma” ( k a š 4 š à u m m a k i ) and “the messengers in the Fortress of the canal of Girsu” (kaš4 šà an-za-gàr i7 gîr-suki). The next step would be establishing a connection between the centres/archives that compiled both the daily messenger texts and their monthly tags (and sent them to the Central Office of Umma) with the resthouses ( é - k a š 4 ) of the province of Umma. L. Verderame has singled out three such resthouses: Umma, Anzagar (complete writing: a n - z a - g à r i 7 - g í r - s u k i ) and Apisal (Laurito, Mezzasalma, and Verderame 2006: 205). W. Heimpel (1994: 27), in his study on the term sikkum, identified four such resthouses, with the addition of the é - k a š 4 g a b a b a - š i m e k i . Since the first two resthouses are mentioned in a single text and the other two

Workers, Messengers, and Sons

227

in another, we may suppose that é - k a š 4 a n - z a - g à r and é - k a š 4 g a b a b a - š i m e k i are different names of one single resthouse. I should like to assume that this centre housed the archive that compiled the tablets of the our third megagroup (= groups G-H) with the mention of g a b a - a š and g a b a - t a , but this is not possible: the tags of Ur-e’e are the ones that record fish, an exclusive feature of the third megagroup of the daily messenger texts, and, for exclusion, these tags are to be linked with the resthouse of Apisal, leaving the other two groups to Umma and Anzagar. Besides, we know that Ur-e’e was the head of the administration of Apisal (see D’Agostino - Pomponio 2004: 206).

4. The Dilemma of the Paternity In the Umma messenger texts some individuals appear as recipients, or, more often, as conveyors of goods, who do not belong to the categories of the messengers: they are three š a g i n a s (Abuni, Lalâ, Urmu) and six d u m u - l u g a l s (Ir-Nanna, KA-Nanna, Luduga, Lu-Nanna, Nabi-Šulgi, Puzur-Suen). The term d u m u is one of the red threads of the huge bale that is the administrative documentation of Ur III period. D u m u , followed by a personal name, characterizes the mention of the majority of officials of every grade both in the tablets and in the seal legends. Now, what is the meaning of this distinguishing element? Is it employed only in order to differentiate an official compared with homonymous colleagues by including the name of his father or might it also indicate his superior and, consequently, the office in which he operates? To put it plainly, does the word d u m u in the administrative tablets (not in the contracts!) exclusively bear the meaning of ‘son’ or does it also signify ‘subordinate’? The latter hypothesis was hinted at in SET by T. B. Jones and J. Snyder (1961: 330): “Of course, the word d u m u does not necessarily mean L ú - k a l - l a actually was U r - e 1 1 - e ’ s son; he could instead have been his agent.” The opposing point of view was clearly expressed by Dahl (2007: 12) in his volume dedicated to the reconstruction of a powerful family of Umma, in which nepotism seems to have dominated: “It seems clear that the basic prosopographical information such as familial relationships as expressed in the seal-inscriptions can be trusted. The perception that the term d u m u can refer to a business associate is borrowed from later Assyrian and Babylonian sources, whereas third millennium BC Sumerian sources point to this being a genealogical term for son.” Apart from my preference for the term “hierarchical subordinate” instead of “business associate”, these are the horns of the question. But it is fair to specify that the former thesis has been supported by almost nobody, and Neo-Sumerian scholars seem rather to verge on the latter side, at least, with a silent assent. In my opinion three elements should be considered, which I summarize as follows: -

The almost innumerable sons of a high level official in the Umma administration, the š ù š Ur-nigar; The employment of two distinct names of “fathers” in order to characterize the name of the same official; The contemporaneity of different generations of administrators.

228

FRANCESCO POMPONIO

To the best of my knowledge the following seal-legends mention the “sons” of Ur-nigar: A-kal-la / dub-sar / dumu Ur-ni9-gar (šùš) (Š 32 - ŠS 3) A-tu / dub-sar / dumu Ur-ni9-gar (AS 3) Ad-da / dub-sar / dumu Ur-ni9-gar (ŠS 4 - IS 1) Árad-mu / dub-sar / dumu Ur-ni9-gar (šùš) (Š 33 - AS 7) Da-da-ga / dub-sar / dumu Ur-ni9-gar (šùš) (Š 44 - ŠS 6) Gù-dé-a / dumu Ur-ni9-gar (šùš) (Š 41-AS 3) I-ti-mu / dub-sar / dumu Ur-ni9-gar šùš (-/-) KA-dŠára / dub-sar / dumu Ur-ni9-gar (šùš) (Š 42 - AS 9) Ku-li / dumu Ur-ni9-gar (Š 48) Kù-ga-ni / dub-sar / dumu Ur-ni9-gar (Š 44) La-ni-mu / dub-sar / dumu Ur-ni9-gar (Š 35 - AS 2) Lú-dingir-ra / dub-sar / dumu Ur-ni9-gar (AS 9 - ŠS 7) Lú-du10-ga / dub-sar / dumu Ur-ni9-gar (šùš) (Š 42 - AS 7) Lú-dEN.ZU / dub-sar / dumu Ur-ni9-gar (šùš) (AS 4 - ŠS 5) Lú-kal-la / dub-sar / dumu Ur-ni9-gar (šùš) (AS 4 - ŠS 6) Lú-dŠul-gi(-ra) / dub-sar / dumu Ur-ni9-gar (šùš) (ŠS 2 - 3) Lú-dUtu / gudu4 / dumu Ur-ni9-gar (Š 44) Lugal-gišgigir-re / dub-sar dumu Ur-ni9-gar (-/-) Lugal-gu4-e / dumu Ur-ni9-gar / dub-sar (AS 2-5) Lugal-hé-gál / dub-sar / dumu Ur-ni9-gar (šùš) (Š 44 - IS 1) Lugal-kù-zu / dub-sar / dumu Ur-ni9-gar (šùš) (Š 41 - ŠS 9) Ma-an-sum / dumu Ur-ni9-gar (Š 35) Na-ba-sa6 / dub-sar / dumu Ur-ni9-gar (AS 8) Nam-ha-ni / dumu Ur-ni9-gar (Š 39) Šeš-kal-la / dub-sar / dumu Ur-ni9-gar šùš (AS 8) Ur-dingir-ra / dub-sar / dumu Ur-ni9-gar šùš (ŠS 3) Ur-e11-e / dub-sar / dumu Ur-ni9-gar (Š 35 - ŠS 4) Ur-gi6-pàr / dumu Ur-ni9-gar [?] (ŠS 9) Ur-dLi9-si4 / dub-sar / dumu Ur-ni9-gar šùš (Š 31) Ur-dLugal-bàn-da / dumu Ur-ni9 (IS 3) Ur-dMa-mi / dumu Ur-ni9-gar (ŠS 3) Ur-dNisaba / dub-sar / dumu Ur-ni9-gar (Š 34 - 44) Ur-dNu-muš-da / dub-sar / dumu Ur-ni9-gar šùš (AS 2) Ur-dNun-gal / dumu Ur-ni9-gar (Š 43) Ur-dŠára / dub-sar / dumu Ur-ni9-gar šùš (IS 1) Ur-dÙr-bar-tab / dumu Ur-ni9-gar (AS 7) d Utu-sa6-ga / dumu Ur-ni9-gar (AS 1-3).

In the seals of a dozen officials, the term š ù š is written in some legends while it does not occur in others. But, in any case – of course, if the transliteration of the legends is correct – these officials are “sons” of the š ù š Ur-nigar. This inconsistency compels us to admit that at least some of the seal legends that don’t quote the title š ù š for the “father” nonetheless refer to the same Ur-nigar. This is made more likely because seal legends in which the name of Ur-nigar is followed by another title are very rare. A seal of Ur-Dumuzida (Torino 2 645) and two of UrHalmudu (MVN 16 1201; UTI 3 1913) bear the title of k u r u š d a for Ur-nigar. But Ur-nigar, the father of Lu-Suena, in Rochester 120: 4 and in its seal legend bears the titles of k u r u š d a and of š ù š respectively. Thus it may be deduced that both titles referred to the same official, our Ur-nigar. Additionally, the seal legend of

Workers, Messengers, and Sons

229

Ur-Lisi does not appear to mention the title š ù š of his father, but it follows his patronymic in a tablet (MVN 21 272: 3-r.1). We also have to examime the order of the names and titles. Lugal-hegal appears in two seal legends in which the title m u 6 - s ù b of Šara follows the name of Ur-nigar.3 In a seal legend of K u r - b i - r a , Ur-nigar has the title of l ú - b a p p i r l u g a l .4 We must note that in another seal of Lugal-hegal the title m u 6 - s ù b of Šara precedes the patronymic and therefore has to be assigned to Lugal-hegal himself;5 and Kurbira himself is defined as l ú - š i m in SNAT 376: r.i.8 (barley, AS 7). In both cases, then, the title in question may be assigned to the “son,” and not to the “father”: why should Lugal-hegal assign the title of m u 6 - s ù b of Šara to himself in a seal impressed on texts dated to Š 44 and to his father on tablets twenty years later? Now, a number of “sons” of Ur-nigar that may vary from a minimum of seventeen to a maximum of thirty-seven, and almost all of them officials in the administration of Umma, not to mention any possible daughters, seems to be excessive. Of course, it cannot excluded, and in fact it is likely that a few of them, the most important, were not only subordinates (and then spiritual sons), but carnal sons of Ur-nigar. On the other hand, it would suffice that even one of them was a subordinate and not a son, to assign to the thesis of SET the palm of victory. Apart from the high number of Ur-nigar’s sons, there is another issue in this family on which I wish to linger: Luduga, a son of the šùš Ur-nigar, has a seal that is impressed on more than thirty texts, dated from Šulgi 36 until Šulgi 48. To my knowledge there are additional tablets with the same impression dated to AmarSuen 5 (SAT 2 888) and 7 (UTI 4 2574). Now, in all these tablets, including those of Amar-Suen, the formula k i š i b d a - d a - g a (or d a - d a - g a š u - b a - t i ) occurs. There is also another Luduga, d u m u Nigar-kidu, the chief of the g a l 5 - l á . This Luduga has his seal impressed on about thirty tablets, dated from Šulgi 32 until Šulgi 42, with an additional tablet dated to Šu-Suen 5 (SAT 3 1610), which also has the dedication to Ur-Lisi, who had ceased to be the governor of Umma many years previously. Some of these texts record dead sheep, as is the case for the great majority of the tablets of the other Luduga. In addition, in all of these tablets the formula k i š i b d a - d a - g a occurs. These two Luduga would be first cousins since their ‘fathers’, Ur-nigar and Nigar-kidu, define themselves as “sons” of Girine. In any case, the similarities between their lives are curious and interesting. Then there are the cases of officials who seem to have two fathers, and this embarrassing situation appears to have been well known in their working environment. I present here two examples from Girsu. First, in SNAT 56 (Š 48) the phrase on the tablet: k i š i b L ú - L a g a š k i d u m u S i - d ù k u r u š d a corresponds to the seal legend: L ú - L a g a š k i / d u b - s a r / d u m u U r - d N a n š e n u - b à n d a . A seal of the same official, with the title of the father Ur-Nanše as n u - b à n d a k u r u š d a , is impressed on tablets dated from Šulgi 45 until Amar-Suen 4, while Lu-Lagaš d u m u of Sidu, alternatively indicated as k u r u š d a of Ningirsu and n u - b à n d a - g u 4 , is

––––––––––––– 3. BPOA 2 1987, reed, ŠS 7, L u g a l - h é - g á l / d u b - s a r / d u m u U r - n i 9 - g a r / m u 6 - s ù b Š á r a ; SAT 2 315, barley, -/-, L u g a l - h é - g á l / d u b - s a r / d u m u U r - n i 9 - g a r / m u 6 - s ù b d Š á r a . 4. UTI 5 3008, barley, Š 40, K u r - b i - r a / d u m u U r - n i 9 - g a r / l ú - b a p p i r l u g a l . 5. MVN 13 181, 665, and 703 (barley, Š 44, L u g a l - h é - g á l / m u 6 - s ù b d Š á r a / d u m u U r n i 9 - g a r ); SAT 2 366 (female workers, Š 44, L u g a l - h é - g á l / m u 6 - s ù b d Š á r a / d u m u U r - n i 9 g a r ); SAT 2 376 (barley, Š 44, L u g a l - h é - g á l / m u 6 - s ù b d Š á r a / d u m u U r - n i 9 - g a r ). d

230

FRANCESCO POMPONIO

mentioned on tablets dated from Šulgi 45 until Amar-Suen 7. So, the two “fathers” of Lu-Lagaš seem to have carried out about the same function, and in the same period. Second, a seal of Ur-Nanše, s i p a - u d u - n i g a of Ningirsu, is impressed on tablets which mention the k i š i b of the k u r u š d a Sidu (HLC 2 48 pl. 70, and SAT 1 186: Š 46; MVN 12 64: Š 47). Sidu, the k u r u š d a , is a well-known official: his name occurs in texts dated from Šulgi 40 (Gomi, ASJ 2, 27 80) until Amar-Suen 7 (Durand, RA 73, 26 2). We should also note that when the formula k i š i b S i - d ù is present in a text, the seal never bears his name: either the seal legend is that of Ur-Nanše, as in the above-cited tablets, or that of a “son” of his, Ur-Bau or Lu-Lagaš.6 A final example comes from a balanced account of g u r u š (Nisaba 24 13) in which the term n ì - k a s 7 - a k a is followed by L u g a l - i t i - d a d u m u U š - m u , while the seal legend mentions L u g a l - i t i - d a / n u - b à n d a - g u 4 / d u m u G ì r i - n é . Lugal-itida characterized as d u m u U š - m u is not mentioned elsewhere, while three different seal legends of Lugal-itida d u m u of Girine occur on other texts, dated from Šulgi 34 until Šu-Suen 3.7 It should be noted that there are relatively few sealed balanced accounts, but, to my knowledge, all of these texts present us with a precise correspondence between the compiler of the balanced account and the sealer. Certainly, it is possible that a functionary had two different names, or a name and a pseudonym, as well as an operetta singer, and this could account for this double paternity, but I refuse to consider this explanation. In addition to other considerations, it would result, as in the case of Ur-Nanše, Lu-Lagaš, and Ur-Bau, in a “father” and two of his “sons” employing the same pseudonym. For the third element identified above, we can note that in at least two different seals, Lugal-ezem is defined as d u m u of the š a b r a Lugal-emahe. And he was a š a b r a as well, since in two tablets (Syracuse 128; BPOA 7 2312) on which one of these seals is impressed, the formula k i š i b L u g a l - e z e m š a b r a occurs. The activity of these two š a b r a s , “father” and “son,” was contemporary: they are mentioned for the first and the last time in tablets of the same year.8 Moreover, the seal of the “father” Lugal-emahe is impressed on tablets dated from Šulgi 31 until Šu-Suen 6 and that of the “son” Lugal-ezem on tablets dated from Šulgi 32 until Šu-Suen 2. The “father” is d u m u of Lugal-kugani, as indicated by a seal impressed on a tablet (SAT 2 831) in which Lugal-emahe bears the title of š a b r a . And this Lugal-kugani was himself a š a b r a (as suggested by Grégoire 1970: 132). In this case, this š a b r a was cited for the first and last time later than the earlier attestations of his son and his grandson.9 We can also make some brief considerations about the politics of the NeoSumerian state. Maekawa (1996: 121-123) discusses three or four sons (Ur-Bau, Lugal-zuluhu, Dudu, and probably Lu-Ningirsu) of the governor of Girsu, UrLama: all these high officials were deprived not only of their positions and accumu-

––––––––––––– 6. Ur-Bau: Ur- d Ba-ú / dub-sar / dumu Si-dù / nu-bànda kurušda: WMAH 136: Š 46; LuLagaš: Lú-Lagaš k i / dub-sar / dumu Si-dù / nu-bànda-gu 4 ⸢kurušda ? ⸣: Durand, RA 73, 26 2: AS 7. 7. In the earlier tablets [Šulgi 34-38] Girine may be identified as à g a - ú s é n s i , or perhaps this title, even if it is written after the name of Girine, has to be related to Lugal-itida, and Girine might be the g a l 5 - l á - g a l , “father” of another g a l 5 - l á - g a l , Nigar-kidu, of Ur-nigar, and of Basag. 8. Š 34: YOS 4 213 for the “father” and OrSP 47-49 177 for the “son”; and AS 5: Nisaba 24 18 for the “father” and YOS 4 149 for the “son”. 9. Š 36: YOS 4 305, and AS 6: BPOA 2 2365, respectively.

Workers, Messengers, and Sons

231

lated fortunes, but also of their lives in the second year of Amar-Suen, while their father would go on with the exercise of governorship of the most important province of the empire until the end of the following year (a heartless father). A situation not very different from this seems to have occurred with regard to Ur-Lisi, whose position was taken by two brothers of his, Ayakalla and Dadaga, after his probably unfortunate fall from the office of governor of Umma.

5. A Final Problem Lastly, I would like to address a final problem: the biennium Amar-Suen 9 – Šu-Suen 1. The problematic aspects of this period have been masterfully illustrated by Lafont (1984: 97-119). The most perturbing anomaly is the tablet dated to ŠS 1/iv with its envelope dated to AS 8/iv (Lafont 1984: 106). To the long series of similar anomalies P. Notizia and I (Notizia and Pomponio 2008) have recently added another: among the messenger texts from Umma many dozens of tablets are dated to Amar-Suen 8 and Šu-Suen 2, and none to Amar-Suen 9 and Šu-Suen 1, while, among the messenger texts of Girsu, the period for which we have the greatest number of texts with year-names is the biennium Amar-Suen 9 – Šu-Suen 1. Additonally, is there some kind of link between messenger texts and the š e - u r 5 r a loans? I think not, but the situation of these two categories of texts, as regards the date, mirror one another: no extant š e - u r 5 - r a text from Girsu is dated to the biennium Amar-Suen 9 – Šu-Suen 1, while a good deal of the š e - u r 5 - r a texts from Umma bear these two year-names. In my opinion, these chronological anomalies are the most thrilling challenge to the scholarship of the Neo-Sumerian period.

Bibliography D’Agostino, F. and Pomponio F. 2008 Due bilanci di entrata e di uscita di argento da Umma. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 94: 1-36. Dahl, J. L. 2007 The Ruling Family of Ur III Umma: A Prosopographical Analysis of an Elite Family in Southern Iraq 4000 Years Ago. PIHANS CVIII. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten. Englund, R. K. 1990 Organisation und Verwaltung der Ur III-Fischerei. Berliner Beiträge zum Vorderen Orient 10. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag. Grégoire, J.-P. 1970 Archives administratives sumériennes. Paris: P. Geuthner. Heimpel, W. 1994 Towards an Understanding of the Term sikkum. Revue d’Assyriologie et d’Archéologie Orientale 88: 5-31. Jones, T. B., and Snyder, J. 1961 Sumerian Economic Texts from the Third Ur Dynasty. A Catalogue and Discussion of Documents from Various Collections. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Koslova, N. 2008 Bezeichnungen der Arbeitskräfte in Umma der Ur III-Zeit. Pp. 145-201 in The Growth of an Early State in Mesopotamia: Studies in Ur III Administration. Proceedings of the First and Second Ur III Workshops at the 49th and 51st Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, London July 10, 2003 and Chicago July 19, 2005, ed.

232

FRANCESCO POMPONIO

J. C. Johnson and S. J. Garfinkle. Biblioteca del Próximo Oriente Antiguo 5. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas. Lafont, B. 1994 L’avènement de Šu-Sîn. Revue d’Assyriologie et d’Archéologie Orientale 88: 97-119. 1995 La chute des rois d’Ur et la fin des archives dans le grands centres administratifs de leur empire. Revue d’Assyriologie et d’Archéologie Orientale 89: 3-13. 2008 L’armée des rois d’Ur : ce qu’en disent les texts. Pp. 23-48 in Les armées du ProcheOrient ancien (IIIe-Ier mill. av. J.-C. Actes du colloque international organisé à Lyon les 1er et 2 décembre 2006, Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée, ed. P. Abrahami and L. Battini. BAR International Series 1855. Oxford: John & Erica Hedges Ltd. Laurito R., Mezzasalma A., and Verderame L. 2006 Oltre la tavoletta. Documenti archeologici dell’amministrazione mesopotamica del III millennio. Pp. 191-208 in L’ufficio e il documento. I luoghi, i modi, gli strumenti dell’amministrazione in Egitto e nel Vicino Oriente Antico, ed. C. Mora and P. Piacentini. Quaderni di Acme 83. Pavia: Cisalpino. Maekawa, K. 1996 Confiscation of Private Properties in the Ur III Period: A Study of é-dul-la and nígGA. Acta Sumerologica 18: 103-168. McNeil, R. 1970 The “Messenger Texts”’ of the Third Ur Dynasty. Ph. D. dissertation, The University of Pennsylvania. Notizia P., and Pomponio F. 2008 Sui messenger texts e sui testi-še-ur5-ra di Umma e di Girsu. Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires 2008/60: 81-82. 2013 Prince Etel-pū-Dagān, Son of Šulgi. Pp. 207-220 in the present volume. Owen, D. I. 2013 The Archive of Iri-Saĝrig / Āl-Šarrākī: A Brief Survey. Pp. 89-102 in the present volume. Sigrist, M. 1979 erín – UN-íl. Revue d’Assyriologie et d’Archéologie Orientale 73: 101-120. 1980 erín – UN-íl (suite). Revue d’Assyriologie et d’Archéologie Orientale 74: 11-28. Steinkeller P. 1987 The Foresters of Umma: Toward a Definiton of Ur III Labor. Pp. 73-116 in Labor in the Ancient Near East, ed. M. A. Powell. American Oriental Series 68. New Haven: American Oriental Society. 1996 The Organization of Crafts in Third Millennium Babylonia: The Case of the Potters. Altorientalische Forschungen 23: 232-253. 2003 Archival Practices at Babylonia in the Third Millennium. Pp. 37-58 in Ancient Archives and Archival Traditions: Concepts of Record-keeping in the Ancient World, ed. M. Brosius. Oxford Studies in Ancient Documents 1. Oxford: Oxord University Press. 2013 Corvée Labor in Ur III Times. Pp. 347-424 in the present volume. Studevent-Hickman, B. 2008 The Workforce at Umma: Some New Questions. Pp. 141-145 in The Growth of an Early State in Mesopotamia: Studies in Ur III Administration. Proceedings of the First and Second Ur III Workshops at the 49th and 51st Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, London July 10, 2003 and Chicago July 19, 2005, ed. J. C. Johnson and S. J. Garfinkle. Biblioteca del Próximo Oriente Antiguo 5. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas. Waetzoldt, H. 1987 Compensation of Craft Workers and Officials in the Ur III Period. Pp. 117-141 in Labor in the Ancient Near East, ed. M. A. Powell. American Oriental Series 68. New Haven: American Oriental Society.

Šulgi Meets Stalin: Comparative Propaganda as a Tool of Mining the Šulgi Hymns for Historical Data

Luděk Vacín FREIE UNIVERSITÄT BERLIN

The topic of this contribution addresses the title of the conference. Thus, I attempt to use recent propagandistic texts as a lamp to shed some light on the content of similar texts composed in the 21st century BC. Yet before turning on that lamp several issues crucial to that undertaking need to be clarified. These include the date of origin of Šulgi’s hymnal corpus, the perception of those texts as literary propaganda and basic rules of ancient and modern propaganda-making, supplemented by a methodological discussion of the feasibility of a comparative approach to Šulgi’s and Stalin’s laudatory literature.

1. The Šulgi Hymns: Ur III or Old Babylonian Literature? In order to make use of the historical data in the Šulgi hymns, we must first establish their date of composition. Sources for the Šulgi hymns we currently possess are almost exclusively Old Babylonian exercise tablets. Yet one source for hymn Šulgi A has been attributed to the Ur III period,1 and this composition is listed in the Ur III catalogue of literary texts from Yale.2 Further, both the form and content of the Šulgi texts differ from what we find in hymns of later rulers. In particular, hymns D+X, G, O, P, R, and V exhibit orthographic and grammatical peculiarities corresponding to conventions of the previous period.3 Next, the ideology of king Šulgi revealed in the hymns, with all the rhetoric of a boastful godking, and especially his familial relationship with Urukean deities Ninsun, Lugalbanda and Gilgameš, is different from the ideology promoted in the hymns of early Old Babylonian rulers.4

––––––––––––– 1. Ni 4254 (SLTN 82). See Alster 1993: 5, n. 12; Rubio 2000 (2005): 216, n. 55. 2. YBC 3654. See Hallo 1963: 172; ETCSL, 0.1.2, l. 30. This catalogue also lists the Ur-Namma hymns E and F, l. 17. Note further that there is a likely Ur III source of hymn Ur-Namma B. FlückigerHawker 1999: 186-187 (source D); Civil 1985: 33-34. 3. See Klein 1981b: 64-70, 131-134 (D+X); 1991: 299-301 (G); 1976 (O); 1981a: 27-32 (P); 1990: 96-100 (R); 1985: *14-*19 (V). 4. See Tinney 1996: 74-80, for a comparison of the main points of Šulgi’s and Išme-Dagān’s royal ideologies as revealed in their hymns; see Brisch 2007 for a study and editions of the Larsa kings’ royal literature.

233

234

LUDĚK VACÍN

Moreover, the information contained in several Šulgi hymns correlates well with what we know particularly from his year names. The obvious examples are hymns Šulgi A (repairing the roads and the king’s round-trip between Nippur and Ur; years Šulgi 6/7) and R (caulking the barge of Ninlil; year Šulgi 8). Hymn Šulgi R is of special note here because it is a building hymn containing a clear borrowing from the Gudea cylinders (apart from residues of Ur III orthography),5 and describing Šulgi’s commission of a cultic vessel for the Tumal festival which was later on replaced by another vessel commissioned by king Šū-Suen.6 I find it difficult to believe that such a text could have been composed in post-Ur III times. We can also ask why Old Babylonian scholars would compose ca. 25 hymns about a king who had been dead for centuries if they had their own kings to praise?7 Why would they strive to achieve better literary quality in hymns praising Šulgi than in texts glorifying their own kings?8 Or how could they include in the Šulgi hymns ideological features which had been developed to underpin the legitimacy of the Ur III dynasty, and thus were no longer current, and about which they hardly could have any idea if the Šulgi hymns had not been composed in the Ur III period? Therefore, the evidence suggests that the Šulgi hymns were composed during the king’s lifetime. Of course, this is not to say that they were not redacted later. Yet later redaction, the degree of which is impossible to establish at present, does not necessarily imply that the compositions were stripped of all the Ur III material they had once contained. Thus, the Šulgi hymns as we know them still provide some insight into the Šulgi era, which is supported by those few undisputed historical correlations.9

2. The Propagandistic Purpose of the Šulgi Hymns Now let us turn to the question of the purpose of the Šulgi hymns. In the Old Babylonian period they were used to teach schoolboys hymnic vocabulary, the clichés of royal praise poetry, and the compositional techniques employed when working on such texts. They were useful as model texts during a time when kings

––––––––––––– 5. The borrowing is in l. 6: s i p a - d è u 4 ĝ i 6 - a ù n u - m u - ù - š i - i n - k u 4 - k u 4 (Gudea Cyl. A, col. vi, l. 11: é d ù - d è i g i - z u ù d u 1 0 - g a n u - š i - k u 4 - k u 4 ) . For the orthographic residues see e.g. l. 20: ĝ á - a r - ĝ á - r a m e - è n . See Klein 1990: 80-136, for a study and edition of Šulgi R. See further Klein 1989a: 26-36; 1989b: 289-294, for a detailed discussion of the hymn’s dependence on Gudea’s cylinders. 6. See the year name of Šū-Suen 8 (“Year in which Šū-Suen, king of Ur, made a magnificent boat for Enlil and Ninlil”). See also collection B of Šū-Suen’s historical inscriptions, xi.4-xiv.14. Civil 1967: 24-38, here 33-35. 7. If Šulgi V (likely a copy of a statue inscription) is included, then the current total would be 26, but it is almost certain that more Šulgi hymns will be identified in the future. The only corpus of royal hymns on a par with that of Šulgi in extent is the corpus of king Išme-Dagān’s hymns (about 25). 8. Note that Išme-Dagān’s scholars obviously used the Šulgi hymns as a basis for composing texts praising their own king and not vice versa. For an analysis of the dependence of Išme-Dagān’s hymns on those of Šulgi see Klein 1985; 1990: 65-80. See also Tinney 1996: 75. 9. Date formulae for Šulgi 6 (e.g. BM 100491), Šulgi 7 (e.g. RTC 276-280) and Šulgi 8 (e.g. RTC 281, MVN 7 388, 510) are attested both in contemporary administrative texts and in the OB date list from Nippur (BE 1/2 125). On the historical correlations of the Šulgi hymns in general see especially Hallo 1966: 135-139; Hallo 1970: 117-119; Frayne 1981: 139-253; Frayne 1997: 91-110. This issue continues to be hotly debated. See Civil 1980; Hallo 1990; Flückiger-Hawker 1999: 28-40; Beckman 2005. For a detailed discussion of images of kingship in Sumerian literature see now Brisch 2011.

Šulgi Meets Stalin

235

still at least formally employed divine prerogatives. In this era, the genre of royal hymn was still flourishing, and holding sway over Nippur still fostered the ruler’s legitimacy. The purpose of the creation of the Šulgi hymns in the Ur III period is explicitly stated in some of them. In Šulgi B (ll. 308-313) we read that the king founded two scribal academies at Ur and Nippur “for the writing of his hymns,” so that “the scribe shall be on duty there” transcribing Šulgi’s “prayers” and the singer may have performed them. The topic of the perpetuation of Šulgi’s hymns is worked out in detail in Šulgi E. This text states that royal scholars composed the Šulgi hymns to carry out the king’s intention to be praised in prayers and hymns, writing them down line by line in the academy as great works of scholarship (ll. 14-22, 246). Thus, the king wanted his image as the deified ideal ruler to be proclaimed in texts created at the academies and read in temples and the academies themselves. Therefore, the purpose of the Šulgi hymns seems to have been to regulate the education and indoctrination of people in positions of power, i.e. cultic personnel (via the use of the hymns in temple cult), scribes, administrators and courtiers (via their use in schools and during court ceremonies), whose belief in Šulgi’s divinity was essential for the stability of his state.10 Whether the use of this tool to secure the loyalty of the educated elite was successful or not is a different question, of course. In view of all this, we can safely call the Šulgi hymns literary propaganda. Although the term itself is modern, it seems that the concept as such emerged right at the dawn of organized government and its fundamentals remained virtually unchanged over time.11 Therefore, it should not surprise us that the Šulgi hymns fit even in the framework of some of the broad definitions of 20th century propaganda. Let me quote here only one definition proposed by a specialist on Nazi propadanda A. Kallis (2005: 1): “[Propaganda is] a systematic process of information management geared to promoting a particular goal and to guaranteeing a popular response as desired by the propagandist.”12

––––––––––––– 10. See Tinney 1996: 84; Michalowski 1991: 51-53; 2003: 195-196; 2008: 37-38. Note further that several statements in the hymns suggest their recitation for a broader audience, possibly during major festivals. See Ludwig 1990: 41-65, with examples. See also Reisman 1969: 39-40. But were the audiences still able to understand Sumerian texts if Sumerian had already died out as a spoken language? As for the priests, scribes, and administrators, they went through Sumerian schooling no matter if Sumerian had been their mother tongue or not. Therefore, they are likely to have understood the message of the hymns well. See Wu 1995 for a study of the education of Ur III provincial governors. Knowledge of Sumerian in the case of courtiers – including perhaps foreign emissaries – and the wider public need not to have been a necessary precondition for them to appreciate the purport of the texts, for the recitation of the hymns at court and during festivals was no doubt a ritual occasion (after all, the king was a divine being), and (passive) participation in a ritual does not require knowledge of the cultic language. For instance, Roman catholic liturgy was conducted in Latin well into the 20th century, which did not preclude believers in various countries from attending and appreciating services. 11. On Mesopotamian propaganda in general, see Taylor 2003: 13-24, 50-52. On the theory of modern propaganda, see the classic works by Bernays (1928) and Ellul (1965). 12. Propagandist = Šulgi and his scholars; particular goal = molding the minds of Ur III educated elite; desired popular response = support and loyalty of the educated elite. Other definitions of modern propaganda can be found in Jowett and O’Donnell 2006.

236

LUDĚK VACÍN

3. Ideology and History in Propagandistic Literature Let us now take up the question of ideology and history in literary propaganda. I begin with the observation that the authors of the Šulgi hymns were very careful to stress that everything described in their compositions was true. This shows that they needed to present themselves as mere narrators of facts. After all, no propagandist would normally admit that he makes propaganda. Thus, the hymns were regarded as the king’s “accumulated knowledge”13 but their real character emerges here and there even in the defence of their “veracity.” This is perhaps best illustrated by a couplet from Šulgi B which reads: “An eminent example deserves eternal fame. What is the use of writing lies without truth?”14 These words, intended to bolster the credibility of Šulgi’s hymns, convey a basic rule of every (literary) propaganda, namely that if one works with ideological patterns and literary clichés, topoi and symbols only, one creates just a fairy-tale, detached from reality, hardly credible, and thus useless for a living ruler’s selfrepresentation. On the other hand, if one works only with historical data, one creates a chronicle, a work of historiography, informative but uninspiring, and therefore equally useless for a living ruler’s self-representation. Literary propaganda is a mixture of ideological schemes and historical information complementing each other. Ideological statements affect the need for and stimulate the universal sense of something or someone transcendental, ideal, just, assuring, protecting order against chaos. Allusions to historical events, with which the reader or listener is familiar, serve to connect the transcendental with the mundane, to unite these opposites in the image of the glorified one, to show that the holder of transcendental qualities acts in our world and thus also to draw the audience into the course of history shaped by him. Of course, the measure of veracity of historical data contained in such creations is difficult to establish in these circumstances. Any historical data communicated in a propagandistic text must be presented as simply as possible, often in a literary form and always in accord with the overall positive image of the glorified one whatever the reality might have been. Distortion of historical data belongs to the basic rules of any propaganda-making and there is no reason to believe that Šulgi’s hymnic literature is an exception. It has to be stressed that it will never be possible to see plain “historical truth” in the Šulgi texts. It may be possible to uncover only such a version of history that the ruler wanted to have written down. Yet this painful fact should not prevent scholars from mining the Šulgi hymns for historical data because official history is valuable enough in view of our still poor understanding of major events of the Ur III era. But a significant precondition of such an undertaking seems to be the existence of comparative material, i.e. evidence contained in historical sources. However, comparative evidence is often scarce and not historical in the strict sense of that word. For instance, the date formulae and royal inscriptions are

––––––––––––– 13. ETCSL, 2.4.2.02, “A praise poem of Šulgi (Šulgi B),” l. 316: ĝ e š t u 2 d a b 5 - b a - ĝ u 1 0 . A hymn extremely concerned with the veracity of Šulgi’s poems is Šulgi E, ETCSL, 2.4.2.05, “A praise poem of Šulgi (Šulgi E).” 14. ETCSL, 2.4.2.02, “A praise poem of Šulgi (Šulgi B),” ll. 326-327: n í ĝ - u m u n 2 - a s a ĝ - k a l m u da-rí-kam/níĝ-lul níĝ-gen6-na nu-me-a sar-re-bi a-na-gin7-nam.

Šulgi Meets Stalin

237

rightly understood as historical sources yet they were not created with historiography in mind either. However explicit they are on some events of the king’s reign, they are primarily expressions of his might and care for the gods and people. Moreover, texts of this kind from the reign of Šulgi describe historical events so briefly that their informative value is very limited. Even though there are other historical sources, such as the wealth of administrative texts, we must not dismiss the historical dimension of relevant literary texts if they seem to bear on the event in question.15 Despite all the problems when examining and evaluating the historical sources alone and when comparing them with supposed historical allusions in relevant royal literature it has to be acknowledged that they do match sometimes. Therefore, the presence of historical data in texts from either group seems certain. Thus, if both the historical and literary texts contain history, it seems reasonable to assume that if a literary text alludes to an event only faintly or not at all reflected in historical sources, it does not mean that the allusion was invented and the event did not occur. But the problem is that we can hardly identify some statement unmatched in other souces as a historical allusion unless we find a method for reading history, no matter how condensed or distorted, within royal hymnic compositions alone. As indicated above, I believe that basic propagandistic techniques and their purpose are the same throughout history, irrespective of the cultural, social or economic differences. It seems possible, therefore, to take a propagandistic text from a well-documented period of history, like the Stalinist era, pick statements that seem to be historically valid and confront them with relevant historical sources. This undertaking will show how propagandists deal with historical data, and how they mix history with ideology to give the reader or listener a point of reference adding credibility and arousing his sense for higher meaning represented by the extolled person. The results can be used for a comparison of the given text with the Šulgi hymns to make clear that their historical dimension can be seen and exploited even if contemporary historical material is not very helpful or does not exist at all.16

––––––––––––– 15. See Potts (2001: 407) for a discussion of various problems connected with the search for historical data in literary compositions: “Certainly, we need other kinds of historical data to be able to see the historical relevance of a composition … but once we have this or any other window into the historical dimension of the text, that vista must be acknowledged, and indeed exploited for whatever extra information can be elicited from it.” 16. On the viability of comparing ancient and modern propaganda, see Liverani 1996. The complex methodology, worked out by George (1959), of inferring the “intentions and calculations of the communicator” as well as the “events and conditions in his environment” from propagandistic statements only may be of use in this respect.

238

LUDĚK VACÍN

4. On the Possibility of Comparing the Šulgi Hymns with Stalinist Propaganda Having said that, we may still wonder how it is possible to compare the seemingly incomparable, i.e. the Šulgi and Stalinist literary propaganda. The manifold problems of a comparative approach to all kinds of phenomena in different cultures have been subject to a myriad of methodological studies, and comparing the various aspects of ancient and modern rulership is no exception. A study of the “Sacred Ruler as a Historical and Phenomenological Problem” by R. Gundlach (1992) offers a particularly relevant methodological discussion that will be used here to illustrate the theoretical basis of the subsequent comparisons.17 In the study the author observes that “sacred kingship is the typical form of state organization in human history from the fourth millennium BC up to the Industrial Revolution of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries AD.”18 Indeed, while specific configurations of kingship in various cultures across the globe and throughout history were different, the underlying principle of the rule of an individual sanctioned by the transcendental was remarkably enduring, as were its basic features. For instance, one only needs to watch the 1953 recording of the coronation of queen Elizabeth II and then read accounts of royal coronations back to those found in ancient Mesopotamian and Egyptian sources to appreciate that this constituent rite of kingship, together with its accompanying paraphernalia, is essentially the same throughout recorded history. Gundlach (1992: 8) continues by pointing out that monarchies started to die out in Europe only towards the end of World War I, leaving behind a gaping hole in social organization which needed to be filled. In some cases the substitutes for monarchy were dictatorships, on the surface detaching themselves from religion, yet actually built upon the modified religious foundations of sacred kingship. Thus Hitler legitimized his status by presenting himself as the one chosen by “Providence” to save Germany and Europe while Stalin and others used the abstract “Will of the Proletariate” to legitimize their rule of the people.19 This change of divinely sanctioned kingship provided for a continuation of sacred absolute monarchy in the person of the modern dictator. As ever before, the ruler was the pillar of the state and the ultimate decision maker, subject only to the rather ephemeral authority of the “Providence” or the Marxist-Leninist “sacred scriptures” of which he was the only legitimate exegete. The accompanying adapted or newly created pseudo-religious rituals, in total constituting the leader cult by which popular opinion was carefully manipulated, enabled the dictator to quickly acquire god-like status. It is exactly the perceived divine component in both Šulgi’s and Stalin’s rulership that makes these two figures comparable in the first place. Even more so if one looks at the respective bodies of propagandistic literature pertaining to both rulers. Indeed, the supposed divinity of both rulers actually may have been the driving force behind the creation of Šulgi’s and Stalin’s laudatory literature. Note that the

––––––––––––– 17. I am grateful to G. J. Selz for alerting me to this study. 18. Gundlach 1992: 6. Translation mine. 19. See ibid.

Šulgi Meets Stalin

239

genre of royal hymn faded away by the end of the Old Babylonian period when any signs of royal divinity were finally dropped. Similarly, Stalinist praise poetry ceased to be written after Stalin’s death and especially following the exposure of his “personality cult” at the XX. Congress of the Soviet Communist Party in 1956.20 Yet the comparison seems possible also on the premise that the Ur III kingdom and Stalinist Russia (together with its satellites) are similar in the most basic traits of political culture, although they are considerably different in other respects. The general features are that both states were autocratic, empire-like entities run by a number of administrators with the ruler being worshipped like a god. The similarities of the central link, i.e. Šulgi’s and Stalin’s divine status, become even more apparent if one looks at the consequences resulting from it. For instance, the naming of toponyms after the king or leader (“Ford of Šulgi,” “Cattlepen of Šulgi,” “Šulgi Is Abundance,” etc.; Stalingrad, Stalinabad, Stalinsk, etc.),21 the naming of people after him (“Who Is Like Šulgi?,” “Šulgi Is My Father,” “Šulgi Is the God of the Land”; the Tajik actress Stalina A. Azamatova, etc.),22 and the establishment of temples for Šulgi and the so-called “museums” for Stalin, etc.23 It is no surprise, therefore, that ideologically charged literature pertaining to the two rulers is similar too.24

5. In His Words There Is Thunder vs. I am a Great Storm: The Examples This section focuses on some direct comparisons. I have selected one major and some minor works of Czech and Russian Stalinist poetry as particularly illustrative examples. The Czech one is a large poem, truly a “royal hymn” in its own right, with the paradigmatic title Song of Stalin, written in 1949 to celebrate the dictator’s 70th birthday.25 The Russian ones are lyrics of propagandistic songs In Praise of J. V. Stalin, Two Falcons, Many Stars Shine in the Sky, A Festive Song, and The Capital of Peace/World, the Homeland’s Capital.26

––––––––––––– 20. On Šulgi’s divinity see, for example, Michalowski 2008 with references. From the voluminous literature on Stalin’s cult see, for example, Davies 1997: 147-182; Groys 1988; Heizer 1977; Lane 1981; Löhmann 1990; Plamper 2012. 21. n é - b e - e r - d š u l - g i k i , a - ṣ a - a r - d š u l - g i , d š u l - g i - ḫ é - ĝ á l k i . See Edzard and Farber 1974: 86, 17, 139. For a list of Soviet toponyms named after Stalin see Heizer 1977: 205. 22. a - b a - d š u l - g i - g i n 7 , d š u l - g i - a - a - ĝ u 1 0 , d š u l - g i - d i ĝ i r - k a l a m - m a . See Schneider 1949: 351-354; Limet 1968: 175-177, and passim plus catalogue; Di Vito 1993: 49-50 (catalogue). On the naming of people after the divine king see also Michalowski 1991: 55. 23. Temples of Šulgi are attested at Ĝirsu, Gu’aba, Iri-Saĝrig, KI.AN, and Umma. See most recently Reichel 2008: 133-134, 145, fig. 7.2. Cf. Michalowski 2008: 38. A Stalin museum is still in operation in the dictator’s birthplace Gori, Georgia. 24. A comparison of the Šulgi literature with that glorifying other totalitarian leaders whose states share(d) the basic features outlined above as far as their political culture is concerned – e.g. Saddam who ruled the same land as Šulgi, or Kim Il-sung, Kim Jong-il, and now the next member of the dynasty Kim Jong-un, whose cult is arguably the most developed (see, for instance, Lankov 2007: 732) – would be desirable. 25. Neumann 1949. 26. Lyrics by M. Isakovskii, 1944; lyrics by idem, 1937; author unknown, 1948; lyrics by V. Lebedev-Kumach, 1950; author unknown, 1939. Full texts of all songs as well as the music are available at www.sovmusic.ru.

240

LUDĚK VACÍN

First, let us consider the enormous similarity of literary topoi used by the modern as well as ancient authors independently of each other. It shows that basic propagandistic tools remain the same and indeed it could hardly be otherwise. If the hero was to be presented as superhuman, mighty and infallible, the author must have employed animal imagery, compared the hero with mountains, rivers, atmospherical phenomena, etc.: Hero of heroes, one of fabulous warriors, while striding he shakes Mother Earth with his tread. In his words there is thunder. He is born of lightning. His heart is like mountains and soul like a river. (Song of Stalin; Neumann 1949: 12) I am a warrior whose might is enormous might. I am Šulgi, whose shadow lies over the mountain lands. (Šulgi B, ll. 354-355; ETCSL, 2.4.2.02) I am a great storm let loose from heaven, sending its splendour far and wide. (Šulgi C, l. 4; ETCSL, 2.4.2.03) We praise the falcon,

I am a fierce-eyed lion sired by a dragon. (Šulgi A, l. 3; Klein 1981b: 188)

flying higher than the others,

Strength of lions, hero of battle – I have no rivals. (Šulgi C, l. 10; ETCSL, 2.4.2.03)

whose mighty power defeats all enemies.

I am Šulgi, the mighty king. I am superior to all. (Šulgi A, l. 26; Klein 1981b: 190)

We praise the falcon,

I am the king, a wild bull of acknowledged strength, a lion with wide-open jaws. (Šulgi C, l. 1; ETCSL, 2.4.2.03)

our best friend,

Hero, lord, … the right side of Sumer. (Šulgi X, l. 134; Klein 1981b: 142)

we praise Stalin – marshal of the people. (In Praise of J. V. Stalin; lyrics by M. Isakovskii, 1944)

May your name be pleasant in the mouths of Sumer and all the foreign lands like Ašnan. (Šulgi X, l. 138; Klein 1981b: 144)

Interestingly, modern propagandists sought to persuade their readers of the “fact” that they were telling the truth too, precisely as their ancient counterparts did. Their method was not so straightforward but their message was basically the same: ... and elders were telling sagas about him; not laudatory verses, a piece of someone’s epic, which will be written out of a mountain of five-year plans. (Song of Stalin; Neumann 1949: 12. Bold mine)

Šulgi Meets Stalin

241

Let them tell in song a perfect recital of all my praiseworthy deeds. (Šulgi C, l. 20; ETCSL, 2.4.2.03) No one has embellished my prayers with achievements that I have not matched. (Šulgi E, l. 45; ETCSL, 2.4.2.05)

Let us now turn to historical information contained in propagandistic literature. I begin with a metaphorical narrative of succession of power from Lenin to Stalin: As the first falcon bade farewell to the second one, he turned to his companion with his last words. O my blue-grey falcon, time has come to say goodbye, all work and care is now up to you. And the second one replied: Forget your concerns, we bow low to you – we will not go astray! (Two Falcons; lyrics by M. Isakovskii, 1937)

Lenin and Stalin are called by name earlier in the song and although it does not convey any details of their relationship it is nevertheless a complementary source of basic historical information, namely that Stalin succeeded Lenin. The song as a whole is a short literary work built upon this simple fact which is historical and has to be recognized as such. Similarly, the Šulgi hymns contain such banal yet historical data like the king’s name and royal title and so incorporation of other, more complex, historical data into the narrative seems likely. Next, let us have a look at the way of distorting historical information in modern propaganda. The propagandistic song Many Stars Shine in the Sky offers a particularly apt example: If we could meet Stalin, if we could talk to him, if we could say how life has become happy for us in the collective farm. Ah, my orchards, little orchards in the spring are in blossom all around. Ah, we live a happy and comfortable life in the collective farm. (Many Stars Shine in the Sky; author unknown, 1948)

This passage informs us about the existence of collective farms in the USSR. However, that is the only historical fact it conveys. Everything else is propaganda, for we know from independent sources that forced collectivization of Russian agriculture in early 1930s caused famine on a massive scale that cost millions of lives. But if this and similar texts were our only source we would end up saying that Stalin reformed Russian agriculture for the well-being of the people. That is how

242

LUDĚK VACÍN

he himself understood the collectivization and how he wanted it to appear to the public.27 Another problem concerning historical data in propagandistic texts is that the authors could provide just an allusion to a significant event without any context or explanation because the audience knew that event’s nature and accompanying circumstances either from their own experience or from other sources. If we come across such information in the Šulgi texts, it is largely useless unless there are some more detailed sources. A good example from our modern comparative material is A Festive Song dealing with an unidentified festivity taking place in Moscow and apparently celebrating a military victory and the bright future resulting from it. The only specific historical information is found in the following couplet: We remember the fiery years, we remember year forty-one, our people were heroic during the days of great trials. (A Festive Song; lyrics by V. Lebedev-Kumach, 1950)

We know from other sources that the song refers to the annual “Victory Day” festival taking place on 9 May in Moscow and that the lines quoted refer to the German invasion of the Soviet Union on 22 June 1941 and the consequent suffering of the people. But without them the only thing we would be able to say is that these lines and the song as a whole deal with remembrance of a victory in a major military conflict that probably started in the year 1941. Now, it is important to stress that the other sources do not have to be historical but can be literary as well. In this particular case another propagandistic song adds information on the identity of the enemies who are mocked as slimy and backward creatures, which is usual in propagandistic literature including that from Mesopotamia: Fascist snakes, samurai bands, we will vanquish them on their own lands. (The Capital of Peace/World, the Homeland’s Capital; author unknown, 1939)28

The combined evidence of all four lines implies that the USSR faced an attack led by “fascist snakes” (from other historical as well as literary sources known as the Germans) and “samurai bands” (known as the Japanese) in the year 1941. Further, the context of both songs makes it clear that those enemies were regarded as a threat before 1941 and after a war of unknown duration, during which the Soviet people suffered a lot, both enemies were successfully “vanquished on their own lands.” However inaccurate and condensed this historical information may be, it is nevertheless partly true. Indeed, it is interesting how much historical data we can get from just two short propagandistic texts, if we take them seriously. Now, let us have a look at a comparative example from a Šulgi hymn:

––––––––––––– 27. On Soviet collectivization see especially Fitzpatrick 1994 with references. Cf. Conquest 1986. On the situation in the Soviet countryside after World War II, i.e. at the time of the origin of the quoted song, see Ganson 2009. 28. The fact that this song originated prior to the invasion and that the Red Army had to struggle hard before “vanquishing the fascist snakes on their own lands” (as is well known, it was quite a different story with the “samurai bands”) is essentially of no importance for the interpretation of the lines quoted.

Šulgi Meets Stalin

243

The hero avenged his city, whatever has been destroyed in Sumer, he destroyed in the foreign land. The king ruined the city walls after destroying the city. He dispersed the seed of the Gutians like seed-grain. (Šulgi D, ll. 334-335, 344, 346; Klein 1981b: 84)

These lines from Šulgi’s hymn D+X inform us that the king avenged a fierce attack on his homeland led by the Gutians, i.e. inhabitants of Babylonia’s north-eastern fringe and the mountain regions to the east, destroyed one or more cities and inflicted a heavy blow on the enemy populace. Another literary source (Ur-Namma A) makes it clear that Šulgi’s father UrNamma suffered a defeat at the hands of an unnamed enemy and died in or shortly after a lost battle, which resulted in an advance of enemy troops on the heartland and a crisis for the recently established Ur III kingdom: Evil came upon Ur and made the faithful shepherd leave it. … The wise shepherd … ceases to give instructions. (In) battle and (combat) … … The leader of Sumer lies suffering. … Urnamma, king of the land, approached the “House of Fury,” Urnamma approached Ur, entered the “House of Teeth Grinding.” The proud one is lying in his palace. Urnamma, the beloved one of the troops, will not raise his neck again. The one overseeing all the foreign lands is lying, the (deadly) silence fluttered down. … They uproot him like a sappy cedar (in) the palace (where he is) lying. (Ur-Namma A, ll. 6, 31-32, 35, 40-44, 48; Flückiger-Hawker 1999: 101, 106-110)

The combined evidence of these two literary sources offers an inaccurate and condensed, yet quite important glimpse of early Ur III history. My succinct analysis of examples from modern propaganda shows that it would be mistaken to think that Sumerian royal literature does not reflect historical events or that their reflections are too formalized to be used in a historical reconstruction. For if modern ideologically charged literature contains at least partially accurate historical allusions, why should we think that the ancient texts do not, especially if both text groups are otherwise quite similar in their usage of metaphors and literary clichés? Consequently, I am convinced that the perception of ancient Mesopotamian royal literature as a propagandistic one and the method of comparing it with its modern counterparts are viable in the search for historical data in such texts, and can yield important results after a full consideration of all their possibilities and pitfalls.

244

LUDĚK VACÍN

Bibliography Alster, B. 1993 Some Ur III Literary Texts and Other Sumerian Texts in Yale and Philadelphia. Acta Sumerologica 15: 1-10. Beckman, G. 2005 The Limits of Credulity (Presidential Address). Journal of the American Oriental Society 125: 343-352. Bernays, E. L. 1928 Propaganda. New York: Horace Liveright. Brisch, N. M. 2007 Tradition and the Poetics of Innovation: Sumerian Court Literature of the Larsa Dynasty (c. 2003-1763 BCE). Alter Orient und Altes Testament 339. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. 2011 Changing Images of Kingship in Sumerian Literature. Pp. 706-724 in The Oxford Handbook of Cuneiform Culture, ed. K. Radner and E. Robson. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. Civil, M. 1967 Šū-Sîn’s Historical Inscriptions: Collection B. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 21: 2438. 1980 Les limites de l’information textuelle. Pp. 225-232 in L’archéologie de l’Iraq du début de l’époque néolithique a 333 avant notre ère: perspectives et limites de l’interprétation anthropologique des documents, ed. M.-T. Barrelet. Paris: CNRS. 1985 On Some Texts Mentioning Ur-Namma. Orientalia Nova Series 54: 27-45. Conquest, R. 1986 The Harvest of Sorrow: Soviet Collectivization and the Terror-Famine. New York: Oxford University Press. Davies, S. 1997 Popular Opinion in Stalin’s Russia: Terror, Propaganda and Dissent, 1934-1941. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Di Vito, R. A. 1993 Studies in Third Millennium Sumerian and Akkadian Personal Names: The Designation and Conception of the Personal God. Studia Pohl: Series Maior 16. Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico. Edzard, D. O., and Farber, G. 1974 Die Orts- und Gewässernamen der Zeit der 3. Dynastie von Ur. Répertoire Géographique des Textes Cunéiformes 2. Wiesbaden: L. Reichert. Ellul, J. 1965 Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. ETCSL: Black, J. A. (†) et al. 1998- The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature. http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk (accessed July 31, 2013). Fitzpatrick, S. 1994 Stalin’s Peasants: Resistance and Survival in the Russian Village after Collectivization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Flückiger-Hawker, E. 1999 Urnamma of Ur in Sumerian Literary Tradition. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 166. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Frayne, D. R. 1981 The Historical Correlations of the Sumerian Royal Hymns (2400-1900 B.C.). Ph. D. dissertation, Yale University.

Šulgi Meets Stalin

245

1997 Ur III Period (2112-2004 BC). The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia. Early Periods 3/2. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Ganson, N. 2009 The Soviet Famine of 1946-47 in Global and Historical Perspective. Houndmills, Basingstoke, and New York: Palgrave Macmillan. George, A. L. 1959 Propaganda Analysis: A Study of Inferences Made from Nazi Propaganda in World War II. Evanston and White Plains: Row, Peterson and Company. Groys, B. 1988 Gesamtkunstwerk Stalin: Die gespaltene Kultur in der Sowjetunion. Munich and Vienna: Carl Hanser Verlag. Gundlach, R. 1992 Der Sakralherrscher als historisches und phänomenologisches Problem. Pp. 1-22 in Legitimation und Funktion des Herrschers: Vom ägyptischen Pharao zum neuzeitlichen Diktator, ed. R. Gundlach and H. Weber. Schriften der Mainzer Philosophischen Fakultätsgesellschaft 13. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag. Hallo, W. W. 1963 On the Antiquity of Sumerian Literature. Journal of the American Oriental Society 83: 167-176. 1966 The Coronation of Ur-Nammu. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 20: 133-141. 1970 The Cultic Setting of Sumerian Poetry. Pp. 116-134 in Actes de la XVIIe Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Université Libre de Bruxelles, 30. juin–4. juillet 1969, ed. A. Finet. Ham-sur-Heure: Comité Belge de Recherches en Mésopotamie. 1990 The Limits of Skepticism. Journal of the American Oriental Society 110: 187-199. Heizer, J. L. 1977 The Cult of Stalin, 1929-1939. Ph. D. dissertation, University of Kentucky. Jowett, G. S., and O’Donnell, V. 2006 Propaganda and Persuasion, 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, London, and New Delhi: Sage Publications. Kallis, A. A. 2005 Nazi Propaganda and the Second World War. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Klein, J. 1976 Šulgi and Gilgameš: Two Brother-Peers (Šulgi O). Pp. 271-292 in Kramer Anniversary Volume: Cuneiform Studies in Honor of Samuel Noah Kramer, ed. B. L. Eichler, J. W. Heimerdinger, and Å. W. Sjöberg. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 25. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag / Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker. 1981a The Royal Hymns of Shulgi King of Ur: Man’s Quest for Immortal Fame. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 71/7. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society. 1981b Three Šulgi Hymns: Sumerian Royal Hymns Glorifying King Šulgi of Ur. Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press. 1985 Šulgi and Išmedagan: Runners in the Service of the Gods (SRT 13). Beer Sheva 2: 7*-38*. 1989a Building and Dedication Hymns in Sumerian Literature. Acta Sumerologica 11: 2667. 1989b From Gudea to Šulgi: Continuity and Change in Sumerian Literary Tradition. Pp. 289-301 in Dumu-e2-dub-ba-a: Studies in Honor of Åke W. Sjöberg, ed. H. Behrens, D. Loding, and M. T. Roth. Occasional Publications of the Samuel Noah Kramer Fund 11. Philadelphia: The Samuel Noah Kramer Fund, University Museum. 1990 Šulgi and Išmedagan: Originality and Dependence in Sumerian Royal Hymnology. Pp. 65-136 in Bar-Ilan Studies in Assyriology Dedicated to Pinḥas Artzi, ed. J. Klein and A. Skaist. Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press.

246

LUDĚK VACÍN

1991 The Coronation and Consecration of Šulgi in the Ekur (Šulgi G). Pp. 292-313 in Ah, Assyria…: Studies in Assyrian History and Ancient Near Eastern Historiography Presented to Hayim Tadmor, ed. M. Cogan and I. Eph’al. Scripta Hierosolymitana 33. Jerusalem: Magnes Press. Lane, C. 1981 The Rites of Rulers: Ritual in Industrial Society – the Soviet Case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lankov, A. N. 2007 North of the DMZ: Essays on Daily Life in North Korea. Jefferson: McFarland and Company. Limet, H. 1968 L’anthroponymie sumérienne dans les documents de la 3e dynastie d’Ur. Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Liverani, M. 1996 2084: Ancient Propaganda and Historical Criticism. Pp. 283-289 in The Study of the Ancient Near East in the Twenty-First Century: The William Foxwell Albright Centennial Conference, ed. J. S. Cooper and G. M. Schwartz. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. Löhmann, R. 1990 Der Stalinmythos: Studien zur Sozialgeschichte des Personenkultes in der Sowjetunion (1929-1935). Politische Soziologie 3. Münster: Lit. Ludwig, M.-C. 1990 Untersuchungen zu den Hymnen des Išme-Dagan von Isin. Santag 2. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Michalowski, P. 1991 Charisma and Control: On Continuity and Change in Early Mesopotamian Bureaucratic Systems. Pp. 45-57 in The Organization of Power: Aspects of Bureaucracy in the Ancient Near East, ed. McG. Gibson and R. D. Biggs. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilizations 46, 2nd ed. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 2003 A Man Called Enmebaragesi. Pp. 195-208 in Literatur, Politik und Recht in Mesopotamien: Festschrift für Claus Wilcke, ed. W. Sallaberger, K. Volk, and A. Zgoll. Orientalia Biblica et Christiana 14. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 2008 The Mortal Kings of Ur: A Short Century of Divine Rule in Ancient Mesopotamia. Pp. 33-45 in Religion and Power: Divine Kingship in the Ancient World and Beyond, ed. N. M. Brisch. Oriental Institute Seminars 4. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Neumann, S. 1949 Píseň o Stalinu (Song of Stalin). Prague: Mladá fronta. Plamper, J. 2012 The Stalin Cult: A Study in the Alchemy of Power. New Haven: Yale University Press. Potts, T. 2001 Reading the Sargonic “Historical-Literary” Tradition: Is There a Middle Course? (Thoughts on The Great Revolt against Naram-sin). Pp. 391-408 in Historiography in the Cuneiform World: Proceedings of the XLVe Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale. Part I (Harvard University), ed. T. Abusch et al. Bethesda: CDL Press. Reichel, C. 2008 The King Is Dead, Long Live the King: The Last Days of the Šu-Sîn Cult at Ešnunna and Its Aftermath. Pp. 133-155 in Religion and Power: Divine Kingship in the Ancient World and Beyond, ed. N. M. Brisch. Oriental Institute Seminars 4. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Šulgi Meets Stalin

247

Reisman, D. D. 1969 Two Neo-Sumerian Royal Hymns. Ph. D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. Rubio, G. 2000 (2005) On the Orthography of the Sumerian Literary Texts from the Ur III Period. Acta Sumerologica 22: 203-225. Schneider, N. 1949 Herrschernamen als theophores Element bei Personennamen. Pp. 351-358 in Symbolae ad Studia Orientis Pertinentes Frederico Hrozný Dedicatae, vol. 2, ed. V. Čihař, J. Klíma, and L. Matouš. Archiv orientální 17-18. Prague: The Oriental Institute. Taylor, P. M. 2003 Munitions of the Mind: A History of Propaganda from the Ancient World to the Present Day, 3rd ed. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Tinney, S. J. 1996 The Nippur Lament: Royal Rhetoric and Divine Legitimation in the Reign of IšmeDagan of Isin (1953-1935 B.C.). Occasional Publications of the Samuel Noah Kramer Fund 16. Philadelphia: The University Museum. Wu, Y. 1995 High-Ranking “Scribes” and Intellectual Governors during the Akkadian and Ur III Periods. Journal of Ancient Civilizations 10: 127-145.

The Control of Copper and Bronze Objects in Umma During the Ur III Period Franco D’Agostino and Francesca Gorello* UNIVERSITÀ LA SAPIENZA, ROME

1. Introduction In 1993 H. Neumann published the second edition of his seminal study of handicrafts during the Ur III period. This work is the only comprehensive study so far on this topic. This is a demonstration in vitro that the author was able to single out all the relevant problems of the documentation, but also a hint that not too much new evidence has come out on this subject in the last twenty years. In this contribution, we present a group of texts that were already considered in Neumann’s study along with 80 new documents that have been published since 1993. It is an archive from Umma, represented now, to the best of our knowledge, by 140 documents, in which the administrative practice of the weighing of copper and bronze objects is recorded. The formula that describes the administrative, or bureaucratic raison d’être of these texts is either i n - l á or ì - l á .1 The same formula is used in the documentation to establish the control of textiles in Umma, which has been recently studied by Verderame (2008: 111-133) and by Firth and Nosch (2012: 65-82); and as we shall see the same Central Bureau was in charge of weighing both textiles and metal objects.

2. The Documentation: The “in -lá Texts” The majority of these 140 texts, that is 117 documents,2 record the administrative expression i n - l á while the rest preserve the expression ì - l á , so we begin the analysis with the first sub-group. These texts cover a period of ca. 41 years from Šulgi 28 until the third year of the reign of Ibbi-Suen, and they never mention the day in the date.3 From a chronological point of view, 80% of the tablets on which a

––––––––––––– * F. D’Agostino and F. Gorello co-authored this article; F. Gorello is responsible for §§ 1-8, while F. D’Agostino is responsible for § 9. 1. For a synthesis on the activity of the blacksmiths in Ĝirsu, see Lafont 1991: 119-129. 2. UTI 4 2767 ([-/-]/-) is badly damaged so it is not easy to say whether it belongs to this group. Notwithstanding the fact that BPOA 1 1046 (Š 48/i/-) and UTI 6 3549+3577 (ŠS 7/-/-) present the formula ì - l á , they should be related to this group because of the inner structure of these tablets (see below). 3. But they do not represent monthly registration because we have tablets dated to the same year and month (ex.g. Š 48/i/-: BPOA 1 1046, Fish, MCS 1, 37; Š 48/v/-: SAT 2 624, 626, 627, 628, 629; etc.).

251

252

FRANCO D’AGOSTINO AND FRANCESCA GORELLO

date is present come from the period from Šulgi 46 to Amar-Suena 8, that is, they record the oversight of copper for only eleven years, while only 9% of the documentation goes back to the years Šulgi 25 to 45 and another 9% from Šu-Suen 1 until Ibbi-Suen 3.4

3. The Structure of the “in -lá Texts” The “ i n - l á tablets” present a very standardized structure: the documents start with the list of objects that form the purpose of the text,5 always numbered and followed by the expression k i - l á - b i and the mention of the total weight;6 with very few exceptions one of the two technical formulas, k i n t i l - l a or k i n d ú b - b a , is added at this point, likely hinting respectively to objects that have been produced ex novo or simply restored.7 It is worth stressing that 110 texts present one of these expressions, that is 93% of the sample, and that their distribution is clearly not related to specific objects or period. The almost constant presence of one of these specifications of the performed work, however we want to interpret them, obviously means that these texts record the end of the long process of creating / restoring metal objects. Following this technical section, before the date, we have the administrative part of the tablet, which is the reason why the texts were written and offers us information regarding the office that issued the tablet (we will return to this point shortly). Here the two main actors of the document appear. The first one is the person who delivers the objects to be weighed, and who in many instances is labeled s i m u g , “blacksmith,” introduced by the usual periphrasis k i ~ t a , 8 the second is the one who weighs the objects, characterized by the verbal form i n - l á . In 5 tablets (4% of the sample) we find two officers together, U r - d Š á r a and L ú - k a l l a and L ú - k a l - l a and U r - d N u n - g a l . 9 It is worth stressing again that i n - l á must be considered as a sort of terminus technicus for this administrative typology. The structure we described above is only very rarely modified by the scribe.10

––––––––––––– 4. In two cases, UTI 4 2767 and AnOr 7 341, the date is lost. 5. The overwhelming majority of the texts list agricultural tools, u r u d a (ŠE).KIN and u r u d a h a - b ù d a , see § 4 below. 6. See also ad § 4 below. 7. In six instances, MVN 20 40 (Š 33/ix/-), MVN 20 2 (Š 34/ix/-), BPOA 6 968 (Š 34/x/-), Hallo, HUCA 29, 92 NBC 214 (Š 36/ix/-), BPOA 6 1095 (Š 38/xi/-) and SAT 2 626 (Š 48/v/-), the expression k i n d ú b - b a is followed by the formula KA-ú s - t a g u r - r a , which we tentatively translate here as “(objects) come back from (the weapons of?) the à g a - ú s (= KA-ú s ) ” (for the interpretation of KA-ú s as a variant of à g a - ú s in Umma see Lafont 2008: 33 and n. 52). We do not find in Umma the use of the verb z i - i r , “to break,” which is used in Ĝirsu for the broken object to be restored (ex.g. Berens 46: 1-3 [ŠS 3/-/-]: 5 u r u d a h a - b ù - d a / k i - l á - b i 1 m a - n a 1 0 g í n / b a - z i - i r ). 8. In SAT 3 2095 ([-]/v/-); MVN 15 163 (AS 1/vi/-); DoCu EPHE 222 (AS 1/vi/-) and Contenau, RA 12, 20 9 (AS 1/vi/-) a series of PNs is followed by the synthetic expression k i s i m u g - n e - t a . In one text, BPOA 7 2941 (AS 7/vi/-), it is the n u - b à n d a U r - ĝ i š g i g i r , probably the boss of the specialized workers, who delivers u r u d a h a - b ù - d a , followed by the expression k i n t i l - l a . 9. For the chronological considerations see below, § 7. 10. The s i m u g delivering the objects is always mentioned, except in the following three cases (in UTI 3 2154, IS 3/xi/-, the section with the s i m u g is broken away): Nisaba 9 116 (ŠS 1/vii/-), UTI 6 3549+3577 (ŠS 7/-/-) and Nik. 2 421 (ŠS 7/viii/-), in which only the one who weighs the objects is mentioned. Finally, in three tablets the figure of the ĝ ì r is added: Fish, MCS 1, 37 BM 105452 (Š 48/i/-), in

The Control of Copper and Bronze Objects in Umma

253

To sum up, a typical tablet of the “i n - l á archive” is characterized by the following sections: Technical Section: Copper or bronze objects ki-lá-bi k i n t i l - l a or k i n d ú b - b a Administrative Section: k i PN1-t a PN2 (/ PN3) i n - l á 11 A good example of a tablet with the simplest structure of this typology is Santag 6 93 (Š 48/viii/-), no seal, ruled: r.

1)

53 urudaha-bù-da

53 hoes,

2)

ki-lá-bi 31 2/3 ma-na / 6 gín

whose (total) weight is 31 m. and 46 sh. (= ca. 16 kg)12

3)

kin til-la

– (it is) a work done in its entirety,

4)

ki Da-da-ga-ta

from PN1

5) v. 1) 2)

d

Ur- Šára-ke4 in-lá

PN2 has weighed (= controlled by weighing)

iti é-iti-6

Month

mu Ha-ar-šiki Ki/-maški / ba-hul

Year

Of course the headings 1-3 can be repeated up to three times before the administrative sections 4 and 5, obviously with different PNs. 48% of the sample are sealed (57 of 117 tablets) and all the sealed tablets are unruled (in the cases when it is possible to have this information).13

4. Objects Attested in the “in -lá Texts” The objects weighed in these texts are always manufactured out of copper or bronze. Silver (or gold) artifacts are never attested in this typology.14 We can reconstruct the following chart from the documentation (according to the objects in alphabetical order):

––––––––––––– which we find, Ur-dNun-gal and Árad in this role; UTI 5 3103 (IS 3/vi/-), in which the ĝ ì r is L ú - d H a i à , and BPOA 7 2581 (AS 4/ix/), with L ú - k a l - l a and U r - d N u n - g a l as ĝ ì r . As we shall see, all of these individuals are also attested as the ones who weigh the objects. 11. BPOA 1 1046 presents the typical structure of an “ i n - l á tablet,” moreover introducing the same PNs we find in our texts as the weighing officers, that is D a - d a - g a and U r - d Š á r a , and even includes the technical expression k i n t i l - l a , but the verbal form used is transliterated as ì - l á . 12. The weight is calculated on the ratio 1 g í n = 8,4 gr. 13. There are also texts in which the formula i n - l á is not present but which clearly record an aspect of the same activity. See, for example, DoCu EPHE 77 (AS 1/v/-) and 33 (AS 5/i/-), where only parts 1 to 4 of the structure are present; these tablets could represent the documents with the objects delivered directly by the workshop of the s i m u g toward the Central Office. 14. It is perhaps far too obvious to point out that there is a great professional specialization between the k ù - d í m , “goldsmith,” and the s i m u g , “blacksmith.” See, for example, MVN 3 213: r. 2-3, where among the witnesses we find the pair: i g i Š e š - a - n i s i m u g - š è / i g i K ù - s a 6 - g a k ù - d í m š è . Only in Mari do we find the equation s i m u g = k ù - d í m , for which see Joannès 2009: 232-234.

254

FRANCO D’AGOSTINO AND FRANCESCA GORELLO

Objects uruda zabar

á-si

Texts giš

ig

á-sur

uruda

Š 48/i/-: Fish, MCS 1, 37 BM 105452; AS 8/iv/-: MVN 16 1142, UTI 4 2336;

ar-ma-tum

uruda /zabar

Š 48/ix/-: BPOA 2 2172; Š 48/x/-: BPOA 6 5, Prima dell’alfabeto 37;

bulug4

Š 48/x/-: BPOA 1 414, Nik. 2 419; ŠS 7/xi/-: MVN 18 245; Š 48/v/-: SAT 2 628; Š 48/ ix/-: Nik. 2 415, SAT 2 621; AS 4/x/-: SAT 2 1143; AS 7/vii/-: Syracuse 313;

uruda

é-dim

Š 48/iv/-: BPOA 7 2871;

uruda

é-gír

AS 4/x/-: SAT 2 1143;

uruda

giĝ4

Š 28/iv/-: BRM 3 144; AS 4/x/-: SAT 2 1143; AS 4/xi/-: Hallo, HUCA 29, 88 15;

uruda

ha-bù-da

[-/-]/-: MVN 18 341, UTI 4 2767; [-]/v/-: SAT 3 2095; Š 33/ix/-: MVN 20 2, MVN 20 40; Š 34/x/-: BPOA 6 968; Š 36/ix/-: Hallo, HUCA 29, 92 NBC 214; Š 38/xi/-: BPOA 6 1095; Š 44/-/-: BPOA 6 956, BPOA 7 1667; Š 44/viii/-: Syracuse 311; Š 45/i/-: Syracuse 418; Š 45/xii/-: Syracuse 255; Š 46/-/-: BPOA 7 2959; Š 46/vi/-: SAT 2 461; Š 46/xi/-: Farmer’s Instructions 1.3.1; Š 46/xiii/-: BPOA 6 917, SNAT 298; Š 47/v/-: Aleppo 496; Š 47/vi/-: Foxvog, JCS 35, 182, Peat, JCS 28, 213 19, Prima dell’alfabeto 36; Š 47/viii/-: Princeton 2 468; Š 47/ix/-: BPOA 7 2105; Š 47/xii/-: BPOA 6 1255, MVN 20 86; Š 48/iv/-: BPOA 7 2871; Š 48/v/-: Hallo, HUCA 29, 92 n. 34 YBC 11690/ SAT 2 623, MVN 13 783, MVN 13 784, MVN 13 796, MVN 20 104, Nik. 2 417, Santag 6 90, Santag 6 91, SAT 2 626, SAT 2 627, SAT 2 629; Š 48/vi/-: Farmer’s Instructions 1.3.2, MVN 20 103, Nik. 2 413, Nik. 2 414, SAT 2 619, SAT 2 620, SAT 2 631, UCP 9-2-2 10; Š 48/vii/-: Fish, JMEOS 12, 37 3470, Fish, JMEOS 12, 41 3489, Prima dell’alfabeto 38, Nik. 2 416, SAT 2 618, SAT 2 622, SAT 2 632; Š 48/viii/-: BPOA 6 608, Santag 6 92, Santag 6 93, Santag 6 94; Š 48/ix/-: BPOA 2 2172, Nik. 2 415, SAT 2 621; Š 48/x/-: Prima dell’alfabeto 37; Š 48/xii/-: Nik. 2 412, Princeton 2 348, UCP 9-2-2 81; AS 1/v/-: Contenau, RA 12, 21 12, Contenau, RA 12, 21 13, Contenau, RA 12, 21 14, Farmer’s Instructions 1.3.3, Owen, JCS 24, 150 8 = MVN 15 8, Owen, Mesopotamia 8-9, 150 6; AS 1/vi/-: Contenau, RA 12, 21 15, DoCu EPHE 222, MVN 15 163, OrSP 47-49 317; AS 1/vii/-: CHEU 66, Contenau, RA 12, 21 16; AS 4/vi/-: MVN 5 28; AS 4/ix/-: BPOA 7 2581; AS 4/x/-: SAT 2 1143; AS 4/xii/-: Hallo, HUCA 29, 88 15; AS 7/-/-: BPOA 6 1282; AS 7/v/-: AUCT 1 678; AS 7/vi/-: BPOA 7 2941; AS 7/xi/-: BPOA 7 2369; AS 8/iv/-: UTI 4 2336; AS 8/vi/: MVN 16 1353, UTI 4 2377; ŠS 1/vii/-: Nisaba 9 116; ŠS 5/xi/-: BCT 2 87; ŠS 6/xii/-: UTI 4 2548; ŠS 7/-/-: UTI 6 3549+3577; IS 3/vi/-: UTI 5 3103; IS 3/xii/-: UTI 5 3436;

uruda

har

[-/-]/-: UTI 4 2767; Š 44/-/-: BPOA 7 1667;

uruda

giš

har

uruda

ha-zi-in

ig

ŠS 1/vii/-: Nisaba 9 116; [-/-]/-: MVN 18 341; Š 33/ix/-: MVN 20 2; Š 34/x/-: BPOA 6 968; Š 38/xi/-: BPOA 6 1095; Š 44/-/-: Aleppo 495, BPOA 6 956, BPOA 7 1667; Š 45/xii/-: Syracuse 255; Š 46/xiii/-: BPOA 6 917; Š 47/viii/-: Princeton 2 468; Š 47/xii/-: BPOA 6 1255, MVN 20 86; Š 48/iv/-: BPOA 7 2871; Š

The Control of Copper and Bronze Objects in Umma

255

48/vi/-: Nik. 2 414; SAT 2 620; Š 48/xii/-: Princeton 2 348; AS 1/v/-: Owen, Mesopotamia 8-9, 150 6; AS 4/ix/-: BPOA 7 2581; AS 4/xii/-: Hallo, HUCA 29, 88 15; AS 7/xi/-: BPOA 7 2369; AS 8/iv/-: UTI 4 2336; IS 3/xi/-: UTI 3 2154; uruda

hu-bu-um umbim*

Š 44/-/-: BPOA 6 956; Š 48/xii/-: Nik. 2 424, Santag 6 97; AS 5/vi/-: OrSP 47-49 339*;

uruda

Š 45/xii/-: Syracuse 255;

igi mar

uruda/zabar

kak a-

Š 48/x/-: BPOA 1 414; Nik. 2 419;

ra-ab uruda

kak-ub gišig

ŠS 1/vii/-: Nisaba 9 116;

uruda

(ŠE)*.KIN

[-/-]/-: MVN 18 341, UTI 4 2767*; Š 33/ix/-: MVN 20 2, MVN 20 40; Š 34/x/-: BPOA 6 968; Š 36/ix/-: Hallo, HUCA 29, 92 NBC 214; Š 38/xi/-: BPOA 6 1095; Š 44/-/-: BPOA 6 956*; BPOA 7 1667; Š 45/xii/-: Syracuse 255; Š 46/-/-: BPOA 7 2959; Š 46/xi/-: Farmer’s Instructions 1.3.1; Š 46/xiii/-: BPOA 6 917; Š 47/viii/-: Princeton 2 468; Š 47/xii/-: BPOA 6 1255, MVN 20 86; Š 48/i/-: BPOA 1 1046*; Š 48/vi/-: Nik. 2 414, SAT 2 620, UCP 9-2-2 10; Š 48/vii/-: Fish, JMEOS 12, 41 3489; Š 48/ix/-: Nik. 2 415*, SAT 2 621; AS 1/vi/-: DoCu EPHE 222, Contenau, RA 12, 20 9, Contenau, RA 12, 21 15; AS 4/ix/-: SAT 2 779*; AS 4/x/-: SAT 2 1143*; AS 4/xii/-: Hallo, HUCA 29, 88 15*; AS 5/i/-: Contenau, RA 12, 20 6; AS 7/-/-: BPOA 6 1282; AS 7/xi/-: BPOA 7 2369*; AS 8/iv/-: UTI 4 2336*; AS 8/vi/-: MVN 16 1353*; ŠS 5/xi/-: BCT 2 87*; ŠS 7/-/-: UTI 6 3531*, UTI 6 3549+3577*; ŠS 7/i/-: MVN 14 502*; IS 2/vi/-: SET 295;

uruda

kul ul gišig

Š 48/x/-: BPOA 1 414, Nik. 2 419; ŠS 7/viii/-: Nik. 2 421;

uruda

mu-gíd-kéš

Š 48/v/-: SAT 2 624;

uruda

šen-díli

AS 8/iv/-: UTI 4 2336;

uruda

šen-gam

ŠS 5/xi/-: BCT 2 87;

uruda uruda

šen-šú

AS 1/v/-: SAT 2 660;

ub gišig

ŠS 1/vii/-: Nisaba 9 116;

zabar uruda

ul

Š 48/x/-: Santag 6 95;

zà-šú

Š 28/iv/-: BRM 3 144; Š 48/-/-: SAT 2 630; Š 48/vi/-: de Maaijer, JEOL 33, 123 9; Š 48/xii/-: Nik. 2 424, Santag 6 97; ŠS 2/-/-: MVN 13 651.

The list includes vessels or parts of them, and copper/bronze parts of doors, but the lion’s share of the objects is represented by the agricultural copper tools h a - b ù d a ,15 “hoe, axe,” akk. ḫapūtu, (ŠE).KIN (probably g u r 1 0 / 1 1 ), “sickle,” akk. niggallu, and the “(great) axe” h a - z i - i n , akk. ḫaṣṣinnu, whose fabrication and restoration

––––––––––––– 15. The writing h a - b u - d a is never attested in Umma. No hint to a warlike use of these tools is to be detected in the texts, at least in the third millennium BC (see in general Schrakamp 2006 and for the OB Period see Richardson 2005).

256

FRANCO D’AGOSTINO AND FRANCESCA GORELLO

must obviously have been the most common everyday activity of a blacksmith.16 A last consideration is necessary: given the high quantity of the tools recorded in the archive (ex.g. ca. 2600 u r u d a h a - b ù - d a and ca. 3200 u r u d a KIN) the workshop manufacturing the objects must have been the most important one in the city (if not the only one).

5. Discrepancies in the Weight of Objects in the “ in -lá Texts” We must point out a peculiarity of some of the texts here considered here which is admittedly rather strange and absolutely not clear to us. In 19 cases (13,5% of the sample) the weight of each single tool is included alongside the number of the objects, thus allowing us to confirm the accuracy in the count of the weight by the scribe.17 In all of these texts there is a clear discrepancy between the total weight as reported by the scribe (counted weight), and the weight that can be inferred from summing up the number of the objects and their respective weight (theoretical weight). In one case we have a total counted weight that is 2 manas and 4 shekels larger than the theoretical one we can infer (more than 1 kilo!),18 but in general the texts present a loss of weight, as in the following example (UTI 5 3436: 1-2): 1. 2 u r u d a h a - [ b ù ] - d a 1/2 m a - n a - t a 2. k i - l á - b i 5/6 m a - n [ a ] / 6 g [ í n ] 1. 2 copper hoes, (each weighing) 1 / 2 mana (= 252 gr), 2. whose (total) weight is 5/6 of mana and 6 shekels (= 470,4 gr).

So in this text we find a loss of 33,6 gr of copper (505 gr. of theoretical weight – 470,4 gr. of counted weight). The greatest loss is represented by BCT 2 87 (ŠS 5/xi/-), in which the discrepancy exceeds 17 kilos!19 As we said above, we do not have any solution for this strange behavior in the texts, but it is worth stressing that the documents span from Amar-Suena 4 to Ibbi-Suen 3 and in all instances we find one of the two expressions k i n t i l - l a or k i n d ú b - b a , moreover they always record the name of the s i m u g manufacturing the objects, the name of the weighing officer and the formula i n - l á . In other words, these 19 documents present the canonical structure we have highlighted for this typology of texts. But we note that when the scribes allow us to check their work, they turn out to be mistaken!20

––––––––––––– 16. See most recently Joannès: 2009: 233, with bibliography. We note that in the only (probable) private contract we posses of a blacksmith who did not fulfill his job, a ḫaṣṣinnu is the object of the dispute (Neumann 1996). 17. In 86,5% of the cases it is not possible to confirm the exactitude of the sum arrived at by the scribe because the weight of each tool counted is not recorded (cf. § 3 above). 18. Contenau, RA 12, 21 15: 3-4 (AS 1/vi/-): 48 u r u d a k i n 1 5 g í n 4 k i - l á - b i 1 4 m a - n a 4 g í n (the exact weight should be 12 manas). 19. 3-4: 1 5 0 ( = 6 0 + 6 0 + 3 0 ) l á 1 u r u d a h a - b ù - d a ½ m a - n a - t a / k i - l á - b i 4 0 ½ m a - n a (the theoretical weight is 74,5 manas). 20. We should remember in connection with this that metals can undergo two losses of weight: the first one during the refinement due to the chemical reactions in the process from the ore to the metal itself; the second one during manufacturing. Legrain 1947: ad text 392, regards ZAG.BAR as the word for

The Control of Copper and Bronze Objects in Umma

257

6. Variation in the Same Documentation from Other Cities Before discussing the actors in the documents, we want to examine the far less numerous tablets from the cities of Ur and Ĝirsu that record the same administrative activity of weighing copper and bronze objects.21 Formally we can point out the following discrepancies between the structure of those documents and the ones presented here from Umma: 1) in Ur we only find the expression d ú b - b a used as specification of the object weighed (ex.g. u r u d a h a - b ù - d a d ú b - b a ) ; 2) in Ur the formula k i ~ t a is replaced by m u - DU PN; 3) in Ĝirsu, instead of i n - l á we have b a - l á ; 4) more significantly, in both cities the focus is on the delivery of the objects from the blacksmith to the receiver, according to the formula PN š u b a - t i (which never occurs in Umma), and not on the weighing of the objects. 22

7. Blacksmiths in the “ in -l á Texts” The chronological distribution of the blacksmiths in the “ i n - l á archive” can be schematized as follows: Period

Blacksmith

Š 28

Lugal-é-mah-e Ur-dUtu

Š 28 Š 33 – Š 48

Da-da-ga

AS 1 – ŠS 6

Ha-lu5-lu5

AS 1

La-a-mu

AS 1

Lú-Ib-gal

AS 1

Šeš-a-ni

AS 1

Ur-ni9-ĝar Lú-dEn-líl-lá

AS 4 – ŠS 7 AS 4 AS 7 IS 2 – IS 3

Blacksmith?

Lú-kal-la Ur-ĝišgigir (nu-bànda) Ur-dSuena

––––––––––––– “deburring,” hinting at the loss of product which occurs when the melted material is run into the mould, but in this case the loss of metal can easily be recovered (and can never be so great as to reach 17 kilos). 21. See Limet 1960: 132, 172, 182. 22. It is necessary to point to two texts, which belong to the “ i n - l á ” typology, but which show some deviant features, UTI 4 2767 and UTI 6 3549+3577; first of all we find here the expression š u b a - t i referred to Lu-Enlila while the weighing officer is Ur-e’e (in UTI 4 2767 he seals the tablet, while in UTI 6 3549+ we have the seal of his son Lu-Haia), moreover in UTI 6 we find the formula ì - l á instead of the expected i n - l á , but the name of the characters involved and the fact that we find here the expression k i n t i l - l a (UTI 4) and k i n d ú b - b a (UTI 6) allow us to consider these texts as representative of the “ i n - l á archive.”

258

FRANCO D’AGOSTINO AND FRANCESCA GORELLO

BRM 3 144, dated to Š 28/iv/-, which lists U r - d U t u and L u g a l - é - m a h - e , is the oldest tablet we have in this archive in which blacksmiths deliver objects to be checked. While we have documentation that identifies the latter as a s i m u g , we have no direct link of U r - d U t u with this profession: this is why they are listed in two different columns above. Beginning in Šulgi 33, D a - d a - g a makes his first appearance, and we can follow his activity in this field until the last year of Šulgi’s reign: he is the only individual attested as a deliverer of objects for a span of 15 years.23 Some important changes seem to have taken place at the beginning of AmarSuena’s reign: D a - d a - g a disappears and we are faced with a more evident turnover of the blacksmiths. From now on we find the names of H a - l u 5 - l u 5 , L a - a - m u , L ú - I b - g a l , and Š e š - a - n i ; moreover H a - l u 5 - l u 5 and L ú - d E n - l í l - l á are the only blacksmiths to be attested during the period of Šu-Suen. Finally in the tablets dated to the first three years of Ibbi-Suen the only blacksmith attested is a certain Ur-dSuena. The first consideration that stands out from the documentation is that not all of the characters attested as manufacturing objects are identified in the texts as s i m u g , a characteristic which in the chart above is highlighted in the third column with a question mark.24 On this basis, we argue that the texts hint at two different kind of specialists: the “real” s i m u g , for example H a - l u 5 - l u 5 , L a - a - m u , Š e š - a - n i , etc., and the representatives of the “metal bureau” where they work, especially D a - d a - g a , L ú - d E n - l í l - l á and L ú - I b - g a l . The latter group should be sort of liaison officers linking the structure of the blacksmiths with the Palace (of course, they are under the control of the central administration itself). These two categories of workers can interchangeably represent the entire structure in front of the Central Bureau by delivering the objects that must be weighed for control. This hypothesis is further supported by the fact that in the balanced accounts of the merchants from Umma only the “representative” is cited as the man who gets the copper to be taken to the blacksmiths, thus pointing to a predominance inside the structure.25 Many points are still obscure as far as the mechanisms of control and management of the complex central administration of Umma are concerned, so we do not intend to propose here a new all-encompassing solution. We intend rather to single out some features of the documentation that must be kept in mind when trying to make a general theory.

––––––––––––– 23. In SNAT 300 (Š 47/-/-), a “balanced account” of copper and bronze objects, we find D a - d a - g a together with L ú - d E n - l í l - l á : the latter individual is recorded in our archive only starting from AmarSuena 4, as one can see from the chart, and this means that this archive of course does not cover the entire activity of the s i m u g for this period. 24. We cite the following text in connection with this: Owen and Wasilewska, JCS 52, 13 58: 2 uruda b a - a n - d u 8 - d u 8 HAR.HAR / k i - l á - b i 1 9 m a - n a 1 7 g í n / 1 m a - n a 8 g í n u r u d a / l ú Ú r ! ĝiš g i g i r DU-a / L ú - b à n - d a m u 6 - s ù b / é b a - a b -KA // r . k i n t i l - l a / L u g a l - < é > - m a h - e i n - l á / k i L ú - d N i n - š u b u r - t a / g ì r [ L u ] g a l - é - m a h - e s i m u g / (blank) / (Š 45/iv/-), l.ed. g a b a - r i ; here the s i m u g L u g a l - é - m a h - e , who appears as weighing officer, could probably be the same s i m u g whose work is controlled by L ú - k a l - l a and U r - d Š á r a in Šulgi 38; if this is the case, is this a hint of the possibility that the blacksmiths could also work for themselves? See below. 25. Neumann 1993: 113-115, for the argumentation and the bibliographical reference.

The Control of Copper and Bronze Objects in Umma

259

First of all, we do not have any hint whatsoever as to the name of this “metal bureau.” The most appropriate candidate, é - s i m u g , is never attested in Umma, only once in Ĝirsu, and ten times in Ur.26 At Ur, the activities of the s i m u g are well attested from the records of the Palace, but only starting from Ibbi-Suen 7 – a time when the empire had already collapsed. Of course, even more so we have no specific nomenclature attested in order to qualify professionally the representatives of the metal bureau itself.27 So the most plausible solution seems to us that we can only observe two levels: the blacksmiths and the Palace, which exercises control over the first level by weighing the objects they manufacture. If this is the case, we can only imagine one place of work, for which the term “workshop” seems more appropriate than “bureau,” where all the people involved in the manufacturing of tools in copper and bronze are located; probably some of the s i m u g could gain a sort of predominance, which according to us could be reached only on the ground of experience and professional skill,28 and so be in charge of the connection with other entities (merchants, Central Bureau etc.). The only “bureau” in Umma is the Central one, as we shall see in the next section.

8. Weighing Officers in the “ in -lá Texts” As for the officers in charge of the weighing of the objects, we have already stressed the evidently close relationship between the ones we find in the archive of the metal workshop and those attested in the wool and textiles archive. Period of activity

Weighing officer in the metal workshop

Weighing officer in the textile factory

Period of activity

Š 28/iv/- – IS 3/xi/-

Lú-kal-la

Lú-kal-la

AS 7 – ŠS 3

d

Š 28/iv/- – AS 7/xi/-

Ur- Šára

Š 44/-/-

Lú-bàn-da

Š 45/xii/- AS 1/v/-

énsi (= Ur-dLi9-si4)

Š 46/vi/- – AS 1/vii/-

Árad

AS 5/vi/- IS 2/vi/-

Ur-dNun-gal

d

Ur- Šára

AS 1

énsi

Š 46 – AS 6

Ur-dNun-gal

ŠS 2

AS 7/v/- ŠS 1/vii/-

Diĝir-ra

Diĝir-ra

AS 7 – ŠS 2

ŠS 7/-/-

Ur-e11-e

Ur-e11-e

AS 1 – AS 9

ŠS 7/viii/-

Ur-dLama

IS 3/vi/- IS 3/xii/-

Gu-du-du

Gu-du-du

IS 1

––––––––––––– 26. Ĝirsu: MVN 22 177: 15 (-/viii/-): é s i m u g - š è ; for Ur see Neumann 1993: 75-79. 27. We might assume, for instance, that U r - d U t u , for whom no proof of his profession as s i m u g is to be found in the “ i n - l á archive,” is indeed a representative of this category: in BRM 3 144, he is cited as delivering objects for the weighing together with L u g a l - é - m a h - e , who is clearly a blacksmith in the same archive. The same U r - d U t u is never attested as an officer of the “metal bureau.” 28. It is perhaps convenient to recall here the words of Garfinkle 2008: 55-61 on the idea of “bureaucrat” we have to have in mind when considering Ur III (and Mesopotamia in general, we would say).

260

FRANCO D’AGOSTINO AND FRANCESCA GORELLO

The following seals are attested in the archive: Seal d

Ur- Šára / dub-sar / dumu Lugal-ùšur

Period Š 44 – AS 729

i. dŠul-gi / nita-kal-ga / lugal Uri5ki-ma / lugal an-ub-da límmu-ba // ii. Š 45 – AS 130 Ur-dLi9-si4 / énsi / Ummaki / árad-zu Ur-numun-dùg / dumu Ur-é-gal

AS-131

Lú-kal-la / dub-sar / dumu Ur-e11-e kuš7

AS 7 – ŠS 732

Ur-dNun-gal / dub-sar / dumu Ur-dŠára / GÁ-dub-ba

AS 8 – ŠS 733

d

Lú- Ha-ià / dub-sar / dumu Ur-e11-e kuš7

ŠS 734

i. dI-bí-/dSuen / lugal-kal-ga / lugal Uri5/ki-ma / lugal an-ub-/da IS 335 límmu-ba // ii Gu-du-du / dub-sar / dumu Da-da-ga / énsi / Ummaki / árad-zu i. dŠu-dSuen / lugal-kal-ga / lugal Uri5ki-ma / lugal an-ub-da límmu-ba IS 336 // ii. [...] Ur-[e11-e] / dub-[sar] / dumu Ur-ni9-ĝar

-/-/-37

Our goal here is not to follow the careers of the individuals involved, who often had a long administrative activity that encompasses all the major financial and industrial sectors of Umma. We only stress that it is apparent that the highest officials of Umma were involved in the management of both textiles and metals. L ú - k a l l a , “son” of the famous administrator of Apisal, U r - e 1 1 - e , is attested in charge of the weighing of the textiles between Amar-Suena 7 and Šu-Suen 3, whereas for a chronologically longer, but apparently more desultory, period he is recorded as weighing officer for the metal objects. The é n s i and U r - e 1 1 - e are much more often cited as weighing textiles, in which activity they are almost exclusive, than as controller of metal objects.38 Notwithstanding this, the Governor is attested with this function on 19 occasions in our sample, while U r - e 1 1 - e did so only once.39

––––––––––––– 29. Aleppo 495; Syracuse 311; SNAT 298; SAT 2 624; SAT 2 627; SAT 2 628; SAT 2 629; Farmer’s Instructions 1.3.2; de Maaijer, JEOL 33, 123 9; UCP 9-2-2 10; SAT 2 620; SAT 2 632; SAT 2 621; BPOA 1 414; Prima dell’alfabeto 37; Nik. 2 424; UCP 9-2-2 81; Farmer’s Instructions 1.3.3; Owen, Mesopotamia 8-9, 150 6; OrSP 47-49 317; MVN 5 28; AnOr 7 341; BPOA 6 608; BPOA 6 917; BPOA 6 956; BPOA 7 2369; BPOA 7 2581; Princeton 2 348. 30. Syracuse 255; Farmer’s Instructions 1.3.1; Aleppo 496; Peat, JCS 28, 213 19; MVN 20 86; SAT 2 631; SAT 2 660; BPOA 6 1255; BPOA 7 2105; BPOA 7 2959; Princeton 2 468. 31. Alivernini and Foster, RSO 83, 348 30. 32. MVN 16 1142; UTI 4 2377; MVN 13 651; UTI 4 2336; BCT 2 87; UTI 4 2548; MVN 14 502; BPOA 6 1282; BPOA 7 2087. 33. MVN 16 1353; UTI 6 3531. 34. UTI 6 3549+3577. 35. UTI 5 3103; UTI 5 3436. 36. UTI 3 2154. 37. UTI 4 2767. 38. Verderame 2008, and Firth and Nosch 2012. 39. There is no clear reason which can be detected from the documentation for the presence of this or that weighing official, so that one is obliged to think that when necessary everyone who was authorized to control could (or had to) exercise this power. As for the almost complete absence of Ur-e’e as

The Control of Copper and Bronze Objects in Umma

261

It is clear that the Central Bureau exercised the same form of control over both institutions, so the administrative relationship between those institutions (the textile factory and the metal workshop) must have been the same, or at least it was considered identical from the point of view of the palatial administration. Given the nature of the documentation we have, this does not mean that the blacksmiths and the weavers were directly dependent on the Palace, but only that the tablets which form the two archives express the administrative interests of the Central Bureau. In other words we cannot say anything, from these texts, as to the kind of relationship that existed between the s i m u g and the Palace, whether the former were wage-earning workmen or simply professionals hired for the manufacturing of the objects and using the metal taken to Umma by the state-merchants. Even if we do not have any document clearly attesting a private character of the work of the blacksmiths, we believe though that such activity must surely have existed.40 The existence of an extended network of wealthy notables in the cities during the Ur III period, with needs for agricultural tools and luxury or status symbol items, makes it likely that such specialists be available.41 Moreover, it would have been impossible for the State to create the possibility for a person to become a blacksmith. In other words, we do not think that the state built up a “school” in which smiths could learn the profession. Thus we imagine that some “families,” intended only in part as a group of relatives, specialized historically in one activity, that of the manufacturing of metal objects being among the most likely of these specialities. We can add that from the point of view of the central administration it was with the single entities of these “families” that it had a professional relationship, thus the overwhelmingly palatial character of the extant documentation only imperfectly reflects the unity represented by such groups.42 To sum up, it is evident that the Central Bureau had as its first and most important task the control over the administrative, economic and professional entities hired or owned by the Palace. In the case of the textiles and of the metal production in copper and bronze this activity was represented by the weighing of the objects and epigraphically by the formula “i n - l á .” The main difference consists in the fact that whereas in the case of the textiles the control was exercised during an intermediate phase of the manufacturing, in order to check the quantity of wool used so that the textiles could be transferred from the weavers to the fullers, in the

––––––––––––– weighing officer in the texts, could it be due to the fact that his son/subordinate Lukalla was in charge of it? 40. Neumann 1996: 254-264. 41. See the fundamental considerations of Adams 2009: § 3. In this sense the lack of any clear evidence is not too surprising: beyond the far too often cited criterion of the “chance” of the discovery, it must be stressed that only rarely, indeed, could such transactions find their way onto the written record (and then only when conflicts arose, see preceding note.). 42. See Pomponio 2013 in this volume for the term d u m u as hinting at an economic rather than a familial kind of relationship. It is worth remembering that among the corvées of the b a l a period there was also the supplying of specialized workers, among which the s i m u g are obviously present (see D’Agostino and Pomponio: 2005: 183 ff.); this means that it was necessary for the Central Bureau of Umma to exercise a certain control over these workers and gain direct access to their work. We intend here is that it was not (and could not be) a complete subordination of these workers to the central administration.

262

FRANCO D’AGOSTINO AND FRANCESCA GORELLO

case of the metal workshop the control was accomplished at the end of the procedure. In this respect, it is not clear what happened to the objects once weighed and checked. If our interpretation of the Metal Workshop is correct, then the objects could either remain in the workshop itself and be delivered by the s i m u g directly to the “customer,” or be taken away by the weighing officer himself. The lack of the expression š u b a - t i in this sense can be revealing of the fact that our archive is however not intended to convey an understanding of a delivering procedure. We can cite the following text in which one of the s i m u g of our archive delivers tools to a certain L ú - b à n - d a , BRM 3 142 (Š 35/vii/-): 7 uruda ha-bù-da / ki-lá-bi 4 5/6 ma-na / 5 urudaKIN / ki-lá-bi 1 ma-na 9 gín // ki Ur-ni9-ĝar simug-ta / Lú-bàn-da / šu ba-ti / iti min-èš / mu ús-sa An-ša-anki ba-hul.43

But in BCT 2 86 (AS 1/vii/-), the officer U r - d Š á r a takes the tools from the blacksmiths himself: 8 urudaha-bù-da 2/3 ma-na-ta!? / ki-lá-bi 2 1/3 ma-na 3 gín / 6 urudaKIN 15 gín-ta / ki-lá-bi 5/6 mana 5 gín // 13 urudaKIN 12 gín-ta / ki-lá-bi 1 2/3 ma-na / kin dúb-ba / ki Lú-dEn-líl-lá-ta / kišib Ur-dŠára / iti min-èš mu dAmar-dSuen lugal; s.: Ur-d⸢Šára⸣ / dub-[sar] / dumu Lugal-[ùšur].

9. Documents with the Formula ì-lá As we noted above, 21 tablets in the Umma corpus have the formula ì - l á instead of the much more common i n - l á . The most striking feature of these texts is the fact that they are all dated to only two years, Šu-Suen 7 and 8.44 Their structure is very different from the archive we presented above and, although standardized, introduces many deviations for such a restricted corpus.45 In the first place we find generally the number and quality of the objects followed by the total weight expressed by the usual formula k i - l á - b i . 46 The administrative section follows immediately, in which we generally find: 1. the weighing official; 2. the ĝ ì r , identified mainly as s u k k a l , 47 and 3. the u g u l a who supervises the procedure.48 This section is followed by the date. To sum up in a scheme: Technical Section: 1. Objects 2. k i - l á - b i

––––––––––––– 43. It is worth stressing that in the “in-lá archive” Ur-ni 9 -ĝar is attested only in Amar-Suena 1. 44. See also Contenau, RA 12, 21 11 (Š 35/vi/-). It is worth remembering that we also have texts dated to this same period which, on prosopographical data, must be ascribed to the “ i n - l á archive:” Nik. 2 421 (where admittedly we do not find the expression k i n t i l - l a or k i n d ú b - b a nor the name of the s i m u g delivering the objects); UTI 6 3531 and MVN 14 502. 45. For this reason it is not possible to offer a standard example of this typology of texts. 46. In BPOA 1 787 (ŠS 7/xi/-); Santag 6 323 (ŠS 8/i/-); BPOA 6 8 (ŠS 8/i/-); BPOA 6 51 (ŠS 8/i/-) and BPOA 1 399 (ŠS 8/ii/-) the indication of the weight precedes the object, so we do not have the formula k i - l á - b i . 47. In the following texts the ĝ ì r is absent: Santag 6 314 (ŠS 7/ix/-); BCT 2 88 (ŠS 8/-/-); SA 60 (ŠS 8/i/-) and Nik. 2 423 (ŠS 8/ii/-); in Santag 6 318 (ŠS 7/xii/-) we have two ĝ ì r ’s, U r - s a 6 - s a 6 - g a and L ú - d I n a n a , and only the latter bears the title s u k k a l . 48. In the following texts the u g u l a is missing: Santag 6 314 (ŠS 7/ix/-) and SA 60 (ŠS 8/i/-).

The Control of Copper and Bronze Objects in Umma

263

Administrative Section: 3. PN1 ì - l á 4. ĝ ì r PN2 5. u g u l a PN349 (s u k k a l ) These texts evidently form a completely different archive. The products registered in the tablets are mainly parts of doors, such as copper coverings ( u r u d a ar-ma-tum) or door-locks? ( u r u d a d ú r ĝ i š i g ) , or plates of flattened copper ( n í ĝ - s ù - a u r u d a l u h - h a ) . The most commonly attested objects in the “i n - l á archive,” s u c h a s uruda h a - b ù - d a , u r u d a h a - z i - i n , and u r u d a KIN, are never mentioned.50 Moreover, the people involved in the documents of this archive are totally different from those who appear in the “ i n - l á T e x t s ” . Among the weighing officers, only K a - l a - l u m , 51 I n i m - m a - n i - z i , 52 and A n - n é - b a - a b - d u 7 53 are attested in more than one document. The roles of the u g u l a and of the ĝ ì r officers are more clearly defined: Lugal-kù-zu and Nam-ha-ni are the only ones to be labeled u g u l a , while almost always the ĝ ì r officer is represented by L ú - d I n a n a , very often with the added qualification of s u k k a l . But the most interesting thing is that, to the best of our knowledge, none of the characters involved in the texts appears to be a blacksmith: there is no evidence whatsoever for the identification of the PNs cited in the “archive” as s i m u g in the Umma documentation. That perhaps makes clear why we do not find the expressions k i n t i l - l a and k i n d ú b - b a in these documents, but at the same time raises a question about the nature of this “archive.”54 Admittedly, it is not easy to answer this question given the scarce documentation at our disposal.55 We can only try to point out some of its characteristic features: 1) the fact that copper or bronze parts of other objects (mainly doors) are attested points to a process of re-utilization of old and possibly broken parts; 2) the presence of the ĝ ì r officers seems to indicate a movement of these objects from other centers to the one represented by these 21 tablets; 3) the lack of s i m u g in the process points to an administrative more than a technical sector of the procedure recorded in these documents, in other words, it is not likely to be a metal workshop; 4) the attestation of u g u l a , a profession/activity which itself is never attested in relation with the s i m u g , is probably an indication that these texts comes from

––––––––––––– 49. The expressions k i n t i l - l a or k i n d ú b - b a are completely absent and this could help us clarify the kind of structure we are faced with, as we shall see. 50. The only objects that are attested in both typolgies are k a k a - r a - a b z a b a r / u r u d a (Santag 6 314; MVN 20 23; Nik. 2 418, etc.) and u r u d a ar-ma-tum (Santag 6 316 and 317; AnOr 7 245; Limet, RA 49, 93 38). 51. Santag 6 318 (ŠS 7/xii/-); BPOA 6 8 (ŠS 8/i/-) and BPOA 1 399 (ŠS 8/ii/-). 52. Widell, MFM 2, 29 7 (ŠS 7/xii/-); BCT 2 88 (ŠS 8/-/-) and Santag 6 322 (also Koslova, NABU 2002: 57, ŠS 8/i/-). 53. Santag 6 323 (ŠS 8/i/-); Nik. 2 420 (ŠS 8/i/-) and Nik. 2 423 (ŠS 8/ii/-). 54. According to us, there is enough stability in the structure of the texts to give us the possibility to consider the 21 tablets as representatives of an archive of one administrative sector. 55. See also Neumann 1993: 122-124.

264

FRANCO D’AGOSTINO AND FRANCESCA GORELLO a sort of warehouse, or storehouse, which would have distributed the goods to the final bureaus.

It is challenging to say something about the economic nature of the office issuing the tablets, whether it was a private institution or whether it was under palatial control (even if the impression is that this second statement is the right one). We find it even more difficult to say something definitive about the name of the institution (if there was any) or its location inside the administrative topography of Umma. Last, but not least, we have no hypothesis for the strange chronology of the “archive” itself. Of course these considerations are not conclusive and a lot of work must still be done in order to reconstruct the complex network of specialized activities that took place in a Neo-Sumerian city, a complexity that is only hinted at by the presence of two archives using, more or less, the same formula but which indicate a completely different administrative reality. We hope we have highlighted some challenges for further research.

Bibliography Adams, R. McC. 2009 Old Babylonian Networks of Urban Notables. Cuneiform Digital Library Journal 2009: 7. Al-Rawi, F. N. H., and D’Agostino, F. 2005 Neo-Sumerian Administrative Texts from Umma kept in the British Museum, Part One (NATU I). Nisaba. Studi Assiriologici Messinesi 6. Messina: Di. Sc. A. M. Al-Rawi, F. N. H., and Verderame, L. 2006 Documenti amministrativi neo-sumerici da Umma conservati al British Museum (NATU II). Nisaba. Studi Assiriologici Messinesi 11. Messina: Di. Sc. A. M. D’Agostino, F., and Pomponio, F. 2005 Due bilanci di entrate e uscite di argento da Umma. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 95: 172-207. Dahl, J. 2003 The Ruling Family of Ur III Umma: A Prosopographical Analysis of an Elite Family in Southern Iraq 4000 Years Ago. PIHANS CVIII. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten. Englund, R. K. 1991 Hard Work: Where Will It Get You? Labor Management in Ur III Mesopotamia. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 50: 255-280. Firth, R. , and Nosch M. L. 2012 Spinning and Weaving Wool in Ur III Administrative Texts. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 64: 65-82. Garfinkle, S. J. 2008 Was the Ur III State bureaucratic? Patrimonialism and Bureaucracy in the Ur III Period. 55-61 in The Growth of an Early State in Mesopotamia: Studies in Ur III Administration, ed. S. Garfinkle and C. Johnson. Biblioteca del Próximo Oriente Antiguo 5. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas. Joannès, F. 2009 Schmied. Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 12: 232234. Lafont, B. 1991 Les forgerons sumériens de la ville de Ĝirsu. De Anatolia Antiqua 1: 119-129.

The Control of Copper and Bronze Objects in Umma

265

2008 L’armée des rois d’Ur : ce qu’en disent les texts. 23-48 in Les armées du ProcheOrient ancien (IIIe-Ier mill. av. J.-C. Actes du colloque international organisé à Lyon les 1er et 2 décembre 2006, Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée, ed. P. Abrahami and L. Battini. BAR International Series 1855. Oxford: John & Erica Hedges Ltd. Limet, H. 1960 Le travail du métal au pays de Sumer au temps de la IIIe dynastie d’Ur. Paris: Société d’Édition Les Belles Lettres. Neumann, H. 1993 Handwerk in Mesopotamien: Untersuchungen zu seiner Organisation in der Zeit der III. Dynastie von Ur. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. 1996 Zum privaten Werkvertrag im Rahmen der neusumerischen handwerklichen Produktion. Altorientalische Forschungen 23: 254-264. Pomponio, F. 2013 The Ur III Administration: Workers, Messengers, and Sons. Pp. 221-232 in the present volume. Richardson, S. 2005 Axes Against Eshnunna. Orientalia 74: 42-50. Sallaberger, W. 1999 Ur III-Zeit. Pp. 121-390 in Mesopotamien: Akkade-Zeit und Ur III-Zeit, ed. P. Attinger and M. Wäfler. Annäherungen 3. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 160/3. Freiburg Schweiz: Universitätsverlag Schrakamp, I. 2006 Kommentar zu der altakkadischen “Rustkammerurkunde” Erm. 14380, Babel und Bibel, Annual of Ancient Near Eastern, Old Testament, and Semitic Studies 3: 161181. Verderame, L. 2008 Il controllo dei manufatti tessili a Umma. Pp. 111-133 in The Management of Agricultural Land and the Production of Textiles in the Mycenaean and Near Eastern Economies, ed. M. Perna and F. Pomponio. Studi Egei e Vicinorientali 4. Paris: De Boccard.

Le système après-récolte dans l’hydro-agriculture mésopotamienne à la fin du IIIe millénaire avant notre ère Jean-Pierre Grégoire CNRS, PARIS

1. Introduction “Dans la chaîne agro-alimentaire, l’opération de récolte représente l’étape de passage entre la phase de production agricole proprement dite et celle de conditionnement ou de traitement du produit.” Cette phase constitue ce que les agronomes appellent le système après-récolte d’un type d’agriculture donnée.1 En Mésopotamie du Sud, l’agriculture et l’élevage dominent largement toute l’activité économique. Les branches dérivées de ce diptyque : les secteurs chargés de la transformation des matières premières en produits manufacturés et en aliments sont également fort développés. Détenant les principaux moyens de production, l’État patrimonial mésopotamien apparaît comme le producteur le plus important. Il entreprend et renouvelle d’immenses programmes de travaux permettant de cultiver de vastes étendues de terres, en développant un réseau d’irrigation à très grande échelle, ainsi qu’un réseau impressionnant de voies de communication navigables. C’est l’État patrimonial qui intervient directement dans la redistribution et la circulation de la production qu’il contrôle étroitement.

2. Terres ensemencées et production céréalière Le secteur économique le plus développé et le mieux organisé à l’époque qui nous intéresse ici était sans doute celui de la production céréalière,2 de la mise en cultures de certaines légumineuses et de plusieurs plantes utilitaires, comme le lin. Les archives cunéiformes néo-sumériennes permettent de nous faire une idée assez précise du secteur économique du territoire de Lagaš. La surface ensemencée annuellement par les services agricoles de la circonscription administrative de la capitale de ce territoire, Girsu, variait entre 225 et 275 km2, produisant, en moyenne, quelque 22.000 à 25.000 tonnes de céréales, principalement de l’orge.

––––––––––––– 1. Nous empruntons la définition des principes agronomiques de l’après-récolte à M. de Lucia et D. Assennato, FAO : Organisation des Nations Unies pour l’Alimentation et l’Agriculture, Bulletin des Services Agricoles de la FAO, 93, 1992, p. 7 ss. 2. Analysée dans notre intervention présentée à l’occasion de la table ronde de St-Martin de Vésubie, en 2001, Le Rôle du Temple dans le Système Économique Patrimonial Mésopotamien.

267

268

JEAN-PIERRE GRÉGOIRE

Un document en provenance de Lagaš,3 relatif à la circonscription administrative de Girsu, signale la superficie totale ensemencée en l’année 47 du règne de Šulgi, soit une surface de ca 238 km2 de terres céréalières. Les terres cultivables étaient redistribuées annuellement par les services cadastraux des MaisonnéesTemples, sous la direction des Grands-Administrateurs ( š a ĝ a ) et des Préfets ( š a b r a ), réunis en collège ( é - š a b r a ) , afin de respecter la friche, en principe, biennale. Une tablette du British Museum mentionne une surface de 366 km2 et une autre de l’Oriental Institute de Chicago évoque 352 km2.4 La plus grande surface, 522 km2, a été enregistrée dans une pièce d’archives, datant de l’année 36 du règne de Šulgi, appartenant à la collection du County Museum and Art Gallery, de Truro en Cornouailles britanniques.5 Elle énumère les terres des Domaines du finage de G ú - e d e n - n a , zone au N-O du territoire de Lagaš, avec indication de la qualité des sols et des différents types d’occupations : terres céréalières, plantations, jardins, agglomérations, cours d’eau et marécages. Les terres céréalières occupaient ca 90%, tandis que les 10% restants étaient réservés aux plantations et jardins ou autres zones exploitées. Un document de l’Ashmolean Museum à Oxford,6 provenant d’Umma, relate la mise en cultures d’une surface de 61 ha 4700 m2, située en face du Domaine- L á m a h et attribuée à la divinité de d L a m a - MA? - d š u l - g i de KI.ANk i . De cette surface, 45 ha 8.100 m2, soit 74,50% étaient réservés à la culture céréalière ( š e ), 6 ha 8.400 m2, soit 11,20% à des plantations d’arbres ( ĝ i š - t i r ), et 8 ha 8.200 m2, soit 14,30% à la culture de légumineuses ( ĝ i š - g ú ), lentilles, vesces ou pois chiche. Cet exemple montre que l’effort principal portait avant tout sur la production céréalière. À l’époque de la IIIe Dynastie d’Ur, les Maisonnées-Temples de l’ensemble du territoire de Lagaš exploitaient annuellement une surface ensemencée estimée à plus de 500 km2. Un autre document,7 en provenance de Lagaš, nous fournit les surfaces ensemencées et la production céréalière pendant 10 années : soit une surface globale de 224.208 ha ou 2.242 km2 de terres ensemencées, ayant produit 214.848 tonnes de céréales, soit par année, en moyenne, une surface de ca 225 km2 de terres ensemencées et une production moyenne de ca 21.480 tonnes de grains. On utilisait ca 1.000 à 1.200 tonnes de grains pour les semailles annuelles, soit ca 5% de la production céréalière globale. Le rendement moyen par ha et par an était de ca 958 kg.8 D’après un document du British Museum inédit,9 1 boviné d’arairage produit par an 180;0,0,0 g u r de grains (36.450 kg) correspondant à une surface de 6; b ù r

––––––––––––– 3. TUT 5 (Š 47). 4. Maekawa, ASJ 8, 118 33 BM 25055 (s.d.) et Gelb 1986 : 159. 5. Walker, AfO 24, 122-127 1, pl. 17-18. 6. AAICAB I/1 Ashm. 1911-186, p. 71, pl. 24. 7. Maekawa, ASJ 3, 50 BM 18060. 8. Il s’agit du rendement standard se trouvant à la base des calculs des scribes pour évaluer la 2 production céréalière : 1; b ù r (18 i k u ) doit produire 30;0,0,0 g u r de grains, c’est-à-dire 6 ha 3510 m produisent 8.343,10 litres ou 6.075 kg de grains, soit un rendement estimé à 956,542 kg (1.313,67 litres) de grains. 1 boviné d’arairage produit par an 180;0,0,0 g u r de grains (50.052,60 litres ou 36.450 kg) 2 correspondant à une surface de 6; b ù r ou ca 38 ha 1063 m . Cf. note 9. 9. Grégoire, à paraître: BM 85305 ; voir Textes n° 5.

Le système après-récolte

269

ou ca 38 ha 1063 m2. Ce document enregistre les prélèvements globaux de céréales destinées à deux secteurs bien déterminés : 1) le premier désignant l’Administration centrale représentée par le Souverain : l u g a l ; 2) le second désignant l’Administration locale représentée par la communauté urbaine : u r u . Le rapport entre les deux secteurs était de 2,5 : 1. Le document n’étant pas daté, il n’est pas possible d’affirmer avec certitude que la production céréalière évoquée dans cette pièce d’archives correspondait effectivement à la production annuelle. Mais, en comparant les chiffres avec la documentation générale à notre disposition, il s’agit bien de la récolte annuelle, soit 22 silos (g u r u 7) (16.038 tonnes métriques), production reposant sur une force de travail de 440 bovinés d’arairage (g u 4 a p i n (a )). Les 440 bovinés mentionnés assurèrent la mise en cultures d’une surface de 16.767 ha ou 168 km2. D’après ce même document, 40 bovinés d’arairage supplémentaires permettaient la production céréalière de 2 silos (1.458 tonnes), destinée à nourrir et à engraisser du bétail. Une tablette cunéiforme du Musée du Louvre10, provenant de Lagaš et datant de l’an 1 d’ Amar-Suena, évoque le cheptel de gros bétail de la circonscription administrative de Girsu, comprenant des bovinés et des équidés, soit au total 4.102 animaux dont 480 bovinés d’arairage. Outre ces animaux de travail, le cheptel comptait 2.030 bovinés, vaches et taureaux, animaux réservés à la reproduction et à la production de viande et de laitage. Distinction était donc faite entre animaux de travail et animaux destinés à la reproduction et à l’alimentation. Il en ressort que le gros bétail était essentiellement destiné au travail : 59% étaient réservés à la production d’énergie, 8% à l’arairage, tandis que 33% servaient à la reproduction et à la production alimentaire. En considérant le cheptel de Girsu globalement, bovinés, équidés et ovicaprinés confondus, il apparaît que les bovinés et équidés de travail comptaient 9%, les bovinés d’arairage 1%, les vaches et les taureaux 5%, tandis que les ovinés comptaient 58% et les caprinés 27%.11 Un document exceptionnel12, provenant de Girsu et concernant la production céréalière de cette circonscription administrative, englobait : le finage de Girsu, le finage de G ú - i 7 - N i n â k i - š è - d u et le finage de G ú - a b - b a k i . Cette pièce d’archives dénombre, sur plusieurs années, d’une part les surfaces ensemencées et les estimations et, de l’autre, le produit réel de la récolte. Malheureusement, le document est fortement endommagé et seulement trois postes sont conservés. Nous en mentionnons deux : (1) terres ensemencées : 263 km2 (26.256 ha) ; estimation de la récolte : 344.905 hl ; récolte effective : 359.044 hl, soit un rendement de 1.368 litres par ha ; la récolte avait dépassé les estimations calculées par les services de l’administration centrale (lignes : 01-05) ; (2) terres ensemencées : 271 km2 (27.062 ha) ; estimation de la récolte : 355.457 hl de céréales ; récolte effective : 218.181 hl, soit un rendement de 806 litres par ha ; donc la récolte a été mauvaise pendant cette année 32 du règne de Šulgi, car la différence entre les estimations et la production réelle a été de 137.388 hl – une différence considérable de 38,66% (lignes : verso : 6'-11').

––––––––––––– 10. Département des Antiquités Orientales : AO 29992 ; voir Textes n° 2. 11. TUT 27, fait également état de 480 animaux d’arairage ( g u 4 a n š e h i - a ) . 12. RTC 407 (Š 30-32). Voir Textes n° 1.

270

JEAN-PIERRE GRÉGOIRE

Tous les centres urbains – grands ou petits – disposaient de leur propre finage. Un relevé de cadastre cite pour la surface agricole de l’agglomération U r u - d š u l g i - s i b a d - k a l a m - m a un finage de 11.519 i k u , soit ca 41 km2,13 dont le rendement potentiel annuel aurait dû être de ca 1.945 tonnes, ceci constituant les besoins annuels en grains d’un petit centre urbain.

3. Le système après-récolte 3.1. Définition du principe La récolte, effectuée manuellement, ne doit avoir lieu généralement que lorsque les céréales ont atteint leur degré optimal de maturité. Après la récolte, il peut être nécessaire de procéder à un pré-séchage des céréales, avant de les soumettre aux opérations de dépiquage. Les grains obtenus doivent subir des opérations de nettoyage et de séchage, afin qu’ils puissent être stockés ou faire l’objet de transformations ultérieures. Le stockage peut être fait en vrac ou en récipients, chez les producteurs (les maisonnées-temples), dans des centres de collecte (dépôts) ou encore auprès d’organismes stockeurs spécialisés (silos). Les grains sont acheminés des entrepôts aux lieux de consommation : aux consommateurs directs, aux unités de transformations alimentaires ou à d’autres institutions. C’est la redistribution de la production. L’enchaînement fonctionnel de ces différentes opérations et leurs interactions réciproques contribuent à former un système complexe : le système après-récolte (voir Annexes 1 et 2). Les archives cunéiformes nous informent amplement sur le système après-récolte. Selon la nature des différentes pièces d’archives, certains documents nous fournissent un résumé succinct des travaux depuis la récolte jusqu’à l’ensilage des produits, ou l’état de l’enchaînement des différentes phases des travaux intéressant le système après-récolte.

3.2. Résumé des travaux14 Dans un premier document (MVN 10 202), la terminologie spécifique désigne les principales phases des activités du système après-récolte : 1. š e ŠE.KIN- a ( š e g u r 1 0 - a ) : la moisson ou la récolte, c’est-à-dire la coupe des céréales ; 2. z à r - t a b - b a š u - ù r - r a : le bottelage, la mise en gerbes, le dressement de gerbiers et l’empilement des gerbes avec le pré-séchage ; 3. k i - s u r a 1 2 g u b - b a : être de service sur l’aire de dépiquage : comprenant le dépiquage et le traitement des grains : c’est-à-dire les vannages, le décorticage, le séchage, le nettoyage, le triage et le mesurage ;

––––––––––––– 13. RTC 116 (Š 42). 14. MVN 10 202 ; TMH NF 1/2 171. Voir Textes n° 3 & 4.

Le système après-récolte

271

4. š e b a l a - a : le transfert des céréales de l’aire de dépiquage, comprenant le stockage de courte durée dans les entrepôts ( ì - d u b ) , avec le post-séchage et le transport vers les silos ( g u r u 7 ) ; 5. g u r u 7 ( - a ) i m ù r - r a : l’ensilage dans les Silos, les grands centres de stockage de longue durée. Un second document fournit plus de détails concernant les différentes phases des travaux du système après-récolte15, depuis la coupe des céréales jusqu’à l’ensilage. Il s’agissait de moissonner une terre de plus de 35 ha dont la coupe a nécessité 100 journées de travail à raison de 1 i k u (3.528 m2) par force de travail masculine.16 2.950 gerbiers d’orge et de blé amidonnier avaient été dressés, à raison de 10 (gerbiers) par force de travail, nécessitant 295 journées de travail de journalier. Sur l’aire de dépiquage, 26.527,500 kg d’orge et 10.530 kg de blé amidonnier furent dépiqués, nécessitant 183 journées de travail, à raison de 1 double-quintal (202,500 kg) de grains par force de travail masculine. Le texte mentionne ensuite un premier vannage à l’aide de pelles ou de fourches ( š e m a - m a - r a - r a - a ) , 17 à raison de 112 litres de grains par force de travail masculine pendant 56 journées de journalier. Puis, 26 journées de travail de journalier sont nécessaires pour vanner l’orge et 14 autres journées de travail de journalier pour vanner le blé amidonnier ( š e / z í z d é - a ) . Le vannage semble se faire en deux phases de travail, la première consistant en un vannage rapide et la seconde en un vannage plus soigné, comportant peut-être un pré-nettoyage, chaque force de travail ne pouvait vanner que 14 litres par homme et par jour. Puis, 37 journées de travail furent consacrées au vannage de la balle ou de la paille (hachée, au cas de l’utilisation du traîneau à dépiquer) afin de récupérer tout le grain. Les travaux sur l’aire de dépiquage comprenaient essentiellement le dépiquage et les vannages successifs, avec éventuellement le nettoyage, le triage, le décorticage, le séchage et le mesurage des grains. En 28 journées de travail, les céréales de l’aire de dépiquage furent transportées vers les structures d’entreposage. Une cassure importante de la tablette nous prive des détails de cette phase du système après-récolte. Il est question par la suite de la construction et de la finition des silos qui devaient recevoir les grains. Le document précise, finalement, que la surface récoltée intéressait des terres situées dans 4 Domaines différents, les travaux étant accomplis sous la direction de hauts fonctionnaires.

4. Technologies et phases des travaux du système après-récolte 4.1. La récolte La moisson était sans doute l’un des moments les plus importants de l’année agricole. On distinguait essentiellement deux saisons, d’une part l’hiver ( e n - t e (-

––––––––––––– 15. TMH NF 1/2 171 (ŠS 5a/L.-/-). La provenance du texte reste obscure et discutée ; on y voit généralement un document de Girsu-Lagaš, mais M. Civil le croit originaire de Nippur. 16. Voir encore : ITT 2 621 ; NATN 620 : i.1 ss. ; NATN 739 : iii.4-6 : 2 ; è š e 3 ; i k u 1 / 2 g á n a ŠE.KIN- a / ĝ u r u š 1 ; - e 1 ; i k u g á n a - t a / ĝ u r u š - b i 1 5 ; 1 / 2 u 4 - 1 ; - š è ; NRVN 1 270 ; mais d’autres sources donnent des montants différents, p. ex. SACT 2 28 où il est question de 30 s a r (1.058,50 m2). Comp. Civil 1994 : 106, n. 99. 17. Pour cette expression, voir Civil 1994 : 95-96, ad 102.

272

JEAN-PIERRE GRÉGOIRE

e n ) ) ou la saison froide, et de l’autre la moisson ( b u r u 1 4 ) ou la saison chaude.18 La récolte était organisée par l’administration centrale des différents pays ( m a -d a ), en accord avec les responsables des différentes Maisonnées, Temples ou autres institutions, mobilisant l’ensemble des forces de travail disponibles, notamment les personnels des différents services agricoles des Maisonnées patrimoniales : le personnel permanent ( ĝ ì r - s è - g a ) , les équipes de journaliers ( ĝ u r u š - u 4 - 1 ; - š è ) , les gens à gages ( l ú - h u ĝ - ĝ á ) , ainsi que les corvéables ( h é - d a b 5 ) et le personnel dépendant ; toutes ces forces étaient envoyées dans les champs pour assurer la récolte. Cette mobilisation exigeait une organisation préalable très stricte,19 reposant sur une logistique mise en place de longue date. Il fallait prévoir des gîtes, stocker des vivres, accumuler les outils et les moyens de transport. Un personnel d’encadrement compétent et efficace devait organiser les différentes phases du travail à accomplir. Bien entendu, les problèmes et les dysfonctionnements surgissaient à tout moment comme en témoigne la correspondance administrative. Ces faits sont illustrés par de nombreux documents, p.ex. ce texte d’Umma20: il s’agit d’un arrêté de comptes d’ m U r - d N i n - s u , l’intendant des bovinés d’arairage ( n u b à n d a - g u 4 ) , comptabilisant les journées de travail de son service pendant une année. Sur les 9.118 1/6 journées de travail disponibles, 2.069 (donc ca 22 %) ont été consacrées aux travaux depuis la récolte jusqu’à l’ensilage des céréales en passant par les travaux sur l’aire de dépiquage. On levait également le personnel des grands organismes, comme les Manufactures et les Minoteries,21 ainsi que les forces militaires, notamment les corvéables militaires ( é r e n ) 22, un document d’Umma en cite 21.719,23 et, en principe, tout sujet patrimonial disponible. Au besoin, les forces publiques levaient les individus dans la rue pour pallier au manque de main-d’œuvre au moment des grands tra-

––––––––––––– 18. ITT 3 6074 : b i s a ĝ d u b - b a n ì - g a z 1 4 - a g ( a ) á e n - t e á b u r u 1 4 : “panier à tablettes concernant les tâches de l’hiver et les tâches de la moisson (= de l’été)”. 19. Dans une lettre administrative (TCS 1 49) des maçons ( š i d i m ) sont mobilisés pour récolter une surface de 3 i k u (1 ha 585 m2), pour dresser des gerbiers et pour dépiquer par foulage ( s ì g ) 3 doubles-quintaux (834,21 litres) de grains. 20. TCL 5 5676 (ŠS 2/U.i-ii/-). 21. Grégoire 1999 : 18-20. D’après un document en provenance d’Umma (TCL 5 5669) des broyeuses d’une Minoterie devaient accomplir des travaux de récolte, notamment dresser et empiler les gerbes dans des gerbiers ( š u - ù r - r a z à r - t a b - b a ) , ainsi que des travaux sur l’aire de dépiquage ( k i s u r a 1 2 ) de différents Domaines (a - š à ). Voir encore TCL 5 5675 où des forces de travail masculines devaient assurer la coupe des céréales ( š e ŠE.KIN- a ) , dresser des gerbiers en empilant des gerbes ( z à r - t a b - b a š u - ù r - r a ) , ainsi que des travaux sur l’aire de dépiquage ( k i - s u r a 1 2 g u b - b a ) pendant la moisson ( š à b u r u 1 4 ) . Un autre exemple de ce type est fourni par TCL 5 5676. 22. Genouillac, Studies Hilprecht 140 4 : 2 : é r e n ŠE.KIN. KIN z i - g e - d è g i n - n a - m e : “(rations alimentaires pour des émissaires) qui ont été envoyés pour lever des corvéables militaires pour la récolte”. 23. TCL 5 6041 (AS 2/U.-/-) : vi.1-3 : š u - n í ĝ i n 6 . 0 1 . 2 0 ; - l á - 1 ; é r e n / é r e n ŠE.KIN. ŠE.KIN / u g u l a m l ú - d i ĝ i r - r a : “Au total 21.719 corvéables militaires, ce sont les corvéables militaires (mobilisés) pour la moisson des céréales, sous la direction de m L ú - d i ĝ i r - r a . ” Seize centres urbains étaient concernés : Kutha, Umma, Marad, Uṣar-babati (situé sur le territoire de Sippar), Babylone, Šurubag, Pūš, Isin, ÚR×A.HA et Ku’ara, Kiš, Ašdaba, (un site non identifié du fait d’une cassure), Uṣar-Dage, dans la région de Sippar, M u - ú r et Dabrum. Les Préfets mentionnés sont : š a b r a dNa-na-a (Ašdaba), š a b r a d i n a n n a (Uṣar-Dage), š a b r a d u t u (Sippar), š a b r a d s u e n (Dabrum).

Le système après-récolte

273

vaux saisonniers. Ces forces de travail mobilisées étaient réparties entre les Domaines des différents finages afin d’assurer la récolte. Sous la conduite de chefs, ces forces de travail étaient divisées en équipes auxquelles on distribuait des faucilles pour couper ( k u 5 ) les épis. La faucille ( ŠE.KIN ( g u r 1 0 : nigallu)), représentant l’instrument de moisson le plus commun à la fin du IIIe millénaire, était en cuivre ( u r u d u ) , plus rarement en bronze ( z a b a r ) , pesant 84, 100, 125 ou 168 grammes.24 Les lames des faucilles étaient conservées dans les magasins des services agricoles des Maisonnées-Temples. Lors de la moisson, elles étaient distribuées par les fonctionnaires responsables aux chefs d’équipe qui les répartissaient entre les hommes. Auparavant, on avait vérifié soigneusement le poids des lames, poids revérifié une fois le travail accompli. La lame de faucille était enchâssée dans un manche ( š u ) en bois à l’aide de bitume.25 Cet instrument spécifique servait à couper ( k u 5 ) de la végétation, tandis que l’expression ú z é avait le sens de “cisailler une plante”.26 Tenant en main les tiges faucillées, le faucheur les égalisait et les jetait en tas au lieur. Ces tas étaient liés en javelles qui étaient bottelées en gerbes. Ce travail se faisait, d’après les Géorgiques, par une équipe de trois hommes : le premier coupait les tiges, le deuxième les ramassait en javelles et le troisième les liait en gerbes.27 Les gerbes étaient empilées28 pour constituer des gerbiers ( g a r a d i n x , ou z à r 29) qui mesuraient ca 6 mètres de côté.30 Ils étaient probablement carrés et relativement bas. On les évaluait en estimant la quantité de grain que l’on pouvait en tirer : 3; b á n , ou 20,250 kg de

––––––––––––– 24. 10, 12, 15 ou 20 g í n . Les Listes lexicographiques évoquent également le nom de u r u d u n ì - ĝ á l / g a l , apparemment un type de faucille similaire. Pour les lames, voir Limet 1960 : 123 (ITT 5 9637), 216 n° 69, 293 sub g u r 10. Les lames sont dites “de bonne facture” ( s i l i m - m a : OrSP 47-49 49 ; Contenau, RA 12, 20 5 ; BE 3/1 7 : 14 : s i - l i m - m a ) ou “cassées” ( a l - z i - r a : BE 3/1 7 : 15 ; b a - z i - i r : Métal 281 5 AO 2462). 25. ( ĝ i š - ) š u : “manche”. Cf. BIN 5 83 : 13; g u r 1 0 é s i r s u - b a . Le bois utilisé était souvent le bois- ĝ i š - ( a ) - a b - b a : MVN 10 230 : i.16, xi.20 ; MVN 1 106 : iii.11, vi.2' : 40; ĝ i š ĝ i š - a - a b - b a [ g í d !]- b i 2?; k ù š - t a . Le manche pouvait être aussi en roseau : Civil 1994 : 90 : MVN 18 424 : 40; s a g i u r u d u - ŠE.KIN a g ( a ) - d è . 26. Nik. 1 88 (Lagaš-Girsu, Présargonique) évoque des faucilles à lames en dents de scie : 62 š u m u r u d u š e ŠE.KIN. ŠE.KIN; Métal 288 19 AO 7873. Les Listes lexicographiques indiquent que les céréales étaient d’une part “coupées”, k u 5, eṣēdu, et d’autre part “cisaillées/arrachées?”, ou “glanées”, š e u r 4 - u r 4 , décrivant une technique différente, sans utilisation de la faucille. 27. Civil 1994 : lignes 76-78 et commentaire p. 91. On liait les gerbes avec un lien d’une longueur de ca 50 cm : é š - d a 1 ; k ù š - n a u m - d a - a n - l á : ”le (travailleur) lie (les gerbes) avec un lien de 1 k ù š ”, Lahar and Ašnan, ligne 148. 28. C’est ainsi que nous interprétons l’expression š u - ù r - r a , le plus souvent asssociée à z à r t a b - b a , notamment dans les textes en provenance d’Umma. š u ... ù r signifie en premieu lieu “damer, niveler” et dans le contexte précis du système après-récolte, le sens de “empiler, empilage” . Pour une interprétation différente, voir Civil 1994 : 91 : “to spread”. 29. Voir p.ex. RTC 405, g a r a d i n ( x ) (nombreuses variantes graphiques), kiššu, kurullu, nagabbu ; g a r a d i n x í l - l a , z à r - t a b - b a : “dresser des gerbiers”, z à r - t a b - b a ù š u - ù r - r a : “dresser des gerbiers et empiler (les gerbes)”. Cf. Civil 1965 : ligne 177 et commentaires pp. 179-180. Si les archives de Lagaš, de Nippur et d’Ur utilisent surtout le lexème g a r a d i n x , les textes en provenance d’Umma préfèrent celui de z à r . Les expressions z a r ( 3 ) ... s a l : “répandre les gerbes/javelles” et z a r ( 3 ) ... d u 8 : “ouvrir les gerbes” se rencontrent également dans des contextes littéraires, Civil 1994 : 91. Voir encore HLC 2 55 pl. 73 : iii.6 : 10.00; z a r d u 8 - a . 30. Document provenant de Nippur : NATN 739 7 : 4.50; g a r a d i n x / ú s - b i 1 ; n i n d a n - à m : “290 gerbiers ayant ca 6 m de côté” / ĝ u r u š 1 ; - e 1 0 ; - t a / ĝ u r u š - b i 2 9 ; u 4 1 ; - š è . Voir encore TMH NF 1/2 171 ; NATN 734 : 3 ; UET 3 1455.

274

JEAN-PIERRE GRÉGOIRE

grains.31 Un document (RTC 405) mentionne 4.200, 4.320 et 1.800 gerbiers dressés dans deux Domaines, en tout 10.320 gerbiers dont le produit en grains a été estimé à 209 tonnes, récoltées par les services du Temple de la déesse d N i n - MAR.KI. C’est dans ces gerbiers que les céréales arrivaient à leur maturité finale, en séchant32. Un travailleur pouvait dresser 10 gerbiers par jour33; il fallait les protéger de l’humidité en les érigeant sur des lits de roseau ou de fascines.34 Comme la crue débutait pendant la période de la moisson, il fallait préserver la récolte des eaux.35 Les Géorgiques recommandent de “ne pas laisser le grain s’ouvrir dans les gerbiers” ( g a r a d i n - n a š e n a - a b - s i - i l - s i - l e - e n ) . La moisson des céréales se faisait généralement au bout de 4 mois de croissance pour les hordées et de 5 mois pour les triticées36, donc aux mois d’avril et de mai. Les Égyptiens coupaient les céréales à mi-hauteur de la tige, afin de faciliter la trituration d’épi ; puis ils arrachaient à la main le chaume demeuré en terre avec sa racine. Ce procédé avait l’avantage de conserver toute la paille, d’une large utilisation.

4.2. Les pertes après-récolte On entend par là une réduction quantitative et qualitative mesurable des céréales. Ces pertes pouvaient se produire tout au long des différentes phases du système après-récolte. Sont également pris en compte les cas de détériorations des céréales. Des graines partiellement détruites par des insectes ou des rongeurs peuvent ne plus être appropriées à la consommation humaine. Les insectes ne sont mentionnés que

––––––––––––– 31. TMH NF 1/2 171 : 4 ss. ; CT 1 22 94-10-16,13 : ii.7-8 : a - š à 1 2 2 i k u / g a r a d i n x - b i 2 1 2 4 š e 0 ; 0 . 2 . 5 ⸢ s ì l a ⸣ - t a ì - d u 1 0 / š e - b i .... / i n i m m u r - b [ a - g á ] r ( a ) d u m u ... m u r - d EN. [ . . ] - t a / i g i m l ú - d i ĝ i r - r a d i - k u 5 - š è / m l ú - d n i n - s ú n ( a ) e n g a r / g á n a - g u 4 m g u - ú - g u /. Voir encore MVN 7 387 : iv.2 ; RTC 405. Pour un rendement de 0;0,3,5 s ì l a : MVN 7 387. A noter que s ì l a pourrait se référer également à une mesure relative à l’épaisseur du gerbier : 2 s ì l a = 1; k ù š (ca 0,50 m), cf. Powell 1984 : 42 s. (tardif). Si cette mesure désignait la circonférence d’un gerbier, alors son diamètre serait très réduit, de 1 à 1,50 m. 32. Le séchage final pouvait se faire également dans les dépôts ( ì - d u b ) des aires de dépiquage, voir CTNMC 48 (ŠS 2/L.-/-) : 2-3 : š e k i - b a s i - g e 4 - d è / ì - d u b a - š à - n a ĝ - ⸢ é s i r ? ⸣ - [ t ] a : “céréales en épis à faire dépiquer, provenant du dépôt du Domaine- a - š à - n a ĝ - ⸢ é s i r ? ⸣ ”. 33. ITT 3 1455 : 1 : 270 g a r a d i n x ĝ u r u š - b i 2 7 ; NATN 739 : iii.7-9 : g a r a d i n x ... ĝ u r u š - e 1 0 ; - t a ; NATN 603 : ii.2-4 : 177 ĝ u r u š - u 4 - 1 ; - š è g a r a d i n x g a 6 - ĝ á ù ú - d u r g a r a d i n x - n a a s u r - r a , cf. Civil 1994 : loc.cit. Voir encore : Gudea, Cyl. A v.21 : k i g a r a d i n x m u - a g ; CT 1 22 9410-16,13 : ii.7-8 : a - š à 122 i k u / g a r a d i n x ! - b i 2124 š e 0;0,2,5 [ s ì l a ] - t a ì - DÙG / š e - b i ... / i n i m m u r - b [ a - g á ] r - r a d u m u ... m u r - d EN. [ . . ] - t a / i g i m l ú - d i ĝ i r - r a d i - k u 5 - š è / m l ú - d n i n - s ú n ( a ) e n g a r / g á n a - g u 4 gu-ú-gu /. 34. NATN 620 : ii.2 : g a r a d i n x g a 6 - ĝ á ù ú - d u r g a r a d i n x - n a a s u r - r a : “(forces de travail) pour transporter et ...(?) (les gerbes) du gerbier, afin de tenir les gerbiers hors de l’eau”. 35. Cette activité est rendue par l’expression : š e a - t a d u 8 - a , voir TUT 7 i.7', 13', 20' ; AOS 32 D 24 : 3. 36. Selon Pline, Naturalis Historiae XVIII, ix, il fallait 6 à 7 mois (Munich: Artemis & Winkler, 1995, p. 47).

Le système après-récolte

275

dans les Listes lexicologiques.37 Dans certains cas, les céréales détériorées étaient utilisées pour l’alimentation animale. À ces pertes économiques directes s’ajoutaient celles découlant de la mauvaise gestion des systèmes après-récolte pouvant entraîner des pertes importantes. Une mauvaise qualité des semences, des pratiques culturales inadéquates, ou des attaques d’insectes ou d’oiseaux aux champs provoquaient parfois des pertes de la production avant même la récolte. Des pertes quantitatives et qualitatives pouvaient se produire durant les travaux sur l’aire de dépiquage. La séquence de ces opérations et les conditions dans lesquelles elles se déroulaient pouvaient être à l’origine de phénomènes physiques et biochimiques entraînant l’altération des grains. Un séchage insuffisant pouvait ainsi entraîner des pertes dues au développement de moisissures et d’insectes. Le dépiquage brisait parfois les graines et favorisait par la suite le développement d’insectes. Les mauvaises conditions de stockage avant l’ensilage pouvaient provoquer des pertes dues à l’action combinée de moisissures, insectes, rongeurs et autres ravageurs. Les conditions de transport ou un emballage défectueux pouvaient être à l’origine de pertes notables. Dans un document d’Umma38, les pertes de céréales lors d’un transport d’orge ( š e ) et de blé dur ( g i g ) , s’élevaient à ca 0,28% de la cargaison. Des méthodes modernes développent des modèles permettant de calculer les pertes depuis la récolte jusqu’à la transformation des graines, qui globalement se situent entre 10% (pour le minimum) et 37% (pour le maximum).

4.3. Le service sur l’aire de dépiquage L’expression : k i - s u r a 1 2 g u b - b a : “être de service sur l’aire de dépiquage”, englobait un ensemble de travaux du système après-récolte.

L’aire de dépiquage L’aire de dépiquage, k i - s u r a 1 2 ( k i - s u 7 - r a ) , 39 était un endroit aménagé ; chaque Domaine en disposait. Il ne s’agissait pas seulement d’un espace délimité, mais d’un ensemble d’installations spécifiques : l’aire proprement dite, des dépôts ( ì - d u b ) ou magasins ( ĝ á - n u n ) (le plus souvent en bois) où étaient entreposées les céréales, des dépendances pour abriter le personnel pendant un séjour limité et le matériel, ainsi que des parcs ou abris pour les animaux de travail, et finalement, le cas échéant, un quai ou débarcadère quand l’aire se trouvait à proximité d’un cours d’eau ou d’un canal navigable. L’aire était de forme circulaire dont on avait mouillé préalablement le sol, mélangeant la terre à de la paille hachée ou à de la bouse de boviné ; le sol était

––––––––––––– 37. UH: “vermine, insecte”, voir : Landsberger 1934 : 20 ss., ad ll. 249 ss., 126 ss. CAD K, p. 86-87 s.v. kalmatu. 38. AAICAB I/2 Ashm. 1971-344 (Š 44/U.vii/-). 39. Les Géorgiques emploient le terme de KI.UD: k i s l a h , signifiant en réalité un espace vide, une terre abandonnée, un terrain vague. Le sens d’aire de dépiquage apparaît parfois dans les archives d’Ur III (NRVN 1 238 : 2, 8 (terrain d’une plantation) ; Çıg, Kızılyay, Falkenstein, ZA 53, 82 21 ; TMH NF 1/2 65 : 5 ; 85 : 5 ; NATN 174 : 4) ; cf. Civil 1994 : 107, note 115.

276

JEAN-PIERRE GRÉGOIRE

alors damé à l’aide d’une poutre ou d’un assemblage de poutres afin d’obtenir une surface plane, bien lisse, sans fissures, limitant ainsi la perte de grains. Pour en durcir le sol, on l’arrosait à plusieurs reprises. Sous les rayons du soleil brûlant, l’eau s’évaporait rapidement et la surface de l’aire devenait très dure.

Le travail du dépiquage Le dépiquage consiste à séparer les grains de la portion de plante qui les porte et à enlever les enveloppes externes. Cette opération, effectuée manuellement ou à l’aide d’animaux, voire d’instruments spécifiques, est obtenue par dépiquage, par frottement ou par piétinement des épis. En Mésopotamie, après le pré-séchage, les céréales étaient transportées des gerbiers vers l’aire de dépiquage ( k i - s u r a 1 2 ) . Le transport40 s’effectuait à dos d’homme,41 par des équipes constituées, mais aussi en utilisant des animaux de bât,42 notamment des équidés, plus rarement par chariot.43 Ces transports exigeaient des soins particuliers afin d’éviter des pertes importantes. Les gerbes ou javelles étaient alors réparties en couches régulières sur le sol de l’aire, formant des cercles concentriques. Les Mésopotamiens connaissaient essentiellement deux méthodes de dépiquage : 1. le foulage à l’aide d’animaux, notamment des bovinés et des équidés ; 2. le dépiquage à l’aide du traîneau à dépiquer, sorte de tribulum.

Le foulage La méthode de dépiquage la plus répandue en Mésopotamie du Sud du IIIe millénaire av.n.ère était sans doute le foulage par animaux, afin de séparer le grain de l’épi.44

––––––––––––– 40. Cette activité s’exprime dans les expressions : k i - s u r a 1 2 - š è ... e 1 1 - d è : “apporter les céréales sur l’aire de dépiquage”, et une fois ce travail accompli : š e k i - s u r a 1 2 - t a ... e 1 1 - d è : “descendre les grains de l’aire de dépiquage” (Lahar and Ašnan, 197 s., cf. Civil 1994 : 92, commentaire ad lignes 88 s.). Le transport pouvait même se faire par bateau, à en croire le document NATN 739 : ii.5 : š e m á - t a e 1 1 - d è : “apporter les céréales par bateau” (comparer : a - š à - t a e 1 1 - d a : “sortir de la terre cultivable”, NATN 478). UET 3 1330 : a - š à ...- t a š e i m - l á : “(les forces de travail) transportaient les grains de l’aire de dépiquage”. 41. On pouvait utiliser pour le transport des gerbes des filets s i - p a r 4 (!) ou s a - h i r (šaharru). 42. DP 148 : i.5-6 : a n š e š e k i - s u 7 - t a l á - d è : “des équidés pour transporter les grains de l’aire de dépiquage”. 43. ĝ i š - m a r - g í d - d a , eriqqu, chariot, n’apparaît que rarement dans les archives néo-sumériennes. Voir Civil 1994 : 93, ad ligne 92. Comp. Salonen 1968 : 28 ss. Pour les textes, voir MVN 3 260 ; ITT 5 6898 ; UET 3 272 : ii.17' ; 721 : 6' ; RTC 239 (époque sargonique) ; Sigrist, RB 86, 241 3 évoque un chariot à 4 roues. A noter que ĝ i š - m a r pourrait être une abréviation pour ĝ i š - m a r - g í d - d a . Cf. Civil 1994 : 93. 44. š e s ì g - g a : dépiquage des céréales par foulage, par exemple : UET 3 1346 (AS 7/Ur -/-) : 1-4 : 24; ĝ u r u š s a ĝ - d u b / u 4 4 5 ; - š è / š e KIN- a z à r - t a b - b a / ù š e s ì g - g a : “24 forces de travail masculines (enregistrées) sur le registre principal, (engagées) pour (une durée) de 45 jours, pour récolter les céréales, dresser les gerbiers et fouler (= dépiquer) les céréales” ; CTNMC 48 (ŠS 2/L.-/-) : 2-3 : š e k i - b a s i - g e 4 - d è / ì - d u b a - š à - n a ĝ - ⸢ é s i r ? ⸣ - [ t ] a : “céréales en épis à faire dépiquer, provenant du dépôt du Domaine- a - š à - n a ĝ - ⸢ é s i r ? ⸣ ”.

Le système après-récolte

277

Le foulage est suggéré dans un document d’Umma conservé à l’Ashmolean Museum.45 Ce texte évoque le travail de dépiquage par différentes équipes se composant : a) de bovinés, b) de forces de travail masculines, et c) des chefs de ces équipes. Les travaux étaient réalisés sur la Grande Aire de Dépiquage ( k i - s u r a 1 2 g u - l a ) . Dans ce cas précis, le dépiquage se faisait par foulage par 4 équipes utilisant 5 bovinés, conduits par deux hommes par équipe. Deux équipes ne disposaient pas d’animaux de travail, mais une autre utilisait 5 hommes et 30 caprins. Les animaux étaient guidés par des conducteurs qui chassaient les bovinés ou équidés devant eux, tournant inlassablement sur l’aire en piétinant la couche plus ou moins épaisse de javelles.46 Pour réduire la masse de paille et pour éviter des quantités de déchets trop importantes, on coupait court les épis, en abandonnant la paille, arrachée par la suite par d’autres équipes. Les tiges de paille étaient stockées pour des usages divers (literies, toitures, etc.).

L’utilisation du traîneau à dépiquer La seconde méthode de dépiquage se faisait à l’aide du traîneau, armé sur sa face inférieure de lames en silex encastrées dans le bois de telle façon que leur grand axe soit parallèle à l’axe antéro-postérieur de l’appareil. Le traîneau à dépiquer ou tribulum, en tant qu’instrument agricole, n’apparaît que rarement dans les sources cunéiformes. L’utilisation de cet instrument implique une technique qui consiste à traîner sur les épis un objet lourd, parfois déchirant : en d’autres termes un traîneau à fond plat, muni ou non sur sa face inférieure de dispositifs tranchants, le plus souvent des silex, aidant à extraire le grain des épis ou des gerbes, réduits en éléments aplatis, séparant les grains des épis et des enveloppes externes : ĝ i š - b a d (resp.: ĝ i š - d a : “planche(s) en bois”) , muni à l’occasion de “dents”, (z ú : šinnu). Nous connaissons cet instrument au Proche-Orient depuis l’antiquité jusqu’à nos jours, notamment par les exemplaires de l’époque moderne, en provenance de Syrie, d’Iran ou de Turquie.47 Le tribulum est attesté dans les textes cunéiformes de l’époque présargonique (2450-2375 av.n.ère)48 et de l’époque d’Akkade (2375-2200 av.n.ère).49 L’existence du tribulum muni de 40 ou 80 dents ( ĝ i š - z ú ) est attestée par un document datant de l’époque d’Akkade.50 Selon l’interprétation que l’on souhaite donner au lexème ĝ i š - z ú , il peut s’agir ou bien des “dents de l’instrument” ou bien des “dents en bois”. Le véritable sens reste difficile à déterminer, car les textes ne précisent jamais la matière des “dents”. Il existait également un autre instrument agricole du même type, c’est-à-dire un

––––––––––––– 45. AAICAB I/2 Ashm. 1937-63, p. 158, pl. 104. 46. Dans les Géorgiques (ligne 98) , le foulage, c’est-à-dire le piétinement des bovinés, est désigné par d ú r - d ú r , cf. Civil 1994 : 95, ad ligne 98. 47. Voir Christiansen-Weniger 1960 : 469-472 et fig. 50 et 51. 48. AWEL 284 : ii.1 : 10; ĝ i š - BAD. 49. L’élément b a d dans le lexème sumérien ĝ i š - b a d , avec la signification de : “ouvrir” (petû), désigne le travail de “dépiquer” et l’expression š e b a d : “ouvrir les céréales” le travail de “dépiquer les céréales”. Par conséquent, ĝ i š - b a d signifie “le bois (= l’instrument) (servant) à ouvrir (les céréales)”, en d’autres termes le traîneau à dépiquer. š e b a d - ř á pourrait désigner le dépiquage des céréales à l’aide du traîneau à dépiquer. 50. OAIC 2, p. 275-277, commentaire ad ligne 17, cf. sub ĜIŠ.BAD et sub kirzappu.

278

JEAN-PIERRE GRÉGOIRE

traîneau, mais muni sur sa face inférieure de dents en bois ( ĝ i š - z ú ) : la herse, en sumérien ĝ i š - g á n a - ù r . 51 Cet instrument avait à l’occasion une fonction complémentaire, celle de couper et aplatir la paille. À ce propos, nous rappelons l’existence d’un instrument spécifique, le ĝ i š - i n - n u - š u - KIN( g u r 1 0 ) , qui pourrait bien être le tribulum, muni de silex, réduisant la paille.52 Parfois, on pouvait y fixer un siège rudimentaire.53 Le traîneau était tiré par des bovinés ou des équidés. Le conducteur du traîneau se tenait debout sur le tribulum, ou assis sur une sorte de tabouret fixé sur la face supérieure de l’appareil afin d’en augmenter le poids. Cet instrument se composait d’un assemblage de planches, de poutres ou plutôt de poutrelles jointes dans le sens de la longueur. L’appareil agricole tournait en rond sur l’aire pendant plusieurs heures. La foulée des animaux et l’action de scie des dents provoquaient le dépiquage. Avec des balais faits de branchages, on rassemblait la paille hachée, graines et poussières ou autres déchets en un ou plusieurs grands tas coniques, parfois allongés, dont l’axe était orienté perpendiculairement à la direction du vent. Les Géorgiques recommandent pour le dépiquage des céréales de préparer le traîneau en fixant bien les “dents” (silex) à l’aide de bandes en cuir et de bitume. Le tribulum était tiré par des bovinés. Le même poème recommande au bouvier de préparer le grain pour bien nourrir les bêtes. Cette description se trouve à l’origine de la reconstitution du traîneau à dépiquer mésopotamien, reconstitution tentée au Centre Préhistorique de Jalès.54 Ces indications semblent préciser que l’instrument mésopotamien pouvait être compris comme un instrument agricole multifonctionnel :55 1) traîneau utilisé pour les travaux de damage, 2) instrument de foulage, 3) tribulum, l’instrument étant alors muni de silex, et 4) herse, l’instrument étant muni de “dents en bois”. L’outil de base était le traîneau, simple assemblage de poutres ou poutrelles, utilisé pour les travaux de damage afin d’aplanir les parcelles de terres avant les arrosages. Muni de silex sur sa face inférieure, incrustés et fixés à l’aide de lanières de cuir et

––––––––––––– 51. Un document cunéiforme présargonique mentionne, en effet, “49 dents en bois pour la herse” : AWAS 2 62 = MVN 3 17 : ii.2 : 50;-l á -1; ĝ i š - z ú ĝ i š - ⸢ g á n a ⸣ - ù r . 52. Le lexème akkadien kilzappu / kissappu est rendu par le sumérogramme ĜIŠ.ĜÌR.GUB, indiquant qu’à l’origine il s’agissait d’un assemblage de simples planches ou poutres sur lesquelles on posait le pied, donc une sorte de traîneau sans dents. Comparer la Liste lexicographique : Ḫḫ VI 59 (MSL 6, p. 56) ; voir encore CAD K, 361b, v.s. ĝ i š - ĝ ì r - g u b : kilzappu. 53. Christiansen-Weniger 1960 : 470, fig. 51. 54. Le problème du traîneau à dépiquer mésopotamien a été largement discuté par Patricia Anderson-Chabot. Un document cinématographique, primé à Bordeaux, rend compte de la reconstitution possible de cet instrument agricole et de son utilisation pour le dépiquage des céréales : P. C. Anderson, (avec J. Chabot, J.-P. Grégoire et J. Pelegrin), Outils, techniques et tablettes : sur les traces des savoirs agricoles d’autrefois, (Tools, techniques and tablets : Retracing ancient agricultural heritage), CÉPAM et programme EARTH, GDR 2517 CNRS, Valbonne, et CELAT, Université Laval, Québec, Film VHS et CD bilingues et multistandards, 26 minutes, montage Vidéo Sud Production, Valbonne, 2000. Voir aussi : Anderson 1994 ; Id. 1997 ; Id. 2003 ; Anderson, Chabot, Van Gijn 2004. 55. Notons que d’après les mêmes Géorgiques Sumériennes, l’araire mésopotamien était composé d’éléments interchangeables, assemblés et maintenus en place à l’aide de tenons, chevilles et lanières de cuir. Le même instrument pouvait servir à la fois d’instrument de labours et d’instrument de labours-semailles. En ce cas, on fixait à l’araire le semoir permettant de laisser tomber les graines dans la raie tracée par l’instrument aratoire.

Le système après-récolte

279

de bitume dans les interstices des poutrelles, l’instrument servait de tribulum, lors des travaux d’après-récolte ou pouvait être utilisé, à l’occasion, pour hacher la paille. Pour les travaux de hersage, le traîneau était muni de “dents en bois” servant à gratter la terre après les travaux d’ensemencement. En utilisant le même instrument agricole de base, on le préparait à des fins spécifiques en lui apportant les éléments nécessaires, notamment des “dents”, soit en silex, soit en bois, selon les usages et les besoins. L’utilisation du tribulum implique le développement de techniques agricoles spécifiques. Pour les travaux d’après-récolte, on connaît deux techniques fondamentales : la technique de la percussion perpendiculaire et la technique de la percussion oblique. La première correspond aux activités de foulage et de battage, c’est-à-dire les épis sont piétinés par des hommes ou des animaux dans le premier cas et les épis ou les gerbes, déposés sur le sol, sont frappés à l’aide d’un outil, le fléau, dans le second cas. La seconde technique consiste à traîner un instrument lourd sur les épis afin d’en séparer le grain. Cet instrument est soit le traîneau, soit le tribulum, ce dernier étant le développement du précédent. Les traces laissées par des activités spécialisées sur les silex, traces analysées par Patricia Ch. Anderson, semblent indiquer une technique de percussion oblique, rendant possible l’identification des lames analysées avec des éléments insérés dans la face inférieure du tribulum. Rappelons que les traces sur les lames de faucilles ne sont pas les mêmes que celles laissées sur les pierres de tribulum (“les stries larges à fond peu profond et concave (en “u”) caractérisent l’usure du tribulum”).56 À propos des lames trouvées à Ur et datant de l’époque d’al ‘Ubaid (4500-3500 av.n.ère), Leonard Woolley voulait voir dans ces silex des éléments de tribulum.57 L’histoire du tribulum mésopotamien serait parallèle à celle de l’araire ; l’existence des deux instruments et leur introduction en Mésopotamie remonteraient au-delà du IVe millénaire av.n.ère. L’utilisation des bovinés et de équidés en tant qu’animaux de travail se confirmerait pour les mêmes époques, témoignant ainsi de la haute antiquité du développement des techniques agricoles fondées sur l’utilisation de l’énergie animale. Ces innovations auraient contribué largement au développement de la productivité agricole et à l’approvisionnement alimentaire de populations plus denses.

Les vannages Une fois le dépiquage accompli, on procédait aux vannages.58 Armés de pelles ou de fourches en bois et en roseau59, les vanneurs lançaient en l’air le produit du dépiquage, en ayant soin de se placer de façon à recevoir le vent latéralement. Les grains et les particules lourdes tombaient presque directement, la paille hachée et

––––––––––––– 56. Cf. la bibliographie indiquée dans la note 54. 57. UE 4, p. 14 et pl. 13 : U.14920. 58. š e m a - m a - r a - r a - a : “(premier) vannage à l’aide d’une pelle/fourche”, š e / z í z d é - a : vannage (plus soigné ou secondaire, comportant un premier nettoyage et triage) de l’orge / du blé amidonnier, TMH NF 1/2 171 (ŠS 5a/L.-/-) : lignes 12-15 ; un troisième vannage concerne la paille ou la balle : i n d é -a : lignes 16-17. CUSAS 16 17, (4) š e i n - b i n u - d é : “céréales dont la paille/balle n’a pas été vannée” ... (11-12) ( š e ) i n d é - a / š e ĝ i š è - a ĝ á - ĝ á - d a m : “(céréales) dont la paille/balle a été vannée (et) / qui doivent être emmenées pour le décorticage”. 59. ĝ i š - m a r : “pelle en bois” servant au vannage, cf. VS 10 197 : iii.2', cf. Civil 1994 : 95, com. ad l. 96.

280

JEAN-PIERRE GRÉGOIRE

les particules plus légères s’envolaient plus loin. Le grain nettoyé – en enlevant les particules lourdes, les déchets ou autres poussières – formait un grand tas allongé et pouvait être recueilli pour le séchage ou pour le stockage.

Le séchage Après le dépiquage, les grains présentent dans la plupart des cas une teneur en eau supérieure à celle nécessaire pour une bonne conservation (13-14%). Les grains sont “hydroscopiques”, cédant de l’eau à l’air ambiant, ou en absorbant sous forme de vapeur. L’eau présente dans les couches superficielles des grains s’évapore beaucoup plus facilement et plus rapidement que celle des couches internes. C’est pourquoi, en Mésopotamie, on séchait le grain en couches minces sur l’aire de dépiquage même, en le remuant constamment jusqu’à atteindre le degré de séchage souhaité. La chaleur du Sud contribuait évidemment grandement au processus de séchage des céréales qui devait durer de 10 à 15 jours. Cette activité est désignée par le lexème sumérien : ù r , notamment dans ĝ i š - m a r š e ù r - r a : “remuer les céréales à l’aide d’une pelle”. Dans les documents cunéiformes, le séchage était désigné par l’expression : š e ( s ù - r a ) a - t a d u 8 - a . 60

Le nettoyage et le triage Par nettoyage, on entend les phases du système après-récolte durant lesquelles sont éliminées les impuretés qui se trouvent mélangées à la masse des céréales. Après le séchage, pratiqué selon des méthodes traditionnelles, en exposant les grains à l’air libre, les céréales peuvent être mélangées à des impuretés : terre, petits cailloux, déchets végétaux, grains vides et insectes. Ces impuretés abaissent la qualité des céréales et représentent un foyer d’infestation potentielle lors du stockage. En Mésopotamie antique, des équipes de manouvriers étaient chargées du nettoyage et du tri des céréales, travail qui se fit manuellement sous le contrôle de spécialistes. Le nettoyage du grain se retrouve dans l’expression : š e n i r (zakû)61, désignant l’activité consistant à enlever tous les éléments étrangers, enveloppes, terre, sable ou autres déchets. L’opération de séchage pouvait s’accompagner d’un triage qualitatif des grains, indispensable avant le stockage ou la transformation ultérieure des grains. Ainsi, les meilleurs stocks de céréales, ayant des propriétés manifestes de panification, étaient acheminés vers les silos des Minoteries ( é - HAR. HAR) .

Le décorticage des céréales vêtues Les céréales mésopotamiennes antiques étaient des céréales vêtues rendant leur décorticage obligatoire avant leur transformation en produits pour la meune-

––––––––––––– 60. Par exemple, TUT 14 i.18-20 : 400; ĝ é m e - u š - b a r u 4 - 1 ; - š è / š e - b i 2;3,2,0 g u r / š e a - t a d u 8 - a ; “400 tisseuses pour 1 jour, dont les céréales (des rations) (sont de) 2 g u r 3 boisseaux 2 setiers, pour tenir hors de l’eau les céréales”. Voir aussi : AOS 32 D 24 : 3. 61. L’expression reste rare dans les archives d’Ur III. Voir les commentaires de Civil 1994 : 95, ad ligne 101.

Le système après-récolte

281

rie ou pour la consommation directe. L’orge était vêtue, ainsi que différentes sortes de blé : le blé amidonnier ( z í z ) et le blé désigné par le lexème g i g (peut-être du durum),62 ou le g ú - n i d a , etc. 95 à 98% de la production céréalière globale du Sud mésopotamien comportaient des graines vêtues. Ni les dictionnaires, ni les enquêtes philologiques ou lexicographiques, ni les commentaires des éditions de textes cunéiformes n’évoquent ce problème pourtant fondamental, car avant d’utiliser ou de consommer les céréales, il s’avère indispensable de les soumettre à un traitement préalable : le décorticage. Cette activité primordiale doit donc apparaître dans les archives et plus particulièrement dans les documents relatifs au système après-récolte. Nous l’identifions à l’expression : š e ĝ i š - è - a . 63 Nous disposons d’une documentation importante relative à cette activité qui intéresse d’énormes quantités de grains traités, corroborant le fait que plus de 95% de la production céréalière concernent des graines vêtues. Ainsi, des pièces d’archives émanant de l’administration du territoire de Lagaš mentionnent d’importantes quantités : 1.258 tonnes de céréales décortiquées sous la responsabilité du GrandAdministrateur du Temple du dieu Dumuzi.64 Le décorticage était effectué sous la responsabilité des laboureurs ( e n g a r ) , des intendants des bovinés d’arairage ( n u - b à n d a - g u 4 ) et des préfets ( š a b r a ) qui devaient fournir, selon l’importance de l’institution à laquelle ils appartenaient, un certain montant de grains décortiqués. Un document (daté de l’année 2 d’AmarSuena) comptabilise le décorticage de la totalité des céréales et l’égrenage des légumineuses, aromates ou épices de 16 des principaux Temples de Lagaš : soit 23.543.118 litres ou 17.144.897 kg de grains, 18.617 litres de fèves, 1.687 litres de coriandre, 274 litres d’épices diverses, ainsi que 1.230.460 litres ou 896.063 kg de grains destinés à la subsistance du personnel agricole, soit au total 24.794.156 litres de produits traités.65 Comme le montre ce texte, on ne décortiquait pas seulement les céréales, mais on procédait également à l’égrenage – en utilisant d’ailleurs la même terminologie : š e ĝ i š - è - a – de légumineuses66, d’épices, ainsi que d’autres variétés de graines. D’autres sources font état de l’égrenage de plantes utilitaires, dont le lin.67

––––––––––––– 62. AAICAB I/3 Bod. S 308, p. 353, pl. 250. 63. Généralement, on interprète ĝ i š ... è comme désignant l’action de “vanner”, et ĝ i š - è - a comme le “vannage”. Mais en admettant que ĝ i š dans ĝ i š ... è désigne les enveloppes, glumes et glumelles des graines vêtues, alors š e ĝ i š ... è doit signifier “sortir les céréales des enveloppes”, en d’autres termes “débarrasser les céréales des enveloppes” ou “décortiquer les graines”. Noter que le texte MVN 12 209 : 10 : mentionne un g u r g i b i l š e ĝ i š - è - a - t a . Voir encore HLC 1 16 (pl. 7) : 2 : g u r ! š e ĝ i š - è - a - t a . Il s’agit d’un récipient standard servant à mesurer le volume du grain décortiqué. Ce récipient est encore mentionné dans un document inédit du Musée du Louvre : AO 29958 : 08 : g u r š e ĝ i š - è - a - t a : “(céréales mesurées) en g u r ( -récipient) des grains décortiqués”. 64. CT 1 2-3 94-10-15,3 (Š 37 ou ŠS 4/L.-/-) : (vi.1) š u - n i ĝ i n 1; g u r u 7 43.32;2,2,2 1 / 2 s ì l a g u r (vi.2) š e ĝ i š - è - a . 65. CT 10 18-19 BM 12922 (AS 2/L.-/-) : (vi.8-9) š e ĝ i š - è - a k ì l i b - b a / š a b r a š a ĝ a - n e : “les grains décortiqués dans leur totalité, (sous la direction) des Préfets et des Grands Administrateurs”. 66. Ce fait même indique par ailleurs que la signification “vannage” ne convient nullement à cette expression. 67. Par exemple : TUT 164 (10), où il est question du décorticage/égrenage de graines de lin : (1) 36;4,1,2 s ì l a š e - ĝ i š - ì g u r l u g a l (2) š e ĝ i š è - a : “36 g u r 4 b a r i g a 1 b á n 2 s ì l a (mesurés) en g u r du Souverain, de graines de lin égrenées”.

282

JEAN-PIERRE GRÉGOIRE

Par ailleurs, ces mêmes sources écrites montrent clairement que les céréales étaient décortiquées avant leur ensilage dans les grands centres de stockage ( g u r u 7 ) 68 et que ce travail se faisait essentiellement sur l’aire de dépiquage. Pour décortiquer l’orge, l’expérience la plus positive consiste à utiliser un mortier en bois69, c’est-à-dire un mortier cylindrique d’une hauteur de 75 cm env., à fond arrondi (essentiel), muni d’un pilon cylindrique en bois à l’extrémité arrondie, d’une hauteur de ca 1,5 m. On y verse l’orge vêtue, puis on traite une quantité déterminée de graines (400 gr) à l’aide du pilon pendant 2 à 3 heures. Par l’action du pilon, les enveloppes des graines sont réduites en menus éléments et en poussière, libérant peu à peu les graines. Les enveloppes se frottent les unes contre les autres, se brisant et se réduisant en particules plus ou moins importantes, les éléments les plus petits et la poussière se concentrant au fond du mortier. Ensuite, le tout doit être vanné ou/et tamisé pour recueillir le grain, séparé de toutes les impuretés et des éléments des enveloppes. Cette expérience parfaitement probante montre que ce travail long et pénible est le procédé le plus efficace pour décortiquer des quantités importantes d’orge. C’est sans doute la technique première utilisée par les Mésopotamiens à l’époque néo-sumérienne, car il fallait décortiquer d’énormes quantités de céréales. On utilisait également des mortiers en pierre dont on connaît l’existence.70

Le contrôle et le mesurage des grains Si l’on veut assurer une bonne gestion technique, il est important de vérifier périodiquement la quantité et la qualité des céréales stockées. Avant les opérations de stockage proprement dites, on doit soumettre les grains à des contrôles appropriés pour vérifier le poids, voire le volume, le taux d’impuretés et d’humidité. C’est ce que faisaient les anciens Mésopotamiens. Avant d’être engrangé, le grain était mesuré afin d’établir des comptes précis et de procéder aux répartitions décidées par l’administration centrale. En réalité, le grain n’était pas pesé, mais évalué en volumes. On se servait de récipients à mesurage standardisés par la réforme de Šulgi qui avait réorganisé entièrement son Empire. Entre autres réformes entreprises, il imposa des poids et des mesures standardisés.71 L’unité de base était le s ì l a la mesure par excellence (vol. spécifique : 1,02 lit. ; solides : 0,93 lit. ; liquide : 1,07 lit.), la 300e partie du g u r (Šulgi), le double-quintal (306, 278,07, 321 litres resp.). Des mesures intermédiaires sont le b á n , le setier, et la b a r i g a , le boisseau, soit resp. 1/10 et 1/5 de g u r . En admettant 0,675 kg de céréales (c’est le minimum) pour la mesure ( s ì l a ) , le g u r devait correspondre, en moyenne, à un poids de ca 202,500 kg. En d’autres termes, nous avons le g u r ou “double-quintal”, subdivisé en 5 “boisseaux” ( b a r i g a ) , le “boisseau” étant lui-

––––––––––––– 68. Un doument en provenance d’Umma, BRM 3 180, indique explicitement que les céréales ensilées ont été préalablement décortiquées. 69. Expérimentations entreprises par nos soins à l’Institut Préhistorique de Jalès (Ardèche) en 1994. 70. Grégoire 1999 : 20-21. 71. On utilisait des récipients spécifiques, comme le g i - g u r - š e - b a l a (napšāru), “panier en roseau pour le transfert des grains”, d’une capacité de 60 mesures ( s ì l a ) (55,61 litres) d’après TCL 5 6036 : vii.40. TMH NF 1/2 171, verso 11' évoque des forces de travail chargées de fabriquer des paniers pour transporter les grains : ( ĝ u r u š ) ĝ i š - g u r š e g a 6 - ĝ á d í m - m a .

Le système après-récolte

283

même subdivisé en 6 “setiers” ( b á n ) , et chaque “setier” étant subdivisé en 10 mesures ( s ì l a ) . 72 Le “grenier” ou “silo” contenait 3.600 g u r , soit 1.001.052 litres ou, au minimum, 729.000 kg, donc autour de 730 tonnes métriques.73 Le mesurage du grain de la récolte était entrepris par l’administration centrale, sous la direction du Chef du mesurage, ou sitomètre en chef, le k a - l á - a , et sous le contrôle du Souverain patrimonial local, e n 5 - s i . 74 Le même fonctionnaire procédait périodiquement au mesurage de l’ensemble des avoirs en grains disponibles dans les greniers, silos ou dépôts pour les mettre à la disposition des différents départements et services selon leurs besoins.

4.4. Le stockage Le stockage sur l’aire de dépiquage Par stockage on entend la phase du système après-récolte durant laquelle les céréales – et autres produits – sont conservées, de façon appropriée, afin de garantir la survie et la sécurité alimentaire des populations, ainsi que le fonctionnement de l’État patrimonial.

––––––––––––– 72. Le s ì l a correspondait à un récipient contenant le volume d’une ration journalière. Ce type de récipient a été retrouvé par milliers de débris sur les chantiers de fouilles. Les Maisonnées chargées de la redistribution de ces rations alimentaires conservaient dans leurs réserves des dizaines de milliers de ce type de récipients, dits : d u g - 1 - s ì l a ou d u g - s ì l a - s á - d u 1 1 ; RTC 307 : Inventaire : viii.7 : 75.652 d u g - s ì l a - s á - d u 1 1 : “75.652 récipients de ration alimentaire- s á - d u 1 1 (d’un contenu) de 1 mesure (1,02 litres)”. 73. Le mesurage pouvait se faire également en estimant les tas coniques de grains sur l’aire de dépiquage même en insérant un bâton ou une baguette verticalement au centre du tas, activitée désignée par l’expression : g i d r u - š è ... n á (ina/ana haṭṭi šunūlu) (Ḫḫ XXIV 175 et sources littéraires), cf. Civil 1994 : 108, note 132 pour les interprétations différentes. Comme à l’époque d’Ur III le mesurage se faisait essentiellement à l’aide de récipients, nous ne suivons pas M. Civil dans son hypothèse de voir dans l’expression š e ĝ i š - è - a l’instrument pour estimer le volume des grains. 74. CT 1 4-5 94-10-15,4 (Š 35a/L.-/-) : il s’agit de l’arrêté de comptes du sitomètre en chef ( n ì g a z 1 4 - a g ( a ) k a - l á - a ) . Les disponibilités se composaient de reliquats provenant d’avances de grains et de reliquats dans les dépôts ( ì - d u b ) , ainsi que d’un montant fourni par le service d’ m U r - d I g a l i m a , au total : ca 2.649 tonnes de céréales mesurées par le service du sitomètre en chef. De ce montant global, 862 tonnes ont été mises à la disposition des Préfets et Grands Administrateurs de Temples ( a - g ù š a b r a š a ĝ a - k a b a - a - ĝ a r ) , 283 tonnes mises à la disposition de différents fonctionnaires inscrits sur le grand registre, 584 tonnes mises à la disposition de différents individus ou entreposées dans des dépôts, 11 tonnes pour des maçons travaillant à Dumalki, 87 tonnes pour les corvéables militaires, réceptionnées par leurs chefs, 36 tonnes de céréales destinées aux hommes de corvée travaillant pour le Grand-Chancelier, mais au sujet desquelles il y a une enquête, 26 tonnes de céréales non perçues par les corvéables militaires et laissées dans les dépôts, 6 tonnes 1 / 2 constituant un arriéré non rendu par le Grand-Administrateur du Temple du dieu d H e n d u r - s a ĝ ( a ) , 1 / 2 tonne de céréales pour les corvéables levés pour exécuter des travaux d’irrigation, 11 tonnes laissées par un intendant des tisserands qui a été remplacé par un autre fonctionnaire, puis plus de 1 tonne de céréales destinées aux rations alimentaires s á - d u 1 1 de la divinité d A s a r i pendant 31 mois, constituant un reliquat à en juger d’après le registre du fonctionnaire m A -t u , soit au total 1.894 tonnes prélevées. La différence entre les disponibilités et les prélèvements s’élevait à quelque 755 tonnes de céréales. De ce montant (reliquat), on a livré 583 tonnes 1 / 2 à trois personnalités. La nouvelle différence s’élève à 173 tonnes de céréales. Au total, on compte 2.649 tonnes de céréales relatives aux restes des céréales de l’année précédente. Le document mentionne encore 448 tonnes prises sur les céréales nouvellement récoltées et réceptionnées par U r - d L a m a . Le sitomètre avait procédé au mesurage de ces montants de céréales, sous le contrôle direct du Souverain patrimonial local ( e n 5 - s i ) .

284

JEAN-PIERRE GRÉGOIRE

Les principaux objectifs du stockage peuvent se résumer ainsi : 1. permettre, sur le plan alimentaire, une utilisation différée (sur une base annuelle et pluriannuelle) des produits agricoles récoltés, notamment les céréales, formant la base du système des rations et du fonctionnement des services ; 2. assurer, sur le plan agronomique, la disponibilité en semences pour les cycles culturaux suivants ; 3. garantir l’approvisionnement régulier et continu en matières premières les organismes chargés de la transformation de ces matières premières ; 4. assurer le fonctionnement des institutions, notamment des Maisonnées patrimoniales ; 5. favoriser les échanges, afin de se procurer les matières premières indispensables, non disponibles sur place. Pour atteindre ces objectifs généraux, il faut adopter des mesures visant à préserver la qualité et la quantité des produits stockés. Pour une conservation de qualité et de longue durée des céréales, il faut que les processus de dégradation soient ralentis, voire arrêtés. La dégradation pendant le stockage dépend essentiellement de la combinaison de trois facteurs : 1.- la température, 2.- l’humidité, 3.- la teneur en oxygène.

Température et humidité La température et l’humidité contribuent à accélérer ou à retarder des phénomènes complexes de transformation biochimique (surtout la “respiration”), à l’origine de la dégradation des grains. Les grains et les micro-organismes qui leur sont associés composent un système vivant complexe. Leur respiration produit du gaz carbonique, de l’eau et de la chaleur. La température et l’humidité ont en outre une influence directe sur la vitesse de développement des insectes et des micro-organismes (moisissures, levures et bactéries), et sur la germination hâtive et intempestive des grains. Plus la température est élevée, plus la teneur en eau des grains doit être faible pour que soit assurée une bonne conservation des céréales.

Teneur en oxygène Les micro-organismes et les insectes, comme tout organisme vivant, ont besoin d’oxygène. Le stockage des grains dans des milieux pauvres en oxygène provoque la mort des insectes,75 l’arrêt du développement des micro-organismes et le blocage,

––––––––––––– 75. Les insectes : Les infestations par les insectes peuvent se produire soit sur le terrain, avant la récolte, soit sur les lieux de stockage des produits. Les principaux insectes susceptibles d’infester les produits stockés sont : a) les coléoptères (larves et insectes), b) les lépidoptères (larves seulement). Leur activité biologique favorise le développement de micro-organismes. Une humidité faible ralentit, arrête même leur développement et les milieux pauvres en oxygène provoquent rapidement leur mort. Les rongeurs : Les rongeurs s’installent et se multiplient à l’intérieur ou au voisinage des lieux de stockage. Les principaux rongeurs s’attaquant aux produits sont le rat, le surmulot et la souris. Les rongeurs sont souvent les vecteurs de graves maladies (rage, leptospirose, etc.).

Le système après-récolte

285

ou le ralentissement, des phénomènes biochimiques de dégradation des grains. Il favorise leur conservation, mais peut affecter leur pouvoir de germination. Les silos représentent à cet égard des structures de stockage idéales.

4.5. L’Entreposage Le stockage consiste à conserver les céréales dépiquées, vannées, décortiquées, préalablement séchées, nettoyées et triées, dans des récipients ou des cellules dans des espaces convenablement aménagés. Les archives cunéiformes mentionnent deux types de stockage principaux : (1) l’entreposage et (2) l’ensilage.76 Le premier type se faisait dans des dépôts ou entrepôts, des constructions apparemment en bois et en roseaux se trouvant à proximité des aires de dépiquage, désignées par les lexèmes sumériens : ì - d u b : “dépôt, entrepôt, (grenier, dans un sens plus large)” (litt.: “ce qui est amassé, accumulé”) ou, plus rarement, ĝ á - n u n : “magasin-entrepôt”. Ces structures de stockage devaient répondre aux exigences suivantes : 1. empêcher la réhumidification des grains ; 2. protéger les grains de l’eau et des intempéries ; 3. interdire l’accès des insectes, des rongeurs et des oiseaux aux locaux de stockage ; 4. faciliter le contrôle de l’état de conservation des grains ; 5. permettre une manipulation facile et rapide des stocks. Ces structures servaient à une utilisation immédiate des céréales destinées au fonctionnement des Maisonnées, à l’approvisionnement immédiat des rations de grains, à la transformation des céréales en produits semi-finis ou finis pour une consommation immédiate, ainsi que pour tout autre usage à court terme. Par ailleurs, ces structures devaient se situer dans des zones non humides ou être construites sur des plateformes les préservant ainsi de l’humidité des zones basses, des terrains argileux ou mal drainés, de la proximité de cours d’eau ou de canaux. En outre, ces dépôts se trouvaient hors des agglomérations, dans des zones équidistantes des lieux de production agricole et près de voies de communication navigables. C’est pourquoi ces entrepôts se trouvaient près de l’aire de dépiquage.77

––––––––––––– Les micro-organismes : Les micro-organismes, c’est-à-dire les moisissures, levures, bactéries, sont des agents biologiques présents dans le sol qui, transportés par l’air ou par l’eau, peuvent contaminer les grains avant, pendant et après leur récolte. Leur présence et leur développement entraînent de graves altérations de la valeur nutritive et des caractéristiques organoleptiques des grains (goût, odeur, aspect). Ils sont responsables de l’altération d’importantes propriétés germinatives des semences (vigueur et pouvoir germinatif) et, dans le cas des moisissures, de l’éventuelle formation de dangereuses substances toxiques (mycotoxines). Les impuretés, les grains cassés et fissurés favorisent le développement de micro-organismes. 76. CT 9 38 BM 13657 (Š 40a/L. 04 /-) : iv.8-11 : n ì - g a z 1 4 - a g ( a ) / m u r - n ì ĝ i n - ĝ a r ( a ) š a ĝ a d n i n - d a r - a / m a l - l a / e n 5 - s i . Ce document cite les deux types de stockage : le dépôt ( ì - d u b ) et le silo ( g u r u 7 ) . Pour l’utilisation de ĝ á - n u n , “magasin”, voir TMH NF 1/2 171 : 19 : k i - s u r a 1 2 - t a ĝ á n u n [ - š è ] ; “depuis l’aire de dépiquage [jusqu’au] magasin-entrepôt”. 77. CT 9 43 BM 18426 (AS 1/L.-/-) : (iv.1-2) n ì - g a z 1 4 - a g ( a ) / š e ì - d u b a - š à - h i - ĝ á l : “arrêté de comptes (concernant) les céréales du dépôt (de l’aire de dépiquage) du Domaine- a - š à - h i - ĝ á l ; TSDU 50 (RIAA 186) (IS 1/U.-/-) : (iv.9) ì - d u b a - š à a - k a - s a l 4 k i : “(céréales se trouvant) dans les

286

JEAN-PIERRE GRÉGOIRE

Aucun exemple archéologique de ce type de structure de stockage n’existe. D’après les sources épigraphiques, ces structures étaient construites en bois et roseaux sans pour autant fournir une description du bâtiment même, faisant allusion à sa forme et à ses dimensions, ni le volume spécifique, ni les installations, ni les récipients de stockage, ni les détails de construction, tels les infrastructures, le sol, les parois, la toiture, les ouvertures d’aération ou les portes, ni l’entretien, ni les équipements, ni les services administratifs. L’entreposage se faisait dans des dépôts ( ì - d u b ) installés sur ou à proximité immédiate de l’aire de dépiquage ( k i - s u r a 1 2 ) d’un Domaine ( a - š à ) . Ainsi, d’après un document cunéiforme des Musées Royaux d’Art et d’Histoire à Bruxelles,78 chaque Domaine disposait d’un dépôt installé sur l’aire de dépiquage. Le texte évoque 10 dépôts de 10 aires de dépiquage situés dans 10 Domaines différents, appartenant au Finage ( a - š à ) de la localité A - k a - s a l a 4 k i , dépendant du territoire d’Umma. Les céréales récoltées en l’an 1 du règne d’ Ibbī-Suen – les céréales provenant essentiellement des terres de réserve ( š e g á n a - g u 4 ) et des terres affermées ( š e u r u 4 - l á ) – étaient entreposées dans les dépôts des différents Domaines ( ì - d u b k i - s u r a 1 2 a - š à (-...) : “dépôt de l’aire de dépiquage du Domaine (...)”), soit plus de 675 tonnes de céréales (parmi lesquelles 507 tonnes d’orge ( š e ) , 21 tonnes de blé amidonnier ( z í z ) et 324 kg de blé dur? ( g i g ) ). Ces stocks couvraient les besoins immédiats ou furent dirigés vers les centres de stockage de longue durée, les silos ( g u r u 7 ) .

4.6. Transports et ensilage Transport par bateau Les céréales étaient transportées de l’aire de dépiquage vers les différents centres d’ensilage. Les grandes aires de dépiquage étaient établies à proximité de canaux navigables. Le transport vers les silos se faisait donc principalement par chalands.79 Les plus grands de ces moyens de transport avaient une capacité maximale de 60 doubles-quintaux, soit 16.700 litres ou ca 12 tonnes de grains. Bien entendu, il existait également des chalands de moindre tonnage. Les silos se trouvaient également installés au bord ou à proximité de canaux ou de cours d’eau, facilitant ainsi le déchargement des céréales et leur transfert vers les silos.80

––––––––––––– dépôts du Finage d’A - k a - s a l 4 k i ”. UDT 62 (AS 2a/L.-/-) : (21-23) : n ì - g a z 1 4 - a g ( a ) ì - d u b a - š à - é b i l - l e / ù a - š à - d i g - a l i m a / ĝ ì r i m u r - d l a m a d u m u m l ú - d s u e n ( a ) : “arrêté de comptes des dépôts du Domaine- a - š à - é - b i l - l e et du Domaine- a - š à - d I g - a l i m a , sous la responsabilité d’ m U r d L a m a , fils de m L ú - d S u e n a ” . CT 5 36-37 BM 17751 (Š 48b/L.-/-) : (iv.15) : ì - d u b h a - l a - a : “(céréales) réparties entre les différents dépôts”. CT 7 47-48 BM 17776 (AS 2/L.-/-) : (20-22) : n ì - g a z 1 4 a g ( a ) ì - d u b a - š à - g i - d a h - h a / ĝ ì r i m u r - ĜAR d u m u m u r - d b a - b a 6 / ú / u g u l a š a ĝ a d n i n MAR.KI : “arrêté de comptes du dépôt du Domaine- a - š à - g i - d a h - h a , sous la responsabilité d’ m U r ĜAR, fils d’ m U r - d B a - b a 6 / ú , sous la direction du Grand-Administrateur du Temple de la déesse d N i n - MAR.KI” . 78. RIAA 186, document republié par H. Limet, TSDU 50. 79. HLC 1 47 (pl. 17) ; OrSP 47-49 279 : OrSP 47-49 367; AAICAB I/1 Ashm. 1911-159; AAICAB I/2 Ashm 1935-512, Ashm. 1935-557. 80. Par exemple, MVN 10 202.

Le système après-récolte

287

L’ensilage L’ensilage désigne une méthode de stockage consistant à conserver les céréales, sans aucun emballage, à l’intérieur de structures construites et destinées à une conservation à long terme de grandes quantités de grains : g u r u 7 . 81 L’installation comprenait un ensemble de structures verticales, c’est-à-dire un certain nombre de silos construits en terre, plus exactement en pisé, de structure circulaire, d’une hauteur de plusieurs mètres, se terminant en dôme avec une ouverture centrale. Une autre ouverture, fermée par une porte, également en argile, se trouvait dans la partie basse du silo. Ce dernier se remplissait par l’ouverture centrale du dôme. Un bouchon en argile fermait hermétiquement le silo ( g u r u 7 - a i m ù r - r a ) , 82 une fois rempli de grains. Les silos étaient construits par des spécialistes du pisé. Les parois internes se caractérisaient par une finition soignée, notamment par un lissage. On accédait à l’ouverture supérieure soit par des échelles, soit par un escalier donnant accès à un déambulatoire construit à l’arrière et le long des différents silos. L’ensemble comprenait également des dépendances abritant, entre autres, les services administratifs, des abris pour le personnel, l’outillage et les équipements divers. Le Silo, g u r u 7 , en tant qu’institution patrimoniale, se trouvait sous la responsabilité du sitologue, k a - g u r u 7 , qui disposait de tout un personnel pour assurer le fonctionnement de ce centre de stockage. Le personnel et les installations devaient assurer une exécution rapide et efficace des opérations de réception, traitement, ensilage, stockage, contrôle et vidange des grains. Les services administratifs, occupant des scribes spécialisés, assuraient la gestion des stocks de céréales. Les silos mésopotamiens étaient des dispositifs hermétiques. Le principe de l’ensilage consistait à abaisser la teneur en oxygène de l’air présent dans l’enceinte de stockage à un niveau entraînant la mort des insectes et empêchant le développement des moisissures. La quantité d’oxygène après remplissage devait être aussi réduite que possible, sinon les organismes pathogènes auraient eu le temps de provoquer des dommages définitifs. Le conteneur devait être étanche. Le silo était la solution idéale pour une structure en atmosphère confinée permettant un stockage de longue durée. Les archives cunéiformes mentionnent des stockages sur une durée pouvant atteindre une dizaine d’années.83 Aucune installation de ce genre n’a été fouillée. Néanmoins nous pouvons nous faire une idée assez exacte d’un centre de stockage de ce type en faisant appel aux rares représentations graphiques sur quelques cylindres-sceaux (notamment en provenance de Suse),84 datant la plupart du temps de l’Époque Dynastique Ar-

––––––––––––– 81. Le cunéogramme n’existe pas dans les textes proto-cunéiformes de l’époque archaïque. L’interprétation du signe reste difficile, mais semble en relation avec des lexèmes tels que e d e n ou b a h a r 2/3, évoquant les travaux de terre, d’argile ou de pisé (tauf). 82. g u r u 7 ( - a ) i m ù r - r a : “sceller (l’ouverture) d’un silo avec de l’argile”, voir : SACT 2 46 : 1-3 : 1.23; ĝ u r u š u 4 - 1 ; - š è / š e b a l a - a / g u r u 7 - a i m ù r - r a : “86 (journées de travail) de journalier / pour le transfert des céréales (et) / pour sceller (l’ouverture) du silo avec de l’argile (= ensilage)” ; AAICAB I/4 Bod. S 484 (-/U.vi/-) : 3-4 : 5; ĝ u r u š u 4 [ x ; ] - š è / g u r u 7 - a i m b í - ù r : “5 hommes pour [x] jours (qui) doivent sceller (l’ouverture) du silo avec de l’argile (= (qui) doivent procéder à l’ensilage)”. 83. Maekawa, ASJ 3, 50 BM 18060. 84. Amiet 1961 : nº 257, 267, 268, 269, et notamment 568.

288

JEAN-PIERRE GRÉGOIRE

chaïque. On peut les comparer aux bas-reliefs des monuments funéraires, ou aux modèles en bois retrouvées dans les tombes de l’Égypte ancienne. 85

5. Redistribution et Transformation L’absence de moyens techniques développés a contraint l’administration centrale à employer une main-d’œuvre abondante. C’est ce qui explique la raison pour laquelle la plus grande partie de la population, celle qui était attachée et celle qui n’était pas attachée de façon permanente à une Maisonnée, dépendait pour sa survie directement ou indirectement de la Maisonnée patrimoniale. Toutes ces catégories recevaient des rations ou des allocations : des rations de grains et des rations alimentaires de toutes sortes, distribuées journellement, mensuellement, annuellement ou occasionnellement. L’administration centrale devait donc disposer de réserves de grains et de denrées énormes ainsi que d’unités de transformation des grains pour assurer l’approvisionnement de ces grandes quantités de rations alimentaires : les Minoteries.86 Une pièce des archives de l’administration centrale de Girsu87 nous informe sur l’utilisation annuelle de la production céréalière. Le document mentionne le chiffre global des prélèvements des céréales de la circonscription administrative de Girsu pendant l’année 2 du règne d’Amar-Suena. Ces prélèvements comprennent huit postes principaux : 1. les contributions livrées aux centres de redistribution de l’État patrimonial, soit à peu près la moitié des avoirs globaux en céréales (et plus de la moitié de la production céréalière du territoire de Girsu) ; 2. les prélèvements céréaliers destinés aux rations alimentaires – s á - d u 1 1 et aux rations de grains ( š e - b a ) des régions de Ĝ í r - s u k i , de G ú - i 7 - N i n â k i - š è - d u et de G ú - a b - b a k i , avec leurs centres urbains ; 3. le grain réservé aux terres à ensemencer (les terres de réserve : g á n a - g u 4 ) ; 4. le grain réservé aux terres b a l a - a ; 5. le grain réservé à la nourriture des animaux de travail ; 6. (poste indéterminé) ; 7. (poste indéterminé) ; 8. le grain destiné au culte des dieux : “le grain du dieu Enlil”. Le territoire de Girsu disposa, pendant cette année 2 du règne d’Amar-Suena, de 20.168.023 kg de céréales, dont 17.530.066 kg correspondent à la production de l’année (soit une surface ensemencée de 18.325 ha 4.990 m2, soit 183 km2 26 ha) ; il resta dans les greniers un stock de 2.637.954 kg de céréales. De ces disponibilités on préleva :

––––––––––––– 85. Vandier 1978 : 273-277 ; Donadoni Roveri 1987 : 49, fig. 50 (modèle en terre cuite). 86. Grégoire 1999 : 7-38. 87. CT 7 8 BM 12926. Voir Textes n° 6.

Le système après-récolte

289

1. 10.083 tonnes : céréales destinées aux contributions de Lagaš, livrées aux centres de redistribution de l’Empire, soit 57,52% de la production globale ; 2. 2.485 tonnes pour les rations de Ĝ í r - s u k i , 3. 1.335 tonnes pour les rations de Gú-i7-Ninâki-šè-du, 4. 2.294 tonnes pour les rations de Gú-ab-baki ; 5. 1.027 tonnes pour ensemencer les terres de réserve ; 6. 24 tonnes pour ensemencer les terres b a l a - a ; 7. 17 tonnes pour la nourriture des bovinés d’arairage et des jeunes bêtes ; 8. 462 tonnes et 86 tonnes pour différents postes ; 9. soit au total : 18.092 tonnes, pour les prélèvements sur le territoire de la circonscription administrative de Ĝ í r - s u k i ; 10. par ailleurs, le document cite les prélèvements pour le culte des dieux : totalisant 2.916 tonnes de céréales. Ce type de prélèvement était dit : ”grains du dieu Enlil”. La totalité des prélèvements s’éleva donc à 21.032 tonnes de céréales, soit des prélèvements excédentaires de 864 tonnes de grains. Ce document montre explicitement que la production des terres servait à approvisionner en céréales la Maisonnée patrimoniale, les centres administratifs, le culte, les différentes catégories de personnel dépendant de ces institutions et par conséquent une grande partie de la population urbaine intégrée directement ou indirectement à la Maisonnée patrimoniale. Un autre document inédit88 enregistre les prélèvements globaux de céréales destinés à deux secteurs bien déterminés : 1) le premier désignant l’Administration Centrale de l’Empire représentée par le Souverain patrimonial, l u g a l ; 2) le second désignant l’administration centrale locale, représentée par la communauté urbaine, u r u . Le rapport entre les deux secteurs était de 2,5:1. 89

6. Conclusion Pour la société mésopotamienne, les céréales et certaines légumineuses représentaient l’élément essentiel du régime alimentaire. Les structures de la société déterminaient profondément les structures sociales, le système économique et l’organisation politique dont l’objectif primordial était d’assurer la survie de la communauté, en premier lieu l’autosuffisance alimentaire. Seul l’effort de tous pouvait atteindre ce but. C’est bien le holisme qui caractérise les diverses sociétés qui – depuis les VIe-Ve millénaires jusqu’au début du IIe millénaire – avaient occupé la Plaine alluviale. La survivance de la communauté dépendait essentiellement des systèmes d’investissement de travail, systèmes fondés sur des rendements à retardement et non sur des rendements immédiats : notamment la fabrication d’outils, la culture de plantes vivrières, la construction de structures de stockage, la préparation des champs de cultures, la construction de réseaux d’irrigation, l’organisation des travaux agricoles. Ces activités se fondaient sur un

––––––––––––– 88. Grégoire, à paraître : BM 85305. Voir Textes n° 5. 89. Voir plus haut, sub 2. Terres Ensemencées et Production Céréalière.

290

JEAN-PIERRE GRÉGOIRE

rendement différé, ce qui impliquait une organisation centralisée, donc une prise de décision centrale, stable et durable. Il fallait programmer et organiser le travail, préparer les outils, donc investir en temps et en moyens dans l’espoir d’obtenir ultérieurement des rendements. L’homme mésopotamien avait mis en place des stratégies sociales et économiques particulières permettant sa survie, tout en améliorant, par le développement des ces stratégies, les rendements en mettant en place des techniques aprèsrécolte favorisant la préservation et la conservation des principales denrées vivrières. Il ne s’agissait pas seulement de produire, mais d’améliorer les opérations et la prévention des pertes après-récolte, en développant des techniques spécifiques de récolte, de séchage, de dépiquage, de décorticage (resp. d’égrenage), d’entreposage, de transport et de stockage – techniques constituant le système après-récolte.

Annexes et Textes Annexe 1 Le Système Après-Récolte 1. Récolte, liage et bottelage des gerbes : 2. Dressement de gerbiers, préséchage : 3. Foulage / dépiquage :

4. Vannages, pré-nettoyage :

5. Séchage :

6. Décorticage / égrenage : 7. Nettoyage et triage : 8. Stockage provisoire : 9) Transports : 10. Ensilage : 11. Redistribution : 12. Transformation :

coupe des céréales : š e

ŠE.KIN, ŠE.KIN- k u 5

,

z à r - t a b - b a , g a r a d i n x : meules, gerbiers, š u - ù r r a : empilement (des gerbes), aire de dépiquage ( k i - s u r a 1 2 ) : š e ĝ i š - r a - r a : dépiquage par traîneau à dépiquer, š e s ì g ( - g a ) : dépiquage par foulage, vannages des céréales : š e m a - m a - r a - r a - a : premier vannage des grains, à l’aide d’outils (van, fourche, pelle) ; š e d é - a : deuxième vannage (plus soigné comportant un nettoyage) des grains ; i n d é a : troisième vannage concernant la balle et les déchets de paille ; travaux exécutés sur l’aire de dépiquage ( k i - s u r a 1 2 g u b - b a ) , ĝ i š - m a r š e ù r - r a : remuer les grains à l’aide d’une pelle ; š e a - t a d u 8 - a : tenir les grains hors de l’eau, še ĝiš-è-a, še nir, entrepôt : ì - d u b / ĝ á - n u n (avec post-séchage avant ensilage), transfert des céréales ( š e b a l a - a ) de l’aire de dépiquage, c’est-à-dire des dépôts, vers les silos, silo : guru 7 ; im ùr-ra : scellage avec de l’argile, système de rations : b a , š u k u r , s á - d u 1 1 , fonctionnement de la Maisonnée patrimoniale, maisonnées spécialisées : ( é - HAR. HAR) .

Le système après-récolte

291

Annexe 2 Opérations après-récolte

Technologies traditionnelles

Récolte :

manuelle, faucille en métal ou en argile,

Pré-séchage :

sur pied ou en tas : gerbes, gerbiers, meules, dans les champs,

Stockage en épis :

en structures ou en greniers traditionnels,

Transport :

vers l’aire de dépiquage ; main-d’œuvre humaine, animaux de travail, bateau,

Foulage / dépiquage :

manuel ou à l’aide d’instruments spécifiques, aire de dépiquage, utilisation d’animaux de foulage (bovinés, équidés, caprinés), traîneau à dépiquer,

Pré-nettoyage :

lors des vannages successifs,

Séchage :

naturel : sur l’aire de dépiquage,

Nettoyage et triage :

vannage au vent, sur l’aire de dépiquage,

Décorticage / égrenage :

utilisation du mortier, sur l’aire de dépiquage,

Entreposage-stockage :

dépôt, près de/sur l’aire de dépiquage,

Transport vers les silos :

de l’aire de dépiquage vers les silos (centres urbains, centres spécifiques), par bateau,

Ensilage :

silos-greniers (bouchés hermétiquement),

Redistribution :

rations, prestations, gratifications, moyens de fonctionnement,

Transformation :

manuelle (outillage spécialisé), (dans les centres spécialisés, comme les Minoteries).

Textes N° 1. RTC 407 Recto 1

1; šár-gal 8; šár 5; bùr-u 4; bùr 1; èše 2; i[ku gána]

26.258 ha 551 m2 de terres (ensemencées)

2

še-bi 3; šár-u 4; šár 2; géš-u 7; géš 15; še gur dšul-gi

dont les céréales (sont de) 344.904 hl 12,45 l (25.117.087 kg 500), (mesurées en) g u r du Souverain :

3

šà-bi-ta

de ce montant (estimé) :

4

3; šár-u 5; šár 5; géš-u 2[+x;] [géš x; gur-u x; gur] 5 sìla g[ur]

359.044 hl 3,03 l (26.146.803 kg 375) (de céréales)

5

mu-[DU]

ont été [produites] ;

6

[lá-NI x; +] 1; šár 2; géš-u [+x; gur]

[la différence (de comptes étant de) ] 13.347 hl 36 l (972.000 kg) [+x] (de céréales).

7

[mu ...]

[Année où ...].

(reste perdu)

...

292

JEAN-PIERRE GRÉGOIRE

Verso (début cassé)

...

1'

šà-b[i-ta]

de [ce] montant (estimé) :

2'

3; šár-u 2; šár 5; géš-u [+x;] [gur]

328.678 hl 74 l (23.925.500 kg) de céréales)

3'

mu-[DU]

ont été [produites] ;

4'

lá-NI 2; šár 5; géš 3;[+x; gur]

la différence (de comptes étant de) 20.863 hl 59,21 l [+x] (1.519.357 kg 500 [+x]).

5'

mu *dumu-munus lugal(a) ⸢x⸣ lugal! a[n-ša-anki ?]

Année où la fille du Souverain (a épousé) le Souverain(!) d’A[nšan] (Š 30).

6'

1; šár-gal 1; šár-u 1; šár 1; bùr-u gána

27.118 ha 9750 m2 de terres (ensemencées)

7'

še-bi 3; šár-u 5; šár 3; géš-u 30; gur

dont les céréales (sont de) 355.456 hl 88,10 l (25.885.575 kg) :

8'

šà-bi-ta

de ce montant (estimé) :

9'

2; šár-u 1; šár 4; géš-u 7; géš 42;1,4,0 gur

218.180 hl 21,03 l (15.888.622 kg 500) (de céréales)

10'

mu-DU

ont été produites ;

11'

[lá]-NI 1; šár-u 3; šár 4; géš-u 3; géš 27;3,2,0 gur

la [différen]ce (de comptes étant de) : 137.387 hl 89,87 l (10.005.052 kg 500) (de céréales).

12'

mu si-mu-ur4-umki a-řá 3;-kam-aš ba-hul(a)

Année où (le pays de) Simurum a été dévasté pour la 3e fois.

[.... *šaĝ]a? *šabra 6;-ba

[les ..... des Grands-Administrat]eurs (et) des Préfets (des domaines agricoles) (étant de) 6.

tr.g. 13'

N° 2. AO 29992 Recto 1

1.08.22; gu4 anše hi-a

4.102 bovinés et équidés (de travail) divers,

2

apin-bi 8.00;

dont les attelages d’arairage sont de 480 ;

3

33.50; áb gu4 hi-a é-tùr

2.030 vaches (et) taureaux divers (dépendant) de la MaisonnéeStabulation/Étable ;

4

6.05.04; udu hi-a

21.904 ovinés divers,

5

síg-bi 10.42; gú 8; ma-na

dont (la production) de laine (s’élève à) 642 talents et 8 livres (= 19.457 kg) ;

6

2.56.56; ud5 máš hi-a

10.616 caprinés divers ;

––––––––––––

––––––––––––

––––––––––––

––––––––––––

gu4 udu gu4-apin(a) gub-ba

(ce sont) les bovinés, ovi-caprinés (et) bovinés d’arairage présents,

Verso 7

Le système après-récolte 8 9

šà ĝír-suki d

293

à Girsu. d

mu amar- suen(a) *lugal

Année où Amar-Suena (est devenu) le Souverain patrimonial (AS 1/L.-/-).

N° 3. MVN 10 202 Recto 1

9.20; ĝuruš-u4-1;-š[è] še ŠE.KIN-a

560 forces de travail masculines de journalier pour moissonner des céréales,

2

19.20; ĝuruš zàr-tab-ba šu-ùr-ra

1.160 forces de travail masculines pour dresser des gerbiers et empiler (les gerbes),

3

9.30; ĝuruš k[i]-⸢su7⸣-ra gub-ba

570 forces de travail masculines de service sur l’aire de dépiquage,

4

2.00; ĝuruš še bala-a

120 forces de travail masculines pour le transfert des céréales,

5

guru7-a im ùr-ra

(et) l’ensilage (= scellage du silo),

Verso

6

ki

a-šà-⸢gú⸣-eden-na( ) m

(céréales) du Domaine de G ú -e d e n -n a ,

7

ugula ⸢ a⸣-ab-ba

sous la direction d’ mA - a b - b a ,

8

kìšib m⸢lugal⸣-kù-⸢zu⸣

(travaux enregistrés) sur la tablette scellée par mL u g a l -k ù -z u .

9

mu damar-dsuen(a) *⸢lugal⸣

Année où le divin Amar-Suena (devint) le Souverain patrimonial (AS 1/U.-/-).

Empreinte du sceau 1

m

2

dub-[sar]

3

lugal-kù-[zu] m

dumu lugal-[é]-ma[h-e]

m

L u g a l -k ù -[z u ],

le scribe, fils de mL u g a l -[é ]-m a [ h -e ].

Commentaires : L u g a l - é - m a h - e , père de m L u g a l - k ù - z u , pourrait être identifié à l’intendant des bovinés d’arairage ( n u - b à n d a - g u 4 ) mentionné dans Bod. S 248 : Š 45 et Bod. S 290 : Š 45 (AAICAB I/3, p. 338, pl. 236 ; p. 349, pl. 244). m L u g a l - k ù - z u pourrait être également un intendant des bovinés d’arairage ( n u - b à n d a - g u 4 ) . m

N° 4. TMH NF 1/2 171 Recto 1

[x+]⸢1;⸣ èše 4 iku gána ŠE.KIN-⸢a?⸣

[x+] 3 ha 5284 m2 d’un champ à moissonner (= 100 iku = 35 ha 2836 m2)

2

ĝuruš-e 1; iku gána-ta

à raison de 1 iku (3.528 m2) par force de travail masculine,

3

ĝuruš-bi 1.40; u4 1;-šè

dont les journées de travail des forces de travail masculines de journalier (sont) de 100 ;

4

49.10; garadinx (U+PA.NÌ|U+PA+NÌ) še zíz

2.950 gerbiers d’orge (et) de blé amidonnier

294

JEAN-PIERRE GRÉGOIRE

5

ĝuruš-e 10;-ta-àm

à raison de 10 (gerbiers) par force de travail masculine,

6

ĝuruš-bi 4.55; u4 1;-šè

dont les journées de travail des forces de travail masculines de journalier (sont) de 295 ;

7

2.11;0,0,0 še gur

131 doubles-quintaux (36.427,17 l / 26.527,5 kg) d’orge,

8

52;0,0,0 zíz gur

52 doubles-quintaux (14.459,64 l / 10.530 kg) de blé amidonnier,

9

še zíz ĝiš-ra-a

(c’est) le dépiquage de l’orge (et) du blé amidonnier,

10

ĝuruš 1;-e 1;0,0,0 gur-ta

à raison de 1 double-quintal (278,07 l / 202,500 kg) par force de travail masculine,

11

ĝuruš-bi 3.03; u4 1;-šè

dont les journées de travail des forces de travail masculines de journalier (sont) de 183 ;

12

56; ĝuruš-u4 -1;-šè še ma-ma-⸢ra⸣⸢ra⸣-a

56 forces de travail masculines de journalier pour vanner les céréales à l’aide d’une pelle (ou : d’une fourche),

13

ĝuruš 1;-e 0;2,0,0-ta

à raison de 2 boisseaux (111,23 l / 81 kg) par force de travail masculine ;

14

26; ĝuruš-u4 -1;-šè še dé-[a]

26 forces de travail masculines de journalier pour le vannage de l’orge,

15

14; ĝuruš-⸢u4 ⸣-1;-šè zíz ⸢dé⸣-[a]

14 forces de travail masculines de journalier pour le vannage du blé amidonnier,

16

37; ĝuruš-u4 -1;-šè in [dé-a]

37 forces de travail masculines de journalier pour [vanner] la balle / la paille,

17

ĝuruš 1;-e 0;0,1,5 sìla[-ta]

à raison de 1 setier 5 mesures (13,90 l) par force de travail masculine ;

18

28; ĝuruš-u4 -1;-šè še[...]

28 forces de travail masculines de journalier pour [le transport?] de l’orge,

19

ki-sura12!-ta ĝá-nun[-šè]

depuis l’aire de dépiquage [jušqu’au] magasin-entrepôt,

20

[ĝuruš-b]i 24; ..[...]

dont les journées de travail des forces de travail masculines (sont) de 24 ..[..] ;

21

[...]

22

[...]

23

[...] (reste perdu)

...

(début cassé)

...

[..] ⸢ĝuruš-u4 -⸢1;⸣-[šè ...]

[..] forces de travail masculines de journalier [...],

Verso 24'

Le système après-récolte 25'

3; ĝuruš-u4 -1;-šè [...]

3 forces de travail masculines de journalier [...],

26'

55; ĝuruš-u4 -1;-šè [...]

55 forces de travail masculines de journalier [...],

27'

úrimaki ⸢x⸣.[...]

.. Ur ..[...] (?),

28'

4; ĝuruš-u4 -1;-šè ĝí[r ...]

4 forces de travail masculines de journalier pour ... [...],

29'

4; ĝuruš-u4 -1;-šè gú-.[...] *lú-kin-gi4 - 4 forces de travail masculines de a [...] journalier pour ... [...], l’émissaire [...] ;

30'

6; ĝuruš-u4 -1;-šè gu-.[...]

6 forces de travail masculines de journalier ..[...],

31'

5; ĝuruš-u4 -1;-šè im-du8-[a ..]

5 forces de travail masculines de journalier pour (un travail) de pisé [...],

32'

10; ĝuruš-u4 -1;-šè ĝiš gi si-[...]

10 forces de travail masculines de journalier pour charger? [...] du bois (et) des roseaux,

33'

15; ĝuruš-u4 -1;-šè im lu-a ù im ùr-ra

15 forces de travail masculines de journalier pour gâcher de l’argile et badigeonner d’argile,

34'

14; ĝuruš-u4 -1;-šè gi-kal še ga6-ĝá dím-ma

14 forces de travail masculines de journalier pour la fabrication de récipients-g i -k a l pour le transport des céréales.

––––––––––––

––––––––––––

šu-níĝin 15.26; ĝuruš-u4 -1;-šè

Au total : 926 forces de travail masculines de journalier

36'

á gi4 -a

pour accomplir les (différentes) tâches

37'

a-šà-lugal-kù-zu

35'

d

d

dans le Domaine-a - š à -l u g a l -k ù -z u , dans le Domaine-a - š à -d a m a r -d s u e n (a),

38'

a-šà- amar- suen(a)

39'

a-šà-nin-munus-zi

dans le Domaine-a - š à -n i n -m u n u s -z i

40'

ù a-šà-ša-at-dšu-dsuen

et dans le Domaine-a - š à -Ša-at-dŠūd Suen

41'

ugula mur-dsuen(a)

sous la direction d’ mU r -d S u e n (a ),

42'

m

m

lú-diĝir-ra šabra ?

ki

295

L ú - d i ĝ i r - r a (étant) le Préfet,

[à?] Girsu,

43'

[šà ] ĝír-su

44'

[ĝir]ì mur-me-me šabra

[sous la responsabili]té? d’m U r - m e - m e , le Préfet.

mu ús-sa mdšu-dsuen *lugal-e bàd mar-dú mu-dù

Année suivant celle où Šū-Suen, le Souverain patrimonial, a fait construire les fortifications contre les Amorrhéens (ŠS 5a/L.-/-).

tr.g. 45'

296

JEAN-PIERRE GRÉGOIRE

N° 5. BM 85305 (Grégoire, à paraître) Recto 1

18; guru7 25.34;0,4,7 sìla še gur lugal

18 g u r u 7 1.534 g u r 4 b á n 7 s ì l a (18.445.538,94 L / 13.432.666,725 kg) : céréales, (mesurées en) g u r du Souverain :

2

nì-zi-zi *lugal(a)

les prélèvements pour le Souverain patrimonial ;

3

7; guru7 42.31;2,1,9 1 / 2 sìla gur

7 g u r u 7 2.551 g u r 2 b a r i g a 1 b á n 9 1 / 2 s ì l a (7.716.849,87 L / 5.619.671,663 kg) :

4

nì-zi-zi uru

les prélèvements pour la Cité :

––––––––––––

–––––––––––– 1

šu-níĝin 26; guru7 08.05;3,0,6 / 2 sìla gur

au total : 26 g u r u 7 4 8 5 g u r 3 b a r i g a 6 / 2 sìla (26.162.388,82 L / 19.052.338,388 kg) :

šà-bi-ta

de ces montants :

7

7.20; gu4 -apin(a)

440 bovinés d’arairage,

8

še tùmu-bi 22; guru7

dont les céréales produites (s’élèvent à) : 22 g u r u 7 (22.023.144,00 L / 16.038.000 kg) ; (soit : 36.450 kg par boviné d’arairage)

9

40; gu4 -apin(a) mu a-šà ku5-řá udu udu-kungal-šè

40 bovinés d’arairage (produisant les céréales destinées) aux ovins et aux ovins à grosse queue (céréales) retranchées (de la production) des terres céréalières,

10

mu-DU

(représentant) la production (en céréales) ;

11

lá-NI 4; guru7 8.05;3,0,6 1 / 2 sìla gur

la différence (s’élève à) : 4 g u r u 7 485 g u r 3 b a r i g a 6 1 / 2 s ì l a (4.139.244,35 L / 3.044.338,050 kg) ;

12

lá-NI 1; guru7 lá-NI mu bala-e ki *lúnì-dab(a)5-ke4 -ne

(autre) différence : 1 g u r u 7 (1.001.052,00 L / 729.000 kg) : la différence de l’année précédente relative aux services des gérants ;

13

5; guru7 8.05;3,0,6 1 / 2 sìla gur

(différence totale) 5 g u r u 7 485 g u r 3 b a r i g a 6 1 / 2 s ì l a (5.140.296,82 L / 3.743.338,388 kg) :

14

lá-NI sum-mu-dam

(cette) différence (globale) est à rendre.

5

6

1

Verso

(s.d.)

Le système après-récolte

297

N° 6. CT 7, pl. 8 BM 12926 Recto i

ii

1

23; guru7 dšul-gi-ra 31.06;0.4.7 sìla 23 g u r u 7 de dŠ u l -g i 1.866 gur 4 b á n 7 še gur s ì l a (23.543.118,18 L / 17.144.896,725 kg) de grains :

2

še gána-gu4

les céréales (produites par) les terres de réserve,

3

31.42;0,2,0 gur

1.902 g u r 2 b á n (528.907, 68 L / 385.168,500 kg) :

4

še a saĝ ús(a)

les céréales ... (?),

5

še gibil

(ce sont) les céréales nouvelles (de l’année) ;

6

3; guru7 37.06;4,4,5 sìla gur

3 g u r u 7 2.226 g u r 4 b a r i g a 4 b á n 5 s ì l a (3.622.399,35 L / 2.637.954 kg) :

7

še sumun

les céréales anciennes.

––––––––––––

––––––––––––

8

šu-níĝin 27; guru7 39.55;0,5, 2 sìla gur

Au total : 27 g u r u 7 2.395 g u r 5 b á n 2 sìla (27.694.429,85 L / 20.168.022,600 kg) (de céréales) :

9

saĝ-nì-gur11-ra-kam

c’étaient les disponibilités générales (de l’année) ;

10

šà-bi-ta

de ce montant : 1

11

13; guru7 49.50;2,4,1 / 2 sìla gur

13 g u r u 7 2.990 g u r 2 b a r i g a 4 b á n 1 1 / 2 s ì l a (13.845.254,99 L /10.082.584,013 kg) :

1

zi-ga bala-a

les prélèvements fournis pendant la période (des contributions) ;

2

3; guru7 24.30;3,1,5 1 / 3 sìla gur

3 g u r u 7 1.470 g u r 3 b a r i g a 1 b á n 5 1 / 3 s ì l a (3.412.099,95 L / 2.484.806,850 kg) :

3

šà ĝír-suki

(prélévés) pour (la circonscription de) Ĝírsuki,

4

1; guru7 49.50;3,0,7 sìla gur

1 g u r u 7 2.990 g u r 3 b a r i g a 7 s ì l a (1.832.654,63 L / 1.334.601,225 kg) :

5

gú-i7-ninâki-⸢šè-du⸣

(prélevés) pour (la circonscription de) G ú i 7-N i n â k i -⸢š è -d u ⸣,

6

3; guru7 8.46;2,2,0 gur

3 g u r u 7 526 g u r 2 b a r i g a 2 b á n (3.149.550,59 L / 2.293.609,500 kg) :

7

šà gú-ab-baki

(prélévés) pour (la circonscription de) G ú a b -b a k i ,

8

sá-du11 še-ba

(grains destinés) aux rations-s á -d u 11 (et) aux rations de grains ;

9

1; guru7 24.33;4,1,1 sìla 14 gín gur

1 g u r u 7 1.473 g u r 4 b a r i g a 1 b á n 1 s ì l a , 14 sicles (1.410.882,98 L /1.027.452,083 kg) :

10

še gána uru4 -a

graines (de semence) pour les cultures des terres ;

298

JEAN-PIERRE GRÉGOIRE 11

1.57;3,0,0 gur

117 g u r 3 b a r i g a (32.701,03 L / 23.814 kg)

12

še gána bala-a

graines (de semence) pour les terres b a l a -a ;

13

1.26;2,0,0 gur

86 g u r 2 b a r i g a (24.025,25 L / 17.496 kg)

14

še amar gu4 -apin(a)

grains pour (la nourriture) des jeunes bêtes (et) des bovinés d’arairage ;

1

⸢38?.00⸣;0,0,0 gur

⸢2.280?⸣ g u r (633.999,60 L / 461.700 kg)

2

[ ... ].. [...] ;

... ;

4

7.04[+x];2,4,[x ...] API[N?]

Verso iii

424[+x] g u r 2 b a r i g a 4 b á n [x] [...] (118.049,98 L/ 85.968 kg [+x])

API[N?]

5

iv

še ..[ ... ]..-SI bala-a

grains pour ... ; 2

6

24; guru7 49.[+x+]1;2,2,3 / 3 sìla gur

24 g u r u 7 2.940[+x+]1 g u r 2 b a r i g a 2 b á n 3 2 / 3 s ì l a (24.843.185,03 L/ 18.091.649,475 kg) :

7

nì-zi-zi mu 1;-⸢àm⸣

ce sont les prélèvements d’une (1) année ;

8

4; guru7 < > gur

4 greniers de g u r (4.004.208 L / 2.916.000 kg) :

9

še den-líl-lá

(ce sont) les céréales du dieu Enlil ;

––––––––––––

––––––––––––

10

šu-níĝin 28; guru7 51.01;2,2,3 2 / 3 sìla gur

au total : 28 g u r u 7 3.061 g u r 2 b a r i g a 2 b á n 3 2 / 3 s ì l a (28.880.761,43 L / 21.031.949,475 kg) de céréales :

11

zi-ga

(ce sont) les prélèvements (globaux) ;

12

diri 1; guru7 11.06;1,3,1 2 / 3 sìla gur

les excédents (sont de) : 1 g u r u 7 6 6 6 gur 1 b a r i g a 3 b á n 1 2 / 3 s ì l a (1.186.331,59 L / 863.926,875 kg) (de céréales).

––––––––––––

––––––––––––

––––––––––––

––––––––––––

1

nì-gaz14-ag(a) še kìlib-ba

Arrêté de comptes concernant les céréales dans leur globalité,

2

šà ĝír-suki

à Ĝír-suki (centre administratif).

–––––––––––– 3

md

d

mu amar- suen(a) *lugal-e urbí-lumki mu-hul(a)

–––––––––––– Année, où le divin Amar-Suena, le Souverain patrimonial, a fait dévaster (le pays d’) Urbilum (AS 2/L.-/-).

Le système après-récolte

299

Bibliographie Amiet, P. 1961 La Glyptique Mésopotamienne Archaïque. Paris : Editions du CNRS. Anderson, P.C. 1994 Interpreting traces of Near Eastern Neolithic Craft Activities : An Ancestor of the Threshing Sledge for Processing Domestic Crops?. Pp 306-321 in Neolithic Tools Used for Craft Activities, ed. A. Van Gijn. Helinium 24/2. Wetteren : Universa. 1997 Origins of Agriculture : Continuity and Contrast in Techniques used to Treat Cereals in the Prehistoric Near East, before and after Domestication. The Origins of Agriculture and the Domestication of Crop Plants in the Near East. The Harlan Symposium, 10-14 May 1997, Aleppo, Syria. Aleppo: ICARDA. 2003 Observations on the threshing sledge and its products in ancient and present-day Mesopotamia. Pp. 417-438 in Le traitement des récoltes : un regard sur la diversité du Néolithique au présent, ed. P. C. Anderson, L. S. Cummings, T. K. Schippers, et B. Simonel. Antibes : ADPCA. Anderson, P. C., Chabot, J. et Van Gijn, A. 2004 The Functional Riddle of “Glossy” Canaanean Blades and the Near Eastern Threshing Sledge. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 17/1 : 87-130. Christiansen-Weniger, F. 1970 Ackerbauformen im Mittelmeerraum und Nahen Osten dargestellt am Beispiel der Türkei. Frankfurt a. M. : DLG-Verlag. Civil, M. 1965 Le Débat entre la Houe et l’Araire. Ph. D. dissertation, Paris. 1994 The Farmer’s Instructions : A Sumerian Agricultural Manual. Aula Orientalis. Supplementa 5. Sabadell : AUSA. Gelb I. J., 1986 Ebla and Lagash : Environmental Contrast. Pp. 157-167 in The Origins of Cities in Dry-Farming Syria and Mesopotamia in the Third Millennium B.C., ed. H. Weiss. Guilford : Four Quarters Pub. Donadoni Roveri, A. M. (ed.) 1987 Egyptian Civilization: Daily Life. Milan : Electa. Grégoire, J.-P. 1999 The Grain-Grinding-Households (é-HAR.HAR) of Southern Mesopotamia at the End of the 3rd Millennium Before the Common Era. Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society 17 : 7-38. à paraître Archives Administratives et Juridiques Cunéiformes du British Museum. Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology. Bethesda : CDL Press. Landsberger, B. 1934 Die Fauna des alten Mesopotamien nach der 14. Tafel der Serie HAR-ra = hubullu. Abhandlungen der Sächischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig. Philologisch-Historische Klasse 42/6. Leipzig : S. Hirzel. Limet, H. 1960 Le travail du métal au pays de Sumer au temps de la IIIe dynastie d’Ur. Paris : Société d’Édition Les Belles Lettres. Powell, M. 1984 Late Babylonian Surface Mensuration. Archiv für Orientforschung 31 : 32-66. Salonen, A. 1968 Agricultura Mesopotamica nach sumerisch-akkadischen Quellen. Helsinki : Suomalaisen Tiedeakatemian Toimituksia. Vandier, J. 1978 Manuel d’Archéologie Égyptienne, Tome VI. Paris : Picard.

The Barbers of Iri-Saĝrig* Alexandra Kleinerman CORNELL UNIVERSITY, ITHACA, NEW YORK

Iri-Saĝrig, or Al-Šarrākī, was the capital of one of approximately twenty provinces that made up the core of the Ur III state. The modern site is as yet unidentified, but the data suggest that the city lay between Nippur and Adab, and was likely a stop on the caravan route between Sumer, the upper Tigris valley and Diyala region, and farther east into Elam.1 The numerous royal messengers, who appear among the 1500 or so texts now identified as coming from the site, confirm this.2 The presence of so many individuals designated as royal messengers ( l ú k í ĝ g i 4 - a - l u g a l ) is seen especially in a transaction type unique to Iri-Saĝrig, the ration distribution account. Roughly 300 such texts were intended primarily to keep track of the meals served to messengers and other professionals traveling through or running errands in or near Iri-Saĝrig. Thus, unlike in the the messenger texts familiar from Umma or Girsu,3 the Iri-Saĝrig texts document in exquisite detail the assignments for which the provisions4 – consisting of roasted mutton, soup and fish, as well as the more common beer and bread – were allotted. In general, the texts begin with the provisions for royal messengers followed by those for individuals or groups of various professions. A relative clause describing the work assigned to that person or persons is provided after each personal name, or set of names. Over two-hundred of these clauses offer unprecedented detail on the daily activities of those carrying out state business. As one might expect, royal messengers are most frequently given travel assignments, for example to the place of the governor or the king, to a particular city, such as Diniktum or Der, or are given one of the many specific local tasks recorded in the texts. This included such basic errands as going to collect barley, ghee, oxen or donkeys, or more demanding ones such as stacking sheaves of grain, capturing

––––––––––––– * I am indebted to David I. Owen for granting me access to his preliminary manuscript of Nisaba 15/1, 2 (Owen 2013b, c) and both to him and to Lance Allred for their many ideas and suggestions. Many thanks to Steven Garfinkle and Manuel Molina for organizing and providing funding for the workshop in which a version of this paper was first presented and from which much inspiration for the revised draft came. My thanks also to Paola Paoletti for providing me with the relevant chapters from her unpublished dissertation, now Paoletti 2012. 1. See Molina 2013, in this volume, for a discussion of Iri-Saĝrig’s possible location. 2. See Owen 2013b: 152-155. 3. McNeil 1970; D’Agostino and Pomponio 2008; Mander 2008; Notizia 2009. 4. For a detailed analysis see Brunke’s Excursus in Owen 2013b: 207-334.

301

302

ALEXANDRA KLEINERMAN

runaways, or even killing bandits.5 That the descriptive term “royal messenger” was a function and temporary designation and not a profession is indicated by its assignment to individuals with other professional titles, such as cup-bearer, equerry, or scribe.6 Moreover, it never appears on a seal as a designated profession.7 In addition to the rations allotted to the royal messengers we also find rations for professionals running errands clearly linked to their professions. For instance, lion warders came for lions,8 equerries came for mules,9 and spice millers came for spices.10 Indeed, well over one-hundred professions occur in these accounts, many of which are poorly attested elsewhere.11 It is instructive to look closely at two examples. The majority of the ration distribution accounts is large transactions containing numerous assignments, but several are much shorter and have assignments for only one or two individuals. If, as we would expect, the longer texts are summary accounts, then we should be able to correlate some of the smaller examples with their larger counterparts. In one case, this is indeed possible. For instance, Nur-Šamaš and the royal gendarme received roasted mutton and soup when they went to Der. In this instance, Mazati, the royal messenger, was responsible for the transaction as the ĝ ì r i official. In a second, larger text dated to the same month of the same year, Mazati, the royal messenger, was sent to get provisions ( k a š - n i n d a ) for Nur-Šamaš and the gendarmes.12 (1.) Single transaction (Nisaba 15/2 883): 1. 2 udu-še6-ĝá 2. 30 sìla tu7 3. nu-úr-dšamaš rá-gaba 4. ù àga-ús-lugal 5 . u 4 BÀD.ANk i - š è b a - e - r e - š a - a 6. ĝìri ma-za-ti lúkíĝ-gi4-a-lugal (2.) Excerpt from summary account (Nisaba 15/2 867): 6. 2 sìla tu7 2 ku6 7. ma-za-ti lúkíĝ-gi4-a-lugal 8. u4 kaš-ninda nu-úr-dšamaš ù àga-ús-e-ne-šè im-ĝen-na-a

––––––––––––– 5. Owen 2013b s.v. 6. Other royal messengers are also couriers ( r á - g a b a ) and emissaries ( s u k k a l ) , professions we would of course expect to be associated with delivering messages. Note, however, that messengers never specifically go to deliver a message, as for instance in the Garšana errand running texts (see Kleinerman and Owen 2009: 255-57). 7. For instance, Owen 2013ª, in this volume, points to the case of Nur-Suen, a l ú k í ĝ - g i 4 - a l u g a l in the body of one text but a l ú - k a s 4 on his seal (Nisaba 15/2 708). Elsewhere Nur-Suen is also designated as a r á - g a b a (Nisaba 15/2 727: 31') and a s ì l a - š u - d u 8 (Nisaba 15/2 823: 9, 829: 6), suggesting perhaps that these were also temporary functions. 8. u r - d š u l - p a - è s i p a - u r - m a h u 4 u r - m a h - š è i m - ĝ e n - n a - a (Nisaba 15/2 704: 26-27). 9. For example, p u - l u - l u k u š 7 u 4 a n š e k ú n g a - s í - k u - u m - š è i m - ĝ e n - n a - a (Nisaba 15/2 520: 20-21). 10. For example, l u g a l - a m a r - k ù l ú - ù r - r a u 4 m u n - g a z i - š è (Nisaba 15/2 696: 11-12) . 11. For the complete list see Owen 2013b: 55-57. 12. See also Owen 2013a in this volume.

The Barbers of Iri-Saĝrig

303

Among the many professionals attested in the ration distribution accounts is the š u - i . Conventionally translated “barber,” the role of these individuals, especially in the Ur III period, is poorly understood. As such, the remainder of this paper explores the tasks and responsibilities of those bearing this title, focusing on the barbers of Iri-Saĝrig. In lexical texts, Sumerian š u - i is equated with Akkadian gallābu.13 Semitic cognates, attested in Hebrew, Aramaic and Syriac,14 provide unambiguous grounds for translation as “barber.” Although the bilingual evidence is from the first millennium, the use of the Sumerian term in the relevant passages of Hammurabi’s Code (CH 226-227), demonstrate that the š u - i was responsible for shaving hair, already in earlier periods. The importance of hair maintenance as a status marker is illustrated by a number of pictorial,15 legal,16 and literary sources throughout Mesopotamian history.17 First millennium administrative texts point to the use of barbers in temples to consecrate priests and other temple functionaries through the shaving of their heads and bodies.18 Barbers are attested also in Old Babylonian administrative texts in association with priests and temples. For example, a barber occurs among a list of the priests of Inana of Uruk exiled to Kiš in the early years of Samsuditana.19 Similarly, barbers comprise one of the main professional groups, alongside singers ( n a r ) , lamentation singers ( g a l a ) , and priests ( g u d u 4 ) who participated in a seven day ritual in Larsa.20 In one Old Babylonian letter, Ipqu-Nabium, a barber well attested at Sippar, is sent to perform mourning rituals ( é r - h i - a ) with a scribe and another barber (AbB 12 61). The late third and early second millennia documentation, however, provides little direct indication that the š u - i had anything to do with cutting or shaving hair. Instead, most often barbers are found in judiciary and administrative con-

––––––––––––– 13. For example, Lu I 154 (= MSL 12, p. 100). 14. Brown, Driver and Briggs 1966: 162. 15. For instance, OB seals show that priests were beardless and clean shaven but wore a forehead ornament that may have been a lock of hair (Collon 1995: 508). For beardless rulers in early OB see Fischer 2008: 66. During the Ur III period, although the kings were depicted originally with beards, the fashion changed under Šu-Suen, who is predominately beardless in his seals (Fischer 2008: 65). Clean shaven rulers are attested already in pre-Ur III times, e.g. Eannatum, Ur-Nanše, and Gudea (Fischer 2008: 66). 16. Hammurabi’s code, for instance, provides evidence that slaves had a particular hair style (see Westbrook 2003: 382 for discussion). 17. Perhaps the most well known literary attestation is the barber who attends Enkidu, attested already in the OB Akkadian version of the epic (for which see George 2003: 176-177 l. 106; cf. already Owen apud Dennis 1973: 115). There is a good deal of Sumerian literary evidence for the importance of shaving and grooming, e.g. SP 2+6.134 and UET 6/2 293; SP 16b.4; Inana-Dumuzi C: 9-18; Šulgi P: 29. Sumerian literature also alludes to the special hair styles of cultic functionaries (Enki’s Journey to Nippur: 48; Iddin-Dagan A: 47). The best literary evidence that the barber was the one responsible for such grooming comes from proverb SP 16 e.8 (= Alster 1997: 16 sec. F2). 18. Van Driel 2005: 520. For the use of barbers in rituals see for instance SAA 10, an Assyrian letter in which a barber enters a farmer’s hut and cuts his nails. 19. YOS 13 297: 19. See Charpin 1986: 405 for discussion. 20. HUCA 34 (= BLMJ 3127). For the most recent edition and treatment of this text see Westenholz and Westenholz 2006: 3-81. See also the discussion in van Driel 2005: 520 and note Sippar text TCL 1 230: 24 that refers to a š u - i š a d u t u (Harris 1975: 165).

304

ALEXANDRA KLEINERMAN

texts. In the Old Babylonian record, for example, the same Ipqu-Nabium mentioned above occurs in letters in conjunction with the judge Sîn-rēmēni.21 In one instance, the sender reports a plea that was spoken to the judge in the presence of the chief of the assembly and Ipqu-Nabium, the barber (AbB 7 88).22 Elsewhere, we see Lu-Ninšubur, an early Old Babylonian barber serving in an official capacity in the Isin craft workshops, authorizing transactions that seem to have little to do with the sorts of exchanges in which one might expect a barber to be involved.23 Overseeing administrative transactions is the primary function that barbers had in Ur III times. To date, a search of BDTNS and CDLI reveals some 225 attestations of the term š u - i , and barbers are represented in all the major sites from which we have tablets: Puzriš-Dagan, Garšana, Girsu, Nippur, Umma, Ur, and now Iri-Saĝrig. Although the contexts in which they occur vary according to site and the nature of the archives we have from those sites, the overwhelming pattern is that barbers are no different than other Ur III administrators. Indeed, we are hard pressed to find any evidence that the title š u - i referred to a functional barber in this period. To be sure, barbers were associated with temples, at least in some cities. For instance, in Girsu barbers are tabulated in ration accounts in lists of persons employed by various temples, including those of Ba’u, NinMARKI and Inana.24 Moreover, one of the most prominent Umma barbers is identified on his seal as a barber of the god Šara (BPOA 6 1434). In most instances, barbers are conspicuously absent from temple records. At Nippur, for example, they do not appear among the list of cult officials, including priests and associated personnel, as well as craftsmen, cup-bearers, door-keepers and the like, who received provisions from the Inana temple.25 Instead, barbers occur primarily in Nippur texts as witnesses and never in contexts that would otherwise shed light on their profession, and no Nippur barber is attested more than once. At Umma, barbers are passive beneficiaries in the texts, receiving provisions of various sorts.26 Occasionally, however, they act with some authority, so for instance textiles are delivered under the seal of the governor via the barber, Lu-Suen (BPOA 1 1623). Once, a barber is listed as an absentee ( z à h ) suggesting that at least some were state employees (Nik. 2 436). In contrast, it is with administrative authority that the barbers of Garšana and Puzriš-Dagan predominantly occur. At Garšana, barbers usually act as deputies

––––––––––––– 21. For example, AbB 12 2, 12 6. 22. For more on the role of the barber in an official capacity in OB Sippar see Harris 1975: 83-84 where she points out that barbers were involved in collecting taxes, served as witnesses, owned and leased fields, etc. In several admin texts (e.g. TCL 1 164: 10, CT 8 19a: 4) we also find barbers serving as assistants to the chairman of the assembly. 23. Van De Mieroop 1987: 98-99. 24. For example Maekawa, Priests and Officials 101-102; ITT 2 723 (= TCTI 1 723); HLC 2 2 pl. 52. 25. Zettler 1992: 192-193. Barbers are also absent from the ration lists for subordinate personnel such as millers, courtyard sweepers and some craftsmen and agricultural workers (Zettler 1992: 156163). 26. For example, SAT 2 641, BPOA 7 2183, SNAT 453, Aleppo 488, etc.

The Barbers of Iri-Saĝrig

305

( m a š k i m ) .27 There was a house of the barbers ( é - š u - i - e - n e ), which once received commodities, although what they were is not preserved (CUSAS 3 492). Likewise, at Puzriš-Dagan, barbers frequently served as deputies or as the officials responsible for the transaction ( m a š k i m , ĝ ì r i ) . In these instances, there seems to be a close association between barbers and the so-called cup-bearers.28 For example, a barber occurs as a deputy in one text in which all the other deputies are cup-bearers (PDT 1 528) or as the sealing official in a transaction in which the other sealing official was a cup-bearer (BIN 3 589). Moreover, the types of transactions in which Puzriš-Dagan barbers are attested tend to involve provisions dispensed for high ranking officials29 or for ritual purposes.30 Most explicitly, in the Puzriš-Dagan Treasury Archive barbers acted as conveyors ( ĝ ì r i ) of gifts delivered in conjunction with illness31 or bathing.32 In general, in this archive, there is a connection between the individual and the goods for which he is responsible. As such, it should not be a coincidence that barbers acted in instances involving illness and bathing, but should attest to some aspect of their professional duties.33 The association between barbers and illness is limited in the cuneiform record, although not unattested.34 A Mari letter (ARM 26 282), for instance, informs, “[Before] I listened [to the tablet of my lord], I was [not] happy. [And] my foot is in pain all over, and I cannot step on the ground. And they carried me to the house of the barber on a bed.”35 It is generally assumed that the barber’s role in health care would have been surgical. Surgical cases are not covered in the extant medical compendia, which, at least in the first millennium, are quite extensive.36 As such, Biggs (1990: 625) concludes that cases where surgery would have been necessary, such as from battle wounds or broken bones, “may have been dealt with on an ad hoc basis and the relevant techniques learned in an apprenticeship relationship.”37 Geller (2010: 53, 61), then, suggests that this service may have been performed by the barber.38 In

––––––––––––– 27. CUSAS 3 1013, 1014, 1016. Translation of term following Heimpel 2009: 38. 28. This phenomenon occurs also in the OAkk period, e.g. the association of s a g i and š u - i in Ešnunna personnel lists (MAD 1 163) (see Sallaberger 2002: 117). 29. For example, Dada the g a l a (SAT 2 725); Geme-Enlila, l u k u r of Ninurta (MVN 13 123). 30. For example, k i - a - n a ĝ of Abi-simti in Ur (Steinkeller, ASJ 3, 92 3); s á - d u 1 1 k i - a - n a ĝ (MVN 15 115). 31. CT 32 25; Sollberger, JCS 10, 30 9. 32. BPOA 10, p. 429 MLC 2045; Syracuse 353; Hallo, HUCA 29, 82 9. For references and discussion see Paoletti 2012: 83, 261. 33. Sallaberger 1999: 251; Paoletti 2012: 261. 34. See Attinger 2008: 73 for references. 35. Translation of Heimpel 2003: 283. Literary evidence comes from the Lament of Nippur l. 242 in which Damu, a deity traditionally associated with healing, had the epithet barber (here k i n d a g a l ) . 36. Geller 2010: 3. 37. Evidence that barbers were trained through apprenticeships is provided by the Mari letter ARM 26 453 in which a courtier is entrusted to a barber, “to teach him to be a barber” (Heimpel 2003: 375). 38. Geller argues that the juxtaposition, and so association, between the barber and the physician ( a - z u ) in CH 221-227 suggests perhaps that the barber was a “cheaper surgeon” than the physician, but who “dropped out of the medical record” as surgery was likely “not considered to belong to the art of

306

ALEXANDRA KLEINERMAN

the Ur III record, however, the Puzriš-Dagan accounts are the only indication that barbers were in anyway associated with illness. In sum, although we can draw several conclusions about the rank of the Ur III barbers, for instance, given the authority they seem to have held within the Puzriš-Dagan administration, we can glean little as to their professional duties.39 Moreover, no single barber occurs with enough frequency that we can trace any semblance of a career or family tree. That barbers were of high status is made apparent further by their seals. For instance, three barbers active at Puzriš-Dagan have seals identifying them as servants of king Šu-Suen.40 Other barbers are the servants of some of the highest ranking officials. For instance, one Nippur barber is identified by his seal as the servant of Dada, the famous musician.41 Another barber, attested at both PuzrišDagan and Umma, is identified as a servant of a royal chief administrator.42 Thus, were we to consider only the Ur III administrative evidence from the major published sites, we would see little indication of barbers acting as hair dressers, although there is limited evidence from the Treasury Archive for their involvement with bathing, which, in turn, could hint at their involvement with hair maintenance. Indeed, the primary evidence for barbers practicing shaving or grooming from the Ur III period sites so far discussed is the barber’s knife, ĝ í r - š u - i z a b a r . 43 It would seem, then, that the title š u - i was honorific, according its bearer with a degree of status and privilege, perhaps on par with the so-called cupbearer, but otherwise devoid of any functional connotation. The new data from Iri-Saĝrig significantly improves our understanding of the barber’s professional duties. Barbers at Iri-Saĝrig occur almost exclusively in the ration distribution accounts, which, as discussed previously, provide details of the assignments that justified the rations. These barbers are never royal messengers, so it is in the context of their profession that they primarily operate. In general, workers run errands related to their professions, so we should expect the assignments for the barbers to be directly linked to their occupational duties as well. Of approximately fifty assignments for barbers, they received rations when they completed one of the following five tasks: u 4 ĝ e š m a - n u - š è i m - r e - e - š a - a , “when they came for willow (to heat the bath water)”44 u 4 d u 1 0 - ú s - š è i m - e - r e - š a - a , “when they came to the bathing place” u 4 ĝ e š š u 4 - a - š è i m - ĝ e n - n a - a , “when he came for a stool (for the bath)”45

––––––––––––– medicine” (Geller 2010: 61; see also Attinger 2008: 73). The association between barbers and physicians is present already in early lexical texts, e.g. ED Lu E 47-48 (= MSL 12, p. 17; see Attinger 2008: 73). 39. It is worth noting that barbers are involved with some regularity in Puzriš-Dagan accounts that are specified as taking place outside Puzriš-Dagan (e.g. Nippur, Ur, etc.). Moreover, several texts specify that a barber traveled (e.g. CT 32, 25 BM 103439; Sollberger, JCS 10, 30 9) and in several others barbers also have the title r á - g a b a (e.g. TRU 362; Ontario 1 177). The implications of these observations, however, go beyond the scope of this study. 40. BPOA 6 757 ( ú - l a - ì - l í - i š ) ; TRU 362 ( n u - ú r - d u t u ) ; MVN 2 341 ( š u - d š u l - g i ) . 41. NRVN 1 184. For Dada, see Michalowski 2006. 42. MVN 15 115. The Umma text Owen, ASJ 19, 220 57 can now be restored accordingly. 43. For example, NATN 852: 14, TUT 126: i. 18, TCL 2 5529: 3. 44. For the identification of ĝ e š m a - n u as “willow” see Steinkeller 1987, Heimpel 2011. 45. Translation of ĝ e š š u 4 - a as “stool for the bath” was suggested by Waetzoldt, personal communication. See TCL 2 5501: ii.18 for the orthography.

The Barbers of Iri-Saĝrig

307

u 4 BÀD.ANk i - š è b a - e - r e - š a - a , “when they came to Der” u 4 ĝ ì r i - l u g a l - š è i m - e - r e - š a - a , “when they came to the place where the king was”46

In total, barbers are said to have come for willow branches ( ĝ e š m a - n u - š è ) on 32 occasions and for stools for the bath ( ĝ e š š u 4 - a ) on four additional occasions. They came to, or for, the bath itself ( d u 1 0 - ú s - š è ) on six occasions. They came to the place of the king six times and went to the city of Der six times, once when it was further specified as the place of the king. These two tasks, traveling to the place of the king and to Der, are among the most frequent assignments listed in the ration distribution accounts and are performed also by others, not just barbers.47 In contrast, barbers were the only ones who came (presumably to Iri-Saĝrig) for wood,48 stools or for the bath. Elsewhere, when tasks are restricted to one occupation, they are directly related to it so that only lion warders came for lions while only the equerries came for mules. Based on this parallel, then, these items – wood, baths, and stools – should be tools inherent to the barber’s profession. Before examining this question, it is worth noting that there is no clear pattern as to which barber was assigned which task. The best attested barber, one ŠuAdad, occurs in half of the ration distribution accounts concerning barbers. At various points from his first occurrence in Amar-Suen 7 to his last in Ibbi-Suen 2, he runs all errands assigned to Iri-Saĝrig barbers. For instance, he came for the bath in all but one of the six times the barbers performed this task. In contrast, the next best attested barber, Takilum, only came for brushwood. There is no indication why this would be the case and it may very well be little more than accident of discovery. It may or may not prove significant, however, that while groups of barbers sometimes came together for baths, only one barber was ever sent for bath stools or to collect brushwood at any one time.49 If we cannot derive any patterns as to who was doing the errand, nor are there any discernible patterns for when, during the year, the errand was run,50 we must then examine the nature of the errand: coming for brushwood, coming to the bathing place, and coming for stools. With just a few exceptions,51 barbers are the only profession said to come for willow ( ĝ e š m a - n u ) . These are the only times in the ration distribution accounts where the errand involved collecting brushwood. Most significant is its species:

––––––––––––– 46. Translation suggested by Civil. 47. For references see the Catalogue of Subordinate Temporal Clauses in Owen 2013b: 165-182 and the entry for š u - i in the index of professions, ibid: 459-60. 48. With only a few exceptions: in Nisaba 15/2 584: 13-17 a royal messenger and a barber came for wood and in Nisaba 15/2 872: 23-25 a royal messenger alone was assigned this task. In Nisaba 15/2 777: 32 the person undertaking the same assignment, Šu-Adad, is labeled an equerry, but in the parallel text, Nisaba 15/2 778: 34, he is designated a barber (and is indeed the most well attested barber in the archives), suggesting that either he held both titles or the first instance was a scribal error. 49. But note Nisaba 15/2 584: 13-17, a unique case in which a royal messenger goes with the barber to collect willow. 50. Charting the months in which the tasks were carried out does not produce any patterns. When certain tasks appear to be clustered in one month, that represents a group of texts all from the same year (usually from consecutive days) and so is surely due only to the accident of discovery. 51. See note 48 above.

308

ALEXANDRA KLEINERMAN

willow is a poor quality wood used primarily for such things as filling up ditches or as kindling.52 The term we translate as “bath” ( d u 1 0 - ú s ) can refer to either a bathtub or a bathing place.53 While baths do not figure prominently in Ur III administrative texts, other texts record deliveries of wood for baths.54 It is, therefore, tempting to speculate that willow wood was for use in conjunction with the baths. Considering that willow was employed in large part as kindling it is likely that the Iri-Saĝrig barbers utilized the willow wood to heat hot water. If so, then the appearance of the š u - i in the ration distribution accounts would be analogous to that of the other professionals in that they performed duties directly related to their occupation as barbers. As anyone who has ever shaved understands, hot water is highly preferable for this task. Finally, the third commodity with which the barbers are associated, stools for the bath, fit clearly into this scenario. Thus, the Iri-Saĝrig ration distribution accounts provide evidence that barbers, at least in one Ur III city, did in fact function as hair dressers.55 Moreover, it is not surprising that barbers were among the highest ranking officials and, perhaps, confidants of the elites they served. This is to be expected, as a king would not let just anyone near to his throat with a very sharp knife or razor. Indeed, for many of the š u - i we see in our texts, especially those from Puzriš-Dagan, their shaving duties may very well have been a secondary duty derived from their status as royal confidants.56 This would also explain their presence in bathing rituals. In conclusion, there is clear evidence that the skill of a barber to shave and groom was necessary throughout Mesopotamian history. However, previously the published Ur III data provided little indication as to the nature of this profession, aside from the fact that Ur III barbers were high ranking, trusted officials occasionally involved with bathing and care of the sick. The new material from the IriSaĝrig texts significantly augments our understanding of this official’s role. Indeed, the ration distribution accounts contain concrete evidence that the title š u - i was not just administrative or honorific but could also apply to an individual functioning as a barber.

––––––––––––– 52. Coming for willow is the only temporal relative clause involving wood in the Iri-Saĝrig texts. On willow, used as fascine (small wood, firmly bound together at short intervals, used to fill up ditches) and sticks, see Steinkeller 1987: 91-92; Heimpel 2011. 53. For d u 1 0 - ú s , a bathtub or bathroom, see Heimpel 2009: 176. 54. For example, Prima dell’alfabeto 22; AnOr 7 245. 55. The presence of baths could also indicate purification or bathing rituals as at Puzriš-Dagan. Although there is no direct evidence for it here or at Puzriš-Dagan, such rituals may very well have involved shaving, thus explaining the barber’s participation. 56. And note especially the attestion of the š u - i l u g a l in HLC 1 37 pl. 5: iii, 9 and MVN 6 61: 2.

The Barbers of Iri-Saĝrig

309

Bibliography Allred, L. 2006 Cooks and Kitchens: Centralized Food Production in the Third Millennium Mesopotamia. Ph. D. dissertation, The Johns Hopkins University. 2009 Labor Assignments from the City of Girsu. Pp. 11-19 in On the Third Dynasty of Ur: Studies in Honor of Marcel Sigrist, ed. P. Michalowski. The Journal of Cuneiform Studies, Supplemental Series 1. Boston: American Schools of Oriental Research. Attinger, P. 2008 La médecine mésopotamienne. Journal des Médecines Cunéiformes 11-12: 1-95. Biggs, R. D. 1990 Medizin. A. In Mesopotamien. Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 7: 623-629. Brown, F., Driver, S. R., and Briggs, C. A. 1966 A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Charpin, D. 1986 Le clergé d’Ur au siècle d’Hammurabi: (XIXe-XVIIIe siècles av. J.-C.). Geneva/Paris: Librairie Droz. Collon, D. 1995 Clothing and Grooming in Ancient Western Asia. Pp. 503-516 in Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, ed. J. M. Sasson. New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan. D’Agostino, F., and Pomponio, F. 2008 The Umma “Messenger Texts.” Pp. 125-127 in The Growth of an Early State in Mesopotamia: Studies in Ur III Administration. Proceedings of the First and Second Ur III Workshops at the 49th and 51st Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, London July 10, 2003 and Chicago July 19, 2005, ed. J. C. Johnson and S. J. Garfinkle. Biblioteca del Próximo Oriente Antiguo 5. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas. Dennis, N. 1973 Gilgamesh. Horizon 15: 112-116. Fischer, C. 2008 Kings and Cups. Pp. 63-77 in The Growth of an Early State in Mesopotamia: Studies in Ur III Administration. Proceedings of the First and Second Ur III Workshops at the 49th and 51st Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, London July 10, 2003 and Chicago July 19, 2005, ed. J. C. Johnson and S. J. Garfinkle. Biblioteca del Próximo Oriente Antiguo 5. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas. Geller, M. J. 2010 Ancient Babylonian Medicine. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell. George, A. R. 2003 The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic. Vol. I. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Harris, R. 1975 Ancient Sippar. A Demographic Study of an Old-Babylonian City (1894-1595). Istanbul: Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut. Heimpel, W. 2003 Letters to the King of Mari. A New Translation, with Historical Introduction, Notes, and Commentary. Mesopotamian Civilizations 12. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. 2009 Workers and Construction Work at Garšana. Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology 5. Bethesda: CDL Press.

310

ALEXANDRA KLEINERMAN

2011 Twenty-Eight Trees Growing in Sumer. Pp. 75-152 in Garšana Studies, ed. D. I. Owen. Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology 6. Bethesda: CDL Press. Kleinerman, A., and Owen, D.I. 2009 Analytical Concordance to the Garšana Archives. Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology 4. Bethesda: CDL Press. Mander, P. 2008 The “Messenger Texts” from Girsu. Pp. 119-123 in The Growth of an Early State in Mesopotamia: Studies in Ur III Administration. Proceedings of the First and Second Ur III Workshops at the 49th and 51st Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, London July 10, 2003 and Chicago July 19, 2005, ed. J. C. Johnson and S. J. Garfinkle. Biblioteca del Próximo Oriente Antiguo 5. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas. McNeil, R 1970 The “Messenger Texts”’ of the Third Ur Dynasty. Ph. D. dissertation, The University of Pennsylvania. Michalowski, P. 2006 Love or Death? Observations on the Role of the Gala in Ur III Ceremonial Life. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 58: 49-61. Molina, M. 2013 On the Location of Irisaĝrig. Pp. 59-87 in the present volume. Notizia, P. 2009 I testi dei messaggeri da Girsu-Lagas della terza dinastia di Ur. Nisaba. Studi Assiriologici Messinesi 22. Messina: Di. Sc. A. M. Owen, D. I. 2013a The Archive of Iri-Saĝrig/Āl-Šarrākī. A Brief Survey. Pp. 89-102 in the present volume. 2013b Cuneiform Texts Primarily from Iri-Saĝrig/Āl-Šarrākī and the History of the Ur III Period, Vol. 1: Commentary and Indexes. Nisaba. Studi Assiriologici Messinesi 15/1. Bethesda: CDL Press. 2013c Cuneiform Texts Primarily from Iri-Saĝrig/Āl-Šarrākī and the History of the Ur III Period, Vol. 2: Catalogue and Texts. Nisaba. Studi Assiriologici Messinesi 15/2. Bethesda: CDL Press. Paoletti, P. 2012 Der König und sein Kreis: das staatliche Schatzarchiv der III. Dynastie von Ur. Biblioteca del Próximo Oriente Antiguo 10. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas. Sallaberger, W. 1999 Ur III-Zeit. Pp. 121-390 in Mesopotamien: Akkade-Zeit und Ur III-Zeit, ed. P. Attinger and M. Wäfler. Annäherungen 3. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 160/3. Freiburg Schweiz: Universitätsverlag. 2002 Review of W. Sommerfeld, Die Texte der Akkad-Zeit. I. Das Dijala-Gebiet: Tutub. IMGULA 3/1. Münster 1999. Bibliotheca Orientalis 57: 112-118. Steinkeller, P. 1987 The Foresters of Umma: Toward a Definiton of Ur III Labor. Pp. 73-116 in Labor in the Ancient Near East, ed. M. A. Powell. American Oriental Series 68. New Haven: American Oriental Society. Van De Mieroop, M. 1987 Crafts in the Early Isin Period: a Study of the Isin Craft Archive from the Reigns of Išbi-Erra and Šu-Ilišu. Orientalia Lovanensia Analecta 24. Leuven: Departement Oriëntalistiek.

The Barbers of Iri-Saĝrig

311

van Driel, G. 2005 Pfründe. Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 10: 518524. Westbrook, R. 2003 Old Babylonian Period. Pp. 361-430 in A History of Ancient Near Eastern Law, ed. R. Westbrook. Leiden: Brill. Westenholz, J.G. and A. Westenholz 2006 Cuneiform Inscriptions in the Collection of the Bible Lands Museum Jersualem: the Old Babylonian Inscriptions. Cuneiform Monographs 33. Leiden: Brill. Zettler, R. 1992 The Ur III Temple of Inanna at Nippur: the Operation and Organization of Urban Religious Institutions in Mesopotamia in the Late Third Millennium B.C. Berliner Beiträge zum Vorderen Orient 11. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag.

Absence from Work in Ur III Umma: Reasons and Terminology

Natalia Koslova STATE HERMITAGE MUSEUM, ST. PETERSBURG

One of the main concerns of the Ur III state was the organization of work and control over labor resources in different spheres of economy. Male and female workers of different ages, social positions, and professions, fulfilling different tasks of the state administration, normally appear as abstract workdays in thousands of Ur III labor records, and we still do not know much about their individual fates. Research carried out in recent decades, based on prosopographical analysis and studies of terminology and typology of documents, has made it possible to create a more detailed picture of Ur III accounting procedures in general as well as of the organization of labor in particular branches of Ur III economy.1 The Ur III administration had tools to account not only for the work time of the laborers but also for the time of their absence from work, foreseen or even unforeseen. In the present article I am going to discuss how the absence from work is reflected in records coming from the province of Umma – first of all in a dozen balanced accounts that deal with calculating the expected and actual performances of male or female laborers working for state institutions. The general structure of such accounts has been thoroughly discussed many times;2 what follows here is just a brief outline. The first section of a labor account lists debits of the foreman dealt with therein. It includes workers often individually named but converted into abstract workdays. These workdays represent artificial production norms that were attached to the laborers put at the disposal of the foreman by the central administration of the Ur III state. The actual performance of the same laborers, also expressed in workdays, is booked in the credits section following the debits. Finally, a balance of the two sections is drawn resulting either in a deficit, i.e. a remaining debit, or in a surplus. The threat of the deficit workdays for the foreman involved cannot be overstated, since the state administration viewed them as the effective loan debts that could be called in at will.

––––––––––––– 1. See, for example, Waetzoldt 1972; Maekawa 1976; Sigrist 1979 and 1980; Uchitel 1984; Monaco 1985 and 1986; Maekawa 1987a and 1987b; Steinkeller 1987; Englund 1988; Maekawa 1988; Englund 1990 and 1991; Uchitel 1992; Neumann 1993; Mander 1994; Steinkeller 1996; Stępień 1996; Uchitel 1996; Maekawa 1998; Englund 2002 and 2003; Steinkeller 2003; Sharlach 2004; StudeventHickman 2006; Dahl 2007 and 2010 (to mention some of the most important contributions). 2. See in particular Englund 1990: 69-90; 1991; and 2003.

313

314

NATALIA KOSLOVA

From the standpoint of an assigned foreman who was responsible to the state for the work time of his team, the following were reasons for the absence of a worker from his working place: -

planned free time, the so called days-off ( u 4 d u 8 - a in Umma, cf. u 4 t u š - a in Girsu);

-

unforeseen circumstances, such as sickness ( d ú - r a ) , death ( ú š ) , or flight (zàh);

-

work at another place, i.e. receipt of a worker by another foreman or transferring him to another industry.

All Umma labor accounts known to us can be divided into four groups according to the type of labor described therein.3 Accounts of the group A deal exclusively with unskilled (corvée) labor, including harvesting barley and reeds, transportation of goods, and maintenance of the irrigation system.4 Accounts of the group B have a special section devoted to agricultural activities, above all plowing, harrowing, and seeding as well as hoeing, weeding, and some other kinds of field work, conducted by plot managers ( e n g a r ) and ox drivers ( š à - g u 4 ) under the supervision of an official called n u - b à n d a - g u 4 . 5 Texts of the group C describe labor in crafts production (carpentry and pottery);6 texts of the group D deal mainly with female labor in the milling and textile industries.7 Most of the accounts belonging to the first three groups distinguish between two categories of male workers that comprise a working team: d u m u - g i 7 (first category) and UN-g a 6 (second category).8

1. Planned Free Time It is well known that days-off for male and female laborers were booked as actual performance in the credits section of the account: á u 4 d u 8 - a ‘performance of free days’ is calculated as a standard fraction of the total number of workdays expected of a working team listed in the debits section. But the very existence of days-off as well as the ratio between expected performance and the corresponding free time depended on the type of labor, on the one hand, and on the category of laborers, on the other hand.

––––––––––––– 3. See also Koslova 2008: 154. 4. MVN 21 199 (Š 47/i-xiii); TCL 5 5674 (AS 3/v-xii); AnOr 1 85 (AS 4/i-xiii + AS 5/i-xii); AAICAB I/1 Ashm. 1924-665 (AS 6/i-xiii); Erlenmeyer 152 = Englund 2003 (ŠS 2/i-xii); MVN 10 102 (ŠS 2/i-xii). 5. Snell, ASJ 9, 242 19 (Š 47/i-xiii); Civil, Studies Sigrist 36 (AS 2/i-xiii); BIN 5 272 (AS 3/i-xii); TCL 5 5675 (AS 4/i-xiii); TCL 5 5676 (ŠS 2/i-xii). 6. TCL 5 6036 (AS 4/i-xiii); MVN 21 203 (AS 8/i-xi). 7. TCL 5 5669 (Š 48/i-xii); Nisaba 11 29 (Š 48/iii/23 - AS 1/ii/7); TCL 5 5670 (Š 48/iii/23 - AS 1/ii/7); Frühe Schrift, pp. 128-129 Kat. 13.13 (Š 48/iii/23 - AS 1/ii/8); TCL 5 5668 (Š 48/iv/1 - xii/20); STA 5 (AS 2/i-xiii); MVN 21 200 (AS 2/i-xiii); AAS 135 (AS 3/i-xii); SET 274 (AS 3/i-xii); STA 2 (AS 4/ixiii); MVN 21 201 (AS 5/i-xii); MVN 21 202 (AS 6/i-xiii); Torino 2 685 (AS 8/i-xi); Englund, JNES 50 262 Erlenmeyer 155 (ŠS 4/i-xii); MVN 21 204 (ŠS 6/vii - ŠS 7/v). 8. For the meaning of d u m u - g i 7 in administrative contexts and the differences between the two categories of workers see Steinkeller 2003: 44-49; cf. Koslova 2004: 23-25; 2005: 118-124; and 2008. For the reading and meaning of UN-g a 6 see Sigrist 1979 and 1980; Englund 1990: 29, n. 103; Heimpel 1998: 398-399; Maaijer 1999.

Absence from Work in Ur III Umma

315

In most of the accounts of group A, the working teams include laborers of the first and second categories. The distinction between them is revealed in the different ways in which their work time is calculated: persons of the first category could be employed only at half the output of persons of the second category. It should be noted that the latter appear normally as full-time workers but in some cases they are registered also as having 1/2-, 1/3- or 2/3-output of a grown-up worker, being probably children or elderly men. In the accounts of group A the days-off are granted exclusively to workers of the second category (see Table 1); they are credited to the foreman and calculated as 1/10 of expected performance of these workers, corresponding to the performance for the whole accounting period (usually one year, i.e. 12 or 13 months). This means that a male worker UN-g a 6 engaged in unskilled labor enjoyed 3 days-off per month. Male persons d u m u - g i 7 were obliged to work as unskilled laborers only 15 days per month but during that time, of course, without any days-off, and their foreman was not responsible for the other half of their time. A similar picture can be observed in TCL 5 6036 (group C), the famous account of Agu, scribe of craftsmen, concerning the labor of carpenters and reed-workers in AS 4/i-xiii (see also Table 1). The debits section includes the work time of five persons of the first category with 1/2-output along with about 30 persons of the second category with full-, 1/2- and 1/3-output; according to the credits only the latter were given days-off (the ratio is a little bit higher than ten, I cannot find any explanation for that), and their off-time corresponds to their performance for the whole year. Text MVN 10 102 (group A) represents a special case which I will discuss in detail below. This account deals with a team comprised only of UN-g a 6 members under the supervision of the foreman Ur-Iškur (ŠS 2/i-xii). The ratio between expected performance of the workers (3180 workdays) and their off-time credited to Ur-Iškur (271 1/3 3 shekel workdays) is 11,7, i.e. even higher than that registered in TCL 5 6036, but the days-off still seem to correspond to the performance for the whole accounting period. A completely different picture is observed in the accounts belonging to group B (see Table 2). The structure of a working team in these accounts is not as transparent as in the texts of group A, and the limits of the present article do not allow me to analyze it in detail. Nevertheless there is a great deal of evidence that a working unit in the agricultural sector was also comprised of workers of the first and second categories.9 But what differentiates them from unskilled laborers, is that in agricultural accounts both d u m u - g i 7 and UN-g a 6 are registered as fulltime workers in the debits as well as in the credits sections. This means that the foremen ( n u - b à n d a - g u 4 ) were responsible to the state for the entire time of their subordinates, plot managers and ox drivers, regardless of the category to which they belonged. Such accounting principles were determined perhaps by the character of agricultural labor. In the credits section we find days-off for workers of both categories. They correspond to the performance not for the whole accounting period but only for a few months, i.e. in all known cases the last three or four months of the year. That

––––––––––––– 9.

See Koslova 2008: 159-164.

316

NATALIA KOSLOVA

was the period traditionally reserved for corvée labor when no agricultural activities were performed. Apparently not all members of a working unit were given offtime but only those conscripted to corvée services during these last months. Daysoff for persons of the first category are calculated as 1 / 2 of their work time while those for persons of the second category as 1/10. It should be stressed that during the months of being engaged in unskilled labor members of plowing teams of both categories had the same ratios between their work and free time as known from the accounts of group A dealing with unskilled labor. An important difference is that the free time of d u m u - g i 7 workers was accounted for in the texts of group B. From my point of view, an obvious reason for such practice would be that in these texts d u m u - g i 7 workers were booked full-time into the debit account of their foreman. All this leads us to an assumption that the concept of days-off didn’t exist in the sphere of agricultural labor proper. There were probably also other branches of economy similar to agriculture in respect to accounting for work and free time. For example, in MVN 21 203 (group C), an account involving pottery production in AS 8/i-xi (see also Table 2), at least one potter of the first category (Utu-sig who is explicitly marked as d u m u - g i 7 ) was booked with full-output in the debits section; in the credits section days-off for both d u m u - g i 7 and UN-g a 6 potters are mentioned, only six of the former and 53 of the latter, corresponding somehow to 550 workdays spent for harvesting. Unfortunately these numbers remain enigmatic.10 All accounts of group D known to me mention off-time for female workers in a way similar to accounts of group A, i.e. days-off correspond to the expected performance of the whole accounting period. The ratio between work and free time of female workers can differ depending on industry: 6 ÷ 1 or sometimes 5 ÷ 1 in milling,11 ca. 7,75 ÷ 1 in the textile industry.12 The idea of free time implied that grown-up laborers with normal working capacities had a right to work for a state institution only half of their time (half of a month, or half of a year?) if they belonged to the first category. We should not mix them with those laborers of the second category who had limited working capacities (children or elderly) who were booked with 1 / 2 -, 1/3-, or 2/3-output. It implied also that all male workers of the second category as well as female workers had a right to physically recover for the continuation of work during three, or almost four (3,9), or five, or even six days per month. But such work norms including off-time were standard only in particular sectors of economy or probably only for

––––––––––––– 10. For workers of the first category with full-output in the inspection lists of working teams from Umma (designated there as é r e n ) see Koslova 2005: 120-124; 2006: 144; and 2008: 173. In short, my point is that the distinction between full- and half-time workers of the first category was probably based on the differences in the character of labor: workers marked as full-time were engaged in some kind of specialized labor, workers marked as half-time fulfilled at the moment of the inspection their corvée obligations towards the state, having been conscripted for unskilled labor for a certain period of time. 11. See, for example, TCL 5 5669 (Š 48/i-xii); Nisaba 11 29 (Š 48/iii/23 - AS 1/ii/7); TCL 5 5670 (Š 48/iii/23 - AS 1/ii/7); Frühe Schrift, pp. 128-129 Kat. 13.13 (Š 48/iii/23 - AS 1/ii/8); TCL 5 5668 (Š 48/iv/1 - xii/20); MVN 21 200 (AS 2/i-xiii); STA 2 (AS 4/i-xiii); MVN 21 201 (AS 5/i-xii). 12. See, for example, AAS 135 (AS 3/i-xii); SET 274 (AS 3/i-xii). For calculations in SET 274 see Englund 2002.

Absence from Work in Ur III Umma

317

certain kinds of labor. Judging from Umma records, these norms existed for unskilled (corvée) labor as well as in the milling and textile industries.

2. Unforeseen Circumstances The time when a worker was sick or the time since a worker had died until the end of the accounting period was, like free time, credited to the foreman as actual performance. Such accounting practice demonstrates the intention of the central administration to protect, at least partly, the foremen from the threat of a negative balance, i.e. a deficit, which could have serious consequences for the latter. Let us examine concrete examples. In TCL 5 5674 (group A, see Table 1) the foreman Lu-Dani was credited five months, or 150 workdays during the accounting period AS 3/v-xii, when one of his subordinates Lugal-ezem (UN-g a 6 ) was sick, as well as one month, or 30 workdays, when another worker from his team E-ĝeštin (also UN-g a 6 ) was sick. A similar case is registered in Englund, CDLJ 2003, 1 1 Erlenmeyer 152 (group A, see also Table 1): a worker named Ea-lubi was sick during eight months, or 240 workdays, from the period ŠS 2/i-xii, and this time was credited to his foreman Lu-Šara as actual performance. TCL 5 5675 (group B, see Table 2) is an account of Lugal-gu’e n u - b à n d a - g u 4 , who in AS 4/i-xiii supervised a working unit comprised of six plot managers and 18 ox drivers, and 45 days of sickness of a certain Urdu-Šara were accounted for as actual performance in the credits section. From TCL 5 5676 (group B, see also Table 2), an account of Ur-Ninsu n u - b à n d a - g u 4 , supervising five plot managers and 15 ox drivers in ŠS 2/i-xii, we learn that one of the plot managers named InimŠara, son of Lu-sig, died on the 15th day of month x – the time from that day to the last day of month xii, i.e. two and a half months, or 75 workdays, appeared in the credits as if it were real work time. Similar cases are registered in texts of group D. R. Englund used one of them to describe an extremely interesting accounting principle of Ur III bureaucrats:13 in TCL 5 5670, an account of Ur-Šara, foreman of millers, dealing with female workers from Š 48/iii/23 to AS 1/ii/7, the time of absence of a certain Nin-heĝal who died at the beginning of month viii of Š 48 was accounted for as actual performance in the credits section resulting in 187 workdays; in the debits section we find an additional entry – “31 1/6 workdays, performance of free days of a deceased female worker,” 31 1/6 workdays being 1/6 of 187 workdays, i.e. the free time of Nin-heĝal corresponding to the time of her absence. These days-off had been already credited to Nin-heĝal’s supervisor before she died (together with days-off of other members of the team); since she could not claim them after her death they had to be subtracted from the credits but instead of that were added to the debits. It should be noted that in almost all accounts of groups A and D the sickness or death of a male worker (of course, if he belonged to the second category) or a female worker was a source of such additional debits (see Table 1 for texts TCL 5 5674 and Erlenmeyer 152 mentioned above). On the contrary, there are no traces of this accounting practice in the accounts of group B (see Table 2). There was no need to compensate for

––––––––––––– 13. Englund 1990: 89.

318

NATALIA KOSLOVA

the not claimed days-off of agricultural workers because these days-off had never been booked before. We do not know who was in charge of providing sick people with food. I failed to find any documents describing distribution of barley or other rations to the sick. The main concern of those scribes who composed labor accounts was the productivity of labor but not the compensation for it. Much more informative in this respect are inspection lists that were intended above all to calculate how many members of a working team should be provided with regular rations. Sick laborers are mentioned several times in the inspection lists from Umma known to me, some of them being workers of the second category who are normally described as recipients of monthly rations, but none of them are marked as such a recipient. I would assume that they were kept by their family members – either prebend holders or ration recipients. Nevertheless the fact that sick persons are mentioned in the totals sections of inspection lists, unlike deceased persons or those transferred to another working unit, demonstrates that from the administrative point of view they were regarded as belonging to their supervisor’s sphere of responsibility. One of the most contradictory terms in bureaucratic language of the Ur III period is z à h ‘fugitive.’14 Fugitives are often mentioned in documents, first of all in connection with their discovery ( b a - a l ) or capture ( d a b 5 ) as well as with depriving them of planned rations. Captured fugitives were usually arrested and had to stay in prison ( e n - n u ( n ) - ĝ á t ì l - l a ) ; some of them managed to escape again. Legal documents mention penalties for people who sheltered fugitives.15 We are poorly informed about the social status of people who risked refusing the minimum social guarantees granted by a state institution and getting into a very uncertain existence. But there is evidence of fugitives belonging to the first category and being therefore land holders – what happened to their land allotments in case of their flight, we don’t know. Who was responsible for discovering and capturing fugitives? How was the time of their absence accounted for from the standpoint of their supervisor? Labor accounts give us very few indications to answer these questions. We can speculate that the disappearance of one or several workers could have been one of the reasons for a negative balance at the end of the account, i.e. for the fact that the foreman was not able to complete all the jobs expected from him by the central administration. Anyway, in case of a flight the time of absence of a worker was never credited to his supervisor as actual performance.

––––––––––––– 14. For this interpretation see, for example, Englund 1990: 90, 160-161. Cf. remarks in Sallaberger 1999: 310: the author argues against the conventional understanding of this term implying “den Eindruck eines ausbeuterischen Regimes, dem sich die Leute nur durch Flucht entziehen konnten”. He proposes the translation ‘sich entziehen’ instead of ‘fliehen’ and the following interpretation: “Bei den ‘Flüchtlingen’ wird es sich doch eher um Leute handeln, die – aus den verschiedensten Gründen – einfach nicht am Arbeitsplatz erscheinen. Auf jeden Fall müssen ihnen eigene Mittel zur Verfügung stehen, so daß sie nicht ausschließlich auf die Rationen angewiesen sind”. In my opinion, we simply do not know what sources of sustenance these people had outside of state economy but from the standpoint of the state administration they were fugitives in classical sense of this word and had to be captured and returned to their working place. 15. See, for example, NSGU 2 189.

Absence from Work in Ur III Umma

319

Important information about sick people and fugitives is provided by MVN 10 102 (group A) mentioned above which I would like to examine now in more detail (see Table 3). The debits section of Ur-Iškur’s account (ŠS 2/i-xii) consists of two subsections: 1) expected performance of a working team comprising of 22 members (3180 workdays); 2) performance of free days of the sick UN-g a 6 workers, i.e. the additional debit (6 2/3 8 shekel workdays); together this makes 3186 2/3 8 shekel workdays. All 22 laborers listed in the debits section belonged to the second category. Additionally, they were obviously not grown-up people belonging to working class B which is marked with the sign AŠ before personal name.16 All of them were ration recipients: some of them received 40, the others 30 liters of barley per month. Those who received 40 liters had 1 / 2 -output, those who received 30 liters were expected to work with 1/3-output. Some remarks before personal names are broken but can be restored based on the totals of the debits: 9(persons) × 1 / 2 (output) × 12(months) × 30(days) = 1620; 13(persons) × 1/3(output) × 12(months) × 30(days) = 1560; 1620 + 1560 = 3180. Thus Ur-Iškur supervised 9 workers with 1 / 2 -output and 13 workers with 1/3-output. It should be noted that there are two additional remarks in the debits section: a worker named Atu (1/3) was qualified as sick, and a worker named Lugal-ulgal (1 / 2 ) as a fugitive. Most of the entries in the credits section have the following structure: 1. 8 UN-g a 6 with 1 / 2 -output, 13 UN-g a 6 with 1/3-output, for 36 days, the corresponding performance is 300 workdays, work at the reservoir on the Tigris; 2. 8 UN-g a 6 with 1 / 2 -output, 11 UN-g a 6 with 1/3-output, 2 sick (UN-g a 6 ) with 1/3output, for 30 days, the corresponding performance is 250 workdays, irrigation work in the field Amar-kiši; 3. 7 UN-g a 6 with 1 / 2 -output, 13 UN-g a 6 with 1/3-output, 1 sick (UN-g a 6 ) with 1 / 2 output, for 30 days, the corresponding performance is 250 workdays; work at the reservoir in Apisal. Some numerical notations are also broken but can be safely restored. The credits section of MVN 10 102 allows us to make the following observations: 1. The time when UN-g a 6 workers with 1 / 2 - or 1/3-output were sick was regarded as actual performance (total of 68 workdays). Days-off not claimed during that time were the source of the additional debit: 6 2/3 8 shekel, the ratio between work and free time being 10 to 1 in accordance with the accounting practice discussed above. In the credits section sick workers are not named individually but we can speculate that one of them could have been Ku-Šara (see Table 3, debits, no. 3 or 9) with 1 /3-output who then died at the beginning of month xii; another one was probably Atu, also with 1/3-output who was qualified as sick already in the debits section (perhaps he was sick at the moment of drawing up the inspection list which was used by the scribe who composed our account for a draft of the debits section), the third one could have been Akala, son of Huwawa, with 1 / 2 -output. These three persons are known also from MVN 16 799 (AS 9/xii) in which they are registered as having been sick for several months. The time which passed from the death of Ku-

––––––––––––– 16 . Sallaberger 1999: 327-328.

320

NATALIA KOSLOVA

Šara, son of Guzide’a, until the end of the accounting period, i.e. one month, or 30(days) × 1/3(output) = 10 workdays, is booked as actual performance; the remark á u 4 d u 8 - a n u - u b - ĝ a r ‘performance of free days was not fixed’ explains probably why his unclaimed days-off do not appear in the debits section. 2. For 316 days, i.e. most part of the accounting period, the team under the supervision of Ur-Iškur consisted of a maximum of 21 workers: 8 was the maximum number of persons with 1 / 2 -output, and 13 with 1/3-output. I would assume that the always absent ninth worker with 1 / 2 -output was Lugal-ulgal, who is qualified as a fugitive in the debits section. His work time was obviously charged to the account of his supervisor despite his absence already at the beginning of the accounting period because Ur-Iškur was obliged to find him and return him to his working place. Unfortunately we have no other certain examples of this practice in the documents from Umma but indirect evidence of its existence could be found in BPOA 7 1626 (AS 4/viii): a document about a fugitive named Turtura to be brought back ( t ú m - m u - d a m ) by probably his or her supervisor Lu-balasig;17 the document was sealed by the latter. How Ur-Iškur managed to achieve the positive balance of his account under such circumstances is a question that I cannot answer.

3. Work at Another Place Transferring workers from one working team to another within one sector of economy as well as between different industries, i.e. the fluctuation of working forces in Ur III Umma, is a special topic which is impossible to discuss in detail within the limits of the present article.18 Nevertheless, from the standpoint of the foreman, if one of his workers was received by another foreman, or his work time was charged to another foreman’s account then such work at another place was accounted for as an absence from work. In labor accounts from Umma such absence was reflected in two different ways. 1. The work time of a laborer was not charged to the account of the foreman at all. He was listed among other members of the team in the debits section but either with an empty space before his personal name, instead of qualifying the output, and with a remark after the name indicating his new place of work, or with an often abbreviated new place notation directly before his name. In full form such remarks indicate a profession, for example ‘(working) as a plot manager/ ox driver/ bodyguard’ ( e n g a r / š à - g u 4 / à g a - ú s - š è ) , and/or the name of the official who took responsibility for the worker (PN- e ì - d a b 5 ) . In abbreviated form they look like, for example, ‘gardener’ ( n u - ĝ i š k i r i 6 ) for ‘working as a gardener’, ‘ox’ ( g u 4 ) for ‘working as an ox driver’, ‘forest’ ( t i r ) for ‘working as a forester’.19 The terminology of the debits sections of labor accounts is in this respect very similar to that of inspection lists. In the latter an absent worker marked as described above

––––––––––––– 17. Lu-balasig is known as an official operating in the milling industry; see, for example, Nisaba 11 29 (Š 48/iii/23 - AS 1/ii/7) and MVN 21 204 (ŠS 6/vii - ŠS 7/v). 18. For a detailed discussion of this topic see Koslova 2004. 19. Such abbreviations occur, for example, in the debits section of the account AAICAB I/1 Ashm. 1924-665.

Absence from Work in Ur III Umma

321

never appears in the totals section at the end of the list which means that the foreman of the team dealt with therein was responsible neither for his work time nor for the compensation for his labor any longer. 2. The work time of a laborer was first charged to the account of the foreman, the time of his absence was then credited to the foreman as actual performance and, as in the case of sickness or death, regarded as a source of the additional debit. In MVN 21 199 (group A, see Table 1) several persons whose work time was booked into the debit account of the foreman Ur-mes were absent working as ox drivers under the supervision of other officials (Lugal-emahe, Niĝir-ane, and Dadumu n u - b à n d a - g u 4 ) : six persons during four months, nine persons during three months and 25 days, and one person during three months; the time of their work at another place was credited to Ur-mes as actual performance while the corresponding free time (72, 103 1 / 2 , and 9 workdays respectively) was added to the debits. In the same text the work time of a certain Ur-gigir was charged to the account of Ur-mes but he actually fulfilled his duties as a boatman during the whole year under the supervision of Lugale-bansa. The time of his work in the boathouse was credited to Ur-mes, the corresponding days-off were added to the debits of the latter. In AAICAB I/1 Ashm. 1924-665 (group A, see also Table 1) we also find the additional debit – “149 workdays, performance of free days of the UN-g a 6 workers, booked out” – which includes days-off that were not claimed by two persons (Lukala and Lugal-bad) who worked as ox drivers during three months, by five persons (Lugal-magure, E-u’e, Lu-Nanna, Ur-Bilgames, and Apin-kidu) who stayed in prison for different periods of time, by Lu-Nanna who worked in a kind of a building institution and in the sheep pen for six months, and by Ur-Ninmuga, son of Šara-bazige, who worked as a herder’s helper for two years. Similar cases are registered in the accounts of group D but they will need further investigation. I propose connecting this accounting practice first observed by R. Englund20 with the fact discussed above, namely that there were sectors of economy in the Ur III state, above all agriculture, in which the laborers had no free time at all. Like a sick or a deceased person, an ox driver engaged in agricultural labor, or a worker who was arrested and stayed in prison could not claim his days-off which therefore could not be credited to the foreman in charge of his work time.

––––––––––––– 20. Englund 1988: 172, n. 46; 1990: 89.

468

—

c

10

a÷c

72

103 1/2

à g a - ú s - š è ‘(working) as a bodyguard’; sealed tablet of Akala n u - b à n d a 22 š à - g u 4 g u 4 d i r i - g a - š è ‘(working) as ox drivers of additional oxen’; field g i apin-ku5-řá; sealed tablet of (in the debits section: ĝ ì r i ) Niĝir-ane

720: 1 person (Lugal-kuzu, son of Zanzani) × 1 × 24 months (Š 45/ixii + Š 46/i-xii) × 30 days21 1035: 9 persons × 1 × 115 days (vi/15 x/10)

72

b

g u 4 d a r i - a ‘driving oxen’; field g a b a k i -AK; sealed tablet of (in the debits section: ĝ ì r i ) Lugal-emahe

Reasons for Absence

720: 6 persons × 1 × 4 months × 30 days

d

10

10

10

d÷b

322

21. In the debits section of MVN 21 199 dated to Š 47 this person appears with an empty space before his name and a remark à g a - ú s - š è ‘(working) as a bodyguard’ after his name; nevertheless his time of working as a bodyguard during the preceding two years (Š 45 and Š 46) was credited to Ur-mes in the same account. 22. This is the name of the official who sealed the document booking Lugal-kuzu as a bodyguard for Š 46; the name of the corresponding official for Š 45 is broken.

–––––––––––––

MVN 21 199 (Š 47/i-xiii) Account of Ur-mes, son of Ur-Ašnan Group A

a2 = 4680: 12 persons × 1 × 13 months × 30 days

a

a1 = 2535: 13 persons × 1/2 × 13 months × 30 days

Text

a – debits: expected performance of a working team (workdays) a1 – debits: expected performance of d u m u - g i 7 workers (workdays) a2 – debits: expected performance of UN-g a 6 workers (workdays) b – additional debit: á u 4 d u 8 - a ‘performance of free days’ (workdays) c – credits: á u 4 d u 8 - a ‘performance of free days’ of a working team (workdays) d – credits: time of absence of a worker credited to a foreman as actual performance (workdays)

Table 1

322 NATALIA KOSLOVA

—

288

a1 = [3480]: 29 persons × 1/2 × 8 months × 30 days

a2 = 2880: 12 persons × 1 × 8 months × 30 days

10

d ú - r a ‘sick’; sealed tablet of Ur-e’e

30: 1 person (E-ĝeštin) × 1 × 30 days

a - g ù [z à ?]-m u b a - a - ĝ a r ‘booked into the debit account of Zamu’

105: 1 person (Lugal-magure) × 1 × 105 days (v-viii/15)

90: 1 person (Ur-Manišdusu) × 1 × 3 months (v-vii) × 30 days

105: 1 person (Inim-Šara, son of Ninezem) × 1 × 105 days (v-viii/15)

gáb-ús ù lú-didli-ta gur-ra-me / mu gúrum-ta a-gù-a ba-a-ĝarš è ‘They are herder’s helpers and (workers) returned from (being) individuals (= not institutionally bound?)/ Because they were booked into (another) debit account after the (last) inspection’;23 sealed tablet of Ur-e’e

105: 1 person (Diĝirĝa-isa) × 1 × 105 days (v-viii/15)

d ú - r a ‘sick’; sealed tablet of Ur-e’e

390!: 1 person (Ur-gigir) × 1 × 13 months (i-xiii) × 30 days

150: 1 person (Lugal-ezem) × 1 × 5 months (viii-xii) × 30 days

m á - l a h 5 - š è ‘(working) as a boatman’; sealed tablet of Lugale-bansa

90: 1 person × 1× 3 months × 30 days

9

10 1/2

—24

10 1/2

3

18sic!

[39]

9

10

10

—

10

10

10(?)

10

10

323

23. Cf. MVN 18 545: a - g ù l ú - d š á r a - [ k a ] ì - í b - ĝ a r ‘(the same persons) were booked into the debit account of Lu-Šara’. For comparison between TCL 5 5674 and MVN 18 545 see Koslova 2008: 156-158. 24. The same person appears later in the credits section of this account working as a herder’s helper under the supervision of the official NE-da ( ì d a b 5 ) for 240 days (v-xii), so this entry might be a mistake of the scribe who drew up the text. I cannot explain the absence of the corresponding additional debit.

–––––––––––––

TCL 5 5674 (AS 3/v-xii) Account of Lu-dani (u g u l a ) Group A

g u 4 d i r i d a r i - a ‘driving additional oxen’ (in the debits section: š à - g u 4 g u 4 d i r i - g a ‘(working as) ox drivers of additional oxen’); sealed tablet of (in the debits section: ĝ ì r i ) Dadumu n u - b à n d a - g u 4

Absence from Work in Ur III Umma 323

324

—

617 1/2

a1 = 1950: 10persons × 1/2 × 13months × 30days

a2 = 6175: 15 5/6 (13 persons ×1 + 5 persons × 1/2 + 1 person × 1/3) × 13 months × 30 days

10

85: 1 person (Lu-Nanna) × 1 × 85 days (viii - x/25)

85: 1person (E-u’e) × 1 × 85 days (viii - x/25)

85: 1 person (Lugal-magure) × 1 × 85 days (iv/5 - vi)

90: 1 person (Lugal-bad) × 1 × 3 months (vii-ix) × 30 days

90: 1 person (Lu-kala) × 1 × 3 months (vii-ix) × 30 days

Total: 1485

é e n - n u ĝ x - ĝ á t ì l - l a ‘staying in prison’; sealed tablet of Diĝira, scribe

š à - g u 4 g u 4 d i r i - š è ‘(working) as ox drivers of additional oxen’; sealed tablet of Ur-Šulpae

g á b - ú s - š è ‘(working) as a herder’s helper’; l u g a l - u š u r x ì - d a b 5 ‘Lugalušur took responsibility for him’; sealed tablet of Ur-e’e

180: 1 person (Ur-Dada) × 1 × 6 months (v-x) × 30 days

25. This is the same Lugal-ezem who was sick during the next five months (see above).

–––––––––––––

AAICAB I/1 Ashm. 1924-665 (AS 6/ i-xiii) Account of Lu-sig (u g u l a ) Group A

a-gù da-a-ga ba-a-ĝar ‘booked into the debit account of Da’aga’

Sealed tablet of Lugal-magure, son of Lu-ZU.NAM

a - g ù [l ú ]-d i ĝ i r - r a b a - a - ĝ a r ‘booked into the debit account of Ludiĝira’

120: 1 person (Niĝulpae) × 1 × 4 months × 30 days

90: 1 person (Lugal-ezem) × 1 × 3 months (v-vii) × 30 days25

90: 1 person (Til-albanidu) × 1 × 3 months (v-vii) × 30 days

90: 1 person (Lu-melem) × 1 × 3 months (v-vii) × 30 days

90: 1 person (DINGIR-ikšur) × 1 × 3 months (v-vii) × 30 days

149 á u4 du8-a UN -g a 6 z i ga ‘performance of free days of the UN-g a 6 workers, booked out’

[18]

[12]

9

9

9

9

ca. 10

10

10

10

10

10

10

324 NATALIA KOSLOVA

10

11,7

—

300

271 1/3 3 giĝ4

a1 = 4320: 24 persons × 1/2 × 12 months × 30 days

a2 = 3000: (8 persons × 1 × 12 months × 30 days) + (1 person × 1 × 4 months (ix-xii) × 30 days)

a2 = 3180: (9 persons × 1/2 + 13 persons × 1/3) × 12 months × 30 days

d ú - r a ‘sick’ d ú - r a ‘sick’ d ú - r a ‘sick’

10: 1 person × 1/2 × 20 days 15: 1 person × 1/2 × 30 days

4: 1 person × 1/3 × 12 days 4: 1 person × 1/2 × 8 days

d ú - r a ‘sick’ d ú - r a ‘sick’

20: 2 persons × 1/3 × 30 days

d ú - r a ‘sick’

1

d ú - r a ‘sick’ (in the debits section: á u 4 d u 8 - a UN-g a 6 s a ĝ - b a z i - g a ‘performance of free days of the UN-g a 6 worker booked out of the debits’); sealed tablet of Ur-e’e

15: 1 person × /3 × 45 days

Total: 68

240: 1 person (Ea-lubi) × 1 × 8 months (v-xii) × 30 days

Sealed tablet of Kaš27

750: 1 person (Ur-Ninmuga, son of Šara-bazige) × 1 × 25 months (AS 5/i - AS 6/xiii) × 30 days

6 2 /3 8 g i ĝ 4 á u4 du8-a UN -g a 6 d ú ra ‘performance of free days of the sick UNg a 6 workers’

24

10

10

325

26. This is the same Lu-Nanna who was imprisoned for almost three months (see above). 27. Cf. YOS 4 232: r. iii.6-7: u r - d n i n - m u g - g a g á b - ú s d u m u d š á r a - b a - z i - g e / k a š 4 ì - d a b 5 ‘Ur-Ninmuga, (working as) a herder’s helper, son of Šara-bazige / Kaš took responsibility for him.’ For comparison between AAICAB I/1 Ashm. 1924-665 and YOS 4 232 see Koslova 2008: 167-171.

–––––––––––––

MVN 10 102 (ŠS 2/i-xii) Account of UrIškur (u g u l a ) Group A

Englund, CDLJ 2003, 1 1 (Erlenmeyer 152) (ŠS 2/i-xii) Account of Lu-Šara (u g u l a ), son of Lugal-inimgina Group A

é-šitim-gub-ba é-maš gub-ba ‘working in a building institution(?) (and) the sheep pen’; sealed tablet of Diĝira, scribe

180: 1 person (Lu-Nanna) × 1 × 6 months × 30 days26

60: 1 person (Apin-kidu) × 1 × 2 months (x-xi) × 30 days

60: 1 person (Ur-Bilgames) × 1 × 2 months (x-xi) × 30 days

Absence from Work in Ur III Umma 325

326

TCL 5 6036 (AS 4/ i-xiii) Account of Agu, scribe of craftsmen Group C —

955 1/2

a1 = 975: 5 persons × 1/2 × 13 months × 30 days

a2 = 10335: 26 1/2 (24 persons(?) ×1 + 3 persons(?) × 1/2 + 3 persons(?) × 1/3) × 13 months × 30 days

10,8

30

39

39

39

a d - k u b 4 a - p i 4 - s a l 4 k i ‘(working as) reed-worker (in) Apisal’; ĝ ì r i Ur-e’e k i é n s i - k a ‘at the governor’s place’ a d - k u b 4 g u r - r a ‘returned reedworker’; k i k a - g u r u 7 ‘at the place of the chief administrator of the granary’

390: 1 person (Lu-Ibgal) × 1 × 390 days (=13 months) 390: 1 person (Ur-Ninti) × 1 × 390 days (=13 months) 390: 1 person (Šara-bazige) × 1 × 390 days (=13months)

—

n a g a r g u 4 ĝ i š a p i n ‘(working as) carpenter of a plowing team’; sealed tablet of Šeškala, son of Dada

ú š ‘deceased;’ á u 4 d u 8 - a n u - u b - ĝ a r ‘performance of free days was not fixed’

300!: 1 person (Ur-gigir) × 1 × 300 days (=10 months)

10: 1 person (Ku-Šara) × 1/3 × 30 days (xii)

10

10

10

10

—

326 NATALIA KOSLOVA

7800: [20 persons] × 1 × 13 months × 30 days + 1560 (from Basa): 4 persons (3 UN-g a 6 + 1 d u m u - g i 7 ) × 1 × 13 months × 30 days

[8640?]: [24 persons? (e n g a r š à - g u 4 ‘plot managers (and) ox drivers’)] × 1 × 12 months × 30 days

BIN 5 272 (AS 3/i-xii) Account of Lugal-gu’e (n u - b à n d a - g u 4 ) Group B

7800: 20 persons (10 e n g a r d u m u n i ‘plot managers (and) their sons’ + 6 UN-g a 6 + 4 d u m u g i 7 ) × 1 × 13 months × 30 days

Snell, ASJ 9, 242 19 (Š 47/i-xiii) Account of Lugal-kuzu (n u - b à n d a - g u 4 ) Group B

Civil, Studies Sigrist 36 (AS 2/i-xiii) Account of Lugalkugani (š a b r a ) Group B

a

Text

c1 = 270: 6 persons × 1/2 × 3 months (xxii) × 30 days c2 = 54: 6 persons × 1/10 × 3 months (xxii) × 30 days

—

90: 1 person (Ur-AN-[...]) × 1 × 3 months (xi-xiii) × 30 days

—

ú š ‘deceased’; sealed tablet of Ur-e’e

d ú - r a ‘sick’; sealed tablet of Ur-e’e

d ú - r a ‘sick’; 3 sealed tablet of KA-AN-[...]

[?]: 1 person (Ur-AN-[...]) [?]: 1 person (Lu-[...]) [?]: 1 person ([...]) 116: 1 person (Lugal-EZEM×AN) × 1 × 116 days (v-viii/26) 120: 1 person (Niĝulpae) × 1 × 4 months (x-xiii) × 30 days

d ú - r a ‘sick’; field a m a r kiši17; sealed tablet of Da’agi

—

Reasons for Absence

35 (no names)

—

c1 = 360: 6 persons × 1/2 × 4 months (xxiii) × 30days c2 = 84: 7 persons × 1/10 × 4 months (xxiii × 30 days

d

c c1 = 240: 4 persons × 1/2 × 4 months (xxiii) × 30days c2 = 66: 5 1/2 × 1/10 × 4 months (x-xiii) × 30days

a – debits: expected performance of a working team (workdays) b – additional debit: á u 4 d u 8 - a ‘performance of free days’ (workdays) c – credits: á u 4 d u 8 - a ‘performance of free days’ of a working team (workdays) c1 – credits: á u 4 d u 8 - a ‘performance of free days’ of d u m u - g i 7 workers (workdays) c2 – credits: á u 4 d u 8 - a ‘performance of free days’ of UN-g a 6 workers (workdays) d – credits: time of absence of a worker credited to a foreman as actual performance (workdays)

Table 2

—

—

b

327

—

—

d÷b

Absence from Work in Ur III Umma 327

3600: 20 persons (10 e n g a r d u m u n i ‘plot managers (and) their sons’ + 3 UN-g a 6 + 7 d u m u g i 7 ) × 1 × 12 months × 30 days

6985: 21 1/6 (19 persons×1 + 1 person × 2/3 + 3 persons × 1/2) × 11 months × 30 days

TCL 5 5676 (ŠS 2/i-xii) Account of Ur-Ninsu (n u - b à n d a - g u 4 ) Group B

MVN 21 203 (AS 8/i-xi) Account of Lu-kala Group C

328

9360: 24 persons (e n g a r š à - g u 4 ‘plot managers (and) ox drivers’) × 1 × 13 months × 30 days

TCL 5 5675 (AS 4/i-xiii) Account of Lugal-gu’e (n u - b à n d a - g u 4 ) Group B

c1 = 6: á u4 du8-a dumu-gi7 kíĝg i 4 - a ‘performance of free days of d u m u - g i 7 workers (fulfilling) a special task (?)’ c2 = 53: á u 4 d u 8 - a UN-g a 6 k í ĝ - g i 4 a ‘performance of free days of UN -g a 6 workers (fulfilling) a special task (?)’

c1 = 360: 6 persons × 1/2 × 4 months (ix!xii) × 30 days c2 = 36: 3 persons × 1/10 × 4 months (ix!-xii) × 30 days

c1 = 270: 6 persons × 1/2 × 3 months (X– XII) × 30 days c2 = 54: 6 persons × 1/10 × 3 months (X–XII) × 30 days

d ú - r a ‘sick’; sealed tablet of Lugal-emahe e n - n u ĝ x - ĝ á t ì l - l a ‘staying in prison’; sealed tablet of Lu-diĝira ú š ‘deceased’; sealed tablet of Lugal-kuzu sukkal

—

45: 1 person (Urdu-Šara)

120: 1 person (Lugal-ziĝu) × 1 × 4 months × 30 days 75: 1 person (Inim-Šara, plot manager, son of Lu-sig) × 1 × 75 days (x 15 – xii)

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

328 NATALIA KOSLOVA

Absence from Work in Ur III Umma

329

Table 3 MVN 10 102 (ŠS 2/i-xii) n í ĝ - k a 9 AK á UN- g a 6 u r - d i š k u r u g u l a ‘balanced account of the performance of the UN-g a 6 workers, Ur-Iškur is the foreman’ Debits: 1. PN

Class, ration

1. a-tá-na-a[h]

B 0.0.4

Output 1

/2 /2

2. l u g a l - n i r - ĝ á l

B 0.0.4

1

3. k ù - d š á r a 28

B 0.0.3

1

/3

4. u r - d i š k u r

B 0.0.4

1

/2

5. l u g a l - z à - g e - s i

B 0.0.3

1

/3

6. u r - d e n - l í l - l á

B 0.0.3

1

/3

7. ú r - n í ĝ - d u 1 0

B 0.0.3

1

/3

8. l u g a l - h a - m a - t ì l

B 0.0.3

1

/3

9. k ù - d š á r a m i n ‘the second’

B 0.0.3

1

/3

10. a - t u 29

B 0.0.3 d ú - r a ‘sick’

1

/3

11. l ú - s u e n

B 0.0.3

1

/3

12. l u g a l - u l 4 - g a l

B 0.0.4 z à h ‘fugitive’

1

/2

13. DINGIR-ba-ni

[B] 0.0.4

1

/2

14. u r - é - g a l

[B] 0.0.3

1

/3

15. u r - g u - n u - r a

B [0.0.3?]

1

/3

16. a - a - k a l - l a (d u m u h u - w a - w a )30

B [0.0.4]

1

/2

17. k ù - d š á r a

B [0.0.4]

1

/2

18. u r - a š n a n

[B 0.0.3?]

1

/3

19. u r - d š á r a

[B 0.0.4?]

1

/2

20. l u g a l - ĝ i š - h u r - e

[B 0.0.4?]

1

/2

21. l ú - n i n - š u b u r

B 0.0.3

1

/3

22. šu-eš4-tár

B 0.0.3

1

/3

d

d

d

d

Total: 9 (10 l á [1]) ĝ u r u š á 1/2 × 12 months × 30 days = 1620 workdays 13 (10+[3]) ĝ u r u š á 1/3 × 12 months × 30 days = 1560 workdays = 3180 workdays

2. 6 2/3 [8 g i ĝ 4 ] – á u 4 d u 8 - a UN-g a 6 d ú - r a ‘performance of free days of the sick UN-g a 6 workers’ Total: = 3186 2/3 8 g i ĝ 4 workdays

––––––––––––– 28. Cf. MVN 16 799 (AS 9/xii): sick from AS 8/xii to AS 9/xii; it could be also another Ku-Šara with 1/3-output (see below no. 9). 29. Cf. MVN 16 799 (AS 9/xii): sick from AS 8/xii to AS 9/xii. 30. Cf. MVN 16 799 (AS 9/xii): sick from AS 8/xii to AS 9/vi.

330

NATALIA KOSLOVA

Credits: ĝ u r u š á 1 /3

Days

Performance (workdays)

8

13

36

300

work at the reservoir on the Tigris

2.

8

12 + 1 d ú - r a ‘sick’

45

375

piling up sheaves

3.

8

11 + 2 d ú - r a ‘sick’

30

250

irrigation work in the field Amarkiši

No.

ĝ u r u š á 1 /2

1.

211 2/3: 4.

8 8 3+[x] (?) 8

13 13 12 13

5 8 6 8

41 2/3 66 2/3 36 2/3 (?) 66 2/3

Work, location

carrying grass, kneading clay, covering granary (with clay); ĝ ì r i Egalesi work at the threshing floor in Sahar-u’u [work] in I-lugal work at the threshing floor in Gu’edena work at the threshing floor in Ušgida

5.

8

13

32

266 2/3

work at the reservoir on the Tigris in Apisal; ĝ ì r i Lugal-kuzu u g u l a

6.

7

13

15

117 1/2

irrigation work in the field I-lugal

7.

8

12 + 1 d ú - r a ‘sick’

12

100

8.

7+ 1 d ú - r a ‘sick’

13

8

66 2/3

9.

8

[13]

[5]

[41 2/3] (?)

10.

6

13

6

44

[work] in the palace of Sahar-u’u

11.

7+ 1 d ú - r a ‘sick’

13

20

[166 2/3]

[work] in the palace of Kamsala

12.

8

13

10

83 1/3

[work] in the palace of Gu’edena

13.

7+ 1 d ú - r a ‘sick’

13

[30]

250

14.

8

13

40

333 1/3

irrigation work in [...] irrigation work in the field Šunukuš [work] in the palace [...]

work at the reservoir in Apisal, for the second time work in the boathouse of Gu’edena; sealed tablet of Lugalkuzu

=316 15. 228? workdays – earth excavation at the water installations in I-lugal, Da-kiri-katar, etc. (number of workers not indicated); sealed tablet of Lugal-kuzu 16. 91 workdays – a - g ù i 7 - p a - è d u m u a - a b - b a b a - a - ĝ a r ‘booked into the debit account of Ipae, son of A’abba’ 17. 10 workdays – the time of absence of Ku-Šara, son of Guzide’a, 1/3-output, who died at the beginning of month xii (10 = 1/3 × 30days); á u 4 d u 8 - a n u - u b - ĝ a r ‘performance of free days was not fixed’ 18. 271 1/3 3 g i ĝ 4 workdays – á u 4 d u 8 - a UN- g a 6 ‘performance of free days of the UN-g a 6 workers’

Total: = 3206 13 g i ĝ 4 workdays Surplus: = 19 1/3 5 g i ĝ 4 workdays

Absence from Work in Ur III Umma

331

Bibliography Dahl, J. 2007 The Ruling Family of Ur III Umma: A Prosopographical Analysis of an Elite Family in Southern Iraq 4000 Years Ago. PIHANS CVIII. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten. 2010 A Babylonian Gang of Potters: Reconstructing the Social Organization of Crafts Production in the Late Third Millennium BC Southern Mesopotamia. Pp. 275-305 in City Administration in the Ancient Near East. Proceedings of the 53e Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale. 2, ed. L. Kogan et al. Babel und Bibel 5. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. Englund, R. K. 1988 Administrative Timekeeping in Ancient Mesopotamia. Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 31: 121-185. 1990 Organisation und Verwaltung der Ur III-Fischerei. Berliner Beiträge zum Vorderen Orient 10. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag. 1991 Hard Work: Where Will It Get You? Labor Management in Ur III Mesopotamia. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 50: 255-280. 2002 Notes on SET 274. Cuneiform Digital Library Bulletin 2002/2: 1-3. 2003 The Year: “Nissen returns joyous from a distant island.” Cuneiform Digital Library Journal 2003/1, 1-18. Heimpel, W. 1998 The Industrial Park of Girsu in the Year 2042 B.C. Interpretation of an Archive Assembled by P. Mander. Journal of the American Oriental Society 118: 387-399. Koslova, N. 2004 Fluktuation der Arbeitskräfte im Umma der Ur III-Zeit: Santag 6: 384. Babel und Bibel 1: 23-81. 2005 Land Allotments in Umma During the Third Dynasty of Ur. Pp. 115-126 in Edubba Is Everlasting. Proceedings of the Conference Held in Commemoration of the 90th Birthday of I. M. Diakonoff, ed. M. Dandamayeva, L. Kogan, N. Koslova and I. Medvedskaya. St. Petersburg: Gos. Ėrmitazh [in Russian with English summary]. 2006 Barley Rations in Umma During the Third Dynasty of Ur. Babel und Bibel 3: 41-58. 2008 Bezeichnungen der Arbeitskräfte in Umma der Ur III-Zeit. Pp. 145-201 in The Growth of an Early State in Mesopotamia: Studies in Ur III Administration. Proceedings of the First and Second Ur III Workshops at the 49th and 51st Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, London July 10, 2003 and Chicago July 19, 2005, ed. J. C. Johnson and S. J. Garfinkle. Biblioteca del Próximo Oriente Antiguo 5. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas. Maaijer, R. de 1999 The reading of UN.IL2. Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires 1999/93: 9394. Maekawa, K. 1976 The Erín-People in Lagash of Ur III Times. Revue d’Assyriologie et d’Archéologie Orientale 70: 9-44. 1987a The Management of Domain Land in Ur III Umma. A Study of BM 110116. Zinbun 22: 25-82. 1987b Collective Labor Service in Girsu-Lagash: The Pre-Sargonic and Ur III Periods. Pp. 49-71 in Labor in the Ancient Near East, ed. M. A. Powell. American Oriental Series 68. New Haven: American Oriental Society. 1988 New Texts on the Collective Labor Service of the Erín-People of Ur III Girsu. Acta Sumerologica 10: 37-94.

332

NATALIA KOSLOVA

1998 Ur III Girsu Records of Labor Forces in the British Museum (1). Acta Sumerologica 20: 63-110. Mander, P. 1994 An Archive of Kennelmen and Other Workers in Ur III Lagash. Annali del Istituto Orientale di Napoli 54 - Supplemento 80. Naples: Istituto Universitario Orientale. Monaco, S. F. 1985 Parametri e qualificatori nei testi economici della terza dinastia di Ur, I. Parametri qualificatori numerici. Oriens Antiquus 24: 17-44. 1986 Parametri e qualificatori nei testi economici della terza dinastia di Ur, II. Qualificatori non numerici. Oriens Antiquus 25: 1-20. Neumann, H. 1993 Handwerk in Mesopotamien: Untersuchungen zu seiner Organisation in der Zeit der III. Dynastie von Ur. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. Sallaberger, W. 1999 Ur III-Zeit. Pp. 121-390 in Mesopotamien: Akkade-Zeit und Ur III-Zeit, ed. P. Attinger and M. Wäfler. Annäherungen 3. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 160/3. Freiburg Schweiz: Universitätsverlag. Sharlach, T. M. 2004 Provincial Taxation and the Ur III State. Cuneiform Monographs 26. Leiden: Brill/Styx. Sigrist, M. 1979 erín – UN-íl. Revue d’Assyriologie et d’Archéologie Orientale 73: 101-120. 1980 erín – UN-íl (suite). Revue d’Assyriologie et d’Archéologie Orientale 74: 11-28. Steinkeller, P. 1987 The Foresters of Umma: Toward a Definiton of Ur III Labor. Pp. 73-116 in Labor in the Ancient Near East, ed. M. A. Powell. American Oriental Series 68. New Haven: American Oriental Society. 1996 The Organization of Crafts in Third Millennium Babylonia: The Case of the Potters. Altorientalische Forschungen 23: 232-253. 2003 Archival Practices at Babylonia in the Third Millennium. Pp. 37-58 in Ancient Archives and Archival Traditions: Concepts of Record-keeping in the Ancient World, ed. M. Brosius. Oxford Studies in Ancient Documents 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Stępień, M. 1996 Animal Husbandry in the Ancient Near East: A Prosopographic Study of ThirdMillennium Umma. Bethesda: CDL Press. Studevent-Hickman, B. 2006 The Organization of Manual Labor in Ur III Babylonia. Ph. D. dissertation, Harvard University. Uchitel, A. 1984 Daily Work at Sagdana Millhouse. Acta Sumerologica 6: 75-98. 1992 Erín-èš-didli. Acta Sumerologica 14: 317-338. 1996 Erín-èš-didli (II): Patterns of Conscription and Work Assignment during the Years AS 8 - IS 1. Acta Sumerologica 18: 217-228. Waetzoldt, H. 1972 Untersuchungen zur neusumerischen Textilindustrie. Studi economici e tecnologici 1. Rome.

The Manufacture of a Statue of Nanaja: Mesopotamian Jewellery-Making Techniques at the End of the Third Millennium B.C.

Paola Paoletti LUDWIG-MAXIMILIANS-UNIVERSITÄT MÜNCHEN

My purpose in this paper is to draw attention to, and hopefully contribute to solving, some riddles concerning the terminology for the production and decoration of jewellery in Sumerian.1 Such terminology is found in documents dealing with the administration of luxury goods, like jewellery, precious stones and metals. Examples include the craft archive from Ur, the treasure archive from Puzriš-Dagān and isolated sources from Umma, Nippur and Lagaš. Many Sumerian terms describing luxury objects are still of uncertain and often disputed translation. An example is the technical vocabulary for ornamentation techniques, such as metal inlay, metal plating or stone setting. Here one meets a jungle of words whose elucidation has proved intractable: despite the valiant efforts of Limet (1960), Molina (1989), and Reiter (1997), many difficulties remain. For example, these three scholars maintain that the verb ĝar sometimes means “to cover with a metal sheet, ” and sometimes “to inlay. ” But these two hypothetical meanings sit very oddly with each other, as the actual techniques used in covering and inlaying are very different. The difficulties posed by ĝ a r can be illustrated by reference to the records concerning the manufacture of a number of statues of Nanaja, cast in copper or bronze and subsequently decorated with silver or gold. A number of documents from a period of about a month (Ibbi-Suen 15/vi to Ibbi-Suen 15/vii) refer to such statues.2 They refer to decorations which have already been carried out with nonfinite verbal forms of the type Bḫamtu-a, and to decorations that still have to be carried out with non-finite verbal forms of the type Bmarû-ed-e:

––––––––––––– 1. I take this opportunity to to express my deepest appreciation to M. Molina and S. Garfinkle for all their efforts in organising an excellent workshop in Madrid, July 2010. I would also like to acknowledge the assistance and encouragement of W. Sallaberger and F. Huber-Vulliet during the various steps of preparation of this article. I am also grateful to M. Worthington for checking the manuscript’s English. Of course, they bear no responsibility for the views here expressed. Abbreviations: B = verbal basis; gm = quantity; MAT = material; NP = nominal phrase; OB = Old Babylonian; VP = verbal phrase. 2. UET 3 509 (IS 15/vi/21); UET 3 525 (IS 15/vii/6); UET 3 529 (IS 15/vii/15); UET 3 538 (IS 15/vii/19); UET 3 740 ([...]).

333

334

PAOLA PAOLETTI

Text

Translation d

igi-6-ĝál 5 še kù-si22 si-sá / uruda na-naa kù-babbar šub-ba / igi ka ù á-ba / ĝáĝá-dè

1,6 gr. of normal gold “to put on” ( ĝ á - ĝ á - d è ) the eyes, the mouth and the arms of one copper statue of Nanaja (into which) silver is “inserted” (šub-ba)

1 1 / 2 giĝ4 4 še kù-si22 si-sá / uruda dna-naa 1-a / šub-bu-dè

12,7 gr. of normal gold “to insert (it)” ( š u b - b u d è ) in one copper statue of Nanaja

3 giĝ4 igi-3-ĝál 13 še kù-babbar / uruda d na-na-a kù-si22 šub-ba 1-a / ĝidru-bi šubbu-dè

28,4 gr. of silver “to insert (it)” ( š u b - b u - d è ) in the sceptre of one copper statue of Nanaja (into which) gold is “inserted” ( š u b - b a )

1 uruda dna-na-a kù-si22 ĝar-ra ĝidru-ba kù-babbar ĝar-ra

1 copper statue of Nanaja (onto which) gold “is put” ( ĝ a r - r a ) , on its sceptre silver is “put” (ĝar-ra)

šu+níĝen 5 dna-na-a zabar kù-babbar ĝarra

Total: 5 bronze statues of Nanaja (onto which) silver is “put” ( ĝ a r - r a )

One might suppose that š u b and ĝ a r are simply used to describe ornamentation achieved by applying precious metal to an object, without a very clear distinction of meaning. These two verbs are indeed used for ornamentations only with precious metals – gold and silver, sometimes also copper or bronze. However, they sometimes appear together on a single source, suggesting they refer to two separate activities.3 So, if they don’t allude to the same ornamentation technique, it is worth trying to find out how their meanings differ from each other, and what they actually mean. First we shall handle the question of š u b vs. ĝ a r , and then turn to the verbs s i ( - g ) and s ì ( - g ) .

1. ĝ a r vs. š u b To solve the problem of what these two verbs mean in the context of metalworking, and how they differ from each other, it is useful to have a closer look at two main points: 1.1. The sources examined above contain an important detail. In two cases the scribe added an -a in the nominal phrase (here abbreviated as NP) when the verb was ĝ a r , suggesting that in the context of jewellery making ĝ a r requires the locative case (UET 3 525; UET 3 740). ĝ a r in its general meaning “to place, to set” is a very common verb in Sumerian.4 As Limet (1960: 153; 155-156) already noticed, ĝ a r is attested in records

––––––––––––– 3. UET 3 417: 3. 4. According to Aa III/6 30-31 (MSL 14, p. 350: ĝ a - a r : ĜAR = šá-ka-nu, na-da-nu) ĝ a r is equated with Akkadian šakānum and nadānum, which are both very common and general verbs. However Ḫḫ IV 104-107, confirmed also by Antagal N ii.28', equates ĝ a r - r a to uḫḫuzu in the context of metal decorations: Ḫḫ IV 104 (MSL 5, p. 158): g i š . g u . z a g à r . b a k ù . s i g 1 7 ĝ a r . r a = MIN (ku-us-si) šá kar-šú ḫu-ra-ṣi uḫ-ḫu-zu; Antagal N ii.28' (MSL 17, p. 240): ĝ a r - r a = uḫ-ḫu-zu. According to Ahw, s.v. uḫḫuzu D1 (p. 19),means “mit Metall einfassen, plattieren” (“to enclose, to clad with metal”).

The Manufacture of a Statue of Nanaja

335

about jewellery with the locative case. However, an extensive examination of the occurrences of ĝ a r in Sumerian jewellery texts showed that: a. the locative appears in the NP in the form -Ca or -a,5 for example: ĝ i d r u - b a k ù - b a b b a r ĝ a r - r a (UET 3 740). b. the locative case appears in the verbal phrase (here abbreviated as VP) with the marker -a-,6 for example: 4 g i ĝ 4 1 0 š e k ù - b a b b a r / s a ĝ e g i r ĝeš m u n u s . u š m a r - m a - á š - g e 4 - u m z a b a r 1 - a b a - a - ĝ a r (UET 3 734). c. the locative case appears in the NP with the form -Ca or -a and in the VP with a marker of the type -Vn, for example: 2 4 1 / 2 m a - n a 3 g i ĝ 4 a r - m a - t u m / ĝeš i g d s u l - g i - r a - k a b a - a - ĝ a r (BPOA 6 5). In constructions b and c, the marker -a- in the VP of ĝ a r reveals that this is not a “real” locative, with the meaning “in, into, ” but what P. Attinger (1993: 240-247 § 153-154) has termed the “prefixe locale, ” with the meaning “on, upon. ” In its general meaning of “to fall, to tumble down, ” š u b is also a common verb in Sumerian, and likewise covers a very wide semantic field.7 The attestations of š u b in the jewellery texts confirm the results already presented by Limet (1960: 155-156): a. the NP uses the terminative to describe the destination of the material,8 the locative case appears in the VP as -an-, for example: 5 g i ĝ 4 i g i - 3 - ĝ á l 1 3 š e n í ĝ s ù - a k ù - s i 2 2 h u š - a / 1 ĝ e š m u n u s . u š ĝ í r i ú r - r a - š è / b a - a n - š u b “45

––––––––––––– 5. AAICAB I/1 Ashm. 1911-240: i.16, ii.4; BBVO 11, p. 269 6 NT 39: r.i.11?; BIN 5 148: 3-4; CST 546: 7 + 2?; CT 7 20 (BM 13132): 2; CUSAS 3 782: r.7?; CUSAS 3 1372: ii.2, ii.3, r.iii.29, iii.30; CUSAS 3 1376: i.9 ( k u š ĝ a r - r a ) ; HSS 4 5: iv.13, 14, 15; MVN 11 157: 2; MVN 18 618: 1'?; OIP 115 483: 7, 25; Owen, OrNS 40, 390 4: 2; PDT 1 628: 2?; RTC 221: iii.4, iv.1, iv.11, vi.3; RTC 222: iv.1, 10, r.i.21; RTC 229: ii.5'; TCL 2 5529: 6', 7', 10', r.11', 12', 17'; UET 3 308: 2?; UET 3 363: 2'?; UET 3 436: 7; UET 3 440: 3; UET 3 525: 3; UET 3 555: 7; UET 3 560: 4; UET 3 578: 4; UET 3 585: 2, 3; UET 3 596: 3; UET 3 600: 2, 3; UET 3 642: 6; UET 3 659: 3; UET 3 680: 4; UET 3 723: 2, 3, 4; UET 3 740: 1; UET 3 753: 4'-5'; UET 3 754: i.18'; UET 3 756: 1. 6. AUCT 1 651: 3; BM 110803: 3 (unpublished, courtesy M. Molina); BPOA 1 399: 3; BPOA 1 787: 3; BPOA 2 2213: r.2; BPOA 6 5: 6; BPOA 6 8: 3; ITT 5 6763: 2; Métal 287 15 (AO 7966): 2, 5; Nisaba 5 U. 18822A; Nisaba 5 U. 18831; Scheil, RA 14, 180: 3, 6; TCL 5 6046: r.ii.11; UET 3 293: 2; UET 3 316: 4; UET 3 329: 9; UET 3 390: 2'; UET 3 394: 3; UET 3 701: 4; UET 3 734: 2; UET 3 750: 10'?. Not included are the attestations of ĝ a r with the locative case in connection with the verb s u r or g u l regarding the recycling of broken objects: MAT1 b a - s u r / b a - g u l š à - b a MAT2 b a - a n - ĝ a r or (with the ablative case) š à z à - b a r MAT1- t a MAT2 b a - a n - ĝ a r , s. for example UET 3 799. 7. According to Aa VI/4 137-146 (MSL 14 , p. 442: [ š u - u b : RU = ma]-qa-tum, [na]-du-ú, [t]ara-ku, [n]a-qa-rum, [n]a-za-qum (?), [n]a-sa-ḫu, [ma]-ḫa-ṣu, [tu]-ur-rum, [ma]-ḫa-rum, [...], [..]-{x}) š u b is equated to maqātum, nadû, etc. An examination of the attestations of š u b in the Neo-Sumerian administrative texts showed that the equivalence with Akkadian nadû – the second item in the list offered by Aa – best matches the semantic field covered by š u b in administrative contexts. According to Ahw, p. 706, nadû has two meanings that involve jewellery: 19a “Schmuck anlegen” (to apply, to attach a jewel) and 27f St. “(Gemme) liegt (in Fassung)” (a gem is located in (its) setting) (Qatna). AHw (p. 580) lists the following meanings of maḫāṣu – the third equivalence from the end according to Aa: G 4) with 2 accusatives: c) “überziehen mit” (“to cover with”); D 6) “mit Beschlägen versehen” (“to provide with fittings”); N 5) “eingeschlagen werden” (“to bang in, to drive in”). 8. UET 3 582: NP- š è š u b - b u - d è .

336

PAOLA PAOLETTI gr. of golden filigree for one handle of a hip dagger: it has been inserted therein“ (UET 3 418).9

b. the locative marker appears only one time in the NP.10 c. otherwise, in the NP there is no hint that the verb takes a particular case. This lack of a clear case required by š u b shows that it doesn’t designate the same decorative technique as ĝ a r . Moreover when š u b does take a case in the NP, then it is the “real” locative “in, into,”11 as can be seen from the presence of -n- in the verbal form. 1.2. Let’s now examine the objects which are decorated. A closer look at the occurrences of š u b reveals that the ornamentation technique expressed by this verb is applied to three categories of objects: a. objects of a darker, harder, metal12 (bronze or copper13) are to be decorated with a brighter, softer metal (gold or silver).14 b. the metal ornamentation (mostly silver, sometimes gold) is applied also on wooden objects, most frequently weapons or their components.15 c. the silver ornamentation is applied on a leather object (one attestation only).16 The case of ĝ a r is very different, as there are many more combinations of ornamentation and object to be decorated. On objects of metal, stone, wood, horn, leather and shell, the ornamentation can be of gold, bronze, silver, and copper. Gold is applied to all the above materials, silver generally to metals, wood and stone, bronze to a few metals, wood and few stones, copper only to wood. All these data about š u b and ĝ a r can be summarized as follows:

––––––––––––– 9. Cf. BPOA 6 8 (collated): 21 m a - n a 8 g i ĝ 4 n í ĝ s ù - a z a b a r / 6 0 ĝ e š t ù n s a ĝ - ⸢ k ú l ⸣ ⸢ h a l u ⸣ - ú b / b a - a - ĝ a r “gm of metal wire was put on 60 hatchets of ḫaluppu wood as door bolts” (in this case without terminative). 10. UET 3 743: 1': the genitive case remains at this point unclear. One would expect rather -bi. Because of the words order it cannot be read as k a “mouth, opening. ” This is probably a case of “bezel setting” (German “Kastenfassung”). 11. According to a cordial communication from P. Attinger, the terminative in the NP, with locative in the VP, is documented repeatedly in OB. Instances of š u b with the locative case are found in the following passages: PN(-ergative) ĝ ì r i - n i - š è b a - a n - š u b “PN threw himself at his feet” (InDesc. 307, 330, 340); ĝ e š e l l á - a - n i ù ĝ e š e - k è - m a - n i (//) d ú r k u r - r a - d è b a - a n - ⸢ š u b ⸣ (N1 // d ú r k u r r a b a - d a - a n - š u b [Ur iii] // d ú r ⸢ g u ⸣ - l a - a - a š b a - d a - š u b [Ur ii]) “his ball and his bat fell down on the floor of the ... // on the big floor. ” Cf. also Sollberger 1976: 445. 12. For the hardness data of the various metals see Brepohl 2008: 33; 40-41. 13. UET 3 496 features a golden decoration on lead, whereas a - g a r 5 “lead” could also be the a g a r 5 objects, which are to be interpreted as earrings (two are mentioned). 14. nēkepum-implement: UET 3 577: 1-4; statue of Nanaja: UET 3 525: 1-4; UET 3 529: 1-3; UET 3 538: 1-3; masabbu-basket: AUCT 1 78: 1; not completely preserved: AUCT 1 956: 2 and UET 3 417: 3. 15. Weapons: AUCT 2 133: 1; TIM 6 34: 6; UET 3 418: 4-6; UET 3 455: 1-3; UET 3 547: 1-2; UET 3 554: 1-4; UET 3 555: 4-6; UET 3 560: 3-4; UET 3 566: 1-6; UET 3 575: 1-4; UET 3 670: 1-2. nēkepumimplement: UET 3 680: 1-4; UET 3 406: 1-3, UET 3 578: 2-3, DoCu EPHE 240: 3, UET 3 650: 1-3; ĝeš k i - g a l a l a n l u g a l : UET 3 582: 1-4; [statues or figurines?]: UET 3 274: 9; ĝ e š d n i n - k i l i m , n í ĝ - PA š à - KAL: AUCT 1 296: 2; crown: BIN 3 344: 1. 16. UTI 6 3800: iv. 20.

The Manufacture of a Statue of Nanaja ĝar

šub

NP/VP + prefixe locale “on, upon”

NP + terminative VP + locative case “in, into”

decorated objects

many different materials and colours

dark, harder metals (copper, bronze), wood or (once) leather

decorating materials

all the common precious metals, both bright and dark: mostly gold, then silver, sometimes bronze and copper

only gold and silver, which are generally bright and softer

1 2

337

Let’s now try to match this information with techniques used in the ornamentation of jewellery. Gold or silver plating consists of depositing a thin layer of metal “on, upon” the surface of a metal object. When, as in our case, the metal is deposited onto very different kinds of objects, not only metal ones, we are dealing more precisely with the technique called gilding. The term gilding is used to designate a variety of decorative techniques for applying a fine metal layer or powder to solid surfaces such as wood, stone, or metal to give a thin covering of metal.17 The oldest and simplest method is “overlaying” or folding or hammering a metal foil or metal leaf onto the surface of the supporting object. The technique of gilding seems to provide a good match to what we have seen of ĝ a r . The technique for providing a cylinder or a bead with golden caps in order to fix it to a chain or necklace is in essence the same as plating: a more or less fine sheet of gold is modelled into a cap to fit “on, upon” the ends of the bead or seal – the translation by Molina (1989: 274) fits this idea very well: “one seal of lapislazuli – upon its head gold is settled.”18

––––––––––––– 17. See Wolters 2006; for an ancient Near Eastern example of depletion gilding, see La Niece 1995. 18. In this regard the meaning of the Sumerian term u ( 3 ) - g ù n u needs to be established. According to Ea II 183 (MSL 14, p. 255) u - g ù n u corresponds to the Akkadian iḫzētu and is attested once (UET 3 745) in the Neo-Sumerian administrative corpus. This same corpus contains ten attestations of the lemma ù - g ù n u (UET 3 1702; UET 3 704; UET 3 1745; PDT 2 1018; PDT 1 543; OrSP 47-49 144; CST 551; BPOA 2 2459; SNAT 512), which according to Sallaberger 1992: 134 is the same as u - g ù n u = iḫzētu. u ( 3 ) - g ù n u is attested in Neo-Sumerian texts in connection with gold, silver, bronze or stone (UET 3 704: epigraphically uncertain); its material is not specified when it occurs in combination with textiles ( ( t u 9 ) b a r - s i ) . The Akkadian iḫzētu is a noun derived from aḫāzu. It is translated by AHw, p. 367 as “eingelegte Arbeit, ” by CAD I/J, p. 46 as “incrustation (made in a special technique), ” without specifying which one. A look at the attestations given by CAD and AHw shows that iḫzētu is indeed attested without specification of the material used for the decoration or the particular technique used. So it seems that both Akkadian and Sumerian had a noun u ( 3 ) - g ù n u = iḫzētu for a specific form of metal or for a decoration fashioned in a specific way or form, with or without specification of its material. The attestation in CST 551: 3: ù - g ù n u - b i with -bi referring to a bronze emblem seems to imply that part of the emblem had a specific form. For a meaning “plating” the attestation in PDT 1 543: 3 (if it is correct): (Object) k ù - s i 2 2 ĝ a r - r a ù - g ù n u k ù - s i 2 2 causes some complications. So, on the basis of these scarce attestations, it is not possible to determine exactly the specific form of u ( 3 ) g ù n u , whether it is a specific form of processed metals or simply a decoration. Likewise it is not possible to definitely associate the term iḫzētu with the translation “eingelegte Arbeit” (AHw p. 367) or “incrustation. ” Interesting here is the term iḫzū. CAD I/J, p. 47-48 translates and comments as follows: “The term refers to edgings, mountings, etc. for which gold or silver was used for decorative purposes on less precious materials, rather than to plating. Also precious

338

PAOLA PAOLETTI

I therefore suggest a general meaning “to apply onto” for ĝ a r in the context of jewellery making, which can be further specified like this: 1. to plate (with metal). 2. to encapsulate (seals or beads). For gold plating (or gilding) see for example the Ram in a Thicket from the “Royal Cemetery” of Ur (Fig. 1),19 which uses this technique on wood: a thin layer of bitumen was applied underneath to help adhesion. Other examples are the OB statue from Larsa (Fig. 2),20 with gold plated on bronze, and a necklace from the “Royal Cemetery” of Ur (Fig. 3): the central agate bead is partially covered with a thin gold sheet.21 For the encapsulation of cylinder seals or cylindrical beads see for example a carnelian bead from Mari (Fig. 4).22

Fig. 3 Agate and gold necklace (U.9767, PG 697) in Quarantelli 1985: 311 + 372 n.89.

Fig. 1 The Ram in a Thicket (U.12357, PG 1237) from Aruz 2003: 121 n. 71.

Fig. 2 The Kneeling Worshipper (AO 15704) from Aruz, Benzel, and Evans 2008: 21 n. 1.

Fig. 4 Carnelian bead (Mari, Tombe 1082) with golden caps (Margueron 2004: 540 Pl. 82).

––––––––––––– stones where mounted in this way. The word does not occur in OB texts, nor in the jewellery catalogue from Qatna. While iḫzū denotes metal rims or borders, niḫsu (see usage f) may refer to inlays and fillings. ” Interesting are most of all two attestations given by CAD: 5/6 GÍN KÙ.GI KI.LÁ.BI 2 nalbanātim ana iḫ-zi ša 1 UR-me-et NA4 pappardillim u 1 GIŠ.DUB NA4 dušîm “five-sixths of a shekel of gold in two rectangular sheets for the mountings of one (...) of pappardillu-stone and one plaque of dušû-stone” (ARM 7 4: 7); 2 NA4.KIŠIB uqnî iḫ-zu ḫurāṣi “two cylinder seals of lapis lazuli in gold mountings” (PBS 13 15). According to this description, and judging by the attestations, iḫzū may denote the caps (or borders) which are applied to cylinder seals or the fine mountings for the plating of precious stones. 19. Aruz 2003: 121 n. 71. 20. Aruz, Benzel, and Evans 2008: 21 n. 1. 21. Quarantelli 1985: 311 + 372 n. 89. 22. Tomb 1082, see Margueron 2004: 540 Pl. 82.

The Manufacture of a Statue of Nanaja

339

By contrast, the term “inlay” implies a quite different procedure: pieces of contrasting or coloured materials are inserted “in, into” depressions in an object, to decorate it with intricate patterns. Very common are inlays made of pieces of coloured wood or metal inserted into the surface of decorative furniture. A particular kind of inlay, known as “damascening” in English and “Tauschierung” in German,23 is the technique of inlaying different metals into one another24 – often gold or silver into a dark harder metal background, like bronze or copper: with stripes (a), with a wider surface (b) or double (c) (Fig. 5).

Fig. 5 The technique of damascening: (a) with stripes, (b) with a wider surface, (c) double.25

The uses of the verb š u b seem to match these techniques, i.e. inlay and “damascening, ” very well. Accordingly, I suggest keeping a general meaning “to hammer (into), to inlay” for š u b . If used for a decoration of the “metal into metal” type, it corresponds to “damascening” (German Tauschierung). If used for a decoration of the “metal into wood” type, it is simply a type of metal inlay. As we will see later (§ 2), this kind of inlay has to be distinguished from stone inlay, which in Sumerian is expressed by another verb. Both metal inlay techniques (i.e. metal into metal and metal into wood) are attested archaeologically at least since the third millennium B.C. Damascening with silver is found on a bull figurine dated to the end of the third millennium B.C. (Fig. 6);26 damascening with gold is attested on a silver vessel with golden (electrum) ribbons from the “Royal Cemetery” of Ur (U.10891, PG 800),27 and on a ceremonial axe from Ugarit (14th-13th century B.C.).28 A Fig. 6 Bull figurine with lapislazuli bead with gold damascening from the silver damascening in Aruz “Royal Cemetery” (Fig. 7) attests to metal inlay on 2003: 441 n. 314. stone.29

––––––––––––– 23. Wolters 2007: 539. 24. For a technical description of this technique see Brepohl 2008: 429-432; for the use of this technique amongst others in the ancient Near East see Wolters 2007, and Born 1994. 25. This figure was kindly drawn by M. Gruber of the Institut für Vorderasiatische Archäologie of the Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, Munich. 26. AO 2151 in Aruz 2003: 441 n. 314. 27. Woolley 1934: pl. 173b. 28. M10127, National Museum, Aleppo, Syria; see Aruz, Benzel, and Evans 2008: 243-244 n. 148. 29. U.9281, PG 559 in Tait 2006: 31 n. 30.

340

PAOLA PAOLETTI

Fig. 7 Lapislazuli bead with gold damascening from Ur (Tait 2006: 31 n. 30). Fig. 8 Example of „bezel

One more aspect of š u b revealed by the Neosetting“ on a necklace Sumerian texts is linked to the decoration of agate from Assur (mA) in Aruz, Benzel, and Evans eyes. In this case, our sources offer the following in2008: 213 n. 126. 30 NA4 formation: 1 5 nir7 igi har kù-si22 šub-ba “15 agate eyes set into a golden ring. ” This setting of the stone “in, into” a ring fits well into the general meaning of š u b “to hammer, to set into, ” and it is known as “bezel setting” (German “Kastenfassung”). A good example is attested on a necklace (Fig. 8) from Middle Assyrian Assur (14th-13th century B.C.).31

2. s i - ( g ) + s ì - ( g ) The Sumerian jewellery texts employ these two verbs in ways very similar to š u b and ĝ a r , but they denote different kinds of decoration. 2.1. s i - ( g ) 32 is attested quite often in the jewellery texts without requiring a special case in the NP. However, in one situation it does: a. the locative case sometimes appears in the NP when it deals with leather, for example: 4 + [ . . . ] ĝ e š p a n a d u r - b a k u š g e g g e s i - g a “4+ bows, (on) their rope enwrapped with dark leather” (RTC 222: v.10). Generally, we obtain the impression that no special decoration technique is referred to with the verb s i - ( g ) . Rather, it is used for the positioning of an object in a special place or for the application of a decorative piece into an object. So no special material is bound to the use of s i - ( g ) , only objects. We find it for example in the following expressions:

––––––––––––– 30. UTI 6 3800: iv.23'; UTI 6 3800: r.iv.9; UTI 6 3800: r.iv.8; UET 3 743: 1': 1 NA4 n i r 7 i g i h a r k ù - s i 2 2 - k a š u b - b a , where the - k a remains unclear. 31. VA ASS 1026-1034 in Aruz, Benzel, and Evans 2008: 213 n. 126. 32. For the Akkadian equivalent, see AHw, s.v. malû, pp. 597-598: D “(an)füllen (mit = Akk.). s i g a ? (...) 4) mit Intarsien einlegen (...)”; cf. Erimḫuš III 213 (MSL 17, p. 52): 213 s i - g a = mul-[l]u?-[u]. Cf. also AHw, s.v. tamlītu, p. 1315-1316: “Füllung, Auffüllung; Besatz, ” ass., aB. (...) 2) m/nA Besatz (mit Steineinlagen usw.). (...) c) nA (Goldringe, Betten usw) (...). ” Cf. AHw s.v. tamlīum, tamlûm, p. 1316: “Füllung; Terrasse; Besatz; Einlage” (...) 2) (Stein-)Einlage, Intarsie. (...). ” See also Reiter 1997: 448, who suggests to link the verb tamlûm, malûm with the tecnique of the cloisonné. About cloisonné in Mesopotamia see Contenau 1956.

The Manufacture of a Statue of Nanaja

341

a. 4 ĝ e š ig é dab 5 -ba gul-la-tum si-ga “four doors (for) the É-dab 5 -ba, gullatum-decorations are inserted” (UET 3 1498: viii.2). b. 1 ĝ e š g u - z a n i n t a ĝ e š h a - l u - ú b z à - ú s s i - g a “one male chair, back (and/or) arm rest is inserted” (AAICAB I/3 Bod. S 138: i.3). c. 1 b a - a n - d u 8 - d u 8 z a b a r ú r u r u d a s i - g a “one bronze bucket, in the bottom copper is inserted” (SAT 3 1277: r.13). d. 1 m a - s á - a b z a b a r u r u d a k i - m a š k i ú r d n i n - k a š 4 m u š e n u r u d a k ù b a b b a r š u b - b a s i - g a “1 masabbu-basin of bronze and of copper from Kimaš, (in) the bottom is inserted ( s i - g a ) a Ninkaš-bird of copper, silver (is) inlayed ( š u b - b a ) ” (AUCT 1 78: 1). 2.2. s ì ( - g ) does not generally take a special case in the NP, and there is no evidence of a finite verbal form of s ì ( - g ) in the jewellery texts. However, one attestation includes a locative in the NP: Ozaki and Yıldız, JCS 54, 7-9 52: r.v.8': š u - n í ĝ e n 1 z a b a r k í r k ù - s i 2 2 HI- d a d ú r k a b a NA4 z a - g ì n s ì - g a 1 NA4 n i r 7 i g i í b - t e h e 33 “total: 1 kír-shaped zabar-vessel of mixed gold, on the bottom and its opening lapislazuli is “inserted, ” 1 agate eye joined thereto. ”

Moreover s ì ( - g ) and s i ( - g ) are – pace Molina 1988: 279 and 304 – at least in one source of the jewellery texts attested together: AAICAB I/3 Bod. S 138: i.2-3: 4 ĝ e š z à - ú s ĝ e š š e n e g NA4 s ì - g a / 1 ĝ e š g u - z a n i n t a ĝeš h a - l u - ú b z à - ú s s i - g a “four chair back (and/or) arm of tamarisk, stone(s) are ‘inserted’ / one male chair, back (and/or) arm rest is inserted. ”

If one considers the cases where s ì ( - g ) is used, one sees that the ornamentation technique denoted by s ì ( - g ) has been applied to very different categories of objects. The decisive ones for our purposes are luxury items: a. a stone decoration inserted in golden or wooden objects.34 b. an ivory decoration on a wooden object.35 c. a webbed mat inserted into a bed,36 or the goldsmith’s scales with inserted bowl.37 All these data about s i ( - g ) and s ì ( - g ) can be summarized as follows: 1 2

decorated objects decorating materials

si(-g) without a special case or + locative case (with leather) different kinds inserted objects

sì(-g) without a special case or + locative case (1x NP) gold or wood - stone on wood and gold - ivory on wood

––––––––––––– 33. About UM with the value t e h e “to approach” see Civil 2002: 67, 70. 34. Neumann, Fs. Haas, 286 Kurth 27: 3?; Ozaki and Yıldız, JCS 54, 7-9 52: r.v.2', r.vi.3', r.vi.4'; UET 3 290: 4-r.5; UET 3 556: 4-6; UET 3 557: 1-6; UET 3 613: 6-8; UET 3 703: i.2; UTI 6 3800: i.2'-3', r.ii.20; YOS 4 296: 22. 35. MVN 3 326: 1 ( b e š e ĝ ) . 36. BIN 10 113: 1; DoCu EPHE 206: 3; MVN 11 188: 1; PDT 1 337: 4; PDT 2 1249: 1; TRU 303: 1. 37. UET 3 272: r.vii.17-19.

342

PAOLA PAOLETTI

The general meaning of s i - ( g ) is something like “to plug into, to put something in something. ” In view of all this I suggest translating it as “to insert something into something.”38 The best visual and textual example to illustrate it is a decorated basin from the Iranian plateau which Steinkeller (2012: 308) successfully linked to the description of the masabbu-basins recorded at Puzriš-Dagān (Fig. 9):39 1 ma-sá-ab zabar uruda ki-maški úr dnin-kaš4 mušen u r u d a k ù - b a b b a r š u b - b a s i - g a “1 masabbubasin of bronze and of copper from Kimaš, (in) the bottom is inserted ( s i - g a ) a Ninkaš-bird of copper, silver (is) inlayed ( š u b - b a ) ” (AUCT 1 78: 1).

Regarding s ì ( - g ) , it is worth comparing it to the objects decorated with metal inlay seen above in connection with š u b . The distribution seems to be quite clear: −

weapons, nēkepum-implements, parts of statues or baskets are decorated with metal inlay ( š u b ) .40

−

vessels, chairs, jewellery are decorated with the technique of s ì ( - g ) .41

Fig. 9 Bronze basin from the Iranian plateau in Madjidzadeh 2003: 156, 208.

The general meaning of s ì ( - g ) is “to pour something over something, to throw, ” in the case of water “to soak, to immerse, to imbue. ” Comparing the use of s ì ( - g ) in the jewellery texts with its meaning “to soak, to imbue with water, ” we can then interpret it as “to furnish, to decorate with stones or ivory. ” Hence we can link the verb s ì ( - g ) to the technique of the stone inlay or intarsia on metal or wooden objects. This technique is attested for example in the inlaid vessel from the “Royal Cemetery” of Ur (Fig. 10)42 and the spouted vessel with inlaid bands from Uruk (Fig. 11).43

––––––––––––– 38. On binding techniques in the manufacture of metal objects see Hauptmann and Weisberger 2006: 206. 39. Steinkeller (2013: 309) gives references for examples of such basins: “From Shahdad, see Hakemi 1997, 248 Obj. No. 0807 (27.7 cm diameter, 6.5 cm height; a large knob in the middle); 645 Gs. 4 (ca. 25 cm diameter; a crab and four fish); 646 Gs. 5 (a ring with two rows of nine fish); 647 Gs. 6 (ca. 28 cm diameter; two antelopes); 648 Gs. 7 (ca. 30 cm diameter; a coiled snake). For Jiroft: Madjidzadeh 2003: 156, 208 (40 cm diameter, 7 cm height; decorated with a sitting bird). (...) For Tepe Hissar: Schmidt 1937: 190-91 (25.5 cm diameter; a lion attacking a bull). Unprovenanced: Amiet 1976: 15 no. 21, pl. 21; also colour plate following p. 12 (Louvre, AO 24797; 34 cm diameter, 5.3 cm height; a reclining bull); Amiet 1986: 294 fig. 122 (Louvre, AO 26787; 26 cm diameter; a reclining bison in low relief); Pittman 1984: 24-27, 26 fig. 6 (Metropolitan Museum, L.1983.16; 22.5 cm diameter; a reclining humped bull in low relief). In addition, Amiet 1986: 164 n. 7, lists three unprovenanced basins sold at auctions in 1980 and 1981, which are decorated with a ‘bison,’ a ‘lionne,’ and a ‘ronde d’oiseaux-pêcheurs’ respectively. ” 40. See n. 13, 14, 15, 16. 41. See n. 33, 34, 35, 36. 42. Aruz 2003: 118-119 n. 70a. 43. Aruz 2003: 18 n. 4.

The Manufacture of a Statue of Nanaja

Fig. 10 Inlaid vessel from Ur (U.11154, PG 779) in Aruz 2003: 118-119 n. 70a.

343

Fig. 11 Spouted vessel with inlayed bands from Uruk (VA 11055) in Aruz 2003: 18 n. 4.

Summing up the results, here are the translations I suggest for use in connection with jewellery: Verb ĝar

Translation - to plate with metal - to encapsulate with metal

Technique - gilding - encapsulation (cylinder seals/beads)

šub

- to inlay (with metal)

- damascening - metal inlay (on wood)

si(-g) sì(-g)

- to insert, to plug into - to inlay (with stone or ivory)

- no special technique - stone inlay, intarsia

So we can now produce a precise translation for the decoration of the statue of Nanaja: Text

Translation

1 giĝ4 lá 5 še kù-babbar / uruda dna-na-a 1a / ĝá-ĝá-dè

8,1 gr. of silver to plate one copper statue of Nanaja

igi-6-ĝál 5 še kù-si22 si-sá / uruda dna-na-a kù-babbar šub-ba / igi ka ù á-ba / ĝá-ĝá-dè

1,6 gr. of normal gold to plate the eyes, the mouth and the arms of one copper statue of Nanaja (that is) inlayed with silver

1 1 / 2 giĝ4 4 še kù-si22 si-sá / uruda dna-na-a 1-a / šub-bu-dè

12,7 gr. of normal gold to inlay one copper statue of Nanaja

3 giĝ4 igi-3-ĝál 13 še kù-babbar / uruda dnana-a kù-si22 šub-ba 1-a / ĝidru-bi šub-bu-dè

28,4 gr. of silver to inlay the sceptre of one copper statue of Nanaja (that is) inlayed with gold

1 uruda dna-na-a kù-si22 ĝar-ra ĝidru-ba kùbabbar ĝar-ra

1 copper statue of Nanaja plated with gold, its sceptre plated with silver

šu+níĝen 5 dna-na-a zabar kù-babbar ĝarra

Total: 5 bronze statues of Nanaja plated with silver

344

PAOLA PAOLETTI

Bibliography Amiet, P. 1976 Les antiquités du Luristan. Paris: diffusion de Boccard. 1986 L’âge des échanges inter-iraniens 3500-1700 avant J.-C. Paris: Ministère de la culture, Editions de la Réunion des musées nationaux. Aruz, J. (ed.) 2003 Art of the First Cities: The Third Millennium B.C. from the Mediterranean to the Indus. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. Aruz, J., Benzel, K., and Evans, J.M. (eds.) 2008 Beyond Babylon: Art, Trade and Diplomacy in the Second Millennium B.C. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. Attinger, P. 1993 Eléments de linguistique sumérienne: La construction de du11/e/di «dire». Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht. Born, H. 1994 Terminologie und Interpretation von Tauschiertechniken in der altvorderasiatischen, altägyptischen und alteuropäischen Metallkunst. Pp. 72-81 in Tauschierarbeiten der Merowingerzeit, ed. W. Menghin. Berlin: Museum für Vor- und Frühgeschichte. Brepohl, E. 2008 Theorie und Praxis des Goldschmieds. München: Carl Hanser Verlag München. Civil, M. 2002 The Forerunners of Marû and Ḫamṭu in Old Babylonian. Pp. 63-71 in Riches Hidden in Secret Places. Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Memory of Thorkild Jacobsen, ed. T. Abusch. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. Contenau, G. 1956 L’incrustation sur métal et l’orfèvrerie cloisonnée en Mésopotamie, Syria 33: 58-62. Hakemi, A. 1997 Shahdad: Archaeological Excavations of a Bronze Age Center in Iran. Rome: Istituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente. Hauptmann, A., and Weisberger, G. 2006 Verhüttung und Metalltechnik. Pp. 199-211 in Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde 32, ed. H. Beck, D. Geuenich, J. Hoop, and H. Steuer. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter. La Niece, S. 1995 Depletion Gilding from Third Millennium BC Ur, Iraq 57: 41-47. Limet, H. 1960 Le travail du métal au pays de Sumer au temps de la IIIe dynastie d’Ur. Paris: Société d’Édition Les Belles Lettres. Madjidzadeh, Y. 2003 Jiroft: The Earliest Oriental Civilization. Tehran: Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance. Margueron, J.-Cl. 2004 Mari. Métropole de l’Euphrate au IIIe et au début du IIe millénaire av. J.-C. Paris: Éditions A. et J. Picard. Molina, M. 1988 La manufactura de las piedras preciosas según los textos de Ur de la Tercera Dinastía. Ph. D. dissertarion, Universidad Complutense de Madrid. 1989 Las piedras preciosas en los textos económicos de Ur de la Tercera Dinastía, Aula Orientalis 7: 81-93.

The Manufacture of a Statue of Nanaja

345

Pittman, H. 1984 Art of the Bronze Age: Southeastern Iran, Western Central Asia, and the Indus Valley. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art. Quarantelli, E. (ed.) 1985 The Land between Two Rivers. Torino: Il Quadrante Edizioni. Reiter, K. 1997 Die Metalle im Alten Orient unter besonderer Brücksichtigung altbabylonischer Quellen. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 249. Münster: Ugarit Verlag. Sallaberger, W. 1992 Review of F. Yıldız and T. Gomi, Die Puzriš-Dagan-Texte der Istanbuler Archäologischen Museen. Teil II: Nr. 726-1379, Freiburger Altorientalische Studien 16. Stuttgart 1988. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 82: 131-137. Schmidt, E. F. 1937 Excavations at Tepe Hissar Damghan. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania University Museum. Sollberger, E. 1976 Some Legal Documents of the Third Dynasty of Ur. Pp. 435-450 in Kramer Anniversary Volume. Cuneiform Studies in Honor of Samuel Noah Kramer, ed. B. L. Eichler, J. W. Heimerdinger, and Å. W. Sjöberg. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 25. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Verlag Butzon & Bercker Kevelaer, Neukirchener Verlag. Steinkeller, P. 2013 Puzur-Inšušinak at Susa: A Pivotal Episode of Early Elamite History Reconsidered. Pp. 293-317 in Susa and Elam: Archaeological, Philological, Historical and Geographical Perspectives: Proceedings of the International Congress Held at Ghent University, December 14–17, 2009, ed. K. De Graef and J. Tavernier. Mémoires de la Délégation en Perse 58 Leiden: Brill. Tait, H. 2006 7000 Years of Jewellery. London: The British Museum Press. Wolters, J. 2006 Vergolden. Pp. 179-199 in Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde 32, ed. H. Beck, D. Geuenich, J. Hoop, and H. Steuer. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter. 2007 Ziertechniken (Tauschierung). Pp. 537-561 in Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde 34, ed. J. Hoop, H. Beck, and H. Jankuhn. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter. Woolley, C. L. 1934 The Royal Cemetery. A Report on the Predynastic and Sargonid Graves Excavated between 1926 and 1931. Plates. Ur Excavations II. London and Philadelphia: British Museum and University of Pennsylvania.

Corvée Labor in Ur III Times* Piotr Steinkeller HARVARD UNIVERSITY

‘Come, let us make bricks and bake them hard’; they used bricks for stone and bitumen for mortar. ‘Come,’ they said, ‘let us build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a name for ourselves.’ Genesis 10, 11

1. Introduction What is corvée? To quote one, popular definition, “corvée is labor, often unpaid, that is required of people of lower social standing and imposed on them by their superiors … It differs from chattel slavery in that the worker is not owned outright … – and that the work is usually intermittent; typically only a certain number of days’ or months’ work is required each year.” 1 Corvée labor was widely used in ancient Mesopotamia. Indeed, it was through the use of forced labor that the Mesopotamian urban phenomenon acquired its shape during the archaic period, as exemplified by the monumental architecture of Uruk. The excavators estimated that the enormous terrace that was constructed toward the end of the Late Uruk period to the west of the Eana precint must have required the work of 1,500 men working ten hours a day for five years.2 The construction of Uruk’s massive, 9.5-km-long city wall, a feat attributed by the ancients to Gilgameš himself, undoubtedly called for a similar (if not greater) investment of forced labor. Projects of this scale and magnitude continued down to the end of the Neo-Babylonian period.3 In view of the paramount importance of corvée in the life of ancient Mesopotamia, it is remarkable that, as pointed out by M. Stol (1995: 293) in his study of the Old Babylonian corvée, “so little has been written on this institution.” In fact,

––––––––––––– * This paper profited greatly from the input of M. Molina, who offered numerous corrections, improvements, and additional textual references. I am deeply indebted to him. I wish to offer my thanks also to B. Studevent-Hickman, who read the original ms. and suggested various improvements; to K. Maekawa, who generously put at my disposal his hand-copy of BM 25053 (= Text 3); and to I. Finkel, who provided me with his transliterations of BM 20070 (= Text 18) and BM 20890 (= Text 17). Needless to say, I alone am responsible for the final product. 1. Wikipedia. 2. Nissen 1988: 95. 3. Beaulieu 2005.

347

348

PIOTR STEINKELLER

Stol’s article is the only serious treatment of this subject.4 A characteristic feature of the Mesopotamian corvée is the fact that this form of forced labor was supplied primarily by the free population. Indeed, Stol makes this point in the beginning sentence of his article: “In Mesopotamia, free people could be called up to do forced labour.” Among the types of works that were performed during the Ur III period as part of corvée we can list the excavation of new canals and the maintenance of the existing irrigation and water-transportation systems; the building of roads and related infrastructure, such as the networks of roadhouses and relay stations; and the construction of buildings of national significance, such as the major temples and the various kinds of structures serving the purposes of the central government, such as palaces, administrative complexes, and storage facilities. Further, corvée was used for the construction of various defensive structures, such as citywalls, fortresses, and military outposts; and finally, certain types of agricultural works, such as the harvest work. To be technically correct, one should also include here military service sensu stricto, i.e., participation in either defensive or offensive operations, since military service was just another form of corvée. There was no distinction between civilian work and military service; the conscripted workers had to do both. As for the typical jobs that were done as part of the corvée, the following four stand out: dirt work, brick-making, towing, and a great deal of carrying. Although corvée works were an everyday fact in Ur III times, comparatively little textual evidence survives pertaining to them. Virtually none of it can be described as direct evidence, i.e., sources that are purposely and primarily concerned with corvée projects, in the same way and to the same extent as groups of sources survive concerned with particular aspects of economic life, such as agriculture, for example. Still, it is possible to get a good sense of the nature and scale of these works. Most important, one needs to distinguish here between two separate categories of corvée. The first category included the small-scale types of works that were regularly performed on the local level within individual provinces by the governors and their organizations. In the second category, I would place large, ad hoc projects of national significance and scope, which were planned, organized, and executed by the central government. Among such projects, three undertakings were particularly notable: the construction of the royal palace at Tummal in the second half of Šulgi’s reign; the building of the temple of Nanna of Karzida during Amar-Suen’s reign; and a similar construction involving the temple of Šara at Umma during ŠuSuen’s reign. Each of these three projects is amply documented in the surviving documentation.5 Our documentation makes it clear that such national projects involved the active participation of the entire kingdom. In other words, all the provinces of the Ur III state were evidently required to support these undertakings with labor and

––––––––––––– 4. Stol 1995: 293-295. Since Stol treats the native terms for “corvée” in detail, I will refrain from discussing them here. See also my forthcoming “The Employment of Labor on National Building Projects in the Ur III Period”. 5. A detailed study of these projects will be offered in my “National Building Projects.”

Corvée Labor

349

material contributions. Of course, the main reason for such a broad participation was the fact that there was not enough manpower available locally to carry out the tasks at hand. Therefore, additional workers had to be brought from the outside. But there were also social and political reasons behind this arrangement. National building projects were an extremely important tool of political and cultural integration, in that they helped to create a community and interdependence between different regions of the state. As people from all over the country spent extensive periods of time working and living together, they not only identified with the project itself, but they also came to think of themselves as fellow members of a united Babylonia. Since, with the exception of the Sargonic period, Babylonia had never been united before, the need to create such a sense of unity must have been one of the main political objectives of the kings of Ur. It is characteristic that the extant descriptions of national building projects invariably emphasize the communal and egalitarian spirit that allegedly permeated such events. The workers are said to have shared work equally and worked in joy and without compulsion. In the royal inscriptions from Larsa, which are particularly informative in this respect, we also find the lists of wages that were paid to the workers employed on such projects. Those were unusually generous, and quite unlike the wages a worker would receive in real life. In addition, the Larsa sources stress the fact that “no one was given a higher or a lower wage.” We also read that many of those constructions were undertaken expressly “to cause admiration and wonderment throughout the land” – a clear indication that, apart from their practical purposes, such projects served the propaganda aims as well, and perhaps even purely esthetic considerations. These claims are exaggerated, no doubt, but I would still think that there was something special and distinctive about the national projects of this sort. I would venture to suggest that these projects functioned, at least on one level, as social events, whose spirit was akin to that of public festivals.6 We encounter something quite similar during the Old Kingdom in Egypt, and I am referring here of course to the pyramid-building projects at Giza. As we now know, the builders of the pyramids came to Giza from all the parts of Egypt to work in rotating shifts of several months each. During their stay in Giza, they were housed in a special workers’ town or village, where an elaborate infrastructure had been set in place to support them. Contrary to the common belief (which goes back to Herodotus, who thought that the pyramids were built by an army of slaves numbering 100,000 individuals), these laborers were well treated and amply fed. As shown by the great quantities of cattle, sheep, and goat bones that were excavated there, their diet included significant quantities of meat.7 One may even wonder as to what the true objective of the pyramid-construction really was. Was it the pyramids themselves? Or was it rather the goal of creating a sense of unity and of shared culture and ideology between the different Egyptian nomes that participated in these projects? Perhaps it would not be too much of an exaggration to suggest that it was the pyramids that built the Egyptian nation and its sense of shared culture. At the very least, we should recognize that these pro-

––––––––––––– 6. 7.

These ideas are developed further in my “National Building Projects.” Morell 2001; Lehner 2002 (esp. 72-73); Assmann 2002: 53-54; Shaw 2003.

350

PIOTR STEINKELLER

jects constituted an enormous integrating force, which must have contributed mightily toward the formation of the Egyptian national and cultural identity.

2. Sources of Ur III Corvée 2.1. Ur III Political Organization Who was liable for corvée work in Ur III Babylonia? In order to answer this question, we need to consider, however briefly, Babylonia’s political and social organization at that time. In my view (and I am not alone in voicing this opinion), the Ur III state was a classic example of the social and political patrimonial system. In such a system, all of the resources of the state are integrated into a single socio-economic body, shaped as a pyramid, at whose top stands the king, who is the sole master and owner of this entire body. In spite of its monolithic appearance, the patrimonial state actually has a highly complex internal structure, in that it is a hierarchically organized collective of individual households, with smaller households being embedded into larger ones, and so on, all the way to the very top of the pyramid. All of these households are linked to each other by a network of mutual rights and obligations. In this way, inferior households not only contribute materially to the superior ones but also receive from the latter in return, be it material goods, prestige, or protection. When viewed from the outside, this pyramid of interconnected and interdependent households forms one vast vessel, which looks and very much operates like the king’s private household or domain. As necessarily required by this definition, the entire population of a patrimonial state counts as king’s dependents or members of his private household. Because of their subordinate status vis-à-vis the king, they all owe him various services, primarily, corvée labor. The obligation to provide corvée rested predominantly (if not exclusively) on the free population. Therefore, in the following discussion I will talk primarily about this social group. The free, who formed by far the largest segment of the Ur III society, possessed full social, economic, and legal rights. In the Ur III sources, they are called é r e n or d u m u - g i r 1 5 , the two terms being largely synonymous. The term é r e n means “royal dependent,” while the sense of d u m u - g i r 1 5 is “native son / citizen.”8 This vast social group included everybody from craftsmen, shepherds, and ordinary farmers to the top administrative and priestly officials and members of the king’s extended family. Since the é r e n were, both numerically and economically, the dominant social group, it will not be inappropriate to describe the Ur III society as

––––––––––––– 8. A closely related term, which is found primarily in Girsu/Lagaš texts (see, e.g., Texts 17: 3 and 19: 2), is d u m u - d a b 5 - b a (written also d u m u - d a - b a ). This term means “conscript,” describing specifically a conscripted é r e n . See é r e n d u m u - d a b 5 - b a (TCTI 1 664: 6; TCTI 2 3939: 4, 4058: 3). d u m u - d a b 5 - b a is very rare in Umma sources; see its attestations in BPOA 1 550: 7 and BPOA 6 491: 4 (both courtesy of M. Molina). An obvious variant of d u m u - d a b 5 - b a i s l ú - d a b 5 - b a ( see, e.g., l ú d a b 5 - b a m a - d a Š u š i n k i ù m a - d a E l a m k i - k a ; PPAC 4 290: 4-5). Importantly, in Ontario 2 190 (provenance unknown) d u m u - d a b 5 - b a (lines 4 and 24) interchanges with d u m u - g i r 1 5 , “free native citizen” (lines 14, 28, 35, and 38), thus establishing that d u m u - d a b 5 - b a is another designation of é r e n . For é r e n = d u m u - g i r 1 5 , see Koslova 2008: 152-153, 171-173.

Corvée Labor

351

an “erenage” system.9 The é r e n owed services – primarily labor – to the king. In exchange for those services, the é r e n received various benefits from the crown. Most important, the king granted them the usu fructo rights to royal land.10 The size of the é r e n allotment depended on the grantee’s social and professional position – the lowest-ranking é r e n would usually receive 4 iku (= 1.44 ha) of land.11 A provincial governor ( é n s i ), who also classed as an é r e n , but stood at the top of the pecking order, was entitled to some 1,000 iku (360 ha).12 As for the é r e n ’s specific obligations vis-à-vis the king, he was required to provide a specific number of man-days of labor to the crown. There are indications that this figure was 180 days (or six months) per year, which were usually spread in installments over the whole year.13 One of the sources I discuss below shows that, in at least one particular instance, the é r e n were required to supply 100 days of corvée each. But how those 100 days related to the total labor obligation that the é r e n owed to the state is somewhat unclear. I will return to this problem later on. The é r e n labor was paid to the state either directly or indirectly, depending on whether the é r e n was a member of the royal organization sensu stricto; or whether he belonged to the provincial economy run by the governor ( é n s i ) and his organization. The core area of the Ur III state was subdivided into provinces, which roughly corresponded, in terms of their territorial extent, to the former citystates. Each province comprised two administrative and economic entities, largely independent of each other: (1) the province proper, run by the province’s governor; this entity represented, more or less, what had earlier constituted a given citystate; and (2) the royal sector, which was run directly by the crown. Within the royal component of a given province, the central government was represented by the military organization, at whose top stood generals ( š a g i n a ) and colonels ( n u - b à n d a ),14 and by the local self-governments, composed of “mayors”15 (ḫazannu) and city elders ( a b - b a or a b - b a - u r u ).16

––––––––––––– 9. The term describing this status is n a m - é r e n . See YOS 4 208 (discussed below p. 361), in which various individuals are claimed by the royal sector as its dependents ( n a m - é r e n - š è i n i m … g a r ) . For this term, see also Text 27: 7 and UET 3 949: 1-3: 7.4.0 š e g u r š e u r 5 - r a m u - D U k i n a m é r e n - k e 4 - n e - t a , “7.4.0 of barley, a barley loan, delivered (back) from the royal sector.” M. Molina brings to my attention still other attestations of n a m - é r e n : SAT 2 717: 2, BPOA 2 2408: 6; MVN 11 168: 12. 10. These land allotments were literally understood as king’s personal grants. See TCL 5 6058 and TCS 1 148, discussed below pp. 354-355. 11. See, e.g., the evidence of the Dusabara (= Ur-Meme) loans, for which see Steinkeller, 2001b: 58-60; 2002: 122-123. 12. A figure of 1,080 iku is documented for the governor of Umma. See Gomi, Orient 21, 1-2 BM 105334: iii.3 (= Nisaba 6 32); AnOr 1 303: 15. The same figure is given also in an unpublished tablet from the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago (no number), which will be published by this author. 13. See Steinkeller 2003: 45. 14. It appears that the colonels were in charge of smaller settlements. In the Umma province, such was the case of Aṣarum-dagi and Id-dula. The term describing the scope of the colonel’s military and administrative responsibilities is n a m - n u - b à n d a . See Text 27: 3, 6. 15. For the Ur III ḫazannus, see Steinkeller 2007a: 209-210; Taylor 2010; Lafont 2011. 16. In legal documents, these self-governments (or assemblies) are referred to as dumu GN, “citizens of GN.” At Umma, they are documented for A’ebara, GARsuda, GARšana, Id-dula, NAGsu, Zabalam,

352

PIOTR STEINKELLER

Members of the royal sector were settled throughout the province – in cities, towns, and villages.17 Towns and larger villages were administered by ḫazannus, “mayors.” As was the case also in the Babylonian periphery,18 these officials were closely integrated into the royal (essentially military) structures of a given province, which were represented, in a descending order, by the ranks of general ( š a g i n a ), colonel ( n u - b à n d a ), and “officer of 60” ( u g u l a - g é š - d a ), the last comparable to present-day “captain.” Like the other military officials, the ḫazannus supervised the settlers residing in their communities, monitoring the status of their subsistence fields, lending them economic assistance in the time of need, and mobilizing them for corvée work.19 The most extensive evidence on Ur III ḫazannus comes from the Umma province, where they are documented in the settlements of GARsuda, GARšana, Gišabba, Maškan, NAGsu, and Zabalam. We find them also in the province of Girsu/Lagaš,20 and throughout Babylonia.21 A variety of sources demonstrate that the ḫazannus were subordinated to the local military officials (generals, in the case of large settlements, and colonels, in the case of lesser ones), and that they functioned as the latter’s representatives. For example, in Texts 8 and 9, which record the loans of barley issued by Umma’s institutional economy to the military settlers ( é r e n ) of the town of Maškan and another, unidentified locality, the barley was received by the respective mayors of these two localities, who acted as the representatives of the general of Maškan. (See in detail the commentaries to Texts 8 and 9.) This chain of command is also self-evident in Nisaba 23 18 (Umma; undated), which records a legal case concerning five men (royal settlers, based on the context) who stole donkeys, apparently the property of Umma’s institutional economy. According to the judgment, three of those men, who lived in GARšana, were to be delivered (presumably to the governor of Umma) by the ḫazannu Ahu’a (of GARšana), acting under the command of the chancellor ( s u k k a l - m a h ), i.e., the general of GARšana.22 The other two men, the residents of Zabalam, were to be delivered by the ḫazannu Ili-ṣilli (of Zabalam), acting under the command of Dada (the general of Zabalam).23

––––––––––––– and the city of Umma. Cf. also the presence of a b - b a - u r u in the peripheral settlements (Steinkeller 1987b: 31 n. 45). 17. For the conditions prevailing in the countryside in Ur III times, and the position of the royal sector there, see Steinkeller 2007a. 18. See Steinkeller 1987b: 31 n. 45. 19. See Text 18, in which the ḫazannu of the village of Du-lugalu’a borrows barley for the é r e n resident in that settlement. Identical transactions involving ḫazannus are recorded in Texts 8 and 9. 20. E.g., at Lullubu(na) (ITT 3 5367: 4-5), É - n a m - DU.DUk i (ITT 3 5047: 8), and D u 6 - l u g a l - u 5 a (Text 18: 13). 21. E.g., in Kisig in the south (AUCT 1 539: 2: N a m - h a - n i h a - z a - n ú m K i s i g ( EZEN×SIG7) k i ) and in Marad in northern Babylonia (an unpublished seal naming a h a - z a - n ú m M á r - d a k i , cited in CAD H, 164). Note also a possible example of the ḫazannu of Babylon in AAICAB 1/1 Ashm. 1911-212 seal: L u g a l - d I š t a r a n / d u m u L u g a l - a - NE-e / h a - z a - n ú m KÁ?.DINGIR.RA[ k i ? ] . 22. The official in question was Aradmu (also known as Arad-Nanna), who, from the last years of Šulgi through the reign of Šu-Suen, served as the general of GARšana – as well as the governor of the province of Girsu/Lagaš. For Aradmu’s career, see Sallaberger 1999: 189; Dahl 2007: 22-24. For Aradmu’s connection with GARšana, see Steinkeller 2011: 377-378. 23. For Dada, see the commentary to Text 1: 2.

Corvée Labor

353

The same conclusion may also be reached from the examination of Texts 23, 24, and 25, which record reeds and other materials that were sequestered by various royal officials from Umma’s institutional economy, almost certainly in connection with some corvée project. One of the expenditures recorded there was made by a mayor of GARšana named Lušallim, who acted on behalf of GARšana’s general Aradmu. As this transaction demonstrates, Lušallim was not only Aradmu’s representative, but also his subordinate within the command structure, since he undoubtedly directed GARšana’s troops in that connection. In fact, Lušallim is known to have led the é r e n of GARšana on another corvée project.24

2.2. Agricultural Land Held by the Royal Sector Since the overwhelming majority of the surviving Ur III documentation comes from the contexts associated with institutional economies,25 the activities of the royal sector are in general documented very poorly, especially as concerns the royal settlers living in the countryside. More often than not, these activities can only be glimpsed when the royal sector interacts with the governor’s organization. Such contacts occurred when the two entities cooperated economically, as in the case of loans of grain advanced by the institutional economy to the members of the royal sector,26 or when the institutional economy was authorized by the crown to provision the members of the royal sector as part the latter’s participation in national corvée projects. The two came into contact also when legal issues involving members of both entities arose, necessitating legal investigations and court proceedings. It should be kept in mind, therefore, that the documentation in hand usually permits us to see only one part of a much larger picture. This point is key to the proper evaluation of the Ur III society and economy, and thus its importance cannot be overstated. For these reasons, even though one can be confident that the royal sector controlled very large areas of arable land, there is little direct evidence bearing on such holdings. Some significant data to that effect do survive, however, as shown by the following sample. The text MVN 4 1 is an extensive list of subsistence land held by the military organization of Al-Šu-Suen-re’i-niši ( ⸢ a - š a g 4 ⸣ d a b 5 - b a A l (URU)- d Š u - d S u e n SIPAD- n i - s i k i ; rev.iv.16-17). The surviving sections of the text record the plots of three detachments of the é r e n and their captains ( u g u l a ) respectively (rev.i.1'13', i.14'-ii.26, iii.1-iv.7), followed by the plot of the unnamed colonel ( n u - b à n d a ) (iv.8-15), who must have been the chief commander of the whole organization. On the basis of the number of lines allotted to each of the fully preserved detachments, we can estimate that the obverse, now completely destroyed, listed two more de-

––––––––––––– 24. See Text 4: 1. He possibly appears also in TCL 5 6048 (discussed below p. 356). 25. Notable exceptions here are the GARšana and Dusabara archives, for which see Owen and Mayr 2007, and Steinkeller 2002: 122-124, respectively. Another archive stemming from a rural royal estate is that associated with the settlement called Šimanum (or, alternatively, E-Šu-Suen), which was founded by Šu-Suen near Nippur, and settled with the prisoners-of-war from Šimanum. These documents will be published by B. Studevent-Hickman. 26. See below pp. 381-383.

354

PIOTR STEINKELLER

tachments plus the beginning part of the third detachment, whose end is preserved in column i of the reverse. All in all, therefore, the text originally listed five detachments of the é r e n , each headed by a different captain. Assuming that the plot sizes of the first three detachments were similar to those of detachments 4 and 5, and assigning to each of them average areas of 900 iku for the soldiers and of 60 iku for the captains respectively, one may surmise that the total land area held by the military organization of Al-Šu-Suen-re’i-niši was in the range of 5,000 iku. Judging from its name, Al-Šu-Suen-re’i-niši was a new settlement, which was founded during the reign of Šu-Suen. Its location was probably in northern Babylonia.27 A topographical plan from Girsu/Lagaš (RTC 416; Š 42/-) depicts a large area, amounting to 11,519 iku of land, which is described as the “field(s) of the town of Uru-Šulgi-sipad-kalama, under the control of the colonel Šelha” ( a - š a g 4 U r u d Š u l - g i - s i p a d - k a l a m - m a n u - b à n d a Š e - i l - h a ; i.5-7). This plan was prepared by two field-surveyors, with the whole project being supervised by a royal keeper of real estate records. Since this toponym is documented only here, Uru-Šulgi-sipadkalama must have been a peripheral royal settlement, which was probably located on the fringes of the Girsu/Lagaš province. The legal document Ontario 2 156 (undated) records a promissory oath, which was taken by the colonel Abi-ili and his deputy Šakabu concerning 900 iku of cultivated land ( u r u 4 - a ). The land was situated in the rural settlement of Lullubu(na) (in the province of Girsu/Lagaš),28 which, as its name indicates, must have been settled with the prisoners-of-war from Lullubum. Like the parties just mentioned, the two attending witnesses (Puh-ilim and Naram-Ea) and the person who acted as the intermediary in this case (the elite soldier Adallal) bore Akkadian names. All these facts assure that the holdings in question belonged to the royal sector. For the Umma province specifically, we have a record (MVN 16 948; undated) of 3,834 iku of royal land in Umma and NAGsu, which was by held by the royal settlers commanded by three generals: Niridagal, Ida-beli, and Dukra.29 Among other sources bearing on the royal land in the Umma province, we may single out the following: (1) CHEU 100: ii.1-5 (undated). This Umma land survey lists 96 iku of subsistence land, which was held by the elite soldiers of Maškan, remaining under the command of a certain Ili-tappe (probably a general): 5 ( b ù r ) 1 ( e š e ) g á n a s i g 5 a š a g 4 - P ú - p ú l ú M a š - g á n k i - k e 4 - n e à g a - ú s TAB.BA- ì - l í - k e 4 - n e í b - b e 4 ( BA) a š a g 4 - D a - g i 4 - a , “96 iku of high quality land, the field Pupu; the men of Maškan, the soldiers of Ili-tappe, took it as (their) shares; (within) the field Dagi’a.” For CHEU 100, see below n. 53. (2) TCL 5 6058 (= NSGU 2 110; AS 5/iv). A legal case concerning the transfer of an allotment of royal land. The king had allotted ( i n - n a - b a ) 36 iku of land, situ-

––––––––––––– 27. See Steinkeller 2010: 373 n. 19. Cf. also Steinkeller; 2007b: 219. 28. See dUtu-ba-è ha-za-núm Lu-lu-buki (ITT 3 5367: 4-5); šag4 Lu-lu-bu-umki-ka (MVN 9 53: 15); šag4 Lu-lu-bu-naki (HSS 4 34: iv.2); šag4 Lu-lu-bu-naki (STA 1 431: 12, 20); etc. 29. For Niridagal, see the commentary to Text 7: 7. For Dukra, see Goetze 1963: 16.

Corvée Labor

355

ated in the field of the town of Amrima,30 to Ur-gigir, man of Kugsig. Ur-gigir had subsequently bequeathed this land to his son Abbasig. This transfer was later contested by an unidentified party. As a result of the legal proceedings, which were attended by two different bailiffs representing the general Ilallum and the governor of Umma respectively,31 two individuals who had witnessed the transfer were directed to take an assertory oath (that Ur-gigir had in fact donated the field to his son). It appears that Kugsig, Ur-gigir’s supervisor, was a general. Because of the large size of his land allotment, Ur-gigir was probably a colonel ( n u - b à n d a ). He may be identical with the colonel Ur-gigir who appears in TCL 5 6059 (for which see below). (3) TCS 1 148 (undated; the reign of Šu-Suen based on the content). A letter addressed to the king (royal administration is meant here), reporting on the case of an allotment field (4 iku), which had been held by a certain Lu-dingira in the field of the town of Kamari. The field in question had, in Šu-Suen 1, had been taken over by another person. Therefore, the king assigned to Lu-dingira another allotment field, in the field Latur. The author of the letter reports that Lu-dingira now cultivates the field in question. (4) TCL 5 6059 (= NSGU 2 201; undated). The text concerns the colonel Ur-gigir and an “officer of 60” named Ur-Numušda, who confiscated over 102 bushels of barley, produced by allotment land (180 iku) that was held in the field Ki’uš by the “extended family”32 ( i m - r i - a ) of Ušehegin. This confiscation was caused by the fact that Ur-gigir’s own “extended family” had not received irrigated land, and therefore had not been able to produce barley for themselves. Ur-gigir and UrNumušda are now to restore the barley to the “extended family” of Ušehegin. (5) TCL 5 6047 (= NSGU 2 214; undated).33 The text deals with the estate of a certain Abi-ati. Abi-ati’s possessions included five or six shares of subsistence land of 18 iku each. The investigation, which was ordered by a royal messenger, and carried out by the “officer of 60” Šu-Ninmuga, the responsible field assessor ( a g a r 4 - n í g i n ), and the colonel Arad-Nanna, established that much of the barley that had been due to Abi-ati from his land had been confiscated by several officials, who acted on orders of the colonel Ur-nigingar. Since Ur-nigingar was away on a military expedition ( k a s k a l - a m u - u n - t i - i l ), he could not be questioned regarding this matter. The investigation also established that the ship ( m á 6 0 g u r ) that Abi-ati had purchased from the merchant Lu-Dumuzida was the property of the military organization ( é r e n ) (meaning that Abi-ati had actually bought it for the military organization). Similarly, it turned out that the bitumen that Abi-ati stored in his house to caulk ships belonged to the military organization ( é r e n ) as well.

––––––––––––– 30. For Amrima, see the commentary to Text 5. 31. For Ilallum, see below p. 377. One of the witnesses attending the present transaction was Urnigingar, a deputy of the general ( e g e r š a g i n a , line 18), undoubtedly Ilallum. 32. The kinship term i m - r i - a here describes a unit (detachment) of royal settlers, indicating that these were essentially familial groupings. See Steinkeller 2007a: 209. 33. A closely related text is BM 105339 (unpublished; AS 6/-; courtesy of M. Molina), which concerns the same legal matter. Accordingly, TCL 5 6047 probably dates to Amar-Suen 6 (or about) as well.

356

PIOTR STEINKELLER

Given the very large size of Abi-ati’s allotment land, and the fact that his estate also included thirteen slaves (plus other property), he must have been an important royal official (probably a general). The two colonels mentioned here, Urnigingar and Arad-Nanna, are both documented as colonels of NAGsu.34 This suggests that Abi-ati resided in NAGsu. (6) TCL 5 6048: 1-25 (= NSGU 2 215; undated). The text deals with the activities of a certain Lušallim, who managed and cultivated land held by a group of royal settlers ( é r e n ) . The é r e n complained that Lušallim took away several of their subsistence plots, and that he took the produce from these plots for himself. The matter was investigated by the colonel Šu-Ninšubur, who ordered Lušallim to declare under oath that “(of the grain) that was due to the troop of sixty é r e n , he did not take grain from (even) one iku of land.” Lušallim is possibly identical with the ḫazannu of GARšana by that name.35

2.3. Royal Towns, Villages, and Rural Estates Many of the royal settlements were exclusively crown operations, in which the institutional economy of a given province had no administrative presence and enjoyed only a marginal economic involvement. In the Umma province, the most important settlements of this category were A’ebara, Amrima, Aṣarum-dagi, GARsuda, GARšana, Gišabba, Gišgigal, GusaharDU, Hardahi, Id-dula, Karkar, Maškan, NAGsu, Ṣarbat, Uṣar-atigiNI, and Zabalam. It is characteristic that Umma’s institutional economy did not control any agricultural land in the neighborhood of those settlements,36 indicating that whatever fields were situated there, they were cultivated by the subordinates of the crown, be it the royal settlers ( é r e n ) or the rural estates belonging to the royal family. Nor can one detect any other involvement of the institutional economy in the economic life of those settlements. However, the governor of Umma and his organization were responsible for the support of the religious institutions existing in the royal settlements, the so-called è š d i l - d i l m a - d a , “the various shrines of the province/countryside,” supplying their deities with regular food offerings and provisioning the resident cultic attendants.37 In addition, Umma’s institutional economy controlled a chain of thirty forests in the countryside, many of which were situated near the royal settlements.38 There were also some institutional orchards in the vicinity of royal settlements – for example, at GARšana and NAGsu.

––––––––––––– 34. For Ur-nigingar, see Molina, Studies Owen, 208 6: 10 (AS 5/ix). For Arad-Nanna, see Texts 26: 2 (Š 48/i) and 27: 3 (Š 48?/-). 35. See above p. 353. 36. The only exception here are the small plots of land that the institutional economy utilized to support the sanctuaries situated in the towns and villages belonging to the royal sector (for which see the following note), some of which may have been situated near those settlements. 37. For these rural shrines, see, e.g., BIN 5 277; Nebraska 37; BCT 2 294; Nik. 2 236; Nisaba 23. According to the cadaster YBC 9818 (see below p. 358), the land used to support these institutions amounted only to ca. 414 iku. 38. This led to conflicts with the royal sector, since the members of the latter sometimes unlawfully exploited those forests for their own purposes. See the texts Molina, Studies Owen, 210 7; BPOA 1 1196.

Corvée Labor

357

It appears that many of the royal settlements were completely new establishments. One proof of this is their names, which frequently employ the Akkadian words aṣārum (uṣārum),39 “encampment,” maškanum,40 “threshing floor / rural settlement,” and ālum,41 “town,” betraying their recent (Akkadian) background. This is even clearer in the case of names invoking Ur III kings and other high officials of the realm.42 Another indication of this is the fact that, whenever the names of the royal settlers are known, they tend to be Akkadian or foreign (Amorite, Hurrian, and other).43 These facts make it certain that the Ur III kings had instituted a concentrated program of settling the countryside throughout the alluvium, especially its southern portion.44 Large numbers of settlers were brought from the outside and integrated with the native rural population. While the majority of these individuals seem to have come from northern Babylonia,45 a very significant number of them were foreigners, quite often prisoners-of-war. Such undoubtedly was the background of the settlements of Lullubu(na), Ebih, Eduru-Elamene, and Šimurrum, all in the province of Girsu/Lagaš. As a result of this program, new canals were excavated and vast areas of agricultural land were developed; throughout the countryside old towns and villages were expanded and many completely new settlements were established. In addition, large rural estates were created to benefit the royal family and the top members of the Ur III nomenklatura. In the province of Umma, the best-documented royal estate is that belonging to Šu-Kabta and his wife, princess SimatIštaran, which was situated in the vicinity of GARšana.46 Another such operation was the estate belonging to the daughter of Šulgi named Nin9-TUR-TUR. This estate, called É-duru5-Nin9-TUR-TUR, is documented in some thirty texts.47 Since Zabalam was frequently visited by the queens and other members of the royal family, another royal estate must have existed there, either in Zabalam itself or in its immediate vicinity. Similar estates are known to have existed in the province of Girsu/Lagaš. The best documented among those is Dusabara, which belonged to a high state official named Lugal-kugzu and which was managed by the majordomo

––––––––––––– 39. In the Umma province: Aṣarum-a’ura, Aṣarum-dagi, Uṣar-atigiNI, and Uṣar-GARšana (= GARšana). Elsewhere in Babylonia: Aṣarum-dannum (AUCT 2 22: 13: BM 20045: 14), Aṣar/Uṣar-Šulgi, Aṣarum-warqa, Uṣar-DINGIR-A.ZU (NATN 247: 7), Uṣar-Babati, Uṣar-barik (NATN 460: 3), and UṣarImid-ilum. 40. In the Umma province: Maškan. Elsewhere in Babylonia and in the periphery: Maškan-abi, Maškan-Amar-Suen, Maškan-Dudu, Maškan-garaš, Maškan-kurutum (MS 2643: 28 unpublished; see below p. 380), Maškan-šapir, Maškan-šarrum, Maškan-tupšika (NATN 236: 2, 460: 2), and Maškanušuri. 41. In the Umma province: Al-bura (written Al-bù-ra and URU-bù-ra), Al-Amrima (= Amrima), and Al-Ṣarbat (= Ṣarbat). Elsewhere in Babylonia: Al-Šu-Suen, Al-Šu-Suen-re’i-niši, and Uru-Šulgisipad-kalama. 42. Such as Šu-Suen-ammar and the toponyms cited in the preceding three notes. 43. The best illustration of this is the archive of GARšana. See Owen and Mayr 2007: 3. 44. See Steinkeller 2007a: 210-211; Steinkeller 2010: 375-377. This program, which was initiated by Šulgi (if not already by Ur-Namma), continued through the reign of Šu-Suen. 45. This is indicated not only by their names, but also by the popularity of the cult of Nergal in those newly founded rural settlements, which clearly had been imported from northern Babylonia. 46. Owen and Mayr 2007: 3-4; Heimpel 2009. 47. I expect to discuss them elsewhere.

358

PIOTR STEINKELLER

( s a b r a ) Ur-Meme.48 Such estates were an integral part the royal sector and, as such, were directly controlled by the crown.49

2.4. Umma’s Institutional Economy vis-à-vis the Royal Economy The part of the province’s economy controlled by the governor and his organization is commonly termed “institutional economy” – and this the designation I will use in this study. However, a more appropriate description of it – at least as far as the province of Umma is concerned – would be “governor’s household” or “governor’s exclusive domain,” since the landed and other resources belonging to it were essentially treated as the possessions of the governor and his extended family.50 Mirroring the relationship between the king and his dependents, the governor also had a body of é r e n at his disposal, who, like the royal é r e n , were also provided with subsistence land, which came from the province’s institutional land holdings. It goes without saying that such institutional é r e n at the same time classed as king’s dependents (though on another, higher level) – as did the governor and all the other members of the institutional economy. In the province of Umma, whose territory comprised four districts, probably of similar size, the distribution of economic and human resources was very uneven geographically. Close to 60% of all the arable land and population controlled by the institutional economy was concentrated in the northwestern part of the province, which was called Da-Ummaki. The second largest percentage was in the Apišal district (the northeastern section of the province), with the portions situated in the Mušbi’ana and Gu’edena districts (to the south and southeast of Da-Ummaki respectively) being quite small. Our best source of information on Umma’s institutional land holdings is YBC 9818, an unpublished text from the Yale Babylonian Collection.51 This exceedingly important document is a cadaster of all the fields controlled by the governor of Umma, which was prepared, in Amar-Suen 2, by the royal field registrar.52 The total of land recorded there is 33,541 iku (= 13,154.76 ha), with a specific breakdown of the holdings’ physical distribution being as follows:

––––––––––––– 48. See Steinkeller 2002: 122-124. 49. Like all other crown dependents, the members of the royal family too were liable for corvée. See, e.g., Ontario 2 141: 1-6 (IS 1/-), which records a canal-digging work assignment, which was completed on behalf of ME-Nisaba, a king’s junior wife: 1 5 s a r s a h a r z i - g a ME- d N i s a b a l u k u r lugal kin til-la-àm šag4 íd-Ma-ma-sar-ra gìr Ku-lu-a-ti lú-kin-gi4-a lugal ù Ila-ak-šu-gir dub-sar. 50. For this conclusion, see also Dahl 2007. 51. To be published by this author. 52. a - š a g 4 g í d - d a U r - d L i 9 - s i 4 é n s i U m m a k i - k a g ì r U r - n ì g i n s a g - d u 5 - l u g a l - k a (x.13). Various data indicate that, in Amar-Suen 2, the crown conducted a systematic survey of Umma’s land-holdings, apparently in preparation for a massive program of new canal digging and arable land expansion. Several similar sources survive from that year, one of them (Deimel, OrSP 5, 60-61 26) naming the same royal field registrar. Note that the text Ontario 2 407: 1-5 (Umma; AS 2/-) records the supplies that the surveyors in question received from Umma’s administration on that particular occasion: ten pairs of sandals and ten leather bags d u b - s a r l u g a l a - š a g 5 g í d - d a - a š u b a - a b - t i , “were received by the (ten?) scribes who surveyed the fields.”

Corvée Labor Da-Umma Apišal Mušbi’ana Gu’edena (with Menkar) èš dil-dil

19,879 6,249 3/4 4,560 1/4 2,438 1/4 413 3/4

359 59.3 % 18.63 % 13.6 % 7.27 % 1.2 %

Correspondingly, the largest concentration of royal economic resources appears to have been in the Mušbi’ana and Gu’edena districts. It was in those two sections of the province that some of the largest royal settlements, such as GARsuda, GARšana, Id-dula, Maškan, and NAGsu, were situated, and where most of the royal agricultural holdings were found.53 Given the fact that Umma’s institutional holdings represented only a tiny portion of the total area of the province, which can conservatively be estimated to have been ca. 2000 km2 = 200,000 ha (Steinkeller 2006: 188), the province of Umma essentially formed one vast royal domain, within which was embedded a comparatively modest estate of the governor (= Umma’s institutional economy).

2.5. The Royal é r e n vis-à-vis the Institutional é r e n What it all meant in practical terms is that both the royal and the institutional é r e n r e s i d e d within a given province, with the former being much more numerous. This principle can best be studied with the example of the province of Umma. We can estimate that, at Umma, 75% if not more of the entire population were royal é r e n living in the city of Umma and throughout the province. Some 2,600 royal é r e n r e s i d e d i n t h e c i t y o f U m m a i t s e l f (this figure does not include their dependents).54 See Fig. 1 below, which lists the populations of é r e n attested for the city of Umma and sixteen towns and large villages.55 The chart also identifies the top royal officials of those settlements.

––––––––––––– 53. Of special importance in this connection is the field cadaster CHEU 100, which, unlike YBC 9818, lists both the institutional and the royal holdings. CHEU 100 is specifically concerned with the Umma fields situated in the eastern part of the province: a - š a g 4 d Š á r a ù a - š a g 4 l u g a l k i - s u r - r a G í r - s u k i - b i - i m , “these are the fields of Šara and the king situated along the border of the Girsu province” (vii.12-14). Significantly, the sizes of fields recorded there are much larger than those given in YBC 9818. See the following two examples: (a) the field Ukunuti: 1,637 iku (CHEU 100) against 652.5 iku (YBC 9818); (b) the field Abagal: 2,139 iku (CHEU 100) against 935.5 iku (YBC 9818). The obvious conclusion must be that the excess areas of the fields in question were cultivated by the royal economy. Here note also that, in one instance, CHEU 100 uniquely identifies the holdings of a group of royal settlers (from the town of Maškan) (see above p. 354). 54. The text TCL 5 6166, which is a census of the é r e n population of the city of Umma, lists 2,580 royal é r e n and 600 é r e n of the governor, plus 229 other residents of Umma that classed as royal dependents. I will offer a full edition and discussion of this extremely important text elsewhere. A closely similar figure of the royal é r e n (2,600) is given in TCL 5 6041: i.15 (for which see below pp. 374-377). Note also Text 3: i.10, which names 880 é r e n supplied by the city of Umma. 55. The figures are supplied by Texts 3, 4, 5, 8, 9 and TCL 5 6041, all of which are edited and fully discussed in this study.

360

PIOTR STEINKELLER Settlement Amrima Aṣarum/Uṣar-atigiNI Aṣarum/Uṣar-a’ura Aṣarum-dagi Dintir and Ṣarbat GARsuda GARšana Gišgigal GusaharDU H/Kardahi Id-dula Kamari Karkar Maškan NAGsu Umma Zabalam

Number of é r e n 155 174 1,260? 484 338 615 1,367 170 379 240 869 119 304 840 275 2,600 279

Official

šagina nu-bànda

šagina

nu-bànda šagina? šagina šagina šagina šagina

Fig. 1. Royal é r e n Residing in the Umma Province

The total number of royal é r e n in the province may have been as high as 25,000 (only the heads of families). In contrast, members of the governor’s organization were much fewer. According to my estimate, the governor controlled, within the entire province, some 3,000 individuals (certainly not more than 4,000).56 These conclusions about the two categories of é r e n need to be qualified, however, since it is not at all certain that the same socio-economic conditions obtained uniformly throughout the Ur III state. It is possible – and perhaps even very likely – that in northern Babylonia, where the importance of institutional economies was considerably smaller, only the royal é r e n were known.

2.6. The Interaction between the Royal Sector and the Institutional Economies It is clear that the royal sector of a given province was separate, both administratively and economically, from the part remaining under the control of the governor and his administration (= institutional economy.) As I already noted, there was some cooperation between the two. Specific instances of such cooperation will be treated in detail later. Essentially, though, the two economies operated completely independently from one another. It is characteristic that the royal sector and the institutional economy interacted mainly when the two came into a conflict with each other, which is perhaps the most eloquent proof of their fundamentally mutual independence. Legal proceedings resulting from such conflicts usually required the joint participation of the governor of Umma and the representatives of the royal sector.

––––––––––––– 56. The hundreds of Umma tablets recording thousands of man-days create the impression of a labor force of tens of thousands. However, once the work assignments are reconstructed, it turns out that the labor force behind them was very modest, probably no more than one thousand menial workers (UNíl and géme).

Corvée Labor

361

One of the most informative sources illustrating conflicts between the royal sector and the institutional economy is the text YOS 4 208 (= NSGU 2 212; Umma; Amar-Suen 6/-). This source is a list a various individuals who were transferred to the governor of Umma by Abuni, the general of the city of Umma .57 These individuals had claimed to possess the status of royal é r e n ( n a m - é r e n ). However, on a closer examination it turned out that most of them were servants (or slaves) of Umma’s chief deity Šara. Accordingly, Abuni returned them to the governor of Umma. Two of these men resided in GARšana; they had been claimed for GARšana’s military organization by a certain Ea-šar, who was the deputy of the general of GARšana.58 Other instances of legal disputes between the royal sector and the institutional economy concerned land and water rights. A good illustration of the former is the text TCL 5 6058 (= NSGU 2 110; AS 3/-), which deals with a conflict over an allotment of royal land in Amrima.59 The legal proceedings were attended by two different bailiffs, representing the governor of Umma and the general Ilallum respectively.60 As for disputes over water rights, we may cite here the case described in YOS 4 31 (= NSGU 2 130; AS 3/-), which concerns the conflict over a canal, involving Eaili, the general of the city of Umma, and Lu-Nanna, the general of NAGsu, which was mediated by the governor of Umma. The proceedings were also attended by a royal messenger. Another instance of a dispute over water rights between Umma and NAGsu is MVN 18 322 (= NSGU 2 111; undated). Other conflicts of this type concerned offenses and transgressions committed by the members of the royal sector against the institutional economy (or vice versa): theft of timber from Umma’s forests;61 theft, misplacement, or loss of domestic animals;62 and disputes over chattel slaves and other property.63 As the following discussion will show, the distinction between the two types of é r e n – the royal and the institutional ones (and between the two economies more generally) – is illustrated very clearly by the extant records. ***

––––––––––––– 57. For Abuni, see the commentary to Text 7a: iv.4. 58. I Š u - ⸢ z u ⸣ [ ù š e š ] - a - [ n e - n e ] P [ N n a m - é ] r e n - š è ⸢ i n i m ⸣ [ b í - g ] á - a r É - a - s a r [ l ú ] GAR- š a - n a - k a - r a k i è n - b i t a r - r e - d a m (ii.10-12). Ea-šar is identified as the deputy of the general of GARšana in Molina, Studies Owen, 210 7: 3 (AS 5/-). The document concerns the theft of timber by a royal subordinate from the forest of Id-gala, which, as we know from other sources, was one of thirty forests managed by Umma’s institutional economy. The governor had complained ( s a g i n - n i - b a ) to Ea-šar about the theft, but, despite his repeated requests, Ea-šar refused to hand over the thief to the institutional economy. 59. For this text, see above p. 354. 60. For Ilallum, see below p. 377. 61. Molina, Studies Owen, 210 7; BPOA 1 1196. 62. NSGU 2 120a; TCL 5 6163 (= NSGU 2 120b); Santag 6 154, 203; SNAT 373, 541. 63. SNAT 320, 321, 333, 334, 360, 374; Sollberger, Kramer AV, 444-45 9; TCL 5 6165 (= NSGU 2 121); etc.

362

PIOTR STEINKELLER

The fate of the Ur III é r e n is poignantly summed up by the following proverb:64 gub-gub-bu-dè tuš-tuš-ù-de dumu-lugal-la da ri-e-dè háš anše dab5-dab5-bi-e-dè a-ba zi-bi mu-un-tuku-e-še One either serves or waits for a work duty; if not following the prince (on a military campaign), then sticking to the donkey’s ass (while plowing) – who would be excited about that!

This proverb was incorporated into the story about the conflict between Gilgameš and Akka of Kiš to emphasize the young warriors’ horror at the thought of submitting Uruk to Akka and thus of becoming Kiš’ subjects and, consequently, having to perform corvée labor for her.65 The beginning line of the proverb, which undoubtedly refers to the b a l a g u b - b a / b a l a t u š - a rotational system that was characteristic of Ur III corvée, betrays its Ur III date.66 A closely similar sentiment is voiced in another proverb, which says:67 dumu-gir15(-ra) dul-lum(-ma) la-ba-an-taka4-taka4 A citizen cannot avoid corvée work!

3. Participation of Institutional Economies in National Corvée Projects 3.1. Umma’s Involvement in the Tummal Project I will discuss now one specific case of a national corvée project. My choice is the Tummal project, which is by far the best documented Ur III public undertaking. The dossier of sources pertaining to Tummal is not only the largest, but also the most informative.68 A group of twenty-five tablets from Umma and Girsu/Lagaš attests to a largescale building activity at Tummal during the second half of Šulgi’s reign. That activity appears to have culminated in Šulgi 35 through 37. Although known to exist already in the Sargonic period, Tummal probably came to prominence only in the Ur III period, when it became the seat of a royal palace and the focus of the funerary cult of Ur-Namma. As indicated by the frequent references to the royal court and the high officials sojourning at Tummal, this satellite of Nippur, and the immediate neighbor of Puzriš-Dagan, appears to have been, after the capital city of Ur, the most important administrative center of the Ur III state. There are reasons to suspect that some of the main offices of the Ur III state were situated there, such as the “war ministry” and the “ministry of foreign affairs.” However, this question will have to wait for the excavation of the site of Tell Dlehim, where Tum-

––––––––––––– 64. 65. 66. 67. 68.

SP Coll. 3.1. Gilgamesh and Akka, lines 25-28. See Steinkeller 2003: 45; Koslova 2008. SP Coll. 6.5. See in detail Steinkeller, “National Building Projects.”

Corvée Labor

363

mal almost certainly is located,69 and of the neighboring Tell Drehem, the modern site of Puzriš-Dagan. Turning now to the specifics of Šulgi’s building activity at Tummal, the main objective apparently was the construction of a royal palace. This residence, which is described as the “new palace” ( é - g a l g i b i l ) in a text from Ur,70 housed the funerary chapels of Ur-Namma and his wife. In a number of sources from Girsu/Lagaš, the same structure is referred to as é T u m - m a - a l U r - d N a m m a or é U r - d N a m m a , “the (Tummal) house of Ur-Namma.”71 Although the main construction work on the palace took place during Šulgi 3537, it is highly likely that the project had begun much earlier. In all probability, the construction of the palace had been initiated by Ur-Namma, since the composition “Ur-Namma A” line 149 refers to Ur-Namma’s “new palace” ( é - g a l g i b i l ) that “he did not have time to enjoy.” Whoever began the Tummal project – whether it was Ur-Namma or Šulgi – it is certain that the express purpose of this undertaking was to provide the Ur III state with a centrally-located seat of government, as the capital city of Ur did not meet that requirement. As I already noted, it was likely that some of the highest officials of the realm worked and lived there most of the time – such as the sukkalmah, and probably the king himself. Furthermore, it would seem that the work at Tummal was closely connected with another massive project, which was the construction of Puzriš-Dagan, less than 15 km away from Tummal. We might even consider that both undertakings were but parts of the same project. Šulgi’s building operations at Tummal are not commemorated in any of his year-formulae. This is surprising, since, as we will see presently, the project in question involved a huge expenditure of labor and natural resources. I suspect, however, that the Tummal project is obliquely referred to in the formula of Šulgi’s 39th year, which commemorates the construction of Puzriš-Dagan. Since Tummal and Puzriš-Dagan were clearly parts of the same grand undertaking, it was apparently only when the whole project reached completion that it was deemed appropriate to commemorate it in a year formula. The Tummal file is equally informative about the labor employed and the purely technical aspects of this operation, such as the types of materials used and the various aspects and phases of the construction. In this presentation, I will limit myself to the questions of labor. For these issues, the Umma tablet MVN 15 390, which dates to Šulgi 37, is of particular importance. This immense tablet, consisting of twenty-four columns with some 1,500 lines of writing, is a record of the labor (more precisely: man-days) that the Umma province contributed toward the Tummal project. That contribution was made over a period of five months – the second through the seventh month – of Šulgi 37. The laborers in question were exclusively the dependents of Umma’s institutional economy. No members of Umma’s royal sector appear in this text.

––––––––––––– 69. See Steinkeller 2001a: 68-71. 70. UET 3 76. 71. See, e.g., TCTI 1 949; TCTI 2 2796.

364

PIOTR STEINKELLER

Although the figures of the grand-total (xxiii.48-xxiv.9) are preserved incompletely, it may be estimated, on the basis of the numbers given in the main body of the text, that it recorded ca. 45,000 man-days. 72 The listing shows three major subdivisions, reflecting the employment of workers during three separate time-periods, which probably add up exactly to 100 days. The work was performed over five months, from the third day of the third month through the thirteenth(?) day of the seventh month. No work was done during the sixth month: (a) (b) (c) (a) (b) (c)

i t i š e - k a r - g á l - l a (3rd month) u d 3 - k a m - a - k a m i t i n e s a g (4th month) u d 3 0 k a m (i.1-vii.58); i t i RI (5th month) (vii.59-xiv.52); i t i š u m u n (6th month) ⸢ u d 3 0 ⸣ - [ k a m ] i t i m i n - è [ š (7th month) u d 1 3 ? - k a m ] (xiv.53-xxii.28). iii/3 through iv/30 = 57 days; v = 30 days; vi/30 through vii/[13?] = [13?] days.

Many of the named individuals participated in two, or even three, periods of employment. In addition, the very end of the text (xxii.29-xxiii.46) lists separately the work that was expended to tow boats with building materials from the Umma province to Tummal. This work was carried concurrently with the building operations, from the third through the sixth month of Šulgi 37. The transported materials included straw, timber ( g i š š i n i g and g i š e r e n ?), wooden tools ( g i š a l and g i š í l ) , and bitumen ( é s i r - h á d ). The total of this labor amounted to 2,601 man-days ( g u r u š ) and 44 days of labor provided by female servants/slaves working half-time ( g é m e á - 1 / 2 ). Within the three major subdivisions, workers are identified in the following two alternative ways: (1) by personal name and title or occupation: x g u r u š g u b - b a l á - NI y PN (title/occupation), “x man-days performed; y man-days non-performed – (the obligation of) PN (title/occupation)”; (2) by number, occupation, and name of the supervisor: x g u r u š g u b - b a / x g u r u š occupation ugula PN, “x man-days performed / x professional man-days, under the supervision of PN.” Although not identified as such in the text, the workers of category (1) are invariably é r e n . In contrast, category (2) comprises primarily menials ( UN- í l and g é m e ), though some é r e n are included there as well. The first major subdivision (i.1-vii.58) may serve as an illustration of the types of workers appearing in the present text. On the basis of the concluding tally (vii.45-58), the workers listed there (actually: man-days) may be grouped as follows:

––––––––––––– 72. Superficially, the figure of 45,000 man-days sounds very impressive, but, at the rate of 100 man-days per worker stipulated by this text (see below), it meant only 450 laborers working full time. Thus, in spite of the text’s enormous size, the project described there involved a comparatively small expenditure of corvée labor.

Corvée Labor

365

(a) workers of the é r e n class: 7,461 10 gín 3,907 1 / 2 78 119 60 66 27 30

guruš guruš guruš guruš guruš men)” guruš guruš guruš

g u b - b a , “performed man-days” l á - NI, “unperformed man-days” u g u l a , “man-days of the supervisors” a d - KID, “man-days of the reed-workers” n a g a r ( g a š a m - m e ) , “man-days of the carpenters (the craftsš i d i m , “man-days of the masons” l ú - n i n d a , “man-days of the food-handlers” « UN» t u - r a , “man-days of the sick”

(b) menials – UN- í l and g é m e : 790 29 48 48

2 / 3 g u b - b a , “man-days of the UN- í l working 2 / 3 of time” g é m e < ù > l ú á 1 / 2 , “man-days of the slave-women and the individuals working half-time” UN( - í l ) a d - KID, “man-days of the UN- í l reedworkers” UN( - í l ) t u - r a , “man-days of the sick UN- í l ”

UN- í l

The second and third subdivisions list the same types of workers, except that they also include g u r u š m á - GÍN, “caulkers” (xxii.15), g u r u š m á - l a h 4 “boatmen” (xiv.45, xxii.16), and g u r u š n a r , “singers” (xxii.19). It is necessary to comment at this point on the social group identified here as “menials,” whose members, as we just seen above, were also part of the project. The menials or the semi-free appear to have had some legal and economic rights, but they were not classed as citizens. They were much more numerous than chattel slaves, who had no legal or social rights, and constituted just another form of movable property. The most conspicuous among the menials were the males designated as UN- í l , “porters” or “coolies,” and the females classified as g é m e , “servant / slave women.” In principle, these individuals did not receive land allotments (though there were occasional exceptions to that rule). They worked all year round, usually as unskilled laborers, in exchange for rations or salaries. These are the individuals who did most of the agricultural work (except the specialized jobs of plowing and seeding) and who were primarily responsible for the transportation of agricultural and other products, either as porters or boat-towers. The géme were employed in grain-processing establishments (mostly grinding grain) and as weavers, but could also do the UN- í l work; thus they worked in agriculture and as porters – and occasionally even as towers. The contribution of this social group to the Tummal project was marginal (though see the important qualification below p. 368). The labor force appearing in MVN 15 390 was drawn from the four main districts of the Umma province, which were (Da-)Umma, Apišal, Mušbi’ana, and Gu’edena.73 However, the overwhelming majority of the workers came from (Da-) Umma. Apišal and Mušbi’ana contributed considerably smaller contingents, with Gu’edena’s contribution being so tiny as to be largely symbolic. This proportional

––––––––––––– 73. See, e.g., in the first subdivision: šag 4 Umma k i (iv.61); šag 4 A-pi 4 -sal 4 k i ki Ur-e 1 1 -e (vi.21-22); šag 4 Muš-bi-an-na ki Lugal- g i š kiri 6 (vi.54-55); šag 4 Gú-eden-na ki A-ab-ba (vi.66).

366

PIOTR STEINKELLER

relationship closely agrees with the distribution of arable land and other sources in the four districts (see above p. 358). Very importantly, the named and titled individuals contributing labor in the present text, who, as already noted, undoubtedly classed as é r e n , were required to provide 100 man-days each. This information is obtained if one calculates all the man-days that are assigned to each individual in this text; quite regularly, they add up to 100 days. See the following two examples: gub-ba

l á - NI

Attestations

Ad-da-gu-la ugula-kín-kín

24 10 7 –– 41

9 20 30 –– 59

i.34 viii.11 xv.16

Lú-kal-la sipad

22 17 25 –– 64

11 13 12 –– 36

i.30 viii.7 xv.21

While the overwhelming majority of these individuals were liable for 100 mandays, some among them are assigned higher quotas. These elevated figures, which seem to oscillate around 200 man-days, are usually associated with high administrative officials, such as s a b r a , “majordomo,” and p i s a n - d u b - b a , “head of the accounting.”74 It is possible, therefore, that another, higher rate, existed that amounted to 200 man-days. Among the individuals who provided corvée labor for the Tummal project, we find people of all walks of life and economic circumstances. They include some of the top administrators of the province, such as s a b r a , p i s a n - d u b - b a , k a g u r u 7 , “granary superintendent,” s a g - d u 5 , “head keeper of real estate records,” n u - b à n d a - g u d , “head of plowteams,” d u b - s a r , “scribe,” u g u l a - k í n - k í n , “supervisor of millers,” u g u l a - u š - b a r , “supervisor of weavers,” u g u l a - UN- í l , “supervisor of menials,” a g a r 4 - n í g i n , “field assessor,” SAHAR, “equerry,” and s a n t a n a , “head of gardeners.” As a matter of fact, this group includes at least one member of the governor’s family. The person in question is Ur-e’e, a brother of the governors Ur-Lisi and A’a-kala, who is known to have run the district of Apišal.75 In the present text, Ur-e’e is designated both as a “worker” and as the person in charge of the workers from Apišal.76

––––––––––––– 74. See the following examples (note that the first number represents the g u b - b a man-days, with the second number representing the l á - NI days): L u g a l - e z e n s a b r a : 56/10 (i.32), 42/18 (viii.9), 50/24 (xv.14) – total: 148/52 = 200 man-days; L ú - g i - n a s a b r a : 59/17 (ii.28), 43.5 / 16.5 (ix 11), 37/37 (xvi.21) – total: 139.5 / 70.5 = 210 man-days; A - a b - b a s a b r a : 59/7 (vi.57), 35.5 / 24.5 (xiii.41), 53/24 (xxi.8) – total: 203 man-days; U r - d Š á r a p i s a n - d u b - b a : 56/10 (iii.22), 50/10 (x.25), xvii.36 – total 166.5 / 34 = 200.5 man-days. 75. See Dahl 2007: 85-96. 76. U r - e 1 1 - e SAHAR: 56/10 (v.23), 41/19 (xii.48), 0/0 (xx.1); š a g 4 A - p i 4 - s a l 4 k i k i U r - e 1 1 - e (vi.21-22, xii.87-88; xx.35-36)

Corvée Labor

367

Another likely relative of the governor is the unnamed granary superintendent.77 Given the fact that only one such official is mentioned in this text, we almost certainly find here Arad, the chief official in charge of cereal storage and distribution, who was also a member of Umma’s ruling family.78 Other individuals of high rank included in this group are the chief lamenters ( g a l a - m a h ) of Umma and Zabalam and four merchants ( d a m - g à r ).79 Among the individuals of lower social standing, we can list the g ú d a priests, shepherds ( s i p a d , ù n u ), craftsmen ( s i m u g , k u g - d í m , t ú g - d u 8 ), masons ( š i d i m ), foresters ( t i r ), fishermen ( š u - k u 6 ), cooks ( m u h a l d i m ), vegetable-growers ( s u m – for l ú - s u m - m a ), brewers ( l u n g a ), elite soldiers ( à g a - ú s ), throne-carriers ( g u - z a l á ) and torch-carriers ( l ú - g i - z i ). There are also the lowly doorkeepers ( ì - d u 8 ) and milk-carriers ( g a - í l ), and even one menial ( UN- í l ), named Kuli.80 The question obviously arises as to whether any of the people listed in MVN 15 actually worked themselves on the Tummal project. In the case of administrative officials and the high-status individuals such as merchants, the answer must of course be negative, not just because of their high social ranking, but simply due to the fact that their professional duties would not allow them to spend extended periods of time at Tummal. A good example here is the official Ur-silaluh,81 who supervised the forest complex of the Umma province.82 Clearly, Ur-silaluh had no time (and willingness) to toil at Tummal himself, a task calling for 100 days of back-breaking labor. Accordingly, we have to assume that, at least in the case of the higher-ranking people, the corvée work they were liable for was done by their substitutes.83 Such substitutes may have been junior kinsmen of the individuals in question, or their servants or chattel slaves, or perhaps even hired menials. Unfortunately, our sources (as far as I know) shed no light on this matter. A reasonable assumption would be that the situation differed greatly, depending on the circumstances of each person. On the other hand, it is likely that most of the lower-ranking individuals actually did work on the project, probably participating in the unskilled construction work, cutting straw for bricks, making bricks, coating the foundation walls with bitumen, and carrying various materials. However, here too, there may have been significant differences from one case to another, with some of these individuals providing substitutes instead of working themselves. Among the workers identified only by number and occupation (see above p. 364), we find individuals who clearly were brought to Tummal because of their professional background. The examples here are masons ( š i d i m ), carpenters ( n a g a r ), reed-workers ( a d - KID), caulkers ( m á - GÍN), and boatmen ( m á - l a h 4 ).

––––––––––––– 77. NN k a - g u r u 7 : 40/26 (iii.48), 51/9 (x.54) – total: 91/35 = 126 man-days. 78. See Dahl 2007: 115-121. 79. P à d - d a d a m - g à r : 27 1 / 2 / 5 1 / 2 (i.42), 7/30 (xv.26) – total: 61.5/38.5 = 100 man-days; L u g a l - š a g 5 - g a d a m - g à r : 13/20 (iii.60), 6/24 (x.66), 0/37 (xviii.17) – 19/81 = 100 man-days; L u g a l é - m a h - e d a m - g à r : 18/15 (i.40), 25/12 (xv.22) – total: 67/33 = 100 man-days; U r - d L a m a d a m - g à r : 17/16 (i.44), 6/31 (xv.24) – total: 31/71 = 102 man-days (needs to be collated). 80. K u - l i UN- í l : 25/5 (viii.63), 17/[?] (xv.73). 81. U r - s i l a - l u h t i r : 15/18 (iii.52), 30/0 (x.58), 16/21 (xviii.11) – total: 61/39 = 100 man-days. 82. See Steinkeller 1987a. 83. For the hire of workers as corvée substitutes in Old Babylonian times, see Stol 1995: 298-300.

368

PIOTR STEINKELLER

We also note the presence among the named “laborers” of the professionals who would be highly desirable on a building project. One such example is the silver smith ( k u g - d í m ) named (quite fittingly!) Kug-šaga.84 This occupation is rare, and thus Kug-šaga’s participation in the Tummal project may not have been accidental.85 The same was probably true of the four metal-workers ( s i m u g ) that were part of this undertaking.86 Even rarer is the occupation g á b - s a r , the writer of inscriptions on stone and clay. And there were two g á b - s a r working at Tummal,87 again suggesting that these professionals were brought there because of their particular skills. But the rarest of all the occupations and titles appearing in the present text is k u r - g á - r a ,88 a type of entertainer. Since there were also over forty singers ( n a r ) participating in the Tummal project,89 it is not inconceivable that this k u r - g á - r a , as well as the singers, provided entertainment for the laborers and their supervisors, perhaps on the days free of work and during the festivals, which likely marked the different stages of the project. As a matter of fact, there is evidence that such building operations were accompanied by banquets ( k a š - d é - a ), which were meant specifically for the builders.90 In summary, it will be fair to conclude that a significant number (probably the majority) of the individuals listed in MVN 15 390 did work on the Tummal project. Less clear is the question of the workers who, by all indications, substituted for the higher-ranking é r e n . As I noted earlier, there are no data bearing either on them or their status. Since it is conceivable that at least some of those substitutes were menials, it is possible that the actual number of menials employed at Tummal was considerably higher than that appearing in MVN 15 390. But the main question raised by MVN 15 390 is the figure of 100 man-days of labor that is assigned to most of the é r e n listed there. As we have seen earlier, 100 days was also the period that Umma’s institutional economy contributed to the Tummal project in total. It would seem, therefore, that those 100 days represented

––––––––––––– 84. K u g - š a g 5 - g a k u g - d í m : 25/8 (ii.16), 15 1 / 2 / 14 1 / 2 (viii.77), 13 1 / 2 / 23 1 / 2 (xvi.9) – total: 54/46 = 100 man-days. 85. Attested as K u g - s i g 5 k u g - d í m in Nisaba 24 37: rev.i.4-6, according to which he received, in Šulgi 45, 1 5/6 minas of silver for a g a b a - g á l , “wagon’s front.” He appears also as a witness in the sale document MVN 3 213: 9 (Š 45/-). M. Molina informs me that Kug-šaga was the father of another k u g d í m , named Ur-Šulpa’e (BRM 3 148: 3 and seal; Š 47/ix). 86. One of them was Inim-Šara: I n i m - d Š á r a s i m u g : 22.5 / 10.5 (iv.5), 26.5 / 3.5 (xi.4), 2/35 (xviii.35) – total: 51/49 = 100 man-days. 87. N a - ú - a g á b - s a r : 2 6 g u b - b a / 7 l á - NI (i.13), 2 9 g u b - b a / 1 l á - N I (x.3), 1 4 g u b - b a / 2 3 l á - N I (xvii.14) – total: 6 9 g u b - b a / 3 1 l á - NI = 100 man-days; A - k a l - l a g á b - s a r : 20/13 (i.28). 88. L ú - d U t u k u r - g á - r a : 18/15 (iii.14), 11/19, (x/23), 1 1 / 2 / ⸢35 1 / 2 ⸣ (xvii.32) – total: 30.5/69.5 = 100 man-days. As far as I know, the only other k u r - g á - r a s documented in Umma sources are A - k a l l a (Nik. 2 447: 4), M a - a š (Nisaba 24 12: ii.3), and L ú - g a - m u (Nisaba 11 34: iii.14; courtesy of M. Molina). 89. 4 3 ? g u r u š n a r (xxii.19). Singers may have also been part of the Ga’eš project. This is suggested by Nisaba 11 21: iii.23-24 (Umma; AS 8/-), which mentions, apart from the barley intended for Ga’eš, a huge expenditure of barley for the singers at Ur ( 3 0 0 . 0 . 0 š e - b a n a r g u r š a g 4 Ú r i m k i m a ; iii.3-5). It is possible that these singers were actually stationed at Ga’eš, which was situated near Ur. See also Steinkeller, “National Building Projects.” 90. YOS 4 256: iv.12-13 (AS 7/-), which deals with the Ga’eš project, lists three bushels of barley, beer, and bread that were used for a banquet ( 3 . 0 . 0 š e k a š n i n d a g u r u d - e k a š - d é - a ) .

Corvée Labor

369

the corvée contribution that Umma’s institutional economy owed to the crown. Was it a yearly contribution? Or was it an extraordinary obligation, which had been imposed on all the provinces because of the national character of the project? At this time I would favor the second solution. At any rate, it appears that those 100 days of corvée were not directly related to the obligation that an individual é r e n owed personally to his institutional economy (in this particular case, the governor of Umma his organization). Assuming that the latter obligation was 180 man-days per year, during that particular year (Šulgi 37), a typical é r e n would still need to supply 80 man-days of work to the institutional economy. Admittedly, the evidence of MVN 15 390 is insufficient to answer this question conclusively. Since the corpus of published Umma texts has increased dramatically during the last decade, most of which yet await a systematic study, we can be confident that this problem will be solved eventually.

3.2. The Upkeep of Umma’s Workforce During Its Employment at Tummal A number of sources record food supplies that were given out to the Umma workers during their employment at Tummal. These supplies came from Umma itself. This shows that each province was responsible for the upkeep of their labor force during its employment on national projects. A tablet from Šulgi 35/i records huge numbers of cattle that were slaughtered to feed the masons ( š i d i m ) and the conscripted workers ( é r e n ) stationed at Tummal.91 The expenditure for the masons was particularly large, as it amounted to 424 oxen and cows. The conscripted workers received considerably less meat, since only 21 heads of cattle were slaughtered for them. It appears certain that both the masons and the conscripts in question stemmed from the Umma province. This is corroborated by MVN 15 390, discussed earlier, which names large numbers of mason man-days contributed by Umma. The expended meat came from Umma itself, and, without any doubt, was meant exclusively for Umma’s native labor force. Another expenditure of foodstuffs for Umma’s laborers at Tummal is documented in a tablet from Šulgi 37.92 The tablet in question records significant volumes of bread and beer ( 2.2.4 5 s ì l a n i n d a - š u g u r and 3.3.4 3 s ì l a k a š g i n g u r ) and a small quantity of flour, which were used to feed the carpenters ( š a g 4 g a l n a g a r ). Their task was to fashion the doors of Tummal’s palace ( z i - g a g i š i g é - g a l ).

3.3. Participation of Other Provinces in the Tummal Project Various other provinces were involved in the Tummal project. Thus, records survive of the building materials supplied by the governors of Babylon, Adab, and Kutha in Šulgi 36.93 The governor of Babylon contributed timber, while those of

––––––––––––– 91. Nik. 2 481: v.12-14, vi.7-9, 13-15 (Š 35/i). 92. BPOA 1 444, from Umma, which dates to Šulgi 37/-. 93. Allotte de la Fuÿe, RA 16, 1-20 = AAICAB 1/4 pls. 318-319.

370

PIOTR STEINKELLER

Adab and Kutha supplied straw, in the amounts of 120 and 60 bushels, respectively. This straw undoubtedly was used to make bricks. A group of Lagaš sources from Šulgi 35 (with one dating to Šulgi 37) records barley and flour provisions that were given out to the Girsu/Lagaš laborers working on the same project. (See fig. 2 below.) One of these expenditures (CT 1 pls. 4-5) concerns the masons ( š i d i m ), who received 53 bushels (= 15,900 liters) of barley. At the monthly rate of 60 liters per one man, this amount would support 265 masons for one month. The other sources from this group record the provisions of the é r e n . No numbers of the é r e n are ever specified, but, given the very substantial volumes of cereals involved, those numbers (= man-days) must have been quite large. If one adds up all the expenditures of barley made in Šulgi 35, the result is ca. 270+ bushels of barley. At the monthly rate of 60 liters per man, this amount would translate into 1,350 man-days. The workers in question came from the main temple households of the Girsu/Lagaš province, and thus were part of the institutional economy. See, especially, MVN 6 15, in which the workers are identified as belonging to the household of Nanše (in Nimin and Sirara), and to the sanctuaries of Lagaš. Note also MVN 7 549, in which the supervisor ( u g u l a ) in charge of the workers is the head of the household of Gatumdug. 53.0.0 (še) gur šidim Tum-ma-al-la gub-ba-me (CT 1 pls. 4-5: iii.10-11; Š 35/-) 17.4.2 5 sìla še gur lugal … mu éren-na-šè … šag4-gal éren Tum-ma-al gub-ba (MVN 6 448: 1-6; Š 35/-) 3.1.5 8 1 / 2 sìla še gur lugal … mu éren-na-šè … šag4 Tum-ma-al (MVN 6 156: 1-5; Š 35/-). 141.4.0 1 / 3 sìla še ù zíd gur lugal … šag4 Tum-ma-al (MVN 6 450: 1-6; Š 35/-) 3.0.0 še gur lugal … 0.0.4 2 sìla zíd … 0.2.0 zíd … 3.0.0 zíd 1.0.0 še gur … šag4 Tum-ma-al (MVN 7 175: 1-10; Š 35/-) 24.0.0 9 sìla še gur lugal … mu éren-na-šè … šag4 Tum-ma-al (MVN 7 285: 1-7; Š 35/-) 10.4.1 8 sìla še gur lugal … mu éren-na-šè … šag4 Tum-ma-al (MVN 7 333: 1-7; Š 35/-). 15.1.4 še gur lugal … mu éren-na-šè … šag4 Tum-ma-al (MVN 7 498: 1-6; Š 35/-) 15.3.0 9 sìla še gur lugal mu éren-na-šè … šag4 Tum-ma-al (MVN 7 521: 1-6; Š 35/-) 5.1.2 4 1 / 2 sìla še gur lugal … mu éren-na-šè … šag4 Tum-ma-al (MVN 7 532: 1-7; Š 35/-) 8.4.2 4 1 / 3 sìla še gur lugal … mu éren-na-šè … ugula sanga dGá-tùm-dùg šag4 Tum-ma-al (MVN 7 549: 1-7; Š 35/-) 12.4.0 še gur lugal … mu éren-na-šè … šag4 Tum-ma-al (MVN 7 580: 1-5; Š 35/-) 5.3.4 še gur lugal šag4 Gír-suki 0.4.0 šag4 Tum-ma-al iti šu-numun … še éren bala é dNanše ù éren bala èš dingir Lagaški (MVN 6 15: 1-11; Š 37/-) Fig. 2. Barley Expenditures of Girsu/Lagaš for Its Workers at Tummal (Šulgi 35, 37)

3.4. Umma’s Role in Provisioning Corvée Workers from Other Provinces There is extensive evidence that, apart from provisioning its own laborers while they were employed on national corvée projects, the province of Umma advanced huge volumes of cereals and other materials to the institutional economies (represented by governors) of other provinces as well, undoubtedly as part of the

Corvée Labor

371

latter’s participation in various corvée undertakings in southern Babylonia. The recipients of such supplies were usually northern Babylonian provinces. A good illustration of such transactions is the text MVN 14 228 (undated), a summary of the grain and flour expended by Umma to the representatives of the governors of Kazalu, Marad, and Urum. This summary was compiled on the basis of the receipt tablets that recorded individual expenditures ( k i š i b l ú é n s i m a d a - k e 4 - n e , “receipt tablets of the men of the governors of the provinces,” line 28).94 One of the recipients appearing there (lines 15-17) is Ea-bani, a subordinate of the governor of Marad. Several of his receipts actually survive.95 The first two of these expenditures were made at Ur, indicating that the project in question took place near there. Given the date of these documents (Šulgi 36), that project may have involved work on Nanna’s temple at Ga’eš/ Karzida.96 Among other transactions of this type we may single out the following (listed in a chronological sequence): BPOA 6 975 (Š 37/vii): 60 bushels of flour for the governor of Marad; UTI 5 3104 (Š 44/iii): over 29 bushels of flour for the governor of Tiwa (A.HA); Umma 91 (Š 44/v): over 348 bushels of barley for the governor of Kazalu; UTI 3 2194 (Š 45/-): large volume of reeds for the governor of Adab; BPOA 6 960 (AS 5-6): bread and flour for the governors of Marad, Babylon, and Nippur; BPOA 1 381 (AS 7/-): 1,800 bushels of barley for the governor of Babylon; SNAT 404 (AS 8/-): large volumes of bread and flour for the governors of Marad, Babylon, Ešnuna, and Nippur.

As is shown by the basket label Santag 6 20,97 which accompanied a group of this particular type of records produced during Šulgi 33 through 45, Umma must have supplied outside provinces in this way quite regularly. It appears that most of such expenditures were authorized by the crown,98 and that, as such, they counted towards Umma’s bala obligation vis-à-vis the central government. This is indicated by one of the receipts of Ea-bani, the representative of the governor of Marad (see above), in which the expenditure is specifically identified as forming part of Umma’s bala ( š a g 4 b a l a - a ; BIN 5 154: 10). In other instances, such advances of foodstuffs and building materials counted as outright loans, which were to be repaid to Umma’s institutional economy. The latter situation is illustrated by a group of Umma tablets dealing with the construction of Nanna’s temple in Ga’eš/Karzida during the reign of Amar-Suen.99 As

––––––––––––– 94. At least two labels survive that were attached to the baskets containing this type of records: p i s a n k i š i b é n s i m a - d a (Santag 6 20: 3; Š 33-45); p i s a n - d u b - b a k i š i b l ú é n s i m a - d a k e 4 - n e ì - g á l (BRM 3 174: 1-3). 95. Ontario 2 247 (Š 36/viii), BIN 5 154 (Š 36/-), and SAT 3 2114: 9-10 (undated). 96. The formula of that year commemorates “the bringing of Nanna into his temple,” suggesting that some work had been done on that temple shortly earlier. 97. See above n. 94. 98. Such officially authorized expenditures fell under the category of n í g - b a l u g a l , “king’s allotment.” See below pp. 383-384. 99. For a detailed discussion of this project, see Steinkeller, “National Building Projects.” gi

372

PIOTR STEINKELLER

these sources demonstrate,100 Umma’s institutional economy advanced large volumes of bricks to the governors of Adab, Kazalu, Marad, and Sippar, as well as to the majordomos (sabra) of An (of Ur), Enki (of Eridu), Ningublaga (of Ki’abrig), and Ninuru’amuDU (of Kisig?), which, as one may conclude, were to be used on the construction by their respective workforces. Since some of these documents stipulate that the bricks were to be returned to Umma’s institutional economy, it is clear that these expenditures represented loans, for which Umma expected to be fully reimbursed. The reason why Umma’s institutional economy was charged with the task of making such expenditures is probably explained by its central geographic position in southern Babylonia (Sumer), which made her a natural agent to coordinate the work on the public projects that were carried out in the south. Umma was also the second most important (after Girsu/Lagaš) producer of cereals. Accordingly, Umma seems to have served as a sort of “clearing house,” which advanced food supplies and building materials to the participating provinces, especially those that were situated in northern Babylonia, to reduce transportation costs and to simplify the logistics of corvée support more generally.

3.5. Institutional é r e n as Part of Military Campaigns? It is clear that the main source of manpower employed on military campaigns were the royal é r e n , particularly the personnel designated as à g a - ú s , who were professional soldiers.101 We can be confident, therefore, that the royal é r e n resident in the Umma province took part in military campaigns as a matter of course. However, due to the great scarcity of direct data on the activities of the royal sector in general, specific information to that effect is lacking. However, such participation is indirectly implied by three texts from Amar-Suen 5-6, which record expenditures of sacrificial animals made in connection with a military campaign, which, because of these texts’ date, was likely directed against Šašrum.102 The recipient of the animals was the general Abuni, who is known to have commanded the é r e n of the city of Umma.103 It was those particular é r e n , apparently, that Abuni led on the expedition in question. An Umma text from Ibbi-Suen 3/- tantalizingly suggests that the institutional é r e n could also, at least exceptionally, be conscripted for military service. The tablet in question (Nisaba 24 23) lists 136 men drawn from among the members of

––––––––––––– 100. Scheil, RA 12, 161-72 AO 7667; SNAT 346; PDT 2 1353, 1370, 1377; UTI 4 3394; all from AS 4. These documents were discussed also by Heimpel 2004. 101. See Lafont 2009; however, it appears that the offensive (shock) troops consisted mainly of foreign soldiers, primarily Elamites and Amorites. See in detail Steinkeller, “The Grand Strategy of the Ur III Empire: Babylonia’s Foreign Policy and Territorial Expansion at the End of the Third Millennium BC” (in preparation). 102. See the commentary to Text 7a: iv.4. This campaign gave name to the formula of Amar-Suen’s sixth year. See also Steinkeller, “Grand Strategy.” 103. For Abuni, see above p. 361 and the commentary to Text 7a: iv.4.

Corvée Labor

373

Umma’s institutional economy,104 who are designated as [ é r ] e n k a s k a l - š è DU, “é r e n going on an expedition.” Since these individuals were organized into regular units led by junior officers ( u g u l a ),105 a military operation was likely involved, possibly that against Šimurrum, for which the year Ibbi-Suen 3 was named.106

4. The Employment of Royal é r e n on National Corvée Projects 4.1. The Temple of Šara Project The sources we have surveyed so far bear only on the corvée supplied by the é r e n belonging to the institutional economies. But there is extensive evidence that the national and other corvée projects involved the active participation of the royal é r e n as well. As a matter of fact, it is clear that it was the latter group, which was much more numerous than the institutional é r e n , that was mainly responsible for the execution of such projects. As I noted earlier, it was also the royal é r e n , of course, who were primarily conscripted for military service sensu stricto, by which I mean participation in military campaigns and other types of military operations. Therefore, even though explicit information to that effect is lacking, we may be certain that the royal é r e n worked on the Tummal project. Positive evidence of such participation is found among the data bearing on the construction of the temple of Šara at Umma, which, as I noted earlier, was another national building project on which the whole country was actively engaged. The Šara project began in earnest in the second regnal year of Šu-Suen, when the temple’s foundations were laid down and the temple platform ( é - t e m e n - n a ) and its supporting walls ( k i s á ) were built and coated with bitumen.107 That part of the project was supervised by the general Lu-dingira.108 From the same year (i.e., Šu-Suen 2), we also have two records of poplar trees harvested in the Umma forests to be used as roof beams in Šara’s temple (Texts 1 and 2). Significantly, this work was done by troops led by ten military commanders, at least five of whom held generalships in the Umma province. This undertaking, which involved the harvesting and transportation of 4,134 trunks of poplar,109 must have been a major corvée project, which involved the participation of hundreds (if not thousands) of royal é r e n . While the timber itself was the property of Umma’s institutional economy, the labor that went into its procurement was supplied by the crown, as part of its overall contribution to the Šara project.

––––––––––––– 104. They include 78 sons of the g ú d a priests of Šara and Enki, 10 male singers ( n a r - n i t a ) , 3 snake-charmers ( m u š - l a h 4 ) , 6 shepherds ( s i p a d ) , 10 guards of the governor ( à g a - ú s é n s i ) , 1 household steward ( a g r i g ) , and a brother of a chief mason ( š i d i m - g a l ) . 105. Most of them numbered ten men each. Some were smaller. 106. If that indeed was the case, this use of institutional é r e n as soldiery probably represented a desperate measure, which had been necessitated by the dramatic situation that had arisen in the periphery due to Šimurrum’s revolt. See in detail Steinkeller, “Grand Strategy.” 107. See AAICAB 1/4 Bod. S 418; MVN 15 26; AnOr 1 16. A detailed discussion of this undertaking is offered in Steinkeller, “National Building Projects.” 108. Incidentally, the same Lu-dingira was in charge of yet another corvée undertaking: the construction of Nanna’s temple in Ga’eš/Karzida, which took place during the reign of Amar-Suen (see Steinkeller, “National Building Projects”). There is a good chance that he also supervised the project alluded to in the text TCL 5 6041 (for which see below). 109. A total of the numbers given in both texts.

374

PIOTR STEINKELLER

Undoubtedly, the royal é r e n were also actively involved in other aspects of the construction of Šara’s temple. However, this point cannot be demonstrated with the evidence presently available.

4.2. TCL 5 6041 Another important public project – whose purpose unfortunately remains unknown – is obliquely referred to in the text TCL 5 6041. This source, which dates to Amar-Suen 2, and almost certainly comes from Umma,110 is a roster of 21,799 royal é r e n , stemming from the provinces of Larsa, Umma, Šurippak, Isin, Marad, Kiš, Kutha, Babylon, Puš, Urum and Tiwa (A.HA), and Sippar. Also included is a contingent of é r e n from the city of Dabrum, whose administrative status is uncertain. TCL 5 6041 was transliterated and studied by A. Goetze (1963: 1-31). Since, except for one passage,111 Goetze’s transliteration is fully adequate, there is no need to transliterate it again. Instead, I offer a synopsis summarizing the contents of the text. Number of é r e n

Town

Commander (ugula)

2,781

Gudua

Šu-Ištar

1,144

Gudua

Erra-ursag

80

Uru-maštaba + Anzagardubsar

Dukra

591

Uṣar-Imid-ilum

800

(Uṣar-Imid-ilum?)

Iqbi-ilum

548

Pi-naratum

Ikšudum

617

Dimatum

201

Magratum

Receiving Official (Title ì-dab5) é n s i Gudua

(6,762)

––––––––––––– 110. In spite of Goetze’s claim (1963: 2), that this text “must come from Drehem,” its provenance is almost certainly Umma. While Girsu/Lagaš remains a distant possibility, a Drehem provenance is impossible. Here note that, after the province of Kutha, Umma made the largest labor contribution. Its contingent included, apart from 2,600 é r e n from the city of Umma, 484 é r e n from the Umma town Aṣarum-dagi (here spelled Uṣar-dagi), who were led by the general Habruša. 111. The passage in question, which was misread by Goetze, is to be restored and read as follows: iii 18) 1,800 éren Larsamki 19) ugula Ì-l[àl-lum] iv 1) [sabra dUtu ì-dab5] 2) 240+[4 éren sabra dNergal ì-dab5] 3) 240 ⸢éren⸣ [sabra] dAl-la-tum ì-dab5 4) éren Ú-ṣa-ar-da-giki 5) ugula Ha-ab-ru-ša The restoration of iv.2 is based on the fact that Uṣar/Aṣarum-dagi is otherwise known to have housed a temple household of Nergal. See BIN 5 277: 11-12; BCT 2 294: 25; Nik. 2 236: i.20; Nebraska 37: 37-38; etc.

Corvée Labor

375

2,600

Umma

Ea-ili

é n s i Umma

1,182

Marad

Iddin-Suen

é n s i Marad

318

Mur

Šamaš-bani

é n s i Zimbir

(1,500) 1,928

Zimbir

418

Puš

437

Uṣar-Babati kisura Zimbir

686

Šad(d)anaša

614

Hanbuz

420

Kigale + mada Kiš

Ikšudum

(4,503) 600

Babilim

Amur-Ea

é n s i Babilim

1,200

Šurippak

Gu’u

é n s i Šurippak

200

Puš

Šamaš-bani

é n s i Puš

180

Isin

Urmu

é n s i Isin

420

Urum

Niridagal

é n s i Urum + Tiwa (A.HA)

200

Kigale kisura Kiš

Ikšudum

é n s i Kiš

610

Ašdaba

Ilallum

s a b r a Nanaya

1,800

Larsam

Ila[llum]

[s a b r a Utu]

240+[4]

(Uṣar-dagi)

Habruša

[s a b r a Nergal]

240

Uṣar-dagi

[s a b r a ] Allatum

(484) 120

Tiwa (A.HA)

Šuruš-kin

Ur-sig s a b r a AmaInana

220

Zimbir

Šamaš-bani

s a b r a Šamaš Zimbir

220

Mur

Iddin-Suen

Watarum

180

Dabrum

Huba’a

s a b r a Suen Dabrum

21,799 Colophon: š u - n í g i n 2 1 , 7 9 9 é r e n š e g u r 1 0 - g u r 1 0 - m e u g u l a L ú - d i n g i r - r a , “total of 21,799 é r e n , the reapers; under the command of Lu-dingira.” Year Amar-Suen 1.

Fig. 3. Synopsis of TCL 5 6041

Except for its colophon, the text is composed of identical entries showing the following pattern: 1 ) x é r e n GN – where GN is either the capital of province X or a town of province X; 2) the name of their commander – ugula PN, “under the command of PN” – where PN can invariably be identified as a š a g i n a , “general”; 3) the statement that the governor of province X (in some instances replaced by the s a b r a , “majordomo,” of deity Y) conscripted them – é n s i X ì - d a b 5 / s a b r a Y ì dab5.

376

PIOTR STEINKELLER

The cases involving s a b r a s are as follows: the s a b r a of Nanaya of Ašdaba (in the Larsa province); the [s a b r a of Utu] of Larsa; the s a b r a s of [Nergal] and Allatum of Aṣarum-dagi (in the Umma province); the s a b r a of Ama-Inana of Tiwa (in the Urum and Tiwa province); the s a b r a of Šamaš of Sippar; and the s a b r a of Suen of Dabrum. The case of Watarum, who took charge of a contingent of the é r e n of Mur, probably falls under the same category. The only deviations from this pattern are presented by the é r e n of Puš and those of Kigale in the Kiš province, some of whom were put under the control of the governor of Sippar. We may assume that these unusual transfers resulted from a shortage of manpower at Sippar. The colophon of TCL 5 6041 records the grand-total of the é r e n , who are identified additionally as “reapers,” and names the official in charge of the whole operation – u g u l a L ú - d i n g i r - r a , “under the command of Lu-dingira” ( š u - n í g i n 21,799 éren še gur10-gur10-me ugula Lú-dingir-ra). Goetze thought that TCL 5 6041 describes the assembling of the é r e n in one location in anticipation of a single work-project (1963: 2-3). However, the opposite is clearly the case: the é r e n are distributed and transferred back to their local provincial authorities (governors and majordomos) following the project’s completion. As the background of this document may be reconstructed, the é r e n had been mobilized in their native provinces by the central military organization, organized into units commanded by royal generals, and led by the latter to one location. There they were put to work on a single project, whose supreme supervisor was Lu-dingira.112 After the project’s completion, the é r e n were put under the control of the provincial officialdom (governors and majordomos) and sent back to their respective provinces. Although the é r e n are designated as “reapers,” in all probability this designation does not refer to the project on which they had been engaged, but to the task they were to perform upon their return to their native provinces.113 The location of the project they were employed on earlier was either in the Umma province itself (most likely) or somewhere in the immediately neighboring area.114 As for the specific nature of that project, one thinks here primarily of irrigation works. Here it needs to be noted that the beginning of Amar-Suen’s reign saw a large development of new canals in the Umma province.115

––––––––––––– 112. This person is probably identical with the general Lu-dingira, who supervised at least two other national corvée projects. See above p. 373 and n. 108. 113. It is highly unlikely that so many reapers (ca. 22,000) would be needed for harvest work in a single location. 114. Here note that, in the second month of the same year (AS 2), the king was entertained at the residence of Niridagal, who seems to have lived in Girsu/Lagaš at that time (see the commentary to Text 7: 7). The same Niridagal led the troops of Urum and Tiwa (A.HA) in TCL 5 6041. The two events were possibly connected. 115. As evidenced in the appearance of canals and settlements named after Amar-Suen, such as í d - d A m a r - d S u e n - k e 4 - g á - r a ( passim), í d - d A m a r - d S u e n - d Š á r a - k i - á g (passim), í d - d Š á r a - á d a h - d A m a r - d S u e n (UTI 4 2791: 20), and É - d u r u 5 - d A m a r - d S u e n (passim). I assume that these projects were directly connected with the survey of Umma’s institutional land, which was carried out by the crown in Amar-Suen 2. See above n. 52.

Corvée Labor

377

That the project in question took place in the general area of the Umma province is confirmed by Text 35, which likewise dates to Amar-Suen 2. This tablet records huge expenditures of barley – as well as of other commodities – that were made by the governor of Umma to the generals Ea-ili and Ilallum. Ea-ili and Ilallum each received 1,200 bushels of barley, a volume that would be sufficient to support 6,000 men over a period of one month. Both Ea-ili and Ilallum appear in TCL 5 6041: the former in charge of 2,400 é r e n of the city of Umma,116 and the latter in charge of 2,410 é r e n from Larsa and its dependency Ašdaba.117 Thus, the fact that Ea-ili and Ilallum received such enormous quantities of barley during the very same year cannot be accidental. We have to conclude, therefore, that this grain was to be used to feed their troops while they were employed on the project in question. Given the size of their respective é r e n contingents (2,400 men in each case), the length of that project can be estimated to have been exactly two and a half months. This conclusion finds further support in the fact that the person who received barley on behalf of Ea-ili and Ilallum was a majordomo ( s a b r a ) named Lu-dingira – undoubtedly the same person who acted as the supervisor of the project described in TCL 5 6041.118 Importantly, during the same year Lu-dingira received from the governor of Umma large volumes of building materials, which included willow wood, roof-beams (?), hoe handles made of the mangrove wood (giš-ab-ba, kušabku), d u b š i g baskets, straw, and possibly bitumen.119 It is tempting to think that those materials were used in connection with the project in question.120

4.3. Texts 3 and 4 A number of other texts, stemming from Girsu/Lagaš and Umma, deal with the mobilization of large numbers of royal settlers ( é r e n ) for work on corvée projects.

––––––––––––– 116. Accordingly, Ea-ili must have been the general of the city of Umma. This point is corroborated by a legal document from Umma (Molina, Studies Sigrist, 142 9: rev.10; AS 2/-), in which he judges, together with Ur-Lisi, the governor of Umma, a case concerning “citizens of the city of Umma” ( d i - t i l l a d u m u U m m a k i ) . He appears in two other legal documents, both from Umma: in YOS 4 31: 11 = NSGU 2 130 (AS 3/-) he mediates, together with the general Lu-Nanna (of NAGsu), disputes over water rights; in TCL 5 6059: 21 = NSGU 2 201 (undated), he, together with the same Lu-Nanna and the governor of Umma, judges a case concerning the subsistence fields held by the members of Umma’s military organization. 117. During the same year Ilallum was active at Nippur (BPOA 7 2806: 4; AS 2/xii; note the new reading of line 5 as I 3 - l a l 3 - l u m š a g i n a m a š k i m by Paoletti, BPOA 10, p. 398 and Taf. 21). We find him next year at Umma (Nisaba 24 29: ii.4; AS 3/x). 118. This official is documented also in an Umma tablet from Amar-Suen 3, in which he supervises a group of royal dependents ( g ì r - s è - g a k a é - g a l - k a - m e ) residing in Umma (SNAT 340: 19). There is a distinct possibility that this Lu-dingira was the same person as the general of that name who supervised the Ga’eš and Šara projects. For this, one would need to assume that Lu-dingira was promoted to a general sometime after Amar-Suen 2 and before Šu-Suen 2, when he is first documented with the latter title (e.g., Cooper, ASJ 7, 120 30: 6). 119. 763 g i š m a - ⸢ n u ⸣ h i - a 1 8 0 g i š - ⸢ ù r ? ⸣ 300 g i š - a b - b a g í d 1 / 2 ⸢ n i n d a n ⸣ - t a a l - ⸢ š è ⸣ [x]+44 ⸢ d u b š i g ⸣ […] i n - n u g u r [… é s i r ? - h u ] r ? - s a g g u r [… k i e ] n s í U m m a k i - t a [ L ] ú d i n g i r - r a s a b r a [ š u ] b a - t i k i š i b D a - d a - a g ì r B í - d u g 4 - g a (MVN 18 198: 1-12; AS 2/-). 120. If so, the inclusion of timber, straw and bitumen among the materials recorded in MVN 18 198 (see the preceding note) would favor some kind of a building operation – rather than an irrigation project, as considered above.

378

PIOTR STEINKELLER

Of special importance among them are Texts 3 and 4. Text 3 (BM 25053) is a roster of 12,717 é r e n , who were conscripted by an unnamed governor of Girsu/Lagaš. Since the tablet is undated, the governor in question cannot, unfortunately, be identified with certainty. Chances are, however, that it was Aradmu ( a k a AradNanna), who also held the office of the chancellor ( s u k k a l - m a h ) . The purpose of the conscription is not specified. The great importance of Text 3 lies in the fact that, apart from providing information about the sizes of é r e n populations in particular localities, it also assigns, through the use of the formulation k i - s u r - r a ( k i ) GN, “located within the borders of province so-and-so,” those localities to specific provinces. This information is especially extensive in the case of Umma settlements. The conscripted é r e n came from the provinces of Girsu/Lagaš, Larsa, Marad, Umma, Uruk, Ur?, and Sippar. The Umma contingent was particularly large. It included the é r e n from the city of Umma and the towns and villages of Amrima, Aṣarum-dagi (here spelled Uṣar-dagi), Dintir, GARsuda, GARšana, Gišgigal, Iddula, k a í d Gišgigal, Hardahi (here spelled Kardahi), Kamari, Karkar, Kisura Umma, k u n í d Umma, Ṣarbat, Tim-KU.KU, and Uṣar-atigiNI. Text 3 shows the following straightforward pattern: (1) x é r e n of GN1 (x é r e n GN2, etc.); (2) within the borders of province X ( k i - s u r - r a k i X ); (3) a subtotal of the é r e n ; (4) under the command of PN (ugula PN). The text concludes with a grand total, and the statement that the governor of Girsu took charge of the men in question. See fig. 4 for a synopsis. Number of é r e n

Town

Province

Commander ( u g u l a )

615

GARsuda

kisura ki Umma

d u m u Huba’a

308

Eremzezegina

kisura ki Girsu

338

Dintir + Ṣarbat

kisura ki Umma

Hun-Šulgi dumu dumu

880

Umma

(Umma)

Šagkuge

Kardahi Uṣar-dagi

kisura Umma

Nur-Šulgi

174 304 116 1,016 170 155 119 117

Uṣar-atigiNI Karkar k a í d Gišgigal GARšana Gišgigal Amrima Kamari Tim-KU.KU

kisura Umma

sukkal-mah

60

Assur

kisura ki Zimbir

923

240 360 600

2,231

Corvée Labor 1,903

Unug

(Unug)

528

Marad

(Marad)

417

í d - Urim

(Urim?)

642

kisura Umma

(Umma)

119

k u n í d - Umma

(Umma)

300

Karšum

(Girsu)

90

Alšana

(Girsu)

180

Unšaga

kisura Girsu

300

Larsam

(Larsam)

98

Tunabum

(Larsam?)

1,823

Larsam

(Larsam)

476

Ašdaba

Larsam/Unug)

379 Šarrum-bani

3,609 Tahiš-atal Lušallim

Šulgi-ili

2,299 869

Id-dula

(Umma)

Lu-balašaga

ki

12,717 é r e n énsi Gír-su ì-dab5, “the governor of Girsu mobilized 12,717 é r e n .” Fig. 4. Synopsis of Text 3 (BM 25053)

Text 4 also deals with a conscription of é r e n for an unspecified work project. Like Text 3, it is undated. Text 4 is a roster of over 4,000 é r e n conscripted by an unnamed chancellor. As in the case of Text 3, the person in question was very likely Aradmu, who also held the office of the governor of Girsu/Lagaš. With the exception of the contingent from Ašgipada in the Adab province, all of the é r e n listed in this roster came from the following Umma settlements: GARšana, Gišgigal, GusaharDU, Kamari, Karkar, Tim-KU.KU, Uṣar-atigiNI, and Zabalam. The present text is closely related to Text 3, in that, for several localities, both sources record identical numbers of é r e n . The toponyms in question are: Gišgigal, k a í d Gišgigal, Karkar, Tim-KU.KU, and Uṣar-atigiNI. However, it is doubtful that the two sources concern the same project, since in some cases Texts 3 and 4 differ in the numbers of é r e n supplied. These are Amrima, GARšana, and Kamari. In addition, each roster lists localities that are not found in the other text. The pattern of Text 4 is similar to that of Text 3 (see fig. 5 for a synopsis). The only significant difference between the two sources is the presence in Text 4 of an additional section (lines 21-26), which offers revised figures for the contingents led by the commanders Šarrum-bani, Lalum, Lušallim, Šu-ili, and Pišah-ilum. It appears that these figures represent the numbers of the é r e n actually produced for the project in question, as contrasted with the numbers projected (or assessed) originally. The result was a deficit of 342 é r e n .

380

PIOTR STEINKELLER

Number of é r e n Projected 360 500 360 147 (1,367) 304 174 116 170 (764) 85 117 69 (271) 600

Actual 360 500 360 ---(1,220)

(3,002) 379 279

2,660

Town

Commander

GARšana

Lušallim n u - b à n d a Lalum n u - b à n d a Šu-ili Puzur-Ḫami

Karkar Uṣar-atigiNI k a í d Gišgigal Gišgigal

n u - b à n d a Šarrumbani

Amrima Tim-KU.KU Kamari

n u - b à n d a Lalum

Ašgipada

n u - b à n d a Pišaḫilum

820

----620

Deficit of 342 é r e n GusaharDU Zabalam

n u - b à n d a Ḫulal n u - b à n d a […]

Under the command of the chancellor (ugula sukal-mah). Fig. 5. Synopsis of Text 4 (TCTI 2 3543)

As noted above, the nature of the project is not specified in either text. A good guess would be that both of them involved work on the irrigation system, such as the excavating of a new canal or the cleaning of the existing waterways.

4.4. Irrigation Projects A clear example of a corvée project that focused on the irrigation system is described in Text 5 (AAICAB I/3 Bod. S 157). This source, which probably comes from Umma, involves the royal é r e n of the Umma town Amrima, who, under the command of an unnamed chancellor (probably Aradmu), excavated a canal and three canal regulators. The location of this project is not specified, though it may have been Amrima itself. A similar undertaking is described in an unpublished tablet from the Schøyen Collection.121 This tablet, which dates to the reign of Šu-Suen,122 and very likely comes from Umma, is a list of labor assignments that were performed within the province of Umma by the teams of royal é r e n led by high military commanders. The pattern of the individual entries in this text is as follows: “from canal x to ca-

––––––––––––– 121. MS 2643 = CDLI P251672. According to the information in CDLI, this tablet will be published by J. Dahl. 122. The tablet is undated, but the fact that it names two toponyms invoking divine Šu-Suen assures that it belongs to Šu-Suen’s reign. The reign of Ibbi-Suen is also possible, but much less likely.

Corvée Labor

381

nal y – the é r e n of settlement such-and-such, under commander named so-andso.” The first assignment recorded there reads: g ú í d - I d i g n a k a í d - G u r u š < g i m > - d u - t a í d - É n s i - k a - š è , “from the bank of the Tigris, at the inlet of the canal G u r u š - g i m - d u , to the canal É n s i - k a ” (lines 1-3). Both the í d - G u r u š - g i m d u canal123 and the í d - É n s i - k a canal124 are known to have belonged to the Umma province. Among the é r e n employed on this particular project, there were contingents from Karkar and Adab, as well as those from d Š u - d S u e n - a m - m a a r k i , M a š - g á n - k u - r u - t u m k i , and d Š u - d S u e n - e - ⸢ x ⸣ - [ x ] - ⸢ x ⸣ k i . While Šu-Suenammar is mentioned also in tablets from GARšana,125 the other two settlements are attested only here. The commanders overseeing this operation included D a n - n i l í , Á - b í - l u m - m a , an unnamed s u k k a l - m a h (probably Aradmu), A - p i - l u [ m ] [ x ] , and Girbubu. Although the nature of the work is not specified, it probably involved the cleaning or enforcing of the canals in question.

4.5. Royal é r e n Supplying Labor to the Institutional Economies 4.5.1. Apart from their employment on national projects, which were planned and executed by the crown, the royal é r e n could also be assigned to work in their native provinces, to assist the local governors with major projects that needed attention within the respective institutional economies. Such assistance involved primarily (if not exclusively) harvest work, since, as I noted earlier, provincial economies did not have enough labor at their disposal to carry out harvest on the institutional land.126 I have argued earlier that it was precisely this deficit of manpower that was responsible for the events behind the text TCL 5 6041. Following their employment on a single national project, the royal é r e n listed there were sent back to their native provinces to assist the institutional economies with the harvest. This situation is illustrated explicitly by three Umma texts (Text 6, 7, and 7a). Text 6 is a record of the harvest (522+ iku) and grain-stacking (939+ iku) operations carried out under the chancellor (Aradmu) and six military commanders in the Umma fields Lugal and Gi-apin-kudra. The commanders involved were Huba’a, Lu-Nanna, Šarrum-bani, Habruša, Tubi-[…], and Ṣilluš-Dagan. We have already encountered several of these officials in connection with other projects (Texts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5): the chancellor (and the general of GARšana) Aradmu, Huba’a, the general of NAGsu Lu-Nanna, and Ṣilluš-Dagan. Habruša is known to have been the general of Aṣarum-dagi (see above p. 374 n. 111). The labor-force

––––––––––––– 123. For the examples, see, e.g., UTI 4, p. 25. The “inlet” ( k a ) of this canal is mentioned also in MVN 16 1538, UTI 4 2339, 2653, 2763, UTI 5 3017, 3152; etc. As shown by UTI 4 2763 and BPOA 2 2129, there was a “weir” (technically: a low overflow dam) in that location ( k a í d - d a - G u r u š - g i m du-ka kun-zi-da gi4-a). 124. Fish, MCS 4, 10 113037: 4; BPOA 7 2199: 9. 125. CUSAS 3 196, 198, 248, 249, 259, 463. 126. This chronic shortage of labor forced the institutional economies regularly to hire workers, typically from among its own é r e n , for salaries higher than those they would receive while performing their mandated labor contribution. See Steinkeller 2003: 45. Such labor could be expensive, as shown by the following example, which involved 1,533 man-days that were purchased for money (1,533 g u r u š u d 1 - š è k u g - t a s a 1 0 - a ; Princeton 1 396: 3-4; Umma: Š 40/-).

382

PIOTR STEINKELLER

working on this project included the é r e n from the royal town of Aṣarum-dagi (in the Umma province) and another place, whose name is not preserved. A closely similar record is Text 7. It deals with a grain-stacking operation (2,358 iku) that was executed under six military commanders (Nur-Šu-Suen, UrUtu, Ibni-Šulgi, Niridagal, Hun-Šulgi, and Šarrum-bani) and the governor of Umma. Although the text does not say it, this project almost certainly took place within the Umma province. Text 7a is a record of harvest (2,091 iku) in the districts of Da-Umma and Gu’edena. The project was done under the command of Abuni, who held the generalship of the city of Umma. As expected, the work was performed by the royal settlers of Umma (here identified as “the men of the city of Umma”). 4.5.2. Since the institutional economy of a given province was separate from the royal sector that operated within the same province, the question arises as to whether the labor contributed by the royal é r e n to institutional economies (as in the three instances discussed above) was part of the corvée obligation that they owed to the crown – and therefore was free of charge, or whether the governors were expected to recompense the royal sector for such contributions. All the indications are that the latter was the case. And our main evidence here is a group of antichretic loans, all stemming from Umma, in which members of the royal economy borrow large volumes of barley, which, apparently, was to be used by them as seed grain on their subsistence fields. Importantly, these are invariably interest-bearing loans. As stipulated in these documents, instead of paying the interest, the borrowers were required to provide harvest labor. Five of such loans, which involve the royal settlers of Zabalam, Aṣarum-dagi, Girsu, and two other, unidentified localities, were edited by me back in 2002.127 Here I present six additional examples (Texts 8-11, 11a, 11b), all of which date to Šulgi 34, and likewise come from Umma. I begin with Texts 8 and 9. These two, obviously related transactions concern loans of barley that were issued by the governor of Umma to the royal settlers of the town of Maškan and of another place, whose name is not specified.128 In both instances the loan was authorized by the general of Maškan named Puzur-Šamaš, the recipients being the mayors of the two settlements in question. This, and the fact that both loans took place at the same time, and that the same bailiff ( m a š k i m ) acted in each of them, indicates that only one transaction, involving two different groups of Puzur-Šamaš’s subordinates, was involved. The numbers of borrowers were very significant: 840 é r e n in Text 8, and 1,500 é r e n in Text 9. In each case, the volume of borrowed barley was 180 liters per one é r e n . One may be confident that this barley was to be used as seed-grain for the land allotments of the é r e n in question.129

––––––––––––– 127. Steinkeller 2002: 129-33. 128. That place was possibly the settlement of Aṣarum-a’ura. See the commentary to Text 9. 129. Since the standard land-allotment of an é r e n is known to have been 4 iku, the 180 liters of barley received per each é r e n would result in a seeding rate of 45 liters per one iku. Although this is more than the usual rate of 25 liters per iku, this figure is still quite realistic.

Corvée Labor

383

Although the antichretic principle is not spelled out in either text, it is virtually certain that the interest on the loans was to be repaid in harvest labor. An explicit illustration of this principle is provided by Texts 10 and 11. These two, slightly differently phrased texts record the same transaction, which was a loan of five bushels of barley to an “officer of 60.” The officer in question without any doubt acted on behalf of his unit. In this instance, the antichrectic principle is spelled out: for each 60 liters of borrowed barley the borrowers were to reap 2 iku of land – with a resulting total of land to be harvested being 50 iku. The same rate is attested in Texts 11a and 11b, which record antichretic loans received by the subordinates of two different “officers of 60.” In each instance, the borrowers were obligated “to harvest a field of 2 iku for each 60 liters of (borrowed) barley (in lieu of the interest).” Very similar rates are found in other texts of this type: 60 liters = 1 iku (AUCT 3 492 = Steinkeller 2002: 130-31) 60 liters = 1 iku (CST 688 = Steinkeller 2002: 131-32) 60 liters = 1 iku (AAICAB I/3 Bod. S 210 = Text 13) 100 liters = 2 iku (AUCT 1 26 = Steinkeller 2002: 129-30) Let us now return to Texts 8 and 9, where the total volume of borrowed barley was 1,404 (= 504+900) bushels. If one applies to that total the rate of 60 liters of barley per 2 iku (Texts 10, 11, 11a, and 11b), it is possible to estimate that the land area expected to be harvested in lieu of interest on these two loans was 14,040 iku. If one uses the alternative rate of 60 liters per 1 iku (which is attested in other transactions of this type, see above), this would translate into 7,020 iku. In either case, a very large harvest operation would have been required. For additional examples of similar antichretic loans, see Texts 12 and 13. Records of the repayment of interest on such loans are also extant, see Texts 14 and 15. Assuming that, as all indications are, such antichrectic arrangements were contracted between the institutional economies and the royal sector quite regularly, it becomes clear that the cases in which the royal settlers performed harvest on the institutional land (see Texts 6, 7, and 7a discussed above p. 381) represent payments of the interest that the royal sector owed to the institutional economy.130 Therefore, this type of work had no connection with the corvée obligation that the members of the royal sector owed to the state.

4.6. The Role of Institutional Economies in Provisioning the Royal Sector The antichretic arrangements I have just discussed are only one group of transactions that involved the transfer of cereals – and of other materials as well – from institutional economies to the members of the royal sector. The overwhelming majority of such exchanges, which are documented both at Umma and at Girsu/Lagaš, constituted bona fide loans, and, as such, they were expected to be fully repaid to institutional economies.

––––––––––––– 130. Alternatively, such labor may have been purchased by the institutional economy from the royal sector.

384

PIOTR STEINKELLER

In Text 16, the royal settlers of the city of Umma borrow 720 bushels of barley from Umma’s institutional economy.131 A repayment of such a loan is recorded in Text 20, where a group of the é r e n of Umma, here identified as the “ é r e n of the City,” return close to 200 bushels of borrowed barley. Text 21 is a similar transaction that records a repayment of barley loans (ca. 100 bushels) by another group of royal dependents. In Text 22, the majordomo of the chancellor (and the general of GARšana) Aradmu receives 10 bushels of barley from the governor of Umma, which is to be used to feed Aradmu’s sheep. Significantly, the text stipulates that the barley is to be returned, indicating that a loan was involved. Similar transactions are documented at Girsu/Lagaš, in which the members of the royal sector borrow large volumes of barley from the institutional economy (Texts 17, 18, and 19). Text 18 explicitly states that the loan is to be repaid. Texts 23, 24, and 25 illustrate how the royal economy sequestered various materials, apparently in connection with a corvée project, from Umma’s institutional economy. As these sources make it clear, these withdrawals were loans, to be fully repaid. A completely different category of expenditures that the institutional economies made on behalf of the crown were the transactions labeled n í g - b a l u g a l , “king’s allotment.” These expenditures were authorized directly by the government, and, as such, they were credited to the provinces towards their bala obligation to the crown. Examples of such transactions are Texts 26-32. Among those, Text 26, which records large expenditures of barley to the military organizations of NAGsu and Id-dula, is of special interest. The recipient of the barley was the general of NAGsu, who acted on behalf of the colonels of those two settlements. Text 27 deals with a related case, which also concerns the royal settlers of NAGsu. In both instances, the colonel of NAGsu named Arad-Nanna was involved. Text 28 is a similar transaction, in which the recipients of the barley are the royal settlers of the city of Umma. In Text 29, Umma’s institutional economy advances barley to the prince Nur-Šulgi, who remained under the command of the general Šeš-kala. Text 30, which records an expenditure of barley to the elite troops stationed with the general Abuni, is particularly important, since it explicitly says that the issued barley is to be credited to the bala obligation of the governor of Girsu/Lagaš. Texts 31, 32, 33 and 34 record similar instances of the “king’s allotment,” which involved the royal sector and the institutional economy of Girsu/Lagaš. The expenditures of barley and other materials to the troops employed on national projects, such as I discussed earlier (pp. 373-377), likewise counted as n í g b a l u g a l . See, in particular, Text 35, which records expenditures of barley to the generals Ea-ili and Ilallum, apparently as the upkeep of the troops that were engaged on the project described in TCL 5 6041. In Text 36, the royal settlers of the city of Umma receive from Umma’s institutional economy a very large volume of reeds, which probably were to be used as part of a corvée operation.

––––––––––––– 131. An antichretic principle may have been involved, but there is no indication of it in the text.

Corvée Labor

385

Appendix: Documentation (1) TIM 6 48. Umma; Šu-Suen 2. 1)

⸢x?⸣+3 gišásal

2)

ugula Da-da

3)

50 lá 1 gišásal

4)

ugula Zé-lu-uš-dDa-gan

5)

30 lá 1 gišásal

6)

ugula A-hu-ni

7)

6 gišásal

8)

ugula Hu-un-dŠul-gi

9)

mu má dEn-ki-ka ba-ab-du8

10)

682 (or 1,212) gišásal (space)

11)

šu-nígin 1,434 gišásal giš-ùr! hi-a

12) 13)

giš é dŠára! gá-nun-na! ku4!-ra

A record of 1,434 poplar roof beams, which were harvested (in Umma’s forests, see Text 2) by the workforce led by four military commanders: Dada (the general of Zabalam), Ṣilluš-Dagan, Ahuni, and Hun-Šulgi (the general of the city of Umma). Of those, Dada, Ṣilluš-Dagan, and Hun-Šulgi appear also in Text 2. The roof beams are described as: “timber of the temple of Šara; it was deposited in the warehouse (of Šara’s temple)” (lines 12-13). Undoubtedly, this timber in question was to be used for the construction of Šara’s temple in Umma. See p. 373. 2. Dada is identified as general ( š a g i n a ) of Zabalam in AUCT 1 26: 2 (Umma; AS 3). For this text, see Steinkeller 2002: 129-30 no. 9. Da-da’s other attestations as šagina are SAT 2 1181: 11 (Umma; ŠS 1/xiii); TCTI 2 4267: 3, 11, 17 (IS 2/i, iii, iv); MVN 1 72: 11 (date not preserved); UET 3 272: ii.32' ( 1 m á - g u r 8 3 0 g u r a - r u - a D a - d a š a g i n a ; no year). See also Nisaba 23 18: 11-12 (no year), where Dada’s generalship of Zabalam is indicated by the context. For this text, see p. 352. 4. Ṣilluš-Dagan, who appears also in Texts 2: 16 and 6: ii.13, is documented as the governor of Šimurrum (BIN 3 627 seal; AS 6/ii; Owen, Mem. Cagni, 839 (seal; dedicated to Šulgi). In AS 5/- one of his subordinates received over 5 bushels of barley from Umma’s institutional economy (OrSP 47-49 337: 3-4). 6. This Ahuni is probably to be identified as the son of the chancellor Aradmu of the same name. See A - h u - n i d u m u s u k k a l - m a h appearing in Text 23: 26; Text 24: 27; MVN 13 641: 17 (Š 47/v); NYPL 27: 24 (AS 4/-); CT 10 44 BM 23767: 16 (AS 6/-); an unpublished tablet from Urusagrig, line 3, from ŠS 2, courtesy of D. I. Owen. Cf. also A - h u - n i š e š s u k k a l - m a h (Nisaba 24 29: vi.4; AS 3/x; TCTI 2 3711: 3; no year); fish k u 6 - b a à g a - ú s k i š i b A - h u - n i (TCTI 2 2594: 4; AS 7/xi). A subordinate of likely this Ahuni borrowed a significant volume of barley (5 bushels) from Umma’s institutional economy in ŠS 6/xiii (BPOA 6 489). Note that the individual in

386

PIOTR STEINKELLER

question, who was a “barber” ( š u - i ) , is alternatively called Ahuni’s “man” ( l ú ) in the tablet, and Ahuni’s “servant” ( á r a d ) in his own seal. 8. Hun-Šulgi is documented as the general of the city of Umma during the reigns of Šu-Suen and Ibbi-Suen. See AUCT 3 325 (year not preserved), which bears a seal dedicated to H u u n - d Š u l - g i š a g i n a U m m a k i . In SAT 3 1984: 2-4 (IS 2/i), H u - u n - d Š u l - g i š a g i n a presents a votive object to Šara of Ki’an. His other attestations are Text 2: 18; Text 3: i.9 (where he leads the é r e n of the Umma towns of Dintir and Ṣarbat); Text 7: 9; MDP 22 144: 15 (no year); Limet, RA 49, 93 36: 4 (AS 3/ix); etc.

(2) South Dakota 3. Umma; undated. (Šu-Suen 2 based on the comparison with Text 1.) 1)

720 gišásal

2)

tir Giš-gi-galki

3)

360 tir GAR-ša-naki

4)

ugula sukal-[mah]

5)

240 tir ⸢x⸣-[…]

6)

ugula Nu-úr-dŠu[l-gi]

7)

180 tir Gir13-giški

8)

ugula Hu-ba-a

9)

120 tir Ti-im-KU.KU

10)

ugula I-ti-Da-gan

11)

240 tir igi NAG-suki

12)

ugula Lú-dNanna

13)

360 tir A-kun-NE

14)

ugula Igi-an-na-ke4-zu

15)

360 tir A-kun-NE

16)

ugula Zé-lu-uš-dDa-gan

17)

240 tir É-lugal

18)

ugula Hu-un-dŠul-gi

19)

240 tir Ti-im-KU.KU

20)

ugula Da-da

A record of 2,700 trunks of poplar, which were harvested, in eight forests of the Umma province, by the chancellor (who also served as the general of GARšana) and eight military commanders: Nur-Šulgi, Huba’a, Iddin-Dagan, Lu-Nanna, IgiAnakezu, Ṣilluš-Dagan, Hun-Šulgi, and Dada. Of those, Hun-Šulgi, Ṣilluš-Dagan, and Dada appear also in Text 1. Lu-Nanna was the general of the town of NAGsu in the Umma province. The timber was apparently intended for the construction of Šara’s temple in Umma. See p. 373. The forests mentioned here belonged to the complex of thirty forests that were managed by Umma’s Forest Sector. See Steinkeller 1987a: 76-77. Note, however, that the forest of Gišgigal (line 2) is not mentioned in OrSP 47-49 382, which contains the most extensive list of these forests.

Corvée Labor

387

4. The unnamed chancellor can be identified as Aradmu (aka Arad-Nanna), who also served as the general of GARšana. 5. The restoration of the forest’s name is uncertain. The first sign could be either Š [ u - o r D [ a - , yielding alternative restorations ( t i r ) Š u - n a - m u - g i 4 and ( t i r ) D a - g u - n a / m a . 6. Nur-Šulgi appears also in Text 3: i.14, where he leads the é r e n of the town Uṣar-dagi of the Umma province. According to Text 29: 3 (AS 4/xii), Nur-Šulgi was a prince. 8. Huba’a is documented as a š a g i n a in CST 42: 3 (Š 33/v); BM 19991: ii.9 (Š 48/-; unpublished); MVN 3 236: 7 (AS 7/xii/30); TCTI 1 728: viii.20 (ŠS 2/-). Huba’a also appears in Text 6: i.7. Cf. NN d u m u H u - b a - a , who leads the é r e n of Erim-zezegina in Text 3: i.6. Huba’a’s high status is underscored by the fact that one of his daughters married the prince I n i m - d N a n n a ( n í g - m u s s a s á I n i m - d N a n n a d u m u - l u g a l é H u - b a - a - š è ; TCL 2 5563: 9-10; AS 1/i/30). 12. Lu-Nanna was the š a g i n a of NAGsu. See L ú - d N a n n a š a g i n a N A G - s u k i (TIM 6 36: 5; Š 46/iii; TCL 2 5488: 7; Š 46/iv). He is attested as a š a g i n a in various other sources (CST 98: 5; Š 46/iii/6; MVN 18 150: 4; Š 47/vi/20; MVN 13 641: 18; Š 47/v; MVN 11 207: 2; Š 47/v; Amorites 12: 18; Š 48/vii; Nisaba 24 29: rev.iii.10; AS 3/x; TCTI 1 1021: v'.28'; date not preserved; Jean, RA 19, 40 18: 10; undated). He also appears in Text 26, where he receives provisons of barley for the military organizations of NAGsu and Id-dula. The general of Zimudar of the same name (see Goetze 1963: 16 n. 63) was probably a different person. Another documented general of NAGsu is Ur-nigingar, who is attested in an Umma tablet from ŠS 4/vii. See BPOA 6 112: 1-4, where U r - n ì g i n - g a r š a g i n a NAG- s u k i and L a - g i - i p n u - b à n d a each receive one sheep from Umma’s officials.

(3) BM 25053. Girsu/Lagaš; undated. Copy fig. 6 (drawn by K. Maekawa). Collated. i

1)

615 éren GAR-sùd(KUR.RU)-daki

2)

ki-sur-ra ki Ummaki

3)

308 éren Érim-zé-zé-gi-naki

4)

ki-sur-ra ki Gír-suki

5)

923

6)

ugula dumu Hu-ba-a

7)

338 éren Din-tirki ù Zàr-bàdki

8)

ki-sur-ra ki Ummaki

9)

ugula Hu-un-dŠul-gi dumu

10)

880 éren Ummaki

11)

ugula Šag4-kug-gi

11a) 12)

240 éren Kar-da-hiki

13)

360 éren Ú-za-ar-da-giki ki-sur-ra Ummaki

14)

ugula Nu-úr-dŠul-gi

15)

600

388 ii

PIOTR STEINKELLER 1)

174 éren Ú-za-ar-a-ti-g[i]-⸢NI⸣

2)

304 éren Karkar(IM)ki

3)

116 éren ka íd Giš-gi-gal

4)

1,016 éren GAR-ša-naki

5)

170 éren Giš-gi-gal

6)

155 Am-rí-maki

7)

120 lá 1 Ga-ma-ríki

8)

117 Ti-im-KU.KUki ki-sur-ra Ummaki

9)

60 A-šur6(LÁL×LAGAB) ki-sur-ra ki Zimbir(UD.KIB!.KI.NUN)ki

iii

10)

2,231

11)

ugula sukkal-mah

12)

1,903 Unugki

1)

528 éren Már-daki

2)

417 íd-Úrimki

3)

642 ki-sur-ra Ummaki

4)

120 lá 1 kun íd-Ummaki

5)

3,610 lá 1

6)

ugula Sar-ru-ba-ni

7)

300 éren Gàr-šumki

8)

90 éren A-al-ša-naki

9)

ugula Da-hi-iš-a-tal

10)

180 éren Un-šag5-ga ki-sur-ra Gír-suki

11)

300 éren Larsam(UD.UNUG)ki

12)

98 éren Tu-na-bu-umki

13)

ugula Lú-ša-lim

13a) iv

1)

1,823 éren Larsam(UD«.UD».UNUG)ki

2)

476 Aš-da-baki

3)

2,300 lá 1

4)

ugula dŠul-gi-ì-lí

5)

870 lá 1 Íd-dul9-laki

6)

ugula Lú-bala-šag5-ga (space)

7)

šu-nígin 12,717 éren

8)

énsi Gír-suki ì-dab5 (space)

9)

mu (blank)

Corvée Labor i

1)

615 é r e n of GARsuda,

2)

in the borders of the province of Umma, (and)

3)

308 é r e n of Erimzezegina,

4)

in the borders of the province of Girsu –

5)

(total of) 923 (men) –

6)

under the command of the son of Huba’a;

7)

338 é r e n of Dintir and Ṣarbat,

8)

in the borders of the province of Umma,

9)

under the command of Hun-Šulgi, son of (NN), (and)

10)

880 é r e n of Umma,

11)

under the command of Šagkuge –

389

11a) ; 12)

240 é r e n of Kardahi (and)

13)

360 é r e n of Uṣar-dagi, (both) in the borders of Umma;

ii

14)

under the command of Nur-Šulgi –

15)

(total of) 600 (men);

1)

174 é r e n of Uṣar-atigiNI,

2)

304 é r e n of Karkar,

3)

116 é r e n (living at) the inlet of the Gišgigal canal

4)

1,016 é r e n of GARšana,

5)

170 é r e n of Gišgigal,

6)

155 of Amrima,

7)

119 of Kamari, (and)

8)

117 of Tim-KU.KU, (all located) in the borders of Umma, (and)

iii

9)

60 of Assur, in the borders of the province of Sippar –

10)

(total of) 2,231 (men) –

11)

under the command of the chancellor;

12)

1,903 of Uruk,

1)

528 é r e n of Marda,

2)

642 (living along) the border (of the province) of Umma, (and)

4)

119 (living at) the outlet of the Umma canal -

5)

(total of) 3,609 (men) –

6)

under the command of Šarrum-bani;

7)

300 é r e n of Garšum (and)

8)

90 é r e n of Alšana,

9)

under the command of Tahiš-atal, (and)

390

PIOTR STEINKELLER 10)

180 é r e n of Unšaga, in the borders of Girsu,

11)

300 é r e n of Larsa, (and)

12)

98 é r e n of Tunabum,

13)

under the command of Lušallim –

13a) 968 (men)>; iv

1)

1,823 é r e n of Larsa (and)

2)

476 of Ašdaba –

3)

(total of) 2,299 (men) –

4)

under the command of Šulgi-ili;

5)

869 of Id-dula,

6)

under the command of Lu-balašaga.

7)

The (grand) total of 12,717 é r e n ;

8)

the governor of Girsu took charge of them.

9)

The year (blank).

A conscription of a very large number of royal settlers for an unidentified corvée project. Most of the settlers came from the Umma province. The person in charge of the project was the governor of Girsu/Lagaš. See pp. 378-379. The tablet probably belongs to the reign Šu-Suen. Both Hun-Šulgi, the general of Umma, and Šagkuge, another general associated with the province of Umma, are documented during Šu-Suen’s reign. This dating is further indicated by the fact that Šulgi-ili, who commands the troops of Larsa and Ašdaba in the present text (iv.1-4), led the troops of Larsa also in Šu-Suen 1, as part of another corvée project. See the commentary to iv.4. i.1. The name of this settlement is variously spelled G AR- s u 4 - d a k i , GAR- s ù d - d a k i , and GAR- s u - ú - d a k i (HSM 1909.5.198: 13; Girsu/Lagaš; AS[X]; unpublished, courtesy P. Notizia). The alleged writing GAR-zíd-daki in Nik. 2 236: ii.25 and MVN 21 342: ii.12 is probably to be corrected to -su4-da. GARsuda was the locus of the households of Nergal/Meslamta’ea, Ninhursag, and Geštinana. See Nebraska 37; Nik. 2 236; and passim in the texts dealing with the è š d i l - d i l m a - d a . The text AAICAB I/1 Ashm. 1911-229 names an e g i - z i priestess, plus female weavers and millers attached to those households. There was a forest near this settlement. See Steinkeller 1987a: 77 Forest no. 29. An important source bearing on GARsuda is BM 111032 (AS 2/-; unpubl., courtesy of M. Molina), a legal text concerning GARsuda’s community ( d i - t i l - l a d u m u G AR- s u 4 - d a k i , line 15). As described in this text, a certain A N- g a - a , who had guarded the barley stores of GARsuda’s royal settlers ( é r e n ) , had removed over fifteen bushels of it for himself. This fact was confirmed by the resulting legal proceedings, and A N - g a - a was ordered to restore the missing barley. One of the witnesses attending the proceedings was a mayor (ḫazannu) – apparently of GARsuda – named Ì - l í - a (line 9). i.3. Other attestations of this toponym, all stemming from the Ur III Girsu/Lagaš sources, are as follows: PN g ú d a d M e s - l a m - t a - è - a É r i m - z é - z é - g i - n a - k e 4 (FT 2 pl. LIII AO 13014: 4-5); í d - Ù - s u r É r i m - z é - z é - n a (DAS 19: 6); k a í d - Ù - s u r É r i m - z é - z é - g i - n a (DAS 20: 11); k a í d - Ù - s u r É r i m - z é - z é (ITT 3 5972: 4); [ k a ? ] í d - Ù - s u r É r i m - z é - z é g i - n a (Farmer's Instructions 5.15: i.1'-2'); á lú-hun-gá é r e n Érim-zé-zé-naki (MVN 6 268: 56); d B a - ú - í b - g u - u l a - r u - a Á - b í - l í d u m u - d a b 5 - b a É r i m - z i ( GI) - z i ( GI) - n a k i (MVN 6

Corvée Labor 308: i.11-12); g i š k i r i 6 ( D u - d u ) É r i m - z é - z é - n a (HLC 3 391 pl. 149: 3', 20'); É r i m - z é - z é - g i - n a (STA 19: iii.16).

391 giš

kiri6

i.7. Dintir was a center of Nergal’s cult. See Nebraska 37: 21; BIN 5 277: 62-63; BCT 2 294: 35; and passim in the texts dealing with the è š d i l - d i l m a - d a . Ṣarbat’s name derives from Akkadian ṣarbatu, “poplar.” The toponym is variously written Z à r - b à d k i , A l ( URU) - z à r - b à d k i (CST 613: 7 + MVN 12, 121), and Z a - b à d k i (UTI 3 2186: 6). There was a forest near this settlement, see SAT 1 691: 4; MVN 20 88: 7; MVN 21 199: vi.35; Snell, ASJ 9, 245 22: 2. i.9. I assume that the name of Hun-Šulgi’s father was omitted by the scribe. Alternatively, a son of Hun-Šulgi could be meant here (cf. d u m u H u - b a - a in i.6). Hun-Šulgi served as the general of the city of Umma during the reign of Šu-Suen. See commentary to Text 1: 8. i.11. Šagkuge, a general associated with the Umma province, is documented in the Umma sources during Šu-Suen 2-5. See BPOA 1 522: 4 (ŠS 2/viii), SAT 3 1325: 6 (ŠS 3/vi/3-4), UTI 4 2489: 8 (ŠS 3/-), MVN 16 655: 3 (ŠS 4/iii); SAT 3 1480: 2-3 (ŠS 4/-), NYPL 309: 8 (ŠS 5/-), NYPL 85: 1 (undated). i.12. Kardahi, whose name is variously written K a r - d a - h i k i , H a r - d a - h i k i , and G à r - d a h i (CUSAS 3 26, 29, 31, 32, 36; GARšana), housed a temple household of Nergal/ Meslamta’ea with an attached personnel, probably with an e g i - z i priestess. Possible presence of the cults of Ašnan, Geštinana, and Ninebarzagin. Kardahi supplies labor also in AUCT 2 22: 11 (80 é r e n ) and BM 20045: 11 (84 é r e n ). i.13. The military settlers of Aṣarum/Uṣar-dagi remained under the command of a colonel ( n u - b à n d a ) . See CST 688 (= Steinkeller 2002: 131-132). In TCL 5 6041 Aṣarum-dagi supplies 484 é r e n – compared to 360 é r e n in the present text. Aṣarum-dagi supplies labor in several other Girsu/Lagaš texts: 220 é r e n in SAT 1 431: 10 (collated); 101 é r e n in SAT 1 430: 14 (collated); 124 é r e n in AUCT 2 22: 10; 130 é r e n in BM 20045: 10 (unpublished). At least two temple households, belonging to Nergal and his spouse Allatum, were situated in Aṣarum-dagi. See TCL 5 6041: iv.2, plus above p. 374 n. 111. For Nergal of Aṣarumdagi, see also BIN 5 277: 11-12; Nik. 2 236: i.20; Nisaba 23 46: i.19; and passim in the texts dealing with the è š d i l - d i l m a - da. ii.1. This settlement is documented only here. Its location in the Umma province is assured by the present text. ii.3, 5. Gišgigal was a large village or a small town. As is shown by the present source and Text 4: 9, it had a resident population of at least 170 é r e n . Another group of é r e n lived, apparently in dispersed dwellings, at the “inlet of the canal of Gišgigal” (k a í d Gišgigal), which must have been situated in the same general area. That other settlement numbered 116 é r e n (the present source and Text 4: 8). Gišgigal was a cult-center of the god Šara. See AAICAB I/1 Ashm. 1911-482, SAT 3 2073, and MVN 14 245, which record cultic objects (standards and an axe) and cattle that were presented to Šara by various individuals ( m u DU d Š á r a G i š - g i - g a l ( - k a ) ). A forest of Gišgigal is mentioned in Text 2: 2. k a í d Gišgigal is attested also in Sollberger AfO 18, 105 NBC 2863: 5, and Vicino Oriente 8/1 19: 1-5. According to Owen and Wasilewska, Studies Leichty 295 28: 5, there was an orchard in that locality ( g i š k i r i 6 k a í d G i š - g i - g a l ) . Its personnel is probably listed in AAICAB I/1 Ashm. 1911-194: 1-6: [x]+2 head gardeners ( u m - m i - a ) and 25 blind men ( g u r u š s e 1 2 - a ) , the gardeners of Gišgigal ( n u - g i š k i r i 6 G i š - g i - g a l ) . ii.6, 11. Note that in Text 5: 19-20 the é r e n of U r u - A m - r í - m a k i are, as in the present text, under the command of the chancellor ( s u k k a l - m a h ) . For Amrima, see the commentary to Text 5.

392

PIOTR STEINKELLER

ii.8. It appears that T i m - KU.KU was a large village. There was a forest near this settlement (Steinkeller 1987a: 77 Forest no. 18). Because of the writing T i - i m - b u - b u in BCT 2 263: 9, this toponym is probably to be read T i - i m - b u 7 - b u 7 . ii.9. This namesake of the famous Assur, situated the province of Sippar, is documented only here. ii.11. Almost certainly Aradmu is meant here. If (as it seems likely) the present text belongs to Šu-Suen’s reign, he is identical with the unnamed governor of Girsu, who conscripted all of the é r e n listed here. iii.6. Šarrum-bani is attested as general in Nisaba 8 161: 2 (AS 7/i/20); TEL 61: 9 (ŠS 1/x); CBCY 3 (seals NBC 8507 and NBC 11193). He appears also in Texts 6: i.14 and 7: 13. iii.7. For Karšum, a settlement in the province of Girsu/Lagaš, see RGTC 2, 52. Karšum supplies labor also in SAT 1 431: 11 (⸢93⸣ é r e n ; collated) and AUCT 2 22: 12 (85 é r e n ). See also g i š k i r i 6 G à r - š u m k i (SAT 1 208: 2). iii.8. Alšana, a Girsu/Lagaš settlement, is also documented in CT 3 35 BM 21335: v.135, 38: viii.239 ( á A l - š a - n a k i - k a - b i ) ; BM 14309: i.17 ( g i š k i r i 6 A - a l - š a - n a k i ; unpubl., courtesy of M. Molina); MVN 12 436: 3 ( A l - š a < n a > k i ) . iii.10. For Unšaga, a Girsu/Lagaš settlement, see RGTC 2, 212, 293 ( í d U n - š a g 5 - g a ) . Additional attestations of this toponym are TCTI 1 639: 34, 824: i.19 and passim; TCTI 2 3332: 10. iii.11. Another contingent of the é r e n of Larsa, numbering 1,823 men, is listed in iv.1. The total number of the é r e n supplied by Larsa thus was 2,123. Note that TCL 5 6041: iii.18 records 1,800 é r e n of Larsa (misread as Adab by Goetze 1963: 1, and RGTC 2, 23). iii.12. Tunabum is not otherwise documented. Given the mentions of the é r e n of Larsa in the preceding and following entries, it probably was situated in the vicinity of Larsa or Uruk. iv.2. For Ašdaba, a town near Larsa, see RGTC 2, 18; RGTC 3, 23. Note that Ašdaba supplies 610 é r e n in TCL 5 6041: iii.15. iv.4. In Šu-Suen 1, the same Šulgi-ili commanded a contignent of the royal settlers of Larsa as part of a harvest project in the province of Girsu/Lagaš: 1 5 ( b ù r ) g á n a š e - g u r 1 0 g u r u š - b i 2 9 4 g u r u š u d 1 - š è é r e n L a r s a m k i u g u l a d Š u l - g i - ì - l í (TCTI 2 2806: ii.13-16). Šulgi-ili is documented as a general in Scheil, RT 37, 130 55: 5 (Š 45/viii; NN d a m d Š u l - g i - ì - l í š a g i n a ) ; OIP 115 113: 4 (Š 47/ix); CST 34: ii.12 (undated). iv.5. As is indicated by Text 26, Id-dula’s royal settlers remained under the command of a colonel ( n u - b à n d a ) , who, in turn, was subordinated to the general of NAGsu. It appears, therefore, that Id-dula was a relative neighbor of NAGsu. Id-dula was the locus of a temple household of Nergal. See BCT 2 294: 34; Cohen, Mél. Limet, 28 NBC 265: 2, 12; UTI 5 3485 + UTI 6 3509: i.3, 3493: iv.3; AnOr 1 88: 285-286. There was also a forest in its neighborhood. See Steinkeller 1987a: 7 Forest no. 8.

Corvée Labor

393

394

PIOTR STEINKELLER

(4) TCTI 2 3543. Girsu/Lagaš; undated. For an earlier edition and discussion, see Lafont and Yildiz 1996: 148, 288-90. 1)

360 éren Lú-ša-lim

2)

500 nu-bànda La-lum

3)

360 nu-bànda Šu-ì-lí

4)

147 nu-bànda Puzur4-⸢Ha⸣-mi

5)

éren GAR-ša-an-naki

6)

304 éren Karkarki

7)

174 Ú-za-ar-a-ti-gi-NIki

8)

116 ka íd Giš-gi-galki

9)

170 Giš-gi-galki

10)

nu-bànda Sar-ru-um-ba-ni

11)

85 Am-rí-maki

12)

117 éren Ti-im-KU.KUki

13)

70 lá 1 éren Ga-ma-ríki

14)

nu-bànda La-lum

15)

600 éren dAšgi-pàd-daki

16)

nu-bànda Bí-ša-ah-DINGIR

17)

380 lá 1 éren Gú-sahar-DUki

18)

nu-bànda Hu-la-al

19)

280 lá 1 Zabalamki

20)

nu-bànda […] (space)

21)

820 Sar-r[um-ba-n]i

22)

500 La-[lum]

23)

360 Lú-ša-lim

24)

360 Šu-ì-lí

25)

620 Bí-ša-hi-lum

26)

lá-NI 342 éren ugula sukal-mah

27)

GAR-ša-an-na 600 Larsamki AN.SAR-ru? (the line was added later)

A conscription of a large number of the royal settlers for an unidentified corvée project. Most of the settlers came from the Umma province. The person in charge of the project was the governor of Girsu/Lagaš. See pp. 379-380. The meaning of the final line (27), which was added after the text had been written down, is unclear. Possibly, the mention of GARšana in that line indicates the location of the project (or at least the place where the é r e n had been assembled), while the 600 é r e n of Larsa named there may represent a workforce that was added subsequently. If so, one would expect the final AN-SAR-ru to be the name

Corvée Labor

395

of the latter’s commander, but, since a name DINGIR-sar-ru is not otherwise attested in Ur III sources, this is open to question. 1, 23. Lušallim, in charge of 360 é r e n of GARšana, is almost certainly identical with the mayor of GARšana of the same name. See p. 356. 3, 24. The same Šu-ili appears in Text 31: 5. 16, 25. The same individual probably appears also in Texts 23: 8 and 24: 9: B í - š a - h a - l u m e g i r - a - n a (of Ur-Šulgira š a g i n a ). Cf. further 1 g ú s i k i B í - š a - h a - l u m l ú - k a - l u g a l n í g - b a l u g a l Ì - l à l - l u m m a š k i m (AAICAB I/1 Ashm. 1924-666: iv.15'-19'; Umma; AS 3). This largely depends on whether B í - š a - h a - l u m is a sandhi writing of Pišaḫ-ilum or a separate name, i.e., Pišaḫ-alum or Pišaḫ-ḫalum. Cf. Gelb 1957: 218-19. 15. For Ašgipada and its location, see Steinkeller 2001a: 72-73. 17. This locality is also mentioned in the sources from GARšana, where its name is spelled G ú - s a h a r h a r - DUki (CUSAS 3 298: 8, 9, 11, 299: 8, 10, 12). Since, save for the Adab town Ašgipada, all of the localities named in the present text belonged to the province of Umma, it appears that G ú - s a h a r - DUk i was an Umma settlement as well.

(5) AAICAB I/3 Bod. S 157. Umma; undated. 1)

180 nindan gíd 7 1 / 2 gín-ta

2)

sahar-bi 23 1 / 2 sar

3)

60 nindan gíd nu-tuku

4)

50 nindan gíd 1 / 3 sar-ta

5)

sahar-bi 16 2 / 3 sar

6)

80 nindan gíd 7 1 / 2 gín-ta

7)

sahar-bi 10 sar

8)

12 1 / 2 sar sahar káb-kud šag4 uru-ka

9)

13 sar sahar káb-kud a-rá 2-kam

10)

8 nindan gíd

11)

sahar-bi 120 sar

12)

sahar káb-kud

13)

50 nindan gíd 4 2 / 3 sar-ta

14)

sahar-bi 233 1 / 3 sar

15)

10 nindan gíd

16)

sahar-bi 40 lá 1 sar (space)

17)

šu-nígin 438 nindan gíd

18)

sahar-bi 467

19)

éren Al(URU)-Am-rí-maki

20)

ugula sukkal-mah

A record of the corvée project conducted on an irrigation system, apparently in the town of Amrima. The work was done by the é r e n of Amrima, under the command on an unnamed chancellor. The official in question was quite probably Aradmu

396

PIOTR STEINKELLER

(a k a Arad-Nanna), who also occupied the positions of the governor of Girsu/Lagaš and the general of GARšana. Amrima was a royal town situated in the Umma province. It was a site of a local cultic center of Enki (see BIN 5 277: 65; Cohen, Mél. Limet, 28 NBC 265: 9; UTI 5 3485 + UTI 6 3509: ii.7, 3493: ii.15, v.3'; etc.). Texts 3 and 4 record for Amrima é r e n populations of 155 and 85 men respectively. Note that in Text 3 the é r e n of Amrima are subordinated, as in the present source, to the chancellor. It appears that the project focused on a waterway, whose total length was 438 nindan = 2,628 m. Part of the project included work on three canal-regulators ( k á b - k u d ) , at least one of which was located “within the town” (of Amrima?). As is indicated by the large volumes of the dirt removed, the objective of the project probably was to widen an existing canal (rather than simply to dredge it). 17. The numbers given in the text add up to 468 sar.

(6) YBC 3875. Umma; undated. i

ii

1)

[… gána še gur10]-a

2)

[x]+1(bùr) 3(iku) gána zàr-tab-ba

3)

šu-bi nu-ùr

4)

ugula sukkal-mah

5)

2(bùr) 4(iku) gána še gur10-a

6)

9(bùr) 3(iku) zàr-tab-ba šu-bi nu-ùr

7)

ugula Hu-ba-a

8)

9(bùr) 3 1/4 (iku) gána še gur10-a

9)

15(bùr) gána zàr-tab-ba šu-bi nu-⸢ùr⸣

10)

ugula Lú-dNanna

11)

2(bùr) gána še gur10-a

12)

9(bùr) gána zàr-tab-ba

13)

šu-bi nu-ùr

14)

ugula Sar-ru-ba-ni

15)

4(bùr) 11 1 / 2 (iku) gána zàr-tab-ba

16)

[š]u-bi nu-ùr

17)

lú A-za-ru-um-da-giki-ka-me

18)

8(bùr) 12 1/4 (iku) gána še gur10-a

19)

6(bùr) 3 1 / 2 (iku) gána zàr-tab-ba

1)

⸢šu⸣-[bi nu/ì-ùr]

2)

⸢lú⸣ [GN-me]

3)

ugula Ha-ab-[ru-ša]

4)

1(bùr) 15(iku) g[ána zàr-tab-ba]

5)

šu-bi ì-[ùr]

6)

ugula Tu-bi-[…]

Corvée Labor 7)

2(bùr) gána zàr-tab-b[a] ⸢x⸣-mah

8)

(blank, over an erasure) gána

9)

a-šag4 Lugal

10)

(blank) gána

11)

a-šag4 Gi-apin-kud-rá

12)

šu-bi nu-ùr

13)

ugula Zé-lu(wr. KU)-uš-Da-gan

r. iii 1) 2)

397

⸢šu-nígin⸣ 52(bùr) 3+[x?(iku)] g[ána zàr]-tab-ba [šu]-nígin 27+[2?(bùr) … g]ána še gur10-a

A record of the harvest (522+ or 486+ iku) and grain-stacking (939+ iku) operations conducted under the chancellor and six military commanders (Huba’a, Lu-Nanna, Šarrum-bani, Habruša, Tubi-[…], and Ṣilluš-Dagan) in the Umma fields Lugal and Gi-apin-kudra. The labor force included the é r e n from the Umma town Aṣarumdagi and another place, whose name is not preserved (ii.2). See p. 382. i.7. For Huba’a, see the commentary to Text 2: 8. i.10. For Lu-Nanna, see the commentary to Text 2: 12. i.14. For Šarrum-bani, see the commentary to Text 3: iii.6. i.17. For Aṣarum-dagi, see Text 3: i.13. ii.3. Habruša is attested as a general ( š a g i n a ) in HLC 3 212 pl. 107: 7-8 and Nisaba 22 74: ii.7'-8' (in both instances spelled H a - b u - r u - š a ). As in the present text (i.15-ii.3), Habruša commands the é r e n of Aṣarum-dagi (spelled Uṣar-dagi) also in TCL 5 6041: iv.2-5. In a number of texts from Amar-Suen 5 he commands troops from Marhaši (SNAT 353, 354; MVN 21 61; BPOA 1 380 ( x g u r u š g ú r u m - a k l u g a l H a - a b - r u - š a ù l ú M a r - h a - š i k a ) . YBC 13087: vi.9-11, an unpublished Puzriš-Dagan text, probably belongs here as well: 1 g u d 1 0 u d u m u k a s 4 l ú M a r - h a - š i k i - k e 4 - n e - š è H a - a b - r u - š a . Cf. BPOA 1 584 (AS 5/x; food à g a - ú s l u g a l g ì r H a - a b - r u - š a ) and Nik. 2 309 (AS 8; i g i - k á r H a - a b ru-ša). ii.13. For Ṣilluš-Dagan, see the commentary to Text 1: 4.

(7) Nebraska 38. Umma; undated. 1)

35(bùr) gána

2)

ugula Nu-úr-dŠu-dSuen

3)

4(bùr) «AŠ» (erasure) gána ugula Ur-dUtu

4)

30(bùr) gána

5)

ugula Ib-ni-dŠul-gi

6)

3(bùr) gána

7)

ugula Nir-ì-da-gál

8)

1(bùr) gána

9)

ugula Hu-un-dŠul-gi

10)

34(bùr) gána

11)

énsi

398

PIOTR STEINKELLER

12)

24(bùr) gána

13)

ugula Sar-ru-ba-ni (space)

14)

šu-nígin 131(bùr) gána

15)

zàr tab-ba

A record of the grain-stacking operation, from 2,358 iku of land, conducted by the labor force led by six military commanders (Nur-Šu-Suen, Ur-Utu, Ibni-Šulgi, Niridagal, Hun-Šulgi, and Šarrum-bani) and the governor (of Umma). Although the text does not say it, this project almost certainly took place within the Umma province. See p. 381. The Šu-Suen or Ibbi-Suen date of the text is indicated by the occurrence of a personal name invoking Šu-Suen in line 2. Note also that Hun-Šulgi, who is mentioned in line 9, was the general of the city of Umma during the reigns of Šu-Suen and Ibbi-Suen. See the commentary to Text 1: 8. 2. For Nur-Šu-Suen, see Text 28: 4 (ŠS 5/-), where he receives barley for the military settlers of the city of Umma. 7. Niridagal is documented as a general ( š a g i n a ) in SAT 1 3: 3 (Girsu/Lagaš; Š 47/x); AUCT 1 942: 10-11 (Puzriš-Dagan; AS 2/ii); BDTNS 064063: 6 (Umma; AS 3/-); BPOA 6 250: 4 (Umma; AS 9/xi). He leads the troops of Urum and Tiwa (A.HA) in TCL 5 6041 (AS 2/ -). He was active in Umma also in Šu-Suen 5/- (NYPL 369: 5). According to MVN 6 300: rev.i.2 (Girsu/Lagaš; undated), he possessed land in the province of Girsu/Lagaš, and thus he might have resided there. Niridagal’s high social rank is indicated by the fact that he (or his son) married into the royal family: i g i - k á r d u m u - SAL l u g a l é - g i 4 - a N i r - ì - d a - g á l (AAICAB I/2 Ashm. 1971362: 2-3; Umma; AS 7/-). In Amar-Suen 2/ii, the king participated in a banquet at Niridagal’s residence (at Girsu/Lagaš?): u d l u g a l - m u é N i r - ì - d a - g á l š a g i n a k a š ì n a g - g á - a (AUCT 1 942: 10-11). Because of its date, that banquet may have been connected with with the corvée project that is described in TCL 5 6041. 13. For Šarrum-bani, see the commentarty to Text 3: iii.6.

(7a) NBC 5086. Umma; Amar-Suen 4. Collated. Recollated by G. Marchesi. i

1)

5(bùr) 2(eše) 2(iku) gána še gur10-a

2)

12(bùr) 1(eše) gána zàr-tab-ba

3)

a-šag4 Gána-⸢Ur-gu⸣

4)

3(bùr) gána š[e] ⸢gur10⸣-a

5)

8(bùr) 3(iku) gána zàr-tab-ba

6)

ÉŠ.ŠE.PI.GAR-bi

7)

⸢a⸣-[šag4]-⸢x⸣-SIG7-murub4?

⸢ba⸣-an-ur4 šu-bi nu-ùr

8)

[…] 9(iku) gána še gur10-a

9)

[…] 9(iku) gána zàr-tab-ba

10)

[ÉŠ.ŠE.PI.GA]R-bi ba-an-u[r4 šu-b]i nu-ùr

11)

a-šag4-gišMa-nu

Corvée Labor

ii

iii

12)

12(bùr) 3(iku) gá[na …]

13)

a-šag4-Du6-[…]

14)

24(bùr) gá[na še gur10-a]

1)

24(bùr) gána zàr-tab-ba

2)

a-šag4-Igi-é-mah-šè

3)

6(bùr) gána zàr-tab-ba

4)

⸢2⸣+[x](bùr) gána še gur10-a

5)

[a-šag4]-dŠul-gi-ra

6)

[x]+1(bùr) gána še gu[r10]-a

7)

a-šag4-Agar4-tur a-⸢šag4⸣-Lá-mah

8)

11(bùr) 12 1 / 2 (iku) gána še gur10-a

9)

5(bùr) 4 1 / 2 (iku) gána zàr-tab-ba

10)

a-šag4-Lá-mah-gu-la

11)

4(bùr) 9(iku) gána zàr-tab-ba

12)

9(iku) gána še gur10-a

13)

a-šag4-LÁL.SAR a-šag4-Lá-mah

14)

10+[x]+6(bùr) 11 1 / 2 (iku) gána še gur10-a

15)

[x]+1(bùr) 1 3/4 (iku) [gána zà]r-tab-ba

16)

[a-šag4-Lá]-tur

1)

5(bùr) 1(eše) 3(iku) gána zàr-tab-ba

2)

a-šag4-Gíd-da

3)

4(iku) gána zíz še gur10-a

4)

a-šag4-dŠul-gi-ra

5)

a-rá 2-kam (space)

6)

a-šag4 Da-Ummaki

7)

16(bùr) 12(iku) gána še gur10-a

8)

⸢a⸣-šag4 Gú-dè-na (space)

iv

(space) 1)

šu-nígin 116(bùr) 3(iku) gána še gur10-a

2)

šu-nígin 60+⸢50⸣(bùr) […] gána zàr-tab-ba (space)

3)

še gur10-a zàr-tab-ba lú Ummaki-ka

4)

ugula A-bu-ni

5)

mu ús-sa gu-za dEn-líl-lá ba-dím

399

400

PIOTR STEINKELLER

A record of the harvest (2,091 iku) and grain-stacking (1,980+ iku) operations carried out under the Umma general Abuni in various fields of the districts of DaUmma and Gu’edena. See p. 382. i.6, 10. For ÉŠ.ŠE.PI.GAR, M. Civil (personal communcation) suggests that this word denotes a container (sack?) used to carry grain on wagons. He furnishes two other attestations of it, both referring to the same incident: 7 ŠE.ÉŠ.PI.GAR gána šag4 Igi-šag5-šag5 engar gišmar-gídda Lugal-á-zi-da-ka ì-íb-gál-àm (Owen and Wasilewska, JCS 52, 17 92: i.5-6); gišmar-⸢gíd⸣-da 7!(copy: 6) ŠE.ÉŠ.PI.GAR hé-na-sum-mu (Umma 45: 6-8 = TCS 1 256). iv.4. Abuni is documented as a general of the city of Umma in Amar-Suen 4-6. Apart from the present text, where he leads the é r e n of the city of Umma, he appears in the Umma texts MVN 4 263: 4 (AS 5/xii), OrSP 47-49 344: iii.27 (AS 5/xii), MVN 20 52 (AS 6/iii), and MVN 5 46 (AS 6/vi), where he receives sacrificial animals for “the battle standard going on a military campaign” ( š u - n i r g i š t u k u l k a s k a l - š è g i n - n a ) . The campaign in question was probably directed against Šašrum (see above p. 372). Abuni also appears in Sollberger, Kramer AV, 444-45 9: ii.6 (undated; A - b u - n i k a s k a l - a m u - t i - l a - à m , “when Abuni was on a military campaign”) and YOS 4 208 (= NSGU 2 212; AS 6/-), for which see p. 361. Abuni’s predecessor at Umma was Ea-ili, who is documented as a general of the city of Umma in Amar-Suen 2 (see p. 377). Other attestations of Abuni as a general are BIN 3 374: 2 (AS 2/iii/3); MDP 10 126: 18 (AS 4); Trouvaille 83: 13 (AS 5/vii); Nisaba 22 160: vi'.17' (undated). He also appears in Text 30: 3 (Š 46/xi).

(8) Princeton 1 394. Umma; Šulgi 34/vi. 1)

840 guruš éren 0.3.0-ta

2)

lú Maš-gánki

3)

še-bi 504.0.0 še gur lugal

4)

še ur5-ra

5)

ki Ur-dLi9-si4 énsi Ummaki-ta

6)

mu Puzur4-d[Šamaš] šagina Maš-gánki-ka-šè

7)

kišib Šu-dMa-mi-tum ha-za-núm Maš-gánki-ka ì-gál

8)

É-ki-bi lú-kas4 maškim

9)

iti šu-numun

10)

mu An-ša-anki ba-hul

1)

840 men, the é r e n , each (receiving) 180 liters of barley,

2)

the men of Maškan.

3)

Their barley (is) 504 bushels of barley.

4)

(This is) a barley loan.

5)

From Ur-Lisi, the governor of Umma,

6)

on behalf of Puzur-[Šamaš], the general of Maškan,

7)

(this barley) was received by (lit.: there was a seal of) Šu-Mamitum, the mayor of Maškan.

8)

Ekibi, the runner, (was) the bailiff.

Corvée Labor 9)

Month vi.

10)

Year Šulgi 34.

401

The military settlers of the royal town of Maškan borrow barley from the governor of Umma. The transaction was authorized by Puzur-Šamaš, the general of Maškan, with the mayor of Maškan receiving the barley. The borrowed barley apparently was to be used as seed-grain. Here note that the loan took place in the month “of seeding” ( š e - n u m u n ) . See p. 382. Compare Text 9, in which the same Puzur-Šamaš authorizes a loan of barley by another group of military settlers, possibly from Aṣarum-a’ura. Given the fact that the two loans occurred at the same time, and that the same bailiff ( m a š k i m ) acted in both of them, it is clear that only one transaction, involving two different groups of Puzur-Šamaš’s subordinates, was actually involved. That Maškan had a large number of royal settlers is confirmed by other sources. The legal document BPOA 1 1196 (Umma; undated) names several military officers of Maškan, who commited a crime (theft of timber?) in a forest (probably that of Maškan; see Steinkeller 1987a: 77). Those were the colonel ( n u b à n d a ) Šu-Eštar, his deputy Ili-dan, an “officer of 60” named Nabašag, and an elite soldier ( à g a - ú s ) named Šu-Šamaš [the name was collated by M. Molina]. N. b. the same Nabašag appears in the legal documents TCL 5 6167: 23 (= NSGU 2 51; AS 5/viii) and SNAT 360: 30 (AS 5/ix). Another likely occurrence of Nabašag is YOS 4 208: ii.2-7 (= NSGU 2 212: AS 6/-), where he claims several individuals belonging to the institutional economy for the crown ( n a m - é r e n - š è ) . According to an Umma land survey, a group of the elite soldiers of Maškan, remaining under the command of a certain Ili-tappe (probably a general), held 96 iku of subsistence land: 5 ( b ù r ) 1 ( e š e ) g á n a s i g 5 a - š a g 4 - P ú - p ú l ú M a š g á n k i - k e 4 - n e à g a - ú s TAB.BA- ì - l í - k e 4 - n e í b - b e 4 ( BA) a - š a g 4 - D a - g i 4 - a , “96 iku of high quality land, the field Pupu; the men of Maškan, the soldiers of Ilitappe, took it as (their) shares; (within) the field Dagi’a” (CHEU 100: ii.1-5; undated). The importance of Maškan as an urban center is further underscored by the fact that it housed several temple households, among them those of Nergal, Šulpa’e, Ninhursag, Šulgi, Ningeštinana, Kalkal, and Iškur (Nebraska 37; Nik. 2 336; BIN 5 277; BCT 2 294; UTI 5 3485 + UTI 6 3509; Nisaba 23 46; etc.). The households of Nergal and Šulpa’e were run by high rank egi-zi priestesses (Nebraska 37: 98-101; Nik. 2 236: iv.5-7; BIN 5 277: 89-90). The text BPOA 6 151 (collated) lists the personnel ( g ì r - s ì - g a ) of the households of Kalkal, Nergal, and Šulgi, which numbered over seventeen individuals. Maškan also had extensive herds of domestic animals. See Santag 6 203 (AS 9/x), which lists 47 heads of cattle, 21 donkeys, and 74 sheep, the property of Maškan, which were recovered(?) from a subordinate of the govenor of Umma. (9) BPOA 6 1260. Umma; Šulgi 34/-. 1)

1,500 guruš 0.3.0 še lugal-ta

2)

še-bi 900.0.0 gur

3)

še ur5-ra A-šag4-du6-KA.DI-ta

402

PIOTR STEINKELLER

4)

ki Ur-dLi9-si4-ta énsi Ummaki-ta

5)

mu Puzur4-dŠamaš šagina-šè

6)

kišib I-bí-dSuen ha-za-núm ì-gál

7)

É-ki-bi lú-kas4 maškim

8)

mu An-ša-anki ba-hul

1)

1,500 men, each (receiving) 180 liters of barley.

2)

Their barley is 900 bushels.

3)

(this is) a barley loan. From the field Du6-KA.DI,

4)

from Ur-Lisi, the governor of Umma,

5)

on behalf Puzur-Šamaš, the general,

6)

(this barley) was received by Ibbi-Suen, the mayor.

7)

Ekibi, the runner, (was) the bailiff.

8)

Year Šulgi 34.

The military settlers of an unspecified locality borrow barley from the governor of Umma. The transaction was authorized by the general Puzur-Šamaš, with the mayor Ibbi-Suen being the barley’s recipient. See p. 382. This transaction closely parallels Text 8, in which the same Puzur-Šamaš – there identified as the general of Maškan – authorizes a loan of barley for the military settlers of Maškan. The unnamed locality referred to in the present text was possibly the settlement of Aṣarum-a’ura, which likewise was situated in the Umma province. This is suggested by the fact that Šamaš-bani was otherwise associated with Aṣaruma’ura. See BM 19991: i.11-13 (Girsu/Lagaš, Š 48/-; unpublished), which lists a blind worker who was conscripted from the general Puzur-Šamaš: s e 1 2 - a D I Š 0.0.5 (še) (1) túg Lú-ša-lim lú A-za-ru-umki-a-úr ki Puzur4-dŠamaš š a g i n a - t a . Another such worker is listed in BM 21166: ii'.14-16 (Girsu/Lagaš; date not preserved; unpublished): D I Š 0 . 0 . 5 ( š e ) ( 1 ) t [ ú g … ] l ú A - z a - r u u m - ú [ r k i ? ] k i P u z u r 4 - d Š a m a š š a g i n a - t a . If correct, this would mean that Puzur-Šamaš held a joint generalship of Maškan and Aṣarum-a’ura, and that, accordingly, Ibbi-Suen was the mayor of Aṣarum-a’ura. The name of this locality is variously written A - z a - r u - u m - a - ú r (see the above examples), A - z a - r u - u m - a - ú r - r a k i (NYPL 206: 6, 9; AUCT 1 332: 27), A z a - r u - u m - a - ù r - r a k i (UET 3 1065: ii.6'-7'), Ù - z a - a r - a - ú r - r a k i (Hallo, ASJ 3, 76 YBC 16652: rev.iii.9), Ù - z a - a r - ʾ à - ú - r a (CUSAS 3 6: 25; GARšana), or simply A ù r - r a (MVN 16 650: 5, 654: 2; UTI 5 3265: 5). Cf. also A - ù r - r a in a Sargonic tablet from Umma (MAD 4 33: 2). On the other hand, the absence of indications that Aṣarum-a’ura was a major settlement is somewhat difficult to reconcile with the fact that the town or village over which Ibbi-Suen presided as a mayor had a very large é r e n population (1,500). Therefore, this identification must remain tentative.

Corvée Labor

403

(10) UCP 9/2, 238 no. 31. Umma; Šulgi 34/xii. 1)

5.0.0 še gur lugal

2)

0.1.0 še-bi še 2(iku) gána-ta gur10-gur10-da

3)

íb-dug4

4)

é-kinkin-ta

5)

ki Árad-ta

6)

Lú-šag5-ga

7)

ugula-géš-da-ke4

8)

šu ba-ti

9)

iti dDumu-zi

10)

mu An-ša-anki ba-hul

1)

5 bushels of barley (is an interest-bearing loan).

2-3)

He (i.e., Lu-šaga) declared to harvest 2 iku of barley for each 60 liters of (borrowed) barley (in lieu of the interest).

4)

From the mill,

5)

from Arad,

6)

Lu-šaga,

7)

the officer of 60,

8)

received (this barley).

9)

Month xii.

10)

Year Šulgi 34.

This text (which is matched by its virtual duplicate, Text 11), records an antichretic loan of barley, which was made by Umma’s institutional economy to an “officer of 60” named Lu-šaga. The officer in question probably acted on behalf of his unit. Since the title of “officer of 60” never describes members of Umma’s institutional economy, it is certain that Lu-šaga and his men were royal military settlers. According to Text 11: 9, Lu-šaga’s commander was the colonel UN-il. See p. 383. (11) BPOA 6 1481. Umma; Šulgi 34/xii. Collated by M. Sigrist. 1)

5.0.0 še gur lugal

2)

0.1.0 še-bi še 2(iku) gána-ta

3)

gur10-gur10-da

4)

íb-dug4

5)

é-kinkin-ta

6)

ki Árad-ta

7)

Lú-šag5!(KALAG)-ga

8)

šu ba-ti

404

PIOTR STEINKELLER

9)

iti dDumu-zi

10)

mu An-ša-anki ba-hul

l.e.

ugula-géš-da UN-/il nu-bànda

1)

5 bushels of barley (is an interest-bearing loan).

2-4)

He (i.e., Lu-šaga) declared to harvest 2 iku of barley for each 60 liters of (borrowed) barley (in lieu of the interest).

5)

From the mill,

6)

from Arad,

7)

Lu-šaga

l.e.

– the officer of 60, UN-il (is his) colonel –

8)

received.

9)

Month xii.

10)

Year Šulgi 34.

This text is a virtual duplicate of Text 10. See the discussion there and p. 383. The present text offers additional information that Lu-šaga’s commander was the colonel UN-il. 7. The second sign is a clear KALAG, in contrast to ŠAG5 in Text 10: 6. Although both Lú-šag5ga and Lú-kalag-ga are attested as personal names, the former is much more common. Therefore, I provionally take it that the name of the borrower was Lu-šaga. L.e. I assume that this phrase was added as an afterthought to identify Lu-šaga. Note that Lu-šaga bears the title of ugula-gešda in Text 10: 7. UN- i l is probably a syllabic rendering of UN- í l .

(11a) Syracuse 386. Umma; Šulgi 34/xii. 1)

2.2.3 še gur lugal

2)

DU-a-mu

3)

2.2.3 gur

4)

Ku-li

5)

2.2.3 gur

6)

Ur-dSuen

7)

šeš-gal nam-10-me

8)

ugula-géš-da

9)

d

Èr-ra-dan

10)

0.1.0 še lugal-bi a-šag4 2(iku) gána gurx(ŠE.KIN)-gurx(ŠE.KIN)-dè

11)

šu ba-ab-ti

12)

iti dDumu-zi

13)

mu An-ša-anki ba-hul

Corvée Labor 1)

2 bushels and 150 liters of barley

2)

(is the loan of) DU-amu;

3)

2 bushels and 150 liters of barley

4)

(is the loan of) Kuli;

5)

2 bushels and 150 liters of barley

6)

(is the loan of) Ur-Suen;

405

7)

they are the leaders of the units of 10 (men each);

8)

(their) “officer of 60”

9)

(is) Erra-dan.

10)

For each 60 liters of (borrowed) barley a field of 2 iku is to be harvested (in

11)

(These three men) received (the barley).

12)

Month xii.

13)

Year Šulgi 34.

lieu of the interest).

A record of three antichretic loans of barley, which were issued by Umma’s institutional economy to three members of a detachment commanded by the “officer of 60” named Ur-Suen. The men in question lead the units of ten men each. See p. 383. 7. The term š e š - g a l , “elder brother,” replaces here u g u l a , which is the usual designation of the lieutenant/foreman in charge of a unit of ten soldiers/workers. See Heimpel 2009: 72.

(11b) MVN 21 291. Umma; Šulgi 34/xii. 1)

12.0.0 še gur lugal

2)

0.1.0 še lugal-bi še 2(iku) gána gurx(ŠE.KIN)-gurx(ŠE.KIN)-dè

3)

ki Árad-ta

4)

DU.DU-àm

5)

⸢X⸣-ú-mu

6)

ugula-géš-da eger

7)

šu ba-ti

8)

iti dDumu-zi

9)

mu An-ša-anki ba-hul

1)

12 bushels of barley –

2)

for each 60 liters of (borrowed) barley 2 iku of barley (field) is to be harvested –

3)

from Arad

4)

DU.DU-am,

5)

(the subordinate of) [X]-umu,

6)

“the deputy? of the “officer of 60.””

7)

received.

406

PIOTR STEINKELLER

8)

Month xii.

9)

Year Šulgi 34.

A record of an antichretic loan, which was issued by Umma’s institutional economy to the subordinate of an “officer of 60.” See p. 383. 5. An alternative restoration would be ⸢ g ì r ⸣ Ú - m u , “the conveying party was Umu, (the ‘officer of 60’).” 6. The sign EGER is clear in CDLI P120528 photograph.

(12) AAICAB I/3 Bod. S 289. Umma; undated. Amar-Suen 9 based on the context. 1)

66(bùr) 12(iku) gán[a] gurx(ŠE.KIN)-gurx(ŠE.KIN)-[dam/dè]

2)

še šu bala-a m[u] en Eriduki [ba-hun]

3)

tukum[bi]

4)

I-din-dAdad

5)

kišib še gurx(ŠE.KIN)-a

6)

Lugal-é-mah-e-[ka? nu]-mu-[tùm]

7)

mu en dNan[na Ga]-eš[ki ba-hun]

8)

še-bi gurx(ŠE.KIN)-gurx(ŠE.KIN)-d[am]

9)

kišib I-din-dAda[d]

Seal) I-ti-dAdad / dumu Šu-d⸢Adad?⸣ / nu-[bànda …] 1)

(Iddin-Adad was required) to harvest 1,200 iku of land

2)

in year Amar-Suen 8, in exchange for a barley (loan).

3)

If

4)

Iddin-Adad

5)

does not produce the receipt tablet of the harvested grain (that was prepared for him by) Lugal-emahe,

6)

in the (current) year Amar-Suen 9

7)

the barley in question he will harvest.

8)

Under the seal (= obligation) of Iddin-Adad.

Seal of Iddin-Adad, son of Šu-⸢Adad?⸣, the colonel of […]. As I interpret this text, the colonel Iddin-Adad had been under the obligation to harvest 1,200 iku of land in Amar-Suen 8. This obligation probably arose from an antichrectic loan of barley, which Iddin-Adad seems to have received in that year from Umma’s institutional economy. It appears that Iddin-Adad subsequently claimed that the work in question had been carried out, and that the harvested barley had been received by the official Lugal-emahe. At this point Iddin-Adad promises to produce Lugal-emahe’s receipt tablet or, should he fail to do so, to perform the equivalent work during the current year (Amar-Suen 9). Given the large area of land involved, Iddin-Adad must have had a significant manpower under his command. This assures that he was a member of the royal sector.

Corvée Labor

407

6. Alternatively – but less likely – one could restore L u g a l - é - m a h - e - [ r a ] , “[to] Lugalemahe.”

(13) AAICAB I/3 Bod. S 210. Umma; Amar-Suen 8/xi. 1)

68.0.0 še gur lugal

2)

gurx(ŠE.KIN)-gurx(ŠE.KIN)

3)

0.1.0 še 1(iku) gána-ta

4)

ki-sur12 a-šag4-gišMa-nu-ta

5)

ki Lú-dŠul-gi-ta

6)

kišib Níg-ú-rum

7)

iti pap-ú-e

8)

mu en Eriduki ba-hun

Seal) Níg-ú-rum / dub-sar / dumu dNanna-ì-zu 1)

68 bushels of barley (is an interest-bearing loan).

2-3)

For each 60 liters of the loan 2 iku of land is to be harvested (in lieu of the interest).

4)

From the threshing floor of the field Manu,

5)

from Lu-Šulgi,

6)

it was received by Nigurum.

7)

Month xi.

8)

Year Amar-Suen 8.

Seal of Nigurum, scribe, son of Nana-izu. An antichretic loan of barley, with interest to be paid in harvest work. The transaction was probably contracted within Umma’s institutional economy. (14) UTI 4 2509. Umma; Šu-Suen 7/i. 1)

4(iku) ⸢gána⸣ še gurx(ŠE.KIN)-a

2)

máš ⸢še⸣ ur5-ra-ka

3)

a-šag4-Apin-Ba-zi

4)

Lú-dSukkal-an-ka

5)

ki Gu-du-du-ta

6)

⸢kišib⸣ Lug[al]-hé-gál

7)

iti še-kin-kud

8)

mu dŠu-dSuen lugal-e ma-da Za-ab-ša-liki mu-hul

Seal) Lugal-hé-gál / dub-sar/ dumu Ur-nìgin-gar 1)

4 iku of harvested barley land

2)

is the (paid) interest on the loan.

408

PIOTR STEINKELLER

3)

(The work was done) in the field Apin-Bazi

4)

(under the command? of) Lu-Sukkalanka.

5)

From Gududu

6)

(the original loan) was received by Lugal-hegal.

Seal of Lugal-hegal, scribe, son of Ur-nigingar. A record of the interest paid on an antichretic loan. The transaction was probably contracted within Umma’s institutional economy. (15) BPOA 6 317. Umma; Šu-Suen 3/-. 1)

[x]+5(bùr) 2 (eše) gána še gurx(ŠE.KIN) sa lá-a

2)

6(bùr) 2 (eše) gána še gurx(ŠE.KIN) sa nu-lá-a

3)

še gurx(ŠE.KIN)-a máš še ur5-ra-ka

4)

ki É-gal-e-si-ta

5)

kišib Gú-tar

6)

mu ma-númki ba-hul

Seal) Gú-tar / nu-bànda-gud / dumu Lugal-iti-da/ gúda dNin-ur4-ra / A-pi4-sal4ki-ka 1)

[x]+102 iku of harvested land, (with) barley tied into bundles;

2)

120 iku of harvested land, (with) barley not tied into bundles.

3)

The barley harvest (representing) an interest on the loan.

4)

From Egal-esi

5)

(the original loan) had been received by Gutar.

6)

Year Šu-Suen 3.

Seal of Gutar, the plow-teams supervisor, son of Lugal-itida, the guda priest of Ninura of Apišal. A record of the interest paid on an antichretic loan. The transaction was contracted within Umma’s institutional economy. (16) YOS 15 211. Umma; Šulgi 37/xii. 1)

720.0.0 še gur luga[l]

2)

še ur5-ra éren Ummaki (space)

3)

šu ba-ti-a

4)

A-pi4-sal4ki-ta

5)

ki Árad-ta

6)

Dùg-ga dumu Lum-ma

7)

šu ba-ti

8)

ezen-nesag-šè su-su-da

Corvée Labor 9)

íb-dug4 mu lugal-bi ì-pàd

10)

iti dDumu-zi

11)

mu bàd ma-da ba-dù

409

Seal) Dùg-ga / dumu Lum-ma 1)

720 bushels of barley,

2)

the barley loan of the é r e n of the city of Umma;

3)

it was taken (by them)

4)

from (the grain-stores of) Apišal.

5)

From Arad

6)

Duga, son of Lumma,

7)

received (this barley on their behalf).

8)

To return (it) till 4th month (of next year)

9)

he declared (and) swore by the name of the king.

10)

Month xii.

11)

Year Šulgi 37.

Seal of Duga, son of Lumma. A loan of 720 bushels of barley made by Umma’s institutional economy to the royal é r e n resident in the city of Umma. If one uses the rate of 180 liters of barley per one é r e n , which is found in Texts 8 and 9, the number of the é r e n in question may be estimated to have been 1,200. The loan was to be repaid. Although the text does not say so, the interest on the loan was probably to be paid through harvest work. (17) BM 20890, tablet and envelope (courtesy of I. Finkel). Girsu/Lagaš; undated. The transliteration follows the envelope. 1)

14 guruš 0.1.0 še lugal

2)

še-bi 2.4.0 gur

3)

še ur5-ra dumu-dab5-ba

4)

ì-dub Ur-sag-pa-è-ta

5)

ki Ba-zi-ta

6)

kišib U-bar (tablet: U-bar šu ba-ti)

Seal) U-bar-u[m] / ugula dumu-dab5-ba / dumu La-zi-[(…)] 1)

14 men, (each receiving) 60 liters of barley,

2)

the corresponding barley is 2 bushels and 240 liters;

3)

(this is) a barley loan of the royal settlers.

4)

From the silo of Ursag-pa’e,

5)

from Bazi,

410 6)

PIOTR STEINKELLER it was received by Ubar.

Seal of Ubar(um), a captain of the royal settlers, son of Lazi-[…]. Fourteen royal settlers borrow barley from the institutional economy of Girsu/Lagaš. The barley was received on their behalf by their commanding officer. 5. In the tablet, this line is inserted between lines 2 and 3.

(18) BM 20070 (courtesy of I. Finkel). Girsu/Lagaš; Šulgi 42/iii. 9)

17.1.0 gur

10)

mu éren-na-šè

11)

10.1.3 6 sìla gur

12)

maš mu 3-kam

13)

Kur-ta-šu ha-za-núm Du6-lugal-u5-a

20)

šu-nígin 27.2.3 6 sìla gur

21)

Kur-ta-šu ha-za-núm su-su-dam

22)

éren Du6-lugal-u5-a-me

(...)

23)

níg-ŠID-ak gìr Ur-šag4-ga nu-bànda gu-za-lá

24)

iti ezen-dLi9-si4

25)

mu Ša-aš-ru-umki ba-hul

9)

17 bushels and 60 liters of barley,

10)

(is a loan) of the royal settlers;

11)

10 bushels and 96 liters (of barley)

12)

is the interest for three years;

13)

(borrowed by) Kurtašu, the mayor of Du-lugalu’a; (...)

20)

the total is 27 bushels and 156 liters (of barley);

21)

Kurtašu, the mayor, is to return it (after three years);

22)

(the loan of) the royal setllers of Du-lugalu’a.

23)

(Part of) the balanced account. Via Ur-šaga, the supervisor of chair-carriers.

24)

Month iii.

25)

Year Šulgi 42.

The mayor of the village of Du-lugalu’a borrows from the institutional economy of Girsu/Lagaš over 17 bushels of barley for the royal settlers of Du-lugalu’a. The loan and the interest on it are to be repaid after three years. Both the length of the loan and the unusually low interest rate (20% instead of the customary 33%) suggest that there were some unusual circumstances (a bad harvest?) behind this transaction.

Corvée Labor

411

(19) CUSAS 16 173 (= OBTR 211). Girsu/Lagaš; Ibbi-Suen 1/xii. 1)

1.1.0 še gur

2)

še ur5-ra dumu-dab5-ba

3)

ì-dub a-šag4-Uru-ul-ta

4)

ki Lú-dingir-ra-ta

5)

Lugal-NINA!ki-šè

6)

šu ba-ti

7)

mu Lugal-NINA!ki-šè

8)

kišib UN-íl

9)

dumu-dab5-ba íb-ra

10)

iti še-íl-la

11)

mu dI-bí-dSuen lugal

Seal) UN-íl / dumu Nu-⸢úr-ì-lí⸣ A royal settler named UN-il borrows over 1 bushel of barley from the institutional economy. The barley was received on his behalf by a certain Ur-NIMIN-še, with UNil sealing the document. (20) SNAT 533. Umma; undated. A record of the loans issued by Umma’s institutional economy, represented by the official Lušag-izu, to the royal é r e n resident in the city of Umma. The tablet begins with the loans of twenty-two individuals, the first of them being L u g a l - g i š g i g i r - r e , an “officer of 60” ( u g u l a - g é š - d a ) . These loans are summarized as: š e u r 5 - r a é r e n u r u - k e 4 - n e š u - n í g i n 1 9 3 . 1 . 4 g u r š a g 4 d u b - b a , “barley loans of the é r e n of the City, a total of 193.1.4 bushels of barley (recorded) in tablets” (lines 1-25). The tablet then lists more issues of barley (possibly also loans) to other individuals, which had no documentation ( k i š i b n u - r a - a ) . For those expenditures, amounting to 4.3.4 bushels, Lušag-izu had to take an assertory oath (to attest that those transactions had indeed taken place) (lines 26-36). The tablet’s concluding lines record a grand total of the expended barley, and identify Lušag-izu as the party responsible for these transactions (lines 37-38). (21) YOS 4 224. Umma; Šulgi 47/v. A record of the repayment of barley loans to Umma’s institutional economy. The tablet lists a total of 97.4.0 bushels of barley, which came from ten named individuals: š e u r 5 - r a m u - DU k i Í d - p a - è - t a L ú - g i - n a š u b a - t i k i - s u r ( s i c ) r a g ú í d - G í r - s u k i , “(these) are delivered/repaid barley loans; they were received by Lu-gina from Idpae at the threshing floor situated on the bank of the Girsu canal.” Since the individuals in question bore Akkadian (or foreign) names, they almost certainly were members of the royal sector.

412

PIOTR STEINKELLER

(22) Gomi, Orient 16, 73 no. 104. Umma; Šu-Suen 6/-. 1)

10.0.0 še gur

2)

šag4-gal gud niga

3)

sukkal-mah

4)

ki A-a-kal-la énsi-ka

5)

Lú-dNanna

6)

⸢sabra⸣ sukkal-mah

7)

su-su-dam

8)

kišib Ur-mes dumu Al-lu-mu

9)

mu dŠu-dŠuen lugal Úrimki-ma-ke4 na-dù-a mah líl dNin-líl-ra mu-nedù

A loan of barley made by the governor of Umma to the majordomo of the chancellor (Aradmu). The text stipulates that the barley, which was to be used as fodder for the chancellor’s sheep, is to be repaid. (23) Nebraska 1. Umma; Amar-Suen 5/ix. 1)

6,000 sa gi

2)

1 gú gišásal

3)

kišib sukkal-mah

4)

6,600 sa gi

5)

kišib Ib-ni-DINGIR sukkal

6)

2,400 sa gi kišib Šu-Eš4-dar šagina Gú-du8-aki

7)

1,200 sa gi Ur-dŠul-gi-ra šagina šu ba-ti

8)

kišib Bí-ša-ha-lum eger-a-na

9)

900 sa gi Šu-ì-lí sukkal šu ba-ti

10)

300 sa gi kišib Lú-ša-lim ha-za-núm GAR-ša-na-kaki

11)

gìr Šu-ì-lí sukkal lugal

12)

1,800 sa gi Zé-il-be!-lí! sukkal šu ba-ti

13)

600 sa gi DINGIR-ba-ni dub-sar-kas4

14)

gìr dUtu-mu sukkal

15)

120 sa gi 2 gú gišásal

16)

kišib A-hu-ni sukkal

17)

1,040 sa gi é É-duru5-lugal-šè

18)

kišib Ur-dNanna sukal

19)

50 sa gi Ur-Sar-ru-gim sukkal šu ba-ti

20)

gìr Lú-dDa-mu sukkal

21)

2 gu-kilib ma-nu

22)

2 gu-kilib gišásal

Corvée Labor 23)

kišib Ur-dNanše! lú énsi Gír-suki

24)

1,485 sa gi Na-ra-am-ì-lí kas4 šu ba-ti

25)

18,000 sa gi Lugal-kug-zu nu-bànda šu ba-ti

26)

gìr A-hu-ni dumu sukkal-mah

27)

2,400 sa gi Ur-dHendur-sag-ka sukkal šu ba-ti

28)

3600 ⸢sìla-bur-zi⸣

29)

gìr Šu-en-É.NI ⸢xx⸣

30)

šu-nígin 42,895 sa gi

31)

šu-nígin 2 gu-kilib gišma-nu

32)

šu-nígin 182 gu-kilib gišásal

33)

gi á dar-ra

34)

ki énsi Ummaki-ta!(copy: -KA)

35)

iti dLi9-si4 mu en Unu6-gal dInana ba-hun

413

A record of the reeds, poplar wood, willow wood, and b u r - z i vessels that were sequestered by the chancellor (Aradmu) and various other royal officials from the governor of Umma in Amar-Suen 5. Closely related sources are Texts 24 and 25. The first of them recapitulates Text 23, adding additional withdrawals made in Amar-Suen 6. Text 25, on the other hand, is the record of an individual withdrawal, which matches Text 23: 10-11 and Text 24: 11-12. It is certain that it was on the basis of Text 25 and similar individual tablets that Texts 23 and 24 were compiled. The sequestered materials were probably to be used on a corvée project of some kind. See p. 384. Text 25 makes it clear that the materials were to be repaid to the governor of Umma. 7-8. For the designation e g e r š a g i n a , “deputy of the general,” see U r - n ì g i n - g a r e g e r š a g i n a (= Ì - l à l - l u m ) (TCL 5 6058: 18); DINGIR- k u - r u - u b n u - b à n d a / e g e r š a g i n a (DoCu EPHE 268: seal). For e g e r in such contexts, meaning “deputy, second in command,” see Molina 2010: 204. 33. For the meaning “to sequester” of á … d a r , see Steinkeller 2004: 101: Molina 2008: 133-134; Civil 2011: 256-257.

(24) MVN 4 71. Umma; Amar-Suen 5-6. 1)

⸢6,000⸣ sa gi

2)

60 gu-kilib pa kud gišásal

3)

kišib sukkal-mah

4)

6,600!(copy: 5,400) sa gi

5)

kišib Ib-ni-DINGIR sukkal

6)

[2,400] sa gi

7)

[kišib] Šu-Eš4-dar šagina Gú-du8-a-ka

8)

⸢1,200⸣ sa gi Ur-dŠul-gi-ra šagina šu ba-ti

9)

kišib Bí-ša-ha-lum eger-a-na

414

PIOTR STEINKELLER

10)

900 sa gi Šu-ì-lí sukkal šu ba-ti

11)

300 sa-gi kišib Lú-ša-lim ha-za-núm GAR-ša-naki-ka

12)

gìr Šu-ì-lí sukal lugal

13)

1,800 sa gi Zé-il-be-lí sukkal šu ba-ti

14)

600 sa gi DINGIR-ba-ni dub-sar-kas4

15)

gìr dUtu-mu sukkal

16)

120 sa gi 120 gu-kilib pa kud

17)

kišib A-hu-ni sukkal

18)

1,040 sa gi é É-duru5-lugal-šè

19)

kišib Ur-dNanna sukkal

20)

50 sa gi Ur-Sar-ru-gim ⸢sukkal šu ba-ti⸣

21)

gìr Lú-dDa-mu!(copy: -NI) sukkal

22)

2 gu-kilib gišma-nu

23)

2 gu-kilib pa kud gišásal

24)

kišib Ur-dNanše lú énsi [Gír-suki]

25)

1,495 sa gi Na-[ra-am-ì-lí] sukkal [šu ba-ti]

26)

18,000 sa gi Lu[gal-kug-zu nu-bànda šu ba-ti]

27)

gìr A-hu-ni [dumu sukkal-mah]

28)

2,400 sa gi Ur-dHe[ndur-sag-ka sukkal šu ba-ti]

29)

3,600 sìla-bur-zi gìr Š[u-en-É.NI xx]

giš

ásal

(space) 30)

šu-nígin 3,600 sìla-bur-zi

31)

šu-nígin 42,895 sa gi

32)

šu-nígin 2 gu-kilib gišma-nu

33)

šu-nígin 182 gu-kilib pa kud gišásal

34)

mu en Unu6-gal «an-na» en dInana ba-hun (AS 5)

35)

5,400 sa gi Šu-gu-⸢bu-um⸣ [šu ba-t]i

36)

2,400 sa gi Šu-dSuen sukkal šu ba-ti

37)

5,400 sa gi gìr Ag-ga lú Ma-ríki

38)

šu-nígin 13,200 sa gi

39)

mu dAmar-dSuen lugal-e Ša-aš-ru-um mu-hul (AS 6)

40)

[šu-nígin] 3,600 sìla-bur-zi

41)

[šu-nígin] 56,095 sa gi

42)

[šu-nígin] ⸢2⸣ gu-kilib gišma-nu

43)

šu-nígin 182 gu-kilib pa kud gišásal

44)

gi á dar-a mu 2-kam

45)

ki énsi Ummaki-ta

Corvée Labor

415

A record of the reeds, poplar wood, willow wood, and b u r - z i vessels that were sequestered by the chancellor (Aradmu) and various other royal officials from the governor of Umma in Amar-Suen 5 and 6. See the commentary to Text 23 and p. 384. (25) UTI 5 3119. Umma; Amar-Suen 5/ix. 1)

180+[120] sa gi

2)

gu-kilib-ba 10-ta

3)

ki énsi Ummaki-⸢ta⸣

4)

Lú-ša-lim

5)

ha-za-núm GAR-ša-⸢na⸣ki

6)

šu ba-ti

7)

[s]u-su-dam

8)

inim sukkal-mah-ta

9)

gìr Šu-ì-lí AŠ

10)

Suhuš-gi sukkal maškim

11)

iti dLi9-⸢si4⸣

12)

mu En Un[u6-g]al

13)

d

Inana ba-hun

Seal) Lú-[…] / dumu Lug[al?-…] The mayor of the town of GARšana receives reeds from the governor of Umma. The transaction was authorized by the chancellor (Aradmu), who also served as GARšana’s general ( š a g i n a ) . The text stipulates that the reeds are to be repaid. For this source, which matches Text 23: 10-11 and Text 24: 11-12, see the commentary to Text 23 and p. 384. (26) SAT 2 601. Umma; Šulgi 48/i. Collated. 1)

216.0.0 še gur lugal

2)

Árad-dNanna nu-bànda NAG-suki

3)

84.0.0 gur

4)

La-ma-ḫa-ar nu-bànda Íd-dul9-la-kaki

5)

Lú-dNanna šagina

6)

šu ba-ti

7)

níg-ba lugal

8)

30.0.0 gur

9)

bar-ta gál-la

10)

kišib Kug-ga-ni

11)

šu-nígin 330.0.0 še gur

12)

guru7 igi É-duru5-a-šag4-lá-mah-ta

416

PIOTR STEINKELLER

13)

gìr Ù-ma-ni ù Kug-ga-ni

14)

iti še-kin-kud

15)

mu ús-sa Ki-maški mu ús-sa-bi

A record of the receipt of 300 bushels of barley, designated as “king’s allotment,” by the general Lu-Nanna (of NAGsu) on behalf of the colonels of NAGsu and Id-dula. The barley was provided by Umma’s institutional economy. See p. 384. The text records an additional expenditure of 30 bushels of barley, designated as the “reserves” or “remainders” ( b a r - t a g á l - l a ) , to a certain Kugani. The barley was expended from the silo of the hamlet of Eduru-ašag-Lamah. 2. The colonel Arad-Nanna appears also in Text 27: 3, as well as in TCL 5 6047, for which see p. 356. 5. For Lu-Nanna, see the commentary to Text 2: 12.

(27) Gomi, Orient 16, 108 no. 175. Umma; Š 48?/-. 1)

120.0.0 še gur lugal

2)

kišib Ur-dNin-mug-ga

3)

nam-nu-bànda Árad-dNanna

4)

120.0.0 še gur

5)

kišib Hé-DU.DU

6)

nam-nu-bànda Bù-ú-za-a

7)

kišib nam-éren-na (space)

8)

Árad šu ba-ti

9)

lú-bi-ne ba-an-de6-éš

10)

mu ús-sa mu ús-sa-bi

1)

120 bushels of barley

2)

was received by Ur-Ninmuga

3)

under the colonelship authority of Arad-Nanna;

4)

120 bushels of barley

5)

was received by He-DU.DU

6)

under the colonelship authority of Pu’uza’a.

7)

The (respective) receipt tablets of the royal sector

8)

were received by Arad.

9)

(The barley) was carried away by these men (i.e., Ur-Ninmuga and Pu’uza’a).

10)

Šulgi 48?.

A record of two expenditures of barley, totaling 240 bushels, which were made by Umma’s institutional economy (represented by the head of grain stores Arad) for the royal sector. The grain was received by the representatives of two colonels, one whom was Arad-Nanna, who is known to have been the colonel of NAGsu (see Text

Corvée Labor

417

26). Accordingly, the other colonel (named Pu’uza’a) was likely a member of NAGsu’s military organization as well. Although not identified as such, this transaction probably classed as a “king’s gift” ( n í g - b a l u g a l ) . 2. The same Ur-Ninmuga, who too belonged to NAGsu’s royal sector, appears in the legal document TCL 5 6047: ii.12, iv.15, and in its companion, BM 105339: i.4-5, ii.9, both of which concern the estate of a certain Abi-ati. See p. 355. Since Ur-Ninmuga was AradNanna’s subordinate (as shown by the present text), he was either an “officer of 60” or a mayor (ḫazannu).

(28) UTI 5 3231. Umma; Šu-Suen 5/-. 1)

60.0.0 še gur

2)

níg-ba lugal

3)

⸢éren⸣ Ummaki-⸢me⸣-éš

4)

ugula Nu-úr-dŠu-dSuen

5)

d

6)

gìr Ba-ak-ì-lí-a nar

7)

ki énsi Ummaki-ta

8)

ba-zi

9)

mu dŠu-dSuen lugal Úrimki-ma-ke4 bàd MAR.TU Mu-ri-iq-Ti-id-ni-im mu-dù

En-líl d⸢Nin?⸣-[líl] ⸢…⸣

An expenditure of barley made by the governor of Umma to the royal settlers of the city of Umma, who remained under the command of the general Nur-Šu-Suen. The transaction was classified as “king’s allotment.” 4. Nur-Šu-Suen appears also in Text 7: 2. 5. This line possibly refers to the construction of the “great stela of Enlil and Ninlil,” which gave name the following year (i.e., Šu-Suen 6). Is it conceivable that the é r e n of Umma were somehow involved in that project?

(29) MVN 20 101. Umma; Amar-Suen 4/xii. 1)

180.0.0 še gur

2)

níg-ba [l]ugal

3)

Nu-úr-dŠul-gi dumu-lugal

4)

ki Še[š-ka]l-la šagina

5)

Lú-dingir-ra dumu Ìr-hu-la maškim

6)

kišib nu-ra-a

7)

ki-sur12 dŠul-pa-è

8)

iti dDumu-zi

9)

mu En-mah-gal-an-na ba-hun

Umma’s institutional economy issues 180 bushels of barley to the prince NurŠulgi, who was stationed with the general Šeš-kala. The transaction classed as a “king’s allotment.”

418

PIOTR STEINKELLER

4. Šeš-kala is documented as a general also in Nisaba 24 29: vii.22 (AS 3/x); AAICAB I/1 Ashm. 1910-748: 15 (AS 7/vi); UTI 6 3800: ii.21' (undated); AUCT 1 226: 9 (undated); Nebraska 30: 7-8 (undated); Ozaki and Yıldız, JCS 54, 7 52: iv.10 (date destroyed).

(30) CM 26, 215 no. 64. Girsu/Lagaš; Šulgi 46/xi. 1)

1219.0.1 še gur lugal

2)

še-ba àga-ús-me

3)

ki A-bu-ni

4)

gìr A-bí-zu-zi

5)

ki Lú-gi-na-ta

6)

bala Ur-dLama énsi Gír-suki

7)

iti še-kin-kud

8)

mu Ki-maški Hu-ur-tiki ba-hul

Seal) Ur-dBa-ú / dub-sar / dumu Na-mu The elite soldiers under the command of the general Abuni receive over 1,219 bushels of barley from the institutional economy of Girsu/Lagaš as their allotment. The transaction probably classed as a “king’s allotment.” The expenditure was credited to the bala tax of the governor of Girsu/Lagaš. 3. For Abuni, see the commentary to Text 7a: iv.4.

(31) TEL 171: 1-10. Girsu/Lagaš; Šu-Suen 6/ix. 1)

438.0.0 še gur lugal

2)

níg-ba lugal

3)

àga-ús šag4 GAR-ša-na

4)

ki Al-la-mu-ta

5)

Šu-ì-lí

6)

šu ba-ti

7)

ì-dub gištir-ma-nu-ta

8)

še Ur-šu-ga-lam-ma

9)

iti mu-šu-du7

10)

mu dŠu-dSuen na-dù-a mah dEn-líl-lá mu-dù

The commander Šu-ili receives from the institutional economy of Girsu/Lagaš 438 bushels of barley for the elite soldiers residing in GARšana. The transaction represented a “king’s allotment.” 4. The same Allamu appears in Text 33: 5. 5. Šu-ili appears as a colonel in Text 4: 3, 24.

Corvée Labor

419

(32) HSM 909.5.613. Girsu/Lagaš; Šu-Suen 4/vii. 1)

165 guruš

2)

ugula Lú-dMAR.TU

3)

24 guruš

4)

ugula A-mur-DINGIR

5)

26 guruš

6)

ugula Lú-dNanna

7)

[10]+2 guruš

8)

[ug]ula dŠul-gi-lí-šu

9)

šu-nígin 227 guruš 1.0.0 še gur-ta

10)

še-bi 227 gur

11)

níg-ba lugal

12)

ù-kul dumu Úrimki-ma igi-nim-ma a-šag4-KU-lá-šè

13)

d

14)

ki énsi Gír-suki-ta

15)

ba-zi

16)

iti ezen-dŠul-gi

17)

mu En-am-gal-an-na en dInana ba-hun

Nin-líl-ama-mu maškim

The governor of Girsu/Lagaš issues 227 bushels of barley to 227 men of Ur as a “king’s allotment.” The men in question were led by four commanders, at least one whom was a general (Šulgi-ilišu, line 8). Line 12 appears to describe the location of the project on which these men were employed: “(food) for the ù - k u l men of Ur, (stationed) above at the field Kula.” 8. The same person is attested as a general in the Girsu/Lagaš tablet MVN 19 55: 5 (undated). As in the present example, his name is spelled there d Š u l - g i - l í - š u . I assume that this writing represents Šulgi-(i)lišu. Cf. d Š u l - g i - l í š a g i n a in CST 34: ii.12, who must be the same person, since both there and in MVN 19 55 he is associated with the Elamite troops from Tablala ( E l a m T a b - l a - l a ( k i - m e ) ). 9. The meaning of the designation ù - k u l remains unknown. See Michalowski 2006: 53; Notizia 2010: 111.

(33) ITT 2 3683. Girsu/Lagaš; Šu-Suen 4/x. 1)

90.0.0 še gur lugal

2)

šag4-gal éren dumu-dab5-ba-ka

3)

níg-ba éren lugal

4)

inim sukkal-mah-ta

5)

ki Al-la-mu-ta

6)

Sar-ru-um-ì-lí

7)

šu ba-ti

8)

šag4 Lugal-dIM.MI.HUki

420

PIOTR STEINKELLER

9)

iti amar-a-si-gi4

10)

mu dŠu-dSuen lugal bàd ma-da mu-dù

The commander Šarrum-ili receives 90 bushels of barley for the military settlers under his command. The expenditure was authorized by the chancellor (Aradmu). The transaction is described as an “allotment of the royal é r e n ” (instead of the usual n í g - b a l u g a l ) . The same Šarrum-ili borrows barley for the royal dependents of the city of Girsu in the Umma text AUCT 3 492 (= Steinkeller 2002: 130-31; AS 7/-). 8. The same village is mentioned in Text 34: 5, where its name is spelled É - d u r u 5 - L u g a l d IM.DUGUD.

(34) MVN 11 39. Girsu/Lagaš; Šulgi 44/xii. Collated. 1)

2.4.4 5 sìla še gur lugal (space)

2)

šag4-gal éren-na-šè

3)

ki Lú-kisal ha-za-núm-ta

4)

Kud-da šu ba-ti

5)

É-duru5-Lugal-dIM.DUGUD

6)

a-šag4-A-ba-al-la

7)

iti še-íl-la

8)

mu Si-mu-ru-umkiLu-lu-bu a-rá kam-aš ba-hul

Seal) Lú-dingir-⸢ra⸣ / dumu Ur-L[I] / ugula ⸢éren?-na?⸣ The mayor Lu-kisal issues nearly 3 bushels of barley to a group of royal settlers. The barley was received by a certain Kuda, with a “captain of the é r e n ” sealing the document. It appears that both Lu-kisal and the settlers in question lived in the village called Eduru-Lugal-Anzu. 5. For this toponym, see Text 33: 8. 6. For the location of this field, cf. a - š a g 4 - A - b a - a l - l a - t a a - š a g 4 - H a - z i - š è k a s k a l - b i 4 d a - n a … B a r a g - s i - g a k i - t a a - š a g 4 - A - b a - a l - l a - š è k a s k a l - b i 2 d a - n a (Farmer's Instructions 7.6: 4-12).

(35) BPOA 1 1162. Umma; Amar-Suen 2/-. 1)

1200.0.0 še gur

2)

É-a-ì-lí šagina

3)

1200.0.0 še gur

4)

0.0.3 ì-giš

5)

0.4.3 ì-šáh

6)

10 gú siki girx(GI)

7)

Ì-làl-lum

8)

ki énsi Ummaki-ta

Corvée Labor 9)

kišib Lú-dingir-ra sabra

10)

mu dAmar-dSuen lugal-e Ur-bí-lumki mu-hul

1)

1200 bushels of barley

2)

(for) Ea-ili, the general;

3)

1200 bushels of barley,

4)

30 liters of sesame oil,

5)

270 liters of lard,

6)

(and) 10 talents of ordinary wool

7)

(for) Ilallum;

8)

from the governor of Umma

9)

received (lit.: sealed) by Lu-dingira, the majordomo.

10)

Year Amar-Suen 2.

421

The generals Ea-ili and Ilallum receive barley and other commodities from the governor of Umma. It appears that the barley was intended for the troops that these two individuals commanded as part of the corvée project alluded to in TCL 5 6041. See p. 377. (36) UDU 68 (= SNAT 538). Umma; undated. The royal settlers of the city of Umma receive 39,000 bundles of reeds from Umma’s institutional economy ( é r e n U m m a k i - k e 4 š u b a - a b - t i ) , probably as part of a major corvée project (or a military expedition?). There were four recipients in charge: U r - g i š g i g i r n u - b à n d a , L u g a l - k u g - z u d u m u Ì - g i n - n a , U r d Š á r a d u m u d U t u - š a g 5 - g a ( d U t u - s i g 5 ) , and SÍG.BU. Of those, Lugal-kugzu, son of Igina, is attested also in TCL 5 6163: 27 (= NSGU 2 120b; AS 6/vi), in connection with the royal organization of NAGsu.

422

PIOTR STEINKELLER

Bibliography Assmann, J. 2002 The Mind of Egypt: History and Meaning in the Time of the Pharaohs. New York: Metropolitan Books. Beaulieu, P.-A. 2005 Eanna’s Contribution to the Construction of the North Palace at Babylon. Pp. 45-73 in Approaching the Babylonian Economy: Proceedings of the START Project Symposium, Held in Vienna, 1-3 July 2004, ed. H. B. Baker and M. Jursa. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 330. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. Civil, M. 2011 The Law Collection of Ur-Namma. Pp. 221-286 in Cuneiform Royal Inscriptions and related Texts in the Schøyen Collection, Manuscripts in the Schøyen Collection. Cuneiform texts VI, ed. A. George. Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology 17. Bethesda: CDL Press. Dahl, J. L. 2007 The Ruling Family of Ur III Umma: A Prosopographical Analysis of an Elite Family in Southern Iraq 4000 Years Ago. PIHANS CVIII. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten. Goetze, A. 1963 Šakkanakkus of the Ur III Empire. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 17: 1-31. Gelb, I. J. 1957 Glossary of Old Akkadian. Materials for the Assyrian Dictionary 3. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Heimpel, W. 2004 AO 7667 and the Meaning of ba-an-gi4. Cuneiform Digital Library Journal 2004/1: 1-13. 2009 Workers and Construction Work at Garšana. Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology 5. Bethesda: CDL Press. Koslova, N. 2008 Bezeichnungen der Arbeitskräfte in Umma der Ur III-Zeit. Pp. 145-201 in The Growth of an Early State in Mesopotamia: Studies in Ur III Administration. Proceedings of the First and Second Ur III Workshops at the 49th and 51st Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, London July 10, 2003 and Chicago July 19, 2005, ed. J. C. Johnson and S. J. Garfinkle. Biblioteca del Próximo Oriente Antiguo 5. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas. Lafont, B., and Yildiz, F. 1996 Tablettes Cunéiformes de Tello au Musé d’Istanbul, Datant de l’époque de la IIIe Dyanstie d’Ur, II.Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten. Lafont, B. 2009 The Army of the Kings of Ur: The Textual Evidence. Cuneiform Digital Library Journal 2009/5: 1-25. 2011 The Garšana Soldiers. Pp 213-219 in Garšana Studies, ed. D. I. Owen. Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology 6. Bethesda: CDL Press. Lehner, M. 2002 The Pyramid Age Settlement of the Southern Mount at Giza, Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 39: 27-74. Michalowski, P. 2006 Love or Death? Observations on the Role of the Gala in Ur III Ceremonial Life. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 58: 49-61.

Corvée Labor

423

Molina, M. 2008 New Ur III Court Records Concerning Slavery. Pp. 125-143 in On the Third Dynasty of Ur: Studies in Honor of Marcel Sigrist, ed. P. Michalowski. The Journal of Cuneiform Studies, Supplemental Series 1. Boston: American Schools of Oriental Research. 2010 Court Records from Umma. Pp. 201-217 in Why Should Someone Who Knows Something Conceal It? Cuneiform Studies in Honor of David I. Owen on His 70th Birthday, ed. A. Kleinerman and J. M. Sasson. Bethesda: CDL Press. Morell, V. 2001 The Pyramid Builders. National Geographic (November): 79-99. Nissen, H. J. 1988 The Early History of the Ancient Near East, 9000-2000 B.C. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Notizia, P. 2010 Review of J. Dahl, The Ruling Family of Ur III Umma: A Prosopographical Analysis of an Elite Family in Southern Iraq 4000 Years Ago. PIHANS CVIII. Leiden 2007. Bibliotheca Orientalis 67: 107-112. Owen, D. I., and Mayr, R. H. 2007 The Garšana Archives. Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology 3. Bethesda: CDL Press. Sallaberger, W. 1999 Ur III-Zeit. Pp. 121-390 in Mesopotamien: Akkade-Zeit und Ur III-Zeit, ed. P. Attinger and M. Wäfler. Annäherungen 3. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 160/3. Freiburg Schweiz: Universitätsverlag. Shaw, J. 2003 Who Built the Pyramids? Not slaves. Archaeologist Mark Lehner, digging deeper, discovers a city of privileged workers. Harvard Magazine (July-August): 42-49, 99. Steinkeller, P. 1987a The Foresters of Umma: Toward a Definiton of Ur III Labor. Pp. 73-116 in Labor in the Ancient Near East, ed. M. A. Powell. American Oriental Series 68. New Haven: American Oriental Society. 1987b The Administrative and Economic Organization of the Ur III State: The Core and the Periphery. Pp. 19-41 in The Organization of Power: Aspects of Bureaucracy in the Ancient Near East, ed. McG. Gibson and R. D. Biggs. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 46. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. 2001a New Light on the Hydrology and Topography of Southern Babylonia in the Third Millennium. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 91: 22-84. 2001b Security for Loans in the Ur III Period. Pp. 47-62 in Security for Debt in Ancient Near Eastern Law, ed. R. Westbrook and R. Jasnow. Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 9. Leiden: Brill. 2002 Money Lending Practices in the Ur III Period: The Issue of Economic Motivation. Pp. 109-137 in Debt and Economic Renewal in the Ancient Near East, ed. M. Hudson and M. Van de Mieroop. Bethesda: CDL Press. 2003 Archival Practices at Babylonia in the Third Millennium. Pp. 37-58 in Ancient Archives and Archival Traditions: Concepts of Record-keeping in the Ancient World, ed. M. Brosius. Oxford Studies in Ancient Documents 1. Oxford: Oxord University Press. 2004 Toward a Definition of Private Economic Activity in Third Millennium Babylonia. Pp. 91-111 in Commerce and Monetary Systems in the Ancient World: Means of Transmission and Cultural Interaction, ed. R. Rollinger and Ch. Ulf. Oriens et Occidens: Studien zu antiken Kulturkontakten und ihrem Nachleben 6. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner.

424

PIOTR STEINKELLER

2007a City and Countryside in Third Millennium Southern Babylonia. Pp. 185-211 in Settlement and Society: Essays Dedicated to Robert McC. Adams, ed. E. C. Stone. Los Angeles and Chicago: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology and the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. 2007b On Sand Dunes, Mountain Ranges, and Mountain Peaks. Pp. 219-232 in Studies Presented to Robert D. Biggs, ed. M. T. Roth et al. From the Workshop of the Chicago Assyrian Dictionary 2. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. 2010 On the Location of the Towns of Ur-Zababa and Dimat-Enlil and on the Course of the Arahtum. Pp. 369-382 in Festschrift for Gernot Wilhelm anlässlich seines 65. Geburstags am 28. Januar 2010, ed. J. C. Fincke. Dresden: ISLET. 2011 On the Location of the Town of GARšana. Pp. 373-390 in Garšana Studies, ed. D. I. Owen. Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology 6. Bethesda: CDL Press. forthcoming The Employment of Labor on National Building Projects in the Ur III Period. In Labor in the Pre-Classical Old World, ed. P. Steinkeller. Stol, M. 1995 Old Babylonian Corvée (tupšikkum). Pp. 293-308 in Studio Historiae Ardens: Ancient Near Eastern Studies Presented to Philo H. J. Houwink ten Cate on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday, ed. Th. P. J. van den Hout and J. de Roos. Leiden: Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul. Taylor, J. 2010 Ḫazannum: The Forgotten Mayor. Pp. 207-222 in City Administration in the Ancient Near East. Proceedings of the 53e Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale. 2, ed. L. Kogan et al. Babel und Bibel 5. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.

Ikalla, Scribe of (Wool) Textiles and Linen Lorenzo Verderame and Gabriella Spada* UNIVERSITÀ LA SAPIENZA, ROME

In this study we propose an outline of the activities of Ikalla, an important official recorded in the Neo-Sumerian texts from Umma. A large dossier documents the main role of Ikalla in each stage of textile and fabric production, from the collecting of raw wool to the distribution of the finished product, as well as his involvement in other economic activities.1

1. The Identity of Ikalla The name Ikalla ( Ì - k a l - l a ) appears ca. 450 times in the Neo-Sumerian documents from Umma. Most of these attestations likely relate to the same person. The earliest references are from the years Šulgi 35 and Šulgi 40,2 with regular attestations from Šulgi 46 to the end of Ibbi-Su’en 3. A seal with the legend Ì-kal-la / dubsar / dumu Lú-sa 6 -ga (Fig. 1) is first attested on a tablet dated to Šulgi 40 (SAT 2 253), and then regularly with over 132 examples from Šulgi 46 to Ibbi-Su’en 1.3

Fig. 1. The seal of Ikalla

––––––––––––– * L. Verderame and G. Spada co-authored §§ 1 and 6; L. Verderame wrote §§ 2 and 3; G. Spada wrote §§ 4 and 5. 1. We use the term dossier here in a general sense, to indicate conventionally the group of texts recording the name of Ikalla. In most cases we don’t know whether the Sumerian term for the final product refers to a piece of clothing or to fabric. From here on, for the sake of space and in order to avoid repetition, we will conventionally use the general term “textile” to allude to both realities (clothing and fabrics). 2. Fish, MCS 2, 55 (BM 111782); SAT 2 253. 3. According to Bergamini apud Archi and Pomponio (1995: 168) four seals of Ikalla existed with the same legend; however, ibid. 376, only three seals are listed (a-c). One of them (b), UCP 9-2-2 28 (1) Ì - k a l - l a 2) d u b - s a r 3) d u m u L ú - s a 6 - g a 4) d u b - s a r ) should be emended, since the last line is nonexistent; another one (c), is documented only by Hirose 395; cf. YOS 4 162. Sigrist reports in SAT 3 1732 (ŠS 6/-/-) an otherwise unknown seal of Ikalla: 1) Ì - k a l - l a 2) d u b - s a r 3) d u m u L ú - s a 6 - g a 4) s a ĝ d u 5 - k a . Another seal, whose impression appears on a tablet of workers (Mercer, JSOR 12, 37 10; ŠS 4/-/-; see below), relates Ikalla to Ur-Ba’U (1) Ì - k a l - l a 2) d u b - s a r 3) d u m u U r - d B a - Ú), see the discussion below. Mayr (1997: 256f.) identifies three seals of Ikalla as well, which are differentiated only based on size.

425

426

LORENZO VERDERAME AND GABRIELLA SPADA

No other titles besides that of “scribe” ( d u b - s a r ) are documented for Ikalla, with two exceptions: 1. OrSP 47-49 324 (AS 2/-/-) is an “inspection of fullers and weavers’ foremen” (r.iii.28) ⸢ k u r u 7 ⸣ a k a l ú á z l a g 29) [ ù (?)] u g u l a u š - b a r ) ; Ikalla is qualified as “scribe of (wool) textiles and linen” (i.31).4 2. SAT 3 1819 (ŠS 7/-/26) is a delivery of reeds by A’akalla. Ikalla is the receiver and seals the tablet; l. 4 records k i š i b Ì - k a l - l a s u k k a l k u š 7 - m e . The records belong to various typologies and register different activities. This has suggested the existence of different homonyms according to each branch of the economy.5 These activities are, however, strictly related and reflect the business of the same person. In fact the analysis of the entire corpus reveals homogeneity not only in the type of documents and in the activities they record, but also in the recurrent name of the officials involved.6 The constant appearance of the latter in the small group of documents that does not belong to the main categories (see Fig. 3 below), i.e. not standard or “private” records (as contracts), makes certain the attribution of these documents to the same Ikalla as well. Very few references can be, instead, related to homonyms: 1. the g é m e t u r in Nisaba 6 27; 2. the l u k u r in Nisaba 23 36; SAT 3 1765; UTI 6 3516; AnOr 7 296;7 3. the son of a l u k u r of U r - d L i 9 - s i 4 , i n UTI 3 2139, and Santag 6 192; 4. the tablet Mercer, JSOR 12, 37 10, shows the seal impression of “ Ikalla, the scribe, son of Ur-Ba’U”; 5. in a “Messenger Text” from the Valdosta collection8 and Nik. 2 352; 6. the m u h a l d i m who acts as a ĝ ì r in MVN 14 372;9 7. the reference in UTI 3 2281 (Šeš-kal-la šeš-tab-ba Ì-kal-la engar). While in the first two cases the female gender hampers identification with the well known official,10 in the other cases the question is one of hermeneutics. In fact the identification of the official son of Lu-saga with the son of Ur-Lisi and a lukur (no. 3), contrasts with the assumption of the strict correspondence of the term d u m u

––––––––––––– 4. Waetzoldt 1972: 101; Verderame 2008: 123. The only other case of a similar title in the NeoSumerian texts is in the seal of Ur-Šara “textiles’ scribe of Šara” (1) U r - d Š á r a 2) d u b - s a r t ú g 3) d Š á r a ) from Umma (BIN 5 87; BCT 2 5, SAT 2 71; all texts are dated Š 33). 5. Dahl (2007: 76f.) distinguishes three Ikalla documented in Neo-Sumerian archives from Umma: a son of Ur-Lisi and a lukur, a foreman of the textile factory, and an agricultural overseer. 6. These are the officials with whom he does his business or that of the Ure’e and Apisal group; this will be demonstrated below. 7. Dahl (2007: 76 n. 277) proposes reading < d u m u > l u k u r , suggesting an identification of this individual with the successive no. 3. 8. No. 5 in Johnson 2006. 9. Note that Ikalla m u h a l d i m receives a ration in the Girsu messenger text Nisaba 3/2 56 (= BPOA 1 358). 10. See n. 7. In a strict sense, the assumption that the sealing official is male is arbitrary too, because no irrefutable proof exists on the matter.

Ikalla, Scribe of (Wool) Textiles and Linen

427

with “biological son.” However, several elements point to the interpretation of d u m u in a wider semantic sense of subordination.11 This might well be the case for no. 4: the tablet Mercer, JSOR 12, 37 10, bearing the seal of Ikalla son of UrBau, belongs to a well known group of texts in Ikalla’s dossier (record of fieldwork, see below) and it is parallel to UCP 9-2-2 28, sealed by Ikalla son of Lu-saga. The two texts both deal with workers present at the threshing floor of the Gu’edenna; they both bear the expression k i š i b n a m - š à - t a m Ì - k a l - l a and the date ŠuSu’en 4. We may assume that the same official Ikalla sealed the tablets with two different seals, a well known practice in Neo-Sumerian administration.12 In the case of the “Messenger Texts” these two references contrast with the frequent presence of Ikalla in other types of documents, but could not be taken as a decisive proof alone.13

2. The Dossier of Ikalla The dossier of Ikalla deals with three main topics that occasionally overlap (see Fig. 3 below). The main group is that dealing with textiles, which constitutes half of the entire dossier. The rest is equally divided among the reeds and related products group, that of fieldwork, and a fourth group, in which we collected all the texts excluded by the three main groups. The texts in the last category are, on the one hand, records which could not be related to the main activities and deal with rations, animals, hides, barley, etc.; and on the other hand, records that belong to specific cathegories of documents like barley and silver loans, contracts, and a letter order (TCS 1 193).

Graph 1. General distribution of the records

––––––––––––– 11. On the question of d u m u see Pomponio 2013 in this volume. 12. See the case of Lukalla treated by Pomponio (1992), and Laurito, Mezzasalma and Verderame (2006 and 2008). See also Mayr (1997). Although this practice is well documented in the textual corpus, the purpose of doing so should be a topic for future research. 13. On the identity of the people and officials mentioned in the “Messenger Texts”, see Pomponio 2013 in this volume.

428

LORENZO VERDERAME AND GABRIELLA SPADA

Although some references to Ikalla occur prior to Šulgi 44,14 the dossier is more consistenly attested from this year forward. The number of documents related to the textiles varies at equal intervals,15 while the number of texts belonging to the other groups are constant, with two exceptions: Šu-Su’en 5 for the reed group and Ibbi-Su’en 1 for the workers group, these exceptions will be discussed below.

Graph 2. Distribution of groups per year

3. Textile Production Our analysis of Ikalla’s role in the corpus of the Umma texts begins with the biggest group of documents contained in the dossier, i.e. those recording textile production. Ca. 254 texts (56% of the entire dossier) are directly related to this sector (Graph 1), recording each single phase of the production process.

3.1. The t ú g k i - l á t a g - g a Texts Previously, we had the chance to study the texts recording the weight of the final product of weavers’ work in Umma (Verderame 2008). We begin our analysis with these documents which give us clues to understanding the phases and passages of textile production in Umma. These texts show a similar structure:16

––––––––––––– 14. See n. 2. 15. A similar pattern was observed in the fabric production for the years Šulgi 37 - Šulgi 44 in the balanced account of the weavers’ foremen compiled by Lugal-ezem; see Verderame 2008: §4.1. 16. Ca. 86 texts from Šulgi 46 to Ibbi-Su’en 1.

Ikalla, Scribe of (Wool) Textiles and Linen

429

1. a list of textiles and their relative weight ( k i - l á - b i ) ; 2. the optional expression “textiles weighed after the work” ( t ú g k i - l á t a g - g a ) ; 3. the rubric of the officials involved: the one who releases the textiles ( k i PNt a ) , the one who weighs them (PN i n - l á ) and the recipient (PN š u b a - t i ) ; 4. the date. In these documents, the textiles are delivered by “foremen of weavers” ( u g u l a u š b a r ) , for example Ur-Nintu. 17 The recipient is in most cases Ikalla or the fullers (Graph 3).18 The official in charge of the weighing is often Ikalla, Ure’e or the ensi (Graph 4). These documents record the administration’s control over one of the production phases, i.e. the delivery of textiles by the weavers’ foremen. The officials in charge count number of textiles produced by the weavers and record their weight to check the material lost during the production. Then the textiles are delivered to the fullers for the successive process of dressing.

Graph 3. t ú g k i - l á t a g - g a texts, receivers

––––––––––––– 17. Other recurrent weavers’ foremen in Umma are Lugal-nilagare and Šešsag; see Verderame (2008: 114). 18. In graph 3 the documents in which a receiver is not specified, are grouped under the label N(ot) D(eclared) and separated in two parts “a” and “b,” where the former are the records in which Ikalla appears as weigher.

430

LORENZO VERDERAME AND GABRIELLA SPADA

Graph 4. túg ki-lá tag-ga texts, weighers

3.2. The Phases of Textile Production In general, three phases can be identified in textile production (wool production, weaving, dressing) along with three exchanges of the product (Fig. 2):19 A. the wool is given to the weavers, who weave the fabric; B. the fullers receive the fabrics and textiles and produce the final product by the dressing process; C. the textiles are received and distributed by the official in charge. Each one of these transfers is supervised by the official in charge, who checks the weight of the product and control of material’s loss during the process ( NE- g u 7 b i ) .20 The texts from Umma related to textile production document the involvement of Ikalla and, furthermore, his main role in this sector.

––––––––––––– 19. A further movement of goods might be included, that of the distribution of the final product, if we consider the fabric and textile production as part of the general redistribution of textiles by the central administration, see below. 20. In most cases the official in charge is Ikalla, see the balanced account of wool where the amount of material lost is in the section of Ikalla: AAICAB I/1 Ashm. 1924-666 (AS 7/-/-): r.ii.15f., ca. 257 kg; Santag 6 269 (ŠS 3/-/-): r.ii.4ff.; Santag 6 288 (ŠS 4/-/-): r.i.4; Nisaba 11 6 ([-/-/-]): iii.9f.; cf. SAT 3 1864.

Ikalla, Scribe of (Wool) Textiles and Linen

431



















Fig. 2. The steps in textile production

The control over the transfer of goods under production is recorded in two types of documents (Fig. 2), one (a) in which Ikalla “receives” the product ( š u b a - t i ) , the other (b) in which he “delivers” it ( k i Ì - k a l - l a - t a ) . These passages of the products via Ikalla are probably only administrative, with the physical product directly transferred from one sector of the production to the other. This is the case for the transfer of textiles from the weavers’ foreman to the fullers, as the record of fullers as receivers in the t ú g k i - l á t a g - g a texts might suggest.

3.3. Wool and Linen for the Weavers (A) Several records present Ikalla as the provider of wool and linen as raw material for the weavers. These records are the receipts of wool by Ikalla,21 or by the weavers’ foreman from Ikalla.22

––––––––––––– 21. For the receipt of wool from the shepherds see Nisaba 6 20; Nisaba 11 6. 22. Rochester 96 and 143; Fish, MCS 8, 94 (BM 105467); for the linen see BPOA 1 1082.

432

LORENZO VERDERAME AND GABRIELLA SPADA

Nebraska 23 is a record of 155 kg of GI-wool entrusted ( ĝ ì r ) to Ikalla for the year Š 47/-/-. The balanced account MVN 1 221 (ŠS 5/-/-) records the issue of wool to various officials. Ikalla is first on the list and the one who receives half of the entire amount.23 In some cases the origin of the wool is specified as from the g ú n a tax (CST 598: 2; Santag 6 193: 1, 269: r.ii.5). In other cases the destination of the wool for the production of specific textiles is provided (Fish, MCS 8, 94 BM 105467; Rochester 143; SAT 3 1864). The long balanced account (SET 274) of the wool for Amar-Su’en 2 provides a sketch of the range of production under Ikalla. The section begins with the calculation of the free days.24 This is followed by a list of textiles and their relative weight grouped by the kind of wool.25 At the end, the total number of work days (59,380), the thread and naga is specified.26 This is similar to the section related to Ikalla in the balanced account (AAS 135, v.2-36) of Šešsag, foreman of the weavers, for Amar-Su’en 3. Another balanced account (STA 5) from Amar-Su’en 2 records, on the account of Ikalla ( ú g u Ì - k a l - l a b a - a - ĝ a r , ii.14), the work of female workers as millers. The last entry totals the number of work days of the weavers ( 4 , 6 2 0 g é m e u 4 1 - š è á t ú g t u k u 5 - a , 12f.); this is parallel to a balanced account of female workers MVN 21 200 (AS 2/-/-): ii.11-iii.11.27

3.4. The Issuing of Textiles to the Fullers (B) In the dossier of Ikalla 91 texts record the issuing of fabrics and textiles. Ikalla appears equally as the receiver ( š u b a - t i ) , when he takes the textile from the weavers or the fullers, and as the issuer ( k i … - t a ) , when he delivers the textile to the fullers or to their final destination. The first transfer is documented by the t ú g k i - l á t a g - g a texts, discussed above, and by a series of records which bear in the rubric the expression “textiles which the female millers have woven” ( t ú g g é m e k í k k e n - n a - k e 4 t u k u 5 - a ) .28 A group of texts records the issue of textiles from Lukalla to Ikalla.29 In these texts the administrative provenance of the textile is always specified:30

––––––––––––– 23. The total amount is 900 kg ( 3 0 g ú ) of wool, of which 470 kg are issued to Ikalla, 230 kg to Lukalla, 41 kg to Ur-Nintu, and smaller amounts to other officials. The wool issued is of the GI type, possibly “wool of native sheep” (Steinkeller 1995: 57). The text is a balanced account under the control ( ĝ ì r ) of Šara-kam; the wool is defined in the rubric as z a - h a - š a . 24. 8 , 3 3 5 1 / 2 g é m e u 4 1 - š è á u 4 - d u h - a (vi.9f.); see Englund (1991: 278 n. 37). 25. s í g k u r - r a ĝ i š g a - r í g a k (vi.11-23), s í g k u r - r a p e š 5 - a (vi.24-27), s í g g i 6 p e š 5 - a (vi.28 - r.i.5), s í g GI p e š 5 - a (r.i.6-8), s í g m u g (r.i.9-11), g a d a (r.i.12-13). 26. SET 274: r.i.14-16 ( á - b i u 4 5 9 , 3 8 0 g u - b i 1 1 8 0 s a n a g a - b i 0 . 4 . 5 5 s ì l a ) . 27. For other balanced accounts of female workers including a section related to Ikalla see MVN 21 204 (ŠS 7/-/-): ii.5'-r. i 3. 28. Nisaba 9 169 (Š 46/viii/-); BPOA 1 1715 (Š 47/-/-); Santag 6 101 (Š 48?/-/-); BIN 5 172 (AS 1/-/) and 173 (AS 1/-/-); Fish, MCS 8, 91 (BM 105711; AS 1/-/-); Nisaba 9 151 (AS 1/viii/-); BPOA 2 2542 (AS 1/ix/-); MVN 21 200 (AS 2/-/-); AAICAB I/1 Ashm. 1911-481 (IS 1/xii/-). 29. Lukalla is recorded as responsible for the weighing in a group of t ú g k i - l á t a g - g a texts, in which, in most cases, Ur-Nintu is the deliverer and Ikalla the recipient. 30. See also Torino 2 607 (AS 5/-/-); MVN 5 13 (AS 6/-/-); Santag 6 193 (AS 8/xi/-). In Nisaba 9 13 (Š 48/xii/-) the textiles are qualified as t ú g d Š á r a k a r - r a ; cf. MVN 20 77 (AS 3/-/-). Cf. SAT 2 578 (Š 48/-/-).

Ikalla, Scribe of (Wool) Textiles and Linen Text OrSP 47-49 389

UTI 3 1880

SACT 2 282

Year ŠS 1/-/-

Line 4

túg gú-na (AS 9)

8

túg gú-na (ŠS 1)

14

túg géme kíkken-na-ke4 tuku5-a

2, 4f.

túg gú-na uru tuku5-a … túg géme kíkken-na-ke4 tuku5-a šà Ummaki

r.1, 4f.

túg gú-na uru tuku5-a … túg géme kíkken-na-ke4 tuku5-a šà A-pi4-sal4ki

ŠS 2/-/-

ŠS 3/-/-

433

2f.

túg gú-na Gú-dè-[na] (AS 8)

7f.

túg gú-na uru tuku5-a (ŠS 2)

r.4f.

túg géme kíkken-na-ke4 tuku5-a šà Ummaki

In the balanced account of wool for Amar-Su’en 3, Lukalla is responsible ( ĝ ì r ) for the t ú g g ú - n a u r u t u k u 5 - a and the product loss ( NE- g u 7 - b i ) has been acknowledged by a sealed tablet of Ikalla (AAICAB I/1 Ashm. 1924-666: r.ii.9-16). Ikalla receives the fabric from the weavers’ foremen and delivers it to the fullers.31 The transfer through Ikalla is only administrative, as BPOA 1 70 (ŠS 5/v/-) shows: the fabric is delivered directly by Ur-Nintu, foreman of the weavers, to Urgigir and Ušĝu, fullers; Ikalla’ s role is limited to sealing the record.

3.4.1. The Issuing of Products to the Fullers Ikalla provides the fullers with the chemicals needed for the dressing process as well. These are often recorded by the central administration through UrŠulpa’e, who registers not only the materials for the fullers, but also their workdays and, eventually, their rations. These products are mainly pig fat ( ì - š á h ) , gypsum ( i m - b á b b a r ) , and n a g a , all products related to the dressing process.32 In these documents Ikalla appears as the receiver or official in charge,33 as well as the deliverer of the products.34 These are provided by the damgars and recorded in their balanced accounts.35 Ur-Šulpa’e often appears to be in charge of the chemical products with the fullers

––––––––––––– 31. Rochester 96 (AS 2/-/-); Nisaba 9 136 (ŠS 2/xi/-); AUCT 3 264 and Rochester 119 (ŠS 3/-/-); CHANE 18 166 (ŠS 6/x/-); Fish, MCS 8, 94 (BM 105467; IS 2/-/-); Rochester 134 (IS 2/ix/-), 143 (IS 3/-/). Fullers are involved in Ikalla’s dossier as workers as well and receive rations. 32. Waetzoldt 1972: 168-174. 33. BPOA 1 1204 (AS 1/-/-); UTI 3 2067 (AS 5/-/-); BPOA 1 999 (AS 9/-/-); UTI 3 2191 (ŠS 1/-/-); BPOA 1 1360 (ŠS 1/-/-); Nisaba 9 111 (ŠS 2/-/-); Nisaba 9 40 (ŠS 4/-/-); as responsible for sealing and sealer: CST 736 (Š 47/xii/-), Nisaba 9 168 (AS 1/-/-), Hirose 395 (IS 1/x/-). See also the balanced accounts of wool (SET 274; AAICAB I/1 Ashm. 1924-666; Santag 6 269 and 288) and the amount on the account of Ikalla ( ú g u ... b a - a - ĝ a r ) , in Nisaba 9 30 (AS 3/-/-) and UTI 4 2944 (AS 4/-/-). 34. MVN 18 486 (Š 46/-/-); Nisaba 9 130 (Š 48/-/-); CTNMC 38 (AS 6/-/-); Rochester 100 (AS 8/-/-); Rochester 104 (AS 9/v/-); Foxvog, ASJ 18, 83 18 (ŠS 9/-/-; in Nippur); Rochester 136 (IS 2/xii/-); Rochester 139 and 141 (IS 3/vii/-). 35. BPOA 1 999 records the delivery of gypsum and naga by the damgars to Ikalla via ( ĝ ì r ) Lukalla; the products are paid for in silver ( k ù - t a s a 1 0 - a ) .

434

LORENZO VERDERAME AND GABRIELLA SPADA

in these documents together with, or instead of, Ikalla;36 Lukalla always has a central role. Ontario 2 348 (Š 48/-/-) records the provenance of the pig fat as ì g ú n a from the farmers ( e n g a r ) .

3.5. The Final Product (C) Ikalla receives the textiles from the fullers, after the dressing ( t ú g s a g i 4 a ) ,37 and delivers the completed products to the palace ( é - g a l - l a k u 4 - r a ) or to the temples as textile distributions ( t ú g - b a ) . In a few cases the ensi or an official receives the textile, with no further specification in the text. Specific disbursements are also recorded: turbans ( t ú g b a r - s i - n ì - l á ) are delivered by Ikalla to various professionals,38 to workers in prison ( h é - d a b 5 š à e n - n u n ) ,39 and to the ensi.40 In other cases, the issue of textiles is related to a special event, for example, the visit of the queen Abī-simtī to Zabalam,41 or the gift to the temples for the New Year ( n ì - d a b 5 z à m u - k a ) .42 Twice the deliveries mention the town of Nippur.43 SACT 2 284 (ŠS 3/VIII/-) is a distribution of textiles to the personnel in Nippur ( t ú g - b a ĝ ì r - s è - g a N i b r u k i ) . Santag 6 296 (ŠS 5/xii/-) is a list of issues of textiles from fullers and from Ikalla, recorded as “wool and linen textiles entered in the palace in Nippur” ( t ú g g a d a é - g a l k u 4 - r a š à N i b r u k i , r.ii.10f.).

4. The Canebrake and Basket Production The texts also record a role for Ikalla outside of the production of textiles and pertaining to the distribution and management of reed, timber, and items made from these raw materials, such as reed-baskets, mats, or wooden staves and planks.

4.1. Reed Production Ikalla appears in a group of 46 texts concerning the delivery of reed bundles, all dated to a period between Šu-Su’en 1 and Ibbi-Su’en 1, with a peak of 32 texts

––––––––––––– 36. STA 22 (AS 4/i/-): r.i.10-15; Fish, BJRL 22, 167 and Nisaba 6 2 (AS 6/xi/-): iii.7-9; STA 1 (AS 8/vii/-): r.i.33f.; Ledgers pl. 17 10 (AS 7/vii/-): r.i.16-18; TCL 5 6037 (ŠS 6/-/-): r.ii.24-37. 37. SACT 2 274 (Š 48/7/-), 275 (Š 48/viii/-); Santag 6 250 (ŠS 2/-/-); BPOA 1 585 (ŠS 3/-/-). Cf. Nebraska 18, where the issuer is Luduga, who in his seal is qualified as “son” of Ušĝu, a well known fuller. 38. Nik. 2 393 (ŠS 3/-/-); Lukalla is the receiver ( k i š i b ) . 39. Nisaba 9 305 (Š 46/-/-). 40. Nisaba 9 160 (AS 8/vii/-). 41. UTI 3 2003 (AS 9/-/-); MVN 16 960 (ŠS 3/-/-), 713 and 1330 (ŠS 4/-/-); cf. BIN 5 163 (-/-/-). See Weiershäuser 2008: 135-142. 42. MVN 16 626 (ŠS 4/-/-). 43. Other records from Ikalla’s dossier related to Nippur are UTI 6 3663 (ŠS 1/viii/-): baskets; MVN 16 785 (ŠS 5/-/-): workers to pull a boat; Foxvog, ASJ 18, 83 18 (ŠS 9/-/-): chemicals for fulling; Rochester 138 (IS 2/-/-) and UTI 5 3417 (IS 3/xii/-): textiles.

Ikalla, Scribe of (Wool) Textiles and Linen

435

concentrated in Šu-Su’en 5.44 In almost all of the tablets (44) Ikalla is the recipient ( k i š i b ), whereas in two transactions he appears as the foreman ( u g u l a ) .45 Apart from six texts,46 Šeškalla is the issuer ( k i … - t a ) of the reeds, which are specified either as “reeds from the Engabari-field” ( g i E n - g a b a - r i 6 - t a ) or as “reeds bought with barley” ( g i š e - t a s a 1 0 - a ) . In a few texts the destination of the reeds is stated: the kitchen ( é m u h a l d i m ) ,47 the cattle-slaughterhouse ( é g u 4 g a z ) or the doorkeeper of the s u k k a l ’ s house ( ì - d u 8 é s u k k a l ) . The formula š à b a l a - a appears in 16 texts, meaning “within the bala” (according to the definition proposed by Sharlach 2004: 39-59), or “in the period of the bala” (according to Dahl 2006: 79f). As Sharlach (2004: 16) notes, “the Sumerian word bala meaning ‘rotation, transfer’ had wide range of usages. […] In Ur III administrative documents, the word bala can refer to a rotational service of payments made by the provinces to the crown.” So, according to this last meaning, each province was said to be in the period of the bala every year for a specific period of time.48 Two texts contain the expression “bala, it is the nth day” ( b a l a u 4 n - k a m ) . In addition to reeds, timber, and items made from these, raw materials comprise the greatest percentage of the items disbursed in the š à b a l a - a texts of this dossier. The structure of the reed disbursements is as follows: 1. the amount of reed bundles (x s a g i ) ; 2. the optional specification ( E n - g a b a - r i 6 - t a o r š e - t a s a 1 0 - a ) ; 3. the optional destination (…- š è ) ; 4. the officials involved (the issuer, k i PN1- t a , and the sealer, k i š i b PN2; sometimes the ĝ ì r ) ; 5. the optional formula š à b a l a - a ; 6. the date. In the following chart all the tablets recording the issues made by Šeškalla and sealed by Ikalla are listed:49 Text

Date

gi

UTI 4 2446

ŠS 1/-/-

še-ta sa10-a

MVN 16 1193

ŠS 2/-/-

ĝìr

Destination

šà bala-a

é muhaldim é gu4-gaz

X

––––––––––––– 44. 15 transactions are dated to the sixth month, the others bear no month name. Only one text, SAT 2 593 (Š 48/-/-), is from the preceding period. 45. Gomi, BJRL 64, 99 8 (IS 1/x/11) and STU 47 (IS 1/x/21). 46. Four times A’akalla is the issuer: UTI 5 3428 (ŠS 5/-/-), Hirose 387 (ŠS 5/vi/9), UTI 3 2090 (ŠS 6/-/10) and SAT 3 1819 (ŠS 7/-/26); once Inim-Šara is the issuer: SACT 2 153 ([x] 1/-/-); once Biduga is the issuer: SAT 2 593 (Š 48/-/-). 47. Allred (2006: 146-149) proposed and discussed a sketch of reeds and reed items received by the kitchen in Umma. 48. According to Hallo and Weisberg (1992: 53), “at Umma the notation š à b a l a - a often replaced the month name. When it accompanied the month name, it presumably meant that two months of the same year fell to this province.” 49. All but two of the tablets (Umma 60 and 67) bear the impression of Ikalla’s seal.

436

LORENZO VERDERAME AND GABRIELLA SPADA

Text

Date

gi

ĝìr

AAICAB I/1 Ashm. 1911216

ŠS 2/-/-

En-gaba-ri6-ta

MVN 14 539

ŠS 4/vi/27

še-ta sa10-a

MVN 14 501

ŠS 5/-/-

še-ta sa10-a

MVN 16 1153

ŠS 5/-/-

še-ta sa10-a

UTI 6 3586

ŠS 5/-/-

MVN 16 1063

ŠS 5/-/11

še-ta sa10-a

énsi

MVN 14 508

ŠS 5/-/13

še-ta sa10-a

énsi

MVN 16 1212

ŠS 5/-/21

En-gaba-ri6-ta

Destination

šà bala-a

é gu4-gaz

X

X Arad-ĝu10, muhaldim

X Ì-du8 é sukkal X X

UTI 4 2930

ŠS 5/-/22

En-gaba-ri6-ta

X

MVN 16 1096

ŠS 5/-/23

En-gaba-ri6-ta

X

MVN 16 1118

ŠS 5/-/25

En-gaba-ri6-ta

MVN 16 1281

ŠS 5/-/25

UTI 6 3814

ŠS 5/-/27

še-ta sa10-a

MVN 14 530

ŠS 5/-/28

še-ta sa10-a

MVN 14 483

ŠS 5/vi/1

še-ta sa10-a

MVN 16 1232

ŠS 5/vi/1

še-ta sa10-a

MVN 16 808

ŠS 5/vi/3

En-gaba-ri6-ta

UTI 4 2389

ŠS 5/vi/3

En-gaba-ri6-ta

MVN 16 1252

ŠS 5/vi/5

En-gaba-ri6-ta

MVN 16 1244

ŠS 5/vi/8

MVN 14 341

ŠS 5/vi/15

še-ta sa10-a

UTI 5 3084

ŠS 5/vi/17

še-ta sa10-a

MVN 14 460

ŠS 5/vi/18

še-ta sa10-a

UTI 5 3429

ŠS 5/vi/18

še-ta sa10-a

Ì-du8 é sukkal

bala u4 nkam X

bala u4 nkam

UTI 3 2205

ŠS 5/vi/22

En-gaba-ri6-ta

UTI 4 2698

ŠS 5/vi/22

še-ta sa10-a

X

UTI 4 2418

ŠS 5/vi/24

En-gaba-ri6-ta

MVN 16 1003

ŠS 5/vi/25

MVN 14 575

ŠS 5/vi/26

še-ta sa10-a

UTI 4 2639

ŠS 5/[-]/11

še-ta sa10-a

UTI 4 2640

ŠS 5/[-]/21

še-ta sa10-a

X

UTI 6 3823

ŠS 5/[-]/22

En-gaba-ri6-ta

X

Umma 67

ŠS 9/-/-

En-gaba-ri6-ta

SAT 3 1907

ŠS 9/-/-

še-ta sa10-a

Ur-dŠára

X

é muhaldim Bí-ga

X X

Ikalla, Scribe of (Wool) Textiles and Linen Text

Date

BCT 2 197

ŠS 9/-/12

Umma 60

ŠS 9/V/12

gi

ĝìr

437

Destination

En-gaba-ri6-ta

šà bala-a X

4.2. Mat and Basket Production Ikalla is always the sealer in a group of 25 texts recording the delivery of different baskets made out of reeds:50 g i m a - s á - a b , g i g u r z í d - d a , g i p i s a n , a n d gi k a s k a l (“travel basket”).51 In many cases the destination of the baskets is specified and it is the same one seen for the deliveries of the reed bundles: the cattleslaughter-house (in 8 texts) and the kitchen (in 7 texts).52 In a few transactions some mats made from reeds ( g i k i d , g i m u r u x ) are also issued; twice the texts specify that the mats are allotted for boat covering ( m á t ú g … - d u l 9 ) .53 All but one of these texts include the formula š à b a l a - a . The exception is UTI 6 3663, in which š à N i b r u k i appears, meaning that the travel baskets were shipped out of Umma to Nippur.54 Text

Date

Goetze, JCS 2, 185 PTS 453

Š 46/-/-

Goetze, JCS 2, 185 NBC 5261

AS 8/-/-

Fish, MCS 3, 43 17 BM 105409

AS 8/-/-

Goetze, JCS 2, 190 YBC 12534

AS 9/-/-

Issuer

Destination má túg dul9-dè

Ur-dŠul-pa-è

é gu4-gaz

d

é gu4-gaz

d

Ur- Šul-pa-è

BPOA 7 2109

AS 9/-/-

Ur- Šul-pa-è

é gu4-gaz

BPOA 7 1899

ŠS 1/-/-

A-gu

é gu4-gaz

UTI 4 2945

ŠS 1/-/-

Ur-dŠul-pa-è

é gu4-gaz

MVN 14 291

ŠS 1/-/-

A-gu

é suhur

Fish, MCS 3, 43 9 BM 105567

ŠS 1/-/-

A-gu

é gu4-gaz

UTI 6 3663

ŠS 1/VIII/-

A-gu

é gu4-gaz

UTI 4 2442

ŠS 2/-/-

A-gu

é gu4-gaz

UTI 3 1603

ŠS 3/-/-

A-gu

é muhaldim

UTI 3 1698

ŠS 3/-/-

A-gu

BPOA 2 2127

ŠS 3/-/-

A-gu

BPOA 1 1713

ŠS 3/VII/-

Lú-sa6-ì-zu

MVN 16 1339

ŠS 3/ VII/-

A-gu

é muhaldim

––––––––––––– 50. In three texts other officials seal on behalf of Ikalla ( m u Ì - k a l - l a - š è ) : twice it is Ur-Šara (BPOA 6 1397 and SAT 3 1444) and only once it is Adu (UTI 3 1603). 51. In Torino 2 365 a basket is issued for the transport of textiles. 52. In a single text (MVN 14 291) the destination is the é s u h u r , a part of a temple, and in another text (BPOA 6 1397) the term NINDA.GIŠ.AŠ appears, the reading of which is uncertain, as is the meaning (for a tentative translation as “bakery”, see Sharlach 2004: 47 n. 106). 53. Goetze, JCS 2, 185 NBC 5261; MVN 13 155; cf. Dahl and Hebenstreit, RA 101, 47 16. 54. See n. 43.

438

LORENZO VERDERAME AND GABRIELLA SPADA

Text

Date

Issuer

Destination

BPOA 6 1397

ŠS 3/ VII/1

A-gu

NINDA.GIŠ.AŠ

BPOA 1 1712

ŠS 3/ VII/25

A-gu

Goetze, JCS 2, 199 YBC 12537

ŠS 4/-/-

A-gu

é-gal

Nik. 2 234

ŠS 4/ VI/-

A-gu

é muhaldim

SAT 3 1444

ŠS 4/ VI/[-]

A-gu

é muhaldim

SAT 3 1667

ŠS 6/-/-

A-gu

é muhaldim

MVN 13 155

ŠS 6/-/-

UTI 4 2709

ŠS 8/-/-

A-gu

é muhaldim

BPOA 1 1088

ŠS 9/V/-

A-gu

é muhaldim

má túg ba-a-dul9

Ikalla also appears in twelve documents pertaining to the delivery of timber, such as fir ( ĝ i š ù - s u h 5 ) , poplar ( ĝ i š a s a l x ) , willow ( ĝ i š m a - n u ) , or wooden items ( g i - m u š , “pole”; ĝ i š m i - r í - z a , “plank”; p a - k u 5 , “staves”). In most cases Ikalla acts as the receiving party ( k i š i b ) ; in a single text (MVN 9 186, AS 9/-/-) the transaction is “under the authority of Ikalla” ( ĝ ì r ) and the sealer is L ú - TÚG. NUNk a ; finally, in another text (Santag 6 88, Š 48/i/-) Ikalla is the issuer of an amount of timber poles and planks, received by Ur-Ištaran and Magurre. The following chart lists these transactions sealed by Ikalla:55 Text

Date

Issuer

Destination

MVN 13 262

AS 7/-/-

Šeš-kal-la

é gu4-gaz

Dahl and Hebenstreit, RA 101, 47 16

AS 7/-/-

[...]

MVN 16 1192

ŠS 1/-/-

Ur-é-maš

UTI 6 3819

ŠS 2/-/-

Ur-é-maš

MVN 14 408

ŠS 4/-/-

Ur-é-maš

X

MVN 16 1135

ŠS 4/-/11

Ur-é-maš

X

MVN 16 1138

ŠS 4/vi/11

Ur-é-maš

MVN 16 1583

ŠS 4/vi/14

Ur-é-maš

UTI 4 2471

ŠS 3/x/-

Lugal-hé-ĝál

Owen and Wasilewska, JCS 52, 17 87

ŠS 6/-/-

Ur-é-mah

é gu4-gaz

é muhaldim

šà bala-a

X

X X

––––––––––––– 55. All the tablets bear the impression of Ikalla’ s seal except MVN 13 262, a copy of a sealed tablet issued by Ikalla.

Ikalla, Scribe of (Wool) Textiles and Linen

439

5. Fieldwork: The g é m e u š -b a r / k ík k e n as Non Specialized Worker Ikalla appears in a group of 60 texts pertaining to the employment of workers, both male ( ĝ u r u š ) and female ( g é m e u š - b a r ) , who are used in various non-specialized jobs, all of them in the bala-contribution. These tasks relate to agricultural activity, covering different stages, such as the harvesting and the preprocessing of reeds and trees (threshing and winnowing, transport, etc); the workers are also employed for the maintenance of irrigation installations in the area surrounding Umma and for the excavation of canals. As Englund (1991: 274) underlined, “the range of activities of the female millers in agriculture was very broad, covering nearly all the tasks performed by their male counterparts, the g u r u š . ” The records of individual work assignments to which particular work-gangs were allocated take the form of receipts that documented the man-days the workers spent on the assignment requested:56 1. x workers for y days; 2. description and location of the work assignment; 3. the officials involved (the foreman of the work-gang, ugula PN1, and the sealer, kišib PN2); 4. the date. Ikalla acts as the sealing party in 24 texts and as the foreman of the gangs in 28 texts (see below); in three of the documents remaining he serves as ĝ ì r , 57 whereas in four texts the formula “credited to Ikalla’s account” ( ú g u Ì - k a l - l a b a - a - ĝ a r ) appears. Finally, in one text (MVN 14 14, AS 3/-/-) Ikalla is the issuer of two workmen sent to Ur in order to manufacture textiles for the installation of the enpriestess of Nanna ( t ú g e n h u ĝ - e - d a ) .58 These are the fieldwork texts sealed by Ikalla:59 Text

Date

ugula

Fish, MCS 2, 55 BM 111782

Š 35/-/-

Gú-TAR

Task

Field/Place Name

SAT 2 253

Š 40/-/-

Lugal-[x]

SNAT 328

AS 2/-/-

Da-du-mu

SAT 2 711

AS 2/-/-

Lugal-mu-maáĝ

earth filling

I7-salki

AOS 32 D24

AS 3/-/-

Lugal-é-mah-e

sheaf-piling up

a-šà dŠára

Gú-eden-na harvesting

a-šà dŠára gán Ur-gu-ka

––––––––––––– 56. Alivernini and Foster, RSO 83, 349 37 is a unique text (see n. 62 below). It records the amount in silver of 3,248 day-workers; the task is not recorded. 57. BIN 5 233 (Š 45/-/-); UCP 9-2-1 48 (AS 4/iii/15); Nisaba 23 87 (AS 7/-/-). 58. Considering that this text is dated to Amar-Su’en 3, the textiles were most probably allotted to Enmahgalanna, whose installation provided the name for the fourth year of his reign. 59. All the tablets bear the impression of Ikalla’s seal, with the exception of TCS 26 and, obviously, the balanced accounts (STA 2; MVN 21 201, 202 and 204); SNAT 479 bears the seal impression, but not the formula k i š i b Ì - k a l - l a .

440

LORENZO VERDERAME AND GABRIELLA SPADA

Text

Date

ugula

Task and spreading

Field/Place Name

STA 2 (bal.acc.)

AS 4/-/

sheaf-piling up and spreading, irrigation work

a-šà dŠára

Biggs and Zettler, ASJ 12, 35 4

AS 4/-/-

Ur-dNin-tu

sheaf-piling up and spreading, irrigation work

a-šà lá-mah; a-šà apin ku5-rá; a-šà agar4-tur; a-šà dŠára

Ontario 2 179

AS 5/-/-

Lugal-kù-zu

BPOA 1 1032

AS 5/-/-

Ur-dŠul-pa-è

sheaf-piling up

gu4 dGu-la

TCS 26

AS 5/-/-

Ur-dNin-tu

wool sorting

A-pi4-salki, Muš-bian-na, Gú-eden-na

MVN 16 1329

AS 5/-/-

Lugal-é-mah-e

sheaf-piling up and spreading

a-šà dŠára-muru13; ašà gišma-nu; a-šà Ì-sum; a-šà Ša-ra-hu-um-ma

MVN 16 1379

AS 5/-/-

Lú-bala-sag10

sheaf-piling up and spreading

a-šà dŠára-muru13; ašà gišma-nu; a-šà Ì-sum; a-šà Ša-ra-hu-um-ma

MVN 21 201 (bal.acc.)

AS 5/-/-

[…]

[…]

MVN 21 202 (bal.acc.)

AS 6/-/-

wool sorting

Gú-eden-na

MVN 16 990

ŠS 2/-/-

Ba-sa6

UTI 4 2325

ŠS 2/-/-

Ur-mes

SNAT 479

ŠS 3/-/-

BPOA 1 671

ŠS 4/-/-

Ur-lugal

UCP 9-2-2 28

ŠS 4/-/-

Ur-dNin-su

Gú-eden-na

Mercer, JSOR 12, 37 10

ŠS 4/-/-

I7-pa-è

Gú-eden-na

MVN 16 889

ŠS 4/-/-

Kù-ga-ni

Nik. 2 137

ŠS 7/-/-

A-ba-sag10

SAT 3 1789

ŠS 7/-/-

Ur-lugal

MVN 21 204 (bal.acc.)

ŠS 7/-/-

a-šà dNin-ur4-ra

a-šà dNin-ur4-ra sheaf-piling up and spreading

a-šà a-ba-al-gu-la a-šà dNin-ur4-ra

harvesting

a-šà dŠul-pa-è

harvesting and sheaf-piling up

a-šà Ì-šum

harvesting and sheaf-piling up Ka-ma-rí Ka-ma-rí grain milling

Ikalla appears in a group of 28 texts acting as the foreman of different gangs of male and female workers employed in various agricultural tasks and irrigation work. Among a group of ten of these tablets we can observe an overlapping of in-

Ikalla, Scribe of (Wool) Textiles and Linen

441

formation with the documents pertaining to the reed transactions discussed in the previous section. These documents are related to daily inspections ( k u r u 7 a k a ) of the transport of reeds by some weavers from the Engabari-field to the pen ( é m a š ) a s fodder for sheep – the reeds are specified as “green” ( g i z i ) . All the texts are dated to the tenth month of the first regnal year of Ibbi-Su’en, with the exception of STU 58, which is dated to the ninth month of the same year.60 Text

Date

ĝìr

STU 58

IS 1/ix/-

Ad-da

Gomi, BJRL 64, 108 50

IS 1/x/3

Ad-da

u4 3-kam

Gomi, BJRL 64, 108 52

IS 1/x/5

Ad-da

u4 5-kam

CST 634

IS 1/x/8

Ad-da

u4 8-kam

CST 635

IS 1/x/11

Ad-da

u4 11-kam

CST 636

IS 1/x/14

Ad-da

u4 14-kam

CST 637

IS 1/x/17

Ad-da

u4 17-kam

STU 57

IS 1/x/22

Ad-da

u4 22-kam

Gomi, BJRL 64, 108 51

IS 1/x/26

Ad-da

u4 26-kam

61

Day of inspection

6. Conclusions From the analysis of a large dossier such as that of Ikalla we can advance some general observations about Neo-Sumerian archives and the so-called corpus of Umma texts. First, no clear separation could be made between “public” and “private” activities of the officials involved. Second, we must consider our criteria of identification in prosopographic analysis, which are mostly based on the assumed correspondence of a title or role with a person; to this should be added the question of d u m u expressing a relation of membership. Third, the hermeneutics of the documents, archives, and corpora under investigation should be questioned. Considering the constant addition of new Ur III documents, this overview is far from being conclusive.62 However, it is our opinion that new texts from Museum collections will not change the general assessment based upon the sources currently known.

––––––––––––– 60. According to Waetzoldt (1992: 129), the high season for feeding sheep fresh reeds in Umma was from October to the end of February, i.e. approximately from the sixth to the eleventh month. Moreover, Sallaberger (1989: 314) asserts that the main harvest season for the fresh reeds used as animal fodders was the period between December/January and April, i.e., between the ninth and the first months in Umma. 61. In addition to the lack of the day of the inspection, the formula i m š e - ĝ á appears in this text (this term is attested only in seven tablets from Garšana: CUSAS 3 104, 105, 121, 180, 298, 299, 366 and its meaning is not well understood). 62. During the proofing process, S. Alivernini has brought to our attention two more texts that could not be included in our discussion in this article. These are Alivernini and Foster, RSO 83, 349 37 (AS 8/ii/-) and 43 (IS 2/-/-); they belong, respectively, to the fieldwork and the textile group.

442

LORENZO VERDERAME AND GABRIELLA SPADA

Fig. 3. The dossier of Ikalla

In Ikalla’s dossier we encounter a clear mixture of what we could call “public” and “private” affairs.63 He is involved in many different activities, of which only a small part is fully documented in the dossier. The assumption of his leading role in textile production is the result of a quantitative valuation of the sources and should not be considered exclusive to Ikalla since there are other officials documented in the same role.64 On the other hand, little or nothing is known of Ikalla’ s activities beyond those discussed here, which emerge only from indirect references in his dossier.65 Finally, the dossier of Ikalla shows in these features strong connections with those of another group of officials from Umma (Lukalla, Ur-Nungal, Gududu) led by Ure’e. Their names recur constantly in the respective documents, and they are all related in their origins as well since the greater part of their activities belong to the Apisal area.

––––––––––––– 63. In Umma the clearest and best known example is that of Ure’e, see Laurito, Mezzasalma and Verderame 2006, and 2008; cf. Dahl 2007: 85-96. 64. For example Lugal-ezem, see Verderame 2008. 65. For example s u k k a l k u š 7 - m e in SAT 3 1819 (ŠS 7/-/26); see Stępień 1995.

Ikalla, Scribe of (Wool) Textiles and Linen

443

Bibliography Alivernini, S., and Foster, B. R. 2010 Tablets from the Third Ur Dynasty. Rivista degli Studi Orientali 83: 335-364. Allred, L.B. 2006 Cooks and Kitchens: Centralized Food Production in the Third Millennium Mesopotamia. Ph. D. dissertation, The Johns Hopkins University. Archi, A., F. Pomponio, and G. Bergamini 1995 Testi cuneiformi neo-sumerici da Umma: nn. 0413-0723. Catalogo del Museo Egizio di Torino. Collezioni 8. Torino: Ministero per i beni culturali e ambientali. Dahl, J. L. 2006 Revisiting Bala. Journal of the American Oriental Society 126: 77-88. 2007 The Ruling Family of Ur III Umma: A Prosopographical Analysis of an Elite Family in Southern Iraq 4000 Years Ago. PIHANS CVIII. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten. Englund, R. K. 1991 Hard Work: Where Will It Get You? Labor Management in Ur III Mesopotamia. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 50: 255-280. Hallo, W. W., and Weisberg, D. B. 1992 A Guided Tour through Babylonian History: Cuneiform Inscriptions in the Cincinnati Art Museum. Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia University 21: 49-90. Johnson, C. J. 2006 The Ur III Tablets in the Valdosta State University Archives. Cuneiform Digital Library Journal 2006/2: 1-7. Laurito, R., Mezzasalma, A., and Verderame, L. 2006 Oltre la tavoletta: documenti archivistici dall’amministrazione mesopotamica del III millennio. Pp. 191-208 in L’ufficio e il documento. I luoghi, i modi, gli strumenti dell’amministrazione in Egitto e nel Vicino Oriente Antico, ed. C. Mora and P. Piacentini. Quaderni di Acme 83. Milan: Cisalpino. 2008 Texts and Labels: A Case Study from Neo-Sumerian Umma. Pp. 97-108 in Proceedings of the 51st Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale Held at The Oriental Institute of The University of Chicago, July 18-22, 2005, ed. R. D. Biggs, J. Myers, and M. Roth. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 62. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Mayr, R. 1997 The Seal Impressions of Ur III Umma. Ph. D. dissertation, Rijksuniversiteit, Leiden. Pomponio, F. 1992 Lukalla of Umma. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 82: 169-179. 2010 New Texts Regarding the Neo-Sumerian Textiles. Pp. 185-200 in Textile Terminologies in the Ancient Near East and Mediterranean from the Third to the First Millennia BC, ed. C. Michel and M.-L. Nosch. Ancient Textiles Series 8. Oxford and Oakville: Oxbow. 2013 The Ur III Administration: Workers, Messengers, and Sons. Pp. 221-232 in the present volume. Sallaberger, W. 1989 Zum Schilfrohr als Rohstoff in Babylonien. Pp. 311-330 in Der Orientalische Mensch und seine Beziehungen zur Umwelt. Beiträge zum 2. Grazer Morgenländischen Symposium (2.-5. März 1989), Graz 1989, ed. D. Scholz. Grazer Morgenländ. Studien 2, Graz: Grazkult.

444

LORENZO VERDERAME AND GABRIELLA SPADA

Sharlach, T. M. 2004 Provincial Taxation and the Ur III State. Cuneiform Monographs 26. Leiden: Brill/Styx. Steinkeller, P. 1995 Sheep and Goat Terminology in Ur III Sources from Drehem. Bulletin on Sumerian Agriculture 8: 49-70. Stępień, M. 1995 Animal Husbandry in the Ancient Near East: A Prosopographic Study of ThirdMillennium Umma. Bethesda: CDL Press. Verderame, L. 2006 Le leggende dei sigilli neo-sumerici della collezione Kist. Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires 2006/54: 53-54. 2008 Il controllo dei manufatti tessili a Umma. Pp. 111-133 in The Management of Agricultural Land and the Production of Textiles in the Mycenaean and Near Eastern Economies, ed. M. Perna and F. Pomponio. Studi Egei e Vicinorientali 4. Paris: De Boccard. 2010 Un nuovo documento di compravendita neo-sumerico. Pp. 397-416, pl. I-II in Ana turri gimilli. Studi dedicati al Padre Werner R. Mayer, S.J. da amici e allievi, ed. M. Liverani and M.G. Biga. Vicino Oriente, Quaderno 5. Roma: Università degli studi di Roma «La Sapienza». Waetzoldt, H. 1972 Untersuchungen zur neusumerischen Textilindustrie. Studi economici e tecnologici 1. Rome. 1992 ‘Rohr’ und dessen Verwendungsweisen anhand der neusumerischen Texte aus Umma. Bulletin on Sumerian Agriculture 6: 125-146. Weiershäuser, F. 2008 Die königlichen Frauen der III. Dynastie von Ur. Göttinger Beiträge zum Alten Orient 1. Göttingen: Universitätsverlag Göttingen.

The Regular Offerings of Lambs and Kids for Deities and the é-uz-ga During the Reign of Šulgi: A Study of the mu- TÚM and zi-ga/ba-zi Texts from the Animal Center*

Wu Yuhong and Li Xueyan IHAC OF NORTHEAST NORMAL UNIVERSITY, CHANGCHUN This study focuses on the delivery of young animals, mostly one lamb or kid, as sacrificial offerings for deities or for the royal dining hall. The nobles and officials of the Ur III dynasty delivered the animals to the Animal Center (Puzriš-Dagān, modern Drehem). The deliveries, termed as m u - TÚM... ì - d a b 5 , “delivered by ... taken by,” were accounted for and controlled there by the general manager for distributing them.1 The delivered animals were withdrawn from the manager of the center on the same day or afterwards. These withdrawals, termed z i - g a or b a - z i , recorded the names of the nobles and officials who had delivered the animals along with the names of the deities in the dynasty’s religious center at Nippur to whose sacrifice the animals were sent. Animals were also issued to the royal dining hall, termed é - u z - g a , which was managed by two royal cooks. The b a - z i texts also recorded animals withdrawn that were royal gifts for nobles and foreign guests. Some of the animals not sent for sacrifice were fattened ( n i g a ) and sent to the kitchen to be butchered for soldiers ( a g à - ú s ) . Beginning in Šu-Suen 3, other low-class men ( l ú - š u k u r - r a - k e 4 - n e , “men of rations,” and k a s ( a ) 4 - k e 4 - n e , “messengers,” SET 81) also ate the butchered animals. Sometimes the dead animals were sent to the storehouse ( é - d u b - b a ) to provide preserved meat, strings, and leather. There was monthly allowance for the dead or butchered flock. The center also issued asses as meat for dogs.

1. Nasa, the General Manager of the Animal Center These lamb/kid offerings began in Šulgi 43. Strangely, the earliest group of texts, which records deliveries for the gods and for the é - u z - g a from nobles and individuals from Š 43/i/7 (MVN 13 516) to Š 47/vii/12 (BIN 3 17), did not include the name of any administrator or accounting official. Beginning in Š 47/vii/13 (On-

––––––––––––– * This study focuses on the offerings made by three notables between Š 43 and AS 1: the e n of the Inanna temple at Uruk, Šeš-Dada, the s a n g a of the temple of Enlil in Nippur, and the governor of Nippur, likely Ur-Nanibgal. Li Xueyan edited the texts discussed here in her dissertation with the help of Wu Yuhong. 1. The identity of the general manager in charge of these disbursements is discussed in the next section below.

445

446

WU YUHONG AND LI XUEYAN

tario 1 25), the name Nasa ( N a - s a 6 ) the fattener ( k u r u š d a ) of the king, was normally written in both these kinds of texts (deliveries and withdrawals) as the manager of the center. Therefore, Jones and Snyder (1961) suggested that Nasa had an unnamed predecessor, whose names and title are not written in the texts. Nasa was already an important official under this possible unnamed predecessor from at least Š 39/iv (AUCT 1 396). From the time of his promotion, Nasa used b a - z i instead of z i - g a as the term for “are withdrawn” in the texts. We believe, in fact, that Nasa was the unnamed manager of the center in the extant texts prior to Š 47/vii/13, and that he held this position until he passed on the chief manager’s job to his son Abba-sagga when Amar-Suen assumed the kingship as successor to Šulgi. Our analysis of a 60 month summary of the account of Nasa makes this clear (Calvot, RA 63, 102). The text is dated from Š 44/i to Š 48/x and it shows that Nasa did not change his job throughout the five years documented in the text even though his name was written in the m u - TÚM ... ì - d a b 5 and z i - g a accounts of the general manager only from Š 47/vii/13, as noted above. 2 Nasa was clearly in charge of the lamb/kid deliveries and withdrawals from Š 43/i/1 to AS 1/viii/13 (MVN 8 121), at which time he retired and passed the job on to Abba-sagga. Prior to this period he was charged with royal deliveries ( m u - TÚM l u g a l ) in approximately 15 accounts between Šulgi 34 and Šulgi 42. He continued in this role throughout his career, from Šulgi 34 (BIN 3 362) to Amar-Suen 1 (AUCT 2 291), and this demonstrates that Nasa’s position did not change either prior to Š 47/vii/12, when his name was not written on the lamb/kid texts, or afterwards, when his name was associated with those texts.

2. Regular Offerings for the Nippur Deities and the é -u z -g a This article studies primarily the sacrifices, mainly lambs and kids, in the delivery ( m u - TÚM ... ì - d a b 5 ) and withdrawal ( z i - g a / b a - z i ) texts from three officials: the e n of Inanna in Uruk, Šeš-Dada, the s a n g a of Enlil in Nippur, and the governor of Nippur (likely Ur-Nanibgal). The sacrifices were designated for the seven main deities of Nippur: Enlil and Ninlil, their twin sons Nuska and Ninurta, Utu, Nanna, and Inanna. In our investigation of the z i - g a or b a - z i texts, we discovered some regularities. Principally, Šeš-Dada, the s a n g a of the temple of Enlil in Nippur and the e n of Inanna in Uruk provided two lambs, or one lamb and one kid, as the fixed offerings for the pair Enlil and Ninlil, and often one lamb/kid for each of the other deities. Other administrators also delivered the same offerings for the deities but not as frequently as these three. The different majordomos ( š a b r a ) of temples delivered animals to their own deities in Nippur or other religious centers. For example, Lu-Nanna, the šabra of Nanna, regularly delivered one fat lamb or kid to Nanna. Generally, the e n priest of Inanna pre-

––––––––––––– 2. The text likely contains an error since i t i - m a š - d à - g u 7 , the first month at Puzriš-Dagān, is mistakenly written as i t i - š e - k i n - k u d , the first month at Ur. We arrive at a total of 60 months based on the following calculation: 48 months for the four years from Šulgi 44-47 and ten months (until i t i e z e m - a n - n a ) from Šulgi 48, plus two intercalary months recorded by the scribe. If the i t i - š e - k i n k u d in the text is the last month of Šulgi 44 of the Drehem calendar, then it is 49 months total, 11 months less than the 60 months in the text, counted by the scribe of Nasa. Note that Šulgi 44, 46 and 47 have three intercalary months (see Yuhong 2002), but the scribe only gives two.

The Regular Offerings of Lambs and Kids for Deities

447

sented one lamb and one kid for Enlil and Ninlil, although he sometimes gave two lambs for the holy couple, too, and often one lamb and one kid (often for a goddess) for the pairs of Nanna and Inanna, for Nanna and Nanaya, Utu and Inanna, Inanna and Nanaya, or less often for Utu and Nanaya, Ninhursaĝ and Nintinuga. The e n of Innana was likely a son of Šulgi since his predecessor had been a son of Ur-Namma. We learn this from Ur-Namma’s year name d: m u e n - d I n a n n a U n u g k i - a d u m u - U r - d N a m m a l u g a l - a m a š - e b a - p à d - d a , “Year: the son of king Ur-Namma was chosen by means of the omens as the high en-priest of Inanna in Uruk” (RTC 264).3 In addition to the deities and their temples, the é - u z - g a royal institution was one of the main consumers of the lamb/kid offerings, delivered by civil nobles and officials, Two cooks managed this institution and accepted the royal allowance ( s á - d u g 4 ) and cooked mutton for the king. As a result, I (Yuhong 1996) suggested that it was the royal dining hall in Nippur. Sometimes, instead of one or two lamb/kid, one gazelle kid or the special young ewe/she-goat with or without baby ( u 8 / u d 5 - s i l a / m á š - n ú / n u ) became the frequent offerings to the é - u z - g a ; and one bear cub or a young wild animal was also sent there either for consumption, or as pets or for animal performances,4 especially from Ur-Suen, crown prince and the general of Uruk (MVN 13 116, Š 45/x/16; de Maaijer, JEOL 33, 114 5, Š 47/xi/15), and some generals, who hunted.

3. The Texts The delivery ( m u - TÚM) and withdrawal ( z i - g a / b a - z i ) accounting texts of the general manager are the sources for our investigation. The z i - g a / b a - z i texts include three parts for each offering: 1) the lamb/kids or other animals, 2) the names of consumers, mainly the deities, and 3) the names of the individuals who sent the animals: here Šeš-Dada, the en of Inanna, and the governor of Nippur. The m u - TÚM texts only have two parts for each offering: 1) animals, and 2) their senders, without the name of the deity for which they were designated. Some lamb/kid offerings for deities and the é - u z - g a from some senders in the z i g a / b a - z i texts can be correlated with corresponding m u - TÚM texts of the same days. This means that some offerings sent from contributors were issued to the consumers on the same day. Hence, we can deduce that a two lamb/kids offering delivered by Šeš-Dada and the e n of Inanna in a m u - TÚM text but without its z i g a / b a - z i text of the same day (because it is missing) was likely for Enlil/Ninlil; and a two lamb offering from the governor of Nippur in the m u - TÚM texts without its zi-ga text was likely for Nuska/Ninurta; and a one lamb/kid from one of these

––––––––––––– 3. Also see Šulgi 28: m u e n - n a m - š i t a 4 d Š u l - g i - r a - k e 4 b a - g u b e n - d E n - k i E r i d u g k i - g a dumu dŠul-gi nita-kalag-ga lugal-Urim2ki-ma lugal an-ub-da limmú-ba-ka ba-a-huĝ, “Year: en-nam-šita4 dŠul-gi-ra-ke4 ba-gub, the high priest of Enki of Eridug, the son of Šulgi, mighty king, king of Ur and king of the four quarter, was installed.” Note that the daughter of the king was called dumu-munus lugal in the year names of Šulgi 18 and 30. 4. Note that bear cubs ( a m a r - a z ) were issued to Šu-Ištar, a jester or buffoon who might train bear cubs for performances ( m u n a m - u d - d a - t u š — š è ) in Š 45/vi/13 (Nisaba 8 201), AS 2/vi/16 (TRU 45) and ŠS 6/iii/3 (MVN 11 209); also in AS 2/i/8 (CST 248), AS 2/i/14 (MVN 3 225) and [AS 2]/iii/16 (MVN 3 329). Dada, the gala “lamentation singer” in AS 5/xi/28 (SACT 1 23), and Ur-nigar, the n a r “singer,” in Š 46/iii/13 (CST 494) also took away bear cubs, possibly for their performances.

448

WU YUHONG AND LI XUEYAN

three notables might be an offering to the é - u z - g a . Thus, the deities and the é u z - g a we have deduced as the consumers in the m u - TÚM delivery texts in our tables below are probably useful, but are not one hundred percent certain. From the following m u -TÚM text and that of z i - g a on the same day, we learn that the lambs from the high-priest of Inanna were offered to Enlil and Ninlil via the manager of the Animal Center, and 3 gazelle kids captured by two military officers were given to Enlil, Ninlil and Utu. The lamb delivered by the lady Piruruti was issued to the kitchen of the queen. It seems that the tributes from nobles were issued by the distributing center to the divine and royal consumers according to the wishes of the deliverers. Š 43 i/17 (CDLI P212030) mu-TÚM

Š 43 i/17 (Limet, RA 49, 88 12) zi-ga

1) 2 lambs, from the high-priest of Inanna,

1) 1 lamb for Enlil, 1 lamb for Ninlil, the delivery of the high-priest of Inanna,

2) 2 gazelle kids from Ki-tuš-lú, the captain,

2) 1 gazelle kid for Enlil, 1 gazelle kid for Ninlil, the delivery of Ki-tuš-lú, the captain,

3) 1 gazelle kid, from Ur-Lisi, captain,

3) 1 gazelle kid for Utu, the delivery of Ur-Lisi, the captain, the bronze-holder as the deputy,

4) 1 lamb, from Piruruti: the above delivery (are taken by the Anonymous Nasa).

4) 1 lamb to kitchen of Geme-Ninlilla (lukur wife of Šulgi), the delivery of Piruruti, Arad-mu as the deputy, (1 bull, 13 she-goats and 2 kids eliminated to the kitchen).

Distributing (zi-ga) the deliveried animals ( m u - TÚM) from officials on Šulgi 43 i/17

We have collected in the tables below and in the appendix all of the m u - TÚM and z i - g a / b a - z i texts recording the offerings, generally lamb/kids, from the e n of Inanna, Šeš-Dada, the s a n g a of Enlil, and the governor of Nippur, that coincide with the management of the center at Puzriš-Dagān by Nasa. This covers a period of six years and three months including most of Šulgi 43 to Šulgi 48, plus the first eight months of Amar-Suen 1. The tables have been organized according to year in order to try to determine the frequency and regularity of their fixed offerings to the main deities of Nippur.

4. Conclusion Hence, we can conclude that normal (roughly) weekly deliveries of lambs came from the religious nobles, such as the sanga of Enlil in Nippur and the highest en priest of Inanna in Uruk, and the governors of the provinces led by that of Nippur along with other noble individuals in Sumer and Akkad to the animal center. The regular weekly lamb tribute from Šeš-Dada, the bishop of Enlil, and the e n priest of Inanna, was two lambs/kids (or 1 fat kid) offered to Enlil and Ninlil, the king and queen of the heavens. Since Enlil was the lord of the bishop himself, his two lambs for the couple might be the offerings for his prayers on behalf of the king, and the e n of Inanna did the same. For the governor of Nippur, since the two lambs for Enlil and Ninlil on behalf of king were frequently from the bishop and the e n priest, his tribute to the royal animal center was usually offered to Nuska and Ninurta, two sons of Enlil and Ninlil. All the three top nobles and other im-

The Regular Offerings of Lambs and Kids for Deities

449

portant military officers and officials must also have sent another tribute about weekly, one or more lamb or gazelle kids, or special ewes and she-goats to the é u z - g a , possibly the royal dining hall in Nippur. Šeš-Dada was last mentioned on AS 1/iv/12 (PDT 1 595) and Nasa retired after AS 1/viii/13, when the new king started the installation of his own officials. UrTilla, the new sanga bishop of Enlil, took over the job of Šeš-Dada and sent the lamb tributes to Enlil and Ninlil from AS 1/viii/3 (AUCT 2 179) to AS 4/vi/25 (AUCT 1 911), and then Watarum, s a n g a of Marad, became the most frenquent sender of lambs during Amar-Suen’s reign (8/xii/16, Yoshikawa, ASJ 9, 319 14). The e n of Inanna, whose name was always omitted, delivered the lamb trubutes up to IS 2/xii/15 (Nisaba 8 61), but the second prince in this position was installed in Amar-Suen 4 according to the year name of Amar-Suen 5. The third one was chosen in Ibbi-Suen 1 (see the year name for Ibbi-Suen 2) and installed in IbbiSuen 3 (see the year name for Ibbi-Suen 4). The names of the governors of Nippur were also not provided in the delivery texts, but we know that Ur-Nanibgal was governor under Šulgi, and then Lugal-melam was governor during the reign of Amar-Suen (AS 1/xi/3, YOS 4 68; AS 9/xi/27, CST 400), and finally Dada took the job from early in the reign of Šu-Suen (ŠS 2/ii, AUCT 3 187), until Ibbi-Suen 4 (IS 4/iii/13 UDT 37). A sealing of the governor Namzitarra, the son of Ur-Nanibgal, survives on two letter orders from the reign of Šu-Suen, but this cannot provide evidence for his period in office, so this name might have been the old name of Dada, or this might have been a governor who was only in office for a very short time.

Bibliography Jones, T. B., and Snyder, J. W. 1961 Sumerian Economic Texts from the Third Ur Dynasty. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Wu, Y. 1996 The Ewe without Lamb and the House of the é-uz-ga, the Private House of the Kings, Journal of Ancient Civilizations 11: 65-109. 2000 How did They Change from Mashda Calendar to Akiti Calendar from Shulgi 45-48 in Puzrish-Dagan?, Journal of Ancient Civilizations 15: 79-92. 2002 Calendar Synchronization and Intercalary Months in Umma, Puzriš-Dagan, Nippur, Lagash and Ur during the Ur III Period, Journal of Ancient Civilizations 17: 113-134. 2010 The Anonymous Nasa and Nasa of the Animal Center during Šulgi 44-48 and the Wild Camel (gú-gur5), Hunchbacked Ox (gur8-gur8), ubi, habum and the Confusion of the Deer (lulim) with Donkey (anše) or šeg9, Journal of Ancient Civilizations 25: 1-21.

450

WU YUHONG AND LI XUEYAN

Tables a. The lamb/kid offerings for the deities of Nippur and for the é - u z - g a from the e n of Inanna and from Šeš-Dada, the s a n g a of Enlil Šeš-Dada, the s a n g a of Enlil, along with his son Ur-Suen, and the e n of Inanna were among the most frequent nobles and officials who presented the one lamb/kid offering for Enlil and Ninlil.5 The information in the table below allows us to make the following statements. The number of days on which they made offerings increased from Šulgi 43 to Šulgi 48. Šeš-Dada offered a pair of lamb/kids for the holy couple on 14 days in Šulgi 43, 12 days in Šulgi 44, 24 days in Šulgi 45, 25 days in Šulgi 46, 30 days in Šulgi 47, and 53 days in Šulgi 48 and the early part of Ama-Suen 1. He made offerings on a total of 158 days over the course of six years and three months. The en of Inanna offered a pair of lamb/kids on 11 days in Šulgi 43, 9 days in Šulgi 44, 10 days in Š ulgi 45, 18 days in Š ulgi 46, 26 days in Šulgi 47, and 21 days in Šulgi 48 and the first half of Amar-Suen 1. He made offerings on a total of 95 days, which is a little more than half of those of Šeš-Dada. The governor of Nippur provided offerings for Enlil/Ninlil on only seven days during these years. Thus, the bishop of Nippur concentrated his offerings on Enlil and Ninlil and their children while the en of Inanna paid much greater attention to his goddess Inanna and the related Nanna, An, Utu and Nanaya. These offerings occurred throughout the month, but they were more frequent on the first, middle, and last days of a month: the 6th, 12th and 21st days three times in Šulgi 43; the 2nd, 17th and 29th days three times in Šulgi 44; the 12th day five times and the 26th day four times in Šulgi 45; the 7th, 11th and 12th days five times, and the 13th, 17th and 25th days four times in Šulgi 46; the 28th day six times, the 10th day five times and the1st, 4th and 26th days four times in Šulgi 47; the 17th day seven times, the 20th and the 25th six times, the 5th and 12th days five times, and the 7th, 14th and 27th days four times between Šulgi 48 and Amar-Suen 1/1-viii. The following months witnessed the most offerings: Š 43/v; Š 44/v, viii, x, xii; Š 45/viii, ix; Š 46/i, vi, xii; Š 47/v, vi, vii, x, xi, xii; Š 48/ii, v, vi, vii, ix; and AS 1/i, ii, iii; which seems to be related to the presence of the Akiti festival of šu-numun in month vii and the Akiti festival of še-kin-kud in month i. Over the course of the six years covered by these texts, these officials directed the majority of their offerings towards Enlil and Ninlil. At the same time, the en of Inanna offered lamb/kids to other deities on 29 days while Šeš-Dada presented lamb/kids to other deities on only five days. The en of Inanna provided lamb/kids and gazelle kids to the é - u z - g a on 60 days while Šeš-Dada and his son presented offerings for the é - u z - g a on only 17 days. Thus the en of Inanna offered contributed to Inanna and the related Nanna, Nanaya, An and Utu and to the é-uz-ga dining hall of his father Šulgi much more frequently than the bishop of Nippur.

––––––––––––– 5. The offerings from the governor of Nippur are addressed in the next section. He mainly offered a lamb for Nusku and Ninurta and only occasionally sent offerings for Enlil and Ninlil.

The Regular Offerings of Lambs and Kids for Deities

451

Table 1. The fixed lamb/kid offerings for the deities, and for the é - u z - g a ( a l s o g a z e l l e s ) from the e n of Inanna and from Šeš-Dada, the s a n g a of Enlil received under the supervision of Nasa from Šulgi 43 until Amar-Suen 1/viii. Consumes

1 lamb Enlil 1 lamb/kid Ninlil

lamb/kids for Utu, Nanna, Inanna/Nanaya and other gods

é-uz-ga Royal Dining Hall

1 lamb Enlil/Ninlil

En of Inanna: 89 days

Šeš-Dada with Son UrSuen: 147 days

En of Inanna: 29 days

ŠešDada: 5 days

En of Inanna: 60 days

Šeš-Dada with son: 17 days

Governor of Nippur

Šulgi 43 i-vi, ix-xii

11 Days

14 Days

3 days

1 day

6 Days

4 Days

0

Most Frequent Days of year: 6, 12×3, 21×3

6-8, 17, 20, 21×2, 26, 28-29; [?]

5, 9, 11 12×3, 17, 18×2, 22-23, 25, 28

ii/6: 1 kid Utu,

ii/6 for Nanna/ Inanna

iii/2, v/8, vi/14, vii/27, viii/24, ix/[?] (2nd half)

i/10, i/29, ii/3, vi/21 (1st half)

Days in a month: v: 5 days, vi, ix: 4 days

i: 3 days, ii, iv, 1 day, v: 2 days, ix: 2 days, x: 1, xii.

i: 2 days, ii, 1 Day, iii: 1, v: 3 days, vi: 3, ix: 2 days, xi/5 (son), xii: 1

Šulgi 44 iiiv, v, vii, viii, ix, x, xii:

9 Days

12 Days

1 day

é-uz-ga 3 Days

2 days

2 days

Most Frequent Days: 2×3, 17×3, 29×3

1-2, 5-6, 15, 24, 26, 28,

1, 2×2, 12, 15, 17, 18, 23, 28, 29×3;

iv/6 1 lamb, 1 kid Inanna

ii/9 1 lamb Utu

viii/17, ix/15, xiii/17 (2nd half)

i/3, iv/4 (1st half)

viii/4, x/29

v: 2 days, viii 1 day x 1 day, xii 2 days

v 2 days, viii: 2 days, x: 2 days, xii: 2 days

ii/1 1 lamb, 1 kid Nin-tinugga

viii-ix, xiii (2nd half)

i, iv (1st half)

viii/4, x/29

10 days

24 Days

5 days iii/6 1 lamb Nanaya

1 day

2 day

2 days

1 day

2, 6, 8, 12x 2, 13, 18, 22, 26×2.

4×2, 6-8, 11, 12 (son), 12, 16-17, 18 (son), 18, 19×2, 21sx2, 22?, 24×2, 25th, 26×2, 29, 30 (son)

iii/25 Utu/1 goat Nanaya (1st half of year); v/24: 2 kids, ix/21: Nanna/Utu (2nd half); ix/25 Nanna/Inanna.

ix/7 3 fat bulls Nanna (2nd half of year)

vii/9: 1 lamb, xii/1: 1 gazelle kid

x/29: 1 female kid, [1] lamb; xii/12: 3 gazelle kids;

iii/ 24

ii: 2 days, iii =3, iv: 2, vi: 2, viii with son: 4 days, ix 7 days; x, xii: 2 day

ix/25: 1 lamb Nanna, 1 Inanna (2nd half)

xii (2nd half)

x, xii (2nd half)

17 Days= 9+8?

3+2 Days?

from dates

Days in a month: v=4 days, viii= 4 days, x: 4 days, xii: 4 Šulgi 45 Months i-xii

Most Frequent Days: 12×5, 26×4

Days in a month: ii = 4, viii=6, ix=7, x= 4 days Šulgi 46 i-ix, xi-xii

vi/17: 2 lambs Nanna (1st half)

x/22 10 sheep Angel of king

3 days:

ii: 2 days, viii 2 days x: 3 days,

18 Days

25 Days

1 lamb Utu (1st half)

3 days

452

WU YUHONG AND LI XUEYAN i/9, ii/10, x/?, 46/iii/12 and xii/12:

1-3, 4×2, 5, 7×2, 10, 11×3, 12-13, 15, 17×2, 18×2, 19-20, 25, 28, 29×2;

16 Days: 2, 6×2, 9, 10×2, 11-12, 13×2, 15, 17, 23, 2526

i, v-vi, ix: i 1 day, v=6 = 4+2? days, vi= 5 days =3+2? days, ix=3 = 1+2? days, x 1 day

i-iii, x, xii

xii/12, xi/19-20

viii: 1, xii: 1 day

i 2 days, iii: 2? days, iv: 4, v: 1? day, vi: 1 (son)+ 3? days, vii: 2 day, viii +son: 2, ix: 1, xi: 2, xii: 3+ 2? days

9+17? =26 days;

15 + 15?=30 days;

é-uz-ga: 6+15?=21 days

1

0

Most Frequent Days: 28×6, 10×5, 1×4, 4×4, 26×4

1×2, 2, 3, 5-7, 10-12, 13×2, 15×2, 1718, 21, 28×4, 29, [?]x2

1×2, 3×2, 4×2, 5, 8, 10×2, 12, 18, 20×2, 21-22, 24×2, 25, 26×3, 28, 28 (son), 29, 30×2, [?], [?]

i/23-24, iii/6, v/2, vi2/2, 4-5, 7, 10, 19-20, vii/9, 17, 22, viii/6, x/15, xi/5, [?], xi2/26, xii/10

xi/12: 1 lamb (mu-túm é-uz-ga?) Ur-Suen, son of Šeš-Dada

Days in a month: ii : 2+1?, iii: 1+2? iv: 2, v : 1+5?, vi: 5?, vii : 2+3?, viii : 4, ix : 3+1?, x: 2+ 4?, xi : 4+ 4?, xii: 6

i: 1?, ii 1 day, iii: 1? day, iv: 1, v: 1+3? days, vi: 4? days, vii: 1+2? days, viii: 2+1?, ix: 1 day, x: 3? days, xi: 1+2? days.

ii: 1 +1? days, iii: 1 + 1? days, iv 1, v : 2? days, vi: 1? day, vii: SD +son: 1 +1? days, viii: son 1? day, ix : 2 +1? days, x : 2 +1? days, xi: 3+ 2? days, xii : 2+4?, [?]: 2

Šulgi 48 ixii-AmarSuen 1 i-iii

6+15? = 21 days;

33 + 20?= 53 days;

2, 4 6 10, 12×2, 13, 15-17, 19×2, 2022, 25×2, 26, 28-30, [?];

1×2, 2-4, 5×3, 6×2, 7×4, 8, 11×2, 12, 14, 15×4, 17×5, 16, 1819, 20×3, 21×2, 22×2, 23-24, 25×4, 27×2, 28-30

Most Frequent Days: 7×5, 11×5, 12×5, 13×4, 17×4, 25×4

Days in a month: i =5 days, iii = 4, iv= 4, v= 3?, vi=8 days, vii =3, viii = 3, xii = 6 days Šulgi 47 ixii:

Most Frequent Days: 17×7, 20×6, 25×6, 5×5,12×5, 7×4, 14×4, 27×4

1, 4-6, 7×2, 9-11, 13, 17, 21, 23, 25×2, 26, 30;

i 2+1? days, ii 1, iii 2? day, v: 3 days, vi: 4 days, vii: 2? days,

5 days for Utu/ Inanna

0

Inanna/ Nanaya: xi/20: 1 lamb Utu, 1 kid Inanna; i/4: 1 Inanna, iv/15+ 27: 1 lamb Inanna and 1 kid Nanaya,

vi/2, 4, 5, 7, 10, 20: 6 days,

vii/8 1 lamb Iškur and 1 kid Ninsun

12, 19-20

Akiti 2 bull +20 sheep:

xi-xii:

xi

vii/9, 17, 22 : 3 days,

13 Days Nanna /Inanna/ Nanaya

2 days

i/17, x/20: 1 Inanna, 1 kid Nanaya, ix/8: 1 kid Inanna, i/6, ix/23, AS 1 iv/27, v/5: Nan/1 kid Inanna

ix/6: 1 lamb Nin-sun, 1 lamb Lugalbanda from UrSuen, son of ŠešDada

11 Days for é-uz-ga:

1 days (éuz-ga?)+2

i/27, iv/2, v/5, v/16, vi/8, 22, 27; ix/11-13, xii/20

Akiti: 48 vii/19: 2 fat bulls, 6 fat rams, 13 rams, 1 kid: UrSuen, son of ŠešDada;

1 day +1 day

Enlil vii/5,

The Regular Offerings of Lambs and Kids for Deities

Days in a month: i: 2+1?, ii : 1+6?, iii: 2, iv : 4+1?, v: 2+9?, vi: 2+7?, vii: 6, viii: 4?, ix: 4+2?, x: 1+2?, xi : 2+1?, xii : 2+1?, AS 1 i : 2, ii: 1, iii: 1

i : 1 day, ii: 2? days, iv 1+1? days, v: 1 + 4? days, vi: 3? days, vii: 2 days, viii: 3? days, xi: 1? days, AS ii: 1

i: 1+1? days, ii: 1+ 4? days, iii: 2 days, iv: 3 days, v: 1+ 5? days, vi: 2+ 4 (son)? days, vii: 4 days, viii: 1? day, ix: 4+2?, x: 1+2?, xi: 2 days, xii : 2+1?, AS i : 2, AS iii: 1.

xi/16 1 lamb An, xi/25: An/ Inanna; xi/14: Inanna/ [Nanna]; [v]/27: 2 lambs Nanna /Ningal; vii/15-16: Ninhur-saĝ, Nintin-ugga

48 ix/7 1 fat ram, 1 lamb Nuska, 1 fat ram, 1 lamb Nin-urta from UrSuen, son of ŠešDada

453

[Š] 1 kid; AS 1 iv/12: Akiti 2 fat bulls, 2 fat rams of the next bull class, 13 rams, 1 kid from ŠešDada.

Akiti of šekinkud: AS 1 iv/12: 2 fat bulls, 6 fat rams next bulls, 13 rams, 1 kid (é-uzga?)

b. The fixed lamb/kid Offerings for Enlil and Ninlil and other deities and the é - u z g a from the Governor of Nippur According to texts and seals from Nippur (Š 36: BBVO 11 292) and Drehem (Š 44/vii/20: Schneider, OrSP 18, pl. 2 6), Ur-Nanibgal is attested as the governor of Nippur. He was succeeded in this office by his sons, Namzitarra and Dada. The governor of Nippur mainly offered a pair of lambs to Nuska and Ninurta. He did so on 15 days in Šulgi 43, on 4 days in Šulgi 44, on 9 days in Šulgi 45, on 3 days in Šulgi 46, on 9 days in Š ulgi 47, and on 35 days in Š ulgi 48 and the early part of Amar-Suen 1. He gave offerings to Nuska and Ninurta on a total of 75 days, which is nearly equal to the 95 days on which the e n of Inanna provided offerings for Enlil and Ninlil. As we noted above, the governor of Nippur only presented offerings for Enlil and Ninlil on seven days during this period. He provided offerings to other deities (Utu, Nanna, Inanna and An) on only seven days as well. The governor of Nippur offered lamb/kids/gazelles for the é - u z - g a with greater regularly, on a total of 44 days over the course of this period. Above we also pointed out that gazelle kids and other young animals were often sent to the é - u z - g a . Table 2. The lamb/kid offerings for Nuska, Ninurta and Utu, Nanna or Inanna and 1 lamb or gazelle kid for the é - u z - g a from the Governor of Nippur received under the supervision of Nasa from Šulgi 43 until Amar-Suen 1/viii.

Dates

2-lambs Offerings for Nuska/ Nin-urta : 69 days

for Utu/ Nanna Inanna : 7 days

Enlil, Ninlil : 7 days

for the é-uz-ga royal dining hall: 44 days

Šulgi 43 i, iii, vvii, ix xii = 28 days

15 days

3 days

1 day

9 days

Most Frequent Days: 25×2

5, 7-8-9, 13, 15; 18-19, 22, 23, 25×2, 28, vi/[?];

i/24 1 lamb Utu

9, 11, 17, 21, 22, 24-25, 29×2, vi/[?], (vi 4 days, vii 3 days)

454

WU YUHONG AND LI XUEYAN

i/5, i/13, i/25 (4 fat rams, 2 lambs Nuska, Nin-urta?); iii/22, v/ 9, v/15; vi/7-8, 18, [?]; vii/19; ix/[], 23, 25, xii/28

v/12 1 fat lamb Utu, v/18 1 fat lamb Nanna; v/21 1 lamb Nin-é-gal

Š 43 i, ii 1+ bulls: Enlil/Ninlil?

i/11: 1 lamb (é-uz-ga?); iii/17: 1 lamb (?), vi/24, 1 lamb (?), vi/25, 1 lamb (?), vi/[?], 3 lambs (Nuska, Nin-urta, ?), vi/29: 1 fat female kid (é-uzga), vii/9, 1 fat lamb é-uz-ga, vii/21: 1 fat female kid, 1 gazelle kid, vii/22, 1 gazelle kid é-uz-ga, ix/29,1 fat lamb (?)

Šulgi 44 i-viii, x, xii, xiii : 17 Days

4 Days

0

2 Days for Enlil, Ninlil,

11 Days for é-uz-ga

Most Frequent Days:

ii/9, i/12, vi/27, viii/28

viii/4, x/29.

iii/2, x/2, vi/7, i/12, xiii/17, viii/18, vii/21, i/23, iv/24, v/26, xii/29: 2×2

Days in a month:

i/12, ii/9, vi/27, viii/28

Šulgi 45 Month i, ii, vi, viii, x: 16 Days:

9 days for Nuska/Nin-urta

1 day for Nanna

1 day for Enlil,

5 days? for é-uz-ga

Šulgi 45 Most Frequent Days: 4×2, 29×2

iii/4, v/22?, viii/4,, ix/7, x/16-17, x/20+x, vi/29, x/29

1 fat lamb Nanna

The Days for Enlil Ninlil.

8, 11-12, 26. (?)

Days in a month: x =2 days

Š 45 iii/4, vi/29, viii/4, ix/7, x/16-17, x/20+x, x/29,

v/24

iii/24

ii/8, v/12, vi/26, ix/11,

Šulgi 46 Month ix, xi, xii, 9 Days

3 days

0

3 days for Enlil,

3 Days for the é-uz-ga Hall (?)

Days in a month: i : 3? days, iii: 1? day, v : 1+1? days, vi 4 days, vii 1 day, ix : 1+1? days

i/12, i/23, iii/2, iii/18, iv/24, v/26, vi/7, vii/21, x/2, xii/29, xiii/17 one day per month. i=2 days, iii=2

Most Frequent Days:

ix/3, ix/6 ?, xi/29,

xi/19, xi/20, xii/12,

xi/21, xii/27; Akiti on xii/12, 2 fat bulls, 6 fat rams, 13 rams, 1 lamb, 1 kid

Days in a month:

ix=2 days

xi=2 days

xii=2 days

Šulgi 47 ii, iv, vi, x-xii:

9 days=3+6?

3 days

0

11 Days=3+8

Most Frequent Days:

Š 47 vi/4, x/5, xii/8, iv/18, xi/20, x/22, ix/29, ii/[?]

1 lamb Nanna [?/?]

[?] Nin-tinugga

Š 47 ii/28, v/10, vi/3, vi/18, vii/2, ix/29, Š 47 xi/5, Š 47 xi/8, xi/29, xi/[?], xii/4

Days in a month: x =2 days

Š 47 ii/[?], iv/18, vi/4, ix/29, x/5, x/22, xi/20, xii/8

vi/19

Šulgi 48 i-ii, ivvii, ix-xii, AS 1 iiii, vi, viii

35 days

Most Frequent Days: 5×3; 7×3; 17×2; 18×2; 28×2

48/i/25, ii/4, 7, 12, 28; iv/2, 28; iii/18; v/2, 5, 11; vi/1314, 18, 21; vii/1, 5, 16; ix/68, 17, 27; x/5, [?]; xi/20, xii/7, 19; AS1/i/2, ii/7, 17, iii/22, vi/16, viii/10.

For Utu: Š 48 x/20; For Nanna: [?]/15;

Days in a month: ii=4 days, iv=2, v=3 days, vi=4 days, vii=3, ix=5, x=2, AS 1 ii=2 days

ii/4, 7, 12, 28=, iv/2, 28; v/2, v/5, v/11; vi/13, 14, vi/18, 21, vii/1, vii/5, vii/16; ix/6-8, 17, 27; x/5, x/[?]; AS 1 ii/7, ii/17,

For An and Inanna: Š 48 iii/24; Inanna 48 ii/21,

ii, v-vii, ix, xi-xii:

5 days for Inanna, An, Nanna, Lamma-lugal

48 v/16 for Angel of king and Nin-šubur: Š

5 days for é-uz-ga: 2+2?+1?

v/17, v/22, v/29, vi/11; Akiti of še-kin-kud: AS 1 iv/12,

ii/21, v/17, v/22, v/29, vi/11; Akiti of AS 1, iv/12: 2 fat bulls, 6 fat rams of the next bull class, 13 rams, 1 kid (é-uz-ga?).

The Regular Offerings of Lambs and Kids for Deities

455

Appendix Texts Used in this Study Arranged by Date6 Šulgi 43: e n of Inanna: Ontario 1 31 i/7; Limet, RA 49, 88 12 i/17; MVN 8 214 i/29; OIP 115 217, Utu ii/6; OIP 115 220 iii/2; PDT 1 79 v/8; Torino 1 207 v/8; PDT 1 121 v/21; PDT 1 86 v/14; PDT 1 15 vii/27; BIN 3 490 Nan vi/17; Torino 1 7 viii/24; Torino 1 10 ix/26; SA 39 pl. 50 ix; Princeton 2 342 ix; OIP 115 161 x/21; UCP 9-2-2 40 Angel of king x/22; PPAC 4 1 SA 4 xii/28. Šeš-Dada, the s a n g a of Enlil, or his son Ur-Suen: OIP 115 215 i/10; PDT 1 102 i/18; MVN 8 214 i/25; OIP 115 148 son i/29; OIP 115 217 NanIna ii/6; Nik. 2 487 ii/3; NYPL 18 ii/12; OIP 115 149 iii/22; OIP 115 221 v/9; Torino 1 207 v/11; MVN 8 141 v/12; OIP 115 153 vi/12; BIN 3 490 vi/17; Nik. 2 466 vi/21; PDT 1 69 vi/28; TRU 23 ix/18; NYPL 25 ix/23; Alivernini and Foster, RSO 83, 342 3 ix/?; BIN 3 4 son xi/5. Governor of Nippur: OIP 115 145 i/5; Ontario 1 18 i/13; MVN 8 214 i/25; OIP 115 149 iii/22; OIP 115 221 v/9; NYPL 47 v/15; Gomi, Orient 16, 41 5 vi/7; OIP 115 223 vi/8; OIP 115 155 vi/18; Ontario 1 20 vi/[?]; Torino 1 210 vii/19; NYPL 25 ix/23; Princeton 1 108 ix/25; Alivernini and Foster, RSO 83, 342 3 ix/?; PPAC 4 1 xii/28; MVN 13 822 i/24; MVN 8 141 v/12; CST 54 v/18; PDT 1 121 v/21; Gomi, Orient 24, 116 i, ii; é - u z - g a : Torino 1 2 i/11; PDT 1 27 iii/17; Torino 1 18 vi/24; OIP 115 157 vi/25; Ontario 1 20 NusNinrtEzg vi/[?]; Hirose 21 vi/29; PDT 1 83 vii/9; CST 55 vii/21; MVN 13 840 vii/22; Princeton 1 107 ix/29. Šulgi 44: e n of Inanna: SACT 1 3 iv/24; PDT 2 991 v/1, YOS 18 8 v/26; CST 71 vii/5; MVN 18 149 viii/28; CST 79 x/2; OIP 115 172 xii/6; SACT 1 5 xii/15; to Other gods: OIP 115 165/Nintng ii/1; MVN 13 704 Utu iii/21; SACT 1 125 /Ina/44 iv/6; TRU 27 Ina/iii; to MVN 18 148 viii/17; TRU 258 ix/15; Rochester 15 Enlil and Ninlil é - u z - g a xiii/17. Šeš-Dada, the s a n g a of Enlil, or his son Ur-Suen: OIP 115 163 i/3; MVN 5 97 Utu/ii/9; SACT 1 1 ii/12; TRU 26 ii/28; Ontario 1 32 iii/18; SACT 1 2 iv/4; PDT 2 991 v/1; PDT 2 990 v/23; MVN 5 99 viii/2; MVN 18 148 viii/17; MVN 13 706 ix/29; CST 79 x/2; CST 80 x/29; SACT 1 5 xii/15; AAICAB I/1, Ashm 1923-426 xii/29. Governor of Nippur: SACT 1 1 i/12; MVN 5 97 ii/9; OIP 115 169 vi/27; MVN 18 149 viii/28; é - u z - g a : SACT 1 1 i/12; OIP 115 164 i/23; SAT 2 362 iii/2; SACT 1 3 iv/24; YOS 18 8 v/26; Snell, ASJ 9, 265 67 vi/7; PDT 1 119 zi-ga + CDLI P211674 vii/21; OIP 115 170 viii/18; CST 79 x/2; AAICAB I/1, Ashm 1923-426 xii/29, Rochester 15 xiii/17. Enlil and Ninlil: PDT 1 418 viii/4 and CST 80 x/29.

––––––––––––– 6. Please note that under the headings “ e n of Inanna” and “Šeš-Dada” the dates not listed in bold type indicate offerings for Enlil and Ninlil unless otherwise specified. The offerings for the é - u z g a are listed in bold type. The following abbreviations are used: son = Ur-Suen, son of Šeš-Dada; Nan = Nanna; Ina = Inanna; Nana = Nanaya. Under the headings for “Governor of Nippur” the dates not listed in bold type indicate offering for Nusku and Ninurta unless otherwise specified. The offerings for the é - u z - g a are listed in bold type. Also note that dates from Šulgi 45 i to 48 v used Akiti as the first month of the calendar (the ú s s a year names used during first months of Akiti and ezem Šulgi = i' – ii'), i.e. the months from Mašda to Ezem-Ninazu with the year names of 45' – 47' are dated to the viii' – xii' of 45', 46' and 47' = i – v of 46, 47 and 48. See Wu 2000.

456

WU YUHONG AND LI XUEYAN

Šulgi 45: e n of Inanna: PDT 1 433 i/26; Langdon, Babyl. 7, 76 7 ii/8; PDT 2 1060 ii/18; Nana: Nik. 2 529 /45 iii/6; Curtis, ASJ 16, 105 1 iii/25; Sauren, OLP 8, 6 1 vii/22; MVN 15 361 viii/6; OIP 115 235 viii/12; Nan: CDLI P211514 v/24; OIP 115 239 ix/21; SET 50 /NanInan ix/25; CST 480 x/2; Nik. 2 473 x/12; Torino 1 12 x/26; BIN 3 612 xi/13; Nisaba 8 84 xii/1. Šeš-Dada, the s a n g a of Enlil, or his son Ur-Suen: Langdon, Babyl. 7, 76 7 ii/8; PDT 2 1060 ii/18; TRU 256 iii/4; OIP 115 233; Torino 1 221 iii/26; OIP 115 234 iv/12; Van Kampen 117 v/22?; Nik. 2 494 vi/26; Torino 1 399 vi/29; MVN 13 813 viii/4; OIP 115 235 viii/12; SAT 2 442 viii/18; MVN 13 127 viii/30; Nik. 2 456 ix/6; PDT 1 410 ix/7; MVN 10 114 ix/11; OIP 115 238 ix/17; OIP 115 239 ix/21; Ontario 1 30 ix/24; SET 50 ix/25; MVN 13 116 x/16; *MVN 13 505 x/29, CST 487 xii/12; Torino 1 13 xii/21; MVN 13 710 xii/24. Governor of Nippur: TRU 256 iii/4; Van Kampen 117 v/22?; Torino 1 399 vi/29; MVN 13 813 viii/4; PDT 1 410 ix/7; MVN 13 116 x/16; PDT 2 996 x/17; StOr. 9-1 28 (pl.10) x/20+x; MVN 13 505 x/29; é - u z - g a : Langdon, Babyl. 7, 76 7 ii/8; SACT 1 4 v/12; Nik. 2 494 vi/26; MVN 10 114 ix/11. Enlil: Nik. 2 530 /iii/24; Nan CDLI P211514 v/24. Šulgi 46: e n of Inanna: Torino 1 216 i/6; TRU 30 i/13; Torino 1 14 + zi-ga Torino 1 214 i/23; TRU 261 ii/9; OIP 115 198 iii/10; Hirose 50 iii/17; BPOA 7 2894 v/4; Nik. 2 465 v/21; OIP 115 204; TRU 32 v/25; OIP 115 183 vi/1; OIP 115 184 vi/7; SACT 1 6 vi/26; PDT 1 55 vi/30; Hruška, WO 11, 20 vii/11; PDT 2 1163 vii/25; TRU 267 viii/5; SumRecDreh 9 + CDLI P212069 zi-ga xii/7; é-uz-ga: Alivernini and Foster, RSO 83, 342 4 v/[2?]; v/4; Kyoto 12 v/9; TRU 264 v/10; TRU 265 v/13; Ontario 1 33 v/15; PDT 1 28 v/17; OIP 115 242 vi/6; CST 117 vi/10; MVN 13 508 vi/11; MVN 13 807 vi/12; Owen, ASJ 19, 202 7 vi/13; PDT 1 479 ix/25; Englund, ASJ 14, 102 4 ix/6; MVN 13 515 ix/?; Ontario 1 23 x/2. Šeš-Dada, the s a n g a of Enlil, or his son Ur-Suen: MVN 13 871 i/4; OIP 115 247 i/18; YOS 18 9 iii/11; Limet, RA 49, 86 1 iv/2; MVN 10 138 iv/12; TRU 263 iv/20; OIP 115 254 iv/29; TRU 32 v/25; OIP 115 183 vi/1; MVN 13 508 vi/11; Ontario 1 34 vi/15; OIP 115 185 vi/17; CST 126 vii/18; Liu, CDLB 2012: 2 2.2 vii/28; TRU 267 viii/5; MVN 5 102 viii/7; TRU 269 ix/3; CST 147 xi/19; CST 149 xi/29; OIP 115 245, CDLI P212069 zi-ga; SumRecDreh 9 + xii/7; OIP 115 192 xii/11; SACT 1 131 xii/13; OIP 115 195 xii/17. é - u z - g a : PDT 1 29 i/9 1; MVN 20 6 ii/10; OIP 115 198; PDT 2 1153 x/?; Akiti with 2 bulls 20 sheep: MVN 1 140 iii/12; OIP 115 193 xii/12. Governor of Nippur: TRU 269 ix/3; Englund, ASJ 14, 102 4 ix/6?; CST 149 xi/29; Enlil and Ninlil: CST 147 xi/19; CST 148 xi/20; Akiti 2 bulls 20 sheep OIP 115 193 + Torino 1 217 zi-ga xii/12; é - u z - g a : MVN 18 151 xi/21; SACT 1 7 xii/27. Šulgi 47: e n of Inanna: Langdon, RA 19, 193 10 i/18; Fish, MCS 7, 19 Liv 51 63 51 ii/28; OIP 115 198 iii/10; CST 105 iv/21; CST 109 v/1; OIP 115 203 v/13; MVN 13 514 v/29; OIP 115 206 v/[?]; MVN 13 768 vi2/2; CST 507 [v?]; MVN 10 139 vi/3; OIP 115 209 vi/15; OIP 115 211 vi/28; Ontario 1 24 vii/2; BIN 3 17 vii/12; MVN 13 868 vii/17; MVN 8 107 viii/5; Nasha, Diss., p. 1 Engelbert 1 viii/6; TRU 115 viii/28; BIN 3 511 ix/7; Kutscher, BWAth 6, 45 4 x/11; SmithCS 38 8 x/13; BIN 3 507 x/[?]; Szachno-Romanowicz, RO 11, 96 2 xi/1; de Maaijer, JEOL 33, 114 5 xi/15; Schneider, OrSP 18, pl. 4 12 xi/28. Ina/Nana/Utu: TRU 260 i/4; Nik. 2 457 iv/15; OIP 115 252 iv/27; TRU 295 xi/20; PDT 2 1016 Iškur/Ninsun vii/8; é - u z g a : TCS 217 i/23; Krecher, AfO 24, pl. 15 S 213 i/24; CST 98 iii/6; CST 110 v/2; MVN 13 514 v/29; MVN 13 768 v2/2; OIP 115 207 vi/4; OIP 115 208 vi/5; CST 177 vi/7; BPOA 6 667 vi/9; PDT 1 405 vi/10; Nisaba 8 80 vi/19; MVN 18 150 vi/20; Nik. 2 524 vii/9; MVN 13 868 vii/17; Fischer and de Maaijer, ASJ 17, 326 1 vii/22; Nasha, Diss. p. 1 Engelbert 1 viii/6; SAT 2 551 x/15; MVN 15 363 xi/5; TRU 118 xi2/26; OIP 115 267 xii/10.

The Regular Offerings of Lambs and Kids for Deities

457

Šeš-Dada, the s a n g a of Enlil, or his son Ur-Suen: Fish, MCS 7, 19 Liv 51 63 51 ii/28; BIN 3 418 ii/[?]; OIP 115 198 iii/10; Hirose 51 iii/26; BIN 3 13 iv/18; CST 112 v/10; CST 113 v/21; CST 507 [v?]; MVN 10 139 vi/3; OIP 115 311 vii/24; OIP 115 259 son/vii/28; NYPL 242 son/viii/4; MVN 13 530 ix/1; Ontario 1 27 copy ix/3; OIP 115 320 ba-zi + Michalowski, ZA 68, 42 Smith 475 ix/30; CST 186 x/5; OIP 115 321 x/22; MVN 13 112 x/25; SzachnoRomanowicz, RO 11, 96 2 xi/1; TRU 295 xi/20; MVN 13 114 xi/24; Schneider, OrSP 18, pl. 4 13 xi/29; CST 194 xi/30; TRU 118 xi2/26; TRU 110 xii/4; TRU 109 xii/8; Farber and Farber, Studies Hruška, p. 83 xii/19. é - u z - g a : OIP 115 266 son xi/12; OIP 115 268 xii/12; Nasha, Diss., p. 21 Lane 4 xii/20; Torino 1 228 xii/26; PPAC 4 273 Š 47' [?/?]. Governor of Nippur: BIN 3 418 ii/[?]; BIN 3 13 iv/18; OIP 115 207 47 vi/4; Dhorme, RA 9, 44 SA 42 ix/29; CST 186 x/5; OIP 115 321 x/22; TRU 295 xi/20; TRU 109 xii/8; PPAC 4 273 Nan[?]. Ezg: Fish, MCS 7, 19 Liv 51 63 51 ii/28; CST 112 v/10; MVN 10 139 vi/3; OIP 115 210 vi/18; Ontario 1 24 vii/2; Dhorme, RA 9, 44 SA 42 ix/29; MVN 15 363 xi/5; NYPL 46 xi/8; Schneider, OrSP 18, pl. 4 13 xi/29; Dhorme, RA 9, 44 SA 46 xi/[?]; TRU 110 xii/4. Šulgi 48: e n of Inanna: OIP 115 324 i/25; TRU 108 ii/12; OIP 115 274 ii/21; OIP 115 330 iv/20; PDT 1 161 iv/25; BIN 3 506 v/2; BPOA 6 678 v/6; UCP 9-2-2 39 v/13; OIP 115 277 v/15; TRU 113 v/17; PDT 2 1061 v/19; Schneider, OrSP 18, pl. 5 15 vi/26; OIP 115 285 vi/29; MVN 5 108 vii/4; OIP 115 341 vii/10; BIN 3 517 viii/28; NYPL 156 viii/30; OIP 115 290 viii/[?]; AUCT 1 677 xi/12; Farber and Farber, Studies Hruška, p. 83 xii/19; Nan/Inan, An/Ina/Nana, Utu/Nan: www.smm.org SMM 12 i/6; Owen, ASJ 15, 141 19 i/17; Brinkman, Kramer AV, 55 W 2/13 [v]/27; Nik. 2 469 ix/8; Ontario 1 37 x/20; Lafont, ASJ 3, 189 2 xi/14; MVN 20 78 An xi/16; TCL 2 5531 xi/25; Ninh/Nint: Nik. 2 464 + TLB 3 19 vii/15 and OIP 115 345 vii/16; TRU 298 An xi/16. é - u z - g a : Rochester 18 i/27; MVN 13 839 iv/2; Gomi, Orient 16, 43 13 v/5; BIN 3 505 v/16; MVN 8 18 vi/8; Nik. 2 455 vi/22; OIP 115 284 vi/27; MVN 10 140 ix/11; MVN 8 112 ix/12, BIN 3 519 ix/13; TLB 3 19; AAICAB I/1, Ashm. 1923-415 xii/20. Šeš-Dada, the s a n g a of Enlil, or his son Ur-Suen: www.smm.org SMM 12 i/6; OIP 115 324 i/25; Rochester 18 i/27; MVN 5 105 ii/7; Torino 1 56 ii/17; OIP 115 274 + SACT 1 177 ba-zi ii/21; OIP 115 326 ii/25; PDT 1 37 ii/28; Princeton 1 78 iii/3; MVN 13 842 iii/24; OIP 115 327 iv/16; CDLI P211512 iv/21; Nik. 2 507 ba-zi + Yoshikawa, ASJ 9, 318 13 iv/25; Gomi, RA 76, 11 iv/29; PDT 1 415 v/1; Gomi, Orient 16, 43 13 v/5; BPOA 6 678 v/6; MVN 15 312; OIP 115 276 v/11; OIP 115 277 v/15; TRU 113 v/17; MVN 18 94 vi/11; OIP 115 282 vi/12; OIP 115 283 vi/14; CST 195 vi/18; MVN 8 15 vi/21; MVN 10 115 vii/5; Šeš-Dada and son: OIP 115 284 vi/27 and Nik. 2 464 + TLB 3 19 ba-zi vii/15 and OIP 115 291 ix/17; Gomi, Orient 16, 44 18 viii/25; Nik. 2 474 son/ix/6 Ninsun/Lband; Deimel, OrSP 5, 54 19 Wengler 27 son/ix/7 Nus/Ninur; Nik. 2 469 ix/8; TRU 298 ix/23; CST 212 x/5; CST 213 x/7; BIN 3 515 x/17; BIN 3 26 xi/15; DoCu EPHE 255 xi/20; PDT 1 508 xii/4; BIN 5 5 xii/7; Farber and Farber, Studies Hruška, p. 83 son/xii/19; AAICAB I/1, Ashm. 1923-415 xii/20; BPOA 7 2876 xii/22. Akiti (2 bull 20 sheep): OIP 115 287 vii/19 son of Šeš-Dada. Governor of Nippur: OIP 115 324 i/25; Rochester 18 i/27; PDT 2 1019 ii/4; MVN 5 105 ii/7; TRU 108 ii/12; PDT 1 37 ii/28; MVN 13 839 iv/2; MVN 13 847 iv/28; BIN 3 506 v/2; Gomi, Orient 16, 43 13 v/5; OIP 115 276 v/11; TRU 296 vi/13; OIP 115 283 vi/14; CST 195 vi/18; MVN 8 15 vi/21; OIP 115 284 vii/1; MVN 10 115 Enlil and Ninlil/Nus/Ninu/Nintin vii/5; OIP 115 345 vii/16; Nik. 2 474 ix/6; Deimel, OrSP 5, 54 19 Wengler 27 ix/7; Nik. 2 469 ix/8; OIP 115 291 ix/17; MVN 2 163 ix/27; CST 212 x/5; MVN 5 109 x/[?]; DoCu EPHE 255 xi/20; BIN 5 5 xii/7. Ontario 1 37 An x/20; MVN 13 842 Utu x/20; BIN 3 505 Nan ?/15; SumTemDocs. 10 Angel of king v/16; é - u z - g a : OIP 115 274 ii/21; TRU 113 v/17; OIP 115 278 v/22; OIP 115 279 v/29; MVN 18 94 vi/11.

458

WU YUHONG AND LI XUEYAN

Amar-Suen 1: e n of Inanna: Owen, Mesopotamia 8-9, 149 5 ii/16. Ina/An: Princeton 2 153 iv/27, BCT 1 40 v/5. Šeš-Dada, the sanga of Enlil, or his son Ur-Suen: UDT 107 i/2; Nisaba 8 64 i/20; TCL 2 5563 i/30; OrSP 47-49 6 ii/9; MVN 15 58 iii/22; Akiti iv/12: 2 bulls, 20 sheep PDT 1 595 iv/12. Governor of Nippur: UDT 107 i/2; OrSP 47-49 5 ii/7; Princeton 2 387 ii/17; MVN 15 58 iii/22; PDT 1 595; AUCT 1 587 vi/16; TAD 17 viii/10. Akiti PDT 1 595 iv/12.

Indices* Personal Names Aršiah ........................................... 116, 119 Atu [a - t u ] ........................................... 283 Awīlumma [á - b í - l u m - m a , Awiluma] .................................... 98, 381 Ba’aga ............................................ 98, 156 Babati ........................................... 161, 217 Basag .................................................... 230 Baza’a ..................................................... 72 Bazi ...................................................... 195 Bēlī-qarrād ............................................. 67 Biduga .................................................. 435 Bilalama ............................................... 172 Bizu’a ................................................... 217 Dada ..................... 172, 306, 385, 449, 453 Dadaga [d a - d a - g a ] .......... 116, 229, 231, 253, 257, 258, 260 Dadani ............................................ 90, 118 Dadumu ............................................... 321 Dagān-dan ........................................... 209 Dagān-DUni .......................................... 217 Dan-alsu ................................................. 98 Dan-ilī [d a n - n i - l í ] ............................ 381 Diĝira [d i ĝ i r - r a ] ............................... 259 Dudu ............................................ 116, 230 Dukra ................................................... 354 E-ĝeštin ................................................ 317 E-u’e ..................................................... 321 Ea-bāni ................................................. 371 Ea-ilī ..................... 361, 377, 384, 400, 421 Ea-lubi ................................................. 317 Ea-šar ................................................... 361 Eannatum ............................................ 303 Enanepada ........................................... 181 Enkidu ................................................. 303 Enlila-alsa [d e n - l í l - l á - a l - s a 6 ] .......... 26 Enlila-isa [d e n - l í l - l á - ì - s a 6 ] ............... 26

A’anzu ................................................... 176 Aba-Šulgigin [a - b a - d š u l - g i - g i n 7 ] ... 239 Abba ............................................. 116, 119 Abbasig ................................................. 355 Abī-ati .................................. 355, 356, 417 Abī-ilī .................................................... 354 Abī-simtī ...................... 215, 217, 227, 434 Abūni ............ 361, 372, 382, 384, 400, 418 Adad-illat [Adad-tillati] ...................... 158 Adad-nādin-ahhē ................................. 175 Adallal .................................................. 354 Agu ....................................................... 326 Ahu’a .................................................... 352 Ahum-bāni ........................................... 118 Ahuma .................................................. 117 Ahūni .................................................... 385 Aiakala [A’a-kala, A’akala, A’akalla, Ayakalla] .......... 116, 231, 366, 426, 435 Akka ..................................................... 362 Alla [ a l - l a ] ......................................... 194 Allamu .................................................. 418 Amar-Suen [Amar-Sin] .............. 119, 160, 188, 191, 195, 215, 217, 376 Amar-Suena-narām-Enlil ................... 210 Anati ..................................................... 100 Ane-babdu [a n - n é - b a - a b - d u 7 ] ....... 263 Apil-kīn ................................................ 217 Apillaša ........................................ 117, 118 Apin-kidu ............................................. 321 Arad [á r a d ] ........................ 253, 259, 367 Arad-Nanna [Ir-Nanna] ...... 100, 157,172, 195, 196, 227, 352, 355, 356, 378, 387, 396, 416 Arad-Šara [Urdu-Šara] ....................... 317 Aradĝu [Arad-mu, Aradmu] 72, 117, 118, 353, 378, 381, 387, 392, 395, 415, 420

––––––––––––– * Author preferences in transliterations and onomastics have been respected throughout the volume; the resulting divergences and names given only in transliteration have been rendered in the indices between square brackets. Page numbers in bold face refer to texts offered, either fully or in large part, in transliteration and/or translation.

459

460

INDICES

Enmenana ............................................ 181 Ennirgalana ......................................... 181 Ennirziana ........................................... 181 Ennum-ilī ............................................... 67 Esarhaddon .......................................... 187 Eštar-ilšu ............................................. 208 Etel-pū-Dagān .............................. 207-220 Etel-pū-Enlil ........................................ 211 Etel-pū-Šulgi ........................................ 209 Geme-Ninlila ....................................... 217 Gilgameš .............................. 233, 347, 362 Girbubu ................................................ 381 Ĝirine [Girine] ............................. 229, 230 Gu-TAR .................................................... 64 Gudea ............ 156, 175, 178-181, 183-185, 189-196, 303 Gududu [g u - d u - d u ] .......... 259, 260, 442 Guzide’a ............................................... 320 Habruša ............................... 374, 381, 397 Hala-Ba’u ............................................. 190 Hala-Lama ........................................... 190 Halulu [h a - l u 5 - l u 5 ] ................... 257, 258 Hammurabi .................................. 170, 174 Herodotus ............................................. 349 Huba’a .................................. 381, 387, 397 Hun-Šulgi ............................. 382, 386, 391 Ibbi-Suen [Ibbi-Sin] .............. 67, 162, 195 Ibni-Šulgi ............................................. 382 Id-pa’e [Idpae] ............................... 64, 411 Ida-bēlī ................................................. 354 Iddin-Adad ........................................... 406 Iddin-Dagān ......................................... 217 Iddin-Suen ........................................... 215 Ikala [Ikalla] ................................ 425-444 Ilallum .... 90, 118, 355, 361, 377, 384, 421 Ilī-dan ................................................... 401 Ilī-tappē ........................................ 354, 401 Ilum-bāni [DIĜIR- b a - n i ] ....................... 72 Inim-Šara ............................. 317, 368, 435 Inimanizi [i n i m - m a - n i - z i ] .............. 263 Ipqu-Nabium ................................ 303, 304 Išarru’a ................................................... 64 Išme-Dagān .................................. 233, 234 Ititi ....................................................... 117 Itūr-ilum .............................................. 116 Izarriq .................................................. 117 Jarlagan ....................................... 184, 190 KA-Nanna ............................................. 227 KAku [KA-kù] ............................... 180, 181 Kalaĝu [Kallamu] ............................... 117 Kalalum [k a - l a - l u m ] ........................ 263 Ku-Šara ................................................ 320

Kuda ..................................................... 420 Kugsig .................................................. 355 Kuli ...................................................... 367 Kurbira ................................................ 229 Kusaga [Kug-šaga] ............................. 368 Lā-mahār ............................................. 211 La’amu [l a - a - m u ] ...................... 257, 258 Lalâ ...................................................... 227 Lalum ................................................... 379 Lani ...................................................... 195 Lu-Ba’u ........................................ 180, 181 Lu-balasaga ......................................... 118 Lu-banda [l ú - b à n - d a ] ...... 258, 259, 262 Lu-Dani ................................................ 323 Lu-diĝira [Lu-dingira] ................ 355, 373 Lu-Dumuzi(da) .................... 192, 193, 355 Lu-Enlila [l ú - d e n - l í l - l á ] .. 257, 258, 262 Lu-Gudea [l ú - d g ù - d é - a ] ........... 191, 192 Lu-Haia [l ú - d h a - i à ] .................. 253, 257 Lu-Ibgal [l ú - i b - g a l ] .................. 257, 258 Lu-Inana [l ú - d i n a n a ] ............... 262, 263 Lu-kirizal ............................................. 190 Lu-kisal ................................................ 420 Lu-Lagaš .............................................. 230 Lu-Nanna ............ 157, 161, 172, 227, 321, 361, 377, 381, 387, 397, 416, 446 Lu-Ninĝirsu [Lu-Ningirsu] ................. 230 Lu-Ninšubur ........................................ 304 Lu-Suena ............................................. 228 Lu-ša-izu [Lušag-izu] .......................... 411 Lu-Šara ........................................ 317, 325 Lu-Utu ................................................. 159 Luduga [Lu-duga] ............... 227, 229, 434 Lugal-anabtum [Lugalanabtum, l u g a l - a n - n a - a b - t ú m ] .................. 194 Lugal-bad ............................................. 321 Lugal-durdug [Lugaldurdug] ............. 192 Lugal-emahe [l u g a l - é - m a h - e ] ......... 64, 230, 257-259, 293, 321, 406 Lugal-ezem .......................... 230, 317, 442 Lugal-gu’e .................................... 327, 328 Lugal-Gudea ........................................ 192 Lugal-heĝal [Lugal-hegal] .................. 229 Lugal-inimgina .................................... 325 Lugal-itida ........................................... 230 Lugal-kugani ............................... 230, 327 Lugal-kuzu [l u g a l - k ù - z u , Lugalkugzu] ....... 172, 263, 293, 327, 357, 421 Lugal-magure ...................................... 321 Lugal-melam ........................................ 117 Lugal-niĝlagare [Lugal-nilagare] ....... 429 Lugal-ulgal .......................................... 319

Personal Names Lugal-zuluhu [Lugal-suluhu] ..... 116, 230 Lugalbanda .......................................... 233 Lugina .................................................. 411 Lugula .......................................... 180, 181 Lukala [l ú - k a l - l a , Lu-kala, Lukalla] .... 252, 253, 257-261, 321, 328, 427, 432, 434, 442 Lusaga [Lu-saga, Lu-šaga] . 403, 404, 426 Lusig [Lu-sig] .............................. 317, 324 Lušallim ............... 353, 356, 379, 390, 395 Mani ............................................. 192, 193 Mazati ............................................ 93, 302 Nabasa [Nabašag] ............................... 401 Nabi-Enlil ............................................ 215 Nabi-Šulgi ............................................ 227 Nam-zi-tara [Namzitara, Namzitarra] ...................... 118, 449, 453 Namerešanidu ..................................... 190 Namhani [n a m - h a - n i ] ..... 156, 178, 263 Nammah [n a m - m a h ] ........................ 110 Nammah-Ba’u ...................................... 190 Nammahani .. 172, 178, 180, 181, 189-196 Nanna-lula ............................................. 98 Nanna-zi-šaĝal ............................. 116, 117 Naplanum ............................................ 162 Naplis-Ea ............................................... 96 Narām-Ea ............................................ 354 Narām-Sin ........................... 170, 174, 181 Nasa ............................. 446, 448, 449, 453 Niĝar-kidu [Nigar-kidu] ............. 229, 230 Niĝir-ane .............................................. 321 Niĝlagare [n í ĝ - l a g a r - e ] ................... 110 Nin-heĝal ............................................. 317 Nin-TURTUR [n i n 9 - TUR-TUR] ............... 357 Ninkala ........................................ 213, 215 Ninsaga [Nin-saga] ............................... 98 Nir-idaĝal [Niridagal] ........ 172, 354, 376, 382, 398 Nūr-Dagān ........................................... 118 Nūr-ilī ..................................................... 67 Nūr-Suen .............................................. 302 Nūr-Šamaš ..................................... 302, 93 Nūr-Šu-Suen ................ 382, 398, 417, 211 Nūr-Šulgi ..................................... 384, 387 Piriĝme ......................... 178, 189, 193, 194 Pišah-ilum .................................... 379, 395 Pūh-ilim ............................................... 354 Puzur-Inšušinak .......................... 183, 184 Puzur-Ninkarak .................................. 158 Puzur-Suen .................................... 97, 227 Puzur-Šamaš ....................... 382, 401, 402 Sargon .................................................. 170

461

SI.A-a .......................................... 72, 91, 92 Sidu ...................................................... 230 Simat-Ištaran ...................................... 357 Sîn-rēmēni ........................................... 304 Ṣilluš-Dagān ........................ 381, 385, 397 Šakabu ................................................. 354 Šakuge [Šagkuge] ............................... 391 Šamaš-bāni .................................. 118, 402 Šamši-Adad .......................................... 170 Šara-bazige .......................................... 321 Šarakam [Šara-kam] .................. 117, 432 Šarrum-bāni ....... 172, 215, 379, 381, 382, 392, 397, 398 Šelha .................................................... 354 Šeš-Dada ........ 445, 446, 448-453, 455-458 Šešani [š e š - a - n i ] ............... 253, 257, 258 Šeškala [Šeš-kala, Šeškalla] ...... 418, 435 Šešsag .................................................. 429 Šimbišhuk ( š i m - b i - i š - h u ) ............... 183 Šu-Enlila .............................................. 215 Šu-Eštar, Šu-Ištar ....................... 401, 447 Šu-ilī ............................. 216, 379, 395, 418 Šu-Kabta .............................. 156, 158, 357 Šu-Mama ..................................... 117, 118 Šu-Ninmuga ........................................ 355 Šu-Ninšubur .................................. 72, 356 Šu-Nisaba ............................................ 213 Šu-Suen [Šu-Sin] ....... 119, 120, 162, 192, 193, 195, 210, 211, 217, 234, 353 Šu-Suen-etel-pū-Enlil ................. 209, 211 Šu-Suen-inib-Ištar ............................... 210 Šu-Suen-ipallah-Enlil ......................... 211 Šu-Suen-iṭīb-šināt ............................... 211 Šu-Suen-kiaĝ-Šara .............................. 211 Šu-Suen-lā-mahār ............................... 211 Šu-Suen-lilabbir-haṭṭam ..................... 211 Šu-Suen-lipit-Ea .................................. 210 Šu-Suen-migir-Enlil ............................ 210 Šu-Suen-migir-Ištar .................... 210, 211 Šu-Suen-narām-Enlil .......................... 210 Šu-Suen-narām-Eštar ........................... 96 Šu-Suen-nūr-mātišsu .......................... 211 Šu-Suen-nūr-mātīšu ............................ 210 Šu-Suen-takil-ana-Suen ...................... 211 Šu-Suen-wussum-iš-šarrī .................... 211 Šu-Šamaš ............................................. 401 Šulgi ............ 160, 163, 164, 170, 179, 181, 185, 187, 188, 190-192, 194, 195, 197, 207-220, 233-247, 357, 363, 401, 447, 450 Šulgi-aiaĝu [d š u l - g i - a - a - ĝ u 1 0 ] ........ 239 Šulgi-diĝir-kalama [d š u l - g i - d i ĝ i r -

462

INDICES

k a l a m - m a ] ..................................... 239 Šulgi-ilī ................................................. 392 Šulgi-(i)līšu .......................................... 419 Šulgi-simtī .................................... 216, 217 Šuruš-kīn ............................................... 96 Šutruk-nahhunte I .............................. 174 Ṭābum .................................................... 66 Taddin-Eštar ........................................ 215 Takilum ................................................ 307 Tarām-Uram ........................................ 217 Tubi-[…] .............................................. 381 Tūram-ilī .................................. 72, 91, 157 Ugulla ................................................... 118 UN-il ............................................. 403, 404 Ur-aba ................... 178-181, 189, 194, 195 Ur-Ašnan .............................................. 322 Ur-Ba’u [Ur-Ba’U, Ur-Bau] . 116, 178-182, 184, 185, 189, 190, 193, 194, 230, 425 Ur-Bilgames ......................................... 321 Ur-Dumuzida ....................................... 228 Ur-E’e [Ure’e, u r - e 1 1 - e ] .... 227, 259, 260, 366, 426, 429, 442 Ur-GAR .................................. 178, 180, 189 Ur-gigir [u r - ĝ i š g i g i r ] 252, 257, 321, 355 Ur-Halmudu ........................................ 228 Ur-Igalim [u r - d i g - a l i m a ] ................. 283 Ur-Iškur ....................... 315, 319, 320, 325 Ur-Ištaran ............................................ 215 Ur-Lamma [Ur-Lama, u r - d l a m a ] ... 116, 119, 187, 190-192, 215, 230, 259, 283 Ur-Lisi [u r - d l i 9 - s i 4 ] .......... 116, 119, 187, 226, 229, 231, 259, 260, 366, 377, 426 Ur-Mama .............................. 178, 180, 189 Ur-Meme .............. 117, 119, 120, 187, 351 Ur-mes ............ 63-65, 68, 90, 98, 118, 321, 322 Ur-Namma [Ur-Nammu] .... 115-117, 118, 173, 175, 178-189, 192, 194, 195, 217, 362, 363, 447

Ur-Nanibgal ......... 117, 118, 446, 449, 453 Ur-Nanna ............................................. 215 Ur-Nanše ............................. 229, 230, 303 Ur-niĝar [u r - n i 9 - ĝ a r , Ur-nigar, Urnigingar] ..... 98, 227-230, 257, 262, 355, 356, 387, 408 Ur-Ninĝirsu I ............... 178, 189, 190, 193 Ur-Ninĝirsu II ..... 178-180, 183, 184, 189, 193 Ur-Ninkura .......................................... 118 Ur-Ninmuga ................................ 321, 417 Ur-Ninsu [u r - d n i n - s u ] . 61, 64, 272, 328 Ur-Nintu .............................. 429, 432, 433 Ur-Numušda ........................................ 355 Ur-Nungal [u r - d n u n - g a l ] ....... 252, 253, 259, 260, 442 Ur-Pabilsaĝ .......................................... 176 Ur-silaluh ............................................. 367 Ur-Suen [u r - d s u e n ] ... 257, 450, 455-458 Ur-Šara [u r - d š á r a ] ... 252, 253, 258-260, 262, 317, 426, 437 Ur-Šarura ............................ 192, 193, 196 Ur-Šulpa’e .................................... 195, 368 Ur-Tilla ................................................ 449 Ur-Tummal ............................................ 98 Ur-Utu [u r - d u t u ] ................ 257-259, 382 Urĝu [Urmu] ............................... 215, 227 Ursaga [Ur-saga] ................................ 161 Ursasa [u r - s a 6 - s a 6 - g a ] .................... 262 Ušašum ................................................ 172 Uše-hegin [Uše-hegin] ........................ 355 Ušĝu ............................................. 433, 434 Uššu-kīnu .............................................. 98 Utuḫeĝal [Utu-heĝal] .......... 70, 182, 183, 184, 185 Utukam [Utu-kam] ............................. 195 Utusig [Utu-sig] .................................. 316 Watarum ...................................... 376, 449

Divine Names

463

Divine Names Abhinun [d a b - h i - n u n , d á b - h i n u n ] .................................................. 191 Allatum ........................................ 376, 391 Ama-Inana ........................................... 376 An ................................. 185, 372, 450, 453 Anzu ..................................................... 193 Asari ..................................................... 283 Ašnan ................................................... 391 Ba’u ...................................................... 304 Dagān ................................... 207, 210, 217 Damu .................................................... 305 Diĝirmah ................................................ 61 Enki ...................................... 372, 373, 396 Enlil ...... 175, 185, 210, 211, 289, 446-448, 450-453 Gatumdug ............................................ 370 Geštinana [Ĝeštinana] ................ 390, 391 Hendursaĝ [d h e n d u r - s a ĝ ] ............... 283 Inana [Inanna] .... 187, 303, 304, 445-448, 453 Išhara ................................................... 217 Iškur ..................................................... 401 Kalkal ................................................... 401 Lamma-MA-Šulgi [d L a m a - MA? d š u l - g i ] ............................................ 268 Lisina ................................................... 189 LUMma [d l u m - m a ] ............................ 194 Meslamta’ea ......................................... 192 Nanaja [Nanaya] .. 333-345, 376, 447, 450

Nanna .......... 185, 348, 371, 446, 450, 453 Nanše ................................... 184, 191, 370 Nergal .......... 357, 374, 376, 391, 392, 401 Nergal/Meslamta’ea .................... 390, 391 Nin-agala ............................................. 193 Ninbahar [d n i n - b á h a r ] ...................... 61 Nindara ................................................ 192 Ninebarzagin ....................................... 391 Ninĝeštinana [Ningeštinana] ............. 401 Ninĝirsu [Ningirsu] ............. 191-193, 229 Ninĝišzida [Ningišzida] .............. 191, 193 Ningublaga .......................................... 372 Ninhursaĝ [Ninhursag] ...... 390, 401, 447 Ninisina ................................................. 67 Ninlil ............................. 446-448, 450, 453 NinMARKI [Ninkimar, d n i n - MAR.KI] . 191, 274, 304 Ninsun ................................................. 233 Nintinuga ............................................. 447 Ninurta ................................. 446-448, 453 Ninuru’amuDU ..................................... 372 Nuska ................................... 446- 448, 453 Suen ..................................................... 376 Šamaš ................................................... 376 Šara .............. 194, 229, 304, 348, 361, 373 Šulgi [d š u l - g i ] .................................... 192 Šulpa’e .................................................. 401 Utu ............................... 446, 447, 450, 453

464

INDICES Toponyms

A’ebara ......................................... 351, 356 Abū-Ṣalābiḫ ........................................... 60 Adab ........... 60-62, 68, 70, 71, 73, 92, 158, 182, 184, 301, 369, 371, 372, 379, 381, 392, 395 Adamdun .............................................. 184 Agade .................................................... 187 Akkad ........................................... 173, 184 Al-Amrima ........................................... 357 Al-bura (a l - b ù - r a , URU- b ù - r a ) ........ 357 Al-Ṣarbat .............................................. 357 Āl-Šarrākī ............................. See Irisaĝrig Al-Šu-Suen ........................................... 357 Al-Šu-Suen-re’i-niši ..................... 353, 357 Alšana .................................................. 392 Amar-kiši field ..................................... 319 Amar-Suen-Šara-ki’aĝ canal [í d d a m a r - d s u e n - d š á r a - k i - á g ] ......... 376 Amar-Suenake-ĝara canal [í d d a m a r - d s u e n - k e 4 - g á - r a ] ...... 67, 376 Amar-Suenītum canal ................ 64, 66-68 Amrima ......... 355-357, 360, 361, 378-380, 389, 391, 395, 396 Anzagar ................................................ 226 Apisal [Apišal, a - k a - s a l a 4 k i ] .... 61, 105, 226, 260, 286, 319, 358, 359, 365, 366, 408, 409, 426, 442 Aṣar/Uṣar-Šulgi ........................... 239, 357 Aṣarum-dannum .................................. 357 Aṣarum-warqa ..................................... 357 Aṣarum/Uṣar-a’ura ..... 357, 360, 401, 402 Aṣarum/Uṣar-dagi [Uṣar-dage] . 272, 351, 356, 357, 360, 374, 376, 378, 381, 382, 391, 397 Assur .................................................... 392 Ašdaba .......................... 272, 376, 377, 392 Ašgipada ...................................... 379, 395 Awan .................................................... 183 Babylon ........ 116, 175, 272, 352, 369, 374 Buranun ................................................. 62 Da-Umma [d a - u m m a k i ] .. 358, 359, 365, 382, 399, 400 Dabrum .......................... 70, 272, 374, 376 Dagi’a field ........................................... 354 Dêr (BÀD.ANk i , Der) .. 93, 97, 301, 302, 307 Diniktum .................................. 93, 97, 301 Dintir .................................... 378, 386, 391 Diyala ....................... 92, 93, 183, 184, 301 Drehem ......................... See Puzriš-Dagān

Du-lugalu’a [d u 6 - l u g a l - u 5 - a ] .. 352, 410 Dusabara ............................. 351, 353, 357 E-Šu-Suen ............................................ 353 Ebih ...................................................... 357 Ebla ........................................................ 60 Eduru-Amar-Suen [é - d u r u 5 - d a m a r d s u e n ] .............................................. 376 Eduru-ašag-Lamah ............................. 416 Eduru-Elamene ................................... 357 Eduru-Lugal-Anzu [( é - d u r u 5 - l u g a l d IM.DUGUD, l u g a l - d IM.MI.HUk i ) 419, 420 Eduru-NinTURTUR [é - d u r u 5 - n i n 9 TUR-TUR ............................................. 357 Eduru-urin-du’a .......................... 64, 66-68 Egypt .................................................... 349 Ekur ..................................................... 175 Elam ............................... 93, 164, 225, 301 Enam-DUDU [é - n a m - DU.DUk i ] ........... 352 Engabari field ...................................... 441 Enlil canal .............................................. 71 Eridu .................................................... 372 Erimzezegina ....................................... 390 Ešnunna ............................... 116, 117, 172 Euphrates .................. 60-62, 66-68, 70, 76 Ga’eš ............................. 368, 371, 373, 377 GARsuda ...... 351, 352, 356, 359, 360, 378, 389, 390 GARšana [Garšana] ...... 60, 89, 92, 94, 99, 100, 153, 155, 156, 158, 161, 177, 302, 304, 309, 310, 351-353, 356, 357, 359361, 378, 379, 381, 384, 386, 387, 389, 391, 394, 395, 396, 402, 415, 418 Gi-apin-kudra field .............................. 381 Ĝirsu [Girsu] ................................. passim Ĝišabba [Gišabba] ....................... 352, 356 Ĝišgigal [Gišgigal] ..... 356, 360, 378, 379, 381, 386, 389, 391 Giza ...................................................... 349 Governor canal [í d - é n s i - k a ] ............ 381 Gu-id-Ninaše-du [g ú - i 7 - n i n a k i š è - d u ] .............................. 269, 288, 289 Gu’abba [Gu’aba, g ú - a b - b a k i ] ......... 105, 212, 239, 269, 288, 289 Gudua .................................................... 98 Gu’edena [Gu’edenna, g ú - e d e n - n a ] 268, 358, 359, 365, 382, 400, 427 Ĝurušgin-du canal [í d - g u r u š g i m - d u ] ........................................... 381 GusaharDU ................... 356, 360, 379, 395

Toponyms Hamazi ................................................. 172 Hardahi ........................................ 356, 378 Id-dula ......... 351, 356, 359, 360, 378, 384, 387, 390, 392, 416 Id-gala .................................................. 361 Idigna ..................................................... 62 Iri-Šulgi-sipa-kalama [Uru-Šulgi-sipadkalama, u r u - d š u l - g i - s i b a d - k a l a m m a ] ................................... 270, 354, 357 Irisaĝrig [Iri-Saĝrig, Urusagrig] .... 59-88, 89 -102, 117, 118, 153, 155, 157-161, 177, 239, 301-311, 385 Isin ....................................... 171, 272, 374 Iturungal .................. 60, 61, 67, 68, 71, 76 Ka’ida ..................................................... 71 Kamari ................. 355, 360, 378, 379, 389 Kardahi ........................................ 378, 391 Karhar .......................................... 160, 163 Karkar ........... 71, 356, 360, 378, 379, 381, 388, 389 Karšum ................................................ 392 Karzida ................................................. 348 KAsahar ................................ 61, 62, 66, 67 Kazalu [Kazallu] . 117, 118, 184, 371, 372 Keš .............................................. 61, 70, 76 KI.AN [KI.ANk i ] ............................. 239, 268 Ki’abrig ................................................. 372 Kigale ................................................... 376 Kimaš ..................................................... 93 Kiri-ĝeštin ........................................ 64, 66 Kiri-ĝeštin field [a - š à ĝ i š k i r i 6 ĝ e š t i n - n a ) ......................................... 67 Kisig ( EZEN×SIG7k i ) ..................... 352, 372 Kisura Umma ...................................... 378 Kiš ........ 118, 183, 272, 303, 362, 374, 376 Ku’ara ................................................... 272 Kutha ................................... 272, 369, 374 Lagaš .............................................. passim Lamah field (a - š à l á - m a h ) .............. 268 Larsa ... 171, 178, 195, 303, 349, 374, 376378, 392 Latur field ............................................ 355 Lugal field ............................................ 381 Lullubu(na) .......................... 352, 354, 357 Lullubum ..................................... 163, 216 Malkum .................................................. 67 Malkum field [a - š à m a - a l - k u k i , a - š à a g a r 4 m a - a l - k u - u m ] ........... 67 Mama-šarrat canal ................................ 68 Marad ........... 272, 352, 371, 372, 378, 449 Marhaši ................................................ 397 Mari ...................................... 156, 176, 217

465

Maškan ....... 352, 354, 356, 357, 359, 360, 382, 401, 402 Maškan-abi .......................................... 357 Maškan-Amar-Suen ............................ 357 Maškan-Dudu ...................................... 357 Maškan-garaš ...................................... 357 Maškan-kurutum [(m a š - g á n - k u - r u t u m k i ) ] ..................................... 357, 381 Maškan-šapir ........................... 70, 71, 357 Maškan-šarrum ................................... 357 Maškan-tupšika ................................... 357 Maškan-ušuri ...................................... 357 Menkar ................................................. 359 Mur [m u - ú r k i ] ........................... 272, 376 Mušbi’ana ............................ 358, 359, 365 Nabada ................................................. 176 Nagar ................................................... 176 NAGsu .................. 351, 352, 354, 356, 359361, 377, 381, 384, 386, 387, 392, 416, 417, 421 Nammahani (Namhani) canal ............ 190 Neber-Šulgi [n é - b e - e r - d š u l - g i k i ] ... 239 Nimin ................................................... 370 Nina ..................................................... 105 Nippur .......... 13, 60, 61, 63, 66-68, 72, 74, 77, 79, 92, 99, 105, 115, 117-119, 153, 155 -158, 161, 172, 175, 177, 187, 188, 195, 234, 235, 271, 273, 301, 303, 304, 306, 311, 333, 353, 362, 377, 434, 437, 446, 448, 455-458 PIRIG.TURki .............................................. 61 Pupu field ............................................. 354 Puš ....................................... 272, 374, 376 Pušt-i Kūh ............................................ 216 Puzriš-Dagān ...... 59, 63, 98, 99, 105, 106, 153, 155, 157, 161, 171, 177, 189, 207210, 213, 216, 217, 363 Sa(r)-ra-LUM ........................................... 60 Sabum .................................................. 216 Saĝdana/Puzriš-Dagān ......................... 63 Ṣarbat .. 356, 357, 360, 378, 386, 389, 391 Sigrašum ................................................ 93 Simanum [Šimanum] ................. 156, 353 Simurrum [Šimurrum] ....... 163, 216, 357 Sippar .......... 118, 175, 188, 272, 303, 304, 309, 372, 374, 376, 378, 389, 392 Sirara ................................................... 370 SUM.NE.LUM( k i ) ....................................... 66 Susa ...................................... 162, 184, 213 Susiana ................................................ 183 Šara-adah-Amar-Suen canal [í d - d š á r a á - d a h - d a m a r - d s u e n ] ................... 376

466

INDICES

Šarrākum ......................................... 60, 61 Šimaški [Simaškum] ..................... 93, 183 Šu-Suen-ammar ................................... 381 Šulgi-heĝal [d š u l - g i - ḫ é - ĝ á l k i ] ......... 239 Šuruppak [Šurippak, Šurubag] ......... 118, 272, 374 Tabbi-Mama canal ........ 59, 64, 66, 68, 70, 71, 75, 76 Tablala ................................................. 419 Tell al-Wilayah .. 68, 70, 71, 76, 78, 91, 92 Tell Beydar .......................................... 176 Tell Brak .............................................. 176 Tell Dlehim .......................................... 362 Tell Hamayma ....................................... 68 Tell Jidr .................................................. 61 Tigris ...... 61-63, 66, 67, 70, 71, 73, 77, 92, 93, 301 Tim-KU.KU ............................ 378, 379, 392 Tiwa (A.HA) ........................... 374, 376, 398 Tummal [Tumal] ................ 172, 234, 348, 362-370, 373 Tunabum .............................................. 392 Ukunuti field ....................................... 359 Umm al-Hafriyyat ............... 61, 74, 75, 81 Umma ............................................. passim Unšaga ................................................. 392 Uqar ..................................................... 213 Ur ......................... 106, 108-111, 156, 173, 181-185, 187, 188, 192, 257, 259, 301,

303-306, 308-311 Urbilum ................................................ 163 Urindu’a field [a - š à u r i n - d ù - a ] ....... 67 URU.DU.HÚBki .......................................... 60 Urua .............................................. 212-216 Uruk ..... 158, 172, 182-185, 303, 362, 378, 392, 445, 446, 448 Urum [UR×Úk i , UR×A.HAk i ] ......... 272, 371, 374, 376, 398 Uṣar-atigiNI ........ 356, 357, 360, 378, 379, 389 Uṣar-Babati ................................. 272, 357 Uṣar-barik ........................................... 357 Uṣar-DINGIR-A.ZU ................................. 357 Uṣar-Imid-ilum .................................... 357 WS 1032 ........................................... 74, 75 WS 1056 ............................... 71, 74, 75, 92 WS 1066 ................................................. 74 WS 1067 ................................................. 74 WS 1069 ................................................. 74 WS 1071 ........................................... 74, 75 WS 1174 ................................................. 73 WS 1179 ................................................. 73 WS 1180 ................................................. 73 WS 1188 ..................................... 61, 73, 74 Zabalam .......... 60, 92, 195, 351, 352, 356, 357, 360, 367, 379, 382, 385, 434 Zidahrum ............................................... 93 Zimudar ............................................... 387

Sumerian Words and Phrases

467

Sumerian Words and Phrases a - è - a k a i 7 T a - b í - M a - m a ............... 68 a - g a r 5 .................................................. 336 uruda á - s i ĝ i š i g ..................................... 254 zabar á - s u r ............................................ 254 á u 4 d u 8 - a ........................... 314, 322-328 a b - b a ................................................... 351 a b - b a u r u .......................................... 351 a d - KID .................................................. 109 à g a - ú s ................. 119, 222, 225, 252, 372 à g a - ú s l u g a l ............................. 213, 215 a m a r a z .............................................. 447 uruda ar-ma-tum .................................... 254 b a - a l .................................................... 318 b a - z i ............................................. 445-458 b a l a ..................................................... 196 b a l a g u b - b a / b a l a t u š - a ............. 362 b a r - t a g á l - l a .................................... 416 uruda/zabar b u l u g 4 ................................ 254 d a b 5 ..................................................... 318 d e 6 .......................................................... 29 d ú - r a ................................................... 314 d u 1 0 - ú s ............................................... 308 d u 1 1 [d u g 4 ] ................................ 38, 49-57 d ú b - b a ................................................ 257 d u m u ............................................ 227-231 d u m u - d a - b a ...................................... 350 d u m u - d a b 5 - b a .................................. 350 d u m u - g i 7 , d u m u - g i r 1 5 ........... 222, 314, 316, 350 d u m u l u g a l ....... 183, 207, 208, 212-215, 218, 227 d u m u š i m - b i - i š - ( h u ) ..................... 183 é - b a p p i r ............................................. 111 uruda é - d i m .......................................... 254 é - g a l ...................................................... 99 é - g a l g i b i l ......................................... 363 é - g a l l u g a l ........................................ 172 é - g a l n a m - h a - n i .............................. 191 uruda é - g í r ............................................ 254 é - HAR. HAR, é - k i k k é n ........ 111, 112, 280 é - k a š 4 ................................................. 226 é - k a š 4 g a b a b a - š i m - e k i ................. 226 é - k i š i b - b a m a r - s a .......................... 110 é - k u r u š d a ........................................... 98 é - m u h a l d i m .............................. 111, 119 é n a m - h a - n i ..................................... 190 é p i r i ĝ - m è ......................................... 190 é - t e m e n - n a ....................................... 373 é u r - d b a - ú ......................................... 190 é u r - d n a m m a .................................... 363

é u r - d n i n - ĝ í r - s u d u m u g ù - d é - a . 190 é - u š - b a r ............................................. 111 é - u z - g a ........................................ 445-457 e g e r š a g i n a .............................. 355, 413 é m e - d a ............................................... 216 e n Inana [e n Inanna] ........ 450-453, 455, 456, 458 e n - n u ( n ) - ĝ á t ì l - l a .......................... 318 e n g a r .................................................. 109 ENGUR ................................................... 115 é n s i .............................. 115-121, 178, 351 é r e n ...... 221-223, 316, 350, 351, 372, 373 é r e n d u m u - d a b 5 - b a ....................... 350 e r e š - d i ĝ i r .......................................... 192 ÉŠ.ŠE.PI.GAR .......................................... 400 è š d i l - d i l m a - d a .............................. 356 g á b - s a r ............................................... 368 g a b a - a š .............................................. 225 g a b a - t a .............................................. 225 g á n a - g u 4 ............................................ 288 ĝiš - g á n a - ù r ........................................ 278 g à r - d u ................................................ 119 g a r a d i n x ............................................ 273 g e - e n 6 / e n 8 ...................................... 49-57 g é m e ................................................... 365 g é m e k í k k e n ............................. 439-441 g é m e u š - b a r .............................. 439-441 g i - g u r - š e - b a l a ................................. 282 uruda g i ĝ 4 .............................................. 254 g u d u 4 .................................................. 192 g u l ....................................................... 335 g u r 1 0 / 1 1 ............................................... 255 g u r u 7 ........................................... 111, 287 g u r u 7 ( - a ) i m ù r - r a ................. 271, 287 ĝ á - n u n ................................................ 285 ĝ a r ................................................ 333-340 ĝ e n ......................................................... 21 ĝ i d r u - š è ... n ú [g i d r u - š è ... n á ] .... 283 ĝ ì r ........................................ 157, 253, 263 ĝiš ĝ ì r - g u b ........................................... 278 ĝ í r š u - i z a b a r .................................. 306 ĝ i š ... è ................................................. 281 ĝ i š - ( a ) - a b - b a .................................... 273 ( ĝ i š - ) š u .............................................. 273 ĝ i š - b a d ............................................... 277 ĝ i š - d a ................................................. 277 ĝ i š - è - a ................................................ 281 ĝ i š - i n - n u - š u - KIN( g u r 1 0 ) ................ 278 ĝ u r u š .................................................. 439 uruda h a - b ù - d a ............................ 254, 255

468

INDICES

h a - z a - n ú m (hazannu) ...................... 351 uruda h a - z i - i n .............................. 254, 255 uruda h a r ............................................... 254 uruda h a r ĝ i š i g ..................................... 254 uruda hu-bu-um u m b i n ....................... 255 ì - d u b ................................................... 285 ì - d u b k i - s u 7 a - š à (-...) [ì - d u b k i s u r a 1 2 a - š à (-...)] ............................. 286 uruda i g i m a r ....................................... 255 i m - d a b 5 ................................................ 24 i m - g u - u l ............................................... 38 i m - ĝ a r .................................................. 39 i m - m e ................................................... 38 i m - r i - a ................................................ 355 i m - ú s ..................................................... 38 i n - l á , ì - l á ................................... 251-265 KA .......................................................... 208 k a d u 8 - h a .......................................... 191 k a - g u r u 7 ............................................ 287 k a - l á - a ............................................... 283 KA-ú s .................................................... 252 k a - ú s - s a ............................................. 225 KA-ú s - t a g u r - r a ................................ 252 uruda/zabar k a k a - r a - a b ..................... 255 uruda k a k - u b ĝ i š i g .............................. 255 k a l a m ................................................. 173 k a s 4 . . . d u 1 1 .................................. 21, 22 k a s 4 š à a n - z a - g à r i 7 g î r - s u k i ...... 226 k a s 4 š à u m m a k i ............................... 226 k i - a - n a ĝ ..................................... 189, 190 k i - e n - g i .............................................. 173 k i - l á - b i ............................................... 252 k i l u g a l ................................................ 99 k i - s á .................................................... 373 k i - s u 7 [k i - s u r a 1 2 ] ............................ 275 k i - s u 7 g u - l a [k i - s u r a 1 2 gu-la] ....... 277 k i - s u 7 g u b - b a [k i - s u r a 1 2 gub-ba] ...................................... 270, 275 k i - s u 7 - š è ... e 1 1 [k i - s u r a 1 2 š è ... e 1 1 ] ........................................... 276 k i - s u r - r a ( k i ) GN ............................ 378 k i - u r i .................................................. 173 k í ĝ d ú b - b a [k i n d ú b - b a ] .............. 252 lú k í ĝ - g i 4 - a - l u g a l .............................. 301 k í ĝ t i l - l a [k i n t i l - l a ] ..................... 252 k i n d a g a l ............................................ 305 ĝiš k i r i 6 ................................................. 111 ĝiš k i r i 6 - ĝ e š t i n SUM.NE.LUM( k i ) ........... 66 ĝiš k i r i 6 u r - d n i n - ĝ í r - s u g u - l a ....... 190 k i s l a h ................................................. 275 k u 4 ......................................................... 22 k u 5 ....................................................... 273

uruda

k u l u l ĝ i š i g ................................ 255 k u n í d Umma .................................... 378 k u r ....................................................... 173 k u r - g á - r a .......................................... 368 l ú - d a b 5 - b a ......................................... 350 l ú d i - d a ................................................ 96 l ú - k a s 4 [l ú - k a š 4 ] ..................... 226, 302 l u g a l ................................................... 182 l u g a l a n u b - d a l í m m u - b a ........... 173 l u g a l k i š ............................................ 173 m a - d a ................................................. 173 ĝiš m a - n u ............................................. 306 m a - s á - a b ........................................... 342 m á - g í n ................................................ 109 m á - l a h 5 .............................................. 109 ĝiš m a r .................................................. 279 ĝiš m a r - g í d - d a ................................... 276 m a r - s a ......................................... 105-113 ĝiš m a r š e ù r - r a ................................ 280 m a š k i m l ú d i - d a - k a ........................ 96 uruda m u - g í d - k é š ............................... 255 m u - k u x [m u - TÚM] ...................... 445-458 n a g a r .................................................. 109 n a m - é r e n ........................................... 351 n a m - n u - b à n d a ................................ 351 n a m m u ............................................... 115 n a r ....................................................... 368 NE- g u 7 - b i .................................... 430, 433 n í ĝ - k a s 7 - a k á é r e n - n a - k a ........... 222 n í ĝ - b a l u g a l [n í g - b a l u g a l ] ........ 371 n í ĝ - ì - d é - a ............................................ 95 n í ĝ - m u s s a ......................................... 216 n i n / e r e š ............................................. 182 NINDA.GIŠ.AŠ ......................................... 437 n u - b à n d a ........................................... 351 n u - b à n d a - g u 4 ................................... 315 n u - u m - g i 4 ............................................ 36 n u - u m - í l .............................................. 36 p a n u - u m - è ......................................... 36 PÙ .......................................................... 208 r á - g a b a ...................................... 302, 306 s a z a b a r ............................................. 191 s a g i ..................................................... 192 s a ĝ i m - g i 4 ........................................... 38 s i - ( g ) ............................................ 340-343 s ì - ( g ) ............................................ 340-343 sikkum [siKKum] ......................... 213, 226 s ì l a ...................................................... 283 s ì l a - š u - d u 8 ........................................ 302 s i m u g .......................................... 259, 263 s u - s i - i g .............................................. 109 s u k k a l ........................................ 226, 302

Sumerian Words and Phrases s u k k a l - m a h .............................. 157, 195 s u r ....................................................... 335 š à b a l a - a ........................................... 435 š a b r a [s a b r a ] ........................... 157, 376 š a g i n a ................................. 165, 227, 351 š e ( s ù - r a ) a - t a d u 8 - a ..................... 280 š e a - t a d u 8 - a .................................... 274 š e b a l a - a ............................................ 271 š e ĝ i š - è - a ................................... 281, 283 š e m a - m a - r a - r a - a ................... 271, 279 š e m á - t a e 1 1 ...................................... 276 š e n i r .................................................. 280 š e s ì g - g a ............................................ 276 š e ŠE.KIN- a ( š e g u r 1 0 - a ) ................. 270 š e u r 4 - u r 4 .......................................... 273 š e u r 5 - r a ............................................ 231 š e / z í z d é - a .............................. 271, 279 ŠE.KIN ( g u r 1 0 ) ............................. 255, 273 uruda š e n - d í l i ...................................... 255 uruda š e n - g a m ..................................... 255 uruda š e n - š ú ......................................... 255 š i d i m ................................................... 369 š u - i ............................................... 303-308 š u ... ù r ................................................ 273 š u - ù r - r a ............................................. 273 ĝiš š u 4 - a [ĝ e š š u 4 - a ] ............................. 306 t ú g - d u 8 ............................................... 109 túg géme kíkken-na-ke4 t u k u 5 - a ............................................ 432

469

t ú g k i - l á t a g - g a ....................... 428-430 t ú g s a g i 4 - a ...................................... 434 u ( 3 ) - g ù n u ............................................ 337 ú z é ..................................................... 273 u 4 d u 8 - a ............................................. 314 uruda u b ĝ i š i g ....................................... 255 u b 5 k ù ................................................. 191 u g u l a .................................. 108, 157, 263 u g u l a - g é š - d a .................................... 352 UH ......................................................... 275 zabar u l .................................................. 255 u m - m a - n ú m ...................................... 182 UN-g a 6 , UN- í l ...... 221-223, 314, 315, 316, 319, 365 URU ......................................................... 60 ú š ......................................................... 314 uruda z à - š ú ........................................... 255 z à – š u 4 ................................................ 42 z a d i m .................................................. 109 z à h ............................................... 314, 318 z a r ( 3 ) ... d u 8 ........................................ 273 z a r ( 3 ) ... s a l ........................................ 273 z à r ....................................................... 273 z à r - t a b - b a š u - ù r - r a ...... 270, 272, 293 z i - g a ............................................. 445-458 z i - g a m a r - s a .................................... 110 z i - i r ..................................................... 252 ĝiš z ú ..................................................... 277

470

INDICES Texts Quoted ED IIIa-b Texts

DP 148 .................................................. 276 DP 214 .................................................... 41 DP 595 .................................................... 41 DP 98 ...................................................... 41 FTUPM 78 ............................................. 60

MVN 3 17 (AWAS 2 62) ....................... 278 Nik. 1 88 ............................................... 273 Nik. 1 284 (AWEL 284) ....................... 277 Nik. 1 313 ............................................... 21 VS 14 40 ................................................. 41

Old Akkadian Texts BIN 8 169 ................................................. 8 Donald, MCS 9, 247 ............................... 21 MAD 4 33 ............................................. 402

MAD 4 150 ............................................... 8 RTC 239 ............................................... 276

Lagaš II and Ur III Texts A 5031 .................................................. 209 AAICAB I/1 Ashm. 1910-737 ...... 209, 216 AAICAB I/1 Ashm. 1910-748 .............. 418 AAICAB I/1 Ashm. 1911-159 .............. 286 AAICAB I/1 Ashm. 1911-186 .............. 268 AAICAB I/1 Ashm. 1911-194 .............. 391 AAICAB I/1 Ashm. 1911-212 .............. 352 AAICAB I/1 Ashm. 1911-216 .............. 436 AAICAB I/1 Ashm. 1911-229 .............. 390 AAICAB I/1 Ashm. 1911-240 .............. 335 AAICAB I/1 Ashm. 1911-481 .............. 432 AAICAB I/1 Ashm. 1911-482 .............. 391 AAICAB I/1 Ashm. 1923-415 .............. 457 AAICAB I/1 Ashm. 1923-426 .............. 455 AAICAB I/1 Ashm. 1924-665 ....... 67, 314, 320, 321, 324, 325 AAICAB I/1 Ashm. 1924-666 ..... 395, 430, 433 AAICAB I/2 Ashm. 1935-512 .............. 286 AAICAB I/2 Ashm. 1935-557 .............. 286 AAICAB I/2 Ashm. 1937-63 ................ 277 AAICAB I/2 Ashm. 1971-344 .............. 275 AAICAB I/2 Ashm. 1971-362 .............. 398 AAICAB I/3 Bod. S 138 ....................... 341 AAICAB I/3 Bod. S 157 ............... 380, 395 AAICAB I/3 Bod. S 210 ............... 383, 407 AAICAB I/3 Bod. S 248 ....................... 293 AAICAB I/3 Bod. S 289 ....................... 406 AAICAB I/3 Bod. S 290 ....................... 293 AAICAB I/3 Bod. S 308 ....................... 281 AAICAB I/4 Bod. S 418 ....................... 373 AAICAB I/4 Bod. S 484 ....................... 287 AAS 135 ............................... 314, 316, 432

Aleppo 201 ............................................. 71 Aleppo 495 ................................... 254, 260 Aleppo 496 ................................... 254, 260 Alivernini and Foster, RSO 83, 342 3 .................................................. 455 Alivernini and Foster, RSO 83, 342 4 .................................................. 456 Alivernini and Foster, RSO 83, 348 30 ................................................ 260 Alivernini and Foster, RSO 83, 349 37 ........................................ 439, 441 Alivernini and Foster, RSO 83, 349 43 ................................................ 441 Allotte de la Fuÿe, RA 16, 19 ...... 122, 123 Amherst 54 ........................................... 190 Amorites 12 .......................................... 387 AnOr 1 16 ............................................. 373 AnOr 1 85 ............................................. 314 AnOr 1 88 ............................................. 392 AnOr 1 303 ........................................... 351 AnOr 45 404 70 .................................... 179 AnOr 7 92 ............................................. 122 AnOr 7 245 ................................... 263, 308 AnOr 7 296 ........................................... 426 AnOr 7 341 ................................... 252, 260 AO 29958 ............................................. 281 AO 29992 ..................................... 269, 292 AOS 32 D 24 ........................ 274, 280, 439 ’Atiqot 4 6 32 ........................................ 108 AUCT 1 26 ................................... 383, 385 AUCT 1 78 ........................... 336, 341, 342 AUCT 1 176 ......................................... 172 AUCT 1 226 ......................................... 418

Texts Quoted AUCT 1 296 ......................................... 336 AUCT 1 327 ......................................... 209 AUCT 1 332 ......................................... 402 AUCT 1 396 ......................................... 446 AUCT 1 539 ......................................... 352 AUCT 1 587 ......................................... 458 AUCT 1 651 ......................................... 335 AUCT 1 677 ......................................... 457 AUCT 1 678 ......................................... 254 AUCT 1 793 ......................................... 172 AUCT 1 911 ......................................... 449 AUCT 1 918 ......................................... 172 AUCT 1 942 ................................. 172, 398 AUCT 1 956 ......................................... 336 AUCT 2 22 ........................... 357, 391, 392 AUCT 2 133 ......................................... 336 AUCT 2 179 ......................................... 449 AUCT 2 277 ......................................... 123 AUCT 2 291 ......................................... 446 AUCT 2 399 ................................. 122, 123 AUCT 3 187 ......................................... 449 AUCT 3 264 ......................................... 433 AUCT 3 325 ......................................... 386 AUCT 3 492 ................................. 383, 420 BBVO 11 269 6 NT 39 ......................... 335 BBVO 11 292 6 NT 606+ ............. 123, 453 BCT 1 40 .............................................. 458 BCT 2 5 ................................................ 426 BCT 2 45 .......................................... 68, 70 BCT 2 86 .............................................. 262 BCT 2 87 ............................... 254-256, 260 BCT 2 88 ...................................... 262, 263 BCT 2 197 ............................................ 437 BCT 2 263 ............................................ 392 BCT 2 294 ............ 356, 374, 391, 392, 401 BDTNS 064063 .................................... 398 BDTNS 167825 ...................................... 72 BE 3-1 7 ................................................ 273 Berens 46 .............................................. 252 Biggs and Zettler, ASJ 12, 35 4 .......... 440 BIN 3 4 ................................................. 455 BIN 3 13 ............................................... 457 BIN 3 17 ....................................... 445, 456 BIN 3 26 ............................................... 457 BIN 3 108 ............................................. 122 BIN 3 344 ............................................. 336 BIN 3 347 ..................................... 208, 216 BIN 3 362 ............................................. 446 BIN 3 374 ............................................. 400 BIN 3 379 ..................................... 118, 123 BIN 3 418 ............................................. 457 BIN 3 490 ............................................. 455

471

BIN 3 505 ............................................. 457 BIN 3 506 ............................................. 457 BIN 3 507 ............................................. 456 BIN 3 511 ............................................. 456 BIN 3 515 ............................................. 457 BIN 3 517 ............................................. 457 BIN 3 519 ............................................. 457 BIN 3 538 ............................................. 162 BIN 3 612 ............................................. 456 BIN 3 627 ............................................. 385 BIN 5 5 ................................................. 457 BIN 5 83 ............................................... 273 BIN 5 87 ............................................... 426 BIN 5 148 ............................................. 335 BIN 5 154 ............................................. 371 BIN 5 163 ............................................. 434 BIN 5 172 ............................................. 432 BIN 5 233 ............................................. 439 BIN 5 272 ..................................... 314, 327 BIN 5 277 ............. 356, 374, 391, 396, 401 BM 14309 ............................................. 392 BM 19991 ..................................... 387, 402 BM 20045 ..................................... 357, 391 BM 20070 ..................................... 347, 410 BM 20890 ..................................... 347, 409 BM 21166 ............................................. 402 BM 21670 ..................... 213, 214, 216, 217 BM 25053 ............................. 377-380, 387 BM 85305 ..................................... 268, 296 BM 100491 ........................................... 234 BM 105339 ................................... 355, 417 BM 106562 ....................................... 61, 65 BM 110803 ........................................... 335 BM 111032 ........................................... 390 BPOA 1 57 ........................................... 192 BPOA 1 62 ........................................... 180 BPOA 1 70 ........................................... 433 BPOA 1 244 .................. 207, 208, 212-214 BPOA 1 283 ......................................... 212 BPOA 1 374 ........................................... 53 BPOA 1 380 ......................................... 397 BPOA 1 381 ......................................... 371 BPOA 1 399 ......................... 262, 263, 335 BPOA 1 414 ......................... 254, 255, 260 BPOA 1 522 ......................................... 391 BPOA 1 550 ......................................... 350 BPOA 1 584 ......................................... 397 BPOA 1 585 ......................................... 434 BPOA 1 671 ......................................... 440 BPOA 1 787 ................................. 262, 335 BPOA 1 955 ......................................... 109 BPOA 1 999 ......................................... 433

472

INDICES

BPOA 1 1045 .......................................... 67 BPOA 1 1046 ........................ 251, 253, 255 BPOA 1 1162 ........................................ 420 BPOA 1 1196 ................................ 361, 401 BPOA 1 1204 ........................................ 433 BPOA 1 1360 ........................................ 433 BPOA 1 1394 ........................................ 172 BPOA 1 1418 .......................................... 63 BPOA 1 1441 ........................................ 109 BPOA 1 1537 ........................................ 111 BPOA 1 1558 ........................................ 190 BPOA 1 1715 ........................................ 432 BPOA 1 1785 .......................................... 63 BPOA 2 1902 ........................................ 180 BPOA 2 1987 ........................................ 229 BPOA 2 2172 ........................................ 254 BPOA 2 2213 ........................................ 335 BPOA 2 2365 ........................................ 230 BPOA 2 2390 .......................................... 62 BPOA 2 2408 ........................................ 351 BPOA 2 2459 ........................................ 337 BPOA 2 2542 ........................................ 432 BPOA 2 2685 ........................................ 190 BPOA 6 5 ...................................... 254, 335 BPOA 6 8 ...................... 262, 263, 335, 336 BPOA 6 51 ............................................ 262 BPOA 6 112 .......................................... 387 BPOA 6 151 .......................................... 401 BPOA 6 250 .......................................... 398 BPOA 6 317 .......................................... 408 BPOA 6 489 .......................................... 385 BPOA 6 491 .......................................... 350 BPOA 6 608 .................................. 254, 260 BPOA 6 667 .......................................... 456 BPOA 6 678 .......................................... 457 BPOA 6 757 .......................................... 306 BPOA 6 909 .......................................... 190 BPOA 6 917 .......................... 254, 255, 260 BPOA 6 956 .......................... 254, 255, 260 BPOA 6 960 .......................................... 371 BPOA 6 968 .......................... 252, 254, 255 BPOA 6 975 .......................................... 371 BPOA 6 1095 ........................ 252, 254, 255 BPOA 6 1255 ........................ 254, 255, 260 BPOA 6 1260 ........................................ 401 BPOA 6 1282 ........................ 254, 255, 260 BPOA 6 1397 ................................ 437, 438 BPOA 6 1434 ........................................ 304 BPOA 6 1481 ........................................ 403 BPOA 7 1626 ........................................ 320 BPOA 7 1667 ................................ 254, 255 BPOA 7 1899 ........................................ 437

BPOA 7 2087 ....................................... 260 BPOA 7 2105 ............................... 254, 260 BPOA 7 2109 ....................................... 437 BPOA 7 2312 ....................................... 230 BPOA 7 2350 ....................................... 216 BPOA 7 2369 ....................... 254, 255, 260 BPOA 7 2581 ....................... 253, 254, 260 BPOA 7 2752 ............................... 208, 216 BPOA 7 2806 ....................................... 377 BPOA 7 2871 ....................................... 254 BPOA 7 2876 ....................................... 457 BPOA 7 2894 ....................................... 456 BPOA 7 2941 ............................... 252, 254 BPOA 7 2959 ....................... 254, 255, 260 BPOA 10, p. 398 .................................. 377 BPOA 10, p. 479 Phillips 13 ............... 172 Brinkman, Kramer AV, 55 W 2/13 ..... 457 BRM 3 142 ........................................... 262 BRM 3 144 ................... 254, 255, 258, 259 BRM 3 147 ........................................... 192 BRM 3 148 ........................................... 368 BRM 3 174 ........................................... 371 BRM 3 180 ........................................... 282 BRM 4 132 ............................................. 10 Calvot, RA 63, 102 ............................... 446 CBCY 3 NBC 8507 .............................. 392 CBCY 3 NBC 11193 ............................ 392 CDLI P120528 ..................................... 406 CDLI P211512 ..................................... 457 CDLI P211514 ..................................... 456 CDLI P211674 ............................. 455, 456 CDLI P212030 ..................................... 448 CDLI P212069 ..................................... 456 CHANE 18 166 .................................... 433 CHEU 66 .............................................. 254 CHEU 100 ............................ 354, 359, 401 Çıg, Kızılyay, Falkenstein, ZA 53, 82 21 .................................................. 275 Civil, Studies Sigrist, 36 ............. 314, 327 CM 26, 205 39 ........................................ 70 CM 26, 215 64 ...................................... 418 Cohen, Mél. Limet, 28 NBC 265 . 392, 396 Contenau, RA 12, 20 5 ........................ 273 Contenau, RA 12, 20 6 ........................ 255 Contenau, RA 12, 20 9 ................ 252, 255 Contenau, RA 12, 21 11 ...................... 262 Contenau, RA 12, 21 12 ...................... 254 Contenau, RA 12, 21 13 ...................... 254 Contenau, RA 12, 21 14 ...................... 254 Contenau, RA 12, 21 15 ............... 254-256 Contenau, RA 12, 21 16 ...................... 254 Cooper, ASJ 7, 120 30 ......................... 377

Texts Quoted CST 34 ................................................. 419 CST 54 ................................................. 455 CST 71 ................................................. 455 CST 79 ................................................. 455 CST 80 ................................................. 455 CST 98 ......................................... 387, 456 CST 105 ............................................... 456 CST 109 ............................................... 456 CST 110 ............................................... 456 CST 112 ............................................... 457 CST 113 ............................................... 457 CST 117 ............................................... 456 CST 126 ............................................... 456 CST 147 ............................................... 456 CST 148 ............................................... 456 CST 149 ............................................... 456 CST 177 ............................................... 456 CST 186 ............................................... 457 CST 194 ............................................... 457 CST 195 ............................................... 457 CST 212 ............................................... 457 CST 213 ............................................... 457 CST 248 ............................................... 447 CST 400 ....................................... 123, 449 CST 42 ................................................. 387 CST 480 ............................................... 456 CST 487 ............................................... 456 CST 494 ............................................... 447 CST 507 ....................................... 456, 457 CST 546 ............................................... 335 CST 55 ................................................. 455 CST 551 ............................................... 337 CST 598 ............................................... 432 CST 634 ............................................... 441 CST 635 ............................................... 441 CST 636 ............................................... 441 CST 637 ............................................... 441 CST 688 ....................................... 383, 391 CST 736 ............................................... 433 CT 1 2-3 94-10-15,3 ............................. 281 CT 1 4-5 94-10-15,4 ..................... 283, 370 CT 1 22 94-10-16,13 ............................ 274 CT 3 9 BM 18344 ................................. 111 CT 3 35 BM 21335 ............................... 392 CT 5 36-37 BM 17751 .......................... 286 CT 7 8 BM 12926 ......................... 288, 297 CT 7 20 BM 13132 ........................... 8, 335 CT 7 47-48 BM 17776 .......................... 286 CT 9 38 BM 13657 ............................... 285 CT 9 43 BM 18426 ............................... 285 CT 10 18-19 BM 12922 ........................ 281 CT 10 44 BM 23767 ............................. 385

473

CT 32 25 BM 103439 ........................... 306 CTNMC 38 ........................................... 433 CTNMC 48 ................................... 274, 276 Curtis, ASJ 16, 105 1 .......................... 456 CUSAS 3 6 ........................................... 402 CUSAS 3 26 ......................................... 391 CUSAS 3 29 ......................................... 391 CUSAS 3 31 ......................................... 391 CUSAS 3 32 ......................................... 391 CUSAS 3 36 ......................................... 391 CUSAS 3 104 ....................................... 441 CUSAS 3 105 ....................................... 441 CUSAS 3 121 ....................................... 441 CUSAS 3 180 ....................................... 441 CUSAS 3 298 ....................................... 441 CUSAS 3 299 ....................................... 441 CUSAS 3 366 ....................................... 441 CUSAS 3 505 ....................................... 209 CUSAS 3 507 ....................................... 209 CUSAS 3 508 ....................................... 209 CUSAS 3 509 ....................................... 209 CUSAS 3 782 ....................................... 335 CUSAS 3 1183 ..................................... 209 CUSAS 3 1372 ..................................... 335 CUSAS 3 1376 ..................................... 335 CUSAS 3 1497 ....................................... 70 CUSAS 16 17 ....................................... 279 CUSAS 16 173 ..................................... 411 CUSAS 22 4 ........................................... 72 CUSAS 22 110 ....................................... 72 CUSAS 22 111 ....................................... 72 CUSAS 22 115 ....................................... 72 CUSAS 22 121 ....................................... 72 CUSAS 22 133 ....................................... 72 CUSAS 22 134 ....................................... 72 CUSAS 22 203 ....................................... 72 CUSAS 22 204 ....................................... 72 CUSAS 22 205-210 ................................ 72 CUSAS 22 207 ....................................... 72 D’Agostino and Santagati, Studies Sigrist, 2 ............................................ 108 DAS 19 ................................................. 390 DAS 20 ................................................. 390 DAS 35 ................................................. 172 DAS 46 ................................................. 179 DAS 51 ................................................. 215 DAS 53 ................................................. 215 DAS 162 ............................................... 212 DAS 258 ............................................... 111 de Maaijer, JEOL 33, 114 5 ........ 447, 456 de Maaijer, JEOL 33, 123 9 ........ 255, 260 Deimel, OrSP 5, 54 19 Wengler 27 ..... 457

474

INDICES

Dhorme, RA 9, 44 SA 42 ..................... 457 Dhorme, RA 9, 44 SA 46 ..................... 457 DoCu EPHE 77 .................................... 253 DoCu EPHE 206 .................................. 341 DoCu EPHE 222 .................. 252, 254, 255 DoCu EPHE 240 .................................. 336 DoCu EPHE 255 .................................. 457 DoCu EPHE 268 .................................. 413 DoCu EPHE 290 .......................... 209, 216 Durand, RA 73, 26 2 ............................ 230 Englund, ASJ 14, 102 4 ...................... 456 Englund, CDLJ 2003, 1 1 Erlenmeyer 152 ........................ 317, 325 Englund, JNES 50, 262 Erlenmeyer 155 ................................ 314 Farber and Farber, Studies Hruška, 83 ....................................................... 457 Farber and Farber, ZA 91, 224 ........... 194 Farmer’s Instructions 1.3.1 . 254, 255, 260 Farmer’s Instructions 1.3.2 ......... 254, 260 Farmer’s Instructions 1.3.3 ......... 254, 260 Farmer’s Instructions 5.15 .................. 390 Fischer and de Maaijer, ASJ 17, 326 1 .................................................. 456 Fish, AnOr 12, 103 5 ............................... 9 Fish, BJRL 22, 167 .............................. 434 Fish, Iraq 5, 73 21 ............................... 190 Fish, JMEOS 12, 37 3470 ................... 254 Fish, JMEOS 12, 41 3489 ........... 254, 255 Fish, MCS 1, 37 BM 105452 ............... 252 Fish, MCS 2, 55 BM 111782 ....... 425, 439 Fish, MCS 3, 43 17 BM 105409 .......... 437 Fish, MCS 3, 43 9 BM 105567 ............ 437 Fish, MCS 7, 19 Liv 51 63 51 ...... 456, 457 Fish, MCS 8, 91 BM 105711 ............... 432 Fish, MCS 8, 94 BM 105467 ....... 432, 433 Förtsch, MVAG 21, 22 FH 5 ................ 194 Foxvog, ASJ 18, 83 18 ................. 433, 434 Foxvog, JCS 35, 182 ............................ 254 Frühe Schrift, pp. 128-129 Kat. 13.13 .......................................... 314, 316 FT 2 pl. LIII AO 13014 ........................ 390 Genouillac, Babyl. 8, Pupil 17 ..... 209, 216 Genouillac, Studies Hilprecht, 140 4 .. 272 Goetze, JCS 2, 185 NBC 5261 ............ 437 Goetze, JCS 2, 185 PTS 453 ............... 437 Goetze, JCS 2, 190 YBC 12534 ........... 437 Gomi, ASJ 2, 27 80 .............................. 230 Gomi, BJRL 64, 99 8 ........................... 435 Gomi, BJRL 64, 108 50 ....................... 441 Gomi, BJRL 64, 108 51 ....................... 441 Gomi, BJRL 64, 108 52 ....................... 441

Gomi, Orient 16, 41 5 .......................... 455 Gomi, Orient 16, 43 13 ........................ 457 Gomi, Orient 16, 44 18 ........................ 457 Gomi, Orient 16, 73 104 ...................... 412 Gomi, Orient 16, 108 175 .................... 416 Gomi, Orient 21, 1-2 BM 105334 ........ 351 Gomi, Orient 24, 116 ........................... 455 Gomi, RA 76, 11 ................................... 457 Guichard, NABU 1996: 131 ................ 122 Hallo, ASJ 3, 76 YBC 16652 ............... 402 Hallo, HUCA 29, 88 15 ................ 254, 255 Hallo, HUCA 29, 92 n. 34 YBC 11690 254 Hallo, HUCA 29, 92 NBC 214 ... 252, 254, 255 Hallo, JCS 14, 109 9 ........................... 122 Hirose 21 .............................................. 455 Hirose 50 .............................................. 456 Hirose 51 .............................................. 457 Hirose 387 ............................................ 435 Hirose 395 .................................... 425, 433 HLC 1 16 pl. 7 ...................................... 281 HLC 1 37 pl. 5 ...................................... 308 HLC 1 47 pl. 17 .................................... 286 HLC 1 100 pl. 17 .................................. 190 HLC 2 2 pl. 52 ...................................... 304 HLC 2 48 pl. 70 .................................... 230 HLC 2 55 pl. 73 .................................... 273 HLC 3 162 pl. 103 ................................ 212 HLC 3 212 pl. 107 ................................ 397 HLC 3 391 pl. 149 ................................ 391 Hruška, WO 11, 20 .............................. 456 HSM 909.5.613 .................................... 419 HSS 4 1 .................................................. 98 HSS 4 4 ................................................ 192 HSS 4 5 ................................................ 335 HSS 4 10 .............................................. 190 HSS 4 52 ...................................... 190, 191 ITT 2 621 ............................................. 271 ITT 2 723 ............................................. 304 ITT 2 881 ............................................. 192 ITT 2 955 ............................................. 192 ITT 2 3547 ............................................... 9 ITT 2 3683 ........................................... 419 ITT 2 3810 ............................................... 8 ITT 2 4216 ........................................... 193 ITT 3 1455 ........................................... 274 ITT 3 5047 ........................................... 352 ITT 3 5276+6570 ..................................... 8 ITT 3 5279 ............................................... 8 ITT 3 5367 ................................... 352, 354 ITT 3 5972 ........................................... 390 ITT 3 6074 ........................................... 272

Texts Quoted ITT 3 6351 ............................................ 109 ITT 3 6369 ............................................ 191 ITT 3 6636 ............................................ 193 ITT 5 6763 ............................................ 335 ITT 5 6764 ............................................ 110 ITT 5 6823 ............................................ 190 ITT 5 6898 ............................................ 276 ITT 5 6952 ................................................ 9 ITT 5 9637 ............................................ 273 ITT 5 9827 ............................................ 193 ITT 5 10010 .......................................... 190 Jean, RA 19, 40 2 ................................. 212 Jean, RA 19, 40 18 ............................... 387 Johnson, CDLJ 2006: 2 5 .................... 426 KM 85.10.6 ........................................... 209 Krecher, AfO 24, pl. 15 S 213 .............. 456 Kutscher, BWAth 6, 43 3 ................. 63, 68 Kutscher, BWAth 6, 45 4 ..................... 456 Kyoto 12 ................................................ 456 Lafont, ASJ 3, 189 2 ............................ 457 Langdon, Babyl. 7, 76 7 ....................... 456 Langdon, Babyl. 7, 77 9 ......................... 68 Langdon, RA 19, 193 10 ...................... 456 Ledgers pl. 17 10 .................................. 434 Limet, RA 49, 86 1 ............................... 456 Limet, RA 49, 88 12 ..................... 448, 455 Limet, RA 49, 93 36 ............................. 386 Limet, RA 49, 93 38 ............................. 263 Liu, CDLB 2012: 2 2.2 ......................... 456 Maekawa, ASJ 3, 50 BM 18060 .. 268, 287 Maekawa, ASJ 8, 118 33 BM 25055 ... 268 Maekawa, ASJ 17, 208 102 ......... 191, 192 Maekawa, ASJ 19, 144 128 ................. 193 Maekawa, ASJ 19, 288 13 ................... 122 Maekawa, ASJ 20, 101 3 ..................... 179 Maekawa, Priests and Officials 101-102 .............................................. 304 MDP 10 126 ......................................... 400 MDP 22 144 ......................................... 386 Mercer, JSOR 12, 37 10 ..... 425, 426, 427, 440 Métal 281 AO 2462 .............................. 273 Métal 287 15 AO 7966 ......................... 335 Métal 288 19 AO 7873 ......................... 273 Michalowski, ZA 68, 42 Smith 475 ..... 457 MLC 39 ................................................. 139 MLC 46 ................................................. 139 MLC 54 ................................................. 139 MLC 89 ................................................. 139 MLC 91 ................................................. 139 MLC 92 ......................................... 139, 140 MLC 96 ................................................. 139

475

MLC 166 .............................................. 139 MLC 1829 ............................................ 139 MLC 1985 ............................................ 139 MLC 2307 ............................................ 139 MLC 2311 ............................................ 139 MLC 2314 ............................................ 139 MLC 2317 ............................................ 139 MLC 2346 ............................................ 139 MLC 2354 ............................................ 139 MLC 2414 .................................... 139, 141 MLC 2420 ............................................ 139 Molina, AuOr 10, 87 1 ......................... 123 Molina, Studies Owen, 205 3 .................. 8 Molina, Studies Owen, 208 6 .......... 9, 356 Molina, Studies Owen, 210 7 .............. 361 Molina, Studies Sigrist, 131 4 .............. 53 Molina, Studies Sigrist, 142 9 ............ 377 MS 2643 ....................................... 357, 380 MS 4267B .............................................. 75 MTBM 115 ................... 207, 208, 213, 214 MTBM 197 ........................................... 190 MTBM 226 ........................................... 190 MVN 1 72 ............................................. 385 MVN 1 106 ........................................... 273 MVN 1 124 ........................................... 179 MVN 1 133 ........................................... 161 MVN 1 140 ........................................... 456 MVN 1 221 ........................................... 432 MVN 1 231 ........................................... 194 MVN 1 234 ........................................... 109 MVN 2 163 ........................................... 457 MVN 2 261 ........................................... 192 MVN 2 284 ............................................. 98 MVN 2 341 ........................................... 306 MVN 3 115 ........................................... 179 MVN 3 200 ................................... 208, 216 MVN 3 225 ........................................... 447 MVN 3 236 ........................................... 387 MVN 3 260 ........................................... 276 MVN 3 326 ........................................... 341 MVN 3 329 ........................................... 447 MVN 3 467 ........................................... 122 MVN 4 1 ............................................... 353 MVN 4 71 ............................................. 413 MVN 4 74 ............................................. 122 MVN 4 141 ........................................... 109 MVN 4 16 ............................................. 108 MVN 4 263 ........................................... 400 MVN 5 13 ............................................. 432 MVN 5 28 ..................................... 254, 260 MVN 5 46 ............................................. 400 MVN 5 97 ............................................. 455

476

INDICES

MVN 5 99 ............................................. 455 MVN 5 102 ........................................... 456 MVN 5 105 ........................................... 457 MVN 5 108 ........................................... 457 MVN 5 109 ........................................... 457 MVN 6 15 ............................................. 370 MVN 6 61 ............................................. 308 MVN 6 80 ............................................. 180 MVN 6 102 ........................................... 180 MVN 6 156 ........................................... 370 MVN 6 268 ........................................... 390 MVN 6 275 ........................................... 180 MVN 6 300 ........................................... 398 MVN 6 308 ........................................... 391 MVN 6 310 ........................................... 180 MVN 6 448 ........................................... 370 MVN 6 465 ........................................... 190 MVN 6 497 ........................................... 179 MVN 6 533 ........................................... 179 MVN 6 534 ........................................... 179 MVN 6 540 ........................................... 180 MVN 6 542 ........................................... 179 MVN 6 543 ........................................... 180 MVN 7 170 ........................................... 212 MVN 7 175 ........................................... 370 MVN 7 184 ........................................... 191 MVN 7 285 ........................................... 370 MVN 7 307 ........................................... 190 MVN 7 333 ........................................... 370 MVN 7 387 ........................................... 274 MVN 7 388 ........................................... 234 MVN 7 393 ........................................... 179 MVN 7 498 ........................................... 370 MVN 7 510 ........................................... 234 MVN 7 521 ........................................... 370 MVN 7 532 ........................................... 370 MVN 7 549 ........................................... 370 MVN 7 580 ........................................... 370 MVN 8 15 ............................................. 457 MVN 8 18 ............................................. 457 MVN 8 107 ........................................... 456 MVN 8 112 ........................................... 457 MVN 8 121 ........................................... 446 MVN 8 139 ........................................... 122 MVN 8 141 ........................................... 455 MVN 8 152 ............................................. 72 MVN 8 214 ........................................... 455 MVN 9 87 ..................................... 189, 192 MVN 9 99 ............................................. 191 MVN 9 116 ........................................... 191 MVN 9 161 ........................................... 192 MVN 10 92 ........................................... 183

MVN 10 94 ........................................... 180 MVN 10 102 .. 314, 315, 319, 325, 329-330 MVN 10 114 ......................................... 456 MVN 10 115 ......................................... 457 MVN 10 138 ......................................... 456 MVN 10 139 ................................. 456, 457 MVN 10 140 ......................................... 457 MVN 10 202 ......................... 270, 286, 293 MVN 10 230 ......................................... 273 MVN 11 39 ........................................... 420 MVN 11 110 ................. 207, 208, 213, 214 MVN 11 157 ......................................... 335 MVN 11 168 ......................................... 351 MVN 11 188 ......................................... 341 MVN 11 207 ......................................... 387 MVN 11 209 ......................................... 447 MVN 12 64 ........................................... 230 MVN 12 138 ......................................... 223 MVN 12 209 ......................................... 281 MVN 12 436 ......................................... 392 MVN 13 98 ........................................... 172 MVN 13 112 ......................................... 457 MVN 13 114 ......................................... 457 MVN 13 116 ................................. 447, 456 MVN 13 127 ......................................... 456 MVN 13 128 ......................................... 123 MVN 13 138 ......................................... 191 MVN 13 181 ......................................... 229 MVN 13 262 ......................................... 438 MVN 13 505 ......................................... 456 MVN 13 508 ......................................... 456 MVN 13 514 ......................................... 456 MVN 13 515 ......................................... 456 MVN 13 516 ......................................... 445 MVN 13 530 ......................................... 457 MVN 13 641 ................................. 385, 387 MVN 13 651 ................................. 255, 260 MVN 13 665 ......................................... 229 MVN 13 703 ......................................... 229 MVN 13 704 ......................................... 455 MVN 13 710 ......................................... 456 MVN 13 768 ......................................... 456 MVN 13 783 ......................................... 254 MVN 13 784 ......................................... 254 MVN 13 794 ......................... 208, 209, 216 MVN 13 796 ......................................... 254 MVN 13 807 ......................................... 456 MVN 13 813 ......................................... 456 MVN 13 822 ......................................... 455 MVN 13 839 ......................................... 457 MVN 13 840 ......................................... 455 MVN 13 842 ......................................... 457

Texts Quoted MVN 13 847 ......................................... 457 MVN 13 868 ......................................... 456 MVN 13 871 ......................................... 456 MVN 14 14 ........................................... 439 MVN 14 228 ......................................... 371 MVN 14 245 ......................................... 391 MVN 14 291 ......................................... 437 MVN 14 341 ......................................... 436 MVN 14 372 ......................................... 426 MVN 14 460 ......................................... 436 MVN 14 483 ......................................... 436 MVN 14 501 ......................................... 436 MVN 14 502 ......................... 255, 260, 262 MVN 14 508 ......................................... 436 MVN 14 530 ......................................... 436 MVN 14 539 ......................................... 436 MVN 14 575 ......................................... 436 MVN 15 8 ............................................. 254 MVN 15 26 ........................................... 373 MVN 15 58 ........................................... 458 MVN 15 115 ................................. 305, 306 MVN 15 163 ................................. 252, 254 MVN 15 312 ......................................... 457 MVN 15 361 ......................................... 456 MVN 15 363 ................................. 456, 457 MVN 15 390 ................. 363, 365, 368, 369 MVN 16 626 ......................................... 434 MVN 16 627 ......................................... 122 MVN 16 650 ......................................... 402 MVN 16 654 ......................................... 402 MVN 16 655 ......................................... 391 MVN 16 713 ......................................... 434 MVN 16 757 ........................................... 71 MVN 16 785 ......................................... 434 MVN 16 799 ................................. 319, 329 MVN 16 808 ......................................... 436 MVN 16 889 ......................................... 440 MVN 16 948 ......................................... 354 MVN 16 960 ......................................... 434 MVN 16 990 ......................................... 440 MVN 16 1003 ....................................... 436 MVN 16 1063 ....................................... 436 MVN 16 1096 ....................................... 436 MVN 16 1118 ....................................... 436 MVN 16 1138 ....................................... 438 MVN 16 1142 ....................................... 260 MVN 16 1153 ....................................... 436 MVN 16 1193 ....................................... 435 MVN 16 1201 ....................................... 228 MVN 16 1212 ....................................... 436 MVN 16 1232 ....................................... 436 MVN 16 1244 ....................................... 436

477

MVN 16 1252 ....................................... 436 MVN 16 1281 ....................................... 436 MVN 16 1329 ....................................... 440 MVN 16 1330 ....................................... 434 MVN 16 1353 ....................... 254, 255, 260 MVN 16 1379 ....................................... 440 MVN 16 1583 ....................................... 438 MVN 17 4 ...................... 207, 208, 212-214 MVN 17 59 ................................... 191, 192 MVN 18 94 ........................................... 457 MVN 18 148 ......................................... 455 MVN 18 149 ......................................... 455 MVN 18 150 ................................. 387, 456 MVN 18 151 ......................................... 456 MVN 18 198 ......................................... 377 MVN 18 245 ......................................... 254 MVN 18 322 ......................................... 361 MVN 18 341 ................................. 254, 255 MVN 18 391 ................................. 213, 214 MVN 18 412 ............................................. 9 MVN 18 424 ......................................... 273 MVN 18 486 ......................................... 433 MVN 18 545 ......................................... 323 MVN 18 618 ......................................... 335 MVN 18 635 ........................................... 60 MVN 19 55 ........................................... 419 MVN 20 2 ............................. 252, 254, 255 MVN 20 6 ............................................. 456 MVN 20 23 ........................................... 263 MVN 20 40 ........................... 252, 254, 255 MVN 20 52 ........................................... 400 MVN 20 72 ........................................... 106 MVN 20 77 ........................................... 432 MVN 20 78 ........................................... 457 MVN 20 86 ........................... 254, 255, 260 MVN 20 88 ........................................... 391 MVN 20 101 ......................................... 417 MVN 20 103 ......................................... 254 MVN 20 104 ......................................... 254 MVN 20 119 ........................................... 98 MVN 21 61 ........................................... 397 MVN 21 199 ................. 314, 321, 322, 391 MVN 21 200 ......................... 314, 316, 432 MVN 21 201 ................. 314, 316, 439, 440 MVN 21 202 ......................... 314, 439, 440 MVN 21 203 ......................... 314, 316, 328 MVN 21 204 ......... 314, 320, 432, 439, 440 MVN 21 272 ......................................... 229 MVN 21 342 ......................................... 390 MVN 22 177 ......................................... 259 MVN 22 178 ......................................... 190 MVN 22 182 ......................................... 190

478

INDICES

MVN 22 196 ......................................... 190 Nasha, Diss., p. 1 Engelbert 1 .... 456, 456 Nasha, Diss., p. 21 Lane 4 .................. 457 NATN 166 .................................... 158, 159 NATN 174 ............................................ 275 NATN 236 ............................................ 357 NATN 247 ............................................ 357 NATN 460 ............................................ 357 NATN 478 ............................................ 276 NATN 506 .............................................. 10 NATN 603 ............................................ 274 NATN 620 .................................... 271, 274 NATN 734 ............................................ 273 NATN 739 .................... 271, 273, 274, 276 NATN 852 ............................................ 306 NATN 920 .............................................. 40 NBC 70A .............................................. 139 NBC 264 ....................................... 139, 140 NBC 270 ............................................... 139 NBC 304 ....................................... 139, 141 NBC 320 ............................................... 139 NBC 390 ............................................... 139 NBC 465 ............................................... 139 NBC 557 ............................................... 139 NBC 577 ............................................... 139 NBC 599 ............................................... 139 NBC 636 ............................................... 139 NBC 654 ............................................... 139 NBC 670 ............................................... 139 NBC 676 ............................................... 139 NBC 705 ............................................... 139 NBC 719 ............................................... 139 NBC 877 ............................................... 139 NBC 878 ............................................... 139 NBC 882 ............................................... 139 NBC 1007 ............................................. 139 NBC 1327 ............................................. 139 NBC 1330 ............................................. 139 NBC 1381 ............................................. 139 NBC 1410 ............................................. 139 NBC 1423 ............................................. 139 NBC 1428 ............................................. 139 NBC 1429 ............................................. 139 NBC 1430 ............................................. 139 NBC 1438 ............................................. 139 NBC 1450 ............................................. 139 NBC 1467 ............................................. 139 NBC 1468 ............................................. 139 NBC 1479 ............................................. 139 NBC 1494 ............................................. 139 NBC 1502 ............................................. 139 NBC 1513 ............................................. 139

NBC 1534 ............................................. 139 NBC 1645 ............................................. 139 NBC 1838 ............................................. 139 NBC 1842 ............................................. 139 NBC 1874 ............................................. 139 NBC 1876 ............................................. 139 NBC 1921 ............................................. 139 NBC 1964 ............................................. 139 NBC 1983 ............................................. 139 NBC 1988 ............................................. 139 NBC 2017 ............................................. 139 NBC 2023 ............................................. 139 NBC 2027 ............................................. 139 NBC 2035 ............................................. 139 NBC 2061 ............................................. 139 NBC 2062 ............................................. 139 NBC 2067 ............................................. 139 NBC 2078 ............................................. 139 NBC 2310 ............................................. 139 NBC 2318 ............................................. 139 NBC 2319 ............................................. 139 NBC 2333 ............................................. 139 NBC 2355 ............................................. 139 NBC 2413 ............................................. 139 NBC 2670 ............................................. 139 NBC 2673 ............................................. 139 NBC 2701 ............................................. 139 NBC 2710 ............................................. 139 NBC 2717 ............................................. 139 NBC 2723 ............................................. 139 NBC 2779 ............................................. 139 NBC 2787 ............................................. 139 NBC 2814 ............................................. 139 NBC 2846 ............................................. 139 NBC 2901 ............................................. 139 NBC 2924 ............................................. 139 NBC 2932 ............................................. 139 NBC 2946 ............................................. 139 NBC 2953 ............................................. 139 NBC 2977 ............................................. 139 NBC 3020 ............................................. 139 NBC 3021 ............................................. 139 NBC 3024 ............................................. 139 NBC 3047 ............................................. 139 NBC 3072 ............................................. 139 NBC 3073 ............................................. 139 NBC 3096 ............................................. 139 NBC 3097 ............................................. 139 NBC 3178 ............................................. 139 NBC 3207 ..................................... 139, 140 NBC 3225 ............................................. 139 NBC 3240 ............................................. 139

Texts Quoted NBC 3241 NBC 3246 NBC 3247 NBC 3249 NBC 3252 NBC 3253 NBC 3262 NBC 3271 NBC 3298 NBC 3299 NBC 3324 NBC 3326 NBC 3333 NBC 3362 NBC 3401 NBC 3419 NBC 3429 NBC 3434 NBC 3505 NBC 3530 NBC 3539 NBC 3550 NBC 3552 NBC 3553 NBC 3600 NBC 3641 NBC 3644 NBC 4095 NBC 4108 NBC 4131 NBC 4176 NBC 4205 NBC 4260 NBC 4274 NBC 4286 NBC 4335 NBC 4378 NBC 4383 NBC 4970 NBC 5001 NBC 5086 NBC 5123 NBC 5135 NBC 5138 NBC 5200 NBC 5210 NBC 5216 NBC 5225 NBC 5231 NBC 5257 NBC 5279 NBC 5749

............................................. 139 ............................................. 139 ............................................. 139 ............................................. 139 ............................................. 139 ............................................. 139 ............................................. 139 ............................................. 139 ............................................. 139 ............................................. 139 ............................................. 139 ............................................. 139 ............................................. 139 ............................................. 139 ............................................. 139 ............................................. 139 ............................................. 139 ............................................. 139 ............................................. 139 ............................................. 139 ............................................. 139 ............................................. 139 ..................................... 139, 140 ............................................. 139 ............................................. 139 ............................................. 139 ............................................. 139 ............................................. 139 ............................................. 139 ............................................. 139 ............................................. 139 ............................................. 139 ............................................. 139 ............................................. 139 ............................................. 139 ............................................. 139 ............................................. 139 ............................................. 139 ............................................. 139 ............................................. 139 ............................................. 398 ............................................. 139 ............................................. 139 ............................................. 139 ............................................. 139 ............................................. 139 ............................................. 139 ............................................. 139 ............................................. 139 ............................................. 139 ............................................. 139 ............................................. 139

479

NBC 5779 ............................................. 139 NBC 8116 ............................................. 139 NBC 9163 ............................................. 139 NBC 9867 ............................................. 139 NBC 10793 ........................................... 139 NBC 10929 ........................................... 139 NBC 10949 ........................................... 139 NBC 11616 ........................................... 139 NBC 11627 ........................................... 139 NBC 11633 ........................................... 139 NBC 11638 ........................................... 139 NBC 11683 ........................................... 139 NCBT 1341 .................................. 139, 140 NCBT 1619 .......................................... 140 NCBT 1631 .......................................... 140 NCBT 1652 .......................................... 140 NCBT 2247 .......................................... 140 Nebraska 1 ........................................... 412 Nebraska 18 ......................................... 434 Nebraska 23 ......................................... 432 Nebraska 30 ......................................... 418 Nebraska 37 ......... 356, 374, 390, 391, 401 Nebraska 38 ......................................... 397 Neumann, Fs. Haas, 286 Kurth 27 .... 341 Newark Public Library 6 ............ 208, 216 NFT 184 AO 4309 ................................ 180 Nik. 2 137 ............................................. 440 Nik. 2 236 ............. 356, 374, 390, 391, 401 Nik. 2 309 ............................................. 397 Nik. 2 336 ............................................. 401 Nik. 2 352 ............................................. 426 Nik. 2 393 ............................................. 434 Nik. 2 412 ............................................. 254 Nik. 2 413 ............................................. 254 Nik. 2 414 ..................................... 254, 255 Nik. 2 415 ..................................... 254, 255 Nik. 2 416 ............................................. 254 Nik. 2 417 ............................................. 254 Nik. 2 418 ............................................. 263 Nik. 2 419 ..................................... 254, 255 Nik. 2 421 ............................. 252, 255, 262 Nik. 2 423 ..................................... 262, 263 Nik. 2 424 ..................................... 255, 260 Nik. 2 447 ................................. 49, 54, 368 Nik. 2 455 ............................................. 457 Nik. 2 456 ............................................. 456 Nik. 2 457 ............................................. 456 Nik. 2 464 ............................................. 457 Nik. 2 465 ............................................. 456 Nik. 2 466 ............................................. 455 Nik. 2 469 ............................................. 457 Nik. 2 473 ............................................. 456

480

INDICES

Nik. 2 474 ............................................. 457 Nik. 2 487 ............................................. 455 Nik. 2 494 ............................................. 456 Nik. 2 507 ............................................. 457 Nik. 2 524 ............................................. 456 Nik. 2 528 ............................................. 122 Nisaba 3/2 7 ......................................... 215 Nisaba 3/2 56 ....................................... 426 Nisaba 5 U. 18822A ............................. 335 Nisaba 5 U. 18831 ............................... 335 Nisaba 6 2 ............................................ 434 Nisaba 6 20 .......................................... 431 Nisaba 6 27 .......................................... 426 Nisaba 6 32 .......................................... 351 Nisaba 8 61 .......................................... 449 Nisaba 8 64 .......................................... 458 Nisaba 8 80 .......................................... 456 Nisaba 8 84 .......................................... 456 Nisaba 8 161 ........................................ 392 Nisaba 8 201 ........................................ 447 Nisaba 9 13 .......................................... 432 Nisaba 9 30 .......................................... 433 Nisaba 9 116 ........................ 252, 254, 255 Nisaba 9 130 ........................................ 433 Nisaba 9 136 ........................................ 433 Nisaba 9 151 ........................................ 432 Nisaba 9 160 ........................................ 434 Nisaba 9 168 ........................................ 433 Nisaba 9 169 ........................................ 432 Nisaba 9 305 ........................................ 434 Nisaba 11 6 .................................. 430, 431 Nisaba 11 21 ........................................ 368 Nisaba 11 29 ........................ 314, 316, 320 Nisaba 11 34 ........................................ 368 Nisaba 15/2 1 ......................................... 90 Nisaba 15/2 11 ....................................... 72 Nisaba 15/2 44 ....................................... 98 Nisaba 15/2 78 ................................. 68, 96 Nisaba 15/2 101 ..................................... 98 Nisaba 15/2 106 ..................................... 97 Nisaba 15/2 136 ..................................... 98 Nisaba 15/2 143 ................................... 100 Nisaba 15/2 146 ........................... 118, 123 Nisaba 15/2 159 ..................................... 68 Nisaba 15/2 211 ..................................... 96 Nisaba 15/2 215 ..................................... 97 Nisaba 15/2 248 ..................................... 68 Nisaba 15/2 261 ..................................... 68 Nisaba 15/2 269 ..................................... 67 Nisaba 15/2 284 ..................................... 98 Nisaba 15/2 295a-b ............................... 68 Nisaba 15/2 307 ..................................... 98

Nisaba 15/2 309 .................................... 96 Nisaba 15/2 315 .................................... 68 Nisaba 15/2 323 .................................... 97 Nisaba 15/2 346 .................................... 68 Nisaba 15/2 349 .................................... 72 Nisaba 15/2 430 .................................... 98 Nisaba 15/2 500 .............................. 68, 71 Nisaba 15/2 514 .................................... 98 Nisaba 15/2 520 .................................. 302 Nisaba 15/2 538 .................................... 72 Nisaba 15/2 540 .................................... 72 Nisaba 15/2 543 .................................... 97 Nisaba 15/2 562 .................................... 97 Nisaba 15/2 584 .................................. 307 Nisaba 15/2 596 .................................... 97 Nisaba 15/2 651 .................................... 97 Nisaba 15/2 679 .................................... 72 Nisaba 15/2 680 .................................... 72 Nisaba 15/2 696 .................................. 302 Nisaba 15/2 704 .................................. 302 Nisaba 15/2 708 .................................. 302 Nisaba 15/2 727 .................................. 302 Nisaba 15/2 734 .................................... 99 Nisaba 15/2 738 .................................... 96 Nisaba 15/2 777 .................................. 307 Nisaba 15/2 778 .................................. 307 Nisaba 15/2 867 ............................ 94, 302 Nisaba 15/2 883 ............................ 94, 302 Nisaba 15/2 887 .................................... 96 Nisaba 15/2 899 .................................... 72 Nisaba 15/2 927 .................................... 97 Nisaba 15/2 936 .................................... 98 Nisaba 15/2 953 .................................... 98 Nisaba 15/2 955 .................................... 72 Nisaba 15/2 971 .................................... 96 Nisaba 15/2 1004 .................................. 96 Nisaba 15/2 1023 .................................. 98 Nisaba 15/2 1028a ................................ 72 Nisaba 15/2 1036 ................ 66, 68, 70, 71 Nisaba 15/2 1094 .................................. 99 Nisaba 22 57 ........................................ 215 Nisaba 22 74 ........................................ 397 Nisaba 22 160 ...................................... 400 Nisaba 23 7 .......................................... 108 Nisaba 23 18 ................................ 352, 385 Nisaba 23 33 ........................................ 108 Nisaba 23 36 ........................................ 426 Nisaba 23 46 ................................ 391, 401 Nisaba 23 87 ........................................ 439 Nisaba 24 12 ........................................ 368 Nisaba 24 18 ........................................ 230 Nisaba 24 23 ........................................ 372

Texts Quoted Nisaba 24 29 ................ 377, 385, 387, 418 Nisaba 24 37 ........................................ 368 NRVN 1 184 ......................................... 306 NRVN 1 238 ......................................... 275 NRVN 1 244 ......................................... 7, 8 NRVN 1 270 ......................................... 271 NSGU 2 30 ............................................. 40 NSGU 2 33 ............................................... 8 NSGU 2 34 ............................................... 8 NSGU 2 51 ........................................... 401 NSGU 2 60 ............................................. 53 NSGU 2 62 ............................................. 53 NSGU 2 69 ............................................. 55 NSGU 2 73 ............................................... 9 NSGU 2 99 ............................................... 8 NSGU 2 110 ......................................... 354 NSGU 2 111 ......................................... 361 NSGU 2 120a ....................................... 361 NSGU 2 120b ....................................... 361 NSGU 2 121 ......................................... 361 NSGU 2 130 ................................. 361, 377 NSGU 2 132 ............................................. 9 NSGU 2 144 ............................................. 8 NSGU 2 169 ............................................. 9 NSGU 2 189 ................................... 54, 318 NSGU 2 201 ................................. 355, 377 NSGU 2 202 ..................................... 49, 55 NSGU 2 204 ............................................. 8 NSGU 2 212 ................... 53, 361, 400, 401 NSGU 2 214 ......................................... 355 NSGU 2 215 ..................................... 7, 356 NYPL 18 ............................................... 455 NYPL 25 ............................................... 455 NYPL 27 ............................................... 385 NYPL 46 ............................................... 457 NYPL 47 ............................................... 455 NYPL 85 ............................................... 391 NYPL 156 ............................................. 457 NYPL 206 ............................................. 402 NYPL 242 ............................................. 457 NYPL 309 ............................................. 391 NYPL 369: 5 ......................................... 398 NYPL 391 ............................................. 190 Obermark, JCS 40, 237 8 ............ 208, 216 OBTR 87 .............................................. 215 OBTR 98 .............................................. 110 OBTR 211 ............................................ 411 OIP 115 16 ................................... 208, 216 OIP 115 86 ........................................... 209 OIP 115 89 ........................................... 208 OIP 115 113 ......................................... 392 OIP 115 145 ......................................... 455

OIP 115 148 OIP 115 149 OIP 115 153 OIP 115 155 OIP 115 157 OIP 115 161 OIP 115 163 OIP 115 164 OIP 115 165 OIP 115 169 OIP 115 170 OIP 115 172 OIP 115 183 OIP 115 184 OIP 115 185 OIP 115 192 OIP 115 193 OIP 115 194 OIP 115 195 OIP 115 198 OIP 115 203 OIP 115 204 OIP 115 206 OIP 115 207 OIP 115 208 OIP 115 209 OIP 115 210 OIP 115 211 OIP 115 215 OIP 115 217 OIP 115 220 OIP 115 221 OIP 115 223 OIP 115 233 OIP 115 234 OIP 115 235 OIP 115 238 OIP 115 239 OIP 115 242 OIP 115 245 OIP 115 247 OIP 115 252 OIP 115 254 OIP 115 257 OIP 115 259 OIP 115 266 OIP 115 267 OIP 115 268 OIP 115 274 OIP 115 276 OIP 115 277 OIP 115 278

481 ......................................... 455 ......................................... 455 ......................................... 455 ......................................... 455 ......................................... 455 ......................................... 455 ......................................... 455 ......................................... 455 ......................................... 455 ......................................... 455 ......................................... 455 ......................................... 455 ......................................... 456 ......................................... 456 ......................................... 456 ......................................... 456 ......................................... 456 ......................................... 208 ......................................... 456 ................................. 456, 457 ......................................... 456 ......................................... 456 ......................................... 456 ................................. 456, 457 ......................................... 456 ......................................... 456 ......................................... 457 ......................................... 456 ......................................... 455 ......................................... 455 ......................................... 455 ......................................... 455 ......................................... 455 ......................................... 456 ......................................... 456 ......................................... 456 ......................................... 456 ......................................... 456 ......................................... 456 ......................................... 456 ......................................... 456 ......................................... 456 ......................................... 456 ................................. 122, 123 ......................................... 457 ......................................... 457 ......................................... 456 ......................................... 457 ......................................... 457 ......................................... 457 ......................................... 457 ......................................... 457

482

INDICES

OIP 115 279 ................. 208, 209, 216, 457 OIP 115 282 ......................................... 457 OIP 115 283 ......................................... 457 OIP 115 284 ......................................... 457 OIP 115 285 ......................................... 457 OIP 115 287 ......................................... 457 OIP 115 290 ......................................... 457 OIP 115 291 ......................................... 457 OIP 115 311 ......................................... 457 OIP 115 320 ......................................... 457 OIP 115 321 ......................................... 457 OIP 115 324 ......................................... 457 OIP 115 326 ......................................... 457 OIP 115 327 ......................................... 457 OIP 115 330 ......................................... 457 OIP 115 341 ......................................... 457 OIP 115 345 ......................................... 457 OIP 115 483 ......................................... 335 OIP 121 100 ......................................... 208 OIP 121 108 ................................. 118, 123 Ontario 1 18 ......................................... 455 Ontario 1 20 ......................................... 455 Ontario 1 23 ......................................... 456 Ontario 1 24 ................................. 456, 457 Ontario 1 25 ......................................... 446 Ontario 1 27 ......................................... 457 Ontario 1 30 ......................................... 456 Ontario 1 31 ......................................... 455 Ontario 1 32 ......................................... 455 Ontario 1 33 ......................................... 456 Ontario 1 34 ................................. 208, 456 Ontario 1 37 ......................................... 457 Ontario 1 135 ....................................... 161 Ontario 1 177 ....................................... 306 Ontario 2 141 ....................................... 358 Ontario 2 156 ....................................... 354 Ontario 2 190 ....................................... 350 Ontario 2 247 ....................................... 371 Ontario 2 348 ....................................... 434 Ontario 2 407 ....................................... 358 OrSP 47-49 5 ........................................ 458 OrSP 47-49 6 ........................................ 458 OrSP 47-49 49 ...................................... 273 OrSP 47-49 144 .................................... 337 OrSP 47-49 177 .................................... 230 OrSP 47-49 261 ........................................ 8 OrSP 47-49 279 .................................... 286 OrSP 47-49 317 ............................ 254, 260 OrSP 47-49 324 .................................... 426 OrSP 47-49 337 .................................... 385 OrSP 47-49 339 .................................... 255 OrSP 47-49 344 .................................... 400

OrSP 47-49 382 ................................... 190 OrSP 47-49 389 ................................... 433 OrSP 47-49 411 ....................................... 7 Owen and Wasilewska, JCS 52, 7 3 ..... 98 Owen and Wasilewska, JCS 52, 13 58 .................................................. 258 Owen and Wasilewska, JCS 52, 14 65 .......................................... 110, 111 Owen and Wasilewska, JCS 52, 17 87 .................................................. 438 Owen and Wasilewska, JCS 52, 17 92 .................................................. 400 Owen and Wasilewska, Studies Leichty, 295 28 .................................. 391 Owen, ASJ 15, 141 19 ......................... 457 Owen, ASJ 19, 202 7 ........................... 456 Owen, ASJ 19, 209 27 ......................... 209 Owen, ASJ 19, 220 57 ......................... 306 Owen, Essays Gordon 1, 131 1 ............ 123 Owen, JCS 24, 150 8 ........................... 254 Owen, Mem. Cagni, 839 ...................... 385 Owen, Mesopotamia 8-9, 149 .............. 458 Owen, Mesopotamia 8-9, 150 6 ... 254, 260 Owen, OrNS 40, 389 3 ............................ 8 Owen, OrNS 40, 390 4 ........................ 335 Ozaki, JAC 24, 57 3 ............................... 72 Ozaki and Yıldız, JCS 54, 7 52 .......... 172, 341, 418 PDT 1 15 .............................................. 455 PDT 1 27 .............................................. 455 PDT 1 28 .............................................. 456 PDT 1 29 .............................................. 456 PDT 1 37 .............................................. 457 PDT 1 55 .............................................. 456 PDT 1 69 .............................................. 455 PDT 1 79 .............................................. 455 PDT 1 83 .............................................. 455 PDT 1 86 .............................................. 455 PDT 1 119 ............................................ 455 PDT 1 121 ............................................ 455 PDT 1 161 ............................................ 457 PDT 1 337 ............................................ 341 PDT 1 405 ............................................ 456 PDT 1 410 ............................................ 456 PDT 1 415 ............................................ 457 PDT 1 418 ............................................ 455 PDT 1 433 ............................................ 456 PDT 1 459 .................................... 208, 216 PDT 1 479 ............................................ 456 PDT 1 508 ............................................ 457 PDT 1 509 ............................................ 122 PDT 1 516 ............................................ 122

Texts Quoted PDT 1 537 ............................................ 122 PDT 1 543 ............................................ 337 PDT 1 557 ............................................ 122 PDT 1 595 .................................... 449, 458 PDT 1 628 ............................................ 335 PDT 2 990 ............................................ 455 PDT 2 991 ............................................ 455 PDT 2 996 ............................................ 456 PDT 2 1016 .......................................... 456 PDT 2 1018 .......................................... 337 PDT 2 1019 .......................................... 457 PDT 2 1035 .................................. 209, 216 PDT 2 1060 .......................................... 456 PDT 2 1061 .......................................... 457 PDT 2 1153 .......................................... 456 PDT 2 1161 .......................................... 122 PDT 2 1163 .......................................... 456 PDT 2 1249 .......................................... 341 PDT 2 1353 .......................................... 372 PDT 2 1370 .......................................... 372 PDT 2 1377 .......................................... 372 Peat, JCS 28, 213 19 ................... 254, 260 Pomponio, NABU 2006: 30 .................. 106 PPAC 4 1 .............................................. 455 PPAC 4 273 .......................................... 457 PPAC 4 290 .......................................... 350 Prima dell’alfabeto 22 ......................... 308 Prima dell’alfabeto 36 ......................... 254 Prima dell’alfabeto 37 ................. 254, 260 Prima dell’alfabeto 38 ......................... 254 Princeton 1 78 ...................................... 457 Princeton 1 107 .................................... 455 Princeton 1 108 .................................... 455 Princeton 1 394 .................................... 400 Princeton 2 1 .......................................... 98 Princeton 2 153 .................................... 458 Princeton 2 342 .................................... 455 Princeton 2 348 ............................ 254, 260 Princeton 2 387 .................................... 458 Princeton 2 468 .................... 254, 255, 260 RBC 126 ............................................... 140 RBC 135 ............................................... 140 RBC 138 ............................................... 140 RBC 178 ............................................... 140 RBC 225 ............................................... 140 RBC 306 ............................................... 140 RBC 492 ............................................... 140 RBC 503 ............................................... 140 RBC 2551 ............................................. 140 RIAA 186 ...................................... 285, 286 Rochester 12 ................................. 122, 123 Rochester 15 ......................................... 455

483

Rochester 18 ......................................... 457 Rochester 96 ................................. 431, 433 Rochester 100 ....................................... 433 Rochester 104 ....................................... 433 Rochester 119 ....................................... 433 Rochester 120 ....................................... 228 Rochester 134 ....................................... 433 Rochester 136 ....................................... 433 Rochester 138 ....................................... 434 Rochester 139 ....................................... 433 Rochester 141 ....................................... 433 Rochester 143 ....................................... 432 RTC 182 ............................................... 179 RTC 183 ............................................... 179 RTC 184 ............................................... 180 RTC 186 ............................................... 180 RTC 188 ............................................... 180 RTC 189 ............................................... 180 RTC 190 ............................................... 180 RTC 195 ............................................... 179 RTC 209 ............................................... 179 RTC 221 ............................................... 335 RTC 222 ....................................... 335, 340 RTC 229 ............................................... 335 RTC 234 ............................................... 179 RTC 249 ............................................... 183 RTC 261 ............................................... 180 RTC 263 ............................................... 180 RTC 264 ....................................... 180, 447 RTC 265 ............................................... 180 RTC 276 ............................................... 234 RTC 277 ............................................... 234 RTC 278 ............................................... 234 RTC 279 ............................................... 234 RTC 280 ............................................... 234 RTC 281 ............................................... 234 RTC 307 ............................................... 283 RTC 340 ............................................... 212 RTC 357 ............................................... 212 RTC 401 ............................................... 192 RTC 405 ....................................... 273, 274 RTC 407 ....................................... 269, 291 RTC 416 ............................................... 354 SA 39 pl. 50 .......................................... 455 SA 60 .................................................... 262 SACT 1 1 .............................................. 455 SACT 1 2 .............................................. 455 SACT 1 3 .............................................. 455 SACT 1 5 .............................................. 455 SACT 1 6 .............................................. 456 SACT 1 7 .............................................. 456 SACT 1 23 ............................................ 447

484

INDICES

SACT 1 125 .......................................... 455 SACT 1 131 .......................................... 456 SACT 1 154 ............................................ 67 SACT 1 177 .......................................... 457 SACT 2 28 ............................................ 271 SACT 2 46 ............................................ 287 SACT 2 153 .......................................... 435 SACT 2 274 .......................................... 434 SACT 2 275 .......................................... 434 SACT 2 282 .......................................... 433 SACT 2 284 .......................................... 434 Sale Documents 94** ............................... 8 Sale Documents 133* ............................. 72 Santag 6 20 .......................................... 371 Santag 6 90 .......................................... 254 Santag 6 91 .......................................... 254 Santag 6 92 .......................................... 254 Santag 6 93 .................................. 253, 254 Santag 6 94 .......................................... 254 Santag 6 95 .......................................... 255 Santag 6 97 .......................................... 255 Santag 6 101 ........................................ 432 Santag 6 154 ........................................ 361 Santag 6 203 ................................ 361, 401 Santag 6 250 ........................................ 434 Santag 6 269 ................................ 430, 433 Santag 6 288 ................................ 430, 433 Santag 6 296 ........................................ 434 Santag 6 314 ................................ 262, 263 Santag 6 316 ........................................ 263 Santag 6 317 ........................................ 263 Santag 6 318 ................................ 262, 263 Santag 6 322 ........................................ 263 Santag 6 323 ................................ 262, 263 Santag 6 340 ........................................ 194 SAT 1 3 ................................................. 398 SAT 1 186 ............................................. 230 SAT 1 208 ............................................. 392 SAT 1 431 ..................................... 391, 392 SAT 1 691 ............................................. 391 SAT 2 71 ............................................... 426 SAT 2 253 ..................................... 425, 439 SAT 2 315 ............................................. 229 SAT 2 362 ............................................. 455 SAT 2 366 ............................................. 229 SAT 2 376 ............................................. 229 SAT 2 442 ............................................. 456 SAT 2 461 ............................................. 254 SAT 2 551 ............................................. 456 SAT 2 578 ............................................. 432 SAT 2 593 ............................................. 435 SAT 2 601 ............................................. 415

SAT 2 618 ............................................ 254 SAT 2 619 ............................................ 254 SAT 2 620 ............................ 254, 255, 260 SAT 2 621 ............................ 254, 255, 260 SAT 2 622 ............................................ 254 SAT 2 623 ............................................ 254 SAT 2 624 ............................ 251, 255, 260 SAT 2 626 .................................... 252, 254 SAT 2 627 .................................... 254, 260 SAT 2 628 .................................... 254, 260 SAT 2 629 .................................... 254, 260 SAT 2 630 ............................................ 255 SAT 2 631 .................................... 254, 260 SAT 2 632 .................................... 254, 260 SAT 2 660 .................................... 255, 260 SAT 2 711 ............................................ 439 SAT 2 717 ............................................ 351 SAT 2 779 ............................................ 255 SAT 2 831 ............................................ 230 SAT 2 888 ............................................ 229 SAT 2 1051 .......................................... 108 SAT 2 1053 .......................................... 108 SAT 2 1143 .................................. 254, 255 SAT 2 1181 .......................................... 385 SAT 3 1277 .......................................... 341 SAT 3 1325 .......................................... 391 SAT 3 1444 .................................. 437, 438 SAT 3 1480 .......................................... 391 SAT 3 1610 .......................................... 229 SAT 3 1732 .......................................... 425 SAT 3 1765 .......................................... 426 SAT 3 1789 .......................................... 440 SAT 3 1819 .......................... 426, 435, 442 SAT 3 1864 .................................. 430, 432 SAT 3 1907 .......................................... 436 SAT 3 1984 .......................................... 386 SAT 3 2073 .......................................... 391 SAT 3 2095 .......................................... 252 SAT 3 2114 .......................................... 371 SAT 3 2217 ............................................ 53 Sauren, OLP 8, 6 1 .............................. 456 Scheil, RA 12, 161-72 AO 7667 ........... 372 Scheil, RA 14, 180 ............................... 335 Scheil, RT 37, 130 55 .......................... 392 Schneider, OrSP 18, pl. 2 6 ......... 123, 453 Schneider, OrSP 18, pl. 4 12 ............... 456 Schneider, OrSP 18, pl. 4 13 ............... 457 Schneider, OrSP 18, pl. 5 15 ............... 457 SET 50 ................................................. 456 SET 81 ................................................. 445 SET 274 ....................... 314, 316, 432, 433 SET 295 ............................................... 255

Texts Quoted Sigrist and Ozaki, S/O-059 ................... 98 Sigrist, RB 86, 241 3 ............................ 276 Sigrist, Salmanticensis 28, 396 .......... 108 SmithCS 38 8 ....................................... 456 SNAT 56 ............................................... 229 SNAT 169 ............................................. 192 SNAT 298 ..................................... 254, 260 SNAT 300 ............................................. 258 SNAT 320 ............................................. 361 SNAT 321 ............................................. 361 SNAT 328 ............................................. 439 SNAT 333 ............................................. 361 SNAT 334 ............................................. 361 SNAT 340 ............................................. 377 SNAT 346 ............................................. 372 SNAT 353 ............................................. 397 SNAT 354 ............................................. 397 SNAT 360 ............................................. 361 SNAT 373 ....................................... 10, 361 SNAT 374 ............................................. 361 SNAT 376 ............................................. 229 SNAT 393 ............................................. 108 SNAT 404 ............................................. 371 SNAT 435 ............................................. 190 SNAT 459 ............................................... 65 SNAT 479 ..................................... 439, 440 SNAT 512 ............................................. 337 SNAT 533 ............................................. 411 SNAT 538 ............................................. 421 SNAT 541 ............................................. 361 Snell, ASJ 9, 242 19 .................... 314, 327 Snell, ASJ 9, 245 22 ............................ 391 Snell, ASJ 9, 265 67 ............................ 455 Sollberger AfO 18, 105 NBC 2863 ...... 391 Sollberger, AOAT 25, 435 14 ................. 98 Sollberger, JCS 10, 30 9 .............. 305, 306 Sollberger, JCS 10, 31 12 .................... 172 Sollberger, Kramer AV, 444-45 9 361, 400 South Dakota 3 .................................... 386 STA 1 .................................................... 434 STA 2 ............................ 314, 316, 439, 440 STA 5 ............................................ 314, 432 STA 8 .................................................... 191 STA 19 .................................................. 391 STA 22 .................................................. 434 STA 29 .................................................... 98 StOr 9-1 28 (pl.10) ............................... 456 STU 47 ................................................. 435 STU 57 ................................................. 441 STU 58 ................................................. 441 SumRecDreh. 9 .................................... 456 SumTemDocs. 7 ........................... 118, 123

485

SumTemDocs. 10 ................................. 457 Syracuse 128 ........................................ 230 Syracuse 255 ........................ 254, 255, 260 Syracuse 311 ................................ 254, 260 Syracuse 313 ........................................ 254 Syracuse 352 ........................................ 209 Syracuse 386 ........................................ 404 Syracuse 418 ........................................ 254 Szachno-Romanowicz, RO 11, 96 2 ... 456, 457 TAD 17 ................................................. 458 Tanret, Akkadica 13, 28 ...................... 123 TCCBI 2-2, nos. 2-58 ............................. 72 TCL 2 4679 .................................. 122, 123 TCL 2 5488 .......................................... 387 TCL 2 5489 .......................................... 122 TCL 2 5501 .......................................... 306 TCL 2 5508 .......................................... 117 TCL 2 5529 .................................. 306, 335 TCL 2 5531 .......................................... 457 TCL 2 5563 .................................. 387, 458 TCL 5 5668 .................................. 314, 316 TCL 5 5669 .......................... 272, 314, 316 TCL 5 5670 .......................... 314, 316, 317 TCL 5 5673 .......................... 106, 108, 110 TCL 5 5674 .......................... 314, 317, 323 TCL 5 5675 ............ 70, 272, 314, 317, 328 TCL 5 5676 .......... 60-62, 64, 65, 272, 314, 317, 328 TCL 5 6036 .................. 282, 314, 315, 326 TCL 5 6037 .......................................... 434 TCL 5 6041 .......... 272, 359, 373, 374-377, 381, 384, 391, 392, 397, 398, 421 TCL 5 6046 .......................................... 335 TCL 5 6047 .......................... 355, 416, 417 TCL 5 6048 .............................. 7, 353, 356 TCL 5 6058 .................. 351, 354, 361, 413 TCL 5 6059 .................................. 355, 377 TCL 5 6163 .................................. 361, 421 TCL 5 6165 .......................................... 361 TCL 5 6166 .......................................... 359 TCL 5 6167 .......................................... 401 TCL 5 6170 .............................................. 8 TCS 26 ......................................... 439, 440 TCS 217 ............................................... 456 TCS 1 49 .............................................. 272 TCS 1 148 .................................... 351, 355 TCS 1 193 ............................................ 427 TCS 1 203 ................................................ 8 TCTI 1 639 ........................................... 392 TCTI 1 664 ........................................... 350 TCTI 1 723 ........................................... 304

486

INDICES

TCTI 1 728 ........................................... 387 TCTI 1 731 ........................................... 190 TCTI 1 824 ........................................... 392 TCTI 1 850 ........................................... 179 TCTI 1 949 ........................................... 363 TCTI 1 1021 ......................................... 387 TCTI 2 2569 ......................................... 193 TCTI 2 2594 ......................................... 385 TCTI 2 2796 ......................................... 363 TCTI 2 3332 ......................................... 392 TCTI 2 3521 ......................................... 191 TCTI 2 3543 ......................... 377-380, 394 TCTI 2 3569 ......................................... 191 TCTI 2 3711 ......................................... 385 TCTI 2 3819 ......................................... 192 TCTI 2 3939 ......................................... 350 TCTI 2 4112 ......................................... 215 TCTI 2 4267 ......................................... 385 TÉL 61 ................................................. 392 TÉL 171 ............................................... 418 TÉL 278 ............................................... 190 TIM 6 34 ............................................... 336 TIM 6 36 ............................................... 387 TIM 6 48 ............................................... 385 TJAMC IOS 36 ...................................... 67 TLB 3 19 .............................................. 457 TLB 3 95 .............................................. 209 TMH NF 1-2 47 ........................................ 7 TMH NF 1-2 359 ...................................... 7 TMH NF 1/2 65 ................................... 275 TMH NF 1/2 85 ................................... 275 TMH NF 1/2 171 ........ 271, 273, 274, 279, 282, 285, 293 Torino 1 2 ............................................. 455 Torino 1 7 ............................................. 455 Torino 1 10 ........................................... 455 Torino 1 12 ........................................... 456 Torino 1 13 ........................................... 456 Torino 1 14 ........................................... 456 Torino 1 18 ........................................... 455 Torino 1 32 ................................... 208, 216 Torino 1 50 ................................... 208, 216 Torino 1 56 ........................................... 457 Torino 1 182 ......................................... 208 Torino 1 207 ......................................... 455 Torino 1 210 ......................................... 455 Torino 1 214 ......................................... 456 Torino 1 216 ......................................... 456 Torino 1 217 ......................................... 456 Torino 1 221 ......................................... 456 Torino 1 228 ......................................... 457 Torino 1 399 ......................................... 456

Torino 2 365 ......................................... 437 Torino 2 607 ......................................... 432 Torino 2 685 ......................................... 314 Trouvaille 78 ........................................ 123 Trouvaille 83 ........................................ 400 TRU 23 ................................................. 455 TRU 26 ................................................. 455 TRU 27 ................................................. 455 TRU 30 ................................................. 456 TRU 32 ................................................. 456 TRU 45 ................................................. 447 TRU 108 ............................................... 457 TRU 109 ............................................... 457 TRU 110 ............................................... 457 TRU 113 ............................................... 457 TRU 115 ............................................... 456 TRU 116 ............................................... 122 TRU 118 ....................................... 456, 457 TRU 123 ............................................... 161 TRU 256 ............................................... 456 TRU 258 ............................................... 455 TRU 260 ............................................... 456 TRU 261 ............................................... 456 TRU 263 ............................................... 456 TRU 264 ............................................... 456 TRU 265 ............................................... 456 TRU 267 ............................................... 456 TRU 269 ............................................... 456 TRU 295 ....................................... 456, 457 TRU 296 ............................................... 457 TRU 298 ............................................... 457 TRU 303 ............................................... 341 TRU 362 ............................................... 306 TSDU 50 ...................................... 285, 286 TUT 5 ................................................... 268 TUT 7 ................................................... 274 TUT 14 ................................................. 280 TUT 27 ................................................. 269 TUT 126 ............................................... 306 TUT 155 ............................................... 179 TUT 164 ............................................... 281 UCP 9-2-1 48 ....................................... 439 UCP 9-2-2 10 ....................... 254, 255, 260 UCP 9-2-2 28 ....................... 425, 427, 440 UCP 9-2-2 31 ....................................... 403 UCP 9-2-2 39 ....................................... 457 UCP 9-2-2 40 ....................................... 455 UCP 9-2-2 81 ............................... 254, 260 UDT 62 ................................................. 286 UDT 107 ............................................... 458 UDU 68 ................................................ 421 UET 3 15 ................................................ 98

Texts Quoted UET 3 76 .............................................. 363 UET 3 272 .................................... 276, 341 UET 3 274 ............................................ 336 UET 3 290 ............................................ 341 UET 3 293 ............................................ 335 UET 3 308 ............................................ 335 UET 3 316 ............................................ 335 UET 3 329 ............................................ 335 UET 3 363 ............................................ 335 UET 3 390 ............................................ 335 UET 3 406 ............................................ 336 UET 3 417 .................................... 334, 336 UET 3 418 ............................................ 336 UET 3 436 ............................................ 335 UET 3 440 ............................................ 335 UET 3 455 ............................................ 336 UET 3 496 ............................................ 336 UET 3 509 .................................... 333, 343 UET 3 525 .................... 333, 334-336, 343 UET 3 529 ............................ 333, 336, 343 UET 3 538 ............................ 333, 336, 343 UET 3 547 ............................................ 336 UET 3 555 .................................... 335, 336 UET 3 556 ............................................ 341 UET 3 557 ............................................ 341 UET 3 560 .................................... 335, 336 UET 3 566 ............................................ 336 UET 3 575 ............................................ 336 UET 3 578 .................................... 335, 336 UET 3 582 .................................... 335, 336 UET 3 585 ............................................ 335 UET 3 596 ............................................ 335 UET 3 600 ............................................ 335 UET 3 613 ............................................ 341 UET 3 642 ............................................ 335 UET 3 650 ............................................ 336 UET 3 659 ............................................ 335 UET 3 670 ............................................ 336 UET 3 680 .................................... 335, 336 UET 3 703 ............................................ 341 UET 3 704 ............................................ 337 UET 3 723 ............................................ 335 UET 3 734 ............................................ 335 UET 3 740 .................... 333, 334, 335, 343 UET 3 743 ............................................ 336 UET 3 745 ............................................ 337 UET 3 750 ............................................ 335 UET 3 753 ............................................ 335 UET 3 754 ............................................ 335 UET 3 756 ............................................ 335 UET 3 799 ............................................ 335 UET 3 949 ............................................ 351

487

UET 3 1061 .......................................... 105 UET 3 1065 .......................................... 402 UET 3 1330 .......................................... 276 UET 3 1346 .......................................... 276 UET 3 1364 ............................................ 67 UET 3 1371 ............................................ 67 UET 3 1420 .......................................... 172 UET 3 1455 .......................................... 273 UET 3 1498 .......................................... 341 UET 3 1702 .......................................... 337 UET 3 1745 .......................................... 337 Umma 45 ............................................. 400 Umma 60 ..................................... 435, 437 Umma 67 ..................................... 435, 436 Umma 91 ............................................. 371 UTI 3 1603 ........................................... 437 UTI 3 1880 ........................................... 433 UTI 3 1913 ........................................... 228 UTI 3 2003 ........................................... 434 UTI 3 2067 ........................................... 433 UTI 3 2090 ........................................... 435 UTI 3 2154 ........................... 252, 254, 260 UTI 3 2186 ........................................... 391 UTI 3 2191 ........................................... 433 UTI 3 2194 ........................................... 371 UTI 3 2205 ........................................... 436 UTI 3 2281 ........................................... 426 UTI 4 2325 ........................................... 440 UTI 4 2336 ........................... 254, 255, 260 UTI 4 2377 ................................... 254, 260 UTI 4 2389 ........................................... 436 UTI 4 2393 ........................................... 190 UTI 4 2418 ........................................... 436 UTI 4 2446 ........................................... 435 UTI 4 2461 ................................... 122, 123 UTI 4 2471 ........................................... 438 UTI 4 2489 ........................................... 391 UTI 4 2509 ........................................... 407 UTI 4 2548 ................................... 254, 260 UTI 4 2639 ........................................... 436 UTI 4 2640 ........................................... 436 UTI 4 2698 ........................................... 436 UTI 4 2767 ... 251, 252, 254, 255, 257, 260 UTI 4 2791 ........................................... 376 UTI 4 2896 ....................................... 61, 65 UTI 4 2930 ........................................... 436 UTI 4 2944 ........................................... 433 UTI 4 2945 ........................................... 437 UTI 4 3394 ........................................... 372 UTI 5 3008 ........................................... 229 UTI 5 3084 ........................................... 436 UTI 5 3103 ........................... 253, 254, 260

488

INDICES

UTI 5 3104 ........................................... 371 UTI 5 3119 ........................................... 415 UTI 5 3231 ........................................... 417 UTI 5 3265 ........................................... 402 UTI 5 3417 ........................................... 434 UTI 5 3428 ........................................... 435 UTI 5 3429 ........................................... 436 UTI 5 3436 ........................... 254, 256, 260 UTI 5 3455 ............................................. 65 UTI 5 3485+UTI 6 3509 ...... 392, 396, 401 UTI 6 3493 ........................................... 392 UTI 6 3516 ........................................... 426 UTI 6 3531 ........................... 255, 260, 262 UTI 6 3549+3577 ........ 251, 252, 254, 255, 257, 260 UTI 6 3586 ........................................... 436 UTI 6 3663 ................................... 434, 437 UTI 6 3700 ....................................... 62, 64 UTI 6 3800 ................... 336, 340, 341, 418 UTI 6 3814 ........................................... 436 UTI 6 3823 ........................................... 436 Van De Mieroop, RA 79, 26 13 .............. 68 van Dijk, ZA 55, 78 2 (IM 54370) ......... 55 Van Kampen 117 ................................. 456 Volk, Gratianus-Stiftung .................... 172 Vukosavović, JAC 23, 45 7 .................... 98 Walker, AfO 24, 122-127 1 .................. 268 Widell, MFM 2, 29 7 ............................ 263 WMAH 136 ........................................... 230 www.smm.org SMM 12 ....................... 457 YBC 70 ................................................. 140 YBC 255 ............................................... 140 YBC 313 ............................................... 140 YBC 334 ............................................... 140 YBC 356 ............................................... 140 YBC 379 ............................................... 140 YBC 400 ....................................... 139, 140 YBC 405 ............................................... 140 YBC 479 ............................................... 140 YBC 520 ............................................... 140 YBC 527 ............................................... 140 YBC 583 ............................................... 140 YBC 683 ............................................... 140 YBC 742 ............................................... 140 YBC 771 ............................................... 140 YBC 807 ............................................... 140 YBC 950 ....................................... 139, 140 YBC 952 ....................................... 139, 140 YBC 973 ............................................... 140 YBC 977 ............................................... 140 YBC 1003 ............................................. 140 YBC 1012 ............................................. 140

YBC 1048 ............................................. 140 YBC 1054 ............................................. 140 YBC 1060 ............................................. 140 YBC 1071 ............................................. 140 YBC 1096 ............................................. 140 YBC 1136 ............................................. 140 YBC 1178 ..................................... 139, 140 YBC 1180 ..................................... 139, 140 YBC 1207 ............................................. 140 YBC 1212 ..................................... 139, 140 YBC 1222 ............................................. 140 YBC 1226 ............................................. 140 YBC 1233 ............................................. 140 YBC 1238 ............................................. 140 YBC 1282 ............................................. 140 YBC 1291 ............................................. 140 YBC 1341 ............................................. 140 YBC 1402 ............................................. 140 YBC 1404 ............................................. 140 YBC 1452 ............................................. 140 YBC 1482 ............................................. 140 YBC 1571 ..................................... 139, 140 YBC 1597 ............................................. 140 YBC 1630 ..................................... 139, 140 YBC 1636 ..................................... 139, 140 YBC 1643 ............................................. 140 YBC 1671 ..................................... 139, 140 YBC 1705 ..................................... 139, 140 YBC 1743 ............................................. 140 YBC 3875 ............................................. 396 YBC 8427 ............................................. 140 YBC 9737 ............................................. 140 YBC 9749 ............................................. 140 YBC 9765 ..................................... 139, 140 YBC 9766 ............................................. 140 YBC 9767 ............................................. 140 YBC 9771 ..................................... 139, 140 YBC 9773 ............................................. 140 YBC 9776 ............................................. 140 YBC 9779 ............................................. 140 YBC 9805 ............................................. 140 YBC 9806 ............................................. 140 YBC 9807 ............................................. 140 YBC 9810 ............................................. 140 YBC 9812 ............................................. 140 YBC 9818 ............................. 356, 358, 359 YBC 9820 ................................................. 9 YBC 11232 ........................................... 140 YBC 11243 ................................... 139, 140 YBC 11244 ................................... 139, 140 YBC 11613 ........................................... 140 YBC 11704 ........................................... 140

Texts Quoted YBC 12522 YBC 12526 YBC 12528 YBC 12530 YBC 12844 YBC 12850 YBC 12853 YBC 12878 YBC 12882 YBC 12883 YBC 12889 YBC 12905 YBC 12958 YBC 12962 YBC 12967 YBC 13011 YBC 13087 YBC 13292 YBC 13293 YBC 13297 YBC 13305 YBC 13313 YBC 13409 YBC 13648 YBC 13789 YBC 13793 YBC 13795 YBC 13842 YBC 13847 YBC 13977 YBC 14076 YBC 14084 YBC 14139 YBC 14174 YBC 14175 YBC 14212 YBC 14329 YBC 14563 YBC 14644 YBC 14693 YBC 14860 YBC 14865 YBC 14929

........................................... 140 ........................................... 140 ........................................... 140 ........................................... 140 ........................................... 140 ........................................... 140 ........................................... 140 ........................................... 140 ........................................... 140 ........................................... 140 ........................................... 140 ........................................... 140 ........................................... 140 ........................................... 140 ................................... 139, 140 ........................................... 140 ........................................... 397 ................................... 139, 140 ........................................... 140 ........................................... 140 ........................................... 140 ........................................... 140 ........................................... 140 ........................................... 140 ........................................... 140 ................................... 139, 140 ........................................... 140 ........................................... 140 ........................................... 140 ........................................... 140 ........................................... 140 ........................................... 140 ........................................... 140 ........................................... 140 ........................................... 140 ........................................... 140 ........................................... 140 ........................................... 140 ........................................... 140 ........................................... 140 ........................................... 140 ........................................... 140 ........................................... 140

489

YBC 15040 ........................................... 140 YBC 15094 ........................................... 140 YBC 15203 ........................................... 140 YBC 15252 ........................................... 140 YBC 15289 ........................................... 140 YBC 15711 ........................................... 140 YBC 15732 ........................................... 140 YBC 15835 ................................... 139, 140 YBC 15860 ........................................... 140 YBC 15880 ................................... 139, 140 YBC 15978 ........................................... 140 YBC 16081 ........................................... 140 YBC 16337 ........................................... 140 YBC 16347 ........................................... 140 YBC 16500 ........................................... 140 YBC 16541 ........................................... 140 YBC 16573 ........................................... 116 YBC 16675 ........................................... 140 YBC 16720 ................................... 139, 140 YOS 15 211 .......................................... 408 YOS 4 31 ...................................... 361, 377 YOS 4 56 .................................. 62, 63, 123 YOS 4 68 ...................................... 123, 449 YOS 4 72 .............................................. 122 YOS 4 75 .............................................. 122 YOS 4 76 .............................................. 123 YOS 4 149 ............................................ 230 YOS 4 151 ............................................ 122 YOS 4 162 ............................................ 425 YOS 4 208 .................... 351, 361, 400, 401 YOS 4 213 ............................................ 230 YOS 4 224 ............................................ 411 YOS 4 232 ............................................ 325 YOS 4 256 ............................................ 368 YOS 4 264 ............................................ 108 YOS 4 296 ............................................ 341 YOS 4 305 ............................................ 230 YOS 18 8 .............................................. 455 YOS 18 9 .............................................. 456 YOS 18 115 .......................................... 223 Yoshikawa, ASJ 9, 318 13 .................. 457 Yoshikawa, ASJ 9, 319 14 .................. 449

Old Babylonian Texts AbB 12 2 ............................................... AbB 12 6 ............................................... AbB 12 61 ............................................. AbB 7 88 ............................................... ARM 7 4 ............................................... ARM 26 453 .........................................

304 304 303 304 338 305

BIN 10 113 ........................................... 341 BLMJ 3127 (Larsa “Ritual” Tablet) ... 303 CT 8 19a ............................................... 304 Falkenstein, BagM 2, 21 (W 20474) ..... 60 TCL 1 164 ............................................ 304 TCL 1 230 ............................................ 303

490

INDICES Royal Inscriptions and Related Texts

BE 1-2 125 (Date List) ......................... 234 CUSAS 17 22 (Gudea Votive Inscription) .................................... 10, 11 Lagaš King List ........................... 179, 193 RIME 1.9.3.1 (Stele of the Vultures) .. 174 RIME 1.9.3.2 (Eanatum 6): iii.7-10 ...... 42 RIME 1.9.5.1 (Enmetena 28-29): i.13-21 42 RIME 1.9.5.12 (Enmetena 8): vi.2 ........ 28 RIME 2.1.4.30 (Victory Stele of Naram-Sin) ....................................... 174

RIME 2.13.6.4 (The Victory of Utuheĝal) ............................................ 70 RIME 3/2.1.1.20 (Cadastre of Ur-Namma) ............................... 115, 185 RIME 3/2.1.1.29 (Ur-Namma 29): v’.13’ ..................................................... 10 RIME 3/2.1.4.1 (Šu-Suen Coll. B): xi.4-xiv.14 .......................................... 234 Sumerian King List (SKL) .. 181, 182, 183

Law Collections Laws of Hammurabi ..................... 174, 303 226-227 .............................................. 303 221-227 .............................................. 305 Laws of Ur-Namma ..... 156, 178, 184, 185

Laws of Ur-Namma: 190-193 (A 227-229 = C 91-92) ........... 40 421 ................................................... 8, 11 c25 ......................................................... 8

Literary Texts 6N-T780 (NBC 11107, Nisaba Hymn) .. 11 6N-T990 (NBC 11117) ........................... 10 ARET 5 20-21 (Ama’ušumgal Myth) .... 10 ARET 5 24-26 (List of Names and Epithets) ..................................... 12 Barton (Enlil) Cylinder: xv.8-11 ............. 8 CBS “2140” (Išme-Dagan) ..................... 10 Curse of Agade (PBS 13 15) ................ 338 56 ......................................................... 35 172-174 ................................................ 30 Debate Between Copper and Silver: B 29, C 21, C 78, A 23 ........................... 8 D 3, 7 ..................................................... 9 Debate Between Grain and Sheep (Lahar and Ašnan): 148 .................... 273 197 ..................................................... 276 Dumuzi-Inana A (PBS I/1 6): 42 .......... 20 Dumuzi-Inana C: 9-18 ......................... 303 Dumuzi-Inana C1 (Dumuzi’s Wedding): i.21-26 .............. 29 Edubba A: 83 ......................................... 10 Edubba C (Advice to a Young Scribe): 16-17 ...................................... 33 Enki and Ninhursaĝa: 245 .................... 22 Enki and the World Order: 258-261 ..... 30 Enki’s Journey to Nippur: 48 .............. 303 Enlil and Namzitara ........................... 175 Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta: 161 21 Exaltation of Ištar (RA 11, 144: 11) ........ 9

Exploits of Ninurta: 60, 62, 75 ............................................. 37 97 ......................................................... 38 Farmer’s Instructions: 76-78 .................................................. 273 91 ...................................................... 273 98 ...................................................... 277 Gilgamesh, Enkidu and the Netherworld: 141b, 263b ........................................... 22 202-203 ................................................ 28 Gilgameš and Akka: 25-28 .................. 362 Gilgameš Epic OB Akk. II: 106 ........... 303 Gudea Cyl A: v.4 ........................................................ 32 v.21 .................................................... 274 vi.11 ................................................... 234 vi.15, xi.21 ............................................. 8 ix.25 ..................................................... 34 xvii.17 .................................................. 32 xviii.8 ................................................... 21 Hymn to Inana (FLP 2627, Sjöberg, JCS 40, 168): iii.3 ................... 9 Iddin-Dagan A: 47 ............................... 303 Inana and Ebih: 121-122 ...................... 35 Inana Descent to the Netherworld (InDesc.): 307, 330, 340 .................... 336 Instructions of Šuruppak: 184 .............. 39 ISET 1 126: 5’, 6’, 10’, r. 2’, 8’ ................ 10 ISET 1 149: 5-6 ...................................... 10

Texts Quoted ISET 1 153: ii.3, iii.6’ ............................. 10 ISET 1 154: ii.10 .................................... 10 Išme-Dagan and Enlil’s Chariot (Išme-Dagan I): 10 .............................. 33 Išme-Dagan B: 52 .................................. 10 Lament for Nippur: 242 ...................... 305 Lament for Uruk: E 78-81 ..................... 31 Lipit-Eštar D: 33 .................................. 195 Literary Catalogue YBC 3654 (Hallo, JAOS 83, 170) ....................... 233 Lugalbanda and the Anzud bird (The Return of Lugalbanda): 32-33 .............................................. 29, 32 90-92 .................................................... 35 Lugalbanda in the Mountain Cave (Lugalbanda in the Wilderness): 248-250 ................................................ 33 Nanše Hymn (Nanše A) .............. 191, 195 NFT 202-12 ............................................ 10 Ninurta D: 61-62 ................................. 195 Ninurta’s Exploits (Lugale): 32 .............. 9 Ninurta’s Journey to Eridu (Ninurta B) c: 29 ............................... 195 Ninurta’s Return to Nippur (Angim): 8 ......................................................... 195 83 ......................................................... 28 Nungal A (Nungal in the Ekur): 42-43 .................................................... 35 43-46 .................................................... 23 Sumerian Proverbs (PAS) 2.134 (=2+6.134) ............................... 303 3.1 ...................................................... 362 6.5 ...................................................... 362 16, F2 (=16, e.8) ................................ 303 19, D 10 ............................................... 33 UET 6/2 293 (PAS 2.134) ................... 39 UET 6/2 367 (PAS, p. 324) ................. 39 YBC 7693 (PAS, p. 332) ...................... 10 Šulgi A .......................................... 233, 234 3 ......................................................... 240

491

26 ....................................................... 240 Šulgi B: 308-313 .............................................. 235 316 ..................................................... 236 326-327 .............................................. 236 354-355 .............................................. 240 Šulgi C: 1 ......................................................... 240 4 ......................................................... 240 10 ....................................................... 240 20 ....................................................... 241 Šulgi D: 193 ......................................................... 8 220, 384-87, 123 .................................... 9 294, 298, 303 ......................................... 8 384-85, 156, 169, 125, 176, 222 ............ 9 Šulgi D+X ............................................. 233 334-335, 344, 346 .............................. 243 Šulgi E ................................................. 236 14-22, 246 .......................................... 235 45 ....................................................... 241 Šulgi G ................................................. 233 Šulgi O ................................................. 233 25 ....................................................... 195 Šulgi P .................................................. 233 29 ....................................................... 303 Šulgi R ......................................... 233, 234 51 ....................................................... 195 Šulgi V ................................................. 234 Šulgi X: 111 ......................................................... 8 134 ..................................................... 240 138 ..................................................... 240 The Heron and the Turtle ................... 194 Ur-Namma A: 6, 31-32, 35, 40-44, 48 ....................... 243 149 ..................................................... 363 Ur-Namma B ....................................... 233 Ur-Namma E ....................................... 233 Ur-Namma F ....................................... 233

Incantations and Medical Texts Civil, RA 54, 57-72 (CBS 14221) ............. 8 ISET 1 155 (Ni 4185) ............................. 10 Kramer and Eren, Andolu Araştırmaları 6, 171-175 (Ni 2177) ... 10 SF 78 (VAT 12748) .................................. 9

TMH 6 7 (HS 1474+) ............................... 8 TMH 6 11 (HS 1600) ............................... 8 TMH 6 20 (HS 2315) ........................... 7, 8 VS 10 189 (VAT 6004) ........................... 10 VS 10 193 (VAT 5993) ........................... 10

492

INDICES Lexical Texts

Aa III/6 30-31 (MSL 14, p. 350) .......... 334 Aa IV/2 216’ (MSL 14, p. 377) ................ 9 Aa IV/2 217’ (MSL 14, p. 377) ................ 9 Aa VI/4 137-146 (MSL 14, p. 442) ...... 335 Antagal N ii.28’ (MSL 17, p. 240) ...... 334 Ea II 183 (MSL 14, p. 255) .................. 337 Ea IV 26 (MSL 14, p. 356) ....................... 9 Ea IV 27 (MSL 14, p. 356) ....................... 9 Ea IV 106 (MSL 14, p. 359) ..................... 9 Ea IV 107 (MSL 14, p. 359) ..................... 9 Ea VII (CUSAS 12 1.1.2) ......................... 4 Ea Recip. A 74 (MSL 14, p. 525) ............. 9 ED List of Geographical Names .... 60, 61

ED Lu E 47-48 (MSL 12, p. 17) .......... 306 Erimḫuš III 213 (MSL 17, p. 52) ........ 340 Erimḫuš V 197 (MSL 17, p. 75) .............. 9 For. Ḫḫ XX-XXII 358 (MSL 11, p. 107) 68 Ḫg B VI 20 (MSL 11, p. 40) .................. 68 Ḫḫ IV 104 (MSL 5, p. 158) .................. 334 Ḫḫ VI 59 (MSL 6, p. 56) ...................... 278 Ḫḫ XXII Sec. 7 A iii.1 (MSL 11, p. 27) . 68 Ḫḫ XXIV 175 (MSL 11, p. 84) ............. 283 Lu I 154 (MSL 12, p. 100) ................... 303 Nabnītu I 242-44 (MSL 16, p. 57) ........... 9 Nabnītu XVII 65 (MSL 16, p. 155) ....... 60

Grammatical Texts OBGT VII 31-33 (MSL 4, p. 89) ............ 26 OBGT VII 34-36 (MSL 4, p. 89) ........... 26 OBGT VII 74 (MSL 4, p. 90) ................ 21

OBGT VII 80 (MSL 4, p. 90) ................ 21 OBGT VII 90 (MSL 4, p. 90) ................ 22 OBGT VIII 52 (MSL 4, p. 101) ............ 22

From the 21st Century BC to the 21st Century AD: The Present and Future of Neo-Sumerian Studies Madrid, CCHS-CSIC, July 22-24, 2010 Program Thursday, July 22 Registration: CCHS, Salón de Actos (9:00am – 10:00am) Opening Session (10:00am – 10:30am) Coffee Break: 10:30am - 11:00am

The Sources Panel A (11:00am – 12:45am): Textual Corpora and New Archives Chair: Steven Garfinkle (Western Washington University) Robert K. Englund (University of California, Los Angeles) Accessing Textual Corpora Online David I. Owen (Cornell University, New York) The Archive of Iri-Saĝrig / Āl- Šārrakī Manuel Molina (CSIC, Madrid) On the Location of Irisaĝrig Lunch: 12:45pm – 2:15pm Panel B (2:15pm – 4:15pm): Lexicon and Literature Chair: Steve Tinney (University of Pennsylvania) Gonzalo Rubio (Pennsylvania State University) Literary and Lexical Texts from Ur III Luděk Vacín (Max Planck Institute for the History of Science, Berlin) Šulgi Meets Stalin: Comparative Propaganda as a Tool of Mining the Šulgi Hymns for Historical Data Fabienne Huber Vulliet (Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München) ‘Father at the Dangerous Place’. Family Ties in Ur III Proper Nouns Walther Sallaberger (Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München) The Sumerian Glossary Project Break: 4:15pm - 4:30pm Panel C (4:30pm – 6:30pm): Sumerian Language in Ur III Times Chair: Marcel Sigrist (École Biblique et Archéologique Française, Jerusalem) Miguel Civil (Oriental Institute, Chicago) Ur III as a Linguistic Watershed

493

494

Program

J. Cale Johnson (Institut für Altorientalistik, Freie Universität Berlin) Revisiting Topicalization à la Yoshikawa: The Role of the *im- Prefix in Topic-Comment Structures in Sumerian Fumi Karahashi (Chuo University, Japan) Hypotaxis and Parataxis in Sumerian

Friday, July 23 Economic Activity Panel D (9:30am - 11:15am): Agriculture and Animal Husbandry Chair: Bertrand Lafont (CNRS, Paris) Jean-Pierre Grégoire (CNRS, Paris) Le système après-récolte dans l’hydro-agriculture mésopotamienne à la fin du IIIe millénaire avant notre ère Jacob Dahl (University of Oxford) Umma Sheep and Goat Herding Lorenzo Verderame and Gabriella Spada (Università La Sapienza, Rome) Ikalla, the Scribe of (Wool) Textiles and Linen Coffee Break: 11:15am - 11:45am Panel E (11:45am – 1:45pm): Crafts and Material Culture Chair: Franco D’Agostino (Università La Sapienza, Rome) Hans Neumann (Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster) Crafts and Material Culture in Ur III Times Franco D’Agostino and Francesca Gorello (Università La Sapienza, Rome) The Control on Copper and Bronze Manufacts in Umma in Ur III Paola Paoletti (Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München) The Manufacture of a Statue of Nanaja and the Crafting of Jewellery in Mesopotamia at the End of the Third Millennium B.C. Alessandro di Ludovico (Università La Sapienza, Rome) Symbols and Bureaucratic Performances in Ur III Administrative Sphere. An Interpretation Through Data Mining Lunch: 1:45pm – 3:15pm Panel F (3:15pm – 5:00pm): Administrative Organization Chair: Pietro Mander (Istituto Orientale di Napoli) Franco Pomponio (Università di Messina) The Ur III Administration: Officials, Workers, Messengers, and Sons Yuhong Wu (Northeast Normal University, Changchun) The Fixed Offerings to Deities of Nippur Sergio Alivernini (Università La Sapienza, Rome) The Management of an Administrative Structure in Ur III Mesopotamia: the Case of mar-sa

Program Saturday, July 24 Institutions and Society Panel G (9:30am – 11:15am): The Organization of Work Chair: Natalia Koslova (State Hermitage Museum) Piotr Steinkeller (Harvard University) The Use of Corvée Labor in Ur III Times Natalia Koslova (State Hermitage Museum) Absence at Work in Ur III Umma: Reasons and Terminology Alexandra Kleinerman (Cornell University) The Barbers of Iri-saĝrig Coffee Break: 11:15am - 11:45am Panel H (11:45am – 1:45pm): Military and Political Organization Chair: Walther Sallaberger (Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München) Piotr Michalowski (University of Michigan) Networks of Authority and Power Steven Garfinkle (Western Washington University) The Third Dynasty of Ur and the Limits of State Power Palmiro Notizia (Istituto Orientale di Napoli) Etel-pû-Dagan, son of Šulgi Lance Allred (University of California, Los Angeles) The Tenure of Provincial Governors: An Overview Closing session: 1:45 – 2:00pm




495